Loading...
Agenda 09/29/2009 Item # 8A Agenda Item No. 8A September 29, 2009 Page 1 of 265 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PUDZ-2007-AR-ll100, Highland Properties of Lee and Collier, Ltd., represented by D. Wayne Arnold, AICP of Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A., and Richard Yovanovich of Goodlette, Coleman and Johnson, P.A., is requesting a rezone from the Rural Agricultural (A) zoning district with a Special Treatment (ST) overlay to the Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD) Zoning District for a project to be known as the Taormina Reserve MPUD, to allow construction of a maximum of 528 residential dwelling units and up to 262,000 square feet of commercial uses on approximately 82.51 acres. The subject property is located in the southeasteru quadrant of the Santa Barbara Boulevard and Davis Boulevard (SR 84) intersection, in Section 9, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. - OBJECTIVE: To have the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) consider a rezone of the subject properties from the Rural Agricultural (A) zoning district with a Special Treatment (ST) overlay to the Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD) zoning district for a project to be known as Taormina Reserve MPUD, which would allow the construction of a maximum of 528 residential dwelling units, including senior group housing, and up to 262,000 square feet of commercial uses; and to insure that the community's interests are maintained. CONSIDERA TIONS: The subject mixed-use project, if approved, would allow approximately 32 acres of the site to be developed with duplexes, multifamily dwellings, townhouse dwellings, and group housing (both assisted living facilities [ALFs] and continuing care retirement communities [CCRCs]) for seniors aged 55 years and older. Of this acreage, 24 acres, which is labeled "Rl" on the Master Plan, would allow single-family detached and two-family dwellings; and the remaining approximately 8 acres, labeled as "R2," would allow model home sale centers and recreational facilities, such as a clubhouse, parks and playgrounds. The total number of dwelling units permitted on the RI and R2 tracts would be 400 units, with the remaining 128 dwelling units permitted in the MU tracts. Overall density on the site, therefore, would be 6.39 units per acre. (However, for each acre developed with group housing, the number of conventional dwelling units will be reduced by seven dwelling units per acre, at aFAR of 0.45.) Accessory uses customarily associated with these residential uses, including swimming pools, tennis courts, barbecue areas, garages and carports would also be permitted. According to Land Development Code (LDC) Section 1.08.02, Definitions, the residential uses proposed for the MPUD are described follows: Single-family (detached) dwelling - a building that contains only one dwelling. Multifamily dwelling - a group of three or more dwellings within a single building. Townhouse - a group of three or more dwellings attached to each other by a common wall or roof where each unit has direct exterior access and none is located above another. PUDZ-2008-AR-14141 September 8, 2009 Agenda Item No. 8A September 29. 2009 Page 2 of 265 Two-family dwelling - a single, freestanding building comprised of two dwellings attached by a common wall or roof, but where each unit is on a separate lot under separate ownership. Duplex - a freestanding building containing two dwellings (but lot is under the same ownership ). Group Housing - a structure designed to meet the special needs of a certain segment of the population, such as the elderly or the developmentally disabled. (ALFs and CCRCs would be considered group housing.) In addition to these residential uses, approximately 17 acres (or 21 percent of the site), which has been labeled "MU" would permit up to 262,000 square feet of commercial uses generally found in the Commercial Professional and General Office District (C-l) through the Heavy Commercial District (C-5), including medical offices, retail sales, banks, hotels, and other services that could be mixed with multifamily uses. Accessory uses customarily associated with these commercial and - office uses, such as parking garages, would also be permitted. As depicted on the Master Plan entitled, "Exhibit C Master Plan," prepared by Q. Grady Minor and Associates and dated December 2005, as revised through June 2009, access to the MPUD would be possible from Davis Boulevard in the north and the Santa Barbara Boulevard Extension to the west, with a potential interconnection to Sunset Boulevard to the south (if the necessary access rights can be obtained). The development's residential tracts would occupy the southern portion of the site; and the mixed-use (multifamily residential/commercial) tracts would occupy the northern half, in the area located at the intersection of Davis Boulevard and the Santa Barbara Boulevard Extension. Multiple building envelopes are depicted in this MU portion, and the buildings proposed for these tracts would be permitted maximum heights that varied depending upon the uses they contained. For example, entirely multifamily residential structures would be allowed a zoned height of 45 feet; and any commercial buildings, including those that contained a mix of both multifamily residential and commercial uses, would be permitted a maximum height of 50 feet (actual heights for each of these buildings, including appurtenances, would be 55 feet and 60 feet, respectively). Within the residential tracts in the southern portion of the site, a single building envelop is shown in Tract R2, adjacent to the Santa Barbara Boulevard Extension right-of-way. Extending eastward from this tract along a spine road are the Rl tracts. Occupying the southernmost portion of the site would be 28.88 acres of preserve land and a 3.47-acre lake. Usable open space on the site would equal 36 percent of the site's total acreage. FISCAL IMPACT: The rezoning action, in and of itself, would have no fiscal impact on Collier County. There is no guarantee that the project, at build out, would maximize its authorized level of development, however, if the use were approved, a portion of the existing land would be developed and the new development would result in an impact on Collier County public facilities. The County collects impact fees prior to the issuance of building permits to help offset the impacts of each new development on public facilities. These impact fees are used to fund projects identitled in the Capital Improvement Element of the Growth Management Plan as needed to maintain adopted Level of Service (LOS) for public facilities. Additionally, in order to meet the PUDZ-2008-AR-14141 September 8, 2009 Agenda Item No. 8A September 29, 2009 Page 3 of 265 requirements of concurrency management, the developer of every local development order approved by Collier County is required to pay a portion of the estimated Transportation Impact Fees associated with the project in accordance with Chapter 74 of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances. Other fees collected prior to issuance of a building permit include building permit review fees. Finally, additional revenue is generated by application of ad valorem tax rates, and that revenue is directly related to the value of the improvements. Please note that impact fees and taxes collected were not included in the criteria used by staff and the Planning Commission to analyze this petition. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) IMPACT: Future Land Use Element (FLUE): The southern portion of the property is designated on the Future Land Use Map as Urban, Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict, and is within the Residential Density Band of Activity Center #6; and the northern portion of the site is in the Urban Commercial District, Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict (Activity Center #6). The Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict reads, in part: "Mixed Use Activity Centers are intended to be mixed use in character. The actual mix of the various land uses - which may include the full array of commercial uses, residential uses, institutional uses, hotel/motel uses at a density consistent with the Land Development Code- shall be deternlined during the rezoning process. Mixed use developments - whether consisting of residential units located above commercial uses in an attached building, or in a freestanding building-are allowed. Such mixed-use projects are intended to be developed at a human scale, pedestrian-oriented, and interconnected with adjacent projects-whether commercial or residential. Street, pedestrian pathway and bike lane interconnections with adjacent properties, where possible and practicable, are encouraged. Density is calculated based upon the gross project acreage within the Activity Center. If such a project is located within the boundaries of a Mixed Use Activity Center which is not within the Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict and is not within the Coastal High Hazard Area, the eligible density is sixteen dwelling units per acre. If such a project is located within the boundaries of a Mixed Use Activity Center that is not within the Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict but is within the Coastal High Hazard Area, the eligible density shall be limited to four dwelling units per acre. If such a project is located within the boundaries of a Mixed Use Activity Center which is within the Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict, eligible density shall be as allowed by that Subdistrict." Therefore, the project's density would be calculated as follows: Residential area: 65::J: acres Base Density: 4 du/acre plus 3 du/acre density band x 65::J: acres = 455 units eligible Activity Center area: 17::J: acres 16 du/acre x 2O::i:: acres = 272 units eligible Thus, the total allowable units on 86.95::J: acres = 727 maximum eligible units (455+272). However, in order to qualify for the calculation of Activity Center acreage for residential density, PUDZ-2008-AR-14141 September 8, 2009 Agenda Item No. 8A September 29, 2009 Page 4 of 265 there must be mixed-use development within the Activity Center. Although the MPUD allows residential uses in the Activity Center (Mixed Use District), it does not require it; therefore it is possible that the Mixed Use District portion could develop with 100 percent commercial uses. If that were to occur, then the Activity Center acreage could not be used for density calculation. To address this issue, the MPUD commits to a maximum of only 400 residential dwelling units within the Rl and R2 tracts; and a maximum of 128 units in the MU tracts, if multifamily uses develop there. This density is lower than that permitted by the density rating system, ensures that no density generated from the Activity Center portion of the site could be transferred outside of the Activity Center. (Please note that the complete GMP analysis is contained in the staff report.) Transportation Element: Transportation Planning staffhas reviewed the petitioner's Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) and has determined that the adj acent roadway network would have sufficient capacity to accommodate this project within the five-year planning period upon fulfillment of the developer commitments. Therefore, the subj ect application can be deemed consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the GMP. Based on the above analysis, staff concludes that the proposed uses and density may be deemed consistent with the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the GMP. The project has been found consistent with Policies 7.1 through 7.7 under Objective 7 of the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) regarding the "Smart Growth" provisions into the FLUE. AFFORDABLE HOUSING IMPACT: The applicant has not made any provision for the affordable or workforce housing needs that approval of this application might generate. ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES: The applicant was required to submit an Environment Impact Statement (EIS) for the project because the property is over ten acres in size and is partially located within a ST area. Environmental staff reviewed the project and determined that all environmental issues have been addressed. However, as a condition of approval, has required that the developer, at the time of the next development order, provide a hydroperiod analysis for the site, or apply whatever current LDC amendment is in effect regarding the impact of storm water discharge into upland preserves. In addition, staff has required a preserve management plan as part ofthe next development order in order to annually monitor the preserve and remedy impacts of stormwater on its vegetation. Finally, an updated red-cockaded woodpecker survey (see Exhibit G of the MPUD documents), if required by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, has been stipulated as part of the next development order, as well as a Florida black bear and a Big Cypress fox squirrel management plan, in an attempt to protect these endangered or threatened species. All of these conditions of approval have been incorporated into Exhibit H of the MPUD document. ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL (EAC) RECOMMENDATION: PUDZ-2008-AR-14141 September 8, 2009 Agenda Item No. 8A September 29, 2009 Page 5 of 265 Pursuant to LDC Section 8.06.03 0.1 Powers and Duties, the EAC, this proposal was required to be heard before the Environmental Advisory Council on January 7,2009. The EAC recommended approval of the project, subject to the stipulations contained above. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION (CCPC) RECOMMENDATION: This item was heard by the CCPC at their September 3,2009 public hearing. The CCPC voted 8-2 to forward it to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) with a recommendation of approval, subject to the following conditions: 1. No outdoor music or other amplified sounds shall be permitted within 500-feet ofthe southern boundary of the MU tract. 2. Mixed-use buildings in the MU tract depicted on the Master Plan shall only contain the uses from Exhibit A.I1 that would normally be permitted by right or as a conditional use in the C-l through C-3 zoning districts. 3. Any freestanding building of solely multifamily units that is located adjacent to a commercial use normally permitted by the LDC in the C-4 through C-5 zoning districts shall provide a minimum IS-foot Type B buffer and the LDC-required fence or wall. 4. No home improvement superstore, warehouse superstore or discount retail superstore shall be allowed on any parcel occupied by multifamily residential uses. Should any such superstore develop, no multifamily residential uses shall be developed above it. Additionally, no residential uses shall be permitted adjacent to it unless it is buffered by a Type B buffer and a wall as described above. 5. An updated red-cockaded woodpecker survey shall be submitted at the first development order if required by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWCC) or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 6. Florida black bear and Big Cypress fox squirrel management plans shall be provided as part of the next development order. 7. At the time of the next development order, a hydroperiod analysis (or whatever LDC requirement that may be in effect for the evaluation of storm water discharge into upland preserves) shall be provided for the project site. 8. A preserve management plan shall be required as part of the next development order and shall include provisions for annual monitoring to determine the potential impacts of storm water on the preserve area's vegetation. Preserve vegetation adversely impacted by stormwater shall be replaced by the property owner with other vegetation that is suitable for the conditions. The CCPC also recommended that the BCC approve the applicant's request for the maximum cul-de-sac length deviation, as outlined in the staff report. The two dissenting commissioners, Ms. Caron and Mr. Strain, recommended denial of the petition, PUDZ-2008-AR-14141 September 8, 2009 Agenda Item No. 8A September 29, 2009 Page 6 of 265 citing specifically the project's failure to comply with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the GMP, which states that petitions should not be approved ''that would directly access a deficient roadway segment [David Boulevard]. ..unless specific mitigating stipulations are also approved." Staff has received no letters of objection from the community. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This is a site specific rezone from the Rural Agriculture (A) zoning district with a Special Treatment (ST) overlay to the Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD) zoning district. Site specific rezones are quasi-judicial in nature and require ex parte disclosures. As such the burden falls upon the applicant to prove that the proposed rezone is consistent with all the criteria set forth below. The burden then shifts to the BCC, should it consider denying the rezone, to determine that such denial would not be arbitrary, discriminatory or unreasonable. This would be accomplished - by finding that the proposal does not meet one or more of the listed criteria below. Criteria for CPUD Rezones Ask yourself the following questions. The answers assist you in making a determination for approval or not. Consider: The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in relation to physical characteristics of the land, surrounding areas, traffic and access, drainage, sewer, water, and other utilities. Is there an adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of agreements, contract, or other instruments or for amendments in those proposed, particularly as they may relate to arrangements or provisions to be made for the continuing operation and maintenance of such areas and facilities that are not to be provided or maintained at public expense? Findings and recommendations of this type shall be made only after consultation with the County Attorney. Consider: Conformity of the proposed CPUD with the goals, objectives and policies of the Growth Management Plan. Consider: The internal and external compatibility of proposed uses, which conditions may include restrictions on location of improvements, restrictions on design, and buffering and screening requirements. Is there an adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development? Consider: The timing or sequence of development (as proposed) for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and private. Consider: The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expanSIOn. PUDZ-2008-AR-14141 September 8, 2009 Agenda Item No. SA September 29, 2009 Page 7 of 265 Consider: Conformity with CPUD regulations, or as to desirable modifications of such regulations in the particular case, based on determination that such modifications are justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations. Will the proposed change be consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies and future land use map ,md the elements of the Growth Management Plan? Will the proposed CPUD Rezone be appropriate considering the existing land use pattern? Would the requested CPUD Rezone result in the possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts? Consider: Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property proposed for change. - Consider: Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed amendment necessary. Will the proposed change adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood? Will the proposed change create or excessively increase traffic congestion or create types oftraffic deemed incompatible with surrounding land uses, because of peak volumes or projected types of vehicular traffic, including activity during construction phases of the development, or otherwise affect public safety? Will the proposed change create a drainage problem? Will the proposed change seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas? Will the proposed change adversely affect property values in the adjacent area? Will the proposed change be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations? Consider: Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner as contrasted with the public welfare. Are there substantial reasons why the property cannot ("reasonably") be used in accordance with existing zoning? (a "core" question...) Is the change suggested out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the county? Consider: Whether it is impossible to find other adequate sites in the county for the proposed use in districts already permitting such use. Consider: The physical characteristics of the property and the degree of site alteration which would be required to make the property usable for any of the range of potential uses under the PUDZ-2008-AR-14141 September 8, 2009 Agenda Item No. SA September 29,2009 Page 8 of 265 proposed zoning classification. Consider: The impact of development resulting from the proposed CPUD rezone on the availability of adequate public facilities and services consistent with the levels of service adopted in the Collier County Growth Management Plan and as defined and implemented through the Collier County Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance [Code ch.106, article II], as amended. Are there other factors, standards, or criteria relating to the CPUD rezone request that the Board of County Commissioners shall deem important in the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare? The BCC must base its decision upon the competent, substantial evidence presented by the written materials supplied to it, including but not limited to the Staff Report, Executive Summary, maps, studies, letters from interested persons and the oral testimony presented at the BCC hearing as these items relate to these criteria. - This item is legally sufficient for Board action. A supermajority vote of the Board is necessary for Board action. -HF AC RECOMMENDA TION: Staff recommends that the BCC approve PUDZ-2007-AR-IllOO, subject to the conditions of approval recommended by staff and the CCPC, which have been incorporated into the attached CPUD ordinance. Staff also recommends approval of the applicant's requested deviation. PREPARED BY: John-David Moss, AICP, Principal Planner Department of Zoning & Land Development Review PUDZ-2008-AR-14141 September 8, 2009 Page 1 of2 Agenda Item No. SA September 29,2009 Page 9 of 265 COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Item Number: 8A Item Summary: This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members, PUDZ.2007-AR-11100 Highland Properties of Lee and Collier, Ltd., represented by D, Wayne Arnold, AICP of Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A., and Richard Yovanovich of Goodletle, Yovanovich and Koester, P.A., is requesting a rezone from the Rural Agricultural (A) zoning district with a Special Treatment (ST) overlay to the Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD) Zoning District for a project to be known as the Taormina Reserve MPUD, to allow construction of a maximum of 528 residential dwelling units and up to 262,000 square feet of commercial uses on approximately 82,51 acres. The subject property is located in the southeastern quadrant of the Santa Barbara Boulevard Extension and Davis Boulevard (SR 84) intersection, in Section 9, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. CTS - Meeting Date: 9/29/2009 9:00:00 AM Prepared By John-David Moss Senior Planner Date Community Development & Zoning & Land Development Environmental Services 9/17/20091:45:54 PM Approved By Judy Puig Operations Analyst Date Community Development & Community Development & Environmental Services Environmental Services Admin. 9/17/20094:47 PM Approved By Ray Bellows Chief Planner Date Community Development & Environmental Services Zoning & Land Development Review 9/11/20094:52 PM Approved By Susan lstenes, AICP Zoning & Land Development Director Date Community Development & Zoning & Land Development Review Environmental Services 9/11/20095:02 PM Approved By Joseph K. Schmitt Community Development & Environmental Services Adminstrator Date Community Development & Community Development & Environmental Services Environmental Services Admin. 9/11/20095:11 PM Approved By Heidi F. Ashton Assistant County Attorney Date County Attorney County Attorney Office 9/21/200910:41 AM Approved By file://C:\Agendatest\export\135-September 29,2009\08. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARIN... 9/23/2009 Page 2of2 Agenda Item No. <3A September 29, 2009 Page 10 of 265 OMB Coordinator OM8 Coordinator Date County Manager's Office Office of Management & Budget 9/22/200910:36 AM Approved By Mark Isackson Budget Analyst Date County Manager's Office Office of Management & Budget 9/22/200910:56 AM Approved By Jeff Klatzkow County Attorney Date County Attorney County Attorney Office 9/22/20093:25 PM Approved By Leo E. Ochs, Jr. Deputy County Manager Date Board of County County Manager's Office Commissioners 9/23/20098:59 AM - - file://C:\Agendatest\export\135-September 29,2009\08. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARIN... 9/23/2009 "''''#.. .,," .~._,..~- "~._... Agenda Item No. 8A A~t9~~~_~09 age 1 0 65 eolMr County ~~ - SUPPLEMENTAL STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION HEARING DATE: SEPTEMBER 3, 2009 SUBJECT: PUDZ-2007-AR-11100: TAORMINA RESERVE MIXED USE PLANNED - UNIT DEVELOPMENT (MPUD) PROPERTY OWNER/AGENT: OWNER: Highland Properties of Lee and Collier County, Ltd. 2223 Trade Center Way Naples, FL 34103 AGENTS: Wayne Arnold, AICP Richard D. Y ovanovich, Esq. Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A. Coleman, Yovanovich and Koester, P.A. 3800 Via del Rey 4001 Tamiami Trail North Bonita Springs, FL 34134 Naples, FL 34103 REQUESTED ACTION: The applicant requests that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPe) consider a rezone of the subject properties from the Rural Agricultural (A) zoning district with a Special Treatment (ST) overlay to the Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD) zoning district for a project to be known as Taormina Reserve MPUD, which would allow the construction of a maximum of 528 residential dwelling units, including senior group housing, and up to 262,000 square feet of commercial uses. This petition was heard by the CCPC on August 20,2009, at which time the applicant requested a continuance in order to address the concerns outlined by staff in the original staff report as well as additional issues raised by the CCPC. Attached to this supplemental report is the applicant's revised MPUD document, which incorporates all of the requested changes except for those contained in the conditions of approval (Exhibit H to the MPUD document), restated below. Agenda Item No. 8A September 29,2009 Page 12 of 265 RECOMMENDATION: Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends that the cepc forward Petition PUDZ- 2007-AR-ll100 to the Board of County Commissioners (BeC) with a recommendation of approval, subject to the following stipulations: 1. As shown on Exhibit F-I of the MPUD document, the developer shall provide a minimum 30- foot wide dedicated public right-of-way reservationt which shall accommodate two, 10 tol2- foot wide travel lanes and one 5 to 6-foot wide sidewalk. 2. No outdoor music or other amplified sounds shall be permitted within SOO-feet of the southern boundary of the MU tract. 3. Mixed-use buildings in the MU tract depicted on the Master Plan shall only contain the uses from Exhibit A.Il that would normally be permitted by right or as a conditional use in the C-l through C-3 zoning districts. 4. Any freestanding building of solely multifamily units that is located adjacent to a commercial use normally permitted by the LDC in the C-4 through C-S zoning districts shall provide a minimum IS-foot Type B buffer and the LDC-required fence or wall. S. No home improvement superstore, warehouse superstore or discount retail superstore shall be allowed on any parcel occupied by multifamily residential uses. Should any such superstore develop, no multifamily residential uses shall be developed above it. AdditionallYt no residential uses shall be permitted adjacent to it unless it is buffered by a Type B buffer and a wall as described above. 6. An updated red-cockaded woodpecker survey shall be submitted at the time of the first development order application if required by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWCC) or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 7. Florida black bear and Big Cypress fox squirrel management plans shall be provided as part of the next development order application. 8. At the time of the next development order application, a hydroperiod analysis (or whatever LDC requirement that may be in effect for the evaluation of stormwater discharge into upland preserves) shall be provided for the project site. 9. A preserve management plan shall be required as part of the next development order application and shall include provisions for annual monitoring to determine the potential impacts of stormwater on the preserve area's vegetation. Preserve vegetation adversely impacted by stormwater shall be replaced by the property owner with other vegetation that is suitable for tbe conditions. .,.,,-- Agenda Item No. SA September 29, 2009 Page 13 of 265 10. A coordination meeting between the developer, the representative engineer, and the Public Utilities Department shall be required at the time of SDP and/or the preliminary plat review process to discuss a location and size of a well site easement. Agenda Item No. 8A September 29,2009 Page 14 of 265 PREPARED BY: a~{~1 ~ S-JU/O'l I ' . ~ . JoI-IN6tl A D MOSS, AICP, PRINCIPAL PLANNER I DATt DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW REVIEWED BY: ~ ~/e(I07 RAYM D V. BELLOWS, ZONING MANAGER I DATE DEP ARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW ~\rh.~ ~ /2& ~oq """""SUSAN M. ISTENES, AICP, DIRECTOR 1 DA E DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW Tentatively scheduled for the September 29,2009 Board of County Commissioners Meeting Cf,. 3- '6<1 DATE -~,. Agenda Item No. 8A EXHIBIT A September 29, 2009 Page 15 of 265 FOR TAORMINA RESERVE MPUD PERMITTED USES The 82.51:l: acre mixed-use project shall not be developed with more than a maximum of 262,000 square feet of commercial/office uses, a maximum of 528 residential dwelling units and assisted living facilities (ALF), continuing care retirement communities (CCRC) and independent living units forage 55 plus and senior housing. A maximwn of 400 dwelling units are permitted. within the R1 and R2 tracts and a maximum of 128 dwelling units are permitted in the MU tract. For each acre developed for group housing uses (CCRC, ALF, Skilled Nursing or Independent housing for persons aged 55 and over) the maximum number of conventional dwelling units authorized in the POO shall be reduced by seven (7) units per acre. - No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land used, in whole or in part, for other than the following: I. RESIDENTIAL TRACT USES: A. Principal Uses: 1. "Rl" a. Single family detached. b. Duplex. c. Multiple family dwellings. d. Townhouse dwellings. e. Two family dwellings. f. Group housing to include assisted living facilities (ALF), continuing care retirement community (CCRC), independent living facilities for seniors over age 55. 2. "R2'" a. Duplex. b. Multiple family dwellings c. Townhouse dwellings. c. Model homes and model home centers including offices for project administration, construction, sales and marketing. d. Recreational facilities such as parks, playgrounds, and pedestrianlbikeways. e. Group housing to include assisted living facilities (ALF), continuing care retirement community (CeRe), independent living facilities for seniors over age 55. Page 1 of 20 8/24/2009 Agenda Item No. 8A September 29, 2009 3. Any other principal use which is comparable in nature with the forE~gqiSF65 of pennitted principal uses, as detennined by the Board of Zoning Appeals ("BZA") by the process outlined in the LDC. B. Accessory Uses: 1. Accessory uses and structures customarily associated with the pennitted principal uses and structures, including, but not limited to: pools, tennis, spas. ll. MIXED-USE TRACT USES: A. Principal Uses: 1. Amusement and recreation services Groups 7911 - Dance studios, schools, and halls - 7922 - Theatrical producers (except motion picture) and miscellaneous theatrical services 7929 - Bands, orchestras, actors, and other entertainers and entertainment groups 7941 - Professional sports clubs and promoters 7991 - Physical fitness facilities 7993 - Coin-operated amusement devices 7997 - Membership sports and recreation clubs 7999 - Amusement and recreation services, not elsewhere classified, limited to billiard parlors, bingo parlors, day camps, moped rentals, gymnastics instruction, judo! karate, yoga instruction, sporting goods rental, and sp'orts instruction 2. Apparel and accessory stores (no adult oriented sales) Groups 5611 - Men's and boys' clothing and accessory stores 5621 - Women's clothing stores 5632 - Women's accessory and specialty stores 5641 - Children's and infants' wear stores 5651 - Family clothing stores 5661 - Shoe stores 5699 - Miscellaneous apparel and accessory stores 3. Auto and home supply stores (Group 5531) 4. Automotive repair, services and parking Groups 7514 - Passenger car rental 7515 - Passenger car leasing 7521 - Automobile parking 7542 - Carwashes, as an accessory to convenience stores only 5. Building construction - general contractors and operative builders (restricted to offices for these users only, with no outdoor storage of materials) Page 2 of20 8/2412009 ".,,",",' ~,'~.~,- ".".', ,,"....,," -.---....-"- Agenda Item No. 8A Groups 1521 - General contractors - single-family houses September 29,2009 Page 17 of 265 1522 - General contractors - residential buildings, other than single-family 1531 - Operative builders 1541 - General contractors - industrial buildings and warehouses 1542 - General contractors - nonresidential buildings, other than industrial buildings and warehouses 6. Groups 5211 - Home improvement superstores (no unroofed or unenclosed outdoor storage permitted) 5231 - Paint, glass, and wallpaper stores 5251 - Hardware stores 5261 - Retail nurseries, lawn and garden supply stores, including home improvement superstores 7. Business services Groups 73 H - Advertising agencies 7312 - Outdoor advertising services 7313 - Radio, television, and publishers' advertising representati ves 7319 - Advertising, not elsewhere classified 7322 - Adjustment and collection services 7323 - Credit reporting services 7331 - Direct mail advertising services 7334 - Photocopying and duplicating services 7335 - Commercial photography 7336 - Commercial art and graphic design 7338 - Secretarial and court reporting services 7352 - Medical equipment rental and leasing 7359 - Equipment rental and leasing, not elsewhere classified 7361 - Employment agencies 7363 - Help supply services 7371 - Computer programming services 7372 - Prepackaged software 7373 - Computer integrated systems design 7374 - Computer processing and data preparation and processing servIces 7375 - Information retrieval services 7376 - Computer facilities management services 7377 - Computer rental and leasi.ng 7378 - Computer maintenance and repair 7379 - Computer related services, not elsewhere classified 7384 - Photofmishing laboratories 7389 - Business services, not elsewhere classified Page 3 of 20 8/24/2009 Agenda Item No. 8A September 29, 2009 Page 18 of 265 8. Communications Groups 4812 - Radiotelephone communications 4813 - Telephone communications, except radiotelephone 4822 - Telegraph and other message communications 4832 - Radio broadcasting stations 4833 - Television broadcasting stations 4841 - Cable and other pay television services 9. Construction - special trade contractors (restricted to office use only; no on- site storage of equipment) Groups 1711 - Plumbing, heating and air-conditioning 1721 - Painting and paper hanging 1731 - Electrical work 1741 - Masonry, stone setting, and other stone work 1742 - Plastering, drywall, acoustical, and insulation work 1743 - Terrazzo, tile, marble, and mosaic work 1751 - Carpentry work 1752 - Floor laying and other floor work, not elsewhere classified 1761 - Roofing, siding, and sheet metal work 1771 - Concrete work 1781 - Water well drilling 1791 - Structural steel erection 1793 - Glass and glazing work 1794 - Excavation work 1795 - Wrecking and demolition work 1796 - Installation or erection of building equipment, not elsewhere classified 1799 - Special trade contractors, not elsewhere classified; restricted to offices only, with no outdoor storage or assembly 10. Depository institutions Groups 6011 - Federal reserve banks 6019 - Central reserve depository institutions, not elsewhere classified 6021 - National commercial banks 6022 - State commercial banks 6029 - Commercial banks, not elsewhere classified 6035 - Savings institutions, federally chartered 6036 - Savings Institutions, not federally chartered 6061 - Credit unions, federally chartered 6062 - Credit unions, not federally chartered 6081 - Branches and agencies of foreign banks 6082 - Foreign trade and international banking institutions 6091 - Non-deposit trust facilities 6099 - Functions related to depository banking, not elsewhere classified Page 4 of20 8/24/2009 Agenda Item No. 8A September 29, 2009 Page 19 of 265 11. Dwelling units, multi-family 12. Eating and drinking places Groups 5812 - Eating places (including indoor and outdoor seating with amplified music or televisions. Any outdoor amplified music or televisions must cease no later than 11 :00 pm. 5813- Drinking places (alcoholic beverages; however cocktail lounges and similar uses shall only be permitted in conjunction with a restaurant or hotel use) (including indoor and outdoor seating with amplified music or televisions. Any outdoor amplified music or televisions must cease no later than 11 :00 pm. 13. Educational services Groups 8231 - Libraries 8243 - Data processing schools - 8244 - Business and secretarial schools 8299 - Schools and educational services, not elsewhere classified 14. Engineering, accounting, research, management, and related services Groups 8711 - Engineering services 8712 - Architectural services 8713 - Surveying services 8721 - Accounting, auditing, and bookkeeping services 8741- Management services 8742 - Management consulting services 8743 - Public relations services 8748 - Business consulting services, not elsewhere classified 15. Executive, legislative and general government, except finance Groups 9111 - Executive offices 9199 - General government, not elsewhere classified 16. Food stores Groups 5411 - Grocery stores 5421 - Meat and fish (seafood) markets, including freezer provisioners 5431 - Fruit and vegetable markets 5441 - Candy, nut, and confectionery stores 5451 - Dairy products stores 5461 - Retail bakeries 5499 - Miscellaneous food stores, including convenience stores with fuel pumps and carwash 17. General merchandise stores Groups 5311 - Department stores 5331 - Variety stores Page 5 of 20 8/24/2009 Agenda Item No. 8A Sep.tember 29,2009 5399 - Miscellaneous general merchandise stores, incl~ 20 of 265 warehouse stores and discount retail superstores 18. General warehousing and storage Group 4225 - Indoor mini storage only 19. Health services Groups 8011 - Offices and clinics of doctors of medicine 8021 - Offices and clinics of dentists 8031 - Offices and clinics of doctors of osteopathy 8041 - Offices and clinics of chiropractors 8042 - Offices and clinics of optometrists 8043 - Offices and clinics of podiatrists 8049 - Offices and clinics of health practitioners, not elsewhere classified 8071 - Medical laboratories 8072 - Dental laboratories -- 8082 - Home health care services 8092 - Kidney dialysis centers 8099 - Health and allied services, not elsewhere classified 20. Holding and other investment offices Groups 6712 - Offices of bank holding companies 6719 - Offices of holding companies, not elsewhere classified 6722 - Management investment offices, open-end 6726 - Unit investment trusts, face-amount certificate offices, and closed-end management investment offices 6732 - Educational, religious, and charitable trusts 6733 - Trusts, except educational, religious, charitable 6792 - Oil royalty traders 6794 - Patent owners and lessors 6798 - Real estate investment trusts 6799 - Investors, not elsewhere classified 21. Home furniture, furnishings, and equipment stores Groups 5712 - Furniture stores 5713 - Floor covering stores 5714 - Drapery, curtain, and upholstery stores 5719 - Miscellaneous home furnishings stores 5722 - Household appliance stores 5731 - Radio, television, and consumer electronics stores 5734 - Computer and computer software stores 5735 - Record and prerecorded tape stores 5736 - Musical instrument stores 22. Hotels and motels (Group 7011) 23. Insurance carriers Groups 6311 - Life insurance Page 6 of 20 8/24/2009 ,..-,-,--. Agenda Item No. 8A 6321 - Accident and health insurance September 29,2009 Page 21 of 265 6324 - Hospital and medical service plans 6331 - Fire, marine, and casualty insurance 6351 - Surety insurance 6361 - Title insurance 6371 - Pension, health, and welfare funds 6399 - Insurance carriers, not elsewhere classified 24. Insurance agents, brokers, and service (Group 6411) 25. Justice, public order, and safety (Group 9221 (police protection) 26. Legal services (Group 8111) 27. Membership organizations Groups 8611 - Business associations 8621 - Professional membership organizations 8631 - Labor unions and similar labor organizations 8641 - Civic, social, and fraternal associations 8651 - Political organizations 8699 - Membership organizations, not elsewhere classified 28. Miscellaneous repair services Groups 7622 - Radio and television repair shops 7623 - Refrigeration and air-conditioning service and repair shops 7629 - Electrical and electronic repair shops, not elsewhere classified 7631 - Watch, clock, and jewelry repair 7641 - Reupholstery and furniture repair 7692 - Welding repair 7694 - Annature rewinding shops 7699 - Repair shops and related services, not elsewhere classified 29. Miscellaneous retail (no adult oriented sales) Groups 5912 - Drug stores and proprietary stores 5921 - Liquor stores 5932 - Used merchandise stores 5941 - Sporting goods stores and bicycle shops 5942 - Book stores 5943 - Stationery stores 5944 - Jewelry stores 5945 - Hobby, toy, and game shops 5946 - Camera and photographic supply stores 5947 - Gift, novelty, and souvenir shops 5948 - Luggage and leather goods stores 5949 - Sewing, needlework, and piece goods stores 5961 - Catalog and mail-order houses Page 7 of 20 8/24/2009 Agenda Item No. 8A 5992 - Florists September 29,2009 Page 22 of 265 5993 - Tobacco stores and stands 5994 - News dealers and newsstands 5995 - Optical goods stores 5999 - Miscellaneous retail stores, not elsewhere classified 30. Museums and art galleries (Group 8412) 31. Non-depository credit institutions Groups 6111 - Federal and federally-sponsored credit agencies 6141 - Personal credit institutions 6153 - Short-term business credit institutions, except agricultural 6159 - Miscellaneous business credit institutions 6162 - Mortgage bankers and loan correspondents 6163 - Loan brokers 32. Person8J. services Groups 7212 - Garment pressing, and agents for laundries and drycleaners 7215 - Coin-operated laundries and dry-cleaning 7219 - Laundry and garment services, not elsewhere classified 7221 - Photographic studios, portrait 7231 - Beauty shops 7241 - Barber shops 7251 - Shoe repair shops and shoeshine parlors 7261 - Funeral service and crematories 7291 - Tax return preparation services 7299 - Miscellaneous personal services, not elsewhere classified 33. Public finance, taxation, and monetary policy (Group 9311) 34. Real estate Groups 6512 - Operators of nonresidential buildings 6513 - Operators of apartment buildings 6514 - Operators of dwellings other than apartment buildings 6515 - Operators of residential mobile home sites 6517 - Lessors of railroad property 6519 - Lessors of real property, not elsewhere classified 6531 - Real estate agents and managers 6541 - Title abstract offices 6552 - Land subdividers and developers, except cemeteries 35. Security and commodity brokers, dealers, exchanges, and services Groups 6211 - Security brokers, dealers, and flotation companies 6221 - Commodity contracts brokers and dealers 6231 - Security and commodity exchanges 6282 - Investment advice 6289 - Services allied with the exchange of securities or commodities, not elsewhere classified Page 8 of 20 8/24/2009 Agenda Item No. 8A September 29,2009 Page 23 of 265 36. Social services Groups 8322 - Individual and family social services 8331 - Job training and vocational rehabilitation services 8351 - Child day care services 8399 - Social services, 110t elsewhere classified 37. Transportation services Groups 4724 - Travel agencies 4725 - Tour operators 4729 - Arrangement of passenger transportation, not elsewhere classified 38. United States Postal Service (Group 4311, excluding major distribution centers) 39. Video tape rental (Group 7841), no adult-oriented sales B. Accessory Uses 1. Accessory uses and structures customarily associated with the permitted principal uses and structures. 2. Group 7542 - Carwashes, as an accessory to convenience stores only III. PRESERVE TRACT USES No building or structure or part thereof, shall be erected altered or used, or land used in whole or in part, for other than the following, subject to the issuance of regional, state and federal permits, when required: A. Principal Uses: 1. Any conservation and related activity or use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses and which the Board of Zoning Appeals or designee determines to be compatible in the Preserve Area. Page 90f20 &/24/2009 Agenda Item No. 8A EXHIBIT B September 29,2009 Page 24 of 265 FOR TAORMINA RESERVE MPUD DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Table I below sets forth the development standards for land uses within the MPUD. Standards not specifically set forth herein shall be those specified in the applicable sections of the Land Development Code (LDC) in effect as of the date of approval of the site development plan (SDP) or subdivision plat. TABLE I RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS MINIMUM LOT WIDTH *1 150 feet NA MINIMUM FLOOR AREA NA PER UNIT 1,000 sq. ft. 1,000 sq. ft. 1 ,000 s . ft. 750 sq. ft. 1,000 S . ft. *5 MIN FRONT YARD 20 feet 20 feet *4 20 feet *4 20 feet 20 feet NA MIN SIDE YARD 6 feet o feet and o feet and 6 feet 15 feet or ~ BH NA 6 feet *2 6 feet *2 MIN REAR YARD 15 feet 15 feet 15 feet 15 feet 15 feet NA MIN PUD BOUNDARY 25 feet 25 feet 25 feet 25 feet 25 feet NA SETBACK MIN PRESERVE 25 feet 25 feet 25 feet 25 feet 25 feet 25 feet SETBACK MIN. DISTANCE 12 feet 12 feet 12 feet 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet BETWEEN STRUCTURES *3 MAXIMUM ZONED 35 feet 45 feet 35 feet R1 35 feet 45 feet 35 feet HEIGHT *6 R2 50 feet NOT TO EXCEED 3 stories 3 stories MAXIMUM ACTUAL 45 feet 55 feet 45 feet 55 feet 45 feet HEIGHT NOT TO EXCEED 3 stories 3 stories FRONT 20 feet 20 feet *4 20 feet 20 feet *4 20 feet 25 feet SIDE 6 feet o feet and o feet and 1 0 feet 1 0 feet 10 feet 6 feet *2 6 feet REAR 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet 1 0 feet 10 feet 15 fef Page 10 of20 8/24/2009 Agenda Item No. 8A SeotAmber 29.2009 MIN PUD BOUNDARY 15 feet 15 feet 15 feet 15 feet 15 feetPage ~5 of 2W- SETBACK PRESERVE SETBACK 10 feet 10 feet 1 0 feet 10 feet 1 0 feet 25 feet r ANCE FROM 1 0 feet 10 feet 1 0 feet 1 0 feet 10 feet 20 feet I-r<lNCIPAL STRUCTURE MAXIMUM ZONED S.P.S. S.P.S. S.P.S. 25 feet 25 feet 25 feet HEIGHT MAXIMUM ACTUAL S.P.S. S.P.S. S.P.S. 35 feet 35 feet 35 feet All distances are in feet unless otherwise noted. *1 - Minimum lot width may be reduced by 20% for cul-de-sac lots or lots on the radius of a curve provided the minimum Jot area requirement is maintained. *2 - Zero foot minimum side setback on one side of building as long as a minimum 12.foot separation between principal structures is mainta~ned and all other setbacks are respected. - *3 - Building distance may be reduced at garages to a minimum of 10 feet if detached or 0 feet where attached garages are provided. Multi.family principal buildings shall be separated a minimum of 20 feet and garages a minimum of 10 feet. *4 - Front entry building garages shall be set back a minimum of 23 feet from edge of sidewalk. The minimum 20 foot front yard may be reduced to 15 feet where the residence is served by a side..Joaded or rear entry garage. *5 -1,000 square feet shall be applicable to ground floor of the building and not individual unit size. *6 - For the area shaded on Exhibit C, Master Plan, the actual heights shall be 35 feet above finished grade. S.P.S.: Same as Principal Structures. BH; Building Height Page I I of20 8/24/2009 Agenda Item No. 8A TABLE II September 29,2009 Page 26 of 265 NDXEDUSEDEVELOPMENTSTANDARDS COMMERCIAL/MIXED MULTI-FAMILY " ACCESSOR USE RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL USES PRINCIPAL USES PRINCIPAL USES MINIMUM LOT AREA 10,000 SQ. ft. 9,000 Sq. ft. N/A :MINIMUMLOT wmm 75 ft. 75 ft. N/A MINIMUM YARDS (External) From Future Ext. of Santa Barbara Blvd. 25 ft. N/A SPS From Davis Boulevard 25 ft. N/A SPS From Eastern Project Boundary 25 ft. N/A SPS MINIMUM YARDS anternal) Front 20 ft. 20 ft. 10 ft. Rear 15 ft. 15 ft. 10 ft. Side 10 ft. 6 ft. 10 ft. Preserve - - - 25 ft. 25 ft. 10 ft. MIN. DISTANCE BETWEEN Minimum of 20 ft or the Minimum of20 ft or N/A STRUCTURES required separation the required compliant with local fire separation compliant codes* with local fire codes* MAXIMUM HEIGHT Zoned 50 ft. for buildings 45 ft. N/A including residential 50 ft. for commercial buildings onlv Actual (inclusive of any under building 60 ft. for buildings 55 ft. N/A parking) including residential 60 ft. for commercial buildings only MINIMUM FLOOR AREA 700 sq. ft. ** 700 SQ. Ft ** N/A MAX. GROSS BUILDING AREA 262,000 Sq. Ft. N/A N/A * 'Whichever is greater * * per principal structure, on the finished first floor. S.P.S.: Same as Principal Structures. BH: Building Height Page 12 of20 8/24/2009 ii:' [il 0: 0 5",~ ii~ Il:!!;l'; i'" i . lo~ I'~ ~ !c S~o ~~ ~f~ ~~~ b!?e! ~~~ _ W ~~N 0 W OJ ~ g 0 ~ ~ 2 >- ill ..... u.i ..' ...... .. j2 -....=-.. .. ....... ....! ..:~.\.\:...\..:".\" .. s..NoY~ . ~ Ii; c t; IS ~~ Ii" I~ a~ i! :! " Ii iJB3 !l \ ~ "i jf' >* U2 j i "'~ i. ! i~ gu ! l o.~ .. i ,,=~~-'-:' g ~!Ci to!.:c .. . .. ' ~.. i - - . ltr_.J SANTA SAR8AAt\ l~""M."" , BOUlEVARD -..,~.. :> .' . t; lZg gl:l ~ . ::.~~ 1'1 ~t! .. Ii Ii? Ell l';1.\dr w ~~d .I!i ,:,-- ~ Wl~ ::;llii ,",,-,., ~~ ~ 8 ;:;! iP ~~ ~o l::t, I ~ iii\li;!;: i ~g iil ~- .... '11. ~- .. !i FJ~ ~~ " -- ~ ; a ;q ;: "'5 '" .. ID o~ ~ r ~ll! ll!13 ~1Il.. '" u. f-!is < ~ ~~ <~~i 5 ~~ ~ ~:l! ~ w~ "'= $:1 ~i < < a ~~ 0 ~=o! <f.~ ~ai ~.sS~ ;,; << en ~... O'ICJeD tI R q :7M~ Li ~~ 8 !!! II! M "zill ~~ Ii ~"at o:~l: , . .. N ~ ~ eL ~ ' . ~ ~ o~ ~m ~ U ' ~. j"!i Ii! i '()( ~ ~ S ~t i~ ~~~ ID'" u::l! ~ ~ a ~~ Ii ~i~ 13 ~~ 0: ~~ ~ ~~ fil~:i 3 i wg "'::;1 ~ ..11 ~ i ~ u @~ ~~ ~! .. iii il ffi 0" :l'" d w~g e ~6i1.) !& ~ ~ !l6:liS :l!~.. fil~- ~6g '" ~~~ ~.~ ~ 8 ~~ ~~ ~~i ?Sf3o:~f3wa::~f ID~ ~ 8 ~~ ~~ ~~w ~<< ff<<o.si f~1f h ~ l3 ~'< .. -i~ 0 ~_~ u ~ ~u:~ ~ i ~ ~ ~o:< f ~ ~ ~ ~5~ Z -' N G; ol:!:t 0<8 Agenda Item No. 8A EXIDBIT D September 29,2009 Page 28 of 265 FOR TAORMINA RESERVE MPUD LEGAL DESCRIPTION OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 1087, PAGE 841 WEST 1/2 OF NW 1/4 OF NW 1/4 OF SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, LESS RIGHT-OF-WAY, CONTAINING 18.87 ACRES MORE OR LESS, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. NW 1/4 OF SW 1/4 OF NW 1/4 OF SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, CONTAINING 10 ACRES MORE OR LESS, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. SOUTH 1/2 OF NE 1/4 OF SW 1/4 OF NW 1/4 OF SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, LESS THE WEST AND SOUTH 30 FEET, CONTAINING 4.34 ACRES MORE OR LESS, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 1186, PAGE 2060 - THE NORTH 1/2 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. ALSO KNOWN AS TRACT 45 OF ENCHANTED ACRES. LESS THE WEST 30 FEET TO USED FOR ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY PURPOSES. OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 1192, PAGE 1700 THE NORTH 1/2 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, LESS THE WEST 30 FEET THEREOF FOR ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY. ALSO KNOWN AS TRACT 47. OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 1116, PAGE 333 THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER (SE 1/4) OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER (NW 1/4) OF SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA LESS AND EXCEPT THE LANDS DESCRIBED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 4353 AT PAGE 1085 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BEING A RIGHT-OF-WAY TAKING FOR PROJECT: 60091-SANTA BARBARA BLVD. EXTN. MORE PARTICULARL Y DESCRIBED BY METES AND BOUNDS A PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED IN THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBES AS FOLLOWS: BEGIN AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE RUN SOUTH 89051'22" WEST, ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 9, FOR A DISTANCE OF 1,307.72 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 9; THENCE RUN NORTH 00051'25" WEST, ALONG THE WEST LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 9, FOR A DISTANCE OF 344.87 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE NORTH HALF OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 9; THENCE RUN SOUTH 89044'49" WEST, ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTH HALF OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 9, FOR A DISTANCE OF 654.23 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE NORTH HALF OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF Page 14 of20 8(24(2009 Agenda Item No. 8A THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION ~~g~ NORTH 00055'16" WEST, ALONG THE WEST LINE OF THE NORTH HALF OF THE S QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 9, FOR A DISTANCE OF 343.63 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 9; THENCE RUN SOUTH 89038'17" WEST, ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 9, FOR A DISTANCE OF 554.60 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EAST LINE OF THE LANDS DESCRIBED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 4353 AT PAGE 1085 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE RUN NORTHERLY ALONG SAID EAST LINE FOR THE FOLLOWING SEVEN (7) COURSES: 1) THENCE RUN NORTH 00059'07" WEST, FOR A DISTANCE OF 792.98 FEET; 2) THENCE RUN SOUTH 89000'53" WEST, FOR A DISTANCE OF 20.00 FEET; 3) THENCE RUN NORTH 00059'07" WEST, FOR A DISTANCE OF 506.24 FEET; 4) THENCE RUN NORTH 11057'26" EAST, FORA DISTANCE OF 100.77 FEET; 5) THENCE RUN NORTH 00000'53" EAST, FOR A DISTANCE OF 476.24 FEET TO A POINT ON A CIRCULAR CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHEAST, WHOSE RADIUS POINT BEARS SOUTH 89059'50" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 97.00 FEET THEREFROM; 6) THENCE RUN NORTHEASTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 97.00 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 90011'21", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD OF 137.40 FEET AT A BEARING OF NORTH 45005'51" EAST, FOR AN ARC LENGTH OF 152.69 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE; 7) THENCE RUN NORTH 00058'17" WEST, FOR A DISTANCE OF 11.48 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY OF DAVIS BOULEVARD (150 FOOT RIGHT-OF-WAY); THENCE RUN NORTH 89001'43" EAST, ALONG SAID SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY, FOR A DISTANCE OF 446.52 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EAST LINE OF THE WEST HALF OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 9; THENCE RUN SOUTH 00056'22" EAST, ALONG SAID EAST LINE, FOR A DISTANCE OF 1,299.05 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTH HALF OF THE NORTHWES QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 9; THENCE RUN NORTH 89025'14" EAST, ALONG SAID NORTH LINE, FOR A DISTANCE OF 1,966.06 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 9; THENCE RUN SOUTH 00043'50" EAST, ALONG THE EAST LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 9, FOR A DISTANCE OF 1,389.42 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL OF LAND HEREIN DESCRIBED, CONTAINING 82.51 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. Page 15 of20 8/24/2009 Agenda Item No. 8A EXHIBIT E September 29,2009 Page 30 of 265 FOR TAORMINA RESERVE MPUD DEVIATIONS 1. Deviation 1 seeks relief from LDC Section 6.06.01.J. Street System Requirements, to allow that cul-de-sacs in excess of one thousand feet (1,000') in length. Streets with block lengths of greater than six hundred feet (600t) shall have traffic calming devices installed at an approximate spacing of three hundred feet (300'). Page 16 of20 8/24/2009 -.."." - Agenda Item No. 8A EXHIBIT F September 29,2009 Page 31 of 265 FOR TAORMINA RESERVE MPUD LIST OF DEVELOPER COMMITMENTS 1. Regulations for development of the Taormina Reserve:MPUD shall be in accordance with the contents of this MPUD Document and applicable sections of the LDC and Growth Management Plan (GMP) in effect at the time of issuance of any development order to which said regulations relate. V\'here this MPUD Ordinance does not provide development standards, then the provisions of the specific sections of the LDC that are otherwise applicable shall apply. A. ENVIRONMENTAL 1. Approximately 59.46 acres of native vegetation exist on-site; therefore, a minimum of 14.87 acres of preserve is required. The MPUD will provide a minimum of28.88 acres of preserve as shown on the Master Plan. B. TRANSPORTATION The development of this MPUD shall be subject to and governed by the following conditions: 1. No certification of Occupancy shall be issued until after the following milestones have been met: 1. Completion of Davis Boulevard from Radio Road to CR-951. 11. Completion of Santa Barbara extension to the project entrance. 2. Access to Davis Boulevard is subject to a shared single access point with the adjacent property owner and FDOT approval. 3. The developer, its successors, or assigns shall contribute proportionate fair share monies to Collier County for the following intersection improvement when signal warrants are met and prior to the installation of the signal: 1. Signalization of Cope Lane at Santa Barbara Extension. 4. The developer, its successors, or assign shall construct, or provide payment in lieu to Collier County for any turn lanes, constructed by the County during the Santa Barbara Blvd project, serving this project prior to the first development order approval. 5. The developer, its successors or its assigns, shall provide for the potential interconnection to Sunset Boulevard. The developer shall be responsible for the costs of design, permitting and construction of approximately 830 feet of limited access roadway of which 200' shall be built concurrent with development in the R2 tract. The remainder of the roadway shall be Page 17 of20 8/24/2009 Agenda Item No. 8A d . f tl . h b . d. Th seg=ber :iiJOO9 constructe 1 le necessary access rIg ts are 0 tame e r W~ 265 be designed as a two lane roadway with a sidewalk on only one side of the roadway. This requirement for the construction of the "remainder" of the -- connection to Sunset Boulevard shall remain valid for five years from the date of PUD approval. The complete, permitted roadway design shall be included with the first SDP that encompasses this portion of the development for inclusion in the County's files. 6. The developer shall construct a 6-foot high privacy wall constructed of materials along the frontage of 2380 Sunset Boulevard. The developer shall receive a credit for the construction cost of the wall against the payment required pursuant to item seven below. 7. Prior to the approval of each individual SDP or Plat, the Developer, its successor, or assign shall make their proportionate payment for compliance with policy 5.8 of the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan. - 8. Any combination of allowed uses stated in Exhibit A of this PUD shall not be allowed to exceed the maximum square footage or units listed for each category of use. The trip generation stated in the Traffic hnpact Study (TIS) used for the approval of this zoning action shall be construed as a maximum trip generation (1,308 total PM peak hour trips; or 910 adjusted, PM peak hour net new external trips) for any combination of the allowed uses. 9. The developer, or successors and assigns, shall provide a stabilized emergency turn-around, meeting local fire prevention code criteria, approximately midway along the cul-de-sac of the primary internal roadway. C. LANDSCAPE 1. An enhanced 15-foot wide landscape buffer sh~l be provided along the eastern property boundary adjacent to Naples Heritage PUD for a distance of approximately 550 feet south from the northern Taormina Reserve MPUD boundary. The enhanced buffer shall contain native canopy tree species such as Live Oak or Pine that will be a minimum 14 feet in height at the time of planting and planted 20 feet on center. Cabbage Palms, with . a minimum height of 16 feet at the time of planting shall be planted in clusters of at least 3 trees planted on 20 feet centers between the row of canopy trees. A shrub row of native plants such as Buttonwood shall also be planted within the buffer. The shrubs shall be a minimum of 5 feet tall at the time of planting and shall be spaced on 5-foot centers. This buffer shall be installed concurrent with clearing and filling of the site in the area adjacent to the eastern property boundary. A minimum 4-foot high chain link fence shall be installed within or adjacent to the enhanced buffer. ..."" Page 18 of20 8/24/2009 . ..'<'~ .. ~--,~.~-,-- I~;III L. M U I '11" I ! Ji I! II' septemberfg, 2009 L . . i I r-1 . I Page 3 of 265 ,.... I ) t. \ "'...J ,._-j~~ ! i 1\ " .- -. -.-----/ \'. ",,-_ ~, J i I ? _ ~ ( "'-- '-', f"' liL~l1i , N \ \ q: ;~ ~~ RE1E.NTION L .J : I I . I. "~ 1 I 1 "~ ____.....__-" ..,..,........._ __l...__ ..._._. _ _ _ , _ _ . _ _ . _ _ , _ _ ' . -- ~ -- ------- -._'~ ",'~ I 'to 1'1 RETENTION~~, ",,~~~~, r-.-.-----.- ---' -'- - - -_. -. .- - , I = -r---"l ~~"\ ~, )1 ' I I' I hb\5~ l '-.~..~~" ,~, I I t '.'1 I 11.// >\1f'L..--J'1 r~') ";;~~ '~\ 0 75' 150' , , I'" ~ \ "~ .. \ \ '1~1' 1\ 11':11 :......J ~ "\ \ ~~\ \~,\.., SCAlEI l' = 150' I, '1 . "~:...., '- . u " I \ \ I ,,", ",'.. .,....... - -, _. - - .- -: -. [I I I ~ l...)' I '~'\.~~ <:,..~ .... . - .. - .-----. H I' , j. '\\~~ )I~ I III D (0 Ii ~ i ." -- ,,\1 ~ Ili:1 \\ \. ~ . r-- APPROXIMATELY 200% FEET OF ) \ If dl ~ R2 r) II ::l ROW SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED ~ \ ~lt. ' . I I I ~ . AT TIME OF DEVELOPMENT OF ii' I \! )111111 JI - I .~~__..__:-_.. !L.__________.___::;.:.:;:.:,.. _~HE R2 TR~:.:_ ._.:.. :::.~::::=-...::-.::- I ~l J ~.~~ .~7...'~.'---7--.. j / --7----; f 'I "1 I ' 1 .,- - --- . I..' 1"'..'" ..-..,/ ,-" r--' )-' ) ..7 .."' c-] I I ! I ~ /' /' I U ! ) );, r J' r \ ' - I ;' i \ r'; ~~ ~'r--- - r r .. I I. I I ,. '. . \)} , , 1 I ii il II D ( ! I ' _ . ~- r-./ fJ r-/ r.F J r--" r-./ r'-) ~ I ~ ' \d \ I' I' ) ~ ~ ~ I II ) '.. ~ \ I ). ~--/ :-.... r'-./ .-.../ f.e) )--. ...~.J~..~_", J '" I' \ ")! ) v..... ! 'I, / ' j I ..J J I, ! I ., \ 'I i '... r-- )'-'. . .- f'-' I ',1 L, r..J "j .: I LAKE' .._"..' /""",~ I '-~H I' \ \ - ;' / I i _./ ,... r'''' ,--:>/ .,.",. '" -'l I \ \ ' .." I) I' / ~.""'-. [\ " I) \ \. In 3D' WIDE PUBLIC . Irj ,...j r-'''/ r-.../ r.../ r-'~' '"~' " f . i 1'111 .',.( u, J--- ACCESSWAY . ~ r-) POTENTIAL VEHICULAR' ,I .;, ..' 111 I' I j. '!(' RESEyON \>-(,., J-'./ AND PEDESTRIAN ,;.": ~ I ~ r ,. "''''-,,---.11 n._. RETENTION' '- 0 INTERCONNECT J I I . .. .,... . _.-- ........ "- r" r-- I'" ..... \ \ ,: I J. l-~~~~~-,-,-~_~-_~~_~.._,_~"..~__ . v ) ) } --A. ( ,j- r 1 ,,;--.--.--It--.--.- \i .. r r jl ,) , II ~\, I . . . ~~' ~~DE ~PE "~,BUFFER ..>l :. ~ I I, J"II I en ,-"--,-,,,-,_~ r ,J "........\ \ '';:,l I Jl ........ ~' r""" 'J-""". .. I I I Z .... '-..('--'-'",A. ':i' " i [I ~ I I,^ (t "'"<;-'~"'Sl"t....", r.;I" J\ . " 1 . v, I ' " ""'-..--..,..,......-...-:, \' . ,;. I . m v" ' ......, ..' , H , I 1 '1 -I ~ . >' " \. "ij!l I . >l:.l ....~>...."J\ OJ' ) -) - ("/\/,-_, \\ .>l , I r- ",' ;>-<.. {\ )-"'- \ ~ II 'I 340':t : < I ~-(" ,f ~ .~ \'>--t<0~-.rH'>...').~' r 'i . lei' '" ,..-( }--(j ).-< ~::r II I' ) I m i :s ,,'\ ,,( >-, ;-- ;-..( ....... X _, ;ol'- .'~ ,.....J\ I\.~' .~ , I' i ' -I Y.:i< :. ......;.-.( >-, 9' .. I I . / "" ' , 1 I l / I I I I ~ . ".>> ~.."C\.--<,",:" , J I \ I ; ~ . ~.. ~._~~~~;, i I' II" I " :)l ~ . 1 III '" ,A'- ::-:~~II_~~:~~~~~~':l-.-.~~.~....., ill ~ll Il . - -' ---0 .-. - --_... TAORMINA RESERVE DEVELOPER TO DESIGN AND . . - - , - - 'L - - , - - . - PERMIT SUNSET BOULEVARD EXTENSION FOR THAT :. EXISTING 30' WIDE PORTION ON AND ADJACENT TO TAORMINA PROPERTY --LJ PRIVATE EASEMENT LINE, A LENGTH OF APPROXIMATELY 830':t. THE DEVELOPER WILL CONSTRUCT THE ROAD IF DIRECTED I BY THE COUNTY WITHIN 5 YEARS OF THE APPROVAL ,- 60'WIDE OF THE PUD. THE DEVELOPER IS NOT RESPONSIBLE I SUNSET BLVD '10Rj M'llp'ATION OF THE PUBLIC ACCESS ROAD WHICH ACCESS EASEMENT 'ISlLO~T~D OUTSIDE OF THE PROJECT BOUNDARY. I I j J! I . lloIIlIll8tlri"", 239.U'7.II~ TAORMINA RESERVE MPUD ,'. ,'" GradyMinor ~:h~~~ ~:~~= JO.,,: NopI"" 239,444,2397 EXHIBIT F -1 ..... t Civil Engineers . Land SUrYlll'Ol'S . Planners . Landscap~, ArchllOOt$ SUNSET BL YO POTENllAL INTERCONNECTION rrur. u:.: ""RT..F^'m.........~'.. """",,ur"""'.LI_OO' ......."'\.1:......."'" DETAIL _r-, Q. Gr.od, Mlnor"d._J;rl",;,::.c:.':t~:;:::,~O!', 8onll. Sprln"" l'L34134 SIIE&'I' 1 OT 1 Agenda Item No. 8A September 29, 2009 EXHIBIT G Page 34 of 265 WILDLIFE HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN - RED-COCKADED WOODPECKER MANAGEMENT PLAN For the protection of red-cockaded woodpeckers ("RCW"), precautionary measures will be undertaken when construction involves clearing pine habitat. Prior to clearing pine habitat, a qualified biologist will review the impact areas for the presence of RCW cavity trees. The inspection area will include an area 100 feet from clearing limits. Construction will be allowed to commence when the biologist has completed the site review and determined that no RCW cavity trees will be harmed or destroyed as a result of the intended activity. Should the biologist observe an RCW cavity tree within areas to be cleared, or within 100 feet of clearing limits, contractors and workers will be instructed to stop construction activities that are within 100 feet of the cavity tree. The biologist will also be responsible for notifying the USFWS of the situation and asking for guidance. Prescribed burning is an available management technique that may be permitted, as applicable, within the upland and wetland preservation areas. The feasibility of conducting prescribed burns will take into consideration the ability to obtain local and state authorizations, the ability to create adequate firebreaks at the bum site) and impacts to listed wildlife species. Prescribed burning may only be conducted by a certified prescribed bum manager and in accordance with the applicable rules and regulations of the Division of Forestry. The use of prescribed burning may necessitate the creation of adequate firebreaks resulting in removal of native vegetation within the preserve areas. The removal of native vegetation in the preserve areas for the purpose of creating fire breaks will be pre-approved by County Environmental Services staff. .- Page 20 of 20 8/24/2009 Agenda Item No. 8A September 29,2009 Page 35 of 265 EXHIBIT H CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL August 25, 2009 1. As shown on Exhibit F -1 of the MPUD document, the developer shall provide a minimum 30-foot wide dedicated public right-of-way reservation, which shall accommodate two, 10 to12-foot wide travel lanes and one 5 to 6-foot wide sidewalk. 2. No outdoor music or other amplified sounds shall be permitted within 500-feet of the of the southern boundary of the MU tract. 3. Mixed-use buildings in the MU tract depicted on the Master Plan shall only contain the uses from Exhibit A.Il that would normally be permitted by right or as a conditional use in the C-1 through C-3 zoning districts. 4. Any freestanding building of solely multifamily units that is located adjacent to a commercial use normally permitted by the LDC in the C-4 through C-5 zoning districts shall provide a minimum 15-foot Type B buffer and the LDC-required fence or wall. 5. No home improvement superstore, warehouse superstore or discount retail superstore shall be allowed on any parcel occupied by multifamily residential uses. Should any such superstore develop, no multifamily residential uses shall be developed above it. Additionally, no residential uses shall be permitted adjacent to it unless it is buffered by a Type B buffer and a wall as described above. 6. An updated red-cockaded woodpecker survey shall be submitted at the time of the first development order application if required by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWCC) or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 7. Florida black bear and Big Cypress fox squirrel management plans shall be provided as part of the next development order application. 8. At the time of the next development order application, a hydroperiod analysis (or whatever LDC requirement that may be in effect for the evaluation of stormwater discharge into upland preserves) shall be provided for the project site. 9. A preserve management plan shall be required as part of the next development order application and shall include provisions for annual monitoring to determine the potential impacts of stormwater on the preserve area's vegetation. Preserve vegetation adversely impacted by stormwater shall be replaced by the property owner with other vegetation that is suitable for the conditions. Agenda Item No. 8A September 29,2009 Page 36 of 265 10. A coordination meeting between the developer, the representative engineer, and the Public Utilities Department shall be required at the time of SDP and/or the preliminary plat review process to discuss a location and size of a well site easement. AGE_nda Item No. 8A m:iM~~, 2009 Page 37 of 265 ColStr County L-~ _ STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION HEARING DATE: AUGUST 20, 2009 SUBJECT: PUDZ-2007-AR-11100: TAORMINA RESERVE MIXED USE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (MPUD) PROPERTY OWNER/AGENT: OWNER: Highland Properties of Lee and Collier County, Ltd. 2223 Trade Center Way Naples, FL 34103 AGENTS: Wayne Arnold, AICP Richard D. Yovanovich, Esq. Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A. Coleman, Yovanovich and Koester, P.A. 3800 Via del Rey 4001 Tamiami Trail North Bonita Springs, FL 34134 Naples, FL 34103 REQUESTED ACTION: The applicant requests that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) consider a rezone of the subject properties from the Rural Agricultural (A) zoning district with a Special Treatment (ST) overlay to the Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD) zoning district for a project to be known as Taormina Reserve MPUD, which would allow the construction of a maximum of 528 residential dwelling units, including senior group housing, and up to 262,000 square feet of commercial uses. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The 82.5 I-acre subject property is located in the southeastern quadrant of the Davis Boulevard (SR 84) and Santa Barbara Boulevard Extension intersection, in Section 9, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida (see location map on the following page). PUDZ-2007-AR-IllOO, Taormina Reserve MPUD September 29, 2009 CL <( . ~ C) ci z :;)~ 1!!11!iijj!1!l!lili!ll!~ll!l i~lI1\11~i!!!~!J1Jjlt! - ~I .,....,......,............,..'I,I.lilt.~.!.,..1 <I: Z ; ! Ilill~I!~~ -- 0 0 ;d :;) N l1. U. . u ~llliiir~~~11~1!~1111111111 0 o~1 - z ~I~ ~ .... 1I ~ L Il! e .. .. e MArmt VMV8lMt Y!NVS ~ ~ ~ g~ ~ I ~ ~ c::: 0.1:1 <( Oil! QI!! ~! I l"- e e N I N nt.os OJ. LON / E- O - :J a. 'It Z 0 ~ Ni! l- !1ft ~ nE l- ~~ ~ !I = w ~! a. ~ CL ~ ~:; :; <( CJ ~ ~ U i!( Z ::l ~ .. 0 N - !! I- ... <( V!N<O () i f 0 ~ It N ...J ~ ~ 0 i, ;; 0 .., ~, ?; ;! i !:! ~! l-1 i l-1 III _._, ,-''',-."""",,,' IMft..'IIMJtth~ ~ g~ d~ ~~~ n2 ~ o ~ ij ~ > - !' ..ij U .. .!lANDY lANE :. oc it. > , II ~13 II i~g ~~N r; .. I i. ,. ,. , .. " 0: .,,,, . i I ., Iii Z '" &6 1 .. "' · ." !! ~'l !i 1111 i ,I . i ii i Ii . , ., 'f. .." 0 . ,,~.. i e " 1"f, ," · . 0'0" 0 . .. .~..! ' , ,e," · ....... ! . ! 't' .1. ~ .. .' , 'g " " I i II i I i ~. h!~ ~i, , ii · a . ~; " It "~ ~ ;, _. .J" I ,~,~ !.: ~ ~~ U 2:liJ ~g~g i~!; !: ~5~ ~~ ~g~ If ~~ 111"1 il~ i' " l!!.... ll:io , . : _... 0 · ," ., .. 0 ' · ,.. . .... ~i fd i 'I' Ii" i!d ,n ~! j. Ii ;11 I!"jnli hI i dll~ 1!1 ffi ~ i~ ~~ 1lI~~ . I'" ",.,"" .. - -i, i /ill''' $8t: ~;;:i II! i Vi Z ~:2"1 :2 . 11 ~ g l!! ~ ~I!!~ .. 2. ;!l ..l'!o/ ..... N iij o~l5' o~ Agenda Item No. 8A September 29,2009 Page 40 of 265 PURPOSEIDESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: As described in the MPUD document, the subject mixed-use project, if approved, would allow approximately 32 acres of the site to be developed with duplexes, multifamily dwellings, townhouse dwellings, and group housing (both assisted living facilities [ALFs] and continuing care retirement communities [CCRCs])for seniors aged 55 years and older. Of this acreage, 24 acres, labeled as "RI" on the Master Plan, would also be allowed single-family detached and two-family dwellings; and the remaining approximately 8 acres, labeled as "R2," would allow model home sale centers and recreational facilities, such as a clubhouse, parks and playgrounds. The total number of dwelling units permitted on the Rl and R2 tracts would be 400 units, with the remaining 128 dwelling units permitted in the MU tracts. Therefore, overall density on the site would be 6.39 units per acre. Finally, accessory uses customarily associated with these residential uses, including swimming pools, tennis courts, barbecue areas, garages and carports would also be permitted. According to Land Development Code (LDC) Section 1.08.02, Definitions, the residential uses proposed for the MPUD are described follows: 1. Single-family (detached) dwelling - a building that contains only one dwelling. 2. Multifamily dwelling - a group of three or more dwellings within a single building. 3. Townhouse - a group of three or more dwellings attached to each other by a common wall or roof where each unit has direct exterior access and none is located above another. 4. Two-family dwelling - a single, freestanding building comprised of two dwellings attached by a common wall or roof, but where each unit is on a separate lot under separate -. ownership. 5. Duplex - a freestanding building containing two dwellings (but lot is under the same ownership). 6. Group Housing - a structure designed to meet the special needs of a certain segment of the population, such as the elderly or the developmentally disabled. (ALFs and CCRCs would be considered group houing.) In addition to these residential uses, approximately 17 acres (or 21 percent of the site) labeled as "MU" would permit up to 262,000 square feet of commercial uses generally found in the Commercial Professional and General Office District (C-l) through the Heavy Commercial District (C-5), including medical offices, retail sales, banks, hotels, and other services that could be mixed with multifamily uses. Accessory uses customarily associated with these commercial and office uses, such as parking garages, would also be permitted. As depicted on the Master Plan on the preceding page, entitled "Exhibit C Master Plan," prepared by Q. Grady Minor and Associates and dated December 2005, as revised through June 2009, access to the MPUD would be possible from Davis Boulevard in the north and the Santa Barbara Boulevard Extension to the west, with a potential interconnection to Sunset Boulevard to the south, if the necessary access rights can be obtained (as explained in the "Transportation Analysis" portion of this report on page eight). The development's residential tracts would occupy the southern portion of the site; and the mixed-use (multifamily residential/commercial) tracts would occupy the northern half, in the area located at the intersection of Davis Boulevard and Santa PUDZ-2007-AR-III00, Taormina Reserve MPUD 2 September 29, 2009 "~- .-- Agenda Item No. 8A September 29,2009 Page 41 of 265 Barbara Boulevard Extension. Multiple building envelopes are depicted in this MU portion, and the buildings proposed for these tracts would be permitted maximum heights that varied depending upon the uses they contained. For example, entirely multifamily residential structures would be allowed a zoned height of 45 feet; and purely commercial buildings a height of 50 feet. However, any buildings containing a mix of both multifamily residential and commercial uses would be permitted a maximum height of 60 feet (actual heights for each of these buildings, including appurtenances, would be 55 feet, 60 feet and 70 feet, respectively). Within the residential tracts in the southern portion of the site, a single building envelop is shown in Tract R2, adjacent to the Santa Barbara Boulevard Extension right-of-way. Extending eastward from this tract along a spine road are the R1 tracts. Occupying the southernmost portion of the site would be 28.88 acres of preserve land and a 3.47-acre lake. Usable open space on the site would equal 36 percent of the site's total acreage. AERIAL VIEW OF SUBJECT PROPERTY - SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North: Davis Boulevard, then 7-11 and Dolphin Plaza, zoned Shops at Santa Barbara PUD; the Boys' and Girls' Club of Collier County, zoned C-3; and single-family residences of Firano at Naples, zoned Cook Property RPUD. East: The Boys' and Girls' Club of Collier County, zoned C-3; and single-family residences, zoned Naples Heritage Golf and Country Club PUD. South: Vacant land and single-family homes, zoned Rural Agricultural (A). PUDZ-2007-AR-lllOO, Taormina Reserve MPUD 3 September 29,2009 Agenda Item No. 8A September 29,2009 Page 42 of 265 West: Santa Barbara Extension, then vacant land, zoned Freestate CPUD; and multifamily residences of Falling Waters PUD. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY: The southern portion of the property is designated on the Future Land Use Map as Urban, Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict, and is within the Residential Density Band of Activity Center #6; and the northern portion of the site is in the Urban Commercial District, Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict (Activity Center #6). The Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict reads, in part: "Mixed Use Activity Centers are intended to be mixed-use in character. The actual mix of the various land uses - which may include the full array of commercial uses, residential uses, institutional uses, hotel/motel uses at a density consistent with the Land Development Code- shall be determined during the rezoning process based on consideration of the factors listed below. Mixed use developments - whether consisting of residential units located above commercial uses in an attached building, or in a freestanding building-are allowed. Such mixed-use projects are intended to be developed at a human scale, pedestrian-oriented, and interconnected with adjacent projects-whether commercial or residential. Street, pedestrian pathway and bike lane interconnections with adjacent properties, where possible and practicable, are encouraged. Density is calculated based upon the gross project acreage within the Activity Center. If such a project is located within the boundaries of a Mixed Use Activity Center which is not within the Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict and is not within the Coastal High Hazard Area, the eligible density is sixteen dwelling units per acre. If such a project is located within the boundaries of a Mixed Use Activity Center that is not within the Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict but is within the Coastal High Hazard Area, the eligible density shall be limited to four dwelling units per acre. If such a project is located within the boundaries of a Mixed Use Activity Center which is within the Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict, eligible density shall be as allowed by that Subdistrict. " Therefore, the project's density would be calculated as follows: Residential area: 65~ acres Base Density: 4 duJacre plus 3 du/acre density band x 65~ acres = 455 units eligible Activity Center area: 17~ acres 16 duJacre x 20~ acres == 272 units eligible Thus, the total allowable units on 86.95f: acres:=: 727 maximum eligible units (455+272) However, in order to quality for the calculation of Activity Center acreage for residential density, there must be mixed-use development within the Activity Center. Although the PUD allows residential uses in the Activity Center (Mixed Use District), it does not require it; therefore it is possible that the Mixed Use District portion could develop with 100 percent commercial uses. If PUDZ-2007-AR-llIOO, Taormina Reserve MPUD 4 September 29, 2009 --'" Agenda Item No. 8A September 29,2009 Page 43 of 265 that were to occur, then the Activity Center acreage could not be used for density calculation. To address this issue, the MPUD commits to a maximum of only 400 residential dwelling units within the R1 and R2 tracts; and a maximum of 128 units in the MU tracts, if multifamily uses develop there, This density is lower than that permitted by the density rating system, ensures that no density generated from the Activity Center portion of the site could be transferred outside of the Activity Center. The factors to consider during review of a rezone petition are as follows: . Rezones within Mixed Use Activity Centers are encouraged to be in the form of a Planned Unit Development. There shall be no minimum acreage limitation for such Planned Unit Developments except all requests for rezoning must meet the requirements for rezoning in the Land Development Code. The petition was submitted as a MPUD and meets the minimum requirements for rezoning in the Land Development Code, as determined by Zoning and Land Development Review staff. . The amount, type and location of existing zoned commercial land, and developed commercial uses, within the Mixed Use Activity Center and within two road miles of the mixed Use Activity Center; Information regarding existing zoned and developed commercial uses in the vicinity was presented in a retail demand analysis prepared by Fishkind and Associates, and reviewed and approved by Comprehensive Planning staff. . Market demand and service area for the proposed commercial land uses to be used as a guide to explore the feasibility of the requested land uses; The market study prepared by Fishkind and Associates addressed the feasibility of the requested land uses. . Existing patterns of land use within the Mixed Use Activity Center and within two radial miles; This has been addressed by the market study provided by Fishkind and Associates, which identifies commercial development within two miles. Staff notes that other existing uses within a two-mile radius include single-family and multifamily uses at varying densities, churches, parks, government offices, schools, offices, and other institutional and recreational uses. . Adequacy of infrastructure capacity, particularly roads; The project proposes access to Davis Boulevard and the future Santa Barbara Boulevard Extension; and a potential access to Sunset Boulevard. Transportation Planning staff will review this petition to determine the adequacy of road capacity. PUDZ-2007-AR-llIOO, Taormina Reserve MPUD 5 September 29,2009 Agenda Item No. 8A September 29,2009 Page 44 of 265 . Compatibility of the proposed development with, and adequacy of buffering for, adjoining properties; A detailed compatibility analysis has been provided by the Department of Zoning and Land Development Review staff, starting on page eight of this report. . Natural or man-made constraints; The site contains some jurisdictional wetlands, which have been maintained in the project's preserve area. . Rezoning criteria identified in the Land Development Code; This was reviewed by the Department of Zoning and Land Development Review and is contained in the" Analysis" portion of this report. . Conformance with Access Management Plan provisions for Mixed Use Activity Centers contained in the Land Development Code; This was analyzed by the Transportation Planning Department as part of their review of the petition. . Coordinated traffic flow on-site and off-site, as may be demonstrated by a Traffic Impact Analysis, and a site plan/master plan indicating on-site traffic movements, access point locations and type, median opening locations and type on the abutting roadway(s), location of traffic signals on the abutting roadway(s), and internal and external vehicular and pedestrian interconnections; As noted, a detailed traffic review evaluating these issues has been performed by the Transportation Planning Department. . Interconnection(s) for pedestrians, bicycles and motor vehicles with existing and future adjacent projects; The project proposes vehicular and pedestrian interconnects between the residential and the mixed-use components of the project, as depicted on the conceptual Master Plan. To the south, where vacant and single-family A-zoned parcels are located, a potential interconnection would be provided to Sunset Boulevard. Another potential vehicular/pedestrian interconnection, to the Boys and Girls Club of Collier County, east of the northernmost portion of the site, is also depicted on the Master Plan. An interconnection to the adjacent Naples Heritage Golf and Country Club, which is a gated community to the east of the southern portion of the site, was not feasible due to that PUD's existing preserve and lake; nor was an interconnection to the abutting Cook Property RPUD to the north, as that development is already under construction and no provision for a potential interconnection to the subject property was required at the time of its approval. PUDZ-2007-AR-lllOO, Taormina Reserve MPUD 6 September 29,2009 Agenda Item No. 8A September 29, 2009 Page 45 of 265 . Conformance with the architectural design standards as identified in the Land Development Code. Architectural review for commercial or mixed-use buildings within the MU tracts would be required by the Department of Zoning and Land Development Review at the time of site development plan (SDP) approval. FLUE Policy 5.4 requires new land uses to be compatible with and complementary to the surrounding land uses as set forth in the LDC. It is the responsibility of the Zoning and Land Development Review staff as part of their review of the petition in its entirety to perform this compatibility analysis. In order to promote the Smart Growth policies of FLUE Objective 7 (italicized below), and to adhere to the existing development character of Collier County, staff provides the following analysis (in bold font): Policy 7.1 The County shall encourage developers and property owners to connect their properties to fronting collector and arterial roads, except where no such connection can be made without violating intersection spacing requirements of the Land Development Code. The MPUD Master Plan shows access to Davis Boulevard and to Santa Barbara Boulevard Extension, both arterial roads. Policy 7.2 The County shall encourage internal accesses or loop roads in an effort to help reduce vehicle congestion on nearby collector and arterial roads and minimize the need for traffic signals. An internal connection bem'een the mixed-use and residential components of the MPUD is depicted on the Master Plan, with access available to both Santa Barbara Extension and Davis Boulevard. Policy 7.3 All new and existing developments shall be encouraged to connect their local streets and their interconnection points with adjoining neighborhoods or other developments regardless of land use type. The MPUD provides for interconnections with the adjoining developments where feasible. The Master Plan depicts a potential interconnection to Sunset Boulevard to the south and to the Boys' and Girls' Club of Collier County to the northeast. However, as previously noted, the adjacent Naples Heritage Golf and Country Club is fully developed and gated, and the Cook Property RPUD is currently under development; therefore, interconnections to these properties are not possible. Policy 7.4 The County shall encourage new developments to provide walkable communities with a blend of densities, common open spaces, civic facilities and a range of housing prices and types. PUDZ-2007-AR-IIIOO, Taormina Reserve MPUD 7 September 29. 2009 Agenda Item No. 8A September 29, 2009 Page 46 of 265 Per Exhibit A of the MPUD document, different unit types are allowed. The Master Plan and MPUD document provide for preserves and other open space. Sidewalks would be required by the LDC at the time of SDP, since no request for a deviation from this requirement has been made by the applicant. Based on the above analysis, staff concludes that the proposed uses and density may be deemed consistent with the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the GMP. Transportation Element: Transportation Planning staff has reviewed the petitioner's Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) and has determined that the adjacent roadway network would have sufficient capacity to accommodate this project within the five-year planning period upon fulfillment of the developer commitments. Therefore, the subject application can be deemed consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the GMP. - ANALYSIS: Staff has completed a comprehensive evaluation of this land use petition including the criteria upon which a recommendation must be based, specifically noted in LDC Subsection 10.02.13.B.5, Planning Commission Recommendation (commonly referred to as the "PUD Findings"), and Subsection 10.03.05.1, Nature of Requirements of Planning Commission Report (referred to as "Zoning Findings"), which establish the legal bases to support the CCPC's recommendation. The CCPC uses these same criteria as the basis for their recommendation to the BCC, who in turn use the criteria to support their action on the rezoning request. An evaluation relative to these subsections is discussed below, under the heading "Zoning and Land Development Review Analysis." In addition, staff offers the following analyses: Environmental Analvsis: The applicant was required to submit an Environment Impact Statement (EIS) for the project because the property is over ten acres in size and is partially located within a ST area. The proposal was also required to be heard before the Environmental Advisory Council (EAC), which occurred on January 7, 2009. Environmental staff has reviewed the project and has determined that all environmental issues have been addressed. However, as a condition of approval, has required that the developer, at the time of the next development order, provide a hydroperiod analysis for the site, or apply whatever current LDC amendment is in effect regarding the impact of stormwater discharge into upland preserves. In addition, staff has required a preserve management plan as part of the next development order in order to annually monitor the preserve and remedy impacts of stormwater on its vegetation. Finally, an updated red-cockaded woodpecker survey (see Exhibit G of the MPUD documents), if required by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission or the U.S. fish and Wildlife Service, has been stipulated as part of the next development order, as well as a Florida black bear and a Big Cypress fox squirrel management plan, in an attempt to protect these endangered or threatened species. All of these conditions of approval have been incorporated into Exhibit H of the MPUD document. Transportation Analvsis: Transportation Planning staff has reviewed the application to assess the proposal's potential impact on rights-of-way and access. As noted in Exhibit F, section I.B.5, and as depicted in Exhibit F-l, the developer would design and construct an approximately 830-foot PUDZ-2007-AR-l 1 100, Taormina Reserve MPUD 8 September 29,2009 ....... Agenda Item No. 8A September 29,2009 Page 47 of 265 segment of roadway to link the project's principal thoroughfare with the existing Sunset Boulevard to the south, if access rights on adjacent properties can be obtained. The owner of one of the adjacent A-zoned parcels, in order to accomplish this, has voluntarily agreed to provide an easement over the westerly 30 feet of his parcel for use as a public roadway connection. However, as a stipulation for granting this easement right, has requested that an eight-foot noise reduction wall be provided along the frontage of his parcel as part of the Sunset Boulevard construction project. Staff, believing this to be a reasonable request, has included it as a condition of approval; and has recommended approval of the petition, subject to the development commitments contained in Exhibit F and F -1, and staff s conditions of approval, contained in Exhibit H. Utility Review: Per the County GIS~ there is an existing 16-inch water main and 14-inch force main on Davis Boulevard. However, the Public Utilities Department has reviewed the application and approved the project, subject to the condition that a coordination meeting occur between the developer, the engineering representative, and the Public Utilities Department at the time of SDP and/or preliminary plat review and approval to discuss the location and size of the well site easement, as the 30-foot by 30-foot well site easement proposed does not satisfy the provisions of the LDC (the minimum size for the well site must be 40 feet by 60 feet) and is, therefore, unacceptable. It should also be noted that any developed portion of this project would be required to comply with Ordinance No. 2004-31, as amended, and would be subject to the conditions associated with a Sewer Availability Letter from the Collier County Public Utilities Division at the time of SDP or preliminary plat review and approval. Emergency Management Services (EMS); The Emergency Management Services Department staff has no objection to the proposed MPUD but has noted that it is located in a CAT 3 hurricane surge zone, which requires evacuation during some storm events. While there is currently no impact mitigation required, approval of this project in light of other development in the area would increase the evacuation and sheltering requirements for the County. It should also be noted that if senior group housing were to develop on the Rl and R2 portions of the site, as permitted by the MPUD, the State licensing requirements for facilities providing assistance to the elderly would include an approved emergency evacuation and relocation plan for residents, reviewed and approved by the County's EMS Department. Zoning Review: According to LDC Subsection 2.03.06.C.6, the MPUD zoning district is intended to accommodate more than one type of PUD district, whose mixture of uses are to be defined in the MPUD document. As noted in the GMP portion of this report, the land uses in Mixed Use Activity Centers may include the full array of commercial uses, residential uses, institutional uses, and/or hotel/motel uses. Consistent with this provision, the uses proposed for the mixed use portion of the MPUD, which is located in the Activity Center Subdistrict (Activity Center No.6) and labeled as MU on the Master Plan, are multifamily dwellings and commercial uses commonly permitted in the General Commercial (C-l) through Heavy Commercial (C-5) zoning districts. The uses proposed for the remaining areas, which are located within the Urban Residential Subdistrict and not the Activity Center, are residential and group housing and labeled as Rl and R2 on the Master Plan. LDC Subsection 10.02.13.B.5 further requires that, "In support of its recommendation, the Planning Commission shall make findings as to the PUD Master Plan's compliance with the PUDZ-2007-AR-l 1100, Taormina Reserve MPUD 9 September 29,2009 Agenda Item No. 8A September 29, 2009 Page 48 of 265 following criteria": 1. The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in relation to physical characteristics of the land. surrounding areas, traffic and access, drainage, sewer, water, and other utilities. The Rl and R2 portions of the MPUD proposed for residential and group housing uses are adjacent to properties that are either developed with, or approved for the development of, residential uses. Similarly, the MU portion of the site adjoins other commercially-zoned properties. The petitioner has submitted the required TIS, and to address concerns raised by Transportation Planning staff, has committed to several transportation-related improvements to ensure that the project would not have an adverse impact on the surrounding roadway network (see Exhibit F of the MPUD documents). The project would also be required to comply with County regulations regarding drainage, sewer, water and other utilities. Therefore, the site is suitable for the proposed development. 2. Adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of any proposed agreements, contracts, or other instruments, or for amendments in those proposed, particularly as they may relate to arrangements or provisions to be made for the continuing operation and maintenance of such areas and facilities that are not to be provided or maintained atpublic expense. Documents that were submitted with the application and reviewed by the County Attorney's Office provide evidence of unified control of the property. Additionally, the MPUD document makes appropriate stipulations for the provision of necessary infrastructure. 3. Conformity of the proposed Planned Unit Development with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). Based upon the requirements of the Activity Center Subdistrict, the Urban Residential Subdistrict, and Comprehensive Planning staff's analysis relative to the Future Land Use Element, the proposed rezone may be deemed consistent with the GMP, as previously noted. 4. The internal and external compatibility of proposed uses, which conditions may include restrictions on location of improvements, restrictions on design, and buffering and screening requirements. As depicted on the MPUD Master Plan included at the beginning of this report (and in Exhibit C to the MPUD document), all of the proposed buffers are consistent with the screening requirements of the LDC. The MPUD would be separated from the commercial uses of the Freestate CPUD and the multifamily residential uses of Falling Waters PUD, both to the west, by the Santa Barbara Boulevard Extension and a 20-foot wide Type D buffer. South of the site's Rl tracts, the A~zoned parcels would be PUDZ-2007-AR-I1IOO, Taormina Reserve MPUD 10 September 29,2009 Agenda Item No. 8A September 29, 2009 Page 49 of 265 separated by the project's approximately 29-acre preserve and a ten-foot wide Type A buffer; however, south of the proposed R2 tract, the single, vacant A-zoned parcel would only be separated by a 15-foot wide Type B buffer, despite the fact that the multifamily buildings on this tract could reach a height of 50 feet and the minimum side yard requirement proposed is only 6 feet. (Staff is recommending that these height and side yard setback standards be revised, as described on page 12 of this report and as conditioned in the "Conditions of Approval" contained in Exhibit H of the MPUD document.) Between the single-family homes of the Naples Heritage PUD and the project, either a 10-foot wide Type A or IS-foot wide Type B would be required, which would be determined at the time of SDP, depending upon whether single- or multifamily dwellings were developed at this location. Adjoining the boundary of the Cook Property RPUD, where single-family homes are being developed, and the Boys' and Girls' Club, 15-foot Type B buffers would be installed. Finally, a 20-foot wide Type D buffer would be provided along the project's boundary with Davis Boulevard. To insure internal compatibility, internal buffers would be required between separately platted tracts at the time of SDP, as required by the LDC. In addition to these vegetative buffers, the site, with the aforementioned exception of the R2 tract, has generally been designed so that the tallest proposed structures (i.e. a 60-foot building with multifamily over commercial and/or office uses on an MU tract) would be sited at the Davis Boulevard and Santa Barbara Boulevard Extension intersection, since all of the neighboring properties adjacent to this portion of the site are zoned for commercial uses and have the following maximum heights: 60 feet (Shoppes at Santa Barbara), 50 feet (Boys' and Girls' Club, zoned C-3) and 35 feet (the Freestate PUD, across the Santa Barbara Boulevard Extension). 5. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development. Approximately 33.41 acres, or 39 percent of the site's total area, would be retained as open space, which exceeds the minimum 30 percent requirement of Subsection 4.02.01.B.l of the LDC. Of this area, 28.88 acres would be dedicated to a preserve, 3.47 acres would be a lake, and the remaining 1.06 acres would be comprised of buffers and other open space, such as stormwater management areas. 6. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and private. Development of the project would have to be in compliance with applicable concurrency management regulations at the time development approvals were sought. Therefore, the timing of development would not be problematic if the proposed rezoning were approved. Nevertheless, as noted in the transportation-related developer commitments in Section I.B. of Exhibit F, no certificates of occupancy could be issued until Davis Boulevard improvements from Radio Road to Collier Boulevard (CR 951) are completed; and Santa Barbara is extended to the project entrance. The developer would also be required to pay his fair share for the signalization of the Santa Barbara PUDZ-2007-AR-IIIOO, Taormina Reserve MPUD 11 September 29, 2009 Agenda Item No. 8A September 29, 2009 Page 50 of 265 Extension and Cope Lane intersection whenever warrants are met, as well as provide payment in lieu, or construct, any turn lanes on Santa Barbara serving the project. Finally, as previously noted, the developer would also be required to construct a potential SOO-foot interconnection between this project and Sunset Boulevard to the south. 7. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. As stated, the provision of adequate public facilities, including Fire and EMS services, would be required at the time development approvals were sought. Furthermore, Transportation Planning staff has determined that the proposed rezoning is consistent with the Transportation Element provisions of the GMP. Therefore, subject to the conditions of approval recommended by staff and the developer commitments made by the applicant, the subject property and the surrounding areas would have the ability to support the proposed project. 8. Conformity with PUD regulations, or as to desirable modifications of such regulations in the particular case, based on determination that such modifications are justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations. The project's development standards are contained in Exhibit B of the MPUD document. As the MPUD allows a maximum of 400 units in the Rl and R2 tracts, which total an approximately 32-acre area, the RMF -12 zoning district has been used in the table on the following page as a benchmark to evaluate the proposed multifamily residential development standards against those of the most similar conventional zoning district. Similarly, the RMF-6 standards were used to compare the MPUD's townhouse, duplex and two-family development standards. Although group housing uses are permitted by right in all commercial zoning districts, the area of the site in which they are proposed is located outside of the adjacent Activity Center where commercial uses are not allowed. Therefore, these uses' development standards have been compared to the more stringent standards of the Community Facility (CF) zoning district of the LDC, which also permits group housing by right. Highlighted in yellow in the table on the following page are the proposed residential standards of Exhibit B, Table I, which staff considers to be inconsistent with the development standards of their most comparable conventional zoning district. For example, the MPUD proposes a minimum IS-foot front yard setback for duplexes, two- family dwellings, and townhouses that have side- or rear-loaded garages; yet the LDC requires front yard setbacks of 25-30 feet for these structures, irrespective of the location of their attached garages. Likewise, the proposed minimum side yard setbacks for multifamily structures, which are permitted a maximum height of 50 feet in Tract R2, are permitted setbacl~ of only 6 feet despite the fact that the LDC requires setbacks of 50 percent the buildings height, but no less than 15 feet. While staff appreciates the applicant's desire to maintain flexibility within the MPUD, whose end-users have not yet been identified, staff does not support such drastic departures from the most closely PUDZ-2007-AR-J 1100, Taormina Reserve MPUD 12 September 29, 2009 -...-,". --.---... "- _. ._~~ Agenda Item No. 8A September 29,2009 Page 51 of 265 Proposed Residential Development Standards for Principal Structures vs. RMF-6 and RMF-12 of LDe 5,000 sq. ft./unit 1,400 sq. ft./unit 3,500 sq. ft./unit 9,000 sq. ft.lunit 43,560 sq. ft. nla 42 feet II 150 feet 80 feet nla 1,000 sq. ft. 1,000 sq. ft 1,000 sq. ft. 750 nla n/a 20 feet 20 feet (15 ft. if side or rear loaded) 20 feet (15 ft. if side or rear loaded) 20 feet 20 feet 25 feet n/a 6 feet o or 6 feet (=12 feet) o or 6 feet (=12 feet) 6 feet J 5 feet or Y2 bldg. height 15 feet nla 15 feet 15 feet 15 feet 15 feet 15 feet 15 feet nla 12 feet 12 feet 12 feet 20 feet 20 feet Y2 bldg. height 20 feet but> 25 feet 35 feet 45 feet 35 feet 35 feet in RI and 50 feet in R2 45 feet 30 feet 35 feet PUDZ-2007-AR-ll100, Taormina Reserve MPUD 13 September 29,2009 Agenda Item No. 8A September 29, 2009 Page 52 of 265 related conventional zoning district's standards. As such, staff is recommending that approval of the MPUD be contingent upon modification of the standards highlighted in yellow, to more accurately reflect those required by the LDC's most closely related conventional zoning district's standards (see staff's conditions of approval in Exhibit H). As illustrated in the following table, several accessory structures would also be permitted setbacks that are inconsistent with LDC Section 4.02.03, Specific Standards for the Location of Accessory Buildings and Structures. Although most accessory structures are required by this section to maintain front and side yard setbacks that are the same as the principal structure ("SPS"), with the conditions of approval recommended by staff, adequate setbacks would be provided. However, as seen below, the MPUD would allow rear setbacks for accessory uses such as parking structures, swimming pools and tennis courts to be only 10 feet from multifamily buildings and group housing; whereas the LDC requires setbacks of 35 feet, 20 feet and 20 feet, respectively, for these uses. As such, staff is also recommending that the proposed standards be revised to reflect the LDC standards for accessory structures, and has included such a condition of approval in Exhibit H. Proposed Residential Development Standards for Accessory Structures vs. Standards of LDC 20 feet -- 20 feet (15 ft. if side or rear loaded) 20 feet (15 ft. if side or rear loaded) 20 feet (J 5 ft. if side or rear loaded) 20 feet 25 feet 6 feet o feet or 6 feet ( 12 feet) o feet or 6 feet (=12 feet) 10 feet 10 feet I 0 feet 10 feet I 0 feet I 0 feet 10 feet 10 feet 15 feet As previously noted in the "GMP Consistency" portion of this report, Mixed Use Activity Centers are intended to contain the full array of commercial uses. Therefore, as a benchmark against which to measure the MPUD' s proposed development standards, staff has used the LDC's mid-range of these districts, the Commercial Intermediate District (C-3). As shown in the table on the following page, and in Table II, Exhibit B of the MPUD document, the proposed standards are generally consistent with the C-3 standards of the LDC. The only exceptions are the lack of proposed minimum lot widths and floor areas for any entirely multifamily residential PUDZ-2007-AR-11100, Taormina Reserve MPUD 14 September 29, 2009 -- Agenda Item No. SA September 29,2009 Page 53 of 265 buildings that may develop on the MU tracts. As such, staff has included a condition of approval requiring that these standards be 75 feet and 700 square feet, respectively, in order to conform to the C- 3 zoning district. Proposed MU Development Standards for Principal Structures vs. C-3 Standards of LDC 10,000 square feet 9,000 square feet 75 feet none 700 sq. ft. (on first finished floor) none 25 feet 20 feet 20 feet 10 feet 6 feet 15 feet 15 feet 20 feet ~ or that required by fire code 50 feet if just commercial; 60 feet if commercial mixed wi MF 45 feet As shown in the following table, the proposed setbacks for accessory structures are consistent with those required by the LDC. Proposed MU Del1elopment Standards for Accessory Structures vs. C-3 Standards of LDC SPS 10 feet none none PUDZ-2007-AR-III00, Taormina Reserve MPUD 15 September 29, 2009 Agenda Item No. 8A September 29, 2009 Page 54 of 265 LDC Subsection 10.03.05.1.2 states, "When pertaining to the rezoning of land, the report and recommendations to the planning commission to the Board of County Commissioners...shall show that the planning commission has studied and considered proposed change in relation to the following when applicable" (Staffs responses to these criteria are provided in bold font): 1. Whether the proposed change will be consistent with the goals, objectives, & policies of the Future Land Use Map and the elements of the Growth Management Plan. As noted on page eight of this report, Comprehensive Planning staff has found this petition to be consistent with the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) and the GMP. The southern portion of the property is designated Urban Residential Subdistrict, the purpose of which is to provide for higher densities in an area with fewer natural resource constraints and where existing and planned public facilities are concentrated. The northern portion is designated Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict (Activity Center #6), which is designed to accommodate new commercial zoning in locations where traffic impacts can be readily accommodated; and to create focal points within the community so that strip and disorganized patterns of commercial development are avoided. As its name implies, this subdistrict is also intended to be mixed-use in nature. As the MPUD proposes residential uses in tracts Rl and R2 and a mix of commercial and multifamily residential in the MU tracts, this project would be consistent with the FLUE of the GMP. 2. The existing land use pattern; The subject site's residential tracts are bordered by the multi-family residences of Falling Waters PUD to the west, the single-family residences of the Naples Heritage PUD to the east, the Cook Property RPUD to the north and A-zoned parcels to the south. Its mixed-use tracts are bordered by the Freestate CPUD to the west, the Santa Barbara PUD to the north and C-3 zoned property to the east. As such, the proposed uses would be complementary to the existing land use pattern. 3. The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts; Approval of this MPUD would not create an isolated district. As noted above, the subject site would be a mixed-use development surrounded by PUDs and conventional zoning districts approved for similar residential and commercial uses. Furthermore, the proposed uses are cited as intended uses in the Residential Subdistrict and the Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict of the GMP, in which the project is located. 4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property proposed for change. The subject property was created by the applicants' assemblage of available parcels in the area. The aerial photograph on page three of this report highlights the boundary of the subject property, demonstrating that it is logically drawn. PUDZ-2007-AR-lll00, Taormina Reserve MPUD 16 September 29,2009 ~-"~,~---, Agenda Item No. 8A September 29,2009 Page 55 of 265 5. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed rezoning necessary. Due to changed conditions in the area, the proposed MPUD would include a group of vacant parcels in the southeast quadrant of the Davis Boulevard and the Santa Barbara Boulevard Extension that are zoned Rural Agricultural (A). Except for a few vacant A-zoned parcels to the south, aU of the abutting properties have been developed with residential and commercial PUDs that would be compatible in nature with the proposed MPUD in terms of uses. 6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood; Subject to the conditions of approval recommended by staff, contained in Exhibit H to the MPVD documents, the proposed development would not adversely affect the living conditions in the neighborhood. The proposed uses would be compatible with the existing residential and commercial uses in the surrounding neighborhood; and with staff's recommended development standards relative to reduced heights and increased setbacks, compatibility would be achieved. 7. Whether the proposed change will create or excessively increase traffic congestion or create types of traffic deemed incompatible with surrounding land uses, because of peak volumes or projected types of vehicular traffic, including activity during construction phases of the development, or otherwise affect public safety. Transportation Planning staff has determined that the project would not create any adverse traffic impacts, in conformance with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the GMP. The applicants submitted the required TIS, which measured the proposed commercial uses' impacts utilizing 131,000 square feet of "shopping center" uses (LU 820) and 131,000 square feet of "general office" uses (LV 710). Although several of the MPUD's proposed uses actually have higher trip-generator rates than shopping centers and general offices (such as drive-in banks, medical offices and gas stations with convenience stores), Transportation Planning staff would still require the applicant to submit a new TIS each time an SDP for the site was submitted; and no uses generating trips above the existing TIS would be allowed. As noted in Section I.B.1 of Exhibit F to the MPUD documents, no certificates of occupancy could be issued until the segments of Davis Boulevard and Santa Barbara Extension impacted by the project had been completed. The developer would also be required to provide, or pay in lieu, for any turn lanes serving the project as well as the project's fair-share of signal improvements to the Santa Barbara Boulevard Extension and Cope Lane intersection. Furthermore, development of the project would have to be in compliance with applicable concurrency management regulations at the time development approvals were sought. Finally, as a mixed-use project affording up to 262,000 square feet of commercial uses and pedestrian connections to them, the development would contribute to a reduction of traffic levels. 8. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem; PUDZ-2007-AR-I I 100, Taormina Reserve MPUD l7 September 29,2009 Agenda Item No. 8A September 29, 2009 Page 56 of 265 The project proposes a 3.47~acre lake that would function as a water management system and prevent drainage problems on the site. Therefore, the proposed change would not create surface water problems. 9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas; As previously stated, some of the project's setbacks from adjoining properties (as well as some internal ones) are less than adequate. However, with the conditions of approval recommended by staff to modify them to better conform to the standards of the most closely related conventional zoning district associated with their uses, the proposed MPUD would not impact light and air on adjacent properties. 10. Whether the proposed change will adversely affect property values in the adjacent area; -~ This is a subjective determination based upon a variety of circumstances other than zoning, many of which are external to the subject property. 11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations; As conditioned by staff, the proposed project would not be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property. 12. Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner as contrasting with the public welfare; As previously stated, the proposed MPUD complies with the Urban Residential Subdistrict and Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict designations of the GMP, and with the developer's commitments and conditions of approval recommended by staff, would also be consistent with the applicable regulations of the LDC. Furthermore, land use applications are subject to a public hearing process to insure that they do not constitute a grant of special privilege and are compatible with other properties in the vicinity. Therefore, the public's welfare would not be compromised. 13. Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance with existing zoning; Being zoned Rural Agricultural (A), the property should not be used in accordance with its existing zoning since it is located at the intersection of two arterials in the Urban-designated area of the FLUE, and is primarily surrounded by residential PUDs, commercial PUDs and C-3 zoning, making agricultural uses in this area inappropriate. 14. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the County; PUDZ-2007-AR-l1lO0, Taormina Reserve MPUD 18 September 29, 2009 ...-...."" .." -'~-'_.>..""'''''_.' Agenda Item No. 8A September 29, 2009 Page 57 of 265 As noted in the "GMP Consistency" portion of this report, the density permitted by the FLUE in the Rl and R2 tracts, which are located in the Urban Residential Subdistrict, is 455 dwelling units; yet the MPUD limits the number of dwelling units in this portion of the site to only 400 units. Additionally, if multifamily units are eventually developed in the MU tracts, which are located within the Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict, only a maximum of 128 units could be built even though the density rating system allows up to 272 units. Therefore, the applicant's request for a total of 528 units at a density of 6.39 units per acre is much less than the GMP's maximum permissible density for a project of its size in this location. Nevertheless, the density is somewhat higher relative to the surrounding residential communities where the following densities are permitted: Falling Waters POO, 4.95 dwelling units per acre; Cook Property RPUD (Firano at Naples), 3.95 dwelling units per acre; and Naples Heritage Golf and Country Club PUD, 1.43 dwelling units per acre. In both of the adjacent commercial PUDs, 150,000 square feet of commercial uses at an intensity consistent with the proposed uses are permitted. The maximum heights allowed by the adjacent zoning districts are as follows: 35 feet for the Freestate CPUD, Cook Property RPUD and the A-zoned parcels; four stories for the Naples Heritage Golf and Country Club PUD; 50 feet for Falling Waters PUD and the C-3 zoning of the Boys' and Girls' Club; and 60 feet for the Shoppes at Santa Barbara PUD. The maximum zoned height proposed for the MPUD is 70 feet for mixed residential/commercial buildings on MU tracts. Although this height's impact would be somewhat mitigated by right-of-way width separation from the commercial PUDs across Davis Boulevard (Shoppes at Santa Barbara) and the Santa Barbara Extension (Freestate CPUD), no mitigation in terms of increased setbacks or enhanced buffering has been offered adjoining the C-3 zoning to the west, which would result in a 20-foot zoned height disparity at this interface with the Boys' and Girls' Club (whose constructed height is less than the 50-foot height permitted by its zoning district). What's more, the 6O-foot height permitted in the Shop pes at Santa Barbara is an anomaly for the area since, as noted above, the other surrounding heights vary between 35 feet and 50 feet. As a result, approval of the requested 70-foot height for the MU tracts of the MPUD would represent a dramatic shift in the building profile of this neighborhood. Staff is also uncomfortable with the 50-foot height permitted multifamily dwellings on Tract R2 because, as previously explained, this tract abuts a vacant A-zoned parcel, yet the applicant has not provided additional landscaping as mitigation and has even requested reduced side yard setbacks. Therefore, as a condition of approval, staff is recommending that these requested heights be lowered to 50 zoned feet and 45 zoned feet, respectively. Finally, as noted in the letters contained in Appendix 1, tbe residents of Naples Heritage to the west are particularly concerned about the 45-foot heights permitted in the Rl tracts adjacent to their westernmost boundary, as the nearest dwelling units of their development are only one story single-family homes. ,. 15. Whether is it impossible to find other adequate sites in the County for the proposed use in districts already permitting such use. PUDZ-2007-AR-IIIOO, Taormina Rese/'"Ve MPUD 19 September 29, 2009 Agenda Item No. 8A September 29,2009 Page 58 of 265 There are potentially other sites already zoned to accommodate the proposed development; however this is not the determining factor when evaluating the appropriateness of a rezoning decision. The proposed MPUD was reviewed and deemed compliant with the GMP and the LDC. 16. The physical characteristics of the property and the degree of site alteration, which would be required to make the property usable for any of the range of potential uses under the proposed zoning classification. Any development would require some site alteration. However, as seen in the aerial photograph on page three of this report, several of the parcels adjacent to the Santa Barbara Boulevard Extension have already been cleared or at least partially cleared; and as noted on the Master Plan, of the remaining area, 28.88 acres along the site's southern boundary (35 percent of the total project area) would be maintained as a preserve in perpetuity. - 17. The impact of development on the availability of adequate public facilities and services consistent with the levels of service adopted in the Collier County Growth Management Plan and as defined and implemented through the Collier County Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance, as amended. As previously noted, the proposed MPUD petition has been reviewed by the Transportation Planning Department and the Utilities Department, both of which have found that the project would not have an adverse impact on the levels of service for public facilities and have recommended approval for it. Deviations: In Exhibit E of the CPUD document, the applicant requests approval of a deviation from the design standards of the LDC and has provided justification to support it. Staff has reviewed this request and offers the following analysis and recommendation: Deviation 1 seeks relief from LDC Subsection 6.06.01.J, Street System Requirements, which prohibits cul-de-sacs in excess of 1,000 feet in length unless topographical features or other natural conditions preclude it. Proposal: The applicant requests a waiver of the 1,000-foot length prohibition to permit the cul-de-sac shown on the Master Plan. which would also include traffic calming devices installed every 300 feet. Staff's Determination: Because of the site's unusual configuration of available developable land, resulting from the unfavorable location of the necessary 14.86-acre preserve; and due to the provision of traffic calming devices installed every 300 feet to mitigate for the cul-de-sacs increased length, staff supports this deviation. ..- PUDZ-2007-AR-III00, Taormina Reserve MPUD 20 September 29, 2009 .,.-"', , ...-.... '..H.".'.....,,_ Agenda Item No. SA September 29, 2009 Page 59 of 265 NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM): Because the MPUD proposal has been under review for more than two years, the applicant has held two NIM meetings to keep affected property owners apprised of its status. The first NIM was duly noticed by the applicant and held at 6:00 pm on March 12, 2008, at the Calusa Park Elementary School Cafeteria. Approximately 51 people attended, including the developer's agents, Mr. Wayne Arnold, AICP of Q. Grady Minor and Associates; Mr. Richard Yovanovich of Goodlette, Coleman and Young, P.A.; and Mr. Reed Jarvi of Vanasse Daylor and Associates. County staff, including Mr. Willie Brown, Principal Planner, and Mr. Jim Seabasty, Permitting Supervisor, were also in attendance (this synopsis was prepared by Mr. Willie Brown). Mr. Arnold presented an overview of the project and summarized the following points: . There would be three distinct components to the project: office, retail, and residential, whiCh would include a mix of uses in the Activity Center; . Access points would be provided from Santa Barbara Extension and Davis Boulevard; . The developer has been working with the County to provide land for right-of-way along the Santa Barbara Extension; . Over 20 acres of preserve, exceeding the preserve requirements, and a water management lake are proposed. Neighboring property owners expressed the following concerns: . Whether views of the existing stormwater lake (in Naples Heritage PUD) and the preserve beyond (in the proposed MPUD) would be maintained: Residents were tol4 some of the Taormina residential housing units would be lake front housing and that views of the existing lake and preserve, from Naples Heritage, would be protected. . The type of housing proposed: Residents were told that no affordable housing units were proposed; only market-rate housing such as single family uses, multi-family uses and zero lot line (townhouse) uses. . Stormwater runoff flowing to the south on property: Residents were told that a stormwater detention pond was proposed and that water would be routed towards the proposed Santa Barbara Extension's drainage facilities. Also, at least 15 acres of preserve would be maintained within the existing on-site wetland to help capture runoff. . The type of commercial uses proposed: Residents were told that C-l through C-4 uses were proposed and would be of the kind to attract surrounding residents as well as those of the proposed MPUD. PUDZ-2007-AR-lllOO, Taormina Reserve MPUD 21 September 29, 2009 Agenda Item No. 8A September 29,2009 Page 60 of 265 . The impact to wetlands on private wells in area: Residents were told that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) had been submitted and that impacts to any existing surface waters would have to be approved by the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD). . Interconnections to existing adjacent developments: Residents were told that an agreement for an interconnection was being worked out between the proposed project and the Boys' and Girls' Club of Collier County to the west. . Whether the project would be primarily commercial or residential: Residents were told that the developers were uncertain at this point. The only guarantee was that the project would be a mixed use PUD and that it depended on the market at the time of permitting as to whether there would be more commercial or residential uses. The second NIM was duly noticed by the applicant and held on January 22, 2009 at 5:30 p.m. at the New Hope Ministries Church. Fifty people from the public attended, as well as Mr. Wayne Arnold and County staff, including the newly assigned principal planner, Mr. John-David Moss, AICP, and administrative assistant, Ms. Cheri Rollins (this synopsis was provided by Ms. Cheri Rollins). Mr. Arnold presented another overview of the requested MPUD, explaining that the Master Plan had changed since the first meeting and a larger preserve, which was a condition set forth by SFWMD, had been added. He stated that the MPUD would also include assisted living facilities as a permitted use. One resident of Naples Heritage was concerned about the type of buffers that would be provided. Mr. Arnold indicated that he would meet with the Naples Heritage residents but insured that appropriate buffers would be provided. There were other concerns regarding building heights within the project, and one resident commented that the proposed 60-foot height for commercial/multifamily buildings was too high. Another participant asked if there were any plans to add a rear exit to the south as he would like for there to be one. Mr. Arnold said that the developer was not planning on one. The meeting ended at approximately 6:15 p.m. As of the writing of this report, staff has received eighteen letters of objection, all from Naples Heritage property owners, particularly concerned about potentially 45-foot buildings adjacent to their westem property boundary. These letters have been attached as Appendix 1. COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW: The County Attorney's Office has reviewed this staff report, revised on August 9,2009. PUDZ-2007-AR-lllOO, Taormina Reserve MPUD 22 September 29, 2009 <-.......... ,... _..~. ,., ~ "-.--.-...... Agenda Item No. SA September 29,2009 Page 61 of 265 RECOMMENDATION: Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) forward Petition PUDZ-2007-AR-1l100 to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) with a recommendation of approval, subject to the stipulations incorporated into the MPUD document and restated below: 1. Irrespective of the 24-foot wide public access reservation shown on Exhibit F-1 of the MPUD documents, the developer shall provide a minimum 30-foot wide dedicated public right-of-way reservation, which shall accommodate two, 10 to12-foot wide travel lanes and one 5 to 6-foot wide sidewalk. 2. Irrespective of that stated in the last sentence on the dedication note in Exhibit F-l, the developer shall not be responsible for mitigation of only the portion of the public access road that is located outside of the project boundary. - 3. If the potential interconnection from the project to Sunset Boulevard is constructed, in exchange for the 30-foot easement voluntarily granted by the property owner located at 2380 Sunset Boulevard, the developer shall provide, at no cost to the property owner, an adjusted driveway that connects at a right angle to Sunset Boulevard as well as an eight-foot high noise reduction wall along the length of the property north of the new driveway. This driveway and wall shall be depicted on the first SDP that encompasses this portion of Sunset Boulevard. 4. Group housing structures shall have a minimum floor area of 1,000 square feet on the ground floor. 5. The maximum height of group housing, duplexes and tovvnhouses shall be limited to 40 feet (zoned) and actual height of 45 feet. 6. The minimum distance between group housing structures shall be one half the building's height. 7. The first sentence in Footnote *3 in Exhibit B shall be revised to exclude multifamily and ALF or CCRC dwellings. The second sentence shall be deleted. 8. The minimum rear yard setbacks for group housing structures shall be 25 feet. 9. The minimum side yard setbacks for the multifamily housing structures on the Rl and R2 tracts shall be the greater of one half the building's height or 15 feet. 10. Footnote *2 in Exhibit B shall be revised to state, "...as long as a minimum12-foot separation between principal structures is maintained and all other applicable setbacks are respected." 11. The minimWTI front yard setbacks for multifamily housing structures on the RI and R2 tracts shall be 30 feet. PUDZ-2007-AR-IIIOO, Taormina Reserve MPUD 23 September 29, 2009 Agenda Item No. 8A September 29,2009 Page 62 of 265 12. The minimum front yard setbacks for duplexes and townhouses shall be 25 feet; and 20 feet if having a side- or rear-loaded garage. 13. The minimum front yard setbacks for two-family structures shall be 30 feet; and 25 feet if having a side- or rear-loaded garage. 14. The second sentence in Footnote *4 in Exhibit B shall be revised to state, "The minimum 25- foot front yard setback may be reduced to 20 feet where the residence is served by a side or rear-loaded garage. 15. The minimum side and rear yard setbacks for accessory structures in the Rl and R2 tracts shall be the same as those required by the LDC. 16. All mixed use buildings (Le containing multifamily residential and commercial uses) shall have a maximmn zoned height of 50 feet andan actual height of 60 feet. 17. Any multifamily building in Tract R2 shall have a maximum zoned height of 45 feet and an actual height of 55 feet. 18. Minimum lot widths for any purely multifamily residential buildings that may develop on the MU Tracts shall be 75 feet. 19. Minimum floor areas of units in any purely multifamily residential buildings that may develop on the MU Tracts shall be 700 square feet. 20. Exhibit C and Table II of Exhibit B and shall be revised to permit 262,000 square-feet of gross leasable area. 21. No outdoor music or other amplified sounds shall be permitted. 22. No home improvement superstores, warehouse superstores or discount retail superstores shall be permitted. 23. No construction contractors (SIC 1711-1799) shall be permitted. 24. An updated red-cockaded woodpecker survey shall be submitted at the first development order if required by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWCC) or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 25. Florida black bear and Big Cypress fox squirrel management plans shall be provided as part of the next development order. ,- ~ '" -- -- 26. At the time of the next development order, a hydroperiod analysis (or whatever LDC requirement that may be in effect for the evaluation of stormwater discharge into upland preserves) shall be provided for the project site. PUDZ-2007-AR-II100, Taormina Reserve MPUD 24 September 29, 2009 -".. Agenda Item No. 8A September 29,2009 Page 63 of 265 27. A preserve management plan shall be required as part of the next development order and shall include provisions for annual monitoring to determine the potential impacts of stonnwater on the preserve area's vegetation. Preserve vegetation adversely impacted by stormwater shall be replaced by the property owner with other vegetation that is suitable for the conditions. 28. A coordination meeting between the developer, the representative engineer, and the Public Utilities Department shall be required at the time of SDP and/or the preliminary plat review process. The purpose of this meeting shall be to discuss a location and size of a well site easement, as the developer's proposed 30-foot by 30-foot well site easement does not satisfy the minimum 40-foot by 60-foot well site size provision of the LDC and is, therefore, not acceptable to the Public Utilities Department. APPENDIX: 1. Letters of Objection - PUDZ-2007-AR-lll 00, Taormina ResenJe MPUD 25 September 29, 2009 Agenda Item No. 8A September 29, 2009 Page 64 of 265 PREPARED BY: ~ 8/ ~A'PI- REVIEWED BY: , BELLOWS, ZONING MANAGER %~()? T OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW I Y;(ti;jR~ VELOPMENT REVIEW APPROVED BY: K. SCHMI ADMINISTRATOR f2-h~ Dt<TE' UNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION Tentatively scheduled for the September 29, 2009 Board of County Commissioners Meeting COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION: '\ .. :; -" { DATE PUDZ-2007-AR-ll/OO, Taormina Reserve MPUD 26 September 29, 2009 --- Agenda Item No. 8A September 29, 2009 APPF1NDtX5tof 265 MossJohndavid ':rom: John Kukawinski Ukukawinski@comcast.net} Jent: Tuesday, August 04,200910:36 AM To: MossJohndavid Cc: rmrogan@comcast.net Subject: Zoning Proposal ~ Taormina Reserve Dear Mr. Moss As a homeowner in the Cypress Pointe section of Naples Heritage, I am extremely concerned about the proposed zoning changes outlined in Petition: PUDZ-2007-AR-IIlOO, the project referred to Taormina Reserve. It is my understanding that this development will be a combination of residential and commercial units and that the proposed residential units along the eastern border of the property are to be at least 3 stories high. Allowing anything that imposing in such close proximity to the western boundary of Naples Heritage is entirely unacceptable and injurious to the owners and residents of Cypress Pointe and Naples Heritage. When we selected our home in NHGCC, we specifically chose our location for it's western view across the pond to the woodland preserve. That view is one of the key sales points of this property. To allow 45 foot or greater multi-family dwellings completely vitiates the natural beauty of the view, dilutes the value of Cypress Point while creating issues of noise, security and other issues. I see no indication that any buffer is required, that the natural vegetation and habitat will be eliminated and what was once natural beauty will be replaced with brick and stucco. To say I'm opposed is a serious understatement. I have a hard time even seeing why this project is necessary. Look around. Does East ~aples truly need MORE housing, MORE commercial development. Foreclosures are rampant, Jpeculators are having fire- sales, property values have plummeted yet somehow we need MORE? It's nonsense. I would hope someone will have the clarity to see that this project adds nothing to the community, diminishes the value of the existing established community and destroys the little natural beauty still remaining. I encourage you to deny the proposal or the very least seriously limit the structure height, boundary setbacks and the need to retain mature, natural areas at all boundaries. Sincerely, John & Maargaret Kukawinski 7783 Naples Heritage Dr PS - How ironic that they are going to destroy the natural habitat. clear away all of the trees and plants, then name it "Reserve". 1 .,,- ~ Agen~W~~A September 29, 2009 Page 66 of 265 MossJohndavid ------------ .~-~--~~.~._,..,,,,,,,,,,---.,,,.,,,,,,,--""---''''---' ....----------....--. From: Richard Rogan [rmrogan@comcast.net] Sent: Monday, August 10, 20091:31 PM To: MossJohndavid Subject: Proposed Taormina Reserve Development My name is Richard Rogan. I am the President of the Cypress Pointe Homeowners Association. Cypress Pointe, containing 101 single-family homes, is the neighborhood within Naples Heritage Golf and Country Club that shares a property line with the proposed development known as Taormina Reserve. I am also a member of the Board of Trustees of the Master Association at Naples Heritage Golf and Country Club. I am representing the Cypress Pointe residents as well as the other 698 residents of Naples Heritage in expressing the basis of our opposition to the Taormina development plan. Development will seriously disrupt, if not totally destroy, the natural state that presently exists to the west of the homes on Naples Heritage Drive. As stated by one of our residents, "we have nothing against growth, but it must be done with current residents, natural beauty and wildlife taken into consideration". The property to be developed is a habitat for Bald Eagles, Osprey, Owls, Wood Storks, Hawks, Otters, Deer, Raccoons and Possum. There has also been at least one recent panther sighting approximately 1000 yards south of the property. We feel strongly that a buffer should be required along the lake shore that exceeds tile usuatminimum width by a factor of two or more. The buffer should include the existing pines supplemented with plantings of Areca Palm, Green Buttonwoods and other appropriate vegetation. It should provide both density and height sufficient to block construction noise while also maintaining a natural backdrop. Although several examples of such buffers can be found in the immediate area. a very good one exists along Davis Boulevard at the Madison Park development by Centex. Madison Park along Davis Blvd. 8/11/2009 AgendR~~~A September 29,2009 Page 67 of 265 We are adamant that we avoid the situation which we now experience between Cypress Pointe and the Toll Brothers development known as Friano. While we have a commitment from Toll Brothers to establish an appropriate buffer, the timing has been pushed back by construction delays. As a result we remain exposed to a construction wasteland and we will again be confronted with dust and noise once the market picks up. Resolving the Firano issue is likely to take several years. Having once experienced what it means to agree to the restoration of a buffer zone, it is imperative that the Taonnina Reserve buffer zone be established and supplemental planting be made before construction is allowed to begin. Modifying the existing zoning to allow the construction oO-story. 45-foot high, multi-family dwellings along the common property line cannot be pennitted. As it is, the natural beauty that now exists will be damaged at best and virtually destroyed at worst just in the normal course of development. Any attempts at mitigating the impacts discussed above will be completely frustrated by building three-story structures along the lake shore. As you have seen from the e-mails submitted by other residents of Cypress Pointe, not a single one ignores the affront represented by such construction. Three-story buildings do not conform to the area and certainly would have a negative effect on our community. One final point, the completion of the extension of Santa Barbara Blvd. will facilitate the growth of development between Davis Blvd. and Rattlesnake Hammock Rd. It is clear that Taonnina represents the first of many developments along the border of Naples Heritage Golf and Country Club. The decisions made in this case will begin to form precedents for future development in the area. We intend to remain actively involved in maintaining the value of our community. Richard M. Rogan 7703 Naples Heritage Drive Naples, Florida 34112 8/11/2009 AgendPRgOl Nof(JA September 29,2009 Page 68 of 265 MossJohndavid ~---_..-_.---.._.....~..~.-~..--~~.,"-------~--._'---- From: KENNETH OSBORN [hawaii9@comcast.net] Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 2009 3:19 PM To: MossJohndavid Cc: rmrogan@comcast.net Subject: Zoning Changes for Taormina Reserve Importance: High Mr. Moss, As one of the property owners on the lake of Naples Heritage Drive, facing west I have a couple of comments for the record concerning the rezoning request of Taormina Reserve. The first thought is why is this meeting being held at this time, when a lot of affected property owners are not in the vicinity to attend?, surely an advantage for the proponents. In addition, I'm concerned particularly with the possibility of three- story living units that could rise 45 feet high, a sight that surely would not add to the aesthetics of homes in nearby Firano and Naples Heritage. The somewhat scenic view regarding those living on Of near the Lake, would be jeopardized by this high rise intrusion during the day and I suspect, a grand illusion of bright lighting at night. And finally, I'm concerned about the construction process and the length of time it will take creating a 'moon like' wasteland to be viewed and endured by abutters in this area. There could be other thoughts of concern such as security, noise pollution,wildlife, and water drainage into or around the Lake...ln any event these are my thoughts for concern that I hope will be properly addressed..Thanks for your interest. Ken & Carol Osborn @ 7793 Naples Heritage Drive. 8/4/2009 AgendcP~ Nof 8A September 29,2009 Page 69 of 265 MossJohndavid . ", -.-----~---_._....~_~~_._____.~_K_K_..___.....____,__~ From: Barry M. Klein [bmk@bmkre.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 2009 2:04 PM To: MossJohndavid Cc: rmrogan@comcast.net; henning_t; fiala_d; CoyleFred; ColettaJim; HalasFrank; MurrayRobert; HomiakKaren Subject: Proposed Taormina Development in East Naples John, I have been a property owner in Naples Heritage since January, 1998, and a Florida resident since January of this year. The purpose ofthis message is to articulate my concerns about some ofthe proposed features of Taormina that would negatively affect the Naples Heritage community. As one of the scores of single~family home owners on Naples Heritage Drive, these concerns are particularly paramount in maintaining the level of beauty, serenity, and natural surroundings we have come to cherish here in Naples Heritage. What Collier County allows in the Taormina development might also affect any future . development going south across our community. Specifically, I believe that 3-story buildings should not be allowed, and would surely have a negative effect on our property values, and the view from our homes across the lake would be disastrous. In general, I have a major concern about how the development will impact our views across the lake, and I urge you, before construction commences, to have a plan to build a buffer on their side of the lake. Many of our homeowners suffered during the Firano development, and this should not be repeated. John, I have been involved in commercial real estate development for over 30 years, and I am not against a well. planned community being built, but our existing homeowners in Naples Heritage should be accommodated so their quality of life and property values won't suffer. Barry M. Klein 7739 Naples Heritage Dr. Naples, Fl 34112 (239) 793-6997 8/4/2009 Agenda>. NofaA September 29,2009 Page 70 of 265 MossJohndavid ~ _--.----,----~~H-.--~-.~--..-~.--.-.....H.---------------...----..--.."--~,-- From: Jbw7064@cs.com Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 2009 1 :50 PM To: MossJohndavid; rmrogan@earthlink.net Subject: From Joan Wisdom Hello, I live at 7707 Naples Heritage Dr. and I am very upset about the building of these buildings and I think the values of our properties will by effected by this. The reason I bought where I did was because I thought there could never be anyone in the back of my property. I wish I could attend the meeting but I am In Pa. but will be coming back on the 28th of Aug. to visit my son. I did want to say that I do not like this situation at all when it comes to the value of all our properties and we have to fight like hell to get what we want and it will not be easy. Thank you, Joan Wisdom 8/4/2009 Agend~ Nof~ September 29,2009 Page 71 of 265 MossJohndavid ,-----...........-.............-.-....-.........---~.....__~...__._.._"_.".__,__.."._.._';......~..._..L."......_ML_~,..____._.._..._..__._..____.~~-"'...._....~H__"....."..H.."'_.....___.___._ From: Harold Trabilsy [htrabilsy@comcast.netJ Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 2009 12:27 PM To: MossJohndavid Cc: Harold Trabilsy; Richard Rogan Subject: Taormina Development Please note that we appoint Richard Rogan, President of Cypress Pt. Homeowners Assoc. of Naples Heritage, as our spokesperson for the hearing on 8/20/09 regarding Taormina's request for a zoning change. We are opposed to permitting three story buildings on the east side of the site. These buildings would adversely affect the view from NH, particularly the residents whose lanai's face west, as well as reducing their property values. In addition a precedent would be set for any future development along the NH property line. - Before any construction is started a well landscaped buffer zone should be established so we don't have to look at a vast wasteland for years like the Firano development. The pond on the west side of NH is on NH property therefore, Taormina should not be allowed to use this as part of a buffer. Harold and Dolores Trabilsy 7706 Naples Heritage Dr. Naples, FL 34112 8/4/2009' Agend~ tJofl:i\ September 29,2009 Page 72 of 265 MossJohndavid .. ---_......._-_._-~.~..__............----~,.........-.....---....-_----._---- From: Jeank1945@aol.com Sent: Thursday, August 06,20093:45 PM To: MossJohndavld Cc: rmrogan@comcast.net Subject: Taormina Reserve zoning meeting Mr Moss: we are residents of Cypress Pointe, Naples Heritage, 34112. We are very disturbed about the upcoming meeting regarding zoning changes for a planned development called Taormina Reserve. We are unable to attend the August 20th meeting but want to register 1. outdisapproval and opposition to three-story (45-foot high) construction due to the impact on the value of your property. Our property values have plummeted already and high rise buildings will only add to the decline in our property values 2. our concern about destroying the view across the lake in addition to the changes in wildlife habitat in that area - we often see eagles, wood storks & hawks back in those trees and that will all disappear if the trees are removed and multi-stories are built 3. our insistence to not only build a buffer, but to do it at the start of any project so as to avoid the view of a construction "wasteland" like we currently have and have had, for far too long, with Firano. Our property butting up to Firano has been a wasteland for years now, with dirt/dust, noise from Davis Blvd and generally an eyesore. We were promised that there would be a "buffer" - no such thing has occurred in fact, our trees have lost roots and tumbled into the lakes because of erosion and neglect Thank you & please add our concerns to the zoning meeting Jim & Jean Kearney 7810 Naples Heritage Dr Naples, FL 34112 ...__..._______~__~___...__,~..........__"...___.__r..~..__....'''_,.._._.,...,,____,_'._..._......_..,_....__.__....~.___,........._..._..-~-.._---_.-..-..,.._-....._~.._----_. 8/612009 '. ._..,.,~~..,"'"'~..m AgendcPJti#I NefSA September 29,2009 Page 73 of 265 MossJohndavid -'_"'''~_'~~__._'__M_N~_'''______,______...__._____ From: dickdecola@metrocast.net Sent: Thursday, August 06,20099:23 AM To: MossJohndavid Cc: rmrogan@comcast.net; KENT BROOKS Subject: TAORMINA DEVElEMENT Mr. Moss, As a homeowner in Naples Heritage that will be directly affected by the "Taormina" project I would like to express my deep concern about two points of the development as I know them. 1. Their request for 3 stories along the waters edge. No more than 2 stories should be allowed as the code calls for, as I understand it. If the code does not address this point, I would strongly suggest that you oppose the additional height so that the area does not become a mini New York looking project. 2. The buffer zone between the development and the water's edge should be wide enough and high enough to afford view protection between the two properties. I would suggest a tree line of 100 feet wide from waters edge by 30 feet high to meet this Important point. As a former develperlbuilder I can understand why they want to add another level to their apartment style buildings, but, I strongly believe that the concerns of their neighbors (us), who were there first and relish the casual elegance afforded by the lake and trees we now enjoy, in this project should override their concerns to max out the number of units on that site. Dick DeCola 7763 Naples Heritage Drive Naples Fl. 34112 (603) 566-5566 8/6/2009 Agend~ NofiJA September 29,2009 Page 74 of 265 MossJohndavid ...---,~'''"...._---.._------------ From: payoub@aol.com Sent: Thursday, August 06, 2009 7:53 AM To: MossJohndavid Cc: rmrogan@comcast.net Subject: Development next to Naples Heritage John-David, my name is Paul Ayoub and my wife and I own a single family home in Naples Heritage (Cypress Point). Our home is the second home on the right side of Naples Heritage Drive. We backup to the lake that currently has woods on the other side. Now there is a meeting occuring on 8/20 to discuss the proposal to build a community where currently these woods exist. We are naturally very concerned about the impact to our view and the impact to our property values, especially if multiple 3- story condominium buildings are constructed. We can't attend the meeting on 8/20 so that is why I'm sending you this email. I've also cc:ed Richard Rogan our President of our homeowners association. We understand that we have no right to say to the developer what he can do with the property behind our home but we are hoping that you can consider our concerns and the concerns of our neighbors regarding this new development. Our request of you is to not approve 3-story buildings and to require that the developer create and natural burm so that we do not have to see a construction site for the durf!rlon of the development. We're concerned about noise for an extended period of development as well as the negative impact to our view. Our wish is that they leave some of the trees close to the lake and build on the other side. We have owned our home for almost 10 years and have enjoyed the beauty of the woods behind us. Please consider our concerns about 3-story buildings and about providing a natural barrier between us and the construction site. Thankyou very much for considering our concerns. Paul & Debrah Ayoub 7837 Naples Heritage Drive Naples, FL 34112 8/6/2009 Agend~ NOfM September 29,2009 Page 75 of 265 MossJohndavid ". ..._-_.._-_........~'^---......,....."'.......-..,------_._---- .'--- From: KENT BROOKS [brooks.kent@comcast.net) Sent: Wednesday I August 05, 2009 9:30 PM To: MossJohndavid Cc: rmrogan@comcast.net Subject: Taormina Reserve My view is as follows in regards to the planned Taormina ReselVe development: The present zoning was put in place for a reason. Seems the developer is seeking approval for a zoning change so that they can build more unnecessary housing units - adding to the glut of housing already available in the Naples area. My belief is they should seek to develop the land with the permitted uses as it is currently zoned and live with that. Richard Young, owner - 7809 Naples Heritage Drive Naples, FL. Richard Young, CRS REf MAX Omega Group Tel: 603.622.2200 207 Hooksett Road Fax: 603.584.0095 Manchester, NH 03104 TRCand ePRO Certified mailto:ryoung@remax.net www.J\'l!;!nQ.beJ?tS!.rNH.hQ.meJ~~_g.Qm 8/612009 AgendifWtl ~f SA September 29, 2009 Page 76 of 265 MossJohndavid - ---.---..-------....--...-------...-- - From: MWEITEL@aol.com Sent: Wednesday, August 05,20098:58 PM To: MossJohndavid Cc: rmrogan@comcast.net Subject: Taormina Reserve Mr Moss We are unable to attend the planning commission meeting addressing the above subject that is scheduled for August 20, 2009. As a close neighbor to the development site I have the following comments: 1) The existing Naples Heritage neighborhood that borders the new development is entirely single story, single family residences. Any new structures that are not single family or are more then one story will notJit esthetically. It is our strong desire to keep the neighborhood appearance as is and therefore object strongly to any deviation from existing architecture. 2) In order to preserve the tranquility & privacy of our existing neighborhood we request a substantial buffer of trees remain in place that will shield both the existing Naples Heritage neighborhood as well as the new Taormina Reserve neighborhood. This buffer is to remain in place during construction verses added at some future date. 3) If number 2 is unattainable we will require a suitable man made buffer comprised of solid fencing and appropriate landscape plantings that prevents any visual contact with the new dwellings be put in place PRIOR to the initiation of any land clearing or other development/construction activity. The desirability of our neighborhood. and therefore the value of our properties, has in some significant part, been based on the wooded view from our back yards across the lake. We are very concerned that if this development is allowed to proceed with multiple story development and with a sight line directly into the back yards and living quarters of Taormina residences, our property values will depreciate significantly and could result in a resale hardship. Your help in presenting & supporting our concerns and requests will be greatly appreciated. Very Truly Yours Chuck & Mary Eitel 7779 Naples Heritage Dr. Naples, FI 34112 ...._.-..._.._______,____,__.~.._..._,_,..._.~_.~_.,.~._....".._.."_"M'_.'__'~"'''''_'._'~'___''________''_'_'''''''''~'__~__~_''---....---..--.--. 8/6/2009 ---- Agend~ NofM September 29,2009 Page 77 of 265 MossJohndavid ------..-------.--.--...-------.---......___.__.'h__.._.~"..~..._,....~._.....__..__.__..,.._,._._._--...______._...___.._.._..__________._......._____..._.___...... From: Bill Bull [w.bull@comcast.net] Sent: Wednesday, August 05,20096:29 PM To: MossJohndavid Cc: Richard Rogan Subject: Zoing changes for Taormina Reserve Dear Mr. Moss: Thank you for the opportunity to express my concern both written and oral at the Planning Commission hearing for August 20, 2009. I have been a part time resident since 1998 and a full time resident since 2006. My wife and r built our retirement home at Naples Heritage in 2001. We have enjoyed living in Naples - Heritage and certainly support our local and state government. The reasons I am concerned with multi-family units being built behind our homes are the following: · We built our home with the idea that we would have a beautiful view of the sunsets, woods, lakes and golf course behind our homes. Multi-family units would not only destroy our view of these important features it will decrease the value of our property. We paid top price for our property when it was built because of our location and have seen the bottom drop out of the housing market. We are concerned that a buyer for our home would not appreciate the pride of ownership in Naples Heritage because these important features would be gone. · We enjoy the privacy of our pool year around but have concerns that our privacy will be gone. · We are all for economic progress in Naples but we have experienced the construction issues with Firano and Madison Park across the street. It looks more and more like Arizona than Naples. We are concerned about the additional noise that would come about during construction and for years to come with multi-family units. We already can hear the music from our back yard at times from Pelican Larry's and loud music coming from some of the homes located nearby. · I am concerned for the security of our family and neighbors. We have already experienced break-ins and fear that security would be compromised even further. We bought our home in a gated community for these very reasons. We were assured at the time we built our home that nothing would change to change the features of the beautiful home we built and love. · At the minimum we request a requirement for a buffer zone that addresses issues of sight, sound and security. Again thank you for listening to our concerns and' look forward to the opportunity to meet you in person at the meeting on August 20th. Sincerely, William M. Bull Healthcare Accounts Receivables Management Consultant 7719 Naples Heritage Drive Naples, Florida 34112 314-422-8305 8/612009 AgenddlagCh Nor ~A September 29,2009 Page 78 of 265 MossJohndavid ....--------_.-......_---_._-_--.-.,~._-_..__.._."'~.~--_.........,--~,......--~-_._~..,-~-----_._,.....--_..-...._-_._------- From: KENT BROOKS [brooks.kent@comcast.net] Sent: Friday, August 07,20097:13 AM To: MossJohndavid Cc: rmrogan@comcast.net Subject: Taormina Reserve Dear Mr. Moss, My wife and I have been an owner at Naples Heritage Golf and Country Club for seven years. We moved here two years ago from New England and became Florida residents. Our lanai looks directly across the lake which will abut the proposed Taormina Reserve. We are very much opposed to this new development and in particular the idea that there could be three story buildings directly across the lake from us. One reason we moved to Naples was that it appeared that the county and city government was very concerned with controlling growth to the extent that the beauty and natural surroundings would be maintained. We have nothing against growth, but it must be done with current residents, natural beauty, and wildlife taken into consideration. Since we've lived here full-tiine, we have observed Bald Eagles, Osprey, Owls, Otters, Deer, Raccoons, and Possum across the lake in the proposed area of development. If this project must go forward, we respectfully request that you do not allow three story buildings, create a large buffer zone between our lake and the buildings, and designate a significant portion of the land as natural preserve. Sincerely, Ket'\t& vebortUv'Br~ 7775 Naples Heritage Dr. 8/10/2009 ~.._,..." Agendi.,l~ lA September 29, 2009 Page 79 of 265 MossJohndavid -- ~ ._____"._.~...~.~_~ri...._..............,_,,~..,",'~,.,.....___......._......._...__._.._____.._.~......'_.______ From: Rjhedderick@aol.com Sent: Friday, August 07,2009 5:01 PM To: MossJohndavid Cc: rmrogan@comcast.net Subject: Taormina Reserve Dear Mr Moss: We have been fu II time residents of Collier County since 1995. We currently live in Naples Heritage. We have reviewed Petition PUDZ-2007-AR-11100, submitted by Highland Properties.. We request that this petition not be approved for several reasons: 1) The density is extremely high. It is nearly 10 times that of Naples Heritage with 528 units crammed into 80 acres. 2) We understand that multi-height construction of possibly 3 stories is requested. This will be an obvious eyesore to the current residents of Naples Heritage. 3) We cannot comprehend why more commercial property is being permitted with untold empty shopping centers sitting within a couple of miles. 4) All of this will devalue the property of Naples Heritage to the possible short term benefit of a Highland Properties. The County will have a net loss in Revenue. Please do not recommend approval of this project. Richard and Joan Hedderick 7667 Naples Heritage Drive Naples, FL 34112 --..-----.............---...--......-..~.__............--.....-,.,-.--.......-....-,...........-.....,--_".......~____..__._._..._._."..,..,..~_......_..,_~,.,_..____..._......._...___._...._..._______.....~__ri.__.._....__.......__. 8/10/2009 Agenda Item No. 8A September 29,2009 Andre Franquin Page 80 of 265 7759 Naples Heritage Drive Naples FL 34112 Naples August 9 2009 To the Collier Planning Commission: I just learned that a project to modify the status of the zoning close to Naples Heritage has been deposed in your hand I project call Taormina Reserve. After analysis, we, my wife and I are completely opposed to this project. The reasons are . The request is for the construction of thee- stories building in the opposite side of the lake. This is absolutely inacceptable as it will be against our privacy and will largely decrease the value of our properties and ( decrease our taxes to the county). . If and only if the building is approved, only a one story is acceptable. . Even in that case our lake view will be destroyed after more than 12 years of "Paradise" . In addition, if it is the case, a buffer zone of 20 yards min must be imposed . This buffer must be installed at the begin of the construction to avoid a "waste land" as we have known in prior instances I and my wife, ask you to consider our request for rejecting the above-mentioned proposal Sincerely Andre FRANQUIN Mylene FRANQUIN Agendiftl~ ~f ~ . . '". September 29,2009 Page 81 of 265 MossJohndavid From: Robert Leeks Ireleeks@aol.com] Sent: Sunday, August 09, 2009 4:14 PM To: MossJohndavid Cc: rmrogan@comcastnet Subject: Planning Commission Hearing Taormina Reserve 8/20109 Dear John-David, This correspondence is in regard to Taormina Reserve issues. 1. We have major concerns for the three-story (45 ft. high construction buildings). We are opposed to this for the following reasons: . Major impact these high buildings would have on our property values . Our view from the back of homes (now looking into the woods) would be completely destroyed . Water retention caused by the density of so many residences would indeed be at risk . Pollution and odor into our lake from the current water table caused by water seepage and oozing would indeed be a major problem. We have been in our home for 12 years and during the summer rainy season and periodic hurricanes the water level indeed raises very high on both sides of the lake. . Many in Naples Heritage have worked hard on keeping our lake in A -1 condition. Quality care from the back of our homes into our lakes cost us money and has always been a major issue for us. This includes regular pest control and keeping up our landscaping on a regular maintenance plan. . Three-story buildings do not confirm to our area and certainly would have a negative affect on our community here at Naples Heritage For twelve years we have worked hard to have beautiful single family homes, a beautiful lake and it is just not fair to be exploited by new three-story building construction which will take advantage of everything we have established. I am sure if our positions were reversed the other side would feel the ,- same as we do. 2. Having sited these facts in relation to three-story buildings I recognize the reality of new planned construction in a reasonable, positive manner. Two-story residences with a privacy buffer located a safe distance from our lake will be a better option. This will allow both the developer and Naples Heritage to work together for the benefit of both parties. Please consider the following: 8/10/2009 .' Agend.rftZft1~ gA September 29, 2009 Page 82 of 265 · Davis Blvd. (Rt. 84) - - Many communities have been built along side or either back up to this road. · In every case you will notice a large privacy buffer limits visibility from inside or from outside to the existing road (Davis Blvd.) · This includes communities such as Madison Park, Falling Waters, Moon Lake, Fox Fire Country Club and Glen Eagles Country Club, only to name a few. · The privacy buffer includes elevated hills, tall thick brush, trees and many plantings which are indeed high and are landscaped on a regular basis. - · The height of the privacy buffer allows the homes to be hidden in just about all of the cases. Riding up and down David Blvd. will prove this point. · The distance the privacy buffer is from the lake, in this case your neighbor, is also a major issue. We all know how fast vegetation grows, locating this buffer at a distance away from our property line and existing fence is of prime importance, · Timing of the privacy buffer construction is also a major factor. The current economic recession as we well know has affected the real estate market. Viewing a construction "wasteland" is not a pretty sight. As a result placing the privacy buffer at the beginning of construction would be advisable. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to express my views. We have been in our home for 12 years being the eighth house to be constructed here. We have seen Naples Heritage develop into the beautiful community which it certainly is. We are fortunate to be living in the Naples area and when issues develop working with intelligent, responsible and understanding people. Bob & Sue Leeks 7813 Naples Heritage Drive Naples, FL 34112 239-775-7038 (H) 239-293-9937 (C) = .-" 8/10/2009 AgendcPlmffi N@f 8A September 29, 2009 Page 83 of 265 MossJohndavid ..._.....__....~_____.__,___......~'R....._.......'~._.~'''_:_...,_._,..~........___...__....... ,...___'___"H._"'_.______._ From: freis13960@aol.com Sent: Sunday, August 09, 2009 4:22 PM To: MossJohndavid Cc: mrogan@comcast.net Subject: Planning Commission To Whom It Make Concern: My name is Frank Reis and r am the owner of a single family home at Cypress Pointe--7846 Naples Heritage Drive. I am opposed to the construction of multi-family units along the eastern property line of Cypress Pointe. r am concerned that the proper setting for a buffer zone has not been adequately addressed regarding the issues of view, sound and security. - I am also opposed to three story multi family units.Under the present proposal plan this new construction, if allowed , will have a negative impact upon the value of my home. This will completely destroy the view across the lake. If this construction can not be stopped I urge that the proper buffer at the beginning of the project be addressed so that we avoid the view of a construction "waste land" like we have with Firano. I am asking that you consider the above before making a decision that will de-value all the homes at Cypress Pointe. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Frank H Reis 8/10/2009 ,- Agenda Item No. 8A September 29,2009 Page 84 of 265 LOUISE & MARK GREENWOOD 7767 NAPLES HERITAGE DRIVE NAPLES, FL 34112 August 9, 2009 John-David Moss, AICP Collier County Community Development & Environmental Services Division Zoning and Land Development Review - 2800 No. Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 RE: Petition: PUDZ-2007 -AR-111 00 Highland Properties of Lee & Collier, Ltd To Whom It May Concern, Please be advised that, as direct abutters, we are opposed to the above referenced Petition. The request for rezoning from Rural Agricultural (A) to Mixed Use Planned Unit Development zoning will certainly create a hardship for the current users of the adjoining properties. The increase in density from the currently allowed residential 1 unit per acre to 6.5 units per acre will place a significant hardship on the community by requiring increased water/sewer demands as well as other resources provided by the town/county . And the proposal to allow 262,000 square feet of commercial use in this Rural Agricultural zone is certainly not consistent with the Master Plan created and adopted by the community. -'~. Agenda Item No. 8A September 29, 2009 Page 85 of 265 Page Two This side of Davis Boulevard is predominantly residential, with the only businesses being the Boy's & Girl's Club and the Collier County Animal Rescue Shelter, both permitted uses under the Rural Agricultural Zoning. However, across the street lies a predominantly unoccupied strip mall which is not an desirable addition to the area. The constant encroachment of businesses that continue to be unoccupied pose a definite threat to homeowners values and neighborhood communities. Therefore, this petition does not meet the criteria for the granting of a zoning variance: 1. This petition is not in harmony with the intent and purpose of the Land & Development Committee. It will, indeed, be injurious to adjoining neighborhoods and certainly be detrimental to public welfare. 2. Granting this variance is certainly not consistent with the Master Plan developed by our forefathers. 3. This property does not show conditions that are peculiar to location, size and characteristics of land. It is currently near a collier county animal rescue shelter and a boys and girls club, both of which, are legal uses in a Rural Agricultural zone.. 4. This use would certainly not preserve and be compatible with the single family residential character of the abutting districts. 5. And, finally, only minimum variances should be granted making possible the reasonable use of land, while promoting standards of health, safety and welfare. This would certainly not be a minimum variance. This would be, yet another example of trying to get higher density, and unpermitted uses in an area zoned for residential only. I respectfully request that this petition be denied. Cordially, Mark and Louise Greenwood Agenda Item No. 8A September 29, 2009 Page 86 of 265 Charles T. Campbell 7854 Naples Heritage Drive Naples, Florida 34112 August 10,2009 Mr. John-David Moss Principal Planner Collier County, FL Dear Mr. Moss, As homeowners on Naples Heritage Drive, my wife and I are concerned - about the planned development of Taormina across the pond south of our property. We certainly understand that the construction of multi- family units in the area is inevitable, however we would expect the County to make every effort to preserve the property values of our neighboring community. We strongly suggest sufficient buffers to protect our neighborhood's view, security, and sound intrusion. We also are adamantly opposed to any units taller than two stories. The proposed zoning change for 45- foot high construction is inappropriate and unacceptable to our community. Buffers should be addressed prior to construction to avoid the current condition where our view has been degraded by Firano community construction materials for more than two years. Prospective buyers for our property found the present view of construction materials quite offensive, and we certainly do not want our community to continue to degrade due to Taormina construction materials or building height. Thank you for your attention to our concerns. Respectfully, .....".--_.._, .'" ../ ~ /e~ (~~ .-. Agendi~lN0( ~A September 29,2009 Page 87 of 265 MossJohndavid - _-..:._____.__...~"_...,",..,..."......_..._._.._~..____M.....______"'.._.__.__....---.~ .-- From: Garry Parrish [GARRYPARRISH@msn.com] Sent: Thursday. August 06, 2009 11 :49 PM To: MossJohndavid Cc: garryparrish@msn.com Subject: Petition PUDA-2008-AR-14090,etc. This is in response to your letter of 17 Jul 2009 relating to subject petition. I was recently told the proposed development would have buildings over three stories high. This is unacceptable! I own property right next door in Bridgewater Bay (very next building to East). The proposed commercial development must be no taller than the residential condos next door (TWO FLOORS). You must NOT consider churches in the area as commercial enterprises as they are NOT, and churches have very tall ceilings as a matter of course/design/etc, since they hold hundreds/thousands of peoplel A nursing home is fine (a commercial enterprise to make a profit), however, the height and design must be same as structures nearby. The more people in such a facility also increases traffic/noise, etc. Thanks for your consideration. Garry Parrish. 8/10/2009 AgendJ'ftgffi W ~A September 29,2009 Page 88 of 265 MossJohndavid -- --------------~-_._,-,............~,.~.,."..,.._._,_....._.____._M..~..-..-.----.....,__.,~_...~.___......h..W.___,_~__~__.~__ From: bar)ows [BERICH3@comcast.netJ Sent: Thursday, August 06,200910:15 AM To: MossJohndavid Cc: rmrogan@comcast.net Subject: Taormina Reserve zoning change Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Yellow We are strongly opposed to any 3 story structures in subject development due to negative impacts on our view and property values. Additionly we would appreciate a buffer zone at the outset to avoid construction wastelands. Sincerely Dick and Betty Barlow 7756 Naples Heritage Dr Naples Heritage and Cypress Pointe 8/10/2009 Agenda Item No. 8A September 29,2009 Page 89 of 265 John-David Moss Principal Planner Collier County Planning Commission 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, Florida 34104 RE: Siena lakes CCRC CPUD Petition PUDZ-2008-AR-14091 Date: August 4, 2009 Dear Mr. Moss; My wife and I are owners of lakeside Unit B-103 2571 Citrus Lake Drive Naples. We have been owners of this unit since 1989. We watched the development of the whole area progress very nicely. We were impressed with the planning of the Collier government in protecting established neighborhoods. But in reference to the above application I have to express my displeasure and concern over the proposed height of the buildings, 5 stories. Nothing in our area is over 3 stories. The approval of a structure of that height would be completely out of the norm for our area and be detrimental to the property values of our complex which abuts the proposed 60 plus foot high buildings. Nothing in our area including the beautifully developed Ritzz-Carlton Golf community approaches this height. I would ask that you reject this proposal and send it back for redesign to something more conforming to the present scale of the neighborhood. Thank you for your consideration and concern. Sincerely, Michael Santogatta Ann Santogatta 239-566-8189 (home) 203-910-2369 (cell) ~ ~ Q., QO II") U 00 Ri ~ ~ II") -.f.. 0 I ~ 00 ta QO ('f') ~ 0 II") ..0 El::3.s I ~ N ~ 0\ ~].~ 0 -.. ~ Q,) ~ 0 0 0\ .:: N N ::R 0 0 ~ ~ tIj ~.s -0 "'", t:! ~ ~ ~ Q,) . II") -tljg II') 0 .5" .B lO :> ~ Q,) ~!l) ~~ 0 ~ ;:j ta.El ~.~ Q,) 0 N ~ ::R OQ,)..o o ,.d..... ~ >'.~ 0 c,Q,)-'"d d) ~ 00 i:j...... 8.s ~ <u i:i5 ~t!)~ c,""'..c:l Ol) ~ CZl . t!)..o t!)o.....~ c: .s tIj ..c:l~Q,) ~ .g c: 1 -~t!)s .....t!)6b l:l ..... t!) oS 6b~ ~ ..... t!) ..... 0000 g c,t!),", ~.s:3c: ~ '"d :> tIj o tIj t!) ~~ ~.~ ~ ~ ..c:l c: 2.~ g.; ........ o t!) 0 ~ ,",~'"d ~ t!) -0>> ~ - e .;.J > ~ .~ ta 0 ~ o~jg ~~..c:lU d) > '0' c: . ~ -;; ~ ~ ~ o '"' 0 .g.s~~ ~~:I ..; Sctimcti 5h ..c:l ~ .... ... 0 o.s .s ~ ~ 5 a 0 ~_';..c:l '0 o t!) 00 ~ .3 ~ Ol) 0.. U t!) CIi .s t!) ~ J:3 ~ t!) 0 .~ <.) t'.:l -5 0 ..6~ta5h :::::.:: " 000>' t'.:l O!) t!) (,) -a ..c:l,",'"d ~ - .s -5 j '" _00 2 m -5t>i].s :a ~ ~ It) .~ .... g..oo 8 i~~~ ~ o..c:l S ~ '"'"' 800 0.. . 00 ~ 1) - o:Eu o 1:$ t!) :I: ~ 0\ ..... ~ t!) l5.. t!) ..c:l .~ 0 ~ ~ ~t!)-5 t!) t!) - c: J~ - .S ~... .s-5~8 - ~ ~ 'r;) CIi ~.s~- t;l .... ~~ -5 4) ! q "" I 0..... t!) g < s:l 00 ~ ~ .;; 0 0 Q) CIi Q) D ...1( 0 '"'....:l > S ~.s] 5 ~ N .ss~ - g :1 o' Q) g..Hl ~ a ~ ~ .S ~ " o _ ~ _::3~ -~8. t;l c.. g Q) 0 0 -- l~ ~ CIi > 0 '"' ',p m~ . .g.S o....c:l X ".t:l o t!) ! d) ~ s::.~ ' Q) >'.s .~ j ~ Q., ..c:l;::::l 0 ....... ~~ '-" - @ . 00 ~ s.~ ~.~ 0\ 'El 0'1 0 0 ,.[;] ~~ f:) >.::;:,~ ~ ~..... Q) -.;t ~; ...... S 00 0 t!) E ~ ~ s:l ~ - j ! ~ '""I:: ~ ..... Q) Q) 00 CIi '"' \:l .9 ~ ~~o. Ol-<>>~ , a u 8:\:l ~ QO ~ ~ ~ u ..... ..... o .~ :E .a 0 I-< 0 Cd 0 2 ~ en .B<u-5 CIi N i ~ .....--.t!) '"d l:l.. ..... CZl o ~ ta..... ..... t:: N .... S 00 > - t!) '"' ~t!) 8 .,* .$ ] -. t!) c.....o~ c: lj,J ~o tIj"" > Q) ..... 0 0 B ,6 - ~ <.) '; '"d gp 0 ]Q).....~ 0 Q., <a 8 ~ b3 d) ~ ;:j ~ ~o 6' g ..... t!)o~ .9 CZl ~ 0 0 -0 ..c:l-oo 0 Cr.l Q) 0'1 Q) :-s >. ;j .~ g E ;:j .....\0 >'2 >. ~~ o~ - -a <.) ~CIi.g 1,",~..... I-c Q) ....:l ~$~ Q., ~ f:l ..... Q) <:Il 00 tS '-" 05 t'.:l IJ) c: \:l>t'.:ls <:IlM MM_ @ \:1t ~ \:l ~ Q) ..... 0 _. ;:j ~Eo .....;~O? ~ ~ cE k> ~ . tIj"-"\:l 0 Q., .s 00 Q) >. >. ..... ..... - .g ~ 0 \0 U >. ! Q) Q)t::.....~ ~ S 't::: ~ ~ ~ u c6 .... 00 - \0 ~ ! ti ] ta ~ ~ ~ ,S t) [ 8- ..c:l...... ~~q--~ < .. ~ r- .S ~ g. M 0'\ U S .~ <.) Q) ~Q)oo f; e 0 0 u (;1 ~e ~ ($ '9 ~ 0 0.. -5 5h 5h ::I:'tis..s.. ~~....:lZ~~ en .:.. r-.. U CZl <: ~ 5 ...... ..... 0 i:i5 ...... .. Agenda Item No. 8A ',-, September 29, 2009 Mr. .9 Mrs. cl1otjceJoVtV\-soVv Page 91 of 265 89 Hamilton Avenue Watertown Ct 06795' 860.275.6995 917.488.7405 4-Aug-09 John-David Moss Principal Planner Collier County Planning Commission 2800 Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Re: Siena Lakes CCRC CPUD (Petition) PUDZ-2008-AR-14091 Dear Mr. Moss, We own unit 8-102 on Citrus Lake Drive. We are unable to attend the scheduled meeting of August 6 and we have very serious objections to the planning of this project as proposed. Our most serious objection is the planned height of this community of interconnected buildings each one being of 5 stories. This five story building height exceeds all maximum building heights in the surrounding community; will most certainly surpass the C-3 Zoning benchmark of 50 ft; and to be blunt in laymen's terms, will be totally out of character within the surrounding community. The justification that the height of these buildings will be mitigated by a couple of lower buildings placed midway between the 5 story building residences is insufficient to counteract this affront in zoning. Also, we find no plausibility in the staff report ("The Report") of the Collier County Planning Commission that the excessive heights of these buildings will be mitigated by the placement of the buildings as noted above and by "enhanced vegetative buffer". Buildings that are obviously higher than all other surrounding buildings in the community are in fact, higher, than all other buildings regardless of a midpoint separation by lower height buildingsl Nothing can change this reality. And the proposed screening of these excessively tall buildings from the Lakeside community is destined to be ineffectual. Our understanding is that trees 18 ft in height are proposed. Even if these trees double in height, they can not come ....,~ "'" close to screening outbuildings that will ultimately,be50"70 ft. tall. And it is also . "';,"~'~",5J'" our understanding of the plans that this screening is improperly placed be it in the area of the lower height buildings and not the 5 story buildings. What specific buffer is going to screen the 5 story buildings? Please recognize that we do not oppose the re-zoning of the area for a combination assisted living/residential community. Agenda Item No. 8A September 29, 2009 But we strongly object to one that does not fit into the existing environment oPtf!Je 92 of 265 community and that will adversely affect the living conditions of the community. . Towering buildings 50- 70 ft high do not have a fit with in our community. They change the character and landscape of the area entirety too much. . They adversely affect the living conditions of the community by overpopulating what is actually a small geographical area. . And they are blight unto the lakeside community in what will be a visual blockade right in our back yard limiting the horizon; reducing exposure to sunlight and; reducing proper vegetation for both ecological and aesthetic purposes. My husband and I will both be in Naples at the end of August and we would like to meet in person with any committee/persons if necessary to help get this project on the right road. We are very disappointed in the report as submitted by the Commission. We have always been so impressed by the quality and care taken in the development of Naples' properties through out the 20 years we have been visiting and living in Naples and to where we will shortly retire. We strongly urge the Commission to re-vise its findings and for any continuums of this project to be conditioned upon a revised desian that will conform in scale to the surrounding community. Regards, Choyce and Cheryl Johnson t' ,;. rt .,::~~.:~, ~ _" "..,.. ".' : (i~~: .,.<,ir....~;..;.,.-.-':~~...:'t:.;......".". :-.:.;.....r, ;', .1 ,',.: ,.,. ~- ., ex!' ~ 1 P-< 0\ 00 7 0 OQ 0 N ~ <n ~ 0 t'$ l- I 0.. ::l 00 0 \0 I- o >0-'= 0 ";l: .c <D .... I t:l,.. ~ -'= 'O'Q)::: tV 0\ 0 ..... .... 0 N ..... 0 ,.2!....3= ~ 0 ~ 0\ tI) i!:' (.)~(/) 'f: N ~ 0 <: ....<D::l ::l U 0 ro t'O (/) 0 ~ ~ ~ '0' ~ c 3=>-~ .... II) :> ro <D'O 0.. -- -'= ><<10 8 0 00 - ro <D <<I N -e ... -'=.!:: <D ~ ::R ~ ..92 <D<<IJ:; ~ ro $:.!!l 0 - 5 - .... 1$ <D ....(/) 0 rn . ro (/) l1 "@ ~ .c '0-'= co rn g;'3= c .~ Q) ~ .c~..., :2 "E ....~- '(/l ~ ..8 <D . ~ ';j C <<I -,="O<D ~ 0 ~ C) :2 Q) 'w .- "0 (/) :5 '2 ~o~ .!a ::l ~.E<<I C :E E E Q) E E ............1 '(/l -- cO- ~.....; ~ 0 8 o ~ co ~ () O-C C) .c ~.2> !!j ~~ ~ c ::: o.~E 'E ~ - Q) c ;:;;;roo '(/l 0 g ~ .... ~oJ::: <<1.= <D ~f: <D t) :::-lZ >- .c <<I .5:g e Q.<D a .... ..... .! .... E jg ~ ro 0 Ol.... (l) 0 0 1i) >. co .~ 0 :.::: .i> J::: .... <D "'E (/) (j); "0 - 0 .cog. 0 0 ~ ~ Q)<D :a ~ -=-,= E.... l:: 0 ~'j (/) <D'S ~ 0 .....; 0 1:_<D u U 0. .c(/) ~ .!ll, 0. en ~c.c ""en 00 CO .!!l <D..... .....- 0 CTE.9 <<I_ t is. ... 15 - Q)ca en 0- - <D 0..... :.a .!a -g ~.Q<D .0:5 .... .c ...; 8~~ >-c is ..... :52 c = C) .... ~ -g.{gen <<1'- ~ 0 Q) c lJ) 0.. C E 0. en! oQ) - ro ._ .... lJ)'O ~ 0> g .Q ~i5 lZ .... <D J ~ 'w ~ '(1).... .~ <D j ~ . 0 o.ca ~ '0 " .{g ~ ts .8~ 0 <D 0 -- 0- ;;: Q) .9 ~ .Q '0 U C,.t::: "E - -'= (l) ~ .5 .c::: CIJ ~ CD '0) .9 CO .!!!~ ..9 a. ~ U CD lJ) >. en.t:::'O '~ -e ...: 'Z' '0 '0 0. co '0 ro - ~ 2 lJ) 1! <<I CD....... ~al~ co co '$ . ~ -~ ~ 0.. $ :c: .... .c ('0. U 0 .... ro C= .5 0:: g> g,E 8 ..... - 0 ~= 0 i3 - 0) ~ 0\ ~ '0 (I) 0>= ~o 0 C .cc- E! ~ 0 jg >< <<I _'_ ::l - ..,. 'E CO (I).c en '5 a. roOl ..... ~ (1)- ~@ ~ ro - -- .- Q.. t:: X c C.c :gg O'l ~ E ~ -'8. . ~ 0 ~ ~ ut:: en_ CD 0 . "'[j , 8 Q) '0' .= '0 (I) U "" I;. 1 00 lJ) a. .lI::CD ; ~:J' 0 '(/l 8 0 c:-c .... e- <( CD al ..",.. "'r; 0 0 J 0.:(( a.;:;;; ...Je ~; . o ~ g N ::2 Q) 0.9 (J) ::l .lI:: ....C. ~ .c CD 1i)1ij ;S~~a; o (I) - ~ - 16 t:l,.. ..: >. '0 ] . ~ ~ ~ ::2 :g .!!l IOU _.!!!COO'l ~:5 ~:8 5 (I) -'= ca.t:J 0(03=0 (I)" ~ - -'= U +-' ;1:a= ~ 0"'" .0 C .... ] ::: E ro .d ~ ~ u (I) - ~ro""g> 0 (l) ~ ;1: .... .2! E! ~ ~ ~ .s. 0 ta .0' (l) c >. - (I) (I) -g '0 ..... > -. ~ ~ rn '0.... :5 -g .;:: 0> (i~ ~ 1:1 - 0 "'E "0 >."0 ;;:; 0 c '(/l (J)--(J) ~'j c ..... ~o <<I CD ro- mg~ro coo - - - ....- al C 0\ Oi g Cl 1$ ~ (l) (J) ~ c (J) .... .- 1: ;1: E ro ... '0 ...:>, 0 en 0 U rn ..... ~ co 0.9<1>- ..,. .s r/) C. <I>;!::: en ~ to (.) -'= -g.!: O<l>U- ..... ~ a c C. m .- ~ .0 8 - ca ::l.~ 0. "0 ~ -a, .... - (I) fr (l) <.> r:! "E (J) (l)0Q)::l (I) Q) ~~ '5 ..... I r:t:: .~ '0 <<I g1! -'=~>o 3: E 00 ~] <<I .... .... ro -'= ~(O 0 "1.f .... .c "0 (J) c.... 2(1)-'=:::: 0 { . ~ (f) .... c ~ ~.!: 21i) N """';:" ~ (.) .~ ~ ;: >0- - ~ >. ...: ::: U ~ ::l ~~ ::2 _'(/l ~ 5 'lE is. ti .8 (J) ~ (J)g> ::l C) ~ ~ ::l -E~m t::: ::l ~ .... -'= ro ::l ._ 0. c:..... 0.. .~ Co) <<I ro ~ ......'0 ::l E'm"" 0<( ~ ~ ~ <D >. (1)= .... (:IJ ~ u -'= s:E o 0 .... CD c! u ~ U 0 - ::2 Uu1i):5 ~ '_'..1 =>.... ! ~ N en 40< 0 ..... FW: Siena Lakes AgendJl~ N8f~ September 29, 2009 Page 94 of 265 MossJohndavid -, ----... .....---------..-...--..-..-.......,-..-.-.-.M.--..'._______M__'_~...M__~___ From: Mary Ann Costello [costelloma@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday. August 05,20094:37 PM To: MossJohndavid Cc: etcostello@gmail.com; 'Mary Florence Miller' Subject: RE: Siena Lakes Thanks for sending this John, My husband and I object to the approval of this project for several reasons: 1) The placement of the service road - next to Bridgewater Bay - will cause noise and distract from the peacefulness of our community. It could be placed on the western end of the property and not hinder anyone. 2) The density of the proposed population -looks like a condo project (340 units) to us-with a small assisted living component (80 units). 3) The height of the proposed building structures. A five story bUilding is NOT consistent with the surrounding neighborhoods and would adversely affect the value of the properties adjacent to this proposed development. 4) In the document (which I have read cover to cover) "you" touch rightly on whether or not this will affect the land values of surrounding neighborhoods. In fact the wording is really sad and underwhelming. Was it possible for you to get professional opinions from banks and real estate people to assess this potential disaster to the neighborhood? There is no way that is cannot effect us adversely. We will attend the meeting tomorrow and voice our concerns louder. By the way I don't understand how a requirement for 5 feet wide sidewalks on both sides of the street can be replaced with one 6 foot sidewalk on one side of the street and still be called equal. Seems like 10 feet width will allow the passage of more foot traffic than 6 foot width. Not exactly sure how you all decided that one. Respectfully submitted Mary Ann and E. Thomas Costello 3244 Sundance Circle Bridgewater Bay Naples, FL. 34109 ~~--.- ,---..........--..... ...'~--_..., ~H.~hH......"H.~_H .......M"" ,-,.t., H' _ .. _........_ ,. .. .H...'...... ." _N .., M" ""-"-.' ....H.. .,.,.. From: MossJohndavid [mallto:Joh ndavidMoss@colliergov,net] Sent: Wednesday, August 05,20093:36 PM To: costeJloma@gmall.com Subject: FW: Siena Lakes From: MossJohndavld _._.<<I,t... " -. Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2009 11:02 AM To: 'EPCantor@aol.com'; 'Andrew Dickman'; 'Leo Milotte'; 'shirley lindenbaum'; 'Ruth! Zenk' Cc: 'parepanby@comcast.net' Subject: Siena lakes ._, <<siena lakes report.pdf>> 8/512009 , Agenda Item No. 8A September 29, 2009 Page 95 of 265 John-David Moss Principal Planner Collier County Planning Commission 2800 North Horseshoe Drive RECEIVED Naples, FL 34104 AI if.; ~- 3 200S July 26,2009 Dear John-David Moss, I am the president of Lakeside Gardens A, Condo Association. Our association consists of 108 families living in 108 condos. More people and more condos than any other association in Lakeside. - While all of Lakeside is affected by this new project, my owners are the most affected because our back fence adjoins their property. It is THEIR buildings we will see day in and day out and the out of place, taller buildings for the first time, in this area. I, attended the first open forum where the Siena people had their say. We vigorously objected to the height and the density, among other things, at that meeting, We still feel that no other location anywhere near Lakeside has a height of five stories. I am an occupant at this location for 19 years. I should know. We are very concerned that something is being shoved down our throat. Perhaps not a gentlemanly way of saying something, but I am truly annoyed at this point. Annoyed because the original open meeting was held after the MAJORITY of our people left for their summer homes, to benefit the builder. We are disturbed by the fact that the second meeting is STILL being held when people are not totally here. Again benefiting the builder. Then I read the changes the planning commission made and I wonder if any of us have a voice in this project at all. Many of our people who live here year round are against the Siena Lakes project, as presently proposed, for the reasons stated. Others, not present, will have to voice their objections by U.S. mail. :,. "~'. .'..;.., . . .' : " ...,. '";- . ','." .. -, ." . " JllJ 30 OS 02:52p SHIPMATES 23S-59c-~"t'/!:l p. 1 Agenda Item No. 8A September 29,2009 Page 96 of 265 July 30. 2009 FA..X TO: Mr. John~David Moss Pri Ilcipal Planner Collier Count)' Plaruting Commission 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples. FL 34104 FAX NO: 239-643-6968 Dear Mr. Moss: This v.<ill serve as my n.."Sponse due by July 30, 2009 regarding tIle Siena Lakes Project 1 am attaching a letter from two Lakeside residents, who have done e>.'tensivc research which also reflects mallY of my own opinions and thoughts. I am also pU7.71cd by the designated deadlines which have been imposed on the colmnunities located. close to the project.. Many residents of Lakeside were gone during the initial meetings which left tlwm unable (0 e.xprcss thcir opinions and ask imponan\ questions. Thank you., Marilyn Coatcs Lakeside Gardens A Association . ... .~: .,;. iT.\'T..' :;...... "'. ....~.::' ~.; ,".,,;.. . ,.\. "~'. . ../"---' Agenda Item No. 8A September 29,2009 Page 97 of 265 . ( \ Eduardo N. Lucotti Maria D. Lucotti 2895 Citrus Lake Drive Naples, FL. 34109 July 27,2009 John-David Moss Principal Planner Collier County Planning Commission 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Re: Siena Lakes CCRC CPUD (petition PUDZ-2008-AR-14091) Dear Mr. Moss: My husband and I own Unit 0..301 at Lakeside Gardens "A" and are very toubled concerning the Siena project: i.e. overbuilding, maximum height restrictions, and a narrow two-way street (Orange Blossom) as the main entrance. Attached is copy of letter from Richard Zelinka and Cindy Grossman which is self explanatory and we are in full agreement. Yours Tmly, Jk/liV.llo,~ /;J>> . .fll J 771.' i/ ~ ~d/c.>> 7; Eduardo Lucotti Maria ucotti '... . '>~,~.; ;;;:".~H~:";~.~.r;J,~~::,'!i<~.~':'-~ .. .~, "," ~. .;. 'l <~.-" 'r- 7;:'\"~,"''':1'''1''=-;>~''';J.''~,,(,!,~ :'~lr. ., RECEIVFr'l i W' H) )![:W :.t..n I '.) ..... f.'G[J7 i'ell!" r:;;O. /9~ 936- .J ,,' c ,_ v v a:W333?J tJ..d q, -Ii/') /6 aOI C;~ ~~} c(t:J09' 1;14 ')!"-I-w - vO~ Y)L.<!~: Y~~.d.. ~L~~~~ ~~~p~~ d{ .706 /7. <1J~~AflA. . i;~t 1=1.. ..3 LlIO L{- ~~~~ Yr>"~V tv l!f~ ~ ~ ~ ~,J; ,?f~f-vlr~,.v7~ ~.4~ ~':;:~~'. . 'W~~~~.0-,~ -WL"~~,- ~ "- 6~ ~ ,./~ ~-..Jt- ~ Z?~ ~~. V~ ~ .~ ~~~~..~..e..- ~ ~~~~, (J:e ~~ ~d.~ k ~;;/AV (J-<~~~~ ~~~ - , u A]J,...;,r.Jl ~ t.0 <)t!-n.,,~ r-b.-cr- /'~ d /1 , r;~:( ~ /1A..J,,:l ~../"""'~...:2'.-Z..J ~-R..... ./J!.-R-~ ~-4J .J2 '-./ 12 4 '.'~ jQ '. )" ftu-< '~4_ i~7' . (/.......,J 'f-/~~ ':/, -..b-<..J :/~. I, I ~ 'J:..' " ~...J.A-Jl --'-;-- >,1 '.: 111iJ.-/7 ' 1 '''0../.:-1,5-'-1-,J.- I..,. " ) ,(~t../ .A ..) I I.,' . ..,,- . '" ii'" ~ ".='.~ ',' .. .......w.",.", .~,.~ Agenda Item No. 8A September 29,2009 Page 99 of 265 ( ! \ .........,-.---/ John-David Moss Principal Planner Collier County Planning Commission 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, Florida 34104 RE: Siena Lakes CCRC CPUD Petition PUDZ-2008-AR-14091 - Date: August 4, 2009 Dear Mr. Moss; My wife and I are owners of Lakeside Unit B-103 2571 Citrus Lake Drive Naples. We have been owners of this unit since 1989. We watched the development of the whole area progress very r---\ nicely. We were impressed with the planning of the Collier government in protecting I I established neighborhoods. But in reference to the above application I have to express my " > r .J displeasure and concern over the proposed height of the buildings, 5 stories. Nothing in our area is over 3 stories. The approval of a structure of that height would be completely out of the norm for our area and be detrimental to the property values of our complex which abuts the proposed 60 plus foot high buildings. Nothing in our area including the beautifully developed Ritzz-Carlton Golf community approaches this height. I would ask that you reject this proposal and send it back for redesign to something more conforming to the present scale of the neighborhood. Thank you for your consideration and concern. Sincerely, Michael Santogatta "..,"," . ','.,1. ',' ':._~'" ~:'.;~:t,. , ; ,.,~.,,_.,.,: '. . :t." : Ann Santogatta 239-566-8189 (home) 203-910-2369 (cell) Agenda Item No. 8A September 29, 2009 Page 100 of 265 Marie &. Antonio Petitti 34 Westfield Drive Trumbull, CT, 06611 Tonpetitti@aol.com 203-261-7720 August 5, 2009 John-David Moss Principal Planner CoUier County Planning Commission 2800 Horseshoe Drive Naples, FI. 34104 Dear Mr. Moss: - -- We own unit B -101 at Lakeside Condos on Citrus Lake Drive. We are unable to attend the meeting of August 6th but we do have very serious objections to the planning of the project proposed for Siena Lakes!! We have owned our condo tor almost 20 years and most of the changes we have seen in Naples have been for the positive such as the opening of Livingston Road. the new Naples Library and the planting of all the trees on Airport Road and the surrounding streets. But we are VERY OPPOSED to the number of buildings and the height of the buildings proposed for the small -, Siena Lakes land.. This project will lower the value of all the surrounding condos. Also how in \ this economy can this builder sell over 300 condo units? (only 80 units will be assisted living) Will this project end up being similar to the proj ect that was featured in USA Today newspaper last week with ~I buildings almost totally empty after several years of trying to sell its condos. We strongly urge the Collier County Commission to NOT consider the proposed zoning changes to allow the building of these 5 story towers in our neighborhood since it will adversely influence liying conditions. The proposed vegetative buffers do not block the height of the proposed buildings. The project needs to be scaled down to fit in with the surrounding condos. We will be in Naples in 2 weeks and would like to meet in person with any committee/persons to help make this project a favorable project for the surrounding condOs. We are both Trumbull Town Committee Members and serve on 2 local boards. At this time we strongly urge the Pltmning Commlssloll to re-viae its ji"tIlngB tmd to revi.te the Siena Lakes design to conform to the scale 0/ the surrolUUling community. Thank You for your time Marie and Antonio Pe' , ,. ~(lMR -, ~~ to'd Wd S2=90 6~0Z-S0-~n~ Agenda Item No. 8A September 29,2009 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHb!bW~265 DEPT. OF ZONING & lAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 WWW.COlLlERGOV.NET (i) (239) 403-2400 FAX (239) 643-6968 PETITION NO (AR) PROJECT NAME PROJECT NUMBER _ . To be completed by staff DATE PROCESSED ASSIGNED PLANNER NAME OF APPLICANT (S) HIGHLAND PROPERTIES OF LEE AND COLLIER. LTD. ADDRESS 2223 TRADE CENTER WAY CITY NAPLES STATE FLORIDA ZIP 34103 TELEPHONE # 239-435-3405 CELL # FAX # E-MAIL ADDRESS: NAME OF AGENT D. WAYNE ARNOLD, AICP - Q. GRADY MINOR AND ASSOCIATES. P.A. ADDRESS 3800 VIA DEL REY CITY BONITA SPRINGS STATE FLORIDA ZIP 34134 TELEPHONE # 239-947-1144 CELL # FAX # 239-947-0375 E-MAIL ADDRESS: WARNOLD@GRADYMINORCOM NAME OF AGENT RICHARD D. YOVANOVICH, ESQ. - GOODLETTE. COLEMAN AND JOHNSON. P.A. ADDRESS 4001 TAMIAMI TRAIL. SUITE 300 CITY NAPLES STATE FLORIDA ZIP 34103 TELEPHONE # 239-435-3535 CELL # FAX # 239-947-0375 E-MAIL ADDRESS: RYOVANOVICH@GCJLAW.COM BE AWARE THAT COLLIER COUNTY HAS LOBBYIST REGULATIONS. GUIDE YOURSELF ACCORDINGLY AND ENSURE THAT YOU ARE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THESE REGULATIONS. TRMPUD Rezone Petition 12.04.08 Agenda Item No. 8A September 29, 2009 Complete the following for all Association(s) affiliated with this petition. Provide additional sheets if necessary. NAME OF PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION: MAILING ADDRESS CITY STATE - ZIP NAME OF HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION: MAILING ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP NAME OF HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION: - MAILING ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP NAME OF MASTER ASSOCIATION: MAILING ADDRESS CITY STATE - ZIP NAME OF CIVIC ASSOCIATION: --- MAILING ADDRESS CITY STATE - ZIP - TRMPUD Rezone Petition 12.04.08 Agenda Item No. 8A a. If the property is owned fee simple by an INDIVIDUAL, tenancy by the entirety, tenancy in common, or joint tenancy, list all parties with an ownership interest as well as the percentage of such interest. {Use additional sheets if necessary}. Name and Address Percentage of Ownership NOT APPLICABLE b. If the property is owned by a CORPORATION, list the officers and stockholders and the percentage of stock owned by each. Name and Address Percentage of Ownership c. If the property is in the name of a TRUSTEE, list the beneficiaries of the trust with the percentage of interest. Name and Address Percentage of Ownership NOT APPLICABLE d. If the property is in the name of a GENERAL or LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, list the name of the general and/or limited partners. Name and Address Percentage of Ownership Hiqhland Properties of Lee and Collier, Ltd. Folio # 00407360000 2223 Trade Center Way Folio # 00407320008 Naples, Florida 34103 Folio # 00408160005 Folio # 00408400008 Folio # 00408440000 Folio # 00406720007 100% TRMPUD Rezone Petition 12.04.08 Agenda Item No. 8A e. If there is a CONTRACT FOR PURCHASE, with an individuaISa1~__~~~ a Corporation, Trustee, or a Partnership, list the names of the contract purchasers below, including the officers, stockholders, beneficiaries, or partners. Name and Address Percentage of Ownership NOT APPLICABLE Date of Contract: f. If any contingency clause or contract terms involve additional parties, list all individuals or officers, if a corporation, partnership, or trust. -- Name and Address g. Date subject property acquired ~ 1984. 1985 and 1986 laasad 0 Term ef lease _YF&..'mes. - If, Petitioner has option to buy, indicate the following: Date of option: Date option terminates: , or Anticipated closing date: h. Should any changes of ownership or changes in contracts for purchase occur subsequent to the date of application, but prior to the date of the final public hearing, it is the responsibility of the applicant, or agent on his behalf, to submit a supplemental disclosure of interest form. TRMPUD Rezone Petition 12.04.08 Agenda Item No. 8A Detailed leaal description of the property covered bv the application: (If space is inadequate, attach >n separate page.) If request involves change to more than one zoning district, include separate legal description for property involved in each district. Applicant shall submit four (4) copies of a recent survey (completed within the last six months, maximum 1" to 400' scale) if required to do so at the pre-application meeting. NOTE: The applicant is responsible for supplying the correct legal description. If questions arise concerning the legal description, an engineer's certification or sealed survey may be required. SectionlTownship/Range S91T50S/R26E Lot: Block: Subdivision: Plat Book Page #: PropertyI.D.#: 00407360000, 00407320008, 00408160005, 00408400008.00408440000 and 00406720007 Metes & Bounds Description: A PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED IN THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBES AS FOLLOWS: BEGIN AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE RUN SOUTH 89051'22" WEST, ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 9, FOR A DISTANCE OF 1,307.72 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 9; THENCE RUN NORTH 00051'25" WEST, ALONG THE WEST LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 9, FOR A DISTANCE OF 344.87 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE NORTH HALF OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 9; THENCE RUN SOUTH 89044'49" WEST, ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTH HALF OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID '3ECTION 9, FOR A DISTANCE OF 654.23 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE NORTH HALF OF THE SOUTHEAST lUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 9; THENCE RUN NORTH 00055'16" WEST, ALONG THE WEST LINE OF THE NORTH HALF OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 9, FOR A DISTANCE OF 343.63 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 9; THENCE RUN SOUTH 89038'17" WEST, ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 9, FOR A DISTANCE OF 554.60 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EAST LINE OF THE LANDS DESCRIBED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 4353 AT PAGE 1085 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE RUN NORTHERLY ALONG SAID EAST LINE FOR THE FOLLOWING SEVEN (7) COURSES: 1) THENCE RUN NORTH 00059'07" WEST, FOR A DISTANCE OF 792.98 FEET; 2) THENCE RUN SOUTH 89000'53" WEST, FOR A DISTANCE OF 20.00 FEET; 3) THENCE RUN NORTH 00059'07" WEST, FOR A DISTANCE OF 506.24 FEET; 4) THENCE RUN NORTH 11057'26" EAST, FOR A DISTANCE OF 100.77 FEET; 5) THENCE RUN NORTH 00000'53" EAST, FOR A DISTANCE OF 476.24 FEET TO A POINT ON A CIRCULAR CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHEAST, WHOSE RADIUS POINT BEARS SOUTH 89059'50" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 97.00 FEET THEREFROM; 6) THENCE RUN NORTHEASTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 97.00 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 90011'21", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD OF 137.40 FEET AT A BEARING OF NORTH 45005'51" EAST, FOR AN ARC LENGTH OF 152.69 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE; 7) THENCE RUN NORTH 00058'17" WEST, FOR A DISTANCE OF 11.48 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY OF DAVIS BOULEVARD (150 FOOT RIGHT-OF-WAY); THENCE RUN NORTH 89001'43" EAST, ALONG SAID SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY, FOR A DISTANCE OF 446.52 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EAST LINE OF THE WEST HALF OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 9; THENCE RUN SOUTH 00056'22" EAST, ALONG SAID EAST LINE, FOR A DISTANCE OF 1,299.05 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTH HALF OF THE NORTHWES QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 9; THENCE RUN NORTH 89025'14" EAST, ALONG SAID NORTH LINE, FOR A DISTANCE OF 1,966.06 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 9; THENCE RUN SOUTH 00043'50" EAST, ALONG THE EAST LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 9, FOR A DISTANCE OF 1,389.42 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL OF LAND HEREIN DESCRIBED, CONTAINING 82.51 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. Size of property: ft. X ft. = Total Sq. Ft. Acres 82.51:t TRMPUD Rezone Petition 12.04.08 Address/aenerallocation of subiect property: The subject property is located in Secti~~nqte~~ eptern , South, Ranoe 26 East. Collier County Florida. The site is bordered on the west by Santa BarBi!lM eefuJg~ Extension rioht-of-way: on the north by Davis Boulevard. The Boys and Girls Club of Collier County and Cook Property RPUD; on the east by Naples Heritaoe Golf and Country Club PUD and on the south by sino Ie family residential property. PUD District (LDC 2.03.06): r8J Residential 0 Community Facilities r8J Commercial o Industrial Zoning Land use N PUD. RPUD, C-3 Commercial - Shoppes at Santa Barbara. Cook Property RPUD and The Boys and Girls Club of Collier County SA Residential E PUD, C-3 Residential - Naples Heritaoe Golf and Country Club. The Boys and Girls Club of Collier County W PUD. A. C-2, C-4 Residential- Fallino Waters PUD. Vacant Does the owner of the subject property own property contiguous to the subject property? If so, give complete legal description of entire contiguous property. (If space is inadequate, attach on separate page). NO - SectionlTownship/Range _I 1 Lot: Block: Subdivision: Plat Book_ Page #: Property 1.0. #: Metes & Bounds Description: This application is requesting a rezone from the A. Aoriculture (with ST Overlay) zoning district(s) to the MPUD (MIXED USE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT) zoning district(s). Present Use of the Property: VACANT, UNDEVELOPED Proposed Use (or range of uses) of the property: Sino Ie family residential. multi-family residential and qeneral commercial land uses includinq retail. restaurant. office, business service and bankinq uses. , Original PUD Name: Ordinance No.: Pursuant to Section 10.02.13 of the Collier County Land Development Code, staffs analysis ant' recommendation to the Planning Commission, and the Planning Commission's recommendation to TRMPUD Rezone Petition 12.04.08 the Board of County Commissioners shall be based upon consideration of the app~tMW &fteH~. ~()ted below. Provide a narrative statement describing the .rezone request with s~ec~~r+eP8f~~the criteria noted below. Include any backup matenals and documentation an support of the request. PUO Rezone Considerations (lOC Section 10.02.13.B) The Taormina Reserve Mixed Use Planned Unit Development proposes a maximum of 264,000 square feet of commercial and 528 units of single family and multi-family residential and assisted living facilities (AlF), continuing care retirement communities (CCRC) and independent living units for age 55 plus and senior housing land uses on 82.51i: acres. The property is located on the southeast corner of Davis Boulevard and future Santa Barbara Boulevard Extension. Access to the project will be from Santa Barbara Boulevard Extension. Approximately 65.5:i: acres of the subject property are within the Urban Mixed Use Residential District, Urban Residential Subdistrict, as identified on the Future Land Use Map of the Future Land Use Element (FLUE). Approximately 17:i: acres of the project are located in the urban Commercial District, Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict. 1. The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in relation to physical characteristics of the land, surrounding areas, traffic and access, drainage, sewer, water, and other utilities. The subject property is located in the Urban Mixed Use Residential District, Urban Residential Subdistrict, Urban Commercial District, and Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict on the Future Land Use Map, which permits mixed land uses such as commercial and residential. The site is presently undeveloped. The site has access to the future Santa Barbara Boulevard Extension. Urban services are presently available to the property and sufficient capacity exists to serve the proposed land uses. 2. Adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of any proposed agreements, contract, or other instruments, or for amendments in those proposed, particularly as they may relate to arrangements or provisions to be made for the continuing operation and maintenance of such areas and facilities that are not to be provided or maintained at public expense. Findings and recommendations of this type shall be made only after consultation with the county attorney. The documents submitted with the application provide evidence of unified control. 3. Conformity of the proposed PUO with the goals, objectives and policies of the growth management plan. The Statement of Compliance located in the MPUD document discusses consistency with the Collier County Growth Management Plan. The proposed commercial and residential land uses are consistent with the intent and purpose of the Urban Mixed Use Residential District, Urban Residential Subdistrict, Urban Commercial District, and Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict of the Future land Use Element. 4. The internal and external compatibility of proposed uses, which conditions may include restrictions on location of improvements, restrictions on design, and buffering and screening requirements. The proposed mixed-use development is compatible with the surrounding land use pattern. The internal arrangement of the proposed development, access points and project buffers are consistent TRMPUD Rezone Petition 12.04.08 with the Growth Management Plan and Land Development Code and sound PIa1qJftngag_tJleS3.INith respect to urban infill development. Septem er 29, 2009 Page 108 of 265 5. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development. The proposed mixed-use development will provide open space in accordance with the LDC. Open spaces will be provided for this project and will include areas for landscape buffers, preserves, and water management areas. 6. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and private. The proposed timing of development will be required to be consistent with the County's concurrency management system in effect at the time development order approvals are granted. At the time of application, there are no known deficiencies of the surrounding infrastructure system. 7. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. - At the filing date of the zoning application there are no plans to expand the boundaries of the proposed MPUD. Adjacent properties are presently developed and occupied. The application includes all properties under the unified control of the applicant. 8. Conformity with PUD regulations, or as to desirable modifications of such regulations in the particular case, based on determination that such modifications of justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations. The proposed MPUD includes development standards and conditions which are consistent with other similar types of commercial and residential planned developments. The PUD document and masteL- plan include buffers and development standards consistent with the LDC. Deed Restrictions: The County is legally precluded from enforcing deed restrictions, however, many communities have adopted such restrictions. You may wish to contact the civic or property owners association in the area for which this use is being requested in order to ascertain whether or not the request is affected by existing deed restrictions. Previous land use petitions on the subject property: To your knowledge, has a public hearing been held on this property within the last year? 0 Yes [gI No If so, what was the nature of that hearing? NOTICE: This application will be considered "open" when the determination of "sufficiency" has been made and the application is assigned a petition processing number. The application will be considered "closed" when the petitioner withdraws the application through written notice or ceases to supply necessary information to continue processinq or otherwise activelv pursue the rezoninq for a period of six (6) months. An application deemed "closed" will not receive further processing and an application "closed" through inactivity shall be deemed withdrawn. An application deemed "closed" may be re-opened by submitting a new application, repayment of all application fees and granting of a determination of "sufficiency". Further review of the project will be subject to the then current code. (LOG Section 10.03.05.0.) TRMPUD Rezone Petition 12.04.08 ....~,-... ,~- Agenda Item No. 8A THIS COMPLETED CHECKLIST IS TO BE SUBMITTED WITH APPLICATION PACKETIN THE EXACT ORDER LISTED BELOW W/COVER SHEETS ATTACHED TO EACH SECTION #OF NOT ! COPIES REQUIRED REQUIRED 1 Additional set if located in the Bayshore/Gateway Trian Ie Redevelo ment Area ./ Co ies of detailed descri tion of wh amendment is necessa 24 ./ Completed Application (download from website for current 24 form) ./ Pre-a Iication meetin notes 24 ./ Current Conceptual Site Pran 24" x 36" and One 8 W' x 11" 24 co ./ Revised Conce tual Site Plan 24" x 36"and One 8 W' x 11" co 24 ./ Original PUD document and Master Plan 24" x 36" - ONLY IF 24 AMENDING THE PUD ./ Revised PUD document with chan es crossed thru & underlined 24 ./ Revised PUD document w/amended Title page w/ord #'s, LDC 24 10.02.13.A.2 ./ Deeds/Legal's 2 'ended) ./ --t identifying Owner & all parties of corporation 2 ./ Owner / Affidavit signed & notarized 2 ./ Covenant of Unified Control 2 ./ Completed Addressing checklist 2 ./ Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and digital/electronic 4 co of EIS or exem tion 'ustification ./ Historical Surveyor waiver request 4 ./ Utility Provisions Statement w/sketches 4 ./ Architectural rendering of proposed structures 4 ./ Survey, signed & sealed 4 ./ Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) or waiver 7 ./ Recent Aerial Photograph (with habitat areas defined) min 5 scaled 1 "=400' ./ Electronic copy of all documents in Word format and plans 1 (CDRom or Diskette) ./ If located in RFMU (Rural Fringe Mixed Use) Receivinq Land Areas Applicant must contact Mr. Gerry J. Lacavera, State of Florida _ Division of Forestry @ 239-690-3500 for information regarding //': ildfire Mitigation & Prevention Plan", LDC Section 2.03.08.A.2.a.(b)i.c. " \ ! i ./ la~_~~_._O_K__ i f,& "" ~ L- .. I" .. . ~ ~--------- --~~-~~- - -------- Applicant/Agent Signature Date TRMPUD Rezone Petition 12.04.08 Agenda Item No. 8A September 29, 2009 VanassePW5 Daylor IItiiii ZONING TRAFFIC IMPACT STATEMENT TAORMINA RESERVE August 9, 2006 Santa Barbara Boulevard & Davis Boulevard Collier County, Florida -- Prepared For: Prepared By: Mr. Bobbie Cadenhead Vanasse & Daylor, LLP Cadenhead Construction Co., Inc. 3994 Mercantile Avenue Naples, Florida 34104 Job # 80993.02 - 12730 New Brittany Boulevard, Suite 600, Fort Myers. Florida 33907 r 239.437.460 I f 239.431.4636 w van day. com ~-~-~_..-_.<,,---<-<----_. Agenda Item No. 8A September 29,2009 Page 111 of 265 STATEMENT OF CERTIFICATION I certify that this ZONING TRAFFIC IMPACT STATEMENT has been prepared by me 01' under my immediate supervision and that I have experience and training in the field of Traffic and Tran'''1JOrtatioll Engineering. - Ernest R. Spradling P.E. Florida Registration #61235 VanasseDaylor, LLP 12730 New Brittany Boulevard, Suite 600 Fort Myers, Florida 33907 (239) 437-4601 Collaborators Reed K. Jarvi P.E. Swarup Mukherjee ~4 P.t:, 51235 Taormina Reserve ZTIS Statement of Certification .- TAORMINA RESERVE Vanasse -- Urban PlanBing Landscape ArchiltcWrt LOCATION MAP Daylor Civil Enginttring ~\tig~0;i;';~:;~t\~~ Traffic Engimring EXHIBIT I fnvironmenl.?1 lciell(e Date: 0512512006 Fl )66 .,-, Project Name: Taormina Reserve 3994 Mercantile Avenue, Sources: Y:\LayersI2006\Collier\2006 _ COIIAerExp .Iyr Client Name: Cadenhead Construction Co. Inc. Naples. FL 34104 Y:\Projects\llOO\809\80993\exhibilO1.mxd Projoct Number. 80993 FilE: exl\ibilO1.mxO ~'-"'--' r " ~ ___".__..____~'.w Agenda Item No. 8A September 29,2009 Page 113 of 265 Table of Contents INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARy......................... ........................................ ............. ............. 1 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT....... ........... .......... ........... ...................... ........... ....... ............ ........... 3 EXISTING AND PROPOSED LAND USE ...........................................................,...................,..."..,......,.......,.....3 AREA CONDITIONS ................. ............................. .............. ...................... ..... ......... .................... 3 SITE ACCESSIBILITY. ............................, ,., .......... ,.' ...................... ,.......... ,. ...............,.....,. ........................ ..........,3 PROJECTED TRAFFIC...................... ................ ................................ .................................... ....... 5 TRIP GENERATION ................................ ,. ........................ ....................., ,.....................,... ......... ......... ....' .............. 5 TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT ...............................................,.....................,..................................6 PROJECTED BACKGROUND AND TOTAL TRAFFICVOLUMES..................................................................8 ANAL YSES................ ............... ............. ........... ............................. .... ..... ..................................... 1 0 _ __ CAPACITY AND LEVEL OF SERVICE ..................................................,......................,..................................' 10 SITE ACCESSES ...........', ...,.,.", ....., .,... ..........' .".. ................................,.......... ,.,..' .................. ................ .... .......... 2 I TRANSPORTATION CONCURRENCY MANAGEMENT AREA CONSlDERATIONS.................................24 IMPROVEMENTS ANA I", YSIS ................ .......... ................... ............ ......................................... 26 M.1'f1 GA TI ON OF IMP A CT ......... ............... .................... ...... ......,..... ............. ..... ........................ 27 List of Tables Table 1 Site-Generated Trip Estimates Table 2 Site- Generated Trip Distribution Table 3 Significance Test Table 4 Link-specific Background Traffic Data based on Concurrency Segment Tables Table 5 Projected Background Traffic Volumes Table 6 Link Analysis Results Table 7 Link Analysis Results with improvements Table 8 lntersection Analysis Results Table 9 Intersection improvements Analysis Results List of Exhibits Exhibit 1 Location Map Exhibit 2 Study Area and Studied intersections Exhibit 3 Site- Generated Residential Trip Distribution Exhibit 4 Site- Generated Commercial Trip Distribution Exhibit 5 AM Peak Hour Traffic Assignment (Residential + Commercial) Exhibit 6 PM Peak Hour Traffic Assignment (Residential + Commercial) Exhibit 7 PM Peak Hour Pass-By Trips Exhibit 8 AM Peak Hour Background Traffic Exhibit 9 PM Peak Hour Background Traffic Exhibit lO AM Peak Hour Total Traffic Exhibit 11 PM Peak Hour Total Traffic Appendix Taormina Reserve ZTIS Page i Table of Contents Agenda Item No. 8A September 29,2009 Page 114 of 265 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY Vanasse & Daylor, LLP (VanasseDaylor) is providing this Zoning Traffic Impact Statement for the proposed Ta0l111ina Reserve. The purpose of this study is 10 provide to the Collier County Transportation Operations Review Department adequate information to assure that any traffic~ related problems are anticipated and that effective mitigation measures are identified as paJi of a Rezoning request. The Taormina Reserve mixed use development is located in the southeastern quadrant of the Davis Boulevard (SR 84) & Santa Barbara Boulevard intersection, in Collier County (see Exhibit 1 Location Map). The site is currently unoccupied. The proposed land use for the site consists of 376 Residential Condominium/Townhouse (LU 230) dwelling units, 152 Single Family (LU 210) dwelling units, 131,000 sf of Shopping Center (LU 820) uses and 131,000 sf of General Office (LU 7] 0) uses. A 201 ] Buildout Year Planning horizon was analyzed. The levels of service for all studied links will meet the level of service (LOS) standards computed by the AUIR Tables for the AM and PM Peak I-lours with Buildout Year Total Traffic. Therefore, no off-site improvements are projected to be required for this project. The following intersection improvements were identified as being needed 111 order to accommodate projected Background traffic: Davis Boulevard & County Barn Road intersection . One additional eastbound through lane to provide a total of three eastbound through lanes . One additional westbound through lane to provide a total of three westbound through lanes Davis Boulevard & Santa Barbara Boulevard intersection . One additional eastbound through lane to provide a total of three eastbound through lanes . One additional westbound through lane to provide a total of three westbound through lanes . One additional northbound through lane to provide a total of three northbound through lanes . One additional southbound through lane to provide a total of three southbound through lanes . Dual northbound left turn lanes 260 feet long . One exclusive northbound right turn lane 285 feet long . One additional southbound left turn lane to provide dual southbound left turn lanes 435 feet long . Dual westbound left turn lanes 465 feet long . One exclusive eastbound right turn lane 615 feet long Taormina Reserve ZTIS I I: \Projects \809\8099 3 \ T raffic\ZTI S _ 08 _ 2006\80993 ZTIS002_doc ~."- Agenda Item No. 8A September 29,2009 Page 115 of 265 Collier Boulevard & Davis Boulevard intersection . One additional northbound through lane to provide a total of four northbound through lanes . One additional southbound through lane to provide a total of four southbound through lanes . One additional eastbound left turn lane to provide a total of three eastbound left turn lanes . One additional northbound left turn lane to provide a total of three northbound left turn lanes Santa Barbara Boulevard & Radio Road intersection . One additional northbound left turn lane to provide a dual northbound left turn lanes 535 feet long . One additional northbound right turn lane to provide a dual northbound right turn lanes 3 10 feet long . One additional southbound left turn lane to provide a dual southbound left turn lanes 435 feet long . One additional southbound right turn lane to provide a dual southbound right turn lanes 335 feet long . One additional eastbound right turn lane to provide a dual eastbound right turn lanes 385 feet long . Increase existing dual eastbound left turn lane to provide a total 485 feet long . One additional westbound left turn lane to provide a dual westbound left turn lanes 635 feet long . One additional westbound right turn lane to provide a dual westbound right turn lanes 260 feet long The following intersection improvements were identified as being needed 111 order to accommodate projected Total traffic: Davis Boulevard & Santa Barbara Boulevard intersection . Further increase length of dual northbound left turn lanes by 75 feet to provide a total 335 foot length . Further increase length of dual southbound left turn lanes by 75 feet to provide a total 510 foot length . Further increase length of dual westbound left turn lanes by 50 feet to provide a total 515 foot length . Further increase length of eastbound right turn lane by 75 feet to provide a total 690 foot length Santa Barbara Boulevard & Radio Road intersection . Further increase length of dual northbound left turn lanes by 25 feet to provide a total 560 foot length . Further increase length of dual eastbound right turn lanes by 50 feet to provide a total 435 foot length Santa Barbara Boulevard Extension & Full-movement Site Access West intersection . Signalization . One 285 feet long exclusive southbound left turn lane . One 210 feet long exclusive northbound right turn lane Santa Barbara Boulevard Extension & Directional-movement Site Access intersection . One 235 feet long exclusive southbound left turn lane . One 185 feet long exclusive northbound right turn lane Davis Boulevard & Right-in/Right-Out Site Access North intersection . One 265 feet long exclusive eastbound right turn lane The developer proposes to pay the appropriate Collier County Road Impact Fees in accordance with c.ounty codes. The developer also proposes to construct the site-related improvements identified at the site accesses. Taormina Reserve ZTIS 2 I: \Projects \809\80993 \T raffic\ZTIS _08_2006\8099 3ZTIS002. doc Agenda Item No. 8A September 29,2009 Page 116 of 265 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT EXISTING AND PROPOSED LAND USE The project site is in the southeastern quadrant of the Davis Boulevard (SR 84) & Santa Barbara Boulevard intersection, in Collier County. The parcel is currently unoccupied. The proposed land use for the site consists of 376 Residential Condominium/Townhol,lse (LV 230) dwelling units, 152 Single Family (LU 2 I 0) dwelling units, 13 1 ,000 sf of Shopping Center (LV 820) uses and 131,000 sf of General Office (LV 7 I 0) uses. The proposed site has one full- movement access and one directional-movement access on Santa Barbara Boulevard Extension and one Right-In/Right-Out access on Davis Boulevard. Exhibit 1 shows the location of the TaOlmina Reserve site. A 2011 Buildout Year Planning horizon was analyzed. AREA CONDITIONS SITE ACCESSIBiliTY Area Roadway System The existing roadway conditions for the area of the project were used to provide the base Buildout roadway network. Exhibit I shows the existing roadways in the vicinity of the project. The roadway system inside the study area consists of the following arterial and major collector roads and streets (see Exhibit 1): Davis Boulevard (SR 84) Davis Boulevard (SR 84) in the vicinity of the project is an east-west, two-lane divided aJierial street. It is under State jurisdiction. Alignment of the roadway is fairly level and tangent. The speed limit is posted at 45 miles per hour (mph). Taormina Reserve ZT!S 3 I: \Pl'Oj em \809\80993\ T raffi c\ZTI S _ 08 _ 2006180993 ZTlS002 .doc Agenda Item No. 8A September 29, 2009 Page 117 of 265 Santa Barbara Boulevard Santa Barbara Boulevard is a north-south six-lane roadway under County jurisdiction that presently teJ111inates at Davis Boulevard intersection. The roadway alignment is fairly level and tangent. Santa Barbara Boulevard Extension Santa Barbara Boulevard Extension is a proposed north-south four-lane roadway betwee;n Davis Boulevard and Rattlesnake Hammock Road, under County jurisdiction. The roadway alignment will be fairly level and tangent. - TRAFFIC VOLUMES VanasseDaylor reviewed available data and model projections to estimate background and future traffic volumes for the study area. Data reviewed included the Collier Countv Transportation Planning Department 2004 Traffic COtl11t Report (Collier 2004 Counts), and Collier County Concurrency Segments Tables dated June 30, 2006. The Appendix contains copies of the applicable data used, Exhibit 2 shows these links in the study area, along with the studied existing intersections and proposed site accesses. Committed Roadway Improvements Roadway improvements are constructed in order to help alleviate current area road deficiencies and to support future area development. For purposes of this study, knowing that a roadway improvement is "committed" means that the characteristics of the higher-level facility may be used in the reserve capacity estimates. Roadway improvements that are cunently under construction, or are scheduled to be constructed within the FY 2004 to FY 2006 time frame were considered to be committed improvements. These were identified in the Collier County Transportation Improvement Plan Year 2002/2003-2007/2012. The committed improvements in the study area include: . 6-lane widening of Santa Barbara Boulevard from Green Boulevard to Davis Boulevard Construction FY 2007 (Collier County #60091) . New 4-lane corridor of Santa Barbara Boulevard Extension from Davis Bou\eva."d to Rattlesnake Hammock Road Construction FY 2007 (Collier County #60091 ) Taonnina Reserve ZTIS 4 I: \Projecls \809\80993 \ T ramc\ZTIS _ 08_2006\80993 ZTIS002 .doc Agenda Item No. 8A September 29, 2009 Page 118 of 265 . 4-lane widening of COUnty Barn Road from Davis Boulevard to CR 864 Construction FY 2006 (Collier County #60091) . 4-1ane widening of Radio Road from Santa Barbara Boulevard to Davis Boulevard Construction FY 2006 (Collier County) . 6-lane widening of Rattlesnake Hammock Road from Polly Avenue to Collier Boulevard Construction FY 2006 (Collier County) PROJECTED TRAFFIC TRIP GENERATION Site-generated trips were estimated using Trip Generation, Internal Capture and Pass-By - software (TIPS) developed by FDOT (see Appendix A). This program incorporates trip generation rates and deduction procedures consistent with the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (ih Edition) and the ITE Trip Generation Handbook (2nd Edition) in accordance with current Collier County policy. Table 1 shows the summary of the net new extemaJ site-generated trip estimates. The following trip generation formulas were used: Single-Family Detached Housing (LU 210): Shopping Center (LU 820): ADT: Ln(T) = 0.92 Ln(X) + 2.71 ADT: Ln(T) = 0.65 Ln(X ) + 5.83 AM Peak Hour: T = 0.70{X) + 9.43 AM Peak Hour: Ln(T) = 0.60 Ln(X ) + 2.29 PM Peak Hour: Ln(T) = 0.90 Ln{X) + 0.53 PM Peak Hour: Ln(T) = 0.66 Ln(X) + 3.40 PASS-BY T= Ln (T) =-0.291 Ln (X) + 5.00 I Residential CondominiumlT ownhouse (LV 230): ADT: Ln (T) = 0.85 Ln (X) + 2.55 General Office Building (LV 710) AM Peak Hour: Ln (T) = 0.80 Ln (X) + 0.26 ADT: Ln (T) = 0.77 Ln (X) + 3.65 PM Peak Hour: Ln (T) = 0.82 Ln (X) + 0.32 AM Peak Hour: Ln (T) = 0.80 Ln (X) + 1.55 PM Peak Hour: (T) = 1.12 (X) + 78.8 Since the proposed development will have dissimilar land uses, a percentage of the site- generated traffic will be captured by the land uses inside the development and not be introduced to the extemal roadway network. Internal capture trips were estimated using rate and summary sheets shown in the ITE Trip Generation Handbook An ITE Recommended Practice (see Appendix). In addition, the retail land use will capture pass~by from the adjacent traffic stream on Davis Boulevard and Santa Barbara Boulevard Extension. Taormina Reserve ZTIS 5 I: \Projects\80 9\80993\ T rafllc\ZTIS _08_2006\80993 ZTISOO2.doc ._-"'''-'"-'","" ~".~...-.~- ~,---, Agenda Item No. 8A September 29,2009 Page 119 of 265 A 36% Pass-By Capture reduction was computed using the ITE Trip Generation Handbook An ITE Recommended Practice. It was decided in the methodology meeting with the Collier County staff to use a 30% Pass-By capture reduction in the analyses of this report. Appendix contains the methodology meeting report. Exhibit 7 graphically presents Pass-By trips 011 the roadway links in the vicinity ofthe site. Table 1 summarizes the trip generation calculations for this development. TABLE I BUILDOUT SITE GENERATED TRIP ESTIMATES PM Peak - ImL Enter Exit TAORMINA RESERVE NET NEW EXTERNAL SITE GENERATED TRIP ESTIMATES (TIPS) 910 415 495 TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT The pattern of site traffic distribution is based on locations of generators in the area surrounding the project and engineering judgment. Table 2 presents the assumed distribution. Exhibits 3 and 4 graphically present the residential and commercial trip distribution data respectively. TABLE 2 Trip Distribution Site-generated Trip Distribution Res Dist % Comm/Office Dist % Link From 19 Enter Exit Enter Exit Santa Barbara Boulevard Rattlesnake Hammock Road West Site Access 20% 20% 20% 20% Santa Barbara Boulevard West Site Access Directional-movement Access 80% 80% 20% 0% Santa Barbara Boulevard Directional.movement Access Davis Boulevard 80% 80% 40% 5S% Santa Barbara Boulevard Davis Boulevard Radio Road 30% 30% 30% 30% Santa Barbara Boulevard Radio Road Golden Gate Parkway 10% 10% 10% 10% Davis Boulevard Ail'pon.Pulling Road Lakewood Boulevard 15% 15% IS% 15% Davis Boulevard Lakewood Boulevard County Bam Road 20% 20% 20% 20% Davis Boulevard County Barn Road Santa Barba,'a Boulevard 25% 2S% 25% 25% Davis Boulevard Santa Barbara Boulevard North Site Access 25% 25% 40% 0% Davis Boulevard North Site Access Radio Road 20% 20% 20% 20% Davis Boulevard Radio Road Collier Boulevard 15% 15% 15% 15% Rattlesnake Hammock R.oad County Barn Road Polly Avenue 10% 10% 10% 10% Rattlesnake Hammock Road Polly Avenue Collier Boulevard 5% 5% S% 5% Collier Boulevard Davis Boulevard 1.75 15% 15% 15% 15% Radio Road livingstOn Road Santa Barbara Boulevard 10% 10% 10% 10% Taormina Resc'\lc ZTIS 6 I: IP,'ojects\80918099 3\ Traffic IZTIS _08_2006\80993 ZTI S002.doc Agenda Item No. 8A September 29, 2009 Page 120 of 265 The trip distribution percentages of residential and commercial land use were applied to the site- generated traffic volumes to determine the site-generated vehicle trip assignment Exhibits 4 and 5 present the proposed combined entering and exiting site generated traffic for both residential and commercial trips at AM and PM peak J-lours. SIGNIFICANCE TEST According to Collier County Land Development Code (LDC) Section 6.02.02: "M. Significance Test: Impact for the impact traffic analysis purposes for a proposed development project will be considered significant: I. On those roadway segments directly accessed by the project where project traffic is equal to or greater than 3% of the adopted LOS standard service volume; 2. For those roadway segments immediately adjacent to segments which are directly accessed by the project where project traffic is greater than or equal to 3% of the adopted LOS standard service volume; or 3. For all other adjacent segments where the project traffic is greater than 5% of the adopted LOS standard service volume. Once traffic from a development has been shown to be less than significant on any segments using the above standards, the development's impact is not required to be analyzed further on any additional segments." In other words, a project will have a significant and adverse impact on a state or regionally significant roadway only if both of the following criteria are met: (1) the project will utilize 3 percent or more of the maximum peak hour service volume at the adopted level of service standard for the adjacent and next to adjacent link, 5 percent for the other links; and (2) the roadway is projected to operate below the adopted level of service standard. Significance was estimated according to Collier County's 3/3/5 rule, and the links were evaluated to detennine whether projected operation would be within County standards. The data resources used for this analysis are shown in the Appendix. Table 3 presents the significance test results. Taormina Reserve ZTIS 7 1:IProj ects \809\80993\ T rafficlZTIS _ 08 _ 2006 \8099 3 ZTISOO2.doc - ~._" ... ...",~'.- Agenda Item No. 8A September 29,2009 Page 121 of 265 TABLE 3 Significance Test Site as STD Site %01 ~ wm J:Q ~owc ~ l-.QS...s.t.Q Santa Barbara Boulevard EXtension* Rattlesnake Hammock Road West Site Access 1,860 74 3.98% Santa Barbara Boulevard Extension* West Site Access Davis Boulevard 1.860 130 6.99% Santa Barbara Boulevard Davis Boulevard Radio Road 2.790 125 4.48% Santa Barbara Boulevard Radio Road Golden Gate Parkway 3.070 41 1.34% Davis Boulevard Airport.Pulling Road Lakewood Boulevard 2.0BO 62 2.98% Davis Boulevard Lakewocxl Boulevard County Barn Road 2,430 82 3.37% Davis Boulevard County Barn Road Santa Barbara Boulevard 2,400 104 4,33% Davis Boulevard Santa Barbara Boulevard North Site Access 1,530 123 B.04% Davis Boulevard North Site Access Radio Road 1,530 124 8.10% Davis Boulevard Radio Road Collier Boulevard 1.530 99 6.47% Rattlesnake Hammock Road County Barn Road Polly Avenue - 2340 41 1.75% Rattlesnake Hammock Road Polly Avenue Collier Boulevard 1860 24 1.29% Collier Boulevard Davis Boulevard 1-75 3690 74 2.01% Radio Road Livingston Road Santa Barbara Boulevard 2120 41 1.93% * from QLOS table and/or from similar roadway facility The site-generated trips were estimated to be significant (>3 percent of the SFII/ax) on Davis Boulevard between Lakewood Boulevard and Collier Boulevard and Santa Barbara Boulevard between Rattlesnake Hammock Road and Radio Road. The site-generated trip assignments were not projected to be significant on the other links. The link analyses were therefore focused on the significantly impacted links. The intersection analyses were limited to the Davis Boulevard & County Barn Road, Davis Boulevard & Santa Barbara Boulevard, Davis Boulevard & Radio Road, Davis Boulevard & Collier Boulevard, Santa Barbara Boulevard Extension & Rattlesnake Hammock Road, Santa Barbara Boulevard Extension & Full-movement Site Access, Santa Barbara Boulevard & Radio Road intersections. PROJECTED BACKGROUND AND TOTAL TRAFFIC VOLUMES Background traffic volumes were developed using multiple sources. Specific Link volume data for Davis Boulevard were provided by the Collier County TranspOltation Department. These link volumes consisted of recorded 2004 directional Peak Hour volumes and "banked" trips that were assigned to the links for previously approved developments (see the Appendix-Concun'ency Segment Tables dated June 30, 2006). This is the methodology that is currently in use by Collier Taormina Rese.-ve ZTIS 8 1:\Projects\809\80993\T rafficlZT1S_ 08 _2006\8099 3ZTIS002.doc Agenda Item No. 8A September 29,2009 Page 122 of 265 County for tracking the availability of reserve capacity on specific roadway links as part of their concunency management effOlts. The capacity of Santa Barbara Boulevard Extension was derived from the similar county roadway facility. Table 4 presents the link-specific background traffic data used in the link LOS anal yses. TABLE 4 Link-specific Background Traffic Data ConcSeg Tables 06/30/2006 !-_OJ.. Qfl{J.jR LR.!f.. IP.I. Bftl link From 12 r;..6ft J.8NES STD ~ ~ ~ ~Af:' Davis Boulevard Lakewood Boulevard County Barn Road 2430 4 D 1930 235 2165 265 Davis BoulcVil rd County Barn Road Santa Barbara Boulevard 2400 4 D 1860 514 2374 26 Davis Boulevard Santa Barbara Boulevard Colli er Boulcvard 1530 2 D 1120 508 1628 (98) Santa Barbara Boulevard Extcnsion* Rattlesnake Hammock Road Davis Boulcvard 1860 .. D 690 690 Santa Barbara Boulevard Davis Boulevard Radio Road 2790 6 E 970 536 1506 12B4 · from QLOS tablc or similar County roadway capacity Growth projections were computed using the 2005 Average Daily Traffic Counts, Collier County. Table 5 contains the projected background traffic. The projected background traffic volumes from the directional peak hour volume were assigned to the roadway links. TABLE 5 Projected Background Traffic Volumes Based on Historical Growth Ratc AADT Growth DPK Hr Vol .IJnk Er2m I.2 2QQQ ~ 2QQS ~ 2QQ.6 lQ.Jl Davis Boulevard Lakewood Boulcvard County Barn Road 27,112 32,083 3.'l% 1,930 2,457 Davis Boulevard County Barn Road Santa Barbara Boulevard 27,321 34,781 4.9% 1,860 2,368 Davis Boulevard Santa Barbara Boulevard Collier Boulevard 21,OSa 25.969 5.'l% 1.120 1,456 Santa 8arbara Bouleva,'d !:xt" Rattlcsnake Hammock Rd Davis Bouievai'd 1.7% 690 749 Santa Barbar"a Boulevard Davis Boulevard Radio Road 17.746 19,270 1.7% 970 1,053 The background tuming movement volumes a1 the Davis Boulevard & Santa Barbara Boulevard and Rattlesnake Hammock Road & Santa Barbara Boulevard Extension intersections were derived fi'om the "Santa Barbara Boulevard Extension Davis Boulevard to Rattlesnake Taormina Reserve ZTtS 9 I: \Projects \809\8099 3\ T raffic\ZTIS _08_2006\60993 ZTIS002. doc ....'.--, ~...~---,~...... --.-^ Agenda Item No. 8A September 29,2009 Page 123 of 265 Hammock Road Design Traffic Study" by Tindale-Oliver and Associates, Inc. A 2010 planning horizon FSUTMS model, based on the Collier County Transportation Plan Model, was developed by TindaJe-Oliver and Associates, lnc. to estimate the Santa Barbara Boulevard Extension projected turning movement volumes was used for this study. The Appendix contains copies of the 2010 AM and PM Peak Hour turning movement volumes derived fTom FSUTMS model. Exhibits 8 and 9 graphically present the AM and PM Peak hour Background traffic' tuming movement volumes in the significant intersections. ANAL YSES The directional split of new trips was applied to the site-generated traffic volumes to determine the site-generated vehicle trips assignment. The site-generated vehicle-trip assignments were added to the background traffic-volume networks to determine the Build-out traffic volume conditions. Exhibits 10 and 11 graphically present the AM and PM peak Hour Total Traffic. CAPACITY AND LEVEL OF SERVICE Link Analyses Link Levels of Service were evaluated for both Background and Total Traffic conditions for this project. The Performance Standard Maximum Service FJowrates (SFrnaJ for different roadway segments were provided by the Collier County Transportation Planning Department with the Concurrency Segment data. Copies of these data are contained in the Appendix. Table 6 presents the link analysis results. Taormina Reserve ZTIS 10 I: \Proj ects \809\80993 \ T raffic\ZTIS _08_2006\8099 3ZT1SO02 ,d oc Agenda Item No. 8A September 29, 2009 Page 124 of 265 TABLE 6 Link LOS Analysis Results Projected 201 f Backg,'ound traffic volume based on 5 year growth rate projection PK Hr Dir T raffle Wlln SF IMY. ? J..iok w.m IP. b.C. ~ Sll~ Imal Sf.AIAJe ll.~Q :u.>.ul Santa Barbara Boulevard Ext" Rattlesnake Hammock Road Site Acees. West 4D 1.550 83 1,633 1,860 Y y Santa Barbara Boulevard Ext" Site Access West Davis Boulevard 40 1.550 294 1.844 1,860 Y Y Santa Barbara Boulevard Davis Boulevard Radio Road 60 2,019 100 2.119 2,790 y y Davis B ouleva I'd Lakewood Boulevard COUnty Barn Road 40 2.576 83 2,659 2,430 N N Davis Boulevard County Barn Road Santa Barbara Bouleva,'d 4D 2.630 104 2,734 2.400 N N Davis Boulevard Santa Barbara Boulevard Site Acces. North 2U 2,070 123 2.193 1.530 N N Davis Boulevard Site Access North Radio Road 2U 2.070 99 2.169 1.530 N' N Davis Boulevard Radio Road Collier Bouleva I'd 2U 2,853 74 2,927 1.530 N N * SF MAX from .imilar roadway facility The existing Directional Peak Hour Background Traffic volume on Davis Boulevard from Santa Barbara Boulevard to Collier Boulevard already exceeds the SFlIlflx. The projected 2010 background traffic volume for Davis Boulevard west of Santa Barbara Boulevard also exceeds tIle SFI/Jax. A study on six-lane widening of Davis Boulevard east of Airport-Pulling Road is under consideration by the Collier County Transportation Department. Six-lane widening of Davis Boulevard would provide sufficient capacity to accommodate background as well as total traffic. Table 7 presents link analysis with these improvements. TABLE 7 Link LOS Analysis Results with improvements Projected 2011 Background traffic volume based on 5 year growth rate projection PK Hr Dir Traffic W/ln SF MAJ( 1 1.io.k from 10 RKGQ Site IlmI SE/oIAX ~ Iwl Davis Boulevard" Lakewood Boulevard County Barn Road 6D 2.576 83 2,659 3,420 y Y Davis Boulevard* County Barn Road Santa Barbara Boulevard 6D 2,630 104 2,734 3,420 y Y Davis Boulevard' Santa Barbara Boulevard Site Access North 6D 2,070 123 2,193 3,420 y y Davis Boulevard' Site Access North Radio Road 60 2,070 99 2.169 3,420 y y Davis Boulevard' Radio Road Collier Boulevard 60 2.853 74 2,927 3,420 y Y .' SF MAX (rom similar projec!ed capacity on Davis Blvd west of Airport Road I ntersection Analyses S;(:', The foregoing determinations were based on link-specific background traffic data contained in Tables 4 & 5. Additional analyses were conducted on key intersections in the Area ofInfluence. This selection process was based primarily on the relationships between the significant links and proximity to the site. Taormina Reserve ZTIS II I: \Projects\809\8099 3\ T raffic\ZTIS _08_2006 \8099 3 ZTISOO 2. doc ""---"" ~~". Agenda Item No. 8A September 29,2009 Page 125 of 265 Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movements are required for intersection design, traffic operations analyis and site impacts evaluations. The lJltersection Balancing Method contained in the FDOT Proiect Traffic Forecasting Handbook and in the National Cooperative Bigh\vay Research Program Publication Highway Traffic Data for Urbanized Area Proiect Planning and Design (NCHRP 255) was used to estimate the peak hour tUl11 movements at Buildout. The analyses were conducted using SYNCHRO@ to determine probable Buildout Year intersection operations. Intersection analyses consist of two parts: capacity analyses and turn lane analyses. Both analyses were conducted using the Trafficware™ software package, SYNCHRO@ version 6.0 to determine probable intersection operations and turn lane storage lengths of need. The Buildout Year conditions were analyzed: Background Traffic and Total Traffic. If no degradation to the service level of an intersection using total traffic volumes was identified, then no additional analyses were performed on that intersection. It was also recognized during the study process Ulat need for, and length of need of, turn lanes, and how those lengths of need would interact with neighboring accesses and improvements, would affect the recommended access configurations and their location along the site frontage. Five parameters were used in order to reach the recommendations: CUlTent land uses in the area, entering and exiting turn movement assignments, the capacity analysis results, the turn lane length of need analysis results, and the proximity of the proposed access to neighboring accesses/intersections. The SYNCHRO@ queuing computations were used to detennine lengths of need where turn lanes were warranted. According to the Collier County Right-of Way Ordinance #2003-37, tum lanes must be provided on all multi-lane facilities. The FDOT Index 301 and Figure 3-15 of the Manual of Unifonn Minimum Standards were used for conceptual geometric design (see Appendix). FDOT uses the roadway posted speed as the tum lane entry speed. According to FDOT Standard Index 301, the deceleration lane length for a 45 mph posted speed in an urban roadway setting is 240 feet, which is consistent with a 50 mph design speed. The FDOT Manual on Uniform Minimum Standards recommends a 50-foot minimum storage length for left turn lanes. The turn Taormina Reset-ve ZTIS 12 1:\Projects\809\80993\T rafflc\ZTIS _08 _2006\80993ZTISOO2.doc Agenda Item No. SA September 29, 2009 Page 126 of 265 lanes on Davis Boulevard (SR 84) should therefore be furnished with 240-foot deceleration Janes in addition to the applicable storage lanes. Collier County uses the roadway posted speed as the turn lane design speed. The FDOT Standard Index 301 specifies deceleration lane length for a 45 mph design speed is 185 feet. The turn lanes on Santa Barbara Boulevard Extension should have I 85-foot deceleration lanes in addition to the applicable storage lanes. Site Access analyses were completed utilizing SYNCHRO@software and HCS2000™, which are based on the Highway Capacity Manual 2000 (HCM 2000). The Appendix contains the - SYNCHRO@ and HCS2000 ™ computer printouts. The purpose of these analyses is to evaluate the operational characteristics and needs of the site accesses, and to recommend access point locations. Table 8 summarizes the capacity analysis results. More detailed interpretations of the results are outlined in each intersection description following the generalized narratives. Copies of the analyses are contained in the Appendix. TABLE 8 Intersection LOS Analysis Results Pk HI' Backl!round Traffic Pk Hr Total Traffic Existing Modified Existi ng Modified geometry geometry geometry geometry LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay seclveh sedveh sedveh sedvch AM C 28 C 29 Davis Boulevard & County Barn Road PM E 77 C 31 F 83 C 32 AM F 165 D 41 F 200 0 45 Davis Boulevard & Santa Barbara 80ulevard PM F 205 D 44 F 234 0 53 AM C 25 C 34 Davis Boulevard & Radio Road PM D <15 D 50 AM F 91 0 44 F 97 D 47 Collier Boulevard (CR 951) & Davis Boulevard PM F 172 E 71 F 177 E 75 AM D 35 D 36 Santa Barbara Boulevard Ext & Rattlesnake Hammock Road PM D 53 E 59 AM F'" 2697 A 5 Santa Barbara Boulevard Ext & West Site Access PM F'" 6472 A 9 AM B* 1<1 Santa Barbara Boulevard Ext & Directional-movement Access PM E' 46 AM F 118 D 37 F 128 D 37 Santa Barbara Boulevard & Radio Road PM F 107 C 3<1 F 115 D 36 .. indicates unsignali2ed intersection Taormina Reserve ZTIS 13 I: \Pro;ects \809\8099 3 \ T raffi c\ZTIS _ OB _2006\80993 ZTIS002.doc ."^,", ~-"~.~~"" Agenda Item No. 8A September 29, 2009 Page 127 of 265 The following narratives evaluate the anticipated operation of each intersection and the improvements needed to maintain acceptable service levels. The Davis Boulevard & County Bam Road, Davis Boulevard & Santa Barbara Boulevard, Davis Boulevard & Radio Road, Collier Boulevard & Davis Boulevard, and Santa Barbara Boulevard & Radio Road intersections all exhibit poor operational characteristics at its background and total traffic volumes conditions. The Santa Barbara Boulevard Extension & Rattlesnake Hammock Road intersection turn lane lengths were derived from the "Santa Barbara Boulevard Extension Davis Boulevard to Rattlesnake. Hammock Road Design Traffic Study" by Tindale-Oliver and Associates. The Appendix contains copy of the tumlane lengths used in this report. The Santa Barbara Boulevard Extension & Rattlesnake Hammock Road intersection operates at LOS D, 53 sec/veh delay and LOS E, 59 sec/veh delay under PM Peak Hour Background and Total traffic condition respectively. The Collier Boulevard & Davis Boulevard intersection operates below LOS standard capacity (LOS F, 91 sec/veh and LOS F, 172 sec/veh) under AM and PM Peak Hour Background conditions using a north-south 6 through lane configuration. An 8-lane configuration on Collier Boulevard and using triple left turns on eastbound Davis Boulevard and northbound Collier Boulevard decreases delays resulting in LOS D (44 sec/veh) and LOS E (71 sec/veh) operations under AM and PM Peak Hour Background conditions. Table 9 presents the geometric improvement summaries for each intersection studied that exhibited deficiencies. The improvements shown are based first on those geometric improvements needed to mitigate projected background traffic growth, with the additional improvements needed to mitigate the total traffic. .i)ll.tj Taormina Reserve ZTIS 14 1:\Projects \809\80993 \ T ra ffic\ZTIS ...08 _ 2006 \80993 ZTIS002.doc Agenda Item No. 8A September 29,2009 Page 128 of 265 TABLE 9 INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS ANALYSIS RESULTS Improved Condition Background Traffic Total Traffic Davis Boulevard & County Barn Add 3rd EBT Road Add 3rd WST No additional geometrlcallmpro.cmeol Davis Boulevard & Santa Barbara Add 3rd EST Boulevard Add 3rd WBT N8T 3 lanes S8T 3 lanes Two NBL lanes 260 fOOl length Incrcase length of twO NBllanes by 75 feet for a toul of 335 fOOt length One N8R lane 285 foot length Two SBL lanes 435 fOOl length Increase length o( two 511llanes by 75 feet - for a tOlal o( 3 I 0 fOOl length Two WBllanes 465 fOOl length Increase length of two W8llanes by SO feet for a total of 5 IS foot length One EBR lane 615 fOOt length Increase length of IWO EBR blnes by 75 feel for a total o( 690 foot length Collier Boulevard (CR 951) & Davis Add 4th NBT Boulevard Add 4th SBT Add 3rd EBL No addllional geometricallmprovemcm Add 3rd NBL Santa Barbara Boulevard & Radio Two NSL lanes 535 (OOl lenglh Increase length of two NBL lanes by 2S (eel Road for a total of 560 foollengch Two NBR lanes 310 foot length Two EBR lanes 385 fOOL length Increase length of two E8R lanes by 50 (eel fo" a toeal of 435 foot length Increase eXiSting dual EBL lanes lO a lOllll 485 foot length Two 5BL lanes 435 foot length Two SBR lanes 335 fOOL length Two WBllanes 635 fOOt length Two WBR lanes 260 foot length Davis Boulevard & Santa Barbara Boulevard Northbound Approach Analysis The Davis Boulevard & Santa Barbara Boulevard intersection does not have a northbound left turn lane at present condition. The northbound left turn movement was projected to be 170 "ph and 170 vph during AM and PM Peak Hours respectively under Background traffic conditions. The SYNCHRO@ queue analysis indicates a 95th percentile queue length of 69 feet would be needed to accommodate AM Peak Hour Background traffic. The dual northbound left tum lane should be 260 feet long (75 feet storage + 185-foot deceleration lane including a 50-foot taper). Taormina Reserve ZTIS 15 I: \Proje<:cs\B09\S0993\ T ra ffic\ZTIS _ 08 _ 2006 \B099 3 ZTIS002.doc ~~~ .....-.".. - '"-,..-.- Agenda Item No. 8A September 29, 2009 Page 129 of 265 Under Total traffic conditions the northbound left tUl11 movement was projected to have 248 vph and 309 vph during AM and PM Peak Hours respectively. The SYNCHRO@ signalized intersection queue analysis indicates a 951h percentile queue length of J 42 feet is needed for PM Peak Hour. The dual northbound left tum lane should be 335 feet long (150 feet storage + 185- foot deceleration lane including a 50-foot taper). The dual northbound left turn lane at the Davis Boulevard & Santa Barbara Boulevard intersection should be further increased by 75 feet to a total of335 feet to accommodate projected Total traffic. The Davis Boulevard & Santa Barbara Boulevard intersection cunently does not have a northbound right tU111 lane. The northbound right tU111 movement was projected to be J 10 vph - and 220 vph during AM and PM Peak Hours respectively under Background traffic conditions. The SYNCHRO@ queue analysis indicates a 95111 percentile queue length of 92 feet would be needed to accommodate PM Peak Hour Background traffic. The exclusive northbound right turn lane should be 285 feet long (100 feet storage + 185-foot deceleration lane including a 50-foot taper). Under Total traffic conditions the northbound right tU111 movement was projected to have 163 vph and 242 vph during AM and PM Peak Hours respectively. The SYNCHRO@ queue analysis indicates a 951h percentile queue length of 79 feet would be needed to accommodate PM Peak Hour Background traffic. The northbound right turn lane should be 285 feet long (100 feet storage + 1 85-foot deceleration lane including a 50-foot taper). No further improvement was projected for northbound right turn lane at the Davis Boulevard & Santa Barbara Boulevard intersection to accommodate projected Total traffic. Southbound Approach Analysis The southbound left tum movement was projected to be 310 vph and 410 vph during AM and PM Peak Hours respectively under Background traffic conditions. The SYNCHRO@ queue analysis indicates a 95th percentile queue length of 249 feet would be needed to accommodate PM Peak Hour Background traffic. The dual southbound left turn lane should be 435 feet long (250 feet storage + 185-foot deceleration lane including a 50-foot taper). Under Total traffic conditions the southbound left tU111 movement was projected to have 358 vph and 448 vph during AM and PM Peak Hours respectively. The SYNCHRO@ signalized Taormina Reserve ZTIS 16 1: \Projects \809\80993\ T raffic\ZTIS _08__2006\80993 ZTIS002 .doc Agenda Item No. 8A September 29,2009 Page 130 of 265 intersection queue analysis indicates a 95th percentile queue length of 310 feet is needed for PM Peak Hour. The dual southbound left turn lane should be 510 feet long (325 feet storage + ] 85- foot deceleration Jane including a 50-foot taper). The dual southbound left turn lanes at the Davis Boulevard & Santa Barbara Boulevard intersection should be further increased by 75 feet to a total of 5] 0 feet to accommodate projected Total traffic. Westbound Approach Analysis , The westbound left turn movement was projected to be 310 vph and 230 vph during AM and PM Peak Hours respectively under Background traffic conditions. The SYNCHRO@ queue analysis indicates a 95th percentile queue length of 209 feet would be needed to accommodate AM Peak Hour Background traffic. The dual westbound left tU111 Jane should be 465 feet long (225 feet storage + 240-foot deceleration lane including a 50-foot taper). Under Total traffic conditions the westbound left tU111 movement was projected to have 403 vph and 349 vph during AM and PM Peak Hours respectively. The SYNCHROI!i) signalized intersection queue analysis indicates a 95th percentile queue length of 266 feet is needed for AM Peak Hour, The dual westbound left tU111 lane should be 515 feet long (275 feet storage + 240- foot deceleration lane including a 50-foot taper). The dual westbound left tum lanes at the Davis Boulevard & Santa Barbara Boulevard intersection should be further increased by 50 feet to a total of 515 feet to accommodate projected Total traffic. Eastbound Approach Analysis The eastbound right tU111 movement was projected to be 360 vph and 440 vph during AM and PM Peak Hours respectively under Background traffic conditions. The SYNCI-IRO@ queue analysis indicates a 95th percentile queue length of 361 feet would be needed to accommodate PM Peak Hour Background traffic. The exclusive eastbound right turn lane should be 615 feet long (375 feet storage + 240-foot deceleration lane including a 50-foot taper). Under Total traffic conditions the eastbound right tum movement was projected to have 374 vph and 481 vph during AM and PM Peak Hours respectively. The SYNCHRO@ signalized intersection queue analysis indicates a 95th percentile queue length of 433 feet is needed for PM Peak Hour. The exclusive eastbound right turn lane should be 690 feet long (450 feet storage + Taormina Reserve ZTIS 17 1:\Projects\B09\80993 \T raffi clZTIS _ OB _)006 \80993 ZTIS002.doc ,- --'=~ "". '"..~ w_,." ,,", .~~~...,..____ Agenda Item No. 8A September 29,2009 Page 131 of 265 240-foot deceleration lane including a 50-foot taper). The exclusive eastbound right turn lane at the Davis Boulevard & Santa Barbara Boulevard intersection should be further increased by 75 feet to a total of 690 feet to accommodate projected Total traffic. Santa Barbara Boulevard & Radio Road Northbound Approach Analysis The existing northbound left turn lane at the Santa Barbara Boulevard & Radio Road intersection is 275 feet long. The northbound left turn movement was projected to be 589 vph and 525 vph during AM and PM Peak Hours respectively under Background traffic conditions. The SYNCHRO@ queue analysis indicates a 951h percentile queue length of 339 feet would be neeoed to accommodate AM Peak Hour Background traffic. The dual northbound left turn lane should be 535 feet long (350 feet storage + 185-foot deceleration lane including a 50-foot taper). Under Total traffic conditions the northbound left tum movement was projected to have 620 vph and 575 vph during AM and PM Peak I-lours respectively. The SYNCHRO@ signalized intersection queue analysis indicates a 951h percentile queue length of 357 feet is needed for AM Peak Hour. The dual northbound left turn lane should be 560 feet long (375 feet storage + 185- foot deceleration lane including a 50-foot taper). The dual northbound left turn lane at the Santa Barbara Boulevard & Radio Road intersection should be further increased by 25 feet to a total of 560 feet to accommodate projected Total traffic. The existing nOlthbound right turn lane at the Santa Barbara Boulevard & Radio Road intersection is 350 feet long. The northbound right turn movement was projected to be 285 vph and 688 vph during AM and PM Peak Hours respectively under Background traffic conditions. The SYNCHRO@ queue analysis indicates a 951h percentile queue length of 110 feet would be needed to accommodate PM Peak Hour Background traffic. The dual northbound right turn lane should be 310 feet long (125 feet storage + 185-foot deceleration lane including a 50-foot taper). No site-generated 1101thbound right turn movements were projected at the Santa Barbara Boulevard & Radio Road intersection. Taormina Reserve ZTIS 18 I; \Projem1B09180993 \ Tram clZTI S _ OB _2006 \B099 3 ZT1S002.doc Agenda Item No. 8A September 29,2009 Page 132 of 265 Southbound Approach Analysis The existing southbound left turn lane at the Santa Barbara Boulevard & Radio Road intersection is 275 feet long. The southbound left turn movement was projected to be 291 vph and 431 vph during AM and PM Peak Hours respectively under Background traffic conditions. The SYNCHRO@ queue analysis indicates a 95th percentile queue length of 232 feet would be needed to accommodate PM Peak Hour Background traffic. The dual southbound left turn lane should be 435 feet long (250 feet storage + 185-foot deceleration lane including a 50-foot taper).. No site-generated southbound left turn movements were projected at the Santa Barbara Boulevard & Radio Road intersection. The existing southbound right turn lane at the Santa Barbara Boulevard & Radio Road intersection is 325 feet long. The southbound right turn movement was projected to be 601 vph and 329 vph during AM and PM Peak Hours respectively under Background traffic conditions. The SYNCHRO@ queue analysis indicates a 95th percentile queue length of 129 feet would be needed to accommodate AM Peak Hour Background traffic. The dual southbound right turn lane should be 335 feet long (150 feet storage + ] 85-foot deceleration lane including a 50-foot taper). - No site-generated southbound right turn movements were projected at the Santa Barbara Boulevard & Radio Road intersection. Eastbound Approach Analysis The existing eastbound right turn lane at the Santa Barbara Boulevard & Radio Road intersection is 200 feet long. The eastbound right turn movement was projected to be 588 vph and 841 vph during AM and PM Peak Hours respectively under Background traffic conditions. The SYNC1-IRO@ queue analysis indicates a 95th percentile queue length of 186 feet would be needed to accommodate PM Peak Hour Background traffic. The dual eastbound right turn lanes should be 385 feet long (200 feet storage + l85~foot deceleration lane including a 50-foot taper). Under Total traffic conditions the eastbound right tum movement was projected to have 625 vph and 882 vph during AM and PM Peak Hours respectively. The SYNCHRO@ signalized intersection queue analysis indicates a 95th percentile queue length of 238 feet is needed for PM Peak Hour. The dual eastbound right turn lanes should be 435 feet long (250 feet storage + 185- Taormina Reserve ZTIS 19 1:\ProjectS\809\80993\Traffic\ZTIS _08 _2006\80993ZTISOO2.doc .~, ~~~-" Agenda Item No. 8A September 29,2009 Page 133 of 265 foot deceleration lane including a 50-foot taper). The dual eastbound right tum lane at the Santa Barbara Boulevard & Radio Road intersection should be further increased by 50 feet to a total of 435 feet to accommodate projected Total traffic. The existing dual eastbound left turn lane at the Santa Barbara Boulevard & Radio Road intersection is 450 feet long. The eastbound left turn movement was projected to be 363 vph and 553 vph during AM and PM Peak Hours respectively under Background traffic conditions. The SYNCHRO@ queue analysis indicates a 95th percentile queue length of287 feet would be needed to accommodate PM Peak Hour Background traffic. The dual eastbound left turn lane should be 485 feet long (300 feet storage + 185-foot deceleratiol1lane including a 50-foot taper). No site-generated eastbound left turn movements were projected at the Santa Barbara Boulevard & Radio Road intersection. Westbound Approach Analysis The existing westbound left turn lane at the Santa Barbara Boulevard & Radio Road intersection is 275 feet long. The westbound left turn movement was projected to be 775 vph and 402 vph during AM and PM Peak Hours respectively under Background traffic conditions. The SYNCHRO@ queue analysis indicates a 95th percentile queue length of 432 feet would be needed to accommodate AM Peak Hour Background traffic. The dual westbound left turn lane should be 635 feet long (450 feet storage + 1 85-foot deceleration lane including a 50-foot taper). No site-generated westbound left turn movements were projected at the Santa Barbara Boulevard & Radio Road intersection. The existing westbound right turn lane at the Santa Barbara Boulevard & Radio Road intersection is 275 feet long. The westbound right turn movement was projected to be 479 vph and 264 vph during AM and PM Peak Hours respectively under Background traffic conditions. The SYNCHRO@ queue analysis indicates a 951h percentile queue length of 63 feet would be needed to accommodate AM Peak Hour Background traffic. The dual westbound right tum lane should be 260 feet long (75 fect storage + I 85-foot deceleration lane including a 50-foot taper). Taolmina Reserve ZTIS 20 1:\Projects\809\80993\ T rafflc\ZTIS _ 08 _2006\80993ZTISOO2.doc Agenda Item No. 8A September 29,2009 Page 134 of 265 No site-generated westbound right turn movements were projected at the Santa Barbara Boulevard & Radio Road intersection. SITE ACCESSES Site Access analyses were completed utilizing SYNCHRO@ software, which is based on the Highway Capacity Manual 2000 (HCM 2000), and applied to Build-out year traffic. Appendix contains the SYNCHRO@ computer printouts. The purpose of these analyses is to evaluate the operational characteristics and needs of the site accesses, and to recommend access point locations. The site is proposed to have one full-movement access and one directional-movement access on Santa Barbara Boulevard Extension and one Right-InlRight-Out access on Davis Boulevard. Santa Barbara Boulevard & Full-movement West Site Access Access Point Location The centerline of this proposed intersection is approximately 14 mile south of the centerline of the Davis Boulevard & Santa Barbara Boulevard intersection. This access will serve both the residential commercial pOliions of the project. Capacity Analyses This intersection was evaluated to determine projected operations during the AM and PM Peak Hour. Under Total traffic conditions the Unsignalized Intersection analysis clearly indicated that side-street STOP-controlled intersection operation will not provide acceptable operational characteristics for traffic trying to exit the side street (LOS F for AM and PM Peak Hour). If the intersection were signalized and provided with one exclusive southbound left and one northbound right turn lane on Santa Barbara Boulevard Extension, this intersection is projected to operate at LOS A (5 sec/veh) and at LOS A (9 sec/vch) under projected AM and PM Peak Hour Total tTaffic conditions. A preliminary traffic signal wal1'ant analysis using Warrant 3 was conducted to detelmine whether this intersection could meet a traffic signal warrant. The preliminary traffic signal Taormina Reserve ZTIS 21 I: \Projects \809\8099 3 \ T raffic\ZTI S _ OB _2006 \80993 ZTIS002.doc .,-' "",-~ Agenda Item No. 8A September 29,2009 Page 135 of 265 warrant analysis strongly indicates that Warrant 3 will likely be met by Buildout Year of the TaOlTI1ina Reserve development. Collier County should continue to monitor this intersection. Left Turn Analysis (Southbound Ap-proach) This project is expected to generate 43 vph and 130 vph southbound left tuming movements during the AM and PM Peak Hour respectively. An exclusive southbound left tU111 lane is therefore necessary on this approach. SYNCHRO computed a 98-foot queue length. This proposed southbound left tum lane should be at least 285 feet long (100 feet storage + i85-foot deceleration lane including a 50-foot taper). -- Right Turn Analysis (Northbound Approach) This project is expected to generate 11 vph and 33 vph northbound right tuming movements during the AM and PM Peak Hour respectively. An exclusive northbound right turn lane is therefore necessary on this approach. SYNCHRO computed a 13-foot queue length. This proposed northbound right turn lane should be at least 21 0 feet long (25 feet storage + 185-foot deceleration lane including a 50-foot taper) Access Drive Lane Configuration Analysis (Westbound Approach) This project is expected to generate 128 vph and 70 vph westbound left and right turning movements during the PM Peak Hour. The westbound access lane configuration consists of one exclusive left turn lane and one exclusive right turn lane. The approach should be provided with a 50-foot minimum throat depth before the first driveway, accessway or cross street is introduced to the access drive. Santa Barbara Boulevard & Directional~movement Site Access Access Point Location The centerline of this proposed intersection is approximately 600 feet south of the centerline of the Davis Boulevard & Santa Barbara Boulevard intersection. This access will primarily serve the commercial pOltion of the project. Taol1'Jlina Reserve ZTIS 22 I: IProjecls \809\80993 \ Traffic\ZTIS_ 08 _ 2 006 \8099 3 ZTISOO 2. doc Agenda Item No. 8A September 29,2009 Page 136 of 265 Capacity Analyses This intersection was evaluated to determine projected operations during the AM and PM Peak Hour. Under Total traffic conditions the Unsignalized Intersection analysis clearly indicated that side-street STOP-controlled intersection operation will provide acceptable operational characteristics for traffic trying to exit the side street (LOS B, ] 4 sec/veh at AM and LOS E, 46 sec/veh at PM Peak Hour). Left Turn Analysis (Southbound Approach) This project is expected to generate 127 vph and 145 vph southbound left tuming movements during -the AM and PM Peak Hour respectively. An exclusive southbound left tum lane is therefore necessary on this approach. HCS2000™ computed 50-foot queue length. This proposed southbound left turn lane should be at least 235 feet long (50 feet storage + 185-foot deceleration lane including a 50-foot taper). Right Turn Analysis (Northbound Approach) This project is expected to generate 73 vph northbound right turning movements during the PM Peak I-lours. An exclusive northbound right tum lane is therefore necessary on this approach. HCS2000™ computed a a-foot queue length. This proposed northbound right turn lane should be at least 185 feet long (185-foot deceleration lane including a 50-foot taper). Access Drive Lane Configuration Analysis (Westbound Approach) This project is expected to generate 55 vph and 262 vph westbound right tuming movements during the AM and PM Peak Hour respectively. The westbound access lane configuration consists of one exclusive left turn lane and one exclusive right turn lane. The approach should be provided with a 50-foot minimum throat depth before the first driveway, accessway or cross street is introduced to the access drive. Davis Boulevard & Right.ln/Right~Out North Site Access Access Point Location The centerline of this RI/RO intersection would be approximately 300 feet east of the centerline of the Davis Boulevard & Santa Barbara Boulevard intersection. Taormina Reserve ZT1S 23 1:\Proiects\809\80993\Trafnc\ZTIS _08 _2006\80993 ZTIS002.doc '''- ,,-~".'" . ".._........~_.".- Agenda Item No. 8A September 29,2009 Page 137 of 265 Capacity Analyses This access was evaluated to determine the projected intersection operations during the AM and PM Peak Hour. The Unsignalized Intersection analysis clearly indicated that intersection operation will provide acceptable operational characteristics for traffic trying to enter and exit the site using an exclusive eastbound right tum lane and northbound drive way access lane (LOS B, 13 sec/veh at AM and LOS E, 39 sec/veh at PM Peak Hour). Right Turn Analysis (Eastbound Approach) This project is expected to generate 127 vph and 132 vph eastbound right turning movements during the AM and PM P...eak Hour respectively. An exclusive eastbound right turn lane is therefore necessary on this approach. HCS2000™ computed a O~foot queue length. This proposed northbound right turn lane should be at least 265 feet long (25 feet storage + 240-foot deceleration lane including a 50-foot taper). Access Drive Lane Configuration Analysis (Westbound Approach) This project is expected to generate 25 vph and 133 vph northbound light turning movements dming the AM and PM Peak Hours. The northbound access lane configuration consists of one exclusive right turn lane. The approach should be provided with a 50~foot minimum throat depth before the first driveway, accessway or cross street is introduced to the access drive. TRANSPORTATION CONCURRENCY MANAGEMENT AREA CONSIDERATIONS The proposed Taormina Reserve mixed use Development is located in the southeastem quadrant of the Davis Boulevard (SR 84) & Santa Barbara Boulevard intersection, in Collier County. This project is in the East Central Transportation ConculTency Management Area (TCMA-see Appendix). In accordance to the Collier County Land Development Code Section 6.02: "To maintain concurrency. each TCMA shall maintain 85% of its north~south lane miles and 85% of its east-west lane miles at or above the LOS standards described in Policies 1.3 and 1.4 of the GMP Transportation element. If any Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) for a proposed development indicates that fewer than 85% of the lane miles in a TCMA are achieving the LOS standards indicated above, the proposed development shall not be permitted where such condition occurs unless modification of the development is made sufficient to maintain the LOS standard for the TCMA, or the facilities required to maintain the TCMA LOS standard are committed utilizing the standards for committed improvements in Policy 1.5.3 of the Capital Improvement Element of the GMP." Taormina Reserve ZTIS 24 l:\Projecls 1809\8099 3 \ T raffi c\ZTIS _08_2006\80993 ZTIS002.doc Agenda Item No. 8A September 29, 2009 Page 138 of 265 An analysis of the nOlih-south and east-west lane miles within the East Central TCMA found that with the proposed Taormina Reserve mixed use Development project as proposed, more than 85% of the lane miles meet LOS standards. Appendix contains the table showing the percent lane miles meeting LOS standard for east central TCMA. Since the proposed TaOlmina Reserve mixed use Development project affects roadway segments within the East Central TCMA while maintaining over 85% of the lane miles at LOS standards, a propOltionate share payment is appropriate. This proportionate share payment shall be utilized by Collier County to add trip capacity and enhance traffic operations to increase capacity within the impacted TCMA and/or to enhance mass transit or other non-automotive transportation alternatives that reduce vehicle trips within the TCMA. Per Collier County Transportation Department policy, this proportionate share payment shall be capped at 15% of the road impact fees for the project. In order to be exempt fi'om link specific concurrency, new commercial development or redevelopment within Collier County's designated Transportation Concurrency Management Areas (TCMA's) shall utilize at least two (2) of the following Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies, as may be applicable: a. Preferential parking for carpools and vanpools that is expected to increase the average vehicle occupancy for work trips generated by the development b. Parking charge that is expected to increase the average vehicle occupancy for work trips generated by the development and/or increase transit ridership c. Cash subsidy that is expected to increase the average vehicle occupancy for work trips generated by the development and/or increase transit ridership d. Flexible work schedules that are expected to reduce peak hour automobile work trips generated by the development e. Compressed workweek that would be expected to reduce vehicle miles of travel and peak hour work trips generated by the development f. Telecommuting that would reduce the vehicle miles of travel and peak hour work trips generated by the development g. Transit subsidy that would reduce auto trips generated by the development and increase transit ridership h. Bicycle and pedestrian facilities that would be expected to reduce vehicle miles of travel and automobile work trips generated by the development i. Including residential units as a portion of a commercial project that would reduce vehicle miles of travel j. Providing transit shelters within the development (must be coordinated with Collier County Transit) Similarly, jn order to be exempt from link. specific concurrency, new residential development or redevelopment within Collier County's designated TCMAs shall utilize at least two (2) of the foJJowing TDM strategies, as may be applicable: Taormina Reserve ZTIS 2S 1:\Projects\809\80993\Traffic\ZTIS _ 08_2006\8099 3ZTISOO2.doc '~'H'_.. Agenda Item No. 8A September 29,2009 Page 139 of 265 a. Including neighborhood commercial uses within a residential project b. Providing transit shelters within the development (must be coordinated with Collier County Transit). c. Providing bicycle and pedestrian facilities, with connections to adjacent commercial properties. d. Including affordable housing (minimum of 25% of the units) within the development. e. Vehicular access to adjacent commercial properties. IMPROVEMENTS ANAL YSIS Because many of the analyses were addressed in previous sections, this improvement analysis section will be limited to a conclusive narrative. As shown in Table 5 and 6, the levels of service for all Jinks in the are? of the project will meet the level of service standards computed by the AUm Tables for the AM and PM Peak Hour with Buildout Year Total Traffic. Therefore, no off-site improvements are projected to be required for this project. The following intersection improvements were identified as being needed 111 order to accommodate projected Background traffic: Davis Boulevard & County Barn Road intersection . One additional eastbound through lane to provide a total of three eastbound through lanes . One additional westbound through lane to provide a total of three westbound through lanes Davis Boulevard & Santa Barbara Boulevard intersection . One additional eastbound through lane to provide a total of three eastbound through lanes . One additional westbound through lane to provide a total of three westbound through lanes . One additional northbound through lane to provide a total of three northbound through lanes . One additional southbound through lane to provide a total of three southbound through lanes . Dual northbound left turn lanes 260 feet long . One exclusive northbound right turn lane 285 feet long . One additional southbound left turn lane to provide dual southbound left turn lanes 435 feet long . Dual westbound left turn lanes 465 feet long . One exclusive eastbound right turn lane 6 f 5 feet long Collier Boulevard & Davis Boulevard intersection . One additional northbound through lane to provide a total of four northbound through lanes . One additional southbound through lane to provide a total of four southbound through lanes . One additional eastbound left turn lane to provide a total of three eastbound left turn lanes . One additional northbound left turn lane to provide a total of three northbound left turn lanes Taormina Reserve ZTIS 26 I :IProjects \809\80993 \ T raffic\ZTI S _08_2006\80993 ZTIS002.doc Agenda Item No. 8A September 29, 2009 Page 140 of 265 Santa Barbara Boulevard & Radio Road intersection . One additional northbound left turn lane to provide a dual northbound left turn lanes 535 feet long . One additional northbound right turn lane to provide a dual northbound right turn lanes 310 feet long . One additional southbound left turn lane to provide a dual southbound left turn lanes 435 feet long . One additional southbound right turn lane to provide a dual southbound right turn lanes 335 feet long . One additional eastbound right turn lane to provide a dual eastbound right turn lanes 385 feet long . Increase existing dual eastbound left turn lane to provide a total 485 feet long . One additional westbound left turn lane to provide a dual westbound left turn lanes 635 feet long . One additional westbound right turn lane to provide a dual westbound right turn lanes 260 feet long The following intersection improvements were identified as being needed 111 order to accommodate projected Total traffic: Davis Boulevard & Santa Barbara Boulevard intersection - . Further increase length of dual northbound left turn lanes by 75 feet to provide a total 335 foot length . Further increase length of dual southbound left turn lanes by 75 feet to provide a total 510 foot length . Further increase length of dual westbound left turn lanes by 50 feet to provide a total 515 foot length . Further increase length of eastbound right turn lane by 75 feet to provide a total 690 foot length Santa Barbara Boulevard & Radio Road intersection . Further increase length of dual northbound left turn lanes by 25 feet to provide a total 560 foot length . Furthet' increase length of dual eastbound right turn lanes by 50 feet to provide a total 435 foot length Santa Barbara Boulevard Extension & Full-movement Site Access West intersection . Signalization . One 285 feet long exclusive southbound left turn lane . One 210 feet long exclusive northbound right turn lane Santa Barbara Boulevard Extension & Directional-movement Site Access intersection . One 235 feet long exclusive southbound left turn lane . One 185 feet long exclusive northbound right turn lane Davis Boulevard & Right~in/Right-Out Site Access North intersection . One 265 feet long exclusive eastbound right turn lane MITIGA TION OF IMPACT TIle developer proposes to pay the appropriate Collier County Road lmpact Fees. The developer also proposes to construct the site-related improvements identified at the site accesses. Taormina Reserve ZTIS 27 I :\Projects \809\80993\ Tram c\ZTIS _ 08_2006\8099 3ZTIS002.doc ,--.,' -.. - ... "-~,'-, Agenda Item No. 8A September 29, 2009 Page 141 of 265 ApPENDIX . Initial meeting check list . Collier County Concurrency Segment Table June 30, 2006 . Collier County 2005 ADT . TIPS Trip generation printouts . Copies of Santa Barbara Boulevard Extension Study report . SYNCHRO@ 6.0 and HCS2000™ Analysis Printouts . FDOT Standard Index 30 I Toarmin3 Reserve ZTIS Appendix Exhibit2 Agenda Item No. 8A , Page 1~ of 265 W()E S ! Notto Scale > " "3 0 /Xl ~ of ~ l' c " Vl ;;; '" a: U 1-75 Radio Road Davis Boulevard ." ;;; ~ tt- ." " a: ~ "3 U 0 '" E S " '" -e ~ ~ c ::> l' 0 U ~ Rattlesnake Hammock Road , Fu!l.movement Itorsections ? Right-ln/Right-Oulllersections r Directiollal.movcmcm Itersections pm}lJ.IlUJ )'Ofi': PACt'rrru:: ) Vanasse . Urb.. PI...iIlg lrallic E"J:illtfri.g Cadenhead Construction la.lllcapl Ar<hillnurl E,YilOllll1rnuJ kil"l Taormina Reserve (I,iI Eogi....i.g Ill" Co., Inc. Day tor '.r_'_~"_''',____ ._,._ __.n........ ..._.. 3994 Mercantile Avenue Study area and StudIed Intersections Iml N.. 8","'1 t.<dl",t. So,.. !06 Naples, Flot/(la 34104 EXHIBIT 2 j ~"~~ fOil BYIII, Jillill f~~~~(~jf~*;:?2.~.~{~~:i~~~?~; 11ll.m.4!~1 ,IIHIWll w tcllOJY.(M August 2006 B0993Zoning_ TIS _ 02.xls ",-"",.->-., -"""-~"" Exhibil3 N W.oE in S 0- ct: Not to Scale u 1-15 ~ l R~dio Road 8 .,t ;,( ~ 10%~ ~ ~ " ~ ~ " '" "5 .J 0 co ~ .. 7 -e 15%J tl'l II c 20% -+ " v> Davis Boulevard .... 20% iI<! 0 .... 25% '" l r25% I 2 .,t... s ~ Vi ~ 20""-+ -" '" ~ ~ ~ 25% -+ t t: '" 0 '" o <( 25%~ N '" N Z ~ 0 .. Dir-movement l cess 9 t Project ;,( in g Site 0- t<: '\.. 80% u ~ ~ 0 co 0 '-t ct: r 20% E ~ <I ~ c: ... ::> 0 U ;,( ~ West Site Access ~ \.5% 0 iI<! - ." J '-t Rattlesnake Hammock Road 10%J 5 Vanasse . Ihb.n Plan,;", I,.", [nsill!ui" rRCf'~1:1:1l 101C "~fif11M Landmp~ Ar(.~'tt(ttllt ~nYironnwl'llal )utnct Cadenhead Constrllction Day tor . (M! E'~",tJlnt Il366 Co.,lne. Taormina Reserve ____+ _. ___n_______ .._____u_,,',_ 3994 Mercantile Avenue Site generated Residential Trip IHJO Nf~ 6rittlny kLk'W4, ~Jilf '00 ~,,,,,,,,_,..I~. lOll KI,,,,lIlllll Naples, Florida 34104 DIstrIbution 3qi:i~t~~tj~~~~;~~y~~~' ,m,m,Ult .IlUlH!>> EXHIBIT 3 W'rIiM:ry.(OlI'I August 2006 ./ 80H93Zoning_ 118._ 02,xls Exhibit4 Agenda Item No. 8A , N Page 44 of 265 W<>E ~ a: S u Not to Scale 1-75 a-t 0 l Radio Road 8 .,t ~ ~ o 0 10%~ ~ ." '" g .J :; 0 en 7 - -. ~ IS%J ~ a> 20% ..... ~ '" .. Davis Boulevard '" f;t ~ .- 25% .- 20% on '" l'* r25% ~ I 2 ~t .. ,..~ g 20% ..... 25%..... ~ i>t ~ ~ ~ VI 0 :G z N "" '\. 55% Dir.movement r Project ;;; q. ~ a: N Site v ] 0 a: ~ ltJ t ?;- " " 0 ~ u 0 N West Site Access '-5% ~ ~ ~ '" .J '* Rattlesnake HammOCK Road 5 - IO%J rt:rr'fIE/lIO., I'A(;1: TJru.~ Vanasse . Urban Pi>1lfli:.g T..We hg~wing Cadenhead Construction Taormina Reserve h,d,up' ArchiltllUll E.""'Rlm",l!u,nCl (ml En!iow;ot ft l!6 Co., Inc. Site generated Commercial/Office Trip Daylor .._...........__..____.__H_._._._. 3994 Mercantile Avent/e Distribution J IlllO N.. &rj,." e.-Ji",,~, !vin 600 Naples. Florida 34104 EXHIBIT 4 I!::.",... J8 1.11 ",,,,,1I1191l1 I 119AI1.4601 ,1JMIWII August 2006 [g'~2i~~j.~%~~;<;~:~:~:~~:,' 'It' r.ar.Uy.(oftl B0993Zoning_ TIS _ 02.xls ._~. .."<"-. Exhibit5 Agenda Item No. 8A , N Page 45 of 265 WQE Vi .,. '" S u Not to Scale 1.75 " ,.., Radio Road I 8 ~t ,.., ,.., 37~ "" .., ~ '" " ..J :; 0 <il 7 - - ~ 47.1 of .3 CI 62 .... " " Davis Boulevard V> ... 62 :$ ~ ... 93 1'-+ r93 I 2 ~tr .. r'~ ., V> ~ -" Ii 74 .... 79 .... a> ,.., ,.., 53 .... ~ ~ < " .,. '" Z 14~ 127~ " t. 55 ,.., .... ... - Djr~rnoYcment 1'* ccess ~ t Project Vi ... M .,. .., .., '" - Site u t. 169 "" M " .... 0 '-+ r62 '" " :. '" <il ?1' ,.. " " 0 U M - '" - West Site Access t. 19 ;:;; "" - ..J '-+ Rattlesnake Hammock Road 5 37.1 rMlPMIE/l 1ll'R: ......cr.illu:: Vanasse . ij,w. Planoing I,al&! Enginming Cadenhead Construction . lan6ll,1't Arthitt<lurl h..._.lal II.."" Taormina Reserve (i,il Engineering Ill66 CO., Inc. Day tor : __.___._____.____o.__o____._w ___.~_.._ 3994 Mercantiie Avenue AM Peak Hour Trip Assignment 1I1li1 fi.. 8riulIIf Bo:Ji,,,,d. Sui.. 100 Naples. Florida 34104 (Residential + Commercial + OffiCe) ~1f~f~~;f&\1b~~ 1011 Mrt'\. limo) EXHIBIT 5 ,m.m.4l01 ,lJI.4lWII " 'f.3Rd~.o.m August 2006 80993Zonin!l.. TIS .02.xis Exhibit6 Agenda Item No. 8A N e , WOE Page 46 of 265 ;;; S '" Not to Scale ~ u 1-75 -;;: 1 Radio Road 8 -.t o 0 '" '" 41~ "E ~ M "5 '" ell J .. - ~ .. 7 ~ 74.1 .. '" lS c 99 .... .. '" Davis Boulevard ..... 99 ..... co ..... 104 '" M 1'- r 104 I 2 .,t,.. " 83 .... ,..~ 5 63 .... .... .. M 22 .... S t: tj ~ :! N o <: 41~ 101~ - Z o - t. 214 M 0 1'- Oir-movement ccess 9 t Project R ~ ;;; Site '" a: \. 70 u 0 "to "' .. 0 '- c<: r99 E .. '" 4 ~ c ,.. " 0 u o M .,., M West Site Access t. 21 0 ... '" N .J ... Rattlesnake Hammock Road 41.1 5 Vanasse __ Orbn Pla..i.~ Trllli,lngi.tcli'lg r/UJ'$II!:flIOll, PAGimu:: ~ Lal\dlQpt Ale illCluII (,YitooOl"111 Id'lI(' Caden/lead Construction Day tor (m! Inginttlillg IL m Co., Inc. Taormina Reserve ___'__.~._'_'~._'_"'_.__.__.__'ri~'._. 3994 Mercantile Avenuc PM Peak Hour Trip Assignment mw lit. iliumr i.......d.luil' lIO ~~;.~.. Jj Ion MI""II mOl Naples, Florida 34104 (Residential + Commercial'" Office) g~::':::~~;i~~~~l:~{,t:~~~. ,1lIAlHlOI ,llH17A6H EXHIBIT 6 w nlllbr.mJl\ August 2006 80993Zoning_ TIS_02.xls '..",.h'" '.~;'~ Exhibit7 N WOE ;;; 0- a: S U Not to Scale 1-7S Radio Road 8 '" ~ :; 0 '" 7 ~ ... -- '" 'S co l! " .. Davis Boulevard VI ... -IS r IS I 1 .. ., r';! ~ VI ~ .r: " V\ .31 ... ;:;; ~ ~ - Z 31~ '- 38 ~ ;:: Oir-movement 1'* ccess 9 tl"' Project ;;; M M '" "! N Site a: u '" ~ '"i 0 l r 29 a: c t3 4 ?;- c :> 0 U West Site Access Rattlesnake Hammock Road - 5 rrJ:i'AWJ f(lk. I'.AfiC 111lJ.': Vanasse _ U,b.. PUMint lnl61 [nrillwill! Cadenhead Construction . Lantllnpr N,bi!tCIU't [..i...""I.1 Went, Taormina Reserve (il~ Lngilltlritg 113&6 Co., Inc. PM Peak Hour Pass-By Trips Daylor .-.---.---.--..-.,---.------. 3994 MercBnlile Avenue Il1lC H.. Ilfit"ny 80:11...,.. Iail! lOO Naples. Florida 34104 EXHIBIT 7 J!L"",. Illl loll R!l". IIllt07 t)?ii~::~;~~;~~flbu&A~3 ,719.11WOI ,lll.OWll August 2006 L_ J " y~l'lCbr.(.Qft'I - B0993Zoning_ "lS_02.xls ExhlbitB N W(}E :;; 0- ex: S U Not to Scale 1-75 t. ~79 - 0 - ~512 0-0- ..., '" N ..11.... 1"775 Radio Road 363.1 8 ~tr 188~ go 0 '" on 0:> on on ..... \. 125 588 " ... '" "'0 '" '" ... ... ~211 ~ '" .... .... ~ - N - .. J Jl.... 1"55 "5 0 co 7 .. 961,1 ~tr .. .e .xi 137~ ,.., '" 0:> l! ... ... M c 412" .... .... .. Davis Boulevard VI 0 t. 120 o N 0 ~ 1020 ~ 1335 '" ,... - ... - ... r 387 Jl'-+ r 310 I 2 ~t,.. .. ... r ~40,1 on " -= ~ 1142~ '" M 660~ 000 1080~ ~ ~ 0 (;t) .... - - Z M N - .... - 355 " 360 " a; 1- ... ..... Ok-movement l (cess 9 t Project :;; 0 '" g: Site ex: u ~ ] M N 0 1 Q( c: ~ 4 t t- o: '" 0 0 u '" '" West Site Access 1.. 490 5: ~ ~ ... 410 '" - '" ..11.... r 130 Rattlesnake Hammock Road 5 -.t.- 310.1 270~ ~ g ~ 80" I'IllP.\~'" 1O1l: ,...r;K rnu: \- \/ anasse . Urb.. PblWlin~ Tnffi(I"Iimr~g Cadenhead Construction Land'''pt Archilt"Uft [..i,.,,",,.,, !,i'lIu Taormina Reserve eml io~Rttfi.C It 366 Co., Inc. AM Peak Hour Background Traffic Day tor .___._._~ ____.._~_.R~._. __. . 3994 Merc91lWe Avenue j 12110 N.. &n'''"T Bo,!,,,,d, Suil. 100 Naples, Florida 34104 EXHIBfT 8 ~>L_.m 1,,[HI,",111lI11 t 119.41U!01 , 119.m.llll t~~{~~~~{;~~~;~~~;~i~;~:K W Vlr..Ur.<t&1 August 2006 80993Zoning_ TIS_02.xls ,.._...-_.~,- .- Exl1ibil9 N WOE ;;; S '" ~ Not to Scale v 1.75 t.. 264 '" co - N '" '" .... 172 M r- .... ~l'- r402 Radio Road m,1 8 .,t,.. 472 ... '" '" ~ N 0 841 ." '" co t.. 64 3 t.. 125 "0 r- ~ '" N "',., - .... ~ .... 755 M <0 ;::l ~ .... 211 ] ~ '- ~l'- r55 l! .. 414 -:J 6 7 ~ 1816,1 .,t,.. <Xl II ~ 1656 ... 259 ... .... '" - In r- N '" Davis Boulevard M - 778,\ N t. 130 0 .... 884 o r- 0 _ N - .... 660 .... 1020 '" - .... r 232 ~l'- r 230 I 2 ., ,.. 750 ,1 .,t,.. $ Vi ~ 2222 ... 1440 ... .r: " 0 .... 000 t II co '" r- '" '" o <( '" .... 354 '\ 440 '\ - - '" Z 0 \. ... ~ Dir-movernent l cess 9 t Project 0 ;;; '" ~ Site '" r>: V 0 ~ ... ~ 0 1 a: E ~ 4 ?;- t c " 0 v 0 '" '" WeSt Site Access t. 620 ~ 0 '" .... 340 '" M ... - '" ~l'* r90 Rattlesnake Hammock Road 3)lt' 510,1 5 .,t,.. 380 ... 000 '" ..... 0 80 "\ - N N Vanasse - _ Ur~u Pbllllmg. luff. logill!tliog rrJr.\!ir.D fWt I'"c;rww l.ndl<ap' Anft""lvrt ln~ron""I~1 lei.o(t Cadenhead COllstruction Daylor lilil Engiottring Il366 Co., Inc. Taormina Reserve ---_._-_._-----_.._~--_.--_._. ..-.... 3994 Me'C<lnWe Avenue PM Peak Hour Background Traffic IlJlO Nt. Brio"" Iwlt",d. \uilt III! ~g;fJg~~it;;~. .OIIKI'",flllIOl Naples, Florida 34104 ,1l9.~1l.1401 ,ll9.m.I!l! EXHIBIT 9 .. \'lftcby.((!1I AI/gust 2006 80993Zoning_ TIS_02,Y-ls Exhibil10 N W(>E '" 0- cr:: S u Not to Scale ,.75 t. 479 - .... - ... 512 o ... '" ..0 '" '"" .11'- .rm Radio Road 8 ~tr 363J 18B ..... 0-'" '"" '" 00 '" '" '" t. 125 625 ,. o on ." '" '" .... .... ... 211 CD ... .... .... ... - '" - ~ - :; .I .It'- .r S5 ,g ~ 7 ~tr - ~ I DOS J w 137'" '" '" CD l! ... ... M C .... ... ~ -412~ - v> o ~ co t. 120 ... 1397 '" .... '" ... 1020 ... 15-43 ... - M .r 387 .It'- .r 403 I 2 ~tr r'PJ. '" ~ fit 440J VI '" .c S 1216 ... on M 739..... '" M M 1133 ..... on 15:;;. ... 0 ..0 N Z 0 CD N CD - - '" '"" m~ 127~ 355 ,. M t. S5 M .... ... N N - Dir-movemcnt 1'- ccess 9 t Project ;;; '" M '" VI '" Site rt: - U - 0 t. 169 '" " M M N ... " 1'- 0 r62 rt: E " -4 w tr ~ " " 8 "'" - '" - 0 W;st Site Access I t. 509 - 0 '" ... 410 ... '" '" '" - ..0 .Il'- .r 130 Rattlesnake Hammock Road - 5 ~t,.. 347J 270 ... ~ ~ ~ 80" rllCP.Inl;11 TOil; 1".1(;[ 111U: Va.nasse . Urb.. PI'Doing TI,fi, [ng~!tIjng Cadenhead Construction --. laMlUpt Arlhitwo" !nm~DR1.nlal Sti.DI. Taormina Reserve (ivil foginmint II 366 Co., Inc. AM Peal< Hour Total Traffic Day tor ~---~-_.-. -------". -.'"--.-- 3994 MCrC8tl/l1e Avenue J 11110 K.. in...,. I..word. I"", lOll Naples. Florir:la 34104 EXHIBIT 10 [~ fO'1 H)'tI,1I1l101 ,lJ9.l1WOI ,1l9.UHIll August 2006 w VD~tT.cOJa -- - 80993Zoning_ TIS_02.xls Exhibit11 N WOE ;;; a- t<: U S Nollo Scale \.75 t. 264 a- a- - ..... 172 M <:> .... M co ... R~dio Road ..11'- r402 8 ~t,.. 553.1 472 ... '" '" ! .... '" '" co \. 125 882 '\ '" VI M - ..... 211 ." ... .... ,., ,., ~ M co N - .. ..I ..11'* r55 :i .g 7 ::! 1890.1 ...t,.. .. ~ c:o 259'" ... '" - IS .... M '" M - ~ Davis Boulevard 778,\ N '" .... \. 130 o"'co ..... 645 ..... 1124 ..... 983 - M ... M - ... r232 ..11'* r 349 I 2 ...t,.. "" ~ .. 750 .J ,..t! ~ ~ ,.. Vl ~ .c ~ 2305 ... <:> ... 1503 ... .,. '" M ~ 5!J. co '" 0<:>.... - Z M M N N ... 481,\ - 132"\ 354~ - '" \. 262 ... - Dir-movement tr Project ;;; .... M a- .,. .... t<: ~ Site u = <:> ." ~ ~ .. 0 ..: E .. '" t,.. ~ r:; " 0 <:> M U o M '" West 5ite Access \.MI <:> <:> '" ..... 340 M M '" '" - '" ..11'* r90 Rattlesn.ke Hammock Road -- 551.J 5 ...t,.. 360 .... ~ ~ 8 - N M 60",- rr.u'A/lrp ftIJi: rMit7t1u;. Vanasse __ Urban Ptming J/llIil [ngill!!ring Cadenhead Construction Taormina Reserve [,,",lOpt I.rthill(t," ['.''''It'IO' Im.<< (;.1 [Ilti'tlri,g f[ li>6 Co., Inc. PM Peal< Hour Total Traffic Daylor ~-----_..._......_-.-._.__._.. 3994 MercarJIile Avenue Il7lO W.. Irit,anr ,",~.",d, l,~, 100 Naples, Florida 34104 ~ I," IlJtn, II llIDl EXHIBIT 11 ~IL%~J~~t{4tM.~j~tf~ ,m.m4IDI,1lt.4JWJ6 W 'Wly,tC/fl August 2006 ------- 80993Zoning_ TIS _ 02xls Agenda Item No. 8A September 29, 2009 Page 152 of 265 ApPENDIX . Initial meeting check list . Collier County Concurrency Segment Table June 30,2006 . Collier County 2005 ADT . Copies of Santa Barbara Boulevard Extension Study report . SYNCHRO@ 6.0 and HCS2000™ Analysis Printouts . FDOT Standard Index 30 I .."." Toarmina Reserve ZTI$ Appendix __"W~"__'_'_'_~" ........~ _ ~.,_. . Agenda Item No. 8A September 29, 2009 Page 153 of 265 APPENDIX A INITTi\!. J\1EETlNG CHECKLIST Suggestion: Use this :\ppclIdix as ,1 worksheet' 10 l'nSlln~ (hilt no imporUmt clements (In' overJool;:cd. Cross out the i(l~IllS that do not apply. Date: ~2~jl.91J.QQQ Time: ----,~--.. Loc: a { i on: .cQJ!i~{J~q ~.!.11L~:..PJ.(l)1J1illg.G..Qn fQ!'.I;n.<;~.g129mJlmn!i~Djl~J...Sl-1J)..S.!.!j!_~ Pl'OPIt' Attending: Name, Organization, and Telepholle Numbers J) Reed Jarvi. P.E.-Vanasse 8:. Davlor. 1..LP 437-460] 2) Nick Casalanquida-CC Tnl11sportatiqq 3)__ 4)...:__ 5)__ Stud\' Prcparcl': Preparcr's Name' and Title: Reed Jarvi. Vice President Organization: Vanasse & Davlor. LLP Address & Telephone Number: ] 2730 NelYJ1.1jJ!1!!.2YJ~lvd. Suile 600 EPJ1.i\,1 v~!1iJ::.LI352.QL___..jn9JjJ.7 -4@j Rcvicwcr(s): Reviewer's Name 8:. Title: Nicl~ Casalanqnida Collier County Transportation Planning Department J~cvicwcr's Name & Title: -- Organization & Telephonc Number: _ APlllieanl: Applicant'5 Name: ivl i". BobbjcJ~ad~!1.h~iLC1\1lQ!JJlflliQ..,,[.[,~I:lli.tnL~!i(ll,LCg,..,.l!lf~, Address: 12.94 MC1!:1!nli19....:.J\vcnuc, Nanlc;'LE1...11lQ.1. Telephone Number: via fax: (239) 643-.iL7.:I. ProllOscd Developmcnt: N a rn e: I..Q..m:r.nj].llL.R~~'j~L~f Location: 5011Jh...9..l.1he Sfillta I3m'bara l3(ml9.Y.!:!l5L&.D..m:i~...IlQ..~LlQYJlJ:ct..jn!:;:'!:pecljon Land Use Type: Mlllli-familv T~csi(Jcnlii~L(JlJs!.,,:,~1.!Qjmi!..lliJ:c:ntc.r ITE Code #: ])J 2",,20, LU 2] 0 and LU 820 Proposed l1llmber of development u11ils: 13.L.Q.Q..Q...sJ2...G!A..Q[LWL~.Q..JS..G.nl!J..JJ_~~,...nr) ryU 9[1)) )W..(111.~I....],5:4 I.? l)QJJ~ J"L2.JrJ. Other: --.----.-- Description: .". .. .. . " - '" ,::' ~"'-' ;', -~:.~ .', :..':; ':~. i'" -,',-~,'''.'._;>;: '. '" ..,,"" Agenda Item No. 8A September 29, 2009 Page 154 of 265 - - Zoning Existing: :Non t'\ l!riful1llral Comprehensive plan recommendation: IJ.rhill.1 Requested: EJJQ Findingl; o1'tlle Preljminary Study: Ir.ip GC!lf:TH t.i91E.lb.9.jJ....m:gj~cl CSU.9.... gcncral,Q. 6~J:c[\1'-..!l~U1C\Yjp ri ID1J.cd_.lIJJ22- (:j 7 6 s:ntering. 30<i exiling), with Pass-by and i11l ern al capture reductions accounting for 399 tOlul trips (lOt) ent~'int~. 200 e;.;itint1.) - Study Type: Conlll[clc 0 Trr}.m.f.9J2.crntjon~ 0 - NOIJS: 0 Stud\' AI'Cll: - BO~111dari cs: S.!~ll!.!LLli:!l".h.n.m 13'211 ]cv'U1L~~.!2.1ll'i~_nQ.lllcvard iliX!libiLJJ Additional interseclions to be. analyzed: Santa Barbara Bonlcvi1rd & Davis Boulevard (Exhihit D. Horizon l'car(s): 2008 Analysis Timc Pcriod(s): Weekday AM and PM Future Off.Site Developments: N!A Source of Trip Generation Rates: lnsti lute of 'frans)1orliltioj1 Engineers (!TEt Trill Generation (71il Edition) Reductions in Trip GCllcl'ntioll Rates: None: N/A Pas~-by'.tl~ips: 1l~Jit.!.1l9_.9.f.J:.\]J.lE1?9J:lalion Engineer!> (IIm~ljJ) GJm.gration H.\!ndbook. 2.~ EditiQll, June.)OO4. Internal trips (PUD): 1l1stit u!.LQ.Ll.!'anSIlQI.tilti OlLEl}gj nccl:.LUID._.TrilL Gcncl'~J ion Handbook. 2nd EditiOJl. June 2004, Transmit usc: b:!!.A Other: :t{/ A Horizon Year Hoadwl1Y Nclworl.; Improvements: Followir1![ arc the committed improvements in_t!l~ vj9ini.1LQ[J.bS:.rLQig!~ S~1I11i:!J?arbara Boulevard: . 6 lane expansion from Radio Road to Davis Boulc\':ll'd FY 20tH: . New 4 hmc di\'idL'd road from Davis Boulevard to l~allksnakc IJarnlllock Bouk\'ard FY 2009 Davis Boule\J.ml: . 4 lane expansion of Da\'is Boulevard from County Barn Road \'0 Santa Barbara BouleVi1l'd FY 200e) lVlethodologv & Assumptions: Non-site traffic estimates: NiA .. . ....... ..', '. r" ".~".. ~- ~'.',.. '. .. -;.' : -.. ': ~ .:. :'. ! .....!" i .;: .. 6'_.._______ . . ..'~' Agenda Item No. 8A September 29, 2009 Page 155 of 265 Site-trip gcncnltion:ITE 'D.:ULQcncration (7ll: Eslilion) Trip distribution method: 1\.1 aJ1llalJ1J.~:111QSln..9r at(ra~!ors/!lencrators in thL!l[~~ Traffic. assignment method: mjll1U~U Traffic gnwilh rate: Jrame (CUI11 S~LllGI1L1?L9j~ctions $pedal FcHtul'cs: (Ji'om preliminary study or prior l~xp('rj('))cc) Accidents locations: N/6- Sight distance: tlfI.G.ml.,)!t; Ollcuinp: N!A .... .."> --. Access location & configuration: On.i?...E~!Ll.:ms.!Y.9.J.1Jg.nt_^ccess poin.L'p.IL~.llmt1_1:tlrbara Boulevard So.pth of Davis Boulevard Traffic control: UnSi211Illized Signal system location & progression needs: ~Ltl On-site parking needs: Adc<lllalc Data Sources: Collier Counlv Traffic'Counts Base maps: E.9adwny ~b:~.I!5. Prior study reports: Nil!. .. ;\cc;css policy and jurisdiction: Collier C9unry Review process: PUD Requirements: __. J\'1iscelJaneous: N!A =:=:===:='::::'_-::::'"7:.~'.~ ::':;:";.:::~~:;::.::::;:':~:;::':::::':;:'::'::,::::'::==~=:::::'::=~':::':=:':::==:"--;;'~;;;:;;;~;-;.:;~..':-. ;::;:;:~:: :7.:,:';=':=::::==-~'='~::::::::=:':;::==-:'=:,..:'::'._.:::':::::-:::::".~::~-:- S.IGNATURi~s ,- . \ /)) \ /.' A. t~'IX L.. ..-!,,;,::.~~'-L:.~;l~,;;::(:::'::~:""" .... ...... ....... --.- Silldy Pr~.pilr~/ .i / ~ / 0li' ~/- / /.., /i I..), I .~....... I /" C/ ; {( . J) ( ,"1. ....., .....-..,..' ./ ,/ 'L./'"",, ../ ....-.... /,- - . -'L-..........:z...7.../,.................__.L .. ' (. 0/'- ~,.. Rev I ewers ~7. // ._...._~.__._---~-----_..,......---_.._.-._---_..__..._._. ,',.------..-.- Applicant ...., ..'..,...... " . ,", -':1:,' ;;'~:_; .:", ."",.... /; : . (/) ~ """ c. (f) t= I CJ) C .c o N ('f) CJ) CJ) o CO -0 o-CONV) o-r--O r-- '~I Ch CO Ch 0 '='I VI VI (Vl CO CO '<r 0 ~ N Jj IJ)VI~ LI\ Jj , M '-;-N M ~... -0 ~I... o-COr--C ChNO" r-- Q)1I!1 ChCOCh..... lI!CIlI -o--.r" UlMON 0- D..i: ="'~ II) Q..~ - '- ""'-;N M !:W !:W ~ ~ _ N CO\Oo-V) COo--OO M ~ CO \0 CO CO 'iiil '" VI '" V) -.r r-- 0 -c N r--Vl-.r O. 0 --IN "''"i'''t r-- f- --r-- ?- M -.rr-- _ N N M '='I -.r" N CO '='I N 0) -" "CO J5 ~CO" N Jj - N N ~I...I \0 ~I...I Lflo- ~ N N-o Q}<1) VlO'N \0 <1)<1) NN V) - _-0 a...~ MM= - o...~ - _- !: UJ :L UJ ~ ~ _ 0.. _ 0'\0 1.1') '<!" "t 0- <<11 0' \0 -.r -.r "'I '<r - '<> CO 00 "'T 6 -.r-co ~ 0 -- N - - "'T f- --- I- \0 ;; g::~ "'3:. "I';; g 1-1 0' CO -.r -0 1-1 ~ "l. ~ o. g; \0 N o l;: ~ g;. 0 rv) 00 00''': ~ ~ .. cO - ~ - ~ '~I :J:J u.. "~ c OOVl c :J :J :J:J -;;- 00 ~ o .e- ~~ g ~ ~I -DN& .: ~ (Vl- q (Vl ._ "VI ._ Vl M - M t Vl ~ - III ~ f v Q) ~ a: ::s ::s o - ""6 ... I- III ';:) ~ ....- c..-.. c::: c: g L g.g ~ N 2l N '- X ~ b.O :3 w:3 rr: 'a --- ...... "-' ~ .Q.. 1I! 111 1I! <+::. 0 III ~ Z ~ 1; 6\.9- o ~ 0 ~ ... L Q) w .c. ell w..c::U <2. I- -4J t/) C o4J l.I) C..., - to E :J ~ E :J ~ c.n c g nl 'Z 0 ~ 'Z 0 ~ .2 'V .. ,2 ~ E 11\ Z E S 11\ Z E t:2. St: ~ 'i: W ~ ~ N W ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ -~oo ~ ~ -~] co] 'V _ QI 'i: .S; 0 :J 'i: .S; 0 0 :J 0 Z III > I- E -1 I- E- -1 5 c: LON ____ 0 N III ____ Q) '_ .. 3: 't) '1.:>::J1... 't) '1.:>:J5 1...5tJ E QI ell C-12:l QI C-1'" ~....~ >< 0:: 'iil 8';::;3 'iil 8";:~ ~~11 w III ~ 'iii "E- u ii; "'@ ~E ~ U ~ 0 ~ .S c 'w b.O C "P <<1 b.O ..: >-.. Z c E ell c"'c ell c"'c: cc.D Q) l)lJ Q) u.. .- bI) <1) u.. ... .- I... .:, _ in L I -cwo. . -oQ1(J) Q.Q)lI') rC v III 1I! "v; M a..o ell '" bO C g- C ..:.... 0. o.~ <1) c .~ <1) c: - - Cl.. 0 'C I- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I- I- .,--,-- ~-,-, - (/) x ..- 0 t (f) i= 1 OJ C 'C 0 N \') O'l O'l 0 00 ]1 co Vl N N '" -0 (Xl CO - JI '" CI' CI' C1'> - F'- CI' CI' - ]1 <l-!1 <l-!1 <l-!1 <l-!1 0 0 L1'l L1'l M N N N <l-!1 JI <l-!1 <l-!1 <l-!1 <l-!1 0 0 L1'l Vl '-' /VI N N N '" is -0 <0 ... a '" a > ~ Q). :i .... 0 C') -- a:l L{) .::.! u ~I 0 E -0 E '" 0 '" 0:: I c: -0 Q) ... -0 '" .::.! '" ~ 0 '" a:l 0:: c >..0::. ..., .., 0 Q) c 0 '0 -.:; ~ '0 .., 0 '" tel '" 0::. 0::. U 0::. -0 -0 ... ... ~ '" > Q) Q) :i :i 11 -0 -0 0 0 ... ... a:l to '" '" tel '" > > L. L. Q) Q) '" '" :i :i .D .D ... ... c: 0 0 tel '" 0 a:l a:l W c:l ',p II> ..., '" :s ::l .;; ';; OJ .D '" '" c c 'r: 0 0 '" '" V'l V'l .... '^ i5 -0 -0 c: 0- ... ... 0 '" '" Oi: > > ',p I- Q) <l! ::l :; :; "0 0 0 .0 III ~, W W -0 -0 '- ... 0[: .... '" '" '" '" ""' l\I ... L. ~ > Vl ... '" '" Q) III .D .D :; :; 0 c: ... ... t? III '" '" 0 0 b.O co to to co i5 c.. , '" '" VI '" '[: Q) .., ... '> '> 0- .... c c '" '" t- Vi '" '" 0 0 ~ VI Vl ) - I . << ) ~ '" ~ x --z_ ~ :z !1 :5 S II) 0. t.:l p ~ }:! - ~ (); "ll ~'" ~" ~ ..J ~t ..J <( ~ '" <::> ~ ~ 0 f!~ a~' . f Ii Wi, -ii .11 1:'! ~Ii ~U 1---------------------1 ~X' i I , j ) I , i t .. ~ i ; ~ ~ ; ~ 1I\ i i g . :.' ~ . 1I\!:: I ! e ~ ~ fl ~ ~z I ." ~ ~ e to: z::> i H m .. ::>co ! I o i! ~ 0: ..,.'" '" ! l- i ",Vl 00: II ! t-!:: i ; ~~ ; I j ",0 ! ~I€: I- 00: II .;- ~ .. l 0 0: !d 00: > J j W ...J l ::> 0 ro n I .. ~ Vl 5 i! i :...._.._........,,,..._., .. ! < 0 . : i lmJV^31I'\OO v(Jv8,JV8 V1NVS ~ 3Urlln.;L........".........................................: III III L.............._........_.._.._.._.._.._._.._.._.._........_.._.._._..._....._._.._.._.._ l- t- Z Z ....... I ::> ::> "0 ". co ...J ...J ';; N II) <C <( <0 ;:: ;:: 2 Z ~ II _J uJ ,.J lI\ Ot- a vI 1- ~I <( _.. r- t- o Vi if, v,o 0 Z 0: W:::; ~~ ...J ::> ~ uJ frw >- ...J ~ ~ >-...J )..... ...J <( ::! .JW =!). ~ ;:: 0 ~-1 ::::...J ~ 0 <C<( <(::1 <( z lL. W ~O lL.<( 0 ..: _00 ilL. W (); lI\ 1- w t-I ...J uJ ...J'"< 5S <:> a:: '" i~ z ~ N :2::> 17> -, co <Du o~ <( ci N ,- '" ~!f ~~ "' 0 ~ - J- 'i\ ~ ~ ._-~ ".,,,, """'---" ;'-,---",--, . ,,; TOARMINA RESERVE \/f""t!.-r"'!;c:'....e ."" Urb~piannin! < (t - i (.t ~:, ~ , ,. ~ ;':' Llnd~~o:pe ArdUfNi~H(' L.OCATION MAP ['''< .. I... . Civil !n&ir.le/ir.;; ) a}f f, 0 i I:'~~}~~ lra~r( ioginr;ring EXHIBIT I ""':';'h;~!Illt'i.1l! [lll1rJ'mC"I~1 \(;(r(.C D,,:o; 05/25i2WG .. 'i:j~!j("..H};:X, Il36! p((.'J~ct N(ln".C: l'Cilrmin:! t~C-$(:""JC :~~)t, M('~rc;,-!"'ljIQ A\'enu(~. Sourr.:cs: Y:\Ltt;tcrs'.200(--'\Comu(,200o_CotIAarExp.lyr Cii'"~t Name: C,llJenl'oad Con$tructicn C~\. iI',c. Naples. FL :j.;,Ot, Y;IP,ojlJcls\llOOI809\80S93Iexr,bito1.m"c o,j PIQif:t1 r:Vmbt:r: .e09!,l3 .. F:U:: t:,..t"bi01.m~u Agenda Item No. 8A ConcSegmenls_06_30_06.xls September 29, 2009 Page 160 of 265 '.<ConcSegments '<..:.:003 ....... :CAP~ciiTY> ::~Nes,;~~~:gX;; 1 ,Airport Road Immokalee Road 'Vanderblll Beach Road 2460 4 203 (. 2 ;Airport Roa'd' Vanderbilt Beactl:RoadPineRid~eR.~~:p.., 397~. 6 . .... . iH)3" I..} . Airport Road Pine Ridge Road. Golden Gate Par.k~~ay .3830..6 . "523! ; '1097 .., 14. ;Airport Road Golden Gate Parkway . Radio Road . 3230.6 269 f : '341'1 1....5 . AirporlRoad Radio Road. .. . Davis Boulevard 4100 6..... ~~O.:. ..J 1496 I 1 ..6 ',Irporl Roa~ . Davis Boulevard US 41 . ... ... . .25~0.. 6.; .. : 211 i : 439" 1 7. BayshoreDriv.e.US41 ... ..Tllomassoll.odv~.. .1950 4..,.... 55 '. 1155"1 I". ..10. . ; County Barn~oadOavisBOUlev~rd, . Rall~es~ke.~.~mrn,OCk 1660 4.' . ". . ',.~34.__ " .... .936.,..' .. ..1.1 .CR29. . ;US41ChokOlos~~~I.~!~nd 675 . ~ . ..: i 4 1 690 I I :.. ;~.~:~::. ::::~:;~ ~"'.' .:~;~~I~~~d..::. .. :.~r;~~~r;~~~~~rd.'..~'::: J~~~~:.j.::'.3...i. ........ .. '1 i ..1~~~"1 L..~~. ..:DavisB.o~le~~rd.. ;Lakewo~~~~e..~a(dCo~ntr!3.ar.!1.~l'~~.......; 2-:.~~ !.....~,.. i . .!,..265....1 I.:'...~: .!~:~::.:::;~~; ...... ,:~:.:YB:~;~~~~:~lllvard~~~:r~;~~~~~::'e..~~rd:. .. ~;~~. ..! ..:..t ..} .. ... !. ;":tF"' L..17 . :Golden.c;~!~ ~~leYa.rd: Collie~ ,Bou~eY3'rd... Wilson~.le~~~~ ........ ~~50. .::'....4 ;.... ..... i! . "832" I I 16 ,Golden Gate Parkway ;US 41 'Goocllelle.Frimk Road , 3160 "i 6 "'i: . i '-' .... ".. .';e':GOldenGale'P;'ri<Way 'Goodleile~FrankRoadAirp(irt Road"'" ....., 4350 ') .. 6 .. i" "'E " . .""; 1"2'0';GoldenGalcPar"k'way;AirportRoad'''''' 1.75" ...,..........., 4370 i "6" .' E i ,1' 121 'Goidcn Gale'Parkway' ,1.75 . .. ......-.. . Santa i:ia;biira-Bouie~a'rci:'" '373(i ..!......S...:...E.... .. 'j' ;. I 22iGolden GRlc parill'r.iy . Santa Ba;bara8oui~va(d COllie; BOuievar(i'" . '1980"!' 4 ....;. OJ ! r' 23 . ,GOOdlctie.fi;ani(Roii,j' ilmmokalcc Road.... Variderbm BeaciiRoa'd' ;1190 ...... 2 io' .i ..... .... 1:".:'~4'.' iGoocil~~(c:Fiiink.~.o.~,a. YandC:bilt ~~~t.l..~.oad . Pine R.id~?::~~(~':~.~:~.;:..': .2!.9~..:+.. ':.."~:::I:.. . p ;]' . . I""~i' Igo~:~:::1t:~~'~;~:"'j.~ibi~:~d~:i:~;kmy.'~~.~r ~~!<:y'~r!:.~~~.....f. .. ,~~%~..---[........~...... .i......~.. ..;.. . .;850....1... ~~..:..., 1.. :~~~"'l : i~~:'1 IJ" ..]~~~.1~~~'.'~..t~~f~=:JJ.:II...i::~:.I:~-::~;;_:...,~.I 1..31 :CollicrBOul~~a(d 'Go.lden GaIa .BoUlevard Grccn.~lv~. ....,.. 3300 L 6; .~1~? ( 678. : ?~!;6 i. .94~u.. ,I I.. 32 ,Collier BOI.levard .!Grean BOUlev~~d. .1.75 ......'.... .2~~.....L..4 ....L.'O ...~~70 .. ~~?.. i ?~?O ; 19~ I 1....33 !CoIlicr Bo~levard :1-75.... .Davis Bovl~.~ard. ... . i 36~.. (..6 i . E 3~?() . .1. ..:~~.i . 369B'..:: .:~ii8.:J I... ..34 ! ColI~r B~'ev~.(d.; D.avis B~I.ellar?.., R.allles~a.~e~~~~~k .3~7.?. ... . i ...... ~.. L E. ..18~.o. '. L. .55~.. L 2~05 ! 865 J l~l!rl~;<~lll~~~ :~~~~'i;~!"~i~:j;_~I:~!:=;i:~lillfi!::;~1 ,. ....~1, "ii~~~~:l:~'~~:~"""itir-~.~E~d....,. ... ;t~anBooieva;d" .._..._.+....~~i....+....:.:..l."..,~..."I...~~~d....I...-l~5~71 .. ..1.. ~m... +- .. i~ri.'" r~II[~ILi~il~~:it!~;T-i~T1{ttJ:il:tL~J/i~J I'''~;'' .)(~;s~~~~1t....., ''''lf~;eA~j.~ir~~~'~'''-' :~::JI:l:;r6~%.......r ...i~~....l...{.....I......~. , i '17~''''i' .....m-....! . '~1~1 'i....:5~94.'.l rj ..!~li~~:_.j-~~~l~; !~'~~~~7L.~=!..d"Jq:-; -jUl-i~i~J.~1 I..:~.. :~::~Z::~:Road 1~~.:~d St~ee.t '~:nf:kalee Road"" 16~r..!.. {. i . ~ ...~~~. I 2ri "l'~~~ 1"~~~''''1 1::~:6.2 .'. 'io!.'i Lis 4i:~:", -:.. :LeecO.~nl~\in<..: U~.~'i . ., :"::',':.':~: ., .i?'10":'.) .~:.;. .()";. ":!8~:": .L.:.:":f~':" (..S50.:.j....15W.: I I . 63 iSeagate Drive 'Crayton Road ,US 41. . . 1620! 4 ! D : 930i. 66 i. 996 ! 622 I r'..~~ !::~~~:~~~.:~:~~ .!~~;~lI~.~rank ROa(I~I~~~~~~:;in~~oad " .~~;.';. :.~::{. ..~~~.L....~~I... .'~~~:'; ~~~'..I I.. ~6 :Pifle Ridge R~ad ;Shirl~y Slr?et .. 'd ,.Airport Roa~...... , . 3~30 6 27llO J. . ~~2 .... l. 3152 i 578 I I . ..:r:::~~~:~~~ ~ri:: :~~~!! R.?ad~:~afl Bo~ievard" ..~~~.... ..~.t~r~6' l i~b i '~~6i lWO:1 !..~~ ::.:~::~:~:~.. . :~"d jtit~~t:~.~~?:.. ~~~~;~s~~~:~f:.~~~~v;iii H ~i.~F:l....r.b.::.l~..:... ';.... ..J~r:.:':.:' :~{~~i.. 3;~'.:'1 Idm71 .R3dio~oad. ... iSanla13arba(~,~ulevard oavisBoule":ar~,, . 212.0.f 4 () .1250'2~.2; 1512 [ 606.. I l-'~~' ':::::::~:~:'~:~~::~~.I~~aii:"~;:~e'BOIii;;vaid~:~~~n~:r~eR~:;eV~(di::6....+t:~~....+.:.~~.. ;i~~;;' :~'.l 1.74 :Ral(Ip.~flake.r!~:lU:;'OCk ;CoulllyS;i,nRoac( .' 'POllyAvCn~le'" .... '2349.. .. 4....0 82~':. ... .. 135" [955 1385' ..1 JutJl':,Y.t>>;t -..."'" .- -"'- .,.,.,-" Agenda Item No. 8A ConcSegmenls _06_30_ oe.xls September 29,2009 Page 161 of 265 ;,,<,:;;><:,i/~~~:{:~~) :'<:":.t; . ~ .... "" :;~\~.:~:.~?::~<;: ':.i/:~.~'.n~E,'{/: ~,>:..~~.tt:f~::,i:;~:~:~:~: }t~r,:.\};;,:/:~.~:~~~!::::~\: ,\", .-:.'{~~. _ . . . '1".',"-',";: ~""oo'3':' . LANES ,; COSSTO OPKHRIJOl:,TRIPBANK' 'TOWOLREtdCAP 75! RalllesnakeHammock ; pony Avenue iCoIIieraOulevard 4 0 i SaD i 263 843 I 1017j " ' __. ~""".., ......_. _..." "........,_......._.. ':.. ....... .......'-' .,#. ~., .._'. .... .. ....."............-....I...#'.~. - .. .",.-. .....',.. 'N" ....t. 76 'Sanla Barb~~a fl?uleva~d.~~~~n. e.ou!?~,ar.~.......,G?'~~~~~~e,~~~~~y ..~.o., ...... .~36?, .,;. ...1:1. ..~,~1 ",' .3.9.9.1 77 . :'Saniii BaiiiaraaOulev;ud.GoIdon Gale Parkway Radio Road . 6 E, 1520 i .363 1683 .! 11.87 I 78 ;Sa'nia Ba;bara'Boule~ard:Rad;O'Ro~d.' "';'DavisB(;;,levar(j 6 E :"970" "TH. 536 '1506", 1284" I aii ;SR'29' ,.....,__'d' ';us 4{'"'''' .'. 'CR 637":2"C ,. .~3~.' ,::: 0 1.3.0 :745' 'I '8i . !SR 29.... ... ..,.".." ;cid137'J.75 675 2 C 130: 0 130 745 I I. '.~j';~:~i.":" ....>.~..". j~~5~~~:..'.::"" ... .;~;~~~!.N.~~~~~r:ke!i. :...,,;;~ .3.,~. \,_~~.'::':.1~.....~...~~','"i. :~1':1 f'" il4"'!SR'29' ... . \C.~,29A~Lllh . \N15th5.!. ,.. ,....'860 d,,' 4 C i 700 \,.11.6. .8.16. .~ 1044 I 1~~~!;llr~i,i-;\li:~:i!~,.r~~I::::l:--i~t::iJ:-1~~lj~t~i::1 I .93 !Tamiam!.!!ail.~~~.~ !~alllc~nake"H.~~r:'.?ck .iTrjan~leB.o~I.:~a~,~ ; 3.500..i 6. E; .1~~0 i.._~~~ I ~~73 12,27.1 !j !1!j~t:i~~~~~':J~~;;:j!;:t ::1 t~~~J~? jil~1 I 98 iTamiami Trail North flee County Line ;Wiggins Pass Road : 2400 ! 6 i E i 1910 i 184 !. 2094 i 306 I 1=~clt~!}ti~-r~il~~-1~fA~~;:l-I~::r:I{:I;i:l;,!~:{1~1~:'1 I .103 iTaml~mi.!r~n":lor.~~",iP.~~."idY,~..R?a.d" ;Sl>la~.R~~~.. ..' 34~0 j 6 E i .3.~.'0,.. i 99... j .3.109 ! 30.'. I I 104 iTamiami Trail Norlh;Solana Road . ; Creech Road; 3470 ,6 E j 2790 i 52 i . 2642 '. 626 I 11~~lir~j!I!~:\i~~~Il~:i~::!(rl:j=;~t=l-tl;111 I... . .i.i.}.. "!'~:~~~~l-~;:~~.~,?~,d '{~~~'fo~~TI~d.......,".t~;~i~~~~;~a~~ad" ".+.....~E~t.,,,..i,,, ,i...l-, , .~. "':.I'''-~1%--+._.._3i:,.._-L''~J;f..;-~8f'' l::~r:I~~\~i;!~T:::'=]~~~~~'[}~:r:lrILj;:J:I:tlr:il i"ii~' .. !~~~;~:~~i--"Ic:~~~~~:~.''''. l~'~~.ru'ey~~.d.... ,...( . ~~~ ..+.. :' ,! ""6'" ..; '1~io-'-f"':"'~:8::+-'-'~ii~ .+'ii;'..1 ...... ............ '.......... ........,.... ............ ....... .......,.. ........... ..... . ........... .....>.. ...... ..,............... ...." .. ........ .., I .w)"h~y, Agenda Item No. 8A Collier County September 29, 2009 A vcrage Daily Traffic (ADT) Counts Page 162 of 265 (Fivc Year History Listed Alphabetically) Sta. A* T* Location 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Change ADT ADT ADT ADT ADT 04-05 613 H Q 111th Ave North east of Vanderbilt Dr (eR 9011 8.347 8.493 8,383 9,292 0 585 H Q 111th Ave North west of Vanderbilt Dr (CR 901) 5.437 4,593 4,774 5.500 0 665 A 29 SR north of Farm Worker's Vi/laae 9,704 9.919 9.940 10,131 9,875 -2.53% 591 A 29 SR north of SR 82 7,090 7,601 7,540 8,117 8,335 2.69% 615 A 29 SR north of US 41 (SR 90) (TamiamiTrail E.) 3,025 3,072 3.198 2,591 2,620 1.12% 582 A 29 SR south of US 41 (SR 90) 4,116 3.940 3,679 3,419 3,177 -7.08% 661 A 82 SR west of SR 29. 9.632 11,624 11,144 11,225 11,531 2.73% 619 Q 846 (Devil's Garden Rd) east of SR 29 3,502 4,242 3,317 3,269 2.853 -12.72% 553 H Q Airport Rd (CR 31) north of Davis Blvd (SR 84) 47,224 45,883 47,870 50,029 0 501 C Q Airoort Rd (CR 311 north of Golden Gate Pkwy. (CR 886) 50,825 50,748 43.412 42,784 0 693 Q Airport Rd (CR 31) north of North Road 52,148 55.416 53,860 54,560 1.30% 599 Q Airporl Rd (CR 31) norlh of Oranae Blossom Dr 48,731 45,664 48,896 46,144 39.444 -14.52% 503 H Q Airport Rd (CR 31) north of Pine Ridae Rd (CR 896) 46,610 44,288 49,634 46,179 0 543 H Q Airport Rd (CR 31) north of US 41 (SR 45) (TamiamiTrail) 27,978 27,572 27,919 29,607 0 659 Q Airoort Rd (CR 31) north of Vanderbilt Beach Ext (CR 862) 36,183 34,986 35,742 36,331 31,088 -14.43% 552 Q Airoorl Rd (CR 31) south of Davis Blvd (SR 84) 37,914 36,031 37.000 37,895 36.943 -2.51% 533 C Q Airport Rd (CR 31) soutll of Golden Gate Pkwv (CR 666) 58,426 55,412 50.809 53,637 0 554 H Q Airoort Rd rCR 31) south of lmmokalee Rd (CR 846) 32,588 31,899 32,518 33,601 0 502 H Q Airport Rd (CR 31) south of Pine RidQe Rd (CR 696) 51,231 49,877 46,331 46,970 0 521 Q Bavshore Dr north of Week Ave 16,626 16,352 15,377 14,636 14,271 -2.49% 626 A Camp Keais Rd south of Immokalee Rd (CR 846) 2,240 3.089 3,267 3,027 3,854 27.32% 660 A Capri Blvd west of Collier Blvd (SR 951) 4,652 5,135 4,250 4,276 4,780 11.79% 610 Q Carson Rd north of Lake Trafford Rd (CR 890) 5,688 5,656 5,703 5,927 5.472 -7.68% 618 A Chokoloskee Causeway south of Plantation Parkwav 2,354 2,173 2,209 2,172 2,075 -4.47% 573 Q Collier Blvd (CR 951) north of Davis Blvd (SR 64) 45.100 45,475 46.582 53,866 56,180 4.30% 584 H Q Collier Blvd (CR 951) north of Golden Gate Blvd 16,827 18,042 18,538 18,518 0 525 Q Collier Blvd (CR 951) north of Golden Gale Pkwy (CR 886) 25,945 26.518 27.409 29,570 31.943 8.03% 536 Q Collier Blvd (CR 951) north of Pine RidQe Rd (CR 896) 28,007 31,031 33,549 35,421 37,304 5.32% _.<~ 602 Q Collier Blvd (CR 951) north of Ratttesnake Ham Rd (CR 864) 29,939 30,288 31,626 33,926 38,709 14.10% 532 Q Collier Blvd (CR 951) north of US 41 (SR 90) (Tamiami Tram 21,077 22.828 23,920 21,918 23,061 5.22% 607 Q Collier Blvd (CR 951) south of Golden Gate Pkwy (CR 686) 28,115 22,415 23,232 25,615 29,160 12.96% 655 Q Collier Blvd (CR 951) south of Immokalee Rd (CR 846) 14,149 19.125 19,484 21,796 21,792 -0.02% 657 Q Collier Blvd (CR 951) south of Lely Cultural Blvd 25,349 25,016 26,284 29,365 32.4 77 10.60% 603 Q Collier Blvd (CR 951) south of Ratttesnake Ham Rd (CR 864) 26,583 27,713 27,928 31,462 34,013 8.11% 557 H Q Collier Blvd (CR 951) south of US 41 (SR 90) (Tamiami Trail) 33,422 34,288 34,132 35,556 0 627 Q Collier Blvd (SR 951) south of Capri Blvd (CR 952) 25,399 26.386 26,178 27,814 28.598 2.82% 520 Q County Barn Rd north of Rattlesnake Ham Rd (CR 864 ) (County Facility 10,968 11 ,266 11,354 11.474 9,679 -15.64% Road Maintenance Facility moved to Davis Blvd.) 641 A County Barn Rd south of CC R&B Facility 17,106 14,954 15,005 0 13,777 519 Q County Barn Rd south of Davis Blvd (SR 84) 13,775 13,863 14,124 13,837 13,256 -4.20% 559 Q Davis Blvd (SR 84) east of Airport Rd (CR 31) 30.590 31,084 30,183 30.798 32,083 4.17% 558 Q Davis Blvd (SR 64) west of Airoort Rd (eR 31) 33,665 33,104 32,686 33,942 36,444 7.37% 601 C Q Davis Blvd (SR 84) west of Collier Blvd (CR 951) 22,830 22,726 22,920 25,969 0 560 Q Davis Blvd (SR 84) west of Radio Rd (CR 856) 13,747 14,122 14,200 14,965 16.475 10.09% 538 Q Davis Blvd (SR 84) west of Santa Barbara Blvd 31,917 31,000 30,789 32,561 34.781 6.82% 638 A Desoto Blvd north of Golden Gale Blvd (CR 876) 846 1,180 1,365 1,585 2,254 42.21 % 639 A Desolo Blvd south of Golden Gate Blvd (CR 876) 1,854 1,139 1,522 2,039 2,324 13.98% 636 S EverQlades Blvd north of Golden Gate Blvd (CR 876) 3.576 4.448 5,817 6.520 8,108 24.36% 635 S EverQlades Blvd north of Oil Well Rd (CR 658) 2,585 3,105 3,974 5,328 6.491 21.83% 637 S EverQlades Blvd south of Golden Gate Blvd (CR 876) 3,649 4,294 4,946 5,672 5,878 3.63% 549 Q Firs! St south (CR 846) south of Main St (SR 29) 11,943 12,855 12,945 12,866 13,782 7.12% 531 H Q Golden Gate Blvd (CR 676) east of Collier Blvd (CR 951) 20.156 20,307 25,368 27,606 0 652 Q Golden Gate Blvd (eR 876) east of Wilson Blvd 12,175 12.474 15,801 17.190 19,665 14.40% 678 Q Golden Gate Blvd (CR 876) west of Wilson Blvd 14,566 16,805 20,667 23,255 27,340 17.57% 508 C Q Golden Gate Pkwy (eR 886) east of Airoort Rd (CR 31) 30,027 30,335 28,877 29,836 0 691 C/H Q Golden Gate Pkwy (CR 666) east of LivinQslon Road (CR 881) 31,140 28,860 0 0 605 Q Golden Gate Pkwv (CR 886) east of Santa Barbara Blvd 29,870 30,785 31,042 29,124 29,669 1.87% 507 Q Golden Gate Pkwv (CR 886) west of Airport Rd (CR 31) 45,172 44,288 44,592 45,594 44,751 -1.85% - 510 Q Golden Gate Pkwv (eR 886) west of Collier Blvd (CR 951) 18,377 18.467 18,640 19,145 20,501 7.09% 530 Q Golden Gale Pkwv (CR 886) west of Goodlelle Rd (eR 851) 22,441 22,112 23,119 21,677 21.942 1.22% Pages 3-7 of 14 March, 2006] Agenda Item No. 8A Collier COllnty September 29,2009 A verage Daily Traffic (ADT) Counts Page 163 of 265 (Five Year History Listed Alphabetically) Sta. A' P Location 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Change ADT ADT ADT ADT ADT 04-05 535 Q Pine Ridae Rd (CR 896) east of Loaan Blvd (Santa Barbara) 18,329 19,517 21,625 23,481 24,892 6.01% 512 Q Pine RidQe Rd (CR 896) east of US 41 (SR 45) (Tamiami Tr) 38,562 35,446 43,429 37,603 39,369 4.69% 515 Q Pine Ridae Rd (CR 896) west of Airport Rd (CR 31) 45,988 44,655 45,664 48,034 50.289 4.69% 600 Q Pine Ridae Rd (CR 89G) west of Loaan Blvd 35,028 37,164 39,563 41,965 44,995 7.22% 634 A Plantation Parkwav east of CR 29 627 596 642 730 670 -8.22% 544 Q Radio Rd (CR 856) east of Airport Rd (CR 31) 24,112 22,527 23,677 25,538 26,989 5.68% 589 Q Radio Rd (CR 856\ east of Santa Barbara Blvd 15,321 15,651 15,443 17,599 19,456 10,55% 665 Q Radio Rd (CR 856\ west of Davis Blvd (SR 84) 10,218 9,976 10,008 11,435 12,750 11.50% 527 H Q Radio Rd (CR 856) west of Santa Barbara Blvd 34,814 24,261 23,858 25,619 0 688 Q Radio Road (CR 856) east of Livinoston Road (CR 881) 26,163 28,593 32.238 32,996 2.35% 689 Q Radio Road (CR 85G) west of Livinaston Road (CR 681) 21,809 22.754 25.778 24,455 -5.13% 651 Q Randall Blvd east of Immokalee Rd (CR 84G) 5.181 6,077 7,135 7,882 9.139 15.95% 534 Q Rattlesnake Ham Rd (CR B64\ east of County Barn Rd 14,294 15,717 14,537 15,586 14,921 -4.26% 516 Q Rattlesnake Ham Rd (CR 864) east or US 41 (SR 90ITamiami Tr) 15,920 15,682 16,703 17,509 18,408 5.13% 518 Q Rattlesnake Ham Rd ICR 864) west of Collier Blvd (CR 951) 7,841 9,087 10,051 10.876 11 ,456 5.33% 517 Q Rattlesnake Ham Rd (CR 8641 west of County Barn Rd 14,039 14,078 14,852 15,062 15,710 4.30% 648 S Sanctuarv Rd north of Immokalee Rd (CR 846) 849 644 721 745 890 19.40% 537 Q Santa Barbara Blvd north of Davis Blvd (CR 84) 19,826 20,531 20,111 19,821 19,270 -2.78% 529 Q Santa Barbara Blvd north of Golden Gate Pkwv (CR 886) 27,159 28,692 25,749 24,146 24,030 -0.48% 606 Q Santa Barbara Blvd north of Radio Rd (CR 856) 31,052 27,605 27,194 27,692 28,001 1.12% 528 Q Santa Barbara Blvd south of Golden Gate Pkwv (CR 866) 32,954 30.260 28,914 28,471 28,967 1.74% 511 Q Seaaate Dr west of US 41 (SR 45) (Tamlami Trail) 17,127 16.848 16,930 16,200 15,819 -2.35% 720 S Shadowlawn Dr north of Davis Blvd (SR 84) 4,703 4,859 4,472 4,005 3.911 -2.36% 523 Q Shadowlawn Dr south of Davis Blvd (SR 84) 7,920 7,676 6,866 6,854 6,432 -6.15% 546 C Q US 41 (SR 45) at Lee Countv Line 32,787 37,790 38.280 38.251 0 564 H Q US 41 (SR 45\ north of Immokalee Rd (CR 846) o 53,446 53,988 54,468 0 562 H Q US 41 (SR 45) north of Pine RidQe Rd (CR 896) 42,102 48,686 49.715 53,026 0 577 Q US 41 (SR 45) south of 99th Ave North o 47,581 49,071 53,423 51,118 -4.32% 561 H Q US 41 (SR 45\ south of Pine RidQe Rd ( CR 896) 55,648 54,635 56,497 57,838 0 563 H Q US 41 (SR 45) south of Vanderbilt Beach Rd (CR 862) o 44,546 46,390 49,739 0 604 H Q US 41 (SR 90\ east of Airport Rd (CR 31) 46,774 45,164 46,908 49,091 0 608 Q US 41 (SR 90) east of Collier Blvd (CR 951) 12,552 12,570 o 12,977 15,010 15.67% 545 C Q US 41 (SR 90) east of Davis Blvd (SR 84) 30,800 33,089 33,594 35,118 0 572 Q US 41 (SR 90) east of Rattlesnake Ham Rd (CR 864) 36,312 36,301 36,199 37,973 40,948 7.84% 616 A US 41 (SR 90) east of SR 291CR 29 5.032 4,661 5,098 4,113 4,360 6,01% 571 H Q US 41 (SR 90) west of Collier Blvd (SR 951) 26,082 27,069 o 27,758 0 Pages 3-7 of 14 March, 2006] Collier County Agenda Item No. 8A Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Counts September 29, 2009 Page 164 of 265 (Five Year History & Listed Alphabetically) --, Sta. T' Location 2000 ADT 2001 ADT 2002 ADT 2003 ADT 2004 ADT Chan (, 613 Q 111IhAveNortheastofVanderbiltDr(CR901) 8,715 8,347 8,493 8,383 9,292 10.85% 585 Q 1111h Ave North west of Vanderbilt Dr (CR 901) 4,887 5,437 4,593 4,774 5,500 15.22% 665 A 29 (SR) north of Farm Worker's Village 9,033 9,704 9,919 9,940 10,131 1.92% 591 A 29 (SR) north of SR 82 6,068 7,090 7,601 7,540 8,117 7.65% 615 A 29 (SR) north of US 41 (SR 90) (Tamiami Trail E.) 2,066 3,025 3,072 3,198 2,591 -18.98% 582 A 29(SR)sOUlhofUS41 (SR90) 3,398 4,116 3,940 3,679 3,419 -7.07% 661 A 82 (SR) west of SR 29 10,069 9,632 11,624 11,144 11,225 0.73% 619 Q 846(DeviJ'sGardenRd)eastofSR29 4,112 3,502 4,242 3,317 3,269 -1.45% 553 Q Airport Rd (CR 31) north of Davis Blvd (SR 84) 43,314 47,224 45,883 47,870 50,029 4.51% 501 Q Airport Rd (CR 31) north of Golden Gate Pkwy. (CR 886) 49,738 50.825 50,748 43,412 42,784 .1.45% 693 Q Airport Rd (CR 31) north of North Road 52,148 55,416 53,860 -2.81% 599 Q Airport Rd (CR 31) norlh.Q[ Qrange Blossom Dr 46,382 48,731 45,664 48,896 46,144 -5.63% 503 Q Airport Rei {CR 31} norlh of Pine Ridge Rd (CR 896) 43,525 46,610 44,288 49,634 46,179 -6.96% 543 Q Airport Rei (CR 31) north of US 41 (SR 45) (Tamiami Trail) 24,424 27,978 27,572 27,919 29,607 6.05% 659 Q Airport Rd (CR 31) north of Vanderbilt Beach ~xt (CR 862) 34,876 36,183 34,986 35,742 36,331 1.65% 552 Q Airport Rd (CR31) south of Davis Blvd (SR 84} 33,147 37,914 36,031 37,000 37,895 2.42% 533 Q Airport Rd (CR 31) south of Golden Gate Pkwy (CR 886) 58,644 58,426 55,412 50,809 53,637 5.57% 554 Q Airport Rei (CR 31) south of Immokaler. Fl.eI (CR 846) 30,474 37.,588 31,899 32,518 33,601 3.33% 502 Q Airport Rd {CR 31} south of Pine Ridge Rd (CR 896) 51,035 51,231 49,877 46,331 46,970 1.38% 717 S Bald Eagle Dr (CR 953) north of Heathwood Dr 12.697 13,049 13,354 12,915 13,370 3.52% 700 S Bald Eagle Dr (CR 953) north of Barfield Dr 7,201 8.437 9,250 7,105 8,505 1P 539 Q Bald Eagle Dr{CR 953) north of Collier Blvd (SR 951) 11.043 12.402 11,173 11,388 13,233 1t 540 Q Bald Eagle Dr (CR 953) south of Collie~ Blvd (SR 951) 10,416 10,306 11,314 10,978 11.805 7.54% 622 Q Bnrlielel Dr soulh of Collier Blvd (SR 951) 7.350 8,091 8,57B 8,349 6,938 7.05% 701 S Barfield Dr east of Bald Eagle Dr (CR 953) 4.032 4,127 4,950 4,548 5,196 14.25% 621 Q Barfield Dr north of Collier Blvd (SR 951) 3,375 2,884 3,546 3,405 3,601 5.75% 718 S Barfield Dr north of San Marco Rd (CR 92) 7,064 8.425 9,166 9,122 8,480 -7.04% 711 S Barfield Dr north of Winlerberry Dr 4,573 6,113 6,619 6,384 6,081 -4.75% 713 S Barfield Dr south of Winterberry Dr 4,108 3,687 3,802 3,941 4,267 8.26% 521 Q Bayshore Dr north of Week Ave 15,728 16,626 16,352 15,377 14,636 -4.82% 626 A Camp Keais Rd south of Immokalee Rd (CR 846) 2,011 2,240 3,089 3,267 3,027 -7.35% 660 A Capri Blvd west of Collier Blvd (SR 951) 4,133 4,652 5,135 4,250 4,276 0.61% 610 Q Carson Rd north of lake Trafford Rei (CR 890) 5,374 5,688 5,656 5,703 5,927 3.93% 618 A Chokoloskee Causeway south of Plantation Parkway 1,763 2,354 2,173 2,209 2,172 .1.67% 573 Q Collier Blvd (CR 951) north of Davis Blvd (SR 84) 36,610 45,100 45.4 75 46,582 53,866 15.64% 584 Q Collier Blvd (CR 951) norlh of Golden Gale Blvd 15,459 16,827 18,042 18,538 18,518 -0.11% 525 Q CollierBlvd(Cr~951}norlhofGoldenGatePkwy(CH8e6) 24,157 25.945 26,518 27,409 29,570 7.89% 536 Q Collier Blvd (CR 951) north of Pine Ridge Rd (CR 896) 25.465 28,007 31.031 33,549 35,421 5.58% .", " . . '. - .. . . r,.:,.~"~......",,,.. ''''''''''_~:'~'''_r' '!';.....~.:.--...'?..,..,........ ''jf;< ";'. "_.-~" i~ F1. q?,lier Blvd,{CR 951) north of.Raltlesnake,HamlRd.tCB,86Aj.:.,;.,o.."'",,, "....".,25.968 .,,,..,.29,9.3.9 ,....>..:<.;~Q@~ llisi;,,~1&~~ ,~;":'3~:fJ~ ~{;~dI.27% 1 532 Q Collier Blvd (CR 951) north of US 41 (SR 90) (Tamiami Trail) 25,073 21,077 22,828 23,920 21,918 -8.37% 607 Q Collier Blvd (CR 951) south of Golden Gale Pkwy (CR 886) 18,908 28,115 22,415 23,232 25,815 11.12% 655 Q Col~ier Blvd (CR 951) south of Immokalee Rd (CR 846) 13.239 14,149 19,125 19,484 21,796 11 ""'''- Page 3 - B of 22 4/6/2005 Collier County Agenda Item No. 8A _ September 29, 2009 Average Dally Traffic (ADT) Counts Page 165 of 265 (Five Year History & Listed Alphabetically) ~ - Sta. T* Location 2000 ADT 2001 ADT 2002 ADT 2003 ADT 2004 ADT Cha~~e 03 657 Q Collier Blvd (CR 951) south of Lely Cultural Blvd 21,919 25,349 25,016 26,284 29,365 11.72% 603 Q Collier Blvd (~R ~.51) ~g~t~.9.!~.l!ll!~.~na\<,E?ilj,i!m:!~q..{y.B;~,R~J:::~:i;;;'~;'~:F'::';:;;:?~,t~X ~:,."(~,:?6,5~~ .,,,'. ~U.1.? 27.9.28,' 31,462 12.65_Yo '557 Q' ColiiriH31t'd~(CR'9;51Y:;(;oih'6f\j'tf41'(SR'90)(T~';;;ia;:ni:T7~lif"'i;;;.:;:~;~:: -:. ',;' 29;346 :':>'''33,~22 :;.... '., 34:2-88' ;;:":':34;132' <:'- :35',556 ..... ""',f.11% 555 Q Collier Blvd (SR 951) east of Bald Eagle Dr (CR 953) 16,504 19,446 18,995 18,914 20,627 9.06% 624 Q Collier Blvd (SR951)norlhofSan MarcoRd{CR92) 15,775 16,230 17,721 16,656 18,348 10.16% 708 S Collier Blvd (SR 951) north of Winterberry Dr 9,990 12,271 12,464 12,627 13,056 3.40% ~627.( j;.q~ G.9.lIl~r;~lyd.,(SR 951 ).south of Capri Blvd (CR;g52) ~::'i1',,,,-y~::,'r~.;;)~,':;r:"j;!,, W:.;,', 22,921 '('.';' "25;;3~9 ''<<'''',26;386 ':"');".'26;178 ,\V,. 1'027 ;814.', ". :6.25'~ 556 Q Collier Blvd (SR 951) south of Marco Bridge {Jolley Bridge} 22,422 25,689 26,493 26,271 27,743 5.60% 716 S Collier Blvd (SR 951) south of San Marco Rd (CR 92) 15.951 16,311 17,335 17.951 18.885 5.20% 710 S Collier Blvd (SR 951) south of Winlerberry Dr 10,655 10.192 10,818 11,160 11,035 -1.12'10 623 Q Collier Blvd (SR 951)wesl of Bald Eagle Dr{CR 953) 18.123 19,958 22,664 21,281 23,519 10.52% 520 Q County Barn Rd north of Rattlesnake Ham Rd {CR 864J _ 10.644 10,968 11,266 11,354 11,474 1.05'10 641 A County Barn Rd south of CC R&B FacHity 16,171 17,106 14,954 15,005 0 -100.000/. 519 Q County Barn Rd south of Davis Blvd (SR 84) 14.005 13,775 13.863 14,124 13,837 -2.03'10 559 Q Davis Blvd (SR 84) east of Airport Rd (CR31) 27,112 30.590 31,084 30,183 30.798 2.04'/0 558 Q Davis Blvd (SR 84) west of Airport Rd (CR 31) 28,532 33,665 33,104 32,686 33,942 3.84'10 601 Q Davis Blvd (SR 84) west of Collier Blvd (CR 951) 21,Q58 22,830 22,726 22,920 25,969 13.31% 560 0 Davis Blvd (SR 84) west of Radio Rd (CH 856) 11.763 13,747 14.122 14,200 14,965 5.39'10 538 Q Davis Blvd (SR 84) west of Santa Barbara Blvd 27,321 31,917 31,000 30,789 32,561 5.76% 638 A Desoto Blvd north of Golden Gate Blvd (CR 876) 929 846 1,180 1,365 1,585 16.12'10 639 A Desoto Blvd south of Golden Gate Blvd (CR 876) 927 1,854 1,139 1,522 2,039 33.97~. 704 S ElkCllm Circle east of Bald Eagle Dr (CR 953) 8,173 8,188 8,375 7,756 6,940 -10.53% 705 S Elkcam Circle west of Bald Eagle Dr (CR 953) 3,701 4,632 4.313 4,346 4,686 7.82'10 636 S Everglades Blvel north of Golden Gate Blvd (CR 876) 3.166 3,676 4,448 5,817 6,520 12.08% 635 S Everglades Blvd north of Oil Well Rei (CR 858) 1,882 2,585 3,105 3,974 5,328 34.06% 637 S Everglades Blvd south of Golden Gale Blvd (CR 876) 3,242 3.649 4,294 4,946 5.672 14.68% 549 Q First SI soulh (CR 846) south of Main St (SR 29) 11,687 11,943 12,855 12,945 12,866 -0.60% 531 Q Golden Gate Blvd (CR 876) easl of Collier Blvd (CR 951) 17,054 20,156 20,307 25,368 27,606 8.82% 652 Q Golden Gale Blvd (CR B76) east of Wilson Blvd 11,067 12,175 12.474 15,801 17,190 8.79% 653 A Golden Gate Blvd (CR 876) west of 13 Sl NW DISC. DISC DISC DISC 0 0.00% 678 Q Golden Gale Blvd (CR 876) west of Wilson Blvd 13,706 14,566 16,805 20,667 23,255 12.52% 508 Q Golden Gale Pkwy (CR 886) east of Airporl Rd (CR 31) 28,022 30.027 30,335 28,877 29,836 3,32% 691 Q Golden Gate Pkwy (CR 886) cast of Livingston Road (CR 881) 31,140 28,860 0-100,00'10 605 Q Golden Gale Pkwy (CR 886) east of Santa Barbara Blvd 26,988 29,870 30,785 31,042 29,124 -6.18'10 507 0 Golden Gate Pkwy (CR 886) west of Airport Rd (CR 31) 43,062 45,172 44.288 44,592 45,594 2.25% 510 Q Golden Gale Pkwy (CR 88B) west of Collier Blvd (CR 951) 16,851 18.377 16,467 18,640 19,145 2.71% 530 Q Goldon Gate Pkwy (CR 880) west of Goodletle Rd (CR 851) 25,993 22,441 22,112 23,119 21,677 .6.24% 509 Q Golden Gate Pkwy (CR 886) wesl of Santa Barbara Blvd 27,818 39.391 31,604 29,194 0 -100.00% 505 Q Goodlelle Rd (CR 851) north of 22nd Ave north 33,444 36,724 35,368 33,093 31,414 -5.08% 595' Q Goodlelle Rd (CR 851) north of Orange Blossom Dr 19.,20 22,349 20,522 0 0 0.00% 581' Q Goodlelle Rei (CR 851) norlh of Pine Ridge Rd (CR 896) 20,957 25,207 22,055 0 0 0.00% 569 Q Goodlelle Rd (CR 851) south of First Ave south 24.800 28,989 27,776 28,824 29,084 0.90% Page 3 . 8 of 22 41612005 Collier County Agenda Item No. 8A Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Counts September 29,2009 (Five Year History & Listed Alphabetically) Page 166 of 265 Sta. P Location 2000 ADT 2001 ADT 2002 ADT 2003 ADT 2004 ADT Chan, ""1 0 663 Q North 151h 51 (SR 29) norlh of Lake Trafford Rd (CR 890) 9,294 10,368 10,087 11,085 11,565 4.33% 683 Q North 15th 51 (SR 29) south of Lake Trafford Rd (CR 890) 17,213 16,965 16.969 17,574 16.525 .5.97% 662 Q North 15th 51 (SR 29) south of Monroe St DISC DISC DISC DISC 0 0,00% 590 Q North 1 st 5t north of Main St (SR 29) 7,113 8.133 7.408 7,304 7,977 9.21% 692 Q North Road west 01 Airport Road (CR 31) 2.857 2,474 2,916 17,85% 645 Q Oakes Blvd north of Vanderbilt Beach Rd (CR 862) 9,892 11,537 11 ,822 12,803 13,920 8.73% 682 Q Oakes Blvd soulh ollmmokalee Rd (CR 846) 9,088 10.954 11,241 11,598 11,953 3.05% 725 S Oil Well Rd (CR 858) easl of Big Cypress Elem Sch 4,383 4,246 5.340 6.692 6,119 -8.56% 724 S Oil Well Rd (CR 858) east of Immokalee Rd (CR 846) 5,950 6,390 6,667 8,124 9,096 11.97% 547 Q Old US 41 (CR 887) at Lee County Line 11.941 12,553 14,750 14,933 16,312 9.23% 647 Q Orange Blossom Dr east 01 Timberline Dr 7,247 8,287 9.348 9,074 9,646 6.31% 526 Q Pine Ridge Rd (CR 896) east of Airport Rd (CR 31) 46,311 53,113 51,966 51,986 53,913 3.71% 514" Q Pine Ridge Rd (CR 896) easl of Goodlelle Rd (CR 851) 50,4 83 53,993 50,Q35 50,867 0 -100.00% 535 Q Pine Ridge Rd (CR 896) east of Logan Blvd (Santa Barbara) 16,554 18,329 19,517 21,625 23,481 8.59% 512" Q Pine Ridge Rd (CR 896) east 01 US 41 (SR 45). (Tamiami Tr) 35,016 38,562 35,446 43,429 37,603 -13.41 % 515 Q Pine Ridge Rd (CR 896) west 01 Airport Rd {CR 31} 44.735 45,988 44,655 45,664 48,034 5.19% 600 Q Pine Ridge Rd (CR 896) wes! of Logan Blvd 31,027 35,028 37,164 39,563 41,965 6.07% 634 A Plantation Parkway oast 01 CR 29 622 627 596 642 730 13.71% 544 Q Radio Rd (CR 856) east of Airpor! Rd (CR 31) 22.943 24,112 22,527 23,677 25,538 7.86% 589 Q Radio Rd (CR 856) east of Santa Barbara Blvd 13,261 15,321 15,851 15,443 17,599 13.96% 685 Q Radio Rd (CR 856) west of Davis Blvd (SR 84) 9,512 10,218 9,976 10,008 11',435 14.".....' 527 Q Radio Rd (CR 856) west of Santa Barbara Blvd 22,017 34,814 24,261 23,858 25,619 7. 688 Q Radio Road (CR 856) east of Livingston Road (CR 881) 26,163 28,593 32,238 12.75% 689 Q Radio Road (CR 8S6) west of Livingston Road (CR B81) 21,809 22,754 25,778 13.29% 651 Q Randall Blvd east of Immokalee Rd (CR 846) 5,520 5.181 6,077 7,135 7,882 10.46% 534 Q Rattlesnake Ham Rd (CR 864) east of County Barn Rd 13,065 14,294 15,717 14,537 15,586 7.21% 516 Q Rattlesnake Ham Rd (CR 864) east of US 41 (SR 90rramiami Tr) 13,103 15,920 15,682 16,703 17,509 4.82'10 518 Q Rattlesnake Ham Rd (CR 864) west of Collier Blvd (CR 951) 6.892 7,841 9.087 10,051 10,876 8.20% 517 Q Ralllesnake Ham Rd (CR 864) west 01 County Barn Rd 11.856 14,039 14.078 14,852 15,062 1.41% 719 S San Marco Dr (CR 92) east of Floral St 4,465 4,618 4,608 4,140 4,506 8.83'10 541 Q San Marco Rd (CR 92) easl of Collier Blvd (SR 951) 6.161 6,621 6.234 7,537 7,152 -5.10% 542 Q San Marco Rd (CR 92) west of Barfield Dr 9,263 9.900 10,167 9,752 12,080 23.88% 648 S Sanctuary R<I north of Immokalee Rd (CR 846) 777 849 644 721 745 3.33% 537 Q Santa Barbara Blvd north of Davis Blvd (CR 84) 17,746 19,826 20,531 20,111 19,821 .1.44% 529 Q Santa Barbara Blvd north of Golden Gale Pkwy (CR 886) 25,939 27.159 28.692 25,749 24,146 -6.22% 606 Q Santa Barbara Blvd north of Radio f'{c! (CR 856) 28.300 31,052 27,605 27,194 27,692 1.83% 528 Q Santa B<Jrbara Blvd south of Golden Gate Pkwy (CR 8B6) 31,815 32.954 30,260 28,914 28,471 -1.53% 511" Q Sea gate Dr west of US 41 (SR 45) (Tamiami Trail) 14.831 17,127 16,848 16,930 16,200 -4.31% 720 S Shadowlawn Dr north of Davis Blvd (SR 84) 4,739 4,703 4,859 4,472 4,005 .10.43% 523 Q Shadowlawn Dr south of Davis Blvd (SR 84) 7,337 7.920 7.676 6,866 6,854 -0.17% 644 Q Thomasson Dr west of Lombardy Lane DISC DISC DISC DISC 0 0.00% 706 S Tigertail Ct west of Collier Blvd (SR 951) 2.570 2.447 2.473 2,587 2,756 6.112!L. Page 3 - 8 01 22 41612005 .~. ".-,. < ",....~ ,.-.......,..'""... ~ i U .. , , ,:I! .-"- .. Ii .. .'S3IIiI$ .. " 0 J: .. .. ~ :z L!l HH .. !!H!! H ~:f ~~ g . . , 5 H .. .. -2!-tIJ . . ~ ~ lil, L: Hi H =!'!U~ Agenda Item No. 8A .... September 29,2009 :; ;!!iHn Hf~ ~ Page 167 of 265 ;~a:nlS1 .. .... !! ;$;t~::! 1 .. .. l! *:;llS:~ H - .... ~ . 6 ::!: ~ S!: :: g ~:! j ;e~~~~ I- J U ..5 lllnlll ~1!6 L'l o Q Q :: ~ ~:!to~ 1 .. s }~ %~2; " ~:!l~~ ~~~.s :!.::::!:e ::a Lei ll.~ ~ l!l = ;<: ~ !:! l:! i .!C Il ~!!!H q l ~ :: ":!l:l::!: < {"I - ... ~j l .. u s p~a ]'10 55~S :!ifltE S~a! l; -12 n I.. > ~ ~ is a oS L ~ I rd :;!,,~q ti%~% ..".. ~tht i ~ s~s::; ~ ii" = ~%! i t = .... i 1 a 'g - - H z ;; i " u g j 00 00 ~ . ! :0 g: '5 jj ~ i ,. ;v 5 H n "'~ ~ i P IL H i1 ..all H j it it ;ltqi . .. ~ ~ ! .. l "..>;; :> . . .. . .. ~ i 1 A: i ~ . '& ~ % -: ~:z ..: ,d z H 1 J I ! h gu 3 III i & i ;;~ ,,! ::: !: :i ] II .i Agenda Item No. 8A September 29,2009 TIPS Internal Capture Site Worksheet Page 168 of 265 Site Information - Name of Development Taormina Reserve Name of Applicant Cadenhead Construction Name of Analyst SM Date 08/0812006 Development Phase Buildout Analysis Year 2011 . lTE Code: 210 Land Type: Single-Family Detached Housing #Units: 152 Independent Variable: dwelling units Internal Capture Max Rate from Methodology Meeting: 25% Trip Distribution: Exiting: Entering: Total: Single-Family - - - Residential 0 0 0 - General Office 0 2 2 Shopping Center 14 24 38 -------~---_._-~-_.-.~_._--_._....._._- Internal Demand Actual Rate: 26% Total Internal Trips: 14 26 40 ------~~- ...------------~.~.-..-_._--------_.._------_._-_._---~..._--------_..._.__.~._---~~-_._--------_..- . ITE Code: 230 Land Type: Residential CondominiumfTownhouse #Units: 376 Independent Variable: dwelling units Internal Capture Max Rate from Methodology Meeting: 25% Trip Distribution: Exiting: Entering: Total: Single-Family 0 0 - Residential - General Office 0 1 1 Shopping Center 15 27 42 "-----.---.---- -----.-..--. Internal Demand Actual Rate: 24% Total Internal Trips: 15 28 43 - --- ~~____M..... ._----_._._....-~_._~._-- . ITE Code: 710 land Type: General Office Building #Units: 131000 Independent Variable: sq. feet gross floor area Internal Capture Max Rate from Methodology Meeting: 10% Trip Distribution: Exiting: Entering: Total: Single-Family 2 0 2 Residential 1 0 1 General Office Shopping Center 7 12 19 ___..______._._.__ ....n._..__~__. Internal Demand Actual Rate: 10% Total Internal Trips: 10 12 22 _.._.,._~~._____,___________._.._. .__._...~.._.___..______.____~.._._w~__~____"_._______......._~..._~..._._.~__..._~__._______._____._._______._~__..._~v_~~. .~.-.__.._.*.. . ITE Code: 820 land Type: Shopping Center #Units: 131000 Independent Variable: sq. feet gross leasable area Internal Capture Max Rate from Methodology Meeting: 13% Trip Distribution: Exiting: Entering: Total: Single-Family 24 14 38 Residential 27 15 General Office 12 7 Shopping Center ~...__.__.___.____n_h_ ___...._._._..__.n..___.. . .___....__._____..,.._. Internal Demand Actual Rate: 13% Total Internal Trips: 63 36 99 ...-....,...,----- . _.._... ...,..___.....,.__ .,.,'___'0.__.. ,........_........._.....,____._...u__...._.. __.*_. .__._ _...~..~_...__n._...*.__.__..,..__. __u____._.._.~_._.".._...__.,._._..._....__.nn._ -..---,..-----.--.... .,--.."". "~",,, <.....~-~.. Agenda Item No. 8A TOlallnlernal Capture: 16% Total Internal Trips; 1023eptemben6?9, 2009 204 Page 169 of 265 (0 indicates the land use was modified from the original rates.) ~ 0 Cl I I . .. ... ... ~ .!:: (/) (/) (j') (/) i'i) Cl Z I'z Z Z I ..... >. I I' ~~ 'I' ~ I ,.., ro I~ "'0... ' , ID II!} ,'<l' 110l i'<l' I _ ,... (") 10 0 .! li ,... ,"" IN ,(2; I,... I ~~ I,! I'" ...... I!. I I' I ~ '<l' !'<l' ,~ lID 'IN O '<l' I'<l' II'- IN Ol c: m ~ I' ... (") II) o c: ~ ' Ul Iii '0 ;' ii, Q......, m t: N 1'1- .<.0 1M iN I "i:, )( 0 - ,...... 0) tN N .~ I- W ~ ' (") II} 1 '0 . > () co ~ ~ ID '<l' 10 (") eF- t: ~ QJP N N ..- 'l""""" <0 ~ ~ ~ ,... 10ffi ~ () O(")NO>'<l' E III co _ Ul '<l' '<l' N 10> 0 ... ro -0.' N .E..... 0 .!!l 0 .! .;: I' I c: ffi II) iU I'- 01- 1 >.(/) ~ Cl ~ I- I ..... .0 I '5 '<l' II!} 0 1(") N I Q) ::: ... () c: 0"""""" I<D ~ Q) (II ~ '0 0"", .c: 0. >':x ~ alli!:l<.> (/) III 1lI ~ U._Glal t/) >. ~ Q) m "'" c:~~.c.E <D co N <D N ~ co 11 c.. ~ III .!.!l _ () N N ,... (") I~ '- lo~ '00. ~ ~ o ell ~ 0... ~ ~ :> J:..c::..c:: EGl ~ 0. '0 '5 '<l' It[) 0 1(") N I > c:) '5:J q; (j) ~.! 0 'C""" 1"- T"" j<O l~ Gl 0 0_ Q) Q) nltll I I 1 <.>(/)(/)O ~~Gl lD~ 'I I ~ :6- ~ ~ ~ ;:,:;:, g li g .E <D ~ N I(() ,N I "" <(...... ~ III 11I- .- N N ,... M 0 Eo 00 III coO ~c: ,... zz:x: ww> ()O E - '5 ~ 1m co 0> _ c: 0 L() L() ~ ~ .J 0"- M ~ o.~ .- ~ I I Q) ~Q) c: ~ m ro en ..... c: - Ol ,... C") I!} ._ cu -r- ('l') (/) C> ~ c I 8 ~ GlGl ~ 'g:O !!l '" Ul Ullll elnl ._:=: \lI) (/)(!l o.'C c: c: 0 0'" allll ;:)::l l5l l5l(1) '0> 0> ell ..... ......!l1 c: .s;.~ Q)Q) 3.l .0 - l l 1& ~ & ~I ~ '0 '0 (/)(1)Ul_ 'FS c "" o - _ m n N ID 10 0 S ;:) (1) L() I'- 0 '0 Ol Q) ~ ~,... (") 0 10 I 'I;: " (/) c: ... ... I 0 '-c :::l (")e<) Q) Q) 0 - I.... ,'" ~ ~ () .... I I ::: n:: '0 ID I I I E III III g ,,g .S..c:: N:> I' - i= C - 0 ! ,I '-' l:: Q) ~ '0 ... ' , ' Jg ~~~S2'5'" I'll '6 t-()(/)g;;co~ ! Q) 1115 '0 '1 ~ I '" Q) 00l I ' , '" ~ '5 I..c::~ i I ~ ..... ~ ro f::._ t: r- (i).~:::J \- I <l> ~ .... ~ 'g 0 I t:: ~ l.l!l I ~ c: tII co ~ Eo c: Q) "0 C g. ulll Cii.c -I '-E ,-.:2!E <3 I E ~ o _ >- 0. .(1) cO';:) - :;:: ~ ~ m ........ (1. d'E 'E-\- 19' 1(5 <lJ III Q) 0. s:; ~ ~ OJ .EI Q) 0 [!! "a' I> ~ E 0 <( <t E >- - Ul:2 '0 Q) In \- '" 0..... _....... C/) ~:Jcncc 0 ~ ~ .... 0 0 0 0.._ .- 0 Q) 01 Q) .= 0 'iii .E Q) (I) Q) ~ g!, (/) I n:: () 0 .(/) l- (.) (l)EEE$~iV Cl> 111 I '0 :t:lIllllllllllCl>r:: W'O .!:: (/) Z Z Z Cl Cl <( !:: 8 0 10 0 10 I I . N l~ It: ~ i '- Agenda Item No. 8A September 29,2009 Page 171 of 265 Figure 5.5 Shopping Center (820) Average Pass-By Trip Percentage vs: 1,000 Sq. Feet Gross Leasable Area Ona: Weekday, P.M. Peak Period Number of Studies: 100 Average 1,000 Sq. Feet GLA: 329 Data Plot 120 110 ~ . . . . '" . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . .. .'. . . . . . . . . . . . ". . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . .. . . ." .. . . . . 100 1 ' . . . , ';' . . . . . : ' , . . . ':' . . . . . :' . . . . . : . . . . . ':' . . , . . : . . . . . ';' . . . . . :' , , . . . : . . . . . ':' . . . . . ~ . . . I .. . I .. . . . <l> 90 -, ..... .:. x ' . . ~ . . . . , .:. . . . . . .:. . . . . . ~ . . - , . .:. . . . . . : . . . . , ':' . . . . . ':. ' . . . . : ' , . . . .:. , , . , . 0\ ~ C .. .~. .:......:..... .'...... ........,..... .'......:, -... .'. ........... ..'....,. .......- (l) 80 ~ I . . . . . .. . . . . (l) 0.. 0- 70 . . , . . . . . . . .. ~ . .. . '.' "x": .. . ...,' .. ... .,..... .:' .. .. .,......; . -....,' . . .. ..... . ...:... .. ....... . l- X >, en 6<l ' X;i"~"'~""" j' . . . . . 'i' . --~ . j' . .. . . 'i' . - . . . ! .. . . . . i' . . . . . 'j' . . . , . j' . .. , . 'j' . . . - . u, VI co 0.. OJ 50 . *^':: < . : . ~ . . .. . .; . r . . . . . [ . X. . > . . . . : . . . . . ... . . . . . : . . . . . :. . . . . . .. . . . . . O'l ~ <1l > "0 0<:( . . XX . x, . . . , . , . 11 X X . >><:. X . . I- ~ X : ' X . . x. . , . . X; 30 .. x..... -. - . . -." - - -x,.., .. -. -.... ..... ............. . . . . ,. .. ........ . ..'. . ... >< X X' X 'x x . . x 1 : x ~ . . . : xx, : x 20 - -.. . ':~"'x -;'" - . ':" .~X': K' ')(':" .>:x~.. -.; -: ... . ;'.....: x' .;...... . . x )(: x . 10 . . . . . ... . - . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . .. . . . .~: . . . . . -" - . . . . . - . . . . ... . . . . .~ . . . - . . . . . . . . '" . . . . . ':' 0 , I . I I . I , I . I I . I , I . I 0 100 ?O<I 300 400 500 600 700 600 000 1000 1100 1200 X = 1,000 Sq, Feel Gross Leasable Area X Actuol Dolo Points - Fitted Curvo Fitted Curve Equation: Ln(T) = .0.291 Ln(X) + 5.001 R2 = 0.37 Trip Generation Handbook Chapter 5 .. ITE 43 .. Agenda Item No. 8A September 29, 2009 --- Page 172 of 265 Table 7.1 Unconstrained Internal Capture Rates for Trip Origins within a Multi~Use Oevelopment WEEKDAY --'--~ p.m. PEAK HOUR MIDDAY rr:AK HOUn OF ADJACENT DAILY STREb, TRAFFIC from OFFICE to Office 2% 1% 2% ---.. to Retail 20% 23% 22% to Residential 0% 2% 2% from RETAIL to Office 3% 3% 3% - to Retail 29% 20% 30% to Residential 7% 12% 11% from RESIDENTIAL to Office N/A N/A N/A to Retail 34% 53% 38% ---- -- ----- to Residential N/A N/A N/A Table 7.2 Unconstrained Internal Capture Rates for Trip Destinations Within a Multi~Use Development r _.- -...- --- ...... to OFFICE from Office 6% 6% 2% from Retail 38% 31% 15% from Residential 0% 0% N/A to RETAIL from Office 4% 2% 4% from Retail 31% 20% 28% from Residential 5% 9% 9% -"'- to RESIDENTIAL frol11 Office 0% 2% 3% from Retail 37% 31% 33% from Residential N/A N/A N/A - -~- - - JU Caution: The estimated typical internal capture rates presented in this table rely directly on data collected at a limited number of multi-use siles in Florida. While ITE recognizes the limitations of these data, they represent the only known credible dala on multi-use internal capture rates and are provided as Illustrative of typical rates. If local data on internal capture rates by paired land uses can be obtained, the local data may be given preference. N1A-Not Available; logic indicates there is some interaction between these two land uses; however, the limited data sample on which this table is based did not record any interaction. t VW:>J. ~ 0 0 0 0 <! 0 0 0 ,...; 0 "< "": 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 r-.: 0'1 SU!!!!!,J al!w-au~l M C\J 0) II UO!~!PUO::> a 0 0 - a - - a a a a 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 a ] 1.O 0 0 t- ~ 0 C\J "- M 0'1 N '" .J;) "" .J;) .J;) M 0 <Xl ..;- t-- ..;- ..;- M '" '" ..;- ..t ...... O!~l!\l ::>'A t-. '" '" ~ 0- ~ ~ Vl -D '" ..;- M "" "" t-- co t-- '" "" Vl 0- j:::: 0 0 0 c:i 0 0 c:i c:i 0 0 0 0 0 0 c:i 0 c:i 4: :r u co 0 0 <Xl ..;- co co 0 0- N ..;- M 0 0 a "" '" - M "" t- lOA 1~~o.1. Vl t-- '" '" '" '" .... M M M "" <Xl N N 0- M ;;:; M <Xl 0 ~ M 0 0 <Xl M "" '" M '" 0- "" .... '<t 't '" t-- Vl <Xl Vl '" N N M N - - '" N - - - N N - - - - - - '"' c OJ U ... co 0 0 ex) ..,. <Xl 00 a 0- N ..,. M 0 0 0 '" '" j::;" M "" of> >IU1!g d!.I.l .. t-- 0 0 0- ;;:; 0 0 '" '" <Xl 0- N M M 0- '" "" "" M ILl "" .J;) '" '" Vl '" '" - - M N '" N '" - N - M Vl ~. 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1: 0 .. <Xl t-- t-- 0 "" N '" '" t-- VI "" '" '" 0- a '" '" '" '" "'0 lOA .lH >Id .l!O '" ..;- ..;- M 00 - - 0 0 '" M N N N M '" '" M '" '" c - - - M - - - N N - - - - - - - - '" .. Vi Vl a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a a 0 ^w)ede~ X\f.!!.:lS 0 -J) -J) '" a M M '" M <Xl 0 0 er- er- <0 .... '" M '" '" ..J M .... N -J) ..;- '" VI M '" er- 0 0 '" '" N N N er- a '" .. M .... N M N - - ..;- M - ..,. .... M M - M N C 'p ., ., '" .... ..;- :r '" '" N 0 0 0 0 -J) <Xl <Xl -J) "" ... .... 0 ..;- 0 0 '" ... t-. '" sal!w-au1!l '" '" - 0 '" ..;- 0 co '" "t- O'> 0 co '" co '" ..t vi '" -D ,...; ~ ,..; ~ -D vi o:i vi cx:i vi ~ ..t r-.: vi -D cx:i -D ., - ~ f ., p~s 501 c: II .. -' (900UOI:ILO) alq1!.1. uJ Cl Cl w 0 0 0 w w 0 0 Cl Cl 0 ] '" w w w W UJ UJ C 0 ., u 2as .bua.l.ln:luo::> t- ... OJ "- saU'l!l ,Jo # (900'UOf:ILO) iillq1!.1. '" ..,. .... "" ..;- N .... -J) '" .... '" -J) '" '" ..,. ..,. ..,. ..,. -D -D 2as A:>ua.l.ln:luo::> ..- (3"M'S"N) z z z ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Z Z Z Z Z z NOI.1.::>3\lIO " .... <Xl Vl Vl a 0 00 t-- ~ '" '" 0 '" 0 0 '" 6 co ~ "< M N G1:! '" ~ '" '" '" G1:! 0 '" -:: ~ M (!w) lj~2ual 0 0 0 0 0 ,...; ,...; ~ 0 ~ ...: ...: ...: t ~ ..; t .,; t > > iii iii iii c.. .. l! c.. ~ III c.. QI .. QI .. ~ .,; ... III .,; co .,; .. .,; ..; .. > co ..; of > ..0 > .. > l:: ..0 .,; III ,; t:l .. > .. iii > co ,; iii .. iii Cl .,; iii iii 0 III > Cl ~ > l:: iii It! CJ: .. tll .. l:: 0: .. ~ It! iii l:: iii l:: .. of> ~ " QI ~ .. QI 0 l:: .. bO .. .. .. 0 .. 0 ~ "" .;: '6 "" '6 .. l:: ... .;: "C '6 .~ "0 LI\ l:: "0 LI\ c: "0 "0 .. "0 ';: c "0 ,.. co .. .. ,.. .. ~ 0 to .. .. I- el Cl ~ 0 III 0: U ~ II) U Cl .J U :::i II) 0 el CJ: 0 t .,; ,; t -0 t > > > -ci iii iii iii -ci c.. CJ: l! ..; .. .,; c.. .,; .. c.. CJ: 2 E .. .. .. .,; .. c: .. a:: .. ,; .,; CJ: " .,; ~ :. > " 01 ..0 c: ..0 .. .. ,; l:: ..0 .. ... .. > > .. > "'0 iii Cl III .. ,; 0 .. bO Cl iii iii CJ: 0 co iii Cl .,; 1: c: t' 10 c: '" III "tl f .. III a:: ii: c .. I;'., ii: c .. .. c c: 0 .. C III 0 .. .. '" ~ 0 .. .. .. 0 OJ OJ "" VI " .. 'ti c '" .. "" .>t c.. C .. '" "0 :0 c: "0 c: "; LI\ c: "0 .. 'S: c '" a: ... .... 0 .. .. .... .. c .. 0 .. .. "0 co 0:: Cl Cl U ::; ii: C[ :J .. u. .!- V> a:: .!- III Cl 0 .J VI Cl Cl CJ: "' )( ..; .,; -0 .; t t t 0 > > > 0 ill iii ill '" 1 c.. c.. c.. ...; ti .,; ti .. E co .... I- .. .. ~ .. .. >< .,; ...; .,; .,; '" ... c: a:: .. co .. ... Z > > > > .,; .,; .,; .. .. t: C &'. .. ..0 of .0 c; iii iii iii iii > > > Cl Cl Cl .. -ci .,; ...; .. .. w ~ g .. .. .. :E 1: .. .. .. .. 'in Iii iii t: t: C ." "tJ CJ: CJ: a:: III 10 III ...1 ~ g .. ~ .. .. .. .. '" .. .. ii: ii: 0 0 0 .. .. Cl .;: .~ .;: "0 "tJ "" t: C .. .. 'ti :0 'ti '" '"' ~ ~ w "0 "0 '0 "0 .. .. '0 "0 0 .;: 'S: c t: t: t: C Vl U U U U 0 0 0 Cl Cl Cl :J :J ii: ii: ~ ~ .. .. .. .. -0 a: CJ: II) V> II) U ["""..-........-..-----.-.--------------- I ---- I -..- -. "-'. - --- -'. _'H'_'_ --- - i -- ..---..- I i I ; , " ~ , ~ N I 7. J~ ~v. If ~ . ,. ~ :z: ... t1J '" ,.... 0 z 0- n. i V> l{) [5 \ o ',~: g-;: -' : ~~:: co :z _. "".'. w ~~ .r t:t~::,::"; . .~' ,'" r'~~~;:; ....... / ~ ~~,:';;,' .;,~~ .' ....." .,. -,,' ....-' -. ;..," . ::.. :0~'; ",~::~O_;J ;~f ';:'~~;it~tZ~ " IW . ,," .. "~~,~~',,,I :j , .. . ...' I. _. ~;~;~~~~;fji _.._....' ' ~..'>~. _~ I I ~~!!\""'" .~~~,:li~f~,u,,;:.,i;\J)i,:.:~~~!~l~l; I I 8 ~. J'" ~U~~~ >c:. ~~ i~ ............ .. ~~.~~;;..'f;.: uJ f!l.! '. .::;.;::;.~.: ~'-; :B:W1IQl;l:C ....1->,. I ~ .- i '~, I ~ - .~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ., GOOOLEnHD " ;!' ; ! (' _~ !lil, Ji .. ,----~~. ,. , "' .. ...\ _ mdi!: ...._.. _. \} ~ t h <: l' ~. i . --- .. , .. ,.,," .... ... ... _ ..-=-_-----'" 0" d , ".1 .. " ............_...._. _ _. ~,<=-=J 0 i'J DO '11 : I ... . ~. . u'_,__"_' ~._..w_'. ..., _.-...... ---. -- ..........-...... .._ .___;L -- I 1 Agenda Item No. 8A September 29, 2009 """-lJ ....rc FIr r,f'rc I-I I I DRAFT I \ II SANT A BARBARA II BOULEV ARD EXTENSION II Davis Boulevard to Rattlesnake Hammock Road DESIGN TRAFFIC STUDY II II Prepared for: ,I. Agnoli, Barber~ and Brundage~ Inc. 7400 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 200 II Naples. Florida 34108 (239) 597-3111 II Prepared by: II Tindale-Oliver and Associates, Inc. 1000 North Ashley Drive, Suite 100 11 Tampa, Florida 33602 (813) 224-8862 11 'II II ,,1 , April 5, 2006 211006-00.06 11 j J Agenda Item No. 8A DRAFT September 29,2009 P",m, 17R nf 265 t 1 020 ~ at ~~. ~-" L 120 ~....c;. JjL -- '020 f I Davll Dou_ r310 4<O...J llr 6&0- t 3E<>, ~~~ J 1 ~i lL L 2. m.. EVftrett SIfM.I S ~ ~ Ii Ir ....! 2 en L20 I ] JIL -. ..,.. rJlJ Fuhlrollovtl:l_ ;t; Falling Walll.. ConnodJon. l~ --.J nll r l! 0- ""0 ! I 30, - - ~"'~ll IL L2. ., 13' Hollow Drive .. nlr .. i I ~::'^ JILl 0""0 - LIS -:-:"" CM. u.. I I 2', I nll r ~ ~~So I .. LIG HunlJngon Wood. Coodomlnlum. I ~ Ir R:!.n JIL L,~ ;Ifl Counn- RDOC! ! 25, llr ~ I ..,,,.. I ~ .. L. Shephenj or lho GIod.. I Luthemn Churt:h 11 '" I rr :"!~~~ L35 JILU -0 ~ *'" roo I WhitAIoJ, Road ~ \0 -.-.I llr ~ 0- ;@Z;5! .l! ", 1100 JILu L <90 ."" -.no j ~ r 130 RaWooneko Hamrnod< Road .., 310~ llr ~~.n L,o 210- , JIL -0 80, ;a~ ! RlWAI Wnnd Countv C'Ub r'O P"""Avcn'k1 "0-.-.1 nll r o- j 120, ~~~'" I / IW Tindale-Oliver FIGURE 4 '. & 2010 AM Forecasted \ Associates, Inc. I 1-,- ....:...- Planning and Engineering Turning Movement Volumes I ----. Tindale-Oliver alld Associates. Ine. Page II Santa Barbara Boulevard Erlensioll I 2/ /006 - April 5. 2006 Des(f?1I Tmffic SllIdy 1 Agenda Item No. 8A September 29, 2009 DRAFT Page 177 of 265 1 O~Q ~ .t ~...~ ~~... L 'JO wJ. JIL -eGO 1 Do"'" 80ukMltd r21>O 7"'~ llr ~e 1<440- ''''', I ~1~ 1 ~ IL L,o to III Evtlll1lrt Stl'Nt :l o a Ir la~" '" Leo -~ JIL -0 ,,~ , re~ Futuro OcMIlopmonl '" i foiling WI'''' Connoction ,~-.J nllr lQ 0- O~ 10, -" 1 II'I~~~ IL L 20 r'~ He_a.... :ll nlr I ~:2 JILj - o~o L,o ~~ "M"'~ .~, nllr ~ I W\'!J~Vl I L~ Huntfnl)Cll Wood. Condomlnlu.,. :!l Ir ':2:~ JIL L,e g~ CoonIN Rood '., llr ~ ~~u'\ I L~ Shophord of 1lH> GIodoo Luthol'lln Churd'l .. .., j I r e~~fJ LJ~ JILU -0 t! ~~ r1>O ~ :l WlIiIake< Rood 20-.J llr $ ~~~'" ~ 0- L &20 20, 000 JILU ~~1f1 -:><<I r90 Ranloono", Hemmock Rold ~o ~10-.J llr ~~.. Llo 300- -0>- JjL -0 80, ~O'" r~ ~o ~"'" R~.' WOOO Co._ Cklb POBv Avonuo 100 ---.J nllr 0- oo, "'8g~ -" ~ :<,fYol; "iJ. W Tindale-Olim FIGURE 5 1 & 2010 PM Forecasted \ Associates, Inc. I 'PliRnning Jtnd EngJneering Turning Movement Volumes ~ Tindale-O/iver (Jnd Associates, Inc. Page 12 Soma Barbara Boulevard Extensiol/ 2/1006 - April 5,2006 Design Traffic Stlldy I Agenda Item No. 8A ! September 29, 2009 \ Page 178 of 265 iJ Intersection: Rattlesnake Hammock Road at 51. Andrews Boulevard (Cars) Date: February 14, 2006 I Source: Tindale-Oliver and Associates (TM & SA) II Norlllbound Soull\IJound Eastbound Westbound ~ TOTAL LT T rn I.T T Rl LT T RT II 3:00.3:15 33 6 12 1 1 4 7 80 37 23 87 6 297 3:15. 3:30 34 2 21 4 10 22 5 06 22 15 76 4 301 I - 3:30.3:45 19 2 12 9 0 12 5 82 30 20 90 3 284 II 3:45. 4:00 30 1 15 3 2 7 8 96 28 20 98 4 312 4:00.4:15 26 2 19 5 2 4 13 90 21 26 95 6 311 , 4:15.4:30 30 3 25 2 0 8 7 92 27 29 107 6 336 II 4:30.4:45 33 3 22 1 2 7 5 114 19 35 112 6 359 4:45 . 5:00 27 3 16 1 3 5 8 BO 19 30 114 4 310 , ., 5:00. 5;15 30 0 . 26 6 0 7 12 106 25 21 125 6 366 11 5:15.5:30 29 2 18 5 4 9 25 98 19 39 119 4 371 5:30.5:45 23 1 16 5 0 7 13 lIS 23 39 110 2 362 5:45 . 6:00 29 3 24 4 . 3 4 13 127 23 16 109 4 361 I) PM PEAK HOUR 5:00 . 6:00 11 I PEAK HOUR 0.98 I FACTOR J Peak Season Adjustment Factor: 1.01 PM PEAK HOUR _0 q PEAK SEASON , I I I I 11 I i I j I l') 8-8 \~~". .:;:~":, ~:~)~-;>;~~t~;:~ ;,:.. ,:I;~1~1,~ii:zl~.;,\~; {'J~{~:"~\':~;)~ t::~,~/ '-:'~" ~;(\~ :;h?~\:~~~4,~tf~~?~~~k0~~'1~.i~j.~; ~' "!':;'~~:;~~&1f>'~'?),~\~~~~~,.~~:yp:.@:~~~~~;~,t\,,;x:<f -;?~~:g> '~r~~Y i~~ ~hJ~{i'\~f:',~-,,: ~'~~>.:'~';,;~"~:/ (\ "~~}, .': ,~f II Agenda Item No. 8A September 29,2009 Il Page 179 of 265 11 Intersection: Santa Barbra Boulevard at Davis Boulevard (Cars) Date: February 15, 2006 Source: Tindale-Oliver and Associates (TM & SA) J I Notlhbound Soulhbound Eastbound Weslbound TOTAl LT T RT LT T RT LT T RT l T ,. RT I \ 3:00.3:15 0 0 0 52 0 184 192 167 0 0 137 19 751 3:15.3:30 0 0 0 60 0 187 232 1'/4 0 0 12<\ Hi 796 3:30 . 3:45 0 0 0 52 0 170 196 166 0 0 164 16 764 1 1 3:45. 4:00 0 0 0 50 0 157 205 162 0 0 139 17 ~30 4:00. <\:15 0 0 0 50 0 223 170 145 0 0 126 16 730 4:15. 4:30 0 0 0 36 0 179 235 194 0 0 147 20 8/1 , \ 4:30.4:45 0 0 0 59 0 235 196 182 0 0 129 15 818 4:45. 5:00 0 0 0 54 0 207 218 180 0 0 142 11 8f2 ,. 5:00.5:15 0 0 0 50 0 234 238 242 0 0 164 31 959 , I 5:15. 5:30 0 0 0 55 0 196 230 245 0 0 153 23 902 5:30. 5:45 0 0 0 46. D 195 251 261 0 0 130 21 904 5:45.6:00 0 0 0 68 0 168 204 206 0 0 144 22 812 I ( PM PEAK HOUR 0 0 4:45. 6:4[1 I I I PEN< HOUR 0.93 FACTOR I I PEN< SEASON I ! 1'1 1 \ I 1 t: t I.! f'/ [1 B .17 _. -.......... -' -.. ... T I { DRAFr Agenda Item No. 8A September 29, 2009 f I rd!:l~ IOU vI z65 II 11 II f 1 Table 4. Santa Barbara Boulevard at Rattlesnake Hammock Road Turn Lane Design 2010 2030 Approach Lane Number Length Number Length f1 of Lanes (feet) of Lanes (feet) Left- Turn 2 485 3 610 If Southbound Right-Turn 1 460 2 485 Len. Turn 2 310 3 660 Eastbound II Right-Turn 0 o/a 0 nla Left-Turn 1 310 1 510 Westbound Right- Turn 1 460 2 1060 I "The above values do not include tapers. - I I ! . -, :- Tindale-O/iver and Associates, iI/C. Page J 7 San/a Barbara Boulevard Extension 2JJOO6-Apri/5.2006 Design Traffic SUldy 81 . _n.'_, ~ ~~~~~<<~<~~~<<<~<~ 01 v, c' I "-' V. '-^ - r- i:i o-o-r--,o-O-O-'O''OC\-OOC\.....,OM'OOO ~ 6~~~q~~~~~q~~~~~~~ ~ _MN~'O~C\OO\OM~OOOOOO-~-- u co ro Co. ~ ~1L:..~~~~~~~~~~~<~~~<~ o ....., _M___V""i______("I')___-c:;tr") ('f") (,J ('f"'._MC""')("i')rr~r",r.f)r~C'""")Mf"lI~rrl("'t')M-Oo:::t Q ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~;:~~~g;; ~IL:..~~~L:..~~~~~L:..L:..<~~~<~ ~ i:i ~ (..... t- ~ t~ 00 ~ ~ 1- [~. ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ 00 0 ~ ~~C\~~~~~~N~~~N~~~~N ~ =~===~======~===~~ ~UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU f- ~~ ~:$' 00000000000000000-0 I 0 OOOOOOOOO~OOO\OC .J ~ 80~cV)oc""',O~00MO-0~C ~ ~ If)~N-~~M~o-OMN-~NNC- f- N ~~M~-~MM~\ON-MN~ N ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ C ~ 0 0000 OCOCNO 0000 ~CCCCCOOOOCOOMOOO-O ........ <lJ 0 If) 0 V'I V) t/) t/) 0 0 'r; 0 0 N '0 0 V1 - 0 '0 ~ - ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~q~66 B 0. Q N--NN-N~N--NC"",-\O--N cr. ~ ~8 c:.,l - -;z::z ,,' '7 '7;Z , ,-/ '" '" '7'Z '7 ,,' ,., f2 ~ ~ ->.... -. .....Hrr-.'- _~~,c_...I-t~;::.... __U.JF-~UJ~ 6 c.,~ 5=:= c J28~ , C':I .2 t: ' )~ ~ 0 0000 0000\00 C(")O ;:::J II ~ ~ ~ ooooooooocoo~ooo~o >0 ~ ~OIf)Ot/)OIf)V)ooOOO-OOIf)MO II?,C :;..::' Q ~,M<"!~'~r-.:vl"S,vl0r-.."06~--;.vl6~ X ~ ~..C; N - .-- N N - N \Co N - - N !"'f"'1 - \0 -- ,....... N ..."'3 tr ~ 8~X 1 .. . Q) .... 0 .::: )..... ~ u ;::J ;~~ ~'O~ ~ E '0 .~ 0 . ~. .... ' 0 .- 0) r.> F: ~ ,"9 . n ~ ~ :~ ~ n Q ':::1 .;.r~:19 c .VI .. ~ = (..!.l ... II ~ V) .... ~ ....... ::eM 00 ~~C/) ~ ZM M ~ ~6li o ulf) If) r') U '0 'C <lJ = N N \0 If) ~ U t:Co.~ ~ ~uO ~ U 11"', 8 n c; U~~ U Uo-OOU _ . Q~.c O-U>U U V)V)u 0 0 C/) ~ ~~?u ~1f)V) \Oooou II U ~V)_~ ~U~M u~ C/)~II UUM~~ C/) >uuo- uu~~ -u~ UU ~...J e::: ~f.l.l ~ e:::f.l.l ~Z ~ ~ u>~ ~-~ Uf-(..!.l~-oV) ~o f.l.l...J ~~~ o<OU ~~ ~u ...J~ m.9u r-80u~u~~0~~~ ~ou ~g~ f.l.l ~ ~uQ~<~(..!.l~ ci -;::J~ N~>~ U ~<oo~~-~> .~~3 C\C\~OO~ 0 ~o~~...Ju~<, ~~o ~ ... 00 . 00 ~ ...... ~ pz 0. ~ ..... Ii .- ~ u~Q~~ ~ ~~f-~8~~<~ ~~~ ...JUoo-V'\\O~~e:::o . C/)m~ t1. ~~<~~~~~~oo~~~~~~ MOd ~r-~ou~;~?~~~~~o<<~ g~n ~~~~~~~UZ_-~~~f-~~o- ~.o Wi.J,.l~ .o~o~ "<~ooUi.J,.l(/.)<O~ (..!.lU > > Q ~ ~ 0 0 ....... - ,,> < '-' "" U .... ... ~?(..!.l< e:::L:.. <-Me:::-~W~""" ~D~ "" ;::::r:::~Ocl~ '~or',.JCI)O '::r:;z.(..!.l~ ~ ;:;1",- cy - ~r--.J.JL:..Q~ ~......~zo~<>o ~reuU ~ e:::e:::~--o<w~uuo_>~~(..!.l ~~Eb ..:l OOOf-f- o>r-. L:.. ..,.....J L:..~~ 0 .2r.t , zZ~~~~.J?~o~o~~mooo~ ~II 0 - --~OOf-"""=o ~t/) ~ (..!.l w>u o ....:......:. 'p."p-';:::J(..!.l~~~~e:::o~......:~i5::::: ::....11 x u Ic~~o~~oO~e:::~~Ovl>~~~' ~~< =C/)V)~--(/.)co-< Z~<(/.)h~V'\ ~- II , ;::;;:J~<< ..-~<f.l.l~ "~e~:$ ,~ ~ 5-':':~ I .- ...... -.... ~..... - ~ .. ~. ,. ~ - ........ z:::: . ~ t::::' <:.> ro ~oob--~,.,~-~~V'\M~O~~M ~Eo3~ UC\o-......MM~-~~OOooo-~ooC\oo~C\ FUu~ ~ ~e:::9~~e:::~e:::~~e:::~~~e:::~~e::: ~ ,< t ) Cl C1lC/)ZUU(/')~~U(/')~(/')~~if;~~(/') C.J Ul. Ii < f- <II .. c;81 II Vi .. < ;>. ;;;::1 P-. P-. c... c... c... ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ c... c... 1- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ !- :;p ~ .. ~) ,.... ~ w:: u: ch x=:: "'1 p.!- - ~ ~ ~~~NM~~OO~\Oooo-~~V)-o b~~~ o ~O-~lNN'n~r-~~~~~~~~~o u~~ r, _ooooO-------____MO -<2; '-' (f; 00000000000000000<'1 V3<: r- r ~ ~ '<"l \0 0 f-V) r<') - '<t '" , ,... 0 r<') .,.., 00 CfJ ..... . 0\ .' ro <:'<t r<') . 0\ A.. <'<t - N _ t.:> ...l< < < < I ~~ 0\ r--.. \0 I - . g- 0'\ l/") V') ~ Or---: -ci v1 r-"'l ~l : V) V\ V) V) - 0 - ! 00\.,.., '<t r--.. V', i _\0 00 r--.. r--.. 0 :t~ 0\ N c.; - . - .r--.. r-- r-- 0\ r--.. I 00\ '<t N M ~ ~c.; 0 ~ 0 ~ ~ ....... - - - , . r--..r--..r-- 000\ r--O\V) M"l"N r--.. ';~~c:: C::~~ oqoqOC! ~~~ ~ _ (/J-......- ......-0 000 000 0 I --- 0\0\0\ '<t\OM M......N N 'C 0\ 0\ 0\ 00 00 00 0\ 0\ 0\ 0\ 0\ 0\ 0\ ,. l.t.000 000 000 000 0 1- t:: ,g~~~ gg;g S::~ gg::g ~ o r-OOO -.,.;.0.....: .....:.....:.....: ""':0""': - " ~ ~ ~ ~ ^" '0 '<t '<t '<!' 0\ 0\ 0\ V) \0 V"l -...... N N S Jo'o< .'" 0\ 0\ 0\ 0\ 0\ 0\ - - - 0 0 0 0 ..... I ,> ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - - .....:.....:.....: ...... _~' e'<l ::: "S '" '<t '<t '<t 0 0\ 0 00 \0 - '<t '<t '<t '<t ,!, c:; (l.) .... ::10\0\0\ 00\0 --N 000 0 c t::~ C 1-000 ""':0""': .....:.....:.....: --_ _ 0 9<<-< == II -0 10 r/) C\O\O\O --...... r--..'<to f"-.\Or--.. M ;:;. '" eC\C\O\ 000 00- 000 0 ..... "Cl t...I') ... ~ . . . . .. . ::l- ..~ ;::) ~. 0 0 0 - - ~ - - - ....... - - - u - ...- 0 .... x _.~ "'''' ~ <:.J. 0...... "'" V"l'<tV', \0\0\0 -ON \OVif"-. C\ ., OJ '0 . ;:g ~ 5~r~~~ --- ~~~ ~~~ ~ 0 ;~ IV) ell (/J--- --- 000 --- ...... OJ ><= gu ~ ~ i:.'",p I.. f . ro C<:l ., 0. t:: .s OJ '<t '<t '<t '<t V'l '<t M r<"1 '<t \0 r--.. \0 N '; CJ 0 U "'0\0\0\ 0\0\0\ 000 --- c; ..... :>- I. 5} c: Q 000 000 --..... --- - (/J '0 ~ ~ j:;r;. II 51::: ro ~ '0 Vl \0 000\ 0\0\0\ (/J 1)- l:: r=: ~ 0 0\ 0\ 0\ 0 0 0\ 0 0 0 0 0 0 c:: ., ~!! 51 S Z,OOO ""':""':0 .....:.....:.....: .....:.....:.....: - ~ c:.:=: ~ :I >- ~; I '0 t:Mr"l'<t '<"l\OVl r--..\OCO OOr--..OO ~ L. o'c;j o ~ c:: c:: ~ ~ c:: -...... - ~ ~ ~ ' .5? .~ Q ~ --- --- --- --- ....... J- ...... A.. Vl ~ "<::t 0.0\0\0\ V'l\OVl 00\00 VlM\O r--.. II "';t o ., - - - ..... - - ~ ~ '0 "! "! ~ "! p. 'r:" 0. (/) ...... ,...... ~ ...- -....... - -.-- ..................... -- .*' 0 ~ I N .....~ b1J0l bJ;r--..OO\O '<tVl'<t r--..r-r- N-N V'l ~~ ~ C' ::l~~-: ~-- --~ .-. >U ~ 0 -<C--- --- __T"'""t ............._ _ ~_ UQI) II '" ..., _ '<tVO'<!' 000\ \11.,..,\0 '<tM'<t \0 : c 2", "I' ::l -:-:-: NN..... ~~~ ~~~ 0 ;::,g ~ '" ~. ~--- -.....- 000000 ..... ~ l.t.Ji ::1 ., ~ :::M'<tr<"1 --- r--..\Or-- oor--..O\ r--.. 1;;t>.. E OJ ~--- --- ~~c: 0:0:0; ~ ~~ =,t; ~ - - - -.............. - -.- 0 0 0 - b.:).!a 0:; II Q ;> ~ I ;.. V) \0 V) N - N 0\ 0\ 0\ '<t '<t V) 00 . II 11>" <'l000 0\0\0\ 0\0\0\ 0\0\0\ 0\ W .c () ~.....:.....:.....: 000 000 cioo 0 - Q .....2 Ltl bt. .8 Q M......N 0\0\0 NNN ('-\Or--.. 0 .c::_ "'~ ...... ~ 0\ 0\ '" 00 00 '" '" '" 0\ 00 00 00 ~ :; Cl :; iii I ~ -< ci 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ,~;. ~ ~ r:: ... V',V',V') 001"'-0\ 0\000 000 r"l I(~ '"' '" :z. .:. ~~~ oc;~CX; c-:oqr--: ~~~ ~ en <OJ S ~ :::> o'!;ooo 000 000 000 0 .. E "0:> o :> ~-;;; U .oV)'<tv) 0\000 000\ -NO \D .c::- :>' J OJ 000000 00000\ 0000r- 0\0\0\ 00 t:: 0 '" 0 , fY. l.t.000 000000000 0 0> .-...., Ltl Zll "'Q :i ::: r~. M N r--.. \0 r--.. '<t V) '<t r--.. 0\ .",. 00 'I t>.. ~-o :0 ...J l'I C;O;C; ~~~ O;~~ c::~c; ~ .; _ v lii ::i 0 '"'>000000 000 --- 0 Zl'I "'0 I U . E .~::; >< .c-< ,- g W c H ;:- 8 I... ~ -< "t.. , oo:lt.W2= o:lZ{/.) cnt.Lli:!; cn:z.Ul II;..; i:ii= b~ '" I .... '<t '<!' '<t <<; l"'" r"l 0 0 0 \0 \0 \D .. fCI ~ '0:> .... '" 0\ 0\ '" ""'"<t '<1' r-- r-- r--.. \D \0 \D C \.<.. ::: t: fc c;; g g g ;:;;;;:; 8 8 8 g g 8 g'J) ~. _ r: <I ':' .E 0 ,......1 r') r-') M r"i f"f', r"l r"'l r'l V") VI V"'l ~ ~ P ,::J ":::'J .. '" Uoee 000 DOC --- '" e::2 t: c: ~ U U Z: 00 ill 0 o ~ ~ ~ o NrnMM~ N oomo~~ ~ (/) ~ mN~ill~ ~ ~2~~~ ~ 5 ill ~~~~~ ~ ~~~~~ ~ ~ o o/l o ~8~~!~=i ~~~~8~'~~ ~ ",a-.COCDCD~O"" O"~~=~~::C/'oc~ en ~ ' ~ ~ w ~ 3 o U ~~M~~~~~OO~~ ~~~~~~~~~* ~ ~ _ ~ ~ ~ m m ~ ~ M ~ ~ ~ ~ - - - - ~ ~ 00 c: :;) ~ l/l ro 2 ~ W~O MO~~~* MOON~~=MNNM 6 ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N N 0 ~ ~ N - - - ~ N ~ M ~ ~ (/) 5~ - 0'0 N ~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~:~~~~ ~o~=~ill~8~g* ~~ro~~.~M~* ~ M ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ro m ill - ~ ~ ~ V N ~ "0 c: :;) 22~~~Nm~ M ~~~~~~=~~ ~ :S~..cMco~,...~ill~C:O* MNOl....r--r--II'l'<t-* ~ O~----N~roM~~ M~NM~NNN-~ o Z I : (/) ~ - ~ ~l Ol E ~ Q ~~ ..c _illM=* ro~'<t~II'>CO~ro~~ ,f: U) 0:: "" 0. _ co f'.,. or- .,- ,.- "" CD .,- .,.- N - ~ M f"oI or- 0.. M c: o N M en en o ro ~ II'> ON~II'>~ ~o..c M~ ~* ~~~~~_N"-N~M- ~~m__M_~~M :;) o .0 (i) ~ :;) * ~EM..cO~MOM~M* orov~II'>-~~NO : ~ N _ _ _ N ~ ~ M ~ ~ M ~ N N - ~ - ~ ~ - o > ~ en (/) 5 E ~ <9M~ ~ Oro~M~ M~~~~-O-~ o oc _ - ~ - Ol '<t N N ~ - M N M .... - .... .... ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ w 0 ~ _ _ ~ 0 ~ N - co ~ co ~ - M ~ .... N 0 ~ ~ N N ~ M ~ ~ ID ~ - - N M ~ M N N M N - - "0 c: ;:l E2..c-o....co~N~~~ _~Olll'l~~....~~ z Z .... 0 ~ _ ~ ro ro ~ 0 ~ co '<t ro M M M II'> N ..c * ~ r M M N N N N N N - - ~ N ~ N N N N N ~ ~ l{) 0 '<t 0 00 co(/) ~ ,;.: ~ J. "E (3 ~_ c :j ~ ~MlI':l""~ c.Q['t) N~ ('I')-VoOU"l-NO'l:;t ::> o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C MOO ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ M N N ~ 0 o ~~ ~ - - N - ~ ~ ~ m ~ - m ~ ~ - - - - ~ ~ 00 U c E _~ i c Q) $~~<\:lE 111> "6> Q) E O<\:l-OZ_~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~ ~ E g: 1-0Q)~<l:<l:~<l:<l:<!<l:<l:~ to !l..!l..o..ll..ll..Q.Q.o..~ '" ~ o ~~$~~g~g~8~g~~~ 8~g~g~~~ ~ 0 ~ U5w(i)ii)i/5':':':':':':':':cocococo<l:* ';":';":';":"'';;';;';;.n~* ~ E E ro ro ~ ~ (/) ~ Z 0:: :::J 1-, :2 a '" ';> ro 0 E' .- i: I ro 0 .r: .::: ~ III .. .r: ., '" ;;: I- ...J C :> Ii 0 01 ~D ~ u 8~ N ~I M . ~; ., N ~ ~: " '" " ex: N " q .- co M .::: ... .:. 'E '" " -c .. '" ...J ... ;;: '- 0 ; Z co ~ii I- \,:OdQ;l"(t\ T"fT't?'l* ;'~,1"1;: CC~ '0 J: ~, ,..(iiN=ts.' c Q. ii OJ :> lJ ::> 0 II) -c " OJ '- .. ll. M ... I~ i! 'E .:. 00 ... .r: I- ,;,: 0 """ l- i; Cl.. lJ <; IG '" ,-of.....):..... :;&l~1:~ III N l! ,,,:/ N .- 0 .::: II~! C" .~,.~H~ ~ .l: M T"'l:f.""'''!"''l :.'; N ,j~ * ~N .. co ., ;;: N ...J II ~i"" ,l " I; .~. ~: e. ~O ~ ~< ,,:.. 1..011 N ~ ~ M l,-4T'\'l'"'I '~:I *~(\;~ ....,.. t'.. ...,~j)'__'~"_'A '" M _...........~-,...._.. ..~':I";i ("('I " ~t ~.~f;~ ;.~'. I ~.;~~~ t::: :. .r:. '" ,~; fl ~ '" .::: 2 '" '"' .<: ~~ MMM("t) 0 0 " - .. .:. .!!O M 5 ~ e.: ...J l- e.: ~ Wt 0 " .- Cl ;;J :> .~ {, :c $.Ii o I- ~l~ ~ '" '"' ::> "" - 0 .<: ... .::: 0 0 ~ .!lP F ., N e.: ...J l ~ '" I- 0,0 0 O~ 1 0 Q 0 ~ N _. '- o ~ v lltO \,0 o ... -c -c -c co " '"' to.. -q- - M ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 .D ~ .c ." ..... - ... 'p E "" N - ... - N "" 13 :J ...J a; In Z ..... '0 J: c '" c: M ... :> ll. '" ... " e III ..,. i: ... ll. 0 .c 00 - .l: IX: I- ,;,: 0 ..,. l- v 0 .... ::::l OJ M 0 III N .... J: ., ::.:: 0 0 000 o 0 "" 0 ... .. 'tl '0 M -C..."" ... .... '" ... " E " ,. <l: .::: >.t) ...... - l.J'\ ...... LI') ...0 M ... " "0 "0 0 0 w " N - ... - N'" ., Z ... l.- e<: t:(. ...J .c " ~ tl.. -" C ~ C C '" .. ... '- 1: u 0 :; '3 ~ ,. !: IE 'p ,g 0 <0 tl.. ", ~D D D" ill ~I 0- ,. lJ co a- ~ Z OJ ~l 2 .= e( ~ '" c: c: ~ '- I.- .S' " ::> " O- s '" s ~l ~ ..?::- ,. ,. 0 0 II) <:> c ;B c 0 0 u u <( N VI ;g - LU UJ ili ., II) ... '" E .. .l: ::.:: IX:I .::: 2 .l: X ~ w .c '" .<: .. to '" .- w e <( <( ...J I- a; 01 Z ~ " '" " 0 w w ~ " 0 LU VI Z tl.. >- (/) 1=1 Ol c <D 'c 0 .0-- 0 "'I <3 ~ '- ~ <<l ~ ~ :z 0:: :J "'"I ::2 < III '5 (\) Cl I " ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 io.E..JOJ _ c a: "'" '" 8 ~ 0 ~ 8~ VI ....... ~l M '" II) r-.; ~ M (: ~~ ~ ~ '0 OJ a: '" .E ~ ~ ~ t E ~ ..J '" ~ '" 0 o '" l- 1$ \.--') ... 11>'" "t) :t .., j ~ ~~~ t . g ~ ~ 2 f~ ~ 2 .~ ~ ~o ~ ~ a.. ~ ;; (!;! ~~)1$;' III .... LIi N N M 'If! ... co ~ l: \I) ~ ,', M nt..-i'r'l 'I"'i c..::i:lS..-{ ~ 0 OJ 2 ~ ~ '" 0 ~ 8:;. ~ .~..~ '" ~. .... oII_ @ = ~ N K~if~ ; wI "'I l!il1L: . x: ~ '" l'- ...... t'o-ii$)Xt,.., ~ c:: 1):1:': C"\ ..c: w,~ tn ocr-- ~ OJ ~ IV tel ~ 2 ~ =~ ~ C'I'a"",Mm ~~ Ln~lS''I-l ~ 0 ~ ... (II .s::..2:0 f'o i:">!':~;; f9.~ Cl ,'i; a: ..J I- a: It:,: .. ':'~ v ~ ~v ;1\-, ., " ~ l~ ~ fa.. g~ I~~ a 85 !~~~ '" ..~ ,,,,,., .." ~ <> ... ~.~ 0 0~ o~ &.I :J ~~,~'\ .~* _ 0 ~ L. ~ :'!f,R .... 1 It:: 'f o <( .- L..J -t",.~. ~ x N <: o! ~ '"".1. - O 0 Dg, '" "'" '" o 0 ... ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ N ~ 0 0 M ~ ~ 5~ ~ i: ~~~g :1;tt~g '~g 3 ~ - -M __M V) :z '" "OJ:.... @ 5 ~ ;:: M ~ 0 t.n M ..2 to Q,. - 0 a: I- .3ICC ;:, :i (; ~ o III .... ..... J: Gl ell "0"'0 ~ o~rt~:! og~~8 .~ ~-c-03~ ~ ~ !:"'~~ ~,.....:!~ 1 z~~a:a: ~ ..J I ~Iiiii 5 0 0 0 Da ~ Q.. RIIUc:aCO~~ Z "'I t.. OIl ~ .= ~ .~ .~ 5 5 0 ~1 0 ; r., v ~ 3: 2:'-t;:f'Cn:oo V)c\ ~ll ~I t: 'x V> .;:; _ Cl Cl V v <l: N, _ ,- UJ UJ Cl III ~ Q.l VI ::l +J E ~ .'" .r:.L ~O:::I i l- ~ (/) ~ I.... l,fl ~ 1::' <X <C -l..c::.... X Z OJ ~t::::::30 wW. !- ct:. ' i( :;: tfl J; z ~ >-1 0 ~I i= o! c: ID "2 o <> o N ~ ~ o m _ 0 ~ w C/j ~ Z 0:: ;:J 1-1 ::!: (L 0 '6 CO rx, "C .., > " .:: as .t:. I.. - "" .t:. .3 - i1I 02 I- co i:' co ~ 8 ~ 8~ C/j Cl ~ ,,' s: ~-: " ct: N .. 0 c: ..; .:: ;;; 'E 0- Cl I.. '" ...J ..,. 3 0 ii i, en l- I' ",I: ,I I' N)'U'1No-. 'C :x: ' ,I "$"Nl"-N c II. "M jl'l"l.~"'" ,-4 !.Lh'l'"CMl' ~ :> III ?i !i I, v " e Vi '" I.. ex> II. ",' I: "e- .t:. '" D/) N " I- ..... ..lC 0 ~ il ",I Q. ... ;; NI'loC'Itl t'l .. l"l')!l ~~:t'-i !:iD Ie ~1t,Cc 1,.') -- III .... H 't-C r tQN* 1.1'1 ii ~ 0- ii .<: ... N MUT1t:,....., 0;: M >: II " ~8 a Ii '-. ~. " H " ~ ~ C'l"i H j ~'l"I~ .... ....._1(_~__~.~.... co ~ "'~'H"'-'-'-"-'~ ~ Ii ~ d .c: ;I ~ ~ ~ .:: :> ~ ~1!MMMM ... ..c; " - Cl .c: "" ,: ~i /:) I.. a:: ...J I- i:i2 :i I.:l . .., :,;; '.'~ ..;; 0 " o I- ~ " .:: - /:) .s:: ... 0 ~ ,~ .<: .3 N ct: I- '" I- ~1 0 D~I , g /:) N ~ ., .D " ~'. ... ,.... ..0 '" co 0 'VOoD-O- c: Cl ... N ..0 - M w"'l N t"'oI - ~ U"l 0 ..0 .:: U'lCX)OCON ...0 0 0 V'1 N 'E E .c: - - N '" - - N - ..0 '" "" " -' i:i2 VI Z 'C :x: ... Vi C N II. - '" :l III M " 0 II. >4) ... ... 0 .<: D/) - " I- oX 0 \II ... - eo ::> oj 0 _ 'E 'E 0 III N >4) .. .. J: ~ > Cl ll:: M V"l 0 '" ...0 ..... VlOr-")Lf) Cl ., "5 "5 "'it co '"If' "f' - 0 - '" ,...., co GI E 0 0 ;5 .s: .:: Vl co 0 ex) ,.... '" o "" III - .C' .. co co "" ., - - N '" - ..... - - '" <J Z II. i:i2 ...J .c: ~ ~ ,:,< c: :> '0 -c .. " 1: I: v 0 to to ..0 ..0 ~O .~ 0 0 I.. I.. P- o ~I lC .. .. ::.' o^ -t, 0. I! c<: c<: ro a> ~ 01 '" ;:.; :::> v, ~ ... l- I.. 0 0 n .. " .. -Q ~ >-. S '6 '6 c: C III oi ~I fi ~ ':': C .. .. .. .. c: 'x VI .. - c<: c<: VI VI Cl: ...., LU LU /:) W OJ " III ... '" .:: " E "" ..c; ll:: "I l.. ..c; >< ~ ... -5 Cl: Cl: j .c: ... .. '" ~ t: i:i2 ~ Z ., GI '" :> 0 W W I- 01 ~ ~ .. 0 LU VI Z Il. >- C/j 1=1 01 c lJj 'S- o 0 N 05 0 ~ ;::: <Xl ~ ~ Z 0:: :> 1-1 ~ <( o '0 ro 0:: I "0 oJ 55 ~ ~ 2 ~ ~ co - ~ ~ ..J . ro ~ ~ ~~ ~- 8~~ t ~~v fJ'l t--- ~ ~ ". ~ '" r:<: '" ~ 0 oJ .5M ~O'- ~io ~ g: ...J '" l"l ~ '" 0 000' ~ '! ",j: ~ ~mJl~N~ c. A. ' ,:~ :j GO'I"l~ t :J :> VI _ M ",~"" iF"'''''''. '" ... <:> elL...... 0 2 '1 '_ of: - 0.0 IJ"l ..c: E' I- '" ~ <:>..s '" I- ,. " 0.. U _ N.; ~ C ' ~t~~ M ttl N 'to,..l "';:'~ :n~~ f ~ ., ..c _ 0'- ~ ~:,jth -MQ) be 0 U) Q . o.tJ :, co o-.~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r. M rit~~ ~!~N'~~ ., ~ 8 ~<> ' .... to!! CI~"'" t'- l 1nQGO ~ ~ ~ &5:': .'M *~l"iT( ~j;~~~~ ~I ..... - '" ~ ..-.-.-.- ): ):;, I .r:. · r: > .: "1'\11"'<>- g ~ ~ 0 ~ 2 ~ ~ ~('1 "j ~i€~~ ~ 0 ~ 3 ..c..2:0 1'< ~ MMMM ''';~ .' ~~'!"'C\'"\ L..I t.J t- ct:. ~~::)' ~ _ v. ~~ .". o 0 =- ~:> ~. .'If.... ~ /". ;..~ ~ '"" ~ct ~ .,:.t,;o LU ~W o l- ... ~ ~ 4~ o ~ ~ E ~ 0 &'" '" <( 0:: I- ..J · ,,> :g b ~ .0 0 D~I t> ~ ~ ~ ' o <( ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ l... Nc-LI1U'\- M-MVO 5~ ~ ..t ~~~re~ ~g~re~ '5~ ~ .l!P ____-c __l"l '" ~ Z r:<: 'tl ::t III ,., 5 II. ~ -c 2 e~~ 2 .s::. o.e _ 0 .J: 0:: I- ":<0", I- :> u - ~ 1: 1: 0 tl1 ~ :;; ~ ~ :t (&) \J --5-5 ~ +-' ~~R~~ ~C6~~~ .~ 5 ~J5::n "fo -E :::~~~~ ~~~rotD E Z e '" II. ~ ..J ~ u.Q~~.e~ a ODD H: tJ ~ ~ r(, "' t. '''1 \/, LOl Q.. ~ ~ to m Z ~ (; -<. ~ 2 I- roo l"C re 0 0'1 '.. - '- Ir, <.0 n! .- .- 6.J .w If) 0 (l) ~ :?:- B ~ ] ~ ~ VJ 0: ~I ('Ill..... .~ V1 "iij.E<<.O:::v>V'J <S:NI ~ ~ ~ ill o w ~ ~ ~ E ~ ... JO.!:. ~O::i ~;: ~ {i te t "" '"" .... ~ < ~I -,..c:._ . Z > ~ ~ :J 0 LU UJ I- 0::: ~ <( >~az II.~ ~ CIl 1=1 01 ~ ~ o c o 0 N N _ M ro m ~ ~ ~ ro Agenda Item No. 8A September 29,2009 Lanes, Volumes, Timings Tr~nt~~~5 I: Davis Boulevard & Country Barn Road AMBKGD --. "'). (' 'IIf- '\ I'" l:a;ri~'G;:6h&;::>"';\ .' ....;>;;.: ':EBT":('EBR;:\";WBL' "'WBT':',NBL;:: :c'kiBR" ....,..' :.,:':' .,.;' ";,'<'::;':,:: .... ." . Lane ConfrRUI'ations ++ '{f "\ ++ "i '{f Total LOSL Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Satd. Flow (pr-ot) 3539 1583 1770 3539 1770 1583 Fit Permitted 0.077 0.950 Satd. Flow (perm) 3539 1583 143 3539 1770 1583 Satd. Flow (RTOR) 201 308 Volume (vph) 1142 355 387 1335 305 283 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Lane Gr-oup Flow (vph) 1241 386 421 1451 332 308 Turn Type Perm pm+pt Perm Protected Phases 4 3 8 2 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 Total Split (s) 52.0 52.0 35.0 87.0 33.0 33.0 Act Effct Green (s) 43.6 43.6 73.3 73.3 2904 29.4 Actuated 'i,/C Ratio 0.39 0.39 0.66 0.66 0.27 0.27 vlc Ratio 0.89 0.52 0.90 0.62 0.71 0048 Control Delay 41.0 14.6 53.4 11.8 48.8 6.8 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 41.0 14.6 53.4 11.8 "l8.S 6.8 LOS D B D B D A Approach Delay 34.7 21.1 28.6 Approach LOS C C C Queue Len~Lh 50th (ft) 449 98 251 279 236 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) 560 194 #409 336 #374 72 Internal Link Dist (ft) 874"1 3790 2890 Turn Bay length (ft) 145 14S 8ase Capacity (vph) 1481 780 527 2448 470 647 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Red uctn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced vlc Ratio 0.84 0.49 O.SO 0.59 0.71 OAS Ihf~Ps&~ti6h::StriiM;~f:.i;(;X'::: '"" "-,'. :<.)~:,::,:'::.; '::..:,:~:,;,;::??\.:.,.::..:;~..:.....-" ....:.,..,~-':':'.:.;::..,..:-..;. ..' '~.-';' ;--<'::"~::!~~,'=:~<:':' ""-"j ~;",:,:', :,"~;~~:"< ::,,:~:"::<.~;:.\~".: >\:~>~~. ;:xt\}:;:,j""\W\ ;{;;:.t~:ri~"~('it;":~~~ti:;{:":;'N';}f;.~!;;~~~[i:/"::\\<:::: Cycle Lenj!th: 120 Actuated Cycle length: 110.9 Control Type: Actuated.Uncoordinated Maximum vlc Ratio: 0,90 Intersection Sij!nal Delay: 27.6 Intersection LOS: C Intersection Capacity Utilization 79.9% leu Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after twO cycles. $olits and Phases: I: Davis Boulevard & Countrv Barn Road '\.. 02 (' 03 --. 04 33 s I....... 35 s I 52 s I otlI- 08 87 s I AM BKGD Synchro 6.0 Report Page I NGSM 1:\Projects\809\80993 \ T raffic\synchI'0\80993 _ AMBKGD.sy7 Vanasse & Daylol', LLP Agenda Item No. 8A September 29, 2009 Lanes, Volumes, Timings Tlr~n~~5 I: Davis Boulevard & Country Barn Road AMTOTAL .. .( +- ~ !" -+ Lane Conftj(urations ++ tt 'fIj ++ "'i tt Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Satd. Flow (pt"Ot) 3539 1583 1770 3539 1770 1583 Fit Permitted 0.075 0.950 Satd. Flow (perm) 3539 1583 140 3539 1770 1583 Satd. Flow (RTOR) 191 308 Volume (vph) 1216 355 387 1397 305 283 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Lane Group Flow (vph) 1322 386 421 1518 332 308 Turn Type Perm pm+pt Penn Protected Phases 4 3 8 2 Permitted' Phases 4 8 2 T ota 1 Split (s) 53.0 53.0 34.0 87.0 33.0 33.0 Act t:ffciG reen (s) 46.3 46.3 76.3 76.3 .29.3 29.3 Actuated 'I./C Ratio OAI OAI 0.67 0.67 0.26 0.26 vlc Ratio 0.92 0.51 0.90 0.64 0.73 OA8 Control Delay 43.3 15.0 55.8 12.0 51.0 6.9 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 43.3 15.0 55.8 12.0 51.0 6.9 LOS D B E B D A Apprpach Delay 36.9 2l.S 29.8 ApproaehlOS D C C QU(,)\JeLenl(th50th (ft) 500 106 254 301 241 Queue Length 95th (ft) #646 198 #422 363 #374 Int(,)~nal Link Dist (ft) 8744 3790 2890 Turn Bay Length (ft) 145 145 Base Capacity (vph) 1495 779 508 2448 456 636 StarYationCapReductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced vIe Ratio 0.88 0.50 0.83 0.62 0.73 OA8 1ri~~6iitstiW;W\;:~1DR~1li?I'S.';iI;'~;{i;;S~\#)~!;::%;;'ii~ii:i~fiI@;i(Mg?,;'!Xj~!;Y!i1;i~jti%;?:'}*!iWtli*~f;~\11i0$w?tWJ.~%~.~:J),\~~ri?ii*;;mi1i~:'*i*,;\\f,!fEW+{FiN\f{i;~~Vi;):i\~%f.#jf)f;%t~\*tf;if~1%~:~t%' Cycle Lenl(dl: 120 Actu~ted CydeL(mgth:113.6 ContJ"ol}yp(,): ,t>,~tuated.Uncoordinated Maximurnv/c;:Ratio: 0.92" Intersection Si~nal Delay: 28.8 Intersection LOS: C Intersection Capacity Utilization 82.0% ICu Level of Service D AnalysisPeriod(min) 15 #9St!ipercentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after twO cycles. SolitS and Phases: I: Davis Boulevard & Countrv Barn Road ~t .( (1)3 "; 1Il2 ~ (1)4 33 s I 34s I ~ 53 s T "*7- ,:." 1Il8 87 s I AM TOTAL Synchro 6.0 Report Page I NGSM 1:\Projects\809\80993\ T r':lffic\ZTI5 _ 06 _)006\synchro I \80993 _AMT OT AL.sy 7 Vanasse & Daylor, LLP Agenda Item No. 8A September 29,2009 Lanes, Volumes, Timings T cf01l{jfiha 9G~r~5 I: Davis Boulevard & Country Barn Road PMBKGD -+ ,. t' '4lf- "\ !" L~he"Gi:o'lih\;:'" ;,,/'EBT"'EBR:Wsr,\WBT' :: :NBIY :>:NBRc:,::':'c' .... .:,.,:...'::.::.:... c. :':::'c.;. .'c. ,. .'" 'c.: ...::':::..... "':"'.' : <,"~c. :, ,,::::;,...,. Lane Confil(urations ++ 'fI ~ ++ ~ 'fI Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4,0 Satd. Flow (prot) 3539 1583 1770 3539 1770 1583 Fit Permitted 0.054 0.950 Satd. Flow (perm) 3S39 1583 101 3539 1770 1583 Satd. Flow (RTOR) 148 139 Volume (vph) 2222 354 232 884 280 464 Peak Hour Factor 0,92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Lane Group Flow (vph) 2415 385 252 961 304 504 Turn Type Perm pm-tpt Perm Protected Phases 4 3 8 2 . Permitted Phases 4 8 2 Total Split (s) 74.0 74.0 14.0 88.0 32.0 32.0 Act Effct Green (s) 70.0 70.0 84.0 84.0 28.0 28.0 Actuated ~/C Ratio 0.58 0.58 0.70 0.70 0.23 0.23 v/c Ratio 1.17 0.39 1.20 0.39 0,74 1.06 -. Control Delay 107.8 9.1 157.2 8.0 54.5 90.2 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0,0 0.0 Total Delay 107.8 9.1 157.2 8.0 54.5 90.2 LOS F A F A D F Approach Delay 94.2 39.0 76.8 Approach LOS F D E Queue Len~th 50th (ft) -1173 88 -186 144 219 -341 Queue Length 95th (ft) #1306 152 #357 178 #326 #556 Internal Link Dist (ft) 8744 3790 2890 Turn Bay Length (ft) 145 145 Base Capacity (vph) 2064 985 210 2477 413 476 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 $pillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reducm 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 1.17 0.39 1.20 0.39 0.74 1.06 Intei'se@on'Sui'iilrii,R;;;t,::: ).,:<;,'Y',,:;, ,0;.;\ :},::\h:)'''''':'c,:''+ "...:...'.,:....... ".. .." :;'::'~:'}'. ,,:: ::.,.:;-~:..;> "'::\:'"':';'.:,g;:': ::":'>~':': ...".:..~;.: ':~"" ;;:.;;\ ,~i'~~~:"':~/'?:':',:,:.;,<\:~:,,',:"," . -. ~":::":':'_; .:;<;:,. Cycle Lenl(th: 120 Actuated Cycle Length: 120 Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.20 Intersection Sil(nal Delay: 77.4 Intersection LOS: E Intersection Capacity Utilization 99.8% ICU level of Service F Analysis Period (min) IS - Volume exceeds capacity. queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after cwo cycles. # 9Sth percentile volume exceeds capacity. queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. Snlits and Phases: I: Davis Boulevard & Count'"' Barn Road "\ 02 f 03 --II- 04 32 s I 14 S II 74 s I ......- 0B BSs I PM BKGD Synchro 6,0 Report Page 1 NGSM 1:\Projects\B09\80993 IT raffic\synchI'0\80993 ]MBKGD ,5Y 7 V~n~5se & DayleI'. LLP Agenda Item No. 8A September 29, 2009 Lanes, Volumes, Timings TRmgenl~nfr265 I: Davis Boulevard & Country Barn Road PM BKGD with IMPROVEMENT --+- "'). .f otlI- "\ !' La';~:'Gi'6bgii;:C;;':"" ' "".':EST::. iEBR','\WBL ,'i\NB'T"'NBL: <:'NBR' ...... .;.',.. ..,........... "' ..--," '",,".. une ConfrRurations +++ '(f ~ +++ "i '(f Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Satd. Flow (prOl) 5085 IS83 1770 5085 1770 1583 Fit Permitted 0.062 0.950 Satd. Flow (perm) 5085 1583 115 5085 1770 1583 Satd. Flow (RTOR) 177 231 Volume (vph) 2222 354 232 884 280 464 Peak Hour FaCtor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Lane Group Flow (v ph) 2415 385 252 961 304 504 Turn Type Perm prn+pt Perm Protected Phases 4 3 8 2 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 . Total Split (s) 64.0 64.0 20.0 84.0 36.0 36.0 Act Effct Green (s) 60.0 60.0 79.1 79.1 32.0 32.0 Actuated 'AIC Ratio 0.50 0.50 0.66 0.66 0.27 0.27 vlc Ratio 0.94 0.43 0.88 0.28 0.64 0.8S Control Delay - 37.0 11.4 62.4 8.5 "\5.8 36.7 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 37.0 11.4 62.4 8.5 45.8 36.7 LOS D B E A D D Approach Delay 33.5 19.7 40.1 Approach LOS C B D Queue LenRth 50th (ft) 632 94 140 102 209 214 Queue Length 95th (ft) #732 171 #285 123 309 #407 Internal Link Dist (ft) 8744 3790 2890 Turn Bay Length (ft) 14S 145 Base Capacity (vph) 2563 886 296 3390 476 595 Starvation Cap Reducw 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced vlc Ratio 0.94 0.43 0.85 0.28 0.64 0.8S Cycle LenRth: 120 Actuated Cycle Length: 119.1 Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated Maximum vie Ratio: 0.94 Intersection SiRna 1 Delay: 3 1.2 Intersection LOS: C Intersection Capacity Utilization 81.3% I CU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) IS # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. Solits and Phases: I: Davis Boulevard & Countrv Barn Road "\ 02 .f 03 --+- 1114 36 s I 20s II 64 s I oIf- illS 84 s I PM BKGD with IMPROVEMENT Synchro 6.0 Report Page 1 NGSM 1:IProjects IB091809931T raffic\synchrol80993 _ PMBKG D _impr-oved.sy 7 Vanasse & Daylor, LLP Agenda Item No. 8A September 29,2009 Lanes, Volumes, Timings Tro11ffinl~S\!~@5 I: Davis Boulevard & Country Barn Road PMTOTAL --+- t f "if- "\ I" Lane Confil!urations Total Lost Time (s) . Satd. Flow (prot) FI t Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) 3539 1583 3539 /583 Satd. Flow (RTOR) 146 137 Volume (vph) 2305 354 232 983 280 464 Peak HoUl' Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Lane Group Flow (vph) 2505 385 252 1068 304 504 Turn Type Perm pm+pt Perm Protected Phases 4 3 8 2 Permiu:ed.pha~es~ ". 4.. '. 8. 2 TOtal Split (s) ., 75.0 .75.0 14.Q 89.0 31.0 3/.0 ActEffctGreel1(s) 71.0 71.0 '85.0 115.0 . 27.0 27.0 . Actuated l!/C Ratio 0.59 0.59 0.71 0.71 0.22 0.22 vlc Ratio 1.20 0.39 1.21 0.43 0.76 1.09 Control Delay 118.6 8.9 _159.5 7.9 57.3 101.0 Queue Delay 0.0 . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total {)elay 118.6 8.9 159.5 7.9 57.3 101.0 LOS F 'A F A' E F Appro~ch. Delay. 104.0 36.9 84.6 ApproachLOS . . F D <'F Q~eue Lenl!th 50th (ft) -1236 86 -187 162 222 Queue Lel1gth9Sth 'eft) . ..... ># 1368 149 #358. . '198 ..... . .#348 Internal Link Dist (ft) 8744 3790 2890 Turn Bay Length (ft) 145 145 Base Capacity (vph) 2094 996 209 2507 398 462 SuirvationCapReduern 0 0 0 0 0 0 SpiUba~k Cap Reductn . 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn . 0 0 0 0 0 0 .- Reduced vlc Ratio 1.20 0.39 1.21 0.43 0.76 /.09 Cycle Len.l:th:120 . '.. . ACtuated Cycle Length: 120 ". Control Type: A~uated-Uncoordinated Maximum vIe Ratio:l :21::, '. . . Intersecti(l~ Sil!nal[)elay:83.2. '. Intersection LOS: F Intersection Capacity Utilization I 02,1 % ICU Level of Service G Analysisreriqd (rn.in)15 .> ..... .... . - :Volunieaxceetlscapacity,.queue ismeoretically infinite, . Que\JElsho\Vni~maxirnl,lmaftertw()cydes. . # '95th~ercentile voJumeexcee<Js capacity, queue may be longer, Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. Splits and Phases: I: Davis Boulevard & Count Barn Road ~"lil2 f 03 -;+- 04 31 s I 14 s I 75 s I ~ ),;': 08 89 s I -~ PM TOTAL Synchro 6.0 Report Page I NGSM 1:\ProjCClS\809\80993\T raffic\ZTIS_ 08 _2006 \synchro 1\80993 ]MTOT AL.sy 7 Vanasse & Day/of', LLP Agenda Item No. 8A September 29,2009 Lanes. Volumes, Timings T~f:YHha~~5 I: Davis Boulevard & Country Barn Road PM TOTAL with IMPROVEMENT ..... ...... .f +- "" /" Lane Confll'.urations '" Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 Fit Permitted 0.061 Satd. Flow (pet"m) 5085 1583 114 5085 IS83 Satd.Flow (RTOR) 177 213 Volume (vph) 2305 354 232 983 280 464 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Lane Group Flow (vph) 2505 385 252 1068 304 504 Turn Type Perm pl)1+pt ,Perm Protected Phases 4 3 8 2 Permitt~dPhases 4 8 2 Total Split (s) 66.0 66.0 19.0 85.0 35.0 35.0 Act Effct Green (5) 62.0 62.0 130A 8004 31:0 31;0 Actuated "/C Ratio, 0.52 0.52 0.67 0.67 0.26 0.26 v/cRatio 0.95 0A2 0.91 0.31 0.66' 0.89 Control Delay 36.7 10.7 68.0 8.3 47.7 _43.2 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 '0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 36.7 10.7 68.0 8.3 47.7 43.2 LOS." D B E A D D Appr()ach. Delay 33.3 19.7 44.9 Approach LOS c B D Q~eue L~ngth50th(ft) 654 90 141 113 212 QueueLerigth95t~(ft), #757 164 #295 135 313 " IntE!rnalUnk Dis~ (ft) 8744 3790 2890 T urn Bay Umgth(ft) 145 145 Bas~ .c:~p~city (vph) 2640 907 283 3432 459 569 SurvationC:ip Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 SpillbackCap Reducm 0 0 0 0 0 0 StOrage C:ipReductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced vIe Ratio 0.95 0.42 0.89 0.31 0.66 0.89 rn~~~~~~l{ft(f~~rr~f?i!i)}i%'i$;~:;i{~tr;~~tm~if~~;;W!.%~,f~\'@.~1~fJ:;i*~f!;1WJ.t%'!ti!~t\f,;ii@~'if~\\:ti~~~~i~~~:m~;j;f&1~i&rrlt1!,;\ii~@,:~~*)~~~1fri~~t$it~~},!l~mw~~ Cycle Length: 120 Acw:iiedCydeLengi:~:119.4 C()~tr()1 :ype:,6,ctuated-Uncoordinated Ma'ximumv/c Ratio: 0.95 " Interse~ol'l Si~n~1 pelay; 31.6 Intersection LOS: C Intersection Ca,pacityUtilization $2.9% leu level of Ser\lice .E AnalysisPeriCld(111in}IS ,'.'.," ., " #.. 95thpercentlle volumeexOOeds capacity. queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after tWO cycles. Splits and Phases: I: Davis Boulevard & Country Barn Road ",\i. 02 ~ 03 ~104 35 s I 18 s I 66 s I +:- .. 108 85 s I PM TOTAL with IMPROVEMENT Synchro 6.0 Report Page I NG SM 1:\Projects\809\80993\ Traflic\ZTIS _ 08 _2006\syncht.o I \80993 ]MTOT AUmproved.sy 7 Vanasse & Daylor. LLP Agenda Item No. 8A September 29, 2009 Lanes, Volumes, Timings T&{ffin3~~~~5 2: Davis Boulevard & Santa Barbara Boulevard AMBKGD .,J ....... ""'t .(" +- '- ~ t t" \. ~ .."I lk i.'eGr()~'D" ,'\\i\ ...... .......'.....'EBi>.'.\'EBT: \'EBJl..' "'WSC;"WBT':,:'WSR'. ::NBi.:;..:'j:'NBl';:'\NBR .j'. 'SBL'Y'<"SBT;~;L \SSR Lane ConfiJ?;urations ~~ ++ ~ ~ ++ ~ ~ -t-t+ "i -t-t+ Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Sald. Flow (prol) 3433 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 1770 3468 0 1770 3422 0 Fit Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.108 0.9S0 Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 201 3468 0 1770 3422 0 $atd. Flow (RTOR) 99 59 IS 42 Volume (vph) 440 660 360 310 1020 120 170 710 110 310 1720 490 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Lane Group Flow (vph) 478 717 391 337 1109 130 185 892 0 337 2403 0 Turn Type Prot Perm Prot Perm pm+pt Prot Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 I 6 Permitted Phases 4 B 2 Total Split (s) 16.0 29.0 29.0 19.0 32.0 32.0 10.0 41.0 0.0 31.0 62.0 0.0 Act Wet Green (s) 12.0 25.0 25.0 15.0 28.0 28.0 44.8 38.8 25.2 58.0 Actuated J?;/C Ratio 0.10 0.21 0.21 0.12 0.23 0.23 0.37 0.32 0.21 0.48 vlc Ratio 1.39 0.97 0.96 1.52 1.34 0.31 1.21 0.79 0.91 1.43 Control Delay 234.0 74.6 70.8 294.0 199.2 23.3 167.1 42.7 - 74.5 226.1 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 234.0 74.6 70.8 294.0 199.2 23.3 167.1 42.7 74.5 226.1 LOS F E E F F C F D E F Approach Delay 121.7 205.0 64.1 207.4 Approach LOS F F E F Queue LenJ?;th 50th (ft) -254 292 234 -365 -S90 44 -122 332 252 -1328 Queue Length 95th (ft) #362 #418 #434 #550 #725 101 #277 414 #408 #1465 Internal Link Dist (ft) 3790 730 /311 5497 Turn Bay Length (ft) 145 (45 (45 145 Base Capacity (vph) 343 737 408 221 826 415 153 1132 392 /676 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced vlc Ratio 1.39 0.97 0.96 1.52 1.34 0.31 1.21 0.79 0.86 1.43 -. i~f~f~~~fioks'Jiriit\~~\ f;> i"'..' .:.....,,;,,}:"";..".,,'.'.::'::::;;,.,..,.. :<L:~" ". ,:'~i~'.::,\;'.~.:.." -., "~:.':~'.; ,'.'~ {/, :::..../.::.:;;\,:.. . " ': ~~.~.;...;r..' ': ~: .~,' ' < ,,;~::.:.;>;.,,:~,.,(..~~~<!~ <;:':'_:' ;\:~,l~.{;';;f.~~:Y,:~~:;\:X';'~":/i::""?":" Cycle LenJ?;th: 120 Actuated Cycle Length: 120 Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.52 Intersection Sij(nal Delay: 165.3 Intersection LOS: F Intersection CapaCity Utilization 126.7% leu Level of Service H Analysis Period (Olin) IS - Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. Sol its and Phases: 2: Davis Boulevard & Santa Barbara Boulevard \. 01 t 02 .(" 03 -+- 04 31 s I 41 s I 18 s I 29 s I ~ i .,J +- 05 06 07 08 10 s I 52 s I 16 s 1 32 s I AM BKGD Synchro 6.0 Report Page 2 NGSM I: \Pl"ojects\809\B099 3 \ T r'amc\syncl1l'o\B099 3 _ AMBK G D. s y 7 Vanasse & Daylor, LLP Agenda Item No. 8A September 29,2009 Lanes, Volumes. Timings T cRlltg11na~gfrW5 2: Davis Boulevard & Santa Barbara Boulevard AM BKGD with IMPROVEMENT ~ -+ ..... .( otIl- '- ~ t r \.. ~ .; L~;'eG;~o~~'" .... . 'EGL' 'EST "ESR "VvSL WB1"WBR ';>NBC >NBT:NBR 'SIlC ';SB1":::SBR Lane Confi~urations "l"'i +++ 7f "l"'i +++ '(f "'i"l +++ '(i "i'fli +++ (I Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Satd. Flow (prol) 3433 5085 15B3 3433 5085 1583 3433 SOBS 1583 3433 5085 1583 Fit Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.108 0.950 Satd. Flow (penn) 3433 5085 1583 3433 5085 IS83 390 5085 1583 3433 SOBS 1583 Satd. Flow (RTOR) 90 86 120 354 Volume (vph) 440 660 360 310 1020 120 170 710 110 310 1720 490 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Lane Group Flow (vph) 478 717 391 337 1109 130 185 772 120 337 1870 533 Turn Type Prot Perm Prot Perm pl11+pt Perm Prot Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 I 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 2 6 Total Split (s) 24.0 39.0 39.0 18.0 33.0 33.0 9.0 41.0 41.0 22.0 54.0 54.0 Act Effct Green (s) 19.3 34.1 34.1 13.8 28.6 28.6 44.1 39.1 39.1 16.0 50.0 50.0 Actuated 5!,IC Ratio 0.16 0.29 0.29 0.12 0.24 0.24 0.37 0.33 0,33 0.13 0.42 0.42 vlc Ratio 0.86 0.49 0.75 0.85 0.91 0.29 0.68 0.46 0.20 0.73 0.87 0.61 Control Delay 64.6 36.5 39.8 71.6 55.5 16.2 32.5 33.3 6.2 59.3 37.4 II.B Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 Total Delay 64.6 36.5 39.8 71.6 55.5 16.2 32.5 33.3 6.2 59.3 37.4 11.8 LOS E D D E E B C C A E D B Approach Delay 4S.8 55.7 30.1 35.1 Approach LOS 0 E C D Queue Len~th 50th (ft) 186 167 214 134 306 27 38 175 0 129 481 98 Queue Length 95th (It) #267 208 337 #209 #385 80 #69 220 43 178 551 215 Internal link Dist (It) 3790 730 1311 S497 Turn Bay Length (ft) 145 145 145 145 Base CapacitY (vph) 574 1486 526 404 1236 450 272 1671 60 I S II 2140 871 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.83 0.48 0.74 0.B3 0.90 0.29 0.68 0.46 0.20 0.66 0.87 0.61 i);t~~s;;ct:i6rtSUW;if;~;;?<'< .. .. "';";':.:'::~-'r :,:,~':::.,:J~::':,:"" ':::',:~-;>::: :~' --. - . '\'::',.;....",.::; :.'\:.':;',;'-:,..:.::". ." .:.:',0, ' -"~:':!:><'.,:' ,.: :,.-...,., Cycle Lenj(th: 120 Actuated Cycle Length: 118.9 Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated Maximum vlc RatiQ: 0.91 Intersection Sij(nal Delay: 41.4 Intersection LOS: 0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 83.7% ICU level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is max',mum after tWO cycles. Solits and Phases: 2: Davis Boulevard & Santa Barbara Bouleva,'d \.. ",1 t 02 f 03 -+ ",4 22 s I .1 41 s I 18 s II 39 s I ~ + ~ +- ul5 1lI6 07 illS 9 s II 54 S I 24 s I 33 s T AM BKGD wjth IMPROVEMENT S)'nehro 6.0 Report Page 2 NG SM I: IProj ects IB 0918099 3 IT ra ffie Isynchro \80993 _AMBK G D _i m proved. sy 7 Vanasse & Daylor. LLP Agenda Item No. 8A September 29,2009 Lanes, Volumes, Timings Ti01tlJ$1a~Wrd5 2: Davis Boulevard & Santa Barbara Boulevard AMTOTAL /- -+ ,. .( 011I- '- "'\ t /" \.. ~ .; une Configurations 7f 't\ .. +1+ Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Satd. Flow (prot) 1583 1770 3451 0 0 Fit Permitted 0.103 Satd. Flow (perm) 3539 1583 3539 1583 192 3451 0 3426 0 Satd. Flow (RTOR) 137 59 21 39 Volume (vph) 440 739 374 403 1020 120 248 803 163 358 1784 490 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 '0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Lane Group Flow (vph) 478 803 407 438 1/09 130 270 1050 0 389 2472 0 Turn Type Pret Perm Prot Perm pm+pt Prot Prote<:ted Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 I 6 Permitted Phases . " 8 2 Total Split (s) 15.0 25.0 25.0. 22.0 32.0 32.0 13.0 43.0 0.0 30.0 60.0 0.0 Act Effct Green (s) 11.0 21.0 21.0 '.18.0 ..28.0 .28.0 48.0 . 39.0 '. 26.0 S6.0 Actuated y.lC Ratio 0.09 0.18 0.18 0.15 0.23 0.23 0,'10 0.32 0.22 0.47 vlc Ratio 1.52 1.30 1.04 1.65 . 1.34 OJI 1.38 0.92 LOI 1.53 Control Delay 285.7 185.4 B9.6 34Q.4 199.2 23.3 230.1 52.5 96.2 266.8 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 285.7 185.4 89.6 340.4 199.2 23.3 230.1 52.5 96.2 266.8 LOS F F F F F C F D F F Approach Delay 190.7 222.5 88.8 243.6 Approach LOS ..... F. F F "F Queue Length 50th (ft) -266. -'lIB .-248 -492 -590 44 -228 405 -310 -1413 Queuel(mgth95th(ft) . #374 '. .#544 '#450' #695 #725 101 #1102. #537 #513#1547 Internal Link pist (ft) 3790 730 991 5497 Turn Bay Length (ft) 145 14S 145 145 Base Capacity (vph) 315 619 390 266 826 415 195 1136 3B4 1620 Starvation CapReductn 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0 0 "0 0 Spill back Call Re~uctn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn ' '. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 :0 Reduced v/c Ratio 1.52 1.30 1.04 1.65 1.34 0.31 1.38 0.92 1.01 1.53 Cycle Length.: 120 ActuaiedCycleLength: .120 Control. TYpe:A.c~uated.U~l:oordina~ed Maximum vlcRatio: 1;65 .' IntersectlonSiRnalDelay; 200.0 . Intersection LOS: f InterseCtJonCapacity UtilizatienI34.8% leu Level of Service H Analysis Period (min)f5 ...;, VolumeeXceedseapadty, queue is theoretically infinite. Queueshovvn is maximUm after twO cycles. .. II 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after twO cycles. Solits and Phases: 2: Davis Boulevard & Santa Ba,'bara Boulevard \.. 01 ..t .( l1J3 "', "'. 02 ~ 04 30 s I 43 s I 22s I 25s I "'\ ~ /- ~ 05 06 07 08 13s I 60 s I 15 s T 328 I AM TOTAL Synchro 6.0 Repol-t Page I NGSM 1:\Proiects\809\80993\Traffic\ZTIS _06_ 2006\synchro I \80993 _.AMTOT AL.sy 7 Vanasse & Day!or, LLP Agenda Item No. 8A September 29,2009 Lanes, Volumes, Timings T~a 9.e~f~5 2: Davis Boulevard & Santa Barbara Boulevard AM TOTAL with IMPROVEMENT ~ ...... "). of +- "- "" t !' \. * ..; Lane Configurat"lons Total Lost Tilne (s) 5atd. Flow (prot) Fit Permitted 5atd, Flow (penn) 5085 1583 5085 1583 5085 IS83 5085 1583 Satd, Flow (RTOR) 99 85 177 .366 Volume (vph) 440 739 374 403 1020 120 248 803 163 358 1784 490 Peak Hour Factor '0.92 0,92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 ' 0,92 0.92 Lane Group Flow (vph) 478 803 407 438 1109 130 270 873 177 389 1939 533 Turn Type Prot Penn Prot Perin pm+pt Penn Prot Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 I 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 2 6 Total Split (s) 23,0 34.0 34.0 21.0 32.0 32.0 10,0 41.0 41.0 24.0 55.0 55.0 Act EffctGreen (5) 18.7 29.8 29.8 16.9 28.0 28.0 45.3 39.3 39.3 17.8 51.0 51.0 Actuatedg/C Ratio 0.16 0.25 0,25 0.14 0.23 0.23 0.38 0.33 0.33 0.15 0.43 0.43 vlc Ratio ' 0.89 0.64 0,87 0.90 0.93 0.30 0.90 0.52 0.28 0.76 0.89 '0.60 Control Delay 69.6 42.8 52.4 73,8 59.3 16.8 55,7 34,4 5.6 59.3 38,5 10.8 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 Total Delay 69.6 42.8 52,4 73.8 59.3 16.8 55.7 34.4 5,6 59.3 38.5 10.8 LOS E D D E ,E B E C A E D B Apprc:>ach Delay 52.7 59.8 34.9 36.2 Approach LOS D E C D Queue Length 50th (ft) 188 203 236 174 310 28 55 202 0 ISO 502 87 Queue'L~rigth95th(ft)' #279 250 ' #415 #266 #398 82 #137 25\ 51 20J 574 201 Internal LinkDist(ft) 3790 730 1311 5497 Turn Bay Limgth (ft) 145 145 145 145 Base Capacity (vph) 544 1272 470 487 1190 436 300 1668 638 563 2167 885 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 '0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SpHlback 9pReductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 StOrage 'CapReducm 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced vlc Ratio 0.88 0.63 0.87 0.90 0.93 0.30 0.90 0.52 0.28 0.69 0.89 0,60 Ui'$~~rit .: ';0 !:: CydeL~n,gth:120 ", ' Actuated Cycle Length:'119.7 Co~tro'TYl>e: Actuated-Uncoordinated Maximum;"'c: Ratio: 0:93 ' ' ' Intersection. Si~naIDelay: 44,9 Intersection LOS: D lriters~tionCapacity Utilization 87.1 % leu Level of ServiceE Analysis P~ri()d (min) 15 ,. # 95th percentile volume, exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after twO cycles. Splits and Phase~: 2: Davis Boulevard & Santa Barbara Boulevard \.. 01 ."~ of 03 1'\" 02 ~ 04 24 s I 41 s 1 21 s I ~ 34 s I "'\ "* ~ ~ 05 66 07 08 10 s I 55 s I 23s I 32 s I AM TOTAl. with IMPROVEMENT Synchro 6.0 Report Page I NGSM 1:IP.-ojects\809\80993IT ,'afficlZTIS _ 06 _ 2006\syncl1l"0 1\80993 _.AMTOT AL Jmproved.sy7 Vanasse & Daylor. LLP Agenda Item No. 8A Lanes, Volumes, Timings Se~tember 29,2009 ~~~5 2: Davis Boulevard & Santa Barbara Boulevard PMBKGD ..J- -. 't .f >tit- '- '*\ t I" \... ! ./ bln~G;:;;ti~:{'.> ..,.",., .';;:EBL{;' ':'EBT',:, 'EBR \WSl",WBT:\:!'WaR'",';': ,NBi;',;\NBT.\:,}' ;~NBR' 'SBt: ;}~;sBi:;>";SBR Lane Confij!urations "l"'; ++ '{f "'; ++ '{f "'i +f+ ~ +t. Total LOSt Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4,0 4,0 "1.0 4.0 Satd, Flow (Pl'ot} 3433 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 1770 345"1 0 1770 3437 0 Fit Permitted 0,950 0.950 0.105 0.950 Satd. Flow (pel'm) 3433 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 196 3-454 0 1770 3437 0 Satd. Flow (I\TOR) 100 101 19 31 Volume (vph) 750 1440 440 230 660 130 170 1160 220 4/0 1270 310 Peak Hour factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0,92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0,92 0.92 0.92 Lane GI'OUP Flow (vph} 81S 1565 478 250 717 141 185 1500 0 446 1717 0 Turn Type Prot Perm PrOt Per'm pm+pt Prot Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 I 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 Total Split (s) 22.0 40,0 40.0 15.0 33.0 33.0 9.0 42.0 0.0 23,0 56.0 0.0 Act Effct Green (s) 18,0 36.0 36,0 11.0 29.0 29.0 43.0 38.0 19.0 52.0 Actuated 'l.IC Ratio 0,15 0.30 0.30 0.09 0.24 0.24 0.36 0.32 0,16 0,43 vI c Ra tio 1.58 1.47 0.88 1.54 0.84 0.31 1.36 1.36 1.59 1.14 Control Delay 305.6 250.7 49.9 309.3 53.3 14,4 226,4 199.3 317.0 103.4 Queue Delay 0.0 1.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 42.9 212.1 0.0 Total Delay 305,6 252.6 49.9 309.3 53.3 14,4 226.4 242.2 529.1 103.4 LOS F F D F D B F F F F App,'oach Delay 233.8 106.1 240,4 191.2 Approach LOS F F F F Queue Len'l.th 50th (ft} -463 -877 287 -272 279 24 -135 -803 -493 -812 Queue Length 95th (ft) #587 #1016 #484 #438 #357 79 #289 '1/944 '1/696 '1/954 Internal Link Dist (ft) 3790 730 1311 5497 Turn Bay Length (ft) 145 145 145 145 Base Capacity (vph) 515 1062 545 162 855 459 136 1107 280 1507 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 73 64 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced vlc Ratio 1.58 1.48 0.88 1.54 0.84 0.31 1.36 1,45 2.06 1.1'1 --- f~i€~~~Hi6h;sJilWii~~ii"(..:':' . .....::.';S,:,., ';:,;..,:Y?';"~' ':;'Ti~<:{:'i';>;;>,>,!;:::,}, .,.... . ....:'. ',,:::::":::.:::', ......:;:. {;::;Y\j\;F<? XN:\; /,',i:{ :'~5:,X:.!$\t:;('6\;i;\';'ii\'H,S;:,;. Cycle Len~th: 120 Actuated Cycle Length: 120 Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated Maximum vlc Ratio: 1.59 Intersection Si~na( Delay: 205.3 Intersection LOS: F Intersection Capacity Utilization 127.7% ICU Level of Service H Analysis Period (Olin) 15 - Volume exceeds capacity. queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th per'centlle volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after tWO cycles. Splits ;and Phases: 2: Davis Boulevard & Santa Ba,'bara Boulevard '.. 01 t 02 .f 03 -tit- 04 23 s I 42 s I 15 s I 40 s I '*\ ! ..J- .-- 05 06 07 08 9 s1 56 s I . 22 s I 33 s I PM BKGD Synclwo 6.0 Report Page 2 NGSM 1:\Pmjens \809\80993\ T rafflc\synchro\80993 ]MBKGD.sy 7 Vanasse & Daylor. LLP Agenda Item No. 8A September 29, 2009 Lanes. Volumes, Timings T i<a'g8n11~g:f1'2S5 2: Davis Boulevard & Santa Barbara Boulevard PM BKGD with IMPROVEMENT ".J .. (' ....- '" "\ t ~ \.. ~ ..; -+ l~ri~k'i~g~p>" "',"; :EBL>EBT ';'EBR<WSC<WBTWBR:NBL' NBT ....'.NBR,,; "SBL ';<SBT;'; 'SBR Lane Conftj(urations ~~ +++ tt ~~ +++ '(f ~"'i +++ '(I ~'Ili -t-++ '(I Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4,0 40 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4,0 4.0 Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 S085 1583 3433 5085 IS83 3433 5085 1583 3433 5085 1583 Fit Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.121 0.950 Satd, Flow (perm) 3433 SOBS 1583 3433 5085 1583 437 5085 1583 3433 508S 1583 Satd. Flow (RTOR) 157 131 197 337 Volume (vph) 750 1440 440 230 660 130 170 1160 220 410 1270 310 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Lane Group Flow (vph) 815 1565 478 250 717 141 185 1261 239 446 1380 337 Turn Type Prot Perm Prot Perm pm+pt Peml Prot Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 I 6 Permi tted Phases 4 B 2 2 6 Total Split (s) 36.0 45.0 45.0 15.0 24.0 24.0 12.0 37.0 37.0 23.0 48.0 48.0 Act Effct Green (5) 3l.2 40.9 40.9 10.9 20.6 20.6 41.3 33.S 33.5 f8.4 44.0 44.0 Actuated '1/C Ratio 0.26 0.34 0.34 0.09 0.17 0.17 0.35 0.28 0.28 0.15 0.37 0.37 vlc Ratio 0.91 0.90 0.74 0.80 0.82 0.37 0.53 0.89 0.41 0.84 0.74 0.42 COl1trol Delay 58.1 45.7 30.9 72.6 56.6 11.9 25.8 50.2 10.\ 64.8 35.8 4.5 - Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 58.1 45.7 30.9 72.6 56.6 11.9 25.8 50.2 10.1 64.8 35.8 4.5 LOS E D C E E B C D B E D A Approach Delay 46.8 54.5 41.8 36.9 Approach LOS D D D D Queue Len~th 50th (ft) 313 420 224 99 199 7 40 345 24 174 337 0 Queue length 95th (ft) #421 486 361 #162 #253 64 62 #427 92 #249 394 60 Internal Link Dist (ft) 3790 730 1311 5497 Turn Bay length (ft) 145 145 145 145 Base Capacity (vph) 912 1741 645 316 876 381 351 1422 58S 543 1871 795 Starvation Cap Reducm 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $pillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced vlc Ratio 0.89 0.90 0.74 0.79 0.82 0.37 0.S3 0.89 OAI 0.82 0.74 0.42 iri~f~~2ti6h';S~'irihGMiD :.......... . . "':-.":,:,: <\~; ;....:.- ~<:;"""-;'" '. . . ,", -:. ''';.:'-:~<..':~~.,::, ,.:.<:'~;,;'",,;:, ..~.~,~\-_:;:,: {~ : ~\~:;.:/:_:.,:),,::->,:."'~' :" ;:.~;' ':.;',;'i,::{{.;".'::-: ':..' ,.:., ....;::-.;}:.~<;:..,.. ,':,.~.:,;<.;;::,.;:}~':::,.:'~: :': :,;,:,<'''.:-:~;::}r,':'>: -~/~~:).;. .~:::;;r~,:' Cycle Len~th: 120 Actuated Cycle length: 119.6 Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated Maximum vlc Ratio: 0.91 Intersection SiRnal Delay: 44.' Intersection LOS: D Intersection Capacity Utilization 81.8% ICU level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity. queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after twO cycles. Snlits and Phases: 2: Davis Boulevard & Santa Barbara Boulevard \. 01 t 02 -F 03 -+ 04 23 s '-I 37 s I 15 s I 45 s I ""\ ~ ".J ....- 05 05 07 1118 12 s 1-;' 48 S I 35 s T 24 s I PM BKGD with IMPROVEMENT Synchro 6.0 Report Page 2 NGSM 1:\Projects \809\80993\Traffic\synchro\80993 ]MBKG D _ improved.sy7 Vanasse & Daylar. LlP Agenda Item No. 8A Lanes, Volumes, Timings September 29,2009 TcIO~iOOst!f~5 2: Davis Boulevard & Santa Barbara Boulevard PM TOTAL With IMPROVEMENT ..J- -II> "'). of +- '- "\ t /"" \. ! .I Lane Confil(urations 7f Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 Satd, Flow (prot) 1583 Fit Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) 5085 1583 5085 1583 5085 1583 5085 1583 Satd.Flow (RTOR) 197 133 238 317 Volume (vph) '. 750 1503 481 349 645 130 309 1308 242 448 . ,1357 }IO Peak Hour Factor' ".0.92 iO.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 -0.92 0.92 Lane Group Flow (vph) 815 1634 523 379 701 141 336 1422 263 487 1475 337 TurnType . Prot Perm Prot Perm pm+pt Perm " . 'Prot 'Perm Protected Phases 7 4" 3 8 5 2 I 6 . Permitted' Phases 4 '.8 :2 2 6 Total Split (s) 36.0 42.0 42.0 17.0 23.0 23.0 15.0 40.0 40,0 21.0 46,0 46.0 Act Effct Green (s) 31.1 38.0 ' 38.0 13.0 19.9 '19.9 46.8 36.0 36.0 17.0. 42.2 42.2 ActlJated 'IiC Ratio 0.26 0..32 0.32 0.11 0.17 0.17 0.39 0.30 0.30 0.14 0.35 0.35 vlc Ratio '. . '. . 0.92 1.01 0.82 1.02 0.83 0.38 -0,79 0.93 ..,. 0.41 1.00 0.82 0.44 Control Delay 59.1 67.0 35.3 104.3 58.2 11.8 38.8 52.8 7.7 92.9 40.3 5.9 Que\.le Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ' 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 59.1 67.0 3S.3 104.3 58.2 11.8 38.8 52.8 7.7 92.9 40.3 5.9 LOS .', '. E '. E D F E , B . D D A F D A Approach Delay 59.2 67.2 44.6 46.4 Approai:b'LOS .".' ." . " .. E E ",0. ::.:0 Queue Lenl(th 50th. ift} '.' 313 -475 245 -160 196 5 79 391 14 -197 380 10 Qiieue:Lerigth95th(ft) > 4#421#586#433#260',#261 63 ..#142> :"#486 79 #310 442' '76 IntE!rnallin~ Dist (ft) 3790, 730 .. 1311 ..5497 TumBay Length (ft) 145 145 145 145 Base CapaCitY (vph) 908 1610 636 372 844 374 434 1526 1790 763 Starvation Cap l\eductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ',0 Spillback(:ap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reducen 0 0 0 0 . "0 0 '0 0 0 '0 Reduced vie Ratio 0.90 1.0 I 0.82 1.02 0.83 0.38 0.77 0.93 0.82 0.44 Cycle Len,l(th: 120 .' . Actuated Cycle Length: 120 . Con~rpITyp~:.~~~u~ted-Uncoordi.na.ted , Maximumv/cR'atlo:I:Q2" . Intersel:ti(:>nSi~nal p~lay:53.4 Intersection LOS: D Intersection CapaCity :Utilizatlol) 90;4% ICULe....el of Service E Analysis Peri od(rnin)15 ." ..... . '. '. ..., . -Volumeex:~eedscapadty,queue istheoretic:allyinfinite. ' QUl!Ue shoVinismaximumafter two cycles. . # ,95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longei. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. Solits and Phases: 2: Davis Boulevard & Santa Barbara Boulevard \. 01 . "-t., 2 f 03 ~04 '" 0 21 s I I 408 I 178 I 428 I "\ '~ ..J- ~ 05 06 fJ!7 08 158 I 46s I 36 s I 23 s I PM TOTAL with IMPROVEMENT Synchro 6.0 RepolL Page I NGSM 1:\Projem\B09\80993\ Traffoc\ZTIS_ 08_2006 \synchro I \80993 _PMTOT AL_improved.sy 7 Vanasse & Daylo!-. LLP ~ Agenda Item No. 8A September 29,2009 Lanes, Volumes, Timings T r&lffln4(~:~~~~5 2: Davis Boulevard & Santa Barbara Boulevard PMTOTAL .J- -+ ~ .( +- "- ~ t l' ~ + -I Lane Confi~urations Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 Satd. Flow (prot) 0 0 Fit Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) 3S39 1583 3539 1583 3458 0 3440 0 Satd.Flow (RTOR) 171 95 19 27 Velume(vph) 750 1503 481 349 645 130 309 1308 242 448 1357 310 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 '0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 ' 0.92 0.92 Lane Group Flow (vph) 815 1634 523 379 701 141 336 1685 0 487 1812 0 Turn Type Pret Perm ' Prot Perm pm+pt Prot Protect~d ,Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 I 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2' TotalSp!it (s) , 30.0 38.0 38.0 18.0 26.0 26.0 14,0 42.0 0.0 22.0 50.0 0.0 Act EffctGreen (s) 26.0 34.0 ,34.0 14.0 22.0 ,22.0 48.0 38.0 18.0 46.0 Actuated'F,IC, Ratio 0.22 0.28 0.28 0.12 0.18 0.18 0.40 0.32 0.15 0.38 vlcRatio' ' 1.10 1.63 0.92 1.83 L08 0.38 L60 1.52 1.83 1.36 Control Delay 106.2 318.L 50.3 422.9 105.1 19.2 317.0 269.9 418.3 197.1 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 OiO Total Delay 106.2 318.1 50.3 422.9 IDS. I 19.2 317.0 269.9 418.3 197.1 LOS ", F F D F F B F F F F Approach Delay 212.9 193.8 277.7 243.9 Approach LOS ' " F F F F QueueLe~gth50th (ft) -368 ,,:,961 282 -445 -319 30 -324 -962 ,,:,571 -970 Queue'Lengch95th(ft) #492 #1100 #497 #638 #442 '91 #513 #1104 #781 1#1112 Internal Unk Dist (ft) 3790 730 1061 5497 T urn Bay Length (ft) 145 145 145 145 BaseCapacity (vph) 744 1003 571 207 649 368 210 1108 266 1335 Starvation Cap Red~ctn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillba~k Cap f{ed uctn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 1.10 1.63 0.92 1.83 1.08 0,38 1.60 1.52 1.83 1.36 . ,..:' " "', ,w~~<ii;""},~'Eif~~11t~;;ii*~)t;frti~\~K1g~~~w~~\;)~@if&;r.lf.~$;~i~~1*ffff.wRt~&i*-Ji,~t.1Jr,~~",~~~~!j:r~&K~1~m1'rr(~~r,~~~1J!1ri:N\*tii~~l!l~R~~1~1r~jl~;,f,~ CycleLength:120 . Actuat&lCyc1e:Length:120 C9ntr91, T 'tl>~:""st~ated-Uncoordinated Maximum"icRatio:U3:' ,",', , lntersectiClnSij1;nal Delay: 233.9 , ' Intersection LOS: F Inter'secuonCapadty Utilization '142:9% 'leu leveI6f$et'ViceH Analrsis~eriod(rnin) 15 ',' '.", '., ,'.. ., ' .., , . Volume exceeds capacity. queue is theoretically infinite. Queuesh.own i~ .maxirn~mafter ,tWO cycles. tl 95thpercentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. Splits and Phases: 2: Davis Boulevard & Santa Barbara Boulevard ~ ml +t 02 .f' ",3 ~ 1114 22 s I 42 s I 18 s I 38 s 1 "'\ ~ ..J' +-- m5 06 07 08 14 s I 50 s I 30 s , 26 s I PM TOT At Synchro 6.0 Report Page I NG SM 1:IProjects1B09180993 I Tl'arfic\ZT1S _ 08_ 2006\synchro I \B0993 _PMTOT AL.sy 7 Vanasse & Daylor. LLP Agenda Item No. 8A lanes, Volumes, Timings Se.p,tember 29, 2009 <RmgUn~~$~5 5: Rattelsnake Hammock Road & Santa Barbara Boulevard Ext AMBKGD ..J- -+ ,. ~ ...- '- '\ t r \. + ..; Lari~;Grbti~:;;:':;" ">>.,EBL:+"EBT':\"EBR.,'WBL,WBT> 'WBR."'NBl:<,'NBrp" -':NBR:;':,>:S8U;;:,;;"SBl' "':"SBR lane Conft~ul'ations ~~ tt+ ~ ++ '(I 'tIj t+ ~'tIj t '(I Total lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 3419 0 1770 3539 /583 1770 1734 0 3433 1863 1583 Fit Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 S~td. Flow (perm) 3433 3419 0 1770 3539 IS83 1770 1734 0 3433 1863 1583 Satd. Flow (RTOR) 29 533 34 418 Volume (vph) 310 270 80 130 410 490 110 130 110 620 190 610 Peak Hour Factor" 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 lane Group Flow (vph) 337 380 0 141 446 533 120 261 0 674 207 663 Turn Type Prot Prot Perm Prot Prot Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 I 6 Permitted Phases 8 6 Toni Split (s) 20.0 29.0 0.0 21.0 30.0 30.0 17.0 34.0 0.0 36.0 53.0 53.0 Act Effct Green (s) 14.2 21.2 13.0 20.0 20.0 ILl 30.5 25.4 47.6 47.6 Actuated '1JC Ratio 0.13 0.20 0.12 0.19 0.19 0.10 0.29 0.24 0.45 0.45 vlc Ratio 0.74 0.54 0.65 0.67 0.73 0.66 0.50 0.82 0.25 0.71 Control Delay 56.3 39.4 61.0 46.2 10.0 66.7 34.0 47.9 22.2 14.4 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.-0- " " 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 56.3 39.4 61.0 46.2 10.0 66.7 34.0 47.9 22.2 14.4 LOS E D E D B E C D C B Approach Delay 47.3 30.8 44.3 30.0 Approach LOS D C D C Queue lenl\:th 50th (ft) 118 116 96 155 0 82 136 230 96 144 Queue Length 95th (ft) . 182 178 172 219 103 #163 244 314 163 321 Internal Link DiS[ (ft) 3740 10070 S72 9/00 Turn Bay Length (ft) 300 275 100 240 13S Base CapacitY (vph) 513 B05 275 826 778 210 522 980 859 955 Starvation Cap Reducln 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spill back Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.66 0.47 0.5f 0.54 0.69 0.57 0.50 0.69 0.24 0.69 -- lnt~~;~Ctii>~'Si)riiiri~Wi>' .'; ':/\,,'\ ::.~ : \/i ".' :" ';';\:;'\;::' ........ .:;. ", \. \. ;,.' ....... ;'..:'. . ......, ." ;::.:,':';;<r:x,.':i:'::;::'\;)':;;\}:;<;'*):i;;':><{:'<;i~;:;::;:!i};;:':XY; Cycle Len)<th: /20 Actuated Cycle Length: 106.3 Control Type: Actuated.Uncoordinated Maximum vlc Ratio: 0.82 Intersection Sil\:nal Delay: 35.0 Intersection LOS: D Intersection CapaCity Utilization 65.2% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity. queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. Snlits and Phases: 5: R.attelsnake Hammock R.oad & Santa Barbara Boulevard Ext \. 1111 t 02 of 03 -+04 36 ~ II 34 ~ I 21 s I " 29s I '\ + ..J- +- lD5 06 07 08 17 s I 53 s 1 20 s I 30 s I Synchro 6.0 Report Page 3 - AM BKGD NG SM 1:\Projects\809\80993 ITrafOc\synchro\80993 _AMBK GD.sy 7 Vanasse & Daylar. LlP Agenda Item No. SA September 29, 2009 Lanes. Volumes. Timings T~SHhlllR~~~5 5: Rattelsnake Hammock Road & Santa Barbara Boulevard Ext AMTOTAL ~ -+ ~ of ..- '- ~ t !' \. + .I Lane Confj~uratlons ~ Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1734 0 Fit Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) 3419 0 3539 1583 1734 0 1863 1583 Satd. Flow (RTOR) 29 553 34 426 Volume (vph) 347 270 80 130 410 509 110 130 110 636 190 641 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 o.n 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Lane GrollP Flow (vph) 377 380 0 14\ 446 553 120 261 0 691 207 697 Turn Type 'Prot Prot Perm Prot Prot Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 I 6 Permitted Phases 8 6 Total Split (s) 21.0 28.0 0.0 21.0 28.0 28.0 16.0 34.0 0.0 37.0 55.0 55.0 ActEffct Green (5) 15.3 21.9 13.1 19.7 19.7 10.7 30.4 26.6 46.3 46.3 Actuated~/CRatio 0.14 0.20 0.12 0.18 0.18 0.10 0.28 0.2S 0.43 0.43 vlc Ratio 0.78 0.53 0.66 .0.69 0.75 0.69 0.51 0.82 0.26 0.76 Control Delay 58.0 39.7 61.9 48.3 10.5 70.0 34.~ 47.8 22.3 16.3 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 58.0 39.7 61.9 48.3 10.5 70.0 34.9 47.8 22.3 16.3 LOS E D E D B E C D C 6 Approach Delay 48.8 31.7 45.9 30.7 Approa.ch LOS . D C 'D C Queue Len~th 50th (ft) 135 118 98 158 0 84 140 241 97 170 Queue length 95th (ft) .#210 180 172 ..224 III #175 244 320 158 351 Internal UnkDist (ft) 3740 10070 572 8180 T urn Bay Length (ft) 300 275 100 240 135 Base.Capacity..(vph) 536 772 271 761 774 196 512 994 845 951 Sta.rvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 StorageCa,pReduCcn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced vlc Ratio 0.70 0.49 0.S2 0.59 0.71 0.61 0.51 0.70 0.24 0.73 iK~rlr~~~t~'iii~~~~;t*,][;}(::R;f:l'Y!I~'m?!t!i%\\~);~?iGiiHX0'W~1;\%lt:;;1$~'t';;\%~~r!;i\{~I}&,,f*,S~Y,l'R~:;"fl;)ii*~1~\illi%f~fit;\~t;)f;f1'~;mf.~~WW;jji&fil@'ri:0!:iW%F!i)ji'{]i;,~])t;~!'i~;i;;llii!f:.*,,~[@illif~*1t Cycle Len~th: 120 Actuated Cycle Length: I 08.3 Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated Maximum v/cRatio: 0.82 .' Intersection Si~nal Delay: 36.0 Intersection LOS: D Intersection Capacity Utilization 67.\ % ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. Splits and Phases: 5; Rattelsnake Hammock Road & Santa Barbara Boulevard Ext \.. 01 t 02 of 133 -+ 04 37 s I I 34 s I 21 s I 28 s 1 "\ 12I5 .;~ ~ ",7 ~ 06 08 16 s 1 55 s I 21 s I 28 s I AM TOTAL Synchro 6.0 Report Page I NG SM 1:\Projccts\809\8099 3\TrafHc\ZTIS _ 06 _2006\synchro I \80993 _ AMTOT AL.sy 7 Vanasse & Daylor. LLP Agenda Item No. 8A September 29, 2009 Lanes. Volumes, Timings T.pciil~~5ir?@5 5: Rattelsnake Hammock Road & Santa Barbara Boulevard Ext PMBKGD /' --+ 't of otIf- '- ~ t r \.. + ..; i..~;;~G~6i.Jj);:g;i:',<, " ">EBli':EBT i\"EBR"'WBL /;'WBT.'WBR' 'NBl/ 'iNBT:'" i/NBR~'\;SBL;;'<;);:>SBT' \:SBR lane Conft~uralions ~~ +t+ ~ ++ '(f ~ t+ ~"i + '(f Total lost Time (s) 4.0 4,0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 '1.0 '1.0 4.0 4.0 Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 3'147 0 1770 3539 1583 1770 /74'1 0 3433 1863 1583 Fit Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 34'17 0 1770 3539 1583 1770 1744 0 3433 1863 1583 Satd. Flow (RTOR) 20 46/ 31 425 Volume (vph) 510 380 80 90 340 620 150 270 200 635 130 480 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Lane Group Flow (vph) 5S4 500 0 98 370 674 163 510 0 690 ''II 522 Turn Type Prot Prot Perm Prot Prot Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 I 6 Permitted Phases 8 6 Total Split (s) 24.0 36.0 0.0 17.0 29.0 29.0 23.0 38.0 0.0 29.0 44.0 44.0 Act Effct Green (s) 20.0 32.9 11.0 23.9 23.9 15.3 34.0 25.0 43.7 43.7 Actuated l,/C Ratio 0.17 0.28 0.09 0.20 0.20 0.13 0.29 0.21 0.37 0.37 vlc Ratio 0.96 0.52 0.60 0.52 0.98 0.71 0.98 0.96 0.21 0.61 Control Delay 78.2 37.3 67.1 45.3 45,6 66.9 75.1 71.2 28.2 9.9 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 78.2 37.3 67.1 4S.3 45.6 66.9 75.1 71.2 28.2 9.9 LOS E D E D D E E E C A Approach Delay 58.8 47.3 73.1 43.1 Approach LOS E D E D Queue Len1.th 50th (ft) 222 165 74 134 196 122 374 275 7S 51 Queue length 95th (ft) #334 223 130 184 #456 192 #604 #395 130 172 Internal Link Dist (ft) 3740 10070 572 9100 Turn Bay length (ft) 300 275 100 240 13S Base Capacity (vph) 577 968 190 737 695 274 521 722 685 851 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced vlc Ratio 0.96 0.52 0.52 0.50 0.97 0.59 0,98 0.96 0.21 0.61 i~t~{~~cti&;:;:!sJri'1riii;;;;',; i,:~:'::' :;.':'.... . .~::,;:.~.::..~:~./.::..:.;/ ::',::.~<.< ::\~:\'~<~~'.: ~.;:;~.:.::;:,'.~.::.':: ':'.' . "....'.;::.?\...:..:.... . ' .. . "".' '~"'" ':<:"';:<.'.:;'::'.: ':':;";::"':\':.' .:..-::,:<<::.> ::,::':~,t:);:'::): K-i\.<l:i~>{ ~.\j;i\~..:.:.::,;.;'(~~>::: .:~.~.>'~..~ i:;f/Y?~':;} ~:f~.:' Cycle len1.th: 120 Actuated Cycle Length: 118.9 Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.98 Intersection Sis:nal Delay: 52.9 Intersection LOS: 0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 89.4% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (mln) 15 # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after tWO cycles. Splits a nd Phases: 5: Rattelsnake Hammock Road & Santa Barbara Boulevard Ext \... 01 t 02 f 03 --+ l1J4 2Ss I 38 s I 17 s I 36 s I ~ ~ ..f otIf- 1115 11J6 07 08 23 s I 44 s I 24 s I 29 s I PM BKGD Synchro 6.0 Report Page 3 NGSM I: \ProjeclsIB09\8099 3 IT ,'afficlsynchro \80993_ PMBK G D.s Y 7 Vanasse & Daylor, llP Agenda Item No. 8A September 29, 2009 Lanes, Volumes, Timings T~~~<We~L~~5 5: Rattelsnake Hammock Road & Santa Barbara Boulevard Ext PMTOTAL "f .. of ~ '- ~ t !' \.. ! ./ -+ Lane Confll:urations 'ti ++ '(f 'ti 1+ Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 <4.0 <4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1770 3539 1583 1770 1744 0 FIt Permitted 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (perm) 3447 0 1770 3539 1583 1770 1744 0 1863 1583 Satd. Flow (RTOR) 20 461 31 .409 Volume (vph) 5S1 380 80 90 340 641 150 270 200 6S9 130 530 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 . '0.92 Lane Group Flow (vph) 599 500 0 98 370 697 163 510 0 716 141 576 Turn Type Prot Prot . Perm Prot Prot Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 8 6 Total Split(s) .' 24.0 36.0 0.0 17.0 29.0 29.0 18.0 38.0 0.0 29.0 49.0 49.0 ACt EffctGreen'(s) . 20.0 34.0 11.0 25.0 25.0 13A 34.0 25.0 45;6 45.6 Actuated l(/CRatio 0.17 0.28 0.09 0.21 0.21 0.11 0.18 0.21 0.38 0.38 vIe Ratio 1.05 0.50 0.60 0.50 1.00 0.82 0.99 1.00 0.20 0.67 Conu-olDelay 98.9 37.0 67.6 44.7 51.6 83.1 77.6 81.7 26.2 12.9 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 98.9 37.0 67.6 44.7 51.6 83.1 77.6 81.7 26.2 12.9 LOS '. F D E D D F E F 'C B App~oach . Detay 70.7 50.7 78.9 48.6 ApproachLOS .... E D E D o.ueu~. L~1ll(th50th (ft) -259 165 74 134 -230 125 374 -288 73 99 Queue Length 95th (ft) #375 223 130 184 #497 #237 #604 #4t8 121 '234 tnt~rnal Link Dist (ft) 3740 10070 572 8254 TurnBayLengch (ft) 300 275 100 240 135 Ba~~ .c:apaci W. (vph) 572 991 189 737 695 206 516 715 708 855 StarvationCa p Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillbac.k Ca~ ~F!ductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap ReduCtn · 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 :0 0 0 Reduced vfc Ratio 1.05 0.50 0.52 0.50 1.00 0.79 0.99 1.00 0.20 0.67 im&Ydlf\'S=ltiWfi;ir.~~~\~fi~\~!,t1~~*~i:!))f.;;~H:;!r%f:};'%~i!;;~~ftm!1,@~t\g~#g~t~~~~~W<\~!ill~~~~IiR~~t~'B"1,*,;g~1*~1~~{:'1ti~~t)Wf,5I'tHj&';~%\~~~~r~~~',\~JIi:.g4~1'1H?l~ Fyclehl!nl(th:120 .... .... AcwaiedCydelength: '.120. Colltr(,:IType:Actu.ated-Uncoordinated MaxlmumvlcRatio:dlS' . IntersecticlnSij(n~IDelay: ~.9A... Intersection LOS: E InterseCtlonCapadtyUtilization 91.8% ICU Levl!l of Service F Analysis~erlod(l11in)15. ........ .... . . -.\,iOluineeXceeds'capacity;queuels theoretically infinite... . QuelJ7 sh<>y{n is l11axil11ull1after two. cycles. # ". ,95th .percentile volume exceeds capacity,' queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after twO cycles. Solits and Phases: 5: R.attelsnake Hammock Road & Santa Barbara Boulevard Ext \. 01 t 02 .(" 03 -+ 04 29 s I 38 s I 17 s I 36 s I ~ '~ / ~ 05 06 07 08 18 s I 49 s I 24 s I f 298 1 PM TOTAL Synchro 6.0 Report Page I NG SM 1:\Projem\809\8099 3\T raffic\ZTIS _ 08_.2006 \synchro 1 \80993 ]MTOT AL.sy 7 Vanasse & Daylor, lLP Agenda Item No. 8A September 29, 2009 Lanes, Volumes, Timings T~~~~~5 6: Davis Boulevard & Radio Road AMBKGD ~ ---- otf- "- \. ..; L~n~'G;:O:~ii';:: :' <f,'".:.>, "'\'EBf,i ',:EBT .WBT '::::<VVBlf,): :'is't3l!:/,\ SBR? ::' \,': ;c<,'Y\ .X::;';;..,:;',';.:,::,,:;;;:, ,!';;::,:X,X":,:!;xi<:,,::.,y ;';";\ ),\: Lane Confi~urations ~ ++ ++ 71 "i~ 71 Total Lost Time (s) 4,0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3539 3539 1583 3433 1583 Fit Permitted 0.107 0.950 Satd, Flow (perm) 199 3539 3539 1583 3433 1583 Satd. Flow (RTOR) 822 144 Volume (vph) 216 864 1268 1080 661 186 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0,92 0.92 Lane Group Flow (vph) 235 939 1378 1174 718 202 Turn Type pm+pt Perm Perm Protected Phases 5 2 6 4 Permitted Phases 2 6 4 Total Split (s) 15.0 89,0 74.0 74.0 31.0 31.0 Act Effct Green (s) 85.0 85,0 70.3 70.3 26.8 26.8 Actuated 'l.IC Ratio 0.71 0.71 0.59 0.59 0.22 0.22 v/c Ratio 0.84 0.37 0.66 0.93 0.93 0.43 Control Delay 41.5 7.4 18,8 20.2 66.0 15.8 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 T ocal Delay 41.5 7,4 IB.8 20.2 66,0 15.8 LOS D A B C E B Approach Delay 14.2 19.4 55.0 Approach LOS B B E Queue len,gth 50th (ft) 76 135 363 285 2B2 36 Queue Length 95th (ft) #211 167 438 #848 #396 106 Internal Link Dist (ft) 1463 1113 1603 Turn Bay Length (ft) 145 250 145 Base Capacity (vph) 285 2511 2077 1269 772 468 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reducm 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced vlc Ratio 0.82 0.37 0.66 0.93 0.93 0.43 [~t~~cti'8ksti~;#;~K.';::' ~o:;).:,;',.,;/;~\ ;~'{<':;.'~> ,>~, ":'::':.::j~,:;::.>:>'\fEA~:~fi}::~ ':,._, .:.:.~_~:.;.;:<~:; ::i:~ 'Y.:: ~,!.:.~.;:::.t:~~~{~.,~,.;}:-/~,,:,:~.'::"':: .\',.' , ," ':'.; :", ~'-~::'- ".~,}? ':':~~i~..:'~:::::::~.t:~:g:.\:~; ;~~.;'~ ' " .~~:'{:.~ ~ r:~ {X~ ~~~:~~;'~\e,gi~~~}A~%:rit~::<~t;~~}?(;::~~)t: Cycle Len~th; 120 Actuated Cycle Length: 119.8 Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated Maximum vlc Ratio: 0.93 Intersection Si~nal Delay: 25.2 Intersection LOS: C Intersection Capacity Utilization 85.5% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (minl IS # 95th percentile volume exceeds capadty. queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. Solies and Phases: 6: Davis Boulevard & Radio Road ---- 02 \. 04 89 s I 31s I..... ~ otf- 05 illS 15 s I 74 s I AM BKGD Synchro 6.0 Report Page I NGSM I: \Projects \809\8099 3 \ T rafflc\synchro\8099 3 _ AMB K G D .sy 7 Vanasse & Dayfor, LLP Agenda Item No. 8A September 29,2009 Lanes. Volumes, Timings T~~CWeGltIW5 6: Davis Boulevard & Radio Road AMTOT AL ~ +- '. \. .; .-.. Lane Confi~urations " ++ ++ 7f "'" '(f Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3S39 3539 1583 3433 1583 Fit Per'mined 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3539 3539 1583 3433 1583 Satd. Flow (RTOR) 717 144 Volume (vph) 216 926 1342 1080 661 186 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Lane Group Flow (VI' h) 235 1007 1459 1174 718 202 Turn Type Prot Perm Perm Protected Phases 5 2 6 4 Permitted Phases 6 4 '" Total Splids) 21.0 89.0 68.0 68.0 31.0 31.0 Act EffctGreen (s) 17.0 85.0 64.0 64.0 26.8 26.8 Actuated 'l.IC Ratio, 0.14 0.71 0.53 0.53 0.22 0.22 v/c Ratio 0.94 0.40 0.77 0.99 0.93 '0.43 Control Delay 93.6 7.6 25.7 37.0 66.0 15.8 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 93.6 7.6 25.7 37.0 66.0 15.8 LOS F A C D E B ApproachDelay 23.9 30.7 55.0 Approach LOS ,', . C C E Queue LeMth 50th (ft) 183 149 453 499 282 36 Queue Lengtl195th(ft) #340 184 548 #927 #396 106 Internal Link .Dist (ft) 1463 1113 1603 Turn Bay Length(ft) 145 250 145 Base Capacity (vph) 251 25 II 1890 1180 772 468 Starvation Cap, Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spiliback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Stor'age Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced vlc Ratio 0.94 0.40 0.77 0.99 0.93 0.'13 iif[~~~~lWAfslfiW'-iii~~*~;f(~~i&Jl~!t1&i~\}~:Wit%i:9;);fi'~%i~BYf;!Y(F;0'ii)~;;a;9{\;f!;rii'f};\;;~i,'''',~ii:;?,i\:~~:!NNffi)~t%;;;W:E~'j.fi~~~%'lff;t~~g11::W~~%1~fui~~d~t.%1~~,tilt~'tfi~@;;~~2;~;;(~1;~:,'ii}:;~i": Cycle Len'l.th: no ActuatedCyde Length: 119.8 Control, Type:, Act~ated.Uncoordinated Maximum vlC RatlQ: 0_99"" ", Intersection Si1(nalDelay: 33.6 Intersection LOS: C Intersection Capacity Utilization 85.5% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 # 95th percentile volume exc~s capacity. queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. Solits and Phases: 6: Davis Boulevard & Radio Road .-.. 02 t\. 04 89$ I 31$ T ~ ~ l!l5 06 21 $ 1 68 s I AM TOTAL Synchro 6.0 Report Page I NGSM I :\ProjectS \809\80993\T raffic\ZTIS _.06 _2006 \synchro I \80993 _AMTOT AL.sy 7 Vanasse & Daylol', LLP Agenda Item No. 8A Lanes, Volumes, Timings September 29, 2009 T~~~5 6: Davis Boulevard & Radio Road PMBKGD / --+ otf- '- \. ..; Laile'Grouo"'\'," ;.:: ,. .... .. '. . EBL::L'EBT :WBT>'::WBR>:' '.' :.5B[,'< ..... 'SBR ,..; ::..:c: t:.. ......., ..,'i.....;....:,.:, '::;/'<:;""':~:';:""::":('.;:",;:,.:' Lane Confl~urations ~ ++ ++ '{I "i"i '{f Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4,0 Satd. Flow (pret) 1770 3539 3539 IS83 3433 1583 Fit Permitted 0,950 0,950 Satd. Flow (p~rm) 1770 3539 3539 1583 3433 1583 Satd. Flow (RTOR) 699 f83 Volume (vph) 414 1656 755 643 1227 346 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0,92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Lane Group Flow (vph) 450 1800 821 699 1334 376 Turn Type Prot Perm Perm Protected Phases 5 2 6 4 Permitted Phases 6 4 ,. T etal Split (s) 35.0 69.0 34.0 34,0 51.0 51.0 Act Effct Green (s) 31.0 65.0 30.0 30.0 47.0 47.0 Actuated '1iC Ratio 0.26 0.54 0.25 0.25 0.39 0.39 vlc Ratio 0.98 0.94 0.93 0.76 0.99 0.51 - Control Delay 83.2 36.7 61.4 8.9 59.3 16.4 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 83.2 36.7 61.4 8.9 59.3 16.4 LOS F D E A E B Approach Delay 46.0 37.3 49.9 Approach LOS D D D Queue Len$(th 50th (ft) 348 656 327 0 523 108 Queue Length 95th (ft) #562 #853 #448 118 #685 201 Internal Link Dist (it) 1463 fll3 1603 Turn Bay Length (ft) 145 250 145 Base Capacity (vph) 457 /917 885 920 1345 731 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductll 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Ca p Red uctn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced vlc Ratio 0.98 0.94 0.93 0.76 0.99 0.51 lii':e;s&ti6h'SJ;:r;1~~k-'+,.:" "':"'.;.: :'~/:~;\:~;:;\;:'::: \;<.\ ~ {X ;X:::: ;.::~,~ :.:~ '.i.'),~:,:';~.t;::.~~,f,:\;:::r;~}Aj:i :"::. ':.-' ",-:..'. . ..: '::";.. ::.:.::"<: ,,:::.': ',' '.: .:" :':..... :':.. ,,>:.j:.: :'\. :; :X:~:).~_<.\~ :::_~~;)iJ::SlW.; ;'::-- t'~.:; -~:~.:.;~':,;::}~t)~~:,~:~,~~.:~ j~:':' ,,:, Cycle Len$(th: 120 Actuated Cycle Length: /20 Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated Maximum vlc Ratio: 0.99 Intersection Siinal Delay: 41.8 Intersection LOS: D Intersection Capacity Utilization 88.8% ICU level of Service E Analysis Period (min) IS # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after twO cycles. Snlits and Phases: 6: Davis Boulevard & Radio Road --+ 02 .\. 04 69 s I '. 51 s I ,f otf- 05 (D6 35 s I 34 s T PM BKGD Synchro 6.0 Report P~ge I NG SM I :IProjects 180918099 31 T ra ffic Isynch 1'0180993 _ PMB K G D .sy 7 Vanasse & Daylar, LLP Agenda Item No. 8A September 29. 2009 Lanes. Volumes. Timings TPdi'~~~~5 6: Davis Boulevard & Radio Road PMTOT AL .J- -+ ---- '- \.. .; Lane Confi~urations "'i Total LOSt Time (s) 4.0 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 Fit Permitted 0.950 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3S39 3539 1583 1583 Satd. Flow (RTOR) 657 181 Volume (vph) 414 1755 838 643 .1227 346 Peak Hooi'Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Lane Group Flow (vph) 450 1908 911 699 1334 376 Turn Type Prot Perm Perm Protected Phases 5 2 6 4 . -, -'. ".',. .. PermittetlPha.ses . 6 4 Total Split (s) 34.0 70.0 36.0 36.0 50.0 50.0 Act EffctGreen (s) 30.0 66.0 32.0 32.0 46.0 46.0 Actuated'l.IC Ratio 0.25 0.55 0,27 0.27 0.38 0,38 vie Ratio .... . 1.02 0.98 0.97 0.77 1.01 '0.52 Control Delay - 91.8 43.1 65.7 10.8 65,3 17.1 Queue 'Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 91.8 43.1 65.7 10.8 65.3 17.1 LOS F D E B E B Approach Delat 52.4 41.9 54.7 Approachi..6S ......... D D D Q~e~.e len'l.th50th(ft) -360 726 367 25 -543 III Queue'l~ngih-95ih (ft). #573 #932 #503 168 #696 206 Internal Link Dist Cft) 1463 1113 1603 Turn BayLength(ft) 145 250 145 BaseCapacity (vph). 443 1946 944 904 1316 718 Sui'Vation Cap Reductrl 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillbac:kc:ap ~t;ductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage'C#iReductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced vie Ratio 1.02 0.98 0.97 0.77 1.01 0.52 r~1.~~.iI'~ ,-~,.~ . "'~ .~_~~~~11(;~~r.4:i34%11!i'~~~~~~~r0ir.~w:;t;~\;if~~1~~~%kll*,j1~[1W(!~Fl!~~{~~lt~~~.~'i'{~ti#t.t!2t~rii,fir~~~~~jWZ~w';H:'f}'t*-~~iE C~cle.L~n~h:120< ....... ". ActUlited 'CycleLength:120' Cont~ol 'T ype:~~~aIlld: L)nc()ordina ted Maximum vie Ratio:'J;02 '.' . .. In~er~~5ti()Q Si~n~lpelay:~OJ .... Intersection LOS: D IntersecilonCapadtyUtllizatiori.91.1 % ICUI.~vel of Service F Analysis Period(l'llin)15 _ . Voiurrn';exceedscapaCity;queu~istheoretically infinite. . Queue shown isll1axirnum after two cycles. # 95thpercenti1e volumeexeeeds capacity. queue maybe longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. So!its and Phases: 6: Davis Boulevard & Radio Road -+ 02 "\. 04 70 s T 50 s I ~ ~ 05 06 34 s I 36 s I PM TOTAL Synchro 6.0 Report Page I NGSM 1,\P"ojem \809\80993\Traffic\ZTIS _ 08 _2006\synchro I \80993 _PMTOT AL.sy 7 Vanasse & Daylor, LLP Agenda Item No. 8A September 29, 2009 Lanes, Volumes. Timings Tr~~1J(:k~~~5 7: Davis Boulevard & CR 951 AMBKGD / -+ ,. f" ...e- "- "\ t r \.. ~ .; b~~;G;:hti~:....... . .... .... ...;..EBL'.....EBT" ..r.'EBff:~:..:W8'L.;;.\.VBT"::WBR> ::.iNBt>':<'NBT"/';":;NiiR".~,::.SBL;;/>;'FsBTi){;(.j'SBR Lane ConfiRUrations ~~ ++ " ~ ++ , ~~ +++ , ~ +++ " Total LOSl Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Satd. Flow (prol) 3433 3539 2787 1770 3539 1583 3433 5085 1583 1770 5085 2787 Fit Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 5atd. Flow (perm) 3433 3539 2787 1770 3539 1583 3433 5085 1583 1770 5085 2787 Sardo Flow (RTOR) 444 136 41 J085 Volume (vph) 961 137 412 55 211 125 443 1443 38 174 2475 1694 Peak HOllr Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Lane Group Flow (vph) 1045 149 448 60 229 136 482 1568 41 189 2690 1841 Turn Type Prot Perm Prot Perm Prot Perm Prot Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 I 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6 Total Split Is) 40.0 45.0 45.0 15.0 20.0 20.0 21.0 66.0 66.0 24.0 69.0 69.0 Act Effct Green (s) 36.0 42.8 42.8 9.5 14.1 14.1 17.0 62.0 62.0 20.0 65.0 65.0 Actuated 1!./C Ratio 0.24 0.29 0.29 0.06 0.10 0.10 0.11 0.42 0.42 0.13 0.44 0.44 vlc Ratio 1.2S 0.15 0.40 0.54 0.68 0.50 1.22 0.74 0.06 0.79 1.21 1.00 Control Delay 168.8 AO.8 4.8 8'1.8 75.4 IS.8 174.0 39.0 7.4 85.4 134.1 39.3 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 168.8 40.8 4.8 84.8 75.4 15.8 174.0 39.0 7.4 85.4 /34.1 39.3 LOS F D A F E B F D A F F D Approach Delay 112.4 57.7 69.5 95.2 Approach LOS F E E F Queue Len1!.th 50th (ft) -653 58 I 57 114 0 -296 467 0 181 -1165 -632 Queue Length 95th (ft) #797 88 47 108 162 66 #416 531 25 #308 #1259 #856 Internal Link Dist (ft) 1207 4181 13496 1638 T um Bay Length (ft) 650 650 145 145 600 600 650 600 Base Capacity (vph) 834 1025 1123 128 377 290 394 2128 686 239 2231 1832 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spill back Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced vlc Ratio 1.25 0.15 0.40 0.47 0.61 0.47 1.22 0.74 0.06 0.79 1.21 1.00 Irit~f~~hionSS~iir,.irv';: .. .'. -<).;~ """':" ':"," \:: . ".-'.'::~ .1:.......',.... ;";).';. ::;:;\<.;<~~:; ~,!:::~.;>~:, .;\~. <"\: ~~;::. :\{: ",' :.;:. ~'. ,-,,' ~:':" ".:: ,":; ":':'.~;..::.;. :':)::" : .::::_..,~:::.::;::~ :~!'::~:':';:;"\;~}?/'~\:>~'i:':"'\ : ~ }i'~~t~:~*~1:tt:~~~{~~~~~~~.~~~A!-!~{~:t Cycle Len1!.th: 150 Actuated Cycle Length: 148.2 Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated Maximum vlc Ratio: 1.25 Intersection Sil(nal Delay, 90.5 Intersection LOS: F Intersection Capacity Utilization 107.0% ICU level of Service G Analysis Period (min) 15 - Volume exceeds capacity. queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity. queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. Solits and Phases: 7: Davis Boulevard & CR 95 I t 02 \.. 01 f" 03 -+ 04 66 s I 24 s I '. 15 s I 45 s I ~ "\ ...e- .,;. 06 05 0B 07 69 s I 21 s I 20 s I 40 s I AM BKGD Synchro 6.0 Report Page I NGSM I: \Proj e<:ts \809\80 993 \ Trafflc\synchl"o \8099 3 _ AMBK G D. s Y 7 Vanasse & Daylol', LLP Agenda Item No. 8A September 29, 2009 Lanes, Volumes, Timings T~gri'Re~r~e5 7: Davis Boulevard & CR 95 I AM BKGD with IMPROVEMENT .,J- .... ('" -f- '-. "'\ t l' \.. ~ ./ -+ lane(;~oUD;;'; ....... "ie;' >)EBI.'i "EBT~' EBR' .'waC 'WBTWBR:</;NBf<;:NBT"\;!;NBRSXS"SBLSi\:SBT;';"\SBR Lane ConfiS!urations 'tIj"i'tlj ++ 'fI'(I ~ ++ '(I 'tIj"i"tj tftt '(I 'tli tttt "''(1 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Satd. Flow (prot) 4990 3539 2787 1770 3539 1583 4990 6408 1583 1770 6408 2787 Fit Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.9S0 Satd. Flow (perm) 4990 3S39 2787 1770 3S39 1583 4990 6408 IS83 1770 6408 2787 Satd. Flow (RTOR) 423 m 41 1010 Volume (vph) 96\ 137 412 S5 211 125 443 1443 38 174 2475 1694 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Lane Group Flow (vph) 1045 149 448 60 229 136 482 \568 'It 189 2690 1841 Turn Type PrOl Perm prot Perm Prot Perm Prot Prot Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 Total Split (5) 28.0 35.0 35.0 13.0 20.0 20.0 16.0 47.0 47.0 2S.0 56.0 56.0 Act Effct Green (s) 24.0 30.6 30.6 8.1 12.7 12.7 12.0 43.0 43.0 21.0 52.0 52.0 Actuated f,IC Ratio 0.21 0.26 0.26 0.07 0.11 0.11 0.10 0.37 0.37 0.18 0.45 0.45 vlc Ratio 1.02 0.16 0.43 0.50 0.59 0.46 0.94 0.66 0.07 0.59 0.94 102 Control Delay 78.9 34.8 5.8 66.9 -16.2 13.3 79.7 32.7 7.9 53.1 39.3 42.3 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 78.9 34.8 5.8 66.9 56.2 13.3 79.7 32.7 7.9 53.1 39.3 42.3 LOS E C A E E B E C A D D D Approach Delay 54.9 44.0 43.1 410 Approach LOS D D D D Queue Lenf.th 50th (ft) -295 47 8 44 87 0 129 284 0 132 550 -580 Queue Length 95th (ft) #401 75 52 91 130 58 #207 340 24 217 #680 #753 Internal Link Dist (ft) 1207 4181 1685 1638 Turn Bay Length (ft) 650 6S0 145 145 600 600 650 600 Base CapacitY (vph) 1026 966 1068 133 472 329 513 2361 609 318 2856 1802 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced vie Ratio 102 0.15 0.42 0.45 0.49 0.41 0.94 0.66 0.07 0.59 0.94 1.02 int;;;;se2ti6ri'slirrii;i~'~\;:!. . ';, -::::. "',,::-,',::':;,:;":;::~;":,~\:<,~,:r.." :::. ~;:"':<<'::;'/;-~~'_-:"""" ,~....:., -,~ .~:,\~.:: :'-';:.>/'" ~..' '..::,::.,,:;~;)<.:.~ "'~'::-:'<::"iO:~-' Cycle Lenl(th: 120 Actuated Cycle Length: 116.7 Control Type: Actuated.Uncoordlnated Maximum vIe Ratio: 1.02 Intersection Sil(nal Delay: 44.2 Intersection LOS: D Intersection Capacity Utllization 83.5% ICU level of Service E Analysis Period (min) IS - Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after twO cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after' twO cycles. Solits and Phases: 7: Davis Boulevard & CR 951 t ",2 \.. 01 ('" 03 -+ 04 47 s I 25 s I 13 s I 35 s I i "\ -f- .,J- 06 05 08 07 56 s II 16 s I 20 s II 28 s I AM BKGD with IMPROVEMENT Synchro 6.0 Repon Page I NG SM 1:\Projects\809\8099 3\Traffic\synchro\80993 _AMBKG D _illlproved.sy 7 Vanasse & Daylol', LlP Agenda Item No. 8A September 29,2009 Lanes. Volumes, Timings TP~~~1~5 7: Davis Boulevard & CR 95 I AMTOTAL ~ -+- ...... ~ +- '- "'\ t t' \.. ! .; Lane Confij!uraejons '{I Total LOSt Time (s) 4.0 $atd. flow (prot) 1583 Fit Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) 3539 2787 3539 1583 5085 1583 5085 2787 Sardo Flow (RTOR) 448 136 41 [097 Volume (vph) 1008 137 412 55 211 125 443 1443 38 174 2475 1750 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Lane Group Flow (vph) 1096 149 448 60 229 136 482 1568 41 189 2690 1902 Turn Type Prot Perm 'Prot Penn Prot Perm 'Prot Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 I 6 Permitted Phases <4 8 2 6 Total Split (s) 41.0 46.0 46.0 15.0 20.0 20.0 21.0 65.0 65.0 24.0 68.0 68.0 Act EffctGreen (s) 37.0 43.8 43.8 . '9.5 "'4.1 14.1 17.0 61.0 61.0 20.0 64.0 64.0 Actuated rolC Ratio 0.25 0.30 0.30 0.06 0.10 0.10 0.11 0.'11 0.41 0.13 0.43 0.43 v/c R.atio 1.28 .0.14 0.39 0.54 0.68 0.50 1.22 0.75 0.06 '0.79 1,22 1.04 Control Delay 178.3 40.0 4.4 84.8 75.4 15.8 174.0 --10.0 7.6 85.4 142.3 50.4 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 178.3 40.0 4.4 84.8 75.4 15.8 174.0 40.0 7.6 8S.4 142.3 50.4 LOS F D A. :F E B f D A F F' D Approach Delay 120..1 57.7 70.3 .103... Approach LOS . F E ..E' F Queue Lenl!th 50th (ft) . -694 57 .0. .. 57 114 0 -296 472 0 181 :-1.178. :-766 Queue Length95th (ft) . .. .#840 88 45' :',.108 . 162 . 66 #416 538 26 #308.#1272 "'#920 Internal Link Dist (ft) 1207 4181 13496 1638 Turn Bay Length (ft) 650 650 145 145 600 600 650 600 Base Capacity (vph) 858 1049 1142 128 377 290 394 2094 676 239 2197 1827 StarVation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 ....0 0 0 0 0 0 ,0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reducm 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage CapReductn 0 0 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0 () '. 0 Reduced vIe Ratio 1.28 0.14 0.39 0.47 0.61 0.47 1.22 0.75 0.06 0.79 1.22 1.04 1:.:~..~ry~~~r;:~T';\~~.:;\,t'~'ffl Cycle Len~th: 150 ActUli.iedCydeLength: 148.2 Control T Yl'e: A.ct~ated.Uncoordinated MaximumvJc Ratio:L28 . . Intersflction $il:nal Delay: 96.7 Intersection LOS: F Intersection Capacity Utilization 108.4% ICU Level of Service G Analysis ~e~iod (min) 15 . . '. - Volume exceeds C:apacity, 'queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. #9Stli'percentile volume exceeds Capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after tWO cycles. Snlits and Phases: 7: Davis Boulevard & CR 951 , 02 \.. 01 ~ 03 "'7'i'" 04 85 s T 24 s I 15 s r 48 s I '~ "\ +-- ~ 08 05 08 07 88s I 21 s I 20s I 41 s I AM TOTAL Synchro 6.0 Report Page I NGSM 1:\Projects\809\80993\ T raffic\ZTIS_ 06._ 2006\synchro 1\80993 _AMTOT AL.sy 7 Vanasse & D~ylor, LLP <JI>.r Agenda Item No. 8A September 29,2009 Lanes, Volumes, Timings Tr~~R3e~r?~5 7: Davis Boulevard & CR 951 AM TOTAL with IMPROVEMENT .J- ~ of +- '- "'\ t I" \.. + .I --+- Lane Confl~urations "i~~ " tttt '(f'{f Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Satd. Flow (prot) 4990 1770 6408 2787 Fit Permitted 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (perm) 4990 3539 2787 3539 1583 640B 1583 1770 6408 2787 Satd. Flow (RTOR) 393 136 41 1078 Volume (vph) 1008 137 412 55 211 125 443 1443 38 174 2475 1750 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Lane Group Flow (vph) 1096 149 448 60 229 136 482 1568 41 189 2690 1902 Turn Type Pret Perm Prot Perm Prot Perm Prot prot Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 I 6 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 Total Split (s) 37.0 42.0 42.0 15.0 20.0 20.0 19.0 63.0 63.0 30.0 74.0 74.0 Act Effet 'Green(s) 33.0 39.S 39.8 9.5 14.1 14.1 15.0 59;0 59.0 26.0 70.0 70.0 Actuated ~/C Ratio 0.22 0.27 0.27 0.06 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.40 0.40 0.18 0.47 0.47 vie Ratio 0.99 . 0.16 0.43 0.54 0.68 0.50 .0.95 0.61 0.06 0.61 0.89 1.01 Control Delay 80.7 43.1 8.3 84.8 75.4 15.8 95.8 37.0 8.0 66.0 -40.3 39.9 QueueOelay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 80.7 43.1 8.3 84.8 75.4 15.8 95.8 37.0 8.0 66.0 40.3 39.9 LOS . F D A F E B F D A E 0 D Appro~chDelay S8.2 57.7 49.9 41.1 Approach 'LOS E E '0 0 Queue L~n~th. 50th (ft) 380 60 23 57 114 0 16B 351 0 172 682 -705 Queue t.ength 95ch (ft) #487 91 74 108 162 66 ."#247 396 26 261 741 .#918 Internal Link Oist (ft) 1207 4181 13496 1638 Turn Bay Length (ft) 650 650 145 145 600 600 650 600 Base Capacity .(vph) 1112 954 1038 128 377 290 505 2552 655 311 3028 1886 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Redoan 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced vIe Ratio 0.99 0.16 0.43 0.47 0.61 0.47 0.95 0.61 0.06 0.61 0.89 1.01 Cycle Len9;th:1 50 Actuated Cycle Length: 148.2 Contr,,1 Type: Aetuated-Uncoo,rdinated Maximumv/c Ratio: 1.0 I .... '. Intersecti,,~Si~nal Delay; 47.2 Intersection LOS: D IntersectionCapadty Utilization 85.5% leu Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 ..;. Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # . 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity. queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after twO cycles. Splits and Phases: 7: Davis Boulevard & CR 95 I t 02 \.. 01 ('" 03 ~04 63 s I 30 s I 15 s I 42 s I , "'\ ~ .J- 06 05 08 07 74 s I 19 s I 20 s -\ 37 s I AM TOTAL with IMPROVEMENT Synchro 6.0 Report Page 1 NGSM 1:IProjects\809\80993 IT rafflc\ZTIS_ 06 _2006\synchro I \80993 _AMTOT ALjmproved.sy 7 Vanasse & Daylor, LLP Agenda Item No. 8A September 29,2009 Lanes, Volumes, Timings T&~~~~5 7: Davis Boulevard & CR 951 PMBKGD ...J -+ " ~...- -\.. '\ t I" \. ! ..I l~~e\Gi'dJ'ii{i;",[:' """ ' ' " ii;.;, OEsl::iEBT"'; ':EBR.":WBl.~i<: WBT~;:": WBR:';':~NBC{ '[NBT;' ;,:/iNBR':;~;;SBL::j':;!>:8sBT&:i~,;t:)SBR Lane ConfiRurations ~~ -++ '{t'{t ~ ++ 'fI ~~ +-++ 7' "'i +++ '(1'(1 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Satd. Flow (prot) 3-433 3539 2787 1770 3539 1583 3-433 5085 1583 1770 5085 2787 Fit Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 3539 2787 1770 3539 1583 3-433 5085 1583 1770 5085 2787 Satd. Flow (RTOR) 320 77 55 875 Volume (vph) 1816 259 778 55 211 125 374 2126 51 131 2331 813 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Lane Group Flow (vph) 1974 282 846 60 229 136 -407 23" 55 142 2534 884 Turn Type Prot Perm Prot Perm Prot Perm Prot Perm Protected Pha ses 7 4 3 8 5 2 I 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6 Total Split Is) 58.0 63.0 63.0 15.0 20.0 20.0 16.0 60.0 60.0 12.0 56.0 56.0 Act Effct Green (s) 54.0 60.8 60.8 9.5 14.1 14.1 12.0 56.0 56.0 8.0 52.052.0 Actuated RIC Ratio 0.36 0.4 I 0.41 0.06 0.10 0.10 0.08 0.38 0.38 0.05 0.35 0.35 vlc Ratio 1.58 0.19 0.64 0.54 0.68 0.62 1.46 1.20 0.09 1.49 1.42 0.57 Control Delay 296.S 29.3 23.7 84.8 75.4 41 A 271.4 136.5 7.5 311.6 228.5 3.8 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 296.5 29.3 23.7 8-4.8 75.4 41.4 271.4 136.5 7.5 3/1.6 228.5 3.8 LOS FCC FED F F A F F A Approach Delay 197.8 65.9 153.8 176.0 Approach LOS F E F F QueuelenRth50th(ft) -1402 94 240 57 114 55 -278 -998 0 -190 -1213 3 Queue Length 95th (ft) #1548 130 323 108 162 129 #392 #1098 31 #338 #1310 52 Internal link Dist (ft) 1207 4181 13496 1638 Turn Bay Length (ft) 650 650 145 145 600 600 650 600 Base Capacity (vph) 1251 14S5 1334 128 377 238 278 1922 632 95 1785 15-46 St31vation Cap Reductll 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reducln 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reducer) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced vlc Ratio 1.58 0.19 0.63 0.47 0.61 0.57 1.46 1.20 0.09 1.49 1.42 0.57 >lnt~~~e8ti6;;"s~iilh;~f\iV '.:i >> "';',;;:/i::>,';:;!,\,,;i';\ii:~\};(:, ii' .:'(Y(::\.:;:/>i;:, i'. > ',' ':;'X+";>:;:;L;<i/;:;;;,;;:';;i<iPg;@:~~:M;j~fl'~j!;iit,~\''I: Cycle lenRth: 150 Actuated Cycle Length: 148.2 Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated Maximum vlc Ratio: 1.58 Intersection Si~nal Delay: 171.9 Intersection LOS: F Intersection Capacity Utilization 126.7% ICU Level of Service H Analysis Period (min) 15 - Volume exceeds capacity. queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th pel-centile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. Splits and Phases: 7: Davis Boulevard & CR 951 t l?J2 \. 01 .f 1Il3 -+ 04 60s 12s I" 15s I B3s I ! m6 '\ 135 <If- illS ~ 07 56 s I ,I 16 S I 20 s I 58 s I PM BKGD Synchro 6.0 Report Page I NG SM 1:\PI'ojects\809\80993\TJ'affic\synchro\80993]MBKGD.sy7 Vanasse & Daylor. LLP Agenda Item No. 8A September 29,2009 Lanes, Volumes, Timings T~ra1f(e~~5 7: Davis Boulevard & CR 95 I PM BKGD with IMPROVEMENT .) -+ .... f +- '- '\ t !" \... ~ .; i.~n'~:G;'(;J;;":<' ...' ... .. ">EBl."'EIlT "'EBR' .'wlll.:..",WBT' 'WBR',<<NBL'ii';;;;NBi\\/'NBR'" ....'.:::/SBlii;:J::.SBtty:":';"SBR Lane Confi~urations "l"l"i ++ fl7' "i ++ fI "l"l"i tttt fI "trj ttft fl7I T oul Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4,0 4.0 4.0 4,0 4.0 4.0 Satd. Flow (prot) 4990 3539 2787 1770 3539 1583 4990 6408 1583 1770 6408 2787 Fit Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (perm) 4990 3539 2787 1770 3539 1583 4990 6408 1583 1770 6408 2787 Satd. Flow (RTOR) 375 103 5S 884 Volume (vph) 1816 259 778 5S 211 125 374 2126 51 131 2331 813 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0,92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Lane Group Flow (vph) 1974 282 846 60 229 136 407 2311 5S 142 2534 884 Turn Type Prot Perm Pl'Ot Perm Prot Perm Prot Prot Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 S 2 I 6 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 Total Split (s) 56.0 61.0 61.0 15.0 20.0 20.0 15,0 S8.0 58.0 16.0 59.0 59.0 Act Effct Green (s) 52.0 58.8 58.8 9.5 14.1 14.1 11.0 54.0 54.0 12.0 55.0 55,0 Actuated ~/C Ratio 0.35 0.40 0.40 0.06 0,10 0,10 0.07 0.36 0.36 0.08 0.37 0.37 vFc Ratio 1.13 0.20 0.64 0.54 0.68 0.56 1.10 0.99 0.09 0.99 1.07 0.56 Control Delay 108.8 30.6 21.9 84.8 75.4 28.0 137.0 62.8 7.9 138.8 83.0 3.4 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0:0' 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 108.8 30.6 21.9 84.8 75.4 28.0 137.0 62.8 7.9 138.8 83.0 3.4 LOS F C C F E C F E A F F A Approach Delay 78.0 61.6 72.6 65.4 Approach LOS E E E E Queue len~h 50th (ft) -787 96 218 S7 114 30 -158 649 0 140 -790 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) #887 133 301 108 162 102 #237 #751 32 #290 #867 47 Internal Link Dist (ft) 1207 4181 2045 1638 Turn Bay Length (ft) 6S0 650 145 145 600 600 650 600 Base Capacity (vph) 1752 1407 1334 128 377 261 371 2336 612 144 2379 1591 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 1.13 0.20 0.63 0.47 0.61 0.52 1.10 0.99 0.09 0.99 1.07 0.56 l;;t~~~~tfiB'ti'\S8,firii~~'!'>i,'", ."" "'i/O';;',: ., ..,..........' "', ;:ii, "'i:' ,:::;,:':.::i~;":',:.<:. ,.>.:,,,::<;:;;'.~":', ',: ....->;....\:::;;,::::::::,r>'.'>,Ki: ':' Cycle Len~th: 150 Actuated Cycle Length: 148.2 Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.13 Intersection Si~nal Delay: 71.2 Intersection LOS: E Intersection Capacity Utilization 94.6% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15 - Volum!'! exceeds capacity. queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after tWO cycles. Snlits and Phases: 7: Davis Boulevard & CR 9S I t 1112 \,. 1111 f 03 -tlt- 04 58 s I 16 s I . 15 s I 61 s T i ~ +- .J- 1Il6 05 08 'lJ7 59 s I 15 s I 20 s I 56 s T PM BKGD with IMPROVEMENT Synchro 6.0 Report Page I NGSM 1:\Projecls\B09\80993\T nffic\synch 1"0\80993 _PMBKG D _improved.sy 7 Vanasse & Daylor. LLP Agenda Item No. 8A September 29, 2009 Lanes, Volumes, Timings T.pcil6Mh~~se~.(J)5 7: Davis Boulevard & CR 951 PMTOTAL ~ -+ t of of- '- "\ t t' '.. ~ .; Lane Con(j~ul'ations '(f7f Total lost Time (5) 4.0 Satd. Flow (prot) 2787 Fit Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) 3539 2787 3539 1583 5085 1583 5085 2787 Satd. Flow (RTOR) 320 7755 941 Volume (vph) 1890 259 778 55.211 125 374 2126 51 131 2331 875 Peak Hou~ Factor 0.920.920.92 0.92 . 0.920.92 0.92 0.92 . 0.920.92 ,0.920.92 lane Group Flow (vph) 2054 282 846 60 229 136 407 2311 55 142 2534 95 I Turn Type .' Prot Perm Prot Perm Prot . Perm Prot Perm Protected Phases 7 4 8 5 2 I 6 Permitted 'Phases 'q A '82 '6 T ()taISpn~ (5). . ' 58.0 . 63.0 63.0 . .. . .15..0 . 20.0 20.016.0 60.0 . . . 60.0 . 12,0 56.0 56.0 Act Effct Green(s) '. 54.0 60.8 60.8 . '9.5 '. 14.114.1 . 12.0 . 56.0 . '<56.0. 8.052.0 52.0 Actuated 'l..IC ~tio 0.36 OAI.. 0,'11 '.. 0.06 ,0.10 0.10 0.08 0.38 0.38 0.05. 0.35. 0.35 v/cRatio .. 1.64 0.190.64 . '0:54 '<l.68 0.62 1.46 1.200.091.49 . 1.42 0.60 Control Delay 324.0 29.3 23.7 84.8 .J5,4 41.4 271.4 136.5 7.5 311.6 228.5 3.9 Queue Delay 0.00.0 '0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 q.O.OO.O Total Delay 324.0 29.3 23.7 84.8 75.4 41.4 271.4 13.6.5 7.5 311.6 228.5 3.9 LOS FCC FE D F F A F. F A Approach{)elay 218.0 65.9 153.8 172.9 Approach LOS FE F'F Qu~u!!LenJtth50th(ft) -1485. 94.240 ..... 57 .114 55~278. -998 .... 0 ~190 .~1213 . 3 QueueL'engd195th(ft) '#1630130.323 "108:.'162129#392 ,.#1098 31#338#1310:53 Internal Link Dist (ft) 1207 418 t 13496 1638 Turn Bay Length (ft) 650650 145145600600 650 .600 Base Capacity (vph) 1251 1455 1334 128 377 238 278 1922 632 9S 1785 1589 Starvation Cap ReductnO 0 0 "0 .' 0 ',00 0 ,0, 0 '0 "0 SpillbackCap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn0 0 00 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 1.64 0.19 0.63 0.47 0.6' 0.57 1.46 1.20 0.09 1.49 1.42 0.60 r~~~)~-~0f'.:~~i':r;~~';;~,)~~~1~~\~f~~l~~~t~~~~~t~t~(t1W~~~~1~~i~~~~~~~~~:~1~~~&it;~1~~~~~~~.~~~N~~~~~\it~~&~if~~~~1f!~f?~Pl4~~~~t~; CydeLen~h:150 ACtuatedCydeLength;148.2 Control Type; Actuated.Uncoordina~~c! Maximumv/cRatici:L64 . . " '. . Intersectio~Sb:naIDelay:17.7.4. . '. '.' . . Intersection LOS: F Intersectlon Capacity Utilization 12,6.8% '. ." .... .ICU L~velofSe,vice H ." Analysis Period(rnin)IS ...... '. '. . '.' '. -..Volu'rileexceedscapa(:ity,queue is theoreticallyiilfirlite. ". Queu~sh()wnis mald":!ul11.after tWO cycles... . . .' '. .. # 95th percentile volume excee<!s>capadty, queue may be longer. . Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. Solits and Phases: 7: Davis Boulevard & CR 95 I t, 02 \.. 1111 of 03 ~ 04 60s 12s 1 15s I 63$ I l 06 ~ l!l5 ~ l!l8 "J 07 56 ~ 1 16 s I 20 s I 58 s I PM TOTAL Synchro 6.0 Repol"t Page I NG SM 1;IProjemIB09180993ITrarric\ZTIS_08_2006Isynchro I \80993 _PMTOT AL.sy7 Vanasse & Daylor, LLP Agenda Item No. 8A September 29,2009 Lanes, Volumes, Timings T .gfllgfhfHsef-(J35 7: Davis Boulevard & CR 951 PM TOTAL with IMPROVEMENT .J- -+ ,. {' --- '- "\ t /'" \.. + ./ Lane Confi~urations . Total Lost Time (s) Satd. Flow (prot) Fit Permitted Satd. Flow (penn) 3539 2787 3539 1583 6408 1583 6408 2787 Satd. Flow (RTOR.) 375 102 55 951 Volume (vph) 1890 259 778 55 211 125 374 2126 51 131 2331 875 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0,92 . 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Lane Group Flow (vph) 2054 282 846 60 229 136 407 2311 55 142 2534 95 I Turn Type Prot Prot Prot Perm :Prot .Perm Prot Prot Protected Phases 7 4 4 3 8 5 2 I 6 6 Pe;'mitt~d:Phas~s" . 8 2 Total Split (~).... 57.0 62.0 62.0 15.0 20.0 20.0 15.0 58.0 58.0 .15.0 58.0 58.0 Act Effci:.Green (s) 53.0 59.8 59.8 '9.5 H.I 14.1 11.0 54.0 . 54.0 11.0 54.0 54.0 Acw~ted~/C Ratio 0.36 0.40 0.40 0.06 0.10 0.10 0.07 0.36 0.36 0.07 0.36 0.36 vIe Ratio' 1.15 0.20 0.63 0.54 . 0.68 0.56 1.10 0;99 0;09 L08 1.08 0.59 Control Delay 117.4 29.9 21.4 84.8 75.4 28.5 137.0 62.8 7.9 163.0 90.5 3.5 OueueDelay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 117.4 29.9 21.4 84.8 75.4 28.5 137.0 ,62.8 7.9 163.0 90.5 3.5 LOS F C C f E C F E A F f A Approach Delay 84.1 61.7 72.6 70.5 ApproaditOS F E .'.E E Qu~ueL~~~th?9th. (ft) -832 95 215 57 114 31 -158 649 0 -154 -802 0 QueuetEinith95th(ft) #931 132 297 108 162 103 #237 #751 32 #302 #880 "48 Internal Link Dist (ft) 1207 4181 1465 1638 Turn Bay Length (ft) 650 650 145 145 600 600 650 600 Base ,Cap.acity (vph) 1785 1431 1350 128 377 260 371 2336 612 132 2336 1620 St3rvation Cap RedllCtn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SpiUba"k 9pRedl!ctn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage.CapRedllCtrl' . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ,0 0 0 0 0 Reduced vlc Ratio 1.15 0.20 0.63 0.47 0.61 0.52 1.10 0.99 0.09 1.08 1.08 0.59 lit ";~"'!sP;~~~~11ffi%~~~~Ji~:~1~J}~%~~%W~Jt~~g'%v~~%?1';;~;~0\~~~~t~~ft~Jwt~1~1t~r~f,~g.t~ti.*~~~~~~1!!~~~1:tr.~m.~~{fi~'i~~~1~~t~~$~Wt--m~~f '.'-'. . Cycl,eL~Il~th:ISO ......... ...... ActuatedCyde:length;14S;2 . c:olltrClI Trp~:Ac:tu<lt~d-l)ncoord inated Maximumv/c;RatiQ: .1.15 .' ' lntersectiClnSi~lla.Il)~lay: 75.0 Intersection LOS: E Intersection.CapaCltyUtmiati(m96,0% lCULevelof Servieef Analysis,~~rj?d("1in)IS ............. ...... .' _ 'Voh.imeexc~sca:pacity,'q~ueistheoreticaItYinfinite. , 9u~ue s.~()'Nnisrna~iITlUrn. after ~V{? cyc;les, #'95th percentile volumeexc~scapaciiYt queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after twO cycles. Solits and Phases: 7: Davis Boulevard & CR 951 t 02 \.. 01 {' 03 1~04 58 s I 15 s I 15 s I 62 s I ~ "" ........ ~ flJ6 05 08 07 58 s I 15 s I 20 s I 57 s T PM TOTAL with IMPROVEMENT Synchro 6.0 Report Page t NGSM 1:\Projects\809\80993\ Traffic\ZTIS _ 08 _2006\synchro I IB0993 ]MTOT AL_improved.sy 7 Vanasse & Daylor, LLP Agenda Item No. 8A September 29, 2009 Lanes, Volumes, Timings T~rii1&mr~e5 8: Radio Road & Santa Barbara Boulevard AMBKGD .J- -+ " ., ...- "-"\ t I'" \.. J. .; l.ari~:Grotio',. '.;:" . >, <. .... . 'EBl>;'EBT>',.'EBR/::WBLS;::WBT/:'WBR' 'NBl'<>NBT' '''NBR<''<SBL ,'('SBT,>);c;',isBR Lane Confij(urations ~ ++ 7' 'I ++ 7' ~ +++ 7' ~ -+-++ '(f Total Lost Time (s) 4,0 4,0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4,0 4.0 4.0 4,0 Satd, Flow (prot) 1770 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 1770 5085 1583 1770 5085 1583 FIt Permitted 0,950 0.950 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 1770 5085 1583 1770 5085 1583 5atd. Flow (RTOR) 364 422 310 408 Volume (vph) 363 J88 588 775 512 479 589 550 285 291 910 601 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0,92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Lane Group Flow (vph) 395 204 639 842 557 521 640 598 310 316 989 653 Turn Type Prot Perm Prot Perm Prot Perm P,'Ot Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 I 6 Permitted Phases " 8 2 6 Total Split (s) 31.0 no 22.0 40.0 31.0 31.0 32.0 28.0 28.0 30.0 26.0 26.0 Act Effct Green (s) 27.0 18.0 18.0 36.0 27.0 27.0 28.0 26.0 26.0 24.0 22.0 22.0 Actuated ~/C Ratio 0.22 0.15 O. 15 0.30 0.22 0.22 0.23 0.22 0.22 0.20 0.18 0.1 B vie Ratio 0,99 0.38 1.17 1.59 0.70 0.76 1.55 0.54 0.53 0.89 1.06 l.05 Control Delay 90.1 48,4 114.1 303.1 48.2 17.1 292.0 44,4 8.1 74.1 93.9 67.7 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 90.1 48,4 114.1 303.1 48.2 17.1 292.0 44,4 8.1 74.1 93.9 67.7 LOS F 0 F FOB FDA E F E Approach Delay 95.6 151.6 139.5 82.0 Approach LOS F F F F Queue Len~th 50th ift) 307 75 -334 -929 210 64 -699 154 0 235 -308 -273 Queue Length 95th (ft) #512 115 #565 # 1173 274 209 #926 197 78 #381 #400 #506 Imernal Link Distift) 15579 5187 5497 8009 TumBayLength(ft) 145 145 145 145 145 145 145 145 Base Capacity (vph) 398 531 547 531 796 683 413 1104 586 378 932 623 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillbaci< Cap Reductll 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced vIe Ratio 0.99 0.38 1.17 1.59 0.70 0.76 1.55 0.54 0.53 0.84 1.06 1.05 iritersectionS\jmmary' '". ":-'i':'>"':';':i ,i,<''',;.,' . '''', . ....ii,:'..' "!\':;,.:.,;:g,;'i,;:\i.:ii;;.':': ::;' Cycle Len,l(th: 120 Actuated Cycle Length: 120 Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated Maximum vIe Ratio: 1.59 Intersection Si~nal Delay: 117.9 Inter"section LOS: F Intersection Capacity Utilization 111.7% leu Level of Service H Analysis Period (min) 15 - Volume exceeds capacity. queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. SDlits and Phases: 8: Radio Road & Santa Barbara Boulevard \.. 01 t 1Il2 .f 1113 -+ ~4 30 s I 28 s I 40 s I 22 s I "\ 05 + 1116 .J- Ill? <If- ~8 32 s I 26 sf 31 s I 31 s I AM BKGD SynchrQ 6.0 Report Page I NG SM 1:\Projects\809\80993\Traffic\synchro\80993_AMBKGD.sy7 Vanasse & Daylor. LLP Agenda Item No. 8A September 29, 2009 Lanes, Volumes, Timings T Ratg-ana 'ffi!nfr2e5 8: Radio Road & Santa Barbara Boulevard AM BKGD with IMPROVEMENT ..J- -+ " ., .- "- "\ t I'" '. ~ .; L~~eG~ou~ . ...... EBL\EBTEBil.vVBL WBT~-WBR"NBL ..... NBT'>NBR~<"\SBt"\';SBt'SBR Lane Conli~urations ~'i ++ '{I "(I ~" ++ 1'{1 'i"'i +++ (1"1' 'tj't) +++ (11 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Sald. Flow (prot) 3433 3539 2787 3433 3539 2787 3433 5085 2787 3433 5085 2787 Fit Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 5atd. Flow (perm) 3433 3539 2787 3433 3539 2787 3433 5085 2787 3433 5085 2787 5atd. Flow (RTOR) 541 478 310 485 Volume (vph) 363 188 588 775 512 479 589 550 285 291 910 601 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Lane Group Flow (vph) 395 204 639 842 557 521 640 598 310 316 989 653 Turn Type Pl'ot Prot Prot Prot Prot Pl'ot Prot Prot Pl-otected Phases 7 4 4 3 8 8 5 2 2 I 6 6 Permitted Phases Total Split (s) 24.0 20.0 20.0 37.0 33.0 33.0 30.0 42.0 42.0 21.0 33.0 33.0 Act EIfct Green is) 17.2 12.9 12.9 30.7 26.4 26.4 23.9 38.7 38.7 14.7 29.5 29.5 Actuated wC Ratio 0.15 0.11 0.11 0.27 0.23 0.23 0.21 0.34 0.34 0.13 0.26 0.26 vlc RatiO 0.76 0.51 0.80 0.90 0.67 0.51 0.88 0.34 0.27 0.71 0.75 0.60 Control Delay 56.6 52.4 17.3 54.3 44.5 6.9 58.5 29.6 3.9 57.3 43.8 12.5 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 56.6 52.4 17.3 54.3 44.5 6.9 58.5 29.6 3.9 57.3 43.8 12.5 LOS E 0 B D D A E C A E D B Approach Delay 35.6 38.6 36.4 35.5 Approach LOS D D 0 0 Queue Len~th 50th (It) 148 77 39 315 202 14 242 126 0 119 259 58 Queue Length 95th (ft) 205 117 110 #432 267 63 #339 166 35 170 319 129 Internal Link Dist (ft) 15579 5187 5497 8009 Turn Bay Length (It) 145 145 145 145 145 145 145 145 Base Capacity (vph) 595 489 851 985 890 1059 778 1740 1157 508 1325 1085 Starvation Cap Reducm 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spill back Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced vlc Ratio 0.66 0.42 0.75 0.85 0.63 0.49 0.82 0.34 0.27 0.62 0.75 0.60 iht~fsti&i6~7;sWriirri'aRJ:; ",,;;.cC;- ~ : .' : '-, . '.-", :. " '. .... '. . "." .,. ,:,~.:::.::.: '::'::/':':"'~'~\; :(: "".;'.: ;;:.,:')::' :t<:::'::::'.i-.: -. -. ::.:.;,.:;;.;~:,;..t:: ,.'. ":;.'::-:,::-.:" >::',:;'. ,'-, ,;:; :,_:;',:;;;..:::'-.- ..'~"..:;..:",:, '..,.::.,':, :',;': "_h""','-:-"'.-, Cycle Len~th. 120 Actuated Cycle Length: 113.2 Control Type; Actuated-Uncoordinated Maximum vIe Ratio: 0.90 Intersection Sil[nal Delay: 36.6 Intersection LOS: D Intersection Capacity Utllization 75.0% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity. queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after twO cycles. Solits and Phases: 8: Radio Road & Santa Barbara Boulevard \... 01 ~ 02 ., 1il3 ..... 1lI4 21 s I 42 s I 37 s T 20 s I "\ 05 i ~ .p.. 06 07 08 30 s I 33 s I 24 s 1 I 33 s I AM BKGD with IMPROVEMENT Synchro 6.0 Report Page 1 NG SM 1.\Projects\809\80993\ Traffic\synchro\B0993 _AMBK GD _improved.sy 7 Vanasse & Daylol-. LLP Agenda Item No. 8A September 29,2009 Lanes, Volumes, Timings T&~f~~?&5 B: Radio Road & Santa Barbara Boulevard AMTOTAL .J- -JIo- ~ f of- "- "\ t I'" \. J. .; rr~'W~~GiiS5g';5if:ri~t~YM;~~'ii)R~i!l~'Mi!ki;{;;:;!EB'if~0;:~~j\'~!'EB'if,f~~!,i;Hig'RW(,NR~B'&?~ri!~~w8mit:.'M{;WBR~mii\((;'NBG~~;i\i;1.itilBm~;~{,i}!Y:N8RjFi\i\'f;1\rsiWi~1~;;'~';:Siffi~f<;ii*-~'!SBR Lane ConfiRUrations "i ++ '{I "i ++ '{I 'tlJ +++ '{f 'fl +++ '(I Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 . 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 1770 5085 1583 1770 5085 1583 Fit Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (penn) 1770 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 1770 5085 1583 1770 5085 1583 Satd. Flow (RTOR) 368 421 310 407 Volume (vph) 363 188 625 775 512 479 620 581 285 291 947 601 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 '0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Lane Group Flow (vph) 395 204 679 842 557 521 674 632 310 316 1029 653 Turn Type Prot Perm ,'Pr'ot Perm Prot Perm Pfot Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 I , 6 Permitted Phases 4 S 2 6 T etal Split (s) . 31.0 23.0 23.0 39.0 31.0 31.0 32.0 28.0 28.0 30.0 26.0 26.0 Act Effct Green (5) 27.0 ,19.0 19.0 35;0 27.0 27.0 28.0 26.0 26.0 24.0 22.0 22.0 Actuated 'l.IC Ratio 0.22 0.16 0.16 0.29 0.22 0.22 0.23 0.22 0.22 0.20 0.18 0.18 vIe Ratio 0.99 0.36 1.21 1.63 0.70 0.76 1.63 0.57 0.53 0.89 1.10 1.05 Control Delay 90.\ 47.2 131.9 323.2 48.2 17.3 326.7 44.9 8.1 74.1 107.6 _6 ;r,a Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0;0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 90.1 47.2 131.9 323.2 48.2 17.3 326.7 44.9 8.1 74.1 107.6 67.8 LOS F D F F 0 B F 0 A E F E Approach Delay 105.5 160.4 155.4 89.3 Approach LOS. ,.,. F F F F Que~e Len'l.th 50th (ft) 307 75 -388 -941 210 65 -754 165 0 235, , -332 -275 Queue lengt!1'95th(ft) #512 113 #62.4 '#1185 274 210 '#984 .,208 78 ," #3.81'#424 '#507 Internal Link Dist (ft) 15579 5187 5497 8009 Turn Bay Length (ft) 145 145 145 145 145 145 145 " 145 Base Capacity (vph) 398 560 560 516 796 682 413 /104 586 378 932 623 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 "0 0 0 Spjflback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage C~p Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.' 0 0 - Reduced vlc Ratio 0.99 0.36 1.21 1.63 0.70 0.76 1.63 0.57 0.53 0.84 1.10 1.05 Cycle Lenllth:120 Actuated Cycle Length: 120 Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated Ma~imumv/c R.atio: 1:63 ., Intersection Si'l.nal. Delay: 128.1 Intersection LOS: F Intersection Capacity UtilizatioO 114.1% ICU Level of Service H AnalysisPElriod (min) 15 -Volume exCeeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # '95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after twO cycles. Snlits and Phases: 8: Radio Road & Santa Barbara Boulevard \.. 01 t 02 f 03 ~04 30 s I 28 s I 39 s I 23 s 1 "\ .~ .J- ...p... 05 ",6 07 ",8 32 s I 26 s I 31 s I 31 s I AM TOTAL Synchro 6.0 Report Page I NG SM 1:\Projem\809\8099 3\T1'affic\ZTIS _ 06_ 2006\synchro 1\80993_ AMTOT AL.sy7 Vanasse & Daylor, LLP .- Agenda Item No. 8A September 29,2009 Lanes, Volumes, Timings Tr~~~es>~~~5 8: Radio Road & Santa Barbara Boulevard AM TOTAL with IMPROVEMENT ..f -+ ~ f oOII- -\... "\ t !' \.. ~ ..; Lane Confili:urations '1'1 ++ Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 3539 Fit Per'miued 0.950 Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 3539 2787 3539 2787 5085 2787 5085 2787 Satd. Flow (RTOR) 564 478 310 .461 Volume (vph) 363 188 625 775 512 479 620 581 285 291 947 601 Peak Hour FactOl- 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0,92 '0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0,92 Lane Group Flow (vph) 395 204 679 842 557 521 674 632 310 316 1029 653 Turn Type Prot Prot Prot Prot Prot Prot Prot Prot Protected Phases 7 4 4 3 8 8 5 2 2 1 6 6 Permitted Phases Total Split (s) 2'1.0 20.0 20.0 37.0 33.0 33.0 31.0 42.0 '12.0 21.0 32.0 32.0 Act Effct Green (s) 17.2 .12.9 12.9 30.7 26A 26.4 24.9 '38.7 38.7 14.7 28.5 28.5 Actuated #C Ratio 0.15 0.11 0.11 0.27 0.23 0.23 0.22 0.34 0.34 0.13 0.25 0.25 vlcRatio 0.76 0.51 0.83 0.90 0.67 0.51 0.89 0.36 0.27 0.71 0.80 0.62 Control Delay 56.6 52.4 19.1 54.2 44.5 6.9- 58.5 29.9 3.9 57.3 46.6 14.3 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 56.6 52.4 19.1 54.2 4'1.5 6.9 58.5 29.9 3.9 57.3 46.6 14.3 LOS E D B D D A E C A E 0 B Approach Delay 36.0 38.6 36.9 37.7 Approach LOS 0 0 D. D Queue Lenli:th 50th 1ft) 77 46 315 202 14 255 134 0 119 275 68 Queue l.ength95th(ft) 117 123 #432 267 63 .'#357 176 35 170 338 HI:'!3 Internal Link Dist 1ft) 15579 5187 5497 8009 Turn Bay Length (ft) 145 145 145 1..j5 145 145 145 145 Base Capacity (vPh) 594 '189 871 984 890 1058 807 1740 1158 507 1281 1047 StarvatlonCap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0 Spill~ack Cap R~ductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced vIe Ratio 0.66 OA2 0.78 0.86 0,63 0.49 0,84 0.36 0.27 0.62 0.80 0.62 l~t~i'~Wft1fSi1ffi"Mf~~(f.)%f[~;,~?'~tr~\~i;PJ!.(fi~i't1::;tM03~;:;t01t2;:g\f~?~~~fiig~'.]E.;~~\;~~Fi,n;:~i;i:ri:~~@~![;;pl~t\~?i~~}t~\i;~JiNH..~!%~}\~i?Jf.!~~~%~~$f\\~~\I~~r<i1[~\\\li~<~~'W~i~%pfi~*{~ Cy~le Len~t~: 120 ActuatedCycleLength: .113~2 Control,Type: Actu.ated-Uncoordlnated Maximum li/c Riltio: 0.90 . . Inters~ction Sili:nal Delay: 37:4 . Intersection LOS: 0 Intersection Capac;ity Utilization 76.6% ICU Level of Sel"Vice 0 Analysis Period(ll1in) 15 ',' " . # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. 5DIlts and Phases: 8: Radio Road & Santa Barbara Boulevard \.. 01 t. 02 ., 03 ~ 04 21 s I 42 s I 37 s I 20 s I "\ i .J- ~ 05 06 07 li)8 31 s I I 32 s I 24 s I I 33 s 1 AM TOTAL with IMPROVEMENT Synchro 6.0 Report Page I NGSM 1:\Pl'ojects\809\80993\ T raffic\ZTIS_ 06 _2006\synchro 1\80993 _ AMTOT AL_improved.sy 7 Vanasse & Daylor. LLP Agenda Item No. 8A September 29,2009 Lanes. Volumes. Timings Trdmtf~4?e~r-?~5 8: Radio Road & Santa Barbara Boulevard PMBKGD .J- -... "'). ., ...- -\... "\ t I'" '. ~ .I L~;;~.t;l'ouli< ,i":<' ' "<:EBL. :EBT> 'EBRi;WBt:WB~f>WBk': :.'NEil).;iiNBT:'.\NBR'.< 'sBll:\'; -),>581':: ,:;cSBR Lane Confr~uralions lj ++ '(f 'I +t '(f lj +++ '(f ~ +++ '(f Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 5atd. Flow (pmt) 1770 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 1770 5085 1583 1770 5085 1583 Fit Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 Sald. Flow (perm) 1770 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 1770 5085 1583 1770 5085 1583 Satd. flow (RTOR) 410 287 373 292 Volume (vph) 553 472 841 402 172 264 525 806 688 431 768 329 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Lane Group Flow (vph) 601 513 914 437 187 287 571 876 748 468 835 358 Turn Type PrOl Perm Prot Perm Pl'Ot Perm Prot Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 I 6 Per'mitred Phases 4 8 2 6 Total Split (s) 41.0 35.0 35.0 26.0 20.0 20.0 33.0 31.0 31.0 28.0 26.0 26.0 Act Effct Green (s) 37.0 31.0 31.0 22.0 16.0 16.0 29.0 27.0 27.0 24.0 22.0 22.0 Actuated l(/C Ratio OJI 0.26 0.26 0.18 0.13 0.13 0.24 0.22 0.22 0.20 0.18 0.18 vie RatiO 1.10 0.56 1.28 1.34 0.40 0.62 1.33 0.77 1.16 1.32 0.90 0.68 Control Delay 108.4- ,41.4 159.2 212.9 50.4 /2.0 202.4 48.7 110.1 202.0 61.1 16.8 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 108.4 41.4 159.2 2/2.9 50.4 12.0 202.4 48.7 110.1 202.0 61.1 16.8 LOS F D F F 0 B F 0 F F E B Approach Delay 114.4 116.2 109.6 91.3 Approach LOS F F F F Queue Len~th 50th (ft) -529 182 -651 -443 71 0 -576 234 -448 -469 233 44 Queue Length 95th (ft) #753 239 #902 #646 108 83 #795 2a5 #689 #677 #306 150 Internal Link Dist (ft) 15579 5187 5497 8009 T urn Bay Length (ft) 145 145 1-45 145 1-45 145 145 145 Base Capacity (vph) 546 914 713 325 472 460 428 I !44 645 354 932 529 Starvation Cap Reducm 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reducln 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -, Reduced vie Ratio 1.10 0.56 1.28 1.34 0.40 0.62 1.33 0.77 1.16 1.32 0.90 0.68 Cycle Len~th: 120 Actuated Cycle Length: 120 Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated Maximum vie Ratio: 1.34 Intersection Sil(nal Delay: 107.4 Intersection LOS: F Intersection Capacity Utilization 99.2% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15 - Volume exceeds capacity. queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th pel'centlle volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. Solits and Phases: 8: Radio Road & Santa Barbara Boulevard \.. 01 t 02 ., 03 -+ Ql4 213 s I 31 s I 26 s I 35 s I "\ ~ .J- ...- 05 06 07 08 33 s I 26s I 41 s I 20 s I ,- PM BKGD Synchro 6.0 Report Page I NGSM I: IProjects \809\80993 \T ra ffic \synchro \80993 _ PMB K GD. sy 7 Vanasse & Daylor. LLP --. Agenda Item No. 8A September 29,2009 Lanes, Volumes, Timings T r~r6.4\\5l!~~5 8: Radio Road & Santa Barbara Boulevard PM BKGD with IMPROVEMENT .J- -. "'). f ...- -\... "\ t I'" \... ~ .; Lari~G~~~D"'" .,.".,.<.:".,"'. ">EBL"'EBF .".'EB~..:WBL..>.WBT 'WBR'.iNBly....t;)BT'/:.'. NBIl: /, ;:'S8L":' "SI#<).''';''>SBR Lane ConfiS!,urations "'i"'i ++ '(f'(f "'i~ ++ '(f'(f "'i'l +++ '(f'(f "'i~ +++ '(f'(f Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 5atd. Flow (prot) 3433 3539 2787 3433 3539 2787 3433 5085 2787 3433 5085 2787 Fit Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.950 0,950 Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 3539 2787 3433 3539 2787 3433 5085 2787 3433 5085 2787 Satd. Flow (RTOR) 672 287 627 305 Volume (vph) 553 472 841 402 172 264 525 806 688 431 768 329 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0,92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Lane Group Flow (vph) 601 513 914 437 187 287 571 876 748 468 835 358 Turn Type Prot Prot Prot Prot Prol Prot Prot PrO{ Protected Phase5 7 4 4 3 8 8 5 2 2 I 6 6 Permitted Phases Total Split (s) 33.0 34.0 34.0 25.0 26.0 26.0 31.0 33.0 33.0 28.0 30.0 30.0 Act Effct Green (s) 23.0 23.8 23.8 17.5 18.3 18.3 21.9 29.7 29.7 19.0 26.8 26.8 Actuated ~IC Ratio 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.16 0.17 0.17 0.21 0.28 0.28 0.18 0.25 0.25 vIe Ratio 0.81 0.65 0.80 0.77 0.31 0.40 0.81 0.62 0.61 0.76 0.65 0.38 -,. Control Delay 49.5 42.1 16, I 53.7 41.3 6.6 50.9 37.6 8.9 51.3 40.6 8.7 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 49.5 42.1 16.1 53.7 41.3 6.6 50.9 37.6 8.9 51.3 40.6 8.7 LOS D 0 B D D A 0 0 A D 0 A Approach Delay 32.5 36.3 31.3 36.8 Approach LOS C D C D Queue lenRth 50th (ft) 207 172 88 151 60 0 196 200 36 162 197 t6 Queue Length 95th (ft) 287 242 186 224 102 41 277 278 110 232 273 63 Internal Link Dist (ft) 15579 5187 5497 8009 Turn Bay Length (ft) 145 145 145 145 145 145 145 145 Base Capacity (vph) 895 952 1241 664 715 792 840 1421 1231 748 1283 931 Starvation Cap Reducm 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spill back Cap Reducm 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced vie Ratio 0.67 0.54 0.74 0.66 0.26 0.36 0.68 0.62 0.61 0.63 0.65 0.38 Ihi~A~cii6~:s'Jlilril1hi,; ..::.. .,..',.'.. ", :::.~ ':.-':". ", ":;-". -'" '. . :{.::"::.:,':",':.>><-;.:::; ;.'-:,:::::',;-, ':'.:;~::.:.~;:;\.~' :.~:: ';: ., ," ,.' :-~,;. ::,~"-\;)~::};::~ >:;,~.':{(}'~f4;("~~::~'.<.'/:::''>..'::;, "~ - ,~.. ~~'" .;::.~,?;:>/: '~;~~~~;:'\f;~h\,::;":':::; ;'i\i~\~ !:is;,:,,: Cycle LenRth: 120 Actuated Cycle length: 106.3 Control Type: Actuated.Uncoordinated Maximum vlc Ratio: 0.81 Intersection SiRnal Delay: 33.7 Inter5ection LOS: C Intersection Capacity Utilization 67.7% ICU Level of ServiceC Analysis Period (min) IS Snlits and Phases: 8; Radio Road & Santa Barbara Boulevard \.. 01 ~ 212 .f 213 -V 04 28 s II 33 S I 25 s II 34 s I',', "\ 05 i .J- 07 ~ 06 08 31 s I . 30 s I 33 s I 26 $ T PM BKGD with IMPROVEMENT Synchro 6.0 Report Page I NGSM 1:\Projects\809\80993\TI'aWc\synchro\B099 3 ]MBKGD Jmproved.sy 7 Vanasse & Daylor, LLP Agenda Item No. 8A September 29,2009 Lanes, Volumes. Timings Tfcff~f14fdr?&5 8: Radio Road & Santa Barbara Boulevard PMTOTAL .J- -+ " ~ ~ "-"\ t I'" \.. + ..; Lane Confis:urations Total Lost Time (s) Satd. Flow (prot) Fit Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) 3539 1583 3539 1583 5085 1583 5085 1583 Satd. Flow (RTOR) 441287375 272 Volume (vph) 553 472 882 402 172 264 575.. 856 688 431 809 329 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.920.920.92 0.920.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 "0.92 '0.92 0.92 Lane Group Flow (vph) 60 I 513 959 437 187 287 625 930 748 468 879 358 Turn Type ProtPerm " . Pret Perm', fret Perm Pret Perm Pr()tecte,d PhasEls ", 7 4 .. 3 8 5 2 I 6 Permitted Phases . 48 2 6 Total Split (s) 41.0 35.0 35.0 26.0 20.0 20.0 35.0 32.0 32.0 27.0 24.0 ActEffccGreen (s) 37.0 31.0 31;022.0 '16.0 \16.031.0 28.028.0 ',23.0 20.0 Actuated s:/C Ratio 0.31 0.26 0.26 0.18 0.13 0.13 0.26 0.23 0.23 0.19 0.J7 v/c Ratio" , 1.100.56 1.301.340.40 '0.62 1.37 0.78 1.14 1.38 '0.73 Control Delay 108.4 41.4 167.4 212.9 50.'! 12.0 214.5 48.6 101.7 226.1 21.9 Queue Delay 0.0 0.00.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 108.4 41.4 167.4 212.9 50.4 12.0 214.5 48.6 101.7 226.1 21.9 LOS .F ' D F,F 0 B F 0 FF C ApprClach Delay 119.1 116.2 II 0.9 ApproachLOSF F ..F Queue Length 50th (ft)-529 ,18~ -686 ::-443" 71 . 0 -639 q 249 ::-439 -481 59 Q~euelerigth95th '{ft) #753, ,',239 .#940 ,#646108 ',,'83#865 30 I #680#689'173 Inte"rnal Link Dist (ft) 15579 5187 5497 Turn Bay Length (ft) 145145 145 145 145 145 145145 Base Capacity (vph) 546 914 736 325 472 460 457 1187 657 339 848 491 Starvation Cap Reductn 00 .000000 0000 $pillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 StOrage Cap Reducm 0 0 00 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced vlc Ratio 1.10 0.56 1.30 1.34 0.40 0.62 1.37 0.78 1.14 1.38 1.04 0.73 CycleLen~th:.120 " ',' ActuatedCycleLEirigth:120, ' Con~r()l:r yP~: Actu~ted:Un(;oordlnated , MaximumvlcRa.:io:1.36> ' ',' ," Intersection Si~nal Delay: 114,5 , ' Intersection LOS: F IntersectkinCapacitYUtili:tatlpnW2.5% . 'ICULevel of Service G Analysis Period (fY1in) 15 ,','" .,',' ,", ,,' ~'Volunie exceeds capacity, queue'is theoretically infinite. Queueshovmls mvdmum after two cycles: # "'95th percentile ~olume exceeds capacity; queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after tWO cycles. Sol its and Phases: 8: Radio Road & Santa Barbara Boulevard \.. 01 t: 32 .f 03 ~ 04 27s I 32 s I 26 s I 35 s I "\ 05 '~ 06 .J- 07 ~ 08 35 s I ::>4 s I 41 s I 20 s I PM TOT At Synchre 6.0 Report Paze I NG SM 1:\ProjectS\809\80993\Tralf1cIZTIS_08_2006Isynchro 1 180993_PMTOTAL.sy7 Vanasse & Daylor. lLP Agenda Item No. 8A September 29,2009 lanes, Volumes, Timings T r~r6i(5effi~g5 8: Radio Road & Santa Barbara Boulevard PM TOTAL with IMPROVEMENT .J- -+ "). .( +- "- ~ t !" \.. + ..; Lane Confi~uratjons "'~ ~,+ '(I'{f T etal Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 Satd. Flew (prot) 3433 3539 2787 Fit Permitted 0.950 Satd. Flow (perm) .. 3433 3539 2787 3539 2787 5085 2787 5085 2787 Satd. Flow (RTOR) 642 287 624 296 Volume (vph) 472 8B2 402 172 264 575 856 688 431 809 329 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Lane Group Flow (vph) 513 959 437 187 287 625 930 748 468 879 358 Turn Type Prot "Prot Pl'ot Prot Prot prot Prot Protected Phases 4 4 3 8 8 5 2 2 I 6 6 PermittliilPhases Total Split (s) 33.0 33.0 33.0 24.0 24.0 24.0 31.0 38.0 38.0 25.0 32.0 32.0 ActEffct 'Green(s) 24.0 24.6 24.6 ,17.8 18.4 18.4 23;9 34.3 34.3 18.7 29.2 29.2 Actuated~IC Ratio 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.21 0.31 0031 0,17 0.26 0.26 vie Ratio ' ,0.81 0.66 0.86 0.80 0.32 0.41 '0.85 0.59 0;58 0.81 0.66 0.38 Control Delay 51.7 44.4 22.4 57.9 43.9 6.9 54.8 36.1 8.2 57.8 41.3 9.1 -. Queue DeJay " 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ,'0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 51.7 44.4 22.4 57.9 43.9 6.9 54.8 36.1 8.2 57.8 41.3 9.1 LOS' 0 D C E D A D " D A E 0 " A Appr()ilchDelay . 36.3 39.0 32.1 39.1 ApproachLOS ' 0 0 C D Que}!(;llenj(th5()t~ 1ft) 186 139 166 65 0 235 228 40 178 229 21 Queue'Lengm95th(ft) '., 245 238 226 104 42 306 '280 104 240 282 64 Internal Link Disc (ft) 15579 5187 5497 8009 Turn Bay Length (ft) 145 145 .145 145 145 145 145 Base Capacity(vp~) 889 118 I 607 639 739 812 1565 1290 637 1329 947 Starvation Cap Reduan 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spill~ack CaP Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 StorageCij>ReduCtn 0 0 0 0 0 () 0 0 0 0 0 R.educed vJc R.atio 0.58 0.81 0.72 0.29 0.39 0.77 0.59 0.58 0.73 0.66 0.38 I~>' Cydelen~th:120.. " ,." Actuated'CydeLength: ,111.6 Cqntrol!YPll: Actuated~Uncoordinated MaxiirllJm vie Ratio: oj:l6 . ',. ' Inter~ectiCl~ Si~naIDlllay: 36~O ,', " Intersection LOS: D IniersectionCapadtyUrllizatlon69.9% ' 'ICUl-evel "fService C Analysis Period (min) 15 Splits and Phases: 8: Radio Road & Santa Barbara Boulevard \.. 01 ~ 1112 .( 03 ~ 04 25 s I 38 s I 24 s I 33 s I ~ 05 ~ ,;. 07 ~ 06 08 31 s I 32 s I 33 s -I 24 s I PM TOTAL with IMPROVEMENT Synchro 6.0 Report Page I NGSM 1:\Projects\809\80993\Trafnc\ZTIS _08 _2006\sy"chro I \80993 _PMTOT AL Jmproved.sy 7 Vanasse & Daylor, LLP Agenda Item No. 8A September 29, 2009 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis ~~r?a2Reg~~5 4: West Site Access & Santa Barbara Boulevard Ex! AMTOTAL .f "- t ~ \.. ~ Lane Confi~urations ~ tt +~ ~ ++ Sign Coml'ol Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Volume (vehlh) 62 169 1053 II 43 2390 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 67 184 1145 12 47 2598 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walkinl: Speed (Itis) Pet'cent Blockage Ril:ht,turn flare (v~h) , Medianrype " None Median ~tora~e veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, ~Iatoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 2543 .. 578 '1157 vC I, stal:e 1 conf vol - vC2, stage 2 coni vol vCu, unblocked vol 2543 578 1157 tC, single (s) 6.8 6.9 4.1 tC, 2stal:e (s) tF{s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 pO Queue free % 0 60 92 cM capacity (veh/h) 20 " 459 '600 Volume Total 67 184 763 393 47 1299 1299 Volume Left 67 0 0 0 47 0 0 Volume Right 0 184 0 12 0 0 0 cSH 20 459 1700 1700 600 1700 1700 Voiumeto Capacity 3.30 0.40 0.45 ,0.23 0.08 0.76 0.76 - QueueLen~th95th (ft) Err 47 0 0 6 0 0 ControIDelay(s) Err 18.0 0.0 0.0 11.5 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS F C B Approach Delay (s) 2696,9 0.0 0.2 Approach LOS F Avera~e Delay 167.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 76.2% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 AM TOTAL Synchro 6.0 Report Page I NG SM 1:\Projects\809\B0993\Traf(;c\ZTIS _ 06 _ 2006\synchro I \80993 __AMTOT ALsy 7 Vanasse & Daylo/', LLP Agenda Item No. 8A September 29, 2009 Lanes, Volumes, Timings Tr&~~4?e~r~~5 4: Site Access West & Santa Barbara Boulevard Ext AM TOTAL with IMPROVEMENT ., "- t ~ \. + :"BR~,~-~'~s:~Wlr.'BI?i~~Qf.~i:~SRTt1~~;t~1~{~*~'~f~%*~fil4Y;~f:ti:tf.~~f~flf:~~~:~~,f~~{%~f:~}(,1~t~'~(~f~~~}~~$~~t,:~\i~\R~.~~~~~j{~:W~~~T0~0{ Lane Confil(urations ~ t' 'I +++ Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1583 1770 5085 Fit Permitted 0,950 0.187 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1583 5085 1583 348 5085 Satd. flow (RTOR) 184 12 Volume (vph) . 62 169 1053 II 43 2390 Peak Houl~ Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Lane Group Flow (vph) 67 1M I J45 12 47 2598 Turn Type Perm Perin pm+pt Protected Phases 8 2 I 6 PermlttedPl)ases 8 2 6 Total Sr>lit (s) 29.0 29.0 74.0 74.0 17.0 91.0 Act EffCt Green (s) 9.5 9;5 81.8 81.8 90.2 90.0 Acwated';/C Ratio 0.09 0.09 0.76 0.76 0.82 0.84 vlc Ratio' 0.43 0.60 0.30 0.01 0.13 0.61 Control, Delay 53.5 [5.2 4.7 2.3 2.5 - 3.8 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 Total Delay 53.5 15.2 4.7 2.3 2.5 3.8 LOS D B A A A A Approach Delay 25.4 4.7 3.8 Approach LOS C A A QueueLe~~th ~Oth (ft) 43 0 79 0 4 153 Queue Length 95th (ft) 87 65 116 5 II 234 Internal Link Dlst (ft) 459 9100 1311 Turn 'Bay Length (ft) 250 250 Base Capacity (vph) 360 468 3868 1207 429 4259 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reducm 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced vlc Ratio 0.19 0.39 0.30 0.01 0.11 0.61 1'(.(.f:~~;M~:~~ ' Cycle L~nl(th:120 " '. Actuated Cycle Length: I 07.5 Control TYr>e: Actuated-Uncoordinated MaximiJin "teRatio: 0.61 . Intersilc~ionSi~nal Delay: 5.4 Intersection LOS: A Intersection CapaCity Utilization 56.3% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 SDlits and Phases: 4: Site Access West & Santa Barbara Boulevard Ext \.. 01 t 02 17 s I 74 s I ~\,,: 06 ., 08 91 s I 29 s I AM TOTAL with IMPROVEMENT Synchro 6.0 Report Page I NGSM 1;\ProjectS \809\B0993\ Traffic\ZTIS _ 06 _2006\synchro 1 \80993 _ AMTOT AL_improved.sy 7 Vanasse & Daylor, LLP Agenda Item No. 8A September 29,2009 HeM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis TIi'~r?a2~es~~5 4: Site Access West & Santa Barbara Boulevard Ext PMTOTAL ., "- t I'" \. + Lane Confi~urations ~ +~ Sign Control Stop :Free Grade 0% 0% Volume (vehfh) 128 70 1600 33 130 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 139 76 1739 36 141 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walkinlt Speed (ftls) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type' ' Median swrage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX. pl~toonu!)blocked vC,' conflicting 'volume vC f ,stage Iconf vol vC2.stage2 conf vol vCu. unblocked vol 3078 888 tC. single (s) 6.8 6.9 tC. 2 Stage (s) tF(s) 3;5 3.3 2.2 pO qu~u~fre~ % " 0 73 "".59." cMcapaclcy(veh/h) " ':6 ',: 287:'- < ' ,346 Volume Total 139 76 U59 ' 616 'I'll' 1039 1039 Volume Left 139 0 0 0 141 0 0 Volume Right 0 76 0 36 0 0 0 cSH '" " _ 6 287 _ 1700 1700 ~46 1700 1700 Volurn~toCapacity 25)6 0;27 0.68 '0.36, 0.41 0.6\ 0.61 - Que,~e Length 95th (ft) Err 26 0 0 4.8 0 0 Control Delay (s) Err 22.0 0.0 .. 0.0 22.4 .. 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS. , " ' F C C ApproachDelay (5) 6471.8 '0.0 '1.4 Approach LOS F Averaltepelay InterseCtion' Capacity Utili:zation leu Level of Service C AnalysiS Period (lllin) PM TOTAL Synch,'o 6.0 Repol't Page I NG SM 1:\Projem\809\80993\T rafficlZTIS _08_ 2006\synch,'o I \80993 _PMTOT Al.sy 7 Vanasse & Day/or. LLP ,.",""", Agenda Item No. SA September 29,2009 Lanes, Volumes, Timings T!?~~e~~~Q5 4: West Site Access & Santa Barbara Boulevard Ext PM TOTAL with IMPROVEMENT of "- t !" '-. ~ Lane Confi~urations -+-++ Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 Satd. Flow (prot) 5085 Fit Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) 1583 5085 1583 5085 Satd. Flow (RTOR) " 76 36 Volume (vph) , 128 70 1600 33 130 1911 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Lane Group Flow (vph) 139 76 1739 36 141 2077 Turn Type Perm ,Perm pm+pt Protected "Phases 2 I 6 Permitted Phases 8 2 6 Total Split (s) 30.0 30.0 62.0 62.0 28.0 90.0 Act EffctGreen (s) 13.7 13.7 74.1 74.1 87.3 87.3 Actuated r,/C Ratio 0.13 0.13 0.68 0.68 0.80 0.80 v/c Ratio" 0.62 0.29 0.50 0.03 0.60 0.51 ContralDelay 57.1 12.3 10.0 2.9 24.9 4.5 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 57.1 12.3 10.0 2.9 24.9 4.5 LOS E B B A C A App~oach Delay 41.2 9.9 5.8 ApproacliLOS 0 A A Q~~~~L~r~th 50th{ft) 92 0 188 0 29 140 Queue'Length95th ift)", 156 41 311 13 98 220 Interl1alLink Dist (ft) 459 9100 1311 Turn Bay Length(ft) 250 250 Base CapacitY (vph) 380 400 3456 1087 405 4072 StarVatioilCap Reductrl 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Re~uctn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reducto 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced vie Ratio 0.37 0.19 0.50 0.03 0.35 0.51 CycleLen~th;120<. ," ' ' Actuated CycleLength: 109 Control JYJl~:A~tuated.Uncoordinated , Maximuii'iyjc Ratio:'0.6i ' ". . Intersectior Signal Delay: 9.3 Intersection LOS: A Inmrsea.\on :CapacityUtilizatlon '55 .2% ICU level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 Solits and Phases: 4: West Site Access & Santa Barbara Boulevard Ext \... ",1 ~ 02 28 s I 62 s I ~\!,. 06 ., 08 90 s I 30 s I PM TOTAL with IMPROVEMENT Synchro 6.0 Report Page I NGSM 1:\Projects\809\80993\T rafflc\ZTIS _ 08 _2006\synchro 1\80993 ]MTOT AL_improved .s}' 7 Vanasse & Daylor. lLP Two-Way Stop Control Agendlff~ N8! tA September 29,2009 Page 230 of 265 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information ~nalyst SM Intersection SBB Blvd & Directional- Agency/Co. Vanasse Daylor Access Date Performed 8/7/2006 Jurisdiction Collier County Analysis Time Period AM TOTAL Analysis Year 2011 Proiect Description Taormina Reserve East/West Street: Directional-movement Access North/South Street: Santa Barbara Boulevard Intersection Orientation: North-South Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments MaioI' Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 0 1159 63 127 2433 0 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 1159 63 127 2433 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- -- 0 -- -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 2 1 1 2 0 Configu ration T R L T Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 0 0 55 0 0 0 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 55 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 I 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 Configuration R Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service !Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L R v (vph) 127 55 C (m) (vph) 578 463 vlc 0.22 0.12 95% queue length 0.83 0.40 Control Delay 13.0 13.8 LOS B B Approach Delay -- -- 13.8 Approach LOS -- -- B Rights Reserved fi) e:/ Ie: \Docum ent s(';(12D and %20 Set tings\ vanday gu est\LocaJ %l20S cl tings\TEM P\u2k3 A 02.... 8/7/2006 -..~._- Two- Way Stop Control Agenda~MR ~8.f~ September 29, 2009 Page 231 of 265 IlCS2000'l'M Copyrighl <<:, 2(0) Universily of Florida, All Righls Rcservcd Vcr~io1l4, III Vcrsion4.1 d -- fi 1 c:1 Ie :\DOCt1l11ents'Yc)20and 11112 OScttjngs\vand~lv gucst\Local%20Sct lings\TEMP\u2k3 A 02.... 8/7/2006 Two-Way Stop Control PfeINf 1 of~ Agenda I !\Io. 8 September 29,2009 Page 232 of 265 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst SM Intersection SBB Blvd & Directional Access Agency/Co. Vanasse Day/or Jurisdiction Collier County Date Performed 817/2006 Analysis Time Period PM TOTAL Analysis Year 2011 Project Description Taormina Reserve East/West street: Directiona/-movement Access INorth/South Street: Santa Barbara Boulevard Intersection Orientation: North-South Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Maior Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 0 1597 73 145 2041 0 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 - Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 1597 73 145 2041 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- -- 0 -- - Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 2 1 1 2 0 Configuration T R L T Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R !Volume 0 0 262 0 0 0 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 262 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 Configuration R Delav, Queue lenath, and level of Service Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L R v (vph) 145 262 C (m) (vph) 390 333 v/c 0.37 0.79 95% queue length 1.68 6.42 Control Delay 19.6 46.1 LOS C E Approach Delay -- -- 46.1 Approach LOS -- -- E Rights Reserved fj le://C: \Documcnts%20and %20Seuings\vanday _guest\LocaJ%,20Settings\ TEMP\u2k3E95 .1... 8/8/2006 ;.,=- - Two- W ay Stop Control Page 2 of2 Agenda Item No. 8A September 29,2009 Page 233 of 265 lICS20001M Copyright <<~, 2003 University of Florida. All Rights Reservcd Vcrsion 4.1d Version 4.1d - fi lc:! Ie :\DOCt1111cnts%20and%20Scttings\vanday _gucst\LocaJ (Yt.20Settings\TEMP\u2k3E95 .t... 8/812006 Two- W ay Stop Control Page] of2 Agenda Item No. 8A September 29, 2009 Page 234 of 265 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst 8M Intersection Davis Boulevard & RI/RO Agency/Co. Vanasse Dav/ar Access Date Performed 8/7/2006 Jurisdiction Coffier County Analvsis Time Period lAM TOTAL nalysis Year 2011 Project Description Taormina Reserve East/West Street: Davis Boulevard North/South Street: Rl/RO Access Intersection Orientation: East-West Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Maior Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 0 1133 127 0 1543 0 - Peak-hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate 0 1133 127 0 1543 0 (veh/h) Proportion of heavy 0 0 vehicles, P HV -- -- -- -- Median type Undivided RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 0 2 1 0 2 0 Configuration T R T Uostream Sional 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R r\7olume (veh/h) 0 0 25 0 0 0 Peak-hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate 0 0 25 0 0 0 veh/h) Proportion of heavy 0 0 0 0 0 0 vehicles, PHV Percent grade (%) 0 0 Flared approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 Configuration R Control Delav, Queue Lenath, Level of Service Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration R Volume, v (vph) 25 Capacity, cm (vph) 473 v/c ratio 0.05 Queue'length (95%) 0.17 fi Je://C :\Documents%120and %20Scuings\vanday __guest\Loca]I)lcJ20Scttings\ TEMP\u2k3 9F2.t... 8/7/2006 Two-Way Stop Control Page 2 of2 Agenda Item No. 8A September 29, 2009 Page 235 of 265 Control Dela s/veh 13.0 LOS B pproach delay -- .- 13.0 (s/veh) Approach LOS -- -- B IlCS2000'J'M Copyright <<:i 2003 l.hil'crsily of' Florida, AIlI(ighls Reserved Versiml 4.1 d -- file :IIC :\Documents%)20and oi!,20Sct tlngs\vanday __gucst\Local(%20Scltings\TEM P\u2k3 9F2. t... 8/7/2006 Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of2 Agenda Item No. 8A September 29,2009 Page 236 of 265 TWO~WA Y STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analvst SM Intersection Davis Boulevard & RIIRO Aaencv/Co. Vanasse Daylor Access Date Performed 8/7/2006 urisdiction Collier County Analvsis Time Period PM TOTAL nalvsis Year 2011 Proiect Description Taormina Reserve EastlWest Street: Davis Boulevard North/South Street: Rl/RO Access Intersection Orientation: East-West Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adiustments Maior Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 l T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 0 2061 132 0 1124 0 lJ:leak-hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate 0 2061 132 0 1124 0 veh/h) Proportion of heavy 0 0 vehicles, PHV -- -- -- -- Median type Undivided RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 0 2 1 0 2 0 Configuration T R T UDstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 0 0 133 0 0 0 Peak-hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate 0 0 133 0 0 0 (veh/h) Proportion of heavy 0 0 0 0 0 0 vehicles, P HV Percent grade (%) 0 0 Flared approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 Configuration R Control Delav, Queue Lenath, Level of Service Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration R Volume. v (vph) 133 Capacity, em (vph) 234 v/c ratio 0.57 Queue'length (95%) 3.16 fi Jc:IIC: \Documen t5%2 Oand%208 et tin gs\vand ay ~uest\Loca I (%208 ctti ngs\ TEMP\u2k3 E92. 1... 8/8/2006 ,.--.-<< _,.".'__~",_.__.,,'''''.__.n__ Two- Way Stop Control Page 2 of2 Agenda Item No. 8A September 29,2009 Page 237 of 265 Control Delav (slveh) I I 38.9 I I LOS I I E I I [Approach delay -- -- 38.9 (s/veh) Approach LOS -- -- E 11CS20odl'M Copyright ~> 2003 Univcrsity ofFlol'ida, All Rights Rescrved Version 4.1 d - fi le:/ Ie: \Docum ents%2 Oand %2 OS ct tings\ v and ay _gu est\LocaJ%2 OSctt in gs\TEMP\u 2k3E92 .t... 8/8/2006 -l r ~ !~ ~ . " 11 E "., t~ ~~ J ~ ~ €~ I I I ~ ~ l> 1> ". -.. ~~ J ~ ~ h-l' I I I OJ i:I ~~.! ~ ti t . l: : !Q ~<S '!"J! g~ ~ !i~ '" .. ~ (5 <J t'e ~~ II lr ~~ 8 ',..., f;: . ... "'" .. l: "'''' '" 0 ~ i:: ---' I I I .!i ~ '" h'l ] ~ ~ t IL I I I H II 1,1 . -. ,~ '!! 1." , ~ 8 ...."'~ ,,~~ . ~~ . - ~ h: ~-t~ ~ __ i ~ <( -.I ~ i 1 :"'. . f;;; 11) t h. ~ ~ . (:; "< ~ I I I . . . - I l.~'" ~ ~ g~ 3 l} ~ r; ~ : _ " ; ~",.,-.I \...., ..'<l: ."", .." . .~~ fi1 cg Ci .. -.~n ~ ~c-~..: ~ ~ fu ~,! i ~ ~ ~ 3 [ ! 11,- lQ ~'fl .- ~ t~ ~~(ljVl ~,,- 3.i ~ ~.:.. !l: .. ",' I I I ;~... il> ~ ~ <..l ~ n ~ jj~ e ~ ; . : ~ Y> ~tJ ~j~ :> ~ I I I h.~[ ..~. -- :~ i:'''l: )1'.1 ~.~.i ~ ! : ! '. !. -.. ,. """.0" ". . ",. ::if! l:;<:> ..'} lli.", ~.;I.l..lu~l!t~:,:*~ M :IU <:> i:: .. I I., t:: ~~ '" ~o: ~ 1::1 '" Jl.s. _. ~ -" .. '" I I I < - '" '".. :t .. e~ ~ ~ ~~l-.J~IB!9~111 .j ~ Ii- ~~Hhlg ;;J~d ]"'" . 1 ~ 8 Jo'<:>i:; n ~ ~ I ~~ 1::1;:) :5.i!~ ~ .S ti ~ -< ~ ~ Ii! . ... -< ..~. .-- .. ~p;; ., .-/: ~ :l:l!,!) " :g '" a~ ~ ~ . " I I I !j ~ ' !l! ;" oX. . . <..l ~ of 2 3!",. ~ ~. ~ ~ i 1;~!~ rel::- II !3 I I I ~ ~~ .~ 8 ~~;!~. 1I:ll~ It!. i I .! 1: Yl l? Q " \ ,,~ 'l... ::::> ~'l< ( '- ~ ~ ~ ., s '" I<i ., " ~ 4-'l .. ~ f! (,) ~,,~ ~ i 't ~ j ) ~ k ! ': :s l! g ... I . 5 d ~ q ~ H ~ ~ ~ 0." e~ ; ~~..j ~ Il tl [; ~ ~ g ~~ ~ : ~ i Hw ~*8 ~ ~~: u ~ f ~ I : f~ ~Ie ~ 5. " ~" . !<J lh _ Hi ~ q q! " Ui '" 1m ;~!. gt..",~ l! ll' I WhiWi ~ :;j"" I '" "!.l:!o< liil C:i'l ~~ "'.e ~ll; "'''.. "'.. S 12 .."} - - .J> ~ ~HHf~~~ ~t~Hfh .,~~".~..... " \..~ -- . <oJ..;..' '" ,'".8~'''<l''' ~Vi~ .~! ' l~~~':~~." ~~; * ~ l;l-' -_or: _. ~,,~ ~ ei :l",- ~ "< :>i 1--- . (' 'f, ~ ! of ~ - ~~~! ~~ J ~ I~ ~ ~ i ~ ~< ~ : t ~I~ E " -1--'- a.ll ~ ~ ..I! lii" ~.. \'~.. ~ U:- .:J.ll .:J" i .~'" .! ~ )1: ~ n d, ~ H ~ ~ ~ E~ 03'" a l ~ ~.' J:~ '" e; "-l..J ~';; 1: ~ ~ "" l-r __ ;,:~ h ~ Ii.!: r ~i ~ ~ =t ~ .Ii ~ "'-' _ .q: '.' .. h N ~~ H ...,J I ' I --)1: ",. ~o: I & I -...--...-.....-. . ~ ~ E~ 03 t-'l __ ~ ~ +. ~~ ~~ +. ""'" ,~ O'!! gj 1>; I ~ I ~'" f..:. 1if : ~ : ~ U ".~ ~, . ~I I~' ~ u. . ~ l <'It ~ ~ < ~ oJ '^ f! ~ '"' ;t ;:;j ~ 00( ~ <l! ~ ~ f-;; ! ~ A:: ~I: ~ ~ 00( l- +. . ~ ~ ~ ~~ Ill. +t ~ k 'l} ~,,~ ~ ~ li1 ~ _.1_.:;_. ~ ~t;: ~ ~ h ~lu ~ l:l ~ ~ ~: ~ ..,J ~ ~ ~ t~ '" ~ ~ ~ ~ ,,1". \i5 Q O:~ ~ ~ :.'i '?;! " l oJ ili :'i 1:$ oJ il; .!i ~ ~ 6 ::i ~ ;; ... oJ" ... 8 .:l . . r - s ~ l ~ . ._ _ _\_ l ....1 - - --- t . ~ _.l_.... - -C- -- [~ ... qs s .~ ~ .:I",. . ~ ~ &.t! ~ ~!~ ~d L_ -'n H~ t!~ ~".. .~. -u -J "",~ ~~~ H.~ '" h~ "~e ~ ~ ~<.>~ "t,... p:4? .'li \; l:~ so q '__'1 ~ ~~ \;l~ l:. .li~u I ~&l:. ~~ - -_...._.-~r ~ 1.'11' t-. ~ t; . ~ ~Vi ~ "'} ~ ~Ji ~ ~.l! ~ 1" o!; ~. H~ '1'" ~~.r __ h~ ~ ~~~ 1"Q!! , ~ ~ ~ . ~ "I' ~ .,- . h.. 11';: ~'l':~ 5.11 '", ..~.. <:~. .. J 61 t t' I ~ ~'" . _'_ '" ~ t"'t ~ ~h !ill !!Q! ~ 'l~~ n~ 1 ~~~ .1 H~ il P "1/'" >1:.; O!.. ... I ~ , 'it Ji ~ a " .~l GO " ..... i a ~ '" Ji ~ H : s~ I il ~ ~~ ~t' - -- -. ;"s ~~ OJ" "ill; OJ':; ~'~ f'~ .l; .:; - - 'l t (j~ --- ~ ~ ~e I l~ i~ I v_ I ._.1 L. _. __ .._.____w___..___ ---- .,.~--._.,._. Agenda Item No. SA September 29,2009 Pa~e 239 of r5 Topic # 625-000-015 M Y - 2002 Manual of Uniform Minimum Standards for Design, Construction and Maintenance for Streets and Highways FIGURE 3 -15 TYPICAL STORAGE LANE Left Turn Storage Lane (Similar Arrangement For Right Turns) l:,I:: co..... Taper Lenglh + Braking Distance + Queue Length .- "0 "0._ ~~ 1 O' to 12' Storage Lane ....lIf ----------- Through Lane ... I ---------------- Through Lane ... I Taper Or Reverse CUIVe Slop Con1rol ~ Storaoe Queue Length. Un sIgnalized Intersections Turning Vehicles Per Hour 30 60 100 200 300 Required Storage Length (FEET) 25 50 100 175 250 I At signalized intersections, the required queue length depends on the signal cycle length, the signal phasing I arrangement, and rate of arrivals and departures of turning vehicles. In absence of a turning movement study, it is recommended that 100 ft. of queue length be provided in urban/suburban areas and 50 ft. of Queue len~th be provided in ruralllown areas as a minimum. Taper Length And Braking Distance (FEET) I Highway Design Storage Entry Brake To Stop Speed Speed' Taper Length I (MPH) (MPH) Urban" Rural"" 35 25 70 75 --- I 40 30 80 75 _n ! 45 35 85 100 --- I 50 40/44 105 135 215 55 48 125 --- 260 I 60 52 145 --- 310 I - 65 55 170 --- 350 I * Reaction Precedes Entry .. Minimum Braking Distance, Wet Conditions ~ "'_"l:,* Customary Brakino Distance, Wet Conditions The storage lane may be in place of or in addition to deceleration length (See Section C.9.c.3). Geometric Design 3-85 Septemb~~;Q(I_~OO TRAFFl2a~Glf~ TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT SUMMARY Page 4 ofS City: Naples Engineer: S.M, County: Collier County Date: August 7, 2006 Major Street: Santa Barbara Boulevard Extension Lanes: 6 CrItical Approach Speed: 45 Minor Street: Site Access West lanes: 2 - - Volume Level Criteria 1. Is the critical speed of major street traffic> 70 km/h (40 mph) ? ~ Yes o No 2. Is the intersection in a built-up area of isolated community of <10,000 population? DYes ~ No If Question 1 or 2 above is answered "Yes", then use "70%" volume level ~ 70% o 100% WARRANT 3 . PEAK HOUR Applicable: [gJ Yes o No If all three criteria are fullfil/ed or the plotted point lies above the appropriate line, Satisfied: [gJ Yes o No then the warrant is satisfed. Plot volume combination on the applicable figure below. Unusual condition justifying use of warrant: FIGURE 4C.3: Criteria for "100%" Volume Level soo [i--!-I'--r-'-!"--rl!-':'''-'-iT-r-i- PM Peak Hour i I ~ 2 OR MORE LANES & 2 OR MORE LANES i I ! _. ....____.w__.._._._,....~w~__._.._____ ... ..~...._. ..._...." ~ 500. "I "j ....I I ... t I I I i I "-1 - --I - Record hour when criteria are fulfilled ~ I. 1 Ii! I I j I and the corresponding delay or volume f- ~ 400 Ii i: In: u! - ul ::l 0 i 1 in boxes provided. ~~ - , lii ~ 300 n.._..i.....uL....u'f.J.iu....j.--1 ~ . I I , I' pea::our :1 H ~ i ! ii, , ~ 200 - --l- - r .-r-.-'.......r---i ..-r--.... ',150 I 1 PM I :I: 100 .. -. 1 -j 1- -T ... -1- 100 r j . I Criteria o ~ i I I I 1, Delay on Minor Approach 400 500 500 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 "(vehicle-hours) MAJOR STREET. TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES. VPH Approach Lanes 1 2 Delay Criteria' 4.0 5.0 'No/a: 150 vph applies as tha ICY-Nar threshold volume for a minor streel approach wilh fwo or more lanes and Delay' 230 100 vpll applies as Ihe tower thresllOld volume tIlreshoJd (or a minor s/(eet approach wffh ana lana. ."M'. "'~w._ '...". 'n ,,~.. .___ ....... ..~..~,~~..._h..M.. "~"__"_'" ~W._~A .._..H.........__.. .~_ .__...._.. _....... _ ...._ .__..____ "'"'__'_"_'_"" ...._... _._ .... _. _ ._.... . .._.... Fulfilled?: lID Yes o No FIGURE 4C-4: Criteria for "70%" Volume Level (Community Less than 10.000 population or above 70 kmlht (40 mph) on Major Street) 2, Volume on Minor Approach "" ,-'--r-T--r-T-i--,---r-T~l '(vehicles per hour) ; I I ! 2ORMORE LANES & 2 ORMQRE LANES I i:: 400! I.. ,.. r...._..~-.._.. :-." ..-i..... .;. ....: . Approach Lanes 1 2 > I I : I ,': Ii: Volume Criteria' 100 150 !:i ~ 300- It l..i. 2 OR MORELANES 8 llANE 1__ ---.J---.- I Volume' 198 Fulfilled?: [gJ Yes o No ~ no I I I ~ ~ I ,~"'''~ ! OW i z :ll 200 ..'... .;.. -, ........ :E ~ i. : . > i i . I I 3. Total Entering Volume :x: i : ;: ' i : I \2 100 I ." , , . . '100 '(vehicles per hour) :t I 1 I , ' , , I : . '1 'I '75 No. of Approaches 3 4 I : ~ ! I ill , Volume Criteria' 650 800 o L_....___._.._...J__.....:___L____.:... ...__1....__.._ :...___..J_...____~__._..J 3,872 300 400 500 600 700 600 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 Volume' MAJOR STREET. TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES. VPH Fulfilled?: lID Yes o No . Noto: 100 vph ~pp(ies as 'he lower tllros/loId volllme for a minor street approacll witll two or more tOiles and 75 vpll applies 8S IlIe lower thresllold volullle thres/lold tor a minor slreet approach with one lano. Source: Revised from NCHRP Report 457 Agenda Item No. 8A September 29, 2009 Page 241 of 265 ORDINANCE NO. 09-_ AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 2004-41, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH ESTABLISHED THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BY AMENDING THE APPROPRIATE ZONING ATLAS MAP OR MAPS BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTY FROM A RURAL AGRICUL TURAL (A) ZONING DISTRICT WITH A SPECIAL TREATMENT (ST) OVERLAY TO A MIXED USE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (MPUD) ZONING DISTRICT FOR THE PROJECT TO BE KNOWN AS THE TAORMINA RESERVE MPUD, TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A MAXIMUM OF 528 RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS AND UP TO 262,000 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL LAND USES ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE DAVIS BOULEVARD (S.R. 84) AND SANTA BARBARA BOULEVARD INTERSECTION, IN SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONSISTING OF 82.51 ACRES; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, D. Wayne Arnold, AICP of Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A., and Richard Yovanovich, Esq., of Coleman, Yovanovich and Koester, P.A., representing Highland Properties of Lee and Collier, Ltd., petitioned the Board of County Commissioners to change the zoning classification of the herein described real property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY I COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: I SECTION ONE: The zoning classification of the herein described real property located in Section 9, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, is changed from a Rural Agricultural (A) Zoning District with a Special Treatment (ST) Overlay to a Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD) Zoning District for the 82.51 acre project to be known as the Taormina Reserve MPUD, in accordance with Exhibits A through H attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein. The appropriate zoning atlas map or maps, as described in Ordinance Number PUDZ-2007-AR-ll100 REV. 9/8/09 Page 1 of2 \A{{-' Agenda Item No. 8A September 29, 2009 Page 242 of 265 2004-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, is/are hereby amended accordingly. SECTION TWO; This Ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Department of State. PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by super-majority vote of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, this day of , 2009. ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA By: By: , Deputy Clerk DONNA FIALA, Chairman Approved as to form and legal sufficiency: q\'l\~~ y~ WI.-- Heidi Ashton-Cicko Section Chief, Land Oserrransportation Attachments: Exhibit A - List of Permitted Uses Exhibit B - Development Standards Exhibit C - Master Plan Exhibit D - Legal Description Exhibit E - Deviations Exhibit F - List of Developer Commitments Exhibit Fl - Sunset Blvd. Potential Interconnection Detail Exhibit G - Wildlife Habitat Management Plan Exhibit H - Conditions of Approval CP\07 ..CPS-00596\3 8 PUDZ-2007-AR-ll J 00 i REV. 9/8/09 Page 2 of2 ---.- ... .. Agenda Item No. 8A September 29, 2009 EXHffiIT A Page 243 of 265 FOR TAORMINA RESERVE MPUD PERMITTED USES The 82.51::1: acre mixed-use project shall not be developed with more than a maximum of 262,000 square feet of commerciaVoffice uses, a maximum of 528 residential dwelling units and assisted living facilities (ALF) , continuing care retirement communities (CCRC) and independent living units for age 55 plus and senior housing. A maximum of 400 dwelling units are permitted within the R 1 and R2 tracts and a maximum of 128 dwelling units are permitted in the MU tract. For each acre developed for group housing uses (CCRC, ALF, Skilled Nursing or Independent housing for persons aged 55 and over) the maximum number of conventional dwelling units authorized in the PUD shall be reduced by seven (7) units per acre, at an F.A.R not to exceed 0.45. - No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land used, in whole or in part, for other than the following: I. RESIDENTIAL TRACT USES: A. Principal Uses: 1. "R I " a. Single family detached. b. Duplex. c. Multiple family dwellings. d. Townhouse dwellings. e. Two family dwellings. f. Group housing to include assisted living facilities (ALF), continuing care retirement community (CCRC), independent living facilities for seniors over age 55. 2. "R2" a. Duplex. b. Multiple family dwellings c. Townhouse dwellings. c. Model homes and model home centers including offices for project administration, construction, sales and marketing. d. Recreational facilities such as parks, playgrounds, and pedestrianlbikeways. e. Group housing to include assisted living facilities (ALF), continuing care retirement community (CCRC), independent living facilities for seniors over age 55. Page 1 of 22 9/03/2009 0 .~~ Agenda Item No. 8A September 29,2009 3. Any other principal use which is comparable in nature with the fore~a~ cdf265 permitted principal uses, as determined by the Board of Zoning Appeals ("BZA") by the process outlined in the LDC. B. Accessory Uses: 1. Accessory uses and structures customarily associated with the permitted principal uses and structures, including, but not limited to: pools, tennis, spas. II. MIXED-USE TRACT USES: A. Principal Uses: 1. Amusement and recreation services Groups 7911 - Dance studios, schools, and halls 7922 - Theatrical producers (except motion picture) and miscellaneous theatrical services 7929 - Bands, orchestras, actors, and other entertainers and entertainment groups 7941 - Professional sports clubs and promoters, excluding stadiums and / or athletic fields 7991 - Physical fitness facilities 7993 - Coin-operated amusement devices 7997 - Membership sports and recreation clubs 7999 - Amusement and recreation services, not elsewhere classified, limited to billiard parlors, bingo parlors, day camps, moped rentals, gymnastics instruction, judo/ karate, yoga instruction, sporting goods rental, and sports instruction 2. Apparel and accessory stores (no adult oriented sales) Groups 5611 - Men's and boys' clothing and accessory stores 5621 - Women's clothing stores 5632 - Women's accessory and specialty stores 5641 - Children's and infants' wear stores 5651 - Family clothing stores 5661 - Shoe stores 5699 - Miscellaneous apparel and accessory stores 3. Auto and home supply stores (Group 5531) 4. Automotive repair, services and parking Groups 7514 - Passenger car rental 7515 - Passenger car leasing 7521 - Automobile parking, excluding any tow-in lots. 7542 - Carwashes, as an accessory to convenience stores only Page 2 of 22 9/0312009 y..\}0 ,,~.. Agenda Item No. 8A September 29,2009 5. Building construction - general contractors and operative builders (lr_atl3Uct0265 offices for these users only, with no outdoor storage of materials) Groups 1521 - General contractors - single-family houses 1522 - General contractors - residential buildings, other than single-family 1531 -,. Operative builders 1541 - General contractors - industrial buildings and warehouses 1542 - General contractors - nonresidential buildings, other than industrial buildings and warehouses 6. Building materials, hardware and garden supply Groups 5211 - Home improvement superstores (no unroofed or unenclosed outdoor storage permitted, this prohibition does not apply to landscape and nursery uses) 5231 - Paint, glass, and wallpaper stores 5251 - Hardware stores 5261 .-. Retail nurseries, lawn and garden supply stores, including home improvement superstores 7. Business services Groups 7311 - Advertising agencies 7312 - Outdoor advertising services 7313 - Radio, television, and publishers' advertising representatives 7319 - Advertising, not elsewhere classified 7322 .- Adjustment and collection services 7323 - Credit reporting services 7331 - Direct mail advertising services 7334 - Photocopying and duplicating services 7335 - Commercial photography 7336 - Commercial art and graphic design 7338 - Secretarial and court reporting services 7352 -- Medical equipment rental and leasing 7359 - Equipment rental and leasing, not elsewhere classified 7361 - Employment agencies 7363 - Help supply services 7371 - Computer programming services 7372 - Prepackaged software 7373 - Computer integrated systems design 7374 - Computer processing and data preparation and processing servIces 7375 - Information retrieval services 7376 - Computer facilities management services 7377 - Computer rental and leasing 7378 - Computer maintenance and repair 7379 - Computer related services, not elsewhere classified 7384 - Photofmishing laboratories 7389 - Business services, not elsewhere classified Page 3 of 22 9/03/2009 ,~ ~~ ! ------.,.... I Agenda Item No. 8A September 29, 2009 Page 246 of 265 8. Communications (no stand alone communications towers. Any satellite dishes must be shielded from view) Groups 4812 - Radiotelephone communications 4813 - Telephone communications, except radiotelephone 4822 - Telegraph and other message communications 4832 - Radio broadcasting stations 4833 - Television broadcasting stations 4841 - Cable and other pay television services 9. Construction - special trade contractors (restricted to office use only; no on-site storage of equipment) Groups 1711 - Plumbing, heating and air-conditioning 1721 - Painting and paper hanging 173 1 - Electrical work 1741 - Masonry, stone setting, and other stone work 1742 - Plastering, drywall, acoustical, and insulation work 1743 - Terrazzo, tile, marble, and mosaic work 1751 - Carpentry work 1752 - Floor laying and other floor work, not elsewhere classified 1761 - Roofing, siding, and sheet metal work 1771 - Concrete work 1781 - Water well drilling 1791 --- Structural steel erection 1793 -' Glass and glazing work 1794 - Excavation work 1795 - Wrecking and demolition work 1796 - Installation or erection of building equipment, not elsewhere classified 1799 - Special trade contractors, not elsewhere classified; restricted to offices only, with no outdoor storage or assembly 10. Depository institutions Groups 6011 - Federal reserve banks 6019 -- Central reserve depository institutions, not elsewhere classified 6021 - National commercial banks 6022 - State commercial banks 6029 - Commercial banks, not elsewhere classified 6035 - Savings institutions, federally chartered 6036 - Savings Institutions, not federally chartered 6061 - Credit unions, federally chartered 6062 - Credit unions, not federally chartered 6081 - Branches and agencies of foreign banks 6082 - Foreign trade and international banking institutions 6091 - Non-deposit trust facilities i 6099 - Functions related to depository banking, not elsewhere classified I Page 4 of 22 9/03/2009 V ~~ I -. "',,".,>> .....,,~...,._,... ,---~, Agenda Item No. 8A September 29, 2009 Page 247 of 265 11. Dwelling units, multi-family 12. Eating and drinking places Groups 5812 - Eating places (including indoor and outdoor seating with amplified music or televisions. Any outdoor amplified music or televisions must cease no later than 10:00 pm.) 5813- Drinking places (alcoholic beverages; however cocktail lounges and similar uses shall only be permitted in conjunction with a restaurant or hotel use, including indoor and outdoor seating with amplified music or televisions. Any outdoor amplified music or televisions must cease no later than 10:00 pm.) 13. Educational services Groups 8231 - Libraries 8243 - Data processing schools- 8244 - Business and secretarial schools 8299 - Schools and educational services, not elsewhere classified 14. Engineering, accounting, research, management, and related services Groups 8711 - Engineering services 8712 - Architectural services 8713 - Surveying services 8721 - Accounting, auditing, and bookkeeping services 8741 - Management services 8742 - Management consulting services 8743 - Public relations services 8748 - Business consulting services, not elsewhere classified 15. Executive, legislative and general government, except finance Groups 9111 - Executive offices 9199 - General government, not elsewhere cI assified 16. Food stores Groups 5411 - Grocery stores 5421 - Meat and fish (seafood) markets, including freezer prOVISIOners 5431 - Fruit and vegetable markets 5441 - Candy, nut, and confectionery stores 5451 - Dairy products stores 5461 - Retail bakeries 5499 - Miscellaneous food stores, including convenience stores with fuel pumps and carwash 17. General merchandise stores Groups 5311 - Department stores 5331 - Variety stores Page 5 of 22 9/03/2009 \}'v ~ Agenda Item No. 8A September 29,2009 5399 - Miscellaneous general merchandise stores, inch~d1~248 of 265 warehouse stores and discount retail superstores 18. General warehousing and storage Group 4225 -Indoor mini storage only 19. Health services Groups 8011 - Offices and clinics of doctors of medicine 8021 - Offices and clinics of denti'sts 8031 - Offices and clinics of doctors of osteopathy 8041 - Offices and clinics of chiropractors 8042 - Offices and clinics of optometrists 8043 - Offices and clinics of podiatrists 8049 - Offices and clinics of health practitioners, not elsewhere classified 8071 - Medical laboratories 8072 - Oentallaboratories 8082 - Home health care services 8092 - Kidney dialysis centers 8099 - Health and allied services, not elsewhere classified 20. Holding and other investment offices Groups 6712 - Offices of bank holding companies 6719 - Offices of holding companies, not elsewhere classified 6722 - Management investment offices, open-end 6726 - Unit investment trusts, face-amount certificate offices, and closed-end management investment offices 6732 - Educational, religious, and charitable trusts 6733 - Trusts, except educational, religious, charitable 6792 - Oil royalty traders 6794 - Patent owners and lessors 6798 - Real estate investment trusts 6799 -- Investors, not elsewhere classified 21. Home furniture, furnishings, and equipment stores Groups 5712 - Furniture stores 5713 - Floor covering stores 5714 - Drapery, curtain, and upholstery stores 571 9 - Miscellaneous home furnishings stores 5722 - Household appliance stores 5731 - Radio, television, and consumer electronics stores 5734 - Computer and computer software stores 5735 - Record and prerecorded tape stores, no adult-oriented sales or rentals 5736 - Musical instrument stores 22. Hotels and motels (Group 7011) 23. Insurance carriers Page 6 0[22 9/03/2009 \~\/ ~ ... ---- . -"""'. ....-...--., Agenda Item No. 8A September 29, 2009 Groups 6311 - Life insurance Page 249 of 265 6321 - Accident and health insurance 6324 - Hospital and medical service plans 6331 - Fire, marine, and casualty insurance 6351 - Surety insurance 6361 - Title insurance 6371 - Pension, health, and welfare funds 6399". Insurance carriers, not elsewhere classified 24. Insurance agents, brokers, and service (Group 6411) 25. Justice, public order, and safety (Group 9221 (police protection) 26. Legal services (Group 8111) 27. Membership organizations Groups 8611 - Business associations - 8621 - Professional membership organizations 8631 - Labor unions and similar labor organizations 8641 - Civic, social, and fraternal associations 8651 - Political organizations 8699 - Membership organizations, not elsewhere classified 28. Miscellaneous repair services Groups 7622 - Radio and television repair shops 7623 - Refrigeration and air-conditioning service and repair shops 7629 - Electrical and electronic repair shops, not elsewhere classified 7631 - Watch, clock, and jewelry repair 7641 -. Reupholstery and furniture repair 7692 - Welding repair 7694 - Armature rewinding shops 7699 - Repair shops and related services, not elsewhere classified 29. Miscellaneous retail (no adult oriented sales) Groups 5912.- Drug stores and proprietary stores 5921 - Liquor stores 5932 - Used merchandise stores 5941 - Sporting goods stores and bicycle shops 5942 - Book stores 5943 - Stationery stores 5944 - Jewelry stores 5945 - Hobby, toy, and game shops 5946 - Camera and photographic supply stores 5947 - Gift, novelty, and souvenir shops 5948 - Luggage and leather goods stores 5949 - Sewing, needlework, and piece goods stores 5961 - Catalog and mail-order houses 5992 - Florists Page 7 of 22 9/03/2009 \\,0 ~ ._.~ Agenda Item No. 8A September 29,2009 5993 - Tobacco stores and stands Page 250 of 265 5994 - News dealers and newsstands 5995 - Optical goods stores 5999 - Miscellaneous retail stores, not elsewhere classified, excluding grave stones, monuments, tombstones and sales barns 30. Museums and art galleries (Group 8412) 31. Non-depository credit institutions Groups 6111 - Federal and federally-sponsored credit agencies 6141 - Personal credit institutions 6153 - Short-term business credit institutions, except agricultural 6159 - Miscellaneous business credit institutions 6162 - Mortgage bankers and loan correspondents 6163 - Loan brokers - 32. Personal services Groups 7212 - Garment pressing, and agents for laundries and drycleaners 7215 - Coin-operated laundries and dry-cleaning 7219 - Laundry and garment services, not elsewhere classified 7221 - Photographic studios, portrait 7231 - Beauty shops 7241 - Barber shops 7251 - Shoe repair shops and shoeshine parlors 7261 - Funeral service and crematories 7291 - Tax return preparation services 7299 - Miscellaneous personal services. not elsewhere classified 33. Public finance, taxation. and monetary policy (Group 9311) 34. Real estate Groups 6512 - Operators of nonresidential buildings 6513 - Operators of apartment buildings 6514 - Operators of dwellings other than apartment buildings 6515 - Operators of residential mobile home sites 6517 - Lessors of railroad property 6519 - Lessors of real property, not elsewhere classified 6531 - Real estate agents and managers 6541 - Title abstract offices 6552 - Land subdividers and developers, except cemeteries 35. Security and commodity brokers, dealers, exchanges, and services Groups 6211 - Security brokers, dealers, and flotation companies 6221 - Commodity contracts brokers and dealers 6231 - Security and commodity exchanges 6282 - Investment advice 6289 - Services allied with the exchange of securities or commodities, not elsewhere classified Page 8 of 22 9/03/2009 \t'-~ ~ ."".-...~ Agenda Item No. SA September 29, 2009 Page 251 of 265 36. Social services Groups 8322 -Individual and family social services 8331 - Job training and vocational rehabilitation services 8351 - Child day care services 8399 - Social services, not elsewhere classified 37. Transportation services Groups 4724 - Travel agencies 4725 - Tour operators 4729 - Arrangement of passenger transportation, not elsewhere classified 38. United States Postal Service (Group 4311, excluding major distribution centers) 39. Video tape rental (Group 7841), no adult-oriented sales - B. Accessory Uses 1. Accessory uses and structures customarily associated with the permitted principal uses and structures. 2. Group 7542 - Carwashes, as an accessory to convenience stores only III. PRESERVE TRACT USES No building or structure or part thereof, shall be erected altered or used, or land used in whole or in part, for other than the following, subject to the issuance of regional, state and federal permits, when required: A. Principal Uses: 1. Any conservation and related activity or use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses and which the Board of Zoning Appeals or designee determines to be compatible in the Preserve Area. Page 9 of 22 9/03/2009 ~~ Agenda Item No. 8A September 29,2009 EXHIBIT B Page 252 of 265 FOR TAORMINA RESERVE MPUD DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Table I below sets forth the development standards for land uses within the MPUD. Standards not specifically set forth herein shall be those specified in the applicable sections of the Land Development Code (LDC) in effect as of the date of approval of the site development plan (SDP) or subdivision plat. TABLE I RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 1..0" DEMEI1~AMIENt:.,:<,::: i'iill!iiiiiiilllt".".'..'." ."IWll.'~'i!:"" i!I,!lttl~,. ii, _~.;"< C!'Il!3HOUSEI ;i":!;:',.',:ST.l.Itibs::::.'....,,..i',: !!I~'i,'L:!D~~~~~!',,1i "EA"'I~II[!~.!.ij ,';"!""..:~'~!~N~";' , ~~I~~fJ~~N .... ......., ..."..r......-............. "... ...... ,- ii ''',;b;',;....:;..y j'e;;:::."':!:;!;:::." :."". . '-"""':"'.:"-'::~i:' M' .. .,. .:';:tlITAt_lSD. . ";;';i;,';::".',~. ,.;.,,".','... "'.':',,;',,. ... ;"j _,',': "'. . -.! ....... ,. "' m ...... ....., .... ...., , . ....... .... ... .. ... .. --, PRINCIPAL - ',EII[ STRUCTURES MINIMUM LOT AREA 5,000 sq. ft. 1,400 sq. ft. per 3,500 sq. ft. 9,000 sq. ft. 43,560 sq. ft. NA per unit unit per unit per unit MINIMUM LOT 42 feet 16 feet 16 feet 42 feet 150 feet NA WIDTH *1 MINIMUM FLOOR NA AREA PER UNIT 1,000 sq. ft. 1,000 sq. ft. 1,000 sq. ft. 750 sq. ft. 1,000 SQ. ft. *5 MIN FRONT YARD 20 feet 20 feet *4 20 feet *4 20 feet 20 feet NA MIN SIDE YARD 6 feet o feet and o feet and 6 feet 15 feet or % BH NA 6 feet *2 6 feet *2 MIN REAR YARD 15 feet 15 feet 15 feet 15 feet 15 feet NA MIN PUD BOUNDARY 25 feet 25 feet 25 feet 25 feet 25 feet NA SETBACK MIN PRESERVE 25 feet 25 feet 25 feet 25 feet 25 feet 25 feet SETBACK MIN. DISTANCE 12 feet 12 feet 12 feet 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet BETWEEN STRUCTURES *3 MAXIMUM ZONED 35 feet 45 feet 35 feet R1 35 feet 45 feet 35 feet HEIGHT *6 R2 50 feet NOT TO EXCEED 3 stories 3 stories over Darking 3 stories MAXIMUM ACTUAL 45 feet 55 feet 45 feet R1 45 feet 55 feet 45 feet HEIGHT *6 R2 60 feet NOT TO EXCEED 3 stories 3 stories 3 stories over parking 'AC~R:Y ." W:";ii': ."" ;':;,"" ":~H.."" ' . ',', I,,"'''''''?' ',,' "',',''''m: " .,' ,.",..",. 'HU;';i:;;:",' ":U""i'''''~'''0IT ".S;J:+RUCTURES ,.....,,e..,, ,.,,)..,;c;...",',' ,. ,', .. " ,.......'.......'.. " "..,", .. FRONT 20 feet 20 feet "4 20 feet 20 feet "4 20 feet 25 feet SIDE 6 feet o feet and o feet and 1 0 feet 1 0 feet 10 feet 6 feet *2 6 feet REAR 1 0 feet 10 feet 1 0 feet 1 0 feet 1 0 feet 15 feet MIN PUD BOUNDARY 15 feet 15 feet 15 feet 15 feet 15 feet NA SETBACK Page 10 of 22 9/03/2009 ySf'1 ~.. -~--~.~,"' ,,_._'~. '.;~ ...-.....-. .. ._~." Agenda Item No. 8A Seotember 29 2009 PRESERVE 1 0 feet 1 0 feet 1 0 feet 1 0 feet 10 feePage ~53 o!~ifeet SETBACK DISTANCE FROM 1 0 feet 1 0 feet 10 feet 10 feet 1 0 feet 20 feet ~RINCIPAl 3TRUCTURE MAXIMUM ZONED S.P.S. S.P.S. S.P.S. 25 feet 25 feet 25 feet HEIGHT MAXIMUM ACTUAL S.P.S. S.P.S. S.P.S. 35 feet 35 feet 35 feet All distances are in feet unless otherwise noted. *1 - Minimum lot width may be reduced by 20% for cul.de-sac lots or lots on the radius of a curve provided the minimum lot area requirement is maintained. "2 - Zero foot minimum side setback on one side of building as long as a minimum 12.foot separation between principal structures Is maintained and all other setbacks are respected. "3 - Building distance may be reduced at garages to a minimum of 10 feet if detached or 0 feet where attached garages are provided. Multi-family principal buildings shall be separated a minimum of 20 feet and garages a minimum of 10 feet. *4 - Front entry building garages shall be set back a minimum of 23 feet from edge of sidewalk. The minimum 20 foot front yard may be reduced to 15 feet where the residence is served by a side-loaded or rear entry garage. *5 - 1,000 square feet shall be applicable to ground floor of the building and not individual unit size. "6 - For the area shaded on Exhibit C, Master Plan, the maximum zoned and actual heights shall be two stories not to exceed 35 feet above finished grade. S.P.S.: Same as Principal Structures. BH: Building Height i Page 11 of22 9/0312009 ~~ Agenda Item No. SA September 29,2009 TABLE II Page 254 of 265 MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS COMMERCIAL/MIXED MULTI-FAMILY ACCESSOR\ USE RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL USES PRINCIPAL USES PRINCIPAL USES MINIMUM LOT AREA 10,000 sq. ft. 9,000 SQ. ft. N/A MINIMUMLOT WIDTH 75 ft. 75 ft. N/A MINIMUM YARDS (External) From Future Ext. of Santa Barbara 25 ft. 25 ft. SPS Blvd. From Davis Boulevard 25 ft. 25 ft. SPS From Eastern Proiect Boundary 25 ft. 25 ft. SPS MINIMUM YARDS (lnternal)** Front 20 ft. 20 ft. 10ft. Rear 15 ft. 15 ft. 10 ft. Side 10 ft. 6 ft. 10 ft. Preserve 25 ft. 25 ft. 10 ft. MIN. DISTANCE BETWEEN 20 ft. 20 ft. N/A STRUCTURES MAXIMUM HEIGHT Zoned 50 ft. for buildings 45 ft. N/A including residential 50 ft. for commercial buildings only Actual (inclusive of any under 60 ft. for buildings 55 ft. N/A building parking) including residential 60 ft. for commercial buildings only MINIMUM FLOOR AREA 700 sq. ft. * 700 Sq. Ft. * N/A MAX. GROSS BUILDING AREA 262,000 Sq. Ft. N/A N/A * Per principal structure, on the finished first floor. ** Building setbacks along the Southern boundary shall be treated as a front yard with 20 foot limitation for principal uses. S.P.S.: Same as Principal Structures. I Page 12 of22 9/03/2009 (~\/ V. -- ~ of ..",.tlllWC.,...1 CIR_\IIWJI-.\tI*I ~ ~.......1lI il .!; 511R- il.lli; ma~~ ~B" ffil ~..u ~ 09., !~~i ~ ~~~i ffi_1 ~~~ ...-; ~'" a: ~a "" w- "''' ...- o~ ~di ~t.i w- ",::0 "'... >->- ~~ ~I= <<0: ~ :r" "'~o ~u: z:! ;~,.. ~ <1=1 ~~ ~u t, -ttf 0- w~ 3:., ;i ~ =\ ,- z !!? ~o_...__ !;~ II: U~Q ..- ~ .....o..~ .. - ~- -_._----- Ilia:::: ~ J: t!:! I xVla:: 1_- - '<:""'-.. - - - ~ "'<< " ::; to II Si -.-, ._u~_ ~..n~n, !3 1'1, >- ~ . , ~>' 5!i . , .. . . L..__._.....! 1 a: r~! <" ~ " ~~ i [ I w f ~ ilO'" !! ~g .. On _o___o.._~---. .. ..' .' l~_-i'! II SO , . . .. ~.. "~.'.. '. '. s,ANOY lANE ;, ::~ ~. {I_~~ .' ", . ,. .' f-' ut) .' .' ~I &:i~ .' , ". '., .~. .... ". ". ~'4 " >- .W~ ~~ 16ui' a: :i'!;1 ::' .~ l<;" :: ~~ ;\f\.\:.. w ti~ , .~ if: ~ ~~ mnn ~~C II ~r,p !< ;:l~;.. ~ ; ~o "'''' ..r .."", H w iii ~ ~ 8~g, ~!!! .. do!. . , ! ~ 0 ~d >>iJ! ! i ot; "'~ ~ , "'w 3~ l= ~ "'''' . ;. i. ~~ " '? .... ~8B 0 2:'" .s .' - ~ffi ua:lU i?1l ..: o!!t~ :; i: ~ t ~z :r::lN Ili :~ f ~' ~~ <0 ~ ~u ~ . 0 . 0 '" <'Cl J~ ; z~ al o . w'" .. .... o-W !< <:.:> . ! _ _ -, ~U~E~ ~k"B ~__ ~ -_'-~ -.,'-_ ' . litH ~. . ~ _J Ji"" "'g ~g ::;0- ::<;! ":'ffl:5 I . I i ~ ~~ ::J :0 ~ c iii I k I I --"',,-. ; I ~~}y~~ ~~A ~~~i.~~~f~~!m~... :' ~ iU i1iil t ['..ANt" ftAR&ARA BOULEVARD ---_..~. .... ~-'--...;..-^_... f i .._0...,,_ ""0-.- ........_._ -. v... m " ~ ! X~"~" W ffi ~~ ~~ I >;; 1:> w ~'" ~!il ~ ;>~ 1;;~ ffi w w 0 ell 0 '" l:" ~ 2 ia f!:"' i<i ..-... .,~ ~~ ~ ~ zw !i~ c;; ~~ Ws l!;~ ;;; ~u 7~ ~~i' m g~ "" >-< !Z! rz,. u" ~~ ~~=- ow wO w"- t;~ 0'" ~~oj u w "'~ ill a: ~w effiS il '" ~ ~ ,,~ .!f~ ., ~i ~~i .,~- @l~ i~ ffi~mln '" s ~I~ 5 '" ~~; a:;:EU: ~~~~ X! ~ 22 Wi"" ;1j':; ~~ ~ !t ;i "'.!~ ~i~ a:= "'~ !!~~ ~ ~ ., n" I,) I:l u' :~ ~ w ~'" "a:" g'l!lil "':: .... ....NMo- ;t 5 Ii; <w WO-lil . . . ... . . , '" ~ w ~~ i~zr -,>-<1 Sl '" ... a~~ ~U ~ !i W U a: >/.w .. '" ~ ,,!;1 ~~~ .." ' xx oli ~ iil "- 6 :u " M~ ~ .". 0; 4;0..::; I w ww ~ ~ ~=: ~~~ ~Ea "'" :J~~ ~ ~ ~~ Wi u ",0 "'t';'" Q;J:~ Ii; ~B a: !{l~ IDw.i ~ ~~ W ffii~ * ;;;:;; '" ~ ~"'i' ~ ~ ~~ t=glllO ~!< ~~CD ~ oW W iii ~.!O! t u "-~ OW"" -~~ ~ ~ '" -' ., U o(j!:~ ~ ~ ~ *~ ~ l3 ~~O .. ",!!Iu f f 00 g L1Joti a: <<z ~ ~5~ 9 !ti:i~ 0 C!J ~ w ~~~ Ui ,,11 t; '" ~ ., a..5S " Iil-- I~S ~ ~ >- > ~ ~ c O'li!ID~~~~ "00 w .$ ww-, "'wa: ~ > 00:< l:l a:a::a.. :;, ~lX.Q. 0 0-' ... ~~ 01 " ~ m 0 Z ~ ~~ Agenda Item No. 8A September 29, 2009 EXHIBIT D Page 256 of 265 FOR TAORMINA RESERVE MPUD LEGAL DESCRIPTION OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 1087, PAGE 841 WEST 1/2 OF NW 1/4 OF NW 1/4 OF SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, LESS RIGHT-OF-WAY, CONTAINING 18.87 ACRES MORE OR LESS, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. NW 1/4 OF SW 1/4 OF NW 1/4 OF SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, CONTAINING 10 ACRES MORE OR LESS, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. SOUTH 1/2 OF NE 1/4 OF SW 1/4 OF NW 1/4 OF SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, LESS THE WEST AND SOUTH 30 FEET, CONTAINING 4.34 ACRES MORE OR LESS, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 1186, PAGE 2060 THE NORTH 1/2 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. ALSO KNOWN AS TRACT 45 OF ENCHANTED ACRES. LESS THE WEST 30 FEET TO USED FOR ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY PURPOSES. OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 1192, PAGE 1700 THE NORTH 1/2 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, LESS THE WEST - 30 FEET THEREOF FOR ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY. ALSO KNOWN AS TRACT 47. OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 1116. PAGE 333 THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER (SE 1/4) OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER (NW 1/4) OF SECTION 9. TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA LESS AND EXCEPT THE LANDS DESCRIBED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 4353 AT PAGE 1085 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BEING A RIGHT-OF-WAY TAKING FOR PROJECT: 60091-SANTA BARBARA BLVD. EXTN. MORE PARTICULARL Y DESCRIBED BY METES AND BOUNDS A PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED IN THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 9. TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBES AS FOLLOWS: BEGIN AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST. COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE RUN SOUTH 89051'22" WEST, ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 9, FOR A DISTANCE OF 1,307.72 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 9; THENCE RUN NORTH 00051'25" WEST, ALONG THE WEST LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 9, FOR A DISTANCE OF 344.87 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE NORTH HALF OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 9; THENCE RUN SOUTH 89044'49" WEST, ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTH HALF OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 9, FOR A DISTANCE OF 654.23 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE NORTH HALF OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE Page 14 of22 9/03/2009 ~~ Agenda Item No. 8A September 29, 2009 NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 9; THENCE RUN NORTH 00055'16" WEST,~t-ltfFltHg65 WEST LINE OF THE NORTH HALF OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 9, FOR A DISTANCE OF 343.63 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 9; THENCE RUN SOUTH 89038'17" WEST, ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 9, FOR A DISTANCE OF 554.60 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EAST LINE OF THE LANDS DESCRIBED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 4353 AT PAGE 1085 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE RUN NORTHERL Y ALONG SAID EAST LINE FOR THE FOLLOWING SEVEN (7) COURSES: 1) THENCE RUN NORTH 00059'07" WEST, FOR A DISTANCE OF 792.98 FEET; 2) THENCE RUN SOUTH 89000'53" WEST, FOR A DISTANCE OF 20.00 FEET; 3) THENCE RUN NORTH 00059'07" WEST, FOR A DISTANCE OF 506.24 FEET; 4) THENCE RUN NORTH 11057'26" EAST, FOR A DISTANCE OF 100.77 FEET; 5) THENCE RUN NORTH 00000'53" EAST, FOR A DISTANCE OF 476.24 FEET TO A POINT ON A CIRCULAR CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHEAST, WHOSE RADIUS POINT BEARS SOUTH 89059'50" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 97.00 FEET THEREFROM; 6) THENCE RUN NORTHEASTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 97.00 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 90011'21", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD OF 137.40 FEET AT A BEARING OF NORTH 45005'51" EAST, FOR AN ARC LENGTH OF 152.69 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE; 7) THENCE RUN NORTH 00058'17" WEST. FOR A DISTANCE OF 11.48 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY OF DAVIS BOULEVARD (150 FOOT RIGHT-OF-WAY); THENCE RUN NORTH 89001'43" EAST, ALONG SAID SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY. FOR A DISTANCE OF 446.52 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EAST LINE OF THE WEST HALF OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 9; THENCE RUN SOUTH 00056'22" EAST, ALONG SAID EAST LINE. FOR A DISTANCE OF 1,299.05 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTH HALF OF THE NORTHWES QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 9; THENCE RUN NORTH 89"25'14" EAST, ALONG SAID NORTH LINE, FOR A DISTANCE OF 1.966.06 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 9; THENCE RUN SOUTH 00043'50" EAST, ALONG THE EAST LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 9, FOR A DISTANCE OF 1,389.42 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL OF LAND HEREIN DESCRIBED, CONTAINING 82.51 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. Page 15 of 22 9/03/2009 \ \"'\./ ~ Agenda Item No. 8A I EXIDBIT E September 29,2009 Page 258 of 265 FOR TAORMINA RESERVE MPUD DEVIATIONS 1. Deviation 1 seeks relief from LDC Section 6.06.01.J. Street System Requirements, to allow that cul-de-sacs in excess of one thousand feet (1,000') in length. Streets with block lengths of greater than six hundred feet (600') shall have traffic calming devices installed at an approximate spacing of three hundred feet (300'), also see Exhibit F, LB.9. - Page 16 of22 9/0312009 ~~l/ ~ Agenda Item No. SA September 29, 2009 EXHIBIT F Page 259 of 265 FOR TAORMINA RESERVE MPUD LIST OF DEVELOPER COMMITMENTS 1. Regulations for development of the Taormina Reserve MPUD shall be in accordance with the contents of this MPUD Document and applicable sections of the LDC and Growth Management Plan (GMP) in effect at the time of issuance of any development order to which said regulations relate. Where this MPUD Ordinance does not provide development standards, then the provisions of the specific sections of the WC that are otherwise applicable shall apply. A. ENVIRONMENTAL 1. Approximately 59.46 acres of native vegetation exist on-site; therefore, a minimum of 14.87 acres of preserve is required. The MPUD will provide a minimum of 28.88 acres of preserve as shown on the Master Plan. B. TRANSPORTATION The development of this MPUD shall be subject to and governed by the following conditions: 1. No building permits shall be issued until the Davis Boulevard improvements set forth in Project 60073, or as superseded, are under construction. 2. No certifications of occupancy shall be issued until after the following milestones have been met: L Substantial completion of Davis Boulevard improvements set forth in Project 60073, or as superseded, from Radio Road to CR-951. 11. Substantial completion of Santa Barbara extension to the project entrance. 3. Access to Davis Boulevard is subject to a shared single access point with the adjacent property owner and FOOT approval. 4. The developer, its successors, or assigns shall contribute proportionate fair share monies to Collier County for the following intersection improvement when signal warrants are met and prior to the installation of the signal: 1. Signalization of Cope Lane at Santa Barbara Extension. 5. The developer, its successors, or assign shall construct, or provide payment in lieu to Collier County for any turn lanes, constructed by the County during the Santa Barbara Blvd project, serving this project prior to the first development order approval. 6. The developer, its successors or its assigns, shall provide for the potential interconnection to Sunset Boulevard. The developer shall be responsible for Page 17 of22 9/03/2009 L- 0~~ ".. - Agenda Item No. 8A September 29,2009 the costs of design, permitting and construction of approxiInatelf'3B6 lOOrQ:f:L265 limited access roadway of which 200' shall be built concurrent with development in the MU or R2 tract. The roadway shall be designed as a two lane roadway with two, 10- 12 foot wide travel lanes with a 6 foot sidewalk on only one side of the roadway. This requirement for the construction of the "additional 630 feet" to Sunset Boulevard shall remain valid for five years from the date of PUD approval as provided herein. The complete, permitted roadway design shall be included with the fIrst SDP that encompasses this portion of the development for inclusion in the County's files. a. At or before the approval of the first SDP for the R2 tract, developer shall convey to Collier County a 30 foot public access easement, as conceptually depicted on F -1 and labeled 30 feet wide public access way reservation, at no cost to the County, which may include public utilities ifit does not conflict with the paved roadway and sidewalk. - b. The developer shall construct the additional 630 feet of the public access to Sunset Boulevard if the County obtains the necessary access rights south of the developer's property to Cope Lane within five years of the date of PUD Approval. The remaining 630 feet of the public access to Sunset Boulevard shall be constructed by the developer concurrent with the development of the MU or R2 tract. c. The developer shall maintain the 30 foot public access easement until Collier County accepts maintenance responsibility. 7. Prior to the approval of each individual SDP or Plat, the Developer, its successor, or assign shall make their proportionate payment for compliance with policy 5.8 of the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan. 8. Any combination of allowed uses stated in Exhibit A of this POO shall not be allowed to exceed the maximum square footage or units listed for each category of use. The trip generation stated in the Traffic Impact Study (TIS) used for the approval of this zoning action shall be construed as a maximum trip generation (1,308 total PM peak hour trips; or 910 adjusted, PM peak hour net new external trips) for any combination of the allowed uses. 9. The developer, or successors and assigns, shall provide a stabilized emergency turn-around, meeting local fire prevention code cn tena, approximately midway along the cul-de-sac of the primary internal roadway. C. LANDSCAPE 1. An enhanced 15-foot wide type B landscape buffer shall be provided along the eastern property boundary adjacent to Naples Heritage PUD a distance of approximately 550 feet south from the northern Taormina Reserve MPUD boundary and adjacent to the Cook PUD boundary. The enhanced Page 18 of22 9/03/2009 ,-f~ .- Agenda Item No. 8A September 29, 2009 buffer shall contain native canopy tree species such as Live Oak Btl~rRS1ha1\:265 will be a minimum 14 feet in height at the time of planting and planted 20 feet on center. Cabbage Palms, with a minimum height of 16 feet at the time of planting shall be planted in clusters of at least 3 trees planted on 20 feet centers between the row of canopy trees. A shrub row of native plants such as Buttonwood shall also be planted within the buffer. The shrubs shall be a minimum of 5 feet tall at the time of planting and shall be spaced on 4-foot centers. This buffer shall be installed concurrent with clearing and filling of the site in the area adjacent to the eastern property boundary. A minimum 4-foot high chain link fence shall be installed within or adjacent to the enhanced buffer. Page 190f22 9/03/2009 ~~ !'; A' i\ t , ' , - \ ~._..__.__._.,._.-. \ ~" ~:::..:::=~::::::.~::::::=:::.:..: ,-- -- ." 'W-;F'~:';'~~;c~ ...# ~-~.. -- ..~.,"'- -_..- -.". ", . ''::>i='TE' ,-. I I . ,- ';,'1. , I 0 75' 150' ~ \ SCALE' l' = 150' :i; ._ .... ......h.~__.~~_. ......... .~. #_....__H ;i! ...",..,.........__...~._.~~.. .. ..........._,............."",.......nH.R.. .. ....... .............__.R___........ _ . __....._,~_........-."..,."._ .... ...M~_...._M._.......".......~ "._ ._.... _#._fi..H......_......~"" .. _ ._.__.__.'_'_'___R" .. ,~",.., ~"'_'N'_"_'._""'-' . . .....~...._._._.'___n .. .........-......-....-......-,..... .... .-_........~_.."_..__..._. . .... _. .. _.__........-.-.H...._... ...~-~_..~...._'_~......~.._._. .... _.......~._. '.-. -." - . .,..".-'-"--"--'-" lJ APPROXIMATELY 200% FEET OF .,--) 2 ROW SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED ~ AT TIME OF DEVELOPMENT OF " '~" Ii -. THE R2 TRACT 1...__ .... ._...~.............__.......,. .. .,....._......."""-~"...."-~......_--, \ I ii .' ',- i..; \ I (\ ~ ,) 1 ~ ,.'n". I , ......" 30' WIDE PUBLIC ...~<"... ,:4: . J r'~" ~ ....^" ..""',,/ ,,rt:,,.!I(; , _,m _m ACCESSWAY POTENTIAL VEHICULAR :~ RESERVATION AND PEDESTRIAN .'> '. .- INTERCONNECT i ! :.-.----,- -".,,,,~" , .~ I.m' -,,,- ! i rli ,..~"-4' ..........- _..;.. .....'--... ';'-7 ......-_, --. ~_.., -- -- --1(--'--'- t, i Iii! )1 I ;~l Ii . .0 :~i !i i Iz \~ .:.;.\ )'; ; .en I t ';' ,~:~'.'- "~~~8~' I .m -l IOJ . 340':1: :!< I I I~I >< ~ ~;' -' )-H~ '-f f. '}i. -, ,-<, / . I -' ,;.t' , !~-, 1-- ,/ I l '". ,. >_\..v I :' :;., ''-..,{T' < ! ~~A::;'=-- .::',',...,::~~.,.;'o.....:,_..~~_...__:,~.);...~.......;;~'''"~,......':!l.._~....,~ ......::':.....~..:-,."'.;..~--:.':.....~.,~^" i .J.A~RMINA RESERVE DEVELOPER TO DESIGN AND ~ . ';;;;;;'''"''- ..:...~ "':;';'Jt - - ,.,-= .....:;,......,' - PERMIT SUNSET BOULEVARD EXTENSION FOR THAT . EXISTING 30' WIDE .. PORTION ON AND ADJACENT TO TAORMINA PROPERTY I PRIVATE EASEMENT ~ LINE, A LENGTH OF APPROXIMATELY 830'%. THE I t DEVELOPER WILL CONSTRUCT THE ROAD IF DIRECTED I · BY THE COUNTY WITHIN 5 YEARS OF THE APPROVAL 60' WIDE OF THE PUD. THE DEVELOPER IS NOT RESPONSIBLE I SUNSET BLVD ~O~ MI~~~TION OF THE PUBLIC ACCESS ROAD WHICH ACCESS EASEMENT i ISlLO'. TED OUTSIDE OF THE PROJECT BOUNDARY. . .!. ;. . ;; ii' " 1;' r:i . GradyMinor ltfllllln I!;lU'I1Wl 2::tA.CW7.11.... TA.ORJIINA. RESERVE JlPUD Pt.n- Uycno 2:19.600...:)80 NnM.h I'oft. {H I ,~26.!iRr.R Nt'lPte. 2:\n.444.2397 EXHIBIT F-1 I eMf Bn~Jneel'8 . t.::tnd Surveyors . l'hlOnt~~ . Landscape ^rf.hIt.er:L~ SUNSET BLVD POTENllAL INTERCONNECllON ~ I:t.RT.uVAlml.li:nOOO,H!H l...1!IlT 1,lt""lIl11l' (,kllflD!i1!i1 k11!UtfRSS u: 21SOOO26IJ DETAIL fJ. (jr3Oy 'lIooraM NUIfH:t.alnl. [OA. :1600\'1.' bel Rt-)>. RunlOl fipliutpi. t'L 3'113., www,rd'8l1~MIfK)r.faMn ~~ ,- . Agenda Item No. SA September 29, 2009 EXHIBIT G Page 263 of 265 FOR TAORMINA RESERVE MPUD WILDLIFE HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN RED-COCKADED WOODPECKER MANAGEMENT PLAN For the sake of red-cockaded woodpeckers ("RCW"), precautionary measures will be undertaken when construction involves clearing pine habitat. Prior to clearing pine habitat, a qualified biologist will review the impact areas for the presence of RCW cavity trees. The inspection area will include an area 100 feet from clearing limits. Construction will be allowed to commence when the biologist has completed the site review and determined that no RCW cavity trees will be hanned or destroyed as a result of the intended activity. Should the biologist observe an RCW cavity tree within areas to be cleared, or within 100 - feet of clearing limits, contractors and workers will be instructed to stop construction activities that are within 100 feet of the cavity tree. The biologist will also be responsible for notifying the USFWS of the situation and asking for guidance. Prescribed burning is an available management technique that may be permitted, as applicable, within the upland and wetland preservation areas. The feasibility of conducting prescribed bums will take into consideration the ability to obtain local and state authorizations, the ability to create adequate firebreaks at the burn site, and impacts to listed wildlife species. Prescribed burning may only be conducted by a cel1ified prescribed burn manager and in accordance with the applicable rules and regulations of the Division of Forestry. The use of prescribed burning may necessitate the creation of adequate firebreaks resulting in removal of native vegetation within the preserve areas. The removal of native vegetation in the preserve areas for the purpose of creating fire breaks will be pre-approved by County Environmental Services staff. Page 21 of22 9/03/2009 1 Agenda Item No. 8A September 29,2009 Page 264 of 265 EXHffiIT H FOR TAORMINA RESERVE MPUD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL August 25, 2009 1. No outdoor music or other amplified sounds shall be permitted within 500-feet of the of the southern boundary of the MU tract. 2. Mixed-use buildings in the MU tract depicted on the Master Plan shall only contain the uses from Exhibit A.ll that would normally be permitted by right or as a conditional use in the C-l through C-3 zoning districts. -- 3. Any freestanding building of solely multifamily units that is located adjacent to a commercial use normally permitted by the LDC in the C-4 through C-5 zoning districts shall provide a minimum 15-foot Type B buffer and the LDC-required fence or wall. 4. No home improvement superstore, warehouse superstore or discount retail superstore shall be allowed on any parcel occupied by multifamily residential uses. Should any such superstore develop, no multifamily residential uses shall be developed above it. Additionally, no residential uses shall be permitted adjacent to it unless it is buffered by a Type B buffer and a wall as described above. 5. An updated red-cockaded woodpecker survey shall be submitted at the first development order if required by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWCC) or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 6. Florida black bear and Big Cypress fox squirrel management plans shall be provided as part of the next development order. 7. At the time of the next development order, a hydroperiod analysis (or whatever LDC requirement that may be in effect for the evaluation of stormwater discharge into upland preserves) shall be provided for the project site. 8. A preserve management plan shall be required as part of the next development order and shall include provisions for annual monitoring to determine the potential impacts of stormwater on the preserve area's vegetation. Preserve vegetation adversely impacted by storrnwater shall be replaced by the property owner with other vegetation that is suitable for the conditions. Page 22 of 22 9/03/2009 ~"G .L Agenda Item No. 8A September 29,2009 Page 265 of 265 t8D · Sunda" September 13, 2009 · Naples Dan, Ne.. .- ',' -, .,...'..'..'.WM..'.,............~~......"..,',.._.-.,......,._y~,_'...,...,.....".,....."".'-.~............~,.............."..A""..yM.....".~."....,y"........__A''''-'''-.'.....;~'A_.,....'.._.~_m^.'_.. NO'TICE O'F INTENT TO' CO'NSIDER O'RDINANCE Notice is hereby given that on TUESDAY, September 29, ~009, in the Boa:rdroorTI, 3rd Floor. Admsnistration Building, Collier county Government Center 3301 East Tamlami Trail, Naples, Florida, the Board of COunty Commissioners wIll consider the enactment of a County O'rdlnance. The meeting will commence at 9:00 A.M. T~etitleofth~propos~dO'rdinan,_ceisasfoIlOws: ,. _..'. . .AN O'RDINANCE OF THE BO'ARD OF CO'UNTY CO'MMISSIO'NERS O'F COLLIER 'CO'UN-. TY;. FLORIDA, AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER, 2004-41,: AS AMENDED. THE CO'L- LIERCO'UNTY LAND DEVELO'PMENT-cO'DE, WHICH- ESTABLISHED THE COMPREHEN- SIVE ZO'NING REGULA TIO'NS FO'R THE UNINCO'RPORATED AREA O'F COUIER CO'UN- - TY,FLO'RIDA. BY AMENDING ,THE APPRO'PRIATE ZO'NING ATLAS MAP O'R MAPS BY CHANGING THE ZO'NING 'CLASSIFICA nO'N OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED, REALPRO'P- ERTYFRO'M A RURAL AGRICULTURAL (A) ZO'NING'DISTRICT WITH ApSPECIAL TREATMENT (ST) O'VERLAY TO' A MIXED USE",PLANNED UNITDEVELO'PMENT (MPUD) ZO'NING DISTRICT FO'R THE PRO'JECT TO' BE KNO'WN AS THE TAO'RMINA RESERVE MPUD, TO' ALLO'W CONSTRUCTIO'N' OF A MAXIMUM O'F528 RESIDENTiAL DWELLING UNITS AND UP TO 262,000 S~UARE FEET O'F CO'MMERCIAL LAND USES ON THE SO'UTHEAST CO'RNER O'F:rHE AVIS BO'ULEVARD '(SR. 84) AND SANTA .BARBARA BOULEVARD INTERSECTION, IN SECTIO'N 9, TO'WNSHIP 50 SO'UTH', RANGE 26 EAST, CO'LLIER CO'UNTY, FLORIDA. CO'NSISTING O'F 82.51 ACRES; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. PUDZ-2oo7.AR-11100, Highland Properties of Lee and Collier, Ltd., represented by D. Wayne Arnold.AICP"of Q. Grady Minor and Associates,P.A., and Richard Yova- novich of .Coleman, Yovan~vicli and. Koel!ter, P.A. is re~esting a rezone. from the Rural Agrlcultllral (A) 'zoning distrIct With a sgeclal reatment (Sn overlay to the Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (MPU ) Zoning District for a project to be known as the Taormina Reserve MPUD, to allow construction of a maximum of 528 residential dwelling units and, up to 262,000 square, feet of commercial uses on approXlmatel~ 82.51 acres. The subject property' Is located in the south- - eastern quadrant of, e Santa Barbara Boulevard. and Davis Boulevard(SR 84) intersection, In Section 9, Township 50 SOuth. Range 26 East, Collier. county, Florida '"- Copies of the proposed O'rdinance are on file with the Clerk to the Board and are available for Inspection. All Interested parties are 'Invited to .attend and ~e , heard. ,'. NO'TE: All persons wishing to speak on any agenda item must register with the coun~ administrator ftrior to presentation of the agenda item to be addressed. '. Indlvi ualspeakers wi I be limited to 5 minutes on any Item. The selection of an individual to speak on behalf of an organization or group is eilcouraged. If rec- ognized by the Chairman, a spokesperson for a group or organization may be al- lotted 10 minutesto speak on an Item. .' . . , . Persons WiShing to have written or graphic materials included. in the Board agenda packets must ,submit said material a minimum of 3 weeks prior to the respective publiC hearintln an~ case, written materials intended to be consid- ered by the Board' shall e subm tted to the appropriate County staff a minimum of seven days prior to the public hearing. All material used in presentations be- fore the Board wiff become a permanent part of the-record. , . -_ - . .. Any person. who decides to a~peal a decision of the Board wlJl need a record of the proceedings pertaining t ereto ,and. therefore may need, to ensure .that a verDatim record of the proceedings ,is made. which record includes the testimo- ny and evidence upon wh ich the appeal is based. -.' . , , , ' If you are a person with a disability who needs any accommodation in order to participate in this prOceedin~. you are entitled, at no cost to you. to the provi~ sion of certain assistance. P ease contact the COllier County Facilities Manalle- ment Department, ,located at 3301 Tamiami Trail East, Building W, Naples, FlOrida 34112. .(239)252-8380. Assisted listening devices for the hearing' impaired are available in the COlJOty Commissioners' Office. . . BOARD OF CO'UNTY COMMISSIONERS CO'LLIER CO'UNTY. FLO'RIDA DONNA FIALA. CHAIRMAN DWIGHT E. BRO'CK. CLE.RK By: MarthaVergara, Deputy Clerk . (SEAL) . Spot!'!mhpr 11 200'1 Nn1R14ACW : < . . i J