FDOT_Approved_Permit_Package.pdf

STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

DRIVEWAY CONNECTION PERMIT

FOR ALL CATEGORIES

Access Classification:

See following pages for General and Special Provisions

PART 1: PERMIT INFORMATION

APPLICATION NUMBER:

Permit Category:

Project:

Permittee:

Section/Mile Post: State Road:

Section/Mile Post: State Road:

PART 2: PERMITTEE INFORMATION

Permittee Name:

Permittee Mailing Address:

City, State, Zip:

Telephone:

Engineer/Consultant/or Project Manager:

Engineer responsible for construction inspection:

NAME P.E. #

Mailing Address:

City, State, Zip:

Telephone:

PART 3: PERMIT APPROVAL

The above application has been reviewed and is hereby approved subject to all Provisions as attached.

Permit Number:

Department of Transportation

Title:

Special provisions attached

Date of Issuance:

Signature:

Department Representative's Printed Name

Temporary Permit (If temporary, this permit is only valid for 6 months)

If this is a normal (non-temporary) permit it authorizes construction for one year from the date of issuance. This can only be extended by the Department as specified in 14-96.007(6).

SYSTEMS PLANNING - 06/06

850-040-18

NOYES

NOYES

Rule 14-96, F.A.C.

FAX, Mobile Phone, etc.

2023-A-390-00082

CHERYL POOLE

Cheryl Poole

Walton County Intersection improvements at US 98 and Moll Drive- Traffic signal

42037

OPERATIONS PROGRAM ENGINEER

2145 Delta Blvd, Suite 100

2023-A-390-00082

CHERYL POOLE

Dawne Mckee

Tallahassee, Florida 32303

Cheryl Poole

30(US 98)60020000 / 9.615

Tallahassee, Florida 32303

(850) 386-5117 ext. ______

2145 Delta Blvd., Suite 100

3/5/2024

J - Government Entity 3

Fax: / Mobile:

Dawne Mckee

Approved 2023-A-390-00082

Dawne Mckee 3/5/2024

PART 4: GENERAL PROVISIONS

1. Notify the Department of Transportation Maintenance Office at least 48 hours in advance of starting proposed work.

Phone: , Attention:

2. A copy of the approved permit must be displayed in a prominent location in the immediate vicinity of the connection construction.

3.

Comply with Rule 14-96.008(7), F.A.C., on Utility Notification Requirements.4.

Comply with Rule 14-96.008(1), F.A.C., Disruption of Traffic.

5. All work performed in the Department's right of way shall be done in accordance with the most current Department standards, specifications and the permit provisions.

6. The permittee shall not commence use of the connection prior to a final inspection and acceptance by the Department.

7. Comply with Rule 14-96.003(3)(a), F.A.C., Cost of Construction.

8. If a Significant Change of the permittee's land use, as defined in Section 335.182, Florida Statutes, occurs, the Permittee must contact the Department.

9. Medians may be added and median openings may be changed by the Department as part of a Construction Project or Safety Project. The provision for a median might change the operation of the connection to be for right turns only.

10. All conditions in NOTICE OF INTENT WILL APPLY unless specifically changed by the Department.

11. All approved connection(s) and turning movements are subject to the Department's continuing authority to modify such connection(s) or turning movements in order to protect safety and traffic operations on the state highway or State Highway System.

12. Transportation Control Features and Devices in the State Right of Way. Transportation control features and devices in the Department's right of way, including, but not limited to, traffic signals, medians, median openings, or any other transportation control features or devices in the state right of way, are operational and safety characteristics of the State Highway and are not means of access. The Department may install, remove or modify any present or future transportation control feature or device in the state right of way to make changes to promote safety in the right of way or efficient traffic operations on the highway.

13. The Permittee for him/herself, his/her heirs, his/her assigns and successors in interest, binds and is bound and obligated to save and hold the State of Florida, and the Department, its agents and employees harmless from any and all damages, claims, expense, or injuries arising out of any act, neglect, or omission by the applicant, his/her heirs, assigns and successors in interest that may occur by reason of this facility design, construction, maintenance, or continuing existence of the connection facility,except that the applicant shall not be liable under this provision for damages arising from the sole negligence of the Department.

14. The Permittee shall be responsible for determining and notify all other users of the right of way.

15. Starting work on the State Right of Way means that I am accepting all conditions on the Permit.

SYSTEMS PLANNING - 06/06

850-040-18

Rule 14-96, F.A.C.

8508365718 Dawne Mckee

Approved 2023-A-390-00082

NOYES

OTHER SPECIAL PROVISIONS:

PART 5: SPECIAL PROVISIONS

NON-CONFORMING CONNECTIONS:

If this is a non-conforming connection permit, as defined in Rule Chapters 14-96 and 14-97, then the following shall be a part of this permit.

1. The non-conforming connection(s) described in this permit is (are) not permitted for traffic volumes exceeding the Permit Category on page 1 of this permit, or as specified in "Other Special Provisions" below.

2. All non-conforming connections will be subject to closure or relocation when reasonable access becomes available in the future.

PART 6: APPEAL PROCEDURES

You may petition for an administrative hearing pursuant to sections 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes. If you dispute the facts stated in the foregoing Notice of Intended Department Action (hereinafter Notice), you may petition for a formal administrative hearing pursuant to section 120.57 (1), Florida Statutes. If you agree with the facts stated in the Notice, you may petition for an informal administrative hearing pursuant to section 120.57(2), Florida Statutes. You must file the petition with:

Clerk of Agency Proceedings Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street, M.S. 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458

1.

The petition for an administrative hearing must conform to the requirements of Rule 28-106.201(2) or Rule 28-106.301(2), Florida Administrative Code, and be filed with the Clerk of Agency Proceedings by 5:00 p.m. no later than 21 days after you received the Notice. The petition must include a copy of the Notice, be legible, on 8 1/2 by 11 inch white paper, and contain:

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

If there are disputed issues of material fact a formal hearing will be held, where you may present evidence and argument on all issues involved and conduct cross-examination. If there are no disputed issues of material fact an informal hearing will be held, where you may present evidence or a written statement for consideration by the Department.

Mediation, pursuant to section 120.573, Florida Statutes, may be available if agreed to by all parties, and on such terms as may be agreed upon by all parties. The right to an adminstrative hearing is not affected when mediation does not result in a settlement.

Your petition for an administrative hearing shall be dismissed if it is not in substantial compliance with the above requirements of Rule 28-106.201(2) or Rule 28-106.301(2), Florida Administrative Code. If you fail to timely file your petition in accordance with the above requirements, you will have waived your right to have the intended action reviewed pursuant to chapter 120, Florida Statutes, and the action set forth in the Notice shall be conclusive and final.

Your name, address, telephone number, any Department of Transportation identifying number on the Notice, if known, the name and identification number of each agency affected, if known, and the name, address, and telephone number of your representative, if any, which shall be the address for service purposes during the course of the proceeding.

An explanation of how your substantial interests will be affected by the action described in the Notice;

A statement of when and how you received the Notice;

A statement of all disputed issues of material fact. If there are none, you must so indicate;

A concise statement of the ultimate facts alleged, including the specific facts you contend warrant reversal or modification of the agency's proposed action, as well as an explanation of how the alleged facts relate to the specific rules and statutes you contend require reversal or modification of the agency's proposed action;

A statement of the relief sought, stating precisely the desired action you wish the agency to take in respect to the agency's proposed action.

SYSTEMS PLANNING - 06/06

850-040-18

Rule 14-96, F.A.C.

All lane closures and shoulder closures must be pre-approved to allow time for Public Information Office to send out notifications. Contact Jason Jones (850) 836-5790/jason.jones@dot.state.fl.us, or Jace Albury (850) 836-5782/jace.albury@dot.state.fl.us, or Melinda Clumfoot (850) 836-5742/ melinda.clumfoot@dot.state.fl.us

Approved 2023-A-390-00082

Approved 2023-A-390-00082

MOBILE · MONTGOMERY · SUMMERDALE · DESTIN · PANAMA CITY · PENSACOLA · TALLAHASSEE · BATON ROUGE · MANDEVILLE · NEW ORLEANS · LONG BEACH

PANAMA CITY OFFICE

7500 McElvey Road, Ste. A Panama City Beach, FL 32408

Tel: (850) 769-4773 Fax: (850) 872-9967 www.soearth.com

Poole Engineering & Surveying, Inc. May 23, 2023

2145 Delta Blvd, Suite 100 File No.: P23-0188

Tallahassee, FL 32303

Attn: Ms. Cheryl Poole, P.E.

Subject: Geotechnical Services for the Proposed Mast Arms at the Intersection of Hwy 98 and

Moll Drive/Church Street in Santa Rosa Beach, Walton County, Florida

Dear Ms. Poole:

Southern Earth Sciences, Inc., has completed the geotechnical services for the proposed

Mast Arms at the Intersection of Hwy 98 and Moll Drive/Church Street in Santa Rosa Beach, Florida. Our services for this project have been performed in general accordance with SESI proposal number XP23-3.15.23-1, dated March 15, 2023. This report presents the results of our field and laboratory testing and includes soil parameters for mast arm design.

FIELD INVESTIGATIVE PROCEDURES:

Prior to our field testing, the boring locations were marked/painted and Sunshine State

One Call of Florida was contacted to locate underground utilities. On April 18, 2023, the field testing for the above referenced project was performed. For our geotechnical investigation, two (2) soil test borings were performed to a depth of 30 feet below existing grade. The soil test borings were performed using the standard penetration technique. The top five feet were sampled using a hand auger in order to prevent any damage to potential underground utilities.

Beyond five feet, the borings were sampled continuously to ten feet and every five feet thereafter. The soil samples were placed in airtight containers and delivered back to our laboratory for additional testing and classification.

Test locations were established in the field by using a 100-foot tape and estimating right angles with reference to existing landmarks; therefore, our test locations should be considered approximate. See the attached Figure for our approximate test locations.

Poole Engineering & Surveying, Inc.

MASP – Hwy 98/Moll Dr/Church St

LABORATORY TESTING PROCEDURES:

Laboratory investigative work consisted of physical examination of samples obtained during the soil test boring operation. Soil samples were visually classified in the laboratory in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System. Evaluation of these samples, in conjunction with penetration resistances, have been used to estimate soil characteristics.

Natural Moisture: Three (3) samples were selected for determination of their natural moisture content. In the laboratory, each sample was weighed, dried, and its moisture content was calculated in general accordance with ASTM D2216.

Percent Passing 200 Mesh Sieve: Three (3) samples were selected to determine their percent of materials, by dry weight, finer than the U.S. Number 200 Mesh Sieve. This test was performed in general accordance with ASTM D1140.

The laboratory test results are shown on the boring logs at the depth of the tested sample. Abbreviations of laboratory data are shown below:

NM = Natural Moisture Content (%)

-200 = Percent Finer than the U.S. No. 200 Mesh Sieve

SITE AND SOIL CONDITIONS:

The proposed mast arms are located in the northeast and southeast quadrant of the intersection of US Hwy 98 and Moll Drive/Church Street. Church Street is located north of US

Hwy 98 and Moll Drive is located south of US Hwy 98. The shoulders of the roadway are grassed. The shoulders typically slope downward towards the swales, with the exception of the east side of Church Street, this area is relatively level. On the Church Street side (north of Hwy

98), there is a swale running parallel with US Hwy 98 and on the west side of Church Street.

There are numerous underground and overhead in this area. On the Moll Drive Side (south of

Hwy 98), there is a swale running parallel with US Hwy 98 and on both sides of Moll Drive.

There are also several underground and overhead utilities along this side. The logs of our borings are attached. The elevation of our test locations has been interpolated from the topographic information provided to us; therefore, the elevation of our test locations should be considered approximate.

Based upon the results of our borings, the soils encountered within their depths are predominantly slightly silty sands. The sands encountered throughout our boring vary in color and texture ranging from slightly silty to silty, slightly clayey to clayey and clean sands. Various amounts of organics were encountered near the surface, typically within the top six to twelve Approved 2023-A-390-00082

(6 – 12) inches. The sands are typically loose within the top few feet and become medium dense extending to approximately 10 feet. For the remaining extent of the borings, the sands range from loose to medium dense.

Groundwater was measured on the date of our field testing (April 18, 2023) and is indicated on the attached boring logs, which ranged from approximately 2.5 to 3.0 feet below the existing ground surface. Fluctuations in the water table depths will occur due to changes in gradient, seasonal precipitation/evapotranspiration differences, and any neighboring drainage/ wetland influences. Therefore, it is highly recommended that the groundwater levels be verified prior to any excavations on the site. Based upon observations made during performance of our borings, the estimated depth to the seasonal high groundwater is approximately two feet below existing ground surface at our boring locations. During periods of above average rainfall, groundwater levels may rise above the seasonal high depths.

SOIL PARAMETERS FOR MAST ARM FOUNDATION DESIGN:

Our evaluation has been based on information presented in this report and subsurface data obtained during our investigation. In evaluating the borings, we have used correlations which were previously made between penetration resistances and foundation stabilities observed in soil conditions similar to those encountered at your site. Based upon the results of our field testing and laboratory classifications, we have estimated the soil parameters for the design of the foundations by others. The estimated soil parameters are summarized in the tables below.

TABLE I: Test Location B-1, NE Quadrant (Church Street)

Depth: USCS Classification Friction Angle

Cohesion

(lbs/ft2)

Unit Weight

(lbs/ft3)

0 – 2 ft. SP-SC 27 0 95

2 – 6 ft. SP, SP-SM 28 0 45

6 – 13.5 ft. SP-SM 33 0 53

13.5 – 23.5 ft. SP-SM 28 0 45

23.5 – 28.5 ft. SP-SM 30 0 51

28.5 – 30 ft. SC 29 0 48

TABLE II: Test Location B-2, SE Quadrant (Moll Drive)

Depth: USCS Classification Friction Angle

Cohesion

(lbs/ft2)

Unit Weight

(lbs/ft3)

0 – 2 ft. SP-SM 27 0 95

2 – 6 ft. SP-SM 27 0 45

6 – 8 ft. SP 30 0 50

8 – 13.5 ft. SP 33 0 54

13.5 – 28.5 ft. SP-SM 28 0 45

28.5 – 30 ft. SP-SM 32 0 52

TESTING:

The effectiveness of the foundation will depend significantly on the proper preparation of the soils, as indicated previously. Therefore, we recommend the owner employ Southern

Earth Sciences, Inc., as the testing laboratory to perform construction testing services. If we are not employed to provide construction testing services, Southern Earth Sciences, Inc., can not accept any responsibility for any conditions, which deviate from those described in this geotechnical report. Southern Earth Sciences, Inc., should be invited to the pre-construction conference to discuss the project with all interested parties so that the project may be completed expeditiously and to the intent of our geotechnical report. We would be pleased to review the plans and specifications as they relate to the soil preparation and provide a fee proposal for construction testing.

GENERAL COMMENTS:

Professional judgments on design criteria are presented in this letter. These are based partly on our evaluations of technical information provided, partly on our understanding of the characteristics of the project being planned, and partly on our general experience with subsurface conditions in the area. We do not guarantee performance of the project in any respect, only that our judgments meet the standard of care of our profession.

This information is exclusively for the use and benefit of the addressee(s) identified on the first page of this report and is not for the use or benefit of, nor may it be relied upon by any other person or entity. The contents of this letter may not be quoted in whole or in part or distributed to any person or entity other than the addressee(s) hereof without, in each case, the advance written consent of the undersigned.

This report has been prepared in order to aid in the evaluation of this property and to assist the architects and engineers in the foundation design. It is intended for use with regard to the specific project discussed herein, and any substantial changes in the locations, or assumed (or reported) grades shall be brought to our attention immediately so that we may determine how such changes may effect our conclusions and recommendations. We would appreciate the opportunity to review the plans and specifications for the foundation and floor construction to verify that our conclusions and recommendations are interpreted correctly.

Our report does not address environmental issues which may be associated with the subject property.

While the borings performed for this project are representative of subsurface soil conditions at its respective location and for its respective vertical reaches, local variations of the subsurface materials are anticipated and may be encountered. The boring logs and related information are based on the driller’s logs and visual examination of selected samples in the laboratory. Delineation between soil types shown on the boring logs is approximate, and soil descriptions represent our interpretation of subsurface conditions at the designated boring location on the particular date drilled.

We appreciate the opportunity to assist you. If you have any questions or if we may be of further assistance, please call at your convenience.

Sincerely, SOUTHERN EARTH SCIENCES, INC.

Rebecca L. McNac

Staff Engineer

Logan A. Fowler, P.E.

Eng. Reg. No. 82343

State of Florida

Geotechnical Services Are Performed forSpecific Purposes, Persons, and Projects Geotechnical engineers structure their services to meet the specific needs of their clients. A geotechnical engineering study conducted for a civil engi-neer may not fulfill the needs of a construction contractor or even another civil engineer. Because each geotechnical engineering study is unique, each geotechnical engineering report is unique, prepared solely for the client. No one except you should rely on your geotechnical engineering report without first conferring with the geotechnical engineer who prepared it. And no one

— not even you — should apply the report for any purpose or project except the one originally contemplated.

Read the Full Report Serious problems have occurred because those relying on a geotechnical engineering report did not read it all. Do not rely on an executive summary.

Do not read selected elements only.

A Geotechnical Engineering Report Is Based on A Unique Set of Project-Specific Factors Geotechnical engineers consider a number of unique, project-specific fac-tors when establishing the scope of a study. Typical factors include: the client's goals, objectives, and risk management preferences; the general nature of the structure involved, its size, and configuration; the location of the structure on the site; and other planned or existing site improvements, such as access roads, parking lots, and underground utilities. Unless the geotechnical engineer who conducted the study specifically indicates oth-erwise, do not rely on a geotechnical engineering report that was:

• not prepared for you,

• not prepared for your project,

• not prepared for the specific site explored, or

• completed before important project changes were made.

Typical changes that can erode the reliability of an existing geotechnical engineering report include those that affect:

• the function of the proposed structure, as when it's changed from a parking garage to an office building, or from a light industrial plant to a refrigerated warehouse,

• elevation, configuration, location, orientation, or weight of the proposed structure,

• composition of the design team, or

• project ownership.

As a general rule, always inform your geotechnical engineer of project changes—even minor ones—and request an assessment of their impact.

Geotechnical engineers cannot accept responsibility or liability for problems that occur because their reports do not consider developments of which they were not informed.

Subsurface Conditions Can Change A geotechnical engineering report is based on conditions that existed at the time the study was performed. Do not rely on a geotechnical engineer-ing report whose adequacy may have been affected by: the passage of time; by man-made events, such as construction on or adjacent to the site;

or by natural events, such as floods, earthquakes, or groundwater fluctua-tions. Always contact the geotechnical engineer before applying the report to determine if it is still reliable. A minor amount of additional testing or analysis could prevent major problems.

Most Geotechnical Findings Are ProfessionalOpinions Site exploration identifies subsurface conditions only at those points where subsurface tests are conducted or samples are taken. Geotechnical engi-neers review field and laboratory data and then apply their professional judgment to render an opinion about subsurface conditions throughout the site. Actual subsurface conditions may differ—sometimes significantly— from those indicated in your report. Retaining the geotechnical engineer who developed your report to provide construction observation is the most effective method of managing the risks associated with unanticipated conditions.

A Report's Recommendations Are Not Final Do not overrely on the construction recommendations included in your report. Those recommendations are not final, because geotechnical engi-neers develop them principally from judgment and opinion. Geotechnical engineers can finalize their recommendations only by observing actual

Important Information About Your

Subsurface problems are a principal cause of construction delays, cost overruns, claims, and disputes.

Geotechnical Engineering Report The following information is provided to help you manage your risks.

Approved 2023-A-390-00082 subsurface conditions revealed during construction. The geotechnical engineer who developed your report cannot assume responsibility or liability for the report's recommendations if that engineer does not perform construction observation.

A Geotechnical Engineering Report Is Subject toMisinterpretation Other design team members' misinterpretation of geotechnical engineering reports has resulted in costly problems. Lower that risk by having your geo-technical engineer confer with appropriate members of the design team after submitting the report. Also retain your geotechnical engineer to review perti-nent elements of the design team's plans and specifications. Contractors can also misinterpret a geotechnical engineering report. Reduce that risk by having your geotechnical engineer participate in prebid and preconstruction conferences, and by providing construction observation.

Do Not Redraw the Engineer's Logs Geotechnical engineers prepare final boring and testing logs based upon their interpretation of field logs and laboratory data. To prevent errors or omissions, the logs included in a geotechnical engineering report should never be redrawn for inclusion in architectural or other design drawings.

Only photographic or electronic reproduction is acceptable, but recognize that separating logs from the report can elevate risk.

Give Contractors a Complete Report andGuidance Some owners and design professionals mistakenly believe they can make contractors liable for unanticipated subsurface conditions by limiting what they provide for bid preparation. To help prevent costly problems, give con-tractors the complete geotechnical engineering report, but preface it with a clearly written letter of transmittal. In that letter, advise contractors that the report was not prepared for purposes of bid development and that the report's accuracy is limited; encourage them to confer with the geotechnical engineer who prepared the report (a modest fee may be required) and/or to conduct additional study to obtain the specific types of information they need or prefer. A prebid conference can also be valuable. Be sure contrac-tors have sufficient time to perform additional study. Only then might you be in a position to give contractors the best information available to you, while requiring them to at least share some of the financial responsibilities stemming from unanticipated conditions.

Read Responsibility Provisions Closely Some clients, design professionals, and contractors do not recognize that geotechnical engineering is far less exact than other engineering disci-plines. This lack of understanding has created unrealistic expectations that have led to disappointments, claims, and disputes. To help reduce the risk of such outcomes, geotechnical engineers commonly include a variety of explanatory provisions in their reports. Sometimes labeled "limitations" many of these provisions indicate where geotechnical engineers’ responsi-bilities begin and end, to help others recognize their own responsibilities and risks. Read these provisions closely. Ask questions. Your geotechnical engineer should respond fully and frankly.

Geoenvironmental Concerns Are Not Covered The equipment, techniques, and personnel used to perform a geoenviron-mental study differ significantly from those used to perform a geotechnical study. For that reason, a geotechnical engineering report does not usually relate any geoenvironmental findings, conclusions, or recommendations;

e.g., about the likelihood of encountering underground storage tanks or regulated contaminants. Unanticipated environmental problems have led to numerous project failures. If you have not yet obtained your own geoen-vironmental information, ask your geotechnical consultant for risk man-agement guidance. Do not rely on an environmental report prepared for someone else.

Obtain Professional Assistance To Deal with Mold Diverse strategies can be applied during building design, construction, operation, and maintenance to prevent significant amounts of mold from growing on indoor surfaces. To be effective, all such strategies should be devised for the express purpose of mold prevention, integrated into a com-prehensive plan, and executed with diligent oversight by a professional mold prevention consultant. Because just a small amount of water or moisture can lead to the development of severe mold infestations, a num-ber of mold prevention strategies focus on keeping building surfaces dry.

While groundwater, water infiltration, and similar issues may have been addressed as part of the geotechnical engineering study whose findings are conveyed in this report, the geotechnical engineer in charge of this project is not a mold prevention consultant; none of the services per-formed in connection with the geotechnical engineer’s study were designed or conducted for the purpose of mold preven-tion. Proper implementation of the recommendations conveyed in this report will not of itself be sufficient to prevent mold from growing in or on the structure involved.

Rely, on Your ASFE-Member GeotechncialEngineer for Additional Assistance Membership in ASFE/The Best People on Earth exposes geotechnical engineers to a wide array of risk management techniques that can be of genuine benefit for everyone involved with a construction project. Confer with you ASFE-member geotechnical engineer for more information.

8811 Colesville Road/Suite G106, Silver Spring, MD 20910 Telephone: 301/565-2733 Facsimile: 301/589-2017 e-mail: info@asfe.org www.asfe.org Copyright 2004 by ASFE, Inc. Duplication, reproduction, or copying of this document, in whole or in part, by any means whatsoever, is strictly prohibited, except with ASFE’s specific written permission. Excerpting, quoting, or otherwise extracting wording from this document is permitted only with the express written permission of ASFE, and only for purposes of scholarly research or book review. Only members of ASFE may use this document as a complement to or as an element of a geotechnical engineering report. Any other firm, individual, or other entity that so uses this document without being an ASFE member could be commiting negligent or intentional (fraudulent) misrepresentation.

IIGER06045.0M

Approved 2023-A-390-00082

SUBSURFACE UTILITY ENGINEERING EXPLORATORY REPORT

EXP: Client

Project:

PROJECT DATA

WO #: W112990.000 Station: N/A PM: Dana Sowers

JN: J069111 Offset: N/A Chief: DARA

Task #: N/A Date: 02/21/2023 Crew: Justin

FPN #: N/A Time: 12:15 PM Weather: overcast clouds, 72F

EXPLORATORY DATA

Pole Type: Mast arm Ground Cover: Dirt Soil Condition: Soft-Wet

Pole Size: 5' x 5' Marker: Hub, Lath, Nail and Disk Soil Type: N/A

Notes:

FT FT FT

M: M: M:

1 Poole Engineering & Surveying, Inc.

US 98 at Church St. Mast Arms

Moved 3.60' northwest to clear gas mark and FOC. Unable to tap gas on owners mark. Electronic equipment indicates gas is at approximately 15.00'. Area not clear. Northing: 504001.0238 Easting: 1420694.4326 Elev: 15.72'

Utility Type Height Width Material Depth Nearest Edge Comments

1 FOC 1.00 1.000

Direct Buried Cable 1.80 3.00 At&t

2 Communication 2.50 2.500 Direct Buried Cable 3.50 1.00 CenturyLink

Back of sidewalk Comm box Fire hydrant Latitude/Longitude

8.50 16.25 29.10 30.374384

2.590 4.953 8.869 -86.237223

Location Site Image

Approved 2023-A-390-00082

Photo Report

US 98 at Church St. Mast Arms

6500 All American Blvd., Orlando, Florida 32810 Phone 407-292-8580 http://www.southeasternsurveying.com Page 1 of 1

Photo No. 1

Site Image

Photo No. 2

MA1 Th1

Photo No. 3

MA1 th2 Approved 2023-A-390-00082

SUBSURFACE UTILITY ENGINEERING EXPLORATORY REPORT

EXP: Client

Project:

PROJECT DATA

WO #: W112990.000 Station: N/A PM: Dana Sowers

JN: J069111 Offset: N/A Chief: DARA

Task #: N/A Date: 02/21/2023 Crew: Justin

FPN #: N/A Time: 3:33 PM Weather: overcast clouds, 71F

EXPLORATORY DATA

Pole Type: Mast arm Ground Cover: Dirt Soil Condition: Soft-Wet

Pole Size: 5' x 5 ' Marker: Hub, Lath, Nail and Disk Soil Type: Dirt

Notes:

FT FT FT

M: M: M:

2 Poole Engineering & Surveying, Inc.

US 98 at Church St. Mast Arms

Moved 2.00' west to clear gas marks. Unable to tap gm on owners mark. GPR shows gm at 25' deep. Client requests we move west to clear marks. Area clear. Northing: 503841.0134 Easting: 1420682.3633 Elev: 16.61'

Utility Type Height Width Material Depth Nearest Edge Comments

1 Communication 3.50 3.500 Unknown 7.55 2.90' CenturyLink. No photo due to depth

Back of curb Comm box Stop sign Latitude/Longitude

8.55 43.15 18.40 30.373944

2.606 13.152 5.608 -86.237254

Location Site Image

Approved 2023-A-390-00082

Photo Report

US 98 at Church St. Mast Arms

6500 All American Blvd., Orlando, Florida 32810 Phone 407-292-8580 http://www.southeasternsurveying.com Page 1 of 1

Photo No. 1

Site Image

Approved 2023-A-390-00082

Intersection Analysis Report

US Highway 98 (SR30) @ Church St. / Moll Dr.

Walton County

Prepared for

O’Connell & Associates Consulting Engineers, LLC Santa Rosa Beach, Florida 32459

Prepared by

Hall Planning & Engineering, Inc.

322 Beard Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32303

July 30, 2021

Updated August 11, 2021

Approved 2023-A-390-00082

Intersection Analysis Report US Highway 98 (SR30) @ Church St. / Moll Dr.

Hall Planning & Engineering, Inc. Page 1 July 30, 2021 Updated August 11, 2021

INTRODUCTION

A traffic operations study at the intersection of US 98 (SR30) and Moll Drive/Church Street, located in Walton County, was conducted by Hall Planning & Engineering, Inc. (HPE). The initial study report was submitted on May 4, 2021. This Report replaces the previous one and provides technical support for an analysis of Signal Warrant No. 8, Roadway Network that justifies permitting of a new signal.

This analysis includes a wider consideration of surrounding land development, its timing, and its relationship to the street network and intersection operation. Specifically, the study considers impacts of traffic from four approved developments adjacent to the intersection that were not approved at the time of previous operational studies for this intersection. It also considers Walton County Concurrency files documenting future growth in traffic based on committed trips approved by the Board of County Commissioners.

In prior years this intersection generated repeated requests for analysis of potential signal installation. HPE applied Synchro 9 intersection analysis to demonstrate operational characteristics with existing two-way stop control (TWSC) conditions and with a future signal installed. Updated counts for 2021 and consideration of concurrency approved development in the US98 (SR30) corridor constitute the major differences between previous FDOT Studies and this Study.

Figure 1. Intersection & Surrounding Development Approved by Walton Co.

2023-A-390-00082

Hall Planning & Engineering, Inc. Page 2

Analysis of the current conditions at the intersection shows that the current volumes are soon to be augmented by a substantial increase in travelers generated by newly approved development surrounding the intersection and its side streets. Developments shown in Figure 1. above were approved by the Walton County review process since past signal analysis was initiated:

1. Saltaire PUD – Major D. O. – BOCC Conceptual Approval Jan 2010, BOCC approval, Mar 24, 2010

2. Burger King - Minor D.O. - Approved TRC on Jan 6, 2021. On agenda April 1st Development

Review Board. Note: Planning Commission and BCC meetings not required

3. New Life Church of God - Major D.O. - Approved by BCC Feb 2020 - Now under construction

4. South Walton RV Resort - Major D.O. - Approved TRC, Dec 2, 2020.

Once warranted, new signal construction will require up to several years to complete. By 2023, most of the development units above will be completed or well underway. The best public interest is served if a new signal is completed prior to the approved development being completed and occupied with the addition of new trips flowing through the network.

The section below summarizes analysis of the stop sign controlled US98 (SR30) and Moll Drive/Church intersection performance as of February 2021.

The hourly traffic distribution each day is vital to understanding intersection operations. Figure 2.

displays the US 98 hose count taken 1/13/21 just west of Moll Drive. The pattern shows a sharp rise in 8 AM traffic, a slight drop in midday hours and a strong PM peak before traffic dissipates, dropping by half within the hour after 6 PM. Flows at this location are generally balanced by direction, with similar travel moving eastbound and westbound. Good signal progression relies on analysis of directional flows and proper access management.

Approved 2023-A-390-00082

Hall Planning & Engineering, Inc. Page 3

Figure 2. US 98 Hose Count 1/13/21 Just West of Moll Drive

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Ve hi cl es

/H ou r

Hour of the Day

Figure 2. US 98 - btw. La Canosa Blvd & Moll Drive Hourly Directional Volumes

HPE, Inc. 1-13-21

EB WB

Approved 2023-A-390-00082

Hall Planning & Engineering, Inc. Page 4

TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS

A traffic Signal Warrant 8 – Roadway Network analysis was conducted in accordance with state and federal guidelines outlined in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (FHWA, 2009) and Manual on Uniform Traffic Studies (FDOT 2021).

Traffic count data were collected by Southern Traffic Services (STS) on January 13, 2021 (Table 1). Intersections include US98 at Moll Drive/Church Street plus adjacent intersections; to the east at US 98 and CR 393, to the west at US 98 and La Canosa, and US 98 at Bishop Tolbert Road.

The adjacent intersection counts assist in determining the corridor travel characteristics. The heavy through movements of the study intersection were confirmed as consistent with adjacent counts taken during the same day.

To complete Signal Warrant 8, Roadway Network, for US98 and Church Street/Moll Drive, steps were taken to adjust the base traffic counts following best techniques in signal warrant practice.

Observed counts were adjusted using the FDOT peak season adjustment factor (Table 2). This resulted in a total entering volume of 2,971 veh/hr during a typical weekday hour, exceeding the 1,000 veh/hr criteria in Warrant 8.

Table 1: STS Observed Counts at US98 Church St./Moll Dr.

Hall Planning & Engineering, Inc. Page 5

Signal Warrant 8 also requires five-year projected volumes that, when applied, result in satisfaction of one or more of warrants 1, 2, or 3. Five-year projected volumes were calculated using two resources:

• Concurrency reports for four recent developments adjacent to intersection, see Figure 1.

• The latest file of the Walton County Transportation Concurrency Management System documenting committed future trips on US 98, at this intersection, from all approved development (Table 3).

Concurrency reports provide PM peak hour trips. To extrapolate this number across 8 hours, a proportional relationship based on the observed/counted trips (Table 2) was used to achieve volumes through the day. Concurrency reports for the four developments adjacent to the intersection (Figure 1) contributed trips to the minor streets, Church Street and Moll Drive. The Walton County Transportation Concurrency Management System added trips to US 98.

Table 3: Walton County Committed Demand on US 98

Segment Number Road Name Section Segment Description

Committed Demand US 98

U098.120-E US 98 (SR 30)

CR 30-A (West End) to CR 393

Thompson Road to S.

Church Street 862 EB

U098.120-W US 98 (SR 30)

CR 393 to CR 30-A (West End)

S. Church Street to Thompson Road 834

U098.130-E US 98 (SR 30)

CR 30-A (West End) to CR 393

S. Church Street to CR 393 899

U098.130-W US 98 (SR 30)

CR 393 to CR 30-A (West End)

CR 393 to S. Church Street 933 WB

Concurrency Trips from Four Developments

Table 2: Seasonally Adjusted Trips (x1.11)

Approved 2023-A-390-00082

Hall Planning & Engineering, Inc. Page 6

The four approved developments generated the following future Minor Street trips:

Table 4 PROJECTED MINOR STREET CONCURRENCY VOLUMES

(Calculated from The Four Concurrency Reports Peak Hour Estimates)

= Peak Hour Trip Generation (Concurrency Studies)

Table

4.1 RV Park

US

98 EB

US 98

WB

Church St.

(NR)

Moll Dr.

(NR)

7:00 AM 0 0 3 1

8:00 AM 0 0 3 9

9:00 AM 0 0 2 8

10:00 AM 0 0 1 6

11:00 AM 0 0 2 4

12:00 PM 0 0 3 6

1:00 PM 0 0 3 5

2:00 PM 0 0 2 3

3:00 PM 0 0 2 7

4:00 PM 0 0 2 7

5:00 PM 0 0 2 8

4.2 Church

US

98 EB

US 98

WB

Church St.

(NR)

Moll Dr.

(NR)

7:00 AM 0 0 1 1

8:00 AM 0 0 2 8

9:00 AM 0 0 1 7

10:00 AM 0 0 1 5

11:00 AM 0 0 1 4

12:00 PM 0 0 1 5

1:00 PM 0 0 1 4

2:00 PM 0 0 1 3

3:00 PM 0 0 1 6

4:00 PM 0 0 1 6

5:00 PM 0 0 1 7

4.3

Burger King

US

98 EB

US 98

WB

Church St.

(NR)

Moll Dr.

(NR)

7:00 AM 0 0 30 1

8:00 AM 0 0 36 5

9:00 AM 0 0 21 5

10:00 AM 0 0 15 3

11:00 AM 0 0 21 2

12:00 PM 0 0 27 4

1:00 PM 0 0 30 3 Approved 2023-A-390-00082

Hall Planning & Engineering, Inc. Page 7

2:00 PM 0 0 24 2

3:00 PM 0 0 21 4

4:00 PM 0 0 23 4

5:00 PM 0 0 21 4

4.4 Saltaire

US

98 EB

US 98

WB

Church St.

(NR)

Moll Dr.

(NR)

7:00 AM 0 0 0 3

8:00 AM 0 0 0 25

9:00 AM 0 0 0 22

10:00 AM 0 0 0 16

11:00 AM 0 0 0 11

12:00 PM 0 0 0 17

1:00 PM 0 0 0 12

2:00 PM 0 0 0 9

3:00 PM 0 0 0 19

4:00 PM 0 0 0 20

5:00 PM 0 0 0 21

The concurrency trip volumes shown above are only tabulated for the Minor/Side Streets of Church and Moll. Committed trips on US 98 were added in the next step covering east / west Concurrency volumes. This avoids double counting of US 98 Committed Volumes. The minor street volumes in Table 4 were added to Table 2 Seasonally Adjusted Trips. These added trips yield Table 5 Adjusted Observed (Table 2) + Projected Minor Street (Table 4).

Table 5 Adjusted Observed (Table 2) + Projected Minor (Table 4)

Counts US 98 EB US 98 WB Church St. (NR) Moll Dr. (NR)

7:00 AM 1611 1375 56 10

8:00 AM 1356 1540 68 71

9:00 AM 1210 1296 40 65

10:00 AM 1223 1278 28 45

11:00 AM 1331 1379 40 32

12:00 PM 1334 1380 51 48

1:00 PM 1503 1421 56 36

2:00 PM 1769 1404 45 26

3:00 PM 1744 1656 40 55

4:00 PM 1647 1568 42 58

5:00 PM 1686 1598 40 61

Concurrency Trips US 98 Approved

Hall Planning & Engineering, Inc. Page 8

The total Committed Trips in the latest Walton County Concurrency files for US 98 at this intersection are then added to Table 5. The eastbound peak hour volume is 862 and westbound is 933. These peak volumes were then prorated over the day based on the profile of the base counts. Addition of the US 98 trips yields Table 6 Adjusted Observed (Table 2) + Walton County CMS Committed Trips (Tables 3 and 4).

Table 6 Adjusted Observed (Table 2) + Walton County

CMS Committed Trips (Tables 3 and 4)

Counts US 98 EB US 98 WB Church St.

(NR)

Moll Dr.

(NR)

7:00 AM 3094 2313 56 10

8:00 AM 2921 3075 68 71

9:00 AM 2577 2627 40 65

10:00 AM 2395 2399 28 45

11:00 AM 2599 2587 40 32

12:00 PM 2313 2514 51 48

1:00 PM 2213 2620 56 36

2:00 PM 2644 2195 45 26

3:00 PM 2606 2589 40 55

4:00 PM 2462 2452 42 58

5:00 PM 2667 2639 40 61

Reduction of Minor Street Right Turns for signal warrant analysis is common practice. However, due to the high US 98 volumes and high speeds, SB right turns will be seriously delayed, and many should be included in the Warrant Analysis.

A new WB deceleration lane has been constructed just west of Church Street to facilitate entry into the emerging shopping center. The SB Church Street right turns will face very heavy WB through trips, many of which will be slowing and changing lanes to access the deceleration lane.

Based on these conditions, it is our opinion that ½ of the WB US 98 inside lane trips will also impact the SB Church Street right turns.

NCHRP Report 457 on Evaluating Intersection Improvements was used to calculate proper right turn deductions. Table 7 Minor Street Right Turn Calculations shows 1 and ½ lanes of WB US98 trips impacting the Church Street SB Right turns and 75% of WB 98 volume is considered Conflicting Major-Road Volume. With over 1,600 vehicles per hour conflicting, all forecasted right turns are included in the Warrant 1 analysis. Based on Figure 2-11 in NCHRP Report 457, right turns were not deducted from the Church Street (Minor-street) right turns.

Hall Planning & Engineering, Inc. Page 9

Table 7 Minor Street Right Turn Calculations

Counts Right Turns Seasonal Adjustment

(x1.11)

Figure 2-11 Deduction @.75

WB

Applied

Right Turns

Church St.

Moll Dr.

Church St.

Moll Dr.

Church St.

(WB)

75%

WB 98

Church St.

(SBR)

7:00 AM 184 5 204 6 0 1735 204

8:00 AM 182 15 202 17 0 2306 202

9:00 AM 125 17 139 19 0 1971 139

10:00 AM 114 23 127 26 0 1800 127

11:00 AM 84 13 93 14 0 1940 93

12:00 PM 91 18 101 20 0 1886 101

1:00 PM 108 21 120 23 0 1965 120

2:00 PM 105 24 117 27 0 1646 117

3:00 PM 114 27 127 30 0 1942 127

4:00 PM 84 39 93 43 0 1839 93

5:00 PM 86 30 95 33 0 1979 95

Table 7 Applied Right Turns for SB Church Street and projected Moll Drive turns (Similar conditions) were added to Table 6 to yield Table 8 Final Warrant Analysis Trips. Given this series of adjustments to the original observed trips, the final volumes used for Signal Warrant 8 (including 5-year projected volumes for Warrant 1) are shown below.

Table 8 Table 8 Final Warrant Analysis Trips Counts US 98 EB US 98 WB Church St. Moll Dr.

7:00 AM 2760 1948 261 10

8:00 AM 2954 3030 270 71

9:00 AM 2804 2835 178 65

10:00 AM 2401 2401 155 45

11:00 AM 2928 2664 133 32

12:00 PM 2723 2485 152 48

1:00 PM 2182 3090 176 36

2:00 PM 2644 2195 162 26

3:00 PM 3468 3522 166 55

4:00 PM 2462 2452 136 58

5:00 PM 2824 2786 135 61

Hall Planning & Engineering, Inc. Page 10

Signal Warrants

Signal Warrant 8 is met for installation of a signal at the study intersection. Signal Warrant Reports are included in the Appendix.

Warrant 8 tests the ability of a signal to encourage organization of traffic flow on a roadway network. The conditions for this warrant are detailed in Section 4C.09 of the MUTCD.

Signal Warrant 8 must meet either Warrants 1, 2, or 3 using 5-year projected traffic volumes from an engineering study. The Walton County Transportation Concurrency Management System is the most reliable projection of future traffic. Using these future projections, Signal Warrant 1 is met using the prescribed 70% and 80% volume levels (the posted speed limit is greater than 45 miles-per-hour).

Condition B of Warrant 1 is satisfied by the adjusted and 5-year projection of 8-hour traffic volumes. Condition B of Warrant 1 is intended for application where A is not satisfied and the traffic volume on a major street is so heavy that traffic on the minor intersecting street suffers excessive delay or conflict in entering or crossing the major street. Delay at the intersection is elaborated upon below with a LOS and Traffic Operations Analysis using Synchro. Church Street and Moll Drive currently experience excessive delay for left and through movements.

Signal Warrant 8 also requires the intersection be part of a street or highway system that serves as the principal roadway network for though traffic flow. As seen in the map below (Figure 3), Church Street and Moll Drive connect to Chat Holley Road, which serves as the principal collector for residents north of US 98 and as an entrance/egress from the Choctawhatchee Bay Causeway (US 331). A planned improvement to extension of Moll Drive will connect to CR 393, providing an essential network connection to an otherwise disconnected street network.

LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) AND TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS

Figure 3: Network Connection Map

Approved 2023-A-390-00082

Hall Planning & Engineering, Inc. Page 11

Application of the traffic flow program Synchro9 resulted in full LOS estimates for existing stop control and future signalized operation at Moll Drive and US 98.

SYNCHRO Version 9.0 was used to analyze existing and future conditions of the intersection of US 98 at Church Street/Moll Drive. The intersection is currently unsignalized with a current mode of operation that includes “Free Flow” on US 98 and “Stop Control” on both minor street approaches. The future condition consists of a signalized intersection operating in coordination with the existing signalized intersection at CR 393 and both minor street approaches operating in actuated mode.

The below table summarizes results (LOS and delay) of each scenario for the intersection and minor street movements All SYNCHRO runs are provided in the Appendix.

Table 5: Synchro LOS and Delay

Minor Movement LOS, Delay, & Queue Lengths

Scenario NB Left/Thru

NB

Right

SB

Left/Thru

SB

Right

EB

Left

WB

Left

Existing Condition – LOS F C F D F F Future Condition - LOS E A E B E F Existing Condition – Delay (seconds per vehicle) >300 23.1 >300 30.1 99.5 90.6

Future Condition - Delay (seconds per vehicle) 63.2 1.3 66.2 12.1 75.5 91.7

Existing Condition - Queue (Vehicles) 95th % 9.2 1.0 14.9 2.4 8.2 5.8

Future Condition - Queue (Vehicles) 95th % 1.0 0.0 5.1 2.4 11.2 5.2

Results show the minor street movements are experiencing significant delay.

Vehicle Delay Studies FDOT Traffic Operations has conducted operational studies at this intersection twice in the last four (4) years:

1. April 17, 2017 – Study prepared by HSA Consulting, Inc.

2. May 21, 2020 – Study prepared by Gresham Smith and Partners

Results from both FDOT studies indicate minor street movements are experiencing excessive delay entering US 98 due to the high traffic volume on the major street. Delay studies were conducted in both FDOT studies. A summary of the delay for the northbound and southbound left turn/thru movements from each study is provided in the table below:

Scenario PM Peak Hour Intersection

Average Delay (seconds/vehicle)

PM Peak Hour Intersection

Level of Service

Existing Conditions (Unsignalized) 767.1 F Future Conditions with Project Trips (Signalized) 31.1 C

Approved 2023-A-390-00082

Hall Planning & Engineering, Inc. Page 12

Table 6: Minor Street Delay

1 Delay value is total of measured delay at stop bar and in median.

Both the SYNCHRO analysis and field collected minor street delays show these movements are experiencing significant delay. This excessive delay impacts the number of left turn and through movements on both minor street approaches. It is reasonable to assume many motorists are choosing to make a right turn instead of turning left at this location. If signalized the number of left turn movements is expected to increase. As more development occurs at this intersection and with the expansion of Helen McCall Park, the delay numbers are expected to increase as well.

The Saltaire PUD is projected to generate 102 additional daily trips at the intersection. Because US 98 is a divided highway, residents traveling west are required to make a left turn from Moll Drive onto US 98 or make a U-turn on US 98 at the Moll Drive intersection. A traffic signal would prevent the excessive delay at an existing two way Stop Controlled intersection handling this projected westbound traffic.

Minor Street AM Peak Hour Delay…