ARBORWOOD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DISTRICT

LEE COUNTY Regular Board Meeting
FEBRUARY 16, 2026
9:00 A.M.

Special District Services, Inc.
27499 Riverview Center Boulevard, #253 Bonita Springs, FL 33134
www.arborwoodcdd.org 561.630.4922 Telephone 877.SDS.4922 Toll Free 561.630.4923 Facsimile

AGENDA
ARBORWOOD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT
Amenity Center Community Room Somerset at the Plantation 10401 Dartington Drive
Fort Myers, Florida, 33913
REGULAR BOARD MEETING
February 16, 2026
9:00 A.M.

Call to Order
Proof of Publication…	Page 1
Establish Quorum
Additions or Deletions to Agenda
Comments from the Public for Items Not on the Agenda
Approval of Minutes
December 15, 2025 Regular Board Meeting Minutes…	Page 2
Old Business
New Business
Review of DRI Traffic Monitoring Report…	Page 6
Consider Approval of Treeline & Plantation Gardens Signal Warrant Study…	Page 56
Administrative Matters
Attorney’s Report
Engineer Report
Field Inspectors Report – Sommerset
Preserve Compliance Updates
Bridgetown Report…	Page 104
Manager’s Report
Financials…	Page 105
Board Member Comments
Adjourn

Publication Date 2026-02-06

Subcategory Miscellaneous Notices

NOTICE OF REGULAR BOARD MEETING
ARBORWOOD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT
The Board of Supervisors (the Board) of the Arborwood Community Development District (the District) will hold a Regular Board Meeting (the Meeting) on February 16, 2026, at 9:00 a.m. in the Amenity Center Community Room, Somerset at the Plantation, 10401 Dartington Drive, Fort Myers, Florida 33913. The purpose of the Regular Board Meeting is for the Board to consider any business which may properly come before it.
The Meeting is open to the public and will be conducted in accordance with the provisions of Florida law for community development districts. The Meeting may be continued in progress without additional notice to a time, date, and location stated on the record. A copy of the agenda for the Meeting may be obtained from the Districts website (www.arborwoodcdd.org) or by contacting the District Manager, Special District Services, at (941) 223-2475. There may be occasions when one or more Supervisors will participate by telephone.
Pursuant to provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act, any person requiring special accommodations to participate in this Meeting is asked to advise the District Office at least forty-eight (48) hours before the Meeting by contacting the District Manager at (561) 630-4922. If you are hearing or speech impaired, please contact the Florida Relay Service at 1 (800) 955-8770, who can aid you in contacting the District Office.
A person who decides to appeal any decision made at the Meeting with respect to any matter considered at the Meeting is advised that person will need a record of the proceedings and that accordingly, the person may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made including the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based.
Meetings may be cancelled from time to time without advertised notice. District Manager
Arborwood Community Development District www.arborwoodcdd.org 2/6/26 #12046432

ARBORWOOD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT REGULAR BOARD MEETING
DECEMBER 15, 2025

CALL TO ORDER

The December 15, 2025, Regular Board Meeting of the Arborwood Community Development District (the “District”) was called to order at 9:00 a.m. in the Amenity Center Community Room of the Somerset at the Plantation located at 10401 Dartington Drive, Fort Myers, Florida 33913.

PROOF OF PUBLICATION

Proof of publication was presented that notice of the Regular Board Meeting had been published in the Fort Myers News-Press on December 5, 2025, as part of the District’s Fiscal Year 2025/2026 Meeting Schedule, as legally required.

ESTABLISH A QUORUM

It was determined that the attendance of the following Supervisors constituted a quorum and it was in order to proceed with the meeting:

Chairman	Jeff Gordish	Present	
Vice Chairperson	Karin Hagen (who arrived at 9:04 a.m.)	Present	
Supervisor	Jack Aycock	Present	
Supervisor	Donald Schrotenboer	Present	
Supervisor	Christopher Anderson	Present	

Staff members in attendance were:

District Manager	Michelle Krizen	Special District Services, Inc.	
General Counsel	Wes Haber (via phone)	Kutak Rock, LLC	
District Engineer	Ryan Lorenz	JR Evans Engineering	

Also presented was Bethany Brosious of Passarella & Associates.

ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS TO THE AGENDA

Ms. Meneely requested and it was the consensus of the Board to hear Ms. Brosious’ report first, as she needed to leave early.
Mr. Aycock asked to revisit the land given to the City and it was the consensus of the Board to place this item under Board Member Comments.

COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA

There were no comments from the public for items not on the agenda.
Page 1 of 4

APPROVAL OF MINUTES
November 17, 2025, Regular Board Meeting

The minutes of the November 17, 2025, Regular Board Meeting were presented for consideration.

A MOTION was made by Mr. Gordish, seconded by Mr. Schrotenboer and passed unanimously approving the minutes of the November 17, 2025 Regular Board Meeting, as presented.

OLD BUSINESS

There were no Old Business items to come before the Board. Supervisor Karin Hagen arrived at approximately 9:04 a.m.
NEW BUSINESS
Consider Resolution No. 2025-09 – Designating Officers

Resolution No. 2025-09 was presented, entitled:

RESOLUTION 2025-09

A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE ARBORWOOD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT DESIGNATING CERTAIN OFFICERS OF THE DISTRICT AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Ms. Meneely explained that she would be returning to manage the District and the resolution designates her as Secretary/Treasurer.

A MOTION was made by Mr. Schrotenboer, seconded by Mr. Gordish and passed unanimously adopting Resolution No. 2025-09, as presented.

Consider Resolution No. 2026-10 – Authorizing Check Signers

Resolution No. 2026-10 was presented, entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-10

A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE ARBORWOOD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT, AUTHORIZING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A DISTRICT CHECKING/OPERATING ACCOUNT, DESIGNATING DISTRICT OFFICIALS AND/OR AUTHORIZED STAFF TO REVIEW, APPROVE AND ISSUE PAYMENT OF EXPENDITURES, SELECTING THE SIGNATORIES THEREOF; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

Ms. Meneely explained that she would be returning to manage the District and the resolution designates her as a check signer. She also explained the various staff members at SDS who were authorized to sign checks.

Page 2 of 4

A MOTION was made by Mr. Gordish, seconded by Ms. Hagen and passed unanimously adopting Resolution No. 2025-10, as presented.

Consider Proposal from Woods and Wetlands for Preserve Maintenance
Ms. Brosious stated that the proposal was for Parcel C Arborwood Preserve and the quote was higher than last year due to increases in the costs of labor and materials. She further stated that she was seeing this across the board with all firms. Mr. Gordish stated that this was billed to Arborwood as part of their tax bill and Mr. Aycock stated he was okay with the proposal as long as Arborwood Preserve was paying for it.

A MOTION was made by Mr. Gordish, seconded by Mr. Aycock and passed unanimously approving the proposal from Woods and Wetlands for Preserve maintenance, as presented.

Consider Proposal from Sewer Viewer for Pipe Cleaning

Mr. Lorenz stated that he would like to break up the proposals into inspections and cleaning. He distributed proposals from Shenandoah and Sewer Viewer for inspections in Somerset and Bridgetown. He stated that the District had used Sewer Viewer in the past and had been happy with their work so he was recommending them although the amount was higher than the budget. Discussion ensued on the price and the process.

Mr. Lorenz then distributed proposals from Shenandoah and Sewer Viewer for cleaning. In this case, he was recommending Shenandoah and noted that what he handed out replaced what was in the agenda packet. Mr. Gordish asked if cleaning was just done if needed and Mr. Lorenz confirmed same. Mr. Aycock went over how the process goes and how bladders were installed and used. Discussion ensued about staying within the budget and just cleaning critical areas. Mr. Gordish suggested a not-to-exceed amount of $40,000. Mr. Aycock stated he would like to see the cleaning and Mr. Lorenz stated he could get him an arrival time so he could watch.

A MOTION was made by Mr. Gordish, seconded by Mr. Schrotenboer and passed unanimously approving the proposal from Shenandoah for the note to exceed amount of $40,000 for cleaning.

ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS
Attorney’s Report

Mr. Haber had nothing further to report.

Engineer’s Report

Mr. Lorenz stated that proposals had been signed for the DRI traffic study and the project was moving forward with Mr. Gordish pointing out that once completed, the project would no longer be a responsibility of the District.

Field Inspector’s Report

Ms. Meneely handed out Mr. Hirniak’s report, as he was unable to attend today’s meeting. There were no questions from the Board Members.

Preserves Compliance Report
Page 3 of 4

Ms. Brosious stated that inspections would begin on the preserve and panther parcel. She indicated that this was a 6-week process, reviewing for hotspots and she would share their findings with the contractor. Mr. Gordish asked if there were laws to remove Brazilian Peppers and Ms. Brosious stated that there were no requirements as part of preserve treatment but they were an ongoing problem as seed sources were often offsite.

Bridgetown Report

Ms. Meneely stated the report was provided in the agenda packet. Mr. Aycock asked about the dye used. Kevin from Marina Bay stated he would not know but not used for color.

Manager’s Report
Financials

Ms. Meneely advised that the report was provided in the meeting package. She also advised that she would officially be back as the District Manager of Arborwood CDD after January 1st and that their next meeting was set for February 16, 2026.

BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS

(Added)

Mr. Aycock wanted to reconsider the park land that was given to the City as he felt it had value and the City should pay for what was given to them. He noted that an adjoining property was valued at $340,000. Mr. Lorenz pointed out that the adjoining parcel was not under conservation easements which dropped the value. Mr. Gordish stated that the property was costing the District between $4,000 and $6,000 a year. It could not be sold to property owners since it was purchased with public funds and by donating it to the City, the area gets a park that is paid for by the City. He concluded that he was happy with the deal and that everyone benefits from it. Ms. Hagen added that it also solved a problem that the City had for green space. Mr. Aycock withdrew his objection.
Mr. Gordish thanked the Board Members and staff for their service throughout the year and wished everyone a Merry Christmas.
ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business to come before the Board, a MOTION was made by Mr. Gordish, seconded by Mr. Schroetenboer and passed unanimously adjourning the Regular Board Meeting at 9:55 a.m.

Secretary/Assistant Secretary	Chair/Vice-Chair

Page 4 of 4

Yury Bykau

Digitally signed by Yury Bykau Date: 2026.01.31
14:50:58 -05'00'

Page 6

�JI TR

TRANSPORTATION

CONSULTANTS, INC

CONTENTS

I.	INTRODUCTION

IL	DATA COLLECTION

EXISTING TRIP GENERATION

INTERSECTION ANALYSIS

CONCLUSION

�JI TR

TRANSPORTATION
CONSULTANTS, INC

INTRODUCTION

TR Transportation Consultants, Inc. has conducted a Bi-Annual Traffic Monitoring Report to fulfill requirements set forth in Transportation Condition #6 of the Ordinance No. 3226 for the Arborwood Development of Regional Impact (DRI) project. The Arborwood DRI is generally located along the west and east side of Treeline Avenue just north of Daniels Parkway in the City of Fort Myers, Florida. Figure 1 illustrates the approximate location of the overall Arborwood Village ORI.

The subject site is approved for the development of up to 6,500 residential dwelling units as well as up to 170,000 square feet of commercial uses and 36-hole golf course. To date, the site has been developed with 4,510 residential dwelling units and one 18-hole golf course. No commercial development has been applied for or constructed to date.

This bi-annual traffic monitoring report has been completed consistently with the previously approved traffic monitoring report prepared by David Plummer & Associates dated March 7, 2018.

This report evaluates field-measured traffic volumes at the project driveways generated by the existing development within the Arborwood Village DRI and compares these volumes to the external trip generation approved as part of the original DRI analysis. In addition, an operational analysis of the project driveways will be also evaluated in terms of Level of Service consistent with the Mitigation Options 2 and 3 of Ordinance No. 3226 for the Arborwood DRI.

Page 1

PROJECT LOCATION MAP
ARPaBgOe 9RWOOD DRI	Figure 1

�JI TR

TRANSPORTATION
CONSULTANTS, INC

DATA COLLECTION

Turning movement count data was collected at intersections serving the Arborwood DRI on January 6, 2026. This data was collected during the PM peak hours (4PM - 6PM) in order to determine the evening peak hour trip generation and intersection traffic. A list of the intersections where the turning movement counts were performed is indicated on Table 1. The raw turning movement counts conducted at each intersection are attached to the Appendix of this report for reference.

Table 1
Required Intersection Counts Arborwood DRI - Traffic Monitorin2 Report
Intersection	
Treeline Ave @ Kingsbridge Blvd/Botanic Lakes Blvd	
Treeline Ave @. Silver Ridge Blvd	
Treeline Ave@. Grand Jardin Dr	
Treeline Ave @. Dartington Dr	
Plantation Gardens Dr @. Grand Jardin Dr	
Plantation Gardens Dr (a), Dartington Dr	
Plantation Gardens Dr (a), Chrasfield Chase	
Plantation Gardens Dr (a), Kingsbridge Blvd	
Plantation Gardens Dr (a), Commerce Lakes Dr	
Commerce Lakes Dr@, Gladstone Way/Arbor Trace Dr	

EXISTING TRIP GENERATION

The build-out of Arborwood DRI was approved for up to 4,254 PM peak hour external trips per Ordinance No. 3226. The existing field-measured external trip generation was estimated based on the attached PM peak hour traffic counts conducted at all intersections listed in Table 1. Attached Figure 2 illustrates the existing traffic volumes at each intersection based on the collected traffic data. Table 2 summarizes the existing field measured trip generation which was determined based on the collected traffic counts as illustrated on Figure 2.

N

W*E

--..s_,,.,--
IN.T.S.I

,\OGE sLV

�

ARBORWOOD PRESERVEBLVD

��	P:�ATIONGA�ENS DR
�..--;,,_-_:_,	_l_..�. ·

\_GRAND JARDIN DR

�
UzJ
:::;
UJ

�*

ll,!
I-

Page 11

+\•�458
�t,t._
-_,

LEGEND
+ 000 WEEKDAY AM PROJECT TRAFFIC
+ (000) WEEKDAY PM PROJECT TRAFFIC
EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES AT ANALYZED INTERSECTIONS ARBORWOOD ORI

Figure 2

�JI TR

TRANSPORTATION
CONSULTANTS, INC

Table 2
Field Measured External Trip Generation Arborwood DRI - Traffic Monitorin� Report
Intersection	Weekday PM Peak Hour	
	In	Out	Total	
Treeline Ave @ Kingsbridge Blvd/Botanica Lakes Blvd	279	145	424	
Treeline Ave @ Silver Ridge Blvd	159	77	236	
Treeline Ave @
Grand Jardin Dr	48	19	67	
Treeline Ave @ Dartington Dr	80	53	133	
Plantation Gardens Dr @
Grand Jardin Dr	55	20	75	
Plantation Gardens Dr @
Dartington Dr	16	14	30	
Plantation Gardens Dr @ Chrasfield Chase	9	4	13	
Plantation Gardens Dr@
Kingsbrid_ge Blvd	89	67	156	
Plantation Gardens Dr @
Commerce Lakes Dr	131	70	201	
Commerce Lakes Dr @
Gladstone Way/Arbor Trace Dr	67	69	136	
Total Trips	933	538	1,471	

As previously mentioned, the build-out of Arborwood DRI was approved for up to 4,254 PM peak hour external trips per Ordinance No. 3226. Table 3 provides a traffic comparison between the number of external trips approved by Ordinance No. 3226 and the number of the field-measured external trips shown in Table 2.

Table 3
Trip Generation Comparison Arborwood DRI - Traffic Monitoring Report
Scenario	External Weekday P.M. Peak Hour Two-Wav Trios	
Approved by Ordinance No. 3226	4,254	
Field-Measured	1,471	

�TR

TRANSPORTATION
�	CONSULTANTS, INC

As can be seen in Table 3, the trip generation of the existing development within Arborwood ORI is well below the approved 4,254 external PM peak hour two-way vehicles. In comparison to the existing trip generation with the approved trip generation, the Arborwood DRI appears to be approximately 34.6% (1,471 trips/4,254 trips) of the approved trip generation as outlined in the Ordinance No. 3226.

INTERSECTION ANALYSIS

Intersection analysis was performed at all intersections listed on Table 1 utilizing the Highway Capacity Software (HCS©). The analysis was completed based on the existing 2026 weekday PM peak hour traffic conditions. Table 4 and Table 5 summarize the results of the intersection analysis at all analyzed intersections.

Table 4
PM Peak Hour Intersection Delay Summary Intersections Alon� Treeline Ave
Intenection	Movement	Existing 2026 Traffic Conditions	
		LOS	

Treeline Ave @ Kingsbridge Blvd/Botanic Lakes Blvd	EBL/EBT	D	
	EBR	B	
	WBL/WBT	D	
	WBR	B	
	NBL	A	
	SBL	B	

Treeline Ave@ Silver Ridge Blvd	EBL	C	
	EBR	B	
	NBL	A	
	SBLU	C	

Treeline Ave@ Grand Jardin Dr	WBL	C	
	WBR	B	
	SBL	B	

Treeline Ave @ Dartington Dr	WBL	D	
	WBR	B	
	SBL	B	

�JI TR

TRANSPORTATION
CONSULTANTS, INC

Table 5
PM Peak Hour Intersection Delay Summary Intersections Alone Plantation Gardens Dr & Commerce Lakes Dr

llltenectffln	
Movement	Eximog 2ti6
Traffic Co11.ditiD115	
		LOS	

Plantation Gardens Dr @ Grand Jardin Dr	EBL	A	
	WBL	A	
	NB	B	
	SBL/SBT	B	
	SBR	A	
Plantation Gardens Dr @ Dartington Dr	WBL	A	
	NBL	B	
	NBR	B	
Plantation Gardens Dr @ Chrasfield Chase	WBL	A	
	NB	B	
Plantation Gardens Dr @ Kingsbridge Blvd	EBL	A	
	SBL	B	
	SBR	A	
Plantation Gardens Dr @ Commerce Lakes Dr	WBL/WBT	A	
	NBL	B	
	NBR	A	

Commerce Lakes Dr @ Gladstone Way/Arbor Trace Dr	EBL	A	
	WBL	A	
	NBL/NBT	B	
	NBR	B	
	SBL/SBT	B	
	SBR	A	

Based upon the results of the intersection capacity analysis conducted as part of this report, all of the movements at analyzed intersections currently operate at an acceptable Level of Service in the PM peak hour conditions. HCs© results are also attached to the Appendix of this report for reference.

�JI TR

TRANSPORTATION

CONSULTANTS, INC

CONCLUSION

A Bi-Annual Monitoring Traffic Analysis was completed consistently with Mitigation Options 2 and 3 of Ordinance No. 3226 for the Arborwood DRI. The subject site is generally located along the west and east side of Treeline Avenue just north of Daniels Parkway in the City of Fort Myers, Florida.

The Arborwood DRI property is currently approved for the development of up to 6,500 residential dwelling units as well as up to 170,000 square feet of commercial uses and 36-hole golf course. Based on the current field-measured traffic, the project is only generating 34.6% of the approved trip generation as outlined in Ordinance No. 3226.

The results of the intersection capacity analysis indicate that all of the analyzed intersections serving the Arborwood DRI currently operate at an acceptable Level of Service in the PM peak hour conditions.

K:\2025\12 December\08 Arborwood Traffic Monitoring Report\1-27-2026 TIS Report.doc

Page 16

ORDINANCE NO. 3226 ARBORWOOD ORI TRANSPORTATION CONDITION #6

•	•

OllDIWUQ •o. mi

Development Agreement is being processed &hall be credited against the Project's total mitigation.
Bi-Annual Trame Monitoring Report
The Developer ahall submit a standard DRI bi-annual monitoring report to the following entities for review and approval: City or Fort Myers, Lee County Department of Transportation (LCDOT), the Florida Department or Transportation (FOOT), FDCA, and the SWFRPC. The farst monitoring report shall be submitted two (2) years after the recorded date of the approval of the ORI Development Order unlesa no buildings have been occupied. If the Developer contends that a traffic monitoring report is not required because no traffic impacts have been created, he muat indicate so in writing to the above review agencies. Once the development is required to submit a traffic monitoring report, it must be submitted bi-annually thereafter.
The bi-annual monitoring program will differ under Mitigation Options 1, 2 and 3. Under either option, the monitoring program will be designed in cooperation with the City of Fort Myers, LCDOT, FOOT, the SWFRPC and FDCA prior to submittal or the first report. The methodology or the trafiic monitoring report may be revised, if agreed upon by all

41

•	•
OllDllUJl'c& BO. JaH

parties. U no agreement is reached on methodologies and the monitoring report is not submitted on schedule, the City of Fort Myers ehall cease to issue building permits (or the ORI until the monitoring report is submitted in accordance with this Development Order. The agreement will not be unreasonably withheld.
Under Mitigation Option 1, the bi-annual monitoring program will measure the Project's actual external �p generation, evaluate conditions at the Project's access points, evaluate level• of service on impacted roads and intersections, and determine the timing of needed improvements. The bi-annual monitoring report must contain the following information:
PM peak hour traffic counts with turning movements at the Project's accese points onto Treclinc Avenue, Arborwood Parkway and Commerce Lakea Drive if those roads provide continuity between external public roadways and on the external road segments and intersections identified in subsection 3. above.
A comparison of field-measured Project external driveway traffic volumes to the Project trip generation assumed in the

42

•

OJmDIAJICS SO. iaH		
		DRI analysis.	The  Project's  trip	
		generation used in the DRI traffic	
		analpia wu 4,254 PM peak heur	
		external trips at hwldouL	
	(3J	Eatimatccl edatin1PM peak hour levela	
		or service and needed impn,vementa at	
		the Project's acc:aa points ancl for the	
		ma.di Uld iatenecliena speciftcd in	
		subacction 3. above.	
.	(4)	Eatimased !Uture PM peak hour levels	
		oC service and needed improw:mcnta,
baaed OD a one 111 year prqjection or	
		f11l\Ve volUIIICII, at tbe Prqject'• access	
		pointa	and  for	the	roads	and	
		intenectiona lpecified in aubaection 3.	
		above.	
	(5)	A eummary of tbe 11tabla or road	
		imprG\ICDlents auumed in the ADA to	
		be committed by the Cit;y or Fort Myen,	
		Lee County md/or FOOT as set forth	
		below:	

43

•

OIIDIIIABC& 110. 3226

COMMITIED IMPROVEMENTS	
Roadwav	From	To	lmcrovement	
Trccline Avenue	Alico Road
Daniela Parkway	Daniels Parkway
Colonial Boulevard	4 Lane Construction 4 Lane
Construction	
Gunnery
Raad	SR82	Lee
Boulevard	4 Lane Wideninll	
Veronica Shoemaker
Boulevard	North
Colonial
Waterway	SR82	4 Lane Construction	
SR82	OrtulAYcnuc	Evans
Avenue	4Lane Wim:ninll	
Three Oaks
Pkwv.	Corkscrew Road	Alico
Road	4Lane Widening	
Imperial Street	EastTeny Street	Bonita Beach
Road	4 Lane Widening	
Metro Parkway	US 41/Alico Rd.	Six Mile
Cypress
pin.,,,_	6 Lane Construction	
US41	Corkscrew
Road
N. of0ld41	N. of Old 41
N.of
Bonita Beach Road	6 Lane Widening 6 Lane Widening	
Korcshan Boulevard
Ext.	Three Oaks Pkwy.	Ben Hill
-Gri.ffin
·-	4 Lane Construction	
Alico Road

Alico Road/ 1-75
lntcrchang e	US41

Three Oaks Pkwy.	Three Oaka Parkway Ben Hill OriJlin Parkway	6 Lane
Widening
6 Lane Widening	
Bonita Beach
Road	Imperial Street	1-75	6 Lane Widening	
Cypreas Lake Dr.	Summerlin Road	West of
US41	6 Lane Wideniniz	
1-75	Bonita Beach
Road	Daniela
Parkway	6 Lane
Widcninir	
Under Mitigation Options 2 and 3, the bi-annual monitoring program will measure the Project's actual external trip generation and evaluate conditions at the Project's access points.  1be  bi-annual monitoring  report
44

•	•
om>DW1cs•o. UH

under OptionJl 2 and  3 must contain the
following information.
(])  PM peak hour traffic counts with turning movements at the Project'• acceaa points onto Treeline Avenue, Arborwood Parkway and Commerce Lakea Drive if those roads provide continuity between external public roadwa,ya.
A comparison of fidd-meuured Project
external clri�traffic volumes to the Project trip generation assumed in the ORI analysis. The Project's trip generation used in the DRJ traffic analysis waa 4,254 PM peak hour external driveway trips at Buildout.
Estimated existing PM peak hour levels of service and needed improvements at the Project's acc:eaa points.
c) Under all options, if the bi-annual traffic monitoring report reveals that the Project's trip generation exceeds the thresholds identified in Section 380.06(19)(b) 15, F1orida Statutes, then the provisions regarding substantial deviations will take efl'ect. Under Mitigation Option 1, ii the bi-annual monitoring report conflfflla that the peak season, PM peak hour traffic on the significantly impacted roadways exceeds the

45

•	•

OIU>DWICSJIO. mt

level of service standards adopted by the local jurisdiction, and the Project is utilizing five percent or more of the adopted level of service standard scnice volume, then further local Development Orders, building permita and certificates of occupancy will not be granted until the standards or the concutrency management system have been met. Under Option 1, Arborwood will comply with the City'a concurrency management ayatem in efl'ect at the time. Under Mitigation Option 2 and 3, the ORI ia either fully or partially vested for traff'te concutrency purpoaea.
Q The Arbmwood DRI analyaia haa shown the project to have a potential impact on I-75 between Bonita Beach Road and Daniels Parkway and at the interchanges or both Daniela Parkway and Colonial Boulevard. Consequently, the applicant will monitor future planned I-75 pr�ecta. Further, Lee County anticipates the construction or Three Oaks Parkway as a four-lane liu:ility from Bonita Springe to Daniels Parkway with construction funded in the CIP years 2005, 2006 and 2007. Consequently, the applicant will monitor future planned 1-75 projects and the Three Oaks Parkway project and provide a summuy or them in the traffic monitoring report.

46

TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS

Type of peak hour being reported: Intersection Peak	Method for determining peak hour: Total Entering Volume

LOCATION: Treeline Ave -- Botanica Lakes Blvd/Kingsbridge Blvd
CITY/STATE: Fort Myers, FL

QC JOB#: 17392101
DATE: Tue, Jan 6 2026

Peak-Hour: 4:45 PM -- 5:45 PM Peak 15-Min: 5:00 PM - 5:15 PM

216+39.I	\. 27 •  47

.,....

t4	2.7

•

�,

l.8	0

05 • 5.1 .I	\.3,7•LJ

... L

_J� .•.
a •	•	0

a •	�	•  1

98+59'\
7

120 818 28

...

t
526	966

'  19

53

TRUE DATA TO IMPROVE MOBILITY

4.1 + 3.4 '\	r o • o

7�

t
2.7

19	2.3

...I.

_J  a	L
cl �	11
7	0

_J)	J J l

--,  i	T 

ls-

. C	nt	Treeline Ave	Treeline Ave	Botanica Lakes	Botanica Lakes

M

m  ou	Blvd/Kingsbridge Blvd	Blvd/Kingsbridge Blvd

T	I HourJy

Period

(Northbound)

(Southbound)

''E  b	d	(	b	d)

,ota

Totals

Beginning At t---,---::----=--.,,..,...-,---....,..,..--1.----,--------,,..,...-,,---.,..,---+-,---:,---,;,,�,.ca=st�o-=-u�n.,.i---..,...,...--t-,--,----'e=W'"'e'-"s""'t ""'o'=u='"n,=..-	,..,...--1

Left	Thru  Right	U

Left	Thru  Right	U

Left	Thru  Right	U	left	Thru  Right	U

	
n	9	u		o	3	o	ro	o

17	8	17	ii	10	1	0	4	1	4	0	378	
18	8	17	8	12	1	0	6	2	6	0	423	
32	9	24	7	13	0	0	5	1	9	0	426	

K	ll	6	ij	l	O	6.	0

o	o·	o

21	17	10	0	3	1	S	9
26	19	11	6	6.

410
454
4SO
4il

r-637
1743
1748
1746

12	5

8	l	O	3	0	4	0

372

1708

Peak 15-Min Flowrates	
left	Northbound
Thru	Right	u	
Left	Southbound
Thru  Right	
U	
left	Eastbo
Thru	und
Right	
U	
Left	Westbound
Thru  Right	u	Total	
All Vehicles	112	876	36	0	36	468	104	48	24	0	60	0	28	0	24	D	1816	
Heavy Trucks	D	36	0		D	8	0		0	0	0		0	0	0		44	
Buses																		
Pedestrians		D				0				0				4			4	
Bicycles	D	D	D		0	0	D		D	0	0		0	0	0		0	
Scooters																		
Comments:																		
Report generated on 1/13/2026 11:37 AM	SOURCE: QualitV Counts, llC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) 1-877-580-2212

Pagel of 1

Page 26

Type of peak hour being reported: Intersection Peak	Method for determining peak hour: Total Entering Volume
LOCATION: Treeline Ave -- Darlington Dr	QC JOB#: 17392106
CITY/STATE: Fort Myers, FL	DATE: Tue, Jan 6 2026	
_J�	L	_J•....·L
Peak-Hour: 5:00 PM -- 6:00 PM
482	1160	n	2.1
Peak 15-Min: 5:00 PM -- 5:15 PM
4•75 .7.	.0, 2.1 .0.
0 •  0 J	\,  5  •  53	0 •  0 J	t.. 0 •	19
0 •	§]	..  0	0 •	..  0
7  .0,..2.1	0
•	•
2.1
TRUE DATA TO IMPROVE MOBILITY

	l l
..-----

--,	T	T 	
15-Min Count	Treeline Ave	Treeline Ave	Darlington Dr	Darlington Dr
Period	1---:--�(=N,...o_rt_h_b-:o:-:u,n,...d�) --,-,--1c-:----:--�S=o_u_t_h_b..,,ou.,..n...,.d�)�----:---t-,-,,---::l::-Ea_s_t_bo...,u:-:n_d,...l_--;-;---t--:--::,------,:(W::-e_st_b   ,o:-:u,...n.,..d�) ---,...,.--t
Beginning At	Left	U	Left	Thru	U	Left	Thru  Right	U	Left	Thru  Right	U	
Total	1�r!lt	
0	0	0	4	0	391		
0	0	0	1	0	395		
0	0	0	2	0	451		
--�a0 -�-00	--•�---n�0.- 0	0
c	i	388
483	1625
r]Ji	
0	407	1729	
0	471	1749	
0	402	1763	
Peak 15-Min 1--------N_o_rt_h_b_o_u_n�d----+----S--,o_u_t_h_b_o_un_d	 --1	E_as_t_b_o_un_d-----11-----we_s_tb_o=u_n�d	�-1	Total	
Flowrates	Left	Thru  Right	U	Left	Thru  Right	U	Left	Thru  Right	U	Left	Thru  Right	U		
AHVehicies	0	1184	72	0	0	636	0	0	0	0	0	0	32	0	8	0
Heavy Trucks	0	40	0	D	16	0	0	0	0	0	D	0
Buses
Pedestrians	0	0	0	0
Bicycles	0	4	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Scooters	1932	
	56	
	0	
	4	
Comments:	
Report generated on 1/1.3/2026 11:37 AM	SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) 1-877-580-2212

Page 1 of l

Type of peak hour being reported: Intersection Peak	Method for determining peak hour: Total Entering Volume

LOCATION: Grand Jardin Dr -- Plantation Gardens Pkwy
CITY/STATE: Fort Myers, FL

QCJOB#: 17392103
DATE: Tue, Jan 6 2026

Peak-Hour: 5:00 PM -- 6:00 PM Peak 15-Min: 5:00 PM -- 5:15 PM

.

0
_J� 0
2.7 •  0 J

·.0.

L
\.  0  •  2-7

461 •	�	• 245

15•	....	•29

•

510 •  23 "l

('U+472

1.4 + 0 "l

. ,.,

('Q+l.5

J

...

36	13

l

...

_

□t �
7	0

0  0

0	0
TRUE DATA TO IMPROVE MOBILITY

L
+---

_J., .N/A L..

7		7

N/A4: ...

:N/A

I

"lv,,..r-
N/A
15-Min Count	Grand Jardin Dr	Grand Jardin Dr	Plantation Gardens Pkwy	Plantation Gardens Pkwy	1
P_ enrni9 ndg At ._	-"(N-'-o;;;..;rt""h"'bo�-;.;;u..;.n,ccd,_)----+--,---{'-'S.c..o.c..ut.;..h...;;b...;;o""u'-"nd""')'----+----,---'('""E--=-as�t--=-b--=-o--=-un"'d,..	 .....,...--,- .,,,w'"'eccst.ccb;.;;o""u"'n""d. ---,-,---1 Total ���t¾

Beg 1	1

Left	Thru  Right	U	Left	Thru  Right	U	Left	Thru  Right	U	left	Thru  Right	U

4:00 PM	O	O	1	0	1	0	3	0	4	89	2	0	2	50	1	0	153		
4:15 PM	1	0	3	0	0	0	4	0	3	104	5	0	1	62	1	0	184		
4:30 PM	1	3	0	0	0	0	3	0	6	74	4	0	1	64	1	0	157		
4:45 PM	O	O	1	0	0	2	3	0	9	109	1	0	2	43	2	0	172	666	
s100 P		a				,a				a.,		
5:15 PM	1	0	1	0	0	0				Ul		
S:30 PM	1	1	1	0	0	0				124		
S:4-S PM	2	0	l	O	O	2				li6		

Peak 15-Min	Northbound	Southbound	Eastbound	Westbound  Flowrates 1--,l-e_,.ft,---:T==h-ru--=-Ri,...g.,..ht,-----,U-,---+--,-L-eft=----=r""h-ru--:R:-:-ig-:h,-t--ccU,--+-l:-e-=ft--:T==h-ru--=Ri'""g:-h,--t-,-U-,---t-:-Le-:ft:---,T::h:-ru--=Ri,...g.,...ht:-----:-U,---i

Total

All Vehicles	12	0	8	0	0	0	12	0	12	424	24	0	12	340	0	0	844	
Heavy Trucks	0	0	0		0	0	0		0	12	0		0	20	0		32	
Buses																		
Pedestrians		0				0				0				0			0	
Bicycles	0	0	0		0	0	0		0	4	0		0	0	0		4	
	Scooters	
Comments:
Report generated on 1/13/2026 11:37 AM	SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) 1-877-580-2212

Pagel of l

Type of peak hour being reported: Intersection Peak	Method for determining peak hour: Total Entering Volume

LOCATION: Chrasfield Chase -- Plantation Gardens Pkwy

0

CITY/STATE: Fort Myers, FL

QC JOB#: 17392107
DATE: Tue, Jan 6 2026

Peak-Hour: 5:00 PM - 6:00 PM Peak 15-Min: 5:00 PM - 5:15 PM

_J� .0 .�. L

247•0J	\. 0 •247
459 •	�	•  244

ol	..i .lo

0

_J

...

4

0

L

L

TRUE DATA TO IMPROVE MOBILITY

+------

7	3 I

---+

_J., .N/A ..L

N/A�4�	V,:N/A

N/A  I

7		7 ... ,.r-

15-Min Count
Period

Chrasfield Chase (Northbound)

Chrasfield Chase Southbound

Plantation Gardens Pkwy Eastbound)

Plantation Gardens Pkwy
Westbound	Total Hourly

Beginning At

�-=-=-,=-...,..,.--11------c--c----"-"-=--c�,=--..,..,....--t-,--=----,=-�-',c,,....,..,----,---+-,---,�"""=-=-�-,=--..,..,...---1	Totals

4:00 PM	4	0	2	0	0	0	0	0	0	88	2	0	0	54	0	0	
4:15 PM	1	0	0	0	D	O	O	O	D	102	3	0	0	57	0	0	
4:30PM	1	0	0	D	0	0	0	0	D	77	0	D	D	63	D	D	
4:45 PM	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	108	1	0	0	52	0	0	
5:1.SPM	l
0	0	0	G
0	0	G	0	0	0	114	2	0	11				
S:�OPM	1	0	1	0	0	0	0	0		1-27	1	8	2				
5:�SPM	1	0	0	0	0	,(3	0	0		113	1	0	0				
Peak 15-Min	Northbound	Southbound	Eastbound	Westbound	Total	
Flowrates	Left	Thru	Right	u	Left	Thru	Right	u	left	Thru	Right	u	Left	Thru	Right	u		
All Vehicles	4	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	420	8	0	0	336	0	0	768	
Heavy Trucks Buses Pedestrians	0	0

8	0		0	0
D	D		D	12
0	0		D	16
0	D		28
8	
Bicycles Scooters	0	0	D		D	D	D		D	4	D		D	0	0		4	
Comments:																		

Left	Thru  Right	u	Left	Thru  Right	U	Left	Thru  Right	U	Left	Thru  Right	U

g

Report generated on 1/13/2026 11:37 AM

SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) 1-877-580-2212

Page 1 of l

LOCATION: Kings Bridge Blvd -- Plantation Gardens Pkwy	QC JOB#: 17392108
CITY/STATE: Fort Myers, FL	DATE: Tue, Jan 6 2026	
Peak 15-Min: 5:00 PM -- 5:15 PM	_J�.�L
Peak-Hour: 5:00 PM -- 6:00 PM	3	a
a	..
246 .. SSJ	\. 31 ♦  235	2.4 •  a J	-- \. a .. L7
405 •	�	•  204	1.7 •	..  2
463•  D  "\	1"0+430	1.s •  a -.	•  D + 16
I,.
D	0
•
D	D	a
TRUE DATA TO IMPROVE MOBILITY

	l	L
+--

J

7	
15-Min Count	Kings Bridge Blvd	Kings Bridge Blvd	Plantation Gardens Pkwy	Plantation Gardens Pkwy
Period	1----,--	Northbound)	�---,-.,..--+--,-(Southbound	�-.,.,...-t---,--:--Eastbound) .-'---:-:----1r-:--  (Westbound) --,-,---1 Total Hourly
Beginning At	""'=,-c---...,,..,.--,--c	�-,,,,------=.,,....,.	-:::,----,:,:--,	-,,---=----:=-:-:---	Totals	

Type of peak hour being reported: Intersection Peak	Method for determining peak hour: Total Entering Volume

U	Left	Thru  Right
50
so
� 42
69
51
44
40

Left	Right	U	Left	ihru  Rfght	U	Left	Thru  Right
76	0
84	0
�	0
88	0

95	o	
99	0
114	0
97	0
Peak 15-Min		Northbound			Southbound			Eastb	ound			Westbound		Total	
Flowrates	Left	Thru	Right	u	Left	Thru	Right	u	Left	Thru	Right	u	Left	Thru	Right	u		
All Vehicies	0	0	0	0	16	0	52	0	52	380	0	0	0	276	44	0	820	
Heavy Trucks Buses Pedestrians	0	0
0	0		0	0
0	8		0	12
0	0		0	8
0	0		28
0	
Bicycles	0	0	0		0	0	0		0	0	0		0	0	0		0	
  Scooters	
Comments:

Report generated on 1/13/202611:37 AM	SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) 1-877-580-2212

Page 1 of 1

Type of peak hour being reported: Intersection Peak	Method for determining peak hour: Total Entering Volume
LOCATION: Commerce Lakes Dr -- Plantation Gardens Pkwy	QC JOB#: 17392109
CITY/STATE: Fort Myers, FL	DATE: Tue, Jan 6 2026	

0	�0	L	_J0�.�0	L
Peak-Hour: 5:00 PM -- 6:00 PM
_J�	Peak 15-Min: 5:15 PM -- 5:30 PM	..
0
., 0
235♦0./	�'- a,♦  70	1.7 + 0 .I	1.. 0 + 29
93 •	§]	♦  59	Ll •  ;1,.-	•	3.4
425 • 332 �	'  11 •  131	16 • 18 �	r O •	15
71:•a
.343..214
TRUE DATA TO IMPROVE MOBILITY
_J I	L
ol	..i.lo	L..-
7	l	I
_J., .N/A ..L
7	N/A�4:	V,:N/A
7 ... ,.r--
N/A	I	
15-Min Count	Commerce Lakes Dr	Commerce Lakes Dr	Plantation Gardens Pkwy	Plantation Gardens Pkwy Period		(Northbound)		Southbound)		(Eastbound)		(Westbound)
Begl·nn·1ng At 1--,---,--....:,,,-'-'--=....,....'----,-,---+--,--,-  ,,=-_-=�-'----t-,--=--=---,=-,..,  -....,.,..--i...--,.--,---'=.---=--,-.,..---,-,---1
Left	Thru  Right	U	Left	Thru  Right	U	Left	Thru  Right	U	Left	Thru  Right	U	Total	Hour1V Totals	
4:00 PM	52	0	3	0	0	0	0	0	0	19	61	0	2	6	0	0	143		
4:15 PM	42	0	3	0	0	0	0	0	0	18	72	0	0	14	0	0	149		
4:30 PM	45	0	3	0	0	0	0	0	0	18	53	0	5	16	0	0	140		
4:45 PM	36	0	9	0	0	0	0	0	0	22	71	0	2	11	0	0	151	583	
5:00 PM	63	0	5	0	0	0	0	0	0	23	77	0	2	15	0	0	185	625	
S:15 PM	43	o	17	0	0	0	O	O	O	20	86	0	4	18	O	Q,	, 188		
																		664	
5:30 PM
5:45 PM	36
34	0
o	13
3	0
0	0
0	1l
O	O
O	O
O	O
O	28·
2'2	89
80	0
0	3
2	13
13	0
O	0
0	182
154	706
709	
Peak 15-Min	Northbound	Southbound	Eastbound	Westbound   Flowrates 1--,L,-e-::ft--,T"'h-ru----=R=-ig'h.,..-t-:U-,--t----,-l-eft,,,-----:::T::-h-ru---=R:-cig-:h-:t--,-U:---t-:-Le-:ft,------:T"'h,-r_u_"'Ri:-g:-ht,-------:-U-:---t-:-Le-:ft,---=Th,--ru--=R,...ig'h.,..-t--=u	i	Total	
All Vehicles Heavy Trucks Buses Pedestrians
Bicycles Scooters	172
0

4	0
0

4
0	68
0

0	0	0
0

0	0
0
0
0	0
0

0	0	0
0

0	80
0
0
0	344
4

4	0	16
0

0	72
4
0
0	0
0

0	0	752	
																	8	
																	4	
																	8	
Comments:	
Report generated on l/B/2026 11:37 AM	SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) 1-877-580-2212

Page l of l

Page 34

HCS INTERSECTION ANALYSIS SUMMARY SHEETS

TREELINE AVE @ KINGSBRIDGE BLVD/BOTANICA LAKES BLVD

HCS Two-Way Stop-Control Report	
General Information	Site Information	
Analyst	YB	Intersection	Treeline Ave @ Kingsbridge Blvd/Botanica La...	
Agency/Co.	TR Transportation Consult	Jurisdiction	Fort Myers	
Date Performed	1/27/2026	East/West Street	Kingsbridge Blvd/Botanica Lakes Blvd	
Analysis Year	2026	North/South Street	Treeline Ave	
Time Analyzed	PM Pk Hr	Peak Hour Factor	0.96	
Intersection Orientation	North-South	Analysis Time Period (hrs)	0.25	
Project Description	Arborwood DRI	
Lanes	

��

�
...

t
Major Strttt North-South	
Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments	
Approach	Eastbound	Westbound	Northbound	Southbound	
Movement	u	L	T	R	u	L	T	R	u	L	T	R	u	L	T	R	
Priority		10	11	12		7	8	9	1U	1	2	3	4U	4	5	6	
Number of Lanes		0	1	1		0	1	1	0	1	2	1	0	1	2	1	
Configuration		LT		R		LT		R		L	T	R		L	T	R	
Volume (veh/h)		39	0	59		19	1	27	0	120	818	28	57	35	448	95	
Percent Heavy Vehicles (%)		5	0	3		0	0	4	0	3			0	0			
Proportion Time Blocked																	
Percent Grade(%)	0	0			
Right Turn Channelized	No	No	No	No	
Median Type I Storage	Left+ Thru	2	
Critical and Follow-up Headways	
Base Critical Headway (sec)		7.5	6.5	6.9		7.5	6.5	6.9		4.1			6.4	4.1			
Critical Headway (sec)		7,60	6.50	6.96		7.50	6.50	6.98		4.16			6.40	4.10			
Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)		3.5	4.0	3.3		3.5	4.0	3.3		2.2			2.5	2.2			
Follow-Up Headway (sec)		3.55	4.00	333		3.50	4.00	3.34		2.23			2.50	2.20			
Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service	
Flow Rate, v (veh/h)		41		61		21		28		125				96			
Capacity, c (veh/h)		190		766		160		571		995				489			
v/c Ratio		0.21		0.08		0.13		0,05		0.13				0.20			
95% Queue Length, Qgs (veh)		0.8		0.3		0.4		0.2		04				0.7			
95% Queue Length, Q95 (ft)		20.8		7.7		10.0		5.2		10.2				17.5			
Control Delay (s/veh)		29.0		10.1		30.8		11.6		91				14.1			
Level of Service (LOS)		D		B		D		B		A				B			
Approach Delay (s/veh)	17.6	19.8	1.1	2.0	
Approach LOS	C	C	A	A	
-

HCS Two-Way Stop-Control Report	
General Information	Site Information	
Analyst	YB	Intersection	Treeline Ave @ Silver Ridge Blvd	
Agency/Co.	TR Transportation Consult	Jurisdiction	Fort Myers	
Date Performed	1/27/2026	East/West Street	Silver Ridge Blvd	
Analysis Year	2026	North/South Street	Treeline Ave	
Time Analyzed	PM Pk Hr	Peak Hour Factor	0.94	
Intersection Orientation	North-South	Analysis Time Period (hrs)	0.25	
Project Description	Arborwood DRI	
Lanes	
..!.I�	�

. !
�

tl
Major Street Nollh�South	
Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments	
Approach	Eastbound	Westbound	Northbound	Southbound	
Movement	u	L	T	R	u	L	T	R	u	L	T	R	u	L	T	R	
Priority		10	11	12		7	8	9	1U	1	2	3	4U	4	5	6	
Number of Lanes		1	0	1		0	0	0	0	1	2	0	1	0	2	1	
Configuration		L		R						L	T		u		T	R	
Volume (veh/h)		31		46					7	110	915		0		485	49	
Percent Heavy Vehicles (%)		3		2					1	1			0				
Proportion Time Blocked																	
Percent Grade (%)	0				
Right Turn Channelized	No			No	
Median Type I Storage	Left Only	2	
Critical and Follow-up Headways	
Base Critical Headway (sec)		7.5		6.9					6.4	4.1			6.4				
Critical Headway (sec)		6.86		6.94					6.42	4.12			6.40				
Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)		3.5		3.3					2.5	2.2			2.5				
Follow-Up Headway (sec)		3.53		3.32					2.51	2.21			2.50				
Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service	
Flow Rate, v (veh/h)		33		49						124			0				
Capacity, c (veh/h)		320		741						973			351				
v/c Ratio		0.10		0,07						0.13			0.00				
95% Queue Length, Q., (veh)		0.3		0.2						0.4			0.0				
95% Queue Length, Qgs (ft)		7.7		5.1						10.1			0.0				
Control Delay (s/veh)		17.5		10.2						9.2			15.3				
Level of Service (LOS)		C		B						A			C				
Approach Delay (s/veh)	13.1		1.0	0.0	
Approach LOS	B		A	A	

TREELINE AVE @
GRAND JARDIN DR

HCS Two-Way Stop-Control Report	
General Information	Site Information	
Analyst	YB	Intersection	Treeline Ave @ Grand Jardin Dr	
Agency/Co	TR Transportation Consult	Jurisdiction	Fort Myers	
Date Performed	1/27/2026	East/West Street	Grand Jardin Dr	
Analysis Year	2026	North/South Street	Treeline Ave	
Time Analyzed	PM Pk Hr	Peak Hour Factor	0.97	
Intersection Orientation	North-South	Analysis Time Period (hrs)	0.25	
Project Description	Arborwood DRI	
Lanes	
�- i	� ij

�
-	-

M
Major Street Norlh•Soulh	
Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments	
Approach	Eastbound	Westbound	Northbound	Southbound	
Movement	u	L	T	R	u	L	T	R	u	L	T	R	u	L	T	R	
Priority		10	11	12		7	8	9	1U	1	2	3	4U	4	5	6	
Number of Lanes		0	0	0		1	0	1	0	0	2	1	0	1	2	0	
Configuration						L		R			T	R		L	T		
Volume (veh/h)						15		4			1170	40	1	8	413		
Percent Heavy Vehicles (%)						0		0					0	0			
Proportion Time Blocked																	
Percent Grade (%)		0			
Right Turn Channelized		No	No		
Median Type I Storage	Left Only	1	
Critical and Follow-up Headways	
Base Critical Headway (sec)						7.5		6.9					6.4	4.1			
Critical Headway (sec)						6.80		6.90					6.40	4.10			
Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)						3.5		3.3					2.5	2.2			
Follow-Up Headway (sec)						3.50		330					2.50	2.20			
Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service	
Flow Rate, v (veh/h)						15		4						9			
Capacity, c (veh/h)						210		447						494			
v/c Ratio						0.07		O.D1						0.02			
95% Queue Length, Qgs (veh)						0.2		o.o						0.1			
95% Queue Length, Q9s(ft)						5.0		0.0						2.5			
Control Delay (s/veh)						23.5		13.1						12.4			
Level of Service (LOS)						C		B						B			
Approach Delay (s/veh)		21.3		0.3	
Approach LOS		C		A	

TREELINE AVE @ DARTINGTON DR

HCS Two-Way Stop-Control Report	
General Information	Site Information	
Analyst	YB	Intersection	Treeline Ave @ Dartington Dr	
Agency/Co.	TR Transportation Consult	Jurisdiction	Fort Myers	
Date Performed	1/27/2026	East/West Street	Dartington Dr	
Analysis Year	2026	North/South Street	Treeline Ave	
Time Analyzed	PM Pk Hr	Peak Hour Factor	0.91	
Intersection Orientation	North-South	Analysis Time Period (hrs)	0.25	
Project Description	Arborwood DRI	
lanes	
-	Al

�
-�
-tl
=-
f	:ii
Major Street Not1h�Soutb	
Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments	
Approach	Eastbound	Westbound	Northbound	Southbound	
Movement	u	L	T	R	u	L	T	R	u	L	T	R	u	L	T	R	
Priority		10	11	12		7	8	9	1U	1	2	3	4U	4	5	6	
Number of Lanes		0	0	0		1	0	1	0	0	2	1	0	1	2	0	
Configuration						L		R			T	R		L	T		
Volume (veh/h)						48		5			1143	75	2	5	475		
Percent Heavy Vehicles(%)						2		0					0	0			
Proportion Time Blocked																	
Percent Grade (%)		0			
Right Turn Channelized		No	No		
Median Type I Storage	Left Only	1	
Critical and Follow-up Headways	
Base Critical Headway (sec)						7.5		6.9					6.4	4.1			
Critical Headway (sec)						6.84		6.90					6.40	4.10			
Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)						3.5		3.3					2.5	2.2			
Follow-Up Headway (sec)						3 52		3.30					2.50	220			
Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service	
Flow Rate, v (veh/h)						53		5						8			
Capacity, c (veh/h)						192		431						382			
v/c Ratio						0.27		O.Q1						0.02			
95% Queue Length, Qs, (veh)						1.1		00						0.1			
95% Queue Length, Qs, (ft)						27.9		0.0						2.5			
Control Delay (s/veh)						30.7		13.5						14.6			
Level of Service (LOS)						D		B						B			
Approach Delay (s/veh)		29.	11		0.2	
Approach LOS		D		A	

PLANTATION GARDENS DR@ GRAND JARDIN DR

HCS Two-Way Stop-Control Report	
General Information	Site Information	
Analyst	YB	Intersection	Plantation Gardens Dr@ Grand Jardin Dr	
Agency/Co		TR Transportation Consult	Jurisdiction	Fort Myers	
Date Performed	1/27/2026	East/West Street	Plantation Gardens Dr	
Analysis Year	2026	North/South Street	Grand Jardin Dr	
Time Analyzed	PM Pk Hr	Peak Hour Factor	0.93	
Intersection Orientation	East-West	Analysis Time Period (hrs)	0.25	
Project Description	Arborwood DRI	
Lanes	
ij	w

11...

4-!

==(	J!
t
�	.r.:.
�

":'i	�	t
M�jor Street East-West	
Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments	
Approach	Eastbound	Westbound	Northbound	Southbound	
Movement	u	L	T	R	u	L	T	R	u	L	T	R	u	L	T	R	
Priority	1U	1	2	3	4U	4	5	6		7	8	9		10	11	12	
Number of Lanes	0	1	1	1	0	1	1	1		0	1	0		0	1	1	
Configuration		L	T	R		L	T	R			LTR			LT		R	
Volume (veh/h)		20	467	23		11	245	1		7	1	5		0	2	5	
Percent Heavy Vehicles(%)		0				0				0	0	0		0	0	0	
Proportion Time Blocked																	
Percent Grade(%)			0	0	
Right Turn Channelized	No	No		No	
Median Type I Storage	Left+ Thru	2	
Critical and Follow-up Headways	
Base Critical Headway (sec)		4.1				4.1				7.1	6.5	6.2		7.1	6.5	6.2	
Critical Headway (sec)		4.10				410				7.10	6.50	6.20		7	10	6.50	6.20	
Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)		2.2				2.2				3.5	4.0	3.3		3.5	4.0	3.3	
Follow-Up Headway (sec)		2.20				2.20				3.50	4.00	3.30		3.50	4.00	3.30	
Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service	
Flow Rate, v (veh/h)		22				12					14			2		5	
Capacity, c (veh/h)		1311				1050					491			435		780	
v/c Ratio		0.02				0.01					0.03			0.00		O.D1	
95% Queue Length, Q9, (veh)		0.1				0.0					0.1			0.0		0.0	
95% Queue Length, Q9, (ft)		2	5				0.0					2.5			0.0		0.0	
Control Delay (s/veh)		7.8				8.5					12.6			13.3		9.6	
Level of Service (LOS)		A				A					B			B		A	
Approach Delay (s/veh)	0.3	04	12.6	10.7	
Approach LOS	A	A	B	B	

.

.

.

PLANTATION GARDENS DR@ DARTINGTON DR

HCS Two-Way Stop-Control Report	
General Information	Site Information	
Analyst	YB	Intersection	Plantation Gardens Dr@ Dartington Dr	
Agency/Co		TR Transportation Consult	Jurisdiction	Fort Myers	
Date Performed	1/27/2026	East/West Street	Plantation Gardens Dr	
Analysis Year	2026	North/South Street	Dartington Dr	
Time Analyzed	PM Pk Hr	Peak Hour Factor	0.93	
Intersection Orientation	East-West	Analysis Time Period (hrs)	0.25	
Project Description	Arborwood DRI	
Lanes	
J -& l J.:l�	1!

�
�
�-
�
""'li

:t	fj
Major Street East-West	
Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments	
Approach	Eastbound	Westbound	Northbound	Southbound	
Movement	u	L	T	R	u	L	T	R	u	L	T	R	u	L	T	R	
Priority	1U	1	2	3	4U	4	5	6		7	8	9		10	11	12	
Number of Lanes	0	0	1	1	0	1	1	0		1	0	1		0	0	0	
Configuration			T	R		L	T			L		R					
Volume (veh/h)			459	10		7	246			9		5					
Percent Heavy Vehicles (%)						0				0		0					
Proportion Time Blocked																	
Percent Grade (%)			0		
Right Turn Channelized	No		No		
Median Type I Storage	Left Only	2	
Critical and Follow-up Headways	
Base Critical Headway (sec)						4.1				7.1		6.2					
Critical Headway (sec)						4	10				640		6.20					
Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)						2.2				3.5		3.3					
Follow-Up Headway (sec)						2.20				3.50		3.30					
Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service	
Flow Rate, v (veh/h)						8				10		5					
Capacity, c (veh/h)						1071				540		580					
v/c Ratio						0.01				0.02		O.Q1					
95% Queue Length, Qgs (veh)						0.0				0.1		0.0					
95% Queue Length, Oss (ft)						0.0				2.5		0.0					
Control Delay (s/veh)						8.4				11.8		11.3					
Level of Service (LOS)						A				B		B					
Approach Delay (s/veh)		0.2	11.6		
Approach LOS		A	B		

.

.

PLANTATION GARDENS DR@ CHRASFIELD CHASE

HCS Two-Way Stop-Control Report	
General Information	Site Information	
Analyst	YB	Intersection	Plantation Gardens Dr@ Chrasfield Chase	
Agency/Co		TR Transportation Consult	Jurisdiction	Fort Myers	
Date Performed	1/27/2026	East/West Street	Plantation Gardens Dr	
Analysis Year	2026	North/South Street	Chrasfield Chase	
Time Analyzed	PM Pk Hr	Peak Hour Factor	0.93	
Intersection Orientation	East-West	Analysis Time Period (hrs)	0.25	
Project Description	Arborwood DRI	
Lanes	
iw	1m..

:.,
�	...,
:ti
.�..	�
�
:Jr,	,r.:;
-,,	!a:

�m	tr
Major Street East-West	
Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments	
Approach	Eastbound	Westbound	Northbound	Southbound	
Movement	u	L	T	R	u	L	T	R	u	L	T	R	u	L	T	R	
Priority	1U	1	2	3	4U	4	5	6		7	8	9		10	11	12	
Number of Lanes	0	0	1	1	0	1	1	0		0	1	0		0	0	0	
Configuration			T	R		L	T				LR						
Volume (veh/h)			459	6		3	244			3		1					
Percent Heavy Vehicles (%)						0				0		0					
Proportion Time Blocked																	
Percent Grade (%)			0		
Right Turn Channelized	No				
Median Type I Storage	Left Only	2	
Critical and Follow-up Headways	
Base Critical Headway (sec)						4.1				7.1		6.2					
Critical Headway (sec)						4.10				6.40		6.20					
Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)						2.2				3.5		3.3					
Follow-Up Headway (sec)						2.20				3.50		3.30					
Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service	
Flow Rate, v (veh/h)						3					4						
Capacity, c (veh/h)						1075					552						
v/c Ratio						0.00					0.01						
95% Queue Length, Qss (veh)						0.0					0.0						
95% Queue Length, Q.s (ft)						0.0					0.0						
Control Delay (s/veh)						B.4					11.6						
Level of Service (LOS)						A					B						
Approach Delay (s/veh)		0.1	11.6		
Approach LOS		A	B		

.

PLANTATION GARDENS DR@ KINGSBRIDGE BLVD

HCS Two-Way Stop-Control Report	
General Information	Site Information	
Analyst	YB	Intersection
'	Plantation Gardens Dr@ Kingsbridge Blvd	
Agency/Co	.	TR Transportation Consult	Jurisdiction	Fort Myers	
Date Performed	1/27/2026	East/West Street	Plantation Gardens Dr	
Analysis Year	2026	North/South Street	Kingsbridge Blvd	
Time Analyzed	PM Pk Hr	Peak Hour Factor	0.93	
Intersection Orientation	East-West	Analysis Time Period (hrs)	0.25	
Project Description	Arborwood DRI	
Lanes	

:;

3-
�	;J	JJ

I',-!

E
E
�

c;:;l

"i	r
M.)jQrStreet East-West									
Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments	
Approach	Eastbound	Westbound	Northbound	Southbound	
Movement	u	L	T	R	u	L	T	R	u	L	T	R	u	L	T	R	
Priority	1U	1	2	3	4U	4	5	6		7	8	9		10	11	12	
Number of Lanes	0	1	1	0	0	0	1	1		0	0	0		1	0	1	
Configuration		L	T				T	R						L		R	
Volume (veh/h)		58	405				204	31						25		42	
Percent Heavy Vehicles(%)		0												0		5	
Proportion Time Blocked																	
Percent Grade (%)				0	
Right Turn Channelized		No		No	
Median Type I Storage	Left Only	2	
Critical and Follow-up Headways	
Base Critical Headway (sec)		4.1												7.1		6.2	
Critical Headway (sec)		4,10												6.40		6.25	
Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)		2.2												3.5		3.3	
Follow-Up Headway (sec)		2.20												3.50		3.35	
Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service	
Flow Rate, v (veh/h)		62												27		45	
Capacity, c (veh/h)		1324												500		813	
vie Ratio		0.05												0.05		0.06	
95% Queue Length, Qg, (veh)		0.1												0.2		0.2	
95% Queue Length, Qgs (ft)		2.5												5.0		5.2	
Control Delay (s/veh)		7.9												12.6		9,7	
Level of Service (LOS)		A												B		A	
Approach Delay (s/veh)	1	0			10	8	
Approach LOS	A			B	

.	.

PLANTATION GARDENS DR@ COMMERCE LAKES DR

HCS Two-Way Stop-Control Report
I	
General Information	Site Information	
Analyst	YB	Intersection	Plantation Gardens Dr@ Commerce Lakes Dr	
Agency/Co	TR Transportation Consult	Jurisdiction	Fort Myers	
Date Performed	1/27/2026	East/West Street	Plantation Gardens Dr	
Analysis Year	2026	North/South Street	Commerce Lakes Dr	
Time Analyzed	PM Pk Hr	Peak Hour Factor	0.94	
Intersection Orientation	East-West	Analysis Time Period (hrs)	0.25	
Project Description	Arborwood DRI	
Lanes	
.!	Ll	� .�J.:
::i;	�
-;.,	�-
�
-:::(
�
�	IC
�

'1:�	jj
MajorSr,ttt East-West	
Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments	
Approach	Eastbound	Westbound	Northbound	Southbound	
Movement	u	L	T	R	u	L	T	R	u	L	T	R	u	L	T	R	
Priority	1U	1	2	3	4U	4	5	6		7	8	9		10	11	12	
Number of Lanes	0	0	1	1	0	0	1	0		1	0	1		0	0	0	
Configuration			T	R		LT				L		R					
Volume (veh/h)			93	332		11	59			176		38					
Percent Heavy Vehicles (%)						0				1		3					
Proportion Time Blocked																	
Percent Grade (%)			0		
Right Turn Channelized	No		No		
Median Type I Storage	Left Only	2	
Critical and Follow-up Headways	
Base Critical Headway (sec)						4.1				7.1		6.2					
Critical Headway (sec)						4.10				6A1		6.23					
Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)						2.2				3.5		3.3					
Follow-Up Headway (sec)						2.20				3.51		3.33					
Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service	
Flow Rate, v (veh/h)						12				187		40					
Capacity, c (veh/h)						1119				840		954					
v/c Ratio						0.01				0.22		0.04					
95% Queue Length, Q95 (veh)						00				09		0.1					
95% Queue Length, O,s (ft)						0.0				22.7		2.6					
Control Delay (s/veh)						8.3	0.1			10.5		8.9					
Level of Service (LOS)						A	A			B		A					
Approach Delay (s/veh)		1.4	10.2		
Approach LOS		A	/
B		

COMMERCE LAKES DR@ GLADSTONE WAY/ARBOR TRACE DR

HCS Two-Way Stop-Control Report	
General Information	Site Information	
Analyst	YB	Intersection	Commerce Lakes Dr@ Gladstone Way/Arbo...	
Agency/Co.	TR Transportation Consult	Jurisdiction	Fort Myers	
Date Performed	1/27/2026	East/West Street	Commerce Lakes Dr	
Analysis Year	2026	North/South Street	Gladstone Way/Arbor Trace Dr	
Time Analyzed	PM Pk Hr	Peak Hour Factor	0.91	
Intersection Orientation	East-West	Analysis Time Period (hrs)	0.25	
Project Description	Arborwood DRI	
Lanes	

� l .
:;	u
�	�-
=-'	�
�
�	r
c;:

:1'.l	Lt	n
Majol Street East•West	
Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments	
Approach	Eastbound	Westbound	Northbound	Southbound	
Movement	u	L	T	R	u	L	T	R	u	L	T	R	u	L	T	R	
Priority	1U	1	2	3	4U	4	5	6		7	8	9		10	11	12	
Number of Lanes	0	1	1	1	0	1	1	1		0	1	1		0	1	1	
Configuration		L	T	R		L	T	R		LT		R		LT		R	
Volume (veh/h)		11	323	5		ZS	189	24		7	1	ZS		30	1	5	
Percent Heavy Vehicles (%)		0				0				0	0	0		0	0	0	
Proportion Time Blocked																	
Percent Grade (%)			0	0	
Right Turn Channelized	No	No	No	No	
Median Type I Storage	Left+ Thru	2	
Critical and Follow-up Headways	
Base Critical Headway (sec)		4.1				4.1				7.1	6.5	6.2		7.1	6.5	6.2	
Critical Headway (sec)		4.10				4.10				7.10	6.50	6.20		7.10	6.50	6.20	
Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)		2.2				2.2				3.5	4.0	3.3		3.5	4.0	3.3	
Follow-Up Headway (sec)		2.20				2.20				3.50	4.00	3.30		3.50	4.00	3.30	
Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service	
Flow Rate, v (veh/h)		12				27				9		27		34		5	
Capacity, c (veh/h)		1345				1209				534		693		508		838	
V/C Ratio		0.01				0.02				0.02		0.04		0.07		0.01	
95% Queue Length, Q•s (veh)		0.0				0.1				0.1		0.1		0,2		0.0	
95% Queue Length, Q•s (ft)		0.0				2.5				2.5		2.5		5.0		0.0	
Control Delay (s/veh)		7.7				8.0				11,9		10.4		12.6		9.3	
Level of SeNice (LOS)		A				A				B		B		B		A	
Approach Delay (s/veh)	0.2	0.8	10.8	12.1	
Approach LOS	A	A	B	B	

Yury Bykau

Digitally signed by Yury Bykau Date: 2026.01.31
14:52:36 -05'00'

� TR

TRANSPORTATION
�	CONSULTANTS, INC

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION

INTERSECTION DESCRIPTION/EXISTING CONDITIONS

EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS

TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS

CONCLUSION

� TR

TRANSPORTATION

CONSULTANTS, INC

INTRODUCTION

The following report prepared by TR Transportation Consultants, Inc. evaluates the need for a traffic signal at the intersection of Treeline Avenue and Plantation Gardens Drive in the City of Fort Myers, Florida. The intersection is currently unsignalized T-intersection with Plantation Gardens Drive (minor street approach) operating under STOP control conditions. This report will analyze the intersection based on the traffic signal warrants defined in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), 11th Edition.

INTERSECTION DESCRIPTION/EXISTING CONDITIONS

The nearest signalized intersection along Treeline Avenue is located at Daniels Parkway and is approximately 1.5 miles to the south of Plantation Gardens Drive. There are no signalized intersections along Plantation Gardens Drive.

Treeline Ave (Major Approach) is a four-lane divided arterial to the north and south of Plantation Gardens Drive. Treeline Avenue has a posted speed limit of 45 mph and is under the jurisdiction of the Lee County Department of Transportation.

Plantation Gardens Dr (Minor Approach) is a two-lane divided local roadway to the east of Treeline Avenue. Plantation Gardens Drive has a posted speed limit of 35 mph and is under the jurisdiction of the City of Fort Myers.

EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS

In order to determine the existing traffic conditions at the Treeline Avenue and Plantation Gardens Drive intersection, TR Transportation conducted a turning movement count on January 6, 2026 from 6:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. Attached to the Appendix are Tables 1- 3 that summarize the traffic data that was utilized for the analysis. Note, consistent with the previous signal warrant analysis prepared for Florida Department of Transportation

Page 1

� TR

TRANSPORTATION
�	CONSULTANTS, INC

(FDOT) and Lee County, the right turns on the minor approach (Plantation Gardens Drive) were reduced based on the attached minor street right tum adjustment factors.

TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS

TR Transportation has analyzed the existing peak season traffic conditions and compared them with warrants identifying if there is a need for traffic signal control. Following are the results of the signal warrant study.

There are a total of nine warrants contained in the Manual ,on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), 11th Edition, published by the Federal Highway Administration. The City of Fort Myers and Lee County abide by the warrants contained in this manual. Satisfaction of one or more warrants does not guarantee the installation of a signal, but it does provide governing agencies with a tool in order to prioritize the implementation of new signals. The warrants include:

Warrant #1-Eight-Hour Vehicular Volume
Warrant #2 - Four Hour Vehicular Volume
Warrant #3 - Peak Hour
Warrant #4-Pedestrian Volume
Warrant #5-School Crossing
Warrant #6-Coordinated Signal System
Warrant #7 -Crash Experience
Warrant #8-Roadway Network
Warrant #9 -Intersection near a Grade Crossing

The MUTCD states that "A traffic control signal should not be installed unless one or more of the factors described in this section are met". The MUTCD also states that "A traffic control signal should not be installed unless an engineering study indicates that installing a traffic control signal will improve the overall safety and/or operations of the intersection" in addition to stating that "A traffic control signal should not be installed if it will seriously disrupt progressive traffic flow".

�TR

TRANSPORTATION

�	CONSULTANTS, INC

The following is a detailed report stating TR Transportation's determination as to whether or not the above mentioned warrants will be satisfied at the intersection of Treeline Avenue with Plantation Gardens Drive. Note, the major street at this intersection is considered to be Treeline Avenue based on the attached traffic counts.

Warrant #1 is the Eight-Hour Vehicular Volume warrant. This warrant is divided into two categories, the Minimum Vehicular Volume (Condition "A") and the Interruption of Continuous Traffic (Condition "B"). Condition "A" considers signalization at an intersection where there is a large volume of side street approach traffic. Condition "B" considers signalization at an intersection where the volume of traffic on the major street causes the traffic on the minor street to experience large delays. The MUTCD states that "it is intended that Warrant 1 is treated as a single warrant. " Therefore, if either Condition "A" or Condition "B" is satisfied, then Warrant 1 will be satisfied.

For Condition "A", the criteria outlined in the MUTCD indicates a signal should be considered if "For any 8 hours of an average day, the vehicles per hour given in both of the JOO percent columns of Condition A in Table 4C-1 exist on the major-street and the higher-volume minor-street approaches, respectively, to the intersection." This condition also states that if the speed limit on the major street is greater than 40 mph, then a 30% reduction in the required volumes may be utilized. Table 4C-l indicates a column with the 70% values. The volumes indicated within Table 4C-1 can be seen within Chapter 4C of the MUTCD, 2009 Edition, attached to the Appendix of this report for reference.

The major street at this location is considered to be Treeline Ave. Since the posted speed limit on Treeline Ave is "greater than 40 mph", the 30% reduction in the tables 1s permitted. Based on the existing traffic volumes at the intersection, Warrant #1 Condition "A" is satisfied at this location.

For the Condition "B", the criteria states a signal should be considered if "For any 8 hours of an average day, the vehicles per hour given in both of the 100 percent columns

�TR

TRANSPORTATION
�	CONSULTANTS, INC

of Condition B in Table 4C-1 exist on the major-street and the higher-volume minor-street approaches, respectively, to the intersection." This condition also states that if the speed limit on the major street is greater than 40 mph, then a 30% reduction can be applied. Again, due to the posted speed limit, the 30% reduction can be utilized. Based on the traffic data collected at the intersection, Warrant 1 - Condition "B" is satisfied at this location. Therefore, Warrant 1 (Eight-Hour Vehicular Volume) is satisfied.

Warrant #2 is the Four-Hour Vehicular Volume warrant. This warrant bases the need for a traffic control signal on a high volume of intersecting (or minor street approach) traffic. In order to meet the criteria for this warrant, Figures 4C-1 and 4C-2 are utilized. If the plot of the major-street volume (both approaches) versus the minor-street volume (one approach) is above the curve located on Figure 4C-1 or 4C-2 for four hours of an average day, then the warrant is satisfied. In this case, since the speed limit on Treeline Ave (major street) is greater than 40 mph, Figure 4C-2 was utilized. Figure 4C-2 can be seen within Chapter 4C of the MUTCD, attached to the Appendix of this report for reference. Based on the plot of the highest four hours, Warrant #2 is satisfied.

Warrant #3 is the Peak Hour warrant. Based on MUTCD, this warrant "shall be applied only in unusual cases, such as office complexes, manufacturing plants, industrial complexes, or high-occupancy vehicle facilities that attract or discharge large numbers of traffic over a short period of time." Warrant #3 also requires a stopped time delay study which was not completed as part of this analysis. Therefore, this warrant is not detailed within this section and was not analyzed.

Warrant #4 is the Pedestrian Volume warrant. This warrant states that a signal would be warranted when the traffic volume on a major street is so heavy that pedestrians experience excessive delay in crossing the major street. Based on the attached traffic counts there were no significant pedestrian volumes observed crossing the major street within the entire study period. Since there were no significant pedestrian volumes observed at this intersection, this warrant was not analyzed.

PaPgagee641

�TR

TRANSPORTATION

CONSULTANTS, INC

Warrant #5 is the School Crossing Warrant. There is no school crossing present at this intersection. Therefore, this warrant is not applicable at this location and was not analyzed.

Warrant #6 is the Coordinated Signal System warrant. This warrant is intended to improve the progressive movement of traffic along the major roadway. This warrant indicates signals should be considered if an engineering study finds that one of the following criteria is met:

On a one-way street or a street that has traffic predominately in one direction, the adjacent traffic control signals are so far apart that they do not provide the necessary degree of vehicular platooning.
On a two-way street, adjacent traffic control signals do not provide the necessary degree of platooning and the proposed and adjacent traffic control signals will collectively provide a progressive operation.
There is not a significant degree of platooning of vehicles observed at this location to justify the installation of a signal under this warrant.

Warrant #7 is the Crash Experience warrant. This warrant bases the need for a traffic control signal on the severity and frequency of crashes at the subject intersection. There was no accident data collected at this intersection. Therefore, this warrant was not analyzed as part of this analysis.

Warrant #8 relates to intersections that are part of a larger roadway network. This warrant does not apply to the intersection of Treeline Avenue and Plantation Gardens Drive. Therefore, this warrant is not detailed within this section and was not analyzed.

Warrant #9 relates to intersections near railroad grade crossings. This warrant does not apply to the intersection of Treeline Avenue and Plantation Gardens Drive. Therefore, this warrant is not detailed within this section and was not analyzed.

�JI TR

TRANSPORTATION
CONSULTANTS, INC

The following Table 1 summarizes the warrants for signalization of the intersection Treeline Avenue and Plantation Gardens Drive based on the existing traffic conditions and criteria outlined in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), 11th Edition.

Table 1
Signal Warrants Summary
Treeline Avenue and Plantation Gardens Drive
-�	
�?	�edB$.,ed_f!o
�g2fd,G
C�$	
Warrant IA
Eight-Hour Vehicular Volume	Yes	Yes	
Warrant 1B
Eight-Hour Vehicular Volume	Yes	Yes	
Warrant 2
Four Hour Vehicular Volume	Yes	Yes	
Warrant 3 Peak.Hour	No
(Not an unusual case)	NIA	

Warrant 4 Pedestrian Volume	No
(No significant pedestrian crossing
volumes on major approach)	
NIA	
Warrant 5 School Crossing	No
(No school crossing)	NIA	
Warrant 6 Coordinated Signal System	No	NIA	
Warrant 7 Crash Experience	Yes	NIA	
Warrant 8 Roadway Network	No	NIA	
Warrant 9 Intersection Near a Grade
Crossing	No (Intersection is not
near a Grade Crossing)	
NIA	

Based on Table 1 and criteria outlined in the MUTCD, a traffic signal is warranted at the intersection of Treeline Avenue and Plantation Gardens Drive based on MUTCD

Page 6

�TR

TRANSPORTATION
�	CONSULTANTS, INC

Warrants No. 1 and No. 2. Applicable warrants are attached to the Appendix of this report for reference.

CONCLUSION

Based on the findings presented by this report, it can be concluded that a traffic signal is warranted at the intersection of Treeline Avenue and Plantation Gardens Drive in the City of Fort Myers, Florida. The Warrants as contained in the 11th Edition of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) were evaluated based on 2026 weekday traffic conditions. The results of the signal warrant analysis indicate that Warrants IA, lB and 2 of the MUTCD will be satisfied.

K:\2025\12 December\07 Treeline at Plantation Gardens Dr Warrant Study\Signal.Warrant.Report. 1-31-2026.doc

Page 7

TRAFFIC COUNT SUMMARY TREELINE AVE @ PLANTATION GARDENSDR

Page 67

Page 68

MINOR STREET RIGHT TURN ADJUSTMENT FACTORS

Pagones Theorem
'

First, determine which lane configuration represents the leg that is being studied. Then, based on the movements for each hour, find the percent reduction for each hour with Pagones Theorem

Situation
1

2

3

4

5

Approach configuration Shared Left/Through/Right

Exclusive Left,
Shared Through/Right

Any configuration with an exclusive right turn lane (usually> 600 feet long)

Shared Left/Through and Shared Through/Right

Exclusive Left, Exclusive Through and Shared Through/Right

Condition
R > 0.7A
0.7A > R > 0.35A
R < 0.35A

R>3T
3T?_ R > T/3
R< T/3

R > (T + L)
L > (T+ R)
L = T = R (+/- 10
vehicles) L= T> 3R R = T> 3L
All other cases

R>T
T?_ R > T/2 T/2 > R > T/4 R< T/4

Reduction of right turns
Reduce R by 60 percent Reduce R by 40 percent Reduce R by 20 percent
Reduce R by 60 percent Reduce R by 40 percent Reduce R by 20 percent

Reduce R by 75 percent in all cases

Reduce R by 65 percent Use situation 2
Reduce R by 40 percent

Reduce R by 20 percent Reduce R by 50 percent Reduce R by 30 percent

Reduce R by 75 percent Reduce R by 50 percent Reduce R by 30 percent Reduce R by 15 percent

Where: L = number of left turning vehicles in approach
T = number of through vehicles in approach
R = number of right turning vehicles in approach
A= (L + T + R)
NOTE: This is just one step of the Signal Warrant Analysis. Mainline configuration factors and volume modifications should also be considered per procedure.

TURNING MOVEMENT COUNT SUMMARY
TABLESl-3

Page 72

CHAPTER4C MUTCD, 11TH EDITION

Page 73

MUTCD 11th Edition	Page 651

CHAPTER 4C. TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNAL NEEDS STUDIES
Section 4C.01 Studies and Factors for Justifying Traffic Control Signals
Standard:
01		Except for a temporary traffic control signal (see Section 4D.11) installed in a temporary traffic control zone, before a traffic control signal is installed at a particular location, an engineering study of traffic conditions, pedestrian characteristics, and physical characteristics of the location shall be performed to determine whether installation of a traffic control signal is justified at that location.
02		The investigation of the need for a traffic control signal shall include an analysis of factors related to the existing operation and safety at the study location and the potential to improve these conditions, and the applicable factors contained in the following traffic signal warrants:
Warrant 1, Eight-Hour Vehicular Volume Warrant 2, Four-Hour Vehicular Volume Warrant 3, Peak Hour
Warrant 4, Pedestrian Volume Warrant 5, School Crossing
Warrant 6, Coordinated Signal System Warrant 7, Crash Experience
Warrant 8, Roadway Network
Warrant 9, Intersection Near a Grade Crossing
03		The satisfaction of a traffic signal warrant or warrants shall not in itself require the installation of a traffic control signal.
Support:
04		Sections 8D.08 and 8D.14 contain information regarding the use of traffic control signals instead of gates and/ or flashing-light signals at grade crossings.
Guidance:
os		When considering the installation of a traffic control signal, alternatives to traffic control signals, including those listed in Section 4B.03, should also be considered.
os		A traffic control signal should not be installed unless one or more of the factors described in this Chapter are met.
01		A traffic control signal should not be installed unless an engineering study indicates that installing a traffic control signal will improve the overall safety and/or operation of the intersection.
os		The study should consider the effects of the right-turning vehicles from the minor-street approaches. Engineering judgment should be used to determine what, if any, portion of the right-turning traffic is subtracted from the minor-street traffic count when evaluating the count against the signal warrants listed in Paragraph 2 of this Section.
09		Engineering judgment should also be used in applying various traffic signal warrants to cases where major-street approaches consist of one lane plus one left-turn or right-turn lane. The site-specific traffic characteristics should dictate whether a major-street approach is considered as one lane or two lanes. For example, for a major-street approach with one lane for through and right-turning traffic plus a left-turn lane, if engineering judgment indicates that it should be considered a one-lane approach because the traffic using the left-turn lane is minor, the total traffic volume approaching the intersection should be applied against the signal warrants as a one-lane approach. The major-street approach should be considered two lanes if approximately half of the traffic on the approach turns left and the left-turn lane is of sufficient length to accommodate all left-turning vehicles.
10		Similar engineering judgment and rationale should be applied to a minor-street approach with one through/ left-turn lane plus a right-turn lane. In this case, the degree of conflict of minor-street right-turning traffic with traffic on the major street should be considered. Thus, right-turning traffic should not be included in the minor-street volume if the movement enters the major street with minimal conflict. The minor-street approach should be evaluated as a one-lane approach with only the traffic volume in the through/left-turn lane considered.
11		If a minor-street approach has one combined through/right-turn lane plus a left-turn lane, the approach should either be analyzed as a two-lane approach based on the sum of the traffic volumes using both lanes or as a one-lane approach based on only the traffic volume in the approach lane with the higher volume.
12		At a location that is under development or construction or at a location where it is not possible to obtain a traffic count that would represent future traffic conditions, hourly volumes should be estimated as part of an
engineering study for comparison with traffic signal warrants. Except for locations where the engineering study uses the satisfaction of Warrant 8 to justify a signal, a traffic control signal installed under projected conditions should have an engineering study done within I year of putting the signal into steady (stop-and-go) operation to determine if the signal is justified. If not justified, the signal should be taken out of steady (stop-and-go) operation or removed.

December 2023

Page 74

Sect. 4C.0l

Page 652	MUTCD 11th Edition

Option:
13		For signal warrant analysis, a location with a wide median may be analyzed as one intersection or as two intersections (see Section 2A.23) based on engineering judgment.
14		At an intersection with a high volume of left-turning traffic from the major street, the signal warrant analysis may be performed in a manner that considers the higher of the major-street left-turn volumes as the "minor-street" volume and the corresponding single direction of opposing traffic on the major street as the "major-street" volume.
1s		For signal warrants requiring conditions to be present for a certain number of hours in order to be satisfied, any four consecutive 15-minute periods may be considered as I hour if the separate I-hour periods used in the warrant analysis do not overlap each other and both the major-street volume and the minor-street volume are for the same specific 1-hour periods.
1s		For signal warrant analysis, bicyclists may be counted as either vehicles or pedestrians. Support:
11		When performing a signal warrant analysis, bicyclists riding in the street with other vehicular traffic are usually counted as vehicles and bicyclists who are clearly using pedestrian facilities are usually counted as pedestrians.
Option:
1a	Engineering study data may include the following:
The number of vehicles entering the intersection in each hour from each approach during 12 hours of an average day. It is desirable that the hours selected contain the greatest percentage of the 24-hour traffic volume.
Vehicular volumes for each traffic movement from each approach, classified by vehicle type (heavy trucks, passenger cars and light trucks, public-transit vehicles, and, in some locations, bicycles), during each
15-minute period of the 2 hours in the morning and 2 hours in the afternoon during which the total traffic entering the intersection is the greatest.
Pedestrian volume counts on each crosswalk during the same periods as the vehicular counts in Item B and during the hours of highest pedestrian volume. Where young, elderly, and/or persons with physical or vision disabilities need special consideration, the pedestrians and their crossing times may be classified by general observation.
Information about nearby facilities and activity centers that serve the young, elderly, and/or persons with disabilities, including requests from persons with disabilities for accessible crossing improvements at the location under study. These persons might not be adequately reflected in the pedestrian volume count if the absence of a signal restrains their mobility.
The posted or statutory speed limit or the 85th-percentile speed on the uncontrolled approaches to the location.
A condition diagram showing details of the physical layout, including such features as intersection
geometrics, channelization, grades, sight-distance restrictions, transit stops and routes, parking conditions, pavement markings, roadway lighting, driveways, nearby railroad crossings, distance to the nearest traffic control signals, utility poles and fixtures, and adjacent land use.
A collision diagram showing crash experience by type, location, direction of movement, severity, weather, time of day, date, and day of week for at least 1 year.
19		The following data, which are desirable for a more precise understanding of the operation of the intersection, may be obtained during the periods described in Item B of Paragraph 18 of this Section:
Vehicle-hours of stopped-time delay determined separately for each approach.
The number and distribution of acceptable gaps in vehicular traffic on the major street for entrance from the minor street.
The posted or statutory speed limit or the 85th-percentile speed on controlled approaches at a point near to the intersection but unaffected by the control.
Pedestrian delay time for at least two 30-minute peak pedestrian delay periods of an average weekday or like periods of a Saturday or Sunday.
Queue length on stop-controlled approaches. Support:
20		The safe and efficient movement of all road users is the primary consideration in the engineering study to determine whether to install a traffic control signal or to install some other type of control or roadway
configuration. Installation of a traffic control signal does not necessarily result in improved safety in every case. In some cases, the installation of a traffic control signal at an inappropriate location could adversely impact safety for one or more types of road users. The purpose of the engineering study is to evaluate all of the factors that
are relevant to a specific location. The satisfaction of a warrant (or warrants) is one of the relevant factors in the

MUTCD 11th Edition	Page 653

engineering study, but it is not intended to be the only factor or even the overriding consideration. Agencies can install a traffic control signal at a location where no warrants are met, but only after conducting an engineering study that documents the rationale for deciding that the installation of a traffic control signal is the best solution for improving the overall safety and/or operation at the location.
Section 4C.02 Warrant 1, Eight-Hour Vehlcular Volume
Support:
01		The Minimum Vehicular Volume, Condition A (see Table 4C-I), is intended for application at locations where a large volume of intersecting traffic is the principal reason to consider installing a traffic control signal.
02		The Interruption of Continuous Traffic, Condition B (see Table 4C-l), is intended for application at locations where Condition A is not satisfied and where the traffic volume on a major street is so heavy that traffic on a minor intersecting street suffers excessive delay or conflict in entering or crossing the major street.
03		It is intended that Warrant I be treated as a single warrant. If Condition A is satisfied, then Warrant I is satisfied and analyses of Condition B and the combination of Conditions A and Bare not needed. Similarly, if Condition B is satisfied, then Warrant I is satisfied and an analysis of the combination of Conditions A and B is not needed.
Guidance:
o4		The need for a traffic control signal should be considered if an engineering study finds that one of the following conditions exist for each of any 8 hours of an average day:
The vehicles per hour given in both of the JOO percent columns of Condition A in Table 4C-l exist on the major street and the more critical minor-street approach, respectively, to the intersection; or
The vehicles per hour given in both of the 100 percent columns of Condition Bin Table 4C-l exist on the major street and the more critical minor-street approach, respectively, to the intersection.
Standard:
os		These major-street and minor-street volumes shall be for the same 8 hours for each condition; however, the 8 hours that are selected for the Condition A analysis shall not be required to be the same 8 hours that are selected for the Condition B analysis.

Table 4C-1. Warrant 1, Eight-Hour Vehicular Volume
Condition A-Minimum Vehicular Volume

Number of lanes for moving traffic on each approach	Vehicles per hour on major street (total of both approaches)	Vehicles per hour on more critical minor-street approach (one direction only)	
Major Street	Minor Street	100%'	80%b	70%c	56%d	100%'	80%b	70%c	56%d	
1	1	500	400	350	280	150	120	105	84	
2 or more	1	600	480	420	336	150	120	105	84	
2 or more	2 or more	600	480	420	336	200	160	140	112	
1	2 or more	500	400	350	280	200	160	140	112	

Number of lanes for moving traffic on each approach	Vehicles per hour on major street (total of both approaches)	Vehicles per hour on more critical minor-street approach (one direction only)	
MajorStreet	Minor Street	100%'	80%b	70%'	56%d	100%'	8Q%b	70%c	56%d	
1	1	750	600	525	420	75	60	53	42	
2 or more	1	900	720	630	504	75	60	53	42	
2 or more	2 or more	900	720	630	504	100	80	70	56	
1	2 or more	750	600	525	420	100	80	70	56	
' Basic minimum hourly volume
b Used for combination of Conditions A and B after adequate trial of other remedial measures
c May be used when the major-street speed exceeds 40 mph or in an isolated community with a population of less than 10,000
a May be used for combination of Conditions A and B after adequate trial of other remedial measures when the major-street speed exceeds 40 mph or in an isolated community with a population of less than 10,000

Page 654	MUTCD 11th Edition

Support:
os  On the minor street, the more critical volume is not required to be on the same approach during each of these 8 hours. The more critical minor-street volume is the one that meets the warranting criteria for that approach, and in the case of a one-lane minor-street approach that is opposite from a multi-lane minor-street approach might not have the higher volume.
Option:
01		If the posted or statutory speed limit or the 85th-percentile speed on the major street exceeds 40 mph, or if the intersection lies within the built-up area of an isolated community having a population of less than 10,000, the traffic volumes in the 70 percent columns in Table 4C-l may be used in place of the 100 percent columns.
Guidance:
oa	The combination of Conditions A and Bis intended/or application at locations where Condition A is not satisfied and Condition B is not satisfied and should be applied only after an adequate trial of other alternatives that could cause less delay and inconvenience to traffic has Jailed to solve the traffic problems.
09		The need for a traffic control signal should be considered if an engineering study finds that both of the following conditions exist for each of any 8 hours of an average day:
The vehicles per hour given in both of the 80 percent columns of Condition A in Table 4C-J exist on the major street and the more critical minor-street approach, respectively, to the intersection; and
The vehicles per hour given in both of the 80 percent columns of Condition Bin Table 4C-l exist on the major street and the more critical minor-street approach, respectively, to the intersection.
Standard:
10		These major-street and minor-street volumes shall be for the same 8 hours for each condition; however, the 8 hours satisfied in Condition A shall not be required to be the same 8 hours satisfied in Condition B.
Support:
11		On the minor street, the more critical volume is not required to be on the same approach during each of the 8 hours. The more critical minor-street volume is the one that meets the warranting criteria for that approach, and in the case of a one-lane minor-street approach that is opposite from a multi-lane minor-street approach might not have the higher volume.
Option:
12		If the posted or statutory speed limit or the 85th-percentile speed on the major street exceeds 40 mph, or if the intersection lies within the built-up area of an isolated community having a population of less than 10,000, the traffic volumes in the 56 percent columns in Table 4C-1 may be used in place of the 80 percent columns.
Section 4C.03 Warrant 2, Four-Hour Vehicular Volume
Support:
01		The Four-Hour Vehicular Volume signal warrant conditions are intended to be applied where the volume of intersecting traffic is the principal reason to consider installing a traffic control signal.
Guidance:
02		The need for a traffic control signal should be considered if an engineering study finds that, for each of any 4 hours of an average day, the plotted points representing the vehicles per hour on the major street (total of both approaches) and the corresponding vehicles per hour on the more critical minor-street approach (one direction only) all fall above the applicable curve in Figure 4C-J for the existing combination of approach lanes.
Support:
OJ		On the minor street, the more critical volume is not required to be on the same approach during each of these 4 hours. The more critical minor-street volume is the one that meets the warranting criteria for that approach, and in the case of a one-lane minor-street approach that is opposite from a multi-lane minor-street approach might not have the higher volume.
Option:
04		If the posted or statutory speed limit or the 85th-percentile speed on the major street exceeds 40 mph, or if the intersection lies within the built-up area of an isolated community having a population of less than 10,000, Figure 4C-2 may be used in place of Figure 4C-1.

MUTCD 11th Edition	Page 655

Figure 4C-1. Warrant 2, Four-Hour Vehicular Volume

	500	
	
400	
MINOR STREET	
300	
MORE
CRITICAL APPROACH -	

200	
VPH		
	100	

2 OR MORE LANES & 2 OR MORE LANES

MAJOR-STREET LANE &
OR MORE MINOR-STREET LANES

300	400	500	600	700	800	900	1000	1100	1200	1300	1400
MAJOR STREET-TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES-VEHICLES PER HOUR (VPH)

*Note: 115 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with two or more lanes and 80 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with one lane

Figure 4C-2. Warrant 2, Four-Hour Vehicular Volume (70% Factor)
(COMMUNITY LESS THAN 10,000 POPULATION OR ABOVE 40 MPH ON MAJOR STREET)

MAJOR-STREET LANE &
OR MORE MINOR-STREET LAN S	
		
2 OR MORE MAJOR-STREET LANES & 1 MINOR-STREET LANE		

400

MINOR STREET
MORE CRITICAL
APPROACH-
VPH

300

200

100

80*
60*

200	300	400	500	600	700	800	900	1000
MAJOR STREET-TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES-VEHICLES PER HOUR (VPH)
*Note: 80 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with two or more lanes and 60 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with one lane

Page 656	MUTCD 11th Edition

Section 4C.04 Warrant 3, Peak Hour
Support:
01		The Peak Hour signal warrant is intended for use at a location where traffic conditions are such that for a minimum of 1 hour of an average day, the minor-street traffic suffers undue delay when entering or crossing the major street.
Guidance:
02		This signal warrant should be applied only in unusual cases, such as office complexes, manufacturing plants, industrial complexes, or high-occupancy vehicle facilities that attract or discharge large numbers of vehicles over a short time.
03		The need for a traffic control signal should be considered if an engineering study finds that the criteria in either of the following two categories are met:
If all three of the following conditions exist for the same I hour (any four consecutive 15-minute periods) of an average day:
The total stopped-time delay experienced by the traffic on one minor-street approach (one direction only) controlled by a STOP sign equals or exceeds: 4 vehicle-hours for a one-lane approach or 5 vehicle-hours for a two-lane approach, and
The volume on the same minor-street approach (one direction only) equals or exceeds I00 vehicles per hour for one moving lane of traffic or 150 vehicles per hour for two moving lanes, and
The total entering volume serviced during the hour equals or exceeds 650 vehicles per hour for intersections with three approaches or 800 vehicles per hour for intersections with four or more approaches.
The plotted point representing the vehicles per hour on the major street (total of both approaches) and the corresponding vehicles per hour on the more critical minor-street approach (one direction only) for I hour (any four consecutive 15-minute periods) of an average day falls above the applicable curve in Figure 4C-3 for the existing combination of approach lanes.
Option:
04		If the posted or statutory speed limit or the 85th-percentile speed on the major street exceeds 40 mph, or if the intersection lies within the built-up area of an isolated community having a population of less than 10,000, Figure 4C-4 may be used in place of Figure 4C-3 to evaluate the criteria in Item B of Paragraph 3 in this Section.
os	If this warrant is the only warrant met and a traffic control signal is justified by an engineering study, the traffic control signal may be operated in the flashing mode during the hours that the volume criteria of this warrant are not met.
Guidance:
06		If this warrant is the only warrant met and a traffic control signal is justified by an engineering study, the traffic control signal should be traffic-actuated.
Section 4C.05 Warrant 4, Pedestrian Volume
Support:
01		The Pedestrian Volume signal warrant is intended for application where the traffic volume on a major street is so heavy that pedestrians experience excessive delay in crossing the major street.
Guidance:
02		The need for a traffic control signal at an intersection or midblock crossing should be considered if an engineering study finds that one of the following criteria is met:
For each of any 4 hours of an average day, the plotted points representing the vehicles per hour on the major street (total of both approaches) and the corresponding pedestrians per hour crossing the major street (total of all crossings) all fall above the curve in Figure 4C-5; or
For I hour (any four consecutive 15-minute periods) of an average day, the plotted point representing the vehicles per hour on the major street (total of both approaches) and the corresponding pedestrians per hour crossing the major street (total of all crossings) falls above the curve in Figure 4C-6.
Option:
03		If the posted or statutory speed limit or the 85th-percentile speed on the major street exceeds 35 mph, or if the intersection lies within the built-up area of an isolated community having a population of less than 10,000, Figure 4C-7 may be used in place of Figure 4C-5 to evaluate Item A in Paragraph 2 of this Section, and Figure 4C-8 may be used in place of Figure 4C-6 to evaluate Item Bin Paragraph 2 of this Section.

MUTCD 11th Edition	Page 657

Figure 4C-3. Warrant 3, Peak Hour

600  ,----.-------x----.----r---.-------,------.-----,---------,.---,--,-----.	�

5oo  1---1f-3',,,.-----1----1----3oo-.:--+---+----+-I----+-I--+-I--+-I--!1--------tl----+l---+	t
,_,,	 2 OR MORE LANES & 2 OR MORE LANES

MINOR STREET
MORE CRITICAL

400   1----f"",,,.,,------+------f"'l--+---+=.....,.--+---t----+----f------l--!---+---+	t

&

1' MAJOR-STREET LANE
2 OR MORE MINOR-STREET LANES
300  f---+-  ---+ ---+�--i----1f-=-.,.-1---+="......_:+---+--+---+---+----,1-+	1
1	1

APPROACH-
VPH

1 LANE & 1 LANE-+-"""-J.

i--===�;;.._-F--+-� 150*

100 �-+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+----+=���µr:=:i:::=-.....�	100*
2 6R MdRE MAJOR-STREET LANEs--4---t-
& 1 MINOR-STREET LANE
400	500	600	700	800	900  1000  1100  1200 1300 1400  1500 1600 1700 1800

MAJOR STREET-TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES-VEHICLES PER HOUR (VPH)
*Note: 150 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with two or more lanes and 100 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with one lane

Figure 4C-4. Warrant 3, Peak Hour (70% Factor)
(COMMUNITY LESS THAN 10,000 POPULATION OR ABOVE 40 MPH ON MAJOR STREET)

								
I	I					
2 OR MORE LANES & 2 OR MORE LANES		
1 MAJOR-STREET LANE &		
2 OR MORE MINOR-STREET LANES	

400
MINOR
STREET 300
MORE CRITICAL
APPROACH -  200
VPH
100

300	400	500	600	700	800	900	1000	1100	1200	1300

MAJOR STREET-TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES-VEHICLES PER HOUR (VPH)
*Note: 100 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with two or more lanes and 75 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with one lane

Page 658	MUTCD I Ith Edition

Figure 4C-5. Warrant 4, Pedestrian Four-Hour Volume

...

500

TOTAL OF ALL PEDESTRIANS CROSSING MAJOR STREET-PEDESTRIANS PER HOUR (PPH)

400

300

200

100

'

....
�

�

-.......

V

,�,

...........

�

�-.

107*

....

-

�

-

15th-percentile crossing speed is less than 3.5 feet per second.

�

----..........

300	400	500	600	700	800	900	1000	1100	1200
MAJOR STREET-TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES-VEHICLES PER HOUR (VPH)

53**

1300	1400

* 107 pph applies as the lower threshold volume
** 53 pph applies as the lower threshold volume if the 15th-percentile crossing speed is less than
3.5 feet per second

TOTAL OF ALL PEDESTRIANS CROSSING MAJOR STREET-PEDESTRIANS PER HOUR (PPH)

Figure 4C-6. Warrant 4, Pedestrian Peak Hour

'

'

....
�')-

"

.	.. _

V

""'-�
-r-,_r--�-

---..._,--

133*
66**

//

.......

"'-..,

.....

...... .....

r--....

700

600

500

400

300

200

15th-percentile

100
------

crossing speed is less than 3.5 feet per second.

300  400  500  600  700  800  900  1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800
MAJOR STREET-TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES-VEHICLES PER HOUR (VPH)
* 133 pph applies as the lower threshold volume
** 66 pph applies as the lower threshold volume if the 15th-percentile crossing speed is less than
3.5 feet per second

MUTCD 11th Edition	Page 659

Figure 4C-7. Warrant 4, Pedestrian Four-Hour Volume (70% Factor)
(COMMUNITY LESS THAN 10,000 POPULATION OR ABOVE 40 MPH ON MAJOR STREET)

r	h=---l--

_

175*
_j37•*

1=---J1

400 �--�--�---�--�---�--�---�--�

TOTAL OF ALL PEDESTRIANS CROSSING MAJOR STREET-PEDESTRIANS PER HOUR (PPH)

15th-percentile crossing speed is less than 3.5 feet per second.

200	300	400	500	600	700	800	900	1000
MAJOR STREET-TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES-VEHICLES PER HOUR (VPH)
* 75 pph applies as the lower threshold volume
** 37 pph applies as the lower threshold volume if the 15th-percentile crossing speed is less than
3.5 feet per second

Figure 4C-8. Warrant 4, Pedestrian Peak Hour (70% Factor)
(COMMUNITY LESS THAN 10,000 POPULATION OR ABOVE 40 MPH ON MAJOR STREET)
500 �----.-----,-----.--------,�-�----,-----,--------,,---�--�

TOTAL OF ALL
PEDESTRIANS	300  1----1---+-----"'�--+----+---+----1---+---1	1

CROSSING MAJOR STREET-

PEDESTRIANS	200  1-----:::,p,,.�--1---+-----t----="""""".-1----t--+---+--+	1
PER HOUR (PPH)

15th-percentile crossing speed is less than 3.5 feet per second.

100  i------::::r,c.._---t----t-------it-==---�;;;;;:=---t	t--=-.,r""'ii��==-193*
r-+---+--+	145•*

200	300	400	500	600	700	800	900	1000	1100	1200
MAJOR STREET-TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES-VEHICLES PER HOUR (VPH)
* 93 pph applies as the lower threshold volume
** 46 pph applies as the lower threshold volume if the 15th-percentile crossing speed is less than
3.5 feet per second

Page 660	MUTCD 11th Edition

04		Where there is a divided street having a median of sufficient width for pedestrians to wait, the criteria in Items A and B of Paragraph 2 of this Section may be applied separately to each direction of vehicular traffic.
Guidance:
05		The Pedestrian Volume signal warrant should not be applied at locations where the distance to the nearest traffic control signal or STOP sign controlling the street that pedestrians desire to cross is less than 300 feet, unless the proposed traffic control signal will not restrict the progressive movement of traffic.
Standard:
06		If this warrant is met and a traffic control signal is justified by an engineering study, the traffic control signal shall be equipped with pedestrian signal heads complying with the provisions set forth in Chapter 41.
Guidance:
01	If this warrant is met and a traffic control signal is justified by an engineering study, then:
If it is installed at an intersection or major driveway location, the traffic control signal should also control the minor-street or driveway traffic, should be traffic-actuated, and should include pedestrian detection.
If it is installed at a non-intersection crossing, the traffic control signal should be installed at least
JOO feet from side streets or driveways that are controlled by STOP or YIELD signs, and should be pedestrian-actuated. If the traffic control signal is installed at a non-intersection crossing, at least one of the signal faces should be over the traveled way for each approach, parking and other sight obstructions should be prohibited for at least I 00 feet in advance of and at least 20 feet beyond the crosswalk or site accommodations should be made through curb extensions or other techniques to provide adequate sight distance, and the installation should include suitable standard signs and pavement markings.
Furthermore, if it is installed within a signal system, the traffic control signal should be coordinated.
Option:
os		The criterion for the pedestrian volume crossing the major street may be reduced as much as 50 percent if the 15th-percentile crossing speed of pedestrians is less than 3.5 feet per second (see Figures 4C-5 through 4C-8).
o9		A traffic control signal may not be needed at the study location if adjacent coordinated traffic control signals consistently provide gaps of adequate length for pedestrians to cross the street.
Section 4C.06 Warrant 5, School Crossing
Support:
01		The School Crossing signal warrant is intended for application where the fact that schoolchildren cross the major street is the principal reason to consider installing a traffic control signal. For the purposes of this warrant, the word "schoolchildren" includes elementary through high school students.
Guidance:
02		The need for a traffic control signal should be considered when an engineering study of the frequency and adequacy of gaps in the vehicular traffic stream as related to the number and size of groups of schoolchildren at an established school crossing across the major street shows that the number of adequate gaps in the traffic
stream during the period when the schoolchildren are using the crossing is less than the number of minutes in the same period and there are a minimum of 20 schoolchildren during the highest crossing hour.
03		Before a decision is made to install a traffic control signal, consideration should be given to the implementation of other remedial measures, such as warning signs and flashers, school speed zones, school crossing guards, or a grade-separated crossing.
04		The School Crossing signal warrant should not be applied at locations where the distance to the nearest traffic control signal along the major street is less than 300 feet, unless the proposed traffic control signal will not restrict the progressive movement of traffic.
Standard:
05		If this warrant is met and a traffic control signal is justified by an engineering study, the traffic control signal shall be equipped with pedestrian signal heads complying with the provisions set forth in Chapter 41. Guidance:
06	If this warrant is met and a traffic control signal is justified by an engineering study, then:
If it is installed at an intersection or major driveway location, the traffic control signal should also control the minor-street or driveway traffic, should be traffic-actuated, and should include pedestrian detection.
If it is installed at a non-intersection crossing, the traffic control signal should be installed at least
JOO feet from side streets or driveways that are controlled by STOP or YIELD signs, and should be pedestrian-actuated. If the traffic control signal is installed at a non-intersection crossing, at least one of the signal faces should be over the traveled way for each approach, parking and other sight obstructions should be prohibited for at least I 00 feet in advance of and at least 20 feet beyond the crosswalk or site accommodations should be made through curb extensions or other techniques to provide adequate sight distance, and the installation should include suitable standard signs and pavement markings.
Furthermore, if it is installed within a signal system, the traffic control signal should be coordinated.

MUTCD 11th Edition	Page 661
Section 4C.07 Warrant 6, Coordinated Signal System
Support:
01		Progressive movement in a coordinated signal system sometimes necessitates installing traffic control signals at intersections where they would not otherwise be needed in order to maintain proper platooning of vehicles.
Guidance:
02		The need for a traffic control signal should be considered if an engineering study finds that one of the following criteria is met:
On a one-way street or a street that has traffic predominantly in one direction, the adjacent traffic control signals are so far apart that they do not provide the necessary degree of vehicular platooning
On a two-way street, adjacent traffic control signals do not provide the necessary degree of platooning and the proposed and adjacent traffic control signals will collectively provide a progressive operation.
03		The Coordinated Signal System signal warrant should not be applied where the resultant spacing of traffic control signals would be less than I,000 feet.
Section 4C.08 Warrant 7, Crash Experience
Support:
01		The Crash Experience signal warrant conditions are intended for application where the severity and frequency of crashes are the principal reasons to consider installing a traffic control signal.
Guidance:
02		The need for a traffic control signal should be considered if an engineering study finds that all of the following criteria are met:
Adequate trial of alternatives with satisfactory observance and enforcement has failed to reduce the crashfrequency; and
At least one of the following conditions applies to the reported crash history (where each reported crash considered is related to the intersection and apparently exceeds the applicable requirements for a reportable crash):
The number of reported angle crashes and pedestrian crashes within a I-year period equals or exceeds the threshold number in Table 4C-2 for total angle crashes and pedestrian crashes (all severities); or
The number of reported fatal-and-injury angle crashes and pedestrian crashes within a I-year period equals or exceeds the threshold number in Table 4C-2for total fatal-and-injury angle crashes and pedestrian crashes; or
The number of reported angle crashes and pedestrian crashes within a 3-year period equals or exceeds the threshold number in Table 4C-3 for total angle crashes and pedestrian crashes (all severities); or
The number of reported fatal-and-injury angle crashes and pedestrian crashes within a 3-year period equals or exceeds the threshold number in Table 4C-3 for total fatal-and-injury angle crashes and pedestrian crashes; and
For each of any 8 hours of an average day, the vehicles per hour (vph) given in both of the 80 percent columns of Condition A in Table 4C-I (see Section 4C.02), or the vph in both of the 80 percent columns of Condition Bin Table 4C-I exists on the major street and the more critical minor-street approach, respectively, to the intersection, or the volume of pedestrian traffic is not less than 80 percent of the requirements specified in the Pedestrian Volume warrant (see Section 4C.05).

Table 4C-2. Minimum Number of Reported Crashes in a One-Year Period

Number of through lanes on each approach	Total of angle and pedestrian crashes (all severities)a	Total of fatal-and-injury angle and pedestrian crashesa	
Major Street	Minor Street	Four Legs	Three Legs	Four Legs	Three Legs	
1	1	5	4	3	3	
2 or more	1	5	4	3	3	
2 or more	2ormore	5	4	3	3	
1	2 or more	5	4	3	3	
Angle crashes include all crashes that occur at an angle and involve one or more vehicles on the major street and one or more vehicles on the minor street

Page 662	MUTCD I Ith Edition

Table 4C-3. Minimum Number of Reported Crashes in a Three-Year Period

Number of through lanes on each approach	Total of angle and pedestrian crashes (all severities)a	Total of fatal-and-injury angle and pedestrian crashesa	
Major Street	Minor Street	Four Legs	Three Legs	Four Legs	Three Legs	
1	1	6	5	4	4	
2 or more	1	6	5	4	4	
2ormore	2 or more	6	5	4	4	
1	2 or more	6	5	4	4	
Angle crashes include all crashes that occur at an angle and involve one or more vehicles on the major street and one or more vehicles on the minor street

Standard:
03	These major-street and minor-street volumes shall be for the same 8 hours.
Support:
04		On the minor street, the more critical volume is not required to be on the same approach during each of these 8 hours. The more critical minor-street volume is the one that meets the warranting criteria for that approach, and in the case of a one-lane minor-street approach that is opposite from a multi-lane minor-street approach might not have the higher volume.
Option:
os		If the posted or statutory speed limit or the 85th-percentile speed on the major street exceeds 40 mph, or if the intersection lies within the built-up area of an isolated community having a population of less than 10,000:
The traffic volumes in the 56 percent columns in Table 4C-1 may be used in place of the 80 percent columns.
Tables 4C-4 and 4C-5 may be used in place of Tables 4C-2 and 4C-3, respectively.

Table 4C-4. Minimum Number of Reported Crashes in a One-Year Period

Community less than 10,000 population or above 40 mph on major street	
Number of through lanes on each approach	Total of angle and pedestrian crashes (all severities)a	Total of fatal-and-injury angle and pedestrian crashes•	
Major Street	Minor Street	Four Legs	Three Legs	Four Legs	Three Legs	
1	1	4	3	3	3	
2 or more	1	10	9	6	6	
2 or more	2 or more	10	9	6	6	
1	2 or more	4	3	3	3	
Angle crashes include all crashes that occur at an angle and involve one or more vehicles on the major street and one or more vehicles on the minor street

Table 4C-5. Minimum Number of Reported Crashes in a Three-Year Period

Community less than 10,000 population or above 40 mph on major street	
Number of through lanes on each approach	Total of angle and pedestrian crashes (all severities)•	Total of fatal-and-injury angle and pedestrian crashes•	
Major Street	Minor Street	Four Legs	Three Legs	Four Legs	Three Legs	
1	1	6	5	4	4	
2 or more	1	16	13	9	9	
2 or more	2 or more	16	13	9	9	
1	2 or more	6	5	4	4	
Angle crashes include all crashes that occur at an angle and involve one or more vehicles on the major street and one or more vehicles on the minor street

MUTCD I Ith Edition	Page 663

Option:
os		Agencies may calibrate Highway Safety Manual (HSM) (AASHTO, 2010) safety performance functions (SPFs) to their own crash data or develop their own SPFs to produce agency specific average crash frequency values. When documented as part of the engineering study, these agency specific crash frequency values may be used instead of the values shown in Tables 4C-2 through 4C-5 when applying the Crash Experience signal warrant.
Support:
01		The values in Tables 4C-2 through 4C-5 for Minimum Number of Reported Crashes that correspond to the Crash Experience signal warrant were derived using the safety performance functions (SPFs) in the Highway Safety Manual (HSM) (AASHTO, 2010) for stop-controlled and signalized intersections with characteristics that are considered typical. The values in Tables 4C-2 through 4C-5 are representative of average crash frequency for the given intersection condition. The values correspond to the threshold at which the signalized intersection safety performance outperforms the stop-controlled intersection, for otherwise identical conditions and equivalent traffic.
Section 4C.09 Warrant 8, Roadway Network
Support:
01		Installing a traffic control signal at some intersections might be justified to encourage concentration and organization of traffic flow on a roadway network.
Guidance:
02		The need for a traffic control signal should be considered if an engineering study finds that the common intersection of two or more major routes meets one or both of the following criteria:
The intersection has a total existing, or immediately projected, entering volume of at least 1,000 vehicles per hour during the peak hour of a typical weekday and has 5-year projected traffic volumes, based on an engineering study, that meet one or more a/Warrants 1, 2, and 3 during an average weekday; or
The intersection has a total existing or immediately projected entering volume of at least 1,000 vehicles per hour for each of any 5 hours of a non-normal business day (Saturday or Sunday).
03	A major route as used in this signal warrant should have at least one of the following characteristics:
It is part of the street or highway system that serves as the principal roadway network/or through traffic flow;
It includes rural or suburban highways outside, entering, or traversing a city; or
It appears as a major route on an official plan, such as a major street plan in an urban area traffic and transportation study.
Section 4C.10 Warrant 9, Intersection Near a Grade Crossing
Support:
01		The Intersection Near a Grade Crossing signal warrant is intended for use at a location where none of the conditions described in the other eight traffic signal warrants are met, but the proximity of a grade crossing on an approach controlled by a STOP or YIELD sign at a highway-highway intersection is the principal reason to consider installing a traffic control signal.
Guidance:
02		This signal warrant should be applied only after adequate consideration has been given to other alternatives or after a trial of an alternative has failed to alleviate the safety concerns associated with the grade crossing Among the alternatives that should be considered or tried are:
Providing additional pavement that would enable vehicles to clear the track or that would provide space for an evasive maneuver, or
Reassigning the stop controls at the highway-highway intersection to make the approach across the track a non-stopping approach.
03		The need for a traffic control signal should be considered if an engineering study finds that both of the following criteria are met:
A grade crossing exists on an approach controlled by a STOP or YIELD sign at a highway-highway intersection and the center of the track nearest to the intersection is within 140 feet of the stop line or yield line on the approach; and
During the highest traffic volume hour during which rail traffic uses the crossing, the plotted point representing the vehicles per hour on the major street (total of both approaches) of the highway-highway intersection and the corresponding vehicles per hour on the minor-street approach that crosses the track (one direction only, approaching the intersection) falls above the applicable curve in Figure 4C-9 or
4C-10 for the existing combination of approach lanes over the track and the distance D, which is the clear storage distance as defined in Section lC.02.

Page 664	MUTCD 11th Edition

o4	The following c"ansiderations apply when plotting the traffic volume data on Figure 4C-9 or 4C-IO:
Figure 4C-9 should be used if there is only one lane approaching the highway-highway intersection at the track crossing location and Figure 4C-J O should be used if there are two or more lanes approaching the highway-highway intersection at the track crossing location.

Figure 4C-9. Warrant 9, Intersection Near a Grade Crossing (One Approach Lane at the Track Crossing)

M,JJll'
S119ld·

300 1------+------+------1	,
250 l------+------1------1	1

350  r-----..-----..-----,------,,---..._._..----------,---n	,

MINOR STREET,
CROSSING APPROACH-EQUIVALENT
VPH**

0	100	200	300	400	500	600	700	800
MAJOR STREET-TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES-VEHICLES PER HOUR (VPH)
* 25 vph applies as the lower threshold volume
-	VPH after applying the adjustment factors in Tables 4C-6, 4C-7, and/or 4C-8, if appropriate

Figure 4C-10. Warrant 9, Intersection Near a Grade Crossing (Two or More Approach Lanes at the Track Crossing)

Major Street

\¢

Minor Street

350

300

250

MINOR STREET, 200
CROSSING APPROACH-	150 EQUIVALENT
VPH**
100

50

0	100	200	300	400	500	600	700	800
MAJOR STREET-TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES-VEHICLES PER HOUR (VPH)
* 25 vph applies as the lower threshold volume
** VPH after applying the adjustment factors in Tables 4C-6, 4C-7, and/or 4C-8, if appropriate

Table 4C-8. Warrant 9, Adjustment Factor for Percentage of Tractor-Trailer Trucks

MUTCD I Ith Edition	Page 665

After determining the actual distance D, the curve for the distance D that is nearest to the actual distance D should be used. For example, if the actual distance Dis 95 feet, the plotted point should be compared to the curve for D=90feet.
If the rail traffic arrival times are unknown, the highest traffic volume hour of the day should be used.
Option:
os		The traffic volume on the minor-street approach to the highway-highway intersection may be multiplied by up to three adjustment factors as provided in Paragraphs 6 through 8 of this Section.
06		Because the curves are based on an average of four occurrences of rail traffic per day, the vehicles per hour on the minor-street approach may be multiplied by the adjustment factor shown in Table 4C-6 for the appropriate number of occurrences of rail traffic per day.
01		Because the curves are based on typical vehicle occupancy, if at least 2% of the vehicles crossing the track are buses carrying at least 20 people, the vehicles per hour on the minor-street approach may be multiplied by the adjustment factor shown in Table 4C-7 for the appropriate percentage of high-occupancy buses.
os		Because the curves are based on tractor-trailer trucks comprising 10% of the vehicles crossing the track, the vehicles per hour on the minor-street approach may be multiplied by the adjustment factor shown in Table 4C-8 for the appropriate distance and percentage of tractor-trailer trucks.
Standard:
og		If this warrant is met and a traffic control signal at the highway-highway intersection is justified by an engineering study, then:
The traffic control signal shall have actuation on the minor street,
Preemption control shall be provided in accordance with Sections 4F.19 and 8D.09, and
The grade crossing shall have flashing-light signals (see Section 8D.02).
Guidance:

Table 4C-6. Warrant 9, Adjustment Factor for Daily Frequency of Rail Traffic

Table 4C-7. Warrant 9, Adjustment Factor for Percentage of High-Occupancy Buses

* A high-occupancy bus is defined as a bus occupied by at least 20 people.

10		If this warrant is met and a traffic control signal at the highway-highway intersection is justified by an engineering study, the grade crossing should have automatic gates (see Section 8D.03).

Rail traffic per day	Adjustment factor	
1	0.67	
2	0.91	
3to5	1.00	
6 to 8	1.18	
9 to 11	1.25	
12 or more	1.33	

% of high-occupancy buses* on minor-street approach	Adjustment factor	
0%	1.00	
2%	1.09	
4%	1.19	
6% or more	1.32	

% of tractor-trailer trucks on minor-street approach	Adjustment factor	
	D less than 70 feet	D of 70 feet or more	
0%to 2.5%	0.50	0.50	
2.6% to 7.5%	0.75	0.75	
7.6% to 12.5%	1.00	1.00	
12.6% to 17.5%	2.30	1.15	
17.6% to 22.5%	2.70	1.35	
22.6% to 27.5%	3.28	1.64	
More than 27.5%	4.18	2.09	

SIGNAL WARRANT SUMMARY SHEETS

Page 89

Input Data
City:	Fort Myers
County:	12- Lee
District:	One

Major Street:	Treeline Ave Minor Street: Plantation Gardens Dr

Engineer:	YB
Date:	Janua!}'._31, 2026
Major Street# Lanes:	2
Minor Street# Lanes:	2

Major Approach Speed:	45
Minor Approach Speed:	35

Form 750-020-01 TRAFFIC ENGINEERING
November 2025

Page 90

Eight Hour Volumes (Condition A)	For Warrant 7	

Hours	Major Street
(total of both approaches)	Minor Street (one direction only)	Ped Crossings on Major Street	
6AM-7AM	865	261		
7AM-8AM	1291	466		
8AM-9AM	1171	325		
9AM-10AM	842	158		
10AM-11AM	931	167		
11AM-12PM	1019	177		
12PM-1PM	1055	165		
2PM-3PM	1203	149		

	
Eight Hour Volumes (Condition B)	

Hours	Major Street
(total of both approaches)	Minor Street (one direction only)	
6AM-7AM	865	261	
7AM-8AM	1291	466	
8AM-9AM	1171	325	
9AM-10AM	842	158	
10AM-11AM	931	167	
11AM-12PM	1019	177	
12PM-1PM	1055	165	
2PM-3PM	1203	149	

Highest Four Hour Vehicular Volumes	

Hours	Major Street
(total of both approaches)	Minor Street (one direction only)	
6AM-7AM	865	261	1	
7AM-8AM	1291	466	
8AM-9AM	1171	325	
11AM-12PM	1019	177	

Highest Four Hour Pedestrian Volumes	

Hours	Major Street
(total of both approaches)	Pedestrian Crossings on Major
Street	

			

Vehicular Peak Hour Volumes	

Peak Hour	Major Street
(total of both approaches)	Minor Street (one direction only)	Total Entering Volume	
7AM-8AM	1291	466		

Pedestrian Peak Hour Volumes	

Peak Hour	Major Street
(total of both approaches)	Pedestrian
Crossing Volumes on Major Street	

Instructions and Input Sheets	Page 2 of 16

Number of Lanes for moving traffic on each approach	Vehicles per hour on major-street (total of both approaches)	
Vehicles per hour on minor-street (one direction only)	
Major	Minor	1ooo;.•	80°/ob	70%0	100%3	80°/ob	70%0	
1	1	500	400	350	150	120	105	
2 or more	1	600	480	420	150	120	105	
2 or more	2 or more	600	480	420	200	160	140	
1	2 or more	500	400	350	200	160	140	

Form 750-020-01
State of Florida Department of Transportation	TRAFFIC ENGINEERING November 2025
TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT SUMMARY
City:	Fort M:t'.ers	Engineer:	YB	
County:	12-Lee	Date:	Janua!l'. 31, 2026	
District: 	One	

Major Street:	TreelineAve	Lanes: ---2	Major Approach Speed: 	45	
Minor Street: 	Plantation Gardens Dr	Lanes: ---2	Minor Approach Speed: 	35	
MUTCD Electronic Reference to Part 4:	httgs://mulcd.fhwa.dot.gov/gdfs/11lh  Edition/gart4.Qdf	
VQl!,!m� Level Criteria		
Is the posted speed limit or 85th-percentile speed of major street > 40 mph?	0Yes	0No
Is the intersection in a built-up area of an isolated community with a population < 10,000?	□Yes	0No
"70%" volume level may be used if Question 1 or 2 above is answered "Yes"	□MAY	070%	0100%	
	WARRANT 1 - EIGHT-HOUR VEHICULAR VOLUME
Warrant 1 is satisfied if Condition A or Condition B is "100%" satisfied for eight hours.	0Yes	0No
Warrant 1 is also satisfied if both Condition A fil1Q Condition 8 are "80%" satisfied
(should only be applied after an adequate trial of other alternatives that could cause Jess delay and	0Yes	0 No
inconvenience to traffic has failed to solve the traffic problems).
Warrant 1 is satisfied if Condition A or Condition B is "70%" satisfied for eight hours.	0Yes	0 No
 CQ□ditiQ□A - Minimum V�hi!;Ula[ Volume 
Applicable:	0	Yes	0No
Condition A is intended for application at locations where a large volume of	100% Satisfied:	0Yes	0  No
intersecting traffic is the principal reason to consider installing a traffic control	80% Satisfied:	□Yes	0  No
signal.
70% Satisfied:	0Yes	0No

"Basic Minimum hour\v volume
b Used for combination of Conditions A and B after adequate trial of other remedial measures
c Mav be used when the maier-street speed exceeds 40 mph or in an isolated community with a population of less than 10.000
Record 8 hiahest hours and the corresponding major-street and minor-street volumes in the Instructions Sheet.	

Street	Eight Highest Hours	

Existing Volumes		
		:ii:
,<._
I
:ii:
<<D	:i:
<co
I
:ii:
,<._	:ii:
<
�
:ii:
<
CIO	:ii:
0.<..
=l:
<
0)	.:.ii.:
.<..
=l:
0.<..	:ii:
.0....
N
.=.l.:
.<..	
.:.ii.:
0..
=l:
.0....
N	
:ii:
0..
M
I
:ii:
0..
N			
	Major	865	1,291	1,171	842	931	1,019	1,055	1,203			
	Minor	261	466	325	158	167	177	165	149			

Page 91
WARRANT 1 - EIGHT-HOUR VEHICULAR VOLUME	Page 3 of 16

State of Florida Department of Transportation
TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT SUMMARY

Form 750-020-01 TRAFFIC ENGINEERING
November 2025

intersecting street suffers excessive delay or conflict in entering or crossing the

No

Condition B • Interruption of Continuous Traffic			Applicable: Qves 0No Condition B is intended for application where Condition A is not satisfied and	100% Satisfied: Oves  □No the traffic volume on a major street is so heavy that traffic on the minor		80% Satisfied: 0 Yes  □
major street.	70% Satisfied: Oves	0No

Number of Lanes for moving traffic on each approach	Vehicles per hour on major-street (total of both approaches)	
Vehicles per hour on minor-street (one direction only)	
Major	Minor	100%3		70%0	100%3		70%0	
		750	600	525	75	60	53	
2 or more		900	720	630	75	60	53	
2 or more	2 or more	900	720	630	100	80	70	
	2 or more	750	600	525	100	80	70	
a Basic Minimum hourly volume
b Used for combination of Conditions A and B after adequate trial of other remedial measures
0 May be used when the major-street speed exceeds 40 mph or in an isolated community with a population of less than 10,000

Record 8 highest hours and the corresponding major-street and minor-street volumes in the Instructions Sheet.
Eight Highest Hours	

Existing Volumes	

Street	
:iii:
.c.(..
I
:iii:
c(
co	
:iii:
c(
co
:i:
.c.(..	
:iii:
c(
en
I
:iii:
c(
co	:iii:
c(
.C...
:i:
c(
en	:iii:
c(
....
:i:
c(
.C...	:cii.i.:	:iii:	:iii:
.N...	.c	c..
I	M
:iii:	c..	:ci.:.
I	:iii:
.c..(..	.N..	N		
			
Major	865	1,291	1,171	842	931	1,019 1,055 1,203		
Minor	261	466	325	158	167	177	165	149		

Form 750-020-01
State of Florida Department of Transportation	TRAFFIC ENGINEERING November 2025
TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT SUMMARY
City:	Fort Mlers	Engineer: 	YB	

County:	12-Lee	Date:	January 31, 2026	

District:		One	

Major Street:	TreelineAve	Lanes:	2	Major Approach Speed:   4_5_ _,
Minor Street:  	Plantation Gardens Dr		Lanes:	2	Minor Approach Speed 	3_5_ 	1

MUTCD Electronic Reference to Part 4'.	https:1/mutcd fhwa.dot.govlpdfs/11th Editionlpart4,pdf	
Volume Level Criteria
Is the posted speed limit or 85th-percentile speed of major street > 40 mph?	0 Yes	D No
Is the intersection in a built-up area of an isolated community with a population < 10,000?	D Yes	D No
"70%" volume level may be used if Question 1 or 2 above is answered "Yes"	[2J MAY	0 70%  □100%	
WARRANT 2 - FOUR-HOUR VEHICULAR VOLUME
If all four points lie above the appropriate line, then the warrant is satisfied.	Applicable:	0 Yes
Satisfied:	D Yes	

100% Volume Level

70% Volume Level	Plot four volume combinations on the applicable figure below.

FIGURE 4C-1: Criteria for "100%" Volume Level
500 .-----.--.----,--,--"""'T---r------,---r------r--"T""---,
:c	...I	I	2lR MORE LANES & 2 OR MORE�NES
!; 400 1---�--	c1----J.,V:--+--+---+--.----+---l	l

0 1--  _  .	. 	.._ _  _,_	�-�--�-�----'	'
300	400	500	600	700	800	900	1000	1100  1200	1300	1400
MAJOR STREET -TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES - VPH
Note: 115 ph. applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor street approach with two or more lanes and 80 mph applies as the lower threshold volume threshold for a minor street approach with one lane	
	FIGURE 4C-2: Criteria for "70%" Volume Level
[CQIT\mu'1lty Less lhan 10,000 population or above 70 km/llf. (40 mplJ) on Major Stteel)
400 .------,--------,---..------.----,,--------.----

•

0  '-----'----'----'-----L-----'---..	....L..	,
	
200	300	400	700	800	900	1000
MAJOR STREET· TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES • VPli
Note 80 ph applies•as me towerthte$Mld vOlume fora m,nor sr,e,,1appma�h w,rn rwo or more lanes anri 60 ph applies as rt.e lower mreshol'1 volume rnresholiffor a minor stree·r approacl> wr/h one lane.	

Four Highest Hours	Volumes	
	Major Street	Minor Street	

			

Four Highest Hours	Volumes	
	Major Street	Minor Street	
6AM-7AM	865	261	
7AM-8AM	1291	466	
8AM-9AM	1171	325	
11AM-12PM	1019	177	

Form 750-020-01
State of Florida Department of Transportation	TRAFFIC ENGINEERING
November 2025
TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT SUMMARY
City:		Fort M)!'.ers		Engineer:		YB County:			12-Lee			Date:	Janua� 31, 2026 District:				One	
Major Street:	TreelineAve	Lanes:	2	Major Approach Speed:	45

Minor Street:		Plantation Gardens Dr		Lanes:	2	Minor Approach Speed: 	35	

MUTCD Electronic Reference to Part 4:	https://mutcd .fhwa.dot.gov/pdfs/11th  Edition/part4.pdf	

Volume Level Criteria
Is the posted speed limit or 85th-percentile speed of major street> 40 mph?	Q Yes D No
Is the intersection in a built-up area of an isolated community with a population < 10,000?	OYes  D No
"70%" volume level may be used if Question 1 or 2 above is answered "Yes"	□MAY	0 70% □100%	
WARRANT 3 - PEAK HOUR
Applicable:	D Yes Q No
If all three criteria are fulfilled QC the plotted point lies above the appropriate line,	□Yes D No
then the warrant is satisfied.	Satisfied:	
Unusual condition justifying use of warrant:
	Industrial Complex	

Record hour when criteria are fulfilled and the corresponding delay or volume in boxes provided

I
I
Criteria	Plot volume combination on the applicable figure below.
FIGURE 4C-3: Criteria for "100%" Volume Level	
600

2 OR MORE LANES & 2 OR MORE LANES
:c  500
a.
�
:c
>w- (.) 400
<(
wO
>o:-:0::
a.
II) a.  300
0:: <(
0W
;z:E
-::,
:;;..J 200
0>
:c
I.!)
5: 100

400  500  600  700  800  900  1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800
MAJOR STREET - TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES - VPH
Note: 150 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor street approach with two or more lanes and 100 vph applies as the lower threshold volume threshold for a minor street approach with one lane	
	
FIGURE 4C-4: Criteria for "70%" Volume Level
(Conimunily Less lhaJ1 10.000 populsllon or above 70 lunlln, (�O mph) on Maler Slreel)
500 ,----,c----.-----.---�--�--�--,----,----..---,

:c
�  400 f---lf-"'-<---+---+----.._,.-,:;;_-+---+---+---l----+-----1	�
:c
tug
�.,,.�.. 300 f--',,-lf--'-
o::"
i�
i�	200  1-------1------t:,,,...c---+--=�--..P,-..,,-+-/:._--l!----+---1	l
::,
:c
"5':

<00	500	600	700	800	900	!000	111io	1200	1300
MAJOR STTIEET - TOTAL OF BC>T'H A!'PRO"-CHES - VPH
Note. ,co ph applies as 1he /owe11hres1101d volume for a minor s/ree1 approach wilh Mo or moie lanes and
75 phi applies as Jhe lower 1meshold voivme threshold fora minor streeJ apprnach with one ram,	

Peak Hour 100% Volume	
  Time	Major VoIl.	Minor Vol.	
	
Peak Hour 70% VIolume	I	
	Time		MajorVoi.	Minor Vol.	

1. Delay on Minor Approach
*(vehicle-hours)	
Approach Lanes	1	2	
Delay Criteria*	4	_0	5.0	
Delay*
□			
Fulfilled?:	Yes  0No	

2. Volume on Minor Approach
One-Direction *(vehicles per hour)	
Approach Lanes	1	2	
Volume Criteria*	100	150	
Volume*			
Fulfilled?:	LJ Yes ONo	

3. Total Intersection Entering Volume *(vehicles per hour)	
No	_of Approaches	3	4	
Volume Criteria*	650	800	
!Volume*
□			
Fulfilled?:	Yes ONo	

Form 750-020-01
State of Florida Department of Transportation	TRAFFIC ENGINEERING
November 2025
TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT SUMMARY
City:	Fort M�ers	Engineer:		YB County:		12- Lee		Date:	Janua!}'. 31, 2026 District:			One

Major Street:		Treeline Ave		Lanes: ---2	Major Approach Speed:	45	 Minor Street:	Plantation Gardens Dr		Lanes: ---2	Minor Approach Speed:	 35	
MUTCD Electronic Reference to Part 4:	httgs:/Imutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/Qdf§/11th Edition/gart4.gdf	
Volume Lelle! Critecia

Is the posted speed limit or 85th-percentile speed of major street> 35 mph?	C]Yes  0No
Is the intersection in a built-up area of an isolated community with a population < 10,000?		□Yes 0No "70%" volume level may be used if Question 1 or 2 above is answered "Yes"	□MAY	C]70% 0100%	
Option
Pedestrian volume crossing the major street may be reduced as much as 50% if the 15th-
percentile crossing speed of pedestrians is less than 3.5 ft/sec. A walking speed study was	D Yes	0No
conducted which reported a pedestrian speed less than 3.5 ft/sec for the 15th percentile.	
 WARRANT 4 - PEDESTRIAN VOLUME
For each of any 4 hours of an average day, the plotted points lie above the	Applicable:	□Yes  G No
appropriate line, then the warrant is satisfied.	Satisfied:	□Yes  0No	

100% Volume Level

70% Volume Level	Plot four volume combinations on the applicable figure below.
Figure 4C-5. Criteria for "100%" Volume Level
500
(!)
z
cii
CJ)
0	400
0::
(.) :c
CJ)O..
zo..
<( • 300
0:: tu
I- w [:lo::
filli; 200
o..O::
..JO
..J-,
� � 100	07'
0
..J
�	0
0
I-	300	400	500	600	700	800	900	1000  1100  1200	1300  1400
MAJOR STREET - TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES - VPH
'Note: 107 pph applies as the lower threshold volume for 100% volume level	
	
Figure 4C-6 Criteria for "70%" Volume Level
400
(!)
z
cii
CJ)
0
5:c 300
CJ) 0..
zo..
<-1( - '
o::w
l;j:li 200
w I-OC/l
�o::
..J 0
..J'
��100
0	75'
..J
�
0	0
I-
200	300	400	500	600	700	800	900	1000
MAJOR STREET - TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES - VPH
'Note: 75pph applies as the lower threshold volume for 70% volume level	

Four Highest Hours	Volumes	
	Major Street	Pedestrian Total	

			

											
	"---	'---...									
			'	r--	
-.....							
					.	.._	...  	
,				

Four Highest Hours	Volumes	
	Major Street	Pedestrian Total	

			

								
. .._								

�'-						
		--.............	I'--	r--.  �	--			

Peal< Hour	Volumes	
	Major Street	Pedestrian Total	

Form 750-020-01
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING
November 2025
WARRANT 4 - PEDESTRIAN VOLUME
For 1 hour (any four consecutive 15-minute periods) of an average day, the plotted	Applicable:  0 Yes
point falls above the appropriate line, then the warrant is satisfied.	Satisfied:  D Yes

Plot one volume combination on the applicable figure below.	

100% Volume Level

70% Volume Level
Volumes
Peak Hour	Major	Pedestrian
Street	Total	

Figure 4C-7. Criteria for "100%" Volume Level - Peak Hour

a:
Q	f",....
;ji  600 l--+-,...._..+--+--+--+---+---l---l---l---ll---ll--1--+--+	l
�en  500 l--+---!�----'>,!--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+---+---+--+	1
5�	�""'�
�& 400 1--+--+--+--+""'....,...+--+---+---+---+---+---+---+--+--+--l
a<::tt'u	'r-....
I	,
� �  300 l--+--+--+--+--+---+'--.:::::,..-....-.1�----l----l----ll----ll--l--+--+	l
�:::J	200 f--l--l---1---1--+--+--+-+..:'::::,-,...=-+-+-+--+--+	l
@�	'""
�	--r----		133"
'.3  100 1--+--+--+--+--+--+---+---+---+---+--+===t===t===t==j
;f::!Note:	i
0  '--'--'--'--'---'---..L.-...L.._...l...._...l...._...l...._...l...._...J..._...J.._...J.._	l
300  400  500  600  700  800  900  1000 1100 1200 1300 1400  1500  1600 1700 1800
MAJOR STREET - TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES - VPH	

Figure 4C-8 Criteria for "70%" Volume Level - Peak Hour
a:	""'�
0

��	400  I----+"'..-,. --l----+-----1---+----+---+---+---+---...j
!u�	"'"I '""-.
�8: 300	�
�>-�w	I	"-....t------...
en a:
� �  200  l---+---+----+---+-.:::::,...d-1"'-----+---+----!-----1	1
�-.:	I .........I.._r--....
�	100 1----t----t---+--+---+---+---t-==-t--==�==�  93•
;..:J:
WNote.
0 '----+----'----'---....L.---'----'----'-----'--	J'		J
200	300	400	500	600	700	800	900	1000	1100	1200
MAJOR STREET - TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES - VPH	

WARRANT 4P-aPEgDeES9T6RIAN VOLUME	Page 8 of 16

Form 750-020-01
State of Florida Department of Transportation	TRAFFIC ENGINEERING November 2025
TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT SUMMARY

City:	Fort Mlers	Engineer:	YB	
County:	12- Lee	Date:	Janua!l'.31, 2026	
District:		One				
Major Street:	Treeline Ave	Lanes:	2	Major Approach Speed:	45
Minor Street:		Plantation Gardens Dr	 Lanes:	2	Minor Approach Speed: 	35	

MUTCD Electronic Reference to Part 4:	httgs:/lmutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/gdfs/11th Edition/(;!art4.Qdf

 WARRANT 5 - SCHOOL CROSSING	

Record hours where criteria are fulfilled and the corresponding volume or gap	Applicable:	0Yes  0 No
frequency in the boxes provided. The warrant is satisfied if all three of the criteria
are fulfilled.	Satisfied:	0Yes  0No

	Fulfilled?	
Criteria	IYes  I	No I	
1. There are a minimum of 20 students crossing the major street during the highest crossing hour.	Students:	Hour:			
There are fewer adequate gaps in the major street traffic stream during the period
2. when the children are using the established school crossing than the number of minutes in the same period.	Minutes:	Gaps:			
The nearest traffic signal along the major street is located more than 300 ft. (90 m) away, or the nearest
3. signal is within 300 ft. (90 m) but the proposed traffic signal will not restrict the progressive movement of traffic.			

I

WARRANTP5 a- SgCeHO9O7L CROSSING	Page 9 of 16

State of Florida Department of Transportation
TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT SUMMARY

Form 750-020-01 TRAFFIC ENGINEERING
November 2025

City:	Fort M)!'.ers	Engineer		YB	
County:	12- Lee	Date		Janua!l 31, 2026	
District:

Major Street:		One	

TreelineAve	

Lanes:	

2	Major Approach Speed:	45	

:
:

Minor Street:		Plantation Gardens Dr		Lanes: --2-

Minor Approach Speed: 	35	

MUTCD Electronic Reference to Part 4:	https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/pdfs/11th Edition/part4_pdf

WARRANT 6-COORDINATED SIGNAL SYSTEM
Indicate if the criteria are fulfilled in the boxes provided- The warrant is satisfied if either criterion is fulfilled. This warrant should not be applied when the resulting signal spacing would be less than 300 m (1,000 ft.).

Applicable:	0 Yes 0 No
Satisfied:	0 Yes D No

Criteria

_	On a one-way street or a street that has traffic predominately in one direction, the adjacent signals are so far
1 apart that they do not provide the necessary degree of vehicle platooning.

2_ On a two-way street, adjacent signals do not provide the necessary degree of platooning, and the proposed and adjacent signals will collectively provide a progressive operation.

WARRANT 6 - COPOaRgDIeNA9TE8D SIGNAL SYSTEM	Page 10 of 16

Farm 750-020-01
State of Florida Department of Transportation	TRAFFIC ENGINEERING November 2025
TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT SUMMARY
City:	Fort Mlers		Engineer:		YB County:		12- Lee			Date:	Janua!:1 31, 2026 District: 			One	

Major Street:  Treeline Ave		Lanes:	2		Major Approach Speed: --45
Minor Street: >lantation Gardens D	Lanes:	2		Minor Approach Speed: 35

MUTCD Electronic Reference to Part 4:	httos://mutcd.fhwa.dot.aov/odfs/11th Edition/nart4.odf	

Volume Level Criteria
Is the posted speed limit or 85th-percenlile speed of major street > 40 mph?	0	YesD No
Is the intersection in a built-up area of an isolated community with a population <	0Yes0 No
10,000?		

WARRANT 7 - CRASH EXPERIENCE
Record hours where criteria are fulfilled, the corresponding	Applicable:  D Yes
volume, and other information in the boxes provided. The
warrant is satisfied if all three of the criteria are fulfilled.	Satisfied:  D Yes

Criteria	II Fulfilled?
Yes	No
Adequate trial of alternatives with	I'
satisfactory observance and	Me�sureI
enforcement has failed to reduce the	tried:
crash frequency
1
The number of reported angle crashes and pedestrian crashes within a 1-year period equals or exceeds the threshold number in Table 4C-2 for total angle crashes and pedestrian crashes (all severities)
The number of reported fatal-and-injury angle crashes At least one of the following conditions and pedestrian crashes within a 1-year period equals applies to the reported crash history	or exceeds the threshold number in Table 4C-2 for
(where each reported	total fatal-and-injury angle crashes and pedestrian
crash considered is related to the	crashes
intersection and apparently exceeds the The number of reported angle crashes and pedestrian applicable requirements for	crashes within a 3-year period equals or exceeds the
a  reportable crash):	threshold number in Table 4C-3 for total angle crashes
and pedestrian crashes (all seventies)
The number of reported fatal-and-injury angle crashes and pedestrian crashes within a 3-year period equals or exceeds the threshold number in Table 4C-3 for total fatal-and-injury angle crashes and pedestrian crashes		

WARRANT P7 -aCgReAS9H9EXPERIENCE	Page 11 of 16

WARRANT 7 - CRASH EXPERIENCE

Form 750-020-01 TRAFFIC ENGINEERING
November 2025

3.	One of the following volume warrants is met:	Met?			
	Warrant 1, Condition A (70% satisfied), or	No			
	Warrant 1, Condition B (70% satisfied), or	Yes			

Pedestrian Volume satisfied at	
Hour	Major Street Volume	Ped Crossings
Volume				
							
	Warrant 4 volume requirements for
any 4 hours of an average day.	?AM-BAM						
		8AM-9AM						
	11AM-12PM
12PM-1PM	.	"	"					

If the posted speed limit or the BSth-percentile speed on the major street exceeds 40 mph, OR if the intersection lies within the built-up area of an isolated community having a population of less than 10,000 then Tables 4C-4 and 4C-5 maybe used.

D Check to see Tables 4C:4 and 4C-5.

Number of through lanes on each approach	Total of angle and pedestrian crashes (all severities)*	1 otaI or rataI-ana-
injury angle and
pedestrian crashes*	

Major	
Minor	
Major	
Minor	
Major	
Minor	
1	1	5	4	3	3	
2 or more	1	5	4	3	3	
2 or more	2 or more	5	4	3	3	
1	2 or more	5	4	3	3	
	··Angle crashes include all crashes that occur at an angle and involve	

Table 4C-2. Minimum Number of Reported Crashes in a One-Year Period
	
One-Year Period	

Year	
Major	
Minor	
A			
B			

one or more vehicles on the major street and one or more vehicles on the minor street

A: Total of angle and pedestrian crashes (all severities)*
B: Total of fatal-and-injury angle and pedestrian crashes*

Table 4C-3. Minimum Number of Reported Crashes in a Three-Year Period
	
Three-Year Period	

Year	
Major	
Minor	
A			
B			

·Angle crashes include all crashes that occur at an angle and Involve one or more vehicles on the major street and one or more vehicles on the minor street

A: Total of angle and pedestrian crashes (all severities)*

Number of through lanes on each approach	Total of angle and pedestrian crashes (all severities)*	7 otaI of fatai-ana-injury angle and pedestrian
crashes*	

Major	
Minor	
Major	
Minor	
Major	
Minor	
1	1	6	5	4	4	
2 or more	1	6	5	4	4	
2 or more	2 or more	6	5	4	4	
1	2 or more	6	5	4	4	

B: Total of fatal-and-injury angle and pedestrian crashes*

State of Florida Department of Transportation
TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT SUMMARY

Form 750-020-01 TRAFFIC ENGINEERING
November 2025

City:	Fort M:ters	Engineer:		YB	
County:	12-Lee	Date:		Janua!} 31, 2026	
District:

Major Street:		One	

TreelineAve	

Lanes:	

2	Major Approach Speed:	45	
Minor Street:		Plantation Gardens Dr		Lanes:	2	Minor Approach Speed: 	35		

MUTCD Electronic Reference to Part 4:	https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/pdfs/11th  Edition/part4.pdf

WARRANTS-ROADWAY NETWORK

Record hours where criteria are fulfilled, and the corresponding volume or other information in the boxes provided. The warrant is satisfied if at least one of the criteria is fulfilled and if all intersecting routes have one or more of the Major Route characteristics listed.

Applicable:	D Yes 0 No Satisfied:	D Yes D No

!

Criteria	Met?

Entering Volume:

Yes	No

Fulfilled?
Yes I No

Both of the
1• criteria to the right
are met.

a. Total entering volume of at least 1,000 veh/hr during a typical weekday peak hour.

Satisfied?:

Warrant:

3

2

b. Five-year projected volumes that satisfy one or more of Warrants 1, 2, or 3.

2. Total entering volume at least 1,000

<-  Hour

veh/hr for each of any 5 hrs of a non-1-----+----+----+-----+----+	I

normal business day (Sat. or Sun.)

<-Volume

Characteristics of Major Routes	Met?	Fulfilled?	
	Yes	No	Yes	No	
Part of the street or highway system that serves as the principal roadway network for through traffic flow.	Major Street:					
	Minor Street:					

2. Rural or suburban highway outside of, entering, or traversing a city.	Major Street:					
	Minor Street:					

3, Appears as a major route on an official plan.	Major Street:					
	Minor Street:					

Form 750-020-01
State of Florida Department of Transportation	TRAFFIC ENGINEERING November 2025
TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT SUMMARY
City:		Fort M�ers		Engineer:		YB County:			12-Lee			Date:	Janua!l 31. 2026 District:				One	

Major Street:	Treeline Ave	Lanes:	2	Major Approach Speed:	45
	
Minor Street:		Plantation Gardens Dr		Lanes:	2	Minor Approach Speed: 	35 

MUTCD Electronic Reference to Part 4:	htti;is://mutcdJhwa.doLgov/i;idfs/11th  Edltionlgart4.i;idf	
AQQroach Lane Criteria

1. How many approach lanes are there at the track crossing?	D1	D  2ormore
If there is 1 lane, use Figure 4C-9 and if there are 2 or more, use Figure 4C-1O.	0	Rg4C-9 0  Fig 4C-10	
WARRANT � - INTERSECTION NEAR A GRADE CROSSlfl!�

This signal warrant should be applied only after adequate consideration has been given to other alternatives or after a trial of an alternative has failed to alleviate the safety concerns associated with the grade crossing.
Indicate if both criteria are fulfilled in the boxes provided. The warrant is	Applicable:	Oves	(J No
satisfied if both criteria are met.	Satisfied:	Dves	0No

I	I

Use the following tables (4C-2, 4C,3, and 4C-4 to approprialely adjust the minor-street approach volume).
Inputs	Adjustment Factors from Tables
Occurrences of Rail traffic per day		#NIA	

% of High Occupancy Buses on Approach Lane at Track Crossing				1.00	
Enter D (feet)

% of Tractor-Trailer Trucks on Approach Lane at Track Crossing		0.50	

Table 4C-2. Adjustment Factor for Daily Frequency of	Table 4C-3. Adjustment Factor for Percentage of High-Rail Traffic		Occuoancv Buses
I

A high-occupancy t>us is defined as a t>us occupied by at least 20 people

Table 4C-4. Adjustment Factor for Percentage of Tractor-Trailer Trucks

.	.	

 Fulfilled? 
Criteria	IYes I No	
1. A grade crossing exists on an approach controlled by a STOP or YIELD sign and the center of the track nearest to the intersection is within 140 feet of the stop line or yield line on the approach; and	□	□	
2. During the highest traffic volume hour during which the rail uses the crossing, the plotted point falls above the applicable curve for the existing combination of approach lanes over the track and the distance D (clear storage distance).	□	□	

I	Rail Traffic per Day	I	Adjustment Factor	
1	0.67	
2	0	.91	
3 to 5	1.00	
6 to 8	1	.18	
9 to 11	1 25	
12 or more	1.33	

% of High-Occupancy Buses* on Minor Street Approach	Adjustment Factor	
0%	1.00	
2%	1.09	
4%	1.19	
6% or more	1.32	

Page 102

% of Tractor-Trailer Trucks on Minor-Street Approach	Adjustment Factor	
	D less than 70 feet	D of 70 feet or more	
0% to 2	5%	0	50	0.50	
2.6% to 7.5%	0 75	0	.75	
7 6% to 12 5%	1.00	1.00	
12	.6% to 17	.5%	2.30	1.15	
17 6% to 22.5%	2.70	1 35	
22	.6% to 27.5%	3.28	1.64	
More than 27.5%	4.18	2.09	

WARRANT 9 - INTERSECTION NEAR A GRADE CROSSING	Page 14 of 16

Form 750-020-01
WARRANT 9 - INTERSECTION NEAR A GRADE CROSSING	TRAFFIC ENGINEERING
November 2025	
Input the major and minor street volumes before ladjustme;�::::sa:� �:�:d
11
l_I	I_
D (ft)	Major Vol.  Minor Vol.

After adjustment factors are applied
Approach Lane w/Factors
I	I
D (ft)	Major Vol.  Minor Vol

Input D and the major and minor street volumes before adjustment factors are applied
or more Approach Lanes

D (ft)	Major Vol.  Minor Vol.

After adjustment factors are applied
2+ Approach Lane w/Factors I
I
D (ft)	Major Vol	Minor Vol.

•
•	

FIGURE 4C-9: Criteria for 1 Approach Lane at the Track Crossing

•25
o�--�--�--�--�---�--�--�-- -
o	100	200	300	400	500	600	700	BOO

MAJOR STREET - TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES - VPH
Note: 25 vph applies as the lower threshold volume
•Note: VPH after applying the adjustment factors in Tables 4C-2, 4C, and or 4C-4, if appropriate	

FIGURE 4C-10: Criteria for 2+ Approach Lanes at Track Crossing

•25

100	200	300	400	500	600	700	800

MAJOR STREET - TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES - VPH

Note: 25 vph applies as the lower threshold volume
'Note: VPH after applying the adjustment factors in Tables 4C-2, 4C, and or 4C-4, if appropriate	

WARRANT 9 - INTERSPECaTgIOeN 1N0EA3R A GRADE CROSSING	Page 15 of 16

February Update-02/04/2026

Lake Water Quality	December readings had two slightly out of range. Lake 18 Ortho-Phosphorus
Reasonable range: 0.005-0.020: Reading 0.318
Lake 31 Nitrites/Nitrates
Reasonable range: 0.005-0.100: Reading 0.405
January readings had two slightly out of range. Lake 32 Nitrites/Nitrates
Reasonable range: 0.005-0.100: Reading 0.405	
Lake Doctor Monthly Summary	December Update:
A few lakes were treated for sparse grasses algae.
No floating algae visible and water quality looks great.
All other lakes were treated for invasive weeds/algae
Various lakes were treated for invasive aquatic vegetation
Comments by Lake Doctors: Lake levels in all lakes are dropping
January Update:
Reported typical low water levels due to season, added beneficial bacteria to help suppress unwanted aquatic plants
Treated lakes for invasive vegetation/floating algae	
Lake Bank Conditions	Evaluating 2026 Areas of concern for repairs	
Preserves	None to Report	
Resident Requests	None to report	
Other Updates	None to report	
.

Arborwood Community Development District
Budget vs. Actual
October 2025 - January 2026

	Oct 25 - Jan 26		25/26 Budget		$ Over Budget		% of Budget	
Revenue								
O & M Assessments	495,627.72		539,884.00		-44,256.28		91.8%	
Debt Assessments (2018)	2,416,744.60		2,633,569.00		-216,824.40		91.77%	
Debt Assessments (2014A-1)	471,330.65		513,421.00		-42,090.35		91.8%	
Debt Assessments (2014A-2)	48,149.05		52,459.00		-4,309.95		91.78%	
Debt Assess-Pd To Trustee-2018	-2,312,717.30		-2,528,226.00		215,508.70		91.48%	
Debt Asses-Pd To Trustee-2014A1	-451,042.65		-492,885.00		41,842.35		91.51%	
Debt Asses-Pd To Trustee-2014A2	-46,076.65		-50,360.00		4,283.35		91.5%	
Assessment Fees	-11,715.00		-10,000.00		-1,715.00		117.15%	
Assessment Discounts	-136,007.15		-149,573.00		13,565.85		90.93%	
Carryover Balance	0.00		17,000.00		-17,000.00		0.0%	
Total Income	474,293.27		525,289.00		-50,995.73		90.29%	
Expense								
Payroll Tax Expense	214.20		880.00		-665.80		24.34%	
Supervisor Fees	2,800.00		11,000.00		-8,200.00		25.46%	
Engineering	2,503.00		50,000.00		-47,497.00		5.01%	
Management Fees	14,028.00		42,084.00		-28,056.00		33.33%	
Website Management	666.64		2,000.00		-1,333.36		33.33%	
Legal Fees	2,383.11		19,000.00		-16,616.89		12.54%	
Assessment/Tax Roll	0.00		5,000.00		-5,000.00		0.0%	
Audit Fees	0.00		5,450.00		-5,450.00		0.0%	
Arbitrage Rebate Fee	0.00		1,000.00		-1,000.00		0.0%	
Amortization Schedule Fee	0.00		500.00		-500.00		0.0%	
Insurance	6,998.00		13,000.00		-6,002.00		53.83%	
Legal Advertisements	705.66		5,250.00		-4,544.34		13.44%	
Miscellaneous	1,104.72		3,200.00		-2,095.28		34.52%	
Postage and Delivery	71.54		1,125.00		-1,053.46		6.36%	
Office Supplies	650.35		2,275.00		-1,624.65		28.59%	
Dues, License & Subscriptions	175.00		175.00		0.00		100.0%	

Arborwood Community Development District
Budget vs. Actual
October 2025 - January 2026

	Oct 25 - Jan 26		25/26 Budget		$ Over Budget		% of Budget	
Trustee Fees	8,492.50		22,500.00		-14,007.50		37.74%	
Continuing Disclosure Fee	0.00		3,000.00		-3,000.00		0.0%	
Professional Fee & Permits	0.00		1,250.00		-1,250.00		0.0%	
Treeline Preserve Maint-Exotics	0.00		0.00		0.00		0.0%	
DRI / Traffic Monitoring	15,300.00		5,000.00		10,300.00		306.0%	
Environmentl Consulting-Passarella	1,500.00		23,000.00		-21,500.00		6.52%	
Panther Mitigation Mnt-Exotics	0.00		80,000.00		-80,000.00		0.0%	
Field Inspector - Somerset Only	8,485.20		25,500.00		-17,014.80		33.28%	
Lake Maintenance-Somerset Only	16,609.04		50,000.00		-33,390.96		33.22%	
Preserve Maint - Somerset Only	0.00		37,000.00		-37,000.00		0.0%	
Flowway Maintenance	0.00		10,600.00		-10,600.00		0.0%	
Preserve Maint (Parcel C Only)	0.00		7,000.00		-7,000.00		0.0%	
Lake Bank Erosion Mte(Somerset)	0.00		47,000.00		-47,000.00		0.0%	
Strmwtr Drains Ins/MTE-Somerset	4,350.00		30,000.00		-25,650.00		14.5%	
Strmwtr Drains Ins (Bridgetown)	6,720.00		6,500.00		220.00		103.39%	
Lake Bank Inspection-Somerset	0.00		7,500.00		-7,500.00		0.0%	
Lake Bank Inspection-Bridgetown	0.00		6,500.00		-6,500.00		0.0%	
Capital Outlay - Small	0.00		1,000.00		-1,000.00		0.0%	
Total Expenditures	93,756.96		525,289.00		-431,532.04		17.85%	
Net Revenue		380,536.31			0.00			380,536.31			100.0%	

Bridgetown Balance As Of 10/1/25	$	12,640.62	
Somerset Balance As Of 10/1/25	$	27,275.68	

Bridgetown Activity: 10/1/25 - 1/31/26	$	6,280.00	
Somerset Activity: 10/1/25 - 1/31/26	$	167,555.76	
		
Bridgetown Balance As Of 1/31/26	$	18,920.62	
Somerset Balance As Of 1/31/26	$	194,831.44	

Arborwood Community Development District
Budget vs. Actual
October 2025 - January 2026

Oct 25 - Jan 26	25/26 Budget	$ Over Budget	% of Budget

Bank Balance As Of 1/31/26	$	1,038,182.68	
Accounts Payable As Of 1/31/26	$	127,723.01	
Other Assets As Of 1/31/26	$	-	
Total Fund Balance As Of 1/31/26	$	910,459.67	

Series 2014A-1 Bond Balance As Of 1/31/26	$	3,785,000.00	
Series 2014A-2 Bond Balance As Of 1/31/26	$	420,000.00	
Series 2018A-1 Bond Balance As Of 1/31/26	$	16,360,000.00	
Series 2018A-2 Bond Balance As Of 1/31/26	$	5,670,000.00	
Total Bond Balance As Of 1/31/26	$	26,235,000.00