The URL can be used to link to this page

4713 Rezone 26.94 from A1 to PD - 4430 Canyon PointOrdinance No. 2022-4713 An ordinance of the City of Sanford, Florida providing for the rezoning of certain real property totaling approximately 26.94 acres in size (consisting of 6 parcels) located at 4430 Canyon Point and assigned Tax Parcel Identification Numbers 03-20-30-300-002A-0000/Parcel 1; 03-20-30-300-0090-0000/Parcel 2; 03-20-31-300-009A-0000/Parcel 3; 03-20-31-501-OA00-0040/Parcel 4; 03-20-31-501-0000-0040/Parcel 5; 03-20-31-501-0000-0080/Parcel 6, by the Seminole County Property Appraiser, which property is located within the Sanford City Limits (map of the subject property is attached) from A-1 — Agricultural to PD — Planned Development; providing for findings and intent; providing for the taking of implementing administrative actions; providing for the adoption of a map by reference; providing for conflicts; providing for severability; providing for non -codification and providing for an effective date. Whereas, an application has been submitted proposing to rezone 6 parcels of land totaling approximately 26.94 acres of real property generally addressed as 4430 Canyon Point from A-1 — Agricultural to PD — Planned Development for a proposed mixed use commercial project; and Whereas, Jessup Acquisitions, LLC, a Florida limited liability company and Seminole Acquisitions Group, LLC, a Florida limited liability company (hereinafter referred to as the "Property Owners") are the owners of the property which is the subject of this Ordinance (Tax Parcel Identification Numbers 03-20-30-300-002A-0000/Parcel 1; 03-20-30-300-0090-0000/Parcel 2; 03-20-31-300-009A-0000/Parcel 3; 03-20-31-501-OA00-0040/Parcel 4; 03-20-31-501-OCOO-0040/Parcel 5; 03-20-31-501-0000-0080/Parcel 6, as assigned by the Seminole County Property Appraiser) (the "Subject Property"); and Whereas, Robert Ziegenfuss, of Z Development Services, has made application for the Property Owners for the requested rezoning of the Subject Property; and Whereas, the CAPP (Citizens Awareness and Participation Plan) process which was conducted on May 3, 2022, and was accomplished to the satisfaction of the City; FTM Whereas, the Subject Property is located within sub -areas 3 & 4 of the City of Sanford/Seminole County Joint Planning Agreement; and Whereas, the City's Planning and Development Services Department conducted a thorough review and analysis of the demands upon public facilities and recommended that the subject rezoning application be approved having determined that the proposal is technically sufficient and consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Sanford, the City's Land Development Regulations (LDRs), and the controlling provisions of State law; and Whereas, the City of Sanford Planning and Zoning Commission considered the rezoning application submitted by the Applicant at its September 1, 2022, meeting and unanimously recommended that the City Commission adopt an ordinance to rezone the Subject Property from A-1 — Agricultural to PD — Planned Development based on the request being consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan; and Whereas, no additional standards or conditions can be placed upon this type of rezone, so the rezone is submitted to determine whether or not the request is consistent with the underlying land use and the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan; and Whereas, the City planning and development staff have determined that the rezoning request is consistent with the underlying land use and the goals and objectives 21'. of the Comprehensive Plan and recommend approval of this Ordinance; and Whereas, the City Commission has determined that the proposed rezoning of the Subject Property as set forth in this Ordinance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Sanford, the City's LDRs, and the controlling provisions of State law; and Whereas, the City Commission of the City of Sanford, Florida has taken all actions relating to the rezoning action set forth herein in accordance with the requirements and procedures mandated by State law. Now, therefore, be it enacted by the People of the City of Sanford, Florida: Section 1. Legislative Findings and Intent. A. The City Commission of the City of Sanford hereby adopts and incorporates into this Ordinance the City staff report and City Commission agenda memorandum relating to the application relating to the proposed rezoning of the Subject Property as well as the recitals (whereas clauses) to this Ordinance. B. The approval set forth in this Ordinance is subject to the specific conditions that are set forth subsequently in this Ordinance and the Property Owner has agreed that no requirement herein lacks an essential nexus to a legitimate public purpose and is not roughly proportionate to the impacts of the proposed use that the City seeks to avoid, minimize, or mitigate. C. The City of Sanford has complied with all requirements and procedures of Florida law in processing and advertising this Ordinance. D. This Ordinance is consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the 3 1 �; Comprehensive Plan of the City of Sanford. Section 2. Rezoning of Properties/Implementing Actions; the PD. A. Upon enactment of this Ordinance, the Subject Property, as depicted in the map attached to this Ordinance (Tax Parcel Identification Numbers 03-20-30-300-002A-0000/Parcel 1; 03-20-30-300-0090-0000/Parcel 2; 03-20-31-300-009A-0000/Parcel 3; 03-20-31-501-OA00-0040/Parcel 4; 03-20-31-501-0000-0040/Parcel 5; 03-20-31-501-0000-0080/Parcel 6) shall be rezoned to PD — Planned Development. B. The City Manager, or designee, is hereby authorized to execute any documents necessary to formalize approval of the rezoning action taken herein and to revise and amend the Official Zoning Map or Maps of the City of Sanford as may be appropriate to accomplish the action taken in this Ordinance and as set forth herein. C. No additional standards or conditions can be placed upon this type of rezone, as the rezone is determined to be consistent with the underlying land use and the goals and objects of the Comprehensive Plan. D. Conditions of development relating to the Subject Property may be incorporated into the subsequent pertinent development orders and development permits and such development orders and development permits may be subject to public hearing requirements in accordance with the provisions of controlling law. Section 3. Incorporation of Map. The map attached to this Ordinance is hereby ratified and affirmed and incorporated into this Ordinance as a substantive part of this Ordinance. 41 Section 4. Conflicts. All ordinances or part of ordinances in conflict with this Ordinance are hereby repealed. Section 5. Severability. If any section, sentence, phrase, word, or portion of this Ordinance is determined to be invalid, unlawful or unconstitutional, said determination shall not be held to invalidate or impair the validity, force or effect of any other section, sentence, phrase, word, or portion of this Ordinance not otherwise determined to be invalid, unlawful, or unconstitutional. Section 6. Non -Codification; Implementation. This Ordinance shall not be codified in the City Code of the City of Sanford or the City's LDRs; provided, however, that the actions taken herein shall be depicted on the zoning maps of the City of Sanford by the City Manager, or designee. Section 7. Effective Date immediately upon enactment. This Ordinance shall take effect Passed and adopted this 10th day of October 2022. Attest: City Commission Qf^ the Sanford ,FI rida 1 By. f� By: / Traci Ho ch ,MMC, FCRM Art - o ru / Mayor l c� �1 CACI Approv s to form and legal su ncy William L. Colbert, City Attorney CZW �= 181 INIM 14% _o s�F)ag �FORp o4S fi�O CITY OF U S.k�40RD El !L FLORIDA FST. 1811 CITY COMMISSION MEMORANDUM 22243 OCTOBER 10, 2022 AGENDA WS_ RMS X Item No. ! C 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: Rezone 26.94 acres from A-1, Agriculture to PD, Planned Development for a proposed mixed-use commercial project 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 THIS IS A QUASI-JUDICIAL MATTER AND, AS SUCH, REQUIRES DISCLOSURE OF ALL EX -PARTE COMMUNICATIONS, INVESTIGATIONS, SITE VISITS AND EXPERT OPINIONS REGARDING THIS MATTER. SYNOPSIS: A request to rezone 26.94 acres from A-1, Agriculture to PD, Planned Development for a proposed mixed-use commercial project 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) Maximum Units Car Wash 03-20-31-501-OA00-0040 $1,073 $11.83 Grazing Land (Parcel 4) 160 Rooms Office 03-20-31-501-OCOO-0040 $12,236 $135 Grazing Land (Parcel 5) 76,000 Square Feet Retail 03-20-31-501-OCOO-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 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. This application is a companion to the previous agenda item. According to the Queens Crossing PD Master Plan, the applicant is proposing a mix of uses such as day cares, noncommercial amusements, libraries, house of worship, hospital/medical clinics, communication towers, transient lodging/hotels, theatres, vehicle rental, vehicle services, veterinarian, animal boarding, auction sales, landscaping service establishments. Additionally, the applicant has voluntarily provided minimum and maximums for the following uses: car wash, hotel, office, restaurant, and retail uses. The allocation of those uses are broken down in the table below: Based on the PD master plan the applicant is also proposing building heights of sixty-five (65) feet on the tract identified as Parcel 1 on the PD Master Plan. All other parcels identified on the Master Plan are allowing for a maximum building height of fifty (50) feet. Due to the proximity of the subject property to the Airport and the adopted interlocal agreement, the developer shall file an FAA Form 7460 and provide to the City written acknowledgement of receipt and determination of no objection from Orlando -Sanford International Airport prior to any development approvals. Queens Crossin Use Minimum Maximum Units Car Wash 0 6,000 Square Feet Hotel 0 160 Rooms Office 6,000 61,000 Square Feet Restaurant 4,500 76,000 Square Feet Retail 11,000 66,500 Square Feet Based on the PD master plan the applicant is also proposing building heights of sixty-five (65) feet on the tract identified as Parcel 1 on the PD Master Plan. All other parcels identified on the Master Plan are allowing for a maximum building height of fifty (50) feet. Due to the proximity of the subject property to the Airport and the adopted interlocal agreement, the developer shall file an FAA Form 7460 and provide to the City written acknowledgement of receipt and determination of no objection from Orlando -Sanford International Airport prior to any development approvals. All new development shall be required to address infrastructure needs, provision of services, development phasing, and development intensity and land use compatibility as part of an integrated design scheme which includes very detailed strategies and techniques for resolving development impacts. On September 1, 2022, the Planning and Zoning Commission, upon recommendation of Staff, recommended the City Commission adopt an ordinance rezoning 26.94 acres from A-1, Agriculture to PD, Planned Development for a proposed mixed-use commercial project at project address 4430 Canyon Point based on consistency with the goals, objectives and policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan. 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 Joint 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 future land use is as follows: LAND USE DESIGNATIONS MAP SYMBOL DENSITY/INTENSITY (MIN/MAX)* PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION (MIN/MAX COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL RESIDENTIAL 10 / 50 du/acre (MF) Airport Industry & 1.0 FAR _�,. w� 1.0 FAR 1 du/acre (SF) Commerce AIC 25%175% 50%/75% 0%/10% 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 10 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 proposedfor 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 I 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 AIC, 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 (by 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 may or may not have reviewed the staff report and the specific analysis provided by City staff, but has noted the following that should be adhered to in all quasi-judicial decisions. Section 166.033, Florida Statutes, as amended in the 2022 Legislative Session, in Chapter 2021- 224, Laws of Florida (deriving from Committee Substitute for Committee Substitute for House Bill Number 1059) provides as follows (please note emphasized text): "166.033 Development permits and orders.— (1) Within 30 days after receiving an application for approval of a development permit or development order, a municipality must review the application for completeness and issue a letter indicating that all required information is submitted or specifying with particularity any areas that are deficient. If the application is deficient, the applicant has 30 days to address the deficiencies by submitting the required additional information. Within 120 days after the municipality has deemed the application complete, or 180 days for applications that require final action through a quasi-judicial hearing or a public hearing, the municipality must approve, approve with conditions, or deny the application for a development permit or development order. Both parties may agree to a reasonable request for an extension of time, particularly in the event of a force majeure or other extraordinary circumstance. An approval, approval with conditions, or denial of the application for a development permit or development order must include written findings supporting the municipality's decision. The timeframes contained in this subsection do not apply in an area of critical state concern, as designated in s. 380.0552 or chapter 28-36, Florida Administrative Code. (2)(a) When reviewing an application for a development permit or development order that is certified by a professional listed in s. 403.0877, a municipality may not request additional information from the applicant more than three times, unless the applicant waives the limitation in writing. (b) If a municipality makes a request for additional information and the applicant submits the required additional information within 30 days after receiving the request, the municipality must review the application for completeness and issue a letter indicating that all required information has been submitted or specify with particularity any areas that are deficient within 30 days after receiving the additional information. (c) If a municipality makes a second request for additional information and the applicant submits the required additional information within 30 days after receiving the request, the municipality must review the application for completeness and issue a letter indicating that all required information has been submitted or specify with particularity any areas that are deficient within 10 days after receiving the additional information. (d) Before a third request for additional information, the applicant must be offered a meeting to attempt to resolve outstanding issues. If a municipality makes a third request for additional information and the applicant submits the required additional information within 30 days after receiving the request, the municipality must deem the application complete within 10 days after receiving the additional information or proceed to process the application for approval or denial unless the applicant waived the municipality's limitation in writing as described in paragraph (a). (e) Except as provided in subsection (5), if the applicant believes the request for additional information is not authorized by ordinance, rule, statute, or other legal authority, the municipality, at the applicant's request, shall proceed to process the application for approval or denial. (3) When a municipality denies an application for a development permit or development order, the municipality shall give written notice to the applicant. The notice must include a citation to the applicable portions of an ordinance, rule, statute, or other legal authority for the denial of the permit or order. (4) As used in this section, the terms "development permit" and "development order" have the same meaning as in s. 163.3164, but do not include building permits. (5) For any development permit application filed with the municipality after July 1, 2012, a municipality may not require as a condition of processing or issuing a development permit or development order that an applicant obtain a permit or approval from any state or federal agency unless the agency has issued a final agency action that denies the federal or state permit before the municipal action on the local development permit. (6) Issuance of a development permit or development order by a municipality does not create any right on the part of an applicant to obtain a permit from a state or federal agency and does not create any liability on the part of the municipality for issuance of the permit if the applicant fails to obtain requisite approvals or fulfill the obligations imposed by a state or federal agency or undertakes actions that result in a violation of state or federal law. A municipality shall attach such a disclaimer to the issuance of development permits and shall include a permit condition that all other applicable state or federal permits be obtained before commencement of the development. (7) This section does not prohibit a municipality from providing information to an applicant regarding what other state or federal permits may apply." The above -referenced definition of the term "development permit" is as follows: "(16) 'Development permit' includes any building permit, zoning permit, subdivision approval, rezoning, certification, special exception, variance, or any other official action of local government having the effect of permitting the development of land." (Section 163.3164(16), Florida Statutes). The term "development order" is defined as follows and, as can be seen, refers to the "granting, denying, or granting with conditions [of] an application": "(15) `Development order' means any order granting, denying, or granting with conditions an application for a development permit." (Section 163.3164(15), Florida Statutes). Thus, if this application is denied, a denial development order must be issued which must cite to the applicable portions of each ordinance, rule, statute or other legal authority supporting the denial of the application. For example, if a goal, objective or policy of the Sanford Comprehensive Plan were to be the basis for a denial, then such goal, objective or policy must be part of the motion proposing the denial. A denial development order would be drafted to implement the actions of the City Commission in the event of such occurrence. Accordingly, any motion to deny must state, with particularity, the basis for the proposed denial. The City Commission has also expressed its desire for all who vote against the majority decision to express the rationale for their vote with regard to all matters. When voting on matters such as whether to recommend approval of an amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan or the enactment of, or amendment to, a land development regulation, those matters are legislative in nature and not quasi-judicial matters. The City Commission approved Ordinance No. 4713 on the first reading on September 26, 2022. The Clerk published noticed of the 2nd Public Hearing in the Sanford Herald on October 2, 2022. RECOMMENDATION: On September 1, 2022, the Planning and Zoning Commission, consistent with the recommendation of Staff, recommended the City Commission adopt an ordinance rezoning 26.94 acres from A-1, Agriculture to PD, Planned Development for a proposed mixed-use commercial project at project address 4430 Canyon Point based on consistency with the goals, objectives and policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan. The following conditions should be considered to accompany any approval in the ordinance and its associated development order: 1. Pursuant to Section 4.3.G of the Land Development Regulations (LDR) of the City of Sanford, this rezoning shall expire 3 years from the effective date of this Ordinance if all improvements have not been completed or an extension granted. 2. All development shall be consistent with the Queens Crossing PD Master Plan, received August 9, 2022, unless otherwise specifically set forth in any associated development order; provided, however, that all subsequent development orders shall be consistent with the provisions of this Ordinance. 3. Unless specifically requested and approved on the Queens Crossing PD Master Plan or the associated development order, any required elements missing from or not shown on the PD Master Plan shall otherwise comply with the City's Land Development Regulations, (LDRs). 4. The applicant shall work with staff to establish Hardscape elements that complement the overall site layout and architecture such as the following: a. Architecturally compatible wing walls on all monument signs fronting East Lake Mary Boulevard and East SR 46. b. An architecturally compatible knee wall located between any surface parking and East SR 46. c. Hardscape elements including decorative pavers, colored concrete and/or stamped concrete deemed acceptable by the City Commission shall be provided at the primary entrances and pedestrian nodes within the development. d. Established pedestrian connectivity as required between parcels shall be appropriately defined and delineated with landscaping and hardscaping similar to that which is installed at the pedestrian nodes and entrances noted above. 5. A comprehensive signage program meeting the standards of the Land Development Regulations shall be required for the entire development. 6. Cross access easements shall be provided such that all parcels within the PD can be accessed internally and shall provide for future connectivity to adjacent parcels in appropriate locations to maximize infrastructure, reduce impacts on adjacent roadways and limit the number of driveways onto the external road systems. 7. The property owner shall coordinate with LYNX to determine the possible addition of a bus stop and shelter and/or the extension of bus or transit services to the site; provided, however, that this condition shall not delay the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. 8. Unless specifically requested and approved on the Queens Crossing Master Plan or the associated PD Development Order, all development shall comply with: a. Tree mitigation per Section 4.2 Criteria For Tree Removal, Replacement And Relocation b. All setback and buffer requirements set forth in the Sanford — Seminole County JPA, as they apply to this project. c. All commercial elements of the development shall be in accordance with Schedule G — Architectural Design Standards, of the City's Land Development Regulations as defined therein. 9. A preliminary subdivision plan and subdivision improvement plan shall be submitted and subject to approval by the City with all construction activity being subject to approval by the City, and a subsequent subdivision plat being reviewed, approved and recorded, in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 177, Florida Statutes, prior to the issuance of any certificates of occupancy. 10. A decorative and functional fountain shall be installed in all wet retention ponds as part of development approval which approval shall provide for ongoing maintenance requirements and responsibilities upon the appropriate party, but not the City. 11. Due to the proximity of the subject property to the Airport and the adopted interlocal agreement, the developer shall file an FAA Form 7460 and provide to the City written acknowledgement of receipt and determination of no objection from Orlando -Sanford International Airport prior to any development approvals. 12. Any dispute relative to the aforementioned matters shall be resolved by the Planning and Zoning Commission, after a public hearing, by means of a development order or denial development order relating thereto. Additional comments or recommendations may be presented by staff at the meeting. SUGGESTED MOTION: "I move to adopt Ordinance No. 4713." Attachments: Ordinance No. 4713 Project Information Sheet Zoning Map Site Aerial Map Affidavit of Ownership Applicant's Justification statement CAPP Package Traffic Impact Assessment Queens Crossing Mater Plan Requested Action Proposed Use: Project Address: Current Zoning: Current Land Use: Proposed Zoning: PROJECT INFORMATION -- 4430 CANYON POINT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONE Tax Parcel Numbers: Site Area: Property Owner: Applicant/Agent: CAPP Meeting: Commission District: Rezone 26.94 acres at project address 4430 Canyon Point from A-1, Agriculture (Seminole County) to PD, Planned Development (City). Mixed Use Retail Shopping Center 4430 Canyon Point A-1, Agriculture (County) Grazing Land PD, Planned Development 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 Robert Ziegenfuss 708 E. Colonial Drive Suite 100 Orlando, FL 32803 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 Phone: (407) 271-8910 Email: bob@zdevelopmentservices.com A CAPP meeting was held on May 3, 2022. A copy of the report is attached. District 1— Sheena Britton 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: I, Industrial (County) Proposed Future Land Use: AIC, Airport Industry and Commerce SURROUNDING USES AND ZONING: Zoning Uses North PD, Planned Development Vacant Commercial South RI -1, Restricted Industrial Vacant Industrial PD, Planned Development (County) Grazing Land East PD, Planned Development (City) Vacant Commercial West RI -1, Restricted Industrial Airport i �/ ,^ Zoning 00 Sanford AG (Agriculture) ITE G GC-2 (General Commercial) ►7 46 MI-z (Medium Industrial) PD (Planned Development) RI-1 (Restricted Industrial) Seminole County A-1 (Agriculture) R11-3 (Travel Trailer & Campsites) C-2 (Retail Commercial) 1 M-1 {Industrial} ® PD (Planned Development) a g{ANYO IKT Site --7T 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-ZO-31-501-0000-0040, & 03-20-31-501-0000-0080 _ I 1 � • q .�. Y. ly p bti.. • -tip I �'� •� .. i � � ' � r �Y � J _, ; ` 77 s 1Np',4cn"�4'r!�'fh'� 1 A � 4' '� f `� s r "i •`-1 "� ":..• ✓ - , rel s Ley k4.. {,'•� Site 4430 Canyon Point it 03-20-31-300-0090-0000, 03-20-31-300-002A-0000,its 03-20-31-501-OA00-0040, 03-20-31-300-009A-0000, N / 03-20-31-501-OCOO-0040, & 03-20-31-501-OCOO-0080:p NCO �_ rs j,►.' E _ M-1, CITY OF SANFORD AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP AND DESIGNATION OF AGENT FLORIDA wwwsaMonM9ov Please use additional sheets as needed. If any additional sheets are attached to this document, please sign here and note below: 1. Ownership 1_ Sadique Jeffers Tax Parcel Number(s): See attached list hereby attest to ownership of the property described below: Address of Property: for which this Rezone application is submitted to the City of Sanford. It. Designation of Applicant's Agent (leave blank if not applicable) As the owner/applicant of the above designated property for which this affidavit is submitted, I designate the below named individual as my agent in all matters pertaining to the application process. In authorizing the agent na below to represent me, or my company, I attest that the application is made in good faith and that all information cont complete to the best of my personal knowledge. Applicant's Agent (Print): Robert Ziegenfuss Signature: Anent Address. 708 E. Colonial Drive, Suite 100 Email: bob@zdevelopmentservices.com 111. Notice to Owner Phone: 407.271.8910 application is accurate and Fax: 407.442.0604 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 o Partnership d 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 liabilit•w company list the name, address, and title of each manager or managing member; and the name and address of each additional member with two percent (2%) or more membership interest. If any member with two percent (2%) 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 8 Seminole Acquisitions Group, LLC 6. In the circumstances of a ontract for Purchase, list the name and address of each contract purchaser. If the purchaser ;s 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: 1)_.�.-L __ — -- - - Date of Contract: NAME TITLEfOFFICE/TRUSTEE ADDRESS % OF ! _ OR BENEFICIARY INTEREST �l ►_(�� 0.f t' (�ts� 1L r" _ l �_ r [�i Ick �f (Use additional sheets for more space.) 7. As to any type of owner referred to above, a change of ownership occurring subsequent to the execution of this document, shall be disclosed in writing to the City prior to any action being taken by the City as to the matter relative to which this document pertains. 8. 1 affirm that the above representations are true and are based upon my personal knowledge and belief after all reasonable inquiry. I understand that any Failure to make mandated disclosures is grounds for the subject rezone, future land use amendment, special exception, or variance involved with this Application to become void or for th"bmission for a procurement activity to be non- responsive. I certify that 1 am legally authorized to execute this Affidavit altd to bind a Applicant or Vendor to the disclosures herein. Date 'm -(I 'uct CY)t'1I bee ;Agent, Appiicant Slgtaature STATE OF FLORIDA j COUNTY OF SfM1(i'Jl_t -- 1� Swornto (or affirmed) and subscribed before me by*_1q_ othis Lday ofIrrll l'� C _, 20'J STACY ANN MARIE CHYLE i= •- tt Notary Public - State of Florida 1 :�A` Commission t' HH 027088 -fires-Aus3.-"?0 4 j. Signature Oda— Public J nt, Type or c amp NaM6 of Nota' Put is Personally Known _`� OR Produced Identification— Type dentification_Type of Identification Produced _ ___ - A'hCavit d oHnBRhio -January 2015 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: 1. 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) l; 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. 2 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 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 wellfieid 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 PRACTICE LIMITED TO REAL ESTATE LAND USE AND RELATED MATTERS STEPHEN H. COOVER, PLLC STEPHEN H. COOVER, ESQUIRE April 25, 2022 230 NORTH PARK AVENUE SANFORD. FLORIDA 32771 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-OCOO-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 Conunercial (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 May 3, 2022 from 4:30 p.m. — 5:30 v.m., to disetiss specifics of this request, or you can simply contact our office by phone (at the number above) or by email (steve.eoover@Jhmc- a.com instead of coming in person with any questions you may have. Very truly yours, Stephen H. Coover SHC/mjr Enclosure STEPHEN H. COOVER, PLLC STEPHEN H, COOVER, ESQUIRE PRACTICE LIMITED TO REAL ESTATE LAND USE AND RELATED MATTERS April 14, 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-OAOO-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 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 Mary 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 p.m. — 530 p.Y L, to discuss specifics of this request, or you can simply contact our office by phone (at the number above) or by email (steve.coover cr hmc-.pa coni} instead of coming in person with any questions you may have. Very truly yours, SHC/mjr Stephen H. Coover Enclosure X I I ' ' I n R X tb6 i IEaI4�a ?Ig A F T g$st' y _ m I I I I x no I I 1 Z to z cT 9 2 Ln X n II iIl ! lilj N r m r • CA 1i i �I o w N W O p ¢ • K ° _ . �_m5'x EEgr<1px£ E $§$�' 'et m f �C � �a'� �}Z: �'s� D �•i �E �#� �Cti gaE ",4<e@;'• !1 3� � Y O vs 881 $ E xa .. E>:i e`SA s stip LaL x Y Ess �y 3;!i;_„ffiIYY • r 3?§ ; Y4 g S Jill �q :-:Y js cQ S a": :. �= ;3 >�€ ✓r o 2 $��.P � a° yb$¢<E`u+ c �a:Y �°"z F � �s s} I;R �`;� 10 w 4SZD F ?pp �� f4 $k �Q � Sia `•. �8+ 'S iiEEQ�' :"y d% E; ft3q �a¢ +� Z #� r'' [i SF R: a Cj R s�$ �r•� f s8 �e�gi'ec i% Ses iE Y?•3` '": u Y � O O �% f R ; ?P:'t dC� 55 ^ - to T =a W z ■ • ■ • '<Z s 8 y Ep£4; _g;i e- .:f`. -g _-: a:^@K't• Y W 4..F.4 II! •.2 S"A RqR 445': 4 E 2RR,-,§•A§zzX"s2 "_ §Q yy A ggt ¢.'. sF4gg 4 § G S •@a^ S �§:.. .. Fs _ i '4 •'3 E 3 O O 1I t P:@•@ Y.SE = II L o`- iq A:-'a2j. Ay' gR^`%i I)� _ {{ '�= 8f� � §Y<oY `Y _ �lE^. E -§Y�= to E.^ SER • b S ID D Y� _ ds@4Raii'>; 4�g ",c R•E ao i fi @^ SS£ is `€3•' z['i _- •q84F d4aF�-�4: 3 @�'?S- £i.`. A � O I =E �` ��.._Y�T�Hs'jR� R3e� :.e5j g' C FQS 2 `eF- 'a:$ .: SAR�SSYc � O R. • =fra ,e2>4§pzb"ji '�_ 49$ iyER �'seS°" �jhG #C @n;;}t1K��tz4^�F^��g§g"Ai _'-Fii�]j•'R'�`Qb9° �v f ' OW �,.' •' TTRl ?-$IIp� }@ S_a§'S'q� AFgi S$ ��*� _31 NE 0 yE=,fi••i8z>x�q R,.^r'qy^pggG iR I44 :2:.^-^g.:§�:g' i_..•s -= { W {,(\T/��vjj■ ZRi 4F�L@ SII �': djyiE}gki�vg e..: §} 'Yo6YY?§' $} _3^I%R44•y � l%1 11/ :a;q i` •�.e `�'^` -:^g Ra'F �FQz 1'H�'YP PR� y_bL' � �4PESaa•€ � L" i�az^R n§ai� � O �$ 9ggL �:= ,.&^ sAc EC espy ¢## = k �a_p- t - .._. I4 'EZ§ ��F�'g4-�j 1Rcs `•45 =FY9 . z - $a':- Z;{ fi ss`- €c• i23:2_` ) O OO X —\ a4�.i�r3 s4 �Sn$E^ P')=�F e>Af•0.fo! f P:„�;i CF_S= yY3�2�ab= r=.ZE=R)XJ) XH aFYrYS4�- �Y � r `ri,$R.glF4iy>Fyy£.j�6Y{2 �R�R"� Cf_ a 6=g G� z _F %gn .%Y¢€� °z s - g4"E@ �o E�ggxy-a75§ a�RY g � iF:° .z' 3 }€�_}•-'A^ ' O �\ a $ ;N'; F� i a K 'S : K{ ka4 S;E3 � �o ^_�,[� •p�p`E+.' A`351':z%�^?i�6 psRi �P �r F' �T�jJ E4 . I. g §s§�3'�'i^ gp•^b- ESM 1Fk^vgS. c k i b W S p -"9a FR„` YEsffi#e 4D siz••53' Via; ^$ii Y to ByyAu�”-y£ R•''•Sea o•'t.R2 2iS �,�^_ a' K- i FF R..0^ -i ae±(5>ta%a °s 68a3�RFE• 'kS Fid• Ay� • a��5�1'i(v'�� S^ §:= -° F� - 8 Ei G �'v-` SEY6±SKIE:I F .i§^ ••g YE=SSY42�fa E'I:S ZXi'E:� Ada � a�K 6 ii O pp@ - YR-• f.R g YFc Sp � Eb- Sio I�aB. "3��t YIE g F p ;cT•_■ `Yi 9^ ° $ 4"ta EE i 'sf 4 s44 N E'4FR=St.. ZZ i�; �1ttCC= ®® �a' d" S� E-tEiA A`` F[�4CiE ff = • iy;% •�' 2�p'-R4i° p4-• �E e Y?! o O O SF'sEfe L^44+!:+:.•; t">. $EfiR 4: At �4 @@'SsEss? °€ 4-1�,.•2Se 5° ''-Er%i L23a--$EdE- fill' _' R' W x 'i RwEe�b�ASA�yi� A^ Raeyy £R .YrL.f €Ra4 "• '�8ee S_'�o4" 8_�:�fivGggR3$F�}z^¢�iE€q? :§4 €: . a„3t=ifi S^4 yam{ O _^ FF pq x4r �p §2 .. p°. ai Ota>' c,i•'• Y�: 'p^^ � :4 Ea3 W h' SE ? .:yk§_g4 ,S -i” i�. A EiE'4ai' cae4=,j4Eia�R i §`i-rg- Rfr: �� -:. Ln O ¢_fiSEu §.;5y3;5g25:,Y,Y :>¢ $i!• EL 3` �$$Ri'-•Fi` I 'IS l;R:s Y o3g E §Ea±rc .af>',.ie- 9yR "�5 O $AYk 61iA$ R] i° §+SCFR4� _; :' 8 � f! [ #� .X.LS F� .eSq# DA_•�t =-'s{3'ciYy4 ; E,- f Er .4.24 t.E•--.. ='- ,._4'c ibR =sEb: EII.... .° a� ,_^s �_-z §=ii- z- s$t'3p^'-¢=I€4.° _� 4: E¢.-,5sisl;1{B=;i<,x _z i O 00 na 3 _I`e a Ya EE• kq:$Y-. ��.(;E{gYYFC: �§PPFF�R Zii' 4• °gzfB✓✓Q�1fEp�i=i?`sr :A-fi' s eeiz3$q<piaF.t_grer�= Tq3}� s •iEll( R�. f � �L ¢i � R• = 1Ekgl�jp2 GIs§44E# p: Y $i e 4R 4$iEL6sa p°Ei:¢''^¢., - e F P D1aT,_ "E Y$YItf1•I_'a .d:':S §� lR-i4o-Y �, I_E :;•e_4?d $.� ap qF < 3j" €=�X�C@Ya R4�Q' _ a:1<[241-�§-ab}gS _�YEDyi9 o In QUEENS CROSSING REVISION DATE REVISION 1 DATE DEVf LOPMENT i SR 46 AND EAST LAKE MARY BLVD. ¢ £ [ 4 — N �C ~ SANFORD, FLORIDA CA 293S4 <aaiw�4e 2¢Rsse¢r,. 709E COLONALOR•S{E100 PLt(407)271-Eg10 R u42n¢f ORLANOR FL 37803 FAX: (407)442-0604 z v 0 a s O CL N ID cl T - w @ A @ _ S f lilt i__p ��'� � �17 U3 111�1 T- --- { u[ if€ti if i y}; "f"li 1[c} gt fill* ' Nil 7 � i -n m D 3 D -v N �p 6�3��Y�3•c•'�f Q a _ sEv�sloN ,DAic REvis,ow DATE �Z DEVELOPMENT QUEENS CROSSING - A a SR 46 AND EAST LAKE MARY BLVD. ' s SANFORD, FLORIDA CA n354 706 E. COLONIAL DR, STE 100 Pk (407) 272-F910 c�nre»cr. �rvasion, rc ORLANDO, Ft 32801 FAX: (407) 442.0104 re xc nras �i It r QH I HI $� t ?' I fell III; g i &fs _ gg _ _'.: asx 74:3 377 1 i•I � py 8 p ? R 3 'm Me , t w'D Y V ITT :t $ § It & N t •Dd �-•--------�--,��.: _ � _------- _AAA�A �,all� I I Nor Q m' Dill r `� ,�',-. •• .. 1� j ; \ \ \+ 1 9 (iii \`\ OW 0. u 9t? avow 3ivls -- gill., E p a =ate saaa uuu R^ 9777 7777.'F €, i & REVISION DATE REVISION OTE 6 W QUEENS CROSSING AZ DEVELOPMENT SR 46 AND EAST LAKE MARY BLVD. H SANFORD, FLORIDA CA, 29354 tb+uana rwclar rt 708ECOLOMALOk STE100 PHW7)271-8910 ORIANO0. FL 32803 FAX: (407) 442.0604 2 .5 g'1O 9 ME . . ......... ...1 ..... ..... .... 'Id NOANVD ----- - ---- ............ ----- . ....... ti -n mm MR r- r - C.0 0 E "SON DATE REVUN DATE QUEENS CROSSING LOPM' T Ael Z P�VE 'd SR 46 AND EAST LAKE MARY BLVD. SANFORD, FLORIDA CA 29354 109E.00LoNxD;LS7E100 PR�1.1�1211�M0 0ALWOO, A 32HT F.' 1 I� t i ��? ' 695C 9 ME . . ......... ...1 ..... ..... .... 'Id NOANVD ----- - ---- ............ ----- . ....... ti -n mm MR r- r - C.0 0 E "SON DATE REVUN DATE QUEENS CROSSING LOPM' T Ael Z P�VE 'd SR 46 AND EAST LAKE MARY BLVD. SANFORD, FLORIDA CA 29354 109E.00LoNxD;LS7E100 PR�1.1�1211�M0 0ALWOO, A 32HT F.' m l?S 0 irn P F2 TV ;r SVI Uvu 21122:3 2122211 Gl c 0-3 --A m Po z1 'qi7 CIV08 3.LV1.S > m REVISION GATE REVISION DATE JH QUEENS CROSSING 29. z DEVELOPMENT SR 46 AND EAST LAKE MARY BLVD. SANFORD, FLORIDA CA 293S4 703E.0010MA1D&STE100 Fit(407)271 om -0910 OXANDO, FL 32803 PAK (407) 442-004 m A < rn m m m m l?S 0 irn P F2 TV ;r SVI Uvu 21122:3 2122211 Gl c 0-3 --A m Po z1 'qi7 CIV08 3.LV1.S > m REVISION GATE REVISION DATE JH QUEENS CROSSING 29. z DEVELOPMENT SR 46 AND EAST LAKE MARY BLVD. SANFORD, FLORIDA CA 293S4 703E.0010MA1D&STE100 Fit(407)271 om -0910 OXANDO, FL 32803 PAK (407) 442-004 m m < rn m m m l?S 0 irn P F2 TV ;r SVI Uvu 21122:3 2122211 Gl c 0-3 --A m Po z1 'qi7 CIV08 3.LV1.S > m REVISION GATE REVISION DATE JH QUEENS CROSSING 29. z DEVELOPMENT SR 46 AND EAST LAKE MARY BLVD. SANFORD, FLORIDA CA 293S4 703E.0010MA1D&STE100 Fit(407)271 om -0910 OXANDO, FL 32803 PAK (407) 442-004 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, 5teph'.. R. C"tseA Stephen H. Coover SHC/mjr 2 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 Ns 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. tt�atattt/�� NAME: TurguiiJ� D,j��fi P.E. No.: 2040b�J�;Y 1ENS400 DATE: Ngjefe6, i a w SIGNATURE: F :+ •• OR1 *' ,ga • 10 NAk- d11t1i1110 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 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 0 '00 NO go m nu au NN um nus arr t V► �► !� v N W s R Chmond Ave mti, 0 � � q • eSilo Point ' Tjrommel•Way j - I 1 q iiia 41f t JAL. - ; . - 4Caron Ave - 40 t 3 - -- -'' a - r ,•�--- s• Beardatl-Ave-S -- .� �rOrm CO €► w true nr mile f 80 gat to' Iwi • -Frog Alley St ,,-•-� L --Qolarway- Y. ---Greenwa; c 11 t t - Broadvray -SipesAve _ € —Water St- � -lS IlepUea- -Church St a `n - Granby St` o - a, P _ Z L \,�'- /` V- Vii_ ._....--•-•---•-----•-�•-�, I aNMONUSIX3 I I (U?AMdwwn''aN wnwne I, 3.5is. 33a%323E3: Id IPA i t II 5 ouwlN)CV NMOUS SR 46 & Lake Mary Boulevard N Project Ne 5555 Conceptual Site Plan) Figure 2 Access Configuration h;s 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 Project Ns 5555 a 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 p. Page 5 Time EB WB NB SB Overall 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 p. 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 1I" Edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual and the 3rd 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 Project Ns 5555 R. Page 7 Table 3 Trip Generation Summary ITE Daily A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Code Land Use Size Unit Rate (') Trips Rate0) Enter Exit Total Rate0) Enter Exit Total 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 T586 KZ�r = i,uuu square -feet cz; Pass -by percentages obtained from ITE's Trip Generation Handbook, 3id Edition 0) 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. r SR 46 & Lake Mary Boulevard Development Project Ns 5555 �. Page 8 'r lot 7's wig as 111111111M 11111111 r,rr M i Ilrr - rvl. I a W - - - - -- ---- RiChmond Ave PNC o r ?Silo Pont 1 jvommel•way. _; tI �z R " • 1 -Cameron Ave; 40 - out -- � " o _,•- - ,� �* �-Seardall Ave -S _ t. 1 I U'. C o t1 f► � �) L tt11 ` r, r ar i ru - r.lit .dghtway pall ur, rri rr s , } mr � � r Irr �r -Frog Alley St - --! r--Dolarway- f - i Greenxa,, to*x c _ ..� groadway.. -{r S pesAve Water St - R -1S IlePuea- � •�; - :CenterSt- U)_. - i --Church St- �r m Granby St' 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 Existing Committed %* Volume East Lake Mary Boulevard LKM92 I Cameron Ave to SR 46 4L 42,560 15,605 4,923 53 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 S4670 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 Percentage 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 r Project Ns 5555 Page 11 Table 5 Proiected Intersection LOS Analvsis SR 46 & Lake Mary Boulevard Development Project Ns 5555 �_ 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 -- East Lake Mary Blvd & Site D/W # 1 P.M. Stop -- -- 85.3 F -- -- 17.5 C -- -- East Lake Mary Blvd A.M. Stop — -- 11.9 B -- -- -- -- -- -- & Site WW # 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 -- -- East Lake Mary Blvd A. M. Stop -- -- 11.2 B -- -- -- -- - & 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 �_ 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. SR 46 & Lake Mary Boulevard Development Project Ns 5555 �. Page 15 APPENDICES APPENDIX A Study Methodology From: Wharton, William To, ,ay Davoll Ce: Turgut 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.comj 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 when opening attachments or clicking links from unknown senders or when receiving unexpected'. X you believe. this messaixe to be susuect.. Dlease contact suDDort at 31 m 1 and forward essalze 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. Jay(@todtraffic.com From: Wharton, William <wwhartonCcDseminolecountyfl.gov> Sent: Saturday, October 23, 20211:15 PM To: Rita Merhi <rita(@todtraffic.com> Cc: Turgut Dervish <tur ug t(@tpdtraffic.com>; Jay Davoll <iay(@tpdtraffic.com>; Nelson, Anthony <ANelsonC@seminoIecountyfl.gov> 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 ( From To LKM90 J E. Lake Mary Blvd k Red Cleveland Blvd Cameron Ave Current Traffic Count 19.375 Roadway Link Capacity 42.560 Committed Trips 5.002 Net Available Capacity 18.183 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 <iay6Dtodtraffic.com>; Nelson, Anthony <ANelsonl@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 <wwharton(@seminolecountyfl.gov> Cc: Turgut Dervish <turgut(@tpdtraffic.com>; Jay Davoll <ia)l(@tpdtraffic.com> Subject: TPD # 5555 SR 46 & Lake Mary Boulevard ion when opening attachments or clicking links from unknown senders or when receiving unexpec ils. 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 Traffic Planning and Design, Inc. 535 Versailles Drive Maitland, Florida 32751 407.628.9955 www.tpdtraffic.com ill "M. �• �' , • • • 11.11.• 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 m Fax (407) 628-8850 o wvvw.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%)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 • BDL10, 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 W 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, PIA Peak Period Land Use Code 820—Shopping Center . , - -' '' AVERAGE STREEF. NOT.!;59AY (%); AW AYERAt E t, ',r (tt30 24440UR WEEIC#tY NO: QF +: PAS$y FLOUR : '_ 24�{OUR � Wrd198889 a — 4:00-890 PrR •r.{:.Q(J1j, .. LOCATIO:1 $U Yt TE, �' .IME.PERIPG '.MP 4%).. PRIMARY DIVERTED TOTAL K¢LV`ic"".. .'il?AFxIG'. &OURCE 921 Allxary, NY 1� 196 4:00-8:00 p.m 23 42 35 77. — 80,950 Ray—d9 W nier 1998/89 — I4:0D-8:00 p.m. 33 — — 67 — 26,000 Orth-Rodgaa &Assoc Inc 360 Brom" C".' I W rda 198889 — 4:OD-8:00 p.m 44 — 108 Ovarland Perk, KS July 1989 111 430-530 p.m 26 91 13 74 — 34,000 — 118 Overtend Park KS Aug. 1868 123 4:30-5:30 p.m. 25 I 55 20 75 — — — 256 Greece. NY June 1988 120 400 :00 p.rrm 38 62 — I 82 — 23,410 Sea Brown 180 Greece, NY ,kna t 988 78 400-8:00 p.m. 29 71 — 71 — 57,308 Soar Blown 550 Graeco. NY June Ime 117 4:00-8:00 p.m 48' .. 52 — 52 — 40,783 Sea Bram 51 Boca Raton. FL Dec 1987 110 4:00-800 p.m. 33 34 33 67 — 4Z225 IOmley-Hom and Assoc Inc 1,090 Ross Twp. PA Judy 1988 411 200-8:00 p•m. 34 56 10 68 — 51,500 Wlbua Smith and Assoc. 9•J U --Dubin Wnter 1988189 — -4,00-6.-Man. 41 — — 59 — 34" McMahon Tvp, PA Associates 118 Tredyflrin Twp, PA Wnter 108889 — 4:00.&00 p.m 24 — — 78 — 10,000 Bow Allen & Hamilton 122 Lownside, NJ Wma 188689 — 4:D0-8:00 p.m 37 I — — 83 — 20,000 Parwni Associates 126 Born Raton, FL Wrdar 198889 — 400 00 p.m 43 — — 57 — 40,000 McMahon Associates 150 Wlkrw Grove, PA Wrdor 1988189 — 40D-800 p.m 39 — — 61 — 26,000 Booz ABen & Hanillon 153 Broward Cnty. FL V*dor 1988!89 — 400-000 p.m 50 — — 50 — 85000 McMahon Associates 153 Arden, DE Water 198889 — 41D-800 p.m 30 — — 70— 28000 Orth -Rodgers & Assoc Inc 154 Doylestown, PA Writer 198889 — 4:00-600 p.m 32— — 68 — 29,000 Orth -Rodgers& Assoc Ira 164 Middetown WMar 198889 — 400-800 p.m. 33 — — 67 — 25)000 Boc¢AUm & Twp, PA Hamilton 168 Haddan Twp, NJ Water 198889 — 4:00-8:00 p.m 20 — — 80 — 6,0M Pannon9 Associates 205 Bruwad Cnty.. Fl- Winer 198889— 4:00-6:00 p.m 55 — — 45 — 82)000 h1U4enon Asaoclales 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 ;<» L V _o�rr NON4v—,s•6Y TRiiP(96j A!>J. Si+1 1' AVERAGE SIZE (1,0co WEEMNY NO. OF RISS-8Y f AKi' iUR 24440UR SQ FT. GLA) LOCATION SURVEY DATE INTERVIEWS TME PERIOD TRIP(%) PRIMARY DIVERTED TOTAL VOLLM.IE - TRAFFIC - SOURCE dsor 237 VA N Wrd198889 a — 4:00-890 PrR 48 — — 52 — 48,000 Allen & Hamilton 242 Wirovonter 198889 — 14:00-6:00 p.m 37 — — 63 — McMahm 26�0100 P Associates 297 Whitehall, A4 W nier 1998/89 — I4:0D-8:00 p.m. 33 — — 67 — 26,000 Orth-Rodgaa &Assoc Inc 360 Brom" C".' I W rda 198889 — 4:OD-8:00 p.m 44 — — 56 I — 73,000 McMahon A.is esat 370 P sburgh; A4 Wlda 198689 — 4:00-8:00 p.m. 19 — — 61 — 33,000 Wlbur Smith 150 Portland, OR — 519 4:00-6:00 p.m. 68 6 26 32 — 25,000 1ataLson and Assoclales 150 Portland, OR I — 655 4:00-6:00 p .m 65 7 28 35 — i 300Kl 00 socnand AssSdates 760 Calgary, Alberta O.L-0Dec. 1987 15,438 4.W--8.00P 20 39 41 80 — y of j — gory DOT Calgary 178Bad Apr. 1969 154 2:00.8:00 p.m I 35 — — 65 — 37,980 NertJlcwn, K�Raymond es Assoc. 144 Marelapan, NJ . July 1990 176 3:30.8:15 p.m 32 44 24 88 I — 89,347 Rayner Kaes Assoc 549 Netldc, hAA Fab. 1889 I — 4AS-8:45 p.m. 33 26 41 87 — _ 48,782 ��d Keyes Assoc. Average Pass -By Trip Percentage: 34 —" means no data were provided 190 Trip Generation Handbook, 3rd Edition ;<» L V _o�rr 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 P S7REEr (1000 r r .:r r F'nssaYrR+F?s(ssI Z P c. ff Y GHQ 08 •amemy la6fr:" Ihfil tiVlE :+YiJNEPERI©D (96} PRIMARY DIVERTED TOTAL � MURce SEATS . C$�i} ..c 116M11 ; -2.8 Minn -SL 1987 50 3:00-7:00 p.m 25 27 48 75 — — — Paul, MN <5.0 Chicago 1987 80 3:D0-8:00p.m. 38 — — 82 — Kmig, Oliara, Humes, Flock — suburbs. IL <5'0 Chicago 1987 100 3:00-8:00 p.m. 55 — — 45 — Kenig, O'Hara, Humes, Flack — suburbs, IL — 44 — Kenig, OHara, 16'0 Chicago 1987 1� 3:00-8:00 p.m. 58 — Humes, Flock — suburbs, IL Vc.O Chicago 1987 225 3:00-8:00 P.M.p.m. 48 — — Kenig, O'Hare, Humes, Flock — suburbs, IL — Kenig, O'Hara, <5'0 Chicago 1987 88 3:00-8:00 m. P 35 — — Humes, Flock — suburbs, IL c-'8 Kerdg, O Hara, Chicago— 1987 Bd 3:00-0:DO P.M. 44 — — Humes, Flock suburbs, IL Barton- Loulsvilla4:00.6;00 199:1 — P.M.88 22 10 32 2,055 Aschman 88 1.3 area, KY A-soc 1.9 Louisville 199333 993 4:00--8:00 p.m 87 24 9 33 2,447 Barton - Aschman 120 area, KY Assx 87 4.2 NewAibany, 1993 — 4:00-8,01)p.m 50 25 19 44 1,832 Barton - Aschman Assoc IN Barton 3.0 Louisville 1993 — 4:00-8:00 p.m 31 31 35 69 4,250 Aschmen 150 area, KY Assoc. — 3.1 Ma.Nmmee, 1995 28 2:00-6:00 p.m. 71 — — 29 — TPD Inc. FL — 3.1 Apopka, FL 19% 29 200-8:00 p.m 38 — — 82 — TPD Inc. 28 V1ln ter 19% 47 200-8:00 p.m. 88 — — 34 — TPD Inc — Springs, FL 4.3 Long%ocd, 1994 304 2:00-8D0 p -m. 82 — — 38 — TPD Inc — FL — 3.2 Allemoma 1998 202 200-8:00 p.m. 40 39 21 80 — TPD Inc. Springs, FL wlmar Pmts, 271 2:00-8:00 p.m 41 41 18 59 — TPD Inc. — 29 1998 FL Oracle — 3.3• several I 1998 varies 4:00-8:00 p.m. _T- :E- — 38 — Engineering ] `Average of several combined studies. Average Pass -By Trip Percentage: 50 —° means no data were provided __- 214 Trip Generation Handbook, 3rd Edition u '�© APPENDIX B 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 86035 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 81312 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 161797 Monday, October 4, 2021 Paqe 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. 431/0range 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 22,694 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 8,191 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, 2021 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 2 .697.2 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, 2021 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. 46/E 25th St. C.R. 425/Sanford Ave U.S. 17-92 Current Traffic Count 22,775 Roadway Link Capacity 48,000 Committed Trips 0 Net Available Capacity 25,225 S4665 S.R. 46/E 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 Page 40 of 50 This information has been provided by Tony Nelson, P.E. at Seminole County Engineering and is current information as of the above referenced date. APPENDIX C Existing Intersection Counts and FDOT Seasonal Factors O J Z O N O O O1 lD 10 Q1 a, W 1a- to fNY1 t00 Q w tD n n N n w 1n T N Ci N m W J �Q 10 C1 00 N O et I, t, — eY N — a M v " O 0 0 V u u 1+7 O N N N 01 N N N t- W T F- 1i J � O + rr M I, N O 1D In = " O M M r to r to 1n N — M — N — W W IT " W M .- r- � punoq;sa/Iq a --------------- 1 1 C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O :Z m om m m N m N p� m v N CYN� O D rn io It 00 �o rn m rn m O 'T n 00 f, 00 N O to lD m N oo N I I 0 J N Ln V N V m N m QIN N a o m N m ..........s 1n F, l- o Orn d 00 w N NF- O 00 O\ 00 f+0'1 01 00 00 M Q C F- O w m io iD , T "o m 1n 00 N o p � `N - 0 ` FL Z cC z C C O � r^ O m I, n N O N F M Hm �o N N h N O � Ln N } €W H~ �D m 00 m� o m m00 Z u Z r+m cn m y m y cn m W O N J 'n oM n V m v m v V 7 Cary 3 O i € o slti21S o AgO G (n a 'IT r V r (D 00 m 00 pl n O N M N n O O� o = a w t) �pW a407z p z O 0 V V V �! n In C M rn al Z , F- Z U Q 71 O M M omo M M CD M w N Im r O m N W ~ ~ z i 3 O M N to O M M th 10 's D00 iZ Fn i n r i mLnj V lD I, ^ n O h m N d' y 2 lD lD W M 110 to N V N M M O H ♦- cy)T Lr)tD W I O O m N uw rD d' CO Q N N N 00 lD I IK 71 ID J m N I I I N 01IQ r ID 1n to N n t\ 'T m N N J 01 O P O Ln R W m -OO i� 00 01 e- M -- - - - 1011 Ln I (3)J Ln >> I N> y0 N d' N N N N 00 n CD Ln m N I I j � j co td € O C ?2C m 2 m N N^ 1, _ M N N m o o 00 N N: F E :�i Y€ o v a Z Eastbound : F- - w ^o � w Ln m OJ Ln N %.01an� N N Z J 1i1 Z aO J "ZrW O m o 0 o n v Q N M h I� V N Q U O J Y o JJ W Z Q Q Q Q a Q Q Q Q W oo Ln O � F- Oo 1n O V F- a- i o _ _ O _ rn O ao o0 00 00 [O Q ^! 0 0 0 0 O O O O n 0 0 J QZ F f\ 00 O T IT f\ r r f\ M 0 - C� O n n n t\ M 00 co 00 r, M o M Nt J 2G Q N a M rT 000 lD M V n CD Lr,a0+ L W O N M M M rV r+9 M M N M LO AAA H l r N N 00 M M %D 0 = i O Nr - - LD - Ln .- Ln W M N C r .D y M m punoq}saM --------------F i y O O .- O I I Z � [ O Im �! O w N O W O� oM �t M N a, v n EIa, m t0 In t0 lD N n n Q, LO O m 0) N M N EIN O O W W W I I In N r Ln O m Ol N Ln O m m 111 r- N �O m lO Ln CV N i i g o J N N m J N N m N N ani J¢�cyyU r 00 N O SO O O 'IT in O 0 r r N f\ N N n D- O -.-.-. -.-.... O U i N Ln N N lO to N i O Q � {/I o Z CCC Z C C m M N 00 Ln 00 r- V cO M F Ln m 00 N N N u i W I}� F -V M ��}yy co ID z u Z 1.0 Ln 00 N h LO f) N 00 W O U W y d'O co Ln m OHN O � r 0 0 t0G a r,, i - - YO o s l ti as .................... f..................... C � v a O Ln �J ^9 AJpW aW7 C C l7 c J a 0 Ln 00 v f\ n N o rn Ln 00 O n r\ o to otDo p Z; Z O v v v v n T Ln v v a0 00 Z J F tD Ln N 00 0 O � tD 00 00 C3100 00 O N 00 00 to 0 I00 D T - - - - W ~ ~ i [Z i N N O Ln m O N to Ln m Ln € O u1 a- O _ m m v v m v m y v00i LrOi y v O D W O o W f_ W N Lo O 0 O o W r, a m m M I NT7I I J LD fX7 lO V 02 rl LO CT) LD W 1O 00 Ln v m m v fn o n W lea' Ln o O1 ro to VI �r OV OF M N N N mi N M 0000 N M I I L Ln I I � O Ln O LO r` I LD v N mId m € mN 2 m m m 'D m m,T� m e - a) r° GJ `J: O Q) aJ f0 ; Z CD Eastbound > J : o o oVo ^ m c� va w a° O N N N 00 N N N N M 00 Z J QJ 0 ON m N N N N m tT 00 Q U � a a a a a a d a -� Lu Z Q 0- a m o o Wo Ln O Ln f- 00 Ln O H a LU O dam' O g " d' �' V I' Ln Ln Ln m I— S O O O O O O O O V O .M, cs3 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 APPENDIX D Existing HCS Capacity Worksheets HCS7 Signalized Intersection Results Summary General Information Intersection Information Agency Seminole County Duration, h 0.250 Analyst TPDrd Analysis Date Nov 11, 2021 Area Type Other Jurisdiction Seminole County Time Period AM Peak Hour PHF 0.98 Urban Street East Lake Mary Blvd Analysis Year 2021 Analysis Period 1> 7:00 Intersection ISR 46 & East Lake Mar... File Name 1 SR 46 & Lake Mary Blvd Existing AM Peak.xus Project Description lExisting AM Peak Hour r s 'r a r -rY r r Demand Information EB WB 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 1681235 100 266 819 314 Signal Information Cycle, s 160.0 Reference Phase 2 Offset, s 0 Reference Point End Uncoordinated No Simult. Gap E/W On Force Mode Fixed Simult. Gap N/S On Green Yellow Red 17.8 5.2 -3.4--T2-.7 0.6 4.8 70.4 5.2 2.4 9.5 1.3 5.1 0.0 3.4 0.0 20.9 5.1 2.2 z 3 5 6 all 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 19.3 29.6 18.0 28.2 26.4 78.0 125.5 34.5 86.0 Change Period, ( Y+R c), s 8.5 7.3 8.5 7.3 8.6 1 7.6 7.5 7.6 Max Allow Headway ( MAH), s 5.0 6.0 5.0 6.0 5.0 0.0 5.0 0.0 Queue Clearance Time ( g s ), s 9.9 10.4 8.7 14.3 16.9 Green Extension Time ( g B ), s 0.9 6.7 0.8 6.7 1.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 Phase Call Probability 1.00 1 1.00 1.00 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 Max Out Probability 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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 18 7 4 14 1 6 16 5 2 12 Adjusted Flow Rate (v), veh/h 177 161 93 150 293 130 171 176 166 271 836 320 Adjusted Saturation Flow Rate ( s ), veh/h/In 1757 1809 1610 1757 1809 1610 1810 1900 1710 1810 1809 1610 Queue Service Time ( g s ), s 7.9 6.4 1 8.4 6.7 1 12.3 12.2 14.9 9.2 1 9.6 23.5 1 24.5 20.3 Cycle Queue Clearance Time ( g c ), s 7.9 6.4 8.4 6.7 12.3 12.2 14.9 9.2 9.6 23.5 24.5 20.3 Green Ratio ( g/C ) 0.07 0.14 0.14 0.06 0.13 0.13 1.00 0.44 0.44 0.17 0.49 0.49 Capacity ( c), veh/h 238 503 224 208 473 210 202 836 752 305 1774 789 Volume -to -Capacity Ratio (X) 0.743 0.320 0.415 0.721 0.619 0.616 0.850 0.211 0.220 0.889 0.471 0.406 Back of Queue ( Q ), ft/ln ( 95 th percentile) 167.8 134.2 1161.2 143.3 1242.9 226.9 300.8 191.6 1182.5 431.8 398.4 315.1 Back of Queue ( Q ), veh/In ( 95 th percentile) 6.7 5.4 6.4 5.7 9.7 9.1 12.0 7.7 1 7.3 17.3 15.9 12.6 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 73.2 62.1 62.9 74.0 65.8 65.7 69.8 27.7 27.8 65.0 27.0 25.9 Incremental Delay ( d 2 ), s/veh 6.4 0.8 2.6 6.5 2.8 6.1 13.1 0.6 0.7 11.8 0.9 1.5 Initial Queue Delay ( d 3 ), s/veh 0.0 0.0 1 0.0 0.0 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay ( d ), s/veh 79.6 62.8 65.5 80.5 68.6 71.9 82.9 28.2 1 28.5 76.9 27.9 27.5 Level of Service (LOS) E E EF E E F C I C E C C Approach Delay, s/veh / LOS 70.3 E 72.4 E 46.6 D 37.1 D Intersection Delay, s/veh / LOS 50.5 D Multimodal Results EB WB NB SB Pedestrian LOS Score / LOS 2.32 B 2.47 B 2.58 C 1 2.57 C Bicycle LOS Score / LOS 0.84 A 0.96 A 0.91 A 1.67 B Copyright © 2021 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved. HCS'm Streets Version 7.9.5 Generated: 11/11/2021 8:11:54 AM HCS7 Signalized Intersection Results Summary General Information Agency Seminole County Analyst TPD/jd Jurisdiction Seminole County Urban Street East Lake Mary Blvd Intersection SR 46 & East Lake Mar... Project Description Existing PM Peak Hour Analysis Date Time Period Analysis Year File Name Intersection Information Duration, h 0.250 Nov 11, 2021 Area Type Other PM Peak Hour PHF 0.98 2021 Analysis Period 1> 7:00 2 SR 46 & Lake Mary Blvd Existing PM Peak.xus r '' ,•Y 1 r Demand Information EB WB NB SB Approach Movement L T 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 Cycle, s 160.0 Reference PhaseInd Offset, s 0 Reference Point Uncoordinated No Simult. Gap EA Al reen ellow 10.5 5.2 6.2 0.0 49.7 15.2 6.9 5.1 e 9.5 5.1 36.6 5.1 2 -f 3 4 s s Force Mode Fixed Simult. Gap N/S On Red 3.4 0.0 2.4 3.4 3.4 2.2 5 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 c), s 8.5 7.3 8.5 7.3 8.6 7.6 7.5 1 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 B ), s 1.9 9.4 0.5 5.8 0.4 0.0 0.5 0.0 Phase Call Probability 1.00 1 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1 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 18 7 4 14 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/h/In 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 1 8.7 28.8 8.3 44.8 1 44.8 15.4 1 12.3 11.6 Cycle Queue Clearance Time ( g c ), 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 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 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 ), ft/In ( 95 th percentile) 383.4 1185.9 45.5 97.6 1178.6 470.2 193.1 822.1 1789.9 323.5 234.3 207.9 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 1 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay ( d 1 ), 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 Initial Queue Delay ( d 3 ), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay ( d ), s/veh 76.2 37.9 35.6 82.2 51.3 71.9 89.4 76.8 77.8 91.6 38.5 38.9 Level of Service (LOS) E D D F I D E F E I E F I D D Approach Delay, s/veh / LOS 60.4 E 65.9 E 78.3 E 51.6 D Intersection Delay, s/veh / LOS 65.8 E Multimodal Results EB WB NB SB Pedestrian LOS Score / LOS 2.30 B 2.47 B 2.60 C 2.59 C Bicycle LOS Score / LOS 1.15 A 1.02 A 1.45 A 1.08 A Copyright © 2021 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved. HCSTm Streets Version 7.9.5 Generated: 11/11/2021 8:11:54 AM Passage Max1 Max 2 Yellow Clr Red Clr Walk Ped Clear Red Revert Added (nit 4 15 15 5.1 3.4 3 — 5 50 50 5.1 2.2 7 23 3 .. - 4 25 25 5.2 3.4 3 -- Seminole County Traffic Engineering Timing Sheet 4 25 25 5.1 3.4 3 5 5025 50 5.1 2.2 7 30 3 Intersection: SR 46 & 17-E Lk Mary Blvd #4842 SI-AdI C)I_ F CC 1-INI TY Passage Max1 Max 2 Yel Clr Red Clr Walk Ped Clr Phase Min Green Passage Max 1 i Max 2 I Yet Clr Red Clr Walk Ped Clr 6 _ 45 45 4.8 2.5 J7 I� 30 -- _ Alt Phase Times 2 - Name SR 46 E. Lk Mary SR 46 E. Lk Mary I Phase Mode STD8 Free Action 254 Direction —�--�—j 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/01- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 2 4 6 8 Comm ID 1715 Node # 4842 i Type VEH VEH OLP VEH VEH VEH OLP VEH OLP OLP OLP OLP PED PED PED PED Date February 11, 2021 Done By SCTE\HClancy Phase Times Alt Phase Times 1 .Phase 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Phase � 4 Min Green 6 17 6 8 6 17 6 8 Min Green 15 Time B-4 Passage Max1 Max 2 Yellow Clr Red Clr Walk Ped Clear Red Revert Added (nit 4 15 15 5.1 3.4 3 — 5 50 50 5.1 2.2 7 23 3 .. - 4 25 25 5.2 3.4 3 -- 4 45 45 4.8 2.5 7 30 3 - 4 25 25 5.1 3.4 3 5 5025 50 5.1 2.2 7 30 3 4 25 4.8 2.7 3 4 i 45 45 5.2 2.4 7 29 i- 3 Passage Max1 Max 2 Yel Clr Red Clr Walk Ped Clr Phase Min Green Passage Max 1 i Max 2 I Yet Clr Red Clr Walk Ped Clr 6 _ 45 45 4.8 2.5 J7 I� 30 -- _ Alt Phase Times 2 - 1 ✓ 1 I ✓ Cnf Phase I Max Initial I Alt Phase Opt 3 Max 3 Limit i Max2 Max 3 Step Max Inhibit J Time B-4 j� Cnf Phase I Cars B-4 Modifier Phase LA Gm Yel Red Time to i Reduce By 1 I Min Gap I I Phase Enable Min Recall Max Recall Ped Recall Soft Recall Lock Call Flash Ent Flash Exit Dual Entry Sim Gap Cond Sery Reservice Cnf Phase Overlap - A Overlap - B Overlap - C Overlap - D Overlap - E Overlap - F Overlap - G Overlap - H Overlap - I Overlap - J Overlap - K Overlap - L Overlap - M Overlap - N Overlap - 0 Overlap - P E Phase Options Alt Phase Opt 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Phase 1 2 -F 3 4 1 5 6 7 8 ( Max 2 . �I I - J- I -- Max Inhibit ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Cnf Phase T L� 3 1 1 5.2 3.4 1 1 3 1 1 4.8 , 2.7 1 Alt Phase Opt 2 - - -- Phase 1 2 3 4 5 6' 7 8 Max 2 Max Inhibit ✓ 1 I ✓ Cnf Phase Alt Phase Opt 3 Phase--------- Max2 Max Inhibit J Cnf Phase Modifier Phase LA Gm Yel Red 3 1 1 5.2 3.4 1 1 3 1 1 4.8 , 2.7 1 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 j1 Hour Seq�1I P Min Mode L Action Split 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Il 2 13 14 15 16 A Cycle N Hour Seq Min 1 Action Mode Split 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Monday Cycle Hour Seq P Min L Action Mode Split 4 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 90 N Hour Seq = Min Mode 2 Action Split 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 J- 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Tuesday Cycle Hour Seq i— P Min Mode L Action Split 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 A Cycle N Hour SeMin q �—�--__E_�---��I-_ 3 Action Mode Split 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Wednesday Cycle Hour Seq P Min Mode I I L Action Split 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 A Cycle N Hour Seq 'Min Mode 4 Action Split 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1112 13 14 15 16 Thursday Cycle Hour SeqP Min Mode L Acton Split 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 A CycleN Hour Seq -T-7. Min Mode 5 Acton Split 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Friday Cycle L 'Hour Seq P Min Mode 1 L 'Action Split 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 A Cycle N Hour — Seq — - ------- Min Mode 6 Action Split 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Saturday Cycle Hour SeqI P Min Mode PF + L Acton Split 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 A Cycle N Hour Min in Made 7 Action Split 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Cycle 'Hour Seq P Min Mode L Action Split 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 A Cycle = N Hour Seq = Min Mode 8 Action Dav Plans 1 -8 99 1 . 2 .. 3 --- 4 5 6 i 9 16 18 30 99 1 99 4 99 -T"4- 1 2' 3 4 5 6 9 16 18 30 - 99 1 99 4 99 LEE" 1 2 3 1 4 F 5 6 9 16 18 30 99 1 99 4 99 1- 2' 1 3- 14- -5 6 9 16 18 —[30 99 1 I 99 4 99 2 1 3 4 5 6 9 16 18 30 99 1 99 4 99 99 Cycle Seq Mode - Split 26 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Day Plans 9-16 - - i -I -I I I Hour P Min _ L Acton --- - - - A -- -� - �- 1� I - Cycle =_ �q�!I Coordination Splits 17-32 Split 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Se Cycle =_ Seq I I i P Hour Min Made Mode —_�_�—�- L Action Split 18 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 A Split 27 Cyte-- i-- 9 10 11 N Hour Seq =_ I I i�I Min Mode -i--I� I I I I—i_-� _ 9 Acton Split 19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Acton. Split 28 Cycle Seq =_ I ( —�� I L- I I P Hour Min ModeI_jI_—i Cycle =- L Acton Split 20 _;�_IiI 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 _ 13 14 15 16 A Seq =_ Cycle =- Seq =_ —i. �j I -J I i N Hour Min Mode I _,�I I II�i_ --I I I - 10 'Acton Split 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Acton; Split 29 Cycle =_ Seq =--L. I ! _�— - l I=��- II ------------ I�I - p Hour Min Mode L Acton Split 22 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 A Cycle =_ Se _ Seq = Mode j I--�--I --I�i I j n- _ t I- N 11 Hour Min Acton -II�� —I— Acton. Split 30 —I 1 2 3 4 5 Split 23 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Cycle =_ Seq =_ Cycle =_ Se Seq =_ Mode _.--i I I }I' ii—If I - — - - I _—�)—I---I �—I_---�— N --i �� P L Hour Min Acton Split 24 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 _ 13 14 15 16 A Acton Cycle Seq=_ Mode i - I T -7—F -1 I I � � I — -'—j— N M in — _ -- - -- 12 Acton Split 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 � Cycle Seq Mode - Split 26 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Day Plans 9-16 - - i -I -I I I Hour P Min _ L Acton --- - - - A -- -� - �- 1� I - Cycle =_ �q�!I I I I I—�'.. I N Hour Se - -I- _ Min Mode —_�_�—�- II�_� - -_-� 13 Acton Split 27 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 _I_ _ 13 14 15 16 I Cycle Seq =- -- i I i�I I I I— P Hour Min Mode I� I -: --'- _ - - - -- - . I- I L Acton. Split 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 A Cycle =- N Hour Seq =_ - ---'- I_ I—I - I - —'' --'-- — i �_I_ Min Mode I I I I� I 14 Acton; Split 29 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 j Cycle =_ I I I i Hour Seq =- _ ---I- i- _ P Min Mode _—i_ I I I -I—� I—� 1—� L Acton. Split 30 —I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 _ - —I------ 9 10 11 -I--- 12 13 14 15 16 A Cycle =_ Seq =_ �- -- _— �_ -� I I— I N --i �� Hour Min Mode —_� + — 15 Acton Split 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Cycle =_ I- -- - {-- —L— I I I Hour Seq -- � � I 1_ �: I I P Min Mode ---;-----I-- -------,----r---------, � L ,Acton, Split 32 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 A C cle =_ Y N Hour Seq -_ —i —' i---- ---i -i----_-_ Min Mode j— ! 16 Acton Pattern -1 Pattern - 2 Pattern - 3 Pattern - 4 Pattern - 5 Pattern - 6 Pattern - 7 Pattern - 8 Pattern - 9 Pattern -10 Pattern -11 Pattern -12 Pattern -13 Pattern -14 Pattern -15 Pattern -16 Pattern -17 Pattern -18 Pattern -19 Pattern - 20 Pattern - 21 Pattern - 22 Pattern - 23 Pattern - 24 Pattern - 25 Pattern - 26 Pattern - 27 Pattern - 28 Pattern - 29 Pattern - 30 Pattern - 31 Pattern - 32 Pattern - 33 Pattern - 34 Pattern - 35 Pattern - 36 Pattern - 37 Pattern - 38 Pattern - 39 Pattern - 40 Pattern - 41 Pattern - 42 Pattern - 43 Pattern - 44 Pattern - 45 Pattern - 46 Pattern - 47 Pattern - 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 Cycle Offset Split Seq Coord Time Opt Det CIR Short Long No S No S Yield Max 2 Float R-Hld Y-Inh Off -1 Off -2 Off -3 Off -4 Off -5 Off -6 Off -7 Of" I I -E I i I I i I I _ I i I I I i i Src BIU-3 Call Sort Dly 1 34 I 35 I 36 �_— 37 - --- j 39 j 40 41 �— 42 i— 43 ' 44 45 46 —i _ -' 47 ---I�- I — 48 - - - Lck Src BIU-4 Call Swt Dly Lck Sn; 5 0 I - 51 '— 52 53 -- 54 — 55 56 _ 57 —��- I 58 59- _ 60 61 -- 62 I I - 63 ` I - III ---L -- - - — - Dly Lck -- — —� Call Swt Dly Lck - 2 2 2 -— 2 3 8 4 4 4 12 5 5 6 6 6 -I — 6 Src BIU-2 Call Sort 18 8 4 19 8 20 21 -'—I — �_ 22 23 24 ( _ 25 - 26 I _. 27 28 29 30 I -- 31 32 - -i Enbl Track Phase Gm Track C Pre Run 1 I— _ Pre Run 2 Pre Run 3 ON Pre Run 4 ON Pre Run 5 ON Pre Run 6 ON Intersection Notes Intersection set up with concurrent sides. Main street LT's are 5 -section heads and are Det. Switched. Side street LT's are 4 section FYA heads. Map — — — Dwell Phase — --�__ DW -----Dwell Ovedap — f Exit Phase 3 8 3 7 4 8 4 7 3 7 4 8 i- 2 -:- 5 -� --- � � � 2 6 -- --- -._ — 1 6 - � 2 6 — T.O.D Notes Patterns 1 & 4 used for AM and PM rush traffic. Alt Phase Time 1 is used to increase Phase 4 min green time during pattern 1. P6 0 10 P6 64 )C-- 1 P6 0 P6 5 64- -� SR 46 - - V; - 1 —► 2 5 P2 P2 —I► 2 P2 ♦—j P2 P4 a'� 7 N FYA P4 I ; P8 W E 4 y 7 P4 dj CR 415 S 3 P8 8 P4 i 1 P8 Cabinet FYA 3 P8 Seo 1 Ring 1 1 21 3 4 Ring 2 5 61 7 8 APPENDIX E Projected HCS Capacity Worksheets HCS7 Signalized Intersection Results Summary General Information Intersection Information Agency Seminole County Duration, h 0.250 Analyst TPD/jd Analysis Date Nov 11, 2021 Area Type Other 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 SR 46 & East Lake Mar... File Name 1 SR 46 & Lake Mary Blvd Projected AM Peak.xus Project Description 113rojected AM Peak Hour d L4. 1 1. 1 r -s - )I r +Y r r Demand Information EB WB NB SB Approach Movement L T R L T R L T Rkff7.2 R Demand (v ), veh/h 173 234 149 196 339 127 221 464 145 314 Signal Information Cycle, s 160.0 Reference Phase 2 Offset, s 0 Reference Point End Uncoordinated No Simult. Gap E/W On Green Yellow 22.8 5.2 3.0 0.0 j 65.2 5.2 10.8 1.2 5.1 0.0 125.0 ( 5.1 z -� 3 4 6 s Force Mode Fixed Simult. Gap N/S On Red 3.4 0.0 2.4 3.4 0.0 2.2 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 19.3 32.3 20.5 33.5 31.4 72.8 34.4 75.8 Change Period, ( Y+R c), s 8.5 7.3 8.5 d 7.3 1 8.6 7.6 7.5 7.6 Max Allow Headway ( MAH), s 5.0 6.0 5.0 6.0 5.0 0.0 5.0 0.0 Queue Clearance Time ( g s ), s 9.9 16.1 10.9 16.2 21.5 25.5 F Green Extension Time ( g e ), s 0.9 8.9 1.1 8.9 1.3 0.0 1.4 0.0 Phase Call Probability �' 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Max Out Probability 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 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 18 7 4 14 1 6 16 5 2 12 Adjusted Flow Rate (v), veh/h 177 239 152 200 346 130 226 322 299 271 939 320 Adjusted Saturation Flow Rate ( s ), veh/h/In 1757 1809 1610 1757 1809 1610 1810 1900 1 1745 1810 1809 1610 Queue Service Time ( g s ), s 7.9 9.5 14.1 8.9 14.2 11.7 19.5 19.4 19.6 23.5 1 32.2 22.8 Cycle Queue Clearance Time ( g c ), s 7.9 9.5 14.1 8.9 14.2 11.7 19.5 19.4 19.6 23.5 32.2 22.8 Green Ratio ( g/C ) 0.07 0.16 0.16 0.07 0.16 0.16 0.14 0.41 0.41 0.17 0.43 0.43 Capacity ( c ), veh/h 238 565 251 263 591 263 258 774 711 305 1543 687 Volume -to -Capacity Ratio (X) 0.743 0.423 10.605 0.760 0.585 0.492 0.875 0.416 10.421 0.891 0.609 0.467 Back of Queue ( Q ), ft/In ( 95 th percentile) 167.8 196.8 251.8 189.5 270 215.2 373 353.8 334.6 432.2 512 354.5 Back of Queue ( Q ), veh/In ( 95 th percentile) 6.7 7.9 10.1 7.6 10.8 8.6 14.9 14.2 13.4 17.3 20.5 14.2 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 73.2 61.0 62.9 72.6 61.9 60.9 67.2 33.8 33.9 65.1 35.5 32.9 Incremental Delay ( d 2 ), s/veh 6.4 1.1 4.9 6.3 2.0 3.0 12.3 1.6 1.8 12.0 1.8e�2.3 W Initial Queue Delay ( d 3 ), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay ( d), s/veh 79.6 62.1 67.8 1 78.9 63.9 63.9 79.5 35.5 35.7 77.1 37.3 d 35.1 Level of Service (LOS) E IE E E I E E E D D E I D D Approach Delay, s/veh / LOS 69.1 E 68.3 E 47.3 D 43.9 D ersection Delay, s/veh / LOS W 53.2 D Multimodal Results EB WB NB SB Pedestrian LOS Score / LOS 2.32 B 2.47 1 2.58C 2.58 C Bicycle LOS Score / LOS 0.96 A 1.04 R A 1.19 A 1.75 B Copyright© 2021 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved. HCS'"' Streets Version 7.9.5 Generated: 11/15/2021 11:00:58ANI HCS7 Signalized Intersection Results Summary General Information Intersection Information Agency Seminole County Duration, h 0.250 Analyst TPD/jd Analysis Date Nov 11, 2021 Area Type Other Jurisdiction Seminole County Time Period PM Peak Hour PHF 0.98 Urban Street East Lake Mary Blvd Analysis Year 2021 Analysis Period 1> 7:00 Intersection ISR 46 & East Lake Mar... File Name 2 SR 46 & Lake Mary Blvd Projected PM Peak.xus Project Description Projected PM Peak Hour Demand Information EB WB NB d r _ r ,-•r ,• r SB Approach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R Demand ( v), veh/h 466 387 98 151 274 299 155 1192 205 173 461 158 Signal Information Cycle, s 180.0 Reference Phase 2 Offset, s 0 Reference Point End Uncoordinated No Simult. Gap EM On J Green 17.5 Yellow 14.8 1.4 10.0 71.3 14.8 _ �j z 3 4 10.6 7.2 33.0 15.1 5.1 5.1 6 e Force Mode Fixed Simult. Gap N/S On Red 12.7 10.0 12.5 13.4 3.4 2.2 5 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 34.7 55.9 19.1 40.3 26.4 80.0 25.0 78.6 Change Period, ( Y+R c), 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 5 ), s 26.1 18.1 9.8 35.0 17.5 19.5 Green Extension Time ( g e ), s 0.1 10.9 0.8 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 Phase Call Probability 1.00 1 1.00 1.00 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 Max Out Probability 1.00 1 0.15 0.00 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 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 18 7 4 14 1 6 16 5 2 12 Adjusted Flow Rate ( v), veh/h 476 395 100 154 280 305 158 728 698 177 470 161 Adjusted Saturation Flow Rate (s ), veh/h/In 1757 1809 1610 1757 1809 1610 1810 1900 1803 1810 1809 1610 Queue Service Time (g s ), s 24.1 16.1 8.7 7.8 12.3 33.0 15.5 66.8 68.0 17.5 16.3 12.1 Cycle Queue Clearance Time ( g c ), s 24.1 16.1 8.7 7.8 12.3 33.0 15.5 66.8 68.0 17.5 16.3 12.1 Green Ratio ( g/C ) 0.15 0.27 0.27 0.06 0.18 0.18 0.10 0.40 0.40 0.10 0.39 0.39 Capacity ( c ), veh/h 512 978 435 206 663 295 179 764 725 176 1428 635 Volume -to -Capacity Ratio (X) 0.929 0.404 0.230 0.748 0.422 1.034 0.886 0.952 0.963 1.003 0.329 0.254 Back of Queue ( Q ), ftAn ( 95 th percentile) 455.5 295.8 161 167.41241A 650.6 339.3 1142.3 1121.5 426 1294.4 215 Back of Queue ( Q ), veh/In ( 95 th percentile) 18.2 11.8 6.4 6.7 9.7 26.0 13.6 45.7 44.9 17.0 11.8 8.6 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 r ), s/veh 76.0 53.8 51.1 83.4 65.1 73.5 80.1 52.1 52.5 81.2 37.9 36.6 Incremental Delay ( d z ), s/veh 23.6 0.6 0.6 7.5 0.9 61.4 30.9 22.7 25.4 68.7 0.6 1.0 Initial Queue Delay ( d 3 ), 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 99.6 54.4 51.7 90.9 66.0 1134.9 111.1 74.9 77.9 150.0 38.5 37.6 Level of Service (LOS) F D D F E I F F E E F D D Approach Delay, s/veh / LOS 76.3 E 99.6 F 79.8 E 62.7-T E Intersection Delay, s/veh / LOS 79.2 E Multimodal Results EB WB NB SB Pedestrian LOS Score / LOS 2.31 B 2.47 B 2.59 C 2.59 C Bicycle LOS Score / LOS 1.29 A 1.10 A 1.79 B 1.15 A Copyright © 2021 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved. HCSTM Streets Version 7.9.5 Generated: 11/15/2021 11:04:08 AM HCS7 Two -Way Stop -Control Report General Information Site Information Analyst TPDfJd 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 J d 1 I. LU 1 � 4 n'iITtY1 Yr 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 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) I 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, Q95 (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. HCSTW TWSC Version 7.9.5 Generated: 11/15/2021 9:59:14 AM 3A Lake Mary Blvd & Site DW # 1 AM Peak.xtw Copyright © 2021 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCSTW TWSC Version 7.9.5 Generated: 11/15/2021 10:16:10 AM 3B Lake Mary Blvd & Site DW # 1 PM Peak.xtw General Information Site Information Analyst TPDfjd 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 -4 4 •-- All'TtYT 1*r 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 Turn 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.S 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) 126 140 138 Capacity, c (veh/h) 122 374 426 v/c Ratio 1.03 0.37 0.32 95% Queue Length, Qgs (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. HCSTW 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 General Information Intersection Information Agency Seminole County Duration, h 0.250 Analyst TPD/jd Analysis Date Nov 11, 2021 Area Type Other d 1.4-1 r ti Y Jurisdiction Seminole County Urban Street East Lake Mary Blvd Intersection JEast Lake Mary Blvd &... Project Description Projected AM Peak Hour Demand Demand Information Time Period Analysis Year File Name EB ,I� AM Peak Hour PHF 0.98 2023 Analysis Period �1> 7:00 3C Signal Lake Mary Blvd Projected AM Peak.xus - -- ---- -- - , WB NB � 7 - Approach Movement Demand ( v), veh/h x Signal Information Cycle, s 120.0 Reference Phase 2 Offset, s 0 Reference Point End Uncoordinated No Simult. Gap E/W On Force Mode Fixed Simult. Gap N/S On L T Green 116.7 Yellow 4.8 Red 12.7 R jl L I !,; 172 63.9 17.0 5.2 5.1 2.4 12.2 T R J L 118 !; 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 10.0 Ion 0.0 _ T R 712 110 L 207 2 6 -SB- T 1, 1257 R 4 s Timer Results EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT Assigned Phase 4 6 5 2 Case Number 9.0 7.3 2.0 4.0 Phase Duration, s 24.3 71.5 24.2 95.7 Change Period, ( Y+R c), s 7.3 7.6 7.5 7.6 Max Allow Headway ( MAH), s 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 1 0.0 1.0 0.0 Phase Call Probability 1.00 1.00 Max Out Probability 0.00 0.00 vementGroup Results r EB WB NB SBproach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R Assigned Movement 7 14 6 16 5 2 j Adjusted Flow Rate ( v), veh/h 176 120 727 112 211 1283 Adjusted Saturation Flow Rate ( s ), veh/h/In ; 1810 4 1.610 1809 1610 1810 1809 y Queue Service Time (g s ), s 11.1 8.3 14.1 4.2 13.7 17.5 Cycle Queue Clearance Time ( g c ), s 11.1 8.3 14.1 4.2 13.7 17.5 Green Ratio ( g/C ) 0.14 0.14 0.53 0.53 0.14 1 0.73 Capacity ( c ), veh/h 256 228 1927 858 252 2656 Volume -to -Capacity Ratio (X) 1 0.6851 0.528 0.377 10.131 0.840 0.483 Back of Queue ( Q ), ft/In ( 95 th percentile) 228.2 158 237 68.5 274.3 234.51 1 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 1 ), s/veh 49.0 1 47.8 6.6 Incremental Delay ( d 2 ), s/veh 6.7 4.0 10.1 0.6 Initial Queue Delay ( d 3 ), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay ( d), s/veh 55.7 51.8 A16.414.150.4 60.5 7.2Level of Service (LOS) E D E AApproach tB Delay, s/veh / LOS 0.0 54.1 D 16.614.7 Intersection Delay, s/veh / LOS 19.8 B Multimodal Results EB WB NBSB Pedestrian LOS Score / LOS 2.32 B 2.33 B 1.90 B#1.72 A Bicycle LOS Score / LOS F 1.18 A 1 B Copyright © 2021 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved. HCS11 Streets Version 7.9.5 Generated: 11/15/2021 11:38:59 AM HCS7 Signalized Intersection Results Summary General Information Intersection Information Agency Seminole County Duration, h 10.250 Analyst TPD/jd Analysis Date Nov 11, 2021 Area Type _Other Jurisdiction Seminole County Time Period PM Peak Hour PHF 10.98 Urban Street East Lake Mary Blvd Analysis Year 2021 Analysis Period 11> 7:00 Intersection East Lake Mary Blvd &... File Name 3D Signal Lake Mary Blvd Projected PM Peak.xus Project Description Projected PM Peak Hour IF Demand Information EB WB NB .1 d 4- t - J L SB Approach Movement L T R L T R ;' L T R L T R Demand ( v), veh/h Signal Information Cycle, s 120.0 Reference Phase 2 Offset, s 0 Reference Point End Uncoordinated No Simult. Gap E/W On Force Mode Fixed Simult. Gap N/S On a. Green 5.9 Yellow 4.8 Red 2.7 �! 123 74.7 17.0 5.2 5.1 2.4 2.2 137 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1415 _124 135 1 2 �, 5 6 727 3 I 4 8 Timer Results EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT Assigned Phase 4 6 5 2 Case Number 9.0 7.3 �1 1.0 4.0 Phase Duration, s 24.3 82.3 13.4 95.7 Change Period, ( Y+R c), s 7.3 7.6 7.5 7.6 Max Allow Headway ( MAH), s 6.1 0.0 5.0 0.0 Queue Clearance Time ( g s ), s 11.8 5.1 Green Extension Time ( g e ), s 1.9 0.0 0.7 0.0 Phase Call Probability 1.00 1 0.99 Max Out Probability 0.01 0.00 Movement Group Results EB WB NB SB Approach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R Assigned Movement 7 14 6 16 5 2 Adjusted Flow Rate ( v), veh/h 126 140 1444 127 138 742 Adjusted Saturation Flow Rate ( s), veh/h/In 1810 1610 1809 1610 1810 1809 Queue Service Time ( g s ), s 1 7.7 9.8 30.1 1 3.9 3.1 1 8.2 Cycle Queue Clearance Time ( g c ), s 7.7 9.8 30.1 3.9 3.1 8.2 Green Ratio (g/C) 0.14 0.14 0.62 0.62 0.69 0.73 Capacity ( c ), veh/h 256 228 2251 1002 289 2656 Volume -to -Capacity Ratio (X) 0.490 0.613 0.641 0.126 0.477 0.279 Back of Queue ( Q ), Win ( 95 th percentile) 161.9 188.4 420.1 58.9 59 115.2 Back of Queue ( Q ), veh/In ( 95 th percentile) 6.5 7.5 16.8 2.4 2.4 4.6 Queue Storage Ratio ( RQ) ( 95 th percentile) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay ( d i ), s/veh 47.5 48.4 14.3 9.3 13.1 5.3 Incremental Delay ( d 2 ), s/veh 1 3.1 5.6 1.4 0.3 1.7 0.3 Initial Queue Delay ( d 3 ), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay ( d), s/veh 50.6 54.0 15.7 9.6 14.8 5.6 Level of Service (LOS) D D B A B A Approach Delay, s/veh / LOS 0.0 52.4 D 15.2 B 7.0 A Intersection Delay, s/veh / LOS 16.2 B Multimodal Results EB WB NB SB Pedestrian LOS Score / LOS 2.32 B 2.33 1 B 1.88 B 0.66 A Bicycle LOS Score / LOS 1 F 1.78 B 1.21 A Copyright © 2021 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved. HCS11' Streets Version 7.9.5 Generated: 11/15/2021 11:15:31 AM HCS7 Two -Way Stop -Control Report General Information Site Information Analyst TPDfJd 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 � L -4 � 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 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, Q95 (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. HCSTZI TWSC Version 7.9.5 Generated: 11/15/2021 10:08:20 AM 4A Lake Mary Blvd & Site DW # 2 AM Peak.xtw HCS7 Two-Way General Information Sto -Control Report Site Information Analyst TPDfid 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 -4 4 �- -� >7 Major Street North-South Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L I T R U L I 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 Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h) 69 Capacity, c (veh/h) 339 v/c Ratio 0.20 95% Queue Length, Q9s (veh) 0.8 Control Delay (s/veh) .3 Level of Service (LOS) E:iic 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 HCS7 General Information Two -Way Stop -Control Report Site Information Analyst TPDJd 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 J -1 1 Jw 44. 1- U 4 rt 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) 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, Q95 (veh) 0.1 0.0 0.0 Control Delay (s/veh) 20.9 11.2 9.S 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. HCSTW TWSC Version 7.9.5 Generated: 11/1 S/2021 10:04:14 AM 5A Lake Mary Blvd & Site DW # 3 AM Peak.xtw HCS7 Two. General Information -Way Stop -Control Report Site Information Analyst TPD[Jd 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 Jd 1 ,.+ 'k U � t 4 -y r- 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) 28 26 1514 23 0 30 820 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) 29 27 31 Capacity, c (veh/h) 129 340 426 v/c 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. HCSTW TWSC Version 7.9.5 Generated: 11/15/2021 10:06:01 AM 5B Lake Mary Blvd & Site DW # 3 PM Peak.xtw HCS7 Two -.4010111. General Information -Way Stop -Control Report Site Information 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 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 � a 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 (%) 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) 4 Capacity, c (veh/h) 584 v/c Ratio 0.01 95% Queue Length, %5 (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. HCSTW TWSC Version 7.9.5 Generated: 11/15/2021 10:11:19 AM 6A Lake Mary Blvd & Site DW # 4 AM Peak.xtw HCS7 Two General Information -Way Stop -Control Report Site Information 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 J 4 1 U 1 � -4 .� A'1*TtY1 l P 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 (%) 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) 29 Capacity, c (veh/h) 341 v/c Ratio 0.08 95% Queue Length, Q95 (veh) 0.3 Control Delay (s/veh) 16.5 =F Level of Service (LOS) C Approach Delay (s/veh) 16.5 Approach LOS C Copyright © 2021 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCStTi,`fl TWSC Version 7.9.5 Generated: 11/15/2021 10:12:30 AM 6B Lake Mary Blvd & Site DW # 4 PM Peak.xtw p Mz rn ^�5�� r n 5 G^ X aV�p Z ' „avm'y m i WinWin8ga�r4 7.1 O" N $ N m N c r D � o = N N O lu 17, W O O p ^LR - H's97 9 e $$ § e D D R. R 5 FLE A �4] •:5 �# h 4^ ' ya O O XR Fe m CD °€Y5 O �. all n i % krT sa f, 13 e9 a^ gsxj;eppi- R - m O P Rc e i X :$i= v• R C.FAgE EEL �, ..a q O €yyp� gga ec5118 ya5 � � O Lor T'f R raA�SsaA '!i ^may Lo O C p c ¢$ .�• f. F9'ri q±: 3 89 S aS V O x p m m (./� _^ 3R�Q ^�...'. '£^¢.. �A^Acgg�33R3E 4" q SY. b4' QF AA6E $R4. Q A: g F O O ELLS p¢4e°�AS �.^ RIIIIiva� ^ga- ^ X aR^F ^.Q...[„RF>. O L �'�F6'=$j:y�A $ o•h%'4$[ '� ^S s-;°:? ^R 'a ' o � T aa= <�Ra' ^sa IIr R °i eg z�� F a c�3g6s s z6s ^F'R 3 a D _n aR ,=n atlnRkRR2�:^.' a€ $SaHSaR Res €ate g.A� A�Y '�.E$Xa ..•¢s a -�R kE ___'.. e C CD fE� =BgoF�c2b6g x63 RJEazg $ z 25@�y'-`L?gi�R:^oas a yn o •8> ��%: s"x g L :H5z :pA R�_z 2 Rq"s ^�_$ ref;eRa R $ O O /TMJ so H�RRz•RaR='_ �Q=% •R?�:je�g%% R ^�==ase"ez x �,ca q W T1 m / Ln � Ln !!'l I--inA Hr a ; ORO O—�- 2- R$FRi BII32$ s '¢ 43ErF.RE QaY _ 'e3sH�-E [�4� i D ezg �y:9¢9' a RbsE g=SR�A� $tlRFR€igx = 71A��. HR�y A C:) O g� a y IIx'%s QBA n $ o ^ DN "��Ex � �Y S�•?:AEFSp�6� !^ � �%x�;��9 = `�'':S"5'A: � W ��....11 p r<5 �¢¢jj }qBY.,- �iF> e;s6s '"Rs�• p :sSr. 3 �i�6_� • 9(„ . �$2+^XR ;RQ^ _ -=x Y� FSS r C:)B i F-� O �FzR,hs.e>^^e's'^i°�,� e?e 0 s% •iiQ qQ'6- $ ^ 6'¢•,6;=- ;^AazR€$s6E@ $R Hqi— R, Ca € 6 a,Ri }a '¢ sad 3 zz 9 zs6 R a5 zRHE R^R ..¢ BA A 11 ,i:o�x;s-q�:5R6cia R'! a�a_-F"� %€ : 9=FRa iRF%-z 3 °'A O a ;qx^z A€9z5 '; aRe" XB nki; s-sA. 'a :sR%Rex >. Qa aRY c a % O r A•s6as"^'a Eie; x{,cS 6855;.^ R$ •Rs.e.y ':S[g. ¢"�iE?'g" - A5s"2_ge6Se �gkSAzX?c^�6s S"s",'tm'cEs 93l�zs5+4[E�-azeR�RR'�^15'�.'/3zz'�"Ea%C :aY-d.s' ON �-SAi"-R" x: E A�i�X;:sS a^• �€ E-a'aszs^�"E�s'^F"^°° eE �' ui 9 �8¢. �R R e„:�; RAS 6�f"- "�?_= a^•^es } gig; g�. sz19s '°€zH i 5 6'- =° %a'3- % '" o i$' 4^5 -= ”! ?}i€A s= "R¢L@ a ail o ss &SEs%'^y-RC is e56 _ R ;F =a!s� ;= r• i"^^QQAa z i ax O o Es§'Re6-e'a 5'a R%°aF: 'ae:p=a >c q6 Ssq? R%R:,szaj 5. s O iC z -mac z. R "Rae_R o' L - ga-b^-3R S= sEz'6•-cr'g, 6¢•"^ 3^"_z ,.. A co O ga= "°"e =s3zE€-S a ,a-36 r"$^°Ra-"Er6^"a AR g q s iRR- CX¢-C� g�� ie c •X ¢g�%%86azR^xeE$, 264�:6sXsR "sMr:xsgS"seSF_q� a �QES6asoe a^,,!'s€65%S$63`sa=E R- a:s36y1aF:R'3i°es: o 'A"^z^> �A=i£..a"Q'9x.F8ECRc i?essi4""§b`'ak.Yae;eR :s Q ?Rx _Q..gi _ $ e q{€ -E' a 'sr •@ =.¢zia"<�3:-yF i o g a g f a Pn = o m � o QUEENS CROSSING SR 46 AND EAST LAKE MARY BLVD. SANFORD, FLORIDA REVISION DATE REVISION DATE v aZ DEVELOPMENT CA 29354 708 E. COLONIAL DR., STE 100 PH: (407) 271-8910 ORLANDO, FL 32803 FAX: (407) 442-0604 j T m 3 f " A a v708 QUEENS CROSSING SR 46 AND EAST LAKE MARY BLVD. SANFORD, FLORIDA REVISION DATE REVISION DATE DEVELOPMENT e CA 29354 E. COLONIAL OIL, STE 100 PH: (407) 271-8910 ORLANDO, FL 32903 FAX: (407) 442-0604 D o -n 3 0 v ,) for� v N 40 d Sf izFy i c o r�o ( ' m s t 1! yvT A apt F•f d/�.iis F �tE� i s �' O 3�f�.1 ggy pg L z ( 6d� �{ � �� # (r(#; s' f 9q ��'�( j��!'� e�s �rt EE im � fE fi•f 1�(f rrll �{ F�•r Yg �ii! I��rli#ye !si(f @( r if N 3 f " A a v708 QUEENS CROSSING SR 46 AND EAST LAKE MARY BLVD. SANFORD, FLORIDA REVISION DATE REVISION DATE DEVELOPMENT e CA 29354 E. COLONIAL OIL, STE 100 PH: (407) 271-8910 ORLANDO, FL 32903 FAX: (407) 442-0604 I p 9H XRAY HEA$R�An15g��g� m `I84G;gs Zo 1a R 33 € 3 �I 1a g law$ �7 a fi e m E " A 5 m a R I_ aaaa aaaag � 3 I I gg '" $'$S$a 8 Ag £E kI,m g y PH trn- ml I� I A � � grigg ; s s g�° kkxa i I m fi �� aaallR � 3 IC s � vy �� s� �, N •. 1� ---7 kkkx� i - 9117 (WOU 31VIS rp9 m y REVISION DATE REVISION DATE ^ f m QUEENS CROSSING iZ DEVELOPMENT o� ° o SR 46 AND EAST LAKE MARY BLVD. Z� SANFORD, FLORIDA CA 29354 <Kasto.Ka tciesa, os 708 E. COLONIAL DR., STE 100 PH: (407) 271-8910 n ac ..sms ORLANDO, FL 32803 FAX (407) 442.0604 Ct I 'ld NOANV:) - 3NIl ND1tlW --- --- -891 m I I I I A I ------------------------------------ � m I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I o i p$ % TO oo Cu�i PA H --I � m pmmima-EP ircn H o $z z u § 'o o � m c G3 � o o ; m ; -891 m I I I I A I ------------------------------------ � m I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 8 ^ c y a� a oai --. o � v s o - ~ Z QUEENS CROSSING SR 46 AND EAST LAKE MARY BLVD. SANFORD, FLORIDA oasrwm rxovsat rt 0. K4 r rlMS REVISION DATE REVISION DATE � 1 — I 8 ^ c y a� a oai --. o � v s o - ~ Z QUEENS CROSSING SR 46 AND EAST LAKE MARY BLVD. SANFORD, FLORIDA oasrwm rxovsat rt 0. K4 r rlMS REVISION DATE REVISION DATE DEVELOPMENT aZ r I < CA 29354 708 F. COLONIAL DR, STE 100 PH: (4 07) 271-8910 ORLANDO, FL 32803 FAX (407)442-0604 S380V =EE It AIivivA-i in I quni :i I I� - - 74n HHJltlrl -- -- - AS LEE Sit' 3HO1S AHa`1( i c -.tAl2�°'�3LlL36T O QUEENS CROSSING SR 46 AND EAST LAKE MARY BLVD. SANFORD, FLORIDA , yAy O -+O cE i a Aa r C ao c y - 'A m OyN� - Ex _ n 62o z i _ `- = g- oo .8= 1 o i Ln amg C mmo� ? o o o $0 7c - o p �po Sm� �pOmO O OQ4N o oo _ o$ D z _ D A A i r o n r C G O m ro O o o = O QUEENS CROSSING SR 46 AND EAST LAKE MARY BLVD. SANFORD, FLORIDA i yAy O -+O cE i a Aa Ln C ao c y ~ 'A m OyN� - Ex 62o z i _ D V - s N m R,_ 41 o oo _ o$ D z _ o C) o r m ro o i = 0 i 2m�3 Qi:i v"s v - N Z' v QUEENS CROSSING SR 46 AND EAST LAKE MARY BLVD. SANFORD, FLORIDA REVISION DATE REVISION DATE DEVELOPMENT iZ er v Ie cnze3sa 708 E. COLONIAL DR., STE 100 PH: (407) 271-8910 ORLANDO, FL 32803 FA%: 1407) 4411104 VO:O-E" (LOP) XVJ EOSZE 1i OCINV180 01 8-TLZ (LOP) :Hd 001 hS 'K IVINDIOD 3 SOL VD 1N3Wd'6i3A3d Z V(11'dO]J'Cl'dOJNVS anl45£62 0 )kdVN DIVI 1SV3 (INV 9t7 2Is DNISSO'dD SMinb � b U> 1, -18 SO - � I T B 1. 31VO NOISIAR UVO NOISIARI �J P -TYE CD 00Y C? 1 6 CD u o "Ha! CD -.I . txp 1.2 Nil C� CD 'wa C) CD U O -y C, i gT.-ann;o5.- i A C) 2 E CD C) - < X Z LA Z 0 LL - C? N's P < C3 W. Z - T O < m (/1 6 g am Lu q 0 CD < > C:) -Y5 -. C? Wffio < �g ...... WU CY)5 g M-Hy-."ttt a CD 9 z CD LU LU 0 M C) LU C� E2 C) C) v CY C-) s d P - CD a z V) m i E C) F ai 5 8 T - NW�,L„ffig z3- 2MO 22 U Y t 5 v U x T g R -E. CT C) v "$S” N LU O C? C) CD CD N V1 CD w VI l7 V) u CI! V) z o z 0 < 0 u a'i A L/I of godd k dce A M C5 CT! 6090-Zbb (COb)Xtld E09ZE l3 'OONtl1L0 3a'xosaxoxi u3xdaivuw '� 0169-ILZ QOW :Hd 001 31S `9O IVIN0I03'3 SOL ¢ m VS£6Z tlD `valao�daiiOdNdS V s 'DAIS AdVK DIVI 1SV3 aNd 9b,IS o x 1N3Wda6-6'Ad ZI-DNISSO'dD SN33fla a n d a s 31tl0 NOISIAU 31VO NOISIAN F =Es. z G l/1 J_ 0 U Z Z Z 3e8R s ' b d"a}s 3 .�5! 9d 5 d5�3 EFF $ lull" s56� Itt',a lig PE ' $� l Him H�sl31Fi 8 �L O `gE51 �l� �i2�i .. ..� � I' tsf. b a Cl) "•:k E 0 Co T — • IFIL "I a N LL m .., fC,�, + Z ° 1 Q x V z LL �i t1�1 4090-ut(LOW xvi EOBi£li'OONV= OT6H-TLZ (100:Hd 001 315"NO IVINOlOD 3 BOL bs£6zv:) 1N3WdOl3A34 Z�- na xesauoui e3xeoi3seie�o V(IN013'G210JNVS •4A19 MJVW DIVI lSV3 (INV 9t7 21S JNISSMID SN33nb Z m c �a=o fro o ° 31VO NOISIA3N RVO NOISIA3N MATCH LINE sevse•x•w xos T£eeezx ww msvx 8 Tffff big rI u a PEE I' : =I § ul I ~I o- I I 1_ I 1— Il I I � I f EI = __-__-__-__ xb On1115•y - - - �1A ----- ------------------- I� - I �e� wF'�r�t -------- ------------ --------__------ CANYON PT. -----------------------------------T-----Ij---- L� I I III' F I I jj, I El �m�a j I •� z w OR ug Ori ri ri ri ri ri r L z g N ° y M o w m m gg o W a ad z Q _ z a aws�N LLN=oy a o0 z a ° z �E w °°� m3oo� ❑ F �`, wo g $ yz w w w z wry � 55 = [� Fz °�d 6° z p OA F 4080-'" (L04) XVJ £OOZE ll'OON"O 0168-TLZ CLOY) :Hd OOT 315 "OO IVIN0lOJ 3 80L 45E6Z V� 1N3Wd A jA/ d Z�. w CANYON PT. L) as xasaxoxi mxaoisi daibol� aaoJNds 'anl8 )\dVN 3)]Vl 1SV3 aNV 9b bS 9NISS021� SN33flb Z C �� m 1 ,Q c < o = a $ STATE ROAD 46 0- a�E 5 83 �` -i 31V0 NOISIAM 31YO NOISIA3a Y g w CANYON PT. L) t D.g $ STATE ROAD 46 0- a�E 5 83 �` -i - I o a 3 mu, m�u, J�i y II 1 � 3 I nl J o 5� ❑Wr�_WI€ H. �§ s i„ L ®gL p J U gg ii 'S =1128 d H. I,WE81O9 N _g i3 i e� m <o -- w CANYON PT. L) D.g a i I s II I I' - I nl l►' I, y II 1 � 3 I nl M�11 I.I. kVVIII L ®gL p 4090-Zqb (Lob)%tli EOBZE Ii'OONVINO 3e xuseuouy y3xaoyx� OT69-TLZ(LO4):Hd OOT 315,Na IVIN0I03380L Z bseazvD V(1I21O13 '42iO3NVS �g_o anl8 AJVW DVI 1S`d3 (INV 9t721S m p== 1N3Wd013n3a ZQa JNISSObJ SN33fla �f o :31VG NOISI.H 31. NOISIA311 € pttt ttt =gym= w a = o m m w NF- J o o rn °w m a t rc -_-__-____- _____- ----_-'__- Z 0 Lou $ o z a LL =u �E z3 t g x o 0 e � -S2m w _ s wENgm o F . L_ J m o gm I, I1 i}t o z a =otttt tttt orc9RNN N.-•-•- —'1t ' � LL m m I I I I I I w20 a `x � 't� IIIA II I U * u z - I LL z s ws II__ __ll 6 w FE _ Z No z o- O oo - Z a $ $ '� w ti w w . _. -- FUTURE MULTI-FAMILY rc ^ u o m LL __._...-._ _ 11.33+- ACRES m w = - o 0 z z ao m �N _ _ _ _— gz mz �, y0 9 ?8 0 oallo4 ggow LL" K W w - Fz oa �.. - m yLLmy r CD I U U fn a '11511 po a� s 3 m CD rc a = N _ GROCERY -1 '- STOR I f G.790 SF Z It 48,38713F -t t OND O\T1 2 6 AC i. O /lr'] \ I' ill 7t. II {f I f-- — -- --- I I zi sl I i m 5. �` `~ ✓✓�/// �� ^ �� ISI \ /\ \�\\�/ I\ �♦ \ �, I a s (N \ �w=d.2 , , 1 Lu o_jI � v �� `♦ vv v I j� `I Q _� 1�3s fy� �� 6- ♦♦_ I� Lu IJA?CH 1111E _ JORDAN I 14-1 ni