The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About4838 Rezone 1000 E First Street (Mayfair Hotel)Section 6. Non -codification. This Ordinance shall not be codified in the City Code of the City of Sanford or the Land Development Code of the City of Sanford; provided, however, that the actions taken herein shall be depicted on the zoning maps of the City of Sanford by the City Manager, or designee. Section 7. Effective Date This Ordinance shall take effect immediately upon enactment. Passed and adopted this 10th day of November, 2025. Attest: k_olm I I W, 4WLY , ki. io, fav Traci Houchin, MMC, FCRM City Clerk Approved as to form and legality City Commission of Sanford, Florida ] o Rrt Mayor js r''S'l: is") e say N. reene, Esquire City Attorn ru of 61'A__ PROJECT INFORMATION -- 1000 EAST 19T STREET PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONE Requested Action: Request to consider a Rezone from Residential Multifamily Office Institutional (RMOI) to Planned Development (PD) to establish a mixed - use development consisting of 46 dwelling units and 28,000 square feet of office at 1000 East 1 st Street. Proposed Use: Mixed -use Multiple -family Project Address: 1000 East I" Street Current Zoning: RMOI Proposed Zoning: PD, Planned Development (City of Sanford) Current Land Use: Private School & College Tax Parcel Number: 30-19-31-507-OE00-0000 30-19-31-507-OF00-0010 Site Area: 5.84 Acres Property Owners: 1000 EAST FIRST ESTATES LLC 61 Broadway, Suite 2809 New York City, NY 10006 Applicant/Agent: Javier Omana, CNU-A CPH Corp. 1117 E Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Phone: 407.425.0452 CAPP Meeting: A CAPP meeting was held on April 29, 2025 Commission District: District 1 — Commissioner Sheena Britton. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COMPLIANCE REVIEW Planning Staff has reviewed the request and is unable to determine if the use and proposed improvements are or are not consistent with the Goals, Objectives and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Subject Site SITE ti [ •ram i, {��1�i�' Er, � • -M r taw" - f -S � ,4l rrnnyV�^`� Property Address: 1000 E. 1 st Street t ! Tax Parcel Numbers 1 ''O .•r r, '� 30-19-31-507-OE00-0000 & 30-19-31-507-OF00-0010 ' Subject Site City Zoning Multi-Fam. Residential 20DU/ ac. Planned Development Parks, Recreation and Open Space Multi-Fam. Res./ Office/Institutional Special Commercial Single Fam. Residential 6,000 sq. ft Lots Single Fam. Residential 10,000 sq. ft Lots ry SITE Q tr CT9Y V 1 d i. Property Address: 1000 E. 1 st Street Tax Parcel Number(s): 30-19-31-507-OE00-0000 & 30-19-31-507-OF00-0010 Ar1w c uo V La • 1 r. Ad my ri; ,',I.Y SANFORD AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP AND DESIGNATION OF AGENT wu ."00141119- Please use additional sheets as needed. If any additional sheets are attached to this document. please sign here and note below I. Ownership I, Tax Parcel Number(s) 30-19-31-507-OE00-0000 Address of Property: 1000 E. 1st Street, Sanford, FL 32771 for which this PD Rezone hereby attest to ownership of the property described below: application is submitted to the City of Sanford II. Designation of Applicant's Agent (leave blank if not applicable) As the owner/applicant of the above designated property for which this affidavit is submitted, I designate the below named individual as my agent in all matters pertaining to the application process. In authorizing the agent named below to represent me, or my company, I attest that the application is made in good faith and that all information contained in the application is accurate and complete to the best of my personal knowledge. Applicant's Agent (Print): Javier E. Omana, CNU-a Signature:-- ---- -_ Agent Address: 1117 E. Robinson Street, Orlando, FL 32801 Email: )omana@cphcorp.com Phone:407-425-0452 Fax. Ill. Notice to Owner A. All changes in Ownership and/or Applicant's Agent prior to final action of the City shall require anew affidavit If ownership changes, the new owner assumes all obligations related to the filing application process. B. If the Owner intends for the authority of the Applicant's Agent to be limited in any manner, please indicate the limitations(s) below. (i.e.: limited to obtaining a certificate of concurrency; limited to obtaining a land use compliance certificate, etc.) The owner of the real property associated with this application or procurement activity is a (check one) ❑ Individual ❑ Corporation ❑ Land Trust ❑ Partnership Limited Liability Company ❑ Other (describe): 1. List all natural persons who have an ownership interest in the property, which is the subject matter of this petition, by name and address. 2. For each corporation, list the name, address, and title of each officer; the name and address of each director of the corporation, and the name and address of each shareholder who owns two percent (2%) or more of the stock of the corporation. Shareholders need not be disclosed if a corporation's stock are traded publicly on any national stock exchange. 3. In the case of a trust, list the name and address of each trustee and the name and address of the beneficiaries of the trust and the percentage of interest of each beneficiary. If any trustee or beneficiary of a trust is a corporation, please provide the information required in paragraph 2 above. Name of Trust: 4. For partnerships, including limited partnerships, list the name and address of each principal in the partnership including general or limited partners. If any partner is a corporation, please provide the information required in paragraph 2 above 1 5. For each limited liability company, list the name, address, and title of each manager or managing member. and the name and address of each additional member with two percent (2%) or more membership interest If any member with two percent (2,1/>) or more membership interest manager, or managing member is a corporation, trust or partnership, please provide the information required in paragraphs 2, 3 and/or 4 above. Name of LLC: IC,-,- c f1 S T F I R S r E-Sl WT t LLB 6. In the circumstances of a contract for purchase, list the name and address of each contract purchaser. If the purchaser is a corporation, trust, partnership, or LLC, provide the information required for those entities in paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and/or 5 above Name of Purchaser: Date of Contract: NAME TITLEIOFFICE/TRUSTEE ADDRESS % OF OR BENEFICIARY INTEREST (Use additional sheets for more space ) 7. As to any type of owner referred to above, a change of ownership occurring subsequent to the execution of this document shall be disclosed in writing to the City prior to any action being taken by the City as to the matter relative to which this document pertains. 8 1 affirm that the above representations are true and are based upon my personal knowledge and belief after all reasonable inquiry. I understand that any failure to make mandated disclosures is grounds for the subject rezone, future land use amendment, special exception, or variance involved with this Application to become void or for the submission for a procurement activity to be non- responsive. 1 certify that I am legally authorized to execute this Affidavit and to bind the Applicant or Vendor to the disclosures herein Date i Z 2 lr 2 t,Lhl Owner Agent Applicant Signature STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF 5 e--% e- K. Sworn to (or affirmed) and subscribed before me by on this day of �� L . 20 ..�� -�� A Lii l✓ l `,cam Signature of Notary Public Print, Type or Stamp Name of Notary Public Personally Known OR Produced Identification K NOliry Public Slate of Florida Asher we>imer Type of Identification Produced �J (� T �— r' �' ` My Commission HH 585372 IIII Expires 8i2l,2028 A aj%,1 of own &snp • janwq 2014 2 TIT"TA11:1201ime : Citizen Awareness & Participation Plan t. INTRODUCTION On behalf of Mayfair (Applicant), CPH Consulting, LLC. (CPH) is pleased to submit this Citizen Awareness & Participation Plan (CAPP) Report for the Mayfair PD Rezone. The CAPP was conducted on April 29, 2025, as part of the Planned Development Rezone application filed with the City of Sanford. The CAPP is prepared in accordance with the Citizen Awareness and Participation Plan Guideline and Resource Handbook developed by the City to ensure early and effective citizen participation in conjunction with proposed development application. II. BACKGROUND The site is 5.84+ acres in size, located on E. 1st Street, with parcel identification number 30-19- 31-507-OE00-0000. The site is located in the City of Sanford, Seminole County, Florida. The subject rezone requests a PD to allow for office and multi -family uses within the existing Mayfair structure. (Refer to Exhibit A for proposed site plan) III. PARTIES NOTIFIED The following parties may be impacted by the proposed development application and were notified of the proposed rezone and thus invited to a Neighborhood Meeting: A. Property owners within 500 feet of the subject site (Refer to Exhibit B) B. City of Sanford Economic Development Department C. Greater Sanford Regional Chamber of Commerce D. City of Sanford Planning & Development Services E. Seminole County Planning & Development Department IV. NOTIFICATION PROCEDURES Notification of the proposed development application and an invitation to the Neighborhood Meeting has been accomplished in the following manner: Neighborhood Meeting Notice Meeting Notices were mailed to the parties listed under Section III above. The notice was mailed to all impacted parties no later than twelve (12) days prior to the scheduled meeting. (Refer to Exhibit C) Mayfair PD Rezone Page ) 2 Citizen Awareness & Participation Plan May 27, 2025 Notification of news aeencies A Neighborhood Meeting Notice (Exhibit C) was mailed, to WESH TV Channel 2, WKMG Channel 6, and WFTV Channel 9. Legal Notices Meeting Notices were placed in the Orlando Sentinel and Sanford Herald. (Refer to Exhibit D) V. DATE AND VENUE The Neighborhood Meeting was held on April 29, 2025, at S20 On The Water in Sanford, Florida from 7:30 PM to 8:30 PM. VI. SUMMARY The CAPP Meeting started at 7:45 PM. Attending on behalf of the applicant were: • Alma Osorio, Client Representative • Bruce Andersen, Project Architect • Hal Kantor, Esq., Project Attorney • Javier E. Omana, CNU-a, Project Land Planner Attendees (Refer to Exhibit E): • Tim Meiser • Dean Kreider • Andrew Van Gaale Given the number of attendees, the Consulting Team re -arranged the project boards and chairs in a circle to provide a more intimate setting for discussion. The applicant's consulting team provided a brief structure history and the proposed uplift to include a new use consisting of office and multifamily uses. Site improvements to include: additional parking and enhancement of landscaping to meet City code. Architectural enhancements and upgrades are to be addressed and conducted after the PD Rezoning is obtained. One of the attendees was a resident of the building during its tenure as headquarters for the New Tribes religious entity. All three (3) attendees were in support of the project and for bringing back the structure to its former grandeur. Refer to Exhibit F for event photographs. Applicant Team explained the next steps for the project: • DRC Review • Staff Report • Hearing before the Planning and Zoning Commission • City Commission Meeting adjourned at 8:15 PM. Mayfair PD Rezone Page 13 Citizen Awareness & Participation Plan May 27, 2025 In its Comprehensive Plan, the City of Sanford has adopted the "Four C's" or pillars that embody the qualities that make Sanford unique and a place of value. The Mayfair PD meets each and every component of those pillars as will be addressed in the discussion below with particular emphasis on the economic impact of the project on downtown Sanford, and, in particular, the impact of the project on the economic vitality of the Waterfront Downtown Business District ("WDBD") and the Midtown Overlay District [See Objective FLU 1.11, Sanford Comprehensive Plan.]. Moreover, the rehabilitation and preservation of the former Mayfair Hotel meets a host of comprehensive planning objectives [See Objectives H 1.4, H 1.4.1, H 1.4.2, H 1.4.3, and Objective RE 1.4, Sanford Comprehensive Plan]. Those pillars are composed of Character, Culture, Connections, and Commerce as follows: Character: Sanford as a hard-working community that preserves its history: How appropriate is it to the preservation of history that the result of this project will be to restore the physical character of the iconic Mayfair Hotel, arguably the most significant historic structure in the District. [See Objectives FLU 2.1 and FLU 2.1.3, Sanford Comprehensive Plan.] Unoccupied for a decade, it has declined and is in need of repair, maintenance, upgrading and care. This building was born in 1916 and is now over a century old. It's proposed use as a center for training Christian missionaries for service around the world will bring in an additional work force to the community and the District because the office use (28,000 square feet) will not only serve the operations of the facility in Sanford but will also serve as an administrative hub for fellowship organizations affiliated with the World Olivet Assembly ("WOA"), which will operate within the structure and is expected to employ 50 to 75 people. The work staff will be engaged in finance, education, missions, IT, public relations and will offer consulting and support services to other WOA operations in other parts of the country. In addition to the work staff, trainees will occupy many of the 46 new multifamily housing units in the Mayfair PD. Finally, in terms of history preservation, the Mayfair will be designated as an historic landmark in downtown Sanford after it receives its Mayfair PD Rezone Page 1 1 Economic Impact Analysis Certificate of Occupancy. It is the applicant's intention to refurbish the main structure's historic look and to add new landscaping, parking, and fire safety features to the building. Culture: Sanford as a "hard-working community that preserves its history: In addition to the discussion above, culture may be defined as a set of shared attitudes, values, goals and practices that characterize an institution or organization. In addition to the office uses, WOA will provide housing and training for individuals that will serve as missionaries throughout the world that support the advancement of the WOA, a global denomination of evangelical churches and para-churches in the Presbyterian tradition. Note that the Mayfair PD site is not a church or religious institution but is similar in nature to the training facilities offered by companies such as Apple or IBM in other parts of the country. In terms of its culture, it should be noted that in Seminole County the dominant religious group is Christianity with a significant presence of the Catholic Church (94,532 adherents) and non- denominational Christian churches (66,856 adherents). The bottom line is that this operation has a shared or common culture with many of the residents of Sanford and Seminole County. Connections: Sanford as a well-connected Regional hub that offers opportunity through accessibility and a collaborative sprit of problem solving; As stated above, the operations of WOA within the Mayfair PD makes its operation both regional and international. The proposed use of the Mayfair PD is not a new model for WOA. They have established and actively operate similar centers in other parts of the United States as well as France, Canada, Brazil, Korea, Japan, India, the United Kingdom, Italy, Germany, and the Philippines. The WOA operation at the Mayfair not only has regional and national connections but also serves as part of a hub of similar operations all over the world. Mayfair PD Rezone Page 1 2 Economic Impact Analysis Commerce: Sanford as a hub for regional access, a thriving downtown, opportunities for personal growth and promotion of our cultural and economic assets. As discussed above, the Mayfair PD operations meet or exceed many of the goals in this pillar that have been discussed above. Much of the next part of this analysis will focus on the direct local economic benefits of the operation in downtown Sanford in particular and its economic impact on the City of Sanford revenue and tax base. First, let's discuss what is going on within the buildings in the Mayfair Planned Development and how that impacts the local downtown. First of all, as stated above, there will be a work force of 50 to 75 individuals, many of whom will reside in one of the 46 apartments that are within the Mayfair PD. While most of the staff will be housed in the facility, it is anticipated that additional staff will be housed elsewhere in the City of Sanford adding to the population base. The infusion of a new workforce into the downtown is a hugely positive impact of this development. In addition, the trainees will add another 100 to 150 or more people to the downtown core population in the WDBD. The workforce, along with the trainees, will be like any other business operation. They will buy office supplies and office services through local providers. Their children will attend local schools. They will tend to shop downtown, visit restaurants downtown, go to hair salons, participate in downtown cultural events, purchase groceries and other household supplies. They will buy gasoline, go to local doctors, and purchase the goods and services typically purchased by any population. Moreover, a more diverse and skilled workforce can bring new ideas and perspectives, potentially boosting innovation and productivity in the WDBD and the Midtown Overlay District. Impact of Historic Preservation: Besides meeting the 4 C's or pillars of Sanford's comprehensive plan, historic preservation can have a significant positive economic impact Mayfair PD Rezone Economic Impact Analysis Page 13 on communities by attracting heritage tourism, increasing property values, creating jobs in restoration and related industries, revitalizing downtowns, and fostering a sense of place, thereby boosting local business and tax revenue. Numerous studies around the United States support the proposition that there is economic value to historic preservation. (See, for example, Economic Impacts of Historic Preservation published by the Florida Department of State) which states as follows: "A conservative estimate of the economic impacts of historic preservation is Florida is $4.2 billion annually," say study co-authors Timothy McLendon and JoAnn Klein. "Historic preservation produces a wonderful return for the public money invested and is one of the most efficient ways public funds can be invested." (See "Historic Preservation: Value Added, University of Florida Office of Research and Economic Impacts of Historic Preservation in Florida by the same authors, Center for Governmental Responsibility, University of Florida). [See also, Objective FLU 1.11 of the Sanford Comprehensive Plan] While the calculation of that value may be very subjective and difficult to predict, other elements of the Mayfair Planned Development are more clearly measurable. Impact of Construction: The Mayfair Planned Development consists of three existing buildings on a 5.84± parcel containing a main historic building of approximately 84,400 square feet with 36 multi -family units and 28,000 sq. ft. of office space. There is an annex building of 15,120 sq. ft. which will house 10 multifamily units and there is a 1,825 sq. ft. utility building on the site. At this point in time, the cost of restoring and upgrading the structures and the site to meet current code requirements has not been determined. For purpose of analysis, the property owner has considered a range of investment that would be between $15 million on the low Mayfair PD Rezone Page 4 Economic Impact Analysis end and $30 million on the upper end with the expectation that the final cost would be somewhere in the middle. That said, utilizing this range of expenditures would yield the following results: • Construction is estimated to begin January 1, 2027, and to be completed by December 31, 2027. • Labor is estimated at 50% of construction cost and would range between $7.5 million and $15 million. 0 Almost all of the labor would be locally sourced and, using a general multiplier of .7 of labor costs, the funds spent for labor in the local community would be between $5.25 million and $10.5 million during the construction period. • The rule of thumb for construction employment is 10 to 15 employees per $1 million of expenditure, so in the case of the Mayfair Planned Development, it is estimated that the job would produce employment for 150 to 400 workers. • It is further estimated that the average annual salary of the construction workers is $43,000. Impact of Operations: The Mayfair Planned Development will house the operation of World Olivet Assembly which will train people in providing a Christian ministry on a world -basis. Over the course of a year, it is estimated that there will be more than 100 to 150 such trainees at any one time, who will mostly occupy the multi -family housing units on site (some trainees may seek housing outside of the WOA operation). The Mayfair Planned Development will have an operating staff of 50 to 75 employees, many of whom will live on site. [See Policy FLU 1.11.1, Sanford Comprehensive Plan.] As stated above, the staff and trainees will stimulate the economic activities downtown in terms of the local goods and services typically expended by tenants including such thing as expenditures for such things as restaurants, cleaners, beauty salons, groceries, Mayfair PD Rezone Page 15 Economic Impact Analysis entertainment venues, and all the typical household expenditures that a population brings to an area. With the Mayfair Planned Development, most of these expenditures will naturally be concentrated in the downtown core. The geographic location of the Mayfair Planned Development furthers the Comprehensive Policy dealing with downtown preservation and redevelopment (See Policy FLU 2.2.5 and Policy FLU 2.2.6 City of Sanford Comprehensive Plan). Tax Impact: The Mayfair Planned Development is owned by an entity that is a for -profit corporation and pays real estate taxes. Under current conditions, the taxes paid by the Mayfair Planned Development are $91,823 per year. Depending on the amount of funds expended for the redevelopment and making assumptions regarding how it might be assessed, the taxes could rise to as much as $575,650 per year. Of course, changing to a non- profit model would impact the tax revenue, but would bring other value to the downtown core as discussed above. Fee Revenue Impact: Real estate projects develop two main types of fee revenues for local governments and school boards. The City of Sanford would receive a total of $114,164 for fire, police, recreation impacts from both the office and residential uses, while Seminole County would receive $168,876 for library, fire rescue, and road impact fees. Depending on expenditures, the building permit cost would range between $134,157 and $268,138. It is anticipated that water impact fees for the project would be $102,068 and $229,900 for the sewer impacts. In addition to the revenues described herein, there will also be school impact fees with respect to the multi -family units. Mayfair PD Rezone Page 16 Economic Impact Analysis The Mayfair Planned Development is a mixed -use development that combines office and apartment spaces which will significantly impact the local economy through what's known as the "local multiplier effect". This means that the initial investment and activity generated by the project will lead to further rounds of spending and job creation within the local area, resulting in a total economic impact greater than the initial expenditure. Here's a breakdown of the local multiplier impact from an office and apartment project: During construction: • Direct impact: The construction itself generates spending on materials, equipment, and labor, creating jobs in various fields like architecture, engineering, and skilled trades. It is estimated that the project construction costs will range between $15 million and $30 million, most of which will be spent locally for labor and materials and the like. • Indirect impact: Construction activities create demand for goods and services from supporting industries, like manufacturing and transportation, leading to additional employment and economic activity in those sectors. • Induced impact: Workers involved in the construction and supporting industries spend their wages on local goods and services like housing, food, and retail, further boosting local businesses and creating more jobs. Ongoing operations: • Job creation: Once the development is complete, new jobs are created for onsite staff. It is estimated that there will be 50 to 75 employees and that the average annual salary will be $60,000. Staff members will be hired with a minimum of at least a master's or doctoral degree and will consist of people with more than 10 years of missionary experience or successful business experience. The majority will hold PHD's, or Doctors of Ministry or MBAs. They will have administrative and practical missionary experiences and, as degree holders, will provide administrative and educations support as well as Local Multiplier Impact Supplement Page 1 1 financial self-sufficiency training. Depending on the ultimate number of employees, it is anticipated that the annual payroll will be $3 million to $4.5 million. • Resident/trainee spending: New trainees moving into the apartments increase demand for local goods and services, including groceries, restaurants, and entertainment, leading to increased revenue for local businesses. It is anticipated that the trainees will be compensated at an annual payroll of $26,000 to $36,400 per year or a range of $2.6 million to $3.64 million, assuming 100 trainees. • Business spending: The operation located in the office space will also contribute to the local economy through their own spending on supplies, services, and employee wages as stated above. The Bottom Line: In essence, the initial investment in an office and apartment project creates a domino effect, leading to a much larger positive economic impact than the initial investment itself. Studies have shown that mixed -use developments can be significant drivers of economic growth, creating jobs and boosting local economies. Local Multiplier Impact Supplement Page 1 2 Table of Contents Comments & Responses Tab A/Task: Fire Plan Review Tab B/Task: Planning and Zoning Compliance Review Tab C/Task: Engineering Plan Review Tab D/Task: Development Administrative Review Tab E/Task: Architectural Plan Review Tab F/Task: Utility Site Review Tab G/Task: Plan Review For formatting purposes, City Comments appear first, followed by Applicant responses. Exhibits Exhibit A: Revised Master Development Plan Exhibit B: Concept Landscape Plan Exhibit C: Justification/Project Information Exhibit D: Floodplain and Compensation Calculation Methodology Appendices Appendix A: CAPP Report Appendix B: Preliminary Ecological Assessment Report Appendix C: Geotechnical Study Report Appendix D: Fire Hydrant Flow Test Map & Data Appendix E: Traffic Impact Study Mayfair PD Rezone Page I 1 Responses to City Comments Navigate to... CITY OF V C♦ ANFORD LOGOUT FLORIDA M REVIEW COMMENTS Home / Services / Development & Zoning / View Permit / Reviews / Review Comments File #: 25-000802 Permit #: PDR25-000002 Address: 1000 E 1ST ST SANFORD FL 32771 Work Description: 28,000 SF of office uses, 46 multi -family units Task: Fire Plan Review Status: Review Complete Comments Plans Fire Plan Review: Matt Minnetto matt.minnetto@sanfordfl.gov, 407.688.5052 • For new construction, the fire hydrant shall be no more than 250 feet from the principle building. For single family and duplex residential areas, the maximum distance to a fire hydrant from the closest point on the building shall not exceed 600 feet and the maximum distance between fire hydrants shall not exceed 800 feet. For all properties, other than single family/duplex, the maximum distance to a fire hydrant from the closest point on the building shall not exceed 400 feet and the maximum distance between fire hydrants shall not exceed 500 feet (NFPA 1 Ch. 18) apart. The maximum actual travel distance between the principle building and the first hydrant shall be 250 feet regardless of property type. Hydrant shall be on the same side of the street as the principle building. Maintain 36 inch clearance around all 2 1/2 inch hydrant connections and 60 inch clearance around all 4 inch connections. Fire hydrant placement shall start at the entrance to each development. v • All fire water flow systems shall meet the Fire Department and Utility Departments specifications and locations. If there is a conflict between the fire and utility codes, please get with myself or Deborah Cole (Utilities Engineer) for clarification at 407.688.5524 or email at deborah.cole@sanfordfl.gov • Knox box required to be installed on building. Shall be located no higher than 6 feet from the ground. Location shall be determined by the Fire Prevention division during site visit. Order form must be obtained from the Fire Marshal for proper key coding. • All new and existing buildings shall provide a minimum radio signal strength for fire department communications and shall be maintained at the level determined by the AHJ. If it is determined that the proper signal strengths cannot be provided upon testing by the City of Sanford, a two-way radio enhancement system will be provided. Two-way (Class A only) radio enhancement systems shall be permitted and approved prior to installation and meet the requirements of all applicable NFPA codes, which includes, but is not limited to NFPA 72 (Section 11.10, NFPA 1) (Florida Fire Prevention Code, 8th Edition). Contact shall also be made with the Seminole County Radio Shop since 911 dispatch is through them. Contact Richard Ruiz at 407.665.1039 or 321.363.7660 or email at rruiz@seminolecountyfl.gov. Systems shall not be installed preemptively; however, conduit and junction boxes may be installed to facilitate a retrofit at a later date. • Any storage tanks located on the property shall have to submit a separate permit and meet all NFPA and state code compliance, including tank type and set backs. • If a building or structure has been vacant/unoccupied for a period of six months or longer, then said building or structure shall be subject to the same requirements as new construction prior to being reoccupied --This would require pre-existing buildings 8,000 square feet or larger to install a fire sprinkler and fire alarm system. —Ordinance 2020-4573 • All buildings constructed within the city that are 8,000 square feet or larger, under one roof, regardless of construction type, are required to be provided with an automatic fire sprinkler system and a fire alarm system. The systems shall be monitored by a central station and shall have a minimum of two pull stations and horn/light strobes. --The property owners of these buildings shall also receive a 20% reduction on their fire impact fees Property owners will receive a 20% credit on the City's fire public safety facilities impact fees as required to be paid under the provisions of Chapter 74, Article IV, Division 4 of the City Code or a reimbursement of any fee paid when the fire sprinkler system meets code. --City Ordinance No. 2020- 4573. Mezzanines also count as additional square footage and all NFPAtravel distance/egress requirements for mezzanines shall be strictly adhered to. • Fire hydrant(s) and a stabilized weather resistant road base shall be required before going vertical with construction. There shall be no concerns for fire apparatus to be able to drive through the site even during rainy conditions. Road width shall be at least 20 feet wide and 14 feet above with no overhead obstructions. • Fire department access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 20 ft. The angle of approach and departure for any means of fire department access road shall not exceed 1 ft drop in 20 ft or the design limitations of the fire apparatus of the fire department, and shall be subject to approval by the Fire Department. • Fire department access roads shall be provided such that any portion of the facility or any portion of an exterior wall of the first story of the building is located not more than 150 ft from fire department access roads as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the building or facility. When buildings are protected throughout with an approved automatic sprinkler system that is installed in accordance with NFPA 13, NFPA 13D, or NFPA 13R, the distance in shall be permitted to be increased to 450 ft. • A fire department access road shall extend to within 50 ft (15 m) of at least one exterior door that can be opened from the outside and that provides access to the interior of the building. • Dead end roads cannot exceed 150 feet. 110 foot diameter for all cul-de-sac's and a minimum radius of 50 feet of pavement is required for all turn around points. (information can also be found in schedule N of our planning and zoning department codes). • If facility is gated, a 20 foot minimum gate width is required for FD access and motorized gates shall include an S.O.S yelp siren activation, an approved emergency key code for FD access, and a Knox override emergency key control (application can be obtained by contacting Fire Marshal Matt Minnetto at 407.688.5052). • Additional fire alarm pull stations, horn strobes, and light strobes may be required throughout the work area based on the configuration features of the building if determined by Fire Prevention --Ordinance 2020-4573 • If cooking will occur, a commercial hood and hood suppression system shall be installed. If the building has a fire alarm, then the hood suppression system shall be connected to the fire alarm. • In all buildings over one story in height, at least one stairway shall be provided that is in usable condition at all times and that meets the requirements of NFPA 101. This stairway shall be extended upward as each floor is installed in new construction and maintained for each floor still remaining during demolition. The stairway shall be lighted. During construction, the stairway shall be enclosed where the building exterior walls are in place. All exit stairs shall be provided with stair identification signs to include the floor level, stair designation, and exit path direction as required to provide for safe egress. • In all new buildings in which standpipes are required or where standpipes exist in buildings being altered or demolished, such standpipes shall be maintained in conformity with the progress of building construction in such a manner that they are always ready for use. The standpipes shall be provided with conspicuously marked and readily accessible fire department connections on the outside of the building at the street and shall have at least one standard hose outlet at each floor. At least one approved hose valve for attaching fire department hose shall be provided at each intermediate landing or floor level in the exit stairway, as determined by the authority having jurisdiction. • All fire sprinkler systems installed in any area that is subject to temperatures of 40 degrees or lower shall be installed as a dry pipe or antifreeze system per NFPA. Approvals will not be given to non -climate controlled fire sprinkler system installs that do not meet these requirements. Fire sprinkler systems shall also have floor isolation control valves installed for every multi -story structure. • All fire and utilities water flow test and hydrant flow test calculations shall be within six months of date of application submittal. • Canopies shall have fire sprinkler protection unless they meet the requirements of NFPA 703: 13.3.2.6.2 " Sprinklers shall be permitted to be omitted where the exterior projections are constructed with materials that are noncombustible, limited - combustible, or fire retardant treated wood as defined in NFPA 703, Standard for Fire Retardant treated Wood and Fire - Retardant Coatings for Building Materials. <13:8.15.7.2> • All dedicated fire line and combined domestic/fire water main shall be inspected by Fire Prevention. The piping and installation shall meet both the requirements of the City Utility Manual as well as NFPA 24. A visual inspection, a 2-hr pressure test at 200 psi, as well as a flush are required. This flush must be scheduled through Fire Prevention by calling the fire inspection request line at 407.562.2780. No inspection will occur without City Water Plant Manager approval. We suggest scheduling the flush 4 weeks in advance. • All requirements for fire lanes can be found in schedule H of the City of Sanford Land Development Regulations (LDR) and in Local Ordinance 2020-4573. All new or modified parking/pavement areas shall have to follow these regulations prior to closing out the permit or issuing the Certificate of Occupancy. • All fire alarms installed under the requirements of NFPA 72 with alarm signals transmitted to a supervising station, shall be by addressable device or zone identification. <72:26.2.3> We require waterflow alarms to zone/ID separately from other fire alarms, when reported to Fire Dispatch. © 2003 - 2025 ONLINE SOLUTIONS, LLC citizen Terms of Use (TermsofUse.pdf) Privacy Policy (PrivacyPolicy.pdf) RESPONSES TO FIRE REVIEW The subject Mayfair project's existing structures are to undergo major internal renovations and code upgrades upon approval of the PD rezone, Site Development Plans and corresponding permitting. No new vertical structures are being proposed. An expanded and improved surface parking field will be designed and constructed per approved PD rezone document. Building Plans (architecture) and site development plans (civil) will adhere to applicable life safety and utility requirements per LDC. Applicant acknowledges Mr. Minnetto's comments and will meet with him prior to the preparation of building and site development plans. Mayfair PD Rezone Page 13 Responses to City Comments Navigate to... CITY OF r C+ ANFORD LOGOUT FLORIDA r,11 REVIEW COMMENTS Home / Services / Development & Zoning / View Permit / Reviews / Review Comments File #: 25-000802 Permit #: PDR25-000002 Address: 1000 E 1ST ST SANFORD FL 32771 Work Description: 28,000 SF of office uses, 46 multi -family units Task: Planning and Zoning Compliance Review Status: Corrections Requested Comments Plans Planning and Zoning Compliance Review: Darren Ebersole darren.ebersole@sanfordfl.gov, 407-688-5146 • Max Parking allowed per code is 135 spaces • Per Schedule U. A knee wall of minimum two (2) feet in height to a maximum of three (3) feet. in height is required along all parking areas fronting on 1 st Street and Seminole Blvd. (pg 16) • Parking Lots containing more than thirty-six (36) parking stalls shall have clearly defined pedestrian connections provided between: a. A public right-of-way and building entrances b. Parking lots and building entrances 2. Pedestrian walkways shall be landscaped with additional shade or ornamental trees equal to an average of one (1) shade tree per fifty (50) linear feet of walkway, unless the walkway is adjacent or included within an existing compliant buffer or frontage planting. The walkway shall not be less than five (5) feet in width. 3. Pedestrian connections shall be clearly defined by at least two (2) of the following: a. Six (6) inch vertical curb. b. Textured paving, including across vehicular lanes. c. Continuous landscape area at v a minimum of three (3) feet wide on at least one (1) side of the walkway. d. One (1) shade tree shall be planted for each two - hundred (200) square feet of separate additional landscaped area. • Palm Trees are not a compatible landscape trees. The trees need to be canopy trees along 1 st Street and Seminole Blvd • Standard buffers apply in addition to knee wall. See Schedule J • Provide open space calculations, FAR, and Density • Along the pedestrian connection to the building from the waterfront the landscaping needs to be re-established. • Any stormwater ponds need to landscaped in accordance with Schedule D (Recommend Cypress). Wet ponds require fountains • Foundation Landscaping is required in accordance with Section 2.6 of Schedule J on th north and south facades. • Missing CAPP meeting information, legal description © 2003 - 2025 ONLINE SOLUTIONS, LLC citizen Terms of Use (TermsofUse.pdf) Privacy Policy (PrivacyPolicy.pdf) RESPONSES TO PLANNING & ZONING COMPLIANCE REVIEW PD Rezone Master Development Plan has been revised per City comments to depict a maximum of 135 spaces (Refer to Exhibit A). Refer to Exhibit A for knee wall along 1' Street and Seminole Boulevard. Knee wall details, materials, and placement to be included in Site Development Plan package. PD Rezone Master Development Plan (Exhibit A) and Landscape Plan (Exhibit B) have been revised to include: A) Pedestrian connections between R/W and building entrances B) Pedestrian walkways include landscaping C) No vertical structures are proposed with the exception of the knee walls D) Open space, FAR, and density calculations: • Open Space: 44% (2.55 AC±) • FAR:.37 • Density: 7.9 DU/AC E) Pedestrian connection from main structure to waterfront to be re-established (Refer to Exhibit B: Concept Landscape Plan) F) Stormwater pond(s)/area to be landscaped per Schedule D. Specific landscape plan to be included in Site Plan/civil engineering plan set based on final pond area configuration per St. Johns Water Management District permitting. G) Foundation landscape on north and south elevations provided. H) Refer to CAPP Report. (Exhibit A) 1) Refer to Legal Description: Lots 1 through 16, Block F, together with the East 1/2 of vacated street to the West and all of Block E, together with the West 1/2 of vacated street on the East, First Street Extension, according to plat thereof as recorded in Plat Book 3, Page 76, of the Public Records of Seminole County, Florida. Landscape plan -specific adjustments (Refer to Exhibit B) • Added knee wall as applicable • Due to Overhead Utility (OHU) conflicts, palms have been added. Canopy trees have been added where no OHU conflicts exist. • Added new planting areas along pedestrian connections. Mayfair PD Rezone Page ) 5 Responses to City Comments d IJIV_I� NVId 1N9V4dOI3A301:131SVV4 pS :3 gill -6� I'Z3 "Z"O. Jj II HIM I L Pot | ., ! �/. /�, I.e__. | ±� � i /lll�fl,. �d_OSCI _1d3 »c I" �§ �•• ) �||!;I| ��,,:,._ |� ■||! |�| ..;R n, ■ N) |� � • \ ( , ! || �� § § | | ||Ji|l |§| § § § § ■ e | | | :>:: | )/ i° h ..| , |!�`'�| H HR ,|.|. PIN! |§|�■� ��'�,! HIM :pi Navigate to... CITY OF I'm C♦ ANFORD `°G°UT FLORIDA fa,l/ REVIEW COMMENTS Home / Services / Development & Zoning / View Permit / Reviews / Review Comments File #: 25-000802 Permit #: PDR25-000002 Address: 1000 E 1ST ST SANFORD FL 32771 Work Description: 28,000 SF of office uses, 46 multi -family units Task: Engineering Plan Review Status: Corrections Requested Comments Plans Engineering Plan Review: Prince Bates prince.bates@sanfordfl.gov, 407-688-5148 • The following must also be submitted for a Planned Development application: (a) CAPP Meeting Summary (b) Completed Utilities Review Checklist (c) Economic Impact Statement (d) Environmental Impact Statement (e) Geotechnical Study Report (f) Hydrant Flow Curve Test (g) Justification Statement (h) Lighting Plans (i) Grading Plan 0 Prior Development Order (k) Traffic Statement (ADT), or Traffic Study if ADT is above 500. Please note that the build has been vacant for over a decade, as such, no "existing" traffic counts can be used. (1) Floodplain Mitigation Statement/Analysis with the minimum floodplain information provided. Document: S-1 Survey.pdf PAGE: 1 v • The survey provided does not provide contour elevation ids, or provide spot elevations to confirm the FEMA BFE boundary. • The Engineer must demonstrate that the floodplain volume will be compensated 100%. Only the volume between the Base Flood Elevation (BFE) and the Seasonal High Water Table (SHWT, established by a Geotechnical Report) can be used for floodplain compensation. The proposed parking lot does not provide elevations or contours to show impact of floodplain. At a minimum the following calculations must be provided to the City's Certified Floodplain manager for review: • An existing floodplain map clearly showing: a. the floodplain boundary b. the Base Flood Elevation (BFE) c. the Seasonal High Water Table (SHWT) d. the existing floodplain area (SF and ac) existing onsite. e. At least 1 cross section of the floodplain showing: i. existing topography ii. BFE iii. SHWT • A Floodplain compensation map clearly showing: a. the proposed floodplain boundary b. the BFE c. the SHWT d. the proposed floodplain compensation areas (SF and ac) e. Proposed Finished Floor Elevations (FFEs must be a minimum 2 feet above BFE) f. a table showing: i. the existing volume (CF and ac-ft) of the impacted floodplain (on -site, off -site, and total) ii. The impacted floodplain volume (CF and ac-ft) of the impacted floodplain (on -site, off -site, and total) iii. the proposed floodplain compensation volume (on -site off -site, and total) iv. the Net Compensation Volume (Total Compensation ? Total volume of existing floodplain to be impacted). This Net compensation Volume shall be equal to or greater than zero (0, CF and ac-ft.) • Provide calculations and methodology (i.e. tables, models, cross sections, etc.) showing: a. The volume (CF and ac-ft) of floodplain to be impacted on site, and off -site. b. The volume (CF and ac-ft) of the floodplain compensation (only between the BFE and the SHWT). c. A summary of the results. © 2003 - 2025 ONLINE SOLUTIONS, LLC citizen rV(;_ Terms of Use (TermsofUse.pdf) Privacy Policy (PrivacyPolicy.pdf) RESPONSES TO ENGINEERING REVIEW • Refer to Exhibit A for the CAPP Report. • A complete utility systems design must be undertaken to complete the Utility Review Checklist. This item is a site plan/construction document item, not a PD submittal requirement. The Checklist will be provided at construction plan submittal. Economic Impact Statement In its Comprehensive Plan, the City of Sanford has established the "Four C'S" or pillars that embody the qualities that make Sanford unique and a place of value: Character: Sanford as a "hard-working community that preserves its history", Culture: Sanford as a hard-working community that preserves its history", Connections: Sanford as "well connected Regional hub that offers opportunity through accessibility and a collaborative spirit of problem solving" and Commerce: Sanford as a hub for "regional access, a thriving downtown, opportunities for personal growth and promotion of our cultural and economic assets." Impact of Historic Preservation: The Mayfair Planned Development meets each of the Four C's identified in the comprehensive plan identified as the community's pillars. Historic preservation can have a significant positive economic impact on communities by attracting heritage tourism, increasing property values, creating jobs in restoration and related industries, revitalizing downtowns, and fostering a sense of place, thereby boosting local business and tax revenue. Numerous studies around the United States support the proposition that there is economic value to historic preservation. (See, for example, Economic Impacts of Historic Preservation published by the Florida Department of State). "A conservative estimate of the economic impacts of historic preservation is Florida is $4.2 billion annually," say study co-authors Timothy McLendon and 1oAnn Klein. "Historic preservation produces a wonderful return for the public money invested and is one of the most efficient ways public funds can be invested." (See "Historic Preservation: Value Added, University of Florida Office of Research and Economic Impacts of Historic Preservation in Florida by the same authors, Center for Governmental Responsibility, University of Florida). While the calculation of that value may be very subjective and difficult to predict, other elements of the Mayfair Planned Development are more clearly measurable. Impact of Construction: The Mayfair Planned Development consists of three existing buildings on a 5.84± parcel containing a main building of approximately 84,400 square feet and housing 36 multi -family units and 28,000 sq. ft. of office space. There is an annex building of 15,120 sq. ft. which will house 10 multi- family units and a 1,825 sq. ft. utility building. Mayfair PD Rezone Page 19 Responses to City Comments At this point in time, the cost of restoring and upgrading the structures and the site to meet current code requirement has not been determined as of yet. For purpose of analysis, the property owner has considered a range of investment that would be between $15 million on the low end and $30 million on the upper end with the expectation that the final cost would be somewhere in the middle. That said, utilizing this range of expenditures would yield the following results: ➢ Construction is estimated to begin January 1, 2027, and to be completed by December 31, 2027. ➢ Labor is estimated at 50% of construction cost and would range between $7.5 million and $15 million. ➢ Almost all of the labor would be locally sourced and, using a general multiplier of .7 of labor costs, the funds spent for labor in the local community would be between $5.25 million and $10.5 million during the construction period. ➢ The rule of thumb for construction employment is 10 to 15 employees per $1 million of expenditure, so in the case of the Mayfair Planned Development, it is estimated that the job would produce employment for 150 to 400 workers. ➢ It is further estimated that the average annual salary of the construction workers is $43,000. Impact of Operations: The Mayfair Planned Development will house the operation of World Olivet Assembly which will train people in providing a Christian ministry on a world -basis. Over the course of a year, it is estimated that there will be 200 to 300 such trainees, who will occupy the multi -family housing units on site. The Mayfair Planned Development will have an operating staff of 40 to 50 employees, some of whom will live on site. The staff and trainees will stimulate the economic activities downtown in terms of the local goods and services typically expended by tenants including such thing as expenditures for such things as restaurants, cleaner, beauty salons, groceries, entertainment, and all the typical household expenditures that a population brings to an area, but, with the Mayfair Planned Development, most of these expenditures will naturally be concentrated in the downtown core. The geographic location of the Mayfair Planned Development furthers the Comprehensive Policy dealing with downtown preservation and redevelopment (See Policy FLU 2.2.5 and Policy FLU 2.2.6 City of Sanford Comprehensive Plan 2018-2030). Tax Impact: The Mayfair Planned Development is owned by an entity that is a for -profit corporation and pays real estate taxes presently constituted. Under current conditions, the taxes paid by the Mayfair Planned Development are $91,823 per year. Depending on the amount of funds expended for the redevelopment and making assumptions regarding how it might be assessed, the taxes could rise to as much as $575,650 per year. Of course, changing to a non-profit model would impact the tax revenue, but would bring other value to the downtown core as discussed above. Mayfair PD Rezone Page 1 10 Responses to City Comments Fee Revenue Impact: Real estate projects develop two main types of fee revenues for local governments and school boards. The City of Sanford would receive a total of $114,164 for fire, police, recreation impacts from both the office and residential uses, while Seminole County would receive $168,876 for library, fire rescue, and road impact fees. Depending on expenditures, the building permit cost would range between $134,157 and $268,138. It is anticipated that water impact fees for the project would be $102,068 and $229,900 for the sewer impacts. • Preliminary Ecological Assessment Report (Refer to Appendix B) • Geotechnical Study Report (Refer to Appendix C) • Hydrant Flow Curve Test (Refer to Appendix D) • Justification Statement — Refer to Exhibit C. • Lighting Plans and Grading Plans — These items will be addressed as part of the Final Site Plan/Civil Construction Plan Submittal to be provided after PD rezone approval. • Prior Development Order — Applicant is not aware of prior Development Order. • Traffic Study (Refer to Appendix D) • Floodplain Mitigation Statement/Analysis (Refer to Exhibit E for graphics) Mayfair PD Rezone Responses to City Comments Page 111 JUSTIFICATION/PROJECT INFORMATION The Mayfair PD project is on a 5.84-acre site that is classified in the City of Sanford Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map as Waterfront Downtown Business District ("WDBD") and is also subject to the Midtown Overlay District. It is zoned Multi -Family Residential/Office/Institutional (ROMI) which permits office uses and multi -family uses at a density of 20 units per acre as a matter of right. No new buildings are contemplated on the site. The existing structures will include approximately 28,000 square -feet of office space and accessory uses. In addition, the Mayfair PD project will also provide 46 units of multi -family housing for both employees of the World Olivet Assembly (the "Assembly") as well as housing for trainees that will serve as missionaries throughout the world that support the advancement of the Assembly -global denomination of evangelical churches and parachurch in the Presbyterian tradition. The Sanford Campus is not a church or religious institution but is similar in nature to the training facilities offered by companies such as Apple or IBM. And like those corporate operations, the missionary trainees come from across the globe. Serving in a manner similar to a regional office, the nature of the office activities includes operations such as general business services for the Assembly, communications and outreach, research, health counseling, finance, planning, conference and meeting rooms, publications, library, similar business operations. The office services are being provided in what is identified on the Concept Plan as the Main Building. The site contains a total of three (3) existing buildings identified as the Main Building, the Annex, and a Utility Building. The site also contains a large swimming pool and deck, a basketball court, and parking. The Main Building is approximately 28,000 square feet. The office uses will occupy the first floor of the building. The second and third floor will contain multifamily units with a mix of one, two, three, and four -bedroom units complete with kitchens with one or more bathrooms and other living space. The small third floor will also contain storage space. The Annex will contain 10 multi -family units (final unit mix to be determined in design stage). The site will be improved to provide parking spaces for 13S cars and landscaping per the Sanford Code. The buildings will be refurbished and upgraded to meet all codes, including of course the current life -safety requirements of the applicable building codes. The preservation and upgrading of this structure constructed in 192S is a primary goal of the Assembly. The Applicant is seeking approval as a PD as provided in Section 4.3, Article IV (Schedule D) of the Land Development Regulations and will promptly apply for a site plan approval and corresponding site work permitting. I sro III I I I jai Gli ONOOV9,41i I ivil 11191 JAI 71 Od NIVIAVW IN 1113001A UISNO ONILSIX3 ------ - ------- — 77, -7 77! IJE. M., -4 IF A r 10 uj Fir ,-v L_V N W-A le enuanV ulenTr ,,Rs N z 'i 1w_ ad tllddAVW g .t f i NouvsNumoop o3NN10as 9 $13VdWl �7 9 NIY,dGOD'W WAND a39OdONd LIU =11 ' - ��\\��\� sv'v =aid f ~ � 5 •, I' \ PPP s\ - --------- - » > VV V k. N ..i jl y • I • j �� lu 061 ti $fj � � .{. y==.: •_ •�•'f�1.56'90f 1 - �z• I �t dppf Lb �I`� • -3-'v •15enueny uenj'— — - — 7-v — ` q ' Se ag 1 e a, yin. ' ■ `s AI Z—�( at � a.�iy ' -- ; E3 Pik, 6/2/25, 9:22 AM CutHIReport.html Generated: 2025-06-02 09:22:04 By user: akhorramian Drawing: J:\W 16902\Civil\DWG\_Extemal_Reference\Working\J:\W 16902\Civil\DWG\_External_Reference\Working\W 16902 -CONTOUR 8-FLAT SURFACE.dwg Cut Fill 2d Area Cut Fill Net Name Type Factor Factor (Sq. Ft.) (Cu. Yd.) (Cu. Yd.) (Cu. Yd.) EG- full 1.000 1.000 86443.07 173.63 546.46 372.82<Fill> SUURFACE 2d Area Cut (Sq. Ft.) (Cu. Yd.) Fill (Cu. Yd.) Net (Cu. Yd.) Total 186443.07 173.63 546.46 1372.82<Fill> * Value adjusted by cut or fill factor other than 1.0 file:///C:/Users/AKHORR-1/AppDate/Localrremp/CutFillReport.htmi i/1 6/2/25, 9:13 AM CutHlReport.html Generated: 2025-06-02 09:13:09 By user: akhorramian Drawing: J:\W16902\Civil\DWG\_External_ Reference\Working\J:\W16902\Civil\DWG\_External_Reference\Working\W16902 -CONTOUR 8- SURFACE - 6-02-2025.dwg Name Type Cut Fill Factor Factor 2d Area (Sq. Ft.) Cut Fill (Cu. Yd.) (Cu. Yd.) Net (Cu. Yd.) EARTHWORK full 1.000 I 1.000 86472.10 273.55 ,357.28 83.73<Fill> 2d Area I Cut I Fill (Sq. Ft.) (Cu. Yd.) (Cu. Yd.) I Net (Cu. Yd.) Total 86472.10 1273.55 I 357.28 83.73<Fill> * Value adjusted by cut or fill factor other than 1.0 file:///C:/Users/AKHORR-1/AppOata/Local[Temp/CutFillReport.htmi 1/1 CITY OF �'w C♦ ANFORD LOGOUT FLORIDA Navigate to... 10.71 REVIEW COMMENTS Home / Services / Development & Zoning / View Permit / Reviews / Review Comments File #: 25-000802 Permit #: PDR25-000002 Address: 1000 E 1 ST ST SANFORD FL 32771 Work Description: 28,000 SF of office uses, 46 multi -family units Task: Development Administrative Review Status: Review Complete Comments Plans Development Administrative Review: Adam Mendenhall adam.mendenhall@sanfordfl.gov, 407-688-5156 • Advisory Note: This public hearing application is limited to a maximum of three reviews before incurring additional review fees. This is the FIRST review for this application. Please be aware that a review fee equal to half the cost of the original fee will be assessed, if necessary, prior to a fourth review and must be paid prior to the review. Please be aware that public hearing review applications must have a decision rendered within 180 days of the date the application was deemed sufficient. This application was deemed sufficient on 01/23/2025. Pursuant to Florida Statute 166.033 if there are any outstanding staff comments at the 180 day deadline the application may be denied. An applicant may request a 30 day time extension to the application a maximum of six times equaling a total of six months. The time extension request must include a justification for the necessity of the extension, the project application number, the project address, and the applicants/agents name. The letter must be provided to the planning office prior to the application deadline (07/23/2025) or v an approved extension deadline, addressed to the Administrative Official. It is not guaranteed that the time extension will be approved. It is the applicants responsibility to track these deadlines and provide necessary documents prior to the due dates. Extensions may not be considered for applications where staff receive requests after the deadline. © 2003 - 2025 ONLINE SOLUTIONS, LLC a izen Terms of Use (TermsofUse.pdf) Privacy Policy (PrivacyPolicy.pdf) RESPONSES TO DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW Applicant acknowledges comments. No additional responses required. The Applicant will be submitting via separate communication a 30-day extension to complete staff review. Mayfair PD Rezone Page 114 Responses to City Comments Navigate to... CITY OF MW C♦ ANFORD LOGOUT FLORIDA r,11 REVIEW COMMENTS Home / Services / Development & Zoning / View Permit / Reviews / Review Comments File #: 25-000802 Permit #: PDR25-000002 Address: 1000 E 1 ST ST SANFORD FL 32771 Work Description: 28,000 SF of office uses, 46 multi -family units Task: Architectural Plan Review Status: Review Complete Comments Plans Architectural Plan Review: Julie Scofield Julie.Scofield@sanfordfl.gov, 407.688.5145 • This historically and architecturally significant building is eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, and for designation as a City of Sanford local landmark per Schedule S. Designation is encouraged, as well as compliance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Schedule S for exterior building maintenance and /or alterations. v Uc 2003 - 2025 ONLINE SOLUTIONS, LLC citizen Terms of Use (TermsofUse.pdf) Privacy Policy (PrivacyPolicy.pdf) RESPONSES TO ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW • Applicant is aware of the Historic and architectural significant of the building and its eligibility for listing on the National Register of Historic Places and its potential designation as a City of Sanford local landmark. • An application for the National Register of Historic Places and Local Landmark Designation will be filed on or before 45 days after the City of Sanford issues a Certificate of Occupancy for the project buildings. Mayfair PD Rezone Page 116 Responses to City Comments Navigate to... CITY OF C♦ Sj N`°G°UT FLORIDA favl REVIEW COMMENTS Home / Services / Development & Zoning / View Permit / Reviews / Review Comments & Resubmit Plans File #: 25-000802 Permit #: PDR25-000002 Address: 1000 E 1 ST ST SANFORD FL 32771 Work Description: 28,000 SF of office uses, 46 multi -family units Task: Utility Site Review Status: Corrections Requested Comments Plans Utility Site Review: Michelle Edmiston michelle.edmiston@sanfordfl.gov, 0 Please include water and sewer demand calculations for review. v © 2003 - 2025 ONLINE SOLUTIONS, LLC citizen Terms of Use (TermsofUse.pdf) Privacy Policy (PrivacyPolicy.pdf) RESPONSES TO UTILITY SITE REVIEW • Preliminary calculations are as follows to be adjusted per final program: • Water demand (residential) 46 units x 300 GPD = 13,800 GPD • Sewer demand/generation (residential) 46 units x 300 GPD = 13,800 GPD Assumed Fixture Units for Office include 8 water ciosets, 4 urinals, 4 wash sinks, 5 automatic clothes washers. 8 water closes x 4 (Fixture Unit Value) + 4 urinals x 4 (Fixture Unit Value) + 4 wash sinks (Fixture Unit Value) + 5 automatic clothes washers 71 Fixture Units / 25 Fixture Units per ERU = 2.84 ERUs 2.84 ERUs x 300 GPD/ERU = 852 GPD Main Building Estimated Water Demand = 22,500 GPD + 10,500 GPD + 852 GPD = 33,852 GPD Mayfair PD Rezone Page 1 18 Responses to City Comments Navigate to... CITY OF V C♦ ANFORD `°G°UT FLORIDA fa,l/ REVIEW COMMENTS Home / Services / Development & Zoning / View Permit / Reviews / Review Comments File #: 25-000802 Permit #: PDR25-000002 Address: 1000 E 1ST ST SANFORD FL 32771 Work Description: 28,000 SF of office uses, 46 multi -family units Task: Pre Treatment Review Status: Review Complete Comments Plans Pre Treatment Review: Hope Duncan hope. duncan@Sanfordfl.gov, 407-688-5000 ext 5512 • For the multi -family units, a grease interceptor(s), sampling box (if no lift station proposed) and wastewater discharge permit will be required. • For the multi -family units, at each unit, install a separate line for kitchen waste and a separate line for bathroom/laundry waste. In an effort to minimize grease build-up, the City recommends installing the largest possible diameter piping for all kitchen waste line discharges. If the clubhouse/leasing office will have a kitchen then it will also be required to connect to a grease interceptor. • For the multi -family units, include the required grease interceptor (125 or less units=750 gallons; 126 to 300 units=1250 gallons) prior to the sampling box or lift station (if feasible). If one interceptor is not feasible, then multiple interceptors will be required. A two way cleanout must be included before/after the interceptor(s). Grease interceptor(s) must be installed in a v location that is accessible for inspection/cleaning at all time and can't be situated in parking spaces. This also includes minimizing landscaping around manholes. Include City grease interceptor(s) spec on plans. • For the multi -family units, it is the developer's responsibility to ensure that all lines are routed properly during construction of the units. Only the kitchen sinks and dishwashers should be routed to the grease waste line then to the interceptor(s). All other sources of waste including bathrooms and laundry must be routed to the sanitary lines. Sanitary lines must not enter ANY grease interceptor as it could lead to blockages and back-ups. If after units are constructed and the complex is occupied sanitary waste is found to be present in ANY interceptor, each unit will be required to be inspected to locate the source of the sanitary waste and reroute it to the sanitary line. • For the multi -family units, any dog washing sink(s) must be equipped with a hair strainer to prevent the discharge of pet hair to City sewers. Include make/model/spec on plans • For the multi -family units, if there will be a communal laundry, all washing machines must connect to an appropriately sized lint trap(s) prior to discharge to City sewers. Include make/model/spec on plans © 2003 - 2025 ONLINE SOLUTIONS, LLC citizen Terms of Use (TermsofUse.pdf) Privacy Policy (PrivacyPolicy.pdf) RESPONSES TO PRE-TREATMENT REVIEW • Applicant acknowledges comments. Comments deal with specific design elements to be addressed at site development/construction plan stage. Mayfair PD Rezone Page 120 Responses to City Comments MAYFAIR PD REZONE Citizen Awareness & Participation Plan I. INTRODUCTION On behalf of Mayfair (Applicant), CPH Consulting, LLC. (CPH) is pleased to submit this Citizen Awareness & Participation Plan (CAPP) Report for the Mayfair PD Rezone. The CAPP was conducted on April 29, 2025, as part of the Planned Development Rezone application filed with the City of Sanford. The CAPP is prepared in accordance with the Citizen Awareness and Participation Plan Guideline and Resource Handbook developed by the City to ensure early and effective citizen participation in conjunction with proposed development application. Ill. BACKGROUND The site is 5.84+ acres in size, located on E. 1't Street, with parcel identification number 30-19- 31-507-OE00-0000. The site is located in the City of Sanford, Seminole County, Florida. The subject rezone requests a PD to allow for office and multi -family uses within the existing Mayfair structure. (Refer to Exhibit A for proposed site plan) III. PARTIES NOTIFIED The following parties may be impacted by the proposed development application and were notified of the proposed rezone and thus invited to a Neighborhood Meeting: A. Property owners within 500 feet of the subject site (Refer to Exhibit B) B. City of Sanford Economic Development Department C. Greater Sanford Regional Chamber of Commerce D. City of Sanford Planning & Development Services E. Seminole County Planning & Development Department IV. NOTIFICATION PROCEDURES Notification of the proposed development application and an invitation to the Neighborhood Meeting has been accomplished in the following manner: Neighborhood Meetine Notice Meeting Notices were mailed to the parties listed under Section III above. The notice was mailed to all impacted parties no later than twelve (12) days prior to the scheduled meeting. (Refer to Exhibit C) Mayfair PD Rezone _ Page 12 Citizen Awareness & Participation Plan May 27, 2025 Notification of news aeencies A Neighborhood Meeting Notice (Exhibit C) was mailed, to WESH TV Channel 2, WKMG Channel 6, and WFTV Channel 9. Legal Notices Meeting Notices were placed in the Orlando Sentinel and Sanford Herald. (Refer to Exhibit D) V. DATE AND VENUE The Neighborhood Meeting was held on April 29, 2025, at 520 On The Water in Sanford, Florida from 7:30 PM to 8:30 PM. VI. SUMMARY The CAPP Meeting started at 7:45 PM. Attending on behalf of the applicant were: • Alma Osorio, Client Representative • Bruce Andersen, Project Architect • Hal Kantor, Esq., Project Attorney • Javier E. Omana, CNU-a, Project Land Planner Attendees (Refer to Exhibit E): • Tim Meiser • Dean Kreider • Andrew Van Gaale Given the number of attendees, the Consulting Team re -arranged the project boards and chairs in a circle to provide a more intimate setting for discussion. The applicant's consulting team provided a brief structure history and the proposed uplift to include a new use consisting of office and multifamily uses. Site improvements to include: additional parking and enhancement of landscaping to meet City code. Architectural enhancements and upgrades are to be addressed and conducted after the PD Rezoning is obtained. One of the attendees was a resident of the building during its tenure as headquarters for the New Tribes religious entity. All three (3) attendees were in support of the project and for bringing back the structure to its former grandeur. Refer to Exhibit F for event photographs. Applicant Team explained the next steps for the project: • DRC Review • Staff Report • Hearing before the Planning and Zoning Commission • City Commission Meeting adjourned at 8:15 PM. Mayfair PD Rezone Page 1 3 Citizen Awareness & Participation Plan May 27, 2025 PRELIMINARY ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT REPORT MAYFAIR PD SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA APRIL 2025 Engineers Architects Planners Survty" Landscape Architects Tra fJi clTra neporta tion Environmental Scientists Construction Management Prepared by: CPH Consulting LLC 1117 E. Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Office: 407-425-0452 Engineer - COA 3215 Landscape Architect - LC0000298 Architect - AA260OLW2b Surveyor - L87143 PRELIMINARY ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT REPORT MAYFAIR PD SEMINOLE COUNTY APRIL 2025 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................................1 2.0 METHODOLOGY................................................................................................................I.............1 3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS..................................................................................................................2 3.1 Soils....................................................................................................................................2 3.2 Vegetation and Land Use Types.........................................................................................2 3.3 Wetlands & Surface Waters................................................................................................3 4.0 REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS.................................................................................................4 4.1 St. Johns River Water Management District........................................................................4 4.2 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers............................................................................................4 5.0 PROTECTED FAUNA AND FLORA..................................................................................................5 5.1 Records Search...................................................................................................................5 5.2 Field Investigation...............................................................................................................5 5.3 Protected Fauna and Flora Regulatory Considerations......................................................7 5.3.1 Migratory Bird Treaty Act....................................................................................7 5.3.2 Bald Eagle..........................................................................................................7 5.3.3 Wood Stork Core Foraging Area........................................................................8 5.3.4 Gopher Tortoise.................................................................................................8 5.3.5 USFWS Florida Scrub -jay Consultation Area.....................................................9 5.3.6 USFWS Everglades Snail Kite Consultation Area ............................................10 5.3.7 USFWS Crested Caracara Consultation Area..................................................10 6.0 PAST REGULATORY AUTHORIZATIONS.....................................................................................11 7.0 SUMMARY & RECOMMENDATIONS............................................................................................ 12 APPENDICES APPENDIX A — Figures Figure 1 Location Map Figure 2 Soils Map Figure 3 Preliminary Vegetation and Land Use Map Figure 4 Species Map APPENDIX B — Photographs Exhibit B1 Photograph Location Map Exhibits 132-135 Photographs 1.0 INTRODUCTION CPH Consulting, LLC (CPH), Environmental Services, conducted a preliminary ecological assessment on the Mayfair PD (subject property) in Seminole County, Florida. The subject property is identified by the Seminole County Property Appraiser by Parcel Nos. 30-19-31-507-OE000-0000 and 30-19-31-507-OF00-0010. Mayfair PD is proposing to construct a corporate office with training facilities, housing, and related support uses. The purpose of this preliminary assessment is to: 1) provide a general estimate of the type and extent of upland habitat types and confirm the approximate extent and configuration of areas expected to fall within the wetland regulatory jurisdiction of the St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD) and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE); 2) conduct a public database search for the known or probable geographic distribution of protected species within these habitat types; 3) conduct a preliminary review for protected wildlife and plant species occurrence based on direct observation during the field investigation; 4) assess on -site wetland habitats, if applicable; and 5) identify special environmental designations on, or within proximity to, the subject property. The 5.84-acre subject property is located at 1000 E. First Street in Section 30, Township 19 South, Range 31 East, Sanford, Seminole County, Florida (Figure 1, Appendix A). Vegetation associations and landscape descriptions were identified from aerial photography and site observations, the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) Soil Survey of Seminole County, Florida and ground truthing. There are two (2) vegetation and land use classifications and one (1) soil type mapped within the subject property boundary. Vegetation and land uses are generally classified following the Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System (FLUCFCS) (FDOT 1999). CPH's field investigation was conducted on April 1, 2025. 2.0 METHODOLOGY On April 1, 2025, scientists performed pedestrian surveys of the subject property for the presence of protected flora and fauna and regulated wetlands and surface waters. Pedestrian transects were sufficient to cover the subject property. Before the reconnaissance -level survey, a list of potentially occurring protected flora and fauna was compiled based upon on -site habitat types and known or probable geographic distribution of protected species within these habitat types. 3.0 EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS The 5.84-acre Mayfair PD Property is located at 1000 E. First Street in Sanford, Florida. The subject property is developed and surrounded by East Seminole Boulevard and Lake Monroe to the north, buildings and parking lots to the east and south and a recreational area to the west 3.1 Soils The Soil Survey of Seminole County, Florida, identifies one (1) soil map unit within the subject property (Figure 2). A summary of the characteristics of this soil type, as described by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), formerly Soil Conservation Service (SCS) Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) database, is as follows: Urban land. 0 to 2 oercent sloues This soil map unit is covered by urban facilities as shopping centers, parking lots, industrial buildings, houses, streets, sidewalks and related urban structures. The natural soil cannot be observed. These soils generally have been covered by about 12 inches of fill material. This fill material consists of sandy and loamy material that may contain fragments of limestone and shell. Depth of the high water table is dependent upon the functioning of drainage systems. 3.2 Vegetation and Land Use Types Two (2) vegetation and land use classifications are mapped within the subject property boundaries. Vegetation and land use classifications are generally classified in accordance with the Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System (FLUCFCS) (FDOT 2 1999). The following descriptive titles and FLUCFCS numbers assess the property's vegetation and land uses and are presented on Figure 3. Select photographs of the subject property are provided in Appendix B. Tourist Services (FLUCFCS No. 145) This land use classification includes all primary and secondary facilities that can be identified as supporting overnight tourist/travel lodging. The subject property includes hotel which is currently not operating. Vegetation observed include crape myrtle (Lagerstroemia indica), camphor tree (Camphora officinarum), live oak (Quercus virginiana), laurel oak (Quercus laurifolia), cabbage palm (Sabal palmetto), Chinese elm (Ulmus parvifolia), Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia), pygmy date palm (Phoenix roebelenii), centipede grass (Eremochloa ophiuroides), Bahia grass (Paspalum notatum ) and various grasses and weeds, along with other ornamental plants. Roads and Highways (FLUCFCS No. 814) This land classification is used for the movement of people and goods by usage of motor vehicles such as cars and trucks. The road included in the subject property is located along the eastern boundary and is identified as San Carlos Avenue. 3.3 Wetlands & Surface Waters According to wetland delineation methodologies outlined in the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (1987), the 2010 Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Atlantic & Gulf Coastal Plain Region and the State of Florida Unified Wetland Delineation Methodology (Section 62-340, F.A.C.), habitats meeting the definition of jurisdictional wetlands and surface waters were not observed within the property boundaries during the field investigations. 3 4.0 REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS 4.1 St. Johns River Water Management District The SJRWMD regulates isolated wetlands and those considered within or connected to "Waters of the State" pursuant to Chapter 403 of the Florida Statues, Rules 62-302 and 62- 330 of the Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). Development activities altering wetlands and/or drainage require a Statewide Environmental Resource Permit (SWERP) from the SJRWMD. Different SWERP Permits for various activities, General Permits, and exemptions can be found in the State of Florida Environmental Resource Permit Applicant's Handbook, Volume I. Specific design standards, basin -specific criteria, and procedures can be found in the State of Florida Environmental Resource Permit Applicant's Handbook, Volume ll. 4.2 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers The ACOE regulates wetlands connected to "Waters of the United States" and "Adjacent Waters" pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Based on the U.S. Supreme Court decision Solid Waste Aaencv of Northern Cook Countv v, U.S. Armv Corps of Engineers. No. 99-1178 (January 9, 2001) (SWANCC) isolated wetlands are considered non - jurisdictional for the ACOE. Based on the U.S. Supreme Court decision consolidated cases Raganos v. United States and Carabell v. United States,126 S. Ct. 2208 (2006) (RAPANOS) the ACOE is required to establish a physical, biological, or chemical nexus of connection to traditional navigable waters (TNW) of the United States to claim jurisdiction. After a review of the subject property, areas meeting the jurisdictional definition of "Waters of the United States" and "Adjacent Waters" pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act were not observed within the subject property. Based on current regulatory requirements, Federal wetland permitting authorization is not required for the subject property. CI 5.0 PROTECTED FAUNA AND FLORA Preliminary ecological investigations included a review of published and unpublished literature concerning the subject property and surrounding area, solicitation of databases on protected species, field investigation to generally delineate and characterize the habitats and a preliminary field survey for the occurrence of protected flora and fauna. 5.1 Records Search Prior to the initiation of fieldwork, a records review of documented wildlife observations (Wildlife Occurrence Database System) maintained by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC) was conducted. Other resources used as aids included the following: aerials, Soil Survey of Seminole County, Florida; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) database, Florida Natural Areas Inventory (FNAI) Biodiversity Matrix database; and Official Lists of Endangered and Potentially Endangered Fauna and Flora in Florida (FFWCC). The records review did not indicate recorded observations or occurrences of protected species on the subject property (Figure 4). 5.2 Field Investigation CPH biologists conducted a field investigation of the subject property on April 1, 2025. General reconnaissance of the property was conducted, during which scientists searched for evidence of the occurrence of federal or state -listed flora and fauna and general wildlife utilization. Regulatory oversight for protected fauna and flora is the responsibility of the USFWS, FFWCC, and the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (FDACS). The USFWS is the federal agency responsible for protecting the nation's fish and wildlife resources through the implementation of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended ("ESA," 16 U.S.C. 1513-1543). Species (or their signs) protected under the ESA were not observed on, or adjacent to, the subject property during the field investigation. k, The FFWCC regulates the taking of species listed as endangered, threatened, or of special concern and their nests through Rules listed in 68A-27 Florida Administrative Code. The FFWCC also provides technical assistance to other agencies with regulatory authority over activities that may affect fish and wildlife and their habitat. Species protected under the Florida Administrative Code were not observed on, or adjacent to, the subject property during the field investigation. Section 581.185, Florida Statutes and Chapter 56-40, F.A.C., delegates authority to FDACS to designate and regulate plants listed as "endangered," "commercially exploited," and "threatened." It is unlawful for an individual to harvest endangered or commercially exploited plants from the private land of another or any public land without first obtaining written permission from the landowner and a permit from FDACS. It is unlawful for an individual to harvest a threatened plant from private or public land without first obtaining the written permission of the landowner. FDACS-listed endangered and threatened species were not observed within the subject property during the field investigation. Wildlife utilization is a measure of direct observations or evidence of animals' presence (e.g. scat, tracks, dens, etc.). Potential wildlife utilization was evaluated on food sources, nesting areas, roosting areas, den areas and protective covering. The potential for wildlife utilization of the subject property is considered low due to the proximity to surrounding transportation corridors and urban development. During the field investigations, direct observations or signs of wildlife on the subject property included an eastern gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), domestic cat (Fells catus), brown anole (Anolis sagrei), boat tailed grackle (Quiscalus major), osprey (Pandion haliaetus), northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos), morning dove (Zenaida macroura), common pigeon (Columba livia), and bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) was flying north of the subject property. 6 5.3 Protected Fauna and Flora Regulatory Considerations Below is a discussion of select species or groups of wildlife that frequently affect development sites or can affect a project even though these species are not physically located on the project site. 5.3.1 Migratory Bird Treaty Act The USFWS also administers and enforces the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (META) of 1918, as amended (16 USC 703-712), which makes it unlawful to pursue, hunt, take, capture, kill or sell birds listed therein ("migratory birds"). The statute does not discriminate between live or dead birds and grants full protection to any bird parts, including feathers, eggs, and nests. A migratory bird is any species or family of birds that live, reproduce, or migrate within or across international borders at some point during their annual life cycle. The current list of birds protected under the MBTA was published in the Federal Register on July 31, 2023, and became effective on August 30, 2023. In total, 1,106 bird species are protected by the MBTA. Several species protected under the MBTA were identified on, or within the vicinity of, the subject property during the field investigations. Provided the construction activities do not directly kill or harm birds, their nests or eggs, or cause nest failure due to disturbance, the proposed development of the subject property has a low probability of violating the MBTA. 5.3.2 Bald Eagle The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668-668d) and the regulations derived therefrom (50 CFR 22) state, in part, that no person shall take any bald eagle or any golden eagle, alive or dead, or any part, nest, or egg thereof (with "take" meaning to pursue, shoot, shoot at, poison, wound, kill, capture, trap, collect, molest or disturb). Federal and State laws and regulations make it unlawful to take any listed species (with "take" meaning to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect) or to attempt to engage in any such conduct. 7 According to the Florida Audubon Society Eagle Watch Program database, active nests are not documented as occurring within the subject property boundary (Figure 4). The closest documented bald eagle nest (Nest SE024) is located approximately 0.68 miles southeast of the subject property. The presence of this nest will not adversely affect development of the subject property due to the distance between the nest and the property. An eagle was observed flying over the subject property during the field investigation. 5.3.3 USFWS Wood Stork Core Foraging Area The wood stork (Mycteria americana) is listed as Threatened by the USFWS and the FFWCC. The wood stork is protected under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq, and Florida Chapter 68A, Florida Administrative Code. Inundated forested wetlands, cypress strands and domes, mixed hardwood swamps, and sloughs provide nesting habitat. Nest sites are generally in woody vegetation over standing water or on islands surrounded by broad expanses of open water. Shallow freshwater marshes, ponds, flooded pastures, and ditches provide suitable foraging habitat. Wood storks nest in colonies and will return to the same colony site for many years so long as the site and the surrounding foraging habitat continue to supply the needs of the birds. The USFWS has determined the extent of the Core Foraging Area (CFA) as approximately 15 miles, for central Florida counties, from the nesting colony. The subject property is located within the CFA of a wood stork colony (Figure 4). During the field investigation, wood stork foraging habitat was not observed within the subject property. Based on current regulatory guidance, further action to address the wood stork is not a consideration of this property as wetland areas were not observed on the subject property. 5.3.4 Gopher Tortoise The gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus) is listed as a "Threatened" species by the FFWCC and is protected by state law under Chapter 68A-27, Florida Administrative Code. The gopher tortoise is found throughout Florida and is 9 generally associated with longleaf pine and xeric oak sand hills but is also located in scrub, xeric hammock, pine flatwoods, dry prairie, coastal grasslands and dunes, mixed hardwood -pine, and a variety of disturbed habitats. If the gopher tortoise or signs of the tortoise, such as burrows, is observed, their presence must be addressed before on -site construction activities. The FFWCC is the state agency responsible for overseeing the management of this species, including permitting. During the field investigations, gopher tortoises and their signs were not observed. According to FFWCC gopher tortoise surveys are valid for 90 days. 5.3.5 USFWS Florida Scrub -jay Consultation Area The Florida scrub -jay (Aphelocoma coerulescens) is listed as a Threatened species by the USFWS through the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C.1531 etseq.) Following consultation, the USFWS issues a Biological Opinion (BO) for projects and their effects on the threatened Florida Scrub -jay per Section 7 or Section 10 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA) (87 stat. 884; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). The BO will spell out the negotiated mitigation measures taken by the project proponent to ensure the listed species is not adversely affected. If scrub habitat is within '/< mile of the site, regardless of the type of habitat on the subject property, the USFWS considers the on -site habitat Type III scrub -jay habitat. According to the USFWS database, the subject property is within the Florida Scrub - jay Consultation Area but not within '/< mile of known scrub -jay territory (Figure 4). The closest USFWS scrub jay territory is mapped approximately 3.22 miles north of the subject property on the north shore of Lake Monroe in Volusia County. Based upon field observations, scrub -jays and scrub -jay habitat were not observed on the subject property. Further action regarding the Florida scrub -jay should not be necessary pursuant to current regulatory guidance. E 5.3.6 USFWS Everglade Snail Kite Consultation Area The Everglade snail kite (Rostrhamus sociabilis plumbeus) is listed as Endangered by the USFWS and the FFWCC. The Everglade snail kite is protected under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. Typical Everglade snail kite habitat consists of freshwater marshes and the shallow vegetated edges of lakes (natural and man-made) where apple snails (Pomacea paludosa) can be found. Everglade snail kites require suitable foraging areas that are relatively clear and open to visually search for their specialized diet (apple snails). If suitable habitat is present or snail kites are reported on -site, the survey procedures should be conducted from January to May during the breeding season. Based upon field observations, snail kites and snail kite habitat were not observed on the subject property. Based on current regulatory guidance, further action to address the Everglade snail kite is not a consideration of this property. 5.3.7 USFWS Crested Caracara Consultation Area The Audubon's crested caracara (Caracara cheriway audubonii) (caracara) is listed as Threatened by the USFWS and FFWCC. The caracara is protected under the U.S. ESA of 1973, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. and Florida Chapter 68A, F.A.C. The subject property is located within the USFWS Crested Caracara Consultation Area (Figure 4). According to the public database, the closest documented caracara nest is located approximately 0.7 miles southeast of the subject property within a developed area of downtown Sanford. Large expanses of pastures, grasslands, or prairies dotted with numerous shallow ponds and sloughs and single clumps of live oaks, cabbage palms, and cypress provide nesting habitat. Improved pastures, extensive networks of drainage canals, stock ponds, agricultural ditches, and marshes provide foraging habitat. The crested caracara is non -migratory. Adult pairs stay year-round on territory which may be maintained for years. The presence of adult individuals in an area can 10 usually be assumed to indicate the existence of a breeding territory, Should the caracara reside on a subject property, a development plan should be designed to buffer disturbance activities. Should it become necessary to provide caracara nest protection during development activities, protection of caracara nests is described in the FFWCC Recommended Management Practices and Survey Protocols for Audubon's Crested Caracara (Caracara cheriway audobonii) in Florida Technical Report No. 18, The USFWS and the FFWCC typically require a property owner to conduct surveys prior to development to ensure the crested caracara receive sufficient protection in the development plan. These surveys should occur every two (2) weeks during January through April, starting by January IV. Once these surveys are conducted, and the extent of caracara use (if any) is determined, measures can be taken to incorporate management of the Caracara within the development plan. Based upon field observations, suitable crested caracara habitat was not observed on the subject property. Due to lack of caracara habitat on the subject property, proposed development has a low probability of adversely affecting this species. Based on current regulatory guidance, further action to address the caracara is not a consideration for this property. 6.0 PAST REGULATORY AUTHORIZATIONS A public search of readily available records at the SJRWMD and FDEP was conducted for the subject property to discover what previous and/or existing regulatory approvals had occurred. According to the SJRWMD permitting database, the subject property is part of a larger permitted project referred to as the Sanford Downtown Community Redevelopment Area (CRA). The SJRWMD issued Permit #22310-13 on November 2, 2021, for the conceptual approval of a stormwater management system plan for a 301-acre project known as the Sanford Downtown Community Redevelopment. The permit is set to expire on November 2, 2041. The City of Sanford was issued SJRWMD permit #22310-2 for the Sanford Downtown Redevelopment Master planning for 41 acres of parcels in downtown Sanford. The subject property was included in this permit which expired on February 4, 2010. 7.0 SUMMARY & RECOMMENDATIONS The 5.84-acre Mayfair PD Property is located at 1000 E. First Street in Sanford, Seminole County, Florida. Mayfair PD is proposing to conduct improvements for a corporate office with training facilities, housing, and related support uses. The subject property is developed and surrounded by Seminole Boulevard and Lake Monroe to the north, buildings and parking lots to the east and south and a recreational area to the west. According to wetland delineation methodologies outlined in the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (1987), the 2010 Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Atlantic & Gulf Coastal Plain Region and the State of Florida Unified Wetland Delineation Methodology (Section 62-340, F.A.C.), habitats meeting the definition of jurisdictional wetlands and surface waters were not observed within the property boundaries during the field investigation, Development activities altering wetlands and/or drainage require a Statewide Environmental Resource Permit (SWERP) from the SJRWMD. Different SWERP Permits for various activities, General Permits, and exemptions can be found in the State of Florida Environmental Resource Permit Applicant's Handbook, Volume 1. Specific design standards, basin -specific criteria, and procedures can be found in the State of Florida Environmental Resource Permit Applicant's Handbook, Volume ll. Adding impervious surface to the project area will require permitting with the SJRWMD. After a review of the subject property, areas meeting the jurisdictional definition of "Waters of the United States" and "Adjacent Waters" pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act were not observed within the subject property. Based on current regulatory permitting requirements, Federal wetland impact authorization is not required for the subject property. 12 Preliminary ecological investigations included a review of published and unpublished literature concerning the project area for protected species and a preliminary field survey for the occurrence of protected flora and fauna. Protected species were not observed within, or adjacent to, the project area during the field investigation. An eagle was observed flying near the subject property. However, eagle nests were not observed and are not recorded in proximity to the subject property. A public records search of readily available information from the SJRWMD and FDEP was conducted for the subject property to discover what previous and/or existing regulatory approvals had occurred. According to the SJRWMD permitting database two (2) permits included the subject property. According to the SJRWMD permitting database, the subject property is part of a larger project referred to as the Sanford Downtown Community Redevelopment Area (CRA). The SJRWMD issued Permit # 22310-13 on November 2, 2021 for the conceptual approval of a stormwater management system plan for 301-acre project. The permit is set to expire on November 2, 2041. The City of Sanford was issued SJRWMD Permit # 22310-2 for the Sanford Downtown Redevelopment Master Planning for 41 acres of parcels in downtown Sanford. The subject property was included in this permit which expired on February 4, 2010. As a preliminary assessment, the findings of this report concerning native vegetation and land use may be subject to change upon more detailed analysis. Additionally, failure to detect a listed species does not necessarily infer species absence as wildlife are mobile, exhibit seasonality of occurrence, and generally have low population levels. Further, nothing in this report regarding environmental laws, rules, and regulations is intended to be a legal interpretation or opinion., Thus, readers of this report should contact an attorney concerning any matters of law. 13 APPENDIX A Figures Preliminary Ecological Assessment Report Mayfair PD Seminole County, Florida Approx Project o Location 'bA All \Z 0 L�Icel.tl � " Inset Map of Project Location 6-ts.92 Ylt taut •M •. 1'Awt = � P C N25tn it Approximate Property Location Parcel #'s: 30-19-31-507-OE000-0000 & 30-19-31-507-OF00-0010 5.84 Acres Ci P t t �t� ttl�tl Sanford 1 , , J t K • A 1:M Vr { u If I i C E 25 to 9 t 6;11'. 4t; 1 S ats Road M i 41' r w 0 Scale 1 inch = 1 mile N LOCATION MAP C I Dace: 6,23,1025 FIGURE Photo Date WA MAYFAIR PD 1 Project No, W16902 ASECTION 30, TOWNSHIP 19 SOUTH. RANGE 31 EAST Biologist AED GIS: ERR SEMINOLE COUNTY. FLORIDA Approx. Property Boundary Soil No. Description Approx. Acreage 34 Urban land, 0 to 2 percent slopes 5.84 USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service j 34 f At • �.• . �� • r; A. j - tA IF ,..., .�_ 1. L I. QQs�Q1 • 1 7�w � �L _ � ,` '� _ Ad �. I .:. �.�y •r(2Y� Scale: i inch = 300 feet C ILS MAP Date 623'2025 I N MOAYFAIR PD FIGURE , Photo Date 2023 2 Project No. W16902 ! SECTION 30, TOWNSHIP 19 SOUTH. RANGE 31 EAST Biologist AED GIS: ERR I SEMINOLE COUNTY. FLORIDA Approx. Property Boundary wr ;7 OV L Rift + v+ C . :• ; FLUCFCS Code FLUCFCS Classification Approx. Acreage Percent of Site 145 Tourist Services 5.54 94.86% 814 Roads and Highways 0.30 5.14% L.�• f Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System (FDOT 1999) Scale t inch = too feet I N PRELIMINARY VEGETATION AND LAND USE MAP C.Date s e 2 s I FIGURE Photo Date 023 7 MAYFAIR PD 3 Project No. W16902 I SECTION 30, TOWNSHIP 19 SOUTH. RANGE 31 EAST Biologist AED GS ERRILECIA SEMINOLE COUNTY. FLORIDA C !Approx. Property all Location �T 2Im Coast o 61 rlat P akelarO . -61231 Inset �Co e o Foraging Area SE029 SE029B SE017 SE029A Approximate Property Location 4wrd W 1 181 rtnsllAwY to O 1 • Wood Stork Colony (USFWS 2019) "� r Wood Stork Core Foraging Area (USFWS 2014) E JSOr SI Fir caw CIL ition Aq ■i1 ar r Caracara Nest Sites i USACE 20181 ® Eagle Nest Locations (Florida Audubon Society. 2024) O • Manatee Mortality (FFWCC, 2020) • Nesting Shorebad Observation (FFWCC 2019) • Wading Bird Rookeries (FFWCC. 1999) rr Least Tern Observation tFFWCC. 2014) ® Scrub Jay Territories (USFWS. 1993) r Scrub Jay Natural Communities (Volusia. 2010) ©� Y Landcover with Florida Scrub Jays (Volusra 2010) USFWS Threatened & Endangered Species Critical Habitat 2024 0 ® West Indian Manatee Critical Habitat (USFWS, 1976) C� Note: Project located within the following areas Crested Caracara Consultation Area (USFWS. 2020) Everglade Snail Kite Consultation Area (USFWS. 20031 C13'1:k7 Scrub Jay Consultation Area (USF)NS. 2003) Scale: 1 inch = t mile I N SPECIES MAP Date: 6.212025 1 FIGURE C , photo Dale N A I MAYFAIR PD Project No. W16902 I� SECTION 30. TOWNSHIP 19 SOUTH. RANGE 31 EAST 4 Biologist: AED GIS: ERR I SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA APPENDIX B Photographs Preliminary Ecological Assessment Report Mayfair PD Seminole County, Florida Approx. Property Boundary *0 Approximate Photograph Location and Direction Refer to Exhibits 62-65 11 2 . Qt� FLUCFCS Code FLUCFCS Classification Approx. Acreage Percent of Site 145 Tourist Services 5.54 9 814 Roads and Highways 0.30 5.140% :.r., Florida Land Use. Cover and Forms Classificatjon System (FDOT.1999) Scalei inch = 106 feet N PHOTOGRAPH LOCATION MAP C I Date.6231202s I __ —_----------__—__-_----------___-- EXHIBIT Photo Date 2023 I MAYFAIR PD B1 Project No. W16902 -�� SECTION 30, TOWNSHIP 19 SOUTH, RANGE 31 EAST Biologist: AEC) GIS: ERR SEMINOLE COUNTY. FLORIDA Photograph #1A- Facing East Photograph #1B - Facing North Photograph #1 C - Facing South Photograph #2A - Facing North Scale. NA Date. 6l21'2025 Photo Date April 2025 Project No. W16902 Biologist: AED GIS: ERR Photograph #10 - Facing West Photograph #26 - Facing Northwest Refer to Exhibit B1 for photograph location. PHOTOGRAPHS MAYFAIR PD EXHIBIT SECTION 30, TOWNSHIP 19 SOUTH, RANGE 31 EAST B2 SEMINOLE COUNTY. FLORIDA Photograph #2C - Facing Southeast Photograph #3A - Facing Northeast Photograph #3C - Facing Southwest Photograph #2D - Facing West Photograph #3B - Facing South Photograph #3D - Facing West Refer to Exhibit 61 for photograph location. Scale: NA I PHOTOGRAPHS ate. 6;23,2025 C MAYFAIR PO EXHIBIT , Photo Date A2025 I B3 Project No w16ts9o2 � SECTION 30, TOWNSHIP 19 SOUTH, RANGE 31 EAST Biologist:AED GIS: ERR I SEMINOLE COUNTY. FLORIDA Photograph #4A - Facing East Photograph #4C - Facing South Photograph #5A - Facing East Photograph #41B - Facing North Photograph #4D - Facing West Photograph #56 - Facing Northwest Refer to Exhibit B1 for photograph location. Scale- NIA I PHOTOGRAPHS C Date: DaApF MAYFAIR PD No. AprEXHIBIT Date Photo il2025 B4 Project No. w16902 SECTION 30, TOWNSHIP 19 SOUTH, RANGE 31 EAST Biologist: AED GI& ERR SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA Photograph #5C - Facing South Photograph #6A - Facing East Photograph #6C - Facing Northeast Photograph #5D - Facing Southeast Photograph #615 - Facing North Photograph 96D - Facing Southwest Refer to Exhibit 61 for photograph location. Scale NA I PHOTOGRAPHS C I Date. 6 a!e A 5 MAYFAIR PD EXHIBIT Photo Date pm 2025 Project No. W16902 02 I SECTION 30 TOWNSHIP 19 SOUTH, RANGE 31 EAST B5 Bio!og,scAED GiS ERR 1 SEMINOLE COUNTY. FLORIDA BECHTOL ENGINEERING AND TESTING, inc. April 1, 2025 BET Project No. G25090 TO: Ms. Alma Osorio World Olivet Assembly 513 South Park Avenue Sanford, Florida 32771 RE: Limited Geotechnical Study Mayfair PUD Rezone 1000 East 1" Street Sanford, Seminole County, Florida Dear Ms. Osorio: As requested, Bechtol Engineering and Testing, Inc. (BET) has completed a limited geotechnical study relative to the proposed construction of a paved parking lot at the above referenced site. The purpose of BET's limited study was to evaluate the shallow subsurface soil and groundwater characteristics within the new parking and drive areas, and based on these characteristics, to render opinions as to the overall site subsurface conditions and the materials' potential reaction to proposed construction activities. The following report summarizes BET's findings and evaluations, and provides appropriate earthwork and pavement section related recommendations. 1.0 PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION Proposed development would include construction of new parking/drive areas to the east, south, and northwest of the existing building. Anticipated pavement section consists of asphaltic concrete surface course over limerock or crushed concrete base and stabilized subgrade, or Portland Cement concrete over stabilized subgrade. Finished pavement grades were not known at the time of this report. Design vehicle loadings and frequencies were not known at the time of this report, but traffic is anticipated to consist mostly of light -duty cars, pick-up trucks and vans, and occasional heavy-duty delivery, garbage and fire trucks. 2.0 FIELD STUDY BET's field study, completed on March 171h, 2025, consisted of advancing twelve (12) auger borings within the probable parking/drive areas, each to an approximate depth of 8 feet below the existing ground surface. Approximate locations of the test borings are shown on the Boring Location Plan presented on Sheet Al in Appendix A. Encountered subsurface conditions are presented in the form of Soil Profiles, along with corresponding Soil and Symbol Legend, shown on Sheet A2. CONSULTING GEOTECHNICAL, ENVIRONMENTAL, AND MATERIALS TESTING ENGINEERS 605 West New York Avenue, Suite A • DeLand, FL 32720-5243 • Telephone (386) 734-8444 FAX (386) 734-8541 Limited Geotechnical Study - Mayfair PUD Rezone, 1000 East 1' Street, Sanford, Seminole County, Florida BET Project No. G25090 G25090 Limited Geotechnical Study Repoilmpd 3.0 ENCOUNTERED SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 3.1 Soil Conditions In general, the borings encountered between 6 to 36 inches of surficial deposits comprised of dark gray -brown to gray -brown and dark brown slightly silty fine sands, some with trace roots (Stratum 1). Underlying soils consisted of light gray to gray and light brown fine sands (Stratum 2), dark gray -brown to gray -brown and gray slightly silty fine sands (Stratum 3), and/or dark brown to brown slightly silty to silty fine sands (Stratum 4), extending to depths ranging from 4.5 to 8.0 feet below the existing ground surface. Borings AB-10 and AB-12 encountered between 2 to 6 feet of surficial Stratum 2 deposits. Additionally, boring AB-10 encountered an intermittent layer of Stratum 4 soils within the Stratum 2 soils at an approximate depth of 2 feet below the existing ground surface and approximately 4 inches in thickness. Underlying soils to the boring termination depths consisted of light gray to gray and gray -brown slightly clayey to clayey sand (Stratum 6). BET notes boring AB-12 encountered gray silty clay, with trace gray fine sands (Stratum 5) beneath the Stratum 2 soils, extending to an approximate depth of 7 feet below the existing ground surface. For a more in-depth soil stratification, please refer to the Soil Profiles presented on Sheet A2 in Appendix A. 3.2 Groundwater Conditions Groundwater level, as measured at the boring locations, was encountered at depths ranging from 3.2 to 6.7 feet below the ground surface at the time of drilling. In reference to approximate ground surface elevations at the boring locations shown on the online Florida Geographic Information Offices LiDAR Mapping, the corresponding groundwater elevations appeared to approximately be in the range of 2.8' to 6.1' North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD). BET notes that groundwater levels are subject to variation due to seasonal climate changes, site drainage/grading characteristics, and man -induced influences. Seasonal high groundwater levels within the project area are estimated to be approximately 18 inches above those levels encountered in the field at the time of drilling. It should be noted that the estimated seasonal high groundwater levels should be considered accurate to approximately +/- 6 inches and do not provide any assurance that groundwater levels will not exceed these estimated levels during any given year in the future. Should surface water drainage be impeded, or should rainfall intensity, quantity and duration exceed the normally anticipated quantities, groundwater levels might exceed ourseasonalhigh estimates. Furthermore, changes in the surface hydrology and subsurface drainage could have significant effects on the normal and seasonal high groundwater levels. 4,0 GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 4.1 Suitability of Encountered Soils The borings performed did not encounter any significant quantities of organic or plastic soils, buried debris, or other deleterious materials which would adversely affect pavement subgrade. Although not indicated by the soil profiles, a few inches of surficial topsoils, containing roots and/or organic matter may exist in some areas of the site in addition to old pavement sections, which should be stripped from the construction area during standard clearing and grubbing operations. Generally, the underlying subgrade soils are granular in nature, and should be suitable as pavement section subgrade, pending adequate completion of certain -2- 3 Limited Geotechnical Study - Mayfair PUD Rezone, 1000 East 1s` Street, Sanford, Seminole County, Florida BET Project No. G25090 G25090 Limited Geotechnical Study Report.wpd earthwork activities, including clearing and grubbing of vegetation and surface topsoils, removal of old pavement sections, and compaction of subgrade and structural fill soils. General Earthwork Recommendations are outlined on the attached Appendix B. 4.2 Pavement Section Recommendations The borings conducted in proposed new parking/drive areas encountered subsurface soils generally within the influence zone of traffic loading consisting of slightly silty fine sands, fine sands, and slightly silty to silty fine sands (Strata 1, 2 ,3, & 4). These soils appear to be relatively clean, stable granular materials which should be suitable for support of conventional asphalt and/or concrete pavement sections pending completion of certain earthwork activities. General Earthwork Recommendations are presented as Appendix B of this report. Pavement Section Recommendations are presented as Appendix C of this report. 4.3 Review of Final Design Criteria The evaluations and recommendations presented in this report are based partly on assumed design criteria. Final design criteria, including site grading plans and traffic loading conditions, should be reviewed by BET in order that they may evaluate the applicability of their recommendations, and provide revised or additional recommendations as may be warranted. BET appreciates the opportunity to be of service, and trusts this report is complete and sufficient for your needs. However, if you should have any questions or if BET may be of further service, please do not hesitate to call. Respectfully, Bechtoll �Engineering and Testing, Inc. if ` // Courtney Hendricks, E.I. Project Engineer Love B. Patel, P.E. Senior Geotechnical Engineer Love B. Patel. P E., State of Florida Professional Engineer, License No. 90753 This item has been digitally signed and sealed by Love B. Patel. P.E. on the date adjacent to the seal. Printed copies of this document are not considered signed and sealed, and the signature must be verified on any electronic copies G25090 Limited Geotechnical Study Report.wpd 13 PA.#-, ` �•.• �1GEN3F'•.� i No. 90753 .Q C 0 STATE OF �� •'•�CORIDp`�'• �?� 111NAL `E?C9 �. -3- APPENDIX A BORING LOCATION PLAN SOIL PROFILES SOIL & SYMBOL LEGEND LV 133HS dl VOM01.4 AlNnoo 310NIw3S '0a0ANVS SM33NI'JN30.11531 St dgtl —0NV lV H3NN0 NAN3 'Y .1.131030 NILI SNOJ 0609Z°J o aMtl HO G3y03eD 133a1S 1SL 1SV3 000 'ONI 'JNl1S31 ONV Baru/e �; 9N N .tla 3NOZ3N and 211V:IAVW ONIM33N/ON3 701HO38 . 5l/>l1C ""„rtl0o 171H 13 mae AarUS 1VOINH731039 0311WI1 v, 0 2 fi _ 1` fl�Ir''I�II-�j{I C ` �I F t IA 6AY_ ZV133HS dlmwwa.I VOMOl3'A1Nnoo310NIW3S'G8O.ANVS Stl33N19N3JNI15315 I 0609ZO w row HO MAD— I 133211S 1S L 1SV3 OOOL •ONi '9N/1S31 D' ON ' _ SZ/u/£ �" 0H NMYtla 3NOZ321 and IIIV:I"W 9NIM33NION3 701H039W 9Z/4Z/£ n , 1J 1N 19 a 3m Acn1S T/OINHO31O3o Hum z a 08 n z Lu = 1 O y m O K LL O r W N U � z= 0 z 2 2� N 0 r > 30 Z r LU ow m o� �a a° w J m� = ma ? O Wa II M. > voj 0 Y N 0 U _ Z J aid oZ ad h ova U o _ % < oz W ON QT rm O r QQLL u� WO Z Z 4 z wz m^ 3 K> N m O Z C 3S O LL 03 > 0 �> zw m� Or m� zi U OU �0 O 3 1n <> W N qa> qa qa� ¢a d K� m3 00 0�� 0 car m— wa c�W W¢ z0 J ONy J �N am U' U U 70 f7m � �OvOr'10 BElBQ®E N 7' I I 0 0 S 0° lV OQ � cn 0 0 LU J � oS2 �illl� rn > 990AVN'1333 NI NOUVA313 0 'II Iil�llill� li 99oAVN'133i NI NOIIVA313 W Q 40 7 UQ} w=S Z 90 OOI2z (3a=Z U. Oa0 Mg-4 QO 0pW JJLLWW N (� Z J a. OFH K ZO�Q Z JWZ O ZZd w�Z�R rn 00� m a W < ~- zzzg 000J Ft-ZW C) = JJSU. W W WMO 'II Iil�llill� li 99oAVN'133i NI NOIIVA313 W Q 40 7 UQ} w=S Z 90 OOI2z (3a=Z U. Oa0 Mg-4 QO 0pW JJLLWW N (� Z J a. OFH K ZO�Q Z JWZ O ZZd w�Z�R rn 00� m a W < ~- zzzg 000J Ft-ZW C) = JJSU. W W WMO APPENDIX B GENERAL EARTHWORK RECOMMENDATIONS Limited Geotechnical Study - Mayfair PUD Rezone, 1000 East 1' Street, Sanford, Seminole County, Florida BET Project No. G25090 G25090 Limted Geotechnical Study Repon.wpd APPENDIX B GENERAL EARTHWORK RECOMMENDATIONS 1.0 CLEARING/GRUBBING 1.1 The pavement areas, plus suitable margins, should be cleared and stripped of all vegetation, surface topsoils, debris and any other unsuitable/deleterious materials which may be encountered. 1.2 Tree removal should include the extraction of stumps and associated root network. 2.0 SUBGRADE SOILS COMPACTION 2.1 Exposed subgrade soils in cleared and stripped pavement areas, should be wetted as needed to achieve near -optimum soil moisture conditions, and compacted to the degree and depth recommended below. 2.2 Recommended degree of subgrade soils compaction is 95% of the material's theoretical maximum dry density, as determined by Modified Proctor Test (ASTM D-1557, AASHTO T-1 80). 2.3 Recommended depth of subgrade soils compaction in pavement areas is 1 foot below finish subgrade elevation or for each foot of compacted fill thickness, whichever is deeper. 3.0 FILL MATERIAL PLACEMENT AND COMPACTION 3.1 Fill soils utilized to raise pavement areas to desired grade should consist of clean, granular materials with less than 15% passing Number 200 U.S. Standard Sieve. 3.2 Fill soils should be spread in loose lifts not exceeding sixteen inches (16") if compacted with heavy compaction equipment and eight inches (8") if compacted with light hand operated equipment. 3.3 Each successive lift should be wetted as needed to achieve near -optimum soil moisture conditions and compacted by appropriate mechanical means to the degree recommended below. 3.4 Recommended degree of fill soils compaction is 95% of the material's theoretical maximum dry density, as determined by Modified Proctor Test (ASTM D-1557, AASHTO T-180). 4.0 COMPACTION TESTING 4.1 The recommended depth and degree of compaction for subgrade and fill soils should be verified by in -place density tests conducted in general conformance with appropriate ASTM density testing procedures. 4.2 Density tests should be conducted for each foot of compacted thickness at each test location. 4.3 Recommended minimum frequency of in -place density testing is one (1) location per: • every 500 square feet of pavement area Appropriate frequency of testing may vary depending upon construction procedures. 5.0 SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS 5.1 The earthwork contractor should be aware of nearby structures, and use vibratory compaction equipment with appropriate discretion. B-1 7 APPENDIX C PAVEMENT SECTION RECOMMENDATIONS Limited Geotechnical Study - Mayfair PUD Rezone, 1000 East 1" Street, Sanford, Seminole County, Florida BET Project No. G25090 G25090 Limited Geotechnical Study Report.wpd APPENDIX C PAVEMENT SECTION RECOMMENDATIONS 1.0 ASPHALT PAVEMENT 1.1 Surface Course Surface course should consist of a minimum of two inches (compacted thickness) in heavy-duty truck marshaling and main drive areas, and a minimum of 1.5 inches (compacted thickness) in light duty parking areas of asphalt conforming to FDOT specifications for Superpave 12.5 mm or 9.5 mm traffic level "C" asphaltic concrete. 1.2 Base Course 1.2.1 Limerock: Base course should consist of a minimum of eight inches (compacted thickness) in heavy- duty truck marshaling and main drive areas, and six inches (compacted thickness) in light duty parking areas, of limerock compacted to minimum relative compaction of 98% of the material's Modified Proctor (ASTM D-1557, AASHTO T-180) laboratory maximum dry density. If limerock base is desirable, it is recommended that lowest finish pavement grade be set a minimum of 24 inches above estimated average seasonal high groundwater level. 1.2.2 Crushed Concrete: Base course should consist of a minimum of eight inches (compacted thickness) in heavy-duty truck marshaling and main drive areas, and six inches (compacted thickness) in light duty parking areas of crushed concrete (minimum LBR 100) compacted to minimum relative compaction of 98% of the material's Modified Proctor (ASTM D-1557, AASHTO T-180) laboratory maximum dry density. 1.3 Stabilized Subgrade Subbase should consist of a minimum of eight inches (compacted thickness) in heavy-duty truck marshaling and main drive areas, and six inches (compacted thickness) in light duty parking areas, of granular fill or native soils mixed with a quantity of suitable stabilization material sufficient to achieve a minimum Limerock Bearing Ratio of 40% (LBR 40). Subbase should be compacted to minimum relative compaction of 98% of the material's Modified Proctor (ASTM D-1 557, AASHTO T-1 80) laboratory maximum dry density. 2.0 CONCRETE PAVEMENT 2.1 Surface Course Surface course should consist of a minimum of eight inches (8") in heavy-duty truck marshaling areas, and six inches (6") in light duty parking areas, of concrete with a minimum 28-day compressive strength of 4,000 pounds per square inch (psi). Construction and contraction joints should be provided in general conformance to PCA guidelines. 2.2 Stabilized Subgrade Subgrade should consist of a minimum of 12-inches (compacted thickness) of granular fill or native soils mixed with a quantity of suitable stabilization material sufficient to achieve a minimum Limerock Bearing Ratio of 30% (LBR 30). Subgrade should be compacted to minimum relative compaction of 95% of the material's Modified Proctor (ASTM 0-1557, AASHTO T-180) laboratory maximum dry density. Actual design pavement section should be determined by a licensed Civil Engineer based on design vehicle loadings and frequencies. C-1 M HYDRANT FLOW TEST REPORT PROJECT NAME World Olivet Assembly CPH JOB NO. W16901 TEST CONDUCTED BY: Martin Mitchell, Syed Haider, Evan Jackson, & Cristian Mendez CPH Consulting, LLC. (407) 322-6841 Test overseen by City of Sanford Inspector Ryan Brown DATE: 4/10/2025 TIME: 9:05 AM TEST #1: RESIDUAL HYDRANT Location E 1st Street and San Carlos Avenue Intersection, Sanford, FL 32771. Static Pressure 162 Psi Residual Pressure 155 Psi TEST HYDRANT Location E 1st Street and Lee Avenue Intersection, Sanford, FL 32771. Static Pressure Flow (GPM) 11070 Residual Pressure JAW 16901 \Civil\Reports\Hydrant Flow Test and pictures FLOW TEST # 1 PHOTOS RESIDUAL J:\W16901\Civil\Reports\Hydrant Flow Test and pictures HYDRANT FLOW TEST REPORT PROJECT NAME World Olivet Assembly CPH JOB NO. W16901 TEST CONDUCTED BY: Martin Mitchell, Syed Haider, Evan Jackson, & Cristian Mendez CPH Consulting, LLC. (407) 322-6841 Test overseen by City of Sanford Inspector Ryan Brown DATE: 4/10/2025 TIME: 9:20 AM TEST #2: RESIDUAL HYDRANT Location E 1st Street and Lee Avenue Intersection, Sanford, FL 32771. Static Pressure 162 Psi Residual Pressure 154 Psi TEST HYDRANT Location E 1st Street and San Carlos Avenue Intersection, Sanford, FL 32771. Static Pressure Flow (GPM) 11050 Residual Pressure JAW16901\Civi1\Reports\Hydrant Flow Test and pictures FLOW � TEST # 2 PHOTOS RESIDUAL JAW 16901\C ivil\Reports\H yd rant Flow Test and pictures I STATIC I twq, Ll MAY 2025 WORLD OLIVET ASSEMBLY MAYFAIR REDEVELOPMENT PARCEL # 30-19-31-507-OE00-0000 SANFORD, FLORIDA Traffic Impact Study lec Luke transportation engineering consultants L TEC NP 25-0901 Luke Transportation Engineering Consultants, Inc. WORLD OLIVET ASSEMBLY MAYFAIR REDEVELOPMENT PARCEL # 30-19-31-507-OE00-0000 SANFORD, FLORIDA Traffic Impact Study Prepared for: World Olivet Assembly 513 South Park Avenue Sanford, FL 32771 Prepared by: Luke Transportation Engineering Consultants, Inc. P.O. Box 941556 Maitland, Florida 32794-1556 May 2025 24-4501 Merritt Is/and Townhomes Tralirc Impact Study Page I i i Luke Transportation Engineering Consultants, Inc. PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that I am a registered professional engineer in the State of Florida practicing with Luke Transportation Engineering Consultants, a corporation authorized to operate as an engineering business (#EB-0007429), by the State of Florida Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Professional Engineers, and that I have prepared or approved the evaluation, findings, opinions, conclusions, or technical advice hereby reported for PROJECT: World Olivet Assembly Mayfair Redevelopment LOCATION: 1000 East 1st Street. Sanford, Florida 32771 CLIENT: World Olivet Assembly I acknowledge that the procedures and references used to develop the results contained in this report are standard to the professional practice of transportation engineering as applied through professional judgment and experience. NAME: J. Anthony Luke. P.E. P.E. NO.: 42642 * t1t2WTURO. =:0 �'. STATE OF %•fy Page I iil 25-0901 World Olivet Arse,,,"AA d pment Traffic Impact Study �inn��a Luke Transportation Engineering Consultants, Inc. TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION................................................................................................ 1 Purpose...........................................................................................................1 StudyMethodology...........................................................................................1 ExistingRoadways and Traffic Conditions....................................................... 5 StudyRoadways...............................................................................................5 StudyIntersections...........................................................................................6 Programmed Roadway Improvements................................................................6 ProposedDevelopment..................................................................................... 9 TripGeneration................................................................................................9 TripDistribution.............................................................................................10 Projected Traffic Transportation Assessment ................................................ 13 Roadway Analysis of Projected Traffic Conditions.............................................13 Intersection Analysis of Projected Traffic Conditions.........................................13 Auxiliary Turn Lanes.......................................................................................19 MultimodalAnalysis........................................................................................19 StudyConclusions........................................................................................... 20 APPENDICES................................................................................................... 21 Appendix A — Study Methodology.................................................................... 22 Appendix B — Traffic Count Data......................................................................30 Appendix C — Existing Synchro Worksheets......................................................40 Appendix D — Background & Intersection Assignment Worksheets ..................... 55 Appendix E — Projected 2026 Synchro Worksheets............................................65 Appendix F — Auxiliary Turn Lane Worksheets..................................................82 Appendix G — LYNX Route 46E........................................................................87 14-4501 Merritt rs/and Townhomes TraA%Impadstudy Page I iv Luke Transportation Engineering Consultants, Inc. FIGURES Figure1 - Site Location.............................................................................................2 Figure2 — Conceptual Site Plan..................................................................................3 Figure 3 - Existing A.M. & P.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes..........................................7 Figure 4 — Model Project Trip Distribution.................................................................11 Figure 5 — Study Intersections Directional Project Trip Distribution .............................12 Figure 6 - Projected 2026 A.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes........................................16 Figure 7 - Projected 2026 P.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes.........................................17 TABLES Table 1 — Study Impact Area Determination...............................................................4 Table 2 - Existing Study Roadways 2025 Parameters and LOS.....................................5 Table 3 — Study Intersections (2025) Existing LOS......................................................8 Table 4 - Estimated Trip Generation...........................................................................9 Table 5 — 2026 Background Traffic Calculations........................................................14 Table 6 - 2026 Study Roadway Parameters and LOS.................................................15 Table 7 - Study Intersection Projected (2026) Background LOS.................................18 Page I v 25-0901 World Olivet Assembly Mayfair Redevelopment Traffic Impact Study Luke Transportation Engineering Consultants, Inc. INTRODUCTION Purpose This study was conducted in order to assess the traffic impact of the proposed World Olivet Assembly Mayfair Redevelopment project in Sanford, Florida. The development site is located at 1000 East 11t Street, Sanford, Florida. The parcel identification number is: Parcel # 30-19-31-507-OE00-0000. Figure 1 depicts the location of the development location and the adjacent roadway network. Proposed Build -out will be 2026. The proposed redevelopment of the existing building is to provide residential units for missionary trainees who will reside on the property for periods of three (3) to six (6) months. Additionally, long-term residents and staff will also live and work on -site. The ground floor will consist of 28,000 square feet of single tenant office space to be utilized as office/training space for the staff and missionary trainees. The residential portion of the building will consist of 36 multi -family dwelling units on the upper two floors and 10 multi -family dwelling units in the annex building. Proposed access for the site will utilize the existing one-way circular enter/exit connection driveway on East 15t Street. A right -out only access driveway will be provided on San Juan Avenue. The north leg of the East 1st Street and San Carlos Avenue intersection will become an access driveway for the proposed parking lot. On -street parking is also provided on public roadway adjacent to existing development parcel. Figure 2 is the conceptual site plan showing the access connection locations and on -street parking. Study Methodology The methodology used for this study was developed to be consistent with the transportation impact study methodology guideline standards adopted by the City of Sanford. The data utilized in the study consisted of land use data provided by Project planners, traffic volume data/level of service standards obtained from the City of Sanford, Seminole County, and Florida DOT. A copy of the approved April 8, 2025, study methodology is included in Appendix A. Based upon the City of Sanford transportation study methodology the impact area will consist of collector and arterial roadways impacted by Project trips that are equal to or greater than 10% of the adopted LOS capacity of each study roadway or impacted by 500 daily Project trips. Table 1 was developed to show the Project impact area based on 10% of the adopted level of service (LOS) peak hour peak direction service volume threshold and the number of daily trips. Table 1 lists the number of lanes, the adopted LOS standard, adopted service volume, 10% threshold volume, Project trip distribution based on the CFRPM V 7 model assignment, Project trip volume for each roadway segment and a determination of significance. Based on the minimum 10% criteria or 500 daily trips threshold not being met, the study roadways will be limited to the study roadways listed in Table 1. 25-0901 World obvetAssembly Mayfair Redevelopment Traffic Impact Study Page 1 1 Luke Transportation Engineering Consultants, Inc, Page / 2 25-0901 World Olivet Assembly Mayfair Redevelopment Traffic Impact Study Luke Transportation Engineering Consultants, Inc. � oe l / m r { - 1 / 1 ~ 11 1 vl �� 1 1 /i LjV,o _ y On-stre�f F'arkin� - � O ---- 25-0901 World Olivet Assembly Mayfair Redevelopment Traffic Impact Study Page 1 3 Luke Transportation Engineering Consultants, Inc. TABLE 1 Potential Study Impact Area Determination Roadway 10% of Pro"ect Trips Pro" Trips Distribution Rg2X P.M. Pk Hour % of LOS Std 10%/>500 Si ? Segments # Of Lanes Adopted Roadwa (1) Adopted LOS From To Class LOS Cap. East Seminole Boulevard US 17-92 Sanford Ave 2L Local D 870 87.0 5.6% 23 3 0.34% No Sanford Ave N Mellonville Ave 2L Local D 870 87.0 0.0% 0 0 0.00% No East 1" Street US 17-92 Park Ave 2L Min Collector D 790 79.0 59.2% 246 27 3.42% No Park Ave Sanford Ave 2L Min Collector D 790 79.0 65.7% 273 30 3.80% No Sanford Ave Project Ent 2L Min Collector D 790 79.0 79.1% 328 36 4.56% No Project Ent N Mellonville Ave 2L Min Collector D 790 79.0 20.9% 87 10 1.27% No North Mellonville Avenue E Seminole Blvd E 1" St 2L Maj Collector D 870 87.0 0.0% 0 0 0.00% No E 1st St E 2n0 St 2L Maj Collector D 870 87.0 20.9% 87 10 1.15% No E 2nd St E 4" St 2L Maj Collector D 870 87.0 20.6% 85 9 1.03% No San Juan Avenue E Seminole Blvd E I" St 2L Local D 1 690 69.0 5.6% 23 3 0.43% 1 No (1) Roadlvay C7assilicahon and adopted LOS from GtyaJSJr*rd Comprehensive Plan. Service Volumes horn FOOT 2023 Mulbmddvl Quality/Level of Service Handbook (2) Pro)ect trips based on daily and PM peak hour peak direction total traft (w reduction for pass by) Luke Transportation Enyineedng Consukanh; Inc, 2025 Page / 4 25-0901 World Olivet Assembly Mayfair Redevelopment Traliic Impact Study Luke Transportation Engineering Consultants, Inc. Existing Roadways and Traffic Conditions The following section documents the existing traffic operation in the vicinity of the proposed World Olivet Assembly Mayfair Redevelopment project which is located in the northeast quadrant of East Ist Street and San Juan Avenue. The roadways adjacent to the site, existing traffic, and the relationship of the site to the access driveways are discussed below. The purpose of this survey was to obtain information on the physical and traffic characteristics of these facilities. Existing conditions on the study roadways are presented in Table 2. Daily traffic volumes are from the Seminole County 2024 Average Annual Daily Traffic database with the exception of East 1st Street and San Juan Avenue. The site visit and Intersection turning movement traffic counts were conducted on Thursday, April 17, 2025. See Appendix B for the intersection turning movement count summaries and FDOT seasonal adjustment factors. Because the FDOT seasonal factor was 0.96, no adjustment was applied to the collected turning movement counts. As can be seen from Table 2, all of the study roadway segments currently operate at acceptable levels of service. TABLE 2 Fmictina Study Rnadwavc Parameterc and level Of Servire Roadway Segments # Of Lanes Adopted Generalized Service Volumes Thresholds (1) Dail PM Peak Direction Peak Hour Roadway Class LOS From ITO B C D I E East Seminole Boulevard Ave US 17-92 IN Sanford Ave N Mellonville Ave 2L 2L Local Local D D Da ly Peak Daily Peak Daily 17,600 17,600 Peak Daily Peak 1,190 1,190 * * * * * s * * 870 870 24,000 24,000 East 1st Street US 17-92 Park Ave Sanford Ave Project Ent Park Ave Sanford Ave Project Ent N Mellonville Ave 2L 2L 2L 2L Min Collector Min Collector Min Collector Min Collector D D D D Daily Peak Daily Peaky 16,000 16,000 16,000 16,000 Peak Daily Peak 1,030 1,030 1,030 1,030 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * s 790 790 790 790 20,800 20,800 20,800 20,800 North Mellonville Avenue E Seminole Blvd E Ist St E 2nd St JE Ist St E 2nd St E 4th St 2L 2L 2L 2L Maj Collector Maj Collector Maj Collector Local D D D D Daily Peak Daily Peak QpiLly 17,600 17,600 17,600 Daily 13,900 Peak Daily Peak 1,190 1,190 1,190 Peak 1,080 ' * * Da;Iv * * s Peak * * * Daily * * * Peak 870 870 870 Peak 24,000 24,000 24,000 Daily San Juan Avenue E Seminole Blvd IE 1st St * * * 690 21,800 Fvictinn rnnditinnc (!)eisi I awal of Carvif a Roadway Traffic Volumes Meets AADT 2 A.M. Peak Hour 3 P.M. Peak Hour 3 Seaments Adopted From ITO Volumes LOS V/C Volumes LOS V/C Volumes LOS V/C LOS East Seminole Boulevard EB WB EB WB US 17-92 Sanford Ave 2,382 D 0.14 35 43 D 0.05 65 51 D 0.07 Yes Sanford Ave N Mellonville Ave 2,382 D 0.14 30 40 D 0.05 51 45 D 0.06 Yes East 1st Street EB WB EB WB US 17-92 Park Ave 2,530 D 0.16 69 63 D 0.09 103 125 D 0.16 Yes Park Ave Sanford Ave 2,270 D 0.14 71 64 D 0.09 98 106 D 0.13 Yes Sanford Ave Project Ent 1,990 D 0.12 73 65 D 0.09 92 87 D 0.12 Yes Project Ent N Mellonville Ave 1,920 D 0.12 35 80 D 0.10 112 61 D 0.14 Yes North Mellonville Avenue NB 58 NO �B E Seminole Blvd E Ist St 4,936 D 0.28 50 34 D 0.06 65 57 D 0.07 Yes E 1st St E 2nd St 4,936 D 0.28 123 62 D 0.14 104 147 D 0.17 Yes E 2nd St E 4th St 4,936 D 0.28 123 62 D 0.14 104 147 D 0.17 Yes San Juan Avenue NB SB NB Q E Seminole Blvd E Ist St 400 D 0.03 10 13 D 0.02 29 7 D 0.04 Yes (l) KOaaway uassmcan0n ara Aaapfea Lus nwrr uryor sanr0ro LLIM renensnr non. .Service Va(umes from FDOT 2023 Quality/Level of Service Handbook * Service wlume cannot be actmered using input value defaults. (2) 2014 AADT Seminole County Traffic Counts for East Seminole Blvt1 and ftbrth Mellonville Ave. 0.09 K for East Ist St and San Juan Ave. (3) A. M. & AM. Peak hour trafAc wlumes from LTEC 7MC traffic counts. Luke Transportation Enyineedag Consultants, lncs, 2025 25-0901 World Olivet Assembly Mayfair Redevelopment Traffic Impact study Page 1 5 Luke Transportation Engineering Consultants, Inc. Study Intersections The A.M. and P.M. peak hour directional traffic volumes were taken from Thursday, April 17, 2025, intersection turning movement traffic counts collected at the existing study intersections. Figure 3 shows the existing A.M. and P.M. peak hour traffic volumes at the study intersections. The study intersections were analyzed under existing conditions using the procedures of the Highway Capacity Manual, llt,' Edition for unsignalized intersections. This analysis used existing traffic volumes and existing geometric conditions. Table 3 includes the summary results of the existing intersection analysis. The analysis worksheets are included in Appendix C. As can be seen, all the study intersections currently operate at satisfactory levels of service with short queue lengths. cu9irammed Roadway Improvements A review of the City of Sanford and Seminole County Transportation Improvement Plan did not show any programmed roadway improvement for the adjacent study roadways. Page / 6 25-0901 World Olivet Assembly Mayfair Redevelopment Traffic Impact study Luke Transportation Engineering Consultants, Inc. + I + 7 4--3 () (� 4- 1(3) 0 (pj (°) i t 0 (0) w (s1) 38 A 1 (,q � I e2 (104) 0 (0) a e4 (100) 4(4) : Seminole ewd 2 (6) �,+, st 4 � f f--- ° (s) 131st f — ° j3) ,s, ST Q 28 (48) — 2 (9) _—A3 (16) —� " f1(,7) i , (,) fM (91) —. 3 (1) es (,oe) —. q(T) 47(4s► , 5 (12) 5 rn i 0 5 (3) 13 (4) i 0 (0) 32 ( i 78155) l) 20 40 E 2, .— 05 (85, ,et St ° (0) *--°63 (05) o (0) 72 (88) —b. ,st ST . Pto►ecl Ex t 73 t9� ,:, sr , (4) i I 0(1)0 w) � (Right-" anlyl 0 (2) l 72 8 (15) V x Y y. NF Lind: .n . • - 00 (00) . PM Traffic Volumes __ ey L AM Traffic Volumes Intersection Approach Lane Configuration • � Traffic Convol Stop Sign Al � `� U Study Intersection I S i rl . �a E )st St © �, y 1j r 1 I P , l .I rk, Lic WOA MAYFAIR REDEVELOMENT' St SANFORD, FLORIDA EXISTING A.M. & P.M. PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMESiL,-w j Figure 3 25-0901 World Olivet Assembly Mayfair Redevelopment TiaAyc Impact Study Page 1 7 Luke Transportation Engineering Consultants, Inc. TABLE 3 Study Intersections Existina (2025) Level of Service Approach / Turn Traffic Lane Lane 95tfi 9/oile Control Lane 95th %ile Lane Movement Lane Control Ir-lroln Delay s) V/C LOS Queue Delay (S) V/C LOS Queue Lent sec veh Ratio (Feet fsec/veh Ratio (Feet) 1 - East Seminole Boulevard (EB/WB) & San Juan Avenue (NB) A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour EB Thri 1 I 7.1 0.011 A 0 7.3 0.089 A 8 Right WB Left Intersection Summary 7.3 1 -A7 1 7.3 A 2 - East 1st Street EB/WB) & San Juan Avenue (NB/SB) A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Left < Free 7.4 0.002 A 0 7.5 0.009 A 0 EB Thru 1 Flow Right > Left < Free 0.0 0.000 A 0 7.5 0.005 A 0 WB Thru 1 Flow Right > NB Left Thru < 1 9.4 0.009 A 0 11.0 0.021 B 3 Ri ht > SB Left Thru < 1 9.7 0.013 A 0 9.8 0.043 A 3 Right > 3 - East 1st Street EB/WB) & San Carlos Avenue (NB/SB) A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Left < Free 0.0 0.000 A 0 0.0 0.000 A 0 EB Thru 1 Flow Right > Left < Free 0.0 0.000 A 0 7.5 0.002 A 0 WB Thru 1 Flow Ri ht > Left < 9.0 0.016 A 0 10.0 0.044 B 3 NB Thru 1 Ri ht > SB Left Thru < 1 ® 0.0 0.000 A 0 0.0 0.000 A 0 Right > 4 - East 1st Street (EB) & Mellonville Avenue (NB/SB) A.M. Peak Hour ( P.M. Peak Hour EB Left ( ® 9.0 0.051 A 0 9.4 0.131 A 13 RightNB > Left < Free 7.5 0.068 A 5 7.4 0.040Thru A 3 1 Flow SB Thru 1 Free Right > Flow 5 - East 1st Street (EB/WB) & Project Exit Only (SB) I I A.M. Peak Hour I P.M. Peak Hour EB Thru 1 Free Flow WB Thru 1 Free Flow SB I s 6 - East 1st Street (EB/WB) & Lee Avenue (NB) A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour EB Thru 1 Free Right > Flow WB I Left ree 0.0 0.000 A 0 I 0.0 0.000 A 0 Thru Flow NB Left Li>`1 ® 0.0 0.000 A 0 9.4 0.004 A 0 Right 7 - East ist Street (EB/WB) & Project Entrance Only I A.M. Peak Hour I P.M. Peak Hour Left Free EB I Thru 11 I I Flow 0.0 10.000 A 0 I 0.0 0.000 A 0 1 WB Thru 1 Free Ri ht > Flow SB 1 Enter Only Luke Transportabon Engineering Consuitvn&, Inc., 2025 Page / 8 25-0901 World Olivet Assembly Mayfair Redevelopment 71,afflc Impact Study Luke Transportation Engineering Consultants, Inc. Proposed Development The proposed redevelopment land use will consist of a total of 46 multi -family dwelling units and 28,000 square feet of single tenant office space. To determine the traffic impact of this development, an analysis of its trip generation characteristics was made. This included the determination of the increase in trips to be generated by the proposed development. Trip Generation The 11t' Edition, ITE Trip Generation Report does not have a specific land use category for a low-rise (1-3 stories) residential building with ground floor office space like they do for low-rise residential with ground floor retail space (LUC 230). Therefore, the trip generation was calculated using the ITE Trip Generation Report data for low-rise (1-3 stories) multi -family dwelling units and single tenant office space as summarized in Table 4. The total unadjusted trip generation at build -out for this development is estimated to be 736 average weekday vehicle trip ends. Of this total, 82 vehicle trip ends will occur during the A.M. peak hour, and 96 vehicle trip ends will occur during the P.M. peak hour. In order to account for on -site living/working interaction, the ratio between the ITE low- rise multi -family housing (LUC 220) and the low-rise residential with ground floor retail (LUC 230) was used to calculate the internal capture that will occur between the two proposed land uses: low-rise residential and office. Applying the estimated internal capture ratio, the total external trip generation at build -out for this development is estimated to be 415 average weekday vehicle trip ends. Of this total, 40 vehicle trip ends will occur during the A.M. peak hour with 28 trips entering and 12 trips exiting the development and 62 vehicle trip ends will occur during the P.M. peak hour with 16 trips entering and 46 trips exiting the development. TABLE 4 Land Use Size 11TE Code (2) TOD Generation Rates TralHc Volumes Dal A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour A.M. Peek !lour I P.M. Peals Noun Toth m I Eadt Total Enter Exit Dade Total Enter I EAt I Total 1 Enter I EM Multi -family (Low -Rise: 1-3 Stories 46 DU 220 / E 8.047 0.807 0.194 0.613 0.877 10.553 0.324 370 37 9 28 40 I 25 I 15 Single Tenant Office Building 28,000 SF 715 / R & E 13.070 1.616 1.438 0.178 2.002 0.300 1 1.702 366 45 40 5 1 56 , 8 48 Tob/ 736 I 82 149 33 1 96 1 33 1 63 Land Use Slze Internal Capturo (3) Dal AM Pk PM Pk Internal Ontaro Eternal Trlw (41 A.M. Pack Hour P.M. Peak Nour Daffy A.M. Peak Hour I P.M. Peak Hour Dal Toll I Enter I Fait T.. EnterI Exit I Total I Enter Exit I Total I Enter I Exit Multi -family (Low-Rise1-3 Stones) 46 DU 49.5% 56.8% 142.5% 183 21 1 5 16 17 11 6 187 16 4 I 12 23 14 9 Single Tenant Ofllce Buildin 28,000 SF 37.7% 46.7% 30.4% 138 21 16 I 5 I 17 I 6 ' 11 228 14 24 I 0 I 39 2 I 37 rota/ 43.6% 1 51.2% 13S.4% 1 -121 1 42 1 21 1 21 1 34 1 17 1 17 415 40 28 I 12 I 62 i 16 1 46 - _-2a Da�N l = 761 ' (X) - 5048, EiXer 50WEt 50% (R r = 0. 94) A.M. Ftoaklp/-7=a51-(X)-5. m,, Enw 25%ew 15%(R'. a92) P.M.FtWAdX-T=0.60-(X)- 3. 93, Enter 599WEt 41%(R'=0. 91) LMIAO L&C-Cag715 istebiay Daay: (r) = 13.07 - (X), Enter 50%/Et 50% (R' • 0.53) :Steb9y A.AtPWHix.'(r)-1.89'(X)- 767, EKN 89%/EW 11%('R'=O.84) I Htekday P.M. Flak/bV: (r)=1.,V •(X)+ 7.89, Ente- 1S%/Ef 85%(R'=0.85) tll top 9ere:anan faRwsnae nmr lr' room or lre rnp ta4lratlnlr Reparr (2)11E Lard LY-C.*AYanllev/E-FMedC E9uadan(R'e0.7S),R=AW.W rp Rate n R B E=Da/Na desk Hixr L.OUre&ft.&Vay-LLC210 NXnearrail. (3) In ~ PL•rmYa9a ESNs!A.M a PM ratio ben-m PF U,C230 and 11E LLC220 as dlri ate ed in the fit. 1M.d./ lam uu•OccnX ad wId fObk*-"N-Wtat GkWan. Low Rise W/Commudal 1 46 DU 2301 R _ 3.44 0.44 1 0.10 1 0.34 1 0.36 0.26 1 0.10 1 158 1 21 1 5 1 16 1 17 12 5 Percent charge dw tD Internal eeptaro 42.7% 1 56.8% 55.6% 1 57.1% 142.5%1 48.0% 33.3% 11 (4) TOW 7 aft lftk a rrrva 1MmW ONUe 7nps = ERbnW rqw 1.k. rr arPe Od- J&V ..+ea Co wdt-a 1-r mu 25-0901 World Olivet Assembly Mayfair Redevelopment rrafiicImpact Study Page 1 9 Luke Transportation Engineering Consultants, Inc, Trip Distribution Project trip distribution and assignment of World Olivet Assembly Mayfair Redevelopment project traffic to the study roadways and study intersections was based upon an FSUTMS CFRPM 7.0 Model 2030 assignment. The model network included all planned and programmed roadways and improvements within the impact area. The socioeconomic data was updated to reflect the proposed development in a separate traffic zone. Subsequently, a selected zone assignment was performed to determine distribution of site trips in the impact area to the area roadways. Figure 4 shows the model Project trip distribution on the model roadway segments. Using the model Project trip distribution and a review of existing travel patterns, the Project study intersections directional Project trip distribution was developed. Figure 5 presents the Project trip distribution to the study intersections utilized in the analysis. Page / 10 25-0901 World Olivet Assembly Mayfair Redevelopment TraA9c Impact Study Luke Transportation Engineering Consultants, Inc. s,qo/ SPm �olp BIVtl 27.4% 3.40/a 3.5% °\o 27.4% 29.0% Q 2.7% N 0 t\ ri N 0 R ri N 0 rl N J.4% 0.4% W 131h St c E 13th St N N C 0. o r � N .-q N `?.70/o 0.7% 0.70/, 0.2% 0.201,. W 20th St o rN N 0.90/0 o o N .90/0 2.50/a 2.7% 1.7% 3.7° o o p\° rn Q 5.2% " TN571.5-%/bco:,64.40�1/0��"�� 789-/. W Ist St �o 0 > C r D rn U; ui d 70, 0 (Y off° O' 0 N 0 C N 5 °/n 5.1 % 5.1 a/0 5.1 % 4 Celery Av 0 0 O .y 0.2% /0 3.7% 8.2% 8.2% 8.2% 2.001c 2.0% E 25th St 0 L 4 0 N 0 o\o N �0 °� V cb �` o J' N WOA MAYFAIR REDEVELOMENT SANFORD, FLORIDA CFRPM V.O 7 2030 MODEL PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION PLOT FI ure 4 25-0901 World Olivet Assembly Mayfair Redevelopment Traffic Impact Study Page 1 11 Luke Transportation Engineering Consultants, Inc. 6.5% 7.7% z I_ 42.6% 33.2% Seminole Blvd 1st SI 1 f-6' Ist51 a~ let ST 6.5 42.6% f 10 42.3% 6.3% 4 u v4i ® S Pr ExN 55.4% ► Islsr —► r 16.3% —�i tstsr IRigtect l-01xO,M +� 42.3% 4 • LEGEND - Yt 42 9% 42.996 Direct—1 4 ittTrip In OUDistribution istritrib wtlon ' T ft Control IY/Tlc 54-VStop sign Z Study Intersections �y 7 , i _ I ' � E ISt StdW aj �► +' �` tilt � n 7 I • so' 1 i 7 } _ � 1 WOA �Q� MAYFAIR REDEVELOMENT L SANFORD, FLORIDA INTERSECTION PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION ��---�.:T Figure 5 Page / 12 25-0901 World Olivet Assembly Mayfair Redevelopment TraA9c Impact Study Luke Transportation Engineering Consultants; Inc. Projected Traffic Transportation Assessment The Project trips generated by the proposed development were combined with background traffic and assigned to the study intersection. Background traffic was based upon a minimum 2% annual growth calculation or a historic annual trend growth rate (whichever yields a higher background growth result). See Appendix D for the historical traffic count Trend Growth Rate to Design Year 2026 worksheet. Table 5 presents the 2026 background Daily and Peak Hour traffic volumes. This analysis used existing traffic volumes plus growth traffic volumes and Project traffic volumes. Included in Appendix D are the projected 2026 intersection future traffic calculations by intersection movement. These worksheets include the existing traffic, background traffic, and Project trips by movement. muou r►ay #maiybsb of Proecc Lcu i r-c iL. t-widitions An analysis of the Daily and peak hour traffic conditions was conducted to determine if adequate capacity was available on each study roadway segment. Each study roadway segment was analyzed by comparing its Daily and directional peak hour volume to the available capacity of the segment as shown in Table 6. Based upon this analysis, all of the study roadway segments continue operate at acceptable levels of service. Intersection Analysis of Projected Traffic Conditions To determine the projected Level of Service provided by the study intersections to be impacted by the proposed redevelopment, a capacity analysis was conducted utilizing the procedures of the Highway Capacity Manual, 1-th Edition for the unsignalized study intersections. This analysis used projected 2026 Background traffic volumes plus projected Project traffic volumes (Figure 6 shows the projected 2026 build -out A.M. peak hour traffic volumes and Figure 7 shows the projected 2026 build -out P.M. peak hour traffic volumes) and existing geometric conditions. Printouts of the 2026 intersection analyses may be found in Appendix E. The projected intersection levels of service and delay, for each study intersection, are shown in Table 7 for total traffic (Background plus Project) conditions. As can be seen, based on projected traffic conditions (Table 7) all the study intersections will continue to operate at acceptable levels of service. 25-0901 World Olivet Assembly Mayfair Redevelopment Traffic Impact study Page 1 13 Luke Transportation Engineering Consultants, Inc. TABLE 5 2026 Background Traffic Calculation Roadway Dailv Traffic Volumes Daily 2,024 Existing (1) 20/6 Annual Growth 2 Committed Trips 3 Historical Trend (4) Total Background 5 Segments Growth Factor From ITo East Seminole Boulevard US 17-92 Isanford Ave 2,382 95 0 -82 2,477 1.04 Sanford Ave IN Mellonville Ave 2,382 95 0 -82 2,477 1.04 East i" Street US 17-92 Park Ave 2,530 101 0 -87 2,631 1.04 Park Ave Sanford Ave 2,270 91 0 -78 2,361 1.04 Sanford Ave Project Ent 1,990 80 0 -69 2,070 1.04 Project Ent N Mellonville Ave 1,920 77 0 -66 1,997 1.04 North Mellonville Avenue E Seminole Blvd E 1" St 4,936 197 0 1,364 6,300 1.28 E 1st St E 2nd St 4,936 197 0 1 1,364 6,300 1.28 E 2nd St E 4' St 4,936 197 0 1,364 6,300 1.28 San Juan Avenue E Seminole Blvd JE 0 St 400 1 16 0 111 511 1.28 2026 A.M. Peak Hour Background Traffic Calculation Roadway P.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Intersection 2025 Existing (1) 2% Annual Growth 2) Committed Trips (3) Historical Trend (4) Total Background 5) Segments Growth Factor From ITO East Seminole Boulevard EB WB EB WB EB WB EB WB EB WB EB WB US 17-92 Isanford Ave 35 43 1 1 0 0 0 0 36 44 1.03 1.02 Sanford Ave IN Mellonville Ave 30 40 1 1 0 0 0 0 31 41 1.03 1.03 East 1" Street EB WB EB WB EB WB EB WB EB WB EB WB US 17-92 Park Ave 69 63 2 1 0 0 -2 -2 71 64 1.03 1.02 Park Ave Sanford Ave 71 64 2 1 0 0 -1 -1 73 65 1.03 1.02 Sanford Ave Project Ent 73 65 2 1 0 0 -1 -1 75 66 1.03 1.02 Project Ent N Mellonville Ave 35 80 1 2 0 0 0 -1 36 82 1.03 1.03 North Mellonville Avenue NB 0 NB SB NB 56 NB SB NB SB U S@ E Seminole Blvd E 1" St 50 34 1 1 0 0 5 3 55 37 1.10 1.09 E 1st St E 2nd St 123 62 2 1 0 0 11 6 134 68 1.09 1.10 E 2nd St E 4"' St 123 62 2 1 0 0 11 6 134 68 1.09 1.10 San Juan Avenue NB 56 NB SB NB SB NB 56 NB SB NB SB E Seminole Blvd IE 1v St 10 13 1 0 0 0 1 1 I 11 14 1.10 1.08 2026 P.M. Peak Hour Background Traffic Calculation Roadway P.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Intersection 2025 Existing (1) 2% Annual Growth (2) Committed Trips 3 Historical Trend (4) Total Back round (5) Segments Growth Factor From ITo East Seminole Boulevard EB WB EB WB EB WB EB WB EB WB EB WB US 17-92 1 Sanford Ave 65 51 1 1 0 0 -1 -1 66 52 1.02 1.02 Sanford Ave IN Mellonville Ave 51 45 1 1 0 0 -1 -1 52 46 1.02 1.02 East 1" Street EB WB EB WB EB WB EB WB EB WB EB WB US 17-92 Park Ave 103 125 2 3 0 0 -3 -4 105 128 1.02 1.02 Park Ave Sanford Ave 98 106 2 2 0 0 -1 -1 100 108 1.02 1.02 Sanford Ave Project Ent 92 87 2 2 0 0 -1 .1 94 89 1.02 1.02 Project Ent N Mellonville Ave 112 61 2 1 0 0 -1 -1 114 62 1.02 1.02 North Mellonville Avenue NB SB NB SB NB SB NB SB NB SB NB SB E Seminole Blvd E in St 65 57 1 1 0 0 6 5 71 62 1.09 1.09 E 1st St E 2"d St 104 147 2 3 0 0 10 14 114 161 1.10 1.10 E 2nd St E 4"' St 104 147 2 3 0 0 10 14 114 161 1.10 1.10 San Juan Avenue NB SB NB SB NB 5B NB SB NB SB NB SB E Seminole Blvd IE I" St 1 29 7 1 0 0 0 3 1 32 8 1.10 1.14 (1) From rate 2 (2) Minimum defauR 2%Annual 6'-D) Rafe (f. 01 growM fact.,). (3) Ca -miffed traffic lean Seminole CwvY December 22, Z022 E+C Summary. (4) FW r Nsbncal irends WorAshee6 (S Year or 10 Year) 20Z6 Projection Ckowdr Factor (5) Edsfalg plus the ma omum 0f2% An%w1 f3owfh, Cbmmided or Tiads Analysis = Bdyroad bafic m om" Lode 77-8mporbfBn BNbeer69 Caerufints; 2025 Page / 14 25-0901 World Olivet Assembly Mayfair Redevelopment Traffic Impact Study Luke Transportation Engineering Consultants, Inc. TABLE 6 Proiected 2026 Studv Roadways Parameters and Level Of Service Roadway Adopted Generalized Service Volumes Thresholds (1) Roadway Class LOS Segments tf Of Daily/PM Peak Direction Peak Hour From ITo Lanes B C D E East Seminole Boulevard Daily Peak Daily Peak Daily Peak Daily Peak * * * * 870 24,000 US 17-92 Sanford Ave 2L Local D 17,600 1,190 Sanford Ave N Mellonville Ave 2L Local D * * * * 17,600 870 24,000 1,190 East 1st Street IDaily Peak Daily Peak Daily Peak Daily Peak * * * * 790 20,800 US 17-92 Park Ave 2L Min Collector D 16,000 1,030 Park Ave Sanford Ave 2L Min Collector D * * * 16,000 790 20,800 1,030 Sanford Ave Project Ent 2L Min Collector D * * * * 16,000 790 20,800 1,030 Project Ent N Mellonville Ave 2L Min Collector D * * * * 16,000 790 20,800 1,030 North Mellonville Avenue Daily Peak Dail, Peak Dail, Peak Daily Peak " * * * 870 24,000 E Seminole Blvd E 1st St 2L Maj Collector D 17,600 1,190 E 1st St E 2nd St 2L Maj Collector D * * * * 17,600 870 24,000 1,190 E 2nd St E 4th St ZL Maj Collector D * * * * 17,600 870 24,000 1,190 San Juan Avenue Daily Peak Daily Peak 21 ly Peak Daily Peak * * * * 690 21,800 E Seminole Blvd I E 1st St 2L Local D 13,900 1,080 Roadway 2026 Proiected Daily Traffic Conditions. % Meets Back round AADT Volumes 2 LOS V/C Project Traffic Total Segments Project Trips Adopted LOS From ITo Traffic LOS V/C East Seminole Boulevard US 17-92 Sanford Ave 2,477 D 0.10 23 2,500 D 0.10 0.1% Yes Sanford Ave N Mellonville Ave 2,477 D 0.10 0 2,477 D 0.10 0.0% Yes East 1st Street US 17-92 Park Ave 2,631 D 0.13 246 2,877 D 0.14 1.2% Yes Park Ave Sanford Ave 2,361 D 0.11 273 2,634 D 0.13 1.3% Yes Sanford Ave Project Ent 2,070 D 0.10 328 2,398 D 0.12 1.6% Yes Project Ent N Mellonville Ave 1,997 D 0.10 87 2,084 D 0.10 0.4% Yes North Mellonville Avenue E Seminole Blvd E 1st St 6,300 D 0.26 0 6,300 D 0.26 0.0% Yes E 1st St E 2nd St 6,300 D 0.26 87 6,387 D 0.27 0.4% Yes E 2nd St E 4th St 6,300 D 0.26 85 6,385 D 0.27 0.4% Yes San Juan Avenue E Seminole Blvd E 1st St 511 D 0.02 23 534 0 0.02 0.1% Yes Roadway 2026 A.M. Peak Hour Traffic Conditions % Meets Background Project Traffic Total Segments Project Trips Adopted LOS From IT* Traffic 2 LOS I V/C Traffic I LOS I V/C East Seminole Boulevard EB WB EB WB EB WS US 17-92 Sanford Ave 36 44 D 0.05 2 1 38 45 D 0.03 0.2% Yes Sanford Ave N Mellonville Ave 31 41 D 0.05 0 0 31 41 D 0.03 0.0% Yes East 1st Street EB WB EB WB EB WB US 17-92 Park Ave 71 64 D 0.09 17 7 88 71 D 0.09 1.7% Yes Park Ave Sanford Ave 73 65 D 0.09 18 8 91 73 D 0.09 1.7% Yes Sanford Ave Project Ent 75 66 D 0.09 22 9 97 75 0 0.09 2.1% Yes Project Ent N Mellonville Ave 36 82 D 0.10 6 3 42 85 D 0.04 0.6% Yes North Mellonville Avenue EB WB E0 WB EB WB E Seminole Blvd E 1st St 55 37 D 0.06 0 0 55 37 D 0.05 0.0% Yes E 1st St IE 2nd St 134 68 D 0.15 6 3 140 71 D 0.12 0.5% Yes E 2nd St E 4th St 134 68 D 0.15 6 2 140 70 D 0.12 0.5% Yes San Juan Avenue IEB WB fB WB EB WB E Seminole Blvd I E ist St 11 14 D 0.02 2 1 13 15 0 0.01 0.2% Yes Roadway 2026 P.M. Peak Hour Traffic Conditions % Meets Back round Traffic 2 LOS I V/C Project Traffic Total Segments Project Trips_ Adopted LOS From ITO Traffic LOS V/C East Seminole Boulevard EB WB EB WB EB WB US 17-92 Sanford Ave 66 52 D 0.08 3 1 69 53 D 0.06 0.3% Yes Sanford Ave N Mellonville Ave 52 46 D 0.06 0 0 52 46 D 0.04 0.0% Yes East 1st Street EB WB EB WB EB WB US 17-92 Park Ave 105 128 D 0.16 37 9 142 137 D 0.14 3.6% Yes Park Ave Sanford Ave 100 101 D 0.14 41 11 141 119 0 0.14 4.0% Yes Sanford Ave Project Ent 94 89 D 0.12 49 13 143 102 D 0.14 4.8% Yes Project Ent N Mellonville Ave 114 62 D 0.14 13 3 127 65 D 0.12 1.3% Yes North Mellonville Avenue EB WB EB WB EB WS E Seminole Blvd E 1st St 71 62 D 0.08 0 0 71 62 D 0.06 0.0% Yes E 1st St E 2nd St 114 161 D 0.19 13 3 127 164 D 0.11 1.1% Yes E 2nd SC E 4th St 114 161 D 0.19 13 3 127 164 D 0.11 1.1% Yes San Juan Avenue I E Seminole Blvd IE 1st St EB WB 32 8 D 0.05 EB WB 3 1 EB WB 35 9 D 0.03 0.3% Yes (1) Roaolvay Cassihcation andAdq°ted LOS from Cty o(Sanhord Comprehensive Plan. Service Volumes from FOOT 2023 Quality/Level o(Service Handbook ' Service volume cannot be achieved using irk value defaults. (1) From Table 5. Luke Transportation Engineedng Consultants, Inc, 2025 25-0901 World Olivet Assembly Mayfair Redevelopment Traffic Impact Study Page 1 15 Luke Transportation Engineering Consultants, Inc. f- 38 1 63+(5)•88 1+(1)=2 0+141=41y d �— 65+(4)49 1 4 I i �jr Seminole Blvd 2 -- se �* ist St �_ 1st ST 30 —0' e+(2) 8 63+12 7 0+(121=12 _� a 18 3 1 u 49 I t () 3 3*12)=5 8f1+(2)�8 —!` 3N(4)=37 i 5 is 1 14 �rZ 2 0+(Y)=2 78+(8)�7 0+(rl=2 7 e =10 68+(4)-72 1+(0)=1 Fad� �— W(41.72 1s,st �— 75+(18)=83 —► 70 � fstST Project EtIt (Right -out On ) 76+(16)=82--10, 1stST 0 •) tR t t • 1! nr ;j • WEEK ■T low E )st St ��6 f �)= z 01 r` . ater . J WOA MAYFAIR REDEVELOMENT SANFORD, FLORIDA PROJECTED A.M. PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES Legend: 00+(00)=00—Total Traffic Volumes L Project Traffic Volumes Background Tr3fflc Volumes ' Entering Project trips =100% Exiting Prolwlrips = 100% Intersection Approach Lane Configuration An Traffic Control v✓ Stop Sign O Study Intersection 4n F 4., .. j Figure 6 Page / 16 15-0901 World Olivet Assembly Mayfair Redevelopment Traffic Impact Study Luke Transportation Engineering Consultants, Inc. S+(2) 8 ! 3 (=4 ,y a t 0+(3-)0 53 ~ 'i► i ♦ 108+(20)=1z8 0+ 10+(4- ( n F 13 +(y)=104 e Seminole sloe s, 8 93+(7►.100 —►—► s+n)=� tst st at�h•T� 'f— * I `at ST 17� t 51 19 1 > 3 is 1+(t) 3 110+("18 - ► $ 4 -�, 7 a(1►=1 100 15 =115 +t ►- 5)�1 56+( 12+(3)=15 5 zz 3 IY N W 0+(7 )•T 7 $ 0+1 =8 � a` F 1+(1)•2 0+ 2 25+(i)-� i 0't3") 3 87+(pq•101 ist St 0+(31=3 _j4 �— +05)-110 tat ST . a ProJee Exh 1Rlghtcut Only) 94+(9)=103 tat ST 91+(13)•104 -� 2 � is Jv 4> M P _ all WOA MAYFAIR REDEVELOMENT SANFORD, FLORIDA it PROJECTED P.M. PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES Legend: Oc.01=00-Total Traffic Volumes L Project Traffic Volumes aackground Traffic Volumes Enterirq Project trips = 1004 ' Exiting Project trips • 100 Intemection Approach Lane Configuration Tra19c contra Stop Sign Study lnteisecnon 1 t y � a- Figure 7 25-0901 World Olivet Assembly Mayfair Redevelopment rraliic Impact Study Page 1 17 Luke Transportation Engineering Consultants, Inc. TABLE 7 Proiected 2026 Studv Intersections Level of Service Approach / Turn Traffic Control Lane Lane 95th %Ile Control Lane Lane 95th %Ile Movement Lane Control Delay (s) V/C LOS Queue Delay (s) V/C LOS Queue lsnati(sec/woh Ratio Feet (sec/veh Ratio (Feet) 1 -East Seminole Boulevard (EB/WB) & San Juan Avenue NB A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour EB 1 ® 7.1 0.060 A 5 I 7.3 0.094 A 8 Rhru WB 11 ® 7.3 0.067 A S I 7.4 0.067 A 5 Thru NB Left I ® 7.3 0.012 A 0 I 7.4 0.028 A 3 RigIntersection > Summary 7.2 A 1 1 7.3 A 2 - East 1st Street EB/WB & San Juan Avenue (NB/SB) A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Left < Free 7.4 0.002 A 0 7.6 0.009 A 0 EB Thru 1 Flow Right > Left < Free 7.4 0.002 A 0 7.6 0.007 A 0 WB Thru 1 Flow Right > NB Left Thru < 1 9.4 0.014 A 0 11.2 10.024 8 3 Ri ht > SB Left Thru < 1 ® 9.9 0.017 A 3 10.2 0.048 8 5 Rioht > 3 - East 1st Street EB/WB) & San Carlos Avenue (NB/SB A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Left < 7.5 0.012 A 0 7.5 0.005 A 0 EB EB] Thru 1 Flow Ri ht > Left < Free 7.5 0.001 A 0 7.5 0.002 A _ 0 WB Thru 1 Flow Ri ht > NB Left Thru < 1 9.5 0.021 A 3 10.4 0.049 8 5 Right > SB Left Thru < 1 9.5 0.013 A 0 9.8 0.041 A 3 Right > 4 - East 1st Street (EB) & Meilonville Avenue (NB/SB) A.M. Peak Hour I P.M. Peak Hour EB Leht ® I 9.0 0.058 I A 5 9.5 0.155 A 13 RjqNB > Left < Free Thru 1 Flow I 7.1 0.078 I A 8 I 7.5 0.044 A I 3 SB Thru I Right > Flow 5 - East 1st Street (EB/ W B) & Project Exit Oniv (SO) I # A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour EB Thru 1 Free Flow Ree WB Thru 1 I I Flow SB I I® 1 9.2 10.006 I A 0.021 A 0 Right > 0 9.4 6 - East 1st Street (EB/WB) & Lee Avenue NB 0 A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour ES Thru l I I Free Riaht > Flow Free Left <WB I I 7.5 10.001 I A 0 I 7.5 0.002 A 0 Thru l Row NB I ® 9.2 0.005 A 0 9.4 0.006 A I 0 Rigft ht > 7 - East 1st Street (EB/WB) & Project Entrance Only I I A.M. Peak Hour I P.M. Peak Hour EB I Left Free 7.4 0.005 I I A 0 I 7.5 0.002 A I 0 l Flow Thru WB 1 Free Right > Flow SB 1 Enter Only B - Project Exit Only (WB) & San Juan Avenue (NB/SB) I I A.M. Peak Hour I P.M. Peak Hour NB Thru 1 Free Flow SB Thru 1 Free I Flow WB Right 1 ® 8.3 I0.001 A I 0 I 8.4 0.003 I A I 0 Luke Tranrparbtlon EnglneeAny Consultants, Inc„ 2025 Page / 18 25-0901 World Olivet Assembly Mayfair Redevelopment rrafflc Impact Study Luke Transportation Engineering Consultants, Inc. Auxiliary Turn Lane An evaluation was conducted to determine if projected traffic volumes at the World Olivet Assembly Mayfair Redevelopment Project entrance on East 1st Street would meet the minimum requirements for an auxiliary eastbound left -turn lane or westbound right -turn lane. Procedures documented in the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 457were used to evaluate the need for the auxiliary turn lanes at the Project Entrance. As documented in this report, the projected A.M. and P.M. peak hour access driveway (Intersection #3 and Intersection #7) traffic volumes do not meet the recommended minimum threshold traffic volume for an auxiliary eastbound left -turn lane or westbound right -turn lane on East 1st Street. See Appendix F for the auxiliary A.M. and P.M. peak hour turn lane worksheets. Multimodal analysis The existing site has an existing sidewalk along all four boundaries of the redevelopment site. The four roadways which border the redevelopment site are all two-lane roadways with on -street parking. Existing pedestrian crosswalks are provided on all four approaches to the study intersection of East Seminole Boulevard and San Juan Avenue (Intersection #1). The intersection of East 1st Street and San Juan Avenue (Intersection #2) has pedestrian crosswalks on three approaches, northbound, southbound and westbound. The intersection of East 1st Street and Mellonville Avenue (Intersection #4) has a pedestrian crosswalk on the eastbound approach. A pedestrian crosswalk is provided on the eastbound approach for the intersection of East 1st Street and Project Exit only (Intersection #5). Currently LYNX route 46E travels along East 1st Street adjacent to the proposed World Olivet Assembly Mayfair Redevelopment Project entrance on East 15t Street. A copy of Route 46E is included in Appendix G. 25-0901 World Olivet Assembly Mayfair Redevelopment TrahSc Impact Study Page 1 19 Luke Transportation Engineering Consultants Inc. Study Conclusions This study was conducted to evaluate existing and future traffic conditions in the vicinity of the World Olivet Assembly Mayfair Redevelopment Project proposed development on East 1st Street in Sanford. The build -out of the redevelopment is expected to occur by the end of 2026. The proposed redevelopment land use will consist of a total of 46 multi -family dwelling units and 28,000 square feet of single tenant office space. The results of the study as documented herein are summarized below: • The new trips to be generated by the proposed development were estimated to be 415 daily vehicle trips, 40 A.M peak hour vehicle trips and 62 P.M. peak hour vehicle trips. • Based upon this analysis, all of the study roadway segments currently operate at acceptable levels of service. • Based upon this analysis, all of the study intersections are currently operating at an acceptable level of service. • Based upon this analysis, at build -out of the proposed redevelopment in 2026, all of the study roadway segments are projected to continue to operate at acceptable levels of service. • Based upon this analysis, at build -out of the proposed redevelopment in 2026, all of the study intersections are projected to continue to operate at acceptable levels of service. • As documented in this report, the projected A.M. and P.M. peak hour access driveway traffic volumes for Intersection #3 and Intersection #7 do not meet the recommended minimum threshold traffic volume for an auxiliary eastbound left - turn turn lane or westbound right -turn lane on East 1st Street. Page / 20 25-0901 World Olivet Assembly Mayfair Redevelopment Traffic Impact Study Luke Transportation Engineering Consultants, Inc. APPENDICES 25-0901 World Olivet Assembly Mayfair Redevelopment Traffic Impact study Page 1 21 Luke Transportation Engineering Consultants, Inc. Appendix A — Study Methodology Page / 22 15-0901 World Olivet Assembly Mayfair Redevelopment Tra/iic Impact Study Luke Transportation Engineering Consultants, Inc. MEMORANDUM TO: Eileen Hinson, AICP, Planning Director via: Eileen. Hi nson0)Sanfordfl.gov FROM: Joseph T. Roviaro DATE: April 8, 2025 RE: Mayfair Building Redevelopment, Sanford, Florida Traffic Impact Analysis Methodology (LTEC N° 25-0901) The following is an outline of the traffic impact analysis methodology for the proposed Mayfair Building Redevelopment in Sanford, Florida. The development site is located at 1000 East 151 Street, Sanford, Florida, 32771. The parcel identification number is: o Parcel # 30-19-31-507-OE00-0000. The project site location and the surrounding area are shown in Figure 1. 1. Proposed Development The proposed redevelopment of the existing building is to provide residential units for missionary trainees who will reside on the property for periods of three (3) to six (6) months. Additionally, long-term residents and staff will also live and work on -site. The ground floor will consist of the office/training space for the staff and missionary trainees. The residential portion of the building will consist of 46 multi- family dwelling units on the upper two floors. The ground floor will consist of 28,000 square feet of single tenant office space. The Project build -out is projected by the end of 2027. 2. Site Access Current access for the site is a one-way circular enter/exit connection driveway onto East 1st Street. Two access driveways are also located on San Juan Avenue. ON -street parking is provided on all four sides of the existing redevelopment parcel. Figure 2 is an aerial of the site showing the access connection locations and on -street parking. 3. Trip Generation The 1111Edition, lTE Trip Generation Report does not have a specific land use category for a low-rise (1-3 stories) residential building with ground floor office space like they do for low-rise residential with ground floor retail space (LUC 230). ;5-oWlr Jfuy��ir B,&I q R.dm k1,,, e 1 TG.IfAhu l Lyy Apnl B. a 25 Page 1 of 7 25-0901 World Olivet Assembly Mayfair Redevelopment TraArc Impact Study Page 1 23 Luke Transportation Engineering Consultants, Inc, Luke Transportation Engineering Consultants Therefore, the trip generation was calculated using the ITE Trip Generation Reportdata for low-rise (1-3 stories) multi -family dwelling units and single tenant office space as summarized in Table 1. The total unadjusted trip generation at build -out for this development is estimated to be 736 average weekday vehicle trip ends. Of this total, 82 vehicle trip ends will occur during the A.M. peak hour and 96 vehicle trip ends will occur during the P.M. peak hour. In order to account for on -site living/working interaction, the ratio between the ITE low-rise multi -family housing (LUC 220) and the low-rise residential with ground floor retail (LUC 230) was used to calculate the internal capture that will occur between the two proposed land uses: low-rise residential and office. Applying the estimated internal capture ratio, The total external trip generation at build -out for this development is estimated to be 415 average weekday vehicle trip ends. Of this total, 40 vehicle trip ends will occur during the A.M. peak hour with 28 trips entering and 12 trips exiting the development and 62 vehicle trip ends will occur during the P.M. peak hour with 16 trips entering and 46 trips exiting the development. Based on the estimated traffic volume, the analysis will analyze the roadways and the study intersections for both the A.M. and P.M. peak hours. 4. Trip Distribution/Assignment Project trip distribution for the Marquette Avenue Mixed -Use Development site will be based on a 2030 Cost Feasible CFRPM V 7 model assignment and the observed turning movement patterns at the adjacent intersections. A plot of the model Project trip distribution is shown in Figure 3. S. Study Roadways and Study Intersections Based upon the City of Sanford transportation study methodology the impact area will consist of collector and arterial roadways impacted by Project trips that are equal to or greater than 10% of the adopted LOS capacity of the study roadway or impacted by 500 daily Project trips. Table 2 was developed to show the Project impact area based on 10% of the adopted level of service (LOS) peak hour peak direction service volume threshold and the number of daily trips. Table 2 lists the roads adjacent to the study site and within the potential impact area. This table also lists the number of lanes, the adopted LOS standard, adopted service volume, 10% threshold volume, Project trip distribution based on the above CFRPM V 7 model assignment, Project trip volume for each roadway segment and a determination of significance. Based on the minimum 10% criteria or 500 daily trips threshold and the proposed Project trip distribution, the study roadways will be as follows: • East Seminole Boulevard, • East 15C Street, • North Mellonville Avenue, and • San Juan Avenue. '5 &X)i Af.gj r BwWiny RnIe h,➢ ne TLl.Vufhod.&yy i,ml H. -2,s Page 2 of 7 Page / 24 25-0901 World Olivet Assembly Mayfair Redevelopment Traffic Impact Study Luke Transportation Engineering Consultants, Inc. Luke Transportation Engineering Consultants A.M. and P.M. peak hour turning movement traffic counts will be conducted at the following intersections: • East Seminole Boulevard and San Juan Avenue (Intersection #1), • East 11�1 Street and San Juan Avenue (Intersection #2), • East F Street and San Carlos Avenue (Intersection #3), • East 1st Street and North Mellonville Avenue (Intersection #4), and • East 15t Street and Lee Avenue/Project Entrance (Intersection #5). 6. Trip Distribution/Assignment • Assessments for the Existing (2025) condition and Project's build -out (2027) condition will be provided. • Background traffic will be based upon a 2% annual growth calculation or a historic annual trend growth rate (whichever yields a higher background growth result). At a minimum, the annual growth rate shall be 2%. • Combine project traffic with background traffic to obtain total traffic flows. Project traffic assignment for the study roadways will be provided for the A.M. and P.M. peak hours. • Intersection analysis to be performed using Synchro 12 software applying the Edition Highway Capacity Manua/ intersection analysis procedures for the A.M. and P.M. peak hours for all study intersections. • Analysis will include an assessment of the need for auxiliary turn lanes at the Project entrances, • An evaluation of alternative modes available within the study area will be included. 7. Traffic Report Prepare traffic report summarizing study procedures, analyses and recommendations per the City of Sanford traffic impact analysis procedures. A signed and sealed pdf copy of the completed traffic study will be submitted to the City. Subject to the City staffs approval of this proposed methodology, the analysis will be initiated. Please contact our office if you have any questions or comments. CC: J. Anthony Luke, PE via: tonv@Itec-fl.com Prince Bates, P.E., CFM via: Prince.BatesClaSanfordfl.gov Michael Cash via: MichaQLcash(a Sanfordfl.gov :s-a f Sf.yfa Bwtdiny R,ke L,; I—TLS A[,thl d,,kVy AP11 B. ami Page 3 of 7 25-0901 World Olivet Assembly Mayfair Redevelopment TraHrC Impact Study Page 1 25 Luke Transportation Engineering Consultants, Inc. Luke Transportation Engineering Consultants TAUg 1 1.8_t.d Trin Crndratlee (11 rrb 6rr4sllen kale TrerMr Va land a. Rl Slew CaM 2 /JI. OdM � Tafi fYY iEll•r Meer Ix ndYY Ibe I Celt Telly' S4IIer � l4R � 0!IIB•• Rx folk Mew B.M.Iuk MRv Tedl Ble" : [dt I Tad MYr I atlt 1W 1-1, (L- PUW 1-3 4nk 1 46 Du 220 / E BAI7 � 0.801 I O.194 I0.617 I0.87I 0.551 03M I70 37 9 79 tl 26 IS Singh Ta"M ow. 26,000 SF 715 R 6 E 13.070 1.616 1.4.1 0.178 2.002 0.300 11.702 MG 1 45 10 5 56 6 48 Wks- r nov lid - Az a► 1 22 x u 1!rMrW 3 1nWIrYlr r.. W-01 kx MaeY Moor Mx MY Nay Ax RBY Howo.M. vat rber land urn and Doi dN R 'r4 fY TwtY Aron edt - bran 6a TMM eFnr 7'Tad Br!Yr eRll MtdbAnIly(Law4Yz: 1-3 SlnMsl 46 WI 49.5% 1 568% 1 42.9% 183 121 5 16 17 11 6 187 16 4 12 I 7] N 9 -0111Q 28,= Sf 1371% 70A% 138 2l I 16 5 11 6 11 1.24 24 0 39 2 77 k0WQ46.7% 7bf / i ♦ Lf% I S111Y iSIN 711 I ♦7i Il 1 11 1]d 17 11 = .15 1 w 1/ 1 12 N !I If blY. 1. ).61 •(XI -56Y aEa.111 lOMr(R .C9r1 YN'M'all'!1/•L1f0)•:Y/. ElY10iT IDIY (I'. LLS1/ aAMr-R2k FM 23yF"2yw (R•-fIDf YYpp'4/rIy1M/'(T-/N•lel..at,nr llwlR'_OJD fJl1M"- .l.Ga• N-21.2Q Fb1rVFi 41V R'.¢N1 MYIwwrRM 2MMr(>7•I.)2 •'XI+)d4 fM"11%Iir 6M Pr'• am !» ••ice .aryma apyn. (ll /TIadWCat Nr!tle.: f.IRkVGrr (pnfol(R' r 037.R •4,e.T I"R1ruR d[.11e►a rrF/ae. l2N W l!bepwY' ILCLb-M/4v ram' (l/ 14rr•i lt•IVapylrwaJ[ R fM. nloke�w rrl1 K')AroP112SJA,wesabwTirne!wv. 2V�di Wuemm/se.dWulroldwaiewul!rr!uloYln Luw - WlCamMOa1 46 W I 730 / 0. 3- 1 0 44 1 0.10 l a m I O_l6 : O l'6 O.10 '13 1 21 5 1 16 1 17 Murk-ft- dw to InbrnM raeeew t 417% 168% 55.6% l 57.1% 42-9% 48.0%1 33.3% 1 (4)raw MF wm.s� orwtits+l•,• --r ram. ter ArIfrRladW bP*W*v LIYVwbnf♦ br. AM TABLE 2 Potential Study Imtlad Area Determination Roadway 1 SO% or Trim Proluct Trim 5"nuutts Of Adopted. R�jwd-y(1) Adopted - ------ P.M. %ol 10%1>500 From ,TO is lanes Chun - LOS LOS DWzftUm I OWN Pk "our LOS Std 7 East Se"nole Boulevard US 17.92 ;Sanford Ave 2L Lora1 D 870 67.0 5.6% 23 3 0.34% NO Sanford Ave iN Mellonville Ave 21. Local D 870 87.0 0.0% 0 0 0.D0% No East 1" Street US 17-92 PPark Ave 21. Mir'Collector D 790 79.0 59.2% 246 37 4.68% No Park Ave ISanftvd Ave 2L Min Collector D 790 79.0 65.7% 273 41 5.19% 1 No Sanford Ave 'Project Ent 21. Min Collector D 790 79.0 79.1% 328 49 6.20% 1 No Project Ent iN MellorlvBe Ave 2L Min Collector + D 790 79.0 20.9% 87 13 1.65% 1 No Nortfi Mellomr818 Avenue E Seminole Bivd E I♦ St 21. Maj Collector D 670 87.0 0.0% 0 0 0.00% No E ISt St ';.E 2" St 21. Ma) Collector D 970 87.0 20.9% 87 13 1.49% No E 2nd St IE 4" St 21. Mal Collector D 870 87.0 20.6% 65 13 1.49% No San Juan Avenue _ E Seminole Blvd E !v St 21. Local D 190 69.0 5.6% 23 3 0.43% No 11) ROalwal CMVFfi bMandAd4%VdU hd C4yafSIWOCWVYIX/ WPW Sake 12a111rs hpn PD07a7236k11haXlu W1Mt'/lne/dSnnir/MCGaat. Luke )l.7^7- Wff-Orykres7ny CLodrlbn0i br- 70H �5-0901 Mwpuir BWfduly ftvde-Gryr!-TLl.V d,cd,,kWy Arn16, 'n125 Page 4 of 7 Page / 26 15-0901 World Olivet Assembly Mayfair Redevelopment Traffic Impact study Luke Transportation Engineering Consuitanis, Inc. Luke Transportation Engineering Consultants ,fawn, 3f.mwr 8.1&.y R d—i, P—, ru -kf t&.kbVY AP61 H. —, Page 5 of 7 25-0901 World Olivet Assembly Mayfair Redevelopment Traffic Impact Study Page 1 27 Luke Transportation Engineering Consuitanls, Inc. Luke Transportation Engineering Consultants :-JyOi ]luytair B.Lh.y R,&—h,�t M Arah,,&nLWy .,MI 8, -25 Page 6 of 7 Page / 28 25-0901 World Olivet Assembly Mayfair Redevelopment Traffic Impact Study Luke Transportation Engineering Consultants, Inc. Luke Transportation Engineering Consultants 3. 4"-c 3.5"-c 27 air, 29.0 C 2 O n fr1 6 N � i 0 3*2Pv i IT N `bo,.• 0 9011. � M � ry J.40J0 0.4% 0 131h St g4 E 13th St ry r �O � C y G Q 0` 1r ry 0.7% 0.2% 0.2% 0. 2*1 0.2% 0.2% rr 20th St E 20we st J N N C N a' a o � N 1.9% 2.5% 2.7% 1.7% 3.7%. 3.7% 8.2% 8.2% 8 � 01' O P O N Q 2� o� N WOA MAYHELD REDEVELOMENT U, SANFORD, howm CFRPM V.o 7 2030 Moot, PHo/tcf TRIP DIsrH!8U[!0v Pr_or ..400)i Af.gf—B.U.,O Rd,—1 p,,,-177A.41,dw cduyq April H. Pn.S —' 1 2.0% 1 ;Figure, 3 Page 7 of 7 25-0901 World Olivet assembly Mayfair Redevelopment Traffic Impact Study Page 1 29 Luke Transportation Engineering Consultants, Inc. Appendix B — Traffic Count Data Page / 30 15-0901 World Olivet Assembly Mayfair Redevelopment Traffic Impact Study Luke Transportation Engineering Consultants, Inc. Summary of Vehicle Movements Luke Transportation Engineering Consultants Project: World OUver/Mayfair Mixed -Use LrEC LTEC N/S Road: San Juan Ave Observer: LTEC E/WRoad; Seminole Blvd Weather: Clear Dalc iThursday, April 17. 2025 Rd Condition: Ok Cky:'Sanlord Signal: No Latitude: 28-4e145.14'N County:) Seminole Major St Msreeee c Noth/South to iglalse: 81.15.30.42W FDOT SF:; 1.00 PMPk Hr Factor: 0.78 Station F. 1 SeasonatLy Adjusted A.M. Peak Hour Turning Movement Summary - 07:15 - 06:15 I tD +01w0i 0.000 1 Speed: 25 MPH D ? 1 0 0 L 0 1 0 STOP L WE 5eminale Blvd 0.551 0.000 � 0 0 35 29 30 6 t STOP T D Speed: 25 MPH StOP 0 5 0 1 0.000 0.571 EA; Seminole Blvd 8 - - s _ i — I Q NL San luanAve Pff I 0.000 0.571 Speed: 25 MPH 0.68 0.000 Seaiena4tjr Adjusted P.M. Peals tiour Turnjn_e Movement Summary -16:46.17:45 D T oolwo! 0,000 Speed: 25 MPH p T 0 0 1 0 1 a 1 STOP L WR.Seminole Bird 0.560 0.000 � 51 i � D 39 I 45 0 11 65 46 gegrr rl a S1 17 tte+ s'1 t p STOP ., I D Speed: 25 MPH i STOP 1 0 1 12 0 3 1 0.000 0.531 ES: Seminole 81rd 23 a 15 I D UL San Juan Ave RHE I 0.000 0,605 Speed: 25 MPH 0.78 0.000 Peak Ban Juan Ave Seminole Blvd Seminole Blvd Hour Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Tlmelmerval Uturn Lt Thru Rt Utum Lt ThN IR Ym Lt _ ThrU Rt Uturn Lt Thru Rt e Lanes i 1 Length 7:00 7:15 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 6 1 0 1 8 0 7:15 7:30 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 1 0 0 8 0 7:30 7:45 0 I 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 3 0 0 8 0 7:45 8:00 0 I 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 1 9 0 Hourly Sum D a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 5 0 2 33 0 8:00 8: 15 0 1 0 1 a 0 0 0 0 0 5 2 0 1 13 0 8:15 8:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 0 1 9 0 8:30 8:45 0 I 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 4 0 1 13 0 8:45 9:00 0 1 0 1 a 0 0 0 0 0 4 1 0 3 6 0 Hourly Sum 0 4 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 10 0 6 41 0 1600 16'15 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 9 0 2 13 0 16:15 16:30 0 I 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 4 0 0 14 0 16:30 16:45 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 5 0 1 16 0 16:45 17:00 D 4 0 D 0 0 0 a 0 0 11 6 0 5 7 0 Hourly Sum 0 1 12 j 0 1 1 0 0 0 a 0 0 45 24 0 8 50 0 17:00 17:15 0 ! 6 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 1 0 0 7 0 17:15 1730 0 2 0 1 0 0 D 0 0 0 12 3 0 0 10 0 17:30 17:45 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 7 0 1 15 0 17:45 18:00 0! 5 D 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 6 7 0 0 6 0 Hourly Sum 0 13 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 43 18 0 1 40 0 A.KPe" Now Swmuwy-8enonadyA*mftdwRhFDOTFeNerM Factor 7:15 8:15 0 5 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 6 0 2 38 0 %Turns 0 S3.3% 36.7% 0 0 1 1 82.9% 1 17.1% 1 0 1 5.0% 1 95.0% P.M. Peak How Swonwy- 3oworially Adjusted with FOOT Fecter Adjwme t Factor 18:48 17:45 0 12 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 D 48 17 0 6 39 0 %Toms D 80.0% 20.0% 0 0 73.8% 26.2% 1 0 13.3% 86.7% Luke Ta potatfw Erp wdit Comuaanb, 2025 25-0901 World Olivet Assembly Mayfair Redevelopment rraffic Impact Study Page 1 31 Luke Transportation Engineering Consultants Inc. Summary of Vehicte Movements Luke Transoortatlon Englneering Consultants Prolect:I WorldONver/Mayfair Mixed -Use tTEC LTEC N/S Road: San Juan Ave Observer. LTEC E/W Road: 1st st weether:l Clear Date: Thursday, April 17, 2025 Rd Condition:' Ok Cfty: Sanlord SlgneL' Na LetRudr. 2e•48'a1.58'k Coanty: Semfnote Major St Neeenrerr.'..west Longitude: 81.1530.62W FDOTSF: 1.00 PMPk HrFwW: 0,69 Station a: 2 Seasonally Adjusted A.M. Peak Hour Turning Movement Summary - 07:15 - 08:15 Speed: 25 MPH 0 I SB: San Juan Ave 0.571 0.000 • 8 6 Speed: 25 MPH Q I 1 3 4 0 ♦ 5503- 1st51 0.523 0.043 STOP a ` 1 4- 63 � 62 63 2 2 r - o tJ fig 62 ltt 69 no i 5 *1 t to STOP T D Speed: 25 MPH 0 1 0 3 1 3 0.032 0.523 E8: lst St a a 6 J I 0 N8: SaaJuanAve 2HE I 0.034 0.571 Speed: 25 MPH 0.78 0.034 SeasonallyAdnusled P M. Peak Hour Turnfigg Mlwemmt Summary - WAS -1 45. Speed: 25 MPH D T 511; San loan Ave 0.605 0.000 23 I IS Speed: 25 MPH Q I 16 2 1 5 1 0 * 16fIL UA.51 0.548 0.019 STOP , ` `R104 125 v � 112103 •1 9 97 3 j� t r STOP I Q Speed: 251 MPH 0 5 3 1 0.036 0.536 ES: 1st St s 9 10 I 0 N8: San Juan Ave P1fE I 0.000 0.526 Speed: 25 MPH 0.69 0.024 Peak San Jaen Ave San Juan Ave let St 1st St Hour NORn1w.und Southbound Eastbound WestbouM Time Interval Uturn j Lt Thru Rt Uturn Lt Thru Rt Uturn Lt Thru Tit Uturn It Thru Rt #lanes 1 1 < 1 1 > Length 7:00 7:15 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 7 0 0 0 11 0 7:15 7:30 0 i 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 8 1 0 ! 0 11 0 7:30 7:45 0 0 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 1 17 0 0 0 10 1 7:45 8:00 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 18 2 0 0 22 0 Hourly Sum 0 0 2 1 0 3 4 1 0 a 3 50 3 0 0 54 1 8:00 8:15 0 0 1 2 0 2 0 1 0 0 19 2 0 0 19 0 8:15 8:30 0 0 0 2 0 2 1 1 0 0 12 1 0 1 14 0 8:30 8:45 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 0 2 16 0 0 0 24 0 8:45 9:00 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 0 1 ]4 0 0 0 17 0 Hourly Sum 0 0 1 4 0 7 4 5 0 3 61 3 0 1 74 0 16:D0 16,15 0 1 1 0 0 2 5 2 0 3 18 2 0 0 21 0 16:15 16:30 0 2 0 2 0 0 4 1 1 0 4 20 0 0 0 16 0 16:30 16:45 0 0 0 1 0 2 1 1 2 0 1 14 2 0 0 12 0 16:45 17:00 0 0 1 0 0 4 1 1 6 0 3 18 1 0 0 20 1 Hourly SUM 0 3 2 3 0 8 11 11 0 11 70 5 0 0 69 1 17:00 17,15 0 3 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 2 27 1 0 4 47 2 17:15 17,30 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 4 23 0 0 1 24 0 17:30 17:45 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 7 0 0 23 1 0 0 13 0 17:45 18:00 D 0 1 0 0 1 2 3 0 2 16 2 0 2 11 0 Hourly Sum 0 5 3 1 0 2 1 3 13 0 1 8 1 89 4 0 7 95 2 A.M. Peak HlHtr Sammar - 5enottaUy ftuated with FDOT Factor Adjuamem Factor 7:15 j 8.15 I 0 0 1 3 o� 3 0 1 4 1 3 1 1 1 0 1 2 62 5 0 0 62 1 %turns I 0 50.0%50.0% 1 0 1 50.0% 1 37.5% 12.5% 1 0 1 2.9% 1 89.9% 1 7.2% 0 98.4% L6% P.M. POO Now aWmntery • taaaaealty AtWrtal with FOOT Fads A*mment Facto 16:45 17:45 0 5 3 1 0 5 2 I6 0 9 91 3 0 5 104 3 %Turns 0 55.6% 33.3% 1 11.1% 0 21.7% 1 8.7% 69.6% 0 8.7% 68.3% 2.9% 0 1 4.5% 92.9% 2,7% Luke rmnspurtatlon EngkwrkV Comulranrs 2a2S Page / 32 25-0901 World Olivet Assembly Mayfair Redevelopment Traffic Impact study Luke Transportation Engineering Consultants, Inc. Summary of Vehicle Movements Luke Transoartstlon Engineer] ng Consultants ProlectI World Oliver/May/airMixed-Use LTEC LTEC N/S Road: San Carlos Ave Obsetwr. LTEC E/WRoad: TstSt teeeerar Clear rC Date: Thursday, April 17. 2025 Ad ConaHton: Ok Chi: Sanlord Slgnot: No Latitude: 2e'4841.13-N County: Seminole Major St Movemem: East/Wesi I Longitude: 81-i524.60-W FDOT SF: I.DO PM Pk Hr Factor. 0.88 Staeon C. 3 Seasonahy, Adjusted A.M. Peak Hour Turning Movement Summary - 07:15.08:15 Speed: 25 MPH Q I SB: San Carlos Ave N/A 0.000 j 0 0 Speed: 25 MPH D T 0.542 0.038 STOP j 0 4.0 j 0 4� D 0 WL LEI st L D 1>• 66 � 64 I 6a 13 t STOP T D Speed: 25 MPH 0 1 2 0 8 0,031 0.533 E8: ist St 13 j 10 Ne: SariCAdo1Avs FR I 0.033 0.565 Speed: 25 MPH 0.69 0.033 Seasonab Adjusted P.M. Peak Hour Tumling. Movement Summary - Sa 15-17,30 Speed: 25 MPH D T SB: San Carlos Ave N/A 0.000 0 D Speed: 25 MPH 0.521 0.036 STOP � ` ♦ 0"o j 0 l.* 1NE: 1st St L ♦ 122 �[fi��103 0 112 1D8 lot» 4 �� h • ■ 1`0STOP 115 I Q Speed: 25 MPH 0 j 22 0 7 1 0.029 0.528 EB: 1st St 7 a 29 I Q NB: SaaCalloa Ave PHE I 0.000 0.806 Speed: 25 MPH 0.88 0.029 Peak San Carlos Ave San Carlos Ave last istst Hour Northbound Sorthbound Eastbound Westbound Time Interval Uturn Lt Thru An Lt Thru At Utum Lt TRru Rt Uturn Lt Thru Fit a Lanes 1 1 1 1 Length 7:00 7:15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 1 0 0 14 0 7:15 7:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 4 0 0 9 0 7:30 7:45 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 2 0 0 14 0 7:d5 8:00 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 4 0 0 18 0 Hourly Sum 0 0 0 4 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 49 11 0 0 55 0 8:00 8:15 0 2 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 3 0 0 23 0 8:15 8:30 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 1 0 0 13 0 8:30 8:45 D 2 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 1 0 0 21 0 8:45 9:00 0 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 2 0 1 18 0 Hourly Sum 0 5 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 69 7 0 1 75 0 16.00 16115 0 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 O 0 26 0 0 1 17 0 16:15 16:30 0 I 3 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 22 0 0 3 14 0 16:30 16:45 0 j 0 D 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 22 0 16:45 17:00 0 ( 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 2 0 0 24 0 Hourly Sum 0 9 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 86 2 0 4 77 0 17:00 17:15 0 14 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 1 0 0 24 0 17:15 1730 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 1 0 0 16 0 17:30 1745 D 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 18 1 0 0 12 0 17:45 18�00 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 20 0 0 0 12 0 Hourly Sum D 19 1 0 1 6 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 86 1 3 1 0 0 64 1 0 A.M. Peat Hour Summary- BenanahyAdjuated with MOT Factor Adjhsmant Factor 7:is 1 &15 1 0 1 2 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 65 13 0 0 64 0 %Turns 0 20.046 i 80.0% 0 0 83.3% j 16.7% 0 j i 300.0% j P.M. Peak Now Suagntoarlt • Soaaonally Adiwte/ wUh FDOT Fader Adju welood Fads 16:1S 17:30 0 1 22 0 1 7 1 D 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 108 1 d 0 3 1 100 0 %Turns 0 1 75.9% 1 24.1% 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 96.4% 1 3.6% 1 0 1 1 1 2.9% i 97.1% Lune rhirrsponadon EngMeerorgCamulbnts, 2US 25-0901 World Olivet Assembly Mayfair Redevelopment Traffic Impact Study Page 133 Luke Transportation Enfaineerin9 Consultants, Inc. Summary of Vehicle Movements Luke Transportation Engineering Consultants Project World OUver/Mayfair Milted -Use LTEC LTEC NISRoad: MellomlUeAve Obswwr. LTEC E/W Road: to St Weather: Clear rC Date: Thursday, April17, 2025 Ad Condition: Ok City: Sanford Signal: No LatlWdo: :e•ae'a0.96'N County: Seminole Major St Move. wr. Nonh/South Lorldhde: 81-1517.SM FOOT SF: LOU PM Pk Nr Factor. 0.90 Station F. a SeasonatLy Adjusted A.M. Peak Hour Turning Movement Summary - 07:15 - 08:15 Speed: 25 MPH 0 I SO: Metlonvil_le Ave_i 0.595 0.000 34 1 50 Speed: MPH Q I 4 30 0 D STOP WIL ORveway - 0.696 0.086 �� L o «. 32 i t T D Speed: 25 MPH STOP 0 76 47 1 0 0.000 N/A E8: 151 St 62 a 123 I 12 N8: mduonville Ave P11E I 0,026 0.665 Speed: 25 MPH 0.72 0.026 SeasonallyAdj heed P.M. Peak Hour Turnkra Movement Summary - 16:15 - t7:t5 Speed: 25 MPH D T 58: Mellonvllle Ave 0.533 0.000 57 65 Speed: MPH 0 I 6 51 0 0 STOP L N19: Driveway 0,647 0.036 4111 61 i � �. j 0 l 4 f0i � 9 1129 96 � n 0i t I Q Speed: 25 MPH STOP 0 55 I 49 0 1 0.000 N/A EB: 1st St 147 ss I Q NB_ MeltonvllltAve PHE I 0.019 0.586 SPeetl: 25 MPH 0.90 0.022 Peak MellotwlBeAve McUonvale Ave 1111 St Driveway Hour Northbound Southhound Eastbound Westbound Time Interval Uturn Lt Thru Rt Utum Lt Thru Rt L tum Lt Thru Rt Uturn Lt Thru Rt a lanes 1 1 Leng[h 7:00 7:15 0 15 8 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 7:15 7:30 0 11 8 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 7:30 7:45 0 14 8 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 7:45 &-00 0 24 15 0 0 0 9 3 0 3 0 7 0 10 0 0 Hourly Sum 0 64 39 0 0 0 20 4 0 3 0 28 0 0 0 0 _ 8:00 8:15 0 27 16 0 0 0 13 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 B:15 8:30 0 22 19 0 0 0 11 1 0 1 0 8 0 0 0 0 8:30 8:45 0 24 20 0 0 0 5 3 0 2 0 9 0 0 0 0 8:45 9:00 0 12 13 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 Hourly Sum 0 BS 68 0 0 0 33 4 0 3 0 43 0 0 0 0 16:00 1615 0 13 10 0 0 0 8 0 0 7 0 22 0 0 0 0 16:15 16:30 0 14 11 0 0 0 16 2 0 5 0 28 0 0 0 0 16:30 16:45 0 19 13 0 0 0 14 2 0 3 0 18 0 0 0 0 16:45 1700 0 13 13 0 0 0 8 1 0 5 0 18 0 0 0 0 Hourly Sum 0 59 47 0 0 0 46 5 0 20 0 86 0 0 0 0 17:00 17:15 0 9 12 0 0 0 13 1 0 3 0 32 0 0 0 0 17:15 1730 0 11 11 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 30 0 0 0 0 17:30 17:45 0 10 15 0 0 0 11 0 0 2 0 16 0 0 0 0 17:45 1840 0 8 11 0 0 0 17 2 0 1 0 16 0 1 0 0 Hourly Sum 0 38 49 0 0 0 49 3 0 6 0 94 0 1 0 0 A.M.PaakNoutSunmmv-SenwiftAdjaatedwNh FOOT FodrrAdiusmontFedor 7:15 1 8:16 0 76 47 0 0 0 30 4 0 3 0 32 0 0 0 0 %Turns 0 61.8% 38.2% 0 88.2% 11.0% 0 8.6% 91.4% 0 P.M.PeekNew AdjdateduNltiDOTFactuAytumentFedor IB:15 37:35 0 55 49 0 0 0 51 6 0 16 0 1 9fi 0 0 0 0 %Toms 0 52.9% 47.1% 0 89.S% 10.5% 0 14.3% 85.7%1 0 Whir rnnrporranan EngMecnna Cmiurfanta, 2M Page / 34 25-0901 World Olivet Assembly Mayfair Redevelopment Traffic Impact study Luke Transportation Engineering Consultants, Inc. Summary of Vehicle Movements Luke Transportation Engineering Consultants Project:. World Oliver/Mayfair Mixed -Use LTEC LTEC c N/S Road: Hotel Exit Obswve LTEC L E/W Road:lUtst weather: Clear Date: Thursday, April 17, 2025 Rd condition: Ok City. Sanlord Slgnat No Latitude: 28-48L1.55% County. Seminole Major St Meaeerarrt East/Wem Longitude: Bl'15'27.91nN FDOT SF: 1.00 PM Pk Hr Factor. 0.85 Station F. 5 Seasonally Adjusted A.M. Peak Mour Turning Movement Summary - 07:15 - 06:15 Speed: 25 MPH ♦■ D I SB: Hotel Elll ■ 1.000 0.000 1 0 Speed. 25 MPH Q I 1 ! 0 0 0 SA9 15t st 0.525 0.041 STOP j L 0 «. 0 I>1 �1�73 r 0 jy A *1 T� •D D _ t Speed: 25I MPH 0 0 0 D 0.031 0.529 E& 15t St I 0 0 I Q � - - - I 0.036 4DIV/0! 0.76 0.036 Seasonally Adjusted P.M. Peak Hour Turnft Movement Summary-1&30.17:30 Speed: 25 MPH D T 51: &td-w N/A 0,000 0 0 Speed: 25 MPH IZ ? 0.520 0.033 101 85 S70P 0 41 0 0 a yea, 0 � L � Y111: 151_St D _ 85 85 0 ', D �y r 0 D 92 92 D � s2 y Speed: 2S MPH1 0 0 0 0 1 0.035 0.520 Ell: ]stSt 0 0 0 I Q PHE I 0.000 4DN/0, 0.85 0.034 Peak hotel Exit 1st st 1st St Hour Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Timelnlerwl Uturn Lt Thm Fit Ubum Lt Thru Rt Lt Thrtr 91 Uhl" It That/ Fit r ianes r 1 t Length 7:00 7:15 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 14 0 7:15 7:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 30 0 7:30 7:45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 0 0 0 14 0 7:45 &DO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 19 0 0 0 19 0 Hourly Sum 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 56 0 0 0 57 0 8:00 8:15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 0 0 0 22 0 8:15 8:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 0 13 0 8:30 8:45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 0 0 22 0 8:45 9:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 0 0 19 0 Hourly Sum 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 71 0 0 0 76 0 16:00 16:15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 0 0 0 17 0 16:15 16:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 0 0 0 14 0 16.30 16:45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 0 0 21 0 16:45 1700 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 0 0 0 24 0 Hourly Sum 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 88 0 0 0 76 0 17:00 17:15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 0 0 0 24 0 17:15 17:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 0 0 0 16 0 17:30 17.45 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 17 0 0 0 13 0 17:45 1800 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 21 0 0 0 13 0 Hourly Sum 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 90 0 0 0 66 0 A.NLPet*"iSwrMWy-SononallyAdjwledMthFDOTFactorAd tFMa 7:16 3:16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 73 0 0 0 65 0 %Turns 0 0 100.0% D 100.0% i 0 100.D% P.M. Peak Now summary • SwwaalljrAdAded with FOOT FaUor 11,08want Fatclor IBM 17:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 D 92 1 0 0 0 85 0 %Turns 0 0 0 1 700.0% 0 100.0% Whir ir4nsWaHw Eneln-nWC—ttwts. 2025 25-0901 World Olivet Assembly Mayfair Redevelopment Traffic Impact study Page 135 Luke Transportation Engineering Consultants, Inc. Summary of Vehicle Movements Luke Traosoortatlon Engineering Consultants Prolecta World OUver/Mayfair Mixed -Use LTEC LTEC U N/S Road: lee Ave Observer. LTEC E/W Road: 1st St Weaker: Clear Date. Thursday, April 17. 2025 Ad Comiltion: Ok Chy: Sanford Signal: No Latitude: 28.4841.32'N cmmty: semrnole Major St Movement: East/West lorfilbrde: al•152740'W FDOTSF:i 1.00 PM Pk Mr Factor. 0.85 Station e: 9 SeasonaLLy Adjusted A.M. Peak Hour Turning Movement Summary - 07:15 - 08:15 Q I 1 001v/0 0.000 —� Speed. 25 MPH D T 0.529 0.041 0 0 0, 0 j SlyB: 2911 L D ♦ 65 Lt 4NO 65 65 ," o 73 , 72 y 72 a♦ t STOP T D Speed: 25 MPH 0 0 0 1 0 1 0.031 0.526 E9: ist St 1 0 I QT_ NB: Let P1tE I 0.036 1.000 Speed: 25 MPH I 0.75 0.036 seasonally Adjusted P.M. Peak Hour Tuming Movement Summary -16:30.17:30 D T QW101 0.000 Speed: 25 MPH Q D D o 0 7 15151 0.514 0.033 _ ♦ 87 ♦ L* ` 0 BS 85 a 0 92 BO 89 4 t STOP I Q Speed: 25 MPH _ 0 2 0 1 0.035 0.511 ES: 1st Sr LV 7 3 I Q NB: LseAve Pilf I 0.000 0.571 Speed: 25 MPH 0.85 0.033 Peak Lee Ave lst st lst st Hour Northbound Southlbound Eastbound Wes bound Timelnterval Ulum Lt Thru Rt Utum Lt Thtu Rt Utum Lt ThN Rt Uturn I Lt I Thru Rt a Lanes 1 1 Length 7:00 7115 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 8 0 0 0 11 1 7:15 7:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 11 0 7:30 7:45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 0 0 0 11 0 7:45 8:00 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 IB 0 0 0 24 0 Hourly Sum 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 54 0 0 0 57 1 8:00 8:15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 1 0 0 19 0 8:15 8:30 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 2 0 0 13 0 B:30 8:45 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 0 0 24 0 8:45 9:00 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 1 0 0 18 0 Hourly Sum 0 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 77 d 0 0 74 0 16:00 16:15 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 0 0 0 15 0 16:15 16:30 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 0 0 0 15 0 16:30 16:45 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 2 0 0 22 0 16:45 17:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 0 0 0 21 0 Hourly Sum 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 86 2 0 0 73 0 17:00 17:15 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 1 0 0 24 0 17:15 17:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 23 1 0 0 to 0 17:30 17.45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 23 0 0 0 14 0 17:45 111:00 0 I 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 2 13 0 Hourly Sum 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 92 2 0 2 69 0 A.M. Peek tour summary- Seasonally Adj uated vA1h FOOT factor AdjusmerM Factor 7:26 1 MIS 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 72 1 j 0 1 0 1 65 0 %Turns 0 1 0 1 0 98.6% 1 1.4% 1 0 100.0% 1 P.M. Pm* Howsummary•seaeondlyAyusWWNhFDOTFacl Factor 18:30 17:30 0 2 0 3 0 0 D 0 D 0 88 I d o 0 85 0 %Turns 1 0 66.7% 1 33.3% 0 0 1 1 95.7% 1 4.3% 1 0 j 100.0% LuArriamportation Ene wdriEContultants.1028 Page / 36 15-0901 World Olivet Assembly Mayfair Redevelopment Traffic Impact Study Luke Transportation Engineering Consultants, Inc, Summary of Vehicle Movements Luke Transportation Engineering Consultants Project:) World Oliver/Mayfair Mixed -Use LTEC LTEC N/S Road: Hotel Ent Observer. LTEC �c E/W Road: 1st St Weather: Clear Dale: Thursday, April 17, 2025 Rd Conelllon: Ok Ctty: Saniord Signal: No Laflbge: 28-4e-41.42% Cosntlr.; Seminole Mapr St Movenrrtt: East/West Lortgerde 81.1526.52•W FDOTSF:1 1.00(Note: If SF<l,detaultto 1.0) PM Pk HT Factor. 0.68 station 7 Seasonally Adjusted A.M. _ Peak Hour Turning Movement Summary - 07:15 - 08:15 Speed: MPH Q I Se: Hotel Ent t N/A 0.000 0-1 _ 0 ( Speed: 25 MPH It I D 0 0 0 1 WIL lit 5t 0.526 D.D42 STOP � Lo L D « 65 � 63 fi3 72 7Y iis� � *1� 74 0 � � STOP T O Speed: 25 MPH L 0_ f 2 0 2 0.032 0.540 a 15t St �_ O e d I p NIL New Tribes Mission Driveway M I 0.036 1.D00 Speed: 25 MPH 0.72 0.036 SeasontlyAtyusted P.M. PeakHouf Tutiil ft Movement Summery-1400-17:30 Speed: MPH 0 T SB: Hotel Ent N/A 0,000 0 0 Speed: 25 MPH p r 0 1 0 0 0 WL set 51 0.511 0.034 STOF � i L* Lo L D 4- 85 � 85 85 J 0 89 89 90 0 i STOP I Q Speed: 25 MPH 0 0 I D 1 0.035 0.514 EB: 1st St 0 01 1 I Q NH: New Trfts Mission Dfiveway P1df I 0.000 1.000 Speed: 25 MPH 0.88 0.034 Peak NeerTAaesmaslonDriveim - Hotel Ent to St Setst Hour NoRhOound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Time Interval Uturn Lt Thm At Utum Lt Thru RI Utum Lt Thru Fit Uturn Lt Thru Fit a lanes c < 1 1 > Length 7:00 715 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 14 0 7:15 7:30 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 0 to 0 7:30 7:45 0 I 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 0 13 0 7:45 8:00 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 18 0 HourlV Sum 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 56 0 0 0 55 0 __ 8:00 8:15 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 0 0 0 22 0 8:15 8:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 0 0 13 0 8:30 8:45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 16 0 0 0 22 0 a:45 9:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 D 16 0 0 0 19 0 Hourly Sum 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 75 0 0 0 76 0 16:00 16:15 0 �0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 0 0 0 15 0 16:15 16:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 0 0 0 15 0 16:30 16.45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 0 0 0 22 0 16:45 17:00 D I 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 0 0 0 21 0 Hourly Sum 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 D 87 0 0 0 73 0 17:00 17:15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 0 0 0 24 D 17:15 17:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 0 0 0 18 0 17:30 17:45 D 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 23 0 0 0 14 0 17:45 18:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 13 0 Hourly Sum 0 0 D 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 92 0 0 0 69 0 A.M. Pak How Srinnwy- Seaona4y AyusW fifth FDOT Facto A6pwnent Fedor 7:15 1 8:15 0 2 1 0 1 2 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 72 1 0 1 0 0 63 0 %Turns 0 50. D% 50.0% 0 1 1 0 1 100.0% 0 1 100.1 P.N. Pack How Suran a y • 11"sac aWrA-istad via FDOT Factor Arywrwnl Facto 16:30 17.30 0 0 1 0 I 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 89 0 1 0 0 1 85 0 %Toms 0 i 1 1100.0%10 1 1 1 1 1 1 101 1 1 100.0% 1 1 101 1 1 100.0% Luke rrompontanoo [ngarev6y Comulfanrr. sus 25-0901 World Olivet Assembly Mayfair Redevelopment TraA4c Impact Study Page 1 37 Luke Transportation Engineering Consultants, Inc. 2024 PEAK SEASON FACTOR CATEGORY REPORT - REPORT TYPE: ALL CATEGORY: 7700 SEMINOLE COUNTYWIDE MOCF: 0.96 WEEK DATES SF PSCF 1 01/01/2024 - 01/06/2024 1.02 1.06 2 01/07/2024 - 01/13/2024 1.03 1.01 3 01/14/2024 - OL/20/2024 1.04 1.08 4 01/21/2024 - 01/27/2024 1.02 1.06 5 01/28/2024 - 02/03/2024 1.00 1.04 6 02/04/2024 - 02/10/2024 0.99 1.03 7 02/11/2024 - 02/17/2024 0.97 1.31 * 8 02/18/2024 - 02/24/2024 0.97 1.01 * 9 02/25/2024 - 03/02/2024 0.97 1.01 *10 03/03/2024 - 03/09/2024 0.96 1.00 *11 03/10/2024 - 03/16/2024 0.96 1.00 *12 03/17/2024 - 03/23/2024 0.96 1.00 *13 03/24/2024 - 03/30/2024 0.96 1.00 *14 03/31/2024 - 04/06/2024 0.96 1.00 *15 04/07/2024 - 04/13/2024 0.96 1.00 *'_6 04/14/2024 - 04/20/2024 0.96 1.00 *17 04/21/2024 - 04/27/2024 0.96 1.00 *18 04/28/2024 - 05/04/2024 0.96 1.00 *19 05/05/2024 - 05/11/2024 0.97 1.01 *20 05/12/2024 - 05/18/2024 0.97 1.01 21 05/19/2024 - 05/25/2024 0.98 1.02 22 05/26/2024 - 06/01/2024 0.99 1.03 23 06/02/2024 - 06/08/2024 1.00 1.04 24 06/09/2024 - 06/15/2024 1.01 1.05 25 06/16/2024 - 06/22/2024 1.01 1.05 26 06/23/2024 - 06/29/2024 1.01 1.35 2.7 06/30/2024 - 07/06/2024 1.02 1.06 28 07/07/2024 - 07/13/2024 1.02 1.06 29 07/14/2024 - 07/20/2024 1.03 1.07 30 07/21/2024 - 07/27/2024 1.02 1.06 31 07/28/2024 - 08/03/2024 1.01 1.05 32 08/04/2024 - 08/10/2024 1.01 1.05 33 08/11/2024 - 08/17/2024 1.00 1.04 34 08/18/2024 - 08/24/2024 1.00 1.04 35 08/25/2024 - 08/31/2024 1.01 1.05 36 09/01/2024 - 09/07/2024 1.01 1.05 37 09/08/2024 - 09/14/2024 1.01 1.05 38 09/15/2024 - 09/21/2024 1.02 1.06 39 09/22/2024 - 09/28/2024 1.02 1.06 40 09/29/2024 - 10/05/2024 1.02 1.06 41 10/06/2024 - 10/12/2024 1.02 1.06 42 10/13/2024 - 10/19/2024 1.03 1.07 43 10/20/2024 - 10/26/2024 1.04 1.08 44 10/27/2024 - 11/02/2024 1.06 1.10 45 11/03/2024 - 11/09/2024 1.08 1.13 46 11/10/2024 - 11/16/2024 1.10 1.15 47 11/17/2024 - 11/23/2024 1.08 1.13 48 11/24/2024 - 11/30/2024 1.07 l.il 49 12/01/2024 - 12/07/2024 1.05 1.09 50 12/08/2024 - 12/14/2024 1.04 1.08 51 12/15/2024 - 12/21/2024 1.02 1.06 52 12/22/2024 - 12/28/2024 1.03 1.07 53 12/29/2024 - 12/31/2024 1.04 1.08 * PEAK SEASON 04-MAR-2025 16:32:53 830UPD 5_7700_PKSEASON.-XT Page / 38 25-0901 World Olivet Assembly Mayfair Redevelopment Traffic Impact Study Luke Transportation Engineerinq Consultants, Inc. 2024 PEAK SEASON FACTOR CATEGORY REPORT - REPORT TYPE: ALL CATEGORY: 7744 SEMINOLE I4 URBAN MOCF: 0.97 WEEK DATES SF PSCF 1 01/01/2024 - 01/06/2024 1.00 1.03 2 01/07/2024 01/13/2024 1.01 1.04 3 01/14/2024 - 01/20/2024 1.02 1.05 4 01/21/2024 - 01/27/2024 1.01 1.04 5 01/28/2024 - 02/03/2024 1.00 1.03 6 02/04/2024 - 02/10/2024 0.99 1.02 7 02/11/2024 - 02/17/2024 0.98 1.01 8 02/18/2024 - 02/24/2024 0.98 1.01 9 02/25/2024 - 03/02/2024 0.97 1.00 *10 03/03/2024 - 03/09/2C24 0.97 1.00 "'.1 03/10/2024 - 03/16/2024 0.96 0.99 +12 03/17/2024 - 03/23/2024 0.96 0.99 *13 03/24/2024 - 03/30/2024 0.97 1.00 *14 03/31/2024 - 04/06/2024 0.97 1.00 +15 04/07/2024 - 04/13/2024 0.97 1.00 *16 04/14/2024 - 04/20/2024 0.97 1.00 *17 04/21/2024 - 04/27/2024 0.97 1.00 *18 04/28/2024 - 05/04/2024 0.98 1.01 *19 05/05/2024 - 05/11/2024 0.96 1.01 *20 05/12/2024 - 05/18/2024 0.98 1.31 *21 05/19/2024 - 05/25/2024 0.98 1.01 22 05/26/2024 - 06/01/2024 0.99 1.02 23 06/02/2024 - 06/08/2024 0.99 1.02 24 06/09/2024 - 06/15/2024 0.99 1.02 25 06/16/2024 - 06/22/2024 0.99 1.02 26 06/23/2024 - 06/29/2024 1.00 1.03 27 06/30/2024 - 07/06/2024 1..00 1.03 28 07/07/2024 - 07/13/2024 1.00 1.03 29 07/14/2024 - 07/20/2024 1.01 1.04 30 07/21/2024 - 07/2-1/2024 1.01 1.04 31 07/28/2024 - 08/03/2024 1.01 1.04 32 08/04/2024 - 08/10/2024 1.01 1.04 33 08/11/2024 - 08/17/2024 1.01 1.04 34 08/18/2024 - 08/24/2024 1.01 1.04 35 08/25/2024 - 09/31/2024 1.02 1.05 36 09/01/2024 - 09/07/2024 1.02 1.05 37 09/08/2024 - 09/14/2024 1.02 1.05 38 09/15/2024 - 09/21/2024 1.02 1.05 39 09/22/2024 - 09/28/2024 1.03 1.06 40 09/29/2024 - 10/05/2024 1.04 1.07 41 10/06/2024 - 10/12/2024 1.04 1.07 42 10/13/2024 - 10/19/2024 1.05 1.08 43 10/20/2024 - 10/26/2024 1.05 1.08 44 10/27/2024 - 11/02/2024 1.05 1.08 45 11/03/2024 - 11/09/2024 1.05 1.08 46 11/10/2024 - 11/16/2024 1.06 1.09 47 11/17/2024 - 11/23/2024 1.05 1.08 48 11/24/2024 - 11/30/2024 1.04 1.07 49 12/01/2024 - 12/07/2024 1.02 1.05 50 12/08/2024 - 12/14/2024 1.01 1.04 51 12/15/2024 - 12/21/2024 1.00 1.03 52 12/22/2024 - 12/28/2024 1.01 1.04 53 12/29/2024 - 12/31/2024 1.02 1.05 PEAK SEASON 04-MAR-2025 16:32:53 830UPD 5_7744_PKSEASON.7-XT 25-0901 World Olivet Assembly Mayfair Redevelopment Traffic Impact Study Page 139 Luke Transportation Engineering Consultants, Inc, Appendix C — Existing Synchro Worksheets Page / 40 25-0901 World Olivet Assembly Mayfair Redevelopment Traffic Impact Study Luke Transportation Engineering Consultants, Inc. HCM 7th AWSC Existing AM 2025 1: San Juan Ave & E Seminole Blvd Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 7.3 Intersection LOS A Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations j. 4 y Traffic Vol, veh/h 29 6 38 2 5 1 Future Vol, veh/h 29 6 38 2 5 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.68 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 43 9 56 3 7 1 Number of Lanes 1 0 0 1 1 0 Approach EB WB NB Opposing Approach WB EB Opposing Lanes 1 1 0 Conflicting Approach Lett NB EB Conflicting Lanes Left 0 1 1 Conflicting Approach Righl NB WB Conflicting Lanes Right 1 0 1 HCM Control Delay. s/veh 7.1 7.5 7.3 HCM LOS A A A Lane NBLni EBLn1 WBLn1 Vol Left, % 83% 0% 95% Vol Thru, % 0% 83% 5% Vol Right, % 17% 17% 0% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 6 35 40 LT Vol 5 0 38 Through Vol 0 29 2 RT Vol 1 6 0 Lane Flow Rate 9 51 59 Geometry Grp 1 1 1 Degree of Util (X) 0.01 0.056 0.068 Departure Headway(Hd) 4.191 3.89 4.178 Convergence YIN Yes Yes Yes Cap 849 922 860 Service Time 2.24 1.908 2.191 HCM Lane VIC Ratio 0.011 0.055 0.069 HCM Control Delay, s/veh 7.3 71 7.5 HCM Lane LOS A A A HCM 95th-tile Q 0 0.2 0.2 AM Existing AM 2025 2:22 pm 05/27/2025 Synchro 11 Report JTR Pagel 25-0901 World Olivet Assembly Mayfair Redevelopment Traffic Impact Study Page 141 Luke Transportation Engineering Consultants, Inc. HCM 7th TWSC Existing AM 2025 2: San Juan Ave & E 1st St Intersection Int Delay, s/veh Movement 1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations $i + + + Traffic Vol, veh/h 2 62 5 0 62 1 0 3 3 4 3 1 Future Vol, veh/h 2 62 5 0 62 1 0 3 3 4 3 1 Conflicting Peds, #R1r 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized None None None None Storage Length Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 0 0 Grade, % 0 0 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 78 78 78 78 78 78 78 78 78 78 78 78 Heavy Vehicles, % 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 3 79 6 0 79 1 0 4 4 5 4 1 Major/Minor Maw Ma02 Minorl Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 81 0 0 86 0 0 169 169 83 167 171 80 Stage 1 88 88 80 80 Stage 2 81 81 87 91 - Cdtical Hdwy 4.14 4.13 7.13 6.53 6.23 7.12 6.52 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - 6.13 5.53 - 6.12 5.52 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - 6.13 5.53 • 6.12 5.52 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.236 2.227 3.527 4.027 3.327 3.518 4.018 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1504 1504 792 722 974 798 722 980 Stage 1 - 917 820 - 928 828 - Stage 2 - 924 826 - 921 820 Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1504 1504 786 721 974 789 721 980 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - 786 721 - 789 721 - Stage 1 916 819 928 828 Stage 2 919 826 912 818 ES WB 148 SB HCM Ctrl Dly, sly 021 0 9.38 9.68 HCM LOS A A Minor Lane/Maior Mvmt NBLnl EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLnt Capacity(vehth) 829 51 1504 780 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.009 0.002 0.013 HCM Ctrl ay (s/v) 9.4 7.4 0 0 9.7 HCM Lane LOS A A A A A HCM 95th %We Q(veh) 0 0 - - 0 - - 0 AM Existing AM 2025 2:22 pm 05/27/2025 Synchro 11 Report JTR Page 2 Paqe / 42 25-0901 World Olivet Assembly Mayfair Redevelopment Traffic Impact Study Luke Transportation Engineering Consultants, Inc. HCM 7th TWSC Existing AM 2025 3: San Carlos Ave & E 1st St Intersection Int Delay, slveh 0.6 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SST SIR Lane Configurations 4, 4, + 4 Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 65 13 0 64 0 2 0 8 0 0 0 Future Vol, vehlh 0 65 13 0 64 0 2 0 8 0 0 0 Conflicting Peds, #thr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelaed None None None None Storage Length Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 0 0 Grade, % 0 0 - 0 - 0 Peak Hour Factor 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 Heavy Vehicles, % 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 0 94 19 0 93 0 3 0 12 0 0 0 Major/Minor Mail Maior2 Minorl Mhw2 Conflicting Flow All 93 0 0 113 0 0 196 196 104 187 206 93 Stage 1 104 104 93 93 Stage 2 93 93 94 113 - Critical Hi 4.14 4.13 7.13 6.53 6.23 7.12 6.52 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - 6.13 5.53 - 6.12 5.52 - Cftai Hdwy Stg 2 6.13 5.53 - 6.12 5.52 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.236 2,227 3.527 4.027 3.327 3.518 4,018 3,318 PotCap•1 Maneuver 1489 1470 760 697 948 T74 691 964 Stage 1 - - 900 807 - 914 818 Stage 2 912 816 - 913 802 - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1489 1470 760 697 948 764 691 964 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - 760 697 - 764 691 - stage 1 900 807 914 818 Stage 2 912 816 901 802 Approach ES WB NS Se HCM Ctrl Dly, stv 0 0 9.05 0 HCM LOS A A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT ERR WBL WST WBR SBLn1 Capacity (vehth) 904 1489 1470 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0,016 - - HCM Ctrl Dly (stv) 9 0 0 0 HCM Lane LOS A A A A HCM 95th %81e Q(veh) 0 0 0 AM Existing AM 2025 222 pm 05/27/2025 Synchro 11 Report JTR Page 3 25-0901 World Olivet Assembly Mayfair Redevelopment Traffic Impact Study Page 1 43 Luke Transportation Engineering Consultants, Inc. HCM 7th TWSC Existing AM 2025 4: Mellonville Ave & E 1 st St Intersection Int Delay, s/veh Movement 4.6 EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Y 4 T* Traffic Vol, "M 3 32 76 47 30 4 Future Vol, veh/h 3 32 76 47 30 4 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channel¢ed - None None None Storage Length 0 Veh in Median Storage, tl 0 0 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 72 72 72 72 72 72 Heavy Vehicles, % 9 9 3 3 2 2 Mvmt Flow 4 44 106 65 42 6 Major/Minor Mnor2 Maiorl Maior2 Conflctng Flow All 321 44 47 0 0 Stage 1 44 Stage 2 276 - Critical Hdwy 6.49 6.29 4.13 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.49 - Cril l Hdwy Stg 2 5.49 - Follow-up Hdwy 3.581 3,381 2.227 PotCap-1 Maneuver 659 1006 1554 Stage 1 960 - - Stage 2 754 Platoon blocked, Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 612 1006 1554 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 612 - - Stage 1 893 Stage 2 754 Approach EB NB SB HCM Ctrl Dty, s/v 8.98 4.63 0 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Malor Mvmt NBL NBT EBLnt SBT 58R Capacity (veh1h) 1112 953 HCM Lane VIC Ratio 0.068 0.051 HCM Ctrt Dly (s/v) 7.5 0 9 HCM Lane LOS A A A HCM 95th %die Q(veh) 0.2 - 0.2 AM Existing AM 2025 2:22 pm 05/27/2025 Synchro 11 Report JTR Page 4 Page / 44 25-0901 World Olivet Assembly Mayfair Redevelopment Traffic Impact Study Luke Transportation Engineering Consultants, Inc. HCM 7th TWSC Existing AM 2025 5: E 1st St & Proiect Exit Only Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.1 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Y Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 73 65 0 0 1 Future Vol, vehm 0 73 65 0 0 1 Conflicting Peds, Or 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channel¢ed None None - None Storage Length 0 Veh In Median Storage, q - 0 0 0 Grade, % 0 0 - 0 - Peak Hots Factor 76 76 76 76 76 76 Heavy Vehicles. % 2 4 3 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 0 96 86 0 0 1 Maior/Minor Malorl Maior2 M1nor2 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 182 86 Stage 1 86 Stage 2 96 - Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 542 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 PotCap•1 Maneuver 0 0 808 973 Stage 1 0 0 938 Stage 2 0 0 928 Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - 808 973 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 808 - Stage 1 938 Stage 2 928 Approach ES WB SB HCM Ctri Dly, s/v 0 0 8.7 HCM LOS A lane/MaiorMvmt EBT WBTSBLn1 Capacity (veh1h) 973 HCM Lane VIC Ratio 0.001 HCM Ctl Dly (s/v) 8.7 HCM Lane LOS A HCM NM %tfle Q(veh) 0 AM Existing AM 2025 2:22 pm 05/27/2025 Synchro 11 Report JTR Page 5 25-0901 World Olivet Assembly Mayfair Redevelopment Traffic Impact Study Page 145 Luke Transportation Engineering Consultants, Inc. HCM 7th TWSC Existing AM 2025 6: Lee Ave & E 1st St Intersection Int Delay, slveh Movement 0 EST EBR WBL WBT NSL NBR Lane Configurations t' d Y Traffic Vol, vetVh 72 1 0 65 0 0 Future Vol, vehlh 72 1 0 65 0 0 Conflicting Peds, #Ihr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized None None - None Storage Length - 0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 0 0 Grade, % 0 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 75 75 75 75 75 75 Heavy Vehicles, % 4 4 3 3 4 4 Mvmt Flow 96 1 0 87 0 0 Major/Minor Maiort Ma_ior2 Minorl Conflicting Flow All 0 0 97 0 183 97 Stage 1 97 Stage 2 87 - Critk:al Hdwy 4.13 6.44 6,24 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - 5.44 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - 5.44 - Follow•up Hdwy 2.227 3.536 3.336 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1490 801 954 Stage 1 - 922 Stage 2 932 Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1490 801 954 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 801 - Stage 1 922 Stage 2 932 Approach EB WB NB HCM Ctd Dly, slv 0 0 0 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Maior Mvn NBLn1 EST EBR WBL WBT capacity (veltth) - 1490 HCM Lane V1C Ratio - HCM Ctrl Dly (s1v) 0 0 HCM Lane LOS A A HCM 95th %tile 0(veh) 0 AM Existing AM 2025 2:22 pm 05/27/2025 Synchro 11 Report JTR Page 6 Page / 46 25-0901 World Olivet Assembly Mayfair Redevelopment Traffic Impact study Luke Transportation Emineering Consultants, Inc. HCM 7th TWSC Existing AM 2025 7: E 1st St & Proiect Enter Only Intersection Int Delay, slveh Movement 0 EBL EST WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations 4 T. Y Traffic Vol, vehm 0 75 63 0 0 0 Future Vol, vehlh 0 75 63 0 0 0 Confiicting Peds, #Rtr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized None None - None Storage Length 0 Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 0 Grade, % 0 0 - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 72 72 72 72 72 72 Heavy Vehicles, % 4 4 3 3 2 2 Mvmt Flow 0 104 88 0 0 0 Major/Minor Maiorl Maio2 Mirar2 Conflicting Flow All 88 0 0 192 68 Stage 1 88 Stage 2 104 - Critical Hdwy 4.14 6.42 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - 542 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - 5.42 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.236 3.518 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1496 797 971 Stage 1 936 - Stage 2 - 9M Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1496 797 971 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - 797 - Stage 1 936 Stage 2 920 EB WB SB HCM Ctri Dly, slv 0 0 0 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major MvrtN EBL EST WBT W13R S13Ln1 Capacity (vehlh) 1496 HCM Lane VIC Ratio - HCM Ctrl Dly (sly) 0 0 HCM Lane LOS A A HCM 95th %tile 0(veh) 0 AM Existing AM 2025 2:22 pm 05/27/2025 Synchro 11 Report JTR Page 7 25-0901 World Olivet Assembly Mayfair Redevelopment Traffic Impact Study Page 1 47 Luke Transportation Enaineering Consultants, Inc, HCM 7th AWSC Existing PM 2025 1: San Juan Ave & E Seminole Blvd Intersection Intersection Delay, siveh 7.3 Intersection LOS A Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations ';11P Q M Traffic Vol, vehfi 48 17 6 39 12 3 Future Vol, vehm 48 17 6 39 12 3 Peak Hour Factor 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.78 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 62 22 8 50 15 4 Number of Lanes 1 0 0 1 1 0 Approach EB WB NB Opposing Approach WB EB Opposing Lanes 1 1 0 Conflicting Approach Left NB EB Conflicting Lanes Left 0 1 1 Conflicting Approach Right NB WB Conflicting Lanes Right 1 0 1 HCM Control Delay siveh 7,3 74 7.4 HCM LOS A A A Lane NBLnt EBLn1 WBLnt Vol Left, % BO% 0% 13% Vol Thru, % 0% 74% 87% Vol Right, % 20% 26% 0% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 15 65 45 LT Vol 12 0 6 Through Vol 0 48 39 RT Vol 3 17 0 Lane Flow Rate 19 83 58 Geometry Grp 1 1 1 Degree of Utii (X) 0.023 0.089 0.065 Departure Headway (Hd) 4.216 3.853 4.056 Convergence,YiN Yes Yes Yes Cap 843 930 883 Service Time 2.271 1.877 2.081 HCM Lane VIC Ratio 0.023 0.089 0.066 HCM Control Delay. siveh 7A 7.3 74 HCM Lane LOS A A A HCM 95th-tile 0 0.1 0.3 0.2 PM Existing PM 2025 2:56 pm 05/27/2025 Synchro 11 Report JTR Pagel Page / 48 25-0901 World Olivet Assembly Mayfair Redevelopment Traffic Impact Study Luke Transportation Engineering Consultants, Inc. HCM 7th TWSC 2: San Juan Ave & E 1 st St Existing PM 2025 Intersection Int Delay, siveh 1.7 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4- 4- 46 4v Traffic Vol, vehm 9 91 3 5 104 3 5 3 1 5 2 16 Future Vol, veh/h 9 91 3 5 104 3 5 3 1 5 2 16 Conflicting Peds, #1hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channel'aed None None None None Storage Length Veh in Median Storage, # 0 0 0 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0 - 0 Peak Hour Factor 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 4 4 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 13 132 4 7 151 4 7 4 1 7 3 23 Major/Minor Maiorl Major2 Minorl Mkxx2 Conflicting Flow All 155 0 0 136 0 0 327 330 134 328 330 153 Stage 1 - 160 160 - 167 167 - Stage 2 - - 167 170 - 160 162 - Crilical Hdwy 4.12 4.14 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 2.236 3.518 4.018 3,318 3.518 4.018 3.318 Pot Cap- 1 Maneuver 1425 1436 626 589 915 626 589 893 Stage 1 - 842 765 - 835 760 - Stage 2 835 758 - 842 764 Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1425 1436 598 580 915 611 580 893 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - 598 580 611 580 - Stage 1 834 758 830 756 Stage 2 806 754 828 756 Approach ES w8 NS SB HCM Chi Dly, sly 0.66 0.34 10.98 9.83 HCM LOS B A Minor Lane/Maior Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (vehlh) 615 156 80 778 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0,021 0.009 0.005 0.043 HCM Ctr101y (stv) 11 7.5 0 7.5 0 9.8 HCM Lane LOS B A A A A A HCM 95th %tile 0(veh) 0.1 0 - 0 - 0.1 PM Existing PM 2025 2:56 pm 05/27/2025 JTR Synchro 11 Report Page 2 25-0901 World Olivet Assembly Mayfair Redevelopment Traffic Impact Study Page 1 49 Luke Transportation Engineering Consultants, Inc. HCM 7th TWSC Existing PM 2025 3: San Carlos Ave & E 1 st St Intersection Int Delay, slveh 1.3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SOT SBR Lane Configurations 4+ 4 4 4 Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 108 4 3 100 0 22 0 7 0 0 0 Future Vol, vehfh 0 108 4 3 100 0 22 0 7 0 0 0 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized None None None None Storage Length Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 0 0 Grade, % 0 0 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 88 88 a8 88 88 88 a8 88 86 88 88 88 Heavy Vehicles, % 4 4 4 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 0 123 5 3 114 0 25 0 8 0 0 0 Major/Minor Maiorl maw ATinort Mky2 Conflicting Flow Ali 114 0 0 127 0 0 245 245 125 243 248 114 Stage 1 125 125 120 120 - Stage 2 120 120 123 127 - Critical Hdwy 4.14 4.13 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - 6.12 6.52 • 6.12 5.52 Follow-up Hdwy 2.236 2.227 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1463 1453 708 657 926 711 655 939 Stage 1 879 792 - 884 796 Stage 2 884 796 881 791 Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1463 1453 707 655 926 703 653 939 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - 707 655 - 703 653 - stop 1 879 792 882 794 Stage 2 B82 794 874 791 Approach ES WB NB SB HCM Ctrt Dly, s!v 0 0.22 10,03 0 HCM LOS B A Minor Lane/Maior Mvmt NBLnt EBL EST EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh1h) 749 1463 52 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.044 - 0.002 HCM Ctd Dly (siv) 10 0 7.5 0 0 HCM Lane LOS B A A A A HCM 95th %ble Q(veh) 0.1 0 0 PM Existing PM 2025 2:56 pm 05/27/2025 Synchro 11 Report JTR Page 3 Page / 50 15-0901 World Olivet Assembly Mayfair Redevelopment 7"ra1i%c Impact Study Luke Transportation Engineering Consultants, Inc. HCM 7th TWSC Existing PM 2025 4: Mellonville Ave & E 1st St Intersection Int Delay, slveh Movement 5.3 EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Y 4 to Traffic Vol, vehth 16 96 55 49 51 6 Future Vol,veh/h 16 96 55 49 51 6 Conflicting Peds, Whr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channel¢ed - None None None Storage Length 0 - Veh in Median Storage, 4 0 0 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 90 90 90 90 90 90 Heavy Vehicles, % 4 4 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 18 107 61 54 57 7 Major/Minor Minor2 Majorl Maior2 Conflicting Flow All 237 60 63 0 0 Stage 1 60 Stage 2 177 - - Critical Hdwy 6.44 6.24 4.12 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.44 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.44 - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.536 1336 2.216 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 747 1000 1539 Stage 1 958 Stage 2 849 Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 717 1000 1539 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 717 Stage 1 918 Stage 2 649 Approach EB NB SB HCM Ctrs Dly, s/v 9.38 3.93 0 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLnl SBT SBR Capadly, (vehth) 952 946 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0-04 0.131 HCM Ctrl Dly (stv) 7.4 0 9.4 HCM Lane LOS A A A HCM 95th %dle Q(veh) 0.1 - 0.5 PM Existing PM 2025 2:56 pm 05/27/2025 Synchro 11 Report JTR Page 4 25-0901 World Olivet Assembly Mayfair Redevelopment Traffic Impact Study Page 1 51 Luke Transportation Engineering Consultants, Inc. HCM 7th TWSC Existing PM 2025 5: E 1st St & Proiecl Exit Only Intersection Int Delay, siveh Movement 0 ESL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Y Traffic Vol, vehT 0 92 85 0 0 0 Future Vol, vehfi 0 92 85 0 0 0 Conflicting Peds, #fir 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channel¢ed None None None Storage Length 0 Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 Grade, % 0 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 85 85 85 85 85 85 Heavy Vehicles, % 3 3 4 4 2 2 Mvmt flow 0 108 100 0 0 0 Maior/Minor Maw Maior2 Minor'2 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 208 100 Stage 1 100 - Stage 2 108 Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 542 - Critical Hi Stg 2 5.42 - Follow-up Hdwy - - 3.518 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 0 0 780 956 Stage 1 0 0 924 - Stage 2 0 0 916 - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 780 956 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 780 - Stage 1 924 Stage 2 916 Approach EB WB SB_ HCM Chl Dly, slv 0 0 0 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Maior Mvmt EBT WBT SBLn1 Capacity, (veh1h) HCM Lane VIC Ratio HCM Ctd Dly (sN) 0 HCM Lane LOS A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) PM Existing PM 2025 2:56 pm 05/27/2025 Synchro 11 Report JTR Page 5 Page / 52 25-0901 World Olivet Assembly Mayfair Redevelopment Traffic Impact Study Luke Transportation Engineering Consultants, Inc. HCM 7th TWSC Existing PM 2025 6: Lee Ave & E 1st St Intersection Ini Delay, slveh Movement 0.2 EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Confgurations it .t Y Traffic Vol, vehlh 88 4 0 85 2 1 Future Vol, vehlh 88 4 0 85 2 1 Conflicting Peds, #Ihr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channel¢ed None None . None Storage Length - 0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 0 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 85 85 85 85 85 85 Heavy Vehicles, °% 3 3 4 4 2 2 Mvmt Flow 104 5 0 100 2 1 Major/Minor Majorl Maar2 Minort Conflicting Flow All 0 0 108 0 206 106 Stage 1 106 Stage 2 100 Critical Hdwy 4.14 6.42 6.22 Critical Hdwy Sig 1 - 542 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - 5.42 - Foilow-up Hdwy 2.236 3 518 3.318 PotCap-1 Maneuver 1470 783 948 Stage 1 - 918 - Stage 2 924 Platoon blocked, % Mov Cep-1 Maneuver 1470 783 948 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - 783 - stage 1 918 Stage 2 924 ES WB NB HGM Ctrl Dly, slv 0 0 9.35 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EST EBR WBL WBT Capacity (vehlh) 831 1470 HCM Lane VIC Raba 0.004 - HCM Ctd Diy (sIv) 9.4 0 HCM Lane LOS A A HCM 95th %file 0(veh) 0 0 PM Existing PM 2025 2:56 prn 05/27/2025 Synchro 11 Report JTR Page 6 25-0901 World Olivet Assembly Mayfair Redevelopment Traffic Impact Study Page 1 53 Luke Transportation Engineering Consultants, Inc, HCM 7th TWSC Existing PM 2025 7: E 1 st St & Proiect Enter Only Int Delay, slveh Movement 0 EBL EST WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations 4 to Y Traffic Vol, vet* 0 89 85 0 0 0 Future Vol, vehlh 0 89 85 0 0 0 ConFK*g Peds, #Ihr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop FIT Channel¢ed None None None Storage Length 0 Veh in Median Storage, M - 0 0 0 Grade, % 0 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 88 88 88 88 88 88 Heavy Vehicles, % 3 3 4 4 2 2 Mvmt Flow 0 101 97 0 0 0 Major/Minor MOW Marofl M•Inor2 Conflicting Flow All 97 0 0 198 97 Stage 1 97 - Stage 2 101 - Critical Hdwy 4.13 6.42 6.22 Critical Hdwy Sig 1 - 542 Criticai Hdwy Sm 2 - 5A2 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.227 3.518 3.318 PotCap-1 Maneuver 1491 791 960 Stage 1 - 927 Stage 2 - 923 - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1491 791 960 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - 791 - Stage 1 927 Stage 2 923 wh ES WB SB HCM Ctrl Dly, sN 0 0 0 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Maior Mvmt EBL EST WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 1491 HCM Lane V/C Ratio HCM Ctrf Dly (stv) 0 0 HCM Lane LOS A A HCM 95th %tile 0(veh) 0 PM Existing PM 2025 2:56 pm 05/27/2025 Synchro 11 Report JTR Page 7 Page / 54 25-0901 World Obvet Assembly Mayfair Redevelopment Traffic Impact Study Luke Transportation Engineering Consultants, Inc. Appendix D — Background & Intersection Assignment Worksheets 25-0901 World Olivet Assembly Mayfair Redevelopment rrafcImpact Study Page 1 55 Luke Transportation Enoineerinq Consultants, Inc. Lnb Iiauporfitlaw eyA.rerl (o.V�R K f/K. IOZf Nleterlral Traf r C ntl<- FOOT T—d /mtreis filtulatlmlt Projected Growth Factor • 2026 now RSQ >.0.7 Grow Bart Fit th s y— 26 rear <oa Rate A A 0.97 -1.1% A I NIA 1.28 33.6% 1 Max Station Number Seminole Ca ntv AADT 2 FDOT Trends Analysis - V2.0 linear Reartssion I tlaI Growth Oecayln Growth I RoadwayName Fmm o 1 RSO 201512016 2017 20181201912020 2021 2022 2023 2024 IProiectedi RSO I Pro' 1 RSO IPrOiectedl Semimle Boulevard US 17.92 to N Sanford Ave 0.41 I 2S2 2 650 12 716 2.679 2.542 12.198 12.530 2.324 12 555 2 410 2,382 0.1fi 2.200 1 0.34 1 2 100 0.41 I 2.300 I McRomille Avenue Ave to Seminole Blvd 0.39 180 2.029 5,491 5.531 5 544 5.419 5,451 5.014 5.865 5 13B 4.936 O.lfi 6.300 0.20 1 8.600 1 0.39 1 6.300 1 1. From 2024 MOT Sarunok County Tryhr CM2F Luke rl rWOMMOM DVkmwft Comyrkanbi Jnc. 2023' Page / 56 25-0901 World Olivet Assembly Mayfair Redevelopment Traffic Impact Study Luke Transportation Engineering Consultants Inc. Summary of Vehicle Movements Luke Tiansponation Englneering Consultants Summary of Future Growth Vehicle Movements - Intersection #1 Project: world GLiver/Mayfair Mixed -Use i LTEC LTEC ! LC Observer: LTEC Via~.. Clear RdCondition: lOk SiliIiNo imersecunn FDOT - Seasonal Adi Factor. i 1.00 1 N/5 Road: E/W Road: Date: Approach: AMAmuxorwnn% m tN-"cra 0 % San luan Ave Seminole Blvd Thursday.AD, x17,2025 We eU. -eYI NBI SE 1 EB INS Tear Tear 5.0% 1 4.0% 3.0% 2.0% . 1 2026 5.0% 1 7.0% 2.0% 2.0% — A.M. Peak Hour San Juan Ave NOMlwund Southbound Seminole Btvd EoWOMW Seminole Blvd Weslbound —VEM-1 Lt Thru i Rt Uturn Lt Thru Rt t►lurn Lt 1 Thru RI Uturn Lt Thru I Rt s Lanes 1 1 Length I Existing 0 1 5 D 1 I 0 0 0 0 0 29 j 2 38 0 Growth Factor 104% 7.- - .,.-. rs-. I 103% 106% 7,77 1 I(IN 1 1377 "' 102% I05Cx 1 iO3gb 1n84. --........ 10456 101k `05W. Growth 0 5 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 30 1 6 0 2 39 D Vested 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 D 0 1 0 0 0 j 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Projected Back 1 0 S 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 30 6 0 1 2 39 0 tint w A.M. Pmle"Y'ir. is ftlC Pass -by Trips In 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pass -by Trips Out 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Pon Trlw 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 rojectin 0.0•> 0.01s O.0 O.r, ' ' " - - 0, 0" 0.01n 0.0%t 6.51, O.i 0.:. 0o u0 0.0 . Project Trips In f) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 j 0 Project Trips Out 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Proiry ] 0 4 0 0 t 0 - ToUlTrips 0 6 1 0 1 1 0 O 0 0 0 0 1 30 B 0 2 39 0 P.M. Peak Hour Son Juan Ave Northbound Southbound Seminole Blvd Enslbound Seminole Blvd Westbound Uturn Lt 1 Tlmu Rt Uturn Lt 1 Thru 1 Fit Uham Lt I Thru Fit Uturn 1 Lt Thru I Pit Existing 0 1212 j 00 31 U 1 U I 0 1 0 0 0 4ii 17 0 6 1 39 0 Grown Factor ... 1 Growth j 0 12 0 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 49 1 IS 0 1 6 I 4C 0 Vested ested 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ; 0 0 0 -T—I o Projected Back 0 12 0 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 i 0 1 49 IS O 1 6 40 0 Pass -by Trips in 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pass -by Trips Out 0 0 0 0 0 D I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TolalPassTrips 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 +o Protect In 0.0 0 0 0 0- (I 0.0�' 0.0 0.0+', 0.0, CI 001. 1 C.IY. (I 0.0 D.W Pru,+ct Out 0.0 uC ]0 am. 00 I of 0(' .)0 ou 70 CO u.0 U0 0.0 1W Project Trips In 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Project Tnps Out 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 ! u -;a:x 1 1 t. ,i Total Trips 0 15 0 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 49 19 1 0 6 40 0 Luke Transporraaon Enoneerhre Comutnints, Xn 25-0901 World Olivet Assembly Mayfair Redevelopment Traffic Impact Study Page 157 Luke Transportation Engineering Consultants, Inc. Summary of Vehicle Movements Luke Transportation Engineering Consultants Summary of Future Growth Vehicle Movements - Intersection art Project: World Guver/Mayfair Mixed -use I LTEC LTEC N/5 R08d: E1W Road: Date: Approach: AMAnnuelorawth% tatAmrwuwsn% San Juan Ave 1st st Tharsd.y. Awn 17, 2025 cue ewldoat NB SS EB I WB Year Year Observer. LTEC Westher.;l Clear Rd Condldon:i Ok Signabl.No imersectlon FDOT-SeasonatAdjFactor.I1.00 5.0% 4.0% 1 2.0% 1 2.0% 2025 I 2026 5.0% I 7.0% 2.0% 1 2.0% 2025 I 2026 1 A.M.Peak Now San Juan Ave Nartltbound San Juan Ave Southhowb 1st s1 EasWottnd IV st Westbound ubtm Lt Thru Rt Uturn I Lt Thru Rt t t m U I Thru Rt Uturn I Lt Thru Rt a Lanes < 1 < 1 i 1 > Len& I Existing 0 1 0 1 3 I 3 4 3 1 0 2 1 62 j 5 0 1 0 62I 1 Growth Factor IA44 1.-71 I 1n.55: I .., ._ r, ;-, ;CZ-� I v. I .. ^.:2al. 'G *.e .._� I _ �_,-. �� ... �.;, . Growth 0 1 I 3 1 3 0 1 4 1 3 I 1 0 2 1 63 I 5 0 1 1 I 63 1 1 Vested D ( 0 I 0 0 0 1 0 0 I 0 0 I 0 1 0 1 0 0 I 0 ; 0 0 Projected Back 0 i 1 3 3 0 4 3 1 1 0 2 1 63 5 0 1 63 1 Pass -by Trips In 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pass -by Trips Out 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Pass Trips 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0n - nn 0.91. 0.0' a0', 0". 42.6` 0.0`, 005 0.0, 0.0 a0 Project Trips In 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 Project Trips Out 0 lNorthbound 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 5 0 i TotatTrips 0 5 0 6 3 1 0 2 75 5 0 2 88 1 P.M. pea San Juan Ave Southbound 1st St Eastbound 1st St Westbound How ubrrn u Rt UNrn Lt Thru Rt tRwn Lt Tim RtUturn 1 Lt 1 Thti Rt Ezisting 0 i 1 1 2 j 16 U 9 91 0 I 5 1 1 3 rowth Factor 13 L # :r; _� t..,w Growth 0 5 1 3 1 1 0 5 2 I 16 0 1 9 93 I 3 0 5 106 1 3 Vested D 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 Projected Back_l__ 0 5 I 3 1 0 5 2 I 16 0 9 93 3 0 5 1 106 3 F Pass -by Trips In 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Pass -by Trips Out D 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Total Pass Trips 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 0 0 µ rtecl 0r a s o 0 - 00, 0 0 G u 1)0.0, 42 61 a 0a o 0 n 0°. 1 0 Dr• 9.0 Ov Wit' 00 D.O 0u 00 6.:, I 12n do. Project Trips In 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 Project Trips Out 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 20 0 t i Total Trips 0 5 3 1 2 1 0 6 1 2 16 0 9 100 1 3 1 0 1 7 126 3 lute hanrportapon S.-.N,R �rKCw,su� :a ;. 24N Page / 58 25-0901 World Olivet Assembly Mayfair Redevelopment Traffic Impact study Luke Transportation Engineering Consultants, Inc. Summary of Vehicle Movements Luke Transportation Engineering Consultants Summary of Future Growth Vehicle Movements - Intersection *3 Project: World OtiverlMayfalr Mixed -Use I LTEC LTEC N13 Road: E/W Road: Data: Approach: AMAaeuwar■wtu% PN AnnuwtawM% San Carlos Ave 1st St Thursday. Anrtt 17, 2025 sea amid<ur NB SB 1 EB I WB re■r rear observer. Weather Rd CondDion: Signal: FDOT- Seasonat Adl Factor.. LTEC i Clear Ok No Imersectian 1.00 3 5.0% 4.0% 1 2.0% 1 2.0% 2M M6 5.0% 7.0% 1 2.0% 1 2.0% 2025 2026 A.M.Peak Hour San Carlos Ave Northbound San Carlos Ave Southbound 1st st Eastbound 1st St Westbound Uturn I Lt Thru Rt Uturn I Lt Thru Rt Uturn Lt Thru Rt utuIn Lt Thru Rt s Lanes < 1 1 1 > h Lengt I I zisting 0 2 0 B 0 0 0 65 13 0 Growth Factor .,._-., t --- . -,___. . _ ___,. ,.___.. ,___ .__... __. -. 7--7 .F7 __ Growth 0 2 1 0 1 8 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 66 14 0 1 65 0 Vested 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Projected Back 0 2 0 1 8 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 66 14 o I 1 65 i 0 Pass -by Trips In 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pass- by Trips Out 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Pass Trips 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Project in 0.0 0.0: 7.7 • 0.0 00, o.o• 0 0 0.0- 0 0 a. o.D 0.01 0.11], D D . 13 to 0> P�� .:�,t , -�� 0, a0 1no - „u 12., n-: 00 uv .,0 Project Trips In D 0 2 0 0 0 a 0 0 12 0 1 0 0 0 4 5 Project Tnp50ut 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 4 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 Total Trips 0 2 2 8 0 2 1 4 0 12 68 14 0 1 69 1 5- P.M. Peak Son Carlos Ave Northbound San Carlos Ave Southbound let St Eastbound list St Westbound Hour Uturn Lt I Thu 1 Rt Utum Lt Thru I M Uturn Lt Thru IN Ubrm Lt Thru Rt Existing 0 22 1 0 1 7 0 1 U 1 0I u o 0 Wit 4 0 3 i 100 0 Growth Factor - I .,.,_ - I ... ,.__. -. __., , - Growth 0 22 1 0 1 7 0 1 0 I 0 1 0 0 j 0 110 I 4 0 3 I 102 1 0 Vested 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 I 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 Projected Back 0 1 22 0 1 7 0 I 0 0 I 0 0 0 110 4 0 3 1 202 1 0 it Pass -by Trips In 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pass -by Trips Out 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 i 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Pass Trips 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 '+Prolecurr 0.0 00. 7.71; 00• 0.014 0.0-1 00 0.01. 00-, a2.?•.i 00'. 00:, 0 Yl 0.0r, 1371• 1801. Ptn!act Out J.a 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0, fa U � • 0 n 0 1 17 ' 0'.. 0 0 O.P Project Trips In 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 1 0 0 0 0 2 3 Project Taps Out 0 0 0 0 0 9 4 15 0 0 6 0 0 0 D 0 i I 7 Total Trips 0 22 1 1 7 01 9 4 15 0 1 7 116 4 0 3 104 3 lute n■nspoRadon Fndneedrig COmulrantk 200 25-0901 World Olivet Assembly Mayfair Redevelopment Traffic Impact Study Page 159 Luke Transportation Engineering Consultants, Inc. Summary of Vehicle Movements Luke Transportation Engineering Consultarrcs Summary of Future Growth Vehicle"' - Intersection �I4 Project: world 011ver/Mayrair Mixed -use I. LTEC LTEC F°C LTEC ��10 Clear Ok No merseaion 1.00 a NISRead: E/W Road: Date: pp Aroach: AmM.Mcrwnnx PMAaavalGrwersl Mellonville Ave 1st st Thursday.April .7.2025 aaaa aund-out NB I SO I EB I WB Year I Year OOeerver Weather Ad condition: shut FDOT•seaonat Adj Factor. 5.0% I 4.0% 1 3.0% 1 2.0% 2025 1 2026 5.0% 4.0% 1 2.0% 1 2.0% 2025 1 2026 1 A.M.Peak Now McUorwllle Ave Northbound MatiorrvlUe Ave Southbound 1st st Eastbound 1st st Waslboum Ururrr T Lt Thru Rt utum Lt Thru 1 Rt Uturn Lt Thru Rt Uturn Lt Thru Rt e Lanes < 1 1 > < > Length I I Existing 0 1 lb 1 47 1 0 0 0 1 30 1 4 0 3 1 0 1 32 0 1 0 1 0 I GYUwt Factor sbs4 i 5" <_ -�,-. j �. _,-,. 1 i0?:n __. r.... �. a.:a'* iai%L. :.�-- Growth 0 78 49 0 0 1 0 31 1 4 0 1 3 1 0 33 0 1 0 1 0 10 Vested D 0 0 I 0 0 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 0 0 Projected Sack 0 I 78 48 0 0 0 31 4 0 3 1 0 33 0 0 0 0 Pass -by Trips In 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pass-Oy Trips Out OF 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TotalPassTrlps 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 �. Project in D.o- D t 0.0— D.o 0 0 - o.o- O rr u.o•. 0 0" 0.0 . 0 n - 0 0,, 1) 0, no,, 00 : a 0 - P.r,ieaa,A 0 I 0e 0c ,n J : -,o 1) 1 , ,v "t "� l l 00 Prot Trips In 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Project Trips Out 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 0 0 0 0 i Total Trips 0 87 1 49 1 0 0 0 31 t 4 0 1 3 0 37 0 0 D 0 P.M. Peale MellomlUe Ave Northbound Mallonvllle Ave Southbound 1st st Eastbound 19 st Westbound Mow UWrn It Thtu Rt Uturn Lt Thru I Rt Uturlt Lt Thru Rt IRum u Thru Rt Existing U a9 0 0 U 1 51 1 16 I U 96 U U Growth Factor r. " Growth 0 56 I 51 1 0 0 D 53 1 6 0 17 0 1 100 0 0 0 0 Vested 0 i 0 0 0 0 10 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 0 10 Projected Back 0 I 56 1 61 1 0 1 0 1 D 1 53 1 6 1 0 17 0 100 0 0 I 0 i 0 Pass -by Trips In 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pass-oy Trips Out 0 0 i 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total PassTrlps 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 Pr OIeld In 0.0 1 7 0.0', 0.0 0011, 0.0+: D o--.. o.W 0 n 0.0 0 0', 0.0r- 00. 0 01, 0 tl� d.0'- pi—Ict Oul O.0 J J D- : 0 0 , o.", D o C 0 e is J.o 31 1 0 0 Go- 00 ^_ of Project Trips In 0 5 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Project Tnps Out 0 0 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 Total Trips 0 61 51 0 0 0 1 53 1 8 1 0 17 0 115 0 1 0 1 0 D Luke Transportation EnOneerin(Canulrantr. 2025 Page / so 15-0901 World Olivet Assembly Mayfair Redevelopment Traffic Impact study Luke Transportation Engineering Consultants, Inc. Summary of Vehicle Movements Luke Transportation Engineering Consultants Summary of Future Growth Vehicle Movements - Intersection #5 Project: world OUVerlMayfairMixed-Use LTEC LTEC feC Observer.! LTEC WeatheriCtear Rd Condition:; Ok Signae'No 1Irnersenion Foot- SaasonalAdj Factor. 11. 00 5 NIS Road: E/WRoad: Date: Approach: AMMMMONMe% -Arew%arattln% Mayfair Exit Only ist st Thursday, ApOt 17. 2025 ease eulld aut NB SB EB I WB Year Year 5.0% 4.0% ( 4.0% ( 5.0% 2025 ( 2026 5-04b 7.0% I 2.0% 2.0% 2023 2026 1 A.M. Peak Now Northbound Mayfair Exit Only Southbound ist st Eagkound ist st WastMtwd Uturn Lt Thru Fit Uturn u Thm Rt Utum Lt Thru Rt Uturn I Lt Thru Rt a Lanes < 1 1 Length I I I I I I I 1 Existing u I U 1 0 0 0 1 0 j 0 I 1 a U 1 73 0 0 1 0 1 65 I 0 rmYtn Factor 105°+-- 504% �� I i1111i ( ..._ -. - 1n54s 3iL17 Sr va +��v j :�.R 1 -- I -(-:;_• Growth 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 ( 1 0 0 76 1 0 0 0 ( L.,( 0 Vested 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ( 0 0 0 0 ( 0 Projected Back 0 i 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 1 1 0 1 0 76 ( 0 0 0 1 68 D Pass -by Trips In 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pass-Oy Trips Out 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TotalPassTrlps 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ' Protect In O.0 - J O 0Ji J 0 0 0.,, J.0 0 0' 0.0• 0 J- 0.0` 55 4 00 � 0.0" 0.0', 0 0-: :1 0'-, Pro)et l Out 7 U. ') 0.1 6 1 - ..i a I .. 0 0 1: 0 0 0.6 '. 1.4 : 0 Project Trips In 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 0 0 a 0 Project Trips Out 0 0 0 0 0 2 a 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 TotalTrlps 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 3 0 0 92 0 0 0 72 0 P.M.Paak Northbound Mayfak Exit Only Southboune ist st EnlbwRd Lst st yydalbOurld Hour Uturn Lt I Thru Rt Uturn U Thm Rt I Uturn Lt —IThru Fit Uturn I Lt I Thru Rt Existing 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 U 0 1 0 1 0 0 92 1 0 a 1 0 1 65 Growtni-actor - 1 :-, .... 1 _..- 1 _ -.. I _ ,. _,..., .-... ,.,,._ .. -. _ ,. 1 •-. 1 , _ "•._-. I ;rsre Growth 0 0 1 0 0 0 I 0 1 0 I 0 0 0 1 94 0 0 0 I 87 1 0 Vested 0 0 0 I 0 0 0 ( 0 ( 0 0 0 1 0 ' 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 Projected Back 0 i 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 0 0 0 I 94 I 0 0 1 0 I 87 1 0 Pass -by Trips in 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pass-DyTrlps Out o 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 TatalPaasTrlps O 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 u Ptolecnn Joy, 00„ 0.0=1 ao= 004 00> 00 a.o-' 00,. (JU 55A 0n= 00-1• 0(F, oar. 0.0- P:olectQul 9.0 0.0 0.0 J.0 0U'- 16.1 0.0 17.5 u.0 6.0 0.0 OG u.0 0.0 Project Trips In 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 Project Tnps Out 0 0 0 a a 7 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 n I T(naITrips 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 8 0 1 0 103 0 0 0 101 0 tune Reaw�r.::w. Er.�.r.R:li¢Cw.s�'.:.-.G, 2025 25-0901 World Olivet Assembly Mayfair Redevelopment rraliic Impact Study Page 161 Luke Transportation Engineering Consultants Inc. Summary of Vehicle Movements Luke Transportation Engineering Consultants Summary of Future Growth Vehicle Movements - Intersection $6 Project: blond OUver/Mayfair Mixed -Use LTEC LTEC H/S Road: E/W Road: Date: Approach: AM4aewuorowth% PYtanauNCfeatn% Lee Ave 1st St Thursday. Aork 17. 2025 eae. awtdout NB SO I EB WO Year Year C Observer. I LTEC Weather-j Clear L Rd Condl,='. 01c Signal• No Imersectj- FOOT- Seasonal Adj Factor. 1.00 6 5.0% 1 4.0% 1 4.0% 5.0% xD2s 201.E I 5.0% 7.0% 1 2.0% 20% 1D2s 1 2024 1 A.M. Peak Lee Ave NoNtboued sautlfbaood Ist st EalboOnei 1st st Wastbound Hour Uturn Lt Thru Rt Uturn Lt Thfu Rt Uturn 1 Lt Thru Rt Uturn Lt Thru Rt s Lanes 5T i < 1 Length I< I I Existing a 1 0 0 0 0 1 D 0 1 0 0 0 1 72 1 1 O 1 D ss o Growth Factor 105'+ Growth 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 I 0 0 0 1 75 I 1 o 1 1 I 6a I 0 Vested 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 I 0 1 0 0 Pro)acted Back 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 75 1 1 0 1 I 641 0 Pass -by Trips in 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 D 0 0 0 Pass -try Trips Out 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Pass Trips 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 Protect in 0.0'x n,pv 0.0= 5.21. 0.05+ 0.0a. 0.06=t o.nc 0.0' 9.o 1 55.4" 0.01 00 0.01 0 o'. 0 0?. Project Trips In 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 Project Trip sOut 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 O 0 0 4 O Total Trips 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 93 1 0 1 72 0 P.M. Peak Lee Ave Noftbound southbound IV st Eastbound lost Westtwund Hour Ubfm Lt Thru Rt Uturn Lt Thru I Rt Utuen Lt 1 Thru 1 Rt Uturn Lt 1 Thru Rt Existing 0 2 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 88 a 0I 0 85 j Growth actor I 9 Growth 0 2 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 I 0 0 0 90 4 0 i 1 1 87 0 Vested 0 0 1 0 I 0 0 D 0 I 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 Projected Back 0 1 2 I 0 I 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 90 I 4 0 1 1 87 0 Pass -try Trips In 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pass -Dv Tdps Out 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Pass Trips 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pf olecl hiP 00, 0 0`+ 5 2 - O.Orc 0.0+d. O (r OA,� 0 57 tl.0- 55.4 D 0', 00 Protect Out) u 0.0 0 u 0 0 0 ^' J.o C.0 J 3 0 D 12 7 0.0 a..f 10, Project Trips in 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 Project Trips Out 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 [ 0 6 1 0 1 14 0 Total Trips 0 2 0 2 0 1 0 0 10 0 0 105 5 0 2 301 0 Lure Trw9parftWn &4*wedn(Cwfrultents, 2425 Page / 62 25-0901 World Olivet Assembly Mayfair Redevelopment Traffic Impact Study Luke Transportation Engineering Consultants, Inc. Summary of Vehicle Movements Luke 7ransportallon Engineering Consultants Summary of Future Growth Vehicle Movements - Intersection i7 Prowr. World Oliver/Mayfair Mixed -use LTEc LTEC teC Observer:LTEC Weather. Clear Rd CandM*n:!Ok j Signal No I Imersectirm FDOT -Seasonal Ad) Factor:, 1.00 7 N/S Road: E/W Road: Date: Approach: 4N Aanutl oresen% Pnanmadcrvwa% Mayfair Ent Only 1st st thui50ay, Apra 17,2025 aria Build —I NB I year year 5.01h 1 4.0% 1 4.0% 1 5.0t 1iY6 202a 5.0% 1 7.0% 1 2.0% 1 2.0% 1025 2a24 I A.M. Peak Hour New Tribes Mission Driveway Northbound Mayfair Ent Only Southbound 1st st Eastbound 1st st Westbound Utum 1 Lt TMO Rt utum Lt 1 Thru I Rt utum It Thru Fit llturn I It 1 Thru RI a Lanes < > Length I I Existing 0 1 2 1 0 1 2 0 0 0 I 0 0 1 1 72 0 0 1 0 1 63 1 0 Growth Factor OV, srww 1 n,:_; ._-: ... _ I ., ._.[« •-.:m. ..u. I .r.. "al . 1 7.-v.+e Growth 0 2 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 75 1 0 0 1 0 66 0 Vested 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 00 0 0 1 0 Projected Back 0 j 2 1 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 75 0 1 0 0 I 66 0 T Pass -by Trips In 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pass -WTUps Out 0 ? 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Pass Trips 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 P. .- Vn n0 00 J.n C% 07 Project Trips In 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 5 12 0 Cl 0 1 0 4 Project Trips Out 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 4 0 Total Trips 0 2 1 0 1 2 O 0 0 1 0 0 5 89 0 0 0 70 4 P.M. Peak New Tribes MlssionDriveeray Northbwnd Mayfair Ent Only Southbound IstSt Eastbound SstSt Westbound Hour utum I It Ttau Rt Ulttrn Lt Thru Fit Illtnn Lt Thru Rt Uturn Lt I Thru I at Existing o 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 D 0 1 0 u I o 0 D i ds r I _ I - ( I I I ..- . � -- Growth 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 I 0 0 0 I 91 0 0 0 I 87 1 0 Vested 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 D 0 I 0 0 0 0 I 0 10 Projected Back 0 I o o 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 91 0 0 0 I 87 I 0 Pass•by Trips In 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pass -by Tnps Out 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Pass Trips 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 M Project in 0.W'. 0.OA: 0.0% OoV, 0.0% 0.045 0.04e 0.0% CIA% 18.34 42.3?S C.0% 0.01 0.V 0.0w 13.7 Prolect Out U 0 00 -. D.C'- 3 0 01), 0.o, 0 0 C V o.p 0 0 1 12.7 n 0 DO 0 0- 33 7 0 0' Project Trips In 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 7 0 0 0 0 2 Prolect Trips Out 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 15 0 , .... ,.- ... I ,. Total Trips 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 3 104 0 0 O 1 102 2 Luke trensporrason EnorieerinaCcrrsuitants, 2025 25-0901 World Olivet Assembly Mayfair Redevelopment TraH9c Impact study Page 163 Luke Transportation Engineering Consultants, Inc. Summary of Vehicle Movements Luke Transportation Engineering Consultards Summary of Future Growth Vehicle Movements - Intersection #8 Project.' World OUver/Mayfair Mixed -use I LTEC LTEC Cep Observer: LTEC Weather. Ciear Rd Condition: Ok Signal: No imeroection FOOT- Seasonat Adj Factor. 1.00 e PUS Road: EJW Road: Date Approach: lutprwxtawtna PH MauaiOraath% San Juan Ave New Project Exit Thursday, Apru :7, 2025 ease ewmort NB SB EB 1 WS Yexr Year 5.0% 4.0% I 2.0% 1 2.0% 2025 2026 5.0% 7.0% 2.0% 1 2.0% 2D25 2026 A.M. Peak Hour SanJuanAve Northbound San Juan Ave Southbound New Project Exit Eastbound Now Project Exit Westbound Utum Lt Thru Rt Utum U Thru Rt Uturn Lt Thru Rt Uturn L! I Thru Rt a Lanes 1 1 Length I I Existing 0 0 1 6 j 0 0 0 8 I 0 0 O 1 U 0 0 0 0 I 0 Growth Factor G51 1=.. eaa; 1 t04y. 1 - ...- iu,E:>, - ...- s.-::, 1 iCre'+ Growth 0 I 0 I 6 0 0 1 0 8 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 I 0 Vested 0 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Projected Back 0 I 0 6 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 I 0 I 0 0 0 0 I 0 Pass -by Trips In 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pass-byirlpsOut 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Pass Trips 0 0 0 0 0 o o 0 o o 1 0 0 o 0 o 0 '4 Protect In 0,15 W. 0.0 9.0-- 001, 0.0+, 6.5" 0.0% 0.0': 0.0, 0.7 0.0<. O.os- 0.0% o.o-; D.0 G, j 0 0 0� 0.0 .1 3' 00 {� 00 00 00 00 Pro ect Trips In 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Project Trips Out 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 Total Trips 0 0 6 D 0 0 to D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 P.M.PM* San Juan Ave Northbound San Juan Are Southbound New Project Exit Entbound New Project Exit Westbound Moir ubbm Lt Thru Rt uturn Lt ThinsRt Ulvn U Thru Rt Utrn U I Thru I Rt xisnng 0 ib i ❑ 0 z 00 01 u 0 ❑ I 0 1 0 1 0 Growth Factor :-' .- --.-. I .,,. -. ,..__- ... s. 1 :, ,._ ..- - I '.-.;c.. -- .- -. 1-;.,- 1 _•,., I ,...: Growth 0 0 16 I 0 0 0 I 25 I 0 0 0 0 I 0 0 I 0 I 0 1 0 Vested 0 0 0 I 0 0 0 1 0 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 0 I 0 Projected Back 0 0 16 I o 0 0 25 I 0 0 0 I o 0 0 I 0 0 P o tr Pass -by Trips In 0 0 0 I 0 0 DWo 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pass -try Trips Out 0 0 0 1❑ 0 D 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 TetalPassTrips 0 0 0 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 h Project In 0.0=, 0 Ot; 0.0-a, I 00- 0.05 O.Oh0., 0.04 0 V., 0.0% 0 0 1 0.0-1 0.04 1 0.0'.. . PtIf-0 Out J.0'. 0.01, 0.0°- 0.0- 00`'. 0.0,oO 0.0 �.a�, c.c. o.o- oo-- o.Q� 6.Project Trips In 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Project Trips Out 0 0 0 I 0 0 D 0 D 0 0 0 0 3 D 0 16 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 Luxe Transportation Enonearina Cxnxultxnts, 2025 Page / 64 25-0901 World Olivet Assembly Mayfair Redevelopment Trafc Impact study Luke Transportation Engineering Consultants, Inc. Appendix E — Projected 2026 Synchro Worksheets 25-0901 World Olivet Assembly Mayfair Redevelopment TraliicImpactStudy Page 165 Luke Transportation Enaineerin9 Consultants, Inc. HCM 7th AWSC Build -out 2026 AM 1: San Juan Ave & E Seminole Blvd Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 7.2 Intersection LOS A Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations j* $ Y Traffic Vol, veh/h 30 8 2 39 6 1 Future Vol, vehih 30 8 2 39 6 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.68 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 44 12 3 57 9 1 Number of Lanes 1 0 0 1 1 0 Approach EB W8 N8 Opposing Approach WB EB Opposing Lanes 1 1 0 Conflicting Approach Left NB EB Conflicting Lanes Left 0 1 1 Conflicting Approach Right NB WB Conflicting Lanes Right 1 0 1 HCM Control Delay slveh 7.1 7.3 7.3 HCM LOS A A A Lane NBLnl EBLnt WBLn1 Vol Left, % 96% 0% 5% Vol Thru, % 0% 79% 95% Vol Right, % 14% 21% 0% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 7 38 41 LT Vol 6 0 2 Through Vol 0 30 39 FIT Vol 1 8 0 Lane Flow Rate 10 56 60 Geometry Grp 1 1 1 Degree of Utif (X) 0.012 0.06 0.067 Departure Headway (Hd) 4.221 3.871 4.003 Convergence, YIN Yes Yes Yes Cap 844 927 897 Service Time 2.265 1.887 2,018 HCM Lane V/C Redo 0.012 0.06 0.067 HCM Control Delay, s/veh 7.3 71 7.3 HCM Lane LOS A A A HCM 95th-tile Q 0 0.2 0.2 AM 2026 Build -out 2026 AM 3:05 pm 05/27/2025 Synchro 11 Report JTR Pagel Page / 66 15-0901 World Olivet Assembly Mayfair Redevelopment Traffic Impact study Luke Transportation Engineering Consultants, Inc. HCM 7th TVVSC Build -out 2026 AM 2: San Juan Ave & E 1st St Intersection Int Delay, srveh Movement 1.2 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4. 4. 46 .Z. Traffic Vol, veh/h 2 75 5 2 68 1 1 3 5 6 3 1 Future Vol, veh/h 2 75 5 2 68 1 1 3 5 6 3 1 Conflicting Peds, #Ihr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelaed None None None None Storage Length Veh in Medan Storage, # - 0 0 0 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0 - 0 Peak Hour Factor 78 78 78 78 78 78 78 78 78 78 78 78 Heavy Vehicles, % 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 3 96 6 3 87 1 1 4 6 8 4 1 MajorlMinor Maiorl Major2 Minorl Mirar2 Conflicting Flow All 88 0 0 103 0 0 199 198 99 196 201 88 Stage i - - 104 104 93 93 Stage 2 - - 94 94 103 108 - Critical Hdwy 4.14 4.13 7.13 6.53 6.23 7.12 6.52 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - 6.13 553 6.12 5.52 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - 6.13 5.53 6.12 5.52 Follow-up Hdwy 2,236 2.227 3.527 4.027 3.327 3.518 4.018 3.318 PotCap•1 Maneuver 1495 1483 758 696 954 763 695 970 Stage 1 - 899 807 914 818 Stage 2 - 910 815 903 806 Platoon blocked, % MovCap-1 Maneuver 1495 1483 750 693 954 751 693 970 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - 750 693 751 693 Stage 1 897 805 912 816 Stage 2 903 814 891 805 Approach ES WB NB SB HCM Cttl Oly, slv 0.18 0.21 9.42 9.89 HCM LOS A A Minor LanalMaior Mvmt NBLnl EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (vehfh) 825 43 51 749 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.014 0.002 0.002 0.017 HCM Ctrl Dly (slv) 9.4 7.4 0 7.4 0 9.9 HCM Lane LOS A A A A A A HCM 9% %tie Q(veh) 0 0 0 - 0.1 AM 2026 Build -out 2026 AM 3:05 pm 05/27/2025 Synchro 11 Report JTR Page 2 25-0901 World O/ivetAssembly Mayfair Redevelopment Traffic Impact study Page 167 Luke Transportation Engineering Consultants, Inc. HCM 7th TWSC Build -out 2026 AM 3: San Carlos Ave & E 1 st St Intersection Int Delay, slveh 1.5 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Confgurations .ij,. 4. 4. + Traffic Vol, veh/h 12 68 14 1 69 5 2 2 8 2 1 4 Future Vol, veh/h 12 68 14 1 69 5 2 2 8 2 1 4 Conflicting Peds, #1hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channel¢ed None None None None Storage Length Veh in Median Storage, # 0 0 0 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 0 - - 0 Peak Hour Factor 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 Heavy Vehicles, % 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 Ml Flow 17 99 20 1 100 7 3 3 12 3 1 6 Major/Minor Majorl Ml Minorl Mil Conflicting Flow All 107 0 0 119 0 0 247 254 109 241 260 104 Stage 1 - 143 143 107 107 Stage 2 104 110 135 154 Critical Hdwy 4.14 4.13 7.13 6.53 6.23 7.12 6.52 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - 6.13 5.53 - 6.12 5.52 - Critical Hdwy Ste 2 - - 6.13 5.53 - 6.12 5.52 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.236 2127 3,527 4.027 3.327 3.518 4.018 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1471 1463 704 648 942 713 644 951 Stage 1 - - 857 776 - 899 807 Stage 2 - - 900 802 - 369 770 - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1471 1463 689 639 942 691 636 951 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - 689 639 - 691 636 - Stage 1 846 766 898 806 Stage 2 892 801 844 761 Approach EB WB NS SB HCM Ctri [My, s/v 0.95 0.1 9.45 9.52 HCM LOS A A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLni EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity(veWh) 826 222 24 807 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.021 0.012 0.001 0.013 HCM Ctrl Coy (sty) 9.5 7.5 0 7.5 0 9.5 HCM Lane LOS A A A A A A HCM 95th %file 0(veh) 0.1 0 0 0 AM 2026 Build -out 2026 AM 3:05 pm 05/27/2025 Synchro 11 Report JTR Page 3 Page / 68 25-0901 World Olivet Assembly Mayfair Redevelopment rraffl-c Impact Study Luke Transportation Enaineerinq Consultants, Inc. HCM 7th TWSC Build -out 2026 AM 4: Mellonville Ave & E 1st St Intersection Int Delay, slveh Movement 4.8 EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT S8R Lane Configurations Y 4 T, Traffic Vol, veh/h 3 37 87 49 31 4 Future Vol, veh/h 3 37 87 49 31 4 Conkting Peds, Mr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channel¢ed - None None None Storage Length 0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 0 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 72 72 72 72 72 72 Heavy Vehicles, % 9 9 3 3 2 2 Mvmt Flow 4 51 121 68 43 6 Major/Minor Minort Majorl Maior2 Conflicting Flow All 356 46 49 0 0 Stage 1 46 Stage 2 310 - Critical Hdwy 6.49 6.29 4.13 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.49 - - Critical Hdwy Slg 2 5.49 - - Folknv-up Hdwy 3,581 3.381 2127 PotCap-i Maneuver 629 1004 1552 Stage 1 959 Stage 2 728 - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 578 1004 1552 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 578 - - Stage 1 881 Stage 2 728 Approach EB NB SB HCM Ctri Dly, stv 9.02 4.81 0 HCM LOS A Minor Lana/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (vetdh) 1151 951 HCM Lane VIC Ratio 0,078 0.058 HCM Ctd Dly (stv) 7.5 0 9 HCM Lane LOS A A A HCM 95th %Ole Q(veh) 0.3 . 0.2 AM 2026 Build -out 2026 AM 3:05 pm 05/27/2025 Synchro 11 Report JTR Page 4 25-0901 World Olivet Assembly Mayfair Redevelopment Traffic Impact Study Page 1 69 Luke Transportation Engineering Consultants, Inc. HCM 7th TWSC Build -out 2026 AM 5: E 1st St & Project Exit Onlv Intersection Int Delay, siveh 0.2 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations } Y Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 85 72 0 2 2 Future Vol, vehfi 0 85 72 0 2 2 Conflicting Peds, iilhr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized None None None Storage Length 0 Veh in Median Storage, - 0 0 0 Grade, % 0 0 - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 76 76 76 76 76 76 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 4 3 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 0 112 95 0 3 3 Major/Minor Majorl Maio2 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 207 95 Stage 1 - 95 Stage 2 112 - Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 542 - Cri6cal Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 0 0 782 962 Stage 1 0 0 929 - Stage 2 0 0 913 Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - 782 962 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 782 - stage 1 929 Stage 2 913 Approach EB WB Se HCM CM Dly, s/v 0 0 9.2 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EST WBT SBLnl Capacity (vehih) 863 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0,006 HCM Ctrl Dly (stv) 9.2 HCM Lane LOS A HCM 95t %die 0(veh) 0 AM 2026 Build -out 2026 AM 3:05 pm 05/27/2025 Synchro 11 Report JTR Page 5 Page / 70 25-0901 World Olivet Assembly Mayfair Redevelopment Traffic Impact study Luke Transportation Engineering Consultants, Inc. HCM 7th TWSC Build -out 2026 AM 6: Lee Ave & E 1st St Intersection lit Delay, slveh 0.2 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations j. 4 Y Traffic Vol, ve" 93 1 1 72 1 2 Future Vol, veh/h 93 1 1 72 1 2 Conflicting Peds, #Ihr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized None None . None Storage Length 0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 0 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 75 75 75 75 75 75 Heavy Vehicles, % 4 4 3 3 4 4 Mvmt Flow 124 1 1 96 1 3 Major/Minor Maiorl Maior2 Minorl Conflicting Flow All 0 0 125 0 223 125 steps 1 - 125 Stage 2 99 Critical Hdwy 4.13 6.44 6.24 Critical Hdwy Sig 1 - 54.4 - Critical Hdwy Stp 2 - 5-44 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.227 3.536 3.336 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1455 760 921 Stage 1 896 - Stage 2 920 Platoon blocked, Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1455 760 921 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - 760 - stop 1 896 Stage 2 919 EB WB 148 HCM Ctrl ay, stv 0 0.1 9.21 HCM LOS A Minor LanelMaior Mvrrt NBLnl EST EBR WBL WBT Capacity (vehlh) 960 25 HCM Lane VIC Ratio 0.005 0,001 - HCM Ctrl Dly (slv) 9.2 7.5 0 HCM Lane LOS A A A HCM 95th %t11e Q(veli) 0 0 AM 2026 Build -out 2026 AM 3:05 pm 05/27/2025 Synchro 11 Report JTR Page 6 25-0901 World Olivet Assembly Mayfair Redevelopment TraH4C Impact Study Page 1 71 Luke Transportation Engineering Consultants, Inc. HCM 7th TWSC Build -out 2026 AM 7: E 1 st St & Project Enter Only Intersection Int Delay, siveh 0.2 Movement EBL EST WST WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations elf to Y Traffic Vol, vehfi 5 89 70 4 0 0 Future Vol, vehfi 5 89 70 4 0 0 Conflicting Peds, #fir 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channetized - None None - None Storage Length - 0 Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 0 Grade, % 0 0 - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 72 72 72 72 72 72 Heavy Vehicles, % 4 4 3 3 2 2 Mvmt Flow 7 124 97 6 0 0 Major/Minor Majort M*r2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 103 0 - 0 238 100 Stage 1 . 100 - Stage 2 - 138 - Critical Hdwy 4.14 6,42 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 542 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 . . . . 5.42 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.236 3.518 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1477 751 9M Stage 1 . . 924 Stage 2 . . . . 889 Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1477 747 956 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - 747 - Stage 1 919 Stage 2 889 Approach EB WB SB HCM Ctri Dly, stv 0.4 0 0 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLnt Capacity (vehlh) 96 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.005 HCM Ctrl Dly (slv) 7.4 0 0 HCM Lane LOS A A A HCM 95th %04e Q(veh) 0 AM 2026 Build -out 2026 AM 3:05 pm 05/27/2025 Synchro 11 Report JTR Page 7 Page / 72 25-0901 World Olivet Assembly Mayfair Redevelopment Traffic Impact Study Luke Transportation Engineering Consultants, Inc. HCM 7th TWSC Build -out 2026 AM 8: San Juan Ave & Proiect Exit Intersection Int Delay, slveh 0.5 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations r Traifle Vol, veM 0 1 6 0 0 10 Future Vol, veh/h 0 1 6 0 0 10 Conflicting Peds, #1hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized None None None Storage Length 0 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 0 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 0 Peak Has Factor 95 95 95 95 95 95 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 0 1 6 0 0 11 Major/Minor Minorl Ma_iorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 6 0 - Stage 1 Stage 2 Critical Hdwy 622 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 Follow-up Hdwy - 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 0 1076 0 0 Stage 1 0 - 0 0 Stage 2 0 0 0 Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - 1076 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver Stage 1 Stage 2 WS NB SB HCM Ctd Dly, siv 8.35 0 0 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBTWBLni SBT Capacity (vah/h) 1076 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.001 HCM Ctrl DIy (slv) 8.3 HCM Lane LOS A HCM 95th %file Q(veh) 0 AM 2026 Build -out 2026 AM 3:05 pm 05/27/2025 Synchro 11 Report JTR Page 8 25-0901 World Olivet Assembly Mayfair Redevelopment Tra/9ycImpact Study Page 1 73 Luke Transportation Engineering Consultants, Inc. HCM 7th AWSC Build -out 2026 PM 1: San Juan Ave & E Seminole Blvd Intersection Intersection Delay, siveh 7.3 Intersection LOS A Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Ti .T Y Traffic Vol, veh1h 49 19 6 40 15 3 Future Vol, veh/h 49 19 6 40 15 3 Peak Hour Factor 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.78 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 63 24 8 51 19 4 Number of Lanes 1 0 0 1 1 0 Approach EB WB NB Opposing Approach WB EB Opposing Lanes 1 1 0 Conflicting Approach Left NB EB Conflicting Lanes Left 0 1 1 Conflicting Approach Right NB WB Conflicting Lanes Right 1 0 1 HCM Control Delay, s/veh 73 74 7.4 HCM LOS A A A Lane NBLnt EBLn1 WBLn1 Vol Left, % 83% 0% 13% Vol Thru, % 0% 72% 87% Voi Right, % 17% 28% 0% Slgn Control Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 18 68 46 LT Vol 15 0 6 Through Vol 0 49 40 RT Vol 3 19 0 Lane Flow Rate 23 87 59 Geometry Grp 1 1 1 Degree of MI (X) 0.027 0.093 0.067 Departure Headway (Hd) 4.25 3.851 4.066 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Cap 836 930 880 Service Time 2.309 1.876 2.092 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.028 0.094 0,067 HCM Control Delay s/veh 7.4 7.3 7.4 HCM Lane LOS A A A HCM 95th-tile 0 0.1 0.3 0.2 PM 2026 Build -out 2026 PM 3:05 pm 05/27/2025 Synchro 11 Report JTR Pagel Page / 74 25-0901 World Olivet Assembly Mayfair Redevelopment Traffic Impact Study Luke Transportation Engineering Consultants, Inc. HCM 7th TWSC Build -out 2026 PM 2: San Juan Ave & E 1st St Intersection Int Delay, slveh 1,7 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations + $, + + Traffic Vol, veh h 9 100 3 7 126 3 5 3 2 6 2 16 Future Vol, vehm 9 100 3 7 126 3 5 3 2 6 2 16 Conflicting Peds, #Ihr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized None None None - None Storage Length Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 0 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 4 4 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 13 145 4 10 183 4 7 4 3 9 3 23 Major/Minor Maiorl Major2 Minorl Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 187 0 0 149 0 0 378 380 147 378 380 185 Stage 1 - 173 173 - 205 205 - Stage 2 - - 204 207 - 173 175 - Critkal Hdwy 4.12 4.14 7.12 6.52 6.22 712 6.52 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - Critkal Hdwy Stg 2 - 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 2.236 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 PotCap•1 Maneuver 1387 1420 5a0 552 900 579 552 857 Stage 1 - 829 756 797 732 - Stage 2 798 730 829 754 - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1387 1420 551 542 900 562 542 857 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - 551 542 562 542 - Stage 1 820 748 791 726 Stage 2 767 725 813 746 Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Ctrl Dly, sN 0.61 0.39 11.21 10.2 HCM LOS B B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SUM Capacity(veh1h) 594 144 92 727 HCM Lane VIC Ratio 0,024 0.009 0.007 - 0.048 HCM Ctrl Dly (slv) 11.2 7.6 0 7.6 0 10.2 HCM Lane LOS B A A A A B HCM 95th %tile 0(veh) 0,1 0 - 0 0.2 PM 2026 Build -out 2026 PM 3:05 pm 05/27/2025 Synchro 11 Report JTR Page 2 25-0901 World Olivet Assembly Mayfair Redevelopment Traffic.Impact Study Page 1 75 Luke Transportation Engineerinq Consultants, Inc. HCM 7th TWSC Build -out 2026 PM 3: San Carlos Ave & E 1st St Intersection Int Delay, slveh 2.2 Movement Eft EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SST SBR Lane Configurations + + + 4. Traffic Vol, vehlh 7 116 4 3 104 3 22 1 7 9 4 15 Future Vol, veh/n 7 116 4 3 104 3 22 1 7 9 4 15 Confrcting Peds, #rnr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channel¢ed None None None None Storage Length Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 0 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 0 - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 Heavy Vehicles, % 4 4 4 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 8 132 5 3 118 3 25 1 8 10 5 17 Major/Minor Maiorl Major2 Ninon Mina2 Conflicting Flow All 122 0 0 136 0 0 277 27B 134 275 279 120 Stage 1 - 150 150 - 127 127 Stage 2 - - 127 128 - 148 152 Critical Hdwy 4.14 4.13 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - 6.12 5.52 - 6A2 5.52 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - 6.12 5.52 - 6,12 5.52 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.236 2.227 3.518 4.018 3,318 3.518 4.018 3.318 PotCap-1 Maneuver 1453 1442 675 630 915 677 629 932 Stage 1 - 853 773 - 877 791 Stage 2 - - 877 790 854 771 Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1453 1442 652 624 915 665 624 932 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - 652 624 - 665 624 - Stage 1 847 769 875 789 Stage 2 853 788 841 767 Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Ctrl Oly, stv 0.41 0.2 10.42 9.83 HCM LOS B A Minor LanelMaior Mvmt NBLO EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (vehlh) 698 99 49 777 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.049 0.005 0.002 - 0.041 HCM Ctd Dly (stv) 10.4 7.5 0 7.5 0 9.8 HCM Lane LOS B A A A A A HCM 95th %tfle Q(veh) 0.2 0 - 0 0.1 PM 2026 Build -out 2026 PM 3:05 pm 05/27/2025 Synchro 11 Report JTR Page 3 Page / 76 25-0901 World Olivet Assembly Mayfair Redevelopment Traffic Impact study Luke Transportation Engineering Consultants, Inc. HCM 7th TWSC Build -out 2026 PM 4: Mellonville Ave & E 1 st St Intersection Int Delay, slveh Movement 5.6 EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Y Q T. Traffic Vol, vehlh 17 115 61 51 53 6 Future Vol, vehlh 17 115 61 51 53 6 Confiding Peds, #Ihr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channel¢ed - None None None Storage Length 0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 0 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 90 90 90 90 90 90 Heavy Vehicles, °% 4 4 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 19 128 68 57 59 7 MajodMinor M inor2 Me_iorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 254 62 66 0 0 Stage 1 62 Stage 2 192 - - Critical Hdwy 6.44 6.24 4.12 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.44 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.44 - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.536 3.336 2.218 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 730 997 1536 Stage 1 955 Stage 2 836 Platoon blocked, % MovCap-1 Maneuver 697 997 1536 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 697 - - Stage 1 912 Stage 2 836 at;e EB NB SB HCM Chi Dly, stv 9.51 4.06 0 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Maior Mvmt NBL NBT EBLnt SBT SBR Capacity (vehlh) 980 945 HCM Lane V1C Ratio 0.044 0,155 HCM Chi Dly (stv) 7.5 0 9.5 HCM Lane LOS A A A HCM 95th %tile 0(veh) 0.1 - 0.5 PM 2026 Build -out 2026 PM 3:05 pm 05/27/2025 Synchro 11 Report JTR Page 4 25-0901 World Olivet Assembly Mayfair Redevelopment Traffic Impact Study Page 1 77 Luke Transportation Enaineerin9 Consultants, Inc. HCM 7th TWSC Build -out 2026 PM 5: E 1st St & Proiect Exit Only Intersection Int Delay, slveh Movement 0.6 EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations } Y Traffic Vol, vehfi 0 103 101 0 7 8 Future Vol, vehlh 0 103 101 0 7 8 Conflicting Peds, #fir 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelaed None None - None Storage Length 0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 0 0 Grade, % 0 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 85 85 85 85 85 85 Heavy Vehicles, % 3 3 4 4 2 2 Mvmt Flow 0 121 119 0 8 9 Major/Minor Maiorl Maiar2 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 240 119 Stage 1 119 Stage 2 121 Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 542 - Crikal Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - Follow-up Hdwy - 3.518 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 0 0 748 9M Stage 1 0 0 906 Stage 2 0 0 904 Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap•1 Maneuver - - 748 933 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 748 - Stage 1 906 Stage 2 904 Approach EB WB SB HCM Ctri Dly, slv 0 0 9.4 HCM LOS A Minor LanelMaior Mvmt EST WBT SBLnt Capacity (vehlh) 837 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.021 HCM Ch l Dly (slv) 9.4 HCM Lane LOS A HCM 95th %ttle Q(veh) 0.1 PM 2026 Build -out 2026 PM 3:05 pm 05/27/2025 Synchro 11 Report JTR Page 5 Page / 78 25-0901 World Olivet Assembly Mayfair Redevelopment Trafc Impact Study Luke Transportation Engineering Consultants, Inc. HCM 7th TWSC Build -out 2026 PM 6: Lee Ave & E 1st St Intersection Int Delay, slveh Movement 0.2 EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations 1. d Y Traffic Vol, vehm 105 5 2 101 2 2 Future Vol, vehm 105 5 2 101 2 2 Conflicting Peds, #Rtt 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized None None - None Storage Length 0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 0 0 Grade, % 0 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 85 85 85 85 85 85 Heavy Vehicles, % 3 3 4 4 2 2 Mvmt Flow 124 6 2 119 2 2 Major/Minor Malorl Maior2 Minort Conflicting Flow All 0 0 129 0 250 126 Stage 1 - - - 126 Stage 2 124 Critical Hdwy 4.14 6.42 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 542 - Criticai Hi Stg 2 - 5.42 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.236 3.518 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1444 739 924 Stage 1 899 Stage 2 902 Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1444 737 924 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - 737 - Stage 1 899 Stage 2 900 - EB WB NB HCM Chi Dly, sN 0 0.15 9.42 HCM LOS A Minor LanelMaior Mvmt NBLnl EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (vehth) 820 35 HCM Lane VIC Ratio 0.006 0.002 HCM Ctrl Dly (stv) 9.4 7.5 0 HCM Lane LOS A A A HCM 95th %me a(veh) 0 0 PM 2026 Build -out 2026 PM 3:05 pm 05/27/2025 Synchro 11 Report JTR Page 6 25-0901 World Olivet Assembly Mayfair Redevelopment Tral99c Impact Study Page 1 79 Luke Transportation Engineering Consultants, Inc, HCM 7th TWSC Build -out 2026 PM 7: E 1st St $ Proiect Enter Only Intersection Int belay, s/veh 0.1 Movement EBL EST WBT WBR S8L SBR Lane Configurations 4 to Y Traffic Vol, vehm 3 104 110 2 0 0 Future Vol, veh/h 3 104 110 2 0 0 Conflicting Peds, Vhr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized None None . None Storage Length 0 Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 0 Grade, °% 0 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 88 88 88 88 88 88 Heavy Vehicles, °% 3 3 4 4 2 2 Mvmt Flow 3 118 125 2 0 0 Major/Minor Maiort Maior2 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 127 0 0 251 126 Stage 1 126 Stage 2 - 125 - Critical Hdwy 4.13 6.42 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - Cdkal Hdwy Stg 2 - 5.42 Follow-up Hdwy 2.227 3.518 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1453 737 924 Stage i - 900 Stage 2 901 Platoon blocked, °% Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1453 736 924 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - 736 - stage 1 897 Stage 2 901 Approach EB WB SB HCM Ctrl Dly, stv 0.21 0 0 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Maior Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLnt Capacity (veh/h) 50 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.002 - HCM Ctrl Dly (s/v) 7.5 0 0 HCM Lane LOS A A A HCM 95th %Vle 0(veh) 0 PM 2026 Build -out 2026 PM 3:05 pm 05/27/2025 Synchro 11 Report JTR Page 7 Page / 80 15-0901 World Olivet Assembly Mayfair Redevelopment Traffic Impact Study Luke Transportation Engineering Consultants, Inc. HCM 7th TWSC Build -out 2026 PM 8: San Juan Ave & Proiect Exit Intersection Int Delay, slveh 0.6 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations r f f Trac Vol, veh/h 0 3 16 0 0 26 Future Vol, veh/h 0 3 16 0 0 26 Confrdng Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channel¢ed None None None Storage Length 0 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 0 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 - 0 Peak Hour factor 95 95 95 95 95 95 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 0 3 17 0 0 27 Major/Minor Whorl WOO Major2 Conflicting Flow All 17 0 Stage i Stage 2 Coucal Hdwy 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 Follow-up Hdwy - 1318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 0 1062 0 0 Stage 1 0 - 0 0 Stage 2 0 0 0 Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - 1062 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver Stage 1 Stage 2 Approach WB NB SB HCM CM Dly, stv 8.4 0 0 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NSTWBLnl SBT Capacity(vehlh) 1062 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.003 HCM Ctd Oly (s/v) 8.4 HCM Lane LOS A HCM 95th %file 0(veh) 0 PM 2026 Build -out 2026 PM 3:05 pm 05/27/2025 Synchro 11 Report JTR Page 8 25-0901 World Olivet Assembly Mayfair Redevelopment Traffic Impact Study Page 1 81 Luke Transportation Engineering Consultants, Inc. Appendix F — Auxiliary Turn lane Worksheets Page / 82 25-0901 World Olivet Assembly Mayfair Redevelopment Traffic Impact Study Luke Transportation Engineering Consultants, Inc. Build -out — Eastbound Left -Turn Lane Analysis Project Entrance (Intersection #3) on East 1st Street A.M. Peak Hour Figure 2 - 5. Guideline for determining the need for a major -road left -turn bay at a two-way stop -controlled intersection. 2-lane roadway (English) I NPt IT Variable Value 85" percentilee speed, rnph: 25 Percent of left -turns in advancing volume (V ), %: 15% Advancing volume (Vr,), veh/h: so Opposing volume V , veh/h: 75 n rrPI rr Variable Value Limiting advancing volume (V ), veh/h: 522 Guidance for determining the need for a major -road left -turn bay: Lift -turn treatnr:nt NO? warranted. CALIBRATION CONSTANTS Variable Value Average time for making left -turn, s: 3.0 Critical headway, s: 5.0 Average time for left -turn vehicle to clear the advancing lane, s: 1.9 t 800 t 700 o 600 e 500 400 'o > 300 c 200 .y P, 100 O 0 LaM1-turn Veafinenl w led. I ireatmem 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 Advancing Volume (VA), veh/h P.M. Peak Hour Figure 2 - 5. Guideline for determining the need for a major -road left -turn bay at a two-way stop -controlled intersection. 2-lane roadway (English) INPUT i Variable Value 851" aercentile, speed. rrnh: 25 t 800 Percent of left -turns in advancing_ volume (VA, %: 6% 700 Advancing volume (V,), veh/h: 123 c 600 e 500 = 400 Opposingvolume V , veh/h: 110 OUTPUT Variable Value r:At IRRATI(#j rtxv_erANTC Variable Value Average time for making left -turn, s: 3.0 Critical headway, s: I 5.0 1 Average time for left -turn vehicle to clear the advancing lane, s: 1.9 Lstt-Stun rreatment warrarned. CL 0 0 �i 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 Advancing Volume (VA), veh/h 700 25-0901 World Olivet Assembly Mayfair Redevelopment Traffic Impact Study Page 1 83 Luke Transportation Engineering Consultants, Inc. Build -out — Westbound Right -Turn Lane Analysis Project Entrance (Intersection #3) on East 1s* Street A.M. Peak Hour Figure 2 - 6. Guideline for determining the need for a major -road right -turn bay at a two-way stop -controlled intersection. n.1D1 M Roadway geometry: I 2-lane roadmy Variable Value Major -road speed, mph: 25 Major -road volume (one direction), %eh/h: 200 Ri ht-turn volume, veh/h: 5 W1111111 Variable Value Limiting right -turn volume, %eh/h: 493253 _ Guidance for determining the need for a major -road right -turn bay for a 2-lane roadway: Do NOT add right -turn bay. Note: Major road volume set to 200 to show Red triangle in the graph. Actual major street volume is 75. P.M. Peak Hour Figure 2 - 6. Guideline for determining the need for a major -road right -turn bay at a two-way stop -controlled Intersection. INPUT Roadway geometry: 2-lane roadv y Variable Value I Major -road speed, mph: 25 Major -road volume (one direction), veh/h: 200 Right -turn volume, veh/h: 1 3 nt>rPl rr Variable Value I Linting ri ht-turn volume, mh/h. 493253 Guidance for determining the need for a major -road right -turn bay for a 2-lane roadway: Do NOT add , ql,7 !td , bay. 140 ` Atltl ngM - tum bay • 120100 1 E 0 80 > 60 r 40 \ a 201 — 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 Major -Road Volume (one direction), veh/h Note: Major road volume set to 200 to show Red triangle in the graph. Actual major street volume is 110. Page / 84 25-0901 World Olivet Assembly Mayfair Redevelopment TrafiiC Impact study Luke Transportation Engineering Consultants, Inc. Build -out — Eastbound Left -Turn Lane Analysis Project Entrance (Intersection #7) on East 1st Street A.M. Peak Hour Figure 2 - 5. Guideline for determining the need for a major -road left -turn bay at a two-way stop -controlled intersection. 2-lane roadway (English) INPUT Variable Value 85' percentile speed, rnph: 25 t 800 Percent of left -turns in advancing volume (VA), %: 5% 700 Advancing volume (VA), veh/h: 'o 600 Opposing volume V , veh/h: 74 > m 500 OUTPUT 400 0 > 300 lim O 0 It 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 Advancing Volume (V,), veh/h CALIBRATION CONSTANTS Variable Value Average time for making left -turn, s: I 3.0 Critical headway, s: I 5.0 Average time for left -turn vehicle to clear the advancing lane, s: I 1.9 P.M. Peak Hour Figure 2 - 5. Guideline for determining the need for a major -road left -turn bay at a two-way stop -controlled intersection. 2-lane roadway (English) INPUT Variable Value 85'" percentile speed, rnph: 25 t 800 Percent of left -turns in advancing volume (VA), %: 3% 700 Advancing volume (VA), veh/h: 107 0 600 22e2si22 volume V , veh/h: 112 > ro 500 rx1TPt1r . 400 Variable Value Limiting advancing volume (VA), veh/h: 1080 Guidance for determining the need for a major -road left-furn bay: L eti ium treal—nt NOT war. 4nien CALIBRATION CONSTANTS Variable I Value Average time for making left -turn, s: 3.0 Critical headway, s: 5.0 Average time for left -turn vehicle to clear the advancing lane, s: 1.9 0 > 300 c 200 o 100 O 0 LeRium Imenl warzarned. treatment na w Ie& 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 Advancing Volume (VA), veh/h 25-0901 World Olivet Assembly Mayfair Redevelopment Traffic Impact study Page 185 Luke Transportation Engineering Consultants, Inc. Build -out — Westbound Right -Turn Lane Analysis Project Entrance (Intersection #7) on East 1st Street A.M. Peak Hour Figure 2 - 6. Guideline for determining the need for a major -road right -turn bay at a two-way stop -controlled intersection. INaIFT Roadway geometry: 2-lane roadmy .1 Variable Value I Major -road speed, mph: 25 Major -road volume (one direction), oeh/h: 200 Right -turn volume, veh/h: 4 OUTPUT Variable Value Limiting right -turn volume, veh/h: 493253 Guidance for determining the need for a major -road right -turn bay for a 2-1ane roadway: Do NOT add richt-turn uav Note: Major road volume set to 200 to show Red triangle in the graph. Actual major street volume is 74. P.M. Peak Hour Figure 2 - 6. Guideline for determining the need for a major -road right -turn bay at a two-way stop -controlled intersection. I Npt IT Roadway geometry: 24ane roadv y •l 1 Variable I Value Major -road speed, rrph: 25 Major -road volume (one direction), veh/h: 200 Right -turn volume, veh/h: 2 OUTPUT Variable Value Urrling right -turn volume, veh/h: 493253 Guidance for determining the need for a major -road right -turn bay for a 2-lane roadway: Do NOT add right -turn bay. 140 i Adddd=mil - lum bay m 120 !t1 m 100 o 80 \ > 60 E 40 \ 20 0! 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 L Major -Road Volume (one direction), veh/h Note: Major road volume set to 200 to show Red triangle in the graph. Actual major street volume is 112. page / 86 25-0901 World Olivet Assembly Mayfair Redevelopment Trafflc Impact Study Luke Transportation Engineering Consultants, Inc. Appendix G — LYNX Route 46E 25-0901 World Olivet Assembly Mayfair Redevelopment TrafficImpact Study Page 1 87 Luke Transportation Engineering Consultants, Inc. WELCOME ABOARD! LYNX ope,ates 79 Lnss :o gtea; paces SANF• • , throughout Central Rlonda If ycu dont see • yc4, desti^atio... here. CONTACT US antl we cxn cornett you co the rig:-: Lini for yoa-t-:P A;d.ng LYNX.s Aso easy on Y. ,r wallet _ Ynu ran pay for your ;r6; as you Nnard t^_c Mrs' i LYNX 1 ONE RIDE ALL -DAY is the public r,:. $2•. C .00 $4.50 a uR,r •,:PekoeAdditional connectivity with Rs41:'.ar P•gular ar'�.e me �d:. d,. �'. Lsci:4es k.'rc+c $1.00 $2.25 4,--ix. D RECT SERVICE TO +idh L'Ak w:. LIV:. 4.f.-=AAf F=rx +?_ CONTACTIers hri lina ela Reacy to ro I I Lock In side c, III • MCA ile•4a I{rterd/L.StalkircetY eMary leke Meerw NeeNeRl e y-, Bad xatlrw 1 phone aaRferr /p.•tl CerR10I • • a THANK FOR RI ®TeeesCentre AR- 025 La.aarsnw .k. M d. b . x.gk.iPwt Sen,inoie end I —T.rrA 0 _ tetst , — E.w+4 Tam Ga4r x E Th—, l s s.• m Jr .ETF:Nas l-'�IIR+ rth'.-•a, to ,, C k L. Pars Park L �Wb� crt.R. C.Mer 1 Crtea, y SANFORD SEYINOLE CENTRE Greenwood Lake Mary Sh d o a5-6 C..ntT Clark aad Can•tr.11i M Sal- 9 ic— C—ty Home Rd S,.A k Stau C.II.N �e Sad.rd/L•k. Mary c.ww. S¢ AND 10] 'EMS OLE ONiaLFGE Sand Pond Rd �Adul.l.tnt+. Sr.JS«.nty tl ONwEExoATS i ®fro MS.P 4fp O •w•r.rk !;tm.: 101 <76N 6N 43 :7G5. 4L9'7 S••rRty Naigeb.rLiM .rwihs qd uw Iran Sanl.rd Semnrol. LenVa r.AUP.r�Bl.d .ntl l5fh sne.t. a m rb ,•rvka In C—I LanV]I Spanfad. ..•• 7wia.l. C.o.ey eR f.rMe.s WIW.e CexryAa'o _ I I 3p d Tr.. xultA 1 © mst arrewRrr� Mr.vti.NlMrprt SUNRAIL wnra1— SSS. RAIL.411 Ew LYNxcmn•cti.ns Regular u.ks •� s....a � as n,..,.. r.s.sratmr, ra.+r%a•.h =pin Fa• Links Sun pall tln• .ed atati. NZWMSORWY FOR RTaRmMO' IN © o LYNX Nwpt.l Palnt 4 �Irt— & LYNX" Page / 88 15-0901 World Olivet Assembly Mayfair Redevelopment Traffic Impact Study Luke Transportation En4ineerino Consultants, Inc. EFFECTWEAPRIL2025-ALL HiSSLIVOC_hetc;rN r_SA1EArr:.exWIEA4eau3jE IOCRutu;E T mes indicate departures from the BEGINNING of the route- Diagrams show major pornts on each Link -buses make addihonai axal stops along the Amy. 34 NORTHBOUND 45 in EASTBOUND 46C EASTB0UND LSanford S,rRail tosemole Centre 6E m Family Meahh Char Yi FIRSTTRIP 530 am a'am 6:55 am ..'v }!� '�• .V!KSMfa 1HE NOW .=6:45.. DAY i-9sm :00, -.30 - MI6KIfa IHE HOIM ^�' ti FIRSTTRIP ►1RSTTRIF-5,45am' 15.40am 1 DAY F�3 anDAY 6-pain :15.:45 Spinipn EVE EVE a-9pm 10 a-I1am xo LASTTRII 9:x0om e:20om 7.55 LASTTRIP I::.m-r7 fxn :35 3onamle MUM [ani.. vrnlMwnq-r+Nryanh NO :2-! pm :M :40 SERVICE 3/ SOUTNBOUND 1-3pm _35 4Q� WESTBOUND `P to Snit eCar" 7-41,n _45 v to Salford 5unIIA � i A V:HSMn,mE •rOUa FIRSTTRIP 1 5A5an 625am 17_00am - — DAY 6-9om 15':45 15' 45 aam-.rem .45 5-OpH :15,:45 :35 00 _._. _E-7 ran .15,.50 M 7-oP,r, B-9om ;SO LASTTRIP - - 19:45 om a:25 om 13.00mn samnra4NmM cwv..nNntumr-E�-d+ruw 03 NORTNBOUIND n s"u'lc Ccmm IV :2 20 wN9MFa rwrHam FIRSTTRIP S10am 5.35s 1 615an DAY 5 6— :10.:40 :35 - iam-7prr. :00.:20, :40 ;06,:35 :15 EVE 7-OG�. :u NIDHT 5-3,�r. :So - "ITTI11► 9'25pm 9:35pm ?ISM 103 SOUtoFwn PTNerkBOuND vie o�rrs �A� apH& 1: 21 — wAsarrsa fare HOw FIRSTTRIP i 5.05am 1 5'15ar 5:35am 1 DAY 5 6am :05, :35 J5 :Co. 1* . i on-Ecm 1 :a0 :15.:45 EVE 6-7pm' :00.-30 :30 e9mi NIGHT &1Durrr' :20 :li LASTTRIP 10:209m 10159m 730M I 45 WESTBOUND to S—..ok Sisx Cohege 4calhror • 5�� `T::i` Jura "`d r �'i 9 33 !G DAY 56am :30,10 - 6-bam 10.10 R-9om :20 9 :Cain :20 10-11 am :35 NO 1t hen-12 r- 10 :00 SERVICE 12 2pm :w 2-4pn -.45 4-7pm :15.:45 EYE , epm :45 8 G NEIOHBORLINN J Sanford NelghbioU0651 W,#d.rSarixd S:—o..Comte 'I � e!a:es a> urCaren. ac:'n a -.4+3 A,•�r, "rw� h!!rYlr. SM:b'Yli! dorm:own Sa^'Oro ono 1h. area as ...� °one A.e arrf Sant.:?n1 Aro a� a+•ea ese, ..: . in-s a:r Fanner can Seek their nde wing the RIDES ON DENANO Fog or by uDln9 407-7u-0t0e. armia rHdwl. FMSTTRIP S:OOsn 5:15 am DAY :00 '15 NO SE LASTTIIN e:00 Pm 8:75 pm RVICE EY61R' :t71R' RJw Oa �.. ,•�, sin ts.. 0��+ Dormload these spits to help too pay your fan• report safety slid aeconty contemn and uhadWe your NeighborLink redi, on demand. �pp5[are - Canepat>t.y LYNX has 21 i odwres. biec below. to help you f.nd your bLS Each one shows the Links serving a cenar- area, Sire -ern Park. of a oar.:cRa- service like LYMMO. You can aso use the table tc 11e n9hy, which shows each Link arld the brochure : ap ears on. Note that some Lnks are shown an more than one brochure. LYNX BUS SIRwa BROCHURE5 �Apopka SWinStop ® LYW10 0 Cabrera""'S'ws.0a U DU,do lnlcm.utrJA: ,•crl O cnk:nm Or Ew11Wnl an Pnncura Wnlmxt rarr.le• C0lcnw 0, WuV.Vcsl Oaks 51s11I Q Ncacmw' I SaoeSLil D.17 11i\lie ax.wny j SMM'A Sr link fm-a Dlw fidAtr y0r r. Ave S.aRi Connrcdars Pit, 40s T,.nre- Conley I ( UCp AWN Film pea Gp.At-.T, 10 Onn.y Arm (I� Flo do'iswO sic U Waa't'y—S'g 5uocr5Lp ljoJ'� K's mince InYrn•al)I sw on �V W'Me• Pdh Vill p 6N LYWCewalstwor OUESTIONS4 0-- ) fou.,+..rw u.,,lwr ® I.I...LVNA iftvll <++e�'o a -.,.LYNX �V IeNFMFe iHF H Wa FIRSTTRIP 1 5:30an 1 6.15am I DAY 5-ean :00.:30 8'No m-.rpn a0 :15 SEME EVE 5-/Am 00.:30 tAST TRIP T:00 6'15ons 46WEASTBOUND to Sanford Sun Pad d 4j, ay'e wASMFa THEHWa „ FIRSTTRIP i 520an 6:OOam 640am DAY >-parr :20.40 d-roam :20 0 ttm ;27 ::1-1, p , :36 :00 Ao 12-1 pre -27 5 :20 :20.:50 EVE i-a,an :20 LASTTRIF 7.20— Mom 7:40om t WESTBOUND 6W 'i V n Eo Samklole Tarn GMra MIh MEa THE nOUa FIRSTTRIP_ _ 6:05am 6:46am C25am Q4Y 6-9a+1 :06_SS_ 9-10am 05 :i :13 —1,Pin :05 :45 25 `-1 pn :15 Spn :IM EYE 5-8A. - _35 6-p pre :05 - LASTTRIP 9OSan 045 mr 725om Link 9—hra Usk e'ccho'! s02 1-, Fmlidr 303 (ARV C4) 407 (!)(k) so. T. 416 (')'% 304 WI) 441 0 ST,. 107 (17 311 OIOO,O i.-MO 350 B©O O® '05 W m® Li-U. 0 a ar.P.frruwa a4 FIT 434" ;)lwi(k, NeghhmLfnY 4306 (9®(y 601 is, Q fia4 rot Ebb all 5/2 • ,rr,Y 6t3 .... 1a) 621 92: 431 :OT $41 e61 ) fiez •`�'kJJIYJ 25-0901 World Olivet Assembly Mayfair Redevelopment Traffic Impact Study Page 189 Luke Transportation Engineering Consultants, Inc. w-; A � y ff f 9 E a smm �n s sa ��19 o I�rr C n j, 1E m a c rt r C affi000°g -- �yo 2°93a��u��m .� nwn n g u a 6 J s 2 2 j,', dM W s io '^1 J Y� 0 .-..a W �o of a o o ►� r = o z w o o :�qf [may' _•.�. y g rc fn W > a W 0 > > w W p zz° �„ a m Q �' o 0 o W o cc >, Z U) m o Z Q a , wo 9 o cc w�� W w$wo xax c o��8 _ =oaLL�w 0 o q�o�� v aoo, okLL��= J g�� Wow OWo W� <o 6 -�3 fll IA � Sad€� J H.C.. W _P ~ W Ic _ �7 ~ W W u = 3; O F mIL QQIL 2 �s°o Wpg3� Wa'zQ CLL d zg°w�ea A �s Q eizw 'EIM ! Z s� Q J a v aeu vw N i is i P jl .it �4a14',il, f i, {{[ 1 i!! 4 11�'1{c 8 1 0 1! ;V i 41ii' } f 1{4 III, � ;ji 7�[�t { 41 4t f Iii 4 [flit Ii{" ii i1 1'ii 21i[ I jt !t{ 11' `il1li Is [ 1t 4 fl4 m-d AEI q 11 1�. , , [ii] } W { ]!E�l�4illiil� ` I i i i IYII✓i iey a w:.,aa ala ory � �} �l [ s .,a"�.. �1�•, ��f€�gt 0 © eouoi�'a'orvus GNVId 2iIV3AVWyye Jill 0 3 NVId NOIlIlOW3❑ 33 p 8 `i o i I anuanb u,;i i� ueS N e as rl � 'PPWj RW o no�el'Z ZZ'S a j• e ' p - - 1N3YYdO-I3A3G NV-ld 2iIVdAVV4 z Sdw A nun ONV SIIOS 'HdVii•JO-LOHd rn V Eo $a lVW3V'NIVId OOOId'3sn aNV-1 Mdnin:i'ONINOZ IL IL "� I I0. 1p (, -- f11 Ilfl Hal f i m 49 IL ol F u 2F G _ O IL �r AV IL ■fie r • R Al Lj J� I K� _ e� !! - anNoid'ww.ee �n'4! 1N3WdOl3A3O NVId NIV3AVW i N 8 E' lit] 1 e $ NV1d 1N3WdOl3A3C3831SVW Y S Z3$ --.___. '.__..� IwAostlz 3.CLto.roN •�� . .. '[L 3.ZZ,[0.4pN •. .• � yew` H � wPo y TI m ql�' ----- sly I --� � •/ gjw HUE � � I � mm3s r-,f.-3---• _ .�" .. SG 9oE _ ,1Y�N ---_ g§� � � � 3 anuanyVoenp ueg ° $ � m m rr lee VWIPod I--7-------_-__ _ ea Frs w�9M.y .i.a '•n 3 P E 96f5E ® enuull .wo)u� e 1N3Wd013Aaa NVId NIVdAVW Jill o g Y HI ® g NVld 3 d 3dV�SNVl 1d0N0O 0 d a� ARMA §o .zo" `z / r.v E.ztl.rz 3oa3« 0, O 9�eD."Eoi9°o otla9ativotlu9.°i? O�A('��'} _» �oain333 a <Y� ` • _ Sup' "m �m mingi 4. +_ 6s�6Hg 's g i .g S afim y • w,be c� w �:w a g 91 � m ..,tl3a�`�a;��»��,�3„ n3U3„WRlno••O� It'Swr59s9E Tema 3soaotlarpryv 9M 91v3E (S9roE=C.ce yr Atl39333tl1 Ae0H9�r'03tl ai)p3tl tl33311s133tlEY e to natl ales ON 51 7 ® tiv�ol�'ww�es E1 $ e 1N3Wd013A30 Nb'ld 2JIVdAVW A' was•"'^^ i ^�$§ 7a a SlIV13OONIS310N3dVOSONVI1d30N00 SO i p 6 �•c�Syz £ 'g�3 �e jY �NI. . wad ��w W n�w tlm� �o t a rz s m Y is o h o o V 8 � 3 e�w 1 ? I � I of I E• 1 ��t� 1 $ yEb� Y �;$ E �'' �� a $� ;YF 2' : F$ �1.'1 �a1 € i $� `� ;` ': , a 1 � ; E,a ; ➢F 1 � s E � € a$ � � a� 1 i a" �.E.$$E `971 7; Y� �:�pl �41 E��y 7 � � ]E tj $" 1 d �� $ i-F a$ a?_F F E 1 i ��s E$� F ]s €a i � '1 gg t s• � gg$ �' gg E aa n+ pp pp E � ! �t¢• €t F �E a $ a $°. 3� ��a$ � € E t �$a 7�s $ gg � b � E.� � � s Eb 8 � d i &ii 62�x-t{ EEC tg 1 4A� 1 1 Y51` 9 1 y a E' t4 a 3 se 1 t a '• i 1 1"1 Via€ € 1 a tE 11EEe Et gg 1 li q 4 J 3� z 1 $ �+F �x sY ; �E �.1$E a � � s$ � Y �•. i� 1 a ;€ � 4 � $�$� $]a� +i+ , $�# F �1 ]t# a ]s. Y#s& 'te gE 31 'a �E _x1 $§ $ s g a13 � q{ � € aa$F�1€`�$$ 1' gg- EF$e $ 31Y ;aI 6 %$11 € 1 a1`a2S 3$ :a i�t i $ $'$ to ],e ; " ;. {� j b_ a t.F1 �Y•�+ . 1E'tf I 1!fillF33 ppp5SSSg a a niblg}"=# {pyFe aft?]Y F] W € $ + Y ! I as g a §2• taA € ee ;t FF 3 toF$ $ ' a ; $a• $€' E$ € e .b $ _ L F i ! $ $! i5, $ g1 F $.a: $ € $S i; $aa 111111 a j $[ Ffa 0 1 1 O$l 5111 t I.t FaaiE. s y ?j�Y€� " o g g k3/�3O dill NV'1d i11VdAVWj" ® 34 u3 t SlIV13O 4NV S310N 3dVOSONVl 1d30N00 xqg 3 g � � `El8 g I g "° t9� ii " tY t e1Fn �' 'W M,I aip!sg a'§4R, 6 gc i 9 �ae i 52 in s HMMoLL yaws: °o i�$Y�ac.,,ei� g 'a 3lYtbitl'�9tl°tl23E o° i l pa 1 i �g9l I 11%i6 E Rind 9�Q1 a� �a i3 �Ee s'e�n s � "IoKE ss c 3g fMaEEd.E a -IMMMMf ew,� m II l $ a w s a in � !#! • $ƒ $ !$ _ ! _,__ _eo eon d__n . ,.! « �e a_� o:S am !! )|� . < | <\ an -a w : \ 42 �«\ �.: .\. � 5 I III i• x � �illl�I�1 awn+o-o ar ww..M w �; j�1 N LO N O N N N O U O O O E O U m C O N c cc 0) c c c� aD O CD 0 d 7 O m 0) 0 c E aD Ln Z Apploys WS _ RMV/ Item No. 9-L CITY COMMISSION MEMORANDUM 25-254 NOVEMBER 10, 2025 AGENDA TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Commission PREPARED BY: Eileen Hinson, AICP, MSSR - Director of Planning SUBMITTED BY: Norton N. Bonaparte, Jr., ICMA-CM, City Manager SUBJECT: Adoption of Ordinance No. 2025-4838 for a Planned Development Rezone to establish a mixed -use development at 1000 East 1 st Street. THIS IS A MATTER INVOLVING THE QUASI-JUDICIAL PROCESS, THUS COMMISSIONERS MUST DISCLOSE ALL EX-PARTE COMMUNICATIONS INCLUDING THE NAME OF THE COMMUNICATOR, AND THE TIME, PLACE AND SUBSTANCE OF THE COMMUNICATION. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS MUST BE DISCLOSED AND MADE A PART OF THE RECORD BEFORE FINAL ACTION IS TAKEN. A COMMISSIONER'S INVESTIGATION, SITE VISITS AND RECEIPT EXPERT OPINIONS MUST ALSO BE DISCLOSED AND MADE A PART OF THE RECORD. PERSONS WHO HAVE OPINIONS CONTRARY TO THOSE EXPRESSED IN AN ORAL OR WRITTEN EX-PARTE COMMUNICATION MUST BE GIVEN A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITYTO REFUTE OR RESPOND TO THE COMMUNICATION AT THE HEARING. THE PARTIES TO THIS PROCEEDING ARE THE CITY STAFF AND THE APPLICANT AND THEY ARE SUBJECT TO CROSS EXAMINATION AND MUST GIVE THEIR TESTIMONY UNDER OATH. OTHERS WHO SEEK PARTY STATUS ARE ALSO SUBJECT TO CROSS EXAMINATION. PERSONS ONLY PARTICIPATING BY PROVIDING COMMENTS ARE NOT SUBJECT TO CROSS EXAMINATION AND ARE NOT SWORN IN AS EVIDENTIARY WITNESSES. THE QUALIFICATIONS OF CITY STAFF ARE EITHER PUBLISHED ON THE CITY'S WEBSITE OR SUBMITTED AT THE HEARING. SYNOPSIS: Requesting to consider a Planned Development, (PD) rezone to establish a mixed -use development at 1000 East 1 st Street has been received. The property is owned by 1000 East First Estates LLC, whose sole manager is Marian Spisak. Javier Omana, CNU-A of CPH Corp., has made application for the owner. A Citizens Awareness and Participation Plan (CAPP) meeting was held on April 29, 2025, and a copy of the report is attached, which has been found to be satisfactory to the City. The Affidavit of Ownership and Designation of Agent form is attached, and additional information is available to ensure that all potential conflicts of interest are capable of being discerned. FISCAL/STAFFING STATEMENT: According to the Property Appraiser's records, the two parcels are developed with two separate stand-alone buildings which are vacant with the assessed tax values and total tax bills for 2025 shown below: Parcel Number Assessed Value Tax Bill Property Status (2025) (2025) 30-19-31-507-OEOO-0000 $3,839,726 $68,590 Private School & College 30-19-31-507-OF00-0010 $1,360,248 $24,519 Private School & College It is the applicant's intent to redevelop the property as a mixed -use development. The proposed re- development may generate additional tax revenue to the City. No additional staffing is anticipated if the PD Rezone is approved. BACKGROUND: The 5.84-acre subject property is ideally located on the north side of West 1st Street between San Juan Avenue and Mellonville Avenue. The property is currently assigned the RMOI, Multiple Family Residential, Office, Institutional, zoning district/classification under the provisions of the City's Land Development Regulations (LDRs) while being assigned the WDBD, Waterfront Downtown Business District future land use designation under the provisions of the City's Comprehensive Plan. The existing 3-story main building located on the property is approximately 75,000 square feet in size and was constructed circa 1925 with a 3-story detached dormitory building, about 7,582 square feet in size which was constructed in 1955. First known as Hotel Forrest Lake in 1926, the building was first used to boost tourism in a primarily agricultural area of Central Florida. Forrest Lake was a local politician and later a member of State government. One of his most well-known successes in politics was the passing of the bill that created Seminole County in 1913. Throughout the early- to mid- 1920s, Lake owned an icehouse and founded Seminole County Bank as well as developing the Hotel. The construction of a resort hotel was first proposed in the late-1920s by Forrest Lake when he served as Mayor of Sanford. As Mayor, Lake completed a public works program in the hopes of Sanford becoming the powerful and influential Seminole County seat. The public works program included the construction of a new city hall, a police station, a seawall along Lake Monroe, and the paving of City streets. Not only did Lake want to attract permanent citizens to the newly updated City, but he also wanted Sanford to become Central Florida's next tourist destination. The Hotel Forrest Lake was part of his solution. Consisting of 158 guest rooms each with their own private bathrooms, a ballroom and 2 dining rooms, the Hotel opened in 1926, but tourists did not visit due to a real estate bust occurring throughout Florida that same year. By 1928, the Hotel closed its doors as its namesake faced trial on charges of bank fraud. He was later sent to State prison for 14 years, only serving 6 years and living the rest of his life in Sanford dying in 1939. Historically, the property had many different land uses including most notably the former Mayfair Inn (hotel and dormitory) until 1966. The then New York Giant professional baseball team who resided in the Mayfair Inn during spring training that was held in the City using the City's historic baseball stadium as an important venue. By 1963, the former New York Giants moved their franchise to San Francisco becoming the current day San Francisco Giants. As a result, the Giants also moved their spring training facilities to another location. That same year, the City authorized a $1.3 million construction program to renovate the Sanford Naval Air Station and to create a new military academy. The Bernard McFadden Foundation, the directors of the school, purchased the Mayfair Inn as the location for the newly established Sanford Naval Academy. The Foundation significantly altered the building to accommodate the students and staff, including constructing a gymnasium and dormitory building on the property. From 1966 —1975 the subject property was operating as the Sanford Naval Academy. The non-profit New Tribes Mission purchased the Mayfair Inn in 1976. New Tribes Mission used property for housing and office uses for the organization's international headquarters until 2016. In 2016 the New Tribes Mission rebranded itself as Ethnos 360 and relocated to 312 West First Street. Since 2016, the property has been vacant with Ethnos 360 having sold the property to private On August 3. 2017. the Planning and Zoning Commission approved a conditional use to re- establish a hotel on the subject property. No other applications to implement the permitted hotel use were ever received by the City. Based on this approval the City and its citizens had anticipated the property being developed in a manner that is consistent with the overall goals of the City to enhance the economic and tourism development of the City's historic and vibrant downtown area. Proiect Background Provided at the September 4.2025 P & Z Commission Meeting The Planned Development rezone request is described as a proposed mixed -use development consisting of 46 multiple -family dwelling units and 28,000 square feet of office uses, which are supportive to the proposed use of a Christian Missionary Training Center. The proposed Administrative Hub projects to employ 50-75 people. The proposed Mayfair PD Master Plan complies with Article I submittal requirements, landscaping requirements, Article III Site Plan requirements, and parking requirements. While the Master Plan complies with the parking requirements for office uses and dormitory, Staff has determined that the amount of proposed paved parking is not consistent with the historic character of the structure and will negatively impact the historic context of the property. Staff seeks flexibility within this PD to either allow up to a 50-percent reduction in parking or the ability to allow 50-percent of the required parking to be of a stabilized base with grass parking, as approved by the City Engineer. Update following the Continued September 4.2025 P & Z Commission Meeting Since the September 4, 2025, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, Planning Staff has met with the applicant and revisions to the parking lot and landscaping has been made. The updated landscape plan has been added to the Staff report. Based on the new modifications to the plan, Staff removed the condition to allow grass parking and or a 50-percent reduction to the total parking requirement. Comprehensive Plan Pursuant to Objective 1.11 of the City's Comprehensive Plan, the WDBD land use designation "is designed to provide centralized residential, governmental, cultural, institutional, and general commercial activities within the downtown and waterfront urban area, while preserving the City's historic character and cultural heritage through context -sensitive design." Further, the objective states "The purpose of the WDBD land use designation is to: • Generate a revitalization effort that attracts private sector investment and strengthens the City's economy; • Establish the district as a Regional Center; • Strengthen public/private partnerships; Enhance the livability of North Seminole County by encouraging improved residential, retail, education, cultural and entertainment opportunities; and Provide the framework for redevelopment and infill. " Policy FLU 1.11.2: Apply Performance Criteria. All new development shall comply with the following criteria, all of which shall be implemented through mandatory site plan review of new development: a. Historic District Compatibility: The design of future development and redevelopment within the vicinity of the historic district shall be compatible with the design of buildings of historic significance which are located within the historic area and its environs. Site plan review shall incorporate criteria to ensure that the design of new structures, including building materials, roof lines, fenestration and setbacks, are compatible with buildings of historic significance. The subject property is not within or adjacent to a historic district. However, the subject property is a historically significant building worthy of preservation and eligible to be designated as a historic landmark. During the Development Plan process, site improvements will be considered in the context of preserving the historic significance of the property. b. Parking Provisions: New development within the WDBD shall be served by adequate parking resources. New development shall provide off-street parking sufficient to serve each proposed new development either on site or through the provision of a shared parking agreement or shall otherwise comply with the provisions of this Comprehensive Plan and implement land development regulations. Original Findings: The proposed Master Plan provides significant parking and parking lot landscaping that complies with the City's parking regulations. However, Staff found the amount of parking and impervious/lot coverage will be detrimental to the goal of preserving the historic nature of the property. Therefore, Staff recommends a reduction in either the number of parking spaces or number of spaces required to be paved in efforts to preserve the historic context. Update following the Continued September 4, 2025, P & Z Commission Meeting: The revised Master Plan landscape sheet provides parking and parking lot landscaping that complies with the City's parking regulations. The proposed reconfiguration of the parking area shifts the parking to the east so that the historic building is the central focus of the property and is in its proper context. C. Urban Design Amenities: Proposed new development shall provide a higher level of urban design amenities including landscaping, compatible signage, and pedestrian linkages together with a broader mix of land uses attractive to potential users of the downtown area. The applicant has provided a landscape plan that proposes enhancements to the streetscape as well as pedestrian connectivity within the site. However, as a religious organization, the function and operation of World Olivet Assembly administrative offices is designed to be a private space that neither encourages pedestrian activity nor will it attract potential users to the downtown area and is therefore inconsistent specifically with the Urban Design Amenities portion of this Comprehensive Plan Policy. d. Site Plan Review Process: The site plan review process shall include management procedures necessary to implement the WDBD development criteria, objectives and policies cited in the Comprehensive Plan. Where appropriate, the site plan review process shall ensure the preservation and enhancement of the "original" traditional neighborhood by implementing the recommendations of the historic surveys of the downtown area and the historic residential area along the Park Avenue Corridor. Original Findings: During the site design portion of the Master Plan review process, Planning Staff has attempted to work with the applicant to preserve the appropriate context of the property while ensuring future adaptive re -use of the property remains viable. Staff maintains that there is need for additional layout design elements, such as parking, landscaping, and pedestrian connectivity to be further assessed to preserve the historic context of the property and preserve the original traditional neighborhood. Update following the Continued September 4, 2025, P & Z Commission Meeting: Since the first hearing, Staff has worked with the applicant to reconfigure the parking to be sifted to the east and no longer in front of the main building to preserve the appropriate context of the property while ensuring future adaptive re -use of the property remains viable. e. Reinforce/Regenerate Historic Buildings: Encourage development and redevelopment of projects that reinforce and regenerate the historic significance of buildings and corridors within the historic area and its environs. Original Findings: The adaptive re -use of the property, as proposed, may encourage structural regeneration of a historic building that has been vacant for over ten years, however, some of the historic significance of the Mayfair Hotel may be lost through the redevelopment of the property. Update following the Continued September 4, 2025, P & Z Commission Meeting: The adaptive re -use of the property, as proposed, may encourage structural regeneration of a historic building that has been vacant for over ten years. With proper site design and context sensitive landscaping the redevelopment could regenerate the historic significance of the former Mayfair Hotel. f. Strategic Parking Resources: Promote development of adequate parking resources in strategic areas of the WDBD and pedestrian walkways linking major retail activity centers, as well as social, civic, recreational, or cultural attractions within the downtown and waterfront area. Original Findings: While the proposed Master Plan includes a substantial increase in parking capacity, it falls short in addressing a critical element of urban connectivity: pedestrian access. The current design does not introduce any new walkways or pedestrian corridors that would link the waterfront to key destinations such as the downtown district and Fort Mellon Park. This omission undermines the potential for a cohesive and walkable urban experience. Update following the Continued September 4, 2025 P & Z Commission Meeting: While the proposed Master Plan includes a substantial increase in parking capacity and introduces new sidewalks, staff has not seen sufficient demonstration of how these pedestrian improvements will function beyond basic connectivity. The applicant has not yet illustrated how the walkways will actively encourage movement between the waterfront, downtown district, and Fort Mellon Park, or help enhance the vibrant, walkable urban experience. Sanford's waterfront is a key cultural and economic asset, and with thoughtful design, these pathways could serve as vital links that encourage engagement, accessibility, and cohesion across the city's core destinations. g. Mix of Land Uses: Achieve a higher level of urban design amenities together with a broader mix of land uses attractive to potential users of the downtown and waterfront area. Original Findings: The applicant is not proposing a mix of uses that achieve a higher level of urban design amenities that will attract any potential users of the downtown as the uses being proposed are not publicly available. Update following the Continued September 4, 2025, P & Z Commission Meeting: The applicant has not demonstrated that a mix of uses that achieve a higher level of urban design amenities to attract potential users of the downtown are being implemented as part of this proposal. h. Regulatory Concepts: Provide a planning and management framework that incorporates regulatory concepts necessary to implement redevelopment planning objectives together with the recommendations of the historic surveys of the downtown area and the historic residential area along the Park Avenue Corridor. In review of the historic uses of this property, Staff has evaluated the existing conditions of the site and the objectives of both Comprehensive Plans policies and Land Development Regulations to provide the applicant with recommendations on the redevelopment of the property to maintain consistency with the historic downtown area. Those recommendations included modifications, site drainage concerns, floodplain, appropriate uses for the site, and several other elements. Staff finds that the Master Plan to be generally consistent with 5 of the 8 the Performance Criteria of numerated in Policy 1.11.2. However, the proposed development fails to meet Criteria C, F, and G. Based on the Economic Impact Statement provided by the applicant, they anticipate spending between 15 million and 30 million dollars on construction and renovation in addition to property tax bill of $91,832. Additionally, applicant has provided an Economic Impact Statement identifying how having the property occupied with residents and employees could have a "multiplier effect". The EIS identifies all secondary impacts of the proposed use and the possibility of obtaining Tax Exempt Status. Conclusion provided to the Plannine and Zonine Commissions on October 2, 2025 While the proposed development may fulfill its internal organizational goals of the applicant, it fails to prove it meets the broader civic expectation of connectivity and public engagement within the downtown core. The site is strategically positioned as a potential link between three vital areas of Sanford's downtown in relation to: the waterfront, the 1' Street corridor and Fort Mellon Park. Yet the current design, centered around private administrative offices for a self-contained organization, does not facilitate that connection. The proposed building function is inherently inward facing. It is designed for private use, with limited public access and no features that encourage pedestrian flow, gathering, or interaction. There are no walkways, plazas, or visual cues that invite movement between adjacent public spaces. As a result, the site fails to bridge the urban fabric, reducing the opportunity for a cohesive, walkable downtown experience. Moreover, with the potential for the property to be tax-exempt, the City could forfeit a stream of revenue that could have supported public infrastructure or services. In exchange, the community receives a space that may not contribute to economic vitality, does not attract visitors, and may not support the goals of downtown revitalization. This is especially concerning given Sanford's ongoing efforts to enhance its waterfront and historic district as distinct cultural and commercial destinations. In short, the development may serve its private mission, unfortunately may be at the expense of a greater public opportunity. A truly community -minded plan would integrate pedestrian pathways, shared spaces, and design elements that invite movement and interaction, strengthening the connection between key downtown assets and enriching the experience for residents and visitors alike. While Staff finds that the proposed Planned Development (PD) does not specifically align with all elements of the Waterfront Downtown Business District (WDBD), the determination of its consistency with the Future Land Use designation is respectfully deferred to the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Commission. Two recommendations have been provided for consideration. Update following the October 2. 2025. P & Z Commission Meetine After the continuation from September 4, 2025, at its regularly scheduled meeting, by a vote of vote of 4-3, on October 2, 2025, the City's Planning and Zoning recommend that the City Commission adopt an ordinance to rezone 5.84 acres located at 1000 East I` Street from Multiple - Family Residential -Office -Institutional, RMOI to Planned Development PD, zoning district. The recommendation is based on consistency with the goals, objectives, and policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan, as outlined by staff, and subject to a development order that includes all staff -recommended conditions. Motion carried with Mr. Acosta, Ms. Woodard and Ms. Wilson in opposition. All three commissioners stated that the proposed development does comply with FLU Policy 1.11.2. The recommendation included additional approval conditions and necessitated that, with adoption of the ordinance, a final revised Master Plan be adopted concurrently. The final recommendation to the Commission included the following conditions as provided by staff to accompany any approval in an associated Development Order: 1. Pursuant to Section 4.B.6.c of the Land Development Regulations (LDR) of the City of Sanford, this rezoning shall expire 3 years from the effective date of this Ordinance if all required infrastructure improvements have not been completed or an extension granted. 2. Unless specifically requested and approved on the PD Master Plan, any required elements missing from or not shown on the Mayfair PD Master Plan, as resubmitted for City Commission consideration, and Landscape Plan dated September 8, 2025, or found within the associated PD documents shall comply with and default to the regulations in the City's LDR. 3. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the Applicant shall obtain a Local Historical Landmark Designation from both the Historic Preservation Board and the City Commission. 4. Upon adoption of the Planned Development Ordinance, the property shall be subject to and must comply with Schedule S — Historic Preservation, as outlined in the City's Land Development Regulations. This requirement shall remain in effect unless formally amended through a modification to the approved Planned Development. 5. A Development Plan prepared and sealed by a licensed Florida professional engineer meeting the requirements of the City's Land Development Regulations must be submitted and approved prior to any site development activity. 6. Decorative and functional fountains shall be installed in all wet retention ponds as part of development approval which approval shall provide for ongoing maintenance requirements and responsibilities upon the appropriate party, but not the City. 7. In lieu of meeting standard landscaping requirements, the Applicant may submit a Comprehensive Landscaping Plan for review and approval, if such an approach is determined to better support the historic character and context of the property. The plan must demonstrate functional site design and be found acceptable by the City Engineer and Planning Staff. 8. If City Staff and the Property Owner are unable to agree to the details of this Development Order in any way, the matter will be submitted to the Planning and Zoning Commission for resolution at a public hearing, and the matter will be adjudicated by means of a development order or denial development order relating thereto. In addition to the staff recommendations, the Commission added the following additional condition based on the new information provided. 9. The applicant will provide for a retail/commercial component open to the public to consist of a history museum and bookstore/gift shop and/or exhibition space of not more than 550 square feet that not only highlight the history of the Mayfair historic landmark but also presents the legacy of Christian missions including the former New Tribes Mission and World Olivet Assembly. In addition, there shall be signage/plaques regarding the historical character of the site at locations near the public sidewalks on 1 st Street and on Seminole Boulevard. Update following the October 27, 2025 City Commission meetinz At the October 27, 2025 regular meeting, by a vote of 4-1, the City Commission approved on first reading an ordinance for a Planned Development Rezone to establish a mixed -use development at 1000 East 1st Street based on consistency with the goals, objectives, and policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan, as outlined by staff, and subject to a development order that includes all recommended conditions with the following modifications: Modify number 4 to require landing -marking of the property prior to Certificate of Occupancy, which has been added to the conditions as number 5 as follows: 5. Upon completion of construction and prior to issuance of any final Certificates of Occupancy for the renovations, the applicant shall work with staff to have the property designated as a Local Historic Landmark. In addition, the Commission requested modification to the condition regarding the museum/commercial/retail component added by the Planning and Zoning Commission, which has been included in the conditions and is written as follows: 9. The applicant will provide for a retail/commercial component open to the public that may consist of a history museum and/or bookstore/gift shop/cafe and/or exhibition space of not less than 550 square feet that, at a minimum, that highlights the history of the Mayfair historic landmark and the uses within. In addition, there will be signage/plaques regarding the historical character of the site at locations near the public sidewalks on 1 st Street and on Seminole Boulevard. LEGAL REVIEW: The City Attorney may or may not have reviewed the staff report and the specific analysis provided by City staff, but has noted the following that should be adhered to in all quasi-judicial decisions. Section 166.033, Florida Statutes, as amended in the 2022 Legislative Session, in Chapter 2021- 224, Laws of Florida (deriving from Committee Substitute for Committee Substitute for House Bill Number 1059) provides as follows (please note emphasized text): "166.033 Development permits and orders.— (1) Within 30 days after receiving an application for approval of a development permit or development order, a municipality must review the application for completeness and issue a letter indicating that all required information is submitted or specifying with particularity any areas that are deficient. If the application is deficient, the applicant has 30 days to address the deficiencies by submitting the required additional information. Within 120 days after the municipality has deemed the application complete, or 180 days for applications that require final action through a quasi-judicial hearing or a public hearing, the municipality must approve, approve with conditions, or denv the application for a development permit or development order. Both parties may agree to a reasonable request for an extension of time, particularly in the event of a force majeure or other extraordinary circumstance. An approval, approval with conditions, or denial of the application for a development permit or development order must include written findings supporting the municipality's decision. The timeframes contained in this subsection do not apply in an area of critical state concern, as designated in s. 380.0552 or chapter 28-36, Florida Administrative Code. (2)(a) When reviewing an application for a development permit or development order that is certified by a professional listed in s. 403.0877, a municipalitv may not request additional information from the applicant more than three times, unless the applicant waives the limitation in writine. (b) If a municipality makes a request for additional information and the applicant submits the required additional information within 30 days after receiving the request, the municipality must review the application for completeness and issue a letter indicating that all required information has been submitted or specify with particularity any areas that are deficient within 30 days after receiving the additional information. (c) If a municipality makes a second request for additional information and the applicant submits the required additional information within 30 days after receiving the request, the municipality must review the application for completeness and issue a letter indicating that all required information has been submitted or specify with particularity any areas that are deficient within 10 days after receiving the additional information. (d) Before a third request for additional information, the applicant must be offered a meeting to attempt to resolve outstanding issues. If a municipality makes a third request for additional information and the applicant submits the required additional information within 30 days after receiving the request, the municipality must deem the application complete within 10 days after receiving the additional information or proceed to process the application for approval or denial unless the applicant waived the municipality's limitation in writing as described in paragraph (a). (e) Except as provided in subsection (5), if the applicant believes the request for additional information is not authorized by ordinance, rule, statute, or other legal authority, the municipality, at the applicant's request, shall proceed to process the application for approval or denial. (3) When a municipality denies an application for a development permit or development order, the municipality shall give written notice to the applicant. The notice must include a citation to the applicable portions of an ordinance, rule, statute, or other legal authoritv for the denial of the permit or order. (4) As used in this section, the terms "development permit" and "development order" have the same meaning as in s. 163.3164, but do not include building permits. (5) For any development permit application filed with the municipality after July 1, 2012, a municipality may not require as a condition of processine or issuing a development permit or development order that an applicant obtain a permit or approval from anv state or federal azencv unless the azency has issued a final aEency action that denies the federal or state permit before the municipal action on the local development permit. (6) Issuance of a development permit or development order by a municipality does not create any right on the part of an applicant to obtain a permit from a state or federal agency and does not create any liability on the part of the municipality for issuance of the permit if the applicant fails to obtain requisite approvals or fulfill the obligations imposed by a state or federal agency or undertakes actions that result in a violation of state or federal law. A municipality shall attach such a disclaimer to the issuance of development permits and shall include a permit condition that all other applicable state or federal permits be obtained before commencement of the development. (7) This section does not prohibit a municipality from providing information to an applicant regarding what other state or federal permits may apply." The above -referenced definition of the term "development permit" is as follows: "(16) 'Development permit' includes any building permit, zoning permit, subdivision approval, rezoning, certification, special exception, variance, or any other official action of local government having the effect of permitting the development of land." (Section 163.3164(16), Florida Statutes). The term "development order" is defined as follows and, as can be seen, refers to the "granting, denying, or granting with conditions [of] an application": "(15) `Development order' means any order granting, denying, or granting with conditions an application for a development permit." (Section 163.3164(15), Florida Statutes). Thus, if this application is denied, a denial development order must be issued which must cite to the applicable portions of each ordinance, rule, statute or other legal authority supporting the denial of the application. For example, if a goal, objective or policy of the Sanford Comprehensive Plan were to be the basis for a denial, then such goal, objective or policy must be part of the motion proposing the denial. A denial development order would be drafted to implement the actions of the City Commission in the event of such occurrence. Accordingly, any motion to deny must state, with particularity, the basis for the proposed denial. The City Commission has also expressed its desire for all who vote against the majority decision to express the rationale for their vote regarding all matters. When voting on matters such as whether to recommend approval of an amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan or the enactment of, or amendment to, a land development regulation, those matters are legislative in nature and not quasi-judicial matters. RECOMMENDATION: Following the October 27, 2025 City Commission meeting, the conditions for approval are proposed as follows: 1. Pursuant to Section 4.B.6.c of the Land Development Regulations (LDR) of the City of Sanford, this rezoning shall expire 3 years from the effective date of this Ordinance if all required infrastructure improvements have not been completed or an extension granted. 2. Unless specifically requested and approved on the PD Master Plan, any required elements missing from or not shown on the Mayfair PD Master Plan, as resubmitted for City Commission consideration, and Landscape Plan dated September 8, 2025, or found within the associated PD documents shall comply with and default to the regulations in the City's LDR. 3. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the Applicant shall obtain a Local Historical Landmark Designation from both the Historic Preservation Board and the City Commission. 4. Upon adoption of the Planned Development Ordinance, the property shall be subject to and must comply with Schedule S — Historic Preservation, as outlined in the City's Land Development Regulations. This requirement shall remain in effect unless formally amended through a modification to the approved Planned Development. 5. Upon completion of construction and prior to issuance of any final Certificate's of occupancy for the renovations, the applicant shall work with staff to have the property designated as a Local Historic Landmark. 6. A Development Plan prepared and sealed by a licensed Florida professional engineer meeting the requirements of the City's Land Development Regulations must be submitted and approved prior to any site development activity. 7. Decorative and functional fountains shall be installed in all wet retention ponds as part of development approval which approval shall provide for ongoing maintenance requirements and responsibilities upon the appropriate party, but not the City. 8. In lieu of meeting standard landscaping requirements, the Applicant may submit a Comprehensive Landscaping Plan for review and approval, if such an approach is determined to better support the historic character and context of the property. The plan must demonstrate functional site design and be found acceptable by the City Engineer and Planning Staff. 9. The applicant will provide for a retail/commercial component open to the public that may consist of a history museum and/or bookstore/gift shop/cafe and/or exhibition space of not less than 550 square feet that, at a minimum,that highlights the history of the Mayfair historic landmark and the uses within. In addition, there will be signage/plaques regarding the historical character of the site at locations near the public sidewalks on 1st Street and on Seminole Boulevard. 10. If City Staff and the Property Owner are unable to agree to the details of this Development Order in any way, the matter will be submitted to the Planning and Zoning Commission for resolution at a public hearing, and the matter will be adjudicated by means of a development order or denial development order relating thereto. SUGGESTED MOTION: "I move to deny the proposed Planned Development (PD) rezoning for the subject property, based on the applicant's failure to provide sufficient information or evidence demonstrating consistency with the City's Comprehensive Plan, specifically Objective 1.11 and Policy FLU 1.11.2, which emphasizes the importance of preserving and enhancing the character, connectivity, and walkability of the downtown area. The proposal also does provide sufficient evidence that it aligns with the stated Purpose and Intent of the Waterfront Downtown Business District (WDBD) and lacks the necessary elements to support cohesive integration with surrounding public spaces." C_0 "I move to adopt Ordinance No. 2025-4838 to rezone 5.84 acres from Residential Multifamily - Residential, Office, Institutional, (RMOI) to Planned Development, PD for a proposed mixed -use development at 1000 East 1st Street, based on consistency with the goals, objectives and policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan as recommended by Staff and subject to a revised PD Master Plan meeting the modifications depicted during the hearing and subject to a development order that includes all recommended conditions and standards." Attachments: Ordinance Project Information Sheet Site Aerial Map Zoning Map Affidavit of Ownership CAPP Meeting Report Economic Impact Statement Response to Comments and Studies Mayfair Master Plan Set Landscape Plan