Florida Avenue Complete Streets Feasibility Study€¦ · DRAFT -May 21, 2014 Florida Avenue...

Florida Avenue Complete Streets Feasibility Study

Draft May 2014

DRAFT -May 21, 2014 Florida Avenue Complete Streets Feasibility Study

Page - 1

Contents

Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 4 What Is A Complete Street? ................................................................................................................... 7 Data Collection ..................................................................................................................................... 11

Existing sidewalks and Pedestrian facilities .................................................................................... 11

Bicycle network .............................................................................................................................. 11

Transit stops .................................................................................................................................. 11

Drainage ........................................................................................................................................ 14

Soils ............................................................................................................................................... 17

Right-of- Way ................................................................................................................................. 17

Historical Crash Data ...................................................................................................................... 20

Vehicular Volumes and Level of Service (LOS) ................................................................................. 20

Land Use Assessment ..................................................................................................................... 23

Review of Existing Streetscape Plans .............................................................................................. 27

Existing Stormwater Plans .............................................................................................................. 30 Issues and Opportunities ..................................................................................................................... 31 Stakeholder Meetings .......................................................................................................................... 34 Recommendations ............................................................................................................................... 35

Typical Section ............................................................................................................................... 35

Southern Gateway ......................................................................................................................... 36

Rosa Jones Boulevard to Lemon Street Block .................................................................................. 37

Saint Charles Street ........................................................................................................................ 39

Raised Tables at Intersections ........................................................................................................ 41

Northern Gateway ......................................................................................................................... 43

Cost Estimate ................................................................................................................................. 48 Appendix A: Sunshine One Call ........................................................................................................... 49 Appendix B: Soils Report ..................................................................................................................... 50 Appendix C: Portion of 90 Percent Engineering Plans ........................................................................ 51 Appendix D: Stakeholder Meeting Notes ........................................................................................... 52 Appendix E: Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element ................................................................ 53


Page - 2

List of Figures Figure 1: Study Area .............................................................................................................................. 6

Figure 2: Benefits of Complete Streets ................................................................................................. 7

Figure 3: Sidewalk Network ................................................................................................................ 12

Figure 4: Pedestrian Circulation ........................................................................................................... 13

Figure 5: QUAD Map ........................................................................................................................... 15

Figure 6: City of Cocoa Storm System Map ......................................................................................... 16

Figure 7: FEMA FIRM 12009C043G ...................................................................................................... 19

Figure 8: Florida Avenue Corridor Crash Map ..................................................................................... 22

Figure 9: Existing Land Use .................................................................................................................. 24

Figure 10: Form Based Codes .............................................................................................................. 25

Figure 12a: Comments on Existing Streetscape Plans ........................................................................ 28

Figure 12b: Comments on Existing Streetscape Plans ........................................................................ 29

Figure 13: Complete Streets Design Opportunities ............................................................................ 32

Figure 14: 90 Percent Plans Typical Section ........................................................................................ 35

Figure 15: Alternative Typical Section ................................................................................................. 35

Figure 16a: Southern Gateway: Rosa Jones Blvd and Florida Ave Intersection: Today ...................... 36

Figure 16b: Southern Gateway: Rosa Jones Blvd and Florida Ave Intersection: Today ..................... 37

Figure 17: Rosa Jones Boulevard to Travis Street ............................................................................... 38

Figure 18: Travis Street to Factory Street ........................................................................................... 40

Figure 19: Raised Tables ...................................................................................................................... 42

Figure 20a: Northern Gateway Alternative A ..................................................................................... 44

Figure 21b: Northern Gateway Alternative A Perspective ................................................................. 45

Figure 22a: Northern Gateway Alternative B - Park ........................................................................... 46

Figure 22b: Northern Gateway Alternative B - Park Perspective ....................................................... 47


Page - 3

List of Tables Table 1: Vehicular Gap Required for Pedestrians to Comfortably Cross Roadway .............................. 8

Table 2: Probability of Pedestrian Fatality ............................................................................................ 9

Table 3: Crash Summary ..................................................................................................................... 21


Page - 4

INTRODUCTION To support mobility and sustainability, the Space Coast Transportation Planning Organization (SCTPO) is aggressively implementing Complete Streets principles on existing roadways. In 2011, the SCTPO created and adopted the SCTPO Complete Streets Guiding Principles, including a Complete Streets Vision for Brevard County along with principles and strategies to achieve that vision. One of the strategies listed was for the SCTPO to develop a procedure to provide financial assistance to worthy Complete Streets projects with an emphasis on funding projects that provide high benefit at low cost.

To implement this strategy, the SCTPO launched a Complete Streets funding assistance program in early 2011. The 2011 SCTPO Transportation Project Priorities allocated a total of $18 million for feasibility studies, design, and construction of Complete Streets projects to be spent in Fiscal Year 2015, 2016, and 2017. The SCTPO, in coordination with the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) District 5 and many local jurisdictions throughout Brevard County, completed the Complete Streets Methodology Development and Project Screening project in December 2013. From this study, the SCTPO Board approved six projects for Complete Streets funding. Florida Avenue from Rosa Jones Boulevard to SR 520 (King Street) was selected for construction funding for FY 2015/2016.

Florida Avenue plays a significant role in the City of Cocoa’s vision for Historic Cocoa Village and the Cocoa Waterfront. In 2008, the Cocoa Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) developed a master plan and implementation strategy for redevelopment within CRA limits as outlined in the Cocoa Waterfront Master Plan. The plan established six planning principals:

• Connect the river to the city • Enhance and connect open space • Livable approach to streets and traffic • Expand Main Street district-wide • Enhance the Village Arts image • Enhance the sub-districts

The recommendations for the study included improving Florida Avenue streetscape pedestrian experience. Alternative conceptual sections for Florida Avenue were developed which included narrow travel lanes, street trees, new sidewalks and on-street parking or bike lanes.

The Cocoa CRA continued forward with implementation of the Florida Avenue streetscape plan. The City worked with Bussen Mayer Engineering Group, Inc. to develop ninety percent engineering plans. The City is coordinating the streetscape improvements with a waterline replacement project located along Florida Avenue from SR 520 to Rosa Jones Boulevard.

The purpose of this feasibility study is to conduct a design review for the Florida Avenue streetscape project and recommend design elements, such as traffic calming, pedestrian crossings, gateway


Page - 5

features, landscaping and streetscaping elements that will further develop Florida Avenue as a Complete Street. The study builds on the previously completed ninety percent construction plans. For the purposes of this study, Florida Avenue Study boundaries extend from just south of the Rosa Jones Boulevard intersection to the south to just before the intersection of SR 520 (King Street) to the north (Florida Avenue changes names to Forrest Avenue between Oleander and SR 520.. Figure 1 displays the general project location and the study area.


Page - 6

Figure 1: Study Area


Page - 7

WHAT IS A COMPLETE STREET? The term ‘Complete Street’ was coined in 2003 by the America Bikes Coalition as it developed a transportation policy initiative to address all modes of travel along and across roadways:

“A Complete Streets Policy ensures that the entire right-of-way is routinely designed and operated to enable safe access for all users. Pedestrian, bicyclists, motorists and transit

riders of all ages and abilities must be able to safely move along and across the Complete Street.”

Complete Streets play an important role in supporting vibrant, sustainable communities. Cities that support alternative modes of travel through investments in their public spaces have found these investments pay back over time in the form of increased property values, increased office, retail and commercial growth, healthier residents, and more vibrant neighborhoods with strong community character and unique sense of place.

Figure 2: Benefits of Complete Streets


Page - 8

COMPLETE STREETS DESIGN ELEMENTS The Complete Streets movement builds upon a livable approach to streets and traffic, which emphasizes the role of the street in defining urban form. Livable roadway design balances the need to move traffic with supporting adjacent land uses and neighborhoods. The roadway serves as an organizing feature for development. Complete Streets further focus the role of roadway design on the safety and comfort of all roadway users.

Roadway design is context specific, but there are significant design elements that impact walking, biking, and transit use. These include:

1. Design Speed

Vehicular travel speed has a measured impact on both comfort and safety for pedestrians and bicyclists. Increasing vehicular speeds increases the difficulty for pedestrians to cross roadways, as greater gaps are required between vehicles as shown in Table 1.

Table 1: Vehicular Gap Required for Pedestrians to Comfortably Cross Roadway

Miles Per Hour Vehicular Stopping Sight

Distance (feet)

Vehicular Distance Required for Pedestrians to Cross Roadway if Vehicle Does Not Slow Down

(feet)

25 155 115

35 250 160

45 360 207

*Note: This assumes one 11-foot travel lanes and average walk speed of 3.5 feet per second.

Faster speeds increase the force with which a vehicle strikes a pedestrian, leading to more severe injuries and less likelihood of survival, as shown in Table 2.


Page - 9

Table 2: Probability of Pedestrian Fatality1

Miles Per Hour Probability of Fatality

20 5%

30 37%-45%

40 85%

The Los Angeles Model Design Manual for Living Streets, in concurrence with many design guidelines for Complete Streets, recommends roadway posted speeds be set between 20 mph to 35 mph. Many design guidelines also stipulate that the design speed of the roadway should equal the posted speed. Geometric design elements, such as horizontal and vertical curves, block length, and vehicular lane widths should reinforce that posted speed.

2. Roadway Width

Wider streets experience higher average and 85th percentile speeds than narrow streets. As street widths widen, accidents per mile increase. Wider streets act as barriers to pedestrian travel, making it difficult to cross the roadway. The number of travel lanes and the width of the travel lanes both impact the roadway width, and are therefore important complete street design elements.

3. Block Length

Reducing the unimpeded block length, or distance drivers may travel without being required to slow or stop, reduces travel speeds and provides more places for pedestrians to cross the street.

4. Connectivity

Network is significant in reducing travel distances for pedestrians and bicyclists.

1 Sources: (where is this sourced in the document text? We shouldn’t have “sources,” but just “1” or “2” linked to

the bit of text or diagram that is being sourced)

1. McLean A.J., Anderson R.W, Farmer M.J.B, Lee B.H., Brooks C.G>, 1994. Vehicles Speeds and thin Incidence of Fatal Pedestrian Collisions – Volume 1. Report No. CR 146. The Federal Office of Road Safety. Canberra,

Australia.

2. United Kingdom Department of Transportation, 1987. “Killing Speeds and Saving Lives.” London, England.


Page - 10

5. Pedestrian and Bicycle Amenities

The lack of sidewalks and bicycle facilities suppresses travel by these modes and endangers those who do chose to travel on foot or by bicycle. Sidewalks should be present along all collector and arterial roadways in urban areas. A separate bicycle lane is recommended for roadways with volumes over 3,000 vehicles per day (VPD)2 .

6. Raised Landscaped Medians, and Bulb-Outs

Complete Streets design focuses on roadway permeability, the ability for a pedestrian to move across a roadway. Bulb-outs and refuge islands assist pedestrian in crossing a roadway by making the pedestrian more visible and reducing the amount of pavement the pedestrian needs to cross. Raised medians provide a refuge for pedestrians crossing the roadway, allowing pedestrians to negotiate one direction of travel at a time.

7. Landscaping/Street Furniture

Horizontal separation from the roadway, by use of shade trees and street furniture, add to pedestrian comfort and sense of safety. Landscaping can also reduce the ambient temperature and provide refuge from the sun.

8. Parking

On-Street parking serves as a buffer for pedestrians and supports local commercial uses along the roadway. Parallel parking is the most common on-street parking used, but it can also include front-in angled parking (at roughly 45 or 60 degrees) or back-in angled parking (safer than front-in angled parking and often easier to execute than parallel parking).

2 Federal Highway Administration, 2003. “A Review of Pedestrian Safety Research in the United States and Abroad.” Publication

Number: FHWA-RD-03-042. Washington, D.C.


Page - 11

DATA COLLECTION

EXISTING SIDEWALKS AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES Figure 3: Sidewalk Network shows the existing sidewalk network. Beginning on west side of Forrest Avenue from SR 520 (King Street) to Oleander Street, there is sidewalk located on directly behind the curb. On the east side of Forrest Avenue, the sidewalk is also directly behind the curb from SR 520 (King Street) to Florida Avenue with no crossing to Oleander Street or the eastern side of Florida Avenue. Between Oleander Street and Stone Street, the sidewalk is located adjacent to the roadway. Between Stone Street and Travis Street, there is a landscape buffer between the roadway and the sidewalk. Between Travis Street and Rosa Jones Drive, the landscape buffer is interrupted by large driveway cuts. In many of these sections, the sidewalk is not level, and often pitches at the same angle as the adjacent driveway. The edges of the sidewalk are often not visibly defined. Accessible ramps within the corridor are inconsistent with some intersections lacking current code minimum ramps. There are two locations along the corridor where utilities block the sidewalk and/or pedestrian accessible ramps.

The CRA Master Plan defined a key goal of the Florida Avenue Complete Streets project to invite visitors to explore Cocoa Village west of Brevard Avenue. Figure 4: Pedestrian Circulation presents the existing pedestrian paths in Cocoa Village from Riverfront Park to Florida Avenue.

BICYCLE NETWORK There are no bicycle lanes present within the corridor. Similarly, there are no bicycle facilities intersecting the corridor. The SCTPO Bicycle and Pedestrian Mobility Plan identifies the study area as part of an Activity Node. In the future, the All Aboard Florida Trail and the East Coast Greenway Trail will parallel the corridor. The SCTPO Bicycle and Pedestrian Mobility Plan recommends sharrows along King Street from US 1 to 1400 feet east of Florida Avenue, but does not recommend other bicycle facilities in the study area.

TRANSIT STOPS Route 6 serves this corridor from Rosa Jones Drive to Lemon Street. There is a transit stop and bus pull-off located at city hall, on the north east corner of Orange Street and Florida Avenue. Route 4 and Route 1 traverse the corridor along SR 520 (King Street).


Page - 12

Figure 3: Sidewalk Network


Page - 13

Figure 4: Pedestrian Circulation


Page - 14

The following sources were used to obtain information on the existing utilities located within the project corridor:

1. Sunshine One Call 2. GIS utility data from the City of Cocoa 3. Florida Avenue Waterline Replacement Project 60% Construction Plans

The following is a listing of the utility owners present within the corridors shown on the Sunshine One Call:

• Brevard County Works Engineering - maintains traffic signals • City of Cocoa - underground 6” and 12”water and Sanitary Sewer • Florida City Gas - 4” steel gas line • Florida Power & Light - overhead facilities • FPL Fibernet LLC - aerial and underground facilities • Level 3 Communications LLC - aerial and underground facilities • Verizon Florida • AT&T Distribution • T W Telecom • Bright House Networks, LLC.- aerial facilities

Appendix A include summary of Sunshine One Call.

DRAINAGE The existing Florida Avenue stormwater management system consists of a curb and gutter stormwater system. Roadway and offsite runoff is collected and conveyed to inlets along Florida Avenue via curb and gutter and then conveyed to east-west trunk lines located at Rosa L. Jones Drive, Factory Street and Orange Street. The existing drainage pattern for the area consists of runoff sheet flowing in a west to east direction to the Indian River as shown on the USGS Quad Map (Cocoa). An inset of the project area is shown on Figure 5: QUAD Map. Currently, Florida Ave has no wet or dry water quality retention/detention management system. During the field review no significant signs of flooding were observed. However, discussions with property owners revealed offsite flooding on the property in the southwest corner of the intersection of SR 520 and S. Forrest Avenue occurs after storm events.

Storm sewer system GIS data has been obtained for the City of Cocoa for the project corridor. A schematic of the existing storm sewer system is shown Figure 6: City of Cocoa Storm System Map.


Page - 15

Figure 5: QUAD Map


Page - 16

Figure 6: City of Cocoa Storm System Map


Page - 17

Florida Avenue is located within the St Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD). The project corridor lies within two water body identification(WBID’s), 2963C1 and 2963D1, both of which are classified as an impaired basin for mercury in fish. The project also lies within an adopted Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for the pollutants nitrogen and phosphorus. There currently is no pending or project relevant SJRWMD permits within the project corridor.

The projects lies in Zone X, areas determined to be outside the 0.2% floodplain, as shown on Figure 7: FEMA FIRM 12009C043G.

SOILS The soils located along the project corridor consist of mainly Paola-Urban Land Complex and Urban Land as shown in the attached Soils Report from the Natural Resources Conversation Service (NRCS) (Appendix B).

RIGHT-OF- WAY As noted in the Review of Existing Streetscape Plans section on page 27, the Cocoa CRA and Bussen Mayer Engineering Group, Inc. have developed 90 percent engineering and landscape plans for Florida Avenue from Rosa Jones Boulevard to King S

treet. The proposed sidewalk and landscaping improvements were compared to the existing ROW lines called out on the plans in order to identify any potential ROW issues. Florida Avenue from Rosa Jones Boulevard to Oleander Street, the 90 percent plans displays the back of the proposed sidewalk to be at or just inside of the ROW line on both the east and west sides of the roadway. North of Oleander Street along Forrest Avenue and Florida Avenue, ROW issues were observed and are noted below:

• Along Forrest Avenue from Oleander Street to SR 520, the proposed sidewalk and landscaping improvements on the west side of the roadway seem to infringe upon Norman’s Raw Bar & Grill property by approximately 10 feet.

• The landscaping proposed in the southwest corner of the Forrest Avenue/SR 520 intersection also seems to be located on the Norman’s property.

• On the east side of Forrest Avenue, the proposed back of sidewalk is seen to extend on the Native American Art Gallery property by approximately two to three feet.

Along the west side of Florida Avenue, the proposed sidewalk is observed to be on the Native American Art Gallery property.


Page - 18

Appendix C contains a portion of the 90 percent plans showing existing ROW and proposed sidewalk/landscaping improvements.


Page - 19

Figure 7: FEMA FIRM 12009C043G


Page - 20

HISTORICAL CRASH DATA The historical crash data from 2009 to 2013 was obtained from the Signal Four Analytics crash database. The Signal Four Analytics database was developed and is maintained by the University of Florida in partnership with the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles (DHSMV). Florida Signal Four Analytics is an interactive, web-based system designed to support the crash mapping and analysis needs of law enforcement, traffic engineering, transportation planning agencies, and research institutions in Florida. The database includes geo-located crash data from state and local agencies. The primary observations from the historical crash data are:

82 total crashes were reported in the five year study period.

No pedestrian or bicycle crashes occurred during the five year period.

Angle (14 crashes), rear end (13 crashes), and head on (10 crashes) were the three highest crash types.

21 injury crashes were reported, 26% of total crashes.

0 fatal crashes occurred along the study corridor.

15 crashes occur in dusk, dawn or dark conditions, 18% of total crashes.

10 crashes occurred in wet pavement conditions, 12% of total crashes.

A majority of the 82 crashes occurred at intersections, either signalized or unsignalized, along the Florida Avenue corridor. Figure 8: Florida Avenue Corridor Crash Map illustrates the location of the crashes along the Florida Avenue study corridor.

VEHICULAR VOLUMES AND LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) Review of the City of Cocoa Comprehensive Plan shows that Florida Avenue is classified as an arterial roadway. The 2012 volume along Florida Avenue was 6,650 annual average daily traffic (AADT), as reported in the Annual 2012 SCTPO State of the System report. According to the Comprehensive Plan, Florida Avenue in the City of Cocoa has an adopted minimum LOS of E. Using the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) Generalized LOS Table 1, Florida Avenue is currently operating near the LOS C/D threshold. The Comprehensive Plan, with transportation element maps most recently updated in August 2009, display Florida Avenue operating at LOS C for the existing condition, LOS D in 2015, and LOS E in 2020. Appendix E contains applicable excerpts from the City of Cocoa Comprehensive Plan.


Page - 21

Table 3: Crash Summary

Analysis Year Total Average Percent 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013Type of Crash

Rear End 5 1 2 1 4 13 2.6 15.85%Angle 1 2 1 5 5 14 2.8 17.07%Sideswipe 0 0 3 3 1 7 1.4 8.54%Head On 0 1 0 2 7 10 2 12.20%Right Turn 0 1 1 0 0 2 0.4 2.44%Off Road 1 3 0 1 1 6 1.2 7.32%Unknown 10 7 0 0 0 17 3.4 20.73%Other 4 5 1 1 2 13 2.6 15.85%Total Crashes 21 20 8 13 20 82 16.4 100.00%

Crash Severity

Injury 7 4 4 9 9 33 6.6 40.24%Fatal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00%

Light Conditions

Daylight 18 16 4 8 9 55 11 67.07%Dusk 0 0 0 1 3 4 0.8 4.88%Dark Not Lighted 0 0 0 0 1 1 0.2 1.22%Dark Lighted 2 3 4 0 1 10 2 12.20%Unknown 1 1 0 4 6 12 2.4 14.63%

Weather Dry 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00%Cloudy 3 3 1 2 3 12 2.4 14.63%Rain 0 3 1 0 1 5 1 6.10%Other 0 1 0 4 6 11 2.2 13.41%Clear 18 13 6 7 10 54 10.8 65.85%


Page - 22

Figure 8: Florida Avenue Corridor Crash Map


Page - 23

LAND USE ASSESSMENT The City of Cocoa has worked for years to define and implement a vision for Florida Avenue and the surrounding area. Florida Avenue is located within the Cocoa CRA as its western boundary. The corridor is also considered part of “Cocoa Village,” the core of Downtown Cocoa. Through the Cocoa Waterfront Master Plan, the Cocoa CRA developed a community vision for the downtown area and codified that vision into form-based codes that will guide all future development in Downtown Cocoa. Form-based codes are city enforced regulations and standards that address the relationship between building facades and the public realm, the form and mass of buildings in relation to one another, and the scale and types of streets and blocks. Form-based codes foster predictable built results and a high-quality public realm by using physical form (rather than separation of uses) as the organizing principle for the code.

Figure 9: Existing Land Use presents the existing land uses along the Florida Avenue corridor. Figure 10 presents the adopted City of Cocoa form-based codes. Along the Florida Avenue corridor, there a several underutilized and/or vacant parcels that will eventually redevelop in alignment with the form-based codes. In addition to these properties, the City is working with a number for property owners who have expressed interest in possibly beautifying their property, adjusting their storefronts entrances, and/or realigning their property access in cooperation with the Complete Streets project (see notes from stakeholder interviews in Appendix D). Figure 11 shows the properties within the corridor that have high redevelopment potential.


Page - 24

Figure 9: Existing Land Use


Page - 25

Figure 10: Form Based Codes


Page - 26

Figure 11: Redevelopment Potential


Page - 27

REVIEW OF EXISTING STREETSCAPE PLANS The Cocoa CRA and Bussen Mayer Engineering Group, Inc have developed engineering and landscape plans for Florida Avenue from Rosa Jones Boulevard to King Street. The comments below identify design elements that require further analysis or may conflict with complete streets design practices.

1 The signal pole on the southwest corner of Rosa Jones Boulevard and Hickory Street is located within the accessible ramp.

2 The roadway centerline shifts at Rosa Jones Boulevard and Florida Avenue. The northbound vehicle lane is aligned with the accessible pedestrian ramp.

3 Between Travis Street and St. Charles Street, the design maintains large driveway cuts. This maintains approximately 300 feet of driveway, conflicting with pedestrian circulation.

4 On the east side of the roadway south of Saint Charles Street, there is a one to two foot landscape strip. This will create a maintenance issues.

5 The plans recommend a stop sign at Stone Street. A warrant analysis should be conducted. 6 The plans including closing driveways from the municipal parking lot on the east block of

Florida Avenue between Oleander Street and Stone Street. This will require modifications at the end of the drive lanes to include a back out space for vehicles. This is not currently shown on the plans. Also, the plans recommend moving the existing curb to provide a landscape strip. The landscape strip is narrower on the north side of the block than the south.

7 Landscaping at Forrest Avenue and Florida Avenue: the landscape shown occurs on private property.

8 The continuous curb cut for driveway access to Norman’s Raw Bar and Grill is not altered as part of the streetscape design. This would maintain approximately 200 feet of driveway which will conflict with pedestrian circulation.

Figure 12: Comments on Existing Streetscape Plans identifies the issues listed above.


Page - 28

Figure 12a: Comments on Existing Streetscape Plans


Page - 29

Figure 12b: Comments on Existing Streetscape Plans


Page - 30

EXISTING STORMWATER PLANS The City has plans to abandon the existing water line under Florida Avenue and construct a new eight inch water line. Constructing this new water line will take place as part of the Florida Avenue Complete Streets reconstruction. The winter line construction will take place in the center of the roadway right-of-way, and will not impact the curb modifications, landscaping, or other proposed complete streets elements.


Page - 31

ISSUES AND OPPORTUNITIES Based on the information collected, and building on the Cocoa Waterfront Master Plan and the engineering work completed to date along Florida Avenue, the design team developed a list of issues and opportunities.

Corridor-wide opportunities include:

• Florida Avenue should facilitate pedestrian travel along and across the roadway. Figure 4 highlights the major pedestrian crossing that will facilitate travel throughout Downtown Cocoa.

• Accessible ADA3 standard ramps must be provided at all intersections. • The roadway design needs to support the form-based code, providing safe, comfortable and

inviting pedestrian travel. The design should assume future development will be compliant with the form-based code, located close to the sidewalk, with pedestrian access in the front and vehicular access behind the buildings.

• Designating bicycle routes through the use of sharrows would further facilitate travel within Downtown Cocoa and Cocoa Village. Florida Avenue should be a part of the bicycle route system, along with Brevard Avenue, Stone Street, Orange Street, Church Street, and Rosa Jones Boulevard.

Site specific opportunities are identified in Figure 13: Complete Streets Design Opportunities.

3 Americans with Disabilities Act


Page - 32

Figure 13: Complete Streets Design Opportunities


Page - 33


Page - 34

STAKEHOLDER MEETINGS The City and the Cocoa CRA have worked closely with stakeholders to develop the engineering plans for the Florida Avenue Streetscape project. To continue this collaboration, one-on-one stakeholder meetings were held throughout the day on April 11th, 2014. .The purpose of these stakeholder meetings was to meet with interested local residents and business owners to discuss existing issues and opportunities along the roadway corridor and review as well as refine preliminary design concepts. Major elements discussed with each stakeholder included:

• The north and south gateways for the project, • Typical roadway sections, • Traffic calming elements (raised pedestrian tables, landscaping, and access to businesses).

To facilitate discussion, the design team provided a flyer with an overview of the project and draft cross-sections. The design team also presented sketches of alternative intersection narrowing/realignment at the northern gateway. The handouts and meeting notes are included in Appendix D.

DRAFT -May 21,

RECOMBuilding ondiscussions

TYPICAL The 90% tystrip.

Figure 14:

As an alterstreet treesas show in

Figure 15:

, 2014

MMENDn the designs, the design

SECTION ypical section

90 Percent

rnative, it is s in grates afigure: altern

Alternative

DATIONn work comteam develo

ns are prese

Plans Typica

recommendnd extendingnative typica

Typical Sect

NS pleted by th

oped a series

nted in secti

al Section

ded that theg the paveml section:

tion

he City, data of design re

ion A below.

e design teaent space ac

Flor

a collection ecommendat

. The sectio

m evaluate cross the len

rida Avenue Comp

completed, ions.

n includes a

the possibilngth of the la

plete Streets Feasib

Pa

and stakeh

4-foot lands

ity of placinandscaping s

bility Study

age - 35

holder

scape

g the space,


Page - 36

Where the landscape strip narrows beyond three feet, it is strongly recommended that the sidewalk be extended to the curb.

SOUTHERN GATEWAY The intersection of Florida Avenue and Rosa Jones Boulevard serves as the southern gateway to Downtown Cocoa and Cocoa Village as well as the east/west pedestrian connection to Downtown Cocoa’s main street, Brevard Street. Therefore, a raised intersection is recommended to slow vehicular travel and facilitate pedestrian crossings at the intersection. The intersection bulb-out/narrowing should take place on the southern and northern corners of the intersection. This will require the project boundaries be extended southbound to taper to existing conditions. Figure 15 presents the southern gateway

The opportunity exists to replace the signal at Rosa Jones Boulevard and Florida Avenue with a four-way stop. Through the final engineering process, the City and their consultant should perform a signal warrant analysis to evaluate the feasibility of removing the signal and the viability of a stop control condition at this intersection.

Figure 16a: Southern Gateway: Rosa Jones Blvd and Florida Ave Intersection: Today

DRAFT -May 21,

Figure 16b

ROSA JOBetween Rroadway deshould be with existinnarrowing

Figure 17 sand Travis S

, 2014

b: Southern G

ONES BOULosa Jones Boesign shouldeliminated ong land ownof curb cuts.

hows recomStreet.

Gateway: Ro

LEVARD Toulevard and support the

or narrowed.ners to reorg Modificatio

mendations

osa Jones Bl

TO LEMONd Factory Stre adopted fo To implem

ganize their ons will be re

for on-street

vd and Florid

N STREET Breet, Florida rm-based co

ment this recocirculation pquired on pr

t parking and

Flor

ida Ave Inter

BLOCK Avenue is tr

ode. Therefoommendatiopattern so arivate proper

d curb cuts b

rida Avenue Comp

rsection: Tod

ransitioning iore, where pon, the City was to allow frty.

between Rosa


Pa

day

in character.possible, curbwill need to for the closi

a Jones Boule

bility Study

age - 37

. The b cuts work ng or

evard


Page - 38

Figure 17: Rosa Jones Boulevard to Travis Street


Page - 39

SAINT CHARLES STREET The current engineering plans show on-street parking on the east side of the roadway in front of the AT&T Building. However, there is limited demand for on-street parking on this block section and additional landscaping would help soften the harsh and mostly blank facades of the AT&T Building. Therefore, it is recommended to implement a section similar to what is shown in front of the Florida Power & Light Substation, with the curb extended into the roadway and the sidewalk shifted west, with landscaping on both sides of the sidewalk.

On the east side of the roadway south of Saint Charles Street, there is a one to two foot landscape strip. It is recommended that the small strip be removed, and the sidewalk be extended to the curb. Figure 18 shows the recommendations from Travis Street to Factory Street.


Page - 40

Figure 18: Travis Street to Factory Street


Page - 41

RAISED TABLES AT INTERSECTIONS Raised intersections serve as traffic calming elements and aid in facilitating pedestrian crossings. Raised intersections are recommended at Rosa L. Jones Boulevard and Florida Avenue, as well as, Stone Street and Florida Avenue because both intersections serve as east-west pedestrian connections to Cocoa Village and to the Cocoa Waterfront. Figure 19 shows the locations of the proposed tables.

Typically when urban intersections are raised there is a potential for stormwater conveyance via the existing curb line to be severed. Along Rosa L. Jones Boulevard, runoff is conveyed via curb and gutter to an existing trunk line that runs parallel with Rosa L. Jones Boulevard outfalling to the Indian River. At the intersection of Rosa L. Jones Boulevard and Florida Avenue runoff sheet flows through the intersection except at the northwest corner where an inlet is located. Due to the proposed raised intersection, the existing inlet will need to be relocated as well as additional inlet(s) added to ensure no ponding of trapped runoff. These inlets will be stubbed into the existing trunk line in order to maintain runoff conveyance. These modifications to the storm sewer system at Rosa L. Jones Boulevard will not require water quality permitting from the SJRWMD and it is anticipated the modifications will be exempt entirely from SJRWMD permitting. The intersection of Stone Street and Florida Avenue is located at a high point along both Stone Street and Florida Avenue. Runoff is naturally conveyed via curb and gutter away from the intersection. Therefore, raising the intersection will not require any drainage improvements. Additionally no permit from the SJRWMD will be required for this modification to the intersection.

DRAFT -May 21,

Figure 19:

, 2014

Raised Tablles

Flor

rida Avenue Comp

Location of R


Pa

Raised Table

bility Study

age - 42

s


Page - 43

NORTHERN GATEWAY The intersection of Florida Avenue, Forrest Street, and Oleander Street serves as the northern gateway to Downtown Cocoa and the western entrance to Cocoa Village. The municipal parking lot on the southeast corner of this intersection serves the commercial uses on the west side of the roadway. The current roadway configuration impedes north/south and east/west pedestrian travel and creates an intersection that is difficult for vehicles to navigate. It is recommended that the intersection be reconfigured to:

1. Narrow pedestrian crossing distances by narrowing the drive lanes and providing bulb-outs where appropriate;

2. Provide a visual gateway to the corridor to help enhance the sense of place; and 3. Slow travel southbound on Florida Avenue to encourage walkability and safety

Figures 20 and 21 show alternative configurations for the intersection of Florida Avenue, Forrest Street and Oleander Street.

The City will need to work with existing land owners to reorganize their circulation pattern so as to allow for the closing or narrowing of curb cuts. Modifications will be required on private property. For alternative 21, the City would need to abandon City ROW and purchase additional right of way. This could be implemented in the long term, with Alternative A serving as an interim improvement. Both alternatives require analysis at the Forrest Avenue, King Street intersection to determine how the additional left turns at this interaction will impact delays and signal timing.

DRAFT -May 21,

Figure 20a

, 2014

a: Northern GGateway Altternative A

Florrida Avenue Compplete Streets Feasib

Pa

bility Study

age - 44


Page - 45

Figure 21b: Northern Gateway: Today

Figure 21b: Northern Gateway Alternative A Perspective


Page - 46

Figure 22a: Northern Gateway Alternative B - Park


Page - 47

Figure 22b: Northern Gateway Alternative B - Park Perspective


Page - 48

COST ESTIMATE The following chart shows the preliminary cost estimate for the design recommendations listed above, including raised tables at two intersections, paver treatment for the entire intersection at Orange Street, and the realignment at the three-way intersection of Oleander Street, Florida Avenue, and Forrest Avenue (this cost estimate does not include the final phase of this realignment which proposes a land swap)

COST ESTIMATES TO COME


Page - 49

APPENDIX A: SUNSHINE ONE CALL

CONFRM 00000 CALL SUNSHINE 02/13/14 11:28:50ET 044403691-000 DESIGN GRID Ticket : 044403691 Rev:000 Taken: 02/13/14 11:24ET State: FL Cnty: BREVARD GeoPlace: COCOA CallerPlace: MELBOURNE Subdivision: Address : Street : FLORIDA AVE Cross 1 : KING ST Within 1/4 mile: Y Cross 2 : ROSA L JONES BLVD Locat: FOR DESIGN BOTH SIDES OF FLORIDA AVE FROM KING ST GOING S APPROX 1963 FT TO ROSA L JONES BLVD : Remarks : GRID PER DESIGN LOCATE AND CALLER GAVE ROSA L JONES BLVD CENTER MAP SHOWS ROSA L JONES DR CALLER CONFIRMS APPROX 1963 FT IN RESPONSE TO RECEIPT OF A DESIGN TICKET, SSOCOF PROVIDES THE ORIGINATOR OF THE DESIGN TICKET WITH A LIST OF SSOCOF MEMBERS IN THE VICINITY OF THE DESIGN PROJECT. SSOCOF DOES NOT NOTIFY SSOCOF MEMBERS OF THE RECEIPT BY SSOCOF OF A DESIGN TICKET. IT IS THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE DESIGN ENGINEER TO CONTACT SSOCOF MEMBERS TO REQUEST INFORMATION ABOUT THE LOCATION OF SSOCOF MEMBERS' UNDERGROUND FACILITIES. SUBMISSION OF A DESIGN TICKET WILL NOT SATISFY THE REQUIREMENT OF CHAPTER 556, FLORIDA STATUTES, TO NOTIFY SSOCOF OF AN INTENT TO EXCAVATE OR DEMOLISH. THAT INTENT MUST BE MADE KNOWN SPECIFICALLY TO SSOCOF IN THE MANNER REQUIRED BY LAW. IN AN EFFORT TO SAVE TIME ON FUTURE CALLS, SAVE YOUR DESIGN TICKET NUMBER IF YOU INTEND TO BEGIN EXCAVATION WITHIN 90 DAYS OF YOUR DESIGN REQUEST. THE DESIGN TICKET CAN BE REFERENCED , AND THE INFORMATION ON IT CAN BE USED TO SAVE TIME WHEN YOU CALL IN THE EXCAVATION REQUEST. *** LOOKUP BY MANUAL *** : Grids : 2820A8043B 2821C8043B 2821D8043B Work date: 02/13/14 Time: 11:24ET Hrs notc: 000 Category: 6 Duration: UNKNOWN Due Date : 02/17/14 Time: 23:59ET Exp Date : 03/17/14 Time: 23:59ET Work type: DESIGN Boring: N White-lined: N Ug/Oh/Both: U Machinery: N Depth: UNK Permits: N N/A Done for : DESIGN Company : INFRASTRUCTURE ENGINEERS Type: CONT Co addr : 2121 OLD HICKORY TREE RD City : ST CLOUD State: FL Zip: 34772 Caller : DAVID BENNETT Phone: 407-957-1660 Ext: 2234 Contact : DESIGN Phone: BestTime: 8-5 Mobile : 407-932-8120 Fax : 407-957-8744 Email : [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

Submitted: 02/13/14 11:24ET Oper: MAR Mbrs : BC1831 BRANDON COLLINS 321-455-1440 BREVARD COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERING 580 MANOR DR MERRIT ISLAND, FL 32952 Level 1: SERVICES NOT PROVIDED BY MEMBER Level 2: SERVICES NOT PROVIDED BY MEMBER Level 3: SERVICES NOT PROVIDED BY MEMBER Level 4: SERVICES NOT PROVIDED BY MEMBER COC547 PEGGY TURNER 321-433-8799 CITY OF COCOA 351 SHEARER BLVD COCOA, FL 32922 Level 1: EMAILED DRAWINGS ONLY - NO CHARGE Level 2: $50.00 PER HOUR Level 3: $50.00 PER HOUR Level 4: SERVICES NOT PROVIDED BY MEMBER COC549 PEGGY TURNER 321-433-8799 CITY OF COCOA 351 SHEARER BLVD COCOA, FL 32922 Level 1: NO CHARGE Level 2: $ 50.00 PER HR Level 3: $ 50.00 PER HR Level 4: SERVICES NOT PROVIDED BY MEMBER COC872 MICHAEL GIORGIO 321-433-8771 CITY OF COCOA 600 SCHOOL ST COCOA, FL 32922 Level 1: Level 2: Level 3: Level 4: COR788 JAMES ELMORE 321-690-3975 CITY OF ROCKLEDGE 1700 JACK OATES BLVD ROCKLEDGE, FL 32955 Level 1: Level 2: Level 3: Level 4: CTYGS2 RON MULLER** 321-638-3424 FLORIDA CITY GAS 4180 S US HWY 1 ROCKLEDGE, FL 32955 Level 1: $1 / 11x17 PAGE Level 2: NOT OFFERED

dbennett

Cross-Out

Level 3: $52 / HOUR Level 4: NOT OFFERED FPLBRE TRACY STERN 800-868-9554 FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT 2900 CATHERINE ST PALATKA, FL 32177 Level 1: NO FEE Level 2: SERVICES NOT PROVIDED BY MEMBER Level 3: SERVICES NOT PROVIDED BY MEMBER Level 4: SERVICES NOT PROVIDED BY MEMBER FPLFON DANNY HASKETT** 305-552-2931 FPL FIBERNET LLC 9250 W FLAGLER ST MIAMI, FL 33174 Level 1: NO CHARGE Level 2: SERVICES NOT PROVIDED BY MEMBER Level 3: SERVICES NOT PROVIDED BY MEMBER Level 4: SERVICES NOT PROVIDED BY MEMBER L3C900 JUDY HENRY 720-888-2061 LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS LLC 1025 ELDORADO BLVD BROOMFIELD, CO 80021 Level 1: Level 2: Level 3: Level 4: MCIU01 VERIZON FLORIDA 813-740-1231 MCI 1909 US HIGHWAY 301 N BLDG D TAMPA, FL 33619 Level 1: $0 Level 2: SERVICES NOT PROVIDED BY MEMBER Level 3: SERVICES NOT PROVIDED BY MEMBER Level 4: SERVICES NOT PROVIDED BY MEMBER SBF02 PAM COTE IDM ** 407-539-0644 ATT/ DISTRIBUTION 146 ORANGE PL MAITLAND, FL 32751 Level 1: FEE TO BE DETERMINED Level 2: NOT PROVIDED BY MEMBER Level 3: FEE TO BE DETERMINED Level 4: NOT PROVIDED BY MEMBER TL2051 TW1829 SEAN MOSS 407-215-6895 T W TELECOM 485 N. KELLER RD SUITE 551

MAITLAND, FL 32751 Level 1: Member does not provide this service. Level 2: Member does not provide this service. Level 3: Member does not provide this service. Level 4: Member does not provide this service. TWC343 MIKE ISOM** 321-757-6451 BRIGHT HOUSE NETWORKS, LLC 1571 PALM BAY RD. N. E. PALM BAY, FL 32905 Level 1: Services not provided by Member Level 2: Services not provided by Member Level 3: Services not provided by Member Level 4: Services not provided by Member


Page - 50

APPENDIX B: SOILS REPORT

United StatesDepartment ofAgriculture

A product of the NationalCooperative Soil Survey,a joint effort of the UnitedStates Department ofAgriculture and otherFederal agencies, Stateagencies including theAgricultural ExperimentStations, and localparticipants

Custom Soil ResourceReport for

Brevard County,FloridaFlorida Avenue

NaturalResourcesConservationService

February 18, 2014

PrefaceSoil surveys contain information that affects land use planning in survey areas. Theyhighlight soil limitations that affect various land uses and provide information aboutthe properties of the soils in the survey areas. Soil surveys are designed for manydifferent users, including farmers, ranchers, foresters, agronomists, urban planners,community officials, engineers, developers, builders, and home buyers. Also,conservationists, teachers, students, and specialists in recreation, waste disposal,and pollution control can use the surveys to help them understand, protect, or enhancethe environment.

Various land use regulations of Federal, State, and local governments may imposespecial restrictions on land use or land treatment. Soil surveys identify soil propertiesthat are used in making various land use or land treatment decisions. The informationis intended to help the land users identify and reduce the effects of soil limitations onvarious land uses. The landowner or user is responsible for identifying and complyingwith existing laws and regulations.

Although soil survey information can be used for general farm, local, and wider areaplanning, onsite investigation is needed to supplement this information in some cases.Examples include soil quality assessments (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/soils/health/) and certain conservation and engineering applications. Formore detailed information, contact your local USDA Service Center (http://offices.sc.egov.usda.gov/locator/app?agency=nrcs) or your NRCS State SoilScientist (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/contactus/?cid=nrcs142p2_053951).

Great differences in soil properties can occur within short distances. Some soils areseasonally wet or subject to flooding. Some are too unstable to be used as afoundation for buildings or roads. Clayey or wet soils are poorly suited to use as septictank absorption fields. A high water table makes a soil poorly suited to basements orunderground installations.

The National Cooperative Soil Survey is a joint effort of the United States Departmentof Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the AgriculturalExperiment Stations, and local agencies. The Natural Resources ConservationService (NRCS) has leadership for the Federal part of the National Cooperative SoilSurvey.

Information about soils is updated periodically. Updated information is availablethrough the NRCS Web Soil Survey, the site for official soil survey information.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programsand activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and whereapplicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexualorientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a part of anindividual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibitedbases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means

2

http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/soils/health/

http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/soils/health/

http://offices.sc.egov.usda.gov/locator/app?agency=nrcs

http://offices.sc.egov.usda.gov/locator/app?agency=nrcs

http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/contactus/?cid=nrcs142p2_053951

http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/contactus/?cid=nrcs142p2_053951

for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) shouldcontact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file acomplaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272(voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider andemployer.

3

ContentsPreface....................................................................................................................2How Soil Surveys Are Made..................................................................................5Soil Map..................................................................................................................7

Soil Map................................................................................................................8Legend..................................................................................................................9Map Unit Legend................................................................................................10Map Unit Descriptions........................................................................................10

Brevard County, Florida..................................................................................1245—Paola-Urban land complex, 0 to 8 percent slopes...............................1269—Urban land...........................................................................................14

References............................................................................................................15

4

How Soil Surveys Are MadeSoil surveys are made to provide information about the soils and miscellaneous areasin a specific area. They include a description of the soils and miscellaneous areas andtheir location on the landscape and tables that show soil properties and limitationsaffecting various uses. Soil scientists observed the steepness, length, and shape ofthe slopes; the general pattern of drainage; the kinds of crops and native plants; andthe kinds of bedrock. They observed and described many soil profiles. A soil profile isthe sequence of natural layers, or horizons, in a soil. The profile extends from thesurface down into the unconsolidated material in which the soil formed or from thesurface down to bedrock. The unconsolidated material is devoid of roots and otherliving organisms and has not been changed by other biological activity.

Currently, soils are mapped according to the boundaries of major land resource areas(MLRAs). MLRAs are geographically associated land resource units that sharecommon characteristics related to physiography, geology, climate, water resources,soils, biological resources, and land uses (USDA, 2006). Soil survey areas typicallyconsist of parts of one or more MLRA.

The soils and miscellaneous areas in a survey area occur in an orderly pattern that isrelated to the geology, landforms, relief, climate, and natural vegetation of the area.Each kind of soil and miscellaneous area is associated with a particular kind oflandform or with a segment of the landform. By observing the soils and miscellaneousareas in the survey area and relating their position to specific segments of thelandform, a soil scientist develops a concept, or model, of how they were formed. Thus,during mapping, this model enables the soil scientist to predict with a considerabledegree of accuracy the kind of soil or miscellaneous area at a specific location on thelandscape.

Commonly, individual soils on the landscape merge into one another as theircharacteristics gradually change. To construct an accurate soil map, however, soilscientists must determine the boundaries between the soils. They can observe onlya limited number of soil profiles. Nevertheless, these observations, supplemented byan understanding of the soil-vegetation-landscape relationship, are sufficient to verifypredictions of the kinds of soil in an area and to determine the boundaries.

Soil scientists recorded the characteristics of the soil profiles that they studied. Theynoted soil color, texture, size and shape of soil aggregates, kind and amount of rockfragments, distribution of plant roots, reaction, and other features that enable them toidentify soils. After describing the soils in the survey area and determining theirproperties, the soil scientists assigned the soils to taxonomic classes (units).Taxonomic classes are concepts. Each taxonomic class has a set of soilcharacteristics with precisely defined limits. The classes are used as a basis forcomparison to classify soils systematically. Soil taxonomy, the system of taxonomicclassification used in the United States, is based mainly on the kind and character ofsoil properties and the arrangement of horizons within the profile. After the soilscientists classified and named the soils in the survey area, they compared the

5

individual soils with similar soils in the same taxonomic class in other areas so thatthey could confirm data and assemble additional data based on experience andresearch.

The objective of soil mapping is not to delineate pure map unit components; theobjective is to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that havesimilar use and management requirements. Each map unit is defined by a uniquecombination of soil components and/or miscellaneous areas in predictableproportions. Some components may be highly contrasting to the other components ofthe map unit. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishesthe usefulness or accuracy of the data. The delineation of such landforms andlandform segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development ofresource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, onsite investigation isneeded to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas.

Soil scientists make many field observations in the process of producing a soil map.The frequency of observation is dependent upon several factors, including scale ofmapping, intensity of mapping, design of map units, complexity of the landscape, andexperience of the soil scientist. Observations are made to test and refine the soil-landscape model and predictions and to verify the classification of the soils at specificlocations. Once the soil-landscape model is refined, a significantly smaller number ofmeasurements of individual soil properties are made and recorded. Thesemeasurements may include field measurements, such as those for color, depth tobedrock, and texture, and laboratory measurements, such as those for content ofsand, silt, clay, salt, and other components. Properties of each soil typically vary fromone point to another across the landscape.

Observations for map unit components are aggregated to develop ranges ofcharacteristics for the components. The aggregated values are presented. Directmeasurements do not exist for every property presented for every map unitcomponent. Values for some properties are estimated from combinations of otherproperties.

While a soil survey is in progress, samples of some of the soils in the area generallyare collected for laboratory analyses and for engineering tests. Soil scientists interpretthe data from these analyses and tests as well as the field-observed characteristicsand the soil properties to determine the expected behavior of the soils under differentuses. Interpretations for all of the soils are field tested through observation of the soilsin different uses and under different levels of management. Some interpretations aremodified to fit local conditions, and some new interpretations are developed to meetlocal needs. Data are assembled from other sources, such as research information,production records, and field experience of specialists. For example, data on cropyields under defined levels of management are assembled from farm records and fromfield or plot experiments on the same kinds of soil.

Predictions about soil behavior are based not only on soil properties but also on suchvariables as climate and biological activity. Soil conditions are predictable over longperiods of time, but they are not predictable from year to year. For example, soilscientists can predict with a fairly high degree of accuracy that a given soil will havea high water table within certain depths in most years, but they cannot predict that ahigh water table will always be at a specific level in the soil on a specific date.

After soil scientists located and identified the significant natural bodies of soil in thesurvey area, they drew the boundaries of these bodies on aerial photographs andidentified each as a specific map unit. Aerial photographs show trees, buildings, fields,roads, and rivers, all of which help in locating boundaries accurately.

Custom Soil Resource Report

6

Soil MapThe soil map section includes the soil map for the defined area of interest, a list of soilmap units on the map and extent of each map unit, and cartographic symbolsdisplayed on the map. Also presented are various metadata about data used toproduce the map, and a description of each soil map unit.

7

8

Custom Soil Resource ReportSoil Map

3136

000

3136

100

3136

200

3136

300

3136

400

3136

500

3136

600

3136

700

3136

800

3136

000

3136

100

3136

200

3136

300

3136

400

3136

500

3136

600

3136

700

3136

800526400 526500 526600 526700 526800 526900 527000

526400 526500 526600 526700 526800 526900 527000

28° 21' 25'' N80

° 4

3' 5

1'' W

28° 21' 25'' N

80° 4

3' 2

7'' W

28° 20' 57'' N

80° 4

3' 5

1'' W

28° 20' 57'' N

80° 4

3' 2

7'' W

N

Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 17N WGS840 200 400 800 1200

Feet0 50 100 200 300

MetersMap Scale: 1:4,330 if printed on A portrait (8.5" x 11") sheet.

MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION

Area of Interest (AOI)Area of Interest (AOI)

SoilsSoil Map Unit Polygons

Soil Map Unit Lines

Soil Map Unit Points

Special Point FeaturesBlowout

Borrow Pit

Clay Spot

Closed Depression

Gravel Pit

Gravelly Spot

Landfill

Lava Flow

Marsh or swamp

Mine or Quarry

Miscellaneous Water

Perennial Water

Rock Outcrop

Saline Spot

Sandy Spot

Severely Eroded Spot

Sinkhole

Slide or Slip

Sodic Spot

Spoil Area

Stony Spot

Very Stony Spot

Wet Spot

Other

Special Line Features

Water FeaturesStreams and Canals

TransportationRails

Interstate Highways

US Routes

Major Roads

Local Roads

BackgroundAerial Photography

The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:24,000.

Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.

Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can causemisunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil lineplacement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrastingsoils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale.

Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for mapmeasurements.

Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation ServiceWeb Soil Survey URL: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.govCoordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857)

Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercatorprojection, which preserves direction and shape but distortsdistance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as theAlbers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accuratecalculations of distance or area are required.

This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as ofthe version date(s) listed below.

Soil Survey Area: Brevard County, FloridaSurvey Area Data: Version 11, Dec 6, 2013

Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000or larger.

Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Mar 12, 2011—Mar13, 2011

The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines werecompiled and digitized probably differs from the backgroundimagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shiftingof map unit boundaries may be evident.


9

Map Unit Legend

Brevard County, Florida (FL009)

Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI

45 Paola-Urban land complex, 0 to8 percent slopes

16.3 24.7%

69 Urban land 49.8 75.3%

Totals for Area of Interest 66.1 100.0%

Map Unit DescriptionsThe map units delineated on the detailed soil maps in a soil survey represent the soilsor miscellaneous areas in the survey area. The map unit descriptions, along with themaps, can be used to determine the composition and properties of a unit.

A map unit delineation on a soil map represents an area dominated by one or moremajor kinds of soil or miscellaneous areas. A map unit is identified and namedaccording to the taxonomic classification of the dominant soils. Within a taxonomicclass there are precisely defined limits for the properties of the soils. On the landscape,however, the soils are natural phenomena, and they have the characteristic variabilityof all natural phenomena. Thus, the range of some observed properties may extendbeyond the limits defined for a taxonomic class. Areas of soils of a single taxonomicclass rarely, if ever, can be mapped without including areas of other taxonomicclasses. Consequently, every map unit is made up of the soils or miscellaneous areasfor which it is named and some minor components that belong to taxonomic classesother than those of the major soils.

Most minor soils have properties similar to those of the dominant soil or soils in themap unit, and thus they do not affect use and management. These are callednoncontrasting, or similar, components. They may or may not be mentioned in aparticular map unit description. Other minor components, however, have propertiesand behavioral characteristics divergent enough to affect use or to require differentmanagement. These are called contrasting, or dissimilar, components. They generallyare in small areas and could not be mapped separately because of the scale used.Some small areas of strongly contrasting soils or miscellaneous areas are identifiedby a special symbol on the maps. If included in the database for a given area, thecontrasting minor components are identified in the map unit descriptions along withsome characteristics of each. A few areas of minor components may not have beenobserved, and consequently they are not mentioned in the descriptions, especiallywhere the pattern was so complex that it was impractical to make enough observationsto identify all the soils and miscellaneous areas on the landscape.

The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulnessor accuracy of the data. The objective of mapping is not to delineate pure taxonomicclasses but rather to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments thathave similar use and management requirements. The delineation of such segmentson the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. Ifintensive use of small areas is planned, however, onsite investigation is needed todefine and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas.


10

An identifying symbol precedes the map unit name in the map unit descriptions. Eachdescription includes general facts about the unit and gives important soil propertiesand qualities.

Soils that have profiles that are almost alike make up a soil series. Except fordifferences in texture of the surface layer, all the soils of a series have major horizonsthat are similar in composition, thickness, and arrangement.

Soils of one series can differ in texture of the surface layer, slope, stoniness, salinity,degree of erosion, and other characteristics that affect their use. On the basis of suchdifferences, a soil series is divided into soil phases. Most of the areas shown on thedetailed soil maps are phases of soil series. The name of a soil phase commonlyindicates a feature that affects use or management. For example, Alpha silt loam, 0to 2 percent slopes, is a phase of the Alpha series.

Some map units are made up of two or more major soils or miscellaneous areas.These map units are complexes, associations, or undifferentiated groups.

A complex consists of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas in such an intricatepattern or in such small areas that they cannot be shown separately on the maps. Thepattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar in allareas. Alpha-Beta complex, 0 to 6 percent slopes, is an example.

An association is made up of two or more geographically associated soils ormiscellaneous areas that are shown as one unit on the maps. Because of present oranticipated uses of the map units in the survey area, it was not considered practicalor necessary to map the soils or miscellaneous areas separately. The pattern andrelative proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar. Alpha-Beta association, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example.

An undifferentiated group is made up of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas thatcould be mapped individually but are mapped as one unit because similarinterpretations can be made for use and management. The pattern and proportion ofthe soils or miscellaneous areas in a mapped area are not uniform. An area can bemade up of only one of the major soils or miscellaneous areas, or it can be made upof all of them. Alpha and Beta soils, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example.

Some surveys include miscellaneous areas. Such areas have little or no soil materialand support little or no vegetation. Rock outcrop is an example.


11

Brevard County, Florida

45—Paola-Urban land complex, 0 to 8 percent slopes

Map Unit SettingElevation: 20 to 120 feetMean annual precipitation: 49 to 57 inchesMean annual air temperature: 68 to 75 degrees FFrost-free period: 350 to 365 days

Map Unit CompositionPaola and similar soils: 55 percentUrban land: 40 percentMinor components: 5 percent

Description of Paola

SettingLandform: Knolls on marine terraces, ridges on marine terracesLandform position (three-dimensional): Interfluve, side slopeDown-slope shape: ConvexAcross-slope shape: LinearParent material: Sandy marine deposits

Properties and qualitiesSlope: 0 to 8 percentDepth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inchesDrainage class: Excessively drainedCapacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Very high (19.98 to 50.02

in/hr)Depth to water table: More than 80 inchesFrequency of flooding: NoneFrequency of ponding: NoneMaximum salinity: Nonsaline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm)Sodium adsorption ratio, maximum: 4.0Available water capacity: Very low (about 2.0 inches)

Interpretive groupsFarmland classification: Not prime farmlandLand capability (nonirrigated): 6sHydrologic Soil Group: AOther vegetative classification: Forage suitability group not assigned

(G156BC999FL)

Typical profile0 to 5 inches: Fine sand5 to 48 inches: Fine sand48 to 60 inches: Fine sand60 to 80 inches: Fine sand

Description of Urban Land

SettingLandform: Marine terracesLandform position (three-dimensional): Interfluve, talfDown-slope shape: Linear


12

Across-slope shape: LinearParent material: No parent material

Interpretive groupsFarmland classification: Not prime farmlandOther vegetative classification: Forage suitability group not assigned

(G156BC999FL)

Minor Components

CocoaPercent of map unit: 2 percentLandform: Ridges on marine terracesLandform position (three-dimensional): InterfluveDown-slope shape: ConvexAcross-slope shape: LinearEcological site: Sand Pine Scrub (R155XY001FL)Other vegetative classification: Forage suitability group not assigned

(G156BC999FL)

PomelloPercent of map unit: 1 percentLandform: Rises on marine terraces, flats on marine terracesLandform position (three-dimensional): InterfluveDown-slope shape: ConvexAcross-slope shape: LinearEcological site: Sand Pine Scrub (R155XY001FL)Other vegetative classification: Forage suitability group not assigned

(G156BC999FL)

TavaresPercent of map unit: 1 percentLandform: Flats on marine terraces, ridges on marine terracesLandform position (three-dimensional): InterfluveDown-slope shape: ConvexAcross-slope shape: LinearEcological site: Sand Pine Scrub (R155XY001FL)Other vegetative classification: Forage suitability group not assigned

(G156BC999FL)

St. luciePercent of map unit: 1 percentLandform: Ridges on marine terraces, knolls on marine terracesLandform position (three-dimensional): InterfluveDown-slope shape: ConvexAcross-slope shape: LinearEcological site: Sand Pine Scrub (R155XY001FL)Other vegetative classification: Forage suitability group not assigned

(G156BC999FL)


13

69—Urban land

Map Unit CompositionUrban land: 100 percent

Description of Urban Land

SettingLandform: Marine terracesLandform position (three-dimensional): Interfluve, talfDown-slope shape: LinearAcross-slope shape: LinearParent material: No parent material

Interpretive groupsFarmland classification: Not prime farmlandOther vegetative classification: Forage suitability group not assigned

(G156BC999FL)


14

ReferencesAmerican Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). 2004.Standard specifications for transportation materials and methods of sampling andtesting. 24th edition.

American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2005. Standard classification ofsoils for engineering purposes. ASTM Standard D2487-00.

Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification ofwetlands and deep-water habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceFWS/OBS-79/31.

Federal Register. July 13, 1994. Changes in hydric soils of the United States.

Federal Register. September 18, 2002. Hydric soils of the United States.

Hurt, G.W., and L.M. Vasilas, editors. Version 6.0, 2006. Field indicators of hydric soilsin the United States.

National Research Council. 1995. Wetlands: Characteristics and boundaries.

Soil Survey Division Staff. 1993. Soil survey manual. Soil Conservation Service. U.S.Department of Agriculture Handbook 18. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_054262

Soil Survey Staff. 1999. Soil taxonomy: A basic system of soil classification for makingand interpreting soil surveys. 2nd edition. Natural Resources Conservation Service,U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 436. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_053577

Soil Survey Staff. 2010. Keys to soil taxonomy. 11th edition. U.S. Department ofAgriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_053580

Tiner, R.W., Jr. 1985. Wetlands of Delaware. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service andDelaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, WetlandsSection.

United States Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps ofEngineers wetlands delineation manual. Waterways Experiment Station TechnicalReport Y-87-1.

United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.National forestry manual. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/national/landuse/forestry/pub/

United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.National range and pasture handbook. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/landuse/rangepasture/?cid=stelprdb1043084

15

http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_054262






http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/national/landuse/forestry/pub/

http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/national/landuse/forestry/pub/

http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/landuse/rangepasture/?cid=stelprdb1043084

http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/landuse/rangepasture/?cid=stelprdb1043084

United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.National soil survey handbook, title 430-VI. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/scientists/?cid=nrcs142p2_054242

United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.2006. Land resource regions and major land resource areas of the United States, theCaribbean, and the Pacific Basin. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 296.http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_053624

United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1961. Landcapability classification. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 210. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_052290.pdf


16

http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/scientists/?cid=nrcs142p2_054242

http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/scientists/?cid=nrcs142p2_054242




http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_052290.pdf

http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_052290.pdf


Page - 51

APPENDIX C: PORTION OF 90 PERCENT ENGINEERING PLANS


Page - 52

APPENDIX D: STAKEHOLDER MEETING NOTES


Page - 53

APPENDIX E: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT

CITY OF COCOA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TRANSPORTATION

GOAL 2.1: The City shall provide a safe, efficient, and comprehensive multi-modal transportation system available to all residents of and visitors to the City of Cocoa. When possible, these facilities should be developed so as to enhance the City’s greenways.

Objective 2.1.1: Functionality. The City shall maximize existing roadway functionality through alternate modes of transportation.

Policy 2.1.1.1: The City shall maintain for the purpose of issuing building permits and development orders the following list of major roadway facilities:

City Of Cocoa Jurisdiction Minimum LOS Forrest Avenue E Cox Road (within city limits) E Fiske Boulevard (from SR 520 to Dixon Boulevard) E Indian River Drive (C.R. 515) E Peachtree Street (from Clearlake Road to U.S. 1/S.R. 5) E Florida Avenue (within city limits) E Other or Multi-Jurisdictional Jurisdiction Minimum LOS Pineda Street (from Lake Drive to SR 501) City/County E Michigan Boulevard County E Dixon Boulevard County E Range Road County E Rosetine Street County E Adamson Road (SR 524 to Pine) County D Friday Road (SR 524 to SR 520) County E Grissom Parkway (Industry to Canaveral Groves) County E Industry Road (SR 524 to Grissom Pwky) County E SR 528 (Beachline Expressway) State D SR 520 (from Clearlake Road to U.S. 1/ S.R. 5) State D SR 520 (from SR 524 to Burnett Rd) State D SR 519 (Fiske Boulevard south of SR 520) State D U.S. 1/S.R. 5 (from SR 528 to south of SR 520) State D SR 524 (from SR 520 to SR 528) State D SR 501 (Clearlake Road) State D Interstate Highway 95 (I-95) (SR 519/Fiske Blvd to SR 520) State E

Interstate Highway 95 (I-95) (SR 520 to SR 524) State E Interstate Highway 95 (I-95) (SR 524 to SR 528) State E

Policy 2.1.1.2: The City shall require that traffic signalization, roadway signage,

roadway intersections and operational capacities are designed to optimize traffic flow and enhance the roadway network on City-controlled streets. The City shall carry out the following actions on local streets as necessary, and shall petition the county and state, as appropriate, for action on county and state roadways:

A. Traffic signals shall be computer-coordinated or fully actuated to affect optimal flow to the maximum extent possible;

Goals, Objectives & Policies October 2010 II-1

CITY OF COCOA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

Map M-II-2: Functional Roadway Classification Map

Maps

M-II-2 October 2010

TRANSPORTATION


Map M-II-3: Existing Roadway Performance Map

Maps

M-II-3 October 2010

TRANSPORTATION


Map M-II-4: 2015 Projected Roadway Performance Map

Maps M-II-4

October 2010

TRANSPORTATION

Map M-II-5: 2020 Future Transportation Map

October 2010 Maps


TRANSPORTATION

M-II-5

2020 FUTURE TRANSPORTATION MAP

2012 FDOT QUALITY/LEVEL OF SERVICE HANDBOOK TABLES

TABLE 1 Generalized Annual Average Daily Volumes for Florida’s

Urbanized Areas 12/18/12

INTERRUPTED FLOW FACILITIES UNINTERRUPTED FLOW FACILITIES

Non-State Signalized Roadway Adjustments

STATE SIGNALIZED ARTERIALSClass I

Class II

Freeway Adjustments

FREEWAYSCore Urbanized

Urbanized

Median & Turn Lane Adjustments

One-Way Facility Adjustment

UNINTERRUPTED FLOW HIGHWAYS

Uninterrupted Flow Highway Adjustments

BICYCLE MODE2

PEDESTRIAN MODE2

BUS MODE (Scheduled Fixed Route)3

Source:

2012 FDOT QUALITY/LEVEL OF SERVICE HANDBOOK TABLES

TABLE 1 (continued)

Generalized Annual Average Daily Volumes for Florida’s Urbanized Areas

12/18/12

INPUT VALUE ASSUMPTIONS

Uninterrupted Flow FacilitiesInterrupted Flow Facilities

ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS

TRAFFIC CHARACTERISTICS

CONTROL CHARACTERISTICS

MULTIMODAL CHARACTERISTICS

LEVEL OF SERVICE THRESHOLDS

Level ofService

Freeways Highways Arterials Bicycle Ped Bus

Florida Avenue Complete Streets Feasibility Study€¦ · DRAFT -May 21, 2014 Florida Avenue...

Documents

Transcript of Florida Avenue Complete Streets Feasibility Study€¦ · DRAFT -May 21, 2014 Florida Avenue...