Loading...
FLD2009-12046; 2165 GULF TO BAY BLVD; LAKESIDE AT CLEARWATER FLD2009-12046 2165 GULF TO BAY BLVD LAKESIDE OF CLEARWATER PLANNER OF RECORD: WW ATLAS # 298B ZONING: MHP LAND USE: RLM RECEIVED: 12/01/2009 INCOMPLETE: COMPLETE: MAPS PHOTOS: STAFF REPORT: DRC CDB: CLW CoverSheet CDB Meeting Date: February 16, 2010 Case Number: FLD2009-12046 (Related to LUZ2009-12003, DVA2009-00005 and FLD2009-12045) Agenda Item: D.3. (Related to E.3., E.4. and D.2.) Owners/Applicant: Nickel Plate Properties Inc. and Lakeside Enterprises, LLC Representative: E D Armstrong III Esquire Johnson Pope, Bokor, Ruppel & Burns, LLP Address: 2165 Gulf to Bay Boulevard CITY OF CLEARWATER PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT GENERAL INFORMATION: REQUEST: Flexible Development application to permit 70,212 square feet of Retail Sales and Services uses and 12,787 square feet of Restaurant uses (total commercial floor area of 82,999 square feet) in the proposed Commercial (C) District with a proposed lot area of 506,892 square feet (11.637 acres), a lot width along Gulf to Bay Blvd. of 820 feet and along S. Belcher Rd. of 617 feet, a front (north) setback to Gulf to Bay Blvd. of 25 feet (to proposed pavement), a front (east) setback to S. Belcher Rd. of 25 feet (to proposed pavement), a side (west) setback of 10 feet (to proposed building, pavement and dumpster enclosure), a side (south) setback of 10 feet (to proposed pavement), a maximum building height of 36 feet and 495 parking spaces, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Proiect tinder the provisions of Community Development Code Section 2-704.C, and a two year development order. CURRENT/PROPOSED Current: Mobile Home Park (MHP) District ZONING DISTRICT(S): Proposed: Commercial (C) District (Parcel 1) CURRENT/PROPOSED Current: Residential Low Medium (RLM) FUTURE LAND USE Proposed: ResidentiaUOffice/Retail (R/O/R) (Parcel 1) CATEGORY: PROPERTY USE: Current Use: Vacant (former mobile home parks) Proposed Use: Total commercial floor area of 82,999 square feet - Retail Sales and Services uses (70,212 square feet) and Restaurant uses 12,787 square feet) Community Development Board -February 16, 2010 FLD2009-12046 -Page 1 of 14 EXISTING North: Commercial (C) District SURROUNDING Retail Sales uses and Automobile Service Station ZONING AND USES: South: Mobile Home Park (MHP) District Vacant (former mobile home park) East: Commercial (C) District Retail Sales uses West: Commercial (C) and Medium Density Residential (MDR) Districts Automobile Sales ANALYSIS: Site Location and Existing Conditions: The 11.637 acres is located at the southwest corner of Gulf to Bay Boulevard and S. Belcher Road. The subject property was previously developed with 102 mobile homes, which was part of a large mobile home park and a smaller mobile home park with a total of 295 mobile homes (all mobile homes and common facilities have been removed or demolished). The subject property has approximately 817 feet of frontage along Gulf to Bay Boulevard and approximately 617 feet of frontage along S. Belcher Road. Properties to the north are presently zoned Commercial (C) District and are developed with retail sales uses and an automobile service station. Property to the east across S. Belcher. Road are zoned Commercial (C) District and is developed with retail sales uses (Publix shopping center). Property to the south is presently zoned Mobile Home Park (MHP) District; is proposed to be rezoned to Medium Density Residential (MDR) District and is the southern portion of the larger former mobile home park that is now vacant (Parcel 2). This Parcel 2 is .proposed for 243 attached dwellings under the companion Flexible Development application Case, No. FLD2009- i~~~+5. riopei~y to uic west ui ~iic suu~c~~ propeiiy is zoiieu wizliilerclai <<,~ LiS~rtct ana Medium Density Residential (MDR) District and is developed with an automobile sales dealership. Development Proposal: The larger, former mobile home park property is proposed to be divided into two parts. The applicant proposes to amend the land use designation for this northern portion (Parcel 1) from Residential Low Medium (RLM) to Residential/Office/Retail (R/O/R) and rezone it from Mobile Home Park (MHP) to Commercial (C) District, while the applicant proposes to amend the land use designation for the southern portion (Parcel 2) from Residential Low Medium (RLM) to Residential Medium (RM) and rezone it from Mobile Home Park (MHP) to Medium Density Residential (MDR) District (companion Case No. LUZ2009-12003). The southern portion (Parcel 2) of 18.435 acres is proposed to be developed with 243 attached dwellings at a density of 13.181 units per acre. There is also a companion Development Agreement for the overall property (DVA2009-00005). This northern portion (Parcel 1) is proposed to be developed with a total commercial floor area of 82,999 square feet (Retail Sales and Services uses of 70,212 square feet and Restaurant uses of 12,787 square feet). In order to divide the larger mobile home property into two developable lots, a Division of a Lot of Record will need to be submitted prior to the issuance of any permits, and be approved and recorded in the public records (including the recording of a deed to create this parcel). This Parcel 1 also incorporates two smaller parcels on Community Development Board -February 16, 2010 FLD2009-12046 -Page 2 of 14 the west side. Any approval of this application should include a condition requiring this Division of a Lot of Record and the recording of a Declaration of a Unity of Title to tie all three portions together as one developable lot, as well as a prohibition to creating parcels for tax purposes with the Property Appraiser's office. The proposal meets and/or exceeds required front and side setbacks and perimeter landscape buffers for buildings, parking and other structures. There are five commercial buildings proposed. Buildings 10, 11 and 13 are proposed for retail sales and services uses for a total of 70,212 square feet. Buildings 12 and 14 are proposed for restaurant uses of a total of 12,787 square feet. (Note: Buildings 1 - 9 are located on the proposed residential development to the south on Parcel 2.) Tenant sizes and configurations in Building 11 will be constructed to suit the individual tenants. The design of this building allows tenant spaces on both the north and south sides of the building, but would not preclude a tenant from having frontage on more than one side of this building, provided entry and exits comply with the Building Code and Life Safety exiting requirements. All buildings are one-story in volume, with the exception of Building 13 (bank) which appears two stories in height. The maximum height of these buildings is 36 feet to the top of decorative features. Actual building heights to the main flat roofs are much lower. The height of Building 12 is 32.5 feet to the midpoint of the curved roof. The exterior finishes of these commercial buildings are a combination of split face block (colors: nuthatch and roycraft adobe), stucco horizontal bands (color: pacer white) and trim, facia, borders and louvers of everyday white color, while metal roofs will be offbeat green. The color of doors, signs and .accent panels will be cherry tomato, carnival, cheerful, calypso and inkwell. The proposal includes the provision of an open space area at the northeast -corner of the site for the purpose of a small park area to display public art. Details regarding such small park have not been outlined on the plans submitted. Prior to the issuance of any permits,. details regarding the small park to display public art will need to be provided. There is a provision in the companion Development Agreement allowing the platting of this Parcel 1 into separate building parcels without having to meet landscaping and parking for each lot. A recent Code amendment added Section 3-1910.D, which states "When new subdivisions are being developed at locations where reclaimed water will be available within seven (7) years from the issuance of the development order, the developer shall provide internal reclaimed water systems that are constructed to City specifications." Reclaimed water is presently not available but a reclaimed water main extension from Hercules Avenue may be provided by the City. Any approval of this application should include a condition requiring such reclaimed water system should such subdivision be desired in the future. The applicant is requesting atwo-year development order due to market conditions. Community Development Code (CDC} Section 4-407 specifies that an application for a building permit must be submitted within one year of the date the CDB approves the project, unless otherwise specified under this approval. Community Development Board -February 16, 2010 FLD2009-12046 -Page 3 of 14 Also on this CDB agenda is a companion Development Agreement (DVA2009-00005) that must be approved by City Council, which provides for general and specific parameters of the project and other design considerations. Floor Area Ratio (FAR): Pursuant to the Countywide Future Land Use Plan and CDC Section 2- 701.1, the maximum FAR for properties with a designation of Residential/Office/Retail is 0.40. The proposal is for a total of 82,999 square feet of commercial floor area (retail sales of 70,212 square feet and restaurant uses of 12,787 square feet) at a FAR of 0.164, which is consistent with the Code provisions. It is noted that the Development Agreement (DVA2009-00005) provides for a maximum of 90,000 square feet of commercial floor area at a FAR of 0.178. Impervious Surface Ratio (ISR): Pursuant to CDC Section 2-701.1, the maximum allowable ISR is 0.85. The proposed ISR is 0.75, which is consistent with the Code provisions. Minimum Lot Area and Width: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-704, there is no minimum required lot area or lot width for a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project. However, for a point of comparison, the minimum lot area for retail sales and restaurant uses can range from 3,500 - 10,000 square feet. The proposed lot area for this Parcel 1 is 506,892 square feet (11.637 acres). Pursuant to the same Table, the minimum lot width for retail sales uses can range from 30 - 100 feet and restaurant uses can range from 35 - 100 feet. The lot width along Gulf to Bay Boulevard is approximately 817 feet and the lot width along S. Belcher Road is approximately 617 feet. The proposal exceeds these comparative Code provisions for retail sales and restaurant uses. Minimum Setbacks: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-704, there are no minimum required setbacks for a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project. However, for a point of comparison, the minimum setbacks for retail sales and restaurant uses can range for front setbacks from 15 - 25 feet and for side setbacks from 0 - 10 feet (corner lots have only front and side setback requirements). The proposal does not request any setback reductions from that set forth for retail sales and restaurant uses, as all buildings, pavement and dumpster enclosures meet the minimum front setback of 25 feet and side setback of 10 feet. As a Developer transportation obligation outlined in the companion Development Agreement, additional right-of--way will be dedicated for a right turn lane on Gulf to Bay Boulevard at the intersection with S. Belcher Road. While this right-of--way dedication is not shown on the plans submitted to the CDB, the front setback will still need to be maintained after the dedication. Prior to the issuance of any permit, this right-of- way dedication and front setback from this dedication line should be shown on the site plan. Maximum Building Height: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-704, there is no maximum height for a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project. However, for a point of comparison, the maximum height for retail sales and restaurant uses can range from 25 - 50 feet. The proposal has been advertised with a maximum building height of 36 feet. There are five proposed buildings. Most of the proposed buildings are designed with flat roofs, where the building height is measured to the top of the main flat roof. However, building elevations have dimensioned the 36-foot building height to the top of small, more decorative features of the building and not to the lower, main roof (Buildings 10, 11 and 14) and the request reflects this 36-foot height. The Community Development Board -February 16, 2010 FLD2009-12046 -Page 4 of 14 height of Building 12 is 32.5 feet to the midpoint of the curved roof. The height of Building 13 is 28 feet to the flat roof deck. Any approval of this application should include a condition requiring building heights conform to the elevations approved by the CDB with this application, with the maximum height of 36 feet for decorative building features. The heights for the five buildings proposed are comparable to, and compatible with, the existing commercial buildings within the surrounding area and compatible with the proposed residential buildings to the south on Parcel 2. Minimum Off-Street Parking: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-704, the minimum required parking for retail sales uses can range between 4 - 5 spaces per 1,000 square feet, while parking for restaurants can range between 7 - 15 spaces per 1,000 square feet. When there are two or more uses proposed on the same property or in the same building, CDC Section 3-1405 requires parking to be determined using a shared use calculation. The shared use calculation indicates that the high (based on the top number in the range of the uses) requirement is 508 parking spaces, and the low (based on the bottom number in the range of the uses) requirement is 343 parking spaces. The proposal includes a parking reduction from the required 508 spaces. The applicant has prepared a Parking Reduction Study (Study) analyzing this proposal. The Study indicates that the overall need for parking for the commercial uses, which includes internal capture with the adjacent attached dwellings proposed to the south on Parcel 2, is 476 parking spaces. The proposal provides 495 parking spaces. The site is also served by bus transit, with bus stops located adjacent to this commercial site on Gulf to Bay Boulevard and S. Belcher Road. The reason this application is being processed as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, rather than as "retail sales and services" and "restaurants" uses is due to the inability for the proposal to comply with a Flexibility criteria for these uses, which states: "The use of the parcel proposed for development fronts on but will not involve direct access to a major arterial street." This Parcel 1 fronts on both Gulf to Bay Boulevard and S. Belcher Road, both major arterial streets, and does not have any frontage on a collector or local roadway. To mitigate this criteria concern, access for this commercial development has been minimized by providing only one driveway on each roadway. The driveway located on Gulf to Bay Boulevard has been aligned with the intersection of S. Main Avenue. There are Developer transportation obligations outlined in the companion Development Agreement to effect this driveway connection. The driveway located on S. Belcher Road has been aligned with the existing traffic light that accesses the Publix shopping center on the east side of S. Belcher Road. The companion Development Agreement also outlines the Developer transportation obligations for this roadway, including a southbound right turn lane. At this driveway intersection, new mast arms and traffic signal equipment will be installed when this proposed driveway on Parcel 1 is constructed. This driveway on S. Belcher Road will also provide access to the proposed residential development on Parcel 2. The residential access drive will be gated to prevent commercial traffic from entering the residential project. This residential access drive also provides internal vehicular cross access for the residents to access these commercial uses without the need to access local roadways. Internal sidewalk access between the residential project and these commercial uses is also proposed. Existing driveways no longer being used will need to be removed and upright curbing and sidewalk restoration constructed in their place. It is also noted that under the companion Community Development Board -February 16, 2010 FLD2009-12046 -Page 5 of 14 Development Agreement that a Developer transportation obligation is to dedicate additional right-of--way for an east-bound right turn lane on Gulf to Bay Boulevard at the intersection with S. Belcher Road. The developer is unable to construct this right turn lane due to the existing location of traffic signal poles at the southwest corner of this intersection. In order to construct this turn lane, new mast arm traffic poles would be required. These new mast arm traffic poles are unable to be constructed at this intersection, due to inadequate right-of--way, especially at the northwest corner of this intersection currently developed with an automobile service station. The east/west drive aisle on the north side of Building 10 provides for two-way traffic. There are six angled parking spaces designed on the north side of Building 10 that should be reoriented to be 90-degree parking or reversed in their angle, as they are angled in the wrong direction to the traffic flow. The east/west drive aisle directly south of the Gulf to Bay Boulevard driveway east of Building 14 is designed at only 20 feet in width. This east/west drive aisle is anticipated to provide two-way traffic flow, necessitating a 24-foot width. These parking and drive aisle revisions should be shown on amended site plans prior to the issuance of the site development permit. There exists a 17-foot wide ingress/egress easement along the west property line in the northwest corner that is not being re-used and should be vacated prior to the issuance of the site development permit. Mechanical Equipment: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-201.D.1, all outside mechanical equipment must be screened so as not to be visible from public streets and/or abutting properties. The proposal locates exterior mechanical equipment on the roof of the commercial buildings. Screening of these rooftop mechanical equipment will be reviewed at time of building permit submission to determine if parapets surrounding the roof are sufficient to screen the mechanical equipment. Sight Visibility Triangles: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-904.A, to minimize hazards at the proposed driveways on Gulf to Bay Boulevard and S. Belcher Road, as well as at the intersection of these roadways, no structures or landscaping may be installed which will obstruct views at a level between 30 inches above grade and eight feet above grade within 20-foot sight visibility triangles. The proposal was reviewed by the City's Traffic Engineering Department and found to be acceptable. Utilities: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-912, for development that does not involve a subdivision, all utilities including individual distribution lines must be installed underground unless such undergrounding is not practicable. Electric and communication lines for this development will be installed underground on-site in compliance with this requirement. There exist overhead utilities on the west side of the adjacent right-of--way of S. Belcher Road. Due to the length of the site frontages on this roadway, the existing overhead utilities should also be placed underground as part of this development (also in conjunction with the residential development proposed on Parcel 2 to the south). Additionally, there exist two power distribution easements on the subject property (14 feet wide and six feet wide) within blanket easements that will need to be vacated. Evidence of such easement vacations will need to be provided prior to the issuance of the site development building permit. Community Development Board -February 16, 2010 FLD2009-12046 -Page 6 of 14 Exterior electric equipment (electric panels, boxes and meters) located on the outside of the buildings should be painted the same color as the buildings they are affixed to reduce their visibility. The location and visibility of such exterior electric equipment will be reviewed at time of building permits. It is noted that the drainage retention pond on the residential Parcel 2 will be the drainage facility for both this commercial site (Parcel 1) and the residential site (Parcel 2) to the south under Case No. FLD2009-12045. Additionally, potable water and sanitary sewer systems are interconnected between Parcels 1 and 2. Easements for drainage, water and sewer lines and vehicular access are necessary. Any approval of this application should include a condition requiring such easements to be recorded in the public records, with copies to the City, prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy. Landscaping: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-1202.D, there are 15-foot wide perimeter buffers required along Gulf to Bay Boulevard and S. Belcher Road, a 10-foot wide perimeter buffer required along the south side adjacent to the residential development on Parcel 2 and a five-foot wide perimeter buffer along the west side. The proposal complies with these required perimeter buffers and provides for increased perimeter buffers along the street frontages of 25 feet to coincide with the required structure setbacks. The proposal also exceeds the requirement for interior landscape area within the parking lot. A minimum of 10 percent of the vehicular use area is required as interior landscaping and the proposal provides 15.1 percent. Required foundation landscape area five feet in depth is provided for all commercial buildings except Building 10. Based on the site design, foundation landscaping compliant with Code provisions can be located along the north side of this building. Prior to the issuance of the site development permit, the site and landscape plans should show compliance with the foundation landscaping requirement, as well as dimensioning all landscape areas. CDC Section 3-1202.E.1 requires interior landscape islands so that there is a maximum of 10 parking spaces in a row, but allows flexibility to allow up to 15 parking spaces in a row when necessary due to site circumstances. The proposal includes a parking row on the west side of Building 10 that is designed with 16 parking spaces without an intervening landscape island. Prior to the issuance of any permits, the site and landscape plans should be revised to introduce a landscape island to this row of parking spaces. This residential project will be planted with various trees, including Florida elms, southern magnolia, southern live oak, crape myrtle, sabal palm and Mexican fan palm. Most, if not all, of the shrubs and groundcover plants are native, drought tolerant landscaping material. Solid Waste: The proposal provides dumpster enclosures at each of the proposed five buildings. Prior to the issuance of any permits for this project, details for these dumpster enclosures will need to be provided on the plans showing compliance with City standards, including the requirement to be consistent with the exterior materials and color of the buildings. The proposal has been found to be acceptable by the City's Solid Waste Department. Community Development Board -February 16, 2010 FLD2009-12046 -Page 7 of 14 Signage: The proposal does not include any freestanding sign. Any proposed signage will be required to meet Code provisions. Landscape design and plantings need to coordinate with any such signage, so as to not shield the signage from view. The companion Development Agreement requires proposed signage to be approved through a Comprehensive Sign Program, in accordance with the flexibility criteria of CDC Section 2-803.I.3. Code Enforcement Analysis: There are no active Code Enforcement cases for the subject property. Community Development Board -February 16, 2010 FLD2009-12046 -Page 8 of 14 COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS AND CRITERIA: The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the standards as per CDC Section 2-701.1 and Table 2-704: Standard Proposed Consistent Inconsistent Floor Area Ratio 0.4 (maximum of 202,756 0.164 (82,999 square feet X' square feet) proposed) Impervious Surface Ratio 0.85 0.752 X Minimum Lot Area Comprehensive Infill 506,892 sq. 0. (11.637 acres) X Redevelopment Project: N/A Retail Sales and Services: 3,500 - 10,000 sf Restaurant: 3,500 - 10,000 sf Minimum Lot Width Comprehensive Infill Gulf to Bay Blvd: 817 feet X Redevelopment Project: N/A S. Belcher Road: 617 feet Retail Sales and Services: 30 - 100 feet Restaurant: 35 - 100 feet Minimum Setbacks Front: Comprehensive Infill Gulf to Bay Blvd.: 25 feet (to X' Redevelopment pavement) Proiect: N/A S. Belcher Road: 25 feet (to Retail Sales and pavement) Services and Restaurant uses: 15 - 25 feet Sider Comprehensive Infill West: 10 feet (to building, X' Redevelopment pavement & dumpster Project: N/A enclosure) Retail Sales and South: 10 feet (to pavement) Services and Restaurant uses: 0 - 10 feet Maximum Height Comprehensive Infill 36 feet (to top of decorative X' Redevelopment Project: N/A building features) Retail Sales and Services and Restaurant uses: 25 - 50 feet Minimum Comprehensive Infill 495 parking spaces (476 X3 Off-Street Parking Redevelopment Proiect: N/A required parking spaces based Retail Sales and Services: 4 - 5 on Parking Reduction Study) spaces per 1,000 square feet Restaurant: 7 - I S spaces per 1,000 square feet (Required parking: 343 - 508 s aces '` ~ See analysis in Staff Report '- Based on n shared use calculation; See analysis in Staff Report 3 Based on Perking Reduction Study; See analysis in Staff Report Community Development Board -February 16, 2010 FLD2009-12046 -Page 9 of 14 COMPLIANCE WITH FLEXIBILITY CRITERIA: The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the Flexibility criteria as per CDC Section 2-704.C (Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project): Consistent I Inconsistent 1. The development or redevelopment is otherwise impractical without deviations from X' the use and/or development standards set forth in this zoning district. 2. The development or redevelopment will be consistent with the goals and policies of X the Comprehensive Plan, as well as with the general purpose, intent and basic planning objectives of this Code, and with the intent and purpose of this zoning district. 3. The development or redevelopment will not impede the normal and orderly X development and improvement of surrounding properties. 4. Adjoining properties will not suffer substantial detriment as a result of the proposed X development. 5. The proposed use shall otherwise be permitted by the underlying future land use X' category, be compatible with adjacent land uses, will not substantially alter the essential use characteristics of the neighborhood; and shall demonstrate compliance with one or more of the following objectives: a. The proposed use is permitted in this zoning district as a minimum standard, flexible standard or flexible development use; b. The proposed use would be a significant economic contributor to the City's economic base by diversifying the local economy or by creating jobs; c. The development proposal accommodates the expansion or redevelopment of an existing economic contributor; d. The proposed use provides for the provision of affordable housing; e. The proposed use provides for development or redevelopment in an area that is characterized by other similar development and where a land use plan amendment and rezoning would result in a spot land use or zoning designation; or f The proposed use provides for the development of a new and/or preservation of a working waterfront use. 6. Flexibility with regard to use, lot width, required setbacks, height and off-street X~ parking are justified based on demonstrated compliance with all of the following design objectives: a. The proposed development will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding properties for uses permitted in this zoning district; b. The proposed development complies with applicable design guidelines adopted by the City; c. The design, scale and intensity of the proposed development supports the established or emerging character of an area; d. In order to form a cohesive, visually interesting and attractive appearance, the proposed development incorporates a substantial number of the following design elements: ^ Changes in horizontal building planes; ^ Use of architectural details such as columns, cornices, stringcourses, pilasters, porticos, balconies, railings, awnings, etc.; ^ Variety in materials, colors and textures; ^ Distinctive fenestration patterns; ^ Building stepbacks; and ^ Distinctive roofs forms. e. The proposed development provides for appropriate buffers, enhanced landscape design and appropriate distances between buildings. ~ See nnnlysis in Stnff Report Community Development Board -February 16, 2010 FLD2009-12046 -Page 10 of 14 COMPLIANCE WITH GENERAL STANDARDS FOR LEVEL TWO APPROVALS: The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the General Standards for Level Two Approvals as per CDC Section 3-913: Inconsistent 1. The proposed development of the land will be in harmony with the scale, bulk, X' coverage, density and character of adjacent properties in which it is located. 2. The proposed development will not hinder or discourage development and use of X~ adjacent land and buildings or significantly impair the value thereof. 3. T`he proposed development will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons X residing or working in the neighborhood. 4. The proposed development is designed to minimize traffic congestion. X 5. The proposed development is consistent with the community character of the X~ immediate vicinity. 6. The design of the proposed development minimizes adverse effects, including X~ visual, acoustic and olfacto and hours of o eration im acts on adjacent ro erties. ~ See nnnlysis in Stnff Report. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION: The Development Review Committee (DRC) reviewed the application and supporting materials at its meeting of January 7, 2010, and deemed the development proposal to be legally sufficient to move forward to the Community Development Board (CDB), based upon the following: Findings of Fact. The Planning and Development Department, having reviewed .all evidence submitted by the applicant and requirements of the Community Development Code, finds that there is substantial competent evidence to support the following findings of fact:., 1. The 11.637 acres is located at the southwest corner of Gulf to Bay Boulevard and S. Belcher Road; 2. The subject property has approximately 817 feet of frontage along Gulf to Bay Boulevard and approximately 617 feet of frontage along S. Belcher Road; 3. There is a companion proposal to amend the land use designation for this northern portion (Parcel 1) from Residential Low Medium (RLM} to Residential/Office/Retail (R/O/R) and to rezone it from Mobile Home Park (MHP) to Commercial (C) District (Case No. LUZ2009- 12003); 4. A companion Development Agreement (DVA2009-00005) must be approved by City Council, which provides for general and specific parameters of the project and other design considerations; 5. This Parcel 1 is proposed to be developed with a total commercial floor area of 82,999 square feet (Retail Sales and Services uses of 70,212 square feet and Restaurant uses of 12,787 square feet); 6. The proposal meets and/or exceeds required setbacks and perimeter landscape buffers for buildings, parking and other structures; 7. There are five commercial buildings proposed, where all buildings except Building 12 are designed with flat roofs with a maximum height of 36 feet to the top of decorative building features (actual building heights will be less; Building 12 is 32.5 feet in height); Cornmunity Development Board -February 16, 2010 FLD2009-12046 -Page 11 of 14 8. The proposal includes the provision of an open space area at the northeast corner of the site for the purpose of a small park area to display public art; 9. Access for this commercial development has been minimized to only providing one driveway on each roadway; and 10. There are no active Code Enforcement cases for the subject property. Conclusions of Law. The Planning and Development Department, having made the above findings of fact, reaches the following conclusions of law: 1. That the development proposal is consistent with the Standards as per Tables 2-701.1 and 2- 704 of the Community Development Code; 2. That the development proposal is consistent with the Flexibility criteria as per Section 2- 704.C of the Community Development Code; and 3. That the development proposal is consistent with the General Standards for Level Two Approvals as per Section 3-913 of the Community Development Code. Based upon the above, the Planning and Development Department recommends APPROVAL of the Flexible Development application to permit 70,212 square feet of Retail Sales and Services uses and 12,787 square feet of Restaurant uses (total commercial floor area of 82,999 square feet) in the proposed Commercial (C) District with a proposed lot area of 506,892 square feet (11.637 acres), a lot width along Gulf to Bay Blvd. of 820 feet and along S. Belcher Rd. of 617 feet, a front (north) setback to Gulf to Bay Blvd. of 25 feet (fo proposed pavement), a front (east) setback to S. Belcher Rd. of 25 feet (to proposed pavement), a side (west) setback of 10 feet (to proposed, building, pavement and dumpster enclosure), a side (south) setback. of 10 feet (to proposed pavement), a maximum building height of 36 feet and 495 parking spaces, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project under the provisions of Community Development Code Section 2-704.C, and a two year development order, with the following conditions: Conditions of Approval: 1. That approval of this Flexible Development case is subject to the approval of a land use amendment and rezoning (LUZ2009-12003); 2. That approval of this Flexible Development case is subject to the approval of a Development Agreement with the City (Case DVA2009-00005); 3. That application for a building permit to construct the approved project be submitted no later than February 16, 2012, unless time extensions are granted pursuant to CDC Section 4-407; 4. That, prior to the issuance of any permits, a Division of a Lot of Record and a Declaration of Unity of Title be approved and recorded in the public records. In addition, prior to the issuance of any permits, the owner shall record a deed creating this parcel in accordance with the Division of a Lot of Record and request the three existing parcels be combined into one parcel by the Pinellas County Property Appraiser's Office. No parcels shall be created for tax purposes with the Property Appraiser's office; 5. That the final design and color of the building be consistent with the elevations approved by the CDB; 6. That retail sales and service uses not exceed square footage 70,212 square feet and restaurant uses not exceed 12,787 square feet (total maximum commercial floor area of 82,999 square Community Development Board -February 16, 2010 FLD2009-12046 -Page 12 of 14 feet at a maximum floor area ratio of 0.164). Square footage flexibility may be granted as a Minor Revision prior to issuance of the site development building permit so long as the square footage increase and its resultant increase to required parking do not exceed the 495 parking spaces provided and approved under this application; 7. That the minimum front setback and landscape buffer along Gulf to Bay Boulevard and S. Belcher Road be 25 feet; 8. That the minimum side setback and landscape buffer along the west and south property lines be 10 feet; 9. That, prior to the issuance of the site development permit, the following changes be shown on the revised site and landscape plans: a. show the right-of--way dedication and front setback line from this dedication line for a right turn lane on Gulf to Bay Boulevard at the intersection with S. Belcher Road; b. show the angled parking on the north side of Building 10 reversed angle or 90- degree due to the two-way traffic flow on the north side of this Building 10; c. increase the width of the east/west drive aisle directly south of the Gulf to Bay Boulevard driveway east of Building 14 from 20 to 24 feet; d. provide required foundation landscaping along the north side of Building 10; e. dimension all landscape areas; and f. introduce a landscape island to the row of 16 parking spaces on the west side of Building 10; 10. That, prior to the issuance of building permits for each building, building heights conform to the elevations approved by the CDB, with the maximum height of 36 feet for decorative building features; 11. That, prior to the issuance of the site development permit, evidence be provided to the City of the vacation of the 17-foot wide ingress/egress easement along the west property line in the northwest corner and two existing blanket power distribution easements on the property (14 feet wide and six feet wide); 12. That, prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy, easements for access, drainage, sanitary sewer and potable water between Parcels 1 and 2 be recorded in the public records, with copies provided to the City; 13. That, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Completion, existing overhead utility lines along S. Belcher Road be undergrounded; 14. That proposed signage be approved through a Comprehensive Sign Program; 15. That, prior to the issuance of any permits, site development plans indicate where existing driveways on Gulf to Bay Boulevard are no longer being used, such driveways be removed and upright curbing and sidewalk restoration constructed in their place; 16. That, prior to the issuance of any permits, dumpster enclosure details be provided on the plans showing compliance with City standards, including consistency with the exterior materials and color of the buildings; 17. That, prior to the issuance of any permits, details regarding the small park to display public art at the northeast corner of this Parcel 1 be provided; 18. That, prior to the issuance of the building permit, screening of rooftop outside mechanical equipment comply with Code provisions; Community Development Board -February 16, 2010 FLD2009-12046 -Page 13 of 14 19. That, prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for each building, exterior electric equipment (electric panels, boxes and meters) be painted the same color as the building; 20. That, any future subdivision of this Parcel 1 comply with the provisions of Section 3-1910.D regarding the installation of an internal reclaimed water systems constructed to City specifications; 21. That open' space/recreational impact fees be paid prior to the issuance of the building permit; 22. That any applicable Public Art and Design Impact Fee be paid prior to the issuance of any permits; and 23. That, prior to the issuance of any permit, all requirements of the General Engineering, Stormwater Engineering, Traffic Engineering and Fire Departments be addressed. Prepared by Planning and Development Department Staff: Wayne .Wells, AICP, Planner III ATTACHMENTS: ^ Location Map ^ Aerial Map ^ Zoning Map ^ Existing Surrounding Uses Map ^ Photographs of Site and Vicinity S: IPlnnning DepnrtmentiC D BIFLEX (FLD)IPentling casesl Up for the nest CDBIGuIf to Bay 2/65 Commercial (C) 20/D.xx - 2.16.10 CDB - WWIGuIf to Bny 2165 Commercial FLD Staff Report.doc Community Development Board -February 16, 2010 FLD2009-12046 -Page 14 of 14 Wayne M. Wells, AICP 100 South Myrtle Avenue, Clearwater, FL 33756 Phone: 727-562-4504 ~ Email: rvayne.~~~ells~-rr~~clear~i•ater.com PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE ^ Planner III Planning and Development Department, City of Clearwater, FL November 2001 to Present As part of the Development Review Division, prepared and presented staff reports for Flexible Standard Development (staff-level cases), Flexible Development (public hearing cases) and Plats before the Development Review Committee and the Community Development Board and Development Agreements before the City Council; Reviewed building permits for Code conformance; Prepared and/or assisted preparation of Code amendments; Provided public information (via telephone, mail, email, zoning counter or predevelopment meetings). ^ Zoning Coordinator Zoning Division, City of Pinellas Park, FL March 1989 to November 2001 Acting Zoning Director; Represented the Zoning Division on cases and issues before the City Council, Community Redevelopment Agency, Planning and Zoning Commission, Board of Adjustment and outside agencies; Prepared and presented staff reports for land use plan amendments, rezoned, planned unit developments, conditional uses, variances and site plans; Reviewed final site plans and building permits for Code conformance; Prepared and/or assisted preparation of Code amendments; Provided public information (via telephone, mail, zoning counter or .predevelopment meetings). ^ Program Manager, Zoning Branch Manatee County Dept. of Planning and Development, Bradenton, FL June 1984 to March 1989 l rained and supervised three employees; Prepared and presented variances and appeals to the Board of Zoning Appeals; Coordinated final site plan and building permit review for Code conformance; Assisted in preparation of Code amendments; Provided public information (via telephone, mail, zoning counter or predevelopment meetings). Interim Code Enforcement Manager- Managed the Code Enforcement Section; Supervised six employees; Prosecuted cases before the Code Enforcement Board; Investigated and prepared cases of alleged violations of land use and building codes. Planner II, Current Planning Section -Prepared and presented staff reports for rezones, planned developments, special permits, plats and mobile home parks to Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners; Reviewed final site plans and building permits for Code enforcement; Assisted in preparation of Code amendments; Provided public information (via telephone, mail, zoning counter or predevelopment meetings). ^ Planner I Alachua County Dept. of Planning and Development, Gainesville, FL June 1980 to June 1984 Prepared and presented staff reports for rezones and special permits to Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners; Reviewed site plans and plats for Code conformance; Assisted in preparation of Code amendments; Provided public information (via telephone, mail, zoning counter or predevelopment meetings). Intern -Compiled and coordinated the Alachua County Information and Data Book; Drafted ordinance revisions; General research. ^ Graduate Assistant University of Florida Dept. of Urban and Regional Planning, Gainesville, FL 1979 to 1981 Coordinated downtown study for Mayo, FL; Coordinated graphics for Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan. ^ Planning Technician Planning Division, City of St. Petersburg, FL 1977 to 1979 Primarily prepared graphics, for both publication and presentation; Division photographer for 1 %2 years; Worked on historic survey and report. EDUCATION Master of Arts in Urban and Regional Planning (Degree not conferred; course work completed, thesis not completed), University of Florida, 1981 Bachelor of Design in Architecture, University of Florida, 1976 LICENSES & CERTIFICATES American Institute of Certified Planners American Planning Association, Suncoast Section 2165 GULF TO BAY BLVD FLD2009-12046 LAKESIDE OF CLEARWATER atlas# 2986 Zoning: MHP SITE PHOTO'S FOR THIS CASE ARE LOCATED WITH CASE FLD2009-12045 - 2165 GULF TO BAY BOULEVARD ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ = :~ j Z ~ ~ r ~AS~,r z ,K ~ .~ ~ r ~ z ~ a NA~ 4 z W ~ Q > b'1M1TMAtd ST ~ p CHAUCER ST o i ~r+ELUA ~ ~ SHELLEY ST Z ~ ~ L~3RN£LL ~ ~ S 0 z SR-fi0 GULF-TQ$AY BLVD J ~~ . ~1 r I A - ~~ ~ ~ [ i T mtr L`ruid Pa[k Qf N . ,1 l N6RUPDCIR ~ ~ PROJECT i ~ ~ SITE .~ ~ r S DRUfL' CIR m ~..'' G ~y CAMPUS ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ •~ O .lAFFA PL ~ F i CRO O ~ C ' ~ 6 A • > ~ AGAdEP~tY o ~ U f•. • ~'• KENNOQRE ~ ~ BASCOPv91"JAY o + ~ > COLLEGE DR tv?AGtJOLIA ~ > DR z ~ z cY U m o y ~ ~ o\~EW OCO u1 Rd ? Rd ~~ w ~ ~ UPJSVE Rs DR ~ ~ ° C a ~ REPON DR Z ~ , f~~L ~ ~ > ~ d ~ , J 3 0 l.-_~ n U z ~ fwlN[*IEOLA RD ~ UNIVERSPTY dR S z ~ 0 ~,.., .,,a NICE; : ''"' cSLEf9f~iCk7R RD w 1 . REBECCA '- SAfVdRA f ~ .$EtLCHE'~1~ ~1F~ :' CiEfdMOOR 5 C~EPJMOOR = cd ~~II s : 4..,. 5 LOCATION MAP Owner: Nickel Plate Properties, Inc. and Case: FLD2009-12046 Lakeside Enterprises, LLC Site: 2165 Gulf to Bay Boulevard Property Size: 11.626 acres PIN: 13-29-15-00000-410-0100 Atlas Page: 2988 13-29-15-00000-410-0200 1 3-29-1 5-00000-4 1 0-0300 N N N ~~ 409 411 d o W ' ~ ~' o Q ~ i bb°°° bb°"P N~~ N N Q ~ Q ° g ° HP Z N N (n O ~ N O N b O OI ° N N b N GUL -T -BA BLVD 0 N GULF-TO-BAY BLVD p~ N N N N 511 520 519 525 52 525 52 529 533 b n N °m b o m N 529 °' N N r~ N N 601 NN b N o N 655 O N " " DR N N b N N 693 n N b N N ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 715 O N N ap O N N O O ap b Q N N N ~ 7 ~ ~ N O b b 80 803 N N N N N N N N 80 ry ~ ,L~1 fiO N N N ZONING MAP Owner: Nickel Plate Properties, Inc. and Case: FLD2009-12046 Lakeside Enterprises, LLC Site: 2165 Gulf to Bay Boulevard Property Size: 11.626 acres PIN: 1 3-29-1 5-00000-4 1 0-0 1 00 Atlas Page: 2986 1 3-29-1 5-00000-4 1 0-0200 13-29-15-00000-410-0300 N 6 N 5 q 8 7~ ~ ® , x Vacant a ~ a;1 v ~, ®~ Retail Sales Q Retail Sales - y a n ' Q Z ~ ,- ~ ~ zo,az J = z fi ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~- Q ~ A o'imo vile Retail y 3 ail c~ 48,2 ~ a ~ ~ Vacant l~ B ti o ~,.~,i~ ~ Sales o Z m s an ~' ~sws~ N ,, zN ~ k~t~ N N N GUL -BA D 8 8 H GULF-TO-BAY BLVD N r!~ r N ~ n ~ 9? ,~az ~ I m ~ obil utomobilef LsJ Sales Sales J z 51 _ _ _5 5119,_ ~ Retail Sales ~---~ 3 _ _r ~~°_ - - 6 ~ 525 - e NI„ s ,p 533 6 ~ 1 13 s ~ 529 3a n m °° m N N N ~ u 5 038 M ~ c N ~ ~ wo Bo1 HASE 1{~l et ~+ ~~~ 1 3 W • ~ Lnsso J N 855 PHASE W ~ ^ o N Vacant a, 4 o t ~~ "d a Funeral 893 PHASE 6 X a Home N p PHASE n p r h iee 6 sN 6 N ; Off ° es ,O h ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~'715 N N - ~ DRUID RD , r, a a - r ° ° `" et'~ e ' ~ 2 ~ ' ~ ° ~ Ds ~ ~ ed ~ " ° ~ 6 ~°' et ch~ed~o ~ „He a ~ec~ ,66 ,°, „ 8o e ~ , N N N N ~Aj N n/ ,o ,~~ ® ti^ w ns N ell N N EXISTING SURROUNDING USES MAP Owner: Nickel Plate Properties, Inc. and Case: FLD2009-12046 Lakeside Enterprises, LLC Site: 2165 Gulf to Bay Boulevard Property Size: 11.626 acres PIN: 13-29-15-00000-410-0100 Atlas Page: 298B 13-29-15-00000-410-0200 13-29-15-00000-410-0300 RESPONSES TO DRC COMMENTS FLD2009-12046 - 2165 Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard Comp. Infill Application GENERAL ENGINEERING: Prior to review by the Community Development Board: Comment No. 1: Private water main and appurtenances, if any, shall be designed and constructed in conformity with City of Clearwater Contract Specifications and Standards. Response No. 1: Acknowledged. Comment No. 2: Reclaimed water is not presently available but a Reclaimed water main extension from a Hercules Avenue project may be provided by City.. Contact Steve Doherty with Engineering Department for more information (727.562.4773). Response No. 2: Acknowledged. Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit: Comment No. 1: Applicant shall obtain a permit from Pinellas County for work proposed in Belcher Road (C.R. 501). Response No. 1: Acknowledged. Comment No. 2: Applicant shall obtain a permit from the Florida Department of Transportation for work proposed in Gulf to Bay Blvd. (S.R. 60). Response No. 2: Acknowledged. Comment No. 3: Applicant shall provide a copy of an approved Florida Department of Environmental Protection (F.D.E.P.) permit for the installation of the sanitary sewer collection system. Response No. 3: "Acknowledged. Comment No. 4: Is pool designed to overflow into sanitary sewer collection system? If so, please delete connection to sanitary sewer and instead design to overflow into retention pond. Response No. 4: Acknowledged. Note added on Sheet 4 of 13. Comment No. 5: Recommend that the water main passing below the top of bank of the retention pond be moved above the top of bank. Response No. 5: Water main in this area has been relocated. Comment No. 6: Turning radii at all driveways shall be a minimum of 30 feet per City of Clearwater Contract Specifications and Standards index #108. Response No. 6: All driveway turning radii a minimum of 30". See Sheets 4 and 5 of 13. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy: Comment No. 1: All unused drive aprons and/or parking surfaces shall be removed entirely by the contractor, at the applicant's expense. Adjacent street right(s)-of-way are to be restored with new sidewalk and sod as required. Response No. 1: Acknowledged. Comment No. 2: Applicant shall bring all substandard sidewalks and sidewalk ramps adjacent to or a part of the project up to standard, including A.D.A. (Truncated domes per D.O.T. Index #304.) Response No.2: Acknowledged. Comment No. 3: Applicant shall submit 5 sets of as-built drawings that are signed and sealed by a State of Florida Registered Professional Engineer for water, stormwater and sanitary sewer installations. The Construction Services Inspector will field inspect as-built drawings for accuracy. Response No. 3: Acknowledged. General Note: All resubmittals shall be accompanied with a response letter addressing how each department's condition(s) has been met. ENVIRONMENTAL: No issues. FIRE: Comment No. 1: Must meet the requirements of NFPA-101, 2006 edition Chapter 12 12.3.5.2 Buildings containing assembly occupancies with occupant loads of more than 300 shall be protected by an 2 approved, supervised automatic sprinkler system in accordance with Section 9.7 as follows (see also 12.1.6, 12.2.6, 12.3.2, and 12.3.6): Buildings 12 and 14 SHALL be sprinklered buildings to meet this requirement. ACKNOWLEDGE PRIOR TO CDB Response No. 1: FDC and appurtenances have been added to Building 12. Building 14 size has been reduced from 5,800 s.f. to 4,878 s.f. and now has occupancy less than 300. Comment No. 2: Provide and show on the site plan 24 ft width at driveways / drive aisles for emergency vehicle ingress and egress for front and rear parking lots. Where drive way is split by an island with one-way traffic each side of island provide and show on site plan minimum 20 ft width driveway PRIOR TO CDB. Response No. 2: Driveway widths have been revised to comply with this condition. Comment No. 3: A separate fire hydrant is required for ALL. sprinklered building within 300 feet as the hose lays. ACKNOWLEDGE PRIOR TO CDB. Response No. 3: Additional fire hydrants have been added. Comment No. 4: Where underground water mains and hydrants are to be installed, they shall be installed, completed, and in service prior to construction as per NFPA-241. All underground fire lines and hydrants must be installed by a contractor with a class I, II or V license. A hard road surface able to support. the weight of Fire Apparatus prior to any building construction being started ACKNOWLEDGE PRIOR TO CDB Response No. 4: Acknowledged. Comment No. 5: Provide and show on the site plan 24 ft width at driveways with a 30 foot radius. ACKNOWLEDGE PRIOR TO CDB. Response No. 5: Driveways are 24 feet in width. and 5 of 13 have a 30 foot radius. See Sheet 4 and 5 of 13. Comment No. 6: Sheet 2 under FIRE DEPARTMENT NOTES 1) Date of the Florida Fire Prevention Code needs to read 2007 edition ACKNOWLEDGE PRIOR TO CDB. Response No. 6.1: Revision has been made. 3 2) FDC'S will be designed with metal breakable caps designed to break with a single blow of a hydrant wrench. City of Clearwater uses the Knox Locking Cap. Form may be picked up from the Division of Fire Prevention Services. ACKNOWLEDGE PRIOR TO CDB. Response No. 6.2: Revision has been made. 3) Fire Department Connections will be identified by a sign that states "NO PARKING, FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTION" and SHALL identify what building it supplies. ACKNOWLEDGE PRIOR TO CDB. Response No. 6.3: Revision has been made. Comment No. 7: NOTE: Planning comment concerning the fence around this property has gates for fire department Access, each gate is provided with a SPECIAL KNOX PAD LOCK. To open this lock contact the Clearwater Fire Marshal's office (727) 562-4327 ext. 3062 Inspector Keller or contact (727) 562-4327 ext. 3172 Keep in mind that as this property is developed and gates are added for construction these Knox Pad Locks will be used for fire department access. ACKNOWLEDGE PRIOR TO CDB. Response No. 7: Acknowledged. Comment No. 8: Must meet the requirement of FAC 69A60 Florida Fire Prevention code to install signage at entry doors to identify if this building has been constructed with lightweight truss floor and roof system. You may contact this office for a copy of details at 727-562-4327 X 3062. Add note to cover sheet of plan showing intent. ACKNOWLEDGE PRIOR TO CDB. Response No. 8: Acknowledged. Comment No. 9: NFPA 1 - 2000 Edition Chapter 3 General Provisions, 3-6 Access Boxes a Knox Box SHALL be provided for FIRE DEPARTMENT rapid entry and any gate will require a Knox Electric Key Switch. Form can be obtained at the Clearwater Fire & Rescue Division of Fire Prevention Services 610 Franklin St. Clearwater, FI. 33756 Phone (727) 562-4327, Fax (727) 562-4461. ACKNOWLEDGE PRIOR TO CDB. Response No. 9: Acknowledged. 4 Comment No. 10: Plans show the fire hydrants coming off the Double Detector Check Valve's. The fire hydrants SHALL come off before the Double Detector Check Valve's. ACKNOWLEDGE PRIOR TO CDB. Response No. 10: Doubled detector check valves at connections to existing City water mains have been removed. [Comment No. 11: Repeat of No. 9] Comment No. 12: Sheet 1A on the west side by building # 10 shows a drive aisle at 21 feet SHALL be 24 feet.. ACKNOWLEDGE PRIOR TO CDB. Response No. 12: Drive aisle width has been revised. Comment No. 13: Sheet. 1A by building 14 shows a drive aisle at 18 feet this SHALL be 24 feet. ACKNOWLEDGE PRIOR TO CDB. Response No. 13: Drive aisle width has been revised to 20'. This drive aisle is not on the emergency vehicle ingress/egress route. Comment No. 14: Sheet 1A building 11 on the south side has a drive aisle 310 feet in length and no fire department access out. Must meet the requirements of NFPA-1, 2006 edition Chapter 18 18.2.3.4.4 Dead Ends. Dead-end fire department access roads. in excess of 150 ft (46m) in length. shall be provided with approved provisions for the fire apparatus to turn around. ACKNOWLEDGE PRIOR TO CDB. Response No. 14: Drive aisle in this area is no longer a dead end. HARBOR MASTER: No issues. LEGAL: No issues. LAND RESOURCES: Comment No. 1: Show to directional bore the 8" water main adjacent to the trees on the west property line adjacent to the commercial property prior to CDB. Also see Conditions in FLD2009-12045. Response No. 1: Proposed water main in this area has been moved farther to the east in order to eliminate the need to install via directional drilling. 5 LANDSCAPING: Comment No. 1: Sheet LA1.1 -Ensure the number and type of landscape material in each area is indicated. There are many areas where at least proposed trees are not indicated. Response No. 1: Additional tree tags have been added to the landscape plans to break up the labeling of larger tree grouping. Comment No~ 2: Inadequate foundation landscape area (minimum of 5-foot depth) is provided along the north side of Building 10. Revise to meet Code requirements. Response No. 2: The foundation area on the north side of Building 10 has been revised to include some additional foundation planting areas that will meet the minimum 5 foot required width. Comment No. 3: Section 3-1202.D.1 requires a landscape buffer along the proposed south property line of 10 feet. Proposed is 0.8 feet (to proposed pavement). Similar to .the setback reduction necessary for this pavement, since this is vacant land, Staff does not support such a reduction to the landscape buffer (to pavement). Redesign. However, if you desire to proceed with this,. need to submit a Comprehensive Landscape Program application to request the reduction. .Response No. 3: The ,parcel boundary between Parcels 1 and 2 has been revised in order to accommodate the required setback and landscape buffer of 10' in width on Parcel 1. The landscape plans have been revised to depict the required 10' landscape buffer at this location. Comment No. 4: For the landscape buffer along Gulf to Bay Blvd. and S. Belcher Rd., in order to have the continuous hedge actually screen the parking, the hedge should be adjacent to the edge of pavement. Otherwise, motorists and pedestrians look right over the hedge at unscreened vehicle parking. Relocate hedge to be adjacent to the edge of the parking pavement. Any enhancement of landscaping (tiering of landscape materials) should occur in front of this continuous hedge. Response No. 4: The required landscape buffer hedge has been revised to be offset four feet from the VUA area along Gulf to Bay and S. Belcher Rd. This placement is to facilitate potential vehicle overhangs (such as trucks backed into the parking space) and maintenance, as discussed on 1/11/10 with Wayne Wells, City of Clearwater. 6 Comment No. 5: Type and placement of trees within foundation landscape areas should take into account proposed attached signage, so that such signage is not blocked by such trees. May want to consider some palms instead of, or in addition to, the crape myrtles. Response No. 5: Per discussion with Wayne Wells, City of Clearwater on 1/11/10, a note has been added to the landscape plan to indicate that the foundation tree planting will be adjusted at the time of final determination of building signage, during the building permitting phase. Comment No. 6: Sheet LA1.1 -There are existing trees along the west property line. Do not propose to plant new trees under the canopy of these existing trees. Relocate proposed trees to avoid this conflict. Response No. 6: The placement and species of tree have been revised to reduce conflicts .between the existing tree canopies and the proposed trees. Understory tree species are used to meet the buffering requirements and to avoid the conflict with the existing tree canopies.. Where utilized, the understory trees are used in a ratio of two trees per the one canopy tree as required per the land development code. Comment No. 7: LA1.1 -Within the landscape buffer along the south property line, provide the required hedge. Response No. 7: As per discussions with Wayne Wells, City of Clearwater on 1/11/10, a hedge is provided along each side of the fence adjacent to the southern property line. The equal quantity of one row of trees, at the minimum required spacing, is provided along this buffer area. The trees are staggered on each side of the fence/property line. Comment No. 8: Sheet LA1.1 -Per Section 3-1202.E.1, interior landscape areas are required to be planted with a shade tree for each 150 square feet, at least 50% planted with shrubs and the balance with groundcover, in lieu of turf. The following areas do not meet at least the shrubs and groundcover requirements and must be revised to comply: a. The lane divider south of Building 11 between the parking south of the building and the entrance driveway; b. Two small areas between the drive aisle and the sidewalk NE of Building 10; and c. The area directly south of Building 12. 7 Response No. 8: The required shrub and groundcover landscaping are provided on the landscape plan for the areas described above. Comment No. 9: Sheet LA1.1 -Code intent for required trees is for shade trees. Code permits 2 accent trees to equal one shade tree, as well as 3 palms to equal one shade tree. With this intent, the accent trees should be planted fairly close together and the palms to be planted in a clump to provide the "same" shading capacity. There are a number of areas where 2 accent trees are not planted closely together or 3 palms clumped together to meet this intent. Revise. Response No. 9: The placement and. quantity of understory trees and palms has been revised to meet the intent of the code to provide the canopy shading. These areas were discussed in a meeting on 1/11/10, with Wayne Wells, City of Clearwater. Comment No. 10: Sheet LA1.1 -Required Landscape Buffers language on the right hand side of the sheet -There is a 10-foot landscape buffer required along the south side of Parcel 1 for buffering the commercial uses to the residential uses on Parcel 1. Response No. 10: The general landscape buffer note has been revised to include language that references the 10 foot buffer along the southern side of the parcel. Comment No. 11: Sheet LA2 -Section 2.01.C -Irrigation system must have a rain sensor/shutoff device. Revise to include. Response No. 11: The general irrigation notes on Sheet LA2 will be revised to include the reference for the rain sensor/shutoff device. PARKS AND RECREATION: Comment No. 1: Open space/recreation impact fees are due prior to the issuance of building permits or final plat (if applicable) whichever occurs first. These fees could be substantial and it is recommended that you contact Debbie Reid at 727- 562-4818 to calculate the assessment. Response No. 1: Acknowledged. Comment No. 2: The Public Art and Design Impact Fee is due and payable on this project prior to issuance of a building permit. This fee could be substantial and it is recommended that you 8 contact Chris Hubbard at 727.562-4837 to calculate the assessment. Response No. 2: Acknowledged. STORMWATER: The following shall be addressed prior to issuance of the building permit: Comment No. 1: Provide four (4) copies of the approved SWFWMD permit. Response No. 1: Acknowledged. Comment No. 2: Provide four (4) copies of the approved Pinellas County drainage connection permit. Response No. 2: Acknowledged. General Note 1: All resubmittals shall be accompanied with a response letter addressing how each department's condition(s) has been met. Response 1: Acknowledged. General Note 2: DRC review is a prerequisite for Building Permit Review; additional comments may be forthcoming upon submittal of a Building Permit Application. Response 2: Acknowledged. General Note 3: At building permit application, applicant shall submit drainage report, soil report, and any other drainage related document for review and record. Response 3: Acknowledged. SOLID WASTE: Comment No. 1: That dumpster service be arranged with the Solid Waste Department prior to the issuance of an occupational license or certificate of occupancy. Dumpster at building 1 needs to be moved so truck has a straight shot Response No. 1: Dumpster location has been revised. Comment No. 2: Dumpster at building 6 needs to be moved so truck has a straight shot 9 Response No. 2: Dumpster location has been revised. Comment No. 3: Would suggest a compactor for entire complex at building 1 location Response No. 3: Owner prefers dumpsters. TRAFFIC ENGINEERING: Comment No. 1: Provide a longer driveway length of 150 feet for driveway on Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard. No parking spaces or intersections with drive aisles shall be allowed within the 150 foot driveway. (FDOT Driveway Handbook, Ch. 6.2, Exhibit 36.) Response No. 1: Drive aisle/parking has been revised to an arrangement acceptable to the City. Comment No. 2: The existing traffic signal pole located at the new access driveway on Belcher Road shall be re-located away from the travel way, preferably at the SW corner of the intersection on City right-of--way. Since the City currently does not have the room to put the control devices at the SW corner, the applicant shall grant to the City aright-of- way easement to accommodate traffic signal cabinet, mast arm and column. Response No. 2: Proposed design accommodates the requirements shown above. Comment No. 3: As proposed the drive thru lanes for the bank shall provide stacking spaces to accommodate a total. of 20 vehicles as measured from the first point of transaction. Use a scale of 20' for both vehicle and gap. Vehicles shall not block parking spaces and/or encroach drive aisles (Community Development Code Section 3-1406 B. 5.). Response No. 3: Acknowledged. Comment No. 4: Provide an accessible path linking building (10, 11, 12, 13 and 14) to each other's accessible entrance and to a public sidewalk compliant with Florida Accessibility Code for Building Construction Chapter 11, Section 11-4.3.2. Response No. 4: Additional sidewalk has been added. Please see Sheet 1A. 10 Comment No. 5: The 90 degree parking along the west side. of building 10 shall have a 24' wide drive aisle (Community development code Section 3-1402). Response No. 5: The drive aisle in this area is now 24 feet in width. Comment No. 6: Demonstrate using a turning template of a single unit vehicle 30' in length can maneuver in and out of the 12' x 35' loading space for building 10 and 11. (This length of vehicle is similar to UPS or FedEx vehicles). Response No. 6: Turning template for all loading spaces is included with this response. Comment No. 7: The main driveway along Gulf-to-Bay Blvd. shall have directional pavement markings (i.e. left turn arrow and shared thru & right turn arrow. Also include pedestrian crosswalk and stop bar with stop signs. Response No. 7: Revisions have been made in accordance with design requirements discussed and directed by FDOT. Please see Sheet 1A. Comment No. 8: Shorten nose of median island for main driveway along Gulf-to-Bay Blvd. for better maneuverability. Response No. 8: Median island has been revised. Comment No. 9: Has the Florida Department of Transportation approved the proposed changes on the State right-of-way? Response No. 9: FDOT has issued a letter indicating conceptual approval. A permit application was recently submitted to FDOT. Comment No. 10: Show on the site plan the existing and proposed bus stops and/or shelters along the property's frontage. Response No. 10: Existing/proposed bus stops/shelters are now shown on Sheets 1A and 5. Comment No. 11: How does the proposed east bound turn lane on Gulf to Bay Boulevard impact the bus shelter? Response No. 11: East bound turn lane has been removed. The above to be addressed prior to a Community Development Board (CDB) hearing. 11 Comment No. 1: All parking spaces shall be marked by white thermoplastic lines (Community Development Code Section 3-1404 B.). Response No. 1: Note has been added to Sheet 8. Comment No. 2: Relocate light poles onto landscaped medians and away from the required area of a parking space to avoid impacts. (Community Development Code Section 3-1402 A.) Response No. 2: Light poles have been relocated to landscape areas and/or away from the required area of a parking space. Comment No. 3: Provide a curb ramp detectable warning detail per Florida Department of Transportation Standards use Index 304 page 6 of 6 (http://www.dot.state.fl.us/rddesign/rd/RTDS/08/304.pdf). Response No. 3: Detail has been added to Sheet 8. Comment No. 4: Install curb ramp .detectable warning where sidewalk crosses the driveways and/or drive aisles. Response No. 4: Ramp detectable warning surfaces have been added. The above to be addressed prior to the issuance of a Building Permit General Note 1: Applicant shall comply with the current Transportation Impact Fee Ordinance and fee schedule and paid prior to a Certificate of Occupancy (C.O.). Response: Acknowledged. General Note 2: DRC review is a prerequisite for Building Permit Review; additional comments may be forthcoming upon submittal of a Building Permit Application. Response: Acknowledged. PLANNING: Comment No. 1: Sheet 1A and Elevations -Building 11 -Building is 129 feet north to south. Unclear if units go all the way through from one side to the other or there are separate units on the north and south sides of the building. Advise. Response No. 1: Interior spaces within Building #11 shall be constructed to suit individual tenants. Configuration of retail spaces may be accessed from 4 sides of the building determined at the time of 12 leasing. A tenant may opt to have frontage on more than one side of the building provided entry and exits comply with FBC and Life Safety exit requirements. Comment No. 2: Unclear where the dumpster location is for Building 10 and how the trash truck access such. Response No. 2: Layout of parking area near compactor has been revised to accommodate truck access. Comment No. 3: Parking Demand Study - a. Prior to the submittal of this application, the methodology of such study was to be approved by the Community Development Coordinator, in .accordance with accepted trafFc engineering principles. With whom did you meet to determine the methodology of the Study? Planning Department is unaware of whom you met with. Response No. 3.a: FDC staff attempted to contact city staff (Paul Bertels) prior to completing the parking study. Due to time constraints between the request for the parking study and the date it had to be submitted, it was prepared similar to other parking studies submitted and approved by the City of Clearwater. The study was therefore prepared and submitted. A copy of the study was provided to the City in the submittal package and a copy was e- mailed to Mr. Himanshu Patni. Based on the discussion at the DRC meeting, it is our understanding that Planning will review the Parking Study. (Note: Copies of the Parking Study had been received previously by the Planning Department.) b. Introduction and Table 1 -You have used 74,688 sf for retail sales floor area. Plans indicate (and total) 74,728 sf. Revise. Response No. 3.b: The size of the proposed development has been reduced; the reduced size is shown in the revised site data table and is reflected in the revised Parking Demand Study. c. Relocate Exhibit C of the Application to the Parking Study. Revise the Exhibit C retail sales square footage to 74,728 square feet (not 74,688 sf). Include as part of the Shared Parking table the basis for determining the original parking, using 5 spaces/1,000 sf for retail sales floor area and 15 spaces/1,000 sf for restaurant floor area. Based on my calculations, the required parking for this project is 541 spaces. The plan provides 515 spaces, or a reduction of 26 13 spaces. Make the table look like that in Section 3-1405, where the Weekday, 6pm to 12am, parking is the highest of all other columns. Response No. 3.c: The former Exhibit "C" has been added to the Parking Study and the parking calculations have been revised to match the revised site plan. Comment No.4: 12/13/09 - WW Provide a note on the plans that the outside mechanical equipment will be located on the roofs of buildings. 12/3/09 - WW Show the location of all outside mechanical equipment and required screening. If located on the roofs of buildings, note such. Response No. 4: See note added to Elevations. Comment No. 5: Approximately 51 parking spaces are being provided on the west side and the rear of Building 10. While these spaces are counted toward meeting the amount of required parking, these spaces will be mostly unused, as most customers and employees will not park in them. Strongly recommend redesigning with no or very few parking spaces to the rear and side of Building 10. Response No. 5: This layout was obtained from a prospective user of this area. They want parking spaces located as shown. Comment No. 6: The location of outdoor light poles interfere with parking spaces (those between Bldgs. 11 ~ 12, Bldgs. 10 ~ 11 and south of Bldg. 10). Relocate into the adjacent landscape area. Coordinate with existing and proposed trees. Revise or delete Detail on Sheet 1A. Response No. 6: Detail on Sheet 1A has been revised. Light poles are now in landscape areas or in other areas that do not conflict with the 9' x 18' parking space requirement. Comment No. 7: If Parcel 1 is intended to be owned separately from Parcel 2, then need potable water easement on Parcel 1, since water systems are interconnected (prior to issuance of first Certificate of Occupancy). Response No. 7: Acknowledged. 14 Comment No. 8: 12/10/09 - WW Developer intends Option B below. 12/3/09 - VW11 The overall property is presently comprised of a total of three parcels (one large parcel and two much smaller parcels). Is the intentions of these applications to: a. join through a Declaration of Unity of Title all three existing parcels as one parcel for development purposes; or b. have two development parcels (Parcel 1 for commercial and Parcel 2 for residential) with all commercial uses only leased; or c. have a commercial parcel with multiple lots for the different tenants and one lot for residential (Parcel 2). If "a", okay. If "b", we will need to do a Division of a Lot of Record and such can be a condition of approval. If "c", then this is a plat and I need a Preliminary Plat application and Preliminary Plan sheet as part of the application package (and fee). If "a" or "b", then no parcels can be created for tax purposes with the Property Appraiser. Need to make the decisions today as to how the property is going to be "cutup" (potentially) tomorrow. Response No. 8: The applicant intends Option B and agrees to a condition of approval for a Division of a Lot of Record. Comment No. 9: 12/13/09 - WW Applicant should talk again to Pinellas County and especially Karen Seel. I don't want this coming up when the applicant wants to obtain the Pinellas County right-of-way permit. Confirm requirement or no requirement now. 12/3/09 - VW11 Based on prior discussions with County Commissioner Karen Seel when the shopping center across S. Belcher Road was proposed, the County will be requesting additional right-of-way for intersection improvements on S. Belcher Road at Gulf to Bay Blvd. Based on the proposed plans, has the additional right-of-way already been dedicated and the plans reflect such dedication. If such 15 has not been dedicated, plans should be modified to reflect such dedication that will be requested. Response No. 9: FDC staff have met with Pinellas County staff who have confirmed no right-of-way is needed in this area. Comment No. 10: BCP2007-02087 was issued February 5, 2007, for a temporary fence around the mobile home park. The permit was issued for 60 days only, but was extended two months until all mobile homes were demolished. All mobile homes have been demolished for some time. This existing temporary fencing is unsightly and it is time to remove the fence now. Based on the survey, some of this temporary fencing is also located within the public rights-of--way. Should it be desired to restrict vehicular access to this property, it is recommended to apply for a building permit for a fence that meets Code requirements (potentially posts with a chain or wire between the posts that would restrict access).. Response No. 10: The requirement for improvement of the temporary fencing is currently being discussed with Michael Delk. Comment No. 11: Sheet 1A -Provide the south property line dimension. Response No. 11: Dimensions have been added. Comment No. 12: Project is presumed to desire freestanding signage. Show the location of such freestanding signage and the proposed setback to the property line. Ensure existing and proposed landscaping does not interfere with such freestanding signage. Additionally, attached signage on all buildings is anticipated. Ensure existing and proposed landscaping does not interfere with such attached signage. Response No. 12: Per discussion with Wayne Wells, City of Clearwater, on 1/11/10, a note has been added to the landscape plan to indicate that the foundation tree planting and site landscaping will be adjusted at the time of final determination of building and site signage, during the building permitting phase. The signage will be determined by the final users of the project and this is yet to be determined/finalized and is based on market conditions. At a later date, when the tenants of the project are known, a complete sign application package will be submitted to the City. 16 Comment No. 13: Sheet 1A - 90-degree parking on the west side of Building 10 must have a drive aisle width of 24 feet (not 21 feet). Revise. Response No. 13: Drive aisle width has been revised to 24'. Comment No.14: Provide the width dimension for all sidewalks. Note that all sidewalks are a minimum of five feet wide is insufficient. There does not appear to be a sidewalk system to interconnect all commercial buildings for handicap accessibility and to the public sidewalk within the rights-of- way. Additionally, it is also unclear: a. why maybe a 5-foot wide sidewalk is provided on the north side of Building 11, but a 10-foot wide sidewalk on the south and west sides of this building; b. why there is a 13-foot wide sidewalk on the west side of Building 10; and c. why there is a sidewalk on the north side of the parking lot north of Building 11 adjacent to the "Open Space". Response No. 14: Additional sidewalks have been added to Sheet 1A and 5. Sidewalks adjacent to Building 10 areas were requested by a prospective user. Comment No. 15: Per Section 3-911, all on-site utilities must be placed underground. Additionally, existing overhead utilities within the S. Belcher Rd. right-of-way must be undergrounded with this development. Response No. 15: All on-site utilities will be placed underground. The owner is investigating the practicality of the remaining comment. Comment No. 16: Provide width dimensions for all landscape islands and lane dividers in the parking areas (may dimension all "typical" island widths, but need to dimension all non- typical island widths. Response No. 16: It is understood what the minimum island width must be to meet City code. At this time it appears that there may be sufficient area to allow some of the islands to exceed City standards, however, any islands that exceed City standards will be identified on the building permit plans, to be submitted at a later date, in order to provide some flexibility to the owner. 17 Comment No. 17: Vehicular circulation through the commercial site is confusing: a. There are two driveways providing access to this site, one on Gulf to Bay Blvd. lining up with Main Avenue and one on S. Belcher Road lining up with the main driveway to the Publix shopping center where there is an existing traffic signal. The plan for the driveway at S. Belcher Road provides a 42-foot wide by 280-foot long area for entrance and exiting lanes (for stacking of vehicles). However, the driveway on Gulf to Bay Blvd. only has 43 feet of stacking ability for vehicles entering and exiting the site at Gulf to Bay Blvd., which is inadequate, given that designed for the driveway to S. Belcher Road; Response 17.a: Driveway throat length at Gulf-to-Bay entrance has been revised. b. From the driveway on S. Belcher Road, vehicles drive westbound to an intersection point where they can turn left. to go into the attached dwelling complex or turn right to access the commercial uses. This northbound drive, however, does not align with the driveway on Gulf to Bay Blvd., thereby producing conflict points; Response 17.b: The proposed circulation plan is preferred to avoid easy cut- through traffic from Gulf-to-Bay to Belcher driveway. c. Motorists entering the site from Gulf to Bay Blvd. must almost immediately decide to turn right or left to access east/west drive aisles to the commercial buildings or continue southbound into an angular parking area (that has been designed at 30 feet wide, assumably to handle the hordes of traffic); Response 17.c: Entry configuration has been revised. d. Assuming there are commercial units on the south side of Building 11, the drive aisle to access these units is a deadend, with no place to turn around if all spaces are full. From a traffic circulation standpoint, it makes sense to connect the parking areas on the south and north sides of Building 11 by a drive aisle on the east side of the building; Response 17.d: Drive aisle configuration has been revised 18 e. Loading for Building 11 is nonfunctional. If you can get a truck in to the loading area, unclear how the truck would get out; Response 17.e: Loading area has been revised. f. Unclear why the six parking spaces in front of Building 10 are angled, as the drive aisle on the north side of the building is 28 feet wide and provides for two way traffic; Response 17.f: As stated above, layout was provided by prospective user that would like this arrangement of parking spaces. g. Approximately the same amount of lane stacking is provided for an apparent pharmacy drive-thru at Building 10 as the drive-thru lanes for the bank Building 13 (which generally the grocery store pharmacy drive-thru does not have the same demands as the bank); Response 17.g: As stated above, layout was provided by prospective user that would like this arrangement of parking spaces. h. The loading space at the northeast corner of Building 11 requires the trucks to maneuver many turns to access the loading area; and Response 17.h: Loading area location has been revised. i. A restaurant is going to have a need for delivery of products and it is unclear how trucks will access the loading area for Building 12. It is also unclear, while a loading area may not be required for Building 14, how a truck will be able to maneuver the parking lot to deliver products to this restaurant. Response No. 17.i: Aisle width now provides for truck delivery. Comment No. 18: Remove the lane divider at the driveway on Gulf to Bay Blvd that is within the ROW. Response No. 18: Entrance configuration has been revised. Comment No. 19: If this project is trying to say that a percentage of customers and employees will use transit (bus) to access this site (as stated in the Parking Demand Study), show the location of the bus stops on the plans and link internal sidewalks to these bus stops to encourage use of mass transit and to make it easier for customers and employees. 19 Response No. 19: Existing/proposed bus stops and connecting sidewalks are shown on Sheets 1 A and 5. Comment No. 20: Based on the survey, there is a 17-foot wide ingress/egress easement along the west property line in the NW corner, a 14-foot wide power distribution easement and blanket easements (ORB 4924, Pg 227 and ORB 3911, Pg 34). Are these to be vacated? Response No. 20: All existing easements will be vacated prior to issuance of first Certificate of Occupancy. Comment No. 21: Sheet 1A -Dimension the depth of required foundation landscape areas. Response No. 21: The landscape plans include a general note referencing that all foundation planting areas are to be a minimum of 5' in width. Comment No. 22: Need to coordinate the proposed height of the commercial buildings with that indicated in the Site Data Table on Sheet 1A and in the written material (Exhibit B, Section B, Description of Request) with that indicated on the building elevations (not 25 feet maximum as indicated). Response No. 22: The narrative application materials have been revised to reflect the proposed height of the project. Please see revised Exhibit "B." Comment No. 23: Sheet 1A -Revise the following Site Data Table information: a. Per the legal description for Parcel 1, containing 506,442 sf, this lot area is incorrectly noted in the Site Data Table for Proposed Lot Area (not 503,801 sf). Also revise the acreage to 11.626 acres (not 11.57 acres); Response 23.a: Revision made to comply with new legal description, lot area, etc. Please see revised Site Data Table. b. Proposed Floor Area Ratio -revise to 0.1744 (not 0.18); Response 23.b: Revision made. c. Proposed Impermeable Surface Area -revise to 75.32% (not 75.7%); and Response No. 23.c: Due to minor changes (increases) to impermeable surface the correct numbers are now shown in the Site Data Table. 20 d. Parking -Confirm number of Required spaces, based on Shared Parking calculation. The Required and Proposed parking numbers should have an asterisk or other notation included in this table referencing the reader to "Per Parking Study". Response No. 23.d: Note added. Comment No. 24: Potential condition of approval to be included in the Staff Report: That approval of this Flexible Development case is subject to the approval. of a land use amendment and rezoning (LUZ2009-12003). Response No. 24: Acknowledged and agreed. Comment No. 25: Potential condition. of approval to be included in the Staff Report: That approval of this Flexible Development case is subject to the approval of a Development Agreement with the City (Case DVA2009-00005). Response No. 25: Acknowledged and agreed. Comment No. 26: Potential condition of approval to be included in the Staff Report: That, prior to the issuance of any permits, a Division of a Lot of Record and a Declaration of Unity of Title be approved and recorded in the public records.. In addition, prior to the issuance of any permits, the owner shall record a deed creating this parcel in accordance with the Division of a Lot of Record and request the three existing parcels be combined into one parcel by the Pinellas County Property Appraiser's Office. Response No. 26: The applicant agrees to a condition of approval for a Division of a Lot of Record. A Declaration of Unity of Title must be limited to Parcel 1 area only, as Parcel 2 has a separate site data table and meets its own parking and landscaping requirements. Comment No. 27: Proposal includes a side setback and landscape buffer reduction along the proposed south property line from 10 feet to 0.8 feet at the loading "circle" SE of Building 10. Unclear why the minimum required setback and buffer cannot be met, since there isn't anything on this property presently. Staff does not support the reduction. Redesign to meet the minimum requirement. 21 Response No. 27: The Parcel 1 and Parcel the 10' buffer/setback is of Parcel 1. Comment No. 28: Elevations 1, 2 and 3 - 2 boundary line has been revised and now provided along south property line a. Provide the height of the buildings to the main, flat roof deck, all parapet height(s) and the height to the top of any architectural embellishments, such as hip-roofed "towers". For Building 12, provide the height to the midpoint of the curved upper roof. (Note: Assumed that outside mechanical equipment is located on the flat roof deck. Code requires such mechanical equipment to be screened from view from adjacent roadways and properties. It is difficult to determine if such mechanical equipment will be adequately screened if the parapet height(s) aren't shown.); and Response No. 28.a: Notation regarding parapet walls has been incorporated in elevation Drawings 1, 2 and 3 illustrating conditions for Buildings 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14. Mechanical equipment will be screened by parapets or enclosed in penthouses, except for vertical rooftop appurtenances allowed under FBC or required by NFPA 101. b. Indicate the color of the building elements, possibly through a legend, as it is difficult to see what specifically the proposed materials/colors are, based on the palette on Elevation 2. Additionally, the colors on the building don't match that of the palette on Elevation 2. Response No. 28.b: Color legend shown on Sheet Elevation 2 applies to Sheets 1, 2 and 3 of the drawings submitted with this application. Sheets 1 and 3 have been noted accordingly for CDB. While every attempt is made to replicate colors from Sherwin Williams as shown on the legend, digital scanning and printing of graphic documents will often make manufacturer's colors and pigments appear dissimilar. The applicant's intent is to unify the site through reasonable application of a unified color scheme where possible. Comment No. 29: Page 1 of the Application -Revise the Parcel Size (acres) to 11.626 acres. Response No. 29: Please see revised Exhibit "B." Comment No. 30: Exhibit B, Section B -Revise for the following: a. Paragraph 1 -Revise the Parcel 1 to 11.626 acres; 22 b. "c" -Revise the proposed height of buildings; c. "h" -There is no further subdivision of Parcel 1 being requested. Remove this from request; and d. "i" -Revise to the actual number of required parking spaces, based upon the Shared Parking calculation and the actual number of parking spaces provided. Response No. 30: Please see revised Exhibit "B." Comment No. 31: Response to General Applicability Criteria 1 -Revise for the following: a. Paragraph 1, Line 1 -The proposed FAR is 0.1744,. not 0.18; b. Paragraph 1, Lines 8 Sz 9 -Proposed height is not 25 feet; and c. Land usefzoningfuse table - There is Commercial General (CG) land use and Commercial (C) zoning to the west for the northern half of this Parcel 1. Response No. 31: Please see revised Exhibit "B." Comment No. 32: Response to General Applicability Criteria 2 - a. The Request. and Development Agreement do not mention that the landscape buffering along Gulf to Bay Blvd. and S. Belcher Rd. are proposed to be increased from 15 to 25 feet.. If this is part of the request, need to revise to include this greater design feature; b. A pocket. park with a public art feature at the intersection is not indicated on the plans or in the Development Agreement. If this is part of the proposal, need to include this. Unclear as to the proposed location for this pocket park with a public art feature. Recommend rather to locate such a pocket park with a public art feature internally so that the restaurants could use such for outdoor cafes, with a public art incorporated, so that patrons of the property could enjoy such art while shopping and dining. Unclear what "public" is going to such a pocket park as presently intended with no amenities, as there is no design to such area; and c. Paragraph 2 -Based on the table in Criteria 1 and aerial maps, the car dealership parking lot is adjacent to this proposed commercial development. No detached dwelling lots abut this Parcel 1. Discussion regarding increased setbacks to mitigate impacts is not applicable. 23 Response No. 32: There is an open space area for a pocket park located within the northeast corner of the site. The applicant intends to have discussions with the City at a future time about whether a display of public art on the applicant's property at this location may be acceptable to the Public Art Design Board. Exhibit "B" was revised to remove reference to the public art feature at this time since those discussions have .not yet occurred. The area will continue to be an open space and "pocket park" area within the property. Comment No. 33: Response to General Applicability Criteria 4 -Discussion is regarding off-site impacts.. On-site, proposed design creates traffic flow issues. Response No. 33: Please see revised Exhibit "B." Comment No. 34: Response to General Applicability Criteria 5 -Explain, HOW, in detail this proposal meets this criteria. Response No. 34 Please see revised Exhibit "B." Comment No. 35: Response to General Applicability Criteria 6 - a. See discussion regarding the pocket park and public art under Response to General Applicability Criteria 2; b. Last .sentence regarding trash -This is singular in language. There are five trash collection areas proposed; c. Could address what is proposed as buffering between the proposed commercial on Parcel 1 and the residential uses on Parcel 2; and d. Discuss hours of operation impacts. Response No. 35 Please see revised Exhibit "B." Comment No. 36: Plans should indicate that existing driveways on Gulf to Bay Blvd. and S. Belcher Rd. not being re-used will be removed and upright curbing and sidewalks constructed in their place. Response No. 36: Notes to that effect (three) are shown on Sheet 5 along with a statement that the repairs will be made in accordance with FDOT approval. Comment No. 37: Response to Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project Criteria 1 - a. Setbacks -This is proposed as one lot -Parcel 1. At this time, there is no further subdivision proposed. There is no deviation necessary or requestable at this time for some 24 potential (or not) future action relating to further subdivision of Parcel 1. There is no mention regarding the setback reduction to the south property line for the loading turn-around pavement SE of Building 10, which Staff is not supportive of; b. Parking -The Shared Parking Analysis should not be Exhibit C to the application, but should be included as part of the Parking Study. Confirm the number of required and provided parking spaces; c. Access to Arterial -You reference Section 2-704(0)2. Since the request is for both retail sales and restaurants, where such restriction of access is applicable to both uses, change the reference to Sections 2-704.N.2 and 2-704.0.2. Revise discussion to include restaurants (not just retail sales); and d. Height -Need to discuss increase to height request. Response No. 37: Please see revised Exhibit "B." Comment No. 38: Response to Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project Criteria 4 - a. To the west is not a residential subdivision. The car dealership parking/display lot is adjacent to the west; b. This is the commercial request on Parcel 1. The office development at the NE corner of S. Belcher Rd. and Druid Rd. is not across from Parcel 1; c. Land use/zoning/use table - There is Commercial General (CG) land use and Commercial (C) zoning to the west for the northern half of this Parcel 1; d. The Request and Development Agreement do not mention that the landscape buffering along Gulf to Bay Blvd. and S. Belcher Rd. are proposed to be increased from 15 to 25 feet. If this is part of the request, need to revise to include this greater design feature; e. A pocket park with a public art feature at the intersection is not indicated on the plans or in the Development Agreement. If this is part of the proposal, need to include this. Unclear as to the proposed location for this pocket park with a public art feature. Recommend rather to locate such a pocket park with a public art feature internally so that the restaurants could use such for outdoor cafes, with a public art incorporated, so that patrons of the property could enjoy such art while shopping and dining. Unclear what "public" is going to such a pocket park as presently intended with no amenities, as there is no design to such area; and 25 f. Paragraph 3 -Based on the table included in this Criterion and aerial maps, the car dealership parking lot is adjacent to this proposed commercial development. No detached dwelling lots abut this Parcel 1. Discussion regarding increased setbacks to mitigate impacts is not applicable. Response No. 38: Please see revised Exhibit "B." See Response No. 32 re pocket park feature. Comment No. 39: Response to Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project Criteria 6 - a. "b" -The request is asking for a height increase and, so far, is not proposing to increase the landscape buffer along the streets to 25 feet (but the request could be modified to request such if that is what is desired); and b. "c" -Unclear why this location has been identified as "part of the gateway to the City" as this is not at an "entry" to the city. See discussion regarding proposed landscaping and the pocket park under General Applicability Criteria 2. Revise. Response No. 39: Please see revised Exhibit "B." Comment No. 40: If there are any thoughts about creating parcels for taxing and charging maintenance costs out to the different commercial buildings, this constitutes a subdivision of this Parcel 1. It does not appear that the applicant is wanting to file a subdivision plat at this time. Please be aware that Section 3-1910.D has been added to the Code, which states "When new subdivisions are being developed at locations where reclaimed water will be available within seven (7) years from the issuance of the development order, the developer shall provide internal reclaimed water systems that are constructed to City specifications." It appears that it is the City's intent to have reclaimed water available along Druid Road (at what time frame I am unsure). Contact Rob Maue in Engineering (562-4827) regarding reclaimed water availability. A condition of approval may be included in the Staff Report requiring such reclaimed water system should such subdivision be desired in the future. Response No. 40: Acknowledged. 26 Comment No. 41: Traffic Study - It is noted that the square footage of commercial uses in 1.0 Introduction does not include the 5,600 square-foot restaurant (Building 14), the supermarket is 30,188 square feet (not 40,000 sf), the 92,500 square feet commercial floor area is greater than the 88,328 square feet shown on the submitted plans and there are only 243 units proposed (not 260 units). Response No. 41: The Traffic Study was prepared prior to the finalization of the site plan and intentionally studied slightly more development than is shown on the site plan. Comment No. 42: Sheet 8 -Need to show wheel stops on the "Typical Single Handicapped Stall" and the "Typical Double Handicapped Stall". Response No. 42: Detail has been revised. OTHER: No Comments 1/15/2010 9:52 AM 45497.116337 FLD2009-12046 - 2165 Gulf to Bay Blvd JP Letter.DOC 27 z: ~ ~' -~ Planning Department 100 South Myrtle Avenue ' ~ ~~ ~~ Clearwater, Florida 33756 ~~ - Telephone:727-562-4567 . .,. - , ,, _ .. Fax: 727-562-4865 O SUBMIT ORIGINAL SIGNED AND NOTARIZED APPLICATION ^ SUBMIT 14 COPIES OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION -Plans and application are n:quired to be collated, stapled, and folded into sets ^ SUBMIT FIRE PREUMARY SITE PLAN: $200.00 CASE #: RECEIVED BY (staff initials): DATE RECEIVED: ^ SUBMIT APPLICATION FEE $ * DOTE: 15 TOTAL SETS OF INFORMATION REQUIRED (APPLICATIONS PLUS SITE PLAN SETS) FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project (Revised 07/11/2008)- - PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT A. APPLICANT, PROPERTY OWNER AND AGENT INFORMATION: (Code Section 4-202.A) APPLICANT NAME: 1JTCl~, PLATE PROPEI~TES ~ INC • ~ a Florida corporation MAILING ADDRESS: 1414 Wept SWarin, Suite. 150, Tampa, FL 33606 _ PHONE NUMBER: 813-579-2014 FAX NUMBER: g13-835-4197 CELL NUMBER EMAIL: PROPERTY OWNER(S): NICI~L PLATE PRUPEI~t'IES, INC. , a Florida corporatioa~ Ust ALL owners on the deed I,Z1I~'.SIDE EN'.L'ERPRISES,. L. L..C. , . a Florida COrpOratlOQl E. , it AGENT NAME: Jchnson~ POpe, BOl{Or, l~.ippel & Burns,. L ~, MAILING ADDRESS: 911 CllestriUt.5treet, C].earinlater, FL 33 PHONE NUMBER: 727-461-1818 FAX NUMBER: ~i CELL NUMBER: EMAIL: B. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT INFORMATION: (Code Section 4202.A) PROJECT NAME: I.alCeslde at Clearwater PROJECT VALUATION: $ 11.3 mi.llicn, STREET ADDRESS 2165 t~i1f-to-Bay Boulevard PARCEL NUMBER(S): 13-29-15-00000-410-0100, 13-29-15-00000-410-0200 and - PARCEL SIZE (acxes): 11. fi37 acres E are a )• 50~ , 892 sg. ft. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Ste Exhl.blt "Ar' attached. PROPOSED USE(S): 70 , 212 square feet of retail sales and service and 12 , 787 feet of restaurant ~~. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: $~ EXhlhlt ..°Brr dttaChed. Spedfically identify the request (indude number of units or square footage ofnon-residential use and all requested code deviations; e.g. reduction in required number of parking spaces, spedfic use, etc.) C:\Documents and Settings\derek.ferguson\Desktop\planning dept forms 0708\Comprehensive Infill Project (FLD) 2008 07-11.doc Page 1 of8 DOES THIS APPLICATION INVOLVE THE TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS (TDR), A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PLANNED UNI DEVELOPMENT, OR A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED (CERTIFIED) SITE PLAN? YES _ NO ~ (if yes, attach a copy of the applicable documents) C. PROOF OF OWNERSHIP: (Code Section 4202.A.5) ^ SUBMIT A COPY OF THE TITLE INSURANCE POLICY, DEED TO THE PROPERTY OR SIGN AFFIDAVIT ATTESTING OWNERSHIP (see page 7) D. ^ t. WRITTEN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: (Code Section 3 913.A) Provide complete responses to the six (8) GENERAL APPLICABILITY CRITERIA -Explain how each criteria is achieved, in detail: The proposed development of the land will be in harmony with the scale, bulk, coverage, density and character of adjacent properties in which it is located. em ~,; it rr$n at+-a..h~ fr,r r,adrr~nc~ to~itPria 1. through 6 2. The proposed development will not hinder or discourage the appropriate development and use of adjacent land and buildings or significantly, impair the value thereof. 3. The proposed development will not adversely affect the health. or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed use. 4. The proposed development is designed to minimize traffic congestion. 5. The proposed development is consistent with the community character of the immediate vidnity of the parcel proposed for development. 6. The design of the proposed development minimizes adverse effects, inducting visual, acoustic and olfactory and hours of operation impacts, on adjacent properties. C:~Documents and Setfingslderek.ferguson~Desktoplplanning dept forms 0708\Comprehensive Infill Project (FLD) 2008 O7-tl.doc Page 2 of 8 WRITTEN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: (Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project Criteria) ^ Provide complete responses to the six (ti) COMPREHENSIVE INFILL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT CRITERIA -Explain how each kxiteria is achieved, in detail: 1. The development or redevelopment is otherwise impractical without deviations from the use and/oc-development standards set forth in this zoning district. Exh twit "B" att~~hed for resnort~~s to Criteria 1 th_roucrh 6 . 2. The development or redevelopment will be consistent with the goals and polices of the Comprehensive Plan, as well as with the general purpose, intent and basic planning objectives of this Code, and with the intent and purpose of this zoning di;trict 3. The development or redevelopment will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding properties. 4. Adjoining properties will not suffer substantial detriment as a result of the proposed development 5. The proposed use shall otherwise be pernitted by the underlying future land use category, be compatible with adjacent land uses, will not substantially alter the essential use characteristics of the neighbofiood; and shall demonstrate compliance with one or more of the following objectives: a. The proposed use is permitted in this coning district as a minimum standard, flexible standard or flexible development use; b. The proposed use would be a significant economic contributor to the City's economic base by diversifying the local economy or by creating pbs; c. The development proposal accommodates the expansion or redevelopment of an existing economic contributor, d. The proposed use provides for the provision of affordable housing; e. The proposed use provides for development or redevelopment in an area that is characterized by other similar development and where a land use plan amendment and rezoning would result in a spot land use or zoning designation; or f. The proposed use provides for the development of a new and/or preservation of a working waterfront use. 6. Flexibility with regard to use, tot width, required setbacks, height and off-street parking are justified based on demonstrated compliance with all of the following design objectives: a. The proposed development will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding properties for uses permitted in this zoning district; b. The proposed development complies with applicable design guidelines adopted by the City; c. The design, scale and intensity of the proposed development supports the established or emerging character of an area; d. In order to form a cohesive, visually interesting and atVactive appearance, the proposed development incorporates a substantial number of the following design elements: ^ Changes in horizontal building planes; ^ Use of architectural details such as columns, cornices, stringcourses, pilasters; porticos, balconies, railings, awnings, etc.; ^ Variety in materials, colors and textures; ^ Distinctive fenestration patterns; ^ Building stepbadcs; and ^ Distinctive roofs forms. e. The proposed development provides for appropriate buffers, enhanced landscape design and appropriate distances between buildings. C:~Documents and SettingsWerek.fergusonlDesktop~planning dept forms 0708\Compn~hensive Infill Project (FLD) 2008 07-11.doc Page 3 of 8 E. STORMWATER PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: (City of Clearwater Storm Drainage Design Criteria Manual and 4-202.A.21) ^ A STORMWATER NARRATIVE MUST BE SUBMITTED WITH ALL APPLICATIONS. All applications that involve addition or modification of impervious surface, including buildings, must include a stormwater plan that. demonstrates compliance with the City of Clearwater Storm Drainage Design Criteria manual. A reduction in impervious surface area does not qualify as an exemption to this requirement ^ if a plan is not required, the narrative shall provide an explanation as to why the site is exempt D At a minimum, the STORMWATER PLAN shall include the following; ^ Existing topography extending 50 feet beyond all property lines; O Proposed grading including finished floor elevations of all structures; ^ All adjacent streets and municlpal stone systems; ^ Proposed stomtwater detentioNretenGon area including top of bank; toe of slope and outlet control structure; ^ A narrative describing the proposed stormwater control plan including all calculations and data necessary to demonstrate compliance-with the City manual. ^ Proposed stonnwater detentioNretention area including top of bank, toe of slope and outlet control structure; ^ Signatun: and seal of Florida Registered Professional Engineer on all plans and calculations. O COPY OF PERMIT dNOUIRY LETTER OR SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT (SWFWMD) PERMIT SUBMITTAL (SWFWMD approval is required prior to issuance of City Building Permit), if appligble ^ ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF STORMWATER PLAN REQUIREMENTS (Applicant must tnitiai one of the following): X Stormwater plan as noted above is included Stormwater plan is not required and explanation narrative is attached. At a minimum, a grading plan and finished floor elevations shall be provided. CAUTION - IF APPLICATION REVIEW RESULTS IN THE REQUIREMENT FOR A STORMWATER PLAN AND NONE HAS BEEN SUBMITTED, APPLICATION MUST BE RESUBMITTED AND SIGNIFICANT DELAY MAY OCCUR. If you have questions regarding these requirements, coMad the City Public Works Administration Engineering Department at (727) 562-4750. F. SUPPLEMENTAL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: (Code Section 4-202.A) ^ SIGNED AND SEALED SURVEY (including legal description of property) -One original and 14 copies; ^ TREE SURVEY (including existing trees on site and within 25' of the adjacent site, by spades, size (DBH 4" or greater), and location, including drip lines and indicating trees to be removed) -please design around the existing trees; ^ TREE INVENTORY; prepared by a "certified arborist', of all trees 4" DBH or greater, reflecting size, canopy (drip tines) and condition of such trees, ^ LOCATION MAP OF THE PROPERTY; ^ PARKING DEMAND STUDY in conjunction with a request to make deviations to the parking standards (ie. Reduce number of spaces). Prior to the submittal of this applicetion, the methodology of such study shall be approved by the Community Development Coordinator and shall be in accordance with accepted traffic engineering princlples. The findings of the study will be used in determining whether or not deviations to the parking standards are approved; ^ GRADING PLAN, as applicable; ^ PRELIMINARY PLAT, as required (Note: Building permits will not be issued until evidence of recording a final plat is provided); ^ COPY OF RECORDED PLAT, as applicable; C:1Documents and SettingsWerek.fergusonlDesktoplplanning dept forms 07081Comprehensive Infill Project (FLD) 2008 07-T1.doc Page 4 of 8 G. SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: (Section 4-202.A) ^ SITE PLAN with the following information (not to exceed 24' x 36'x: Index sheetrefen:hdng individual sheets included in package; North crow; Engineering bar scale (minimum state one inch equals 50 feet), and date prepared; All dimensions.; Footprint and size of all EXISTING buildings and structures; Footprint and size of all PROPOSED buildings and structures; All required setbacks; All existing and proposed points of access; All required sight triangles; Identification of environmentally unique areas, such as watercourses, wetlands, tree masses, and speclmen trees, including description and location of understory, ground cover vegetation and wildlife habitats, etc; Location of all public and private easements; Location of all street rights-of-way within and adjacent to the site; , Location of existing public and private utilities, including fire hydrants, stortm and sanitary sewer lines, manholes and lift stations, gas _ and water lines; All parking spaces, driveways, loading areas and vehicular use areas, Depiction by shading or crosshatching of all required parking lot interior landscaped areas; Location of all solid waste containers, recycling or trash handling areas and outside mechanical equipment and all required screening {per Section 3-201(D)(i) and Index ff701 }; Location of all landscape material; Location of all onsite and offsite storm-water management faclities; Location of all outdoor lighting fixtures; Location of all existing and proposed sidewalks; anti Floor plan typicals of buildings for all Level Two approvals. A floor plan of each floor is required for any parking garage requiring a Level Two approval. ^ SITE DATA TABLE for existing, required, and proposed development, in writtenttabular form: EXISTING REQUIRED PROPOSED _ Land area in square feet and acres; _ Number of EXISTING dwelling units; _ Number of PROPOSED dwelling units; _ Gross floor area devoted to each use; Parking spaces: total number, presented in tabular forth with the number of required spaces; Total paved area, including all paved parking spaces ~ driveways, _ expressed in square feet & percentage of the paved vehicular area; Official records book and page numbers of all existing utility _ easement; Building and structure heights; _ impermeable surface ratio (I.S.R.); and Floor area ratio (F.A.R.) for all nonresidential uses. ^ REDUCED COLOR SITE PLAN to scale (8 %: X 11); ^ FOR DEVELOPMENTS OVER ONE ACRE, provide the following additional information on site plan: One-foot contours or spot elevations on site; Otfsite elevations if required to evaluate the proposed stormwater management for the parcel; All open space areas; Location of all earth or water retaining walls and earth berms; Lot lines and building lines (dimensioned); Streets and drives {dimensioned); Building and structural setbadks (dimensioned); Structural ovefiangs; C:~Documents and Seltingslderek.fergusoMDesktaplplanning dept forms 07081Comprehensive Infill Project (FLD) 2008 07-11.doc Page 5 of 8 ~ ~ H. LANDSCAPING PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: (Section 4-1102.A) ^ LANDSCAPE PLAN with the following information (not to exceed 24" x 367: All existing and proposed strudures; Names of abutting streets; Drainage and retention areas induding swales; side slopes and bottom elevations; Delineation and dimensions of all required perimeter landscape buffers; Sight visibility triangles; Delineation and dimensions of all parking areas induding landscaping islands and cubing; Existing trees on-site and immediately adjacent to the site, by spades, size and locations, induding driplines (as indicated on required _ tree survey); Location, size, and quantities of all existing and proposed landscape materials, indicated by a key relating to the plant schedule; Plant schedule with a key (symbol or label) indicating the size, description, spedfications, quantities, and spadng requirements of all existing and proposed landscape materials, induding botanical and common names; Typical planting details for trees, palms, shrubs and ground cover plants induding instrudions, soil mixes, badtfilling, mulching and _ protedive measures; Interior landscaping areas hatched and/or shaded and labeled. and interior landscape coverage, expressing in both square feet and percentage covered; Conditions of a previous development approval (e.g. conditions imposed by the Community Development Board); irigation notes. ^ REDUCED COLOR LANDSCAPE PLAN to scale (8'/: X 11); ^ COMPREHENSIVE LANDSCAPE PROGRAM application, as applicable. Landscape assodated with the Comprehensive Landscape Program shall exceed minimum Code requirements to offset the areas where minimum Code will not be mel I. BUILDING ELEVATION PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: (Section 4202.A.23) ^ BUILDING ELEVATION DRAWINGS -with the following information: All sides of all buildings Dimensioned Colors (provide one full sized set of colored elevations) Materials ^ REDUCED BUILDING ELEVATIONS -same as above to scale on 8 %: X 11 J. SIGNAGE: (Division 1S. SIGNS /Section 3-1806) ^ All F~CISTING freestanding and attached signs; Provide photographs and dimensions (area, height, eta), indicate whether they will be removed or to remain. ^ Ali PROPOSED freestanding and attached signs; Provide details induding location, size, height, colors, materials and drawing; freestanding signs shall indude the street address (numerals) ^ Comprehensive Sign Program application, as applicable (separate application and fee required). ^ Reduced signage proposal (8'/: X 11) (color), if submitting Comprehensive Sign Program application. C:~Documents and Settingslden:k.ferguson\Desktoplplanning dept forms 0708\Comprehensive Infill Projed (FLD) 2008 07.11.doc Page 6 of 8 K. TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY: (Section 4-202.A.13 and 4-801.C) Indude ff required by the Traffic Operations Manager or hisfier designee or if the proposed development: • Will degrade the acceptable level of service for any roadway as adopted in the Comprehensive Plan. • Will generate 100 or more new vehide directional trips per hour and/or 1000 or more new vehide traps per day. ^ Will affect a nearby roadway segment and/or intersection with five (5) reportable accdents within the prior twelve (12) month period or that is on the City's annual list of most hazardous intersections. Trip generation shall be based on the most recent edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineer's (ITE) Trip General Manual. The Traffic Impact Study must be prepared. m accordance with a `Scoping Meeting" held with the Traffic Operations Manager and the Planning Department's Development Review Manager or their designee (727-562-4750) Refer to Section 4-801 C of the Community Development Code for exceptions to this requirement. Acknowledgement of traffic impact study requirements (Applipnt must initial one of the following): X Traffic Impact Study is inducted. The study must indude a summary table of pre- and post-development levels of service for all ~_ roadway legs and each fuming movement at ail intersections identified in the Scoping Meeting. Traffic Impact Study is not required. CAUTION - IF APPLICATION REVIEW RESULTS IN THE REQUIREMENT FOR A TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY AND NONE HAS BEEN SUBMITTED, APPLICATION MUST BE RESUBMITTED AND SIGNIFICANT DELAY MAY OCCUR. If you have questions regarding these requirements, contact the City Public Works Administration Engineering Department at (727) 562- 4750. L. FIRE FLOW CALCULATIONS/ WATER STUDY: Provide Fire Flow Calculations. Water Study by a FIRE PROTECTION ENGINEER to assure an adequate water supply is available and to determine if any upgrades are required by the developerdue to the impact of this project. The water supply must be able to support the needs of any required fire sprinkler, standpipe and/or fire pump. If a fire pump is required the water supply must be able to supply 150% of its rated capacity. Compliance with the 2004 Florida Fire Prevention Code to indude NFPA 13, MFPA 14, NFPA 20, NFPA 291, and MFPA 1142 (Annex H) is required. ^ Acknowledgement of fire flow caiculations/water study requirements (Applicant must initial one of the following): Fire Flow Calculations/Water Study is inducted. L~ Fire Flow Calculations/Vllater Study is not required. CAUTION - IF APPLICATION REVIEW RESULTS IN THE REQUIREMENT FOR A FIRE FLOW CALCULATIONS/ WATER STUDY AND NONE HAS BEEN SUBMITTED, APPLICATION MUST BE RESUBMITTED AND SIGNIFICANT DELAY MAY OCCUR. If you have questions regarding these requirements, contact the City Fire Prevention Department at (727) 562-4334. M. SIGNATURE: I, the undersigned, acknowledge that all representations made in this application are true and accurate to the best of my knowledge and authorize City representatives to visit and photograph the property descxibed in this application. JOfINSON, POPE, BOKORy$UPPEL & BUFd~TS.~T~ ( ~ Signatur~-6f property owner or representative Steven A. Williamson, Esquire STATE OF FLORIDA, COUNTY OF PINEt1A,S Swom ~to andsybscribed before me this ~~11 day of l.Y' , A.D. 20~to me and/or by SteVeri A yai 1 1 i ~~n ,who is personally known~5 ~ ~d 7lrlCr P ~~• ~+ N ry pu c, My commission expires: „„,,,,, ~.rttc:r~.. JA1fIJEE.SEARS September 2, X013 C:1Documents and Settingslderek.ferguson~Desktop~planning dept forms Page 7 of 8 ~,~,. CITY OF CLEARWATER ~!- ..AFFIDAVIT TO AUTHORIZE AGENT yq~"= o~ PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADMINISTRATION ~A ~~' MiJNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING, 100 SOUT~i MYRTLE AVENUE. 2a° FLOOR PHONE (T27)-562-4567 FAX (T27) 562-4576 -1~TIC'I~Lr PLATE PIES, INC. , a Florida corporation (Name oraY property owners) 1. That (I am/we are) the owner(s) and record- title holder(s) of the following described property: 2165 Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard Parcel No: 13-29-15-00000-410-0100 (Address ar General toeation) . ~. -That this property constitutes the property for which a request fora: Rezoning, ~ land use plan amenc~iient, develclanent agreemF.a7t application, flexible development application and residential infill application. (Nature of request) . .~ 3. That the undersigned (has/have) appointed and (does/do) appoint E. D. Armstrong- .III, Esquire, and Johnson, Pepe, Bokor, Koppel & Burns, TTP as (hisAheir) agent(s) to execute any petitions or otirer documents necessary to affect such petition; 4. That this affidavit has been executed to induce the City of Clearwater, Florida to consider and.act on the above described property; 5. That (1/we), the undersigned authority, hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. NIC[CEI, P IE:S, INC. P Property B. Ingersoll STATI3.OF FLORIDA, President ..COUNTY OF PINELLAS Before me the and rr~~ rre~ed, an ofncer duly commissio by the 1 of the S e, Florida, on this e~ 0 ~`~ day of No~zember ~U~ypersonaNy appeared ~~ B-4~~1~ who Having been first duly swum deposes and says that he/she.fuUy understands the contents of the affidavit that helshe sgned. *as President of Nickel~Plate Properties, Inc.., a Florida corporation, on behalf of the My Commission Expires: corporation S: application forms/development review/Affidavit m Autiarize Agent ~, Notary Public :~~s ,lAYNE E. SEARS '•; ..: Commission # DD 907040 'Expires September 2, 2013 '`~ .n ..~~` 8adedThuTrorFahMuaratGOJ85~70f9 ~,,~ CITY OF CLEARWATER ,,l ~ _ AFFIDAVIT TO AUTHORIZE AGENT 9 : ~~~~ IvIU1~TISERVIllCES BBUILDII1V~G, 100 SOUTHCMYRTLE AVENUS E~ FLOOR PHONE (727j-562-4567 FAX (727) 562-4576 LAIOJSIDE EI~TrERPR23E.S, L.L.C., a Florida limited .liabili:ty cartpany (Name of aA properly owners) 1. That (I am/we are) the owner(s) and record tifie holder(s) of the following described property: Parcel No. 13-29-15-00000-410-0200 13-29-I5-00000-410-0300 (Address or General location) 2. That this property constitutes the property for which a request fora: t~zoning, land use plan .amendment; develo~Ilent agreerrl~nt application, flexible developirnnt application and residential infill.application. (Nature or request) 3. That the undersigned- (has/have) appointed and (does/do) appoint E. D. Armstrong III, F.sguire, and Johnson, Pope, ]3akor, Puppel & Burns, LLP as (hisRheir) agent(s) to exewte any petitions or other document necessary to atred such petition: ~4. That this affidavit has been- executed to induce the City of Clearwater, Florida to consider and act on .the above described property; 5. That (I/we), the undersigned authority, hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. I;AI~'.SID , L.L.C. . P ___1 Pra~nr B. Ingersoll STATE OF FLORIDA, l~nager COUNTY OF PINF.LI.AS . Before me the un~gr~~gned, an officer duly comet t ed byte of the of Fbrida, on this pt Q ~ day of 1JoVember , ZUlky personally appeared ~~~ $• ~~~~ who having been first duly sworn deposes and says that he/she fully understands the contents of the affidavit that he/she sgned. *as Manager of Lakeside Q Enterprises, L.L.C., a Florida limited 1,i_ability Notary Public My Commission Expi s: coit~any, . on ~ehalf of the . y """~; dAYNE E. SEARS S: application fonnsJdevelopment review/Affidavit fA Authorize Agent ?~ .w :~ Cornlrussion # DD 907040 - Expires Septembef 2, 2013 BadedTlwTwyfainlrouraiw!003857018 EXHIBIT "A" ' ~ Page 1 of 4 ..-..L.....n J: \3z9\uota \uwga\w \ozysu. VVMMCRId/~bJL.aT.av./ vvn v.., --~- - ~------- THIS IS tLQI A SURVEY ERE MAY BE ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS AFFECTING THIS PROPERTY THAT AY BE FOUND IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF THIS COUNTY. IS LEGAL DESCRIPTION AND SKETCH WAS PREPARED WITHOUT THE BENEFlT f A TITLE POLICY. BEARINGS ARE BASED UPON: SEE SKETCH AND LEGAL DESCRIPTION LEGAL DESCRIPTION: PARCEL Z A paroel of land being a portion of the Northeast I/4 of the Southeasl 1/4 of Section 13, Townahlp articularly described as follows: more i b p e ng 29 South, Range 15 Eaat, Pinellas County, Florida, COMMENCE at the Northeast corner of the Northeast I/4 of the Southeast I/4 of Section 13, Townchip 9' S00 l f s i a n he basEs iega this for bearings of tell/4 CofniSectlonidl3 t(being e e o ~ Southeaa th of l/4 Northeast for 667.81 feet to the point o1 intersection with an Easterly extenalon of the West deacriptlon) blic P th , u e Right-of-Way Ilne of BELCHER ROAD, according to Official Reoords Book 4564, Page 155 of as No i Righ~-ot-Way Weat the eaaldgEoaterlyEextenelon of nalon °17'51"W FN8 C t i n f g , 9 l3, Sec ion of l/4 Southeost and said West Right-of-Way Ilne of BELCHER ROAD, respectively, for b0.01 feet of BELCHER ROAD Il f , ne to the POINT OF BEGINNING; thence the ioliowing two courses along sold West Right-of-Way line o arallel with sold Eaet f and t t W ' " p o es W, along a Ilne 50.00 fee 08 BELCHER ROAD; (I) thence N00°09 f the Southeast I/4 of Seotion 13, for 577.05 feet; (2) thence leaving t I/4 o line of the Northeae 00 feet West of and parallel with the East Ilne of the Northeaet I/4 01 the Southeast said Ilne 50 S th . ou I/4 of Secflon 13, N48°38'29"W, for 62.35 feet to the point of intersection with the artment of Traneportatlon Rlght-of-Way ida De Fl t p or o Right-ot-Woy Ilea of STATE ROAD 60, according dated February 23, 1960; thence leaving sold Weai Rlght-of-Way Ilne of BELCHER ROAD, 15040-2501 Ma f th , p o N69°22'20"W, along acid South Right-ot-Way of STATE ROAD 60, same being a Ilne 50.00 feet Sou for 13 ti S , on ec and parallel with the North Ilne of sold Northeast I/4 of the Southeast I/4 of e of shot certain property as described in t Ti E n as 770.94 feet to the point of Interaectlon with the e 329 of the Public Records of Pinellas County, Fiorido; thence leaving aald Pa k 1016 B g , oo Deed South Right-ot-Wcy Ilne of STATE ROAD 60, S00°40'59"W, along said Eoet Ilne of that certain property f sold oertaln c orner o as described In Deed Book 1016, Paga 329, for 616.65 feet to the Southeast 62 feet to the point for 310 S69°18'02"E . , property os desorlbed in Deed Book 1016, Page 329; thence ave Northerly; thence Easterly along the arc of sold of Interaectlon with a non-tangent curve, oono having a radius of 6b,50 feet, a oentral angle of 32°15'51"W , curve, tram o radial bearing of S an arc length of 72.17 feet, and a chord bearing S89°18'02"E for 68.57 feet to the point 63°07'45" , of (ntersectlon with a non tangent Ilne; thence S89°18'02"E, for 447.45 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Containing 506,892 square feet or 11.637 acres, more or lase. Error of closure: 0.004 feet (JEB) NOTE, THE GEOMETRY PERTAINING TO THE PARCEL OF LAND BEING DESCRIBED HEREIN (THE DESCRIPTION) IS SOLELY BASED UPON A BOUNDARY NUMBER 2009-0007, 1 AN ACCURATE FIELD BOUNDARY SURVEY E ORD DO UMENTS A9 NOTEDEHEREIN ANND ISASUBJECT ~T0 R 1C E G AND R 2009 l3 DATED PREPARED FDR: LAKESIDE AT CLEARWATER SHEET DESCRIPTION: NORTH COMMERCIAL PARCEL scA~E: DATE: DRAWN: CALLED: a~ECICED: SEE SHEET 1 FOR LEGAL DESCRIPTION NONE 10/7/09 JEB JEB JEB ~~ SEE SHEET 2 FOR SKETCH /09-CHANGE SHEET DESCRIPTION (JEB) REVISION 1-11/9 JOB No.: EPN: SECTION: TOWNSHIP: RANGE: , REVISION 2-01/8/10-REVISED PARCEL GEOMETRY (JEB) 2009-07 329 13 29S 15E NOT VALID WITHOUT THE SIGNATURE LORIDA AND T O V U I A FLORIDA DES/GN CONSULTANTS, INC. R AND MAPPER. EY S R D LICEN E ENGINEERS, ENVIRONMENTALISTS ~j SURVEYORS B PLANNERS 1~ 3030 SI°rk°q Blvd. New Por) Rlch°y, Florida 34655 DAVID WILLIAM Mcl) (727) e4s-7sse PROFESSIONAL SURVEYOR AND MAPPER Certificate of Authorization: LB 6707 LIC A 40 O UO FE State of Florida RID FL STATE ® Copyright 2009 florid° Design Consultants, Inc. Drawings and concepts may not be us°d or reproouceo xanouc wnuan pcnni°°~~,,. .r, . ~- • ._~ - ~' i I EXHIBIT "A" Page 2 of 4 0.ewL.nnn J: \SZU\UOto\uwgs\w ~~~y~u I.VMMGRUIN..~.~~.~..y __ v.... , -_._ _ -_-___.._ , Tins Is ~S2I a suRV~r THERE MAY BE ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS AFFECTING THIS PROPERTY THAT MAY BE FOUND IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF THIS COUNTY. IS LEGAL DESCRIPTION AND SKETCH WAS PREPARED WITHOUT THE BENEFlT F A TITLE POLICY. EARINGS ARE BASED UPON: SEE SKETCH AND LEGAL DESCRIPTION - - - N DC N CAR of E 50.00' STATE ROAD 80 THE NE i/4 OF r N LINE NE 1/4 OF SE i/4 OF SEC 13-29S-15E - - - - - - - - - THE SE 1/4 OF S R/W STATE ROAD 80 (FOOT 15040-2501 SEC 13-29S-16E N89'22'20"W 770.94' 0 100 200 N48'38'29"W 62.35' W R/W •BELCHER ROAD r~ ~ (ORB 4584. PO 155) b0,00' r ~I ~I .t 1/2 OF TH£ NE 1/4 ~ ~ n rwi,~ ~ OF THE SE 1 /a OF ~~'" rn O ,d. ~ LEl~@L o~ ~ ~ SEC 13-29S-15E ~ ~ a ~ SUBJECT PROPERTYs ~ m ~ ~~ m S o ~? coR = co~F x '° 506,892 SQ FT, OR w ~ ~ ~ s 11.837 AC, MOL U ~ z ENT OF `O T ~ D B . DEPAR N OT = FLORID F O iRANSPORTATKNJ .~ 0 I w 4 `~ ° 3 3 , 0 o RIGHT-OF-WAY ~iM ~ W e ~ ~ pl ~j- o Fi =FEET o z Os ~ 00 0 ~ o.. ~'O RADIUS=65.50 o g of W ~ ua - uoRE oR LESS ORB = OFRCIAL RECORDS BOOK w ~ LENGTH=72.17 ~ 3 z o g ~ o ~ ~ o PB a PLAT BOOK O CHORD=68.57 a Poe -POINT OF BEGINNNG voi CHORD BEARING=S$9'18'02"E Z ~ ~~ ~ d °° POC =POINT OF COtIt1E1tCEL1ENi ' " o: ~ RAD =RADIAL DELTA=63'07 45 ~ " 3 z J~ RADIAL BEARING=S32'15 51 W ~ R/W =RIGHT-of-wnr sE coR SEC =SECTION POB 3 p ... SO = SQUARE DB 1018, PG 329 1 ' I ' ' " ' " ~ E 447.45 E 310.62 S89'18 02 S89'18 02 W R/W BELCHER ROAD (ORB 4584, PO 155 S 1/2 OF THE t:E 1/4 OF THE SE 1 /4 OF °D ~o SEC: 13-295-15E ~ SE COR OF 1HE NE 1/4 OF THE SE 1/4 OF SEC 13-29S-15E NOTE, THE GEOMETRY PERTAINING TO THE PARCEL OF LAND BEING DESCRIBED HEREIN (THE DESCRIPTION) IS SOLELY BASED UPON A BOUNDARY JOB NUMBER 2009-0007, TITLED "LAKESIDE AT CLEARWATER" C , . AND TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY PREPARED BY FLOR9)A DESIGN CONSULTANTS, IN D RECORD DOCUMENTS AS NOTED HEREIN AND IS SUBJECT TO AN ACCURATE FIELD BOUNDARY SURVEY. 3 1/2009 AN DATED 3/ PREPARED FGR: LAKESIDE AT CLEARWATER SHEET DESCRIPTK)tJ: NORTH COMMERCIAL PARCEL scALE: ' DATE: DRAWN: CALLED: cHECKEDi SEE SHEET 1 FOR LEGAL DESL'RIPTION SEE SHEET 2 FOR SKETCH I"=200 IOI7/09 JEB JE8 JEB REVISION 1-11/9/09-CHANGE SHEET DESCRIPTION (JEB) Joe No.: EPN: sECnoN: TOWNSHIP: ~ REVISION 2-01/8/10-REVISED PARCEL GEOMETRY (JEB) 2009-07 329 13 29S 15E NOT VALID WITHOUT THE SIGNATURE AND THE ORIGINAL RAISED SEAL OF A FLORIDA FLORIDA DESIGN CONSlJLTANTS, INC. LICENSED SURVEYOR AND MAPPER. ENGINEERS, ENVIRONMENTALISTS S 8 PLANNERS O ~ SURVEY R 3030 Slorkey Blvd. New Porl RlcAey, Floride 34655 DAVID WILLIAM McDANIEL (727) eas-7sea PROFESSIONAL SURVEYOR AND MAPPER Certificate of Authorizatlon: LB 6707 LIC q 40 E U Stote of Florida FLORIp OF STATE _~ pCopyrlght 2009 Florida Daeign Consultants, Inc. Drawings and concepts may not be used or reproduced without written permission. ~i:eet ~~ EHIIIBI'I' nAa Page 3 of 4 __,. w, •ww n rut, a, ,M ~...- - _L.w n° Ontn A 1n•37nm - Ihncltm°n THIS IS j~.4S A SURVEY THERE MAY 8E ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS AFFECTING THIS PROPERTY THAT MAY BE FOUND IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF THIS COUNTY. THIS LEGAL DESCRIPTION AND SKETCH WAS PREPARED WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF A TITLE POLICY. BEARINGS ARE BASED UPON: SEE SKETCH AND LEGAL DESCRIPTION ----- LEGAL DESCRIPTION : PARCII~ 2 A parcel 01 land being a portion of the Northeoat I/4 of the Southeast I/4 of Sectlon 13, Township 29 South, Range 15 Easf, Pinellas County, Flarlda, being more particularly desoribed ae follows: COMMENCE at the Northeoat corner of the Northeast I/4 of the Southeast I/4 of Sectlon 13, Township Range 15 EDSt, Pinellas County, Florida; thence S00°09'08"E, along the Ecat Ilne of sold 29 South , Northeaet i/4 of the Southeast I/4 of Sectlon 13 (being the baela of bearinga for thle legal descriptloni, for 1,335.85 feet to the Southeast corner of sold Northeast I/4 of the Southeast I/4 of Sectlon 13; thence leaving sold Eaat Ilne of the Northeaet I/4 of the Southeast I/4 of Sectlon NB9°12'46"W, along the South Ilne of sold Northeaet I/4 0} the Southeast I/4 of Saotlon 13, for 13 , 336.89 feet to tho Southwest oorner of aald Northeaet I/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of Sectlon 13; 1 , thence N00°23'47"W, along the Weat Ilne of said Northeast I/4 of the Southeoat I/4 of Seatlon 13, 01 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; thence continue N00°23'47"W, along said West Ilne of the for 50 . Northeast I/4 of the Southeast I/4 of Sectlon 13, same being the East Ilne of EAST DRUID PARK, as recorded In Plat Book 61, Page 67 of the Public Records of Plneilas County, Flarlda, for 616.10 teat to the Northwest corner of the South I/2 of sold Northeoat I/4 of the Southeoat I/4 of Sectlon 13, same being the Southwest corner of BAMBOO SUBDIVISION, as recorded In Plat Book 28, Page 75 of the Publlo Records of Pinellas County, Florida; thence leaving aald Woet line of the Northeaet I/4 01 the Southeast I/4 01 Sectlon 13, S89°17'33'E, along the North line of sold South I/2 of the Northeast i/4 of the Southeast I/4 of Sectlon 13, same being the South Ilne of sold BAMBOO and the South Ilne of that certain property as described In Deed Book 1016, Page 329 of SUBDIVISION , the Public Records of Pinellas County, Florida, reapectlvely, for 463.05 feet to fhe Southeast corner of aald certain property as described In Deed Book 1016, Page 329; thence leaving sold North 2"E f ' ° or , 0 18 Ilne of the South I/2 of the Northeoat I/4 of the Southeast I/4 of Sectlon 13, S89 310.62 feet to the point of Intersection with a non-tangent curve, concave Northerly; thence Easterly along the arc of aald curve, from a radial bearing o1 S32°IS'51"W, having a radlua of 65.50 ' " E for 02 feet, a central angle of 63°07'45", an arc length o1 72.17 feet, and a chord bearing S89°18 ' " E, for 447.45 teat 02 68.57 feet to the point of Inlersectlon with a non-tangenl ilne; thence S89°18 to the polni of Inlersectlon with the Weat Right-of-Way Ilne of BELCHER ROAD, acoording to Offlclal " ' 51 E, Records Book 4564, Poge 155 of the Public Records of Pinellas County, Florida; thence S89°17 ° ' E, continuing 08 along sold Weat Right-oi-Way ilne of BELCHER ROAD, for 14.00 feet; thence Soo°09 along sold West Right-of-Way line of BELCHER ROAD, some being a line 36.00 feet West of and parallel with said East Ilne of the Northeast I/4 of the Southeoat 1/4 of Sectlon 13, for 617.98 teat to the point of Inlersectlon with the North Right-oi-Way Ilne of DRUID ROAD, accarding to sold Ottlclal Records Book 4564, Page 155 of the Public Records of Pinellas County, Florida; thence leaving said West Right-of-Way Ilne of BELCHER ROAD, NB9°12'46"W, along said North Right-of-Way line of DRUID ROAD, same being a Ilne 60.00 teat North of and parallel with sold South Ilne of the Northeoat I/4 of the Southeoat I/4 at Sectlon 13, for 1,301.10 feet fo the POINT OF BEGINNING. Containing 603,028 square feet or 16.435 acres, more or lase. Error of closure: 0.008 feet (JEB) NOTE, THE GEOMETRY PERTAINING TO THE PARCEL OF LAND BEING DESCRIBED HEREIN (THE DESCRIPTION) IS SOLELY BASED UPON A BOUNDARY JOB NUMBER 2009-0007 TER" " , , LAKESIDE AT CLEARWA ANO TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY PREPARED BY FLORIDA DESIGN CONSULTANTS, INC. TITLED DATED 3131!2009 AND RECORD DOCUMENTS A9 NOTED HEREIN AND IS SUBJECT TO AN ACCURATE FIELD BOUNDARY SURVEY. PREPARED Fat: LAKESIDE AT CLEARWATER SHEET DESCRIPTION: SOUTH RESfDENTIAL PARCEL SCALE: DATE: DRAWN: CALCED: CHECKED: SEE SHEET 1 FOR LEGAL DESCRIPTION NONE 10/6/09 JEB JEB JEB ~ SEE SHEET 2 FOR SKETCH REVISION 1-11/9/09-CHANGE SHEET DESCRIPTION (JEB) JOS No.: EPN: SEC710N: TOWNSFNP: RANGE: REVISION 2-01/8/10-REVISED PARCEL GEOMETRY (JEB) 2009-07 329 13 29S 15E NOT VALID WITHOUT THE SIGNATURE AND THE ORIGINAL RAISED SEAL OF A FLORIDA FLORIDA DESIGN CONSULTANTS, INC. LICENSED SURVEYOR AND MAPPER. ENGINEERS, ENVIRONMENTALISTS '"- SURVEYORS 8 PLANNERS ~' ~ 3030 SI°rkeyy Blyd, Naw Porl Richey, FI°rlda 34655 DAVID WILLIAM McDANIEL (727) G4s-75ee PROFESSIONAL SURVEYOR AND MAPPER Certificate of Authorization: LB 6707 LICENSE NUMBER LS 5840 State of Florida STATE OF FLORIDA ®Copyrlght 2009 Florkio Design Consultants, Ina. Drawings and coneepta may not be used or reproduced without written permisalon. Jf1et:L ! Ot _= e EX~iIBIT °An Page 4 of 4 . J...- - Mw nt: ~ntn ®10~S3am - Ibeckmon THIS IS rLQS A SURVEY THERE MAY 8E ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS AFFECTING THIS PROPERTY THAT AY BE FOUND IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF THIS COUNTY. THIS LEGAL DESCRIPTION AND SKETCH WAS PREPARED WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF A TITLE POLICY. BEARINGS ARE BASED UPON: SEE SKETCH AND LEGAL DESCRIPTION N A`C~~ACRES NE COR OF COR . CORNER I THE NE 1/4 OF De -DEED eooK THE SE 1 4 OF I a;aieoo sUaOr.~s1oN 5 -15E I PB 28, PB 75 Ma - N E OR LESS SEC 13-29 ORB = OFFlgAI RECORDS 8001( PB =PLAT BOOK S LINE BAMBOO PG =PAGE , " SUBDIVISION. S LINE P0B a pgNT OF BEpNNING S89'17 51 E PG 75) rn o, DB 1018, PG 329 pOC ' PgNT OF COMMENCEMQJT ' 14.00 (PB 28 , ~ ~c+ R ~ RIGHT-OF-WAY 0 ~00~DO ~_ M M I I ~, LOT % LOT 14 ~ ~? S"Q m ~A~ N LINE OF S 1/2 OF THE NE 1/4 S89'18'02"E 310.62' S89'18'02"E 447.45' I OF THE SE 1/4 OF SEC 13-29S-15E W R/W BEICHER ROAD i ~ S89'17'33"E 483.05' SE COR (ORB 4584, Pc 155) I o <3 ~ DB 1018, PG 329 ~ ~ RADIUSa65,50' ~ ~, ~i ~I ~ a o NW COR OF S 1/2 OF THE LENGTH=72.17' ~ ~ ~ 13 = ' c '"' NE 1/4 OF THE SE 1/4 OF CHORD=68.57 ~ m F- ~ ~ ~ SEC 13-29S 15E " ' - ; c3 E ~,~ ~ c~ 02 CHORD BEARING=S89'18 O sue tvlslo D 0.N $(ma ~ SW coR BAMBO N .. (PB 28, PG 75) DELTA~63'07'45" `O I~~ '~ ~ m SUBJECT PROPERTY: ~ " d RADIAL BEARING~S32'15 51 W ~ ~~ "" ~ ~ 803,028 SQ FT, OR - ~ ~+ " °' 18.435 AC, MOL ~ w . ~~ ~ I°i _' ~ ~ 3 3 1 /2 OF THE NE 1 /•1 ~ ,y F THE SE 1/4 OF LL o o O Q 0 0`'' ~, ~ SEC 13-29S-S5£ ~ p r N C3 WWI' O N W N ~ IzW =Z W ~ 1 7 r~ ; IW . ~'' N89'12'48"W 1301.10' 3B.oo' -- POB N R/W DRUID ROAD (ORB 4584, PG 155) N00'23'47"W 50.00' SEC 13-295-(5E 50.01' E NE 1/4 OF SE 1/4 OF 3 UN _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ SW COR OF N89'12'46'W pRUID ROAD t33s.BS' - ,~- SE COR OF THE NE 1/4 OF THE NE 1/4 OF THE SE 1/4 OF THE SE 1/4 OF SEC 13-293-15E SEC 13-29S-15E NOTE, THE GEOMETRY PERTAINING TO THE PARCEL OF LAND BEING DESCRIBED HEREIN (THE DESCRIPTION) IS SOLELY BARED UPON A BOUNDARY ER NUMBER 2009-0007, B R I ~ ' A E O I C C~ U N AN ACCUAATE FIELD BOUNDARY TO ECT SUBJ HEREIN AND IS OTED N AND RECORD DOCUMENTS AS /2009 DATED 3l31 PREPARED FOR: LAKESIDE AT CLEARWATER SHEET DESCR~TDN: SOUTH RESIDENTIAL PARCEL SCALE: DATE: DRAWN: CALCEO: CkIECKE ' SEE SHEET 1 FOR LEGAL DESCRIPTION ("=200' 10/6/09 JEB JEB JEB SEE SHEET 2 FOR SKETCH REVISION 1-11/9/09-CHANGE SHEET DESCRIPTION (JEB) Jog No.: EPN: SECnON: TOWNSFgP: RANGE` REVISION 2-01/8/10-REVISED PARCEL GEOMETRY (JEB) 20.09-07 329 13 29S 15E NOT VALID WITHOUT THE SIGNATURE AND THE ORIGINAL RAISED SEAL OF A FLORIDA FLORIDA DES-GN CONSULTANTS, ~NCi. LICENSED SURVEYOR AND MAPPER. ENGINEERS, ENVIRONMENTALISTS SURVEYORS 6 PLANNERS ~ 3030 Starkeyy Bivd. Nsw Pori Richey Florida 34655 DAVID WILLIAM McDANIEL (727) gds-7589 PROFESSIONAL SURVEYOR AND MAPPER Certificate of Authorization: LB 6707 40 LIC E O E State of Flarlda FLORIDA F STAT ®Copyrlght 2009 Florida Design Consultonta, Inc. Drawings and concepie may not be used or roproduced without written permteeloo. She6t G Oi G i EXHIBIT "B" TO FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FOR COMPREHENSIVE INFILL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT Lakeside at Clearwater 2165 Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard Section B. Description of Request The applicant, Nickel Plate Properties, Inc., proposes to redevelop the property described on Exhibit "A" attached ("Parcel 1") with 70,212 square feet of retail sales and service use and -12,787 square feet of restaurant use. Parcel 1 contains 11.637 acres. Specifically, the applicant requests flexible development approval of a comprehensive infill redevelopment project to permit 70,212 square feet of retail sales and service and 12,787 square feet of restaurant in the Commercial (C) District, with a. a Lot Area of 11.637 acres (506,892 square feet), where 10,000 square feet is required; b. a Lot Width of 820', where 100' is required; c. a maximum height (above BFE) of 32.5', where 25' is allowed; d. a front (north) setback along Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard of 93' to building and 25' to other structures, where 25' is required; e. a front (east) setback along Belcher Road of 61' to building and 25' to other. structures, where 25' is required; f. aside (south) setback of 79' to building and 1' to other structures, where 10' is required; g. aside (west) setback of 10' to building and 10' to other structures, where 10' is required; h. 495parking spaces, where 508 spaces are required per Shared Parking Calculation; i. 25-foot landscape buffers on Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard and Belcher Road, where 15-foot landscape buffers are required; j. direct access to two arterial streets (Gulf to Bay Boulevard and Belcher Road); and k. approval of a two-year development order; under the provisions of Section 2-704(C) of the Clearwater Community Development Code ("Code"). Simultaneously with this request, the applicant has submitted applications seeking approval of (i) a land use plan amendment from Residential Low Medium (RLM) to Residential/Office/Retail (R/O/R); (ii) rezoning from Mobile Home Park (MHP) to Commercial (C); and (iii) a Development Agreement setting forth the terms of the development of Parcel 1 and the adjoining parcel to the south ("Parcel 2") which is proposed to be redeveloped as a 243-unit multi-family residential project. Section D. Written Submittal Requirements General Applicability Criteria: 1) The proposed development of the land will be in harmony with the scale, bulk, coverage, density and character of adjacent properties in which it is located. The FAR of the. proposed retail project is0.164, where an FAR of 0.40 is allowed in the R/O/R district. The proposed ISR is 75.258 percent where the maximum allowed is 85 percent. The other three corners of the intersection of Gulf-to-Bay and Belcher are also developed with established retail uses - Albertson's, CVS and Publix; however, these three parcels have a land use designation of Commercial General, which allows an FAR of .55 and an ISR of .90 such that the proposed development of Parcel 1 is less intense than its neighbors. The: proposed height of 32.5' is reasonable given the increased setbacks to building, low floor area ratio and increased landscape buffers. The following are the parcels adjacent to Parcel 1: 2 Location Zonin Land Use Desi nation Actual Use North Commercial (C) Commercial General Albertson's (across Gulf-to- Gas station Bay) East Commercial (C) Commercial General Publix/Office Depot (across Shopping Center Belcher Road) South MDR Proposed Residential Medium Currently vacant (Parcel 2) Proposed Owned by the applicant and proposed for 243- unitmulti-family residential project West C Commercial General Ancillary parking MDR Residential Urban for car dealership 2) The proposed development will not hinder or discourage the appropriate development and use of adjacent land and buildings or significantly impair the value thereof. Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 comprise the former Lakeside Mobile Home Park, which was occupied by 295 mobile homes in existence since the 1950s. Parcel 1 was occupied by 102 mobile homes. The owner took the necessary steps to close the mobile home park and the property is now vacant. Asa result of redevelopment of a former mobile home park site, the vacant land is located amid established neighborhoods to the south and west, the established office uses at the northeast corner of Belcher and Druid and the recently redeveloped commercial parcel at the southeast corner of Gulf-to-Bay and Belcher. The proposed redevelopment which will include 25' perimeter landscape buffers on Gulf-to-Bay and Belcher, where 15' buffers are required which will enhance this corner of the intersection. The site plan depicts an open space area at the northeast corner of the site, which the applicant intends to develop as a small park area to display public art. 3) The proposed development will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed use. The applicant has submitted a Traffic Study, described in detail in Response 4 below which confirms that the proposed project will not impact the roadway 3 network, with certain improvements being made by the applicant. The adjacent neighborhoods and parcels will also benefit from the improved traffic flow provided by these improvements. The proposed project will share an entrance drive on Belcher with Parcel 2, to be located on the Parcel 1 property and provided for by a recorded easement. 4) The proposed development is designed to minimize traffic congestion. A traffic study prepared by Roy E. Chapman, P.E., Florida Design Consultants, Inc., dated August 25, 2009 ("Traffic Study") is included in this submittal. The Traffic Study confirms that the proposed project, with the addition of certain improvements to be made by the applicant, will not impact the level of service of the roadway network. The proposed improvements are (i) an eastbound right turn lane at Gulf-to-Bay and Belcher, (ii) a southbound right turn lane at the intersection of Belcher Road and the existing Publix driveway and (iii) improvements to the existing traffic signal located. on Belcher at the Publix driveway. The proposed development agreement provides for the applicant's construction of the improvements, including the dedication of necessary right-of-way for Gulf- to-Bay turn lane. The applicant has applied to FDOT and Pinellas County for the necessary driveway permits for the project and the Parcel 2 project. The proposed plan includes a 105' driveway at the entrance on Gulf-to-Bay which is intended to prevent any stacking or backlog of traffic into the roadway. There are adequate turn around areas at all drives to insure smooth traffic flow within the project. 5) The proposed development is consistent with the community character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development. Parcel 1 is now an undeveloped site at the southwest corner of Gulf-to-Bay and Belcher. This intersection is clearly of a commercial character with retail located on the three developed corners-a Publix and Office Depot shopping center on the southeast corner, a CVS on the northeast corner and an Albertson's and gas station/convenience mart on the northwest corner. The proposed uses as retail and restaurant are similar to these existing uses at the intersection. 6) The design of the proposed development minimizes adverse effects, including visual, acoustic and olfactory and hours of operation impacts on adjacent properties. The proposed redevelopment project will improve the visual appeal of the property as viewed on Gutf-to-Bay and Belcher with 25' perimeter landscape buffers on the roadways and a pocket park, including a public art feature, at the corner of Parcel 1. 4 Traffic will enter and exit on Gulf-to-Bay or Belcher. The proposed residential development to the south on Parcel 2 will be gated so customers visiting Parcel 1 will not be able to cut through Parcel 2 to access Druid Road. The proposed trash collection area is screened at the grade level so as not to impact passersby. Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project Criteria: 1. The development or redevelopment is otherwise impractical without deviations from the use and/or development standards set forth in this zoning district. The proposed deviations from Code, which are discussed in detail below, are necessary and minimal in order to redevelop the site. Setbacks and Landscape Buffers Although the property has two front setbacks, the project is designed to meet the 25' required setbacks on Gulf-to-Bay and Belcher and the site plans provide for 25' perimeter landscape buffers on these two frontages, where 15' is required by Code. The relief sought from setbacks is on the southerly boundary--a 1' setback to a sidewalk which provides circulation between Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 and to cross Belcher Road at the signal. This 1' setback is at one location at the entrance drive to the residential project to the south. This will not be discernable to view. The project meets the 10' required setback for the remainder of the southerly property line and the westerly property line. Parking A parking study prepared by Roy E. Chapman, P.E., Florida Design Consultants, dated January 13, 2010 ("Parking Study") is included with this submittal. The Parking Study includes the City's required Shared Parking Analysis which indicates that the required parking per the shared parking formula is 508 spaces; however the Parking Study finds that 476 parking spaces will adequately accommodate the needs of employees and customers of the retail and restaurant uses. The applicant is providing 495 spaces. Pedestrian and bicycle access will be provided between the project and the proposed apartment use to the south, reducing automobile trafFc. In addition, there are two transit stops adjacent to the property on Gulf-to-Bay and Belcher, which provide alternative transportation for employees and patrons of the commercial project as well as for the residents of the multi-family project on Parcel 2. 5 Access to Arterial Flexible Development Criteria 2-704E.N.2 and 2-704.0.2 provides that restaurants and retail sales and service uses shall not involve access to a major arterial street; however, both streets on which the development fronts are arterial streets. Therefore, the only direct access available to the property is via an arterial. The applicant has provided the minimum driveways possible for the project including the elimination of two existing driveways on Gulf-to-Bay and aligning the new driveway with Main Avenue. The project's proposed access to Belcher is limited to only one driveway which is aligned with the existing traffic signal at the Publix shopping center. Two-Year Development Order The Applicant requests atwo-year development order due to market conditions. 2. The development or redevelopment will be consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan, as well as with the general purpose, intent and basic planning objectives of this Code, and with the intent and purpose of this zoning district. Retail sales and service and restaurant uses are permitted uses in the "Commercial" zoning district. The ROR land use category is a mixed use plan category that will allow the retail,. restaurant and personal services that are anticipated for this location.. As discussed in detail in the applicant's accompanying request for land use plan amendment, the proposed project is the. logical fill in as this is the only corner of the Belcher/Gulf-to-Bay intersection that is not developed with retail. 3. The development or redevelopment will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding properties. The proposed project is compatible with the neighborhood, as is more particularly discussed in General Applicability Criteria 1 and Comprehensive Infill Criteria 4 below, and will not impede redevelopment of surrounding properties. The redevelopment of the site, accompanied by the redevelopment of Parcel 2, will revitalize this area. 4. Adjoining properties will not suffer substantial detriment as a result of the proposed development. As a result of redevelopment of a former mobile home park site, the vacant land is located amid established neighborhoods to the south and west, the established office uses at the northeast corner of Belcher and Druid and the recently redeveloped commercial parcel at the southeast corner of Gulf-to-Bay and Belcher. The following are the parcels adjacent to Parcel 1: 6 Location Zonin Land Use Desi nation Actual Use North Commercial (C) Commercial General Albertson's (across Gulf-to- Gas station Bay) East Commercial (C) Commercial General Publix/Office Depot (across Shopping Center Belcher Road) South MDR Residential Medium Currently vacant (Parcel 2) Proposed Proposed Owned by the applicant and proposed for 243- unit multi-family residential project West C Commercial General Ancillary parking MDR Residential Urban for car dealership The proposed redevelopment which will include 25' perimeter landscape buffers on Gulf-to-Bay and Belcher which will enhance this corner of the intersection as viewed from the surrounding commercial neighbors. The proposed building setback is 79' from the southerly property line which adjoins the proposed residential development on Parcel 2 to the south. The majority of the southerly boundary includes a 10' landscape buffer which adjoins the proposed 6' high PVC fence on the Parcel 2 property line. 5. The proposed use shall otherwise be permitted by the underlying future land use category, be compatible with adjacent land uses, will not substantially alter the essential. use characteristics of the neighborhood; and shall demonstrate compliance with one or more of the following objectives: a. The proposed use is permitted in this zoning district as a minimum standard, flexible standard or flexible development use; b. The proposed use would be a significant economic contributor to the City's economic base by diversifying the local economy or by creating jobs; 7 c. The development proposal accommodates the expansion or redevelopment of an existing economic contributor; d. The proposed use provides for the provision of affordable housing; e. The proposed use provides for development or redevelopment in an area that is characterized by other similar development and where a land use plan amendment and rezoning would result in a spot land use or zoning designation; or f. The proposed use provides for the development of a new, and/or preservation of a working waterfront use. Retail sales and service and restaurant uses are permitted by the "Residential/Office/Retail" land use category and in the "Commercial" zoning district as a minimum standard, flexible standard and flexible use. The proposed new retail and restaurant space at this intersection will provide additional jobs. The provision of additional right-of-way and turn lanes will improve traffic flow and the increased perimeter landscape buffers will enhance the intersection. As previously discussed in General Applicability Criteria 1 and Comprehensive lnfill Criteria 4 the proposed project is compatible with the surrounding uses. The height of 32.5` will not impact surrounding parcels given the northerly, westerly and easterly building setbacks.. The proposed height of the multi-family development on Parcel 2 is 41' so the buildings will not appear tall as viewed from Parcel 2 to the south. 6. Flexibility with regard to use, lot width, required setbacks, height and off- street parking are justified based on demonstrated compliance with all of the following design objectives: a. The proposed development will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding properties for uses permitted in this zoning district. The proposed uses as retail sales and service and restaurant are uses permitted in the Commercial zoning district, which are also allowed at the other three corners of this intersection. As previously discussed in detail in General Applicability Criteria 1, the proposed project will not impede the surrounding properties. b. The proposed development complies with applicable design guidelines adopted by the City. There are no applicable design guidelines at this location. The proposed project complies with Code with regard to height and landscape buffer requirements. c. The design, scale and intensity of the proposed development supports the established or emerging character of an area; 8 The character of this area is well-established as commercial. Please see the response to General Applicability Criteria 1 which describes how the bulk, scale and coverage of the project fits in with surrounding area. d. In order to form a cohesive, visually interesting and attractive appearance, the proposed development incorporates a substantial number of the following design elements: • Changes in horizontal building planes; • Use of architectural details such as columns, cornices, stringcourses, pilasters, porticos, balconies, railings, awnings, etc; • Variety in materials, colors and textures; • Distinctive fenestration patterns; • Building stepbacks; and • Distinctive roofs forms. These elements are incorporated into the design as shown on building elevations. The buildings on the site have been arranged to form a visually interesting appearance through site design, landscaping and architectural variety within a consistent theme. For each building, the architectural design employs a variety of materials, colors, and fenestration patterns. Due to the commercial nature of the buildings, all buildings are planned to be one story but a variety of roof heights and forms will be utilized to create an attractive appearance for the project. e. The proposed development provides for appropriate buffers, enhanced landscape design and appropriate distances between buildings. Landscaping Two sides of the project are building .facades fronting on public-rights-of--way. The landscape plan has been prepared in accordance with Code and provides the necessary foundation and vehicular use area landscaping and perimeter landscaping of 25' where only 15' is required by Code. 1 /15/2010 10:09 AM 45497.116337 #510308 v1 -Nickel Plate/Ex B to Comp Infill App 9 i Deeds Parcel No: 13/29/15/00000/410/0100 Owner: Nickel Plate Properties, Inc. Deed: O.R. Book 4791, Page.1232, Public Records of Pinellas County, Florida, dated 12/188 to Lakeside Corp.; a Florida corporation Merger: Lakeside Corp. merged into Nickel- Plate Properties, Inc., on 5/25/04 Parcel Nos. 13/29/15/00000/410/0200 and 13/29/15/00000/410/0300 Owner: .Lakeside Enterprises, LLC heed: O.R. Book .13686, Page 610, Public Records of Pinellas County, Florida, dated 7/1 /04 to Lakeside Enterprises, LLC :.~ - f..~-~'°.~' ~ `F t C" ~`8Z~35~ r • e`~1`r~tlt~ ~ ~P~ O.a. 4 7 g i pcE 1 2 3 2 THIS iNDENTtJit15. Made t!rss 1st day of December 14 7©, by ~ - and between iNE~ E. VAN WALLIGHAN, forme;ly Inez E. Hinners. widow and surviv[ag spouse of Robert ). Htnners, deceased of the County o! H1IZSa0(mt((ii , State of Florida party of the first part, AND LAKESIDE CORP. , a Florida Corporation whose post office address iss l.e. 8~>r ~t71~ Jacttteavrllt,~lts~rt L,1LS~ of the County .of Pinellas , in the State o€ Florida party of the. second part,• . WITNESSETHs That the said party o€ the first-part, f`or and in conaidesation of the sum of Ten and 00/100----------- pollars, and other valuable considerations, lawful money of the Onfted States of America, to her it hand paid by the- said pasty of the second part. thr receipt whereof is het:ebp acknowledged, has - granted. bargained, sold•and oonveyed.to the said part .y of the' ;•~ second past, tts sucoescora lto~ocand assigns forever, all of the . ,~0, following.deseribed land in ~ ~~~(County, Florida, to-wits jh The Northeast quarter (NE T/4~ of the Northeast quarter (NE 1/1~ of the South- . east quarter (SE 1/4) and the South one-half (S 1/21 of the Northeast quarter z pl (IJE 1/4) Of the.Southeast quarter SE 1/~. of Section 13, Township 29 South, (11~' Range i5 $ast, SUBTBCT'lIOW'EVFR to the ri4ht~of-way of the public tharough- • _ fare kricwn as fiulf-to-9ay Boulevard ovec tl~e North itfty (5~ feet of said North- r east quarter (NE 1/4) of. Northeast quarter (NE 1/~ of 3oucheast quarter . _(SE 1/4) and the South fifty (5(q test of said Northeast quarter (NE 1/4) of said Southeast quarter ($E 1/41 for right-of-way of Druid Road (County Road No. 2~ , and that part of said Northeast quarter (NE 1/'A of Southeast quarter (SE 1/4) • • described to O.R. book 4564, pages 154, 155 and 155, for rtghi-of-way of • ~j Bslcher Road (County Road'No. ai0, all lying and being to Pinellas Connty, _ ~j Florida. Captioned premises is not the h estead of the grantor wh . - resides at :iE~ `J'7. Lr'. .~3e ~.~., ,~.u! .~.~•.d ~.. 7~: • ~~~~ t~` TO NAVE AND TO BOLD the above described premises, with the ~, appurtenances, unto the said pasty os= the second part, its success ~ bm~3dt~t and assigns,; in fae sLnple forever. ~ And the saiQ party o! the first part do es hereby covenaa ~ with the said-pant y of the second part that said described ~~ property is tree from all liens att~ encuaibraneea except taxes sad/ • i or assessaietats >=or the year 19 7.9. and subsequent years and ease- i:~ raents and sestrietions o~ recoil; if any. . And the eaid part y of the first part do es' hereby folly warrant the title to ;aid land, and will defend the same against the lawful claims of all persons whomsoever. '~ IN NITNESS NHEREQF, the said part y cf the first part ha s `~ executed this deed undea.seal on the date aforesaid.. r tv Signed, sealed and. ~elivered~ ~'~ ~- /[~ `'fi't-dX~ , (SEAL) in the presence oi<: tie'~:'~a~'~l'a'f~igla~ati~3 ,~ec [nez E. k?lnne:s, i~ C.l~~cy. ; (5EAL1 :.~~ / ~- ~ • J ~i-~ ° . cn.i Ote ry ri . dL~ ;~ R11~ ~, .~Q :~ . ,~ ~ I ..o •• :.•.• • ~ (SEALI ~~ to t :~ f(~•j~ (s~AL t ._ t' r c t t STATE OF FLORIDA. ) O.d. 4 ,~ 91 f:6E 12 ~ ~ .. COUNTY OF HILLS80ROUGH ) ' I HEREBY CERTIFY, That on this day, before s-e, an officer duly authorized fn t!:e State aforesaid and in the County aforesaid to fake acknowledgtaents, personally appeared "~ tNFZ E. VAN WALLIGHAN, faarmerly [aez E. inners, widow and su vlnq spousg of Robed J in~~ers, deceased to ~ oe known to be ~e person (hs) desciilfed i,t: and who executed the fotegoing instrument, and s e acknr~ledged before me-that she - executed the aa:pe as her Eree act and deed for the uses and .purposes therein stated. MITNESS dry hand and official seal in the County and State lash aforesaid this fat day of Decembers A.D. 19 78. , ' • NOTAR U$ IC-~A~E OF FLOiII~~AT ' Hy Co+omission Expires: 6-t-81• ' • ~ .. • t. , STATE OF ) • COUNTY OF '- ) i I HEREBY C1:RTIFY, TAat on this dayy, before me, an officer duly ! • authorised in the State aforesaid and in the CounEy aforesaid to ~ take acknowledgments, personally appeared ~. to me known to be the person(a) described in and vho.executed•the ~ • . Eore~ainq instrument, and ackr:ovledgcd before me that exee+sted the same as free act and deed for. the ' ~.csea and .purposes therein stated. . MITNESS + my h~:d and official seal in the County and State last ' ~~ aforesaid this day of A.D. 19 ~ . • x Y LIC, SAT ]1T LA11GE • !s} Cosaiission ~ Expires: . (Place raised official seal, here) t ~ t• ' ~ N . G~N~ ~Y P~~ 3'p07 ~ ~, e TA ,~ c g [= ' ~~ t' i4 ( ~ ~~pAt F~ ~;i a ~i Az?r~. ~TAbli Ax 1 ' -~- .-00 •.• a 0' ~. y.._~. 9 0 -.. M r: ~ :r::rn ~~ $ C C. +~ 0 t ' ~. - - . ~~ a~, Aura. ' -. i+ to ( ~ r, "~~, FLORI A S U R ~1+?~ :_ Irv /a ~" 900.00( e Ni'~ ` ` ' o n~lrl Ntb • ~ ~ . t ~~ ..~ ~. w __,t~ J NN~IL NN+ ~ ~ + - w'~ - .._ r r ARTICLES OF MERGER -<<n~ OF LIMA LAKE, INC. ~~` ~` AND ~~ ~, t" -a LAKESIDE CORP. ~ INTO mot ~ fl NICKEL PL~9-TE PROPERTIES, INC. ~ ~. r ,m rn .. Pursuant to the. provisions of Section b47.1145 of the Florida Business Corporation Act, the undersigned corporations adopt the, following Articles of Merger for the purpose of merging LIMA LAKE,INC. (Document #581602) aad LAKESIDE CORP. (Document #592049) into NICKEL PLATfi PROFERTIIS, INC. (Document #670645}, which will be the surviving corporation. I. A Plan and Agreement of Merger ("Plan"~ was approved by the shareholders and directors of each of the undersigned corporations in the manner prescribed by the Florida General Corporation Act on the dates set forth below: LIMA LAKir, INC. March 31, 2044 LAKESIAE CORP. March 31, 2004 NICKEL PLA'T'E PROPERTIES, INC. March 31, 2044 2. The Plan provides for the exchange, cIassifieation or cancellation of the issued shares as follows: following. The method of carrying into effect the Merger provided in the Plan will be the a) At the effectide time of the Merger, all of the outstanding common stock (1,400 shares) of LIMA LAKE, INC. shad be surrendered to LIMA LAKE, ING. for cancellation. b)_ - At t{te effective timeofihell~erger, all ofthe outstanding commonstock (1,fl00 shares) of LAKESIDE C~ItP. shall be surrendered to LA.&ESIDE CORP. for cancellation. c) . _ There shall be no change in the capitalization of NICKEL PLATE PROPERTIES, INC. and no addctional stock sl~ll.b~ issued to the shareholders of NICKEL PLATE PROPERTIES, INC. - - - - 3. The merger of tl~e undersigned corporation will become effective on the date on which the Articles of Merger are certif ed by the Florida Department of State. 4. No changes in the Articles of Incorporation of the sun~iving corporation are required.. . 5. As to each of the undersigned corporations, the number of shares outstanding, and the designation and number of outstanding shazes of each class entitled to vote as a class, if any, on such Plan arc as follows: ~~ 1 .i. ./ Name of Corteration .... LIMA LAKE, INC. LAKESIZ3E CORP. . NICKEL PLATE PROPERTIES, INC. Voting Common Stock 1,000 0 LAKESIDE CORP. _ . , , ~ _ _ Voting Common Stock - 1,000 0 NICKEL PLATE PROPERTIES, INC. Voting Common Stock 1,000 ~ 0 Dated: ~~j u ,_ 2004 ... LIMA L,AKE,.INC., a Florida corporation . _... ` ichael C. Bausch, resident Attest: ~ ~%~'~` B ra Cooper, Secretary .,,•,~.»~•i+a... •i • . ~ ~ ;,w C •,• ..Jp•: Number of Shares _ ~ Quts dins 1,,000 1,000 1,000 6. As to each of the tindersigaed corporations, the tfltal number ofshares voted for and against such Plan, respectively, and as to each class entitled to vote thereon as a class, if any, the number of shares of such class voted for and against such Plan, respectively, are as fol}ows: Number of Shares . Total Tota} Voted Voted Name of Comoration - _ ... _ _ _ _ _ _- -- - .or _ ~ LIMA LAKE, INC. ~ _ . Mticla of Mapec ~z .. .,. Dated: 204 :. , . _ _ .. T.A KFSIDE CORP., a Florida corporation r i Mic ael C. Bausch, President Attest: .fit ~~ ~ L.D,~-k,G~. .....,.,,.,,.,.,.. a : t,. Barbara Cooper; ecreta ~' :~ .. • . v4. , `,t ~......, (CORPORATE;~~ ~ G :. Y~ . - ~' 4tiI •~ Dated: 2l 2004.. --_-- ...._:NICKEL PLATE PROPERTIES,INC., ~~'''~•r ,'7++;•~'''• ,,,,.. a Florida corporation :,..,,....: ts. .. _.__ 'Michael C. Bausch, President .Attest: , ..... . ~'~~; ~• - Barbara Cooper, Secre ; ,.•• :~. .. ..- a%~ STATE OF FLORIDA ~ t ~ ~ Z .' •~n...,,~.•~~ COUNTY OF PINELLAS :> The foregoinginstrumentwasacknowledgedbeforemethisdayof ~ ~ 2004, . by Michael C. Bausch, President of LIMA LAKE, INC., a Flonda corporation, on f of the corporation, who is personally known tone o n~~Accd ~rv~ lOn EXpireS: * E~ Ogo6Et f5 200fi aid,. gandd7lro ~~ STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF PiNELLAS ~ S The foregoing instrumentwas acknowledgedbefore me thi~°~+d day of 2004, .-- by Michael C. Bausch, President of LAKESIDE CORP., a Flon a corporation, on half of the Articles of Mager Pafle 3 f { :i. i ~ • corporation, who is personally known to me ~ type ar sa~a~.~~: ~ -:... ~ ~s l:Cltnt~f'tcatiun~j~ n f ~ C~11 ices: uH~soo~satiw ~'~esna~ ~~~ STATE. OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF PINELL AS The foregoing instrument was aclrnowledged before me th' S day of ~ 2004, _ . _ by iKichael G Bausch, President of NICKEL PLATE PROPERT~C., a F on a c oration, on behalf of the corporation, who is personally known to me ~aea~,: ) asa~ieatiftt~trl ~ „~ (1 ~ f CAA • ruuuW V JR. t name.: ~'=~' ~ ~iooi~atgt fission Expires: *~ B~s;~~~ 'aya eaeedtlra~~ a.~p~poiozaom ate: oil page t a 4 - ' ~9o~vs (i2equesrot's Name) (Address) (Address) (CitylState2ip/Phone #) R{CK-UP ~ WAfT ~ MAIL (Business Entity Name} (Document Number) Cetjified Copies Certiftca~~ of Statcss Special irrstrudfons to Filing Officer: Office Use Only L~.~i~'~•,~U$-•-f31t~1•'-'[lt~`.$ ~~11~.75 ~4 v wuu~ MAY 2 52004 n to cs ` ~n ; ~~ ¢ a• ~ N '=1 ~; ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ O ~~ ,~-~ _... .:) i> .. - r+ . _ ~- ~. -.,.., - , j - ~ py'~G i r .r.,,~ ° ~ ; -- ~ ~ . x N ~ a ' e ~ ., Al's-ORNEYS' 7fTLE Requesiors Name 1965 Capita! Circle NE, Suite A Tallahassee, Fi 32308 850 222 2785 _ crgdstrr~p Phone # - - CORPORATION NAMES} & DOCUMENT NUMBERS}, (if known}: 1- NICKEL PLATE PROPERTIES, INC. _ _ 2- 3- 4~ ~X Walk-in QPlck~up time ASAP- ©Certified CaPY :Mail-out Will waif QPhotocopy ®Cefificate of Status OTHER FIlJNGS Annual R rt Fic6itious Name Name Reservatbn Examiner's Initials ~~rl~~~/1~~ i !~ 18: 2004272551 BK: 13686 PG: 610, 07/06/2004 at 05:50 PM, RECORDING 2 PAGES $18.50 D DOC STAMP COLLECTION $9275.00 KARLEEN F. DE BLAI~R, CLERK OF COURT PINELLAS COUNTY, FL BY DEPUTY CLERK: CLKDMCI This document prepared by and return to: LIBERTY TITLE AGENCY 1141 Belcher Road South, Snite A Largo, FL 33771 FILE NO: 04-128-LG parcel/Fo1io ID Number: 13-29-15-OOOOU-410-0200 13-29-15-00000.410-0300 ~~ THIS INDENTURE, ma a st y o y, , Linuted Liability of the County of Pinellas, State of Florida, herein called the Grantor, and Lakes?de : `~ Enterprises: LLC, A Limited Liability ,whose address is P.O. Box 5008, Clearwater, FL 33758, hereinafter ~ i called the Grantee. .~ ~~ ~~ ~~ _ ~~ ."_ --_ , ~-'-. ~. .-, ~ ~~ ,~ . ~ , .% ~. ` ,' . ~~ -_ .~ . ~.-- `. W DEED ~ ' ~`, ~~ `~'~ ~~ ,~ `, , __ ,. d thisl da f Jul 2004 between Chauncey Patlners, LLC, A)+iprida~~ , _ . ~~ WTTAlESS1;TH, that the Grantor, for and in consideration of the sum of Ten and No/100•Dollars ($Yp,00), and otter good and valuable consideration to Grantor in hand paid by Graph, the receipt wheFeof is hereby acknowledged, has granted, bargained and sold to the said Granteis azld Grante¢'s heirs and assigns forever, the following described land, situate, lying and beingvt tlieCounty o~P~r ~e2[as, State of Florida, to wit: ~ ~~ .,~ ,~ ~ ... SEE ATTACHED LEGAL `~~: ~ . -- .. . ,' Subject to any restrictions, reservations and easements of record, if any, ~ take's subsequent to 2003. ~~ ~~ ,~ ~ . The property herein conveyed is not the homesteadprblxtty bftte Gr4cttor(s). ~`~ `. The Grantor does hereby fully warrant tHe~title tp~saiti)and, and will defend the sauce against lawful claiatis of all persons whomsoever. ~ ~ ~ `~ ` ~. ~. ~ ~; I1V WITNESS WHEREOF, the C7raxttor(s~ h~s/I~ve hereunto set their hand(s) and seat(s) the day and year first above written. ' ~' ' ' ., .~ ,' Sign sealed and delivered i~ctrn~presertct;:~ ,, ~ . ~ ~, ,~ y~i . J ^ n.~ _- , ~j,~ Cha ey Pa rs , LLI~. ./' ~ BY: MARK G. NAEDEL, MANAGER V `` ~` ~, STPr`~ OF FLO)~4 ` ' COUNTY OF PIN~I-LAS .~ ~e ~~gng ~s ~ cknowledged t NAEDEL ,who is/ pe. orally known a or has My commission expires: :this 1st day of July, 2004, by MARK G. d identification in the form of Notary: " "••~K.tr~t~n.i'ES"3~ i{ «.,~ c `' PINELLAS COUNTY FL OFF. REC. BK 13686 PG 611 . E)Qi®IT "A~ That part of~he NW Y, of the NE '/. of the s .~ ~~ ~~ ~ , ~, ' ~_~ ~~ ~ - --_ _ ' ~ ` , ~ -~ ~ ' ~ . ~ ~ . . ~ ~ ' ' i i ~ . i ` ` ~ ~ . . ~ .~ . ~~- -~. ~ . ..~ . . . ~ i . ( ~ ~ ~ Range 15 East, desatbed as foNows• E ~ of ~~0n 13, Townah' 29 ~ rP South, - , ` , , Beg(nning at a po(ni in the North boundary of saki , ,,' elo<+g said boundary. from the Northwest comer of sand M~Y, of SE X75,6 Fes` '~; ~ c~ntinukrg East along saki boundary,.195.07 feet more or less: to the NE ~~ ~ ,' I '/. of NE'/s of SE yti fhe~ South along the East boundary of the NW % of NE yooj~ `` ~, 667,88 fact, more. or Tess to the Southeast oomer ~ ~~ NW y, ot;Nt_ ~ of SE %; thence run West along the South boundary of sakl tVUV more or tress to the Southeast comer of a tract co ~ of NE y of SE 3:; .206.1 fga~ F. Walker by Deed reooMed to Deed Record 1016m page 329 ~~ ~atker ana~iife Gfecs ~ntY. Florida: and thence North along fhe East bound ' P~Hcfers~s oXl~l'i~Uaa feet, more or less to the Point of Beglnning, a-Y of sal~~ll/a'(kq~'~7.6 ,~. .~~. ~: ~~. .~ ~~ ~~ `. ~ `~ .. ~ . ~ ; ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~. . ~ ~ , . ~ ~ `. ~ . _ ., ., ~ . -, -- ,, r ~ ~ ~ ~ i i ~ ~ v , ~ i • i ' ~ i ~ ~ • ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ i ~ ` ~ ~ ~ v ~ ~ ~~ i ~ • i ~~~~ ~~ ~ ~ i i ~ ~ ` - ~ i ~ ,I ~ ~ ~~i ~ ~~ i ' ~ 1 ~ ~ • ~ ` i ~ • ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ • .. ~. ` ~ /~~~~~ ~ • ~~_ ` ~ ~ _ ~ \ ~ ~ \ ~ ~ \ ~ ~ \ ~ ~ ~ \` ` ~ ~ ` ~ \ / ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~. CM OF R ~= E Y IMFRIExL UNpSCAPE WA MG REWIRED: i D; P• NM MG p~ Q g NN AREA: 1ea9Ee 9P R y PEOURR NAA LMOSCMC MG 16.995.3 5F (t0i x 168.95! SE) PRQNOEO vw LANOSGPC MFA: Ao.en s< (IS.1q 5q i j~ ~, ~ ` 1 TX[[ REOLMm PER 150 Sf OF REQUIRED INTERNAL LAx05DAPE NM MFA j ~ j ^ g s 18,995.! / 150 -ISO TREE REOUIREO TREK FRONDED FOR WIERNAL WIDSCA.°E NlA MG' 130 IAER gE d d ¢ a ~ F MxRUBe ME REWRED Fdl S0; OP TXF RFOURVD RRIINYl UNDSGPE NM AREA i ~ Y ON RCIWNYIQ MG CONERED BY OROUxO ERJKI6, NOE RN:IWWp 9J0. 4 4 E;FSIWD TREK MTm J. E. MD 5 PER OONDONM' RADNO SW4MY M[ TO BE REPUCEp AT 1' OF RFPlACp1ENT FOR I. 0( IXISIIND TREE REEIORED AAE) PAWS MF 10 SE REPIACm AT 1' PER PAW TREE lAQS MTEO 1 MO 1 PEp CONDRION MTMO $DYYMT W IlOT REWIRC RfPGCEYEM. OJNIFNN01RE6 REYONEO: 1 11"E6 O 1]' REWWEp REPUCFNEM OUIL{YWO PALMS REYONID: 13 PAWS ! 16' REWIRED RFPGCCMEM TOTAL REPIACEYEM REQUIRED: D9' REOUD"ED REPIKENERT TOTAL Rm1ACCYEM PRONGED: e)T TOTAL (8T0' TREE! f S)' PAWS) NORM BURW IAO.WCEM ro ROW) IS' WIDE BUTTW 111111 1 TAR PER K LF ! 100; CONTNUOUB XEOOE 90LRN YUFTVI (AD.HCFM ro PARCEL 1 M PROTECT) Io' wwE eurml Rim I TR PLANT SCHEDULE COMMERgAL PRQIEC7 ZBEB ~ ~ ~.LLOI1gY ,MaYxc' / x.bxa' Cnw Y"Ne ~~ ECms~L, YD~ ~o' HL 5'H' Y Y w ] Y gw,an,,. •o.a l..xR.r n / bxRwm u°gnr - 3sra 1o•-Ir NI. s'-e• sP odgnl rw.M .. aruE.I .o NCRTH YL ]I Yegne4 gnr~Mw°'LXIY Oern' / D.arf butAAm YgnRlb - xee.r, DmxNI TrvwY t.'Md 10'-13' NL, 6'-r b. w " ~ "` ° "r"" `"'R 0°" _ i " x.5'u ta•-Ix' xE r-s' s> F », a . T°Yn wn ~ . sP D ~ P.H~N° 4 seeW Pr. _ D'etM1 Heml Io• - Ie• cr. wAr w ss ulnw. .T.~+ww raw. / RReee w - 3sml 1e•-Ir xL, s-e• b. SEE SHEET LA2 FOR GENEAL LANDSCAPE NOTES "°°° DdwE rRI""" 8 SHEET LA3 FOR LANDSCAPE DETAILS. Y" sA "°'"I"0`w"'°"'"' /'""'°" FY' PM~ - 10' - Ir ar, wn.R EE PER J5 V k 100.1 EDAlIrv1nNR ncwc GST SURER (MMCEM TO ROY) 13' WIDE SURER RTIII t 1RFE PfR JS ti ! 100; CONIINUW3 XFDOE wESr auFFER (AOUCVrt ro E;RTFq coxwRtty ' J S WqE BUFFE)I Nm 1 iXEE PER 38 V ! 100; CONTINUWS NEWS ..I ~, ~+ q i R O w ~ 3 N ~ m g4¢ a BIIEDIxC /10 LLI ' V /b R 3 ~) UNDEr¢roev TREES REQ. (9 UxDEIbiOM TREE PROxIDEDJ )O3~SF IANDSGPE MG PROVgEO / 10 - J6 SNRUB9 REp. (JS SHRUBS PRONGED) ~ Q C ~ Y r d DUSDINC /lf ~ Q ~ 'p ~ o U /.O x 3 . ]1 UxDEIBTORI TREES REp. (J3 NAERSTORV iRE6 PRONGED) J SIJO SF LVIOSCME ARG FRONDED / 30 - 16th SHRUBS REQ. (I9e SHRUBS FRONOFO) ~ n ! 0 BWDINO /11 {! W 8] V /b R T ~ e UxDOtSTOM TREE PEG. (e UNOERSTORV TREE PRONGED) T5 SF WNDSG-E MG PRQNDED / }0 - 39 LXRUR REp. (K SHRUB PAONDED) f BMpNO /t] b V /x0 R 3 ~ T Ux0ER9roiD' TREE REQ. (] PAW 1AEa MONOm) t90 3 IANOSGFE MG PRONOEO / 10 - 10 SHRUB REQ~ (RI SHRUBS FRONDED) aunDlxc 11W ~ S 08 LF /b T } .. UNDERSNRV iRELS RFD. Ia UNDER.SfMT 1RF13 PRONGED) a 335 Y LWDFCME MG FRONDED / 10 - I) SMRUR REQ. (M SWN1R FRONDED) $ n JglSlIBS 3W ~wM1! TRaaR ~ Tai°A• R 6L HRmY ~. /° ~4r" xaM. DIRx9xI m Mead. b.e~« / xa~~. c ae m«!.1818 R.wati / PRW Yin rNiwx.. D.wolrc ToaaY ' r z5o ~ ~ T ~/ smP.M ° amw« A M Phu wbM Te~~ °b / tep. Aumb°w A em RneNAS.~Y AE.• / w. !Wen x,.Y„m D'°RVA eaw Y 1ee ~"„m,°o,,,,9~n Iowan a.nlnw. oYlglrc / o.r. w,lrr. wn,.,,, s Ra a ~ r~ / e°nawY.° Nrvn;.n rn sw ael. ~ •fqY• / am.~.n°e P..nm OP 3'111 HYh Oragk Te1irO0R IIIRNY u nA ~M iowYn / I`"`P10 7 LfIQ J wl. 30'.39Y J' « wl., xo•,n9•! r s 9Y., 39•,w•w r a 9... m•w•e r a wl.. To'~aow r w ] wI. 1..1. a lSr w a qY, Iatuv r a wE. 1a'av! r w D! u•.,r. 1 oYw zr : ~ $ 3 tt ,T•ar. t wu Ir o< W Q W IY.u•, 19Y.w ax• : J J U ~~~~` ~r IMERNIL LANDSCAPE VUA MFA REQUIRED: 103 OF WA ARU WA MEA: 178,509 SF RFAUIREO VW LANDSCAPE AREA: 1],830.9 SF (103 % 178,309 SF) PROVIDED VUA UNDSCAPE IKEA: 20.779.0 SF (1 I.7S) 1 TREE REQUIRED PER 13D SF OF REQUIRED IMERNAL LANOSGPE VW AREA; 17,830.9 / 150 ~ 719 TREES REQUIRED DREES PROVIDED FOR INTERNAL UNDSCME VUA ARG I10 TREES SHRUBS ARE REQUIRED FOR SOS OF THE REQUIRED IMERNAL I.WDSCAPE VUA AREA. WITH REMAINING AREA COVERED BY GROUND COVERS. NOT INCLUDING SOD. FYICDN - TRFF RFP A~. MFM D IIRFMFNi9 E%ISDNG TREES RATEp 1. 4. AND 3 PER LONDRION RATING SUMMARY ARE TO BE REPUCED AT 1. OF REPACEMENT FOR 1' OF IXISDNC TREE REMOVED ANO PALMS ME TO BE REPLACED AT 1' PER PILM TREE. TREES RATED 1 AND 2 PER CONDRION RATING SUMMARI' 00 NOT REQUIRE REPLACEMEM. WAUF'Y1NC TREES REMOVED: 14 TREES O 711' REQUIRED REPLACEMENT OU.WFYING PALMS REMOVED: 18 PALMS O IB' REWIRED REPUCEMEM TOTAL REPLACEMENT REWIRED: 139' REQUIRED REPLACEMENT TOTAL RWUCENEM PROVIDED: 801.3' TOTAL (682.3' TREES + 13B' PALMS) RFO pR ~ sups ARF aFTRe NORTH BUFFER (ADJACENT TO E%ISTINC RESIDENML AND PROPOSED COMMERCIAL) 10' WIpE BUFFER WITH 1 TREE PER 73 LF k 1005 CONTINUOUS HEDGE (8' M. IN 3 YFMS) SOUTH BUFFER (ADJACENT TO ROW) 13' WIDE BUFFER WITH 1 TREE PER 35 LF 8 1003 CONTINUOUS NEOGE EAST BUFFER (ADJACENT TO ROW) 13' WIDE BUFFER WITH 1 TREE PER 73 LF k 1005 CONTINWUS HEDGE WEST BUFFER (AD~IACEN7 TO EXISTING RESIDEMLIL) 10' WIDE BUFFER W1TH 1 TREE PER J3 lF d: 1003 CONTINWUS NEOGE (8' M. IN 3 YFARS) PLANT SCHEDULE MULTLFAMILY PROJECT ® ~ CmT 90 ~ M 0 _ npn / Rpe Yap. x 'f/ 1 1x' XL, a'-e' 9p. ,a2 J6 S Julbr« whkmp / 6pptnrn Rp0 Cp0« - S.SY°I 10'-12' XL e'-6' eD• wuw. PDUpM rvbroM w 110 ~q.,.w.nip web. •Ypm.p• / Npbpn: Gpvp YrNb - zra e'-1D' N1., r-a• sp. wp„ qM T.I.roM YD D.D. 9alenpM' n / SpUnrn Yppnppp 6 Y . g n pDp q a n e - x3Yal 10'-1 x' Xt, s'-e' Sp p w ~ ~ ~ l T ~ ~ y n u 6 ww°1M, Dnugn! pY,p~° D°A~ / ~'T 5vuwwn wegNb - x3Yd t0'-tx' x4 S'-6' 6p. ps a Pno«w ArY.pw / wewn opM Ppim - 1s e.T. Yaen.e w ~Kx.n u.p aRR 7a K « w - xecpl lo'-Ix' xL, s'-6• av. ~ ~ T sP 62 wu ., orop~gM rel~'°°i P°w, - 1a - le n, wn« n u Tp°pewm mwWpm /epic errs - zsropl 1o•-1x' xt• s'-e• sv. wuw, OrouDM rpbMnl uF np / raup Mm a1 w u e e °~0 - xnca 1o•-IT rw. a'-6' sv. ° pWi T », a b i WR aT wpMingbNp rpbuRp / Yabpn FM Ppim - 10' - 16' R, WpeG ~~ ~ °~d ° ~ DR j 1n,gpiY 6 6 qx xa•aro r « S xv 41e 4 ~ BUM H ~°°° Sa J qm. m•.xOY r « L N° Drpp Yro ~x N6 x26 Mbkup SpsW / glbl«u J qm., x0'QOro 3' « YC x6a Y MMbrglp «pewb/ rttia Wl~pr J 6pL. zfpm•e a' « nauw Drou6nL TDYnM YF SIS M1~'1 6bppr ~O M hl To J qd. TD•px0'e J' « wl M. Mpup N Pn e» ~ T4 „~ / Cpn PMmwgp J 9m, xr.xaro a' « RA ea6 o p e°v° •Mep• / De. wee. ww~..n °n "1° P b Jam. 1a•.Mro x.sp' « w M > e lr r9 sa wumYm wp.,wm / apmm~w.p wYwm apYgM TM.roM J xpl., w•uDro J' « ~onuY ~ ffi Aro pY• / Dmpm«m PwmA fr°~.1e•. 1 6mw 1e• pD PpupM TDISnM w aw ~~..~a~AUwpn w +x'.16•.1 q.i.e xa•.p GP fApD CpippNip pmcMM / CmlbMtp bate'. 1 gpl.e 18' « wuw DroppnL Tpbrpnt Jc x66 Ip«N. «.ew / Jnpn JYM«. oewM TawpM 1z•p1a', 1 Rm.e aP « LL 1N LerYpnp ppmpM / LaYpnD 1]'.16•, 1 ppl.0 M• pc QOIIgM TMpnM L 1,066 ~ umum pNpllcum / M. ConMe. Ya,in tY.16'. 1 gpl.e U' « SEE SHEET LA2 FOR GENEAL LANDSCAPE NOTES & SHEET LA3 FOR LANDSCAPE DETAILS. ~m e 4~~~~~ ~~ Q~a~ a~8~g~ e4~ ypu W5 S O) W W U H a I NORTH U J J ~~ o w ~~~ N y m9? W ~ °rcg Y J ~ ~;: j ~ u ~~a ~J~ 6 ®®~®©~ wQ ~o O~ 3~ Ya ~o J J ! U I __ ____ I ~ 1 nee~-JYrtlrucaeHr~_„~ /_ .ac~n~nt MOalIRLIIIO I IOQ! ~~~ 1WNf~QAOCgF X®fi AAmE)1f WiLML 00 WtL1q RKOOff TYPICAL U1ND8f.AP! aCAEFJUNO OF BUILdNO K®1 PATH IJECMANI(.AL EOUP~M PLANT SCHEDULE MULTLFAMILY PROJECT M a '~or.,~~ y~,,~,`, ~ x.a woa Js H~w..~uwq `1m./~.M u.m n.a cw. u ~'o.ownt r,•,m•a,°e,~C1 'apron.i / xa<w' c..o. Yrrta ue ueo.atlo m.napan •oa. arenaa• ru / xan.n uwnon. Yau.. unwn< Tare at Yah taoye :•a..utitu. c.n~ / o..n swu.T wpw. va pn•w. ynnn. / ua.n tat• pam s• xa~ ueynt rwsmae ram re n~oaam awcn„m / a.ia ew.w xan.. powK Team• ur .~n.ne.n. wne.n• / ru+a. an tl.nwnt ra..nt en ma,n%ae.na Aeu.m / u.imn pa ran slain ~pou w W~*eWwi / nmda ~ t~ caw. uc ~;~/ rw uay Yf Yprtimaw• Imyren / Simpwi • aggr 11pNrt. pwlne Ta•mt w rLneeq• awaia. / c•» p.me.p• Orvuye Taarant M M~~.p1~~1•~ F ' 'asa' / oN. a6m IaMan Orenpl~t lelvpnt K Mbvnum .u.Y•n.um / sonacnaa NeumNn douplR LwvR kn~Y nHVa EYtewetlcoYYOa . / omw~.ea p..rt w a.w ..r.a / n~aen w tl.e.ant w waaau prow / cares. xaw., nc.Me Tame JC Juapwu• wnMle / Snon JuaeM DNUOM ioMale tc e.e.a a.,~. / t~w< meant ra..~t Te a.ouWta9pMen1 ea.tlcum / DA. LanIK J.aKw ~®e ~ dg ~ a ~0~~pp4 ~~ d~`s ae d~g~ ~a~ ~ y" LL U J J C~ F y ffig~ Y ~ owl J W o'rc o j ~ o f O~ ~~ da; ®®®~~ad a~~ W ~ Q 0 Y W w LL J J ~( U SEE SHEET LA2 FOR GENEAL LANDSCAPE NOTES N~TM 8 SHEET LA3 FOR LANDSCAPE DETAILS. Lakeside at Clearwater Parking Study Submitted to: City of Clearwater Prepared For: Nickel Plate Properties, Inc. P.O. Box 5008 Clearwater, FL 33758 Prepared by: Roy E. Chapman, P.E. FL Cert. No. 34438 Florida Design Consultants, Inc. 3030 Starkey Blvd. New Port Richey, F134655 Revised: January 13, 2010 :`~, ~~- ~'~. ,. ~' ' ,' C) l:.l r~. t. -µ ~v 1-A- .' i ~1.~) ~~. Introduction The Lakeside of Clearwater project has a commercial area that includes 70,212 sq. ft. of retail space and 12,787 sq. ft. of restaurant land use. A separate residential area of the project will contain 243 dwelling units of multi-family land use. The residential portion of the project will provide 486 parking spaces. Calculations using the City of Clearwater's procedures identify that more parking is desired than is proposed for the project. This study has been prepared to document that the proposed number of parking spaces will be sufficient for the project. 1.0 City of Clearwater Parking Calculation The City of Clearwater has a published procedure in Section 3-1405 of the Community Development Code that defines how the number should be determined. This calculation, presented in Table 1, is conducted in two steps. As indicated in the upper portion of this table, the amount of needed spaces for weekday and weekend visitors in the day and evening are first calculated. The evening weekday time period results in the highest total percentage of parking required, and is therefore the time period to be used in determining the parking requirements by the Development Code. The second portion of Table 1 indicates the calculation of spaces required. This results in a need for 508 parking spaces according to the Code. It is proposed to provide 495 parking spaces within the commercial area of the project. The calculation provided below demonstrates that this number of spaces should be adequate. 2.0 Anal The calculation of the number of parking spaces needed for the commercial area has been based on several steps as follows: The demand for parking in the commercial area of Lakeside has been determined based on City of Clearwater parking rates of 5-spaces/1,000 sq. ft. for the retail land use and 15- spaces/1,000 sq. ft. for the restaurant land use. This calculation is indicated in Part A of Table 2. As is indicated, the retail generates the need for 351 parking spaces and the restaurant land use generates a need for 192 spaces, resulting in a total need for 543 spaces. The Lakeside project includes retail, restaurant, and residential land uses. Due to the mix in these uses there will be some internal capture between them. The Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation Handbook, 2nd Edition, June 2004 indicates internal capture rates for the p.m. peak hour (4:00 to 6:00 p.m.) of many land uses, including those proposed within the Lakeside project. The ITE rates indicate capture between trips generated and are based on inbound and outbound traffic from the site. The top portion of Table 3 indicates the internal capture percentages between the land uses to be constructed. For the purpose of determining reductions in parking in the commercial area of the project, the trips originating within the commercial area are of the greatest concern and affect the lower of the parking demand indicated in Table 2, Section A. For the Retail/Restaurant parking capture, the ITE internal capture rate is the same for inbound and outbound traffic (20%). Since both of the retail and restaurant have all of their parking within the commercial area, 100% of the determined reduction will be subtracted from the parking needs. For the Retail/Apartment and Restaurant/Apartment land uses, the ITE internal capture will be determined and 50% of the calculated internal capture will be used to reduce the number of parking spaces required. The 50% reduction is proposed because some of the people coming to the commercial area from the apartments will walk to the site and some will take a vehicle. This calculation is indicated in the lower section of Table 3 and has been carried over to Section B of Table 2. The Residential/Retail and Residential/Restaurant land uses have the residential portion outside the commercial area. The percentage of internal capture within the commercial area has been averaged for the inbound and outbound uses, resulting in an average of 10.5% capture. Since some of the people in the residential area may walk to the site and others may choose to drive, the internal capture between these pairs has been reduced by 50% as indicated above. This results in reduced parking requirements of 5.25% within the commercial area for both the retail and restaurant land uses. These calculations are indicated in the bottom portion of Table 3 and are carried to Section B in Table 2. The reduction in demand for parking as discussed above has been calculated in Section B of Table 2. This reduces the number of parking spaces needed by 67. As indicated in Section C of Table 2, the overall need for parking in the commercial area is 476 spaces. The site is also well served by bus transit, with Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority (PSTA) Route 60 serving along S.R. 60 and Route 62 serving along Belcher Road. These two routes would allow access by employees and customers within the commercial area and residents of the multi-family portion of the project. Reductions for transit usage have not been subtracted from the parking demand determined through this analysis in order to provide a conservative result. 3.0 Conclusion This study has reviewed the need for parking within the commercial area of Lakeside. As indicated above, the City Code results in a need for 508 parking spaces within this area. The parking analysis provided results in a need for 476 spaces, once the interaction of the adjacent residential portion of the project is considered. The project is proposing to provide 495 parking spaces, which exceeds the calculated amount. It is therefore concluded that the project will have adequate parking in the commercial portion of the project. T:~2009-000'I~Parking Study~Parking Report.doc Table 1. Shared Parking Analysis (Section 3-1405, Community Development Code) U Weekday Weekend se Da Evenin Da Evenin Retail 70% 90% 100% 70% Restaurant 50% 100% 50% 100% Total 120% 190% 150% 170% Parking Requirements With Shared Parking Shared Total Use Formula Required parking Shared Parking Applied Parking Retail 70,212 sf 5/1,000 sf 351 s aces 90% 316 spaces Restaurant 12,787 sf 15/1,000 sf 192 s aces 100% 192 s aces Total Parking Required 508spaces Total Parking Provided 495 spaces Date: Jan. 13.2010 T:\2009-0007\Parking Study\[Parking Calculations Rev2.xls]Table 1 Table 2. Lakeside of Clearwater -Parking Analysis A_ Parkins Demand Land Use Size Units Required Spaces Per 1,000 Sq. Ft. Spaces Needed Retail 70,212 Sq. Ft. 5 351 Restaurant 12,787 Sq. Ft. 15 192 Total 543 B. Internally Satisfied Parking Land Uses Internally Captured Demand Spaces Spaces Reduced Retail/Restaurant 20% 192 38 Residential/Retail 5.25% 351 18 Residential/Restaurant 5.25% 192 10 Tota l Reduction 67 C. Needed Parkina Parking Demand 543 Total Reduction 67 Needed Parking 476 Date: Jan. 13.2010 T:12009-0007\Parking Study\[Parking Calculations Rev2.xls]Table 2 Table 3. Lakeside of Clearwater -Parking Internal Capture Percentages (PM Peak Hour Internal Capture Rates) 31% 12% Residential Retail 53% 9% 31% 20% 20% 53% 12% 20% 9% 20% Restaurant Internal Capture Pairs Inbound Outbound Average Percent Reduction Reduced Parking /o Retail/Restaurant 20% 20% 20% 100% 20.00% Residential/Retail 9% 12% 10.5% 50% 5.25% Residential/Restaurant 9% 12% 10.5% 50% 5.25% Date: Jan 13, 2010 T:\2009-00071Parking Study\[Parking Calculations Rev2.xls]Table 3 FLORIDA DESIGN CONSUL IANIS, INC. Lal~eside at Clearwater Traffic Study Submitted to: City of Clearwater Prepared for: Nickel Plate Properties, Inc. P.O. Box 5008 Clearwater, FL 33758 Prepared by: Roy E. Chapman, P.E. FL P.E. No. 34438 Florida Design Consultants, Inc. 3030 Starkey Boulevard New Port Richey, FL 34655 Date: February 8, 2010 Project No.: 2009-0007-40.06 `l -. T~ T 1 ; `~~ J' ~- ~ . ``~`. ~ n'.. . ~ c ~ ~.. ~,~ . l (~ ~ ~ 1' ~ ``'; i~i •`v\v' r ,. ~, ~ 1.0 Introduction ~ The Lakeside of Clearwater project is located in the southwest quadrant of the S.R. 60 ~ (Gulf to Bay Boulevard) and Belcher Road intersection; see Figure 1, Project Location ~ Map. The project is to replace the previous land use, 295 dwelling units of mobile home park, with amulti-use development that would include 92,500 square feet (sq. ft.) of ~ shopping center and 260 dwelling units of apartment land use. At this time, the shopping center is projected to contain an 8,000 sq. ft. high-turnover sit-down restaurant, a 4,500 ~ sq. ft. bank with drive through, a 40,000 sq. ft. supermarket with pharmacy and drive ~ through, and 40,000 sq. ft. of retail space. This study has been prepared to review the ~ traffic impact on the surrounding transportation network as a result of the project. ~ 2.0 Traffic Methodology ~ A meeting was held with City of Clearwater staff on March 16, 2009 to discuss the methodology to be followed in completing this traffic study. The agreements reached at • the methodology meeting have been used in the development of this traffic study. ~ 3.0 Project Traffic • The following procedure was used to determine the new net external trips that will be ~ generated by the project. Trips generated by the 295 DU of mobile home park land use ~ that previously occupied this site were determined and subtracted from the new external ~ trips for the proposed development. Trips for mobile home park and the proposed land • uses on the site were determined based on information from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) informational report Trip Generation, Eighth Edition, ~ 2008. Table 1 indicates the trip generation for the land uses proposed for the site. ~ According to the ITE Trip Generation report, the mobile home park would generate 170 • trips in the p.m. peak hour and the shopping center, office, and apartment land uses would generate a total of 401 inbound and 364 outbound p.m. peak hour trips. ~ Internal capture between the shopping center, apartment, and office land uses on site have ~ been estimated using the ITE Trip Generation Handbook, Second Edition, June 2004, procedures. As indicated in Table 2 attached, the apartment, office, and shopping center • land uses would have an internal capture of 15.5 percent or 118 p.m. peak hour trips. ~ Since this is below the limit on internal capture of no more than 20% of the trips w generated, the internal capture calculated for this land use mix is considered acceptable. ~ Pass-by capture to the shopping center will reduce the new trips being generated by ~ diverting traffic already on the adjacent roads into this land use. The pass-by capture to ~ the site has been based on the formula contained in the above cited ITE Trip Generation • Handbook. The calculation for 92,500 sq. ft. of shopping center land use results in a pass- by capture of 39.8 percent, or 240 p.m. peak hour trips. These trips were subtracted from ~ the new trips generated. The pass-by traffic will be assigned at the project drives, but ~ will not be identified at other locations because it is part of the background traffic stream. r Including reductions for internal capture and pass-by capture results in a net external assignment of 222 inbound and 185 outbound trips in the p.m. peak hour. These net external trips were further reduced by the trips from the mobile home park that previously occupied the site. The new trips impacting the adjacent roadway network are 116 inbound and 120 outbound trips in the p.m. peak hour. 4.0 Study Area Based on discussions at the methodology meeting the following intersections and highway links were included in the study area: Intersections: S.R. 60 at Belcher Road S.R. 60 at Hercules Avenue Druid Road at Belcher Road Druid Road at Hercules Avenue Project driveways including the Belcher Road at Publix signalized intersection Highway Links: S.R. 60 (Hercules Avenue to Old Coachman Road) Druid Road (Hercules Avenue to Edenville Avenue) Belcher Road (Harn Boulevard to Cleveland Street) 5.0 Background Traffic Background traffic has been established using the following procedure. Traffic counts from a previous study were obtained from the City of Clearwater staff for the intersections of Hercules Avenue with S.R. 60 and Druid Road. New turning movement counts were taken at the intersections of S.R. 60 at Belcher Road, Druid Road at Belcher Road, Belcher Road at Cleveland Street, and S.R. 60 at Old Coachman Road. The counts were taken from 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. with subtotals every 15 minutes. The highest four consecutive 15-minute periods are the p.m. peak hour. The peak hour counts were adjusted to annual average operating conditions. The change in background traffic on roadways impacted by project traffic has been reviewed on a daily basis for the last several years. A review was completed on the changes in traffic volumes on S.R. 60 and Belcher road near the project site. The review concluded that the traffic volumes have not significantly changed for several years. The volumes were reviewed at the traffic methodology meeting. Based on review of these traffic counts it was concluded that traffic in this portion of Clearwater has stabilized. A zero percent growth rate was therefore agreed upon for use in this study. 6.0 Project Traffic Distribution Project traffic distribution is estimated to be very diverse based on the access drives to be constructed for the project and the extensive development surrounding the project. 2 ~ Figure 2 indicates the percentage of project traffic distributed to the highway network for ~ the new trips from the project. The new project will have one driveway to S.R. 60, one • driveway to Belcher Road, and three driveways to Druid Road. The project will construct a new entrance drive on Belcher Road opposite the existing driveway to the ~ Publix shopping center located on the east side of the road. This intersection is currently ~ signalized and will remain signalized in the future. There is an existing driveway to S.R. ~ 60, which is proposed to be relocated further west to be opposite South Main Avenue. . This will allow right turns in and out of the driveway and left turns into the driveway. The other driveways are located on roads without raised medians, therefore, full access ~ drives have been assumed for these other locations. • 7.0 Future Traffic Volumes and Analysis ~ The assignment of trips to the project drives for the 2020 buildout year is shown in Figure ~ 3. This identifies the background traffic, additional traffic that would have been on the road due to the previous mobile home park, new project trips, and pass-by trips to the . shopping center land use. The trips were identified for the previous mobile home park ~ because this land use was closed at the time of the traffic counts. The traffic volumes at ~ the study intersections surrounding the project are shown in Figure 4. The trips at the • adjacent intersections are shown in Table 3 along with the total traffic by directional movement approaching the intersections. ~ Analysis has been conducted to determine the operation of intersections in the study area ~ in the 2020 buildout year. The Synchro program was used for signalized intersections and the Highway Capacity Software was use for the unsignalized project driveways. The • results of this analysis are summarized in Table 4, with copies of the computer output ~ provided in the Appendix and electronic copies of the analysis provided on CD. ~ Acceptable operation on roads surrounding the project is Level of Service D (LOS D). As is indicated in Table 4, all intersections analyzed are projected to operate at acceptable . levels of service with the exception of S.R. 60 at Belcher Road. This intersection is ~ projected to operate at LOS E with the future background traffic volumes. With project ~ traffic, the intersection will remain at LOS E. In order to determine the operating • parameters of the intersection, the volume to capacity ratio (V/C ratio) and the delay in terms of seconds per vehicle have been reported in Table 4. For the S.R. 60 intersection ~ with Belcher Road, the background traffic in the year 2020 is projected to have a ~ maximum V/C ratio of 1.05 and a delay of 66.3 seconds per vehicle. With project traffic, • these intersection measures are estimated to increase to a V/C ratio of 1.06 and a delay of 70.7 seconds per vehicle. An improvement has been identified to mitigate for the ~ degradation of the level of service at this intersection. That improvement is to add an ~ eastbound right turn lane. With this improvement, the intersection operation will remain ~ at LOS E, but the V/C ratio will decrease to 1.00 and the delay will be reduced to 63.6 seconds per vehicle. Aright turn lane is also proposed to be installed at the Belcher Road • and Publix driveway intersection for southbound traffic. LOS B operation is expected at ~ this intersection with the proposed improvement. ~._ The highway links have also been reviewed to determine their existing operation and future operation with the proposed project. The section of Druid Road examined runs from Hercules Avenue to Belcher Road because there is no signal at Edenville Avenue. The results of the analysis are that this section of Druid is projected to operate at an acceptable LOS C in both directions. S.R. 60 and Belcher Road were analyzed using the Synchro program's arterial analysis function and the Artplan program. The analysis indicated that S.R. 60 (from Hercules Avenue to Old Coachman Road) with total traffic, would operate at LOS D in both the eastbound and westbound directions. With the improvement proposed at the S.R. 60 and Belcher Road intersection, the operation would remain at LOS D for both directions. The Florida Department of Transportation's Artplan program has also been run for the segment of S.R. 60 analyzed. This resulted in LOS C operation for both directions of travel. Belcher Road has also been analyzed with both of the above indicated programs to establish link operation. Using the Synchro program LOS E operation was noted for the northbound and southbound directions both with total traffic in the year 2020 and with the proposed improvements at the S.R. 60 and Publix Drive intersections. Reviewing the total travel time in both directions for the Total Traffic and Total Traffic with Improvements scenarios, it was determined that the with improvement scenario would have lower travel times in the northbound and southbound directions. Artplan analysis of Belcher Road with Improvements scenario indicates that the future traffic would operate at LOS C in the northbound direction and LOS D in the southbound direction. The results of this analysis are summarized in Table 5 and copies of the computer printouts are provided in the Appendix. S.0 Interim Meeting Based on discussion at the methodology meeting a meeting with City staff was held on May 26, 2009 to discuss preliminary project findings and to discuss possible improvements to mitigate project impacts. It was requested that the preliminary results indicated by generalized level of service tables be replaced by a more detailed link analysis. Amore detailed analysis is provided above for the highway links significantly impacted by project traffic. 9.0 Driveway Access At the methodology meeting, it was indicated that City code requires that no more than one driveway be provided to each of the adjacent roads and that any additional driveways would require City approval. The project has frontage along S.R. 60, Belcher Road. and Druid Road. As currently envisioned, the project would have one driveway to S.R. 60 that would be located opposite South Main Avenue. This connection would be approximately 290 feet west of Belcher Road. This section of S.R. 60 is a Class 7 roadway, which could have a connection spacing of 125 feet. The proposed location for this driveway should be acceptable. 4 ~ Along Belcher Road, one driveway connection is proposed. This would be located at the ~ existing signalized Publix driveway, which is approximately 700 feet south of S.R. 60. • Belcher Road is under Pinellas County jurisdiction and carries an Access Management Classification of 5. This classification would allow driveways to be spaced 245 feet apart ~ for roads with less than a 45 mph posted speed limit. Since the driveway meets this ~ spacing, it should be approved and it is located at an existing signalized intersection. ~ Along Druid Road, three driveways are being proposed. The first would be located ~ opposite University Drive West, the second would be approximately 800 feet east, and ~ the third drive would be located approximately 310 feet east of the second driveway and • 240 feet west of Belcher Road. For Druid Road, with a posted speed limit of 30 miles per hour, the driveway spacing needs to be 125 feet apart to meet access management ~ standards. Since each of these driveways would be greater than 125 feet apartt, they ~ should be approved. ~ 10.0 Conclusion ~ Based on the analysis conducted in the traffic study and following discussions with ~ Pinellas County and Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) staff the following improvements are proposed: • ~ A. Along S.R. 60, Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard make the following changes: • 1. Install a project driveway located opposite South Main Avenue that will ~ allow right turns in, right turns out, and left turns in. ~ 2. Add a directional median separator on S.R. 60 between the project entrance and South Main Avenue. This will prohibit left and through . movements from the project entrance and South Main Avenue. ~ 3. Restripe the southbound exit from South Main Avenue to a right turn only S lane. ~ 4. Revise the median on S.R. 60 between South Main Avenue and Belcher ~ Road to provide raised concrete separators allowing a left turn lane into ~ the project drive and increasing the left turn storage lane approaching Belcher Road. • ~ 5. Provide additional right-of--way along the south side of S.R. 60 to allow an ~ eastbound right turn lane at the Belcher Road intersection. (The right turn lane cannot be installed at this time because FDOT requires that the • existing traffic signal at this intersection be replaced when the right turn ~ lane is installed. This would require mast arm signals for the entire ~ intersection which would require the mast arm poles to be constructed on • the north side of S.R. 60. There is not sufficient room on the north side of ~ 5 S.R. 60 to allow construction of mast arm poles within the existing right- of-way). B. At the Belcher Road and project drive/Publix intersection: 1. Construct a southbound right turn lane into the project. 2. Install a new mast arm signal with pedestrian signals on all four legs of the intersection. 3. Provide an easement at the southwest corner of the intersection for the signal control equipment. 4. Provide a project driveway to have two exiting lanes, one for left turns and the other for through movements and right turns. C. Along Druid Road: 1. Provide three project driveways. D. The project should be approved to have a buildout date for its completion in the year 2020. With the above-indicated improvements, the analysis has demonstrated that the project would not degrade the operation of the highway network and it should, therefore, be approved. k:\lakeside at clearwater\reports\traffic study.docx 6 W a ••••••••••~•••••••••••1••••••••••••••••••••. r L Q NOT TO SCALE DESCRIPTION: PROJECT No. EPN: o PROJECT LOCATION MAP 2009-07 329 DATE: FIGURE: a ~ FLORIDA DESIGN CONSULTANTS, INC. 5-5-09 y ENGINEERS, ENVIRONMENTALISTS, SURVEYORS B PLANNERS DRAwN BY: 3030 Storkey Blvd, New Porl Richey FL 34655 • Tel: (727) B49-7588 - Fox: (727) B48-3648 6 RAH • OCopyright 2009 Florido Design Consultonts, Inc. Drawings and concepts moy not be used or reproduced without written permission. N ~~ 10% DRUID ROAD M N 109 d- N r-,- DESCRIPTION, PROJECT No. EPN, o PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION Zoos-o~ 32s DATE, FIGURE, a ~ ~ FLORIDA DESIGN CONSULTANTS, INC. s-5-os ENGINEERS. ENVIRONMENTALISTS, SURVEYORS 8 PLANNERS DRAWN BY, 2 3030 Starkey Bivd, New Porl Richey FL 34655 • Tel, (727) 849-7588 -Fox, (727) 848-3648 7 RAH • ©Copyright 2009 Florido Design Consultonts, Ine. Drawings and concepts may not be used or reproduced without written permission. ~- GULF TO BAY BOULEVARD (SR 60) 15~ • ~- 1,955 ((-70)) • (6] (6) ((10)) ~ GUU= TO BAY BLVD. S.R. 60 lase ((-3+)) --- r [76] (77) ((31))~ Y N • v^ :~ v _ • y N 01 ~~ r ~ 67 145 ~ ° PUBUX (2] (3) -~ ~ PROJECT SITE • N u • • N M ~ W W W > > ° ° ° m ~:° ~~ o ~~ ~~ og (7] (7) ~ ~ ~ (7] (6) ~ I ~ (0] (2) ~--r f 442 [74] (13) f- 442 [3] (6) f 442 [7] (7) ~ ~ DRUID RD. 305 [5] (6)-~ 305 [4] (9) y 305 [9] (14) -'~ W U W a ~ m c ~ LEGEND XX -BACKGROUND TRAFFlC ~l [XX] -MOBILE HONE PARK (XX) -NEW PROJECT TRIPS ((XX)) -PASS BY TRIPS NOT TO SCALE DESCRIPTION: 2020 SIZE DISTRI8UT10N MAP PROJECT No. Zoos-o7 EPN: 32s ~° DATE: FIGURE: FLORA DESIGN CONSULTANTS, INC. ~ -~-~ o ~ ENGINEERS, ENVIRONMENTALISTS, SURVEYORS B PLANNERS DRAWN BY. 3 (REV.) 3030 Slorkey Blvd, New Port Richey FL 34655 Tel, (727) 849-7588 - FaY: (727) 84B-3648 $ RAH i i i h itt • en perm on. ss t out wr mCopyright 2009 Florida Design Consultants, Inc. Drawings and concepts may not be used or reproduced w • ____ __ m v a u ~ . o ^ ~n 16 E- 5 ~ ~ + L 24 CLEVELAND ST. -- -- • 67J -~~r ~ 6 -~ ~~~ v ~ O • 86 ~ (~ ~ 9 ~ o • • m N • p • ~ ,o N ~ ~ + L 739 t 7,722 [70] (19) 99 v, m ~ ~ + L' 754 -f- 7,699 [6] (7) (7 a N ~ ~ Y J + ~' 295 ~- 1,747 [16] (14) ~ 54 ~ ' ~ S.R. 60 GULF T0 BAY BLVD: • ~ 154 -~~r e~ () 756 ~ ~. ~ r ~ 794 -~~r • 1,675 [16] (17) y ~ a o N ~ 1,672 [B] (12) y ~v ^ 2,036 [70] (19)~ n a° vO1i 53 ~ 730 ~ u,__, ,N^. ~' 91 • n m N • _, N • W • a • N ~ W ~ v P ROJECT SITE v • = m a ~ m v v t • "~ 92 [6] (6) 5 m v> ~^ ~ tj 743 f 269 [7] (72) ~ 41 a ~ ~ !~ ILy f 176 [5] (6) r 94 p Lal 96 ~ ~ ~ ~` DRUID RD. 75 ~ ~ } r' 373 [11] (72)y 21 'r° m n 723 [3] (6) y 707 [6] (10)7 °;N o - ~ 1 ~,. . m 1 ~~ a m N HARN BLVD ~ LEGEND 0 l0(- BACKGRWND TRAFFIC ~~ [XX] -MOBILE HOME PARK (XX) -NEW PROJECT TRIPS D ((XX)) -PASS BY TRIPS NOT TO SCALE ,~ DESCRIPTION, 2020 PROJECT DISTRIBUTION MAP PROJECT No. 2009-07 EPN, 329 ~ DATE, FIGURE, FLORIDA DESIGN CONSULTANTS, INC. ~-~-~o E NGINEERS, ENVIRONMENTA LISTS, SURVEYORS a PL ANNERS DRAWN BY, 4 (REV.) • 3030 Storkey Blvd, New Porl Richey FL 34655 Tel, (727) 849-7588 -Fox, (727) 848-3648 9 RAH • ©Copyright 2009 Florida Design Consultonts, Inc. Drawings and concepts may not be used or reproduced without written permission. • ••••••~r•••••••••••s•••~••••~••s•••••~••••••• Table 1. Lakeside at Clearwater -Trip Generation Summary 0 Existing AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Land Use ITE LUC Size Units Daily Inbound Outbound Total Inbound Outbound Total Mobile Home Park 240 295 Occ DU 1,316 20 79 99 106 65 170 Nroposea Development Shopping Center 820 92,500 Sq. Ft. 6,455 Apartment 220 260 DU 1,699 Trips Generated 8,155 Internal Capture External Size Calculated Pass-by 92,500 Sq. Ft. 39.8 Percent 26 105 131 105 56 161 112 160 272 401 364 765 59 59 118 342 305 647 Calculated Pass-by 120. 120 240 Net External 222 185 406 Less Existing Mobile Home Park 106 65 170 New Trips 116 120 236 Note: Office Trip Generation uses the average rate due to its small size. Sources: ITE Trip Generation, 8th Edition, and ITE Trip Generation Handbook, 2004 Date: 7/24/09 T:\2009-0007\Traffic Study Rev 1\[Lakeside Tables.xls]Trip Gen r r Table 2. Internal Capture Summary Land Use: A artment A Size• 260 DU . Total Internal External Enter 105 33 72 Exit 56 27 29 Total 161 59 102 % 100 37 63 30 33 27 33 27 37 Land Use: Sho in Center B Size: 92,500 S . ft Total Internal External Enter 296 27 269 Exit 308 33 275 Total 604 59 545 % 100 10 90 Nat Fxtarnal Trinc A B Total Internal Enter 72 269 342 Exit 29 275 305 Total 102 545 647 ITE Trips 161 604 765 15.5 Sources: Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Handbook, 2004 Date: 7/24/09 T:\2009-0007\Traffic Study Rev 1\[Lakeside Tables.xls]Internal 11 ••••!••••i•••!~••••••••i•!!•~~•••••~••~•••••• r N Table 3 (Revised). Intersection Turning Movements Belcher Road and Gulf to Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Ba SR60 Left Thru Ri ht Left Thru Ri ht Left Thru Ri ht Left Thru Ri ht Back round Traffic 171 762 121 175 601 85 156 1,872 130 155 1 699 154 Mobile Home Park 2 14 2 24 8 8 8 Subtotal 173 776 123 175 625 85 156 1880 130 163 1707 154 New Project Tri s 17 27 7 28 8 12 7 7 otal 190 803 130 175 653 85 164 1 892 130 170 1 714 154 Old Coachman at Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Gulf to Ba SR60 Left Thru Ri ht Left Thru Ri ht Left Thru Ri ht Left Thru Ri ht Back round Traffic 74 40 59 166 42 109 194 2 038 91 54 1 741 295 Mobile Home Park 10 16 Subtotal 74 40 59 166 42 109 194 2 048 91 54 1 757 295 New Project Trips 19 14 Total 74 40 59 166 42 109 194 2 067 91 54 1 771 295 Belcher Road at Publix Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Entrance Left Thru Ri ht Left Thru Ri ht Left Thru Ri ht Left Thru Ri ht Background Traffic 987 109 56 830 145 67 Mobile Home Park 22 0 0 32 18 2 13 3 Subtotal 22 987 109 56 830 32 18 2 13 145 3 67 New Project Trips 26 0 0 35 51 3 24 3 Pass-by Tri s 9 -9 -9 9 9 9 Total 57 978 109 56 821 76 78 5 46 145 6 67 Belcher Road at Druid Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Road Left Thru Ri ht Left Thru Ri ht Left Thru Ri ht Left Thru Ri ht Background Traffic 150 943 105 51 753 114 75 123 107 94 178 92 Mobile Home Park 9 16 4 9 3 6 5 6 Subtotal 159 959 105 55 762 114 75 126 113 94 183 98 New Project Tri s 9 20 6 18 6 10 6 6 otal 168 979 105 61 780 114 75 132 123 94 189 104 ~!••••!•••••~••••••••••••••1i••••••••••••••• w Table 3 (Revised) (Cont'd.). Intersection Turning Movements Belcher Road at Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Cleveland Street Left Thru Ri ht Left Thru Ri ht Left Thru Ri ht Left Thru Ri ht Background Traffic 6 995 35 15 767 70 67 6 86 24 5 18 Mobile Home Park 14 24 Subtotal 6 1,009 35 15 791 70 67 6 86 24 5 18 New Project Trips 27 28 Total 6 1 036 35 15 819 70 67 6 86 24 5 18 Gulf to Bay (SR60) at Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Hercules Avenue Left Thru Ri ht Left Thru Ri ht Left Thru Ri ht Left Thru Ri ht Back round Traffic 63 248 108 136 211 144 154 1,875 53 99 1,722 139 Mobile Home Park 16 10 Subtotal 63 248. 108 136 211 144 154 1891 53 99 1732 139 New Project Tri s 17 19 otal 63 248 108 136 211 144 154 1 908 53 99 1 751 139 Hercules Avenue at Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Druid Road Left Thru Ri ht Left Thru Ri ht Left Thru Ri ht Left Thru Ri ht Back round Traffic 16 181 50 87 165 148 98 313 21 41 289 143 Mobile Home Park 11 7 Subtotal 16 181 50 87 165 148 98 324 21 41 296 143 New Project Trips 12 12 Total 16 181 50 87 165 148 98 336 21 41 308 143 Gulf to Bay (SR 60) and Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Drive 1 Left Thru Ri ht Left Thru Ri ht Left Thru Ri ht Left Thru Ri ht Back round Traffic 2 158 1 955 Mobile Home Park 16 16 8 Subtotal 16 2158 16 8 1955 New Project Tri s 12 17 8 Pass-b Tri s 41 -31 31 10 -10 Total 69 2127 64 26 1945 r Table 3 (Revised) (Cont'd.). Intersection Turning Movements Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Druid Road and Drive 2 Left Thru Ri ht Left Thru Ri ht Left Thru Ri ht Left Thru Ri ht Back round Traffic 305 442 Mobile Home Park 4 4 6 5 3 7 Subtotal 4 4 6 310 445 7 New Project Tri s 8 6 6 6 6 7 Total 12 10 12 316 451 14 Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Druid Road and Drive 3 Left Thru Ri ht Left Thru Ri ht Left Thru Ri ht Left Thru Ri ht Back round Traffic 305 442 Mobile Home Park 5 3 5 4 7 7 Subtotal 5 3 5 309 449 7 New Project Trips 6 5 5 9 7 6 Total 11 8 10 318 456 13 Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Druid Road at Drive 4 Left Thru Ri ht Left Thru Ri ht Left Thru Ri ht Left Thru Ri ht Back round Traffic 305 442 Mobile Home Park 0 0 0 9 14 0 Subtotal 0 0 0 314 456 0 New Project Tri s 2 1 1 14 13 2 Total 2 1 1 328 469 2 Source: FDC Date: 8/25/2009 T:\2009-0007\Traffic Study Rev 2\[Lakeside Tables Rev 2.xls~lnt Turn Movements •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• Table 4 (Revised). Intersection Operation Summary Future Back round Traffic Future Tota l Traffic Fu ture Total Traffic With Im rovement Intersection LOS Max V/C Delay (SecNeh) LOS Max V/C Delay (SecNeh) LOS Max V/C Delay (SecNeh) Improvement Druid at Hercules B 0.72 18.9 B 0.70 16.9 Druid at Belcher B 0.80 20.3 C 0.82 21.1 S.R. 60 at Hercules C 0.95 34.0 C 0.95 34.1 S.R. 60 at Belcher E 1.05 66.3 E 1.06 70.7 E 1.00 63.6 EB Rt Lane S.R.60 at Old Coachman C 0.95 29.9 C 0.96 29.9 Belcher at Cleveland B 0.62 11.3 B 0.58 10.4 Belcher at Publix B 0.75 16.8 B 0.79 18.1 B 0.77 17.1 SB Rt Lane S.R. 60 at Drive 1 C 0.20 17.6 Druid at Drive 2 B 0.04 16.1 Druid at Drive 3 B 0.03 16.1 Druid at Drive 4 B 0.01 15.8 Source: FDC Date: 1 /7/10 T:\2009-0007\Traffic Study Rev 2\[Lakeside Tables Rev 2.xls]Int Operation 1 Table 5 (Revised). Link Operation Future Artplan Existing Future S nchro Arterial Anal sis Anal sis Operation Total Traffic Total Traffic w/Impr. Total Traffic Existing w/lm r. Roadway Limits Lanes Direction Volume LOS LOS Travel Time LOS Travel Time LOS D id Edenville to 2LU EB 314 C NA NA C ru Hercules 2LU WB 456 C NA NA C S.R. 60 (Gulf Hercules to Old 6LD EB 2,166 C D 294.2 D 278.5 C to Ba Coachman 6LD WB 1,965 C D 283.0 D 283.9 C Belcher Harn to 4LD NB 1,072 C E 224.1 E 216.1 C Cleveland 4LD SB 931 D E 182.1 E 179.0 D Note: D = Divided, U =Undivided rn Source: FDC Date: 1 /13/10 T:\2009-0007\Traffic Study Rev 2\[Lakeside Tables Rev 2.xls]Link Operation W a Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2020 Background Traffic 13: Druid Road & Belcher Road sl8/2o09 ~SPtk ~:~' . ,1~;-' ~B~T~'~~R~~~ ~t~W ~ ~ `~~ ;`''~" k~ 45~ SBT,,~. "~,S Lane Configurations ~ ~' ]~ ~ ~` ~ ~ ~''~ ~ ~`~` ~ Volume (vph) 75 126 113 94 183 98 159 959 105 55 762 114 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frt 0.850 0.850 0.985 0.850 Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 1787 1881 1599 1787 1881 1599 1787 3521 0 1787 3574 1599 Flt Permitted 0.636 0,441 0.349 0.112 Satd. Flow (perm) 1196 1881 1599 830 1881 1599 657 3521 0 211 3574 1599 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 123 103 17 120 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 2688 504 504 714 Travel Time (s) 61.1 11.5 11.5 16.2 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.92 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Heavy Vehicles(%) 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1°k 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% Adj. Flow (vph) 79 133 123 99 193 103 167 1009 111 58 802 120 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 79 133 123 99 193 103 167 1120 0 58 802 120 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 12 12 12 12 Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0 0 Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16 Two way Left Turn Lane 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 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9 Turn Type Perm Perm pm+pt Perm Perm pm+pt Perm Protected Phases 4 3 8 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 8 2 6 6 Detector Phase 4 4 4 3 8 8 2 2 1 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Split (s) 22.2 22.2 22.2 9.7 22.2 22.2 22.9 22.9 10.1 22.3 22.3 Total Split (s) 22.2 22.2 22.2 9.8 22.2 22.2 32.8 32.8 0.0 10.2 43.0 43.0 Total Split (%) 29.6% 29.6% 29.6% 13.1 % 29.6% 29.6% 43.7% 43.7% 0.0% 13.6% 57.3% 57.3% Maximum Green (s) 16.0 16.0 16.0 4.1 16.0 16.0 26.5 26.5 4.1 36.7 36.7 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.0 3.5 3,5 4.0 4.0 3.2 4.0 4.0 All-Red Time (s) 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.3 2.3 2.9 2.3 2.3 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 6.2 6.2 6.2 5.7 6.2 6.2 6.3 6.3 4.0 6.1 6.3 6.3 Lead/Lag Lag Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode Min Min Min Min Min Min C-Min C-Min Min C-Min C-Min Walk Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 Pedestrian Calls (#Ihr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Act Effct Green (s) 10.8 10.8 10.8 21.5 21.0 21.0 29.5 29.5 41.7 41.5 41.5 Baseline T:12009-00071Traffic StudylSynchrolAnalysis12020 Background Traftic.syn /~ Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 • • • • • • • • Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2020 Background Traffic 13: Druid Road & Belcher Road 6/8/2009 ~.aneGroup ~ E5L ~EB7 ~EBR WBL `'~WBT WBR NBL ;NBT NBR S6L SBT SBR Actuated gIC Ratio 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.29 0.28 0.28 0.39 0.39 0.56 0.55 0.55 v/c Ratio 0.46 0.49 0.37 0.34 0.37 0.20 0.65 0.80 0.24 0.41 0.13 Control Delay 36.9 34.8 8.8 22.6 23.2 5.2 34.7 26.4 11.1 10.9 2.5 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 36.9 34.8 8.8 22.6 23.2 5.2 34.7 26.4 11.1 10.9 2.5 LOS D C A C C A C C B B A Approach Delay 25.8 18.4 27.5 9.9 Approach LOS C B C A °- mars intersection Summon . _ __-__-- --_-_ __. __.___ __ _ _ Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 75 Actuated Cycle Length: 75 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBTL and 6:SBTL, Start of Green Natural Cycle: 75 Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated Maximum vlc Ratio: 0.80 Intersection Signal Delay: 20.3 Intersection LOS: C Intersection Capacity Utilization 67.6% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 Cnlitc and Phacar 1R• f)miri Rnari R Ralrhar Rnar1 07 ~ 02 ~ 0~ -~ m4 ~6 ~~ ,8 Baseline T:12009-00071Traffic StudylSynchrolAnalysis12020 Background Traffic.syn :~ a Synchro 7 - Report Page 2 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2020 Background Traffic 18: Druid Road & Hercules Ave. 5/5/2009 _ bane Group ~ _ ~:EBt _~ ~' '-EBT : ~. ~ EB~R _ ~ ~ . WB~` V~BT~~ V'G~BR~ :~ NBL ~~~~ N8T ' ~ NBR _ S6L ~ T_ .SBT __ . ,. ~~ - SBl~ Lane Configurations ~ ~' ~ ~ ~' ~ ~ ~` ~ ~ ~` ~ Volume (vph) 98 324 21 41 296 143 16 181 50 87 165 148 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Util. 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 Frt 0.850 0.850 0.850 0.850 Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 1787 1881 1599 1787 1881 1599 1787 1881 1599 1787 1881 1599 Flt Permitted 0.464 0.459 0.647 0.637 Satd. Flow (perm) 873 1881 1599 863 1881 1599 1217 1881 1599 1198 1881 1599 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 22 151 54 156 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 504 2688 504 1302 Travel Time (s) 11.5 61.1 ~ 11.5 29.6 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.92 0.95 0.95 0.95 Heavy Vehicles(%) 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% Adj. Flow (vph) 103 341 22 43 312 151 17 191 54 92 174 156 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 103 341 22 43 312 151 17 191 54 92 174 156 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 12 12 12 12 Link Oftset(ft) 0 0 0 0 Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16 Two way Left Turn Lane 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 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9 Number of Detectors 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 Detector Template Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Leading Detector (ft) 20 100 20 20 100 20 20 100 20 20 100 20 Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Detector 1 Position(ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Detector 1 Size(ft) 20 6 20 20 6 20 20 6 20 20 6 20 Detector 1 Type CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex Detector 1 Channel Detector 1 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Queue (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 2 Position(ft) 94 94 94 94 Detector 2 Size(ft) 6 6 6 6 Detector 2 Type CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex Detector 2 Channel Detector 2 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Turn Type pm+pt Perm pm+pt Perm Perm Perm Perm Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 8 2 2 6 6 Detector Phase 7 4 4 3 8 8 2 2 2 6 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (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 Baseline Synchro 7 - Report %user_name% A 3 Page 1 i i i • Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2020 Background Traffic 18: Druid Road & Hercules Ave. 515/2009 bane Group EBL EST ' E$R WBL - WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL : SBT SBR Minimum Split (s) 11.0 23.0 23.0 11.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 23,0 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 Total Split (s) 11.0 23.0 23.0 11.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 Total Split (%) 19.3% 40.4% 40.4% 19.3% 40.4% 40.4% 40.4% 40.4% 40.4% 40.4% 40.4% 40.4% Maximum Green (s) 4.0 16.0 16.0 4.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 Yellow 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 All-Red Time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode Min Min Min Min Min Min C-Min C-Min C-Min C-Min C-Min C-Min Walk Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 Pedestrian Calls (#Ihr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Act Effct Green (s) 20.5 14.3 14.3 19.5 13.7 13.7 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.36 0.25 0.25 0.34 0.24 0.24 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 v/c Ratio 0.25 0.72 0.05 0.11 0.69 0.30 0.05 0.36 0.11 0.27 0.33 0.28 Control Delay 9.7 28.8 7.7 8.6 27.8 5.3 16.9 19.8 6.5 19.9 19.4 5.2 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 9.7 28.8 7.7 8.6 27.8 5.3 16.9 19.8 6.5 19.9 19.4 5.2 LOS A C A A C A B B A B B A Approach Delay 23.6 19.5 16.9 14.2 Approach LOS C B B B Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 57 Actuated Cycle Length: 57 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBTL and 6:SBTL, Start of Green Natural Cycle: 60 Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated Maximum vlc Ratio: 0.72 Intersection Signal Delay: 18.9 In tersection LOS: B Intersection Capacity Utilization 58.7% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 Snlits and Phasas• 1R' nniid Road R Hercules Ave. m2 T m3 ~' 04 ~ ~ ~i, 1 I * ~6 ~ m7 #_ m8 Baseline Synchro 7 - Report %user_name% ti ~ Page 2 i • • Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2020 Background Traffic 2: State Road 60 & Belcher Road 6/8/2009 * £ _... _. ane Grniin a : ~ --.-~-.c c -.~ ~ .~. ~ EBL ~ ~EBT J.. EBR~ ~ ....-rw.uivn ~ . WBL :.gyn. .aaw WBT ~, _.- 1NBR k .. . _.- ..~.- 8R .~ ~:.,NBL~T T .~. . t SBL:~ ..--..aaa.. : SBT: . rnitma SBf Lane Configurations ~ . ~~'~i ~ ~'~`'~ ~ ~`~ ~ '~`~' Volume (vph) 156 1880 130 163 1707 154 173 776 123 175 625 85 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 0.91 1.00 0.91 0.91 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 Frt 0.990 0.988 0.980 0.982 Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 1787 5084 0 1787 5074 0 1787 3503 0 1787 3510 0 Flt Permitted 0.072 0.072 0.140 0.109 Satd. Flow (perm) 135 5084 0 135 5074 0 263 3503 0 205 3510 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 9 12 12 10 Link Speed (mph) 45 45 35 35 Link Distance (ft) 2685 3917 622 1744 Travel Time (s) 40.7 59.3 12.1 34.0 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0,95 Heavy Vehicles(%) 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% Adj. Flow (vph) 164 1979 137 172 1797 162 182 817 129 184 658 89 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 164 2116 0 172 1959 0 182 946 0 184 747 0 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 12 12 12 12 Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0 0 Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16 Two way Left Turn Lane 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 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9 Turn Type pm+pt pm+pt pm+pt pm+pt Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6 Detector Phase 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 12.0 4.0 12.0 5.0 10.0 5.0 10.0 Minimum Split (s) 9.7 21.9 9.7 21.9 11.2 22.5 11.2 22.5 Total Split (s) 16.5 61.4 0.0 16.5 61.4 0.0 19.4 44.1 0.0 18.0 42.7 0.0 Total Split (%) 11.8% 43.9% 0.0% 11.8% 43.9% 0.0% 13.9% 31.5% 0.0% 12.9% 30.5% 0.0% Maximum Green (s) 10.8 55.5 10.8 55.5 13.2 37.6 11.8 36.2 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 4.0 3.5 4.0 3.5 4.0 3.5 4.0 All-Red Time (s) 2.2 1.9 2.2 1.9 2.7 2.5 2.7 2.5 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 5.7 5.9 4.0 5.7 5.9 4.0 6.2 6.5 4.0 6.2 6.5 4.0 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes 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 Min C-Min Min C-Min Walk Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 0 0 0 0 Act Effct Green (s) 66.4 55.5 66.6 55.6 50.6 37.6 48.8 36.7 Baseline T:12009-00071Traffic StudylSynchrolAnalysis12020 Background Traffic.syp 5 Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2020 Background Traffic 2: State Road 60 & Belcher Road 618/2009 ~ -* ~ a-- ~'1 ~ ~*" ~* ~ .d _..,. _ Lane Group EBL ` EBT EBR WBL . ~WBT ~ WBR ' NBL NBT NBR ~ ~ SBL . SBT SBR Actuated gIC Ratio 0.47 0.40 0.48 0.40 0.36 0.27 0.35 0.26 vlc Ratio 0.86 1.05 0.90 0.97 0.78 1.00 0.90 0.81 Control Delay 69.5 74.4 76.2 55.0 52.2 78.4 76.1 55.6 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 69.5 74.4 76.2 55.0 52.2 78.4 76.1 55.6 LOS E E E D D E E E Approach Delay 74.1 56.7 74.1 59.7 Approach LOS E E E E ~n~ersection Sitmmary_ Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 140 Actuated Cycle Length: 140 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBTL and 6:SBTL, Start of Green Natural Cycle: 140 Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.05 Intersection Signal Delay: 66.3 Intersection LOS: E Intersection Capacity Utilization 103.6% ICU Level of Service G Analysis Period (min)15 Splits and Phases 2' State Road 60 & Belcher Road al I m2 ~ ~3 ""- m4 1Oi =~.: a ~ '~: ~: ~ 4:4 16.5°s'. 61°4 ~5 I 'i ~ ~ ~ 07 ~ ~, 19.'4:s' ~#?:7 s u_ 6{'5 ^ 61.=3 ; Baseline Synchro 7 - Report T:12009-00071Traffic StudylSynchrolAnalysis12020 Background Traffic.s~n (o Page 2 • • • • Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2020 Background Traffic 1: State Road 60 & Hercules Ave. 5~5~2009 ~a~e`Gro P ' ~ ~t~L ~ E~T',° - ~ ~ -yVBL T '':1NBR ? NBL NBT „; NBR: ' SB~L'"` ~ ' SST ; SCR Lane Configurations ~ '~~'"~ ~ ~`~`'~ ~ ~` ~ ~ ~` ~ Volume (vph) 154 1891 53 99 1732 139 63 248 108 136 211 144 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 0.91 1.00 0.91 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.996 0.989 0.850 0.850 Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 1787 5115 0 1787 5079 0 1787 1881 1599 1787 1881 1599 Flt Permitted 0.103 0.109 0.620 0.285 Satd. Flow (perm) 194 5115 0 205 5079 0 1166 1881 1599 536 1881 1599 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 6 17 114 119 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 1008 2685 1302 994 Travel Time (s) 22.9 61.0 29.6 22.6 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Heavy Vehicles(%) 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% Adj. Flow (vph) 162 1991 56 104 1823 146 66 261 114 143 222 152 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 162 2047 0 104 1969 0 66 261 114 143 222 152 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 12 12 12 12 Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0 0 Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16 Two way Left Turn Lane 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 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9 Number of Detectors 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 Detector Template Left Thru Left Thru Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Leading Detector (ft) 20 100 20 100 20 100 20 20 100 20 Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Detector 1 Position(ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Detector 1 Size(ft) 20 6 20 6 20 6 20 20 6 20 Detector 1 Type CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex Detector 1 Channel Detector 1 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Queue (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 2 Position(ft) 94 94 94 94 Detector 2 Size(ft) 6 6 6 6 Detector 2 Type CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex Detector 2 Channel Detector 2 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Turn Type pm+pt pm+pt Perm Perm pm+pt Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 2 6 6 Detector Phase 7 4 3 8 2 2 2 1 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Baseline %user_name% ~7 Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2020 Background Traffic 1: State Road 60 & Hercules Ave. 5/5/2009 _ ,_.. Lane Group EBL _.... r EB7 fBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Minimum Split (s) 10.1 22.3 10.1 22.3 22.9 22.9 22.9 9.9 22.9 22.9 Total Split (s) 13.0 44.6 0.0 10.4 42.0 0.0 24.8 24.8 24.8 10.2 35.0 35.0 Total Split (%) 14.4% 49.6% 0.0% 11.6% 46.7% 0.0% 27.6% 27.6% 27.6% 11.3% 38.9% 38.9% Maximum Green (s) 6.9 38.3 4.3 35.7 17.9 17.9 17.9 4.3 28.1 28.1 Yellow Time (s) 3.2 3.9 3.2 3.9 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.0 3.2 3.2 All-Red Time (s) 2.9 2.4 2.9 2.4 3.7 3.7 3.7 2.9 3.7 3.7 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 6.1 6.3 4.0 6.1 6.3 4.0 6.9 6.9 6.9 5.9 6.9 6.9 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lag Lag Lead Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode Min Min Min Min C-Min C-Min C-Min Min C-Min C-Min Walk Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 Pedestrian Calls (#Ihr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Act Effct Green (s) 46.5 38.9 42.1 36.7 16.1 16.1 16.1 27.6 26.6 26.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.52 0.43 0.47 0.41 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.31 0.30 0.30 v/c Ratio 0.70 0.92 0.56 0.95 0.32 0.77 0.30 0.63 0.40 0.27 Control Delay 32.4 33.0 24.5 37.2 35.7 51.3 8.5 37.5 27.4 8.4 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 32.4 33.0 24.5 37.2 35.7 51.3 8.5 37.5 27.4 8.4 LOS C C C D D D A D C A Approach Delay 33.0 36.5 37.9 24.6 Approach LOS C D D C Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 90 Actuated Cycle Length: 90 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBTL and 6:SBTL, Start of Green Natural Cycle: 90 Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.95 Intersection Signal Delay: 34.0 Intersection LOS: C Intersection Capacity Utilization 86.7% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min)15 Splits and Phases: 1: State Road 60 & Hercules Ave. el I m2 T m3 ~ m4 1.0:'2 24`8 s ~ 1b.4,` 4~t.E s; ~; :., 31~., ., . m6 ~ m7 ~--- a8 Baseline Synchro 7 - Report %user_name% ~ $ Page 2 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2020 Background Traffic 4: Cleveland Street & Belcher Road 5152009 3roup EBL ..:EBT~ EBR WBL = WBT _WBR. ` NBL NBT. NB~58~' SBT .` Lane Configurations ~' ~ a' ~ ~~` ~ ~~ Volume (vph) 67 6 86 24 5 18 6 1009 35 15 791 70 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.95 Fr{ 0.850 0.850 0.850 0.988 Flt Protected 0.956 0.960 0.999 Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1798 1599 0 1806 1599 0 3574 1599 0 3528 0 Flt Permitted 0.721 0.709 0.949 0.926 Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1356 1599 0 1334 1599 0 3392 1599 0 3270 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 39 15 37 20 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 504 504 1744 504 Travel Time (s) 11.5 11.5 39.6 11.5 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Heavy Vehicles (%) 1 % 1 % 1 % 1 % 1 % 1 % 1 % 1 % 1 % 1 % 1 % 1 Adj. Flow (vph) 71 6 91 25 5 19 6 1062 37 16 833 74 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 77 91 0 30 19 0 1068 37 0 923 0 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 0 0 0 0 Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0 0 Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16 Two way Left Turn Lane 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 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9 Number of Detectors 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 Detector Template Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Leading Detector (ft) 20 100 20 20 100 20 20 100 20 20 100 Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Detector 1 Position(ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Detector 1 Size(ft) 20 6 20 20 6 20 20 6 20 20 6 Detector 1 Type CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex Detector 1 Channel Detector 1 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Queue (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 2 Position(ft) 94 94 94 94 Detector 2 Size(ft) 6 6 6 6 Detector 2 Type CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex Detector 2 Channel Detector 2 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Perm Perm Perm Perm Protected Phases 4 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 8 2 2 6 Detector Phase 4 4 4 8 8 8 2 2 2 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Baseline Synchro 7 - Report %user_name% A 9 Page 1 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2020 Background Traffic 4: Cleveland Street & Belcher Road 5/5/2009 _ ~.ane Group _ ___. EBL _ _._ EBT EBR m WBL r.~_. WBT WBR NBL ' NBT NBR > SBL SBT SBR Minimum Split (s) 25.5 25.5 25.5 25.5 25.5 25.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 Total Split (s) 26.0 26.0 26.0 26.0 26.0 26.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 0.0 Total Split (%) 53.1 % 53.1 % 53.1 % 53.1 % 53.1 % 53.1 % 46.9% 46.9% 46.9% 46.9% 46.9% 0.0% Maximum Green (s) 16.5 16.5 16.5 16.5 16.5 16.5 16.5 16.5 16.5 16.5 16.5 Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 All-Red Time (s) 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 4.0 Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode Min Min Min Min Min Min C-Min C-Min C-Min C-Min C-Min Walk Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 Pedestrian Calls (#Ihr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Act Effct Green (s) 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 24.8 24.8 24.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.51 0.51 0.51 vlc Ratio 0.34 0.30 0.13 0.07 0.62 0.04 0.56 Control Delay 21.2 13.7 17.4 10.3 11.4 3.4 10.3 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 21.2 13.7 17.4 10.3 11.4 3.4 10.3 LOS C B B B B A B Approach Delay 17.1 14.7 11.1 10.3 Approach LOS B B B B ..,_. __ lntersectioh Summary __ , Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 49 Actuated Cycle Length: 49 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBTL and 6:SBTL, Start of Green Natural Cycle: 55 Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.62 Intersection Signal Delay: 1 1.3 In tersection LOS: B Intersection Capacity Utilization 58.9% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min)15 Snlits and Phases• 4• Cleveland Street R Relrher Road 02 '~ m4 Z~S 26S~r~ _ r,-•i Ot7 '~_~ 08 Baseline Synchro 7 - Report %user_name% p ~ ~ Page 2 r Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2020 Background Traffic 5: Shopping Center Driveway & Belcher Road 8/24/2oos * 1 ~`~~. U~~~ '"~-- = ~ EBB ~ rB7 ~ ~ EBR'~ ~ 4N~3LT~~~T "~1N~F2 ``~`~~~~,.° 1BR x ; .SBLm PSB ;' '~'_r S~f3 Lane Configurations ~' ~ a' ~ ~`~ ~ ~`~' Volume (vph) 18 2 13 145 3 67 22 987 109 56 830 32 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95. 0.95 Frt 0.850 0.850 0.985 0.994 Flt Protected 0.957 0.953 0.999 .0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1783 1583 0 1792 1599 0 3516 0 1787 3551 0 Flt Permitted 0.777 0.714 0.930 0.239 Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1447 1583 0 1343 1599 0 3274 0 450 3551 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 14 35 23 8 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 499 476 714 622 Travel Time (s) 11.3 10.8 16.2 14.1 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.95 0.92 0.95 0.92 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0,92 Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 2% 1 % 2% 1 % 2% 1 % 1 % 1 % 1 % 2% Adj. Flow (vph) 20 2 14 153 3 71 24 1039 115 59 874 35 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 22 14 0 156 71 0 1178 0 59 909 0 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 0 0 12 12 Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0 0 Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16 Two way Left Turn Lane 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 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9 Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Perm pm+pt pm+pt Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 8 2 6 Detector Phase 4 4 4 8 8 8 5 2 1 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Split (s) 20.0 20.0 20.0 23.2 23.2 23.2 8.0 22.1 8.0 22.0 Total Split (s) 23.2 23.2 23.2 23.2 23.2 23.2 8.0 28.8 0.0 8.0 28.8 0.0 Total Split (%) 38.7% 38.7% 38.7% 38.7% 38.7% 38.7% 13.3% 48.0% 0.0% 13.3% 48.0% 0.0% Maximum Green (s) 19.2 19.2 19.2 16.0 16.0 16.0 4.0 22.7 4.0 22.8 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 4.0 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time (s) 0.5 0.5 0.5 3.7 3.7 3.7 0.5 2.1 0.5 2.5 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 7.2 7.2 7.2 4.0 6.1 4.0 4.0 6.0 4.0 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 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode Min Min Min Min Min Min Min C-Min Min C-Min Walk Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 Pedestrian Calls (#Ihr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Act Effct Green (s) 15.0 15,0 11.8 11.8 28.5 33.2 25.8 Baseline T:12009-00071Traffic Study Rev 11SynchrolAnalysis12020 Background Traffic.syn~ ( Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 r • Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2020 Background Traffic 5: Shopping Center Drivewa y & Belcher Road 8/24/2009 ~ ~ ~ ~ . n-- _n~~-~ ._ _ . _u,. .~. ~.ane Grou ~ EBL ; ; _ EBT _ .~,~ T. ,-~- EBR ~L WBT- - -.~~ ~ ~. WBR NBL : .__ " NBT ., .._,~.. NCR = ° SSL ~.. SST SBR Actuated g/C Ratio 0.25 0.25 0.20 0.20 0.48 0.55 0.43 v/c Ratio 0.06 0.03 0.59 0.21 0.75 0.16 0.59 Control Delay 15.6 8.2 30.4 12.5 16.8 6.8 15.7 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 15.6 8.2 30.4 12.5 16.8 6.8 15.7 LOS B A C B B A B Approach Delay 12.7 24.8 16.8 15.2 Approach LOS B C B B Queue Length 50th (ft) 6 0 51 11 123 7 127 Queue Length 95th (ft) 19 10 95 36 #241 23 196 Internal Link Dist (ft) 419 396 634 542 Turn Bay Length (ft) Base Capacity (vph) 463 516 358 452 1581 370 1529 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced vlc Ratio 0.05 0.03 0.44 0.16 0.75 0.16 0.59 ~rite'rsectioh Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 60 Actuated Cycle Length: 60 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBTL and 6:SBTL, Start of Green Natural Cycle: 60 Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.75 Intersection Signal Delay: 16.8 Intersection LOS: B Intersection Capacity Utilization 72.6% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. Cnlitc anri Phacac• 5• Chnnninn r~antar rlrivewav R Relrhar Rnad 01 I m2 ~ m4 ,,.._ ~~yy, ;k y _ g 05 ~~ m6 ~~ ~< m8 4 s 2~i 8 s ~ ~:;, r-~, 'x"3.2.' ~~-a~:T A Baseline Synchro 7 - Report T:12009-00071Traffic Study Rev 11SynchrolAnalysis12020 Background Traffic. i 2 Page 2 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2020 Background Traffic 3: State Road 60 & Old Coachman 5i5i2oo9 'ane Group ~ E¢L'~~;. EBT.. ; EBR VirBL W8~ WBf2 NBL .' NBL_ ' IJBR 5BL SBT ' 'SBR Lane Configurations ~ '~~''~ ~ ~ ~~'~i ~ ~ ~ ~ Volume (vph) 194 2048 91 54 1757 295 74 40 59 166 42 109 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.91 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.850 0.978 0.911 0.892 Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 1787 5136 1599 .1787 5023 0 1787 1714 0 1787 1678 0 Flt Permitted 0.091 0.099 0.656 0.482 Satd. Flow (perm) 171 5136 1599 186 5023 0 1234 1714 0 907 1678 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 96 44 62 110 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 3917 1000 1004 998 Travel Time (s) 89.0 22.7 22.8 22.7 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Heavy Vehicles(%) 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% Adj. Flow (vph) 204 2156 96 57 1849 311 78 42 62 175 44 115 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 204 2156 96 57 2160 0 78 104 0 175 159 0 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 12 12 12 12 Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0 0 Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16 Two way Left Turn Lane 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 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9 Number of Detectors 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 Detector Template Left Thru Right Left Thru Left Thru Left Thru Leading Detector (ft) 20 100 20 20 100 20 100 20 100 Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Detector 1 Position(ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Detector 1 Size(ft) 20 6 20 20 6 20 6 20 6 Detector 1 Type CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex Detector 1 Channel Detector 1 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Queue (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 2 Position(ft) 94 94 94 94 Detector 2 Size(ft) 6 6 6 6 Detector 2 Type CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex CI+Ex Detector 2 Channel Detector 2 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Turn Type pm+pt Perm pm+pt Perm pm+pt Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 2 6 Detector Phase 7 4 4 3 8 2 2 1 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Baseline Synchro 7 - Report %user_name% ~ ~ 3 Page 1 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2020 Background Traffic 3: State Road 60 & Old Coachman 5/5/2009 j_ane Group ~ ~ EBL ' EBT EBR N1BL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Minimum Split (s) 10.3 21.6 21.6 10.3 20.9 24.5 24.5 8.7 24.5 Total Split (s) 14.2 45.9 45.9 10.3 42.0 0.0 25.0 25.0 0.0 8.8 33.8 0.0 Total Split (%) 15.8% 51.0% 51.0% 11.4% 46.7% 0.0% 27.8% 27.8% 0.0% 9.8% 37.6% 0.0% Maximum Green (s) 7.9 40.3 40.3 4.0 37.1 16.5 16.5 4.1 25.3 Yellow Time (s) 3.2 3.9 3.9 3.2 3.2 3.6 3.6 3.0 3.6 All-Red Time (s) 3.1 1.7 1.7 3.1 1.7 4.9 4.9 1.7 4.9 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 6.3 5.6 5.6 6.3 4.9 4.0 8.5 8.5 4.0 4.7 8.5 4.0 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lag Lead Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode Min Min Min Min Min C-Min C-Min Min C-Min Walk Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 Pedestrian Calls (#Ihr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Act Effct Green (s) 53.5 43.9 43.9 44.8 40.2 11.0 11.0 23.6 19.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.59 0.49 0.49 0.50 0.45 0.12 0.12 0.26 0.22 v/c Ratio 0.71 0.86 0.12 0.29 0.95 0.52 0.40 0.63 0.35 Control Delay 32.4 25.8 3.6 12.9 35.8 48.2 20.8 38.1 12.2 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 32.4 25.8 3.6 12.9 35.8 48.2 20.8 38.1 12.2 LOS C C A B D D C D B Approach Delay 25.5 35.2 32.6 25.8 Approach LOS C D C C lntersectior Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 90 Actuated Cycle Length: 90 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBTL and 6:SBTL, Start of Green Natural Cycle: 90 Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated Maximum vlc Ratio: 0.95 Intersection Signal Delay: 29.9 Intersection LOS: C Intersection Capacity Utilization 87.8% IC U Level of Service E Analysis Period (min)15 Splits and Phases: 3: State Road 60 & Old Coachman of ~ 02 ~ m3 ~ 04 :. "' ~5~s , :: .: B _ ~ 73 X5:9 ~ • ': =,:'.~ ~ ' `-~ ~ , t. ~s`:. ~ .;.., I ^ 06 ~ m7 ~--- ~,' 3;{ ~ ~~ ~ m=~~ ,~. A~ -~ ,: .. _ ,. Baseline Synchro 7 - Report %user_name% ~ ~ `~ Page 2 • • i Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2: State Road 60 & Belcher Road 1I6/2o10 Lane Configurations ~ ~'~`'~ ~ ~`~`'~ ~ ~`~ ~ ~`~' Volume (vph) 8 156 1892 130 170 1714 154 190 803 130 175 653 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 1.00 0.91 0.91 1.00 0.91 0.91 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 Frt 0.990 0.988 0.979 0.983 Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1786 5084 0 1787 5074 0 1787 3499 0 1787 3513 Flt Permitted 0.073 0.073 0.120 0.109 Satd. Flow (perm) 0 137 5084 0 137 5074 0 226 3499 0 205 3513 Right Tum on Red Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 9 12 13 10 Link Speed (mph) 45 45 35 35 Link Distance (ft) 2685 3917 622 1744 Travel Time (s) 40.7 59.3 12,1 34.0 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 1 % 1 % 1 % 1 % 1 % 1 °~ 1 % 1 % 1 % 1 % 1 Adj. Flow (vph) 9 164 1992 137 179 1804 162 200 845 137 184 687 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 173 2129 0 179 1966 0 200 982 0 184 776 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment RNA Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Median Width(ft) 12 12 12 12 Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0 0 Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16 Two way Left Turn Lane 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 Turning Speed (mph) 9 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 Turn Type custom pm+pt pm+pt pm+pt pm+pt Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 7 4 8 2 6 .Detector Phase 7 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 12.0 4.0 12.0 5.0 10.0 5.0 10.0 Minimum Split (s) 9.7 9.7 21.9 9.7 21.9 11.2 22.5 11.2 22.5 Total Split (s) 17.0 17.0 61.0 0.0 16.4 60.4 0.0 19.4 45.2 0.0 17.4 43.2 Total Split (%) 12.1 % 12.1 % 43.6% 0.0% 11.7% 43.1 % 0.0% 13.9% 32.3% 0.0% 12.4% 30.9% Maximum Green (s) 11.3 11.3 55.1 10.7 54.5 13.2 38.7 11.2 36.7 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 4.0 3.5 4.0 3.5 4.0 3.5 4.0 All-Red Time (s) 2.2 2.2 1.9 2.2 1.9 2.7 2.5 2.7 2.5 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 5.7 5.7 5.9 4.0 5.7 5.9 4.0 6.2 6.5 4.0 6.2 6.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode Min Min Min Min Min Min C-Min Min C-Min Walk Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 0 0 0 0 Act Effct Green (s) 66.5 55.1 65.5 54.6 52.1 38.7 48.3 36.8 Baseline Synchro 7 - Report 2020 Total Traffic ~ ~f Page 1 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2: State Road 60 & Belcher Road 1/6/2010 La~onfigurations Volume (vph) 85 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) 0 Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) Link Speed (mph) Link Distance (ft) Travel Time (s) Peak Hour Factor 0.95 Heavy Vehicles (%) 1 Adj. Flow (vph) 89 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 Enter Blocked Intersection No Lane Alignment Right Median Width(ft) Link Offset(ft) Crosswalk Width(ft) Two way Left Turn Lane Headway Factor 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 9 Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Detector Phase Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) Minimum. Split (s) Total Split (s) 0.0 Total Split (%) 0.0% Maximum Green (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Vehicle Extension (s) Recall Mode Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) Act Effct Green (s) Baseline Synchro 7 - Report 2020 Total Traffic r~ j~ Page 2 • Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2: State Road 60 & Belcher Road 1/612 010 1 ..r.~ - -~ -.-. _-~--- ._ _ ~. ~ e ..~ ~ ' EBT ~an~ G[oup _-:. 9 EAU ; ESL _ _ _.. EBB 1~BL , ..,~ ~.~ ~,.- WBT, .: ,'JVBR ., _ ~.. , NBL - . _.~,_ . . NBT. _ .-ns.~.. _ ~ 1VBE3 .~ ..~. , tm SBL T ~ SB Actuated g/C Ratio 0.48 0.39 0.47 0.39 0.37 0.28 0.34 0.26 v/c Ratio 0.88 1.06 0.94 0.99 0.87 1.01 0.93 0.83 Control Delay 72.2 79.3 86.6 60.0 66.1 79.5 83.7 57.1 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 72.2 79.3 86.6 60.0 66.1 79.5 83.7 57.1 LOS E E F E E E F E Approach Delay 78.8 62.2 77.2 62.2 Approach LOS E E E E Queue Length 50th (ft) 105 -778 112 645 121 -473 116 349 Queue Length 95th (ft) #244 #872 #265 #767 #262 #624 #268 429 Internal Link Dist (ft) 2605 3837 542 1664 Turn Bay Length (ft) Base Capacity (vph) 198 2006 190 1986 231 977 197 931 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.87 1.06 0.94 0.99 0.87 1.01 0.93 0.83 ntersecfiori Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 140 Actuated Cycle Length: 140 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBTL and 6:SBTL, Start of Green Natural CycIe:140 Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.06 Intersection Signal Delay: 70.7 Intersection LOS: E Intersection Capacity Utilization 105.2% ICU Level o f Service G Analysis Period (min)15 Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be lo nger. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. Snlits anri Phasas• ~• State Rnad 60 R Belcher Road of +~ '` 'I m2 ~ 03 J•: ~` 04 ., . , ,.,~ a5 ~~` mE m7 ~-- ~ Baseline Synchro 7 - Report 2020 Total Traffic Page 3 ~~~ i r Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2: State Road 60 & Belcher Road 1/6/2010 ~ane Group SBR Actuated gIC Ratio v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay LOS Approach Delay Approach LOS Queue Length 50th (ft) Queue Length 95th (ft) Internal Link Dist (ft) Turn Bay Length (ft) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Retluctn Spillback Cap Retluctn Storage Cap Retluctn Reduced v/c Ratio ~E~tersPction Summery Baseline 2020 Total Traffic t~ 1~ Synchro 7 - Report Page 4 • • • Lanes, Volumes, Timings 5: Shopping Center Drivewa y & Belcher Road 1/6/2010 ane G uor p ~ ~ ~ ~;° ~ ,~EBL T .. EBR . W6L !~/VBT WBR BBL . r~BT -„ BR SBL • -: SST ~ SBt Lane Configurations ~' ~ ~' ~ ~`'~ ~ ~`~ Volume (vph) 78 5 46 145 6 67 57 978 109 56 821 76 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 Frt 0.850 0.850 0.986 0.987 Flt Protected 0.955 0.954 0.997 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1797 1599 0 1795 1599 0 3514 0 1787 3528 0 Flt Permitted 0.628 0.671 0.833 0.230 Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1181 1599 0 1262 1599 0 2936 0 433 3528 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 48 54 22 18 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 421 476 714 622 Travel Time (s) 9.6 10.8 16.2 14.1 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.99 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.92 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Heavy Vehicles(%) 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% Adj. Flow (vph) 82 5 48 153 6 71 62 1029 115 59 864 80 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 87 48 0 159 71 0 1206 0 59 944 0 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 0 0 12 12 Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0 0 Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16 Two way Left Turn Lane 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 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9 Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Perm pm+pt pm+pt Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 8 2 6 Detector Phase 4 4 4 8 8 8 5 2 1 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Split (s) 23.2 23.2 23.2 23.2 23.2 23.2 10.0 22.1 10.0 22.5 Total Split (s) 23.2 23.2 23.2 23.2 23.2 23.2 10.0 31.8 0.0 10.0 31.8 0.0 Total Split (%) 35.7% 35.7% 35.7% 35.7% 35.7% 35.7% 15.4% 48.9% 0.0% 15.4% 48.9% 0.0% Maximum Green (s) 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 4.0 25.7 4.0 25.7 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 4.0 3.5 4.0 All-Red Time (s) 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 2.5 2.1 2.5 2.1 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.2 6.0 6.1 4.0 6.0 6.1 4.0 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 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode Min Min Min Min Min Min Min C-Min Min C-Min Walk Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 Pedestrian Calls (#Ihr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Act Effct Green (s) 12.7 12.7 12.7 12.7 32.7 33.4 28.1 Baseline 2020 Total Traffic t~ i ~ Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 w • • • • • • • • • Lanes, Volumes, Timings 5: Shopping Center Drivewa y & Belcher Road 1/6/2010 ~ ~ ~`t ~ ~ * I l~ ~'' an~Group ~'. ~ -_l3C - _EBT 'EBR ~ BBL ~ ~ W"B~ .atTT~F B'L ^`~: N6T ;- ~R = SBA `sBT ; . SBR Actuated g/C Ratio 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.50 0.51 0.43 v/c Ratio 0.38 0.14 0.65 0.20 0.79 0.18 0.62 Control Delay 26.4 7.7 36.0 10.1 17.5 8.0 16.7 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 26.4 7.7 36.0 10.1 17.5 8.0 16.7 LOS C A D B B A B Approach Delay 19.8 28.0 17.5 16.2 Approach LOS B C B B Queue Length 50th (ft) 30 0 58 6 135 9 147 Queue Length 95th (ft) 64 23 109 33 #244 24 214 Internal Link Dist (ft) 341 396 634 542 Turn Bay Length (ft) Base Capacity (vph) 291 430 311 434 1531 331 1534 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.30 0.11 0.51 0.16 0.79 0.18 0.62 n ersection Surpmary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 65 Actuated Cycle Length: 65 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:N BTL and 6:SBTL, Start of Green Natural Cycle: 65 Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.79 Intersection Signal Delay: 18.1 Intersection LOS: B Intersection Capacity Utilization 88.5% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue maybe longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. Snlits anri Phasas 5• Shnnninn Center Driveway & Belcher Road m7 I m2 '~ m4 1 Ll : ~- 1 8 ' V #?, t~,:: r ~ ~~ =;r ~ 23:x' xz t ~' 05 I *~ 06 ~ m8 yy//~ :FU=. ~y 31 S ~ M'+ .}~ '~'s a ~ ~~ ~.~ r!~~ .~1",~~. Baseline Synchro 7 - Report 2020 Total Traffic ~ aQ Page 2 r i Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2020 Total Traffic 1: State Road 60 & Hercules Ave. #~ 7/2912009 ~a~e~.G[o~P..., ,; ~ .• •, , ~~EBL `EBT,~EBR,s~..~WBLwy ~ -Wli l ;- WIiK , ;rlVtiL ~ : " Iyq ~'~~tvtsC~e,; Jt~~;. ;: Jo i ,4~ ~o Lane Configurations ~ '~~''~ ~ '~~`'~ ~ ~` ~ ~ ~` ~ Volume (vph) 154 1908 53 99 1751 139 63 248 108 136 211 144 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 0.91 1.00 0.91 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.996 0.989 0.850 0.850 Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 1787 5115 0 1787 5079 0 1787 1881 1599 1787 1881 1599 Flt Permitted 0.102 0.108 0.620 0.285 Satd. Flow (perm) 192 5115 0 203 5079 0 1166 1881 1599 536 1881 1599 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 6 17 114 119 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 1008 2685 1302 994 Travel Time (s) 22.9 61.0 29.6 22.6 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Heavy Vehicles(%) 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% Adj. Flow (vph) 162 2008 56 104 1843 146 66 261 114 143 222 152 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 162 2064 0 104 1989 0 66 261 114 143 222 152 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 12 12 12 12 Link Oftset(ft) 0 0 0 0 Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16 Two way Left Turn Lane 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 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9 Turn Type pm+pt pm+pt Perm Perm pm+pt Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 2 6 6 Detector Phase 7 4 3 8 2 2 2 1 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Split (s) 10.1 22.3 10.1 22.3 22.9 22.9 22.9 9.9 22.9 22.9 Total Split (s) 13.0 44.6 0.0 10.4 42.0 0.0 24.8 24.8 24.8 10.2 35.0 35.0 Total Split (%) 14.4% 49.6% 0.0% 11.6% 46.7% 0.0% 27.6% 27.6% 27.6% 11.3% 38.9% 38.9% Maximum Green (s) 6.9 38.3 4.3 35.7 17.9 17.9 17.9 4.3 28.1 28.1 Yellow Time (s) 3.2 3.9 3.2 3.9 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.0 3.2 3.2 All-Red Time (s) 2.9 2.4 2.9 2.4 3.7 3.7 3.7 2.9 3.7 3.7 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 6.1 6.3 4.0 6.1 6.3 4.0 6.9 6.9 6.9 5.9 6.9 6.9 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lag Lag Lead Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode Min Min Min Min C-Min C-Min C-Min Min C-Min C-Min Walk Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 Pedestrian Calls (#Ihr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Act Effct Green (s) 46.8 39.2 42.4 37.0 16.1 16.1 16.1 27.3 26.3 26.3 Baseline Synchro 7 - Report %user_name% A ~ i Page 1 • Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2020 Total Traffic 1: State Road 60 & Hercules Ave. 7/29i2oo9 ,~~,~EBR ~,WBI:~WBT~;~~;WBR~ . EBL~~EBT, , ane ~o'p ~" NBL,' :NBT :_~I~B.Rf~~rxSBl~;~~.__.-~~fS61~ ti Actuated gIC Ratio 0.52 , , 0.44 0.47 0.41 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.30 0.29 0.29 v/c Ratio 0.70 0.93 0.56 0.95 0.32 0.77 0.30 0.64 0.40 0.28 Control Delay 32.6 33.0 24.7 37.3 35.7 51.3 8.5 38.7 27.6 8.5 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 32.6 33.0 24.7 37.3 35.7 51.3 8.5 38.7 27.6 8.5 LOS C C C D D D A D C A Approach Delay 33.0 36.7 37.9 25.0 Approach LOS C D D C Queue Length 50th (ft) 43 401 27 398 32 139 0 59 98 13 Queue Length 95th (ft) #136 #522 #75 #522 71 #238 43 #110 161 56 Internal Link Dist (ft) 928 2605 1222 914 Turn Bay Length (ft) Base Capacity(vph) 230 2230 187 2098 232 374 409 222 587 581 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.70 0.93 0.56 0.95 0.28 0.70 0.28 0.64 0.38 0.26 rtersectio'~ n Summary ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 90 Actuated Cycle Length: 90 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBTL and 6:SBTL, Start of G reen Natural Cycle: 90 Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.95 Intersection Signal Delay: 34.1 Intersection LOS: C Intersection Capacity Utilization 87.0% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min)15 # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. Cnlife ~nrl Phocor 1• Cfafn Rnarl nn R, NPrCnIPC QVA m1 I m2 03 ~" m4 _ .... _ . ~.., . ` 06 m7 ~ v8 Baseline Synchro 7 - Report %user_name% ~,~ Page 2 • • • Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2020 Total Traffic 3: State Road 60 & Old Coachman _ 7/29/2009 ._ a___.___ .~__.-______ _ ____ Lane Configurations -_ ~ '~'~'~ ~ ~ ~`~`'~ ~ ~ Volume (vph) 194 2067 91 54 1771 295 74 40 59 166 42 109 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.91 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.850 0.979 0.911 0.892 Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 1787 5136 1599 1787 5028 0 1787 1714 0 1787 1678 0 Flt Permitted 0.087 0.097 0.656 0.465 Satd. Flow (perm) 164 5136 1599 182 5028 0 1234 1714 0 875 1678 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 96 44 62 110 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 3917 1000 1004 998 Travel Time (s) 89.0 22.7 22.8 22.7 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Heavy Vehicles(%) 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% Adj. Flow (vph) 204 2176 96 57 1864 311 78 42 62 175 44 115 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 204 2176 96 57 2175 0 78 104 0 175 159 0 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 12 12 12 12 Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0 0 Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16 Two way Left Turn Lane 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 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9 Turn Type pm+pt Perm pm+pt Perm pm+pt Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 2 6 Detector Phase 7 4 4 3 8 2 2 1 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Split (s) 10.3 21.6 21.6 10.3 20.9 24.5 24.5 8.7 24.5 Total Split (s) 14.0 45.7 45.7 10,3 42.0 0.0 25.2 25.2 0.0 8.8 34.0 0.0 Total Split (%) 15.6% 50.8% 50.8% 11.4% 46.7% 0.0% 28.0% 28.0% 0.0% 9.8% 37.8% 0.0% Maximum Green (s) 7.7 40.1 40.1 4.0 37.1 16.7 16.7 4.1 25.5 Yellow Time (s) 3.2 3.9 3.9 3.2 3.2 3.6 3.6 3.0 3.6 All-Red Time (s) 3.1 1.7 1.7 3.1 1.7 4.9 4.9 1.7 4.9 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 6.3 5.6 5.6 6.3 4.9. 4.0 8.5 8.5 4.0 4.7 8.5 4.0 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lag Lead Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode Min Min Min None Min C-Min C-Min None C-Min Walk Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Act Effct Green (s) 54.1 46.2 46.2 44.5 39.9 11.0 11.0 23.6 19.8 Baseline Synchro 7 - Report %user_name% ~~-~ Page 1 • • • • • • • • Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2020 Total Traffic 3• State Rnad 60 & Old Coachman _ 7/29/2009 """~''~' `~ _'~ EBL EBT~*i ~EBRi~_ G[ou .-~~~ . ~~-- a~ e °:;INBL. ~;WBT s~~~~R ? NBL~'~'~,.NBT ~~NBR ; "SBL ~;. SBT.;"... SBR . . Actuated g/C Ratio 0.60 0.51 0.51 0.49 0.44 0.12 0.12 0.26 0.22 v/c Ratio 0.70 0.83 0.11 0.29 0.96 0.52 0.40 0.65 0.35 Control Delay 32.5 23.9 3.6 13.0 37.7 48.2 20,8 39.2 12.2 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 32.5 23.9 3.6 13.0 37.7 48.2 20.8 39.2 12.2 LOS C C A B D D C D B Approach Delay 23.8 37.1 32.6 26.3 Approach LOS C D C C Queue Length 50th (ft) 60 392 0 12 -449 42 22 82 23 Queue Length 95th (ft) #195 #547 26 31 #585 83 65 129 68 Internal Link Dist (ft) 3837 920 924 918 Turn Bay Length (ft) Base Capacity(vph) 290 2636 868 197 2256 229 369 271 554 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.70 0.83 0.11 0.29 0.96 0.34 0.28 0.65 0.29 )ntersectior~ Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 90 Actuated Cycle Length: 90 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBTL and 6:SBTL, Start of Green Natural Cycle: 90 Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.96 Intersection Signal Delay: 29.9 Intersection LOS: C Intersection Capacity Utilization 88.1 % ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min)15 Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite . Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, que ue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. e..r~~ .,.,A Dhoeoo• Z• Cf~Fo Rn~ri Rfl R nlrl (nachman of ~ 02 T 03 '~" 04 t3>$ S 252. .~,4.~, 1 ~:~3 s :$5~~~ r~s'. - - ~:., - 1. ~'• . 42:5 .. r~r .... .; ~ ~~"` Baseline Synchro 7 - Report %user_name% ~~~ Page 2 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 4: Cleveland Street & Belcher Road 2020 Total Traffic 7/2912009 _ ~ ...~. ~~r"~~ ~E~-~~EBI~r~~`Eg .WBL w:°.~NBT ~ ?WBR. G~oii ,'~ ~ ~ ~• ~ ane n~~c ~a~_. ,~..~... ~-- N'.BC_,.~~,oN6T ,-z NBR ~`'~.SBL~ -~-. ,...~.,-.~.., ,~.KSBT.a~! SBf~ .~ , P. . , Lane Configurations ~' ~ ~ ~ `~~ ~ ~~' Volume (vph) 67 6 86 24 5 18 6 1036 35 15 819 70 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Factor Lane Util 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.95 . Frt 0.850 0.850 0.850 0.988 Flt Protected 0.956 0.960 0.999 Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1798 1599 0 1806 1599 0 3574 1599 0 3528 0 Flt Permitted 0.721 0.709 0.949 0'927 Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1356 1599 0 1334 1599 0 3392 1599 0 3274 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 70 19 37 19 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 504 504 1744 504 Travel Time (s) 11.5 11.5 39.6 11.5 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Heavy Vehicles(%) 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% Adj. Flow (vph) 71 6 91 25 5 19 6 1091 37 16 862 74 Shared Lane Traffic (%) 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 77 91 0 30 19 0 1097 37 0 952 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 0 0 0 0 Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0 0 Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16 Two way Left Turn Lane 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 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9 Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Perm Perm Perm Perm Protected Phases 4 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 8 2 2 6 Detector Phase 4 4 4 8 8 8 2 2 2 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Split (s) 25.5 25.5 25.5 25.5 25.5 25.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 Total Split (s) 25.5 25.5 25.5 25.5 25.5 25.5 29.5 29.5 29.5 29.5 29.5 0.0 Total Split (%) 46.4% 46.4% 46.4% 46.4% 46.4% 46.4% 53.6% 53.6% 53.6% 53.6% 53.6% 0.0% Maximum Green (s) 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 All-Red Time (s) 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 4.0 Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3,0 3.0 3.0 3,0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode Min Min Min Min Min Min C-Min C-Min C-Min C-Min C-Min Walk Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Act Effct Green (s) 8.6 8.6 8.6 8.6 30.4 30.4 30.4 Baseline Synchro 7 - Report %user_name% ~a~ Page 1 • • • • Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2020 Total Traffic 4: Cleveland Street & Belcher Road 7/29/2009 ",,~ `~ 'F"~ =~ ~EBL ` "EBZ bane Grouper _ ; EBR ,' .WBL -W6 ~_WBR~,k'i~`NBL ,~~ S~ B~ r ~SBT. ~; SBf~ . ~NB?~B_R:~~ _ _'''~ , , ~ Actuated gIC Ratio 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.55 0.55 0.55 v/c Ratio 0.36 0.30 0.14 0.07 0.58 0.04 0.52 Control Delay 24.8 10.6 20.3 9.9 10.3 3.1 9,4 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 24.8 10.6 20.3 9.9 10.3 3.1 9.4 LOS C B C A B A A Approach Delay 17.1 16.3 10.0 9.4 Approach LOS B B B A Queue Length 50th (ft) 23 6 9 0 109 0 88 Queue Length 95th (ft) 52 35 26 13 187 11 155 Internal Link Dist (ft) 424 424 1664 424 Turn Bay Length (ft) Base Capacity (vph) 394 515 388 479 1877 901 1821 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.20 0.18 0.08 0.04 0.58 0.04 0.52 4Tr --~A-_ ~nfersection Summa , --__,_. -~~~- -- ---~----n---5 _- - .. -- ', _ Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 55 Actuated Cycle Length: 55 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBTL and 6:SBTL, Start of Green Natural Cycle: 55 Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.58 Intersection Signal Delay: 10.4 Intersection LOS: B Intersection Capacity Utilization 59.7% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c..ri., ....a o~.,,..,...• A• ('L,~,~,Innr! C+roo+ £. Rolnc~r Rnarl ..r...__.._. .._---. .. -'------ ----- ~~ ~ ' " ~~±± 00 pp 4 04 29~"s _ _. _ .,::. 255 _' {'~'a~'~y Baseline Synchro 7 - Report %user_name% Page 2 ~~ a ~ i Lanes, Volumes, Timings 18: Druid Road & Hercules Ave 2020 Total Traffic 7/29/2009 Lane Configurations Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Right Turn on Red Satd. Flow (RTOR) Link Speed (mph) Link Distance (ft) Travel Time (s) Peak Hour Factor Heavy Vehicles (%) Adj. Flow (vph) Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) Enter Blocked Intersection Lane Alignment Median Width(ft) Link Oftset(ft) Crosswalk Width(ft) Two way Left Turn Lane Headway Factor Turning Speed (mph) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Detector Phase Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) Minimum Split (s) Total Split (s) Total Split (%) Maximum Green (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Lost Time Adjust (s) Total Lost Time (s) Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Vehicle Extension (s) Recall Mode Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Pedestrian Calls (#Ihr) Act Eftct Green (s) ~_---._ ~ . ~..A_____ _ _ _ _____._ ._ _... _ . _ 98 336 21 41 308 143 16 181 50 87 165 148 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.850 0.850 0.850 0.850 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 1787 1881 1599 1787 1881 1599 1787 1881 1599 1787 1881 1599 0.405 0.549 0.647 0.637 762 1881 1599 1033 1881 1599 1217 1881 1599 1198 1881 1599 Yes Yes Yes Yes 22 151 54 156 30 30 30 30 504 2688 504 1302 11.5 61.1 11.5 29.6 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.92 0.95 0.95 0.95 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 103 354 22 43 324 151 17 191 54 92 174 156 103 354 22 43 324 151 17 191 54 92 174 156 No No No No No No No No No No No No Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right 12 12 12 12 0 0 0 0 16 16 16 16 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9 pm+pt Perm pm+pt Perm Perm Perm Perm Perm 7 4 3 8 2 6 4 4 8 8 2 2 6 6 7 4 4 3 8 8 2 2 2 6 6 6 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 11.0 23.0 23.0 11.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 12.0 26.0 26.0 11.0 25.0 25.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 20.0% 43.3% 43.3% 18.3% 41.7% 41.7% 38.3% 38.3% 38.3% 38.3% 38.3% 38.3% 5.0 19.0 19.0 4.0 18.0 18.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Min Min Min None None None C-Min C-Min C-Min C-Min C-Min C-Min 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26.3 23.7 23.7 20.5 14.8 14.8 17.3 17.3 17.3 17.3 17.3 17.3 Baseline %user_name% ~~~7 Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 r S r r • Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2020 Total Traffic 18: Druid Road & Hercules Ave. 7/292009 # ~ane Group ~ ' '~ ` $ EBL~~~ EBT,~* EBR WB ~~ ~,WBZ ~, ~WBR -t- .NBL ~_~:_NBTz'~3NB"cSBL~SBT~.SB~ Actuated g!C Ratio 0.44 0.40 0.40 0.34 0.25 0.25 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 v/c Ratio 0.23 0.48 0.03 0.10 0.70 0.30 0.05 0.35 0.11 0.27 0.32 0.27 Control Delay 9.3 17.3 7.1 8.5 28.6 5.1 17.8 20.5 6.7 20.7 20.1 5.2 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 9.3 17.3 7.1 8.5 28.6 5.1 17.8 20.5 6.7 20.7 20.1 5.2 LOS A B A A C A B C A C C A Approach Delay 15.1 20.1 17.5 14.7 Approach LOS B C B B Queue Length 50th (ft) 18 70 0 7 105 0 5 57 0 27 52 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) 39 182 13 20 169 34 18 107 22 61 98 37 Internal Link Dist (ft) 424 2608 424 1222 Turn Bay Length (ft) Base Capacity(vph) 451 743 645 425 564 585 366 566 519 360 566 590 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.23 0.48 0.03 0.10 0.57 0.26 0.05 0.34 0.10 0.26 0.31 0.26 y~' ', ~nferse tictic orj~Summa ~ -r- _ ~ .1z,,,-r ~f_ Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 60 Actuated Cycle Length: 60 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:N BTL and 6:SBTL, Start of Green Natural Cycle: 60 Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.70 Intersection Signal Delay: 16.9 Intersection L OS: B Intersection Capacity Utilization 59.3% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min)15 Cnlifc and Phacoc• 1R• rlniiri Rnari R Harcnlas Ava I' 02 ^ 03 '~' 04 ~~ ~ ~_ ~ OE 07 OS 23~s t~~~ 25=s~ ~~.~~~~'. Baseline Synchro 7 - Report %user_name% ~ ~~ Page 2 ~ Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2020 Total Traffic ~ 13: Druid Road & Belcher Road 7/29/2009 • ._.__u.~._..__, ...~_m.~._w._.._ . _ Lane Configurations ____. -- ~ ~' ~ '~ ~` ~ ~ ~`~ ~ Volume (vph) 75 132 123 94 189 104 168 979 105 61 780 114 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Fr{ 0.850 0.850 0.985 0.850 Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 1787 1881 1599 1787 1881 1599 1787 3521 0 1787 3574 1599 Flt Permitted 0.633 0.442 0.342 0.113 Satd. Flow (perm) 1191 1881 1599 831 1881 1599 643 3521 0 213 3574 1599 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 134 109 17 120 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 2688 504 504 714 Travel Time (s) 61.1 11.5 11.5 16.2 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.92 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Heavy Vehicles(%) 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% Adj. Flow (vph) 79 139 134 99 199 109 177 1031 111 64 821 120 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 79 139 134 99 199 109 177 1142 0 64 821 120 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 12 12 12 12 Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0 0 Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16 Two way Left Turn Lane 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 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9 Turn Type Perm Perm pm+pt Perm Perm pm+pt Perm Protected Phases 4 3 8 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 8 2 6 6 Detector Phase 4 4 4 3 8 8 2 2 1 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4,0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Split (s) 22.2 22.2 22.2 9,7 22.2 22.2 22.9 22.9 10.1 22.3 22.3 Total Split (s) 22.2 22.2 22.2 9.8 22.2 22.2 32.8 32.8 0.0 10.2 43.0 43.0 Total Split (%) 29.6% 29.6% 29.6% 13.1 % 29.6% 29.6% 43.7% 43.7% 0.0% 13.6% 57.3% 57.3% Maximum Green (s) 16.0 16.0 16.0 4.1 16.0 16.0 26.5 26.5 4.1 36.7 36.7 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.0 3.5 3.5 4.0 4.0 3.2 4.0 4.0 All-Red Time (s) 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.3 2.3 2.9 2.3 2.3 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 6.2 6.2 6.2 5.7 6.2 6.2 6.3 6.3 4.0 6.1 6.3 6.3 Lead/Lag Lag Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode None None None Min Min Min C-Min C-Min Min C-Min C-Min Walk Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Act Effct Green (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 21.7 21.2 21.2 29.3 29.3 41.5 41.3 41.3 Baseline Synchro 7 - Report %user_name% ~a`~ Page 1 • • Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2020 Total Traffic 13: Druid Road & Belcher Road 7~29~2009 I -r--~ ~ ~^'~ ~'~;3,<;~'' EB''~r~~.EB tT .~~.EBR ~~~~. BL `~t Lane Gro P ~~-~:,~~ ~~~~. ~~x WBT,..~.~:V.~!BR _. 'NBL --- NBT ::'NB~ _R~~~~~~S~BC''L, F~SBT ;, ~'SBRi Actuated g/C Ratio 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.29 0.28 0.28 0.39 0.39 0.55 0.55 0.55 v/c Ratio 0.45 0.50 0.38 0.33 0.37 0.21 0.71 0.82 0.26 0.42 0.13 Control Delay 36.4 35.0 8.7 22.4 23.2 5.1 39.4 27.6 11.5 11.1 2.5 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 36.4 35.0 8.7 22.4 23.2 5.1 39.4 27.6 11.5 11,1 2.5 LOS D D A C C A D C B B A Approach Delay 25.3 18.2 29.2 10.1 Approach LOS C B C B Queue Length 50th (ft) 34 61 0 35 75 0 68 242 12 105 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) 69 104 41 64 118 31 #180 #386 34 171 24 Internal Link Dist (ft) 2608 424 424 634 Turn Bay Length (ft) Base Capacity(vph) 254 401 447 297 647 622 251 1385 243 1970 935 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0,31 0.35 0.30 0.33 0.31 0.18 0.71 0.82 0.26 0.42 0.13 fnf'ersection Summary ~ - Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 75 Actuated Cycle Length: 75 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBTL and 6:SBTL, Start of Green Natural Cycle: 75 Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.82 Intersection Signal Delay: 21.1 Intersection LOS: C Intersection Capacity Utilization 68.6% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, que ue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. C..lii,. ...~! DV,.. 1 Z• Iln iiiJ Rnorl R Rolnc~r Rnarl -r..._ _.._ . .._---. . _. _. _.- - ----- -.. _.. ' ~ 2 ~ m3 '~' 04 m of ~7 ~(' ''1 U.x2," O;;S` ... 9Y wS:• CL ~4yZ ._ 43 s .. P22~s~tE'~ais~~ Baseline Synchro 7 - Report %user_name% ~ ~~ Page 2 Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of 1 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information nal st BF Intersection SR 60 at Drive 1 enc /Co Jurisdiction Cif of Clearwater . Date Performed 1/6/2010 nal sis Year nal sis Time Period Pro'ect Descri tion SR 60 at Drive 1-Future Total East/V1/est Street: State Road 60 North/South Street: Drive 1 Intersection Orientation: East-West Stud Period hrs : 0.25 ehicle Volumes and Ad'ustments Ma'or Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R olume veh/h) Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1418 0.95 64 0.95 26 0.95 1297 0.95 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h 0 1482 67 27 1365 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 - - 1 - - Median Type Raised curb RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 2 1 1 2 0 Configuration T R L T U stream Si nal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R olume (veh/h) Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 1.00 69 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) 0 0 72 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 1 0 1 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 Configuration R Dela ,Queue Len th, and Level of Service pproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L R v (veh/h) 27 72 C (m) (veh/h) 425 358 v/c 0.06 0.20 95% queue length 0.20 0.74 Control Delay (s/veh) 14.0 17.6 LOS B C pproach Delay (s/veh) -- -- 17.6 pproach LOS -- -- C Copyright ©2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+~ m Version 5.21 ~~~ file://C:\Documents and Settings\bfast\Local Settings\Temp\u2k36A.tmp ~enerateo: uoi~u i u J.40 r1Yl 1/6/2010 Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of 1 I TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY (~n..~~~1 Ir,F~nw,~l~i~n Sits Infnrmatinn nal st BF Intersection enc /Co, urisdiction Ci of Clearwater Date Performed 4/30/2009 nal sis Year nal sis Time Period Pro~ect Descri tion Druid at Drive z-h-uture f ota~ East/West Street: Druid Road North/South Street: Drive 2 Intersection Orientation: East-West Stud Period hrs : 0.25 ehicle Volumes an d Ad"ustments Ma'or Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R olume (veh/h) 12 316 451 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR veh/h) 12 332 0 0 474 12 Percent Heavy Vehicles 1 - -- 0 -- - Median Type. Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LT TR U stream Si nal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R olume veh/h) 12 10 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) 0 0 0 12 0 10 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 1 0 1 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 1 0 1 Configuration L R Dela ,Queue Len th, and Level of Service pproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT L R v (veh/h) 12 12 10 C (m) (veh/h) 1082 335 588 v/c 0.01 0.04 0.02 95% queue length 0.03 0.11 0.05 Control Delay (s/veh) 8.4 16.1 11.2 LOS A C 8 pproach Delay (s/veh) - -- 13.9 pproach LOS -- -- B Copyright ©2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved yCS+TM Version 5.21 Generated: 7/29/2009 2:16 PM ~~ d~ file://C:\Doctunents and Settings\bfast\Local Settings\Temp\u2k3DA.tmp 7/29/2009 • • Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of 1 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information BF Intersection Druid at Drive 3 nal st t C Jurisdiction er Ci of Clearwa o. enc / d 4/30/2009 nal sis Year Date Performe nal sis Time Period Pro'ect Descri tion Druid at Drive 3-Future Total East/West Street: Druid Road North/South Street: Drive 3 Intersection Orientation: East-West Stud Period hrs : 0.25 ehicle Volumes and Ma'or Street Movement Ad'ustments Eastbound 1 2 L T 3 4 R L Westbound 5 T 6 R olume (veh/h) Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 10 0.95 318 0.95 1.00 1.00 456 0.95 13 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) Percent Heavy Vehicles 10 1 334 - 0 -- 0 0 480 13 Median Type RT Channelized Undivided 0 0 Lanes Configuration U stream Si nal 0 LT 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 TR Minor Street Movement 7 Northbound 8 9 10 Southbound 11 12 L T R L T R olume (veh/h) Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 11 0.95 1.00 8 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 1 0 0 8 1 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 1 0 1 Configuration L R Dela ,Queue Len th, and Level of Service pproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT L R v (veh/h) C (m) (veh/h) 10 1076 11 334 8 583 /c 0.01 0.03 0.01 95% queue length 0.03 0.10 0.04 Control Delay (s/veh) 8.4 16.1 11.3 LOS A C 8 pproach Delay (s/veh) -- -- 14.1 pproach LOS -- -- 8 Copyright ©2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+"" Version 5.21 X33 file://C:\Documents and Settings\bfast\Local Settings\Temp\u2k2EA.tmp VCIICI GLGU. ~i<+~<v v.. ~...~ ... 8/24/2009 Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of 1 I TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY J C.~s Infnrm~finn ~aenGrai uu~~n~auvn l st BF ---- ....----------- Intersection Druid at Drive 4 na nc /Co urisdiction Ci of Clearwater . e Date Performed 4/30/2009 nal sis Year nal sis Time Period Pro'ect Descri tion Druid at Unve 4-rurure ~ ora~ East/VVest Street: Druid Road North/South Street: Drive 4 Intersection Orientation: East-West Stud Period hrs : 0.25 ehicle Volumes and Ad'ustments Ma'or Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R olume veh/h) Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1 0.95 328 0.95 1.00 1.00 469 0.95 2 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) 1 345 D 0 493 2 Percent Heavy Vehicles 1 - -- 0 -- - Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LT TR U stream Si nal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R olume (veh/h) Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 2 0.95 1.00 1 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) 0 0 0 2 0 1 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 D 0 1 0 1 Percent Grade (%) 0. 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 1 0 1 Configuration L R Dela ,Queue Len th, and Level of Service pproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT L R v (veh/h) 1 2 1 C (m) (veh/h) 1074 336 577 v/c 0.00 0.01 0.00 95% queue length 0.00 0.02 0.01 Control Delay (s/veh) 8.4 15.8 11.3 LOS A C 8 pproach Delay (s/veh) -- -- 14.3 pproach LOS -- -- 8 Copyright ©2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+rM Version 5.21 A 3y Generated: 8/24/2009 2:06 PM fila•//('•\Tlnrnmante and CPi-tinac\hfact\T.ncal ~ettin~s\TemtO~uZ~c2EA.tTriU 8/24/2009 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 5' Shopping Center Driveway & Belcher Road 1/6/2010 Lane Configurations ~' ~ ~ ~ ~`~ ~ ~~ ~ Volume (vph) 78 5 46 145 6 67 57 978 109 56 821 76 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Fr{ 0.850 0.850 0.986 0.850 Flt Protected 0.955 0.954 0.997 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1797 1599 0 1795 1599 0 3514 0 1787 3574 1599 Flt Permitted 0.628 0.671 0.860 0.230 Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1181 1599 0 1262 1599 0 3031 0 433 3574 1599 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 48 53 22 80 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 421 476 714 622 Travel Time (s) 9.6 10.8 16.2 14.1 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.99 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.92 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Heavy Vehicles(%) 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% Adj. Flow (vph) 82 5 48 153 6 71 62 1029 115 59 864 80 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 87 48 0 159 71 0 1206 0 59 864 80 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 0 0 12 12 Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0 0 Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16 Two way Left Turn Lane 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 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9 Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Perm pm+pt pm+pt Perm Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 8 2 6 6 Detector Phase 4 4 4 8 8 8 5 2 1 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Split (s) 23.2 23.2 23.2 23.2 23.2 23.2 10.0 22.1 10.0 22.5 22.5 Total Split (s) 23.2 23.2 23.2 23.2 23.2 23.2 10.0 31.8 0.0 10.0 31.8 31.8 Total Split (%) 35.7% 35.7% 35.7% 35.7% 35.7% 35.7% 15.4% 48.9% 0.0% 15.4% 48.9% 48.9% Maximum Green (s) 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 4.0 25.7 4.0 25.7 25.7 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 4.0 3.5 4.0 4.0 All-Red Time (s) 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 2.5 2.1 2.5 2.1 2.1 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.2 6.0 6.1 4.0 6.0 6.1 6.1 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode Min Min Min Min Min Min Min C-Min Min C-Min C-Min Walk Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Act Effct Green (s) 12.7 12.7 12.7 12,7 32.7 33.4 28.1 28.1 Baseline Synchro 7 - Report 2020 Total Traffic w Imp ~ 3~ Page 1 • • r Volumes, Timings Lanes , 5' Shopping Center Drivewa y & Belcher Road 11612010 8 G EB ~ 's ~ '~ EB; _ EBI~ ~ ~Bl::. : BT ~r'~V.~BR: - :~]B ` ~_BT . ~8~. SB.~ ~ SBT : ':SB . .__ .. . _ Actuated g/C Ratio 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.50 0.51 0,43 0.43 v/c Ratio 0.38 0.14 0.65 0.20 0.77 0.18 0.56 0.11 Control Delay 26.4 7.7 36.0 10.3 16.6 8,0 16.2 4.0 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 Total Delay 26.4 7.7 36.0 10.3 16.6 8.0 16.2 4.0 LOS C A D B B A B A Approach Delay 19.8 28.1 16.6 14.7 Approach LOS B 30 0 C 58 6 B 135 9 B 133 0 Queue Length 50th (ft) Queue Length 95th (ft) 64 23 109 33 #230 24 194 22 Internal Link Dist (ft) 341 396 634 542 Turn Bay Length (ft) Base Capacity (vph) 291 430 311 434 1572 331 1544 737 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio 0 0.30 0 0.11 0 0.51 0 0.16 0 0.77 0 0.18 0 0.56 0.11 ntersec~ do Summary= 3 ' ~~ ~, ,. ~ ~ .` ~~ ~~~ Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 65 Actuated Cycle Length: 65 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBTL and 6:SBTL, Start of Green Natural Cycle: 65 Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.77 Intersection Signal Delay: 17.1 Intersection LOS: B Intersection Capacity Utilization 86.0% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min)15 # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. n_ri_ __~ nw_....... [. OL.......7.,n /'nnFer Ilrivouiw R Rclrhar Rnari } ~` k~^ ~ 04 m7 I 0Z I ~~ :T ~; Baseline Synchro 7 - Report 2020 Total Traffic w Imp ,7 3 h Page 2 /~ ~' ~ r _ _ Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2: State Road 60 & Belcher Road 1/7/2010 • ~ane,G.~oy ~ 8' _ EB,-- __ EB: ' EBR yWBL ~ B~ ` ` ^BR, a..Bir ~ B• ~~ g..~. _B~: ~ .B ~~ Lane Configurations 8 a~ 156 ~`~`~` 1892 ~ 130 ~ 170 ~ ~ ~' 1714 154 190 803 130 175 653 Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 5 1900 1900 95 0 Factor Lane Util 0.91 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.91 0.91 1.00 0.95 0.9 1.00 . . Frt 0.850 0.988 0.979 0.983 a Flt Protected 0 0.950 1786 5136 1599 0.950 1787 5074 0 0.950 1787 3499 0 0.950 1787 3513 '~ Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted 0.074 0.074 0.132 0.105 Satd. Flow (perm) 0 139 5136 1599 139 5074 0 248 3499 0 198 3513 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes 10 Satd. Flow (RTOR) 87 12 13 35 Link Speed (mph) 45 45 35 622 1744 Link Distance (ft) 2685 40 7 3917 59.3 12.1 34.0 Travel Time (s) Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.95 . 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 % 0.9.5 1% Heavy Vehicles(%) 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1 Adj. Flow (vph) 9 164 1992 137 179 1804 162 200 845 137 184 687 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 173 1992 137 179 1966 0 200 982 0 184 776 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No i Lane Alignment RNA Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left 12 Median Width(ft) 12 12 12 0 Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0 16 Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 Two way Left Turn Lane 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 Turning Speed (mph) 9 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 + t Turn Type custom pm+pt Perm pm+pt pm+pt pm p Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 • Permitted Phases 7 4 4 8 2 6 1 6 Detector Phase 7 7 4 4 3 8 5 2 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 12.0 12.0 4.0 12.0 5.0 10.0 5.0 10.0 22 5 Minimum Split (s) 9.7 9.7 21.9 21.9 9.7 21.9 11.2 22.5 11.2 . Total Split (s) 16.2 16.2 60.0 60.0 16.5 60.3 0,0 19.0 46.3 0.0 17.2 44.5 Total Split (%) 11.6% 11.6% 42.9% 42.9% 11.8% 43.1 % 0.0% 13.6% 33.1 % 0.0% 12.3% 31.8% 38 0 Maximum Green (s) 10.5 10.5 54.1 54.1 10.8 54.4 12.8 39.8 11.0 . Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 4.0 4.0 3.5 4.0 3.5 4.0 3.5 4.0 All-Red Time (s) 2.2 2.2 1.9 1.9 2.2 1.9 2.7 2.5 2.7 2.5 0 0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . Total Lost Time (s) 5.7 5.7 5.9 5.9 5.7 5.9 4.0 6.2 6.5 4.0 6.2 6.5 • Lead/Lag Lead Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Y Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes es Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode Min Min Min Min Min Min Min C-Min Min C-Min 5 0 Walk Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 . Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 Pedestrian Calls (#Ihr) Act Eftct Green (s) 64.8 0 54.1 0 54.1 65.4 0 54.4 52.8 0 39.8 49.4 0 38.1 • Baseline Synchro 7 - Report 2020 Total Traffic w Imp ~~3~ Page 1 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2: State Road 60 & Belcher Road 1/7/2010 S Laonfigurations Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) • Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected • Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) • Right Turn on Red Satd. Flow (RTOR) Link Speed (mph) • Link Distance (ft) Travel Time (s) Peak Hour Factor • Heavy Vehicles (%) Adj. Flow (vph) Shared Lane Traffic (%) • Lane Group Flow (vph) Enter Blocked Intersection Lane Alignment • Median Width(ft) Link Offset(ft) Crosswalk Width(ft) • Two way Left Turn Lane Headway Factor Turning Speed (mph) • Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases • Detector Phase Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) • Minimum Split (s) Total Split (s) Total Split (%) • Maximum Green (s) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) • Lost Time Adjust (s) Total Lost Time (s) Lead/Lag • Lead-Lag Optimize? Vehicle Extension (s) Recall Mode Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) _ Act Effct Green (s) 85 1900 0.95 0 0 Yes 0.95 1% 89 No Right 1.00 9 0.0 0.0% 0.0 4.0 • Baseline 2020 Total Traffic w Imp ~{ 3$~ Synchro 7 - Report Page 2 • Volumes, Timings Lanes , 2: State Road 60 & Belcher Road 010 1/7/2 1 .~~~rqu , EB.:: BBL ~ . ~EBT., E~~ :~8~ ~V1(BT, .~~~. Bk~, .` ~_B _ , . B~' .NBRB ~ . SB:.I ~ . Actuated g/C Ratio 0.46 0.39 0.39 0.47 0.39 0.38 0.28 0.35 94 0 0.27 81 0 v/c Ratio 0.92 1,00 0.20 0.93 0.99 0.86 9 61 0.98 72 4 . 86 2 . 5 54 Control Delay 81.5 0 0 63.7 0 0 12.0 0 0 83.7 0 0 60.9 0.0 . 0.0 . 0.0 . 0.0 . 0.0 . Queue Delay Total Delay 81.5 . 63.7 . 12.0 , 83.7 60.9 61.9 72.4 86.2 54.5 LOS F E 62 0 B F E 62 8 E E 70.6 F D 60.6 Approach Delay . . E E Approach LOS Queue Length 50th (ft) 106 E -665 29 112 E 646 120 463 116 344 Queue Length 95th (ft) #254 #786 76 #263 #768 #251 #610 #270 424 Internal Link Dist (ft) 2605 3837 542 1664 Turn Bay Length (ft) Base Capacity (vph) 188 1985 671 192 1979 234 1004 195 962 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.92 0 1.00 0 0.20 0 0.93 0 0.99 0 0.85 0 0.98 0.94 0.81 ~ :r~ h~24. tesectlp~~S_mtna. <.. `. t~ ~ . ~ &Fi r .. .e.- " did, ~ ._~,,,. ..-..-~ ~r. '~ ~ ~ ,~_ Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 140 Actuated Cycle Length: 140 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBTL and 6:SBTL, Start of Green Natural CycIe:140 Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated Maximum vlc Ratio: 1.00 Intersection Signal Delay: 63.6 Intersection LOS: E Intersection Capacity Utilization 102.3% ICU Level of Service G Analysis Period (min)15 Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. _~ n~____. n. [+t..t,, n,....J Cn 0 QnlnAnr Dnorl .~Nu W ai w i i ~a m1 ovo. c - ~ '~ 02 - ,~". m3 ~' m4 m5 ~~~ 06 ~} #- m7 ~`~ 08 t3 ; Baseline 2020 Total Traffic w Imp ~'~ J Synchro 7 - Report Page 3 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2: State Road 60 & Belcher Road ~n/2o~o Actuated g/C Ratio v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay LOS Approach Delay Approach LOS Queue Length 50th (ft) Queue Length 95th (ft) Internal Link Dist (ft) Turn Bay Length (ft) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio ritersectidtl'Su[bRiary~~" ~ . r, ,~ ~,~ A a~ ~ ~ ~ ~;-- L~-.-,~,....,~ - -- - i Baseline Synchro 7 - Report 2020 Total Traffic w Imp Page 4 ~ ~ y~ ~ Arterial Level of Service ~ 1/13/2010 ~ Arterial Level of Service: NB Belcher Road ` e'a' o i ~ ~ ' ~ 'Sig al?i '° a e ~ s e a en .~osr ~_ s _ __ Druid Road III 30 13.5 27.4 40.9 0.10 8.4 F • Shopping Center Driv III 30 18.1 17.5 35.6 0.14 13.7 E F State Road 60 III 35 15.9 79.5 95.4 0.12 4.4 Cleveland Street III 30 41.9 10.3 52.2 0.33 22.8 C • Total III 89.4 134.7 224.1 0.68 10.9 E ~ Arterial Level of Service: SB Belcher Road ~ a - ova ' g' ~ S a ra e ~ D sf ~ e of 'e 'a ~ _;~os :~ e. ~ a_ s _ _ ee ; ~Fi_ we D_ e a ~ ~ i>tl . _ . ff11: S .ee_.~ j0. Cleveland Street III 30 13,5 9.4 22.9 0.10 15.0 D State Road 60 III 35 39.6 57.1 96.7 0.33 12.3 E III 30 16.6 16.7 33.3 0.12 .12.7 E Druid Road III 30 18.1 11.1 29.2 0.14 16.7 D E Total III 87.8 94.3 182.1 0.68 13.4 • ~ Arterial Level of Service: EB Druid Road ~ " e 'a' • o . u i g ~ ~~ Sigma , K Y rave ~ `~ ~ D st:: , =Q ena ~~Arte~(n~a~ '~~, ~"'~'• ~0 ~ ~ross=S ee Cl_as pe Timek Delay~~~ Time; s mi , _ .eed, g„ ; III 30 Hercules Ave 13.5 17.3 30.8 0.10 11.2 E • . Belcher Road III 30 64.7 35.0 99.7 0.51 18.4 C Total III 78.2 52.3 130.5 0.60 16.7 D ~ Arterial Level of Service: WB Druid Road • Arfeiia f o : R nni " f: t ' 9. ~ Si~nal~~~~ ' . ,Tia~e ` 9, SD's ' - ~' ~- ` er'al, ; : Artesia ~~.A. ~ ~ ' LO °.ros5 Street C as. .e _~.. n ~~~me' ~. ~ ~ ...De a ~~` : Tim~Y s :. m .~S ee._ ~ . ,fi~ Belcher Road III 30 13.5 23.3 36.8 0.10 9.3 F Hercules Ave. III 30 64.7 28.6 93.3 0.51 19.6 C • D Total III 78.2 51.9 130.1 0.60 16.7 ~ Arterial Level of Service: NB Hercules Ave. ~ era n mg' 'Sig a ~ 'a a D"s a "a eria • -"~oss;S we~,_ C as S"~e , ° Timer Dela . ;. ~ Ttme> s ~r r ; _eed ~' ~ 0. Druid Road III 30 13.5 20.5 34.0 0.10 10.1 E • State Road 60 III 30 31.3 51.3 82.6 0.25 10.7 E Total III 44.8 71.8 116.6 0.34 10.6 E • Baseline Synchro 7 - Report 2020 Total Traffic Page 1 ~ ,~ y I • ~ Arterial Level of Service 1 /13/2010 ~ Arterial Level of Service: SB Hercules Ave. ~ ~ a; >. , o i Sign , a e. p~s e ai' ; . aria ~ agssi:S ~ a_. ee_. Ai a Dena t,~ e~ s . ~1I' S ._ edR L0. State Road 60 III 30 23.9 27.6 51.5 0.19 13.2 E Druid Road III 30 31.3 20.1 51.4 0.25 17.3 D Total III 55.2 47.7 102.9 0.43 15.2 D . ~ Arterial Level of Service: EB State Road 60 ~ ` eria o nni g~ ga.. , e pis al d~~ $ e LQ • ~,~oss,S. ee_; a ass S ,ee._ . ~:~~ _ _ De[a :!m..; mi' ee . Hercules Ave. III 30 24.2 33.0 57.2 0.19 12.0 E Belcher Road III 45 44.8 79.3 124.1 0.51 14.8 D Old Coachman III 30 89.0 23.9 112.9 0.74 23.7 C Total III 158.0 136.2 294.2 1.44 17.6 D • ~ Arterial Level of Service: WB State Road 60 ~: ~ - e al ~ ~ :~ F owe Run i g "~ ~ ~+ ~~ ~ Sig at e Tra e ~' ~ s ~ T Dts ~_ ~~ ` t ~ ~ alp eeJ S :. A Pna ~ • P ._ ~ ~ -ros ~Stree ~,,t~ ~ ~ :Class .~,: ~ . ~ , _ S eed r .~ ..Time, y~ R a ~, ~ ime; : ~~, , m ~ , . _ ... _ Old Coachman II 30 24.1 37.7 61.8 0.19 11.0 4 F C Belcher Road II 45 59.3 60.0 119.3 0.74 22. Hercules Ave. II 30 64.6 37.3 101.9 0.51 18.0 D • Total II 148.0 135.0 283.0 1.44 18.3 D • Baseline Synchro 7 - Report 2020 Total Traffic ~ y~ Page 2 • • • __ _ ~ Arterial Level of Service 1 /13/2010 ~ Arterial Level of Service: NB Belcher Road • : e a 1 R ' pmg; Signal. ~ " ~rav Dis ~ e a e a Druid Road III 30 13.5 27.4 40.9 0.10 8.4 F Shopping Center Driv III 30 18.1 16.6 34.7 0.14 14.0 D State Road 60 III 35 15.9 72.4 88.3 0.12 4.8 F Cleveland Street III 30 41.9 10.3 52.2 0.33 22.8 C Total III 89.4 126.7 216.1 0.68 11.3 E ~ Arterial Level of Service: SB Belcher Road ` ' e, _ o u '. Signal ~` a: e; Dis e a e a ~ .5: s g as . e _ ~ Tir~1:e1 Qela , ~ ' T~e~ _ ; ~i See ' Ls . • . Cleveland Street III 30 13.5 9,4 22.9 0.10 15.0 D State Road 60 III 35 39.6 54.5 94.1 0.33 12.6 E III 30 16.6 16.2 32.8 0.12 12.9 E Druid Road III 30 18.1 11.1 29.2 0.14 16.7 D Total III 87.8 91.2 179.0 0.68 13.7 E • ~ Arterial Level of Service: EB Druid Road ~ fgnal ~. S ~` a `a Flow ~:; unm g ": aver" " Dish ,"' Arte" a '~'~,A~tena ~ ~' fossrS ee: Gas e _ ~ h a~ . Time~~ ~;.Dela ~_ dime. s' _ mi See ~ .~~-.~... .~::~ . Hercules Ave. III 30 13.5 17.3 30.8 0.10 11.2 E C Belcher Road III 30 64.7 35.0 99.7 0.51 18.4 Total III 78.2 52.3 130.5 0.60 16.7 D ~ Arterial Level of Service: WB Druid Road • ~ e 18 0 u rnng ~ ' R Signa~ ~ rave . ~ Dist a is b~ eri ` ~ros. ~ .e?' ..ass S _e_ .. ~: ime~tf , L~efa ''..:Times s ., ~ mi : ~,Rti S ..:.:_,. ~ D . ' Belcher Road III 30 13.5 23.3 36.8 0.10 9.3 F Hercules Ave. III 30 64.7 28.6 93.3 0.51 19.6 C D Total III 78.2 51.9 130.1 0.60 16.7 • ~ Arterial Level of Service: NB Hercules Ave. e a ~ .Ru ing-"" ~Sig,al~ ;~~~"~ ave ` ~ D s e a Arte 'a ~ ~ ~~~c app ~„ r ac o Time Delay ~~~Timea s ~ mf ~.. ~w....~: uee ~. _ .. _ 0-: Druid Road III 30 13.5 20.5 34.0 0.10 10.1 E • State Road 60 III 30 31.3 51.3 82.6 0.25 10.7 E Total III 44.8 71.8 116.6 0.34 10.6 E • Baseline Synchro 7 - Report 2020 Total Traffic w Imp i~~3 Page 1 • ena o n:m Sig anan I e Dis A `a' ena °,ros_;~ ee G~. a.._ S w __~ _ De a • ! .~ s . _ I _e.~ 0 State Road 60 III 30 23.9 27.6 51.5 0.19 13.2 E Druid Road III 30 31.3 20.1 51.4 0.25 17.3 D • D Total III 55.2 47.7 102.9 0.43 15.2 ~ Arterial Level of Service: EB State Road 60 e a; :o u ignal:..y ,. a Ds, ,, .e a, aria • ~os~-_eea Cas.. __e__.: ~i01.e :ea ".' . _T.I~.: s ~i S e d~ ~~. Hercules Ave. III 30 24.2 33.0 57.2 0.19 12.0 E Belcher Road III 45 44.8 63.7 108.5 0.51 16.9 D Old Coachman III 30 89.0 23.9 112.9 0.74 23.7 C Total III 158.0 120.6 278.6 1.44 18.6 C • ~ Arterial Level of Service: WB State Road 60 W 'Artena ' Flo' u n ~ SI nal;~ T a e ~ ,Dist + A er a ~ ~ ~Artena , ~ros~ Stree C as ~~ Spee ri Ti ~, Delay Time _) ~ .. ~-i ~- , Sp. e ,~ ~~,x~ LO . • Old Coachman II 30 24.1 37.7 61.8 0.19 11.0 F Belcher Road II 45 59.3 60.9 120.2 0.74 22.2 C Hercules Ave. II 30 64.6 37.3 101.9 0.51 18.0 D • Total II 148.0 135.9 283.9 1.44 18.3 D • Baseline Synchro 7 - Report 2020 Total Traffic w Imp ~ `t`~ Page 2 ~ Page 1 of 4 ARTPLAN 2007 Conceptual Planning Analysis Description/File Information C:\DOCUME~1 File Name \rchapman\LOCALS~1 Date Prepared 8/25/2009 \Temp\preview.xml Program ARTPLAN 2007 Version Date 3/18/08 Analyst REC Agency rFDC District Clearwater, FL Arterial Name Druid Road Begin Intersection Edenville Road End Intersection Hercules Study Period K100 Peak Direction Westbound User Notes Facility Data (Auto) Roadway Variables Traffic Variables Control Variables Area Type Large Urbanized AADT 7170 # of Signals Class 2 K 0.1 Control Type Actuated Posted Speed 30 D 0.54 Cycle Length 75 # Thru Lanes 2 PHF 0.95 Through g/C 0.3 Median Type None % Heavy Vehicles (Peak) 1 Left g/C 0.25 Left Turn Lanes Yes % Heavy Vehicles (Off- Peak) 1 Arrival Type (Peak) LT Lanes Stora a Len th 300 % Left Turns (Peak) 24 Arrival Type () 9 9 (Off-Peak) Right Turn Lanes ~- No % Right Turns (Peak) 1~- 27 Left Turns (Off-Peak) 23 Right Turns (Off-Peak) 37 Adj. Sat. Flow Rate (Peak) 1494 Adj. Sat. Flow Rate (Off- 1477 Peak) %l y~ file://C:\Documents and Settings\rchapman\Local Settings\Temp\preview.xrnl 8/25/2009 Page 2 of 4 Automobile Intersection and Segment Data (Peak) Left Right % % INT SEG Cycle Thru Left Arr. Turn Turn Left Right # Dir. Length AADT Hourly # Dir. FFS Median Segment # Length g/C g/C Type Lanes Lanes Turn Turn Lanes V°I' Lanes Type 1 (to Belcher 75 0.3 0.25 ^4 Yes No 24 27 ^1 0.561 7170 387 ~ 35 None Road) 2 (to 60 0.42 0.25 ~ Yes No ~ 29 ~ 0.5047 7170 387 ~ 35 None Hercules) Automobile Intersection and Segment Data (Off-Peak) Left Right % % INT SEG Cycle Thru Left Arr. Turn Turn Left Right # Dir. Length AADT Hourly # Dir. FFS Median Segment # Length g/C g/C Type Lanes Lanes Turn Turn Lanes Vol' Lanes Type 2 (to Edenville 75 0.3 0.25 3 Yes No 23 37 1 0.561 7170 330 1 35 None Road) 1 (to Belcher 75 0.3 0.25 ^3 Yes No 23 37 ~ 0.5047 7170 330 ~ 35 None Road) Automobile LOS (Peak) Segment # Thru Mvmt Flow Rate Ad'. Sat. Flow Rate v/c Control Dela Int. A roach LOS LT Spill Speed (mph) Se ment LOS 1 (to Belcher Road) 310 1494 0.69 25.88 C No 23.2 ~~ 2 (to Hercules) 375 1491 0.6 12.82 B No 26.7 I.~ Arterial 1'07 Weighted 0.36 FFS l D 45.5 Threshold Dela 0'0 Auto Speed 24'~ Auto LOS C Length g/C e ay y Automobile LOS (Off-Peak) Segment # Thru Mvmt Flow Rate Adj. Sat. Flow Rate ^ v/c Control Delay Int. Approach LOS ~ LT Spill Speed (mph) Segment LOS 2 (to Edenville Road) 267 1480 0.6 24.18 C No 23.8 r~~ 1 (to Belcher Road) 1 267 1480 0.6 24.18 C No 23.1 ~~ 1.07 h ted We9 0.30 D l 53.9 ThD l Id 0'0 eed S 23.5 LOS Length / C ay e e ay p Automobile Service Volumes Note: The maximum normally acceptable directional service volume for LOS E in Florida for this facility type and area F..nu is 7 (1/1!1 vnMnl A ~ B C D E Lanes Hourly Volume In Peak Direction 1 ** ** 560 600 *** 2 ** ** 1160 1210 *** 3 ~ ** ** 1760 1830 -~ *** I 4 ~ ** ** 2360 2440 ~**' I * ** ** 560 600 *** Lanes Hourly Volume In Both Directions 2 ** ~ ** 1040 1100 ~ *** [ !;i file://C:\Documents and Settings\rchapman\Local Settings\Temp\preview.xinl 8/25/2009 Page 3 of 4 4 ~~ ** II ** II 2150 II 2240 II *** 6 ** ** 3260 3380 *** 8 ** ** 4370 4520 *** ~- * ~ ** ** 1040 1100 *** Lanes Annual Average Daily Traffic 2 ~ ** ** 10400 11000 *** 4 ** ~ ** ~ 21500 22400 *** 6 -1 ** ** 32600 33800 *** 8 ** ~ ** 43700 45200 *** * ** ** 10400 11000 *** ,h ~ ~ file://C:\Documents and Settings\rchapman\Local Settings\Temp\preview.xml 8/25/2009 Page 4 of 4 * Service Volumes for the specific facility being analyzed, based on # of lanes from the intersection and segment data screens. ** Cannot be achieved based on input data provided. *** Not applicable for that level of service letter grade. See generalized tables notes for more details. # Under the given conditions, left turn lane storage is highly likely to overflow. The number of directional thru lanes should be reduced accordingly. ## Facility weighted g/C exceeds normally acceptable upper range (0.5); verify that g/C inputs are correct. ### Intersection capacity (ies) are exceeded for the full hour; an operational level analysis tool is more appropriate for this situation. ~~~ in \rcha man\Local Settin s\Tem \ review.xml 8/25/2009 file://C:\Documents and Sett gs p g p p Page 1 of 4 ARTPLAN 2007 Conceptual Planning Analysis Description/File Information T: \2009-0007\Traffic File Name Study Rev 1 \ArtPlan\AP_SR 60 EB Date Prepared 8/25/2009 w Impr.xml Program ARTPLAN 2007 Version Date 3/18/08 Analyst REC -~ Agency FDC District Clearwater, FI Arterial Name S.R. 60 EB w Impr Begin Intersection Hercules End Intersection Old Coachman ~tudy Period K100 Peak Direction Eastbound User Notes Facility Data (Auto) Roadway Variables Traffic Variables Control Variables Area Type Large Urbanized AADT 44379 # of Signals ~2 Class 1 K 0.095 Control Type Actuated Posted Speed 45 ~- 0.52 Cycle Length 143 # Thru Lanes 6 rHF - 1 0.95 Through g/C 0.43 Median Type Restrictive % Heavy Vehicles (Peak) 1 Left g/C 0.12 Left Turn Lanes Yes Pe keavy Vehicles (Off- ) 1 (rrivaj Type Peak LT Lane(s) Storage Length 300 % Left Turns (Peak) ~~ Arrival Type (Off-Peak) Right Turn Lanes No % Right Turns (Peak] ~--~ Left Turns (Off-Peak) 3 Right Turns (Off-Peak) 14 Adj. Sat. Flow Rate (Peak) ~_ 1913 Adj. Sat. Flow Rate (Off- 1882 Peak) F1 ~~~ file://C:\Documents and Settings\rchapman\Local Settings\Temp\preview.~nl 8/25/2009 • • • • • Automobile Intersection and Segment Data (Peak) Page 2 of 4 Left Right % % INT SEG Cycle Thru Left Arr. Hourly Median Length g/C g/C Type Turn Turn Left Right # Dir. Length AADT Voi. # Dir. FFS Type Segment # Lanes Lanes Turn Turn Lanes Lanes 1 (to 143 0.43 0.12 ~ Yes Yes ~~~ 0.5095 44379 2192 ~ 50 Restrictive Belcher) 2 (to Old g0 0.5 0.16 ~ Yes No ~~~ 0.7381 44379 2192 ~ 50 Restrictive Coachman) Automobile Intersection and Segment Data (Off-Peak) Left Right % % INT SEG Cycle Thru Left Arr. Hourly Median Length g/C g/C Type Turn Turn Left Right # Dir. Length AADT Voi. # Dir. FFS Type Segment # Lanes Lanes Turn Turn Lanes Lanes 2 (to 143 0.5 0.16 ^4 Yes No ^3 14 ^3 0.5095 44379 2024 ^3 50 Restrictive Hercules) i (to ) 143 0.5 0.16 ^4 Yes No ^3 14 ^3 0.7381 44379 2024 ^3 50 Restrictive Belcher Automobile LOS (Peak) Thru Mvmt Ad'. Sat. Control Int. A roach Seed Segment Segment # Flow Rate Flow Rate v/c Delay OS LT Spill (mph) LOS 1 (to Belcher) 2007 1909 0.81 31.87 C No 24.9 ~~ 2 (to Old Coachman) 2123 1850 0.77 14.61 B No 36.0 1 25 C ed We 0 47 57 9 Th Id 0 0 4 30 Length . 9/ . D lay . Delay ' Speed . LOS Automobile LOS (Off-Peak) Thru Mvmt Ad'. Sat. Control Int. A roach Seed Se ment Segment # Flow Rate Flow Rate v/c Delay OS LT Spill (mph) LOS 2 (to Hercules) 2067 1895 0.73 22.14 C No 29.1 0 1 (to Belcher) 2067 1895 0.73 22.14 C No 33.0 ~~ 1 25 h ted We 0 50 53 7 y Id Th 0 0 31 3 Length . 9/ C . D lay . Dela . Speed . LOS Automobile Service Volumes Note: The maximum normally acceptable directional service volume for LOS E in Florida for this facility type and area type is 1000 vphpl. A B C D E Lanes Hourly Volume In Peak Direction 1 ** 410 860 940 ***-~ 2 ** 840 1800 1900 *** 3 ** 1280 2740 2860 -l *** 4 ** 1720 3670 3830 *** * ~~*-~ 1280 ~ 2740 ~ 2860 *** Lanes Hourly Volume In Both Directions 2 ** 790 1650 1800 *** 4 ** 1620 3460 3650 *** ~~ file://C:\Documents and Settingslrchapman\Local Setting~~iemp\preview.xml 8/25/2009 Page 3 of 4 6 II ** II 2460 I~ 5270 II 5510 ~I *** g ** 3310 7060 7360 *** * ** 2460 5270 5510 *** Lanes Annual Average Daily Traffic 2 ** 8300 17400 18900 *** 4 ** ~ 17000 ~- 36400 38400 *** 6 ** 25900 55500 58000 *** g ** 34800 74300 77400 *** * ** 25900 55500 58000 *** ~~~ file://C:\Documents and Settings\rchapman\Local Settings\Temp\preview.~nl 8/25/2009 r Page 4 of 4 * Service Volumes for the specific facility being analyzed, based on # of lanes from the intersection and segment data screens. ** Cannot be achieved based on input data provided. *** Not applicable for that level of service letter grade. See generalized tables notes for more details. # Under the given conditions, left turn lane storage is highly likely to overflow. The number of directional thru lanes should be reduced accordingly. ## Facility weighted g/C exceeds normally acceptable upper range (0.5); verify that g/C inputs are correct. ### Intersection capacity (ies) are exceeded for the full hour; an operational level analysis tool is more appropriate for this situation. I~ ~a- file://C:\Documents and Settings\rchapman\Local Settings\Temp\preview.xinl 8/25/2009 • • • • • • • Page 1 of 4 ARTPLAN 2007 Conceptual Planning Analysis Description/File Information T: \2009-0007\Traffic File Name Study Rev 1 \ArtPlan\AP_Belcher Date Prepared 8/25/2009 NB w Impr.xml Program ARTPLAN 2007 Version Date 3/18/08 Analyst ~ REC Agency FDC District Clearwater, FL Arterial Name Belcher Road Begin Intersection Harn End Intersection Cleveland Study Period ~ K100 Peak Direction Northbound User Notes Facility Data (Auto) Roadway Variables Traffic Variables Control Variables Area Type Large Urbanized AADT 20970 # of Signals Class 2 K ~ 0.1 Control Type Actuated Posted Speed 35 D 0.55 Cycle Length 143 # Thru Lanes 4 PHF -~ 0.95 Through g/C 0.45 Median Type Non-Restrictive % Heavy Vehicles (Peak) 1 Left g/C 0.14 Left Turn Lanes Yes Peakeavy Vehicles (Off- ) 1 (rrivaj Type Peak LT Lanes Stora a Length 300 % Left Turns (Peak) 16 Arrival Type () 9 (Off-Peak) Right Turn Lanes No % Right Turns (Peak) ~ 12 Left Turns (Off-Peak) ~ 20 Right Turns (Off-Peak) 10 Adj. Sat. Flow Rate (Peak) 1735 Adj. Sat. Flow Rate (Off- 1697 Peak) /~53 file://C:\Documents and Settinss\rchapman\Local Settings\Temp\preview.xml 8/25/2009 • • • • Automobile Intersection and Segment Data (Peak) Page 2 of 4 Left Right % % INT SEG Cycle Thru Left Arr. Turn Turn Left Right # Dir. Length AADT Hourly # Dir. FFS Median Segment # Length g/C g/C Type Lanes Lanes Turn Turn Lanes VOI' Lanes Type 1 (to Druid) 75 0.44 0.25 ^5 Yes No 13 ~~ 0.4593 20970 1153 ^2 40 Restrictive 2 (to Publix) 69 0.5 0.15 ^5 Yes No ~ 10 ^2 0.1328 20970 1153 ^2 40 Restrictive 60jo S.R. 143 0.45 0.14 ~ Yes No 16 12 ~ 0.1182 20970 1153 ~ 40 Non- Restnctive 4 (to 55 0.5 0.25 ~ Yes No ~~~ 0.3354 20970 1153 ~ 40 Non- Cleveland) Restrictive Automobile Intersection and Segment Data (Off-Peak) Left Ri ht % % INT SEG C cle Thru Left Arr. g Hourly Length g/C g/C Type Turn Turn Left Right # Dir. Length AADT Vol. # Dir. F Segment # Lanes Lanes Turn Turn Lanes Lanes 4 (to Harn) 143 0.45 0.14 ^3 Yes No 20 10 ^Z 0.4593 20970 944 ~L 3 (to Druid) 75 0.45 0.14 ^3 Yes No 20 10 ^Z 0.1328 20970 944 ^2 L 2 (to Publix) 69 0.45 0.14 ^3 Yes No 20 10 ^Z 0.1182 20970 6 ) o S.R. 143 0.45 0.14 ^3 Yes No 20 10 ^2 0.3354 20970 Non- Restrictive Automobile LOS (Peak) Segment # Thru Mvmt Flow Rate Ad'. Sat. Flow Rate v/c Control Delay Int. A roach OS LT Spill S eed (mph) Se ment LOS 1 (to Druid) 1056 1690 0.71 9.17 A No 30.3 ~~ 2 (to Publix) 1153 1688 0.68 5.1 A No 25.5 3 (to S.R. 60) 1019 1735 0.65 14.57 ~ Bl No 16.3 ~~ 4 (to Cleveland) 1202 1686 0.71 4.59 A No 31.7 Arterial Length 1.05 Weighted g/C 0.46 FFS Delay 43.5 Threshold Delay 0.0 Auto Speed Z~'3 Auto LOS C Automobile LOS (Off-Peak) Segment # Thru Mvmt Flow Rate Ad'. Sat. Flow Rate v/c Control Delay Int. A roach OS LT Spill Speed (mph) Se ment LOS 4 (to Harn) 795 1713 0.52 28.42 C No 22.6 ~~ 3 (to Druid) 795 1713 0.52 28.42 C No 11.4 ~~ 2 (to Publix) 795 1713 0.52 28.42 C No 10.7 L__J 1 (to S.R. 60) 795 1713 0.52 28.42 C No 19.7 0 Arterial Length ^ 1.05 Weighted g/C ~ 0.45 FFS Delay ~ 122.1 Threshold Delay ~ 0'0 Auto Speed ~ 17'4 Auto LOS D Automobile Service Volumes Note: The maximum normally acceptable directional service volume for LuOS E in Florida for this facility type and area ~~ 1 file://C:\Documents and Settings\rchapman\Local Settings\Temp\preview.xinl 8/25/2009 Median Type Non- Non- 40 Restrictive 211 40 ~ Nn~~ i • • • • • i • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ~~ .~ Page 3 of 4 A B C D E -Lanes Hourly Volume In Peak Direction 1 ** 480 780 850 *** 2 ** ~ 1040 1650 1730 *** 3 ** 1610 ~ 2510 2600 2610 4 ** ~ 2190 33_60 3480 ~ *** * ** 1040 1650 1730-~~ *** Lanes Hourly Volume In Both Directions 2 ~ ** 870 1420 1550 *** 4 ** 1890 ~ 3000 3140 *** 6 ** ~ 2930 4560 4730 4740 g ** r 3980 6110 6330 *** * ** 1890 3000 ~ 3140 *** Lanes Annual Average Daily Traffic ~Z -~ ** 8700 ~ 14200 r 15500 *** 4 ** -~ 18900 ~-30000 31400 *** 6 ** 29300 45600 ~-47300 47400 g ~ **~~ 39800 61100 63300 *** * ~ ** 18900 30000 ~-31400 *** • ,~~s • file://C:\Documents and Settings\rchapman\Local Settings\Temp\preview.~nl 8/25/2009 i • • • • • • • • • • • • Page 4 of 4 * Service Volumes for the specific facility being analyzed, based on # of lanes from the intersection and segment data screens. ** Cannot be achieved based on input data provided. *** Not applicable for that level of service letter grade. See generalized tables notes for more details. # Under the given conditions, left turn lane storage is highly likely to overflow. The number of directional thru lanes should be reduced accordingly. ## Facility weighted g/C exceeds normally acceptable upper range (0.5); verify that g/C inputs are correct. ### Intersection capacity (ies) are exceeded for the full hour; an operational level analysis tool is more appropriate for this situation. ,~~ file://C:\Documents and Settings\rchapman\Local Settings\Temp\preview.xml 8/25/2009 ~~ ,! ~_._-_______ ~ 1 ~ - -_--~ ... ~~~ D D .moo QO QO ~aD Do oD DO LAKESIDE AT CLEARWATER FIRE TRUCK MOVEMENT EXHIBIT ~~. ~ n n r~ w~~ _ _ n n c L------------~---~---------.~____-~ DESCRIPTION: ~ FLORIDA DESIGN CONSULTANTS, AVC ENGINEERS, ENVIRONMENTALISTS, SURVEYORS 8 PLANNERS 3030 Starkey Blvd. New Port Richey FL, 34655 Tel: (727) 849-7588 -Fax: (727J 848-3648 E.B. No. 7421 ~ I ..------ ~' - - - - r I'. N 0 50 100 200 THIS IS NOT A SURVEY PROJ Na. DATE: FIGURE: 2009-0007 ~-12-2010 EPN: 329 DRAWN BY: NQ, SCALE: ~„ = 100, I JEB OCopyright 2009 Florida Design Consultants, Inc. drawings and concepts may not be used or reproduced without written permission. ufY! FLD2009-12046 2165 GULF TO BAY BLVD LAKESIDE AT CLEARWATER