The URL can be used to link to this page

4712 Amend the FLU of 26.94 Acres - 4430 Canyon PointOrdinance No. 2022-4712 An Ordinance of the City of Sanford, Florida amending the City of Sanford Comprehensive Plan, as previously amended; providing for amendment of the Future Land Use Map of the Future Land Use Element of the City of Sanford Comprehensive Plan relative to certain real property, approximately 26.94 acres in size owned by Jessup Acquisitions, LLC and Seminole Acquisitions Group, LLC (Tax Parcel Identification Numbers 03-20-30- 300-002A-0000; 03-20-30-300-0090-0000; 03-20-31-300- 009--0000; 03-20-31-501-OA00-0040; 03-20-31-501-0000- 0040; 03-20-31-501-0000-0080) said property being addressed as 4430 Canyon Pointe; providing for the future land use designation to be amended from IND, Industrial (Seminole County) to AIC - Airport Industry and Commerce (City of Sanford); providing for legislative findings and intent; providing for assignment of the land use designation for the property; providing for severability; providing for ratification of prior acts of the City; providing for conflicts; providing for codification and directions to the Code codifier and providing for an effective date. Whereas, the fee simple title owner of the real property that is the subject of this Ordinance is Jessup Acquisitions, LLC, a Florida limited liability company and Seminole Acquisitions Group, LLC, a Florida limited liability company ("Property Owners") and the subject real property has been assigned Tax Identification Parcel Numbers 03-20-30- 300-002A-0000-) 03-20-30-300-0090-0000; 03-20-31-300-009A-0000; 03-20-31-501- OA00-0040; 03-20-31-501-OCOO-0040; 03-20-31-501-0000-0080 by the Seminole County Property Appraiser; and Whereas, the subject real property (a site 26.94 acre in size) is located in an unincorporated area of Seminole County on the east and west side of East Lake Mary Boulevard and is addressed as 4430 Canyon Pointe; and Whereas, Robert Ziegenfuss, with Z Development Services, a Florida limited 11Page liability company, is serving as the applicant and representative of the Property Owners; Mr. Ziegenfuss conducted a Citizens Awareness and Participation Plan (CAPP) meeting on May 3, 2022, and produced a report of such meeting that was found satisfactory to the City; and Whereas, the actions taken to change the future land use designation of the subject property, as set forth in this Ordinance, are occurring pursuant to the City's Comprehensive Plan which requires the City to assign the Airport Industry and Commerce (AIC) future land use designation to the subject property as stated in Policy FLU 1.9 which reads as follows: Utilize Airport Industry and Commerce Land Use Designation (AIC). The "Airport Industry and Commerce" (AIC) land use designation is a high- intensity mixed use policy for managing lands comprised of the Orlando Sanford International Airport and adjacent lands capable of supporting a variety of residential rental properties and commercial and industrial uses. ; and Whereas, the Applicant has submitted a request to amend the future land use map designation for the subject property from IND -Industrial (Seminole County) to AIC (City of Sanford) for the purpose of future industrial development; and Whereas, the City of Sanford's Planning and Zoning Commission, as the City's local planning agency, held a public hearing on September 1, 2022, to consider amending the Future Land Use Map of the Future Land Use Element of the City of Sanford Comprehensive Plan and recommended approval of the proposed Future Land Use Map amendment to the Comprehensive Plan for the subject property; and Whereas, Section 163.3187, Florida Statutes, relates to the amendment of adopted local government comprehensive plans and sets forth certain requirements relating to small scale amendments, and which are related to proposed small scale development activities and provides, among other things, that such amendments may be approved without regard to statutory limits on the frequency of consideration of amendments to the City of Sanford Comprehensive Plan; and Whereas, the City of Sanford has complied with all requirements and procedures of Florida law in processing this amendment to the City of Sanford Comprehensive Plan including, but not limited to, Section 163.3187, Florida Statutes; and Whereas, the City of Sanford has complied with Florida's Community Planning Act which was amended during the 2021 Legislative Session by the passage of Committee Substitute for Committee Substitute for Committee Substitute for House Bill Number 59 (initially codified as Chapter Number 2021-195, Laws of Florida) to require every city and county within the State "to include in its comprehensive plan a property rights element" (Section 163.3177(6)(i)1, Florida Statutes). Now, therefore, be it enacted by the People of the City of Sanford, Florida: Section 1. Legislative Findings and Intent. A. The City of Sanford has complied with all requirements and procedures of Florida law in processing and advertising this Ordinance. B. The City Commission of the City of Sanford adopts the recitals (whereas clauses) of this Ordinance as legislative findings. C. This Ordinance is internally consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Sanford and the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment does not trigger any urban indicators and adoption of this amendment will discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl within the City of 3lPage Sanford. Section 2. Amendment to Future Land Use Map. A. The Future Land Use Plan Element of the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Sanford and the City's Future Land Use Map is hereby amended by changing the land use designation from IND - Industrial (Seminole County) to AIC - Airport Industry and Commerce (City of Sanford) regarding the real property which is the subject of this Ordinance as set forth herein. B. The property which is the subject of this Comprehensive Plan amendment is assigned Tax Parcel Identification Numbers 03-20-30-300-002A-0000; 03-20-30-300- 0090-0000; 03-20-31-300-009A-0000; 03-20-31-501-OA00-0040; 03-20-31-501-0000- 0040; 03-20-31-501-0000-0080 by the Seminole County Property Appraiser. Section 3. Implementing Administrative Actions. The City Manager, or designee, is hereby authorized to implement the provisions of this Ordinance as deemed appropriate and warranted. Section 4. Ratification Of Prior Actions. The prior actions of the City Commission and its agencies in enacting and causing amendments to the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Sanford, as well as the implementation thereof, are hereby ratified and affirmed. Section 5. Severability. If any section, sentence, phrase, word, or portion of this Ordinance proves to be invalid, unlawful or unconstitutional, it shall not be held to impair the validity or effect of any other action or part of this Ordinance. Section 6. Conflicts. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby repealed. 4iPage Section 7. Codification/Instructions to Code Codifier. It is the intention of the City Commission of the City of Sanford, Florida, and it is hereby ordained that the provisions of this Ordinance shall become and be made a part of the codified version of the City of Sanford Comprehensive Plan and/or the Code of Ordinances of the City of Sanford, Florida in terms of amending the Future Land Use Map of the City. Section 8. Effective Date. The small scale Comprehensive Plan amendment set forth herein shall not become effective, in accordance with Section 163.3187(5)(c), Florida Statutes, until 31 days after the enactment of this Ordinance. If challenged within 30 days after enactment, the small-scale amendment set forth in this Ordinance shall not become effective until the State land planning agency or the Administration Commission, respectively, issues a final order determining that the subject small-scale amendment is in compliance with controlling State law; provided, however, that this Ordinance shall not take effect until the annexation ordinance annexing the property that is the subject of this Ordinance is final. Passed and adopted this 10th day of October, 2022. Attest: City Commission of Sanford, Florida 1 1 Traci Ho ch' ,/IMC, FCRM ArtW �City Clerk Mayor �O X11 Pi Approas to form and legality:%cal - A �L William L. Colbert, Esquire City Attorney City of ibdruff ORD, � C6 to A61 � g'1 EST.1 51Pe CITY OF IF N rr n�nn? SkNFORD v''J a ULJ u WS _ RM X FLORIDA Item No. CITY COMMISSION MEMORANDUM 22-242 OCTOBER 10, 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 future land use from IND, Industrial (Seminole County) to AIC, Airport Industry and Commerce (City) on 26.94 acres at project address 4430 Canyon Point. 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 future land use from IND, Industrial (Seminole County) to AIC, Airport Industry and Commerce (City) on 26.94 acres at project address 4430 Canyon Point has been received. The property owners are Jessup Acquisitions LLC, and Seminole Acquisitions Group LLC. The applicant is Robert Ziegenfuss of Z Development Services. A CAPP (Citizens Awareness and Participation Plan) meeting was held on May 3, 2022 and a copy of the report is attached, which is satisfactory to the City. The Affidavit of Ownership and Designation of Agent forms are attached and other information is available in order to ensure that all potential conflicts of interests are capable of being discerned. FISCAL/STAFFING STATEMENT: According to the Property Appraiser's records, the six properties are vacant and being assessed as grazing land with the assessed tax values and total tax bills for 2021 shown below: Parcel Number Assessed Value Tax Bill Property Status (2021) (2021) 03-20-30-300-002A-0000 $133 $1.47 Grazing Land (Parcel 1) 03-20-30-300-0090-0000 $2,270 $25.04 Grazing Land (Parcel 2) 03-20-31-300-009A-0000 $136,367 $1,884 Grazing Land (Parcel 3) 03-20-31-501-OA00-0040 $1,073 $11.83 Grazing Land (Parcel 4) 03-20-31-501-0000-0040 $12,236 $135 Grazing Land (Parcel 5) 03-20-31-501-0000-0080 $1,102 $12.15 Grazing Land (Parcel 6) Upon, annexation, it is the applicant's intent to develop the property for commercial use. The proposed development will facilitate new non-residential construction and generate additional tax revenue to the City. BACKGROUND: The 26.94 acre proposed project is currently located in Unincorporated Seminole County, on the east and west sides of East Lake Mary Boulevard. The subject properties are currently zoned A-1, Agriculture (Seminole County, with a Future Land Use of IND, Industrial (Seminole County). The property owner has filed a petition to annex the entire 26.94 acres into the City of Sanford in order to obtain City Services and develop a future commercial project. Upon annexation, the subject property will retain its Seminole County Industrial Future Land Use designation, pending approval of the future land use change to incorporate into the City of Sanford's Comprehensive Plan. The applicant has submitted for a Small Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change the Future Land Use map designation from Seminole County's Industrial to City of Sanford's AIC, Airport Industry and Commerce. The applicant also has submitted a companion application to rezone the subject property from A- 1, Agriculture to PD, Planned Development (City of Sanford) for a proposed multi -tenant commercial development. Joint Planning Agreement Per Exhibit B of the 2015 City of Sanford/Seminole County Joint Planning Agreement (JPA), the IND, Industrial (Seminole County Land Use Designation) is equivalent to the AIC, Airport Industry and Commerce (City of Sanford Land Use Designation) in this specific segment of East Lake Mary Boulevard. Exhibit B describes equivalent future land use designations in the City and the County Comprehensive Plans. The designations have been deemed equivalent due to their similar intensities and densities of allowable development. The applicant has submitted a request to amend the future land use map designation for the 26.94 acres from IND, Industrial (County) to AIC, Airport Industry and Commerce (City) for the purpose of development ofa future commercial development. Per Exhibit D, JPA the subject property is within sub -areas 3 and 4 of the JPA. Per Exhibit C of the JPA the following excerpts apply to this land use conversion. It is the intent of sub -area 3 of the JPA is to provide a commercial node to serve the eastern portion of the City of Sanford. In sub area 4 of the JPA, the City and County shall ensure that land uses surrounding the airport are compatible with noise levels generated by the airport use. The JPA states the following uses are compatible with the Airport: Industrial parks; corporate business parks; commercial developments; office complexes; attendant retail; service and hotel uses; medium and high-density rental residential developments between the 60 and 65 DNL; agricultural uses; and public uses. The proposed land use amendment and commercial development are consistent with the Seminole County / Sanford .point Planning Agreement. The proposed project provides a mix of uses supportive of the Sanford International Airport and the surrounding residential developments. East Lake Mary Boulevard Small Area Study Per the recently adopted East Lake Mary Boulevard Small Area Study, which was developed in partnership with Orlando Sanford International Airport OSIA and Seminole County, the subject sites are in an area identified as the East Lake Mary Boulevard Business Center. This district provides an extension and transition of larger scale commercial development complementary to the airport. The district further identifies the following preferred uses: business/commerce parks, industrial parks, warehousing, office, airport supportive commercial uses, public service, and parks/open space. The proposed land use amendment and the companion PD rezone are consistent with this study and provides for a variety of airport supportive uses. Comprehensive Plan Staff has outlined relevant Goals, Objectives and Policies (GOP's) that support the proposed land use 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 Ratio for the AIC, Airport Industry and Commerce fixture land use is as follows: LAND USE DESIGNATIONS MAP SYMBOL DENSITY/INTENSITY (MIN/MAX)- PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION (MINIMA)g COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL RESIDENTIAL 10 / 50 du/acre (MF) Airport Industry & 1.0 FAR 1.0 FAR 1 du/acre (SF) Commerce AIC 25%/75% 50%/75% 0%/90% OBJECTIVE FLU 1.9: Utilize Airport Industry and Commerce Land Use Designation (AIC). The "Airport Industry and Commerce" (AIC) land use designation is a high-intensity mixed use policy for managing lands comprised of the Orlando Sanford International Airport and adjacent lands capable of supporting a variety of residential rental properties and commercial and industrial uses. Policy FLU 1.9.1: Establish performance criteria for development within the AIC. The following criteria shall be adhered to for all development within the AIC District. a. The Airport Industry and Commerce designation is intended to encourage the expansion of industrial land and provide additional areas for mixed-use development that would be compatible with airport operations. b. The majority of such land is located in airport property and is subject to the Airport Master Plan. Certain properties, primarily east of Beardall Avenue, are located in the 2009 noise zone. c. The Orlando -Sanford Airport shall develop according to the current Airport Layout Plan (ALP), adopted by reference herein. d. Upon annexation of lands that are currently within the jurisdiction of Seminole County and are included in the ALP, the lands will be automatically given the land use designation of Airport Industry Commerce and a zoning designation consistent with the existing zoning of the Airport. e. The land use mix in the AIC is intended to provide a full range of urban services and facilities including: • Industrial and Business Parks; • Office Complexes; • Commercial and retail developments; • Service and hotel uses; and • Medium to high density multifamily residential developments, where located in accordance with those requirements contained within this policy. f. The maximum intensity of industrial and commercial development measured as floor area is 1.0. The maximum intensity for residential uses is 50 units per acre, with a minimum density of ten 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 of this Element. g. The Development Review Team, the Airport Zoning Board and the Airport Design Review Team shall review development included in the ALP for compliance with the Sanford LDRs. Development contemplated by the ALP shall comply with all LDRs included, but not limited to, setbacks, landscaping, parking, drainage and floor area ratios except where such regulations conflict with Federal Aviation Authority (FAA) rules and regulations. in. Development within the AIC designated area must be developed as a Planned Development. As a PD, all 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. Developments within the AIC that exist prior to the adoption of this Plan will be "grandfathered". However, all new development in the Airport Industry and Commerce Area outside the Airport boundaries shall incorporate those performance criteria established under Policy FLU 1.1.7, as well as those criteria listed below: • Narrative and graphic information required for review of rezoning petitions, for site plan review, and other related procedural requirements; • Impact analysis, including plans for managing any potential impacts on air operations; • Noise impact analysis, including required sound insulation in areas within the airport impact noise zones; • Requirements for controlled access and internal circulation, including provisions for cross access easements, and joint use of driveways; • Requirements for perimeter buffer yards; • Management framework for encouraging development of strategically planned sub -centers of commerce and industry; • Dedication of necessary rights-of-way; and • Use of pedestrian and mass transit facilities to reduce vehicle trips The mix of land uses being proposed for and the design of the Queens Crossing PD Master Plan are consistent with the AIC land use designation and with the performance criteria detailed in Policy FLU 1.9.1. Additionally, any future development of the subject property will be subject to the City's Concurrency Management System and Land Development Regulations. 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 proposed development of the subject property will help to mitigate the effects of any urban sprawl that has already occurred by providing much needed services such as retail, office, dayeares, and hotels in an area that currently has no commercial developments along either State Road 46 or along East Lake Mary Boulevard around the Sanford Airport. 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. The proposed amendment is consistent with the Goal FLU 1 as it helps ensure that land uses are located in a rational and efficient manner to promote economic development. The requested future land use is A1C, which is appropriate and consistent for the site given needs and goals for this immediate area. The trend in development in the area has proven a need for commercial services which is also called out in both the JPA and the East Lake Mary Boulevard Small Area Study. Per the State's Growth 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 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 aquifer recharge area. Criteria 2 — The subject site will be served by locally available utility services and other existing public infrastructure. Criteria 3 — The proposed development provides for compact development and a mix of uses at intensities that are supported by a range of housing choices within the East Lake Mary corridor. Criteria 7 - The commercial mix of uses, creates a balance of land uses supportive of the existing residential population on the east side of the city which lack convenient access to goods, services, and entertainment; and, Criteria 8 — The project proposes a mix of retail, restaurant and commercial services within the Planned Development. It provides for connectivity and easy access to major thoroughfares. This allows services to be available in a compact area with easy access from East Lake Mary Boulevard and State Road 46. Upon review of the request, staff has determined that the proposed amendment is compatible with the surrounding uses and consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan, JPA, and East Lake Mary Small Area Study. The subject site provides an opportunity for much needed commercial development in the area, as well as provide a variety of services to the rapidly growing area. The proposed commercial uses will provide a benefit to the City as a whole and to the surrounding neighborhoods. As the area grows, the site has the potential to offer needed services such as; shopping, dining, and cultural or entertainment opportunities. LEGAL REVIEW: The City Attorney has not yet reviewed the staff report and but has provided the following legal comment regarding the requested Comprehensive Plan Amendment: This matter is not a quasi-judicial matter as amendments to local government comprehensive plans are legislative in nature. That being said, if a proposal to amend the City Comprehensive Plan is to be recommended for denial, it would be appropriate to state the particular reason for such a recommendation to be considered by the City Commission - such as the proposal is internally inconsistent with a goal, objective or policy of the Comprehensive Plan or inconsistent with controlling State law or the like. The City Commission approved the first reading of Ordinance No. 4712 on September 26, 2022. The City Clerk published notice of the 2nd Public Hearing in the Sanford Herald on October 2, 2022. RECOMMENDATION: Staff finds that the small scale land use amendment is appropriate and suitable for the subject site and is compatible with the surrounding land uses and is consistent with the City of Sanford Comprehensive Plan, Joint Planning Agreement and Chapter 163 of Florida Statutes. On September 1, 2022 the Planning and Zoning Commission unanimously recommended the City Commission approve amending the future land use from IND, Industrial (Seminole County) to AIC, Airport Industry and Commerce (City) on 26.94 acres at project address 4430 Canyon Point. Additional comments or recommendations may be presented by staff at the meeting. SUGGESTED MOTION: "I move to adopt Ordinance No. 4712." Attachments: Ordinance No. 4712 Project Information Sheet CPA Map Site Aerial Map Affidavit of Ownership Applicant's Justification statement Environmental Impact Assessment CAPP Package PROJECT INFORMATION —• 4430 CANYON POINT ' COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT Requested Action: Proposed Use: Project Address: Current County Zoning: Proposed Zoning: Existing Land Use: Tax Parcel Numbers: Site Area: Property Owners: Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change 26.94 acres from IND, Industrial (Seminole County) to AIC, Airport Industry and Commerce (City) Commercial Mixed Use 4430 Canyon Point A-1, Agriculture PD, Planned Development Grazing Land 03-20-30-300-002A-0000, 03-20-31-501-OA00-0040, 0080 26.94 acres Jessup Acquisitions LLC 103 Commerce Street Suite 160 Lake Mary, FL 32746 03-20-30-300-0090-0000, 03-20-31-300-009A-0000, 03-20-31-501-0000-0040, and 03 -20 -31 -501 -0000 - Seminole Acquisitions Group LLC 103 Commerce Street Suite 160 Lake Mary, FL 32746 Applicant/Agent: Robert Ziegenfuss Phone: (407) 271-8910 708 E. Colonial Drive Email: Suite 100 bob@zdevelopmentservices.com Orlando, FL 32803 CAPP Meeting: A CAPP meeting was held on May 3, 2022. A copy of the report is attached. Zoninz Future Land Use Current Use North PD, Planned Development GC, Commercial Vacant Commercial South RI -1, Restricted Industrial AIC, Airport Industry and Commerce Vacant Industrial East PD, Planned Development HIPAP, High Intensity PD — Airport Grazing Land (County) PD, Planned Development AIC, Airport Industry and Commerce Vacant Commercial West RI -1, Restricted Industrial AIC, Airport Industry and Commerce Airport COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COMPLIANCE REVIEW Planning staff has reviewed the request and has determined the use and proposed improvements to be consistent with the Goals, Objectives and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Current Future Land Use IND, Industrial Proposed Future Land Use AIC, Airport Industry and Commerce TADevelopment Review\03-Land Development\2022\4430 Canyon Point_Queens Crossing\P&Z\CPA SHC Practice limited to Real Estate Land Use and Related Matters STEPHEN H. COOVER, PLLC 230 North Park Avenue, Sanford, FL 32771 (407) 322-4051 Email: Steve.Coover@hmc-pa.com May 17, 2022 Comprehensive Policy Plan Amendment Justification Statement for Parcels 03-20-31-300-002A-0000; 03-20-31-300-0090-0000; 03-20-31-501-OA00-0040; 03-20-31-300-009A-0000; 03-20-31-501-0000-0080 03-20-31-501-0000-0040 The property owners, Jesup Acquisitions, LLC and Seminole Acquisitions, LLC, have applied for approval of the Queen's Landing Planned Development (PD) in the City of Sanford, Florida. The application for the PD includes a request for a comprehensive plan amendment based on the existing comprehensive plan designation of Industrial (Policy 1.6). The proposed future land use of the property is General Commercial. The current zoning is A-1 and the proposed zoning is Planned Development (PD). Policy 1-1.1.1 of the Comprehensive Land Use Element states the following numerical criteria for any land use amendment: The amendment shall be consistent with the State Comprehensive Plan (Chapter 187 F.S.) and Growth Policy Act (Chapter 163 F.S.). Applicant notes that the only part of the Growth Policy Act remaining relates to "urban infill and redevelopment areas", which are not applicable here (see Sections 163.2511-.2520, F.S.). Therefore, the following comments relate only to the state Comprehensive Plan: a. The lands along Lake Mary Blvd. shall provide for general commercial uses which will serve this and other residential communities of Sanford and Seminole County, travelers along E. Lake Mary Blvd., the county park, and the Orlando Sanford International Airport and its' passengers, in addition to "providing jobs" to support these new businesses. (see Section 187.201 (15) (b) 3; Sections 187.201 (21) (a) and (b) 9; and Section 187.201 (24) (a), F.S.) 1 b. Being strategically located on E. Lake Mary Blvd. just south of SR 46 in this community allows this project to be served by "existing local transportation facilities", also including the Orlando Sanford International Airport, SR 417, and I-4 (see Section 187.201 (15) (b) 1; and Section 187.201 (19) (b) 9, F.S.). It is also noted that the Sanford Airport Authority has requested that Sun Rail connect to the Orlando Sanford International Airport in the future. c. The project will be served by locally available utility services and other "existing public infrastructure", which will not require on-site potable wells or septic tanks or "the expenditure of public monies" (see Sections 187.201 (15) (a) and (b) 1; and Section 187.201 (17) (a) and (b) 1 and (b) 10, F.S.). 2. The amendment shall be consistent with all elements of the City of Sanford Comprehensive Plan. a. The existing land use is Industrial with an A-1 zoning classification. The proposed land use is General Commercial. The Comprehensive Plan does not favor residential uses in this area adjacent to the Orlando Sanford International Airport. This is an area of historical agricultural use. b. The project also meets Objective 1.3 which relates to the allocation of commercial land uses, and Policy 1.3.6 which relates to where to locate commercial as set forth below. c. To show consistency with Objective 1.3, the applicant will address the following Comp Plan considerations in Policy 1.3.1: i. Trip generation characteristics, impact on existing and planned transportation facilities and ability to achieve a functional internal circulation and off-street parking system, with landscaping amenities; The applicant will demonstrate internal circulation on the PD Master Plan, supported by a traffic study done by Traffic Planning & Design, Inc. submitted with this application. The study used hotel, daycare, shopping center, car wash and fast food uses with drive through as uses, which were reasonable uses, but only exemplary at this point in the process. 3. Location and site requirements will be based on specific needs of respective commercial activities, their market area, and anticipated employment generation and floor area requirements. At this point there are no actual users for the proposed commercial property, so any information provided would be somewhat speculative. The commercial lots are large and deep, providing for large building sites capable of accommodating most general commercial uses. 104 a. Compatibility with and impact on other surrounding commercial activities; The proposed general commercial uses will be compatible with and have nominal impact on surrounding commercial activities. The access to this site and the Publix site to the north were coordinated with the Publix owner. These two (2) developments should be symbiotic. 4. Relationship to surrounding land uses and natural systems; The only uses in the area so far are industrial (storage facilities) and large tracts of existing residential homes. 5. Impact on existing and planned community services and utilities. This project meets Objective 1.15 and Policy 1.1.10 and Policy 1.1.11 because the City has existing facilities and capacities in place sufficient for the commercial land use elements of this project, and the applicant will agree to provide reclaim water and sewer lines to the site. The reclaim main and sewer main are of sufficient size for the project. a. Policy 1.3.2 requires that commercial development shall be "concentrated in strategically located areas having location characteristics which best accommodate specific land, site, public facilities and market location requirements of the respective commercial uses." The proximity of this site on E. Lake Mary Blvd. to SR 46, to the Orlando Sanford International Airport, and to the county park is an ideal location for this type of land use. All public facilities are available and with capacity. If approved, the commercial development would serve the airport, tourists, county park, and commuters using E. Lake Mary Blvd. The small area study being conducted by Seminole County favors the location of commercial uses along this corridor. b. Policy 1.3.4 is met by the applicants' request. 6. Public facilities and services shall be available concurrent with development of the site. a. This project will utilize many public services, all of which are available at the site as previously stated and will be provided by the City of Sanford. b. Police, fire and emergency services will be serviced by the local providers and will have adequate access to the property, including multiple points of entry, and compliant roadway widths. 7. There have been sufficient changes in the character of the area or adjacent lands to warrant a different land use designation. a. The area lying east of the Orlando Sanford International Airport between SR 46 and Moore's Station Rd. has been a largely rural area with agricultural land use existing for decades. Tourism in Central Florida created SR 417, which connected Sanford with the tourist attractions and Disney. When the airport expanded into a commercial service airport in 1996 due to proximity to SR 417, the area began a k-:3 major transformation with local transportation and utility improvements, noise related and future development acquisitions by the airport, and over 2,000 acres placed into a new AIC land use which allows high density residential, commercial and industrial uses. Multiple residential subdivisions developed south of the airport after the recession. The City has desired commercial uses along E. Lake Mary Blvd. east of the airport for many years. b. There is a continuing obligation to analyze changes in population and land use as indicators of the need for land use changes. The addition of multiple residential subdivisions in the area, the new county park, and the resurgence of the airport due to the end of COVID-19, suggests commercial development is needed along this corridor. c. The City has already approved the King's Crossing PD north of these properties, which will change the character of the area. Access to the property via E. Lake Mary Blvd. has been substantially improved for public use. Sidewalks and connecting roads have been provided for use by the communities that border E. Lake Mary Blvd. both north and south of the subject property. 8. 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. This 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. a. This application proposes various desirable commercial uses on the PD plan. The commercial uses will provide easy access from E. Lake Mary Blvd. These commercial uses will promote commercial applications that will serve the local communities, commuters, tourists, the county park users, and the airport property. b. The commercial uses are consistent with the uses of the properties north, east, south and west of the proposed development. c. With the widening of SR 415 to four lanes to accommodate commuters, beach traffic and tourists, the need for commercial services along E. Lake Mary Blvd. seems to be warranted, as more and more travelers take advantage of this road system. d. The applicant supports the Seminole Way vision for the commercial portion of the development. 9. The capability of the land to support 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 4 areas, well field protection zones, wildlife habitats, archeological, historical or cultural resources. a. The existing land use classification is Industrial. Industrial land use supports a number of uses including light manufacturing, heavy manufacturing and storage. These uses tend to be more adverse to the environment than the proposed commercial use. b. There are no FEMA flood zones relative to this development, however, there are some wetlands as set out in the report by Biotech. There are no aquifer recharge areas on site. There are no wellfield or protection zones on site. Adequate protection from flooding will be provided as required by the local jurisdictions. c. A Threatened and Endangered Species report, archeological and historical survey will be considered during construction plan review and permitting with the local and state agencies. 10. The proposed amendment will create a demonstrated benefit to the City and enhance the character of the community. a. The proposed development includes a wide range of uses in the PD plan which are either permitted in the GC -2 zoning or are treated as conditional uses in that district. b. Leaving the property as Industrial would not fulfill the need for commercial services along E. Lake Mary Blvd. in proximity to SR 46. c. The proposed use offers more open space, is less intense than Industrial, and will result in less impacts to the environment. d. The services and infrastructure are in place to support this land use (see Policy 1.1.10 and 1.1.11). 11. 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). a. The applicant does not believe that the amendment increases the density or intensity of use. 5 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS SR 46 & LAKE MARY BOULEVARD DEVELOPMENT SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA Prepared for: Seminole Acquisition Group, LLC 103 Commerce Street, 160 Lake Mary, Florida 32746 Prepared by: Traffic Planning and Design, Inc. 535 Versailles Drive Maitland, Florida 32751 407-628-9955 November 2021 TPD N2 5555 PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that I am a Professional Engineer properly registered in the State of Florida practicing with Traffic Planning and Design, Inc., a corporation authorized to operate as an engineering business, EB -3702, by the State of Florida Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Professional Engineers, and that I have prepared or approved the evaluations, findings, opinions, conclusions, or technical advice attached hereto for: PROJECT: SR 46 & Lake Mary Boulevard Development LOCATION: Seminole County, Florida CLIENT: Seminole Acquisition Group, LLC I hereby acknowledge that the procedures and references used to develop the results contained in these computations are standard to the professional practice of Transportation Engineering as applied through professional judgment and experience. tttlliiffiltf NAME: Turgu�0 DF ri,,${ ....... P.E. No.: 204Q0-$OENS •'•,�� DATE: NgvemPe 6, 76 F•, SIGNATURE: jv r�tfftlttttt TABLE OF CONTENTS A Study Methodology B Traffic Data and Roadway Concurrency Information C Existing Intersection Counts and FDOT Seasonal Factors D Existing HCS Capacity Worksheets E Projected HCS Capacity Worksheets Page INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................................1 EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS.............................................................................................4 Analysis of Daily Traffic Conditions Analysis of Peak Hour Traffic Conditions PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AND TRIP GENERATION ..........................................................7 Trip Generation Trip Distribution and Assignment PROJECTED TRAFFIC CONDITIONS......................................................................................10 Analysis of Daily Traffic Conditions Analysis of Peak Hour Traffic Conditions CONCLUSIONS.........................................................................................................................15 APPENDICES.............................................................................................................................16 A Study Methodology B Traffic Data and Roadway Concurrency Information C Existing Intersection Counts and FDOT Seasonal Factors D Existing HCS Capacity Worksheets E Projected HCS Capacity Worksheets LIST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES Page Figure1 Site Location.................................................................................................................2 Figure2 Site Plan......................................................................................................................3 Figure 3 Existing A.M. & P.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes........................................................6 Figure 4 Project Trip Distribution and Assignment......................................................................9 Figure 5 Projected A.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes.................................................................12 Figure 6 Projected P.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes........................................................13 Page Table 1 Existing Roadway Conditions Analysis ...........................................................................4 Table 2 Existing Intersection LOS Analysis.................................................................................5 Table 3 Trip Generation Summary ...............................................................................................8 Table 4 Future Roadway Conditions Analysis...........................................................................11 Table 5 Projected Intersection LOS Analysis.............................................................................14 LIST OF FIGURES Page Figure1 Site Location.................................................................................................................2 Figure2 Site Plan......................................................................................................................3 Figure 3 Existing A.M. & P.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes........................................................6 Figure 4 Project Trip Distribution and Assignment......................................................................9 Figure 5 Projected A.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes.................................................................12 Figure 6 Projected P.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes........................................................13 INTRODUCTION This analysis was conducted in order to assess the traffic impact of the proposed SR 46 & Lake Mary Boulevard Development in Seminole County, Florida. The development is located on the east side of East Lake Mary Boulevard, south of the intersection of SR 46 and East Lake Mary Boulevard. Figure 1 depicts the site location. Access to the site is proposed via two full access driveways and two right in / right out driveways on East Lake Mary Boulevard. Figure 2 depicts the conceptual site plan. The project is in the Seminole County Dense Urban Land Use Area (DULA). As per Seminole County requirements, the classified roadways within the one -mile sphere of influence (or impact area) and major intersections within a quarter mile from the site were included in the traffic analysis. The analysis was conducted in accordance with a study methodology submitted and reviewed by Seminole County. The study methodology and related correspondence are included in Appendix A. Data used in the analysis consisted of site plan and development information provided by the Project Engineers, daily traffic volume data obtained from Seminole County, and A.M. & P.M. peak hour intersection counts made by Traffic Planning and Design, Inc. (TPD) personnel. SR 46 & Lake Mary Boulevard Development Project Ns 5555 Page 1 rr. e r it /l ,# At At r� R ' ' Trommei•Way adl ,f as r t• faY oil qr all, rrnUer \r s�40 1 ILr 1 • . - - ------ -- Richmond Ave Pb, 0 1��f N u..1 . 2Silo Pont ` _ Water St- --IS Ilepuea Center -St _Mw .—Church St- a _ �. Granby SF 01 fV ! Z .F. _ .. ...... _. 7 W _• _ 6 Am .ti i'Ca;meron AveOR, VA , , 11 x ® l .. $ 4 -BeardalrAve-S —4 d 0 C J 2 N vCs ID i� a CJ bd ° a I; 1 ::Ill;&ghiway �r ,cur I'mwr � � � 1dl I'mlu;l ad S J --Flog Alley St _- -Qolarv�ay- - � tt Broadway ` _ Water St- --IS Ilepuea Center -St _Mw .—Church St- a _ �. Granby SF 01 fV ! Z .F. _ .. ...... _. 7 W _• _ 6 Am SIR 46 & Lake Mary Boulevard Project No 5555 Conceptual Site Plan Figure 2 Access Configuration EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS Existing traffic conditions were analyzed using daily traffic volumes for the study roadways and A.M. & P.M. peak hour traffic volumes for the study intersections. The roadway analysis consisted of a generalized capacity analysis with the existing traffic volumes and the available capacity. The intersection analysis was conducted as per the procedures of the Highway Capacity Manual. Pertinent roadway segment data sheets showing the existing and committed trips along with the corresponding segment capacities are included in Appendix B. Analysis of Daily Traffic Conditions A roadway segment analysis was performed for the study roadway segments by comparing the total daily traffic volume of each segment with the corresponding capacity of the segment. Table 1 shows each of the roadway segments along with their number of lanes, adopted daily LOS/capacities, existing traffic volumes, available capacities and existing Levels of Service (LOS). The results of the analysis indicate that the roadway segments currently operate satisfactorily with excess traffic capacity available. Table 1 Existing Roadway Conditions Analysis Seg # Roadway Segment Lanes Daily Capacity Existing Daily Traffic Committed Trips Available Capacity LOS East Lake Mary Boulevard LKM92 I Cameron Ave to SR 46 4L 42,560 15,605 4,923 22,032 C SR 415 S1510 CR 415 to SR 46 4L 48,000 23,705 1,196 23,099 C S1550 Volusia County Line to CR 415 4L 48,000 24,313 1,196 22,491 C SR 46 S4670 Beardall Ave to Mellonville Ave 4L 48,000 16,249 2,081 29,670 C S4675 SR 415 to Beardall Ave 4L 48,000 12,193 1,939 33,868 C S4680 Osceola Rd to SR 415 2L 18,270 12,787 1,007 4,476 C Beardall Avenue BDL10 1 CR 415 to SR 46 2L 19,360 471 122 18,767 C CR 415 / Celery Avenue C4158 I Sipes Ave to SR 415 2L 19,360 4,276 1,483 13,601 C SR 46 & Lake Mary Boulevard Development r Project Ns 5555 �. Page 4 Analysis of Peak Hour Traffic Conditions A capacity analysis was conducted for the A.M. & P.M. peak hour traffic conditions for the intersection of SR 46 and East Lake Mary Boulevard. The analysis was conducted utilizing Highway Capacity Software (HCS7) in accordance with the procedures of the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM6E). Existing traffic consisting of turning movement counts are included in Appendix C along with the FDOT Peak Season Factor report. The traffic counts were made on November 4 and November 10, 2021, when the FDOT seasonal factor for Seminole County was 0.96 for both days. Since the factor was below 1.0, the counts were not adjusted. The existing peak hour traffic volumes are shown in Figure 3. The intersection capacity analysis results are summarized in Table 2 and indicate that the study intersection currently operating at satisfactory Levels of Service. Detailed capacity analysis worksheets are included in Appendix D. Table 2 Existing Intersection LOS Analysis SR 46 & Lake Mary Boulevard Development Project Ns 5555 �. Page 5 EB WB NB SB Overall Time Intersection period Control Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS A.M. Signal 70.3 E 72.4 E 46.6 D 37.1 D 50.5 D SR 46 & East Lake Mary Blvd P.M Signal 60.4 E 65.9 E 78.3 E 51.6 D 65.8 E SR 46 & Lake Mary Boulevard Development Project Ns 5555 �. Page 5 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AND TRIP GENERATION The proposed development will consist of a 120 -room hotel, 15,000 square foot daycare, 48,000 square feet of retail shopping center, 10,500 square feet of fast-food restaurant with drive-thru, and an automatic car wash with 1 tunnel (5,280 square feet). To determine the impact of this development in the area, an analysis of its trip generation characteristics was made. This included the determination of the trips to be generated and the distribution/ assignment of these trips to the area roadways. Trip Generation The trip generation of the proposed development was calculated using rates provided by the 9 11n Edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual and the 31 Edition of the ITE Trip Generation Handbook. The results of the trip generation calculation are summarized in Table 3 and ITE trip generation sheets are included in the Study Methodology. As shown in the table, the proposed development will generate 5,380 net new daily trips, of which 525 during the A.M. peak hour and 586 during the P.M. peak hour. SR 46 & Lake Mary Boulevard Development h Project Ns 5555 Page 7 Table 3 Trip Generation Summary �') KSF = 1,000 square-teet (2) Pass -by percentages obtained from ITE's Trip Generation Handbook, 3' Edition 11) Daily and A.M. Peak hour rates were developed using ITE # 949 Trip Distribution and Assignment A distribution pattern for the proposed development trips was determined with the use of the 2030 Central Florida Regional Planning Model (CFRPM). The model was reviewed and discussed with Seminole County staff for reasonableness. The distribution was manually adjusted due to the location of the site, type of uses, vicinity to the airport and engineering judgement. Figure 4 depicts the adjusted trip distribution pattern along with the project trips assigned to the area roadways based on this distribution. SR 46 & Lake Mary Boulevard Development Project Ns 5555 �. Page 8 Daily A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour ITE Land Use Size Unit Rate (1) Trips Rate0) Enter Exit Total Rate0) Enter Exit Total Code 310 Hotel 120 Rm 7.31 877 0.44 29 24 53 0.51 31 30 61 565 Daycare 15 KSF 47.62 714 11.00 87 78 165 11.12 78 89 167 820 Shopping 48 KSF 37.01 1,776 0.84 25 15 40 3.40 78 85 163 Center 934 Fast -Food Rest 10.5 KSF 467.48 4,909 44.61 238 230 468 33.03 180 167 347 w/ Drive Thru 948 Automatic 1/ Tunnel 163.09 163 8.97 24 23 47 14.20 39 39 78 Carwash 5.28 / KSF Project Total Trips 8,439 403 370 773 406 410 816 Shopping Center Pass -by (34%) 604 9 5 14 27 29 56 Fast Food Restaurant Pass -by (50%) 2,455 119 115 234 90 84 174 Total Pass -by Trips 3,059 128 120 248 117 113 230 Net New Trips 5,380 275 250 525 289 297 586 �') KSF = 1,000 square-teet (2) Pass -by percentages obtained from ITE's Trip Generation Handbook, 3' Edition 11) Daily and A.M. Peak hour rates were developed using ITE # 949 Trip Distribution and Assignment A distribution pattern for the proposed development trips was determined with the use of the 2030 Central Florida Regional Planning Model (CFRPM). The model was reviewed and discussed with Seminole County staff for reasonableness. The distribution was manually adjusted due to the location of the site, type of uses, vicinity to the airport and engineering judgement. Figure 4 depicts the adjusted trip distribution pattern along with the project trips assigned to the area roadways based on this distribution. SR 46 & Lake Mary Boulevard Development Project Ns 5555 �. Page 8 yr t� 10 de so 1111111 rr sit irate 1,0{ { t V, r w I - - ----- ,�_ - Richmond Ave PL' - •• in T u e. • 0Sdo Point A Trommel•Way Can r o n Ave = 1 ,41 1...� c Beardalf Ave -S ---r t C W � 00 of � f C PJeI+__ j A3 .A�+/ `{I fit ► o .' ' . _ Ai: �htway rur ar arr an -Frog Alley St p• `i 1ti_ --Dolar4iay Y V . . • ti = � `�• -Broadway_ ----•Water St IlePueN- .Center St- f�r -•-Church St A NOf Granby St' 7 = W z y Aftm C) PROJECTED TRAFFIC CONDITIONS Projected traffic conditions were analyzed using daily traffic volumes for the study roadways and A.M. & P.M. peak hour traffic volumes for the study intersections. The roadway analysis consisted of a generalized capacity analysis with the projected traffic consisting of background traffic and project trips. The intersection analysis was conducted as per the procedures of the Highway Capacity Manual. Background traffic consisting of existing traffic and committed trips was provided by Seminole County. Analysis of Daily Traffic Conditions A roadway segment analysis was performed for the study roadway segments by comparing the total daily traffic volume of each segment with the corresponding capacity of the segment. The roadway segment analysis is summarized in Table 4. The table shows each of the road segments along with their number of lanes, adopted daily LOS/capacities, projected traffic volumes and resultant Levels of Service. The results of the analysis indicate that the impacted road segments are projected to operate similar to existing conditions with excess traffic capacity available. Analysis of Peak Hour Traffic Conditions The peak hour traffic conditions at the study intersections were estimated by adding the project trips to existing traffic and committed trips. Daily committed trips were converted to peak hour directional trips using an A.M. and P.M. K=0.091 factors, and an A.M. and P.M. D=0.568 factor. These trips were assigned to the intersections based upon the existing traffic patterns at the intersections. The projected A.M. peak hour traffic volumes are shown in Figure 5 and the projected P.M. peak hour traffic volumes are shown in Figure 6. An analysis of projected peak hour traffic conditions was performed using the HCS7 software and procedures of the Highway Capacity Manual for intersections. The analysis was accomplished utilizing existing intersection geometry and traffic controls. The results of the capacity analysis as summarized in Table 5 indicate satisfactory traffic operating conditions (LOS "E" or better) for the intersection approaches except for the intersection of East Lake Mary Boulevard and Site Driveway # 1. This intersection experiences delays in both the A.M. and P.M. hours. This intersection is planned to be shared with King Crossing Shopping Center, SR 46 & Lake Mary Boulevard Development Project Ns 5555 Page 10 Table 4 Future Roadway Conditions Analysis Seg # Roadway Segment Lns Daily Capacity Background Daily Traffic Project Daily Tris Total Daily Volume Available Capacity LOS ExistingCommitted %* Volume East Lake Mary Boulevard LKM92 I Cameron Ave to SR 46 4L 42,560 15,605 1 4,923 53 1 2,851 23,379 19,181 C SR 415 S1510 CR 415 to SR 46 4L 48,000 23,705 1,196 14 753 25,654 22,346 C S1550 Volusia County Line to CR 415 4L 48,000 24,313 1,196 13 699 26,208 21,792 C SR 46 54670 Beardall Ave to Mellonville Ave 4L 48,000 16,249 2,081 21 1,130 19,460 28,540 C S4675 SR 415 to Beardall Ave 4L 48,000 12,193 1,939 21 1,130 15,262 32,738 C S4680 Osceola Rd to SR 415 2L 18,270 12,787 1,007 18 968 14,762 3,508 C Beardall Avenue BDL10 1 CR 415 to SR 46 2L 19,360 471 122 0 0 593 18,767 C CR 415 / Celery Avenue C4158 I Sipes Ave to SR 415 2L 19,360 4,276 1,483 1 54 5,813 13,547 C "Highest Hercentage on the Segment which is located on the north side of the driveway. A signal has been proposed and approved by Seminole County. The intersection was analyzed under signal control for both A.M. and P.M. peak hours and will be within the adopted Level of Service. The HCS capacity worksheets are included in Appendix E. At the request of Seminole County staff, a preliminary signal warrant review of the intersection of East Lake Mary Boulevard and Canyon Point / Site Driveway # 3 was conducted. The review indicated that a signal would not be warrant at this time. The proposed intersection currently is below capacity and the projected project trips would not be enough to meet the warrants required. SR 46 & Lake Mary Boulevard Development Project Ns 5555 e. Page 11 Table 5 Proiected Intersection LOS Analvsis SR 46 & Lake Mary Boulevard Development Project Ns 5555 y. Page 14 Time EB WB NB SB Overall Intersection period Control Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS A.M. Signal 69.1 E 68.3 E 47.3 D 43.9 D 53.2 D SR 46 & East Lake Mary Blvd P.M. Signal 76.3 E 99.6 F 79.8 E 62.7 E 79.2 E A.M. Stop -- -- 105.3 F -- -- 11.1 B -- -&SiteWW#1 East Lake Mary Blvd & Site WW # 1 P.M. Stop -- -- 85.3 F -- -- 17.5 C -- -- A.M. Stop -- -- 11.9 B - -- -- -- -- -- East Lake Mary Blvd & Site D/W # 2 P.M. Stop -- -- 18.3 C -- -- — -- -- -- East Lake Mary Blvd A.M. Stop -- -- 18.2 C -- -- 9.5 A -- - & Canyon Pt/Site D/W #3 P.M. Stop -- -- 29.1 D -- -- 14.1 B -- -- A.M. Stop -- -- 11.2 B - -- -- -- - -- East Lake Mary Blvd & Site D/W # 4 P.M. Stop -- -- 16.5 C -- -- -- -- -- -- A.M. Signal -- -- 54.1 D 16.6 B 14.7 B 19.8 B East Lake Mary Blvd & Site D/W # 1 P.M. Signal -- -- 52.4 D 15.2 B 7.0 A 16.2 B SR 46 & Lake Mary Boulevard Development Project Ns 5555 y. Page 14 CONCLUSIONS This analysis was undertaken in order to assess the traffic impact of a proposed commercial development in Seminole County, Florida. The site is located on the east side of Lake Mary Boulevard, south of the intersection of SR 46 and Lake Mary Boulevard. The following is a summary of the results: • The proposed development will generate 5,380 net new daily trips of which 525 A.M. peak hour and 586 P.M. peak hour trips to be added to the area roadways. These vehicles were distributed and assigned to the area roadways within the development's one -mile impact area. • The impacted roadways/intersections were analyzed utilizing projected traffic volumes consisting of existing traffic volumes and project trips plus committed trips provided by Seminole County. The roadway capacity analysis revealed that the impacted roadway segments currently operate satisfactorily within their adopted LOS standards. The same conditions will continue to operate under projected conditions with the completion of the project. • The intersection capacity analysis conducted in accordance with the procedures of the HCM revealed that the existing study intersections currently operate at satisfactory Levels of Service. The study intersections will continue to operate at satisfactory Levels of Service with the project and committed trips added except for Lake Mary Boulevard and Site Driveway # 1. Site Driveway # 1 will be shared with an approved project that will be installing a traffic signal. Once installed, the intersection will operate at acceptable Levels of Service. -9 SR 46 & Lake Mary Boulevard Development Project Ns 5555 Page 15 APPENDICES APPENDIX A Study Methodology From: Wharton. William To: Jay Davoll Cc: Turout Dervish; Nelson, Anthony; Rita Merhi Subject: RE: TPD # 5555 SR 46 & Lake Mary Boulevard Date: Tuesday, October 26, 20217:50:35 AM Attachments: imaae001.ono Hi Jay, Yes, got your revised methodology and it looks good. -Bill Bill Wharton Engineering Division 407-665-5730 From: Jay Davoll [mailto:jay@tpdtraffic.com] Sent: Monday, October 25, 20217:49 AM To: Wharton, William <wwharton@seminolecountyfl.gov> Cc: Turgut Dervish <turgut@tpdtraffic.com>; Nelson, Anthony <ANelson@seminolecountyfl.gov>; Rita Merhi <rita@tpdtraffic.com> Subject: RE: TPD # 5555 SR 46 & Lake Mary Boulevard n when opening attachments or clicking links from unknown senders or when recei-Ong unexpected 1f you believe this messaim to be suspect, please contact support at 311 and forward message to Good morning, We will utilize the reference below in our segment analysis when preparing the final report. I will let you know what count we may need. Also, did you see my responses to your original emailed comments? I sent a reply on Thursday, October 21, 2021. Thanks. Jay Davoll, P.E. Traffic Planning and Design, Inc. 535 Versailles Drive Maitland, Florida 32751 P. 407-628-9955 Email. JayPtpdtraffic.com From: Wharton, William <wwharton(@seminolecountyfl.gov> Sent: Saturday, October 23, 20211:15 PM To: Rita Merhi <ri a(cDtndtraffic.com> Cc: Turgut Dervish <turgut(@tndtraffic.com>; Jay Davoll <iay(@tpdtraffic.com>; Nelson, Anthony <ANelson(@ semi nolecountyfLgov> Subject: RE: TPD # 5555 SR 46 & Lake Mary Boulevard Rita, Also... The roadway link analysis is to use the County daily volume and capacity from the Summary E+C table (attached). Let me know what 24-hour road counts you need. In all the tables please identify each link using the RKEY ID code as well as the link segment listed in the table. We need to track all these trips in our Currency Management System for planning purposes. Roadway Name f From To KM90,/ E. Lake Mary Blvd t Red Cleveland Blvd Cameron Ave Current Traffic Count 19.375 Roadway Link Capacity 42.560 Committed Trips 5.002 Net Available Capacity 18.183 11 Bill Wharton Engineering Division 407-665-5730 From: Wharton, William Sent: Monday, October 18, 20215:28 PM To: Rita Merhi <rita(@tpdtraffic.com> Cc: Turgut Dervish <turgut(@tpdtraffic.com>; Jay Davoll <iayPtpdtraffic.com>; Nelson, Anthony <ANelsonf@seminolecountyfl.gov> Subject: RE: TPD # 5555 SR 46 & Lake Mary Boulevard Hi Rita, Please see the comments on the methodology below. Please note that an "Approval" on the TIA cannot be provided until a companion Application is submitted to the County for this project. 1. Proposed Development The listing of a fast food restaurant and a convenience market/gas station appear to be just a few of the uses shown on Figure 2 Conceptual Site Plan. For a proposed development this large the analysis is to include the entire proposed development. If the full development program is not complete, then the maximum development allowed under the proposed zoning is to be used. Note this section references Red Cleveland Boulevard which is not adjacent to the site. Figure 2 Conceptual Site Plan Full access is proposed at Canyon Point and Lake Mary Boulevard. A signal warrant analysis should be included for this access point to the site. S. Traffic Impact Assessment An analysis is to be made with the proposed project's entire development program on the existing configuration of the area intersections. A second analysis is to be performed with the proposed project's entire development program plus the proposed trips from the King Crossing Shopping Center with the proposed improvements at the intersections to include the proposed traffic signal on Lake Mary Boulevard south of SR 46. Bill Wharton Engineering Division 407-665-5730 From: Rita Merhi [mailto:rita(@tpdtraffic.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 20219:39 AM To: Wharton, William<wwhartonl@seminolecountyfl.gov> Cc: Turgut Dervish <turgut(@tpdtraffic.com>; Jay Davoll <ja)r(@tpdtraffic.com> Subject: TPD # 5555 SR 46 & Lake Mary Boulevard when opening attachments or clicking links from unknown senders or when receiving unexpec If you believe this message to be suspect, please contact support at 311 and forward message to Good morning Bill: Attached please find our proposed study methodology for the project located on the southeast corner of SR 46 and Lake Mary Boulevard. Please let us know if you have any questions or comments. Thank you. Regards, Rita Merhi Trac Planning and Design, Inc. 535 Versailles Drive Maitland, Florida 32751 407.628.9955 www.tpdtraffic.com Traffic Planning and Design, Inc. (TPD) is a premiere transportation planning and traffic engineering company that has been extending consultancy services to its ... TO: William (Bill) Wharton Seminole County Public Works Engineering FROM: Turgut Dervish, P.E. Jay Davoll, P.E. DATE: October 21, 2021 RE: Traffic Impact Study Methodology SR 46 and Lake Mary Boulevard Development TPD No. 5555 The following is an outline of the proposed methodology for the Traffic Impact Study for the proposed project in Seminole County. The project site is located in the Seminole County Dense Urban Land Use Area (DULA) on the southeast corner of SR 46 and East Lake Mary Boulevard. Figure 1 depicts the site location and the area roadways. 1. Proposed Development The proposed development will consist of three fast-food restaurants with drive-thru's (up to 10,500 square feet), a 120 -room hotel, a 15,000 square foot daycare facility, an automatic car wash (1 tunnel) and up to 48,000 square feet of retail. Access to the site will be via four access driveways on Lake Mary Boulevard. Figure 2 depicts the conceptual site plan. 2. Trip Generation Trip generation data from the 11th Edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual will be used for the trip generation estimation of the development. Table 1 provides a summary of the trip generation calculation. ITE Trip Generation sheets are attached. Traffic Planning and Design, Inc. 535 Versailles Drive, Maitland, Florida 32751 a Phone (407) 628-9955 e Fax (407) 628-8850 a www.tpdtraffic.com SR 46 & Lake Mary Boulevard Development Methodology TPD Ns 5555 October 21, 2021 Page 2 Table 1 Trip Generation Calculation Summary ITE Code Land Use Size' Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Rate Trips Rate Enter Exit Total Rate Enter Exit Total 310 Hotel 120 Rooms 7.31 877 0.44 29 24 53 0.51 31 30 61 565 Daycare 15 KSF 47.62 714 11.00 87 78 165 11.12 78 89 167 820 Shopping Center 48 KSF 37.01 1,776 0.84 25 15 40 3.40 78 85 163 934 Fast -Food Restaurant w/ Drive- Thru 10.5 KSF 467.48 4,909 44.61 238 230 468 33.03 180 167 347 948 Automatic Carwash 1 TunnelKSF 5.28 163.09 163 8.97 24 23 47 14.20 39 39 78 Project Trips Total -- 8,439 -- 403 370 773 -- 406 410 816 Pass -by Trips — Shopping Center (34°/x)2 604 -- 9 5 14 -- 27 29 56 Pass -by Trips - Fast -Food Restaurant (50%) 2,455 -- 119 115 234 -- 90 84 174 Total Pass -by Trips 3,059 -- 128 120 248 -- 117 113 230 NEW NET TRIPS 5,380 -- 275 250 525 -- 289 297 586 1. KSF = 1,000 square -feet 2. Pass -by percentages obtained from ITE's Trip Generation Handbook, 3rd Edition 3. Daily and A.M. Peak hour rates were developed using ITE # 949 SR 46 & Lake Mary Boulevard Development Methodology TPD Ns 5555 October 21, 2021 Page 5 3. Trip Distribution A distribution pattern will be determined with the use of the 2030 Central Florida Regional Planning Model (CFRPM). The model was reviewed and discussed with Seminole County staff for reasonableness. The distribution was manually adjusted due to the location of site, type of uses and vicinity to the airport and engineering judgement. See Figure 3 for the adjusted model distribution. The model distribution plots are provided in the Attachments. 4. Impact Area As per Seminole County TIA guidelines, major roadways within a one -mile radius and intersections within a quarter mile radius of the site will be included in the analysis. The concurrency roadways to be included in the area analysis are: • S4670, SR 46, from Beardall Ave to Mellonville Ave • S4675, SR 46, from SR 415 to Beardall Ave • S4680, SR 46, from Osceola Rd to SR 425 • S1510, SR 415, from CR 415 to SR 46 • S1550, SR 415, from Volusia County Line to CR 415 • LKM92, East Lake Mary Boulevard, from Cameron Ave to SR 46 • BDL 10, Beardall Ave, from CR 415 to SR 46 • C4158, CR 415/Celery Ave, from Sipes Ave to SR 415 The intersections to be included in the area analysis are: • SR 46 & SR 415 / E Lake Mary Boulevard • East Lake Mary Blvd and Project Driveway Accesses 5. Traffic Impact Assessment a) Roadways • Obtain background traffic volumes on the study roadway segments from Seminole County for use in the traffic analysis. • Determine background traffic by combining existing traffic counts with committed trips to be provided by Seminole County. • Combine project traffic with background traffic to obtain total traffic volumes. • Perform daily roadway capacity analysis utilizing Seminole County standards. SR 46 & Lake Mary Boulevard Development Methodology TPD Ns 5555 October 21, 2021 Page 6 Intersections • Conduct intersection counts during the A.M. and P.M. peak hour period at the study intersections. • Determine background traffic by combining existing traffic counts with committed trips to be provided by Seminole County. • Combine project traffic with background traffic to obtain total traffic. • Perform intersection capacity analysis utilizing the HCM/HCS operational analysis for the A.M. and P.M. peak hour. HCM/HCS files will be provided to Seminole County via email. 7. Traffic Report Prepare traffic report summarizing study procedures, analyses and recommendations. If you have any questions or concerns, please contact us at (407) 628-9955. Attachments Table E.9 (Cont'd) Pass -By and Non -Pass -By Trips Weekday, P Peak Perm! Land Use Code 820 --Shopping Center Table E.9 (Cont'd) Pass -By and Non -Pass -By Trips Weekday, PM Peak Period Land Use Code 820 --Shopping Center --T At)'STRBkY.:Ayr {noDD V4fl±EkiY :130.O. P144' C. SflFI:C h# L3SCiM SURVEY Wt ,,,,FTmaf�} PwxuRr [NVERTED TOTAL LOCAMON SCUROE 237 7Mp, ds VW12er 198M — 4:00-d*00 Rm 45 PRIMARY DIVERTED TOTAL — ,48 000 B=A6en & Hamman 921 Albany, NY � 196 4104-8:00 p.m 23 42 35 77, — 60.950 di Keys — — 985 — 28000 dgers &Assoc, fnc. OAgao.Inr- 380 8ro 'd w 198&89 — 490$:00p.m 44 — — Assam 106 Overland Park, KS ,"y Ima 111 4aD-530 P.m 20 81 13 74 — 34,Opp -.-. Na overland Perk. K8 Aug. 1988 123 4:30-5:30 P.m. 25 I 55 23 75 — — — 256 Greece. NY June 1968 120 4:00-:00 p.m 38 I 52 — 62 — 23,410 Saar BrvMsi 160 Greece, NY J" 1988 78 4:00-6= p.m 29 71 — 71 — 57,306 Suar Brewn 550 Greece, NY Jraw 1868 N7 41":00 p.m 48' .. ... 52 — 62 — 40,789 Seca Brown 51 Bores RMon, FL Dec. 1987 110 49D-8:00 p.m 33 34 33 I I 67 II — 42.E IOmI&V+Iom and Assoc Inc 1,090 Ross Twp, PA Aty1988 411 290-8.000.m 34 50 10 66 — 51,500 IWIMaSndgtand Assoc. gT upperin WtrBar 1968189 — '490.890 p.m 41 — — 59 — 34A00 Assoclufm Tvip, PA. 116 Tredyftrin Twp, PA VUnter 1968/89 — 4:00-&00 p.m. 24 — — 78 — 10 xw Boaz Alton& Hemktm 122 Lawrlstde, NJ VWder 1988169 — 410-A00 p.m 37 — III — — 20,000 Phi Assacdss 126 Boca Raton, FL Wtder 1988189 — 490-8:00 p.m 43 — — 57 — 40,000 Morar Associates 150 VWb v Grove, PA V*Ttw 196ar89 — 490-8:00 p.m 39 — — 61 — 28,000 Boaz Aflen & Hardlion 153 Bm erd Quy, FL V*d r 198&89 — 490-890 p. m s0 — — so — Wow McMahan Assodetas 153 Arden, DE WMer 1988789 — 490-890 p.m 30 — — 70 — 26,000 OrInc.gers 8 Assoc.Aix. Ina 164 Doyiestu , PA W Mer 198a789 — 4:00-890 p.m 32 — — 88 — 29,000 Orth -Rodgers 8 Assoc. Inc. 154 Middletown WMer 19B&M -- 4-0 - -00 p.m 33 — — 87 — 25A00 Booz Man & Hediftm 168 Hadden Twp, NJ WAnter IOU= — 4:00-89.m 0 p 20 — — 8o — s oW Pervla9 AsaorJatss � MCIMOM 205 Brovard Crdy„ FL VYrder 1988!89 — 4:OD-890 P.rrt ( 55 — — ...III �- 4b — 82A00 AssorJetes Table E.9 (Cont'd) Pass -By and Non -Pass -By Trips Weekday, PM Peak Period Land Use Code 820 --Shopping Center Average Pass -By Trip Percentage: 34 —" means no data were provided 190 Trip Generation Handbook, 3rd Edition R --T {noDD V4fl±EkiY :130.O. P144' C. SflFI:C h# L3SCiM SURVEY Wt ,,,,FTmaf�} PwxuRr [NVERTED TOTAL SCUROE 237 7Mp, ds VW12er 198M — 4:00-d*00 Rm 45 — — 52 — ,48 000 B=A6en & Hamman 242 vwbwGrawe ' VVhder 1988189 — 4:00-8:00 p.m 37 III — — 83 — 28,000 Mci4fatxYr 3 Assdciatas 297 Wtnaha6, PA Wrder 198&H9 — 490-8:00 p.m 33 — — 67 — 28000 dgers &Assoc, fnc. OAgao.Inr- 380 8ro 'd w 198&89 — 490$:00p.m 44 — — 56 — 73,000 McMahon Assock ten 370 Pftburgh; P1A Writer 1988189 — 4:00-890 Pm. 19 — — 81 — 33A00 V4tur Sntith 150 Porusnd. OR — 519 4:00.8:00 P.M. 68 6 28 32 — 25.000 Kltteleat Assaiatas 1 50 Portland, OR I -- 855 4,W-6'.0Dpm BB 7 28 35 — 30,000 McLvon and Assoekfts 780 Calgary, ABtata Or L-Oec. 1987 15,438 4:00-8:00 p.m 20 39 41 80 —— CRY Of I Calgary DOT 178 Berd�am' Apt 1989 90.69 154 20 P.m 35 — — as — 37,960 K®yr Amok 144 Manalaw, NJ . July 1990 178 3:30.8:15 p.m 32 44 24 88 .-87 _ —69,347 - �rrd Koyee�aAs,.�,gpc�{� 549 I Natick, MA Feb. 1989 ! — 4:45.6:45 p.m 33I 26 41 — 48,782 Average Pass -By Trip Percentage: 34 —" means no data were provided 190 Trip Generation Handbook, 3rd Edition R Table E.32 Pass -By and Non -Pass -By Trips Weekday, PM Peak Period Land Use Code 934—Fast-Food Restaurant with Drive Through Window r 'Average of several combined studies. Average Pass -By Trip Percentage: 50 means no data were provided ___ 214 Trip Generation Handbook, 3rd Edition a . t. }'t: .� ,�1 o •y,P ADJ, �° 1 ;. i �yb �' �� Al' 'ev0::' ? PS �" _ r � f^ PRIMARY DIVERTED TOTAL. r sf -28 Minn -St 1987 so 3,W-7:00 p.m 25 27 48 75 — — — Paul, MN I — 82 — Kanki, O tiara, Chicago 1987 so 3:00-8:00 p.m 38 .— Humes, Finck sum IL ! 45 _, Ka IO'Hara, -5.0 chicw 1987 100 3:00-8:00 p.m. 55 — — Humin, Flock '— suburbs, IL — 44 — Keni9. O'Hare. X5.0 Ohkaga 1987 199 3:00-8:00 p.m. 58 — Humes, Flock — subur6s,iL — 52 — ara 45.0 Chicago 1987 225 3:00-6,0Dp.m. 48 — ��, F}cYk Humes, Rook — suburbs. IL — 65 — Ken19.0 Ham, <5'0 chloro 1987 88 3:00-8:00 p.m. 35 — Humes, Flock — suburbs, IL `5e — c5.0 1987 84 3:00-8.'00 p.m. 44 — — Hanes, Fhch — � L L.oulsvilla 1993 — 4U0-B;DO P.M. 68 22 10 32 2,055 BaAon- Aschman 88 1.3 arae. KY Assoc t•9 19N 33 4:00-8.'ODp.m. 87 24 8 33 2,447 Berton- A sdiman Ass= 12DLouisvllle area, KY I NewAlbany, 1� — 4:00-8M. p.m 58 25 19 44 1,832 Barbr, Asolmm 87 4.2 IN Ass= 3,0 Louisville 1993 — 4:00-8:00 p.m. 31 31 38 69 4,250 BaAon- Asdow Assoc 150 SYW K, 31 Kisslnvnae, 1995 28 2:00 -600P -M. 71 — — 29 — TM Im. — FL — 3.1 Apopka, FL 1898 28 200.6:00 p.m 38 — — 02 — TPD In c 28 VW ter 19 47 20D-eM P.M. 8e — — 34 — TPD Inc, — Springs• FL 4.3 Lorovood' 199.4 304 2:00-8:00 P.M. 82 — — 38 — TPD Inc — FL Altamonte 202 2'00-8:00 p.m. 40 39 21 80 — TPD Ix. 3.2 1998 Springs, FL winter Park 271 2.00-8:00 p.m. 41 41 18 59 — TPD Irx. — 28 1998 FL L 3.31 several 1998 varies 4 WO ''00 p.m 62 — — 38 — Oracie Englnearfn9 'Average of several combined studies. Average Pass -By Trip Percentage: 50 means no data were provided ___ 214 Trip Generation Handbook, 3rd Edition a Traffic Data and Roadway Concurrency Information RKEY Roadway Name From To BDL10 Beardall Ave C.R. 415 SR 46 Current Traffic Count 471 Roadway Link Capacity 19,360 Committed Trips 122 Net Available Capacity 18,767 BDL20 Beardall Ave S.R. 46 Kentucky St Current Traffic Count 20 Roadway Link Capacity 19.360 Committed Trips 0 Net Available Capacity 19,340 BGR10 Bear Gully Rd S.R. 426 Howell Branch Current Traffic Count 2,521 Roadway Link Capacity 19,360 Committed Trips 0 Net Available Capacity 16,839 BLK00 Bear Lake Rd Orange County Line Bunnell Rd Current Traffic Count 11,442 Roadway Link Capacity 19,360 Committed Trips 0 Net Available Capacity 7,918 BLK10 Bear Lake Rd Bunnell Rd McNeil Rd Current Traffic Count 11,325 Roadway Link Capacity 19,360 Committed Trips 0 Net Available Capacity 8,035 BLK20 Bear Lake Rd McNeil Rd S.R. 436 Current Traffic Count 11,048 Roadway Link Capacity 19,360 Committed Trips 0 Net Available Capacity 8,312 BMY00 Balmy Beach Dr Orleans Way S.R. 436 Current Traffic Count 5,830 Roadway Link Capacity 19,360 Committed Trips 0 Net Available Capacity 13,530 BMY10 Balmy Beach Dr Holiday Ave Orleans Way Current Traffic Count 3,829 Roadway Link Capacity 19,360 Committed Trips 0 Net Available Capacity 15,531 BMY20 Balmy Beach Dr Neil Rd Holiday Ave Current Traffic Count 2,563 Roadway Link Capacity 19,360 Committed Trips 0 Net Available Capacity 16,797 Monday, October 4, 2021 Page 2 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 C3120 C.R. 431/Orange Blvd Wayside Dr Markham Rd Current Traffic Count 8,395 Roadway Link Capacity 19,360 Committed Trips 1,087 Net Available Capacity 9,878 C3125 C.R. 431/Orange Blvd S.R. 46 Wayside Dr Current Traffic Count 7,147 Roadway Link Capacity 19,360 Committed Trips 934 Net Available Capacity 11,279 C3130 C.R. 431/Orange Blvd Oregon Ave S.R. 46 Current Traffic Count 6,252 Roadway Link Capacity 19,360 Committed Trips 532 Net Available Capacity 12,576 C3140 C.R. 431/Orange Blvd C.R. 15/Monroe Oregon Ave Current Traffic Count 8,531 Roadway Link Capacity 19,360 Committed Trips 384 Net Available Capacity 10,445 C4152 C.R. 415/Celery Av U.S. 17-92 Park Av Current Traffic Count 5,935 Roadway Link Capacity 19,360 Committed Trips 0 Net Available Capacity 13,425 C4153 C.R. 415/Celery Av Park Av Sanford Av Current Traffic Count 4,855 Roadway Link Capacity 19,360 Committed Trips 0 Net Available Capacity 14,505 C4154 C.R. 415/Celery Av Sanford Av Mellonville Ave Current Traffic Count 6,458 Roadway Link Capacity 19,360 Committed Trips 0 Net Available Capacity 12,902 C4156 C.R. 415/Celery Av Mellonville Ave Sipes Ave Current Traffic Count 6,495 Roadway Link Capacity 19,360 Committed Trips 2,048 Net Available Capacity 10,817 C4158 C.R. 415/Celery Av Sipes Ave S.R. 415 Current Traffic Count 4,276 Roadway Link Capacity 19,360 Committed Trips 1,483 Net Available Capacity 13,601 Monday, October 4, 2021 Page 8 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 LKM40 Lake Mary Blvd C.R. 15 U.S. 17-92 Current Traffic Count 25,456 Roadway Link Capacity 42,560 Committed Trips 154 Net Available Capacity 16,950 LKM70 Lake Mary Blvd U.S. 17-92 SR 417 Current Traffic Count 21,587 Roadway Link Capacity 42,560 Committed Trips 1,546 Net Available Capacity 19,427 LKM75 Lake Mary Blvd SR 417 C.R. 427 Current Traffic Count 17,593 Roadway Link Capacity 42,560 Committed Trips 2,273 Net Available Capacity 226694 LKM80 E. Lake Mary Blvd C.R. 427 Red Cleveland Blvd Current Traffic Count 23,619 Roadway Link Capacity 42,560 Committed Trips 9,335 Net Available Capacity 9,606 LKM90 E. Lake Mary Blvd Red Cleveland Blvd Cameron Ave Current Traffic Count 19,375 Roadway Link Capacity 42,560 Committed Trips 5,002 Net Available Capacity 18,183 LKM92 E. Lake Mary Blvd Cameron Ave S.R. 46 Current Traffic Count 15,605 Roadway Link Capacity 42,560 Committed Trips 4,923 Net Available Capacity 22,032 LKW00 Lockwood Blvd C.R. 426 C.R. 419 Current Traffic Count 7,404 Roadway Link Capacity 19,360 Committed Trips 0 Net Available Capacity 11,956 LKW25 Lockwood Blvd C.R. 419 Mitchell Hammock Current Traffic Count 34,369 Roadway Link Capacity 42,560 Committed Trips 0 Net Available Capacity 81191 LKW30 Lockwood Blvd Mitchell Hammock Oviedo City Limits Current Traffic Count 22,650 Roadway Link Capacity 42,560 Committed Trips 486 Net Available Capacity 19,424 Monday, October 4, 2029 Paqe 22 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 RNH30 Rinehart Rd S.R. 417 Ramp S Mall Entrance Current Traffic Count 19,226 Roadway Link Capacity 42,560 Committed Trips 362 Net Available Capacity 22,972 RNH40 Rinehart Rd S Mall Entrance C.R. 46-A Current Traffic Count 29,113 Roadway Link Capacity 42,560 Committed Trips 0 Net Available Capacity 13,447, RNH50 Rinehart Rd C.R. 46-A Anderson Ln Current Traffic Count 35,508 Roadway Link Capacity 42,560 Committed Trips 0 Net Available Capacity 7,052 RNH60 Rinehart Rd Anderson Ln Lake Mary Blvd Current Traffic Count 24,758 Roadway Link Capacity 42,560 Committed Trips 827 Net Available Capacity 16,975 RSB10 Rising Sun Blvd Red Bug Lake Rd Ortega St Current Traffic Count 5,049 Roadway Link Capacity 19,360 Committed Trips 0 Net Available Capacity 14,311 S1510 S.R. 415 C.R. 415 S.R. 46 Current Traffic Count 23,705 Roadway Link Capacity 18,270 Committed Trips 1,196 Net Available Capacity -61631 S1550 S.R. 415 Volusia County Line C.R. 415 Current Traffic Count 24,313 Roadway Link Capacity 18,270 Committed Trips 1,196 Net Available Capacity -7,239 S1910 S.R. 419 U.S. 17-92 S.R. 434 Current Traffic Count 17,810 Roadway Link Capacity 18,270 Committed Trips 0 Net Available Capacity 460 S1920 S.R. 419 Edgemon Ave S.R. 434 Current Traffic Count 17,810 Roadway Link Capacity 19,360 Committed Trips 0 Net Available Capacity 1,550 Monday, October 4, 2029 Paqe 33 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 Current Traffic Count 20,354 Roadway Link Capacity 48,000 Committed Trips 0 Net Available Capacity 27,646 S4660 S.R. 461E 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 41138 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 Monday, October 4, 2021 Paqe 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. APPENDIX C Existing Intersection Counts and MOT Seasonal Factors 0 -j z M (A w w on 2 '00 0 -T N tD r, hko 00 00 Ln %D Rr "tr �r m 00 tJ V4 C; cli --- ----------- — m 00 W M OD eq 0 V 1� F, v N Rcr Ln -1 CA W Im -e u uj 0 N N 414 CA N N N 00 m a, 0 + (ti Ln 10 Ln Ln N 0 m W N 00 co Ln 3: '�d — Ln m Ln punoqjsaM ------------ — - — I I. C:) CD CD CD C) C, 0 C) 0 Z o 0 m �t m N N C) m N (N CA F.- 0 0 6i 6i OC) 00 ID CY) m m 00 r, 00 1 wtn w mm N z 0 Ln 00 mco m �o m Ln N Ln �2 In co rl 0100 r� CO cn N 00 co 00 00 v 0 D 0 m to r v w m Ln �2N r QI ,o 0 Vf Z C: E 0Ln w Ln m r, t- m M to rA M �o r4 Ln Ln ID m00 m 0 r ry) mz 00 Z (Y) m m vm v m 0 "o M 0 It 0 00m ;r Ln lz i 4* .......... ............ Ag Ln -T 0 00 en 00 h 0 C4 m N rl 0 0 N w 'D Z 0 Ln 'T rn m Z 0 co 00 MM 'D pN rl w (31 &n 0 rn m m rn rm LLJ F- i(Y) o m r- to ON 00 Ln o r� C) r, m 6 Co 00 "0 In rn m 0) - tn m 00 'IT w M M— Ln N 00 0 ON m N r1l N to oo —,0 Zo co to U, m 00 -j� In Lr) (Y) rq Ln r, 00 CIN w %a 0 m Ln 0 v 0 to 0 m 0 06 M Ln Ln Lr) r, > rIq N N 00 : z 0 - - a) -0 co . a) E se o m zEastbound It m 'IT rn Ln to It N ko Ln w N Ln m Z LU z 0 C, m CD o CDn Ln 0 < < < < Q Q Q Q Q a 0 cD Lo cD LnC) In 0 Ln I— IL LLJ m I %t 0 IR T '!t 0 rz-Z r�� nI r:-: F- oo ao oo oo I-- a in 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 r% 00 0 im Iq to 1h r r h m 0 00 000 't %D Mh rn Ln 00 00 rel M a! 0 rn ---------------- — J 2C N coC4 is LLS 0 I W N 0 -e Ln UD 00 rn 0 v C4 m %o cm Ln Do Ln N %0 co M rn N m Nr %D NN M 0 r r r r LA punoqjsam ------ — ------- — C) 0 0 CD C) N N ID M 0�o N CD 00 CD m (N -zr (y) at V Lo . Ln ZD Zo C) N fN i C) 0 N dt Ln 0 0 M cn N Lr) M meY rn U') rh N ko (y) 1D Lf) N N z 0Ln O -zr N rl N N cn 00 m N (A 0 00 0 0 0 --t C4 Ln 0 to m (71 a* 0 r r r N r, N N r r rl ....... . . . . . .. 0 u N Ll) r -J N tD rko In (U Z "o C: E 0 a, r, oo ul oo r, 00 rl cn t Ln m co U) Ln 0 co u IC co Z Z �o Ln 00 r� �o Ln m rq uj 0 co 0 m Ln a% 0 0 je 2 .......... Ag 22 F - v r, 0 a, r, M a Ln OLn XJOPV aNO7 z Z 0 00 r, rQ V — -,r M vr 0 Ln t V W cc L'i to Mh %D in N Cc — r h OL oo O h co 00 0 OL %D %D 0 w ci Ln M Z N c:> Lt) N 10 Ln r, m Z Ln L n 0 -Izr 10 00m Ln 00 Ln m M........ C) Ln F C) 00 o C) 00 r- 00 rlj 10 &; kD �? CD �R C, - r, , IL m m 1 Tal -j 10 00 �2 -5- -ct cn 110 Ln m m < at m Ln NCD CA 00 Lo un Wto 06 v a% N 00 0 Ln rl > Z3 0 Ln ID ID 1 LD tp N M.D. O Ln z M 00 co 00 00 m 'T m r1l CDIt ai X -0 fu Q) E O Eastbound a) > 00 0 N m oa% m %D 0 N �2 oo rq N N M 00 Z ui z _j m Ln r4 N 00 0 O �D N CD U:) 0 J uj Z a- a. E a- < CL a. CL 0- tv 12 OD uj o Ln c) Ln P 0 CD �-, 2:1 L? 0 a . 0 Ln cri 1.�i I &i 0 CD CD 0 C) C:, 10 1- . -------------- I 2020 PEAK SEASON FACTOR CATEGORY REPORT - REPORT TYPE: ALL CATEGORY: 7744 SEMINOLE I4 URBAN MOCF: 0.93 WEEK DATES SF PSCF ---------------------------------------- * 1 01/01/2020 - 01/04/2020 0.93 1.00 * 2 01/05/2020 - 01/11/2020 0.91 0.98 * 3 01/12/2020 - 01/18/2020 0.89 0.96 * 4 01/19/2020 - 01/25/2020 0.88 0.95 * 5 01/26/2020 - 02/01/2020 0.87 0.94 * 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 * 9 02/23/2020 - 02/29/2020 0.92 0.99 *10 03/01/2020 - 03/07/2020 0.95 1.02 *11 03/08/2020 - 03/14/2020 0.99 1.06 *12 03/15/2020 - 03/21/2020 1.02 1.10 *13 03/22/2020 - 03/28/2020 1.15 1.24 14 03/29/2020 - 04/04/2020 1.28 1.38 15 04/05/2020 - 04/11/2020 1.41 1.52 16 04/12/2020 - 04/18/2020 1.54 1.66 17 04/19/2020 - 04/25/2020 1.45 1.56 18 04/26/2020 - 05/02/2020 1.35 1.45 19 05/03/2020 - 05/09/2020 1.25 1.34 20 05/10/2020 - 05/16/2020 1.15 1.24 21 05/17/2020 - 05/23/2020 1.12 1.20 22 05/24/2020 - 05/30/2020 1.10 1.18 23 05/31/2020 - 06/06/2020 1.07 1.15 24 06/07/2020 - 06/13/2020 1.04 1.12 25 06/14/2020 - 06/20/2020 1.02 1.10 26 06/21/2020 - 06/27/2020 1.02 1.10 27 06/28/2020 - 07/04/2020 1.02 1.10 28 07/05/2020 - 07/11/2020 1.02 1.10 29 07/12/2020 - 07/18/2020 1.02 1.10 30 07/19/2020 - 07/25/2020 1.01 1.09 31 07/26/2020 - 08/01/2020 1.01 1.09 32 08/02/2020 - 08/08/2020 1.00 1.08 33 08/09/2020 - 08/15/2020 1.00 1.08 34 08/16/2020 - 08/22/2020 0.99 1.06 35 08/23/2020 - 08/29/2020 0.99 1.06 36 08/30/2020 - 09/05/2020 0.99 1.06 37 09/06/2020 - 09/12/2020 0.99 1.06 38 09/13/2020 - 09/19/2020 0.98 1.05 39 09/20/2020 - 09/26/2020 0.98 1.05 40 09/27/2020 - 10/03/2020 0.97 1.04 41 10/04/2020 - 10/10/2020 0.96 1.03 42 10/11/2020 - 10/17/2020 0.95 1.02 43 10/18/2020 - 10/24/2020 0.95 1.02 44 10/25/2020 - 10/31/2020 0.96 1.03 45 11/01/2020 - 11/07/2020 0.96 1.03 46 11/08/2020 - 11/14/2020 0.96 1.03 47 11/15/2020 - 11/21/2020 0.96 1.03 48 11/22/2020 - 11/28/2020 0.95 1.02 49 11/29/2020 - 12/05/2020 0.95 1.02 50 12/06/2020 - 12/12/2020 0.94 1.01 51 12/13/2020 - 12/19/2020 0.93 1.00 52 12/20/2020 - 12/26/2020 0.91 0.98 53 12/27/2020 - 12/31/2020 0.89 0.96 * PEAK SEASON 27 -FEB -2021 10:30:05 830UPD 5_7744__PKSEASON.TXT Existing HCS Capacity Worksheets HCS7 Signalized Intersection Results Summary General Information EB Intersection Information Agency Seminole County N13 Duration, h 0.250 L AnalystG� TPD/jd Analysis Date Nov_11, 2021 . Area Type Other L Jurisdiction Seminole County Time Period AM Peak Hour PHF 0.98 zr- Urban Street East Lake Mary Blvd Analysis Year 2021 14 Analysis Period 1>7:00 ° Intersection SR 46 &East Lake Mar... File Name 1 SR 46 & Lake Mary Blvd Existing AM Peak.xus 9 12 Project Description Existing AM Peak Hour 161 1 93 150 293 130 171 176 166 271 836 320 1757 t 1757 1809 1610 1810 1900 1710 1810------------ 1809 Demand Information EB 6.4 8.4 W 3 NB SB Approach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R Demand ( v), veh/h 173 158 91 147 287 127 168 235 100 266 819 314 y 20.3 0.07 0.14 i 0.14 0.06 0.13 0.13 Signallnformation 0.44 0.44 0.17 0.49 0.49 23 8 503 224 208 Cycle, s 160.0 Reference Phase 2 210 202 836 752 305 1774 789 0.743 0.320 Offset, s 0 Reference Point End Green 17.8 0.6_ 70.4 9.5 1.3 20.9 0.220 0.889 0.471 Uncoordinated No Simult. Gap E/W On Yellow 5.2 4.8 5.2 5.1 0.0 5.1* 191.6 182.5 431.8- 398.4 Force Mode Fixed Simult. Gap N/S On Red 3.4 2.7 2.4 3.4 0.0 2.2 s 12.0 r s 17.3 15.9 12.6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 73.2 62.1 ELW 74.0 Timer Results EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBLMSBT Assigned Phase � -.. 3 _ 8 7 � 4 1 6 5 2 Case Number 2.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 3.0 Phase Duration, s 19.3 29.6 18.0 28.2 26.4 78.0 34.5 1 86.0 Change Period, ( Y+R c), s 8.5 7.3 8.5 7.3 8.6 7.6 7.6 Max Allow Headway ( TAH), s 5.0 6.0 ' 5.0 6.0 5.0 0.0 M7.5 5.0 0.0 Queue Clearance Time ( g S ), s 4 9.9 10.4 8.7 14.3 16.9 25.5 Green Extension Time ( g a), s 0.9 6.7 0.8 6.7 1.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 Phase Call Probability _ m 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Max Out Probability 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00�M Movement Group Results Approach Movement Assigned Movement Adjusted Flow Rate ( v), veh/h Adjusted Saturation Flow Rate ( s ), veh/h/In Queue Service Time ( g s ), s Cycle Queue Clearance Time ( g c ), s Green Ratio (g/C ) Capacity ( c ), veh/h Volume -to -Capacity Ratio (X) Back of Queue ( Q ), ft/In ( 95 th percentile) Back of Queue ( Q ), veh/In ( 95 th percentile Queue Storage Ratio ( RQ) ( 95 th percentile Uniform Delay ( d, ), s/veh Incremental Delay ( d 2 ), s/veh Initial Queue Delay ( d 3 ), s/veh Control Delay ( d ), s/veh Level of Service (LOS) Approach Delay, s/veh / LOS Intersection Delay, s/veh / LOS Multimodal ResultsEB _ WB NB SB Pedestrian LOS Score / LOS k� 2.32 B 2.47 B 2.58 C 2.57 C Bicycle LOS Score / LOS 0.84 f A 0.96 A 0.91 A 1.67 fl B Copyright O 2021 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved. HCSTM Streets Version 7.9.5 Generated: 11/11/2021 8:11:54 AM EB WB N13 SB L T R L T_ R L T R L T R 3 8 18 r` 7 4 14 1 6 , A.g.. 16 '3 5 2 12 177 161 1 93 150 293 130 171 176 166 271 836 320 1757 1809 ;1610 4 1757 1809 1610 1810 1900 1710 1810------------ 1809 1610 7.9 6.4 8.4 6.7 12.3 12.2 14.9 c 9.2 9.6 "1 23.5 1 24.5 20.3 7.9 6.4 8.4 6.7 12.3 12.2 14.9 9.2 9.6 23.5 24.5 20.3 0.07 0.14 i 0.14 0.06 0.13 0.13 1.00 0.44 0.44 0.17 0.49 0.49 23 8 503 224 208 473 210 202 836 752 305 1774 789 0.743 0.320 0.415 0.721 0.619 0.616 0.850 0.211 0.220 0.889 0.471 0.406 167.8 1134.2 161.2 i 143.3 242.9 226.9 300.8 191.6 182.5 431.8- 398.4 315.1 6.7 5.4 6.4 5.7 9.7 9.1 12.0 7.7 7.3 17.3 15.9 12.6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 73.2 62.1 62.9 74.0 65.8 65.7 69.8 27.7 27.8 65.0 27.0 25.9 6.4 0.8 2.6 6.5 2.8 6.1 13.1 0.6 ° 0.7 11.8 0.9 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 j 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 79.6 62.8 165.5 80.5 68.6 71.9 82.9 28.2 28.5 76.9 27.9 27.5 E E E F E E F C C E C C 70.3 a ie E 72.4 E 46.6 D 37.1 - D 50.5 D Multimodal ResultsEB _ WB NB SB Pedestrian LOS Score / LOS k� 2.32 B 2.47 B 2.58 C 2.57 C Bicycle LOS Score / LOS 0.84 f A 0.96 A 0.91 A 1.67 fl B Copyright O 2021 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved. HCSTM Streets Version 7.9.5 Generated: 11/11/2021 8:11:54 AM Demand Information EB WB NB SB Approach Movement L T I R L T R L T R L T R Demand (v). veh/h „ 466 287 37 99 , 234 299 93 896 152 173 374 158 Signal Information EBL EBT WBL U4 WBT NBL Cycle, s 160.0 Offset, s 0 Reference Phase Reference Point 2 End Green 10.5 , 3 8 �( 7 6.2 49.7 6.9 9.5 36.6 6 5 Uncoordinated No Simult. Gap E/W On Yellow 5.2 0.0 5.2 5.1 5.1 5.1 2.0 Force Mode Fixed Simult. Gap N/S On Red 3.4 0.0 2.4 3.4 3.4 12.2 3.0 Phase Duration, s Timer Results EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT Assigned Phase , 3 8 �( 7 4 1 6 5 2 Case Number 2.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 3.0 Phase Duration, s 33.5 62.0 15.4 43.9 19.1 57.3 25.3 63.5 Change Period, ( Y+R ), s 8.5 7.3 8.5 7.3 8.6 7.6 7.5 _7.6 Max Allow Headway (MAH ), s 5.0 6.1 5.0 6.1 5.0� 0.0 5.0 0.0 Queue Clearance Time ( g s ), s 23.1 11.3 6.5 30.8 10.3 17.4 Green Extension Time ( g a ), s 1.9 9.4 0.5 5.8 0.4 0.0 0.5 T 0.0 Phase Call Probability 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 } 1.00 Max Out Probability 0.36 0.01 0.00 0.46 0.00 0.22 Movement Group Results EB WB NB SB Approach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R Assigned Movement 3 8 k 187 4 14 1 1 6 16 5 2 12 Adjusted Flow Rate ( v), veh/h 476 293 38 101 239 305 95 549 521 177 382 161 Adjusted Saturation Flow Rate ( s ), veh/htln 1757 1809 1610 1757 1809 1610 1810 ' 1900 1803 1810 1809 1610 Queue Service Time ( g s }, s 21.1 9.3 2.5 4.5 8.7 28.8 8.3 44.8 44.8 15.4 12.3 11.6 Cycle Queue Clearance Time ( g c ), s 21.1 9.3 1 2.5 4.5 A 8.7 28.8 8.3 44.8 44.8 15.4 12.3 11.6 j Green Ratio { g/C) 0.16 0.34 0.34 0.04 0.23 0.23 0.96 , 0.31 0.31 0.11 0.35 0.35 Capacity ( c ), veh/h 549 1236 1 550 153 828 369 119 590 560 202 1263 562 Volume -to -Capacity Ratio (X) 0.867 0.237 0.069 0.662 0.288 0.827 0.798 0.930 0.931 0.876 0.302 0.287 ' Back of Queue ( Q }, Win ( 95 th percentile) 383.4 185.9 45.5 97.6 178.6 470.2 193.1 822.1 1789.9 323.5 234.3 2.07.9 Back of Queue ( Q ), veh/In ( 95 th percentile) 15.3 7.4 1.8 3.9 7.1 18.8 7.7 32.9 31.6 12.9 9.4 8.3 Queue Storage Ratio ( RQ) { 95 th percentile) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 " 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay ( d i ), s/veh 65.9 37.7 35.5 75.4 50.9 58.7 73.7 53.5 53.5 70.0 37.9 37.7 Incremental Delay ( d 2 ), s/veh 10.3 0.2 0.1 6.8 0.4 13.2 "'< 15.7 " 23.3 24.3 21.6 0.6 1.3 g Initial Queue Delay (d s ), 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 Control Delay ( d ), s/veh =s 76.2 37.9 ( 35.6 82.2 51.3 71.9 89.4 Fi6.8 77.8 91.6 38.5 38.9 Level of Service (LOS) E D D F D E F E E F_ D D Approach Delay, s/veh /LOST51.6 j D Intersection Delay, s/veh /LOS 65 8 E Multimodal Results_ EB WB NB _ SB _ Pedestrian LOS Score / LOS 2.30 B 2.47 1 _ B _ 2.60 C 2.59 C Bicycle LOS Score / LOS 1.15 A 1.02 A 1.45 A 1.08 A Copyright O 2021 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved. HCST" Streets Version 7.9.5 Generated: 11!11/2021 8:11:54 Alin Seminole County Traffic Engineering Timing Sheet Intersection: SR 46 & 17-E Lk Mary Blvd #4842 Cc,�l,`TY Name SR 46 E. Lk Mary SR 46 E. Lk Mary I Phase Mode STD8 Free Action 254 Direction WL ET NL ST EL WT SL NT Free Seq 1 Syn Green Channel 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 InSync P2P Pattern Phase/OL 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 2 4 6 8 Comm ID 1715 Node # 4842 ! Type VEH VEH OLP VEH VEH VEH OLP VEH OLP OLP OLP OLP PED PED PED PED Date February 11, 2021 Done By SCTE1HClancy I Phase Times Alt Phase Times 1 Phase 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 131_4 15 16 Phase 4 Min Green 6 17 6 8 6 17 6 8 _ Min Green ! 15 Passage 4 5 4 4 4 5 4 4 Passage 6 Max 1 15 50 25 45 25 50 25 45 -i I L- Max 1 45 Max 2 15 50 25 45 25 50 25 45 I I Max 2 j� 45 Yellow Clr 5.1 5.1 5.2 4.8 5.1 5.1 4.8 5.2 I Yel Clr 4.8 Red Clr 3.4 2.2 3.4 2.5 3.4 2.2 2.7 2.4 Red Cir ! 2.5 Walk 7 7 7 7 - -- I. Walk f 7 -Ped Cir I�— 30 Ped Clear 23 30 30 129 _ _ Red Revert 3 3 3 3 3 3 3—� 3 I Alt Phase Times 2 Added Init j Phase — Max Initial I Min Green Max 3 Limit I I 'Passage — Max 3 Step I Max 1 Time B-4 i I Max 2 Cars B-4 Yel Clr Time to ' Red CIr i Reduce By I Walk Min Gap I I Ped Cir -- Phase Options Alt Phase Opt 1 Phase 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Phase 1 2 3 I 4iI 5 6 7 8 Enable ✓ '/✓ V"I/✓ ✓ ✓ -- - Max 2 i —I ---L Min Recall V,I ✓ Max Inhibit ✓ ✓ l ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Max Recall I Cnf Phase Ped Recall Alt Phase Opt 2 Soft Recall lPhase 1 2 3 4 5 6! 7! 8 Lock Call ✓ ✓ j✓ ✓ I I -,Max 2 Flash Ent I ✓ ✓ Max Inhibit —r ✓ ✓ Flash Exit ✓ I�-- ✓ Cnf Phase I Dual Entry I ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ j I Alt Phase Opt 3 Sim Gap ✓ I ! ✓_ j ( Phase��— Cond Sery Max2 Reservice 1 — Max Inhibit Cnf Phase ! _l _ Cnf Phase Type �— —_ Included Phase I Modifier Phase ; FYA Gm Yel Red Overlap - A j Overlap - B Overlap - C FYA-4 Overlap - D Overlap - E Overlap - F Overlap - G FYA-4 Overlap - H Ovedap - I Overlap - J — Overlap - K Overlap - L Overlap - M Overlap - N Overlap - 0 Overlap - P 8 2.7 Coordination Splits 1-16 Split 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Sunday Cycle = 30 45 35 100 40 45 25 45 Hour Seq = P Min Mode L Acton -Split -2- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 A Cycle11 L i L N Hour i __ J— Seq L_1___ J-- Min Mode 1 Acton Split 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Monday Cycle Hour 'Seq I P Min L Acton Mode Spllt4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 A Cycle 45 40 25 120 65 40 35 90N Hour Min in Mode 2 Acton Split 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Tuesday Cycle = I i Hour P Min L Acton Seq = _1 _a Mode r Split 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 A Cycle N Hour Seq Min 3 Acton Mode !Split 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Wednesday Cycle Hour I Seq P Min [Mode L Acton split 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 A CycleN Hour .Seq 'Min Mode i 4 Action Split 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Thursday Cycle Hour !Seq �r--I---I P Min Acton4 L ;Mode !split 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 A Cycle N Hour Seq Min IMode 5 Acton Split 11 _1 2— 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Friday Cycle = Hour Seq = P Min Mode L Acton Split 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 A Cycle =N Hour Min Seq = Mode 6 Acton ,Split 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Saturday Cycle Hour P Min Seq Mode ;Split 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 16 16 A Cycle N Hour Seq Min Mode 7 Acton Split 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Cycle =P Min Hour Seq = ,Mode L Acton Split 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 A CycleN Hour Seq Min Mode 8 Acton Dav Plans 1-8 99 1 2 3 4 5r ------ 6 9 16 18 30 99 1 99 4 99 1 2 3 4 5 6 9 16 18 30 99 1 99 4 99 IF 1 2 3 14 6 9 16 18 30 99 1 99 4 99 1 2 3 4 5 6 9 16 18 30 99 1 99 4 99 1 2 3 4 5 6 9 16 18 30 99 1 99 4 99 99 Coordination Splits 17-32 aolit1r 1 o 3 4 s 0 7 8 o 10 11 12 13 w 15 16 | _ Cycle Seq P Mode L Split 18 1 2 3 4 5 0 7 8 S 10 11 12 13 w 15 16 A Cycle N Seq | o Cycle Seq P Mode | L Gplitm 1 2 o 4 o V 7 0 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 A Cycle N Seq Mode m Cycle Seq P . Mode � -Split -22 �--1 2x * 5 o 7 o O 10 11 12 13 14 15 10 x Cycle N Seq Mode Split 23 1 x x * o o / o o m n ,z u p` o 16 Cycle Seq ' p Mode L —lit 24�-1-2-3-4 5--6-7oo 10 11 12 13 1* 15 16 « oydv ~_ mm~-! Mn� ! -Mode-, �/m--- nydv =_ ' mm ~- | Mode � -Split 26 -��i / 3 4 5 0 7 0 S 10 11 12 13 14 15 m x Cycle =_ Sem ~- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 -Split 26 -��i / 3 4 5 0 7 0 S 10 11 12 13 14 15 m x Cycle =_ Sem ~- m wm� —Split' 27r '--1-- 2/» * o o 7 u o 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Cycle Seq _j Mode Cycle Seq Mode N _'14 Cycle Seq Mode i L Seq 15 Mode Cycle Seq Mode I Cycle Seq Mode _17 N 16 *um Min Action Hour Min Action Hour �wm �Action Hour 'mm Acton Hour mm Acton. Hour Min Action �num �Min /Action. �*om |mm �Acton Hour Min Action� Hour Min Acton� '*vm �wm �Acton Hour Min Action. Hour Min Action Hour Min Action Hour wm Acton *vo, wm Action Day Plan 84H f Pattem -1 :Pattem - 2 iPattem - 3 ;Pattem -4 ;Pattem - 5 Pattern - 6 Pattem - 7 :Pattem -8 Pattem - 9 `Pattem -10 Pattem -11 :Pattem -12 Pattem -13 Pattem -14 Pattem -15 Pattem -16 ;Pattem -17 Pattern -18 iPattem -19 Pattem - 20 Pattem -21 Pattern - 22 Pattem - 23 Pattem - 24 Pattem - 25 ;Pattem - 26 €Pattern -27 Tattern-28 Pattem -29 :Pattem - 30 =Pattern - 31 Pattem - 32 Pattem - 33 Pattem - 34 Pattem - 35 Pattem - 36 Pattem - 37 Pattem - 38 Pattem - 39 :Pattem-40 Pattem - 41 Pattem - 42 Pattern - 43 'Pattem -44 Pattem-45 Pattem - 46 Pattem - 47 Pattem - 48 BIU-1 _. Detector 1 Detector 2 Detector 3 Detector 4 Detector 5 Detector 6 Detector 7 Detector 8 Detector 9 Detector 10 Detector 11 Detector 12 !Detector 13 Detector 14 Detector 15 Detector 16 =] Call Swt Dly Lck Src BIU-2 Call Swt Dly Lck , Src BIU-3 Cali Sort Dly Ldt Src Bit! -4 Call Sort Dly Lck Src 1 17 t 18 7 4 8 33 34 ( 49 50 i 51_. 2 1... 19 8._ �_ _ _ _. 220 . _... 36 . ,E,. 52 2 21 37 53 2 t_ _ I 38 1 54 { J 39 t p 4 ! 24 ! 40 56 I 1 4 2541 57 4 12 26 4258 t 27 I I60 59 ' 5 28 I 1 _ 5 �._ 7 6 29 61 6 , 30 46 62 6 31 7 63 6 I 1 32 I r 48 Enbl - - ~ Track Phase Gm Track Overlap - -------Dwell Phase -- - --�� Dwl Dwell Ovedap -- E)d Phase Pre Run 1 Pre Run 2 Pre Run 3 ON 3! 8_ 3 7 i 4 8 l_ Pre Run 4 ON _ 4 7 I 3 7 4 8 I - ---� Pre Run 5 ON 2 6 Pre Run 6 ON I 1 6 2 6 i Intersection_ Notes T.O.D Notes Intersection set up with concurrent sides. Patterns 1 & 4 used for AM and PM rush traffic. Main street LT's are 5 -section heads and are Det. Switched. Side street Urs are 4 section FYA heads. Alt Phase Time 1 is used to increase Phase 4 min green time during pattern 1. P6 f N P6 P4 l 64 •41 7 N IV--- FYA 1 P6 �� P6 I P4 I; P8 W E 5 64 7 P4 dj —� SR 46 - - V— CR 415 S 1 —► 2 3 P8 8 5 P2 0 P2 P4 i 1 P8 Cabinet —� FYA —► 2 3 P2 j P2 P8 Sea 1 Ring 1 1 21 3 4 Ring 2 5 61 7 8 APPENDIX E Projected HCS Capacity Worksheets General Information Jurisdiction Urban Street Intersection Proiect Desc HCS7 Signalized Intersection Results Summary East Lake Mary Blvd SR 46 & East Lake Mar.. Proiected AM Peak Hour Analysis Date JNov 11, 2021 Time Period JAM Peak Hour Analysis Year �2023File Name eae Intersection Information Duration, h 0.250 Area Type Other PHF� 0.98 Analysis Period 1> 7:00 ry Blvd Proiected AM Peak.xus Demand Information EB EB WB WB NB NB SB s Approach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R Demand ( v) veh/h 173 234 149 196 339 127 221 464 145 266 920 314 3 8 18 7 4 14 1 6 R 16 5 2 Signallnformation � � � � 226 322 , Cycle, s 160.0 Reference Phase 2 1757 1809 11610 1757 _ � 1610 181011900 �` � .- , Offset, s (0�, Reference Point End 7.9 9.5 14.1 8.9 14.2 11.7 19.5 19.4 19.6 Green 22.8-j 3.0 165.2 7.9 10.8 1.2 25.0 8.9 14.2 11.7 Uncoordinated' No Slmult. Gap E/W On Yellow 5.2 10.0 5.2 5.1 0.07 0.16 0.16 0.07 0.16 Force Mode a Fixed Simult. Gap N/S On Red 3.4 OA 0.43 0.43 238 565 251 263 591 263 258 774 711 305 1543 687 Timer Results EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT Assigned Phase muttT �... 3 0.760 �.A 8 7 4 1 6 5 2 Case Number 0.467 2.0 196.8'251.8 3.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 3.0 Phase Duration, s 512 19.3 1 32.3 20.5 33.5 31.4 72.8 34.4 75.8 Change Period, ( Y+R c ), s 13.4 8.5 20.5 7.3 8.5 7.3 8.6 7.6 7.6 Max Allow Headway( MAH), s 0.00 5.0 6.0 5.0 6.0 5.0 _7.5 0.0 5A� 0.0 Queue Clearance Time ( g s }, s 60.9 9.9 33.8 16.1 10.9 16.2 21.5 25.5 1.1 Green Extension Time ( g a ), s 6.3 0.9 3.0 8.9 1.1 8.9 1.3 OA 1.4 t 0.0 Phase Call Probability Max Out Probabilitv �w 1.00 0.00 0.0 1.00 0.02 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1 0.02 0.00 1.00 wa 0.00 Movement Group Results Approach Movement Assigned Movement Adjusted Flow Rate ( v ), veh/h Adjusted Saturation Flow Rate ( s ), veh/h/In Queue Service Time ( g s ), s Cycle Queue Clearance Time( g c ), s Green Ratio (g/C ) Capacity ( c ), veh/h Volume -to -Capacity Ratio (X) Back of Queue ( Q }, ft/In ( 95 th percentile) Back of Queue ( Q }, veh/In ( 95 th percentile Queue Storage Ratio ( RQ) ( 95 th percentil Uniform Delay ( d i ), s/veh Incremental Delay ( d 2 ), s/veh Initial Queue Delay ( d 3 ), s/veh Control Delay ( d), s/veh Level of Service (LOS) Approach Delay, s/veh / LOS - Intersection Delay, s/veh / LOS Multimodal Results EB WB Pedestrian LOS Score / LOS x' 2.32 B 2.47 B Bicycle LOS Score / LOS 0.96 A 1.04 A Copyright @ 2021 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved. HCST11 Streets Version 7.9.5 NB SB 2.58 �_1.� C � 2.58 C � 1.19 A 1.75 1 B Generated: 11/1512021 11:00:58 AN4 EB WB NB s SB L T I R L I T R L T_ R L T R 3 8 18 7 4 14 1 6 R 16 5 2 12� 177 239 152 200 346 130 226 322 299 271 939 320 1757 1809 11610 1757 1809 1610 181011900 1745 1810 1809 1610 7.9 9.5 14.1 8.9 14.2 11.7 19.5 19.4 19.6 32.2 22.8 7.9 9.5 $ 14.1' 3 8.9 14.2 11.7 19.5 1 19.4 19.6 _23.5 23.5 32.2 22.8 0.07 0.16 0.16 0.07 0.16 0.16 0.14 0.41 0.41 0.17 0.43 0.43 238 565 251 263 591 263 258 774 711 305 1543 687 0.743.0.423 0.605 0.760 0.585 10.492 0.875 0.416 0.421 0.891 0.609 0.467 167.8 196.8'251.8 189.5 270 ' 215.2 ` 373 353.8 334.6 , 432.2 512 354.5 6.7 7.9 10.1 7.6 10.8 8.6 14.9 14.2 13.4 17.3 20.5 14.2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 OAO 0.00 000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 73.2 61.0 62.9 72.6 6_1.9 60.9 67.2 33.8 33.9 65.1 35.5 32.9 6.4 1.1 4.9 6.3 2.0 3.0 12.3 I 1.6 1.8 12.0 1.8 2.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 79.6 62.1 s 67.8 78.9 63.9 63.9 79.5 35.5 35.7 77.1 37.3 35.1 E E E,'-= E E EID D E_D D 69.1 E 68.3 E 47.3 D 43.9 D 53.2 D Multimodal Results EB WB Pedestrian LOS Score / LOS x' 2.32 B 2.47 B Bicycle LOS Score / LOS 0.96 A 1.04 A Copyright @ 2021 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved. HCST11 Streets Version 7.9.5 NB SB 2.58 �_1.� C � 2.58 C � 1.19 A 1.75 1 B Generated: 11/1512021 11:00:58 AN4 Proiect Description IProiected PM Peak Hour Demand Information HCS7 Signalized Intersection Results Summary EBL EB 9 WB NBT NB General Information Approach Movement Intersection Information �' '' '' �" Agency Seminole County Duration, h X0.250 Analyst TPD/jd Analysis Date Nov 11, 2021 Area Type �Other�� Jurisdiction Seminole County x Time Period PM Peak our PHF 0.98 Urban Street East Lake Mary Blvd Analysis Year F2021 Analysis Period 1> 7:00 Intersection SR 46 & East Lake Mar... File Name 12 SR 46 & Lake Mary Blvd Projected PM Peak.xus Proiect Description IProiected PM Peak Hour Demand Information EB EBL EB WBL WBT WB NBT NB SB Approach Movement 3 L T R L T R L T R L T R Demand (7), veh/h Case Number 3T 466 387 1 98 151 274 299 155 1192 205 173 461 158 ��:`f 2.0 4.0 2.0 3.0 Phase Duration, s 12 34.7 Signallnformation 19.1 40.3 26.4 .� 1 � 78.6 � , Cycle, 180.0 Reference Phase 2 7.3F 8.6 7.6 7.5 7.6 �� ' s 6.1 5.0 6.1 "` ,� 0.0'5.0 1757 0.0 Queue Clearance Time ( g s ), s Offset, s 0 Uncoordinated No Reference Point Simult. Ga E/W End On Green 17.5 11.4 171.3 110.6 17.2 133.0 5.1 19.5 _ r Green Extension Time ( g s ), s P 0.1 Yellow 4.8 0.0 4.8 5.1 5.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 1 p Force Mode Fixed Simult. Gap N/S On Red 2.7 0.0 2.5 3.4 3.4 2.2 1.00 z Timer Results EB EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT Assigned Phase 3 8 w' 7 4 1 6 Ix 5 2 Case Number 3T 2.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 3.0 Phase Duration, s 12 34.7 55.9 19.1 40.3 26.4 80.0 25.0 78.6 Change Period, ( Y+R . ), sj 470 8.5 7.3 8.5 7.3F 8.6 7.6 7.5 7.6 Max Allow Headway (MAH ), s 5.0 6.1 5.0 6.1 "` 5.0 0.0'5.0 1757 0.0 Queue Clearance Time ( g s ), s 1810 1900 2 6. 1 18.1 9.8 35.0 17.5 16.1 8.7 19.5 _ 12.3 Green Extension Time ( g s ), s 15.5 66.8 0.1 10.9 0.8 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 1 p 0.0 Phase Call Probability 33.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.15 1.00 0.27 Max Out Probabilitv 0.18 1.00 0.15 0.00 1 1.00 1 1.00 0.39 1.00 978 Movement Group Results Approach Movement Assigned Movement Adjusted Flow Rate ( v), veh/h Adjusted Saturation Flow Rate ( s ), veh/h/In Queue Service Time ( g s ), s Cycle Queue Clearance Time (g c), s Green Ratio ( g/C ) Capacity ( c ), veh/h Volume -to -Capacity Ratio (X) Back of Queue ( Q ), ft/In ( 95 th percentile) Back of Queue ( Q ), veh/In ( 95 th percentil( Queue Storage Ratio ( RQ) ( 95 th percentil Uniform Delay ( d 1 ), s/veh Incremental Delay ( d 2 ), s/veh Initial Queue Delay ( d 3 ), s/veh Control Delay ( d ), s/veh Level of Service (LOS) �a Approach Delay, s/veh /LOS Intersection Delay, s/veh / LOS Multimodal Results Pedestrian LOS Score / LOS 2.31 Bicycle LOS Score / LOS 1.29 Copyright © 2021 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved. EBWB EB I SB WB NB s - j A 1.10 A SB L TR L T R L T _ R L T R 3T 8 18 7 4 14 1 s 6 16 Z 5 2 12 476 395 100 154 280 305 158 728 698 177 470 161 1757 1809 x1610 1757 1809 1610 1810 1900 1803 1810 1809 1610 24.1 16.1 8.7 7.8 12.3 33.0 15.5 66.8 68.0 17.5 16.3 12.1 24.1 16.1 q 8.7 7.8 12.3 n 33.0 15.5 66.8 68.0 17.5 16.3 12.1 0.15 0.27 0.27 0.06 0.18 0.18 0.10 0.40 0.40 0.10 0.39 0.39 512 978 y 435 206 663 295 179 i 764 725 1761428 635 0.929 .0.404 0.230 0.748 0.422 1.034 0.886 0.952 0.963 1.003 0.329 0.254 455.5 295.8 161 167.4 241.4 650.6 339.3 1142.3 1121.5 426 294.4 215 18.2 11.8 6.4 6.7 9.7 26.0 13.6 45.7 44.9 17.0 11.8 8.6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 76.0 53.8 51.1 83.4 65.1 73.5 80.1 52.1 52.5 81.2 37.9 36.6 23.6 0.6 0.6 7.5 0.9 61.4 30.9 j 22.7 25.4 68.7 0.6 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 9,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 99.6 54.4 51.7 90.9 66.0 134.9 111.1 € 74.9 77.9 150.0 38.5 37.6 F D D F E F F I E E F D D 76.3 E� 99.6 F 79.8 E 62.7 E 79.2 E Multimodal Results Pedestrian LOS Score / LOS 2.31 Bicycle LOS Score / LOS 1.29 Copyright © 2021 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved. EBWB NB I SB _ S 2.47 YB s - j A 1.10 A 2.59 1.79 C 2.59 C B 1.15 HCSTM Streets Version 7.x.5 Generated: 11/15/2021 11:04:68 Air! General Information Site Information, Analyst TPDjd Intersection SR 46 & Site D/W #1 Agency/Co. Seminole County Jurisdiction Seminole County Date Performed 11/15/2021 East/West Street Site Driveway # 1 Analysis Year 2023 North/South Street Lake Mary Blvd Time Analyzed Projected AM Peak Hour Peak Hour Factor 0.98 Intersection Orientation North-South Analysis Time Period (hrs) 0.25 Project Description SR 46 & Lake Mary Blvd TPD # 5555 Lanes J4 1�-�,U 4 Major street North-South Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 10 11 12 7 8 9 1 U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 Number of Lanes 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 2 1 0 1 2 0 Configuration L R T R L T Volume (veh/h) 172 118 712 110 0 207 1257 Percent Heavy Vehicles (%) 0 0 0 0 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (%) 0 Right Turn Channelized No No Median Type ( Storage Left Only 1 Critical and Follow. -up Headways Base Critical Headway (sec) 7.5 6.9 4.1 Critical Headway (sec) 6.80 6.90 4.10 Base Follow -Up Headway (sec) 3.5 3.3 2.2 Follow -Up Headway (sec) 3.50 3.30 2.20 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h) 176 120 211 Capacity, c (veh/h) 155 639 805 v/c Ratio 1.13 0.19 0.26 95% Queue Length, %s (veh) 9.5 0.7 1.1 Control Delay (s/veh) 169.3 11.9 11.1 Level of Service (LOS) F B B Approach Delay (s/veh) 105.3 1.6 Approach LOS F Copyright © 2021 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS%2 TWSC Version 7.9.5 Generated: 11/15/2021 9:59:14 AM 3A Lake Mary Blvd & Site DW # 1 AM Peak.utw i�0111 h "�J ��`,�Md:> General Information Site Information Analyst TPDCd Intersection SR 46 & Site D/W #1 Agency/Co. Seminole County Jurisdiction Seminole County Date Performed 11/15/2021 East/West Street Site Driveway # 1 Analysis Year 2023 North/South Street Lake Mary Blvd Time Analyzed Projected PM Peak Hour Peak Hour Factor 0.98 Intersection Orientation North-South Analysis Time Period (hrs) 0.25 Project Description SR 46 & Lake Mary Blvd TPD # 5555 Lanes I >7 -k A I ty 1'3^ l Major Street North-South Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 10 11 12 7 8 9 1 U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 Number of Lanes 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 2 1 0 1 2 0 Configuration L R T R L T Volume (veh/h) 123 137 1415 124 0 135 727 Percent Heavy Vehicles (%) 0 0 0 0 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (%) 0 Right Tum Channelized No No Median Type I Storage Left Only 1 Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway (sec) 7.5 6.9 4.1 Critical Headway (sec) 6.80 6.90 4.10 Base Follow -Up Headway (sec) 3.5 3.3 2.2 Follow -Up Headway (set) 3.50 3.30 2.20 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h) 126 140 138 Capacity, c (veh/h) 122 374 426 v/c Ratio 1.03 0.37 0.32 95% Queue Length, Qss (veh) 7.1 1.7 1.4 Control Delay (s/veh) 157.8 20.3 17.5 Level of Service (LOS) F C C Approach Delay (s/veh) 85.3 2.7 Approach LOS F Copyright © 2021 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCSIM TWSC Version 7.9.5 Generated: 11/15/2021 10:16:10 AM 3B Lake Mary Blvd & Site DW # 1 PM Peak.xtw HCS7 Signalized Intersection Results Summary MINGeneral Information Intersection Information i ;- : ' 4 Agency Seminole County Duration, h 0.250 1 Analyst TPD/jd Analysis Date Nov 11, 2021 Area Type Other Al Jurisdiction Seminole County Time Period AM Peak Hour PHF� 0.98 Urban Street East Lake Mary Blvd Analysis Year 2023 Analysis Period 1>7:00 Intersection East Lake Mary Blvd &... File Name 3C Signal Lake Mary Blvd Projected AM Peak.xus Project Description JProjected AM Peak Hour .mtt• :"=,M.g^', -..: ,1... .. ahrv- > " i'"./ . .^:ARG,.r -"hi'4'd,'m ''G s'. a!',yi%*;'^ A' + ,i^.'. Demand Information EB WB NB S_B Approach Movement L T R R L T- R� _ L T R L T R Demand ( v) veh/h 172 118 712 110 207 1257 .. r.... .:' ak �w �'r-u''°`"+', r '�-� '7 �� }JP, ' , n 3 '!,. 4 Signal Information 0 Reference Phase 2 Cycle, s 120.I Tri Offset, s 0 Reference Point End 1 Green 16.7 163.9 117.0 10.0 10.00.0 Uncoordinated No Simult. Gap E/W On Yellow 14.8 15.2 15.1 0.0 0.0 a 0.0 Force Mode Fixed Simult. Gap N/S On Red 2.7 2.4 0.0 Ion e Timer Results _ EBL EBT WBL WBTNBL NBT T- SBL SBT Assigned Phase) 4 5 2 Case Number 9.0 7.3 1_2.0 4.0 Phase Duration, s 24.3 71.5 24.2 95.7 g Change Period, (Y+R ), s 7.3 7.6 7.5 7.6 Max Allow Headway ( MAH), s� �a ry 6.1 0.0 ? 5.0 0.0 Queue Clearance Time ( g s }, s 13.1 15.7 Green Extension Time ( g e ), s 2.3 0.0 1.0 Phase Call Probabilityw 1.00 1.00 Max Out Probability 0.00 0.00 MINIMa _ ~ Movement Group Results EB WB NB SB j Approach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T �R Assigned Movement 7 s 14 �6 16W 5 2 Adjusted Flow Rate ( v), veh/h 176 120 727 112 211 1283 Adjusted Saturation Flow Rate ( s ), veh/h/In x 1810 1610 1809 1610 1810 1809 Queue Service Time ( g s ), s _ 11.1 8.3 14.1 4.2 13.7 17.5 _w _:.. Cycle Queue Clearance Time ( g c ), s 11.1 8.3 1 14.1 4.2 13.7 17.5 Green Ratio ( g/C) 0.14 0.14 0.53 0.53 0.14 0.73 Capacity ( c), veh/h j 256 228 1 1927 858 252 2656 I Volume -to -Capacity Ratio (X) 0.685 0.528 _ 0.377 0.131 0.840 p0.483 Back of Queue ( Q ), ftAn ( 95 th percentile) "= 228.2. 158 a 237 68.5 274.3 234.5 Back of Queue ( Q ), veh/In ( 95 th percentile) 9.1 6.3 9.5 2.7 11.0 9.4 Queue Storage Ratio ( RQ) ( 95 th percentile) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay ( d r ), s/veh 49.0 47.8 16.4 14.1 50.4 6.6 Incremental Delay ( d 2 ), s/veh M =i 6.7 i 4.00.6 0.3 10.1 0.6 Initial Queue Delay ( d 3 ), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay ( d ), s/veh t 55.7 51.8 y 17.0 14.4 60.5_ 7.2 Level of Service (LOS) -; E D B B 1 E A Approach Delay, s/veh / LOS 0.0 54.1 D 16.6 B I 14.7B� Intersection Delay, s/veh /LOS 19.8 B Multimodal Results EB g . - - WB __ .. Pedestrian LOS Score / LOS 2.32 B 2.33 B 1.90 B 0.66 s A�� Bicycle LOS Score / LOS F 1.18 A 1.72 l B I Copyright O 2021 [University of Florida, All Rights Reserved. HCSTI" Streets Version 7.9.5 Generated: 11/1512021 M38:59 A 3t General Information Jx, _5 av q.' y,:. �ui6:uZ. YyY�_,+t-4 k�-•K :$( .i4 'Y"i`' Site Information �uF!'°,j' lz ,y��1;"". Analyst TPD/jd Intersection SR 46 & Site D/W #2 Agency/Co. Seminole County Jurisdiction Seminole County Date Performed 11/15/2021 East/West Street Site Driveway # 2 Analysis Year 2023 North/South Street Lake Mary Blvd Time Analyzed Projected AM Peak Hour Peak Hour Factor 0.98 Intersection Orientation North-South Analysis Time Period (hrs) 0.25 Project Description SR 46 & Lake Mary Blvd TPD # 5555 Lanes I _TtT Major Street North-South Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 10 11 12 7 8 9 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 Number of Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 Configuration R T TR T Volume (veh/h) 65 757 61 1429 Percent Heavy Vehicles (%) 0 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (%) 0 Right Turn Channelized No Median Type I Storage Left Only 1 Critical and follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway (sec) 6.9 Critical Headway (sec) 6.90 Base Follow -Up Headway (sec) 3.3 Follow -Up Headway (sec) 3.30 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h) 66 Capacity, c (veh/h) 590 v/c Ratio 0.11 95% Queue length, Qss (veh) 0.4 Control Delay (s/veh) 11.9 Level of Service (LOS) B Approach Delay (s/veh) 11.9 Approach LOS B Copyright © 2021 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS%M TWSC Version 7.9.5 Generated: 11/15/2021 10:08:20 AM 4A Lake Mary Blvd & Site DW # 2 AM Peak.xtw ' u §_ry 5� _ .:, i ns V 00111 �§1 1! a General lnfoririat�on Site Infor', mi"Ju ion Analyst TPDCd Intersection SR 46 & Site D/W #2 Agency/Co. Seminole County Jurisdiction Seminole County Date Performed 11/15/2021 East/West Street Site Driveway # 2 Analysis Year 2023 North/South Street Lake Mary Blvd Time Analyzed Projected PM Peak Hour Peak Hour Factor 0.98 Intersection Orientation North-South Analysis Time Period (hrs) 0.25 Project Description SR 46 & Lake Mary Blvd TPD # 5555 Lanes I1 a�1 f � I -4 a tl T,t 1' Major Street North-South Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 10 11 12 7 8 9 1 U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 Number of Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 Configuration R T TR T Volume (veh/h) 68 1471 69 850 Percent Heavy Vehicles (%) 0 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (%) 0 Right Turn Channelized No Median Type I Storage Left Only 1 Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway (sec) 6.9 Critical Headway (sec) 6.90 Base Follow -Up Headway (sec) 3.3 Follow -Up Headway (sec) 3.30 Delay, Queue Length, and Levet of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h) 69 Capacity, c (veh/h) 339 v/c Ratio 0.20 95% Queue Length, Q95 (veh) 0.8 Control Delay (s/veh) 18.3 Level of Service (LOS) C Approach Delay (s/veh) 18.3 Approach LOS C Copyright © 2021 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCSW TWSC Version 7.9.5 Generated: 11/15/2021 10:09:42 AM 4B Lake Mary Blvd & Site DW # 2 PM Peak xtw General Information= Site Information Analyst TPDId Intersection SR 46 & Site D/W #3 Agency/Co. Seminole County Jurisdiction Seminole County Date Performed 11/15/2021 East/West Street Site Driveway # 3 Analysis Year 2023 North/South Street Lake Mary Blvd Time Analyzed Projected AM Peak Hour Peak Hour Factor 0.98 Intersection Orientation North-South Analysis Time Period (hrs) 0.25 Project Description SR 46 & Lake Mary Blvd TPD # 5555 Lanes J4 ! 4.1-t�U f 11tl it Major Street North-South Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 10 11 12 7 8 9 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 Number of Lanes 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 1 2 0 Configuration L R T TR L T Volume (veh/h) 8 3 815 10 0 4 1425 Percent Heavy Vehicles (%) 0 0 0 0 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (%) 0 Right Turn Channelized No Median Type I Storage Left Only 1 Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway (sec) 7.5 6.9 4.1 Critical Headway (sec) 6.80 6.90 4.10 Base Follow -Up Headway (sec) 3.5 3.3 2.2 Follow -Up Headway (sec) 3.50 3.30 2.20 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h) 8 3 4 Capacity, c (veh/h) 235 587 802 v/c Ratio 0.03 0.01 0.01 95% Queue Length, O%s (veh) 0.1 0.0 0.0 Control Delay (s/veh) 20.9 11.2 9.5 Level of Service (LOS) C B A Approach Delay (s/veh) 18.2 0.0 Approach LOS C Copyright © 2021 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCSMO TWSC Version 7.9.5 Generated: 11/15/2021 10:04:14 AM 5A Lake Mary Blvd & Site DW # 3 AM Peak.xtw � m �'21 General Information Site Information Analyst TPDCd Intersection SR 46 & Site D/W #3 Agency/Co. Seminole County Jurisdiction Seminole County Date Performed 11/15/2021 East/West Street Site Driveway # 3 Analysis Year 2023 North/South Street Lake Mary Blvd Time Analyzed Projected PM Peak Hour Peak Hour Factor 0.98 Intersection Orientation North-South Analysis Time Period (hrs) 0,25 Project Description SR 46 & Lake Mary Blvd TPD # 5555 Lanes 4 *- Major Street North-South Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 10 11 12 7 8 9 1 U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 Number of Lanes 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 1 2 0 Configuration L R T TR L T Volume (veh/h) 28 26 1514 23 0 30 820 Percent Heavy Vehicles (%) 0 0 0 0 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (°k) 0 Right Turn Channelized No Median Type I Storage Left Only 1 Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway (sec) 7.5 6.9 4.1 Critical Headway (sec) 6.80 6.90 4.10 Base Follow -Up Headway (sec) 3.5 3.3 2.2 Follow -Up Headway (sec) 3.50 3.30 2.20 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h) 29 27 31 Capacity, c (veh/h) 129 340 426 We Ratio 0.22 0.08 0.07 95% Queue Length, Q95 (veh) 0.8 0.3 0.2 Control Delay (s/veh) 40.8 16.5 14.1 Level of Service (LOS) E C B Approach Delay (s/veh) 29.1 0.5 Approach LOS D Copyright © 2021 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCSM TWSC Version 7.9.5 Generated: 11/15/2021 10:06:01 AM 5B Lake Mary Blvd & Site DW # 3 PM Peakxtw 11-6 General Information Site lnformaticiri Analyst TPDf d Intersection SR 46 & Site D/W #4 Agency/Co. Seminole County Jurisdiction Seminole County Date Performed 11/15/2021 East/West Street Site Driveway # 4 Analysis Year 2023 North/South Street Lake Mary Blvd Time Analyzed Projected AM Peak Hour Peak Hour Factor 0.98 Intersection Orientation North-South Analysis Time Period (hrs) 0.25 Project Description SR46 & Lake Mary Blvd TPD # 5555 Lanes . :tY'1. Major Street North-South Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 10 11 12 7 8 9 1 U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 Number of Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 Configuration R T TR T Volume (veh/h) 4 821 11 1433 Percent Heavy Vehicles Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (%) 0 Right Turn Channelized No Median Type I Storage Left Only 1 Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway (sec) 6.9 Critical Headway (sec) 6.90 Base Follow -Up Headway (sec) 3.3 Follow -Up Headway (sec) 3.30 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h) 4 Capacity, c (veh/h) 584 v/c Ratio 0.01 95% Queue Length, Q9s (veh) 0.0 Control Delay (s/veh) 11.2 Level of Service (LOS) B Approach Delay (s/veh) 11.2 Approach LOS B Copyright © 2021 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCSW TWSC Version 7.9.5 Generated: 11/15/2021 10:11:19 AM 6A Lake Mary Blvd & Site DW # 4 AM Peak.xtw Analyst TPDfJd Intersection SR 46 & Site D/W #4 Agency/Co. Seminole County Jurisdiction Seminole County Date Performed 11/15/2021 East/West Street Site Driveway * 4 Analysis Year 2023 North/South Street Lake Mary Blvd Time Analyzed Projected PM Peak Hour Peak Hour Factor 0.98 Intersection Orientation North-South Analysis Time Period (hrs) 0.25 Project Description SR 46 & Lake Mary Blvd TPD # 5555 Lanes v 7V J 4 1 .1.4- 1- U Major Street North-South Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 10 11 12 7 8 9 1 U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 Number of Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 Configuration R T TR T Volume (veh/h) 28 1509 25 848 Percent Heavy Vehicles (1/o) 0 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (%) 0 Right Turn Channelized No Median Type I Storage Left Only Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway (sec) 6.9 Critical Headway (sec) 6.90 Base Follow -Up Headway (sec) 3.3 Follow -Up Headway (sec) L 3.30 Delay, Queue Length, and Level -of SerVice Flow Rate, v (veh/h) 29 Capacity, c (vehfh) 341 v/c Ratio 0.08 95% Queue Length, Q95 (veh) 0.3 Control Delay (s/veh) 16.5 Level of Service (LOS) C Approach Delay (s/veh) 16.5 Approach LOS C Copyright C 2021 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS%0 TWSC Version 7.9.5 Generated: 11/15/2021 10:12:30 AM 6B Lake Mary Blvd & Site DW # 4 PM Peak.xtw Bio -Tech Consulting Inc. Environmental and Permitting Services November 16, 2021 Bobby Luthra Jesup Acquisitions, LLC 103 Commernce St. #160 Lake Mary, FL 32746 info @bio-techconsulting. coir www bio-techconsulting.con Proj: Lake Mary Blvd Commercial Site — Seminole County, Florida Section 03, Township 20 South, Range 31 East (BTC File #372-80) Re: Environmental Assessment Report Dear Mr. Luthra: During November of 2021, Bio -Tech Consulting, Inc. (BTC) conducted an environmental assessment of the approximately 36 -acre E. Lake Mary Blvd. site. This property is located along the east and west sides of E. Lake Mary Blvd. south of E. State Road 46; within Section 03, Township 20 South, Range 31 East, Seminole County, Florida (Figures 1, 2 & 3). This environmental assessment included the following elements: • Review of soil types mapped within the site boundaries; • Evaluation of land use types/vegetative communities present; • Field review for occurrence of protected flora and fauna; • Delineation of on-site wetland communities; and, • A review of environmental permitting constraints. SOILS According to the Soil Survey of Osceola County, Florida, prepared by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resource Conservation Service (MRCS), three (3) soil types exist within the subject site (Figure 4). These soil types include the following: Orlando Vero Beach lacksonville Tamna Kev West Bobby Luthra; Jesup Acquisitions, LLC Lake Mary Blvd. Commercial Site Seminole County, FL (BTC File #372-80) Environmental Assessment Report Page 2 of 11 • Basinger and Delray fine sands (#9) • Felda and Manatee mucky fine sands (#15) • Pineda fine sand, 0 to 2 percent slopes (#25) The following presents a brief description of each soil type mapped for the subject site: Basinger and Delray fine sands (#9) are nearly level, poorly drained soils and very poorly drained soils found in sloughs and poorly defined drainageways. Typically, the surface layer of Basinger soil consists of very dark gray fine sand about 5 inches thick. Typically, the surface layer of Delray soil consists of black fine sand about 12 inches thick. During most years the seasonal high table for this soil type is within 12 inches of the surface for 6 months or more. The permeability of Basinger soil is rapid. The permeability of Delray soil is rapid in the upper part and moderate in the lower part. Felda and Manatee mucky fine sands (#15) are nearly level, very poorly drained soils found in depressions. Typically, Felda soil has a surface layer of very dark grayish brown mucky fine sand about 4 inches thick. Typically, Manatee soil has a surface layer that is 19 inches thick. It is black mucky fine sand in the upper part and very dark gray loamy sand in the lower part. During most years, undrained areas of the soils in this map unit are ponded for 6 to 9 months or more each year. The permeability of Felda soil is rapid in the surface and subsurface layers and in the substratum, and is moderate or moderately rapid in the subsoil. The permeability of Manatee soil is moderately rapid in the surface layer and moderate in the subsoil. Pineda fine sand, 0 to 2 percent slopes (#25) is a nearly level, poorly drained soil on low hammocks, in broad, poorly defined drainageways, and in sloughs. During most years, this soil type has a seasonal high-water table within 12 inches of the surface for 2 to 6 months. The permeability of this soil type is rapid in the surface and subsurface layers and in the upper part of the subsoil. It is slow or very slow in the lower part of the subsoil. The Florida Association of Environmental Soil Scientists (FAESS) considers the main components of -Basinger and Delray fine sands (#9), Felda and Manatee mucky fine sands (#15), and Pineda fine sand, 0 to 2 percent slopes (#25) to be hydric. This information can be found in the Hydric Soils of Florida Handbook, Fourth Edition, March 2007. LAND USE TYPES/VEGETATIVE COMMUNITIES The Lake Mary Blvd. Commercial Property currently supports five (5) land use types/vegetative communities (Figure 5). These land use types were identified utilizing the Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System, Level III (FLUCFCS, FDOT, January 1999). The on - lo -Tech Consulting Inc. Environmental and Permitting Services Bobby Luthra; Jesup Acquisitions, LLC Lake Mary Blvd. Commercial Site Seminole County, FL (BTC File #372-80) Environmental Assessment Report Page 3 of 11 site upland land use types/vegetative communities are classified as Woodland Pasture (213) and Temperate Hardwoods (425). The wetland/surface water land use types/vegetative communities found on the site are classified as Streams and Waterways (510), Reservoir (534) and Wetland Forested Mix (630). The following provides a brief description of the on-site land use types/vegetative communities: Uplands: 213 Woodland Pasture The northern central portion of the project site is a large open area best classified as Woodland Pasture (213). Vegetation within this area includes bahiagrass (Paspalum notatum), guineagrass (Urochloa maxima), cogongrass (Imperata cylindrica), beautyberry (Callicarpa americana), muscadine grapevine (Mitis rotundifolia), ceasear weed (Urena lobata), dog fennel (Eupatorium capillifolium), and cabbage palm (Sabal palmetto). 425 Temperate Hardwoods Various uplands within the site boundaries are best classified as Temperate Hardwoods (425) . The vegetative species identified within this community consists of slash pine (Pinus elliotti), camphor tree (Cinnamomum camphora), cabbage palm (Sabal palmetto), Brazilian pepper (Schinus terebinthisfolia), beautyberry (Callicarpa americana), greenbrier (Smilax spp.), caesarweed (Urena lobata), dog fennel (Eupatorium capillifolium), and guineagrass (Urochloa maxima). Wetlands: 510 Streams and Waterways The property has one (1) ditch along the northern boundary, best classified as Streams and Waterways (510). The vegetative species identified within this community consists of camphor tree (Cinnamomum camphora), cabbage palm (Sabal palmetto), Brazilian pepper (Schinus terebinthisfolia), laurel oak (Quercus laurifolia), greenbrier (Smilax spp.), muscadine grapevine (Vitis rotundifolia), swamp fern (Telmatoblechnum serrulatum), and sword fern (Nephrolepis exaltata). 534 Reservoirs The property has three (3) small ponds best classified as Reservoirs (534). The ponds are predominantly open water, but vegetation within the ponds includes duckweed (Landoltia Inc.ch Consulling Environmental and Permitting Services Bobby Luthra; Jesup Acquisitions, LLC Lake Mary Blvd. Commercial Site Seminole County, FL (BTC File #372-80) Environmental Assessment Report Page 4 of 11 punctata), laurel oak (Quercus laurifolia), cabbage palm (Sabal palmetto), and Brazilian pepper (Schinus terebinthisfolia). 630 Wetland Forested Mix Various wetlands are present within the site boundary and are best classified as Wetland Forested Mix (630). The vegetative species identified within this community consists of slash pine (Pinus elliotti), camphor tree (Cinnamomum camphora), cabbage palm (Sabal palmetto), Brazilian pepper (Schinus terebinthisfolia), laurel oak (Quercus laurifolia), greenbrier (Smilax spp.), muscadine grapevine (Vitis rotundifolia), air potato (Dioscorea bulbifera), swamp fern (Telmatoblechnum serrulatum), and sword fern (Nephrolepis exaltata), PROTECTED SPECIES Utilizing methodologies outlined in the Florida's Fragile Wildlife (Wood, 2001); Measuring and Monitoring Biological Diversity Standard Methods for Mammals (Wilson, et al., 1996); and Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission's (FFWCC) Gopher Tortoise Permitting Guidelines (April 2008 - revised July 2020), an assessment for "listed" floral and faunal species occurring within the subject site boundaries was conducted on August 18 and November 3, 2021. The survey covered approximately 50 percent of the subject site's developable area, included both direct observations and indirect evidence, such as tracks, burrows, tree markings and vocalizations that indicated the presence of species observed. The assessment focused on species that are "listed" by the FFWCC's Official Lists - Florida's Endangered Species, Threatened Species and Species of Special Concern (June 202 1) that have the potential to occur in Seminole County (Table 1). No plant species listed by either the Florida Department of Agriculture (FDA) or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) was identified on the project site during the assessment conducted. However, two (2) fern species were identified that are listed as "commercially exploited" by the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (FDACS). The harvesting of these species, cinnamon fern (Osmunda cinnamomea) and royal fern (Osmunda regalis), for commercial gain, is not allowed. However, the listing of these species poses no restrictions towards the development of the subject site. The following is a list of those wildlife species identified during the evaluation of the site: Reptiles and Amphibians brown anole (Norops sagrei) eastern racer (Coluber constrictor) Florida leopard frog (Lithobates sphenocephalus sphenocephalus) Florida softshell turtle (Apalone ferox) Ch Consulting Inc. Environmental and Permitting Services Bobby Luthra; Jesup Acquisitions, LLC Lake Mary Blvd. Commercial Site Seminole County, FL (BTC File #372-80) Environmental Assessment Report Page S of 11 Reptiles and Amphibians continued gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus) green anole (Anolis carolinensis) six -line racerunner (Cnemidophorus sexlineatus) southern toad (Anaxyrus terrestris) water moccasin (Agkistrodon piscivorus) Birds American Crow (Corvus caurinus) Barred Owl (Strix varia) Black Vulture (Coragyps atratus) Mourning Dove (Zenaida macroura) Northern Cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis) Northern Mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos) Red -shouldered Hawk (Buteo lineatus) Snowy Egret (Egretta thula) Tufted Titmouse (Baeolophus bicolor) Turkey Vulture (Cathartes aura) Mammals eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus) eastern gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis) nine -banded armadillo (Dasypus novemcinctus) northern raccoon (Procyon lotor) Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana) One (1) of the above wildlife species, the gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus), was identified in the FFWCC's Official Lists - Florida's Endangered_ Species, Threatened Species and Species of Special Concern (June 2021). The following provides a brief description of wildlife species as they relate to the development of the site. Gopher Tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus) State Listed as "Threatened" by FFWCC Two (2) gopher tortoise burrows were identified within the on-site upland areas. Currently the gopher tortoise is classified as a "Category 2 Candidate Species" by the USFWS, and as of September 2007, is now classified as "Threatened" by FFWCC, and as "Threatened" by FCREPA. The basis of the "Threatened" classification by the FFWCC for the gopher tortoise is due to habitat loss and destruction of burrows. Gopher tortoises are commonly found in areas 1 Environmental and Permitting Services Bobby Luthra; Jesup Acquisitions, LLC Lake Mary Blvd. Commercial Site Seminole County, FL (BTCFile #372-80) Environmental Assessment Report Page 6 of 11 with well -drained soils associated with xeric pine -oak hammock, scrub, pine flatwoods, pastures and abandoned citrus groves. Several other protected species known to occur in Seminole County have a possibility of occurring in this area, as they are gopher tortoise commensal species. However, none of these species were observed during the survey conducted. The FFWCC provides three (3) options for developers that have gopher tortoises on their property. These options include: 1) avoidance (i.e., maintain at least a 25 -foot distance from construction activities), 2) preservation of habitat, and 3) off-site relocation. As such, resolution of the gopher tortoise issue will need to be permitted through FFWCC prior to any construction activities. Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) State protected by F.A.C. 68A-16.002 and federally protected by both the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (1918) and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (1940) In August of 2007, the USFWS removed the Bald Eagle from the list of federally endangered and threatened species. Additionally, the Bald Eagle was removed from FFWCC's imperiled species list in April of 2008. Although the Bald Eagle is no longer protected under the Endangered Species Act, it is still protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and FFWCC's Bald Eagle rule (Florida Administrative Code 68A- 16.002 Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus Leucocephalus). In May of 2007, the USFWS issued the National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines. In April of 2008, the FFWCC adopted a new Bald Eagle Management Plan that was written to closely follow the federal guidelines. In November of 2017, the FFWCC issued "A Species Action Plan for the Bald Eagle" in response to the sunset of the 2008 Bald Eagle Management Plan. Under the USFWS's management plans, buffer zones are recommended based on the nature and magnitude of the project or activity. The recommended protective buffer zone is 660 feet or less from the nest tree, depending on what activities or structures are already near the nest. As provided within the above referenced Species Action Plan, the USFWS is the regulating body responsible for issuing permits for Bald Eagles. In 2017, the need to obtain a State permit (FFWCC) for the take of Bald Eagles or their nests in Florida was eliminated following revisions to Rule 68A-16.002, F.A.C. A USFWS Bald Eagle "Non -Purposeful Take Permit" is not needed for any activity occurring outside of the 660 -foot buffer zone. No activities are permitted within 330 feet of a nest without a USFWS permit. In addition to the on-site evaluation for listed species, BTC conducted a desktop review of FFWCC's database and Audubon's EagleWatch program database for recorded Bald Eagle nests within the surrounding 660 feet of the subject site. This review revealed one (1) Bald Eagle nests (through the 2016-2017 nesting season for FFWCC data and 2019-2020 nesting season for QCh Consulting In. ] nvirontnental and Permitting Services Bobby Luthra; Jesup Acquisitions, LLC Lake Mary Blvd. Commercial Site Seminole County, FL (BTC File #372-80) Environmental Assessment Report Page 7 of H Audubon EagleWatch data) within 660 feet of the project site boundaries (Figure 10). In order to develop any lots that exist within the 660' buffer, a Non -Purposeful Take Permit will be required by the USFWS. As part of this application, a number of Minimization Measures will be required (i.e., the implementation of Bald Eagle Monitoring Guidelines (USFWS 2007), maintaining a minimum distance of 100' from the nest and scheduling of construction activities within the buffers to occur outside of nesting season (October — May). Additionally, if activities are to occur within 330' of the nest, two (2) Conservation Measures will be required. One (1) of these measures is a $42,000 contribution to the Bald Eagle Management Fund to support bald eagle monitoring and research. The second measure is the providing of financial assurance (surety bond) in the amount of $50,000 to USFWS or alternate measures such as the granting a conservation easement over the 330' buffer zone of an active or alternate Bald Eagle nest within the same or an adjacent county, or within the same core nesting area, etc. It should be stated that the issuance of the Non -Purposeful Take Permit is at the discretion of the USFWS and is not guaranteed. If issued, the permit can be extended annually if work within the 660' buffer continues. The conservation measures are only required to be provided once (i.e., $42,000 contribution). The $50,000 surety bond is released once the nesting pair returns to the nest the following nesting season. If they do not, the bond is kept by USFWS as the nest is considered taken. As touched upon previously, if a Non -Purposeful Take Permit has been issued by USFWS, monitoring of the Bald Eagle nest must be implemented according to the Bald Eagle Monitoring Guidelines (USFWS 2007). Per these guidelines initial monitoring is to be conducted beginning October 1 until positive direct or indirect evidence that the Bald Eagles have returned to the nesting territory is observed. This is to be conducted for a minimum of 2 hours per day once a week. (It should be noted that if no nesting activity is observed by February 1, monitoring may cease as the nest will be determined as inactive for the current nesting season.) Once nesting behavior has commenced, monitoring of the nest increases to a minimum of 4 hours per day 3 days per week. This monitoring sequence continues through 4 weeks post -hatching. Beginning the fifth week post -hatching, monitoring of the nest/young is reduced to 4 hours per day once a week. This continues until fledging occurs of May 15'h, whichever occurs first. The estimated annual cost for monitoring of the Bald Eagle's nest — based on typical nesting behavior and timeline — is approximately $30,000 per year. USFWS CONSULTATION AREAS The USFWS has established "consultation areas" for certain listed species. Generally, these consultation areas only become an issue if USFWS consultation is required, which is usually associated with permitting through the USACE. The reader should be aware that species presence and need for additional review are often determined to be unnecessary early in the Inc.Ch Consuffing Ensironmental and Permitting Services Bobby Luthra; Jesup Acquisitions, LLC Lake Mary Blvd. Commercial Site Seminole County, FL (BTCFile #372-80) Environmental Assessment Report Page 8 of 11 permit review process due to lack of appropriate habitat or other conditions. However, the USFWS makes the final determination. Consultation areas are typically very regional in size, often spanning multiple counties where the species in question is known to exist. Consultation areas by themselves do not indicate the presence of a listed species. They only indicate an area where there is a potential for a listed species to occur and that additional review might be necessary to confirm or rule -out the presence of the species. The additional review typically includes the application of species- specific criteria to rule -out or confirm the presence of the species in question. Such criteria might consist of a simple review for critical habitat types. In other cases, the review might include the need for species-specific surveys using established methodologies that have been approved by the USFWS. The following paragraphs include a list of the USFWS Consultation Areas associated with the subject site. Also included, is a brief description of the respective species habitat and potential for additional review: Everglade Snail Kite (Rostrhamus sociabilis) Federally Listed as "Endangered" by USFWS The subject site falls within the USFWS Consultation Area for the Everglade Snail Kite. Currently the Everglade Snail Kite is listed as "Endangered" by the USFWS. Everglade Snail Kites are similar in size to Red -shouldered Hawks. All Everglade Snail Kites have deep red eyes and a white rump patch. Males are slate gray, and females and juveniles vary in amounts of white, light brown, and dark brown, but the females always have white on their chin. Everglade Snail Kites vocalize mainly during courtship and nesting. They may occur in nearly all of the wetlands of central and southern Florida. They regularly occur in lake shallows along the shores and islands of many major lakes, including Lakes Okeechobee, Kissimmee, Tohopekaliga (Toho) and East Toho. They also regularly occur in the expansive marshes of southern Florida such as Water Conservation Areas 1, 2, and 3, Everglades National Park, the upper St. John's River marshes and Grassy Waters Preserve. Although a portion of the project site contains wetlands/surface waters, no Everglade Snail Kites were observed within the site during the wildlife survey conducted by BTC. As minimal suitable habitat exists within the limits of the site, it is not anticipated that a formal survey would be required by the USFWS or another agency to determine if any Everglade Snail Kites utilize any portions of the project site. Florida Scrub -Jay (Aphelocoma coerulescens) Federally Listed as "Threatened" by USFWS Environmental and Permitting Services Bobby Luthra; Jesup Acquisitions, LLC Lake Mary Blvd. Commercial Site Seminole County, FL (BTC File #372-80) Environmental Assessment Report Page 9 of 11 Currently, the Florida Scrub -Jay is listed as threatened by the USFWS. Florida Scrub -Jays are largely restricted to scattered, often small and isolated patches of sand pine scrub, xeric oak, scrubby flatwoods, and scrubby coastal stands in peninsular Florida (Woolfenden 1978a, Fitzpatrick et al. 1991). They avoid wetlands and forests, including canopied sand pine stands. Optimal Scrub -Jay habitat is dominated by shrubby scrub, live oaks, myrtle oaks, or scrub oaks from 1 to 3 m (3 to 10 ft.) tall, covering 50 percent to 90 percent of the area; bare ground or sparse vegetation less than 15 cm (6 in.) tall covering 10 percent to 50 percent of the area; and scattered trees with no more than 20 percent canopy cover (Fitzpatrick et al. 1991). No Florida Scrub -Jays were observed on the project site during the cursory survey conducted by BTC. As minimal suitable habitat exists within the limits of the site, it is not anticipated that a formal survey would be required by the USFWS or another agency to determine if any Florida Scrub -Jays utilize any portions of the site. Audubon's Crested Caracara (Polyborus plancus audubonia) Federally Listed as "Threatened" by USFWS The subject site falls within the USFWS Consultation Areas for the species Audubon's Crested Caracara (Polyborus planeus audubonii). Currently the Crested Caracara is listed as threatened by the USFWS due primarily to habitat loss. The Crested Caracara commonly occurs in dry or wet prairie areas with scattered cabbage plams, lightly wooded areas with saw palmetto, scrub oaks and cypress. The Crested Caracara also uses improved or semi -improved pasture with seasonal wetlands. Crested Caracaras construct new nests each nesting season, often in the same tree as the previous year. No Audubon's Crested Caracaras were observed within the subject site during the wildlife survey conducted by BTC and no suitable habitat within the limits of the subject site. Thus, a formal survey would not be required by the USFWS or another agency to determine if any Audubon's Crested Caracaras utilize any portions of the site. ENVIRONMENTAL PERMITTING CONSTRAINTS The wetland resources on the property have been delineated, flagged, and recorded by GPS technology and the limits will need to be reviewed and approved by the appropriate regulatory agencies. Permitting through the St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD), and the FDEP would be required to develop the project site. The site resides in the St. Johns River (Canaveral Marshes to Wekiva) drainage basin. ConsultingCh . Environmental and Permitting Services Bobby Luthra; Jesup Acquisitions, LLC Lake Mary Blvd. Commercial Site Seminole County, FL (BTC File #372-80) Environmental Assessment Report Page 10 of 11 St. John's River Water Management District The Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) program regulates activities involving the alteration of surface water flows. This includes new activities in uplands that generate stormwater runoff from upland construction, as well as dredging and filling in wetlands and other surface waters. An ERP will be required through the SJRWMD for all wetland and/or other surface water impacts (both direct and secondary) in association with any development activity. Impacts to the project's wetland and other surface water communities would be permittable by SJRWMD as long as the issues of elimination and reduction of wetland impacts have been addressed and as long as the mitigation offered is sufficient to offset the functional losses incurred via the proposed impacts. Coordination with the Division of Historical Resources (DHR) and the FFWCC will be necessary as part of the ERP process. Florida Department of Environmental Protection In December of 2020, the FDEP "assumed" federal permitting authority for all wetland and surface water resources under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). For those project's whose wetland and surface water resources are associated with tidal waters or traditional navigable waters, under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act, the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) will "retain" federal permitting authority. These "retained" resources also include wetlands and/or other surface waters that fall within the 300' guide line established from the ordinary high water mark or mean high tide line of the retained waters With respect to the subject project, it is anticipated that the on-site wetlands and/or other surface waters would not fall under the regulatory authority of the USACE, as these resources are not Section 10 waters. Therefore, the federal permitting authority would be assumed by the FDEP under Section 404. Currently, FDEP considers all wetland and/or surface water resources to be federally jurisdictional unless the applicant provides documentation proving otherwise. As a result, BTC recommends that an Approved Jurisdictional Determination (AJD) be prepared and submitted to FDEP providing supporting documentation to shows these resources to be non - jurisdictional under the "new" Waters of the United States (WOTUS); which is based on the recently issued Navigable Waters Protection Rule (NWPR). If FDEP concurs with BTC's position that these wetlands and/or other surface waters are non jurisdictional per WOTUS, no federal permitting will be required and a "No Permit Required" letter can be requested from FDEP. If, however, FDEP disagrees with BTC's position and claims federal jurisdiction, then federal permitting through FDEP will be required. As with the ERP permitting, it is anticipated that all impacts to the project's wetland/surface water communities would be permittable by the FDEP as long as the issues of elimination and reduction of impacts have been addressed and as long as the mitigation offered is sufficient to offset the functional losses incurred via the Inc.ch Consulting Environmental and Permitting Services Bobby Luthra; Jesup Acquisitions, LLC Lake Mary Blvd. Commercial Site Seminole County, FL (BTCFile #372-80) Environmental Assessment Report Page 11 of 11 proposed impacts. Coordination with the USFWS will be necessary as part of the permitting process through FDEP. The environmental limitations described in this document are based on observations and technical information available on the date of the on-site evaluation. This report is for general planning purposes only. The limits of any on-site wetlands/surface waters can only be determined and verified through field delineation and/or on-site review by the pertinent regulatory agencies. The wildlife surveys conducted within the subject property boundaries do not preclude the potential for any listed species, currently or in the future. Should you have any questions or require any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact our office at (407) 894-5969. Thank you. Regards, 9%flfo 3, roffbt6lle ' Kate Groninger Project Manager ch Consulting Inc. Environmental and Permitting Services - I E Stale Road 46 E Sr46 Beck —" Hammock 0 a G a 9 G 4 C J m J C Q Z CO O n � O V N Patrol Rd N Patrol Rd Hon eY Bee Pt hloores Station Rd u a' 0 Legend ---� Lake Mary Blvd. Commercial iBio -Tech Consulting Inc. Environmental and Permitting Services 3025 E. South Street Orlando, FL 32803 Ph: 407-894-5969 Fax: 407-894-5970 www.bio-techconsulting.com Canyun ,, '..1.. L. E Stale Road 4s ----- ---7 1 Sdverstrearn Ter a 0 1 1 S Looking Glass PI a Oj T ; 0 J c J6 — T C — —_ E75 E p 1 1 1 1 1 1 cc O Z e41. w n1 1 =1 1 n1 1 c,� o Lone Eagle PI m D� = u U aan.- - ---- -- a' e `o e I or Pipe Down Cv Klondike PI - I E Stale Road 46 E Sr46 Beck —" Hammock 0 a G a 9 G 4 C J m J C Q Z CO O n � O V N Patrol Rd N Patrol Rd Hon eY Bee Pt hloores Station Rd u a' 0 Legend ---� Lake Mary Blvd. Commercial iBio -Tech Consulting Inc. Environmental and Permitting Services 3025 E. South Street Orlando, FL 32803 Ph: 407-894-5969 Fax: 407-894-5970 www.bio-techconsulting.com Canyun ,, '..1.. L. E Stale Road 4s ----- ---7 1 1 1 1 1 1 � o j 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 T'/bny optli I n1 1 =1 1 n1 1 n1 1 �1 1 1 w1 Moores Station Rd E. StateRoad41 �, n1 •rl Inr1m1..❑ Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community Lake Mary Blvd. Commercial 1,100 " Feet Seminole County, Florida Project #:372-80 Figure 1 w E Produced By: KLC Location Map s Date: 11/1/2021 Lake Mary Blvd. Commercial 370 " Feet Bio-Tech Consulting Inc. Seminole County, Florida W E Project #: 372-80 Environmental and Permitting Services Fl 2 3025 E. South Street Orlando, FL 32803 Figure Produced By: 1,.'-LC Ph: 407-894-59Fax: 407-894-5970 2020 Aerial Map s Date: 11/1/2021 www.bio-techconsnsulting.com I I's J O r®l �f r i ■ I ' i Legend Lake Mary Blvd. Commercial iBio -Tech Consulting Inc. Environmental and Permitting Services 3025 E. South Street Orlando, FL 32803 Ph: 407-894-5969 Fax: 407-894-5970 www.bio-techconsulting.com I GENEVA Lake Mary Blvd. Commercial Seminole County, Florida Figure 3 USGS Topographic Map 740 N-71 Fee, WE Project #: 372-80 Produced By: KLC S Date: 11/1/2021 f Bio -Tech Consulting Ince Environmental and Permitting Services 3025 E. South Street Orlando, FL 32803 Ph: 407-894-5969 Fax: 407-894-5970 www.bio-techconsulting.com Lake Mary Blvd. Commercial Seminole County, Florida Figure 4 SSURGO Soils Map 290 " Feet w E Project #: 372-80 Produced By: KLC S Date: 11/1/2021 Bio -Tech Consulting Inc. Environmental and Permitting Services 3025 E. South Street Orlando, FL 32803 Ph: 407-894-5969 Fax: 407-894-5970 www.bio-techconsulting.conn Lake Mary Blvd. Commercial Seminole County, Florida Figure 5 FLUCFCS Map 275 " Feet w E Project #: 372-80 Produced By: KLC S Date: 11/12/2021 Lake Mary Blvd. Commercial 290 " Feet Bio-Tech Consulting ince Seminole County, Florida w E Project #: 372-80 Environmental and Permitting Services Figure 6 3025 E. South Street Orlando, FL 32803 Produced By: KLC Ph: 407-894-5969 Fax: 407-894-5970 s www.bio-techconsulting.com Wetlands & Surface Waters Date: 11/12/2021 ■' w �Kr �' � �- w ■ �..■e iR t■ ■ Ik' _tib==-` •----- ......... OR MERL RAM DRmn �h� ._ • � dam? '.a7 �+,wy _ - d . gv ■ ,... rte•.. -..,.� it , MR■ ■ ■ Q , .. � L9°.1AAylitff ■ Legend Blvd.Lake Mary Commercial{ AnnualFEIVIA Flood Hazard Zones Zone Type Flood Hazard 111 + r.r. . vus. �•+ .` . 0 • Annual Chance Flood Hazard ^N L�llilp U'AC'.Y.�JIp w"'-'V`-'�1llllDJIYL ` 0 D . 0µ•]JO "n' `="-'0 .mow.. `9 '' o Curc,i o Lake Jesup Legend ®®®1' Lake Mary Blvd. Commercial - Mitigation Banks Econlockhatchee River Nested Lake Jesup =St. Johns River (Canaveral Marshes to Wekiva)source= Esri, M`a USES, AeroGRID, Bio -Tech Consulting Inc. Environmental and Permitting Services 3025 E. South Street Orlando, FL 32803 Ph: 407-894-5969 Fax: 407-894-5970 www.bio-techconsulting.com Lake Mary Blvd. Commercial Seminole County, Florida Figure 8 SJRWMD Mitigation Basins Ecenlockhatchee River Nested 7,400 " Feel w E Project #: 372-80 Produced By: KLC S Date: 11/1/2021 8, 1 e'�° Sk . Z i r �, �` :��•. La, - ' ��f„T `r •.,� F,� .eh.t� �"+�t�y fil'• a ��sk��' <h n��T�� ti AN ZEA CARACARA CONSULTATION AREA SNAIL KITE CONSULTATION AREA z ls� ° e � i n I .......... .T s • • gmmg f�llllp 17iA13}'i. ,@90 r@6- 0 0 lien- I BCH Gunsuliing Lake Mary Blvd. Commercial 1,800 " Feet Bio -Tech Consulting Inco Seminole County, Florida Project #: 372-80 Environmental and Permitting Services w E 3025 E. South Street Orlando, FL 32803 Figure 10 Produced By: KI.0 Ph: 407-894-5969 Fax: 407-894-5970 S www.bio-techconsulting.com Wildlife Proximity Date: 11/1/2021 � _ ••4 ar �. ♦ t "� .j �� :. '�' ,. I jai 2yT`,r�.;;S,f`•+. •� ��-�.,'- _ 1 tet, �?` s ` 1 i 1 1 , 1 1 f. 144 1 1 1 ♦.r 1 . 1 # 'd •' _. � - Y ' :gip lr.. t. - 1 '1 a i• �1 A i _. t -e j Lake Mary Blvd. Commercial Gopher Tortoise ►: ' '1' Er --g; EgAo N-amya a""-`�2i@s EQA ' o o . 01h1 lg@p @W.&D-a v—+-= & uamo b ate- c o Dam, Cho TO CR Nbw @wnuft 111111 -Teen consmtint Table 1: 1 Potentially Occuring Listed Wildlife and Plant Species in Seminole County, Florida Scientific Name Common Name Federal State Status Status Pteronotro is welaka bluenose shiner N ST Alligator mississippiensis American alligator SAT FT S/A D "archon corals cou eri Eastern indigo snake LT FT Go herus polyphemus gopher tortoise C ST Lam ro eltis extenuata short -tailed snake N ST Pituo his melanoleucus mujzitus Florida pine snake N SSC MUM A helocoma coerulescens Florida scrub -jay LT FT E retta caerulea little blue heron N ST Egretta tricolor tricolored heron N ST Falco s arverius paulus southeastern American kestrel N ST Grus canadensis pratensis Florida sandhill crane N ST Haliaeetus leucoce halus bald eagle N ** M cteria americana wood stork LT FT Pandion haliaetus os re N SCC* I►IAIALS 7 . Puma concolor coryi Florida Panther LE FE Sciurus ni er shermani Sherman's fox squirrel N SSC Trichechus manatus West Indian manatee LE FE Carex cha manii Cha man's Sedge N T Centrosema arenicola Sand Butterfly Pea N E Cucurbita okeechobeensis Okeechobee Gourd LE E Dennstaedtia bipinnata hay scented fern N E Illicium parviflorum star anise N E Lechea cernua nodding inweed N T Nolina atopocarpa Florida Bear ass N T O hia lossum palmatum Hand Fern N E Pecluma plumula Plume Polypody N E Ptero lossas is ecristata Giant Orchid N T cnanthemum oridanum Florida Mountain -mint N T ,Salix floridana Florida willow I N E FEDERAL LEGAL STATUS LE -Endangered: species in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. LT -Threatened: species likely to become Endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. SAT -Endangered due to similarity of appearance to a species which is federally listed such that enforcement personnel have difficulty in attempting to differentiate between the listed and unlisted species. C -Candidate species for which federal listing agencies have sufficient information on biological vulnerability and threats to support proposing to list the species as Endangered or Threatened. XN-Non-essential experimental population. N -Not currently listed, nor currently being considered for listing as Endangered or Threatened. STATE LEGAL STATUS - ANIMALS FE- Listed as Endangered Species at the Federal level by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service FT- Listed as Threatened Species at the Federal level by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service FXN- Federal listed as an experimental population in Florida FT(S/A)- Federal Threatened due to similarity of appearance ST- State population listed as Threatened by the FFWCC. Defined as a species, subspecies, or isolated population which is acutely vulnerable to environmental alteration, declining in number at a rapid rate, or whose range or habitat is decreasing in area at a rapid rate and as a consequence is destined or very likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future. SSC -Listed as Species of Special Concern by the FFWCC. Defined as a population which warrants special protection, recognition, or consideration because it has an inherent significant vulnerability to habitat modification, environmental alteration, human disturbance, or substantial human exploitation which, in the foreseeable future, may result in its becoming a threatened species. (SSC* for Pandion haliaetus (Osprey) indicates that this status applies in Monroe county only.) N -Not currently listed, nor currently being considered for listing. ** State protected by F.A.C. 68A-16.002 and federally protected by both the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (1918) and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (1940) STATE LEGAL STATUS - PLANTS E -Endangered: species of plants native to Florida that are in imminent danger of extinction within the state, the survival of which is unlikely if the causes of a decline in the number of plants continue; includes all species determined to be endangered or threatened pursuant to the U.S. Endangered Species Act. T -Threatened: species native to the state that are in rapid decline in the number of plants within the state, but which have not so decreased in number as to cause them to be Endangered. N -Not currently listed, nor currently being considered for listing. PRACTICE UMITEO TO REAL ESTATE LAND USE AND RELATED MATTERS STEPHEN H. COOVER, PLLC STEPHEN H. COOVER, ES13UIRE April 25, 2022 230 NORTH PARK AVENUE SANFORD, FLORIOA32771 PHONE: (407) 322-4051 EMAIL: steve.coover®hmc-pa.com Subject: SR 46 and East Lake Mary Blvd., Sanford, FL Parcel Nos: 03-20-31-300-002A-0000; 03-20-31-300-0090-0000; 03-20-31-501-OA00-0040; 03-20-31-300-009A-0000; and, 03-20-31-501-OCOO-0080 4430 Canyon Pt., Sanford, FL Parcel No: 03-20-31-501-0000-0040 Dear Property Owner: This letter is to inform you of a change to the potential future development of the above properties located south of SR 46 and along East Lake Mary Blvd. within Seminole County, as stated in our letter of April 14, 2022. The subject property is currently zoned Agricultural (A-1) with a future land use (FLU) designation of Industrial in Seminole County. We will be annexing the property into the City of Sanford. Our letter of April 14 stated the FLU was changing to a Planned Development (PD). We are changing the FLU now to General Commercial (GC), not Planned Development (PD). Our development application will request a FLU change to General Commercial (GC) and a rezone to Planned Development (PD) before the City of Sanford. My office represents the owners, Jessup Acquisitions LLC and Seminole Acquisitions Group LLC. Our proposed Master plan of the property which describes the potential uses allowed was included in the prior letter and is not changing. You are receiving this notification because you own property within five hundred (500) feet of the site. We will hold a meeting at our office on Tuesday Mrry 3.2022 fiom 4:30 p.L – 5:34 p.nL, to discuss specifics of this request, or you can simply contact our office by phone (at the number above) or by email (steve.coover@11!nc- ap conn) instead of coming in person with any questions you may have. Very truly yours, zwe�— a-� Stephen H. Coover SHC/mjr Enclosure PRACTICE LIMITED TO REAL ESTATE LAND USE AND RELATED MATTERS STEPHEN H. COOVER, PLLC STEPHEN H. COOVER, ESQUIRE April 14, 2022 290 NORTH PARK AVENUE SANFORD, FLORIDA 32771 PHONE: (407) 322-4051 EMAIL: steve.coover@hme-pa.com Subject: SR 46 and East Lake Mary Blvd., Sanford, FL Parcel Nos: 03-20-31-300-002A-0000; 03-20-31-300-0090-0000; 03-20-31-501-OA00-0040; 03-20-31-300-009A-0000; and 03-20-31-501-0000-0080 4430 Canyon Pt., Sanford, FL Parcel No: 03-20-31-501-OCOO-0040 Dear Property Owner: This letter is to inform you of the potential future development of the above properties located south of SR 46 and along East Lake Mazy Blvd. within Seminole County, identified above. The subject property is currently zoned Agricultural (A-1) with a future land use (FLU) designation of Industrial in Seminole County. We will be annexing the property into the City of Sanford. Our development application will request a FLU change to Planned Development (PD) and a rezone to PD before the City of Sanford. My office represents the owners, Jessup Acquisitions LLC and Seminole Acquisitions Group LLC. Attached is our proposed Master plan of the property which describes the potential uses allowed. You are receiving this notification because you own property within five hundred (500) feet of the site. We will hold a meeting at our office on Tuesday May 3, 2022 from 4:30 gm — 5.30 p.m, to discuss specifics of this request, or you can simply contact our office by phone (at the number above) or by email (steve.coover@hmc-pa.co instead of coming in person with any questions you may have. Very truly yours, ,£ SHClmjr Stephen H. Coover Enclosure TIE n l$89 �_9 ^l�iA FjL� ggS t F X ti �`'Zi C� �X d i2sS•i},'la: FY_ off- 4}.8�iS �f, -4 ^F R� ➢ aF�!#_��yA.q� �'3^.gii'nA �f6g Rib $ n { I ' @ €S� 4e FAyy=&R'aYR �a•�•T ^id ��BR m^ a Rh n:A A `9�yC{. 1��X s •l=` o n Z, hk Ln xe£� x iRI��Jqi�ia �� 5s3i " :y�A of FB }�= a€-•_ �" �S1!kRRYdv$j :• L�f! R .€ir3+�"s;x a `ZstSf S�.� _< aS�X•J A L i< .S x ii . I yhA1 €ityiaF^££q$¢¢@ptF: f - ^Y-iit�p€g�,� 3L Fr= Y - 23 23 ry: A `� k � ��:.�• '"�? aFiSq`S'gL t F`g4L � y^'� _ Ci � 3p € �a £ $i �2i; i dR��g - Z�'x £'= psi=`4�� ? a> '�• F6 � D k; ■€ dE ;z is „R' � 3 � Y�p� € ?�' a:S-�y E es 4i c -ie a ya x,F sib $sS s g 3 d_ .'^.6=#,?3n'�Q s gf 'xr s` §L Cl 'Iti 0 i$€'s�'k F :4: :_• Y • 3 {iMi 61 a e C �t • � '° � iirf. F � 4 4�Y $ £w.Y. �sRs' L• C<Lyzr:� iil L: � X ^� �rj'�R-a d(49ysS g1'� 8 i l$89 �_9 ^l�iA FjL� ggS t C � �i:4K L �<3�CB�S$ i2sS•i},'la: FY_ off- 4}.8�iS �f, -4 ^F R� ➢ aF�!#_��yA.q� �'3^.gii'nA �f6g Rib $ .e a�4'�Sag4R { i 6 €S� 4e FAyy=&R'aYR �a•�•T ^id ��BR n:A A `9�yC{. 1��X s ��"p�aiS�F o :sg hk ti xe£� x iRI��Jqi�ia �� 5s3i " :y�A of FB }�= a€-•_ �" �S1!kRRYdv$j :• L�f! R .€ir3+�"s;x a `ZstSf S�.� _< aS�X•J A L i< .S . •d'O •^ 8�6a� yhA1 €ityiaF^££q$¢¢@ptF: f - ^Y-iit�p€g�,� R+_,Si•'�� C Y a R > AZyi '£a -4 3 a �� S$ a?jg g$r"li t -a g¢ g - #'. S8 r a'l yp s: .E =_ Liigi .�`-l•a� YeS sns4 �y-Oe � FS :a.£4cc-^.i" E:s'FJL: Ra;? -i r= :.,. zed{£5 23 � ✓ _ .•RS _ %- ?@v4 F-_�5 Y •R ss t� • ,c j Ail = 8,.H R ��Rtn p�: LL e8 �� t .y a� k R4 ��-{ e 3 t°tie" ac s�a4-Sgp,, 3��:c s p- 4_ a!Y �4ns i �'S _• i `si• ' a. as #�'7�7 �y^y2 . � y^�- 4A#, a]i5�t! +RJ SL 1i; Si s�:^4ij. ;F'RL "$,y E"s°$o=s i- t~' d?3"1¢g kd ¢?4ax3s p`3 B R St;St94 L: •'s a_R .�;=�1FSA-k.)� .X`s��__56iei;Y$'�R 3� tsa�'v#c rq. € axetgxii "s �xi•: :d€�£¢€': - Y^ : -5°'> 9 cae=t�"•sag;L g- �e•*aY{_ AQii q- F`sar �€�o?€:$'s aR"x. €€ �' I && C #{ n_a It x, =zi;�L-=1s.aP. A !n a?F�Qkeaa!o, ss eg[{=_dFe^ $ip c§teE€s=R?} °$CgRgd sE>' d9S: C'-R��SQF S Re�A x� � S6 - €-` �£ S(e-�Q;•€a 4 ��•FElS�- $`? „€� L+€ y $Ts� �" d +'s zE C rl L7:• 9i €E°+ Ca � - §}�F.s`y s$'�iRx�#��=i;t : iR_xa x.y■@e$� } �J.O=�eq; j>r i•a[gs�•t��y¢3^ �o$ o- .. ' ''•. { •'-5.44 =.. 4y Pyp- �- C � 5 Qab"-iR� - -� s� S•Rp�y�R-a- i!8z:_C C5' -kms. i 3R CF Ee�:}�4S_�� 3C - R ��gi��-•FiS�' 3 € � rR•i�I,b�k. g�?RtR;'€" _ 3L€°iI4:1 fix° ¢€ }` R4aF,CF( Ra v +'$L'�Ri°'•Q o..f aF^-a JEt? R . _ din k �. i - r _ � • :Js ; •'F �L � p - S :q= C tJ n ,0 V n N z 0 m tin m W `\ 0r rwok c: m m z V) n O z REVISION DATE REVISION DATE QUEENS CROSSING �� DEVELOPMENT tri 4 SR 46 AND EAST LAKE MARY BLVD. _ ® L V I i a , N� SANFORD, FLORIDA CA 29364 ~ Irta,eM„CrJsaL rs 708 E COLONIAL OR, STE 100 PFt{407)271-a91a nas +axs ORLANDO, FL 32803 FAX:007)442.001 I —n m 3 A z 3 D z n 0 V) D I P g REVi5101J DALE REV1Sm E QUEENS CROSSING LA ZDEVELOPMENT SR 46 AND EAST LAKE MARY BLVD. SANFORD, FLORIDA CA29354 s w canmxn �rvgsm v�. i 708 E. COLONWEDR, STE 100 PH (407) 271.5910 naasum ORLANDO, F1 32903 FAX (407)442-0M 0 NA 90 QVON 31V15 a gg g <xssuna iwwsu{vi. t4esa, nxs DATE REY}$)ONGATE VP DEVELOPMENT �' CA 29354 708 E.COLOMALORSTE103 DH 907)271-8910 OWANOO, FL 32803 FAX' (407) 442.0509 �— - — -aax axx8� a9aa aa]a� till 111109 L 'EM PRIM ��#D � A 6 i � n € s m i 979 ]75� i• � 111911 Jul! I 997] 7997F � AY FSE' ¢$, m 1- �� €• ��—� o€fig F� Ham 3 • till d H € fA g „z, v ., ENSION ^ e o� 4 QUEENS CROSSING SR 46 AND EAST LAKE MARY BLVD. SANFORD, FLORIDA <xssuna iwwsu{vi. t4esa, nxs DATE REY}$)ONGATE VP DEVELOPMENT �' CA 29354 708 E.COLOMALORSTE103 DH 907)271-8910 OWANOO, FL 32803 FAX' (407) 442.0509 �— - — M X 34 ol L ------- ...... ___..._.........i . ............. 'Id NOANV:) -- -- - ----- - ---- ----- -n i . 0 < m m r- c)0 r— I m kh. % I V1 s m '1'QUEE REYMN DATE REVtSCN DATE NS CROSSING ;4 SR 46 AND EAST LAKE MARY BLVD. Z DEVELOPMENT P SANFORD, FLORIDA CA 29354 708 E. COLONA Df, STE 100 PH (407) 271-8910 6. 0ALW00, Ft 32803 FAX: (407) 44214 R M' hill.- -mH 6 v 0 M X 34 ol L ------- ...... ___..._.........i . ............. 'Id NOANV:) -- -- - ----- - ---- ----- -n i . 0 < m m r- c)0 r— I m kh. % I V1 s m '1'QUEE REYMN DATE REVtSCN DATE NS CROSSING ;4 SR 46 AND EAST LAKE MARY BLVD. Z DEVELOPMENT P SANFORD, FLORIDA CA 29354 708 E. COLONA Df, STE 100 PH (407) 271-8910 6. 0ALW00, Ft 32803 FAX: (407) 44214 I �' -0 c m F;Q, I % I . m zj� i. I., m ME m mo m m m JP OR 3 butis 114:1 21AZ 211 .All 16,41 R -g Y17 dVoH 3J.V a QED9 _LS 'om r 86 r t3v 9 4 4:3 QUEENS CROSSING SR 46 AND EAST LAKE MARY BLVD, SANFORD, FLORIDA REVISION DATE Z DEVELOPMENT CA 293S4 703ECOLOMALOKSTE100 PR(404271-"10 ORLANDO, FL 32803 PA)C (407) 442-V,04 Practice limited to Real Estate Land Use and Related Matters May 9, 2022 STEPHEN H. COOVER, PLLC 230 North Park Avenue, Sanford, FL 32771 (407) 322-4051 Email: Steve.Coover@hmc-pa.com Mrs. Eileen Hinson, AICP Development Services Manager Planning and Development Services City of Sanford 300 North Park Avenue Sanford, FL 32771 RE: FLU change to General Commercial/Zoning change to Planned Development South of SR 46 and East Lake Mary Blvd., Sanford, FL Parcel Nos:: 03-20-31-300-002A-0000; 03-20-31-300-0090-0000; 03-20-31-501-OA00-0040; 03-20-31-300-009A-0000; and 03-20-31-501-0000-0080 4430 Canyon Pt., Sanford, FL Parcel No: 03-20-31-501-0000-0040 Dear Mrs. Hinson: This letter shall serve as our Final Report under the CAPP process for the above properties. A letter explaining what is being done with these parcels was sent via US Mail on April 14, 2022 and amended on April 25, 2022, to all property owners within 500' of the proposed project. A copy of those letters and the list of property owners is attached for your reference. We received questions and on May 3, 2022, we had discussions in regard to the letter we sent out with the following parties: PAR CONCERN DATE Brian Smith 5/3/2022 Art Litka 5/3/2022 Treena Kae 5/3/2022 Bobby VonHerbulis 5/3/2022 Paul D. Behrends 5/3/2022 In addition to myself, our engineer, Chris Thompson, and the owner's representative, Keith Trace, were present with the master plan. We showed and explained to each of the individuals who attended what was being proposed at the site. Everyone present was okay with the proposed general commercial uses. We received a phone call from Jamie Hodges prior to the CAPP meeting, and I explained to his satisfaction what was planned. Mr. Behrends also called and was told by my 1 assistant to come to the CAPP meeting. The only issue raised was the lack of maintenance by Seminole County on some east/west ditches south of the property. To date we have had no other correspondence, either verbally or written, with any other parties that received the CAPP letter. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, 5tephma. Ceeueiu Stephen H. Coover SHC/mjr 2 A& - Q Site 4430 Canyon Point 03-20-31-300-0090-0000, 03-20-31-300-002A-0000, 03-20-31-501-OA00-0040, 03-20-31-300-009A-0000, 03-20-31-501-0000-0040, & 03-20-31-501-0000-0080 City of Sanford Comprehensive Plan Amendment Site: 4.130 Canyon Point Parcel(s): 03-2.0-31-300-0090-0000, Existing Land Use 03-20-31-300-002A-0000, 03-20-31-501-OA00-0040, 03-20-31-300-009A-0000, �lii J 03-20-31-501-OCOO-0040, & 4�t V yT� 03-20-31-501-0000-0080 I ,1 °7 Proposed Future Land Use: Airport Industry MM and Commerce (AIC) 27.3 Acres ixisting Land Use Current Future Proposed Future ,eminole County Existing Land Use Land Use Land Use - - Agriculture Seminole County Seminole County Commercial Current Future Land Future Land Use Indsstrial F_, Pubb c - Crther Use �M cite_...i Residential - r0obrle Horne —_ _1 CI[y Commeroal Residential -51.18le rarilily ® Commercial ® Hlgh Intensity Pianned- Transpurtation ® High Intensity Planned- pelt . Cornmrrcial -Vau Airportnt _] Industrial� Industrial Indrstrial Vacant 0 Panned oeaelnpment Planned CLveloptr,ent OiherVacan[ 0 Suburban Estates � Suburban Estates Residential - Vacant Sanford Current Sanford Future Future Land Use Land Use Airp :rt Industry & Airport Industry & Commerce Commerce General Cotrrnercia (� Ceneral Commercial Q Industrial Q Industrial Existing Land Use �lii J 4�t V yT� I ,1 °7 MM )k Sam MM MM CITY OF (DsANFORD AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP AND DESIGNATION OF AGENT FLORIDA www.saMmdFl guv Please use additional sheets as needed. If any additional sheets are attached to this document, please sign here and note below: Ownership 1, Sadique Jaffers hereby attest to ownership of the property described below: Tax Parcel Number(s): See attached list Address of Property: _ for which this Rezone 11. Designation of Applicant's Agent (leave blank if not applicable) application is submitted to the City of Sanford. 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 na below to represent me, or my company, I attest that the application is made in good faith and that all information cont application is accurate and complete to the best of my personal knowledge. Applicants Agent (Print): Robert Ziegenfuss Signature: r Agent Address: 708 E. Colonial Drive, Suite 100 Email: bob@zdevelopmentservices.com Phone: 407.71.8910 Fax: 407.442.0604 III. Notice to Owner A. All changes in Ownership and/or Applicant's Agent prior to final action of the City shall require anew affidavit. If ownership changes, the new owner assumes all obligations related to the filing application process. B. If the Owner intends for the authority of the Applicant's Agent to be limited in any manner, please indicate the limitations(s) below. (i.e.: limited to obtaining a certificate of concurrency; limited to obtaining a land use compliance certificate, etc.) The owner of the real property associated with this application or procurement activity is a (check one) o Individual o Corporation o Land Trust ❑ Partnership 11 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 and address of each shareholder who owns two percent (2%) or more of the stock of the corporation. Shareholders need not be disclosed if a corporation's stock are traded publicly on any national stock exchange. 3. In the case of a trust, list the name and address of each trustee and the name and address of the beneficiaries of the trust and the percentage of interest of each beneficiary. If any trustee or beneficiary of a trust is a corporation, please provide the information required in paragraph 2 above. Name of Trust: 4. For partnerships, including limited partnerships, list the name and address of each principal in the partnership, including general or limited partners. If any partner is a corporation, please provide the information required in paragraph 2 above. 5. For each limited liability comoan,, list the name, address, and title of each manager or managing member; and the name and address of each additional member with two percent (2%) or more membership interest. If any member with two percent (2%) 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: ,Jessup Acquisitions, LLC $ Seminole Acquisitions Group, 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: Date of Contract: _- NAME TITLEfOFFICEfTRUSTEE ' ADDRESS % OF ! OR BENEFICIARY _ INTEREST r � ! ��Q G ►(�uL' 0.-f f�+' (hs � 1� I J r v tC j .'. _ Q ( (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. I 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 Affidavitto bindnd he Applicant or Vendor to the disclosures herein. Date _muff, mt W1�.1bev- Applicant Slgaa ure STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF l 1 - Sworn to (or affirmed) and subscribed before me by j L Cxon this day of 1UVIfO1 L) C) r _. 20 ii 1 STACY ANN MARIE CHYLE I. Notary Public - State of Florida I y ! Commission : HH 027088 " (r� - type or amp 'a Lary =t Signature of N tary Public nt, Type or amp a e of Notary Pu is Personally Known _— OR Produced Identification _ Type of Identification Produced ____- Nfieta%it of 0wn9Mr'D -January 2015