The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1990 02 26 - Comments by Tech ReviewCity of Sebastian r{, POST OFFICE BOX 780127 ❑ SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 32978 TELEPHONE (407) 589-5330 FAX 407-589-5570 26 February 1990 Stanley F. Mayfield, P.E. Masteller & Moler Associates, Inc. P.O. Box 781045 Sebastian, Florida 32978-1045 RE: VICKERS GROVE SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY PLAT - COMMENTS BY CITY'S TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE Dear Stan, Pursuant to the meeting this morning in the City's offices among Bruce Cooper, Peter Jones, David Fisher, and yourself, this will confirm our Technical Review Committee's comments regarding the subject preliminary plat situation. I.e.. 1) You are to provide a statement and background information/calculations regarding TRAFFIC IMPACT. 2) You are to provide a statement and background information/calculations regarding RECREATION AREA REQUIREMENTS. 3) You are to provide a signed letter of approval from the Health Department regarding the SEPTIC TANK / DRAIN FIELD aspects of the project. 4) You are to provide details and appropriate written approval(s) regarding the POTABLE WATER SOURCE AND DISTRIBUTION aspects of the project. 5) You are to provide a statement confirming the CONCORD STREET R.O.W. DEDICATION aspects of the project. TECH. REVIEW COMM. - COMMENTS VICKERS GROVE PRELIMINARY PLAT 26 FEB 90 P. 2 OF 2 We understand you may want to be on the agenda with this item at the Planning & Zoning Commission meeting scheduled for 15 March 90. We see no problem with you being on that agenda with our qualified recommendation if you concur with our comments and provide us with the appropriate written materials and drawings several days in advance of the agenda deadline date of Thursday, 8 March 90. We remind you that the LAND USE CHANGE / REZONING aspects of this project are not likely to be finally approved for at least another three (3) months and that the preliminary plat approval by City Council, required before you may start construction, will not take place before then. We look forward to hearing from you regarding this matter sometime on or before Tuesday, 6 March 90. Sincerely and on behalf of, TECHNICAL REVIE Jopes, Qity Planner , Interim City Engr. Telephone: (407) 567-8000 April. 3, 1990 n BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Mr. Bruce Cooper Community Development Director City of Sebastian P.O. Box 127 Sebastian, FL 32958 Suncom Telephone: 224-1011 RECEIVED APR 1 0 1990 Subject: City of Sebastian Site Plans Using 99th Street Dear Bruce, The County Public Works Department staff has reviewed the proposed Vickers Grove Subdivision Preliminary Plat drawings and is concerned that existing, committed, and proposed development connecting to 99th Street does not create a poor level -of -service condition at US 1 and Vickers Road (99th St). The County recommends that a Traffic Impact Study be performed for all development projects generating 500 or more trips in accordance with the ITE Trip Generation Manual (Latest Edition). The following items are pertinent: 1) The Fisher Industrial Park (currently approved and under construction) contains 58,500 S.F. of building on an 4.53 acre site. The project will generate approximately 400 trips. 2) Vickers Industrial Subdivision has received preliminary plat approval for 22 lots on a 31.8 acre site. This project could generate 2000 trips per day. 3) The existing Vickers Land Mine will ultimately be phased out and the Vickers Grove Subdivision containing 130 lots is estimated to generate 1,300 trips, half of which could be directed to Vickers Road. In summary, approximately 3,700 trips will be added to 99th Street and the intersection of 99th Street and US 1 may experience operational problems. Please request a traffic impact analysis. A copy of the County's Traffic Study Code is included. Mr. Bruce Cooper Page two April 4, 1990 Thanks for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely, I James W. Davis, P.E., Public Works Director y NsIva9 Attachment: County Traffic Study Code cc: Michael S. Dudeck, Jr., P.E., County Traffic Engineer David B. Cox, P.E., Civil Engineer Roger D. Cain, P.E., County Engineer Robert M. Keating, AICP, Community Development Director b I T'0Z'88K / 66'oN'ddng uotleaaua[) d? q 8309ul2uH uo?lWods mAL 3o alnl -118uI Gql u?gItm paut13luoa e3ep lsalu, Gill ao 91913 ',(luno[) 1?sn13 s13 aantg u13tpul Sq ao zo3 pamJo3 .tad satpnis [anlou uodn paseg pal13lnaloo aq 111m uo?laaaua2 du[L •sale[; uotleaaue[) dt lL elgeatlddy g passesso Slalenbe pe aq of speduu ot3laal aql ao3 ejgvj113ne Spe01113 si slap luatot33u0 l8gl J0 luso?ldds aql Sq saans saut antloaJaoa 2u.IUUJ em sla13dan 91t933o asa9npe Aug 0113.19u92Iou 11tm asn pasodoad aql lvgl 83110m 0tignd3o Jolaaaip aql Sq uotleututaalap a uo paseq luautaatnbaa stgl antero Sum Spoq 2utnoaild13 OU •pried ns aq 11?m ;:' a sea P[ 11 ql u0tl13asua2 dtal aql lou ao aagl9gm autut -1010P 04 .IMS Slunoo J03 o19a[tan13 st uotlsuuo3 -ut lua?ot33tts paptnoad 'paatnbea aq 111m stsS[aus laedtat a33ea1 3 3t a2131s uotleat[dda-aad qgl l8 pag ?lou aq litm lusotldda atLL '831JOM otlgnd 3o aoloaa -tP Gq1 Sq PautuuGlGP Bel ota13ao not lslaodsuejl Isa?l?Jo a la pal13aol at asn pasodoad aql aaagm sluautdolanap so :aJow �� so Sap aad sdtal (000'T) Pres -nogl quo loe e all /aleaaua2 Mm luawdo[anap posod -oad aql aaagm quotleatldd13 ueld alts ao3 peambaa aq hags stsSl13uu loudutt ot-lteal y •Sl1T?gg01lddy •Z aae31am leaaua2 pus Sla313s "Divaq o?Ignd aql gnaasead of .ftassa P aau 9913 gatgm sluawanoadtnt 3Weq paambaa 11W ;.1 -u? 8lu9wdolanap mqu legl aansua of pu13 '81E13m -p13oa uo s[an9[ 9atnaas alanbepa ut13luivui of 'ulel OSS uotlelaodeueal Slunoo Jantg f 1• F u13tpul aql uodn aso sluautdo[anap pdoad3o loadmt aJnln3 9ql 2ututut °+ "K ; -Jalap 30 sueaut 3118u1819Ss pus algsitnbe us apin -oad of papuelut st 41 'us[d antsua aadmo T9n1 u13t u a o uauta not q [) Sluno[) 2I P I ql 3 l 1� lttl.todsuu. lL aql u? 'a a. pagst[gelso santlaafgo anatgoe of et luam9atnbaa eta S[au13 laedutt 2133eJ1 agl3o asodand •gsodand eqy 'T •sgsSlvuv lovdwt at,(/va,L •p •uotloas stgl 30 sluautaambaa agl of lu13 -nand stsSleue la13dun meal 13 atedaad of paatnbaa aq i Ilsgs elaafoad lueagtu2?S pavpuvts ?aafwd 2uvott/?M fl • •a S'SZ i OMNOZ—V XIQN3ddd I I 9 23.3 4. 6. Supp. No. 99 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY CODE Manual, (current edition). In the event that suit. able data are not available for the proposed land use(s), the public works director must approve es. timates prior to acceptance of traffic impact anal. ysis results. Level of Service Standards. No proposed develop. ment shall be approved which reduces the level of " service (L.O.S.) on major thoroughfares and/or major intersections below L.O.S. "C" on an average an. nual basis, or below L.O.S. "D" during peak hour peak season conditions. Level of service standards shall be based on'definitions established within the "Highway Capacity Manual" (current edition), by the highway research board. Where unsignalized !t major intersections exist within the boundaries of the traffic impact analysis study area, such inter. sections shall be analyzed to determine if the war- rants for signalization contained within the Man- ual of Uniform Traffic -Control Devices have been satisfied. If signalization is warranted, signalize - tion geometric improvements and/or traffic con- trol restrictions must be provided in order to meet acceptable service levels. An intersection which fails to meet signalization warrants requires no further level of service analysis. Preparation of Traffic Impact Analysis. The anal- ysis shall state all data sources and the methodol- ogy utilized in the study. County comments on the analysis will be provided in a written form. The applicant will then have the opportunity to incor- porate necessary revisions prior to submitting a final report. Contents of Traffic Impact Analysis. (a) Study area boundaries. The boundaries of the transportation impact areae shall vary based on the peak hour trips generated by the pro - Posed development. The study area shall in- clude all arterial and collector roadways as provided below: 1488.20.2 j APPENDIX A—ZONING 124.3 Peak Hour Trips Study Area Radius (miles) Lees than 600 % 600 to 1,000 1 Over 1,000 3 The study area radius shall be measured from the boundaries of the property being devel- oped. Projected impact on barrier island brid- ges shall be included in the study area report. (b) Existing and proposed land uses. The traffic impact analysis shall also include a descrip- tion of the existing and proposed land uses on the site. The land uses of adjacent properties within a minimum of five hundred (600) feet, including vacant land, shall also be identified. In addition, the roadways that afford access to the site, an are included in the study area, shall be identified. (c) Existing and proposed roadways and interseo- tions. Within the study area, the applicant must describe existing roadways and intersec- tions (geometries and traffic signal control) as well as improvements committed to by gov- ernment agencies. This would include the na- ture of the improvement project, its extent, implementation schedule, and the agency or funding source responsibly (d) Existing and committed traJjic conditions. A detailed description of the existing traffic con- ditions including the average annual daily traffic. (AADT) and the highest average peak hour volume for all collector and arterial roads within the study area shall be provided. The AADT shall be based on a current twenty- four hour traffic count provided by the appli- cant. The county shall provide the applicant with information regarding all committed de- velopment within the boundaries of the study Supp. No. 49 area and this information shall also be in. 1488.20.3 t I I 4 23.3 (e) M (g) Supp. No. 49 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY CODE cluded in the analysis. The current twenty- ` '1 four hour traffic count shall be adjusted to compensate for seasonal variations. This ad- justment shall be determined by utilizing quar- terly traffic counts, as supplied by the county. The methodology and assumptions underlying the annual adjustment shall be clearly stated. The average peak hour traffic volume shall be the highest average peak hour volume for any weekday twenty -four-hour period. The applicant shall also describe the existing lev- els of service (L.O.S.) of all collector and arte- rial roadways and major intersections within the study area. Trip generation. The traffic impact analysis shall include summary table listing each type of land use, the size (square footage for non- residential use) or number of dwelling units proposed, average trip generate rates utilized (total daily traffic and a.m./p.m. peaks) and the resulting total trips generated. All meth- I odology and assumptions must be clearly stated Trip assignment The traffic impact analysis shall describe the utilization of study area roadways by site generated traffic. The antic- ipated site traffic volumes shall be combined with existing and projected area traffic vol- umes to describe mainline and turning move- ment volumes with the site developed as pro- posed. All traffic volume will be assigned to existing and planned facilities in a manner consistent with existing traffic patterns and approved by the county. Determination of anticipated roadway and in- tersection levels of service. The service levels of major roadways and major intersections within the study area shall be determined based on the trip generation and assignment study, including an analysis of existing and committed development. Level of service "C" 1488.20.4 J APPENDIX A—ZONING 123.3 will be the minimum standard applicable to major roadways and major intersections on an average annual basis; level of service "D" will be the minimum acceptable standard for peak hour/peak season. Whenever level of ser- vice is determined to be below these minimum standards for anytime during the buildout pe- riod of the proposed project or project phase, the development shall not be permitted un- less the applicant provides roadway or other improvements necessary to maintain level of service "C" and "D", respectively. (h) Improuements to roadways and/or tro/Jwcontrol deuicea Transportation improvements such as intersection improvements; additional turning, acceleration or deceleration lanes; modified lane delineations; new or improved traffic eon- trol devices; or other such improvements may be required in order to maintain level of ser- vice standards. Accel and decel lanes which are required shall be funded by the applicant. The applicant may be required to fund and/or install other necessary improvements or pro- vide a legal assurance, such as a performance bond or other surety approved by the county attorney, prior to the issuance of a building permit. 7. Timing of Traffic Impact Analysis: Relationship to Site Plan Approval. kft applicant may receive site plan approval prior to the completion of the traffic impact analysis on the condition that the applicant agree in writing to install all improve- ments to be required by the traffic impact analy- sis when said analysis is approved by the public works director. In no case, however, shall a site plan be released unless a required traffic impact analysis has been submitted and approved by the public works director. 8. Traffic Impact Analysis File. The public works director shall maintain a file of all traffic impact analysis, including the data and methodology uti- Sapp, No. 49 1488.21 § 23.3 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY CODE lized. The county shall provide information and data, when available, in order to prevent duplica- tion of efforts and unnecessary costa. (Ord. No. 88-26, § 1, 6-28-88) (3) Paved road requirements. The following paving require- ments shall apply to site plan projects which require major site plan application approval and which also utilize or abut unpaved public or private roads and roadways. a. Private roads. Site plan applications for all projects accessed via unpaved private roads or roadways shall include the paving of such roads or roadways. County road design and construction standards shall apply to all paving improvements. b. Public road& Provisions for the paving of unpaved public roads that access or abut project sites shall be required as specified below under general requirements. c. Scenic and historic roads. Paving requirements and provisions for projects utilizing or abutting unpaved scenic or historic routes, as designated in the compre- hensive plan, shall be addressed on a case-by-case basis. The requirements specified below under general re- quirements shall apply unless otherwise waived by the board of county commissioners. Paving require- ments and provisions may be waived by the board of county commissioners if the board determines: (1) That the scenic or historic value or significance of the road would be adversely impacted by road paving. (2) That road paving is not essential to provide ads- gnate access to the particular development and through the surrounding area, and . (3) That the preservation of scenic or historic values outweighs the impacts of permitting a particular use to develop without paved access. If paving requirements are waived, the board may attach any conditions deemed necessary to minimize impacts on the road and surrounding area. d. Thoroughfare plan roads. The paving of roads desig- nated on the thoroughfare plan shall b Supp. No. 49 a required as 1488.22 APPENDIX A-Zp'ND4d 123.3 v specified below under general requirements. Improve- ment of thoroughfare roads shall be in coordination with the county long-range major street and highway program, or as approved by the major street and high. way program, or as approved by the board of county commissioners. In granting such approval to pave thor- oughfare plan designated roads in advance of the long- range major street and highway program and sched- ule, the board of county commissioners shall consider the timing of improvements, adequacy or deficiency of right-of-way, funding and construction of improvements, and the effect on the long-range major street and high- way program. e. General regairelnenta laving requirements are estab- lished to ensure that adequate road improvements are provided to adequately serve development projects and developing areas. County road design and construc- tion standards shall apply to all paving improvements. Mixture of residential and nonresidential traffic shall be avoided where possible. Persons applying for site plan approval of projects utilizing or abutting unpaved roads shall, as part of their application, include the appropriate provision for paving, as specified below. The county public works director shall determine the daily traffic trip generation of projects in accordance with accepted standards and good traffic engineering practice. Any required submission of escrow funds shall include an escrow agreement acceptable to the county attorney. Such agreements shall include provisions necessary to accomplish and facilitate future road paving. (1) Exemptions. Upon request by a major site plan applicant, the public works director and planning and development director shall review a project Proposal to determine if the project may be ex. em#ted from the requirements of this subsection "E, general requirements". Where both directors determine that the following criteria are satisfied, the major site plan shall be exempted from the requirements of the "general requirements" por- Supp. No. 41 1488.22.1 1 23.3 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY CODE tion of the paving requirements section of the site Plan ordinance. a. The project proposal is either an accessory use to an existing establishment or a modifi- cation of an existing establishment. b. The project proposal, if constructed, would not cause an addition to the number of employees currently working at the establishment. C, The project proposal, if constructed, would not cause an increase in the number of deliveries to or from the establishment. d. The project proposal, if constructed, would not cause an increase in customers, buyers, or other persons attracted to the establishment 'orb purposes. e. The applicant provides sufficient plans and documentation to prove and ensure (certify) that the previously listed criteria are satis- fied and will continue to be satisfied through- out the use and operation of the improvements constructed as part of the project, unless oth- erwise amended and approved via the appli- cable development approval process. (2) Appeals from exemptions. Appeals of the deter- mination to exempt or not exempt a project from the general paving requirements shall be deemed to be appeals of site plan decisions and as such shall be heard by the board of county commission- ers pursuant to section 23.2(m) (2) (bj'of the site plan review and approval procedures. (3) Small traffic attractora/generators. Projects deter- mined to be small traffic attractors/generators, defined as projects generating less than one hun- dred (100) per cent average daily trips, shall pro- vide for road paving as follows: a• Access road frontage: For the paving of a road(s) accessing the project, the applicant shall sub- mit funds in the amount of the project's share Of petition paving costs prior to the issuance Supp. No. 41 of a certificate of occupancy for all or any 1488.22.2 Supp. No. 41 n APPENDIX A—ZONING 4 23.3 portion of the project. Said funds shall be held by the county to be used for the paving of the road(s) accessing the project. The road segment to be funded and later paved shall include all of the project's frontage on the road. b. Abutting road frontage: For the paving of a road(s) abutting the project not utilized for access to the project, the applicant shall sub. mit funds in the amount of the project's share of petition paving costs prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for all or any portion of the project. Said funds shall be held by the County to be used for the paving of the road(s) abutting the project. The road segment to be funded and later paved shall include all of the project's frontage on the road. Where abutting roads are designated on the capital improvements program, traffic impact fees shall substitute for escrowing funds. c. Paving option: In lieu of submitting funds for paving under 3(a) and 3(b) above, the project application may propose to pave or arrange for paving the project's access road frontage and/or abutting road frontage, notwithstand. ing requirements for roads designated on the thoroughfare plan, if such paving would con• hect to a paved public road. If such a paving option is utilized, no certificate of occupancy shall be issued for all or any portion of the project until all paving has been completed, and improvements are inspected and approved by the county. d. Multiphase projects: For purposes of determin- ing if a multiphase project is a small traffic attractor/generator, the total project trip gen. eration shall be compared to the small traffic project definition criteria. e. Cumulative effect: No certificate of occupancy shall be issued for any project utilizing access 1488.22.3 A 23.3 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY CODE on a road that exceeds two hundred (200) ay. erage daily trips until the road accessing the project is paved from'the project's access point(s) to a paved public road. Provisions specified below under 4(a), (b), (c), and (d) shall apply. In considering the cumulative effect of small traffic attracting/generating project(s) on a road(s) or on an area, the board of county commissioners may determine the need for a forced petition or assessment for road paving purposes in developed or developing areas, and may impose such an assessment.. 4. Large traffic attractoratgenerators'. Projects deter- mined to be larger traffic attractoralgenerators, defined as projects generating one hundred (100) or more average daily trips, shall provide for road paving as follows: a. Access road frontage to access point(s): The road accessing the project shall be paved from the project's access point(s) to a paved public road. The design of the connection shall be in accordance with county design standards. Said Paying shall be completed, and improvements inspected and approved by the county, prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for all or any portion of the project. b. Remaining access road frontage: For the pav- ing of portions of a project's access road front. age not covered in the above paving require- ment (4(a)), the applicant shall submit funds in the amount of the project's share of peti- tion paving costs prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for all or any portion of the project. Said funds shall be held by the county to be used for the paving of the road accessing the project. The road segment to be funded and later paved shall include all of the project's frontage on the road. Supp. No. 41 1488.22.4 APPENDIX A—ZONING 3 23.3 c. Abutting road frontage: For the paving of roads abutting the project, the applicant shall sub- mit funds in the amount of the project's share of petition paving costs prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for all or any portion of the project. Said funds shall be held by the county to be used for the paving of the road abutting the project. The road segment to be funded and later paved shall include all of the project's frontage on the road. Where abutting roads are designated on the capital improvements program, traffic impact fees shall substitute for escrowing funds. d. Paving option: In lieu of submitting funds for paving specified under 4(b) and 4(c) above, the project application may propose to pave or arrange for paving the project's remaining access road frontage and/or abutting road front- age, notwithstanding requirements for roads designated on the thoroughfare plan, if such paving connects to a paved public road. If such a paving option is utilized, no certificate of occupancy shall be issued for all or any portion of the project until said paving is com- pleted, and improvements are inspected and approved by the county. (4) Intersection design, The following location and design cri. teria shall apply to intersections: a. Acceleration, deceleration and/or turning lanes shall be provided by the applicant at intersections of arte. rial or collector routes if projected traffic entering the site equals or exceeds sixty (80) vehicles in the peak hour or one thousand (1,000) vehicles per day for right turn and/or left turn movements. b. The first point of access to a marginal access road from a Primary collector or arterial street shall be at least three hundred thirty (330) feet from the intersecting right-01' ight-f--way lines of arterials shown on the Indian River county Thoroughfare Plan with subsequent in - Supp. Na, 41 1488.22.5 n BOA..D OF COUNTY COMMISSION. RS 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Telephone: (407)567-8000 May 1, 1991 Mr. Bruce Cooper City of Sebastian City Hall P.O. Box 780-127 Sebastian, Florida 32978 SUBJECT: Vickers Grove Dear Bruce: Suncom Telephone: 224-1011 I am transmitting to you a copy of a portion of the minutes of the Board of County Commissioners meeting dated April 2, 1991 which pertain to Vickers Grove Development. By copy of this letter, I am requesting Mike Dudeck, County Traffic Engineer, to begin communications with the D.O.T. initiating intersection improvements at US 1 and Vickers Road. Please, contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, James W. Davis, P.E. Public Works Director JWD:blp bcooper. attachment: 1) April 2, 1991 Minutes cc: James Chandler, County Administrator Michael S. Dudeck Jr., County Traffic Engineer Stan Mayfield, Masteller, Moler, and Mayfield Bob Keating, AICP, Community Development Director City of Sebastian POST OFFICE BOX 780127 ❑ SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 32978 TELEPHONE (407) 589-5330 FAX 407-589-5570 M E M O R A N D U M DATE: May 21, 1990 TO: David Fisher City Engineer FROM: Bruce Cooper Director of Community Development REFERENCE: Traffic Impact Study For Site Plan Us 99 Street Attached is a copy of a letter dated April 3, 1990 from Jim Davis, Public Works Director for Indian River County which is asking for our cooperation in reviewing any future site plans that would have access on to 99th and U.S. #1. Mr. Henry Fischer was informed at the time of the submission of Vickers Industrial Subdivision that a traffic impact study will be needed depending on the future developments of the industrial park. At this time the only project that is still pending is the Vickers Industrial Subdivision, which, when submitted, will have to satisfy the Land Development Code and our traffic impact study requirements. I would suggest that the City submit to the Indian River County Engineering Department a copy of our traffic impact study as provided in Article 10 of the Land Development Code for their review. I would also recommend that any future site plans or subdivisions that are submitted to the City that a copy be forwarded to the Indian River County Public Works Department for their review and comment. BC/gk traffic.doc J W BUCKHOLZ TRAFFIC ENGINEERING INC 4221 BAYMEADOWS ROAD, SUITE 5 JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA 32217 Mr. David Fisher City Engineer P.O. Box 127 Sebastian, Florida 32978 June 4, 1990 (904) 733-1514 Re: PT.oposed Traffic Study Methodology for Vickers Grove Development Dear Mr. Fisher: JW Huckholz Traffic Engineering has been retained to complete a traffic study in accordance with section 20A-10.2 of the City of Sebastian Land Development Code. This traffic study is for the expansion of the Vickers Grove Development, which is located east of US 1 and north of Vickers Road in the City of Sebastian, Florida (See Figure 1). The proposed expansion is expected to contain 43 single family homes, 59 duplexes, and 456,000 gsf of light industrial or warehouse space. Trip generation calculations were carried out using the rates contained in the City's "Table of Average Trip Generation Rates by Land Use Category". The following trip -end volumes result (See Table 1 for calculations): Average Weekday: PM Peak Hour: 3870 677 Since the expected daily traffic volume exceeds 1000 trips, a traffic Impact study is required. And since the peak hour traffic volume is between 500 and 1000 trips, the study area radius is set at one mile. The purpose of this letter is to present our proposed study methodology for your review and comment before beginning work. I have taken the liberty of sending a copy of this letter to Mr. Michael Dudeck of Indian River County since I understand that he may be Involved in the review of this study. PROPOSED TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY METHODOLOGY Conduct Physical Inventory: Road and traffic control information in the area, such as lane widths, traffic signal phasing, pavement markings, and right-of-way widths will be collected. Collect Traffic Count Data: The proposed study area is delineated in Figure 1. We plan to take 24-hour machine counts at the following locations: 1. On US 1, South of Indian River Drive 2. On US 1, North of Vickers Road 3. On Schumann Drive, North of Englar Drive 4. On Schumann Drive West of US 1 These machine counts will be subsequently adjusted to account for seasonal variations in traffic flow. Peak period turning movement counts are also planned at the following locations: 1. US 1/Schumann Drive Intersection 2. US 1/Vickers Road Intersection 3. Schumann Drive/Laredo Lane Intersection Calculate Trio Generation: We will use the trip rates contained in the City of Sebastian's "Table of Average Trip Generation Rates by Land Use Category". For this type of development, no adjustment is made for pass -by capture and the number of internal trips is expected to be negligible. Perform Trip Distribution and Traffic Assignment: We will observe the trip distribution characteristics of the existing Vickers Grove development and the adjacent residential neighborhood. This information will be used, along with area traffic patterns, to distribute the traffic generated by the proposed expansion and assign It to the surrounding road network. Mode Split: Transit usage and ridesharing are not expected to be significant for this development, consequently, no modification of the standard trip rates will be made. Determine Traffic Generated by Other Developments: The local Planning Department will be contacted to obtain a listing of other development projects planned for the area. A copy of any previous traffic studies in the area will also be obtained. Identify Planned Roadway Improvements: All planned roadway improvements in the area will be identified. If you know of any planned roadway projects that will affect traffic patterns in the study area, please notify us. Time Horizon: It is currently anticipated that the development will be completed and fully occupied by 1991. However, the exact date at which each unit is constructed and occupied will depend upon market conditions. We have chosen 1991 as our best estimate of full build- out and occupancy. Periods to be Examined: In accordance with the Land Development Code, we will examine average weekday conditions as well as weekday PM peak hour conditions. Perform Capacity Analyses: We will use the methodology contained in the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual and FDOT's Level of Service Standards and Guidelines Manual to evaluate the existing (1990), No Build (1991 without the development), and Build (1991 with the development) conditions. The corresponding level of service will be identified for all major intersections and roadway links within the study area. Identify Needed Improvements: Based on the results of the capacity analysis and an evaluation of traffic operations in the study area, all needed traffic -related improvements in the study area will be identified. Access to the site will also be examined to ensure that safe and efficient ingress and egress is provided. Adhering to this proposed methodology will produce a complete Traffic Impact Study that is consistent with the City of Sebastian's Land Use Development Code. We would appreciate a prompt response as t.o the acceptability of the proposed methodology so that we can proceed with the study. Please call me if you have any questions. We look forward to working with the City of Sebastian on this project. Sincerely, Jeffrey W. Buckholz, P.E. Principal cc: Mr. Stan Mayfield, P.E. - Masteller & Moler Associates, Inc. Mr. Michael S. Dudeck Jr., P.E. - Indian River County o• a oar G/ } 'u ►! Y[[ ... a ., N 101 21 IT pPt ILWO qI CI IFAVI II "I tt [II.[fA a1.1YH11MEVMlItt[L a MELBA � unnl5\'/ IN a IAwY IBLANO AaLp 1 16CNR CYIW Ea qW,u E[ R u , [I =AT /O� ISLAND L� O A�KIAL\ Q inN paA114Y W 0.Ai N NII= NWW wu An "AI W YAIWIp 1YIE G[ IWAF tI fdYlltl [I GI M ali= H ptiq [Y E[ 1=1A AI 1artA 1L 11 FAA, of FAA, 11 LL HI q°[r8Y U GI WI I[ I [WEEI EI Al Ijay �I p FI V \ `\\ EEYW0 WIT EOREaO \\ fELICAN� Fula 0 G St "M \ ROOSE1 EI \ IE N 6 G: LWIYU \ oA �yutetimL. \\. VL9' \\ •4 dA \ I'O0.GENIOE J A4° AT \\\\ YY AY lE \\ MIDIDLE MM9 Mo [ F n \\ O \\ NELSON n _ '\_7 7 \ Y[[ ... a ., N 101 21 IT PREACHERS sruo y $�vuOARY; o If ORCHID CITY J EE s A, WhRA$ pPt ILWO qI CI IFAVI II IHPIN E4 n IN a L+ AaLp N 16CNR CYIW Ea qW,u E[ Li 7 [I =AT ' ILLMK gM1I paA114Y W 0.Ai N IF Gl "AI W YAIWIp 1YIE G[ IWAF tI fdYlltl [I GI M ali= H ptiq [Y E[ 1=1A AI 1artA 1L 11 FAA, of FAA, 11 LL HI q°[r8Y U GI WI I[ I [WEEI EI Al Ijay �I p FI EEYW0 WIT LI Fula 0 G Q 6 G: LWIYU L, YY AY YY[6 AT YOR£A YN [ F iltl R 1- YIYII tE e [ mAA.v[ W.0 OM0 e i e wa Ar MIIIAAIE H' YM111 [ 1 t0 NLO FAY Y 1 1 DN,uV AYFu PREACHERS sruo y $�vuOARY; o If ORCHID CITY J EE s A, WhRA$ C n TABLE 1 VICKERS GROVE TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY TOTAL: 3870 677 PM Peak PM Peak Daily Daily Hour Hour Number Trip Trip Trip Trip LAND USE Units of Units Rate Ends Rate Ends Single Family Homes DU 43 10.0 430 1.00 43 Duplex Homes I DU 118 8.05 950 0.81 96 (59 lots, 118 units) Light Industrial Space 1000 456 5.46 2490 1.18 538 GSF TOTAL: 3870 677 lelephone:(407)56-8000 June 7, 1990 1^ r0%� BOA..D OF COUNTY COMMISSIOi. 'RS 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Suncom Telephone: 224-1011 J.W. Buckholz J.W. Buckholz Traffic Engineering, Inc. 4221 Baymeadows Road, Suite 5 Jacksonville, Florida 32217 RE: My Review of Proposed Traffic Study Methodology/ Vickers Grove Development Dear Mr. Buckholz: Please be advised that I have reviewed your proposed Methodology for the above referenced project and basically find it acceptable, with 2 exceptions. As you know the County has jurisdiction over County Road 510 and 512 while the State has jurisdiction over US 1, even though the County maintains the Traffic Signals at both locations. I therefore, strongly suggest that you include the US 1 intersections with County Roads 510 and 512 in your Traffic Impact Analysis so that we can adequately analyze these critical intersections to make sure that Concurrency is met on these segments of roadway. With the above 2 additions I would find your Methodology adequate for City and County evaluation. Sincerely Michael Dudeck Jr. P.E. County Traffic Engineer MSD:blp trafineth.msd cc; David Fisher, Engineer, City of Sebastian City of Sebastian n POST OFFICE BOX 780127 0 SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 32978 TELEPHONE (407) 589-5330 FAX 407-589-5570 11 June 1990 Michael S. Dudeck, Jr., P.E. County Traffic Engineer Indian River County Administration Building 1840 25th Street Vero Beach, FL 32960 RE: PROPOSED TRAFFIC STUDY FOR VICKERS GROVE DEVELOPMENT Dear Mike, Pursuant to our recent telephone conversation, enclosed for your information and use is a photocopy of the portion of the City of Sebastian's Land Development Code that pertains to traffic impact studies. Also, I have talked with Jeff Buckholz on the telephone and advised him we have no problem with his proposed methodology as set out in the Buckholz letter dated 4 June 90, but that we would be looking to you for your comments and input before signing off on the final result. I'll be out of town for the next two weeks and will check in with you when I return regarding this. Any questions you may have for us in the meantime can be referred to Bruce Cooper, our Director of Community Development (phone 589-5330, ext. 27). Regards, David W. Fisher Interim City Engineer Attachment Hm Asp** — MASTELLER & MOLER ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS • LAND PLANNERS Post Office Box 781045 Sebastian, Florida 32978-1045 (407) 589-4800 (407) 589-2742 Fax Dr. Henry Fischer Michael Dudeck Bruce Cooper Jeffrey W. Buckholz Anthony Castalone August 29, 1990 RECEIVEE) AUG 3 11990 RE: Minutes of the Meeting On Tuesday, August 28, 1990 Vickers Grove Traffic Impact Study Dear Gentlemen: This letter is to serve as an overview of the meeting held at the City of Sebastian with regard to Vickers Grove Traffic Impact Analysis. The following people were present at the meeting: Dr. Henry Fischer, Fischer & Sons, Inc. Michael Dudeck, Indian River County Traffic Engineer Bruce Cooper, Building Official, City of Sebastian Jeffrey W. Buckholz, P.E., J.W. Buckholz Traffic Engineering, Inc. Anthony Castalone, P.E., J.W. Buckholz Traffic Engineering, Inc. Stanley F. Mayfield, P.E., Masteller & Moler Associates * The meeting began with introductions being given by Mr. Mayfield. * Mr. Jeff Buckholz of J.W. Buckholz Traffic Engineering proceeded to give an overview of the data collection methods, calculations, traffic projections and report format. * When Mr. Buckholz reached Figure 418 which describes the 1991 buildout traffic P.M. peak hour distribution, Dr. Fischer expressed some concern with regard to the accuracy of the southbound right turn from 99th Street onto U.S. #1 as it compares to the southbound right turn from County Route #512 on U.S. #1. Mr. Buckholz attempted to explain these values with regard to Dr. Fischer's concern. Dr. Fischer's concern was duly noted and it was agreed that these values would be checked and verified. * After Mr. Buckholz finished his overview of the study he indicated that it was not the study's intent to assign responsibility for recommended improvements at buildout or non -buildout conditions. At this point in the meeting, Mr. Mayfield indicated that there were two fundamental assumptions that had changed from the time that the study was initiated. These two assumptions were as follows: August 29, 19990 Page 2 1.) The assumed development level of 15,000 gross sq. £t. of building area per lot is high when compared to proposed buildings in the area. 2.) The assumed 1991 buildout date is unrealistic under current constraints and approval requirements yet to be achieved. * At this point, Dr. Fischer explained that because of the economic environment changes with regard to projected construction—costs would impact the feasibility of going ahead with development of the single family and multi -family residential lots. He explained the projected construction costs had increased substantially because the Health Department of Indian River County has imposed the requirement of a central sewer and water system within the project. * Based on the previous two items outlined above, it was agreed that the proposed buildout date and development level values would be adjusted and the study revised accordingly. * Mr. Dudeck mentioned requirements with regard to the right-of-way on 99th Street and possible right-of-way acquisition which may be required if right-of-way was not adequate through this corridor. It was agreed that these right-of-way widths would be checked and verified. Near the end of the meeting, it was agreed that the five (5). year transportation improvement plan for Indian River County and the Florida Department of Transporation's proposed improvement list for North Indian River County would be checked and verified before our next meeting. It was agreed that we would hold our next meeting tentatively on Monday, September 10, 1990 to discuss the revised traffic impact report and other issues outlined above. The foregoing represents my understanding of the discussions held during this meeting on the date stated above. Should there be any questions, additions or deletions, please do not hesitate to notify me. Respectfully submitted, MASTELLER & MOLER ASSOCIATES, INC. Stanley F. Mayfi P.E. Principal SFM/vk File #9018 M