Loading...
4710 Amend the PD Rezone - 21.16 Acres - 4201 West 1st StreetOrdinance No. 2022-4710 An ordinance of the City of Sanford, Florida Amending a Planned Development (PD) zoning of approximately 21.17 acres to modify land use design standards for a portion of the Tuscany Village PD; providing for a new Tuscany Village PD; providing for a proposed 420 -unit multiple family residential development including two commercial outparcels with a project addressed and located at 4201 West 1St Street and assigned Tax Parcel Identification Numbers 28-19-30-506-0000-003A (Parcel 1), 28-19-30-506-0000-003J (Parcel 2), 28-19-30-506-0000-004A (Parcel 3), 28-19-30-506-0000-0046 (Parcel 4), 28-19-30-506-0000-0031 (Parcel 5), 28-19-30-506-0000-0050 (Parcel 6), 28-19-30-506-0000-005A (Parcel 7), 28-19-30-506-0000-0060 (Parcel 8), 28-19-30-506-0000-006A (Parcel 9), 28-19-30-506-0000-0070 (Parcel 10) by the Seminole County Property Appraiser which parcels are located within the City Limits; providing for findings and intent, development conditions and the resolution of disputes by the Planning and Zoning Commission; providing for the taking of implementing administrative actions; providing for the approval of the Amended Tuscany Village PD Master Plan; providing for conflicts; providing for severability; providing for non -codification and providing for an effective date. Whereas, an application has been submitted proposing to amend the Planned Development (PD) zoning of approximately 21.17 acres of real property generally addressed as 4201 West 1st Street as a part of a Planned Development (PD) zoning classification/district being named the Amended Tuscany Village PD; and Whereas, the owners of the property that are subject to this Ordinance (including tax identification numbers as assigned by the Seminole County Property Appraiser are as follows: Parcel 1 - Splash & Dash Inc. (28-19-30-506-0000-003A); Parcel 2 - Splash & Dash, Inc. (28-19-30-506-0000-003J); Parcel 3 - Carter L. & Suzanne M. Rucker (28-19-30-506-0000-004A): Parcel 4 - Splash & Dash, Inc. (28-19-30-506-0000-004B); Parcel 5 - Carter Rucker (28-19-30-506-0000-0031); Parcel 6 - MMM Investments LLC (28-19-30-506-0000-0050); Parcel 7 - MMM Investments LLC (28-19-30-506-0000-005A): Parcel 8 - MMM Investments LLC (28-19-30-506-0000-0060): Parcel 9 - MMM Investments LLC (28-19-30-506-0000-006): Parcel 10 - MMM Investments LLC (28-19-30-506-0000-0070) and Whereas, the subject real property (a site 21.17 acres in size) is located on the south side of State Road 46 and west of Upsala Road and north of St. Johns Parkway and east of Rinehart Road, and is generally addressed as 4201 W. 1St Street, Sanford, Florida; and Whereas, Brookes Stickler, P.E., of Kimley-Horn, is serving as the Applicant and representative of the Property Owners; and Whereas, on April 10, 2006, the Sanford City Commission Adopted Ordinance No. 3980, rezoning 9.55 acres at the corner of Elder Road and State Road 46 from AG, Agriculture and establishing the Elder Plaza PD, Planned Development; and Whereas, on January 11, 2010, the Sanford City Commission Adopted Ordinance No. 4200, rezoning 4.97 acres located at 4201 West First Street from AG, Agriculture and establishing the Tuscany Village PD; and Whereas, on August 9, 2010, the Sanford City Commission Adopted Ordinance No. 4215, rezoning the 14.52 acres located at 4201 West First Street replacing the previous PD Master Plans and unifying the project standards under the new Tuscany 21a Village PD and Whereas, on May 9, 2011, the Sanford City Commission Adopted Ordinance No. 4237, rezoning the 14.52 acres located at 4201 West First Street modifying the development standards with a revised Master Plan Tuscany Village PD; and Whereas, on July 26, 2022, the Seminole County Board of County Commissioners Voted to approve the 0.48 acres of Elder Road; and Whereas, the now expired Tuscany Village PD was originally approved and consisted of the following: 4,500 square feet of financial institution; 6,000 square feet of restaurant; 23,250 square feet of retail, and 6,500 square feet of office. Whereas, the Tuscany Village PD project is being modified by adding 7.07 acres and amending the overall PD to establish a mixed-use and multifamily development on ten parcels totaling approximately 21.17 acres. The current request seeks to modify the land uses and design standards for the Tuscany Village (commercial) PD, by adding additional parcels and establishing the Tuscany Village (mixed-use, multifamily) PD, a proposed 420 -unit multiple family residential development with two commercial outparcels fronting State Road 46. The proposed amended PD seeks to reduce the commercial development from 14.52 acres to 2.24 acres; and Whereas, the Applicant is proposing seven (7) multifamily residential buildings; each building is proposed at four (4) stories, with a maximum building height of 70 feet; in addition to the apartment buildings, the Applicant is providing a clubhouse, approximately 9,300 square feet in size. The clubhouse will contain a fitness center, kitchen, large dining room, business incubator space, meeting rooms, and indoor/outdoor entertaining space. As part of the PD amendment application, the Applicant provided elevations; and Whereas, the Tuscany Village (multi -family) project is proposed to deviate from standards in Schedule E, LDRs, Section 16.0, Multiple Family Housing Design Guidelines. The Applicant has provided a memorandum describing the project and the deviations requested. Those deviations from the development standards are noted on the Site Plan; and Whereas, the commercial component of the amended PD, consists of two outparcels -one containing 1.04 acres on the west side of the development at the corner of Sewell Road and State Road 46, the other containing 1.20 acres at the northwest corner of Elder Road and SR 46. The applicant is proposing to permit all GC -2, General Commercial Uses including all Conditional Uses with the exception of the uses listed as prohibited. The prohibited uses are as follows: vehicle services, industrial uses, adult entertainment establishments, pawn shops, alcohol establishments, gambling parlors, marijuana dispensing/pharmacy, beauty salon/ barber shop, and self -storage facilities; and Whereas, the residential component of the amended PD accounts for the majority of the entitlements of the total acreage under the WIC including the commercial out parcels in order to arrive at their total unit count of 420 units. At a maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 50 -percent the currently proposed amended PD has a balance of 0.16 acres or 3,484 square feet of commercial space remaining to allocate over the two commercial out parcels. In the event that more commercial acreage is added to the project site in the future, the 3,484 square feet may be increased; and 4�r�.� Whereas, Staff has considered the request for permitted use and prohibited use and found them inconsistent with other recent approvals along the SR 46 corridor. The Permitted Uses on the commercial outparcels shall be in accordance with uses as defined in Schedule B - Permitted Uses, Sanford LDR for the GC -2 General Commercial zoning district, including the requirement for any additional public hearings or approvals. Further the following additional uses shall be prohibited: Vehicular uses, indoor storage and outdoor storage, manufacturing, outdoor animal boarding, auction sales, laundromats, Marijuana Dispensary/Pharmacy and any other uses as restricted by City Code; and Whereas, the Applicant has provided a justification statement for the companion FLU Amendment. Staff has outlined specific Goals, Objectives and Policies (GOP's) that are most applicable to the proposed amendment: Objective FLU 1.1: Implement the Future Land Use Map Series. The City shall adopt and implement the Future Use Map (FLUM) series in the Future Land Use Element goals of the Comprehensive Plan. The maximum density and Floor Area Ration for the WIC, Westside Industry and Commerce future land use is as follows: The proposed Tuscany Village (mixed-use) PD consists of seven (7) four-story apartment buildings at a density of 20 units per acre over twenty-one 21 acres of the project site. This leaves 0.17 acres of developable area on the commercial 51Pas DENSITY/INTENSITY (MIN/MAX)- LAND USE MAP -� PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION (MIN/MA)) DESIGNATIONS SYMBOL COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL RESIDENTIAL Westside Industry WIC 0.50 FAR 0.50 FAR 10 / 20 du/acre & Commerce 15%150% 30%175% 10%140% The proposed Tuscany Village (mixed-use) PD consists of seven (7) four-story apartment buildings at a density of 20 units per acre over twenty-one 21 acres of the project site. This leaves 0.17 acres of developable area on the commercial 51Pas out -parcels. Based on the maximum development potential, this would leave approximately 3,702 square feet of retail commercial, and professional office uses to be distributed over the two commercial out -parcels. In the event that more commercial acreage is added to the project site in the future, the 3,702 square feet may be increased. OBJECTIVE FLU 1.12: The "Westside Industry and Commerce" (WIC) area is a mixed use designation intended to promote the development of employment centers in the vicinity of the West SR 46 corridor and the commuter rail station. The corridor's proximity to 1-4, as well as SR 417 and the SunRail commuter line, provides access to regional markets and a substantial labor force. The CSX Main Rail Line also provides a transportation amenity of regional significance. The proposed amendment is consistent with Objective FLU 1.12 as it will facilitate the development of a high-density residential project with compatible commercial uses fronting on State Road 46. Objective FLU 1.15 Prevent Proliferation of Urban Sprawl and Develop Efficient Systems for Coordinating the Timing and Staging of Public and Private Development. The City shall continue to enforce adopted LDRs which require that proposed land uses be adequately served by management, solid waste disposal and hazardous waste management. The subdivision and site plan review processes shall provide a unified system for coordinating the efficient location, timing, phasing, and scale of public and private development. For example, in order to abate urban sprawl and maximize use of existing infrastructure all new development shall be required to hook up to the existing central water and wastewater system. The development of the subject property will be subject to the City's Concurrency 61s ag,, Management System and Land Development Regulations. The development provides high density mixed-use infill development. The following planning matters relate to the amendment being proposed: Policy FLU 1.12.1: Establish performance criteria for development within the WIC. The following criteria shall be adhered to for all development within the WIC District. The WIC designation shall be limited to that area of Sanford generally bound by the CSX railroad to the north and SR 417 to the south. The WIC designation permits both a vertical and horizontal land use mix of commercial, office, residential, and the maximum intensity for commercial, office, and industrial development as a floor area ratio is 0.50. The residential density shall be a minimum of 10 dwelling units per acre and a maximum of 20 dwelling units per acre, where compatible with adjacent uses. Distribution of specific densities and intensities for this district shall be in accordance with Table FLU -2. New development shall be required to address infrastructure needs, provision of services, development phasing, development intensity, and land use compatibility as part of an integrated design scheme which includes very detailed strategies and techniques for resolving development impacts. PD proposals in the WIC area may be the subject of negotiated development agreements. No development order shall be granted prior to approval by the City of the development agreement. Development within the WIC area existing prior to the adoption of this Plan will be "grandfathered." All new development in the Westside Industry and Commerce Area shall comply with the performance criteria outlined in Policy FLU 1.1.7, as well as the 7 (1:, �, following: • Requirements and procedures for obtaining a WIC mixed use Future Land Use Map designation and appropriate zoning; • Standards for controlled access and internal circulation, including cross access easements and joint use of driveways; • Development standards for Gateway Corridor Development Districts, including requirements for buffer yards, landscaping, and screening, off-street parking, and signage; and • Planning and management criteria regulating the land use mix, intensity, and qualitative standards for assuring land use compatibility and consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. Objective FLU 1.15 Prevent Proliferation of Urban Sprawl and Develop Efficient Systems for Coordinating the Timing and Staging of Public and Private Development. The City shall continue to enforce adopted LDRs which require that proposed land uses be adequately served by management, solid waste disposal and hazardous waste management. The site plan review processes shall provide a unified system for coordinating the efficient location, timing, phasing, and scale of public and private development. For example, in order to abate urban sprawl and maximize use of existing infrastructure all new development shall be required to hook up to the existing central water and wastewater system. Per the State's Policy Act (Chapter 163 F.S.), any plan amendment shall discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl. In order to determine that a plan amendment does not constitute urban sprawl, the amendment must be analyzed as to whether it incorporates a development pattern or urban form that achieves four or more of the following criteria: 9. Directs growth and development to areas of the community in a manner that does not adversely impact natural resources; 2. Promotes the efficient and cost-effective provision or extension of public infrastructure and services, 3. Promotes walkable and connected communities and provides for compact development and a mix of uses at densities and intensities that support a range of housing choices and a multimodal transportation system, 4. Promotes conservation of water and energy; 5. Preserves agricultural areas and activities; 6. Preserves open space and natural lands and provides for public open space and recreation needs, 7. Creates a balance of land uses based on demands of residential population for the nonresidential needs of an area; and, 8. Provides uses, densities and intensities of use and urban form that would remediate an existing or planned sprawl development pattern or provides for an innovative development pattern such as transit oriented development or new towns. The proposed amendment has been analyzed and found to promote the following criteria: 1, 2, 3, 7, and 8. • Criteria 1— The subject site is not located within a well field protection zone or acquirer recharge area. There are no known wetlands or environmentally sensitive conditions associated with this site. • Criteria 2 — The proposed development will be a high-density multi -family development which maximizes the efficiency of the land. Further, the proposed development will have private roads which will connect to State Road 46 which eliminates the need for public roads to be improved and extend to the development. • Criteria 3 — The proposed development is infill and providing sidewalks to connect the residential and commercial portions of the project with the surrounding development facilitating multimodal connections and supporting additional housing choices. • Criteria 7 — The proposed development is adjacent to multi -family and townhome developments, along with the proximity to the lynx bus stops which connect to the SunRail Station, thus achieving the goal of providing diverse housing options while promoting the use of multimodal transportation. • Criteria 8 — The proposed mixed use multi -family development provides density and intensities of use and urban form that would remediate an existing or planned sprawl development pattern or provides for an innovative development pattern such as transit oriented development uses that would be compatible with the surrounding residential and non-residential uses. Whereas, a CAPP (Citizens Awareness and Participation Plan) meeting was held on January 26, 2022, and was found satisfactory to the City; and Whereas, the City's Planning and Development Services Department has conducted a thorough review and analysis of the demands upon public facilities and recommended that the subject rezoning application be approved having determined that the proposal is technically sufficient and consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Sanford, the City's Land Development Regulations (LDRs), and the controlling provisions of State law; and Whereas, the City planning and development staff recommended approval of this Ordinance subject to normative development detailed development requirements and conditions some of which, if not later resolved, shall be subject to resolution by the Planning and Zoning Commission; and Whereas, the City Commission has determined that the proposed Amended Tuscany Village PD rezoning of the subject property as set forth in this Ordinance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Sanford, the City's LDRs, and the controlling provisions of State law; and Whereas, the City Commission of the City of Sanford, Florida has taken all 10 1 P actions relating to the Amended Tuscany Village PD rezoning action set forth herein in accordance with the requirements and procedures mandated by State law. Now, therefore, be in enacted by the People of the City of Sanford, Florida. Section 1. Legislative findings and intent. (a). The City Commission of the City of Sanford hereby adopts and incorporates into this Ordinance the City staff report and City Commission agenda memorandum relating to the application relating to the proposed PD rezoning of the subject property as well as the recitals (whereas clauses) to this Ordinance. (b). The approval set forth in this Ordinance is subject to the specific conditions that are set forth subsequently in this Ordinance and the Property Owners have agreed that no requirement herein lacks an essential nexus to a legitimate public purpose and is not roughly proportionate to the impacts of the proposed use that the City seeks to avoid, minimize, or mitigate. (c). The City of Sanford has complied with all requirements and procedures of Florida law in processing and advertising this Ordinance. (d). This Ordinance is consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Sanford. Section 2. Amended PD rezoning; implementing actions; the Tuscany Village PD. (a), Upon enactment of this Ordinance the subject property, as depicted in the map attached to this Ordinance (Tax Parcel Identification Numbers Tax Parcel Identification Numbers 28-19-30-506-0000-003A (Parcel 1), 28-19-30-506-0000-0031 (Parcel 2), 28-19-30-506-0000-004A (Parcel 3), 28-19-30-506-0000-0046 (Parcel 4), 28-19-30-506-0000-0031 (Parcel 5), 28-19-30-506-0000-0050 (Parcel 6), 28-19-30-506-0000-005A (Parcel 7), 28-19-30-506-0000-0060 (Parcel 8), 28-19-30-506-0000-006A (Parcel 9), 28-19-30-506-0000-0070 (Parcel 10) shall be rezoned to the Amended Tuscany Village PD. (b). The City Manager, or designee, is hereby authorized to execute any documents necessary to formalize approval of the rezoning action taken herein with regard to the Amended Tuscany Village PD and to revise and amend the Official Zoning Map or Maps of the City of Sanford as may be appropriate to accomplish the action taken in this Ordinance and as set forth herein. (c). The conditions to be incorporated into the pertinent development order relating to the action taken in this Ordinance include the following: 1. Pursuant to Section 4.3.G 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 PD Master Plan or associated PD documents shall comply with and default to the regulations in the City's LDR. 3. The property shall be developed generally in accordance with the future land uses and development standards identified on the Tuscany Village PD Master Plan dated July 22, 2022, unless otherwise specifically set forth in any associated development order; provided, however, that all subsequent development orders shall be consistent with the provisions of this Ordinance including the following: a. The Permitted Uses on the commercial outparcels shall be in accordance with uses as defined in Schedule B - Permitted Uses, Sanford LDR for the GC -2 General Commercial zoning district, including the requirement for any additional public hearings or approvals. Further the following additional uses shall be prohibited: Vehicular uses, indoor storage and outdoor storage, manufacturing, outdoor animal boarding, auction sales, Laundromats, Marijuana Dispensary/Pharmacy and any other uses as restricted by City Code. b. Recreational space programing including landscaping and hardscaping shall be consistent with the schematic plans and total acreage as provided by the applicant with the exception that reprogramming space to allow for more family children oriented activates and amenities shall be allowed. c. Based on the total acreage of the site and the proposed development program of 420 units, the remaining commercial development shall be limited to no more than 3,702 square feet of compatible commercial uses without increasing the acreage of the project so as not to exceed the maximum of either 20 dwelling unit per acre or .50 FAR as accorded by the WIC land use. 4. 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 construction on site. 5. All requirements relating to tree mitigation as established in the City's LDR shall be met prior to development of the site. 6. A decorative and functional fountain 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. A comprehensive signage program meeting the standards of the Land Development Regulations shall be required for the entire development including, but not limited to, the commercial and multiple family residential uses. 8. The property owner shall coordinate with LYNX to determine the possible addition of a bus stop shelter and/or the extension of bus or transit services to the site; provided, however, that this condition shall not delay the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. 9. The applicant shall provide sixteen (16) Electric Vehicle EV charging stations and all garages shall be provided conduit for future EV charging stations. 10. Unless specifically requested and approved on the Tuscany Village PD Master Plan, associated deviation waiver request, approved or the associated PD Development Order, all development shall comply with: a. The Multiple Family Housing Design Guidelines within Schedule E, Section 16.0 of the City's LDR. 13(11:, -- b. Tree mitigation per Section 4.2 Criteria For Tree Removal, Replacement And Relocation c. Light source setback for site lighting shall be no less than 75 percent the width of the buffers identified on the PD Master Plan. d. Renderings of the Architectural Elevations for the carports and garages shall be provided at the time of Development Plan application. 11. 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. Section 3. Incorporation of the Amended Tuscany Village PD Master Plan for the Amended Tuscany Village PD. The PD Master Plan for Tuscany Village attached to this Ordinance is hereby ratified and affirmed and incorporated into this Ordinance as a substantive part of this Ordinance establishing the Amended Tuscany Village PD. Section 4. Conflicts. All ordinances or part of ordinances in conflict with this Ordinance are hereby repealed. Section 5. Severability. If any section, sentence, phrase, word, or portion of this Ordinance is determined to be invalid, unlawful or unconstitutional, said determination shall not be held to invalidate or impair the validity, force or effect of any other section, sentence, phrase, word, or portion of this Ordinance not otherwise determined to be invalid, unlawful, or unconstitutional. Section 6. Non -codification; Implementation. 1411'::;- (a). This Ordinance shall not be codified in the City Code of the City of Sanford or the City's LDRs; 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. (b). The City Manager, or designee, shall implement the provisions of this Ordinance by means of a non -statutory development agreement which shall be executed by the Property Owner, or their successor(s) in interest within 60 days of the effective date of this Ordinance or the subject property's zoning classification shall revert to an un -zoned property status. (c). The non -statutory development agreement referenced in Subsection (b).of this Section shall be and constitute a development order and shall not create contractual rights of the Property Owners against the City nor contractual obligations of the City to the Property Owners and, to that end, the Property Owners shall have no contractual rights or remedies against the City with regard to any land use action of the City. (d). The City has not waived any rights or remedies by taken the action set forth herein or in the implementing development agreement and any successive development orders and reserves any and all rights and remedies available to the City under controlling law including, but not limited to, the protections under the laws pertaining to sovereign immunity. Section 7. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect upon enactment. Passed and adopted this 26th day of September, 2022. Attest: City Commission of the City of Sanford., Florida , /7 Traci Houchin, MMC, FCRM City Clerk ayor T 7 Approved as to form and leggI S" f6 699 r William L. Colbert, City Attorney 161Page �I CITY OF ❑ Ilr ' SkNFORD �� n WS— RM X I FLORIDA Item No. (; CITY COMMISSION MEMORANDUM 22- 229 SEPTEMBER 26, 2022 AGENDA TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Commission PREPARED BY: Eileen Hinson, AICP — Planning Director SUBMITTED BY: Norton N. Bonaparte, Jr., ICMA-CM, City Manager SUBJECT: Amend the Planned Development zoning of approximately 21.17 acres to modify land use design standards for the Tuscany Village Commercial PD, and establish the Tuscany Village PD, a proposed 420 -unit multiple family residential development, including two commercial outparcels with a project address of 4201 West 1st Street. STRATEGIC PRIORITIES: ❑ Unify Downtown & the Waterfront ❑ Promote the City's Distinct Culture Update Regulatory Framework Redevelop and Revitalize Disadvantaged Communities SYNOPSIS: A request to amend the Planned Development zoning of approximately 21.17 acres to modify land use design standards for a portion of the Tuscany Village PD, and establish the new Tuscany Village PD, a proposed 420 -unit multiple family residential development, including two commercial outparcels with a project address of 4201 West 1 st Street has been received. The properties are owned by MMM Investments LLC, Splash & Dash Inc., Carter L. and Suzanne M. Rucker, Carter Rucker. Brookes Stickler, P.E., of Kimley-Horn, has made application for the owner. A CAPP (Citizens Awareness and Participation Plan) meeting was held on January 26, 2022 and a copy of the report is attached, which has been found satisfactory to the City. The Affidavit of Ownership and Designation of Agent form is attached and other information is available in order to ensure that all potential conflicts of interests are capable of being discerned. FISCALISTAFFING STATEMENT: According to the Property Appraiser's records, seven of the ten properties are vacant residential lots and three parcels are developed with single-family residences with the assessed tax value and total tax bill for 2021 shown below: Parcel Number Assessed Value Tax Bill Property Status (2021) (2021) 28-19-30-506-0000-003A (Parcel 1) $48,240 $665 Vacant Residential 28-19-30-506-0000-003J (Parcel 2) $234,368 $3,233 Vacant Residential 28-19-30-506-0000-004A (Parcel 3) $426,391 $5'882 Single -Family Residence 28-19-30-506-0000-004B Parcel 4) $114,030 $1,573 Single -Family Residence 28-19-30-506-0000-003I (Parcel 5) $101,067 $1,394 Single -Family Residence 28-19-30-506-0000-0050 (Parcel 6) $305,894 $5,580.73 Vacant Commercial 28-19-30-506-0000-005A (Parcel 7) $573,295 $10,459.19 Vacant Commercial 28-19-30-506-0000-0060 (Parcel 8) $859,938 $15,688.71 Vacant Commercial 28-19-30-506-0000-006A Vacant (Parcel 9) $175,631 $3,204.21 Commercial 28-19-30-506-0000-0070 (Parcel 10) $1,163,395 $21,224.98 Vacant Commercial It is the applicant's intent to develop the property as a mixed use development. The proposed development will facilitate new residential and non-residential construction and additional tax revenue for the City. No additional staffing is anticipated if the land use amendment is approved. BACKGROUND: On April 10 2006, the Sanford City Commission Adopted Ordinance No. 3980, rezoning 9.55 acres at the corner of Elder Road and State Road 46 from AG, Agriculture and establishing the Elder Plaza PD, Planned Development. On January 11, 2010, the Sanford City Commission Adopted Ordinance No. 4200, rezoning 4.97 acres located at 4201 West First Street from AG, Agriculture and establishing the Tuscany Village PD. On August 9 2010, the Sanford City Commission Adopted Ordinance No. 4215, rezoning the 14.52 acres located at 4201 West First Street replacing the previous PD Master Plans and unifying the project standards under the new Tuscany Village PD. On May 9 2011, the Sanford City Commission Adopted Ordinance No. 4237, rezoning the 14.52 acres located at 4201 West First Street modifying the development standards with a revised Master Plan Tuscany Village PD. It should be noted that on July 26 2022, the Seminole County Board of County Commissioners voted to approve to vacate of a portion of Elder Road which equates an additional 0.48 acres of land being added to the subject property. The 21.17 acres includes this acreage. The now expired Tuscany Village PD was originally approved consisted of the following: 4,500 square feet of financial institution; 6,000 square feet of restaurant; 23,250 square feet of retail; and 6,500 square feet of office. At the time of rezoning, the applicant provided the City of Sanford with a rendering shown below: The Tuscany Village PD project is being modified by adding 7.07 acres and amending the overall PD to establish a mixed-use and multifamily development on ten parcels totaling approximately 21.17 acres. The current request seeks to modify the land uses and design standards for the Tuscany Village (commercial) PD, by adding additional parcels and establishing the Tuscany Village (mixed-use, multifamily) PD, a proposed 420 -unit multiple family residential development with two commercial outparcels fronting State Road 46. The proposed PD seeks to reduce the commercial development from 14.52 acres down to 2.24 acres. The applicant is proposing seven (7) multifamily residential buildings. Each building, is proposed at four (4) stories, with a maximum building height of 70 feet. In addition to the apartment buildings, the applicant is providing a clubhouse, approximately 9,300 square feet in size. The clubhouse will contain the following: a fitness center, kitchen, large dining room, business incubator space, meeting rooms, and indoor/outdoor entertaining space. As part of the PD, the applicant has provided elevations which are shown below: Proposed Apartment Buildings 7177 ! M X11_ Front Elevolim Proposed Club House Front Eie,.-j-;cn Rear Elevation Proposed Garages Rear Elevation 1/8" = Front Elevation 1/8' = V -O" The Tuscany Village (multi -family) project is proposed to deviate from the following standards in Schedule E, LDRs, Section 16.0, Multiple Family Housing Design Guidelines. The applicant has provided a memorandum describing the project and the deviations requested. Those deviations from the development standards are also noted on the Site Plan and include but are not limited to the following: Requirement Required Open Space 50 Percent No more than Units per eight (8) building dwelling units per building. Provided 30 Percent Up to 60 units per building Units are accessed by internal breezeways Up to 70 feet 0 direct access garages. However, 63 detached garages, and 23 covered parking stalls are provided Staff Deviation Explanation Support (Yes/No) The applicant is proposing enhanced amenities for the club house such as an outdoor kitchen, pool, and lounge area, amenitiezed dog park, playground equipment near buildings 6 and 7 will be outdoor grilling / lounge area. This project consists of 7 buildings containing up to 60 units per building While the breezeways are visible from the exterior, they are recessed and between buildings and can only be accessed via resident -only entry points. This minimizes the overall footprint of the site. Site constraints prohibit the required number of garages. Additional storage is also provided on each floor of the buildings. A car care station The project is within one - will be provided in half mile of three car Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Breezeways shall be prohibited. Dwelling Each dwelling Unit Access unit shall be accessed by a private exterior entry. Building Height Max 35 Feet 50% of dwelling units shall have garages Garage and accessed Storage directly from the dwelling unit (2 10 garages are required) Car wash Developments facility with more Provided 30 Percent Up to 60 units per building Units are accessed by internal breezeways Up to 70 feet 0 direct access garages. However, 63 detached garages, and 23 covered parking stalls are provided Staff Deviation Explanation Support (Yes/No) The applicant is proposing enhanced amenities for the club house such as an outdoor kitchen, pool, and lounge area, amenitiezed dog park, playground equipment near buildings 6 and 7 will be outdoor grilling / lounge area. This project consists of 7 buildings containing up to 60 units per building While the breezeways are visible from the exterior, they are recessed and between buildings and can only be accessed via resident -only entry points. This minimizes the overall footprint of the site. Site constraints prohibit the required number of garages. Additional storage is also provided on each floor of the buildings. A car care station The project is within one - will be provided in half mile of three car Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Requirement Required Provided than 20 with vacuum and residential air pump. units shall designate a car wash area. 2.0 Spaces Parking Per Dwelling 1 •g Spaces Per Unit. Dwelling Unit. Buffer Adjacent To Single- 50 feet 25 Feet Family (southwest) Deviation Explanation washes, and as a result, a private car wash is not warranted. This parking ratio will address the typical demands seen statewide for apartment communities. Additionally, the applicant will provide 16 electric vehicle spaces with access to charging stations, as well as conduit to each garage building to accommodate additional EV charging stations should they be warranted by increased EV demand. A 25' landscape buffer with enhanced landscaping and a wall adjacent to flagship park. When these buffers are considered together, this creates a 57' wide landscape buffer. Staff Support (Yes/No) M Yes Commercial Outporcels: The commercial component of the PD, consist of two outparcels. One of 1.04 acres on the west side of the development at the corner of Sewell Road and State Road 46, the other is 1.20 acres at the northwest corner of Elder Road and SR 46. The applicant is proposing to permit all GC -2, General Commercial Uses including all Conditional Uses with the exception of the uses listed as prohibited. The prohibited uses are as follows: vehicle services, industrial uses, adult entertainment establishments, pawn shops, alcohol establishments, gambling parlors, marijuana dispensing/pharmacy, beauty salon/ barber shop, and self -storage facilities. It should be noted that the residential component of the PD accounts for the majority of the entitlements of the total acreage under the WIC including the commercial out parcels in order to arrive at their total unit count of 420 units. At a maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 50 -percent the currently proposed the PD has a balance of 0.16 acres or 3,702 square feet of commercial space remaining to allocate over the two commercial out parcels. In the event that more commercial acreage is added to the project site in the future, the 3,702 square feet may be increased. Staff has considered the request for permitted use and prohibited use and found them inconsistent with other recent approvals along the SR 46 corridor. The Permitted Uses on the commercial outparcels shall be in accordance with uses as defined in Schedule B - Permitted Uses, Sanford LDR for the GC -2 General Commercial zoning district, including the requirement for any additional public hearings or approvals. Further the following additional uses shall be prohibited: Vehicular uses, indoor storage and outdoor storage, manufacturing, outdoor animal boarding, auction sales, laundromats, Marijuana Dispensary/Pharmacy and any other uses as restricted by City Code. Comprehensive Plan The applicant has provided a justification statement for the companion FLU Amendment. The justification is attached to this report. Staff has outlined specific Goals, Objectives and Policies (GOP's) that are most applicable to the proposed amendment: Objective FLU 1.1: Implement the Future Land Use Map Series. The City shall adopt and implement the Future Use Map (FLUM) series in the Future Land Use Element goals of the Comprehensive. The maximum density and Floor Area Ration for the WIC, Westside Industry and Commerce future land use is as follows: DENSITY/INTENSITY (MINIMAX)- SYMBOL LAND USE DESIGNATIONS MAP PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION (MIN/MAX) COMMERCIAL I INDUSTRIAL I RESIDENTIAL Westside Industry & WIC 0.50 FAR _ 0.50 FAR 10 / 20 du/acre Commerce 15%150% 30%/75% 10%140% The proposed Tuscany Village (mixed-use) PD consists ofseven (7) four-story apartment buildings at a density of 20 units per acre over twenty-one 21 acres of the project site. This leaves 0.16 acres ofdevelopable area on the commercial out parcels. Based on the maximum developmentpotential, this would leave approximately 3, 702 square feet of retail commercial, and professional office uses to be distributed over the two commercial out parcels. In the event that more commercial acreage is added to the project site in the future, the 3, 702 square feet may be increased. OBJECTIVE FLU 1.12: The "Westside Industry and Commerce" (WIC) area is a mixed use designation intended to promote the development of employment centers in the vicinity of the West SR 46 corridor and the commuter rail station. The corridor's proximity to I-4, as well as SR 417 and the SunRail commuter line, provides access to regional markets and a substantial labor force. The CSX Main Rail Line also provides a transportation amenity of regional significance. The proposed amendment is consistent with Objective FLU 1.12 as it will facilitate the development of a high density residential project with compatible commercial uses fronting on State Road 46. Objective FLU 1.15 Prevent Proliferation of Urban Sprawl and Develop Efficient Systems for Coordinating the Timing and Staging of Public and Private Development. The City shall continue to enforce adopted LDRs which require that proposed land uses be adequately served by management, solid waste disposal and hazardous waste management. The subdivision and site plan review processes shall provide a unified system for coordinating the efficient location, timing, phasing, and scale of public and private development. For example, in order to abate urban sprawl and maximize use of existing infrastructure all new development shall be required to hook up to the existing central water and wastewater system. The development of the subject property will be subject to the City's Concurrency Management System and Land Development Regulations. The development provide high density mixed-use infill development. The following planning matters relate to the amendment being proposed: Policy FLU 1.12.1: Establish performance criteria for development within the WIC. The following criteria shall be adhered to for all development within the WIC District. The WIC designation shall be limited to that area of Sanford generally bound by the CSX railroad to the north and SR 417 to the south. The WIC designation permits both a vertical and horizontal land use mix of commercial, office, residential, and the maximum intensity for commercial, office, and industrial development as a floor area ratio is 0.50. The residential density shall be a minimum of 10 dwelling units per acre and a maximum of 20 dwelling units per acre, where compatible with adjacent uses. Distribution of specific densities and intensities for this district shall be in accordance with Table FLU -2. New development shall be required to address infrastructure needs, provision of services, development phasing, development intensity, and land use compatibility as part of an integrated design scheme which includes very detailed strategies and techniques for resolving development impacts. PD proposals in the WIC area may be the subject of negotiated development agreements. No development order shall be granted prior to approval by the City of the development agreement. Development within the WIC area existing prior to the adoption of this Plan will be "grandfathered." All new development in the Westside Industry and Commerce Area shall comply with the performance criteria outlined in Policy FLU 1.1.7, as well as the following: • Requirements and procedures for obtaining a WIC mixed use Future Land Use Map designation and appropriate zoning; • Standards for controlled access and internal circulation, including cross access easements and joint use of driveways; • Development standards for Gateway Corridor Development Districts, including requirements for buffer yards, landscaping, and screening, off-street parking, and signage; and • Planning and management criteria regulating the land use mix, intensity, and qualitative standards for assuring land use compatibility and consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. Objective FLU 1.15 Prevent Proliferation of Urban Sprawl and Develop Efficient Systems for Coordinating the Timing and Staging of Public and Private Development. The City shall continue to enforce adopted LDRs which require that proposed land uses be adequately served by management, solid waste disposal and hazardous waste management. The site plan review processes shall provide a unified system for coordinating the efficient location, timing, phasing, and scale of public and private development. For example, in order to abate urban sprawl and maximize use of existing infrastructure all new development shall be required to hook up to the existing central water and wastewater system. Per the State's Policy Act (Chapter 163 F.S.), any plan amendment shall discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl. In order to determine that a plan amendment does not constitute urban sprawl, the amendment must be analyzed as to whether it incorporates a development pattern or urban form that achieves four or more of the following criteria: 1. Directs growth and development to areas of the community in a manner that does not adversely impact natural resources; 2. Promotes the efficient and cost effective provision or extension ofpublic infrastructure and services; 3. Promotes walkable and connected communities and provides for compact development and a mix of uses at densities and intensities that support a range of housing choices and a multimodal transportation system; 4. Promotes conservation of water and energy; 5. Preserves agricultural areas and activities; 6. Preserves open space and natural lands and provides for public open space and recreation needs; 7. Creates a balance of land uses based on demands of residential population for the nonresidential needs of an area; and, 8. Provides uses, densities and intensities of use and urban form that would remediate an existing or planned sprawl development pattern or provides for an innovative development pattern such as transit oriented development or new towns. The proposed amendment has been analyzed and found to promote the following criteria: 1, 2, 3, 7, and 8. • Criteria 1 — The subject site is not located within a well field protection zone or acquirer recharge area. There are no known wetlands or environmentally sensitive conditions associated with this site. • Criteria 2 — The proposed development will be a high density multi family development which maximizes the efficiency of the land. Further, the proposed development will have private roads which will connect to State Road 46 which eliminates the need for public roads to be improved and extend to the development. • Criteria 3 — The proposed development is infill and providing sidewalks to connect the residential and commercial portions of the project with the surrounding development facilitating multimodal connections and supporting additional housing choices. • Criteria 7 — The proposed development is adjacent to multi family and townhome developments, along with the proximity to the lynx bus stops which connect to the SunRail Station, thus achieving the goal ofproviding diverse housing options while promoting the use of multimodal transportation. • Criteria 8 — The proposed mixed use multi family development provides density and intensities of use and urban form that would remediate an existing or planned sprawl development pattern or provides for an innovative development pattern such as transit oriented development uses that would be compatible with the surrounding residential and non-residential uses. Staff has found the request to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and Florida Statutes Chapter 163. Staff recommends approval of the requested companion Future Land Use Amendment. Staff supports the request subject to the staff recommended conditions provided in this report. 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 166.03 3, 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 deny 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 ins 403 0877, a municipality may not request additional information from the applicant more than three times, unless the applicant waives the limitation in writing. (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 authority 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 processing or issuing a development permit or development order that an applicant obtain a permit or approval from any state or federal agency unless the agency has issued a final agency 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 [ofj 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 with regard to 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. The City Commission moved to continue the first reading of Ordinance No. 4710, to September 12, 2022. The City Commission approved the first reading of Ordinance No. 4710 on September 12, 2022. The City Clerk published notice of the 2nd Public Hearing in the Sanford Herald on September 14, 2022. RECOMMENDATION: On August 4, 2022, staff recommended the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend the City Commission approve the request to amend the Planned Development zoning of approximately 21.17 acres to modify land use and design standards to revise the Tuscany Village (commercial) PD and establish the Tuscany Village (mixed-use) PD, a proposed 420 -unit multiple family residential development with 2.24 acres of commercial development with a project address of 4201 West 1 st Street based on the request being consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan. The following conditions should be considered to accompany any approval in an associated Development Order: 1. Pursuant to Section 4.3.G 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 PD Master Plan or associated PD documents shall comply with and default to the regulations in the City's LDR. 3. The property shall be developed generally in accordance with the future land uses and development standards identified on the Tuscany Village PD Master Plan dated July 22, 2022, unless otherwise specifically set forth in any associated development order; provided, however, that all subsequent development orders shall be consistent with the provisions of this Ordinance including the following: a. The Permitted Uses on the commercial outparcels shall be in accordance with uses as defined in Schedule B - Permitted Uses, Sanford LDR for the GC -2 General Commercial zoning district, including the requirement for any additional public hearings or approvals. Further the following additional uses shall be prohibited: Vehicular uses, indoor storage and outdoor storage, manufacturing, outdoor animal boarding, auction sales, laundromats, Marijuana Dispensary/Pharmacy and any other uses as restricted by City Code. b. Recreational space programing including landscaping and hardscaping shall be consistent with the schematic plans and total acreage as provided by the applicant with the exception that reprogramming space to allow for more family children oriented activates and amenities shall be allowed. c. Based on the total acreage of the site and the proposed development program of 420 units, the remaining commercial development shall be limited to no more than 3,702 square feet of compatible commercial uses without increasing the acreage of the project so as not to exceed the maximum of either 20 dwelling unit per acre or .50 FAR as accorded by the WIC land use. 4. 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 construction on site. 5. All requirements relating to tree mitigation as established in the City's LDR shall be met prior to development of the site. 6. A decorative and functional fountain 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. A comprehensive signage program meeting the standards of the Land Development Regulations shall be required for the entire development including, but not limited to, the commercial and multiple family residential uses. 8. The property owner shall coordinate with LYNX to determine the possible addition of a bus stop shelter and/or the extension of bus or transit services to the site; provided, however, that this condition shall not delay the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. 9. The applicant shall provide sixteen (16) Electric Vehicle EV charging stations and all garages shall be provided conduit for future EV charging stations. 10. Unless specifically requested and approved on the Tuscany Village PD Master Plan, associated deviation waiver request, approved or the associated PD Development Order, all development shall comply with: a. The Multiple Family Housing Design Guidelines within Schedule E, Section 16.0 of the City's LDR. b. Tree mitigation per Section 4.2 Criteria For Tree Removal, Replacement And Relocation c. Light source setback for site lighting shall be no less than 75 percent the width of the buffers identified on the PD Master Plan. d. Renderings of the Architectural Elevations for the carports and garages shall be provided at the time of Development Plan application. 11. 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. After conducting a public hearing, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted six -to -one (6-1) recommending the City Commission deny the request to amend the Planned Development. The Commissioners stated the following reasons to justify their action. Derrick Thomas voted in opposition to the motion to deny based on staff's recommendations. Members; Mike Loader, Dominick Fiorentino, Victoria Wilson, Zach Miller, Maverick VonHerbulis, and Ashlee Woodard voted to deny based on the reduction of the commercial component being inconsistent with Comprehensive Plan Objective FLU 1.12. Ms. Woodard also added the proposed reduction in parking stall size and the lack of play area dedicated towards children being inconsistent with current regulations. SUGGESTED MOTION: At the August 4, 2022 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission, recommended the City Commission deny the request based on being inconsistent with Comprehensive Plan Objective FLU 1.12 and the proposed reduction in parking stall size and lack of play area dedicated towards children being inconsistent with the current Land Development Regulations. "I move to adopt Ordinance No. 4710." Attachments: Project Information Sheet PD Master Plans Schematic Package PD Rezone Justification Schedule E Deviation Explanation Capp Summary Owner Affidavits Parking Study Traffic Study Elevations Aerial Map Zoning Map Ordinance No. 4710 T:\Development Review\03-Land Development\2022\4201 West 1st Street (Tuscany Village)\CC ATTACHMENT 1. PID Master Plan for Tuscany Village 17 1 P 012 ALI —Ad A fit' ii'ce uj Ai Aj� 4.4 oz, W. ATTACHMENT 1. PD Master Plan for Tuscany Village 171Page TUSCANY VILLAGE - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND REZONING NARRATIVE INTRODUCTION Royal Palm Multifamily, LLC (the "Applicant"), a subsidiary of Royal Palm Companies ("RPC'), is the contract purchaser of a 21.21 -acre site assemblage located on the south side of State Road 46 between Rinehart Road and Upsala Road comprised of Parcel IDs 28-19-30-506-0000-003A, - 003J, -0031, -004A, -00413, -005A, -0050, -0060, -006A and -0070 (the "Property"). The Property consists of five residential parcels, a Seminole County roadway (Elder Road, which is currently in the process of being vacated), and a 14.5 acre greenfield. In general, the Property is situated in an area that is comprised mostly of commercial uses and multifamily residential developments. II. THE APPLICANT RPC is a private, national real estate company founded in 1978. Defined by luxury, elegance and attention to detail, RPC has redefined cities and skylines for over 40 years. Since its inception, RPC has developed over 6,000 units of high-end commercial, hospitality, and multifamily projects, exceeding $3.5 billion of asset value, and is actively under construction with nearly $1 billion of projects. Additional information is available at www.rpcholdings.com. ,, nMa i y •y � `. SYS, Pa • .t �. •", ■ to.. E III. SITE HISTORY Approximately 6 acres of the Property contains five parcels with single-family and mobile homes that were built between 1930 and 1972 according to the Seminole County Property Appraiser. Most of the Property is a 14.5 acre greenfield that has historically been used for agricultural purposes and was previously encumbered by the 2011 Tuscany Village PD, which contemplated a mix of retail, hotel, office and restaurant uses. However, due to years of a lack of demand for the mixed-use project, no development permits were requested or approved for the site, and it has remained vacant until the present time. Most recently, the 14.5 acre property 0894227\195726\12075805v1 was listed for sale for 340 days before the Applicant contracted to purchase it. The property seller had received three other offers during that same period, all for multifamily developments. IV. PROJECT INFORMATION Overview: The proposed project ("Project") includes a mixed-use multifamily and commercial development. The Project will feature a certified green building 420 -unit Class -A apartment community with a clubhouse, on-site recreational amenities, parking, and stormwater facilities. The apartment residences are provided by seven 4 -story, elevator -equipped buildings. Each building will contain a mix of one-, two-, and three-bedroom units ranging from approximately 780 to 1,400 square feet. The 9,000 square foot contemporary clubhouse will offer residents a best -in -class 24/7 fitness center, coworking business center with communal workstations, five private offices and a conference room, clubroom with a demonstration kitchen and curated original artwork, indoor pet grooming center, and a resort -style pool with lavishly appointed cabanas. Additional amenities will include a walking trail, pet park, courtyard with BBQ grilling areas, 24/7 package room, eight electric car charging stations, carwash, and pedestrian connectivity to adjacent commercial properties. The spacious apartments will have private balconies, walk-in closets, and full-size washers/dryers; and feature high-end finishes throughout, including plank -style flooring, chef -inspired stainless steel appliance packages, and electronic entryway locks. 2 0894227\195726\12075805v1 The 2.29 acres of commercial property fronting SR 46 are conveniently located adjacent to the multifamily units and will enhance the neighborhood serving commercial options in the area and urban environment. The commercial property was designed to provide a continuation of the existing layout that occurs at the Project's northwestern boundary and the existing commercial center located at 4301 SR 46. Moreover, the 1.78 acres of residential parcels located between the Project and the existing commercial development west of Sewell Road is expected to be a commercial development that will connect to the Project's commercial parcels once completed. To ensure the Project's commercial development is an amenityto the surrounding neighborhood, the Application is proposing to restrict the permitted uses, as listed on Exhibit A. Applicant Commercial Parcel Area Future Commercial Development Area (By Others) Design Team: Architect FORUMS hrDesign Forum Architecture & Interior Design is a full- service commercial and residential architectural firm specializing in planning, architecture, and interior design throughout the United States based in Florida. As a recognized national leader and award- winning design firm, Forum is committed to offering clients exceptional design with superior collaboration and outstanding value. 0894227\1 95726\1 2075 805v ] Civil Engineer & Landscape Architect Kim1ey.>)HorrtL. Founded in 1967, Kimley-Horn is a premier, nationwide civil design and consulting firm consisting of engineers, planners, landscape architects, environmental scientists, and other professionals. Kimley-Horn believes in building long-term, lasting relationships with our clients, staff, and municipal partners. Elevations & Design Inspiration: Multifamily Building Colored Elevation: �� I lull 11 Multifamily Clubhouse Colored Elevation: '•,Front Elevation Design Inspiration: I :S� 3 In r� ' i �� �i IL - 4 0894227\195726\12075805v1 it low'AL:oil # 111,-� . 11 , ��i i I l . 11 ihF.111111 _ 11 k , .r :4 Multifamily Clubhouse Colored Elevation: '•,Front Elevation Design Inspiration: I :S� 3 In r� ' i �� �i IL - 4 0894227\195726\12075805v1 Project Enhancements: Although not a requirement of the City of Sanford, the Applicant is committed to enhanced standards in all of its residential communities. Below is an overview of the Applicant's commitment to the arts and energy efficiency. Artwork Although not a requirement of the City of Sanford, the Applicant is committed to original artwork in all of its residential communities. To demonstrate the Applicant's commitment to art, the Applicant confirms the Project clubhouse will display original artwork for the enjoyment of residents and guests. Energy Efficiency Although not a requirement of the City of Sanford, the Applicant is committed to energy efficiency in all of its residential communities. To demonstrate the Applicant's commitment to energy efficiency, the following energy efficient elements will be included in the development. National Green Building Standards The Applicant confirms that the Project will be designed and constructed consistent with the Bronze level of the National Green Building Standards and will pursue the NGBS certification of the project at the Bronze level. GREEN ­ Electric Vehicles In recognition of the increasing use of electric vehicles, the Applicant will install an Electric Vehicle Charging Station in the parking area serving each of the seven residential buildings and in the parking area serving the Clubhouse. In addition, the Applicant will install underground conduit in the area of each residential building to enable the future installation of additional electric vehicle charging stations if demand for charging stations increases. 5 08942271195726\12075805v1 V. PUBLIC FACILITIES Sanitary Sewer (Wastewater): The City's wastewater facilities have sufficient existing service capacity for this project but the site is not physically served with wastewater collection infrastructure. The Applicant proposes, at the Applicant's sole expense, to provide a dedicated forcemain to be installed to a manhole/gravity run system located just upstream of the Property. Potable Water Utilities: The City's potable water facilities have existing infrastructure in place and sufficient capacity to serve the site and the Project. Reclaimed Water: The City's reclaimed water facilities have sufficient existing service capacity for this project but the site is not physically served with reclaimed water infrastructure. The Applicant proposes, at the Applicant's sole expense, to provide a reclaimed water connection to be installed to a reclaimed water line located in relative proximity of the Property. Solid Waste: The City has confirmed that there is more than sufficient capacity to serve the Project. The Applicant has proposed utilization of a trash compactor and recycling dumpster atthe multifamily site and the use of dumpsters at the commercial site. Transportation: A traffic impact analysis was performed to analyze the traffic impacts associated with the development of the Project. Based on ITE trip rates, the proposed multifamily residential development is anticipated to generate approximately 224 AM peak hour trips (72 in/152 out) and 263 PM peak hour trips (147 in/116 out), which is shown to be less than what was previously approved for the 14.54 -acre site. The proposed development is anticipated to generate 332 less trips during the AM peak hour and 222 less trips during the PM peak hour than the previously approved more intense PD would have generated. Thus, from the perspective of mitigating adverse traffic impacts, the current Project is a benefit over what was previously approved. An operational analysis for existing, background, and buildout conditions was performed at the study area intersections and Project driveways. Under existing and background conditions, some capacity deficiencies were identified at the intersections on SR 46. A background (with improvements) condition was introduced to address the delay on the minor approaches of SR 46 & Rinehart Road. When adding project trips, the roadway operates with an acceptable LOS and v/c ratio. No new deficiencies were identified as a result of project impact. The Applicant's Engineer Kimley Horn met with FDOT staff to discuss the Project and proposed entrances on March 8, 2022 in a pre -application review. In that pre -application meeting, FDOT indicated conceptual support for the driveway access connections, subject to detailed engineering design and permitting. Per FDOT guidance, an ingress right -turn lane analysis was 0894227\195726\12075805v1 performed for site access points. None of the project driveways warrant ingress right -turn lanes. Additionally, a turn lane analysis was conducted for offsite impacted turn lanes. A roadway segment analysis was performed to assess the impact of the project on the surrounding roadway network capacity. The roadway capacity is not exceeded due to project traffic, and no changes in LOS were recorded. No new roadway or intersection deficiencies were identified as a result of proiect impact Offsite Traffic Improvement Exhibit: Education: The City of Sanford coordinates with the Seminole County Schools to provide information for each residential development that is required for that agency to make adjustments. A Seminole County public schools impact analysis was received on April 20,2022. The analysis concluded the students generated Project at the three Concurrency Service Area ("CSA") levels would be able to be accommodated without exceeding the adopted level of service ("LOS") for each CSA by school type, or there is adjacent capacity to meet LOS as allowed by the interlocal agreement. In 7 0894227\195726\12075805v1 summary, Seminole County Schools has verified that there is more than sufficient capacity to handle the expected student generation from the Project. VI. ECONOMIC BENEFITS Real Estate Taxes: Propertytaxes are the single largest source of revenuefor local governments in the United States, generating approximately 72 percent of local tax collections nationwide. Almost every local government across the U.S. levies property taxes, and in some states, property taxes help fund state government services as well, or are redistributed across jurisdictions for purposes like school funding equalization. In sum, property taxes are a stable, adequate, and reliable revenue source for local governments, making the real estate tax impact of the Project noteworthy. The two most recently completed apartment developments in the City the are Viridian and The Helix, which have an average Seminole County Property Appraiser valuation of $5,600,000 per acre. The two most recently completed retail developments on SR 46 in the Project area have an average valuation of $2,400,000 per acre. If those per acre valuations are applied to the respective Project components, the total value for the Project would be over $111,300,000, well above the current value of $4,330,000 and would provide a $1,253,000 increase in real estate tax revenues at the current milage rate. Additional information on the properties and this analysis is provided below. Year Built Acres 22` Assessed per Acre Value Value Retail 4730 W SR -46 Hwy 2019 1.33 $4,017,851 $3,020,941 5068 W State Rd 46 2020 0.71 $1,213,107 $1,708,601 Average: $2,364,771 Multifamily Broadstone Viridian 2021 12.00 $71,659,473 $5,971,623 The Helix 2021 15.46 $81,159,907 $5,249,671 Average: $5,610,647 Tuscany Village (Project) Commercial 2.21 $2,364,771 $5,226,144 Multifamily 18.92 $5,610,647 $106,153,435 Total: $111,379,579 Impact Fees: The City of Sanford and Seminole County assess new developments a pro rata share of the costs necessary to finance public facility improvements necessitated by development in order to adequately maintain adopted level of service standards. As a result, the Project will be subject to an estimated $4,900,000 payment of the City and County impact fees, as detailed below: 0894227\195726\12075805v1 Impact Fees Per Unit Total Fee Fire County 332 139,440 Library County 269 112,980 Road/Transportation County 779 327,180 School County 7,020 2,948,400 Water System Fee City 1,030 432,446 Sewer System Fee City 2,319 974,050 Commercial Use City 8,736 8,736 GRAND TOTAL $20,485 $4,943,232 VII. EMPLOYMENT PROXIMITY The City of Sanford has excellent proximity to several of the most significant employment centers in the entire Orlando metro area, which is why the Property is perfectly situated to meet one of the stated purposes of the WIC district- to provide high density housing options near major employment centers. The Heathrow International Business Park, Primera Towers, and the Colonial Center office campus, are home to top employers including Deloitte, Fiserv, Finastra, Mitsubishi Power Systems, Liberty Mutual, AAA, and Veritas. Tenants in these parks tend to concentrate in the higher -income tech, banking, and insurance industries, and many of their staff desire luxury apartments with amenities that appeal to higher -income renters and empty nesters. This is reflected in the demographics of the two most recently completed multifamily projects in the area, Viridian and The Helix, which have an average household income over $120,000, which is almost twice the City of Sanford average of $68,000. Below is an overview of employment hubs and their proximity to the Project. Lake Mary Office Market (12 min.) The Lake Mary office market is home to more than 8M SF of office space and home to national corporate employers such as JPMorgan Chase & Co., Deloitte, Verizon, and more. The Colonial Center Heathrow is a 370 -acre office park which contains more than 1.5M SF of Class A office space. AAA's national office and corporate HQ is also located in the Lake Mark office market. Colonial Center at Townpark / Primera Towers (13 min.) The Colonial Center at Town Park is a Class A 1.5M+ SF, 36 -acre site situated in Orlando's Lake Mary office submarket. The Primera Towers are Class A 1M SF mid -rise towers which sits on 50 acres and is also located in Orlando's Lake Mary office submarket. Maitland Office Market (18 min.) The Maitland office market is home to over 22K employees and 1.6K businesses. The market contains 8.7M SF of office space and is home to the AdventHealth hospital system's corporate HQ. Other notable employers in Maitland include ADP Payroll, Digital Risk, and RDV Sportsplex. 9 0894227\1 95726\12075805v I Orlando -Sanford International Airport (16 min.) The Orlando -Sanford International Airport serves north Orlando and Seminole county residents with both domestic and international air travel. It is estimated that more than 1.5M passengers traveled through the airport in 2020. Winter Park Office Market (25 min.) The Winter Park office market contains more than 4.2M SF of office and contains notable employers such as the AdventHealth hospital system, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Careers USA, Inc., and Winter Park Healthcare Group, Ltd. Downtown Orlando (25 min.) Downtown Orlando is the largest urban center in Central Florida and is home to more than 4.4K business. The Downtown CBD features more than 12.6M SF of office space and is home to numerous corporate or division headquarters including HD Supply, Mears Transportation Group, CNL Financial, EA Sports, and many more. Employment Proximity Map: 10 0894227\195726\12075805v1 VIII. RETAIL PROXIMITY The retail within a 1 -mile radius of the Project includes almost 3M square feet, with national brands such as Walmart, Best Buys, CVS, Macy's, JCPenney, Burlington, BJ's, and Aldi among others. The area is well served by fast-food chains and restaurants including McDonald's, Starbucks, Chick Fill -A, i -Hop, Outback, Red Lobster, Burger King, Pandas Express, and more. Car service centers, electronics stores, and financial institutions can also be found within a 1 -mile radius. Per CoStar, 302,000 square feet of vacant retail space is available within 1 -mile of the Property, resulting in a 10.8% vacancy rate, well above the Orlando metro average of 3.8%. The average available asking rent per square foot is $13.4, well below the Orlando metro average of $25.7. The development of multifamily housing tends to encourage the concentration of households and incomes needed to support new retail and commercial development. A 2019 study completed by Cushman & Wakefield found an average of 40 square feet of retail are supported by a single resident in an urban market. Using the study average and a 1.7 occupancy ratio per apartment, the Project's residents would support over 28,000 square feet of retail, creating much needed demand to help sustain and promote revilatalization of nearby retail. 0894227\1 95726\1 2075805v I Metro Area Retail & Amenities Map: 12 0894227\195726\12075805v1 IX. MULTIFAMILY DEMAND The City of Sanford is in Costar's North Orlando submarket. Per CoStar, post -pandemic leasing in the North Orlando Submarket over the last year has been so strong that overall vacancy has dropped over 4% since the close of 2019, and there were more new apartment units leased in 2021 than any other calendar year in the past decade. Much of the recent demand has been driven by population growth into North Orlando, which is up 6.5% over the last five years. As in - migration to the Orlando area persists moving forward, demand will continue to grow in this submarket, which has traditionally been one of the most popular with renters within the metro area. Approximately 1,300 new units have delivered over the trailing 12 -month period, accounting for approximately 15% of all units delivered in the metro area, and the average occupancy at delivery is well above the average for the market. The average asking rent for all apartments in North Orlando is currently $1,760/month, slightly below the Orlando market average of $1,810/month, and concessions are very limited due to strong leasing fundamentals and low vacancy. Annual rent growth has been strong with a gain of 20.8% year over year, slightly above the market average of 21.0% but well ahead of the National Index. Rent growth is expected to remain elevated for the remainder of 2022, with the average asking rent increasing to $1,832 by the end of the year, and average 3.8% per year increases between 2023 to the end of 2026. Net Deliveries vs. Asking Rent vs. Vacancy (2016 to 2026): 10 1 0894227\1 95726\12075805v] 13 X. APPLICATION HISTORY The Applicant attended a pre -application meeting with City Staff on December 2, 2021. Thereafter community meetings were held in person regarding the Project on January 6 and 26, 2022. Neither community meeting produced opposition to the project. The Project's initial application was submitted to the City on February 22, 2022. The request originally included the annexation of Parcel IDs 28-19-30-506-0000-003A, - 003J, -0031, -004A, -and 0046, which annexation was approved on April 11, 2022. Such annexed parcels will undergo a companion comprehensive plan future land use ("FLU") map amendment to Westside Industry & Commerce ("WIC") and a rezoning of all Property parcels to PD. A petition to vacate the Elder Road right-of-way was submitted to Seminole County on 2/23/22. All staff comments have been satisfied and, as of the date of this memo, Seminole County staff is preparing to hear the matter at a June 28th Board of County Commissioners meeting. XI. DOCUMENT SUBMITTAL LIST Document Prepared by/Source Dated Site Plan Kimley-Horn June 14, 2022 Utility Plan Kimley-Horn June 14, 2022 Landscape Plan Kimley-Horn June 14, 2022 ALTA Survey Leading Edge Mar. 21, 2022 Environmental Assessment Report Bio -Tech Feb. 4, 2022 Traffic Impact Study Kimley-Horn April 1, 2022 Parking Study Kimley-Horn April 8, 2022 Apt. Building Architectural Elevation Forum Architecture April 22, 2022 Clubhouse Architectural Elevation Forum Architecture June 6, 2022 CAPP Report Lowndes, Drosdick, Doster, Kantor & Reed Jan. 26, 2022 School Impact Analysis I School Capacity Determination Seminole County Public Schools April 20, 2022 XII. LAND USE JUSTIFICATION Given the market demand for high-end multifamily options in the City, the applicant has proposed a Project that is compatible with the surrounding area and meets the intent of the WIC FLU designation. Joint Planning: The City and Seminole County entered into a Joint Planning Agreement on October 12, 2015 (the "JPA"), which set forth the jurisdictions' consensus regarding certain urban planning 14 0894227\195726\12075805vl principals and shared planning goals on how specific areas should be developed. The Property is within the Joint Planning Area set forth on Exhibit "A" to the JPA and is specifically located in planning Sub -Area 8, per Exhibit "D" therein. Exhibit "C" to the JPA sets forth certain recommendations relevant to the Property's development, and notes that the area was meant to minimize urban sprawl and provide affordable housing opportunities, in addition to commercial growth. The Sub -Area policy further notes that "single-family and low or medium density residential developments are not compatible within this area." Under table FLU -1 of the City's Comprehensive Plan, low and medium density residential land use designations range from 6 to 15 dwelling units per acre, whereas the high-density residential land use designation permits up to 20 dwelling units per acre, consistent with the Property's WIC FLU (described below). Since 2015, the County and City have contemplated a range of uses in the Joint Planning Areas and prohibited lower density residential projects since they wouldn't achieve the desired dense urban form. As explained in the market analysis below, the City must ensure an adequate stock of housing options are available for the projected population increases. According to Zillow, as of April 2022, the average home price in Sanford is $323,000. When compared to a year earlier, home prices are up on average 27.7%. Furthermore, the inventory of overall homes available for sale is down 5.1%, and homes stay on the market 53.5% fewer days, with 90% of all home sales in the month of May being completed in less than 30 days. Future Land Use: Under the City's Comprehensive Plan, the Future Land Use element shall "provide a balance of uses that foster vibrant, viable communities and economic development opportunities and address outdated development patterns, such as antiquated subdivisions." Per Objective 15 0894227\195726\12075805v1 FLU 1.12, the WIC FLU designation should be promoted given the "corridor's proximity to 1-4 as well as SR 417 and the SunRail commuter line [which] provides access to Regional markets and a substantial labor force." Policy 1.12.1 notes that the WIC designation "permits both a vertical and horizontal land use mix of commercial, office, residential," which horizontal mix of commercial and residential is provided by the Project. The need for supportive residential uses in urban areas with existing commercial and office options couldn't be clearer in the City's Comprehensive Plan. Objective FLU 1.15 underscores the need to prevent the proliferation of urban sprawl, since single use suburban neighborhoods tax City infrastructure, increase vehicle miles traveled and prevent orderly growth. Thus, the objectives include the City's stated desires to "avoid expensive development at very low densities surrounding the City's urban core area, promote planned mixed use development within the strategically located Westside area.... mandating access and curb cut controls together with required dedication of cross easements to restrict and/or to facilitate well planned access, internal circulation, shared parking, and egress; and provide density and intensity thresholds which promote infill." The Project will encourage a balanced community with a diversity of uses (Goal FLU2), accommodate affordable, quality housing which is responsive to diverse housing needs for the City's residents (Goal H1), and ensure development of housing types for all income ranges (Policy H 1.1.1). The requested FLU designation of WIC for the newly annexed parcels is consistent with the surrounding existing FLU designations of adjacent properties. FuturcLnndi ;%e 0894227\195726\1 2075805v1 OPT ltf r 4" r 16 WIC permits densities and intensities of use at the following ranges: Table FW -2- Mixr+d Use Future I_anrl ilca rlencitiec/lntancitiac The Project complies with Policy FLU 1.12.1 of the Comprehensive Plan's allowable WIC FLU density of a maximum of 20 DU/A and a 0.50 FAR for commercial uses. As contemplated therein, the accompanying PD zoning will address infrastructure needs, provision of services and design elements to ensure compatibility with neighboring uses. Moreover, per Objective FLU 1.12 of the Comprehensive Plan, WIC permits a mixed-use designation intended to promote the development of employment centers in the vicinity of the West SR 46 corridor and the commuter rail station. The Project is compatible with the surrounding existing developments- there is a mix of commercial/retail uses fronting SR 46 to the east and west of the Property and existing residential to the east and south, include dense multifamily residential developments to the south. Thus, the Project is being developed in accordance with applicable Comprehensive Plan policies and at the allowable densities and intensities set forth therein. For a full analysis of consitancy with the City of Sanford's Comprehensive Plan and adopted goals, objectives, and policies, please see Exhbit B. Zoning: Per Article II of the City Code, properties assigned the Planned Development zoning district are intended for residential and nonresidential uses that utilize flexible and creative site design to achieve a more desirable environment and more efficient land use. The requested PD 17 0894227\195726\12075805v1 Y DENSITY/INTENSITY (MINIMAX)* LAND USE DESIGNATIONS MAP PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION (MIN/MAX) SYMBOL COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL RESIDENTIAL 1.0 FAR 0.50 FAR 50 du/acre 1-4 High Intensity H1 50% / E5% 0%1170% 0%140% Waterfront/ 0.3512.0 FAR `" 0.5 FAR 50 du/acre Downtown VVDBD _---_-.- . -_-- _--_-- . Business District 30%/70% 0%/10% 30%140% Westside Industry; 0.50 FAR 0.50 FAR 10 / 20 du/acre Mixed & Commerce WIC-- - -- --- - 15%150% - --- -... 30%175% - - - -- 10%140% Use Districts Residentiale' Office! 0.35 FAR 20 dulacre Institutional ROI _.__.._.---• n!a ____- 0%/4Q% 75%/100% Airport Industry & 1.0 FAR --- __ .- -- 1.0 FAR 10/50 d0acre MF (MF) Commerce AIC 25% /75% -- - - --- - 50%/75% 1 du/acre (SF) 0%/ i0% The Project complies with Policy FLU 1.12.1 of the Comprehensive Plan's allowable WIC FLU density of a maximum of 20 DU/A and a 0.50 FAR for commercial uses. As contemplated therein, the accompanying PD zoning will address infrastructure needs, provision of services and design elements to ensure compatibility with neighboring uses. Moreover, per Objective FLU 1.12 of the Comprehensive Plan, WIC permits a mixed-use designation intended to promote the development of employment centers in the vicinity of the West SR 46 corridor and the commuter rail station. The Project is compatible with the surrounding existing developments- there is a mix of commercial/retail uses fronting SR 46 to the east and west of the Property and existing residential to the east and south, include dense multifamily residential developments to the south. Thus, the Project is being developed in accordance with applicable Comprehensive Plan policies and at the allowable densities and intensities set forth therein. For a full analysis of consitancy with the City of Sanford's Comprehensive Plan and adopted goals, objectives, and policies, please see Exhbit B. Zoning: Per Article II of the City Code, properties assigned the Planned Development zoning district are intended for residential and nonresidential uses that utilize flexible and creative site design to achieve a more desirable environment and more efficient land use. The requested PD 17 0894227\195726\12075805v1 zoning is consistent with the surrounding City zoning designations as shown on the zoning map below: Under Section 2.0(C)(3) of Schedule D in the City's Code, under the WIC FLU designation, "high density residential development shall be permitted in order to provide housing opportunities near major employment centers." Thus, the Code specifically contemplates and permits high density multifamily development at the density proposed in the Project plans. While the City Code lacks any adopted standards for evaluating requests for deviations from Code provisions, the PD process provides the opportunity for applicant's to present alternatives in situations where such development standards do not align with current multifamily developments design standards and market demands. In order to provide for the highest quality multifamily product, the Project's PD plan contains deviations from the code, similar to recently approved multifamily projects in the City. Moreover, the requested rezoning complies with the procedures outlined in Article IV of the City Code as all required application materials have been submitted and evaluated by th City's professional staff and the Project is proceeding through the prescribed quasi-judicial hearing process. 18 0894227\195726\12075805v1 •t I � `, t, u'a�Far F.ec:dent a. .�..�: HMul',Faa, Fos den:a!-P6 _• � I� I i _ I I 1 � I � i I I Bt•� _— � C„_m nr �— I_. il_I_' � � .... i r,u iFem F. o_.rdoNF •..-.. r.� "� �—i - i geetn x ed .rdu[;na t�- SlrO:eFan Res-denllai.n 030-C r LOU Slcyle Fan Rzstd_r;;31 6 011 sa 8 t i c1rgle F;m Rei-denal'50)zz" L0'.5 M 1 parcel Base - j G,S?ssesGSCFarcer Under Section 2.0(C)(3) of Schedule D in the City's Code, under the WIC FLU designation, "high density residential development shall be permitted in order to provide housing opportunities near major employment centers." Thus, the Code specifically contemplates and permits high density multifamily development at the density proposed in the Project plans. While the City Code lacks any adopted standards for evaluating requests for deviations from Code provisions, the PD process provides the opportunity for applicant's to present alternatives in situations where such development standards do not align with current multifamily developments design standards and market demands. In order to provide for the highest quality multifamily product, the Project's PD plan contains deviations from the code, similar to recently approved multifamily projects in the City. Moreover, the requested rezoning complies with the procedures outlined in Article IV of the City Code as all required application materials have been submitted and evaluated by th City's professional staff and the Project is proceeding through the prescribed quasi-judicial hearing process. 18 0894227\195726\12075805v1 X111. SUMMARY The Applicant has submitted a complete application composed of all of the required submittal documents. All of the submittal documents have been prepared by experts in their respective fields of land use planning, engineering, surveying, landscape architecture, environmental sciences, and architectural design. This memo has confirmedthat the Tuscany Village application requesting approval of the Projectis consistent and in compliance with the applicable provisions of the City's Comprehensive Plan, the Planned Development, and the land Development Code requirements. As the Project entails a quasi-judicial hearing process, the competent and substantial evidence provided to date supports an approval as requested herein. 19 0894227\195726\12075805v1 Exhibit A Prohibited Commercial Parcel Uses 1. A gas station, quick lube/oil change facility, automobile tire sales; 2. any industrial use; 3. an adult book or video store (an adult video store is a video store that sells or rents videos rated NC -17, X, XX, XXX, or of a rating assigned to works containing material more sexually explicit than XXX, by the film rating board of the Classification and Rating Administration), or "adult" business activities, including without limitation any massage parlor, escort service, facility with nude (or partially nude, bathing suit -clad or lingerie -clad) models or dancers or any establishment selling or exhibiting sexually explicit materials or merchandise; 4. a pawn shop; 5. a bar, night club, hookah lounge, disco or dance hall; 6. a casino, game hall or other facility for gaming activities (including but not limited to gambling, electronic gaming machines, slot machines and other devices similar to the aforementioned); 7. a billiard parlor, any place of recreation/amusement, or any business whose principal revenues are from the sale of alcoholic beverages for on or off premises consumption; 8. any business that cashes checks or makes short-term or "payday advance" type loans; 9. any business or facility used in growing, delivering, transferring, supplying, dispensing, dispersing, distributing or selling marijuana or any synthetic substance containing tetrahydrocannabinol, any psychoactive metabolite thereof, or any substance chemically similar to any of the foregoing, whether by prescription, medical recommendation or otherwise, and whether consisting of live plants, seeds, seedlings or processed or harvested portions of the marijuana plant; 10. a smoke shop or so-called "head shop" or any similar establishment selling cannabis and/or other drug-related paraphernalia; 11. a beauty salon or barber shop; 12. any residential use (including, without limitation, condominiums, apartments, duplexes, mobile homes and/or single-family home(s)); 13. any self -storage facility. PTO 0894227\195726\12075805v1 Exhibit B Comprehensive Plan Consistency The Project has been designed to advance the City's vision in compliance with the goals, objectives, and policies (GOPs) of the 2018-2030 Comprehensive Plan. The adopted GOPs encourage infill development within close proximity to existing infrastructure to reduce future suburban sprawl. The Project is in compliance with that vision and the following GOPs: City Vision: Sanford is a significant cultural and business hub forthe Central Florida Region. With its showcase waterfront, extensive transportation network, distinctive cultural corridor and historic downtown, Sanford is a vibrant and safe City in which people choose to LIVE, WORK, RAISE A FAMILY, ATTEND SCHOOL, SHOP, PLAY AND RETIRE. Response: The proposed annexation, FLUM amendment, and rezoning will expand the housing options within the established Westside Industry and Commerce (WIC) area, take advantage of a mature transportation network that includes multi -modal transit options, and provide housing within close proximity to employment. Future Land Use Element Goal FLU 1: Manage land use distribution and provision of services and facilities. The City shall promote an orderly distribution of land uses in an economically, socially, and environmentally acceptable manner while ensuring the adequate and timely provision of services and facilities to meet the needs of the current and projected populations. Objective FLU 1.1 Table FLU -2 Mixed Use Future Land Use Densities / Intensities 21 0894227\195726\12075805vl DENSITY/INTENSITY (MINIMAX)" LAND USE DESIGNATIONS MAP PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION (MIWMAX) SYMBOL COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL RESIDENTIAL 1.0 FAR 0.50 FAR 50 du/acre 1-4 High intensity HI _.._. 50%/85% 0%/10•/ 0%/40% Waterfront/ 0.35 / 2.0 FAR " 0.5 FAR 50 du/acre Downtown WDSD - Business District 30%/70% 0%/10% 30%/40% Westside industryr 0.50 FAR 0.50 FAR 10120 du/acre Mixed &Commerce WIC 15%/50'1* 10%/40% 30%175% Use Districts Residential! Office/ROI 0.35 FAR 20 du/acre Institutional -•-----°°-° n/a 0 0 0%140/a 75%/100% Airport Industry strY & __ 1�0 FAR 1.0 FAR 10150 dF acre Commerce AIC _ 25%/75% V 50%/75% 1 du/acre (SF) 0%/10% 21 0894227\195726\12075805vl Response: The Project is consistent with the minimum and maximum density thresholds under the adopted WiC district standards. Additionally, the Project provides a mix of uses as contemplated by the percentage distributions of commercial and residential, and will comply with the maximum FAR for commercial development. The proposed mix of uses provides the opportunity for neighborhood -serving commercial to reduce external trips. Policy FLU 1.1.1: Maintain Consistency of Future Land Use Map and Related Policies. The Future Land Use Map and related policies, definitions of land use designations and qualitative standards shall be applied in allocating future land uses. All developments are subject to the City's Concurrency Management System (CMS). in addition to the evaluation criteria, which pertain to capital improvements, the City shall evaluate amendments to the Future Land Use Map for consistency with the following criteria: • The amendment shall be consistent with the Growth Policy Act (Chapter 163 F.S.); Response: The amendment is consistent with the Growth Policy Act (Chapter 263 F.S.) and the amendment will be send to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity for review after adoption. We anticipate that the amendment will be found in compliance with Florida Statutes. • The amendment shall be consistent with all elements of the City Comprehensive Plan; Response: The amendment is consistent with elements of the City Comprehensive Plan, as evidenced by this policy analysis. • Public facilities and services shall be available concurrent with development of the site; Response: The City has sufficient wastewater, potable water, reclaimed water, and solid waste capacity to serve the Project. Seminole County Public Schools has confirmed that school capacity is available to serve the project. The Project represents a reduction in peak hour trips from the previously approved Tuscany Village PD and a roadway segment analysis was conducted that showed roadway capacity is available to serve the project without a decrease in level of service. • There have been changes in population, land use or economic development trends and/or projections that warrant a change in the future land use designation; Response: The proposed Future Land Use Map amendment was necessitated by annexation from Seminole County to the City of Sanford. The proposed FLUM designation is consistent with surrounding FLUM designations (WIC) and comparable to the historic Seminole County FLUM designation. • There have been sufficient changes in the character of the area or adjacent lands to warrant a different land use designation; Response: The subject property was annexed into the City of Sanford, which necessitated the FLUM amendment from the County's FLUM to a comparable City FLUM designation. • The proposed future land use designation and its allowable uses are compatible with surrounding land use designations and with the preferred growth and development pattern of the City as evidenced by land use policies in the Comprehensive Plan. The amendment will not significantly alter acceptable existing land use patterns or adversely affect the livability of the area or the health and safety of the residents; Response: The proposed WIC FLUM designation is present on each of the adjacent properties within 22 0894227\195726\12075805v1 the City of Sanford. Not only are these designations compatible, they are identical to the designation requested for the subject property. The land shall be capable of supporting development allowed under the proposed future land use designation as evidenced by the presence or absence on the site of soil types suitable for development, vegetative habitats, wetlands, wetland protection zones or flood -prone areas, well field protection zones, wildlife habitats, archaeological, historical or cultural resources; Response: Per an analysis by Bio -Tech Consulting, two soil types area present on the site; Basinger and Delray fine sands and Myakka and EauGallie fine sands. None of the species found on site are identified in the FFWCC's Official Lists - Florida's Endangered Species, Threatened Species and Species of Special Concern (June 2021). There is a ditch on the eastern portion of the site and a small, isolated, wetland on the northwest corner of the site. The property is physically able to support development under the proposed FLUM designation. The proposed amendment will create a demonstrated benefit to the City and enhance the character of the community; and Response: The amendment is consistent with the surrounding FLUM designations and will create a larger, aggregated site to allow for development consistent with the adopted vision for the WIC. If the amendment increases the density or intensity of use, the applicant shall demonstrate that there is a need for the increase in the near planning future (10 years). Response: The amendment represents a reduction in density and intensity from the previously -approved Seminole County HIP -TI Future Land Use Map designation. Response: Five parcels within the Project boundary are proposed to be amended from Seminole County HIP -Tl (North 1-4 Corridor Higher Intensity Planned Development — Target Industry) to City of Sanford WIC (Westside Industry and Commerce) Future Land Use. The purpose of this amendment is to aggregate the recently -annexed parcels within a single jurisdiction to permit development. As shown below, the Seminole County HiP-Tl designation allows for similar densities and intensities for mixed use development as the City of Sanford WIC designation: As shown above, the amendment from Seminole County HIP -T! to City of Sanford WIC represents a reduction in density and intensity from the adopted Future Land Use within Seminole County's jurisdiction. Policy FLU 1.1.4: Promote Orderly Land Use Transition. Where it is infeasible or undesirable to physically separate residential from non-residential land uses, buffering shall be required to promote a smooth land use transition. Buffering may take the form of: 23 0894227\ 1 95726\1 2075805vl Seminole County HiP-TI City of Sanford WIC Residential Density Max. 20 DU/acre (abutting Min. 10 DU/acre; Max. 20/DU acre SFR); Max. 50 DU/acre (all other areas) Commercial Intensity Max. 0.35 FAR (abutting SFR); Max. 0.5 FAR Max. 1.5 FAR (all other areas) As shown above, the amendment from Seminole County HIP -T! to City of Sanford WIC represents a reduction in density and intensity from the adopted Future Land Use within Seminole County's jurisdiction. Policy FLU 1.1.4: Promote Orderly Land Use Transition. Where it is infeasible or undesirable to physically separate residential from non-residential land uses, buffering shall be required to promote a smooth land use transition. Buffering may take the form of: 23 0894227\ 1 95726\1 2075805vl • physical separation such as distance (building setbacks), vegetative berms, hedges or other landscape cover; walls or fences aesthetically designed for screening purposes; and open space systems with dense native vegetation and tree canopy; and/or • the development of a transitional use between the incompatible uses (such as low intensity office development between general retail commercial centers and residential areas). Response: The Project provides an orderly land use transition from the intense commercial areas along the 1-4 and Rinehart Road corridors and the industrial uses within the WiC to the east of the site. The Project also clusters density and intensity adjacent to the SR 46 corridor to provide a transition to the existing residential development to the south. The Project will comply with the buffer standards that separate residential and non-residential land uses found in Schedule of the City of Sanford code. OBJECTIVE FLU 1.7: Encourage Mixed Use Development. The City shall maintain and enforce LD Rs which include provisions for encouraging establishment of strategically located mixed use planned development. Response: The Project is proposed to include a mix of non-residential and multi family residential uses under a single mixed use Planned Development zoning classification. Additionally, the Project contributes to the larger mix of uses within the WIC that include industrial, retail, and office uses. OBJECTIVE FLU 1.12: Promote Westside industry and Commerce (WIC). The "Westside Industry and Commerce" (WIC) area is a mixed use designation intended to promote the development of employment centers in the vicinity of the West SR 46 corridor and the commuter rail station. The corridor's proximity to 1-4 as well as SR 417 and the SunRail commuter line provides access to Regional markets and a substantial labor force. The CSX Main Rail Line also provides a transportation amenity of Regional significance. Response: The subject property is uniquely located adjacent to the SR 46 corridor with access to the Sanford Sunrail station via Lynx Link 46. The existing transportation network provides multi -modal options for access to regional employment centers and the recreational and cultural amenities located within downtown Sanford. The additional housing proposed under this application will complement the existing non-residential within the WIC employment center and take advantage of the existing multi -modal transportation network. Policy FLU 1.12.1 Establish parameters for development within the WIC. The WIC designation shall be limited to that area of Sanford generally bound by the CSX railroad to the north and SR 417 to the south. The WIC designation permits both a vertical and horizontal land use mix of commercial, office, residential, and the maximum intensity for commercial, office, and industrial development as a floor area ratio is 0.50. The residential density shall be a minimum of 10 dwelling units per acre and a maximum of 20 dwelling units per acre, where compatible with adjacent uses. Distribution of specific densities and intensities for this district shall be in 24 0894227\195726\12075805vl accordance with Table FLU2. New development shall be required to address infrastructure needs, provision of services, development phasing, development intensity and land use compatibility as part of an integrated design scheme which includes very detailed strategies and techniques for resolving development impacts. PD proposals in the WIC area may be the subject of negotiated development agreements. No development order shall be granted prior to approval by the City of the development agreement. Development within the WIC area existing prior to the adoption of this Plan will be "grandfathered." All new development in the Westside Industry and Commerce Area shall comply with the performance criteria outlined in Policy FLU 1.1.7, as well as the following: • Requirements and procedures for obtaining a WIC mixed use Future Land Use Map designation and appropriate zoning; • Standards for controlled access and internal circulation, including cross access easements and joint use of driveways; • Development standards for Gateway Corridor Development Districts, including requirements for buffer yards, landscaping, and screening, off-street parking, and signage; and • Planning and management criteria regulating the land use mix, intensity, and qualitative standards for assuring land use compatibility and consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. Response: The Project is proposed to include a horizontal land use mix of commercial and residential, consistent with the minimum and maximum residential densities and maximum FAR within the WIC. The proposal also complies with the locational criteria, as described in the policy. While public facilities capacity is available to serve the Project, the applicant is proposing to address infrastructure needs through the extension of a forcemain and manhole/gravity run system to the site, to provide a reclaimed water connection to the site, and to provide various offsite traffic improvements. The requirements of FLU 1.1.7 and the additional criteria from FLU 1.12.1 have been addressed on the corresponding PD Master Plan. GOAL FLU 2: Create and maintain a livable, sustainable community. The City shall utilize innovating planning principles consistent with the four pillars in the City's strategic vision to plan and manage future growth with the City to create and maintain a livable community, enhance the quality of life of its residents, including strategies that: • Create an appealing street environment to promote walking; • Group land uses in accessible neighborhoods and regional centers to reduce vehicle miles traveled and encourage walking, biking, and transit use; • Encourage balanced communities with a diversity of uses and employment opportunities; • Promote equitable communities with residents from a wide range of economic levels, household sizes and age groups; and • Promote community-based food production nutrition through access to fresh produce, and reduce negative environmental effects of large-scale industrialized agriculture. 25 0894227\195726\12075805v1 Response: As proposed, the Project will incorporate landscaping adjacent to the SR 46 right-of- way to improve the pedestrian environment. Additionally, the location of the project adjacent to Link 46 provides far 30 -minute peak -hour headways and access to the Sanford Sunrail station to allow for a reduction in vehicle miles traveled for those who elect to commute via public transit. The Project will contribute to the overall mix of uses within the established WIC area, and provide additional housing options for existing and future residents. The introduction of additional housing in the area further expands the offerings within the WIC, which allows for easier access to the employment options without having to commute from outside of the area. Policy FLU 2.2.7: Promote Urban Infill Redevelopment. The City shall encourage the development and redevelopment of parcels in otherwise built-up areas where public facilities, such as sewer systems, roadways, schools, and recreation areas, are already in place through the use of Urban Infill Redevelopment (UIR) projects. Such projects shall be encouraged especially within the TCEAs where redevelopments are exempt from transportation concurrency requirements. UIR projects involve a land use or mix of land uses that do not conform to typical land use categories or development forms. In addition, these land uses are designed and located in a special or innovative way with special functions or characteristics that are beneficial to the City and the citizens of Sanford as a whole. UIR projects shall be permitted within any land use designation as conditional uses. Response: The Project is in an urban infill project that is served by existing infrastructure within close proximity to Interstate 4, the Sanford Sunrail station, and other regional transportation infrastructure. Additionally, based on correspondence from Seminole County Public Schools, there is school capacity available to serve the development. Policy FLU 2.7.7: Support the 2050 How Shall We Grow Regional Vision. The City will support the 4 -C's of the Regional vision. The 4 -C's of the Regional vision consist of: • Conservation - Identifying and protecting our most critical natural resources of Regional significance, and doing this first. • Centers - Promoting more future growth and development in compact urban centers with great amenities (great places to live, work, shop and recreate in a more pedestrian friendly setting). • Corridors - Connecting centers with mixed-use corridors served by multi -modal (motor vehicles, light rail, commuter rail, bus, bus rapid transit, bike lanes and pedestrian trails) transportation systems. • Countryside - Taking the pressure off countryside by increasing the density and intensity of great urban centers, and thus deferring the need for more sprawl into the countryside. Response: The Project complies with all of the Four C's of the 2050 How Shall We Grow Vision. There are no known conversation areas on site that will be impacted. The WIC currently functions as a Center and the Project adds future amenities to the existing employment center. The Project is located on the SR 46 corridor, which has multi -modal transit access to the Sunrail corridor to the east, and the proposed SR 46 Gateway path will eventually provide an S' trail connection to Marabella Lane to the east. The Project takes the pressure off the Countryside by wo 0894227\195726\12075805v1 accommodating future population growth within the urbanized area in close proximity to existing infrastructure and employment. Housing Element OBJECTIVE H 1.9: Implement Energy Efficient Housing. The City shall encourage energy efficient housing through use of renewable energy resources in existing and new housing. Policy H 1.9.2: Encourage Green Housing Construction. The City shall encourage housing construction that meets the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) rating system administered by the United States Green Building Council, the Florida Green Building Coalition standards or other nationally recognized green building rating systems. Policy H 1.9.3: Facilitate Use of Green Building Standards. To facilitate sustainable development practices, the City shall maintain guidelines within its LDRs that provide opportunities for development to build "green" buildings that will apply to institutional and commercial offices, light industrial buildings, commercial retail buildings, multi -family construction, hotels, and high- rise buildings. This should not force excessive costs or other burdens upon developers, building owners or occupants. Response: Although not a requirement of the City of Sanford, the Applicant is committed to energy efficiency in all of its residential communities. To demonstrate the Applicant's commitment to energy efficiency, the following energy efficient elements will be included in the development. The Applicant confirms that the Project will be designed and constructed consistent with the Bronze level of the National Green Building Standards and will pursue the certification of the project at the Bronze level. /n recognition of the increasing use of electric vehicles, the Applicant will install an Electric Vehicle Charging Station in the parking area serving each of the seven residential buildings and in the parking area serving the Clubhouse. In addition, the Applicant will install underground conduit in the area of each residential building to enable the future installation of additional electric vehicle charging stations if demand for charging stations increases. Mobility Element GOAL M 1. To provide the City of Sanford with a functional transportation network that ensures safe, convenient, and sustainable accessibility and mobility to all users through a variety of transportation modes. Policy M 1.1.4: Consider Mobility in Land Design. During the site plan review process, new development and redevelopment projects shall be encouraged to consider a range of modes as a means to address mobility issues. The City shall use land use density and site plan layout/phasing that will support travel demand, shortened trip lengths, higher internal capture, and balanced trip demand. In addition, the City shall explore incentives (such as credits) to encourage design that accommodates a variety of modes. 27 0894227\1 95726\12075805v 1 Response: The Project is located on the SR 46 corridor, which has Lynx service (Link 46) with thirty -minute headways during peak hour. Link 46 provides a direct, seamless connection to the Sanford SunRail station, the Central Florida Regional Hospital, and pedestrian -oriented downtown Sanford. Additionally, the 2021 Seminole County Trails Master Plan indicates that the proposed SR 46 Gateway Pathway is a medium-term priority which would provide off-street pedestrian and bicycle access through an 8' path eastward to Marabella Lane. Policy M 1.1.5: Establish Level of Service (LOS) Standards for Major Thoroughfares. The City shall maintain the adopted peak hour LOS standards as denoted in Table III -1. Response: The Project's development program will not result in the reduction of level of service for major thoroughfares. The Project is anticipated to generate 332 less trips during the AM peak hour and 222 less trips during the PM peak hour than the previously -approved PD would generate at buildout. Policy M 1.1.13: Provide Efficient Public Transit Service. The City of Sanford shall encourage the seamless connections between transit service and all other modes to make it easier to travel between different modes. Response: The Project is located on the SR 46 corridor, which has Lynx service (link 46) with thirty -minute headways during peak hour. link 46 provides a direct, seamless connection to the Sanford SunRail station, the Central Florida Regional Hospital, and pedestrian -oriented downtown Sanford. Policy M 1.1.31: Accommodate emerging modes of transportation. The City shall continue to accommodate alternate modes of motorized transportation, including golf carts and electric vehicles within certain areas of the City. Furthermore, the City shall continue coordination with the County, MetroPlan and FDOT to explore opportunities to accommodate emerging modes of transportation, as they become available to the region, including autonomous vehicles. Response: In recognition of the increasing use of electric vehicles, the Applicant will install an Electric Vehicle Charging Station in the parking area serving each of the seven residential buildings and in the parking area serving the Clubhouse. In addition, the Applicant will install underground conduit in the area of each residential building to enable the future installation of additional electric vehicle charging stations if demand for charging stations increases. Infrastructure Element GOAL INF 1: Provide adequate public facilities. Ensure availability and provision of adequate public facilities including potable water, sanitary sewer, solid waste, stormwater drainage, and aquifer recharge in a manner which protects investments in existing facilities, continues to serve existing residents and supports orderly, compact growth. 28 0894227\195726\12075805v1 OBJECTIVE INF 1.1: Ensure Available Public Facilities, Maximize Use of Existing Public Facilities, and Prevent Urban Sprawl. The City shall require that proposed land uses be adequately served by public facilities, including water, wastewater, storm water management, solid waste disposal and hazardous waste management. The subdivision and site plan review processes shall provide a unified system for maximizing use of existing public facilities and for coordinating the efficient location, timing, phasing, and scale of public and private development. Response: While public facilities capacity is available to serve the Project, the applicant is proposing to address infrastructure needs through the extension of a forcemain and manhole/gravity run system to the site, to provide a reclaimed water connection to the site, and to provide various offsite traffic improvements. Policy INF 1.1.1: Enforce General Performance Standards. The City of Sanford shall maintain Land Development Regulations (LDRs) that include performance standards requiring that public facilities be provided concurrent with the impacts of new development. The City shall enforce performance standards ensuring that the location, scale, timing and design of development shall be coordinated with public facilities and services in order to prevent the proliferation of urban sprawl and achieve cost effective land development patterns. Urban sprawl shall be further addressed through performance standards that: • Direct future development only to those areas where provision of public facilities necessary to meet levels of service (LOS) standards are available concurrent with the impacts of the development; Response: Public facilities capacity is available to serve the project concurrent with the proposed timing of development. • Maximize use of existing central potable water, reclaimed water and wastewater facilities by requiring that all new development hook up to the City's existing central systems; Response: The Project will hook up to existing potable water, reclaimed water and wastewater facilities. • Require all new development connect to irrigation quality reclaimed water lines for irrigation purposes. if not within the required reclaimed water connection distances as listed in the "Utilities Standards and Specifications and Design Standards for Water Conservation" (referred to as the Utilities Manual), new development shall utilize the lowest quality available water for irrigation purposes; Response: The applicant proposes, at the applicant's sole expense, to provide a reclaimed water connection to be installed to a reclaimed water line located in relative proximity to the property. • Avoid expensive development at very low densities surrounding the City's urban core area; Response: The Project is proposed as a high-density mixed-use project within the Wic • Promote planned mixed use development within the strategically located Westside Industry & Commerce area, the 1-4 interchange, the Waterfront/Downtown Business District, and Airport Industry and Commerce area; Response: The Project is proposed as a high-density mixed-use project within the WIC. 29 0894227\195726\12075805v1 • Conserve wetlands, natural drainage corridors, and other environmentally sensitive areas; Response: No wetlands or other environmentally sensitive areas are proposed to be impacted. • Prevent extended strip commercial development within the areas designated planned mixed use development by mandating access and curb cut controls together with required dedication of cross easements to restrict and/orto facilitate well planned access, internal circulation, shared parking, and egress; and Response: The Applicant's Engineer, Kimley Horn met with FDOT staff to discuss the Project and proposed entrances on March 8, 2022 in a pre -application review. In that pre -application meeting, FDOT indicated conceptual support for the driveway access connections, subject to detailed engineering design and permitting. Per FDOT guidance, an ingress right -turn lane analysis was performed for site access points. None of the project_ driveways warrant._ ingress right -turn lanes. Additionally, a turn lane analysis was conducted for offsite impacted turn lanes. • Provide density and intensity thresholds that promote infill. Response: The Project's density is on the higher end of the density permitted by the WIC to promote infill. Public School Facilities Element OBJECTIVE PSF 1.2: Coordinate Development Review to Achieve Concurrency. The City of Sanford will coordinate with the Seminole County School Board in the City's development review efforts to achieve concurrency in all public school facilities. Response: Per Seminole County Public Schools, there is school capacity available to accommodate the proposed development program of 420 multi family dwelling units. Conservation Element GOAL CON 1: Conserve, protect, and appropriately manage and restore the City's natural resources. The City of Sanford shall enhance the quality of natural systems, including but not limited to: air, surface water, groundwater, wetlands, flora and fauna, surficial and Floridian aquifers through conservation, protections, and management activities. Response: None of the species found on site are identified in the FFWCC's Official Lists - Florida's Endangered Species, Threatened Species and Species of Special Concern (June 2021). There is a ditch on the eastern portion of the site and a small, isolated wetland on the northwest corner of the site. The property is physically able to support development under the proposed FLUM designation. OBJECTIVE CON 1.4: Protect and Preserve Wetlands and Natural Drainage Characteristics. The City shall continue to maintain and enforce LDRs that include performance criteria designed to protect and preserve wetlands from physical and hydrologic alterations as well as specifically direct incompatible land uses away from wetlands. 30 0894227\195726\12075805v1 Response: None of the species found on site are identified in the FFWCCs Official Lists - Florida's Endangered Species, Threatened Species and Species of Special Concern (lune 2021). There is a ditch on the eastern portion of the site and a small, isolated wetland on the northwest corner of the site. The property is physically able to support development under the proposed FLUM designation. 31 0894227\195726\12075805v1 TUSCANY VILLAGE DEVIATION UPDATES -JULY 21, 2022 DEVIATION 3 (BUFFER ADJACENT TO SINGLE-FAMILY PROPERTY TO THE SOUTH); (LDR SCHEDULE 1, SECTION 3.4.A). WE ARE REQUESTING TO PROVIDE 25 FT OF LANDSCAPE BUFFER TO ADJACENT SINGLE FAMILY PROPERTY TO THE SOUTH IN LIEU OF THE REQUIRED 50 FT. THE SITE IS LOCATED IN THE URBANIZED WESTSIDE INDUSTRY AND COMMERCE (WIC) AREA OF THE CITY OF SANFORD, IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO MAJOR EMPLOYMENT CENTERS. CONSISTENT WITH THE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE WIC AREA, THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING HIGH-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WHICH WILL PROVIDE HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES NEAR MAJOR EMPLOYMENT CENTERS. THE MAXIMUM RESIDENTIAL DENSITY WITHIN THE WIC AREA IS 20 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE. ON THE 21.16 -ACRE SITE THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IS 420 UNITS; THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING 420 RESIDENTIAL UNITS. THE ADJACENT FLAGSHIP PARK DEVELOPMENT DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE WIC AREA, WHICH REQUIRES A MINIMUM RESIDENTIAL DENSITY OF 10 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE. FURTHERMORE, CONCEPTUAL DRAINAGE DESIGN OF THE SITE SIZED THE ONSITE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT FACILITIES BASED ON A SJRWMD SITE WITH FLORIDA IMPAIRED WATER BODIES. UPON START OF DESIGN, SJRWMD STAFF CONFIRMED THE SITE IS WITHIN THE LAKE MONROE BASIN AND LIMITS THE AMOUNT OF NITROGEN AND PHOSPHOROUS IN ALL OFF-SITE DISCHARGES. AN ON-SITE TREATMENT DRY AND WET POND SYSTEM IS NOW PROPOSED WITHIN THIS PROJECTTO MEET THE NUTRIENT REMOVAL EFFICIENCY REQUIREMENTS. WHEN COMPARED TO TYPICAL STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AREAS AND THE CONCEPTUAL STORMWATER MANAGEMENT DESIGN, THE REVISED STORMWATER MANAGEMENT FACILITIES ARE LARGER TO MEET SJRWMD CRITERIA. UNDER THESE CONSTRAINTS, AND AFTER THE INCLUSION OF COMMERCIAL OUTPARCELS ON THE SITE PLAN PER STAFF'S REQUEST, THE SITE IS LIMITED ON THE LANDSCAPE BUFFER SPACE IT CAN ALLOW WHILE STILL MEETING THE REMAINING CRITERIA LISTED IN THE PD APPROVAL. MOST IMPORTANTLY, THE INTENT OF THE BUFFER IS SATISFIED WHEN VIEWED IN CONNECTION WITH THE ALREADY DEVEOPED ADJACENT PROPERTY TO THE SOUTH. ALONG THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE PROPERTY WHERE THE FLAGSHIP PARK DEVELOPMENT IS LOCATED THE LANDSCAPE BUFFER OF 50' IS NOT MET WITHIN THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. HOWEVER, THE FLAGSHIP PARK DEVELOPMENT HAS A 32' LANDSCAPE BUFFER (TRACT A-1 OPEN SPACE OF THE FLAGSHIP PARK PLAT RECORDED AT OR BOOK 69 / PAGE 1-3) BETWEEN THE CLOSESTTOWNHOME LOTS AND THE SUBJECT PROPERTY BOUNDARY. THIS EXISTING BUFFER INCLUDES DENSE VEGETATION AND A COMMUNITY WALL. OUR PROJECT IS PROPOSING A 25' LANDSCAPE BUFFER AND ENHANCED LANDSCAPING NORTH OF THE EXISTING FLAGSHIP PARK BUFFER. WHEN THESE BUFFERS ARE CONSIDERED TOGETHER, THIS WILL CREATE A 57' LANDSCAPE BUFFER CONSISTING OF EXISTING DENSE VEGETATION AND A WALL BETWEEN THE SUBJECT PROPERTY'S PARKING AREA AND THE CLOSEST TOWNHOME LOTS TO THE SOUTH, WHICH EXCEEDS THE REQUIREMENTS OF TABLE A OF SCHEDULE J. DEVIATION 4 (OPEN SPACE); (LDR SCHEDULE E, SECTION 16.0.C.6). WE ARE REQUESTING TO PROVIDE 30% OPEN SPACE FOR THE OVERALL PD IN LIEU OF THE REQUIRED 50%. THE APPLICANT INTENDS TO PROVIDE AMENITIZED OPEN SPACES RATHER THAN JUST CODE MINIMUM REMANT TRACTS. THE APPROACH IS TO FOCUS ON QUALITY OVER QUANTITY, AS UNUSABLE REMNANT TRACTS PROVIDE LIMITED BENEFIT TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC OR THE RESIDENTS. TO THAT END, THREE OUTDOOR AMENITY AREAS ARE PROPOSED WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT FOR THE USE AND ENJOYMENT OF THE RESIDENTS. EACH OF THESE AMENITY AREAS IS SHOWN ON THE PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN. THE PLAN PROVIDES FOR A 9,000+ SQUARE FOOT CONTEMPORARY CLUBHOUSE WITH A BEST -IN -CLASS 24/7 FITNESS CENTER, COWORKING BUSINESS CENTER WITH COMMUNAL WORKSTATIONS, FIVE PRIVATE OFFICES AND A CONFERENCE ROOM, CLUBROOM WITH DEMONSTRATION KITCHEN AND CURATED ORIGINAL ARTWORK, INDOOR PET GROOMING CENTER, AND RESORT -STYLE POOL WITH LAVISHLY APPOINTED CABANAS. ADDITIONAL AMENITIES WILL INCLUDE A WALKING TRAIL, PET PARK, COURTYARD WITH BBQ GRILLING AREAS, 24/7 PACKAGE ROOM, CAR CARE CENTER, AND PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIVITY TO ADJACENT RETAIL PARCELS. FURTHERMORE, THE OPEN SPACE PROVIDED ON SITE IS 30%. SIMILAR TO OTHER APPROVED MULTIFAMILY PROJECTS IN THE CITY, SUCH AS THE NEARBY SEMINOLE ST JOHNS APARTMENTS AT 1150 UPSALA ROAD AND CARTER ACQUISITIONS PD (WHICH WERE APPROVED WITH 30% OPEN SPACE). DEVIATION 6 (PARKING COUNT); (LDR SCHEDULE H). WE ARE REQUESTING TO PROVIDE 1.8 PARKING SPACES PER UNIT IN LIEU OF THE REQUIRED 2 SPACES PER UNIT. A PARKING STUDY BY JAMES A. TAYLOR, P.E. DATED APRIL 8, 2022 WAS SUBMITTED TO JUSTIFY THIS REQUEST. THE PARKING STUDY SUPPORTS A 10% REDUCTION IN PARKING. BASED ON THE DEVELOPER'S EXPERIENCE IN THE MULTIFAMILY SECTOR, THIS PARKING RATIO WILL ADDRESS THE TYPICAL DEMANDS SEEN STATEWIDE FOR APARTMENT COMMUNITIES. ADDITIONALLY, THE APPLICANT WILL PROVIDE 16 ELECTRIC VEHICLE SPACES WITH ACCESS TO CHARGING STATIONS, AS WELLAS CONDUITTO EACH GARARGE BUILDING TO ACCOMMODATE ADDITIONAL EV CHARGING STATIONS SHOULD THEY BE WARRANTED BY INCREASED EV DEMAND. FURTHERMORE, 1.8 PARKING SPACES PER UNIT IS SIMILAR TO OTHER APPROVED MULTIFAMILY PROJECTS IN THE CITY, SUCH AS THE NEARBY SEMINOLE ST JOHNS APARTMENTS AT 1150 UPSALA ROAD AND CARTER ACQUISITIONS PD (WHICH WERE APPROVED WITH 1.7 AND 1.75 PARKING SPACES PER UNIT). DEVIATION 9 (MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT); (LDR SCHEDULE E, SECTION 16.0.C.8). WE ARE REQUESTING TO PROVIDE GROUND FLOOR MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT SCREENING BY LANDSCAPING MATERIAL IN LIEU OF THE CODE REQUIRED SCREENING DEVICES THAT NEED TO BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE ARCHITECTURE AND COLOR OF THE DWELLING STRUCTURES. THE APPLICANT'S UTILIZATION OF LANDSCAPE SCREENING ON OTHER PROJECTS HAS PROVEN MORE VISUALLY APPEALING THAN OTHER SCREENING DEVICES. THE USE OF LANDSCAPING SOFTENS THE EDGE OF THE SCREENING AND THE ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPING IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE ARCHITECTURE AND COLOR OF THE DWELLING STRUCTURES, CONSISTENT WITH THE INTENT OF THE CODE PROVISION. DEVIATION 11 (COMMON FACILITIES-CARWASH); (SCHEDULE E, SECTION 16.0.C.8). WE ARE REQUESTING TO PROVIDE A LIGHTED CAR CARE AREA IN LIEU OF A CARWASH FACILITY. A LIGHTED CAR CARE AREA WILL BE CONVENIENTLY LOCATED FOR RESIDENTS TO CLEAN AND MAINTAIN THEIR VEHICLES. THE LOCATION IS SHOWN ON THE SITE PLAN. HOWEVER, THE PROJECT IS WITHIN A HALF MILE OF THREE CAR WASHES, AND AS A RESULT, A PRIVATE CAR WASH IS NOT WARRANTED. DEVIATION 12 (UNITS ALLOWED PER BUILDING); (SCHEDULE E, SECTION 16.0.D.1). WE ARE REQUESTING TO PROVIDE SIXTY (60) DWELLING UNITS PER BUILDING IN LIEU OF THE CODE ALLOWED EIGHT (8) DWELLING UNITS PER BUILDING. THE SITE IS LOCATED IN THE URBANIZED WESTSIDE INDUSTRY AND COMMERCE (WIC) AREA OF THE CITY OF SANFORD, IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO MAJOR EMPLOYMENT CENTERS. CONSISTENT WITH THE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE WIC AREA, THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING HIGH-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WHICH WILL PROVIDE HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES NEAR MAJOR EMPLOYMENT CENTERS. THE MAXIMUM RESIDENTIAL DENSITY WITHIN THE WIC AREA IS 20 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE. ON THE 21.16 -ACRE SITE THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IS 420 UNITS; THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING 420 RESIDENTIAL UNITS. THE REQUESTED NUMBER OF UNITS PER BUILDING IS CONSISTENT WITH DEVIATIONS THAT WERE PREVIOUSLY GRANTED TO OTHER MULTIFAMILY PROJECTS IN THE AREA, SUCH AS THE NEARBY SEMINOLE ST JOHNS APARTMENTS AT 1150 UPSALA ROAD AND CARTER ACQUISITIONS PD. DEVIATION 16 (PARKING LOT LANDSCAPING); (LDR SCHEDULE 1, SECTION 3.4.A). WE ARE REQUESTING TO PROVIDE LESS THAN THE MINIMUM 400 SQUARE FEET AT INTERNAL LANDSCAPE BREAKS IN LIEU OF THE REQUIRED MINIMUM 400 SQUARE FEET AREA. ALTHOUGH THE AREA WILL BE LESS THEN THE MINIMUM, TWO CANOPY TREES AND A MINIMUM OF SIX SHRUBS WILL BE PROVIDED AT THESE APPLICABLE INTERNAL LANDSCAPE BREAKS, WHICH EXCEEDS THE CODE REQUIREMENT. PARKING FOR THE DEVELOPMENT IS PURPOSEFULLY DESIGNED TO PROVIDE CONVENIENT TRAVEL DISTANCE SPREAD EVENLY TO RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS. PARKING IS ADJACENT TO AND VISIBLE FROM RESIDENTIAL UNITS, TO THE EXTENT POSSIBLE WITH THIS PRODUCT TYPE. LANDSCAPE BUFFERS ARE PROVIDED BETWEEN PARKING AND RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS WHICH ARE APPROPRIATE FOR THIS PRODUCT TYPE. NO MORE THAN TEN SPACES OCCUR UNINTERRUPTED AT ANY LOCATION BETWEEN LANDSCAPE ISLANDS AND/OR BUFFERS. WIDTH OF PARKING IS MINIMIZED TO EXTENT FEASIBLE WHILE PROVIDING APPROPRIATE DRIVE AISLE WIDTH AND PROXIMITY TO RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS. SJRWMD STAFF CONFIRMED THE SITE IS WITHIN THE LAKE MONROE BASIN AND LIMITS THE AMOUNT OF NITROGEN AND PHOSPHOROUS IN ALL OFF-SITE DISCHARGES. AN ON-SITE TREATMENT DRY AND WET POND SYSTEM IS NOW PROPOSED WITHIN THIS PROJECT TO MEET THE NUTRIENT REMOVAL EFFICIENCY REQUIREMENTS. WHEN COMPARED TO TYPICAL STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AREAS AND THE CONCEPTUAL STORMWATER MANAGEMENT DESIGN, THE REVISED STORMWATER MANAGEMENT FACILITIES ARE LARGER TO MEET SJRWMD CRITERIA. UNDER THESE CONSTRAINTS, THE SITE IS LIMITED ON THE BUFFER AREA IT CAN ALLOW WHILE STILL MEETING THE REMAINING CRITERIA LISTED IN THE PD APPROVAL. W-1--ro in, Ill* I. Overview TARA L. TEDROW tara.tedrow@lowndes-law.com 215 North Eola Drive, Orlando, Florida 32801-2028 T: (407) 418-63611 F: 407-843-4444 MAIN NUMBER: 407-843-4600 ils MERITAS°LAW FIRMS WORLDWIDE Rezoning Citizen Awareness & Participation Plan A Neighborhood Meeting for the rezoning for the properties with parcel identification numbers 28-19-30-506-0000-0050, 28-19-30-506-0000-005A, 28-19-30-506-0000-0060, 28-19-30-506- 0000-006A, and 28-19-30-506-0000-0070 (collectively, the "Property"). The meeting was required as a part of the Citizens Awareness & Participation Plan ("CAPP") submitted in conjunction with rezoning applications. II. List of affected parties (with addresses) that were notified of proposed project and invited to the Neighborhood Meeting. Please see Appendix A III. Number of Neighborhood Meeting Notices distributed. Sixty-two (62), including notices mailed to property owners within 500 feet of the subject property and the City of Sanford. IV. A copy of the Neighborhood Meeting Notice. Please see Appendix B. V. Neighborhood Meeting Notice distribution date and method. The notices were mailed via USPS certified mail on December 22, 2021. 0894227\195726\11691879v1 May 10, 2022 Page 2 VI. The date and location of the Neighborhood Meeting. January 6, 2022 from 6:00-7:00 p.m. Seminole Library North Branch 150 N. Palmetto Avenue Sanford, FL 32771 Vil. The number of people that participated in the Neighborhood Meeting. Two (2) people attended the meeting from the public, named Rob Keeler and Carter Rucker. Tara Tedrow, Kamil Salame, and two engineers from Kimley-Horn attended from the development team. The attendees raised no objections and said they did not have an issue with our request. VIII. A record of all phone calls and e-mails received, with a description of concerns, issues or problems discussed and contact information of caller. One (1) person named Mr. Crisante reached out via email and requested project information and a conceptual drawing. The drawing was provided but the development team stated it was a draft and not final. IX. A summary of concerns, issues and or problems expressed at the Neighborhood Meeting. None. TLT/lak 0894227\195726\11691879v1 Overview TARA L. TEDROW tara.tedrow@lowndes-law.com 215 North Eola Drive, Orlando, Florida 32801-2028 T: (407) 418-63611 F: 407-843-4444 MAIN NUMBER: 407-843-4600 ITT MERITAS'LAW FIRMS WORLDWIDE January 26, 2022 Rezoning Citizen Awareness & Participation Plan A Neighborhood Meeting for the rezoning for the properties with parcel identification numbers 28-19-30-506-0000-0050, 28-19-30-506-0000-005A, 28-19-30-506-0000-0060, 28-19-30-506- 0000-006-, 28-19-30-506-0000-0070, 28-19-30-506-0000-00413, 28-19-30-506-0000-004A, 28- 19-30-506-0000-003J, 28-19-30-506-0000-0031, 28-19-30-506-0000-003A, 28-19-30-506-0000- 003G, 28-19-30-506-0000-003F (collectively, the "Property"). The meeting was required as a part of the Citizens Awareness & Participation Plan ("CAPP") submitted in conjunction with rezoning applications. List of affected parties (with addresses) that were notified of proposed project and invited to the Neighborhood Meeting. Please see Appendix A III. Number of Neighborhood Meeting Notices distributed. One hundred fifty six (156) notices were mailed to property owners within 500 feet of the subject property and the City of Sanford. IV. A copy of the Neighborhood Meeting Notice. Please see Appendix B. V. Neighborhood Meeting Notice distribution date and method. The notices were mailed via USPS certified mail on January 12, 2022. 0894227\195726\11736168v1 May 10, 2022 Page 2 Vi. The date and location of the Neighborhood Meeting. January 26, 2022 from 6:00-7:00 p.m. Seminole Library North Branch 150 N. Palmetto Avenue Sanford, FL 32771 VII. The number of people that participated in the Neighborhood Meeting. Three (3) people attended the meeting from the public as well as Catherine Felter and Brooks Sticker, the engineers from Kimley-Horn, who attended from the development team. The attendees raised no objections and said they did not have an issue with our request. Vill. A record of all phone calls and e-mails received, with a description of concerns, issues or problems discussed and contact information of caller. Six (6) people named Neil Hoffman, Ms. Wong, Theresa Hernandez, Suzanne Chagnon, Pearl Fernandes and Mike Cristante reached out via email and/or via phone to RSVP or request project information and a conceptual drawing. The drawing was provided but the development team stated it was a draft and not final. IX. A summary of concerns, issues and or problems expressed at the Neighborhood Meeting. The only concern raised from the adjacent property owner was the buffer being proposed between the properties which was discussed at length with the engineers. TLT/lak 0894227\195726\11736168v1 Zr -ell 4=5 1 P AFFIDAVIT DgVT py F OWNERSHIP ERA .P DESIGNATION OF AGENT enwr.snmorat�ov Please use additional sheets as needed. If any additional sheets are attached to this document. please sign here and note below; Ownership Carter Plucker � hereby attest to ownership of the property described below: Tax Parcel Number(s): 28-19-30-506-0000-0031, 28.19-30-506-0000-004A, Address of Property: 201 Sewell Rd, Sanford FL 32771, 150 $ Elder Rd, Sanford FL 32771 for which this annexation and ComprehensivefPQ Master Plan Anrendmeni application is submitted to the City of Sanford Il. Designation of Applicant's Agent (leave biank 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 pie, 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): SROOKS STICKLER Signature: Agent Address: 189 S. ORANGE AVE. SUITE 1OW, ORLANDO Fl, 32801 Email: BROOKS.STICKLER@KIMLPY-HOfiN.COM 111. Notice to Owner Phone: 407-07-1677 Fox. A. All changes in Ovmership andfor 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, E3_ If the Owner intends for the authority of the Applicant's Agent to be limited in any mariner, 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) 9 individual a Corporation a Land Trust e Partnership n Limited Liability Company :i Other (describe); t. List all natural Mrsons who have an ownership interest in the property, which is the subgect matter of this petition, by name and address. 2. For each corporation, list the mane, 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, lisi 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 benefipiary- 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. 5. For each limited liability company, list he name, address; and title of each manager or managing member; and the name and address of each additional member vAth two ,percent (2%) or more membership interest. if any member with two percent (2%) or more membership interest, manager, or managing member is a corporation, trust or partnership, please provide the information required in paragraphs 2, 3 andlor 4 above. Name of LLC.- 6. LC: 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 andtor 5 above, Name of Purchaser: Date of Contract: NAME TiTLEfOFFICEriTRUSTEE ADDRESS % OF OR BENEFICIARY INTEREST l (Use additional sheets for more space..) "r. As to any type of cvrner referred to above, a change of ownership occurring subsequent to the execution of this document, small 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. I affirm that the above representations are true and are based upon my personal knowledge and belief after all reasonable: inquiry. t understand that any failure to make mandated disclosures is grounds for the subject rezone, future land use amendment, special Exception, or variance involved with (his Application to become void or for the submission for a procurement activity to be non- responsive. I certify that I am legally authorized to execute this Affidavit and to bind the Applicant or Vendor to the disclosures herein. t3ake STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY SOF Sworn to (or armed) and subscribed before nye by on this Z clay of�tlt� 2p Signature of Notary Public Personally Known V/ OR Produced Identification T Type of identification Produced fif tb 6k ofQwraomfip-January?.015 Owner, Agent, Applicant; Signature L, taCOW Q DFUER Notary PtMic, State of Fiotida A Coirimiss 7n# HH 22160 my coram expires Aug. 17, 2tYY4 Print, Type or Stamp Name of Notary Public I I V I .tjtoolu AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP AND DESIGNATION OF AGENT 1877-- vAmmantordfl.gm, Please use additional sheets as needed, If any additional sheets are attached to this document, please sign here and note below: 1. Ownership 1, Splash & Dash Inc. (Ohio based) hereby attest to ownership of the property described below. Tax Parcel Number(s): 28-19-80-506-0000-004B, 28-19-30-506-0000-003A, 2619-30-506-0000-0031 Address of Property: 198 S Elder Road, Sanford FL 32771, W SIR 46 Sanford FL 32771, Sanford FL 32771 for which this Annexation and Comprehensive PD Masler Plan Amendment application is submitted to the City of Sanford. If. 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): BROOKS S'rICKLER Signature: agent Address: 189 S. ORANGE AVE. SUITE 1000, ORLANDO FL 39$01 Email- BROOKS.STtCKI.ER 00KIMLEY-HOWCOM 111. Notice to Owner Phone. 407-427-1677 Fax: A. All changes in Ownership andlor 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. S. 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) r. Individual A Corporation D I -and Trust :,j Partnership o Limited Liability Company o 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 a ' nd address of each shareholder who owns two percent (2%) or more of the stock of the corporation. Shareholders need not be disclosed if a corporafion'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. ea0i,beriefic ia�rv.,If any trustee or beneficiary of a trust is a corporation, please provide 'be information required in paragraph 2 above. Name of Trust: 4. For Rartnership , 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. 5. For each limited liability company. list the name, address, and title of each manager or managing member; and (lie name and address of each additional member with two percent (tela) or more membership interest. If any member With two percent (2%) or more membership interest, manager, or managing member is a corporation, trust or partnership, please provide the information required in paragraphs 2, 3 acid/or 4 above. Name of LLC: Splash'ht Dash 6. in the circumstances of a contract for gurchase, 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 6 above. Name of Purchaser: Date of Contract: NAME TITI-151OFFICEPFRUSTEE ADDRESS % OF OR BENEFICIARY INTEREST Carter Rucker Fresident _ 1782 Alaqua Lakes Blvd 100 (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 trice 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. I certify that i am legally authorized to execute this Affidavit and to bind the Applicant or Vendor to the disclosures herein. ' J _. __. � VLA � �.irrjY �•` r F}aN� Owner, rent, Applicant Signature STATE OF FL©Rl COUNTY OF 9L_ i rf s n. Sworn to (or affirmed) and subscribed before me by 0144jull _ ' on this. day Of .,hrzj Am,,• 20-77- ROSIN C, DMER / i�y n Notary Pubk, state Of Floriiia f Commisa�on# HH 22180 My comm. e)0tss Aug. 17.2024 Signature of Notary Public €'rent, Type or Stamp fume of Not" Public Personally Known _ OR Produced Identification _ Type of Identification Produced Aft dM cf OwnertSip . January 2015 O.�,$�) �to AFFIDAVIT QF rum ERSHIP AND DESIGNATI x877-`� WWW.Wnford" gov Please use additional sheets as needed. If any additional sheets are attached to this document, please sign here and note below: Ownership 1, Mark M. Modarres Tax Parcel Number(s): 28-19-30-506-0000-0050, 28-19-30-506-0000-005A 28-119-30- 506-0000-0060.28 9-30-506-0000.006A, 28-1930-506-0000-0070, Address of Property: for which this application is submitted to the City of Sanford il. 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): BROOKS STICKLER Agent Address: 189 S. ORANGE AVE. SUITE 1000, ORLANDO FL 32801 Signature: Email: BROOMSICKLER@KtMLEY-HORN.COM Phone: 407-427-1677 Fax: Al. Notice to Owner A. All changes in Ownership and/or Applicant's Agent prior to final action of the City shall require a new 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) o Individual ❑ Corporation ❑ Land Trust n Partnership 11 Limited Liability Company ❑ Other (describe): 1. List all natural persons who have an ownership interest in the address. property, which is the subject matter of this petition, by name and 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 required in paragraph 2 above. trust is a corporation, please provide the information Name of Trust: 4. For tnpar___ trships including limited partnerships, fist 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. 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 (21/6) or more membership interest. If any member with two percent (2%) 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: MMM INVESTMENTS LLC 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: ROYAL PALM MULTIFAMILY LLC Date of Contract: 1/5/2022 NAME TITLE/OFFICEffRUSTEE 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. I certify that I am legally authorized to execute this Affidavit and to bind the Applicant or Vendor to the disclosures herein. /_2'r -2z Date STATE OF FLORID COUNTY OF Sworn to (or affirmed) and subscribed before me by on this day of ,W 20 . Signature of Notaryloblic Personally Known V.OR Produced Identification T Type of Identification Produced Affidavit of Ownership - January 2015 G•" . --z v r Zr . Owner, Agent, Applicant Signature �S. Notary Public Stets of Florida Sandra E Hughes My Commission GG 239403 Ex 're!• 08!0612022 Print, Type or Stamp Name of Notary Public Kimsey >>> Horn MEMORANDUM To: Eileen Hinson, AICP Planning Director — City of Sanford From: James M. Taylor, P.E. Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Date: April 8, 2022 Subject: Tuscany Village Multifamily Parking Analysis Introduction Page 1 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. has been retained to review and analyze the anticipated parking needs for the proposed Tuscany Village Multifamily development located on the south side of SR 46 between Sewell Road and Upsala Road in the City of Sanford, Florida. The proposed multifamily is composed of 420 dwelling units (DU). While the project is requesting a PD zoning that allows flexibility on site development standards from strict code requirements, this study was commissioned to evidence the adequacy of parking provided on the current site plan. This study provides the code -required parking for the site and data from three (3) similar sites to demonstrate actual parking demand for multifamily sites locally is lower than the rates defined in the City of Sanford's Code and ITE's latest parking demand rates evaluation. The developer is requesting a 10% reduction from the required parking spaces by City's code. Code Parking Requirements Schedule H — Minimum Automobile Off -Street Parking Space Requirements of the City of Sanford's Land Development Code (LDC) defines the parking requirements for multifamily developments to be two (2) parking spaces per dwelling unit. Based on the City's code requirement, a parking supply of 840 spaces is required to serve the multifamily apartments. Page 2 Kimley»>Horn Data Evaluation of Multifamily Parking Ratios Kimley-Horn has undertaken a review and evaluation of multiple data sources to evaluate the anticipated parking requirements for multifamily uses in comparison to the requirements defined in the City of Sanford's Code. Parking data were gathered at three (3) similar sites in Florida. Parking surveys were performed on Thursday, November 9, 2017 and Thursday, October 10, 2019 between 12:00 AM and 4:00 AM, with peak parking ratios ranging between 1.06 and 1.26 spaces per dwelling unit. Parking counts are provided in Attachment A. Table 1 summarizes the parking data for the study sites. Table 1: Study Sites Parking Demand Apartment Unit Mix Total Building Total Available Total Parking Ratio Complex Units Height Parking Spaces Parking Occupied (Spaces per Unit) 1 BR/ 2+ BR stories) Spaces Studio EOS Apartments 168 128 296 4 507 372 1.26 (Orlando, FL) Village at Lake Lily 250 205 455 4 728 508 1.12 (Maitland, FL) Weston Park 106 102 208 4 393 220 1.06 (Longwood, FL) As presented in Table 1, the highest observed peak parking demand ratio of 1.26 parking spaces per occupied unit is less than the ratio of 2.00 parking spaces per dwelling unit required by City code. ITE's Parking Generation Manual, 5 t Edition Evaluation A calculation of the anticipated parking demand was undertaken using data published by the Institute of Transportation of Engineers' (ITE) Parking Generation Manual 5th Edition. For each land use defined in this publication, empirical parking data that has been collected on sites throughout the country is compiled to develop rates and/or equations to estimate parking demand at similar sites. ITE statistics include the 85th -percentile peak parking demand for each land -use code that has sufficient empirical data available. The Urban Land Institute (ULI) Shared Parking 3'd Edition generally recommends the 85th_ percentile parking demand as the appropriate demand to provide parking supply for. ITE's Land Use Code (LUC) 221 — Multifamily Housing (Mid -Rise) parking demand was used to determine the peak period parking demand for the proposed 500 dwelling units. ITE data is included in Attachment B. The 85th -percentile parking demand per dwelling unit for LUC 221 is 1.47 spaces per dwelling unit. Per ULI's recommendation to provide a parking supply equal to a site's 85th -percentile parking demand, the relevant peak parking demand for multifamily is calculated as follows: • Recommended design parking demand = 1.47 spaces per dwelling unit x 420 dwelling units = 617 spaces Thus, the proposed 10% reduction to 756 spaces (1.80 spaces/DU) is greater than the recommended 85th -percentile design parking demand. 189 South`OrangeAvenue, Sude'1000, Orlando, EL, 32801': Kimley»>Horn Conclusion Page 3 The documentation contained herein demonstrates that it is appropriate to permit the parking ratio provided under the flexible design standards proposed in the PD. Based on the analysis above, the requested reduction of a 10% of the City's code requirement for the site is more than adequate to serve the expected parking demand. The reduction would reduce the required parking supply for the site from 840 spaces (2.00 spaces/DU) to 756 spaces (1.80 spaces/DU), which is above the ULI recommended 85t'' -percentile demand of 617 spaces (1.47 spaces/DU provided by ITE). Additionally, local data from three (3) similar sites were found to support the request. Sincerely, KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. .I' I James M. Taylor, P.E. KAORL_Civil\249120000 -Tomoka Fars Road\TPT0102_Documentation\Parking Sludy\Tomoka Farms Multifamily Parking Sludy_2022.02.04.docx Kimley >> Horn ATTACHMENT A Data Collection Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services Parking Study Village at Lake Lily, 921 Location: Date: 10/10/2019 Orlando Ave City: Maitland, FL 32751 Day: Thursday Notes: On -Street Parking (Regular) represents parking on the north side of Lake Ave. - Obstructed spaces: Both parking garages contained 2 spaces that were obstructed by garbage bins on level 1. - In both structures, the ramp labeled (0-1) represents a ramp that goes downward from level 1. There is no level 0. Description 11 Inventory Occupancy (12:45am) Ramp 0-1 Regular 36 12 Levell Regular Handicap Motorcycle 29 23 3 2 3 _ 0 Ramp 1-2 Regular 36 _ 33 W f0 Levell Regular Handicap 38 _ 37 2 1 to Ramp 2-3 Regular 34 27 on :2 R -- Level Regular Handicap 37 ------- -- - 31 2 3 L Ramp 3-4 -- Regular 34 _ 23 o Level 4 Regular Handicap 37 31 3 1_ Ramp4-5 Regular _ 31 0 Level5 Regular 41 0 SubTotal Regular Handicap Motorcycle 353 217 6 0 11 3 Ramp 0-1 -----------__- Regular 34 14 Levell Regular Handicap Motorcycle _ 27 --- -- 27 ---- J 3 1 _ 3 _ 0 Ramp 1-2 Regular 35 35 W 2 Levell Regular Handicap 37 37 2 1 0 Ramp 2-3 Regular _ — 34 34 Level 3 _Regular — Handicap 37 _ 37 _ 3 1 C Ramp 3-4 - Regular 34 24 L � oHandicap Level4 Regular _ 38 _- 38 2 -- 0 - - "' _Ramp 4-5 Regular 31 — 31 Level5 Regular 40 _ 5 SubTotal Regular _Handicap Motorcycle 347 282 10 3 3 0 a a -- Regular Handicap Retail Only Teak Star Nails 10 5 49 B. - 1 24 3 1 21 _ 4 v 1st American Title 4 _ 1 c Future Resident 3 2 Studios _ 11 1 Notes: On -Street Parking (Regular) represents parking on the north side of Lake Ave. - Obstructed spaces: Both parking garages contained 2 spaces that were obstructed by garbage bins on level 1. - In both structures, the ramp labeled (0-1) represents a ramp that goes downward from level 1. There is no level 0. Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services Parking Study Location: EOS Apartments, 12221 E Colonial Dr City: Orlando, FL 32826 Date: 10/10/2019 Day: Thursday TYPE Regular Handicap Reserved Future Zip Car Car Charging Illegal Resident TOTAL Inventory 472 12 17 3 1 2 507 Occupancy (2:13am) 348 6 13 3 0 1 1 1 372 D V) z c T o a' u 0 J ui ui F- 0 Z U_ W U U= -1 N W LU W v c LO x u .� } } cc L1 O z d W D > U z � O Ln0 n N M LL O 0 N H C LU 0 K 0 a L v T O O a -i 0 0 x O w Q Q) Z 0 v E... �- a Z Y a F a a Z a O a ,n LU Kirin ley >Horn ATTACHMENT ITE Parking Generation Manual Land Use 221 — Multifamily Housing (Mid -Rise) d in BE I ber the Multifamily Housing (Mid -Rise) (221) Peak Period Parking Demand vs: Dwelling Units On a: Weekday (Monday - Friday) Setting/Location: General Urban/Suburban (no nearby rail transit) Peak Period of Parking Demand: 10:00 p.m. - 5:00 a.m. Number of Studies: 73 Avg. Num. of Dwelling Units: 261 Period Parking Demand per Dwelling Unit and Equation X ............... .................................... ................ ..................................... x x x x x x x X 12 0 1000 X = Number of Dwelling Units X Study Site Fitted Curve Fitted Curve Equation: P = 1.34(X) - 8.73 2000 Average Rate W-- 0.97 Land Use Descriptions and Data Plots 91 rage Rate Range of Rates 33rd I 85th Percentile 95% Confidence Standard Deviation Interval (Coeff. of Variation) 1.31 0.75-2-03 1.13/1.47 1.26-1.36 0.22(17%) and Equation X ............... .................................... ................ ..................................... x x x x x x x X 12 0 1000 X = Number of Dwelling Units X Study Site Fitted Curve Fitted Curve Equation: P = 1.34(X) - 8.73 2000 Average Rate W-- 0.97 Land Use Descriptions and Data Plots 91 �.-.Psca y pillage MUMa IPP�����F /f Traffic Impact Analysis April 2022 Kim1ey,-,>)Horn Kimley»>Horn Tuscany Village Multifamily Traffic Impact Analysis Prepared for: Royal Palm Multifamily, LLC Prepared by: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. ©Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 2022 ES MICHAEL TAYLOR, P. STATE OF FLORIDA, PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER, LICENSE NO. 69979 THIS ITEM HASBEEN DIGITALLY SIGNED AND SEALED BY JAMES MI CHAEL TAYLOR, P.E. ON THE DATE INDICATED HERE. PRINTED COPIES OF THIS DOCUMENT ARE NOT CONSIDERED SIGNED AND SEALED AND THE SIGNATURE MUST BE VERIFIED ON ANY ELECTRO141C COPIES. cn=James M Taylor, c=US, o=KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES INC, email=james.tayIor@kimley- horn.com 2022.04.01 12:01:25 - 04'00' Kimley>Morn Tab. of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................1 1.1 Study Area................................................................................................................................ 2 2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS ANALYSIS — YEAR 2022.....................................................................4 2.1 Existing Traffic Counts............................................................................................................... 4 2.2 Existing Intersection Conditions................................................................................................. 4 3.0 DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC...........................................................................................................6 3.1 Trip Generation.......................................................................................................................... 6 3.2 Trip Distribution......................................................................................................................... 9 3.3 Trip Assignment......................................................................................................................... 9 4.0 BACKGROUND CONDITIONS ANALYSIS — YEAR 2024..........................................................12 4.1 Background Traffic.................................................................................................................. 12 4.2 Background Intersection Analysis............................................................................................ 12 4.3 Background (with Improvements) Intersection Analysis............................................................ 12 5.0 BUILDOUT CONDITIONS ANALYSIS — YEAR 2024..................................................................15 5.1 Buildout Traffic..........................•--.--........................................................................................ 15 5.2 Buildout Intersection Analysis.................................................................................................. 15 5.3 Turn Lane Analysis.................................................................................................................. 20 6.0 ROADWAY SEGMENT ANALYSIS............................................................................................ 23 7.0 CONCLUSION............................................................................................................................25 Tuscany Village Multifamily I Traffic Impact Analysis April 2022 1 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Kimley»>Horn Figure 1: Project Location Map & Study Area Intersections.....................................................................3 Figure 2: Project Trip Distribution..........................................................................................................10 Figure 3: Project Trip Assignment.........................................................................................................11 Figure 4: Intersection Volumes — AM Peak Hour...................................................................................18 Figure 5: Intersection Volumes — PM Peak Hour...................................................................................19 Figure 6: Potential Offsite Improvements..............................................................................................22 Table 1: Existing (2022) - AM Peak Hour Intersection Conditions............................................................5 Table 2: Existing (2022) - PM Peak Hour Intersection Conditions............................................................5 Table 3: Proposed Development Trip Generation Summary ....................................................................7 Table 4: Previously Approved Planned Development Trip Generation.....................................................8 Table 5: Background (2024) — AM Peak Hour Intersection Conditions...................................................13 Table 6: Background (2024) — PM Peak Hour Intersection Conditions...................................................13 Table 7: Background (With Improvements) — AM & PM Peak Hour Intersection Conditions .................... 14 Table 8: Buildout (2024) — AM Peak Hour Intersection Conditions.........................................................16 Table 9: Buildout (2024) — PM Peak Hour Intersection Conditions.........................................................17 Tuscany Village Multifamily I Traffic Impact Analysis April 2022 1 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Kimley>OHorn Appendix A: TIA Methodology Statement Appendix B: Site Plan Appendix C: Turning Movement Counts Appendix D: FDOT's Florida Traffic Online (FTO) Data Appendix E: Turning Movement Volume Worksheets Appendix F: Synchro Outputs Appendix G: ITE Land Use Codes Appendix H: Previously Approved Tuscany Village PD Excerpts Appendix I: CFRPMv7 Model Plot Appendix J: Excerpt from Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) Access Management Guidebook Appendix K: Excerpt from Seminole County's Summary of Roadway Concurrency Information Tuscany Village Multifamily I Traffic Impact Analysis April 2022 1 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Kimley»>Horn Kimley-Horn has been retained by Royal Palm Multifamily, LLC to analyze and document the traffic impacts associated with the development of the Tuscany Village Multifamily development in the City of Sanford, Florida. The methodology for this Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) and the City's acceptance are provided in Appendix A. This TIA will be provided to the City of Sanford and FDOT in support of permit applications. A pre -application meeting was performed with FDOT on Tuesday, March 8, 2022. Meeting minutes are included in Appendix A. The development is a proposed multifamily (apartment) residential development with two commercial outparcels located on the south side of SR 46 between Sewell Road and Upsala Road, as shown in Figure 1. The project site is situated on a ±21.21 -acre group of parcels located at 165 Elder Road and 4201 West First Street in the City of Sanford, Florida. The parcels (Parcel IDs 28-19-30-506-0000-003A, - 003J, -0031, -004A, -004B, -005A, -0050, -000, -006A, and -0070) have a Future Land Use of Westside Industry and Commerce (WIC) and are zoned Planned Development (PD). The site is currently occupied by six (6) single-family homes. The proposed residential development will consist of 420 mid -rise apartment dwelling units and two (2) commercial developments totaling ±23,500 SF. Access to the multifamily residential development will be provided via the existing Elder Road and a proposed driveway on SR 46. Access to the commercial developments will be provided via existing Elder Road, existing Sewell Road, and cross access with a development to the east. The site plan is included in Appendix B. Tuscany Village Multifamily I Traffic Impact Analysis April 2022 1 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. K 1 ml e y,,)/-- H o r rn A SIFUDY ARLEA As agreed upon in the methodology, included in Appendix A, the study area will include all signalized intersections and major unsignalized intersections within a 1/4 -mile radius from the perimeter of the site were evaluated as part of the traffic study, as well as the proposed project driveways: SR 46 & Upsala Road (Signalized) SR 46 & Elder Road (TWSC) SR 46 & Rinehart Road (Signalized) Per Seminole County traffic study requirements, all roadway segments with projects trips within a 1 -mile radius from the perimeter of the site were evaluated as part of the traffic study: • S4620: SR 46 from Interstate 4 (1-4) to Lake Forest Entrance • S4625: SR 46 from Rinehart Road to Interstate 4 (1-4) • S4635: SR 46 from Upsala Road to Rinehart Road • 54645: SR 46 from Airport Boulevard to CR 15/Upsala Road • C1500: CR 15/Monroe Road from CR 431/Orange Boulevard to Church Street • C1505: CR 15/Monroe Road from Church Street to SR 46 • C1510: CR 15/Upsala Road from SR 46 to Coastline Road • C1515: CR 15/Upsala Road from Coastline Road to Central Park Drive • RNH10: Rinehart Road from SR 46 to St. John's Parkway • RNH2O: Rinehart Road from St. John's Parkway to SR 417 Tuscany Village Multifamily I Traffic Impact Analysis April 2022 1 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Kimley>)Morn 2.1 EXISTING TRAFFIC COUNTS Turning movement counts (TMCs) were collected on Tuesday, March 2, 2022, at the study intersections. Data was collected during the AM Peak Period (7:00 AM to 9:00 AM) and PM Peak Period (4:00 PM to 6:00 PM) and is provided in Appendix C. The counts were adjusted using the seasonal factor (SF) from FDOT's Florida Traffic Online (FTO) publication. SF data is provided in Appendix D. Turning movement volume development worksheets, including adjusted existing (2022) turning movement volumes for all intersections, are provided in Appendix E. 2.2 EXISTING INTERSECTION CONDITIONS Intersection operational analyses were performed for existing (2022) conditions in the AM and PM peak hours using procedures outlined in the Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition with Synchro (v11) software. Intersection level of service (LOS) and maximum volume to capacity (v/c) ratios for existing conditions are provided in Tables 1 and 2. Synchro outputs are provided in Appendix F. As shown in the tables below, all of the study area intersection approaches operate with an acceptable overall level of service (LOS) and v/c ratio less than one (1.0) with the exception of the following existing deficiencies: The NB approach of SR 46 & Rinehart Rd operates at LOS F during the AM and PM peak hours with a v/c ratio greater than one (1.0). The SB approach of SR 46 & Rinehart Rd operates at LOS F during the AM and PM peak hours with a v/c ratio less than one (1.0) in the AM peak hour and greater than one (1.0) in the PM peak hour. The NB approach of SR 46 & Upsala Rd operates at LOS F during the PM peak hour with a v/c ratio of less than one (1.0). Tuscany Village Multifamily I Traffic Impact Analysis April 2022 1 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Kimiey>» Norr Table 1: Existing (2022) - AM Peak Hour Intersection Conditions Table 2: Existing (2022) - PM Peak Hour Intersection Conditions AM'Peak Hour Level of L.evellof Int. # Int. # Intersection Control Type Approach Service Max VIC Max V/C (overall (overall Movement Ratio delay) delay) EB EB E EBT/R 0.82 46 SR 46 WB WB D WBR 0.90 1 & Signalized NB E NBL 0.81 Road Upsala Road SB SB E SBL 0.89 Overall Overall E (65.1 s) WBR 0.90 EB(L) EB(L) A EBL 0.18 SR 46 SR 46 WB(L) WB(L) A WBL 0.02 2 & TWSC NB B NBR 0.00 Elder Road Elder Road SB SB B SBR 0.06 Overall Overall - EBL 0.18 EB EB D EBL 0.83 SR 46 SR 46 WB WB D WBL 0.85 3 & Signalized NB F NBR 1.11 Rinehart Road Rinehart Road SB SB F SBR 0.87 Overall Overall E (57.4 s) NBR 1.11 Table 2: Existing (2022) - PM Peak Hour Intersection Conditions Tuscany Village Multifamily ( Traffic Impact Analysis April 2022 1 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. PM Peak Hour Level of Int. # Intersection Control Type Approach Service Max VIC Max VIC (overall Movement Ratio delay) EB D EBLFO.8SR 46 WB D WBR1 & Signalized NB F NBRUpsala Road SB E SBL Overall E (60.5 s) SBL 0.91 EB(L) B EBL 0.24 SR 46 WB(L) A WBL 0.06 2 & TWSC NB B NBR 0.03 Elder Road SB B SBR 0.13 Overall - EBL 0.24 EB D EBR 0.66 SR 46 WB D WBL 0.89 3 & Signalized NB F NBR 1.31 Rinehart Road SB F SBR 1.15 Overall E (74.0 s) NBR 1.31 Tuscany Village Multifamily ( Traffic Impact Analysis April 2022 1 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Kimley>Morn 30 . =-DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC The proposed residential development consists of 420 mid -rise apartment dwelling units. Buildout of the project is anticipated in 2024. The latest industry standards were referenced to evaluate the new external trips to be generated by the site at buildout. The latest adopted regional travel demand model was used to forecast the distribution of trips throughout the study area. 3.1 TRIP GENERATION Trip generation rates for the proposed development were calculated using the 11th Edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation Manual. Land Use Code (LUC) 221 — Multifamily Housing (Mid -Rise) was used for the proposed multifamily development. The indication of "Not Close to Rail Transit" was also applied as there is no rail transit within 0.5 miles from the project site. LUC 822 — Strip Retail Plaza was selected for the commercial developments. Relevant excerpts from the ITE Trip Generation Manual are included in Appendix G. The project is anticipated to generate 2,772 daily new external trips, 224 new external trips during the AM peak hour (72 in, 152 out), and 263 new external trips during the PM peak hour (147 in, 116 out). Table 3 provides the daily, AM peak hour, and PM peak hour trip generation summary for the proposed development as well as the internal capture. A portion of the project site, 14.54 acres, was previously approved for a significantly larger development than what is being proposed. The previous Planned Development (PD), provided in Appendix H, included the following development program: • 120 Hotel rooms • 37,631 square feet of office, • 46,679 square feet of restaurant, and • 80,239 square feet of retail. As shown in Table 4, the previously approved PD generated more trips than the proposed development. The proposed multifamily development is anticipated to generate 332 less trips during the AM peak hour and 222 less trips during the PM peak hour than the previously approved PD. Supporting documentation is included in Appendix H. Tuscany Village Multifamily I Traffic Impact Analysis April 2022 1 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Kimsey»> orn Table 3: Proposed Development Trip Generation Summary Notes: ' Vehicle tnp rate and dkectbnet spits per I l t I np rjenerarion, i un roaun Intemal Capture (IC) based on ITE Tnp Generation Handbook, 3rd Edition, Intemal Capture Reduction Calculation Spreadsheet Tuscany Village Multifamily I Traffic Impact Analysis April 2022 1 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. ITE Trip Daly Trip Generation Land Use ITE LUC Size Units Rate' Total In' Out' Multifamily Housing (Mid -Rise) 221 420 DU 4.66 1,957 50% 979 50% 978 (Not close to rail transit) o Strip Retail Plaza 822 23.5 KSF 51.97 1,221 50% 611 50°6 610 Total Generated Trips 3,178 11590 1,588 Internal Capture2 = 12.8% (see attached capture matrices) 406 204 202 New External Trips 2,772 1,386 1,386 - IT Trip AM Peak Hour Trip Generation Land Use ITE LUC Size Units Rate' Total In' Out' Multifamily Housing (Mid -Rise) 221 420 DU 0.41 173 23% 40 77% 133 o (Not close to rail transit) Y Q Strip Retail Plaza 822 23.5 KSF 2.36 55 601 33 4,_ 22 Q Total Generated Trips 228 73 155 Internal Capture = 1.8% (see attached capture matrices) 4 1 3 New External Trips 224 72 152 ITE Trip PM Peak Hour Trip Generation Land Use ITE LUC Size Units Rate' Total In' Out' 3 Multifamily Housing (Mid -Rise) 221 420 DU 0.39 164 61% 100 39% 64 _ (Not close to rail transit) Strip Retail Plaza 822 23.5 KSF 6.59 155 "0% 78 50; 77 ti g o Total Generated Trips 319 178 141 Internal Capture = 17.6% (see attached capture matrices) 56 31 25 New External Trips 263 147 116 Notes: ' Vehicle tnp rate and dkectbnet spits per I l t I np rjenerarion, i un roaun Intemal Capture (IC) based on ITE Tnp Generation Handbook, 3rd Edition, Intemal Capture Reduction Calculation Spreadsheet Tuscany Village Multifamily I Traffic Impact Analysis April 2022 1 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. E Table 4: Previously Approved Planned Development Trip Generation NWe8: vehicle trip rate and directional splits per ITe Trip Generation, 1107 Edition 'Internal Capture (IC) based on ITE Trip Generation Handbook, 3rd Clition, Internal Capture Reduction Calculation Spreadsheet $Pass -by reduction per ITE Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition Tuscany Village Multifamily I Traffic Impact Analysis April 2022 1 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Land Use ITELUC Size t3niis ITE Trip Rate' D64 Trip Generation Total In' Ocxi� Hotel 310 120 Rooms 7.31 877 50% 439 50% 438 Shopping Plaza (40K -150k) 821 80.2 KSF 67.52 5,418 50% 2,709 50% 2,709 General Office Building 710 38 KSF 1 13.18 496 50% 248 50% 248 .rq High -Turnover (Sit -Down) Restaurant 932 47 KSF 107.20 5,003 50% 2,502 50% 2,501 Total Generated Trips 11,794 5,898 5,896 internal Capture2 = 31.7%(see attached capture matrices) 3,738 1,870 1,868 Net External Trips 8,056 4,028 4,028 Pass by Trips3 = 40.0% of external retail trips 1,480 740 740 Pass by Trips3 = 43.0% of external restaurant trips 1,469 735 735 New External Trips 5,107 2,553 2,553 Land Use ITE LUC Size knits ITE Trip Rate 1 AM Peak Hour Trip Generation Total In' out, Hotel 310 120 Rooms 0.44 53 56`,o 30 44% 23 Shopping Plaza (40K -150k) 821 80 KSF 1.73 139 62% 86 38 53 e General Office Building 710 38 KSF 1.92 72 88% 63 12% 9 High-Tumover (Sit -Down) Restaurant 932 47 KSF 9.57 447 55% 246 45% 201 d Total Generated Trips 711 425 286 Q Internal Capture2 = 12.1% (see attached capture matrices) 86 51 35 Net External Trips 625 374 251 Pass by Trips3 = 40.0% of external retail trips 49 25 25 Pass by Trips3 = 43.0% of external restaurant trips 20 10 10 New External Trips 556 339 217 Land Use ITE LUC Size Units ITE Trip Rate' PM Peak Hour Trip Generation Total In' out, Hotel 310 120 Rooms 0.51 61 5- 31 49% 30 Shopping Plaza (40K -150k) 821 80 KSF 5.19 416 50°fl 208 50% 208 General Office Building 710 38 KSF 1.96 74 ,7% 13 83% 61 0 M High -Turnover (Sit -Down) Restaurant 932 47 KSF 9.05 422 a9i 257 3G% 165 M Total Generated Trips 973 509 464 (LInternal Capture2 = (see attached capture matrices) 368 192 176 Net External Trips 605 317 288 Pass by Trips3 = 40.0% of external retail trips 104 52 52 Pass by Trips = 43.0% of external restaurant trips 16 8 8 New External Trips 485 257 228 NWe8: vehicle trip rate and directional splits per ITe Trip Generation, 1107 Edition 'Internal Capture (IC) based on ITE Trip Generation Handbook, 3rd Clition, Internal Capture Reduction Calculation Spreadsheet $Pass -by reduction per ITE Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition Tuscany Village Multifamily I Traffic Impact Analysis April 2022 1 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 3.2 TRIP DISTRIBUTION Projected traffic demand of project trips on study roadways was derived with the use of the latest adopted regional travel demand model. Land use data for the project was entered into a new traffic analysis zone (TAZ) within the Central Florida Regional Planning Model (CFRPM v7) model set and situated within the existing roadway network. The model was used to assign trips for all trip purposes between allocated origin and destination pairs using project buildout year model data. Trip distribution for the project was extracted from the completed model assignment and reviewed for logic. The resulting model plot showing percent of daily project distribution is provided in Appendix I. Daily model project distribution was referenced to manually assign project distribution at study area intersections and driveways in general accordance with model output. Figure 2 shows the intersection movement project distribution generated by the proposed residential and commercial development within the study area. 3.3 TRIP ASSIGNMENT Project trip distribution percentages were used to assign anticipated project trips to the study area roadways and intersections. Figure 3 shows the anticipated AM and PM peak hour project movements at the study area intersections generated by the proposed residential and commercial development. Tuscany Village Multifamily I Traffic Impact Analysis April 2022 1 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. $ o 0 Iv %g o w N n lD N o W @O X 11 o _ Qt N �a O ` OO m M O O CD O O N N N N O L L O m u %OF Z ® Y Y 1r � oo Ln �- 00 r� �� 1 i.► t I >�o� _� m . ttr CD —LnI ttr 000 C L 0;got 1 tr cL O L U- 4--% Z L v— _') fu U +� e O c � i L C (6 Z 1 r (L) b (ZT) 9 tr oF �:zZF N r-1 N 01 V O Q1 n � Q1 N 14 L (S£) 9b �tr 00 N W V L (9b) 19 tira S, mss m ci GO '7 N N L (£Z) 0£ 0�"? "0 t t r N 00 IA rl tf1 rl u1 0) 1l N N o� (Zi) ST :�u �r r t m �n O r- .1) M Rinehart Rd'7 z c f� z w z LU � a M O O C) O O N O z t; a� NO 4-J i- Q)LL E D L O U) ru �C fu •C 4-J � - U -, N :3 o � CL 0) ru L C ru p1 cn L L C ° g a z W Y > J ai v C)OH I I z c f� z w z LU � a M O O C) O O N O z t; a� NO 4-J i- Q)LL E D L O U) ru �C fu •C 4-J � - U -, N :3 o � CL 0) ru L C ru p1 cn L Kimley'*Horri 4.0 BACKGROUND CONDITIONS ANALYSIS -YEAR 2024 4.1 BACKGROUND TRAFFIC Traffic conditions were evaluated for Year 2024 background conditions without the impact of project trips on the roadway network. Background volumes at study area intersections were derived by applying 2% annual growth to existing turning movement volume. Background growth and intersection volumes are shown in the intersection turning movement volume development worksheets provided in Appendix E. .2 BACKGROUND INTERSECTION ANALYSIS Intersection operational analyses were performed for Year 2024 background conditions in the AM and PM peak hours using procedures outlined in the Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition with Synchro (v11) software. Intersection level of service (LOS) and maximum volume to capacity (v/c) ratios for the background conditions are provided in Tables 5 and 6. Synchro outputs are provided in Appendix F. As shown in the tables below, the study area intersection movements operate with acceptable overall LOS and v/c ratio less than one (1.0), with the exception of the previously identified existing deficiencies. The intersection of SR 46 & Rinehart Road is shown to have minor right turning movements operating above capacity. 4.3 BACIGROUND (WITH IMPROVEMENTS) INTERSECTION ANALYSIS An additional scenario was created to show the potential improvements associated with adding a protected overlap phase for the minor right turning movements at the intersection of SR 46 & Rinehart Road. Table 7 shows the resulting intersection level of service (LOS) and maximum volume to capacity (v/c) ratio for the background (with improvements) AM and PM peak hour conditions. As shown in Table 7, with the potential improvements in place, all intersection movements are anticipated to operate at an acceptable LOS and with a v/c ratio of less than one (1.0) for the AM and PM peak hour conditions. Tuscany Village Multifamily I Traffic Impact Analysis April 2022 1 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Table 5: Background (2024) - AM Peak Hour Intersection Conditions Table 6: Background (2024) - PM Peak Hour Intersection Conditions Background Condition - 2024 AM Peak Hour Peak Hour Level of Level of Int # Intersection J Control Type Approach Service Max VIC Max VIC Max VIC (overall Movement Ratio Ratio delay) delay) EB E EBR 0.86 0.90 SR 46 SR 46 WB D WBR 0.94 1 & Signalized NB E NBL 0.81 0.94 Upsala Road Upsala Road SB E SBL 0.89 0.92 Overall E (66.6 s) WBR 0.94 0.94 EB(L) B EBL 0.19 0.26 SR 46 SR 46 WB(L) A WBL 0.02 2 & TWSC NB B NBR 0.00 0.06 Elder Road Elder Road SB B SBR 0.07 0.14 Overall - EBL 0.19 0.26 EB D EBL 0.83 0.70 SR 46 SR 46 WB D WBL 0.85 3 & Signalized NB F NBR 1.15 1.36 Rinehart Road Rinehart Road SB F SBR 0.88 1.19 Overall E (59.6 s) NBR 1.15 Table 6: Background (2024) - PM Peak Hour Intersection Conditions Background Condition - 2024 PM Peak Hour Level of Int. # Intersection Control Type Approach Service Max VIC Max VIC (overall Movement Ratio delay) EB D EBL 0.90 SR 46 WB D WBR 0.87 1 & Signalized NB F NBR 0.94 Upsala Road SB E SBL 0.92 Overall E (62.2 s) NBR 0.94 EB(L) B EBL 0.26 SR 46 WB(L) A WBL 0.06 2 & TWSC NB B NBR 0.06 Elder Road SB B SBR 0.14 Overall EBL 0.26 EB D EBR 0.70 SR 46 WB D WBL 0.90 3 & Signalized NB F NBR 1.36 Rinehart Road SB F SBR 1.19 Overall E {77.7 s) NBR 1.36 Tuscany Village Multifamily I Traffic Impact Analysis April 2022' Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Klmley>>Morn Table 7: Background (With Improvements) — AM & PM Peak Hour Intersection Conditions Background {YVi#h improvements) Condition -2024 AM Reak Ho r PM Peak r Level'a Level of Int. # Intersection Control Type Approach Service Max WC Max WC Service Max V/C Max WC (overall Movement -J" (overall Movement Ratio delay) delay) EB D EBL 0.75 D EBR 0.68 SR 46 WB E WBL 0.87 D WBL 0.90 3 & Signalized NB E NBR 0.67 D NBR 0.83 Rinehart Road SB E SBL 0.63 E SBL 0.79 Overall D (48.8 s) WBL 0.87 D (52.6 s) WBL 0.90 Tuscany Village Multifamily I Traffic Impact Analysis April 2022 1 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Kimley»>Horn 5.1 BUILDOUT TRAFFIC Future traffic conditions for the proposed development were evaluated for Year 2024 buildout conditions. Buildout volumes were developed by adding anticipated project trips to Year 2024 background volumes. A determination of the impact of project traffic on the study intersections was made. Intersection turning movement volume development worksheets for all intersections are provided in Appendix E. 5.2 BUILDOUT INTERSECTION ANALYSIS Intersection operational analyses were performed for Year 2024 buildout conditions in the AM and PM peak hours using procedures outlined in the Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition with Synchro (v11) software. For the buildout scenario, U -turning movements along SR 46 were added to the left -turning movements. Minor signal timings were implemented at the intersection of SR 46 & Upsala to maintain acceptable conditions. Intersection level of service (LOS) and maximum volume to capacity (v/c) ratios for the buildout conditions are provided in Tables 8 and 9. Synchro outputs are provided in Appendix F. Figures 4 and 5 display total intersection volume counts for the buildout year of 2024 in the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. As shown in the tables below, with the background deficiencies mitigated, all intersection movements are shown to operate with sufficient capacity during the peak periods at project buildout. Some minor approaches along SR 46 are anticipated to continue to operate with excessive delay as a result of green time prioritization along the coordinated corridor (e.g., major approach). No new deficiencies were identified as a result of project traffic impact. Tuscany Village Multifamily I Traffic Impact Analysis April 2022 1 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. K1miey>))Horn Table 8: Buildout (2024) — AM Peak Hour Intersection Conditions Tuscany Village Multifamily I Traffic Impact Analysis April 2022 1 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Level of Int # lntersestion Control Type Approach Service Max V/C Max VIC (overall Movement Ratio delay) EB E EBT/R 0.88 SR 46 WB E WBR 0.99 1 & Signalized NB E NBL 0.82 Upsala Road SB E SBL 0.90 Overall E (69.9 s) WBR 0.99 EB(L) B EBL 0.19 SR 46 WB(L) A WBL 0.06 2 & TWSC NB B NBR 0.11 Elder Road SB B SBR 0.08 Overall - EBL 0.19 EB D EBL 0.85 SR 46 WB E WBL 0.88 3 & Signalized NB E NBR 0.68 Rinehart Road SB E SBL 0.64 Overall D (51.1 s) WBL 0.88 EB - - SR 46 WB - - - 4 & RIRO NB B NBR 0.08 Driveway #1 SB - _ - Overall - NBR 0.08 SR 46 EB - - - & WB - - - 5 Driveway RIRO NB B NBR 0.06 #2/Strip Retail SB _ _ _ Dnvy Overall - NBR 0.06 EB - - - SR 46 WB - - - 6 & RIRO NB B NBR 0.03 Sewell Rd SB _ _ - Overall - NBR 0.03 Tuscany Village Multifamily I Traffic Impact Analysis April 2022 1 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. rumley�))Horn Table 9: Buildout (2024) — PM Peak Hour Intersection Conditions Buiiaoui Condrt�on -.2024 PM Peak Hour Level of Int. # Intersection- Control Type Approach Service Max VIC 'Max VIC ;(overall Movement Ratio delay) EB D EBL 0.95 SR 46 WB D WBR 0.89 1 & Signalized NB F NBR 0.92 Upsala Road SB F SBL 0.92 Overall E (64.8 s) EBL 0.95 EB(L) B EBL 0.27 SR 46 WB(L) B WBL 0.15 2 & TWSC NB B NBR 0.12 Elder Road SB B SBR 0.14 Overall - EBL 0.27 EB D EBR 0.70 SR 46 WB D WBL 0.91 3 & Signalized NB E NBR 0.87 Rinehart Road SB E SBL 0.79 Overall D (53.9 s) WBL 0.91 EB - - - SR46 WB - 4 & RIRO NB B NBR 0.07 Driveway #1 SB - - - Overall - NBR 0.07 SR 46 EB & WB ` 5 Driveway RIRO NB B NBR 0.05 #2/Strip Retail SB - - - Drwy Overall - NBR 0.05 EB - - - SR 46 WB - 6 & RIRO NB B NBR 0.03 Sewell Rd SB - - Overall - NBR 1 0.03 Tuscany Village Multifamily I Traffic Impact Analysis April 2022 1 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. z .9i � y w LLL •� 4. M=,A MK_, Ae: It u -kblli L lip.- t i %4 L tA fs —v 'eve, i;�­Y6tft--­­v AW13, T w !." 7t,�, CA A 0 O C7, C) co U M -kblli L lip.- t i %4 L tA fs —v 'eve, i;�­Y6tft--­­v AW13, T w !." 7t,�, CA A 0 M L gt--[goi+(o)+o L OE=[OE]+(o)+o L sT=(sii+(o)+o 0 fid -' 0 0 amm mrar,�A :2 r t r t r < U_ Ts_0 + F- + t40- O 0 z O U) �Z N N + + N Ol q (D St SE 11 11 L L 9LZ=[tlll+(01)+ZSZ In H LE=[01+(T)+9E M -0 " 14 — M " 0 11 - - - - EL=[01+(E)+OL 4u4— lE-r=[oj+(s)+qzT. E6=lt?1+(E)+qs , t,t 1111 j m " L N . m " 14b t7SZ=[01+(0T)+t7l7Z 2 z L_ D 4 Eg-[191+(o)+z E=[01+(0)+E CU 4-J o: C: (V z+(o)+[ol=z q-1 4 it7+(z)+[ f r* a w flay 96+(V)+[01=001 J t r fu Rt = TEs+(Tz)+rO1=Z55 __ _N _� _N T9+(Z)+[0]=E9 > 9EZ+(6)+[O]=St7Z —0� F 4 4, 911 'E +(s)+[ol=lzi -;� -1 x Loz+(B)+Igj=lz,z + _T' a w 1. C: + 3, -,� v (U u CO r4 + m m 0 In 0 Cn U) o SID c, + m Io + U. z L =-VII. rk .01 a Jowl U. I 4p j®rAiat 9 L 41- 0 -Ne SE=[SE]+(o)+o Ez=[zzl+(o)+o L zl=[zrl+(o)+o D- 0 0 fO tr tr tr ■ go, N as as E + ++ + + + 0 > ;3 m 0 a -r L� nR -6+ L T6tl=[6Z1+(8T)+tttI L ts=[oj+(z)+zs all E M ,a Mo a4— zoc=fol+(g)+96 D 2 U) L- ZEE=[01+(Sl)+LIE L 16E=[0]+(ST)+Z8E 4J LU 17=101+(t,)+t, m CD -- T- LL-ILI+(E)+L9 411 zg=igt7j+(T)+ST C (D7,, Q, t . . m t F* IL+(E)+[O]=t7L 7n4i t ro tig+(E)+[O]=LS —f T.T+(0)+[O]=TT I . A . Ln > 69t7+(6T)+foI=g8t7 —t z r 0 11 m 0 m TL+(E)+[Ol=i7L _, n L x ObZ+(OT)+[O]=05Z®► W a 3 m t7ET+(S)+[01=6ET a 11 C, at m ;- w Z6z+(zi)+[zll=91E ;:� + r;3 ll v Ts 21 , =1 ru u ++ M Lcoh + + gyp® M,11 Mms" I 5.3 TURN LAME ANALYSIS The need for exclusive ingress right -turn lanes at the proposed site access points was evaluated at the project driveways. Per the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) Access Management Guidebook (relevant page included in Appendix J), a right -turn lane should be provided where the right -turning movement exceeds 80 vehicles per hour for a roadway with a posted speed of 45 mph or less. Based on the projected volumes shown in Figure 5, the noted threshold of 80 vehicles is not exceeded at the project driveways during the AM or PM peak hour and therefore, an ingress right -turn lane is not warranted. Additionally, a turn lane analysis was performed for offsite impacted turn lanes to determine if existing turn lane lengths are sufficient. Table 10 provides a summary of all offsite existing turn lanes with project trips. The existing turn lanes were evaluated to determine if there is sufficient length to accommodate the minimum deceleration length plus the 95th percentile queue length for background and project buildout conditions. As shown in Table 10 and illustrated in Figure 6, the eastbound left -turn lane at SR 46 & Upsala Road would need an additional 200 feet, the northbound right turn lane at SR 46 & Rinehart Road would need an additional 125 feet, and the westbound left tum lane at SR 46 & Rinehart Road would need an additional 130 at project buildout. Figure 6 also illustrates the median improvements requested by FDOT. Tuscany Village Multifamily I Traffic Impact Analysis April 2022 1 Kimley-Hom and Associates, Inc. m iM s Y F+Ln d m n o 0 0 0 4 8!r o m r40 -I ti Y 'p a Q a C N i [r tD 01 1-1 Q1 D1 m r, r• m m to 0 Y �{' O t Y c O a L J _ 3< O O' V t0 01 t-1 a Q m n r, m of a M o Y C` V 'OO = a O h OLn N O O Y s Ln a N 171 to r, V !n C 3 v? r r r z r r 4D m d Vrte. C s a co 0 mLr) 0 Oo pop Y Ln y r� to m N l0 R u o cr m L a J N to O 00 N O O O cn N N Q' N � V d to 4f N 00 m m v i+ 00 %D LLS c a ..r dl C i a a n oo Y 0 oa v v J O O 7 O O O L�V L .Y00 lIJ _Y W �y W -if N ay cD0 zLn U3 N 0 60 a 7i to 0 a z w CA CA A2 cn T (C C Q U U — ca uj ca -.2 U U O F- Q .O T co C c6 O •5 as E C � N > N � N F-- Q Kimley»>Horn A Daily and PM Peak hour roadway segment analysis was performed for segments located within a one - mile radius of the proposed residential development to determine existing, background, and buildout conditions. Roadway data was obtained from Seminole County's Summary of Roadway Concurrency Information (relevant excerpts included in Appendix K), dated September 2, 2021 to analyze the roadway segments presented in Section 1.2. Background growth was developed by forecasting Year 2021 Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) volumes to existing (2022) and future (2024) conditions using a 2.0% annual growth rate. Buildout volumes were developed by adding anticipated project trips to background volumes. As shown in Table 11, all study roadway segments operate with acceptable LOS and do not exceed the available roadway capacity. No capacity deficiencies were found for the existing, background, or buildout conditions. Tuscany Village Multifamily I Traffic Impact Analysis March 2022 1 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. fn T Co U C Q � 0 cn co N 0- N U U N cn ca Q cu T C cCf = w � a) to N N 9' N ( Ca U i C, m U V U Q Q V O a fl .m o 0 0 o O o 0 0 0 0 m0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 —_ z z z z z z z z z z N 3 � O. 1'-� � W •-f N 4 n .t 1-1 N N N H O O r-1 W N a tll p ry �` `� m V q N V N Y: C..,.... .... +1i 0� V V v U V V 4 Q U 0 Q i3 m Y R. O O O O O O O O O O N 9 � c V j V1 0 0 0 0 z z z z O O z z O O z z O O z z a m y bb3 a b 'N: W V V V V m m Q Q V O XX a: a N W H Yroj:.:. o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m � � c d 0 0 0 0 Z Z Z Z 0 0 z z 0 0 z z 0 0 z 2 Qo u � V o Mo N N tm0 WW p W eW-i n L' m rl rl N tpp O 0 w m �n VOi 1p E h ti T 9 N N O N ti O s x� c— c V1 a A +� a+ V L N LL N K c N p R a d a� v m t0 a s N 0 for L m mLi o. o c ¢ o a a a� a Q z q a o �p CC, u u 8 fn T Co U C Q � 0 cn co N 0- N U U N cn ca Q cu T C cCf = w � a) to N N 9' N ( Ca U i C, Kimley»>Horn This traffic impact analysis was performed to analyze the traffic impacts associated with the development of Tuscany Village Multifamily, a proposed residential development with commercial outparcels in Sanford, Florida. The development, proposed for buildout in Year 2024, will consist of 420 mid -rise apartment dwelling units and two (2) commercial parcels totaling 23,500 SF. Access to the multifamily residential development will be provided via the existing Elder Road and a proposed driveway on SR 46. Access to the commercial developments will be provided via existing Elder Road, existing Sewell Road, and cross access with a development to the east. Based on ITE trip rates, the proposed multifamily residential development is anticipated to generate approximately 224 AM peak hour trips (72 in/152 out) and 263 PM peak hour trips (147 in/116 out), which is shown to be less than what was previously approved for the 14.54 -acre site. The proposed development is anticipated to generate 332 less trips during the AM peak hour and 222 less trips during the PM peak hour than the previously approved PD. An operational analysis for existing, background, and buildout conditions was performed at the study area intersections and project driveways. Under existing and background conditions, some capacity deficiencies were identified at the intersections on SR 46. A background (with improvements) condition was introduced to address the delay on the minor approaches of SR 46 & Rinehart Road. Delay at some minor approaches along SR 46 is still expected. However, these approaches do not exceed capacity. When adding project trips, the roadway operates with an acceptable LOS and v/c ratio. No new deficiencies were identified as a result of project impact. Per FDOT guidance, an ingress right -turn lane analysis was performed for site access points. None of the project driveways warrant ingress right -turn lanes. Additionally, a turn lane analysis was conducted for offsite impacted turn lanes. Potential offsite improvements are identified and are illustrated in Figure 6. A roadway segment analysis was performed to assess the impact of the project on the surrounding roadway network capacity. The roadway capacity is not exceeded due to project traffic, and no changes in LOS were recorded. No new roadway or intersection deficiencies were identified as a result of project impact. Tuscany Village Multifamily I Traffic Impact Analysis March 2022 1 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. TIA Methodology Statement Rodriguez, Emanuelle From: Cash, Michael <Michael.Cash@Sanfordfl.gov> Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2022 2:29 PM To: Rodriguez, Emanuelle Cc: Nunez, Jacob; Memering, Alex Subject: RE: Tuscany Village Multifamily TIA Methodology Categories: External The proposed methodology appears to meet our requirements. Thank you, Mike Cash, CFM Public Works Engineer p: 407.688.5087 A. From: Rodriguez, Emanuelle <Emanuelle.Rodriguez@kimley-horn.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2022 2:21 PM To: Cash, Michael <Michael.Cash@Sanfordfl.gov> Cc: Nunez, Jacob <Jacob.Nunez@kimley-horn.com>; Memering, Alex <Alex.Memering@kimley-horn.com> Subject: Tuscany Village Multifamily TIA Methodology Ic \{- M N: This email originated from OUTSIDE the City of Sanford. Do NOT click links or open attachments unless you recognize and/or trust the sender. Good Morning Michael, My name is Emanuelle Rodriguez, I go by Mani for short, and I work at Kimley-Horn in the Orlando Office. We have a client that is looking to develop a site located on the south side of SR 46 between Sewell Road and Upsala Road. The proposed development will consist of +/- 420 multifamily dwelling units with two commercial outparcels. As part of the permit application, we will be performing a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA), which will also be provided to FDOT. I am attaching to this email the TIA Methodology for your review. Any feedback before conducting the final TIA will be greatly appreciated. Please let me know if you have any questions or comments and/or if you would want to discuss over the phone. Thanks! Sincerely, Emanuelle D "Mani" Rodriguez Muniz, P.E. (PR) I Transportation Planning/Traffic Operations Kimley-Horn 1189 South Orange Avenue Suite 1000 Orlando, FL 32801 Main: 407-898-1511 I Mobile: 787-955-6127 I Direct: 407-965-0412 Connect with us: Twitter I Linkedln I Facebook I Instagram I Kimle-Horn.com Celebrating one more year as one of FOPTUNE's 100 Best Companies to Work For Tuscany Village Multifamily, Page 1 Kimley»>Horn MEMORANDUM To: Michael Cash City of Sanford Public Works Engineer From: Alex Memering, P.E. Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Date: March 15, 2022 Subject: Tuscany Village Multifamily TIA Methodology City of Sanford, FL Purpose The following memorandum is a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) methodology for the proposed Multifamily residential development and commercial developments located in the City of Sanford, Florida. The forthcoming TIA will generally conform to the methodology herein and the policies and guidelines as established by the City of Sanford and Seminole County. Project Description The proposed multifamily residential development is located on the south side of S.R. 46 between Sewell Road and Upsala Road, as shown in Figure 1. The project site is situated on a ±14.5 -acre group of parcels located at 165 Elder Road and 4201 West First Street in the City of Sanford, Florida. The parcels (Parcel IDs 28-19-30-506-0000-005A, -050, -0060, -006A, and -0070) have a Future Land Use of Westside Industry and Commerce (WIC) and are zoned Planned Development (PD). The applicant is proposing to develop the site to have ± 420 multifamily residential units and two (2) commercial developments totaling ±23,500 SF. Access to the multifamily residential development will be provided via existing Elder Road and a proposed driveway on S.R. 46. Access to the commercial developments will be provided via existing Elder Road, existing Sewell Road, and cross access with a development to the east. Attachment A shows the current conceptual site plan. Tuscany Village Multifamily, Page 3 Trip Generation The Land Use Code (LUC) for this development was taken from the institute of Transportation Engineer's (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 11tt' Edition. LUC 221 — Multifamily Housing (Mid -Rise) was selected from the Residential category and used to generate the proposed trips. This LUC is for multifamily housing between four (4) and ten (10) floors of living space. The indication of "Not Close to Rail Transit" was also applied as there is no rail transit within 0.5 miles from the project site. LUC 822 — Strip Retail Plaza was selected for the commercial developments. Relevant excerpts from the ITE Trip Generation Manual are included in Attachment B. Table 1 provides the Daily, AM, and PM peak hour trip generation summaries for the proposed development as well as the internal capture. As shown in the table, the project is anticipated to generate 2,772 daily new external trips (1386 in, 1386 out), 224 new external trips during the AM peak hour (72 in, 152 out), and 263 new external trips during the PM peak hour (147 in, 116 out). Kimley>»Horn Tuscany Village Multifamily, Page 4 Table 1: Trip Generation Summary Notes: 'Vehicle trip rate and dgectionat spNs per t i t i nP uenerau , I'm co - 2 Internal Capture (IC) based on ITE Trip Generation Handbook, 3rd Edition, internal Capture Reduction Calculation spreadsheet !TE Trip Daily Trip Generation Land Use ITE LUC Size Units Rate' Total In' OuY' Multifamily Housing (Mid -Rise) 221 420 DU 4.66 1,957 50°x. 979 501 978 (Not close to rail transit) A o Strip Retail Plaza 822 23.5 KSF 51.97 1,221 504 611 50% 610 Total Generated Trips 3,178 1,590 1,588 Internal Capture 2 = 12.8% (see attached capture matrices) 406 204 202 New External Trips 2,772 11386 1,386 IT Trip AM Peak Hour Trip Generation Land Use ITE LUC Size Units Rate' Total In' Out' 3 Multifamily Housing (Mid -Rise) 221 420 Du 0.41 173 23% 40 %" 133 _ (Not close to rail transit) Strip Retail Plaza 822 23.5 KSF 2.36 55 61�? 33 4 Gib 22 a. Q Total Generated Trips 228 73 155 Internal Capture2 = 1.8% (see attached capture matrices) 4 1 3 New External Trips 224 72 152 ITE Trip PM Peak Hour Trip Generation Land Use ITE LUC Size Units Rate' Total In' Out' o Multifamily Housing (Mid -Rise) 221 420 DU 0.39 164 100 64 _ (Not close to rail transit) Strip Retail Plaza 822 23.5 KSF 6.59 155 5 78 50%, 77 ri E Total Generated Trips 319 178 141 Intemal Capture = 17.6% (see attached capture matrices} 56 31 25 New External Trips 263 147 116 Notes: 'Vehicle trip rate and dgectionat spNs per t i t i nP uenerau , I'm co - 2 Internal Capture (IC) based on ITE Trip Generation Handbook, 3rd Edition, internal Capture Reduction Calculation spreadsheet Tuscany Village Multifamily, Page 5 Trip Distribution and Trip Assignment Projected traffic demand of project trips on study area facilities was derived with use of the latest adopted Central Florida Regional Planning Model (CFRPM v7). Socioeconomic data for the project was coded into the appropriate traffic analysis zone (TAZ) within the model set and situated within the surrounding roadway network to appropriately represent project access. The model was used to assign trips for all trip purposes between allocated origin and destination pairs, and the resulting trip distribution to and from the subject TAZ was reviewed for logic and modified using engineering judgment. The daily model project distribution will be referenced to manually assign project distribution at intersections and project driveways in general accordance with the adjusted model outputs. Figure 2 shows the trip distribution percentages to the project site. The CFRPM v7 model output that was used in developing the project distribution for this development can be found in Attachment C. Study Area Segments and Intersections For roadway segment analysis, forecasted project traffic within a 1 -mile radius will be assigned per the project distribution shown in Attachment C. Existing and vested trip data will be referenced from Seminole County's most recent roadway concurrency information. The standard Seminole County X" and "D" factors will be used to convert daily committed trip information to peak hour volumes. The following roadway segments are included in the analysis: • 54620: SR 46 from Interstate 4 (1-4) to Lake Forest Entrance • S4625: SR 46 from Rinehart Road to Interstate 4 (1-4) • 54635: SR 46 from Upsala Road to Rinehart Road • S4645: SR 46 from Airport Boulevard to C.R. 15/Upsala Road • C1500: C.R. 15/Monroe Road from C.R. 431/Orange Boulevard to Church Street • C1505: C.R. 15/Monroe Road from Church Street to S.R. 46 • C1510: C.R. 15/Upsala Road from S.R. 46 to Coastline Road • C1515: C.R. 15/Upsala Road from Coastline Road to Central Park Drive • STJ10: St. John's Parkway from C.R. 15/Upsala Road to Rinehart Road • RNH10: Rinehart Road from S.R. 46 to St. John's Parkway • RNH20: Rinehart Road from St. John's Parkway to S.R. 417 • HIC10: Hickman Drive from Hickman Circle to S.R. 46 Per Seminole County traffic study requirements, all signalized intersections and major unsignalized intersections within 1/4 -mile radius from the perimeter of the site will be evaluated as part of the traffic study, as well as the proposed project driveways: • SR 46 & Upsala Road (Signalized) • SR 46 & Elder Road (TWSC) • SR 46 & Rinehart Road (Signalized) o N O > ® 0 r %s Z w = 0 ^ _- • '� �n w a O = as >, Ey�o � � TNv 9 .o .` Y e a ID OOH 11 b N �� rn m f C) O O CD r"I I 'V" O N 1 Cr) O kD N N � i u L ME z tr XL n � 00 i _ t t r *Z Ln ; Off' t t r 0 0 0 O _ .. , - -- troU- ru 1 �079 1 U Lf) O d' Tuscany Village Multifamily, Page 7 Existing Conditions Operational Analyses Existing conditions analyses will be conducted for the study area roadway segments and intersections. Study area roadway segments will be evaluated for daily conditions based on the latest available roadway segment data from Seminole County Public Works. AM Peak Hour (7:00 AM — 9:00 AM) and PM Peak Hour (4:00 PM — 6:00 PM) Turning Movement Counts (TMC) will be collected at the study area intersections. Study area intersections will be evaluated during the AM & PM peak hour existing conditions using Synchro 11 software, which implements methodologies from the latest Highway Capacity Manual to calculate delay, level of service (LOS), and volume - to -capacity (V/C) ratios for each intersection, approach, and movement. Future Conditions Operational Analyses Segment and intersection operational analyses will be conducted during the proposed buildout year, 2023. The analyses will include an evaluation under background conditions (without project trips) and buildout conditions (including project trips). Project trips will be assigned to the roadway network in accordance with the project trip distribution. For study area roadway segments, the analysis will sum existing traffic counts, committed trips from other developments, and project trips to determine the anticipated future traffic volumes and the LOS of the roadway under future year 2023 conditions. The future year 2023 intersection analyses will include an evaluation under background conditions (without project trips) and buildout conditions (including project trips). Future background volumes at study area intersections will be derived by applying an annual growth rate based on historical growth trends on the adjacent roadway segments. A minimum growth rate of two percent (2%) will be used. Buildout volumes will be derived by adding project trips to background volumes. The intersections will be evaluated using Synchro 11 software, which implements methodologies from the latest Highway Capacity Manual to calculate the delay, LOS, and V/C ratios for each intersection, approach, and movement. If necessary, mitigating measures for any operational deficiencies identified due to project traffic impact will be recommended in the TIA. Turn Lane Analysis The need for turn lanes at the proposed driveways will be assessed per Seminole County's Transportation Standards in the Public Works Engineering Manual on County facilities and per FDOT and/or NCHRP guidance on non -County facilities. Report/Conclusions All analyses and findings will be documented in a report to be provided to the City of Sanford for review. KAORL CiviA249004003-TuscanyVillageMFITPT0102 Documentation103 MethodologylruscanyVillageMF 2022.03.10.docx s Keri ey ) Nora Record of Meeting Meeting Date/Time: March 8, 2022 10:00(EST) Meeting Location: Microsoft Teams Meeting Subject: Tuscany Village on SR 46, Sanford, FL Attendees: Name Organization Phone # Email Brahim Sahraoui FDOT — Maintenance (407) 278-2771 brahim.sahraoui(@dot.fl.us Oviedo Operations FDOT — Chad Lingenfelter Maintenance (386) 943-5304 chad.lingenfelter(cDdot.state.fl.us Oviedo Operations FDOT — Clipper Tefft Maintenance (386) 943-5180 clipoer.tefft a(D.dot.state.fl.us Oviedo Operations FDOT — Richard LaBud Maintenance (386) 943-5390 rich a rd. labud(cDdot.state.fl.us Oviedo Operations FDOT — Carol Hatfield Maintenance (407) 278.2774 carol. hatfield(a.dot.state.f1.us Oviedo Operations Kamil Salame Royal Palm companies RPC (786) 870.4928 kamil(d)rpcholdings.com Tara Tedrow Lowndes -Law (407) 418-6361 x 1361 tara.tedrow(aDlowndes-law.com Brooks Stickler Kimley-Horn and Associates KH (407) 898-1511 brooks.sticklerCcDkimley-horn.com Catherine Felter Kimley-Horn and Associates KH (407) 898-1511 catherine.felter(aDkimley-horn.com Emanuelle Rodriguez Kimley-Horn and Associates KH (407) 898-1511 emanuelle.rodriguez(a-)kimlev-horn.com Sue Lorentz Kimley-Horn and Associates KH (407) 898-1511 sue.lorentzCcDkimley-horn.com The following statements were the key items discussed during the conference call held on Tuesday March 8"' regarding the development of a +/- 420 -unit multi -family development, commercial outparcels with associated parking and site work. Iamt = 89 5 6raffgeAventie, Suite1000 ArYand6;.TL- 2801 hozoixom "� 1'aae 1. Turn Lanes a. Directional median opening will need to be modified to prevent left out movement. b. 440' spacing required c. Traffic study will be required to determine if right turn lane will be required and appropriate deceleration length. d. May have to modify island in middle of SR 46 & S Elder (make asymmetrical ) Proposed right in/right out driveway located to the east side of the site (no median opening) e. Include eastbound turn lane in traffic analysis f. *Note* within last mile of Sun Rail Station. 2. Driveway Access Connections a. If any access along S. Elder Road, FDOT would like to see the driveway connection as far south as possible. FDOT will be less concerned with right turn lane i. One solution is to provide a traffic separator to avoid backups on SR 46. ii. Sufficient throat depth may be possible with Laspada's Driveway b. The proposed separator in middle of main entrance is not permitted. Minimum 24' with no separation. c. If future outparcels will be included in project permit, consider assigning trips to each of those. d. Driveway width is 24' e. Flush shoulder following radius with crosswalk 3. Utilities a. High Transmission Line relief? The intent is to not move poles. b. There is a minimum clearance of 4'. c. Drainage flows to SR 46 and is to remain d. No sewer cap. Run new force main down SR 46 to Rinehart Road and then south to power sub -station. Typical jack and bore anticipated, please figure out ahead of time if any open cuts will be anticipated. e. Water is available on SR 46. 4. Bus Shelter a. Work with Lynx with appropriateness of location and incorporate into site plan 5. Pedestrian Access a. Pedestrian access will be required to public ROW (possible gate required) 6. Traffic Study a. A traffic study will be performed to evaluate turn lane needs and offsite impacts, if any. The traffic study will also evaluate the adjacent signalized intersections Kimley',)Morri. Page 3 The statements and information represent our understanding of the items discussed in the above -referenced meeting. If Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. has misrepresented any statements made by any of the attendees, please notify us immediately so that we may revise and redistribute the meeting minutes. If no response is received within five business days, all of the information contained in this document will be considered true and accurate. kimley-horn.com 600 North Pine Island.Road, Suite 450, Plantation, FL 33324 9545355100 NDT IE NI 'IX B Site Plan UIQ HOKAalwN_. C4"-' !0 A:p I N3NdOl3A3 o NVld 3ilS (13NNtfld 3E)VIIln I.Nvosnl .A- Turning r1- Turning Movement Counts LOCATION: US 17 CR 15 Upsala R Monroe R & US 92 US 17/511 46/W 1st St/W Florida 46 CITY/STATE- Sanford, FL PROJECT ID: 2-180060-001 DATE: Wed, Mar 02, 2022 i 1027 633 t 218 248561 Peak -Hour: 07:30 AM .08:30 AM Peak 15 -Minute: 07:45 AM - 08:00 AM ♦ 7.0 6.9 t 8.7 6.5 6.6 4-4J 4, 4 ♦ 4J 1124 176 + 4 4- t 324 1189 8.] 7.4 t 7.1 62 Peak Hour Factor 1043 -1.().9t) 4.816 1290 71 i r 49 1642 -0.�•1 t 1'� F_ -01i so 1n 36 ' `.l - z, y , , I ; ; i ;, -� 6.6 ♦ ♦ 9.9 6.7 5.6 r 2.0 15.7 ., 14, t r 7.e s.3 1s.68 + 368 1_► 261 t r� National Data & Surveying Services ♦ 6.1 7.7 t 0 0 0 +0 + b 2 6 0 1 L 0 e ♦ �4—o C 2 t 10.♦ 3 t 7 22.130060.001 2 r North �_ = —o — 14 h t 17 '� o I 0 o a 19 t 16 ]7 L _ f 4J + 4 L 4- 4J + 4 13 1 t o 69 _p. ♦ 73 �� _ \EQIi � r 4 Z ♦ h i 'r 7 r' -► II� �1A� h t go ount d S 171CR 151Upsala Rd1Monroe Northbound S 171CR 151Upsala RdlMonroe Southbound 21US 171SR 461W 1st St/W Flori Eastbound 21US 171SR 461W 1st St1W Flori Westbound Hourly ng At AM Lek Thru R t U R• 12 27 8 0 Left 134 Thru R U R• 52 47 0 Lek Thru R U R' 29 230 13 1 Left 4 5 Thru R U R• 183 76 2 191 77 7 Total 818 877 Total 3673 3726 AM AM AM t08:45AM 17 25 4 0 30 32 6 0 21 41 11 0 161 151 166 46 48 0 60 52 0 75 58 1 37 239 20 0 37 248 13 0 45 310 15 1 4 9 210 91 3 195 84 9 937 1041 3767 3733 AM AM 24 35 11 0 15 25 10 0 126 116 63 52 0 50 56 1 53 67 1 44 215 16 3 42 270 27 4 34 243 22 3 6 9 it 194 79 3 217 70 6 217 63 6 871 918 903 3538 2667 1749 AM AM Peak 15 -Min 28 31 10 0 22 21 4 0 Northbound 114 104 54 56 0 Southbound 26 231 19 4 Eastbound 8 222 62 13 Westbound 846 846 Thru R U R' Left Thru Rot U R' Left Thru R U R• Left Thru R t U R' Total Flowrates All Vehides12.0 Heavy Trucks Left 164 44 0 12 16 8 0 654 44 300 232 4 32 32 0 180 1240 108 16 20 92 8 0 36 4 868 354 36 108 44 0 4376 420 52 Pedestrians Bicycles 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 24 0 0 0 0 Buses Stopped Buses LOCATION: U5 17 CR 15 Upsa a Rd/Monroe Rd & US 92/US 175R 46/W 1st St W Florida 46 CITY/STATE: Sanford, FL PROJECT ID: 1 DATE: Wed, Mar 02, 2022 ♦ 1058 126 t 253 L Peak-Hour: 04:45 PM - 05:45 PM Peak 15-Minute: 05:00 PM - 05:15 PM t + 2.4 4.73D7 1+1 L4- f% ♦ 4 ♦ ♦ 4L4- 1334 1336 447 JPeak Hour Factort d25 1Ns 1073 ♦ D,95 4.956 1607 e7 64 1631 7U_\ 2.7 42 6.7 J t 4.7 3.9 3.3 ♦ ♦ 3.5 21 67 3.3 71 334 55F -0- 1! 1.6 J.6F 404 460 ♦ J.i 2.0 t 6 -► 3 f' Rational Data &Surveying Services 0 1 0 lo ♦ 4 5♦ ♦ a 0 J t l 22-130060-001 _ North a 'Z r 1 ♦ It 4- = ♦—_ —14J 4L 30J t 35 ♦ ♦ 33 = -� - ___ J t -► + 2z ♦ r4 &F t z i r 15-Min Count Period S 17/CR 151Upsala Rd/Monroe Northbound S 17/CR 15/Upsala Rd/Monroe Southbound 2/US 171SR 461W 1st StNV Flori Eastbound 2/US 171SR 46/W 1st SWJ Flori Westbound Hourly Beginning At LeR Thru R t U R' Left Thru R t U R' Left Thru RUI U R• Left Thru R­ U R' Total Total 04:00 PM 24 63 15 099 44 55 4 73 192 18 12 14 271 132 10 1026 4236 04:15 PM 04:30 PM 30 79 7 0 26 91 12 0 82 65 48 58 3 54 78 4 75 212 18 9 90 189 15 3 12 245 11 268 129 5 121 4 1012 1031 4412 4525 04:45 PM 05:00 PM 19 77 14 0 23 105 10 0 136 108 73 68 2 57 82 4 114 268 30 12 105 271 18 6 9 237 11 271 100 8 125 6 1167 1202 4578 4449 05:15 PM 05:30 PM 18 87 18 0 11 65 13 0 112 138 65 108 3 58 49 3 93 247 14 9 100 287 25 8 11 231 it 217 106 3 94 5 1125 1084 3247 2122 05:45 PM Peak 15 Min 23 63 17 0 Northbound 102 48 62 2 Southbound 74 291 15 5 Eastbound 9 222 103 2 Westbound 1038 1038 Flawrates Left Thru R t U R' Lek Thru R t U R' Left Thru R U R' Left Thru R U R• Total All Vehicies 92 420 72 0 552 292 432 16 456 1148 120 48 44 1084 500 32 5308 Heavy Trucks Pedestrians 4 8 4 0 20 32 20 8 0 36 36 56 4 0 8 8 48 16 28 8 256 80 Bicycles Buses 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 4 4 12 Stopped Buses LOCATION: Elder R N Elder Rd & SR 461W Florida 46 CITY/STATE: Sanford, FL PROJECT ID: 22-130060-002 DATE: Wed, Mar 02, 2022 ♦ 43 163 ♦ 43 L. Peak -Hour: 07:45 AM - 08:45 AM Peak 15 -Minute: 07:45 AM - 08:00 AM ♦ 23.3 n.3 o.e 6.2 o.o 4J 4 4o 1168 149 J t 14 1195 9] SA J t 7.1 9.3 Peak Hour Factor 1289 ♦ D.8'I ♦1125 1<38 0 ,` 16 1291 '-� 6.3 6A ♦ 0.0 +.9.4 •• 0.0 6.3 ♦ 16 2 ♦`! 1'�l ♦ 0.0 0.0 National Data & Surveying Services 4- L 0 ,+,.♦ 0 0 J t 0 +.0 0 ♦ > <> — t C'J ° '3 r ° ° ♦ ♦ ° ♦ '4• 1 3 F -a III1 II; North 22-130060.0020 L — 4L __j +1 4 6 't t ' -_ - -- -- - - J j t 82 ♦ C ♦ 106 --- — r 0 r 0 .i h ♦ �+ -► a o o R-1 h 15-Mln Count Period Elder Rd/N Elder Rd Northbound Elder Rd/N Elder Rd Southbound SR 46M Florida 46 Eastbound SR WIN Florida 46 Westbound Hourly Beginning At Left Thru Rod U R' Len Thru R t U R' Left Thru R U R• Left Thru R t U R' Total Total 07:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 0 20 259 0 11 0 223 9 2 542 2492 07:15 AM 07:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 17 0 0 11 0 20 316 0 8 28 283 0 11 1 245 2 268 6 2 7 1 615 612 2595 2597 07:45 AM 08:00 AM 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 9 0 39 379 0 9 32 319 0 6 2 274 0 272 4 3 4 2 723 645 2638 2562 08:15 AM 08:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 10 0 0 12 0 28 283 0 10 16 308 0 9 1 278 1 301 4 3 2 4 617 653 1917 1300 00:45 AM Peak 15 -Mtn 0 0 0 0 Northbound 0 0 16 0 Southbound 36 280 0 15 Eastbound 4 287 4 5 Westbound 647 647 Flowrates Lok Thr. R t U R' Left Thru R t U R' Lek Thru Rgt U R' Left Thru R t U R' Total All Vehicles Heavy Trucks 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 48 0 0 20 0 156 1516 0 40 12 100 0 4 8 1204 16 16 0 120 4 0 3008 256 Pedestrians Bicycles 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 n 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 Buses Stopped Buses LOCATION: E er R N Elder Rd & SR 46/W Florida 46 CITY/STATE: Sanford, FL PROJECT ID: 22-130060-002 DATE: Wed, Mar 02, 2022 75 195 ♦ Peak-Hour: 04:30 PM -05:30 PM Peak 15-Minute: 05:15 PM - 05:30 PM +. 0.0 4.7 7s ♦ � ° ♦ 9 4 0a 0.0 0.0 40 + 4 - L 4- J Peak Hour Factor t 11 1579 -* 1462 ♦ 0.95 4-1466 1648 2 r 52 1476 h ♦ �► rim T . �:1. 2.0 4.4 7.8 J 4.5 ♦ 0.0 44 4+ t t 9.1 2-2 ♦ 2.1 .0 1.9 45 51 ♦ 16 ''' .. 0.0 0.0 12.5 +' 00 17.5 'f 0 4L National Data & Surveying Services ♦ ♦ 1 0 0 4� 4 0 ,+� 1 01 .J t♦r 0o° ° ♦ e "'� ♦ II1♦♦ -- • ili�i{n North 30060-002 °s� h 0 0 0 4- L*. — 4 L J —1 11 EQ t 0 +, ♦ ♦ h o t 0 I� , r► ♦ 7 — -- - — . � R-1 'I h ♦ r► r 15-Min Count Period Elder RdIN Elder Rd Northbound Elder Rd/N Elder Rd Southbound SR 461W Florida 46 Eastbound SR 461W Florida 46 Westbound Hourly Beginning At Lek Thru R t U R' Le" Thru R t U R' Left Thru R t U R• Lek Thru R t U R' Total Total 04:00 PM 0 0 1 0 0 0 16 0 31 294 2 6 1 324 4 '5694 2976 04:15 PM 04:30 PM 0 0 0 4 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 17 0 0 19 0 47 290 2 2 28 325 1 5 7 340 2 371 3 13 0 15 725 769 3136 3268 04:45 PM 05:00 PM 0 0 0 5 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 27 0 0 13 0 45 3610 10 44 391 0 4 1 327 3 361 3 9 3 12 788 854 3242 3226 05:15 PM 05:30 PM 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 0 18 0 41 385 1 7 42 369 0 3 1 387 0 301 5 9 0 10 857 743 2372 1515 05:45 PM Peak 15-Mfn 0 0 1 0 Northbound 0 0 14 0 Southbound 43 390 0 5 Eastbound 0 305 1 13 Westbound 772 772 Flowrales Left Thru R t U R• Left Thru R U R• Left Thru R U R• Left Thru R t U R' Total All Vehicles 0 0 20 0 0 0 108 0 180 1564 4 40 12 1548 20 60 3556 Heavy Trucks Pedestrians 0 0 4 0 8 0 0 0 0 12 12 80 0 0 0 0 40 4 4 4 140 24 Bicycles Buses 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 Stopped Buses LOCATION: Rinehart Rd & SR 46/W Florida 46 CITY/STATE: Sanford, FL PROJECT ID: 22-130060-003 DATE: Wed, Mar 02, 2022 ♦ 287 122 255 t 64 101 L Peak -Hour: WAS AM - 08:45 AM Peak 15 -Minute: 07:45 AM - 08:00 AM ♦ 7.3 11.5 4.7 ♦ 41 ♦ 3.7 t 4.0 4 �- 4J ♦ 4 t 73 1159 10.2 2.6 J t 2-7 9.9 Peak Hour Factor 1047 ♦ 0.94 ♦ nz 1424 273 r, 714 1409 h t �► , !1� .,l?�1 a.5 7.4 12.5 ♦ h t 4- 12.0 r 6.4 6.7 �► ..� 260 .� 74 265 -j ' 42 S.d 90 6p 5.3 ♦ 651 599 't' National Data & Surveying Services 0 0 0 1 ♦. ♦ .i o 1 to o ♦ 4-0 22-130060-003 (� .�, I 0 ♦ t 0 1 North IIIIIIiilllllllllllllll= 0 a 0 14 3 ♦ 4 L 4J ♦�► �' 7 j j \ .t 2 '_'b - J t 68 ( j 4. 93 \\,/ 74 ♦�h 20 �♦ X11 ��1;' ♦ t (� 15 -Min Count Period Rinehart Rd Northbound Rinehart Rd Southbound SR 46IW Florida 46 Eastbound SR 461W Florida 46 Westbound Hourly Left Thru R t U R' Left Thru R t U R' Left Thru R t U R' Left Thru Rat U R' Beginning At Total Total 07:00 AM 43 6 44 0 16 13 20 0 29 221 36 0 25 195 13 3 664 3152 07:15 AM 07:30 AM 44 17 43 0 44 16 55 3 23 15 12 35 0 8 40 0 14 274 49 2 18 245 63 1 41 50 214 17 8 196 16 5 192 16 7 793 775 920 3373 3386 3469 07:45 AM 08:00 AM 08:15 AM 55 15 69 0 80 22 68 0 59 22 66 2 18 24 27 14 29 0 17 33 0 10 32 0 30 328 81 165 17 261 81 4 26 223 54 3 68 67 190 14 6 184 23 8 885 806 3426 2641 08:30 AM 08:45 AM 53 15 62 1 67 17 76 0 32 23 23 28 0 14 36 0 26 231 57 1 24 239 70 3 85 59 206 20 8 217 24 8 858 877 1735 877 Peak 15 -Min Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Flowrates Left Thru R t U R' Lek Thru R t U R' Left Thru R9t U R' Left Thru R t U R' Total All Vehicles 320 88 276 8 128 92 132 0 120 1312 324 15 340 824 92 32 4104 Heavy Trucks 28 12 20 0 8 4 24 0 8 88 56 0 4 32 108 4 4 4 392 16 Pedestrians Bicycles 8 0 0 0 0 n 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 Buses Stopped Buses LOCATION: Rinehart Rd & SR 46/W Florida 46 CITY/STATE: Sanford, FL PROJECT ID:22-130060-003 DATE: Wed, Mar 02, 2022 ♦ 304 245 ♦ Peak -Hour: 04:45 PM -05:45 PM Peak 15 -Minute: 05:15 PM - 05:30 PM ♦ 1.3 0.8 t M �-�4J 75 i 4L4- 4-�4J i 4L4- ,55, 9a J Pcak Hour Factor t 46 1492 1102 ♦ 0.95 4-1004 ,563 363r N7 1657 i1 r 2.7 4.4 3.1 J t 0.0 2.4 4.8 ♦ 4.30 7.6 .,, .` 1.4 .., 406 ♦ 660 ,Oi 467 974 ' i-_.. ; � ' ' 22 0.0 32 ♦ L National Data &Surveying Services 2.4 4S ° ♦ �— 22-130060-003 � (,�,� ° J t 0 ° ♦ 4- ° °♦ ♦ "'T♦2 NorthIllllll lllIIIIIIIIIIII_ Z 41' r ° .� �41 4L ♦ 44- 3 J \ t 0 S3 4- 30 __ — _ _ ♦ J t ♦ �. u 7. ♦ �, r s[— _,� t ,� _.. • "fgi!!gl!!i!Iilidili _ ? �Ni II z r —1 4% + I+ F 15 -Min Count Period Rinehart Rd Northbound Rinehart Rd Southbound SR 461W Florida 46 Eastbound SR 461W Florida 46 Westbound Hourly Beginning At Left Thru Rat U R' Lek Th.R t U R' Lek Thru R t U R' Left Thr R U R• Total Total 04:00 PM 103 22 78 2 12 13 30 0 26 242 66 2 110 213 15 1 935 4016 04:15 PM 04:30 PM 120 70 24 116 3 19 106 1 16 24 26 33 0 22 49 0 23 195 103 2 22 236 109 3 92 225 100 239 22 3 11 7 1003 1018 4148 4284 04:45 PM 05:00 PM 96 96 19 108 3 29 125 1 23 27 16 37 0 24 22 0 11 276 82 2 20 263 89 1 117 7.52 104 254 12 6 10 2 1060 1067 4333 4323 05:15 PM 05:30 PM 95 115 28 128 0 25 106 0 17 21 12 42 0 23 40 0 31 298 100 2 27 265 92 4 113 260 93 238 12 1 12 6 1139 1067 3256 2117 05:45 PM Peak 15 -Min 100 23 123 3 Northbound 33 26 36 0 Southbound 27 276 108 1 Eastbound 86 191 Westbound 12 5 1050 1050 Flowrate5 Left Thru R t U R• Left Thru R t U R' Left Thru R U R' Left Thru R t U R' Total All Vehicles 460 116 512 12 108 96 168 0 124 1192 400 16 468 1040 48 24 4784 Heavy Trucks Pedestrians 16 0 32 0 8 n 4 0 4 4 72 16 4 0 8 44 8 0 0 200 20 Bicydes Buses 0 0 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 12 Stopped Buses DID FDOT's Florida Traffic Online (FTO) Data 2020 PEAK SEASON FACTOR CATEGORY REPORT - REPORT TYPE: ALL CATEGORY: 7700 SEMINOLE COUNTYWIDE *12 03/15/2020 - 03/21/2020 1.02 1.10 MOCF: 0.93 WEEK DATES 1.08 SF PSCF -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- * 1 01/01/2020 - 01/04/2020 0.99 1.06 * 2 01/05/2020 - 01/11/2020 0.94 1.01 * 3 01/12/2020 - 01/18/2020 0.90 0.97 * 4 01/19/2020 - 01/25/2020 0.89 0.96 * 5 01/26/2020 - 02/01/2020 0.88 0.95 * 6 02/02/2020 - 02/08/2020 0.86 0.92 * 7 02/09/2020 - 02/15/2020 0.85 0.91 * 8 02/16/2020 - 02/22/2020 0.88 0.95 * a n,)/o'�!/,)non - no/oa/onon n ao n as "11 UJ/UO/LULU - UJ/19/LULU U.ya 1.UJ *12 03/15/2020 - 03/21/2020 1.02 1.10 *13 03/22/2020 - 03/28/2020 1.08 1.16 14 03/29/2020 - 04/04/2020 1.15 1.24 15 04/05/2020 - 04/11/2020 1.22 1.31 16 04/12/2020 - 04/18/2020 1.29 1.39 17 04/19/2020 - 04/25/2020 1.23 1.32 18 04/26/2020 - 05/02/2020 1.17 1.26 19 05/03/2020 - 05/09/2020 1.12 1.20 20 05/10/2020 - 05/16/2020 1.06 1.14 21 05/17/2020 - 05/23/2020 1.05 1.13 22 05/24/2020 - 05/30/2020 1.04 1.12 23 05/31/2020 - 06/06/2020 1.03 1.11 24 06/07/2020 - 06/13/2020 1.02 1.10 25 06/14/2020 - 06/20/2020 1.01 1.09 26 06/21/2020 - 06/27/2020 1.01 1.09 27 06/28/2020 - 07/04/2020 1.02 1.10 28 07/05/2020 - 07/11/2020 1.03 1.11 29 07/12/2020 - 07/18/2020 1.04 1.12 30 07/19/2020 - 07/25/2020 1.03 1.11 31 07/26/2020 - 08/01/2020 1.03 1.11 32 08/02/2020 - 08/08/2020 1.03 1.11 33 08/09/2020 - 08/15/2020 1.03 1.11 34 08/16/2020 - 08/22/2020 1.02 1.10 35 08/23/2020 - 08/29/2020 1.02 1.10 36 08/30/2020 - 09/05/2020 1.02 1.10 37 09/06/2020 - 09/12/2020 1.02 1.10 38 09/13/2020 - 09/19/2020 1.02 1.10 39 09/20/2020 - 09/26/2020 1.01 1.09 40 09/27/2020 - 10/03/2020 1.00 1.08 41 10/04/2020 - 10/10/2020 0.98 1.05 42 10/11/2020 - 10/17/2020 0.97 1.04 43 10/18/2020 - 10/24/2020 0.98 1.05 44 10/25/2020 - 10/31/2020 0.98 1.05 45 11/01/2020 - 11/07/2020 0.99 1.06 46 11/08/2020 - 11/14/2020 0.99 1.06 47 11/15/2020 - 11/21/2020 1.00 1.08 48 11/22/2020 - 11/28/2020 0.99 1.06 49 11/29/2020 - 12/05/2020 0.99 1.06 50 12/06/2020 - 12/12/2020 0.99 1.06 51 12/13/2020 - 12/19/2020 0.99 1.06 52 12/20/2020 - 12/26/2020 0.94 1.01 53 12/27/2020 - 12/31/2020 0.90 0.97 * PEAK SEASON 27 -FEB -2021 10:30:05 830UPD 5 7700 PKSEASON.TXT A P P E V4 D" I X EE Turning Movement Volume Worksheets Intersection Development Worksheet Kimley'!) Horn Exprr.• Nara. fxpnrir..irc P ^4rr. Existing Year:2022 TMC Year: 2022 Intersection p: 1 Buildout Year. 2024 Major Streeh SR46 ti/W Seasona/Factor. 0.95 Minor Street: Upsala Rd NIS Pre•COVID 19 Factor. Annual Growth (°/.): 2.00% AM Peak Hour Trips (Vehicles): IN= �OUT = 152 Weekday AM Peak Hour 7:30 0• Northbound Upsa,la Rd Southbound Eastbound SR 46 -Wastbound TMC (2022) 0 90 133 38 2 559 248 218 8 168 1,043 71 21 28 816 324 Seasonal Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Heavy Vehicle (%) 0% 8% 5% 16% 0% 7% 6% 9% 0% 8% 7% 6% 0% 4% 9% 7% Peak Hour Factor 0.00 0.75 0.81 0.86 0.50 0.84 0.83_ 0.94 0.50 0.93 0.84_ 0.66 0.58 0.78 0.94 0.89 Pxtsting (2022) 0 86 126 36 2 531 236 207 8 160 991 67 20 27 775 308 Growth Factor _ _ 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 Background (2024) 0 89 131 37 2 552 _ 245 215 8 166 _ 1,031 70 __ 21 28 806 320 Project Assignment (Vehicles) Ingress 5% 8% 27;', Egress 60% 8116 27% 5% Project Trips 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 6 91 12 41 8 0 0 19 0 Project Buildout 0 93 131 37 2 552 245 221 99 178 1,072 78 21 28 825 320 PM Peak Hour Trips (Vehicles): IN= 147 BOUT= _6 F.iod o,A24900•1003-fu nyollogomNptolO]_orcoN��aYc colu_lu:cony vdfogo_v4.rlirJin[1:1 Page 1 Intersection Development Worksheet Kimsey >) Horn 7.vrr. Mom.. Cxl crirxr. P.r'trr Existing Year. 12022 TMC Year: i 2022 j Intersection p: 2-1 Bultdout Year: ^2024 Majorstree[:!SR46 E/W SeasonalFactor.l 0.95 Minor street: 1Elder Rd I N/5 Pre-COVID 19 Factor. Annual Growth (%): 12.00% AM Peak Hour Trips (Vehicles): IN= 72 OUT = u2 PM Peak Hour Trips (Vehicles): IN= 147 OUT= � 31 s klod CMA249o04002 .yw,, Vp,.j03 .,-"lfic talcs fu ,y vdfega_W.+Iss/inLp1 Page 2 Intersection Development Worksheet Kidep> Horn F.xprc•.M1^.err.. F:Rprrira�r. P.�ttrr. Existing Year: 2022 i TMC Year: Intersection #.,! 3 ! _ Buildout Year.E2.00% 4 MajorStreeRf5R46 I E/1N Seasonal Factor.5 Minor Street: illinehart Rd I N/5 I Pre-COVID 19 Factor.Annual Growth (°/,): AM Peak Hour Trips (Vehicles): IN= I 72 OUT = 152 --.'AMPaakHour TMC (2022)3 Northbound 257 74 265 Southbound Ea stbound 0 101 64 122 9 99 1,043 273 Westbound 29 285 772 73 Seasonal Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Heavy Vehicle (%) 0% 4% 5% 6% 0% 4% 5% 11% 0% 3% 7% 12% 3% 7% 12% 3% Peak Hour Factor 0.38 0.80 0.84 0.96 0.00 0.79 0.70 0.92 0.56 0.83 0.80 0.84_ 0.84 0.94 0.79 Exlsting(2022) 3 244 70 252 0 96 61 116 9 94 991 259 _0.91 28 271 733 69 Growth Factor 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04__ Background (2024) 3 254 _ 73 _ 262 0 100 _ 63 121 9 , 98 1,031 269 29 282 _ 762 72 Project Assignment (Vehicles) Ingress 20% 40% Egress 20'6 40 Project Trips 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 0 0 30 61 0 ProjectBulldout 3 254 73 276 0 100 63 121 9 98 1,060 269 29 312 823 72 PM Peak Hour Trips (Vehicles): IN = i 147 j OUT = 136 kW avW49W4003-t—y Wlago MNp10103 o—VmIrc miq f—any v8/ago v411rrlinl93 Page 3 Intersection Development Worksheet � Kirnley >> Horn ;apps.• Mom. Exprrirarc P.ntcr. Existing Year: 2022 TMC Year. I 2022 Intersection #: ! 4 Buildout Year. 2024 MaforStreet. FSR 6 E/W SeasonalFactor.i 0.95 Minor Street., DrivewaY #1 N/S Pre-COVID 19 Factor: �-j Annual Growth (%): 2.00% AM Peak Hour Trips (Vehicles): IN= � 72 OUT= i 152 PM Peak Hour Trips (Vehicles): IN = _ 147 OUT = 1167 kbit 0 A2490040004 —Y H11090 mf (0107 0aa"fGO tela f s yvftg4 v4tfvjd4l Page 4 Intersection Development Worksheet Kimle �y:.)> Horn "�prr.• Moro. f xparicirr. P,rttrr. Existing Year. 2022 TMC Year:._ 20227_ Intersection #: 5 _ Buildout Year: [ 2024 Major Street: -SR 46 E/W Seasonal Factor. 0.95 Minor Street: Driveway#2/Stria N/5 Pre-COVID 19 Factor. Annual Growth (°/.):2.00% AM Peak Hour Trips (Vehicles): IN= 72 OUT= 152 PM Peak Hour Trips (Vehicles): IN= F-1-477 OUT= L_316 Weekday PM Peak Hour 0 Driveway Northbound 0 0 #2JStrIp 0 Retail Driveway 0 Southbound 0 0 0 0 Eastbound 0 0 0 Westbound 0 0 0 TMC (2022) Seasonal Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Heavy Vehicle (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.0_0 _ _0.00 0.00 0_.00 0.00 0.00 _ 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ka 0.00 0.00 0.00 Existing (2022) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 _0.00 0 0 0 _ �0 _ 0 0 0 Growth Factor 0 1.04 0 0 0 0 1.04 0 0 _ li 1.04 1.04 Background (2024) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Project Assignment (Vehicles) Ingress 40% 10% Egress _,... 10% Project Trips 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 70 15 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Project Buildout k.iol 6i U490040094u ,y Wbgo MVp1o107 a+m1V11oKcc Jcu JVSW ywlago W.,1UJd#2 Page 5 Intersection Development Worksheet Intersection N: 6 __ Major Street: FSR 46 --I E/W Minor street: i5ewell N/5 Existing Year.*; 2r 0 2 Bultdout Year: ' 2024 Seasonal Factor.'_ 0.95 Pre-COVID 19 Factor. i Annual Growth (°/,): TMC Year: 222 J AM Peak Hour Trips (Vehicles): Kimlep)Horn P.xprr.• h".ora Fi�ric�cr. P,carr. IN= 1 72 7 OUT= F 115 12 12 PM Peak Hour Trips (Vehicles): IN L 147 _, OUT = _116 j k.Wi_a,V490040034u$WnY W0890 MVp1o107 0,MrVfre/fio teles Tuscany Hlega W.+IS+JQ.'.0 Page 6 Sewell Rd Weekday AM Peak Hour TMC (2022) 0 Northbound 0 0 0 0 Southbound 0 0 0 0 'Easthound 0 0 0 0 Westbound 0 0 0 Seasonal Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Heavy Vehicle (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00_ 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0_.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Existing (2022) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Growth Factor 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 Background (2024) 0 _ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Project Assignment (Vehicles) Ingress 501116 10:> Egress Project Trips 0 0 0 10% 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 36 7 0 0 0 0 Project Buildout 0 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 36 7 0 0 0 0 PM Peak Hour Trips (Vehicles): IN L 147 _, OUT = _116 j k.Wi_a,V490040034u$WnY W0890 MVp1o107 0,MrVfre/fio teles Tuscany Hlega W.+IS+JQ.'.0 Page 6 Synchro Outputs Tuscany Village MF Synchro 11 Report Kimley-Horn Page 1 Existing Timings 1' Upsala Rd & SR 46 AM Peak Hour Lane Group EBU EBL EBT WBU WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT SBU SBL SBT Lane Configurations M W4 ttt r Vi t1t., M t Traffic Volume (vph) 8 160 991 20 27 775 308 86 126 2 531 236 Future Volume (vph) 8 160 991 20 27 775 308 86 126 2 531 236 Tum Type custom Prot NA custom Prot NA Perm Prot NA custom Prot NA Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4 Permitted Phases 5 1 6 8 7 7 7 4 Detector Phase 5 5 2 1 1 6 6 3 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 6.0 6.0 15.0 6.0 6.0 15.0 15.0 6.0 8.0 6.0 6.0 8.0 Minimum Split (s) 14.4 14.4 23.4 14.4 14.4 23.4 23.4 15.1 17.1 15.1 15.1 17.1 Total Split (s) 28.0 28.0 50.0 24.0 24.0 46.0 46.0 55.0 26.0 50.0 50.0 21.0 Total Split (%) 18.7% 18.7% 33.3% 16.0% 16.0% 30.7% 30.7% 36.7% 17.3% 33.3% 33.3% 14.0% Yellow Time (s) 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.4 All -Red Time (s) 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 9.1 9.1 9.1 9.1 Lead/Lag Lead Lead Lead Lag Lag Lag Lag Lead Lead Lag Lag Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None Max None None C -Max C -Max None None None None None Intersection Summary Cycle Length: 150 Actuated Cycle Length: 150 Offset: 33 (22%), Referenced to phase 6013T, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 90 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Tuscany Village MF Synchro 11 Report Kimley-Horn Page 1 Timings Existing 1: Upsala Rd & SR 46 AM Peak Hour Lane Group SBR Lane'ronfigurations t Traffic Volume (vph) 207 Future Volume (vph) 207 Turn Type Perm Protected Phases Permitted Phases 4 Detector Phase 4 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 8.0 Minimum Split (s) 17.1 Total Split (s) 21.0 Total Split (%) 14.0% Yellow Time (s) 4.4 All -Red Time (s) 4.7 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 9.1 Lead/Lag Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Recall Mode None Intersection Summary Tuscany Village MF Synchro 11 Report Kimley-Horn Page 2 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Existing 1' Upsala Rd & SR 46 AM Peak Hour t ,-* ---► --t q ttt 4-- 4-- 4\ I 1* L" Movement EBU EBL EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBU Lane Configurations M ttT 273 ti ttt r 79.3 tT E Traffic Volume (veh/h) 8 160 991 67 20 27 775 308 86 126 36 2 Future Volume (veh/h) 8 160 991 67 20 27 775 308 86 126 36 2 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A-pbT) 1.00 25.4 1.00 1.00 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 1.00 1.00 0.3 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow, vehlh/In 1781 1826 1663 1796 1811 1767 1781 1796 1811 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 176 1089 74 30 852 338 95 138 40 Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Percent Heavy Veh, % 8 5 16 7 6 9 8 7 6 Cap, veh/h 227 1322 90 72 1239 375 117 184 52 Arrive On Green 0.02 0.09 0.09 0.04 0.25 0.25 0.07 0.07 0.07 Sat Flow, veh/h 3291 4767 324 1711 4944 1497 1697 2631 738 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 176 759 404 30 852 338 95 88 90 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlh/In 1646 1662 1768 1711 1648 1497 1697 1706 1663 Q Serve(g_s), s 8.0 33.7 33.7 2.6 23.4 11.2 8.3 7.6 8.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 8.0 33.7 33.7 2.6 23.4 11.2 8.3 7.6 8.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.18 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.44 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 227 922 490 72 1239 375 117 119 116 V/C Ratio(X) 0.78 0.82 0.82 0.42 0.69 0.90 0.81 0.74 0.78 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 430 922 490 178 1239 375 519 192 187 HCM Platoon Ratio 0.33 0.33 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 72.2 64.5 64.5 70.0 50.9 6.3 68.9 68.4 68.6 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 5.7 8.2 14.6 3.8 3.1 27.1 12.5 8.6 10.5 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(95%),vehlln 6.5 22.7 25.0 2.1 15.0 10.3 7.2 6.5 6.8 Unsig, Movement Delay, slveh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 77.8 72.8 79.1 73.8 54.0 33.4 81.4 77.0 79.2 LnGm LOS E E E E D C F E E Approach Vol, veh/h 1339 1220 273 Approach Delay, s/veh 75.3 48.8 79.3 Approach LOS E D E Timer -Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7_ 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 14.7 50.0 19.4 38.2 18.7 46.0 38.1 19.6 Change Period (Y+Rc), s * 8.4 * 8.4 *9-1 * 9.1 * 8.4 * 8.4 * 9.1 * 9.1 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s * 16 * 42 * 46 * 12 * 20 * 38 * 41 * 17 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 4.6 35.7 10.3 23.2 10.0 25.4 27.1 10.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 3.3 0.3 0.0 0.4 5.3 1.9 0.5 Intersection Summary - HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 65.1 HCM 6th LOS E Notes User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green. User approved ignoring U-Tuming movement. * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. Tuscany Village MF Synchro 11 Report Kimley-Horn Page 3 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Existing 1: Upsala Rd & SR 46 AM Peak Hour Movement SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations M tt f Traffic Volume (veh/h) 531 236 207 Future Volume (veh/h) 531 236 207 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/In 1841 1767 1796 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 584 259 227 Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 Percent Heavy Veh, % 4 9 7 Cap, vehlh 658 343 296 Arrive On Green 0.19 0.19 0.19 Sat Flow, veh/h 3401 1767 1522 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 584 259 227 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1700 1767 1522 Q Serve(g_s), s 25.1 20.8 21.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 25.1 20.8 21.2 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 658 343 296 V/C Ratio(X) 0.89 0.75 0.77 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 927 343 296 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter([) 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 58.9 57.1 57.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 7.9 9.2 11.5 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(95%),veh/In 17.1 15.4 14.1 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 66.8 66.3 68.8 LnGrp LOS E E E Approach Vol, veh/h 1070 Approach Delay, s/veh 67.1 Approach LOS E Timer - Assioned Phs Tuscany Village MF Synchro 11 Report Kimley-Horn Page 4 HCM 6th TWSC Existing 2: Elder Rd & SR 46 AM Peak Hour Intersection 637 * 875 Major2 637 Minor1 0.003 0.177 Minor2 0.064 Conflicting Flow All 868 1189 0 0 983 1346 0 0 673 Int Delay, s/veh 0.8 Stage 1 - - - - - - - Stage 2 - Movement EBU EBL EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations - tA, - - ttl� Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - r - - r Traffic Vol, veh/h 32 109 1225 0 11 4 1069 13 0 0 2 0 0 41 Future Vol, veh/h 32 109 1225 0 11 4 1069 13 0 0 2 0 0 41 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - None None None Storage Length 300 300 - - Approach EB 0 WB 0 Veh in Median Storage, # SB 0 HCM Control Delay, s 1 0 10.7 0 - 0 Grade, % 0 B 0 0 - - 0 Peak Hour Factor 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 100 Heavy Vehicles, % 3 6 6 0 2 2 9 7 2 2 2 2 2 23 Mvmt Flow 35 120 1346 0 12 4 1175 14 0 0 2 0 0 41 Major/Minor Major1 637 * 875 Major2 637 Minor1 0.003 0.177 Minor2 0.064 Conflicting Flow All 868 1189 0 0 983 1346 0 0 673 - 595 Stage 1 - - - - - - - Stage 2 - Critical Hdwy 5.66 5.42 5.64 5.34 7.14 7.56 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 2.33 3.16 - 2.32 3.12 3.92 4.13 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver *1130 *833 '1077 *801 0 0 *637 0 0 *637 Stage 1 - - - - 0 0 0 0 Stage 2 0 0 0 0 Platoon blocked, % 1 1 1 1 1 1 Mov Cap -1 Maneuver *875 *875 *984 `984 - - *637 - - *637 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - - - - Stage 1 Stage 2 - - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 1 0.1 10.7 11 HCM LOS B B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (vehlh) 637 * 875 * 984 637 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.003 0.177 0.017 0.064 HCM Control Delay (s) 10.7 10 8.7 11 HCM Lane LOS B A A B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 0.6 0.1 0.2 nintac —: Volume exceeds capacity 5: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *: All major volume in platoon Tuscany Village MF Synchro 11 Report Kimley-Horn Page 5 Timings Existing 3: Rinehart Rd & SR 46 AM Peak Hour Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations t++ r �) tAt r �1j t r �j tj r Traffic Volume (vph) 94 991 259 271 733 69 244 70 252 96 61 116 Future Volume (vph) 94 991 259 271 733 69 244 70 252 96 61 116 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Split NA Perm Split NA Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 8 4 4 Permitted Phases 2 6 8 4 Detector Phase 5 2 2 1 6 6 8 8 8 4 4 4 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 6.0 15.0 15.0 6.0 15.0 15.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Minimum Split (s) 14.6 23.6 23.6 14.6 23.6 23.6 14.3 14.3 14.3 13.6 13.6 13.6 Total Split (s) 20.0 66.0 66.0 29.0 75.0 75.0 32.0 32.0 32.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 Total Split (%) 13.3% 44.0% 44.0% 19.3% 50.0% 50.0% 21.3% 21.3% 21.3% 15.3% 15.3% 15.3% Yellow Time (s) 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 3.4 3.4 3.4 All -Red Time (s) 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.5 3.5 3.5 4.2 4.2 4.2 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 8.6 8.6 8.6 8.6 8.6 8.6 8.3 8.3 8.3 7.6 7.6 7.6 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None C -Max C -Max None Max Max None None None None None None Intersection Summary Cycle Length: 150 Actuated Cycle Length: 150 Offset: 85 (57%), Referenced to phase 2:EBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 80 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated >plits and Phases: 3: Rinehart Rd & SR 46 E, 5 06 Tuscany Village MF Synchro 11 Report Kimley-Horn Page 6 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Existing �• Dinoharf Rri R .R AR AM Peak Hour .t --. --t rw 'I' .- 'I- fl t 1' Movement EBU EBL EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR Lane Configurations A ttt r Change Period (Y+Rc), s ttt if M t r Traffic Volume (veh/h) 9 94 991 259 28 271 733 69 3 244 70 252 Future Volume (veh/h) 9 94 991 259 28 271 733 69 3 244 70 252 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A-pbT) 1.00 57.4 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/In 1856 1796 1722 1796 1722 1856 1841 1826 1811 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 100 1054 276 288 780 73 260 74 268 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Percent Heavy Veh, % 3 7 12 7 12 3 4 5 6 Cap, veh/h 121 2070 616 341 2146 718 537 288 243 Arrive On Green 0.07 0.42 0.42 0.03 0.15 0.15 0.16 0.16 0.16 Sat Flow, veh/h 1767 4904 1459 3319 4701 1572 3401 1826 1535 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 100 1054 276 288 780 73 260 74 268 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1767 1635 1459 1659 1567 1572 1700 1826 1535 Q Serve(g_s), s 8.4 23.7 20.2 12.9 22.4 6.0 10.5 5.3 23.7 Cycle Q Clear(gc), s 8.4 23.7 20.2 12.9 22.4 6.0 10.5 5.3 23.7 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 121 2070 616 341 2146 718 537 288 243 V/C Ratio(X) 0.83 0.51 0.45 0.84 0.36 0.10 0.48 0.26 1.11 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 134 2070 616 451 2146 718 537 288 243 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.33 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 69.0 31.9 30.9 71.3 44.1 37.2 57.6 55.4 63.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 30.9 0.9 2.3 10.8 0.5 0.3 0.7 0.5 88.9 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(95%),veh/In 8.4 14.4 11.8 10.4 14.6 4.3 8.0 4.4 22.5 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 99.9 32.8 33.2 82.0 44.6 37.5 58.3 55.9 152.0 LnGrn LOS F C C F D D E E F Approach Vol, veh/h 1430 1141 602 Approach Delay, s/veh 37.6 53.6 99.7 Approach LOS D D F Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 24.0 71.9 22.1 18.8 77.1 32.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s * 8.6 * 8.6 7.6 * 8.6 * 8.6 8.3 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s * 20 * 57 15.4 * 11 * 66 23.7 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+ll), s 14.9 25.7 14.4 10.4 24.4 25.7 Green Ext Time (p c), s 0.5 9.3 0.1 0.0 6.0 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 57.4 HCM 6th LOS E KI -4 User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase Max green. User approved ignoring U -Turning movement. * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. Tuscany Village M F Synchro 11 Report Kimley-Hom Page 7 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Existing 3: Rinehart Rd & SR 46 AM Peak Hour Timer -Assigned Phs Tuscany Village MF Synchro 11 Report Kimley-Horn Page 8 Movement SBL SBT SBR Lanejtonfigurations t f Traffic Volume (veh/h) 96 61 116 Future Volume (veh/h) 96 61 116 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/In 1841 1826 1737 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 102 65 123 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 Percent Heavy Veh, % 4 5 11 Cap, vehlh 169 176 142 Arrive On Green 0.10 0.10 0.10 Sat Flow, veh/h 1753 1826 1472 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 102 65 123 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1753 1826 1472 Q Serve(g_s), s 8.4 5.0 12.4 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 8.4 5.0 12.4 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 169 176 142 V/C Ratio(X) 0.60 0.37 0.87 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 180 187 151 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), slveh 65.0 63.5 66.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 5.0 1.3 36.2 Initial Q Delay(d3),slveh 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(95%),veh/In 7.2 4.4 10.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 70.0 64.8 103.0 LnGrp LOS E E F Approach Vol, veh/h 290 Approach Delay, s/veh 82.8 Approach LOS F Timer -Assigned Phs Tuscany Village MF Synchro 11 Report Kimley-Horn Page 8 Timings Existing 1- Upsala Rd & SR 46 PM Peak Hour Lane Group EBU EBL EBT WBU WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT SBU SBL SBT Lane Configurations MW.). Zi ttt r Vi ttl M t Traffic Volume (vph) 33 391 1019 21 40 908 404 67 317 11 469 240 Future Volume (vph) 33 391 1019 21 40 908 404 67 317 11 469 240 Turn Type custom Prot NA custom Prot NA Perm Prot NA custom Prot NA Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4 Permitted Phases 5 1 6 7 Detector Phase 5 5 2 1 1 6 6 3 8 7 7 4 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 6.0 6.0 15.0 6.0 6.0 15.0 15.0 6.0 8.0 6.0 6.0 8.0 Minimum Split (s) 14.4 14.4 23.4 14.4 14.4 23.4 23.4 15.1 17.1 15.1 15.1 17.1 Total Split (s) 38.0 38.0 83.0 18.0 18.0 63.0 63.0 48.0 30.0 39.0 39.0 21.0 Total Split (%) 22.4% 22.4% 48.8% 10.6% 10.6% 37.1% 37.1% 28.2% 17.6% 22.9% 22.9% 12.4% Yellow Time (s) 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.4 All -Red Time (s) 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 9.1 9.1 9.1 9.1 Lead/Lag Lead Lead Lead Lag Lag Lag Lag Lead Lead Lag Lag Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None Max None None C -Max C -Max None None None None None Intersection Summary - Cycle Length: 170 Actuated Cycle Length: 170 Offset: 29 (17%), Referenced to phase 6:WBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 75 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Tuscany Village MF Synchro 11 Report Kimley-Horn Page 1 Timings Existing 1: Upsala Rd & SR 46 PM Peak Hour .a� Lane Group SBR Lanetonfigurations r Traffic Volume (vph) 292 Future Volume (vph) 292 Turn Type Perm Protected Phases Permitted Phases 4 Detector Phase 4 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 8.0 Minimum Split (s) 17.1 Total Split (s) 21.0 Total Split (%) 12.4% Yellow Time (s) 4.4 All -Red Time (s) 4.7 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 9.1 Lead/Lag Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Recall Mode None Intersection Summary Tuscany Village MF Synchro 11 Report Kimley-Horn Page 2 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Existing 1' Upsala Rd & SR 46 PM Peak Hour t 'A --. EBU EBL EBT EBR r► 'f- *- - '`\ L* WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBU Lane Configurations M W4 460 Approach Delay, slveh t"tt 44.4 106.7 Approach LOS D Traffic Volume (veh/h) 33 391 1019 83 21 40 908 404 67 317 52 11 Future Volume (veh/h) 33 391 1019 83 21 40 908 404 67 317 52 11 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A-pbT) 1.00 28.5 1.00 1.00 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 1.00 1.00 0.2 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/In 1796 1856 1870 1826 1856 1826 1870 1870 1841 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 412 1073 87 42 956 425 71 334 55 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 7 3 2 5 3 5 2 2 4 Cap, veh/h 461 2096 170 54 1676 512 90 371 60 Arrive On Green 0.14 0.44 0.44 0.03 0.33 0.33 0.05 0.12 0.12 Sat Flow, veh/h 3319 4776 387 1739 5066 1547 1781 3059 499 Grp Volume(v), vehlh 412 758 402 42 956 425 71 193 196 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/hlln 1659 1689 1786 1739 1689 1547 1781 1777 1781 Q Serve(g_s), s 20.8 27.6 27.7 4.1 26.5 23.4 6.7 18.2 18.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 20.8 27.6 27.7 4.1 26.5 23.4 6.7 18.2 18.5 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.22 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.28 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 461 1482 784 54 1676 512 90 215 216 V/C Ratio(X) 0.89 0.51 0.51 0.78 0.57 0.83 0.79 0.89 0.91 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 578 1482 784 98 1676 512 408 218 219 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 72.0 34.5 34.5 81.8 46.9 15.4 79.8 73.6 73.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 14.0 1.3 2.4 21.3 1.4 14.4 14.3 33.6 36.9 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(95%),veh1ln 14.7 17.0 18.2 3.8 16.7 15.7 6.2 15.6 16.1 Unsig. Movement Delay, slveh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 86.0 35.8 36.9 103.1 48.3 29.9 94.1 107.3 110.7 LnGro LOS F D D F D C F F F Approach Vol, veh/h 1572 1423 460 Approach Delay, slveh 49.2 44.4 106.7 Approach LOS D D F Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 13.7 83.0 17.7 48.0 32.0 64.7 35.9 29.7 Change Period (Y+Rc), s * 8.4 * 8.4 * 9.1 * 9.1 * 8.4 * 8.4 * 9.1 * 9.1 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s * 9.6 * 75 * 39 * 12 * 30 * 55 ` 30 * 21 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 6.1 29.7 8.7 33.5 22.8 28.5 26.1 20.5 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 8.9 0.2 0.0 0.8 8.7 0.7 0.1 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 60.5 HCM 6th LOS E Notes User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green. User approved ignoring U-Tuming movement. * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. Tuscany Village MF Synchro 11 Report Kimley-Horn Page 3 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Existing 1: Upsala Rd & SR 46 PM Peak Hour Movement SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations M it r` Traffic Volume (veh/h) 469 240 292 Future Volume (veh/h) 469 240 292 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No Adj Sat Flow; veh/h/In 1856 1856 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 494 253 307 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 3 3 2 Cap, veh/h 541 424 363 Arrive On Green 0.16 0.23 0.23 Sat Flow, veh/h 3428 1856 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 494 253 307 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1714 1856 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 24.1 20.7 31.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 24.1 20.7 31.5 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 541 424 363 V/C Ratio(X) 0.91 0.60 0.85 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 603 424 363 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter([) 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 70.4 58.5 62.7 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 17.3 2.3 16.8 Initial Q Delay(d%s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(95%),veh/In 17.6 15.3 20.7 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 87.8 60.8 79.5 LnGrp LOS F E E Approach Vol, veh/h 1054 Approach Delay, s/veh 78.9 Approach LOS E Timer - Assigned Phs Tuscany Village MF Synchro 11 Report Kimley-Horn Page 4 HCM 6th TWSC Existing 2: Elder Rd & SR 46 PM Peak Hour Intarcartinn Int Delay, s/veh Movement 1.1 EBU EBL EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 739 tO - - - Ii W) - - r Stage 2 - P Traffic Vol. veh/h 25 150 1389 2 43 7 1393 10 0 0 15 0 0 71 Future Vol, veh/h 25 150 1389 2 43 7 1393 10 0 0 15 0 0 71 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - None 0 - 0 None Platoon blocked, % 1 None 1 1 - None Storage Length 300 Mov Cap -1 Maneuver *763 *763 300 *957 - - *589 - 0 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - 0 Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - 0 0 - 0 Grade, % Stage 2 0 - 0 0 - 0 Peak Hour Factor 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 9 2 2 13 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 26 158 1462 2 45 7 1466 11 0 0 16 0 0 75 Major/Minor Majorl 589 * 763 Maior2 594 Minorl 0.027 0.241 Minor2 0.126 Conflicting Flow All 1078 1477 0 0 1069 1464 0 0 732 B 739 Stage 1 - - - - - - - - - Stage 2 - Critical Hdwy 5.64 5.34 5.64 5.34 7.36 7.14 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 2.32 3.12 2.32 3.12 4.03 3.92 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver *1003 *746 *1024 *762 0 0 *589 0 0 *594 Stage 1 - - - - 0 0 - 0 0 Stage 2 0 0 0 0 Platoon blocked, % 1 1 1 1 - 1 1 Mov Cap -1 Maneuver *763 *763 *957 *957 - - *589 - - *594 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - - - - Stage 1 - Stage 2 - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 1.3 0.3 11.3 11.9 HCM LOS B B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL _EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 589 * 763 * 957 594 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.027 0.241 0.055 0.126 HCM Control Delay (s) 11.3 11.2 9 11.9 HCM Lane LOS B B A B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 0.9 0.2 0.4 Notes —: Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *: All major volume in platoon Tuscany Village MF Synchro 11 Report Kimley-Horn Page 5 Timings Existing 3: Rinehart Rd & SR 46 PM Peak Hour Intersection Summary Cycle Length: 160 Actuated Cycle Length: 160 Offset: 106 (66%), Referenced to phase 2 -.EBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 90 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Splits and Phases: 3: Rinehart Rd & SR 46 ►�4 0)b, q5 06 5 - i Tuscany Village MF Synchro 11 Report Kimley-Horn Page 6 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations " P tt r j P t r Traffic Volume (vph) 85 1047 345 406 954 44 382 96 444 84 71 134 Future Volume (vph) 85 1047 345 406 954 44 382 96 444 84 71 134 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Split NA Perm Split NA Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 8 4 4 Permitted Phases 2 6 8 4 Detector Phase 5 2 2 1 6 6 8 8 8 4 4 4 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 6.0 15.0 15.0 6.0 15.0 15.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Minimum Split (s) 14.6 23.6 23.6 14.6 23.6 23.6 14.3 14.3 14.3 13.6 13.6 13.6 Total Split (s) 24.0 60.0 60.0 35.0 71.0 71.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 Total Split (%) 15.0% 37.5% 37.5% 21.9% 44.4% 44.4% 28.1% 28.1% 28.1% 12.5% 12.5% 12.5% Yellow Time (s) 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 3.4 3.4 3.4 All -Red Time (s) 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.5 3.5 3.5 4.2 4.2 4.2 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 8.6 8.6 8.6 8.6 8.6 8.6 8.3 8.3 8.3 7.6 7.6 7.6 Lead/Lag Lag Lag Lag Lead Lead Lead Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None C -Max C -Max None Max Max None None None None None None Intersection Summary Cycle Length: 160 Actuated Cycle Length: 160 Offset: 106 (66%), Referenced to phase 2 -.EBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 90 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Splits and Phases: 3: Rinehart Rd & SR 46 ►�4 0)b, q5 06 5 - i Tuscany Village MF Synchro 11 Report Kimley-Horn Page 6 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Existing 'z• Rinchnrt PH R RR AS PM Peak Hour Movement EBU EBL EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR Lane Configurations Zi +tt r M tt t` r M t r Traffic Volume (veh/h) 9 85 1047 345 14 406 954 44 4 382 96 444 Future Volume (veh/h) 9 85 1047 345 14 406 954 44 4 382 96 444 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A-pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/In 1870 1870 1856 1870 1856 1870 1870 1826 1841 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 89 1102 363 427 1004 46 402 101 467 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 3 2 3 2 2 5 4 Cap,veh/h 171 1776 547 478 1976 618 793 419 358 Arrive On Green 0.10 0.35 0.35 0.14 0.39 0.39 0.23 0.23 0.23 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 5106 1572 3456 5066 1585 3456 1826 1560 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 89 1102 363 427 1004 46 402 101 467 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1781 1702 1572 1728 1689 1585 1728 1826 1560 Q Serve(g_s), s 7.6 28.7 31.3 19.4 24.1 2.9 16.2 7.2 36.7 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 7.6 28.7 31.3 19.4 24.1 2.9 16.2 7.2 36.7 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 171 1776 547 478 1976 618 793 419 358 V/C Ratio(X) 0.52 0.62 0.66 0.89 0.51 0.07 0.51 0.24 1.31 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 171 1776 547 570 1976 618 793 419 358 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), slveh 68.8 43.4 44.2 67.8 37.1 30.7 53.8 50.3 61.7 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.8 1.6 6.2 14.6 0.9 0.2 0.5 0.3 156.2 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(95%),vehlln 6.4 17.9 18.8 14.5 15.2 2.1 11.4 6.0 44.4 Unsig. Movement Delay, slveh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 71.5 45.0 50.5 82.3 38.1 30.9 54.3 50.6 217.9 LnGrn LOS E D D F D C D D F Approach Vol, veh/h 1554 1477 970 Approach Delay, s/veh 47.8 50.6 132.7 Approach LOS D D F Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 30.7 64.3 20.0 24.0 71.0 45.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s * 8.6 * 8.6 7.6 * 8.6 * 8.6 8.3 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s * 26 ` 51 12.4 ' 15 * 62 36.7 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 21.4 33.3 14.4 9.6 26.1 38.7 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.7 8.2 0.0 0.1 7.8 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 74.0 HCM 6th LOS E User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green. User approved ignoring U-Tuming movement. * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. Tuscany Village MF Synchro 11 Report Kimley-Horn Page 7 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 3: Rinehart Rd & SR 46 Existing PM Peak Hour Tuscany Village MF Synchro 11 Report Kimley-Horn Page 8 Movement SBL SBT SBR Lane)tonfigurationsS T r Traffic Volume (veh/h) 84 71 134 Future Volume (vehlh) 84 71 134 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A-pbT) 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/In 1870 1856 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 88 75 141 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 3 2 Cap, veh/h 138 144 123 Arrive On Green 0.08 0.08 0.08 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1856 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 88 75 141 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/hlln 1781 1856 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 7.7 6.2 12.4 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 7.7 6.2 12.4 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 138 144 123 V/C Ratio(X) 0.64 0.52 1.15 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 138 144 123 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 71.6 70.9 73.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 9.4 3.4 126.4 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(95%),vehlin 7.0 5.6 15.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 81.0 74.3 200.2 LnGrp LOS F E F Approach Vol, vehlh 304 Approach Delay, s/veh 134.6 Approach LOS F Timer - Assigned Phs Tuscany Village MF Synchro 11 Report Kimley-Horn Page 8 Tuscany Village MF Synchro 11 Report Kimley-Horn Page 1 Background Timings 1: U sala Rd & SR 46 AM Peak Hour I Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations n wa ti 'C'tt r tT* M t r Traffic Volume (vph) 166 1031 28 806 320 89 131 552 245 215 Future Volume (vph) 166 1031 28 806 320 89 131 552 245 215 Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4 Permitted Phases 6 3 8 7 4 4 4 Detector Phase 5 2 1 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 6.0 15.0 6.0 15.0 15.0 6.0 8.0 6.0 8.0 8.0 Minimum Split (s) 14.4 23.4 14.4 23.4 23.4 15.1 17.1 15.1 17.1 17.1 Total Split (s) 28.0 50.0 24.0 46.0 46.0 55.0 26.0 50.0 21.0 21.0 Total Split (%) 18.7% 33.3% 16.0% 30.7% 30.7% 36.7% 17.3% 33.3% 14.0% 14.0% Yellow Time (s) 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.4 All -Red Time (s) 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 9.1 9.1 9.1 9.1 9.1 Lead/Lag Lead Lead Lag Lag Lag Lead Lead Lag Lag Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None Max None C -Max C -Max None None None None None Intersection Summary Cycle Length: 150 Actuated Cycle Length: 150 Offset: 33 (22%), Referenced to phase 6:WBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 90 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Tuscany Village MF Synchro 11 Report Kimley-Horn Page 1 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Background 1: Upsala Rd & SR 46 AM Peak Hour Movement EBU EBL EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBU Lane Configurations M 014 Zi ttt r tT Traffic Volume (veh/h) 8 166 1031 70 21 28 806 320 89 131 37 2 Future Volume (veh/h) 8 166 1031 70 21 28 806 320 89 131 37 2 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/In 1781 1826 1663 1796 1811 1767 1781 1796 1811 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 182 1133 77 31 886 352 98 144 41 Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Percent Heavy Veh, % 8 5 16 7 6 9 8 7 6 Cap, veh/h 233 1322 90 75 1239 375 120 190 52 Arrive On Green 0.02 0.09 0.09 0.04 0.25 0.25 0.07 0.07 0.07 Sat Flow, veh/h 3291 4767 324 1711 4944 1497 1697 2642 729 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 182 790 420 31 886 352 98 91 94 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1646 1662 1768 1711 1648 1497 1697 1706 1665 Q Serve(g_s), s 8.3 35.1 35.2 2.6 24.5 12.0 8.5 7.9 8.3 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 8.3 35.1 35.2 2.6 24.5 12.0 8.5 7.9 8.3 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.18 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.44 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 233 922 490 75 1239 375 120 123 120 V/C Ratio(X) 0.78 0.86 0.86 0.41 0.71 0.94 0.82 0.75 0.78 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 430 922 490 178 1239 375 519 192 188 HCM Platoon Ratio 0.33 0.33 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 72.1 65.2 65.2 69.8 51.3 6.6 68.7 68.3 68.5 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 5.7 10.1 17.4 3.6 3.5 33.2 12.4 8.6 10.6 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(95%),veh/In 6.8 23.8 26.2 2.2 15.6 11.5 7.5 6.7 7.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 77.8 75.3 82.6 73.4 54.9 39.7 81.1 76.9 79.0 LnGrp LOS E E F E D D F E E Approach Vol, veh/h 1392 1269 283 Approach Delay, s/veh 77.8 51.1 79.1 Approach LOS E D E Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 15.0 50.0 19.7 39.2 19.0 46.0 39.1 19.9 Change Period (Y+Rc), s * 8.4 ' 8.4 * 9.1 * 9.1 ' 8.4 * 8.4 ' 9.1 * 9.1 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s " 16 * 42 ` 46 ' 12 ` 20 ` 38 * 41 ' 17 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 4.6 37.2 10.5 24.0 10.3 26.5 28.1 10.3 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 0.0 2.7 0.3 0.0 0.4 5.2 1.9 0.5 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 66.6 HCM 6th LOS E Notes User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green. User approved ignoring U -Turning movement. * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. Tuscany Village MF Synchro 11 Report Kimley-Horn Page 2 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Background 1: U sala Rd & SR 46 AM Peak Hour Movement SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations i 1 1767 1522 Traffic Volume (vehlh) 552 245 215 Future Volume (veh/h) 552 245 215 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 355 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach 927 No 306 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/In 1841 1767 1796 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 607 269 236 Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 Percent Heavy Veh, % 4 9 7 Cap, veh/h 679 355 306 Arrive On Green 0.20 0.20 0.20 e.,+ Gi-' "oh/h 3dn1 1767 1522 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 607 269 236 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1700 1767 1522 Q Serve(g_s), s 26.1 21.5 22.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 26.1 21.5 22.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 679 355 306 V/C Ratio(X) 0.89 0.76 0.77 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 927 355 306 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 58.5 56.5 56.7 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 8.6 9.1 11.6 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(95%),veh/In 17.5 15.7 14.5 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 67.1 65.7 68.3 LnGrp LOS E E E Approach Vol, veh/h 1112 Approach Delay, slveh 67.0 Approach LOS E Timer - Assigned Phs Tuscany Village MF Synchro 11 Report Kimley-Horn Page 3 HCM 6th TWSC Background 2: Elder Rd & SR 46 AM Peak Hour Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.8 Movement EBU EBL EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations B B W91 B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) tt-,i 0.7 0.1 0.2 r r Traffic Vol, veh/h 33 113 1274 0 11 4 1112 14 0 0 2 0 0 43 Future Vol, veh/h 33 113 1274 0 11 4 1112 14 0 0 2 0 0 43 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None None None Storage Length 300 300 0 0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - 0 - Grade, % 0 - 0 0 - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 Heavy Vehicles, % 3 6 6 0 2 2 9 7 2 2 2 2 2 23 Mvmt Flow 36 124 1400 0 12 4 1222 15 0 0 2 0 0 47 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 903 1237 0 0 1022 1400 0 0 700 619 Stage 1 - - - - - - - - - - Stage 2 - - Critical Hdwy 5.66 5.42 5.64 5.34 7.14 7.56 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 2.33 3.16 2.32 3.12 - - 3.92 - - 4.13 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver *1130 796 *1047 *779 0 0 *620 0 0 *637 Stage 1 - - - - 0 0 - 0 0 - Stage 2 - - - - 0 0 - 0 0 - Platoon blocked, % 1 1 1 1 1 1 Mov Cap -1 Maneuver *843 843 - *957 *957 - - *620 - - *637 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - - - - Stage 1 Stage 2 - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 1.1 0.1 10.8 11.1 HCM LOS B B Minor Lane/Maior Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLni Capacity (veh/h) 620 843 * 957 637 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.004 0.19 0.017 0.074 HCM Control Delay (s) 10.8 10.3 8.8 11.1 HCM Lane LOS B B A B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 0.7 0.1 0.2 Notes —: Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *: All major volume in platoon Tuscany Village MF Synchro 11 Report Kimley-Horn Page 4 Timings Background 3: Rinehart Rd & SR 46 AM Peak Hour Tits and Phases: 3: Rinehart Rd & SR 46 tsg C� 05 Tuscany Village MF Synchro 11 Report Kimley-Horn Page 5 -,. 'i ,- I /0. t ---* ,r Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR _ SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ai ttt r M ttt if M t if Vi t r Traffic Volume (vph) 98 1031 269 282 762 72 254 73 262 100 63 121 Future Volume (vph) 98 1031 269 282 762 72 254 73 262 100 63 121 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Split NA Perm Split NA Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 8 4 4 Permitted Phases 2 6 8 4 Detector Phase 5 2 2 1 6 6 8 8 8 4 4 4 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 6.0 15.0 15.0 6.0 15.0 15.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Minimum Split (s) 14.6 23.6 23.6 14.6 23.6 23.6 14.3 14.3 14.3 13.6 13.6 13.6 Total Split (s) 20.0 66.0 66.0 29.0 75.0 75.0 32.0 32.0 32.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 Total Split (%) 13.3% 44.0% 44.0% 19.3% 50.0% 50.0% 21.3% 21.3% 21.3% 15.3% 15.3% 15.3% Yellow Time (s) 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 3.4 3.4 3.4 All -Red Time (s) 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.5 3.5 3.5 4.2 4.2 4.2 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 8.6 8.6 8.6 8.6 8.6 8.6 8.3 8.3 8.3 7.6 7.6 7.6 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None C -Max C -Max None Max Max None None None None None None Intersection Summary Cycle Length: 150 Actuated Cycle Length: 150 Offset: 85 (57%), Referenced to phase 2:EBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 80 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Tits and Phases: 3: Rinehart Rd & SR 46 tsg C� 05 Tuscany Village MF Synchro 11 Report Kimley-Horn Page 5 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Background 3: Rinehart Rd & SR 46 AMPeakHour t -,A --e r► `� it 4 I 1� Movement EBU EBL EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR Lane Configurations Zi ttt r M tt+ r M + r Traffic Volume (veh/h) 9 98 1031 269 29 282 762 72 3 254 73 262 Future Volume (veh/h) 9 98 1031 269 29 282 762 72 3 254 73 262 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/In 1856 1796 1722 1796 1722 1856 1841 1826 1811 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 104 1097 286 300 811 77 270 78 279 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Percent Heavy Veh, % 3 7 12 7 12 3 4 5 6 Cap, veh/h 125 2035 606 353 2119 709 537 288 243 Arrive On Green 0.07 0.41 0.41 0.04 0.15 0.15 0.16 0.16 0.16 Sat Flow, veh/h 1767 4904 1459 3319 4701 1572 3401 1826 1535 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 104 1097 286 300 811 77 270 78 279 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1767 1635 1459 1659 1567 1572 1700 1826 1535 Q Serve(g_s), s 8.7 25.3 21.4 13.5 23.4 6.4 10.9 5.6 23.7 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 8.7 25.3 21.4 13.5 23.4 6.4 10.9 5.6 23.7 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 125 2035 606 353 2119 709 537 288 243 V/C Ratio(X) 0.83 0.54 0.47 0.85 0.38 0.11 0.50 0.27 1.15 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 134 2035 606 451 2119 709 537 288 243 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.33 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 68.8 33.1 31.9 71.2 45.0 37.8 57.8 55.5 63.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 32.6 1.0 2.6 11.8 0.5 0.3 0.7 0.5 104.5 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(95%),veh/In 8.7 15.2 12.4 10.8 15.1 4.6 8.2 4.7 24.2 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 101.4 34.1 34.6 82.9 45.5 38.1 58.5 56.0 167.7 LnGrp LOS F C C F D D E E F Approach Vol, veh/h 1487 1188 627 Approach Delay, s/veh 38.9 54.5 106.8 Approach LOS D D F Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 24.5 70.8 22.6 19.2 76.2 32.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s * 8.6 * 8.6 7.6 * 8.6 * 8.6 8.3 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s ' 20 ` 57 15.4 * 11 * 66 23.7 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+ll), s 15.5 27.3 15.0 10.7 25.4 25.7 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 0.4 9.7 0.1 0.0 6.3 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 59.6 HCM 6th LOS E Notes User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green. User approved ignoring U -Turning movement. * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. Tuscany Village MF Synchro 11 Report Kimley-Horn Page 6 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Background 3: Rinehart Rd & SR 46 AM Peak Hour Movement SBL SBT SBR Lanej,onfigurations 1 i` r Traffic Volume (veh/h) 100 63 121 Future Volume (veh/h) 100 63 121 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A-pbT) 1.00 183 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach 180 No 151 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/In 1841 1826 1737 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 106 67 129 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 Percent Heavy Veh, % 4 5 11 Cap, veh/h 176 183 147 Arrive On Green 0.10 0.10 0.10 Q., Gi-' "oh/h 17-S` 1896 1472 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 106 67 129 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1753 1826 1472 Q Serve(g_s), s 8.7 5.1 13.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 8.7 5.1 13.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 176 183 147 V/C Ratio(X) 0.60 0.37 0.88 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 180 187 151 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 64.6 63.0 66.6 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 5.4 1.2 39.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(95%),veh/In 7.4 4.4 10.5 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 70.0 64.3 105.6 LnGrp LOS E E F Approach Vol, veh/h 302 Approach Delay, s/veh 83.9 Approach LOS F Timer - Assigned Phs Tuscany Village M F Synchro 11 Report Kimley-Hom Page 7 Timings Background 1: Upsala Rd & SR 46 PM Peak Hour Intersection Summ Cycle Length: 170 Actuated Cycle Length: 170 Offset: 29 (17%), Referenced to phase 6:WBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 120 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Splits and Phases: 1: Upsala Rd & SR 46 05 Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations M ii`� W r tT. M t r Traffic Volume (vph) 407 1060 42 944 420 70 332 488 250 304 Future Volume (vph) 407 1060 42 944 420 70 332 488 250 304 Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4 Permitted Phases 6 4 Detector Phase 5 2 1 6 6 3 8 7 4 4 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 6.0 15.0 6.0 15.0 15.0 6.0 8.0 6.0 8.0 8.0 Minimum Split (s) 14.4 41.4 14.4 41.4 41.4 15.1 17.1 15.1 17.1 17.1 Total Split (s) 38.0 83.0 18.0 63.0 63.0 48.0 30.0 39.0 21.0 21.0 Total Split (%) 22.4% 48.8% 10.6% 37.1% 37.1% 28.2% 17.6% 22.9% 12.4% 12.4% Yellow Time (s) 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.4 All -Red Time (s) 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 9.1 9.1 9.1 9.1 9.1 Lead/Lag Lead Lead Lag Lag Lag Lead Lead Lag Lag Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None Max None C -Max C -Max None None None None None Intersection Summ Cycle Length: 170 Actuated Cycle Length: 170 Offset: 29 (17%), Referenced to phase 6:WBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 120 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Splits and Phases: 1: Upsala Rd & SR 46 Tuscany Village MF Synchro 11 Report Kimley-Horn Page 1 05 Tuscany Village MF Synchro 11 Report Kimley-Horn Page 1 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Background 1' Upsala Rd & SR 46 PM Peak Hour : .A --► --v r (' - ,-- 4. 4 t L* Movement EBU EBL EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBU Lane Configurations F ` ` 48.8 + ttt 36.8 30.0 0 * 8.4 Traffic Volume (veh/h) 34 407 1060 86 22 42 944 420 70 332 54 11 Future Volume (veh/h) 34 407 1060 86 22 42 944 420 70 332 54 11 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A-pbT) 1.00 0.6 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/In 1796 1856 1870 1826 1856 1826 1870 1870 1841 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 428 1116 91 44 994 442 74 349 57 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 7 3 2 5 3 5 2 2 4 Cap, veh/h 476 2095 171 56 1660 507 93 377 61 Arrive On Green 0.14 0.44 0.44 0.03 0.33 0.33 0.05 0.12 0.12 Sat Flow, veh/h 3319 4774 389 1739 5066 1547 1781 3063 495 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 428 789 418 44 994 442 74 201 205 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1659 1689 1786 1739 1689 1547 1781 1777 1781 Q Serve(g_s), s 21.6 29.1 29.1 4.3 27.9 25.1 7.0 19.0 19.4 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 21.6 29.1 29.1 4.3 27.9 25.1 7.0 19.0 19.4 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.22 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.28 Lane Grp Cap(c), vehlh 476 1482 784 56 1660 507 93 218 219 V/C Ratio(X) 0.90 0.53 0.53 0.78 0.60 0.87 0.80 0.92 0.94 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 578 1482 784 98 1660 507 408 218 219 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 71.6 34.9 34.9 81.7 47.8 16.2 79.7 73.7 73.9 Incr Delay (d2), slveh 15.0 1.4 2.6 20.5 1.6 18.3 14.1 39.6 43.2 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(95%),veh/In 15.3 17.8 19.0 4.0 17.5 17.2 6.5 16.6 17.1 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),slveh 86.6 36.3 37.5 102.2 49.4 34.5 93.7 113.4 117.1 LnGro LOS F D D F D C F F F Approach Vol, veh/h 1635 1480 480 Approach Delay, slveh 49.8 46.5 111.9 Approach LOS D D F Timer -Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 13.9 83.0 18.0 48.8 32.8 64.1 36.8 30.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s * 8.4 * 8.4 * 9.1 * 9.1 * 8.4 * 8.4 * 9.1 * 9.1 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s * 9.6 * 75 * 39 * 12 * 30 * 55 ` 30 * 21 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 6.3 31.1 9.0 35.0 23.6 29.9 27.1 21.4 Green Ext Time (p -.p), s 0.0 9.4 0.2 0.0 0.8 8.9 0.6 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 62.2 HCM 6th LOS E A 1-4 User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green. User approved ignoring U-Tuming movement. * HCM 6th computational enqine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. Tuscany Village MF Synchro 11 Report Kimley-Hom Page 2 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Background 1: Upsala Rd & SR 46 PM Peak Hour Movement SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Yli ti (1 Traffic Volume (veh/h) 488 250 304 Future Volume (veh/h) 488 250 304 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/in 1856 1856 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 514 263 320 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 3 3 2 Cap, veh/h 558 433 370 Arrive On Green 0.16 0.23 0.23 Sat Flow, veh/h 3428 1856 1585 Grp Volume(v), vehlh 514 263 320 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1714 1856 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 25.1 21.5 33.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 25.1 21.5 33.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 558 433 370 V/C Ratio(X) 0.92 0.61 0.86 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 603 433 370 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 70.1 58.2 62.6 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 18.8 2.4 18.7 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(95%),veh/In 18.2 15.6 21.7 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 88.9 60.6 81.3 LnGrp LOS F E F Approach Vol, veh/h 1097 Approach Delay, slveh 79.9 Approach LOS E Timer - Assigned Phs Tuscany Village MF Synchro 11 Report Kimley-Horn Page 3 HCM 6th TWSC Background 2: Eider Rd & SR 46 PM Peak Hour Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.1 Movement EBU EBL EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 573 * 743 - tt 578 Minorl ttl� Minor2 0.135 Conflicting Flow All F 1536 0 0 1112 r Traffic Vol, veh/h 26 156 1445 2 45 7 1449 10 0 0 16 0 0 74 Future Vol, vehlh 26 156 1445 2 45 7 1449 10 0 0 16 0 0 74 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized *997 - 0 None 0 - Stage 1 None - - None 0 0 - None Storage Length Stage 2 300 300 0 - 0 Platoon blocked, % 0 1 1 0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 Mov Cap -1 Maneuver *743 *743 0 '930 - 0 - - *578 0 - Grade, % - - 0 0 0 - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 9 2 2 13 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 27 164 1521 2 47 7 1525 11 0 0 17 0 0 78 Major/Minor Major1 573 * 743 - Major2 578 Minorl 0.029 0.258 - Minor2 0.135 Conflicting Flow All 1121 1536 0 0 1112 1523 0 0 762 B 768 Stage 1 - - - - - - - - - Stage 2 - Critical Hdwy 5.64 5.34 5.64 5.34 7.36 7.14 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 2.32 3.12 2.32 3.12 4.03 - - 3.92 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver *977 *727 *997 *741 0 0 *573 0 0 *578 Stage 1 - - - - 0 0 - 0 0 Stage 2 0 0 0 0 Platoon blocked, % 1 1 1 1 1 1 Mov Cap -1 Maneuver *743 *743 *930 '930 - - *573 - - *578 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - - - - Stage 1 Stage 2 - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 1.3 0.3 11.5 12.2 HCM LOS B B Minor Lane/Maior Mvmt NBLnl EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLnl Capacity (veh/h) 573 * 743 - * 930 578 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.029 0.258 - 0.059 0.135 HCM Control Delay (s) 11.5 11.5 - 9.1 12.2 HCM Lane LOS B B - A B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 1 - 0.2 0.5 Notes —: Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *: All major volume in platoon Tuscany Village MF Synchro 11 Report Kimley-Horn Page 4 Timings Background 3: Rinehart Rd & SR 46 PIM Peak Hour Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations W r a) ttt M i. f + r Traffic Volume (vph) 88 1089 359 422 992 46 397 102 462 87 74 139 Future Volume (vph) 88 1089 359 422 992 46 397 102 462 87 74 139 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Split NA Perm Split NA Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 8 4 4 Permitted Phases 2 6 8 4 Detector Phase 5 2 2 1 6 6 8 8 8 4 4 4 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 6.0 15.0 15.0 6.0 15.0 15.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Minimum Split (s) 14.6 23.6 23.6 14.6 23.6 23.6 14.3 14.3 14.3 13.6 13.6 13.6 Total Split (s) 24.0 60.0 60.0 35.0 71.0 71.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 Total Split (%) 15.0% 37.5% 37.5% 21.9% 44.4% 44.4% 28.1% 28.1% 28.1% 12.5% 12.5% 12.5% Yellow Time (s) 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 3.4 3.4 3.4 All -Red Time (s) 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.5 3.5 3.5 4.2 4.2 4.2 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 8.6 8.6 8.6 8.6 8.6 8.6 8.3 8.3 8.3 7.6 7.6 7.6 Lead/Lag Lag Lag Lag Lead Lead Lead Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None C -Max C -Max None Max Max None None None None None None Intersection Summary Cycle Length: 160 Actuated Cycle Length: 160 Offset: 106 (66%), Referenced to phase 2:EBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 90 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Splits and Phases: 3: Rinehart Rd & SR 46 -yam L _ 06 � 5 Tuscany Village MF Synchro 11 Report Kimley-Horn Page 5 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Background 3: Rinehart Rd & SR 46 PM Peak Hour Movement EBU EBL EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR Lane Configurations ai ttt r M ttt if M + r Traffic Volume (veh/h) 9 88 1089 359 15 422 992 46 4 397 102 462 Future Volume (veh/h) 9 88 1089 359 15 422 992 46 4 397 102 462 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A-pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/In 1870 1870 1856 1870 1856 1870 1870 1826 1841 Adj Flow Rate, vehlh 93 1146 378 444 1044 48 418 107 486 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 3 2 3 2 2 5 4 Cap,vehlh 171 1753 540 494 1976 618 793 419 358 Arrive On Green 0.10 0.34 0.34 0.14 0.39 0.39 0.23 0.23 0.23 Sat Flow,veh/h 1781 5106 1572 3456 5066 1585 3456 1826 1560 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 93 1146 378 444 1044 48 418 107 486 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1702 1572 1728 1689 1585 1728 1826 1560 Q Serve(g_s), s 8.0 30.4 33.3 20.2 25.3 3.0 17.0 7.7 36.7 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 8.0 30.4 33.3 20.2 25.3 3.0 17.0 7.7 36.7 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 171 1753 540 494 1976 618 793 419 358 V/C Ratio(X) 0.54 0.65 0.70 0.90 0.53 0.08 0.53 0.26 1.36 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 171 1753 540 570 1976 618 793 419 358 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter([) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 68.9 44.5 45.4 67.4 37.5 30.7 54.0 50.5 61.7 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 3.5 1.9 7.4 15.7 1.0 0.2 0.7 0.3 178.4 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(95%),veh/In 6.8 18.8 20.0 15.0 15.8 2.2 12.0 6.4 48.3 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 72.4 46.4 52.8 83.1 38.5 30.9 54.7 50.8 240.1 LnGro LOS E D D F D C D D F Approach Vol, veh/h 1617 1536 1011 Approach Delay, slveh 49.4 51.2 143.4 Approach LOS D D F Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 31.5 63.5 20.0 24.0 71.0 45.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s * 8.6 * 8.6 7.6 * 8.6 * 8.6 8.3 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s * 26 * 51 12.4 * 15 * 62 36.7 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+ll), s 22.2 35.3 14.4 10.0 27.3 38.7 Green Ext Time (p --c), s 0.7 8.0 0.0 0.1 8.2 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 77.7 HCM 6th LOS E NntPs User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green. User approved ignoring U-Tuming movement. * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. Tuscany Village MF Synchro 11 Report Kimley-Hom Page 6 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Background 3: Rinehart Rd & SR 46 PM Peak Hour Movement SBL SBT SBR Lane?tonfigurations 7 r Traffic Volume (veh/h) 87 74 139 Future Volume (veh/h) 87 74 139 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/In 1870 1856 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 92 78 146 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 3 2 Cap, veh/h 138 144 123 Arrive On Green 0.08 0.08 0.08 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1856 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 92 78 146 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlh/In 1781 1856 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 8.0 6.5 12.4 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 8.0 6.5 12.4 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 138 144 123 V/C Ratio(X) 0.67 0.54 1.19 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 138 144 123 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 71.8 71.1 73.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 11.5 4.1 140.6 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(95%),vehlln 7.4 5.8 15.9 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 83.3 75.2 214.4 LnGrp LOS F E F Approach Vol, veh/h 316 Approach Delay, slveh 141.9 Approach LOS F Timer - Assigned Phs Tuscany Village MF Synchro 11 Report Kimley-Horn Page 7 Timings Background (With Improvements) 3: Rinehart Rd & SR 46 AM Peak Hour Tuscany Village MF Synchro 11 Report Kimley-Horn Page 1 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations M ttt r )) ttt r M t r Vi t r Traffic Volume (vph) 107 1031 269 311 762 72 257 73 262 100 63 121 Future Volume (vph) 107 1031 269 311 762 72 257 73 262 100 63 121 Tum Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Split NA pt+ov Split NA pt+ov Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 8 81 4 4 45 Permitted Phases 2 2 1 6 6 6 8 8 81 4 4 45 Detector Phase 5 2 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 6.0 15.0 15.0 6.0 15.0 15.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Minimum Split (s) 14.6 23.6 23.6 14.6 23.6 23.6 14.3 14.3 13.6 13.6 Total Split (s) 20.0 66.0 66.0 29.0 75.0 75.0 32.0 32.0 23.0 23.0 Total Split (%) 13.3% 44.0% 44.0% 19.3% 50.0% 50.0% 21.3% 21.3% 15.3% 15.3% Yellow Time (s) 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 3.4 3.4 All -Red Time (s) 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.5 3.5 4.2 4.2 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 8.6 8.6 8.6 8.6 8.6 8.6 8.3 8.3 7.6 7.6 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None C -Max C -Max None Max Max None None None None Intersection Summary Cycle Length: 150 Actuated Cycle Length: 150 Offset: 85 (57%), Referenced to phase 2:EBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 80 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Tuscany Village MF Synchro 11 Report Kimley-Horn Page 1 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Background (With Improvements) 3: Rinehart Rd & SR 46 AM Peak Hour Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations )) W r )) W r r� n t r t Traffic Volume (veh/h) 107 1031 269 311 762 72 257 73 262 100 63 121 Future Volume (veh/h) 107 1031 269 311 762 72 257 73 262 100 63 121 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A-pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/In 1856 1796 1722 1796 1722 1856 1841 1826 1811 1841 1826 1737 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 114 1097 286 331 811 77 273 78 279 106 67 129 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Percent Heavy Veh, % 3 7 12 7 12 3 4 5 6 4 5 11 Cap, veh/h 159 2009 598 382 2249 752 537 288 419 169 176 210 Arrive On Green 0.05 0.41 0.41 0.04 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.10 0.10 0.10 Sat Flow,veh/h 3428 4904 1459 3319 4701 1572 3401 1826 1535 1753 1826 1472 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 114 1097 286 331 811 77 273 78 279 106 67 129 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1714 1635 1459 1659 1567 1572 1700 1826 1535 1753 1826 1472 Q Serve(g_s), s 4.9 25.5 21.6 14.9 23.1 6.3 11.0 5.6 23.7 8.7 5.2 12.3 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 4.9 25.5 21.6 14.9 23.1 6.3 11.0 5.6 23.7 8.7 5.2 12.3 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 159 2009 598 382 2249 752 537 288 419 169 176 210 V/C Ratio(X) 0.72 0.55 0.48 0.87 0.36 0.10 0.51 0.27 0.67 0.63 0.38 0.61 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 261 2009 598 451 2249 752 537 288 419 180 187 219 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.33 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 70.5 33.7 32.5 71.0 42.7 35.6 57.8 55.5 48.4 65.2 63.6 60.4 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 5.9 1.1 2.7 14.3 0.5 0.3 0.8 0.5 4.0 6.1 1.3 4.7 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(95%),veh/In 4.1 15.3 12.5 11.9 15.0 4.5 8.3 4.7 14.6 7.4 4.4 8.4 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 76.4 34.7 35.2 85.3 43.1 35.9 58.6 56.0 52.4 71.3 64.9 65.1 LnGrp LOS E C D F D D E E D E E E Approach Vol, veh/h 1497 1219 630 302 Approach Delay, s/veh 38.0 54.1 55.5 67.2 Approach LOS D D E E Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 25.9 70.1 22.1 15.6 80.4 32.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s * 8.6 * 8.6 7.6 * 8.6 * 8.6 8.3 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s * 20 * 57 15.4 ` 11 ' 66 23.7 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+Il), s 16.9 27.5 14.3 6.9 25.1 25.7 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.4 9.7 0.1 0.1 6.3 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 48.8 HCM 6th LOS D Notes User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green. User approved ignoring U -Turning movement. * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. Tuscany Village MF Synchro 11 Report Kimley-Horn Page 2 Timings Background (With Improvements) 'a- P;nohnrt PH R .R 4R PM Peak Hour Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations )) ttt r �) ttt r t r t r Traffic Volume (vph) 97 1089 359 437 992 46 401 102 462 87 74 139 Future Volume (vph) 97 1089 359 437 992 46 401 102 462 87 74 139 Tum Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Split NA pt+ov Split NA pt+ov Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 8 8 1 4 4 45 Permitted Phases 2 6 6 6 8 8 81 4 4 4 5 Detector Phase 5 2 2 1 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 6.0 15.0 15.0 6.0 15.0 15.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Minimum Split (s) 14.6 23.6 23.6 14.6 23.6 23.6 14.3 14.3 13.6 13.6 Total Split (s) 24.0 60.0 60.0 35.0 71.0 71.0 45.0 45.0 20.0 20.0 Total Split (%) 15.0% 37.5% 37.5% 21.9% 44.4% 44.4% 28.1% 28.1% 12.5% 12.5% Yellow Time (s) 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 3.4 3.4 All -Red Time (s) 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.5 3.5 4.2 4.2 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 8.6 8.6 8.6 8.6 8.6 8.6 8.3 8.3 7.6 7.6 Lead/Lag Lag Lag Lag Lead Lead Lead Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None C -Max C -Max None Max Max None None None None Intersection Summary Cycle Length: 160 Actuated Cycle Length: 160 Offset: 106 (66%), Referenced to phase 2:EBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 90 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Splits and Phases: 3: Rinehart Rd & SR 46 O? - -2 rR'i �F- �S6 1005 Tuscany Village MF Synchro 11 Report Kimley-Horn Page 1 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 1 2 Background (With Improvements) 3: Rinehart Rd & SR 46 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 32.1 64.8 18.0 26.0 71.0 45.0 PM Peak Hour * 8.6 * 8.6 7.6 * 8.6 * 8.6 8.3 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s * 26 * 51 12.4 * 15 * 62 36.7 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations jj HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 52.6 Traffic Volume (veh/h) 97 1089 359 437 992 46 401 102 462 87 74 139 Future Volume (veh/h) 97 1089 359 437 992 46 401 102 462 87 74 139 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A-pbT) 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, vehlh/In 1870 1870 1856 1870 1856 1870 1870 1826 1841 1870 1856 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 102 1146 378 460 1044 48 422 107 486 92 78 146 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 3 2 3 2 2 5 4 2 3 2 Cap, veh/h 375 1795 553 508 1976 618 793 419 587 116 121 275 Arrive On Green 0.11 0.35 0.35 0.15 0.39 0.39 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.07 0.07 0.07 Sat Flow,veh/h 3456 5106 1572 3456 5066 1585 3456 1826 1560 1781 1856 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 102 1146 378 460 1044 48 422 107 486 92 78 146 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1728 1702 1572 1728 1689 1585 1728 1826 1560 1781 1856 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 4.3 30.0 32.8 21.0 25.3 3.0 17.2 7.7 36.7 8.1 6.6 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 4.3 30.0 32.8 21.0 25.3 3.0 17.2 7.7 36.7 8.1 6.6 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 375 1795 553 508 1976 618 793 419 587 116 121 275 V/C Ratio(X) 0.27 0.64 0.68 0.90 0.53 0.08 0.53 0.26 0.83 0.79 0.65 0.53 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 375 1795 553 570 1976 618 793 419 587 138 144 295 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 65.5 43.4 44.3 67.1 37.5 30.7 54.1 50.5 45.2 73.7 73.0 60.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.4 1.8 6.7 16.8 1.0 0.2 0.7 0.3 9.5 22.8 7.3 1.6 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(95%),veh/In 3.4 18.6 19.6 15.6 15.8 2.2 12.1 6.4 26.0 7.9 6.1 9.4 Unsig. Movement Delay, slveh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 65.9 45.1 51.0 83.9 38.5 30.9 54.8 50.8 54.7 96.6 80.3 61.7 LnGrp LOS E D D F D C D D D F F E Approach Vol, veh/h 1626 1552 1015 316 Approach Delay, s/veh 47.8 51.7 54.3 76.5 Approach LOS D D D E Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 32.1 64.8 18.0 26.0 71.0 45.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s * 8.6 * 8.6 7.6 * 8.6 * 8.6 8.3 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s * 26 * 51 12.4 * 15 * 62 36.7 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+ll), s 23.0 34.8 10.1 6.3 27.3 38.7 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 0.6 8.2 0.3 0.2 8.2 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 52.6 HCM 6th LOS D Notes User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green. User approved ignoring U -Turning movement. * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. Tuscany Village MF Synchro 11 Report Kimley-Horn Page 2 Timings Buildout 1: U sala Rd & SR 46 AM Peak Hour * FRI FRT WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT_ SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) '1'1 277 TT H 1072 -i -i 49 -i-vi- 825 I 320 I 93 I ff 131 I ' 554 245 ' 221 Future Volume (vph) 277 1072 49 825 320 93 131 554 245 221 Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4 4 Permitted Phases 6 6 3 8 7 4 4 Detector Phase 5 2 1 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 6.0 15.0 6.0 15.0 15.0 6.0 8.0 6.0 8.0 8.0 Minimum Split (s) 14.4 23.4 14.4 23.4 23.4 15.1 17.1 15.1 17.1 17.1 Total Split (s) 32.0 51.0 25.0 44.0 44.0 53.0 25.0 49.0 21.0 21.0 Total Split (%) 21.3% 34.0% 16.7% 29.3% 29.3% 35.3% 16.7% 32.7% 14.0% 14.0% Yellow Time (s) 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.4 All -Red Time (s) 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 9.1 9.1 9.1 9.1 9.1 Lead/Lag Lead Lead Lag Lag Lag Lead Lead Lag Lag Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None Max None C -Max C -Max None None None None None Intersection Summary Cycle Length: 150 Actuated Cycle Length: 150 Offset: 33 (22%), Referenced to phase 6:WBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 90 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Tuscany Village MF Synchro 11 Report Kimley-Horn Page 1 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Buildout 1: Upsala Rd & SR 46 AM Peak Hour Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ) j t+T+ )) ff t fx +14 1 r Traffic Volume (veh/h) 277 1072 78 49 825 320 93 131 37 554 245 221 Future Volume (veh/h) 277 1072 78 49 825 320 93 131 37 554 245 221 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/In 1781 1826 1663 1796 1811 1767 1781 1796 1811 1841 1767 1796 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 304 1178 86 54 907 352 102 144 41 609 269 243 Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Percent Heavy Veh, % 8 5 16 7 6 9 8 7 6 4 9 7 Cap,vehlh 360 1346 98 208 1173 355 124 189 52 680 350 302 Arrive On Green 0.04 0.09 0.09 0.06 0.24 0.24 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.20 0.20 0.20 Sat Flow, veh/h 3291 4741 346 3319 4944 1497 1697 2642 729 3401 1767 1522 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 304 826 438 54 907 352 102 91 94 609 269 243 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1646 1662 1764 1659 1648 1497 1697 1706 1665 1700 1767 1522 Q Serve(g_s), s 13.8 36.8 36.8 2.3 25.7 13.7 8.9 7.9 8.3 26.2 21.6 22.8 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 13.8 36.8 36.8 2.3 25.7 13.7 8.9 7.9 8.3 26.2 21.6 22.8 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.20 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.44 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 360 944 501 208 1173 355 124 122 119 680 350 302 V/C Ratio(X) 0.84 0.87 0.88 0.26 0.77 0.99 0.82 0.75 0.79 0.90 0.77 0.81 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 518 944 501 367 1173 355 497 181 176 905 350 302 HCM Platoon Ratio 0.33 0.33 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 71.0 65.3 65.3 67.0 53.4 8.7 68.5 68.3 68.5 58.5 56.9 57.4 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 8.5 11.1 18.9 0.7 5.0 45.5 12.3 9.1 13.0 9.2 9.9 14.7 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(95%),veh/In 10.7 24.8 27.4 1.8 16.4 13.7 7.7 6.8 7.2 17.7 15.8 15.3 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 79.6 76.5 84.2 67.6 58.4 54.1 80.8 77.5 81.5 67.7 66.8 72.1 LnGrp LOS E E F E E D F E F E E E Approach Vol, veh/h 1568 1313 287 1121 Approach Delay, s/veh 79.2 57.6 80.0 68.5 Approach LOS E E E E Timer -Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 17.8 51.0 20.1 38.8 24.8 44.0 39.1 19.8 Change Period (Y+Rc), s * 8.4 * 8.4 * 9.1 * 9.1 * 8.4 * 8.4 ' 9.1 * 9.1 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s ' 17 * 43 * 44 ` 12 ' 24 ` 36 ` 40 * 16 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+ll), s 4.3 38.8 10.9 24.8 15.8 27.7 28.2 10.3 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 0.1 2.5 0.3 0.0 0.6 4.2 1.8 0.4 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 69.9 HCM 6th LOS E Notes User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green. User approved ignoring U -Turning movement. * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. Tuscany Village MF Synchro 11 Report Kimley-Horn Page 2 HCM 6th TWSC Buildout 2: Elder Rd & SR 46 AM Peak Hour Intersactinn Int Delay, s/veh 1.1 Movement EBU EBL EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) W) 0.2 0.3 Nntes W-) r, r Traffic Vol, veh/h 33 113 1330 18 11 33 1203 14 0 0 63 0 0 43 Future Vol, veh/h 33 113 1330 18 11 33 1203 14 0 0 63 0 0 43 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None None None Storage Length 300 300 0 0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 0 0 - 0 - Grade, % 0 0 0 - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 Heavy Vehicles, % 3 6 6 0 2 2 9 7 2 2 2 2 2 23 Mvmt Flow 36 124 1462 20 12 36 1322 15 0 0 69 0 0 47 Major/Minor Majorl Maior2 Minorl Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 976 1337 0 0 1081 1482 0 0 741 669 Stage 1 - - - - - - - - - Stage 2 - - - - - - Critical Hdwy 5.66 5.42 5.64 5.34 7.14 7.56 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 2.33 3.16 2.32 3.12 3.92 - - 4.13 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver '1072 '790 1047 753 0 0 "620 0 0 '604 Stage 1 - - - - 0 0 - 0 0 Stage 2 0 0 0 0 Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap -1 Maneuver '829 '829 `793 793 - - `620 - - '604 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - - - - Stage 1 Stage 2 Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 1 0.3 11.5 11.5 HCM LOS B B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (vehih) 620 * 829 793 604 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.112 0.194 0.061 0.078 HCM Control Delay (s) 11.5 10.4 9.8 11.5 HCM Lane LOS B B A B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.4 0.7 0.2 0.3 Nntes --: Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined t: All major volume in platoon Tuscany Village MF Synchro 11 Report Kimley-Horn Page 3 Timings Buildout 3: Rinehart Rd & FL 46/SR 46 AIM Peak Hour Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tt. r )) fft r + f` 11 t r Traffic Volume (vph) 107 1060 269 341 823 72 257 73 276 100 63 121 Future Volume (vph) 107 1060 269 341 823 72 257 73 276 100 63 121 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Split NA pt+ov Split NA pt+ov Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 8 8 1 4 4 45 Permitted Phases 2 6 Detector Phase 5 2 2 1 6 6 8 8 8 1 4 4 45 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 6.0 15.0 15.0 6.0 15.0 15.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Minimum Split (s) 14.6 23.6 23.6 14.6 23.6 23.6 14.3 14.3 13.6 13.6 Total Split (s) 20.0 66.0 66.0 29.0 75.0 75.0 32.0 32.0 23.0 23.0 Total Split (%) 13.3% 44.0% 44.0% 19.3% 50.0% 50.0% 21.3% 21.3% 15.3% 15.3% Yellow Time (s) 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 3.4 3.4 All -Red Time (s) 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.5 3.5 4.2 4.2 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 8.6 8.6 8.6 8.6 8.6 8.6 8.3 8.3 7.6 7.6 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None C -Max C -Max None Max Max None None None None Intersection Summary Cycle Length: 150 Actuated Cycle Length: 150 Offset: 85 (57%), Referenced to phase 2:EBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 80 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Splits and Phases: 3: Rinehart Rd & FL 46/SR 46 05 { 06 o Tuscany Village MF Synchro 11 Report Kimley-Horn Page 4 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Buildout q• RinPhnrt Rri R FI 46/SR 46 AM Peak Hour -,* --. --* '- I- 4\ Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WHIR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ) ttt r M ttt r M t e * 57 t r Traffic Volume (veh/h) 107 1060 269 341 823 72 257 73 276 100 63 121 Future Volume (veh/h) 107 1060 269 341 823 72 257 73 276 100 63 121 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh1h/In 1856 1796 1722 1796 1722 1856 1841 1826 1811 1841 1826 1737 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 114 1128 286 363 876 77 273 78 294 106 67 129 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Percent Heavy Veh, % 3 7 12 7 12 3 4 5 6 4 5 11 Cap, veh/h 134 1977 588 412 2121 709 537 288 433 165 172 250 Arrive On Green 0.08 0.40 0.40 0.04 0.15 0.15 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.09 0.09 0.09 Sat Flow, vehlh 1767 4904 1459 3319 4701 1572 3401 1826 1535 1753 1826 1472 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 114 1128 286 363 876 77 273 78 294 106 67 129 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1767 1635 1459 1659 1567 1572 1700 1826 1535 1753 1826 1472 Q Serve(g_s), s 9.6 26.7 21.8 16.3 25.3 6.4 11.0 5.6 23.7 8.7 5.2 12.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 9.6 26.7 21.8 16.3 25.3 6.4 11.0 5.6 23.7 8.7 5.2 12.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 134 1977 588 412 2121 709 537 288 433 165 172 250 V/C Ratio(X) 0.85 0.57 0.49 0.88 0.41 0.11 0.51 0.27 0.68 0.64 0.39 0.52 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 134 1977 588 451 2121 709 537 288 433 180 187 263 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.33 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), slveh 68.4 34.7 33.2 70.8 45.8 37.7 57.8 55.5 47.8 65.5 63.9 56.6 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 37.1 1.2 2.9 17.1 0.6 0.3 0.8 0.5 4.2 6.7 1.4 1.6 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(95%),veh/In 9.5 16.0 12.7 13.0 16.2 4.6 8.4 4.8 15.5 7.6 4.5 8.1 Unsig. Movement Delay, slveh LnGrp Delay(d),slveh 105.6 35.9 36.1 87.9 46.4 38.0 58.6 56.0 52.1 72.2 65.3 58.2 LnGrD LOS F D D F D D E E D E E E Approach Vol, vehlh 1528 1316 645 302 Approach Delay, slveh 41.1 57.4 55.3 64.7 Approach LOS D E E E Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 27.2 69.1 21.7 20.0 76.3 32.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s * 8.6 * 8.6 7.6 *8.6 * 8.6 8.3 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s * 20 * 57 15.4 * 11 * 66 23.7 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+ll ), s 18.3 28.7 14.0 11.6 27.3 25.7 Green Ext Time (p --c), s 0.3 9.9 0.2 0.0 6.9 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 51.1 HCM 6th LOS D User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green. User approved ignoring U -Turning movement. * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. Tuscany Village MF Synchro 11 Report Kimley-Horn Page 5 HCM 6th TWSC Buildout 4: Driveway #1 & SR 46 AM Peak Hour Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.2 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations ttj-), Minorl 0.083 fiff 0 HCM Lane LOS Traffic Vol, veh/h 1381 11 0 1261 0 46 Future Vol, veh/h 1381 11 0 1261 0 46 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized Stage 1 None 0 None - None Storage Length - Platoon blocked, % - 0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - '602 0 0 - Grade, % 0 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 1501 12 0 1371 0 50 Major/Minor Majorl Major2 Minorl 0.083 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 HCM Lane LOS 757 Stage 1 - - - Stage 2 - - Critical Hdwy 7.14 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - Follow-up Hdwy 3.92 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 0 0 `602 Stage 1 0 0 - Stage 2 0 0 - Platoon blocked, % 1 Mov Cap -1 Maneuver - - '602 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - Stage 1 - Stage 2 - Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 11.5 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBT Capacity (veh/h) 602 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.083 HCM Control Delay (s) 11.5 HCM Lane LOS B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.3 Notes —: Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined `: All major volume in platoon Tuscany Village MF Synchro 11 Report Kimley-Horn Page 6 HCM 6th TWSC Buildout 5: Driveway #2 & SR 46 AM Peak Hour Intarsartion Int Delay, s/veh 0.1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 786 Stage 1 - - - Stage 2 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations ttt Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 0 0 "585 ttt 0 - f Traffic Vol, veh/h 1438 7 0 1236 0 30 Future Vol, veh/h 1438 7 0 1236 0 30 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 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 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 1563 8 0 1343 0 33 Major/Minor Majorl Major2 Minorl Conflicting Flow All 0 0 786 Stage 1 - - - Stage 2 - Critical Hdwy 7.14 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - Follow-up Hdwy 3.92 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 0 0 "585 Stage 1 0 0 - Stage 2 0 0 Platoon blocked, % 1 Mov Cap -1 Maneuver - - '585 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver Stage 1 Stage 2 Approach EB HCM Control Delay, s 0 HCM LOS Minor Lane/Major Mvmt Capacity (veh/h) HCM Lane V/C Ratio HCM Control Delay (s) HCM Lane LOS HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) WB NB 0 11.5 B NBLn1 EBT EBR WBT 585 0.056 11.5 B 0.2 --: Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined ': All major volume in platoon Tuscany Village MF Synchro 11 Report Kimley-Horn Page 7 HCM 6th TWSC Buildout 6: Driveway #3 & SR 46 AM Peak Hour Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 781 Stage 1 - - - Stage 2 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations tt'� Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 0 - 0 *585 tAi i� - 0 - r Traffic Vol, veh/h 1430 7 0 1236 0 15 Future Vol, veh/h 1430 7 0 1236 0 15 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 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 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 1554 8 0 1343 0 16 Major/Minor Majorl Major2 Minorl Conflicting Flow All 0 0 781 Stage 1 - - - Stage 2 - - Critical Hdwy 7.14 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - Follow-up Hdwy 3.92 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 0 - 0 *585 Stage 1 0 - 0 - Stage 2 0 - 0 Platoon blocked, % - 1 Mov Cap -1 Maneuver - *585 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - Stage 1 Stage 2 Approach EB HCM Control Delay, s 0 HCM LOS Minor Lane/Major Mvmt Capacity (veh/h) HCM Lane V/C Ratio HCM Control Delay (s) HCM Lane LOS HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) WB NB 0 11.3 B NBLn1 EBT EBR WBT 585 0.028 11.3 B 0.1 Notes —: Volume exceeds capacity 8: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *: All major volume in platoon Tuscany Village MF Synchro 11 Report Kimley-Horn Page 8 Timings Buildout 1: Upsala Rd & SR 46 PM Peak Hour Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations )) W) ViVi ttt if Vi t*t-> t r Traffic Volume (vph) 520 1091 64 984 420 77 332 499 250 316 Future Volume (vph) 520 1091 64 984 420 77 332 499 250 316 Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4 Permitted Phases 6 4 Detector Phase 5 2 1 6 6 3 8 7 4 4 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 6.0 15.0 6.0 15.0 15.0 6.0 8.0 6.0 8.0 8.0 Minimum Split (s) 14.4 41.4 14.4 41.4 41.4 15.1 17.1 15.1 17.1 17.1 Total Split (s) 38.0 83.0 18.0 63.0 63.0 48.0 30.0 39.0 21.0 21.0 Total Split (%) 22.4% 48.8% 10.6% 37.1% 37.1% 28.2% 17.6% 22.9% 12.4% 12.4% Yellow Time (s) 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.4 All -Red Time (s) 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 9.1 9.1 9.1 9.1 9.1 Lead/Lag Lead Lead Lag Lag Lag Lead Lead Lag Lag Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None Max None C -Max C -Max None None None None None Intersection Summary Cycle Length: 170 Actuated Cycle Length: 170 Offset: 29 (17%), Referenced to phase 6:WBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 120 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Drl R. QR AR Tuscany Village MF Synchro 11 Report Kimley-Horn Page 1 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 1 2 3 4 5 6 Buildout 1: Upsala Rd & SR 46 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 18.0 83.0 18.7 48.5 38.0 63.0 37.2 30.0 PM Peak Hour * 8.4 * 8.4 * 9.1 * 9.1 * 8.4 * 8.4 * 9.1 * 9.1 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s * 9.6 * 75 * 39 * 12 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ) j M-1 0.2 )) W f 0.5 fk Intersection Summary t r Traffic Volume (veh/h) 520 1091 92 64 984 420 77 332 54 499 250 316 Future Volume (veh/h) 520 1091 92 64 984 420 77 332 54 499 250 316 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/In 1796 1856 1870 1826 1856 1826 1870 1870 1841 1856 1856 1870 Adj Flow Rate, vehlh 547 1148 97 67 1036 442 81 349 57 525 263 333 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 7 3 2 5 3 5 2 2 4 3 3 2 Cap,vehlh 578 2088 176 191 1627 497 101 377 61 568 430 368 Arrive On Green 0.17 0.44 0.44 0.06 0.32 0.32 0.06 0.12 0.12 0.17 0.23 0.23 Sat Flow,veh/h 3319 4758 402 3374 5066 1547 1781 3063 495 3428 1856 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 547 815 430 67 1036 442 81 201 205 525 263 333 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1659 1689 1783 1687 1689 1547 1781 1777 1781 1714 1856 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 27.7 30.3 30.4 3.3 29.7 27.2 7.6 19.0 19.4 25.7 21.6 34.7 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 27.7 30.3 30.4 3.3 29.7 27.2 7.6 19.0 19.4 25.7 21.6 34.7 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.23 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.28 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 578 1482 783 191 1627 497 101 218 219 568 430 368 V/C Ratio(X) 0.95 0.55 0.55 0.35 0.64 0.89 0.80 0.92 0.94 0.92 0.61 0.91 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 578 1482 783 191 1627 497 408 218 219 603 430 368 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 69.4 35.3 35.3 77.2 49.2 19.0 79.3 73.7 73.9 69.9 58.4 63.5 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 24.9 1.5 2.8 1.1 1.9 20.6 13.7 39.6 43.2 19.7 2.5 25.2 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(95%),veh/In 19.6 18.4 19.6 2.6 18.5 18.6 7.1 16.6 17.1 18.6 15.7 23.3 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 94.3 36.7 38.1 78.3 51.2 39.6 92.9 113.4 117.1 89.6 61.0 88.7 LnGrp LOS F D D E D D F F F F E F Approach Vol, veh/h 1792 1545 487 1121 Approach Delay, s/veh 54.6 49.0 111.5 82.6 Approach LOS D D F F Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 18.0 83.0 18.7 48.5 38.0 63.0 37.2 30.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s * 8.4 * 8.4 * 9.1 * 9.1 * 8.4 * 8.4 * 9.1 * 9.1 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s * 9.6 * 75 * 39 * 12 * 30 * 55 * 30 * 21 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 5.3 32.4 9.6 36.7 29.7 31.7 27.7 21.4 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 9.8 0.2 0.0 0.0 9.0 0.5 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 64.8 HCM 6th LOS E Notes User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green. User approved ignoring U -Turning movement. * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. Tuscany Village MF Synchro 11 Report Kimley-Horn Page 2 HCM 6th TWSC Buildout 2: Elder Rd & SR 46 PM Peak Hour Intarcocfinn Int Delay, s/veh 1.4 Major2 * 772 Minor1 HCM Lane V/C Ratio Mino_r2 0.265 Conflicting Flow All 1175 1610 0 0 1183 1621 0 0 - - 811 Movement EBU EBL EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations - - t ' T11 Critical Hdwy +i T' 1-3 5.34 5.64 5.34 r - 7.36 r Traffic Vol, veh/h 26 156 1502 38 45 66 1519 10 0 0 62 0 0 74 Future Vol, veh/h 26 156 1502 38 45 66 1519 10 0 0 62 0 0 74 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - Mov Cap -1 Maneuver None *723 - *772 None - *558 - None Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - None Storage Length - 300 - 300 0 0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 0 Approach 0 - WB 0 NB Grade, % SB 0 - 0.7 0 12.3 0 HCM LOS 0 Peak Hour Factor 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 9 2 2 13 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 27 164 1581 40 47 69 1599 11 0 0 65 0 0 78 Major/Minor Majorl 558 Major2 * 772 Minor1 HCM Lane V/C Ratio Mino_r2 0.265 Conflicting Flow All 1175 1610 0 0 1183 1621 0 0 - - 811 HCM Lane LOS 805 Stage 1 - - - - - - - - 0.5 0.5 Nntes Stage 2 - - - Critical Hdwy 5.64 5.34 5.64 5.34 - 7.36 7.14 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 2.32 3.12 2.32 3.12 4.03 - - 3.92 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver *952 *708 *969 *721 0 0 *558 0 0 '563 Stage 1 - - - - 0 0 0 0 Stage 2 0 0 0 0 1 Platoon blocked, % 1 1 1 1 1 Mov Cap -1 Maneuver *723 *723 *772 *772 - - *558 - - *563 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - - - - - Stage 1 Stage 2 Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 1.2 0.7 12.3 12.4 HCM LOS B B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 558 * 723 * 772 563 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.117 0.265 0.151 0.138 HCM Control Delay (s) 12.3 11.8 10.5 12.4 HCM Lane LOS B B - B B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.4 1.1 0.5 0.5 Nntes —: Volume exceeds capacity S: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *: All major volume in platoon Tuscany Village MF Synchro 11 Report Kimley-Horn Page 3 Timings Buildout 3: Rinehart Rd & FL 46/SR 46 PM Peak Hour 4 4 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations�i` Traffic Volume (vph) 97 1148 359 460 1039 46 401 102 491 87 74 139 Future Volume (vph) 97 1148 359 460 1039 46 401 102 491 87 74 139 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Split NA pt+ov Split NA pt+ov Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 8 8 1 4 4 45 Permitted Phases 2 6 Detector Phase 5 2 2 1 6 6 8 8 8 1 4 4 4 5 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 6.0 15.0 15.0 6.0 15.0 15.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Minimum Split (s) 19.5 48.6 48.6 19.5 42.6 42.6 14.3 14.3 13.6 13.6 Total Split (s) 24.0 60.0 60.0 35.0 71.0 71.0 45.0 45.0 20.0 20.0 Total Split (%) 15.0% 37.5% 37.5% 21.9% 44.4% 44.4% 28.1% 28.1% 12.5% 12.5% Yellow Time (s) 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 3.4 3.4 All -Red Time (s) 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.5 3.5 4.2 4.2 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 8.6 8.6 8.6 8.6 8.6 8.6 8.3 8.3 7.6 7.6 Lead/Lag Lag Lag Lag Lead Lead Lead Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None C -Max C -Max None Max Max None None None None Intersection Summary Cycle Length: 160 Actuated Cycle Length: 160 Offset: 106 (66%), Referenced to phase 2:EBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 110 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Splits and Phases: 3: Rinehart Rd & FL 46/SR 46 Tuscany Village MF Synchro 11 Report Kimley-Horn Page 4 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Buildout 3: Rinehart Rd & FL 46/SR 46 PM Peak Hour Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Vi +tt r )) ttt r M + r * 51 t r Traffic Volume (veh1h) 97 1148 359 460 1039 46 401 102 491 87 74 139 Future Volume (veh/h) 97 1148 359 460 1039 46 401 102 491 87 74 139 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A-pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, vehlh/In 1870 1870 1856 1870 1856 1870 1870 1826 1841 1870 1856 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 102 1208 378 484 1094 48 422 107 517 92 78 146 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 3 2 3 2 2 5 4 2 3 2 Cap, veh/h 194 1764 543 530 1976 618 793 419 597 116 121 275 Arrive On Green 0.11 0.35 0.35 0.15 0.39 0.39 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.07 0.07 0.07 Sat Flow,vehlh 1781 5106 1572 3456 5066 1585 3456 1826 1560 1781 1856 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 102 1208 378 484 1094 48 422 107 517 92 78 146 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1702 1572 1728 1689 1585 1728 1826 1560 1781 1856 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 8.7 32.5 33.1 22.1 26.9 3.0 17.2 7.7 36.7 8.1 6.6 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 8.7 32.5 33.1 22.1 26.9 3.0 17.2 7.7 36.7 8.1 6.6 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 194 1764 543 530 1976 618 793 419 597 116 121 275 V/C Ratio(X) 0.53 0.68 0.70 0.91 0.55 0.08 0.53 0.26 0.87 0.79 0.65 0.53 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 194 1764 543 570 1976 618 793 419 597 138 144 295 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 67.4 44.9 45.1 66.7 38.0 30.7 54.1 50.5 45.6 73.7 73.0 60.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.6 2.2 7.2 18.6 1.1 0.2 0.7 0.3 12.7 22.8 7.3 1.6 Initial Q Delay(d3),slveh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(95%),veh/In 7.3 19.9 19.9 16.4 16.6 2.2 12.1 6.4 28.4 7.9 6.1 9.4 Unsig. Movement Delay, slveh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 70.1 47.1 52.3 85.3 39.1 30.9 54.8 50.8 58.3 96.6 80.3 61.7 LnG LOS E D D F D C D D E F F E Approach Vol, veh/h 1688 1626 1046 316 Approach Delay, slveh 49.7 52.6 56.1 76.5 Approach LOS D D E E Timer -Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 33.1 63.9 18.0 26.0 71.0 45.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s * 8.6 * 8.6 7.6 * 8.6 * 8.6 8.3 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s * 26 * 51 12.4 * 15 * 62 36.7 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+ll), s 24.1 35.1 10.1 10.7 28.9 38.7 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 0.5 8.4 0.3 0.1 8.6 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 53.9 HCM 6th LOS D User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green. User approved ignoring U-Tuming movement. * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. Tuscany Village MF Synchro 11 Report Kimley-Horn Page 5 HCM 6th TWSC Buildout 4: Driveway #1 & SR 46 PM Peak Hour Intersection Int Delay, s/veh Movement 0.1 EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations ffJ+ - Notes f- r Stage 2 Traffic Vol, veh/h 1522 22 0 1640 0 35 Future Vol, veh/h 1522 22 0 1640 0 35 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized None None 1 None Storage Length - "565 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - 0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - WB 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 1654 24 0 1783 0 38 Major/Minor Majorl Major2 Minorl 0.067 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 HCM Lane LOS 839 Stage 1 - - Notes Stage 2 - Critical Hdwy 7.14 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - Follow-up Hdwy 3.92 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 0 0 `565 Stage 1 - 0 0 - Stage 2 0 0 Platoon blocked, % 1 Mov Cap -1 Maneuver - - "565 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver Stage 1 Stage 2 Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay; s 0 0 11.8 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBT Capacity (veh/h) 565 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.067 HCM Control Delay (s) 11.8 HCM Lane LOS B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 Notes —: Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined ": All major volume in platoon Tuscany Village MF Synchro 11 Report Kimley-Horn Page 6 HCM 6th TWSC Buildout 5: Driveway #2 & SR 46 PM Peak Hour Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.1 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations ttl� Minor1 0.047 W 0 r Traffic Vol, veh/h 1668 15 0 1589 0 23 Future Vol, veh/h 1668 15 0 1589 0 23 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized Stage 1 None 0 None Stage 2 None Storage Length Platoon blocked, % - 1 0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - `532 0 0 - Grade, % 0 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 1813 16 0 1727 0 25 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 0.047 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 HCM Lane LOS 915 Stage 1 - - Notes - Stage 2 - Critical Hdwy 7.14 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - Follow-up Hdwy 3.92 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 0 0 `532 Stage 1 0 0 - Stage 2 0 0 Platoon blocked, % 1 Mov Cap -1 Maneuver - - `532 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver Stage 1 Stage 2 Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 12.1 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Maior Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBT Capacity (veh/h) 532 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.047 HCM Control Delay (s) 12.1 HCM Lane LOS B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 Notes —: Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined `: All major volume in platoon Tuscany Village MF Synchro 11 Report Kimley-Horn Page 7 HCM 6th TWSC Buildout 6: Driveway #3 & SR 46 PM Peak Hour Intersection Int Delay, slveh 0 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations fia Minorl 0.025 IM, 0 E Traffic Vol, veh/h 1671 15 0 1589 0 12 Future Vol, veh/h 1671 15 0 1589 0 12 Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized Stage 1 - None 0 None Stage 2 - None Storage Length - Platoon blocked, % - - 1 0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 `532 0 0 Grade, % 0 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 1816 16 0 1727 0 13 Major/Minor Majorl Major2 Minorl 0.025 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 HCM Lane LOS 916 Stage 1 - - Notes - Stage 2 - Critical Hdwy 7.14 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - Follow-up Hdwy 3.92 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver - 0 0 '532 Stage 1 - 0 0 - Stage 2 - 0 0 - Platoon blocked, % - 1 Mov Cap -1 Maneuver - - `532 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - - Stage 1 - Stage 2 - Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 11.9 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLnl EBT EBR WBT Capacity (veh/h) 532 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.025 HCM Control Delay (s) 11.9 HCM Lane LOS B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 Notes --: Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined `: All major volume in platoon Tuscany Village MF Synchro 11 Report Kimley-Horn Page 8 ITE Land Use Codes Multifamily Housing (Mid -Rise) Description Mid -rise multifamily housing includes apartments and condominiums located in a building that has between four and 10 floors of living space. Access to individual dwelling units is through an outside building entrance, a lobby, elevator, and a set of hallways. Multifamily housing (low-rise) (Land Use 220), multifamily housing (high-rise) (Land Use 222), off - campus student apartment (mid -rise) (Land Use 226), and mid -rise residential with ground -floor commercial (Land Use 231) are related land uses. Land Use Subcategory Data are presented for two subcategories for this land use: (1) not close to rail transit and (2) close to rail transit. A site is considered close to rail transit if the walking distance between the residential site entrance and the closest rail transit station entrance is'h mile or less. Additional Data For the six sites for which both the number of residents and the number of occupied dwelling units were available, there were an average of 2.5 residents per occupied dwelling unit. For the five sites for which the numbers of both total dwelling units and occupied dwelling units were available, an average of 96 percent of the total dwelling units were occupied. The technical appendices provide supporting information on time -of -day distributions for this land use. The appendices can be accessed through either the ITETripGen web app or the trip generation resource page on the ITE website (https_//www.ite.org/technical-resources/topics/trip- and-parking-generation/). ....................................... It is expected that the number of bedrooms and number of residents are likely correlated to the trips generated by a residential site. To assist in future analysis, trip generation studies of all multifamily housing should attempt to obtain information on occupancy rate and on the mix of residential unit sizes (i.e., number of units by number of bedrooms at the site complex). The sites were surveyed in the 1990s, the 2000s, the 2010s, and the 2020s in Alberta (CAN), California, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, New Jersey, New York, Ontario (CAN), Oregon, Utah, and Virginia. Source Numbers 168, 188, 204, 305, 306, 321, 818, 857, 862, 866, 901, 904, 910, 949, 951, 959, 963, 964, 966, 967, 969, 970, 1004, 1014, 1022, 1023, 1025, 1031, 1032, 1035, 1047, 1056, 1057, 1058, 1071, 1076 WGeneral Urban/Suburban and Rural (Land Uses 000-399) 273 Multifamily Housing (Mid -Rise) Not Close to Rail Transit (221) Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Dwelling Units On a: Weekday Setting/Location: General Urban/Suburban Number of Studies: 11 Avg. Num. of Dwelling Units: 201 Directional Distribution: 50% entering, 50% exiting Vehicle Trio Generation oer Dwellinq Unit Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 4.54 3.76-5.40 0.51 nata Plot and Equation ........... ...... ... ... ........ ......... ........... 2000 a X X x X LU .CL ......... ...... ........ ...... ................. .......... 1000 X X X. 0 0 100 200 300 400 X = Number of Dwelling Units X Study Site Fitted Curve — — Average Rate Fitted Curve Equation: T = 4.77(X) - 46.46 R2= 0.93 274 Trip Generation Manual 11th Edition -Volume 3 Re. r Multifamily Housing (Mid -Rise) Not Close to Rail Transit (221) Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Dwelling Units On a: Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour Between 7 and 9 a.m. Setting/Location: General Urban/Suburban Number of Studies: 30 Avg. Num. of Dwelling Units: 173 Directional Distribution: 23% entering, 77% exiting Vehicle Trip Generation per Dwelling Unit Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 0.37 0.15-0.53 0.09 Data Plot and Equation 300 200 100 X: X >4Xr�X X X X 0 100 200 300 400 500 X = Number of Dwelling Units X Study Site Fitted Curve - - - - - Average Rate Fitted Curve Equation: T = 0.44(X) -11.61 R== 0.91 w® General Urban/Suburban and Rural (Land Uses 000-399) 275 Multifamily Housing (Mid -Rise) Not Close to Rail Transit (221) Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Dwelling Units On a: Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour Between 4 and 6 p.m. Setting/Location: General Urban/Suburban Number of Studies: 31 Avg. Num. of Dwelling Units: 169 Directional Distribution: 61 % entering, 39% exiting Vphit-Ip Trin Generation per Dwelling Unit Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 0.39 0.19-0.57 0.08 Data Plot and Equation 200 X X X N X a LU W NSOC ..................................................................... 100 u F �C X :K X: X X X X X X )�XX 0 0 100 200 300 400 500 X = Number of Dwelling Units X Study Site Fitted Curve - - - - - Average Rate Fitted Curve Equation: T = 0.39(X) + 0.34 R== 0.91 276 Trip Generation Manual 11th Edition • Volume 3 NUB Land Use: 822 Strip Retail Plaza (<40k) Description A strip retail plaza is an integrated group of commercial establishments that is planned, developed, owned, and managed as a unit. Each study site in this land use has less than 40,000 square feet of gross leasable area (GLA). Because a strip retail plaza is open-air, the GLA is the same as the gross floor area of the building. The 40,000 square feet GFA threshold between strip retail plaza and shopping plaza (Land Use 821) was selected based on an examination of the overall shopping center/plaza database. No shopping plaza with a supermarket as its anchor is smaller than 40,000 square feet GLA. Shopping center (>150k) (Land use 820), shopping plaza (40-150k) (Land Use 821), and factory outlet center (Land Use 823) are related uses. Additional Data The technical appendices provide supporting information on time -of -day distributions for this land use. The appendices can be accessed through either the ITETripGen web app or the trip generation resource page on the ITE website (haps_//www.ite:or9/technical resources/topics/trip- and-parking-generation/}. ...................................... The sites were surveyed in the 1980s, the 1990s, the 2000s, and the 2010s in Alberta (CAN), California, Delaware, Florida, New Jersey, Ontario (CAN), South Dakota, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin. Source Numbers 304, 358, 423, 428, 437, 507, 715, 728, 936, 960, 961, 974,1009 228 Trip Generation Manual 11th Edition • Volume 5 ,`�NOW Strip Retail Plaza (<40k) (822) Vehicle Trip Ends vs: 1000 Sq. Ft. GLA On a: Weekday Setting/Location: General Urban/Suburban Number of Studies: 4 Avg. 1000 Sq. Ft. GLA: 19 Directional Distribution: 50% entering, 50% exiting fehicle Trip Generation per luuu sq. 1-1. ULA Average Rate Range of Rates standard Deviation 54.45 47.86 - 65.07 7.81 m 4- 01-+ nnel Pniinfinn L.FCKLCA I IWL 2000 C w N... : .................. .................... ........... 1000 X p 0 L0 10 20 30 44 X = 1000 Sq. Ft GLA X Study Site Fitted Curve - - - - - Average Rate Fitted Curve Equation: T = 42.20(X) + 229.68 RI= 0.96 i NNW General Urban/Suburban and Rural (Land Uses 800-999) 229 •Retail 0 e • 22) Vehicle Trip Ends vs: 1000 Sq. Ft. GLA On a: Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour Between 7 and 9 a.m. Setting/Location: General Urban/Suburban Number of Studies: 5 Avg. 1000 Sq. Ft. GLA: 18 Directional Distribution: 60% entering, 40% exiting Vehicle Trip Generation per 1000 Sq. Ft. GLA Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 2.36 1.60-3.73 0.94 Data Plot and Equation 80 60 -"o c W 0, CL 40 II E- 20 i i i i i i X 7C i i i i X 0 0 10 20 30 40 X = 1000 Sq. Ft GLA X Study Site Fitted Curve - - - - - Average Rate Fitted Curve Equation: Ln(T) = 0.66 Ln(X) + 1.84 R2= 0.57 230 Trip Generation Manual 11th Edition • Volume 5 W X .' ............ ....................... :....................... ........................................................... i i i i i i X 7C i i i i X 0 0 10 20 30 40 X = 1000 Sq. Ft GLA X Study Site Fitted Curve - - - - - Average Rate Fitted Curve Equation: Ln(T) = 0.66 Ln(X) + 1.84 R2= 0.57 230 Trip Generation Manual 11th Edition • Volume 5 W Strip Retail Plaza (<40k) (822) Vehicle Trip Ends vs: 1000 Sq. Ft. GLA On a: Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour Between 4 and 6 p.m. Setting/Location: General Urban/Suburban Number of Studies: 25 Avg. 1000 Sq. Ft. GLA: 21 Directional Distribution: 50% entering, 50% exiting \/ahir•In Trin I"Zanarnfinn her 1000 So. Ft. GLA Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 6.59 2.81-15.20 2.94 Data Plot and 300 I-_ IN G W C3 N i F 200 100 0 0 10 20 30 wu X = 1000 Sq. FL GLA X Study Site Fitted Curve - - - - - Average Rate Fitted Curve Equation: Ln(T) = 0.71 Ln(X) + 2.72 R2= 0.56 1>o General Urban/Suburban and Rural (Land Uses 800-999) 231 Description A hotel is a place of lodging that provides sleeping accommodations and supporting facilities such as a full-service restaurant, cocktail lounge, meeting rooms, banquet room, and convention facilities. A hotel typically provides a swimming pool or another recreational facility such as a fitness room. All suites hotel (Land Use 311), business hotel (Land Use 312), motel (Land Use 320), and resort hotel (Land Use 330) are related uses. Additional Data Twenty-five studies provided information on occupancy rates at the time the studies were conducted. The average occupancy rate for these studies was approximately 82 percent. Some properties in this land use provide guest transportation services (e.g., airport shuttle, limousine service, golf course shuttle service) which may have an impact on the overall trip generation rates. The technical appendices provide supporting information on time -of -day distributions for this land use. The appendices can be accessed through either the ITETripGen web app or the trip generation resource page on the ITE website (https.//www.ite:orq/technical-resources/topics/trip: and -parking -...generation/). ..................................... The sites were surveyed in the 1980s, the 1990s, the 2000s, and the 2010s in California, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Minnesota, New York, Ontario (CAN), Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington. For all lodging uses, it is important to collect data on occupied rooms as well as total rooms in order to accurately predict trip generation characteristics for the site. Trip generation at a hotel may be related to the presence of supporting facilities such as convention facilities, restaurants, meeting/banquet space, and retail facilities. Future data submissions should specify the presence of these amenities. Reporting the level of activity at the supporting facilities such as full, empty, partially active, number of people attending a meetinglbanquet during observation may also be useful in further analysis of this land use. Source Numbers 170, 260, 262, 277, 280, 301, 306, 357, 422, 507, 577, 728, 867, 872, 925, 951, 1009,1021, 1026, 1046 ■{NNW General Urban/Suburban and Rural (Land Uses 000-399) 499 Hotel (31 0) Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Rooms On a: Weekday Setting/Location: General Urban/Suburban Number of Studies: 7 Avg. Num. of Rooms: 148 Directional Distribution: 50% entering, 50% exiting Vehicle Trio Generation oer Room Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 7.99 5.31-9.53 1.92 Data Plot and Eauation 3000 2000 1000 .......................... ............ ....... X .................... X XX ....... ........... ............ ......... .......... ........ .......... . .............. X 0 0 100 200 300 X = Number of Rooms X Study Site Fitted Curve Average Rate Fitted Curve Equation: T = 10.84(X) - 423-51 R2= 0.85 500 Trip Generation Manual 11th Edition - Volume 3 snow Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Rooms On a: Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour Between 7 and 9 a.m. Setting/Location: General Urban/Suburban Number of Studies: 28 Avg. Num. of Rooms: 182 Directional Distribution: 56% entering, 44% exiting Vehicle Trip Generation per Room Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 0.46 0.20-0.84 0.14 Data Plot and Equation 300 200 100 a .......... ....... ................... ....... ................ ... .... X X: x X X X X X X XX X X X :x X. X X :X XX X 0 100 X Study Site Fitted Curve Equation: T = 0.50(X) - 7.45 200 300 X = Number of Rooms Fitted Curve 400 500 - Average Rate Rz-- 0.84 "U. r General Urban/Suburban and Rural (Land Uses 000-399) 501 Hates (310) Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Rooms On a: Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour Between 4 and 6 p.m. Setting/Location: General Urban/Suburban Number of Studies: 31 Avg. Num. of Rooms: 186 Directional Distribution: 51 % entering, 49% exiting Vehicle Tri[) Generation per Room Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 0.59 0.26-1.06 0.22 uaia riot anu cyuaLIvei 400 300 N a G W N CL 200 r 100 0 0 100 200 300 400 500 X = Number of Rooms X Study Site Fitted Curve - - - - - Average Rate Fitted Curve Equation: T = 0.74(X) - 27.89 R'= 0.78 502 Trip Generation Manual 11th Edition -Volume 3 " JIM Description A general office building is a location where affairs of businesses, commercial or industrial organizations, or professional persons or firms are conducted. An office building houses multiple tenants that can include, as examples, professional services, insurance companies, investment brokers, a banking institution, a restaurant, or other service retailers. A general office building with a gross floor area of 10,000 square feet or less is classified as a small office building (Land Use 712). Corporate headquarters building (Land Use 714), single tenant office building (Land Use 715), medical -dental office building (Land Use 720), office park (Land Use 750), research and development center (Land Use 760), and business park (Land Use 770) are additional related uses. Additional Data If two or more general office buildings are in close physical proximity (within a close walk) and function as a unit (perhaps with a shared parking facility and common or complementary tenants), the total gross floor area or employment of the paired office buildings can be used for calculating the site trip generation. If the individual buildings are isolated or not functionally related to one another, trip generation should be calculated for each building separately. For study sites with reported gross floor area and employees, an average employee density of 3.3 employees per 1,000 square feet GFA (or roughly 300 square feet per employee) has been consistent through the 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s. No sites counted in the 2010s reported both GFA and employees. The average building occupancy varies considerably within the studies for which occupancy data were provided. The reported occupied gross floor area was 88 percent for general urban/suburban sites and 96 percent for the center city core and dense multi -use urban sites. The technical appendices provide supporting information on time -of -day distributions for this land use. The appendices can be accessed through either the ITETripGen web app or the trip generation resource page on the ITE website (https://www_ite.org/technical-resources/topics/trip: .................................................. and. -parking -generation/). The average numbers of person trips per vehicle trip at the eight center city core sites at which both person trip and vehicle trip data were collected are as follows: - 2.8 during Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, one hour between 7 and 9 a.m. 2.9 during Weekday, AM Peak Hour of Generator - 2.9 during Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, one hour between 4 and 6 p.m. • 3.0 during Weekday, PM Peak Hour of Generator K® General Urban/Suburban and Rural (Land Uses 400-799) 707 The average numbers of person trips per vehicle trip at the 18 dense multi -use urban sites at which both person trip and vehicle trip data were collected are as follows: • 1.5 during Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, one hour between 7 and 9 a.m. • 1.5 during Weekday, AM Peak Hour of Generator • 1.5 during Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, one hour between 4 and 6 p.m. • 1.5 during Weekday, PM Peak Hour of Generator The average numbers of person trips per vehicle trip at the 23 general urban/suburban sites at which both person trip and vehicle trip data were collected are as follows: • 1.3 during Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, one hour between 7 and 9 a.m. • 1.3 during Weekday, AM Peak Hour of Generator • 1.3 during Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, one hour between 4 and 6 p.m. • 1.4 during Weekday, PM Peak Hour of Generator The sites were surveyed in the 1980s, the 1990s, the 2000s, the 2010s, and the 2020s in Alberta (CAN), California, Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ontario (CAN) Pennsylvania, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and Washington. Source Numbers 161, 175, 183, 184, 185, 207, 212, 217, 247, 253, 257, 260, 262, 273, 279, 297, 298, 300, 301, 302, 303, 304, 321, 322, 323, 324, 327, 404, 407, 408, 419, 423, 562, 734, 850, 859, 862, 867, 869, 883, 884, 890, 891, 904, 940, 944, 946, 964, 965, 972, 1009, 1030, 1058, 1061 708 Trip Generation Manual lith Edition • Volume 4 General Office Building (710) Vehicle Trip Ends vs: 1000 Sq. Ft. GFA On a: Weekday Setting/Location: General Urban/Suburban Number of Studies: 59 Avg. 1000 Sq. Ft. GFA: 163 Directional Distribution: 50% entering, 50% exiting Vehicle Trip Generation per 1000 Sq. Ft. GFA Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 10.84 3.27-27.56 4.76 Data Plot and Equation 6000 4000 H 2000 X X X 0 0 200 400 600 800 X = 1000 Sq. Ft. GFA X Study Site Fitted Curve - - - - - Average Rate Fitted Curve Equation: Ln(T) = 0.87 Ln(x) + 3.05 RZ= 0.78 W1 General Urban/Suburban and Rural (Land Uses 400-799) 709 X X X X �X :.X .� .......... _ ................�.....:. ..............................;.. i i X X XX •� X i i i i i X X X 0 0 200 400 600 800 X = 1000 Sq. Ft. GFA X Study Site Fitted Curve - - - - - Average Rate Fitted Curve Equation: Ln(T) = 0.87 Ln(x) + 3.05 RZ= 0.78 W1 General Urban/Suburban and Rural (Land Uses 400-799) 709 General Office Building (710) Vehicle Trip Ends vs: 1000 Sq. Ft. GFA On a: Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour Between 7 and 9 a.m. Setting/Location: General Urban/Suburban Number of Studies: 221 Avg. 1000 Sq. Ft. GFA: 201 Directional Distribution: 88% entering, 12% exiting Vehicle Trip Generation per 1000 Sq. Ft. GFA Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 1.52 0.32-4.93 0.58 Data Plot and Equation 2000 v w a 1000 n X X X n X xxx � � X X X X XX X rxx X X X X C- i 0 '_ 0 1000 X = 1000 Sq. Ft. GFA X Study Site Fitted Curve Fitted Curve Equation: Ln(T) = 0.86 Ln(X) + 1.16 - - - - - Average Rate R2= 0.78 2000 710 Trip Generation Manual 11th Edition • Volume 4 W® General Office s • e Vehicle Trip Ends vs: 1000 Sq. Ft. GFA On a: Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour Between 4 and 6 p.m. Setting/Location: General Urban/Suburban Number of Studies: 232 Avg. 1000 Sq. Ft. GFA: 199 Directional Distribution: 17% entering, 83% exiting Vehicle Trip Generation per 1000 Sq. Ft. GFA Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 1.44 0.26-6.20 0.60 Data Plot and Equation 2000 y c W a 1000 i 0p i i X., i i X i X XX X X/ X XXX X X X XK X X A �' XXX XX?zCC X X X X X 7X XX X X 1000 X = 1000 Sq. Ft. GFA X Study Site Fitted Curve Fitted Curve Equation: Ln(T) = 0.83 Ln(X) + 1.29 - - - - - Average Rate R2= 0.77 2000 °h►® General Urban/Suburban and Rural (Land Uses 400-799) 711 Land Use: 821 Shopping(40-150k) Description A shopping plaza is an integrated group of commercial establishments that is planned, developed, owned, and managed as a unit. Each study site in this land use has between 40,000 and 150,000 square feet of gross leasable area (GLA). The term "plaza" in the land use name rather than "center" is simply a means of distinction between the different shopping center size ranges. Various other names are commonly used to categorize a shopping plaza within this size range, depending on its specific size and tenants, such as neighborhood center, community center, and fashion center. Its major tenant is often a supermarket but many sites are anchored by home improvement, discount, or other stores. A shopping plaza typically contains more than retail merchandising facilities. Office space, a movie theater, restaurants, a post office, banks, a health club, and recreational facilities are common tenants. A shopping plaza is almost always open-air and the GLA is the same as the gross floor area of the building. The 150,000 square feet GLA threshold value between shopping plaza and shopping center (Land Use 820) is based on an examination of trip generation data. For a shopping plaza that is smaller than the threshold value, the presence or absence of a supermarket within the plaza has a measurable effect on site trip generation. For a shopping center that is larger than the threshold value, the trips generated by its other major tenants mask any effects of the presence or absence of an on-site supermarket. The 40,000 square feet GFA threshold between shopping plaza and strip retail plaza (Land Use 822) was selected based on an examination of the overall shopping center/plaza database. No shopping plaza with a supermarket as its anchor is smaller than 40,000 square feet GLA. Shopping center (>150k) (Land Use 820), strip retail plaza (<40k) (Land Use 822), and factory outlet center (Land Use 823) are related uses. Land Use Subcategory The presence or absence of a supermarket in a shopping plaza has been determined to have a measurable effect on site trip generation. Therefore, data are presented for two subcategories for this land use: sites with a supermarket anchor and sites without a supermarket. Additional Data The technical appendices provide supporting information on time -of -day distributions for this land use. The appendices can be accessed through either the ITETripGen web app or the trip generation resource page on the ITE website (https.//www..... ical resources/topics/trip- and-parking-generation/). a OW General Urban/Suburban and Rural (Land Uses 800-999) 197 The sites were surveyed in the 1980s, the 1990s, the 2000s, and the 2010s in Alberta (CAN), British Columbia (CAN), California, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Ontario (CAN), Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin. Source Numbers 105, 110,156, 159, 186,198, 204, 211, 213, 239, 259, 260, 295, 301, 304, 305, 307, 317, 319, 358, 376, 390, 400, 404, 437, 444, 446, 507, 580, 598, 658, 728, 908, 926, 944, 946, 960, 973, 974, 1004, 1009, 1025, 1069 198 Trip Generation Manual 11th Edition • Volume 5 Shopping Plaza (40-150k) - Supermarket - Yes (821) Vehicle Trip Ends vs: 1000 Sq. Ft. GLA On a: Weekday Setting/Location: General Urban/Suburban Number of Studies: 17 Avg. 1000 Sq. Ft. GLA: 81 Directional Distribution: 50% entering, 50% exiting Vehicle i rip tieneration per 1000 aq. R. GLA Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 94.49 57.86 - 175.32 26.55 Data Plot and Equation 20000 10000 F 0 0 100 200 X = 1000 Sq. Ft. GLA X Study Site Fitted Curve - - - - - Average Rate Fitted Curve Equation: T = 76.96(X) + 1412.79 RI= 0.50 General Urban/Suburban and Rural (Land Uses 800-999) 199 Shopping Plaza (40-150k) - Supermarket - Yes (821) Vehicle Trip Ends vs: 1000 Sq. Ft. GLA On a: Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour Between 7 and 9 a.m. Setting/Location: General Urban/Suburban Number of Studies: 16 Avg. 1000 Sq. Ft. GLA: 86 Directional Distribution: 62% entering, 38% exiting Vehicle Trip Generation per 1000 Sq. Ft. GLA Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 3.53 1.88-6.62 1.17 Data Plot and Equation H 600 400 200 00 X X Study Site Fitted Curve Equation: Not Given 100 X = 1000 Sq. Ft. GLA - - - - - Average Rate R'= — 200 200 Trip Generation Manual 11th Edition • Volume 5 " r Shopping Plaza (40-150k) - Supermarket -Yes (821) Vehicle Trip Ends vs: 1000 Sq. Ft. GLA On a: Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour Between 4 and 6 p.m. Setting/Location: General Urban/Suburban Number of Studies: 51 Avg. 1000 Sq. Ft. GLA: 87 Directional Distribution: 48% entering, 52% exiting \/ohir+ln Trin f;pnpratinn ner 1000 Sa. Ft. GLA Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 9.03 5.35-16.45 2.37 Data Plot and tquation 2000 N W a 17- 1000 i 00 x ►A X Study Site Fitted Curve Equation: T = 7.67(X) + 118.86 100 X = 1000 Sq. Ft. GLA Fitted Curve - - - - - Average Rate R2= 0.62 200 :�„® General Urban/Suburban and Rural (Land Uses 800-999) 201 Land Use: 932 High -Turnover Restaurant Description This land use consists of sit-down, full-service eating establishments with a typical duration of stay of 60 minutes or less. This type of restaurant is usually moderately priced, frequently belongs to a restaurant chain, and is commonly referred to as casual dining. Generally, these restaurants serve lunch and dinner; they may also be open for breakfast and are sometimes open 24 hours a day. These restaurants typically do not accept reservations. A patron commonly waits to be seated, is served by wait staff, orders from a menu, and pays after the meal. Some facilities offer carry -out for a small proportion of its customers. Some facilities within this land use may also contain a bar area for serving food and alcoholic drinks. Fast casual restaurant (Land Use 930), fine dining restaurant (Land Use 931), fast-food restaurant without drive-through window (Land Use 933), and fast-food restaurant with drive-through window (Land Use 934) are related uses. Additional Data Users should exercise caution when applying statistics during the AM peak periods, as the sites contained in the database for this land use may or may not be open for breakfast. In cases where it was confirmed that the sites were not open for breakfast, data for the AM peak hour of the adjacent street traffic were removed from the database. If the restaurant has outdoor seating, its area is not included in the overall gross floor area. For a restaurant that has significant outdoor seating, the number of seats may be more reliable than GFA as an independent variable on which to establish a trip generation rate. The technical appendices provide supporting information on time -of -day distributions for this land use. The appendices can be accessed through either the ITETripGen web app or the trip generation resource page on the ITE website (https,//www.ite.org/technical-resources/topics/trip- .. . ....... . and. -parking .�enerationl). The sites were surveyed in the 1980s, the 1990s, the 2000s, and the 2010s in Alberta (CAN), California, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Vermont, and Wisconsin. Source Numbers 126, 269, 275, 280, 300, 301, 305, 338, 340, 341, 358, 384, 424, 432, 437, 438, 444, 507, 555, 577, 589, 617, 618, 728, 868, 884, 885, 903, 927, 939, 944, 961, 962, 977,1048 672 Trip Generation Manual 11th Edition • Volume 5 WEB High -Turnover (Sit -Down) Restaurant (932) Vehicle Trip Ends vs: 1000 Sq. Ft. GFA On a: Weekday Setting/Location: General Urban/Suburban !Number of Studies: 50 Avg. 1000 Sq. Ft. GFA: 5 Directional Distribution: 50% entering, 50% exiting ­ �r w vehicle I rip veneration per -juuu aq. r>:. UFA Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 107.20 13.04 - 742.41 66.72 rata Plot and Eauation 2000 00 x x x ..................................x........ ....... ...v...� �.. ...... X . xx X X x X X Xx '�xX X X X x .' X X X x x X,x x X,I X3x x � X X Study Site Fitted Curve Equation: Not Given 10 X = 1000 Sq. Ft. GFA - - - - - Average Rate R2= — N Now General Urban/Suburban and Rural (Land Uses 800-999) 673 High -Turnover (Sit -Down) Restaurant Vehicle Trip Ends vs: 1O08Sq. Ft. GFA Onm:Weekday, Peak Hour mfAdjacent Street Treffio One Hour Between 7and 9a.m. Setting/Location: Genmnu|Urbmn/Suburbun Number ofStudies: 37 Avg. 1000Sq. Ft. GFA: 5 Directional Distribution: 55Y{entering, 45%exiting Vehicle Trip Generation per 1000 Sq. Ft. GFA Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation uata Plmtmmci 200 F_ � W C' j�_ /no " � X mation X � . —.� , -----------�y�---—�-- ---------' X x .,�X � X ~^ � ~x � ', � X . X ' ! X IX � ~*I X X"� , x � ,' � x i � ��.. � .. x � � ' . x� ' . x x X X, � »» xStvdy Site Fitted Curve Equation: Not Given 674 Trip Generation Manual 11thEdition -Volume 5 m - ----Avvraoenate R 2=~~ m High -Turnover (Sit -Down) Restaurant (932) Vehicle Trip Ends vs: 1000 Sq. Ft. GFA On a: Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour Between 4 and 6 p.m. Setting/Location: General Urban/Suburban Number of Studies: 104 Avg. 1000 Sq. Ft. GFA: 6 Directional Distribution: 61% entering, 39% exiting Trim t:nnermfinn nor 1nnn Sq- Ft. GFA YG/1/41G IIIc/ v IIv..+...v.. ��. •--_ --I- - Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 9.05 0.92-62.00 6.18 Data Piot and 200 I -- uation X X X X X X X X'� X--- ........ : �................... XX XX XX X X X X ' XX X X X XX X X X X A, �X X' jlCXX X X X X XX X X X x .)x X X X X "'IX XXX X X X XXX� X.iC�'xX X X)�< XX X X: a0 X Study Site Fitted Curve Equation: Not Given 10 X = 1000 Sq. Ft. GFA - - - - - Average Rate Rz= — nil .r General Urban/Suburban and Rural (Land Uses 800-999) 675 F__9 APP'F7--,ND!X Excerpts F 0 M 0 -4 c < -n �AAW . ........ -1�:b 0 cn m 0 C) -4 OW -9 (n st n m Z m a) -n Cz.i 10>Z --I g, 0 < o m So M c: z o rV now cp -n r- Imam Pi=a Ha i2- AIM!;o�Ytem j- g: 9 '^l,t}� swl9 §� C��j gc ��WWr., room 3 rmw 5 E5 Pi T J --Z un V ia j. 10-00178 TUSCANY VILLAGE SITE AERIAL PLAN UPSULA ROAD I -ruSCANY VlL-L-AGilE=ljj CITY OF SANFORD. SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA FOR: MMM INVESTMENTS, LLC In MlLLER\%>o[EGG 1 I EXISTING CONDITIONS PLAN � . U-11 --- I B vi 31 = m � | � / upnuuAnoAo � FOR: MMM INVESTMENTS, LLC E c : •• lR EE lot 41 fs 3 :1 I , ! i Tuo4. 1 ` r � is 11 i Y• t \ ', r C! +\'• - `--� ' �( $#� �i� v sac :.aev- ' ( •�� � :1. s - 5 3 �g tFyyy _ �I 1 I a nC �'K fi y�i 6; IIF I � - ._ � "_ •_� a,,�,,, .� t1 C�•%' i iNgF85� 14511 - ��1 if 1 ,�a 4Agcpii`; f Wh- F$j � 2 b _ l t y e `t•t't � � 1 1f, I I Pikpp id ��Ls�•�d��s} 9 ae� b �� E3�a tt� �3JIGcx0(4�z�[,as�S 1 ( _ 'o '�• -- - ,a F ,1l 1 d SXR, _ v I C 4: S kis xa xj� : E-3 MASTER SITE PLAN ''tlo�,Y•` hAILLER�"aEGG (TUSCANY VILLAGE +Ip; CITY OF SANFORD, SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA FOR: MMM INVESTMENTS, LLC �'' -• ,,, _,_ � P F v u :- 6 u •. a r. y .. - Ila t —a ml9aRa o� � a4 at $4 f v n Az' +s 4•e S g g=I1 It8 it 4� a° log Cast' o e g $9 LA @ a iSa $o ;E6 egg o i $ aP asa o e: 8 fie $ •�' m a oa ' °Q- S 8 ta •u onp yA 3� o E €a y i�igi �C 4° { .. � i 366 a 4 �T D p r m g NAggF 4 � � fi a # - ZrA �� � y 3 4t �� �. jig �u�a i 9 Z D � o �> c'oR2 c^rri'- ry D v4 -gyp 8°a rn O �ptG N po 0 06 0 � p wrwv w'w'urr > p'mrow a '�gcfi c^rri'- ry D v4 -gyp 8°a rn O �ptG AP N, D IX CFRPMv7 Model PI®t 40 40 38 38 N Legend Project Location TAZ Centroid Lanes per direction =1 - Lanes per direction =2 Lanes per direction =3 --- Lanes per direction =4 --- Lanes per direction >4 0 N i On 60 N Trip Distribution - Tuscany Village Multifamily CFRPMv7 - 2025 - 3/812022 27 -- - - ...... 27 4 Excerpt from FD®T Access Management Guidebook FDOT Access Management Guidebook When Not to Consider Exclusive Right -Turn Lanes • Dense or built -out corridors with limited space • Right -turn lane that would negatively impact pedestrians or bicyclists • Vehicular movements from driveways or median openings that cross the right -turn lane resulting in multiple threat crashes • Context classifications C2T, C4, C5, or C6 When Exclusive Right -Turn Lanes are Beneficial There are instances when adding an exclusive right -turn lane for unsignalized driveways are beneficial to traffic operations and safety. Table 27 provides some guidance for this situation based on the speed limit of the roadway and how many right turns occur per hour. Locations where the Auto and Truck Modal Emphasis is "High" may be appropriate for consideration of Exclusive Right Turn Lanes. Table 27— Recommended Guidelines for Exclusive Right -Turn Lanes to Unsignalized Drivewayi' Roadway Posted Speed Limit Number of Right Tums Per Hour 45 mph or less 80-1251 Over 45 mph 35-55 2 Note: A posted speed limit of 45 mph may be used with these thresholds if the operating speeds are known to be over 45 mph during the time of peak right tum demand. Note on traffic projections: Projecting turning volumes is, at best, a knowledgeable estimate. Keep this in mind especially if the projections of right turns are close to meeting the guidelines. In that case, consider requiring the tum lane. I The lower threshold of 80 right -tum vehicles per hour would be most used for higher volume (greater than 600 vehicles per hour, per lane in one direction on the major roadway) or two-lane roads where lateral movement is restricted. The 125 right -tum vehicles per hour upper threshold would be most appropriate on lower volume roadways, multilane highways, or driveways with a large antry radius 50 feet or greater). 2 The lower threshold of 35 right -tum vehicles per hour would be most appropriately used on higher volume two-lane roadways where lateral movement is restricted. The 55 right -tum vehicles per hour upper threshold would be most appropriate on lower volume roadways, multilane highways, or driveways with large entry radius 50 feet or greater). Source: NCHRP Report 420 Ornnacts of Access Manaaement Techniques) These recommendations are primarily based on the research done in NCHRP Report 420, Impacts of Access Management Techniques. Chapter 4 — Unsignalized Access Spacing (Technique 1 B), and Use of Speed Differential as a Measure to Evaluate the Need for Right -Turn Deceleration Lane at Unsianalized Intersections. In the NCHRP Report 420, the observed high-speed roads, 30 to 40 right -turn vehicles per hour caused evasive maneuvers on 5 - 10 percent of the following through vehicles. For lower speed roadways, 80 to 110 right -turn vehicles caused 15 - 20 percent of the following through vehicles to make evasive maneuvers. The choice of acceptable percentages of through vehicles impacted is a decision based on reasonable expectations of the different roadways. In this study, by modeling speed differentials, a better understanding of the impacts of through volume and driveway radius was discovered. 10 May not be appropriate for signalized locations where signal phasing plays an important role in determining the need for right turn lanes. APPENDIX Excerpt from Seminole County's Summary of Roadway Concurrency Information RKEY Roadway Name From To BNL10 Bunnell Rd Eden Park Rd Bear Lake Rd Current Traffic Count 6,789 Roadway Link Capacity 19,360 Committed Trips 0 Net Available Capacity 12,571 BNL20 Bunnell Rd Pearl Lake Cswy Eden Park Rd Current Traffic Count 10,419 Roadway Link Capacity 19,360 Committed Trips 0 Net Available Capacity 8,941 BRD10 Bird Rd E. Lake Dr Dunmar Cir Current Traffic Count 2,592 Roadway Link Capacity 19,360 Committed Trips 0 _ Net Available Capacity 16,768 BRG00 Bear Gully Rd S.R. 436 Howell Branch Rd Current Traffic Count 2,039 Roadway Link Capacity 19,360 Committed Trips 0 Net Available Capacity _m 121. BRS00 Brisson Ave C.R. 415 Crawford Dr Current Traffic Count 2,794 Roadway Link Capacity 19,360 Committed Trips 118 Net Available Capacity 16,448 SRS10 Brisson Ave Crawford Dr S.R. 46 v� Current Traffic Count 3,251 Roadway Link Capacity 19,360 Committed Trips 0 Net Available Capacity 16,109 BRU10 Brumley Rd Snow Valley Way Ave. H Current Traffic Count 2,199 Roadway Link Capacity 19,360 Committed Trips 0 Net Available Capacity 17,161 C1500 C.R. 15/Monroe C.R. 431/Orange Blvd Church St Current Traffic Count 18,632 Roadway Link Capacity 42,560 Committed Trips 210 Net Available Capacity 23,718 C1505 C.R. 15iMonroe my Church St S.R. 46 m Current Traffic Count 18,889 Roadway Link Capacity 42,560 Committed Trips 2,287 Net Available Capacity 21,384 Thursday, September 2, 2021 Page 3 of 50 This information has been provided by Tony Nelson, P.E. at Seminole County Engineering and is current information as of the above referenced date. RKEY Roadway Name From TO C1510 C.R. 15/Upsala S.R. 46 Coastline Rd Current Traffic Count 8,846 Roadway Link Capacity 19,360 Committed Trips 935 Net Available Capacity 9,579 C1515 C.R. 15/Upsala �rd ^ Coastline Rd Central Park Dr Current Traffic Count 7,167 Roadway Link Capacity 19,360 Committed Trips 256 Net Available Capacity 11,937 C1520 C.R. 15/Upsala Central Park Dr C.R. 46-A Current Traffic Count 11,582 Roadway Link Capacity 19,360 Committed Trips 398 Net Available Capacity 7,380 C1525 C.R. 15/County Club Rd C.R. 46-A Linda Ln Current Traffic Count 9,170 Roadway Link Capacity 19,360 Committed Trips 0 Net Available Capacity _ 10,190 C1528 C.R. 15/Country Club Rd mm ^ Linda Ln Lake Mary Blvd Current Traffic Count 11,542 Roadway Link Capacity 19,360 Committed Trips 61 Net Available Capacity 7,757 C1530 C.R. 15/Country Club Rd Lake Mary Blvd Broadmoor Dr Current Traffic Count 15,063 Roadway Link Capacity 19,360 Committed Trips 61 Net Available Capacity 4,236 C1531 C.R. 15/Country Club Rdvm Broadmoor Rd Continental Blvd Current Traffic Count 11,312 Roadway Link Capacity 19,360 Committed Trips 0 Net Available Capacity v� 8,048 C1532 C.R. 15/Country Club RdContinental Blvd C.R. 427 Current Traffic Count 11,783 Roadway Link Capacity 19,360 Committed Trips 0 Net Available Capacity 7,577 C1910 C.R. 419 S.R. 434 Reed RdP4K� Current Traffic Count 17,473 Roadway Link Capacity 19,360 Committed Trips 0 Net Available CapacityX --- 1887_ Thursday, September 2, 2021 Page 4 of 50 This information has been provided by Tony Nelson, P.E. at Seminole County Engineering and is current information as of the above referenced date. RKEY Roadway Name From To RBL30 Red Bug Lake Rd Tuskawilla Rd Rising Sun Blvd Current Traffic Count 47,854 Roadway Link Capacity 63,840 Committed Trips 0 Net Available Capacity 15986 RBL40 Red Bug Lake Rd Rising Sun Blvd Slavia Rd Current Traffic Count 41,393 Roadway Link Capacity 63,840 Committed Trips 106 Net Available Capacity 22,341 RBL50 Red Bug Lake Rd Siavia Rd SR 417 Current Traffic Count 35,876 Roadway Link Capacity 63,840 Committed Trips 175 Net Available Capacity 27,789 RBL60 Red Bug Lake Rd S.R. 417 S.R. 426 Current Traffic Count 49,394 Roadway Link Capacity 63,840 Committed Trips 157 Net Available Capacity 14,289 REP -10 � Reed Rd C.R. 426 rnL��y- C.R. 419 Current Traffic Count 2,386 Roadway Link Capacity 19,360 Committed Trips 0 _ Net Available Capacity 16,9_7.4 RGL10 Range Line Rd E.E. Williamson Rd S.R. 434 Current Traffic Count 9,840 Roadway Link Capacity 19,360 Committed Trips 0 Net Available Capacity 9,520 RHA10 Rest Haven Rd 250 N S.R. 46 Current Traffic Count 375 Roadway Link Capacity 19,360 Committed Trips 0 Net Available Capacity 18,985 RNH10 Rinehart Rd S.R. 46 St. John's Pkwy Current Traffic Count 20,785 Roadway Link Capacity 42,560 Committed Trips 1,656 Net Available Capacity 20,119 RNH2O Rinehart Rd St. John's Pkwy S.R. 417 Current Traffic Count 29,264 Roadway Link Capacity 42,560 Committed Trips 965 Net Available Capacity 12,331 Thursday, September 2, 2021 Page 32 of 50 This information has been provided by Tony Nelson, P.E. at Seminole County Engineering and is current information as of the above referenced date. RKEY Roadway Name From TO S3670 S.R. 436 Red Bug Lake Rd U.S. 17-92 Current Traffic Count 76,042 Roadway Link Capacity 60,000 Committed Trips 66 Net Available Capacity -16,108 S3680^ S.R. 436am Lake Howell Rd Red Bug Lake Rd Current Traffic Count 68.243 Roadway Link Capacity 60,000 Committed Trips 0 Net Available Capacity -8,243 S3690 S.R. 436 Howell Branch Rd Lake Howell Rd Current Traffic Count 55,219 Roadway Link Capacity 60,000 Committed Trips 0 Net Available Capacity 4,781 53695 S.R. 436 Orange County Line Howell Branch Rd Current Traffic Count 54,944 Roadway Link Capacity 60,000 Committed Trips 0 Net Available Capacity 51056 S4600 S.R. 46 C.R. 431 Lake County Current Traffic Count 25,360 Roadway Link Capacity 18,270 Committed Trips 198 Net Available Capacity -7.288 S4610 S.R. 46� Lake Forest Entrance C.R. 431 Current Traffic Count 35,011 Roadway Link Capacity 48,000 Committed Trips 570 Net Available Capacity 12.419 S4620 S.R. 46 1-4 Lake Forest Entrance Current Traffic Count 39,478 Roadway Link Capacity 48,000 Committed Trips 1,633 _ Net Available Capacity 6 889 S4625 S.R. 46 Rinehart Rd _ 1-4 Current Traffic Count 40,326 Roadway Link Capacity 60.000 Committed Trips 3,011 Net Available Capacity 16,663 S4635 S.R. 46 C.R. 15/Upsala Rd Rinehart Rd~ v Current Traffic Count 36,287 Roadway Link Capacity 60,000 Committed Trips 1,661 Net Available Capacity 22,052 Thursday, September 2, 2029 Page 39 of 50 This information has been provided by Tony Nelson, P.E. at Seminole County Engineering and is current information as of the above referenced date. RKEY Roadway Name From To S4645 S.R. 46 Airport Blvd C.R. 15/Upsala Current Traffic Count 40,551 Roadway Link Capacity 48,000 Committed Trips 2,199 Net Available Capacity 5,250 S4650 S.R. 46 U.S. 17-92 Airport Blvd M. Current Traffic Count 20,354 Roadway Link Capacity 48,000 Committed Trips 0 Net Available Capacity 27,646 S4660 S.R. 46/E 25th St. C.R. 425/Sanford Ave U.S. 17-92 Current Traffic Count 22,775 Roadway Link Capacity 48,000 Committed Trips 0 Net Available Capacity 25;225 S4665 S.R. 461E 25th St. Mellonville Ave C.R. 425/Sanford Ave Current Traffic Count 24,773 Roadway Link Capacity 48,000 Committed Trips 0 Net Available Capacity 23,227 S4670 S.R. 46 Beardall Ave Mellonville Ave Current Traffic Count 16,249 Roadway Link Capacity 18,270 Committed Trips 2,081 _ Net Available Capacity -60 S4675 S.R. 46 S.R. 415 Beardall Ave Current Traffic Count 12,193 Roadway Link Capacity 18,270 Committed Trips 1,939 Net Available Capacity 4,138 S4680 S.R. 46 Osceola Rd S.R. 415 Current Traffic Count 12,787 Roadway Link Capacity 18,270 Committed Trips 1,007 Net Available Capacity 4,476 S4685 S.R. 46 C.R. 426 Osceola Rd Current Traffic Count 12,195 Roadway Link Capacity 18,270 Committed Trips 0 Net Available Capacity 6,075 S4690 S.R. 46 Volusia County C.R. 426 Current Traffic Count 8,209 Roadway Link Capacity 18,270 Committed Trips 0 Net Available Capacity 10 061 Thursday, September 2, 2021 Page 40 of 50 This information has been provided by Tony Nelson, P.E. at Seminole County Engineering and is current information as of the above referenced date. �4(ZS Qs w CD Q J \_J Z Q U U) H U- 0 Cl) N N J 7 m fLU V Q J J_ Z Q U U) H J LL w w CO N O N J WIFER PID® a E I II�O C O W O vi t y c 0 0 W c O LL c 0 0 m LU 6 JLL Ij Hitz .0 mo u 12 > 2 m B C) 04 Nil % < Q. U - 9 u flu LU w % E LU w ■"$sc i 3gy,�"ep x N Z 0 o " 3 rnd S _'k $f, l -Y, LU S K a rn U Ni Ni d 4 >.v m N Q a LL m' a 'r r p p � x -'F S _'k $f, l -Y, z Q � ) \ n � W W LL O 0 5 � O / W ? ƒ § < } ry Q C) D 0 n C W D Z C Z Q � n �\\ §!. !�■ D \11,JAR|g\ HS O ,! ) \ 7� /| §!. !�■ D \11,JAR|g\ HS Exhibit A Prohibited Commercial Parcel Uses 1. A gas station, quick lube/oil change facility, automobile tire sales; 2. any industrial use; 3. an adult book or video store (an adult video store is a video store that sells or rents videos rated NC -17, X, XX, XXX, or of a rating assigned to works containing material more sexually explicit than XXX, by the film rating board of the Classification and Rating Administration), or "adult" business activities, including without limitation any massage parlor, escort service, facility with nude (or partially nude, bathing suit -clad or lingerie -clad) models or dancers or any establishment selling or exhibiting sexually explicit materials or merchandise; 4. a pawn shop; S. a bar, night club, hookah lounge, disco or dance hall; 6. a casino, game hall or other facility for gaming activities (including but not limited to gambling, electronic gaming machines, slot machines and other devices similar to the aforementioned); 7. a billiard parlor, any place of recreation/amusement, or any business whose principal revenues are from the sale of alcoholic beverages for on or off premises consumption; 8. any business that cashes checks or makes short-term or "payday advance" type loans; 9. any business or facility used in growing, delivering, transferring, supplying, dispensing, dispersing, distributing or selling marijuana or any synthetic substance containing tetrahydrocannabinol, any psychoactive metabolite thereof, or any substance chemically similar to any of the foregoing, whether by prescription, medical recommendation or otherwise, and whether consisting of live plants, seeds, seedlings or processed or harvested portions of the marijuana plant; 10. a smoke shop or so-called "head shop" or any similar establishment selling cannabis and/or other drug-related paraphernalia; 11. a beauty salon or barber shop; 12. any residential use (including, without limitation, condominiums, apartments, duplexes, mobile homes and/or single-family home(s)); 13. any self -storage facility. 20 0894227\195726\12075805v1 �S3 dos-reerLLe 's eeree� 'apo ., &K'aRR�� tlRRRp� ���Cpg€ '?� tl !A a=i `z YCGGtut tltGtCtG � �5 as Y �3 E4 I gp :cps a 3 fFE 9 LS g B€ ' HIM ��k � e8�aS2 gs�saeaa §anx�ga���� 1 i 8 ± sn 2 9 � RiW 19 ° �€d HBO'.,, y_.,,gid R y5o°HHH' IT 9� F� �E3gBg„ 0 gy E eta I�4 � n� s= =bw� _IM �r� H - g &h6 Ma6 '°s5 �9d8g�eS3i - S y 9�d pzp g�b3$mg 4 s9g YYYpR �9� 33 I, $ �S3 dos-reerLLe 's eeree� 'apo ., &K'aRR�� tlRRRp� ���Cpg€ '?� tl !A a=i `z YCGGtut tltGtCtG � �5 as Y �3 E4 I gp :cps a 3 fFE 9 LS g B€ ' HIM ��k � e8�aS2 gs�saeaa §anx�ga���� 1 i 1 • — ® iENEM i E 0 v - as I I�I UT I � — — � �I 1� I e111111111111 � I� I � I � w s. 'pi I CI I = J ------------- A9 31vasNols,31 ON zzoz111/L ""'km O60INVS 3o A110 aes °... i ""'km r.,"l�°o`°a °� ��w 1N3WdOT3n34 O0. .a —,a , 1181HX3 SNOUVIADa 43NNt/�d ="' uao°055<«�(ajuii`1 a� usvS dB zzozlt.,LOz W H ii Too aosaz D�JH111/� JAN d`JS'f11 Lo3roua vx= xgs LL fps 9 €m=LLffw a Ii HIfli MAH E, RE I Z. $ A sa 09M, w �_°axil 3X916 wV.._w"io 8�€ =o��ns�s����s�� Awa " € � illig 0101 MH =saw 1 11�- Im g ff n i HITIMPIR IN 81. 9°yGd 1 =�S°imop€s8 � �€ fit, as s� ° �`€s �s al�9No eo 8�a� t? ss�� _ � s M f� U M HIM 1� B m a§ 3 �HIM s 7 n °� =�3 � 'Ry n€ H I s€9 € 1"����� o 3w �F a y a�sso s wx s„ s�, �K€€w €�_ asw s$ 808 �ga a °k G . a <£ �LL 'E i €.8 €�'aaa 8 0 �°k"`�w g a g b aan ° € j w g g xx w a g o d�z €>.° HT o€ �$° = ���"3 �g � ��'�{wga n �, 8 j �3w €`_=°wO a €e $ 8s �€wa a w =�� s a €G a "` s a $� P € �� a E- 3° o=_ s $e j " "� 3w' c �G _ s 1 8 s w w _� .= w =w 1 <€ g o°wH° c s°s tEll a S s e w s € sewo .o € €wo �'a sw�� �� s�� � ° � �fl s �� MI H E � 2 8".. sax s =s I€ "�9� & ��, 9 ��a " " s. o 3 amO OUR �� > Vi=m g" €" _� 8� n=es z �s �w w H H � €a� a 3> 9 gF- "e € s£=� - = a " s s a �_` a e �� x��w� wa=Gw�=§° I1"- 1_ fl �oa�"z s �=°ass=€_x a a s °a=�= s<° x a a sIw" LLo �ws���€=gI- sw= a�°=s"° ° E g =a° ge " o3w� � gg � 8" g€ °_ s� s�N, �a n��=�=� g a�= s F� �s�° ��� F _ ss i �N � = s s �a ,' sew 3 E s �g -��a = �e R t ��IMI Gn s Awa so w�a3 ams x rvwo;aw I ®>xna ��w2°�$ s "_ �=o 1; sg so n s gQ€= ° . sLL < gill g =p s € H w gyy LLLLo" qq"€pp..,,°`" s 'g a"If=x" a�`€= 8 =gd?33 F6 FE3 �W u�' '�md °_ IR 5 g ° s s1°spa � m jig �s = s$ �a ���a�=� ;fie �=E�=�o5�<swgJ€`i°� € € §s�8 HlHofln� "spa A wa"3 s"w @E g s3= s�w � "w �s 3 s p 3'ffq k x `��ux9 &'��w-3"o Cido yOGo ;r xS$$�w °Ox�+ �a9'-" uIYS 2 ?''22 ' �o g b`kr%w°r<o = �d $G �S $' �.E� g € 'IMM11H �a€a� ;= € ��1 ��ff _ 's=g� ul HI 0 g AR o R§�� € �a_3x=s=- gae3o sa =�sa� € HIM. s� $ a�i se 3° s e ='s 19 �°_ O lx a HM w- �aol3 � gffllp sa " s �� s€=rs_ as sad x_ fag MH S s r,5 N € $w8 S��a v� m S aw"s 3_"gra° w sxg�� °®�> _ I'll a s €a � g s g°€ r� s � ' €° "__ _ s ' =w 8 s s=> M H ""` lg §w a=s= a 3 s s=g ga "<s �- i €_s � has ag€��gsw€ o g s 1s �� a" cd� 8 8 g- �sO H 8n b€== bH ELL , <la' "r x g Fg BFa 8 E s €has p s sw° ew € " _ s$waWs I°-�°Pa 2 s €€ w Hi Rio 8 a=� �°Is �asneo"� °0� s ys a �==gig � � $��s a i1 _ Hai w9,9­116� € ISH 8 -� s €ax' w' =�Ew"€ g w I s" 1$ 01EEM�6 ��€ s x ase ¢1sss-s° 1 1 -�,, AHI T u I w��= H' z >wr �$e'z 8" �n S 6H.H 6s °w - w �° a c=°� s , sw HUMP, � � €�w� ���s� � �g £� M �� w��s 33 oss a =ws� x�-� $§� �==sm " € sLLssw g s��= s� g=we# 9 s�3e"c € �=E ���_ E 8u i � g s o���.11 RP � T€psi � TITIN a. AB 31v0 GNp1GN3G 'oN ZZOZ/Bl/L '32r0 WGry w 1011011 A1Nf100 3,omms aG ".xGG�3G GwG - I. N= lN3WdOl334 HlZ a � 1002 �t11 Y3iY �0 Sv000� N�NN liiviMGiiai a 60l xe amG = O NGrvNSGd SNVId 3dVOSONVI a3NNVld uaoH (Aaluai)ZZ Il fr,= W £00 00642 30V -1-11n .INVOsnl ljo OLI 9�1 0 O o o o uu t I ® o �n0 �I 10 O C 101 - 0 O 001' O O n Pl. I i r i al®_ ono ir g 1 g �//yy�p�yp/5�]) - d KN ® S IYm 1 o s a Ali o q sg Ll Rai Hy�� 9 n 6 G s o', ,01 s sol 111£'1 ! l 111£ . 0 i i u o - I°€ 0 (�I I coo O 0 ; c 0 L- �o:rr0 0 1� w W a ic z 5 000000000® 21VOH'1'TAWAS valUol''uNnoO 310NIN3 15V3 0£ 11105 N011035 .1 N— N1 n. f-1o1.Lv31a1'LuH3 sodoAaAWIS AHAWIS 31111 UMVT SdSNNJL'IV 2 E - -ee j!j a£gaW 6 1.4 Be gel RIB "ag v . 3 e-0 o ix z 0 A1.921 M"i r. 4P YA ....R n 2INX U,Wag' 5 - ij liv ;jg ai RON 1PAR IRMO En no a 5 5 P, a oQ 1E a G) J8 6 6 . -XI F 70) 2 0o p 0 zo 9 a a (n 0 Q I p I § I I z a il , I z n a z -Z z I Al (L :z) 9al 8 8 1A, I . a€ 142 86 a s0 8 0 u uT� E g5 3g a6 8"a 91 ."n fis z QI gi pe 8 alSi e s g a I NSIR UIsm@ a z EEE i B U- V. I . BH I e -' i a' Lu 0 18 - zRR if Bg RV 82 d A 0 esag 9M. a.5 Rge 'jai 6 -4 jfh' M, "go hir-v H1 V q, .21 1 . 1 229 12.1 afl gY. ffiae H!SN IK 26 abog qg-�§fio gal P 1 9510 Im z 0 B gr A i '-H 59 ft ON, -m 31. ,I;g 21 fag a ao� u 2 6 §5hypip ��!s P ;a a '09 L- o flog mf - H-7 I w I" Ij- 9 . ji�' g A P"o 1� .. 3 w la — .68 Wsx��j x 2m g ' H .1 5 a gl " x1a �1�12 POE 'd 91% Ogg Qfg"pp'l �J� - 8341ap 8 -- R'� Eg jp� b,2 YR M W IlEy k NON oll lie $ 111 M, M"HUR yu. x 5; gin -ilk 1 0 1 IN I NO # On" 8 noa w. 3W 00 30Nxx° jo -MA Nnoo a—ims 02 35— '— 64 d1HSN— '9Z NO—S ARAIIRS arIJU1 GNV'1 SdSWVIIV (8 1. 1 —11 3311 13— QW 19,3.xn1 1311311 131. 3—IS 911M 3.n al —M c 39 1. 3.n oW R. Mv P1------- .2, A 14 H 1. 3— 0'859 MOEGO.00N 3 N I I I, MP NTIOH•da7WI3I . e, r,..,nx mxlv,e .3sx.r, w.. .x.N.p za ^^ aSa�IAaaS QNY� a�aa �NIaYa G tl01Of 3 . 'A A, 3lONIW3513-01n05 dIH5NM01 '9Z N011035 A�IWVJIGInW 30VT)IN ANVJenG ro - daAN(1S H'I,LI,L QNtl'I SdSW V,L'IV s x (e A. —S 33.) e3ddW..x., x.A,.x.S .3.x3.1, w1d... a. —S .3.N„ rx1.1.. 3 .0 . 3e..,a,.1. 3- n.x.. 0— , s - NOLLV 8-1 AtltlONnoe WN011I00V tlOd Z —S 335 �QVOa'I'IaMaS a i $e 9•� y gI �. S$e �Nk�B 8x ��ddL' gg�g e A '8 fe a d A 03- €Sd R 5€F6 ? M gaE. , __________ € !.E ------ OF--------- �� 9 . � g R 6(6� A 8je I+ys pkxmR I E�, I S I t g It� � geA 5R i II 8 Ia! dgEdA e� 6 3li'd €R I II Ste pp@@ ki 08 j3 ^i I I u QYOa latlHaNIa NHOH-Aa'IM31 s e. ussnnn . ws� asswan wm w oc.,,-Isd i� °3uoua vVM ' 0 6t 3S MM lStl3 Of 30Ntltl H1- Sl IHSNMOl '92 N011035 3NN 3ommax3 za A-IIWYdIlINW 301ll� ANYJSfLL �sa�dnnss uNv7 /� - a�aa �naava cNOIc�N A3AIIIIS TOLL aNV'I SdSN/V,L'IV m 3a ..3JNc 33:� N3dd.W aH. Na.3n„Nc —N— w13o,J 111 ,mac e3cI.N rN0- 3N. OW 3—s 3H. Jn— ami L J33H5 335 3 N l H O 1 tl W L -HS 33S t. . 1 a a:aa a � g Al 3�f�a ••avox xaaza a Eea P IPd:' — I��' � � d "n� �d IG la�_y Pa• u �"w-� c: .�, a \A :n .... i ` c I8 x gg44 n V �R � t lilt, 9� 1 0 :d e, 0 3 0 R® ¢q¢q y� a: dk! f3i ar ° a pk k 0 ® O tl ak o » * 0 o r 5 k a k • o � O a x 61 � as o0 00 �` a *• �� 1 * 844 p• Op a • O k t x ® m I d Q *� *t A mI 61 a o 3 10 I Nil I OC 30 'VOItl0H-0. SL —S— '9Z A11_111- CW 3Nn —111 WSMI — AHAWIS a-1.111 (INV -I SaSWVIqV N 30 I —S .3 .... wlxow V 1-1— 3- 8 133H5 335 3 N I I H 0 1 V H 9 n3HS 33S u RJ a as to ell fill, d' it d d' JF_ Cittt R Z av u saaa pii A dd' I gdd, ol T d' ol 4, o fit F We ld" d AP • at NHOH-d37N[ISI n nex�n anwcne aazxaan w. u. n. e.a.icc I.xm:e3m (cor):av� occe-Iccl (coq:axoxa Ola 'ALN(10� NIW35 15tl3 Of 3Alw eili(N1wS38�L ;NIHS HSi�M�01'92 N011035�N MaW Zan LZ aoN.0 �S3�IAN$S UNtl� 8'JR:d aJNIQtl1 xHnxns 911111 aNvz sasx/Vszv (a 10 , .3311333)131,..1-1—.3..— .a 1a„ .10 —13--1.. 3x aN 31x .x 1.3x1—.1 a II d t� I I I I a a� I � a I o X23 H 2 93 a a a I I I I I a a� I � a I o X23 H 2 93 3a3AR � 1 - QO O €i F s �i � iiia s d ' a R€• � a '0'8 kN- OE 3D.. nnaaa aNvi sdswvLLiv 10 lee Ilk 0 I °G2 � �ƒ :k !// � \ / � � ���{ � � P�{ - , | � � \ \ \� �.:\ .�� !��/�_}�\ � � ` \ / ! --S-33.f-� -- - - - - - �iHS-33S- 15Y3 OC -m—nN—noo 310NIN3S InOS 3—A AN-1 6� dIH—M 'QZ N011035 10 AHAMIS H-IJLII C[NV-I SdSN/VJL-IV I.- 5 133H5 335 `R A. at Al� te it, Ind I td all AH'MO*l — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — ii if If — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — - - — -- — — - if Jill —1 d-. did s5 vo y la A NI d' naso -- -- --------- ------ 0, 9 , if dtl 133H5 SIH1 335d t ------ Id d1l avold Xavmlamu U a m E Y e �' Cttt� sssa� I I a E Y m NMI e. �r 4f'`k .'r1Z:7 1 N e} u-, M Al 0 _a --------------------�-- E Hl!1111„1 IH IM 1111111 1111111 i111i1i11 I Y I A JJ I I I H11_ I I 1111.1_ _ = a 1joo, o 9 9 — =_ar oa W 1 — _ S — J _ U — 8 3� u19 _ o 1-_ I am I - - j H, - 0 0 --- = _ F7 -1--FMIII IHFIT I-` - �- -:-: ----- --- - . d---' li 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 LL 1111111111dW IT f ooi.__a� .... a w� L' ' a Io�o3 a 01 `� _�-III!11111 Illllli I — " ' 111 IIIIIIIII ILlllllll IIIIIIIII Z 4VOb TI3M3S 1N3WdOI3A30 1N3WdOI3A3O IVIOL13WW00 321mn=i IVION3WW00 3?Jnmi —��