Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVI(K) Discussion/ Action Re: Lake Olympia Club - Road Closure AGENDA 12-17-96 Ocoee Item VI K O nfy v. `ram rFa OF Goov � JAMES W.SHIRA,P.E. CITY ENGINEER/UTILII'1hS DIRECTOR 150 N.LAKESHORE DRIVE•OCOEE,FLORIDA 34761 PHONE(407)656-2322 EXT.142•FAX(407)656-7835 MEMORANDUM DATE: December 2, 1996 and of Commissioners TO: The Honorable Mayor and Bo City mm1ssioners FROM: James W. Shira, P. City Engineer/Utiliti irector SUBJECT: Lake Olympia Club - Road Closure Attached you will find a letter from Mr. Nicholas Pagano, president of the Lake Olympia Club Homeowner's Association. Mr. Pagano submitted a survey to the residents of Lake Olympia Club (L.O.C.) which sought to determine their level of support for any of several traffic control options. These options ranged from doing nothing to installing gates across one or the other of the connections to Silver Star Road or Clarke Road. As Mr. Pagano indicates in his letter, only 60% of the residents responded to the survey, and among those respondents, there was not an overwhelming support for any one of the proposed options. In addition to those proposed in the L.O.C. survey, there are other measures that can be taken to control traffic in a residential neighborhood. Some of the measures that have been used by other jurisdictions are speed humps, lane restricting islands, and brick pavement sections. We have talked about the potential use of speed humps before, and you were informed that the initial construction cost for the L.O.C. subdivision would be approximately $8,500 for eight speed humps. The Public Works Director has since advised me that recent cost data he has found indicates that the cost would be closer to $16,000. We also recommended that prior to any speed hump installation work, the City should first develop and adopt a speed hump policy that would address the issues of site selection criteria and neighborhood involvement. Speed humps require regular maintenance, and the pavement markings and signs that must accompany each speed hump must be maintained as well. Although speed humps do slow traffic, in some instances the visual impact of the markings, signs and speed humps may be more objectionable than the neighborhood is willing to accept. THE PRIDE OF WEST ORANGE The Honorable Mayor and Board of City Commissioners December 2, 1996 Page 2 Attached is a sketch of a lane restricting island that is being used by the City of Orlando. This island creates a narrowing of the traveled lane from the standard twelve feet width to an eight foot width over the twenty to thirty foot length of the island. This narrowing presents a physical and psychological barrier to motorists which tends to cause them to reduce their speed. It is important to note from the sketch that the island is installed in a segment of roadway which has "standard" curb on either side of the roadway. This is the type of curb which is used on Clarke Road., with a six inch high vertical face. In most Ocoee subdivisions, including L.O.C., this is not the type of curb used. In those subdivisions the typical curb is a "Miami" type curb, which does not pose a barrier to vehicles. The disadvantage to this type of curb in the vicinity of a lane restriction island is that there is no physical barrier on the driver's right, and some drivers may simply drive over the curb, onto the parkway strip between the curb and sidewalk to avoid slowing down. Most homeowner's consider this area to be part of their yard, and will be angry if it is used by traffic. Barriers or trees could be placed or planted in the parkway strip; but their effectiveness in stopping vehicles from driving on the parkway will need to be weighed against their cost and potential liability exposure. The information I have indicates that a typical installed cost for lane restricting islands, in an area that already has standard curb, is approximately $7,500.00 each. Some jurisdictions have removed sections of asphalt pavement and have repaved those areas with brick. This has a rumble strip effect as traffic passes by, which tends to cause reduced speeds. This solution is also expensive, with a 30 foot section ranging from $2,500 to $4,000 for removal of the existing pavement and replacement with brick pavement. As with speed humps, a single location is of little or no effect. To provide the same number of brick pavement sections in L.O.C. as were recommended for speed hump locations would cost a total of$20,000 to $32,000. This effect can also be achieved by using paving materials other - than brick, with textured concrete or concrete pavers being two of the more popular. The cost for these materials would probably be a little less than the cost of brick pavement. There have been instances where such pavement sections have been installed, and they have slowed traffic, but neighbors then started to complain of the noise made by traffic over the rough pavement. Prior to any construction, it is the unanimous recommendation of the City Engineer, Public Works Director and Chief of Police that the city adopt a policy regarding the installation of "traffic calming" devices. This policy should list the types of devices approved for use in Ocoee, the conditions under which devices may be warranted, the method to be used for requesting their installation and the method of payment for such devices. Several types of devices have been listed above, but the list is not all-inclusive. There are other devices, or variations of those listed above, that are in use or are undergoing evaluation in many communities throughout the country. A set of criteria needs to be developed which will establish the need for traffic calming devices in a given area. These criteria should include traffic volume and speed, pedestrian volume, cut-through traffic and geometric configuration of the affected area. Requests for traffic calming devices should be submitted in a standard format so that they can be evaluated consistently. Information should be included to indicate whether the majority of the affected property owners are in favor of the request. The cost of The Honorable Mayor and Board of City Commissioners December 2, 1996 Page 3 initial studies, installation and maintenance can be a General Fund expense, or can be borne by those affected, or can be split in some manner. On December 19, 1995 you were provided with a draft speed hump program. A copy of that is attached for your review. This was intended only as a draft, and was assumed to be subject to change. Since the installation of speed calming devices is an expensive venture, and one -- that can have very serious consequences for affected neighborhoods, I would respectfully suggest that some type of public forum be offered to our citizens for them to voice their desires and concerns on this issue. With this information, staff will be in a better position to draft a policy that is in line with the desires of the Commission and the public. Please let us know whether you want to proceed with this type of program. If so, we need to discuss with you and the public the many issues addressed above which are part of a successful. program. LAKE OLYMPIA CLUB HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION Nicholas S . Pagano P .O . Box 651 Ocoee, Fl . 34761 August 24, 1996 x• Mr . Ellis Shapiro 150 N. Lakeshore Drive Ocoee, Florida 34761 Dear Ellis; Enclosed are the results of our traffic survey. We believe we got a good response when you figure we have five ( 5 ) rental homes and three ( 3 ) lots sold and not built. We did not include the two developers who have twelve ( 12 ) lots . There is not an overwhelming support for any one choice . But 60% replied and that is a good indicator people feel we have a problem . It is interesting that most of the residents who, live on Adriatic Road want Clarke Road closed . Something has to be done . Based on the results, two questions have been posed . Is there now or in the seeable future, plans for a stop light at Silver Star road and Olympus Drive or at Clarke Road and Adriatic Drive? Also we would like the request for 2 or 3, 3 way stop signs on Olympus Drive be revisited . This was looked into shortly after Clarke Road was opened and needs to be looked at again as a way to slow speeders . Thank you. Sincerely. Nicholas S . Pagano President CC Mayor Vandergrift Jim Gleason PROPOSED CITY OF OCOEE SPEED HUMP PROGRAM Speed humps,will only be considered on roadways which: • are local residential streets and/or collector roads with a minimum average daily traffic count of 800 vehicles/day and a maximum of 3,000 vehicles/day. • have a posted speed limit of 30 mph or less. • have an observed 85th percentile speed greater than 35 mph. • have a maximum width of 24 feet. The process for obtaining approval for speed hump installation is as follows: 1. Residents should submit a petition signed by at least 66% of the homeowners within a subdivision or 90% of the homeowners fronting on a particular roadway to the Engineering Department. 2. Upon receipt of the petition, the Engineering Department will conduct a traffic study to determine if traffic conditions support the installation of speed humps. 3. If traffic conditions support the installation of speed humps, a public information meeting will be held to present the results of the traffic study, provide a preliminary design and cost estimate, and to give the affected residents an opportunity to provide input. 4. If the feedback received from residents at the public information meeting is generally favorable, a ballot will be mailed to each property owner to vote "for" or "against" the establishment of a special assessment to fund the installation of speed humps. The special assessment would be a tax atcessment to property owners in the subdivision located on the roadway(s) where speed humps are proposed. The amount of the assessment is determined by dividing the total project cost by the number of benefiting property owners. The total project cost will be based on the cost of construction and administrative costs. 5. ' If 66% of the returned ballots are in favor of the speed hump installation, the special assessment is scheduled for a public hearing before the City Commission. The City Commission will make the final decision on the establishment of the special assessment. 6. If the Board of City Commissioners approves the special assessment, the speed humps will be scheduled for installation by the Public Works Department. The Seminole County speed hump design (3" high x 22' long) will be utilized. ® 134'MEDIAN TRANSITION STRIPING LIMITS RPM'S • RPM'S A 40' 50'DOUBLE YELLOW TAPE 2' 30'(TO FACE OF CURB) 2' S0'DOUBLE YELLOW TAPE 40' (RPM'S EVERY 10') (RPM'S EVERY 10') "',".: :.' •.:J'v- -•='3^ xt:-ti%''v:y 4r,;;:;r"J - �f•.F Dt;_F*` v v{ y- -_w:r,• '.._- �,'k':.:�:a'- >T.kY inSv� -c¢x t>:- �.'n - 0.VII.Ig e��F L �, jl'�=�"-.+ ^'!.Fo s' ':- -ir��i. rR�"'ii4.:., .✓'-'. _ Yt tr ' %.,.-e i,:`f .:f..?f...,,•.. _ 1;1.=..-Sa ::vr>r 'Y!YS.��''� .G?2x::�r:1CfJ=tn_. �°r}..a y,� .4ca �'.- 'I Z. ,,?yy._ C?', , ''rac`�$Y43f f ,.,';iv; ,... ..SF..„„:; g1'•'uth? _ _ VX. 5;tW. 1,^�C.'T',-,v sS- INS 4.� ZIM , i.4-4;.V. M1..i.,��t,yy>,•:-y,`,�,.,, viri as.i i-r..i''..?!,1Y+ 3 R .-'gyi:'S'! .}-: _ ti C/.x.vq•'Lt.•.+>f: .��ry FY� �.ln .nk�; _ ;,n7: ,7`FIG..:"'c ',.4 - `s'Y;:l"a'. ck '�-.{%�,«`:,"�A,e - it]"� .�,__ :.'�7%;!r cla'f-`:1_i ;w”' i't.,�_s'I--� .I. .n,i._ ;"� p. a u,,�,t,: -stR?t,. ti33.o> '+t::a�,*'7''7.a:r;.^;fi'i yYp�_ wEikSS�" .: ��i.3T"�@('•:k' gin:% .'v"Nr;,�a; ,/F^'�-_`>,3w`s�l,�...�c=�6:ari,�+.4'lE:v�� -.5 ta�:d=' �:,.- _ __ -;•e;. - 4rr,:;: _ ,.r,.�f�° .�3• �e f�. .,�e5 -.T`s?"? cy;�•.,� z.> :a{'>,�.F?x�'�: IS•'i. U: `�,:i_:1;,. _;aai>::;t3i �,ig r....p�S:r:,•_ 't �L e ' -.7,<% rc:7. 4Z., �._.,_.i5 0 x�, ax � , _M46s :9� �' a_a a €S___•asr �x d' f:,i aa_� 1',.--, - :;,,ya - .:.rz `-Li=-aJ;cam.. Al 'c^M":i•:,°Tfa'.G•"..udc.1 •> �/} b �, .'a., yr;�:._�. SAC" - .� '-/ -"`:�. _ - -.1 - �ilC?;v' .,�C - F2' •N � 9� _ .ym.y,:.r.r.�....caF iecr..::>:. "`?tr? �.iF`^. 'b�yt'r )fit,., ^ii�i;'"I'k w2:� e�- .iG - .tea '.'.�/.37. ' �a;..zYe�rr..�`�~Y•'u __ X'SS`k` ;1�� ;U..- � 'r\`.: .abI/4 - ,.pR,^,.., - - - __ - - - -- _�:�t','ii�.W_f'f�'�=\2',�i-��wC•Y: �` `yY�...v>- :T._��, i�3,�hv..;t:r 'U',r - - �Ji: - _ uJ. i�' - _ �.5� P� � 1 ��,4a ,.hgic^it ti.. r - - ;�f:a ,P� '/• . .,�q:-@: x.61,_ ��..���"cc4t..:-;R-rnr�,, °n�Y'i�+qC,_:r:�r:�r;. ctf,L.:e4~K _'�'6`.__ _ _ _ "'.T." wU'. -r.. f` R�T-•w -.S7 ri 'r,;Nu.p, vin,,d.:i 3 e.s^,.g.�-e:�.�.1.,1�i • sib"'' 'k _ � .z a %�� .a..X - t2:9_ "t } _ ..a �-s Ord ':"v' r,js�r 5 { v,�y�v _ - 5 •..siian ,str w F 7"F^e: P'v ,,,fir,->„ ca4$ =%�- _ Zr� .n>.tr _ - _ I�FT���Y:_ �K _ uV.af•. _you- .....A - - - +jE �y - �a+.` ..*.-f`.'�A"� ,%, a.s� a',rii' 'K��'i'•zY�F':r �:,1 .•L[ - �7>�rf�::tea. ff. _ _ ��� y'S�. .\•' e%tt _ err.. �' -�.,.- ,:x a" • .. - sal... _ '. .,7,.._;t:�a 0 © © PLAN VIEW O • • 0 ; 0 NO EXISTING (17 •_...(6-_-_____ ",f;.ti,.•r SIDEWALK ON ///Y 4-a`.r THIS SIDE � '11I 1O PROPOSED LANDSCAPED MEDIAN .-� _ �,.fa...M.c;,.�.,:...z;cam.,;.,..., il O PROPOSED 2'STANDARD AND GUTTER 8'-0" 8'-0" EXISTING 5' i O3 PROPOSED COLORED PAVING SIDEWALK 9-6" .11'MEDIAN 9-6" j ®PROPOSED 6" HEADER CURB EXISTING 6" VERTICAL CURB 30' EXISTING PAVEMENT TO REMAIN 1 O INSTALL DOUBLE YELLOW TAPE MARKING 20'BEYOND TRANSITION CROSS—SECTION VIEW (LOOKING NORTH) PROPOSED 11' WIDE MEDIAN FOR SUMMERLIN AVENUE ® _ MEDIAN TRANSITION STRIPING LIMITS 5 RPM'S RPM'S LACE NOSE RPM'S (5)NEXT D 40' 30'DOUBLE YELLOW TAPE 2' 20'OR 30'- SEE PLAN 2' 30'DOUBLE YELLOW TAPE 0 40' TO RASED CURB (TYPICAL). (RPM'S EVERY 10') I (TO FACE OF CURB) (RPM'S EVERY 10') ALIGN OUTSIDE EDGE `>'."�=- ^;:t!k -•- :::s: n •'51.,. :r. 1 - --_-- - - - :z OF STRIPING WITH ,„:;nzs- -,.ra" :�' ':Viz,-� - - = ti = FACE OF CURB - ';si:�- :.cam= :�.�' .cri3'F.�,3'y :.\:::::.-r:'`;r. - �,� i�. :T"nri'r'F:- FSIt 10'- � ;h"'� - TO FIRST P - - ,5; F _ .1_6 RPM yv Y R _",fir`:: 1[�r r , — ty._ Drml . '---41..'4---''' ''-1 - - �Y' N AND=`.NOSE``' O° f O t; i2 o PLAN VIEW ISLAND NOSE DETAIL it NO EXISTING 1 ( 2 3 � a-) r�SIDEWALK ON I )(II .,:.;,,M THIS.SIDE L All 1O PROPOSED LANDSCAPED•MEDIAN j'"' .'•'•".: '�r c_,.^ -- _ -sxs3,:i ':fi-a5,..,'+:. ta:Y_....�;,t;:v_,,.,.,. PROPOSED 2'STANDARD u CURB AND GUTTER g°-0" w. 9'-0" EXISTING 5' O PROPOSED COLORED PAVING SIDEWALK 9-6" 5' 9-6" ®PROPOSED 6" HEADER CURB EXISTING 6" I- 24' EXISTING PAVEMENT ,•I VERTICAL CURB ®INSTALL DOUBLE YELLOW TAPE TO REMAIN MARKING 20'BEYONB TRANSITION CROSS—SECTION VIEW (LOOKING NORTH) PROPOSED 5' WIDE MEDIAN FOR SUMMERLIN AVENUE