Loading...
Agenda 06/24/2014 Item #16A236/24/2014 16.A.23. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Recommendation to approve a Developer Agreement between Naples Associates IV, LLLP (Developer) and Collier County (County) to provide design and post construction services to intersection improvements at the intersection of Collier Boulevard and Immokalee Road. OBJECTIVE: To augment the existing intersection design of Immokalee Road - Collier Boulevard with an additional third westbound left turn lane in order to accommodate recent development approvals. CONSIDERATION: There are two separate pieces to this proposed agreement. The first involves the Collier Boulevard and Immokalee Road intersection. This intersection is currently under design through a developer commitment from the Mirasol DCA. The current design was based on the level of activity in the area during the economic downturn. At this time, the northeast urban area of Collier County particularly around this intersection has seen significant development activity. This activity prompted transportation staff to revisit the design based on the new level of traffic expected to impact the intersection and that analysis indicates that a third westbound left turn lane is warranted. Recently, the County has approved the Preliminary Subdivision Plat for TwinEagles South for 853 single family units. Because of the impact of the Development, in keeping with Resolution No. 2006 -299, Developer is required to mitigate for operational impacts by making a contribution towards the costs of an additional westbound to southbound turn lane from Immokalee Road onto Collier Boulevard. Staff believes that it is in the best interest of the County for the Developer to enter directly into a contract with the current design engineer and pay for such modification of the design plans because it will help finance and accelerate the construction of the intersection improvements that are directly attributed to their impacts. The design enhancements and the fair share contribution towards construction are not impact fee creditable. The second piece to this agreement involves the Developer entering into an assignment of impact fees with G. L. Homes of Naples Associates II. Ltd., transferring $1,619,341.60 in transportation impact fee credits to Developer. On such assignment, Developer shall be deemed to have paid the County thirty-three percent (33 %) of the estimated road impact fees for the Development in accordance with the Collier County Consolidated Impact Fee Ordinance, and Developer shall immediately be entitled to obtain a permanent certificate of public adequacy (the "COA "). FISCAL IMPACT: The Developer will contribute up to $150,000 towards the design, with half of these costs to be credited against the construction costs. Developer will contribute up to $300,000 toward the construction costs, which includes such credit. These contributions are not impact fee creditable. The Assignment does not have a fiscal impact but is instead a transfer of credits between two Developers in the same Road Impact District. Packet Page -881- 6/24/2014 16.A.23. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: The Project is consistent with goals and objectives of the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This item has been reviewed by the County Attorney, is approved as to form and legality, and requires majority vote for approval. -JAK RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida approve the attached Developer Agreement and authorize its Chairman to execute same on behalf of the Board. Prepared By: Reed Jarvi, Transportation Planning Manager, Growth Management Division Attachments: 1) Proposed Developer Agreement; 2) Exhibit "A" Property Description; 3) Exhibit "B" Scope of Services; 4) Exhibit "C" Assignment of Impact Fee Credits; 5) Resolution 2006 -299 Packet Page -882- 6/24/2014 16.A.23. COLLIER COUNTY Board of County Commissioners Item Number: 16.16.A.16.A.23. Item Summary: Recommendation to approve a Developer Agreement between Naples Associates IV, LLLP (Developer) and Collier County (County) to provide design and post construction services to intersection improvements at the intersection of Collier Boulevard and Immokalee Road. Meeting Date: 6/24/2014 Prepared By Name: BeardLaurie Title: Planned Unit Development Coordinator, Transportation Planning 6/11/2014 11:10:34 AM Approved By Name: JarviReed Title: Manager - Planning, Transportation Planning Date: 6/11/2014 11:35:52 AM Name: PuigJudy Title: Operations Analyst, Community Development & Environmental Services Date: 6/11/2014 11:42:32 AM Name: MarcellaJeanne Title: Executive Secretary, Transportation Planning Date: 6/11/2014 12:46:07 PM Name: KlatzkowJeff Title: County Attorney, Date: 6/13/2014 10:36:12 AM Name: UsherSusan Title: Management/Budget Analyst, Senior, Office of Management & Budget Date: 6/16/2014 5:06:00 PM Name: OchsLeo Title: County Manager, County Managers Office Packet Page -883- Date: 6/17/2014 10:53:39 AM Packet Page -884- 6/24/2014 16.A.23. 6/24/2014 16.A.23. DEVELOPER AGREEMENT TWINEAGLES SOUTH THIS DEVELOPER AGREEMENT ( "Agreement ") is made and entered into this day of 2014, by and between NAPLES ASSOCIATES IV, LLLP, a Florida limited liability limited partnership (hereinafter referred to as "Developer "), whose address is 1600 Sawgrass Corporate Parkway, Suite 400, Sunrise, FL 33323, and the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, as the governing body of Collier County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida (hereinafter referred to as "County "). RECITALS: WHEREAS, Developer is the owner of that certain real property located in Collier County, Florida, commonly known as "TwinEagles South", which real property is more particularly described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof (the "Property"); and WHEREAS, the County has approved a Preliminary Subdivision Plat and associated infrastructure construction plans, PL20130001020 (collectively, the "Development Order "), for a project of eight hundred fifty -three (853) single family units proposed to be developed on the Property (the "Project "); and WHEREAS, in connection with the development of the Project, in keeping with Resolution No. 2006 -299 it has been determined that the Developer is required to mitigate for operational impacts by making a contribution towards the costs of an additional westbound to southbound turn lane (the "Additional Turn Lane ") from Immokalee Road onto Collier Boulevard (CR 951); and WHEREAS, the County has been planning to construct necessary intersection improvements (the "Intersection Improvements ") at the intersection of Immokalee Road and Collier Boulevard (CR 951), but the design plans for the Intersection Improvements (the "Design Plans ") do not include the Additional Turn Lane, and WHEREAS, the County now desires for the Design Plans to be modified to include the Additional Turn Lane, and subject to the terms of this Agreement, the Developer is willing to enter into a contract for such modification of the Design Plans with the design engineer for the Intersection Improvements (the "Design Engineer "); and WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of the County for the Developer to enter into such contract with the Design Engineer and pay for such modification of the Design Plans because it will help finance and accelerate the construction of the Intersection Improvements; WHEREAS, this Agreement is structured to ensure that Adequate Public Facilities are available to serve the Project concurrent with the impacts of the Project on said public facilities; and Packet Page -885- 6/24/2014 16.A.23. WHEREAS, the Growth Management Administrator has recommended to the Board of County Commissioners that the Intersection Improvements with the Additional Turn Lane as described in this Agreement (collectively, the "Proposed Plan") are in conformity with contemplated improvements and additions to the County's transportation network; and WHEREAS, Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances Sec. 74- 302(h) provides in relevant part that "A certificate of public facility adequacy (COA) shall be issued concurrent with the approval of the next to occur final local development order. At the time a certificate of public facility adequacy is issued, thirty-three percent (33 %) of the estimated payment will be due and deposited into the applicable impact fee trust fund. The funds will then be immediately available for appropriation by the Board of County Commissioners for transportation capital improvements and are non - refundable. Final calculation of impact fees due will be based on the intensity of development actually permitted for construction and the impact fee schedule in effect at the time of the building permit(s) application submittal, such that additional impact fees may be due prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy or certificate of completion for the building permit(s);" and WHEREAS, the total estimated transportation impact fees due in connection with the Project is $4,907,095.75, and thus under Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances Sec. 74- 302(h), $1,619,341.60, which represents thirty -three percent (33 %) of such total estimated transportation impact fees, must be paid in connection with the issuance of a certificate of public adequacy for the Project; and WHEREAS, after reasoned consideration by the Board of Commissioners, the Board finds and reaffirms that: a. The Proposed Plan is in conformity with contemplated improvements and additions to the County's transportation system; b. The Proposed Plan, viewed in conjunction with other existing or proposed plans, including those from other developers, will not adversely impact the cash flow or liquidity of the County in such a way as to frustrate or interfere with other planned or ongoing growth- necessitated capital improvements and additions to the County's transportation system; and c. The Proposed Plan is consistent with both the public interest and with the comprehensive plan, including the proposed five -year capital improvement program for the County's transportation system and the adopted Long Range Transportation Plan. WITNESSETH: NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of Ten and No /100 Dollars ($10.00) and other good and valuable consideration exchanged between the parties, and in consideration of the covenants contained herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. All of the above Recitals are true and correct and are hereby expressly incorporated herein by reference as if set forth fully below. 2 Packet Page -886- 6/24/2014 16.A.23. MITIGATION FOR OPERATIONAL IMPACTS 2. Within fifteen (15) days following the execution of this Agreement, the Developer shall enter into a contract (the "Design Contract ") with the Design Engineer for a modification to the Design Plans to include the Additional Turn Lane and for certain post - design work, all as more particularly described in the Scope of Work attached to and made a part of this Agreement as Exhibit `B ". In no event shall the Developer be required by this Agreement to pay more than One Hundred Fifty Thousand ($150,000.00) under the Design Contract. The total amount paid by the Developer under the Design Contract is hereinafter referred to as the "Design Fee." Fifty percent (50 %) of the Design Fee shall be deemed a contribution from the Developer to the County, and the other fifty percent (50 %) of the Design Fee shall be deemed a payment towards and credited against Developer's Fair Share of the construction costs (as defined below). 3. As soon as practicable following the execution of this Agreement, the County and the Developer shall work together to determine the Developer's fair share of the costs of construction of the Additional Turn Lane (the "Fair Share "). In no event shall this Fair Share exceed Three Hundred Thousand Dollars ($300,000.00). 4. The Fair Share (less the amount credited against the Fair Share as provided in paragraph 2 above) shall be paid by the Developer to the County within thirty (30) days following the date that the County has awarded a construction contract for the Intersection Improvements, including the Additional Turn Lane, and has provided written notice thereof to the Developer. CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC FACILITY ADEQUACY 5. Upon the execution and delivery to the County by Developer of an Assignment of Impact Fee Credits from G. L. Homes of Naples Associates II. Ltd. in the form attached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit "C" (the "Assignment of Impact Fee Credits ") transferring $1,619,341.60 in transportation impact fee credits to Developer, Developer shall be deemed to have paid the County thirty -three percent (33 %) of the estimated road impact fees for the Project (the "COA Payment ") in accordance with the Collier County Consolidated Impact Fee Ordinance, Developer shall immediately be entitled to obtain a permanent certificate of public adequacy for the Project (the "COA "), and the COA shall vest the Project in perpetuity for purposes of transportation concurrency. The County further acknowledges and agrees that the Developer may pay the COA Payment by the transfer of road impact fee credits to the Project from another development within the same or an adjacent impact fee district. The road impact fee credits will then be applied to building permits in accordance with the provisions of the credit agreement which is the subject of the Assignment of Impact Fee Credits. 6. An annual review and audit of performance under this Agreement shall be performed by the County to determine whether or not there has been demonstrated good faith compliance with the terms of this Agreement. County shall provide written notice to Developer of any failure to comply, and Developer will be given reasonable opportunity to cure such failure. Should Developer fail to cure such failure, the matter may be forwarded for review by the Board Packet Page -887- 6/24/2014 16.A.23. of County Commissioners. If the Board of County Commissioners finds, on the basis of substantial competent evidence, that there has been a failure to comply with the terms of this Agreement, the Agreement may be revoked or unilaterally modified by the County. LEGAL MATTERS 7. The burdens of this Agreement shall be binding upon, and the benefits of this Agreement shall inure to, all successors in interest to the parties to this Agreement. 8. Developer acknowledges that the failure of this Agreement to address any permit, condition, term or restriction shall not relieve Developer or its successors or assigns of the necessity of complying with any law, ordinance, rule, or regulation governing said permitting requirements, conditions, terms, or restrictions. 9. This Agreement shall not be construed or characterized as a development agreement under the Florida Local Government Project Agreement Act. In the event state or federal laws are enacted after the execution of this Agreement, which are applicable to and preclude in whole or in part the parties' compliance with the terms of this Agreement, including but not limited to State legislation which materially changes the County's ability to charge impact fees, then in such event this Agreement shall be modified or revoked as is necessary to comply with such laws, in a manner which best reflects the intent of this Agreement. 10. The Developer shall execute this Agreement prior to it being submitted for approval by the Board of County Commissioners. This Agreement shall be recorded by the County in the Official Records of Collier County, Florida, within fourteen (14) days after the County enters into this Agreement. The Developer shall pay all costs of recording this Agreement. A copy of the recorded document will be provided to all parties upon request. The parties hereto shall do all things which may be required to give effect to this Agreement immediately as such requirement is made known to them or they are requested to do so, whichever is the earlier. 11. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed under the laws of the State of Florida. In the event of any dispute under this Agreement, the parties shall attempt to resolve such dispute first by means of the County's then - current Alternative Dispute Resolution Procedure, if any. Following the conclusion of such procedure, if any, either party may file an action for injunctive relief in the Circuit Court of Collier County to enforce the terms of this Agreement, and remedy being cumulative with any and all other remedies available to the parties for the enforcement of the Agreement. 12. Except as otherwise provided herein, this Agreement shall only be amended by mutual written consent of the parties hereto or by their successors in interest. All notices and other communications required or permitted hereunder (including County's option) shall be in writing and shall be sent by Certified Mail, return receipt requested, or by a nationally recognized overnight delivery service, and addressed as follows: 4 Packet Page -888- To County: Collier County Manager's Office 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 202 Naples, FL 34112 -5746 Phone: (239) 252 -8383 6/24/2014 16.A.23. To Developer: 1600 Sawgrass Corporate Parkway Suite 400 Sunrise, FL 33323 Attn: Richard Arkin Phone: (954) 753 -1730 Notices sent via Certified Mail, return receipt requested, shall be deemed given three (3) days after being deposited in the United States mail, and notices sent by a nationally recognized overnight delivery service shall be deemed given on the date of receipt. 13. This Agreement, together with the Development Order, constitutes the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the activities noted herein and supersedes and takes the place of any and all previous agreements entered into between the parties hereto relating to the transactions contemplated herein. All prior representations, undertakings, and agreements by or between the parties hereto with respect to the subject matter of this Agreement are merged into, and expressed in, this Agreement, and any and all prior representations, undertakings, and agreements by and between such parties with respect thereto hereby are canceled. Nothing contained herein shall be deemed or construed to create between or among any of the parties any joint venture or partnership nor otherwise grant to one another the right, authority or power to bind any other party hereto to any agreement whatsoever. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed by their appropriate officials, as of the date first above written. ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA By: By: Deputy Clerk TOM HENNING, CHAIRMAN REMAINDER OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK REMAINING SIGNATURE PAGE TO FOLLOW Packet Page -889- AS TO DEVELOPER: Signed, sealed and delivered in the presence of- Witness Name: �y�J Witness Nam &c',`�� State of Florida ) )ss. County of Broward ) 6/24/2014 16.A.23. NAPLES ASSOCIATES IV, LLLP, a Florida limited liabili;WQ4d partnership By: Naples oration, a Florida Co t` general partner By: Arkin, Vice President The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this (�'\ day of -�u^A , 2014, by Richard Arkin, Vice President of Naples IV Corporation, a Florida corporation, general partner of Naples Associates IV, LLLP, a Florida limited liability limited partnership, on behalf of said limited liability limited partnership, who ( --I is personally known to me or has ( ) produced as identification. Notary Public NOTARY SEAL Cc, ry4"t. Printed Name t:f-01331(" Commission No.. Expiration Date Jeffrey County legality: '1 CMOLYNaTORsi EX uM°a BMW Thm NG WY pu irkts Packet Page -890- 6/24/2014 16.A.23. EXHIBIT "A" ALL THAT PART OF SECTIONS 29, 30, 31 AND 32, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 27 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: THE WEST 1/2 OF THE WEST 1/2 OF THE AFOREMENTIONED SECTION 29 LESS THE WEST 30 FEET AND THE NORTH 155 FEET THEREOF; AND THE WEST 30 FEET OF SAID SECTION 29 LESS THE NORTH 178.03 FEET THEREOF; AND THE SOUTHEAST I/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 29 .LESS THE EASTERLY 30 FEET THEREOF; AND THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 29 LESS THE EASTERLY 30 FEET THEREOF; AND THE WEST 1/2 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 29; AND THE EAST 1/2 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE AFOREMENTIONED SECTION 30; AND THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 30; AND THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST I/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 30; AND THE EAST 1/2 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE AFOREMENTIONED SECTION 31; AND THE WEST 1/2 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE AFOREMENTIONED SECTION 32; AND THE WEST 1/2 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 32; AND THE WEST 1/2 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 32. Packet Page -891- Exhibit "A" 6/24/2014 16.A.23. Packet Page -892- _ N m y V 6 = m N m " PR N1 N � � to c I ! a I ss / i LL S i II. � 1 � S � I tb { O � cI) H O z Cnz ° m }� �o o� r au o- 'G.b y Dl- z� �1 x �y k rn x a ti? .,Y a a Y by AA 'yY RY 4+Y y> b z O O {5 YY y oY a ��� 'YY Cb CJ X n Y >Ay '•� �, N �s '9 o> '� Y o ex An> o x a In y k 'ry � Y 3 A Y b y R Y +bl O Y 04, n 4 >� ■�9�a v N h � C C to y � k > S° y° b FF R SAT �k�G� o f I M �, y � y � X A Y k A x z ebb a =�� NT <➢ Z O ° z > *� tly a Y W b`] S5y fTl n O O Packet Page -892- Exhibit "B" 6/24/2014 16.A.23. CH2M HILL 5801 Pelican Bay Boulevard Suite 505 ^f` Naples, FL 34108 CH2MHILL Telephone: 239. 596 -1715 141010- Fax: 239.596 -2579 PROPOSAL FOR CONSULTING ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR "IMMOKALEE — COLLIER INTERSECTION: OPERATIONAL IMPROVEMENTS" (IMMOKALEE RD WESTBOUND TRIPLE LEFT ANALYSIS AND FINAL DESIGN) June 9, 2014 1.0 INTRODUCTION Naples Associates IV, LLLP (the "Developer ") requires the services of a Consultant to assist the Collier County Planning Department staff to provide Traffic Engineering, Planning, Alternatives Analysis, Final Design, Estimating and Developer Cost Allocation Services related to providing operational improvements to the Collier Boulevard - Immokalee Road Intersection. Existing traffic volumes combined with continuous development along Immokalee Road east of the Immokalee Road - Collier Boulevard Intersection will result in operational issues at the intersection due to the high number of westbound Immokalee Road to southbound Collier Boulevard left turns. The existing dual -left turn lanes will not be sufficient for the increase in traffic volumes. Therefore, a triple -left turn lane configuration will be required. This Task Order will used to develop alternatives and prepare Final Design Plans, Details, Permits and Cost Estimates associated with constructing a triple -left turn lane at this location. Note: The plans produced as a result of these services will be incorporated into the IM Collier Phase II Plan Set currently being designed by CH2M HILL. The improvements will be bid as part of that plan set. 2.0 SERVICES TO BE PERFORMED The Consultant will be required to assist the County with preparation and evaluation of various alternatives for improvements to the Immokalee Road /Collier Boulevard Packet Page -893- 6/24/2014 16.A.23. Intersection which will provide a triple -left turn lane configuration for the westbound Immokalee Road to southbound Collier Boulevard traffic movement. The major services to be performed under this Task Order are summarized below: TASK I. — TRIPLE -LEFT TURN LANE CONFIGURATION FOR THE WESTBOUND IMMOKALEE ROAD TO SOUTHBOUND COLLIER BOULEVARD TRAFFIC MOVEMENT Services include but are not limited to the following: Task I.a — Alternatives Analysis: • Conceptual Design of Feasible Alternatives: This task will include the data gathering, traffic evaluation and preparation of feasible alternatives to provide a triple -left turn lane configuration for the westbound Immokalee Road to southbound Collier Boulevard traffic movement. These alternatives should consider geometric standards, safety, cost and operational impacts to the intersection. To provide sufficient lane width and geometry for the additional left turn lane, Immokalee Road will need to be widened (to the north) both west and east of the intersection to provide standard transitions. A Design Speed of 50 MPH will be utilized for transition and taper requirements. Survey will be required to provide sufficient topography necessary for the evaluation and preliminary design. The limits will extend approximately 2000 Ft east and west of the existing intersection. The width of survey will be limited to the requirements of north side Immokalee Road Widening. Survey will also include sufficient information for CR 951 Box Culvert extension and Cocohatchee Canal realignment. Task I.b — Final Design: • Final Design of Preferred Alternative: This task will include the final design of the preferred alternative. This task will include the preparation of 100% Plans, Cross Sections, Details, Specifications, Quantities and Cost Estimates. The widening of Immokalee Road to accommodate the triple -left turn lane will require extension of the existing box culvert. Final Plans will be developed for the required box culvert extension. The widening will also require realignment of the Cocohatchee Canal. Final Plans and cross sections for this realignment will be prepared. Minor impacts to utilities along this segment of Immokalee Road are expected and relocated/adjusted utilities shall be included in the Final Design Plans. Relocation of 2 FPL Transmission poles will be required and will need to be considered in the design and coordinated with FPL. The improvements will require modifications to the existing signalization at the intersection. Final Signal Plans will need to be prepared. Coordination with Traffic Department will be required. Identification and verification of storm water treatment and attenuation requirements is included. Packet Page -894- 6/24/2014 16.A.23. Requirements will be incorporated into the IM Collier 11 Permit Application. Task Le — Proiect Cost Estimates and Developer "Fair Share" Determination: Project Quantities and Cost Estimates: This task will include preparation of Project Quantities and Opinions of Probable Cost which will be utilized by Collier County staff to budget future work and determine developer "Fair Share" requirements. Methodology for determining developer responsibility will be discussed with Collier County staff prior to determination. It is anticipated that up to four (4) separate quantity and cost estimates may be required Task Ld — Meetings and Coordination: Project Coordination: This task will include the coordination necessary to prepare preliminary designs and estimates for the intersection modifications prepared in Task lb. Meetings with Collier County Planning, Traffic, Utility and Stormwater staff are anticipated. Meetings with SFWMD and SFWMD -BCB will be required to determine permit requirements. Meetings with FDEP for potential utility relocations will be required to determine permit requirements. Meetings with FPL staff will be required to evaluate and coordinate Transmission Pole Relocations. TASK 1I. — SERVICES DURING CONSTRUCTION Services include the following: Attend pre -bid conference (if necessary) to respond to questions or issues raised by potential bidders. Prepare addenda as required. 2. Provide final cost estimate incorporating design changes due to bidder comments. 3. Provide limited services during construction to include the following: • Provide contract document interpretation and assistance in addressing requests for information and unforeseen conditions when requested by the County. • Review Shop Drawings • Review and assist in field changes which include minor redesign as requested by the County. • Provide periodic site observation visits of construction site. • Attend periodic progress meetings with the County and the Contractor (if requested). • Review and provide recommendations to Contractor Change Order requests. • Attend one substantial completion walk through meeting in the field. Packet Page -895- 6/24/2014 16.A.23. Contractor will be responsible to provide Record Drawings based upon the contractor's markups, visual observations, and record survey. CH2M HILL will provide files to Contractor for use. SCOPE EXCLUSIONS: The following tasks are not included in the Scope of Work for this Agreement: SFWMD Permits (obtained as part of the IM Collier H Project) 2. SFWMD -BCB Permits (obtained as part of the IM Collier II Project) Attendance at Planning Meeting(s), Public Meetings and Stakeholder Meetings 4. Subsurface Utility Engineering (SUE) (data obtained as part of the IM Collier II Project) 5. Construction Engineering and Inspection Services 6. Services other than those specifically listed above. Note: ENGINEER's Cost Opinions: In providing opinions of cost, financial analyses, economic feasibility projections, and schedules for the PROJECT, ENGINEER has no control over cost or price of labor and materials; unknown or latent conditions of existing equipment or structures that may affect operation or maintenance costs; competitive bidding procedures and market conditions; tune or quality of performance by operating personnel or third parties; and other economic and operational factors that may materially affect the ultimate PROJECT cost or schedule. Therefore, ENGINEER makes no warranty that COUNTY's actual PROJECT costs, financial aspects, economic feasibility, or schedules will not vary from ENGINEER's opinions, analyses, projections, or estimates. Services During Construction: The presence or duties of CONSULTANT's personnel at a construction site, whether as onsite representatives or otherwise, do not make CONSULTANT or CONSULTANT's personnel in any way responsible for those duties that belong to COUNTY'S and /or the construction contractors or other entities, and do not relieve the construction contractors or any other entity of their obligations, duties, and responsibilities, including, but not limited to, all construction methods, means, techniques, sequences, and procedures necessary for coordinating and completing all portions of the construction work in accordance with the construction Contract Documents and any health or safety precautions required by such construction work. CONSULTANT and CONSULTANT's personnel have no authority to exercise any control over any construction contractor or other entity or their employees in connection with their work or any health or safety precautions and have no duty for inspecting, noting, Packet Page -896- 6/24/2014 16.A.23. observing, correcting, or reporting on health or safety deficiencies of the construction contractor(s) or other entity or any other persons at the site except CONSULTANT's own personnel. The presence of CONSULTANT's personnel at a construction site is for the purpose of providing to COUNTY a greater degree of confidence that the completed construction work will conform generally to the construction documents and that the integrity of the design concept as reflected in the construction documents has been implemented and preserved by the construction contractor(s). CONSULTANT neither guarantees the performance of the construction contractor(s) nor assumes responsibility for construction contractor's failure to perform work in accordance with the construction documents. 3.0 REQUIREMENTS AND PROVISIONS FOR WORK Proiect Schedule The Consultant shall meet with Developer and Collier County staff to develop intermediate task schedules based on the proposed services. Consultant shall be ready to begin work immediately upon Notice to Proceed (NTP). Overall Work Order Schedule is anticipated to be 1095 Days from NTP. This will allow approximately 365 Days for Design and Permitting and 730 Days for Construction and Project Permit Certification. Progress Billing The Consultant shall provide written progress reports that detail the work performed on each task. Progress reports shall be delivered to the Developer concurrently with the monthly invoice. The Project Manager will make judgment on whether work of sufficient quality and quantity has been accomplished by comparing the reported percentage complete against the actual work accomplished. Liaison Office The County will designate a Project Manager who shall be the representative of the County for the Project. The final direction on all matters remains with the Project Manager. 4.0 CONSULTANT COMPENSATION: The Developer will compensate the CONSULTANT for Task I and Task II on a LUMP SUM basis, a total fee of $150,000.00 Packet Page -897- 6/24/2014 16.A.23. Exhibit ASSIGNMENT OF IMPACT FEE CREDITS (for TwinEagles South) THIS ASSIGNMENT OF IMPACT FEE CREDITS is made by and between G. L. HOMES OF NAPLES ASSOCIATES II, LTD., a Florida limited partnership ( "Assignor "), and NAPLES ASSOCIATES IV, LLLP, a Florida limited liability limited partnership ( "Assignee "), for the purpose of transferring a portion of Impact Fee Credits held by Assignor arising out of an Amended and Restated Developer Contribution Agreement ( "Agreement ") dated May 9, 2006, by and between G. L. HOMES OF NAPLES ASSOCIATES II, LTD., A FLORIDA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP and the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida as recorded in the official records of Collier County at Book 4034, Page 1820, et seq. Assignor wishes to convey to Assignee certain Transportation Impact Fees Credits granted through the Agreement in the amount of $1,619,341.60. This Assignment of Impact Fee Credits does not amend or alter the Agreement, which remains in full force and effect. In consideration of assenting to this Assignment, with its increased administration burden, Assignor and Assignee hereby jointly and severally indemnify and hold harmless Collier County against any and all present and future claims of whatever kind arising out of the transfer and ultimate use of these Impact Fee Credits, including but not limited to administrative errors by Collier County staff. Prior to payment of the impact fee, Assignee shall notify the County that a credit is available by submitting the then - current County approved Impact Fee Credit Consent Form. DATE: ASSIGNOR: G,L. HOMES OF NAPLES ASSOCIATES II, LTD., a Florida limited partnership By: G.L. HOMES OF NAPLES II CORPORATION, a Florida corporation, its general partner M STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF BROWARD Richard Arkin, Vice President The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 2014 by .Richard Arkin as Vice President of G.L. Homes of Naples II Corporation, a Florida corporation, on behalf of the corporation as the general partner of G.L. Homes of Naples Associates lU, Ltd., a Florida limited partnership, on behalf of the partnership, who is personally known to me or has produced as identification. (Notary Seal) DATE: STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF BROWARD Signature of Notary Public Print, type, or stamp name of Notary Public ASSIGNEE: NAPLES ASSOCIATES IV, LLLP, a Florida Iimited liability limited partnership By: NAPLES IV CORPORATION, a Florida corporation, its general partner 0 Richard Arkin, Vice President The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 2014 by Richard Arkin as Vice President of Naples IV Corporation, a Florida corporation, on behalf of the corporation as the general partner of Naples Associates IV, LLLP, a Florida limited liability limited partnership, on behalf of the partnership, who is personally known to me or has produced as identification. (Notary Seal) Signature of Notary Public Print, type, or stamp name of Notary Public Packet Page -898- 6/24/2014 16.A.23. RESOLUTION NO. 2006- 299 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, TO RESCIND AND SUPERSEDE RESOLUTION NO. 2003410 AND TO ADOPT UPDATED STANDARD TRAFFIC IMPACT STATEMENT PROCEDURES AND GUIDELINES FOR THE REVIEW OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IN COLLIER COUNTY. WHEREAS, the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC) requires that roadways be planned and constructed so as to provide adequate public facilities; and WHEREAS, there are numerous references within the LDC referring to minimum requirements for roadways and streets; and WHEREAS, the Transportation Planning Department's Development Review Section is charged with assuring that all proposed new development will adequately address the roadway needs of Collier County; and WHEREAS, the implementation of a standard format, along with defined criteria for the preparation of Traffic Impact Statements is in the public interest; and WHEREAS, on November 18, 2003, the Board of County Commissioners adopted Resolution No. 2003 -410, which set forth Collier County's current Procedures and Guidelines for Traffic Impact Studies; and WHEREAS, the Collier County Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners has requested more detailed AM and PM traffic analysis as well as intersection analysis; and WHEREAS, the Transportation Planning Department's Development Review Section has identified improved methods and criteria to provide a more accurate and detailed review of transportation impacts from proposed development. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that the Procedures and Guidelines for Traffic Impact Studies set forth in Exhibit "A ", attached hereto and made a part hereof, is hereby authorized for implementation and shall be used for the preparation of all Traffic Impact Statements required by the LDC. THIS RESOLUTION ADOPTED after motion, second and majority vote in favor of adoption this 1 ' 4 ' day of 2006. ATTEST;, i DWIGHT-,E. `$ROCK, ICLERK By: 4C . eppup&lerk Attiit at`*'CMJrsm 6 s i vn+tw o 081,h App ved to form and g sufficiency: A. Attorney BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, F DA By: FRANK HALAS, Chairman Packet Page -899- 6/24/2014 16.A.23. PURPOSE AND APPLICABILITY The purpose of the traffic impact study (TIS) is to quantify the potential traffic impacts, ensure compliance with the transportation concurrency requirements consistent with the comprehensive plan and identify site related operational deficiencies that impact the health, safety and welfare of the traveling public. The TIS shall also, where applicable, analyze access points, median openings and intersections significantly impacted by the development on the transportation system and develop mitigation strategies to offset the impacts according to the methodologies and provisions as described herein. These guidelines are in addition to the requirements of the access - management regulations and in the event of any conflict between these guidelines and such regulations, the more stringent requirements shall apply. The TIS is required for all applications for: • Comprehensive Plan Amendments • All zoning changes including DRIB • Site Development Plans • Subdivisions/Platting • All development applications that produce additional traffic or modifies existing traffic (Excluding applications for building permits) 1. METHODOLOGY STATEMENT Prior to conducting any study, a methodology statement shall be prepared by the applicant and submitted for review and approval by the County. The purpose of the methodology statement is to establish agreed upon methodologies and assumptions prior to the start of the study. A methodology statement shall be prepared using the guidelines provided in the following paragraphs. The methodology statement will be first reviewed by a County representative, if necessary, through a methodology meeting with the applicant's consultant. The applicant's consultant will then revise the statement based upon agreed methodologies. The applicant shall ensure the consultant does not prepare a traffic study without an approved methodology statement signed by the appropriate County representative. The applicant shall be required to pay the applicable fee with the submittal of the methodology statement and prior to the review of the TIS, the applicant shall pay any additional fees due based on the schedule of fees as set forth in EXHIBIT "A ". 2. APPLICANT AND REVIEWER QUALIFICATIONS All Traffic Impact Studies (TIS) are to be prepared by a transportation professional with training and experience in traffic analysis and transportation planning. All Traffic Impact Studies (TIS) are to be reviewed by staff or consultants of the Collier County Transportation Development Review Team (TDRT) with training and experience in traffic analysis and transportation planning. ' Any reference to the "County" in these guidelines shall mean the County or its consultants, contractors, or employees, as applicable. -1- Packet Page -900- 6/24/2014 16.A.23. 3. REVIEW FEES AND STUDY CLASSIFICATI ©NS An applicable consultant review fee in accordance with the schedule set forth in Exhibit A shall be paid to the appropriate County department, along with a minimum of four copies of the TIS and methodology statement. Transportation studies will be classified and considered under the following criteria. The Criteria is meant to be used as a guide but in no way prohibits the county from requiring additional study information on a case by case basis. 1. Small Scale Study (NO SIGNIFICANT OPERATIONAL OR ROADWAY IMPACTS) CRITF.RIA • The project generates less than 50 net new total 2 -way AM and less than 50 net new total 2- way PM peak hour trips, and • The access point to the adjacent roadway network does not require modification inside the Right -Of -Way above a standard driveway connection. (No turn lanes or median modifications), and • The project is a stand alone project and not part of a larger development, and • If the project uses a shared access point, the addition of the project traffic does not trigger any operational deficiencies or additional work within the right -of -way. Small scale studies shall provide a trip generation and distribution consistent with the TIS guidelines. The study shall provide this graphically and in a table format. The study shall use the data from the latest County adopted concurrency and AUIR tables to demonstrate that the project will not generate significant impacts, as defined by Section 8 of the TIS Guidelines, on the roadway network and that the project does not directly access a roadway that is currently operating above l 10% of the adopted service volume capacity or will exceed 110% of the adopted service capacity with the addition of the proposed project trips. The table shall include the existing roadway capacity, background traffic, trip bank, project trips and subsequent remaining capacity for each impacted segment as stipulated by Section 9 of the TIS Guidelines. For new access points the study shall define the access class if applicable and demonstrate compliance with the access class guidelines. Please refer to EXHIBIT "Small Scale Study" as a guideline for this application. -I? - Packet Page -901- 6/24/2014 16.A.23. 2. Minor Study (NO SIGNIFICANT OPERATIONAL IMPACTS WITH MINIMAL ROADWAY IMPACTS AND WORK WITHIN THE COUNTY RIGHT -OF -WAY) CRITERIA • The project does not satisfy ALL of the criteria for a Smal I Scale Study. • The project generates fewer than 100 net new total 2 -way AM or fewer than 100 net new total 2 -way PM peak hour trips and less than 2% of adopted LOS service volume on the roadway segment(s) it directly accesses, and • The access point to the adjacent roadway network may not require modifications inside the right -of -way beyond the scope of turn lanes and median modifications, and • If the project uses a shared access point and the addition of the project traffic, based on the applicable analysis scenario, does trigger or cause operational deficiencies or require additional work within the right -of -way, and • The only mitigation required is ingress and egress turn lane(s) and median modifications, and • No impacted major intersections, as defined by Section 8.b herein, are currently failing or expected to fail with the addition of the project traffic Minor studies shall provide a trip generation and distribution consistent with the TIS guidelines. The study shall provide this graphically and in a table format. The study shall use the data from the latest County adopted concurrency and AUIR tables to show that the significantly impacted roadway network, as determined by the study trip generation and distribution, has sufficient capacity. The table shall include, as appropriate, the existing roadway capacity, background traffic, trip bank, project trips and subsequent remaining capacity for each impacted roadway as required by Section 9 of the TIS Guidelines. For new access points the study shall define the access class if applicable and demonstrate compliance with the access class guidelines. The study shall provide detailed PM, and when requested AM, analysis and conclusions consistent with this guide, the land development code, and the most recently approved right -of -way ordinance that all modifications in the right -of -way provide safe ingress and egress including but not limited to turn lane analysis. Please refer to the EXHIBITS as referenced throughout this document as a guideline for this submittal. -3- Packet Page -902- 6/24/2014 16.A.23. 3. Major Study (SIGNIFICANT ROADWAY AND /OR OPERATIONAL IMPACTS) CRITERIA • The project does not satisfy ALL of the criteria established for either a Small Scale or Minor Study. (ie. the project generates more than 100 net new total 2 -way AM or PM peak hour trips, the project significantly impacts one or more roadway facilities or causes them to become deficient, or the project requires access management improvements and intersection improvements above and beyond turn lanes and/or median modification) Major studies shall provide a trip generation and distribution consistent with the TIS guidelines. The study shall provide this graphically and in a table format. The study shall determine using the data from the latest County adopted concurrency and AUIR tables whether the significantly impacted roadway network, as determined by the study trip generation and distribution has sufficient capacity. The table shall include the existing roadway capacity, background traffic, trip bank, project trips and subsequent remaining capacity for each impacted roadway as required by Section 9 of the TIS Guidelines. For new access points the study shall define the access class if applicable and demonstrate compliance with the access class guidelines. The study shall provide detailed AM and PM analysis and conclusions consistent with this guide and the most recently approved right -of -way ordinance that all modifications in the right -of -way provide safe ingress and egress including but not limited to turn lane analysis, roadway analysis and intersection analysis. Please refer to the EXHIBITS as referenced throughout this document as a guideline for this submittal. If the Major Study identifies capacity or traffic operations deficiencies, the applicant may elect, by way of their TIS study submittal, to propose mitigation strategies and demonstrate the effectiveness of those strategies at resolving the deficiencies. 4. TRIP GENERATION The trips from /to the site shall be estimated using the latest Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation publication or other rates as requested and /or approved by the County. An example of trip generation is shown in Exhibit 4A. In selecting between Trip Generation Average Rates and Equation, ITE guidelines as depicted in Figure 3.1 page 10 of the ITE Trip Generation Handbook should be followed. Figure 3.1 has been reproduced as Exhibit 4B. If the county and the applicant cannot agree on an acceptable trip generation, the applicant shall provide a study of three locally similar uses. The study shall be prepared consistent with ITE policies and procedures and must be approved by the county prior to beginning the study. In order to estimate the net new trips from a project, vested trips and trips from existing use, if any, should be subtracted from the total trip generation potential of the proposed project. Trip reduction for existing land use, however, will be permissible only if the site was operational within the last twelve (12) months and will be determined at the Methodology Meeting. Packet Page -903- 6/24/2014 16.A.23. 5. INTERNAL CAPTURE Internal capture is permitted for multi -use developments as defined in Chapter 7 of the ITE Trip Generation Handbook. The multi -use developments should typically be between 100,000 to 2 million sq.ft. and should be planned as a single real- estate project. The calculation for internal capture should be done according to the procedure outlined in Chapter 7 of the ITE Trip Generation Handbook. Exhibit 5A depicts the ITE procedure for internal capture. Alternatively, use the county developed Excel spreadsheet with an example of internal capture for estimating net external trips (the trips at the site driveways). Exhibits 5B and 5C depict the county procedure for internal capture. The internal capture trips should be reasonable and should not exceed 20% of the total project trips. Internal capture rates higher than 20% shall be adequately substantiated and approved by the County staff. 6. PASS -BY CAPTURE The total gross external trips for retail uses may qualify to be reduced by a pass -by factor to account for the project traffic that is already traveling on the adjacent roadway. As per FDOT's Site Impact Handbook page 58, the number of pass -by trips should not exceed 10% of the adjacent street traffic during the peak hour or 25% of the project's external trip generating potential (Exhibit 6A). If the ITE Equation Ln(T)= - 0.29Ln(X) + 5.0 (ITE Trip Generation Handbook, Page 47) for estimating pass -by capture for Shopping Centers (LUC 820) results in more than 25% pass -by capture, the pass - by rate should be reduced to 25% for the peak hour. The daily capture rate is assumed to be 10% lower than the peak hour capture rate. The entering pass -by trips should be equal to the exiting pass - by trips and in the same direction as the entering pass -by trips i.e. if 20 pass -by trips heading EB entered the project driveway, then 20 pass -by trips should exit the project driveway to go EB. The approved pass -by percentage shall be applied to the total traffic and the resulting number of pass -by trips should be equally split between the inbound and outbound trips. Exhibit 6B from ITE Trip Generation Handbook (Figure 5.2 Page 32) depicts the application of pass -by trips. In the analysis of the site - access intersections, the pass -by trips shall be included and separately identified. The following pass -by rates may qualify to be permitted for other land -uses with higher potential for pass -by capture: • 50% Pass -By. — Gasoline Stations with and without convenience store (LUC 844, 845) — Fast Food Restaurants with Drive -Thru Windows (LUC 834) — Pharmacy with and Without Drive -Thru Windows (LUC 880, 881) — Convenience Market with and without Gasoline Pumps (LUC 851, 853) — Drive -in Bank (LUC 912) • 40% Pass -By: — Quality Restaurants and High Turnover Sit -Down Restaurants (LUC 831, 832) The pass -by rates for all other retail land uses should comply with FDOT's guidelines. Any pass -by rates higher than the above permitted rates shall require justification and prior approval from the County staff. -5- Packet Page -904- 6/24/2014 16.A.23. 7. TRIP DISTRIBUTION /ASSIGNMENT The most current version of the appropriate Collier County Model is acceptable in determining the trip distribution percentages and trip assignments. The results of the model will be reviewed by Collier County for reasonableness to ensure the existing and future travel patterns are correctly simulated. Manual trip distribution and assignments may also be acceptable as long as they are reviewed and accepted by Collier County and logically replicate the existing and future travel patterns. This review may take place during the Methodology Meeting if the manual trip distribution has been performed at this juncture. Otherwise, the manual trip distribution must be reviewed and approved by Collier County prior to identification of the Significantly Impacted Roadway Network or other subsequent steps of the TIS process. The trip distribution shall be shown graphically in both percentages and number of trips. The total project trip distribution and assignment at project driveways and adjacent intersections are different for project sites with and without full access median openings. Therefore, the trip distribution shall also be shown separately for Total Project Trips and the Net New Project trips. The maximum directional project trips on roadway segments shall be highlighted in these figures. Exhibits 7A through 7C provide a sample for trip distribution and assignment. The trip distribution percentages in the study network should add up. Any mid -block reduction in trip percentages shall be graphically depicted with adequate information and shall be discussed and approved by staff at the methodology meeting. 8. SIGNIFICANTLY IMPACTED ROADWAYS /INTERSECTIONS Significantly impacted roadways and intersections are identified based on the following criteria: a. The proposed project highest peak hour trip generation (net new total trips) based on the peak hour of the adjacent street traffic will determine the limits of the trip distribution and analysis. Trips distributed on links directly accessed by the project where the project traffic by direction is equal to or exceeds 2% of the peak hour service volume for the adopted LOS standard. • Trips on one link adjacent to the link directly accessed by the project where the project traffic by direction is equal to or greater than 2% the peak hour service volume for the adopted LOS standard. • Trips on all subsequent links where the project traffic by direction is equal to or greater than 3% the peak hour service volume for the adopted LOS standard. b. Major intersections (signalized and /or unsignalized intersections of major roadways as determined during methodology meeting) that are part of the significantly impacted roadways, major intersections that are within 1,320 feet of the site access, and all site- access intersections are considered significantly impacted. c. With the Traffic Study Report, the applicant, on a separate page, shall provide a list and number of the intersections studied for the purpose of establishing the review fee per the fee schedule as outlined in EXHIBIT "A ". d. Any intersection or link which may be adversely impacted as identified by the County at the methodology meeting based on the size and degree of the project that may, at the county's discretion, be included for analysis in the Significantly Impacted Roadway /Intersection Network Packet Page -905- 6/24/2014 16.A.23. 9. ANALYSIS SCENARIOS and DEFINITIONS: Scenarios: a. Existing Scenario is defined as the documentation of existing traffic on the existing significantly impacted roadway network. b. Base Scenario is defined as the analysis of existing traffic, plus background traffic for the estimated build -out year on the E +C (existing plus committed) significantly impacted roadway network. c. Proposed Scenario(s) As defined by Table 9.1 below Table 9.1: Proposed Scenario(s) Requirements Table 9.1 (1) Maximum allowable Trip Generation may be reduced subject to the Methodology Meeting and adoption of corresponding conditional or phasing language in the Land Use Ammendment (2) Planned Unit Development rezoning may serve to limit the maximum allowable trips over the build -out horizon compared to comparable Zoning (3) Or as stipulated during methodology meeting (4) Applicant may be allowed or required to consider additonal roadway networks (ie. Interim Cost Affordable Plan) based on methodology Meeting (5) The Significantly Impacted Network shall be determined based on the traffic generation and distribution of the current proposed phase. -%- Packet Page -906- Background Traffic Incremental Operational Build Out Horizon Development Trips (3) Network Capacities Scenarios Analysis 5 Years or Less Maximum Allowable AUIR + Background 5 -year CIE NO Methodology Comprehensive (1) Growth to Build -Out Meeting Land Use Amendment Over 5 Years Maximum Allowable AUIR + Background 5 -year CIE (4) 5 Year Increments Methodology (1) Growth to Build -Out Meeting 5 Years or Less AUIR + Background Methodology Re- Zoning (from zoning Maximum Allowable Growth to 5 -year 5 -year CIE NO (including application) Horizon Meeting Conditional Use applications) Over 5 years Maximum Allowable AUIR +Background 5 -year CIE (4) 5 Year Increments Methodology Growth to Build -Out Meeting 5 Years or Less Maximum Allowable AUIR + Background Methodology (from zoning (2) Growth to 5 -year 5 -year CIE NO Meeting PUD Re- Zoning application) Horizon Over 5 years Maximum Allowable AUIR + Background 5 -year CIE (4) 5 Year Increments Methodology (2) Growth Build -Out Meeting 2 Years or Less Proposed - Current AUIR E +C E +C Mandatory Per TIS Site Phase (5) Study Guidlines Plan/Subdivision Over 2 Years Proposed - Current AUIR + Background E +C 2 year, 5 Year, Mandatory Per TIS Phase (5) Growth to Build -Out Additional 5 Years Study Guidlines (1) Maximum allowable Trip Generation may be reduced subject to the Methodology Meeting and adoption of corresponding conditional or phasing language in the Land Use Ammendment (2) Planned Unit Development rezoning may serve to limit the maximum allowable trips over the build -out horizon compared to comparable Zoning (3) Or as stipulated during methodology meeting (4) Applicant may be allowed or required to consider additonal roadway networks (ie. Interim Cost Affordable Plan) based on methodology Meeting (5) The Significantly Impacted Network shall be determined based on the traffic generation and distribution of the current proposed phase. -%- Packet Page -906- 6/24/2014 16.A.23. Scenario Definitions: a. Significantly Impacted Roadway Network: As defined in Section 8, above. b. Network Capacities: Based on either the E +C network, or in the case of zoning and land use amendments, the existing roadway network + projects fully funded in the 5 year CIE c. Build -Out Year: The year in which that quantity of development considered by the TIS is anticipated to be substantially complete and eligible for Certificate of Occupancy. The build -out year shall be documented in the approved methodology statement. d. Background Traffic: As defined in Section 12, below. e. E +C Network: The E +C network is defined as all the existing roads, plus all the improvements that are funded for construction within the first two years of the local government's or the FDOT's adopted Transportation Improvement Programs for applications requiring a Certificate Of Public Adequacy (COA). f. Incremental Scenarios: Future scenarios based on 5 year increments beyond the build -out year. 10. GENERAL ANALYSIS REQUIREMENTS AND SOFTWARE a. Level of Service (LOS) and turn -lane length analysis (in accordance with the County's access management standards) are required for all significantly impacted intersections described under Section 8. b. All roadway adopted LOS and corresponding Service Volumes will be taken from the currently adopted AUIR or as agreed during the methodology meeting. e. Use of the analysis software is allowed in accordance with the following: (1) The latest version of Highway Capacity Software (HCS) and Synchro software can be used for signalized and unsignalized intersection analysis. For certain complex and saturated traffic conditions, the County may require traffic analysis through SimTraffic or CORSIM. (2) The electronic copy of the analysis files shall be provided. The hard copy of the summary sheets with sufficient details of the input data and the MOEs (measures of effectiveness) shall be provided unless otherwise requested by the County. (See Sample Exhibits 1A and I B) (3) Other analysis software may be used if requested and/or approved by the County. (4) The input data to the software shall be field verified, where applicable, and provided in the report including, but not limited to: (a) Existing AM and PM peak hour volumes with geometry, including lane widths and turn-lane storage lengths at intersections (without taper). Similar information should be included for future analysis years. (See Sample Exhibits 2A through 2C) (b) Traffic factors such as the K, D, and T factors (See Sample Exhibit 3). The K factors shall be documented when travel demand forecast volumes are used for developing peak hour segment volumes and intersection turning movement volumes for the analysis year(s). The documentation of K factor, however, will not be required if historic growth rates are used for extrapolating the existing traffic data (segment volumes and intersection turning movement volumes) for the analysis years(s). -8- Packet Page -907- 6/24/2014 16.A.23. (c) Heavy vehicle factor of five percent in the urban area if data is not available. Major Studies outside the urban area will be required to verify the factor if not available from existing sources less than 1 year old. This method will be established at the methodology meeting. (d) Directional distribution factor (D Factor) from AUIR. (e) Peak -hour factor (PHF) for the intersections. This value should not be greater than 0.95. (f) Existing signal timing and phasing (to be obtained from the County with a hard copy provided in the report). The existing signal timing of a signal which is part of a signal system, including its maximum and minimum settings, shall not be changed pursuant to determination of adequate intersection or roadway segment capacity without the prior approval of the County staff. (5) Other parameters that govern the roadway /intersection capacity analysis shall be based on the parameters described in the latest version of the Highway Capacity Manual. 11. TRAFFIC COUNTS All counts shall be conducted based on acceptable engineering standards. Raw turning movement counts (TMCs) shall include passenger cars and trucks and shall be provided for all Significantly Impacted intersections as agreed upon at the methodology meeting. Daily directional machine counts (minimum 48 hours) for all Significantly Impacted road segments as deemed necessary by the County staff for operational analysis purposes shall also be provided. If requested by the County, at least one of the daily count locations for each impacted roadway facility will be a vehicle classification count conducted for a minimum of 48 hours. The TMC data shall be summarized in the format similar to the example depicted in Exhibits 8A or 8B. The raw TMCs shall be adjusted using the most recent and appropriate Peak Season Conversion Factors (PSCF) published by FDOT or Collier County. The machine counts shall be adjusted using the most recent PSCF and axle adjustment factors. To the extent that any adjusted machine count volumes indicate lower traffic volumes than those adopted in the current AUIR, these counts shall be discussed with and approved by Collier County prior to use for subsequent components of the TIS. Adjustment factors shall be approved at the methodology meeting. The intersection turning movement volumes collected in the field indicate the throughput for every individual movement at the intersection and may or may not reflect the demand for the individual movements. If residual queues are observed for any movement at an intersection, the turning movement volume will not reflect the true demand for that movement. Approach counts will be needed for those approaches where the demand is exceeding the capacity and residual queue builds up during the peak hour. The placement of the approach count machine is equally important to measure the demand. The count machines shall be placed at a location where the queues would not extend past the count machines. The locations and need for approach counts will be determined during the methodology meeting or requested as part of a sufficiency review. The approach volume for the peak hour of the intersection shall be used to develop approach turning movement volumes based on the approach turning movement percentages. This shall be done for approaches with residual queue build -up during peak hours. The approach count machines shall be placed at a location where the queues would not extend past the count machines. In no event, however, should the estimated turning- movement counts be less than the existing field counts. Segment tube counts shall be done concurrently with the intersection turning movement counts where the segment is part of the intersection. The segment machine counts at mid - blocks shall be checked against turning- movement counts at the adjacent intersections. In general, the mid -block counts and turning- movement counts should not be substantially different unless the difference can logically be explained. Approved FDOT or County- maintained counts may be used for verification if they are -9- Packet Page -908- 6/24/2014 16.A.23. less than one year old in the high growth areas. Counts from a similar approved study may be used if the information is less than one (1) year old. New counts will be requested if there are recent improvements to the transportation system that may cause significant traffic diversions. Counts more than one year old from the year of the TIS submittal will not be acceptable unless otherwise approved by Collier County. The counts will be done on Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Thursdays of a typical work week and are not to be done immediately before, during, or after a major holiday. 12. BACKGROUND TRAFFIC GROWTH /FUTURE TRAFFIC The existing traffic counts shall be increased by a growth factor up to the project's build -out date (shall be reasonably specified) to account for increases in existing traffic due to other approved developments. The build -out year shall be in accordance with table 9.1. The estimation of the background traffic- growth rate and background traffic shall be based on the following: a. Historical growth rates (minimum of the past three years) may be used in areas where the expected growth is representative of the past growth. (See Sample Exhibit 9) b. The growth /future traffic on committed roads that do not currently exist shall be based on the most appropriate adopted model, as directed by the County staff for each specific application. c. If the appropriate adopted model as directed by the County staff is used, the traffic growth rate for existing roads shall be based on the growth rate as determined by comparing the most recent, validated year, model volume to the future model volume. The future model volume is determined by applying the project's build -out year, socioeconomic data to the committed network. The build -out year, socioeconomic data may be obtained by interpolating between MPO's or the County's adopted validated year and the adopted interim or future year, socioeconomic data. d. The socioeconomic data of the model shall reasonably represent, if appropriate, the recently approved developments in the vicinity of the project as approved by the County during the methodology process. At a minimum, the build -out year socioeconomic data is to consider development approvals (DRIB, Planned Unit Developments or major rezonings) that may not be included in the model, a minimum of ten miles from the project boundary. It will be the responsibility of the Applicant to review and prepare the amended data set unless otherwise available from the County. e. The TIS will consider all vested development on the significantly impacted links and intersections. This information shall be obtained from the County and agreed upon at the methodology meeting. f. Minimum, annual growth rates in all cases shall be two percent, unless otherwise approved by the County. g. The assumed growth rate and method of calculation for each impacted roadway segment shall be presented in a table. h. Development of the future intersection turning movement count shall be adequately documented. (See Sample Exhibit 10) -10- Packet Page -909- 6/24/2014 16.A.23. 13. APPLICABLE STANDARDS a. The LOS standards for all major road segments shall be consistent with the letter standards per the County's latest adopted concurrency tables in the Annual Update and Inventory Report (AUIR). b. Although it is acknowledged that Collier County does not have an adopted LOS eoneurrency standard for intersections of major roadways, the performance of intersections on the network is critical to maintaining the adopted LOS on the adjacent segments. As such, the operating LOS of significantly impacted intersections (the intersections as a whole, as well as individual movements) may be evaluated in the TIS using appropriate indicators such as volume to capacity ratio (V /C), delay, and ICU (Intersection Capacity Utilization), with respect to the identification of any appropriate solutions or mitigation measures for the Existing, Base, and Future Scenarios. c. The delay for individual turning- movements and through- movements may exceed the segment standard by one letter grade, but not below LOS "E ", provided that the volume /capacity (v /c) ratio for the subject movement remains less than or equal to one. Average control delays up to 100 seconds are acceptable for individual turning movements and through movements where the corresponding v/c ratio is less than 0.8. d. All other design and traffic operations standards as specified in the Land Development Regulations, Right -of -Way Handbook, Access Management resolution and other applicable County ordinances. 14. INVENTORY OF THE EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS The following additional information may be required: a. The Horizon (Build -Out) year of the project must be a reasonable date and in accordance with table 9.1. b. Tabular presentation of the LOS standard of all the existing significantly impacted roadways and tabular presentation of the LOS standard for the significantly impacted segments with committed roadway improvements. c. Graphical presentation of the existing and E+C link and intersection geometry with storage lengths for turn lanes, speed limits and traffic control devices. (Sample Exhibits 2A through 2C) d. Tabular presentation of the date(s) of the traffic data collection and the appropriate peak season and axle adjustment factors used for adjusting the raw traffic counts. (Sample Exhibit 3) e. Graphical presentation of the existing link AADTs, directional peak hour volumes for the links, and peak hour turning movement volumes at the intersections. (Sample Exhibits 2A through 2C) f. Tabular presentation of the approved traffic factors (K, D, T) for the roadway segments within the study area. (Sample Exhibit 3) g. Graphical presentation of the project's proposed access locations, types, and internal roads with connections to the County's build -out or long -range plan of roadways. The graphic shall also cover the area beyond the boundary of the project to include all the external, major roadways and existing or future, access points and types of developments surrounding the project as agreed upon at the methodology meeting. h. Pavement marking plans /concept plans of roadways that provide direct access to the project and have completed or are undergoing design or route study phase, if available. Packet Page -910- 6/24/2014 16.A.23. i. Graphical presentation of total (adjusted for internal capture, if any) and net new project traffic distribution both in percentages and number of project trips. (Sample Exhibits 7B and 7C) t The trip distribution percentages in the study network should add up. Any mid -block reduction in trip percentages shall be graphically depicted with adequate information. 15. PHASED DEVELOPMENTS The traffic- generation estimate shall consider the total traffic generation of the cumulative development (including traffic from previously developed or approved phases) for purposes of operational analysis. For purposes of evaluating mitigation needs, only the impacts of the traffic above and beyond the traffic from the previously developed uses or prior approved phases (where mitigation is already accomplished in accordance with the TIS guidelines) need to be considered. 16. FREEWAY /INTERSTATE IMPACTS Traffic studies will not be required to analyze the traffic impacts on interstate /freeways except at interchanges. Interchange analysis shall include analysis of exit ramp storage capacity, as would be the case with any intersection analysis, pursuant to maintaining safe operating conditions on the limited access facility 17. EQUAL MITIGATION FOR OPERATIONAL IMPACTS Operational impacts of the development project traffic will have to be mitigated for intersections failing to achieve acceptable levels of service (as outlined under the APPLICABLE STANDARDS section). To mitigate the impact of the development traffic, a concept called equal mitigation will be used except as otherwise required by the Board of County Commissioners (BCC). Equal mitigation shall mean the implementation of an improvement that, at minimum, results in the reduction of delay per vehicle on each lane group at deficient intersections prior to the addition of the development traffic. Equal mitigation will apply to improvements such as extending existing turn-lane lengths at intersections but will require delay estimation through traffic simulation. Other improvements such as installation of hard -wire signal coordination and installation of real -time demand responsive signal coordination system such as SCOOT or equivalent intelligent traffic management systems (ITMS) may also be acceptable if approved by the County staff. Acceptable mitigation improvements will offset the impacts of the development without adversely impacting the below- standard movements as measured by capacity and delay, and as further described below. Improvements will be deemed acceptable if capacity is added (through the addition of general purpose through- lanes, auxiliary turn - lanes, or ITMS options that are accepted by Collier County) that restores or improves the delay and V/C ratio to the level it was in the "base scenario." The developer shall only be responsible for the equal mitigation improvement; however, for informational purposes only, if equal mitigation improvements are identified at any deficient location(s) that would result in delay being reduced to the "base scenario' but not to the acceptable LOS, then additional improvements that may be needed to bring the entire deficient location(s) back to the LOS standard, shall also be identified and reported separately. For example, an existing intersection is operating at LOS F with 120 seconds of delay per vehicle. After adding the project trips, the delay increases to 140 sec /veh. Providing a second left -turn lane reduces the overall delay to 120 sec /veh but the intersection is still operating at LOS F. The applicant will only be responsible for providing a second left -turn lane which brings down the intersection delay to the original level. If the left -turn improvement reduces the overall delay from 140 sec /veh to 100 sec /veh, the applicant will be required to pay only 50% of the cost of the left -turn lane improvement. However, the intersection still failing and the applicant will need to identify other improvements that would be -12- Packet Page -911- 6/24/2014 16.A.23. required to achieve an acceptable LOS E with a delay of less than 80 sec /veh. The design and construction of any mitigation improvements shall be in accordance with Collier County or FDOT standards, as applicable. The analysis of intersections to demonstrate the adequacy of an improvement to achieve equal mitigation must be based on a consistent traffic- signal timing strategy and must follow the steps below: a. Analyze the "base scenario' condition which would include the existing traffic plus the background traffic on an E +C network for the analysis year. For this scenario, the existing timing plan is required. If the signal operates as an isolated intersection, optimization of cycle length, phasing, and splits can be performed. However, if the signal is part of a signal system, any modifications or adjustments must be highlighted and approved by the county before finalizing the analvsis and submitting the TIS. The choice of signal- timing methodology in this step must be carried consistently into the next step. From the analysis, an overall Intersection Signal Delay and an Intersection Capacity Utilization are reported by Synchro. b. The next analysis is to evaluate the total future traffic (background plus project traffic) on E +C network (future scenario). For this analysis, the signal timing plan in Paragraph 17.a may be optimized by Synchro. If the LOS standard is met, no further analysis is required. If the LOS standard is not met, further analysis to identify appropriate mitigation is required. c. The next analysis is to evaluate total future traffic on an improved intersection concept (future scenario with mitigation). The same signal - timing strategy used in Paragraph 17.a is required. If the overall Intersection Signal Delay and the Intersection Capacity Utilization are equal or less than in Paragraph No. 17.a, the improvement is considered to be adequate to offset the impacts of the development. d. Any changes to existing conditions, including traffic- signal timing or phasing changes shall be noted and highlighted in the conclusions of the report. e. If the developer presents evidence acceptable to the Transportation Administrator or designee that the required equal mitigation improvements are not feasible in relation to the development proposed, mitigation strategies at alternative location(s), other than the primary location(s), may be proposed and may be accepted if approved by the Transportation Administrator or designee. At minimum, the improvements shall meet the following criteria: (1) The location(s) must be within the impacted area and must be at or near deficiency. (2) The improvement must be other than simply a signal - timing or phasing change. (3) Mitigation must, at the minimum, improve the overall vehicle -hours of delay, intersection - capacity utilization, and /or speed of the alternative location(s) by the equivalent amount of the reduced vehicle -hours of delay, intersection - capacity utilization, and /or speed at the primary location(s). (4) The improvements must not already be, or in the process of being condition of approval of another development. (5) All the applicable analysis requirements for the primary location(s) shall apply to the analysis of alternate location(s). - 13 - Packet Page -912- 6/24/2014 16.A.23. 18. ALTERNATIVE MITIGATION FOR OPERATIONAL IMPACTS An applicant may request alternative mitigation in the local area when equal mitigation fails to completely offset the impact of the development. Alternative mitigation recognizes that in certain situations it may be a benefit to the county and the traveling public to allow for additional forms of mitigation to be incorporated within the review and approval of new development and the redevelopment of existing property. The following items may be considered and approved by the Transportation Administrator or designee in conjunction with or as an alternative to equal mitigations as defined above: a. Donation of right -of -way for future improvements. b. Payments of an additional roadway impact fees set to fund future improvements. c. Installation and /or purchase of Intelligent Traffic Management Systems (ITMS) approved by the county. d. Participation in various forms of alternative transportation including but not limited to: the inclusion of a park and ride site into the development, the inclusion of public transit shelters, the purchase of a public transit vehicle and maintenance on an existing or new route. e. Commuter subsidies. f. Pedestrian connections. g. Interconnections with existing developments. h. Area wide system improvements to adjacent intersections and roadways that improve the level of service above and beyond the impacts of the proposed project. 19. FAIR -SHARE MITIGATION If the developer presents evidence acceptable to the Transportation Administrator or designee that the required equal mitigation is not cost feasible in relation to the development proposal, the developer may propose fair -share mitigation which must be approved by the Transportation Administrator or designee. The fair -share payment shall be calculated as follows: a. Identify all the needed improvements to bring all deficient locations back to the LOS standard. b. Submit a signed and sealed cost estimate of the required improvements as approved by the County. The estimate will include all costs associated with the completion of the improvement from concept to finished product. c. Calculate the fair -share cost of those improvements per the following formula: For Intersection Improvements A = MOE for Base Scenario (Background Traffic with E +C network) B= MOE for Total Traffic (Background plus Project Traffic) without Improvements C= MOE for Total Traffic (Background plus Project Traffic) with Improvements D = Cost of Improvement Fair Share = [Change in MOE from A to C] [Change in MOE from B to C] x Total Cost of Improvements [D] For example, if A = 120 sec /veh delay; B = 140 sec /veh delay; C = 100 sec /veh delay A — C= 120— 100 =20 Fair Share = B — C= 140— 100 =40 x Total Cost of Improvements [D] -14- Packet Page -913- 6/24/2014 16.A.23. 20. Construction Traffic Any development (minor and major) anticipated to produce construction traffic that would significantly affect the flow of traffic on adjacent roadways shall provide mitigation measures if requested by the County. The County reserves the right to make this determination and the applicant shall be responsible for providing details of the anticipated construction traffic volumes, hours of operations, and proposed mitigation measures and obtain approval from the County. At the County's discretion, the County may require all off site operational improvements identified and approved in the TIS to be in place prior to any on site construction. -15- Packet Page -914- 6/24/2014 16.A.23. EXHIBIT A Collier County Traffic Impact Study Review Fee Schedule Fees will be paid incrementally as the development proceeds: Methodology Review, Analysis Review, and Sufficiency Reviews. Fees for additional meetings or other optional services are also provided below. Methodoloey Review - $500 Fee Methodology Review includes review of a submitted methodology statement, including review of submitted trip generation estimate(s), distribution, assignment, and review of a "Small Scale Study" determination, written approval /comments on a proposed methodology statement, and written confirmation of a re- submitted, amended methodology statement, and one meeting in Collier County, if needed. "Small Scale Study" Review - No Additional Fee (Includes one sufficiency review) Upon approval of the methodology review, the applicant may submit the study. The review includes: a concurrency determination, site access inspection and confirmation of the study compliance with trip generation, distribution and maximum threshold compliance. "Minor Studv Review" - $750 Fee (Includes one sufficiency review) Review of the submitted traffic analysis includes: optional field visit to site, confirmation of trip generation, distribution, and assignment, concurrency determination, confirmation of committed improvements, review of traffic volume data collected /assembled, review of off -site improvements within the right -of -way, review of site access and circulation, and preparation and review of "sufficiency" comments /questions. "Major Study Review" - $1,500 Fee (Includes two intersection analysis and two sufficiency reviews) Review of the submitted traffic analysis includes: field visit to site, confirmation of trip generation, special trip generation and /or trip length study, distribution and assignment, concurrency determination, confirmation of committed improvements, review of traffic volume data collected /assembled, review of traffic growth analysis, review of off -site roadway operations and capacity analysis, review of site access and circulation, neighborhood traffic intrusion issues, any necessary improvement proposals and associated cost estimates, and preparation and review of up to two rounds of "sufficiency" comments /questions and /or recommended conditions of approval. "Additional intersection Review" - $500 Fee The review of additional intersections shall include the same parameters as outlined in the "Major Study Review" and shall apply to each intersection above the first two intersections included in the "Major Study Review" "Additional Sufficiency Reviews" - $500 Fee) Additional sufficiency reviews beyond those initially included in the appropriate study shall require the additional Fee prior to the completion of the review. Other Miscellaneous Services: Additional optional services, if necessary, will be provided per the schedule below Optional Services: 1. Attend review meetings in Collier County outside of the office $300 2. Attend public meetings $600 -16- Packet Page -915- 6/24/2014 16.A.23. SAMPLE EXHIBITS -1- Packet Page -916- 6/24/2014 16.A.23. Exhibit 1 A: Sample Synchro 6 Report (3 pages) Lanes, Volumes, Timings 4: Univ Pkwv & US 41 Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 -'V" �- 4- 4N t �► 1 W 18.0 --* -. 28.0 28.0 Pedestrian Calls (ONhr) 0 0 LMMiiIOUDi.<[ '. ESL EBT ESR WBL. ,I WST WSR NBL NST NBR SSL SST. .. $BR Lane Configurations 14 ♦ 9 % J 111I % *L 0.17 111% *L 0.07 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 19W 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 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 Leading Detector (ft) 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 0.0 50 50 61.8 Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E 0 0 F Taming Speed (mph) 15 E 9 15 C 9 15 55.1 9 15 75.3 9 Lane U111. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.97 0.95 0.95 Fit E 1 " 0.850 60 5 0.850 - 261 0.961 20 -673 0.995 750 Flt Protected 0.950 111 21 0.950 0.966 #868 0.950 #859 #663 0.950 Internal Link Dist (ft) Sold. Flow (prat) 1770 1863 1583 1681 1709 1583 1770 3401 0 3433 3522 0 Fit Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.966 0.950 342 360 0.950 285 290 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1863 1583 1681 1709 1563 1770 3401 0 3433 3522 0 Right Turn on Red 0 0 Yes 0 0 Yes 0 0 Yes 0 0 Yes Sold. Flow (RTOR) Storage Cap Reductn 0 9 0 0 286 0 36 0 0 4 Reduced v/c Ratio Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Link Speed (mph) 30 45 45 45 Link Distance (ft) 682 738 985 875 Travel Time (s) 15.5 11.2 14.9 13.3 Volume (vph) 52 75 19 482 85 836 25 1048 364 945 1772 66 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ad). Flow (vph) 52 75 19 482 85 836 25 1048 364 945 1772 66 Lane Group Flow (vph) 52 75 19 276 291 836 25 1412 0 B46 1838 0 Turn Type Split pt +ov Split pt+ov Prot Prot Protected Phases 2 2 23 6 6 67 3 8 7 4 Permitted Phases Detector Phases 2 2 23 5 6 67 3 8 7 4 Minimum Initial (s) 7.0 7.0 10.0 10.0 7.0 20.0 7.0 20.0 Minimum Split (s) 31.0 31.0 26.0 26.0 13.0 41.7 13.0 41.7 Total Split (s) 32.0 32.0 45.0 26.0 26.0 59.0 13.0 54.0 0.0 33.0 74.0 0.0 Total Split (%) 22.1% 22.1% 31.0% 17.9% 17.9% 40.7% 9.0% 37.2% 0.0% 22.8% 51.0% 0.0% Maximum Green (s) 26.0 26.0 20.0 20.0 7.0 47.3 27.0 67.3 Yellow Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 All -Red Time (s) 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 2.2 1.5 2.2 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode Min Min Min Min None None None None Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Flash Dont Walk (s) 18.0 18.0 28.0 28.0 Pedestrian Calls (ONhr) 0 0 0 0 Act Effct Green (s) 12.6 12.6 21.8 22.0 22.0 55.0 9.0 50.0 29.0 75.3 Actuated 91C Ratio 0.10 0.10 0.16 0.17 0.17 0.42 0.07 0.39 0.22 0.58 v1c Ratio 0.30 0.41 0.07 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.21 1.06 1.23 0.90 Control Delay 58.8 61.8 16.7 99.2 107.6 56.2 63.2 79 -6 157.4 32.5 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 58.6 61.8 18.7 99.2 107.6 56.2 63.2 79.6 157.4 32.5 LOS E E B F F E E E F C Approach Delay 55.1 75.3 79.3 74.9 Approach LOS E E E E Queue Length 50th (ft) 41 60 5 245 - 261 530 20 -673 -504 750 Queue Length 95th (ft) 84 111 21 #451 #478 #868 52 #859 #663 #1008 Internal Link Dist (ft) 602 658 905 795 Turn Bay Length (ft) Base Capacity (vph) 342 360 398 285 290 836 118 1333 756 2046 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SpIlback 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 0.15 0.21 0.05 0.97 1.00 1.00 021 1.06 1.23 0.90 II-We 1 ah n wwrd Y. Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 145 Actuated Cycle Length: 129.7 Natural Cycle: 145 Control Type: Actuated - Uncoordinated Maximum vlc Ratio: 1.23 Intersection Signal Delay: 75.6 Intersection LOS: E Intersection Capacity Utilization 108.2% ICU Level of Service G Analysis Period (min) 15 - Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown Is nmudmum after two cycles. 2010am_Univ Pkwy & US 41.sy7 CH2M Hill Packet Page -917- Synchro 6 Report Page 1 6/24/2014 16.A.23. Lanes. Volumes, Timings 4: Univ Pkwy 8 US 41 # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. S Ilts and Phases: 4: Univ P 8 US 41 02 06 03 04 07 I 08 2010am_Univ Pkwy & US 41.sy7 CH2M Hill Packet Page -918- Synchro 6 Report Page 2 6/24/2014 16.A.23. HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 26: Unfv Pkwv f1 Shade Av 2010am_Univ Pkwy 8 Shade Av.sy7 CH2M Hill Packet Page -919- Synchro 6 Report Page 3 ..EBL - EBT FEBR Lane Configurations R 4*1L R 4461'. Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Volume (veNh) 54 2282 11 63 2599 111 5 0 47 30 0 21 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly flow rate (vph) 54 2282 11 63 2599 111 5 0 47 30 D 21 Pedestrians Lane Wldth (ft) Walking Speed (tt/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 2710 2.293 3409 5232 766 3696 5182 922 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 2710 2293 3409 5232 766 3696 5182 922 tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 tC, 2 stage (s) IF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 p0 queue free % 63 71 0 100 86 0 100 92 cM capacity (veh/h) 148 217 1 0 345 1 0 272 Dksdiotb Lame A Es S EB 2 EB 3 91214 . WB 1 WB 2 WS 3 WS 4 NB Z - 861 Volume Total 54 913 913 467 63 1040 1040 631 52 51 Volume Left 54 0 0 0 63 0 0 0 5 30 Volume Right 0 0 0 11 0 D 0 111 47 21 cSH 148 1700 1700 1700 217 1700 1700 1700 15 1 Volume to Capacity 0.37 0.54 0.54 0.27 0.29 0.61 0.61 0.37 3.56 37,33 Queue Length 95th (ft) 38 0 0 0 29 0 0 0 Err Err Control Delay (s) 42.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 28.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 Err EF LOS E D F Lane Approach Delay (s) 1.0 0.6 Err Err Approach LOS F Mlersectlolf Summery Average Delay 198.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 69.0% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 2010am_Univ Pkwy 8 Shade Av.sy7 CH2M Hill Packet Page -919- Synchro 6 Report Page 3 Exhibit 1 B: Sample HCS Report 6/24/2014 16.A.23. Page 1 of 2 SHORT REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst Agency or Co. 2005M Existing Conditions Date Performed 1212912005 Time Period 5.00 pm Intersection Univ Pkwy & US 41 Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction nalysis Year Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SIB LT I TH RT LT TH I RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Num. of Lanes 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 0 2 2 0 Lane group L T R L LT R L TR L TR Volume (v ph) 52 75 19 482 85 836 25 1048 364 1945 1772 66 % Heavy veh 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 10.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Actuated (P/A) A A A A A A A A A A A A Startup lost time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Ext. eff. green 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.7 4.0 4.7 Arrival type 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Ped /Bike /RTOR Volume 0 0 8 0 167 0 0 22 D 0 2 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking /Grade /Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking /hr Bus stops /hr 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Unit Extension 13.0 3.0 13.0 13.0 1 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Phasing EB WB Onl 03 04 Excl. Left SIB Onl Thru & RT 08 Timing !Mnl G= 6 G= 20.0 G= G= G= 4.1 G= 16.9 G= 49.7 G= Y= 6 Y= 6 Y= Y= IY= 6 Y= 6 Y= 6.7 Y= Duration of Analysis hrs = 0.25 Cycle Length C = 132.0 Lane Group Ca a ity, Control Dela and LOS Determination EB WS NB SIB Adj. flow rate 55 79 12 289 307 704 26 1463 995 1932 Lane group cap. 169 178 224 295 300 660 82 1356 755 2013 /c ratio 0.33 0.44 0.05 0.98 1.02 1.07 0.32 1.08 1.32 0.96 Green ratio 0.10 0.10 0.14 0.17 0.17 0.42 0.05 0.40 10.22 0.57 Unif. delay d1 55.7 56.4 49.0 54.8 55.0 38.5 60.9 139.8 151.5 26.9 Delay factor k 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.48 0.50 0.50 0.11 0.50 10.50 0.47 Increm. delay d2 1.1 1.8 0.1 46.7 58.1 54.2 2.2 48.7 152.3 112.0 PF factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Control delay 56.9 58.2 49.1 101.4 113.1 92.7 63.2 188.5 203.8 38.9 Lane group LOS E E D F F F E I F F D pprch. delay 56.9 99.4 88.1 95.0 Approach LOS E F F F Intersec. delay 93.3 Intersection LOS I F HCS2000TM Copyright ® 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 f Packet Page -920- 6/24/2014 16.A.23. Page 2 of 2 BACK -OF -QUEUE WORKSHEET General Information Project Description Average Back of Queue EB WB NB SB LT I TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Lane group L T R L LT R L TR L TR Init. queue /lane 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Flow rate /lane 55 79 12 289 307 704 26 1463 995 1.932 atflow per lane 1770 1863 1583 1770 1799 1583 1770 1794 1770 1852 apacityllane 169 178 224 295 300 660 1 82 1356 755 2013 Flow ratio 0.03 0.04 0.01 0.16 0.17 0.44 0.01 0.43 0.29 0.55 /c ratio 0.33 0.44 0.05 0.98 1.02 1.07 0.32 1.08 1.32 0.96 I factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Arrival type 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Platoon ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 F factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 i 1.9 2.7 0.4 10.6 11.3 25.8 0.9 28.2 18.8 35.3 s 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.7 0.2 0.7 0.5 0.9 2 0.1 0.2 0.0 3.5 4.5 10.9 0.1 12.5 17.3 8.3 avg. 2.0 3.0 0.4 14.1 15.7 36.8 1.0 40.6 36.1 43.6 Percentile Back of Queue (95th percentile) q, 2.0 12.0 2.1 1 1.8 1.8 1.6 2.1 1.6 1.6 1.6 BOO, Q% 4.1 6.0 0.8 25.0 27.5 58.0 12.1 163.5 57.1 67.7 ueue Storage Ratio spacing 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 storage 50 0 0 0 0 0 300 0 650 0 vg. Ro 1.0 0.1 1.4 195% Ro% 2.1 0.2 1 2.2 HCS2000m Copyright 0 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4. If Packet Page -921- 6/24/2014 16.A.23. Exhibit 2A: Sample Existing Traffic Volumes N 4L t CO ♦ CO SBSl�1 �m } a L9L—� m m hLZ -01 r6 n� p� —L6L .I { E { �. N CL 4E— 69 E 4 i CL OE6l —► t I' Z M m m Z9B —i = �4 —BSL o- �vm m �N 54�' - ��eppl - Q NN N U _ m M 61D m SSE I N '~ U) m-W N 4L t CO ♦ CO SBSl�1 f 6M 0 } a L9L—� m m hLZ -01 r6 n� p� —L6L .I { E { �. f t c OE6l —► d OS_� M m m Z9B —i = �4 —BSL o- �vm me -Ll J Q NN m 61D N '~ U) H tNl �E N M N Y Cr< --LOSE { Ak H —SBZL - *--9LS { i BSII --► � = � U � f � 9ZZl ---). � { y y ff D 9LC- -1 o � m �4 -60L . { �f —S>L . { E f o t 0_ 4- 9l l �0 '� -i m L 9 L --0. m c 699 2 'v m c0 t l —► m m in 99C ---> 41 r. v n x } I` 6ZL -40- o d 8SL —i 7 °e L , = Z94 —� N f— 9Z > N N y O N t r � 4 -4£9 �j N^ N F -6£ F tm No 59 —/ U E— SZ£ m n m-W g �a U Q 44 ---i L L M N 4L t CO ♦ CO SBSl�1 f 6M 0 } a L9L—� m Q hLZ -01 r6 n� g �a U Q 44 ---i L L M t� - O � � m Z9— 1 M, t„ 9C — 0 L BD >— 1 - ° N N Packet Page -922- .I { N N N A m v c!E eC d~ U a 'v cc oa N CL ii 51 Z 'LiJ • V 4L t CO ♦ *—LEE 0: i` } a L9L—� m hLZ -01 r6 n� t� - O � � m Z9— 1 M, t„ 9C — 0 L BD >— 1 - ° N N Packet Page -922- .I { N N N A m v c!E eC d~ U a 'v cc oa N CL ii 51 Z 'LiJ • V Exhibit 213: Sample Existing AAwQWoomtry \m I < Co c Co \C ! # ƒ ) @ ..j � & ) ..� !lo. - !�lfr ƒ % f / e �i� � ■ 2 > @ } § ƒ I � % \ E ®a \ & @ k m T § / j / !a f |r � E J k ƒ k r � 2 � § � � !lo. / � k @& 6/24/2014 1 6.A.2 ]. - !�lfr \ ) f 2 > @ } § ƒ I � % \ \ & @ I m T § / j !a e @ E � k f ƒ k r � 2 � � / � k @& 6/24/2014 1 6.A.2 ]. k !�lfr \ ) +fa (A a _ |� E % \ \ & @ I m T § / j !a e � � k k r � \ $ � � k � & _ / « � §® ( I \ ` 7 \ § a t!f } 2 / � k @& 6/24/2014 1 6.A.2 ]. @ J §a § /« %m Packet Page -923- Z @ E 0 ■ � � c � W ) !�lfr \ ! +fa � ¥ |� E % \ U, 4- § � ! T § / j !a e � � k k r @ J §a § /« %m Packet Page -923- Z @ E 0 ■ � � c � W ) \ ) \ U, � ! ! k r � \ $ � Exhibit 2C: Sample Existing Traffic Volumes and Lane Geometry N SE n lm_ f-- S9L(6LS) 06WVHONlx048— i (9110OSZ- -0 (z L) 9 lC9LJ bbZ _i 0 4 — Z l0 08 WVHONI)IOnB 4 DE(aO — 9NViINWO- (601) 9 L I —) [V 021 N3131 - (6L) SC --� (LZ) LSL 0 n m N e � N (9 L) 9� (tfi) OlL 0 m a m 1 g� N m ll>. a m u: 1 i n° N m m e m m m �c o m 9Z (l£) } Oh79 WnNOj 1C9) 091 —/ moy N NI m m N M O n r O r (Z) 69 Of � u1 a6 (6010 0 (Z) 4 st L (t9:1 Lb) ( 0 ti m CO e 1 IO _N + 6 m N m m e m m m �c o m 9Z (l£) } Oh79 WnNOj 1C9) 091 —/ moy N NI m m N M O N (Z) 69 m a6 (6010 0 (Z) 4 st L (t9:1 Lb) ( 0 ti �M n� CO e 1 IO _N + 6 ltr9) 8Z N ^ n o + E: (OS) v m� w m N c0 m f— SW 1 Wd 7NINOW30 33 (L Z)9 --► d rn It SL(SZ0 3AV N3M0 (6L) 914 —> f— LL (9£) AV 30V77VM (CIO 69 -1 n m � nb (b) b (u) b b e 1 n n ..J N O ID Ib) Z£ (SL) 9LL T No h O •— m m 0 m N n m� r � N m r n N h I N (Z) 69 m - Lb) ( 0 ti �M n� ° 1 IO _N + 6 0 l9L) 1 6LZ (6Lb) + E: (OS) v m� m I m N c0 O 6/24/2014 16.A.23. III N d O CD D CD C M J a 'r V LV r C X UJI d E — zz les) E IIJjONV I c (00 ££--'1 ¢ J 1 m - 2 r L. M 6LZ (6Lb) c 4 90L (1,99'1) 4 f m A o n f-- 6b0•L(49b'Z) ®111 If— 6Z0'L(Z9t'Z) bb (st) y y L) •� 0A79IVA0700 e i ° c -� ® O a 0. Ln u (6bZ'L) b6b'Z_t (ESB) 099'1 (19£'10 l90'Z —> W n 11 11 n is C) Z9L —� I a, W o 0 C n �n n� %16L— = Packet Page -924- 6/24/2014 16.A.23. Exhibit 3: Sample Design Traffic Factors BLE 2.ADOPTED TRAFFIC FACTORS SR 82 Corridor Access Management Plan Description Factors Time Period 51212004 - 5/8/2004 5/912004 - 5115 2004 5/1612004 - 512212004 5/23/2004 5/29/2004 004 Seasonal Factors Lee County (SR 82) PSCF 1.04 1.05 1.07 1.10 SF (2) 0.98 0.99 1.01 1.03 Collier County (Countywide) PSCF 1.09 1.11 1.13 1.15 SF (2) 0.96 0.98 0.99 1.01 2004 Axle Correction Factors Lee County 1 -75 to CR 884 0.84 CR 884 to Alabama Rd 0.93 Alabama Rd to Hendry County Line 0.89 Collier County Hendry Coun Line to SR 29 0.89 2004 K D and T Factors Description K, D30 Daily Truck Tsn Peak Hr Truck Tf (T2d2) FDOT Count Site Lee Count SR 82 between 1 -75 and Buckingham Rd 10.02 55.13 15.32 7.66 120064 (3j SR 82 between Buckingham Rd and Colonial Blvd 10.02 1 55.13 9.91 4.96 120021 (31 SR 82 between Colonial Blvd and Gunnery Rd 10.02 55.13 8.70 4.35 120077 (31 SR 82 between Gunnery Rd and Alabama Road 10.02 55.13 10.25 5.13 120101 (31 SR 82 between Alabama Road and Bell Blvd 10.02 55.13 18.91 9.46 120068 (3) Collier Count SR 82 between Bell Blvd and South Church Road 10.47 54.99 9.45 4.73 030183 (31 SR 82 between South Church Road and SR 29 10.47 54.99 18.64 9.32 030200 c41 SR 29 south of SR 82 10.47 54.99 14.00 7.00 030143 (4) (1) PSCF = Peak Season Conversion Factor (2) SF = Seasonal Factor (3) Prior Year Data (4) Actual Data Source: 2004 Traffic Information CD Packet Page -925- 6/24/2014 16.A.23. Exhibit 4A: Sample Trip Gene a mn . � § � | § � § �2 §� M � kk E § § # § % § § B ( - t- $ & Packet Page -926- f ° \{ !{ K- %f @ ■ i| |/ kk $/ ({ ! {f z! f! k+ f { f 72 s § (( {) z ,� ■ }! ) w! / /} - § ! - � - ■ |f � } f -k! !k !! £99 } k } k k k � \ / \ Ez Packet Page -926- 6/24/2014 16.A.23. Exhibit 46: Recommended Procedure for Selecting Between Trip Generation Average Rates and Equations (Figure 3. 1, Page 10 of ITE Trip Generation Handbook) L d O L d C E O V d cc N 7 W C N dw M Q V- 6 i LL .C- d d d C v O d E C 1%IL c:! s ' h w:9 t b. ;1 C W • s� M W a C 3 l'm:o r > 03 m }R C ;'.�_ •`_ L rE V5 CO tea Z 0 CO ,- J 0 cb V- 6 i LL .C- d d d C v O d E C 1%IL c:! s ' h w:9 t b. ;1 C W • s� M ui vi o a° 0 (0 A C-, C- C -. 0 m c� CC 1q W U) } O Z C O ' t b. r ui vi V/ CO Q C .Q C LO Ci Al C CO 15� N it '$ .,� 4 N e �1 E 11 ♦ •i •A t u. v• .{ 1 Packet Page -927- U ■ W F. C V- 6/24/2014 16.A.23. Exhibit 5A: Sample ITE Internal Capture (Fig 7.5 Page 93, ITE Trip Generation Handbook) o� CL 4 IL G Tss 6 a ~ O CA L Q c� E i w N 4� O CD au � V LO = � d i f� C i I n,: I I N 7C: it" n [R N t tD • R N G N 4" C � E t 6 Q' s LLLLii d �' N C7 7 M � m � O I { C N I 0 0 O r I I n,: I I N 7C: it" n [R N t tD • R N G N 4" C � E t 6 Q' s O G NJ x O i O � O ry i i o 7 N � O N N M 0 0 O r O � n T r 1u O G NJ x O i O � O ry Ell R1, W ! m C r r ♦v �i Z i I 211,11 Trip Generation Handbook, 2nd Edition Chapter 7 ■ ME 99 Packet Page -928- i i T T r O � n � T 1u Ell R1, W ! m C r r ♦v �i Z i I 211,11 Trip Generation Handbook, 2nd Edition Chapter 7 ■ ME 99 Packet Page -928- W ce CL Q U J Z W H ZX X W J a Exhibit 513: Sample Internal Capture Co W Q W a Q v 6/24/2014 16.A.23. J S R O 0 O 0 O Q a Y r ch N o f") Z a 10 = 0 0 0 ... LlJ -- --- - `- - -° WN> Z U O o (V O N o O LJ v M y > O a x o O 0 O 0 O 0 Z U p a C N N O T Jti K S Y O O O Z O U. O --- J - -- _. 0 O "- --- 0 O --- --- 0 O -- Q a � N O T Z �O H w z O e O C a O M N N N Q O ~ J d V L Fa- LV -- --- -- 0 °- -- 0 --- -° 0 --- J a o c) cN Q p p M a M O O I� v, W O Q v Z a J Q w i O W LL L~U L O O Q w O w ------------------------ - J -- - � ----------- 6/24/2014 16.A.23. a � y _.Q_ CL O H Zy Y-� —LU H Iv. F-J d O ~ a Q Qs V M WQ N LD UM�O W W�ILLLNGZO M LL a� O W LU � � M J —1 ti Packet Page -929- _o N a 'C C D O C .0 O � ro fYyO C a � L a ~ W O y L > O O !v N N O U EE O O N N > L N O � C N � w � O L •� U C - m w R T ly U '0.0 L C ... > Q� L � L W U O C O C M cco f0 O U C a) > O m v a O � L O o c c E S 02 0 w U C N tv > m tYCLO. . . C C6 o 0 Co v Ic t E �. 0 m 0 n. c o >�Q O 'fl N •U Q O c * « Z t4 0 LO t0 Ch 6 N r C6 11 to a. Q' J 0 LL O J Q Z ix w H Z cc O O_ a ae O O Y r r.- t to f f") 10 = 0 0 0 0 0 0 SL M > O Co C Of o o C N N K S Y O O O O e el C Co N Z Q �O CD O O N N N N Q Q D V V L Lo U U-) J ? K Q p p M M O O Z a a ------------------------ - -- - -- - ----------- Q- - Z Q U T D N N M T ° N N Ui v W O d U a Y O O r ° T T N r J Z L LL --- - -------------------------------- - - --- - - - - - - - -- - - - - - -- D N T O O N T N N Q D N T N Z U d d W s O J J a a > J R ° ° v v c chi c co Packet Page -929- _o N a 'C C D O C .0 O � ro fYyO C a � L a ~ W O y L > O O !v N N O U EE O O N N > L N O � C N � w � O L •� U C - m w R T ly U '0.0 L C ... > Q� L � L W U O C O C M cco f0 O U C a) > O m v a O � L O o c c E S 02 0 w U C N tv > m tYCLO. . . C C6 o 0 Co v Ic t E �. 0 m 0 n. c o >�Q O 'fl N •U Q O c * « Z t4 0 LO t0 Ch 6 N r C6 11 to a. Q' J 0 LL O J Q Z ix w H Z 6/24/2014 16.A.23. Exhibit 5C: Sample Internal Capture Bubble Diagram N 0) Co to (n r r r Qf 11 a •c H O 2 Y O a ca 0 NEW LPL Q W J IM m m W w M H IL Q U J Q Z W. W F- Z_ O Y Q W CL 2 IL k X W I1 3 a� 0 cc E d X w M N f6 O H 11 a •c H t4 E O C tC 0 II C N t0 w r Packet Page -930- Exhibit 6A: Pass -By Capture FDOT Guidelines SITE IMPACT HANDBOOK When considering pass -by trips, the distribution of driveway volumes may change and be related to the street traffic. The analysis of pass -by trips should occur in two steps: (1) determine the number of new trips and pass -by trips for the site, then (2) assign the pass -by trips in proportion to the street traffic and the driveways and then assign the new trips in accordance with standard trip distribution procedures. The pass -by trips estimated in the trip generation step are preliminary. Final pass -by trips are estimated following assignment when the number of pass -by trips considered can be compared with the total traffic on the facility. In general, the number of pass -by trips should not exceed 10 percent of the adjacent street traffic during the peak hour or 25 percent of the project's external trip generating potential. Diverted trips, like pass -by trips, are not new to the system overall; however, diverted trips are now utilizing a segment of the transportation system that they previously were not using to access the proposed development site. The new roads a diverted trip uses may or may not have direct access to the proposed development site. Facilities that receive diverted trips may require analysis of the impacts of the development trips. An example of a diverted trip is provided on Figure 21. With diverted trips, the total driveway volumes are not reduced. Diverted trips are counted as new trips where they travel on segments required to reach the site where they previously did not travel. ITE proposes the following methodology for estimating the percent of pass -by and diverted trips. Nvn— P(vOLpd No= p(YOLd Where: p = probability of a driver already in the traffic stream, stopping at the generator, 0?p? I VOL, = volume available to produce pass -by trips VOL, = volume on other streets available to produce diverted trips 6/24/2014 16.A.23. Average daily pass -by trip percentages trip and diverted trip percentages are provided as a function of GLA and average daily traffic on the adjacent roadways for several shopping centers in ITE's Trip Generation for shopping centers (ITE: Trip Generation, p. 1- 24 -36). Peak -hour percentages are suggested to be 10 percent less than these daily percentages. The percentage of pass -by trips in the PM peak hour for shopping centers is provided in Figure VII -1A and using the following equation in ITE's Trip Generation. Ln (P,,) = -0.341 Lit (X) + 5.376 Where: Pra = percent pass -by X = 1,000 GLA of shopping center The PM peak -hour, pass -by trip percentages are usually 10 percent greater than in other times during day. ( ITE: Trip Generation, p. I -23). In all cases, pass -by and diverted trip rates must be ,justified by the applicant and approved by the Department prior to use. When retail land uses are involved with a mixed -use development that attracts pass -by traffic, each land use must be analyzed separately using the following procedure: Estimate the peak -hour, pass -by trip percentage for each retail parcel (shopping centers, convenience store, gas station, etc.) within the development. ITE's Trip Generation (page 1 -21) provides guidance on this step. The estimated pass -by trip percentage depends on the retail site's square footage. 2. Some of the pass -by trips will likely proceed to (or come from) other proposed development project land uses for their primary destinations. These trips cannot be claimed as pass -by trips to be reduced from total project trip generation because they are new trips generated by the project. Trips between the commercial parcel and other project land uses arc internal trips. Unit III - Standard Site Impact Review Procedures 58 Step 4: Trip Generation Packet Page -931- 6/24/2014 16.A.23. Exhibit 6B: Sample ITE Pas -By Application (Fig 5.2 Page 30, ITE Trip Generation Handbook) Figure 5.2 Application of Pass -By Trips y ka� M C_NON=PASS -BY TRIP PATTERN r SITE • f 2D°�6'E CiT 80% ENTER 20% ENTER 80% EXIT i iii ' .7 .. �, b i�.- � .: a •. f •�I�;E ''L. TAPS PASS -BY 91 r OF TRIOS ` -15%0 " # � PA:'f3Y °[HIPS �. 3[iUf?t3f 0ER 3C31iPFi MT, t fIn . C_NON=PASS -BY TRIP PATTERN r SITE • f 2D°�6'E CiT 80% ENTER 20% ENTER 80% EXIT r.Cje I r - �,h:F r 170K. O- : G. FINAL VOLUMES SITE 200 E rr 200 ENTER U') v d61 .Oj 1- 975 39 LEGEND VPH = Vehicles per hour 32 ITE ■ Trip Generation Handbook, 2nd Edition Chapter 5 Packet Page -932- Sat # � ,sf - y t fIn . i rP LJ�a 7 r.Cje I r - �,h:F r 170K. O- : G. FINAL VOLUMES SITE 200 E rr 200 ENTER U') v d61 .Oj 1- 975 39 LEGEND VPH = Vehicles per hour 32 ITE ■ Trip Generation Handbook, 2nd Edition Chapter 5 Packet Page -932- 6/24/2014 16.A.23. Exhibit 7A: Sample Trip Distribution From Travel Demand Model Packet Page -933- c o. C: 2 c a� U 3 U U 1 F E ;l U C? a U7 L, U r � O P C N U N - Q wF 7 o— D — N v Nd In 0 0 m n C C 0O 00 o ac n- w_ u- w a. . o-oI aI (D TI Exhibit 713: Sample Total Project Trip Distribution C 0 N H t3 d IL �a 4- CIJ CO 0 o m M N r N en N M ®_J 6/24/2014 16.A.23. 0 W 4 � rn U) E Q c t rn N Q O IIIN 1 CO N CO 4_ Nv f- m CIJ T CD r N r o —► 0 N O O O O r C fO 11 II 11 n a tM 0) Q G7 X a c w �w 6 E- o m M N r N en N M ®_J 6/24/2014 16.A.23. 0 W 4 � rn U) E Q c t rn N Q O IIIN 1 CO N CO 4_ Nv f- m CIJ T 0 M 1 Packet Page -934- N E 0 c d E Q> d CO C O U d D d L rn M CD r N r 0 M 1 Packet Page -934- N E 0 c d E Q> d CO C O U d D d L rn M 6/24/2014 16.A.23. Exhibit 7C: Sample Net New Project Trips Distribution Packet Page -935- 0 O M N r 1� W h N � 4 c T t rN a N C 0 H O O W Q W O ,a V W �' o 07 O O O CO N r �--- ui d a z a� Zo 0 --► N tp -� r I I � N ❑ a N E a >° —'♦ ; —�► 0 o C 04 o. E o oocoU� m to m u It u u 0 m m C C e O CD s •Q :% M O� ❑ - 0. a. W W x m z Packet Page -935- Exhibit 8A: Sample Existing TMC Summary 1 6/24/2014 16.A.23. W.4 I eLLrmvrfe —k hoer Total FRtaMr10 Vn — INTERSECTION: Brow" St —US41 WEATHER OC JOB M. 10177101 DATE: WW006 2a 317 Peak -Hour. 4 :55 PM •• 5:55 PM 4 1.3 J • 4 L V.• J 1 1030 135 J t 195 0 1142 i....0.i9_..�, ( US-41 ( 0.6 ♦ 0.0 J '. 2.1 q. 08 0.2 • -..•M • 0.6 1105• ♦937 !... - -- - 1a <o .� D � r Iii r 12.1 0.2 0.0 • .4 r 0.0 -0 0.2 , • r of o 4 �°. + 00 ;.° t � 0 D ( Bra"M St) ( 0V 0.0 ( Broward St ( H I J t 5 NORTH 1 • r L —i 'SEC L[GEP�SMELT S4111N COUNT I _ Vr d St PERIOD _ew— �^�__.. _ BEGIN AT L.efl Thru Right V (Soutt"undl lift Bn wsrd St Thru U Left US41 i USA I� i HOURLY _ stboundl . TOTAL TOTALS Thru Right U I Left Thru Right U ! 4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 4:05 PM 0 0 a 0 14 8 0 7 0 8 0 1 0 1 10 4 68 0 81 0 2 1 0 86 24 1! 212 0 84 19 2 1 207 4:10 PM 0 0 0 0 4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 8 9 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 4 6 85 0 80 0 0 j 0 0 80 16 0 195 0 80 28 0{ 204 4:20 PM D O 0 0 4:25 PM 0 0 0 0 11 7 O 6 0 3 0 0! 7 16 70 0 93 0 1 1 0 69 17 0 181 0 86 9 1! 216 4:30 PM 1 0 0 0 0 4:35 PM I 0 0 0 0 12 13 0 4 0 5 0' 0 8 8 78 0 09 0 0 0 0 63 12 0 195 0 76 16 0 187 4:40 PM 0 0 0 0 4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 15 11 0 2 0 3 0 0! 15 3 100 0 85 0 1 2 0 78 16 1 j 228 0 60 17 1 202 4: PM 0 0 0 0 1. PM 0 0 0 0 10 9 0 5 0 10 0 0 4 8 t35 0 85 0 0 0 0 71 8 165 0 80 13 2 2399 6:00 PM 0 0 0 0 5A5 PM 0 0 0 0 14 7 0 8 0 8 0 0 13 5 86 0 77 0 0 1 0 71 9 0 201 2388 0 93 14 0 2386 5:10 PM 0 0 0 0 5:16 PM 0 0 0 0 13 9 0 6 0 7 0 0 15 11 110 0 106 0 0 2 0 74 24 2 244 2495 0 82 9 0 226 2457 5:20 PM 0 0 0 0 12 0 3 0 13 114 0 0 0 90 23 0 255 2681 5_16PM 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 2 0 70 24 4 "0 PM 0 0 0 0 5:35 PM 0 0 0 0 12 13 0 5 0 9 0 0 7 12 84 0 88 0 2 1 0 96 13 1 220 2663 0 67 19 1 210 2678 5:40 PM 0 0 0 0 6:46 PM 0 0 0 0 13 4 0 12 0 8 0 0 8 9 76 0 67 0 1 2 0 70 20 0 200 26118 0 68 13 0 189 2535 6:50 PM 0 0 5:55 PM 0 0 0 0 1 10 10 0 8 0 0 13 15 100 0 7T 0 2 6 0 76 14 0 218 0 52 12 0 180 2881 PEAK 15-MIN Northbound Southbound East ound Westbound TOTAL FLOW RATES _ Loft Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U AN Vehicles Heavy Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 136 4 0 64 0 0 0 156 0 1320 0 0 0 8 0 984 224 8 0 12 8 2w0 Pedestrians 4 ( 0 0 0 1 Bhcydes Railroad Slopped Buses 1 I Counter Comments: KOPOn earNratao M rrxrnnto Packet Page -936- 6/24/2014 16.A.23. Exhibit 813: Sample Existing TIVIC Summary 2 & ! ��ic,, C, N t D, CD 40 it 0 ID IR V ~. 94 C4 Iff ev M to 0 on W) 0 On c, Packet Page -937- tDrN Cv d n N 9 fq Cv kn tv n E 0 go 0 Z zor (D M It Cc Ci E U- Cn CO a. U.1 as to O CV 90 w Cc UJ e M 972 CR:40 A? 7; %n -q V C) CO Iq L E D C: fc I�!M to 0) fi -.11 : .7 (e) 0) 0 CD L) 04 0 CD 4) CD 06 bn r- C) C10 2 0 M CL CO 0 cc to C1. w 0 < 75 O 0 v v M CO 0 LL CO 0 1 M 0 > Z Z- E F� C) n V CO M I < 0 E ME V' rn Cc iw C'. Cc CO f It in w E 20 0 Cc CO L) V' OL — < Dz M D .2 C im C) 0 0 ia Ii- C� C .1 2 19 B 010. g & ! ��ic,, C, N t D, 40 it 0 ID IR V ~. 94 C4 Iff ev CO to 1� M v: M CO o Cb N IN V') O 4N CV i L CL DO 3: E IL C L $a IL o D, D 0 ID IR V _j Iff ev M to 0 on W) 0 On c, Packet Page -937- M v: M CO o Cb N IN V') O 4N CV i L CL DO 3: E IL C L $a IL o Exhibit 9: Sample Growth Rate Estimation Project: Barefoot Plaza Location: Collier County Date: 7/10/2006 Analyst: KHA Notes: Line Month Year 1 2 2004 3 2003 4 2002 5 Best Fit 6 Volume Source #4: 7 8 Volume Source #5: 9 Volume . 10 Volume Volume Volume 6/24/2014 16.A.23. Slope: 837 Intercept: - 1644614 R': 0.931 Standard Error: 322 Exponential Growth Rate: Future = Existing (1 +Growth) ^N Linear Growth Rate: F7"-------71 Future = Existing (1+Growth'N) 40,000 35,000 30,000 25,000 20,000 L 2002 2003 Year Growth Rate Packet Page -938- 2004 INPUT DATA Volume Source #1: US 41 east of Rattlesnake Hammock Road OUTPUT DATA Volume Soruce #2: Aggregate Volume Source #3: Best Fit Volume Source #4: Traffic Volume Source #5: Line Volume . Volume Volume Volume Volume Average Source #1 Source #2 Source #3 Source #4 Source #5 Volume 37973 27758 32866 36199 27069 2 31634 36301 26082 2003 31192 Slope: 837 Intercept: - 1644614 R': 0.931 Standard Error: 322 Exponential Growth Rate: Future = Existing (1 +Growth) ^N Linear Growth Rate: F7"-------71 Future = Existing (1+Growth'N) 40,000 35,000 30,000 25,000 20,000 L 2002 2003 Year Growth Rate Packet Page -938- 2004 INPUT DATA OUTPUT DATA Aggregate Best Fit Traffic Volume Line Month Year Volume Line Month Year Trend 1 1 2 2004 32866 2 2004 32734 3 2003 31634 3 2003 31897 4 2002 31192 4 2002 31060 5 5 6 6 7 7 8 8 9 9 10 10 Slope: 837 Intercept: - 1644614 R': 0.931 Standard Error: 322 Exponential Growth Rate: Future = Existing (1 +Growth) ^N Linear Growth Rate: F7"-------71 Future = Existing (1+Growth'N) 40,000 35,000 30,000 25,000 20,000 L 2002 2003 Year Growth Rate Packet Page -938- 2004 6/24/2014 16.A.23. Exhibit 10: Sample Future Intersection Traffic Volume Development Using Growth Rate INTERSECTION TRAFFIC VOLUME DEVELOPMENT U.S. 41 & Broward Street TRAFFIC CONTROL.: Signalized COUNT DATE: June 28, 2006 TIME PERIOD: 4:55 p.m. - 5:55 p.m. PEAK HOUR FACTOR: 0.89 um■ ■ #=o woo NAI NAT MAP SAI. SBT SBA Raw Turning Movement Counts 135 1,105 937 195 126 Peak - Season Correction Factor 1.22 1.22 1.22 1'22 Anna PEAK- SEASON VOLUMES 165 1 1,349 1 1 1 1,143 1 238 154 1 1 98 "NON- PROJECT TRAFFIC" EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SOT SBR BACICQ8IiJY WTM 0 437 437 0 0 0 208 *Mff8B0UW t'[1il 0"C 3 3 1 1 3 1 3 13 Yearly Growth Rate 2.0% 2-0% j 0 °/6 0°k 0 175 1,868 1,650 253 163 104 Barefoot Plaza "PROJECT TRAFFIC" EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NOR SBL SOT SBR "TOTAL TRAFFIC" EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NOR SBL SOT SBR 175 1,882 1,701 258 164 104 Packet Page -939-