Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDevelopment of Regional Impact - Lake Lotta Center DRI #694-05 April, 19994 DR , Lake Lotta Center DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT DRI # 694-05 gmilletiiii_slemmies...... _40% a wApril , 1994 LAKE LOTTA CENTER L 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 9 B. Wildlife 12 C. Wetlands 13 D. Groundwater 13 E. Air Quality 14 IV. Public Facilities 17 A. Water Supply 17 B. Wastewater Management 18 V. Housing 19 A. Housing Demand 19 B. Housing Supply 20 C. Conclusion 22 VI. Transportation 22 A. Operational Levels of Service 22 B. Existing Conditions 23 C. Future Traffic Growth 23 D. Assumptions 27 E. Future Traffic Conditions 29 F. Issues 31 G. Conclusion 39 VII. Recommendations R-1 • i LIST OF FIGURES • Figure 1 Location Map 6 Figure 2 Development Plan 8 Figure 3 Vegetation/Land Use Analysis 10 Figure 4 Housing Supply Area 21 Figure 5 Existing Conditions (1993) 24 Figure 6 Percent Project Trip Distribution for Phase I (1997) 30 Figure 7 Peak Hour Levels of Service at Buildout (2000) 32 • ii LIST OF TABLES . Table l Summary of Regional Issues Considered in the Evaluation Evaluation of the Lake Lotta Center DRI* 3 Table 2 Development Program and Phasing 7 Table 3 Summary of Proposed Development Program 25 Table 4 Trip Generation Formulas 25 Table 5 Summary of PM Peak-Hour Trip Generation, Year 1997 26 Table 6 Summary of PM Peak-Hour Trip Generation, Year 2000 26 Table 7 Planned and Programmed Roadway Improvements 28 iii LIST OF APPENDICES • Appendix A Outside Correspondence A-1 Appendix B Comprehensive Regional Policy Plan gl iv • I. APPLICANT INFORMATION 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 the extent which, the development will: ]. 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 juridictions; and 3. have a favorable or adverse affect on the ability of people to find adequate housing reasonably accessible to their places 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, IV, a, Plan Interpretation, FAC) B. Distribution List 1. City of Ocoee 2. Orange County Planning Department 3. Department of Environmental Regulation 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 9. Orange County Environmental Protection Department 10. Florida Natural Areas Inventory 11. Central Florida Sierra Club 12. LYNX 13. City of Orlando 14. Orange County Public Works 15. Division of Historical Resources 16. Florida Department of Environmental Protection 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(DR1) 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 Center DRI* REGIONALLY SIGNIFICANT REGIONAL ISSUE IMPACT Environment A air quality no Natural Resources A soils no A wetlands yes 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 Center DRI Application. 3 D. Applicant Information Project Name: Lake Lotta Center Applicants: Lake Lotta, Limited. Lotta GP, Inc., Managing General Partner 890 State Road 434, North Altamonte Springs, FL 32714 (407) 788-6555 Authorized Agent: Mr. Barry S. Goodman Lake Lotta, Limited 890 State Road 434, North Altamonte Springs, FL 32714 (407) 788-6555 • DRI Consultant: Miller-Sellen Associates, Inc. 214 East Lucerne Circle Orlando, FL 32801 (407) 422-3330 Jim Sellen Neil Frazee Date of Application: September, 1993 ECFRPC Hearing: April 20, 1994 Government of Jurisdiction: City of Ocoee 4 II. PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION A. Project Location Lake Lotta Center is a 107 acre development located on either side of the proposed Lake Lotta Mall DRI in the City of Ocoee. Primary access is by Clarke Road, a newly constructed divided highway which terminates directly into the western end of the East-West Expressway at its interchange with State Road 50 (Colonial Drive). Access to the western parcel is also provided by White Road which passes along the northern property line. The eastern parcel lies between the mall site and Good Homes Road, with access from the mall and Good Homes Road. Adjacent land uses include The Hammocks residential subdivision to the west of the western parcel and the Rosehill residential subdivision north of the eastern parcel. The Rosehill development and lands to the east are in unincorporated Orange County, as is the Citrus Oaks subdivision to the south • across State Road 50. Lands to the north are expected to also see residential use. The location Map is presented as Figure 1. Recent concerns over commercial access to Good Homes Road by Orange County and the City of Ocoee have put the possibility of having access to Good Homes in doubt. For the regional review, this possibility is most important to traffic movement and is discussed more in that section of this report. B. Project Description Development is planned to occur in two phases; the first running from 1995 to 1997 and the second ending in 2000. The development program is summarized in the following table (Table 2) and also illustrated in Figure 2. 5 — FIGURE 1 N : N :_ 7 i E 8 .1 = f. E frit c j a 3 F u F a m z - a� o i 3 3 0 © 0000000i. J r M 3 Y l Qo © 0 :. i i. r_ r is j i5; " h. Y J d s i si If' I is j =�o /•t ��i © V . 1 I , C'y i eiil 1 0 �� ® Er,+ /f'' 1....r•• ,,i-- i t .;111110-16%®ilm,I III 91 1 9 v 3 PI ' diorip, ' _,......'I' 1 . a\%.1 1 tkii,§1 ; ° 1 4:341114latlikt. 416, Q 1 11 11. itti in a! o a ! /Oti U • I' kro y'•��1 `5 t, la14�tl A 9"!P6 d: �' �7 ila gixfAlf 't,�:h1_�' 1 ate . NIS \ I �'• �, i-iflrtiL flit `1 �{!'lt'� [t =ip�p`gplE ! :.t irti'lt&i, • tr.-,.., INA 06 -.1 �.lil h11 c 21 IN �t. I Ii ! _!. �� I j a .�K� ,1 F. 1. \1f ih �.I W ? \=1 !l ._ r c Ti 14 -1 - '7 --- g--— 5i I H a(�y �� .�� CC f .\�.\ 'j ` ' 3" " a0 QI! I 4� 0.4 6 • Table 2 Development Program and Phasing Lake Lotta Center One (1997) Residential 360 Dwelling Units 33.20 Acres 550,000 Gross Two (2000) Retail Square Feet 49.63 Acres Lake & Access 24.32 Acres fi 550,000 Gross Square Feet TOTAL 360 Dwelling Units 107.15 Acres 7 I , L. a FIGURE 2 ___ __ ___� __ ►.w.HY•Y.wp :i rI 1 F • I =. 1 ' b , 1 Ed a= i l 1 I e� Ii ' n Y ( 1 I a E a 1 I =ate • 0 d V • n Y Y 1 1 Fe n u • p Y JJ I • a . =I J ----IN/4 © r �_ f I • ' ; 1 1 0,9 11 1I1r • YJY ° Isl 0� , 3 I )I J -�• '.0............. ,, I V i: , 0 = ' ''�• ' ,, os ,t, co C / r— /� 4 z s u E �.'� 1 , I 014I o. I j 1 �� E 0) 0 ' d � II Ir o • __ __ __J / 1 (Ci • I 04 u 0 1 i , I • I ' f I j 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 DRIs, 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. The applicant has agreed to this. 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 Most of the site was formerly citrus grove which has been replanted with pine. A small sinkhole along White Road and the larger Lake Lotta are the primary water/wetland features of the site. Neither will be directly altered by development. • The Vegetation Map is presented as Figure 3. The site is characterized by a gently rolling topography. 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 primarily as coniferous plantations (71.65 acres) with mixed hardwoods and other vegetation typical of disturbed sites making up the balance of the upland areas. 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. 9 . . _. _..._.. (...' ''..... FIGURE 3 - - --1 L -- 1---r Y••tl•euwN yeo° • 1 r I 1 =�� I " I f N • vn . N • ee I Ve � ; ; I ° 1 I of I : : 1 . : . i ! ` .. 1 e1 E E . : :c v o ' ':2 ; ,3 .4 . c ` a„ate ,„ ; e= « W Y 3 7 ; a ; i i : y • i i • : ; V c c i u o o d i o 3 o u. W N I � a 1 1 1 J • • « n « « . . e .rr r _ a i s I a J ° I H 1 e i e J i 1 IM its I --_____---.-1— _ _ _ fir N 7 c L Ja a c SIM/ill -'• • -- ---�-- OiL� Th' a I = Ili �I e II:I . pl-91 '1 ! 0 ... (__----",.....,.....-zz:„N [— Ill .09 ..\ .I I ; 1 ” ft limi I • i T. T ; ..\\ `• ' ” CD1 a w e,„„ O - . 1_11_°:,l N I N OI ii 0 Ilux il iiY u i : 1 • � I ...) 1- r 10 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 four plants, Centrosema arenicola(Sand butterfly pea, S2S3), Polygola lewtonii (Lewton's polygola, S2, federally endangered), Lupinus aridorum (Scrub lupine, Si, federally endangered) and Eriogonum Longifolium var. gnaphalifolium (Scrub buckwheat, S3, federally threatened) (see their letter, Appendix A) As to 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 only 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. Lewton's polygala requires the preservation of white sand scrub with undisturbed vegetation. It is endemic to the Lake Wales Ridge further to the west and, as the Lake Lotta Center site has been maintained in grove until relatively recently, the habitat for this 11 species is not present on site. It is concluded that its presence is highly unlikely. The endangered scrub lupine has been reported from the Lake Buena Vista area of Orange County. The closely related Lupinus diffusus is more common and has been found in the area, but could not be located on-site. A recent survey of the site was conducted during the time that these plants should be in bloom to confirm this status. Neither the scrub lupine (L. aridorum) nor the more common L. diffusus were found. The scrub buckwheat is listed as federally threatened, but as S3 by FNAI (either very rare and local or vulnerable due to other factors). The applicant did not report this plant as being present on site. This is another plant restricted to the Lake Wales Ridge in dry pinelands. This plant can flower during most of the year, making it easier to identify than most. Due to the disturbed nature of the site, it is unlikely to be found on the Lotta Center site. B. Wildlife The animal species of primary concern on the site is gopher tortoise, a state Species of Special Concern. From the wildlife surveys conducted on-site by the applicant, the site contains 9.2 acres of high density valuable habitat ( 0.8 tortoises per acre) and 60.65 acres of significant habitat (0.04 to 0.8 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 11.4 acres of gopher tortoise habitat, pursuant to state guidelines (25% of the 9.2 acres of valuable and 15% of the 60.65 acres of significant habitat being lost). This response is 12 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 preservation is not supported due to the urban character that will exist on site after development. C. Wetlands Wetlands on the project site are distributed in three small locations; two involving small sinkholes in the northwest corner of the site with the third, and most significant, associated with the Lake Lotta Lake. The on-site portion of Lake Lotta totals 8.4 acres, although the lake continues to the south as a much larger water body on either side of State Road 50. A band of wetlands rings this lake with 1.4 acres of these being within the project site. The two depressional areas will be used for stormwater management. The Lake • Lotta wetlands will be unaltered as will any adjacent uplands within the 100 year flood zone. The Good Homes Road access drive from the mall and stormwater pond are proposed to be built immediately outside of this zone. As Lake Lotta and its wetlands are defined as regionally significant wetlands within an urbanizing watershed, it would be important to provide upland buffers for this resource to promote its protection. The master plan appears to be able to accommodate this, although the applicant did not respond to questions on this issue (First Response, p.3). D. Groundwater Three aquifers underlie the Lake Lotta Center site. The topmost aquifer is a 13 surficial aquifer that consists of undifferentiated layers of sand with some silt and clay fines. 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 Center is proposed is considered to be an area of high recharge. Such areas 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 on the site to the Floridan Aquifer. Consequently, it is important that the developer ensure that retention/detention structures adequately treat stormwater runoff. E. Air Quality 1. Existing Conditions Existing air quality conditions in the area of the Lake Lotta Center 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. 14 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. 2. Development Proposal/Assessment 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 15 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 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 Center project is offered. Measures to improve 16 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 Center project site is located within the City of Ocoee and its Water Service Area as defined by an agreement with Orange County. No water wells are known to exist on the site. 2. Development Proposal At buildout, the project is expected to have a total water demand of 344,100 gallons per day (gpd). Of this total, it is anticipated that 218,000 gpd will be needed for potable purposes and 126,100 gpd will be needed for irrigation. The non-potable water demand was determined by assuming an irrigation rate of one inch per week over 25% of the gross acreage. Potable water for the project will be provided by the City of Ocoee. As of late 1993, the City had a permitted water production capability of 4.4 million gallons per day. Average consumption was only 2.8 million gallons per day. The developer of the DRI has reserved 422,740 gpd of water capacity. The applicant is proposing to use shallow groundwater wells to supply non- potable water to the project. No source of reclaimed wastewater is presently available to the site. If treated wastewater is eventually made available to the site, the project's irrigation wells will be eliminated. The applicant has also stated that irrigated areas will be landscaped using 17 xeriscape principles wherever practical. 3. Conclusion No problems in ensuring an adequate water supply for the project are anticipated. B. Wastewater Management 1. Existing Conditions Lake Lotta Center is located within the City of Ocoee's Wastewater Service Area as defined by an agreement with Orange County. 2. Development Proposal The applicant has estimated that the project will generate 218,000 gallons per day of wastewater once the project is completely built out and occupied. Due to the land uses proposed for the project, all wastewater is expected to have the qualities of domestic wastewater. The wastewater generated at Lake Lotta Center will be treated by the City of Ocoee. In September 1993, the City had a permitted capacity of 1.235 million gallons per day, but treated only .83 million gallons per day. In 1987, the developer purchased a large amount of wastewater capacity from a private utility company that has since been bought by the City. At present, the developer still has 392,920 gallons per day of wastewater capacity. 3. Conclusion The developer has sufficient wastewater capacity to serve the Lake Lotta Center development. No wastewater issues of regional significance have been identified. 18 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 I and 462 during Phase II. 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, demand for affordable housing is estimated to be: Lake Lotta Mall Phase I Phase II Very low income units 210 48 Low income units 227 53 Lake Lotta Center is expected to employ 856 retail trade employees (all during Phase II of the project). The Lake Lotta Center demand figures are as follows: Lake Lotta Center Phase I Phase II Very low income units 0 84 Low income units 0 104 19 The cumulative demand for both projects is: Lake Lotta Mall Lake Lotta Center Total Phase I Phase II Phase I Phase II Phase I Phase II Very Low Units 210 48 --- 84 210 132 Low Units 227 53 --- 104 227 157 B. Housing Supply The developer 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. The developer identified the housing supply area using the lesser of a ten-mile or twenty-minute commute (see Figure 4). Within this supply area, the applicant used Multiple Listing Service real estate listings and information on apartment complexes in the area to determine whether adequate supply existed to meet the housing need for Phase I of these projects. According to the developer's housing survey, there are approximately 210 very low income units and approximately 751 low income units available within the housing supply area of the projects. 20 FIGURE 4 HOUSING SUPPLY AREA rl, E: a) r o. 0 o'cp ca '� / ; w-e. , O a N tUiiJ " $�: • ,cP vs- _. t .. II AP; si el /r6z Ig:s. X • Illir, illili Iiiiii4 a 03 �� �� Z ' 0 :! _II •C 0 / w ,� W �Ya arwua ,. libil r. 0 • �d . W w�.wwllW1 Q , - J t I t iL _ �F m XQ- - \ fl`Grit /�� ~J WA 3a �' �) ® o •'► ,�11rd f "_-— ii, n • lib` I�0. Imo. V_ 1 ,� 114"; �� o • yo •rift. ow/s000m hYHrrrn kali . ©]O •ib.. � `�I �I+lA - �`oactre ;nem� I ' 111k- JOA!.. i may r -;. O Z► ` /�Iii� �► . ' n XL" 01 `b � b • Z u otic, �7,112_ •s =.41 Q N U-/ AA, Fal l•l'ra� •4=i1f ��1ler. O • 6 . -'z it' g iliff/:rwr,4:. 3 . 2.- ra vei ,,, ,;.,e .- tii._1,a,„.„ _ 4 tit , :3 ...;kid II , .,2. Lu .41)w ni wit 0., . e:a 2:.-1. 3400:::". . Atiiiiii t ihiT.:. vii4 •''. . u.,. .. u8:E1._\°"" 6 13.. .. . 'Avg. r. Irak,. 1"vrt 1!, 0 A, 21.- 6., . Mat. l&liWii p 2 4.//7 wire Ili Ci) . /. 0 . .4171,0.; Ili L.." . .. ill . DD a2> 1 €11 . 0 OW 00.••• ;Hanor,• f 1. ) . i -,,,,J, 6,,.;, .. . 0 • , .. . ca -Y --.. 49 El •. : ARVIN . ,„ •,.. . '!ilillfr011 . • . - • NNW I N • m •I m Q. . „. _Q _� Q 3 IL • : • - >.. MI 111 � '.' 113 1�� w O Jr` ' ' �� 4 � :. v ` - ►- l,l -- 'O0_3ONYtiO o 'OD 3)l d7 ....:,..„............„ ,..._,..(t) . :, ., „ ,., - 0 ,A ). ,,-,pa . ...., . . , ,.g...:18 . Luz . lie . 4 ati i .„, . . ,..1/4 , . ,c„ ,...„ 0 c. v 4 .-1..N..e tb... 411 Itliftw .e amt W ��� p. J , b ? ai Q MNI 8i.1 p�f Y Qei _,4 ,,,F- S 1 � e w, 1 Z�.c � C kia- 1"' _J c .y ... M 3 w lb / . t� of J llillb*1 i0 ',yr7 1 � ------ g �PK • ji 19VIIIA is 1,71 0. rr ,'KE .. VS N w � •., OOC m o gz <a_ 8 W •s.7., a. it A 21 - •o- W3xv7=F- _ — nfs a �o 1 ) b W1 _ C. Conclusion The Lake Lotta Mall and Lake Lotta Center projects will create a demand for 210 very low income units and 227 low income units proximate to the project site during Phase I and a demand for 132 very low income units and 157 low income units proximate to the project site during Phase II. According to the developer's housing survey, there are approximately 210 very low income units and approximately 751 low income units available within the housing supply area of the projects. There appears to be an adequate supply to meet the demand for the very low and low income employee households for Phase I of the projects. 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 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 22 stoppages. F - Forced flow at low speeds with stoppages of possibly long duration. B. 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 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 23 / / l'��; , rte' �\ r£ Cf I Er:, r fin t''� r G m 4 c c. a o a a N^ d O U( to A V I �U U'•w ' m co b O N^ W H +(j)ZZg •x(0)619 �'I ^ e'° �„' lYL— '0 6CS+ i,ww.� ( ^ (0)909 c ��i `t� a. / 'Z's A ers- . , lSY'9t Z Zl9'Zl f, '� :' (0)YlL'l +(0)OY6't (al";c);:1,6:-.: I 3)09S'l +(8)C P l �Y- 696 t�U (clic 7.6:--' �!`��a $':/s ~ 5LZ'LZ ; 666'l^ CI6— 9It't `.ate Sfi0'9C : , ��Vll a CO'C4 96C'6Z ? 9L6'fiZ ,...„0:,, J Y o co U t m m ^ DU ra4rs>p N , ^ U , O m I n d O'n1O N N.- Qy OObi N c N.v N A N O ^^ U I ••/' G i)d m N �.sya„�r•-ndnoy (�)966 ,...(0) R C11 ` t`< c S3 EZLZ'Zl lBbc + (J +G ' _ Nn of . (�)CZS+ (3 Yl6 v ^ a' cn f A t o sawc l6Z^OIZ 0Z tufa.>� 9 M H 660'6 P:wj LS' : )• t3 g 4 3 Ol a' oa aatsa',o, ele'e (3)tEY G,r, Vii a'(- v �� 01 _ c ,ta'� v Q( IBZ AtdddV d ,ti t;N +(J)LEE (�)SSS • ary m n 199': U1 DU t ZOZ COC« ayrcq �JJ *Usn� d��o f` '�O P s a y t:: \;;• 896'5 Z6 ( % •4:: • y c 6 N m °I- ca a"V apwaI1 7 ":$¢g„a i', , O .r{ el N b L�`` NN N pOH G� "°' ..--Cg U :'� ?`- + 696 l0\ 099 ,� 1 (e)L6S 6�6s1 +EYC �ti +4r ubfne ann II 9t' n ✓:1 '� +(E�OtSa,y aawu'.csry n�� SSL'9 '„`"A6 'rl C � a 9 j.r :,,,:t -4y /`� :.r ,........_2___________? aauxj �a.r.`G n ✓ ?"y ,,,,,,,.,- 4., EZO'L n, a ` O/.i' 10 f h�c o3 � Y � Y a;.:,-4A- 1 "�d ura,U u m Y\ `o n m r= PU a,au++6PuVr1 v �� � e , cc N r ;� , b� ;' a Eh ra j A o 4 a l ,�g w J�1'iy �N :‘,.17wA o,o e w �'y T � h J ';• ,11-',F,',.;. f.. T.0 G N b m b t 4S4I ry fYN'_ily. : :. tt Om o f a FFJJ rf,. xu • 'fir II adp *1� 61S X �,r 7ta v" J 3 i 09Z'E l p'¢ut0 it 4.lwi`L 'iia" .,�� c!c.rx 'f,R. SCS UJ �f, t-t`, yartfx� a'e M,t F �V vcd C , OLID O 'tZr YF s� "6r " 'm ,f`� CCS'L r'atilt', r • 4`,14 t _ d • -• 7'''`h4,1; i s .J"w :s•,P�'3'$i' '�*c-r�,'�• s r Sy, `K+' 1p Ol Pi, Al ' �4...1 ,t plAto ,„.x,,„.:.,,,..,-„,,,4„4.- \ .� d ` •r -. 4 co CL rad "s '`x. - rrv.. `,RJ- `T�3+. *;, t ; �7 > - 1 LLI V44/4441: .77 24 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 Edition,1991 • 25 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 Z067 1,987 Less Internal Capture 10 5 5 Less Retail Pass-By 396 198 198 Less Transit Usage 100 50 50 Net External 3,54E 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 Unit 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 6,996 3,53E 3,45 111.( -Lake tutu Mall DRI tiC =Lake Lona Center DRI Source: ITE Trip Generation Report,Fifth Edition,1991 Glattint Jackson Karcher Anglin Lopez Rinehart,Inc 26 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: 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. 27 TABLE 7 PLANNED AND PROGRAMMED ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS . Lake Lotta Project Segment Length Completion Responsible Roadway From-To Improvement (Mlles) Phase Dale Agency Status Colonial Drive(SR 50) Dillard(SR 537) Westbound right-turn lane - CST _ 1993 FDOT Programmed Clarke Road A.D.Mims Road- New four-lane 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 four lanes 1.78 _ CST 1996 Orange CountyProgrammed Old Winter Garden Road I0rkman 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 four 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) Id-Old Winter Garden Road `Widen to six lanes 4.46 - - FDOT 2005 OUATS Needs Plan Silver Star Road(SR 438) Main Street- Widen to tour lanes 2.63 - - FOOT 2005 OUATS Needs Plan Apopka-Vineland Road Silver Star Road(SR 438) Apopka-Vineland Road- Widen to six lanes 0.60 - - FDOT 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-Vineland 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 Btubrd Avenue(SR 439) SR 50-SR 438 Widen to bur lanes 0.74 - - FDOT 2005 OUATS Needs Plan Hiawassee Road Clarcona-Ocoee Road- Widen b lar lanes 1.17 - - Orange County 2005 OUATS Needs Plan Silver Star Road , Hiawassee Road SR 50-Conroy Road Widen to bur lanes 1.94 - - Orange County 2005 OUATS Needs Plan Pine Hills Road Old Winter Garden Road• Widen to low lanes 3.83 - - Orange County 2005 OUATS Needs Plan North Lane Wurst Road A.D.bims Road- Widen to bur 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 bur lanes 4.81 _ - - - FDOT 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 Clarcona-Ocoee Road Hiawassee Road- Widen to four lanes 5.45 - - Orange County 2010 OUATS Needs Plan Western Beltway . Good Homes Road SR 50- Widen to bur 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 four lanes 3.98 - - Orange County 2010 OUATS Needs Plan East-West Expressway John Young Parkway Add ramps b-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-I-4 Widen b six lanes 5.91 - - OOCEA 2010 OUATS Needs Plan CST-Construction PE-Preliminary Engineering 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 a 28 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 construction)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. 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, MK 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 29 _....1 i 1 \\ J S1aMod <9 ^n Q ;n vr b o r. rn M , in N Na r-4 Li, M N N 1 rn ::11 [ C N. N i *P H i;g4:)sio(3 r rn rn a ,-1 1 h N Q:✓ O r u. .i d; U ,-i H 2Lrl M a) o0 MOe Cr 's 0 03 O 4-1 N .„� ilAJE O Sa�1�H poo } O M t` %"”' py Sc7JUl�S plt{Q(` R c •,-I W Q , M V ■�r I//�,��i : J N X01 N N u.) CC J "4' • LD 1 CM r1 N V' f• ,:•.. , S. j t',•.•.:,.:::::•:.;;.::,.. •••.•. a ... j.:f.••;77.5.,7.1N e,....,..i:::::;-.:.,.......:-......:......,,, \ . co 0 .11i0 0 4 \ a) N ,..1 a r--. % \ r-1 t i:".:,.. ko ..--i lCI / (ll \ ' :lam N N \J�r M c-_, .-i 3� M CO O P8 fi N O1 /11 ,plc L.,is( !�/y� l tc)4):)() • `�0�4, Cl) i---...� 17 �Y� fM. • m �N t Iuiod UMui J - C P� .;. H , \ I 30 on these tow roads is broader still. Phase II conditions for 2000 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 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). 31 K 'p "•y r a , y r' k 7 IG "'fit. S A fr7 �+acs4.r1 $ isTv,1 01, t «L * r� ` � 4 y, pN� e 't �a 1 .,,...',..."'",,,,k,-,..4,041r .t,,,,, .,,,kte„.., ._. ,...,,,,,,,,,„,,..„.....,., .1.,,,,,,„4,, „. . ,....., . „ ,,,,,.. 4, ...4t..%,;11 x 1 ci m 't 12 4 \, t44,„ ,,,, ,.,, i'i,,444—.4,,4 .' `•'7.-4,v. 14* O ,gkb y SZ.s14 "'"y J' l7 Pork Ave i € ar 'p� 996 /6J CR SJ5 ch Y yr -.'"� ae"a't� 5 fid /6J I II 'Gain RAen e a, 4 A ,$"+. t w. r yy t s p \ St. 1Ywy' i.»'� 3' 'a^ +4 k I i8 O� DiLrd +222 11' (It `$� ? ``' 4•, sem' O 0 288(10).►�i �s ;� r i a CJ ; Re. � ' ',� kr 4 a 3 1a ��. .° r a, j s w a 0� rDts Y �:' n N in s, a. -N , P a r E ..,,-.4:,. N -.--, t ..•M .. £ yy� k 1 \. °. ,jay uek}*'t'"X g'� d• ); n W,dcrmere Rd S, 1 J< \ Cram P CD 4-1 Apopka IO •r4 " �n 555 * q,..f .r a �iqb n 580(14)+ ....,,,,k,„.....,..... .N.i.....1 . ,:,;1',;.:,: a v Krs.Simrea Are. U) y.ithex$( x +358 i5j_`— c 75 M .v re +673(56) Rd. 111.I'P 465(5) ftlord,Ye. ' 518(57). (� 95 i „:. • bot ``y)a�cl. � 1 '. s` +� fi ;� _t'i l i 5� w a '� I U o ° ai � `,. ♦ �lL� `rf1 4 A N } \Q al G+ fir aII` `'J 'elf;' 4 ° -7...i. ... �F t V N \ it[: '��: • Hcynple Ave. °f A _ c'� U I ejl 1., Awe. 0a rh tN ' 3 ,1 7 (7 s�w 926 090 1.03 (524)1 �, ' a ,P // ;‘,r,,Dµs r-rt ('06.,5. 706 Clerke 453(193 Rd +284(60) N :' „•.i $ �% Ave. >t 6J 1,341(511 568 188 a co 222(127) +310(203) \ t{ w a at.- d) _ ( ) `���� 369(58) U Apopka 402(209)• ":5 , t— n&') X- ba' , O ,� ... Vlnelano -. 4. 288(131) "-""� �u A><,io Sh!ncx Rd�'r , o ti y>,� U1 x * V cnod .—.P– Re. 1 J q % K 264(224) J _� O o .... a oe 346(140) ��' nd ' CJS rr 450(to, 343 220'+610 66 a+ R S /! O t m in ( ) ( ) 293(104) ...__a'Ya,cran r 1 SS ? 1 N a ,,, 470(64)�. 226(101)4- 0 101)`—�� �,4Y +1,438(237)7J7\ 0 1 0 t o a t ` ,� 69$(3 1,868(243) ......4 m w r' xi N N rW O� L �Z(..../.4‘9S, N- `N'J D'''''''-; ne 1.379(85) a°C7 I t v ti,791(83) % c v is G U c 4 ' V+ s�, '� �`�.? ' 1,435▪(149) , +1,330 156 t s4yy f ( ) Rd / +1,226(91) Ifi2; Nvr 1,864(153) s n 1,728(152)► �� 1,593(89)— U � , F i F 457(0) d 9 parr,,398(33) Dr. 429(35) "te J 594 0 !..3.1 1 . ;:, •rNn N �( ) t 517(32) 557(36) .,...1 4:3 , 1 N 1 aN �l Kn',mon �� m m tar N >E• N n nd� :LI N V r f t ill. r� m N O 'o a o '3 ,�,d �, +429(36) L .1.a� N 557(35) \ � DN it A I N N I-- rnl en,5 a IIA"'F.' �•�q N N N o V;' 32 /4yrxn ), '-..7 . 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 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 33 (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 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. 34 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 (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 35 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 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 36 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 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 37 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 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 38 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 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 39 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 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 40 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. 41 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. Orange County Public Works Division 7. St. Johns River Water Management District 8. City of Ocoee 9. Gray, Harris & Robinson 10. Orange County Parks & Recreation: Rails to Trails 11. LYNX Schedule: Link 27 • Winter Garden - Monday through Saturday Service A-1 ,,,,,„ , --- 9: .•.,,-.,:: 4`,_..f.:'.g v r r '4'4', 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 9, 1994 O � 4 Mr. Greg Golgowski Project Review Director • ,` East Central Florida i'+;r �} Regional Planning Council g RC C E ` 94 1011 Wymore Road, Suite 105 FEB 619 Winter Park, Florida 32789 `=� Re: Lake Lotta Center; File No. 694-005 I-- Final Review CommentslOr g / Dear Mr. Golgowski: U' - The Department has reviewed the Application for Development • Approval (ADA) and the sufficiency responses for the proposed Lake Lotta Center 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 charac- teristics 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 9, 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 summer and on November 10, 1993) , including Lupinus Aridorum, a listed endangered plant with Florida Natural Areas Inventory (FNAI) G1S1 ranking. The appropriate season for survey of Lupinus Aridorum is spring. Lupinus Aridorum has been found within 2. 5 miles south/southeast of the Lake Lotta tract. Therefore, the site should be surveyed in the spring for this plant. 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 Polygala Lewtonii which flowers from February through May; Centrosema Arenicola which flowers June through September; and Eriogonum Longifolium Var Gnaphifolium which flowers January through December. These were not included on Table 1, Listed Species Anticipated on the Lake Lotta Tract, which showed the results of the surveys done. It appears that further surveys for listed plant species should be undertaken in spring and 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 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 9, 1994 Page Three • The Lake Lotta Center Table 10-3A(ii) , Estimated Distribution of Employment Generated By Project By Phase By Income Range, assumes 1 employee per 650 square feet of commercial space. The Department recommends a ratio of 1 employee per 400 square feet of gross area. It also appears that the assumption as used was 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 Lake Lotta Mall DRI also assumed an employee ratio of 1: 650 gsf based upon comparable malls developed by Homart Development Co. 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 59 of the Lake Lotta Center 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 higher trip generation. A-5 Mr. Greg Golgowski February 9, 1994 Page Four Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed Lake Lotta Center 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, ,itgA, Befit_ J. Thomas Beck, Chief Bureau of State Planning JTB/cc cc: James A. Sellen (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 r ,- o _ INE S�y `o.,...> FLORIDA GAME AND FRESH WATER FISH COMMISSION 4. \IRS. GILBERT W. HUMPHREY JOE MARLIN HILLIARD J. BEN ROWE JULIE K.MORRIS QUINTON L.HEDGEPETH,DDS Miccosukee Clewiston Gainesville Sarasota Miami \LLAN 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 /�� pp( 904)488-9542 February 17, 1994 �� << RECE/VE FEB23199 D -4 Mr. Greg Golgowski 01' 4 Director of Project Review East Central Florida Regional Planning Council 6 1011 Wymore Road, Suite 105 Ailr Winter Park, Florida 32789 6, qb Iv RE: DRI 13.113, Orange County, Lake Lotta Center 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 mixed-use development, with high density residential and retail commercial components, on a 107.15-acre tract in western Orange County. This proposed project partially surrounds another proposed DRI, the Lake Lotta Mall. The site is primarily abandoned citrus grove that has either been replanted in pine (71.65 acres) or has revegetated naturally into various community types including mixed and other hardwoods (11.78 acres) , fallow crop land (2.1 acres) , herbaceous (1.9 acres) , and other shrub and brushland (0.65 acres) . The site also contains 6.39 acres of grove, a portion of Lake Lotta (8.4 acres) with fringing marsh (1.4 acres) , and other lakes and retention ponds (2.88 acres) . As described above, the site has been highly disturbed due to past agricultural practices. The only natural resource concern with this project is the impact to a sizeable population of gopher tortoises, a state species of special concern. According to the survey results, the site contains 9.2 acres of high density valuable tortoise habitat (population > 0.8 tortoises/acre) and 60.65 acres of medium density significant tortoise habitat (population between 0.04 and 0.8 tortoises/acre) . The applicant has proposed to either mitigate for the loss of tortoise habitat by contributions to the Wildlife Habitat Trust Fund for purchase and management of gopher tortoise habitat, or relocate the tortoises in a joint effort with the Lake Lotta Mall. Habitat loss is the primary reason that statewide tortoise populations are declining. While protecting individual tortoises, relocation does not •. A-7 1943 - 1993 50 YEARS AS STEWARD OF FLORIDA'S FISH AND WILDLIFE Mr. Greg Golgowski February 17, 1994 Page 2 provide for the long term protection and management of gopher tortoise habitat. We recommend that the applicant mitigate for the project's impacts to gopher tortoise habitat by contributing to the Wildlife Habitat Trust Fund sufficient funds to purchase and manage 11.4 acres of gopher tortoise habitat (25% of the 9.2 acres of valuable habitat found on the site and 15% of the site's significant habitat) . Sincerely, 2/Ycf:1;X: -. Bradley J. H. 't an, Director Office of E fironmental Services BJH/SL/rs ENV 1-11-3 lottacenter cc: Mr. James A. Sellen Miller-Sellen Associates, Inc. 214 East Lucerne Circle Orlando, Florida 32801 A-8 -.. FLORIDA = DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION LAWTON CHILES IIIIWA BEM G.WATTS GOVERNOR MIIIIIIM SECRETARY 5151 Adanson Street Orlando, Florida 32804 Telephone: (407) 623-1085 01111113)1P% February 18, 1994 ,Q �� ;�` Mr. Greg Golgowski, AICP Director, Project Review 111 ./ '—;: East Central Florida Regional Planning Council !�? 4 1011 Wymore Road, Suite 105 Winter Park, FL 32789 • i:7 RE: % Lake Lotta Mall and Center DRIscb 104P 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 DRIB, 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 PAPER 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 H50DIL97 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-l0 Mr. Greg Golgowski, AICP February 14, 1994 Page 3 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-11 Mr. Greg Golgowsld, 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 /Marsh System Transportation Planner DM/GLD/smb a:DM.05.lotta.ltr cc: Randy Ritter, FDOT Central Office George L. Deakin, TBE (FDOT Consultant) A-12 FLORIDA _ DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION LAWTON CHILES BEN G.WATTS GOVERNOR SECRETARY 5151 Adanson Street Orlando, Florida 32804 Telephone: (407) 623-1085 February 24, 1994 Mr. Greg Golgowski, AICP Director, Project Review East Central Florida Regional Planning Council �� g 1011 Wymore Road, Suite 105 Winter Park, Florida 32789 ll n r-F E 1 ;%•E D RE: LAKE LOTTA MALL AND CENTER DRY'3 ( MAR 0 11994 Combined Traffic Analysis 5; 2nd (Final) Sufficiency - FDOT Comments S.R. 50 - Section #75050 \ 6' Orange County oo 111110 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 PAPER 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. Sincergly, a4P4igiA4'(_ 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 tAwrori CtlILES IIIIMINER BEM G.WATTS ' GOVERNOR =__ SECRETARY • 5151 Adanson Streit �\, " Orlando, Florida 32804 G Phone: (407) 623=1085 ,'' March 22, 1994 R '-1 \---1 C,',:-/ ;�,. � � �1__,, Mr. Greg Golgowski, AICP �fl;r ,a C.-'1- Project Project Review Section lik J lye r East Central Florida Regional Planning Council (ECFRPC) l. / 1011 Wymore Road, Suite 105lip �j Winter Park, Florida 32789 RE: LAKE LOTTA MALL/CENTER DRICY) ` \ '• ;/ Final Sufficiency - FDOT Comments tiff 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 need 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 P 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 Orange L n.• �O�n 11.� Public Works Division George W. Cole,P.E.,Director Traffic Engineering Department Mark V.Massaro,P.E.,Manager r t 4200 South John Young Parkway Orlando,Florida 32839-9205 Telephone(407)836-7890 March 2 , 1994 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 r'-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 32 A-19 sr. JOHNS alvea Henry Dean,Executive Director John R.Wehle,Assistant Executive Director WATER POST OFFICE BOX 1429 PALATKA, FLORIDA 32178-1429 MANAGEMENT TELEPHONE 904/329-4500 SUNCOM 904/860-4500 FAX(EXECUTIVE/LEGAL)329-4125 (PERMITT1NG)329-4315 (ADMINISTRATION/FINANCE)329-4508 FIELD STATIONS 618 E.South Strait 7775 Baymsadws Way PERMITTING: OPERATIONS: Orlando,Florida 32801 Sults 102 305 East Drive 2133 N.Wickham Road February 22 , 1994 407/897-4300 Jadksorwlls,Florida 32256 Meboums,Florida 32904 Msboum.,Florida 32935-8109 904/730-6270 407/984.4940 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 Center DRI Secondary Sufficiency Response ECFRPC#13 . 113 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, 17,--(.' 1 •66-1/A Eli abs th R. Johns n, Environmental Specialist Department of Resource Management ERJ:db cc: PDS-DRI Pat Frost4( Mary Brabham, P. E . 1011114, FEB 2 31994 at, 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 JACKSONVILLE LEESBURG OCALA A-21 "CENTER OF GOOD LIVING-PRIDE OF WEST ORANGE" MAYOR•COMMISSIONER O� Ocoee S.SCOTT VANDERGRIFT 411m !ti ;6 CITYOFOCOEECOMMISSIONERS 411a RUSTY JOHNSON 150 N.LAKESHORE DRIVE PAUL W.FOSTER OCOEE FLORIDA 34761-2258 VERN COMBS j. y y .,,: (4D7)656 2322JIM GLEASON F,Q OF GOO a 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, Florida 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, Montye E. Beamer, Director Administrative Services Attachments cc : Fred Milch ✓ A 1111‘ /<< ECE1 VEp 0� MAR 0 11994 6 A-23 "CENTER OF GOOD LIVING-PRIDE OF WEST ORANGE" MAYOR•COMMISSIONER Ocoee S.SCOTT VANDERGRIFT ° COMMISSIONERS ray 0CITY OF OCOEE RUSTY JOHNSON 150 N.LAKESHORE DRIVE PAUL W.FOSTER v D OCOEE FLORIDA 34761-2258 VERN COMBS i>, (407)6562322 JIM GLEASON F4, OF GOO CITY MANAGER ELLIS SHAPIRO MEMORANDUM TO: DISTRIBUTION LIST FROM: Ellis Shapiro, City Managerf DATE: February 25, 1994 diP 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-24 • 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 and 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 Latta 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-25 • (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-26 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 which h the City believes are warranted in connection with Phase II of the Lake Lotta M 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. Homart 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 Homart will make all improvements to such intersections if warranted based on monitoring. (Estimated cost $250,000 per intersection) All of the1above improvements are to be made without any road impact fee or other credits. A-27 MAR-01-94 TUE 16:26 GRAY HARRIS & ROBINSON FAX NO. 407 244 5690 P. 01/01 GRAY, HARRIS 8c ROBINSON" J.CnwolCi GRAT °o0'ESSI0 NAI •SEOCIATION CORDON M.MAPPIR TMQMAS C.SHAW ' RIC MARO M.ROBINSON ATTORNEYS AT LAW PAUL O.QUINN,JR. PHILLIP P.FINCH DAVID L. CMULL DwMCLw O.RRICE JACK K.MMULLCN JAMES V.PAGE.JR. SUSAN TASSELL SORADLEY WILLIAM A.SOYLES �VI�C ICUO GLASS SANK BUIL DINO TRACY A,•ORO[RT T.442.4.0 A.CLOuo :01 CAST nNE STACEY 505 NORTH ORLANDO AVENUE LILA INOATC MLMENPY SYCO r.MARSHALL,JO. POST OrrICC $0[ JOS• POSTKtL.N11,1,J.MASON WILLIAMS,II OFFICE 1101 J20757 NI' L[O .ROLA,JR. ORLANDO, FL 3£b03-3055RosERT SEwAri IC. AS y~ G.ROBERTSON DII COCOA BYLAC$. Fr. 7QOj Q..p7s7 DONALD H.GIBSON CHARLES W.SELL TCLCrMON� (+p7 JACK A.KIRSCHENSAUM ) 0.3,4660 TELEPHONE (401) 783-ZZI5 a'IrMCLE L.No..o nrTA oCEDLCO 7$ rV ('o') D. 0050 TAS 4 N.SCO£R.PLANTE RICHAPO E.BURKE ( O ) 789.2297 N.SCOTT NOVELL GUT S.HAGGARD CMR.SPO►n CR J.COLEMAN roCDCOICK w'.L[ONr.ACOT wpIT ER�i DIRECT DIAL SOPRON J.OWEN,JP, MAICOLM R.KIRSCHENBAUM Or LAUNSLL PLEASE 0CPLT To: Orlando March 1, 1994 Via FAX Transmission - 623-1084 Mr. Aaron Dowling EAST CENTRAL FLORIDA REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL 1011 Wymore Road Winter Park, FL 32789 Re: Lake Lotta Center DRI Dear Aaron: I am at long last in receipt of your letter dated February 24, 1994, related to the Lake Lotta Center and the Lake Lotta Mall DRI's. I am the counsel of record for the Lake Lotta Center DRI. In response to your request, we would hereby request an extension of the Regional Planning Council's review period and a postponement of the Council's review and the release of your report related the Lake Lotta Center DRI. We would request this extension to be no later than the April PRC and Council meetings as indicated in your letter. I would sincerely appreciate it if you would be sure to copy me on all future correspondence from the Regional Planning Council so that I can respond in a more timely fashion. If you have any questions regarding this matter or the Lake Lotta Center DRI, please do not hesitate to call on me. Cor. -11y ours o as A: Cloud, E qu 4/14 GRAY, HARRIS & ROBINSON, • .A. A-29 9J Y� r i' Z "?. L.i `j4'��.•� J CD 'll , Fes "". '1•1`;;. V ,� Q 00 1..�� F--■ .f.,*jaw, , - z r = ^O j ti0 vN \. 1 , )-,. 4.4 o IMMINIMI >' • b - vO E Aa. 0 cv ..T. .•=. O >,y -- C .O o- O a > is o1 ATa co�f f o . 7 > cO N 0 a o rnd o o c o ry 3 — ,•4 d �. v > c — o : 2..,..o ,` _o o .o o a>,>.o '� rat a, ,c o ._ A 1 C A t�o t ` -"'"o c °' E j C O fie+ y `� d �_.' N,G •., .Ph. _ >- o O a • v Y O ^ o o o Cn o N E 3 �, O O u E 'C N 4 , js 0 �J o 'a E.�°..'o `o -c V. u o e+ o O.n A c . a 7 M T X 2. N I d.0 r.L 9 L L O. 0 3 C S O ' N-0 v E A 8. g, a N Y•,�• A e.. '0 3 CI- o. Cv. u CI 61 rat Cr,* d•ro A C c-'o y}= Oa 7 ,'k Ors°� o E_ - c o ,u N F 0 ... u-o �d oc ,a p,is E "1:-.2 o O C 7 N 3 O L‘-',a- N C � L. N ... > E > 8 ZU =, C - i-.N. ra I'�� r`- r r ` ..10. S O O O .Ly.. O O'd O a u H u L'.. E. . c •c .e o o :� rt ro C=on d v c ba v a c 9 3 ba > o E a E .>- c o •.o - o _2'o ,_ E c o 6"Fe bn u a 2 c O .c N " o o d u E .o 5. a , r'y DO a c a 7 _ ` _.,.Q a Mi 7 a-0 a c o o • o u of .a. �. o f ax) 7 u a. v E .] :2 c >Lo 03 . > a 000.9TL''Z$ 96.-S6. i O CV u C v L • o v V V •� -a II--• a V 3 - E F o co .. 089'LZS'£$ 56,-1,6. E b Ara a' o'.08 A _ o c�v 4 7 c " O b M v Lr; 1 006�££9as$ 66.-£6, A E° c o c ,a_,� N a = 0 H -E vi c-•co m ZTI'bbS'Z$ £6.Z6. u- C o-. c •? o F. O v N FO = E O O O 'a C a a 7'O �1 o- E�>+ V a .. 6LZ'Slb$ :' Z6,-16, z _ uo 12 T.,P b b'E' 7 N m y .: A. �•. w A'N CP co ..�L a _ •Eco ,c � A a o 'C �,-o OOb'S£$ 16.-06, c v F: O- ~— u= s uC a n 7 a .iii • AFfy � O Z uP.0 raNO h 0 U 0 ' O ' O= � A N .- V a. rn ^ to% 4 NM � R9 Yf Ci = Q1 .� C `) O_ O c� 00 - - o O o _ 3 L c c v C V' N 0 op 00 S M 9 co ra ra oc vi eF M c- `O L7 . -0 a C..�. via O .l a M V' VI h V) M A . P N M A. a_a >_-r`E,c u in -'Q N M M N co- S ra ra.=7.d..-." N a a O coN W N3a .OUC p - tR df 69 b`f al 4? T is.r, 2 a W N". -o d o C N n O _ w ra.x _ o:n ro.o 0.c'C 3 E c 0 T. aC `y-U aZ a w Ou=c.0 H E a a c a[p�L QJ R ▪y N )•. -, A 0 O.0 .... y 7 C..0 7AZ 0.0'O E C .moi ' u C] O p,0 ra N•V) N.- ra 0 7 E V. r+ (? N y u u t— y 3 a OW C :- .: ° H ..0. i.)CZ y t M* ›. to, 0 . ca .. C 4 CC) m E3 aTm � ans a` a --`� ..,o .,o .no `o,9 , 0=,u "' E��u "'� o u v 7•.n C.aC v.o a F•C 3 r4 _a O U h U 7-7 U'.n e'• a U•`� a a U v v v U u ...•- 4 N >,...., > a N'C y =F L'6 11 .--..•--' 7 N 7 M 7 N.a. 7 N N h. ,o .O co v of ta3 aha a._ �_a � �_ "rnc'rnvrnc" cornQ•rorao. > ,orarnro O. ^.- o.A a./— c E"'�'C C 7 OO Q"<N<�RR..M<a.P..V'W..c.c .n% ' p a s a C v 3 O. O. O. O. T o+ A raL a N..„ `" COL A O'n 3 Sru O. O. O• rT Q. FO- 5 r .. <... av N 7 3 a.,0 A u N N n O ra w A-31 • Q. £c, 2 o• �= o• af E °' `o E ..t"-'e d 1 0 • c;o+ E o E..E E-� ' •`--o �. . I.4.+ o a._ a--a o-0' o a + c��, o 0- 3 0 , — e ti a C O C •- - .� p,+0. 0 O�- a of �'— 0, o a o IA S €� < 3 0 �' a o 0 0 o al 0 c° E .- c �' ._ 3 o a M c a s6. a V 1 n d '_' O ,,•O a O "� `S O-Y C Sa) el-L 01el t a'�' C ' g >-Q $ m t 3 0 rL E n? o;�-0 o >o ,. < c o •-� 3 0 3 0` 3 0 0 0 .E 0 0 0 0 0 c>-2:-.�„, M L41 7 ':� 0 o o r ' -- s ...:2 ▪ o . . .•tea ' : .�:• r • I ,, 2i a1i . I Z p°,o.8EP - , , 11 41110 7 y A O� - I� o � 'w. (� .I- �I ,e,, Q . of o • . ” —il— c4,1 1 0 4404 a4i . •• Q A �o ._ • 0 • .:.• 11r I • • _-;i ,, I t 1 ' ; • I . • i � s 1 —� • .-: 11111/// 3 t , � � O l.�J �i� 1 : Zo I jillog,,,,,,,..,;,,,,:„..ii: o o • I, -c 4 �IMf� v IBJ v1 •ij.4'' V " 1ii :j L.9 3 3 , IGG 4 oao • ,„„„g:10:,." . .,,_•.''. . 1 1p . .N7-- 1 g.::,,q,,E,gligiNi„!.., . • t ;.:4o , 1 C ,04..i.1 ` ',., • I 4 \ 0 • 747 ii,• Nrim-J1-17J'1 YJ7•YJ7 LTNA 46( 244 333 P.03 0 Y .it g La o � CO A g . = . 4 ir. CL) . tD 0 A s .-4h) 0..., r_c$1_, x.i • . • • 0 a) 1.--- tt MI ea 2 • . 5 r cZ CD 8 -0 • C E.E -.= .4;. . • ... ...Cl.) FE du 0 8888 .N-1 0 N M .� n F �. m D• a. a a W. 1 a i § oog7., 0 y C N Le- O tC E. , i � � r � Q4 64 JEo 6 �•� 8 - a .w .,.4 roF II `2.,,a 4191i rx, f, I v $ 5'r i 1 1 Z, " ' R E 2 V � � Nt80 i s bg ti 4, 2 4 .0 .� a ai . Baa , �� 41 bQ I y 1,14 LI cur RI n� 1111:4d js . h . . a. • N e o o CDGi ),,:::: :;!:. • co 1#4 as c coc O .. a) = E A' = 0 0 >. _ 0 0 co .0 . • P -fs a) , 2 -I c . . . . ,..s. O _.....076 ; am( a 'ff 'cts— Q J U • TOTAL P.03 a A-33 MAR-01-1994 09:09 LYNX 407 244 3393 P.02 LINK 27-Winter Garden N 4I ; • W J E 5 KLONDIKE I Q.P WESTSIDE VO TECH TOA O STORY ROAD I • STORY ROAD S fi i ii I OAKLAND AVE, :RANGE CO. SERVICE CENTERHIGHIAND 0 {HRS) i (1) 8 • LAKES PLAZA 4 STATE ROAD 60Q 1 .0a--J `O HEALTH CENTRAL N. MONDAY-SATURDAY b di,i' e b e11 .,.0- v ,�4�' ,4,48. s., f • , . . ap c, 43.4* t." of, , o, 4, qvF , acs 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-34 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 do not require potable water. 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 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.). B-1 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 43.7: Lands which are designated "preservation" or "conservation" as a part of any development project should be identified as such in a legal agreement which ensures their protection from development or other uses inappropriate with conservation objectives, in perpetuity. Appropriate legal mechanisms may include, but are not limited to: conservation easements; fee simple title acquisition; transfer of development rights; and purchase of development rights. Conservation lands protected in this manner should come under common ownership of a single government or private entity,and should not remain the property of individual property owners within a development. Any legal instrument which conveys the development rights of a conservation parcel should also identify the party which is responsible for management of the parcel in a manner consistent with its intended purpose as conservation land. Entities which would be appropriate for owning and/or managing conservation lands (in order of preference) include, but are not limited to: State, federal or local governments; private conservation organizations(e.g.,Trust for Public Lands,The Nature Conservancy,Sierra Club Foundation,Audubon Society); and homeowner's or tenant's associations. POLICY 43.8: In order to protect the quality and quantity of surface waters and provide habitat for semi-aquatic or water-dependent terrestrial species of wildlife, buffer zones should be established, by appropriate federal, state and local agencies, landward of regionally significant wetlands, except where such buffers would be ineffective, inappropriate or inconsistent with the public interest. The landward extent of wetland buffer zones shall be determined based on scientific evaluation of site specific conditions, including the nature of the existing soils, vegetation, topography, hydrology, water quality, wildlife diversity and the resource protection status of the receiving waters. No activity should be permitted within the buffer zone unless the proposed activity can be shown to not pose a significant adverse threat to water quality, water quantity or wildlife habitat for wetland dependent species,or where it can be demonstrated that the project is clearly in the public interest consistent with Policy 56.1,56.2 and 56.4.Buffer zones should consist of intact natural communities comprised of appropriate native species in the canopy, shrub and understory layers. POLICY 43.9: In order to maintain good water quality in stormwater management detention ponds and maximize the provision of fish and wildlife habitat, stormwater management systems with permanently wet detention ponds should be designed,operated and maintained so as to resemble a natural pond to the greatest extent practicable.A natural pond design should include: a littoral zone comprised of native emergent and submersed aquatic macrophytic vegetation; a deep, open-water limnetic zone free of rooted emergent and submersed vegetation;and,where feasible,an upland buffer of native trees, shrubs and understory vegetation. POLICY 43.12: The hydrological and ecological functioning of the region's river systems shall be protected. Activities which would significantly and adversely alter the stage, discharge or quality of rivers and tributaries within regionally significant watersheds should not be permitted. Activities which would significantly reduce the habitat diversity, species diversity or population size of plant and animal species within regionally significant watersheds should not be permitted. River systems should be protected by local government comprehensive plans,local government land development regulations, and rules of the FGFWFC, FDNR, RPC and WMDs to ensure that the full complement of plant and animals species,both terrestrial and aquatic, which inhabit those systems in 1990 continue to persist in perpetuity. POLICY 43.13: Natural vegetative communities, native plant species and native animal species extant in the East Central Florida Region in 1990 shall be protected and/or conserved to ensure that the full complement of such communities and species continues to persist within the region in perpetuity. Local governments shall ensure through their comprehensive plans and land development regulations that adequate conservation areas, open spaces, river buffers and other appropriate mechanisms are provided to ensure the achievement of this objective. Any proposed development or other activity which B-2 threatens to extirpate any natural vegetative community,native plant or native animal species from any county in the region shall not be approved. 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 60.17: Nonstructural methods of stormwater management which reduce the generation and accumulation of potential storm water runoff contaminants shall be utilized to the maximum extent feasible. Adherence to this policy requires, at a minimum, that: nonstructural means of stormwater management shall include activities such as pesticide and herbicide control, proper fertilizer management, erosion control, homeowner awareness of nonpoint source pollution, proper waste disposal,etc. In addition, the use of natural floodplain areas for filtration of naturally occurring runoff from adjacent lands shall be utilized where possible. 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; h. Embodiment of elements of architectural design,detail, materials,or craftsmanship that represent a significant architectural innovation or style; B-3 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. 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 BA 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 are 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. Promote (where appropriate) public access opportunities or viable usage; B-5 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 area 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: I. The identification and evaluation of adverse impacts on historic sites, structures or properties include assessments of, but arc 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 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. B-6 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; h. 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; c. 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 to interested organizations. B-7 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: 1. 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. 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 B-8 • 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 e. 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: 1. 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 h. 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 he encouraged to provide for mass transit facilities and services through joint ventures with 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. B-9 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 e. Identify the methods of implementing the issues which have been identified as being feasible,and the time frame for implementation. 5. Employers of 4,000 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 he 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. 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. B-10 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, with consideration being given to: 1. Development-related improvements being at the expense of the development which will directly benefit from the B-11 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: 1. 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; 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; B-12 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 he adhered to in the review of transportation impacts in Development of Regional Impact(DRO 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-13