HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem #14 Final Subdivision for The Villages of Wesmere
center of GOOd Li
<<;..'f>e "b._
~
AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET
Meeting Date: March 7, 2006
Item # LLf
Contact Name:
Contact Number:
Catherine Armstron~
905-3100 X1 020
Reviewed By:
Department Director:
City Manager:
~
Subject: Final Subdivision for The Villages of Wesmere.
Background Summary:
The Villages of Wesmere is located on Lot 3 of the Wesmere Property Subdivision. More specifically, it is
located on the east side of Maguire Road, north of Cross Creek Subdivision and south of the Tomyn
Boulevard extension. The subject property will comprise 369 fee-simple town home lots on 49.48 acres. The
property is zoned Multiple-Family Dwelling (R-3) and is designated as High Density Residential on the
Future Land Use Map (FLUM).
Issue:
Should the Honorable Mayor and City Commissioners approve the Final Subdivision Plan for The Villages of
Wesmere?
Recommendations:
Based on the recommendation of the DRC and the Planning & Zoning Commission, Staff respectfully
recommends that the Mayor and City Commissioners approve the Final Subdivision Plan for The Village of
Wesmere, as date stamped received by the City on February 22, 2006, subject to the conditions identified in
the Staff Report recommendation.
Attachments:
Location Map, Zoning Map and FLU Map; Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis, dated August 4, 2005; Staff
comments (1) Planning Division, dated February 23, 2006 and (2) Engineering Department, dated February
23, 2006; and, Final Subdivision Plan date stamped February 22, 2006.
Financial Impact:
Unknown
Type of Item:
o Public Hearing
o Ordinance First Reading
o Ordinance First Reading
o Resolution
I:8J Commission Approval
o Discussion & Direction
For Clerk's Deof Use:
o Consent Agenda
o Public Hearing
o Regular Agenda
o Original Document/Contract Attached for Execution by City Clerk
o Original Document/Contract Held by Department for Execution
Reviewed by City Attorney
Reviewed by Finance Dept.
D N/A
~ N/A
Reviewed by
D N/A
City Manager
Ro bert Frank
Commissioners
Danny Howell. District 1
Scott Anderson. District 2
Rustv Johnson. District 3
Nancy J. Parker. District 4
Mayor
S. Scott Vandergrift
STAFF REPORT
FROM:
The Honorable Mavor and City Commissioners
Catherine Armstrong, Planning Manager~
Russ Wagner, AICP, Community Development Director
rJ!
TO:
THROUGH:
DATE:
February 21, 2006
RE:
The Villages of Wesmere
Final Subdivision Plan
Project # LS-2004-01 0
ISSUE:
Should the Honorable Mayor and City Commissioners approve the Final Subdivision Plan for the
Villages of Wesmere?
BACKGROUND:
The Villages of Wesmere is located on Lot 3 of the Wesmere Property. More specifically, the property is
located on the east side of Maguire Road, north of Cross Creek subdivision and south of the Tomyn
Boulevard extension. The subject property comprises 369 fee-simple townhome lots totaling 49.48
acres. The property is zoned Multiple-Family Dwelling (R-3) and is designated as High Density
Residential on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM).
The site is undeveloped and covered with planted pine trees. To the north of the subject property is
right-of-way associated with the Tomyn Boulevard extension. North of the right-of-way is the proposed
Lot 1, Wesmere Property, zoned General Commerical (C-3) and designated as Commercial on the
FLUM. To the west is Maguire Road with associated right-of-way and on the west side of Maguire Road
is the Brookstone residential subdivision, zoned R-1A and designated as Low Density Residential on the
FLUM; and the Wesmere at Ocoee residential subdivision, zoned R-1AAA and designated as Low
Density Residential on the FLUM. South of the subject property is Cross Creek, a residential
subdivision, zoned Low Density PUD and designated as Low Density Residential on the FLUM. To the
east of the subject property is the proposed Tract 2 of the overall Wesmere Property subdivision
containing a 16.99 acre master wet detention pond and the proposed Lot 2/Tract 9 of the overall
Wesmere Property subdivision containing a future elementary school and wetlands of Lake Bonnet.
DISCUSSION:
The Villages of Wesmere Final Subdivision Plan is proposed to be developed with twelve (12) tracts,
including the 369 fee-simple townhome lots. Because the Future Land Use designation of the property
is High Density Residential, the maximum density allowable is 16 dwelling units per acre. Based on
49.48 acres, the potential maximum number of units allowable on the subject property is 791.68. The
applicant is only proposing to develop 369 townhome lots, which is 7.46 dwelling units per acre and is
well under the maximum density.
Access into the subject site will be provided from the east side of Maguire Road, across from Wesmere
Parkway and on the south side of the Tomyn Boulevard extension. The proposed extension will be
constructed prior to or concurrent with the town home development by the Wesmere Property master
developer.
Because this property is vested from concurrency, a traffic study was submitted by the applicant
analyzing only operational improvements. Improvements identified were a northbound right turn lane on
Maguire Road at Tomyn Boulevard and turn lane improvements to the intersection of Maguire Road and
Tomyn Boulevard including mast arm installation to add a traffic signal for westbound traffic on Tomyn
Boulevard. Ten (10) feet will be conveyed to the City at the time of platting to accommodate the right
turn/deceleration lane by the Wesmere Property master developer.
The townhomes are proposed to be a mix of twenty (20) foot and thirty (30) foot wide units with one and
two story products. Each unit will have a two-car garage with an additional space provided in the
driveway. Visitor parking is provided throughout the project. All units will have clay tile roofs and brick
paver driveways. During the Preliminary Subdivision Plan public hearing, the City Commission added an
additional Condition of Approval that the townhome roofs will be constructed with tile or a tile-like
product unless the developer demonstrates to the City that there is a supply issue preventing that type
of roofing product. This condition has been incorporated into the Conditions of Approval for the Final
Subdivision Plan as #69 on Sheet 3.
Recreational facilities proposed include a clubhouse, swimming pool, tot lot, volleyball/tennis/basketball
court and a multi-purpose field. The development is proposed to be a gated community with decorative
black aluminum swing gates.
A six (6) foot high tan vinyl fence, installed by the developer, is proposed along the southern boundary of
the subject property, adjacent to the Cross Creek subdivision. In addition, a 15' preserved tree buffer is
proposed between the fence and the town home units. This is provided in accordance with the Land
Development Code, Article 5, Section 5-18 (a) regarding "low" buffers between low-rise (two stories or
less) office or multi-family uses and single family areas, consisting of a minimum of (15) fifteen feet of
buffer areas supplemented by berms, walls and/or fences and landscaping. An easement is provided to
be dedicated to the City for the existing access road to the City's south water plant, located adjacent to
the southeast corner of the property.
The main frontages of the property are enclosed with a 6' high masonry brick wall with sections
containing decorative metal railings. The subject property will also have a 6-foot high tan PVC fence
along the southern side of Tomyn Boulevard, east of the townhome entrance.
Landscaping is provided throughout the subject property in accordance with the code and as each
townhome building develops, the individual unit landscaping will be installed. To allow for connection to
the future elementary school, a pedestrian sidewalk is proposed on the southeast side of the property, at
the passive recreation area between unit 36 and 37. The above ground wires, supplied by Progress
Energy, located along the entire Wesmere property frontage (north and south sides of Tomyn
Boulevard) are proposed to be placed underground during the development of the project.
As part of the Preliminary Subdivision Plan action of the City Commission, a Traffic Signal Warrant
Analysis Study was to be performed indicating whether a traffic signal is warranted at the intersection of
Wesmere Parkway and Maguire Road. It was concluded by Renaissance Planning Group that a traffic
signal is not warranted at this time, but would be in the future. Based on the townhome development
plan proposed, alternate means of ingress/egress are provided on Tomyn Boulevard for the townhome
project. The intersection of Wesmere Parkway and Maguire Road will mostly consist of right-turn
movements from the residents of the townhome development. Of the eight possible warrants identified
in the study, only the peak-hour volume warrant was met. However, because the new development will
include an elementary school, the intersection should meet the school warrant once the school is
constructed (planned for 2008). It was suggested by RPG that the City should continue to monitor the
area and that the City may want to consider the following options to alleviate the eastbound Wesmere
Parkway delay during the morning peak hour:
1. Install a traffic signal that fully operates during the morning peak. During the remainder of the
day, the signal would flash yellow for Maguire Road traffic and flash red for Wesmere Parkway
traffic. This kind of signal should be well-signed in order to alert drivers to the changing traffic
patterns during the day;
2. Do not install a traffic signal. This intersection should continue to be monitored in the future.
The City should consider updating this analysis in the fall by conducting turning movement
counts when school is in session, as a way of verifying the accurate use of the seasonal factor;
or,
3. Install a traffic signal that is fully operational at all times. The Wesmere Property development
includes land for an elementary school. Because an elementary school at this location will
serve students on the east and west sides of Maguire Road, this location should become the
school crossing. Designating this intersection as a school crossing will increase safety at the
intersection of Maguire Road and Tomyn Boulevard, which will become the school bus access
road. With the conversion of the intersection from a three-legged to a four-legged intersection,
the number of conflicting movements will increase, which will change the overall traffic patterns
at this intersection. A traffic signal will have a significant impact on safety at this location,
particularly when the school opens and it becomes a school crossing.
Note: The City's design standards for a traffic signal require black mast arms. In addition,
any signal that is installed should be fully actuated with significant delay for traffic entering
Maguire Road.
During the signal study, the traffic consultant identified a split of trips that was roughly 80/20 between the
existing Wesmere subdivision and the proposed town home development. The consultant identified the
percentage split based on the number of trips that each development contributed based on
proportionate impacts.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:
The Development Review Committee (DRC) met on February 6, 2006 and reviewed the Final
Subdivision Plan. Staff discussed with the applicant outstanding comments from the Planning Division,
the Engineering Department and the City Attorney. It was determined that the plans should be revised
based on staff's comments before the City Commission meeting.
The DRC voted unanimously to recommend approval of the Final Subdivision Plan, subject to the
developer making changes to the plans based upon staff comments prior to the City Commission
meeting.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
On February 14, 2006, the Planning and Zoning Commission considered the proposed Final Subdivision
Plan for The Villages of Wesmere. The City Staff and the Applicant of the project answered questions
from the commission regarding internal sidewalks, one-way streets, lighting, visitor parking and
architectural issues. Lengthy discussion ensued regarding the traffic signal warrant analysis and
whether the signal was warranted at Wesmere Parkway and Maguire Road. The majority of the board
members expressed concerns that the Maguire Road entrance into the townhomes validated a traffic
signal due to the easy access;
The Planning and Zoning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the Villages of
Wesmere Final Subdivision Plan, as date stamped received by the City on January 27, 2006, subject to
the following conditions:
1) Developer making changes to the plans based upon staff comments prior to the City Commission
meeting; and,
2) Traffic light to be installed at the time of development of the project with compliance of either
Option #1 or Option #3 as identified in the staff report and City Commission to determine funding
source.
Post PlanninQ and ZoninQ Commission meetinQ Update:
The applicant has revised the plans based on the outstanding comments raised by staff at the
Development Review Committee meeting. There are few remaining comments that have not been
resolved by the applicant. These outstanding comments are attached to the staff report and may easily
be incorporated into the plans prior to construction.
Additionally, staff has had on-going discussions with the developer regarding the installation of the traffic
signal at Wesmere Parkway and Maguire Road. In recognition of the concerns of the Wesmere
subdivision, the developer has agreed to install the traffic signal at the time of construction of Lot 3 and
will contribute 20% of the cost of the traffic signal. The remainder of the traffic signal to be paid out of
impact fee credits. The City will further evaluate the best operational option for the traffic signal at the
time of design and determine the most efficient construction method for the signal installation.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Based on the recommendation of the DRC and the Planning and Zoning Commission, Staff respectfully
recommends that the Mayor and City Commissioners approve the Final Subdivision Plan for The
Villages of Wesmere, as date stamped received by the City on February 22, 2006, subject to the
following conditions:
1) Applicant to revise the plan to address all outstanding comments from the Planning Division and
Engineering Department prior to the start of construction; and,
2) The developer to intall the traffic signal at Wesmere Parkway and Maguire Road as part of the first
phase of construction of Lot 3 and contribute 20% of the cost of the traffic signal. The remainder of
the traffic signal cost is to be paid out of impact fee credits. Further, the City will evaluate the best
operational option for the traffic signal at the time of design and determine the most efficient
construction method for the signal installation.
Attachments: Location Map, Zoning Map and FLU Map;
Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis, dated August 4, 2005
Staff comments:
1. Planning Division, dated February 23, 2006
2. Engineering Department, dated February 23, 2006
Final Subdivision Plan, date stamped February 22, 2006
The Villages of Wesmere Townhomes
Location Map
~
~
en
w
u...
o
~
0::
co
--j
\
~
~.
LAKE LlLL Y ,~
-
~
/' SI ,/~
:r: r- := = frS= ::
'" '-- - "Y
i ,l,iZI ~ T::r ~ ..L
~ . H1Kll- 1-"'" U.
~~S~ ~
n TlI I 1ffi7 ~~
1&RlsiRRdnkH- I 1 ~ /' :2
[~I I I(~~
A Y-: <( .....
i ""~--<<l...l...l. "'51 ~ --.....,
~ ::tttKJ HHK
~-; TII I II K -,
~ ~ J / f-...u.~l \ IIII I RRJ\IrHI.;1!- (~KJEFkl TTT I /
;t [ ~ n :1<""-- ./
~F.f- (l I \ ~ - ~ ~IIII _l~~
~ -- \ rr -....i "L' ir:inJ, I y-
~ ---f-- r- \ rv - /I~ >" .l -
I<' /"f-- f-- t:-...W1 ~ I!~ 0 ~ ~ ~ =
l' ~i - ~ T ~:'I rru: A~<?i:( 'm.v III e =
V~- f-- \ ~ en L ~ -
~ ~- ;~II ~J"I,.,.-I \~T ~.~ ~ B 1 ~ ~
I I If I I Il~^~~GRO\jE,::~..~ ~ fj~a ~:j ~ - ~
1.1. .1_1.....1. Lr.J ~~ ~ <.9 kJ ,~ ~ ~ - ~::::: - ~
9 --! -=:J ~~ s ~ C1 - :::; - III
I I I~Y ;pC ~ ~ # G-j ~---s=:x: ~-=~
..l.._.L C:) {:5 ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ ""
III1 Ill'" I - ~~~I F~=~
J
~
~ LAKE PEARL
Z>
1r~
~
~ ~~
)~\
c.
cu
:E
CD CD
.... tJ)
CD::)
E"'C
tJ) r:::
CD cu
~...J
'--CD
o ....
tJ) ~
CD.....
C)~
CULL
=C)
.- r:::
> .-
CD"'C
J:r:::
1-5
....
....
~
en
G
>-
-.I
-.I
::J
~
<(
-.I
:::i
'"
a.
a
'"'
c:
Q)
E
a.
o
Qj
>
Q)
o
.?;o
."
:J
E
E
o
u
Q)
Q)
8
o
LO
o
o
N
m
Q)
u
.~ Q) -
m Q) u m
:;:; C/) mmc
_c-"C cO-om
2:' m m Q) .!!! c .- C/) :;:; Q)
o Q) .- "C - m:J .-
;!: :;:; C 'w c m a. c ;!: "8
l:::liiQ)Q)~en "C~1ilco
Q) .9-:Q 0::: .w ~ 0 0 E ....
I-um Q)U::: _O__Q)
>- .- Q) >0..... m u: "C en _
t: "C c "" ;!: 0::: 0 Iii'c __ c Q) m
Q) Q) :J u.. m ._ _ c _ :;:; >
Q.roo:::>oc~--.t: en 0 'U:=:>
o .... o::::;!: Q) .- m .!!! m :J :;:; c 'u "C
....oQ)mO~Bu:J-gmomc
c.. e-.r:. 5i E Q) 'w Q) -g - ~ '&i u... m
uOO-O:JO m E- >oQ) Q) u m
Q) u .- Q) E - > m .... :=: Q)
:oc"C~"Ci5>o .r:.mcu.o~
:J .c c 0 Q) .- .... 0 Cl Q) 0 Q) :J m
C/)::Jm...J~Ic..():.:JI()O:::c.....J
o iii 0111111111
Q)
Q)
u..
0
0
CD
Q)
.2!
0 0
0 0
CD .q-
uo
a;
:J 0
CT 0
Q) N
J::
0
.S
~ 0
.~
<(
-0
Ql
c:
it
Q)Q.
s... co
Q)::i
EO)
= r::
~ "c
....0
oN
U)O)
Q) r::
0)"-
~-g
= ::::J
> 0
Q) l:
J: ~
t-C/)
~
>-
-J
-J
-
-J
~
L
"
r
J
II
I
~
)
~t1
/1/1
Jj
Jj
II
I P
.
'"
0.
~
C
Q)
E
0.
o
~
Q)
Cl
CD
~
'c
"
E
E
o
u
Q)
Q)
8
o
II ::h., ct ~J ~t'111 ...
\ ~ &,~. ~gM~F$
\ ~ . SO~~~ , v: .~~u .
\ &"~~ .... VN .. .
t. ~~J/ ~; ~:~; :.... Ilw:m
/&<9: '/ ~~: $.~:':
r //~ WI.' .. : .' :....:
m:, ~ . ..~.v,
:..... @:~ . .
. . ~:
a;
.2!
o 0
o 0
<0 ....
'"
a;
" 0
CT 0
Q) N
.<=
o
.!:
~ 0
T'"
...!.
)
a;
Q)
u.
o
o
<0
o
o
o
o
N
7
:::: ~~
" .. ~"
\W . ..
.~. '.....'..
.i .,.
d .
:1 , ,
, . ,\VI
. '.
.. , '-;'
: , . ., . ..
.
\' .. "
, < '," ..~~:-
, '.
. ..
.'
~ ",' , ','
.;'
.'~. . '"
. . w
..' 'u ......:. '. -:::~:<<I;>"/.~~N" :::0;
. 'X.('>>~):I~ ~~
. , . It\'~x
" . \
'IN, ~'^ .', . . '.
X-:-:-- " : "........: ":;:;" *
~. ": ~... . .~ . ':/' ~ ~
,>>. '. --
~ ~~ ft."i~~""U'"
re <C ~ .
~ ~ ~.., .~ :~'::.
~ . :-:. 0:. ,..
I- .;, "r, .':
en ,.p ..' .' . I I:' .~.~
~( I I / j'" :'.. . Ill;' ,:\;j rn:. w,:: , ,
\ I / 7 :' .'~ ~., mi!. . : '~"r' . "" ',:';'
~ .I"I~ ~' . :::..~, ;A' ~~ .' .':. ."
~ ! ->.~ ..~LUI2:..~i,. i.: ...~. ,:.::~ *:...~,.. .:~ :~ .;
":= ' ::x . 1.1.\,......,..
Hi: - ::.$; .'~~;. . t::m:;;t.. '';' ;~: \.
h ~ ~.~. ',' ':~ ~ Y', .. .. IO,?
h:;; f--- :to ~:::::'. w: '. -
T'" L:x I / /X' <<I:-:"it<<{~
r:t. h~ ~ f---: :.i m:~' : "', '...' .::~~~W:+:-:.Y,~.~~}
LO
o
o
N
.~
<(
i:i
Q)
C
'-=
a..
fii
1
- a..
-~ ~--
- 0::"- l/l
.- ............_ I Q)__
~ <( - 01 M ~ .~ "7 N
~~'7~c::O::-2:uo_
- O::O::O::O::=-CQ)--M
C::- l/l "7 - - - - ~ 01.9 en 01 ro U g> _ l3
o Q) <( 01 01 01 01 :> .!: l/l oI:S .!: .- _'C - 0 .-
~ :;::; - .!:.!:.!:.!: 0 Q) .s; a. e -:J ~ ::> '8
~ro ro Q)Q)Q)Q)~~~l3~Q)~n~~--a..8 ~
I-~ ~ ~~~~'~O~~~EeS6roOo-::>8 ~
~~~~~~OOOOIll~~~en~~~OIE~~~~::> 2
Q) 2 :J 2.~ 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ U, =E Q) _ ~o 0 E Ill.!: ~ -......... l/l a.. g
a.1Il~1Il~<(----0 EIIl :2l/l_-~Cb-'O>
o ~ 0:::: 01 - E E E E ". III 0 ~ 0 :J.... III - Q) .- Q)
~o~~<(c :>u.OC~~"'OOC~~ol/lQ)-~
a..a.Q)t+= III III III III I- O~C'-'Q) -l:: Cl/lt+=c
~~~-IIlU.u.u.u. Q)'I-o:J-_~-mcEm::>~1Il
-0 l/l1ll~1111-" l/l~ lIluQ)1Il Q) 0 l/l
u"o-IIl~~Q)Q)Q)m~~~l/l~E~'-~~EO:J Ullll/l
Q).... Q):J---- I__Q) . Q)~IIlQ) .- - Q)
~.!:'O~C~OI010101Q)=~-o~EcU>cE~'O~~TI~
:J C '-' Q) :J .!: .!: .!: .!: C :J 0 ~ Q) 0 Q) Q) > Q) 0 0 Q) .~ :J C III
en::>~g>~eneneneneno:2~a..zo~O::oI:S~O~:2Ia..::>~
[] III ~ I . ~lllllllllllmll1l~
RENAISSANCE PLANNING GROUP
100 Eels!
.:07 ".487 "006 j . foy: ,~07 -i~87 -0058
August 4, 2005
Mr. Russ Wagner, AICP
Community Development Director
City of Ocoee
150 North lakeshore Drive
Ocoee, Fl 34761
Subject: Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis - Maguire Road and Wesmere Parkway Intersection
Dear Mr. Wagner,
Residents currently experiencing delays when exiting their community onto Maguire Road initiated
the need for a traffic signal warrant analysis to assess conditions at the intersection of Wesmere
Parkway onto Maguire Road. With the proposed townhouse development on the Wesmere
Property on the east side of Maguire Road opposite from Wesmere Parkway, there is a concern
that the operating condition at this intersection will become worse.
Renaissance Planning Group conducted a traffic signal warrant analysis in accordance with the
procedures described in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 2003 Edition. Based on
this analysis, we concluded that a traffic signal is not warranted at this time. Of the eight possible
warrants, only the peak-hour volume warrant was met. However, because the new development
will include an elementary school, the intersection should meet the school warrant once the school is
built. The following paragraphs and the attached appendix document the study procedures and
data used to make this determination.
STUDY CONTEXT
The intersection of Wesmere Parkway and Maguire Road is a three-way intersection with stop
control for eastbound traffic on Wesmere Parkway, which can turn either left or right onto
Maguire Road. Wesmere Parkway is used to access a gated residential community. With the
development of the Wesmere Property, the intersection will become a four-way intersection with
the extended portion of Wesmere Parkway serving as one of two entrances to the new, gated
townhouse community. The study area and location of the intersection is shown in Figure 1.
Adjacent Land Uses
The Wesmere Parkway and Maguire Road intersection is immediately surrounded by existing or
future residential uses. Single family housing is located to the west of the intersection with both
single and multifamily housing to the east. Existing commercial development is located further to
the south with commercial development and a school proposed further to the north. The majority
of traffic in this area is connecting the residential communities to the south to the major
transportation connections to the north, including SR 50, Florida's Turnpike, the East-West
Expressway, and the Western Beltway.
Page 1
. .
.
RENAISSANCE PLANNING GROUP
100 East Pine Street, Ste 401 Orlando, Florida 32801 . phone: 407-487-0061. fox: 407-487-0058
Figure 1 - Study Area
tyAllOO'::-" U
~~-
~
~ - Tomyn Blvd
~~~Silhlv.n-f Ills Or:-::-::--.
!.~; c:::; r-~~""
10 \. />,,-,,-,,', I
Ilta ~~~\~~. ~// ~..:~ I'
I.~ I ~ ':0,0, ~ ~1i//"~,<::~_'"
ILJ c- q"~ l:r"V // ,,> <SloughCt
(I -?~"";:"""':I"f .~~Gl. :'/ 11 rr=-.J I!
l ~,... ~ ....-~.-~lj
'L ~ '-'0'-------, ~....... I
-_~~~,.r Pin;' q:~.r.d Sridge Ol~
L~ullnburg.Ln :,:~risbrook. St ~ -0 '
11. ~t:. '~IOllon Or ~ f(JJ,. ~g -=: ~ ;t:::e
~ "" -~\V~ Moor~ Ct~. .".
~'l€~-~.~ Sf //V'- Grovesmere Loop ~ B. ridge C,..k Blvd
lb--~ ~ 1 [I 1"=' '1'::0 0 ,-:;..:- --, I J~
:t~+..'i::.., II i'::::... ~ lj) \ I a. (i /Longsh~doWs.Ct ___ I
-",~", \~ // v~~../.-' 'u.. ...r' ,j --;::::-,,-- -II
Gl ~~+o>~<../,: \~^-\ I _.14391.....=L;arg~C~1...Ct l~g_ J) ,.. ~ ~
(..o~-:\ '~~.f )^.\ hJ ,::. ,1 -I'. .~ --1 r~ .1 ::tl r ~" =
~~1"''''\, .1',./" \'; GrovO$hiil.-Ct I' \<;;.. u G,;' \\~~. M
, ,,-.. ~ /1 f "o-=::> r-- - -, 1--- ----.J.' < "'- .. , ,. 'I \ t :x:
.,f""~<r1. ""'-! 'I I - 12!.~ngeShileCt '- - ~"rir-:s -;..:!. \ 'j!:2[ g,3
"" I '\~r 1 'J"~ It, ~"II !Q, I'" ~-
;0 I' .0. 'b II I '~1)>1IO-:X:-- - u
saddelisaYLoo. p voo~ ':::::::::. il ~I ....~ (-G~ld \: ~?~ ~ l~ll;-llfnL~(L
Du;:O-;;'\\,o<''''<''ffOlJ'~ l \~' ~-~.~;~{oJpiJ~ 1 ~ l\~ ~~~_
M/;kr.;;:-;ll ~l II ) F.rn M~ LooP I L.J ....:~-=---Ol D J
'/"~b lP-~"~TD~' I' r CJ LJ I I ~ Q, -
. ,206-~'=' 1\ "~Rob.rsonRd ~ L_~o~~ _'S~~~~point.TeI
.1- --11000fll~ ~ :-, ---,; In! \'
@2005Yahoo!Ine ,\<......- 1, I lJ(92q05 NAVTEQ
I
J
J
\..iIl1.Qal<Ci,
,LiMe.. (~
L:i/ly '=j Seminol., L
r't-il) ]i
\. ~(,'-I. ~o:!::::
~\?/l[\
Lake ~~ " "'-
)>'"
Peat!. f" < '-
Q\ ~'} ..
,\".;;." '"..
...,.~. <~;/ \~"'-(l
'...-'. -- .,..
/,,~- ..
~ '"
0-
(~k~i-
\;, Furlong Way
--....:- :)
Intersection Geometry
Wesmere Parkway is a two-lane, local road providing gated access to a residential community.
There are two entrance lanes for residents and guests and two exiting lanes with stop control for
exclusive left and right turns. The left-turn lane would become a shared thru and left-turn lane
with the development of the Wesmere Property. There is approximately 125-feet of storage
between Maguire Road and the gated entrance, allowing storage for five vehicles. Maguire
Road is a four-lane minor arterial road with a raised median. A northbound left-turn lane and
southbound right-turn lane provide access to the existing Wesmere Parkway. A southbound left-
turn lane provides access to the proposed Wesmere Property development. There is currently no
traffic control northbound or southbound on Maguire Road. Sidewalks along all three legs of the
intersection accommodate pedestrian traffic. Two painted crosswalks allow for the crossing of the
existing Wesmere Parkway and the stub-out to the proposed Wesmere Property development.
The design of the entrance to the proposed Wesmere Property would utilize a similar design to
that of the existing Wesmere Parkway entrance. Two entrance lanes would provide access to
Page 2 of 5
www.citiesthatwork.com
.
RENAISSANCE PLANNING GROUP
100 East Pine Street, Ste 401 Orlando, Florida 32801 . phone: 407-487-0061. fox: 407-487-0058
residents and guests through a gated entrance. One additional exiting lane will allow for
exclusive right-turn, thru, and left-turn lanes.
WARRANT ANALYSIS
Renaissance applied the procedures described in the. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices
(MUTCD), 2003 Edition for this analysis. Table 1, below, summarizes the results of the warrant
analysis from Section 4C.0 1 of the MUTeD. The full technical analysis is located in the appendix.
A traffic signal should not be installed unless one or more of the warrants are met, although there
is no requirement to install a traffic signal unless the analysis is compelling enough to warrant one.
Eight-hour turning movement counts were collected on Thursday, June 16, 2005, and an AM delay
study was performed on Thursday, June 23, 2005. To account for seasonal issues that may affect
trip-making (e.g., school being out of session), countywide adjustment factors from the Florida
Department of Transportation (FOOT) were applied to the data (0.98 axle factor, 1.02 seasonal
factor).
To project traffic conditions in 2006 to account for the build-out of the Wesmere Property, the
growth factors published in the Wesmere Property Traffic Study were applied to the existing
traffic (110.1 percent for Maguire Road, 105.0 percent for Wesmere Parkway). The reserved
traffic (trips committed for other projects in the area) and Wesmere Property traffic was added
to the projected 2006 traffic volume, in order to get a full picture of the traffic conditions in
2006.
The warrants assess the minor street approach with the higher volume. In 2006, the eastbound
Wesmere Parkway approach is projected to carry a higher volume than the westbound Wesmere
Property approach. Therefore, the eastbound Wesmere Parkway approach was used in the
analysis.
Table 1 - Warrant Summary Table, Standard Analysis
Warrant Description Comments Satisfied?
1 Eight-hour volume Major street volume is substantial but minor street No
volume does not meet the warrant for all eight hours.
2 Four-hour volume Major street volume is substantial but minor street No
volume does not meet the warrant for all four hours.
3 Peak-hour volume Both major and minor street volumes warrant a signal Yes
during the morning peak hour (7:30am-8:30am).
4 Pedestrian volume Low pedestrian volume does not meet the warrant. No
5 School crossing There is no school in the immediate area at this time.* N/A
Page 3 of 5
www.citiesthatwork.com
..
RENAISSANCE PLANNING GROUP
100 East Pine Street. Ste 401 Orlando, Florida 32801 . phone: 407 -487 -0061 . fox: 407-487-0058
Warrant Description Comments Satisfied?
6 Coordinated signal The signal is not necessary for coordinating N/A
system progressive traffic movement.
7 Crash experience The six crashes that occurred during a 12-month No
period initially met the warrant, but low minor street
volume and inadequate trial with alternatives to
reduce crash frequency do not meet the warrant.
8 Roadway network The signal is not necessary for encouraging N/A
organization of traffic flow on a roadway network.
* The Wesmere Property development proposal includes plans for a new elementary school, to be located
on the east side of Maguire Parkway and Tomyn Road. The build out year for the first phase of the
Wesmere Property development is 2006, which does not include the school.
NOTE: Warrant applies to the "minor street approach with higher volume," or the eastbound segment of
Wesmere Parkway. The analysis assumes projected traffic volumes for 2006.
RECOMMENDA liONS
Based on the MUTeD analysis, a traffic signal is not warranted at this time. Of the eight possible
warrants, only the peak-hour volume warrant was met. Outside of the morning peak hour, the
minor street volume on Wesmere Parkway is too low to warrant a signal. Pedestrian volume,
crash experience, and other factors fall short of suggesting that a signal is warranted. Because
many of the conditions in the study area caused the analysis to fall just under the threshold for
warranting a signal, the city should continue to monitor the area. Ultimately, the need for a signal
relies on the volume of traffic on the minor street (eastbound Wesmere Parkway west of
Maguire). Because the neighborhoods in this area that would use Wesmere Parkway are largely
built-out, the overall traffic volume is not likely to change. Therefore, the city may want to
consider the following options to alleviate the eastbound Wesmere Parkway delay during the
morning peak hour. These options are as follows:
1. Install a traffic signal that fully operates during the morning peak. During the remainder of
the day, the signal would flash yellow for Maguire Road traffic and flash red for Wesmere
Parkway traffic. This kind of signal should be well-signed in order to alert drivers to the
changing traffic patterns during the day.
2. Do not install a traffic signal. This intersection should continue to be monitored in the future.
The city should consider updating this analysis in the fall by conducting turning movement
counts when school is in session, as a way of verifying the accurate use of the seasonal factor.
3. Install a traffic signal that is fully operational at all times. The Wesmere Property
development includes land for an elementary school. Because an elementary school at this
Page 4 of 5
www.citiesthatwork.com
..
RENAISSANCE PLANNING GROUP
100 East Pine Street, Ste 401 Orlando, Florida 32801 . phone: 407-487-0061. fox: 407-487-0058
location will serve students on the east and west sides of Maguire Road, this location should
become the school crossing. Designating this intersection as a school crossing will increase
safety at the intersection of Maguire and Tomyn, which will become the school bus access
road.
With the conversion of the intersection from a tbree-Iegged to a four-legged intersection, the
number conflicting movements will increase, which will change the overall traffic patterns at
this intersection. A traffic signal will have a significant impact on safety at this location,
particularly when the school opens and it becomes a school crossing. The new and existing
developments should share the cost of the traffic signal based on their traffic contributions to
the intersection.
Options #1 and #3 will require that the developer for the Villages of Wesmere and the existing
Wesmere development share the cost for the traffic signal installation. The following section
explains the traffic splits at the intersection to come up with the fair share for the installation of
traffic signal:
. Based on the projected traffic at the intersection of Maguire Road and Wesmere Parkway,
274 trips will be either exiting or entering the two developments during PM Peak Hour.
. Of the 274 trips, 57 trips (roughly 21 percent of the minor street traffic) will be either exiting
or entering the Villages of Wesmere development.
. Based on the overall benefits, the signal cost can be split between the two developments with
the following ratio:
· 79 percent to the existing Wesmere development and
· 21 percent to the Villages of Wesmere
It should be noted that the City's design stan~ards require black mast arm style traffic signals. In
addition, any signal that is installed should be fully actuated with significant delay for traffic
entering Maguire Road.
Thank you for the opportunity to conduct this analysis. Please feel free to call if you have any
questions.
Sincerely,
J~SciWo-
Julie C. Salvo, AICP
Senior Planner
Renaissance Planning Group
\ \Snap 1 \SHAREl \Projects\Ocoee\Reviews\ Wesmere\ WarrantAnalysis\ WarrantMemo2.doc
Page 5 of 5
www.citiesthatwork.com
APPENDIX: WARRANT ANALYSIS
Form 750-020-01
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING - 07/99
TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT SUMMARY Page1of6
City: Ocoee Engineer: Jared Ulmer
County: Orange Date: June 21, 2005
Major Street: Maguire Road Lanes: 4 Critical Approach Speed: 45
-
Minor Street: Wesmere Parkway Lanes: 2
-
Volume level Criteria
1. Is the critical speed of major street traffic> 70 km/h (40 mph) ? [RI Yes D No
2. Is the intersection in a built-up area of isolated community of <10,000 population? DYes [RI No
If Question 1 or 2 above is answered "Yes", then use "70%" volume level [RI 70% D 100%
WARRANT 1 - EIGHT-HOUR VEHICULAR VOLUME Applicable: [RI Yes D No
Warrant 1 is satisfied if Condition A or Condition B is "100%" satisfied. Satisfied: DYes [RI No
Warrant is also satisfied if both Condition A and Condition Bare "80%" satisfied.
Condition A - Minimum Vehicular Volume 70% Satisfied: D Yes [RI No
80% Satisfied: D Yes [RI No
Eight Highest Hours
Minimum Requirements E E E
(volumes in veh/hr) (80% Shown in Brackets) E E E E E E III C. c. E E E E E E E
III III III III III III 0 0 0 c. c. c. c. c. c. c.
Approach lanes 1 2 or more 0 0 0 0 0 0 (Y') (Y') (Y') 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
(Y') (Y') (Y') (Y') (Y') (Y') (Y') (Y') (Y') (Y') (Y') (Y') (Y')
Volume level 100% 70% 100% 70% cD r:..: r:..: co co Cri ...... N N (.oj .;,,: .;,,: Ii) Ii) cD
...... ...... ...... ......
Both Approaches 500 350 600 420 1,471 2,001 1,819 1,839 1,869 2,243 2,338 2,306
on Major Street (400) (480)
Highest Approach 150 105 200 140 90 137 76 50 58 51 52 50
on Minor Street (120) (160)
Record 8 highest hours and the corresponding volumes in boxes provided. Condition is 100% satisfied if the
minimum volumes are met for eight hours. Condition is 80% satisfied if parenthetical volumes are met for eight hours.
Condition B - Interruption of Continuous Traffic Applicable: [RI Yes D No
Condition B is intended for application where the traffic volume is Excessive Delay: [RI Yes D No
so heavy that traffic on the minor street suffers excessive delay. 70% Satisfied: DYes [RI No
80% Satisfied: DYes [RI No
Eight Highest Hours
Minimum Requirements E E E
(volumes in veh/hr) (80% Shown in Brackets) E E E E E E III a. a. E E E E E E E
Approach lanes 2 or more III III III III III III 0 0 0 a. a. a. a. c. a. a.
1 0 0 0 0 0 0 (Y') (Y') ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
(Y') (Y') (Y') (Y') (Y') (Y') N (Y') (Y') (Y') (Y') (Y') (Y') (Y')
Volume level 100% 70% 100% 70% r:..: co co Cri ...... N (.oj .;,,: .;,,: Ii) Ii)
<D I'- ...... ...... ...... ...... <D
Both Approaches 750 525 900 630 1,471 2,001 1,819 1,839 1,869 2,243 2,338 2,306
on Major Street (600) (720)
Highest Approach 75 53 100 70 90 137 76 50 58 51 52 50
on Minor Street (60) (80)
Record 8 highest hours and the corresponding volumes in boxes provided. Condition is 100% satisfied ifthe
minimum volumes are met for eight hours. Condition is 80% satisfied if parenthetical volumes are met for eight hours.
Source: Revised from NCHRP Report 457
TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT SUMMARY
Fonn 750-020-01
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING - 07/99
Page 3 of 6
City: Ocoee Engineer: Jared Ulmer
County: Orange Date: June 21, 2005
Major Street: Maguire Road Lanes: 4 Critical Approach Speed: 45
Minor Street: Wesmere Parkway Lanes: 2
Volume level Criteria
1. Is the critical speed of major street traffic> 70 km/h (40 mph) ?
2. Is the intersection in a built-up area of isolated community of <10,000 population?
1RI Yes
DYes
o No
1RI No
If Question 1 or 2 above is answered "Yes", then use "70%" volume level
1RI 70%
o 100%
WARRANT 2 - FOUR-HOUR VEHICULAR VOLUME
If all four points lie above the appropriate line, then the warrant is satisfied.
Applicable:
Satisfied:
1RI Yes
DYes
o No
1RI No
Plot four volume combinations on the applicable figure below.
Four Volumes
Highest Major Minor
Hours Street Street
6:30am 1,471 90
7:30am
7:30am 2,001 137
8:30am
8:30am 1,819 76
9:30am
12:30pm 1,869 58
1 :30pm
700
x 600
a..
>
X 500
tu~
wO 400
a: a:
....0..
U)o..
a:c(
OW 300
z::O
-:>
::O...J
0
> 200
x
Cl
X 100
0
300 400
'115
'80
500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400
MAJOR SlREET - TOTAL OF BOni APPROACHES - 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 threshold for a minor street approach with one lane.
FIGURE 4C-2: Criteria for "70%" Volume level
(Community Less than 10,000 population or above 70 kmlhr (40 mph) on Major Street)
400
x
a..
>
x 300
tii~
l:!~
:n ~ 200
a:c(
~~
i:3
o
>
x
Cl
X
.
100
'80. .
"60 .
0 .
200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 2000
MAJOR STREET. TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES - 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 threshold for a minor street approach with one lane.
Source: Revised from NCHRP Report 457
, .
TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT SUMMARY
Form 750-020-01
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING - 07/99
Page 4 016
City: Ocoee Engineer: Jared Ulmer
County: Orange Date: June 21, 2005
Major Street: Maguire Road Lanes: 4 Critical Approach Speed: 45
Minor Street: Wesmere Parkway Lanes: 2
Volume Level Criteria
1. Is the critical speed of major street traffic> 70 km/h (40 mph) ?
2. Is the intersection in a built-up area of isolated community of <10,000 population?
[8] Yes
DYes
o No
[8] No
[8] 70%
o 100%
If Question 1 or 2 above is answered "Yes", then use "70%" volume level
WARRANT 3 - PEAK HOUR
If all three criteria are fullfilled or the plotted point lies above the appropriate line,
then the warrant is satisfed.
Unusual condition justifying
use of warrant:
Record hour when criteria are fulfilled
and the corresponding delay or volume
in boxes provided.
Criteria
1. Delay on Minor Approach
'(vehicle-hours)
Approach Lanes 1 2
Delay Criteria' 4.0 5.0
Delay' 0.5
Fulfilled?: 0 Yes [8] No
2. Volume on Minor Approach
'(vehicles per hour)
Approach Lanes 1 2
Volume Criteria' 100 150
Volume' 137
Fulfilled?: [8] Yes 0 No
3. Total Entering Volume
'(vehicles per hour)
No. of Approaches 3 4
Volume Criteria' 650 800
Volume' 2,001
Fulfilled?: [8] Yes 0 No
Source: Revised from NCHRP Report 457
Applicable:
Satisfied:
[8] Yes
[8] Yes
o No
o No
Plot volume combination on the applicable figure below.
600
:I: 500
0.
::
:I:
tu~ 400
wO
0:0:
....0.
<no. 300
0:<
OW
z::O
-::>
::0....1 200
0
>
:I:
C)
;: 100
'100
'150
o
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
(Community Less than 10,000 population or above 70 kmlhr (40 mph) on Major Street)
500
il: 400
>
2 OR MPRE LANE~ & 2 OR MO~E LANES i
:I:
tu~ 300
wO
I=g:
<no.
0:<
OW
z::lE 200
-::>
::lE....I
0
>
:I:
Cl 100
;:
0
300 400
.
'100
'75
1300
.
2000
500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100
MAJOR STREET - TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES - VPH
1200
'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 threshold for a minor street approach with one lane.
\ .
Fonn 750-020-01
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING - 07/99
TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT SUMMARY Page 5 of 6
City: Ocoee Engineer: Jared Ulmer
County: Orange Date: June 21, 2005
Major Street: Maguire Road Lanes: 4 Critical Approach Speed: 45
-
Minor Street: Wesmere Parkway Lanes: 2
-
WARRANT 4 - PEDESTRIAN VOLUME Applicable: [R] Yes o No
Record hours where criteria are fulfilled and the corresponding volume or gap Satisfied: DYes [R] No
frequency in the boxes provided. The warrant is satisfied if condition 1 or 2 is fulfilled
and condition 3 is fulfilled.
Pedestrian Pedestrian Fulfilled?
Criteria Hour Volume Gaps Yes No
1. Pedestrian volume crossing the major street is 11 :30am-12:30pm 3
100 ped/hr or more for each of any four hours 12:30pm-1 :30pm 1 [RJ
and there are less than 60 gaps per hour in the 3:30pm-4:30pm 4
major street traffic stream of adequate length. 4:30pm-5:30pm 3
2. Pedestrian volume crossing the major street is
190 ped/hr or more for anyone hour and there 3:30pm-4:30pm 4 [RJ
are less than 60 gaps per hour in the major street
traffic stream of adequate length.
3. The nearest traffic signal along the major street is located more than 90 m (300 ft) away, or the nearest signal [RJ
is within 90 m (300 ft) but the proposed traffic signal will not restrict the progressive movement of traffic.
WARRANT 5 - SCHOOL CROSSING Applicable: 0 Yes [R] No
Record hours where criteria are fulfilled and the corresponding volume or gap Satisfied: 0 Yes o No
frequency in the boxes provided. The warrant is satisfied if all three of the criteria
are fulfilled.
I I Fulfilled? I
Criteria Yes I No
1. There are a minimum of 20 students crossing the major street I Students: Hour:
during the highest crossing hour.
2. There are fewer adequate gaps in the major street traffic stream during the period Minutes: IGaps:
when the children are using the crossing than the number of minutes in the same period.
3. The nearest traffic signal along the major street is located more than 90 m (300 ft) away, or the nearest signal
is within 90 m (300 ft) but the proposed traffic signal will not restrict the progressive movement of traffic.
WARRANT 6 - COORDINATED SIGNAL SYSTEM Applicable: 0 Yes [R] No
Indicate if the criteria are fulfilled in the boxes provided. The warrant is Satisfied: 0 Yes o No
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).
I I Fulfilled? I
Criteria Yes I No
1. On a one-way street or a street that has traffic predominately in one direction, the adjacent signals are
so far 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.
Source: Revised from NCHRP Report 457
.. r" " ~ .
Form 750-020-01
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING - 07/99
TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT SUMMARY Page 6 016
City: Ocoee Engineer: Jared Ulmer
County: Orange Date: June 21, 2005
Major Street: Maguire Road Lanes: 4 Critical Approach Speed: 45
-
Minor Street: Wesmere Parkway Lanes: 2
-
WARRANT 7 - CRASH EXPERIENCE Applicable: lRl Yes o No
Record hours where criteria are fulfilled, the corresponding volume, and other Satisfied: DYes lRl No
information in the boxes provided. The warrant is satisfied if all three of the criteria
are fulfilled.
Met? Fulfilled?
Criteria Hour Volume Yes No Yes No
1. One of the Warrant 1, Condition A (80% satisfied) lRl
warrants Warrant 1, Condition B (80% satisfied) lRl
to the right Warrant 4, Pedestrian Volume lRl
is met. at 80% of volume requirements: lRl
80 ped/hrfor four (4) hours or
152 ped/hr for one (1) hour
2. Adequate trial of other remedial measure Measure tried: none [R]
has failed to reduce crash frequency.
3. Five or more reported crashes, of types susceptible to I Number of crashes per 12 months: 6 [R]
correction by signal, have occurred within a 12-mo. period.
WARRANT8-ROADWAYNE~ORK Applicable: 0 Yes lRl No
Record hours where criteria are fulfilled, and the corresponding volume or other Satisfied: 0 Yes o No
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 characteristics listed.
I I Met? I Fulfilled? I
Criteria Yes I No Yes I No
1. Both of a. Total entering volume of at least 1,000 veh/hr Entering Volume:
the criteria during a typical weekday peak hour.
to the right b. Five-year projected volumes that satisfy Warrant: 1 I 2 I 3
are met. one or more of Warrants 1, 2, or 3. Satisfied?: I I
2. Total entering volume at least +- Hour
1,000 veh/hr for each of any 5 hrs
of a non-normal business day +- Volume
(Sat. or Sun.)
Met? Fulfilled?
Characteristics of Major Routes Yes No Yes No
1. Part of the street or highway system that serves as the principal roadway Major Street:
network for through traffic flow. 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:
CONCLUSIONS Warrants Satisfied: ~
Remarks: 8-hour and 4-hour warrants are only partially met. Peak-hour warrant is met. Pedestrian warrant is not
met. Crash warrant is only partially met based on the number of crashes but is not met based on
volume and because remedial measures have not been attempted. The other warrants are not applicable.
Source: Revised from NCHRP Report 457
Mayor
S. Scott Vandergrift
center of Good L .
<\.~e Jt?~
Commissioners
Gary Hood, District 1
Scott Anderson, District 2
Rusty Johnson, District 3
Nancy J. Parker, District
City Manager
Ro bert Frank
d
MEMORANDUM
TO: Carolyn Alexander, Development Review Coordinator
FROM: Catherine Armstrong, Planning Manager
DATE: February 23,2006
SUBJECT: FSP - The Villages of Wesmere Townhomes
5th staff review
These comments list the concerns of the Community Development Department related to the
current application submittal. However, it is possible that when changes are made to the
drawings in response to these comments, that additional comments may be generated after
further review of the revised application. The following staff comments are in to the submittal
dated February 22,2006 from Miller Legg.
1. Sheet LP-5: The concrete poles are to be bronze aggregate. The cut sheets
provided on this sheet for the poles only specified 'decorative concrete.'
-
Mayor
S. Scott Vandergrift
center of Good L' .
~~e l~l~
Commissioners
Gary Hood, District 1
Scott Anderson, District 2
Rusty Johnson, District 3
Nancy J. Parker, District 4
Ci ty Manager
Robert Frank
The Village ofWesmere Townhomes - Final Subdivision Plan
Large Scale Site Plan - 5th Staff Review
Engineering Department Comments
February 23, 2006
The following are the results of your fifth submittal for the above referenced project. If you have
any questions pertaining to the requested information, please contact our office.
1. (Repeat Comment) Show a 10' utility easement around the reuse stub out in the park area
on the east side of the property. (Modified) Will only one reuse connection be sufficient to
supply the development with reuse water?
2. (Repeat Comment) On sheet HRD-4, relocate the DIP watermain to be spaced 10' from the
wall. The reuse main running parallel should be spaced 5' from the DIP watermain. This
will place the reuse main on City property. (Modified) The D.I.P. water main where it
crosses back onto you property is located within 10' from the column of the fence.
Engineering Department
Ryan P. Howard, E.I.
Staff Engineer
City of Ocoee . 150 N Lakeshore Drive' Ocoee, Florida 34761
Phone: (407) 905-3100' Fax: (407) 656-8504 . www.ci.ocoee.fl.us