The URL can be used to link to this page

PLT2015-09002; FLS2015-09020u RYSIDE BLV� � 25�6 C�VNT2 � learwater . o0 � la 09 � PLT2015 1 West LLG das #: 22�A �5 Countryside pensity Reside A IT IS INCUMBENT UPON THE APPLICA� �onin9: nllediurn ._.., �rvtORMATION INCOMPLETE OR INCORRECT INfORMA � ._....,i t YOUR APPLICATION. opment Department �t Application n-Residential Uses ANY MISLEADING, DECEPTIVE, ALL APPLICATIONS ARE TO BE FILLED OUT COMPLETELY AND CORRECTLY, AND SUBMITTED IN PERSON (NO FAX OR DELIVERIES) TO THE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BY NOON ON THE SCHEDULED DEADLINE OATE. A TOTAL OF 11 COMPLETE SETS OF PLANS AND APPLICATION MATERIALS (1 ORIGINAL AND 10 COPIES) AS REQUIRED WITHIN ARE TO BE SUBMITTED FOR REVIEW BY THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE. PLANS AND APPLICATIONS ARE REQUIRE� TO BE COLLATED, STAPLED AND FOLDED INTO SETS. THE APPLICANT, BY FILING THIS APPLICATION, AGREES TO COMPLY WITH ALL APPLICABLE REQUIREMENTS OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE. FIRE DEPT PRELIMARY SITE PLAN REVIEW FEE: $200 APPLICATION FEE: $475 PROPERTY OWNER (PER DEED): MAILING ADDRESS: PHONE NUMBER: EMAIL: AGENT OR REPRESENTATIVE: MAILING ADDRESS: PHONE NUMBER: 25 Countryside West, LLC 2226 State Road 580, Clearwater, FL 33763-1126 E.D. Armstrong, Hill Ward Henderson 600 Cleveland Street, Suite 800, Clearwater, FL 33755 727-259-6789 EMAIL: earmstrong@hwhlaw.com ADDRESS OF SUBIECT PROPERTY: PARCEL NUMBER(S): LEGAL DESCRIPTION: PROPOSED USE(5): DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: Specifically identify the request (include all requested code flexibility; e.g., reductian in required number of parking spaces, height, setbacks, lof size, lot width, specific use, etc. j: 2506 Countryside Boulevard 30-28-16-18367-000-0001 et, seq. See Exhibit A Multi-Family Residential Development for 330 Dwelling Units See Exhibit B Planning & Development Department, 100 S. Myrtle Avenue, Clearwater, FL 33756, Tel: 727-562-4567; Fax: 727-562-4865 Page 1 of 8 Revised 01112 j:125 Countryside West &a Countryside Golf CourselPermits\Flexible Standard Development Application.pdf o yrZ1N c� � � � . a O � �� a � � � c O � o i� v� �C �� o�.G � N � O � � 1 a �m D � �' rn� � N � N D j \ v ° lear�water �� Planning & Development Department Flexible Standard Development Application Data Sheet PLEASE ENSURE THAT THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION IS FILLED OUT, IN ITS ENTIRETY. fAILURE TO COMPLETE THIS FORM WILL RESUIT IN YOUR APPLICATION BEING FOUND INCOMPLETE AND POSSIBLY DEFERRED UNTIL THE FOLLOWING APPLICATION CYCLE. ZONING DISTRICT: FUTURE LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION: EXISTING USE (currently existing on site): PROPOSED USE (new use, if any; plus existing, if to remain): MDR RU Former Countryside Executive Golf Course Multi-Family Residential Development (330 du) SITE AREA: 1,928,706 sq. ft. ��277 acres GROSS FLOOR AREA (total square footage of all buildings): Existing: � sq. ft. Proposed: 484,700 sq. ft. Maximum Allowable: N�A sq. ft. GROSS FLOOR AREA (total square footage devoted to each use, if there will be multiple uses): First use: 484,700 sq. ft. Second use: N/A sq.ft. Third use: N�A sq. ft. FLOOR AREA RATIO (total square footage of all buildings divided by the total square footage of entire site): N/A Existing: Proposed: Maximum Allowable: BUILDING COVERAGE/FOOTPRINT (15Y floor square footage of all buildings}: Existing: 0 sq. ft. ( � % of site) Proposed: 192,500 sq, ft. ( 9•9 � of site) Maximum Permitted: N�A sq. ft. ( N/A % of site) GREEN SPACE WITHIN VEHICULAR USE AREA (green space within the parking lot and interior of site; not perimeter buffer): Existing: 0 sq. ft. ( � % of site) Proposed: 67,541 sq. ft. ( 3•5 % of site) VEHICULAR USE AREA (parking spaces, drive aisles, (oading area): Existing: 138,800 Sq, ft ( 7.2% Proposed: 374,180 sq, ft. ( 19.4% % of sitej % of site) Planning � Development Department, 100 S. Myrtle Avenue, Clearwater, FL 33756, Tel: 727-562-4567; Fax: 727-562-4865 Page 2 of B Revised 01H2 j:�25 Countryside West flca Countryside Golf Course\Permits\Fiexible Standard Development Application.pdf IMPERVIOUS SURFACE RATIO jtota! square /ootage of Impervious areas divided by the totat square footage of endre sitej: EHlsting: 0.089 Proposed: 0.330 Maximum Permitted: �.650 OEN5ITY tunits, rooms or beds per acreJ: Existing: 0 Proposed. ~ 330 dU Maxtmurn Permitted:7.45 u/�c/330 du total OFFSTREET PARKING• Exlsting: Q Proposed: �8 ipACCS Minimum Required: _ ��CCS BUILOING HEIGHT: Existing: �' Proposed: T 39' 11" Maximum Permftied• 40' WHAT IS THE E5TIMATED TOTAL VALUE Of THE PROJEC7 UPON COMPi.ETION7 $36,00O�OOII 20NING QISTRIRS FOIi ALL ADdACENT PROPERTY: Nonh: Commerciai (City of Dunedin� i& HDR — ----- S _ _.. _. _ .._ _ _.__.� _ _ South: � Easc: IitT, O & C �_ . __._.��.._.._ .. ___.... _ ., __ _._ _ _. _ `__ _ ___--.._ , _ west. MDR & LMDR _ _ __ _. __ _ __ ___, _ . __ _ _ �. _ .� STATE OF FLORIDA, CQUMY OF PINELLAS ,� 1 I, the undersfgned, adcrwwledge that all Sworn to and subscribed before me th(s ___.,� „�,. `" +_� _ day of : representatlons m�de in this appltcatior+ are true and � -f - �� f , to me and/or by ' aocurate to the best of my knowledge and authorize —�� -- Clty �eprcsentatives to vtsit and photograph the n�� fE -�� ; who ts personaliy knov�m has properry des�ribed in this apppcatton. produced as identifiatlon: I _., SignaWre of property owner or f t� ` My commissfon expires: Plennbfg 8 Developmant DepaAmeM,10D S. MyKle Avenue, Clearwator, FL 33T66, Tef: 7T7.562.�5g7; Fax: 727-662�865 Pjg° � °t 8 R�vised 81112 k�2i �c_n ,ys'tl,. V!c r�.t Ik,i Goin�ry;n�c Eu�r_�in�e GoKmurseWrrmlls�f L�nb'. Cevet:qmero Ap� Pui o Planning & Development Department �� earwat�r Flexible Standard Develo ment A lication p pp � Site Plan Submittal Package Check list IN ADDITION TO THE COMPLETED FLEXIBLE STANDARD DEVELOPMENT (FLS) APPLICATION, ALL FLS APPLICATIONS SHALL INCLUDE A SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL PACKAGE THAT INCLUDES THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION AND/OR PLANS: ❑ Responses to the flexibility criteria for the specific use(s) being requested as set forth in the Zoning District(s) in which the subject property is located. The attached Flexible Standard Development Application Flexibility Criteria sheet shall be used to provide these responses. ❑ Responses to the General Applicability criteria set forth in Section 3-914.A. The attached Flexible Standard Development Application General Appiicability Criteria sheet shall be used to provide these responses. ❑ A signed and sealed survey of the property prepared by a registered land surveyor including the location of the property, dimensions, acreage, location of all current structures/improvements, location of all public and private easements including official records book and page numbers and street right(s)-of-way within and adjacent to the site. ❑ If the application would result in the removal or relocation of mobile home owners residing in a mobile home park as provided in F.S. § 723.083, the application must provide that information required by Section 4-202.A.5. ❑ If this application is being submitted for the purpose of a boatlift, catwalk, davit, dock, marina, pier, seawall or other similar marine structure, then the application must provide detailed plans and specifications prepared by a Florida professional engineer, bearing the seal and signature of the engineer, except signed and sealed plans shall not be required for the repair or replacement of decking, stringers, railing, lower landings, tie piles, or the patching or reinforcing of existing piling on private and commercial docks. ❑ A site plan prepared by a professional architect, engineer, certified planner or landscape architect drawn to a minimum scale of one inch equals 50 feet on a sheet size not to exceed 24 inches by 36 inches that includes the following information: ❑ Index sheet of the same size shall be included with individual sheet numbers referenced thereon. ❑ North arrow, scale, location map and date prepared. ❑ Identification of the boundaries of phases, if development is proposed to be constructed in phases. ❑ Location of the Coastal Construction Control Line (CCCL), whether the property is located within a Special Flood Hazard Area, and the Base flood Elevation (BFE) of the property, as applicable. ❑ Location, footprint, size and height of all existing and proposed buildings and structures on the site. ❑ Location and dimensions of vehicular and pedestrian circulation systems, both on-site and off-site, with proposed points of access. ❑ Location of all existing and proposed sidewalks, curbs, gutters, water lines, sanitary sewer lines, storm drains, manholes, inlets, lift stations, fire hydrants, underground conduits, seawalls and any proposed utility easements. ❑ Location of onsite and offsite stormwater management facilities, including offsite elevations, as may be required by the Engineering Department to evaluate proposed stormwater management, as well as a narrative describing the proposed stormwater control plan including all calculations and data necessary to demonstrate compliance with the City of Clearwater Storm Drainage Design Criteria manual. ❑ Location of solid waste collection facilities, required screening and provisions for accessibility for collection. ❑ Location of off-street loading area, if required by Section 3-1406. ❑ Location, type and lamp height of all outdoor lighting fixtures. ❑ Location of all existing and proposed attached and freestanding signage. ❑ All adjacent right(s)-of-way, with indication of centerline and width, paved width, existing median cuts and intersections, street light poles, bus shelters, signage and utility company facilities. Planning & Development Department, 100 S. Myrtle Avenue, Clearwater, FL 33756, Tel: 727-562-4567; Fax: 727-562-4865 Page 4 of 8 Revised 01/12 j:�25 Countryside West fka Countryside Golf Course\Permits\Flexible Standard Development Application.pdf ❑ Dimensions of existing and proposed lot lines, streets, drives, building lines, setbacks, structural overhangs and building separations. ❑ Building or structure elevation drawings that depict the proposed building height, building materials, and concealment of ali mechanical equipment located on the roof. ❑ Typical floor plans, including floor pians for each floor of any parking garage. ❑ Identification and description of watercourses, wetlands, tree masses, specimen trees, and other environmentally sensitive areas. CI If there is any requested deviation to the parking standards a parking demand study will need to be provided. Prior to the preparation of such study, the methodology shall be approved by the Planning and Engineering Departments. The findings of the study will be used in determining whether or not deviations to the parking standards are approved. ❑ Tree inventory, prepared by a certified arborist, of all trees four inches DBH or more that reflects the size, canopy, and condition of such trees; as well as a tree survey showing the location, DBH and species of all existing trees with a DBH of four inches or more, and identifying those trees proposed to be removed, if any. ❑ A traffic impact study shall be required for any development which may degrade the acceptable level of service for any roadway as adopted in the Comprehensive Plan. Trip generation shall be based on the most recent edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual. ❑ An application for a certificate of concurrency/capacity or a nonconcurrency affidavit. No development approval shall be granted until a certificate of concurrency/capacity is issued or a nonconcurrency affidavit is executed. ❑ A landscape plan shall be provided for any project where there is a new use or a change of use; or an existing use is improved or remodeled in a value of 25% or more of the valuation of the principal structure as reflected on the property appraiser's current records, or if an amendment is required to an existing approved site plan; or a parking lot requires additional landscaping pursuant to the provisions of Article 3, Division 14. The landscape plan shall include the following information, if not otherwise required in conjunction with the application for development approval: ❑ Location, size, description, specifications and quantities of all existing and proposed landscape materials, including botanical and common names. ❑ Existing trees on-site and immediately adjacent to the site, by species, size and location, including drip line. ❑ Typical planting details for trees, palms, shrubs, and ground cover plants, including planting instructions, soil mixes, backfilling, mulching, staking and protective measures. ❑ Interior landscape areas hatched and/or shaded and labeled and interior landscape coverage, expressed both in square feet, exclusive of perimeter landscaped strips, and as a percentage of the paved area coverage of the parking lot and vehicular use areas. ❑ Location of existing and proposed structures and improvements, including but not limited to sidewalks, walls, fences, pools, patios, dumpster pads, pad mounted transformers, fire hydrants, overhead obstructions, sign locations, curbs, gutters, water lines, sanitary sewer lines, storm drains, manholes, inlets, lift stations, fire hydrants, underground conduits, seawalls, utility easements, treatment of all ground surfaces, and any other features that may influence the proposed landscape. 0 Location of parking areas and other vehicular use areas, including parking spaces, circulation aisles, interior landscape islands and curbing. 0 Drainage and retention areas, including swales, side slopes and bottom elevations, and drainage structures and other drainage improvements. ❑ All adjacent right(s)-of-way, with indication of centerline and width, paved width, existing median cuts and intersections, street light poles, bus shelters, signage and utility company facilities. ❑ Delineation and dimensions of all required perimeter landscaped buffers including sight triangles, if any. ❑ An irrigation plan. Planning & Development Department, 100 S. Myrtle Avenue, Clearwater, FL 33756, Tel: 727-562-4567; Fax: 727-562-4865 Page 5 of 8 Revised 01N2 j:�25 Counlryside West ika Countryside Golf Course\Permits\Flexible Standard Development Application.pdf ° �learwater Planning & Development Department Flexible Standard Development Application � General Applicability Criteria PROVIDE COMPLETE RESPONSES TO EACH OF THE SIX (6) GENERAL APPLICABILITY CRITERIA EXPLAINING HOW, IN DETAIL, THE CRITERION IS BEING COMPLIED WITH PER THIS DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL. 1. The proposed development of the land wili be in harmony with the scale, bulk, coverage, density and character of adjacent properties in which it is located. See Exhibit "B" 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. See Exhibit "B" 3. The proposed development will not adversely affect the health or safety or persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed use. See Exhibit "B" 4. The proposed development is designed to minimize traffic congestion. See Exhibit "B" 5. The proposed development is consistent with the community character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development. See Exhibit "B" The design of the proposed development minimizes adverse effects, including visual, acoustic and olfactory and hours of operation impacts, on adjacent properties. See Exhibit "B" Planning & Development Department, 100 S. Myrtle Avenue, Clearwater, FL 33756, Tel: 727-562-4567; Fax: 727-562-4865 Page 6 of 8 Revised 01/12 j:�25 Countryside West flca Countryside Goli Course\Permits\Flexible Standard Development Application.pdf ° learwater �C U Planning & Development Department Flexible Standard Development Application Flexibilitv Criteria PROVIDE COMPLETE RESPONSES TO THE APPLICABLE FLEXIBILITY CRITERIA FOR THE SPECIFIC USE(5) BEING REQUESTED AS SET FORTH IN THE 20NING DISTRICT(5) IN WHICH THE SUBJEC7 PROPERTY IS LOCATED. EXPLAIN HOW, IN DETAII, EACH CRITERION IS BEING COMPLIED WITH PER THIS DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL (USE SEPARATE SHEETS AS NECESSARY). 1 See Exhibit "B" 5. 6. 8. Planning & Devetopment Department, 100 S. Myrtle Avenue, Clearwater, FL 33756, Tel: 727-562-4567; Fax: 727-562-4865 Page 7 of 8 Revised 01112 j:�25 Countryside West fka Countryside Golf Course\Pennits\Flexible Standard Development Application.pdf �o Planning & Development Departmeni � �ar�vate� Flexfble DevelopmentApplication ��-'�-''�'�'-'�'��' Affidavit to Authorize Agent/Representative ,„,--�. ^�...,-�.---._.,-�...� 1. P�ovlde names of all property owners on deed — PRINT full names: 25 Countryside Wect, LLC Z. That (i am/we are) the owner(s) and record title holderjs) of the following described property: 2506 Countryside Boulevard, Costs Verde Plat Lota 1• 240 and Tract A 3. That this property constitutes the property for which a request for �describe request): Flexible Standard Development and Subdlvlsion Plat 4. That the undersigned (has/have) appointed ahd (does/do) appoint: E.D. Armstrong, HIII Ward Hendenon 6 Edward Mazur, Jr., P.E., Florlda Design Consultant�, Inc. as (his/their) agent(s) to execute any petitions or other documents necessary to affect such petition; � 5. That thls affidavit has been executed to induce the City of Clearwater, Fforida to consider and act on the above described property; 6. That site vlsits to the property are necessary by City representatives fn order to process thls application and the owner authorizes City representatives to visit and photograph prope►ty described in this application; 7. That (1/we), dersig�ed au�i�#tg"'n'�i ce 1y th the foregoing is true and correct. ___ _ ------- _. _ _ _ p�y �t Property Qwner ProPett�D9� C. �f. tt -- ---_ ____.. _ __.. ------------__..__ __. Property Owner Property Owner ~ � STATE OF FLORIDA, COUNTY OF PINELLAS BEFORE ME THE UNDERSIGNED, AN OFFICER DULY COMMISSIQNED BY THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF FIORIDA, ON THIS � DAY OF ;�, S-'C" , OV � S , PERSONALLY APPEARED �Ijdp t� ��'if'U4��Cr✓ V( WHO HAVING BEEN FIRST DULY SWORN Uf+IDERST .THE CONTEN7i6 � THE AFFIDAVIT THAT HE/SHE StGNED. IVOtary S� i01w C MOYM�EI! at NMrr trNe - f4N rf NodM Mp Ce�. ENMn A�N Z1. ZOt• __ � _ �._ _._..._ ._�--.----._ - -_._ Cow�nbtlou I fi 1325lS �JJ ry Pubtic Slgnelure �p My mmission Expires� �j � � _ j. , - � _.. --- _ --_ — ._ __ _.... ._ _. _._ . .. __ _ _.� _._. _ ____ _ __ Planni�g 3 Developmcnt Department, 100 S. Myrtle Anvnue, Cbarwater, F� 93756, Tel: 727-562�56T; Faz: 727•562-4885 Psge 8 of B Revlsed 01112 k:125 Countryside West ika Coun►ryside Golf CourselPermitsiFlexible Dev Applicalion Page 8.pdt EXHIBIT A TO FLEXIBLE STANDARD DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION The Alexander at Countryside PineUas County Property Appraiser's Parcel Number 30-28-16-18367-000-0001, et seq. Legal Description LOTS 1 THROUGH 240, INCLUSIVE AND TRACT A, COSTA VERDE, ACCORDING TO THE MAP OR PLAT THEREOF, AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 132, PAGES 38 THROUGH 55, INCLUSIVE, PUBLIC RECORDS OF PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA. j:\admin\project_docs\25 countryside west fka countryside golf course\reports\flex stand exhibit a legal desc 8-15.docx EXHIBiT B TQ FLEX{BLE STANDARU DEVELOPMEN� �►PPLiEATfON Ti he Atexander at Cauntryside Ciescription ofi Request Alexander Investments Internationat, the Appticant, proposes Flexible Standard Devetopment for 330 attached dwellings for the site located at Z506 Countryside Boutevard, the former site of the Countryside Executive Golf Course. The site is designated as RU, Residential Urban on the Future Land Use Map and is currentty zoned MDR, Medium Density Residential. In February, 2006, Beazer Humes as the contract purchaser, obtained Flexible Standard Development approvat for 240 townhouse and a Developrnent Agreement; and recorded a subdivision plat for the Costa Verde subdivision as a fee-simple townhouse deve(opment. Beazer Homes did not purchase the property and the site is now under contract to the Applicant. Specificatly, the Appticant requests Flexible Standard Development approval to permit 330 attached dwellings in the Medium Density Residentiat (MDR) district with the fotlowing attributes: 1. A Lot Area of 44.277 acres, where 16,000 square feet is required, 2. A Lot Width of 1,325 feet where 100 feet is required, 3. R Maximum Height (above BFE) of 39 feet 11 inches (39'11') for the tallest multi-family buitding and 23 feet for the Clubhouse where a range of 30 feet to 40 feet is allowed, 4. A Front (South) setback atong Countryside Boulevard of 42 feet to building and 78 feet to pavement where 25 feet is required, 5. A Front (East) setback along Enterprise Road of 31 feet to building where 25 feet is required and 22 feet. to pavement where 15 feet is required, 6. /a Side (North) setback of 16 feet ta building where 5 feet is require�, and 24 feet to pavement where 10 feet is required, 7. A Side (West) setback of 45 feet to building where 5 feet is required, and 4Q feet ta pavement where 10 feet is required, and 8. 848 Tatal Parking spaces inctuding 757 spaces at grade9 75 garage spaces within the residentiat buitdings and 1E spaces within four stand-alone garaqes, w�ere 66Q spaces are required; and a Parking ratio of 2.57 spaces per unit wherE 2 spaces per unit are required. Page 1 of 6 September 1, 2015 PRaJEET'S COMPLI�4NCE WiTN GENERAL APPLICABILiTY CRITERIA toralmunityDevelvpmentCode, Section 3-933 �. ihe propased development of the tand ��il! be in harmor�y witf� the scate, bulk, eoverage, density and character of adjacent properties in which it is located. The site nas significant frontage or� both Countryside Boulevard and Enterprise Road and a Limited amount of frontage on Belcner Road at the northwest corner of the site. The site is over 44 acres in size but is irregularly shaped with the southern portion of the site generally shaped Like a triangte with Countr�rside Bou[evard, Er�terprise Road and the Village on the Green property line forming the three sides of the triangte. The northern portion of the site is shaped as an "L" with both legs having limite� depth that will accommodate a depth of onty one building wide and its retated buffers, setbacks and parking spaces. In addition to the irregularly shaped site, the site has other unusuat characteristics that influence the design. These characterisfiics include a drainage ditch along the Countryside Boutevard frontage, a major Pinetlas County water easement with an active 30" transmission tine running north/south through the site, industrial uses to the east, a church and commercial parcel to the north, all of which require buffering. Given all of these site constraints, the Applicant believes that the proposed use of attached dweltings is the best use for the site since the buitdings and its parking can be separated from adjacent uses and effectively buffered in an efficient and aesthetically pleasing design. It is important to note that even with all of these site constraints, the project has been desiqned to comply with all of the dimensional requirements of the MDR district as welt as the Flexible Standard criteria for attached dwellings. In fact, the project exceeds many of the code site development requirements such as parking, interior landscaping, spacing arid location of landscape islands, amnng others. The Applicant does not request any flexibitity with regard to compliance with the MDR requirements or to the general site development standards. The P[an categories; zoning districts and existing uses in the immediate vicinity of the site are shown in Table 1 below. Page 2 of b September 1, 2015 iabte 1 Property in the Vicini�y of The Atexande� Location Land Use Category Zoning Existing Use j ; ; � North Cammercial City of Dunedin Car Sales � I (City of Dunedin} i � � � � � ' I I Church (St. Michael's � � Archanget Cathotic � Church) ; RH HDR Attached Dweliings � (Casa Miguel) 5outh R/OG 0 Offices , � � , R/OS 0/SR � Woodgate Park i f Rl; LMDR i Single FamiLy I � (Woodgate Subdivision) � Woodgate Park I East IL IRT Lt. Industrial Uses R/OG Q Offices i � CG i C Countryside Ma�l , ; I � West i RM MDR Condominiums & Villas � , RU LMDR (Village on the Green} As is demonstrated in Tabte 1, tnere are a wide variety of residentia�, commercial, office and industrial tand uses in the vicinity of the site. Additionatly, the site is located within dose proximity to Countryside Mall and the major intersections of US Highway 19 and Countryside Boulevard and US Highway 19 and State Road 580/Main Street. The devetopment witt benefit from proximity �a the Countryside activity center which is characterized by intense commercial development, high rise office buildings, residentiai condaminiums, townhouses and single famity subdivisions. The proposed use af attached dwelEings is a compatibte use in this commercial activity center and wilt provide much needed housing far residents who work in the nearby offices and commercial businesses. Additionally, it shoutd be noted that the project proposes the 5ame resi�entiat use (attached dwellings) at the same Comprehensive PEan density as the Vittage on the GreerE Condominiums ta the immediate west of the site. 1n recognition of the !ower height of the adjacent Village's buildings, the proposed sitE plan has Located the buildings as far to the east of the Viltage buildinc�s Page 3 of 6 September 1, 2015 as physically possible. The ctosest proposed mutti-family buitding is Building 5 which is located 4R feet fram the west property t�ne where a 5 foot side yard setback is the minimum setback in the MDR district. The remaining proposed mult;-family buitdings have setbacks from the west property line that range from 90 feet ta 14Q feet; which i� substantially� larger tha=� the mir�imurr� reguire� se�back of 5 feet along this common border with the Villages on the Green. The site contains existing talt and concentrated number of trees along the entire length of the eastern boundary of the site where adjacent to industrial uses and along the north property line where adjacent to the car sa�es and church. in lieu of removing this natural tree buffer io instalt a fence, the App;icant proposes to maintain the existing trees which witi form a more effective buffer- both with regard to intensity, coverage and height. in summa.ry, the proposed residential use is located within an intense commerciat center, will complement the existing office and commercial uses and proposes to buffer the residential use from the dissimilar uses to the east and north. Additionally, as described aba��e, the project design has tocated the buildings as far to the east from the adjacent resi�entiat devetopment as physically possible. Therefore, based on all of these factors, the proposed project is in harmony with the scale, bulk, coverage, density and character of adjacent properties and meets this criterion. 2, The propased devetopment will not hinder or discourage the appropriate devetopment and use of adjacent land and buildings ar significantty impair the value thereof. As described in the Response ta Criterion 1 above, the project proposes the same use as the residential development to the west and proposes buffers atong the east and north boundaries where there are dissimilar industrial, commercial and institutional (church) uses. Therefore, based on the similarity of the proposed use to the Village on the Green and by providing buffers for adjacent dissimilar uses, the proposed development wilt not discourage the use of the adjacent properties, will not impair the value of these adjacent devetopments and is in compliance with this criterion. 3. The proposed development will r�ot adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing ar working in the neighborhood of the proposed use. The proposed residentiaE development does not have use characteristics that are expected to adversely affect the heatth or safety of residents and empLoyees in the neighborhood of the project. In fact, since the proposed use is the same residential use as the Village on the Green to the west, there are no expected adverse effects from the deveLopment of the sQte and the praject comp[ies with this criterion. 4. The prapose� devetopment is designed t� minimize traffic congestion. The site ptan proposes one driveway on Countryside Boulevard which is located in the eastern portion of the site and wilt be a full access aligning with the median opening. The project also proposes one driveway on Belcher Road which wiil be limited to right-in, right-out movements only. There i� no access proposed on Enterprise Boulevard, the site's easter� boundary. Additionally, parking i� pravided on site that exceeds the cade minimum requiremerts ta ensure that there is adequate parking within tl�e property boundaries both for residents and visitors. Page 4 of 5 September �, 2Qi5 Th� project proposes to construct four garage buildings with four spaces in each b«ilding for a totat c�f 16 garage spaces. The garage buildings will be leased to tenants antv and it �s recognized that the garages must be used for parking or,ly and nat #or storage of household iterns, 5aats, trailers, or othe�� simiiar items. A detailed transportation study has been prepared for the project by Raysor Transportation Consulting, fnc. and is include� in this submittal package. In summary, the Raysor Studyfinds that the study area roads are currently operating at an acceptable Level of Service (LOS� and will remain at an acceptable LOS ��hen the project is constructed. The Raysor Study identified that the site driveways are expected to operate acceptably with one improvement: an extension af the existing Countryside Boulevard eastbound to no�thbouna turn lane at. the project entrance. According to the Study, there are no other off-site improvements are necessary for the project to operate at acceptable transportation tevels. Base� on the abnve described factors, the project is consistent with th;s criterion to minimize traffic congestion. 5. The proposed development is consistent with the� community character of the immediate vicinity of the parcet proposed for development. As described in the Response to Criterion 1 above, the proposed multi-fami�y deve�opment is consistent with the multi- family development to the west, and is compatible with the existing office and commercial uses in the vicinity of the site. Significant buffering is proposed along the shared property line with the existing industrial uses to the east. Therefore, based on these factors and proposed improvements, the proposed development is consistent with the community character and complies with this criterion. 6. The design af the proposed development minimizes adverse effec�s, including, visuat, acaustic and olfactory and hours of operation impacts on adjacent properties. Due to the nature of the proposed residentiat use, there are no expected visual, acoustic, olfactory or hours of operation impacts on adjacent properties. In addition, with regard to potential visual impact, the buildings adjacent to the Vi�tages on the Green are setback substantially larger than the minimum allowable setback of 5' as described in more detait in the Response to Criterion 1 above. In fact, thE closest building is 49' from the property line which is more than 9 times the allowable setback of 5'. The remaining buildinqs are located at teast 90' from the west property line and up tc 14Q' fram the common border �vith the Villages. Additionally, since the proposed mult�-family devetopment is less intense than the surrounding office, commerciat and industrial uses to thE north and east, the project is not expected to create any visual, acoustic, olfactory or hours of operation impacts on these nearby uses. As is required by the MDR Flexible Criteria, where the project's parking areas are adjacent ta a street or other property, the project wiEl instal! a double row of shrubs at 3' height to buffer the vehicte �ights on the project from the street and adjacent uses. Giver a�t af these factors, the project complies with this criterion. Page 5 of 6 September 1, 2015 � • P�OJE�I�'� C0�'P�IANCE V�6TH SPEtIFlC �LEXIBlLfTY �R(TERIk f�� orring District, Flexible Standard Cri�eria, L"om,munit�+LJevef�pment�'ade, Sect�or� �-303A 'i. Height: a. The increased height results irs an im�rave� site ptar�, ians3scaping areas in excess of ihe minimum required and{or improved design and appearance; b. The increased height will not reduce the vertic�l c�mpanent of the view from a partet of land whic�r is desi�nated as low density residential in the Zoning Attas. !rti response ta 1.a, there are six different building types proposed within the project and each is shown on the enclosed architecturai ptans. The tatlest building type is 39� 11" which is within the allowable range af height in the MDR district of 36 feet to 40 feet. fn recognition of the Villages buildings that are constructed at twa stories as compared to the project's three stories, the proposed project will be setback significant distances from the west property line, ranging from 49' for the closest building and up to 140' for the fiurthest building. The increased height for the project provides design continuity with all buildings being designed at three stories, creates design efficiencies for multi-family dwellings, increases the parking area landscapina, and resutts in more open space within the site than if the buildings were limited in height. Based on the fattors described above, the praject is in compliante with criterion 1.a. In response to 1.b, there are no properties in t.he vicinity that are designated as Low Density Residential zoning district, therefore, this criterion is not appticable to the project. �. The parcet proposed for devetopmeni is not cantiguaus t� a parcet which is designated as low density residentiat in the Zoning Atlas. As shown in �able 1 above, the site is not contiguous ta a parcei that is zone�+ Low �ensity District; and, therefore, the project is comp�iant with this criterion. 3. Off-stree� parking is screened from adjacent parcets of land a�nd any adjacent stree� by a tandscaped watt or fence of at ieast four feet i�n height. �"here are severa� areas �vhere screening of the off-street parking areas �vilt be required by this criterion and the proposed tandscaping is shown on the e�ctosed landscape plans, demonstrating compliance v��ith this criterion. Page � of 6 September 1, 2015 STORMWATER NARRATIVE TO FLEXIBLE STANDARD DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION The Alexander at Countryside The site was formerly the Countryside Executive Golf Course, and was constructed in the early 1970's. At that time, a north/south ditch was constructed that conveyed runoff from the Woodgate area of Countryside. An easement was granted for that ditch, however, during the past 40 years the location of the ditch, side slopes, etc. have experienced significant changes. The ditch relocation was part of the Costa Verde at Countryside townhome/villa development proposed by Beazer Homes in 2006/2007, approved by the City of Clearwater, the US Army Corps of Engineers, and the Southwest Ftorida Water Management District (SWFWMD). That project, however, was not constructed, and the property has now been redesigned as an apartment complex. The SWFWMD permit (#44027632.002) has not expired and, therefore, certain aspects of that permit, such as existing discharge rates, seasonal high water elevations, as well as the design of the relocated ditch, have been used to prepare the drainage design of The Alexander at Countryside. Based on a recent pre-application meeting held with SWFWMD, it was agreed that these aspects of the design should remain. An evaluation of the site, however, showed that the existing easement was not wide enough to accommodate a safe reconstruction of the ditch and, therefore, an additional 30' wide easement is proposed, and is shown on the Site Plan. The proposed project has significantly less impervious surface than the prior project. This, combined with the fact that the total surface area of the proposed retention ponds is much greater than the surface area shown on the Costa Verde plans, will ensure that the existing conditions discharge rates are not exceeded. During a recent conversation with Jennifer Shannon, P.E. of City staff it was agreed that both master drainage computations, and stormtab computations are not required for the Site Plan review. These computations, however, witl be provided when the construction plans for the project are submitted later this year. September 1, 2015 j:\admin\project docs\25 countryside west fka muntryside golf course\reports\the alexander flexibfe std stormwater narrative 9-1-15.docx ° learwater �� U Planning & Development Department Preliminary Plat Application IT IS INCUMBENT UPON THE APPLICANT TO SUBMIT COMPLETE AND CORRECT INFORMATION. ANY MISLEADING, DECEPTIVE, INCOMPLETE OR INCORRECT INFORMATION MAY INVALIDATE YOUR APPLICATION. ALL APPLICATIONS ARE TO BE FILLED OUT COMPLETELY AND CORRECTLY, AND SUBMITTED IN PERSON (NO FAX OR DELIVERIES) TO THE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BY NOON ON THE SCHEDULED DEADLINE DATE. A TOTAL OF 11 COMPLETE SETS OF PLANS AND APPLICATION MATERIALS (1 ORIGINAL AND 10 COPIES) AS REQUIRED WITHIN ARE TO BE SUBMITTED FOR REVIEW BY THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE. SUBSEQUENT SUBMITTAL fOR THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD, IF NECESSARY, WILL REQUIRE 15 COMPLETE SETS OF PLANS AND APPLICATION MATERIALS (1 ORIGINAL AND 14 COPIES). PLANS AND APPLICATIONS ARE REQUIRED TO BE COLLATED, STAPLED AND fOLDED INTO SETS. THE APPLICANT, BY FILING THIS APPLICATION, AGREES TO COMPLY WITH ALL APPLICABLE REQUIREMENTS OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE. APPLICATION FEE: PROPERTY OWNER �PER DEED): MAILING ADDRESS: PHONE NUMBER: EMAII: AGENT OR REPRESENTATIVE: MAILING ADDRESS: PHONE NUMBER: EMAIL: ADDRESS OF SUBJECT PROPERTY: PARCEL NUMBER(S�: LEGAL DESCRIPTION: $600 25 Countryside West, LLC 2226 State Road 580, Clearwater, FL 33763-1126 E.D. Armstrong, Hill Ward Henderson 600 Cleveland Street, Suite 800, Clearwater, FL 33755 727-259-6789 earmstrong@hwhlaw.com 2506 Countryside Boulevard 30-28-16-18367-000-0001 et. seq. See Exhibit A PROPOSED USE(S): Multi-Family Residential Development for 330 Dwelling Units DESCRIPTION �F REQUEST: Specifically identify the request (include alf requested code flexibility; e.g., reduction in required number of parking spoces, height setbocks, lot size, lot width, specific use, etc.): Consolidate Costa Verde Subdivision (previously platted as villas and townhouses .,• . Planning & Development Depaetment, 100 S. Myrtie Avenue, Clearwater, FL 33756, Tel: 727-562-4567; Fax: 727-562�L865 Page 1 of 8 Revised 01/12 j:�25 Countryside West fka Countryside Golt Course\Permits\Preliminary Plat Approval Application.pdf 0 ° learwater � V U Planning & Development Department Preliminary Plat Application Data Sheet PLEASE ENSURE THAT THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION IS FILLED OUT, IN ITS ENTIRETY. FAILURE TO COMPLETE THIS FORM WILL RESULT IN YOUR APPLICATION BEING fOUND INCOMPLETE AND POSSIBLY DEFERRED UNTIL THE FOLLOWING APPLICATION CYCLE. ZONING DISTRICT: FUTURE LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATfON: EXISTING USE {currently existing on site): MDR RU Former Countryside Executive Golf Course PROPOSED USE (new use, if any; plus existing, if to remain): Multi-Family Residential Development (330 du) SITE AREA: 1,928,706 sq. ft. `�•2�� acres GROSS FLOOR AREA (total square footage of all buildings): Existing: � sq. ft. Proposed: 484,700 sq.ft. Maximum Allowable: N�A sq. ft. GRO55 FLOOR AREA (total square footage devoted to each use, if there will be multiple usesJ: First use: 484,700 sq. ft. Second use: N/A sq.ft. Third use: N�A sq. ft. FLOOR AREA RATIO (total square footage of all buildings divided by the total square footage of entire site): NIA Existing: Proposed: Maximum Allowable: BUILDING COVERAGE/fOOTPRINT (15` floor square footage of all buildings): Existing: 0 sq. ft. ( � % of site) Proposed: 192,500 sq. ft. ( 9•9 % of site) Maximum Permitted: N�A sq. ft. ( N�A % of site) GREEN SPACE WITHIN VEHICULAR USE AREA (green space within the parking lot and interior of site; not perimeter buffer): Existing: � sq. ft. ( 0 % of site) Proposed: 67,541 sq. ft. ( 3.5 % of site) VEHICULAR USE AREA (parking spaces, drive aisles, loading area): Existing: 138,800 sq. ft. � 7.2% Proposed: 374,780 Sp, ft, ( 19.4% % of site) % of site) Planning & Development Department, 10D S. Myrtle Avenue, Clearwater, FL 33756, Tel: 727-562-4567; Fax: 727-562-4865 Page 2 of 8 Revised 01l12 j:125 Countryside West fka Countryside Golf Course\Permits\Plat Approval Appiication.pdf IMPERVIOUS SURFACE RATIO (total square footage of impervious areas divided by the total square footage of entire site): Existing: 0.089 Proposed: 0.330 Maximum Permitted: 0.650 DENSITY (units, rooms or beds per acre): Existing: � Proposed: 330 du Maximum Permitted: �•45 ulacl330 du totai BUILDING HEIGHT: Existing: Proposed: Maximum Permitted: 0' 39'11" ao� OfF-STREET PARKING: Existing: 0 Note: A parking demand study musi be provided !n conjunction with any request Proposed: 848 Spaces to reduce the amount of required off-street parking spaces. Please see the Minimum Required: 660 Spaces odopted Parking Demand Study Guidelines for further information. WHAT IS THE ESTIMATED TOTAL VALUE OF THE PROIECT UPON COMPLETION? $36,000,000 20NING DISTRICTS FOR ALL AOJACENT PROPERTY: North: Commercial (City of Dunedin), I 8 HDR South: OSR 8 LMDR East: IRT, 08C West: MDR 8 LMDR STATE OF FLORIDA, COUNTY OF PINELLAS I, the undersigned, acknowledge that all Sworn to and subscribed before me this _ day of representations made in this application are true and �3 �. to me and/or by accurate to the best of my knowledge and authorize 1 City representatives to visit and photograph the f , who is personally known h� property described�his�tion. p on. re�of property�owne� representative Notary public, � My commission expire � My Commission FF 082916 �e, �,� Expires 01123/2018 Planning & Development Department, 100 S. Myrtle Avenue, Clearwater, FL 33756, Tel: 727-562-4567; Fax: 727-562-4865 Page 3 of 8 Revised 01112 j:125 Countryside West fka Countryside Golf Course\PermitslPlat Approvaf Application.pdf ° learwater �C U Planning & Development Department Preliminary Plat Application Submittal Packa�e Check list IN ADDITION TO THE COMPLETED PRELIMINARY PLAT APPLICATION, ALL REQUESTS fOR PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL SHALL INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION: ❑ A preliminary plat prepared by a surveyor, architect, landscape architect or engineer drawn to a minimum scale of one inch equals 100 feet on a sheet size not to exceed 24 inches by 36 inches that includes the following information: ❑ Title under which the proposed plat is to be recorded. ❑ Name, address and telephone number of the person preparing the plat. ❑ Identification clearly stating that the drawing is a preliminary plat. ❑ Legal description of the property, U.S. Survey section, township and range lines. ❑ Existing and proposed rights-of-way and easements. ❑ Proposed street names. ❑ Names, appropriately positioned, of adjoining plats. ❑ Dimension and area of the overall plat, each lot, street rights-of-way (including radii of cul-de-sacs), common open space or other land to be dedicated for a public purpose, if any. ❑ North arrow, scale and date. Planning 8 Development Department, 100 S. Myrtle Avenue, Clearwater, FL 33756, Tel: 727-562-4567; Fax: 727-562-4865 F'age 4 ot 8 Revised 01/12 j:125 Countryside West fka Countryside Golf Course\PermitslPlai Approval Applicafion.pdf L Y � ��r�vater r Planning & Development Department Prelirninary Plat Application � Affidavit to Authorize Agent/Represent�tive 1. Provide �ames of ail property own�n an deed — PRINT full names: 25 Countn'sid� West� LLC 2. That (i am/we arej tfie owner�s) and reco�d title hoider(s) of the following described property: 2506 Countrrrside Boulev�rd, Cost�► Verde PIAt Lots 1- 240 and Trxct A 3. That this property constitutes the p�operty for which a request for (describe requestj: Flezible Standard Development and Subdivision Piat 4. That the undersigned {has/have� appointed a�d (does/do) appoint: E.D. A�mstrong, Hill Ward He�derson & Edward Mazur, Jr., P.E., Florid� Design Consultants, In as (hisJtheir) agent(s) to execute any petitio�s o� other documents necessary to affect such petition; 5. That this a�davit has been executed to i�duce the City of Cleanerater, Fiarida to consider and act on the above destribed property; 6. That site visits to the property are necessary by Gty reprcsentatives in order to process this application and the owner authorixes City �epresgpiat't�s io visit and photograph the property described in this appiitation; 7. That ( i.��••- ' �.. . . � �i: � Property Owner the foregoing is true and correct. Jr. SfATE OF FWRIDA. COUNTY OF PINELLAS Property Owner Property Owner BEFORE ME THE UNOER5IGNED, AN OFFICER DULY COMMIS510NED SY THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, ON THIS �AY OF DEPOSEQ ANO SAYS THA7 HElSHE FULLY UNDERSTANDS �0lIN C M0111� �It �ry �� . �f�N �f fiOrNa M, �,.,.�, �s w4 i�. zo,e C�s:�on � Ff t3L5�9S �� c� , PERSONALLY APPEARED BEEN FIRST OULY SWORN AFFIDAVIT THAT HElSHE SIGNED. � �� V'� 4J�tadr Public �at � �� a My Cammission Exp�res: U _ Planni�p i Ow�iop�ri�nt Mp�Am�nt, tOQ 8. M�RtN Awnus. CIN�►�t�r, FL �S76E, TN: 72T-SE2-t567; F�uc.'R7Y s� O� �5 Payt 5 of t j:125 CouMry6ide Weat 1ka CounirysWe C3olt CourselPetmitslPlat I1pProva� MP�icatiort.pdf EXHIBIT A TQ PRELIMINARY PLAT APPLICATION The Atexander at Countryside Pinellas County Property Appraiser's Parcel Number 30-28-16-18367-000-0001, et seq. Legal Description LOTS 1 THROUGH 240, INCLUSIVE AND TRACT A, COSTA VERDE, ACCORDING TO THE MAP OR PLAT THEREOF, AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 132, PAGES 38 THROUGH 55, INCLUSIVE, PUBLIC RECORDS OF PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA. j:\admin\project_docs\25 wuntryside west fka countryside gotf course\reports\preliminary plat exhibit a legal desc 8-15.docx H E LEXAN D E R AT OU NTRYSI DE TRAFFIC STUDY Prepared For: FLORIDA DESIGN CONSULTANTS, INC. 3030 Starkey Boulevard New Port Richey, Florida 34655 Prepared ey: ' � RAYSOR Transportation Consulting, LLC. %;�� ' �� 19046 Bruce B. Downs Boulevard, Suite 308 Tampa, Florida 33647 �;-,. � (813) 625-1699 � (813) 413-7432 fx �. � , � ENB No. 27789 , August 25, 2015 ' � ' ' t , ' ' ' ' t ' , ' , ' 1 ' ' PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that I am a registered professional engineer in the State of Florida, practicing with Raysor Transportation Consulting, LLC., a corporation authorized to operate as an engineering business (ENB No. 27789), by the State of Florida Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Professional Engineers, and I have prepared or approved the evaluation, findings, opinions, conclusions, or technical advice hereby reported for: PRO�ECT: The Alexander at Countrvside LocarioN: Clearwater, Florida REPORT DATE: AU�USt 25, 2015 PREPARED FOR: Florida Desi�n Consultants, Inc. I acknowledge that the procedures and references used to develop the results contained in this report are standard to the professional practice of transportation engineering as applied through professional judgment and experience. NAME: P.E. NO.: DATE: SIGNATURE: n ',''r^.,,ry J` � t%,�.; t ' � � .. �"s "` � > +, n � '° MI. ` ' � ��;X,�f�:.�+`�, �.,�— �� 9 � , , � s "� :,. r; �' " � , `° � _ »� � � , 6Q�19 ' � � � ' �: '"' � �� o. �� ° � �'��,,��:��'.,,�� M1 `�.r�,�, , .. _„!'��""�"`.�v � � 4 � ��.�. �t ��4� ' LJ 1 1 � � ' ' ' ' RAYSOR Transportation Consulting THE ALEXANDER AT COUNTRYSIDE TRAFFIC STUDY CONTENTS SECTION1.0 Introduction .................................................................................................................1 SECTION 2.0 Project Site Trip Generation .........................................................................................1 SECTION3.0 Study Area ....................................................................................................................5 SECTION 4.0 Traffic Volumes .............................................................................................................5 SECTION 5.0 Concurrency Analysis - Intersections ............................................................................9 SECTION 6.0 Concurrency Analysis - Roadway Segment ...................................................................9 SECTION 7.0 Site Access Analysis .......................................................................................................10 SECTION 8.0 Alternate Access Scenario ............................................................................................11 SECTION9.0 Conclusion ....................................................................................................................11 TABLES TABLE 1.0 Project Site Trip Generation Estimate ..............................................................................1 , TABLE 2.0 Off-Site Intersection Analysis Summary ...........................................................................9 TABLE 3.0 Roadway Segment Analysis Summary .............................................................................10 ' ' ' FIGURES FIGURE 1.0 Project Site Location ......................................................................................................2 FIGURE 2.0 Project Traffic Distribution ..............................................................................................3 FIGURE 3.0 Project Traffic Assignment ..............................................................................................4 FIGURE 4.0 Existing PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ..........................................................................6 FIGURE 5.0 Background PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ...................................................................7 FIGURE 6.0 Total PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ..............................................................................8 ' APPENDICES �I ' ' APPENDIX A: APPENDIX B: APPENDIX C: APPENDIX D; APPENDIX E: APPENDIX F: Methodology Statement Traffic Count Data Historical Traffic Growth Vested Traffic Background Traffic Estimate Intersection Analysis APPENDIX G: Signal Timings APPENDIX H: Intersection Analysis w/Improvements APPENDIX I: Roadway Segment Analysis APPENDIX J: Site Access Analysis APPENDIX K: Turn Lane Warrant Evaluation APPENDIX L: Alternate Access Scenario ' The Alexander at Countryside - i- Project No. 154180 Traffic Study August 25, 2015 1 ' 1 1 u 1 ' ' ' ' ' ' ' 1 ' ' ' 1 ' RAYSOR Transportation Consulting THE ALEXANDER AT COUNTRYSIDE TRAFFIC STUDY SERION Z.O INTRODUCTION This report documents a traffic study undertaken to analyze the proposed "The Alexander at Countryside" apartment project, which is a redevelopment of the Countryside Executive Golf Course. Prior traffic studies were performed for the subject project site circa 2004/2005, where at that time the development plan consisted of 280 townhouse/condominium units, and included an access connection to Enterprise Road which is no longer proposed. This traffic study serves as an update to address the current development plan, currently proposed access connections, and current background traffic volumes. This traffic study was undertaken pursuant to the approved methodology statement as documented in Appendix A. The project site is located north of Countryside Boulevard, south of Main Street (SR-580), between Belcher Road and Enterprise Road, in the City of Clearwater, Florida (refer to Figure 1.0). The project site previously operated as the Countryside Executive Golf Course, and is now proposed for redevelopment to consist of up to 330 apartment units. Access to the project site is proposed to consist of a right-in/right-out connection to Belcher Road, a right-in/right-out connection to Countryside Boulevard, and a full access connection to Countryside Boulevard (refer to Figure 1.0). An alternate access scenario was also evaluated, which eliminates the right-in/right-out connection to Countryside Boulevard, as further discussed in Section 8.0 of this report. The project is anticipated to buildout within approximately two years, by the end of 2017. SECTION Z.O PROJECT SITE TRIP GENERATION The daily and peak hour trip generation of the project site was estimated based on trip characteristic data, as identified in Trip Generation (Institute of Transportation Engineers [ITE], 9th edition, 2012), as summarized in Table 1.0. The distribution of project generated trips for this study was estimated based on the distribution used for the above-referenced prior traffic studies, as shown in Figures 2.0 and 3.0. TABLE 1.O PROJECT SITE TRIP GENERATION ESTIMATE The Alexander at Countryside -1- Project No. 154180 Traffic Study August 25, 2015 , RAYSOR Transportation Consulting � , � � � ' � � , l� � 1 1 1 1 , ; 1 FIGURE 1.O PROJECT $ITE LOCATION , The Alexander at Countryside - 2- Project No. 154180 Traffic Study August 25, 2015 � ' � t 1 RAYSOR Transportation Consulting C�r�mc 7 A Don�rrrTnwrr�n fl�«n..,�.r..... The Alexander at Countryside - 3- Project No. 154180 Traffic Study August 25, 2015 � RAYSOR Transportation Consulting FIGURE 3.0 PROJECTTRAFFIC PM PEAK HOUR ASSIGNMENT ' The Alexander at Countryside - 4- Project No. 154180 Traffic Study August 25, 2015 RAYSOR Transportation Consulting SECTION 3.O STUDY AREA Pursuant to discussions with City staff, the study area was determined to consist of the following: Roadwav Se�ments eelcher Road from Countryside Boulevard to Main Street Countryside eoulevard from Belcher Road to US-19 Main Street from Belcher Road to US-19 Intersections Belcher Road at Main Street eelcher Road at Countryside eoulevard Oak Neck Road at Countryside eoulevard Countryside Boulevard at Enterprise Road Each of the Three Site Access Connections Traffic conditions were evaluated for PM peak hour conditions for the study area as referenced above. SECTION 4.O TRAPFIC VOLUMES Existing PM peak hour traffic volumes used in the study were obtained from manual intersection turning movement counts performed in August 2015. The raw intersection traffic counts were adjusted to reflect peak season conditions using FDOT peak season adjustment factors. Roadway segment volumes were calculated from the counted intersection volumes, Traffic data for existing conditions is documented in Appendix B. Background traffic conditions for the 2017 buildout year for study area roads and intersections were estimated from the higher (worst-case) of either (a) the application of a growth rate, or (b) the addition of vested traffic generated by the development project located at the southwest corner of Countryside Boulevard at US-19. Pursuant to historical traffic count data from the Pinellas MPO, the annual growth rate for the study area was determined to be 1.4% per year (refer to Appendix C). Pursuant to information provided by City staff in regard to the development project located at the southwest corner of Countryside Boulevard at US-19, that project's trip generation and distribution was estimated (refer to Appendix D). A comparison of these values found that the above-referenced growth rate was the worst-case method for determining background traffic growth and thus was used in this study (refer to Appendix E). Total traffic volumes were calculated by adding project traffic to the background traffic estimates. The traffic volumes used in this analysis are illustrated in Figures 4.0 through 6.0. The Alexander at Countryside - 5- Project No. 154180 Traffic Study August 25, 2015 ' RAYSOR Transportation Consulting FIGURE 4.O EXISTING PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES ' The Alexander at Countryside - 6- Project No. 154180 Traffic Study August 25, 2015 ' RAYSOR Transportation Consulting ' ' � � � � �� ' � � ' � ' � FIGURE 5.0 BACKGROUND PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES � "'^°TH > ' The Alexander at Countryside - 7- Project No. 154180 Traffic Study August 25, 2015 RAYSOR Transportation Consulting C�r_� �or G A TnTn� DM Drnv Yn� �o T�ncn� \/n� � �ewoc The Alexander at Countryside - 8- Project No. 154180 Traffic Study August 25, 2015 ' lJ , � ' ' ' ' , � ' � ' ' ' ' � � , RAYSOR Transporfation Consulting SECTION $.O CONCURRENCY ANALY515 - INTERSECTIONS An operational analysis of the off-site study intersections was performed using Highway Capacity Manual methodologies calculated by Synchro software, as summarized in Table 1.0 and further documented in Appendix F. It is noted that existing signal timings were used for the analysis as documented in Appendix G. The analysis was performed for existing, background, and total traffic conditions in consideration of existing intersection geometries. Then, for those locations that were found to be deficient (i.e., level of service worse than "D") for background traffic conditions (i.e., Belcher Road at Main Street), improvements to restore acceptable operations for background conditions were identified (as documented in Appendix H), and these improvements were carried over to a revised analysis of total traffic conditions. As shown in Table 2.0, the improvements needed to resolve background deficiencies were found to also provide for acceptable operating conditions for total traffic conditions. Therefore, in accordance with prevailing State law (FL Statute 163.3180(5)(h)3), the subject redevelopment project should not be subjected to any intersection mitigation for transportation concurrency. TABLE 2.0 OFF-$ITE INTERSECTION ANALYSIS SUMMARY (PM PEAK HOUR) SECTION E.O CONCURRENCY ANALY515 - ROADWAY SEGMENT An operational analysis of the study area roadway segments was performed using FDOT's Generalized Service Volume Tables (December 18, 2012), as summarized in Table 3.0 and further documented in Appendix I. The results of the roadway segment analysis indicate that the study segments are currently operating acceptably and are anticipated to operate acceptably for future background and total traffic conditions. Therefore, the subject redevelopment project should not be subjected to any roadway segment mitigation for transportation concurrency. The Alexander at Countryside - 9- Project No. 154180 Traffic Study August 25, 2015 , RAYSOR Transporfation Consulting TABLE 3.0 ROADWAY SEGMENT ANALYSIS SUMMARY (PM PEAK HOUR) Northbound D C 0.67 Existing Southbound D C 0.37 eelcher Road Northbound D C 0.69 Countryside elvd Background toMainStreet Southbound D C 0.38 Northbound D C 0.71 Tota I Southbound D C 0.39 Eastbound D C 0.60 Existing Westbound D C 0.32 Countryside Boulevard Eastbound D C 0.62 Background BelcherRoad Westbound D C 0.33 to US-19 Eastbound D C 0.64 Total Westbound D C 0.34 Eastbound D C 0.57 Existing Westbound D C 0.75 Main Street Eastbound D C 0.58 Belcher Road Backgrou nd to US-19 Westbound D C 0.77 Eastbound D C 0.58 Tota I Westbound D C 0.77 ' SECTION %.O SITE ACCESS ANALY515 Access to the project site is proposed to consist of a right-in/right-out connection to Belcher Road, a right- ' in/right-out connection to Countryside Boulevard, and a full access connection to Countryside Boulevard (refer to Figure 1.0). ' , ' ' � Operational analyses of the site access connections were undertaken for total traffic conditions for PM peak hour conditions. The analyses were performed using Highway Capacity Manual methodologies calculated by Synchro software, as documented in Appendix 1. The results of the analysis indicate that the site access intersections can be anticipated to operate satisfactorily (i.e., with v/c ratios less than 1.00). A turn lane warrant evaluation was undertaken to identify if new right turn lanes would be needed at the project site driveway connections. The need for right turn lanes was evaluated in consideration of warranting criteria documented in the Florida Department of Transportation's Drivewav Handbook (March, 2005). The Alexander at Countryside - 10 - Project No. 154180 Traffic Study August 25, 2015 1 t ' ' � , ' � ' � �� ' ' RAYSOR Transporfation Consulting Pursuant to the FDOT warranting criteria, the results of the turn lane warrant evaluation concluded that new right turn lanes are not warranted at the project site driveway connections, as documented in Appendix K. The existing eastbound-to-northbound left-turn lane on Countryside Boulevard at the easternmost project site driveway connection was evaluated to determine if it would need to be lengthened to accommodate project generated traffic. Pursuant to the results of the operational analysis, the 95th percentile queue length for this movement was identified as one vehicle (25 feet); however a minimum queue storage distance of 50 feet is recommended. In consideration of the posted speed limit on Countryside Boulevard of 40 mph, a design speed of 45 mph is assumed; which requires a deceleration distance of 185 feet, which includes a 50 foot taper. Thus, the length for the subject left-turn lane is recommended to be a total of 235 feet, which includes the 50 foot taper. The existing length of this turn lane is approximately 85 feet, which would need to lengthened by approximately 150 feet to accommodate project generated traffic. SECTION S.O ALTERNATE ACCESS SCENARIO An alternate access scenario was also evaluated, which eliminates the right-in/right-out connection to Countryside Boulevard. That analysis is documented in Appendix L, which was identified to result in no changes to the findings of the study. SECTION 9.O CONCLUSION Based on the data, analyses and findings contained herein, the following is concluded in regard to the proposed development of "The Alexander at Countryside" to consist of up to 330 apartment units: ❖ Intersection improvements needed to resolve background traffic deficiencies were found to also provide for acceptable operating conditions for total traffic conditions. Therefore, in accordance with prevailing State law (FL Statute 163.3180(5)(h)3), the subject project should not be subjected to any intersection mitigation for transportation concurrency. ❖ The study area roadway segments were found to currently operate acceptably and are anticipated to ' operate acceptably for future background and total traffic conditions. Therefore, the subject project should not be subjected to any roadway segment mitigation for transportation concurrency. � , ❖ The project site driveway connections are anticipated to operate acceptably. ❖ An evaluation of turn lane warrants identified that new turn lanes are not warranted at the project site driveway connections. , •:• An evaluation of the existing eastbound-to-northbound left-turn lane on Countryside Boulevard at the easternmost project site driveway connection identified that to accommodate project generated traffic, this lane should be extended to a total length of 235 feet, including a 50 foot taper. ' ' The Alexander at Countryside -11- Project No. 154180 Traffic Study August 25, 2015 ' � ' ' ' ' 1 0 � � � � � � 1 � � � �� APPENDIX A Methodology Statement ' ' � , , , ' , ' ' � ' ' , , ' ' ' ' Michael Raysor From: Bennett.Elbo@my�learwater.com Sent: Thursday, August 6, 2015 2:17 PM To: mdr@raysor-transportation.com Cc: emazur@fidesign.com; Paul.Bertels@myClearwater.com; Dave.Larremore@myClearwater.com; pskidmore@fldesign.com Subject: RE: Countryside Executive Golf Course - Traffic Study Update Good afternoon Mr. Raysor — For the background traffic, please treat retail plaza B as a 3,498 SF drive through restaurant. Other than that, the methodology for the TIS update is acceptable, please proceed. Thanks. RespectfuNy, Bennett Elbo Traffic Engineering City of Clearwater, FL (727)562-4775 Phone (727)562-4755 Fax Bennett.Elbo@myclearwater.com n A-1of8 ' � , ' � � ' , ' , ' � ' � ' , ' ' ' RAYSOR Transportation Consulting TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SU BJ ECT: City of Clearwater VIA E-MAIL Michael D. Raysor, P.E., PTOE ,��'«'G+f�K..��/�i��yr�2. RAYSOR Transportation Consulting, LLC. / August 6, 2015 Traffic Study Methodology Countryside Executive Golf Course Redevelopment This memorandum documents the proposed methodology for performing an updated traffic study to evaluate the proposed redevelopment of the Countryside Executive Golf Course. Prior treffic studies were performed for the subject project site circa 2004/2005, where at that time the development plan consisted of 280 townhouse/condominium units, and included an access connection to Enterprise Road which is no longer proposed. This traffic study serves as an update to address the current development plan, currently proposed access connections, and current background traffic volumes. Proiect Description The project site is located north of Countryside Boulevard, south of Main Street (SR-580), between Belcher Road and Enterprise Road, in the City of Clearwater, Florida (refer to Attachment "A"). The project site previously operated as the Countryside Executive Golf Course, and is now proposed for redevelopment to consist of up to 330 apartment units. Access to the project site is proposed to consist of a right-in/right-out connection to Belcher Road, a right-in/right-out connection to Countryside Boulevard, and a full access connection to Countryside Boulevard (refer to Attachment "A"). The project is anticipated to buildout within approximately three years, noting that this value may be revised prior to finalizing the treffic study. Project Site Trio Generation The daily and peak hour trip generation of the project site was estimated based on trip charecteristic data, as identified in Trip Generation (Institute of Transportation Engineers [ITE], 9`" edition, 2012), as summarized in the table below. TRIP GENERATION $UMMARY Trip Distribution The distribution of project generated trips for this study will be estimated based on the distribution used for the above-referenced prior traffic studies, as shown in Attachment "e". 19046 Bruce B. Downs Blvd, Suite 308 . Tampa, FL 33647 .(813) 625-1699 .(813) 413-7432 fx A-2of8 ' � , � ' � ' � � , ' ' � ' ' , ' ' ' RAYSOR Transporfation Consulting PnGE 2 of 3 Studv Area The study area is proposed to consist of the following roadway segments and intersections, as previously discussed with City staff: Roadwav Seaments Belcher Road from Countryside Boulevard to Main Street Countryside Boulevard from Belcher Road to US-19 Main Street from Belcher Road to US-19 Intersections Belcher Road at Main Street eelcher Road at Countryside eoulevard Oak Neck Road at Countryside Boulevard Countryside Boulevard at Enterprise Road Each of the Three Site Access Connections AnalYSis Scenarios Three scenarios will be evaluated for the roadway segments and off-site intersections for PM peak hour conditions as follows: (1) existing traffic conditions, (2) future (buildout year) background traffic conditions, and (3) future (buildout year) total traffic conditions. The site access connections will be evaluated for PM peak hour future (buildout year) total traffic conditions. Traffic Volumes Existing traffic volumes to be used in the study will be obtained from intersection turning movement counts to be performed in August 2015 during peak hour conditions (4pm to 6pm) at the off-site study intersections. The traffic volumes obtained from these counts will be adjusted using FDOT peak season factors. Roadway segment volumes will be calculated from the counted intersection volumes. Background traffic conditions (buildout year conditions) for study area roads and intersections will be estimated from the higher (worst-case) of either (a) the application of a growth rate, or (b) the addition of vested traffic generated by the development project located at the southwest corner of Countryside Boulevard at US-19. Pursuant to historical traffic count data from the Pinellas MPO, the annual growth rate for the study area was determined to be 1.4% per year (refer to Attachment "C"). Pursuant to information provided by City staff in regard to the development project located at the southwest corner of Countryside Boulevard at US-19, that project's trip generation and distribution was estimated (refer to Attachment "D"). Once the traffic counts have been collected, the two background traffic estimation procedures will be applied, and the higher (worst-case) of the two will be used for this traffic study. Analysis Methods Intersection analyses will be undertaken using Synchro software (version 7.0 or higher) in consideration of existing signal timings. If signal timing revisions are identified to be necessary to obtain acceptable operating conditions, this will be documented in the traffic study report. Roadway segment analyses will be undertaken using FDOT's generalized service volume tables. Acceptable operating conditions will be considered as an overall level of service "D" for intersections and level of service "D" for roadway segments. 19046 Bruce B. Downs Blvd, Suite 308 • Tampa, Fl 33647 .(813) 625-1699 .(813) 413-7432 fx A-3of8 � , � RAYSOR Transporfation Consultinq PAGE 3 of 3 � Site Access Imorovements Turn lane length and warrant analyses will be provided for each access connection, pursuant to the warranting criteria documented in NCHRP Report No. 279, and pursuant to the queue lengths resulting from � the Synchro analysis. Studv Findinzs , The results of the analyses will be evaluated to identify existing and future operating conditions for both background and total traffic conditions. In conformance with prevailing State law (FL Statute 1633180(5)(h)3), the improvements necessary to provide for acceptable operating conditions for background traffic will be assumed to be in place for total traffic conditions. ' Documentation A report documenting the methodologies, data, analysis, and findings of the traffic study will be prepared. The report will be signed and sealed by a Florida registered professional engineer. ' !� � , � ' , � t 19046 Bruce B. Downs Blvd, Suite 308 . Tampa, Fl 33647 .(813) 625-1699 .(813) 413-7432 fx ' � A-4of8 ' , � , ATTACHMENT "A" � Countryside Executive Golf Course Redevelopment Project Site Location Map ATTACHMENTA-1of1 A-5of8 t �� ' ATTACHMENT "B" � Countryside Executive Golf Course Redevelopment Project Tra�c Distribution ATTACHMENTB-loft A-6of8 ATTAC H M E NT "C" Countryside Executive Golf Course Redevelopment Historical Traffic Growth Rate for Study Area 2012 2013 2014 SOURCE Pinellas County MPO 16,567 17,626 17,597 20,200 45,500 82,267 19,669 46,500 83,795 21,500 45,500 54,597 Annual Averoge Growth Rate: �r*cLy:��e�.�r�r.ssi A-7of8 82,388 83,553 84,718 1.4% � � ' ATTACHMENT "D" � Countryside Executive Golf Course Redevelopment Development Information for Southwest Corner of Countryside at US-19 � Phase One Development: 15,113 sf (Specialty Retail) Phase Two Development: 16,075 sf (Specialty Retail) ' ,. � gZ6 Specialty 31,188 sf 2.71 85 37 48 Retail � ' � � � LJ l� f_� � � ' � ATTACHMENT D- 1 of 1 A-8of8 ' ' ' , ' ' 1 �� i � � t � � � � � � APPEN DIX B Traffic Count Data Type of peak hour being reported: Intersection Peak Method for determining peak hour: Total Entering Volume LOCATION: Belcher Rd -- SR 580 QC JOB #: 13561901 CITYISTATE: Clearwater. FL _ DATE: Tue Au 11 2015 783 1830 � + * L� 244 341 198 d' i 4 ia5o�" ao� � L as� �'212� 1260� 0.94 ~ 1416 1800~ 133 � � * �r 208 �1608 186 927 144 � + * 673 1257 J � � �� -. 5 10 � � 9 � J + * � NA � i 4 « s � �,.... < « NA ; �`'a,� M NA �► i !' *► '► f r► � + NA * � unt Belcher Rd Peak-Hour: 5:00 PM -- 6:00 PM Peak 15-Min: 5:30 PM -- 5:45 PM � �Gi��.l��✓ �U�Jt�tS °�zrna:t��°��:i,.:�� ,�� +. c? i i:"��, �� w��u9r':�> �J11� 1 1 � � � � Belcher Rd � L � �-- � r �c- 1T�� 1.8 0.7 �� *� 0.0 3.2 1.5 r i �. iz ~ o.� � t o.s �' i.a 1.6 � .. .:� � � 1.5 1.3 � 0.0 � � ,�,� � �, � 2.4 � 1.4 0.5 0.6 0.0 �a * 2.4 0.6 0 0 0 �r i 4 � � � o 1 ~ ~ 1 � � h t �'' ` o � 0 1 0 � NA � a �. � _ .t NA � �� ~ NA ��, � r� � NA � =KIUK Hourly Period (Northbound) (Southbound) (Eastbound) (Westbound) Totals e innin At h i R' hr R' T ' h 4:00 PM 40 170 11 0 17 40 65 10 1 38 53 296 14 2 20 63 288 50 2 58 1238 4:15 PM 46 154 9 0 19 43 104 13 0 28 75 269 19 1 16 60 310 53 3 59 1281 4:30 PM 49 172 12 0 16 50 74 25 1 27 87 357 13 1 12 48 313 73 1 69 1400 4�45 PM _' 30 174 F 0 25 � 49 74 16 0 ?S � F�F 78i ! 1? �2 379 84 ? 54 1377 5296 --- 5:00 PM 45 231 10 0 25 49 78 18 2 30 £32 302 13 3 16 � 56 338 67 1�57 1423 5481 5:15 PM 32 241 8 D 25 60 10t 27 1 54 � 113 328 28 1 14 � 52 325 74 2 58 1544 5744 12� __ ��.9.. .._:t$ .�. _9_,_.1 92$ 5 45 PM I 61: 994 .11 0� 30 36 78� 91 �f1 31.. 87 266 7... 0 24 i 59 3fi8 7a: 1�41 141.0 5961-... Peak 15•Min All Vehicles 192 924 24 0 116 200 336 88 0 164 504 1456 72 0 52 128 1540 316 Heavy Trucks 0 0 0 8 12 0 0 16 0 0 20 4 Pedestrians 4 0 0 0 Bicycles 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Railroad Sto ed Buses Comments: 60 4 1 Report generated on 8/18/2015 7:42 AM SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) 1-877-580-2212 B-1of5 ype of peak hour being reported: Intersection Peak LOCATION: Countryside Blvd -- Enterprise Rd CITYlSTATE: Clearwater, FL _ 842 1201 i 4 38 753 51 .+� i 4 100 ~ 36 '� L 136 � 244 20 "� 0.93 « 26 iis ~ so 7 �f t Pr az'� isa 36 1017 75 � + * 895 1128 � � 1� 3I�,.�:ri3 �► � 2 � � + * L� NA ✓ f �► � � � � NA � .. ,,.;r. M NA *► i �� " �' �► h t r � + NA * � Method for determining peak hour: Total Entering Volume QC JOB #: 13561902 DATE: Tue. Aua 11 2015 Peak-Hour: 4:45 PM -- 5:45 PM Peak 15-Min: 5:30 PM -- 5:45 PM � C�u,�li�y ��rnt� ";e �a w r�et�m.� .r�� "so-��'s� ,..s.. �� t� ii�`i�`�"�i '_, � � 1 1 y 1 � � � � � � rT� � 1.0 0.7 �a *� o.o ,., o.o r i �. 0.0 ~0.0't t 0.0~ 0.4 5.0 � « 0.0 1.7 �1.7 �� *� �� 12� 0.7 0.0 0.9 0.0 � i t 1.1 0.8 0 0 0 J � + M o � t o 0 ~ : ♦ o �✓' � ��, t rr ° � o 0 0 � NA r + V � _ < NA � �� « NA � s � t r � NA � R'=K7VK 15-Min Count Countryside Blvd Countryside Blvd Enterprise Rd Enterprise Rd Total Hourly Period (Northbound) (Southbound) (Eastbound) (Westbound) Totals Be innin At r Ri h T i hr i R* 4:00 PM 7 190 9 0 3 10 162 5 1 0 8 3 1 0 12 17 5 17 0 27 477 4:15 PM 11 156 12 0 2 7 160 5 2 1 4 3 3 0 10 16 2 5 0 32 431 4 30 PM 14 214 18 0 6 7 199 4 1 0 4 7 9 0 7 14 6 10 0 20 540 ---- - --. . _-- — — —� _ T � � -- - _.._-- ..— 4:45 PM 9 230 16 0 2 6 98G 7 i 1 9 3 4 0 8 25 10 10 0 16 543 199i 5;�0 PM S 236 ` 11 ' 6 0 12 174 9 4 0 13 I4 6 Q 15 °24 3 18 0 32 569 "2083 5`15 PPfl 6 260 23 ' 0 I 3 7?_O5 13 3 Q` 7 6 3 0 10 17 5 14 _ 0 12 594 224@ ��;��..�.�� .� " ' ��;: _� _ 5:45 PM � 5 �66 15 0 3 j 6 167 �13 0 0 i 6 4 5 0 4 � 24 � 3 I 0 14 � 441 � 222� Peak 15-Min Heavy Trucks 0 12 0 Pedestrians 8 Bicycles 0 0 0 Railroad Sto ed Buses Comments: Report generated on 8/18/2015 7:42 AM 6 752 32 16 0 28 28 24 0 32 64 32 64 0 72 249 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 4 4 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) 1-877-580-2212 B-2of5 Type of peak hour being reported: Intersection Peak LOCATION: Countryside Blvd -- Oak Neck Rd sn �,o� �a *� ss� sos aa d i �. 374 « 138 '� t' 34 ~ 53 12 � 0.92 « 13 �eo"�o ih t�r s"� �a 0 934 15 � i t 514 949 � � � � ,I � I2 � � � � + � � NA .i i 4 � , �. � NA � ` ~ NA � i : � � t �► �; NA * � Period Method for Peak-Hour: 4:45 PM -- 5:45 PM Peak 15-Min: 5:75 PM -- 5:30 PM �u�li��r �oc�r�t� , t� ��>�,-� �� u��. C L� €� i':; Y:: � : rr �d I i; %.�-�� 11� 1 � � BIVCI � t � r�� Oak �mining peak hour: Total Entering Volume QC JOB #: 13561903 DATE: Tue Au 11 2015 1.5 0.8 �� *� o.s 2.z 2.t �J i 4 0.5 ~ oJ J �� t' 2.s ~ 1.9 OA � b�; « 0.0 o.� "� o.0 7.� t�.� o.o'� i.a o.o 0.7 0.0 a * 2.� �.� 0 0 0 J i 4 o � �, �' o o '� � ,:-.. � o � ' h t P� 0 � 0 0 0 � NA d i b > .�.. < NA � r� ~ NA � .E �t t r► � NA � =KIVK Hourly Totals 4'UO f'M 0 164 1 0 0 9 118 51 1 20 25 3 0 0 1 1 2 2 0 8 406 4:15 PM 0 160 3 0 1 8 122 49 0 16 23 3 0 0 0 1 2 1 0 3 392 4 30 PM 0 215 1 0 0 10 105 43 0 37 40 3 0 0 0 1 3 2 0 4 464 --- --- — -- ----- 445PM -0 193 6 0 0 14 155 66 0 21 38 3 0' 0 0: 1: 8 9 D G S12 1774 5 00_PM.. _ o— 216......:. 5._ _. 0._,_. 0._ 1 L 120...:.... 54-- --� ._ 29 _ 29 ......:3 �...,..„W. �_ �._� _ z�_:::�: � 1 0 9 481 1849 �..__,.—___.- _- __.. . zo i � 5;30 PM _� 0 244 1 0_ 1 _ 7 112 ,. 69 __ 1 ' 28_�39 4 p---- 0 0_ 1 ,_ 2 1__ 0 6 516, 2069 b:46 Fti�l j 0 149 � � 0; 10 11 i 4� 0 38 i 30 4 0 0 0�; 0 2 2 0 7 I 406 ; 156:5 All venicles 0 1124 8 0 0 56 484 356 Heavy Trucks 0 8 0 0 16 4 Pedestrians 0 0 Bicycles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Railroad Sto ed Buses Comments: Report generated on 8/18/2015 7:42 AM 8 8 0 0 0 8 8 8 0 32 224 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) 1-877-580-2212 B-3of5 ype of peak hour being reported: Intersection Peak Method for determining peak hour: Total Entering Volume LOCATION: Countryside Blvd -- Belcher Rd QC JOB #: 13561904 CITYlSTATE: Clearwater. FL _ DATE: Tue Au 11 2015 518 939 � + * � 0 518 0 .� i �. a3s~o � L o�'" o o � 0.91 ~ 0 368 ~ 368 � h * �� 0~ 0 836 939 0 � + * 886 1775 � �� I� ol��i3 � �� J + * � NA J i �► « � ; � « NA � ��::�� « NA �► i i �► ti t r► �+ NA * � Peak-Hour: 4:45 PM -- 5:45 PM Peak 15-Min: 5:15 PM -- 5:30 PM �Uc��.��' ��i�t� .� F,��,�- ��._'� �u��i�. 3 .t',s;S_�P� �,t{>.�;r•{;�;. �111 � � � �� rr � 2.1 0.7 �♦ *� 0.0 2.1 0.0 � a � i.s ~ o.o J ti o.o « o.o 0.0 � .. ...:,.;,,r:'^��''.:: "�, 0.0 2.7 � 2] 7� �...:�* �.� 0.0 i 0.0 1.3 0.7 0.0 � � * 2.4 1.0 I0 0 0 J� + ti o � t o o��.o � �� , �� o �,00� NA J i L �_� NA ~ �� ~ NA 7 � �, * r � NA � K'=KIVK -Min Count Countryside Blvd Countryside Blvd Belcher Rd Belcher Rd Total Hourly Period (Northbound) (Southbound) (Eastbound) (Westbound) Totals e innin At i T i h i 4:00 PM 121 167 0 0 0 0 127 0 0 0 0 0 91 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 506 4:15 PM 145 163 0 0 0 0 123 0 0 0 0 0 106 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 537 4 30 PM 183 215 0 0 0 0 108 0 0 0 0 0 101 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 607 __..__..._ ..__y___. ___.____. _--._.—__,.,.---- � _._,__ –...__ _____._------ ---� 4i45 PM 153 196 , 0' 0 0 0: 157 -0 A 0 0 0 $6 U 0 0 0 ` Q D A 592 2242 5'CO PM ' 217 229 0 0 0 0 123' 0°'b 0' 0 -0 92 0 0 0' 0 0 0 0' 661 2397 ...., ... _ .. ,�. _______�..� � _. r _... � 5 30_PM 220 245 __ 0 0_ 0 _ Q 112'_ 0: __ _0 _ 0_; 0 _0 95___ 0— 0 _ 0_ __ 0 _ 0: 0. 0 674 2661_ 5�45 PfN i �G3 156 0 0 0 I 0 117 G 0 0 I 0 U 10�1 0 0 I 0 0 0 0 0 I 537 I 2606 Heavy Trucks 24 8 0 Pedestrians 0 Bicycles 0 0 0 Railroad Sto ed Buses Comments: Report generated on 8/18/2015 7:42 AM 0 496 0 0 0 0 0 380 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2936 0 16 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 60 0 0 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) 1-877-580-2212 B-4of5 i 1 � � ' r ' , � ' ' ' ' , , � � � ' 2014 Peak Season Factor Category Report - Report Type: ALL Category: 1500 PINELLAS COUNTYWIDE MOCF: 0.95 Week Dates SF PSCF ------------------------------------------------ 1 O1/O1/2014 - Ol/04/2014 1.03 1.08 2 O1/05/2014 - O1/11/2014 i.os i.11 3 Ol/12/2014 - O1/18/2014 1.07 1.13 4 O1/19/2014 - O1/25/2014 1.05 1.11 5 O1/26/2014 - 02/Ol/2014 1.03 1.08 6 02/02/2014 - 02/08/2014 i.00 i.os 7 02/09/2014 - 02/15/2014 0.98 1.03 * 8 02/16/2014 - 02/22/2014 0.96 1.01 * 9 02/23/2014 - 03/O1/2014 0.95 1.00 *10 03/02/2014 - 03/08/2014 0.95 1.00 *11 03/09/2014 - 03/15/2014 0.94 0.99 *12 03/16/2014 - 03/22/2014 0.93 0.98 *13 03/23/2014 - 03/29/2014 0.93 0.98 *14 03/30/2014 - 04/OS/2014 0.94 0.99 *15 04/06/2014 - 04/12/2014 0.94 0.99 *16 04/13/2014 - 04/19/2014 0.94 0.99 *17 04/20/2014 - 04/26/2014 0.95 1.00 *18 04/27/2014 - OS/03/2014 0.96 1.01 *19 OS/04/2014 - OS/10/2014 0.97 1.02 *20 OS/11/2014 - OS/17/2014 0.98 1.03 21 05/16/2014 - OS/24/2014 0.99 1.04 22 OS/25/2014 - OS/31/2014 0.99 1.04 23 06/O1/2014 - 06/07/2014 0.99 1.04 24 06/08/2014 - 06/14/2014 0.99 1.04 25 06/15/2014 - 06/21/2014 0.99 1.04 26 06/22/2014 - 06/28/2014 1.00 1.05 27 06/29/2014 - 07/O5/2014 1.00 1.05 za 07/06/2014 - 07/12/2014 i.00 i.os 29 07/13/2014 - 07/19/2014 1.01 1.06 30 07/20/2014 - 07/26/2014 1.01 1.06 31 07/27/2014 - 08/02/2014 1.01 1.06 33 08/10/2014 - 08/16/2014 1.02 1.07 35 08/24/2014 - OB/30/2014 1.04 1.09 36 08/31/2014 - 09/06/2014 1.05 1.11 37 09/07/2014 - 09/13/2014 1.06 1.12 38 09/14/2014 - 09/20/2014 1.07 1.13 39 09/21/2014 - 09/27/2014 1.06 1.12 40 09/28/2014 - 10/04/2014 1.06 1.12 41 10/OS/2014 - 10/11/2014 1.05 1.11 42 10/12/2014 - 10/18/2014 1.05 1.11 43 10/19/2014 - 10/25/2014 1.05 1.11 44 10/26/2014 - 11/Ol/2014 1.05 1.11 45 11/02/2014 - 11/08/2014 1.06 1.12 46 11/09/2014 - 11/15/2014 1.06 1.12 47 11/16/2014 - 11/22/2014 1.06 1.12 48 11/23/2014 - 11/29/2014 1.06 1.12 49 11/30/2014 - 12/06/2014 1.05 1.11 50 12/07/2014 - 12/13/2014 1.04 1.09 51 12/14/2014 - 12/20/2014 1.03 1.08 sz 12/21/2014 - 12/27/2014 i.os i.ii 53 12/28/2014 - 12/31/2014 1.07 1.13 * Peak Season Page 1 of 2 B-5of5 APPENDIX C Historical Traffic Growth Countryside Executive Golf Course Redevelopment Historical Traffic Growth Rate for Study Area 2012 16,567 20,200 45,500 82,267 82,388 2013 17,626 19,669 46,500 83,795 83,553 2014 17,597 21,500 45,500 84,597 84,718 Annual Average Growth Rate: 1.4� SOURCE Pinellas County MPO C-1 of1 APPENDIX D Vested Traffic �� Countryside Executive Goif Course Redevelopment � Development Information for Southwest Corner of Countryside at US-19 � ' ' � ' � ' ' � r � � � � � D-1of1 ' 1 � ' � � � � � � � � � 1 � � � � � � APPENDIX E Background Traffic Estimate ' ' Countryside Executive Golf Course Redevelopment ' eackground Tra�c Growth Evaluation (Growth Rate BasedJ , ' ' ' ' ' n � t � � � � � � E-1of2 ' ' � Countryside Executive Golf Course Redevelopment � eackground Tra�c Growth Evaluation (Vested Traffic Based) E-2of2 � � � � � , 1 1 1 � � � 1 � � � �__i � � APPENDIX F Intersection Analysis � � � � � , � , , � f , ' � � , ' HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Countryside Exec. G.C. Redevelopment 1: Main Street & Belcher Road PM Peak Hour Existing Traffic � -. -� � �- � � t � �► 1 �✓ Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 19uU � yuu � yuu � aw i yuu � yuu �i;�fi��,�#�� . . � ,,� : ,, ,�� ',7� ��: , 7 � .��.�� 4�,�,. . 7 �.. ,,. ', 7 �. . ' ?��y� .: �' ��7 A '' � ��`�:� ;., �� 4 � � �� A� Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00 1.00 0 95 1 00 1.00 0 95 1.00 �� . " ��,., ��, ... . .� �.. �:{�t�', ,9 �'' � .. .;� �, .... :1 ��S '„ : ;��:��_�� 1� ..��'�`0� ��< f� $�,,; '! �} ,� � , , �� Flt Protected 0.95 1 00 1 00 0 95 1 00 1 00 0 95 1 00 1 00 0 95 1 00 1 00 S�td: �4w�P�� ., 5t ��: � T�67, �.�� U��„� �161�,.., �3�'��,n ,. �Q��„ , ; �1 ��9 1 �'�7 r.. `, 35�� . ?, ��1 a ..�� }. .; �� 1�� Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 100 1.00 Ex :>. ��7 . , �85 _ -�6�'� �4�3 �� .-:;�1a�� . �:,'��87` ;;,��74. � 1��.��`" 17Z4 .: ��{��`"��1.� r..� a"�t� � F , Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Ad� �� , ' ,. 4�i3 �4�4 .. . :�5'�x�="237 ,,1�1� ;::56� ', 2"�� ' �f�� ': �.�64..:; , �� . _ 3��' :�78 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 100 0 0 161 0 0 118 0 0 198 �.arte�r� , �I , v � `�� 4�`� �,.,,.434 �;:,�� 237. ..` 1�1� ,..,.;��'��....�� ' 1�i�� l 46,F�..�. 2�� ' ��8�':. . .�U � ��,� � ° ,.� ...., � Heavy Vehicles (%) 1% 2% 0% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% 0% 2% 3% 0% « �� ,; ,�� `r�� , � Y�i��, ��I�� z ��, .,'.. �.,,y ��`�; :;, .. ��, F?�� r,��,, � � ,�''�rm Pr��.. ��... .,.l��rm � � FF?rt�t � ,��„ � �';,�►m ,. � .. �.,..... H.�.�,.. : �. � Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4 n � � , �� s� ,: �� Psr�l�i��,.� a ..=r � ��.� ��., ..< .... `� ., .� . , :. ��. �` �, �, ��. �`��.. ' ��, . . � f� . 4 Actuated Green, G(s) 18 6 54 3 54 3 15 9 51 6 516 20 9 44 6 44 6 15 6 39 3 39 3 ��i� �re�n�'�. ....�� , �� :. xY= 54 � „"�,: � �,�.... : a5 � .,�. =.51 �i - -' �'I.�i . , 2� �.,�f�;� 4� �� ; . .44 6 ', '!�a 6 -;. .. 39 �. �� ...�� Actuated g/C Ratio 012 0 34 0 34 010 0 32 0.32 013 0.28 0.28 010 0 25 0 25 ��`i'3C�t1CB�1�t$''1�} ��..: ';�4 „ , �� .,, �� "'' � �`v �:� �^�.';,.. ��;-„ .�� n ,.,..:. ��„ ��-„,' _�� Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3,0 3A 3.0 3.0 J 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 v/s Ratio Prot c0.13 c0.28 0.07 c0.32 0.12 c0.30 c0.13 0.11 „ ��S �a��n ��r�'� � �� .: . ��,:U �3 , . ��.E � �� „��.: � �� ,,� � ��,,� Q `;� � � . ..,.,��.. .�E. , . vlc Ratio 1.15 0.83 0.09 0.70 0 98 0.78 0.91 1.06 0.10 1.31 0.45 0.20 i7r��'�ifTl ��I'�y7 t�'�,�� : , „r„�,,K "i� % �,,; 48 �: , ��1 E , .jv��. � `�.3 8... , A�r2 , 6� �i� ' ��'., ' , „3i2 8 d�7`2,'� ,�, . .,'�'E.�� ;� �� Progression Factor 100 100 1 00 1.00 1 00 100 1 00 100 1.00 1.00 100 100 I�t+�r��'!fa� �layr d2 .': .,. ,. 9�'�, �� ,.: �'� : ',` �.Q : ''(8��, w. ; �'�„� ��,'f , ', �� G .<: , t�,�:, . 1�3.� ` . ,t1 �;'j �� nQ,�� Delay (s) 162.8 53.4 36.4 75.7 72.3 60.5 103 7 103.3 42.9 245.4 51.6 48.2 C�u�l ��, � � ��.� . .. � C? �.�. �} � � �,:�� " ''�� fi 1�:.: �, t3.' , `�1 Approach Delay (s) 76 9 69 9 96 4 99 6 y� a � : x z ; , �r � �r� �� i ; �,�v c.� �. �.: 3�%' � , � : �`" „ .. , .. ��= ., ,. ... . � ... .. . �.i�ii '�. ,� . .... ....... .. .. . !..2�„��.. , <. .. ..�� ,., .,,,, _{d�.��, „ ., � .9'i.2.�•. '`.'�41? a;, r ,...,✓.i,F . HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.14 Actt�ai'� . �� {�� ,.. Sum a� 1��`��e�s} `; � "; 3'� Q .' ° �. .,. �� ... �- Intersection Capacity Utilization 105.5% ICU Level of Seroice G A€�al �. , . � « � �'�.��r��mrn� � � �: �� „. c Critical Lane Group RAYSOR Transportation Consulting , Base Conditions (No Improvements) F-1of12 ' Synchro 7 - Light: Report � � � C� ' , � ' , , , , ' i � ' ' HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Countryside Exec. G.C. Redevelopment 2: Countryside Blvd & Enterprise Road PM Peak Hour Existing Traffic .� --. � � '- � � T � �► 1 � Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 �'#t��bsi��r�� _ .. . . ...�� 7 .. . ��. ' ��,��" � �.�� .� � 7 .. . �� :"� . ., � �� ;� 7'� j . � ��. � . ; . 9. . , , �.. .. Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Fr� :; �,.,;'',. �.. .:....� 1..(I�1 �t��9 �'� . ` „ � �0 °::ii��' ' ��{�t� , >,4k8fi %�" ,.., . '� �rr;.�, Q.�� '' � Flt Protected 0.95 100 0 95 100 0 95 100 0 95 100 ��;�r�� , ��c�� ss�„ �� ,�,, ��o� ��. �.� �`;��,� _ �ss� ��x ��;:� �c��=' Flt Permitted 0.30 1.00 0.20 1.00 0.70 1.00 0.37 1.00 ;. ... �rti1� .,.. ��...��'[, :: .5 �°�. °.�8a�`��i�'t :. ; . '`131� " ;...��s6� ; �. �7{I4 °' ��`�;:_ :. ... Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0,93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 A��:�'; . ;9� ... �2 ��'� , �.�l�$6 , �� -; $��. .;�.. �#4 , ' 9a :: �30,... 1�'��; ..,, �� '; ��r... .,.�"i9 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 3 0 0 2 0 0 75 0 0 61 0 �e ��tP ��<�� .�.��%� .. ��2 . �.,�53 y_ ' #� .. ..'.� a9., ' ��', ��.,..�s, �� "�, 1��,�. �� >: 42 ' ..�� . r.�.� Heavy Vehicles (%) 0%0 1% 0% 0% 1% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 5% 2% �'ct�3'�'�P�;�� . ��v �5: . ,,��rm. ,,,, . ��' f �o.. �errrt . , ��, F , � � :: �'etm :,� q ��A �`� , Penm >��:. > ,,,.. , Protected Phases 2 6 8 4 � ... ; ��. - �'�rn1�fi� ��a�s 2 � : _�� ,,� . :,;. �>.., ' ' : u ..� �� ._. ; �. ; ' ' �1. . _, .,. Actuated Green G(s) 109.8 109.8 109.8 109.8 15.8 15.8 15.8 15 8 -a>. ;,� �ffe��r�n,'t�:{s} ..,... 1�9��,. 1Q�8 '��8,�� , ��$'=" ' ' 1�#�" ' ��8" ' �` ' �� . 'I'�:$' ' Actuated g/C Ratio 0.78 0 78 0 78 0 78 011 011 011 011 �(�I��rt��<'��:��} ; , ': . -'" � � '' <;.�7 ..v:: . " �7.a��°��7� ,. ' ,7s�, 7 � ,'; :'. ��T,7,..; . � � Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 `�� . ,�� 9�9 �,. � . .. °�! 30� 4��;;�� .., '�48 ` � �7 . ` 79 �.8.� ': �3 = ; ..'. F ., �. � . .,y... . : v/s Ratio Prot c0.25 0.18 0.07 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.09 0.31 0.20 0.23 0.64 0.60 0.53 0.17 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Int;rem,�#�1 �,�� 4 . , �` :�.4 : :: 4�:; , _ ., r:��r .,,; U.1 , ��: ' � � #'i,7i' �Q��= , , Delay (s) 3 9 4 5 5 3 41 68 6 641 65 3 56 6 LGi!�� l�u�:�4�� r .��iiW � r '." T1 , �. �. TS . �� ; .' <��,. z .r:i ,� ,� - . ��y , ..�'�� ' .. "� . � �x �"y�5..,.v:,�`� - � , . �,,, , . . .. _ . . . . . ,�;, ,,,.,,, . .. . _._H , .... . .. Approach Delay (s) 4 5 4 2 65 6 59 3 A�p��C�flS�,,; . �'� � .; ' ' �A � �� ` �, ,.. �,� s� ; �` �� f , ': 3 .,��.� �. , , � � ,� � „�,:��,..; , �. . . ,..�.,.,> . ��...,, ... ' . ' ,,. �..., .�,.,�,:.. ... . . �� HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.36 �,� � � ;_ . ��;� s�� o$� ��►� �� '. : ��,,�� b � ��.� ;�� Intersection Capacity Utilization 69.8% ICU Level of Service C Atlaly$ls PB�ii(i �Fiti�t} ,' ' . , , kJ k '� � ,.: �� s . ,� � � �� . �.,._... . ...�.�,,.,t. ,. , . . ..a.. ,:, c Critical Lane Group RAYSOR Transportation Consulting ' Base Conditions (No Improvements) F-2of12 ' Synchro 7 - Light: Report HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Countryside Exec. G.C. Redevelopment 3: Oak Neck Road & Countryside Blvd PM Peak Hour Existing Tra�c � -� � � ~ �` "�1 � I`' �. ,� � IdealFlow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 T�t��#� `�� ..N.�,. �31 ... 8'l.. ;. �,81 ;. 8.1, . ,.,a.� �� _.. f��,�a�s „,��w.�.. Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.91 �� ' ' ! �t;c�c� � t� - ; � �t� �� = tioci � �s �� , Flt Protected 0.95 0.96 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.95 r 1.00 � ��daFiQ�i:�'piot7': °, .%� . ��'i� °��18 ;"" ��74 ,��68 ;; ;., ��i7 .,.... ,., 177U : - .478$.,; ..,.. ,. Flt Permitted 0.95 0.96 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.13 1.00 , ° �< , �, ,:��7. ' 4�� :;; .,, ,,,, : ' ��d ':��tr 'em'i �� ,. ..' '1698 17t$. ,.:; ��, . ' � $7� 1 �v68 ; �� Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 A�,,,j; �,(t��..��,,F�3;.,,, .,, 1�`"� �. F '�y9,'�. �.�': ' ��'� �a 1� �.��,� ,r,,, t� � :;;'�A� ;17 �, � ��'`£�$��- ' 4�Q RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 35 0 1 0 0 105 0 1:�� t��pM� �� 7.. . ,'�s�� `� : .fl �„ � �..:: ..�?�.,.. ; � ..:.:.; � .:{? .,; 4�(��_':. t� .. ,,. 5�`i ,,` ' 9��?� , `�{� HeavyVehicles(%) 1%0 0% 0% 0% 0% 3% 0% 1% 0% 2% 2% 1% ��rn '�`��...�. ,,:,. . � ° Spt� >�� , .. ; � f :�p�i# ,.. Y. � .� .. custQm . : �� {�.... ' ,,,.��; p?r��p�. .: , Protected Phases 8 8 4 4 6 b 2 ,� P��;t�`��i�s:� , �.�. � . . ��;� �.. � � , � " ..� F,�E... �� ; � �...; Actuated Green,�G (s) 7.0 7A L 2.2 7.0 23.4 35.6 35.6 �fii+��v� ��r � �s� � �7 �I. ��r, . �:�� .,. . , 2 2 , �: � � "" '` �� , �,�� 3�.��. ::. Actuated g/C Ratio �� 0.10 010 0 03 010 0 34 0 52 0 52 L��G14t��F��f%�� .,.'/�ab��w.... ,� � / .m.� � ; ,a,b ,,,�'.,,� ��. . ' ' ��:- � � �A I zX � 1„ �,✓.,., � � ."!G�/' �f� �. >,,. < ... ,,::, .. .... ..'�. ,::,,. . Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 v/s Ratio Prot c0.05 0.05 c0.01 c0.31 0.02 c0.19 v!s t�at�i P�rC� `< °, , �r .. 'Ofl� .,.. �}��.,.:; � , .:. , ,,,:. s, : , . _ �_. . v/c Ratio 0.50 0.50 0.37 0.02 0.90 0.26 0.36 Ur��'�"rrr�;R��y�.,d�.,a.,� A. ' �� 2� {I.. � � :: ' �� . ;27s6 ` : 2�t � " „��.�.� � � °�,�,� ,.,, ! Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 � 1.00 1.00 , ,. , � � y In��t�l�nta��l�ytd� �� 2��.r, .' ' 38 '.. �,1 �� :�,�.r��_ ; �;�::� ��,��.:� . �,� Delay (s) 31.3 31.3 36.2 27.7 30.9 12.2 9.8 � � L �t��;, �� ! s �;�... '� � � p,� � � ��...' � � '" �:,'' .. .. . �.; ,: i ,ak.i.i, , .,, • . �'.� .A,@,i?;. .'� ifr,✓ ir, ,: . �„ x&ee.a , , ... , . ,,, ,,.. .. ,,, , ., , . , ,,, . .,, , Approach Delay (s) 31 3 30 8 30 9 9 9 ��-�� -��.„. ` s.,. e.�� . �.�,.� ,r, ` �.,.� � ..�:- _. __ H M Volume to Capacity ratio 0.78 A�tu��„��.. I��l� ��}'',... '� � ' �� A�" , ' �um �f l�sf ��ine ��} ; „ �„ � ,� 17 , ,� y� E s.. � .� � _ � Intersection Capacity Utilization 63.1 % ICU Level of Service B Anal}r�P�nC� �mrr�� : � a � b ; �:. ? � - �l 1. d...u* ,,,, .'_ ��. . , � -- T � ` . = � ,. ', �'. � j �.. =. �,: � : :' . ��E...�.. .. ��.. ' , . . - .. : : "'.. ... , c Cntical Lane Group RAYSOR Transportation Consulting � Base Conditions (No Improvements) F-3of12 � Synchro 7 - Light: Report � HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Countryside Exec. G.C. Redevelopment � 4: Belcher Road & Countryside Blvd PM Peak Hour Existing Traffic � � � �� Flt Protected ,�� F(�'.��'i��.�..�: Flt Permitted , j�: � ��t� y . �rrri� - ; Peak-hour factor, PHF � � � T � � Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 19�0(0 1900 1900 �� ''^' �� '� 'F` �� '��3 �� ' :� L�` .< o�� ." ,,; ��: -6 �. X �. .,,,. � .. .,,, .. r�,, ,,,,��? �. . ��.. ,,,., s _ � �� e� .� �� >.� „��.. Lane Util. Factor 0.88 0.97 0.95 0.91 ' r r r � C r� � ' C� � 1 00 0.95 1.00 ;;y , �7�`i� 34�7 -' ��74 1.00 0.95 1.00 :��,,,,. ��4, �;�� ",: `3�74' 0.91 0.91 0,91 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.91 0.91 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 245 0 0 0 0 . :;4, / t �?.�� 1/ t. �, . . . ,,.. -. 1,�., �b� f��c?v�l�� ,� ' t�, " 18�, , , 9$� �'�� 4� �; 6Q� ' ti ' n,. �, .� . � w � � . '�,�, ,_.. ..., : .. � � ,,,. ,. .�,,., . ,. , r, � .. . , � �, ��..h ,,, `� ,,, • „'��, „ . ,r�,°'� Heav Vehicles % 0% 3% 1% 1% 2% 0% Yt� �' �� e ro# ; !� �,,,. �t7�+ r . � �.. . r. , Protected Phases 1 1 6 2 _ q �� ; � y �_ (� , �. ,,,> ��3'��.. ,-'_ .f�'�..�, r,_. . " .......' w....Yi,,, ..., /4c . ��,. .�. �, , . .«,n��.. . . . Actuated Green, G(s) 20.0 20.0 46.0 11.5 �� .. �'`�'��5} , , ,'' ' �. �t� i}�° :;- '2Q {} . ,/l� �� '1 � ys� ,c,,;' F,�. '� >�,� '�� Actuated �/C Ratio 0.43 0.43 1 00 0 25 Cl� ��'��is s � �� '� yA� 't ��,�:'�.1 2 0 7�� ,� � . , , ,� ..a.�. . � _. , . . ��=.�,... . .` � _ . �- � '' ', , Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 I,.an ' . . :: ': �' 124t} .. . "C��fi� ��°��.. . .1z�1: , � ::. .� ,. ?�. � �!�. } ..., , ' � v/s Ratio Prot 0.07 c0.28 c0.31 0.12 .0 .. vl� �.��rin ��,� .. � ,, : ,;, ' ... ,s., a...... F. � , - �z - _.. . :� � . , vlc Ratio 0.16 0.65 0.31 0.48 lin�for��l�89 s��. ',.'_ 7��. . �':��. ��. � . 14r7 �� , , . . .. . Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 In�me�nf�lay �2 f� � � 1 ' ',1.�. 0 Q , Q 3 ��, , a�,., . . . , � � � ��..'� . . r �. „�,,.i-, , �..�,� � Delay (s) 7 9 11 3 0 0 15.0 �ve�'�;�t�fv3r . ', A : E3 � B. , . � .... ._: ,.: M . ,. ..z�..�_.., _.��... .. < Approach Delay (s) 7.9 5.3 15.0 �tt��Ch �,C7� f„ ,_ �.;;q q g � ,, . ��.�_.,wa.� . . . ,..�� . �_ � �. ��. HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.49 Ac�at��Y� �.eng#fi ��".,...... � 4�..a sum vf �cast x��. '; <: � � ;.,�� 3 ,.... Intersection Capacity Utilization 48.0% ICU Level of Service A /y� [ �r�ry �� S]� ��1��if i £.,: ��' fi ''.. �V ./,..4'.. .f.y� �., .rl.u.. . „✓. .. , :: � .....,, , . ��.. .i, e. ... .,..�.: ..„�'� ........ � ....�'.. � ..'�.. ... , � ..'�. sa', ::.,':,.. ' ..��. � • . ' .�'.. . ., "�.: . c Critical Lane Group RAYSOR Transportation Consulting � Base Conditions (No Improvements) ' F-4of12 Synchro 7 - Light: Report HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Countryside Exec. G.C. Redevelopment 1: Main Street & Belcher Road PM Peak Hour Background Traffic � -�. � ,�" "*� � '� � �' �► l � IdealFlow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 �9uu �yuu T4�t�t�..t�,��. �.'.',..,,.:. ��:.,,i��, ;::��,,,,,74.. ��'��,,. .', !+� .,-....��' '', 7�, � ,74 ,�`�; 7.� 7..�t-.;nr�t.7:�4 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 , J .% ' U 85 1 �Ut# ' 1.�� t}.�� c� ; �� ; ' , � i:vt� �' p0 ��,85 � �at� 1 t�� , G . � #3� �, � �.QO 1 �c� ��. ` , ; Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1,00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 "a�t� �Itzw..�R�`��,.,.� , ., § . .. �Et,67 ... �`�4$�.., �C�'I� �3��.�, ,.�s�85 , 1�� ' 1fi�7, .... ; ��7� ' wi�1"� _';. ��Q .; ..��4�.:.',.. . "'�61v Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 S�`�� `.t� ; ., -,:: ,,.. ..,.` ' � �6�' � _.. 5b8� ,. .,,'�: �"�� :�� E;� �� , :,,1 �8�.. . � 7�� ', ��'4 .`:. ��"I � �,��'t °��`�. ,: � . .... � .'i��.a Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 A ��ivu ��`h ��"`�� '�76 �.�i'474 �� "[�v ;;244 . " "36a6 ��; 5�� : 2"18 „�1U8��, ; 1�8�s ,, �32„ i 3��,.. �� ..__.� ,��,.��°_ RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 103 0 0 161 0 0 121 0 0 196 F. .. �,�n��;�u_��,,��w�vph} ,.; ��4��,' :�474 ,,.. :' ��.s�:�44, �6�� 42� - , 2�8..,,..°.108� , h�7 ', .y�� 3�9..;;, �_�89 Heavy Vehicles (%) 1% 2% 0% 2% 2% 1% 1%0 1% 0% 2% 3% 0% , T'�€�'TYI�. . ,x�w , ' . . . -: , ��,Prot . Rerr� � �� ; °: ; P�rm PrQf . �'� . , . �erm , Fr�� . . �e�rn Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4 � . ' � � s '� : ` , %�r�'f� � -� „ 1 rp�� i . i sk ��'CfS�$ �'�`'a.,. �$ ��,�a._ � ��, ,� � � ,lA� -. � � .�.- �4�&�i��i. , +� _ , ;. Actuated Green G(s) 18 6 541 541 161 516 51 6 21 1 44 6 44 6 15 6 391 391 �f��,�? ��,�?� 1 ��. : ` , .... , . 1$ �r ,' ��1„ ��'�,�� ..� 1�'r,'1 n � '''�9`� ,: ' �16, . .; �1,�`. °? �� ', ��N4 6, i,...��,.��_ �' , �9.�': Actuated gIC Ratio 0.12 0 34 0.34 010 0 32 0.32 0.13 0 28 0 28 010 0 24 0 24 Gt� p�� '�4 �'4 ..�.;74... 74 ,... 7�.;. '- '�,�,. ;., 74; �'� , 74 �4 " 7'�.�.a v�� .� ��. � � � �r. .... � Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3A 3,0 3.0 Lan�� £��{Y�� :� ;�:�3 �"1719 546 :34�: 166�tI "' S'Cfr , z; �3� ; �� = F':` 4�� '%: '�73 , ��7- ; 3�� v/s Ratio Prot c0.14 0.29 0.07 c0.33 0.12 c0.30 c0.13 0.11 Yl� �tatiq l��m �� . ,. ° �.03 ' ` U �� ;,,�� t} �� . ., yx.4:�� ..� v/c Ratio 1.18 0.86 0.10 0.71 1.01 0.82 0.92 1.09 0.10 1.34 0.47 0.22 I��a�� , �y�,°, .. .. .. �� 7 49 4 , - �6 �, _ �:��.. ,� .. J�4.2 . ' 49 �N, :: 6$ 7��t=�. a�.� . ', ?�2 � :; . '�� '�� .� Progression 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 1ri�r►'%�fia� t�.�y} d��....�.. 1�4 �.,. �. �8 '- � ��s�,., -�.'�4,6 " :�C�4 :: 3� � ��.'; ��1.. ' ,�� 1 .; ;i8��st_�, � � Delay (s) 175.0 55.1 36.6 76.2 78.8 63.2 106.8 113.7 43.0 259.2 51.9 48.6 . � �.�ve� of S�rui� _ ,�r .,, �' � �5: � , ,,; � A � � . � �. . . F .,, y C� . ..��wr . ..� �i : i3 �� , ,. Approach Delay (s) 80.9 74.9 104.6 103.4 ��?�?��1��w�,,,,��.��s.� �.. ..' ' F . �. ; � .. . �. ;�� HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.10 �c��te��[ ��'� .. %�,. ,, . : ...,, .160.a , : Sum of lost #ime ��. . ��a . �,� :. �� 6 _ .. .� ��.� " 3 u^� / .. J. Intersection Capacity Utilization 107.8% ICU Level of Seroice G � . _,., ,: An�ly�� P��d �m�n� ... _ `, � ; 1� r ,.� c Critical Lane Group RAYSOR Transportation Consulting ' Base Conditions (No Improvements) F-5of12 � Synchro 7 - Light: Report ' , � � ' L , � HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Countryside Exec. G.C. Redevelopment 2: Countryside Blvd & Enterprise Road PM Peak Hour Background Traffic � -► '� � � � '� '� �' �► � � Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 ��5'�,�f��, „ tj��,.,�,"�, ,,./,�,�� ... �i ��.. � ' �� -. ;'"� �s�- :.��i7 r : it�. ; ��, ,:u�� ,;i ��, .... . ... i.i. �� ! „.„, . �ff _�,,� .�,..,, R m =', � �� . � Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 � !`��m,,.: � �; ' '' ' �:'I:t�O ` ..Q �9 ... : � D4 ..�� 9 ; "1:#� U �7 �„ �,#� � ��- �°. �, .. Flt Protected 0.95 1 00 0 95 100 0 95 1 00 0 95 1 00 u�� ....,�Ct��°t�t}': . '�.:-, ��15 , ��U$� .,;r '' � ...y'�� .�, �1(�1..: ' ;?�78�„ " ,1�1 �� 1$i��, ''; 'f�`i,��''�s�� K�� Flt Permitted 0.29 1.00 0.19 1.00 0.70 1.00 0.35 1.00 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 , �g��"��!..��,.: 43: 12�� °, $8, „_ .;: �1 ;:',891 , 45 ,, 97 .,, 31 ° ', " 16°f '; , �� ` °2d , �� RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 3 0 0 2 0 0 70 0 0 63 0 L�n�. r�u� 10�.'�..y. ��' s��' �43 �w�.1�8"�� : ; � , . ." �� , ' $34 : t� ' 97 ° �2� : .:Q ' 43 ��` Q HeavyVehicles(%) 0% 1% 0% 0% 1% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 5% 2% T`u►'�'��. .�� ..s �.�.;.� s .:.; €'�rtr� ' P`�rm s.:'"� � � ' ��i�m � Perm � , _ : .,_ . .. . � �,.. ...., :..: . Protected Phases 2 6 8 4 Actuated Green, G(s) 109.6 109.6 109.6 109.6 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 �. �; � � �rt �t`�n� �� . �"t�1� � '�fl� S � �'� 1ti��i� �� 1� � �i� U ,� � f � � . ,1�� ; Actuated �/C Ratio 0.78 0 78 0 78 0 78 011 011 011 011 C�ea,r_a�� T�� ; _ . ,..� 7 �.7 ,s:" '�� _�: 6,7 ; �,7 '�� "T T ,�. 7�� . ��. �. ; . 7 � ;� � �`�� . � � ��; Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3,0 , �,� t �:: �� 82 �� ., 39 � . � '[49 i94 �i .'.� �7x H . '188 , t �'t� �r�:�� !��} ..,.. � . ��..tt. � �,. ; v/s Ratio Prot c0.25 0.18 0.07 0.02 ' r , ' ' ' ' v/c Ratio 010 0 32 0 21 0.23 0 65 0 64 0 56 017 ��a��r,d� ,. ... �y�s*�,. �; :�V� . „'Y �.�@, ..., '�, :::�:;.�� '�.' ff.� �' •, '�, , " �'.. �� 'i,:� ��.�":+ �. _ . , �F�f .w ;;,, 4 ��➢� '.. f!�`�J� -. Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 In��r�G��lay> d2 = 5' .. � �,� ,�:� � �..,., . .. - 1..� �,�1 _ ,;, � : . g 8 `: 7 2 ...:: . :' 8 � :�. �t��4 .� , Delay (s) 4 0 4.6 5 6 4.2 69.1 66,5 67.2 56.4 L.�v#�1,Af;`'�IC��K "� , '� � _ �"� � . . . ��' � : � � ...E Approach Delay (s) 4.6 4.3 67.4 59.8 �y �� i �G��0� A ,-: . �' , ., �. : S ��, �' �i � � . v.i[ .✓ ^s. �f� , ...� �„ ,tn,c, �c, . _ , -.. . �'l�v ;` �. � kr„! . - . , k�x.,.,,/F�i.u'..4. � • �'�..,. . . � , ��., , ,„ '�' � . , �'' . . ��. . ��.. . - „�.. .� :��': , . "" :: . ,,, . .. . .c.«�'��.�� ,,., . ��. HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0 36 Actu��.��da Le�9� ��. � ,. �. '': °; ; �,1�� , .: ' Su�n.€�f (�skiims �� 'f4fi�,.::;` . , ,..3, , . Intersection Capacity Utilization 70.7% ICU Level of Service C , 1�1aty�ts ��+d,�i �j ;� : �� : � _ ,_ .. . �.: _ c Critical Lane Group RAYSOR Transportation Consulting , Base Conditions (No Improvements) F-6of12 ' Synchro 7 - Light: Report , HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Countryside Exec. G.C. Redevelopment , 3: Oak Neck Road & Countryside Blvd PM Peak Hour Background Traffic � � � � ' � � � � '- '� � t � �* 1 � Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 TQ �. � � ; s� #�[� {s} �,'�� . '.8 'I � � , �,��`� � <� � �, �:N', .. . �7�� ' :7.4 ' `.` : <. Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.91 F�'t, �,. y�. ,.;..��y:. ' � „l�� ,'� �U , �� ... 1 Qt� �� ,. � 1 Qti,��.' s.��,��. '�.� � �,�� . .. �.,.�. � � Flt Protected 0 95 0 96 0 98 1 00 100 0 95 1.00 ��td :.�� {�t�1�� g ��,., . ��1��$ 1 ��7 ��;�.. , . ,: � '��`�, � � a�i� , . � ��-� ,: , ��67 ,., � r� d.; ,.,17�"�? �' 4'78$":i v Flt Permitted 0.95 0.96 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.13 1.00 S�f�.;�! '� _ ,� s r; . 8 1717_,., �� 87U, "��„ : , 3�� ,,,;', ��:; 's ��7.:" � , .,, � Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 �,,� � �� ,��; �� :,��a ��H � ,; �� _��o ..: a -��s ; ��= �� ` sc�s s,��z RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 36 0 1 0 0 105 0 Larte ��`t�u� �low {u�� ... _.. . �� ` ' 9� �, {? MU ' -: 22 ' ,' �1 � . � [ 1'f��: ' Q „ � ��` 9�5 ,. . . ., � dr,- , ,y:.� HeavyVehicles(%) 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3% 0% 1% 0% 2% 2% 1% � 'zi�i4„, f C ^� ::: �, I' ��` _ �eN'4 .vEe a� � u _ �ea[�aV1d 1 %�' / /c � , �111 I tjt . �it�.:, . Protected Phases 8 8 4 4 5 , �, .<� � L . ��+��'h�"�'�`� , ,,,,,,� �ti;- - . . ��<; : '�-� ° -� , - � , ,� .»G� +� �� , �g�. ,. �,. , . �� ,,,,.� .,. 2 ,,.:.,: �� Actuated Green, G(s) 7.1 7.1 2.2 7.1 23.4 35.6 35.6 �` � �: Act�d IC Rat o�s� � =071_ � '� � �. ._� � 2 , ' �.'� ,:. : �� # , ; ��.�5�� .�"a;� - , . . - : , � g, 10 0.10 0 03 0.10 0 34 0.52 0.52 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3A 3A 3A 3.0 _. v s Ratio Prot 0.05 c0.05 c0.01 c0.32 0.02 c0.20 1��IC#��I"iT1s��. . ��, ' ��' .. � ,:r� ,. '�.,, , .,... ' ,� �� {� ,,,,,,,,,,�.4�.. �.�'�, �., � {� 1'�, v/c Ratio 0.51 0.51 0.37 0.03 0.93 � 0.27 0.38 ,, tJrttf�t�;D��' �d� . .. � �� 29 t}�� ... ' , ,,, �� 27 �'s��k ,,, '; �� 7 91 � � , � � � N � �. ,<„ . , . ; , ' °� F; �, . ' �' . ; . ', ��. . �. .. Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 HCM Volume to AG��ted�+�l�l Intersection Cao 31.3 31.3 :� N � .::; 31.3_ � ��, . o._ � o.� 'ie I�IIP! '�Illl'I �� i u 1I Il i f �yil ' �2��' � s�,.� : ratio 0.80 36.2 30,7 27.7 33.9 Utilization 63.9% ICU Level of Service c Critical Lane Group 33.9 12.5 9.9 10.0 RAYSOR Transportation Consulting Base Conditions (No Improvements) F-7of12 Synchro 7 - Light: Report HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Countryside Exec. G.C. Redevelopment 4: Belcher Road & Countryside Blvd PM Peak Hour Background Traffic � � � t 1 � �dea� F�ow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 ��a ' t �,��y�� ' �� 7 �� ';7�� ' 2 ��6t > 7 � � �� ...t�..� ,.. ;� .,. ,� v..::�. . , „�..; . ,?''',Yx., �. .. � �5 . ,,,,,. a� :� . . ,i'� ��. .. . . •'�, ... '�, . . -% s � ,,,./.,�� . ,,...,� , ,':. . � . ..: . -'�.,, � . ,.. Lane Util. Factor 0.88 0.97 0.95 0.91 �� , a„ �,.. ,,.,,'��#� ., ,,,�r s � ,a.�•^ �.:,t•��r� , ,��.,, ftr�� a� � , ,. , �� , , � ��,, ;�'� �Z �'� � ,, , y, , . „ ,_� =. F . ,,.�.,,. � `: '�. ._ , , �= _ � . .,� '�. _�� ..:, Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 �,v:. 3�'j� 3�7� aQ�� Saf� �Itrw {pr��} �. : ;° ., , 27�q ;: , , ;, y : - ._x:tbi, ,.�i'.z- ., �'�.. f'4 . �'�.. _. .... .,:_ ,,,. ,da'. �ia.,��,,.,., `._ Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 -;y � s�. �r � .. �y �( ��{� , , ,, v.� ,. / ,,, ,. , , . sx , , e3i7�f1 ?E,�,,�� .. . 1��=3 y�t�� ..,..�.' ^; k , ' r 3" �� tiJ � .: .; r. , ,,_ : , :-.:'.: Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.91 0,91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 � � �� , . 1 ��:+�{��.� ; < ._ ; . � .. . ��. ��t� . �,"Ct111:.. . � � �� , : ..:: f25 ; , "' � .... '�~ � , ' � .. , ` ' � "` , � , RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 252 0 0 0 0 _.,., .. ., _ Vehicles (%) 0% 3% 1°/a 1% 2% 0°/a . . ... ._ , ,.., ..�.,.:. _ . ;.� .. ; = •.. �'i. �:l�k. ,,,i,, .. ..�., � Protected Phases 1 1 6 2 �� ; . �� :;' i�� ., --? �gt y $ f� ;. � .: ,s':. a � �_ iiw._, . . . . . ,,,�,;, , , �, „ .,u� ,t ,. .,,, _ ��:. ..b,.Y ., ,...; ,,, ,. . . , �, _,._ ... .. "��. Actuated Green G(s) 20.0 20.0 46.2 11.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.43 0.43 1.00 0.25 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 _��, 3 . �,�� .�,,. m �� _ r.: �; .. : - � . �;, .�� v/s Ratio Prot 0.07 c0.29 c0.32 0.12 1i��` �1�1� �,�Ii11. �. , , �,�,,, � ah � r ° f J . ., . . ��.. '� ��. . ��.. .� � .: h , . f � • �_ : . � , a ��. .. ', , ' � ' .,r. .,., . , �, , � ,.. ._ , _ , b z , . .. ,, _ , � ,.,.� , . , , . v/c Ratio 0.16 0.67 0.32 0.49 Un�€�� Q�a ,,t�'�� .. , . ; ,. ��.. . , . , . Y �� 8 U °:�t�x� Q 4.. :.1,±17 F. , , �.. � � -<. :_ Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 HCM Volume to AGkyat�;�!��Ie�l Intersection CaG 8.1 11.7 0.1 15.0 ; � z; . : �A�... B �= ��a �� 8.1 „ 5.5 15.0 � f� � � .. ,. g. ,..� 5.! ; . ...� , ,�."�� . . . . �i''�'=.:. �� . . .;: �'�. �� ? l ��,,, �`�� , � `� �� , -� . ��i� ;��1! ratio 0.50 Utilization 49.1 % ICU Level of Service c Critical Lane Group A RAYSOR Transportation Consulting Base Conditions (No Improvements) F-8of12 Synchro 7 - Light: Report ' t � � ' ' ' ' � ' ' ' � ' � ' � , ' HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Countryside Exec. G.C. Redevelopment 1: Main Street & Belcher Road PM Peak Hour Total Traffic � -► � � '_' ',� 'ti T I' r► � � Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 �`##a� �+'� �i, ... �� Tf 7 +[� „ �,� � �: ,�9� ��,%YS „�� ;, x.,..'�..��. ,;� �� .. ,� i� � , ��; �)�,�i'�. i " �, ,;;..:.e .�.G,. "..... ,,,�:•: � y�.��tiF � �.,:: a...mt'q'��'.��. .�Y� Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 �E G � � '' 2 � � ,.: ,., � �t l � (� .( �'y� ,- �y ,; ; (� {j (� e 4...� -; ,�.V� 9'a$' �s� .,�-a!��i.,,, � � ;I �V ,'r.,,i,�,F� .. � � ��,, i�� u� `� � O� � , � �f",;. � �.U� . �.�it ..- � .... ,. n � , . . Flt Protected 0.95 1 00 1 00 0 95 100 100 0 95 1 00 1 00 0 95 1 00 1.00 �1 �l��pr�#�:', ,,, , . :r.;�... ��i�„ ��8v ��,�.��5 '�43� , ��8�..: 1�9� ��1787 „,`:��74 .:' 1�i� ', �77t� ;4 35�� ; 1f'1� Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 . Sat� �. n �� `� � �08�„ : :� 6� � �: �3� . �.x.�t�.8� 1 ��9 " .',17�� .: �5��... ..., '1 ��,1� �` '�� F '��t}�.. .:.. ° "� 61 � ,. Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 !��lov��. „�� ,,. �`=�76 �z�;�4�4..,,,., �i6 ,. °�2�� ,...1�5� ., �,�8�,,.� '. ��. 1�8�;:,.' .�,�� ; �,,,��«'��" 3�9"" ��a RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 117 0 0 161 0 0 124 0 0 196 i,.��,�r�Gp �� it�ph.%. ��. .476� �,.,� 47,4,� . , ��`� � . . - �4F� _.��`�� 42 i :," �� ..,: '�t�8� . .;: � y. .�$ . ,.. �� ;,... �3�'� ': � ��5 Fieavy Vehicles (°/a) 1% 2% 0% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% 0% 2% 3% 0% Protected Phases 5 2 y �''�niit� P�ra� ��.�. � � ? 1 6.�.: � s, 3 �$ 8 7 34 4� ;.. ' ,:-: ' ' : : , ��` ;, Actuated Green, G(s) 18 6 54.0 54.0 16.2 51.6 51.6 21.6 44.6 44.6 15.6 ✓ 38.6 38.6 �#�� n,: � ��} . ,...%' ;... ,n�.� � �a� �, .� � a ��.z �� , ��,� - �� s �� }j. ; �� . ;: �� .� �s �a �s.s �� Actuated g/C Ratio 012 0.34 0 34 010 0 32 0 32 014 0 28 0 28 010 0 24 0.24 #��ar�r��,� T�m�,��x � � � n�' :..� �� 7 A�� .. , � ��' � . ` ' 7 4 , ,�� 7 A� � ,; 7 4 <. � �. � � � ' � 4 .. '. 7,� � T 4 :.. "; - . -7.�� ' .; Y 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 _ ,d,.. .. . �, rt v s atio Prot c0.14 0.29 0.07 c0.33 0.13 c0.30 c0.13 0.11 �ls �ta�g ��rr� � : �� r ;. � / � � r.., � � �1r� ,� ; �� t� 2� t} �.3 -� ,�„f � f} t�� v/c Ratio 1.18 0.86 0.11 0 71 1 01 0 82 0 95 1 09 011 1 34 0 47 0 23 �nifipr��la,��. ' � o_ . - .7Q �� ., ��.�=� 3�t� , ,, �� f .. ; ,��4 � ; 49.� �'68 7,: , i �7' 7 : 42.�� . : �'��..,, ��. ��.7 Pro ression 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 9 Ir��meri�l l�l�j�� 2.,,.�. �-1�4;�,,�'.. �w�,. �� . n,3,..'.� 4 .m�y�� ,. �i3.4 �4r,� , : �� i� ., w �..� � �;�'E�7 {i � 4��<� "�;3 Delay (s) 175 0 55 3 36 9 76 0 78 8 63 2 112 8 113 7 43 0 259 2 52 4 49.0 Leu��fSet�tttt� .: �f ,, ,�..,. ;�; .�� '#� ;' � �.:_ �,�,:�� E ° ".; > �', y° � .,,��. �?.,...;. � � �...' . [3 Approach Delay (s) 80 6 74.9 105.4 103.7 HCM Volume to Capacity ratio A y��t��e,,��4�}: � �:: Intersection Capacity Utilization �a��s;��?��i:{r��n�� ,... ' , c Critical Lane Group 1.10 1�ti � .; . �u�n ��l�st�i�ne; �s} 107.8% ICl1 Level of Service G RAYSOR Transportation Consulting Synchro 7- Light: Report Base Conditions (No Improvements) F-9of12 � ' � � �J � � � , � ' HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Countryside Exec. G.C. Redevelopment 2: Countryside Blvd & Enterprise Road PM Peak Hour Total Traffic -� � �► � '- � � t � �► 1 � IdealFlow(vphpl 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 '��I �� , � � �, �" '� .: �i � E �;.'-��"' , :`�'� (,�` �l'= 7 7 r � �' i: i 7.� r, , ,.� ....., �„�� .,.. > ' ' Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 r 1.00 1.00 �c� . � �� ..: . w. .. �i b� �:�9 ' '.. �,.�0 � �� . . . �.�'� 10t} � 87 ;. ! f. 1:t�t} ,� �� ', ,.: Flt Protected 0,95 1.00 0 95 1 00 0 95 1 00 0 95 1 00 ��: F[s�{pt��_`,� . :� ;. ,.'�.$�C�� _ .:.a(i8�; ,� '�� 1�#�a, .....��Q�3 ; -�� .� '��,17�fi �. �� 16�1„ �,, ��: :' 1,g�`�+ ,;�� .,.. �.. Flt Permitted 0.27 1.00 0.19 1.00 0.69 1.00 0.36 1.00 �8t� . � � ' �; �� y,��$ ' '��7 a .��x � �� 'y�� , £� �tF� �s7� ' i�� ,' ,<,�,£ �e �; Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 A�� `? ��,� �::: ... � 'H.3 ..�12��'��.; 8$ .�,��i1 „ ';�,47, ,..« �� .., �� . ... �, ;: j�`161 ...�y��.�'' ` ��.'. '�� RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 3 0 0 2 0 0 65 0 0 66 0 �� i��.�k��, n..=.��.:.��.�;. �: ��4 r� �� ' ��t�� r : �a� ..�xu � ,.� �� ; �� ,,�'� o HeavyVehicles(%) 0% 1% 0% ��0% 1% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 5% 2% Protected Phases 2 6 8 4 �1� �� ,�� , � � �' . �� .� ��,�, . ;�� ;� _._: ''_ ., � .,,,,,,;,. . . ��.., ; ....� .: ��a� ' � ' �� : Actuated Green G(s) 109.5 109.5 109.5 109.5 16.1 16.1 16.1 16.1 _ .. .,r.. Actuated �/C Ratio 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3A 3A 3.0 v/s Ratio Prot c0.26 0.19 c0.08 0.02 vts��i�i P�rm,�,m� r�� 't},Q8 � b. ;,. � ' � ..Q.17 '�: .. ; �O Q�_ .°��'.. . ,. �:= ��Q� ' _ �;. �� v/c Ratio 0.11 0.33 0.22 0.25 0.65 0.66 0.55 0.17 Un��:��1C,�� fr,�� ='; r,, U4S .'��. ��0.:��1.�� '...' S�� 9� �, . ��'�� 58�:�r:a5.9� �� ,, Pro ression Factor „ 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 g ,..�,.,.. . .. . _.. ' Delay (s)� � �u�� f S��r� Approach Delay ' ��?��c�� w�,. #-�{',r� A�f�� HCM Volume to � 1�C#u�t��y�� Intersection Cap � ' ' 41 47 .. � :�.� � ,. 4.7 "� . �� ; . / 3fib; , ,'. . �:' . I I I�Il�� I I�u� YI�I�I� iI ��i� I �� % ,C �Y �..., 1�.7 ratio 0.37 Utilization 71.2% c Critical Lane Group 5.8 4.3 4.4 ICU Level of Seroice 68.4 67.7 67.9 C 66.7 56.4 59.5 RAYSOR Transportation Consulting ' Base Conditions (No Improvements) F-10of12 ' Synchro 7 - Light: Report HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Countryside Exec. G.C. Redevelopment 3: Oak Neck Road & Countryside Blvd PM Peak Hour Total Traffic s -. -� �- �- � � T � �► 1 � IdealFlow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 19UU �9uu i'pt��st �rt�� ,�� . �� ,�. � � �$ 'i ., _ = , '�� i „`' 81 � . ,; i:. � $ 'I,. �:�� '�� 7 4. ,� '�:�� '��. � � �� Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.91 , , ,. � , �. 5 1:00 ' 1' 00`=' ' ` = s ` 1.0(1; - ' 0.8� - ' _ ' � �0 . `� :' 1 Qt? ` � ; F�k �.. � - �_, n ,, .. ,... ; Flt Protected 0.95 0.96 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 �a� � �i�w �pr�t��; � �� : � ��s � 717 . ��.,, � 87� - .�� 5sa _ E �. � �;� �56� . . ? , ' � 77� �� : 4�96� ��. �, Flt Permitted 0.95 0.96 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.13 1.00 S d ;�I�� ,'.: �' �, u1��+� ��,.-1�1� : �870 , 1�� '� `"��7.- '.: ' ��,�fs..4,��6.'- Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 �� ai��.�� ... , ,' �� ` �;�� A: �14 �;��,� U �.. 7 �'� 1� ., .;, 4{} :' �� ',1"C55 =; '�,�'. �`�� `�� , �3$ ;� � �32 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 36 0 1 0 0 100 0 I.�I�B ��qYit {uPhj.. .'��, �` '��9. �. ; 9�. "'�� A „ �'� � {�.. , '�� 2� � 4 �! f} a�. ! � 171` � '��, �, i? �' S7 '_ 97t3 ��;.,. �. � �! Heavy Vehicles (%) 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3% 0% 1% 0% 2% 2% 1% �"�t��'y� ` , �}ri `:�;° 5p[it.. ., ,A��s#om `.pm�'B�� ° `° ,,. .. Protected Phases 8 8 4 4 6 5 2 , F'8rtrt�t�ed �liases £�, ; .. � ', ; : � �,,,, � � '' , . � b : , .� ,�: � ,,, .� � . . �. ., ..YC �'.. � u.. �.. '�. ..� Actuated Green, G(s) 7.1 7.1 2.2 7.1 23.4 35.6 35.6 Eff�'� C�"r�n� � %s� � = ' 7 'I : . 7,1..' � ...; � , 2 2 7.'� P 23.4 , ��,�i,.. 35.6 " ��: , •.. Actuated gIC Ratio 0.10 0.10 0 03 0.10 0.34 0.52 0 52 Gle�i�c� Time:�s} �� 8.� 8,� ..81 8;1 ;�.1 7,4 7:4 ` Vehicle Extension (s) 3A 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 i.an�i� ��:f��) 176 , ;., .178 :: "' ' 6Q . . 163 . ;' 1219 " ' 215 < , 24�3 ' v/s Ratio Prot 0.05 c0.05 c0.01 c0.33 0.02 c0.20 ufs t��'��tm N ., U.{Hi �1� vlc Ratio �0.51 0.51 0.37 0.03 0.96 0.27 0.39 �.. , . ; unit'�ni r?�l�y� t�9 � '� � "��"��.�. � : �5�tt ',, �: ; � � �;�2 5 �: ' �7a�. : �„ . ; :., '�� 2�,1 . ��.� � :: .. '1�y2` �� 9� . `� Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1r�t;s�l7i�t��?��y. d� �.3 ��2 3 3 8.. � U� 1�.� :. ��},`i � U� n�� s... > .� Delay (s) 31.3 31.3 36.2 27.7 39.3 12.9 10.0 I�eV�� f S�ice , ., C C � 'C q � �, ' . ,.., „ , Approach Delay (s) 31.3 30.7 39.3 10.1 �i��iS� �..t7��:,.;, � � C � C� � : HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.83 A�a',%��,�Y�.�.n9th.�s�. . � � `, „ 68.5 Sum of lost fims (sj ..; � � ., � . �:�t� 4.: _. Intersection Capacity Utilization 64.9% ICU Level of Seroice C An�i��eri�tl �min� �� :, �� , : 4 . . c Critical Lane Group RAYSOR Transportation Consulting ' Base Conditions (No Improvements) F-11of12 j Synchro 7 - Light: Report HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Countryside Exec. G.C. Redevelopment 4: Belcher Road & Countryside Blvd PM Peak HourTotal Traffic � � � � i � Ideaf Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Tt�#�,�'#i�� 7 � '�� 7 '� � �l �:� �-., :x, �. ��: ,,. ... _ . . ,, Lane Util. Factor 0.88 0.97 0.95 0.91 Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 ��Fi4w i�� ,..,: , {�? } ;:�� .� �:�7�t� �4�� '��'.; ��85...�,.. � .., , . �� :�;�;; y..,, ,u. �,. , .r,,.. �.,��, � Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 254 0 0 0 0 �.�n��tt� Fiow ��rpf��., y..:'; p , .,: 19� � ,1��, �_ ��'� .: ��7 " . �' ' � : . .. ' ��_., ,, �,�� ,'. HeavyVehicles(%) 0% 3% 1% 1% 2% 0% 'iu��'�� . .�.�.. "��` �t�ver .R,. :Prot �s:,. . � ��``.. .� . � � .., . . - , �„ Protected Phases 1 1 6 2 S,;n��ik�� 6,'A . .. ,.�:> . W.'�......, . ,/.,wz:a ..u� , . , . �. . . `��. . . . . . .vw*. ..c��t-,� . . , . .. ., , , .. , '- u. : . . ...• �. , ,w ;. �. ,,; Actuated Green, G(s) 20.0 20.0 46 7 12.2 y � , �ff�� a �'!r � �� .�.. �. '�� ''�� 2�,� �� `{t _ "" �� 7 �� 2,� �, ' _ :.; , ,� � �� . Actuated gIC Rafio 0.43 0 43 1 00 0 26 �� . � Cl��r�t��:� ��J . .,...��,..,... ". .<:�'� .�� .7,1 2 0.,.�. �,�7��,. ��' ,..�.. �,; �,��.�.s . Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 1,�� ',��. {�� . . �� 11 � , 146� ;��`� � ��8 f . � � : �f �� ,�� „ ti.,: =s ��_.,..,��. vls Ratio Prot 0.07 c0,30 c0.33 0.13 vls �a��`i��rrn , � ; � .. , , , � � , :�.. : � ,, v/c Ratio 0.16 0.69 0.33 0.49 Ur��ft)rm �� . � ��, �F�. � ,:� � ,�'�t�, � , U � �. ��1� � � ' ,. . . . Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 y00 Int�:�ei�l pelay; �� ,.'' � 1.,: :1 � ; � �� ,= U.3 ,� �,, _.. � . � m � _; Delay (s) 8.3 12.3 0.1 14.9 l,�el ��ru�"' � � � � , „ _ .�kl.. � . �- . . . rl+'i.� � , h, k.�";i, . .,. , . . . . Approach Delay (s) 8.3 5.8 14.9 �' clG� i�,U� 3�� '', � �� : � ' I� � '` �� 4��' � � „� . ,,,,.� . �.,,� �.. ,. . .. -, ,,� ,, : ,.,,,.,,,�,�„ - � ��,, :.. ,,�„ `�� ,, „ "3�, HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.51 l��a ��ngi� ��' . , . 5 � :, �:s 7 ,:� „ Surr� oi i�st t��ts:.��? ` �-. ,: � 1 ' . ..... t ';. - Intersection Capacity Utilization 50.3% ICU Level of Service A Anal}"�'�cic�tl �ii��rt} ;` ' : �� ,v w,._ _ , . . , c Critical Lane Group RAYSOR Transportation Consulting � Base Conditions (No Improvements) F-12of12 � Synchro 7 - Light: Report � � � � t � � � � i � � � � � � t � � � APPENDIX G Signal Timings ' , , ' � � � , � � � � � � ' � � ' � Intersecticn 268 Main Street: SR 580 Side Street: BELCHER RD J urisdiCtion: 5TATE/COU fJTY Section #: 10 Camm. Addrs: IP. 010.198.036.076 GaCeway:010.198.036.001 Pre-empt: Y Repo�t Oate: 08/05/2015 Run Time: 11:55 AM Subnet: 255255.255.000 i � hase #� Street Name E Direction � Left Tum Type ' _........ _�__.__. , __. _ .. ,.___„ __ _. _ .� 1 MAIN ST tSR 580) ; E8 � LT Restricted � ,.._._.__ _...._......_ .,. _.-------.—_.�.�_....._. � ..........................__ _.._� 2 MAIN ST WB ` i w_._._,....._.__ �._... ....... .�____�-_____ _... -.__.._ � 3 BELCHER RD SB ' LT ; Resiricted v.�._..... __ r... _....__- --- ; .__�' BELCHER RD � _ NB __�_.__ _ � ._._..� .... __ � 5 MAIN SY ! WB lT Restricted ..... .......... _ ...._.. . ......�.��._._.._.e.,..e, ....�..., F .._ . _ .... __ ......� 6 MAIN ST � EB � _ ._� _.....___ . _ _ _ _ __ _ .._ _ _ _ 7 � BEICHER RD NB LT Restricted ___ ..... _ _ _ __. __._ �..�.___.__. _. _.___ ___ �_ ___._. ., 8 � BELCHER RD �.____i._._.SB _�;. �._. € ; Timing & Phasing _..�_ _._. . _ .. �. . .. . � �._ ___ �_ _ _ _ _ _._. _ _... ... _ _ _._.. _ .,___ .._ .. _ ..� . . . . ...._. __ ..... _ __.._.. _. PHASE 1 ! 2 3 4 � 5 6 ' 7 8 _.._. __.._.._____ __. .._ } . _ � _ _. . _._ _._.. _ �. . Min. Green t ; ; 5 � 10 5 5 5 10 5 6 ;,_,...__.._ __.__,. __ _ w .,�.e� ..._ ___ _.�_ �__�_.. , � _ . �._._._.___.� E�ension 1 ' � ' '# �. E 1 j � 1 1 1 ,.. � �__�3 _ _ _..._. , �,_�,.� _-�-_ _ . , _. _»_ ... . YeiiowGL � 4.$ ; 4$ � 48 48 48 � 4.8 48 48 ; �. _ �. ._. __ � ... m ___ .._...� - F RE�CL 26 2fi � 26 26 26 26 2.6 2.fi � _ _Max 1 20_ .__�_._. . ,.__.� _.__. ..._ _ .._ , _ � _._______ .. ; _. _ . ____ �_._..__ _...._ - � 50 ; 25 50 2Q ; 50 '�� 25 50 ;__.__. ___.. ___._ , _ �.___ . __.. __..._.___._... , _____ __�..,._..._:..._ � , _ .._y.w..> ___. ...._ .�_ _. : Max 2 _ . ..._..___ ....._.___s_..�__ ____. .__.. _.._ . . _.... _.�.__ _..... ....... Max 3 ___._. _.� _ _,_ _ � .____.... � � ...._. _.. .. _ ___, _._. _.�..... �_..�._.. � . .. � Watk 7 7 � 7 ' 7 { u... . � . _..___. _ �. _� � r ; FDW i 38 42 42 38 _.__W______.��.__..___ ._ .a. _ < � � _.... _ � _�.._.. ..__.__._r--_._ _.... . ....... _ ._ . ; Min Reoali , � � ,._...� ._..... _..._ . _ _ . : _ �.. Max Reeail � ,_ , : _.. ___. . .._ � , _ __ _..�, . . _._ _.�_ _, ' Ped Re�call ` i � _ __ . _.__ .._ _ _ _ _._._.___�_ __________ .� _. _____r ., _ . , _ . ... _._.. � _._ _ _ _. . , .._. � . �._.. . . . �. __. __ _. _. � � Non-Lock X ' X X , X ��X X �� X X ; t........ . _. ..._._. _._. _ _ _ _. _ _. ECNA1_____�_________.�..__._...._� x___...__ �...�. .____.... ,.__. _...x�.�X... ,� .� y. __.. � ; CNA 2 , _�Phase Om(t _., � ,_ �� _.___ ___�_o__ _._.. _._...._. �_..__. _. .. �_ __.._.. ______,_.._.,�: Ped Omft X _ _ X X X.... _w _._ �r _ _ Flash r R Y R R R �... y R ' R � ._. _.._. _.�__... _._..... _.._.� . ........t __. _. ..,_.. .... _...f__._._..... 1 Delay Det. ' , i , i r , ; __�. �__. _. Last Timing Change Date: p$/Zg�2p� g Technician Inittals: __.._ _� __ _._ . .._...._...._ - _ .............. �.�._._ ____; Database ModNied: 05129t2015 _ . . . __._.._ _ _._._._.__�..._.__._�, Contral Room Pers. lnixiais: G-1 of5 � � � � ' ' � � � � � L ' � , � � � ' cvc�E r o��s�-r 1 2 3 4 SPUT PLANS Pi.AN 4 BASE QAY PLANS se�. ___ ___ t50 D 150 160 o��t se�. � �fa _._..._�___ �__�__._._ _. 1 29 _ ... ___ _.... . . . .. 2 0 3 60 _.. _.___._._ ._. __._. ._.. ... __ . 4 n Intersection #266 11:55 AM Ph 1 Ph 2 Ph 3 Ph d Ph 5 Ph 6 Ph 7 Ph 8 Sec t % Sec / °/a Sec 1 % Sec 1 °lo Sec ! °h Sec ! % Sec / % Sec / °Jo _ � _.. 25 _ . .. „�59 _ _. -ro.24. .. __. �, `�� .�... . ... 25.._ > `�9 24 . .� `�z � :_59 23 52._. 2�.._..__..... Time Plan # Cycle Offset SpIH � (T630 _� �___.. ___ _. __ __ 0900 „ 3 _ 1530 4 � ......_. �� . ... .. __ _..._.,..._. 1900 � 100 ; � 3 �� € � , ; 0800.�_ 3 .. � � _ �______ 1900_, . _._ _ _ 10d _ � . _. . . .. _ Circuit UniOit �� FREE ! ON WEEK PLAN ___ S M T W T F S , ... _. '�� . � . T._ __E_....... 2; 1 1 ; 1 1 1 2 ! NOt@S: CONTROLIED BY INSYNC ADAPTIVE RED I.IGHT INDIGATOR FpR WB OPTIGOM G-2of5 ON � ' r � ' , � r � � � � � ' ' ' � , ' Intersection 1612 Main Street: BELCNER RD Side Street: CNTRYSIOEtOAKNECK Jurisdiction: C4UNTY 5ection #: Comm. Addrs: IP: 010.197.121.085 Gateway: 010.197.121.001 Pre-empt: ase # Street Name 1 BELCHER RD 2 COUNTRYSIDE TNRU �._ _....._�....�_.._......._..._...._......___.___........___........_._. ___.... 3 j ____�_�__.��.�._�_____._�___�_.._.�_ � 4 OAKNECK FROM BELCHER 5 COUNTRYSIDE BLVD. FYA _. 8 BELCHERtCOUNTRYSIDE_T 7 _ ____ T._----- -- OAKNECK Report Date: 08l05/2015 Run Time: 11:58 AM Subnet: 255.255.255.000 Direction ' Left Tum � _ .. _ ______.� e .... NB � LT � Restricte SB–.__.. __ _ i EB ._,_.,�.,,. LT LAG Restricted ' SB i LT Protectedl __.__; _.._.�_._._�._—.._... � . . _... .. _ � _NB_�__ :._��_ ____ _��.�......�_..... _ ' _.� ....................._..j......_ _ _ _ WB ' LT LEAD i Restricted _.._.. ._....._._ .....................�...._ Timing & Phasing _._____._ _.. . � PHASE i 1 ; 2 ; 3 4 .S . 6 ' ... .. _ _ � Min Graen yp g ; 5 � 5 5 �Extension �-_�.___ _..._5_� 3 _. Y.____. . 5 3 3 �...___ _......_ __._.._,.._ . ....__._._ _. �,. _.... .�..__ Yellow CL ; 4.0 , 4.0 , 4.0 4.0 , 4 0 i ._.._ __ _e_ __ _ _. __ �. . . __ _. � _ �_ , � RED CL 3.1 3.4 � � 4 1 3 4 � 4 1 , _-.. i . _ .. i.,,,. ........_._... . _ . ...... E _._.. ____ _. . _ _. . __ ' .. 15 10 � `; _, _AAax..�...._ . _._ �_. . _° _ _2� � �._,-_- 1�� +��.. _._. _ � - � ...� �� __. Max 2 ' ' ' .. ..._.. _. _. . ._..__. r. , , Max 3 ,.. ... _ _ A _ _ i ; Walk I �...._ __. __. � _. ..�_.., FDW P..._..�..._ ......................................................... i................__...................., I Mtn rte�a�� , ..�.. . _ . _Max ReCail , ' Ped Recaii �..._ _._..... _. � _. � ': Non-Lock X I � ___. _ l CNA 1 i E.______w .__._.. i CNA 2 �. i�...._._�_.__.,..___.___........� __.;__..._..._.___._____ j Phase Omit __ _...... _ _ .__ Ped Omft X � _� __ .� .._.. _..__ _,... Flash R :__... _.........._ _. .. .. __ . _ Delay Dei. , ... 9 _.. _ .............. .. _....._ _ __ _ _ __ ...._ .. . . _____ __ _ _ . i Last Timin Change Qate: 01/05/2015 Database Modffied 0111312015 ;._. � . _...._ _ __... _ .. _ .... . .... _.; � .. .. ....._. _ . .. _ _. __ � tech�ician Initials: ' Control Roam Pers. initials t...... . . ... .�..... .... ._._._.._ . . _ _ _ _.�..........._ .. .... .... ....._..._ _ __. _.�._,,.......... __ __. 8 5 3 a.o ' 4.1 ' ��20 ._......._.. G-3of5 Intersection 1635 Main Stree#: COUNTRYSIDE BLVD Side Street: ENTERPRISE RD JunSd'ICtiOt1: COUNTY Section #: 17 Comm. Addrs: IP: D10.197.121.080 Gateway: 010.197.121.001 Pre-empt: Report Date: 0$I05/2015 Run Time: 11:57 AM Subnet: 255.255.255.000 _. ___._ .___- __..... __. _ -- �hase # Street Name � Direction �sft Turn Type ; ��.._. _ _--___ _ _ _.. _._... , __ _� __ ....____-- _.. � i 1 � _.___ �._._.�...... __ _ ,.__.. _ _.__ �._._ ....� . _� 2 � COUNTRYStQE BLVD WB % � _ ._. �_ �_ _..... _.__�. . __ _._. _ F � 3 �� ' ,_�___�_-_ _.�.._._.__�_______f_.. � __ _. .. � a � ENTERPRISE Ra i NB � ; ... .... _...._. _ _� .� ,__.._ _ 5 ! � ` ' _.._ __ �.... _ _ __ , � ; ____. __. �. 6 ; COUNTRYSID� BLVO � EB �� _., I _; � � ..�..�_�.� � ,..� �_ 7 � _ ................... _...___ � _ �. ___ i 8 ENTERPRISE RD �� 5B ! � � ____ _ _.._ � ......... .__ ..._ . _ _._ �_�_._. _� Timing & Phasin{� -�__ ,.. _. _ PHASE 1 2 + 3_ 4 5 6 -.- _�_.. .� ______ .. � _ ___.>._ Min. Green �� . �� _ _ . .. "10 5 � 10 � -_ _....._.... ___ „. _. _._._ __... ._ .. ....._ ___,.._ _._ _ _.�,..__ �... . Ex#ension 1 1 1 ___.._ . �. �. ._ �...... �T__w._ _..x... . 3 _ --:_. _ ..,o_ Yellow Gt 4 4 4.1 4.4 , , , . �. _._ _, w..�e . _ ___. . _.-t-__.... _ _ . _ ._._. . _. �� _ _. ;� RED CL , ` 2 3 3.6 2 3 � .. -.__. . . ........ __.. T ,......, i....___ >._ �__�__f _ __..,._.. . _ Max 1 � 40 39 ' 40 ; ._ � _-___._____ _. ._.. ._ . # _.. � _ ,....... .. ..,.,_.._.w_ _ ,..... .. '� hlax 2 ? , ,. ,. . ___..___.��-,_..... �_......_._ _.... _ ; ___. . .._._- ---_._. .. ..... _ _. ' Max 3 ; E � . _._. _ _ _. . _.._ _....__. .,..� . ___ . . _...... . _ ____ _ __ r. Walk 7 7 7 _. ,. . _ .. .. . ..... .. ..... .. .. ...: .. t ..._... .. .._.__.�.,._ . _ _. ___�._... ..__.._.._. �. _.. .. .. FOW 23 32 23 _ , ,_Min Recall r_.. �. _ _ .. .�.. ._...�.. Mux Recall � � _.... _..._._ . �.... . . � __�_W __., _ __.� ; Pcd Recali j ; � ; �-----�-____.�_ .._._.. � r � .........__-_ �� --.._ .. ... ..�.-_. ..�...._�. . __ _ +�_.___ _ . i Non-Lock � X X X � ..._.___.�T..__._. � ..,...,... ,. +,_. . � _.._ .,... ....,_ ....,._ .._............�. _...__..._...._.._ .. .. ,. � CNA 1 _ .. __..._._. .� ......�_..... ..��.._....,.. , ,._. ......�... __... _�_....__ , CNA 2 ' �....._. _ .. _. _.. . ...... _,._....�_.�.�_.._.� .. ..........._. _ .,__�_ Phase Omit X X X ��.___._.._. ._ __..... �... ......... _._�m_.____........ . _ a....._. _...s ; Ped qmtt �. X ' x X _ _ ._ _._ . t ._Fiash.__.___�..�.�_..._.._ z._. Y.._..___.__ _, � R Y � � , _ Delay Det. ' , ' , f ' ; _____ . ......__. -....... ... .. _ _ �___ _ . _ __....._ ; Last Timing Chenge Date. pq/2�/2p� $ Oatabase Modfited: 04/23/2015 F__._.. _ ,_,...� . �_.4..�:�_.....�,�w...�.._______.__.. _. . , _. . ........._..... _. _ _... � m_._._.__. __ ; Technician initiais: ; Control Room Pers Initials: G-4of5 7 8 5 t _...� .... ......... 4.1 3.6 _._ ---_... . 39 _..........._ .._._! _ . ,� ? _.�� . �_.._ ...., 7 ...._....�--,- __._ __._ 32 ___ ....__ t ; �_ __ _. X __.�__..__,_, ......... _.. j ( _ _ . .......... _ ._ __ __..�..{ X._.., . . _. .._. _ _.�.,..v..�, x' __ �---� - CYC�E/UFFSET 2 SPLIT PLANS BASE DAY PLANS __ SeG. 120 �_.. _ _._. 140 Offset Se¢. / % ___..._.._ _ . _ _.__.._...._...._ . 1 105 _._ _ _.__..._..... �.... _.._. 2 115 Ph 1 Ph 2 Ph 3 Ph 4 SBC ! °la SeG 1 % $eC I % SSC / °/ Intersection #1635 11:57 AM Ph5 Ph6 Ph7 Ph8 $eC ( % $@C % °�a $BC / % $@C 1 % _ _.. �_ .� .__ _,�._ �._.._ . � _- _..._ 7 72 .;.. __ 48.. _..... ;. 92 = : 48 Time Plan # Cycle Offset Spiit Circult OnlOff WEEK PLAN S M T W T F S r______ .. v. ., , t , f � :.._._ � 1 1 1__ �_ E �__i..��_.._.. � i NOt@S: ALL VALUES 1N SECONDS G-5of5 , ' ' � � � � � � � � � � i [� i ! � 1 APPENDIX H Intersection Analysis With Improvements to Resolve Background Deficiencies IMPROVEMENTS TO RESTORE ACCEPTABLE OPERATIONS FOR BACKGROUND TRAFFIC CONDITIONS 1. Belcher Road at Main Street (SR-580) • Construct 3rd eastbound-to-northbound left turn lane. • Construct 4th westbound through lane. • Construct 2nd northbound-to-westbound left turn lane. • Construct 3rd northbound through lane. • Construct 2nd & 3rd southbound-to-eastbound left turn lane. H-1of3 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Countryside Exec. G.C. Redevelopment 1: Main Street & Belcher Road PM Peak Hour Background Traffic � --► � � � � � I 1� �` � � IdealFlow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 ��}�RS ��il��.�..� . , �„ ; �... „e,.�,.. � �_ . . � � „ ,::� � . . "'.., � xl',,, "�. 4 �Y . "; ,.'„ �r� � � �"� £ I ."F . .;.. �. ! �., i �� *t; y: �-.. �a-`t �,. . .y�fi�', �'�... , �. � � Lane Util. Factor 0.94 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.86 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.94 0.95 1.00 �� .��s � ,, .,, ,. � ,. �. t�.��? �.{��}„�;; , � � � t�Q , ' ., i �{I Q,$S _ +.1 t}� , , 1 ii(1 ! � $� " 1 E%�T ,y � {�� r$,.�i Flt Protected 0.95 1,00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd,�� pr��}; , .., i �.„' ` �0�� a��5 , ,,��1� ; 343� .,. ��8 � �� °34�i ; �1�6 , : 1�i�� . 4��..,,: ;�i� :`,: �,�� Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 ��td _�w,. �rrri': �� y , ;.; ��$� �: -�G'l� .. ...�;��(��08 " ,1��; - 34�i7 � :;' a'f�6 ; �. 7a �`��'� =� . � F; .�f%1� Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Adj ��w,�pi!} < F,,... ' , .,; . 476 i4�4 �.�� ,' , ,244 , ,=�65� ._;. 5$2 ,,, �98 '1l;S� ' 16$ � '; ., 232 �:,° ��9".,; F��S RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 97 0 0 152 0 0 124 0 0 197 Vehicles (%) 1% 2% 0% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% 0% 2% 3% 0% , : - °Y . . � Fi'i'G � ��. � '�,'f�'Y ^�W ! i 5 �: �'6 - l LI1�1 Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 R ��t� �. ,z,. �" '�.. � E.�� , ,�;E`. $ 8 7 �� 4 ,,�,��'� .. R. , ___ �,� � � . � .� �� ..,. Actuated Green, G(s) 18 6 59 9 59 9 161 57.4 57 4 15 4 41.6 41.6 12 8 39.0 39.0 ' �1�e�Y��;�� .. 4°t8�i 59� �� 1�1 57.�4 574.,' �3A� ��1'fi 41�i - 1�:�:�' 39;{� 39t1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.12 0.37 0 37 010 0.36 0 36 010 0 26 0 26 0 08 0.24 0 24 �,�_�____..�. �_ f_. . „ �-.�.., . . �,._.. _ _„�..._ 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 _. . .,.. _, , v/s Ratio Prot c0,09 c0.29 0.07 0.26 c0.06 c0.21 0.05 0.11 :, ; vl�F��ki��rm ' � � r�' ,��',�4 ,` °.: ,.� _ � �2i x� ; ,u..' t}�� .,; �..' ��..��Y �� , vlc Ratio 0.81 0.77 0.10 0.71 0.72 0.75 0.65 0.81 0.10 0.58 0.47 0.22 lJr�� ,�Jn`, ��i��; d � ,:. y'�� : ., 44�"!a � , �� ..�.� . .��`7'" 44 A 45 � ':6� 7 "� �� . " 4�,U �� .,; �1�6 ; .��.# � > ,.,� Progression 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 HCM Volume to Capacity ratio Intersection Capacity Utilization i�aiysis=�`�no�t �inrt�} c Critical Lane Group _.__. 77.4 47.2 32.8 76.2 46.3 53.7 74.2 59.4 45.1 73.2 52.0 48.7 53.0 51.0 I� �� R �I I,w�' � o�e �ar ,� rpps i nfl�9 tiF �6� ;I I� l�11 �1 iilii �u� i i,tii�� i' i' �V �4"2.. l��j�tl,Le� 0.76 81.9% ICU Level of Service 60.0 n 56.3 RAYSOR Transportation Consulting Synchro 7- Light: Report With Improvements to Resolve Background Deficiencies H-2of3 ' r � � � , � � HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Countryside Exec. G.C. Redevelopment 1: Main Street & Belcher Road PM Peak Hour Total Traffic � -• � � �- � � t � �► 1 � IdealFlow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 70��l.,I�s��ime � �� ; �' 4 . ?s� ,',14 ' 7 � � ��, 7.4 �. � '�� ? 4,: .'. T 4 ` �'�`� � ��, 7 4� � '��.. 7 ��F �-" M.�� ,.,.?,� � �� . „ ,��. Lane Util. Factor 0.94 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.86 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.94 0.95 1.00 , .� r-. �'tt , �,�:: . ; 1.(1Q ' 1',f�p Q $� 1 OQ 100 ,:' ''0.�� . ',10�}„ ''".,, � p .; t} $� ;:.', ,�1�r,�� ,,,,,,,, , {t:$5 Flt Protected 0.95 1,00 1.00 0 95 100 1.00 0 95 1.00 1 00 0 95 100 1.00 �td. F["o� ��?�?t}; � .. , s; �04Q 5085 1`515 3433 ` � �08 15�� 3467�,;:. �4�6 �61�. - �9{}- " 3afl5. : 1�1� Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0,94 Ad� �(�w�u�ti} �T6 �1474 1i�i ,24�i 1;656 .., ; 582 , 229 ' 1U85 172 ', 232 ; . 359 , 2�5 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 110 0 0 152 0 0 127 0 0 196 �.�r�e �roup Flow {vpM) :' ._ � 4,�� 1474 &6 , ,246. ; ��6 434 22�`' 1�i�$a " : 4� 232 ".; , 3�� ; . f�� Heavy Vehicles (%) 1% 2%a 0% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% 0% 2% 3% 0% ��.TI±�, �. �" Frot` � Rerm � Prot �emi Prt�,�«,,''��. �s�m � , I�ro# ' ��"'�s�rrV v�� Protected Phases � 5 2 1 6 3 8� 7 4 Actuated Green, G(s) 18.6 59.8 59.8 16.2 57.4 57.4 15.9 41.6 41.6 12.8 38.5 38.5 1 Ef��+�rr� ��en��s� - �� 18.s` 59:8 5�:s � � 1s.�,� 57,4 `�674 �� 3� s � � � 416 � �1.s �� 12.8, 3s� �� .5 Actuated gIC Ratio 0.12 0,37 0.37 0.10 0.36 0.36 0.10 0 26 0.26 0 08 0 24 0.24 Gl��ra,nt� �"�me�� . .; 7.4 i,4 . 7.4 7,4 Z� 7.4 7:4 ', 7 4� 7 4., .' 7�4: .:< .. 7 4;,,- i,4 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 ' Lan��r� C�F;f�p�) ° �86 ,19�1`.. 6U4 . : 348 2299 ` 574 `,;; 345 ,. ;,"�33� . �'. 424� .. 3��,�_� ��'3 ' 389 v/s Ratio Prot c0.09 c0.29 0.07 0.26 c0.07 c0.21 0.05 0.11 � , i ' , ' r v/c Ratio 0.81 0.78 0.11 0.71 0.72 0.75 0.66 0.81 0.11 0.58 0.47 0.23 llrt�i�rrrt��,�1�ay, d� ` 6�,0 �4:2 32.7 �9.6 .� ��4�t �., � !�5.� �� $9.�� '�� 5:�� :`_45.1 � � 71;{} '�� 2�'#;�;, ;.�,45.� Progression 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 Incr�m�nt�lY�elay, d2 ' 8.4" 3.2 0.4 6,4 Z.0 ', 8.7 ', 4 8'` ' 3.9 4.1 :` 2.2 ', n:� !,�-,0.3 Delay (s) 77.4 47.3 33.1 76.0 46.3 53.7 74 2 59.4 45.2 73 2 52.5 49.1 �eve1`of'��S�rvic��; '�� I� �� C �' � �� , � ` �,,°, ` r � ��,� � � � . �..�'��, . , � �,_. �_� �� fl Approach Delay (s) 52.9 51.0 60.1 56.7 AppTOach L{�,�,„,',; ; ` - ' l�; >.. D , ;': °' � ,.�, , � , . K�:r�� , HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.77 Ac�ua�i� �I� �: ngth�,4s} 1�.0 ` ` ' S�m�f l4at �irr�e i8) �'� � �. � -�„22.2- '�� Intersection Capacity Utilization 81.9% ICU Level of Seroice D A�ialys�s; F�nod �i�riri) , �5 �,,. , �, c Critical Lane Group RAYSOR Transportation Consulting , With Improvements to Resolve Background Deficiencies H-3of3 ' Synchro 7 - Light: Report , ' , , ' � � 1 , � � � � � � � � � � APPENDIX I Roadway Segment Analysis Countryside Executive Golf Course Redevelopment PM Peak Hour Roadway Segment Level of Service . .. •... • , r . . . � . ' � � � • •' � . NB 4D D 0 0 1,910 2,000 2,000 1,345 C 0.67 Existing SB 4D D 0 i 0 1,910 2,000 2,000 730 C 0.37 Belcher Road gack NB 4D D 0 0 1,910 2,000 2,000 1,383 C 0.69 Countryside Blvd ground to Main Street SB 4D D 0 0 1,910 2,000 2,000 750 C 0.38 NB 4D D 0 0 1,910I2,000 2,000 1,420 C OJ1 Total SB 4D D 0 i 0 1,910 2,000 2,000 771 C 0.39 EB 4D D 0 0 1,910 2,000 2,000 1,207 C 0.60 Existing WB 6D D 0 0 2,940 i 3,020 3,020 958 C 0.32 Countryside Boulevard Back EB 4D D 0 0 1,910 � 2,000 2,000 1,240 C 0.62 BelcherRoad ground Wg 6D D 0 0 2,940 3,020 3,020 985 C 0.33 to US-19 EB 4D D 0 0 1,910 2,000 2,000 1,276 C 0.64 Total WB 6D D 0 0 2,940 3,020 3,020 1,041 C 0.34 EB 6D D 0 ; 0 2,940 3,020 3,020 1,714 C 0.57 Existing � WB 6D D 0 ' 0 2,940 3,020 3,020 2,270 C OJ5 Main Street Ba�k EB 6D D 0 0 2,940 3,020 3,020 1,762 C 0.58 Belcher Road ground to us-19 WB 6D D 0 0 2,940 3,020 3,020 2,333 C 0.77 EB 6D D 0 j 0 2,940 � 3,020 3,020 1,766 C 0.58 Tota I WB 6D D 0 i 0 2,940 3,020 3,020 2,335 C 0.77 (iJsource: FDOrGeneraUZed service vo�umes (urnan �aD�e uarea lr/1X/1[/. RAYSOR Tronsporfation Consulting I-1 of2 , , ' � ' � �� ' , �_� , � � �� , I � , Generalized Peak Hour Directional Volumes for Florida's TABLE 7 Urbanized Areasl STATE SIGNALIZED ARTERIALS Class I(40 mph ar higher pos[ed speed limit) Lancs Median B C D E 1 Undivided '" 830 880 ** 2 Divided * 1,910 2,000 ** 3 Divided * 2,940 3,020 ** 4 Divided ' 3,970 4,040 *"` Class II(35 mph or slower posted speed Gmit) Lanes Median B C D E 1 Undivided * 370 750 800 2 Divided * 730 1,630 1,700 3 Divided * 1,170 2,520 2,560 4 Divided * 1,610 3,390 3,420 lVon-State Signalized Roadway Adjustments (Altcr corresponding state volumcs by the indicated percent.) Non-Sta[e Signalized Roadways - 10% Median & Turn Lane Adjustments Exclusive Exclusive Adjustment Lanes Median Left Lanes Righ[ Lanes Factors I Divided Yes No +S% 1 Undivided No No -20% Multi Undivided Yes No -5% Multi Undivided No No -25% - - - Yes + 5% One-Way Facilicy Adjustment Multipty the corresponding directional volumes in this table by 1.2 BICYCLE MODEZ (Multiply motorized vehicle volumes shown below by wmber of directional roadway lanes to determine two-way maximum servicc volumes.) Paved Shoulder/Bicycle Lane Covcrage B C D E 0-49% " I50 390 I,000 50-84% 110 340 1,000 >1,000 85-100% 470 I,000 >1,000 *• PEDESTRIAN MODEZ (MulUply motorized vehicle volumes shown below by number of directional roadway lanes to detcrmine two-way maximum service volu n�es J Sidewalk Coverage B C D E 0-49% * * 140 480 50-84% * 80 440 800 85-100% 200 540 880 >1,000 BUS MODE (Scheduled Fized Route)' (Buses in peak hour in peak direction) Sidewalk Coverage B C D E 0-84% > 5 > 4 > 3 > 2 85-100% > 4 > 3 > 2 > 1 I-2of2 FREEWAYS L.anes B C D E 2 2,260 3,020 3,660 3,940 3 3,360 4,580 5,500 6,080 4 4,500 6,080 7,320 8,220 5 5,660 7,680 9,220 10,360 6 7,900 10,320 12,060 12,500 Freeway Adjustments Auxiliary Ramp Lane Metering + ],pp0 + 5% UNINTERRUPTED FLOW HIGHWAYS L,anes Mcdian B C D E l Undivided 420 840 1,190 1,640 2 Divided 1,810 2,560 3,240 3,590 3 Divided 2,720 3,840 4,860 5,380 Uninterrupted Flow Highway Adjustments Lanes Median Exclusive left lanes Adjusanent factors 1 Divided Yes +5% Multi Undivided Yes -5% Multi Undivided No -25% 2012 FDOT QUALITY/LEVEL OF SERVICE HANDBOOK 7ABLES APPENDIX � Site Access Analysis HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Countryside Exec. G.C. Redevelopment 100: Project Driveway 1& Belcher Road PM Peak Hour Total Traffic � � I l� � Sign Control Stop Free Free ��tf , � ` �� ,�� `. � �°��,�� }"� ��`� � �°!a , , ,... ..�.>, � ¢. ,..;, „ ,,.. , Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Pedestrians Walking Speed (ft/s) i ��IJ��.�� , ..H�� d";,. . .., � , Y it .r� �R',e. 5 �`. � � M ��k�t Y u��r,,,, . �? , . . . , sSd. a . . Right turn flare (veh) � � ,. . � �: ��Y�., '' ,.,,,, � Non� : � �:�.. ,__�a��; ;�.. ��. , � . , ,. - � �Y ��. k Median storage veh) �3pstee�i� �tc��al;��}� ......'' :.` �, ; �� , :.� � ; 7�Q .: -�.. `.� �� . � . . , ,,, pX, platoon unblocked 0.91 �S�Y . ,..: �... �� ,:; -i.�� 1 .... ..��.,� , - �".. . , ^ .. .. , �� . .. ,., ,� ,.., ��r. ; ,'y :-�� . . , �u: . . „ ..� . . .,,,, . ., ,;.... , . . .. . . �, , ,,, <. I ; , „ .. .. .. ...a vC1, stage 1 conf vol V�� ,��` � �#n�v�l � r :. ,� �� ;. _ - ;.: '. , .: '. �� - ��.�c �. h�.�.... _ �,... _ _ vCu, unblocked vol 1789 755 1511 t�, Slttg�k�S�� ,' ; �,.< . �'$ °� � 4 � � � . ,,. .. , . . . �'. :; ; :` � ..: _.. tC 2 stage (s) } „ �, �� ' , r ..� k�"� 6 �K,.,,. �.., �� . . _,,, � . �� _;. p0 queue free % � 100 96 100 � �F,�`ro�^"l ,�� , /.r./.. _ _ . , � M � , . �� . � , � , , e � z � .�n 1 H �� :��"i, - ! ..��,� . . ''. '� 3 K .: . „ �. � - ,�w�.2#^3�u4. �,..: ,..,5' , . „ s.s �w.;�:., f... ... _ _ . .. ,�, . . „ , . - . , ., ., z.«,_ _ - � , � ? ; ` dJ �"' .� . X . ' /„ . , Volume Left 0 0 0 0 0 1lotr��;��`ffi: �� I5 - a � � _ � x , , s ��:.. ..., s.:. . ._ ;39, .. ' ... ', cSH 355 1700 1700 1700 1700 � Ifo[��p�r�{Y ; 9:tI4 �� }��.�8 Q �1. .. � �4 4 �4 �� °�� . . .;. d =` Queue Length 95th (ft) 3 0 0 0 0 ��introt,��'. : 9� 6 � t� =,. 'Q.4 ' fl.0 ' t� �1 ;.. : ; � is" . ,_>... �.. �,,.,;� Lane LOS C � A roac �� s „�„ �� R _ a� �!8 'l5 � � �,� �. , ,�� P t�� :: ' ..., .. ; ., � : ,; ,:; .... � �zn�� pp h LOS C ' � � ' Average Delay 0.1 ln�rs�r�. ��?acai�r Utilixati�`.�. '' <; 49.4°� „° . [CU Leve1 �f S"eruic� "'; ; . �: ' A :.: ��, , ; Analysis Period (min) 15 �� `� s�� '' ,. � . . � °: , . , RAYSOR Transportation Consulting � Base Conditions (No Improvements) 1 J-1of3 Synchro 7 - Light: Report ' , ' 1 � �� ' ' ' ' � HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Countryside Exec. G.C. Redevelopment 200: Countryside Blvd & Project Driveway 2 PM Peak Mour Total Tra�c � —. � r� "— � '� T 1' ti. ,� .I Sign Control Free Free Sto Sto > �QQ�o a� a a �r��i �% Q o ... . Q %a .; � .... �i /a .; � w ,�'iM � � _ . �L, «.� , . r . � � Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 �0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93� 0.93 0.93 0.93 :� Ho�r[yflo�?�ra�e,��pk�):�.. �� ,_ ,,,_ 'i3�,��. 13�� ..{}. ...P-�.._(� �tI6��"" �'��, �2 j, .�' '�� `� '�; �� °� ss.:�3fl ��, ��tk�� `�2,6 Pedestrians C»an� Viiic�� '_�� .,. _,.. . . � . _ Walking Speed (ft/s) RerG�i�t^, B[ocka9e �;�� . Right�turn flare (veh) , , M2CiC�lY : ', � � '' f�18� �i� ,�.. , � _ ��l��a Median storage veh) 1 1 ; , ,, „ > �P��`e�� '%�� .. !. , � � � !� ,. . �' �.�: , ,., , ��.,�0� �� ,,. -. . . � , ,�,.. pX platoon unblocked 0 96 0 96 0 96 0.96 0 96 0.96 �t�, ca,n}#I}c,k�nc� uotu,�?�, 4, ;. �°" , ,,; '��19 � '`.:.'��.. ,;..�3�3;,,. ! ,�,; , ,.;,1i�2 `;�a3Q �° 6G7,.:,;...1�3� '�° �54�4„'� 382 vC1, stage 1 confvol 1411 1411 1094 1094 YC2,�.sta��"�c?�f�r�l��. ,;. : , ' � .. . 382. 1"t1� ' r �744 141�:! .. vCu,unblocked vol 964 1333 1668 2439 667 1715 2412 192 tC 2 stage (s) 6.5 5 5 6,5 5.5 tF �s�ry,� ,._�� .. y _ . . . : 2 2 . 3.5 � a.o=% 3:3 3;� 4.t} 3.3 . �. p0 queue free % 94 100 100 100 100 82 100 97 eM.cap��Y �Y��}�� ,...,.' , .,�691. �:. . '' :��4" " '� �S F � 1� . _: 4�6_ " 16�, , .. .: �25 ' �87, ,...s., �. ....� . _. Volume Left 39 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 cSH 691 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 261 � Vt��rra�;t� C�P�ci�y . Q:�� .�7 _=��Z6 � 0 0� - Q 2a:: Q.2� � O.f6.... 0.6Q Q.21 , Queue Length 95th (ft) 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 �o�troi Dela��s�. � �,� ..,..., .14 5, ,. � �# t} ; :, Q t� .. ,;; � a..,.H. : � �:. - �', (3 {�. .: `��, U.4; :,,�'�, 4.Q:.. '�, �22.5 � ��, .., .. . .. ,. �. , . Lane LOS B A C � ' � ' , Approach LOS Average Delay 0.7 Inters�cttp�t �ap�c�iy 11t%tfxaf�nn .; ,'�4:3°lo ICU l.avel; of Seruice ', A Analysis Period (min) 15 RAYSOR Transportation Consulting ' Base Conditions (No Improvements) J-2of3 ' Synchro 7 - Light: Report LJ ' � ' r L� t ' ' ' HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Countryside Exec. G.C. Redevelopment 300: Countryside Blvd & Project Driveway 3 PM Peak Hour Total Traffic � � � � � � Sign Control Free Free Sto �r��e`� , s �,� �. �� . �°� µ�i�1: ct�lo . , � . �7 ��_ . , , Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 H�, ,��',�y ��r rat�; �wp�� . ��s� :� 4 y 137� =`"f f1�5 ° 9 . #� `4 � ., Pedestrians L�n��li'�� f�� .�xT. , Walkin� Speed (ftls) �� , `" ` � , . �: .. �. � �� Right tum flare (veh) . ��i�n.� . . �� .�. , t�ne I�on� _. ,. .. � Median storage veh) _ , . , '..< . '�� , � _ ;,,( ' . . . . , , � .. "jFl sl3 1�1�S��tt�lf�11�� `.;; �. `'" pX, platoon unblocked y� F.. v�, c�t�in��latCls : ,, .,, .. '1�9� ' �775 ' ' 366 , vC1, stage 1 conf vol v�2, sk� 2�fiv�i .�. H. v�o � vCu, unblocked vol 1094 1775 366 , ., , �: ,, . , tG� sirt�ls, (s� � - �;1 6.8 � 9 � . tC 2 stage (s) �x��}-....��..,��'� �'�� a �2 . ;- _''�, . . : � 3.5 ' 33 ., ... «. �- s p0 queue free % 100 100 99 �M,�apact�r.jueh�a� '�' . , ;�� . ` '' . . ; " ' , ;.-�� . . . " 76 fi�7 , �y'' �. .. � . �.�� Volume Left V�um�. f�igi � , ' ' ' � cSH 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 637 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 1 �Con�;�il`1�e1�Y �s} , (�.0, �.4 `"Q.(# : 0.0 � U.0 .1Q.7 Lane LOS B Approach LOS Average Delay 0.0 lr�ters ',� ,.n.��diy�Utili�,a�on �'�� ; 38.8°l0 �� ICU��I�evelof;Servic,� ''��.: �:., � ��` A ��,� ��P � Analysis Period (min) 15 RAYSOR Transportation Consulting � Base Conditions (No Improvements) J-3of3 ' Synchro 7 - Light: Report APPENDIX K Turn Lane Warrant Evaluation ' � i COUNTRYSIDE EXECUTIVE GOLF COURSE REDEVELOPMENT Right-Turn Lane Warrant Evaluation � Drivewav #1 C� Belcher Road Drivewav #2 @ Countrvside PM Right Turn Volume: 37 vph PM Right Turn Volume: 48 vph Warrant Threshold: 125 vph Warrant Threshold: 125 vph ' RESULT »> NOT WARRANTED RESULT »> NOT WARRANTED 7.2 WiiLN �MiOt�LD WE Bt1I#.�i FtIGNT 71JRH U4t+lE� Drivewav #3 C� Countrvside PM Right Turn Volume: 8 vph Warrant Threshold: 125 vph RESULT »> NOT WARRANTED t�rapter 7 Wght 7um Lar� Roadway Pasted Number ot E7thibit 44 SPaed Li►nit l��Ht Tums Rer Hour ItiiC1?14�P.0 d5 mph ar le�s 8d-1�5 tiUIDEI�ATES FbR Ov� 45 rnpt► 95��55 ffiCGI.[Fi4�vB RIGi3'T +May not be apProPriate €or signa#9zr,d lacat%ns wiiere signal. TC7Rl�T I.ADt'L8 `It1 UiVStIGNe4I�ll" Phasing g2ays a:n impo�tani mie 9n cietezmining the need tor DRIYSWAY T�Bitt turn lan�s. i. 'Chc lao+�er thrnshoid af 8o right turn v�hides �er haur woutd l� most t�+i for higher volume {gr4atec than 6oa vehicies per hou�, ger lane in one directian on the �jo� roAdway) or t►va-l�ne roads where IaGeral cnnvement is re�iricted» The �s right: hirn vehides per halr upper threshold woulc� be mast app�+opri�te on tawer volume roaclways, multii�ne higbways, or driveway� w�itt� a targ;g e.ntry radius (�u fert or �ter). z. The lorver threshnld of 3� right turn vehiclrs �er haur woutd be mast appropri�xtely uscd an Irigher wotume nvo- lane roedways wh�ce ta#�ers�l �v�ment is r�esh�t�teil. The �,5 ri�ht turn vehi�3es p�r hour upper threshs�il arot�td I�e most appropriate on lowrr xolu�+ ro�dways„ muitilarae highwnys. or dnvrivnys with targe entry rndius (�o %ei vr �ceatcr?. Nofe: A posied spee�l limit rrf,}5 mph may bc z�sed witih thrse threahnlcls if the opraatfng spee�ts arc kncswn to be aver q�, mph during thc time of peak right tum demand Note em �t�q,�'Ee projectior�s ProJecting t��rn volumes is at beat a knawtedgab{e gluss. Ke+ey this fn mind espr�ally ie the praje�tio� of right tarns are dose to meeting t�e guideJines. tn thak c�se ya�i may wani to reqaire carts[xesetion. Fi�UT Driveway H�Mb�Ck gp K-1of1 Mart9'� 2i�l5 , � ' � ' ' � 1 � � � � � � � � � � APPENDIX L Alternate Access Scenario � , ' ' ' ' C� � � ' , �� ' 1_I ' LI ' ' ' The Alexander at Countryside A/ternate Access Scenario Upon site development, the right-in/right-out project site driveway connection to Countryside Boulevard may be elected to not be constructed. Under this scenario, the other two proposed project site driveway connections would remain, as follows: (1) a right-in/right-out connection to Belcher Road, and (2) a full access connection to Countryside Boulevard, located at an existing median opening. The data and analysis presented in this Appendix documents the implications of eliminating the referenced project site driveway; where it was found that removal of that driveway connection results in no changes to the findings of the traffic study. Specifically, the removal of that driveway connection (a) does not result in any changes to either the off-site intersections, the project site driveway connection to Belcher Road, or the study roadway segments, (b) only marginally increases the traffic vo►umes at the remaining project site driveway connection to Countryside Boulevard, while acceptable operating conditions at that location are still anticipated, and (c) does not result in any changes to the recommended eastbound-to-northbound left-turn lane at the remaining project site driveway connection to Countryside Boulevard. The list below identifies the data and analyses presented in this Appendix. • Revised Traffic Volume Graphics • Revised Operational Analysis for Driveway No. 2(remaining connection to Countryside Blvd) • Revised Turn Lane Warrant Evaluation for Driveway No. 2(remaining connection to Countryside Blvd) L-1 of5 ' , ' ' � ' , ' ' ' ' ' , ' ' ' �I ' ' t..�...,� � � n n.....�.-.T...��... nsn n...., u....., w......,...--'._ inr..�e��e.� L-2of5 r.......� � � n r..�.. nww n�... ��......�r.._..�...v.....'"_.. inr�ne�rr�� L-3of5 ' , t � � , ' HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Countryside Exec. G.C. Redevelopment 200: Countryside Blvd & Project Driveway 2 PM Peak Mour Total Traffic � � � � � � � � � � � � bign C,ontrol Free Free Stop Stop Grade�� iii �.. . . . . � _ . . .:ti�O � . �;. ., ° , �, , a a � �,% � '�� f�/a � °. �; �}�f �,, _ ,,.. . , Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 ,., .., r�ou�,y��,� �+� (��r�� ; ��= f . . �� .� � �� ° � �� . s� ��, � . �� a �� o ��: � � ��o y��; . , � � � �; �a� Pedestrians ��tt� 1�dttt �� _ � ,.. ,, . ,. , ,... . � , ��; Right turn flare (veh) „ Msdtan.�YPe �,„ _ '_ Median storage veh) �1Pstr�a�n s�gr��i;�t} .�: pX, platoon unblocked � vC1 stage 1 conf vol uC��stag� ��n�,��iJ '� ' 1411 1411 1089 1089 , : ,,,..x. . ..�. �_.. .. vCu, unblocked vol 1119 1333 1794 2530 667 1833 2500 383 ',�4.1 tG� s�ngle,{57 �. ...� �.... ..,.�_ ,. �:� 1 ,.: ; ,.. °: .., . �..� ..:. ' �,�: :, � � " 7 � , � �� i �- '�� ` �' �.� �.: . .:.9.x �. �,.,, , , , . » _ 6.5 5.5. 6.5 5.5 tC, 2 sta e s _,. w. ,:,.. _ . _ � p0 queue free % 94 100 100 100 100 80 100 95 _ __ . � �-.�-� , ,__ �.� �. � Volume Left 39 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 �� Volu.fne �ttght ; j �,;.. ` �,r: � � U � ��; U ` D "� 6Q . :.. 0 _: '� �3U " � ,,.. , cSH 631 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 239 � 1lolume f� Ca��ei�+ ' Q�(�� '(��26 �� Q4 � � �.2� .� 25 '�#.16 � " :0.��` � ,., 0.25 ��, Queue Len�th 95th (ft) 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 �_Wa�, �,.��... �_� : �. _ _ _. _ ' l_� ' � ' Lane LOS B q..;.. D.. Approach�AelaY<��} ,. ; � ' ,� ,.0'.3 ;,� . , �: q � : y f „�. �� , ; �: „ � . �� A.0 . ,. �5 � -�� ; '� s,.,. Approach LOS A D Average Delay p,g Period (min) 15 RAYSOR Transportation Consulting � WITHOUT PROJECT DRIVEWAY #3 ' L-4of5 Synchro 7 - Light: Report COUNTRYSIDE EXECUTIVE GOLF COURSE REDEVELOPMENT Right-Turn Lane Warrant Evaluation Drivewav #2 Ca� Countrvside (without drivewav #3) PM Right Turn Volume: 56 vph Warrant Threshold: 125 vph RESULT »> NOT WARRANTED �aP�� fi Right Tum La�s 7.� WH�N 5H0�!i.D W� �tJli,p RiCH'T TURN LIRNES'� Raadway Postird Number at �atbik�t q� Speed LIm7# Right 1'urna Fer Hour RHGOIKM.��A 45 mph or 4es� 80•1 x5 GUIDF.I�+iF.3 Ft>R Over 46 mP� 35��55 EXCLUSIVE RIGI3T «Ma not be a `CClitl!�T%A1�T�'.STO Y PP�Friake for signalized lot�tians rvhex� �ignal Ci1V�IGNAII7.�U` Ahasing giays an important rote xn determining the neeci i'or AI�tIVE4VAY nBht turn ianct�.. �. The taw�r thr�eshald of 8o nght Cuen veh:idrs per haur would b� mast used fnr higher vr�Eume {grcater tftan 6ao vehicles per hour, per lane in one d'u+eetion an the major r�nadww�y) or twatane ro�ds whes�e lateru�l cntsvem�nt is r�ricteci. The �2,y dght tum vehides per haue up�aer thresitald kronld t�e �nost aRPco{�riate aa iawe�� voleime roadways, multilane ki�t�wtrya, or driveaays wiih a targr. entry radtus ((,yci ferE nrgreater). a. Thc la»er thr�esh+�id af 3S righC tirrn vehicles � r hnur uro��id be mnst apyrapriatc)y us�cfi on bigher vatume tws�- tane �adways whece laternl moc��ment is restrieted. The � right:hirn vehirtes per hour uptma'thres9zold would be moat �ppropriate on lbwec votume ro�rdweys, multifane highwpysfl or dric^easmys wifh 1'ar�e etriry radius �� eei vr gre�ker?. IVoie: A posied speed limit nf � mph may be useci wtth the�e thresholds if the a�mting speects �re knpwn fo be aver q� mph doring the time of penk right turn demand: Notu o� Tirq„Q�i'� pruli�rfioresr ProjecNng nim volumes is at best a knawlettgable guess, Keep this in msnd �specialiy if the projectians o[ right tErrn� an: dose to [�et9ng the guir��l[ne5. in chak case yr��t may want t� reqc�ire cans[nertiun. FDt7T [h9�way HarxlbuDk gp Martfi 2005 L-5of5