Item 3A
~*
AGENDA ITEM #3A
JUNE 14, 2004
STAFF REPORT
City of Atlantic Beach
Commission Meeting
AGENDA ITEM: Intersection of 1 ~` Street and Eastcoast Drive
DATE: June 7, 2004
SUBMITTED BY: David E. Thompson, Chief of Police/DPS
BACKGROUND:
Original Complaints: At the last City Commission meeting, several residents on 1 ~` Street
expressed their concern relative to a wall/fence that was under construction at the northwest
corner of Eastcoast Drive and 1 ~` Street. They contended that the new wall/fence was
obstructing the visibility at the intersection such that they could not safely enter the
intersection.
As a result of the complaints, the police department examined and evaluated the intersection,
from all streets, to evaluate the visibility and safety at that location. A daylight review from a
Chevy Sport Utility Vehicle did not reveal any problem with visibility. However, an evening
review from a Pontiac Grande Am provided a different perspective. From the smaller car, it
was determined that the visibility was so limited that it created a safety hazard.
The police department contacted public works immediately to erect two (2) additional stop
„~, signs, making the intersection a four (4) way stop. This action would provide an immediate
mechanism to reduce the hazard at that location. It is also significant to note that this
decision was not simply based on the wall/fence that was constructed on the northwest
~ corner. The decision also considered the limited visibility on the southeast corner of the
intersection.
E$isting Problems: There is apre-existing wall and landscaping on the southeast corner that
significantly limits visibility. If a westbound motorist approaches the intersection on 1 ~`
Street and stops at the stop bar, then the visibility to the south is inadequate to safely enter the
intersection. The motorist will need to slowly move up and into the intersection before being
able to clearly see traffic northbound on Eastcoast Drive. By the time a motorist reaches a
point where they can observe the northbound traffic, the front end of the vehicle to is
dangerously close to the traffic lane (depending on the design of the vehicle).
The new walUfence on the northwest corner virtually mirrors the walUfence on the southeast
corner, except that the new wall is actually lower. Relative to the new wall on the northwest
~" corner, the wall obstructs visibility at the intersection. Similar to the pre-existing wall, it
requires motorists to stop at the stop bar, and then slowly move into the intersection while
trying to get a better view of traffic. However, the new wall has a sidewalk that provides
~" both an advantage and disadvantage. The advantage is that ~it provides an area of several feet
for a motorist to slowly move into the intersection until traffic may be adequately observed.
The disadvantage is that the motorist is required to pull out where the sidewalk is blocked to
`"' see the southbound traffic. This can present other problems.
s*
AGENDA ITEM #3A
JUNE 14, 2004
In addition to the wall, the parking at the new house on the northwest corner creates an
'"" additional problem. With the current parking at the site, motorists are not going to be able to
clearly observe southbound traffic at the intersection. A concrete driveway and parking
space was created immediately adjacent to the wall. If any significant size vehicle is parked
~" at that location, then the visibility at the intersection is severely limited. With or without the
wall, it will not be safe for eastbound motorists on 1 ~` Street.
+~ Legal Issues: The decision to placing traffic controls on Eastcoast Drive requires City
Commission approval. In a fairly obscure ordinance originally passed in 1967 and modified
in 1987, Eastcoast Drive was identified as a "Through Street." Although it is not clearly
explained in the ordinance, it has been interpreted in the past to require City Commission
approval for the addition of traffic controls. For this reason, the decision as to whether or not
to make 1 ~` Street and Eastcoast Drive a four (4} way stop is a decision for the City
.. Commission to make. Since this action will actually change a city ordinance, the action
necessary to change it will require a city ordinance.
It is also noted that this section of the code has not been modified in the past when traffic
controls were added to "Through Streets", including traffic controls specifically added by the
City Commission. Regardless of the decision in this matter, this section of the code needs to
be updated or eliminated.
Additionally, it should be noted that the plans for the construction of the wall and the parking
places were submitted to city staff where they were reviewed and approved. The contractor
and owner followed the prescribed procedures for the construction at the site. The impact of
these structures, on the visibility of traffic, was not evident from the plan review. These
problems have only become apparent after the wall and parking areas were erected.
Several Possible Choices: As in many cases, there are a number of possibilities for action
including, but not limited to:
1. Leave the stop signs at 1 ~` Street and Eastcoast Drive, keeping it a four (4) way stop.
This is an inexpensive way to alleviate the safety concerns at the southeast corner and
the northwest corner. Similar to the intersection at 6`h Street and Eastcoast drive,
requiring the traffic to stop will eliminate the hazard created by the existing wall, the
new wall, and the new parking place.
However, the additional stop signs will inconvenience thousands of motorists each
day who travel through this intersection. It will also increase the noise and air
pollution at the intersection as a result of the stopping and accelerating vehicles.
2. Remove the new stop signs after requiring the removal/modification of the new wall
and the relocation of the parking place. This would eliminate the visibility problem
for eastbound traffic on 1 ~` Street. Relative to the pre-existing wall on the southeast
corner, there are some legal questions relative to requiring the removal or
modification of the pre-existing wall. When this wall was constructed, there was no
clear, legal mechanism to preclude it from blocking visibility at the intersection.
+~ This would not address the problem that exists as a result of the pre-existing wall and
landscaping on the southeast corner. Additionally, the City may be required to pay for
~*
AGENDA ITEM #3A
JUNE 14, 2004
the modifications to the site since the original plans for the site had been approved
~'"" through established channels. It is also possible that legal litigation could result from
this action.
3. "Doing nothing" is a possible response, but probably not a realistic choice. Although
traffic can make adjustments and negotiate the intersection as it is currently
constructed, the safety hazard is significant.
Summary:
It is unfortunate that the design of Eastcoast Drive provides very little right-of--way to buffer
the effect of construction and landscaping on private property. This is evident at a number of
~* intersections on Eastcoast Drive. Under the city code, no one is allowed to build awall/fence
that obstructs visibility at anon-signalized intersection. However, in this case, due to the
existing limitations on the southeast corner, a four (4) way stop is recommended to enhance
public safety at that intersection.
Regardless of the specific action taken in this matter, the city code needs to be modified and
updated relative to traffic and parking regulations. The Police Department has been working
on this for several months, and the recommendations will be brought to the City Commission
within the next few months.
BUDGET:
RECOMMENDATIONS: Due to the existing limitations on the southeast corner, a four (4)
way stop is recommended to enhance public safety at that intersection.
ATTACHMENTS: Ordinance # 75-67-2
Ordinance #75-87-6
Section 24-157 Allowable height offences and walls
REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER:
ITEM NUMBER:
...
AGENDA ITEM #3A
JUNE 14, 2004
e~.
ORDINANCE NO. 75-57-2
~
AAT ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 2 OF OFDINANCE
~__..-- NO. 75-5$-1, BEING AN 01CDINANCE ET3TITLED "t~I~T
ORDINANCE ADOPTING TxZE FLORIDA MODEL TRAFFIC
~ ORDINANCE FOR REGULAT'I1VG TFiE MOVEMENT OF AL.L
VEI3ICULAR, PEDESTRIAnT ~~ OTHER TRAFFIC WITEi-~
~? THE CITY OF ATLANTIC BEl'~sCF3, FLORII~i? . "
BE 2T EI~CTED BY THE PEOPLE OF TIC CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH
FLORIDiA :
SECTION I. That the schedules o designated streets districts
and zones, referred to and embraced in and by the O dinance
~" adapted by said Ordinance #75-58-3. are hereby declared to be
as follows, and Section 2 of said Ordinance #75..58-1 is here-
by amended accordingly:
FLOR~nA ~oDEL TR~FFxc~ oRDZ~~AN+~E
Insert for Section 3.9~
SCHEDIILE I
_a,~.r-~
{1) SPEED LIMITS -
Beach Avenue 15 MPH At A11 T1.mes
Seminole Road 25 MPH At. All Times
~"'" Mayport Road As established At A3.1 Times
from time to tame by
Florida State Road
~" Department
scHEDULE zz
ONE-SPAY STREETS AND ALLEYS -
Street Directaan: of Traffic
North side of Plaza between
~, East Coast Drive and Sherry Dr. Lest
South side of Plaza between
~ East Coast Driv® and Sherry Dr, East
f
Eaat side of Selva Marina Drive between"
seminoie Rd. intersection North ico
"~' City Limits North
. ..
~ ORDZNAI~7CE NO . 7 ~ -6 7--2
t
Model Traffic Ordinance
"- Insert -Schedule II Continued --
West side of Se~.va Marina Drive between.
Seminole FG. intersection north to
~" City Limits
scHEDULE I2~
THROIIGH STREETS
Stree~c
Maypart Road
ocean Boulevard
East Coast Drive
Sherry 33rive
AGENDA ITEM #3A
JUNE 14, 2004
Page 2
South
Portions Affected
Pall
1~ 11
.r..~?
.~11
SCHEDULE IV
Parking prohibited at all times on certain streets
Name of Street Portions Affected
..
-,.!'`.
Ocean Boulevard East side from Atlantic
Blvd.. north to Z~hern Street
East Coast Drive Atlantic Eou.2evard north t0.
11th Street
SCHEDULE VI
+~ Parking time Zimited oh certain Streets
Street or District Time
North side of Atlantic Blvd. from
Ocean 83.vd. ,west to East Coast 'Drive 30 P4inutes
~.
hest side of Ocean Boulevard from
Atlantic Foulevard north to z~hern
Street 30 Minutes
North side of Atlantic Blvd..
from Sherry Drive to a point
~""' ~ 200 feet west of Sherry Dr. ~ 15 Minutes
AGENDA ITEM #3A
JUNE 14, 2004
ORDINANCE NO. 75-€ 7--d PSG'? 3
SECTION II. This Ordinance shall became effectave immediately
upon its passage.
~ ~ ~ ~
Passed by the City Commission on ~;irst reading on P4arch
27, 197.
Passed by the City Commission on seaanc3 and final reading on
April 10th 19E~.
Attests
1:..~ ~ . .
.._..Ac?ele S . Grage
C~.ty Clerk
~sEl~3
fihis is to cartify th4.t the abova ordiz~~n~e ~_ S " ~ 7-'
xas pos*e:i ~- ; 11 '-~~ st the City Ha31 ~'ollowi*~g its fi:n~
passage on~~- / ~.- [,
~~
Adele 8.. Grage. City Clark
~+ ~.
!!`
AGENDA ITEM #3A
JUNE 14, 2004
-~^~. ORDINANCE N0. 75-87-6
~,,,, ,
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE N0. 75-67-2, BEING
AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE
FLORIDA MODEL TRAFFIC ORDINANCE FOR REGULATING THE
MOVEMENT OF ALL VEHICULAR, PEDESTRIAN AND OTHER
TRAFFIC WITHIN THE CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACIi, FLORIDA;
AMENDING SECTION 1, SCHEDULE III, TO AUTHORIZE THE
PLACEMENT OF STOP SIGNS AT CERTAIN INTERSECTIONS ON
OCEAN BOULEVARD AND EAST COAST DRIVE; PROVIDING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE
$E IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY. COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ATLANTIC
BEACH, PI~ORIDA:
"" Section 1. Ordinance No. 75-67-2, Section 1, Schedule III is
hereby amended to read as folloWS:
FLORIDA MODEL TRAFFIC ORDINANCE
~
SCHEDULE III
~. THROUGH STREETS
Street Portions Affected
j'-.
Pis~pe~~-&ead E4~~
Ocean Boulevard All, except four-way stop signs at
Ah~rn,'Seyenth~Strc~t, Tenth Street
end Sixteanth Street
East Coast Drive All,. except four-way stop signs at
Seventh Street, Tenth~Street~
Eleventh Street and Seminole Road
Sherry Drive All, Atlantic Boulevard to Seminole
~'"' Road
Semiable Road All except Plaza and intersection
~ with EighteentYi and'Saturiba
SCHEDULE IV
~* Parking prohibited at all times on certain streets
Name of Street Portions Affected
~" 8eeae-Beeleve~d ~ Be$e-S#de-€~em-fke~ax~e#e-$en~e~erd
~ae~eele-e e-At~e~a-6 ~~e e~:
~, !'"""~ East Coast Drive Atlantic Boulevard north to Eleventh
Street
AGENDA ITEM #3A
JUNE 14, 2004
a+"~ Section 2. This Ordinance shall become effective immediately
upon its adoption.
w„ Approved by the City Commission on first xeading April 27, 1987
Approved by the City Commission on Second & Eina1 reading Hay 11, 1987
~"' ... ~
~ illiam S. Howell, Mayor, Presiding Officer
~,. Approved as to Form and Correctness:
ude L. Mullis, Cit Att ey
,.~~^,
ATTEST:
Adelaide R.:'Tucker, City Clerk
~.
t
~""
AGENDA ITEM #3A
JUNE 14, 2004
Sec. 24-157. Allowable height of fences and walls.
(a) Within required front yards, the maximum height of any fence or wall shall be
four (4) feet.
(b) Within required side or rear yards, the maximum height of any fence or wall shall
be six (6) feet.
(c) On corner lots, no fence, wall or landscaping, exceeding four (4) feet in height,
~ shall be allowed within ten (10) feet of any lot line which abuts a street, provided,
however, that clear vehicular and pedestrian sight distance shall be maintained at any
street intersection.
~ (d) The height offences and walls shall be measured from grade to the top of the
fence or wall. Where a fence or wall is erected at the junction of properties with varying
~„ elevations, the height of the fence or wall shall be measured from the side with the lowest
elevation. The use of dirt, sand, rocks or similaz materials to elevate the height of a fence
or wall on a mound is prohibited.
(e) The maximum height of retaining walls on any lot is four (4) feet. A minimum of
forty (40) feet shall separate retaining walls designed to add cumulative height or
increase site elevation.
(Ord. No. 90-03-184, § 2, 12-8-03)
~!*