Second Sufficiency Response
Transcription
Second Sufficiency Response
Miami Corporation Farmton Application for Master Development Approval Second Sufficiency Response April 2014 April 7, 2014 CVR - 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS COVER LETTER…………............................................................................................................................................ CVR-1 DISTRIBUTION LIST……………………………............................................................................................................. D-1 Response to Comments 19 QUESTION STORMWATER MANAGEMENT.............................................................................................. 19-1 21 QUESTION TRANSPORTATION..................................................................................................................... 21-1 Complete list of Figures, Exhibits and Tables for Farmton AMDA TABLE OF FIGURES PAGE Figure 21- 1 AMDA Study Area…………………………………............................................................................ 21-19 Figure 21- 8 2035 Project Trip Distribution (Revised).......................................................................... 21-20 Figure 21- 9 2060 Project Trip Distribution (Revised).......................................................................... 21-21 Figure 21- 18 Facility Improvements Added to Model.............................................................................. 21-22 Figure 21- 19 2035 External Project Distribution ………........................................................................... 21-23 Figure 21- 20 2060 External Project Distribution……............................................................................... 21-24 TABLE OF EXHIBITS Exhibit 21- 1 PAGE Summary of AMDA Traffic Study.......................................................................................... 21-25 Exhibit MDO - 1 Devo Response to Condition #52....................................................................................... MDO-11 Exhibit MDO - 2 Map H (Conceptual Development Plan).......................................................................... MDO-56 Farmton AMDA Second Sufficiency Response TOC -1 TABLE OF TABLES Table 21- 3 2035 Trip Generation (Revised)............................................................................................21-13 Table 21- 4 2060 Trip Generation (Revised)............................................................................................21-14 Table 21-10 Background Traffic Growth Rate Determination (Revised)........................................ 21-15 Table 21- 11 2035 Roadway Segment Analysis(Revised)....................................................................... 21-16 Table 21- 12 2060 Roadway Segment Analysis(Revised)....................................................................... 21-17 Table 21-14 2060 Recommended Roadway Improvements (Revised)……...................................... 21-18 LIST OF APPENDICES APPENDIX 1 – FISCAL NEUTRALITY METHODOLOGY APPENDIX 2 – JOBS HOUSING BALANCE METHODOLOGY APPENDIX 3 – DRAFT MASTER DEVELOPMENT ORDER APPENDIX 4 – SECOND SUFFICIENCY AGENCY COMMENTS Farmton AMDA Second Sufficiency Response TOC -2 FARMTON AMDA DISTRIBUTION LIST Mr. Fred Milch East Central Florida Regional Planning Council 309 Cranes Roost Blvd. Suite 2000 Altamonte Springs, Florida 32701 407.262.7772 [email protected] Print: 3 Digital: 1 Ms. Saralee L. Morrissey Volusia County School District 3750 Olson Drive Daytona Beach, FL 32124 [email protected] 386.947.8786 Ext: 50772 Print: 1 Digital: 1 Mr. Darren Lear City of Edgewater 104 N. Riverside Drive P.O. Box 100 Edgewater, FL 32132 [email protected] 386.424.2400 ext. 1502 Print: 0 Digital: 1 Sheriff Ben Johnson 123 W. Indiana Avenue DeLand, FL 32720 P.O. Box 569 DeLand, FL 32721-0569 [email protected] 386.736.5961 Digital: 1 Ms. Gail Henrikson AICP, Planning Manager City of New Smyrna Beach 210 Sams Avenue New Smyrna Beach, FL 32168 [email protected] 386.424.2132 Print: 1 Digital: 1 Ms. Becky Mendez Senior Planning Manager Volusia County Planning and Development Services 123 W. Indiana Avenue DeLand, FL 32720-4604 [email protected] 386.736.5959, ext. 12943 Print: 10 Digital: 1 Ms. Lois Bollenback Executive Director Volusia TPO Indigo Professional Center 2570 West International Speedway Boulevard, Suite 100 Daytona Beach, FL 32114-8145 [email protected] 386.226.0422 Digital: 1 Mr. Chris Bowley City of Deltona 2345 Providence Boulevard Deltona, FL 32725 [email protected] 386.878.8600 Digital: 1 Mr. Gerald Chancellor City of Deltona City Engineer 2345 Providence Boulevard Deltona, FL 32725 Farmton AMDA Second Sufficiency Response D-1 [email protected] 386.878.8600 Digital: 1 Ms. Kohn Evans City Clerk City of Oak Hill 234 S. US Highway 1 Oak Hill, FL 32759 [email protected] 386.345.3522 Print: 2 Digital: 1 Ms. Pamela Ammon Florida Department of Environmental Protection 3319 Maguire Boulevard, Suite 232 Orlando, FL 32803 407.897.2956 [email protected] Print: 1 Tallahassee, FL | 32399-4120 [email protected] 850.717.8491 Print: 1 Digital: 1 Timothy Parsons, Ph.D., RPA Compliance & Review Contact Division of Historical Resources 500 S. Bronough Street Tallahassee, FL 32399 [email protected] 850.245.6333 Print: 1 Digital: 1 Ms. Judy Pizzo GISP Florida Department of Transportation 133 S. Semoran Boulevard Orlando, FL 32807 [email protected] 407.482.7881 Digital: 2 Carolyn R. Shultz Environmental Specialist Water Facilities and Watershed Management FDEP Central District 3319 Maguire Blvd., Suite 232 Orlando, FL 32803 407-897-4331 [email protected] Digital: 1 Mr. Jeffrey Collins US Army Corps of Engineers Jacksonville District Corps of Engineers Cocoa Regulatory Office 400 High Point Drive, Suite 600 Cocoa, FL 32926 [email protected] Print: 1 Ms. Christine Daniel Water Facilities and Watershed Management FDEP Central District 3319 Maguire Blvd., Suite 232 Orlando, FL 32803 407-897-4114 [email protected] Print: 1 Mr. Lee Kissick St. Johns River Water Management District 975 Keller Road Altamonte Springs, FL 32714 [email protected] 407.659.4850 Digital: 1 Ms. Donna Harris Department of Economic Opportunity The Caldwell Building 107 E. Madison Street Ms. Cathy Foerster St. Johns River Water Management District 4049 Reid Street Palatka, FL 32177 Farmton AMDA Second Sufficiency Response D-2 [email protected] 386.329.4436 Digital: 1 Mr. Ben Shepherd Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 6830 Shadowridge Drive Suite 201 Orlando, FL 32812 407.858.6170 [email protected] Print: 1 Ms. Erin Gawera US Fish and Wildlife Service 7915 Baymeadows Way, Suite 200 Jacksonville, FL 32256-7517 904/731-3121 (direct) 904/731-3336 (main) [email protected] Print: 1 Ms. Heather Blanck Votran 950 Big Tree Road South Daytona, FL 32119-8815 ADA/DRI: 1 [email protected] 386.761.7700 Digital: 1 Mr. Jim Sellen Volusia Growth Management Commission 140 S. Beach St., Suite 305 Daytona Beach, FL 32114 [email protected] [email protected] 386.947.1875 Print: 2 Timber Weller, Wildfire Mitigation Specialist 5001 U.S. Highway 1, North Bunnell, FL 32110 Telephone: 386/ 447-1533 [email protected] Print: 1 Mr. Brett Blackadar P.E. County Engineer Seminole County 100 East 1st Street Sanford, FL 32771 [email protected] 407.665.5651 Digital: 1 Ms. Robin Sobrino Director Planning & Development Department Brevard County Viera Government Center 2725 Judge Fran Jamieson Way Building A Viera, FL 32940 [email protected] 321.633.2070 Print: 2 Mr. John Denninghoff P.E. Director Public Works Brevard County 2725 Judge Fran Jamieson Way Suite 201-A Melbourne, FL 32940 321.617.7202 [email protected] Print: 1 Mr. Charles Lee Director Florida Audubon Society 1101 Audubon Way Maitland, FL 32751 [email protected] Provide CD if possible and Digital: 1 Laura DiGruttolo Office of Conservation Planning Services Farmton AMDA Second Sufficiency Response D-3 Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission 3377 E. US 90 Lake City, FL 32055 386.758.0525 (ext 6245) 386.867.0028 [email protected] Melissa Winsett Volusia County Traffic Engineering 123 West Indiana Avenue DeLand, FL 32720-4604 [email protected] Print: 1 Digital: 1 [email protected] Digital: 1 Mr. Stuart Buchanan Planning & Development Department Brevard County Viera Government Center 2725 Judge Fran Jamieson Way Building A Viera, FL 32940 Stuart.buchanan@brevard county.org Perry Jennings 601 S. Lake Destiny Drive Maitland, FL 407-659-4800 [email protected] Digital: 1 Victoria Nations 601 S. Lake Destiny Drive Maitland, FL 407-659-4858 [email protected] Digital: 1 Gary Haddle 601 S. Lake Destiny Drive Maitland, FL 407-659-4800 [email protected] Digital: 1 Jon Cheney, PE Volusia County Traffic Engineer 123 West Indiana Avenue DeLand, FL 32720-4604 [email protected] Print: 1 Digital: 1 KC Cichon City Manager City of Lake Helen 327 S. Lakeview Drive Lake Helen, FL 32744 [email protected] Digital: 1 Corrina Gumm PE Traffic Engineer Brevard County Traffic Engineering 2725 Judge Fran Jamieson Way Suite 201-A Melbourne, FL 32940 321.617.7202 [email protected] Digital: 1 Reggie. [email protected] Digital: 1 [email protected] Digital: 1 Pierce Jones University of Florida Program for Resource Efficient Communities 2295 Mowry Road Gainesville, FL 32611 352-392-8074 Voice [email protected] Digital: 1 Mr. John Zielinski Florida Department of Transportation District 5 SIS Coordinator [email protected] Digital: 1 Farmton AMDA Second Sufficiency Response D-4 19 QUESTION – STORMWATER MANAGEMENT St. Johns River Water Management District Comment 1: Based on the foregoing, the District provides the following technical assistance for future submittals. As indicated in the District's previous letter dated December 10, 2013, the receiving water bodies identified in the AMDA may also be impaired for nutrients; therefore, a nutrient analysis should be considered. A dual treatment system (wet detention and dry retention) may be required if the treatment efficiency required is greater than 64.5%. The underline format is provided for emphasis because the first sufficiency response references dry detention rather than dry retention. Further, please be aware there is a difference in calculations between "treatment efficiency" (calculation of the system's percentage) as referenced in the first sufficiency response and "treatment efficiency required" (calculation of treatment volume required, expressed as either cubic feet or acre-feet). Response 1: So noted. The Comment was mistyped in the First Sufficiency Response. Farmton AMDA Second Sufficiency Response 19-1 21 QUESTION – TRANSPORTATION East Central Florida Regional Planning Council Comment 1: Page 21-4, response to question 9. The response (used in several instances) did not answer the question about connection and continuation of the fixed rail system in Restoration. Response 1: Based on the principle of adaptive management contained in the Farmton Local Plan (FG 4.13), Farmton is not committing to any one particular type of transit. Farmton is committed to coordinating and providing connections/transfers with existing external transit providers for each AIDA, but it would be imprudent to commit to a particular technology for transit at this time. At this time the applicant is not eliminating the possibility of a fixed rail system or committing to it. Provisions are included in the revised draft MDRI DO to address future coordination and connectivity of transit services and facilities. Comment 2: It appears from the concerns raised by the county and FDOT that an additional north-south roadway may be required, despite the cited environmental concerns. Please comment. Response 2: Policy FG 5.6C of the FLP prohibits limits crossings of GreenKey land use except for the spine transportation network corridors and approved trailheads. In addition, updated transportation analyses indicate that there will be sufficient north-south capacity with the proposed roadway/transit corridors. Comment 3: Response 3: Comment 4: Response 4: Comment 5: The scales on Figures 21-1 and 21-2 are shown the same, however, this cannot be. Please address. LTG has confirmed both maps have the same scale. Please provide a map showing the locations of the improvements listed in Table 21.2. LTG combined Table 21-2 with a location map. It is attached as Figure 21-18. Why does project traffic go down on US 1 between 2035 and 2060? Part of Williamson Blvd. also goes down. Response 5: Project volume decreases on Deering Parkway (f.k.a. Williamson Boulevard) and US 1 because traffic is diverted to the Interchange at Maytown Road and I-95 in the 2060 analysis. Florida Department of Transportation For comments 1, 3, 4, 6, and 7, FDOT’s indicated that it had no further comment. Comment 2: Table 21-2 has been modified, and the construction year is shown as “Prior to 2060.” However, no analysis addressing the timing of the interchange Farmton AMDA Second Sufficiency Response 21-1 was provided. Based on this, the determination of the timing of the interchange will be addressed in the Development Order. Aspects to be covered by the Development Order include (but are not limited to): • Timing of the interchange will be determined during the AIDA submittals. • At the point in time that existing interchanges (e.g. I-95 at S.R.442 and I-95 at C.R.5A) are expected to operate at deficient conditions and improvements are deemed not feasible (due, for example, to: right-of-way (ROW) constraints, local governments’ or applicable jurisdictions’ policy constraints, monetary constraints, etc.), Farmton will not be allowed to continue developing until the I-95 at Maytown Road interchange is in place and operational. A key aspect that needs to be taken into consideration during the Farmton development process is that it usually takes approximately 10 to 15 years to put an interchange on the ground. • The applicant will need to work with Volusia County and the Metropolitan Planning Organization to show this interchange as a funded project within the County’s Long Range Transportation Plan before an Interchange Justification Report (IJR) can be processed. • The I-95 at Maytown Road interchange will be constructed (including all costs related to the interchange approval, design, permitting, etc.) at no cost to FDOT. Additionally, all necessary improvements/enhancements associated with the interchange (e.g. new ramps, etc.) shall be constructed at no cost to the FDOT. Response 2: Noted. The Applicant is aware of the advanced planning required to plan, fund, permit, design, and construct a new interchange. The Applicant will coordinate this process closely with the Volusia TPO, the FDOT and Volusia County. Comment 5: The above mentioned typographical errors were corrected; however, new errors were found in this table (MDRI Tables mw_First revisions – tab (T2110) 2035 & 2060 Background): • S.R. 442 from Gateway to I-95: cell AH23 = 24,556 vpd: it should be 34,556 vpd • Interstate 95 from C.R. 5A to Brevard/Volusia County Line: cell AF28 = 98,326 vpd: it should be 98,426 vpd • U.S. 1 from Volco Rd. to S.R. 442: cell T64 = 30,808 vpd: it should be 13,968 vpd • U.S. 1 from Volco Rd. to S.R. 442: cell AH64 = 13,654 vpd: it should be 30,808 vpd • U.S. 1 from Volco Rd. to S.R. 442: cell AJ64 = 13,968 vpd: it should be 30,292 vpd Response 5: These edits were made to the tables. The only edit that resulted in an impact change was for the section of US 1 from Volco Road to SR 442 which now indicates a failure in 2060 due to Farmton AMDA Second Sufficiency Response 21-2 background traffic growth. The impact may be mitigated by widening to six lanes. As was noted in the prior submission, volumes on US 1 appear to be overstated due to excessive residential socio-economic data coded in northern Brevard County as pointed out by Brevard County staff. Comment 8: There are segments of the Spine Transportation Network (e.g. Maytown Road from S.R. 415 to Naranja Road and from Arterial “A” to 1 mile east of Williamson Boulevard Extension) that are still anticipated to fail in the 2060 Analysis Scenario, even after being widened to 6 lanes. Therefore, the Department’s concerns remain valid. We strongly encourage the applicant to work with Volusia County on identifying additional corridors that can serve the project. The Department will be more than glad to provide support during this process Response 8: Acknowledged. Policy FG 5.6C of the FLP limits crossings of GreenKey land use except for the spine transportation network corridors and approved trailheads. Therefore, additional corridors cannot be provided or the MDRI will be inconsistent with the County Comprehensive Plan. Provisions for additional corridors subject to approval of comprehensive plan amendment are included in the revised draft MDRI DO. It is important to note that the western failure on Maytown Road is due in part to the adopted Osteen Local Plan (OLP) which contains more non-residential development than Farmton. Clearly, the OLP will be tasked with addressing transportation capacity, as well. Also, please note that the modeling does not reflect the effects of an improved multimodal system. Comment 9: The Department has no further comment; however, the conditions described above shall be incorporated as part of the Master DRI Development Order. • The type of transit system will be evaluated during the AIDA analyses. An example transit system could be a fixed guideway system which would avoid transit vehicles being trapped in general use lanes if roads become oversaturated. Therefore, the AMDA needs to include provisions ensuring the availability of sufficient right-of-way to accommodate such a transit system. • The transit system serving this development will need to provide a connection to the “external” transit system. In other words, it cannot be an isolated transit system circulating strictly within the development, rather, it must have connection to Votran. • The transit system to serve the development will be provided at no cost to either the County or FDOT. The applicant will be responsible for funding the system (both capital and operating costs). To ensure the funding of the system, some kind of special assessment within the proposed development may need to be considered. Farmton AMDA Second Sufficiency Response 21-3 • The specific characteristics and implementation plan of the transit system shall be discussed and agreed to during the AIDA analyses. Response 9: Wording has been provided in the development order which addresses FDOT’s concerns. The conditions of the Master Development Order will not commit Farmton to a particular type of transit, but will allow for multiple strategies. The transit system will be funded in accordance with the fiscal neutrality policies established in the Farmton Local Plan. Comment 10: According to the 2060 scenario analysis, S.R. 415 from Enterprise-Osteen Road to Doyle Road/Maytown Road is anticipated to operate below the adopted level of service standard when analyzed as a 6-lane divided facility. The proposed improvement is to widen the roadway to a 6-lane the facility; however, since the facility has already been analyzed at 6 lanes, it continues to operate below acceptable standards under the “with improvements” conditions. Please identify an appropriate mitigation improvement or strategy that will restore the operation of the facility back to acceptable level of service standard. Response 10: The purpose of the AMDA is not to identify specific mitigation requirements for roadway segments, but to identify segments of the roadway network which require further monitoring and evaluation for each AIDA so that the timing of and the type of mitigation are appropriately planned and executed without adversely impacting the roadway network. It should be noted that Farmton trips constitute 9.5% of the total demand on this roadway and will contribute a proportionate and appropriate amount of mitigation approved as part of subsequent AIDAs. Comment 11: Response 11: The Department has received the proposed Draft Master Development Order (MDO) and is in the process of reviewing it. As many of the items included in the Draft MDO are closely related to the technical analysis, which is still under review, the Department has performed a cursory review of the Draft MDO, and we are offering some preliminary comments so the drafting of the MDO can continue advancing forward. However, please note that the Department will continue reviewing it, and additional comments may be generated and provided to the Applicant. Finally, please note that the Department will continue to coordinate and collaborate with Volusia County and the Applicant as appropriate in the drafting of the Master Development Order. Thank you for your continued cooperation and assistance. Volusia County For comments 1 and 2, Volusia County indicated no further comment. Farmton AMDA Second Sufficiency Response 21-4 Comment 3: The Brevard County portions of the proposed Farmton DRI appear to generating some of the trips that the model is identifying as background traffic within the project site. While the portions of the Farmton project in Brevard County are not recognized as “project trips” for the purposes of the AMDA analysis, they are in fact project-related and contribute to the overall needs of the project for the internal site roadways. Actual model volumes are being used for calculating 2035 background traffic conditions on the spine roadway network. As such, the model is being used to calculate the trip generation for the Brevard County portion of Farmton. However, when comparing ITE calculations for daily trips in the Volusia portion of Farmton against the model predicted trip generation the model appears to be generating a lower trip estimate by approximately 10%. Basing 2035 background volumes on the actual model volumes may be slightly underestimating the actual traffic on the internal roadways being contributed by the Brevard County portions of Farmton. Response 3: Noted. The model is assigning only 12% of the Brevard County Farmton background volume north into Volusia County on Deering Parkway. A 10% difference in this 12% volume is a negligible amount of traffic. It has long been noted that urban area models generate traffic at a lower rate than ITE. Comment 4: As outlined in the original comment, planning for an interconnected roadway network to serve the proposed Farmton Master Development is important to the success of the project. The basic roadway spine network included in the modeling provides limited information on actual roadway network that might be anticipated as part of the project. In the 2060 roadway analysis, Maytown Road within the project site is identified to have a volume that exceeds the 6-lane arterial capacity by approximately 25% (capacity of 4,851 with a projected volume of 6,451). Therefore “multimodal strategies” may not be sufficient to serve the full trip demand. Consider extending “Arterial A” to the south of Maytown Road to connect back to Williamson Blvd. This would increase the options for local travel within the center of the development and reduce the east-west burden being carried by Maytown Road. The model identifies approximately 15% of the total project trips to be intrazonal trips (trips that do not leave the TAZ in the model). The project is represented in the model by 13 TAZ’s, which are each modeled as a point. However, in reality, each TAZ represents a subarea of the model that will require a connected network of roadway infrastructure to satisfy the 15% of the total project trips that are intended to stay within each project zone and not impact the spine roadway network. Additional facilities parallel to the spine roadway network (minor arterials, collectors, etc.) will be needed to Farmton AMDA Second Sufficiency Response 21-5 provide a connected roadway network between the TAZ’s to avoid point loading all traffic onto the spine roadways. The analysis undertaken as part of the AMDA is a planning level analysis (two-way traffic being evaluated instead of directional trips, no intersection analysis, etc.). The generalized service volume tables from FDOT that are used in the analysis are based upon simplifying assumptions. The generalized tables assume that the majority of roadway traffic is through traffic (12% left-turns, 12% right-turns, and 76% through vehicles) and that the mainline receives a green time to cycle length (g/c) ratio of 0.44. Given the high level of interaction between the various project TAZ’s, the percentage of turning vehicles at any given intersection is likely to be higher and the volume of vehicles on the side street (which affects the g/c ratio that can be devoted to the mainline) is also likely to be higher. Both of these factors can impact the mainline capacity and reinforce the need for a broader connected network. While the emphasis of the current planning effort is to identify the primary spine network, the Master Development Order language should promote the additional interconnection of project “Village”, “Workplace”, and “Town Center” zones in the central portion of the project site via roadway connections other than the primary spine network. Response 4: Policy FG 5.6C of the FLP limits crossings of GreenKey land use except for the spine transportation network corridors and approved trailheads. The proposed route crosses a multitude of environmentally protected lands and is not feasible given limitations of the Farmton Local Plan. With the submission of each AIDA, the Applicant must demonstrate that capacity is available to accommodate the projected travel demand. That capacity will ultimately include multiple transportation modes. It is important to note that the western failure on Maytown Road is due in part to the adopted Osteen Local Plan (OLP) which contains more non-residential development than Farmton. Clearly, the OLP will be tasked with addressing transportation capacity, as well. The spine road network represents only the major roads. An expanded network of roads is addressed in the Farmton Local Plan to facilitate travel within the sustainable development areas. This hierarchy of roads will be developed in greater detail with the submission of each AIDA. The reviewer’s comments relative to planning level of analysis is noted; however, please refer to the approved methodology which provided the guiding principles for the analysis. Comment 5: Response 5: Comment 6: See response to Comment #4. An interconnected network is important for balancing mobility needs with maintaining reasonable roadway cross sections to align with desired community character and sense of place. Please refer to previous response. More detailed specifics of the transit plans for the project site will be expected in conjunction with the later AIDAs. The Master Development Farmton AMDA Second Sufficiency Response 21-6 Order language should recognize the need for design of the roadway spine network to be transit supportive and allow future flexibility for transit integration. The 2060 analysis confirms that Maytown Road will continue to need to be transit supportive over the long-term since it is projected to have a volume that is approximately 25% higher than the 6-lane service volumes. The remaining spine roads should also be designed to be transit supportive and to not preclude potential future connections to adjacent transit facilities. As outlined in the draft DO, the 200 foot rightof- way should be provided for each of the roadways within the spine road network. However, given the limited information regarding the potential transit system (spacing of transit stops, headways, type of transit service, etc.) it seems premature to include a typical section with center-running dedicated busways. The typical section currently included in the draft MDRI DO should be removed. Additional discussion continues to be needed regarding the phasing of the spine road construction, the initial crosssection of the spine road, and consideration of future expansion of the cross-section for vehicular or dedicated busway lane extensions. Response 6: Noted. The typical section was provided at the request of FDOT and Volusia County. It has been deleted with this current response at the request of several agencies. The spine road network will be developed in coordination with Volusia County, their design standards, and the applicable transit design standards in use at that time. Comment 7: In setting up the socio-economic data within each project TAZ, the conversion of housing and commercial seems to follow the FDOT conversion factors into population and employment. However, the singlefamily dwelling units are converted to population using the same factor (2.31) as the multifamily dwelling units. Commonly multifamily dwelling units use a conversation factor of approximately 2 and a higher factor of around 3 is applied single family dwelling units. Please clarify the source of the 2.31 conversion factor and why the same factor was used for both single and multifamily dwelling units. Response 7: FDOT conversion factors are based on "rules of thumb" and should only be used when local data or more specific knowledge is not available. The data used was based on the 2010 census. This SE data was reviewed by the agencies previously as part of the tables contained in the original AMDA study. Comment 8: For the calculation of 2035 and 2060 background traffic volumes, trip generation from the Brevard County portions of the Farmton DRI are being estimated by the travel demand model. Since the Brevard County portions of the Farmton DRI are impacting the spine network in the Volusia County portion of the project, please verify that the model trip generation being assigned to the network from the Brevard County portions of Farmton is reasonably reflecting expected trips calculated by ITE methods. Farmton AMDA Second Sufficiency Response 21-7 Response 8: Consistent with the approved methodology, all background trips from adjacent development (including the Osteen Local Plan, Restoration, Reflections and the Brevard Farmton Mixed Use) were obtained from the Central Florida Regional Planning Model. Comment 9: In Table 21-10, please clarify whether the 2005, 2035, and 2060 model volumes listed in the table include the application of an MOCF. Are the volumes listed true model volumes or are they AADT volumes derived from the model? For some segments the actual model volume is applied for background traffic and therefore the MOCF should be applied if it has not been already. Response 9: An MOCF was not applied in Table 21-10, since the purpose of this table is to calculate the annual growth. In Tables 21-11 and 21-12, where volumes from the model were used as background traffic, an MOCF was applied. Comment 10: Achieving a 53% internal capture percentage by year 2035 may be an optimistic assumption for this stage of establishing needed infrastructure. As outlined in the methodology document, the Farmton Local Plan identified an internal capture of 30% for year 2035. 30% reflects a more reasonable level of maturation of the uses on the project site and establishment of the level of commercial and employment bases that will enable a range of income levels to live and work in the community. These are aspects that travel demand model alone is not able to assess and therefore the travel demand model may be giving a more optimistic view of the possible internal capture than what will actually be able to be achieved by 2035. In addition, the analysis reflects one assumed development program scenario. The actual internal capture will vary greatly depending upon the timing and nature of the land uses. Actual monitoring of the project internal capture should be included in the Master Development agreement as part of the Monitoring and Modeling studies. Response 10: This study has been conducted consistent with the approved methodology. As AIDAs are approved and developed, internal capture shall be evaluated with each monitoring and modeling effort. Please see revised draft MDRI DO. Comment 11: The methodology applied in the analysis assumes that a 53% internal capture is achieved from Day 1 of the project through Year 2035. This is due to the fact that the analysis simply assigning the 2035 external trips to the roadway and then doing a straight-line interpolation to come up with the possible year of failure. In reality, the impacts will be greater in the early years and the rate of additional impact will gradually decrease as actual internal capture increases. The use of the 53% internal capture does Farmton AMDA Second Sufficiency Response 21-8 not necessarily impact the sizing of the internal site roadways. However, it does impact the conclusions related to the magnitude and timing of impacts to the external facilities. Maytown Road is one of the primary nonstate facilities that will require further evaluation at the AIDA stage to verify the impacts. In the methodology discussions for the AIDA analyses, additional discussion regarding the methodology for more accurately evaluating the internal capture will be expected. The approach used for the Master DRI should not be assumed to be set a precedent for the methodology for the future AIDA analyses. Response 11: Acknowledged. Comment 12: Approximately 15% of the project trips are shown to be attenuated in Deltona to the west of SR 415. Given the magnitude of residential in Farmton and the fact that Deltona is primarily comprised of residential uses, the attenuation in this area seems aggressive. Additional consideration for manual adjustments to the model distribution may be needed as part of the AIDA analyses. Response 12: It should be noted that the Deltona urban form is deficient in non-residential attractions. Farmton and the Osteen Local Plan will be providing complimentary land uses that will serve this deficiency and accounts for the trip interaction. Comment 13: Please provide a separate distribution for external roadways and for internal roadways to show how the external trips are being distributed and to allow for verification that 100% of external project trips are being accounted for in the distribution figures. Currently Figures 21-8 and 21-9 show a mixture of types of distribution percentages, which makes it difficult to track internal versus external trip making. For internal roadways, the distribution percentages appear to reflect the percentage of total minus intrazonal trips. For external segments, the distribution percentages appear to reflect the percentage of external trips only. With these different distribution percentages on the same page, it creates confusion when trying to compare the distribution figures against the percentages utilized in the segment analysis tables (Tables 21-11 and 21-12). Reviewers were also not able to verify that the external trip percentages added to 100% based upon the available information. Response 13: Figures 21-8 and 21-9 were revised to differentiate between internal and external distribution percentages. The distributions reflect representative distributions for the segments. Actual segment by segment distribution is provided in the model files. Distribution model plots have been provided which demonstrate that the external trip percentages add up to 100 percent (Figure 21-19 and Figure 21-20). Farmton AMDA Second Sufficiency Response 21-9 Comment 14: In the text under Section E on Page 21a-27, please consider clarifying the process used to assign trips shown in the Trip Generation tables using the project trip distribution. Reviewers were generally able to back-calculate the source of the various project trips assigned to individual segments. However, when trying to verify trips assigned to each roadway in Tables 21-11 and 21-12, it wasn’t immediately clear which trip generation values are being applied to which distribution percentages in order to achieve the results identified in the tables. Examples of the calculation of the project trips for an internal road (which shares external and internal trip components) would be helpful for documentation purposes. Please also provide the scripts or VPR files used to make the trip distribution computations to allow for verification. Response 14: The model files for both the 2035 and 2060 scenarios were provided on a flash drive. The link attribute calculations for total volume, background volume, project volume, internal project distribution, and external project distribution are contained in the SLZ_HWYLOAD output file for each scenario. Comment 15: Response 15: Note that with the use of the model assignment of internal trips to develop the trip distribution, the internal capture of each individual TAZ will be different (as indicated in the trip matrices in Tables 21-8 and 21-9). Trip generation calculations in Tables 21-3 and 21-4 assume the same internal capture rate is being applied to each of the TAZ’s which is inconsistent with the trip distribution and assignment in subsequent calculations. Consider removing the “PM Peak Hour Net External Trip Generation” values in Tables 21-3 and 21-4 for each of the individual TAZ’s since these values are not utilized and conflict with the remainder of the analysis. New tables 21-3 and 21-4 have been provided in accordance with this comment. Comment 16: In Table 21-14, the segment of SR 415 from Enterprise to Maytown is identified to exceed its service volume with a 6-lane cross-section in year 2056. However, the identified improvement (widening to 6 lanes) is the same as the cross-section assumed to be already present in the analysis. Please identify the recommended improvement for this segment. Response 16: Table 21-14 has been modified to remove the identified improvement for the segment of SR 415 from Enterprise Road to Maytown Road. The purpose of the AMDA is not to identify specific mitigation requirements for roadway segments, but to identify segments of the roadway network which require further monitoring and evaluation for each AIDA so that the timing of and the type of mitigation are appropriately planned and executed without adversely impacting the roadway network. Farmton AMDA Second Sufficiency Response 21-10 Comment 17: Response 17: A variety of improvements are identified to be needed prior to the 2035 horizon year, including portions of Maytown Road, Interstate 95, SR 415, and Doyle Road. Widening of each of these facilities are all assumed to be in place by 2035 for the purposes of the 2060 analysis. Additional improvement needs are identified prior to 2060 including widening of segments of Maytown Road, Williamson Blvd, CR 5A, Arterial A, SR 442, I95, SR 415, SR 44, and Doyle Road. However, none of these anticipated external roadway improvement needs are currently documented in the draft Master Development Order. At a minimum, these significantly impacted roadways should be identified in the AMDO as key facilities that should be included in future AIDA and M&M studies, along with any other facilities where the project is expected to contribute 5% or greater of the adopted level of service volume. Please see response to FDOT Comment 12. Comment 18: Based upon the 2060 Roadway improvements, the entirety of Williamson Blvd is projected to need to be either 4 or 6 lanes in the future. The section of Williamson from Arterial A to “S edge of Gateway” is identified to only need to be a 2-lane roadway through Year 2053. However, given the long term need for 4 lanes, it is unclear whether the entire Williamson Blvd spine roadway would be initially constructed by the owner/developer as a fourlane thoroughfare facility? Similarly, it is unclear what is intended for the initial number of lanes to be constructed for the remainder of the spine road network. Response 18: These issues would be addressed with the review of each AIDA (cumulative analysis) and with the periodic monitoring and modeling requirements of the Master DRI. It is premature to determine mitigation requirements for impacts estimated to occur more than 30 years in the future. Comment 19: Clarification is needed regarding the intended sequencing of the spine road construction. For example, is the entire Williamson Blvd going to be built in one project or is it intended to be built in components? If it will be built in components, the sequencing of the project and the connections of the roadway network will be extremely important to enabling the stated internal capture and the regional distribution to be achieved. Some basic trip thresholds and timing for key connections: Williamson to Maytown (started from either end), completion of Williamson, etc. need to be established and documented in the Master DRI. Response 19: See prior response. The roadway improvements necessary to sustain each AIDA will be identified with each AIDA review, and the study of each AIDA shall be cumulative. Farmton AMDA Second Sufficiency Response 21-11 Comment 20: Response 20: Acknowledged. Please see revised draft MDRI DO. Condition 5. Comment 21: Response 21: Draft Master Development Order, page 5, lines 29-32. Refinements to the language pertaining to the role of the MDO are needed. The language states “This MDO shall prevail over any conflicting information, data, plan or commitments”. However, in the case of the transportation issues, there are many areas including the details of the actual project impacts, proportionate share, roadway improvement commitments, etc that are not firm and will be identified in further detail through the AIDA analyses. Additional coordination is needed on the role of the Master DO related to transportation infrastructure. The role of the Farmton Local Plan in relation to the Master DO also needs to be better established. In many situations, the Farmton Local Plan should prevail. Related to the equivalency matrix, the MDO language should also reference the limits in the exchange of uses specified in the Farmton Local Plan. (Condition 14) Acknowledged. Please see the revised draft MDRI DO. Condition 14. Comment 22: Additional coordination is required regarding the monitoring and modeling (M&M) provisions need further discussion including references to the County’s concurrency management system as well as the mechanism for triggering M&M studies to be completed. In order to manage the monitoring of individual incremental DRI’s as well as provide ongoing evaluations of the project as a whole, a more detailed plan needs to be established as part of the Master DRI. Streamlining the M&M process and the tracking of impacts of the AIDAs will be in the mutual interest of both the agencies and the master developer. One possible option could include a periodic (frequency to be determined) M&M study to be completed for the overall Master DRI that cumulatively evaluates the project and monitors the impacts and entitlements of the AIDAs. Additional details related to the M&M program need to be discussed as part of further drafting of the Master Development Order. Response 22: Policy FG 5.11 requires monitoring and modeling of the Farmton Local Plan a minimum of every seven years. Policies FG 5.14 through 5.16 provide additional details for the M&M requirements. Farmton AMDA Second Sufficiency Response 21-12 Table 21-3 2035 Trip Generation Farmton AMDA Development Area TAZ Gateway 1 2461 Gateway 2 2833 Village 1 2460 Village 2 Village 3 Village 4 Village 5 Village 6 Village 7 Village 8 Village 9 Workplace Town Center 1 Town Center 2 2460 2834 2835 2836 2837 2465 2838 2839 2466 2840 2841 ITE Land Use Descritpion Single-Family Residential Apartments Light Industrial Shopping Center General Office Elementary School Church Utilities ITE Code Quantity Units 210 200 DU 220 0 DU 110 50 KSF 820 100 KSF 710 0 KSF 520 735 Students 560 9 KSF 170 15 KSF Apartments Apartments Light Industrial General Office 220 220 110 710 450 450 100 100 DU DU KSF KSF Single-Family Residential Shopping Center General Office 210 820 710 Single-Family Residential Apartments Shopping Center General Office 210 220 820 710 200 0 0 0 DU DU KSF KSF Single-Family Residential Single-Family Residential Apartments Shopping Center General Office Elementary School Church 210 210 220 820 710 520 560 425 425 300 20 20 0 6 DU DU DU KSF KSF Students KSF Single-Family Residential Apartments Shopping Center General Office 210 220 820 710 400 0 0 0 DU DU KSF KSF Single-Family Residential Single-Family Residential Apartments Apartments Shopping Center General Office Church 210 210 220 220 820 710 560 300 300 300 300 20 10 6 DU DU DU DU KSF KSF KSF Single-Family Residential Single-Family Residential Apartments Apartments Shopping Center General Office Elementary School Church 210 210 220 220 820 710 520 560 300 300 323 322 25 25 0 9 DU DU DU DU KSF KSF Students KSF Single-Family Residential Apartments Shopping Center General Office 210 220 820 710 450 450 0 0 DU DU KSF KSF Single-Family Residential Single-Family Residential Apartments Apartments Apartments Shopping Center General Office Elementary School Church 210 210 220 220 220 820 710 520 560 500 500 400 400 400 20 25 735 18 DU DU DU DU DU KSF KSF Students KSF Single-Family Residential Apartments Apartments Shopping Center General Office 210 220 220 820 710 300 350 350 0 0 DU DU DU KSF KSF Apartments Apartments Light Industrial Shopping Center General Office 220 220 110 820 710 350 350 175 150 750 DU DU KSF KSF KSF Single-Family Residential Apartments Shopping Center General Office Government Office Complex Middle School High School Community College Church Hospital Utilities 210 220 820 710 733 522 530 540 560 610 170 120 420 300 150 73.65 1,200 0 294 22 72.72 2.25 DU DU KSF KSF KSF Students Students KSF KSF KSF KSF Single-Family Residential Apartments Shopping Center General Office Government Office Complex Community College Church Hospital Utilities 210 220 820 710 733 540 560 610 170 80 280 200 100 49.10 196 14 48.48 1.50 DU DU KSF KSF KSF KSF KSF KSF KSF 0 DU 0 KSF 0 KSF P.M. Peak-Hour Trip Generation Rates Directional % Rate 2 In Out 0.99 63% 37% 0 65% 35% 0.98 12% 88% 6.00 48% 52% 0 17% 83% 0.15 49% 51% 0.56 48% 52% 0.73 45% 55% Totals Gateway 1 0.59 65% 35% 0.59 65% 35% 0.97 12% 88% 1.90 17% 83% Totals Gateway 2 0 63% 37% 0 48% 52% 0 17% 83% Totals Village 1 0.99 63% 37% 0 65% 35% 0 48% 52% 0 17% 83% Totals Village 2 0.91 63% 37% 0.91 63% 37% 0.61 65% 35% 3.70 48% 52% 5.05 17% 83% 0 49% 51% 0.50 48% 52% Totals Village 3 0.92 63% 37% 0 65% 35% 0 48% 52% 0 17% 83% Totals Village 4 0.95 63% 37% 0.95 63% 37% 0.61 65% 35% 0.61 65% 35% 3.70 48% 52% 9.00 17% 83% 0.50 48% 52% Totals Village 5 0.95 63% 37% 0.95 63% 37% 0.60 65% 35% 0.61 65% 35% 3.72 48% 52% 4.24 17% 83% 0 49% 51% 0.56 48% 52% Totals Village 6 0.91 63% 37% 0.59 65% 35% 0 48% 52% 0 17% 83% Totals Village 7 0.90 63% 37% 0.90 63% 37% 0.60 65% 35% 0.60 65% 35% 0.60 65% 35% 3.70 48% 52% 4.24 17% 83% 0.15 49% 51% 0.56 48% 52% Totals Village 8 0.95 63% 37% 0.60 65% 35% 0.60 65% 35% 0 48% 52% 0 17% 83% Totals Village 9 0.60 65% 35% 0.60 65% 35% 0.97 12% 88% 5.25 48% 52% 1.22 17% 83% Totals Workplace 1.03 63% 37% 0.59 65% 35% 4.17 48% 52% 1.64 17% 83% 2.85 31% 69% 0.16 49% 51% 0 47% 53% 2.54 58% 42% 0.56 48% 52% 0.94 38% 62% 0.89 45% 55% Totals Towncenter 1 1.08 63% 37% 0.61 65% 35% 4.77 48% 52% 1.90 17% 83% 2.85 31% 69% 2.54 58% 42% 0.56 48% 52% 0.93 38% 62% 0.67 45% 55% Totals Towncenter 2 P.M. Peak-Hour Gross Totals: Internal Capture: P.M. Peak-Hour Net External Trip Generation P.M. Peak-Hour Trip Generation Directional Total In Out 198 125 73 0 0 0 49 6 43 600 288 312 0 0 0 110 54 56 5 2 3 11 5 6 973 480 493 265 172 93 265 172 93 97 12 85 190 32 158 817 388 429 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 198 125 73 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 198 125 73 388 244 144 388 244 144 183 119 64 74 36 38 101 17 84 0 0 0 3 1 2 1,137 661 476 366 231 135 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 366 231 135 284 179 105 284 179 105 183 119 64 183 119 64 74 36 38 90 15 75 3 1 2 1,101 648 453 284 179 105 284 179 105 195 127 68 195 127 68 93 45 48 106 18 88 0 0 0 5 2 3 1,162 677 485 408 257 151 265 172 93 0 0 0 0 0 0 673 429 244 448 282 166 448 282 166 238 155 83 238 155 83 238 155 83 74 36 38 106 18 88 110 54 56 10 5 5 1,910 1,142 768 284 179 105 210 137 74 210 137 74 0 0 0 0 0 0 704 453 253 210 137 74 210 137 74 170 20 150 788 378 410 918 156 762 2,296 828 1,470 124 78 46 249 162 87 1,252 601 651 246 42 204 210 65 145 192 94 98 0 0 0 747 433 314 12 6 6 68 26 42 2 1 1 3,102 1,508 1,594 86 54 32 172 112 60 954 458 496 190 32 158 140 43 97 498 289 209 8 4 4 45 17 28 1 0 1 2,094 1,009 1,085 16,533 53.7% 7,655 8,579 7,958 53.7% 3,972 53.7% 3,685 Notes: Regression Equation used when R2 > or = 0.75 Average Rate used for shopping centers (LU Code 820) that are < or = to 50 KSF Average Rate used for industrial uses (LU Code 110) Farmton AMDA Second Sufficiency Response 21-13 Table 21-4 2060 Trip Generation Farmton AMDA Development Area TAZ Gateway 1 2461 Gateway 2 2833 Village 1 2460 Village 2 Village 3 Village 4 Village 5 Village 6 Village 7 Village 8 Village 9 Workplace Town Center 1 Town Center 2 2460 2834 2835 2836 2837 2465 2838 2839 2466 2840 2841 ITE Land Use Descritpion Single-Family Residential Apartments Light Industrial Shopping Center General Office Elementary School Church Utilities ITE Code Quantity Units 210 296 DU 220 300 DU 110 250 KSF 820 200 KSF 710 30 KSF 520 735 Students 560 9 KSF 170 15 KSF Apartments Apartments Light Industrial General Office 220 220 110 710 450 450 100 240 DU DU KSF KSF Single-Family Residential Shopping Center General Office 210 820 710 235 DU 10 KSF 10 KSF Single-Family Residential Single-Family Residential Single-Family Residential Single-Family Residential Apartments Shopping Center General Office 210 210 210 210 220 820 710 200 785 785 784 534 30 30 DU DU DU DU DU KSF KSF Single-Family Residential Single-Family Residential Single-Family Residential Single-Family Residential Apartments Apartments Shopping Center General Office Elementary School Church 210 210 210 210 220 220 820 710 520 560 425 425 466 466 300 300 30 30 735 12 DU DU DU DU DU DU KSF KSF Students KSF Single-Family Residential Single-Family Residential Apartments Shopping Center General Office 210 210 220 820 710 400 400 224 30 30 DU DU DU KSF KSF Single-Family Residential Single-Family Residential Single-Family Residential Apartments Apartments Apartments Shopping Center General Office Church 210 210 210 220 220 220 820 710 560 300 300 500 300 300 277 20 10 12 DU DU DU DU DU DU KSF KSF KSF Single-Family Residential Single-Family Residential Single-Family Residential Apartments Apartments Apartments Apartments Shopping Center General Office Elementary School Church 210 210 210 220 220 220 220 820 710 520 560 300 300 567 323 322 553 553 50 50 735 18 DU DU DU DU DU DU DU KSF KSF Students KSF Single-Family Residential Single-Family Residential Apartments Apartments Shopping Center General Office 210 210 220 220 820 710 450 538 450 539 30 30 DU DU DU DU KSF KSF Single-Family Residential Single-Family Residential Single-Family Residential Apartments Apartments Apartments Apartments Apartments Shopping Center General Office Elementary School Church 210 210 210 220 220 220 220 220 820 710 520 560 500 500 340 400 400 400 463 462 40 50 735 36 DU DU DU DU DU DU DU DU KSF KSF Students KSF Single-Family Residential Single-Family Residential Apartments Apartments Apartments Shopping Center General Office 210 210 220 220 220 820 710 300 144 350 350 426 30 30 DU DU DU DU DU KSF KSF Apartments Apartments Apartments Light Industrial Shopping Center General Office 220 220 220 110 820 710 350 350 550 250 275 1,227 DU DU DU KSF KSF KSF Single-Family Residential Apartments Apartments Shopping Center General Office Government Office Complex Middle School High School Community College Church Hospital Utilities 210 220 220 820 710 733 522 530 540 560 610 170 180 420 431 653 300 147.30 1,200 2,000 588 43 145.44 4.50 Single-Family Residential Apartments Apartments Shopping Center General Office Government Office Complex Community College Church Hospital Utilities 210 220 220 820 710 733 540 560 610 170 120 280 287 435 200 98.20 392 29 96.96 3.00 DU DU DU KSF KSF KSF Students Students KSF KSF KSF KSF DU DU DU KSF KSF KSF KSF KSF KSF KSF P.M. Peak-Hour Trip Generation Rates Directional % Rate 2 In Out 0.95 63% 37% 0.61 65% 35% 0.97 12% 88% 4.77 48% 52% 3.73 17% 83% 0.15 49% 51% 0.56 48% 52% 0.73 45% 55% Totals Gateway 1 0.59 65% 35% 0.59 65% 35% 0.97 12% 88% 1.45 17% 83% Totals Gateway 2 0.97 63% 37% 3.70 48% 52% 9.00 17% 83% Totals Village 1 0.99 63% 37% 0.86 63% 37% 0.86 63% 37% 0.86 63% 37% 0.58 65% 35% 3.70 48% 52% 3.73 17% 83% Totals Village 2 0.91 63% 37% 0.91 63% 37% 0.90 63% 37% 0.90 63% 37% 0.61 65% 35% 0.61 65% 35% 3.70 48% 52% 3.73 17% 83% 0.15 49% 51% 0.58 48% 52% Totals Village 3 0.92 63% 37% 0.92 63% 37% 0.63 65% 35% 3.70 48% 52% 3.73 17% 83% Totals Village 4 0.95 63% 37% 0.95 63% 37% 0.90 63% 37% 0.61 65% 35% 0.61 65% 35% 0.61 65% 35% 3.70 48% 52% 9.00 17% 83% 0.58 48% 52% Totals Village 5 0.95 63% 37% 0.95 63% 37% 0.89 63% 37% 0.60 65% 35% 0.61 65% 35% 0.58 65% 35% 0.58 65% 35% 3.72 48% 52% 2.68 17% 83% 0.15 49% 51% 0.56 48% 52% Totals Village 6 0.91 63% 37% 0.89 63% 37% 0.59 65% 35% 0.58 65% 35% 3.70 48% 52% 3.73 17% 83% Totals Village 7 0.90 63% 37% 0.90 63% 37% 0.94 63% 37% 0.60 65% 35% 0.60 65% 35% 0.60 65% 35% 0.59 65% 35% 0.59 65% 35% 3.70 48% 52% 2.68 17% 83% 0.15 49% 51% 0.56 48% 52% Totals Village 8 0.95 63% 37% 1.01 63% 37% 0.60 65% 35% 0.60 65% 35% 0.59 65% 35% 8.93 48% 52% 3.73 17% 83% Totals Village 9 0.60 65% 35% 0.60 65% 35% 0.58 65% 35% 0.97 12% 88% 4.29 48% 52% 1.18 17% 83% Totals Workplace 1.00 63% 37% 0.59 65% 35% 0.59 65% 35% 3.23 48% 52% 1.38 17% 83% 2.85 31% 69% 0.16 49% 51% 0.13 47% 53% 2.54 58% 42% 0.56 48% 52% 0.93 38% 62% 0.67 45% 55% Totals Towncenter 1 1.03 63% 37% 0.61 65% 35% 0.61 65% 35% 3.69 48% 52% 1.51 17% 83% 2.85 31% 69% 2.54 58% 42% 0.56 48% 52% 0.93 38% 62% 0.67 45% 55% Totals Towncenter 2 P.M. Peak-Hour Trip Generation Directional Total In Out 280 176 104 183 119 64 243 29 214 954 458 496 112 19 93 110 54 56 5 2 3 11 5 6 1,898 862 1,036 265 172 93 265 172 93 97 12 85 347 59 288 974 415 559 228 144 84 37 18 19 90 15 75 355 177 178 198 125 73 672 423 249 672 423 249 672 423 249 311 202 109 111 53 58 112 19 93 2,748 1,668 1,080 388 244 144 388 244 144 420 265 155 420 265 155 183 119 64 183 119 64 111 53 58 112 19 93 110 54 56 7 3 4 2,322 1,385 937 366 231 135 366 231 135 141 92 49 111 53 58 112 19 93 1,096 626 470 284 179 105 284 179 105 448 282 166 183 119 64 183 119 64 170 111 60 74 36 38 90 15 75 7 3 4 1,723 1,043 681 284 179 105 284 179 105 502 316 186 195 127 68 195 127 68 322 209 113 322 209 113 186 89 97 134 23 111 110 54 56 10 5 5 2,544 1,517 1,027 408 257 151 478 301 177 265 172 93 314 204 110 111 53 58 112 19 93 1,688 1,006 682 448 282 166 448 282 166 318 200 118 238 155 83 238 155 83 238 155 83 272 177 95 272 177 95 148 71 77 134 23 111 110 54 56 20 10 10 2,884 1,741 1,143 284 179 105 146 92 54 210 137 74 210 137 74 252 164 88 268 129 139 112 19 93 1,482 857 627 210 137 74 210 137 74 320 208 112 243 29 214 1,180 566 614 1,453 247 1,206 3,616 1,324 2,294 180 113 67 249 162 87 255 166 89 2,106 1,011 1,095 414 70 344 420 130 290 192 94 98 260 122 138 1,494 867 627 24 12 12 135 51 84 3 1 2 5,732 2,799 2,933 124 78 46 172 112 60 176 114 62 1,606 771 835 302 51 251 280 87 193 996 578 418 16 8 8 90 34 56 2 1 1 3,764 1,834 1,930 P.M. Peak-Hour Gross Totals: 32,826 17,254 15,577 Internal Capture: P.M. Peak-Hour Net External Trip Generation 59.3% 13,360 59.3% 7,022 59.3% 6,340 Notes: Regression Equation used when R2 > or = 0.75 Average Rate used for shopping centers (LU Code 820) that are < or = to 50 KSF Average Rate used for industrial uses (LU Code 110) Farmton AMDA Second Sufficiency Response 21-14 Table 21-10 Background Traffic Growth Rate Determination Farmton AMDA AMDA ROADWAY NETWORK Roadway Maytown Road/Halifax Avenue From To SR 415 to Naranja Rd1 Naranja Rd to Pell Rd Pell Road to Arterial "A" Arterial "A" to 1 mile east of Williamson Blvd Ext 1 mile east of Williamson Blvd Ext to NB ramps I-95 NB ramps of I-95 to Beacon Light Road Beacon Light Road to US 1 Williamson Boulevard Extension I-95 to S. Edge of Farmton Mixed Use S. Edge of Farmton Mixed Use to Vol Co Line Brevard Co Line to Maytown Rd Maytown Road to N. Edge of Town Center N. Edge of Town Center to Arterial "A" Arterial "A" to S. Edge of Gateway S. Edge of Gateway to SR 442 SR 442 to N. Edge of Restoration N. Edge of Restoration to SR 44 County Road 5A (Stuckway Rd) US 1 to I-95 Arterial Road "A" Maytown Road to Williamson Boulevard Ext SR 442 (Indian River Blvd.) Williamson Blvd. Ext to Gateway 2 Gateway 2 to I-95 I-95 to Air Park Road Air Park Road to Queen Palm Drive Queen Palm Drive to US 1 Interstate 95 SR 46 to CR 5A (Brevard) CR 5A to Brevard/Vol County line Brev/Vol County line to Maytown Road Maytown Road to SR 442 (Indian River Blvd.) SR 442 (Indian River Blvd.) to SR 44 SR 415 SR 46 to Seminole/Volusia Co line3 Seminole/Volusia Co to Osteen-Enterprise Rd3 Enterprise-Osteen Road to Doyle Rd/Maytown Rd3 Doyle Rd/Maytown Rd To Howland Blvd3 Howland Blvd. to Acorn Lake Road3 Acorn Lake Road to Colony Rd/Lake Ashby Rd Colony/Lake Ashby Rd to SR 44 SR 46 SR 415 (Lake Mary Blvd.) to W. Osceola Road W. Osceola Road to Snow Hill Road Snow Hill Road to Vol/Seminole Co line Vol/Seminole Co line to Vol/Brevard Co line Vol/Brevard Co line to Turpentine Road Turpentine Rd to I-95 SR 44 SR 415 to Samsula Drive Samsula Drive to Airport Road Airport Road to I-95 Dirksen/Debary/Doyle Road I-4 to Deltona Blvd. Deltona Blvd. to Enterprise Rd. (New alignment)2 Enterprise Rd. to Main St. (New alignment)2 Main St. to Providence Blvd. (New alignment)2 Providence Blvd. to Garfield Road Garfield Rd to Saxon Blvd Saxon Blvd to Courtland Blvd3 Courtland Blvd to SR 4153 US 1 Aurantia to CR 5A (Stuckway Rd) CR 5A (Stuckway Rd) to Brevard/Volusia Co line Brevard/Vol Co line to Kennedy Parkway Kennedy Parkway to Putnam Grove Road Putnam Grove Road to Halifax Avenue Halifax Avenue to HH Birch Road HH Birch Rd to Ariel Road Ariel Rd to Volco Road Volco Road to SR 442 2012 AADT 3,720 600 600 600 600 1,680 1,500 9,525 12,000 16,100 26,283 30,000 30,000 30,000 31,000 15,200 16,800 15,200 15,200 6,500 7,700 7,700 10,275 8,500 5,400 6,000 6,000 6,000 13,500 14,400 14,400 28,260 17,630 23,030 21,260 12,400 9,580 8,020 5,950 3,000 3,000 3,100 3,800 3,800 5,500 7,000 11,053 19,000 AADT data source Vol Co Vol Co Vol Co Vol Co Vol Co Vol Co Vol Co Count Station FDOT FTI 8117 FDOT FTI FDOT FTI FDOT FTI FDOT FTI FDOT FTI FDOT FTI FDOT FTI FDOT FTI FDOT FTI FDOT FTI FDOT FTI FDOT FTI FDOT FTI FDOT FTI FDOT FTI FDOT FTI FDOT FTI FDOT FTI FDOT FTI FDOT FTI FDOT FTI FDOT FTI FDOT FTI FDOT FTI Vol Co Vol Co Vol Co Vol Co Vol Co Vol Co Vol Co Vol Co FDOT FTI FDOT FTI FDOT FTI FDOT FTI FDOT FTI FDOT FTI FDOT FTI FDOT FTI FDOT FTI 1196 1198 1198 1198 1198 790 170 505 5190 322 436 436 436 503 279 25 437 437 321 1009 1009 299 174 168 416 416 416 1012 423 423 480 481 482 484 485 530 531 533 404 404 531 1 1 2 3 9929 27 2005 Model Volume 680 488 278 177 177 514 5,485 15,717 9,710 9,727 52,296 49,670 49,670 49,670 55,325 26,967 28,193 25,031 24,563 11,904 15,764 15,700 15,662 14,649 10,827 10,701 10,770 13,687 19,770 20,329 20,339 34,906 18,981 23,409 18,931 12,485 9,607 8,200 4,797 7,277 9,154 8,913 8,320 8,472 9,489 11,125 12,317 14,796 Model 2035 2035 Annual Applied Model Growth Growth 2060 Applied Growth Volume Rate (/30) Rate Rate 15,142 0.00% MV 2035 BG Vol + 2.00% 14,199 66.27% MV 2035 BG Vol + 2.00% 13,661 89.98% MV 2035 BG Vol + 2.00% 8,371 97.04% MV 2035 BG Vol + 2.00% 1,011 15.71% MV 2060 MV 1,011 15.71% MV 2035 BG Vol + 2.00% 1,453 6.09% MV 2035 BG Vol + 2.00% 18,867 0.00% MV 2035 BG Vol + 2.00% 8,191 0.00% MV 2035 BG Vol + 2.00% 8,191 0.00% MV 2035 BG Vol + 2.00% 261 0.00% MV 2035 BG Vol + 2.00% 261 0.00% MV 2035 BG Vol + 2.00% 4,981 0.00% MV 2035 BG Vol + 2.00% 4,981 0.00% MV 2035 BG Vol + 2.00% 14,231 0.00% MV 2035 BG Vol + 2.00% 17,442 0.00% MV 2035 BG Vol + 2.00% 17,316 7.19% MV 2035 BG Vol + 2.00% 4,720 0.00% MV 2035 BG Vol + 2.00% 15,171 0.00% MV 2035 BG Vol + 2.00% 28,806 0.00% MV 2035 BG Vol + 2.00% 27,895 2.58% 2.58% 2.58% 16,438 2.31% 2.31% 2.31% 14,372 1.59% 1.59% 1.59% 101,653 3.15% 3.15% 2035 BG Vol + 2.00% 98,426 3.27% 3.27% 2035 BG Vol + 2.00% 98,426 3.27% 3.27% 2035 BG Vol + 2.00% 98,426 3.27% 3.27% 2035 BG Vol + 2.00% 107,781 3.16% 3.16% 2035 BG Vol + 2.00% 64,352 4.62% 4.62% 2035 BG Vol + 2.00% 70,065 4.95% 4.95% 2035 BG Vol + 2.00% 63,075 5.07% 5.07% 2035 BG Vol + 2.00% 61,026 4.95% 4.95% 2035 BG Vol + 2.00% 26,735 4.15% 4.15% 2035 BG Vol + 2.00% 25,757 2.11% 2.11% 2.11% 25,910 2.17% 2.17% 2.17% 30,155 3.08% 3.08% 2035 BG Vol + 2.00% 28,518 3.16% 3.16% 2035 BG Vol + 2.00% 21,158 3.18% 3.18% 2035 BG Vol + 2.00% 20,752 3.13% 3.13% 2035 BG Vol + 2.00% 21,239 3.24% 3.24% 2035 BG Vol + 2.00% 29,470 3.84% 3.84% 2035 BG Vol + 2.00% 33,579 2.33% 2.33% 2.33% 32,335 1.97% 1.97% 1.97% 38,293 2.94% 2.94% 2.94% 42,161 0.69% 1.00% 1.00% 20,119 0.20% 1.00% 1.00% 32,713 1.32% 1.32% 1.32% 22,200 0.58% 1.00% 1.00% 18,542 1.62% 1.62% 1.62% 13,921 1.50% 1.50% 1.50% 20,931 5.18% 5.18% 2035 BG Vol + 1.00% 23,213 12.80% 12.80% 2035 BG Vol + 1.00% 25,561 8.38% 8.38% 2035 BG Vol + 1.00% 20,386 4.09% 4.09% 2035 BG Vol + 1.00% 20,003 4.15% 4.15% 2035 BG Vol + 1.00% 19,062 4.30% 4.30% 2035 BG Vol + 1.00% 19,357 4.28% 4.28% 2035 BG Vol + 1.00% 21,902 4.36% 4.36% 2035 BG Vol + 1.00% 24,967 4.15% 4.15% 2035 BG Vol + 1.00% 27,595 4.13% 4.13% 2035 BG Vol + 1.00% 30,937 3.64% 3.64% 2035 BG Vol + 1.00% 2060 Model Volume 17,570 17,568 17,063 11,880 7,234 1,073 1,466 15,641 3,645 3,645 366 366 5,313 5,313 13,765 16,938 4,947 14,491 27,042 98,407 95,793 88,798 100,888 105,295 41,846 19,741 32,618 22,191 18,289 16,310 21,548 24,614 27,789 25,889 25,531 2035 Growth Projection Use 2035 Model Volume Use 2035 Model Volume Use 2035 Model Volume Use 2035 Model Volume Use 2035 Model Volume Use 2035 Model Volume Use 2035 Model Volume Use 2035 Model Volume Use 2035 Model Volume Use 2035 Model Volume Use 2035 Model Volume Use 2035 Model Volume Use 2035 Model Volume Use 2035 Model Volume Use 2035 Model Volume Use 2035 Model Volume Use 2035 Model Volume Use 2035 Model Volume Use 2035 Model Volume Use 2035 Model Volume Apply model growth rate to 2012 Apply model growth rate to 2012 Apply model growth rate to 2012 Apply model growth rate to 2012 Apply model growth rate to 2012 Apply model growth rate to 2012 Apply model growth rate to 2012 Apply model growth rate to 2012 Apply model growth rate to 2012 Apply model growth rate to 2012 Apply model growth rate to 2012 Apply model growth rate to 2012 Apply model growth rate to 2012 Apply model growth rate to 2012 Apply model growth rate to 2012 Apply model growth rate to 2012 Apply model growth rate to 2012 Apply model growth rate to 2012 Apply model growth rate to 2012 Apply model growth rate to 2012 Apply model growth rate to 2012 Apply model growth rate to 2012 Apply model growth rate to 2012 Apply model growth rate to 2012 Apply 1% minimum to 2012 Apply 1% minimum to 2012 Apply model growth rate to 2012 Apply 1% minimum to 2012 Apply model growth rate to 2012 Apply model growth rate to 2012 Apply model growth rate to 2012 Apply model growth rate to 2012 Apply model growth rate to 2012 Apply model growth rate to 2012 Apply model growth rate to 2012 Apply model growth rate to 2012 Apply model growth rate to 2012 Apply model growth rate to 2012 Apply model growth rate to 2012 Apply model growth rate to 2012 Apply model growth rate to 2012 2060 Growth Projection Apply 2% to 2035 Background Volume Apply 2% to 2035 Background Volume Apply 2% to 2035 Background Volume Apply 2% to 2035 Background Volume Use 2060 Model Volume Apply 2% to 2035 Background Volume Apply 2% to 2035 Background Volume Apply 2% to 2035 Background Volume Apply 2% to 2035 Background Volume Apply 2% to 2035 Background Volume Apply 2% to 2035 Background Volume Apply 2% to 2035 Background Volume Apply 2% to 2035 Background Volume Apply 2% to 2035 Background Volume Apply 2% to 2035 Background Volume Apply 2% to 2035 Background Volume Apply 2% to 2035 Background Volume Apply 2% to 2035 Background Volume Apply 2% to 2035 Background Volume Apply 2% to 2035 Background Volume Apply model growth rate to 2012 Apply model growth rate to 2012 Apply model growth rate to 2012 Apply 2% to 2035 Background Volume Apply 2% to 2035 Background Volume Apply 2% to 2035 Background Volume Apply 2% to 2035 Background Volume Apply 2% to 2035 Background Volume Apply 2% to 2035 Background Volume Apply 2% to 2035 Background Volume Apply 2% to 2035 Background Volume Apply 2% to 2035 Background Volume Apply 2% to 2035 Background Volume Apply model growth rate to 2012 Apply model growth rate to 2012 Apply 2% to 2035 Background Volume Apply 2% to 2035 Background Volume Apply 2% to 2035 Background Volume Apply 2% to 2035 Background Volume Apply 2% to 2035 Background Volume Apply 2% to 2035 Background Volume Apply model growth rate to 2012 Apply model growth rate to 2012 Apply model growth rate to 2012 Apply 1% minimum to 2012 Apply 1% minimum to 2012 Apply model growth rate to 2012 Apply 1% minimum to 2012 Apply model growth rate to 2012 Apply model growth rate to 2012 Apply 1% to 2035 Background Volume Apply 1% to 2035 Background Volume Apply 1% to 2035 Background Volume Apply 1% to 2035 Background Volume Apply 1% to 2035 Background Volume Apply 1% to 2035 Background Volume Apply 1% to 2035 Background Volume Apply 1% to 2035 Background Volume Apply 1% to 2035 Background Volume Apply 1% to 2035 Background Volume Apply 1% to 2035 Background Volume Reason for Background Growth Projection Methodology New roadway with no count history 2035 - Williamson Blvd Ext / 2060 - Typical growth 2035 - Williamson Blvd Ext / 2060 - Typical growth 2035 - Williamson Blvd Ext / 2060 - Typical growth 2035 - Williamson Blvd Ext / 2060 - New Interchange 2035 - Williamson Blvd Ext / 2060 - Typical growth 2035 - Williamson Blvd Ext / 2060 - Typical growth New roadway with no count history New roadway with no count history New roadway with no count history New roadway with no count history New roadway with no count history New roadway with no count history New roadway with no count history New roadway with no count history New roadway with no count history 2035 - Williamson Blvd Ext / 2060 - Typical growth New roadway with no count history New roadway with no count history New roadway with no count history Model growth rate found to be within reason Model growth rate found to be within reason Model growth rate found to be within reason Overstated Osteen Local Plan growth Overstated Osteen Local Plan growth Overstated Osteen Local Plan growth Overstated Osteen Local Plan growth Overstated Osteen Local Plan growth Model growth rate found to be within reason Model growth rate found to be within reason Model growth rate found to be within reason Model growth rate found to be within reason Model growth rate found to be within reason Min 1% applied as model rate was < 1% Min 1% applied as model rate was < 1% Model growth rate found to be within reason Min 1% applied as model rate was < 1% Model growth rate found to be within reason Model growth rate found to be within reason Overstated Osteen Local Plan growth Overstated Osteen Local Plan growth Overstated Brevard County growth Overstated Brevard County growth Overstated Brevard County growth Overstated Brevard County growth Overstated Brevard County growth Overstated Brevard County growth Overstated Brevard County growth Overstated Brevard County growth Model growth rate found to be within reason 1 New alignment of Maytown Rd east of SR 415 from Doyle Rd intersection to Existing Maytown 2 Previous Doyle Rd alignment used to obtain 2005 model volumes 3 Segment significantly impacted by Osteen Local Plan Farmton AMDA Second Sufficiency Response 21-15 Table 21-11 2035 Roadway Segment Analysis Farmton AMDA Roadway Maytown Rd/Halifax Avenue Limits Jurisdiction Classification No. of Lanes Adopted LOS 2012 AADT Capacity at K Adopted 2012 factor LOS Volume 9 1,440 0 Peak-Hour Two-Way 2035 2035 2035 Applied Background Project Growth Rate Volume 1 Distribution2 MV 1,295 27.2% 2035 Project Traffic 2,082 2035 Total Traffic 3,377 Adverse in 2035? Yes SR 415 to Naranja Rd Vol Non-state Class I Urban Arterial 2 E 0 Naranja Rd to Pell Rd Vol Urban UFH 2 E 3,720 9 2,990 335 MV 1,214 29.9% 2,289 Pell Rd to Arterial "A" Vol Urban UFH 2 E 600 9 2,990 54 MV 1,168 30.1% 2,304 3,472 Yes 1,440 54 MV 716 17.9% 2,501 3,217 Yes 3,503 Yes Vol Non-state Class I Urban Arterial 2 E 600 9 1 mile east of Williamson Blvd Ext to NB ramps I-95 Vol Transitioning UFH 2 E 600 9.5 2,990 57 MV 91 2.8% 214 305 No NB ramps of I-95 to Beacon Light Rd Vol Rural Undeveloped UFH 2 C 600 9.5 790 57 MV 91 5.1% 390 481 No Beacon Light Rd to US 1 Vol Rural Developed UFH 2 C 1,680 9.5 1,550 160 MV 131 5.0% 383 514 No Brev Rural Developed UFH 2 D 0 9 2,190 0 MV 1,613 17.8% 1,363 2,976 Yes Arterial "A" to 1 mile east of Williamson Blvd Ext Williamson Boulevard Extension I-95 to S. Edge of Farmton Mixed Use S. Edge of Farmton Mixed Use to Vol Co Line Brev Non-state Class I Urban Arterial 2 E 0 9 1,440 0 MV 700 27.0% 2,067 2,767 Yes Brevard Co Line to Maytown Rd Vol Non-state Class I Urban Arterial 2 E 0 9 1,440 0 MV 700 10.0% 1,397 2,097 Yes Maytown Rd to N. Edge of Town Center Vol Non-state Class I Urban Arterial 2 E 0 9 1,440 0 MV 22 10.3% 1,439 1,461 Yes N. Edge of Town Center to Arterial "A" Vol Non-state Class I Urban Arterial 2 E 0 9 1,440 0 MV 22 13.7% 1,914 1,936 Yes Arterial "A" to S. Edge of Gateway Vol Rural Undeveloped UFH 2 E 0 9 2,710 0 MV 426 13.1% 1,830 2,256 No S. Edge of Gateway to SR 442 Vol Non-state Class I Urban Arterial 2 E 0 9 1,440 0 MV 426 15.7% 2,193 2,619 Yes SR 442 to N. Edge of Restoration Edgewtr Non-state Class I Urban Arterial 4 D 0 9 3,222 0 MV 1,217 15.6% 1,194 2,411 No N. Edge of Restoration to SR 44 Edgewtr/NSB Rural Undeveloped UFH 4 D 0 9 4,840 0 MV 1,491 13.2% 1,010 2,501 No County Road 5A (Stuckway Rd) US 1 to I-95 Arterial Road "A" Maytown Rd to Williamson Blvd Ext Brevard Rural Developed UFH 2 D 1,500 9 2,190 135 MV 1,481 8.9% 681 2,162 No Vol Urban Arterial Class 1 2 E 0 9 1,440 0 MV 404 5.4% 754 1,158 No SR 442 (Indian River Blvd) Williamson Blvd. Ext to Gateway 2 Edgewtr Urban Arterial 4 D 0 9 3,580 0 MV 1,297 7.6% 1,062 2,359 No Gateway 2 to I-95 Edgewtr Urban Arterial 4 D 0 9 3,580 0 MV 2,463 13.9% 1,064 3,527 No I-95 to Air Park Road Edgewtr Transitioning Cl 1 Arterial 4 D 9,525 9 3,200 857 2.58% 1,366 7.4% 566 1,932 No Air Park Road to Queen Palm Drive Edgewtr Urban Arterial 4 D 12,000 9 3,580 1,080 2.31% 1,654 2.4% 184 1,838 No Queen Palm Drive to US 1 Edgewtr Urban Arterial 4 D 16,100 9 3,580 1,449 1.59% 1,979 1.5% 115 2,094 No SR 46 to CR 5A (Brevard) Brev Urban Freeway 6 D 26,283 9 10,060 2,365 3.15% 4,076 10.1% 773 4,849 No CR 5A to Brevard/Vol County line Brev Rural Freeway 6 C 30,000 10.5 6,720 3,150 3.27% 5,521 1.7% 130 5,651 No Brev/Vol County line to Maytown Rd Vol Rural Freeway 6 C 30,000 10.5 6,720 3,150 3.27% 5,521 1.7% 130 5,651 No Maytown Rd to SR 442 (Indian River Blvd.) Vol Rural Freeway 6 C 30,000 10.5 6,720 3,150 3.27% 5,521 1.7% 130 5,651 No SR 442 (Indian River Blvd.) to SR 44 Vol Transitioning Freeway 6 C 31,000 9 7,710 2,790 3.16% 4,818 4.0% 306 5,124 No SR 46 to Seminole/Volusia Co line Sem Urban UFH 4 E 15,200 9 6,530 1,368 4.62% 2,822 11.3% 865 3,687 16,800 9 4,660 1,512 4.95% 3,234 12.8% 980 4,214 No 3,580 1,368 5.07% 2,962 12.1% 926 3,888 Yes Interstate 95 SR 415 Seminole/Volusia Co to Osteen-Enterprise Rd SR 46 SR 44 Doyle Road US 1 Vol Urban UFH 4 C No Enterprise-Osteen Road to Doyle Rd/Maytown Rd Vol Urban Arterial Class 1 4 D 15,200 9 Doyle Rd/Maytown Rd To Howland Blvd Vol Urban Arterial Class 1 4 D 15,200 9 3,580 1,368 4.95% 2,925 7.7% 589 3,514 No Howland Blvd to Acorn Lake Rd Vol Urban UFH 4 D 6,500 9 5,900 585 4.15% 1,144 0.9% 69 1,213 No Acorn Lake Road to Colony Rd/Lake Ashby Rd Vol Rural Developed UFH 2 C 7,700 9 1,550 693 2.11% 1,030 0.4% 31 1,061 No Colony/Lake Ashby Rd to SR 44 Vol Rural Developed UFH 2 C 7,700 9.5 1,550 732 2.17% 1,097 0.1% 8 1,105 No SR 415 (Lake Mary Blvd.) to W. Osceola Rd Sem Rural Developed UFH 2 E 10,275 9.5 2,990 976 3.08% 1,668 0.8% 61 1,729 No W. Osceola Rd to Snow Hill Rd Sem Rural Developed UFH 2 E 8,500 9.5 2,990 808 3.16% 1,394 0.8% 61 1,455 No Snow Hill Road to Vol/Seminole Co line Sem Rural Undeveloped UFH 2 E 5,400 9.5 2,710 513 3.18% 888 0.4% 31 919 No Vol/Seminole Co line to Vol/Brevard Co line Vol Rural Undeveloped UFH 2 C 6,000 9.5 790 570 3.13% 980 0.4% 31 1,011 Yes Vol/Brevard Co line to Turpentine Road Brev Rural Undeveloped UFH 2 C 6,000 9.5 790 570 3.24% 995 1.0% 77 1,072 Yes Turpentine Rd to I-95 Brev Urban Arterial 2 D 6,000 9.5 1,600 570 3.84% 1,074 1.9% 145 1,219 No SR 415 to Samsula Dr Vol Transitioning UFH 4 C 13,500 9.5 4,460 1,283 2.33% 1,970 1.8% 138 2,108 No Samsula Dr to Airport Rd Vol Urban UFH 4 D 14,400 9 5,900 1,296 1.97% 1,883 1.9% 145 2,028 No Airport Rd to I-95 Vol Urban Arterial Class 1 4 D 14,400 9 3,580 1,296 2.94% 2,173 10.1% 773 2,946 No I-4 to Deltona Blvd. Vol Urban Arterial Major Cty Rd Cl 2 4 E 28,260 9 2,736 2,543 1.00% 3,128 1.4% 107 3,235 Yes Deltona Blvd. to Enterprise St. Vol Urban Arterial Major Cty Rd Cl 2 4 D 17,630 9 2,628 1,587 1.00% 1,952 1.5% 115 2,067 No Enterprise St. to Main St. Vol Urban Arterial Major Cty Rd Cl 2 4 D 23,030 9 2,628 2,073 1.32% 2,705 3.0% 230 2,935 Yes Main St. to Providence Blvd. Vol Urban Arterial Major Cty Rd Cl 2 4 D 21,260 9 2,628 1,913 1.00% 2,353 3.1% 237 2,590 No Providence Blvd. to Garfield Road Vol Urban Arterial Major Cty Rd Cl 1 2 E 12,400 9 1,152 1,116 1.62% 1,531 3.5% 268 1,799 Yes Garfield Rd. to Saxon Blvd. Vol Urban Arterial Major Cty Rd Cl 1 2 E 9,580 9 1,152 862 1.50% 1,159 3.7% 283 1,442 Yes Saxon Blvd. to Courtland Blvd. Vol Urban Arterial Major Cty Rd Cl 1 2 E 8,020 9 1,152 722 5.18% 1,581 6.0% 459 2,040 Yes Courtland Blvd. to SR 415 Vol Urban Arterial Major Cty Rd Cl 1 2 E 5,950 9 1,152 536 12.80% 2,114 7.2% 551 2,665 Yes Aurantia to CR 5A (Stuckway Rd) Brev Rural Undeveloped UFH 4 B 3,000 9.5 2,440 285 8.38% 834 6.5% 498 1,332 No CR 5A (Stuckway Rd) to Brev/Vol County line Brev Rural Undeveloped UFH 4 B 3,000 9.5 2,440 285 4.09% 553 0.0% 0 553 No Brevard/Vol Co line to Kennedy Parkway Vol Rural Undeveloped UFH 4 B 3,100 9.5 2,440 295 4.15% 576 0.0% 0 576 No Kennedy Parkway to Putnam Grove Road Vol Transitioning UFH 4 C 3,800 9 4,460 342 4.30% 681 0.0% 0 681 No Putnam Grove Road to Halifax Avenue Vol Transitioning UFH 4 C 3,800 9 4,460 342 4.28% 679 0.2% 15 694 No 5,500 9 4,460 495 4.36% 991 4.4% 337 1,328 No 3,580 630 4.15% 1,231 3.4% 260 1,491 No Halifax Avenue to HH Birch Road Vol Transitioning UFH 4 C HH Birch Rd to Ariel Road Vol Urban Arterial Cl 1 4 D 7,000 9 Ariel Rd to Volco Road Vol Urban Arterial Cl 1 4 D 11,053 9 3,580 995 4.13% 1,941 3.4% 260 2,201 No Volco Road to SR 442 Vol Urban Arterial Cl 1 4 D 19,000 9 3,580 1,710 3.64% 3,140 2.6% 199 3,339 No 1 For segments that indicate the applied growth rate is MV (model Volume), an MOCF of 0.95 was applied to the model volumes to obtain background volumes 2 Internal Project Distribution Farmton AMDA Second Sufficiency Response 21-16 Table 21-12 2060 Roadway Segment Analysis Farmton AMDA Roadway Maytown Rd/Halifax Avenue Williamson Boulevard Extension County Road 5A (Stuckway Rd) Arterial Road "A" SR 442 (Indian River Blvd) Interstate 95 SR 415 SR 46 SR 44 Doyle Road US 1 Limits SR 415 to Naranja Rd Naranja Rd to Pell Rd Pell Rd to Arterial "A" Arterial "A" to 1 mile east of Williamson Blvd Ext 1 mile east of Williamson Blvd Ext to NB ramps I-95 NB ramps of I-95 to Beacon Light Rd Beacon Light Rd to US 1 I-95 to S. Edge of Farmton Mixed Use S. Edge of Farmton Mixed Use to Vol Co Line Brevard Co Line to Maytown Rd Maytown Rd to N. Edge of Town Center N. Edge of Town Center to Arterial "A" Arterial "A" to S. Edge of Gateway S. Edge of Gateway to SR 442 SR 442 to N. Edge of Restoration N. Edge of Restoration to SR 44 US 1 to I-95 Maytown Rd to Williamson Blvd Ext Williamson Blvd. Ext to Gateway 2 Gateway 2 to I-95 I-95 to Air Park Road Air Park Road to Queen Palm Drive Queen Palm Drive to US 1 SR 46 to CR 5A (Brevard) CR 5A to Brevard/Vol County line Brev/Vol County line to Maytown Rd Maytown Rd to SR 442 (Indian River Blvd.) SR 442 (Indian River Blvd.) to SR 44 SR 46 to Seminole/Volusia Co line Seminole/Volusia Co to Osteen-Enterprise Rd Enterprise-Osteen Road to Doyle Rd/Maytown Rd Doyle Rd/Maytown Rd To Howland Blvd Howland Blvd to Acorn Lake Rd Acorn Lake Road to Colony Rd/Lake Ashby Rd Colony/Lake Ashby Rd to SR 44 SR 415 (Lake Mary Blvd.) to W. Osceola Rd W. Osceola Rd to Snow Hill Rd Snow Hill Road to Vol/Seminole Co line Vol/Seminole Co line to Vol/Brevard Co line Vol/Brevard Co line to Turpentine Road Turpentine Rd to I-95 SR 415 to Samsula Dr Samsula Dr to Airport Rd Airport Rd to I-95 I-4 to Deltona Blvd. Deltona Blvd. to Enterprise St. Enterprise St. to Main St. Main St. to Providence Blvd. Providence Blvd. to Garfield Road Garfield Rd. to Saxon Blvd. Saxon Blvd. to Courtland Blvd. Courtland Blvd. to SR 415 Aurantia to CR 5A (Stuckway Rd) CR 5A (Stuckway Rd) to Brev/Vol County line Brevard/Vol Co line to Kennedy Parkway Kennedy Parkway to Putnam Grove Road Putnam Grove Road to Halifax Avenue Halifax Avenue to HH Birch Road HH Birch Rd to Ariel Road Ariel Rd to Volco Road Volco Road to SR 442 Jurisdiction Vol Vol Vol Vol Vol Vol Vol Brev Brev Vol Vol Vol Vol Vol Edgewtr Edgewtr/NSB Brevard Vol Edgewtr Edgewtr Edgewtr Edgewtr Edgewtr Brev Brev Vol Vol Vol Sem Vol Vol Vol Vol Vol Vol Sem Sem Sem Vol Brev Brev Vol Vol Vol Vol Vol Vol Vol Vol Vol Vol Vol Brev Brev Vol Vol Vol Vol Vol Vol Vol Existing Classification Non-state Class I Urban Arterial Urban UFH Urban UFH Non-state Class I Urban Arterial Urban UFH Rural Undeveloped UFH Rural Developed UFH Transitioning UFH Non-state Class I Urban Arterial Non-state Class I Urban Arterial Non-state Class I Urban Arterial Non-state Class I Urban Arterial Rural Undeveloped UFH Non-state Class I Urban Arterial Non-state Class I Urban Arterial Non-state Class I Urban Arterial Rural Developed UFH Non-state Class I Urban Arterial Urban Arterial Urban Arterial Transitioning Cl 1 Arterial Urban Arterial Urban Arterial Urban Freeway Rural Freeway Rural Freeway Transitioning Freeway Transitioning Freeway Urban UFH Class I Urban Arterial Urban Arterial Class 1 Urban Arterial Class 1 Urban UFH Rural Developed UFH Rural Developed UFH Rural Developed UFH Rural Developed UFH Rural Undeveloped UFH Rural Undeveloped UFH Rural Undeveloped UFH Urban Arterial Transitioning UFH Urban UFH Urban Arterial Class 1 Urban Arterial Major Cty Rd Cl 2 Urban Arterial Major Cty Rd Cl 2 Urban Arterial Major Cty Rd Cl 2 Urban Arterial Major Cty Rd Cl 2 Urban Arterial Major Cty Rd Cl 1 Urban Arterial Major Cty Rd Cl 1 Urban Arterial Major Cty Rd Cl 1 Urban Arterial Major Cty Rd Cl 1 Rural Undeveloped UFH Rural Undeveloped UFH Rural Undeveloped UFH Transitioning UFH Transitioning UFH Transitioning UFH Urban Arterial Cl 1 Urban Arterial Cl 1 Urban Arterial Cl 1 No. of Lanes 4 4 4 4 2 2 2 4 4 4 4 4 2 4 4 4 2 2 4 4 4 4 4 6 6 6 6 6 4 4 6 4 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 4 4 6 4 6 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Adopted LOS E E E E E C C E E E E E E E D D D E D D D D D D C C C C E D D D D C C E E E D1 D1 D C D D E D D D E E E E B B B C C C D D D 2012 AADT 0 3,720 600 600 600 600 1,680 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,500 0 0 0 9,525 12,000 16,100 26,283 30,000 30,000 30,000 31,000 15,200 16,800 15,200 15,200 6,500 7,700 7,700 10,275 8,500 5,400 6,000 6,000 6,000 13,500 14,400 14,400 28,260 17,630 23,030 21,260 12,400 9,580 8,020 5,950 3,000 3,000 3,100 3,800 3,800 5,500 7,000 11,053 19,000 K factor 9 9 9 9 9.5 9.5 9.5 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 10.5 10.5 10.5 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9.5 9.5 9.5 9 9 9 9 9 9 Peak-Hour Two-Way Capacity 2060 at 2035 2060 Project Adopted Background Background 2012 2060 Applied LOS Volume Volume Distribution1 Volume Growth Rate 3,222 0 1,295 2035 BG Vol + 2.00% 1,942 24.7% 6,530 335 1,214 2035 BG Vol + 2.00% 1,821 30.8% 6,530 54 1,168 2035 BG Vol + 2.00% 1,752 31.0% 3,222 54 716 2035 BG Vol + 2.00% 1,074 19.5% 2,990 57 91 2060 MV 653 12.2% 790 57 91 2035 BG Vol + 2.00% 137 2.9% 1,550 160 131 2035 BG Vol + 2.00% 197 2.8% 6,260 0 1,613 2035 BG Vol + 2.00% 2,420 7.7% 3,222 0 700 2035 BG Vol + 2.00% 1,050 16.8% 3,222 0 700 2035 BG Vol + 2.00% 1,050 4.9% 3,222 0 22 2035 BG Vol + 2.00% 33 4.3% 3,222 0 22 2035 BG Vol + 2.00% 33 8.5% 2,710 0 426 2035 BG Vol + 2.00% 639 8.2% 3,222 0 426 2035 BG Vol + 2.00% 639 9.6% 3,222 0 1,217 2035 BG Vol + 2.00% 1,825 10.3% 3,222 0 1,491 2035 BG Vol + 2.00% 2,237 8.3% 2,190 135 1,481 2035 BG Vol + 2.00% 2,221 7.7% 1,440 0 404 2035 BG Vol + 2.00% 605 7.6% 3,580 0 1,297 2035 BG Vol + 2.00% 1,946 4.9% 3,580 0 2,463 2035 BG Vol + 2.00% 3,694 10.2% 3,200 857 1,366 2.58% 1,919 8.8% 3,580 1080 1,654 2.31% 2,277 2.8% 3,580 1449 1,979 1.59% 2,556 1.7% 10,060 2365 4,076 2035 BG Vol + 2.00% 6,114 10.1% 6,720 3150 5,521 2035 BG Vol + 2.00% 8,282 10.4% 6,720 3150 5,521 2035 BG Vol + 2.00% 8,282 10.4% 7,710 3150 5,521 2035 BG Vol + 2.00% 8,282 13.7% 7,710 2790 4,818 2035 BG Vol + 2.00% 7,227 9.5% 6,530 1368 2,822 2035 BG Vol + 2.00% 4,233 10.3% 3,580 1512 3,234 2035 BG Vol + 2.00% 4,851 12.8% 5,390 1368 2,962 2035 BG Vol + 2.00% 4,443 9.5% 3,580 1368 2,925 2035 BG Vol + 2.00% 4,388 7.3% 5,900 585 1,144 2035 BG Vol + 2.00% 1,716 1.0% 1,550 693 1,030 2.11% 1,396 0.3% 1,550 732 1,097 2.17% 1,494 0.1% 2,990 976 1,668 2035 BG Vol + 2.00% 2,502 0.8% 2,990 808 1,394 2035 BG Vol + 2.00% 2,091 0.8% 2,710 513 888 2035 BG Vol + 2.00% 1,332 0.5% 1,350 570 980 2035 BG Vol + 2.00% 1,470 0.5% 1,350 570 995 2035 BG Vol + 2.00% 1,493 1.1% 1,600 570 1,074 2035 BG Vol + 2.00% 1,611 1.9% 4,460 1283 1,970 0 2.33% 2,717 1.6% 5,900 1296 1,883 1.97% 2,521 1.7% 3,580 1296 2,173 2.94% 3,126 6.7% 4,131 2543 3,128 1.00% 3,764 0.9% 2,628 1587 1,952 1.00% 2,349 1.0% 4,050 2073 2,705 1.32% 3,391 2.2% 2,628 1913 2,353 1.00% 2,831 2.3% 3,222 1116 1,531 1.62% 1,982 2.6% 3,222 862 1,159 1.50% 1,481 2.7% 3,222 722 1,581 2035 BG Vol + 1.00% 1,976 4.6% 3,222 536 2,114 2035 BG Vol + 1.00% 2,643 6.0% 2,440 285 834 2035 BG Vol + 1.00% 1,043 5.8% 2,440 285 553 2035 BG Vol + 1.00% 691 0.0% 2,440 295 576 2035 BG Vol + 1.00% 720 0.0% 4,460 342 681 2035 BG Vol + 1.00% 851 0.0% 4,460 342 679 2035 BG Vol + 1.00% 849 0.2% 4,460 495 991 2035 BG Vol + 1.00% 1,239 2.3% 3,580 630 1,231 2035 BG Vol + 1.00% 1,539 1.6% 3,580 995 1,941 2035 BG Vol + 1.00% 2,426 1.6% 3,580 1710 3,140 2035 BG Vol + 1.00% 3,925 0.9% 2060 Project Traffic 3,300 4,115 4,142 5,377 1,630 387 374 1,029 2,245 1,351 1,186 2,344 2,261 2,647 1,376 1,109 1,029 2,096 1,351 1,363 1,176 374 227 1,349 1,389 1,389 1,830 1,269 1,376 1,710 1,269 975 134 40 13 107 107 67 67 147 254 214 227 895 120 134 294 307 347 361 615 802 775 0 0 0 27 307 214 214 120 2060 Total Traffic 5,242 5,936 5,894 6,451 2,283 524 571 3,449 3,295 2,401 1,219 2,377 2,900 3,286 3,201 3,346 3,250 2,701 3,297 5,057 3,095 2,651 2,783 7,463 9,671 9,671 10,112 8,496 5,609 6,561 5,712 5,363 1,850 1,436 1,507 2,609 2,198 1,399 1,537 1,640 1,865 2,931 2,748 4,021 3,884 2,483 3,685 3,138 2,329 1,842 2,591 3,445 1,818 691 720 851 876 1,546 1,753 2,640 4,045 Adverse in 2060? Yes No No Yes No No No No Yes No No No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes No Yes No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes No No No No No No Yes Yes Yes No No Yes No No No Yes No No No Yes No No No No No No No No Yes 1 Internal Project Distribution Farmton AMDA Second Sufficiency Response 21-17 Table 21-14 2060 Recommended Roadway Improvements Farmton AMDA Roadway Maytown Rd/Halifax Avenue Limits SR 415 to Naranja Rd Naranja Rd to Pell Rd Pell Rd to Arterial "A" Arterial "A" to 1 mile east of Williamson Blvd Ext 1 mile east of Williamson Blvd Ext to NB ramps I-95 NB ramps of I-95 to Beacon Light Rd Beacon Light Rd to US 1 Williamson Boulevard Extension I-95 to S. Edge of Farmton Mixed Use S. Edge of Farmton Mixed Use to Vol Co Line Brevard Co Line to Maytown Rd Maytown Rd to N. Edge of Town Center N. Edge of Town Center to Arterial "A" Arterial "A" to S. Edge of Gateway S. Edge of Gateway to SR 442 SR 442 to N. Edge of Restoration N. Edge of Restoration to SR 44 County Road 5A (Stuckway Rd) US 1 to I-95 Arterial Road "A" Maytown Rd to Williamson Blvd Ext SR 442 (Indian River Blvd) Williamson Blvd. Ext to Gateway 2 Gateway 2 to I-95 I-95 to Air Park Road Air Park Road to Queen Palm Drive Queen Palm Drive to US 1 Interstate 95 SR 46 to CR 5A (Brevard) CR 5A to Brevard/Vol County line Brev/Vol County line to Maytown Rd Maytown Rd to SR 442 (Indian River Blvd.) SR 442 (Indian River Blvd.) to SR 44 SR 415 SR 46 to Seminole/Volusia Co line Seminole/Volusia Co to Osteen-Enterprise Rd Enterprise-Osteen Road to Doyle Rd/Maytown Rd Doyle Rd/Maytown Rd To Howland Blvd Howland Blvd to Acorn Lake Rd Acorn Lake Road to Colony Rd/Lake Ashby Rd Colony/Lake Ashby Rd to SR 44 SR 46 SR 415 (Lake Mary Blvd.) to W. Osceola Rd W. Osceola Rd to Snow Hill Rd Snow Hill Road to Vol/Seminole Co line Vol/Seminole Co line to Vol/Brevard Co line Vol/Brevard Co line to Turpentine Road Turpentine Rd to I-95 SR 44 SR 415 to Samsula Dr Samsula Dr to Airport Rd Airport Rd to I-95 Doyle Road I-4 to Deltona Blvd. Deltona Blvd. to Enterprise St. Enterprise St. to Main St. Main St. to Providence Blvd. Providence Blvd. to Garfield Road Garfield Rd. to Saxon Blvd. Saxon Blvd. to Courtland Blvd. Courtland Blvd. to SR 415 US 1 Aurantia to CR 5A (Stuckway Rd) CR 5A (Stuckway Rd) to Brevard/Volusia Co line Brevard/Vol Co line to Kennedy Parkway Kennedy Parkway to Putnam Grove Road Putnam Grove Road to Halifax Avenue Halifax Avenue to HH Birch Road HH Birch Rd to Ariel Road Ariel Rd to Volco Road Volco Road to SR 442 Jurisdiction Vol Vol Vol Vol Vol Vol Vol Brev Brev Vol Vol Vol Vol Vol Edgewtr Edgewtr/NSB Brevard Vol Edgewtr Edgewtr Edgewtr Edgewtr Edgewtr Brev Brev Vol Vol Vol Sem Vol Vol Vol Vol Vol Vol Sem Sem Sem Vol Brev Brev Vol Vol Vol Vol Vol Vol Vol Vol Vol Vol Vol Brev Brev Vol Vol Vol Vol Vol Vol Vol Classification Non-state Class I Urban Arterial Urban UFH Urban UFH Non-state Class I Urban Arterial Urban UFH Rural Undeveloped UFH Rural Developed UFH Transitioning UFH Non-state Class I Urban Arterial Non-state Class I Urban Arterial Non-state Class I Urban Arterial Non-state Class I Urban Arterial Rural Undeveloped UFH Non-state Class I Urban Arterial Non-state Class I Urban Arterial Non-state Class I Urban Arterial Rural Developed UFH Non-state Class I Urban Arterial Urban Arterial Urban Arterial Transitioning Cl 1 Arterial Urban Arterial Urban Arterial Urban Freeway Rural Freeway Rural Freeway Transitioning Freeway Transitioning Freeway Urban UFH Class I Urban Arterial Urban Arterial Class 1 Urban Arterial Class 1 Urban UFH Rural Developed UFH Rural Developed UFH Rural Developed UFH Rural Developed UFH Rural Undeveloped UFH Rural Undeveloped UFH Rural Undeveloped UFH Urban Arterial Transitioning UFH Urban UFH Urban Arterial Class 1 Urban Arterial Major Cty Rd Cl 2 Urban Arterial Major Cty Rd Cl 2 Urban Arterial Major Cty Rd Cl 2 Urban Arterial Major Cty Rd Cl 2 Urban Arterial Major Cty Rd Cl 1 Urban Arterial Major Cty Rd Cl 1 Urban Arterial Major Cty Rd Cl 1 Urban Arterial Major Cty Rd Cl 1 Rural Undeveloped UFH Rural Undeveloped UFH Rural Undeveloped UFH Transitioning UFH Transitioning UFH Transitioning UFH Urban Arterial Cl 1 Urban Arterial Cl 1 Urban Arterial Cl 1 Farmton AMDA Second Sufficiency Response Existing + Committed Lanes 4 4 4 4 2 2 2 4 4 4 4 4 2 4 4 4 2 2 4 4 4 4 4 6 6 6 6 6 4 4 6 4 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 4 4 6 4 6 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Adopted LOS E E E E E C C E E E E E E E D D D E D D D D D D C C C C E D D D D C C E E E D1 D1 D C D D E D D D E E E E B B B C C C D D D P.M. Peak-Hour Two-Way Capacity at 2060 2060 Adopted 2035 Total Background Project LOS Volume Volume Volume 3,222 3,377 1,942 3,300 6,530 3,503 1,821 4,115 6,530 3,472 1,752 4,142 3,222 3,217 1,074 5,377 2,990 305 653 1,630 790 481 137 387 1,550 514 197 374 6,260 2,976 2,420 1,029 3,222 2,767 1,050 2,245 3,222 2,097 1,050 1,351 3,222 1,461 33 1,186 3,222 1,936 33 2,344 2,710 2,256 639 2,261 3,222 2,619 639 2,647 3,222 2,411 1,825 1,376 3,222 2,501 2,237 1,109 2,190 2,162 2,221 1,029 1,440 1,158 605 2,096 3,580 2,359 1,946 1,351 3,580 3,527 3,694 1,363 3,200 1,932 1,919 1,176 3,580 1,838 2,277 374 3,580 2,094 2,556 227 10,060 4,849 6,114 1,349 6,720 5,651 8,282 1,389 6,720 5,651 8,282 1,389 7,710 5,651 8,282 1,830 7,710 5,124 7,227 1,269 6,530 3,687 4,233 1,376 3,580 4,214 4,851 1,710 5,390 3,888 4,443 1,269 3,580 3,514 4,388 975 5,900 1,213 1,716 134 1,550 1,061 1,396 40 1,550 1,105 1,494 13 2,990 1,729 2,502 107 2,990 1,455 2,091 107 2,710 919 1,332 67 1,350 1,011 1,470 67 1,350 1,072 1,493 147 1,600 1,219 1,611 254 4,460 2,108 2,717 214 5,900 2,028 2,521 227 3,580 2,946 3,126 895 4,131 3,235 3,764 120 2,628 2,067 2,349 134 4,050 2,935 3,391 294 2,628 2,590 2,831 307 3,222 1,799 1,982 347 3,222 1,442 1,481 361 3,222 2,040 1,976 615 3,222 2,665 2,643 802 2,440 1,332 1,043 775 2,440 553 691 0 2,440 576 720 0 4,460 681 851 0 4,460 694 849 27 4,460 1,328 1,239 307 3,580 1,491 1,539 214 3,580 2,201 2,426 214 3,580 3,925 120 3,339 2060 CONDITONS Failure Cause 2060 Year of Fails with Background Total Fails with Background Background Plus Project Recommended Volume Background Failure Plus Project Failure Year Improvement 5,242 No Yes 2033 6 lane 5,936 No No 5,894 No No 6,451 No Yes 2035 6 lane 2,283 No No 524 No No 571 No No 3,449 No No 3,295 No Yes 2057 6 lane 2,401 No No 1,219 No No 2,377 No No 2,900 No Yes 2053 4 lane 3,286 No Yes 2058 6 lane 3,201 No 3,346 No Yes 2056 6 lane 3,250 Yes 2047 Yes 2036 4 lane 2,701 No Yes 2040 4 lane 3,297 No No 5,057 Yes Yes 2036 6 lane 3,095 No No 2,651 No No 2,783 No No 7,463 No No 9,671 Yes 2045 Yes 2042 8 lane 9,671 Yes 2045 Yes 2042 8 lane 10,112 Yes 2055 Yes 2047 8 lane 8,496 No Yes 2054 8 lane 5,609 No No 6,561 Yes 2010 Yes 2028 6 lane 5,712 No Yes 2056 5,363 Yes 2037 Yes 2036 6 lane 1,850 No No 1,436 No No 1,507 No No 2,609 No No 2,198 No No 1,399 No No 1,537 Yes 2053 Yes 2051 1,640 Yes 2052 Yes 2047 1,865 Yes 2059 Yes 2050 2,931 No No 2,748 No No 4,021 No Yes 2050 6 lane 3,884 No No 2,483 No No 3,685 No No 3,138 Yes 2039 Yes 2037 6 lane 2,329 No No 1,842 No No 2,591 No No 3,445 No Yes 2053 6 lane 1,818 No No 691 No No 720 No No 851 No No 876 No No 1,546 No No 1,753 No No 2,640 No No 4,045 Yes Yes 6 lane Adverse with Improved Recommended Capacity Improvement Recommended Alternate Mitigation 4,851 Yes Osteen Local Plan + Farmton, Multi-Modal Strategies 4,851 Yes Multi-Modal Strategies 4,851 No 5,500 No 4,851 No 4,851 No 4,970 No 3,222 No 5,390 No 8,970 8,970 10,230 10,230 Yes Yes No No 5,390 Yes Yes 5,390 No Consider Transitioning Designation Consider Transitioning Designation Multi-Modal Strategies Multi-Modal Strategies 5,390 No 4,050 No 4,851 No 4,851 No 21-18 4 st at e er In t SR 44 W IL L IA M SO N T VD E X BL 442 SR 41 5 SR US LAKE ASHBY 1 DEEP CREEK D ARTERIAL A N BLVD EX T 41 5 DEEP CREEK SR SEMINOLE COUNTY M SO MAYTOWN RD VOLUSIA COUNTY HALIFAX AVE LIA LE R 95 W IL DO Y § ¦ ¨ VOLUSIA COUNTY SR 46 CR 5A BREVARD COUNTY LAKE HARNEY § ¦ ¨ ntia Aura 95 SR SR 46 BUCK LAKE 5 Legend Proposed Trails Existing East Central Regional Rail Trail Proposed Study Area Roadways Master DRI Boundary Brevard Mixed Use Area Sustainable Development Areas Brevard Farmton Boundary County Boundary Source: Volusia County GIS and Brevard County GIS and Seminole County GIS Master DRI 0 µ File Name: Z:\Jobs\3833.04\gis\Question 21 Maps Revised\Map J Transportation.mxd 2.5 Figure 21-1 Map J Transportation 5 Miles 21-19 Date: 1/15/2014 Airport Rd 3.0% 7.3% Beacon Light Rd Naranja Rd Courtland Blvd 14.5% Providence Blvd 9.8% 28.0% 9.1% County Line Snow Hill Rd LEGEND 15.1% 7.5% 5.5% % Internal Project Traffic Distribution % External Project Traffic Distribution 21-20 Airport Rd 2.6% 5.9% Beacon Light Rd Naranja Rd Courtland Blvd 9.8% Providence Blvd 7.9% 30.0% 7.8% County Line Snow Hill Rd LEGEND 14.6% 7.2% 5.0% % Internal Project Traffic Distribution % External Project Traffic Distribution 21-21 13 1 Legend Proposed Trails st at e 4 15 Existing East Central Regional Rail Trail Proposed Study Area Roadways er Master DRI Boundary In t Brevard Mixed Use Area 7 9 Sustainable Development Areas Brevard Farmton Boundary 11 SR 44 W IL L 10 IA M County Boundary SO N SR 41 5 T VD E X BL SR 16 LAKE ASHBY 5 41 21 SR DEEP CREEK 4 5 14 Improvement Const Year 4 laning FY 13/14 3 Fort Smith Blvd East and West of Howland Blvd 4 5 6 7 8 9 SR 415 Seminole County Line to Reed Ellis Rd SR 415 Reed Ellis Rd to Acorn Lake Rd 10 11 9 12 13 13 13 Williamson Blvd SR 442 to SR 44 New 4 lane rd Phase II (2016) I-95 SR 44 to I-4 6 laning Phase II (2016) 14 SR 46 Volusia County Five-Year Road Program Courtland Blvd to N of SR 415 4 laning City of Deltona Five-Year Capital Improvements Plan 3 laning FDOT District 5 Work Program 2014-2018 Interstate 95 6 laning 6 laning Dunlawton Ave Taylor Rd to Clyde Morris Blvd Taylor Rd Dunlawton Ave to Clyde Morris Blvd I-95 to Dunlawton Ave/Taylor Rd int under const FY 14/15 4 laning Phase II (2016) 4 laning FY 15/16 2035/2060 6 laning 8 laning 4 laning WB Seminole County Capital Improvements Element Mellonville Ave to SR 415 under const 2035/2060 2035/2060 2035/2060 2035/2060 2035/2060 2035/2060 2035/2060 6 laning Riverside Dr to SR 442 Brevard County Capital Improvements Element None 2035/2060 2035/2060 2035/2060 2035/2060 2035/2060 2035/2060 under const I-95 to Glencoe Rd Taylor Rd under const 6 laning 4 laning Restoration DRI Development Order US 1 2035/2060 SR 44 to Interstate 95 N of SR 44 to S of I-4 SR 44 FY 13/14 under const S. of SR 406 to N of SR 44 Interstate 95 4 laning 2035/2060 2035/2060 4 laning Metroplan Transportation Improvement Plan Phase II (2016) Phase II (2016) Phase II (2016) Phase II (2016) 14 SR 46 Mellonville Ave to SR 415 4 laning FY 15/16 2035/2060 15 16 Williamson Blvd Airport Rd to Pioneer Tr New 4 lane rd FY 13/14 2035/2060 2035/2060 17 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 23 Williamson Blvd Extension SR 442 to CR 5A (Brevard) New 2 lane rd Prior to 2035 Maytown Rd Realignment Naranja Rd to SR 415 Prior to 2060 2035 2060 2035/2060 2035 2035 2060 2060 2035 2060 24 See policy 1.5.2 below Alternative Network/parallel facilities plan Prior to 2035 2035 Volusia TPO TIP SR 442 Extension One mile west of current terminus Farmton Local Plan Williamson Blvd Extension SR 442 to CR 5A (Brevard) Maytown Rd Reconstruct Williamson Blvd to Interstate 95 Maytown Rd Maytown Rd Reconstruct SR 415 to Williamson Blvd 4 laning 2 lane 4 lane FY 13/14 Prior to 2035 Prior to 2035 Prior to 2035 Prior to 2035 SR 415 to Interstate 95 6 laning Prior to 2060 Williamson Blvd to Maytown Rd New 2 lane rd Prior to 2035 Maytown Interchange Interstate 95 Arterial A Williamson Blvd to Maytown Rd Arterial A New 4 lane rd Osteen Local Plan New interchange Prior to 2060 4 laning § ¦ ¨ 0 SR ne 46 BUCK LAKE Source: Volusia County GIS and Brevard County GIS and Seminole County GIS µ File Name: Z:\Jobs\3833.04\gis\Question 21 Maps Revised\Map J Transportation.mxd La ntia Aura 95 OST 1.5.2 The City and the County shall propose an access management plan that will include and alternative network and parallel facilities plan for the Osteen Local Plan area to be approved by the Florida Department of Transportation, District 5 within twelve (12) months of the NOI issued by the Department of Community Affairs for this local plan. Master DRI BREVARD COUNTY LAKE HARNEY FY 13/14 SR 46 to Volusia County Line CR Model Run 5A 5 Jimmy Ann Dr to Derbyshire Rd Interstate 4 19 SR LPGA Blvd SR 415 22 SR 46 Limits Howland Blvd HALIFAX AVE VOLUSIA COUNTY Facility Map # 1 2 1 MAYTOWN RD N BLVD EX T 24 20 18 ARTERIAL A M SO VOLUSIA COUNTY SEMINOLE COUNTY 6 23 US 2 D 95 LIA LE R § ¦ ¨ 17 W IL DO Y 12 8 DEEP CREEK 3 442 2.5 Figure 21-18 Facility Improvements Added to Model 5 Miles 21-22 Date: 1/15/2014 0 1.1 1.7 11.5 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 2461 0 6.2 0 0.8 0 8.9 0.2 0.1 7.4 6.5 0.9 13.1 13.9 12.9 13.9 5 3. 0.3 1.9 0 4.6 15.6 28.7 0.1 2 0 0.2 2.7 0.7 2 0 2.4 1.5 2.1 2 . 2 0.2 13.7 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0.1 0 2833 er De ing 0 P ar kwa y 23.4 28368.3 3.2 1.6 4.1 9.9 2834 8 19. 4.7 9 1. 7 Arterial A 8 23.9 2460 2838 15.5 2 9.5 24.9 3.8 30.1 25.1 9 2839 12.9 32 .7 2841 M 5.1 7.3 31.1 18.9 6.9 8 26 .4 to ay wn Ro ad 0.9 21.2 2840 2465 0.8 9.2 2835 2837 25 .7 26.3 18.2 11 2466 Legend 27 Roadways Centroid Connector Farmton TAZ ( Source: Farmton2035C/Output/CFRPM_OUT.mdb/ SLZ_HWYLOAD_C35 External Distribution 0 µ 1 File Name: Z:\Jobs\3833.04\GIS\Second Sufficiency\Figure 21-19 2035 External Project Distribution.mxd 7.8 Master DRI Master Development Plan Figure 21-19 2035 External Project Distribution 2 Miles 21-23 Date: 04/01/2014 0.2 0.3 0 1.5 0.2 8.7 0 0.4 0 7.6 0.8 3.2 0.9 0 8.6 0.3 0.2 2461 9 3 4. 0.2 8.8 7.9 3.7 10.2 0.3 0 9.3 3.5 9.8 2 4. 1.7 2.4 6 . 2 0.6 4.8 4.1 19.4 10.3 5 1. 0 2.8 0.1 4.7 0 0.2 0.9 3.3 0 1.6 0 0 0 0 0 0.1 0 6.9 2833 0 D ee r i ng k Par w ay 15.3 2836 3.1 16.5 2460 14.4 2.9 6.8 11.4 2838 2 2834 10.8 6.4 2837 6.2 17.1 2839 6 2841 39 .3 15.4 8.9 2465 25.2 38 6.4 Ma 24.6 38 .8 y o nR w to 3 5.1 5. 9.4 30 2840 .6 6.3 0 13.5 2835 8.7 27.2 31 5.1 10.9 4.5 6 2. .3 15 Arterial A 9.6 ad 28.1 10 6.9 2466 Legend 16.8 Roadways Centroid Connector Farmton TAZ ( Source: Farmton2060C/Output/CFRPM_OUT.mdb/ SLZ_HWYLOAD_C60 External Distribution 0 µ 1 File Name: Z:\Jobs\3833.04\GIS\Second Sufficiency\Figure 21-20 2060 External Project Distribution.mxd 7.2 Master DRI Master Development Plan Figure 21-20 2060 External Project Distribution 2 Miles 21-24 Date: 04/01/2014 21 QUESTION – TRANSPORTATION – SUMMARY OF AMDA TRAFFIC STUDY Methodology The traffic study methodology for the Farmton Master DRI is different from the standard DRI traffic methodology. The intent of the Master DRI traffic study was to examine specific transportation corridors (the Spine Transportation Network and nearby arterials) to determine if they are capable of handling the impacts of the Farmton development program utilizing a mid-point snapshot (2035) of half the development program and a build-out snapshot (2060) of the total development program. Please see attached Figure 21-1 for study area. Background growth was projected for 2035 and 2060 that included the Osteen Local Plan, Restoration DRI, the Brevard County Farmton Mixed Use, and Reflections PUD. An interchange at Maytown Road and Interstate 95 was projected to be constructed after 2035 but prior to 2060. PM Peak-hour two-way traffic was studied. (See attached Table 21-14 for details) The traffic study was based on one possible development scenario for Farmton. It should be acknowledged that there are many possible ways the Master DRI could develop. The study utilized the Central Florida Regional Planning Model v5.01 for trip distribution and assistance in determining growth rates. Intersections were not studied under the Master DRI analysis, but will be required with each subsequent AIDA. The model and study traffic projections were not adjusted to account for the effects of future multi-modal transit opportunities which are a major component of the Farmton Local Plan. Study Results Based on the development scenario studied, the majority of roadway segments studied were projected to have capacity in 2060 after being widened to 4 or 6 lanes. The following segments in 2060 were projected to exceed roadway capacity after being widened to six lanes: SR 415 from Volusia Seminole County line to Maytown Rd/Doyle Rd Maytown Rd from SR 415 to Naranja Rd Maytown Rd from Arterial A to Deering Parkway (fka Williamson Blvd extension) US 1 from Volco Road to SR 442 The following segment of Interstate 95 is projected to exceed its capacity of eight lanes in 2060, since it is currently designated as a rural freeway. Under a transitioning designation, eight lanes would satisfy project demand while six-lane capacity would satisfy demand under an urban designation: Interstate 95 from SR 5A in Brevard County to Maytown Rd in Volusia County Some of these capacity issues are based on the existing classification of the roadway segment. In all cases, multi-modal/transit strategies were not factored into the analysis which will have an effect on the roadway impacts. FDOT and Volusia County Traffic Engineering noted that the segment of Maytown Road that runs through the Farmton property could be relieved with an additional east/west transportation corridor within Farmton. To accomplish this the Farmton Local Plan and conservation easements would have to be amended to permit an additional crossing of the GreenKey land use. Farmton AMDA Second Sufficiency Response 21-25 Conclusions The MDRI traffic study provides a “snapshot” of potential impacts to the study area roadways under a specific set of assumptions. The incremental DRI traffic studies shall provide detailed analysis with the Master DRI traffic study serving as bellwether of potential traffic issues. It must be noted that future traffic analysis rules shall be in accordance with 2009 Florida Statutes standards. The incremental DRIs shall also address the cumulative impacts of previously approved AIDAs and other vested projects. Once Incremental DRIs provide detailed analysis, specific mitigation strategies will be incorporated in the Incremental Development Orders. Farmton AMDA Second Sufficiency Response 21-26 APPENDIX 1 - FISCAL NEUTRALITY FISCAL NEUTRALITY East Central Florida Regional Planning Council Comment 6: Regarding the memorandum on the Proposed Fiscal Neutrality Framework, it is stated that Farmton’s holdings acknowledge certain infrastructure improvements are prohibited from receiving certain impact fee credits. Please explain which impact fees are being discussed and the rational for some receiving credits and others not. Response 6: Policy FG 5.6e states that on-site collectors and local roads are necessary to accommodate build-out of the Farmton Local Plan so they are not eligible for impact fee credits. Policy FG 5.8 prohibits the spine transportation network from being built with impact fee money, receiving impact fee credits or mobility fee credits, because the Spine Transportation Network is considered the minimum necessary improvements for the FLP. Policy FG 6.4 prohibits public school facilities within Farmton to be built with school impact fee money or credits. Comment 7: Methodology 11 of the Fiscal Neutrality Framework states that all costs of transportation except those associated with roads and streets must be considered. Please explain. Response 7: This provision has been deleted from the latest draft of the Fiscal Neutrality framework. This local requirement regarding fiscal neutrality is being negotiated with Volusia County at this time, but will also require negotiations with the School District. Comment 8: Methodology 11 also assumes that human services, other non-operating costs and court and related costs will be assumed fixed throughout the Farmton planning and development timetable. Why would they be assumed fixed when they will be going up? Response 8: This provision has been deleted from the latest draft of the Fiscal Neutrality framework. This local requirement regarding fiscal neutrality is being negotiated with Volusia County at this time, but will also require negotiations with the School District. Volusia County Comment 1: Staff provides a revised fiscal neutrality methodology attached. The Fiscal Neutrality Reporting Chart, Attachment 1 to the methodology is still under review by county staff and comments regarding same will come under separate cover. Response 1: The applicant acknowledges that much progress has been made on negotiating the requirements of this locally imposed condition. We look forward to continuing this cooperative effort. Farmton AMDA Second Sufficiency Response Fiscal-1 Exhibit 5 to the Farmton MDRI Development Order. March 26, 2014. Fiscal Neutrality Preliminary Plan and Methodology for Monitoring Fiscal Neutrality. PURPOSE The Farmton Local Plan is a long term vision with a 50 year planning horizon. Development will proceed through a Master Development of Regional Impact (DRI) for the Sustainable Development Area districts through 2060. Development will be reviewed through the Master DRI process in order to ensure financial feasibility. Fiscal neutrality provisions of the Farmton Local Plan require future developers to pay for the costs of required infrastructure. This memo intends to provide general development guidelines and standards for Sustainable Development Areas, which provide for delivery of services and provision for infrastructure and fiscal neutrality. Farmton’s Application for Master Development Approval (AMDA) will not address the specifics of the required fiscal neutrality policies or criteria. Instead, the particulars relevant to any project or property will be considered in the course of each Application for Incremental Development Approval (AIDA) submitted for review. This proposed methodology assures our respective understanding of both the planning principles and general standards to be applied in the course of those review(s) and maintained over time as the entire Farmton property is developed either by its current owners or a series of subsequent parties. It is our expectation that the procedures and criteria described here can be applied in a cooperative way that systematically and uniformly guides future development which remains in largely a conceptual form today. GUIDING PRINCIPLES AND ASSUMPTIONS Definitions: Community Development District (CDD): CDD is as defined in Chapter 190.003(6), Florida Statutes, as it may be amended from time to time. CDDs shall not include tax increment financing (TIF) powers. Farmton: It is understood that references to Farmton within this document applyies to the Miami Corporation, its successors in interests and assigns that exist at the time of each AIDA in accordance with Policy FG 7.2 of the Farmton Local Plan. Fiscal Neutrality: Each development within the Sustainable Development Area (SDA) districts shall provide adequate infrastructure that meets or improves the levels of service standards adopted by the County and be fFiscally nNeutral or results in a fiscal benefit to the county, school district, and municipalities outside that development. Fiscal neutrality means the costs of additional school district and local government services and infrastructure that are built or provided for the SDA districts shall be funded by properties within the approved districts. Self-funding: Means that Rrevenue is generated by properties, businesses, residents and visitors within the boundaries of Farmton. For example, self-funding CDDs may include additional sales taxpersonal usage fee (PUF), benefit special assessments, maintenance special assessments, ad valorem taxes above local government and schools, but does not include a TIFtax increment financing. Tax Increment Financing: A Pprogram that allocates future increases in property taxes from a designated area to pay for improvements only in that area. General. There are assumptions that apply equally to capital and operating cost considerations. 1 Fiscal-2 Exhibit 5 to the Farmton MDRI Development Order. March 26, 2014. The methodology outlined herein remains generally consistent with - and largely dependent upon – extensive data, analysis, and methods articulated in detailed working papers provided in April, 2013 and July, 2013 by Real Estate Research Consultants. The applicant understands that, as Farmton is developed it will be necessary to address the project’s impacts, if any, in terms of both its capital and operating costs. Codification of this methodology and any subsequent Master Development Order (MDO) or Incremental Development Order (IDO) is an evolving process. Whatever commitments are necessary to address capital and operating costs as these are defined, it is acknowledged that the full costs of such obligations cannot be properly calculated absent a more detailed program and timetable, which all parties recognize will evolve as different parts of the property are sold or developed. These obligations will be addressed in detail as part of each incremental DRI application. If there are any inconsistencies between this methodology and the adopted Farmton Local Plan, the provisions of the Farmton Local Plan shall apply. Each AIDA application must include a fiscal neutrality reporting chart, which reconciles all sources and uses of funds, as exemplified in Exhibit 1 to this methodology. It is understood that references to Community Development Districts or other funding mechanism will will exclude any utilizing tax increment financing. Identified improvements locatedCertain improvements identified within the Farmton Local Plan shall not be paid for with impact fees or credits. Such procedures shall require that fFiscal nNeutrality be determined for each AIDA on a case-by-case basis, considering the location, phasing, and development program of the project. For off-site impacts, the procedures will require that the total proportionate share cost of infrastructure be included and not simply the existing impact fee rates. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Concurrency Management System, this shall include, but not be limited to, both localized and countywide impacts on county, city, state, and federal transportation facilities (such as roads, intersections, sidewalks, lighting, medians, etc.), public transit, schools, water supply and delivery, sewage transmission and treatment, solid waste, storm and surface water management. The County requires that these procedures for measuring fFiscal nNeutrality be reviewed and certified by independent advisors retained by the County at the expense of the landowner, developer or Community Development District prior to acceptance by the County. Each AIDA shall have a financial strategy approved by the County to construct and maintain all required infrastructure. Community Development Districts are identified as the preferred financing technique for infrastructure needs. No AIDA capital or operating budget is required to extend beyond a 25-year planning horizon. Approval of development within the SDA districts (the Gateway District) is contingent upon the applicant demonstrating that any increase in density above the maximum potential development as of the time of the adoption of this plan, which is 2,287 dwelling units (and up to 4,692 dwelling units with a finding of 2 Fiscal-3 Exhibit 5 to the Farmton MDRI Development Order. March 26, 2014. school adequacy) and 820,217 square feet of non-residential uses, can be accommodated with infrastructure at the time of the application for the increment under the Master DRI, to include road, utility and school capacity as well as meeting concurrency requirements which meet the requirements for fiscal neutrality. The financial impacts of each AIDA are assessed cumulatively. Capital Costs. Capital and operating costs of each AIDA should be addressed separately for purposes of monitoring fiscal neutrality. The following points underlie key assumptions about capital costs in accordance with Farmton Local Plan Objectives and Policies. The intent is for Farmton to pay the capital construction costs for the following infrastructure improvements that support or serve Farmton: o Spine Transportation Network o Utilities, including water, sewer, reclaimed, irrigation, and power o Master stormwater systems o Parks and Recreation serving Farmton To ensure the provision of adequate public facilities that are fiscally neutral and avoid inequitable burdens on parties outside of the Farmton Local Plan, public infrastructure for developments may be funded and maintained by a Community Development District (CDD) formed in accordance with chapter 190, Florida Statutes, or such other financial mechanisms that are not dependent upon a budgetary allocation of Volusia County or the School Board of Volusia County. As described in the Farmton Local Plan, a CDD is a viable and desirable means of achieving fiscal neutrality. In the event Farmton, or its successors, determine, at their discretion, that a CDD is appropriate, then the parties agree that Farmton will be required to demonstrate the capacity for such CDD and the parties will then work together toward the creation of a CDD enabling Farmton to comply with the fiscal neutrality standards. Where various legal vehicles necessarily require Volusia County be the source of legal administration or sponsorship, any costs of implementation therein will be absorbed by Farmton. Farmton, within the limits of state law, can craft through its CDD or other financial mechanism/entity the necessary public/private partnerships it deems appropriate to implement its required infrastructure including the provision of all necessary user-supported or fee-based infrastructure as long as the mechanisms are fiscally neutral to Volusia County and the Volusia School District. Maytown Road is an existing public right of way and its improvement, operation and maintenance shall not be funded through a user-supported or fee-based infrastructure mechanism on behalf of Farmton. The County reserves the right to condition the approval of development on the availability of funding for the necessary infrastructure to support the proposed development. The AIDA will ensure that it will be the obligation of the master developer to assure that offsite costs and any financial credits adjustments (positive or negative) that may be passed to the AIDA are adequately addressed both at the project level and cumulatively across the full built environment. All spine roads as indicated on future land use map series, Figure 2-10- Farmton Local Plan- Spine Transportation Network), water, utility, as well as all parks or recreational facilities that might otherwise 3 Fiscal-4 Exhibit 5 to the Farmton MDRI Development Order. March 26, 2014. be planned, funded and financed through local government vehicles remain the responsibility of the owners and/or subsequent developers of Farmton. These spine roads, water, and utilitiesy, and parks or recreational facilities will be implemented through a self-funding CDD or similar vehicle unless the owners or developers of any parts of Farmton should find other approaches more beneficial. Prior to development approval, the county shall amend its Capital Improvements Element to include the timing and funding of public facilities required by the Farmton Local Plan. Operating Costs. It is agreed that capital and operating costs of each AIDA should be addressed separately for purposes of monitoring fiscal neutrality. Farmton will receive the same general government services as provided to the remainder of the cCounty, but excludes any increase in level of service standards established in the FLP. Additional school district and local government services and provided for the SDA districts shall be funded by properties within the approved districts. Each AIDA application must include a detailed fiscal neutrality reporting chart that reconciles all sources and uses of funds, and provided inas Exhibit 1 to this methodology. METHODOLOGY FOR REVIEW 1. Each AIDA will conform to a master capital improvements strategy that will be monitored and evaluated for consistency and reasonableness, understanding that each subsequent phase or project may cause some alteration in the basic development scheme. Pursuant to each AIDA, it will be the obligation of the master developer to assure that offsite costs and any financial credits adjustments (positive or negative) that may be passed to the AIDA are adequately addressed both at the project level and cumulatively across the full built environment. 2. As each AIDA is submitted, Farmton, would provide a detailed fiscal neutrality reporting chart that reconciles all sources and uses of funds, attached as Exhibit 1. An applicant must demonstrate how its specific development program and capital needs relate to and integrate with any capital improvements that are a part of the larger Farmton development scheme and/or any other development pending approval or under construction. . 3. Specific to the goals of the Farmton Local Plan, each AIDA should be specific about its intended infrastructure, including but necessarily limited to the roads, drainage, parks and recreational facilities, utility systems, educational facilities, off site needs if any, and any other capital investments that would be absorbed by a CDD, a like vehicle, or other means deemed acceptable to the applicant and any reviewing agency. 4. The capital improvements strategy should be specific about any adjustments due to contributions or other agreements. 4 Fiscal-5 Exhibit 5 to the Farmton MDRI Development Order. March 26, 2014. 5. As for the sources and uses of funds cited above, they should include a preliminary analysis of the costs that would be relevant to supporting a CDD or like vehicle. 6. Because the typical CDD has both short term and longer financial options available to it, these should be shown as part of a general development budget that reconciles costs to all revenues available to satisfy those costs. The period of the analysis (years or phases as appropriate) will be that deemed customary and sufficient to the nature of the capital and operating costs being absorbed by the CDD but should in no case be required to extend beyond a 25-year planning horizon. 7. As each AIDA is submitted, a detailed operating budget for its portion of the relevant major costs which, like the capital budget, addresses all sources and uses of funds., As part of this analysis, an applicant must demonstrate how its specific development program and its expected needs relate to and integrate with any services that may be addressed in the budgets of any nearby or overlapping governments.. 8. Any parks then required to fulfill recreational obligations inneeds of Farmton residents would be paid for by the owners and developers of Farmton or their successors. 9. Periodic reports would address issues particular to subsequent budgets, applicable revenue or capital requirements and implementation strategies. The nature and form of these reports would be included in the development orders of each respective AIDA. 10. The specific measures and/or procedures described above would be evaluated cumulatively for their financial impacts as each AIDA is submitted for review and approvals. The review and certification of these measures and/or procedures by independent advisors (retained by the County at the expense of the landowner, developer, or Community Development District) will occur prior to acceptance by the County. 5 Fiscal-6 FARMTON FISCAL NEUTRALITY REPORTING CHART Sources of Revenue or Funding for Service/Improvements Farmton Private Revenue/Contribution Sources1 2 CDD Assessment Developer User Fee Contribution/D onation $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ Example (increased fire protection above County LOS) ($$$) ($$$) ($$$) ($$$) ($$$) $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ Tax Increment Financing Powers shall not be utilized 2 Expanded services and funding of same will be negotiated with local government provider $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ ($$$) ($$$) ($$$) ($$$) ($$$) ($$$) ($$$) ($$$) ($$$) ($$$) ($$$) ($$$) ($$$) 1 Other $$$ $$$ Stormwater Improvements (on-site) Stormwater Improvements (Spine Road Network) Parks/Recreation/Trails Fire Rescue/Public Safety Stations/Equip (on-site) Law Enforcement (Substations/Equip) Utilities (potable water) Utilities (Sanitary Sewer) Utilities (irrigation) Utilities (power) Transporation (Spine Road Network) Transportation (on-site roads) Transporatation (on-site transit) Transportation (on-site sidwalks, multi-use paths) County LOS Operational Costs or Capital Capital Improvements ( Maintaining County LOS) Improvements that exceed Operating Costs ( Maintaining County LOS) Service or Improvement General Government/Admin Social Services/Human Services Law Enforcement Courts/Justice Fire Rescue/Public Safety Economic Development Parks/Recreation/Conservation Development Services/code Enforcement Utilities Maintenance Stormwater Maintenance Transportation Maintenance School Administration School Facility Maintenance School Facility Staffing/Teachers Solid Waste Operations Libraries/Culture Operations Cost of Services or Improvements ($$$) ($$$) ($$$) ($$$) ($$$) ($$$) ($$$) ($$$) ($$$) ($$$) ($$$) ($$$) ($$$) ($$$) ($$$) ($$$) Public Sources of Revenue paid by Farmton1 Municipal School County (Ad Services Other Impact Fees (Ad Valorem) District (Ad (Taxes/Fees) Valorem) Valorem) $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ Adjustments Balance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Fiscal-7 APPENDIX 2 - JOBS HOUSING BALANCE JOBS HOUSING BALANCE East Central Florida Regional Planning Council Comment 9: Why is the Gateway portion of the project not subject to the 1 to 1 jobs to housing balance? Response 9: Policy FG 1.4 establishes the Gateway District as the receiving area for the transfer of development rights of the Farmton lands based on the maximum development potential of the land uses in place prior to the adoption of the FL. FG 3.10 exempts the Gateway District from the jobs/housing requirements based on this transfer of development rights condition. Comment 10: The use of 200 square feet per employee is very general. Should this site develop with a large proportion of industrial space, the number of employees would be much lower. What is the employee ratio for office, retail and industrial, and why wouldn’t a more accurate method be adopted to determine the jobs count? Response 10: RERC provided detailed analysis to the County regarding the methodology behind the jobs/housing framework. The applicant has worked diligently with the County to come to agreement regarding this local requirement. This ratio was included as part of the original AMDA submittal without comment by any agency. Since then, the applicant has proceeded in good faith and prefers not to visit an issue that was not raised during the initial AMDA review. Comment 11: How was it determined that employment within three miles of Farmton would count toward the requisite Farmton employee count? Why was Restoration excluded? Response 11: This condition was negotiated with Volusia County staff since the Jobs/Housing issue is a local requirement. It was based on similar conditions in the Restoration DRI. Farmton will not count jobs within Restoration since Restoration has its own jobs/housing requirement. Farmton AMDA Second Sufficiency Response Jobs-1 MEMORANDUM TO: Glenn Storch FROM: Owen M. Beitsch, PhD, CRE, FAICP DATE: October 29, 2013 RE: Proposed Jobs/Housing Balance Framework (RERC Project Farmton) PURPOSE Farmton’s Application for Master Development Approval (AMDA) will not address the specifics of the currently required jobs/housing criteria, leaving that assessment for each Application for Incremental Development Approval (AIDA) filed for review. This proposed methodology assures our respective understanding of both the planning principles and general standards to be applied in the course of those review(s) and maintained over time as the entire Farmton property is developed either by its current owners or a series of subsequent parties. It is our expectation that the procedures and criteria described here can be applied in a cooperative way that systematically and uniformly guides future development which remains in largely a conceptual form today. We understand and assume certain aspects of the methodology will find their way into Farmton’s ultimate Master DRI Development Order. GUIDING PRINCIPLES AND ASSUMPTIONS • In general, the objective is to secure a minimum 1.0/1.0 jobs/housing balance across the Farmton holdings at its ultimate completion. The applicant acknowledges this stated goal and recognizes its general intent to spur economic development and create combined live and work environments. • The basic methodology outlined expressly recognizes Farmton’s current entitlements, approvals, and obligations articulated in policies FG 3.4 and FG 3.10 of the Volusia County Comprehensive Plan • It is acknowledged that population and housing units necessarily precede certain job production. Toward that end, the jobs/housing ratio increases over time as it moves towards the project’s ultimate completion. • The parties agree that cumulative jobs or housing additions would be recorded for any activity proposed for the larger site and this activity would be benchmarked against an agreed upon interim measurement toward the end goal. As described above, the Interim controls acknowledge the uneven growth in housing or employment likely to occur. Jobs-2 Proposed Jobs/Housing Balance Framework Page 2 • The applicant also understands that the County has an obligation to monitor uneven growth and unfavorable conditions as defined in this methodology could lead to needed corrective or mitigating action if development is to continue. • Codification of this methodology and any subsequent Master Development Order (MDO) or Incremental Development Order (IDO) is an evolving process. • The actual job or employment categories to be realized are speculative at this time so it is reasonable to structure the methods for monitoring, reporting, and controlling the pace of continued development in very broad business categories. These broad categories would reflect a combination of both public and private activities consistent with those identified in Policy FG 8.6 which specifically cites hotel, hospital, school, retail/commercial, office business/flex, light industrial, warehouse, and distribution as allowed uses. These are deemed to be acceptable equivalents although all have different job attributes and space requirements. • The parties agree that the framework outlined herein remains generally consistent with and largely dependent upon – extensive data, analysis, and methods articulated in a detailed working paper provided in April, 2013 and subsequently discussed with staff in July, 2013. • Among the materials presented or discussed were a detailed assessment of the relationships between and among the County’s employment counts, its residential inventory, and the inventory of various commercial and business facilities throughout the county supporting this employment. These relationships, as evidenced across the state’s many counties, generate fairly consistent measures that tie housing, population, and job counts together. For purposes of this analysis, one job equates to 200 SF of non residential development. • It is understood that there is an effective job shed in which the Farmton property functions. For purposes of finalizing the jobs/housing methodology, it is agreed that any properties within the Farmton Local Plan boundary and within Volusia County and controlled or owned by entities linked to Farmton comprise the larger job shed, and any jobs created there will be treated as full credits to Farmton’s jobs/housing obligations. Further, any lands within Volusia County also controlled or owned by entities linked to, but located within three miles of Farmton, will be similarly credited in full toward these obligations. Should there be reasons for Farmton or any of its related entities to acquire interests in Restoration, any jobs otherwise required to support that project will not be credited to Farmton’s obligations as these are described in this methodology framework. • A part of Farmton lies in Brevard County which requires 0.65 jobs per dwelling unit. Based on the Farmton entitlements allocated to Brevard County, any job counts in excess of the 1,499 jobs necessary to satisfy the needs there may be credited to the jobs/housing obligations in Volusia County. • Although there are no immediately foreseeable plans for the construction of institutional uses, the parties acknowledge that such development [subject to the constraints of traffic analysis] would be incremental to the already approved non-residential development [4,700,000 SF]. Because these institutional uses might be erected across any of the Jobs-3 Proposed Jobs/Housing Balance Framework Page 3 Farmton property, they consequently may also be a source of jobs for purposes of achieving the required jobs/housing balance. • On average and without regard to any specific kind of employment, the methodology anticipates a certain pace of development must be sustained to accommodate the interim and ultimate job requirements mandated by the Farmton Local Plan. The pace of non-residential development will accommodate the ultimate job requirements, as these have been defined, across Farmton’s total holdings. • On average and without regard to any specific kind of employment, the parties have established beginning and interim measures to benchmark both employment counts and the pace of development. Based on our discussions, a minimum 0.65 jobs/housing ratio will be expected once the initial 9,000 housing units have been constructed. Only houses constructed outside the Gateway District are subject to the required jobs/housing balance. • Although a 0.65 goal is required as the absolute minimum through the project’s anticipated life, the owners will make a good faith effort to exceed this minimum thresholds as specified in the accompanying exhibit and agree, in any case, measurable progress must be maintained toward the ultimate 1.0/1.0 jobs/housing goal. • Non-residential development constructed, but then vacated after occupancy, will not be credited as a source of employment or new jobs when again occupied. • The project is required to accommodate approximately 23,100 jobs in its approved complement of non-residential development concurrent with the construction of approximately 23,100 dwelling units, less that number of dwelling units constructed in the Gateway District. • The parties recognize that future approvals will center on the measures articulated in the methodology. • Farmton’s owners anticipate that the specific measures will be codified within the body of each AIDA and its respective DO, and these are subject to periodic confirmation or tests of compliance by outside interest or consultant. • The above information would be the subject of annual reports produced by Farmton and/or others involved in the development of the Farmton property. This data would be used as part of the review and approvals process going forward. These annual reports would address the following things in an agreed upon format. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Number of residential permits issued to date on a cumulative basis Number of residential certificates of occupancy on a cumulative basis Items 1 and 2 expressly for the Gateway District Non-residential square footage permitted to date on a cumulative basis Non-residential square footage issued certificates of occupancy on a cumulative basis Projected number of residential units and non-residential square footage to be permitted in the coming year Estimated construction employment Remediation activities, if any Reported home based occupations or institutional occupations, not otherwise addressed, would be reported at the discretion of Farmton. Jobs-4 Proposed Jobs/Housing Balance Framework Page 4 METHODOLOGY FOR REVIEW 1. This information or approach detailed below would be discussed in the course of the normal pre-application meeting to explore any issues not otherwise addressed in this proposed methodology. Absent material omissions, it is assumed this is the method that will be employed for the analysis. 2. As each AIDA is submitted, it would be required to estimate the total square footage of non-residential facilities reasonably expected in terms of its dwelling unit count, in part drawing on the reports described above. The resulting figure would be presumed the necessary non-residential inventory to work toward, on average, as the project develops. Effectively, housing production would be keyed to job production on a cumulative basis and periodic checks must satisfy agreed upon standards. 3. The first increment of 4,692 housing units approved for the Gateway District and built within the Gateway District would not be obligated to satisfy the jobs/housing balance because of Farmton Local Plan policies. Prior policy or agreements notwithstanding, it is assumed that the owners or developers of Farmton will make a good faith effort to introduce non-residential activity as soon as possible. 4. Once housing production at Farmton exceeds an initial 9,000 units [including any dwelling units within the Gateway District] the minimum standard of 0.65 jobs/1.0 housing units must be maintained although Farmton will make a good faith effort to exceed this level of non-residential activity. While the applicant acknowledges that housing constructed in the Gateway District also counts toward the Cumulative Housing Activity thresholds shown in the accompanying exhibit, it is agreed only houses constructed outside of the Gateway District are subject to the required jobs/housing ratio. 5. It is agreed that the ultimate overall jobs/housing balance would be 1.0/1.0 but the ratio and standards used to measure same would increase gradually over the development’s planned life. 6. Interim standards are outlined in the accompanying exhibit and, these will be reviewed for compliance or remediation as required. 7. In the event actual performance falls below the level stipulated in the accompanying exhibit, a mitigation strategy will be required. This strategy could include more aggressive standards of performance over some future agreed period, a lower standard based on mutually agreed conditions at the time in question, restricted land use covenants on remaining undeveloped acreage, an actual count of all employment on the relevant property or holdings, or other methods to be determined. 8. Periodic reports would tabulate square footage of non-residential development or jobs or some combination that reflects home based or institutional occupations, not otherwise addressed. The method for home based occupations would be determined at some future date but may be based on business tax receipts, licenses issued, personal property valuations, or similarly available data, or other methods to be determined. The Jobs-5 Proposed Jobs/Housing Balance Framework Page 5 means of calculating institutional employment will follow the procedures outlined for other non-residential employment. 9. The specific counts or measures described above would be evaluated cumulatively for their impacts or effects across the Farmton holdings by an outside interest or consultant as each AIDA is submitted for review and evaluation. The costs of any outside consultant, should the County retain one, would be at the expense of Farmton or any succeeding ownership entity. Jobs-6 EXHIBIT 1: Required Development and Jobs Production Cumulative Housing Activity 9,000 12,000 15,000 18,000 21,000 23,100 Required job ratio [County specfied for homes constructed Minimum required jobs 1, outside Gateway area] [Farmton Plan] 0.65 0.72 0.79 0.86 0.93 1.00 5,850 8,640 11,850 15,480 19,530 23,100 Targeted nonresidential development Minimum threshold to avoid remediation action [200 SF/Job] 1,640,250 2,187,000 2,733,750 3,280,500 3,906,000 4,700,000 1,170,000 1,728,000 2,370,000 3,096,000 3,906,000 4,620,000 1 0.65 requi red by Farmton Pl an a s abs ol ute minimum. Jobs-7 APPENDIX 3 - DRAFT MASTER DEVELOPMENT ORDER DRAFT MASTER DEVELOPMENT ORDER A draft master development order was provided with the first sufficiency response to comments in order to expedite the processing of the Master DRI. Since the first sufficiency response was filed with the review agencies, the applicant has continued to negotiate master development order conditions with Volusia County and other agencies. Attached is another draft development order which attempts to address the comments below and reflects negotiations to date. It is still a work in progress, and the conditions contained within the draft development order are still subject to negotiation and modification as the Master DRI review process continues. East Central Florida Regional Planning Council Comment 12: Why are some listings highlighted in yellow on page three of the draft DO? Response 12: This area was highlighted as a reminder to discuss with the County how they would like to present this information. See County 2nd sufficiency draft MDO for proposed edit to this section. Comment 13: Any transference from beyond the 2025 timeframe needs to be done through an NOPC to the MADA. Please make changes where necessary in the proposed DO to reflect this in the table notes under General Condition 4 and 6d. Response 13: The Master DRI NOPC process is not required because each AIDA will be reviewed by the agencies when and if densities and intensities are transferred to it or from it. Other than the Gateway District, entitlements are not specifically allocated to a sustainable development area by the Master Development Order or the Farmton Local Plan. Biennial reporting, M&M studies (a minimum of every seven years) and AIDAs should be adequate to track and manage any transfers. Comment 14: Condition 7 of the proposed DO discusses accessory or ancillary units. It should be specified whether these units count toward the residential allotment or if they are in addition to the residential allotment. We would support that they be in addition to the residential allotment. Response 14: This will be negotiated with Volusia County. It is the preference of the applicant that accessory dwellings will not count against the residential allotment as incentive for this type of housing. Comment 15: Condition 9 of the proposed DO addresses annexations in the future. Please add a phrase requiring that impacts will still be determined on cumulative basis for traffic and jobs to housing ratio. Response 15: Acknowledged. Please see revised draft MDRI DO which deleted this condition. Condition 6 has been modified to address cumulative impacts. Farmton AMDA Second Sufficiency Response MDO-1 Comment 16: Condition 11 of the proposed DO states that the MDO will not expire. There should be an expiration date approximately 15 years beyond the proposed buildout date. Response 16: Since more than 32,000 acres of land will be placed under a permanent, perpetual conservation easement with the approval of the AMDA, and the applicant has already deeded 1,400 of Deep Creek land to Volusia County, the development entitlements for the AMDA must be permanent as well. A provision for expiration of the MDRI has been added to the revised draft MDRI DO (Conditions 10 and 11). Comment 17: Response 17: Condition 13 of the proposed DO addresses monitoring. Please add the ECFRPC as a recipient and reviewer of the annual reports pursuant to state rules. Acknowledged. Please see the revised draft MDRI DO. Comment 18: Condition 20 of the proposed DO addresses conservation areas. Please include the ECFRPC in the list of entities to be consulted. Also, it is not clear who is approving the areas identified to be designated as RBOS areas. If it is the county, please specify. Response 18: Volusia County will be the approving entity for the remaining Resource-Based Open Space. The ECFRPC will be included in the list of entities to be consulted. Please see the revised draft MDRI DO (Condition 19). Comment 19: Many of the wildlife conditions in the proposed DO include provisions that the applicant or developer consult with the FWC. The amount of time that will be required will be a burden on the resources of the FWC, and it is recommended that a mechanism be put in place to compensate the FWC for time spent on these reviews and consultation that go beyond the normal review process. Please consider a mechanism in the proposed DO that would accomplish this. Response 19: The applicant appreciates the concern of the RPC. We have received no comment from the FWC to this effect. Should we receive such a communication from the FWC, we would be happy to discuss it with them. Comment 20: Condition 34 of the proposed DO refers to section 28. Should this be condition 33? If not, please explain where section 28 resides. Response 20: Thank you for the correction. Please see the revised draft MDRI DO which clarifies this condition (Condition 33). Farmton AMDA Second Sufficiency Response MDO-2 Comment 21: Response 21: Acknowledged. Please see the revised draft MDRI DO (Condition 37). Comment 22: Response 22: Condition 38 of the proposed DO discusses uses of stormwater. Some entities are treating stormwater to drinking water standards and this should not be precluded in this condition. Condition 40 of the proposed DO states that 100-year flood plain impacts shall be minimized. Please add that these areas will also be avoided to the maximum extent practicable. The applicant prefers the language as submitted (Condition 39). Comment 23: Condition 49 of the proposed DO addresses the use of Water Star standards for silver certification. Please restate to say that the residential and commercials shall be Gold Water Star certified. Response 23: The Farmton Local Plan does not require the application of Water Star standards to nonresidential. The revised draft MDRI DO states that non-residential will strive to achieve Water Star certification and all development will strive to achieve the Gold standard certification. Residential development must meet the Silver Standard certification (Condition 48). Comment 24: Response 24: Condition 51 of the proposed DO addresses Florida Friendly areas to the extent that “many of these open spaces do not require irrigation”. Please be more specific. Ideally, none of these areas should require irrigation after an initial establishment period. Please see the revised draft MDRI DO (Condition 50). Comment 25: Condition 53 of the proposed DO disallows the use of septic tanks. There may be instances where they are warranted, such as a remote education center or as a temporary use. Response 25: Please see revised draft MDRI DO regarding modified language for septic tanks (Condition 52). Comment 26: In the proposed DO, a condition should be included in the vegetative and wetland sections that address the control of invasive species. Response 26: The adopted Farmton Conservation Management Plan already contains provisions for the control of invasion species. The Conservation Management Plan was adopted by the Volusia County Council on March 21, 2013. Please see Condition 20. Farmton AMDA Second Sufficiency Response MDO-3 Comment 27: The transportation provisions should not preclude the need for a second north-south roadway from SR 442, as this may be necessary to address project and background traffic. While this is not preferred due to environmental impacts, the preliminary traffic numbers indicate that it may be needed. Response 27: Policy FG 5.6C of the FLP limits crossings of GreenKey land use except for the spine transportation network corridors and approved trailheads. In addition, updated transportation analyses indicate that there will be sufficient north-south capacity with the proposed roadway/transit corridors. Comment 28: Response 28: Condition 66 of the proposed DO, on lines 16 and 17 of page 19, states that, “The study prior to build-out will be for informational purposes only.” This statement may be taken out of context because it is not accompanied by the specific M&M conditions that are in the typical DO. This statement should be eliminated, but could be added in each individual DRI DO. Acknowledged. Please see revised, draft MDRI DO. ( Condition 69). Comment 29: Condition 94 of the proposed DO addresses the use of energy program standards. The language is very broad. The list of standards is not up to date and while it does state that the third party program must be comparable as determined by PREC, some of the comparables may not be appropriate. Please eliminate reference to the National Association of Home Builders National Green Building Standard and the Green Building Initiative Green Globes Standard. This would also apply to Condition 97b on page 25. Response 29: The applicant is coordinating the drafting of this condition with PREC. Please see the revised draft MDRI DO (Condition 99). Comment 30: Condition 98a discusses the Gateway area and 98b discusses the Town Center. Please include a provision for a gridded street network in both areas. Response 30: FG 3.6e, FG 5.3, FG 5.6b and d require a system of interconnected streets, pedestrian paths, and bikeways for all the SDAs. Comment 31: Condition 108 of the proposed DO discusses alternative review processes. It is not clear what the intent of this condition is, and it is recommended that clarification be given or that it be deleted. Please discuss the intent of this provision. Response 31: Just as Policy FG 4.13 states, "It is recognized that the standards and protocols which define sustainability are constantly evolving such that what is determined to be acceptable today may be Farmton AMDA Second Sufficiency Response MDO-4 unacceptable in the future and that supportive programs may emerge tomorrow that more adequately accomplish the goal of the Farmton Local Plan. For the purpose of achieving sustainability goals, adaptive management will be employed over the life of the plan so as to ensure that the most current programs, policies, and protocols are used throughout the life of the community which shall be consistent with other comprehensive plan policies in effect in the future." The applicant/landowner(s)/developer(s) should have the right to avail themselves on any alternative planning programs that the Florida Legislature via the Florida Statutes may provide. Comment 32: Response 32: Please add Brevard County to any and all distribution lists within the proposed DO. Acknowledged. Please see the revised draft MDRI DO Florida Department of Transportation Comment 12: A statement needs to be added to the MDO clarifying that the AMDA study area was not intended to form the basis for study area determination in subsequent AIDAs. Such subsequent study area(s) shall be determined in accordance to applicable DRI review standards and will address significant project impacts as defined under Section 380.06, Florida Statutes (F. S.). Response 12: Please see condition 63 (second condition under Transportation section) of the revised draft MDRI DO . Comment 13: Response 13: A statement needs to be added to the MDO clarifying that the analysis performed in support of the AMDA was for one potential development program and not necessarily for the final development program. The analyzed development program achieved a sizable internal capture; however, internal capture for future individual AIDAs can vary significantly depending on the timing and nature of the land uses within each AIDA. This will be analyzed as part of each AIDA with monitoring being performed as necessary. Acknowledged. Please see revised draft MDRI DO. Condition 63. Comment 14: A table with the roadway network studied as part of the AMDA needs to be added to the MDO. This table should also show existing number of lanes and future needs for years 2035 and 2060. In addition, where applicable, the table should indicate the point in time when said improvement will be required (as identified in the AMDA analysis). Response 14: As noted above (comment 12), the requested table is inconsistent with the concept that the AMDA is based on one development scenario. Farmton AMDA Second Sufficiency Response MDO-5 Comment 15: Response 15: Acknowledged. Please see revised draft MDRI DO. Condition 5. Comment 16: Response 16: The Farmton Master DRI shall be viewed and reviewed as a single master development, and analysis of each individual AIDA shall be done cumulatively. Therefore, development quantities and their corresponding impacts analyzed and mitigation strategies developed under each AIDA will be cumulative for the entire Farmton development. Please revise language as necessary. Acknowledged. Please see revised draft MDRI DO. Condition 6b. Comment 18: Response 18: MDO language needs to be revised to reflect that AIDA methodologies will be consistent with Section 380.06, F. S., and that the overall methodology to be followed in the analysis will be consistent with general DRI methodologies as outlined in the Florida Statutes. In summary, from an analysis perspective, AIDAs will be no different than traditional DRIs. Acknowledged. Please see revised draft MDRI DO. Condition 6b and 62. Comment 17: Response 17: Language in this condition needs to be modified to state that “the Farmton Local Plan is the document that shall prevail over any conflicting information, data, plan or commitments (including this Master Development Order)”. Please revise language as necessary. In the event that annexation occurs, the development will continue to be analyzed (including AIDA analysis, monitoring and modeling, impacts and corresponding mitigation strategies) as a single development, even if different portions of the development get annexed into different municipalities. Acknowledged. Please see revised draft MDRI DO. Condition 6b. Comment 19: The spine roadway network and Interstate 95 at Maytown Road interchange timings and how they correlate to the different Sustainable Development Areas (SDAs) and development quantities need to be better defined in the MDO. This will have a significant impact on how development-generated traffic accesses the external roadway network and, therefore, will affect project traffic distribution. Response 19: It is not possible to provide this additional language since the timing and types of development programs are speculative at this time. Farmton AMDA Second Sufficiency Response MDO-6 Comment 20: As with construction activities, maintenance of the transportation spine network is also the sole responsibility of the owner/developer. Response 20: The Farmton Local Plan does not require Farmton to maintain the Spine Transportation Network if the roads are dedicated to the public. FG 7.4 states "Each development within SDA districts shall have a financial strategy approved by the County to construct and maintain all required infrastructure. Community Development Districts are identified as the preferred financing technique for infrastructure needs." On the maintenance side of this issue, the properties within Farmton will pay taxes (sales, gas and ad valorem, etc) paid by all residents, property owners, businesses and visitors which commonly support public infrastructure maintenance. Nowhere in the FLP is a CDD required to fund the maintenance of infrastructure that is commonly financed and supported by public taxing vehicles. To the extent that Farmton wishes to maintain the spine road network at a higher standard than is typically applied by the County to a thoroughfare, the properties within Farmton will finance the cost differential. Comment 21: Exhibit 7 needs to be removed from the MDO as it may generate confusion regarding the spine roadway network cross-section. However, language regarding provisions during the spine road network design and construction for a fixed guideway transit system needs to be added to the MDO. Response 21: Exhibit 7 is provided to illustrate that a 200-feet wide transportation corridor is adequate to support a mulit-modal/transit system which may include dedicated bus lanes or other transit options. It was created at the request of the review agencies, but it will be removed. See response to ECFRPC Comment 1 under Question 21. Comment 22: Language needs to be revised as follows: “A future interchange access to interstate 95 at the existing Maytown Road underpass and any modifications required to the adjacent interchanges shall follow the procedural requirements set for by Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) for interstate connection. These required improvements, including all phases (such as interchange approval, PD&E, Design, ROW, Construction, etc.) will be constructed at the sole responsibility of the owner/developer and at no cost to the Department. Adequate setbacks from the proposed interchange …” Response 22: The proposed language is not consistent with FLP Policy FG 5.7b. The Farmton Local Plan does not preclude Farmton from utilizing state and federal funding to construct infrastructure improvements. The fiscal neutrality provisions within the Farmton Local Plan are a local requirement that addresses County, School District and effected municipalities. Comment 23: FDOT Comment: Further discussion is needed regarding the monitoring and modeling condition. Items that need further discussion include, but are not limited to, the following: • The analysis shall be cumulative, irrespective or regardless of the SDA Farmton AMDA Second Sufficiency Response MDO-7 and/or development phase being analyzed, • As the Brevard County portion of the Farmton Master DRI gets developed, that development needs to be included in the analysis as background traffic. However, the Brevard Farmton background traffic needs to be clearly identifiable from the rest of background traffic, • How different SDAs with different phasing schedules overlap with each other will be considered and analyzed, and • How the timing of these different SDAs/phases and mitigation requirements for each will be coordinated. As noted, these are some of the topics that need further discussion at this time. Additional topics and clarification may be warranted as this Development Order continues to be drafted. Response 23: Condition 6b of the revised draft MDRI DO addresses cumulative review requirements. Brevard County is not part of the Master DRI. It is a separate, stand-alone project under a separate jurisdiction. The Applicant will continue to coordinate and draft development order language to address the last two bullets (See Condition 6f). Comment 24: Please verify with Volusia County that a Concurrency Management System is currently in place. In addition, in the event that the County has a Concurrency Management System, the extent of the monitoring and modeling will be consistent with the most stringent of the County’s System or where the project is anticipated to consume 5 percent or more of the adopted LOS maximum service volume. Response 24: Volusia County does have a Concurrency Management System, and Farmton will comply with its requirements as it relates to Developments of Regional Impact. Volusia County Traffic Engineering Comment 23: Response 23: Development Order, Page 6, section 6b: Each increment should take into account existing and vested development within and outside the MDRI - not just within the DRI. Acknowledged. Please see revised, draft MDRI DO. Condition 6b. . Comment 24: Development Order: Page 17, for clarification purposes, please include "maintenance" in the first sentence so that it reads, "Construction and maintenance of the spine transportation network is the responsibility of the owner/Farmton." The MDO doesn't mention maintenance of roads yet the Farmton Local Plan in FG 7.4 states that development in the SDAs shall have a financial strategy to construct and maintain all required Farmton AMDA Second Sufficiency Response MDO-8 infrastructure. All roadways, including the Spine Network, are to be maintained by the owner/Farmton per the Local Plan Fiscal Neutrality obligations. Response 24: The Farmton Local Plan does not require Farmton to maintain the Spine Transportation Network if the roads are dedicated to the public. FG 7.4 states "Each development within SDA districts shall have a financial strategy approved by the County to construct and maintain all required infrastructure. Community Development Districts are identified as the preferred financing technique for infrastructure needs." On the maintenance side of this issue, the properties within Farmton will pay taxes (sales, gas and ad valorem, etc) paid by all residents, property owners, businesses and visitors which commonly support public infrastructure maintenance. Nowhere in the FLP is a CDD required to fund the maintenance of infrastructure that is commonly financed and supported by public taxing vehicles. To the extent that Farmton wishes to maintain the spine road network at a higher standard than is typically applied by the County to a thoroughfare, the properties within Farmton will finance the cost differential. Comment 25: Response 25: Acknowledged. Please see the revised draft MDRI DO. Comment 26: Response 26: Development Order: Page 18, 66: Please include Brevard County in the list of agencies to agree to methodologies. Development Order: Page 19, 66, line 12: This section discusses final arbitration, and states that FDOT decisions shall be final for state facilities, Volusia for VC facilities, and ECFRPC for facilities of regional significance. Since FDOT or the county are the maintaining authorities for facilities of regional significance, the DO should state that the ECFRPC will work with the maintain agencies to make final decisions. Acknowledged. Please see the revised draft MDRI DO (Condition 69). Comment 27: Development Order: Page 19, 66, line 21; Please provide the list of regional roads. Response 27: The list of regional roads will be identified with each AIDA based on significance and adversity standards. . Comment 28: Response 28: Acknowledged. Please see revised draft MDRI DO. Condition 104. Comment 29: Response 29: Development Order: Page 29, Jobs to Housing Balance: Please delete “market conditions”. Development Order: Page 31, 103: Please include Brevard County in the biennial distribution Acknowledged. Please see revised draft MDRI DO (Condition 108). Farmton AMDA Second Sufficiency Response MDO-9 Comment 30: Question 23 Development Order: Page 20, 72: Please delete the designation of Maytown Road. Response 30: This provision was edited to address Maytown Road only if it is designated as a hurricane evacuation route in the future (Conditions 76 and 77). Comment 31: In addition to the comments identified above related to the Master DO, Volusia County reserves the right to further comment on the draft development order pending the outcome of addressing the technical comments of the transportation analysis and discussions related to timing/phasing of infrastructure implementation. Response 31: Acknowledged. Farmton AMDA Second Sufficiency Response MDO-10 Exhibit MDO-1 DEVO SEEREERAM, PH.D., P.E., LLC CONSULTING GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER FLORIDA REGISTRATION NO. 48303 Geotechnical Engineering • Ground Water Modeling • Software Development • Subcontract Drilling 5500 Alhambra Drive j Orlando, Florida 32808 j phone: 407-290-2371 j fax: 407-298-9011 e-mail: [email protected] www.devoeng.com Date: March 17, 2014 Devo’s Project No: 08-807.01 To: VOLUSIA COUNTY cc: VOLUSIA COUNTY Growth & Resource Management Dept 123 W. Indiana Avenue DeLand, FL 32720 Growth & Resource Management Dept 123 W. Indiana Avenue DeLand, FL 32720 attention: Becky Mendez, AICP Senior Planning Manager attention: Tom Carey phone: 386-736-5927 ext 12073 email: [email protected] phone: 386-736-5959 ext 12943 cc: LASSITER TRANSPORTATION GROUP, INC. cc: STORCH AND HARRIS, LLC 123 Live Oak Avenue Daytona Beach, FL 32114 420 South Nova Road Daytona Beach, FL 32114 attention: Matthew West, AICP phone: 386-257-2571 ext 313 email: [email protected] attention: Glenn Storch phone: 386-238-8383 ext 11 email: [email protected] Ref: RESPONSE TO COUNTY CONDITION #52 FROM FEBRUARY 26, 2014 DRAFT DEVELOPMENT ORDER FARMTON DRI VOLUSIA COUNTY, FLORIDA Dear Ms. Mendez: The following memo is a response to Condition #52, from Volusia County’s draft development order dated February 26, 2014, for the Farmton DRI. The specific text of Condition #52 reads as follows: Devo Seereeram, Ph.D., P.E. Consulting Geotechnical Engineer MDO-11 Page 1 52. Specifically, planning wellfields #4, #5 and #6 appear to be in an areas where the chloride levels in the Floridian Aquifer exceed 1000 mg/l. Each AIDA shall provide a treatment plan that may require a form of reverse osmosis or some other technology, or blending from other sources. The draft development order, which includes the above comment, is included in Attachment A. After speaking with Mr. Tom Carey (Volusia County), it is our understanding that this comment was originally offered as an advisory, since there are areas within Volusia County which are known to have high chloride concentrations in the Upper Floridan aquifer, and that if such conditions were encountered, then it would be necessary to provide appropriate water quality treatment to reduce the chloride concentration to render the water potable. As we understand, this comment was partially based on a USGS map of chloride concentration in the Upper Floridan aquifer (Tibbals, 1989), which is shown Exhibit 1 (next page). However, this comment does not appear to consider the site-specific water quality data which has been collected at the Farmton property. Within the Farmton property, a series of 4-inch diameter test wells were installed at twenty three (23) separate locations. Groundwater samples in the Upper Floridan Aquifer were obtained at three different depth intervals (generally 220 ft, 320 ft, and 400 ft below land surface). The results of this groundwater testing program are discussed in the following Devo Engineering report: Groundwater Quality & Quantity Evaluation For Potable Supply, Farmton Tree Farm, 59,000± Acres In Brevard County & Volusia County, Florida. September 2009. Several figures from the above referenced report are excerpted and attached along with this memo. The original figures have been modified in order to show the proposed wellfield locations. Figures 3.1 through 3.3 show the locations of the test wells, with some key groundwater parameters annotated at each well location, including chloride concentration. Figure 3.1 shows the test results at an average depth of about 220 ft (“A” wells). Figure 3.2 shows the test results at an average depth of about 320 ft (“B” wells). And Figure 3.3 shows the test results at an average depth of about 400 ft (“C” wells). The groundwater quality data from these test wells was also used to develop an understanding of the preferred areas for groundwater extraction from the Upper Floridan aquifer, as depicted in attached Figures 7.1 and 7.2, which take into account both the horizontal extent and relative depth of the fresh potable water resources on the Farmton property. The proposed Farmton wells are to be installed to a depth of about 230 ft below the ground surface, at similar depths to the “A” wells shown in attached Figure 3.1. As seen in the attached figures, particularly in Figures 7.1 and 7.2, Farmton wellfields #4, #5 and #6 are situated in areas where the chloride concentration in the upper portion of the Upper Floridan aquifer is expected to be less than 100 mg/l. Devo Seereeram, Ph.D., P.E. Consulting Geotechnical Engineer MDO-12 Page 2 Exhibit 1. Chloride Concentration In Upper Floridan Aquifer (Tibbals, 1989) Devo Seereeram, Ph.D., P.E. Consulting Geotechnical Engineer MDO-13 Page 3 Given the amount of site specific groundwater quality data which is now available across the Farmton property, and given the precise locations of the proposed wellfields, we believe that the concerns expressed in Condition #52 do not specifically apply to the Farmton wellfields. Therefore, we suggest that this condition not be included in the final development order. Please don’t hesitate to contact the undersigned if you have any questions regarding the information contained herein. Sincerely, Robert Casper Robert Casper, M.S.C.E., E.I. Geotechnical Engineer Devo Seereeram, Ph.D., P.E. Consulting Geotechnical Engineer Devo Seereeram, Ph.D., P.E. Principal Engineer Florida Registration No. 48303 Date: March 17, 2014 MDO-14 Page 4 FIGURES MDO-15 NORTH GRAPHIC SCALE N 129-134 2,500 0 2,500 7,500 5,000 44 125-128 LEGEND: 73-74 Monitor Well Test Sites 1 INTERSTATE 1-6 95 57 Active Floridan Wells Within 4 Mile Radious Active Surficial Wells Within 4 Mile Radious 77-79 7 Other Wells (proposed, inactive, etc.) MW-2 121-124 Published zone of low chloride in Floridan aquifer 80 142-145 Approximate Site Boundary MW-1 415 4 Mile Buffer (Edgewater test well) 12-17 8-11 81 442 Major Roads Railroad Right of Way 442 County Boundaries Active Bank Volusia County Ashby Lake 440 6.9 58 0.45 93.1 Well 1 Total Dissolved Soilds (mg/L) Total Organic Carbon (mg/L) Chloride (mg/L) Sulfide (mg/L) Iron (ug/L) Test Well 14A (250’) 2 43-56 120 Wetland 2 3 4 5 1 360 4.4 37 0.1 U 577 Pell Road 117 1 * This is only a treatment threshold and is not a drinking water standard 8 Test Site 8 (220’) 14 13 440 12 Wellfield 3 13 47 Test Site 19 0.1 U 18 11 (220’) 460 11 17 Wellfield 4 322 4.2 482 Test Site 16 27.2 17.3 4 (220’) 15 0.1 40.3 24 0.1 U 2,530 430 10 47 0.1 U 846 1,390 O’steen Maytown Road 500 mg/L 2.0 mg/L* 250 mg/L 0.3 mg/L* 300 ug/L Total Dissolved Solids Total Organic Carbon Chloride Sulfide Iron 82 18 10 Test Site 9 2 (220’) 7 Wellfield 2 380 6 4.3 Potable Standard Parameter 19-20 Powerline Easement Test Site 1 (200’) Test Site 6 (230’) 40-42 North Bank 360 5.7 15 0.1 U 100 118-119 Wellfield 1 Test Site 3 (220’) Well Depth Proposed Wells Well 2 484 12.6 58.7 0.1 830 39 Test Site 9 (220’) 526 Well 4A Test Site 23 16.6 2” dia 5 (220’)20 Well 4 50.9 Well 3A 2” dia. Well 3 112-116 0.364 1,790 Test Site 13 (220’) 452 14.8 10.1 0.16 10 ad 12 (220’) n Test Site 10 (220’) Wellfield 6 27 26 t ay 440 6.9 58 0.45 93.1 31 30 29 Well 5A Test Site 18 (220’) 34 Test Well 366 23 (220’) 6.3 450 5.0 82 2.74 348 24.9 86-107 0.1 Titusville 1,800 Area IV Wellfield) Well 8A 1 1/4 dia. Well 9 Well 9A 1 1/4” dia. Test Well 17 (230’) Test Well 15 (220’) 390 5.6 35 <0.45 1,880 36-38 M 28 Test Well Well 7A 2” dia. 296 14 (240’) 3.95 Wellfield 7 33 Well 5 Test SiteTest Site 18.1 32 0.1 Well 7 #1 21 (220’) 1,640 Test Well Well 6 35 290 3.4 13 0.45 U 1,050 Harney Lake n ee st O’ 20 (230’) Seminole County Ro ow 400 15.2 44.2 0.1 3,380 4164 470 6.5 71 1.4 162 95 0.24 21 22 158 24 Wellfield 5 Test Site 25 Test Well 7 (220’) West Bank 83-85 INTERSTATE 470 3.5 80 1.2 444 456 13.9 45.4 0.1 1,190 Well 8 21-24 Test Site 19 (220’) Test Site 438 6.72 46.1 0.65 49.9 #3 Test Site 22 (220’) 500 10.5 54.8 0.1 676 Test Site #2 Swallow Tail (Miami Corp.) Test Site 16 (230’) 410 7.2 37 <0.45 647 33 110-111 34-35 46 South Bank 108 Brevard County 25-26 58 27-30 31-32 46 109 North Brevard Wellfield 59-68 72 Titusville Areas II & III Wellfields 69-71 Figure Name: KEY GROUNDWATER QUALITY TEST RESULTS FOR “A” WELLS Image date: Feb. 2007 MDO-16 Project Name: FARMTON TREE FARM Checked & Approved By: DS Drawn By: AZ Date: 06-11-09 Scale: NOTED Project # 08-807.01 FIGURE 3.1 NORTH GRAPHIC SCALE N 129-134 2,500 0 2,500 7,500 5,000 44 125-128 LEGEND: 73-74 INTERSTATE 95 57 Monitor Well Test Sites 1 1-6 Active Floridan Wells Within 4 Mile Radious Active Surficial Wells Within 4 Mile Radious 77-79 7 Other Wells (proposed, inactive, etc.) MW-2 121-124 Published zone of low chloride in Floridan aquifer 80 142-145 Approximate Site Boundary MW-1 415 4 Mile Buffer (Edgewater test well) 12-17 8-11 81 442 Major Roads Railroad Right of Way 442 County Boundaries Active Bank Volusia County Ashby Lake 440 6.9 58 0.45 93.1 Well 1 Total Dissolved Soilds (mg/L) Total Organic Carbon (mg/L) Chloride (mg/L) Sulfide (mg/L) Iron (ug/L) Test Well 14A (250’) Well Depth 2 Proposed Wells 43-56 120 Wetland 118-119 2 3 4 5 Wellfield 1 1 474 5.9 53 0.16 120 Pell Road 117 500 mg/L 2.0 mg/L* 250 mg/L 0.3 mg/L* 300 ug/L Total Dissolved Solids Total Organic Carbon Chloride Sulfide Iron 82 1 18 10 Test Site 9 2 (320’) 7 Wellfield 2 400 6 5.7 Potable Standard Parameter 19-20 * This is only a treatment threshold and is not a drinking water standard 8 Test Site 8 (320’) 14 13 538 12 Wellfield 3 12.7 68.6 Test Site 19 0.4 18 11 (320’) 122 11 17 Wellfield 4 334 4.31 492 Test Site 16 25.9 15.9 4 (320’) 15 0.1 48.5 42 0.76 151 638 4.8 169 2.4 19.1 960 O’steen Maytown Road North Bank Powerline Easement Test Site 1 (315’) Test Site 6 (330’) 40-42 Test Site 3 (320’) 348 5 19.2 0.1 U 154 Well 2 722 7.36 201 6.47 50 39 Test Site 9 (320’) Well 4A 504 14.4 Test Site 2” dia 23 52.4 5 (320’)20 Well 4 0.4 Well 3A 2” dia. Well 3 112-116 0.1 1,310 Test Site 13 (320’) 444 15.8 22.6 0.1 168 ad 12 (320’) n Test Site 10 (320’) Wellfield 6 27 26 t ay n ee st O’ M 998 4.93 375 1.68 29.9 31 30 29 Ro ow 448 94 40.7 0.1 2,210 4164 700 5.5 210 3.5 433 95 21 22 106 24 Wellfield 5 Test Site 25 Test Well 7 (310’) West Bank 83-85 INTERSTATE Well 5A 28 Test Well Well 7A 2” dia. 304 14 (320’) 4.28 17.7 Wellfield 7 33 Well 5 Site 438 TestTest Site 0.218 32 Well 7 4.97 21 (320’) 1,040 Test Well Well 6 #1 35 90 20 (330’) Test Site 2.4 34 320 270 18 (320’) Test Well 378 4.8 Well 8A Well 8 572 6.11 25 23 (320’) 23.8 5.9 1 1/4 dia. XX 86-107 119 0.1 1,240 0.12 Titusville 1,200 Test Site Well 9 60.1 19 (320’)Test Seminole County Well 9A 1 1/4” dia. Test Well 17 (270’) Test Well 15 (350’) Harney Lake 1,000 6.2 390 2.9 288 36-38 460 3.6 96 0.81 311 456 5.58 45.6 1.53 40.2 21-24 Site #3 Area IV Wellfield) Test Site 22 (320’) 476 10.1 52 0.1 162 Test Site #2 Swallow Tail (Miami Corp.) Test Site 16 (300’) 1,000 4.9 400 5.4 130 33 110-111 34-35 46 South Bank 108 Brevard County 25-26 58 27-30 31-32 46 109 North Brevard Wellfield 59-68 72 Titusville Areas II & III Wellfields 69-71 Figure Name: MDO-17 KEY GROUNDWATER QUALITY TEST RESULTS FOR “B” WELLS Image date: Feb. 2007 Project Name: FARMTON TREE FARM Checked & Approved By: DS Drawn By: AZ Date: 06-11-09 Scale: NOTED Project # 08-807.01 FIGURE 3.2 NORTH GRAPHIC SCALE N 129-134 2,500 0 2,500 7,500 5,000 44 125-128 LEGEND: 73-74 Monitor Well Test Sites 1 INTERSTATE 1-6 95 57 Active Floridan Wells Within 4 Mile Radious Active Surficial Wells Within 4 Mile Radious 77-79 7 Other Wells (proposed, inactive, etc.) MW-2 121-124 Published zone of low chloride in Floridan aquifer 80 142-145 Approximate Site Boundary MW-1 415 4 Mile Buffer (Edgewater test well) 12-17 8-11 81 442 Major Roads Railroad Right of Way 442 County Boundaries Active Bank Volusia County Ashby Lake 440 6.9 58 0.45 93.1 Well 1 Total Dissolved Soilds (mg/L) Total Organic Carbon (mg/L) Chloride (mg/L) Sulfide (mg/L) Iron (ug/L) Test Well 14A (250’) 2 43-56 120 Wetland 118-119 2 3 4 5 Wellfield 1 1 892 5.54 230 1.84 266 Pell Road 117 500 mg/L 2.0 mg/L* 250 mg/L 0.3 mg/L* 300 ug/L Total Dissolved Solids Total Organic Carbon Chloride Sulfide Iron 82 1 18 10 Test Site 9 2 (400’) 7 Wellfield 2 1,060 6 5.39 Potable Standard Parameter 19-20 * This is only a treatment threshold and is not a drinking water standard 8 Test Site 8 (380’) 14 13 522 12 Wellfield 3 13.1 54.6 Test Site 19 0.12 18 11 (XX) 210 11 17 Wellfield 4 XX XX XX Test Site 16 XX XX 4 (XX) 15 XX XX 373 3.88 12.2 1,000 5.84 355 3 84.9 XX O’steen Maytown Road North Bank Powerline Easement Test Site 1 (380’) Test Site 6 (400’) 40-42 Test Site 3 (400’) 420 5.9 55.8 3.88 14.2 Well Depth Proposed Wells Well 2 XX XX XX XX XX 39 Test Site 9 (XX) Well 4A Test Site 23 2” dia 5 (XX) 20 Well 4 Well 3A 2” dia. Well 3 112-116 XX XX Test Site 13 (XX) XX XX XX XX XX ad n Test Site 10 (390’) 312 3.71 16.2 0.1 313 364 4.5 23.8 0.16 595 t ay n ee st O’ 29 28 M XX XX XX XX XX 31 30 Well 5A 2” dia. Test Well 14 (XX) Well 7A Wellfield 7 33 Well 5 Test Site 32 Test Well Well 6 #1 35 20 (410’) Test Site 34 Test Well 23 (XX) 18 (350’) XX XX XX XX XX 460 7.08 78.7 0.1 10 86-107 Titusville Area IV Wellfield) Well 8A 1 1/4 dia. Well 9 Well 9A 1 1/4” dia. Test Well 17 (340’) Test Well 15 (XX) Harney Lake Ro ow XX XX XX XX XX Wellfield 6 27 26 Seminole County 95 12 (XX) 4164 XX XX XX XX XX INTERSTATE 21 22 24 Wellfield 5 Test Site 25 Test Well 7 (XX) West Bank 83-85 XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX 862 4.57 285 4.72 10 36-38 Well 7 XX XX XX XX XX Well 8 Test Site 21 (XX) Test Site Test Site 19 (XX) XX XX XX XX XX 21-24 #3 Test Site 22 (XX) XX XX XX XX XX Test Site #2 Swallow Tail (Miami Corp.) Test Site 16 (XX) XX XX XX XX XX 33 110-111 34-35 46 South Bank 108 Brevard County 25-26 58 27-30 31-32 46 109 North Brevard Wellfield 59-68 72 Titusville Areas II & III Wellfields 69-71 Figure Name: MDO-18 KEY GROUNDWATER QUALITY TEST RESULTS FOR “C” WELLS Image date: Feb. 2007 Project Name: FARMTON TREE FARM Checked & Approved By: DS Drawn By: AZ Date: 06-11-09 Scale: NOTED Project # 08-807.01 FIGURE 3.3 NORTH GRAPHIC SCALE N 129-134 2,500 125-128 0 2,500 7,500 5,000 LEGEND: 73-74 Monitor Well Test Sites 1-6 57 Active Floridan Wells Within 4 Mile Radious Active Surficial Wells Within 4 Mile Radious 77-79 7 Other Wells (proposed, inactive, etc.) 121-124 Approximate Site Boundary 80 142-145 4 Mile Buffer Major Roads 12-17 Railroad Right of Way County Boundaries 81 8-11 Test Site 24 Active Bank A Wells, 45 mg/L zone B Wells, 45 mg/L zone Well 1 Volusia County C Wells, 45 mg/L zone 2 Test Site 25 Proposed Wells NOTES: 43-56 120 Wetland Test Site 3 Test Site 28 Test Site 26 118-119 2 3 4 5 Test Site 1 Wellfield 1 1 8 Test Site 6 117 Well 2 Zone III = third tier zone for water supply development Areas outside of Zone III (and south of Test Well 3) is not recommended for water supply development 18 Area north of Test Well 3 = not investigated Test Site 2 Test Site 27 Test Site 8 14 13 12 Wellfield 3 19 18 Test Site 11 17 Wellfield 4 11 Test Site 16 4 15 Test Site 13 39 112-116 Zone II = second tier zone for water supply development 19-20 Test Site 30 10 9 7 Wellfield 2 6 40-42 Zone I = most desirable zone for water supply development Test Site 29 21 22 24 Wellfield 5 25 Test Site Well 3A 2” dia. Well 3 83-85 Test Site 9 Well 4A Test Site 23 2” dia 20 5 Well 4 12 (220’) Test Well 7 31 Test Site 30 10 29 Wellfield 6 27 26 28 Well 5A 2” dia. Test Well 14 Wellfield 7 33 Well 5 32 Test Well Well 6 35 20 Test Site 34 Test Well 23 Seminole County 18 86-107 Titusville Area IV Wellfield) Well 7A Test Site 21 Well 8A 1 1/4 dia. Well 9 Test Well 15 Well 9A 1 1/4” dia. Test Well 17 Well 7 Well 8 21-24 Test Site 19 Test Site 22 Swallow Tail (Miami Corp.) 36-38 Test Site 16 33 110-111 34-35 108 Brevard County 25-26 58 27-30 31-32 109 North Brevard Wellfield 59-68 72 Titusville Areas II & III Wellfields 69-71 MDO-19 Figure Name: Preferred Areas for Extracting Potable Groundwater Image date: Feb. 2007 Project Name: FARMTON TREE FARM Checked & Approved By: DS Drawn By: AZ Date: 05-19-09 Scale: NOTED Project # 08-807.01 FIGURE 7.1 NORTH GRAPHIC SCALE N 129-134 2,500 125-128 0 2,500 7,500 5,000 LEGEND: 73-74 Monitor Well Test Sites 1-6 57 Active Floridan Wells Within 4 Mile Radious Active Surficial Wells Within 4 Mile Radious 77-79 7 Other Wells (proposed, inactive, etc.) 121-124 Approximate Site Boundary 80 142-145 4 Mile Buffer Major Roads 12-17 Railroad Right of Way County Boundaries 8-11 81 Active Bank A Wells, 45 mg/L zone B Wells, 45 mg/L zone Volusia County Ashby Lake B Wells, 85 mg/L zone Well 1 2 Proposed Wells 43-56 120 Wetland 19-20 Test Site 3 118-119 45 2 3 4 5 Wellfield 1 18 1 Test Site 8 1 10 9 7 Wellfield 2 Test Site 6 2 45 Test Site 45 6 40-42 85 14 13 Test Site 12 Wellfield 3 8 19 18 45 11 17 Wellfield 4 Test Site 16 Test Site 11 15 4 117 Test Site 9 Well 2 Test Site 13 39 23 Well 4 21 22 Wellfield 5 25 20 Well 3A 2” dia. Well 3 112-116 83-85 Well 4A 2” dia Test Site 24 5 85 Test Site 12 Test Well 7 31 Test Site 30 10 29 Wellfield 6 27 26 28 45 Well 5A 2” dia. Test Well 14 Well 7A Wellfield 7 33 Well 5 Test Site 32 Well 6 #1 35 Test Site 34 Test Well Test Well 23 20 Seminole County 86-107 Titusville Area IV Wellfield) 18 Well 8A 1 1/4 dia. Well 9 Well 7 Test Site 21 Well 8 Well 9A Test Site 19 1 1/4” dia. Harney Lake Test Well 15 85 Test Site #3 21-24 Test Site Test Site 22 #2 Swallow Tail (Miami Corp.) 36-38 Test Site 16 33 110-111 34-35 108 Brevard County 25-26 58 27-30 31-32 109 North Brevard Wellfield 59-68 72 Titusville Areas II & III Wellfields 69-71 MDO-20 Figure Name: Alternative Interpretation of Preferred Groundwater Extraction Image date: Feb. 2007 Project Name: FARMTON TREE FARM Checked & Approved By: DS Drawn By: SM Date: 08-13-09 Scale: NOTED Project # 08-807.01 FIGURE 7.2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 RESOLUTION NO. 2014-xx A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNTY COUNCIL OF VOLUSIA APPROVING THE MASTER COUNTY, FLORIDA, DEVELOPMENT ORDER (MDO) OF THE FARMTON MASTER DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT (MDRI), GENERALLY LOCATED WEST OF INTERSTATE 95 (I-95) AND SOUTH OF THE WESTERN EXTENSION OF INDIAN RIVER BOULEVARD, CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 47,000-ACRES TO BE DEVELOPED AS A SUSTAINABLE, SMART GROWTH DEVELOPMENT CONSISTING OF CONSERVATION, AGRICULTURAL, RESIDENTIAL, AND NON-RESIDENTIAL USES; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, County of Volusia, 123 West Indiana Avenue, DeLand, Florida 327204613, is a political subdivision of the State of Florida (hereafter COUNTY) and, as such, is authorized under the laws of Florida to create a Master Development of Regional Impact (MDRI) and process the same pursuant to Chapter 380.06, Florida Statutes (F.S.) NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNTY COUNCIL OF VOLUSIA COUNTY, FLORIDA, IN AN OPEN MEETING, DULY ASSEMBLED IN THE COUNTY COUNCIL CHAMBERS AT THE THOMAS C. KELLY ADMINSTRATION CENTER, 123 WEST INDIANA AVENUE, DELAND, FLORIDA, THIS __ DAY OF _____, 2014, A.D., AS FOLLOWS: I. FINDINGS OF FACT The Volusia County Council hereby makes the following Findings of Fact: 1. The Farmton Application for Master Development Approval (AMDA) for the MDRI is consistent with the Farmton Local Plan (FLP) adopted and incorporated into the Volusia County Comprehensive Plan. 2. The COUNTY's Comprehensive Plan has been adopted pursuant to Chapter 163, F.S., and found to be consistent by the former Florida Department of Community Affairs, now known as the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity, Division of Community Planning and Development. 1 April 2, 2014 combined MDO-21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 3. The FLP contains specified requirements for a sustainable mixed-use development that provides for the protection and preservation of valuable natural resources and these requirements shall be incorporated into the MDRI as part of the implementation of the FLP. 4. In accordance with the requirements contained in the FLP, the development of the MDRI will occur over a planning horizon of at least 50 years and meets the definition and terms for a "Master Development of Regional Impact" as specified in 380.06 (21), F.S., and 73C40.028, F.A.C. 5. On August 22, 2013, Volusia County approved the MDRI Agreement which establishes the framework for submitting the AMDA and identifies the timing of review of phases, increments, or issues related to regional impacts of the proposed development; and any other considerations that must be addressed in the AMDA and the agreement required by Section 380.06(21)(b), F.S. 6. The East Central Florida Regional Planning Council (ECFRPC) also approved the MDRI Agreement dated August 22, 2013, which establishes the framework for submitting the AMDA and identifies the timing of review of phases, increments, or issues related to regional impacts of the proposed development; and any other considerations that must be addressed in the AMDA and the agreement required by Section 380.06(21)(b), F.S. 7. The Volusia Growth Management Commission (VGMC) also approved the MDRI Agreement dated August 22, 2013, which establishes the framework for submitting the AMDA and identifies the timing of review of phases, increments, or issues related to regional impacts of the proposed development; and any other considerations that must be addressed in the AMDA and the agreement required by Section 380.06(21)(b), F.S. 8. On April 26, 2013, Glenn D. Storch, Attorney (the APPLICANT) for the Miami Corporation, (the OWNER) held a pre-application meeting with the ECFRPC and the COUNTY pursuant to the requirements of Chapter 380, F.S. and Chapter 73C-40, F.A.C., to initiate the application process for the MDRI. 9. Pursuant to Section 380.06 (7), F.S., and 73C-40.021, F.A.C., the APPLICANT held a preapplication conference on May 31, 2013, to allow for review of the proposed AMDA and to identify significant issues by local, regional, state and federal agencies. 10. On November 13, 2013, the APPLICANT submitted the AMDA for the MDRI as described in Exhibit 1 of this MDO to the ECFRPC and to various local, regional, state and federal agencies pursuant to Chapter 380.06, F.S. The ECFRPC held a public hearing on 2 April 2, 2014 combined MDO-22 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 [INSERT DATE] to approve a regional report regarding the AMDA and to issue its final recommendations. 11. On December 13, 2013, the ECFRPC issued its First Sufficiency review comments and on March 7, 2014, the ECFRPC issued its Second Sufficiency review comments. 12. The APPLICANT provided responses to the ECFRPC Sufficiency Review comments on February 4, 2014 and April 10, 2014 (the first and second sufficiency responses, respectively). 13. On [INSERT DATE], the COUNTY submitted the AMDA for the MDRI to the VGMC, which held a public hearing on [INSERT DATE]to certify the AMDA and issue its final recommendations. 14. Pursuant to the FLP Policy FG 8.11, the cities of Deltona, Edgewater, Oak Hill and New Smyrna Beach were sent copies of all correspondence and applications and invited to review and comment throughout the MDRI application process. 15. The subject property does not lie within an Area of Critical State Concern, as designated by Chapter 380.05, F.S. 16. All public hearings as required by Chapter 380.06, F.S., have been duly noticed and held on the following dates : [INSERT PUBLIC HEARING DATES]. 17. The conceptual development program (CDP) within the MDRI is shown on Exhibit 2, Map H of this MDO and includes the following acreage: 27 Approximate Acreage based on GIS within the MDRI Boundary Sustainable Development Areas (SDA) 15,093 At least 3,750 (includes MRBOS) Resource Based Open Space (RBOS) 1,572 Mandatory RBOS GreenKey 31,295 18,796 Farmton Mitigation Bank 12,499 Non FMB GreenKey 28 29 30 31 3 April 2, 2014 combined MDO-23 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 3 Excludes educational and institutional uses II. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Based upon the findings of fact, the County Council hereby makes the following Conclusions of Law: 1. The development permitted by this MDO is consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the State Comprehensive Plan and the Strategic Regional Policy Plan. 2. The development permitted by this MDO is consistent with the COUNTY's Comprehensive Plan and the COUNTY's applicable land development regulations. 3. The development permitted by this MDO is consistent with the report and the recommendations of the ECFRPC dated [INSERT DATE]. 4. The development permitted by this MDO is consistent with the MDRI Agreement approved by the APPLICANT, ECFRPC, VGMC and the COUNCIL. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY ORDERED AND RESOLVED, by the County Council of Volusia County, Florida, that based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of law and subject to the following terms and conditions, the MDO is approved, pursuant to § 380.06, F.S., other applicable State laws and Regulations of the COUNTY, subject to the following terms and conditions set forth in this Master Development Order. III. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL GENERAL CONDITIONS 1. This MDO shall be binding upon the COUNTY and shall be binding upon the owners of real property within the MDRI, their assignees, or successors in interest, including any entity or entities that may assume any of the responsibilities imposed by this MDO. Reference herein to any reviewing agency shall be construed to mean any agency that may in the future be created or designated as a successor in interest to, or that otherwise will possess any of the powers and duties of the reviewing agency with respect to the implementation and administration of the MDRI program and this MDO. 4 April 2, 2014 combined MDO-24 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 2. The MDRI shall be developed as described in the AMDA as submitted by the APPLICANT on November 13, 2013, the Farmton AMDA First and Second Sufficiency Responses submitted by the APPLICANT on [February 4, 2014] and on [April 10, 2014] respectively. 3. Development of the MDRI shall conform to the AMDA and the conditions of approval set forth in this MDO. Development based upon this approval shall comply with all other applicable Federal, State and County laws, ordinances and regulations which are incorporated herein by reference. 4. This MDO shall govern the development of land located in Volusia County, as described in Exhibit 1. The MDRI property shall have the following development entitlements consistent with the CDP: 1 Uses 2017-2025 Residential Units Non-Residential Square Feet Total 18,408 23,100 820,217 3,879,783 4,700,000 4,692 3 2026-2060 2 Notes: 1 Entitlements from 2017-2025 may be transferred to 2026-2060 in accordance with the Farmton Local Plan after 2025 2 Limited to 2,287 dwelling units without a finding of adequate school capacity 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 3 Excludes educational and institutional uses 5. The Applications for Incremental Development Approvals (AIDAs) shall be developed in accordance with the information, data, plans and commitments contained in the AMDA and supplemental information incorporated herein by reference, unless otherwise provided by the conditions of this MDO. This MDOThe Farmton Local Plan shall prevail over any conflicting information, data, plan or commitments. including the Master Development Order and Incremental Development Orders. The Master Development Order shall prevail over subsequent Incremental Development Orders. For the purposes of this condition, the AMDA shall consist of the following items: a. AMDA dated November 2013, signed by Glenn D. Storch on November 8, 2013 b. First Sufficiency Response dated [February 2014, signed by Glenn D. Storch on February 3, 2014.] c. Second Sufficiency Response dated [April 2014 signed by Glenn D. Storch on April 9, 2014] 6. The review of the AIDAs shall comply with the following: 5 April 2, 2014 combined MDO-25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 a. Each increment shall hold a pre-application conference or any future equivalent as established by ECFRPC. b. Each increment shall take into accountaddress cumulative development impacts from existing and vested development within the MDRIapproved study area, regardless of jurisdiction, when preparing studies and analyses required when addressing to address the DRI questions. c. Vesting of increments for the purposes of ensuring compliance with the provisions of this MDRI and the Volusia County Concurrency Management System, or its successor, shall be based on the date of the approval of the Incremental Development Order (IDO) or equivalent development order. d. Unused, entitled development from one incremental phaseincrement shall be eligible for transfer to another increment without requiring a determination of non-substantial deviation, provided the use is allowed within the new increment area based on the FLP and this MDORI. e. Each AIDA shall provide information as per Exhibit B of the Farmton Master DRI Agreement, attached and incorporated by reference as Exhibit 3 and shall address all questions in the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity form RPM-BSP-ADA-1 in full, unless waived or modified as a result of the AIDA pre-application conference. f. Each AIDA shall identify the capital improvements strategy necessary to support the proposed development program (by phase), the cost of such improvements, the funding mechanisms/funding source for the improvements, and the party responsible for ensuring the completion of each necessary improvement. Each AIDA shall also identify contingency plans in the event the AIDA relies on a capital improvement(s) of another AIDA(s) or a public project(s) which is not completed per the approved phasing plan. Contingency plans will be based on the circumstances, and may include, but are not limited to: i. absorbing the cost and responsibility for the delayed improvements, or ii. amending the phasing and construction of the AIDA until the improvements are made, or iii. reducing the development program of the AIDA wherein the improvements are no longer necessary to support the AIDA, or iv. proposing alternative mitigation to support the AIDA, i.v. or a combination of the options. 7. The land uses and entitlements identified in the MDO identify the principle uses allowed within the Farmton MDRI, in accordance with the FLP. This does not preclude the use of typical accessory or ancillary uses normally allowed for approved principal uses. 8. The property may continue to be used for agricultural purposes until a Preliminary Plat or Final Site Plan Development Order is issued. The approval of this MDO will not impact any 6 April 2, 2014 combined MDO-26 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 agricultural exemptions granted to the property by the Volusia County Property Appraiser as long as the property is being used for a bona fide agricultural use. (FG 8.5) 9. The CDP attached as Exhibit 2 (also known as Map H) provides for the general location of land uses, conservation areas and the transportation network (trails, roadways, transportation corridors, etc.). It is anticipated with each AIDA that the provision of detailed information may require minor adjustments to the CDP that include: a. Adjustment of the internal boundaries of the Sustainable Development Areas (SDAs) of less than 660-feet; b. Shifting of the alignment of the internal roads shown on the CDP to protect natural resources within the MDRI; c. Adjustments to the road network to accommodate Federal, State or County design requirements; d. Adjustment to conservation boundaries to account for ground-truthing, provided the amount of land designated as GreenKey and Resource Based Open Space (RBOS) is not less than 35,045 acres. 10. This MDO shall take effect on [INSERT DATE] and shall not expire until twenty (20) years after the build-out date of the Incremental Development Order of the AIDA which results in securing the remaining entitlements that constitute the build-out development program for the MDRI, and provided that the completed portions and the remaining portions of the MDRI comply with the conditions of this MDO and provisions of Chapter 380.06, F.S. 11. This MDO shall not be subject to down-zoning, unit density reduction or intensity reduction and shall be deemed certified as vested, and as a result of said vestinguntil twenty (20) years after the build-out date of the Incremental Development Order of the AIDA which results in completing the build-out development program for the MDRI. ,As a result of the approval of the MDO, conservation covenants shall be transferred to perpetual conservation easements. In addition, the reverter provision contained in the deed of Deering Preserve at Deep Creek shall be removed. 12. Compliance with the terms and conditions of this MDO shall be monitored through the provisions of the COUNTY's established review and approval processes, for development, as amended in the future. The Director of Growth and Resource Management or successor position, or his/her designee shall be the official responsible party for monitoring compliance with this MDO. 13. Subject to the limitations of the Farmton Local Plan and specifically Policy FG 8.6, the COUNTY may approve the conversion of residential units to commercial intensities for the 7 April 2, 2014 combined MDO-27 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 pre-2025 maximum development potential by using a development equivalency matrix, which is attached as Exhibit 4 of this MDO. provided that the net p.m. peak-hour external trips do not exceed 6,821 (FG 3.4). Use of the matrix may increase or decrease the total amount of each land use by no more than the amount allowed for in the substantial deviation criteria identified in §380.06(19) F.S., unless this MDO is amended to accommodate such a change. Written notice shall be provided to the ECFRPC, Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) and Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO) a minimum of thirty (30) days prior to the use of the matrix for a development permit application. Uses of the matrix shall be reported on an individual and cumulative basis and the impacts documented in the next biennial report. The notice and subsequent report shall demonstrate that the use of the matrix has not resulted in additional impacts to the transportation network, schools, or affordable housing. Any and all Notice of Proposed Change (NOPC) submittals shall also incorporate any changes resulting from the use of the matrix. 14. The FLP contains two planning horizons. The initial planning horizon is from 2017 through 2025. The initial development entitlements for this first planning horizon shall be 2,287 dwelling units and 820,217 square feet of non-residential uses. Any increase above 2,287 to the currently allowable maximum density of 4,692 dwelling units will be effective only upon a finding of school adequacy from the Volusia County School District. There shall be no increases in the density or intensity of development during this planning horizon beyond what is allowed by the FLP. The second planning horizon is from 2026 through 2060. The maximum intensity of the second planning horizon shall consist of 18,408 dwelling units and 3,879,783 million square feet of non-residential development, unless entitlements are transferred from the first planning horizon in accordance with the FLP. At build-out of the FLP, there will be a maximum of 23,100 dwelling units and 4,700,000 million square feet of non-residential uses (exclusive of institutional uses). SPECIFIC CONDITIONS QUESTION 9 – MAPS 14.15. Each AIDA shall include a map or maps G, in addition to all the other required maps. Map G shall also depict the location of existing and proposed Resource-Based Open Space and Mandatory Resource-Based Open Space within or in close proximity to the AIDA boundaries. 15.16. Each AIDA shall include on its Map H potential wildlife crossings for roadways within the AIDA boundary and adjacent areas. 8 April 2, 2014 combined MDO-28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 QUESTION 10 – GENERAL PROJECT DESCRIPTION 17. Specific Demographic, Employment and Phasing Information tables shall be provided for each AIDA. Each AIDA shall comply with the provisions of Exhibit 8 of this MDO, Jobs to Housing Balance Methodology. QUESTION 11 – REVENUE GENERATION 16.18. Specific revenue generation information shall be provided with each AIDA in accordance with the approved Fiscal Neutrality methodology attached as Exhibit 5 of this MDO. QUESTION 12 – VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE 17.19. At least 25 percent of Sustainable Development Area Districts as a whole shall be Resourced-based Open Space and the Mandatory Resource-based Open Space shall be included in the calculation of the 25 percent requirement. Approximately 1,572 acres of Mandatory Resource-based Open Space has already been protected with conservation easements/conservation covenants. The balance of the required Resource-based Open Space shall be identified and preserved as part of the development review process of Volusia County. The identification of areas to be designated as Resource-based Open Space shall be approved in consultation with the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, St. Johns River Water Management District, ECFRPC, and by all entities that are parties to the conservation easements required by Policy FG 2.12 of the Farmton Local Plan. The identification of the remaining, required Resource-based Open Space shall be predicated on the following priorities: a. Preserve lands on the perimeter of Sustainable Development Areas which are contiguous to GreenKey lands or Mandatory Resource-based Open Space. b. Eliminate or minimize habitat fragmentation and promote habitat connectivity by creating new or enhancing existing wildlife corridors. c. Provide connections to conservation lands external to Farmton. d. Protect flood plains and wetlands and upland buffers. e. Protect specialized habitat for listed flora and fauna, and under-represented natural communities. 18.20. Detailed wildlife and plant surveys shall be performed in conjunction with each AIDA submittal consistent with local, State and Federal requirements in effect at the time of 9 April 2, 2014 combined MDO-29 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 AIDA submittal. Exotic, invasive species shall be addressed in accordance with the Conservation Management Plan (CMP). 19.21. If protected species are found on-site, a management plan shall be prepared, if required, to supplement the adopted Conservation Management Plan, to mitigate any adverse effects the AIDA may have on the species. 20.22. Each AIDA will be responsible for consulting with the FWC in developing and adopting conservation measures towards minimizing and managing human-wildlife conflicts. That responsibility shall include implementation and fiscal support for outreach and education programs consistent with FWC recommendations, including for “BearSmart Communities.” 21.23. Except as otherwise allowable by this MDO or by permits obtained by developers of the Project from one or more agencies including Volusia County Environmental Management, the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC), the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers (ACOE) or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services (FWS), site development activities on the Property shall not result in the harming, pursuit of, or harassment of wildlife species classified as endangered, threatened, or a species of special concern (listed species) in contravention of applicable State or Federal laws. Should such listed species be at any time determined to be roosting or residing on, or otherwise significantly dependent upon the Property, the Developer shall take all steps required by local, State or Federal law, and the regulations and rules implementing the same, to conduct all necessary evaluations as to the impacts proposed as to any listed species and to provide appropriate protection to the listed specified identified in conformity with and to the satisfaction of all agencies of either the local, State or Federal government having jurisdiction over the same. Further, the Developer shall obtain such permits and licenses as are required under local, State and/or Federal law to ensure that the development program contemplated by this MDO is in full compliance with all applicable laws and regulations or rules implementing the same. The conservation, preservation and management of existing regionally - and locally - significant natural resources shall be identified in the adopted CMP. 22.24. The Southwest Wildlife Corridor includes portions of the GreenKey land and Mandatory Resource Based Open Space located within the SDA (see Exhibit 6). These lands combined create an undulating corridor that is approximately one mile in width. Lands within the Southwest Wildlife Corridor shall be managed consistent with a conservation management plan designed to provide prescribed fire, promote dense understory vegetation such as palmetto, and encouragement of uneven-age management techniques and consistent with the black bear management plan. Within the Mandatory Resource Based Open Space, portions of the Southwest Wildlife Corridor lands shall be managed to protect wildlife habitat 10 April 2, 2014 combined MDO-30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 through conservation, enhancement and restoration. These Mandatory Resource Based Open Space portions of the Southwest Wildlife Corridor may include wetlands, flood plains, mitigation areas, vegetative buffers, and specialized habitat for flora or fauna which shall qualify as the minimum 25% requirement set forth in FG 2.4. The CMP within the Southwest Wildlife Corridor shall specifically address habitat requirements of the Florida Black Bear. The black bear management plan shall be developed in consultation with the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission consistent with their Black Bear Habitat Management Guidelines and best available science. Lands designated as Mandatory Resource Based Open Space shall not be subject to the public access and shall be subject to the Black Bear Management Plan. 23.25. All of the GreenKey lands and some of the Mandatory Resource Based Open Space areas have been identified by Volusia County as an area of interconnected natural systems of environmentally sensitive lands, including public and private conservation areas and lands linking these areas (including but not limited to agricultural/rural lands, scenic vistas, habitat buffers, and other open space connections) where possible to achieve wildlife and habitat connectivity. County Council adopted a CMP on March 21, 2013 with the goal of maintaining and enhancing wildlife and habitat connectivity. The management and oversight of these resources shall be coordinated by the owner, the COUNTY pursuant to the approved CMP, as required by the Farmton Local Plan. 24.26. Each AIDA shall show the location of proposed wildlife crossing structures and include key details such as key/target species anticipated to use each wildlife crossing; size of each crossing structure; how the various structures will be designed to accommodate all species anticipated to use them; and associated fencing and vegetation used at each proposed crossing. Each AIDA shall indicate such crossings on Map H. 25.27. Applicants for AIDAs shall consult with the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission and Volusia County on methodologies for conducting surveys for fish and wildlife species, measures for avoiding impacts to fish and wildlife species and their habitats, and recommendations for minimizing and/or mitigating unavoidable impacts. QUESTION 13 -- WETLANDS 26.28. Avoidance and minimization of wetland impacts shall be consistent with the Volusia County Comprehensive Plan, the COUNTY Land Development Regulations, and applicable state and federal wetland permitting programs. 11 April 2, 2014 combined MDO-31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 27.29. A detailed inventory of all wetlands and environmentally sensitive lands shall be performed in conjunction with each AIDA submittal. 28.30. Detailed historic hydroperiods and seasonal high water elevations shall be provided for each AIDA. 29.31. Proposed hydroperiods, seasonal water elevations and methods of preservation shall be provided at the time of each AIDA submittal. Wetland enhancement areas, if needed, shall be determined during each AIDA submittal. Detailed data regarding wetland mitigation shall be provided during the AIDA process, if necessary. 30.32. All preserved wetlands within a Sustainable Development Area shall have an average 75 feet, but no less than 50 feet, upland buffer width. Wetlands within GreenKey lands shall have an average 100 feet, but no less than 75 feet, upland buffer width. If different buffer widths are required by a permitting agency, the wider buffer shall apply. 31.33. Proposed activities within the Farmton Local Plan shall be planned to avoid adverse impacts for wetlands and the required buffers as described in condition 33 32. Land uses which are incompatible with protection and conservation of wetlands shall be directed away from wetlands. However, it is recognized that the development of educational facilities and clustering of development in the Town Center and Work Place districts, necessary to ensure a compact development pattern within the urban core, may result in the loss of some wetlands. If these wetland impacts cannot be avoided, the developer shall impact only those wetlands which are determined through applicable regulatory review to be of low ecological significance to the overall integrity of the larger wetland regime. Impacted wetlands shall be evaluated through the applicable federal, state and county regulatory review, with the goal of avoiding wetland impacts to the fullest extent practicable. Where land uses are allowed to occur, mitigation shall be considered as one means to compensate for loss of wetlands function, so as to ensure that there is no overall net loss of wetland function and value. In cases where alteration of the minimum required buffer as indicated in condition 3332 above, is determined to be unavoidable, appropriate mitigation shall be required. It is also recognized that impacted or isolated wetlands may be enhanced or restored as part of water resource development or and approved alternative water supply project. 32.34. Development activities within or associated with the Farmton Master DRI must comply with all applicable local, state and federal wetland permitting requirements in effect at the time the development activity is proposed. 12 April 2, 2014 combined MDO-32 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 QUESTION 14 – WATER 33.35. In order to ensure sustainability of water resources and to provide for an efficient use of water resources, site-specific surface water data and groundwater for the Sustainable Development Areas shall be provided at the time of each AIDA. 34.36. Best management practices recommended by the St. Johns River Water Management District shall be implemented for developed portions of the Sustainable Development Areas to minimize impacts on receiving surface waters. 37. Stormwater reuse ponds may be used to further reduce discharge of runoff by distributing captured stormwater throughout the development for irrigation and, where possible, for other uses which do not require potable water. or it may be treated so that it qualifies as and supplements potable water supplies. QUESTION 15 – SOILS 35.38. Because site-specific development impacts have not been identified in the AMDA, details regarding subsidence, the protection and/or use of geological features, specific construction methods that take into account soil limitations, steps taken during site preparation and construction to prevent or control wind erosion, detailed information regarding proposed plans for clearing, grading, and erosion control, as well as the use of fill or placement of spoil shall be addressed with each individual AIDA. QUESTION 16 – FLOODPLAINS[M1] To be negotiated further. 36.39. Impacts to the 100-year flood plain shall be minimized. Any impacts shall be fully mitigated by providing compensating storage on-site. 37.40. Post development flood prone areas shall be identified as part of each AIDA submittal. 38.41. Each AIDA shall provide a flood study with sufficient engineering analysis to establish a Base Flood Elevation (BFE) , which considers the Deep Creek Stormwater Master Plan as prepared by CDM, Inc, on behalf of the County, dated XXX. 39.42. Detailed information regarding impacts to the floodplains and potential mitigation shall be provided with each AIDA submittal. 13 April 2, 2014 combined MDO-33 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 40.43. Each[M2] AIDA shall provide evidence that the finished floor elevation of all building sitesbuildings will be located outside ofabove the 100-yr floodplain, which may be accomplished by FEMA Letter of Map Revision (LOMR), or other mechanism to be approved by the COUNTYyear flood plain. 41.44. Applicants for AIDAs within the Deep Creek Drainage Basin will need to consider the Deep Creek Stormwater Master Plan, as may be amended or replaced by the COUNTY from time to time, when assessing floodplain impacts within the basin. QUESTION 17 – WATER SUPPLY 42.45. Farmton Water Resources LLC and the City of Edgewater are the authorized water providers for the Farmton Local Plan properties. 43.46. Details regarding water supply shall be provided with each AIDA submittal and shall be consistent with the Farmton Local Plan, specifically Objective FG 4, Policies FG 4.2.c, FG 4.5 through 4.9, and FG4.14 through 4.21. 44.47. Operation and maintenance responsibilities of the central potable water system shall be established with each AIDA submittal. 45.48. All The goal is for residential and nonresidentialdevelopment within Farmton to achieve water neutrality. All residential development must comply at a minimum with Florida Water StarSM Standards for silver certification, at a minimum, with gold standard the preference. Non-residential development shall meet Florida Water StarSM silver certification standards unless otherwise waived by Volusia County staff in the interest of moderate income or higher wage job creation or economic development that increases Volusia County’s gross domestic product. 46.49. Water design shall incorporate conservation measures and water reuse so that as nearly as possible it incorporates water neutrality into the construction and operation of the development such that potable water supply would equal water saved through conservation and reuse. Water neutrality shall mean that potable and nonpotable sources of water are provided solely within the boundaries of the Farmton Local Plan and sources outside the boundaries of the Farmton Local Plan are not needed to support new development. 47.50. Landscaping materials planted within Farmton shall be Florida Friendly as indicated at www.floridayards.org.. Development within Farmton shall employ proper 14 April 2, 2014 combined MDO-34 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 design to minimize the removal of existing, native vegetation or planting with Florida Friendly plants so that many of these open spaces do not require irrigation. QUESTION 18 – WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT 48.51. Details regarding wastewater management shall be provided with each AIDA submittal and shall be consistent with the Farmton Local Plan, specifically Objective FG 4, Policies FG 4.19 through 4.21. 52. The use of septic tanks shall not be allowed within the Farmton MDRI and theexcept under the following limited circumstances as otherwise approved by the County: f. Septic systems may only be utilized to serve passive, recreational facilities, recreational trail facilities, or environmental education centers on Greenkey lands that are remote from central wastewater systems (more than 1/4 mile from the nearest existing wastewater line). g. A discharge limit of 10 milligrams per liter of total nitrogen is required (nitrogenreducing performance-based treatment system) for every septic system serving the uses listed above. 49.53. The operation and maintenance responsibilities of the central wastewater management system shall be established with each AIDA submittal, except for park and recreational facilities or other remote, isolated property not served by extended utility lines, and otherwise approved by the County. QUESTION 19 – STORMWATER MANAGEMENT[M3] To be negotiated further. 50.54. A stormwater management plan for each AIDA shall utilize existing surface waters and wetlands in conjunction with man-made treatment ponds for stormwater management. The conveyance of off-site stormwater in the pre-development condition shall be maintained to the existing outfall locations. 51.55. Post-development stormwater management areas shall be identified in each AIDA. Within each Sustainable Development Area, the stormwater management system may combine wet-detention ponds, stormwater reuse ponds, bio-retention swales, and restoration of natural hydroperiods in the on-site wetlands, as approved by the COUNTY and St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD). 15 April 2, 2014 combined MDO-35 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 52.56. The[M4] proposed rate of discharge from the post-development site shall be less than or equal to the pre-development discharge rate. The site discharges shall be minimized by on-site detention within the stormwater management system and the recycling of stormwater for non-potable water used throughout the development. 53.57. Operation and maintenance responsibilities for the stormwater management system shall be established with each AIDA. 54.58. Development within Farmton or development associated within Farmton shall comply with all local, state and federal stormwater permitting requirements in effect at the time the development activity is proposed. 55.59. A[M5] nutrient analysis with addressing TMDL regulations and a Basin Management Action Plan shall be submitted with each AIDA where impaired water bodies are impacted. A dual treatment system (wet detention and dry retention) may be required if the treatment efficiency required is greater than 64.5%. QUESTION 20 – SOLID WASTE 56.60. Detailed information regarding volume of industrial, hazardous, medical or other special wastes shall be provided at the time of AIDA submittal, where applicable. Details regarding hazardous or toxic materials which may be generated within an SDA shall be provided at the time of AIDA submittal, if applicable. Detailed information regarding types and volumes of waste and waste disposal areas shall be provided at the time of AIDA submittal, where applicable. 57.61. Each AIDA shall require that all solid waste, yard waste, construction and demolition debris, commercial waste collection and recyclable contracts include provisions for such disposal at the Volusia County Tomoka Farms Road Class I Landfill Facility, 1990 Tomoka Farms Road, Port Orange, Florida or The West Volusia Transfer Station, 3151 East State Road 44, DeLand, Florida as a condition of approval. QUESTION 21 – TRANSPORTATION 62. The study areas of subsequent AIDAs shall be determined in accordance with applicable DRI review standards and will address significant impacts defined under section 380.06, Florida Statutes (2009), and in accordance with policy FG 8.10a of the FLP. 16 April 2, 2014 combined MDO-36 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 58.63. The transportation analysis included in the AMDA is to be used for long-range planning “snap shot” to ensure that future increments of the MDRI provide for an efficient and sustainable transportation system. The analysis provides for a projection of potential transportation impacts based on the built-out estimation of the MDRI and assumes existing travel characteristics that do not include significant multi-modal options. The AMDA methodology and study is adequate for this “snapshot” purpose, but further validation is required with AIDA transportation studies which shall follow the standard DRI review processes and procedures. It is understood by all parties that the timing and mix of actual development programs, conditions, and technologies will change over the life of this projectFarmton and that changes. Changes to the assumptions, including but not limited to internal capture, trip generation, modal split, etc. will need to be includedupdated as part of the processing of future AIDAs and their respective monitoring and modeling as well as for all future AIDAsrequirements. 59.64. The MDRI is to be developed as a sustainable community and will emphasize the need to provide for multi-modal forms of transportation. The land use policies established in this MDO and the related comprehensive plan goals, objectives and policies establish standards for transit-oriented development that will maximize internal capture within the MDRI. The ultimate goal is to lower the vehicle miles traveled (VMT) within and external to the projectFarmton. Each AIDA application shall include standards/strategies for multimodal transportation systems based on those projects previously approved within the Farmton MDRI and those that are being permitted as part of the AIDA application. It is understood that all transit operations must comply with the requirements of fiscal neutrality as established in this MDRI MDO. Additionally, transit planning and operations shall be coordinated with Votran, Space Coast Area Transit and the City of Edgewater (Restoration) to ensure connectivity and compatibility of the different systems. The standards/strategies for the AIDAs may include provisions from the following documents, but are not limited to these standards since technology and operations will change over time: a. A Framework for Transit-Oriented Development in Florida prepared for FDOT, March 2011 b. Transit Development Design Guidelines Votran, February 26, 2008 c. Strategies of the National Complete Streets Coalition and Smart Growth America d. Strategies of the Center for Transit-Oriented Development 60.65. (FG 5.7) The FLP establishes a transportation spine network of arterial roads that identifies approximate alignments and right-of-way widths of the arterials and interchanges consistent with the needs of access between major uses on and off-site and access to the external transportation network. The timing of the construction of the facilities listed below shall be consistent with the cumulative access and external network connectivity needs of 17 April 2, 2014 combined MDO-37 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 each AIDA and shall be coordinated with FDOT, the River to Sea Transportation Planning Organization (R2CTPO), Volusia County, Brevard County and affected municipalities. The final alignment may be impacted by such factors as wetland avoidance, habitat avoidance, final design criteria, and utility impacts. Construction of the transportation spine network is the sole responsibility of the owner/developer. Additionally, the roadway corridors within the Farmton MDRI will be sized and designed to accommodate multi-modal forms of transportation in a manner that ensures compatibility and connectivity with providers of regional systems and that is generally consistent with the Exhibit 7 of this MDO.. The following identifies the minimum right-of-way widths and connections of the transportation spine network: a. A 200-feet-wide multi-modal right-of-way shall be preserved through the FLP area for Maytown Road. Direct access from Maytown Road to SR 415 shall be required within five-years of the commencement of any development within the FLP occurring on, or accessing Maytown Road. The improvement of Maytown Road shall provide for adequate path crossings, wildlife crossings, elevated roads, and utility crossings, as set forth in FG 2.18 of the Volusia County Future Land Use Element. Additionally, any improvements or reconstruction of Maytown Road shall factor intake into account the potential designation of this road as an emergency evacuation route for southeast Volusia County. Should the developer(s)/landowner(s) of Farmton wish to establish a higher level of maintenance than routinely applied by the COUNTY to other public collectors and arterials, Farmton shall absorb the additional maintenance costs. b. A future interchange access to Interstate 95 at the existing Maytown Road underpass shall be constructed in potential, partial mitigation of over-capacity conditions at adjacent interchange(s), subject to the procedural requirements set for by Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) for interstate connections. Adequate setbacks from the proposed interchange shall be required to protect the traffic-handling capacity of the proposed interchange. Planning for this interchange is a vital component of the overall transportation system and network. Coordination with the COUNTY, River to Sea Transportation Planning Organization (R2CTPO) and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) shall be required to start with the approval of the MDRI DO and shall be required to be addressed in the application of AIDAs. It is understood by the applicant that the planning, design and construction of interchanges with interstate highways requires extensive time and that any monitoring and modeling program required of the MDRI and AIDAs shall ensure the interchange justification process is initiated in accordance with FHWA procedures and requirements. c. A 200-feet-wide multi-modal right-of-way shall be preserved for the proposed Deering Parkway (formerly known as (FKA) Williamson Boulevard Extension) from the SR 442 Extension, through the FLP in Brevard County, with access to the existing Interstate 95 interchange at CR 5A. Farmton shall absorb all maintenance costs for Deering Parkway as long as it remains a private facility and is not designated as a County Thoroughfare. In 18 April 2, 2014 combined MDO-38 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 the event that Deering Parkway is dedicated as a public roadway and is designated by Volusia County as a County Thoroughfare, Farmton shall absorb the maintenance costs for the roadway that exceed the standard maintenance level-of-service costs for a typical public collector or arterial roadway. d. The proposed Deering Parkway (FKA Williamson Boulevard Extension) shall connect to the existing CR 5A interchange at I-95. Development setback from the proposed interchange shall be required to protect the traffic-handling capacity of the proposed interchange. e. A 200-feet-wide multi-modal right of way for a new northwest quadrant connection between Deering Parkway (FKA Williamson Boulevard Extension) and Maytown Road shall be provided known currently as Arterial A, and its location is generally depicted on the Farmton Local Plan map (Map H and Map H-1). Farmton shall absorb all maintenance costs for Arterial A as long as it remains a private facility and is not designated as a County Thoroughfare. In the event that Arterial A is dedicated as a public roadway and is designated by Volusia County as a County Thoroughfare, Farmton shall absorb the maintenance costs for the roadway that exceed the standard maintenance level-of-service costs for a typical public collector or arterial roadway. 61.66. (FG 2.18b)As Maytown Road and Arterial A are improved as required by the FLP to accommodate the long term regional transportation needs of the area they shall be designed consistent with the following additional design guidelines: a. Promotes “parkway” look with appropriate natural buffer between the roadways and the adjacent areas; b. Minimizes any impacts to habitat and species conserving habitat connectivity by innovative measures; c. Follows, where feasible, existing road alignments through environmentally sensitive areas although alignments may be realigned to provide for greater public safety or natural resource protection; d. At a minimum, the road design will mitigate for adverse impacts or maintain the existing habitat connectivity levels for wildlife afforded by the current road and traffic levels to the maximum extent practicable under the best available science as determined by FFWCC. 62.67. (FG 2.18c)The design of Maytown Road and Arterial A as required by the FLP shallshould include the following criteria for features and construction: a. Consideration of re-alignment of the existing right of way in locations which would reduce impacts on natural resources and/or enhance public safety; b. Include provisions for wildlife underpasses or overpasses of appropriate widths across Cow Creek and the powerline wildlife corridors to encourage safe passage of wildlife; 19 April 2, 2014 combined MDO-39 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 c. Design storm water treatment facilities to minimize habitat loss and promote restoration of impacted sites and assure capture and treatment of runoff from bridges; d. Provide non-intrusive roadway and bridge lighting; e. Incorporate safety and access design features to allow for the continuation of prescribed burning in the area; f. Incorporate appropriate speed controls through sensitive areas. 68. (FG 2.18a)The Transportation Spine Network as it traverses GreenKey lands shall be designed to avoid and minimize conflicts between motor vehicles and the movement of wildlife. Tools to minimize this conflict include, but are not limited, to location criteria, landscaping techniques, fencing, speed limits, wildlife underpasses or overpasses, bridging, and elevating roadways. Transportation corridors shall be designed to avoid the areas permitted for mitigation banking. The Transportation Spine Network and approved trailheads are the only development-related accesses permitted to traverse GreenKey lands. Additional crossings shall not be permitted unless the COUNTY amends the Farmton Local Plan, and the COUNTY and appropriate parties modify the conservation easements/covenants and only after adequate data and analysis is provided which: a. ensures that conflicts with wildlife, habitat, and flood plains are minimized, and a.b. ensures that mitigation bank lands will not be crossed or adversely impacted. 69. MonitoringEach AIDA transportation study and each monitoring and modeling study shall ascertain the Level of Service (LOS) on facilities where the AIDA is estimated to contribute an amount of traffic greater than or equal to five percent (5%) of the adopted LOS service volume. The methodology of the monitoring and modeling program and each AIDA transportation study shall be agreed upon by the COUNTY, ECFRPC, the City of Deltona, the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) and the AIDA applicant. and/or master developer. The cities of Edgewater, Deltona, Oak Hill and New Smyrna Beach, as well as Brevard County, will be included in the methodology determination process as required by the FLP. The extent of each monitoring and modeling effort shall be similar to that required within for an Application for Development Approval (ADA), but shall be consistent with the requirements of the Volusia County Concurrency Management System or its successor as it relates to facilities within that jurisdiction. All studies and monitoring and modeling programs shall be consistent with the agreed upon methodology. Empirical data will be required to be collected for the monitoring and modeling program on facilities where it is estimated that the project AIDA contributes an amount of traffic greater than or equal to five percent (5%) of the adopted LOS maximum service volume. A trip generation and internal capture study shall be performed to verify trip generation and internal capture assumptions for prior increments. In the event that all parties cannot come to agreement on the methodology, the ECFRPC, FDOT, and COUNTY shall be the final arbiters. The FDOT’s decision shall be final on state facilities, the COUNTY’s decision shall be final on Volusia 20 April 2, 2014 combined MDO-40 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 County facilities and the ECFRPC’sECFRPC shall be consulted on decisions shall be final as it relates to all other facilities of regional significance. The study prior to build-out will be for informational purposes only. Each monitoring and modeling study shall provide a roadway needs analysis for each future phase of the AIDA as well as the phase being tested for mitigation requirements. The facilities to be monitored and modeled for the next Phase or sub-phase shall include, but shall not be limited to, those segments of the regional roadways listed below and one segment beyond where the MDRIAIDA is estimated to contribute a cumulative amount of traffic greater than or equal to five percent (5%) of the adopted LOS service volume. The analyzed facilities will include signalized intersections and link analyses of collector and higher classified roadways and interchange ramps. 69.70. Farmton and developers of each AIDA shall coordinate with the COUNTY and the City of Edgewater regarding existing and projected land use and socio-economic data utilized for updates to the R2CTPO Long Range Transportation Plan. QUESTION 22 – AIR QUALITY 70.71. Specific dust mitigation activities during site preparation and construction shall be identified with each AIDA. 71.72. Specific structural or operational measures to minimize air quality impacts shall be identified with each AIDA. 72.73. Air quality monitoring shall be provided at the time of each AIDA, if required. QUESTION 23 – HURRICANE PREPAREDNESS 73.74. Measures to mitigate hurricane impacts for hotel/motel uses, if necessary, shall be addressed at the time of AIDA submittal. 74.75. Detailed information regarding public hurricane shelter space requirements shall be provided at the time of AIDA submittal, if required. 76. Farmton shall cooperate and coordinate with efforts to study and potentially designate Maytown Road as a hurricane evacuation route. 75.77. Detailed information regarding evacuating vehicles and evacuation times during a hurricane evacuation event shall be provided with each AIDA submittal, if required. This 21 April 2, 2014 combined MDO-41 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 shall be coordinated withIn the designation ofevent Maytown Road is designated as ana potential, emergency evacuation route for southeast Volusia County, at such time thatit should be included in the length of Maytown Road is improved to the standards of the FLP and this MDOhurricane preparedness report. 76.78. Specific actions or provisions to mitigate impacts on hurricane preparedness shall be identified, if necessary, at the time of AIDA submittal. QUESTION 24 -- HOUSING 77.79. Detailed information for Table 24.A.1 of the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity Form RPM-BSP-ADA-1 shall be provided at the time of each AIDA submittal. 78.80. Detailed information regarding the number and percentage of unimproved lots to be sold without constructed dwelling units shall be provided at the time of each AIDA submittal. 79.81. Detailed information regarding the target market for residential development shall be provided at the time of each AIDA submittal that includes a residential component. 80.82. All AIDAs shall use the latest version of the FDEO Affordable Housing Methodology or the ECFRPC’s Affordable Housing Methodology or an equivalent methodology approved as part of the AIDA pre-application process. 81.83. At the time of the AMDA submittal, there were no residents on the property. QUESTION 25 – POLICE AND FIRE PROTECTION 82.84. Updated letters from the Sheriff’s Office and fire protection providers shall be provided with each AIDA. Details regarding conditions of police and/or fire rescue facilities dedications shall be established during the review of each AIDA, if applicable, and shall be through mutual agreement between the incremental developer, the COUNTY and the police and/or fire protection provider(s). 22 April 2, 2014 combined MDO-42 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 QUESTION 26 – RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE 83.85. Details regarding the provision of recreational facilities and open space for each SDA shall be provided with the submittal of each AIDA when more specific development details are known. Each AIDA shall provide a running total of open space, passive and active recreation and recreational facilities proposed and provided. 84.86. Detailed information regarding the closing of certain lands to hunting clubs will be provided with each AIDA, if applicable. 85.87. Details regarding the dedication of parks and open space to the public shall be addressed with each AIDA. At the time of AMDA submittal, the APPLICANT had already dedicated 1,400 acres of land to Volusia County to be known as the Deering Preserve at Deep Creek. 86.88. Each AIDA will update, if necessary, how proposed recreation and open space plans are consistent with local and regional policies. 87.89. Details regarding coordination with existing recreational trails and improvements to new or existing recreational trails will be provided with each AIDA, if applicable. The Farmton Local Plan already provides a 100-feet-wide buffer on each side of the East Central Regional Rail Trail within the Farmton Local Plan Boundaries (FG 2.19e). QUESTION 27 -- EDUCATION 88.90. The Sustainable Development Area districts shall be designed and planned to ensure that the educational facilities are integral components within the community and that adequate school capacity can be timely planned and constructed to serve the anticipated population. 89.91. Public school capacity shall be addressed by each AIDA that proposes residential development in accordance with Objective FG 6.0 and its associated policies as contained in the adopted Farmton Local Plan as may be amended from time to time. Each AIDA that proposes residential development shall address Question 27 in the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity form RPM-BSP-ADA-1 in full, unless waived or modified as a result of the AIDA pre-application conference. 90.92. A full range of educational facilities such as public and private schools (elementary, middle and high), universities, colleges, community colleges, or other post-secondary 23 April 2, 2014 combined MDO-43 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 educational facilities, or research facilities, including environmental educational facilities are permitted throughout the SDA districts. QUESTION 28 – HEALTHCARE 91.93. The location and specific use of new medical facilities shall be determined at the time of each AIDA submittal. Medical facilities shall be permitted in the Gateway District, the Town Center, the Work Place and the Village Centers in accordance with the adopted Farmton Local Plan as may be amended from time to time. 92.94. A letter from Bert Fish Medical Center and Halifax Health, or other state certified hospital shall be provided for each AIDA submittal. indicating its ability to serve the proposed AIDA. For each AIDA, Question 28 in the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity form RPM-BSP-ADA-1 shall be addressed in full, unless waived or modified as a result of the AIDA pre-application conference. QUESTION 29 – ENERGY 93.95. Estimates of average daily electricity demand shall be provided at the time of each AIDA submittal, including estimated demand by development phase. 94.96. Estimates of industrial electricity demand shall be provided at the time of each AIDA submittal, if applicable, when the specific type of use has been established. 95.97. If applicable, on-site electrical generating facilities shall be described at the time of each AIDA submittal. 96.98. Letters from off-site energy providers shall be provided at the time of each AIDA submittal indicating its ability to serve the proposed AIDA. 99. Specific energy conservation strategies for residential and nonresidential building construction and site development for each AIDA and each phase of development shall be provided at the time of each AIDA submittal. Strategies for energy conservation may include, but are not limited to, ENERGY STAR ®, compact community design, walkability, bicycle accommodations, the use of solar-powered technologies, green development practices in building design, construction and operation. In addition, proposed development shall meet the requirements of a certification program from either USGBC LEED for Neighborhood Development, FGBC Green Development Designation Standard, or another 24 April 2, 2014 combined MDO-44 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 third party program deemed comparable by University of Florida Program for Resource Efficient Communities (PREC) and Volusia County. At the time of each AIDA submittal, the developer shall identify which program(s) shall be utilized for that particular AIDA and what certification types and levels must be attained. If a third party program is preferred, it must be discussed and negotiated as part of the AIDA pre-application conference. Residential development shall meet ENERGY STAR® standards. Non-residential development shall meet ENERGY STAR® standards unless otherwise waived by Volusia County staff in the interest of moderate income or higher wage job creation or that increases Volusia County’s gross domestic product. 66. QUESTION 30 HISTORICAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES 97.100. The presence of historical resources shall be evaluated for each AIDA when site specific development areas have been established. A letter from the Florida Division of Historical and Archaeological Resources shall be provided at the time of each AIDA submittal. ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS 98.101. The MDRI shall comply with the provisions established in the FLP of the adopted Volusia County Future Land Use Element. This MDO and all subsequent AIDA shall be required to follow and implement the goals, objectives and policies established by the FLP as may be amended from time to time. In addition to the questions identified in Exhibit 3, the following items shall be identified and included as part of the individual AIDAs for subsequent increments: a. Specific form based design guidelines for the development of the increments and determination of consistency and compatibility with prior increments. Design-based guidelines shall address the following issues: i. Build-to lines ii. Lighting iii. Walkability iv. Block Sizes v. Parking locations (on and off street) vi. Fenestration/Architecture vii. Building Entrances viii. Building scale and orientation ix. Public space standards/streets/squares/transit/bikes 25 April 2, 2014 combined MDO-45 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 b. c. d. e. f. g. h. i. j. k. x. Street typing/classification/interconnection xi. Provisions for shade xii. Signs Fiscal Neutrality Report and Procedure for Monitoring Fiscal Neutrality of the increment, in accordance with Exhibit 5 of this MDO, Fiscal Neutrality Methodology. Conservation Management Plan (CMP) for GreenKey and Resource Based Open Space included with the increment, as well as coordination with plans adopted for prior, approved increments. Identification of proposed Conservation Covenants/Easements for GreenKey and Resource Based Open Space and integration into the CMP for the overall projectMDRI. This MDO authorizes the release of permanent conservation easements over all GreenKey lands within 60 days of approval and execution of this Master DRI Development Order and the removal of the reverter provision contained in the deed of the Deering Preserve at Deep Creek. This conversion is in acknowledgement of the permanent vesting of the Farmton development program of 23,100 dwelling units and 4.7 million square feet of non-residential uses (excluding schools and other institutional uses). Detailed phasing plan for development within the increment, including timing and amount and phasing of residential and non-residential development. Analysis showing that there is adequate supply of public infrastructure facilities and services including transportation, recreation, stormwater, and water supply for the proposed increment, as well as approved increments. Provisions that a finding of school adequacy has been made by Volusia County School District. Requirements and standards for the implementation of water and energy conservation measures in the proposed increment. Provisions relating to implementation of jobs to housing ratio , in accordance with Exhibit 78 of this MDO, Jobs to Housing Balance Methodology.(if applicable). Site Analysis of natural features including floodplains, drainage, wetlands, soils, habitat types, and a biological inventory. Block layout, street classification and layout, and recreational space and landscaping plans. 99.102. Consistent with Objective 4 of the FLP, AIDAs shall incorporate a whole systems approach to the design, development, construction and operations of the community that is consistent and compatible with the remainder of the MDRI. The FLP incorporates multiple standards and requirements for sustainability. The implementation of these sustainability standards requires an adaptive management approach that incorporates an iterative process consisting of: 26 April 2, 2014 combined MDO-46 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 a. Identification of the specific elements of sustainability that are appropriate for the particular AIDA area, given the requirements of Objective 3 of the Farmton Local Plan, which may include, but are not limited to; i. Energy Conservation ii. Water Conservation iii. Agricultural Lands Preservation iv. Environmental Preservation v. Recycling/Solid Waste Neutrality vi. Urban Form Principles, including core mixed-use areas (Town Square and Village Centers) with vertical development components vii. Jobs/Housing Balance viii. Mixture of Housing Types and Price Points that would support mass transit, especially within core mixed-use areas ix. Efficient Infrastructure x. Reliance on Renewable Resources xi. Public Outreach/Educational Opportunities Regarding Sustainability xii. Transportation Efficiency xiii. Water Quality Preservation b. Examination of successful implementation of various sustainable practices and applicability to the Farmton MDRI and the specific AIDA area that include, but are not limited to USGBC LEED for Neighborhood Development, FGBC Green Development Designation Standard, a combination thereof, or another third party program deemed comparable by University of Florida Program for Resource Efficient Communities (PREC) and Volusia County. At the time of each AIDA pre-application, the developer shall identify which program(s) shall be utilized for that particular AIDA and what certification types and levels must be attained; c. Development of a set of quantitative and qualitative standards for evaluation of the sustainability of the AIDA and its compatibility with surrounding areas within the Farmton MDRI; and, d. Establishment of a monitoring program that evaluates the success and applicability of the sustainability standards and requirements approved for the AIDA, as well as corrective measures that can ensure that the AIDA meets the overall goals of sustainability. e. The implementation and monitoring provisions shall demonstrate prior increments. f. The standards for sustainability and the monitoring program shall be discussed as part of the pre-application process for each AIDA. g. Each AIDA applicant shall coordinate with Volusia County to establish general Conditions, Covenants and Restriction (CC&R) principles regarding landscaping, irrigation and fertilizer use: 27 April 2, 2014 combined MDO-47 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 i. ii. iii. iv. v. Emphasis on trees, shrubs and groundcovers requiring minimal irrigation for establishment only and minimal fertilization Properties shall not use (ground water) potable water for landscape irrigation. Separate potable water irrigation meters shall not be permitted within Farmton. All residential areas shall be deed-restricted to prohibit individual, private irrigation wells. Strict adherence to the COUNTY’s waterand St. Johns River Water Management District’s watering/irrigation restrictions in effect is required. All automatic irrigation systems must be equipped with a functional rain sensor or soil moisture sensor. Individual, private, on-site irrigation wells (not part of a central utility system) shall be prohibited Restrictions on fertilizer use, which may include a prohibited application period of June 1st -through September 30th , during which no nitrogen or phosphorus may be applied. May prohibit any application of phosphorus without a soil or tissue test documenting a phosphorus deficiency, and require at least a 50% slow release nitrogen. Prohibit the application of fertilizer within 10ten feet of any waterbody,water body or within aany required wetland buffer. 100.103. The following identifies minimum requirements for the development of the various SDA's. a. The Gateway District is a distinct geographic area located at the northern end of the project MDRI which is the closest tract to SR 442 and the I-95 Interchange. It is separated from the lands Sustainable Development Areas to the south by significant wildlife corridors, and connected to other SDAs districts via a 200 foot wide transportation corridor. Permitted uses include single family, townhome, and multifamily residential to create a diversity of residential types and price points. Nonresidential permitted uses include retail, office, warehousing/light industrial, hotel and institutional. The most appropriate uses are those that would benefit by proximity to an interstate interchange, e.g. warehousing, light manufacturing, hotel, office, retail. Multifamily is an approved use in order to provide workforce housing for the area. The Gateway district development shall adhere to the following: i. Development must be compatible with and complement the development and conservation management plans of the Restoration Sustainable Development District within the City of Edgewater adjacent to the Gateway district. All infrastructure planning and capital improvements in the Gateway district shall be coordinated with the Restoration DRI and the City of Edgewater. ii. Deering Parkway (FK Williamson Boulevard Extension) through Gateway district should be aligned as far eastward as practicable. iii. Development will target the interstate commerce market as well as local markets. 28 April 2, 2014 combined MDO-48 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 iv. v. vi. Single use development is permitted, although mixed use, vertical construction development is encouraged. Big box retail is permitted subject to compatibility requirements to be established by the land development code. The following table summarizes the minimum mixture of land uses required within the Gateway District. Gateway District Land Use Mix Requirements Use Minimum % of Gateway District Acreage Office 20 Retail 10 Manufacturing/Research & 15 Development Residential 20 b. The Town Center district shall serve as the social, cultural, economic, civic, and educational hub of the Farmton development. Permitted uses include office, retail, single family and multi-family residential, hotel, educational facilities, medical facilities, religious facilities, active and passive recreational facilities. Town Center district development shall adhere to the following guidelines: i. Development of the Town Center district will reflect the characteristics of a traditional downtown centered around a Town Square. ii. The Town Square shall be the focal point of the Town Center district. It shall be centered around active open space and the highest concentration of residential and non-residential uses shall front on the open space. iii. The Town Center district will house the majority of the civic uses within the FLP including, but not limited to, cultural amenities, art, museums, theater, public safety, government offices, gathering/meeting places, regional parks, day care centers, educational facilities, and similar type uses. iv. A system of interconnected streets, pedestrian paths and bikeways will be incorporated in the design. v. Deering Parkway (FKA Williamson Boulevard Extension) should be oriented to one side of the Town Center district. vi. When public transportation services are operating and available to serve the projectFarmton, a transit station shall be located within the Town Center district, with an adjacent park and ride lot. vii. The following table summarizes the minimum mixture of land uses required within the Town Center District. 29 April 2, 2014 combined MDO-49 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Town Center District Land Use Mix Requirements Use Minimum % of Town Center District Acreage Office 20 Retail 20 Parks & Civic 10 Residential 25 Light Industrial 5 c. The Work Place district is intended to provide and promote employment centers as well as provide work force housing in close proximity. Permitted uses include office, warehousing, light manufacturing, research and development, retail, multi family, hotel, recreational, and institutional uses and may include universities, colleges, community colleges, or other educational facilities. Work Place district development shall adhere to the following development guidelines: i. ii. iii. iv. Primary location for corporate headquarters, campus office parks and research parks. Primary location for higher education level learning centers such as colleges, universities, high schools, and technical institutes. Locate workforce housing within close proximity to employment centers. The following table summarizes the minimum mixture of land uses required within the Work Place District. Work Place District Land Use Mix Requirements Use Minimum % of Work Maximum % of Place District acreage Work Place District acreage Office 20 50 Retail 10 15 Research & Manufacturing 20 50 Residential 10 15 Light Industrial 5 20 d. Villages are compact residential areas containing a mix of residential housing types to encourage affordability for a wide range of economic levels. Villages shall be supported by internally designed mixed use village centers which provide key goods and services 30 April 2, 2014 combined MDO-50 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 and public facilities at the neighborhood level. Villages shall be surrounded by large expanses of Resource Based Open Space that are designed to protect the character of the rural landscape. Villages shall adhere to the following basic guidelines: i. Villages shall include compact design that includes a system of land subdivision and development which links one neighborhood to another. ii. Villages shall include interconnected streets that are designed to balance the needs of all users, including pedestrians, bicyclists and motor vehicles, and which are built with design speeds that are appropriate for Neighborhoods. iii. Villages shall include alternatives for pedestrians and bicyclists through the provision of sidewalks, street trees and on-street parking which provide distinct separation between pedestrians and traffic, spatially define streets and sidewalks by arranging buildings in a regular pattern that are unbroken by parking lots; and provide adequate lighting that is designed for safe walking and signage which has a pedestrian orientation. Use Office Retail Parks/Civic Residential 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 Village Center Land Use Mix Requirements Minimum % Village Center Acreage 10 15 20 25 Jobs to Housing Balance 104. The MDRI shall contain the mixture of uses designated to provide for a balance of commercial, residential, recreational (active and passive) open space, employment, resource protection, educational, institutional and other supporting uses. The provision of a balanced development pattern based on market conditions will provide for housing and job opportunities. In order to assure a balanced development pattern, a set ratio of jobs to housing shall be determined for each AIDA, except for increments located in the Gateway District. Each AIDA shall conform to the methodology requirements and other provisions contained in Exhibit 87 of this agreement. 31 April 2, 2014 combined MDO-51 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Firewise Development Standards 101.105. As a condition of approval for each incremental development order, the Applicant must contact the Florida Forest Service, or its successor agency, and consult with them regarding firewise community planning practices. The recommendations of the Florida Forest Service shall be incorporated, where practicable, into the incremental development order. Each incremental development order shall also include provisions that require as part of the development review process that a covenant shall be placed on properties within the SDA districts to notify those property owners and residents that the nearby conservation areas may be managed by prescribed fire as part of a conservation management plan. In addition, each AIDA shall coordinate with the Florida Forest Service regarding a Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation Plan based upon National Fire Protection Association Standards to reduce wildfire risk factors. Fiscal Neutrality 106. Fiscal Neutrality. Each AIDA shall comply with the provisions of Exhibit 5 of this MDO. Community Development District 102.107. The Applicant and subsequent developers of increments of this DRI may, in its discretion, elect to petition for the formation of a Community Development District to serve all or a portion of Farmton pursuant to Chapter 190, F.S., as the same may be in effect from time to time. The COUNTY hereby gives its approval that such a district may be formed to undertake the construction and/or funding of all or any of the mitigation and public infrastructure projects subject to the limitations incorporated within Chapter 190, F.S. for which the Applicant is responsible under the terms of this MDO, or terms of subsequent AIDA submittals, whether within or outside the boundaries of the District to be formed, and including the payment of mitigation amounts provided for in this MDO or any permits obtained by the Applicant as a part of - and incidental to the development contemplated by this MDO. This provision shall not be construed to require the formation of such a District, nor shall it be construed to require the approval of any petition to form such a District. However if the Applicant elects to form such a District, it shall be construed that the COUNTY will not oppose the formation of the same in the absence of a demonstrable showing by a clear preponderance of the evidence that the formation of such a CDD would be contrary to the public interest, health, safety and welfare of the COUNTY and its 32 April 2, 2014 combined MDO-52 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 residents. Absent such showing the Petition to form a CDD will be approved in the ordinary course in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 190, F.S. Any such CDD shall be self-funding, and shall exclude any Tax Increment Financing (TIF) method. Biennial Reporting 103.108. A biennial report for the Master DRI shall be prepared and distributed on or before the anniversary date of the alternate years of the effective date of this MDO until January 1, 2068, or until the Master DRI is built out, whichever date is soonerlater. The report shall be distributed to the City of Deltona, the City of Edgewater, the City of Oak Hill, the City of New Smyrna Beach, Brevard County, Volusia County, the ECFRPC, the FDEO, the FDOT, the FFWCC, VGMC and all affected permit agencies. The report shall include a statement that all persons/agencies listed above have been sent copies of the biennial report and shall be presented in a format as depicted in the Development Summary Table provided by the ECFRPC. The report shall also include any information specifically required to be included by the conditions of this MDO as well as the information required by Chapter 380.06, F.S. and Rule 73C-40, F.A.C., including at a minimum the following: a. Any changes in the plan of development, or in the representation contained in the AMDA, or in the AIDA for subsequent incremental developments. b. A summary comparison of the development activity proposed and actually conducted for the entire project MDRI and each increment that occurred over the past two (2) years since the prior biennial report. c. A specific assessment of the developer's and the COUNTY's compliance with each individual condition of approval contained in the DRI DO and the commitments which are contained in the AMDA and AIDAs that have been identified by the reviewing agencies as being significant. d. All AIDAs or request for a substantial deviation determination that were filed in the reporting year and to be filed during the next year. Commencement of Development 109. Development shall commence in accordance with the deadline(s) established in future AIDAs, but in no case shall development within SDA land use designation commence prior to March 30, 2017. 33 April 2, 2014 combined MDO-53 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Projected Build-out 104.110. The Farmton MDRI is being built out in increments. The build out of the final increment is projected to occur December 31, 2060. Basis for Denial 105.111. A finding by the County Council of inconsistency between the Comprehensive Plan of Volusia County and an AIDA shall serve as a basis for denial of an AIDA, or finding by the County Council of an inconsistency between the MDO and an AIDA shall serve as the basis for denial of an AIDA. General Provisions 106.112. The approval by this MDO is limited to the terms herein. Such approval shall not be construed to relieve the owner(s) or incremental developer(s) of the duty to comply with all other local, state and federal permitting regulations 107.113. This MDO is intended to provide the owner(s) and incremental developer(s) with the maximum amount of flexibility to implement the long term planning goal, objectives and policies set forth in the Farmton Local Plan. Therefore, to the extent that Florida Statutes provide for alternative planning programs that provide greater flexibility to achieve the planning goals of the owner(s), the COUNTY or the incremental developer(s), the owner(s) and/or the incremental developer(s) may choose to utilize those programs to implement the development program set forth herein or set forth in any subsequent AIDA, subject to review and approval by the COUNTY, and as appropriate, subject to review of the ECFRPC and the VGMC. 108.114. The terms of this MDO shall run with the land and be binding on, and inure to the benefit of the owner, its successors in interest and assigns. The owner may assign this MDO and all its rights and obligations hereunder to its heirs, legal representatives, successors-ininterest and/or person, firm, corporation, or entity. 109.115. In the event any portion or section of this MDO is determined to be invalid, illegal or unconstitutional by a court or agency of competent jurisdiction, such decision, shall in no manner affect the remaining portions or sections of this MDO which shall remain in full force and effect. 34 April 2, 2014 combined MDO-54 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 110.116. Copies of this MDO shall be furnished to the Owner, Brevard County, the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity, the VGMC, the ECFRPC and the City of Deltona. 111.117. This Master Development Order shall become effective as provided by law. 112.118. This MDO shall be recorded in the Public Records of Volusia County, pursuant to Section 380.06(15)(f), Florida Statutes. ADOPTED BY THE COUNTY COUNCIL OF THE VOLUSIA COUNTY, FLORIDA, IN OPEN MEETING DULY ASSEMBLED IN THE COUNTY CHAMBERS AT THE THOMAS C. KELLY ADMINISTRATION CENTER IN THE CITY OF DELAND, FLORIDA, THIS ___ DAY OF ____, 2014. ATTEST: COUNTY COUNCIL COUNTY OF VOLUSIA, FLORIDA _____________________ James T. Dinneen, County Manager ____________________________ Jason P. Davis, County Chair List of Exhibits Exhibit 1. Legal Description and sketch of DRI property Exhibit 2. Conceptual Development Plan (Map H) Exhibit 3. Master DRI Agreement Exhibit 4, Conversion Matrix (FG 8.6) Exhibit 5. Fiscal Neutrality Methodology Exhibit 6. SW Wildlife Corridor Map Exhibit 7, Potential Spine Road Section with Dedicated Transit Lanes Exhibit 8. Jobs Housing Balance Methodology 35 April 2, 2014 combined MDO-55 Exhibit MDO-2 SR 41 5 SR 442 SR LAKE ASHBY 5 § ¦ ¨ 95 DEEP CREEK Maytown Road SE LU S LE CO DEEP CREEK OU UN NT Y TY SR MI NO IA C 5 VO CR 4164 VOLUSIA COUNTY BREVARD COUNTY CR 5A Legend Arterial A LAKE HARNEY 95 Deering Parkway Proposed Trails Farmton Master DRI Boundary DEERING PRESERVE AT DEEP CREEK Master DRI Uses GREENKEY GATEWAY MANDATORY RESOURCE-BASED OPEN SPACE TOWN CENTER VILLAGE WORK PLACE § ¦ ¨ 95 Brevard Portion of Farmton BUCK LAKE County Boundary SR Brevard Farmton Land Uses AGRICULTURE FARMTON MIXED USE 46 Source: Volusia County, Brevard County GIS Master DRI 0 File Name:Z:\jobs\3833.04\gis\Second Sufficiency\Map H 2nd Response.mxd µ 1.5 SR 46 Master Development Plan Map H 3 Miles MDO-56 Date: 3/26/2014 SR 442 SR 41 5 i Off-site Transportation Improvement: improved SR 442/Indian River Blvd Interchange SR LAKE ASHBY 5 Deering § ¦ ¨ 95 P ar k w a illia y FKA W DEEP CREEK Maytown Road oulevar m s on B Arterial A d Exten CR 4164 LE CO OU UN i NT Y TY Off-site Transportation Improvement: new Maytown Road Interchange SR MI NO IA C 5 SE LU S stion i Off-site Transportation Improvement: Future SR 415/ Maytown Road Intersection Improvements VO DEEP CREEK VOLUSIA COUNTY BREVARD COUNTY i Legend LAKE HARNEY Arterial A & On-site Spine Transportation Network Off-site Transportation Improvement: improved SR 5A Interchange 95 Williamson Blvd Extension/Deering Parkway Proposed Trails Master DRI Boundary Deering Preserve at Deep Creek Brevard Portion of Farmton County Boundary § ¦ ¨ 95 Brevard Farmton Land Uses AGRICULTURE FARMTON MIXED USE Volusia Farmton Land Uses GATEWAY GREENKEY MANDATORY RESOURCE-BASED OPEN SPACE TOWN CENTER VILLAGE WORK PLACE BUCK LAKE SR 46 Source: Volusia County, Brevard County GIS Master DRI 0 File Name:Z:\jobs\3833.04\gis\Second Sufficiency\Map H-1 2nd Response.mxd µ 1.5 SR 46 Master Development Plan Volusia County Spine Transportation Network Map H - 1 3 Miles MDO-57 Date: 3/26/2014 APPENDIX 4 - AGENCY COMMENTS East Central Florida Regional Planning Council 309 Cranes Roost Blvd. Suite 2000, Altamonte Springs, FL 32701 Phone 407.262.7772 • Fax 407.262.7788 • www.ecfrpc.org Hugh W. Harling, Jr. P.E. Executive Director March 7, 2014 Mr. Glenn D. Storch Storch & Harris LLC 420 S. Nova Road Daytona, FL 32114 RE: Second Additional Information Request Farmton Application for Master Development Approval ECFRPC Element 140107 Dear Mr. Storch: This agency has reviewed the responses to the first sufficiency for the Farmton Application for Master Development Approval pursuant to Chapter 380.06(10)(b), Florida Statutes. Other agencies having an interest in this application have also been asked for their reviews and comments. Enclosed are informational requests received from reviewing agencies and local governments, as well as requests from regional planning council staff. Your responses should be distributed to the original distribution list. If we can provide clarification of any request or otherwise assist you, please let me know. Sincerely, Hugh W. Harling, Jr., P.E. Executive Director c: Distribution List Executive Committee Chair Melanie Chase Gubernatorial Appointee Seminole County Vice Chair Chuck Nelson County Commissioner Brevard County Treasurer Welton Cadwell County Commissioner Lake County Secretary Leigh Matusick City Commissioner Volusia County League of Cities Serving Brevard, Lake, Orange, Osceola, Seminole, and Volusia Counties Member at Large Lee Constantine County Commissioner Seminole County ECFRPC Questions for Farmton First Sufficiency Response Submittal 1. Page 21-4, response to question 9. The response (used in several instances) did not answer the question about connection and continuation of the fixed rail system in Restoration. 2. It appears from the concerns raised by the county and FDOT that an additional north-south roadway may be required, despite the cited environmental concerns. Please comment. 3. The scales on Figures 21-1 and 21-2 are shown the same, however, this cannot be. Please address. 4. Please provide a map showing the locations of the improvements listed in Table 21.2. 5. Why does project traffic go down on US 1 between 2035 and 2060? Part of Williamson Blvd. also goes down. 6. Regarding the memorandum on the Proposed Fiscal Neutrality Framework, it is stated that Farmton’s holdings acknowledge certain infrastructure improvements are prohibited from receiving certain impact fee credits. Please explain which impact fees are being discussed and the rational for some receiving credits and others not. 7. Methodology 11 of the Fiscal Neutrality Framework states that all costs of transportation except those associated with roads and streets must be considered. Please explain. 8. Methodology 11 also assumes that human services, other non-operating costs and court and related costs will be assumed fixed throughout the Farmton planning and development timetable. Why would they be assumed fixed when they will be going up? 9. Why is the Gateway portion of the project not subject to the 1 to 1 jobs to housing balance? 10. The use of 200 square feet per employee is very general. Should this site develop with a large proportion of industrial space, the number of employees would be much lower. What is the employee ratio for office, retail and industrial, and why wouldn’t a more accurate method be adopted to determine the jobs count? 11. How was it determined that employment within three miles of Farmton would count toward the requisite Farmton employee count? Why was Restoration excluded? Draft Development Order 12. Why are some listings highlighted in yellow on page three of the draft DO? 13. Any transference from beyond the 2025 timeframe needs to be done through an NOPC to the MADA. Please make changes where necessary in the proposed DO to reflect this in the table notes under General Condition 4 and 6d. 14. Condition 7 of the proposed DO discusses accessory or ancillary units. It should be specified whether these units count toward the residential allotment or if they are in addition to the residential allotment. We would support that they be in addition to the residential allotment. 15. Condition 9 of the proposed DO addresses annexations in the future. Please add a phrase requiring that impacts will still be determined on cumulative basis for traffic and jobs to housing ratio. 2 16. Condition 11 of the proposed DO states that the MDO will not expire. There should be an expiration date approximately 15 years beyond the proposed buildout date. 17. Condition 13 of the proposed DO addresses monitoring. Please add the ECFRPC as a recipient and reviewer of the annual reports pursuant to state rules. 18. Condition 20 of the proposed DO addresses conservation areas. Please include the ECFRPC in the list of entities to be consulted. Also, it is not clear who is approving the areas identified to be designated as RBOS areas. If it is the county, please specify. 19. Many of the wildlife conditions in the proposed DO include provisions that the applicant or developer consult with the FWC. The amount of time that will be required will be a burden on the resources of the FWC, and it is recommended that a mechanism be put in place to compensate the FWC for time spent on these reviews and consultation that go beyond the normal review process. Please consider a mechanism in the proposed DO that would accomplish this. 20. Condition 34 of the proposed DO refers to section 28. Should this be condition 33? If not, please explain where section 28 resides. 21. Condition 38 of the proposed DO discusses uses of stormwater. Some entities are treating stormwater to drinking water standards and this should not be precluded in this condition. 22. Condition 40 of the proposed DO states that 100-year flood plain impacts shall be minimized. Please add that these areas will also be avoided to the maximum extent practicable. 23. Condition 49 of the proposed DO addresses the use of Water Star standards for silver certification. Please restate to say that the residential and commercials shall be Gold Water Star certified. 24. Condition 51 of the proposed DO addresses Florida Friendly areas to the extent that “many of these open spaces do not require irrigation”. Please be more specific. Ideally, none of these areas should require irrigation after an initial establishment period. 25. Condition 53 of the proposed DO disallows the use of septic tanks. There may be instances where they are warranted, such as a remote education center or as a temporary use. 26. In the proposed DO, a condition should be included in the vegetative and wetland sections that address the control of invasive species. 27. The transportation provisions should not preclude the need for a second north-south roadway from SR 442, as this may be necessary to address project and background traffic. While this is not preferred due to environmental impacts, the preliminary traffic numbers indicate that it may be needed. 28. Condition 66 of the proposed DO, on lines 16 and 17 of page 19, states that, “The study prior to build-out will be for informational purposes only.” This statement may be taken out of context because it is not accompanied by the specific M&M conditions that are in the typical DO. This statement should be eliminated, but could be added in each individual DRI DO. 29. Condition 94 of the proposed DO addresses the use of energy program standards. The language is very broad. The list of standards is not up to date and while it does state that the third party program must be comparable as determined by PREC, some of the comparables may not be appropriate. Please eliminate reference to the National Association of Home Builders National 3 Green Building Standard and the Green Building Initiative Green Globes Standard. This would also apply to Condition 97b on page 25. 30. Condition 98a discusses the Gateway area and 98b discusses the Town Center. Please include a provision for a gridded street network in both areas. 31. Condition 108 of the proposed DO discusses alternative review processes. It is not clear what the intent of this condition is, and it is recommended that clarification be given or that it be deleted. Please discuss the intent of this provision. 32. Please add Brevard County to any and all distribution lists within the proposed DO. 4 Florida Department of Transportation RICK SCOTT GOVERNOR 133 South Semoran Boulevard Orlando, FL 32807 ANANTH PRASAD, P.E. SECRETARY March 6, 2014 Mr. Fred Milch, DRI Manager East Central Florida Regional Planning Council 309 Cranes Roost Boulevard, Suite 2000 Altamonte Springs, Florida 32701 SUBJECT: REPORT NAME: REPORT DATE: LOCAL GOVERNMENT: FARMTON DRI ‐ APPLICATION FOR MASTER DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL FARMTON APPLICATION FOR MASTER DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL – FIRST SUFFICIENCY RESPONSE FEBRUARY 3, 2014 VOLUSIA COUNTY, FLORIDA Dear Mr. Milch: The Florida Department of Transportation has completed its review of the Farmton Application for Master Development Approval – First Sufficiency Response documentation initially provided on February 4, 2014 and additional information on February 11, 2014, prepared in support of the proposed Farmton DRI. Our review comments are enclosed for your consideration. We appreciate the opportunity to participate in this review process. If you have any questions, please contact Judy Pizzo at (386)943‐5167 or by email at [email protected]. Sincerely, Susan Sadighi, P.E. Intermodal Systems Development Manager SS/jp Enclosure File:H:\OOC\Planning\Growth Management\DRI Reviews\Volusia County\Farmton\AMDA app master dev plan\Farmton DRI AMDA Submittal_SS Cover Letter_03060214.docx www.dot.state.fl.us Florida Department of Transportation Intermodal Systems Development Planning and Corridor Development Unit Page 1 of 13 D E V E L OP M E N T OF DRI N AM E : SUBJECT: L O C AL G O V ’ T ./J U R I S D I C T I O N : E CFRP C I D E N T I F I C AT I O N # : R E V I E W C O M M E N T S D E AD L I N E : T O D AY ’ S D AT E : Comment Number 1 Page(s) n/a R E GI O N AL I M P AC T (DRI) R E V I E W F ORM F AR M T O N M AS T E R DRI A P P L I C AT I O N F O R M AS T E R D E V E L O P M E N T A P P R O V AL ( AM D A). F I R S T S U F F I C I E N C Y R E S P O N S E ( D AT E D F E B R U AR Y 2 0 1 4 ) VOLUSI A COUNTY _ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ M AR C H 7 , 2 0 1 4 M AR C H 6 , 2 0 1 4 General Areas of Concern Background Information Specific Review Comment(s) 1. FDOT Comment: The Farmton property is located within unincorporated Volusia County and Brevard County; however, this transmittal package only covers the approximately 47,000-acre portion that is located within Volusia County between Interstate 95 and the St. Johns River, contiguous to the City of Edgewater at the I-95/SR 442 interchange. As a condition of the Farmton Local Plan (FLP), which was adopted by Volusia County and made effective on March 29, 2012, the property must submit an Application for Master Development Approval (AMDA) within 5 years of the adoption of the Local Plan in accordance with Section 380.06(21)(b), Florida Statutes (F.S.). The AMDA will establish the development program for conceptual Sustainable Development Areas and identify existing conditions as the framework for subsequent Applications for Incremental Development Approval (AIDA) submittal requirements. According to FLP Policy FG 8.3.a, a Master Transportation Planning Study needs to be performed as part of the Master DRI. This Master Transportation Planning Study must reflect a representative build-out development program for the Farmton Local Plan and must identify the required transportation corridors needed to serve the Farmton development. Therefore, one of the objectives of this AMDA is the identification of such corridors and at (approximately) what point in time such corridors will be needed. 2. Applicant Response: Acknowledge. 3. FDOT Comment: No further comment. FDOT Contact: Telephone: Fax E-mail Judy Pizzo, MS, GISP, Planning Project Manager FDOT District 5 386-943-5167 386-943-5713 [email protected] File:Z:\Jobs\3833.04\wp\Second Sufficiency\FDOT Farmton second RAI AMDA Submittal Review 030614.doc Reviewed By: Company: Telephone: Email: Fabricio Ponce P.E., & Anoch Whitfield, AICP Tindale-Oliver and Associates, Inc. 407-657-9210 [email protected] Florida Department of Transportation Intermodal Systems Development Planning and Corridor Development Unit Page 2 of 13 D E V E L OP M E N T OF DRI N AM E : SUBJECT: L O C AL G O V ’ T ./J U R I S D I C T I O N : E CFRP C I D E N T I F I C AT I O N # : R E V I E W C O M M E N T S D E AD L I N E : T O D AY ’ S D AT E : Comment Number 2 Page(s) 21-11 R E GI O N AL I M P AC T (DRI) R E V I E W F ORM F AR M T O N M AS T E R DRI A P P L I C AT I O N F O R M AS T E R D E V E L O P M E N T A P P R O V AL ( AM D A). F I R S T S U F F I C I E N C Y R E S P O N S E ( D AT E D F E B R U AR Y 2 0 1 4 ) VOLUSI A COUNTY _ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ M AR C H 7 , 2 0 1 4 M AR C H 6 , 2 0 1 4 General Areas of Concern Question 21.A – Table 21-2 Specific Review Comment(s) 1. FDOT Comment: According to Table 21-2, the proposed I-95/Maytown Road interchange will not be constructed until the year 2060. One of the objectives of the AMDA is to identify required improvements and the timing of these improvements (time and Farmton DRI development quantities/percentage). However, there is no analysis regarding the timing of this interchange. Please provide an analysis clearly identifying at what point in time and at what Farmton development level the interchange will be required. 2. Applicant Response: Please review the updated traffic analysis results based upon the model run conducted after FDOT provided corrections to the Central Florida Regional Planning Model. 3. FDOT Response: Table 21-2 has been modified, and the construction year is shown as “Prior to 2060.” However, no analysis addressing the timing of the interchange was provided. Based on this, the determination of the timing of the interchange will be addressed in the Development Order. Aspects to be covered by the Development Order include (but are not limited to): Timing of the interchange will be determined during the AIDA submittals. At the point in time that existing interchanges (e.g. I-95 at S.R.442 and I-95 at C.R.5A) are expected to operate at deficient conditions and improvements are deemed not feasible (due, for example, to: right-of-way (ROW) constraints, local governments’ or applicable jurisdictions’ policy constraints, monetary constraints, etc.), Farmton will not be allowed to continue developing until the I-95 at Maytown Road interchange is in place and operational. A key aspect that needs to be taken into consideration during the Farmton development process is that it usually takes approximately 10 to 15 years to put an interchange on the ground. The applicant will need to work with Volusia County and the Metropolitan Planning Organization to show this interchange as a funded project within the County’s Long Range Transportation Plan before an Interchange Justification Report (IJR) can be processed. FDOT Contact: Telephone: Fax E-mail Judy Pizzo, MS, GISP, Planning Project Manager FDOT District 5 386-943-5167 386-943-5713 [email protected] File:Z:\Jobs\3833.04\wp\Second Sufficiency\FDOT Farmton second RAI AMDA Submittal Review 030614.doc Reviewed By: Company: Telephone: Email: Fabricio Ponce P.E., & Anoch Whitfield, AICP Tindale-Oliver and Associates, Inc. 407-657-9210 [email protected] Florida Department of Transportation Intermodal Systems Development Planning and Corridor Development Unit Page 3 of 13 D E V E L OP M E N T OF DRI N AM E : SUBJECT: L O C AL G O V ’ T ./J U R I S D I C T I O N : E CFRP C I D E N T I F I C AT I O N # : R E V I E W C O M M E N T S D E AD L I N E : T O D AY ’ S D AT E : Comment Number Page(s) R E GI O N AL I M P AC T (DRI) R E V I E W F ORM F AR M T O N M AS T E R DRI A P P L I C AT I O N F O R M AS T E R D E V E L O P M E N T A P P R O V AL ( AM D A). F I R S T S U F F I C I E N C Y R E S P O N S E ( D AT E D F E B R U AR Y 2 0 1 4 ) VOLUSI A COUNTY _ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ M AR C H 7 , 2 0 1 4 M AR C H 6 , 2 0 1 4 General Areas of Concern Specific Review Comment(s) 3 Page 21-24 Question 21.D – Table 21-10 – 2005 Model Volume The I-95 at Maytown Road interchange will be constructed (including all costs related to the interchange approval, design, permitting, etc.) at no cost to FDOT. Additionally, all necessary improvements/enhancements associated with the interchange (e.g. new ramps, etc.) shall be constructed at no cost to the FDOT. 1. FDOT Comment: With respect to Table 21-10, please clarify the source for the 2005 Model volumes. We have reviewed the 2005 CFRPM Validation Model Run provided with the model, but the 2005 volumes included could not be replicated. Please revise these volumes in the analysis as necessary. In addition, please note that this may impact the annual growth rate computations used to forecast future background traffic volumes. 2. Applicant Response: Please review the updated traffic analysis results based upon the model run conducted after FDOT provided corrections to the Central Florida Regional Planning Model. 3. FDOT Response: No further comment. 4 21-34 Question 21.D – Table 21-10 – U.S.1 Roadway Segmentation 1. FDOT Comment: The section of U.S. 1 from Aurantia Road to Brevard/Volusia County Line should be broken into two different roadway segments as follows: U.S. 1 from Aurantia Road to C.R. 5A U.S. 1 from C.R. 5A to Brevard/Volusia County 2. Applicant Response: The updated traffic study now has this section of U.S. 1 broken into two segments. 3. FDOT Response: No further comment. FDOT Contact: Telephone: Fax E-mail Judy Pizzo, MS, GISP, Planning Project Manager FDOT District 5 386-943-5167 386-943-5713 [email protected] File:Z:\Jobs\3833.04\wp\Second Sufficiency\FDOT Farmton second RAI AMDA Submittal Review 030614.doc Reviewed By: Company: Telephone: Email: Fabricio Ponce P.E., & Anoch Whitfield, AICP Tindale-Oliver and Associates, Inc. 407-657-9210 [email protected] Florida Department of Transportation Intermodal Systems Development Planning and Corridor Development Unit Page 4 of 13 D E V E L OP M E N T OF DRI N AM E : SUBJECT: L O C AL G O V ’ T ./J U R I S D I C T I O N : E CFRP C I D E N T I F I C AT I O N # : R E V I E W C O M M E N T S D E AD L I N E : T O D AY ’ S D AT E : Comment Number 5 Page(s) 21-24 R E GI O N AL I M P AC T (DRI) R E V I E W F ORM F AR M T O N M AS T E R DRI A P P L I C AT I O N F O R M AS T E R D E V E L O P M E N T A P P R O V AL ( AM D A). F I R S T S U F F I C I E N C Y R E S P O N S E ( D AT E D F E B R U AR Y 2 0 1 4 ) VOLUSI A COUNTY _ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ M AR C H 7 , 2 0 1 4 M AR C H 6 , 2 0 1 4 General Areas of Concern Question 21.D – Table 21-10 – 2035 Model Volume Specific Review Comment(s) 1. FDOT Comment: Several typos have been identified in this table. Please refer to the excel file provided by the applicant’s consultant for review (MDRI Tables mw.xlsx) since these cells are not displayed in the table included in the report. S.R. 442 from I-95 to Air Park Road: cell AF24 = 25,931 vpd; it should be 35,931 vpd S.R.442 from Queen Palm Drive to U.S.1: cell AF26 = 16,214 vpd; it should be 14,314 vpd S.R.415 from Acorn Lake Road to Colony Road/Lake Ashby Road: a roadway segment is missing between cells AH37 and AI37. Segment volume = 33,353 vpd S.R.46 from Turpentine Road to I-95: a roadway segment is missing after cell AH44. Segment volume = 26,350 vpd Please revise these volumes in the analysis as necessary. In addition, please note that this may impact the computation of future background traffic volumes. 2. Applicant Response: Please review the updated traffic analysis results based upon the model run conducted after FDOT provided corrections to the Central Florida Regional Planning Model. 3. FDOT Response: The above mentioned typographical errors were corrected; however, new errors were found in this table (MDRI Tables mw_First revisions – tab (T21-10) 2035 & 2060 Background): S.R. 442 from Gateway to I-95: cell AH23 = 24,556 vpd: it should be 34,556 vpd Interstate 95 from C.R. 5A to Brevard/Volusia County Line: cell AF28 = 98,326 vpd: it should be 98,426 vpd U.S. 1 from Volco Rd. to S.R. 442: cell T64 = 30,808 vpd: it should be 13,968 vpd U.S. 1 from Volco Rd. to S.R. 442: cell AH64 = 13,654 vpd: it should be 30,808 vpd U.S. 1 from Volco Rd. to S.R. 442: cell AJ64 = 13,968 vpd: it should be 30,292 vpd FDOT Contact: Telephone: Fax E-mail Judy Pizzo, MS, GISP, Planning Project Manager FDOT District 5 386-943-5167 386-943-5713 [email protected] File:Z:\Jobs\3833.04\wp\Second Sufficiency\FDOT Farmton second RAI AMDA Submittal Review 030614.doc Reviewed By: Company: Telephone: Email: Fabricio Ponce P.E., & Anoch Whitfield, AICP Tindale-Oliver and Associates, Inc. 407-657-9210 [email protected] Florida Department of Transportation Intermodal Systems Development Planning and Corridor Development Unit Page 5 of 13 D E V E L OP M E N T OF DRI N AM E : SUBJECT: L O C AL G O V ’ T ./J U R I S D I C T I O N : E CFRP C I D E N T I F I C AT I O N # : R E V I E W C O M M E N T S D E AD L I N E : T O D AY ’ S D AT E : Comment Number 6 Page(s) 21-24 R E GI O N AL I M P AC T (DRI) R E V I E W F ORM F AR M T O N M AS T E R DRI A P P L I C AT I O N F O R M AS T E R D E V E L O P M E N T A P P R O V AL ( AM D A). F I R S T S U F F I C I E N C Y R E S P O N S E ( D AT E D F E B R U AR Y 2 0 1 4 ) VOLUSI A COUNTY _ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ M AR C H 7 , 2 0 1 4 M AR C H 6 , 2 0 1 4 General Areas of Concern Question 21.D – Table 21-10 – Growth Projection Specific Review Comment(s) 1. FDOT Comment: The Florida Department of Transportation (the Department) has reviewed the proposed growth projections and has the following comments: FDOT Contact: Telephone: Fax E-mail S.R. 442 from Williamson Boulevard Extension to I-95: “Model Volume” is the proposed method to forecast 2060 background volumes. However, 2060 background model volumes are lower than 2035 model volumes resulting in a negative 2035-2060 growth rate, which does not appear reasonable. This may be due to the additional project traffic occupying the roadway capacity and not leaving “room” for background traffic. To avoid this issue, please apply a 1.0 percent annual growth rate to 2035 background volumes to forecast 2060 background volumes. S.R. 415 from S.R. 46 to Acorn Lake Road: The use of a 2.0 percent annual growth rate is the proposed method to forecast 2035 background volumes. According to the Applicant’s consultant, the reason for this is that the model overstates growth in the area due to the presence of the Osteen Local Plan. It is necessary to note that the Osteen Local Plan was included as background to be able to estimate the impacts of all the developments in the area. Therefore, its inclusion in the roadway volume forecast is necessary. Please apply the following methodology to forecast future background volumes: o 2035: Model obtained growth rates (to reflect the first 50 percent of the Osteen Local Plan) o 2060: 2.0 percent annual growth rate applied to 2035 (to reflect the second 50 percent of the Osteen Local Plan) S.R. 46 from S.R. 415 to Volusia/Seminole County Line: the use of a 2.0 percent annual growth rate is the proposed method to forecast 2035 background volumes. According to the Applicant’s consultant, the reason for this is that the model overstates growth in the area due to the presence of the Osteen Local Plan. It’s necessary to note that the Osteen Local Plan was included as background to be able to estimate the impacts of all the developments in the area. Therefore, its inclusion in the roadway volume forecast is necessary. Please apply the following methodology to forecast future background volumes: Judy Pizzo, MS, GISP, Planning Project Manager FDOT District 5 386-943-5167 386-943-5713 [email protected] File:Z:\Jobs\3833.04\wp\Second Sufficiency\FDOT Farmton second RAI AMDA Submittal Review 030614.doc Reviewed By: Company: Telephone: Email: Fabricio Ponce P.E., & Anoch Whitfield, AICP Tindale-Oliver and Associates, Inc. 407-657-9210 [email protected] Florida Department of Transportation Intermodal Systems Development Planning and Corridor Development Unit Page 6 of 13 D E V E L OP M E N T OF DRI N AM E : SUBJECT: L O C AL G O V ’ T ./J U R I S D I C T I O N : E CFRP C I D E N T I F I C AT I O N # : R E V I E W C O M M E N T S D E AD L I N E : T O D AY ’ S D AT E : Comment Number Page(s) R E GI O N AL I M P AC T (DRI) R E V I E W F ORM F AR M T O N M AS T E R DRI A P P L I C AT I O N F O R M AS T E R D E V E L O P M E N T A P P R O V AL ( AM D A). F I R S T S U F F I C I E N C Y R E S P O N S E ( D AT E D F E B R U AR Y 2 0 1 4 ) VOLUSI A COUNTY _ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ M AR C H 7 , 2 0 1 4 M AR C H 6 , 2 0 1 4 General Areas of Concern Specific Review Comment(s) o 2035: Model obtained growth rates (to reflect the first 50 percent of the Osteen Local Plan) o 2060: 2.0 percent annual growth rate applied to 2035 (to reflect the second 50 percent of the Osteen Local Plan) U.S. 1 from Aurantia Road to S.R. 442: The 2005 Model Validation volumes are significantly higher than the actual counts collected in 2005. Therefore, the use of the growth rates obtained from a model validation that does not replicate existing conditions does not appear appropriate. Please use the following procedure to forecast background traffic volumes: o 2035: Use the “difference” method – 2035 Background Volumes = 2005 AADT + [(2035 Model Volume – 2005 Model Volume) x MOCF] o 2060: Apply 1 percent to 2035 background volumes 2. Applicant Response: Please review the updated traffic analysis results based upon the model run conducted after FDOT provided corrections to the Central Florida Regional Planning Model. 3. FDOT Response: No further comment. 7 21-39 Question 21.FD – Table 2113 – Background + Project Failure Year 1. FDOT Comment: When the year of failure for the “Background + Project” condition was estimated, it was assumed that the project started developing in the year 2012. This does not appear as a reasonable assumption. Please revise this to reflect a more reasonable year when Farmton will start developing. 2. Applicant Response: The assumptions have been revised to estimate the start of development as 2017. 3. FDOT Response: No further comment. FDOT Contact: Telephone: Fax E-mail Judy Pizzo, MS, GISP, Planning Project Manager FDOT District 5 386-943-5167 386-943-5713 [email protected] File:Z:\Jobs\3833.04\wp\Second Sufficiency\FDOT Farmton second RAI AMDA Submittal Review 030614.doc Reviewed By: Company: Telephone: Email: Fabricio Ponce P.E., & Anoch Whitfield, AICP Tindale-Oliver and Associates, Inc. 407-657-9210 [email protected] Florida Department of Transportation Intermodal Systems Development Planning and Corridor Development Unit Page 7 of 13 D E V E L OP M E N T OF DRI N AM E : SUBJECT: L O C AL G O V ’ T ./J U R I S D I C T I O N : E CFRP C I D E N T I F I C AT I O N # : R E V I E W C O M M E N T S D E AD L I N E : T O D AY ’ S D AT E : Comment Number 8 Page(s) 21-41 R E GI O N AL I M P AC T (DRI) R E V I E W F ORM F AR M T O N M AS T E R DRI A P P L I C AT I O N F O R M AS T E R D E V E L O P M E N T A P P R O V AL ( AM D A). F I R S T S U F F I C I E N C Y R E S P O N S E ( D AT E D F E B R U AR Y 2 0 1 4 ) VOLUSI A COUNTY _ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ M AR C H 7 , 2 0 1 4 M AR C H 6 , 2 0 1 4 General Areas of Concern Question 21H Specific Review Comment(s) 1. FDOT Comment: The Department is extremely concern about the fact that the Williamson Boulevard Extension is projected to fail in 2035 and that most of the Spine Transportation Network is anticipated to fail in 2060, even after being widened to 6 lanes. This indicates that the Spine Transportation Network is not adequate to support the proposed development and that additional roads connecting the different SDA’s will be needed. The Department’s concern in consistent with guidance provided by the Institute of Transportation Engineers Recommended Practice “Planning Urban Roadway Systems” – specifically the objectives of: providing adequate capacity for expected travel demands, providing a network at a scale suitable for transit, pedestrian, and bicycle travel, providing for routing alternatives for normal daily traffic flow as well as incident management purposes, and developing networks with more frequently spaced roadways rather than relying on sparse networks of wide arterials. We strongly encourage the applicant to work with Volusia County on identifying additional corridors that can serve the project. The Department will be more than glad to provide support during this process. 2. Applicant Response: Please review the updated traffic analysis results based upon the model run conducted after FDOT provided corrections to the Central Florida Regional Planning Model. The spine transportation network is not as adversely impacted as initially indicated after the first model run. 3. FDOT Response: There are segments of the Spine Transportation Network (e.g. Maytown Road from S.R. 415 to Naranja Road and from Arterial “A” to 1 mile east of Williamson Boulevard Extension) that are still anticipated to fail in the 2060 Analysis Scenario, even after being widened to 6 lanes. Therefore, the Department’s concerns remain valid. FDOT Contact: Telephone: Fax E-mail Judy Pizzo, MS, GISP, Planning Project Manager FDOT District 5 386-943-5167 386-943-5713 [email protected] File:Z:\Jobs\3833.04\wp\Second Sufficiency\FDOT Farmton second RAI AMDA Submittal Review 030614.doc Reviewed By: Company: Telephone: Email: Fabricio Ponce P.E., & Anoch Whitfield, AICP Tindale-Oliver and Associates, Inc. 407-657-9210 [email protected] Florida Department of Transportation Intermodal Systems Development Planning and Corridor Development Unit Page 8 of 13 D E V E L OP M E N T OF DRI N AM E : SUBJECT: L O C AL G O V ’ T ./J U R I S D I C T I O N : E CFRP C I D E N T I F I C AT I O N # : R E V I E W C O M M E N T S D E AD L I N E : T O D AY ’ S D AT E : Comment Number 9 Page(s) 21-41 R E GI O N AL I M P AC T (DRI) R E V I E W F ORM F AR M T O N M AS T E R DRI A P P L I C AT I O N F O R M AS T E R D E V E L O P M E N T A P P R O V AL ( AM D A). F I R S T S U F F I C I E N C Y R E S P O N S E ( D AT E D F E B R U AR Y 2 0 1 4 ) VOLUSI A COUNTY _ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ M AR C H 7 , 2 0 1 4 M AR C H 6 , 2 0 1 4 General Areas of Concern Question 21H Specific Review Comment(s) 1. FDOT Comment: As noted above, the Department is very concern about the inadequacy of the Spine Transportation Network to support the proposed development. The proposed mitigation for this condition appears to be the implementation of transit. The Department is very supportive of multimodal strategies that can help mitigate the impact of this development. As transit will be a fundamental component of the project’s overall mitigation strategy, the following aspects need to be defined and agreed to during this AMDA: The type of transit system will be evaluated during the AIDA analyses. An example transit system could be a fixed guideway system which would avoid transit vehicles being trapped in general use lanes if roads become oversaturated. Therefore, the AMDA needs to include provisions ensuring the availability of sufficient right-of-way to accommodate such a transit system. The transit system serving this development will need to provide a connection to the “external” transit system. In other words, it cannot be an isolated transit system circulating strictly within the development, rather, it must have connection to Votran. The transit system to serve the development will be provided at no cost to either the County or FDOT. The applicant will be responsible for funding the system (both capital and operating costs). To ensure the funding of the system, some kind of special assessment within the proposed development may need to be considered. The specific characteristics and implementation plan of the transit system shall be discussed and agreed to during the AIDA analyses. 2. Applicant Response: Please review the updated traffic analysis results based upon the model run conducted after FDOT provided corrections to the Central Florida Regional Planning Model. Additional Spine Road Corridors: The Farmton Local Plan identified the spine road network based on the availability of land for this use, with the intent to limit potential impacts to existing wetland mitigation banks, valuable natural resources and potential wildlife corridors. FDOT Contact: Telephone: Fax E-mail Judy Pizzo, MS, GISP, Planning Project Manager FDOT District 5 386-943-5167 386-943-5713 [email protected] File:Z:\Jobs\3833.04\wp\Second Sufficiency\FDOT Farmton second RAI AMDA Submittal Review 030614.doc Reviewed By: Company: Telephone: Email: Fabricio Ponce P.E., & Anoch Whitfield, AICP Tindale-Oliver and Associates, Inc. 407-657-9210 [email protected] Florida Department of Transportation Intermodal Systems Development Planning and Corridor Development Unit Page 9 of 13 D E V E L OP M E N T OF DRI N AM E : SUBJECT: L O C AL G O V ’ T ./J U R I S D I C T I O N : E CFRP C I D E N T I F I C AT I O N # : R E V I E W C O M M E N T S D E AD L I N E : T O D AY ’ S D AT E : Comment Number Page(s) R E GI O N AL I M P AC T (DRI) R E V I E W F ORM F AR M T O N M AS T E R DRI A P P L I C AT I O N F O R M AS T E R D E V E L O P M E N T A P P R O V AL ( AM D A). F I R S T S U F F I C I E N C Y R E S P O N S E ( D AT E D F E B R U AR Y 2 0 1 4 ) VOLUSI A COUNTY _ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ M AR C H 7 , 2 0 1 4 M AR C H 6 , 2 0 1 4 General Areas of Concern Specific Review Comment(s) Existing wetland mitigation banks and conservation easements prevent the creation of additional north-south corridors within the boundaries of Farmton. Given this constraint and the policies of the Farmton Local Plan regarding sustainable development, there will be no additional north-south spine roads identified in the Farmton MDRI. It is understood that connectivity between the Sustainable Development Areas and areas external to Farmton shall be maximized based on the availability of land suitable for roadway use. The subsequent Applications for Incremental Development Approval (AIDAs) shall address the internal and external roadway networks and opportunities for connectivity. Fiscal Neutrality: It is understood that the operations and maintenance of transit systems within Farmton have to comply with the requirements of fiscal neutrality as defined by the Farmton Local Plan and the methodologies incorporated into the Farmton MDRI DO. External Connectivity of Transit: It is understood that transit systems within the Farmton area have to provide for connectivity with external systems. At this point in time, there is one bus system operating in Volusia County (VoTran). There is a similar county-wide bus system in Brevard County (Space Coast Area Transit or SCAT). Lastly, there is a requirement for a fixed guideway system for the Restoration DRI to be online by 2021. The Farmton MDRI DO will require that coordination with these transit providers be addressed for all AIDAs. Additionally, the specific details as to the timing of the transit improvements, points of connectivity and types of transit systems within Farmton shall be required of all subsequent AIDAs. Transit Guideline and Details: The specific details on the types of transit shall be incorporated into the responses for the subsequent AIDAs. The MDRI DO shall incorporate typical cross sections for the spine road network and shall incorporate transit corridors within the right-of-way provided for the spine roads. The corridor shall be sized to comply with general standards in place at the time of the preparation of the MDRI DO. There shall be adaptive management language included in the MDRI DO so that future innovations or improvements in transit technology can be incorporated into the transportation network serving the Farmton MDRI. FDOT Contact: Telephone: Fax E-mail Judy Pizzo, MS, GISP, Planning Project Manager FDOT District 5 386-943-5167 386-943-5713 [email protected] File:Z:\Jobs\3833.04\wp\Second Sufficiency\FDOT Farmton second RAI AMDA Submittal Review 030614.doc Reviewed By: Company: Telephone: Email: Fabricio Ponce P.E., & Anoch Whitfield, AICP Tindale-Oliver and Associates, Inc. 407-657-9210 [email protected] Florida Department of Transportation Intermodal Systems Development Planning and Corridor Development Unit Page 10 of 13 D E V E L OP M E N T OF DRI N AM E : SUBJECT: L O C AL G O V ’ T ./J U R I S D I C T I O N : E CFRP C I D E N T I F I C AT I O N # : R E V I E W C O M M E N T S D E AD L I N E : T O D AY ’ S D AT E : Comment Number Page(s) R E GI O N AL I M P AC T (DRI) R E V I E W F ORM F AR M T O N M AS T E R DRI A P P L I C AT I O N F O R M AS T E R D E V E L O P M E N T A P P R O V AL ( AM D A). F I R S T S U F F I C I E N C Y R E S P O N S E ( D AT E D F E B R U AR Y 2 0 1 4 ) VOLUSI A COUNTY _ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ M AR C H 7 , 2 0 1 4 M AR C H 6 , 2 0 1 4 General Areas of Concern Specific Review Comment(s) 3. FDOT Response: The Department has no further comment; however, the conditions described above shall be incorporated as part of the Master DRI Development Order. 10 21a-38 Table 21-14 – 2060 Recommended Roadway Improvements FDOT Comment: According to the 2060 scenario analysis, S.R. 415 from Enterprise-Osteen Road to Doyle Road/Maytown Road is anticipated to operate below the adopted level of service standard when analyzed as a 6lane divided facility. The proposed improvement is to widen the roadway to a 6-lane the facility; however, since the facility has already been analyzed at 6 lanes, it continues to operate below acceptable standards under the “with improvements” conditions. Please identify an appropriate mitigation improvement or strategy that will restore the operation of the facility back to acceptable level of service standard. 11 N/A Proposed Draft Master Development Order – General Comment FDOT Comment: The Department has received the proposed Draft Master Development Order (MDO) and is in the process of reviewing it. As many of the items included in the Draft MDO are closely related to the technical analysis, which is still under review, the Department has performed a cursory review of the Draft MDO, and we are offering some preliminary comments so the drafting of the MDO can continue advancing forward. However, please note that the Department will continue reviewing it, and additional comments may be generated and provided to the Applicant. Finally, please note that the Department will continue to coordinate and collaborate with Volusia County and the Applicant as appropriate in the drafting of the Master Development Order. 12 N/A Proposed Draft Master Development Order – General Comment FDOT Comment: A statement needs to be added to the MDO clarifying that the AMDA study area was not intended to form the basis for study area determination in subsequent AIDAs. Such subsequent study area(s) shall be determined in accordance to applicable DRI review standards and will address significant project impacts as defined under Section 380.06, Florida Statutes (F. S.). FDOT Contact: Telephone: Fax E-mail Judy Pizzo, MS, GISP, Planning Project Manager FDOT District 5 386-943-5167 386-943-5713 [email protected] File:Z:\Jobs\3833.04\wp\Second Sufficiency\FDOT Farmton second RAI AMDA Submittal Review 030614.doc Reviewed By: Company: Telephone: Email: Fabricio Ponce P.E., & Anoch Whitfield, AICP Tindale-Oliver and Associates, Inc. 407-657-9210 [email protected] Florida Department of Transportation Intermodal Systems Development Planning and Corridor Development Unit Page 11 of 13 D E V E L OP M E N T OF DRI N AM E : SUBJECT: L O C AL G O V ’ T ./J U R I S D I C T I O N : E CFRP C I D E N T I F I C AT I O N # : R E V I E W C O M M E N T S D E AD L I N E : T O D AY ’ S D AT E : Comment Number Page(s) R E GI O N AL I M P AC T (DRI) R E V I E W F ORM F AR M T O N M AS T E R DRI A P P L I C AT I O N F O R M AS T E R D E V E L O P M E N T A P P R O V AL ( AM D A). F I R S T S U F F I C I E N C Y R E S P O N S E ( D AT E D F E B R U AR Y 2 0 1 4 ) VOLUSI A COUNTY _ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ M AR C H 7 , 2 0 1 4 M AR C H 6 , 2 0 1 4 General Areas of Concern Specific Review Comment(s) 13 N/A Proposed Draft Master Development Order – General Comment FDOT Comment: A statement needs to be added to the MDO clarifying that the analysis performed in support of the AMDA was for one potential development program and not necessarily for the final development program. The analyzed development program achieved a sizable internal capture; however, internal capture for future individual AIDAs can vary significantly depending on the timing and nature of the land uses within each AIDA. This will be analyzed as part of each AIDA with monitoring being performed as necessary. 14 N/A FDOT Comment: A table with the roadway network studied as part of the AMDA needs to be added to the MDO. This table should also show existing number of lanes and future needs for years 2035 and 2060. In addition, where applicable, the table should indicate the point in time when said improvement will be required (as indentified in the AMDA analysis). 15 5 – Line 32 16 6 – Line 9 and B-9 17 6 – Line 11 Proposed Draft Master Development Order – General Comment Proposed Draft Master Development Order Condition 5 Proposed Draft Master Development Order Condition 6a and Exhibit B, Question 21 Transportation Proposed Draft Master Development Order Condition 6b FDOT Contact: Telephone: Fax E-mail FDOT Comment: Language in this condition needs to be modified to state that “the Farmton Local Plan is the document that shall prevail over any conflicting information, data, plan or commitments (including this Master Development Order)”. Please revise language as necessary. FDOT Comment: MDO language needs to be revised to reflect that AIDA methodologies will be consistent with Section 380.06, F. S., and that the overall methodology to be followed in the analysis will be consistent with general DRI methodologies as outlined in the Florida Statutes. In summary, from an analysis perspective, AIDAs will be no different than traditional DRIs. FDOT Comment: The Farmton Master DRI shall be viewed and reviewed as a single master development, and analysis of each individual AIDA shall be done cumulatively. Therefore, development quantities and their corresponding impacts analyzed and mitigation strategies developed under each AIDA will be cumulative for the entire Farmton development. Please revise language as necessary. Judy Pizzo, MS, GISP, Planning Project Manager FDOT District 5 386-943-5167 386-943-5713 [email protected] File:Z:\Jobs\3833.04\wp\Second Sufficiency\FDOT Farmton second RAI AMDA Submittal Review 030614.doc Reviewed By: Company: Telephone: Email: Fabricio Ponce P.E., & Anoch Whitfield, AICP Tindale-Oliver and Associates, Inc. 407-657-9210 [email protected] Florida Department of Transportation Intermodal Systems Development Planning and Corridor Development Unit Page 12 of 13 D E V E L OP M E N T OF DRI N AM E : SUBJECT: L O C AL G O V ’ T ./J U R I S D I C T I O N : E CFRP C I D E N T I F I C AT I O N # : R E V I E W C O M M E N T S D E AD L I N E : T O D AY ’ S D AT E : Comment Number R E GI O N AL I M P AC T (DRI) R E V I E W F ORM F AR M T O N M AS T E R DRI A P P L I C AT I O N F O R M AS T E R D E V E L O P M E N T A P P R O V AL ( AM D A). F I R S T S U F F I C I E N C Y R E S P O N S E ( D AT E D F E B R U AR Y 2 0 1 4 ) VOLUSI A COUNTY _ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ M AR C H 7 , 2 0 1 4 M AR C H 6 , 2 0 1 4 Page(s) General Areas of Concern Specific Review Comment(s) 18 7 – Line 1 Proposed Draft Master Development Order Condition 9 FDOT Comment: In the event that annexation occurs, the development will continue to be analyzed (including AIDA analysis, monitoring and modeling, impacts and corresponding mitigation strategies) as a single development, even if different portions of the development get annexed into different municipalities. 19 16 – Line 37 Proposed Draft Master Development Order Condition 62 FDOT Comment: The spine roadway network and Interstate 95 at Maytown Road interchange timings and how they correlate to the different Sustainable Development Areas (SDAs) and development quantities need to be better defined in the MDO. This will have a significant impact on how development-generated traffic accesses the external roadway network and, therefore, will affect project traffic distribution. 20 17 – Line 1 FDOT Comment: As with construction activities, maintenance of the transportation spine network is also the sole responsibility of the owner/developer. 21 17 – Line 5 Proposed Draft Master Development Order Condition 62 Proposed Draft Master Development Order Condition 62 22 17 – Line 16 Proposed Draft Master Development Order Condition 62b FDOT Comment: Language needs to be revised as follows: “A future interchange access to interstate 95 at the existing Maytown Road underpass and any modifications required to the adjacent interchanges shall follow the procedural requirements set for by Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) for interstate connection. These required improvements, including all phases (such as interchange approval, PD&E, Design, ROW, Construction, etc.) will be constructed at the sole responsibility of the owner/developer and at no cost to the Department. Adequate setbacks from the proposed interchange …” FDOT Contact: Telephone: Fax E-mail FDOT Comment: Exhibit 7 needs to be removed from the MDO as it may generate confusion regarding the spine roadway network cross-section. However, language regarding provisions during the spine road network design and construction for a fixed guideway transit system needs to be added to the MDO. Judy Pizzo, MS, GISP, Planning Project Manager FDOT District 5 386-943-5167 386-943-5713 [email protected] File:Z:\Jobs\3833.04\wp\Second Sufficiency\FDOT Farmton second RAI AMDA Submittal Review 030614.doc Reviewed By: Company: Telephone: Email: Fabricio Ponce P.E., & Anoch Whitfield, AICP Tindale-Oliver and Associates, Inc. 407-657-9210 [email protected] Florida Department of Transportation Intermodal Systems Development Planning and Corridor Development Unit Page 13 of 13 D E V E L OP M E N T OF DRI N AM E : SUBJECT: L O C AL G O V ’ T ./J U R I S D I C T I O N : E CFRP C I D E N T I F I C AT I O N # : R E V I E W C O M M E N T S D E AD L I N E : T O D AY ’ S D AT E : Comment Number 23 R E GI O N AL I M P AC T (DRI) R E V I E W F ORM F AR M T O N M AS T E R DRI A P P L I C AT I O N F O R M AS T E R D E V E L O P M E N T A P P R O V AL ( AM D A). F I R S T S U F F I C I E N C Y R E S P O N S E ( D AT E D F E B R U AR Y 2 0 1 4 ) VOLUSI A COUNTY _ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ M AR C H 7 , 2 0 1 4 M AR C H 6 , 2 0 1 4 Page(s) General Areas of Concern Specific Review Comment(s) 18 – Line 37 Proposed Draft Master Development Order Condition 66 FDOT Comment: Further discussion is needed regarding the monitoring and modeling condition. Items that need further discussion include, but are not limited to, the following: The analysis shall be cumulative, irrespective or regardless of the SDA and/or development phase being analyzed, As the Brevard County portion of the Farmton Master DRI gets developed, that development needs to be included in the analysis as background traffic. However, the Brevard Farmton background traffic needs to be clearly identifiable from the rest of background traffic, How different SDAs with different phasing schedules overlap with each other will be considered and analyzed, and How the timing of these different SDAs/phases and mitigation requirements for each will be coordinated. As noted, these are some of the topics that need further discussion at this time. Additional topics and clarification may be warranted as this Development Order continues to be drafted. 24 FDOT Contact: Telephone: Fax E-mail 18 – Line 5 Proposed Draft Master Development Order Condition 66 FDOT Comment: Please verify with Volusia County that a Concurrency Management System is currently in place. In addition, in the event that the County has a Concurrency Management System, the extent of the monitoring and modeling will be consistent with the most stringent of the County’s System or where the project is anticipated to consume 5 percent or more of the adopted LOS maximum service volume. Judy Pizzo, MS, GISP, Planning Project Manager FDOT District 5 386-943-5167 386-943-5713 [email protected] File:Z:\Jobs\3833.04\wp\Second Sufficiency\FDOT Farmton second RAI AMDA Submittal Review 030614.doc Reviewed By: Company: Telephone: Email: Fabricio Ponce P.E., & Anoch Whitfield, AICP Tindale-Oliver and Associates, Inc. 407-657-9210 [email protected] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 RESOLUTION NO. 2014-xx A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNTY COUNCIL OF VOLUSIA COUNTY, FLORIDA, APPROVING THE MASTER DEVELOPMENT ORDER (MDO) OF THE FARMTON MASTER DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT (MDRI), GENERALLY LOCATED WEST OF INTERSTATE 95 (I-95) AND SOUTH OF THE WESTERN EXTENSION OF INDIAN RIVER BOULEVARD, CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 47,000-ACRES TO BE DEVELOPED AS A SUSTAINABLE, SMART GROWTH DEVELOPMENT CONSISTING OF CONSERVATION, AGRICULTURAL, RESIDENTIAL, AND NON-RESIDENTIAL USES; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, County of Volusia, 123 West Indiana Avenue, DeLand, Florida 327204613, is a political subdivision of the State of Florida (hereafter COUNTY) and, as such, is authorized under the laws of Florida to create a Master Development of Regional Impact (MDRI) and process the same pursuant to Chapter 380.06, Florida Statutes (F.S.) NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNTY COUNCIL OF VOLUSIA COUNTY, FLORIDA, IN AN OPEN MEETING, DULY ASSEMBLED IN THE COUNTY COUNCIL CHAMBERS AT THE THOMAS C. KELLY ADMINSTRATION CENTER, 123 WEST INDIANA AVENUE, DELAND, FLORIDA, THIS __ DAY OF _____, 2014, A.D., AS FOLLOWS: I. FINDINGS OF FACT The Volusia County Council hereby makes the following Findings of Fact: 1. The Farmton Application for Master Development Approval (AMDA) for the MDRI is consistent with the Farmton Local Plan (FLP) adopted and incorporated into the Volusia County Comprehensive Plan. 2. The COUNTY's Comprehensive Plan has been adopted pursuant to Chapter 163, F.S., and found to be consistent by the former Florida Department of Community Affairs, now known as the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity, Division of Community Planning and Development. 1 County Comments. February 26, 2014. V2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 3. The FLP contains specified requirements for a sustainable mixed-use development that provides for the protection and preservation of valuable natural resources and these requirements shall be incorporated into the MDRI as part of the implementation of the FLP. 4. In accordance with the requirements contained in the FLP, the development of the MDRI will occur over a planning horizon of at least 50 years and meets the definition and terms for a "Master Development of Regional Impact" as specified in 380.06 (21), F.S., and 73C40.028, F.A.C. 5. On August 22, 2013, Volusia County approved the MDRI Agreement which establishes the framework for submitting the AMDA and identifies the timing of review of phases, increments, or issues related to regional impacts of the proposed development; and any other considerations that must be addressed in the AMDA and the agreement required by Section 380.06(21)(b), F.S. 6. The East Central Florida Regional Planning Council (ECFRPC) also approved the MDRI Agreement dated August 22, 2013, which establishes the framework for submitting the AMDA and identifies the timing of review of phases, increments, or issues related to regional impacts of the proposed development; and any other considerations that must be addressed in the AMDA and the agreement required by Section 380.06(21)(b), F.S. 7. The Volusia Growth Management Commission (VGMC) also approved the MDRI Agreement dated August 22, 2013, which establishes the framework for submitting the AMDA and identifies the timing of review of phases, increments, or issues related to regional impacts of the proposed development; and any other considerations that must be addressed in the AMDA and the agreement required by Section 380.06(21)(b), F.S. 8. On April 26, 2013, Glenn D. Storch, Attorney (the APPLICANT) for the Miami Corporation, (the OWNER) held a pre-application meeting with the ECFRPC and the COUNTY pursuant to the requirements of Chapter 380, F.S. and Chapter 73C-40, F.A.C., to initiate the application process for the MDRI. 9. Pursuant to Section 380.06 (7), F.S., and 73C-40.021, F.A.C., the APPLICANT held a preapplication conference on May 31, 2013, to allow for review of the proposed AMDA and to identify significant issues by local, regional, state and federal agencies. 10. On November 13, 2013, the APPLICANT submitted the AMDA for the MDRI as described in Exhibit 1 of this MDO to the ECFRPC and to various local, regional, state and federal agencies pursuant to Chapter 380.06, F.S. The ECFRPC held a public hearing on 2 County Comments. February 26, 2014. V2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 [INSERT DATE] to approve a regional report regarding the AMDA and to issue its final recommendations. 11. On December 13, 2013, the ECFRPC issued its First Sufficiency review comments and on INSERT DATE, the ECFRPC issued its Second Sufficiency review comments. 12. The APPLICANT provided responses to the ECFRPC Sufficiency Review comments on [INSERT DATE] and [INSERT DATE] (the first and second sufficiency responses, respectively). 13. On [INSERT DATE], the COUNTY submitted the AMDA for the MDRI to the VGMC, which held a public hearing on [INSERT DATE]to certify the AMDA and issue its final recommendations. 14. Pursuant to the FLP Policy FG 8.11, the cities of Deltona, Edgewater, Oak Hill and New Smyrna Beach were sent copies of all correspondence and applications and invited to review and comment throughout the MDRI application process. 15. The subject property does not lie within an Area of Critical State Concern, as designated by Chapter 380.05, F.S. 16. All public hearings as required by Chapter 380.06, F.S., have been duly noticed and held on the following dates : [INSERT PUBLIC HEARING DATES]. 17. The conceptual development program (CDP) within the MDRI is shown on Exhibit 2, Map H of this MDO and includes the following acreage:. Approximate Acreage based on GIS within the MDRI Boundary Sustainable Development Areas (SDA) 15,093 At least 3,750 (includes MRBOS) • Resource Based Open Space (RBOS) 1,572 • Mandatory RBOS GreenKey 31,295 18,796 • Farmton Mitigation Bank 12,499 • Non FMB GreenKey 28 29 3 County Comments. February 26, 2014. V2 Comment [BM1]: The sketch of legal description is mislabeled as Exhibit 2. Map H needs Exhibit 2 label. Also, revise Map H to include the entire spine network (on and off‐site). Approximate acreage based on GIS within the MDRI Boundary Sustainable Development Areas (SDA) 15,093 • Resource Based Open Space (RBOS) at least 3,750 (includes MRBOS) • Mandatory Resource Based Open Space (MRBOS) 1,572 GreenKey 31,295 • Farmton Mitigation Bank 18,796 • Non FMB GreenKey 12,499 2 Uses Residential Units 2017-20251 2026-2060 Total 2 18,408 23,100 820,217 3,879,783 4,700,000 4,692 3 Non-Residential Square Feet Notes: 1 Entitlements from 2017-2025 may be transferred to 2026-2060 in accordance with the Farmton Local Plan after 2025 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Limited to 2,287 dwelling units without a finding of adequate school capacity 3 Excludes educational and institutional uses II. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Based upon the findings of fact, the County Council hereby makes the following Conclusions of Law: 1. The development permitted by this MDO is consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the State Comprehensive Plan and the Strategic Regional Policy Plan. 2. The development permitted by this MDO is consistent with the COUNTY's Comprehensive Plan and the COUNTY's applicable land development regulations. 3. The development permitted by this MDO is consistent with the report and the recommendations of the ECFRPC dated [INSERT DATE]. 4. The development permitted by this MDO is consistent with the MDRI Agreement approved by the APPLICANT, ECFRPC, VGMC and the COUNCIL. 4 County Comments. February 26, 2014. V2 Comment [BM2]: Made table consistent with the document, and deleted uses because it is a repeat of info on page 5. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY ORDERED AND RESOLVED, by the County Council of Volusia County, Florida, that based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of law and subject to the following terms and conditions, the MDO is approved, pursuant to § 380.06, F.S., other applicable State laws and Regulations of the COUNTY, subject to the following terms and conditions set forth in this Master Development Order. III. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL GENERAL CONDITIONS 1. This MDO shall be binding upon the COUNTY and shall be binding upon the owners of real property within the MDRI, their assignees, or successors in interest, including any entity or entities that may assume any of the responsibilities imposed by this MDO. Reference herein to any reviewing agency shall be construed to mean any agency that may in the future be created or designated as a successor in interest to, or that otherwise will possess any of the powers and duties of the reviewing agency with respect to the implementation and administration of the MDRI program and this MDO. 2. The MDRI shall be developed as described in the AMDA as submitted by the APPLICANT on November 13, 2013, the Farmton AMDA First and Second Sufficiency Responses submitted by the APPLICANT on [INSERT DATE] and on [INSERT DATE] respectively,. 3. Development of the MDRI shall conform to the AMDA and the conditions of approval set forth in this MDO. Development based upon this approval shall comply with all other applicable Federal, State and County laws, ordinances and regulations which are incorporated herein by reference. 4. This MDO shall govern the development of land located in Volusia County, as described in Exhibit 1. The MDRI property shall have the following development entitlements consistent with the CDP: 2017-20251 Uses Residential Units Non-Residential Square Feet Total 18,408 23,100 820,217 3,879,783 4,700,000 4,692 3 2026-2060 2 Notes: 1 Entitlements from 2017-2025 may be transferred to 2026-2060 in accordance with the Farmton Local Plan after 2025 5 County Comments. February 26, 2014. V2 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 Limited to 2,287 dwelling units without a finding of adequate school capacity 3 Excludes educational and institutional uses 5. The Applications for Incremental Development Approvals (AIDAs) shall be developed in accordance with the information, data, plans and commitments contained in the AMDA and supplemental information incorporated herein by reference, unless otherwise provided by the conditions of this MDO. This MDO shall prevail over any conflicting information, data, plan or commitments. For the purposes of this condition, the AMDA shall consist of the following items: a. AMDA dated November 2013, signed by Glenn D. Storch on November 8, 2013 b. First Sufficiency Response dated [INSERT DATE] c. Second Sufficiency Response dated [INSERT DATE] 6. The review of the AIDAs shall comply with the following: a. Each increment shall hold a pre-application conference or any future equivalent as established by ECFRPC. b. Each increment shall take into account existing and vested development within the MDRI when preparing studies and analyses required when addressing the DRI questions. c. Vesting of increments for the purposes of ensuring compliance with the provisions of this MDRI and the Volusia County Concurrency Management System, or its successor, shall be based on the date of the approval of the Incremental Development Order (IDO) or equivalent development order. d. Unused, entitled development from one incremental phase shall be eligible for transfer to another increment without requiring a determination of non-substantial deviation, provided the use is allowed within the new increment area based on the FLP and this MDRI. e. Each AIDA shall provide information as per Exhibit B of the Farmton Master DRI Agreement, attached and incorporated by reference as Exhibit 3 and shall address all questions in the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity form RPM-BSP-ADA-1 in full, unless waived or modified as a result of the AIDA pre-application conference. 7. The land uses and entitlements identified in the MDO identify the principle uses allowed within the Farmton MDRI, in accordance with the FLP. This does not preclude the use of typical customary accessory or ancillary uses and structures normally allowed for approved principal uses. Definition of accessory and ancillary uses shall generally comply with the Volusia County Land Development Code and Zoning Code, unless otherwise identified in the Planned Unit Development (PUD) approved for the project. 6 County Comments. February 26, 2014. V2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 8. The property shall continue to be used for agricultural purposes until a development planPlanned Unit Development (PUD) or any equivalent rezoning for a particular increment is proposed submitted, which and meets the criteria established in the FLP and the conditions established in this MDO. The approval of this MDO will not impact any agricultural exemptions granted to the property by the Volusia County Property Appraiser as long as the property is being used for a bona fide agricultural use. Future development will require approval of a rezoning to PUD, or any future equivalent zoning classification. Only those portions of the property subject to development shall be required to rezone to PUD and shall be processed as an AIDA concurrently with the PUD application. 9. Annexation of the property into a municipality shall require incorporation of the FLP in the municipality's comprehensive plan and an equivalent development order approved by the annexing municipality. Annexation of portions of the MDRI property may occur provided that the entitlements granted in this MDO are transferred to the annexing municipality’s MDO and a proportionate share of the entitlements are removed from this MDO. 10. The CDP attached as Exhibit 2 (also known as Map H) provides for the general location of land uses, conservation areas and the transportation network (trails, roadways, transportation corridors, etc.). It is anticipated with each AIDA that the provision of detailed information may require minor adjustments to the CDP that include: a. Adjustment of the internal boundaries of the Sustainable Development Areas (SDAs) of less than 500-feet660 feet or less; b. Shifting of the alignment of the internal roads shown on the CDP to protect natural resources within the MDRI; c. Adjustments to the road network to accommodate Federal, State or County design requirements; d. Adjustment to conservation boundaries to account for ground-truthing, provided the amount of land designated as GreenKey and existing Resource Based Open Space (RBOS) approved as part of a prior AIDA remain the same as originally approved in that AIDAis not less than 35,045 acres. 11. This MDO shall take effect on [INSERT DATE] and shall not expire provided that the completed portions and the remaining portions of the MDRI comply with the conditions of this MDO and provisions of Chapter 380.06, F.S. 12. This MDO shall not be subject to down-zoning, unit density reduction or intensity reduction and shall be deemed certified as vested, and as a result of said vesting, conservation covenants shall be transferred to perpetual conservation easements. In addition, the reverter provision contained in the deed of Deering Preserve at Deep Creek shall be removed. 7 County Comments. February 26, 2014. V2 Comment [BM3]: Needs legal review. Policy question? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 13. Compliance with the terms and conditions of this MDO shall be monitored through the provisions of the COUNTY's established review and approval processes, for development, as amended in the future. The Director of Growth and Resource Management or successor position, or his/her designee shall be the official responsible party for monitoring compliance with this MDO. 14. Subject to the limitations of the Farmton Local Plan and specifically Policy FG 8.6, the COUNTY may approve the conversion of residential units to commercial intensities for the pre-2025 maximum development potential by using a development equivalency matrix, which is attached as Exhibit 4 of this MDO. Use of the matrix may increase or decrease the total amount of each land use by no more than the amount allowed for in the substantial deviation criteria identified in §380.06(19) F.S., unless this MDO is amended to accommodate such a change. Written notice shall be provided to the ECFRPC, Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) and Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO) a minimum of thirty (30) days prior to the use of the matrix for a development permit application. Uses of the matrix shall be reported on an individual and cumulative basis and the impacts documented in the next biennial report. The notice and subsequent report shall demonstrate that the use of the matrix has not resulted in additional impacts to the transportation network, schools, or affordable housing. Any and all Notice of Proposed Change (NOPC) submittals shall also incorporate any changes resulting from the use of the matrix. 15. There shall be two planning horizons within the FLPThe FLP contains two planning horizons. The initial planning horizon shall beis from 2017 through 2025. The initial development entitlements for this first planning horizon shall be 2,287 dwelling units and 820,217 square feet of non-residential uses. Any increase above 2,287 to the currently allowable maximum density of 4,692 dwelling units will be effective only upon a finding of school adequacy from the Volusia County School District. There shall be no increases in the density or intensity of development during this planning horizon beyond what is allowed by the FLP. The second planning horizon for the FLP shall beis from 2026 through 2060. The maximum intensity of the second planning horizon shall consist of 18,408 dwelling units and 3,879,783 million square feet of non-residential development, unless entitlements are transferred from the first planning horizon in accordance with the FLP. At build-out of the FLP, there will be a maximum of 23,100 dwelling units and 4,700,000 million square feet of non-residential uses (exclusive of institutional uses). SPECIFIC CONDITIONS QUESTION 9 – MAPS 8 County Comments. February 26, 2014. V2 Comment [BM4]: Hold. Under additional staff review. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 16. Each AIDA shall include a map or maps G, in addition to all the other required maps. Map G shall also depict the location of existing and proposed Resource-Based Open Space and Mandatory Resource-Based Open Space within or in close proximity to the AIDA boundaries. 17. Each AIDA shall include on its Map H potential wildlife crossings for roadways within the AIDA boundary and adjacent areas. QUESTION 10 – GENERAL PROJECT DESCRIPTION 18. Specific Demographic, Employment and Phasing Information tables shall be provided for each AIDA. Each AIDA shall comply with the provisions of Exhibit 8 of this MDO, Jobs to Housing Balance Methodology. QUESTION 11 – REVENUE GENERATION 19. Specific revenue generation information shall be provided with each AIDA in accordance with the approved Fiscal Neutrality methodology attached as Exhibit 5 of this MDO. QUESTION 12 – VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE 20. At least 25 percent of Sustainable Development Area Districts as a whole shall be Resourced-based Open Space and the Mandatory Resource-based Open Space shall be included in the calculation of the 25 percent requirement. Approximately 1,572 acres of Mandatory Resource-based Open Space has already been protected with conservation easements/conservation covenants. The balance of the required Resource-based Open Space shall be identified and preserved as part of the development review process of Volusia County. The identification of areas to be designated as Resource-based Open Space shall be approved in consultation with the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, St. Johns River Water Management District, and by all entities that are parties to the conservation easements required by Policy FG 2.12 of the Farmton Local Plan. The identification of the remaining, required Resourcebased Open Space shall be predicated on the following priorities: a. Preserve lands on the perimeter of Sustainable Development Areas which are contiguous to GreenKey lands or Mandatory Resource-based Open Space. 9 County Comments. February 26, 2014. V2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 b. Eliminate or minimize habitat fragmentation and promote habitat connectivity by creating new or enhancing existing wildlife corridors. c. Provide connections to conservation lands external to Farmton. d. Protect flood plains and wetlands and upland buffers. e. Protect specialized habitat for listed flora and fauna, and under-represented natural communities. 21. Detailed wildlife and plant surveys shall be performed in conjunction with each AIDA submittal consistent with local, State and Federal requirements in effect at the time of AIDA submittal. 22. If protected species are found on-site, a management plan shall be prepared, if required to supplement the adopted Conservation Management Plan, to mitigate any adverse effects the AIDA may have on the species. 23. Each AIDA will be responsible for consulting with the FWC in developing and adopting conservation measures towards minimizing and managing human-wildlife conflicts. That responsibility shall include implementation and fiscal support for outreach and education programs consistent with FWC recommendations, including for “BearSmart Communities.” 24. Except as otherwise allowable by this MDO or by permits obtained by developers of the Project from one or more agencies including Volusia County Environmental Management, the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC), the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers (ACOE) or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services (FWS), site development activities on the Property shall not result in the harming, pursuit of, or harassment of wildlife species classified as endangered, threatened, or a species of special concern (listed species) in contravention of applicable State or Federal laws. Should such listed species be at any time determined to be roosting or residing on, or otherwise significantly dependent upon the Property, the Developer shall take all steps required by local, State or Federal law, and the regulations and rules implementing the same, to conduct all necessary evaluations as to the impacts proposed as to any listed species and to provide appropriate protection to the listed specified identified in conformity with and to the satisfaction of all agencies of either the local, State or Federal government having jurisdiction over the same. Further, the Developer shall obtain such permits and licenses as are required under local, State and/or Federal law to ensure that the development program contemplated by this MDO is in full compliance with all applicable laws and regulations or rules implementing the same. The conservation, preservation and management of existing regionally - and locally - significant natural resources shall be identified in the adopted CMP. 10 County Comments. February 26, 2014. V2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 25. The Southwest Wildlife Corridor includes portions of the GreenKey land and Mandatory Resource Based Open Space located within the SDA (see Exhibit 6). These lands combined create an undulating corridor that is approximately one mile in width. Lands within the Southwest Wildlife Corridor shall be managed consistent with a conservation management plan designed to provide prescribed fire, promote dense understory vegetation such as palmetto, and encouragement of uneven-age management techniques and consistent with the black bear management plan. Within the Mandatory Resource Based Open Space, portions of the Southwest Wildlife Corridor lands shall be managed to protect wildlife habitat through conservation, enhancement and restoration. These Mandatory Resource Based Open Space portions of the Southwest Wildlife Corridor may include wetlands, flood plains, mitigation areas, vegetative buffers, and specialized habitat for flora or fauna which shall qualify as the minimum 25% requirement set forth in FG 2.4. The CMP within the Southwest Wildlife Corridor shall specifically address habitat requirements of the Florida Black Bear. The black bear management plan shall be developed in consultation with the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission consistent with their Black Bear Habitat Management Guidelines and best available science. Lands designated as Mandatory Resource Based Open Space shall not be subject to the public access and shall be subject to the Black Bear Management Plan. 26. All of the GreenKey lands and some of the Mandatory Resource Based Open Space areas have been identified by Volusia County as an area of interconnected natural systems of environmentally sensitive lands, including public and private conservation areas and lands linking these areas (including but not limited to agricultural/rural lands, scenic vistas, habitat buffers, and other open space connections) where possible to achieve wildlife and habitat connectivity. A CMP has been adopted with the goal of maintaining and enhancing wildlife and habitat connectivity. The management and oversight of these resources shall be coordinated by the owner, the COUNTY pursuant to the approved CMP, as required by the Farmton Local Plan. 27. Each AIDA shall show the location of proposed wildlife crossing structures and include key details such as key/target species anticipated to use each wildlife crossing; size of each crossing structure; how the various structures will be designed to accommodate all species anticipated to use them; and associated fencing and vegetation used at each proposed crossing. Each AIDA shall indicate such crossings on Map H. 28. Applicants for AIDAs shall consult with the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission and Volusia County on methodologies for conducting surveys for fish and wildlife species, measures for avoiding impacts to fish and wildlife species and their habitats, and recommendations for minimizing and/or mitigating unavoidable impacts. 11 County Comments. February 26, 2014. V2 Comment [BM5]: Reference county council CMP adoption date. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 QUESTION 13 -- WETLANDS 29. Avoidance and minimization of wetland impacts shall be consistent with the Volusia County Comprehensive Plan, the COUNTY Land Development Regulations, and applicable state and federal wetland permitting programs. 30. A detailed inventory of all wetlands and environmentally sensitive lands shall be performed in conjunction with each AIDA submittal. 31. Detailed historic hydroperiods and seasonal high water elevations shall be provided for each AIDA. 32. Proposed hydroperiods, seasonal water elevations and methods of preservation shall be provided at the time of each AIDA submittal. Wetland enhancement areas, if needed, shall be determined during each AIDA submittal. Detailed data regarding wetland mitigation shall be provided during the AIDA process, if necessary. 33. All preserved wetlands within a Sustainable Development Area shall have an average 75 feet, but no less than 50 feet upland buffer. Wetlands within GreenKey lands shall have an average 100 feet, but no less than 75 feet upland buffer. If different buffer widths are required by a permitting agency, the wider buffer shall apply. 34. Proposed activities within the Farmton Local Plan shall be planned to avoid adverse impacts for wetlands and the required buffers as described in section 28. Land uses which are incompatible with protection and conservation of wetlands shall be directed away from wetlands. However, it is recognized that the development of educational facilities and clustering of development in the Town Center and Work Place districts, necessary to ensure a compact development pattern within the urban core, may result in the loss of some wetlands. If these wetland impacts cannot be avoided, the developer shall impact only those wetlands which are determined through applicable regulatory review to be of low ecological significance to the overall integrity of the larger wetland regime. Impacted wetlands shall be evaluated through the applicable federal, state and county regulatory review, with the goal of avoiding wetland impacts to the fullest extent practicable. Where land uses are allowed to occur, mitigation shall be considered as one means to compensate for loss of wetlands function, so as to ensure that there is no overall net loss of wetland function and value. In cases where alteration of the minimum required buffer as indicated in paragraph 33 above, is determined to be unavoidable, appropriate mitigation shall be required. It is also recognized 12 County Comments. February 26, 2014. V2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 that impacted or isolated wetlands may be enhanced or restored as part of water resource development or and approved alternative water supply project. 35. Development activities within or associated with the Farmton Master DRI must comply with all applicable local, state and federal wetland permitting requirements in effect at the time the development activity is proposed. QUESTION 14 – WATER 36. In order to ensure sustainability of water resources and to provide for an efficient use of water resources, site-specific surface water data and groundwater for the Sustainable Development Areas shall be provided at the time of each AIDA. 37. Best management practices recommended by the St. Johns River Water Management District shall be implemented for developed portions of the Sustainable Development Areas to minimize impacts on receiving surface waters. 38. Stormwater reuse ponds may be used to further reduce discharge of runoff by distributing captured stormwater throughout the development for irrigation and, where possible, for other uses which do not require potable water. QUESTION 15 – SOILS 39. Because site-specific development impacts have not been identified in the AMDA, details regarding subsidence, the protection and/or use of geological features, specific construction methods that take into account soil limitations, steps taken during site preparation and construction to prevent or control wind erosion, detailed information regarding proposed plans for clearing, grading, and erosion control, as well as the use of fill or placement of spoil shall be addressed with each individual AIDA. QUESTION 16 – FLOODPLAINS 40. Impacts to the 100-year flood plain shall be minimized. Any impacts shall be fully mitigated by providing compensating storage on-site. 41. Post development flood prone areas shall be identified as part of each AIDA submittal. 13 County Comments. February 26, 2014. V2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 42. If aEach AIDA shall provide a flood study with sufficient engineering to establish a Base Flood Elevation (BFE) is prepared as part of an AIDA, the applicant will need to consider, which considers the Deep Creek Stormwater Master Plan as prepared by CDM, Inc, or its successoron behalf of the County, dated XXX, when assessing impacts within the basin. 43. Detailed information regarding impacts to the floodplains and potential mitigation shall be provided with each AIDA submittal. 44. Within each Sustainable Development Area, the stormwater management system may combine wet-detention ponds, stormwater reuse ponds, bio-retention swales, and restoration of natural hydroperiods in the on-site wetlands, as approved by Volusia County and St. Johns River Water Management DistrictEach AIDA shall provide evidence that all building sites will be located outside of the 100-yr floodplain, which may be accomplished by FEMA Letter of Map Revision (LOMR), or other mechanism to be approved by the COUNTY. 45. Applicants for AIDAs within the Deep Creek Drainage Basin will need to consider the Deep Creek Stormwater Master Plan, as may be amended or replaced by the COUNTY from time to time, when assessing floodplain impacts within the basin. QUESTION 17 – WATER SUPPLY 46. Farmton Water Resources LLC and the City of Edgewater are the authorized water providers for the Farmton Local Plan properties. 47. Details regarding water supply shall be provided with each AIDA submittal and shall be consistent with the Farmton Local Plan, specifically Objective FG 4, Policies FG 4.2.c, FG 4.5 through 4.9, and FG4.14 through 4.21. 48. Operation and maintenance responsibilities of the central potable water system shall be established with each AIDA submittal. 49. All residential and nonresidential development must comply with Florida Water StarSM Standards for silver certification, at a minimum, with gold standard the preference. 50. Water design shall incorporate conservation measures and water reuse so that as nearly as possible it incorporates water neutrality into the construction and operation of the development such that potable water supply would equal water saved through conservation and reuse. Water neutrality shall mean that potable and nonpotable sources of water are 14 County Comments. February 26, 2014. V2 Comment [BM6]: Moved this to stormwater question 19 and revised to address SJRWMD and county comments. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 provided solely within the boundaries of the Farmton Local Plan and sources outside the boundaries of the Farmton Local Plan are not needed to support new development. 51. Landscaping materials planted within Farmton shall be Florida Friendly as indicated at www.floridayards.org. Development within Farmton shall employ proper design to minimize the removal of existing, native vegetation or planting with Florida Friendly plants so that many of these open spaces do not require irrigation. 51.52. Specifically, planning wellfields #4, #5 and #6 appear to be in an areas where the chloride levels in the Floridian Aquifer exceed 1000mg/l. Each AIDA shall provide a treatment plan that may require a form of reverse osmosis or some other technology, or blending from other sources. QUESTION 18 – WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT 52.53. Details regarding wastewater management shall be provided with each AIDA submittal and shall be consistent with the Farmton Local Plan, specifically Objective FG 4, Policies FG 4.19 through 4.21. 53.54. The use of septic tanks shall not be allowed within the Farmton MDRI and the operation and maintenance responsibilities of the central wastewater management system shall be established with each AIDA submittal. QUESTION 19 – STORMWATER MANAGEMENT 54.55. The conceptualA stormwater management plan for each AIDA shall utilize existing surface waters and wetlands in conjunction with man-made treatment ponds for stormwater management. The conveyance of off-site stormwater in the pre-development condition shall be maintained to the existing outfall locations. 55.56. Post-development stormwater management areas shall be identified in each AIDA. Within each Sustainable Development Area, the stormwater management system may combine wet-detention ponds, stormwater reuse ponds, bio-retention swales, and restoration of natural hydroperiods in the on-site wetlands, as approved by the COUNTY and St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD). 56.57. The proposed rate of discharge from the post-development site shall be less than or equal to the pre-development discharge rate. The site discharges shall be minimized by 15 County Comments. February 26, 2014. V2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 on-site detention within the stormwater management system and the recycling of stormwater for non-potable water used throughout the development. 57.58. Operation and maintenance responsibilities for the stormwater management system shall be established with each AIDA. 59. Development within Farmton or development associated within Farmton shall comply with all local, state and federal stormwater permitting requirements in effect at the time the development activity is proposed. 58.60. A nutrient analysis with TMDL regulations and a Basin Management Action Plan shall be submitted with each AIDA. A dual treatment system (wet detention and dry retention) may be required if the treatment efficiency required is greater than 64.5%. QUESTION 20 – SOLID WASTE 61. Detailed information regarding volume of industrial, hazardous, medical or other special wastes shall be provided at the time of AIDA submittal, where applicable. Details regarding hazardous or toxic materials which may be generated within an SDA shall be provided at the time of AIDA submittal, if applicable. Detailed information regarding types and volumes of waste and waste disposal areas shall be provided at the time of AIDA submittal, where applicable. 59.62. Each AIDA shall require that all solid waste, yard waste, construction and demolition debris, commercial waste collection and recyclable contracts include provisions for such disposal at the Volusia County Tomoka Farms Road Class I Landfill Facility, 1990 Tomoka Farms Road, Port Orange, Florida or The West Volusia Transfer Station, 3151 East State Road 44, DeLand, Florida as a condition of approval. QUESTION 21 – TRANSPORTATION 60.63. The transportation analysis included in the AMDA is to be used for long-range planning to ensure that future increments of the MDRI provide for an efficient and sustainable transportation system. The analysis provides for a projection of potential transportation impacts based on the built-out estimation of the MDRI and assumes existing travel characteristics that do not include significant multi-modal options. It is understood by all parties that conditions and technologies will change over the life of this project and that 16 County Comments. February 26, 2014. V2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 changes to the assumptions will need to be included as part of the monitoring and modeling as well as for all future AIDAs. 61.64. The MDRI is to be developed as a sustainable community and will emphasize the need to provide for multi-modal forms of transportation. The land use policies established in this MDO and the related comprehensive plan goals, objectives and policies establish standards for transit-oriented development that will maximize internal capture within the MDRI. The ultimate goal is to lower the vehicle miles traveled (VMT) within and external to the project. Each AIDA application shall include standards/strategies for multi-modal transportation systems based on those projects previously approved within the Farmton MDRI and those that are being permitted as part of the AIDA application. . It is understood that all transit operations must comply with the requirements of fiscal neutrality as established in this MDRI DO. Additionally, transit planning and operations shall be coordinated with Votran, Space Coast Area Transit and the City of Edgewater (Restoration) to ensure connectivity and compatibility of the different systems. The standards/strategies for the AIDAs may include provisions from the following documents, but are not limited to these standards since technology and operations will change over time: a. A Framework for Transit-Oriented Development in Florida prepared for FDOT, March 2011 b. Transit Development Design Guidelines Votran, February 26, 2008 c. Strategies of the National Complete Streets Coalition and Smart Growth America d. Strategies of the Center for Transit-Oriented Development 62.65. (FG 5.7) The FLP establishes a transportation spine network of arterial roads that identifies approximate alignments and right-of-way widths of the arterials and interchanges consistent with the needs of access between major uses on and off-site and access to the external transportation network. The final alignment may be impacted by such factors as wetland avoidance, habitat avoidance, final design criteria, and utility impacts. Construction of the transportation spine network is the sole responsibility of the owner/developer. Additionally, the roadway corridors within the Farmton MDRI will be sized and designed to accommodate multi-modal forms of transportation in a manner that ensures compatibility and connectivity with providers of regional systems and that is generally consistent with the Exhibit 7 of this MDO. The following identifies the minimum right-of-way widths and connections of the transportation spine network: a. A 200-feet-wide multi-modal right-of-way shall be preserved through the FLP area for Maytown Road. Direct access from Maytown Road to SR 415 shall be required within five-years of the commencement of any development within the FLP occurring on, or accessing Maytown Road. The improvement of Maytown Road shall provide for adequate path crossings, wildlife crossings, elevated roads, and utility crossings, 17 County Comments. February 26, 2014. V2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 b. c. d. e. as set forth in FG 2.18 of the Volusia County Future Land Use Element. Additionally, any improvements or reconstruction of Maytown Road shall factor in the designation of this road as an emergency evacuation route for southeast Volusia County. A future interchange access to Interstate 95 at the existing Maytown Road underpass shall be constructed in potential, partial mitigation of over-capacity conditions at adjacent interchange(s), subject to the procedural requirements set for by Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) for interstate connections. Adequate setbacks from the proposed interchange shall be required to protect the traffic-handling capacity of the proposed interchange. Planning for this interchange is a vital component of the overall transportation system and network. Coordination with the COUNTY, River to Sea Transportation Planning Organization (R2CTPO) and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) shall be required to start with the approval of the MDRI DO and shall be required to be addressed in the application of AIDAs. It is understood by the applicant that the planning, design and construction of interchanges with interstate highways requires extensive time and that any monitoring and modeling program required of the MDRI and AIDAs shall ensure the interchange justification process is initiated in accordance with FHWA procedures and requirements. A 200-feet-wide multi-modal right-of-way shall be preserved for the proposed Williamson Boulevard Extension from the SR 442 Extension, through the FLP in Brevard County, with access to the existing Interstate 95 interchange at CR 5A. The proposed Williamson Boulevard Extension shall connect to the existing CR 5A interchange at I-95. Development setback from the proposed interchange shall be required to protect the traffic-handling capacity of the proposed interchange. A 200-feet-wide multi-modal right of way for a new northwest quadrant connection between Williamson Boulevard Extension and Maytown Road shall be provided known currently as Arterial A, and its location is generally depicted on the Farmton Local Plan map (Map H and Map H-1). 63. (FG 2.18b)As Maytown Road and Arterial A are improved as required by the FLP to accommodate the long term regional transportation needs of the area they shall be designed consistent with the following additional design guidelines: a. Promotes “parkway” look with appropriate natural buffer between the roadways and the adjacent areas; b. Minimizes any impacts to habitat and species conserving habitat connectivity by innovative measures; c. Follows, where feasible, existing road alignments through environmentally sensitive areas although alignments may be realigned to provide for greater public safety or natural resource protection; 18 County Comments. February 26, 2014. V2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 d. At a minimum, the road design will mitigate for adverse impacts or maintain the existing habitat connectivity levels for wildlife afforded by the current road and traffic levels to the maximum extent practicable under the best available science as determined by FFWCC. 64. (FG 2.18c)The design of Maytown Road and Arterial A as required by the FLP should shall include the following criteria for features and construction: a. Consideration of re-alignment of the existing right of way in locations which would reduce impacts on natural resources and/or enhance public safety; b. Include provisions for wildlife underpasses or overpasses of appropriate widths across Cow Creek and the powerline wildlife corridors to encourage safe passage of wildlife; c. Design storm water treatment facilities to minimize habitat loss and promote restoration of impacted sites and assure capture and treatment of runoff from bridges; d. Provide non-intrusive roadway and bridge lighting; e. Incorporate safety and access design features to allow for the continuation of prescribed burning in the area; f. Incorporate appropriate speed controls through sensitive areas. 65. (FG 2.18a)The Transportation Spine Network as it traverses GreenKey lands shall be designed to avoid and minimize conflicts between motor vehicles and the movement of wildlife. Tools to minimize this conflict include, but are not limited to location criteria, landscaping techniques, fencing, speed limits, wildlife underpasses or overpasses, bridging, and elevating roadways. Transportation corridors shall be designed to avoid the areas permitted for mitigation banking. 66. Monitoring and modeling shall ascertain the Level of Service (LOS) on facilities where the AIDA is estimated to contribute an amount of traffic greater than or equal to five percent (5%) of the adopted LOS service volume. The methodology of the monitoring and modeling program shall be agreed upon by the COUNTY, ECFRPC, the City of Deltona, the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) and the AIDA applicant. The cities of Edgewater, Deltona, Oak Hill and New Smyrna Beach will be included in the methodology determination process as required by the FLP. The extent of each monitoring and modeling effort shall be similar to that required within an Application for Development Approval (ADA), but shall be consistent with the requirements of the Volusia County Concurrency Management System or its successor as it relates to facilities within that jurisdiction. All studies and monitoring and modeling programs shall be consistent with the agreed upon methodology. Empirical data will be required to be collected for the monitoring and modeling program on facilities where it is estimated that the project contributes an amount of traffic greater than or equal to five percent (5%) of the adopted LOS maximum service volume. A trip generation and internal capture study shall be performed to verify trip 19 County Comments. February 26, 2014. V2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 generation and internal capture assumptions for prior increments. In the event that all parties cannot come to agreement on the methodology, the ECFRPC, FDOT, and COUNTY shall be the final arbiters. The FDOT’s decision shall be final on state facilities, the COUNTY’s decision shall be final on Volusia County facilities and the ECFRPC’s decisions shall be final as it relates to all other facilities of regional significance. The study prior to build-out will be for informational purposes only. Each monitoring and modeling study shall provide a roadway needs analysis for each future phase of the AIDA as well as the phase being tested for mitigation requirements. The facilities to be monitored and modeled for the next Phase or sub-phase shall include, but shall not be limited to, those segments of the regional roadways listed below and one segment beyond where the MDRI is estimated to contribute a cumulative amount of traffic greater than or equal to five percent (5%) of the adopted LOS service volume. The analyzed facilities will include signalized intersections and link analyses of collector and higher classified roadways and interchange ramps. QUESTION 22 – AIR QUALITY 67. Specific dust mitigation activities during site preparation and construction shall be identified with each AIDA. 68. Specific structural or operational measures to minimize air quality impacts shall be identified with each AIDA. 69. Air quality monitoring shall be provided at the time of each AIDA, if required. QUESTION 23 – HURRICANE PREPAREDNESS 70. Measures to mitigate hurricane impacts for hotel/motel uses, if necessary, shall be addressed at the time of AIDA submittal. 71. Detailed information regarding public hurricane shelter space requirements shall be provided at the time of AIDA submittal, if required. 72. Detailed information regarding evacuating vehicles and evacuation times during a hurricane evacuation event shall be provided with each AIDA submittal, if required. This shall be coordinated with the designation of Maytown Road as an emergency evacuation route for 20 County Comments. February 26, 2014. V2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 southeast Volusia County, at such time that the length of Maytown Road is improved to the standards of the FLP and this MDO. 73. Specific actions or provisions to mitigate impacts on hurricane preparedness shall be identified, if necessary, at the time of AIDA submittal. QUESTION 24 -- HOUSING 74. Detailed information for Table 24.A.1 of the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity Form RPM-BSP-ADA-1 shall be provided at the time of each AIDA submittal. 75. Detailed information regarding the number and percentage of unimproved lots to be sold without constructed dwelling units shall be provided at the time of each AIDA submittal. 76. Detailed information regarding the target market for residential development shall be provided at the time of each AIDA submittal that includes a residential component. 77. All AIDAs shall use the latest version of the FDEO Affordable Housing Methodology or the ECFRPC’s Affordable Housing Methodology or an equivalent methodology approved as part of the AIDA pre-application process. 78. At the time of the AMDA submittal, there were no residents on the property. Therefore, the Federal Uniform Relocation Act does not apply. Information regarding displacement or relocation of existing residents shall be provided at the time of each AIDA submittal, if applicable. QUESTION 25 – POLICE AND FIRE PROTECTION 79. Updated letters from the Sheriff’s Office and fire protection providers shall be provided with each AIDA. Details regarding conditions of police and/or fire rescue facilities dedications shall be established during the review of each AIDA, if applicable, and shall be through mutual agreement between the incremental developer, the COUNTY and the police and/or fire protection provider(s). 21 County Comments. February 26, 2014. V2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 QUESTION 26 – RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE 80. Details regarding the provision of recreational facilities and open space for each SDA shall be provided with the submittal of each AIDA when more specific development details are known. Each AIDA shall provide a running total of open space, passive and active recreation and recreational facilities proposed and provided. 81. Detailed information regarding the closing of certain lands to hunting clubs will be provided with each AIDA, if applicable. 82. Details regarding the dedication of parks and open space to the public shall be addressed with each AIDA. At the time of AMDA submittal, the APPLICANT had already dedicated 1,400 acres of land to Volusia County to be known as the Deering Preserve at Deep Creek. 83. Each AIDA will update, if necessary, how proposed recreation and open space plans are consistent with local and regional policies. 84. Details regarding coordination with existing recreational trails and improvements to new or existing recreational trails will be provided with each AIDA, if applicable. The Farmton Local Plan already provides a 100-feet-wide buffer on each side of the East Central Regional Rail Trail within the Farmton Local Plan Boundaries (FG 2.19e). QUESTION 27 -- EDUCATION 85. The Sustainable Development Area districts shall be designed and planned to ensure that the educational facilities are integral components within the community and that adequate school capacity can be timely planned and constructed to serve the anticipated population. 86. Public school capacity shall be addressed by each AIDA that proposes residential development in accordance with Objective FG 6.0 and its associated policies as contained in the adopted Farmton Local Plan as may be amended from time to time. Each AIDA that proposes residential development shall address Question 27 in the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity form RPM-BSP-ADA-1 in full, unless waived or modified as a result of the AIDA pre-application conference. 87. A full range of educational facilities such as public and private schools (elementary, middle and high), universities, colleges, community colleges, or other post-secondary educational facilities, or research facilities, including environmental educational facilities are permitted throughout the SDA districts. 22 County Comments. February 26, 2014. V2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 QUESTION 28 – HEALTHCARE 88. The location and specific use of new medical facilities shall be determined at the time of each AIDA submittal. Medical facilities shall be permitted in the Gateway District, the Town Center, the Work Place and the Village Centers in accordance with the adopted Farmton Local Plan as may be amended from time to time. 89. A letter from Bert Fish Medical Center and Halifax Health, or other state certified hospital shall be provided for each AIDA submittal. For each AIDA, Question 28 in the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity form RPM-BSP-ADA-1 shall be addressed in full, unless waived or modified as a result of the AIDA pre-application conference. QUESTION 29 – ENERGY 90. Estimates of average daily electricity demand shall be provided at the time of each AIDA submittal, including estimated demand by development phase. 91. Estimates of industrial electricity demand shall be provided at the time of each AIDA submittal, if applicable, when the specific type of use has been established. 92. If applicable, on-site electrical generating facilities shall be described at the time of each AIDA submittal. 93. Letters from off-site energy providers shall be provided at the time of each AIDA submittal. 94. Specific energy conservation strategies for residential and nonresidential building construction and site development for each AIDA and each phase of development shall be provided at the time of each AIDA submittal. Strategies for energy conservation may include, but are not limited to, ENERGY STAR ® standards are mandatory for residential development, but optional for non-residential development, compact community design, walkability, bicycle accommodations, the use of solar-powered technologies, green development practices in building design, construction and operation. AlsoIn addition, proposed development shall meet the requirements of a certification program from either USGBC LEED for Neighborhood Development, FGBC Green Development Designation Standard, National Association of Home Builders National Green Building Standard, the Green Building Initiative Green Globes Standard or another third party program deemed comparable by University of Florida Program for Resource Efficient Communities (PREC) 23 County Comments. February 26, 2014. V2 Comment [BM7]: Subject of letter? Capacity? No‐objection? Please clarify. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 and Volusia County. At the time of each AIDA submittal, the developer shall identify which program(s) shall be utilized for that particular AIDA and what certification types and levels must be attained. If a third party program is preferred, it must be discussed and negotiated as part of the AIDA pre-application conference. QUESTION 30 HISTORICAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES 95. The presence of historical resources shall be evaluated for each AIDA when site specific development areas have been established. A letter from the Florida Division of Historical and Archaeological Resources shall be provided at the time of each AIDA submittal. ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS 96. The MDRI shall comply with the provisions established in the FLP of the adopted Volusia County Future Land Use Element. This MDO and all subsequent AIDA shall be required to follow and implement the goals, objectives and policies established by the FLP as may be amended from time to time. In addition to the questions identified in Exhibit 3, the following items shall be identified and included as part of the individual AIDAs for subsequent increments: a. Specific form based design guidelines for the development of the increments and determination of consistency and compatibility with prior increments. Design-based guidelines shall address the following issues: i. Build-to lines ii. Lighting iii. Walkability iv. Block Sizes v. Parking locations (on and off street) vi. Fenestration/Architecture vii. Building Entrances viii. Building scale and orientation ix. Public space standards/streets/squares/transit/bikes x. Street typing/classification/interconnection xi. Provisions for shade xii. Signs b. Fiscal Neutrality Report and Procedure for Monitoring Fiscal Neutrality of the increment, in accordance with Exhibit 5 of this MDO, Fiscal Neutrality Methodology. 24 County Comments. February 26, 2014. V2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 c. Conservation Management Plan (CMP) for GreenKey and Resource Based Open Space included with the increment, as well as coordination with plans adopted for prior, approved increments. d. Identification of proposed Conservation Covenants/Easements for GreenKey and Resource Based Open Space and integration into the CMP for the overall project. This MDO authorizes the release of permanent conservation easements over all GreenKey lands within 60 days of approval and execution of this Master DRI Development Order and the removal of the reverter provision contained in the deed of the Deering Preserve at Deep Creek. This conversion is in acknowledgement of the permanent vesting of the Farmton development program of 23,100 dwelling units and 4.7 million square feet of non-residential uses (excluding schools and other institutional uses). e. Detailed phasing plan for development within the increment, including timing and amount and phasing of residential and non-residential development. f. Analysis showing that there is adequate supply of public infrastructure facilities and services including transportation, recreation, stormwater, and water supply for the proposed increment, as well as approved increments. g. Provisions that a finding of school adequacy has been made by Volusia County School District. h. Requirements and standards for the implementation of water and energy conservation measures in the proposed increment. i. Provisions relating to implementation of jobs to housing ratio (if applicable), in accordance with Exhibit 8 of this MDO, Jobs to Housing Balance Methodology. j. Site Analysis of natural features including floodplains, drainage, wetlands, soils, habitat types, and a biological inventory. k. Block layout, street classification and layout, and recreational space and landscaping plans. 97. Consistent with Objective 4 of the FLP, AIDAs shall incorporate a whole systems approach to the design, development, construction and operations of the community that is consistent and compatible with the remainder of the MDRI. The FLP incorporates multiple standards and requirements for sustainability. The implementation of these sustainability standards requires an adaptive management approach that incorporates an iterative process consisting of: a. Identification of the specific elements of sustainability that are appropriate for the particular AIDA area, given the requirements of Objective 3 of the Farmton Local Plan, which may include, but are not limited to; i. Energy Conservation ii. Water Conservation iii. Agricultural Lands Preservation iv. Environmental Preservation 25 County Comments. February 26, 2014. V2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 v. vi. vii. viii. ix. x. xi. xii. xiii. Recycling/Solid Waste Neutrality Urban Form Principles, including core mixed-use areas (Town Square and Village Centers) with vertical development components Jobs/Housing Balance Mixture of Housing Types and Price Points that would support mass transit, especially within core mixed-use areas Efficient Infrastructure Reliance on Renewable Resources Public Outreach/Educational Opportunities Regarding Sustainability Transportation Efficiency Water Quality Preservation b. Examination of successful implementation of various sustainable practices and applicability to the Farmton MDRI and the specific AIDA area that include, but are not limited to USGBC LEED for Neighborhood Development, National Association of Home Builders National Green Building Standard, the Green Building Initiative Green Globes Standard, FGBC Green Development Designation Standard, a combination thereof, or another third party program deemed comparable by University of Florida Program for Resource Efficient Communities (PREC) and Volusia County. At the time of each AIDA pre-application, the developer shall identify which program(s) shall be utilized for that particular AIDA and what certification types and levels must be attained; c. Development of a set of quantitative and qualitative standards for evaluation of the sustainability of the AIDA and its compatibility with surrounding areas within the Farmton MDRI; and, d. Establishment of a monitoring program that evaluates the success and applicability of the sustainability standards and requirements approved for the AIDA, as well as corrective measures that can ensure that the AIDA meets the overall goals of sustainability. e. The implementation and monitoring provisions shall demonstrate prior increments. f. The standards for sustainability and the monitoring program shall be discussed as part of the pre-application process for each AIDA. g. Each AIDA applicant shall coordinate with Volusia County to establish general Conditions, Covenants and Restriction (CC&R) principles regarding landscaping, irrigation and fertilizer use: i. Emphasis on trees, shrubs and groundcovers requiring minimal irrigation for establishment only and minimal fertilization ii. Once alternative water sources for irrigation are established and available, residential Pproperties shall not use (ground water) potable water for landscape irrigation except for a limited period during the initial establishment of landscaping (if necessary). Separate potable water irrigation meters shall not be permitted within Farmton 26 County Comments. February 26, 2014. V2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 iii. iv. v. Restrictions on automatic irrigation systemsStrict adherence to the COUNTY’s water restrictions in effect is required. All automatic irrigation systems must be equipped with a functional rain sensor or soil moisture sensor. Restrictions or prohibitions regarding individual, private, on-site irrigation wells (not part of a central utility system) Restrictions on fertilizer use, which will include a prohibited application period of June 1st - September 30th , during which no nitrogen or phosphorus may be applied. May prohibit any application of phosphorus without a soil or tissue test documenting a phosphorus deficiency, and require at least 50% slow release nitrogen. Prohibit the application of fertilizer within 10 feet of any waterbody, or within a required wetland buffer. 98. The following identifies minimum requirements for the development of the various SDA's. a. The Gateway District is a distinct geographic area located at the northern end of the project which is the closest tract to SR 442 and the I-95 Interchange. It is separated from the lands to the south by significant wildlife corridors, and connected to other SDAs districts via a 200 foot wide transportation corridor. Permitted uses include single family, townhome, and multi-family residential to create a diversity of residential types and price points. Non-residential permitted uses include retail, office, warehousing/light industrial, hotel and institutional. The most appropriate uses are those that would benefit by proximity to an interstate interchange, e.g. warehousing, light manufacturing, hotel, office, retail. Multi-family is an approved use in order to provide workforce housing for the area. The Gateway district development shall adhere to the following: i. Development must be compatible with and complement the development and conservation management plans of the Restoration Sustainable Development District within the City of Edgewater adjacent to the Gateway district. All infrastructure planning and capital improvements in the Gateway district shall be coordinated with the Restoration DRI and the City of Edgewater. ii. Williamson Boulevard Extension through Gateway district should be aligned as far eastward as practicable. iii. Development will target the interstate commerce market as well as local markets. iv. Single use development is permitted, although mixed use, vertical construction development is encouraged. v. Big box retail is permitted subject to compatibility requirements to be established by the land development code. vi. The following table summarizes the minimum mixture of land uses required within the Gateway District. 27 County Comments. February 26, 2014. V2 1 2 3 Gateway District Land Use Mix Requirements Use Minimum % of Gateway District Acreage Office 20 Retail 10 Manufacturing/Research & 15 Development Residential 20 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 b. The Town Center district shall serve as the social, cultural, economic, civic, and educational hub of the Farmton development. Permitted uses include office, retail, single family and multi-family residential, hotel, educational facilities, medical facilities, religious facilities, active and passive recreational facilities. Town Center district development shall adhere to the following guidelines: i. Development of the Town Center district will reflect the characteristics of a traditional downtown centered around a Town Square. ii. The Town Square shall be the focal point of the Town Center district. It shall be centered around active open space and the highest concentration of residential and non-residential uses shall front on the open space. iii. The Town Center district will house the majority of the civic uses within the FLP including, but not limited to, cultural amenities, art, museums, theater, public safety, government offices, gathering/meeting places, regional parks, day care centers, educational facilities, and similar type uses. iv. A system of interconnected streets, pedestrian paths and bikeways will be incorporated in the design. v. Williamson Boulevard Extension should be oriented to one side of the Town Center district. vi. When public transportation services are operating and available to serve the project, a transit station shall be located within the Town Center district, with an adjacent park and ride lot. vii. The following table summarizes the minimum mixture of land uses required within the Town Center District. 28 County Comments. February 26, 2014. V2 1 2 3 Town Center District Land Use Mix Requirements Use Minimum % of Town Center District Acreage Office 20 Retail 20 Parks & Civic 10 Residential 25 Light Industrial 5 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 c. The Work Place district is intended to provide and promote employment centers as well as provide work force housing in close proximity. Permitted uses include office, warehousing, light manufacturing, research and development, retail, multi family, hotel, recreational, and institutional uses and may include universities, colleges, community colleges, or other educational facilities. Work Place district development shall adhere to the following development guidelines: i. ii. iii. iv. Primary location for corporate headquarters, campus office parks and research parks. Primary location for higher education level learning centers such as colleges, universities, high schools, and technical institutes. Locate workforce housing within close proximity to employment centers. The following table summarizes the minimum mixture of land uses required within the Work Place District. Work Place District Land Use Mix Requirements Use Minimum % of Work Maximum % of Place District acreage Work Place District acreage Office 20 50 Retail 10 15 Research & Manufacturing 20 50 Residential 10 15 Light Industrial 5 20 21 22 23 24 d. Villages are compact residential areas containing a mix of residential housing types to encourage affordability for a wide range of economic levels. Villages shall be supported by internally designed mixed use village centers which provide key goods and services 29 County Comments. February 26, 2014. V2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 and public facilities at the neighborhood level. Villages shall be surrounded by large expanses of Resource Based Open Space that are designed to protect the character of the rural landscape. Villages shall adhere to the following basic guidelines: i. Villages shall include compact design that includes a system of land subdivision and development which links one neighborhood to another. ii. Villages shall include interconnected streets that are designed to balance the needs of all users, including pedestrians, bicyclists and motor vehicles, and which are built with design speeds that are appropriate for Neighborhoods. iii. Villages shall include alternatives for pedestrians and bicyclists through the provision of sidewalks, street trees and on-street parking which provide distinct separation between pedestrians and traffic, spatially define streets and sidewalks by arranging buildings in a regular pattern that are unbroken by parking lots; and provide adequate lighting that is designed for safe walking and signage which has a pedestrian orientation. Use Office Retail Parks/Civic Residential 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 Village Center Land Use Mix Requirements Minimum % Village Center Acreage 10 15 20 25 Jobs to Housing Balance 99. The MDRI shall contain the mixture of uses designated to provide for a balance of commercial, residential, recreational (active and passive) open space, employment, resource protection, educational, institutional and other supporting uses. The provision of a balanced development pattern based on market conditions will provide for housing and job opportunities. In order to assure a balanced development pattern, a set ratio of jobs to housing shall be determined for each AIDA, except for increments located in the Gateway District. Each AIDA shall conform to the methodology requirements and other provisions contained in Exhibit 8 of this agreement. Firewise Development Standards 100. As a condition of approval for each incremental development order, the Applicant must contact the Florida Forest Service, or its successor agency, and consult with them regarding 30 County Comments. February 26, 2014. V2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 firewise community planning practices. The recommendations of the Florida Forest Service shall be incorporated, where practicable, into the incremental development order. Each incremental development order shall also include provisions that require as part of the development review process that a covenant shall be placed on properties within the SDA districts to notify those property owners and residents that the nearby conservation areas may be managed by prescribed fire as part of a conservation management plan. In addition, the master development planeach AIDA shall coordinate with the Florida Forest Service regarding a Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation Plan based upon National Fire Protection Association Standards to reduce wildfire risk factors. Fiscal Neutrality 101. Fiscal Neutrality. Each AIDA shall comply with the provisions of Exhibit 5 of this MDO. Community Development District 102. The Applicant and subsequent developers of increments of this DRI may, in its discretion, elect to petition for the formation of a Community Development District to serve all or a portion of Farmton pursuant to Chapter 190, F.S., as the same may be in effect from time to time. The COUNTY hereby gives its approval that such a district may be formed to undertake the construction and/or funding of all or any of the mitigation and public infrastructure projects subject to the limitations incorporated within Chapter 190, F.S. for which the Applicant is responsible under the terms of this MDO, or terms of subsequent AIDA submittals, whether within or outside the boundaries of the District to be formed, and including the payment of mitigation amounts provided for in this MDO or any permits obtained by the Applicant as a part of - and incidental to the development contemplated by this MDO. This provision shall not be construed to require to require the formation of such a District, nor shall it be construed to require the approval of any petition to form such a District. However if the Applicant elects to form such a District, it shall be construed that the COUNTY will not oppose the formation of the same in the absence of a demonstrable showing by a clear preponderance of the evidence that the formation of such a CDD would be contrary to the public interest, health, safety and welfare of the COUNTY and its residents. Absent such showing the Petition to form a CDD will be approved in the ordinary course in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 190, F.S. 31 County Comments. February 26, 2014. V2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Any such CDD shall be self-funding, and shall exclude any Tax Increment Financing (TIF) method. Biennial Reporting 103. A biennial report for the Master DRI shall be prepared and distributed on or before the anniversary date of the alternate years of the effective date of this MDO until January 1, 2068, or until the Master DRI is built out, whichever date is sooner. The report shall be distributed to the City of Deltona, the City of Edgewater, the City of Oak Hill, the City of New Smyrna Beach, Volusia County, the ECFRPC, the FDEO, the FDOT, the FFWCC, VGMC and all affected permit agencies. The report shall include a statement that all persons/agencies listed above have been sent copies of the biennial report and shall be presented in a format as depicted in the Development Summary Table provided by the ECFRPC. The report shall also include any information specifically required to be included by the conditions of this MDO as well as the information required by Chapter 380.06, F.S. and Rule 73C-40, F.A.C., including at a minimum the following: a. Any changes in the plan of development, or in the representation contained in the AMDA, or in the AIDA for subsequent incremental developments. b. A summary comparison of the development activity proposed and actually conducted for the entire project and each increment that occurred over the past two (2) years since the prior biennial report. c. A specific assessment of the developer's and the COUNTY's compliance with each individual condition of approval contained in the DRI DO and the commitments which are contained in the AMDA and AIDAs that have been identified by the reviewing agencies as being significant. d. All AIDAs or request for a substantial deviation determination that were filed in the reporting year and to be filed during the next year. Commencement of Development 104. Development shall commence in accordance with the deadline(s) established in future AIDAs, but in no case shall development within SDA land use designation commence prior to March 30, 2017. Projected Build-out 32 County Comments. February 26, 2014. V2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 105. The Farmton MDRI is being built out in increments. The build out of the final increment is projected to occur December 31, 2060. Basis for Denial 106. A finding by the County Council of inconsistency between the Comprehensive Plan of Volusia County and an AIDA shall serve as a basis for denial of an AIDA, or finding by the County Council of an inconsistency between the MDO and an AIDA shall serve as the basis for denial of an AIDA. General Provisions 107. The approval by this MDO is limited to the terms herein. Such approval shall not be construed to relieve the owner(s) or incremental developer(s) of the duty to comply with all other local, state and federal permitting regulations 108. This MDO is intended to provide the owner(s) and incremental developer(s) with the maximum amount of flexibility to implement the long term planning goal, objectives and policies set forth in the Farmton Local Plan. Therefore, to the extent that Florida Statutes provide for alternative planning programs that provide greater flexibility to achieve the planning goals of the owner(s), the COUNTY or the incremental developer(s), the owner(s) and/or the incremental developer(s) may choose to utilize those programs to implement the development program set forth herein or set forth in any subsequent AIDA, subject to review and approval by the COUNTY, and as appropriate, subject to review of the ECFRPC and the VGMC. 109. The terms of this MDO shall run with the land and be binding on, and inure to the benefit of the owner, its successors in interest and assigns. The owner may assign this MDO and all its rights and obligations hereunder to its heirs, legal representatives, successors-in-interest and/or person, firm, corporation, or entity. 110. In the event any portion or section of this MDO is determined to be invalid, illegal or unconstitutional by a court or agency of competent jurisdiction, such decision, shall in no manner affect the remaining portions or sections of this MDO which shall remain in full force and effect. 33 County Comments. February 26, 2014. V2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 111. Copies of this MDO shall be furnished to the Owner, the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity, the VGMC, the ECFRPC and the City of Deltona. 112. This Master Development Order shall become effective as provided by law. 113. This MDO shall be recorded in the Public Records of Volusia County, pursuant to Section 380.06(15(f), Florida Statutes. ADOPTED BY THE COUNTY COUNCIL OF THE VOLUSIA COUNTY, FLORIDA, IN OPEN MEETING DULY ASSEMBLED IN THE COUNTY CHAMBERS AT THE THOMAS C. KELLY ADMINISTRATION CENTER IN THE CITY OF DELAND, FLORIDA, THIS ___ DAY OF ____, 2014. ATTEST: COUNTY COUNCIL COUNTY OF VOLUSIA, FLORIDA _____________________ James T. Dinneen, County Manager ____________________________ Jason P. Davis, County Chair List of Exhibits Exhibit 1. Legal Description and sketch of DRI property Exhibit 2. Conceptual Development Plan (Map H) Exhibit 3. Master DRI Agreement Exhibit 4, Conversion Matrix (FG 8.6) Exhibit 5. Fiscal Neutrality Methodology Exhibit 6. SW Wildlife Corridor Map Exhibit 7, Potential Spine Road Section with Dedicated Transit Lanes Exhibit 8. Jobs Housing Balance Methodology 34 County Comments. February 26, 2014. V2 1 2 35 County Comments. February 26, 2014. V2 Exhibit 5 to the Farmton MDRI Development Order. March 7, 2014. Fiscal Neutrality Preliminary Plan and Methodology for Monitoring Fiscal Neutrality. PURPOSE The Farmton Local Plan is a long term vision with a 50 year planning horizon. Development will proceed through a Master Development of Regional Impact (DRI) for the Sustainable Development Area districts through 2060. Development will be reviewed through the Master DRI process in order to ensure financial feasibility. Fiscal neutrality provisions of the Farmton Local Plan require future developers to pay for the costs of required infrastructure. This memo intends to provide general development guidelines and standards for Sustainable Development Areas, which provide for delivery of services and provision for infrastructure and fiscal neutrality. Farmton’s Application for Master Development Approval (AMDA) will not address the specifics of the required fiscal neutrality policies or criteria. Instead, the particulars relevant to any project or property will be considered in the course of each Application for Incremental Development Approval (AIDA) submitted for review. This proposed methodology assures our respective understanding of both the planning principles and general standards to be applied in the course of those review(s) and maintained over time as the entire Farmton property is developed either by its current owners or a series of subsequent parties. It is our expectation that the procedures and criteria described here can be applied in a cooperative way that systematically and uniformly guides future development which remains in largely a conceptual form today. GUIDING PRINCIPLES AND ASSUMPTIONS Definitions: Community Development District (CDD): CDD is as defined in Chapter 190.003(6), Florida Statutes, as it may be amended from time to time. CDDs shall not include tax increment financing (TIF) powers. Farmton: It is understood that references to Farmton within this document apply to Miami Corporation, its successors in interests and assigns that exist at the time of each AIDA in accordance with Policy FG 7.2 of the Farmton Local Plan. Fiscal Neutrality: Each development within the Sustainable Development Area (SDA) districts shall provide adequate infrastructure that meets or improves the levels of service standards adopted by the County and be fiscally neutral or results in a fiscal benefit to the county, school district, and municipalities outside that development. Fiscal neutrality means the costs of additional school district and local government services and infrastructure that are built or provided for the SDA districts shall be funded by properties within the approved districts. Self-funding: Means that revenue is generated by properties, businesses, residents and visitors within the boundaries of Farmton. For example, self-funding CDDs may include personal usage fee (PUF), benefit special assessments, maintenance special assessments, ad valorem taxes above local government and schools, but does not include tax increment financing. Tax Increment Financing: A program that allocates future increases in property taxes from a designated area to pay for improvements only in that area. General. There are assumptions that apply equally to capital and operating cost considerations. • The applicant understands that, as Farmton is developed it will be necessary to address the project’s impacts, if any, in terms of both its capital and operating costs. 1 Exhibit 5 to the Farmton MDRI Development Order. March 7, 2014. • Codification of this methodology and any subsequent Master Development Order (MDO) or Incremental Development Order (IDO) is an evolving process. • Whatever commitments are necessary to address capital and operating costs as these are defined, it is acknowledged that the full costs of such obligations cannot be properly calculated absent a more detailed program and timetable, which all parties recognize will evolve as different parts of the property are sold or developed. These obligations will be addressed in detail as part of each incremental DRI application. • If there are any inconsistencies between this methodology and the adopted Farmton Local Plan, the provisions of the Farmton Local Plan shall apply. • Each AIDA application must include a fiscal neutrality reporting chart, which reconciles all sources and uses of funds, as exemplified in Exhibit 1 to this methodology. • It is understood that references to Community Development Districts or other funding mechanism will will exclude utilizing tax increment financing. • Certain improvements identified within the Farmton Local Plan shall not be paid for with impact fees or credits. • Such procedures shall require that fiscal neutrality be determined for each AIDA on a case-by-case basis, considering the location, phasing, and development program of the project. • For off-site impacts, the procedures will require that the total proportionate share cost of infrastructure be included and not simply the existing impact fee rates. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Concurrency Management System, this shall include, but not be limited to, both localized and countywide impacts on county, city, state, and federal transportation facilities (such as roads, intersections, sidewalks, lighting, medians, etc.), public transit, schools, water supply and delivery, sewage transmission and treatment, solid waste, storm and surface water management. • The County requires that these procedures for measuring fiscal neutrality be reviewed and certified by independent advisors retained by the County at the expense of the landowner, developer or Community Development District prior to acceptance by the County. • Each AIDA shall have a financial strategy approved by the County to construct and maintain all required infrastructure. Community Development Districts are identified as the preferred financing technique for infrastructure needs. • No AIDA capital or operating budget is required to extend beyond a 25-year planning horizon. • Approval of development within the SDA districts (the Gateway District) is contingent upon the applicant demonstrating that any increase in density above the maximum potential development as of the time of the adoption of this plan, which is 2,287 dwelling units (and up to 4,692 dwelling units with a finding of school adequacy) and 820,217 square feet of non-residential uses, can be accommodated with infrastructure at the time of the application for the increment under the Master DRI, to include road, utility and school capacity as well as meeting concurrency requirements which meet the requirements for fiscal neutrality. • The financial impacts of each AIDA are assessed cumulatively. 2 Exhibit 5 to the Farmton MDRI Development Order. March 7, 2014. Capital Costs. Capital and operating costs of each AIDA should be addressed separately for purposes of monitoring fiscal neutrality. The following points underlie key assumptions about capital costs in accordance with Farmton Local Plan Objectives and Policies. • The intent is for Farmton to pay the capital construction costs for the following infrastructure improvements that support or serve Farmton: o Spine Transportation Network o Utilities, including water, sewer, reclaimed, irrigation, and power o Master stormwater systems o Parks and Recreation serving Farmton • To ensure the provision of adequate public facilities that are fiscally neutral and avoid inequitable burdens on parties outside of the Farmton Local Plan, public infrastructure for developments may be funded and maintained by a Community Development District (CDD) formed in accordance with chapter 190, Florida Statutes, or such other financial mechanisms that are not dependent upon a budgetary allocation of Volusia County or the School Board of Volusia County. • As described in the Farmton Local Plan, a CDD is a viable and desirable means of achieving fiscal neutrality. In the event Farmton, or its successors, determine, at their discretion, that a CDD is appropriate, then the parties agree that Farmton will be required to demonstrate the capacity for such CDD and the parties will then work together toward the creation of a CDD enabling Farmton to comply with the fiscal neutrality standards. • Where various legal vehicles necessarily require Volusia County be the source of legal administration or sponsorship, any costs of implementation therein will be absorbed by Farmton. • Farmton, within the limits of state law, can craft through its CDD or other financial mechanism/entity the necessary public/private partnerships it deems appropriate to implement its required infrastructure including the provision of all necessary user-supported or fee-based infrastructure as long as the mechanisms are fiscally neutral to Volusia County and the Volusia School District. Maytown Road shall not be funded through a user-supported or fee-based infrastructure mechanism on behalf of Farmton. • The County reserves the right to condition the approval of development on the availability of funding for the necessary infrastructure to support the proposed development. • Farmton will ensure that offsite costs and any financial adjustments (positive or negative) that may be passed to each AIDA are adequately addressed both at the project level and cumulatively across the full built environment. • All spine roads as indicated on future land use map series, (Figure 2-10- Farmton Local Plan- Spine Transportation Network), water, utility, as well as all parks or recreational facilities that might otherwise be planned, funded and financed through local government vehicles remain the responsibility of the owners and/or subsequent developers of Farmton. • These spine roads, water, utility, and parks or recreational facilities will be implemented through a self funding CDD or similar vehicle unless the owners or developers of any parts of Farmton should find other approaches more beneficial. 3 Exhibit 5 to the Farmton MDRI Development Order. March 7, 2014. • Prior to development approval, the county shall amend its Capital Improvements Element to include the timing and funding of public facilities required by the Farmton Local Plan. Operating Costs. It is agreed that capital and operating costs of each AIDA should be addressed separately for purposes of monitoring fiscal neutrality. • Farmton will receive the same general government services as provided to the remainder of the County, but will not receive any increase in level of service standards established in the FLP. • Additional school district and local government services provided for the SDA districts shall be funded by properties within the approved districts. • Each AIDA application must include a detailed fiscal neutrality reporting chart that reconciles all sources and uses of funds, and provided in Attachment 1 to this methodology. METHODOLOGY FOR REVIEW 1. Each AIDA will conform to a master capital improvements strategy that will be monitored and evaluated for consistency and reasonableness, understanding that each subsequent phase or project may cause some alteration in the basic development scheme. Pursuant to each AIDA, it will be the obligation of the master developer to assure that offsite costs and any financial adjustments (positive or negative) that may be passed to the AIDA are adequately addressed both at the project level and cumulatively across the full built environment. 2. As each AIDA is submitted, Farmton, would provide a detailed fiscal neutrality reporting chart that reconciles all sources and uses of funds, attached as Attachment 1. An applicant must demonstrate how its specific development program and capital needs relate to and integrate with any capital improvements that are a part of the larger Farmton development scheme and/or any other development pending approval or under construction. . 3. Specific to the goals of the Farmton Local Plan, each AIDA should be specific about its intended infrastructure, including but necessarily limited to the roads, drainage, parks and recreational facilities, utility systems, educational facilities, off site needs if any, and any other capital investments that would be absorbed by a CDD, a like vehicle, or other means deemed acceptable to the applicant and any reviewing agency. 4. The capital improvements strategy should be specific about any adjustments due to contributions or other agreements. 5. As for the sources and uses of funds cited above, they should include a preliminary analysis of the costs that would be relevant to supporting a CDD or like vehicle. 6. Because the typical CDD has both short term and longer financial options available to it, these should be shown as part of a general development budget that reconciles costs to all revenues available to satisfy those costs. The period of the analysis (years or phases as appropriate) will be that deemed customary and sufficient to the nature of the capital and operating costs being absorbed by the CDD but should in no case be required to extend beyond a 25-year planning horizon. 7. As each AIDA is submitted, a detailed operating budget for its portion of the relevant major costs which, like the capital budget, addresses all sources and uses of funds. As part of this analysis, an applicant must 4 Exhibit 5 to the Farmton MDRI Development Order. March 7, 2014. demonstrate how its specific development program and its expected needs relate to and integrate with any services that may be addressed in the budgets of any nearby or overlapping governments. 8. Any parks required to fulfill recreational needs of Farmton residents would be paid for by the owners and developers of Farmton or their successors. 9. Periodic reports would address issues particular to subsequent budgets, applicable revenue or capital requirements and implementation strategies. The nature and form of these reports would be included in the development orders of each respective AIDA. 10. The specific measures and/or procedures described above would be evaluated cumulatively for their financial impacts as each AIDA is submitted for review and approvals. The review and certification of these measures and/or procedures by independent advisors (retained by the County at the expense of the landowner, developer, or Community Development District) will occur prior to acceptance by the County. 5 Fiscal Neutrality Methodology- Attachment 1 Operating Costs ( Maintaining County LOS) 2 $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ Other $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ County (Ad Valorem) $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ Public Sources of Revenue paid by Farmton1 Municipal School Services Other (Ad Impact Fees District (Ad (Taxes/Fees) Valorem) Valorem) Adjustments FARMTON FISCAL NEUTRALITY REPORTING CHART Sources of Revenue or Funding for Service/Improvements $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ Developer User Fee Contribution/D onation Farmton Private Revenue/Contribution Sources1 $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ CDD Assessment ($$$) ($$$) ($$$) ($$$) ($$$) ($$$) ($$$) ($$$) ($$$) ($$$) ($$$) ($$$) ($$$) Cost of Services or Improvements ($$$) ($$$) ($$$) ($$$) ($$$) ($$$) ($$$) ($$$) ($$$) ($$$) ($$$) ($$$) ($$$) ($$$) ($$$) ($$$) Stormwater Improvements (on‐site) Stormwater Improvements (Spine Road Network) Parks/Recreation/Trails Fire Rescue/Public Safety Stations/Equip (on‐site) Law Enforcement (Substations/Equip) Utilities (potable water) Utilities (Sanitary Sewer) Utilities (irrigation) Utilities (power) Transporation (Spine Road Network) Transportation (on‐site roads) Transporatation (on‐site transit) Transportation (on‐site sidwalks, multi‐use paths) $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ Service or Improvement General Government/Admin Social Services/Human Services Law Enforcement Courts/Justice Fire Rescue/Public Safety Economic Development Parks/Recreation/Conservation Development Services/code Enforcement Utilities Maintenance Stormwater Maintenance Transportation Maintenance School Administration School Facility Maintenance School Facility Staffing/Teachers Solid Waste Operations Libraries/Culture Operations Example (increased fire protection above County LOS) ($$$) ($$$) ($$$) ($$$) ($$$) 1 Tax Increment Financing Powers shall not be utilized Expanded services and funding of same will be negotiated with local government provider Operational Costs or Capital Capital Improvements ( Maintaining County LOS) Improvements that exceed 2 County LOS Balance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Volusia County Traffic Engineering Project Name: Subject: Date: FARMTON AIDA, Responses to Applicant Responses/Original AMDA Comments, 2nd Sufficiency Report Comments, and Draft Development Order comments 03/07/14 Original AMDA Comments Comment 1: Traffic Conditions maps: For clarity, please indicate the type of counts depicted (2-way peak, AADT, p.m. peak, peak directional, etc.). Applicant Response 1: Figures 21-3 through 21-6 and 21-10 through 21-17 have been revised to reflect that the traffic counts are PM Peak-hour two-way counts. Volusia County Response 1: No further comment. Comment 2: Table 21-2: 1) LPGA Blvd 4-Laning project is scheduled for FY 13/14. Applicant Response 2: Table 21-2 has been revised to reflect this comment. Volusia County Response 1: No further comment. Comment 3: Background traffic on Farmton Roads: Please explain why a significant amount of background traffic is supposedly on roads being built by Farmton to support Farmton. (Use Table 21-11 as an example, Williamson Blvd Extension south of 1-95.) It seems that the background traffic volume should be very modest at best since Farmton jobs and businesses will be attracting the trips onto the roads and Farmton residents will be using them in everyday commuting. Response 3: Please review the updated traffic analysis results based upon the model run conducted after FDOT provided corrections to the Central Florida Regional Planning Model. Volusia County Response 1: The Brevard County portions of the proposed Farmton DRI appear to generating some of the trips that the model is identifying as background traffic within the project site. While the portions of the Farmton project in Brevard County are not recognized as “project trips” for the purposes of the AMDA analysis, they are in fact project-related and contribute to the overall needs of the project for the internal site roadways. Actual model volumes are being used for calculating 2035 background traffic conditions on the spine roadway network. As such, the model is being used to calculate the trip generation for the Brevard County portion of Farmton. However, when comparing ITE calculations for daily trips in the Volusia portion of Farmton against the model predicted trip generation the model appears to be generating a lower trip estimate by approximately 10%. Basing 2035 background volumes on the actual model volumes -1- Volusia County Traffic Engineering may be slightly underestimating the actual traffic on the internal roadways being contributed by the Brevard County portions of Farmton. Comment 4: Table 21-14 2060 Roadway Segment Analysis: 1) Need for Additional Spine Roads and Grid Network: With strategic Farmton corridors such as Williamson Blvd, Arterial Road A, 195 and Maytown Road projected to fail in 2060, why aren't further road improvements being planned (widenings or alternative arterials) as opposed to listing "Potential Transit Operations" as being the recommendation for all the LOS failures in Table 21-14? It seems that the few roads in the spine roadway network are not sufficient enough for a city with a population of 50,000-60,000. This is a city approximately the same size of Port Orange, which has four north-south arterials and four east-west arterials. Considering the Port Orange example, please note that Port Orange's significant transportation issues are located in the areas where there is a lack of a grid network is present (south of Dunlawton Avenue). Please revise the analysis to include additional arterials to handle the significant amount of road segments that are projected to be overcapacity, and use "Potential Transit Operations" more sparingly. If it is determined that a realistic snapshot of 2060 includes twice as many roads than the current Spine Road Network, then this significant cost needs to be considered in the financial feasibility planning now rather than later. Response 4: Please review the updated traffic analysis results based upon the model run conducted after FDOT provided corrections to the Central Florida Regional Planning Model. Volusia County Response 4: As outlined in the original comment, planning for an interconnected roadway network to serve the proposed Farmton Master Development is important to the success of the project. The basic roadway spine network included in the modeling provides limited information on actual roadway network that might be anticipated as part of the project. In the 2060 roadway analysis, Maytown Road within the project site is identified to have a volume that exceeds the 6-lane arterial capacity by approximately 25% (capacity of 4,851 with a projected volume of 6,451). Therefore “multimodal strategies” may not be sufficient to serve the full trip demand. Consider extending “Arterial A” to the south of Maytown Road to connect back to Williamson Blvd. This would increase the options for local travel within the center of the development and reduce the east-west burden being carried by Maytown Road. The model identifies approximately 15% of the total project trips to be intrazonal trips (trips that do not leave the TAZ in the model). The project is represented in the model by 13 TAZ’s, which are each modeled as a point. However, in reality, each TAZ -2- Volusia County Traffic Engineering represents a subarea of the model that will require a connected network of roadway infrastructure to satisfy the 15% of the total project trips that are intended to stay within each project zone and not impact the spine roadway network. Additional facilities parallel to the spine roadway network (minor arterials, collectors, etc.) will be needed to provide a connected roadway network between the TAZ’s to avoid pointloading all traffic onto the spine roadways. The analysis undertaken as part of the AMDA is a planning level analysis (two-way traffic being evaluated instead of directional trips, no intersection analysis, etc.). The generalized service volume tables from FDOT that are used in the analysis are based upon simplifying assumptions. The generalized tables assume that the majority of roadway traffic is through traffic (12% left-turns, 12% right-turns, and 76% through vehicles) and that the mainline receives a green time to cycle length (g/c) ratio of 0.44. Given the high level of interaction between the various project TAZ’s, the percentage of turning vehicles at any given intersection is likely to be higher and the volume of vehicles on the side street (which affects the g/c ratio that can be devoted to the mainline) is also likely to be higher. Both of these factors can impact the mainline capacity and reinforce the need for a broader connected network. While the emphasis of the current planning effort is to identify the primary spine network, the Master Development Order language should promote the additional interconnection of project “Village”, “Workplace”, and “Town Center” zones in the central portion of the project site via roadway connections other than the primary spine network. Comment 5: Table 21-14 2060 Roadway Segment Analysis: 2) Need for Determining the spine roads' Number of Lanes: Considering the effort that went into ensuring quality of life principles while developing the Farmton Local Plan, the spine roads' number of lanes must be planned for now as opposed to reacting later. The current analysis shows roads that are failing as four or six lanes, allowing the possibility of widening those same roads to six and eight lanes. The width of a roadway has a large impact on sense of place, community character, and multimodal attractiveness. This Master Development needs to plan for how wide roads will be through buildout and coordinated with the overall sense of place vastly described in the Farmton Local Plan now. Four and six lane roads are not typically considered mobility friendly since they are posted at high speeds . The alternative mobility transportation plan should include concepts to ensure the community remains connected and not separated. Response 5: Please review the updated traffic analysis results based upon the model run conducted after FDOT provided corrections to the Central Florida Regional Planning Model. Volusia County Response 5: See response to Comment #4. An interconnected network is important for balancing mobility needs with maintaining reasonable roadway crosssections to align with desired community character and sense of place. -3- Volusia County Traffic Engineering Comment 6: Table 21 -14 2060 Roadway Segment Analysis: 3) If the Farmton community is proposed to be developed based upon the spine road network and alterative mobility transportation modes due to environmental constraints, please provide this alterative mobility transportation mode in greater detail other than "potential transit operations." This will need to include concepts of potential general routes, headways,coordination with outside-Farmton locations (e.g., Restoration ORI, DeltonaOsteen, Brevard transit interconnect; etc.), and funding mechanisms. Remember this mobility option needs to be sustainable and fiscally neutral to the county. As such, please assume the county will not provide transit service in Farmton, and the costs and operation for any mobility service option should be preliminarily planned now to ensure land uses and spine roads are coordinated with when the service should be implemented within the overall Farmton community. Response 6: Additional Spine Road Corridors: The Farmton Local Plan identified the spine road network based on the availability of land for this use, with the intent to limit potential impacts to existing wetland mitigation banks, valuable natural resources and potential wildlife corridors. The existing wetland mitigation banks and conservation easements prevent the creation of additional north-south corridors within the boundaries of Farmton. Given this constraint and the policies of the Farmton Local Plan regarding sustainable development, there will be no additional north -south spine roads identified in the Farmton MDRI. It is understood that connectivity between the Sustainable Development Areas and areas external to Farmton shall be maximized based on the availability of land suitable for roadway use. The subsequent Applications for Incremental Development Approval (AIDAs) shall address the internal and external roadway networks and opportunities for connectivity. Fiscal Neutrality: It is understood that the operations and maintenance of transit systems within Farmton have to comply with the requirements of fiscal neutrality as defined by the Farmton Local Plan and the methodologies incorporated into the Farmton MDRI DO. External Connectivity of Transit: It is understood that transit systems within the Farmton area have to provide for connectivity with external systems. At this point in time there is one bus system operating in Volusia County (Votran). There is a similar county-wide bus system in Brevard County (Space Coast Area Transit or SCAT). Lastly, there is a requirement for a fixed guideway system for the Restoration ORI to be online by 2021. The Farmton MDRI DO will require that coordination with these transit providers will be addressed for all AIDAs. Additionally, the specific details as to the timing of the transit improvements, points of connectivity and types of transit systems within Farmton shall be required of all subsequent AIDAs. Transit Guideline and Details: The specific details on the types of transit shall be incorporated into the responses for the subsequent AIDAs. The MDRI DO shall incorporate typical cross sections for the spine road network and shall incorporate transit corridors within the right-of-way provided for the spine roads. -4- Volusia County Traffic Engineering The corridor shall be sized to comply with general standards in place at the time of the preparation of the MDRI DO. There shall be adaptive management language included in the MDRI DO so that future innovations or improvements in transit technology can be incorporated into the transportation network serving the Farmton MDRI. Volusia County Response 6: More detailed specifics of the transit plans for the project site will be expected in conjunction with the later AIDAs. The Master Development Order language should recognize the need for design of the roadway spine network to be transit supportive and allow future flexibility for transit integration. The 2060 analysis confirms that Maytown Road will continue to need to be transit supportive over the long-term since it is projected to have a volume that is approximately 25% higher than the 6-lane service volumes. The remaining spine roads should also be designed to be transit supportive and to not preclude potential future connections to adjacent transit facilities. As outlined in the draft DO, the 200 foot rightof-way should be provided for each of the roadways within the spine road network. However, given the limited information regarding the potential transit system (spacing of transit stops, headways, type of transit service, etc.) it seems premature to include a typical section with center-running dedicated busways. The typical section currently included in the draft MDRI DO should be removed. Additional discussion continues to be needed regarding the phasing of the spine road construction, the initial cross-section of the spine road, and consideration of future expansion of the cross-section for vehicular or dedicated busway lane extensions. New 1st Sufficiency Comments Comment 7: In setting up the socio-economic data within each project TAZ, the conversion of housing and commercial seems to follow the FDOT conversion factors into population and employment. However, the single-family dwelling units are converted to population using the same factor (2.31) as the multifamily dwelling units. Commonly multifamily dwelling units use a conversation factor of approximately 2 and a higher factor of around 3 is applied singlefamily dwelling units. Please clarify the source of the 2.31 conversion factor and why the same factor was used for both single and multifamily dwelling units. Comment 8: For the calculation of 2035 and 2060 background traffic volumes, trip generation from the Brevard County portions of the Farmton DRI are being estimated by the travel demand model. Since the Brevard County portions of the Farmton DRI are impacting the spine network in the Volusia County portion of the project, please verify that the model trip generation being assigned to the network from the Brevard County portions of Farmton is reasonably reflecting expected trips calculated by ITE methods. Comment 9: In Table 21-10, please clarify whether the 2005, 2035, and 2060 model volumes listed in the table include the application of an MOCF. -5- Volusia County Traffic Engineering Comment 10: Comment 11: Comment 12: Are the volumes listed true model volumes or are they AADT volumes derived from the model? For some segments the actual model volume is applied for background traffic and therefore the MOCF should be applied if it has not been already. Achieving a 53% internal capture percentage by year 2035 may be an optimistic assumption for this stage of establishing needed infrastructure. As outlined in the methodology document, the Farmton Local Plan identified an internal capture of 30% for year 2035. 30% reflects a more reasonable level of maturation of the uses on the project site and establishment of the level of commercial and employment bases that will enable a range of income levels to live and work in the community. These are aspects that travel demand model alone is not able to assess and therefore the travel demand model may be giving a more optimistic view of the possible internal capture than what will actually be able to be achieved by 2035. In addition, the analysis reflects one assumed development program scenario. The actual internal capture will vary greatly depending upon the timing and nature of the land uses. Actual monitoring of the project internal capture should be included in the Master Development agreement as part of the Monitoring and Modeling studies. The methodology applied in the analysis assumes that a 53% internal capture is achieved from Day 1 of the project through Year 2035. This is due to the fact that the analysis simply assigning the 2035 external trips to the roadway and then doing a straight-line interpolation to come up with the possible year of failure. In reality, the impacts will be greater in the early years and the rate of additional impact will gradually decrease as actual internal capture increases. The use of the 53% internal capture does not necessarily impact the sizing of the internal site roadways. However, it does impact the conclusions related to the magnitude and timing of impacts to the external facilities. Maytown Road is one of the primary non-state facilities that will require further evaluation at the AIDA stage to verify the impacts. In the methodology discussions for the AIDA analyses, additional discussion regarding the methodology for more accurately evaluating the internal capture will be expected. The approach used for the Master DRI should not be assumed to be set a precedent for the methodology for the future AIDA analyses. Approximately 15% of the project trips are shown to be attenuated in Deltona to the west of SR 415. Given the magnitude of residential in Farmton and the fact that Deltona is primarily comprised of -6- Volusia County Traffic Engineering Comment 13: Comment 14: Comment 15: residential uses, the attenuation in this area seems aggressive. Additional consideration for manual adjustments to the model distribution may be needed as part of the AIDA analyses. Please provide a separate distribution for external roadways and for internal roadways to show how the external trips are being distributed and to allow for verification that 100% of external project trips are being accounted for in the distribution figures. Currently Figures 21-8 and 21-9 show a mixture of types of distribution percentages, which makes it difficult to track internal versus external trip making. For internal roadways, the distribution percentages appear to reflect the percentage of total minus intrazonal trips. For external segments, the distribution percentages appear to reflect the percentage of external trips only. With these different distribution percentages on the same page, it creates confusion when trying to compare the distribution figures against the percentages utilized in the segment analysis tables (Tables 21-11 and 21-12). Reviewers were also not able to verify that the external trip percentages added to 100% based upon the available information. In the text under Section E on Page 21a-27, please consider clarifying the process used to assign trips shown in the Trip Generation tables using the project trip distribution. Reviewers were generally able to back-calculate the source of the various project trips assigned to individual segments. However, when trying to verify trips assigned to each roadway in Tables 21-11 and 21-12, it wasn’t immediately clear which trip generation values are being applied to which distribution percentages in order to achieve the results identified in the tables. Examples of the calculation of the project trips for an internal road (which shares external and internal trip components) would be helpful for documentation purposes. Please also provide the scripts or VPR files used to make the trip distribution computations to allow for verification. Note that with the use of the model assignment of internal trips to develop the trip distribution, the internal capture of each individual TAZ will be different (as indicated in the trip matrices in Tables 21-8 and 21-9). Trip generation calculations in Tables 21-3 and 21-4 assume the same internal capture rate is being applied to each of the TAZ’s which is inconsistent with the trip distribution and assignment in subsequent calculations. Consider removing the “PM Peak Hour Net External Trip Generation” values in Tables 21-3 and 21-4 for -7- Volusia County Traffic Engineering Comment 16: Comment 17: Comment 18: Comment 19: each of the individual TAZ’s since these values are not utilized and conflict with the remainder of the analysis. In Table 21-14, the segment of SR 415 from Enterprise to Maytown is identified to exceed its service volume with a 6-lane cross-section in year 2056. However, the identified improvement (widening to 6 lanes) is the same as the cross-section assumed to be already present in the analysis. Please identify the recommended improvement for this segment. A variety of improvements are identified to be needed prior to the 2035 horizon year, including portions of Maytown Road, Interstate 95, SR 415, and Doyle Road. Widening of each of these facilities are all assumed to be in place by 2035 for the purposes of the 2060 analysis. Additional improvement needs are identified prior to 2060 including widening of segments of Maytown Road, Williamson Blvd, CR 5A, Arterial A, SR 442, I-95, SR 415, SR 44, and Doyle Road. However, none of these anticipated external roadway improvement needs are currently documented in the draft Master Development Order. At a minimum, these significantly impacted roadways should be identified in the AMDO as key facilities that should be included in future AIDA and M&M studies, along with any other facilities where the project is expected to contribute 5% or greater of the adopted level of service volume. Based upon the 2060 Roadway improvements, the entirety of Williamson Blvd is projected to need to be either 4 or 6 lanes in the future. The section of Williamson from Arterial A to “S edge of Gateway” is identified to only need to be a 2-lane roadway through Year 2053. However, given the long term need for 4 lanes, it is unclear whether the entire Williamson Blvd spine roadway would be initially constructed by the owner/developer as a four-lane thoroughfare facility? Similarly, it is unclear what is intended for the initial number of lanes to be constructed for the remainder of the spine road network. Clarification is needed regarding the intended sequencing of the spine road construction. For example, is the entire Williamson Blvd going to be built in one project or is it intended to be built in components? If it will be built in components, the sequencing of the project and the connections of the roadway network will be extremely important to enabling the stated internal capture and the regional distribution to be achieved. Some basic trip thresholds and timing for key connections: Williamson to Maytown (started from -8- Volusia County Traffic Engineering Comment 20: Comment 21: Comment 22: Comment 23: Comment 24: either end), completion of Williamson, etc. need to be established and documented in the Master DRI. Draft Master Development Order, page 5, lines 29-32. Refinements to the language pertaining to the role of the MDO is needed. The language states “This MDO shall prevail over any conflicting information, data, plan or commitments”. However, in the case of the transportation issues, there are many areas including the details of the actual project impacts, proportionate share, roadway improvement commitments, etc that are not firm and will be identified in further detail through the AIDA analyses. Additional coordination is needed on the role of the Master DO related to transportation infrastructure. The role of the Farmton Local Plan in relation to the Master DO also needs to be better established. In many situations, the Farmton Local Plan should prevail. Related to the equivalency matrix, the MDO language should also reference the limits in the exchange of uses specified in the Farmton Local Plan. Additional coordination is required regarding the monitoring and modeling (M&M) provisions need further discussion including references to the County’s concurrency management system as well as the mechanism for triggering M&M studies to be completed. In order to manage the monitoring of individual incremental DRI’s as well as provide ongoing evaluations of the project as a whole, a more detailed plan needs to be established as part of the Master DRI. Streamlining the M&M process and the tracking of impacts of the AIDAs will be in the mutual interest of both the agencies and the master developer. One possible option could include a periodic (frequency to be determined) M&M study to be completed for the overall Master DRI that cumulatively evaluates the project and monitors the impacts and entitlements of the AIDAs. Additional details related to the M&M program need to be discussed as part of further drafting of the Master Development Order. Development Order, Page 6, section 6b: Each increment should take into account existing and vested development within and outside the MDRI - not just within the DRI. Development Order: Page 17, for clarification purposes, please include "maintenance" in the first sentence so that it reads, "Construction and maintenance of the spine transportation network is the responsibility of the owner/Farmton." The MDO doesn't mention maintenance of roads yet the Farmton Local Plan in FG 7.4 states that development in the SDAs shall have a financial strategy to -9- Volusia County Traffic Engineering Comment 25: Comment 26: Comment 27: Comment 28: Comment 29: Comment 30: Comment 31: construct and maintain all required infrastructure. All roadways, including the Spine Network, are to be maintained by the owner/Farmton per the Local Plan Fiscal Neutrality obligations. Development Order: Page 18, 66: Please include Brevard County in the list of agencies to agree to methodologies. Development Order: Page 19, 66, line 12: This section discusses final arbitration, and states that FDOT decisions shall be final for state facilities, Volusia for VC facilities, and ECFRPC for facilities of regional significance. Since FDOT or the county are the maintaining authorities for facilities of regional significance, the DO should state that the ECFRPC will work with the maintain agencies to make final decisions. Development Order: Page 19, 66, line 21; Please provide the list of regional roads. Development Order: Page 29, Jobs to Housing Balance: Please delete “market conditions.” Development Order: Page 31, 103: Please include Brevard County in the biennial distribution Question 23 Development Order: Page 20, 72: Please delete the designation of Maytown Road. In addition to the comments identified above related to the Master DO, Volusia County reserves the right to further comment on the draft development order pending the outcome of addressing the technical comments of the transportation analysis and discussions related to timing/phasing of infrastructure implementation. - 10 -