Second Sufficiency Response

Transcription

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
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
fmilch@ecfrpc.org
Print: 3
Digital: 1
Ms. Saralee L. Morrissey
Volusia County School District
3750 Olson Drive
Daytona Beach, FL 32124
smorriss@volusia.k12.fl.us
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
planning@cityofedgewater.org
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
SPhillips@vcso.org
386.736.5961
Digital: 1
Ms. Gail Henrikson AICP,
Planning Manager
City of New Smyrna Beach
210 Sams Avenue
New Smyrna Beach, FL 32168
GHenrikson@cityofnsb.com
386.424.2132
Print: 1
Digital: 1
Ms. Becky Mendez
Senior Planning Manager
Volusia County Planning and Development
Services
DeLand, FL 32720-4604
bmendez@volusia.org
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
lbollenback@volusiatpo.org
386.226.0422
Digital: 1
Mr. Chris Bowley
City of Deltona
2345 Providence Boulevard
Deltona, FL 32725
CBowley@deltonafl.gov
386.878.8600
Digital: 1
Mr. Gerald Chancellor
City of Deltona
City Engineer
2345 Providence Boulevard
Deltona, FL 32725
D-1
GChancellor@deltonafl.gov
386.878.8600
Digital: 1
Ms. Kohn Evans
City Clerk
City of Oak Hill
234 S. US Highway 1
Oak Hill, FL 32759
evansk@oakhillfl.com
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
Pamela.Ammon@dep.state.fl.us
Print: 1
Tallahassee, FL | 32399-4120
donna.harris@deo.myflorida.com
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
CompliancePermits@DOS.MyFlorida.com
850.245.6333
Print: 1
Digital: 1
Ms. Judy Pizzo GISP
Florida Department of Transportation
133 S. Semoran Boulevard
Orlando, FL 32807
Judy.Pizzo@dot.state.fl.us
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
carolyn.shultz@dep.state.fl.us
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
Jeffrey.s.collins@usace.army.mil
Print: 1
Ms. Christine Daniel
Water Facilities and Watershed Management
FDEP Central District
3319 Maguire Blvd., Suite 232
Orlando, FL 32803
407-897-4114
Christine.daniel@dep.state.fl.us
Print: 1
Mr. Lee Kissick
St. Johns River Water Management District
975 Keller Road
Altamonte Springs, FL 32714
lkissick@sjrwmd.com
407.659.4850
Digital: 1
Ms. Donna Harris
Department of Economic Opportunity
The Caldwell Building
107 E. Madison Street
Ms. Cathy Foerster
4049 Reid Street
Palatka, FL 32177
D-2
cfoerster@sjrwmd.com
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
Ben.Shepherd@myfwc.com
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)
Erin_gawera@fws.gov
Print: 1
Ms. Heather Blanck
Votran
950 Big Tree Road
South Daytona, FL 32119-8815
ADA/DRI: 1
HBlanck@co.volusia.fl.us
386.761.7700
Digital: 1
Mr. Jim Sellen
Volusia Growth Management Commission
140 S. Beach St., Suite 305
vgmc@volusia.org
jsellen@vhb.com
386.947.1875
Print: 2
Timber Weller, Wildfire Mitigation Specialist
5001 U.S. Highway 1, North
Bunnell, FL 32110
Telephone: 386/ 447-1533
Timber.Weller@freshfromflorida.com
Print: 1
Mr. Brett Blackadar P.E.
County Engineer
Seminole County
100 East 1st Street
Sanford, FL 32771
bblackadar@seminolecountyfl.gov
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
Robin.Sobrino@brevardcounty.us
321.633.2070
Print: 2
Mr. John Denninghoff P.E.
Director
Public Works
Brevard County
Suite 201-A
Melbourne, FL 32940
321.617.7202
john.denninghoff@brevardcounty.us
Print: 1
Mr. Charles Lee
Director
Florida Audubon Society
1101 Audubon Way
Maitland, FL 32751
clee@audubon.org
Provide CD if possible and
Digital: 1
Laura DiGruttolo
Office of Conservation Planning Services
D-3
Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation
Commission
3377 E. US 90
Lake City, FL 32055
386.758.0525 (ext 6245)
386.867.0028
laura.digruttolo@myfwc.com
Melissa Winsett
Volusia County Traffic Engineering
123 West Indiana Avenue
DeLand, FL 32720-4604
MWinsett@volusia.org
Print: 1
Digital: 1
FWCConservationPlanningServices@myfwc.com
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
pjjennings@sjrwmd.com
Digital: 1
Victoria Nations
Maitland, FL
407-659-4858
vnations@sjrwmd.com
Digital: 1
Gary Haddle
Maitland, FL
407-659-4800
ghaddle@sjrwmd.com
Digital: 1
Jon Cheney, PE
Volusia County Traffic Engineer
123 West Indiana Avenue
DeLand, FL 32720-4604
jcheney@volusia.org
Print: 1
Digital: 1
KC Cichon
City Manager
City of Lake Helen
327 S. Lakeview Drive
Lake Helen, FL 32744
kcichon@lakehelen.com
Digital: 1
Corrina Gumm PE
Traffic Engineer
Brevard County Traffic Engineering
Suite 201-A
Melbourne, FL 32940
321.617.7202
Corrina.Gumm@brevardcounty.us
Digital: 1
Reggie. Phillips@dep.state.fl.us
Digital: 1
John.palmer@usace.army.mil
Digital: 1
Pierce Jones
University of Florida
Program for Resource Efficient Communities
2295 Mowry Road
Gainesville, FL 32611
352-392-8074 Voice
piercejones@ufl.edu
Digital: 1
Mr. John Zielinski
District 5 SIS Coordinator
john.zielinski@dot.state.fl.us
Digital: 1
D-4
19 QUESTION – STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
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.
19-1
21 QUESTION – TRANSPORTATION
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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
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).
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.
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.
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.
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
Shopping Center
General Office
210
820
710
Apartments
Shopping Center
General Office
210
220
820
710
200
0
0
0
DU
DU
KSF
KSF
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
Apartments
Shopping Center
General Office
210
220
820
710
400
0
0
0
DU
DU
KSF
KSF
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
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
Apartments
Shopping Center
General Office
210
220
820
710
450
450
0
0
DU
DU
KSF
KSF
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
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
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
Apartments
Shopping Center
General Office
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)
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
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
Shopping Center
General Office
210
820
710
235 DU
10 KSF
10 KSF
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
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
Apartments
Shopping Center
General Office
210
210
220
820
710
400
400
224
30
30
DU
DU
DU
KSF
KSF
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
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
Apartments
Apartments
Shopping Center
General Office
210
210
220
220
820
710
450
538
450
539
30
30
DU
DU
DU
DU
KSF
KSF
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
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
Apartments
Apartments
Shopping Center
General Office
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
Apartments
Apartments
Shopping Center
General Office
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)
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
Apply model growth rate to 2012
Apply 1% minimum to 2012
2060 Growth Projection
Apply 2% 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 - New Interchange
Model growth rate found to be within reason
Overstated Osteen Local Plan growth
Min 1% applied as model rate was < 1%
Overstated Brevard County growth
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
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
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
2
E
600
9
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
Brev
2
E
0
9
1,440
0
MV
700
27.0%
2,067
2,767
Yes
Vol
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
2
E
0
9
1,440
0
MV
22
10.3%
1,439
1,461
Yes
Vol
2
E
0
9
1,440
0
MV
22
13.7%
1,914
1,936
Yes
Vol
2
E
0
9
2,710
0
MV
426
13.1%
1,830
2,256
No
Vol
2
E
0
9
1,440
0
MV
426
15.7%
2,193
2,619
Yes
Edgewtr
4
D
0
9
3,222
0
MV
1,217
15.6%
1,194
2,411
No
Edgewtr/NSB Rural Undeveloped UFH
4
D
0
9
4,840
0
MV
1,491
13.2%
1,010
2,501
No
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)
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
Edgewtr
Transitioning Cl 1 Arterial
4
D
9,525
9
3,200
857
2.58%
1,366
7.4%
566
1,932
No
Edgewtr
Urban Arterial
4
D
12,000
9
3,580
1,080
2.31%
1,654
2.4%
184
1,838
No
Edgewtr
Urban Arterial
4
D
16,100
9
3,580
1,449
1.59%
1,979
1.5%
115
2,094
No
Brev
Urban Freeway
6
D
26,283
9
10,060
2,365
3.15%
4,076
10.1%
773
4,849
No
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
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
4
D
15,200
9
Doyle Rd/Maytown Rd To Howland Blvd
Vol
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
Vol
Rural Developed UFH
2
C
7,700
9
1,550
693
2.11%
1,030
0.4%
31
1,061
No
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
Sem
2
E
5,400
9.5
2,710
513
3.18%
888
0.4%
31
919
No
Vol
2
C
6,000
9.5
790
570
3.13%
980
0.4%
31
1,011
Yes
Brev
2
C
6,000
9.5
790
570
3.24%
995
1.0%
77
1,072
Yes
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
4
D
14,400
9
3,580
1,296
2.94%
2,173
10.1%
773
2,946
No
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
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
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
4
D
21,260
9
2,628
1,913
1.00%
2,353
3.1%
237
2,590
No
Vol
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
2
E
9,580
9
1,152
862
1.50%
1,159
3.7%
283
1,442
Yes
Saxon Blvd. to Courtland Blvd.
Vol
2
E
8,020
9
1,152
722
5.18%
1,581
6.0%
459
2,040
Yes
Courtland Blvd. to SR 415
Vol
2
E
5,950
9
1,152
536
12.80%
2,114
7.2%
551
2,665
Yes
Brev
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
4
B
3,000
9.5
2,440
285
4.09%
553
0.0%
0
553
No
Vol
4
B
3,100
9.5
2,440
295
4.15%
576
0.0%
0
576
No
Vol
Transitioning UFH
4
C
3,800
9
4,460
342
4.30%
681
0.0%
0
681
No
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
Vol
Transitioning UFH
4
C
Vol
Urban Arterial Cl 1
4
D
7,000
9
Vol
Urban Arterial Cl 1
4
D
11,053
9
3,580
995
4.13%
1,941
3.4%
260
2,201
No
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
21-16
Table 21-12
2060 Roadway Segment Analysis
Farmton AMDA
Roadway
Williamson Boulevard Extension
County Road 5A (Stuckway Rd)
Arterial Road "A"
Interstate 95
SR 415
SR 46
SR 44
Doyle Road
US 1
Limits
I-95 to S. Edge of Farmton Mixed Use
US 1 to I-95
Gateway 2 to I-95
Airport Rd to I-95
CR 5A (Stuckway Rd) to Brev/Vol County line
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
Urban UFH
Urban UFH
Urban UFH
Rural Developed UFH
Transitioning UFH
Rural Developed UFH
Urban Arterial
Urban Arterial
Urban Arterial
Urban Arterial
Urban Freeway
Rural Freeway
Rural Freeway
Urban UFH
Class I Urban Arterial
Urban UFH
Rural Developed UFH
Rural Developed UFH
Rural Developed UFH
Rural Developed UFH
Urban Arterial
Transitioning UFH
Urban 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
21-17
Table 21-14
2060 Recommended Roadway Improvements
Farmton AMDA
Roadway
Limits
Arterial Road "A"
Gateway 2 to I-95
Interstate 95
SR 415
SR 46
SR 44
Airport Rd to I-95
Doyle Road
US 1
CR 5A (Stuckway Rd) to Brevard/Volusia Co line
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
Urban UFH
Urban UFH
Urban UFH
Rural Developed UFH
Transitioning UFH
Rural Developed UFH
Urban Arterial
Urban Arterial
Urban Arterial
Urban Arterial
Urban Freeway
Rural Freeway
Rural Freeway
Urban UFH
Class I Urban Arterial
Urban UFH
Rural Developed UFH
Rural Developed UFH
Rural Developed UFH
Rural Developed UFH
Urban Arterial
Transitioning UFH
Urban UFH
Transitioning UFH
Transitioning UFH
Transitioning UFH
Urban Arterial Cl 1
Urban Arterial Cl 1
Urban Arterial Cl 1
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
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
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.
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.
21-26
APPENDIX 1 - FISCAL NEUTRALITY
FISCAL NEUTRALITY
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.
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

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
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
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
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
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.
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.
•
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
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
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
Page 4
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
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.
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.
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).
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.
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
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
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.
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.
MDO-5
Comment 15:
Response 15:
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.
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 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
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
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 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:
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).
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.
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: devo@devoeng.com
www.devoeng.com
Date: March 17, 2014
Devo’s Project No: 08-807.01
To:
VOLUSIA COUNTY
cc:
VOLUSIA COUNTY
Growth & Resource Management Dept
DeLand, FL 32720
Growth & Resource Management Dept
DeLand, FL 32720
attention:
Becky Mendez, AICP
Senior Planning Manager
attention:
Tom Carey
phone: 386-736-5927 ext 12073
email: tcarey@volusia.org
phone: 386-736-5959 ext 12943
cc:
LASSITER TRANSPORTATION GROUP, INC.
cc:
STORCH AND HARRIS, LLC
123 Live Oak Avenue
420 South Nova Road
attention:
Matthew West, AICP
phone: 386-257-2571 ext 313
email: mwest@lassitertransportation.com
attention:
Glenn Storch
phone: 386-238-8383 ext 11
email: glenn@storchlawfirm.com
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.
MDO-12
Page 2
Exhibit 1.
Chloride Concentration In Upper Floridan Aquifer (Tibbals, 1989)
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
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
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
1
1-6
77-79
7
inactive, etc.)
MW-2
121-124
in Floridan aquifer
80
142-145
MW-1
415
4 Mile Buffer
(Edgewater
test well)
12-17
8-11
81
442
Major Roads
442
County Boundaries
Active Bank
Volusia
County
Ashby
Lake
440
6.9
58
0.45
93.1
Well 1
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
Chloride
Sulfide
Iron
82
1
18
10 Test Site
9
2 (320’)
7 Wellfield 2 400
6
5.7
Potable
Standard
Parameter
19-20
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
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
TEST RESULTS FOR “B” WELLS
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
1
INTERSTATE
1-6
95
57
77-79
7
inactive, etc.)
MW-2
121-124
in Floridan aquifer
80
142-145
MW-1
415
4 Mile Buffer
(Edgewater
test well)
12-17
8-11
81
442
Major Roads
442
County Boundaries
Active Bank
Volusia
County
Ashby
Lake
440
6.9
58
0.45
93.1
Well 1
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
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
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
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
TEST RESULTS FOR “C” WELLS
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
1-6
57
77-79
7
inactive, etc.)
121-124
80
142-145
4 Mile Buffer
Major Roads
12-17
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
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
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
1-6
57
77-79
7
inactive, etc.)
121-124
80
142-145
4 Mile Buffer
Major Roads
12-17
County Boundaries
8-11
81
Active Bank
A Wells, 45 mg/L zone
Volusia
County
Ashby
Lake
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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:
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
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
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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).
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.
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
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
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;
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
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
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).
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
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
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
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:
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:
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.
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.
within the Town Center District.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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
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
new Maytown Road Interchange
SR
MI
NO
IA
C
5
SE
LU
S
stion
i
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
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
Volusia County
Spine Transportation Network
Map H - 1
3
Miles
MDO-57
Date: 3/26/2014
APPENDIX 4 - AGENCY COMMENTS
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
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 judy.pizzo@dot.state.fl.us. 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
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
judy.pizzo@dot.state.fl.us
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
fponce@tindaleoliver.com
Page 2 of 13
OF
DRI N AM E :
SUBJECT:
Comment
Number
2
Page(s)
21-11
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
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
FDOT District 5
386-943-5167
386-943-5713
Reviewed By:
Company:
Telephone:
Email:
407-657-9210
Page 3 of 13
OF
DRI N AM E :
SUBJECT:
Comment
Number
Page(s)
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

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.
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.
FDOT Contact:
Telephone:
Fax
E-mail
FDOT District 5
386-943-5167
386-943-5713
Reviewed By:
Company:
Telephone:
Email:
407-657-9210
Page 4 of 13
OF
DRI N AM E :
SUBJECT:
Comment
Number
5
Page(s)
21-24
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
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.
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
FDOT District 5
386-943-5167
386-943-5713
Reviewed By:
Company:
Telephone:
Email:
407-657-9210
Page 5 of 13
OF
DRI N AM E :
SUBJECT:
Comment
Number
6
Page(s)
21-24
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
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:
FDOT District 5
386-943-5167
386-943-5713
Reviewed By:
Company:
Telephone:
Email:
407-657-9210
Page 6 of 13
OF
DRI N AM E :
SUBJECT:
Comment
Number
Page(s)
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
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
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.
FDOT Contact:
Telephone:
Fax
E-mail
FDOT District 5
386-943-5167
386-943-5713
Reviewed By:
Company:
Telephone:
Email:
407-657-9210
Page 7 of 13
OF
DRI N AM E :
SUBJECT:
Comment
Number
8
Page(s)
21-41
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
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.
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
FDOT District 5
386-943-5167
386-943-5713
Reviewed By:
Company:
Telephone:
Email:
407-657-9210
Page 8 of 13
OF
DRI N AM E :
SUBJECT:
Comment
Number
9
Page(s)
21-41
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
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.
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
FDOT District 5
386-943-5167
386-943-5713
Reviewed By:
Company:
Telephone:
Email:
407-657-9210
Page 9 of 13
OF
DRI N AM E :
SUBJECT:
Comment
Number
Page(s)
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
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
FDOT District 5
386-943-5167
386-943-5713
Reviewed By:
Company:
Telephone:
Email:
407-657-9210
Page 10 of 13
OF
DRI N AM E :
SUBJECT:
Comment
Number
Page(s)
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
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
FDOT District 5
386-943-5167
386-943-5713
Reviewed By:
Company:
Telephone:
Email:
407-657-9210
Page 11 of 13
OF
DRI N AM E :
SUBJECT:
Comment
Number
Page(s)
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
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.
FDOT District 5
386-943-5167
386-943-5713
Reviewed By:
Company:
Telephone:
Email:
407-657-9210
Page 12 of 13
OF
DRI N AM E :
SUBJECT:
Comment
Number
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
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.
FDOT District 5
386-943-5167
386-943-5713
Reviewed By:
Company:
Telephone:
Email:
407-657-9210
Page 13 of 13
OF
DRI N AM E :
SUBJECT:
Comment
Number
23
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
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.
FDOT District 5
386-943-5167
386-943-5713
Reviewed By:
Company:
Telephone:
Email:
407-657-9210
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
7. The Volusia Growth Management Commission (VGMC) also approved the MDRI
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
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
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
Notes:
1
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
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
Total
18,408
23,100
820,217
3,879,783
4,700,000
4,692
3
2026-2060
2
Notes:
1
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
•
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 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
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
•
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.
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
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.
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.
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 -

Second Sufficiency Response

Transcription

Similar documents

Pimp my memory - Temple University

COMMUNICATOR - Volusia County Bar Association

Terrier Tattler - Volusia County Schools

Asteroid Impact Mission (AIM)

CONTENTS OF HISTORIA SCIENT/ARUM: International Journal of

the mystery of palace life

Volume 1 Mentor Texts

List of Audel Guides

Newsletter May 2013

Community Open Houses - I