HomeMy WebLinkAboutDevelopment of Regional Impact - Lake Lotta Mall DRI #694-04 April, 1994 ____ ____ Lake Lotta
Mall
DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT
DRI # 694-04
11:411:k A April , 1994
LAKE LOTTA MALL
1. Applicant Information 1
A. Evaluation Guidelines 1
B. Distribution List 2
C. Summary of Regional Issues 3
D. Applicant Information 4
II. Project Background and Description 5
A. Project Location 5
B. Project Description 5
III. Natural Resources 9
A. Vegetation and Wildlife 9
B. Wetlands 13
C. Groundwater 13
D. Air Quality 14
IV. Public Facilities 16
A. Water Supply 16
B. Wastewater Management 18
V. Housing 20
A. Housing Demand 20
B. Housing Supply 21
C. Conclusion 22
VI. Transportation 22
A. Operational Levels of Service 24
B. Existing Conditions 24
C. Future Traffic Growth 25
D. Assumptions 25
E. Future Traffic Conditions 31
F. Issues 33
G. Conclusion 40
VII. Recommendations R-1
i
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Location Map 6
Figure 2 Master Plan 7
Figure 3 Existing Land Use/Vegetation Map 10
Figure 4 Housing Supply Area 23
Figure 5 Existing Conditions (1993) 26
Figure 6 Percent Project Trip Distribution for Phase I (1997) 32
Figure 7 Peak Hour Levels of Service at Buildout (2000) 34
ii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Summary of Regional Issues Considered in the Evaluation
of the Lake Lotta Mall DRI 3
Table 2 Development Program and Phasing 8
Table 3 Summary of Proposed Development Program 27
Table 4 Trip Generation Formulas 27
Table 5 Summary of PM Peak-Hour Trip Generation, Year 1997 28
Table 6 Summary of PM Peak-Hour Trip Generation, Year 2000 28
Table 7 Planned and Programmed Roadway Improvements 30
•
iii
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A Outside Correspondence Art
Appendix B Comprehensive Regional Policy Plan B-1
iv
I. APPLICANT INFORMATION AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This report is prepared in accordance with the Florida Land and Water Management Act,
Chapter 380, Florida Statutes (FS). The report presents the findings and recommendations of the
East Central Florida Regional Planning Council which are based upon data presented in the
Development of Regional Impact (DRI) application as well as upon information obtained from
on-site inspections, local and state agencies, outside sources and comparisons with local and
regional plans. Policies cited in this report are from the Council's adopted policy document, the
East Central Florida Comprehensive Regional Policy Plan (CRPP).
A. Evaluation Guidelines
This DRI proposal was reviewed pursuant to the criteria of Chapter 380, Florida Statutes,
specifically paragraphs 380.06 (12)(a) 1, 2 and 3 which require the regional planning council to
consider whether, and to extent which, the development will:
1. have a favorable or unfavorable impact on state or regional resources or facilities
identified in the applicable state or regional plans;
2. significantly impact adjacent jurisdictions; and
3. have a favorable or adverse affect on the ability of people to find adequate
housing reasonably accessible to their [laces of employment.
The policies of the Comprehensive Regional Policy Plan (CRPP), section 29F-19.001
FAC, were used to evaluate these issues to the extent that the Plan addresses the specific issues
of concern. All policies of the Plan were available for consultation during this review, although
only the more relevant may be specifically referenced in this report. Policies were applied in a
balanced fashion, rather than having any one policy outweighing all others, and were interpreted
1
so as to further the Plan's primary planning principles of:
1. Expansion of the economic and tax base of the region, including the
necessary infrastructure;
2. Protection of significant natural areas, especially those of exceptional
ecological value;
3. Promotion of the general health, safety and welfare of the region's
residents and visitors; and
4. Direction of growth into identified urban areas. (29F-19.001, N, a, Plan
Interpretation, FAC)
B. Distribution List
1. City of Ocoee
2. Orange County Planning Department
3. Department of Environmental Protection
4. Florida Game & Fresh Water Fish Commission
5. Florida Department of Transportation
6. Orlando/Orange County Expressway Authority
7. Department of Community Affairs
8. Orange County Public Library
4
9. Orange County Environmental Protection Department
10. Florida Natural Areas Inventory
11. Central Florida Sierra Club
12. LYNX
13. Orange County Public Works
14. Florida Department of Environmental Protection
15. City of Orlando
16. Division of Historical Resources
17. St. Johns River Water Management District
This report is prepared in accordance with the Florida Land and Water Management Act, Chapter
380, Florida Statutes (FS). The report presents the findings and recommendations of the East
Central Florida Regional Planning Council based upon data presented in the Development of
Regional Impact(DRI)application as well as upon information obtained from on-site inspections,
local and state agencies, outside sources and comparisons with local and regional plans. Policies
cited in this report are from the Council's adopted policy document, East Central Florida
Comprehensive Regional Policy Plan (CRPP).
2
C. Summary of Regional Issues
' TABLE 1
Summary of Regional Issues Considered in the
Evaluation of the Lake Lotta Mall DRI*
REGIONALLY
SIGNIFICANT
REGIONAL ISSUE IMPACT
Environment
A air quality no
Natural Resources
A soils no
A wetlands no
A floodplains no
A vegetation/wildlife yes
Water Resources
A future conditions yes
A proposed surface drainage/
stormwater management system yes
Public Facilities
A sewage treatment/wastewater
management yes
A water supply no
A recreation and open space no
A hazardous waste no
A schools no
Transportation
A available roadway capacity yes
A impacts to surrounding network yes
Housing
A housing availability yes
*Note:This table provides a summary of regional issues common in DRI reviews and indicates those for which an unmitigated impact has been
identified and a condition of approval recommended. Supporting information is provided in the text which follows. The table is not a statement
of Council policy,but rather indicates the significance of a given issue when related specifically to the Lake Lotta Mall DRI Application.
3
D. Applicant Information
Project Name: Lake Lotta Mall
Applicant/
Authorized Agent: Mr. Jack Oliaro
Homart Development Company
3500 Piedmont Road, N.E., Suite 529
Atlanta, GA 30305
(404) 431-0126
DRI
Consultant: Glatting Jackson Kercher Anglin
Lopez Rinehart, Inc.
33 East Pine Street
Orlando, FL 32801
(407) 843-6552
Bill Kercher
John Moore
Date of
Application: August, 1993
ECFRPC Hearing: April 20, 1994
Government of
Jurisdiction: City of Ocoee
4
II. PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION
A. Project Location
Lake Lotta Mall is a 130 acre development located east of Clarke Road, north of
SR 50 (West Colonial Drive) and south of White Road in the City of Ocoee. Lands to
the east of the mall property and the adjoining Lake Lotta Center property and south of
SR 50 are located within unincorporated Orange County.
Primary access is proposed from Clarke Road, SR 50 and Good Homes Road.
Clarke Road is a newly constructed divided highway which terminates directly into the
western end of the East-West Expressway at its interchange with State Road 50. Good
Homes Road is located to the east of the site and functions more as a collector for nearby
Orange County residential neighborhoods. The mall property does not extend to Good
Homes Road, however access across the adjacent Lake Lotta Center property has been
arranged to make this connection. The Location Map is presented as Figure 1.
B. Project Description
The Lake Lotta Mall DRI will be a commercial activity center including a regional
mall combined with peripheral commercial and retail uses which may include a movie
theater, an auto service/gasoline sales center and up to 7,500 to 8,500 parking spaces
(based on current City Code). The application indicates that the mall project will serve
a trade area of approximately 305 square miles extending from the SR 50/US 441
intersection westward to the SR 19/SR 50 intersection west of Clermont in Lake County
and north to north of Lake Apopka and south to about five miles south of SR 50. The
mall master plan is presented in Figure 2. The phasing plan is shown in the following
table (Table 2).
5
FIGURE 1
u u
E c
IZt O C '* N C
ea , . u 1,-, U
C m C c
Q ` I NU N Y is Q. a
g c $1Jy 1i; I3
Ua ilk 0 O$` o0 iii Q Z
• 4 C 3• V L L. 0
o
r r r r r r r -J IIr i
Fp" •.......b...........ar ) L..\.I.
me
... p R
6 Y I
S Gb
/ % �:j,
Q . 1 g~
.. .moi
,ti ir
.t o ,rtrj, \, —'.." —Y
D }
��
/ .1. 2:0 411 I lie r
1
b
gligh.---=
..on A'' '''''-\\ ***''' —
c
A 4l4
o ' u
;:t;
.n �® l( n
.H.,,
a _I,
1Ili aSP ,,,
gi tS �4 s'
iiU
N
6
FIGURE 2
d is
CZ
s v: 4 V y
o
o
� `l wU y
ca 2 i c
: Y a u O `
us
bill
YYQE �a•
at Ou_ O > ili.9cI'
40. IIUIIIU A hIiI d S 3;1!,' 63g $
a �W 7C3• rrrrrr < i�e
--11F(` 1 I in---7-----.T) i 0 . 1 1, ,,, .,, ,,,, , .. „._, F. 2 I ,w I s a
! !a
s.
w _ iI I1 I I
oz r5 IT1 , i1_ i
. - L__
z 6
a b r_, ,`f j / j !)1 Ir -:-�
CC
s ' Ix •- 1 I � 1
,
1
Y , I '
1 1 ,I I ,
• - =_-___fir--——- --_— =-t I 1
r- .. i`.
- ---�� ► I
li , 1.
1.
—1- - rr------{
My'S '
i I h i. A -,..Vii-,;;;.;
y 9+�L I 11 O
\ -sM lti.' h4;.
1 y C
' `; tet
- "L_ -----J Y
/ L� - - ,iw�Mda3 pMA- p
T---------- I r :_.
.,
,,,,
ti
� L_____--------J I r ti
Ii
7
TABLE 2
Development Program and Phasing
Lake Lotta Mall
PHASE
One (1997) Retail Mall 1,100,000 GSF
Peripheral Retail 100,000 GSF
Two (2000) Retail Mall 150,000 GSF
Peripheral Retail 150,000 GSF
TOTAL RETAIL 1,500,000 GSF
8
The Lake Lotta Center and Lake Lotta Mall sites were recently part of the same
development approved by the City of Ocoee in 1988 as the Lake Lotta P.U.D. Although
the site has been divided into two separate DRI's, it is the position of the Florida
Department of Community Affairs that development is sufficiently interdependent as to
call for certain impacts from the two projects to be considered together. Therefore, the
areas of traffic, air, housing and environmental issues were evaluated cumulatively with
each project jointly responsible for addressing identified concerns in these areas.
III. NATURAL RESOURCES
A. Vegetation and Wildlife
The Vegetation Map is presented as Figure 3. The site is characterized by a
gently rolling topography ranging in elevation from 90 feet at the Lake Lotta lake to 160
feet in the northern portions of the site. Soil types range from moderately to excessively
well drained for all areas, exclusive of the lake fringe. Historically, most of the site had
been active citrus grove. Grove activities were abandoned in recent years and the land
planted with pines. Today, vegetative types are classified as live oak hammock (29.12
acres) or coniferous plantation (planted pine) (100.83 acres). The planted pine areas
consist of slash pine and have been further divided into 95.4 acres of pines that are less
than 10 years old and 5.43 acres which are older. A small depression has been dug in
the pine area of less than 0.1 acres in size. It contains standing water during parts of the
year and represents a fourth distinct cover type.
9
IZZ
q
FIGURE 3
CHIJ m ,.CV/o Cd°' E S .
as - 0 Eo
C. O
ua ocr c c' ao R,N 4r
OQ uiniit
. .8 .b PLITI o oqx 2'2 o Ou ao 2 , C7U� $
r r r r r r r W > 3
Ill 1
s
Il I Ig
rgy ISI I •
V _ € S 4
a ISI
I m o5 E th e
s
3 E2 Uf, 1
o "OY="''`°i2 " fl r — fir.<�
e g; , ( I : T'.. ..\----" •
d
, d �� �� A It 1
W d �� �
I Ir. I Imo'.
1
J
0
� ) " � •
CV
� r I � III N.
kilgic.,,,,„ SII s •
N 1rI �_ .t_ /'1_ 'I—i_i i _-_-__, ,I I�
CV
N I ln
i a
a I -f
-) Ica
IN
a I 1 N a r) N
. I a v
a a
A a
F I a N n
Kr O No
a—L a
r ,
n
7
Qa.
dd
r
p.mei
1 tii
/ 3,,,,‘ N.
,�_ [II
a _ ,o
Ptl+Val, ...00.....°
c
i
\ _J c
Et
J
1
10
The live oak areas consist predominantly of mature live oak trees. These areas,
and other portions of the site, have been used for illicite dumping and by all-terrain
vehicles and have created some open areas and otherwise kept portions in a disturbed
state. At the edges and in openings of the hammocks some sand pine has become
established along with invasive species. Most of the planted pine areas still have open
canopies due to the young age of the pines present. These areas retain many of the
characteristics of an old field community with pioneering plant species becoming
established. The older pine areas were densely planted and have not been significantly
thinned, resulting in a thick canopy and very little under-story.
The ECFRPC recognizes plants listed by the Florida Natural Areas Inventory as
S 1 or S2 and those listed by the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission
(Regional Issue 44) as being species in need of special protection. The FGFWFC
currently has no plants listed. (The Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer
Services also lists plants of concern that are recognized by the ECFRPC, however this list
include plants which are being commercially exploited or are of concern for other
purposes and so is not as applicable to habitat loss and land development considerations
as FNAI's.) As the site is well drained and somewhat open, particular attention was
given to listed plants needing upland or scrub-type conditions. None were found.
In its opinion on the DRI proposal, the Florida Department of Community Affairs
questioned the possible presence of three plants, Centrosema arenicola (Sand butterfly
pea, S2S3), Persea humilis (Scrub bay, S3) and Rhynchosia cinera (Brown-haired
snoutbean, S3) (see their letter, Appendix A). Of these three, the plant with the most
11
significant status is the butterfly pea. A literature search done for the ECFRPC's 1989
Guide to Listed Species in the East Central Florida Region indicated that this plant may
be found in Lake County. There were no reports at that time from Orange County. As
the plant prefers pine lands and open clearings there may be an opportunity for it to exist
on site, however it is unlikely. The very closely related and more common Centrosema
virginianum was not reported from the site. Given its marginal status and unlikely
occurrence, this is not seen as an outstanding issue.
The animal species of primary concern on the site is the gopher tortoise, a state
Species of Special Concern. From the wildlife surveys conducted on-site by the
applicant, the site contains 97.67 acres of high density valuable habitat ( 0.8 tortoises
per acre) and 26.85 acres of lower quality habitat (0.2 tortoises per acre) for this species.
All of this habitat will be lost to site development.
As compensation, the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission
recommends that the applicant contribute sufficient funds to purchase and manage 26.43
acres of gopher tortoise habitat, pursuant to state guidelines (25% of the 96.67 acres of
valuable and 7.5% of the 26.85 acres of low density habitat being lost). This response
is consistent with adopted regional policy. State guidelines also allow for relocation of
the tortoises according to stringent criteria. Although the applicant prefers this option,
the biological and management drawbacks of relocation are significant and generally
make it a poor choice. On site protection is not supported as a viable area could not be
accommodated within the urban setting that the applicant's plans would create.
12 •
B. Wetlands
There are no wetlands on the project site of regional significance.
C. Groundwater
Three aquifers underlie the Lake Lotta Mall site. The topmost aquifer is a
surficial aquifer that consists of undifferentiated layers of sand with some silt and clay
tines. This aquifer is fairly permeable. Beneath the surficial aquifer is the Hawthorn
formation -- this formation, which includes clay, clayey sands, phosphate, and limestone,
generally can be found between 75 and 125 feet below ground surface in this area. It
represents a confining layer due to the low permeability of its clay component. Below
the surficial aquifer is the Floridan Aquifer. Most public supply water wells in East
Central Florida tap into the Floridan. The top of the aquifer is comprised of Eocene age
limestone, and can normally be found between 125 and 200 feet below ground surface.
The area in which the Lake Lotta Mall is proposed is considered to be an area of
high recharge. To help maintain high recharge, the applicant will meet St. Johns River
Water Management District stormwater management criteria applicable to the site
requiring that the post-development discharge volume not exceed the pre-development
discharge volume for the 25-year, 96-hour storm, and that three inches of runoff from
directly connected impervious areas be retained and percolated on the site.
Areas of high recharge are often characterized by a Hawthorn formation that is
either thin or nonexistent. This means that groundwater can flow relatively unimpeded
from surface water features which drain the site to the Floridan Aquifer. Consequently,
it is important that the developer ensure that retention/detention structures adequately treat
stormwater runoff.
•
13
I). Air Quality
1. Existing Conditions
Existing air quality conditions in the area of the Lake Lotta Mall site are
considered to be typical of suburban Orange County. As the primary source of
air pollutants in the area is automotive activity, localized areas of concern can be
expected at areas of congestion along the major roadways. Estimating carbon
monoxide concentrations from automotive sources is a good means of locating
these specific areas and is required especially of intersections expected to
experience levels of service of E or below.
Of more regional concern are increases in area ozone levels. While carbon
monoxide loadings can easily be assigned to fairly specific sources such as a line
of cars or a congested intersection, ozone is a pollutant that is created in the
atmosphere from a series of reactions between pollutants and sunlight and so is
indicative of a more widespread problem. As such, it is difficult to single out one
area of automobile concentrations as a major contributor toward the ozone
problem. A development that is located outside of existing urban centers will rely
heavily on automobile traffic to move its residents and commuters, but presently
it cannot be said to what degree such a development affects the regional ozone
problem. The University of Central Florida is working on an ozone model of the
Orlando metropolitan area that will aid in such an evaluation, but it was not
available for this review. The best available analysis of traffic impacts on air,
which was used in the review of the Lake Lotta projects, relies on carbon
monoxide as an indicator of air quality problems.
14
2. Development ProposalAssessment
It is expected that the primary impacts to air quality from the Lake Lotta
projects will result from motor vehicles traveling to and from the site. No
• stationary sources of air pollution are proposed for the site. During construction,
there is a potential for dust to be dispersed, however, this can be controlled by
limiting the extent of soil exposed at any one time and by using dust control
measures on those areas which are exposed. The applicant has proposed measures
to control dust.
The most significant and long term source of air pollution coming from
this project will be the emissions from automotive traffic associated with it and
increased emissions from background traffic that must spend more time idling or
more frequently changing speeds as a result of increased highway traffic. The
ADA examined expected carbon monoxide levels at 7 intersections projected to
be operating at level of service E or F in the year 2000.
• Carbon monoxide standards were not predicted to be exceeded at any
location, the intersection of SR 50 and Kirkman Road showing the highest level
for the worst case eight hour period at 5.3 parts per million (ppm) versus a
standard of 9.0 ppm). There is some concern that traffic modeling did not
adequately assess future traffic conditions on the highway system. While a new
traffic analysis may show future congestion to be worse than originally thought,
conditions would have to worsen very substantially for 8 hour levels to exceed
• applicable air quality standards.
3. Conclusion
15
Even when considered cumulatively, traffic generated by the Lake Lotta
projects is not expected to cause local air quality problems, although it is difficult
to reliably predict intersection conditions far into the future. Lake Lotta traffic
can be expected to contribute to ozone production in the Orlando metropolitan
area, although this impact cannot be quantified with the existing knowledge about
Orlando ozone production and is prohibitively expensive to assess for a single
project. Such an issue can be best addressed through area-wide solutions
implemented generally by local governments. No specific recommendation for air
quality for the Lake Lotta Mall project is offered. Measures to improve
transportation movements, discussed elsewhere, will have the most meaningful
project specific results for the air resource.
IV. PUBLIC FACILITIES
A. Water Supply
•
1. Existing Conditions
The Lake Lotta Mall site lies within the City of Ocoee and its Water
Service Area as defined by agreement with Orange County. No water wells are
known to exist on the site.
2. Development Proposal
The total water demand for the project is 194,000 gallons per day (gpd),
as projected by the applicant. This is broken out as 94,000 gpd for potable water
and 100,000 gpd for non-potable water.
The applicant provided potable water demand projections for the mall
building based on data from the Pembroke Lakes Mall in south Florida. The
16
demand projection for freestanding retail space was based on rates from central
Florida. Using these factors, the applicant has estimated that the Lake Lotta Mall
project will require 94,000 gallons per day of potable water. Potable water will
be provided by the City of Ocoee. The property owner has purchased water
capacity for the mall.
The non-potable water demand has been estimated to be 100,000 gallons
per day. This water would all be used for irrigation. The non-potable water
demand was determined by assuming that 20% of the land would need to be
irrigated at an application rate of one inch per week. Non-potable water will be
obtained from new on-site wells. The applicant anticipates that the wells needed
to supply this water will be 4" in diameter, and be 600 to 700 feet deep. The
applicant has stated that connecting to reuse lines would be considered if treated
wastewater were to be made available to the site.
The applicant has stated a willingness to commit to the use of xeriscaping
in the project. Specifically, water conserving plants will be used, and the
irrigation system will be designed to be efficient. In addition, water saving
devices will be incorporated into the development program, including shut-off
controlled lavatory facilities in all restrooms. These actions will help to lessen the
water demands of the project.
3. Issue and Recommended Solution
The applicant used potable water demand factors much lower than those
normally found in DRI-level projects in this region. While the potable water
demand for retail space is typically estimated at about 12 gallons per day per 100
17
square feet, the applicant used factors of 4 gpd for mall department stores and 8.1
gpd for other mall tenants. Even if all retail space in the project used the 12 gpd
factor, the potable water demand for the project would be only 86,000 gpd more.
This additional amount does not take into account the 10% savings expected by
the applicant due to the use of water saving devices. The potable water demand
would still be much less than the amount of unused capacity available from the
City of Ocoee. The potential underestimation of the potable water demand is not
large enough to be judged as regionally significant.
The area surrounding the Lake Lotta Mall site does not presently have a
wastewater reuse system. This project (or even the combination of this project
and Lake Lotta Center) does not justify the creation of a new wastewater reuse
system or the extension of existing treated wastewater reuse lines to the site.
However, it is possible that reuse lines will be constructed in the future. If such
lines are constructed to the site, the project should cease using on-site wells and
begin using the wastewater effluent to supply the project's irrigation needs. By
using reuse water,less water will be withdrawn from the Floridan Aquifer,thereby
conserving water supplies in this portion of Orange County. Additional sources
of non-potable water,including treated stormwater and the surficial aquifer, should
also be investigated prior to drilling wells into the Floridan Aquifer. A
recommendation to this effect is included in the recommendation section of the
report.
13. Wastewater Management
1. Existing Conditions
18
The Lake Lotta Mall property is located within the City of Ocoee and its
Wastewater Service Area as defined by an agreement with Orange County.
2. Development Proposal
• The applicant has projected the project's wastewater generation to be
80,000 gallons per day at project buildout. This wastewater generation estimate
was made using factors derived from the existing Pembroke Pines Mall. The
amount of wastewater generated works out to 5.3 gallons per 100 square feet of
gross leasable area. All wastewater is expected to be domestic strength waste.
Wastewater treatment and disposal services will be provided by the City
of Ocoee. Wastewater treatment capacity that can serve the Lake Lotta Mall
property has been reserved by the property owner.
3. Analysis
The applicant's use of 5.3 gallons per day per 100 square feet of gross
leasable area is much lower than factors commonly associated with retail space
• in developments of regional impact and comprehensive plans. A more typical
factor would be about 10 to 12 gallons per 100 square feet. Even at these levels,
the amount of wastewater generated by the project would not be expected to
exceed 180,000 gallons per day (100,000 gpd more than the applicant's estimate).
This amount would still be well under the amount of unused capacity at the City
of Ocoee's wastewater treatment plant. There should be no problems in ensuring
adequate treatment and disposal for the project's wastewater, even if 180,000 gpd
needs to be treated.
• 19
V. HOUSING
The Lake Lotta Mall and Lake Lotta Center applications were reviewed to determine the
projects' impacts on the ability of project employees to find housing within a reasonable
distance of the sites (i.e. within a 10 mile or 20 minute commute, whichever is the lesser
distance).
A. Housing Demand
The Lake Lotta Mall is expected to employ 2462 retail trade employees, 2000
during Phase l and 462 during Phase 2. The average annual wage of these employees
is $15,184, according to the Florida Department of Labor. Using the 1992 RPC Housing
Demand, Supply and Need Methodology, the applicant estimated the demand for
affordable housing to be:
Very low income units 97
Low income units 351
In the first round of sufficiency questions, staff requested that the applicant use
the average annual wages by Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code rather than the
threshold for very low, low and moderate income in calculating incomes for single and
multi-worker households. Using the thresholds rather than the SIC income data from the
Department of Labor results in an overestimation of income. An additional problem with
the demand calculations is the income distribution contained in Exhibit 10-2, which
appears to be too high. In recalculating this distribution, and in using the estimated
income from this distribution rather than the thresholds to estimate household income,
staff arrived at the following demand estimates:
Very low income units 258
20
Low income units 280
Lake Lotta Center is expected to employ 856 retail trade employees. The Lake
Lotta Center demand figures appear to be appropriate. These figures are as follows:
Very low income units 84
Low income units 104
The cumulative demand for both projects is:
Very low income units 342
Low income units 384
B. Housing Supply
The applicant for Lake Lotta Mall also used the May 1992 ECFRPC methodology
to estimate housing supply. This methodology requires that an assessment be made of
available affordable housing reasonably proximate to the project site. However, there
appear to be several problems with the application of that methodology.
The applicant used vacancy data from the 1990 U.S. Census of Population and
Housing to illustrate that an adequate number of affordable units were available proximate
to the project site. However, this vacancy data is not cost-sensitive, and therefore may
not accurately illustrate the supply of available affordable housing. (For example, in
Orange County vacancy rates increased between 1980 and 1990; however, the rate of
overcrowding and severe overcrowding also increased. If vacant units are unaffordable,
they will remain unoccupied while low and very low income households continue to
crowd into inappropriately small but more affordable units. So it is entirely possible for
an area to show increasing vacancy rates while simultaneously experiencing an increasing
affordable housing shortage.) In addition, this data is over three years old, and thus its
21
relevance is questionable, although at the time of this study it was acceptable.
In addition, the supply area appears to be considerably larger than ten miles. The
study area follows a path along S.R. 50 west to Clermont and beyond, for a total of about
23 miles from the site. The supply area also appears to extend about 14 miles to the
north. These areas are not considered proximate to the project site (see Figure 4).
The applicant for Lake Lotta Center did not complete a supply study. The reason
given for this was that adequate affordable housing would be provided on-site to meet the
project's housing demand. Although this commitment was later withdrawn, no supply
study was done. Thus, the Lake Lotta Mall supply figures have been considered to
represent supply for both projects.
C. Conclusion
Lake Lotta Mall and Lake Lotta Center will create a demand for 342 very low
income units and 384 low income units proximate to the project site. According to the
applicant's housing survey, there are approximately 346 very low income units and
approximately 662 low income units available within the housing supply area of the
project.
While there appears to be an adequate supply to meet the demand for the very low
and low income employee households, problems with the application of the methodology
for estimating supply cast doubt on the accuracy of the supply estimates.
VI. TRANSPORTATION
The transportation analysis for both DRI's, the Lake Lotta Center and the Lake Lotta Mall,
was accomplished as one, and the impacts for the combined traffic were reviewed as per the
approved methodology. No separate analysis was accomplished, except that the trip
22
FIGURE 4 HOUSING SUPPLY AREA
O'. CD y 111 • L - .IS IIMM oq ' 4 Leo L..-. • . N
; ,•E• I '' Al
• 111$4111
el
• O • 4/611;1:... se
0 4,0% _ Pie,
. , z .0.ain: ,.,�fss 0. r11N\ Y
,�, • cJ ilarerg .�'ke.. ..YN.0.A
ivit F- •,... va,„..,40NM
'Ailimin .n -�Z , :211 F
- • •• Q
1
li :- 11 „.w .6- r •66,
ntigni k `` 1e „Ile,
Oil ^YMaYvn . Kr �...��Q 0e.O • i
'jP..V t. c':1 S 0 4;
�, i'•"3",...' o z /�I�t� �► Imo' v a
V 111 Y 1! Or, O iir oY iAlo i iielli.i i u .0:4, ‘="4-
®• s .n. •�`• � •
•Z �.,,, AA : • ..1� . ��
Y ry. ,•< �!�f 0 Y • �o 641 *IP
W •iaYnt 'r ig
so i.
11.
ah,- *
ii. 49-q, p 0. ii su . a . Alai• -1 l'IN- W •0 0. °:Tha ( AV� f ..
0. Jll 2— ''' 13" 1
Y.r.R ' .> it
Q OY O1NlYY. O N1nOy.A l.' � • .
0
b.Wiii /PP t44,0.:4„ . ,,,
.:.
i ..... .. . ,
4.
N/ q 04 oY 1
W[] �� no,.nr e
. A
—
1 1P11119111:‘1111111111"41111. .
r
›.4 .,111
Ala
-9 �.
f•
QNY!
O '
11r a . F 1 - c . ' �3I V7
ilismil& 111-1 P--
< •
:00„.
_,,,„ .
•
0 -,,.1::1 14'4 0Alairdigril 49
M V
(44 kir ,...-----"•-•..... --;
„,k' W _. 11 "Amp,
• f Qa� �i vg i; Q
VO
N011.11-411:112:
•Y ew
y I Jo • T 14404
: zF �� -
1—"r6
:1
.x .
m a '
` ��� Y,'.n,�
irs..
,, , .2 ....,
0.... -,i-
3 CC CO .4
x 0
ga` ew • 23
-.4 '021113)1[/7
77fs p — IJP F — —
,_
O _
o 1fl p V w
generation characteristics were shown separately so that they could be verified before
combining them and ascertaining the resulting roadway impacts.
A. Operational Levels of Service (LOS)
Six levels of service are defined in the Highway Capacity Manual. They are labeled
A through F and are described as follows:
A - Free flow with low volume, high speed and unrestricted maneuverability.
B - Stable flow with speed somewhat restricted by traffic and maneuverability
relatively unrestricted. Lower limit of this level associated with rural
highway design.
C - Stable flow with restrictions on speed and maneuverability. Generally
accepted level of design for urban highways.
D - Approaching unstable flow with tolerable operating speeds and little freedom
to maneuver.
E - Unstable flow with operating speeds below level D and momentary stoppages.
F - Forced flow at low speeds with stoppages of possibly long duration.
13. Existing Conditions
Existing conditions are displayed in Figure 5. According to the applicant's analysis,
unacceptable conditions exist on the following facilities:
1. Roadways
* SR 50 from Pine Hills Road to John Young Parkway •
* Apopka Vineland Road from Silver Star Road to Clarcona Ocoee Road
* Powers Drive from Silver Star Road to Clarcona Ocoee Road
2. Intersections
* Old Winter Garden Road and Hiawassee Road
* SR 50 and Pine Hills Road
* SR 50 and Kirkman Road
* SR 50 and Hiawassee Road
24
C. Future Traffic Growth
Future traffic is comprised of project traffic and background, or ambient traffic
growth. Project traffic was derived from the trip generation rates from the Institute of
. Transportation Engineer's Trip Generation manual, and these rates along with the project's
development program, are displayed in Tables 3 through 6.
Ambient traffic growth was developed through the use of the Orlando Urban Area
Transportation Study (OUATS) data, as changed by the applicant per the agreed
methodology. The first modification: the socioeconomic data for the areas within the city
limits of Ocoee were modified to reflect the City's revised land use configurations for the
year 1997. While the land use totals did not go up or down, the city redistributed the land
uses within their bounds only. The second change was to manipulate the data by
interpolating the data in OUAS to develop socioeconomic data for the phase years, 1997 and
2000, from the years in OUATS, 1985 and 2010. This interpolated and redistributed land
use was incorporated into the socioeconomic data input and used in the transportation model
for developing traffic loadings for the 1997 and 2000 phase years.
According to the model output, the 1997 traffic volumes with project traffic, were
lower on 35 of the 98 roadway sections than existing 1993 volumes. Where this was the
case, the applicant added 6% to these volumes to account for additional background traffic.
This factor is discussed under issue d. Roadway Volumes.
D. Assumptions
The applicant made several assumptions in order to conduct the traffic analysis:
25
((
1:s;'33;,.k._ .c.: I .\
N
� t
(.n
T11t•' S
i` ..- -'1,13—
G �� m 1 c c
r
zG 'QNf� ..
N 9
( (a)9o90 '(A)LZB (0)fil9 �^'+"�N c.,'",'' .,
sss
is lYL '0 c 6CS t,..ww.� t @LS- r' ,
�.� lSY'9l Zl9'Zl 09CZt Y_. !� hfe; ,
(0)pin
co (0)OY6't (0)Yf6't )(3)69:9.-s''l� -(8)EZY'l y'"" l1,96 ' o(rr tZt'l Q YYY'l fl ,r ` ' ..^
fli SLZ'LL560'9E 1@U'l� (.4:'
1 N 'f0'CY 96C fiL `c 9L6'6L l'.:*; o
[
U P V of ..\c.,,,, -. .n?
c
O m m 3
I,
el et, NJM
N I U I m
0 1
N N Pl 'Q.•. n7. ^ N
N Q N N N j N. Q U I `v i `
-�� OZ9 ( 1 t m m ~
!P_w,,,�_Decoy (A)906 �(J� Q Q p
z
` i
LLZ'Ll O 4BS o h) 8 GL 3
o� (�)EZS�fl' (0)YlY '�
Mt 1
�. N A -
Ter
0 1 16L�Oa OL Via" .y~ M
\ m PH tawcN py0'6 P:w`j J3
+g' a Ol
LS''> a c
1
,d'' l n0 co,wS awr2 t :CV' r-I
O c f�� V vat AGudq d
a1' N —(3)LEE (3)SSS 1m �;:li'''
U1
m Nt0 r ,
.. ,'( s ZOZ-- EOf r ay,el� `�JJse v*U sn J1 6�\0 ^a aJ P a Lam' `t9 8B6'S ff56BBar S m�`��� Iryd�p� 1f yO
oo m cm ma•'tapwaJ{
m
.:1+;:.:ii,,,'''' ..
N tPp `U•+ `1,`, AlFo.1•- N N N .'ITt .- aO0 G� S ID VI
, �Nr '/• / :
4„'4:4..X:.'1';'' :4.'
\ 20 y
',\ yrs +. (B)L6S 6D9s'l(Ol 09 !"t •r-I
+wP%{� 9Yf ��' EYE 4i
a ____O60b1 L
1 anq 40,0 0").1 Xi',
SSL'B win IN
.r,,, X
..0,0 ,..
�(�Ot5 )' ly a
inl 0011
4
EZO'L nm-` m l i'•
u� m f y t�t, Yp4aLn
1 J t c N `` l.7 1 G xa .
...''.....4-Z-, Hnod s.
urn,, �� " n P m c PU ax,u++aP./,1 v ;-.:'
1�y N m v
I (2
0 ID ID
N O 1 a 1 !\;;.
11
.'' .J.';'?::::;‘'I'll.'''..',',4re,";016,,
'� a«,z�b r tfi" \ 4...>?t,.,. �,, u 109Z'El P+e�nQ II I :...
ft
s'qx {' e,'yl3rt M.*•. OLID if,",
OC
,,,... .4,,,,,b,:' ,,i.,-...„1 , CfS'L v 15
CI
7,.;,,,,,,,i,:„it3.4.„.3(._..tv
r \ Ji y Y .t-.
s...,„:,Y,',7,..,tS. ) +j�,Y a �"ltii 'r {%y 1 t' S. co r�
a w
v.
, ,,,„...,..4..,:o ,, „,4.,4::*- ......,p),-?-14...,.1.• 8
J 1
26
TABLE 3
SUMMARY OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
Lake Lotta Mall Project Sufficiency Response #2
Phase 1 Phase 2
DRI Land Use 1997 2000 Total
Lake Lotta Regional Mall 1,100,000 GLA 150,000 GLA 1,250,000 GLA
Mall DRI
Retail 100,000 GLA 150,000 GLA 250,000 GLA
Lake Lotta Retail — 550,000 GLA 550,000 GLA
Center DRI
Multifamily 360 DU -- 360 DU
GLA=Gross Leasable Area(Square Feet)
DU=Dwelling Unit
TABLE 4
TRIP GENERATION FORMULAS
Lake Lotta Project
ITE
Land Use Code Formula Direction
Retail >570 KSF
Daily 820 Ln(T) = 0.756 Ln (KSF) + 5.154 --
PM 820 Ln(T) = 0.725 Ln (KSF) +2.987 50% in
Retail <570 KSF
Daily 820 Ln(T) = 0.625 Ln (KSF) +5.985 --
PM 820 Ln(T) = 0.637 Ln (KSF) +3.553 50%in
Multifamily
Daily 220 Ln(T) = 1.024 Ln (DU) + 1.71 - •
-
PM 220 Ln(T) = 0.928 Ln (DU) - 0.118 68%in
Source: ITE Trip Generation Report.Fifth Edtion.1991
27
TABLE 5
SUMMARY OF PM PEAK-HOUR TRIP GENERATION,YEAR 1997
Lake Lotta Mall Project Sufficiency Response#2
Phase 1
PM Peak-Hour Trip Ends
Daily In Out .
Square Feet/ ITE Trip
Land Use Unit Parcel Code Ends Total % Trips % Trips
Regional Mall 1,100,000 GLA LLM 820 - 34,486 3,178 50 1,589 50 1,589
Retail 100,000 GLA LLM 820 7,067 656 50 328 50 328
Multifamily 120 DU LLC 220 744 76 68 52 32 24
Multifamily 240 DU LLC 220 1,513 144 68 98 32 46
Subtotal 43,810 4,054 2,067 1,987
Less Internal Capture 10
5 Si
Less Retail Pass-By 396 198 198
Less Transit Usage 100 50 50
Net External 3,548 1,814 1,734
TABLE 6
SUMMARY OF PM PEAK-HOUR TRIP GENERATION,YEAR 2000
Lake Lotta Mall Project Sufficiency Response#2
Phases 1 and 2
PM Peak-Hour Trip Ends
Daily In Out
Square Feet/ ITE Trip
Land Use Un It Parcel Code Ends Total % Trips % Trips
Regional Mall 1,250,000 GLA LLM 820 37,985 3,488 50 1,744 50 1,744
Retail 100,000 GLA LLM 820 7,067 656 50 328 50 328
Retail 150,000 GLA LLM 820 9,105 850 50 425 50 425
Retail 125,000 GLA LLC 820 8,124 756 50 378 50 378
Retail 125,000 GLA LLC 820 8,124 756 50 378 50 378^
Retail 150,000 GLA LLC 820 9,105 850 50 425 50 425
Retail 150,000 GLA LLC 820 9,105 850 50 425 50 425
Multifamily 120 DU LLC 220 744 76 68 52 32 24
Multifamily 240 DU LLC 220 1,513 144 68 98 32 46
Subtotal 90,872 8,426 4,253 4,173
Less Internal Capture 678 339 339
Less Retail Pass-By 530 265 265
Less Transit Usage _ 222 111 111
Net External ti 6,996! 3,538 3,458
u
WA =Lake Lona Mall DRILW =Lake Lona Center DRI
Source: ITE Trip Generation Report,Firth Edition,1991
Glatung Jackson Kercher Anglia Lopez Rinehart,Inc. 28
Internal capture relates to the trips by any mode which begin and end on the site and
do not impact any external roadways. Because internal trips contribute no impact to external
roadways, no assessment is made to the project for these trips. This analysis assumed that
less than 1% of the first phase trips (10 peak hour trip ends) and 8.8% of the second phase
trips (678 peak hour trip ends) would be internally captured.
Mode split pertains to the percentage of trips which are taken via transit. The
applicant assumed that 100 Phase I trip ends (2.7%) and 222 Phase II trip ends (3.1%) were
taken by transit.
Planned and programmed improvements for future years are listed in Table 7.
Programmed improvements are those within the first 5 years of the adopted work program
from the Florida Department Transportation or local government, and have a guaranteed
funding source. The Department of Community Affairs will recognize projects scheduled
for construction within the first 3 years of the list as applicable for mitigation purposes.
Planned improvements do not yet have a guaranteed funding source. Significant
improvements programmed in some fashion (engineering, right-of-way acquisition or
constriction) include the Clarke Road extension from A.D. Mims Road to Clarcona-Ocoee
Road, widening of Maguire Road from Gotha Road to SR 50, widening of Pine Hills Road
to 4 lanes from North Lane to Beggs Road, widening of Old Winter Garden Road from
Kirkman Road to Ivey Lane and the widening of Silver Star Road from Clarke Road to
Hiawassee Road.
29
TABLE 7
PLANNED AND PROGRAMMED ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS
Lake Lotta Project
Segment Length Completion Responsible
Roadway From-To Improvement (Mlles) Phase Date Agency Status
Colonial Drive(SR 50) Dillard(SR 537) Westbound right-tum lane — CST 1993 FDOT Programmed
Clarke Road A.D.Mims Road- New fouraane extension 1.48 CST 1995 Private Programmed
Clarcona-Ocoee Road
Maguire Road Gotha Road-SR 50 Widen to four lanes 4.20 CST 1996 Ocoee Programmed
Pine Hills Road North Lane-Beggs Road Widen to lour lanes 1.78 CST 1996 Orange County Programmed
Old Winter Garden Road Kirkman Road-Ivey Lane Widen to four lanes 1.50 CST 1996 Orange County Programmed
Hiawassee Road Conroy-Windermere Road- Widen to four lanes 1.60 CST 1996 Orange County Programmed
Orlando City Limits
Old Winter Garden Road Ivey Lane-US 441 Widen to four lanes 2.30 _ CST 1997 Orange County Programmed
Silver Star Road(SR 438) Clarke Road-Hiawassee Road Widen to four lanes 1.50 PE 1995 FDOT Programmed
Hiawassee Road Clarcona-Ocoee Road-US 441 New four-lane extension 3.10 CST — Orange County Planned
Clarcona-Ocoee Road Apopka-Vineland Road- Widen to lour lanes 1.30 CST — Orange County Planned
Hiawassee Road
Western Bypass Expressway Florida's Turnpike- New four lane freeway 1.52 — — OOCEA 2005 OUATS Needs Plan
Silver Star Road
Kirkman Road(SR 435) 1-4-Old Winter Garden Road Widen to six lanes 4.46 — — FDOT 2005 OUATS Needs Plan
Silver Star Road(SR 438) Main Street- Widen to four lanes 2.63 — — FDOT 2005 OUATS Needs Plan
Apopka-Vineland Road
Silver Star Road(SR 438) Apopka-Vineland Road- Widen to six lanes 0.60 — — FOOT 2005 OUATS Needs Plan
Hiawassee Road
Colonial Drive(SR 50) Beulah Road-Kirkman Road Widen to six lanes 3.26 — — FOOT 2005 OUATS Needs Plan
Apopka-Vinelad Road Conroy Road- Widen to four lanes 1.60 — — Orange County 2005 OUATS Needs Plan
Old Winter Garden Road
Apopka•Vineland Road Silver Star Road- Widen to lour lanes 1.14 — — Orange County 2005 OUATS Needs Plan
Clarcona-Ocoee Road
Bluford Avenue(SR 439) SR 50-SR 438 Widen to lour lanes 0.74 — — FOOT 2005 OUATS Needs Plan
Hiawassee Road CLarcona-Ocoee Road- Widen to four lanes 1.17 — — Orange County 2005 OUATS Needs Plan
Silver Star Road
Hiawassee Road SR 50-Conroy Road Widen to four lanes 1.94 — — Orange County 2005 OUATS Needs Plan ..
Pine Hills Road Old Winter Garden Road- Widen to lour lanes 3.83 — — Orange County 2005 OUATS Needs Plan
North Lane
Wurst Road A.D.Mims Road- Widen to four lanes 0.91 — — Ocoee 2005 OUATS Needs Plan
Ocoee-Apopka Road
Hiawassee Road Florida's Turnpike Interchange — — — Orange County 2005 OUATS Needs Plan
Silver Star Road(SR 438) CR 437-Hiawassee Road Widen to four lanes 4.81 — — FOOT 2010 OUATS Needs Plan
Colonial Drive(SR 50) Lake County Line- Widen to six lanes 8.93 — — FDOT 2010 OUATS Needs Plan
East-West Expressway
Ctarcona-Ocoee Road Hiawassee Road- Widen to lour lanes 5.45 — — Orange County 2010 OUATS Needs Plan
Western Beltway
Good Homes Road SR 50- Widen to four lanes 0.67 — — Orange County 2010 OUATS Needs Plan
Old Winter Garden Road
Southwest Beltway Florida's Turnpike-US 192 New four-lane toll facility 15.94 — — Turnpike Authority 2010 OUATS Needs Plan
Northwest Beltway(Part A) US 441-Florida's Turnpike New four-lane toll facility 10.67 — — OOCEA 2010 OUATS Needs Plan
Old Winter Garden Road Hiawassee Road-SR 50 Widen to lour lanes 398 — — Orange County 2010 OUATS Needs Plan
East-West Expressway John Young Parkway Add ramps to-from West — — — OOCEA 2010 OUATS Needs Plan
East-West Expressway Hiawassee Road- Widen to six lanes 4.41 — — OOCEA 2010 OUATS Needs Plan
SR 50(West)Exit
East-West Expressway Hiawassee Road-1-4 Widen to six lanes 5.91 — — OOCEA 2010 OUATS Needs Plan
CST-Construction PE-Preliminary Engineering i DES Design ROW-Right-of-Way
Source: Orlando Urban Area Transportation Improvement Program 1993-1998
Orange County Comprehensive Plan-Capital Improvements Element
Ocoee Comprehensive Plan-Capital Improvement Element
30
E. Future Traffic Conditions
Future project trip distributions for 1997 are displayed in Figure 6. According to the
Applicant, roadways expected to have levels of service below the acceptable level of service
as adopted by the appropriate local government are:
* Old Winter Garden Rd. from Hiawassee Rd. to Apopka-Vineland Rd.
* Apopka Vineland Road from Silver Star Road to A.D. Mims Road
* Powers Drive from Silver Star Road to Clarcona-Ocoee Road
The applicant asserts that all roadways which are significantly impacted by the project will
operate at acceptable conditions in 1997. Council staff, with the aid of traffic consultants,
JHK Associates, has identified additional segments of SR 50 and Silver Star Road which will
operate unacceptably. The FDOT has also received the applicant's traffic analysis,and along
with their consultant, have concluded that the adverse impact on these tow roads is broader
still.
Phase II conditions for 20(X) are displayed in Figure 7. Unacceptable conditions are
anticipated on the following facilities where the project will have a significant contribution:
* Clarke Road from SR 50 to White Road
* Old Winter Garden Road from Hiawassee Road to Good Homes Road
* SR 50 from Kirkman Road to Powers Drive
* SR 50 from Hiawassee Road to Good Homes Road
* SR 50 from the Mall Entrance to Old Winter Garden Road
31
_1
L. 11
'J a smmod ,
..5 m 0 c
c.,
ET) d
. s; r..)\
es,
4-4
as 0
.......................... _ _
rs•ars .1))3 m tfl
4-4 4/1 ol s•Ci ..
c4-1 ul ,
CV If; sr f
• 40 6.
r-. .
es; VII gvi4:)sioa r---
crN
al
.--1
9W Q
I
h .--I• 4 ,-1 H
.... r) W
.1 2
0 VI — li
d .... ‘.,)
,-,
t 0 7:15 -0
cr o
crt 0 4-1
cr
E .
•" ,S3 • 01 ...
4.)
\...:
co
0 Pti 0 sauJoH •
rn .
1,....:::::... ...,......,--"
—. . .(—
.. -1
sag)qs c).!goi• CD .•' .,-9
1
a 0
1 rs'i
•
\
.,.
...-..:..
---
?)?;..'• .....:y
•
4 .. •„
Iiii :::
,.... ......., Q
(24
•,—i
4-)
0 1 0 l.0
.. 1 ax.3v40 ;: ..........:,.•);.;.„-;•!....:..:.:,....... 0120 Crli if
w ‘ cle,*4.%...3.::: •::"..::::::::.:....:::.;: '... j ' -040r-18
*P8 \ [S4)).**), . :i'...:•:::,..;:,::...N ...... -/-- $.4
.V%-,-*F*4,4 (•:.;;;••,i'::::.::,•:if.:•••••:. :•....,..,;
e .,..f::::. :,...,'••iii:i.:::*;:. .1....,..:::)::•.i...&:•.:•?;;.)...:::.) Li-, 4)
a . tt.i::... ::?•,..-49 c v.f........:•.:::
\ 0 a)
t). \ •!;.›,y. •-
r °3
CU '
\ N 1 1
O % \ ...-.•----ei::-•'.'•....•
ez".%.\ .;.:•kg. : i .'!:.::.%::: ' .-1
•-• %.%:V5. ::::•5';;;:ft:::
/2%•...::',:f..;>:4'.: Li)
•4:"")”.'.f,;440,.:•......'$:t:4'.1.:,.,'::':':.,.,•:.
\ 4.:ff..:$5',1,3•I'M:g0f.. ':
N CV
4 *I.% t.•• in P1
.aAv
elli H P8 /
\. Q
) 'am/ aalaitulss.IN ), c7;
(ei,
...---•"...." 0,1)4):)() . •;„0 ty. •-•-•41
iii f:— .
tz IP gr.
1 ..,,.
.... . ..
al \
,-.
--- '
.1;
/utoct' umo 1
32
I .
F. Issues
1. Good Homes Road access
• Of concern is the question of project access to Good Homes Road. Orange
County maintains that road and a permit for access must be approved by the county.
County staff has indicated that they would not recommend approval of access for the
project to Good Homes Road. Protests from county residents prompted the county
to conduct studies of the roadway and county staff has indicated that it is substandard
and that a serious safety issue would ensue. Sections of the roadway are of
substandard width, the curves are not up to county standard and sight distances,
especially at intersections, are dangerously inadequate (see letter in Appendix A from
Mark Massaro, P.E., of Orange County Traffic Engineering Department dated
February 24, 1994). The City of Ocoee is also not supporting access to Good Homes
Road (see letter in Appendix A from Montye E. Beamer, Director of Administrative
Services dated February 25, 1994).
Should access be denied, drastic changes in the project distribution will occur
and additional impacts will be seen on SR 50, Silver Star Road, Clarke Road and Old
Winter Garden Road. Others will likely be impacted to a lesser extent as well.
The applicant has addressed this concern by conducting modelling analysis
without this connection. Loss of this access, along with other modelling changes to
address additional issues (no through movements on the private Citrus Oaks Road
and a revised centroid connector location within the model which reallocate the
assignment of trips within the model), indicated that concerns still exist on SR 50,
however less traffic would use Silver Star Road from Apopka Vineland Road to
33
O , ,';',1Zt `�'1'„;_;1k+,�f 417'1 ,;<' 4:4;.1,,,,,,,t;,,,..-;,',..;',•° :i
b '�„„ `,.s q t S ,.t'..4.1,..!s.".."'.! a.F• 4 1•a.9 1,`i. 4 .' tut 1t x
i ti„... b is +• bT ,z�b,� ""' $O7Y Y ,,t ity&g�j , T%.
7-1
V D ' � k t vRa kxd I yt
t 3 f' ,:f6's' 4,..t .. -,.. . 1: . t, At,t,..414 s.1: ),,,,oko -,-.1
les •:'?. -.4,e,',4.' - '4"-P4‘r.,2,0,4"'*-1"1-0144;7'00.F 41
•
Ne
1 [� p F N - `' �\ i+ j I� . 5's? .*Y ; 4}] ° VN
v3 le N N ' �ua� ( _ •x..
14) A4e. 0 , . •.✓' , P
� � • cn
O
1.
t e � +T . *
do
CR 535 �� tri FuBer� .'}3 t� re. ' i �4 e?"•Is''k' '±�g
_^N o0 +8(10) f n " ' " :" ..,',4,„:!..,-7.-f,!').;,:'' 1*r $ 1 O
-11 C7 288(10):►`1y g ' ,•`'i f,,,'*4, u r-1
::i...,,.„
tIl
'•-•-
.. 3 p :ems
,�+. ,i Y W W J..N/� 'e 'd' '^ias!x
', l'1
tet 6.1
t 3
r kit
......\.%**"Ng".
! y r 1�4 s �� , 4� n 1 .�01,:4446(14) ' ^ 4,po
ha t OO 81
.
•4. '}Q., �'Ra Kiasnr i Are
ei
580(14)� 4 N
:".1W4‘...,
. Z 4k ...,� khCO
M a +673(56) Rd. �y +465(5).. a
s 18(s>)— C7 465(s)— ` e�lm,A"'. n O •�i
W''''''''' ,,..,$.1,,,,,,,, ....,o) ..c, ,, ,,,,,.. ,,. ,,,,,,„,..,
„,, ,,, 2
a) -Or-1
,7 .„.„..,s, .,,,,,,...,
\ ,_. z
s.1 CJI
iiiik c, ..t„,
+»"{• s 1lemple Ave, °) rA, (.4.)72474.
b /�a I
C1 I,.i�.Il)'�- '1 ] �.,r`F'`. �B �507C =3 00 �!” •r•1 is
n 6. .1.4,
B 090 1,032(524)t w'"`u 9 .r
er •
:i»i $ �( , ., A.e * el larke
1,341(511) 588(168 >Rd 369(58).-j :;;: '
.,, U�F t ;s
;{%.• w Johio SNr.ca Rd.A.it' "�
*RdIA
R \ 49, 2224
343(220) +610(66) a+293 104 ~�— ne a
is
S n 1 '^:,,174 450(141) ( ) Apopka-Niud>,n
y, SSS��/,?� 1 j N N Z.N A q y, 470(64) 226(101) ` \ QU
,,,is'
3 -.1,438(237) '' m o o u" =t t o 'n t x Hl
v3.
695 1,868(243).• Ns m \
(3� N ', (7 x e 1 1
/ 90.2"- s ct 1"-- * Do.P'or "Re 1.379(85) g(TJ I
�° �f rs�.s t + 1,791(83) * •c v U
s J �� A� r �"' .
t
�` 1 v 1,435(149)
�� +1,330(156) Rd +1,226(91) 1�
0,1.4‘ 1,864(153) 1,728(152).-
'et
152).- 1,593 89
•
�w J 457 0 X o p c 398(33) 0,. 429(35) `4. l•r'i
i ✓ ,'..:: t r�'i v 1 Iti
1 517(32) 557(36) (sl
Ki,4Yn;in YN * N Wd N nmy fJW3 �o\ ,',
ao ? .add +429(36)
suHN557(35) r
pH io aNtb OOi 1D
OA1 sNn N G
\ a. C.
Hiawassee Road. Traffic on Clarke Road increases dramatically, however it is still
operating adequately after Phase I.
• 2. Modelling analysis
There are a number of issues that call into question the results of the analyses
provided. The applicant opted to start the final review of the application before these
issues were resolved, but has since provided additional analysis to address staff
concerns. Still, some concerns exist regarding:
Socioeconomic data used in the model
Distribution and assignment of project trips on the roadway network
Roadways where total trips in 1997 are less than today's counts
Analysis History - There were three Phase I analyses submitted for this project:
Analysis 1 - The original proposal with the 350,000 square feet of retail
(250,000 of which was from the Lake Lotta Center), 360 multi-family units
and the 1.1 million square foot mall.
Analysis 2 - This analysis deleted 250,000 square feet of retail from the Lake
Lotta Center project.
Analysis 3 - This analysis, using development levels from analysis 2, and at
the direction of staff and the reviewing agencies, deleted the Good Homes
Road access and readjusted the entrances on Clarke Road in the model. Due
to time constraints, a full analysis was not requested; only the direct modelling
results.
The amount of development in Phase I was scaled back at staff's suggestion
for the second and third analyses. This was suggested because all reviewers were
35
uneasy with the study results. As with most DRIs, monitoring would be
recommended to verify traffic characteristics. Since this project includes a mall,
there is no opportunity to monitor at an early stage, since it is not feasible to •
construct only a portion of the mall. Staff requested that an analysis for only the
mall be submitted, however the scaleback was for only 250,000 less square feet of
retail. Therefore, the 360 multi-family units and 100,000 square feet of peripheral
retail remain in revised Phase I with the mall. This adds 22% more peak hour traffic
to the mall's peak hour trip generation, over 15% of which comes from the 100,000
square feet of retail.
Comparison of Original and Revised Phase I Trip Generation
Mall Retail Associated Multi- Daily and Peak Hour
Retail Family Gross Trip Generation
Original 1,100,000 350,000 360 60,058 Daily
Submittal square feet Square Feet
5,566 Peak Hour
Revised 1,100,000 100,000 360 43,810 Daily
Submittal square feet Square Feet
4,054 Peak Hour
Staff had requested that the applicant revise the Phase I program to include only the
mall, however the applicant has objected to this strenuously. In lieu of only
recommending the mall for approval, the additional development will be
recommended so long as fair share payments for use of existing capacity is made.
3. Socioeconomic Data
The socioeconomic data used in the analysis was based upon the 1985
socioeconomic data from the adopted Orlando Urban Area Transportation Study
36
(OUATS), and modified to reflect changes in the City of Ocoee's comprehensive
plan. Staff had several questions regarding the data, but accepted the data since the
project is located in the city and the city has adopted those changes.
4. Roadway Volumes
With the second analysis provided, future year total volumes, including the
project traffic, for the year 1997 are less on 35 roadway sections than they are today.
Where this was the case, the applicant adjusted the total volumes to add 6% to
represent a more realistic number. Council staff believes that the 6% is low, since
it equates to only 1.5% growth per year. For comparison, recent increases on SR 50
for the last 4 years averaged 5.1% annually just east of Clarke Road during the time
when the Expressway came on line. In conjunction with this on these roadway
segments, existing counts were not seasonally adjusted, resulting in some future
volumes which are not indicative of a seasonal adjustment and lower than what can
be expected. Consequently, those volumes which were adjusted may not even be
above existing volumes.
Secondly, and more importantly, staff feels that this is indicative of more
serious problems with the model and, accordingly, this and other traffic studies. The
applicant states that the lower volumes are due to the additional capacity available
from the new Clarke Road and from the East-West Expressway. Another possible
reason for fewer trips on several roadways is that the socioeconomic data for the
Ocoee area contains a higher proportion of employment land uses to residential land
uses than currently exists. This could conceivably result in more work trip/residential
trip "pairing" further west. In other words, it could preclude the need for as many
37
people to drive toward Orlando for work because work can now be found locally.
While such an employment shift may be occurring, its significance on traffic has not
been demonstrated. Council staff rejects this theory because, historically, it has not
been borne out. A great majority of background traffic growth is routed by the
model to the expressway, with little additional background traffic on SR 50, Silver
Star Road or Old Winter Garden Road. Both Clarke Road and the expressway
extension were operational when the initial counts for existing conditions were taken,
but actual traffic counts do not support the model's prediction that these trips would
shift to the toll road.
This existing and future volumes comparison was not included as part of the
recently submitted model run.
5. Traffic Distribution
There is concern with the second analysis' distribution of project traffic near
the site as well as the general direction the trips take. Lake County is about 8 miles
away (roughly equal to the average trip length for project traffic), and there is little
opportunity for shopping at a regional mall facility in this portion of Lake County.
Staff questions the 5% project traffic distribution to Lake County in the second
analysis. Since this is in Lake County and outside of the OUATS area, it is treated
differently in the modelling process. While this concern cannot be quantified at this
time, it is another indication that the model should be more closely scrutinized.
Near site project distribution issues for the second analysis are:
• Old Winter Garden Road is assigned only 26 peak hour trips between
Hiawassee Road and Apopka Vineland Road (0.73% of all peak hour
38
trip ends). Since this is the first opportunity for traffic heading north
on Kirkman and Hiawassee Roads to head west toward the mall, more
• traffic would logically be assigned on this segment.
• 18.2 percent of the trip ends (646) were assigned to Good Homes
Road between Silver Star and White Road. This section is
substandard and it is unlikely that trips will select this roadway when
Clarke Road to the west and other alternatives exist. The third
analysis addressed this by not using a site access from Good Homes
Road.
• The model assigned no project trips on Clarke Road between SR 50
and the mall entrance on Clarke Road. This was addressed in the
third analysis by relocating the entrances in the model to more closely
represent the planned geometry of the site design.
• • Trips throughout the network demonstrate idiosyncracies at several
intersections. Trips entering and exiting the intersections do not
match.
Since a full analysis was not provided with the last model run, it is not
immediately known to what extent these have been addressed. It is
anticipated that monitoring and modelling after Phase I will verify traffic
distributions.
6. Other
The Florida Department of Transportation has noted several incorrectly
analyzed intersections which, although previously questioned, were not addressed to
39
their satisfaction. These concerns include allowing exclusive right-turns from a
shared through and right-turn lane, allowing permissive left turns from double left
turn lanes, the use of unacceptable factors for future intersections which are already
improved, green times which are unacceptably short and minor street approaches at
signalized intersections which operate at LOS "F" after an improvement has been
made (see Appendix A for letters from David Marsh of the Florida Department of
Transportation, dated February 18 and February 24, 1994). These have not been
addressed with the third analysis. Monitoring after Phase I will more fully address
these concerns.
There has been concern that the intersection of the Expressway/Clarke Road
and SR 50 will need to be grade separated by buildout. Therefore, it will be
recommended that, prior to Phase II, a more complete study be make to assess this
need, and the applicant also be tied to making a fair share payment toward this
improvement.
G. Conclusion
The basic issue with the transportation review is finding a level at which development
can proceed and at which expected impacts do not adversely affect the regional roads
system. Ordinarily, development can be broken into manageable phases to allow periodic
monitoring of road conditions. In the case of regional mall construction however, enough
of the mall has to be constructed initially to make the project economically viable; in this
case 1.1 million square feet for the mall and 100,000 square feet of peripheral development.
This, plus the limited traffic associated with the Lake Lotta Center's 360 apartments, results
in a situation where 43,810 trips will be added to the road system before a monitoring break
40
can occur.
An assessment of the modelling process routinely used in DRI reviews and the
analysis for this project has indicated that the model is not precise enough to reliably
distribute traffic of this size over the roadway system in such a short time frame. This has
led to a debate over whether actual project traffic impacts will be numerically significant
and adverse on several roadway segments, most notably SR 50, a road of great importance
to the project and the regional transportation network.
SR 50 remains our prime concern. The third analysis did indicate that portions of
SR 50 would be significantly impacted by the Phase I development. The FDOT analysis
predicted contributions to SR 50 of up to 42% Portions of the roadway (east of Good
Homes Road and west of Clarke Road) were identified as below the adopted LOS standard,
but when those are averaged into the service volumes of the combined sections, the levels
of service become adequate. The unacceptable portion of SR 50 just east of Good Homes
Road was averaged by Council staff per the accepted methodology, into the section from
Good Homes Road to Hiawassee Road (entirely in Orange County) and the portion of SR
50 just west of Clarke Road was averaged into the section from Clarke Road to Old Winter
Garden Road (entirely in the City of Ocoee).
Recently, the Council has recently been looking toward the jurisdiction that the
facility is in for identifying the acceptable minimum level of service on that facility.
Therefore, for the portion of SR 50 within Orange County, the county standard will be used
and the City of Ocoee's standard will apply to the portion in the City of Ocoee.
Council staff has examined this situation carefully, and is recommending that the full
revised development program (100,000 square feet of retail, 360 multifamily units and 1.1
41
million square foot mall) be approved with a provision for a fair share payment to the FDOT
for the use of capacity on SR 50 and Silver Star Road. This payment must be used for
capacity enhancement on SR 50 on the portions between Old Winter Garden Road and
Hiawassee Road, and must be determined prior to certificates of occupancy are issued for
Phase I and paid prior to certificates of occupancy for any development beyond Phase I are
issued.
Staff concludes that the project will be using a significant amount of the existing
capacity of this road and that with this traffic, coupled with that from development spurred
by the projects and general background growth, improvements to this important state
highway will definitely be needed. Although both projects will be paying millions of dollars
in impact fees to the City of Ocoee to address valid needs within the city, none of these fees
are scheduled to be applied to non-city roads such as SR 50 or those in adjacent portions of
Orange County, which runs the risk of having its development stopped if highway capacity
is consumed by this project. •
Staff has addressed these concerns through monitoring, roadway improvement
requirements and an avenue for the payment of roadway improvements directly to the FDOT.
42
Appendix A
Outside Correspondence
1. Department of Community Affairs
2. Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission
3. Florida Department of Transportation, letter dated February 18, 1994
4. Florida Department of Transportation, letter dated February 24, 1994
5. Florida Department of Transportation, letter dated March 22, 1994
6. St. Johns River Water Management District
' 7. Orange County Public Works, letter dated February 24, 1994
8. Orange County Public Works, letter dated March 2, 1994
9. City of Ocoee
10. Lowndes, Drosdick, Doster, Kantor & Reed
11. Orange County Parks & Recreation: Rails to Trails
12. LYNX Schedule: Link 27 ♦ Winter Garden - Monday through Saturday Service
A-1
•
STATE OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS
2 7 4 0 CENTERVIEW DRIVE • TALLAHASSEE , FLORIDA 3 2 3 9 9 - 2 1 0 0
LAWTON CHILES LINDA LOOMIS SHELLEY
Governor Secretary
February 10, 1994
•
Mr. Greg Golgowski
Project Review Director �S'- RECc I
East Central Florida FEBED 2
Regional Planning Council 7 994 I
1011 Wymore Road, Suite 105
Winter Park, Florida 32789 31
Re: Lake Lotta Mall; File No. 693-015 �� Q
Final Review Comments
Dear Mr. Golgowski:
The Department has reviewed the Application for Development
Approval (ADA) and the sufficiency responses for the proposed Lake
Lotta Mall development of regional impact (DRI) located in the City
of Ocoee. At this point, we would like to offer a few comments for
consideration in the preparation of the regional assessment report
recommendations. We may provide additional comments at a later
time based on the language contained in the regional assessment
report recommendations.
1) Pursuant to Rule 9J-2 . 025(3) (b) 5. , Florida Administrative Code
(F.A.C. ) , the Development Order (DO) must contain a description of
the project which specifies and describes: acreage attributable to
each described land use, utilizing all land use criteria of each
applicable threshold as identified in Section 380. 0651, Florida
Statutes (F.S. ) , and Chapter 28-24, F.A.C. ; open space; areas for
preservation; green belts; structures or improvements to be placed
on the property including locations; and other major
characteristics or components of the development.
2) A recommendation in the regional assessment report should
clearly state the buildout date for the project (including buildout
for each phase) , a reasonable commencement date, and the expiration
date for the development order. Also, a recommendation should
reference and attach the master plan (Map H) as an exhibit, as
required by Rule 9J-2 . 025(3) (b) 5. , F.A.C.
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT • HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT • RESOURCE PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT
A-3
Mr. Greg Golgowski
February 10, 1994
Page Two
3) The Department has reviewed the developer's analysis for listed
plant species onsite. The site was surveyed for certain listed
species in the spring and summer of 1993 .
It appears, from a review of the FNAI Orange County
Distribution of Rare/Endangered Species that listed plant species
anticipated on the Lake Lotta tract could include Centrosema
Arenicola which flowers June through September; Persea Humilis
which is vegetative January through December; and Rhynchosia Cinera
which flowers January through December. These were not included in
Exhibit 12-3, Designated Status of Protected Plant Species Reported
To Occur In Orange County, Florida And The Potential For Their
Occurrence Within The Lake Lotta Mall Project Site, which listed
Probability of Occurrence and whether the listed species were
observed. It appears that further surveys for listed plant species
should be undertaken in the summer.
4) The Applicant has not yet indicated which mitigation option for
the population of Gopher Tortoises on the Lake Lotta Tract will be
exercised. A recommendation should require the development order
to identify the mitigation, approved by the Florida Game and Fresh
Water Fish Commission, which will address the project's impacts on
Gopher Tortoises. Such specificity and clarity regarding regional
mitigation is necessary to ensure that appropriate mitigation for
regional impacts is provided and enforced.
5) The Applicant has indicated that a "Developer's Agreement for
water service between Lake Lotta, Ltd. and the City of Ocoee" dated
November 22, 1988 assures an adequate supply of potable water and
wastewater treatment for the project. Without the referenced
Developer's Agreement, it is not clear whether there is permitted,
adequate, available, committed water and wastewater treatment
capacity to service the project.
6) The Lake Lotta Mall and Lake Lotta Center DRI applicants and
consultant teams agreed to provide a cumulative analysis for
housing impacts. It appears that the cumulative analysis for
housing impacts has not been done in the Center Application or the
Mall Application. The Center study concluded that adequate onsite
affordable housing units for low and very low income employee
households would be provided, and thus did not estimate external
market area supply. If onsite supply is intended to meet demand,
a condition assuring the provision of the necessary units should be
included in the DO.
A-4
Mr. Greg Golgowski
February 10, 1994
Page Three
The Lake Lotta Mall Exhibit 10-4, Number of Non-Construction
Employees, assumes 1 employee per 650 gsf based on comparable malls
developed by Homart Development Co. The Department recommends a
ratio of 1 employee per 400 square feet of gross retail area. It
also appears that the assumption as used may have been for 1
employee per 650 feet of gross leasable area, resulting in even
lower estimates than those resulting from calculation based on
gross square feet. The number of employees is an important
variable in the methodology to assess the project's impact on the
supply of affordable housing. The estimate of the number of
employees based on the ratio of 1 employee per 650 square feet of
gross leasable area resulted in a number less than half of that
which would have been calculated using the recommended ratio.
The Housing Survey Study Area, Exhibit 24-1 of the Lake Lotta
Mall Application, includes land that appears to be 20 miles away
from the project site. The Department recommends a study area of
10 miles or 20 minutes, whichever is less. Therefore, the housing
supply study area is too large.
7) Numerous and substantive concerns have been expressed by other
agencies regarding the transportation analysis for the Lake Lotta
DRIs. The Department supports their requests for changes and for
further information, and recommends additional time and effort be
spent to address transportation concerns expressed in the comments
from the Florida Department of Transportation, the East Central
Florida Regional Planning Council, and the City of Ocoee.
Page 79 of the Lake Lotta Mall First Request For Additional
Information listed regionally significant roadways in the primary
impact area, but omitted two regional roads, Apopka-Vineland Road
and Clarke Road. Please comment on the status of the 1.48 mile,
four lane extension improvement to Clarke Road that is listed in
Exhibit 21-5 of the Application.
The Applicant has indicated that the project may be broken
down to more, smaller parcels than those in Exhibit 21-8, Summary
of PM Peak-Hour Trip Generation, Year 2000. If this is done, we
are concerned that it will result in a higher trip generation.
A-5
Mr. Greg Golgowski
February 10, 1994
Page Four
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed Lake
Lotta Mall DRI. If you have any questions or comments, please call
me or Carol Collins in the Bureau of State Planning at (904) 488-
4925.
Sincerely,
"JQAAk-
J. Thomas Beck, Chief
Bureau of State Planning
JTB/cc
cc: Jack Oliaro (Applicant's Representative)
Mr. Bruce Behrens (City of Ocoee)
Mr. Stephen Lau (Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish
Commission)
Mr. David Marsh (Florida Department of Transportation)
A-6
zAir
'.M15,,? FLORIDA GAME AND FRESH WATER FISH COMMISSION
\IRS. GILBERT W. HUMPHREY JOE MARLIN HILLIARD J. BEN ROWE JULIE K. MORRIS QUINTON L. HEDGEPETH, DDS
Miccosukee Cle,siston Gainesville Sarasota Miami
ALLAN L. EGBERT, Ph.D., Executive Director
WILLIAM C. SUMNER, Assistant Executive Director FARRIS BRYANT BUILDING
620 South Meridian Street
• Tallahassee,FL 32399-1600
(904)488-1960
DDD(
�1 (904)488-9542
c.-
February 17, 1994
FE CI V •
A•
Mr. Greg Golgowski ()t 8 231994 tI
Director of Project Review —�
East Central Florida Regional Planning Council S/
1011 Wymore Road, Suite 105 CO /
Winter Park, Florida 32789 N
QD
--
RE
RE: DRI 13.112, Orange County,
Lake Lotta Mall
Dear Mr. Golgowski:
The Office of Environmental Services of the Florida Game and Fresh Water
Fish Commission has reviewed the referenced Application for Development
Approval and sufficiency responses, and offers the following comments.
The applicant proposes to construct a regional mall with commercial and
retail uses on a 130-acre tract in western Orange County. The site is
bordered on the west, north, and east by another DRI, Lake Lotta Center. The
site is predominately abandoned citrus grove that has been replanted with
slash pine (100.83 acres) . The only native habitat consists of three areas of
live oak hammock (29.12 acres total) that have also been impacted by refuse
dumping and off-road vehicles. On site wetlands are confined to a 0.05-acre
excavated depression.
The disturbed nature of this site severely limits its value to regional
fish and wildlife resources. The only significant resource identified on the
site is a relatively high density of gopher tortoises, a state species of
special concern. From the wildlife surveys conducted on site, it has been
determined that the project contains 97.67 acres of high density valuable
gopher tortoise habitat (tortoise population > 0.8 tortoises/acre) and 26.85
acres of lower quality tortoise habitat (population 0.2 tortoises/acre) . The
applicant has proposed to either mitigate for the loss of tortoise habitat by
contributing to the Wildlife Habitat Trust Fund for the purchase and
management of gopher tortoise habitat, or relocate the tortoises in a joint
• effort with the Lake Lotta Center project.
Loss of habitat is the primary reason that statewide gopher tortoise
populations are declining. While protecting individual tortoises, relocation
A-7
1943 - 1993
50 YEARS AS STEWARD OF FLORIDA'S FISH AND WILDLIFE
Mr. Greg Golgowski
February 17, 1994
Page 2
does not provide for the long term protection and management of tortoise
habitat and is not adequate compensation for the loss of this habitat. We
recommend that the applicant mitigate for the proposed project's impacts to
gopher tortoise habitat by protecting and managing 26.43 acres of tortoise
habitat (25% of the 96.67 of valuable habitat and 7.5% of the 26.85 acres of
low density habitat) by either providing a conservation easement on site or by
contributing to the Wildlife Habitat Trust Fund sufficient funds to purchase
and manage this amount of tortoise habitat.
Sincerely,
Srad ey J. / ecto
Office of E ental Services
BJH/SL/rs
ENV 1-13-2
lottamal
cc: Mr. William C. Kercher, Jr.
Glatting Jackson Kercher Anglin Lopez Rinehart
33 East Pine Street, Ellis Building
Orlando, Florida 32801
A-8
ft
FLORIDA = DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
LAWTON CHILES 11111.111 BEN G.WATTS
GOVERNOR UNNi=WM SECRETARY
vor
5151 Adanson Street
Orlando, Florida 32804
Telephone: (407) 623-1085 / 111I
February 18, 1994
],
Mr. Greg Golgowski, AICP � �/
Director, Project Review '76)
East Central Florida Regional Planning Council IC?
1011 Wymore Road, Suite 105 k�
Winter Park, FL 32789 •
RE: Lake Lotta Mall and Center DRIs
qb
Combined Traffic Analysis CP
Second (Final) Sufficiency Response - FDOT Comments
SR 50 - Section No. 75050
Orange County, Florida
Dear Mr. Golgowski:
As requested, we have reviewed the February 4, 1994 Second Sufficiency Response
for the Lake Lotta Mall and Center DRIs, and we have the following comments which
the applicant should address:
1. Page 13, Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) Question No. 2.
The existing counts need to be converted to peak-season volumes
because the existing counts are used as a comparison and check on
the forecasted volumes (peak season) . Please revise the analysis
with the existing volumes adjusted to existing peak-season volumes.
One of the applicant's analysis steps is to compare forecasted
volumes to existing volumes. If the forecasted volumes are lower
than existing volumes, the forecasted volumes are adjusted to be
slightly larger than the existing volumes. We can agree with this
methodology, and it is because of this analysis step that seasonal
adjustment of the existing volumes must be made so that the volumes
are comparable to the future volumes. As the analysis stands now,
it is possible for a forecasted volume (peak season) to be less than
an existing volume (peak season) , but this cannot be determined
because the applicant has not supplied the existing volumes adjusted
to peak-season volumes.
2. Page 13, FDOT Question No. 3. Please make the following correction
in the tables, figures, exhibits, etc. : SR 50 from Marshall Farms
Road to CR 545, Group "B" not "A" and level of service C service
volume is 1,650 not 1,900.
3. Page 13, FDOT Question No. 4. See the comment on the response to
FDOT Question No. 2 above regarding existing traffic counts.
4. Page 13, FDOT Question No. 5. Please supply the documentation that
the 10 percent guideline for pass-by traffic has been applied to
each adjacent roadway individually. We could not find any analysis
or documentation in Sufficiency Response No. 2.
5. Page 14, FDOT Question 6. The reviewer agrees that in revised Phase
1, double counting of pass-by traffic and internal capture trips is
not an issue because the internal trips total only ten trips.
Additionally, it appears that the applicant is not seeking approval
for revised Phase 2. The applicant states "monitoring and modeling
A-9
RECYCLED
GAPER
Mr. Greg Golgowski, AICP
February 14, 1994
Page 2
will determine the appropriate pass-by capture and internal capture
for Phase 2. If this is the case, the FDOT will only review the
revised Phase 1 information and reserves the right to a full review
of an updated Phase 2 analysis when submitted after monitoring, and
a new modeling analysis. All of the following comments exclude a
Phase 2 Analysis.
6. Page 14, FDOT Question 9. Please see the above FDOT Question No. 2
in regard to existing and forecasted background traffic estimates.
7. Page 15, FDOT Question 11. All of the intersection analysis files
were not supplied to the reviewer. As noted in the June 24, 1993
Traffic Methodology Letter (second sentence, second paragraph,
Section 2.1) "All site access locations will be analyzed". Please
supply the site access intersection analysis.
(Note: Subsequent to the Feb. 14, 1994 Meeting with
Reviewers/Applicant two Project Entrance Worksheets were provided.
Please refer to concluding remarks) .
8. Page 15, FDOT Question 12a. The data in 30 signalized intersection
files needs to be corrected by the applicant. None of the files
will run because of input (applicant) errors in noting the signal
phasing. These errors (allowing exclusive right-turns from a shared
through and right-turn lane) were noted previously in the first
sufficiency review. Those files which need updating and correction
are as follows:
H5053593 H50H93 H50ME97
H5053597 H50H97 H500WG93
H50C97 H50H197 H500WG97
H50GH93 H50K97 H50PH93
H50GH97 H50K197 H50PH97
HOWGH93 HSSH93 HADMC93
HOWGH97 HSSH97 HADMC97
HSSB93 HWC93 HOWGAV93
HSSB97 HWC97 HOWGAV97
H5ODIL97 HGHPE97 H50K93
9. Page 15, FDOT Question 12b. It is not acceptable in the "signal
operations" section to allow permissive left turns from a double
left-turn lane. Accordingly, please revise the following files:
H50C97 H50H197
H50K197 H50PH197
H50PH97 HOWGH97
HSSH97
10. Page 15, FDOT Question 12c. It is not acceptable to use a PHF of
greater than 0.95 in future year improvement analyses. If an
intersection is being improved to provide acceptable level of
service (LOS) , the PHF will not be 1.00. A PHF of 0.95 indicates
long queues and demands which exceed capacity. These conditions
will not occur when an intersection provides an acceptable LOS.
A-10
Mr. Greg Golgowski, AICP
February 14, 1994
Page3
Please provide documentation for those intersections which exceed
the 0.95 PHF, based upon existing counts. Also please revise the
following files to the maximum PHF default of 0.95:
H5053597 H50C97
H50DIL97 H50K97
H50K197 HADMC97
HSSB97 HSSC97
HSSH97 HWC97
11. Page 15, FDOT Question 12d. In the traffic operations assumptions,
on State roadways, it is not acceptable in future years to have a
green time of less than 10 seconds for through movements, a green
time of less than seven seconds for an exclusive left-turn phase, or
less than a total of five seconds for the yellow plus an all red
phase. Please revise the intersection analysis accordingly, on the
following files:
H5053597 H50H197
H50K197 HSSB97
HSSC97
12. Page 16, FDOT Question 13a. Please see the above comment about not
using a PHF of 1.00. Accordingly, please revise the following
unsignalized intersection files:
HSSGH97 HEWNGH97
HADMAV97 HBGH97
13. Page 16, FDOT Question 13b. LOS F is not allowable in the future
year analysis for the cross-street controlled movements. LOS F
notes that the number of vehicles in that movement exceeds the
capacity. All of the vehicles will not get through the intersection
in the analyzed time period. This condition is not acceptable.
Please revise files HOWGH97 and HBGH97 accordingly.
As noted earlier, we did receive additional information subsequent to a meeting
between the Applicant's Consultants and Reviewing Agencies. We have also
reviewed those materials submitted and based upon all information provided, must
state that in our judgement the Application is "Insufficient". Given the
numerous shortcomings cited above, coupled with the recent indication by Orange
County representatives, that the Mall will not be allowed access to Good Homes
Road, we believe that there are far too many outstanding issues, for this project
to be declaring "Final Sufficiency", at this juncture.
As stated in that meeting on February 14, 1994, the FDOT has major concerns about
the project impacts upon both State Route 50 and Silver Star Road (S.R.438) .
Given the prospect of "no access" on Good Homes Road, the project impacts on both
S.R. 's 50 and 438 will increase substantially over that analyzed in the Lake
Lotta ADA submittals, and as such, will very probably create both "significant
and adverse" impacts on several links of both facilities.
A-ll
Mr. Greg Golgowski, AICP
February 14, 1994
Page 4
Consequently, we would strongly suggest that the Applicant reconsider the
declaration of "Sufficiency" at this point. However, assuming that the process
is continued, we are continuing our review of this application, and would note
that we will be submitting further comments, concerning both the additional
impacts upon those State Roads mentioned above, as well as providing some
additional Operational Analyses (and suggested Mitigation) for critical
intersections in the vicinity of this project. This material, including our
standard Final Comments will be provided to you as soon as possible, next week.
Hopefully, you will find these and subsequent comments to be helpful. If you
have any questions, please call me.
Sincerely
David Marsh
System Transportation Planner
DM/GLD/smb
a:DM.05.1otta.Itr
cc: Randy Ritter, FDOT Central Office
George L. Deakin, TBE (FDOT Consultant)
A-12
FLORIDA = DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
LAWTON CHILES
BEM G.WATTS
GOVERNOR IMMOMO1SECRETARY
EMMEN
5151 Adanson Street
Orlando, Florida 32804
Telephone: (407) 623-1085
February 24, 1994
Mr. Greg Golgowski, AICP
Director, Project Review ! p '
East Central Florida Regional Planning Council •
1011 Wymore Road, Suite 105
Winter Park, Florida 32789 4 ? 1�t'j`; F�
RE: LAKE LOTTA MALL AND CENTER DRI'S MAR
11994
Combined Traffic Analysis
2nd (Final) Sufficiency - FDOT Comments
S.R. 50 - Section #75050 \� 6'
Orange County co MO
Dear Mr. Golgowski:
As indicated in our previous comments on the Lake Lotta Mall
DRI/ADA, we have completed our review and have several additional
comments/recommendations on this project. Since the applicant has
declared "Sufficiency", we have also included our standard verbiage
regarding future permitting requirements.
Based upon insufficient information being supplied by the applicant
to date, the FDOT has the following proposed conditions (relating
to the State Highway System) to be included in the Development
Order for this project. They include the following:
1. APPROVAL OF PHASE I ONLY - Specific approval should be granted
only to Phase I, as defined in the February 4, 1994 Lake Lotta Mall
Second Sufficiency Report. The total of Phase I development should
be limited to a maximum of 1.2 million square feet of retail uses,
and 360 multi-family dwelling units. Any development beyond the
above noted limits should be required to undertake a reanalysis
that includes monitoring of the existing trip generation, and new
modeling to include the latest approved data available at the time.
2 . PHASE I ROADWAY LINK IMPACTS -
S.R. 50: Assuming the Mall is allowed access from Good Homes Road,
the project traffic will "significantly/adversely" impact S.R. 50
from Hiawassee Road to Good Homes. The project traffic will
constitute approximately 25% of LOS C service volume, and the
facility will operate at an LOS of "F" .
A-13
RECYCLED
GAVE R
Greg Golgowski
February 24 , 1994
Page 2
If the development is denied access to Good Homes Road (based upon
Orange County's position) , it is estimated that the project traffic
will rise to approximately 42% of the LOS C service volume of S.R.
50, from Good Homes Rd. to the Main Mall Entrance. This link would
also be operating at LOS "F". Thus, a condition should be placed
upon this development that prior to the opening of the Mall, that
S.R. 50 should be 6-laned from Hiawassee Rd. to the Main Mall
entrance, and consideration given to actually requiring the
improvement to extend to Clarke Road.
SILVER STAR ROAD (S.R. 438) : Assuming the Mall is allowed access
from Good Homes Road, the project will "significantly/adversely"
impact S.R. 438 from Hiawassee Road to Apopka-Vineland Road. The
development traffic will constitute 10.2% of the LOS C service
volume, and the roadway will operate at an LOS of "E" . Based upon
the FDOT minimum LOS standard of "D", this link will need to be
improved to 4-lanes.
However, if the mall is not allowed access from Good Homes Road,
additional project traffic will be diverted to Silver Star, and
will utilize approximately 21% of the LOS "C" service volume on the
westerly link mentioned above, and 17% of that service volume on
the link from Good Homes to Clarke Road. In both instances the
roadway will be operating at an unacceptable LOS. Consequently,
the approval of this project should be conditioned upon the 4-
laneing of Silver Star Road, from Hiawasse to Clarke Road, prior to
the opening of the Mall.
3 . PHASE I INTERSECTION IMPACTS -
S.R. 50/HIAWASSEE ROAD: Phase I of the development will
"significantly/adversely" impact this intersection and the
following improvements are necessary with the assumption that the
Mall has access to Good Homes Road:
* Add northbound and southbound right-turn lane
* Add eastbound right-turn lane
* Add eastbound left-turn lane (for a total of two lanes)
* Add westbound left-turn lane (for a total of two lanes)
If there is no access to Good Homes Road for the project, then the
previously mentioned improvement of additional east and west bound
thru-lanes should be required as well.
PROJECT ENTRANCES: Any intersection improvements/signalization
required at project entrances on S.R. 50 shall be at the sole
expense of the Developer. The Main Entrance improvements,
including left-turn, acceleration and deceleration lanes, shall be
A-14
Greg Golgowski
February 24, 1994
Page 3
fully operational prior to the opening of the Mall. Additionally,
signals shall be installed at the developer's expense, when
warranted.
Finally, with respect to the lack of sufficient data, and no
provisions for mitigating the development impacts on State
roadways, it is requested that FDOT be included in any negotiations
undertaken in the formulation of a Development Order for this
Project.
4 . GENERAL COMMENTS -
Permits are required from the Department of Transportation for
connection to the roadway or drainage facilities on the State
Highway System. Access permits must comply with FAC Rules 14-96
and 14-97, and Drainage Permits are controlled by FAC Rule 14-86.
Permits are also required for any roadway improvements including
modifications to utilities, signal improvements, additional or
modification to lanes, or drainage alterations within the
Department's Rights-of-Way (ROW) . Any development that abuts the
Department ROW may require a drainage permit regardless of whether
a drive-way connection is constructed.
The review of an ADA/DRI or the issuance of a Development Order by
local government does not constitute a review or approval of
permits for such improvements by FDOT. Comments or lack of
comments on access in such documents can not be considered a
Department position on the necessary permits.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide these additional
comments/recommendations concerning this Project. If you have any
questions, please give me a call at (407) 623-1085, extension 126.
Sincerely,
avid Marsh
Systems Planner
DM/GD/smb
A.LK.LOT
cc: Randy Ritter, FDOT Central Office
George L. Deakin, Tampa Bay Engineering Inc. (FDOT Consultant)
A-15
FLORIDA - DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
LAWTON CHILES =MEM BU G.WATTS
GOVERNOR =IW=Ila SECRETARY
IIIIMINIRW
onw
5151 Adanson Street
Orlando, Florida 32804 G
Phone: (407) 623=1085 i� .,
March 22, 1994 if
RECr !i i•. ;\\
Mr. Greg Golgowski, AICP ill 2 c . 1� )71?'
'
Project Review Section J f-
East Central Florida Regional Planning Council (ECFRPC) ti
1011 Wymore Road, Suite 105 ,;',/Winter Park, Florida 32789
RE: LAKE LOTTA MALL/CENTER DRI \2- 7
Final Sufficiency - FDOT Comments Cr —
S.R. 50 - Section #75050
Orange County
Dear Mr. Golgowski:
As recently discussed, we are providing our Final Response on the Lake Lotta
Mall/Center DRI for your consideration. We have concluded our review and would
like to express our support for the proposed ECFRPC Recommendation #6, which
calls for the implementation of a "Proportionate Share Agreement" between the
Developer, the City of Ocoee, and the FDOT, prior to the opening of the Mall.
In our analysis of the impacts of this Development, it became apparent that the
resulting traffic will create a pressing deed to improve both State Road (S.R. )
50 and S.R. 438 (Silver Star Road) . Neither of these facilities are scheduled
for capacity improvements in the Department's Work Program.
Also in our analysis, we reviewed the City of Ocoee's Comprehensive Plan, and are
concerned with what appears to be a policy direction of not using City funding
on State Roads (Traffic Circulation Element Policy 6.1) . If this is the
intention, an additional mechanism needs to be established to mitigate the
significant and adverse impacts on State roads. Consequently, we are in full
agreement with the ECFRPC Staff that Recommendation #6 needs to be incorporated
into the Development Order for this Project.
The Ocoee plan promotes such a mechanism as stated in Intergovernmental
Coordination Element Policy 2.1 and Capital Improvements Element Objective 2: The
City shall work with the FDOT to attain and ensure acceptable level of service
on roads; and, require future development to contribute its proportional cost of
facilities necessary to meet LOS standards.
We are looking forward to working with Ocoee to ensure the City and State's road
system will continue to provide for the safe and efficient movement of people and
goods; and, appreciate the opportunity to provide input to the RPC's
recommendation.
Sincerely, .
James D. Kimbler, AICP
Director of Planning and
Public Transportation
EH/DM/sb
A:LOTA.FR7
cc: Hal Kantor, Lowndes Drosdick Doster Kantor and Reed, P.A.
Montye Beamer, City of Ocoee
Tim Jackson, GJKALR
Randy Ritter, FDOT Central Office
A-17
®RECYCLED
PAPER
ex =guess"atvsa A- Henry Dean,Executive Director
John R.Wehie,Assistant Executive Director
WATER POST OFFICE BOX 1429 PALATKA, FLORIDA 32178-1429
NOMMANAGEMENT TELEPHONE 904/329-4500 SUNCOM 904/860-4500
DIASTriICT FAX(EXECUTIVE/LEGAL)329-4125 (PERMITTING)329.4313 (ADUINIBTRATION/RNANCE)329.4.306
FIELD STATIONS
616 E.South Street 7775 Baymeadolrs Way PERMITTING: OPERATIONS:
Orlando,Florida 32601 Suite 102 305 East Drive 2133 N.Wickham Road
February 22, 1994 407/687.4300 Jacksonville,Fbrfda 32256 Meboume,Florida 32904 Meboume,Florida 32935-8109
904/730.6270 407/964-4940 407/254-1762
Mr. Greg Golgowski
Project Review Coordinator
East Central Florida Regional Planning Council
1011 Wymore Road, Suite 105
Winter Park FL 32789
Re: Lake Lotta Mall DRI Secondary Sufficiency Response
ECFRPC#13 . 112
Dear Mr. Golgowski:
The District received the aforementioned DRI submittal on
February 4 , 1994 , and have reviewed it. We offer no comments at
this time to the second sufficiency response.
Thank you for the opportunity for the District to comment.
If you have any questions, please contact me at 407/897-4318 .
Sincerely,
let/671.4"A
Eliz eth R. Johns n, Environmental Specialist
Department of Resource Management
ERJ:db
cc : PDS-DRI
Pat Frost
Mary Brabham, P.E .
101110,
/j f\:/7.• _.•1.. /` i
i r
FEB 2 3 1994
Patricia T.Harden, CHAIR Lenore N.McCullagh, VICE CHAIR Jesse J.Parrish,III, TREASURER William Segal, SECRETARY
SANFORD ORANGE PARK TITUSVILLE MAITLAND
Reid Hughes Dan Roach Denise M.Prescod Joe E.Hill James H.Williams
DAYTONA BEACH FERNANDINA BEACH LE LEESBURG OCALA
A-19
•
Orange F flrt„O ,
Public Works Division0Tn+y"I10i George W. COTe,P.E.,Dllec
tor
,.
Traffic Engineering Department
Mark V.Massaro,P.B.,Manager
4200 South John Young Park4ay
Orlando.Florida 32839-9204
Telephone(407)836.7890
PAX(407)836-7999
February 24, 1994
Mr. Fred Milch
East Central Florida
Regional Planning Council
1011 Wymore Road
Winter Park, Florida 32789
Subject: Lake Lotta Mall
Dear Mr. Milch:
In an earlier comment to you, Orange County Tr4ffic
Engineering recommended that access to Good Homes Roadifrom
Lake Lotta Mall be eliminated. !This recommendation was made
because staff questiones3 the ex sting traffic conditions on
Good Homes Road and the consult•nt had not demonstrated the
impact of Lake Lotta traffic on his road. Since makinglthis
recommendation, staff has conduced more counts and conducted
a safety deficiency review of Good Homes Road from State ? Road
• 50 to Silver Star Roadnd on Wh to Road from Good Homes Road
to Clarke Road. Result of cu. data indicate that Otange
County's prior recommendation •o eliminate access to ! Good
Homes Road is substantiated.
South of SR 50 679
North of SR 50 827
South of Balboa Drive 744
North of Balboa Drive 639
South of White Road 643
North of White Road 360
Safety Deficiency Review:
Good Homes traveling northbound
* One mile north of State Road 50, 400' -500' of guardrail is
needed, some shoulder improvem4nts on the curve and possibly
a flashing warning light. Geometric improvements are needed
to eliminate the 90 degree curve.
A-21
Z ' 00:ZT b66T '4Z'Z0
d W02•j
February 24, 1994
Mr. Fred Milch
Subject: Lake Lotta Mall,
Page 2
* About 1. 3± miles northof Stat Road 50, drainage imprpve-
ments and shoulder improvements are needed near the sinkhole
on the west side.
* At 1. 6± miles north of State Ro d 50, guardrails are needed
throughout the curve on the eas side.
* A dedicated right-turn lane is eeded at Silver Star Road.
Good Homes Road traveling. southbo nd.
* Drainage improvements are need d just north of Rose Hill
Road on the west side.
White Road
* This road has only 9' lanes. It should be widened to 12'
lanes.
* Intersection improvements are needed at Good Homes Road
intersection.
Sincer ly,
4,;-//// '
rk V. assaro, P.E.
MVM/RDR/bj
A-22
'd 00xZI 466I 'PZ'Z0 WOdA
&ood omes Kot
nT
I 1
i'01a ( y
mo- 1
as"Y 4) 41 1 3 3 69
vqh; 4 e,
Iv7 410
6 1 ,;
I
,i1 All .
1'7 i5-7
(j' ç)
•1y7
r3Ai boA
C
a
at
j
' `,".. CA. ti 3.34
‘)17
/381 . 4) I ( F- 2.3 �.3s$ ,
'in -" h fiN{ C4 /076
1013C0gI Y 4_
,'N0 -3' e ri
01
i
41
• ,
i
A-23 � /7 -9f'
b 'd i0:ZI b66I '1,Z'Z0 WOdA
Site Code 02179416 ORANGE.000NTY TRAFFIC ENGINEERING PAGE: 1
N-S Street: GOOD HOMES RO FILE: GOWN294P
E-W Street: NNITE
Weather : CLOUDY-It RAIN Movements by: P leery DATE: 2/17/94
floe From North From last From South From West Vehicle
Begin RT THRU LT AT THOU LT RT THRU LT AT THRU 1,7 Total
4:00 PM 9 39 2 1 4 7 16 69 52 26 2 11 238
4:15 4 26 1 1 S 11 20 60 35 32 4 ;9 208
4:30 6 37 0 2 4 6 18 77 36 36 7 10 239
4:45 9 27 4 0 5 9 13 61 43 25 7 .8 211
HR TOTAL 28 129 7 4 18 33 67 267 166 119 20 38 896
5:00 PM 7 46 0 0 6 23 62 45 27 3 .6 230
5:15 9 40 0 2 6 5 29 96 45 30 2 :7 271
5:30 8 49 3 1 f 6 23 86 49 31 3 10 276
5:45 6 48 1 1 3 16 42 79 64 36 6 7 309
HR TOTAL 30 183 4 4 ?1 33 117 323 203 124 14 ;30 1086
DAY TOTAL 58 312 11 8 39 66 184 590 369 243 34 68 1982
PEAK PERIOD AMALYSISjFOR THE PERID.: 4:00 PM - 6:00 PM '
DIRECTION START PEAK HA VO UMES .,.. PERCENTS ...
FROM PEAK HOUR FACTOR Right Thru� Left Total Right Thru Left
North 5:00 PM 0.90 30 183 4 217 14 84 2
East 5:00 PM 0.73 4 21 33 58 7 36 57
South 5:00 PM 0.87 117 323 203 643 18 50 32
West 4:00 PM 0.83 119 20 38 177 67 11 21
Entire Inters ction
i
North 5:00 PM 0.90 30 183 4 217 14 84 2
East 0.73 4 21 33 58 7 36 57
South 0.81 117 323 203 643 18 50 32
West 0.86 124 14 30 168 74 8 18
A-24
S 'd IO:ZI 1766I '17Z'Z0 woad
I
Site Code 02179416
ORANGE,COUNTY TRAFFIC ENGINEERING PAGE: 1
N-S Street: 6000 HOMES RD FILE: C000294P
E-H Street: SR-50 COLONIAL DR
Weather : CLOUDY-Lt RAIN laments by: P leery DATE: 2/17/94
i
Time from North From Oast From South From Nest Vehicle
login RT THRU LT RT TNAU IT AT TNAU LT AT THRU IT Total
4
4:00 PM 41 36 23 47 21d 11 10 71 44 7 216 47 769
4:15 21 38 35 79 251 14 6 78 21 11 214 R4 792
4:30 34 60 40 54 256 2 5 99 34 6 185 21 796
4:45 19 55 20 36 269 7 8 91 38 5 212 26 792
NR TOTAL 115 189 118 216 992 34 29 345 137 29 827 118 3149
5:00 PM 29 33 33 47 29S 9 7 107 42 14 280 42 938
5:15 23 36 34 101 277 5 15 127 37 21 241 $3 950
5:30 23 4S 46 67 19 5 10 136 52 10 167 !8 187
5:45 26 35 23 67 17; 5 3 76 36 9 164 49 670
HR TOTAL 101 149 136 282 997 24 35 446 167 54 852 152 3345
i
DAY TOTAL 216 338 254 498 1939 58 64 791 304 83 1679 270 6494
PEAK PERIOD ANALYSIS,FOR THE PERIOD 4:00 PM - 6:00 PM
DIRECTION START PEAK HA VOLUMES ..., PERCENTS ...
FROM PEAK HOUR FACTOR Right Thru[Left Total Right Thru Left '
North 4:00 PM 0.79 115 189 118 422 27 45 28
East 4:30 PM 0.89 238 1097 23 1358 18 81 2
South 4:45 PM 0.85 40 467 169 676 6 69 25
West 4:30 PM 0.81 46 918 122 1086 4 85 11
Entire Intersection
North 4:30 PM 0,18 105 184 127 416 25 44 31
East 0.89 238 1097 23 1358 18 81 2
South 0.86 35 430 151 616 6 70 25
West 0.81 46 918 122 1086 4 85 11
A-25
9 .d TBsZT 4661'4Z'ZB WOBd
Site Code 02174416 ORANGE COUNTY TRAFFIC ENGINEERING PAGE: 1
N-S Street: GOOD HOMES RD FILE: G08A294P
El Street: BALBOA ,
Weather : CLOUDY-Lt RAIN Movements by: P jury , DATE: 2/17/94
L
Time From North From Cast From South From West ! Vehicle
Begin AT THRU LT AT THAU LT AT TWRU LT AT THRU LT Total
4:00 PM 0 48 8 12 q 14 19 84 0 0 0 .0 185
4:15 0 58 12 8 0 10 27 118 0 0 0 0 233
4:30 0 66 15 17 Q 17 24 121 0 0 0 0 260
4:45 0 49 13 19 d 29 23 96 0 0 0 ,0 229
NR TOTAL 0 221 48 56 0 70 93 419 0 0 0 0 907
5:00 PM 0 63 13 15 Q 14 45 119 0 0 0 0 269
5:15 0 57 27 19 Q 24 43 142 0 0 0 ;0 312
5:30 0 64 18 24 Q 13 50 139 0 0 0 0 308
5:45 0 81 1 21 0 27 44 162 0 0 0 ,0 342
HR TOTAL 0 265 65 79 0 78 182 562 0 0 0 0 1231
DAY TOTAL 0 486 113 135 0 148 275 981 0 0 0 0 2138
PEAK PERIOD ANALYSIS'FOR THE PERIOD: 4:00 PM • 6:00 PM
DIRECTION START PEAK HR VOL MES .... PERCENTS
FROM PEAK HOUR FACTOR Right Thru Left Total Right Thru Left
North 5:00 PM 0.94 0 265 65 330 0 80 20
East 4:45 PM 0.82 77 0 80 157 49 0 SL
South 5:00 PM 0.90 182 562 0 744 24 76 0
West 5:00 PM 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
; Entire Inters tion
North 5:00 PM 0.94 0 265 65 330 0 80 20
East 0.82 79 0 78 157 50 0 50
South 0.90 182 562 0 744 24 76 0
West 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
A-26
L 'd ZO:ZI b661 'bZ'Z0 WOad
Orange
county Public Works Division
George W. Cole,P.E.,Director
Traffic Engineering Department
Mark V.Massaro,P.E.,Manager
4200 South John Young Parkway
•
Orlando,Florida 32839-9205
March 2 , 1994 Telephone(407)836-7890
FAX(407)836-7999
Mr. Fred Milch
East Central Florida
Regional Planning Council
1011 Wymore Road
Winter Park, Florida 32789
Subject: Lake Lotta Mall
Dear Mr. Milch:
After careful review of the information provided by the
consultants for Lake Lotta Project (Lake Lotta Mall + Lake
Lotta Center) , and in the spirit of regional growth, Orange
County recommends that only Phase 1 of the Lake Lotta Project
be approved with the following conditions.
1 . Phase 1 shall consist of 43 , 800 daily trip ends or
3 , 500 p.m. peak-hour external trips. After buildout
of Phase 1, the project shall be monitored to
determine what roadway improvements, if any, are
needed to proceed beyond Phase 1.
2 . No access to Good Homes Road shall be provided to
Lake Lotta Project.
If you need more details, please not hesitate to contact this
office at (407) 836-7890.
Since =l ,
, ark V Massaro
MVM/RDR/bj
cc: George W. Cole, P. E. , Director, Public Works Division
William P. Baxter, P. E. , Deputy Director
Public Works Division
David Heath, AICP, Manager, Planning Department
A-27
"CENTER OF GOOD LIVING-PRIDE OF WEST ORANGE" MAYOR•COMMISSIONER
Ocoee S.SCOTT VANDERGRIFT
O�
° CITY OF OCOEE COMMISSIONERS
RUSTY
p 150 N.LAKESHORE DRIVE PAUL W.FOSTER
OCOEE FLORIDA 34761-2258 VERN COMBS
f7.y� :15 ,?v (407)656-2322 JIM GLEASON
44:9 OF G 00� CITY MANAGER
ELLIS SHAPIRO
February 25 , 1994
Mr . Greg Golgowski
Project Review Director
East Central Florida Regional Planning Council
1011 Wymore Road, Suite 105
Winter Park, 'lorida 32789
RE: Lake Lotta Mall DRI and Lake Lotta Center DRI
Dear Greg,
Attached please find the outline as presented to the
representatives of both the Lake Lotta Mall DRI and Lake Lotta
Center DRI . This summarizes City Staff ' s recommendations on local
issues which we are preparing for' the City Commission.
We realize that the Region will send its final report after the RPC
meeting on March 16 , 1994 . However, based upon the severity of
our local issues , we chose to present them at this time .
Sincerely,
-P-)r)—,
Montye E . Beamer , Director
Administrative Services
Attachments
cc : Fred Milch ✓
e War%
p�
114 R 0 11994 4
6
*117
A-29
"CENTER OF GOOD LIVING-PRIDE OF WEST ORANGE" MAYOR.COMMISSIONER
Ocoee S.SCOTT VANDERGRIFT
0
COMMLSS1ONERS
jay CITY OF OCOEE RUsr�rJOHNsoN
a 150 N.LAKESHORE DRIVE PAUL W.FOSTER
v OCOEE FLORIDA 34761-2258 VERN COMBS
�.'y� :,:. A�v (40'1)656.2322 JIM GLEASON
EQ OF G 00�` CITY MANAGER
ELLIS SHAPIRO
MEMORANDUM
TO: DISTRIBUTION LIST
FROM: Ellis Shapiro, City Manager,
DATE: February 25, 1994
RE: LAKE LOTTA MALL AND LAKE LOTTA CENTER
Attached please find the outline from today's meeting regarding the above-referenced matter.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (407) 656-4410.
ES:fdg
Attachment
DISTRIBUTION
•
Paul Rosenthal, City Attorney
Jim Shira, City Engineer
Russ Wagner, City Planner
Montye Beamer, Administrative Svces Director
Janet Resnik, Capital Projects/Concurrency Analyst
Ken Hooper, PEC
John Percy, Glatting Jackson
Bill Kercher, Glatting Jackson
Tim Jackson, Glatting Jackson
Michael Calleja, Miller-Sellen
Neil Frazee, Miller-Sellen
Ed Seikus, Homart
Jim Grant, Homart
Jack Oliaro, Homart
Barry Goodman, Lake Lotta, Ltd.
R. A. Biederman, Lake Lotta, Ltd.
A-30
•
LAKE LOTTA MALL AND LAKE LOTTA CENTER
(2/25/94)
INTRODUCTION
The City staff has met to review the status of the Lake Lotta Mall DRI and Lake Lotta Center
DRI and related Comprehensive Plan Amendments in light of the various submittals and
revisions made by the applicants.
The staff has developed a staff position with respect thereto which will be presented to the
City Commission anti the Regional Planning Council.
Lake Lotta Mall/Lake Lotta Center DRI
(1 ) Rezoning and PUD Procedures
A. Lands being purchased by Homart will be processed as a separate PUD
independent of the Lake Lotta PUD.
B. Homart PUD must provide for access to remaining land within Lake Lotta PUD
located east of the mall site.
C. Remaining lands owned by Lake Lotta, Ltd. will remain part of Lake Lotta
PUD. Amendments will be required to Lake Lotta PUD reflecting the land
deletion. Appropriate amendments to Lake Lotta PUD developer agreements
will also be required.
(2) Vesting Issues
A. Lake Lotta, Ltd. has been issued a Certificate of Vesting for the lands
encumbered by Lake Lotta PUD.
B. All PUD documents and development orders must address effect of Certificate
of Vesting on all development orders and development agreements.
C. City will require that all vested trips be allocated based on the underlying land
uses within the Lake Lotta PUD. Under this approach, the mall will utilize
those vested trips allocated to the underlying land being acquired by Homart
and the remaining vested trips will be left in the Lake Lotta PUD available for
use by Lake Lotta, Ltd. in accordance with the Certificate of Vesting.
A-31
•
(3) Lake Lotta Mall DRI and Comprehensive Plan Amendments
•
A. Subject to addressing certain transportation issues, the City staff will support
a Phase I for the Lake Lotta Mall DRI consisting of 1,100,000 square feet of
mall and 100,000 square feet of commercial out parcels.
B. Subject to addressing certain transportation issues, the City staff will support
a Phase II for the Lake Lotta Mall DRI consisting of a 150,000 square foot
expansion of the mall and an additional 150,000 square feet of commercial
out parcels.
C. The City staff will not support access to the mall from Good Homes Road.
(4) Lake Lotta Center DRI and Comprehensive Plan Amendments
A. The City staff has reviewed the proposed uses within Lake Lotta Center DRI
and the densities and intensities associated therewith. The City staff does not
believe that additional commercial space beyond that included in the Lake
Lotta Mall DRI is warranted. Accordingly, the City staff will recommend
denial of a Development Order on the Lake Lotta Center DRI and oppose any
comprehensive plan amendments with respect to the lands underlying the
proposed Lake Lotta Center.
B. As a result, the Lake Lotta PUD and related land uses will remain in effect
which includes approved single family low density and multi-family medium
density as set forth in Lake Lotta PUD.
The remaining portion of the Lake Lotta PUD not included in the Lake Lotta
Mall DRI is vested and may proceed without any DRI review or comprehensive
plan amendments; provided that any such development is consistent with the
Certificate of Vesting and the Lake Lotta PUD.
C. The City staff will not support any changes to the Lake Lotta PUD which
would reconfigure the location, densities or intensities of the approved
residential development.
(5) Lake Lotta Mall Improvements - Phase I
In order of priority to the City, the following is a list of the local improvements which
the City believes are warranted in connection with Phase I of the Lake Lotta Mall DRI:
A-32
A. Improvement of White Road from Clarke to Bluford to bring the roadway up ,
to City standards for a 2-lane road ($1.2 million).
B. Extension of water reuse line from White Road to mall site.
C. Design and engineering of Maguire Road for a 4-lane road ($500,000).
D. Contribution toward cost of aerial fire truck at such time as City determines
a need exists ($100,000).
E. Contribution towards cost of Lake Lotta Basin Drainage Study ($100,000).
F. Design, engineering and right-of-way acquisition cost on extension of Main
Street from Clarke Road to Maguire Road ($600,000).
All of the above improvements are to be made without any road impact fee or other
credits.
(6) Lake Lotta Mall Improvements - Phase II
The following is a list of the local improvements
Mall which the City believes are warranted
in connection with Phase II of the Lake Lotta
A. Dedication and/or acquisition of right-of-way and expansion of Clarke Road to
a 6-lane roadway from S.R. 50 to White Road ($3.2 million).
B. Homan will undertake monitoring of the following intersections one (1) year
after opening of mall:
Clarke/S.R. 50
ii.
Bluford/S.R. 50
iii.
Maguire/S.R. 50
Homan will make all improvements to such intersections if warranted based on
monitoring. (Estimated cost $250,000 per intersection)
All of the,above improvements are to be made without any road impact fee or other
credits.
A-33
By:L D D K & R ; 3- 1-94 ; 5:02PM ; 4074252429-+ 407 623 1084;# 2
Irma L DredlcA Thema L ha•cY Timothy J.Maser Merl L VhRahurit Paw L Loprs
LOI ES (t9M.9$2) Ju1L L Pri Dodd T.MsSaeorll Pe C.Yaikw lr7as T.1[
Lomb .It• r 14444 Tiny C Trams Jolla Q Morrill
Seam Jame SeaAaron D 1.rotvw�G revitzSammi K.Mime
DR 0 SDICK IVOLsm A.Deck= Linda Nicholas A.Pop• =Tedd
�Qiam L 31rd,J. Jima P.Halla Jr. Maws G Ode Clad"C rico&L tiny
OSTER Orvaaangli
.0 Rabat Y. M )..Latta .L
°r T Marr D.&haeu
Lasa A Jahn A.tmd,Jr. Levin P. T.Mardi llosmeer
1 TOR & 'am)4.Courtmy L Decor K LYON Mv�rrtC Lacks `K frhrdh.r. straw L T Doug* -ate L 1pt.T .
T.D.Dvc�ap J�G t4eahnana taw 7.tttsmvasirryL.t jamas. TIMlitaphar MY,
RE ' P.A. llama J.rdsad'r. 101101 Limbar).Lw JLame Gory Saks ah„,� 7•m•J.Mow David G.wDllard
• tdlr.nda P.rtuSvsld Jab.P.L•..a. !watt eTh
C. omp.aa J�1wiiiiilatd A., MOf Caw&
au1
A .•rneys at Law
March 1, 1994
1' LECOPIED
. Aaron Dowling
d:st Central Florida
1 •egional Planning Council
a 1l Wymore Road
' inter Park, FL 32789
1
RE: Lake Lotta Mali DRI
D • Aaron:
The purpose of this letter is to confirm the request of my client, Homart Development,
f•t a 30 day continuance of the hearings as set forth in your letter of February 28, 1994. I am
4-• authorized to advise you that this request is joined in by Barry Goodman relative to the
i
e Lotta Center DRI. I look forward to working with you to resolve the issues in this matter.
Very truly yours,
Reviewed and approved by Mr. Kantor
i
Hal H. Kantor
:ta
ci Homart Development Co.
Bill Kercher
A-35
215 NORTH BOLA DRIVE•POST OFFICE BOX 2809•ORLANDO.FLORIDA 32802
TELEPHONE 407-843-4800•FAX 407.423-4495
•
MECUM Or Comm uCtAL LAW AFTILIATLS WITH 014ICEI W TRRrclpAL CITt81 WOZLDWZD6
••�. Z
•
cr-
C ...........1 01V:111111 ' ��W :z4�• �' Z L
O - t 0 +V 1 f 14 y4rn
.0-Is ` s' L .. "L V
•
:' L— ...., v
nor... n1 std Q�
_ y
o o T. c o .. O � A
'0 E 3�-� c E `u :_ > _ t o
- JC o A. -=-0 C .0 Q > N C -E o C A O _ OJ
'6, c` CV o > o o in > c .> s on 3 d o o R
ai
Q c . �-0 d-o d o '-' 2 '° _c v m > .� >- u ._ u
o '-� o 3 c ... u•o 0 L- ., u o .. .CA C
V...2- - 0 3 — m u • 0 3 w',r b ou o ,a.a
CI
u -'v A'''..i.;...
r o � w` ' .Q vCcu uO oo "� + • W
O o C v p T o .
Z d,c--.7.c O---.s _.. 0 3 C O o =w•Ao v
Z. E r0 p,ba., a v y II'
A d a 3 O. COCT
•'& °' v ,a t a o..- .Ca C o M,-. ' 0 7 J'b on° T.
G. 7
o o• Q o CAC v
T A a L �
c o re 0 O ,
A c .E >rt c, o Aon- on d cn•c c vb u 0 �-8 3 -0 > o 0
E,, .E i c o .0 0 _-2"$C E C o •c on u v 2 .- 0 °`-0 H P.
t/1 ` o, o`o d c o ,CCo •P ^ n3 a 0 L > x c o . •- o C.pp g o iv 6.' -6
Q-o o_ c o • 0E- a, tel • oF^� u 7 u • o E .-1 C >L •
-5 >,
0009ISZ '
96,-S6.
00 u3E" c t .
OU u " Fo - a' i, t o
..a�' W F 2 . - 099'LZS'£$ • S6.-66.
vt9 - 0 A on�L
.o
A C , o c'ob c M
gc ` •
M...
•
�L£9t.
176.-£6..o o a 2 a u
E in
' ot _ a0C 0
GV ` o u vboc to -v o ZiT'bb5'Z$ £6.-Z6,� F
O W. C > O O� F- O .n
F I.
Eno "o 0o o ' 7cUu 6LZ'SIbSr Z6.-16.c b4) , �o a, A. ,> n` v A ,o ' ycP.ci v3 ..� } p---=I OOb'8£$_ c o .0 � m undv 16,-06,Ell IP o. m
AEd7pF" a) .. 0 �
�F w - 0.0 c`ci 4.9 0 A y O .n 0 v) 0 to 0 h 0
C...) =
Crl
= V
CS
0
-` 0 o IN 0 0 0
o E
3 b va 0 0 '0 M 9
C C <' T N T .D
'O L.-.L, b 0 u 'a " Q' .n V) U1 M tl 22
u P ,73 E M
aoY'3E•v3-' ..-ouu o vt -- to vi t» —. H
v^ 6:02og o u .a -
v - o�o a 6oc�c 3 E C 3 -
u yyo A E.�`L'".C..uo.Y A C � C E v
v C 'D" O u.oi,uO�A vi v,,- u� E C
v,C .N"-.,uz u,o u.3O.0 - y >. z OC ° O
,,7,-,.., v-- a to c.0.-a:
v y CI E_ v E o Ll O i� ' '0
Go.0 N1]z y._ co 0 7 v A yr ri U
E 2
7 A V >.u Cl.u C y tp " -N co '� o y o N o A p y o U p y a U V y U N
E3An .a m 'o 1O ^ o'., o -- o u o ...- o E...., 0^. 0
'_'u a'.u_nuL a u ot• 3 b O. ou_U.-•__.. 0.1 e'�u-v_,u uU E v wu a .o,
., t,-,,,,..v, >+ 3 > t,,,-e.-tn C 6 F C 0 a N a to a y tn••>' a w w h. H w`O ti 6. ••
8 E A -.0 N .-b O y .~'--'i.,a' Q'a, Q'O. o'c .V a, or b to a. > .o .0 a. A N
$Z��a, 6c .-r yr OE Z C a 00� "<�0.e)Q 0.w,,'W a..a'n pL. ... < q
N� A t v y=r vaC O L ''0 0� 3S ga, T a, ocr, a, O .5M
A-37
0
• Age.
a. �s`
• ER
• Icv
E
_• z _ 1 ,4- . +
--. y 2 o e, o c°�� o c cEi o ca E ov` 3 •- o �,
o 8
=1 wi gaga - �, i o_0 ,, .c eJ o v d c' _° _ c+•- " -co —7, 3 ii'`
a.
- r
C:3 " x < o •- 3 0 3 0 3 ° ° o .E o ° o o,, o c c {
A o
it
«,y
... '
o -<
IO2,mp,- a
o ' ,, if
yi
0 . IA
gbiAniia. ll 8
i ltilM x _.
0
• C
IDIZ
•
•
. _
A
. :o. _ ,n❑
S'
I •. • $ •
„:„--- 1 '_J;L:2i,!,..-i.r7: - :::„...
"..i'At;.-.. 0 ( i-71;"1:.':':'.::' . ..fi:.„.j.:::::::,;:,,;,„:..
libl. . ...... ---= t”:
-
iI":14;fii
I ` ' _oI �Iti'�� oo •
...1,,,,,,,:mt::,.- - . ,a, . ip .1C:0) 1 _
7
0 `
^k.'yj fi .4 l
,,A,.•,;..i.A.N.:,,:::,',,',......:..:,....,....,':‘,...s:::.:'..i.i..•.'!',.-..E.,.!:,,......ix',...',..,...'..•..:..•..,,,,,..,,••••,.•:.,,,"...,,,,....,:•:.,..,':,,,i.:,;•...i,...'].'i..'....,:'.i..:'.:..."..,::.:.5...:.
k•"040.:', �j)Vati4 ^ t mintiItQ
te
:� ►+ ► .
'! r
••A♦ I .ice
: 110 -',ryyti \ Iia'
MAR-01-1994 09:09 LYNX 407 244 3393 P.03
a�
u
i.......111
r' i1
C/] a
C4 ;fie 0 cu 4
•
1C CD30
1 •E g -fg; '. ,
al c2
wizz-
N —. N N 5000
0
i 1 1
mD� a,a a.
Lys+ gtiao��o 'o
X ;
y clE- o
2,4
.a& g�1 lio k till SaSo . -III R,3 :1 J" h 14\4464F.ii Ati
iii
1/ en rs'
Z =.1 )Itl g7q5cAISS 7gi' liii5 tti I.,
ILE`! i B
C oi
p.
111•
II• . ,..., a E gcv > V
Q
TOTAL P.03
A-39
I
LINK 27-Winter Garden N
,.� I
I I=
• W /\\i'/ E
KLONOIKE
f.".c4
WESTBIOE
VO TECH I c
TOVJNAK HAfDLL STORY ROAD I ` STORY ROAD ¢1 S
P OAKLAND •
AVE. i ORANGE CO. 1 I
t 6ERVICE 1 j
o I NIGMJ�ND o
i 1 MRS) g 1 ,i, s Piz 1
*a_ q4" STATE ROAD 60 % HEALTH CENTRAL _,
tiN�
•
MONDAY-SATURDAY
G ��� P �p b AP Pb 7
"T." 476 4, cet, A.431 ,/,;)-
ss-e 4;<:, ,,,, s -,- 4.. ....„ qe- ,-.t. •tv .
1 2 3 4 5 6 6 5 4 3 2 1
5:20 5:30 5:36 5:41 5:46 5:55
6:05 6;11 6:17 6:23 6:30 6:30 6:36 6:41 6:46 6:55
7:05 7:11 7:17 7:23 7:30 7:30, 7:36 7:41 7:46 7:55
8:05 8:11 8:17 8:23 8:30 8:30 8:36 8:41 8:46 8:55
9:05 9:11 9:17 9:23 9:30 9:30 9:36 9:41 9:46 9:55
10:05 10:11 10:17 10:23 10:28 10;31 10:36 10:41 10:46 10:55
11:05 11:11 11;17 11:23 11:30 11:30. 11:36 11:41 11:46 11:55
• 12:05 12:11 12:17 12:23 12:30 12:30 12:36 12:41 12:46 12:55
1;05 1:11 1:17 1:23 1:30 1:30 1:36 1:41 1:46 1:55
2:05 2:11 2:17 2:23 2:28 2:31 2:36 2:41 2:46 2:55
3:05 3:11 3:17 3:23 3:30 3:30 3:36 3:41 3:46 3:55
4;05 4:11 4:17 4:23 4:30 4:30 4:36 4:41 4:46 4:55
5:05 5:11 5:17 5:23 5:30 5;30 5:36 5:41 5:46 5:55
6:05 6;11 6:17 6:23 6:30 6:30 6:36 6:41 6:46 6:55
7:05 7:11 7:17 7:23 7:28 7:37 7:37 7:43 7:47 7:52 8:00
A-40
Appendix B
Comprehensive Regional Policy Plan and State
Land Development Plan Citations
As codified in Section 29F-19.001, Florida Administrative Code
POLICY 19.1 Provide a broad geographic choice of a variety of housing types and price levels for all residents living in
or migrating to the region. Implementation of this policy requires, at a minimum, consideration of the following criteria:
1. Alternative choices for housing catering to the needs and preferences of persons in all income brackets should be
available in a broad selection of areas throughout the region.
2. Downtown redevelopment areas should promote new housing, rehabilitation of existing housing, necessary
infrastructure and services,and provide housing opportunities that will be attractive to representative proportions of
all income groups. Displacement of existing residents shall be minimized in the redevelopment process.
3. Areas currently characterized by high concentrations of low income housing,minority groups,and publicly assisted
housing should be more heterogeneous.
4. Encourage an adequate supply of housing types at a variety of price levels,including housing for low and moderate
income households and manufactured and pre-fabricated homes.
5. Housing mobility and choice should be assisted through the encouragement of a sufficient inventory of housing stock
to maintain adequate vacancy rates for low income owner occupied housing and rental housing units.
POLICY 19.8: Support coordination among the public, private, and user sectors of the region's housing market. Promote
awareness of and access to information regarding the services of public and private agencies to all persons within the region,
especially minorities,elderly, low income groups, the handicapped,transients and single parent families. Implementation of
this policy requires, at a minimum, consideration of the following criteria:
1. Communication among the various organizations comprising the housing market,such as public assistance agencies,
financial institutions and realtors should be strengthened.
2. Residents of the region who are seeking housing should be aware of and have access to appropriate housing services
provided by public and private entities.
POLICY 37.6: Non-potable water use demands shall be met using water of the lowest quality supply which is both
available and acceptable for the intended application. Water reuse or water reclamation programs should be used,wherever
economically and environmentally feasible, to reduce groundwater or surface water withdrawals for water use applications
which (10 not require potable water.
POLICY 38.3: Stormwater management systems should employ the most efficient and cost-effective pollutant control
techniques available. Stormwater permitting agencies should encourage the use of new Best Management Practices whose
potential for superior efficiency or cost-effectiveness has been demonstrated through research,and should incorporate such
practices into their design standards once they have been proven efficient at pollutant removal,reliable and cost-effective in
practical applications.
POLICY 38.7: Long-term maintenance of stormwater management systems shall be the responsibility of financially
responsible entities so as to ensure the proper functioning and expected pollutant removal efficiency of stormwater
• B-1
management systems in perpetuity. Local governments shall ensure that owner/operators of stormwater management systems
maintain their systems properly so as to conform with the requirements of their construction permits and State water quality
standards (Chapter 17-3,F.A.C.).
POLICY 43.1: Proposed activities which would destroy or degrade the function of wetlands or deepwater habitat shall not
be permitted except where such activities are not contrary to the public interest and there is no practical alternative which
reduces or avoids impacts to wetlands or deepwater habitat. Unavoidable losses of viable wetlands should be mitigated
through the demonstrably successful restoration,creation or(where no other alternative is feasible)preservation of wetlands
whose functional values are at least comparable to those of the wetlands lost. Wetlands mitigation should occur within the
same watershed as the proposed impact to ensure that there is no net loss of wetland functional values within the watershed
where the loss is to occur. Creation of new wetlands as mitigation should avoid impacts to ecologically valuable uplands
including, but not limited to, bird nesting colonies, migratory wildlife corridors and rare or endangered ecosystems.
POLICY 44.1: Planning and approval of development projects shall avoid adverse impacts to listed species. Where suitable
habitat on a project site is utilized by a listed species, a site plan and management plan designed to minimize harm to the
species and maintain sufficient habitat to support a viable population of the species on site should be made a condition of
development approval. Local governments should ensure that management plans are consistent with the adopted management
strategies and recommendations of the appropriate State agency (FGFWFC for upland and freshwater species, FDNR for
marine species) prior to issuing development approval.
POLICY 44.2: All levels of government shall protect critical habitat for listed species . The RPC shall serve as a data
clearinghouse for information on critical habitat designations and shall provide this information to local governments and the
general public.
POLICY 61.1: The region's diverse architectural, historical and archaeological resources shall be properly identified and
evaluated, and should be protected and preserved, with interpretative information being developed for the purpose of
enhancing the level of public understanding and appreciation of the region's resources. The following minimum criteria and
procedures shall be adhered to in the implementation of this policy:
1. Factors to be considered in the identification and designation of historic sites and landmarks should include but not
be limited to the following criteria and standards as applied in the evaluation of each candidate: ,
a. Character, interest, or value as part of the development,heritage or cultural characteristics of the city,county,
region or state;
b. Location or site of a significant historic event;
c. Identification with a person or persons of historical fame,or who have significantly contributed to the culture
and development of a city or area;
d. Exemplification of the cultural, economic, social or historic heritage of a city or area;
c. Portrayal or exemplification of the environment of a group of people in an era of history characterized by a
distinctive architectural style;
f. Embodiment of distinguishing characteristics of an architectural type or specimen;
g. Identification as the work of an architect or master builder whose individual work has influenced the
development of a city or area;
B-2 •
h. Embodiment of elements of architectural design,detail, materials,or craftsmanship that represent a significant
architectural innovation or style;
i. Relationship to other distinctive structures,properties or areas that are eligible for preservation according to a
• plan based on a historical, cultural or architectural motif; and
j. Unique location or singular physical characteristic representing an established and familiar visual feature of a
neighborhood, city or area.
2. Additional criteria considerations include:
a. Religious properties deriving primary significance from architectural or artistic distinction, or historical
importance;
b. A building or structure removed from its original location, but which is significant primarily for architectural
value, or which is the surviving structure most importantly associated with a historic person or event;
c. A birthplace or grave of a historical figure of outstanding importance if there is no appropriate site or building
directly associated with his or her productive life;
d. A cemetery which derives its primary significance from graves of persons of transcendent importance,from age,
from distinctive design features,or from association with historic events;
e. A reconstructed building when accurately executed in a suitable environment and presented in a dignified manner
as part of a restoration master plan,and no other building or structure with the same association has survived;
f. A property primarily commemorative in intent if design, age, tradition,or symbolic value has invested it with
its own exceptional significance;
g. A property achieving significance within the past fifty years if it is of exceptional importance; and
h. A property,structure or group of structures that represent the qualities and characteristics of a particularly fine
or unique example of a utilitarian purpose, and having a high level of architectural integrity or significance.
Examples include but are not limited to farmhouses, barns, citrus packing houses, gasoline stations and other
commercial structures.
3. For properties of archaeological significance,the following criteria should be used to determine the significance of
a site or area:
a. Important historical event or person associated with the site;
b. The quality of the site or the data recoverable from the site is of sufficient enough significance that it would
provide unique information on prehistoric or historical events;
c. The site was the focus of discrete types of activities such as habitation,religious practice,burial, fortification,
etc.;
d. The site was the location of historic or prehistoric activities during a particular period of time; and
e. The site maintains a sufficient degree of environmental integrity to reflect some aspect of the relationship of the
site's original occupants to the environment.
• B-3
4. The preservation quality of archaeological sites should be based on the following evaluative considerations:
a. The site is intact and has had little or no subsurface disturbance. The site should be preserved or excavated if
threatened with destruction or alteration;
b. The site is slightly to moderately disturbed,but what actually remains has considerable potential for providing
useful information. The site should be preserved if possible and considered for excavation if threatened with
destruction or alteration;
c. The site is severely disturbed, which may include destruction or disturbance to an area of the site. The quality
and volume of existing data may still permit useful and representative data to be recovered. Preservation of the
site should be considered and excavation may be appropriate to mitigate any adverse impact on the site;
d. The site is severely altered and the quality of the data is poor. Neither preservation nor excavation is
recommended;
c. The site has been completely destroyed; and
f. The preservation quality of the site is unknown because the site is covered by a structure, roadway or fill.
5. Areas within the region should be classified and identified in terms of the projected priority of need for professional
archaeological surveys and related investigations to be conducted prior to land development activities or site
modifications being undertaken. The classification shall include the following categories:
a. Areas of extremely high priority: investigations and surveys must be performed before any land development
activity takes place;
b. Areas of moderate priority: investigations and surveys may be necessary,as determined on a case-by-case basis;
and
c. Areas of minimum priority: investigations and surveys are not considered to be necessary due to the
significantly disturbed nature of the land surface and subsurface levels.
6. Information searches and field surveys should be conducted for the purposes of:
a. Identifying individual examples of potential architectural styles,historic properties,and archaeological resources
in the region;
b. Determining the relevance, nature, condition, characteristics and importance of each identified example;
c. Identifying examples, based on (b), that arc worthy candidates for future protection, use, rehabilitation or
restoration efforts; and
d. Assessing the extent of urgency in providing the necessary degree of protection so as to ensure against future
destruction or significant diminishment.
7. Archaeological and historical sites should be classified in accordance with their period,functions and characteristics,
to aid in proper and adequate information filing, storage,retrieval,or use.
8. Development and implementation of resource management projects intended to:
a. Enhance the levels of public awareness, understanding and appreciation of individual examples' significance;
B-4
b. Promote (where appropriate) public access opportunities or viable usage;
c. Ensure the retention of historical, architectural or archaeological values; and
• d. Provide protection for individual examples from destruction and vandalism.
9. Protection and preservation measures should be implemented for resources (e.g. sites, structures, properties, areas
and districts) which have been determined to possess significant historical, archaeological or architectural values.
The measures should include,as appropriate, but may not be limited to the following:
a. Inclusion in open space,park land, active and passive recreation or conservation areas of publicly-owned lands
or within privately-owned developments;
b. Establishment of conservation easements;
c. Historic district zoning and site development standards;
d. Site plan performance standards;
e. Architectural preservation standards;
f. Archaeological arca development and preservation standards;
g. Acquisition by purchase;
h. Purchase of development rights;
i. Transferral of development rights;
j. Restrictive development covenants,and
k. Where applicable, encouragement of private landowner support in protecting the integrity of each resource.
• 10. Local programs shall,where financially feasible,be established for the identification and designation of architectural,
historical and archaeological resources which are determined not to be significant enough to be candidates for
inclusion in state or national programs.
POLICY 61.5: The adverse impacts of adjacent land uses on historical and archaeological sites listed on or eligible for listing
on the Florida Master Site File or National Register of Historic Places shall be avoided or reduced to the maximum practical
extent. The following minimum criteria and procedures should be adhered to in the implementation of this policy:
1. The identification and evaluation of adverse impacts on historic sites, structures or properties include assessments
of, but are not limited to:
a. The visual continuity of the historical resource with its immediate surroundings;
b. The degree of compatibility between the historical resource and proposed land uses in the immediate vicinity;
c. The maintenance of a historical resource with other ancillary or supporting structures and appurtenances such
as fences, walkways, outbuildings, plants and trees which might be an important part of the entity's history,
• function or purpose; and
B-5
d. The maintenance of the relative prominence of a historical resource in terms of height, accessibility, view
distance and linear distance from other buildings and structures.
2. The identification and evaluation of adverse impacts on archaeological sites or areas from adjacent land uses include
assessments of, but are not limited to:
a. The effects of proposed land uses in the immediate vicinity of the archaeological resource in terms of its
continued existence and maintenance of integrity;
b. The relationship, role and function of the archaeological resource to the surrounding land uses and activities,
which are designated as either:
(1) "Desirable," which includes: protection of its intrinsic values as an archaeological resource; incorporation
into a harmonious development pattern; adequate protection while providing for public access and
information about the archaeological resource; incorporation in site development plans as green space,
conservation area, passive recreational area, or other land uses which do not disturb the ground; or
(2) "Undesirable," which includes: destruction, damage or significant diminishment resulting from land
modification and site development activities;purposeful looting and vandalism;incompatible land uses and
activities resulting in changes in surface water or groundwater levels due to drainage modifications or
groundwater chemistry due to the introduction of pollutants.
3. The above-described impact evaluations and assessments should be undertaken for each development project when
an identified historical or archaeological resource may be impacted by the proposed project. The evaluations and
assessments should be components of a Historical-Archaeological Resource Management Plan prepared by the
developer of each proposed project prior to the site plan review stage of project approval, with the plan becoming
a component of the site plan submittal requirements of local governments.
POLICY 61.9: Concurrent with the provision of increased access opportunities, efforts shall be undertaken to protect the
cultural, historical, and archaeological resources from vandalism and destruction. Adherence to this policy,at a minimum,
should include the following actions:
1. Continued anonymity of the exact locations of archaeological resources in remote locations or situations where
adequate site protection or security would be difficult to provide.
2. Enhanced site security and property protection systems and procedures, to include:
a. Visual surveillance techniques;
b. Electronic detection devices;
c. Scheduled patrols;
d. Security fencing and posted trespassing notices;
e. More severe legal penalties for conviction of vandalism and theft; and
f. Neighborhood watch programs (where applicable).
3. Preparation and dissemination of increased levels of public information on the extent of vandalism and theft in terms
of losses of historic resources,diminished usage,and the public costs of repair and replacement,with the information
being disseminated via posters, television and radio public service announcements, news releases, and information
B-6
to interested organizations.
POLICY 63.1: Incentives,programs, and scheduling actions which promote the use of public and private transit facilities
• and systems in urban areas shall be developed and implemented where appropriate and financially feasible,with consideration
being given to:
•
1. Development and implementation of service routes and schedules in response to identified and projected ridership
needs, to include:
a. Ongoing efforts to determine ridership needs and preferences for use in the determination of regular transit
service priorities and specialized transit services;
h. Provision of service, including express bus routes, in response to identified needs regarding routes and time
schedules, with emphasis being placed on service between areas of high ridership potential,such as: residential
areas, employment centers, commercial and shopping areas, and major airports, primary tourist service and
commercial areas; and
c. Use of media advertisements and announcements to publicize and promote the use of public transit systems and
to provide information to the public about routes, schedules, and costs.
2. Provision of park-and-ride facilities at strategic and convenient locations to promote accessibility and ease of
ridership on public transit systems.
3. Ongoing evaluations of the extent of subsidized transit service in order to establish a viable ridership base.
4. Encouragement of employers with over 500 persons in one facility, or groups of employers in a common
development with a combined total of over 500 employees,to provide bus stop shelters at convenient locations and
display current bus routes and schedules for employee information when public transit service is available (Traffic
Mitigation Reference Guide, Metropolitan Transportation Commission,Oakland,CA). When shelters are provided,
credits for the reduction in the number of parking spaces should be provided.
5. Encouragement of employers to establish free or preferred parking privileges or other incentives for employees who
•
are participants in ridesharing programs.
6. Encourage public school boards to explore the use of school buses to supplement public transit vehicle fleets in
providing transit services in the region.
POLICY 63.2: The multi-modal usage of transportation corridors shall be emphasized,with adequate planning,acquisition,
and implementation being undertaken where feasible, to include:
I. Evaluations of each major transportation corridor being conducted once every five years or more often as needed,
for the purpose of determining the feasibility of increasing the peak hour use efficiency of each corridor.
2. Where possible, all transit stations and bus stops on new and reconstructed major and minor arterials should have
adequate bays consistent with FDOT standards so that buses may leave the mainstream of traffic flow while
servicing passengers, with each of the locations being consistent with local comprehensive plans.
3. Bicycle facilities being considered as components of standard design criteria for new and reconstructed roadway
facilities in urban areas pursuant to the requirements of s. 335.005, F.S.,and adopted local bikeway plans, with
• determinations of need and costs being of primary consideration.
B-7
POLICY 63.3: Where applicable, bicycle facilities, pedestrian walkways, and associated facilities should be included as
integral components of roadways of regional significance,with priority of implementation being oriented to the establishment
of networks along regionally significant roadways between residential centers and schools,employment and retail commercial
areas, and recreation and other public facilities. Consideration should be given to the following criteria and procedures in
the implementation of this policy:
1. Bicycle facilities being considered as components of standard design criteria for new and reconstructed roadway
facilities of regional significance,except for expressways and freeways,in urban areas pursuant to the requirements
of s.335.065,F.S.,and adopted bikeway plans,with determinations of need and costs being of primary consideration.
2. As applicable, identification and implementation of the relative priorities of need for the construction of bicycle and
pedestrian walkway facilities along existing transportation corridors as a means of travel between residential areas,
schools, employment and retail centers, recreational areas and other public facilities, with the prioritization being
based on:
a. Extent of existing and projected need and use;
b. Existing public safety problems;
c. Available rights-of-way and constraints affecting the acquisition of additional rights-of-way;
d. Financial feasibility and capabilities; and
c. Implementation schedules in adopted bikeway plans.
3. Bicycle safety classes being developed for inclusion in the curriculum of grades K-6.
POLICY 63.4: The private sector shall be encouraged to become actively involved with public agencies in the provision
and financial support of mass transit facilities and services, with consideration being given to:
I. Provisions for subsidies to regular and long-term public transit system users, to include evaluations of:
a. Fare discounts to riders who arrange to purchase books of tickets for one,three,or six months,or for other long-
period units; and
b. Fare discounts to riders whose companies provide financial assistance to offset the cost of fare expenses.
2. Provision of assistance in providing services such as commuter bus service,shared-ride taxi and private van pools.
3. Railroad companies being encouraged to assess the feasibility and practicality of the operation of commuter passenger
service on railroad trackage in urban areas within the region, to include:
a. CSX (Seaboard System) between Sanford and Kissimmee, and Orlando-Lockhart;
b. Florida East Coast Railway between Ormond Beach and Palm Bay; and
c. Florida Central Railroad between Lockhart and Apopka;with consideration being given to: the amount of public
investment and operating subsidies determined to be necessary for the efficient use of trackage; and the
limitations placed on possible co-use in order to avoid disruption of normal railroad operations and maintain
adequate levels of public safety.
4. Private employers should be encouraged to provide for mass transit facilities and services through joint ventures with
B-8
public agencies where, in return for development of mass transit facilities,private entities may utilize space above,
below or adjacent to transportation facilities for commercial, residential or industrial purposes.
POLICY 63.8: Large non-residential developments(including,but not limited to DRI's)in urban areas served by a public
transit system shall provide transit ridership amenities such as shelters, route information and schedules, and provide
incentives to encourage transit and ridesharing usage and help maintain levels of services,with consideration being given to
the following minimum criteria and procedures in the implementation of this policy:
1. Provisions for subsidies to regular or long-term public transit system users,to include evaluations of:
a. Fare discounts to riders who arrange to purchase books of tickets for one,three,or six months,or for other long-
period units; and
b. Fare discounts to riders whose companies provide financial assistance to offset the cost of fare expenses.
2. Employers with over 500 persons,or groups of employers in a common development with a combined total of over
500 employees, to provide bus stop shelters at convenient locations and display current bus routes, schedules,and
fees for employee information.
3. Employers are encouraged to establish free or preferred parking privileges for employees who are participants in
ridesharing programs.
4. Each project which is estimated to generate more than 1,000 average daily trips will prepare and implement the
recommendations of a transit and ridesharing implementation study for the purpose of identifying measures to
effectively lower automobile usage levels while increasing the usage of public transit facilities and ridesharing by
employees. Each transit and ridesharing implementation study should assess the feasibility of each of the following
issues for implementation within a development project or area:
a. Provision of a Transportation Coordinator position to serve the needs of employees of the development
(recommended for employers of 4,000 or more persons);
b. Methods of access to regional transit services;
• c. The role and use of subsidies (transit,carpool, vanpool) in achieving local ridesharing goals; and
d. Annual survey of employee commuting needs and patterns; and
c. Identify the methods of implementing the issues which have been identified as being feasible,and the time frame
for implementation.
5. Employers of 4,(100 or more persons, or groups of employers in a common development with a combined
employment total of 4,000 or more persons, should utilize at least one rideshare coordinator.
POLICY 63.11: Innovative transportation financing techniques such as private and public transit partnerships and user-pay
facilities shall be encouraged, to include:
1. Co-location of public transit facilities and park-and-ride facilities in major shopping centers as integral components
of the public transit infrastructure.
2. Development of transportation centers,including public transit,rail services,commercial bus lines,taxis and airport
• limousine services in locations convenient to central business districts or major tourist centers, with financing
provided by the transit service providers.
B-9
3. The promotion of master site planning to provide for an array of services at each transportation center, including
retail shopping, restaurants and local area information.
4. Increased use of tolls and other user fees to finance the construction or expansion of ground transportation facilities
and systems, including measured impacts on the state highway system.
POLICY 64.2: Local governments should strive for the achievement of effective levels of intergovernmental coordination
in the setting and modification of operating levels of service on components of the regionally significant roadway system in
their jurisdiction, with consideration being given to:
1. Coordination with adjacent units of local government along each roadway segment,the MPO(if applicable)and the
FDOT;
2. Consistency with the statutory requirements of ss. 163.3177 and 163.3202,F.S.,pertaining to capital improvements
plans and land development regulations; and
3. Consistency with the Florida Transportation Plan regarding components of the state highway system.
4. Whenever a level of service established by a local government for a regionally significant roadway adversely affects
another local government's established level of service, with an objection being expressed by the affected local
government, the level of service most consistent with regional level of service standards shall be used as a measure
for conflict resolution.
POLICY 64.3: Right-of-way shall be acquired or reserved as far in the future as possible for planned roadway projects,
so as to minimize excessive costs for land purchases,and so that the locations and widths of these roads can be considered
in ongoing transportation system planning and design activities; and
POLICY 64.5: Access to minor arterials, major arterials and expressways shall be limited in order to maximize their
traffic-carrying capacity and safety, with consideration being given to:
1. The functional classification of each roadway segment being used as a basis for determining the number of access
points allowed and types and extent of traffic flow enhancement measures needed to maintain the capacity;
2. The issuance of access and connection permits to the regional roadway network being limited to the minimum
number necessary to provide safe and reasonable access;
3. Where determined to be necessary, deceleration lanes being required at all access points on minor arterials, major
arterials, and expressways;
4. Shared access points being used wherever possible in order to minimize the necessity of one or more access points
to adjacent small businesses;
5. The need for and feasibility of service or frontage roads being constructed along new major arterials and expressways
or, when feasible, along reconstructed arterials and expressways to increase roadway capacities, and to reduce
conflicts between local and through traffic; and
6. Access points to parcels with frontage along two or more roadways being located on the roadway of lower functional
classification.
POLICY 64.9: Dedication of rights-of-way and easements for required improvements to support development traffic and
to maintain adequate levels of service on the regional highway network should be required from private sector developers,
B-10
with consideration being given to:
1. Development-related improvements being at the expense of the development which will directly benefit from the
improvements, to include donation or dedication of right-of-way to the extent legally permissible;
•
2. The value of the land taken (if the transfer of property is to be compensated by the entity building the roadway)
being assessed at a rate which does not consider an inflated value due to the improved or new roadway being present,
but is based on the value of the land in its condition and use prior to the roadway improvements; and
3. Assignment of development cost credits or deductions for dedications of rights of way.
POLICY 64.10: Interlocal solutions to the transportation needs and problems of the region shall be accomplished through
the coordination of transportation improvements with local, MPO (where applicable), regional and state plans. Adherence
to this policy requires, at a minimum, that consideration be given to:
1. Coordinating actions or interlocal agreements between local government entities(including MPO's where applicable)
being undertaken for the purposes of:
a. Addressing transportation impacts of a development project in one jurisdiction on an adjacent jurisdiction.
Determination of the extent of impact should be based upon actual traffic loadings contributed by the project;
b. Coordinating or assisting in the development of the traffic circulation and mass transit(as applicable)elements
of local government comprehensive plans as required by s. 163.3177, F.S.;
c. Coordinating interagency review procedures, including which activities will be included; and
d. Ensuring that transportation planning and programming are part of the comprehensive planning process in the
region.
2. Interagency coordination being established and maintained in the:
a. Determination and designation of transportation corridors of major statewide or regional significance,as required
in s. 339.155(6)(c), F.S.;
b. Development of strategies to provide for the orderly and systematic acquisition of rights-of-way located within
the designated corridors, as required in s. 339.155(6)(c)1., F.S.; and
c. Development and operation of transportation facilities and services within the corridors, as required in s.
339.155(6)(c)2., F.S.
3. A multijurisdictional traffic impact analysis being required when a development's expected trip generation exceeds
1,500 trips per day and is within two miles of a county or city boundary, or when a development's projected trip
generation exceeds 2,000 trips per day regardless of the development's location.
POLICY 64.11: Toll facilities should be used, where feasible, as a means of financing the construction and maintenance
of limited access roadways and expressways to facilitate the movement of people and goods in,around and between the major
urban centers within the region. Toll facility plans and designs should take into account:
I. Existing and projected future land use patterns in and near potential route corridors and service areas;
2. Projections of need, use and revenues generated from such use;
B-11
3. Estimations of the impacts on existing land uses,particularly residential,and as a catalyst affecting future land uses,
including the promotion of urban sprawl;
4. Identification and assessment of potential adverse environmental impacts, including an evaluation of possible
mitigation measures,consistent with regional policies 64.23 and 64.24;
5. Projected user needs for the location of park-and-ride stations for carpooling and public transit systems;
6. Coordination and compatibility with other affected components of the regional roadway network,in order to assure
desired operating levels of service on each component of the network; and
7. Determination of preferred corridor alignments,facilities,access points and design traffic capacity needs being based
on Policy 64.11(1) - 64.11(6).
POLICY 64.28: The ECFRPC's adopted DRI Transportation Level of Service(LOS)Standards Rule(s.29F-3.011,F.A.C.)
shall be adhered to in the review of transportation impacts in Development of Regional Impact(DRI)applications and other
similar reviews conducted by the RPC or certified local governments.
POLICY 65.1: Expand efforts to identify consistency or conflict among programs at the state,regional,and local levels and
evaluate the degree to which government actions support identified regional goals and policies.
POLICY 65.5: Intergovernmental coordination mechanisms shall be developed through a local government comprehensive
planning process to assure that multi-jurisdictional impacts are properly addressed.
B-12
Or