Loading...
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) ~!*