History of the Project

It is worthwhile to take a few minutes to review this brief history of the project, so that you can understand:

the original objective, and why it cannot be achieved;
how changes in city traffic patterns negatively impact its usefulness; and
how changing weather patterns increase the likelihood it will increase flood risk.

ANCIENT HISTORY

Back when woolly mammoths roamed the earth, before there was a Heritage Oaks Boulevard, or even a Heritage Oaks neighborhood, the City of West Melbourne gave serious consideration to the idea of extending Doherty Drive south to Fell Road, and extending Fell Road east to Dairy Road. At one time, this concept was also coupled with a tie-in to Milwaukee Avenue. All of this was intended to provide better traffic circulation. This intent was documented in city plans in the 1980s and 1990s.

Here is a quote from a plan written in the 1980s:

"Other possible improvements may include the extension of Doherty Drive south to eventually connect with Fell Road."

And here is a sketch from the same document, showing Doherty Drive extended to connect to Fell Road and Milwaukee Avenue:

The same document goes on to remind decision-makers that it would be necessary to preserve the right-of-way for these roads.

Then in a document written in the 1990s, the concept became more detailed. Specifically, the plan would be to:

"Extend Doherty Dr south to connect to Hollywood Blvd, as a parallel corridor to Hollywood Blvd, to lessen impact at Hollywood Blvd/Henry Ave."

Also, the plan called for the city to:

"Extend Fell Road from present terminus to Dairy Road, to provide a parallel corridor to US192, evacuation route for three subdivisions."

As before, this document called for the city to preserve the right-of-way for these roads.

In the meantime, the Heritage Oaks area was developed and divided into subdivisions, and Heritage Oaks Boulevard was designed and built by the developer to service these subdivisions. The developer declined to construct the extensions of Doherty Drive and Heritage Oaks Blvd, and the City Council declined to force the issue. The developer donated the area between The Preserve and Eastwood, and also the area immediately east of The Preserve, to the city, so that eventually the city could build the road if desired. However, the developer did not donate the area east of Eastwood, which would be required to extend Doherty Drive south to Fell Road. The city had the option of purchasing that land, but declined to do so. Eventually, the developer built on that area as part of the Eastwood Two subdivision, precluding the city from obtaining the right-of-way for the road. The extensions of Heritage Oaks Blvd and Doherty Drive were included in the plat. The deed restrictions for The Preserve and Eastwood subdivisions included verbiage indicating that the area between The Preserve and Eastwood, and the area immediately east of The Preserve, were set aside for the City of West Melbourne for road right-of-way, and stated that the city "may" build a road there. But the denouement was that the original concept, which included the extension of Doherty to Fell, ultimately connecting to Hollywood, could not be executed, because the city failed to preserve the right-of-way. As a result, the goal of traffic circulation as envisioned in the original planning documents was no longer achievable.

City Council minutes from this period show that the decisions were made with full cognizance of their implications. Council members discussed various options and their consequences, including the fact that there would only be one exit from the Heritage Oaks area. The response from a council member was that there was no need for two exits.

THE MIDDLE AGES

In 2012 the city tasked an engineering company, Neel-Schaffer, to perform a preliminary design for the road. The engineers considered two distinctly different design approaches. One approach involved building the road over large underground pipes that would carry the water that currently flows through the canal which is east of The Preserve. The other approach was to leave the canal as it is, and build the new road alongside it.

The engineers estimated that the underground pipe approach would be two or three times as expensive as the canal-and-road-side-by-side approach.

The engineers also conducted an environmental assessment, and reported there were several wetland areas that needed to be formally identified. They also noted that approximately 132 trees would have to be demolished. About half of them would be oak trees. They noted that these trees provided a natural buffer to homes, and cautioned that "adjacent homeowners may be concerned about the loss of vegetative buffer and aesthetics." They drafted a demolition plan for the trees.

At that point the city decided to present the preliminary plan to the public and to the city council, to inform them about the road and get feedback. Both of the options listed above were presented by the chief design engineer, Peter Watanabe, but because of cost concerns, the underground pipe approach was not pursued further. The chief engineer also stated that they had done traffic modeling which indicated that a traffic light would be required at the intersection of Doherty Drive and Henry Avenue. He acknowledged that cut-through traffic would occur between Minton and Henry. The tree demolition plan was not presented, but the presentation acknowledged that the destruction of a large number of trees would trigger an adverse reaction from residents.

Over the course of two public meetings and one city council meeting, the feedback from the public was mixed. Initially, some residents voiced support for the idea of a second exit, while others were opposed because of concerns about increased traffic, flooding issues, environmental concerns such trees and tortoise burrows, and the loss of privacy and security. Subsequently, the responses became more negative. One resident presented crime data showing that the Heritage Oaks area was relatively crime-free compared to surrounding neighborhoods, and raised concerns that traffic on the new road would bring an increase in crime. There was criticism of the fact that slick flyers provided to the residents showed the street lined with fully grown trees, when the reality was that new trees would take decades to reach full height. Residents also pointed out the danger of a 90-degree turn in the road next to a sharp drop-off at the edge of the road, with no lighting. Residents cited studies showing that "induced traffic" often occurs when new roads are built, and expressed concern that the new road would elicit this kind of cut-through traffic, which would have very negative effects on the neighborhood. Many residents complained that the road project had taken them by surprise, because the builders had assured them that the road would never be constructed. Even one of the Neel Shaffer employees had believed this.

Since no funds had been budgeted for this project, nothing much occurred for a few years.

Apparently, the objections from the residents had an effect, and no action was taken to secure funding for several years. According to one city document:
"A Heritage Oaks extension was also discussed. It was originally planned as a through facility, but was not followed through with due to perceived citizen objections." (West Melbourne Mobility Study and Urban Design.)

But in 2017, something changed, and the city staff submitted a proposed budget of $1.5 million for the project. Several residents spoke against the project, and a few spoke in favor of it. It was made clear and documented (repeatedly) that a vote approving the budget did not constitute approval of this project. (Voting for the budget is a package deal, and various members often want to support the overall budget, millage rate, etc., while intending to vote against specific projects; others may vote against the budget in similar circumstances. It's complicated!) At any rate, the budget was eventually approved.

THE MODERN ERA

Then in December 2018, the City Council was asked to approve a contractual task order for the design of the road. There was a long discussion, covering topics such as alleviating traffic on Minton Road, increasing the flood risk, creating a bottleneck at Doherty Drive/Henry Avenue, the hazards of funneling traffic through a residential area, etc. Eventually a consensus emerged and it was agreed that the council did not have enough factual information to make a proper decision. The task order was voted down, and the council approved a motion to conduct further engineering analysis to get a better handle on the flood risk and traffic effects.

At a City Council meeting on June 4, 2019, the City Manager presented some historical background on the project and said it would provide a second means of access for residents, and reduce the number of vehicle miles traveled by residents. He recommended approval of the task order for the engineering design of the road.

The council was then briefed on the results of the drainage and traffic studies. These studies were carried out with minimal resources and were not expected to provide final definitive answers to all questions, but it was hoped they would include sufficient information for the Council to make a decision.

The preliminary stormwater management study indicated that swales could be constructed next to the road, to improve drainage and prevent flooding. (Note: A later, more detailed analysis by the same firm found that this claim was untrue for several reasons.)

The traffic study, which was also a bare-bones effort, indicated that, contrary to assurances from advocates, there would be a considerable amount of cut-through traffic on the new road. Specifically, the desire to avoid the congested US192/Minton intersection would motivate many drivers to use the new road as a shortcut, especially during rush hour.

(Note: Critics agreed, and pointed out that the real effect will probably be worse, because typical traffic is much worse than the traffic on the day when the observations were made, as shown by traffic data from the Traffic Management System which is available on the FDOT or SCTPO websites. See Traffic page for more info. Also, in subsequent meetings, the mayor expressed some skepticism about the traffic study, with comments to the effect that the conclusions of traffic studies always reflect the wishes of the organization footing the bill; and that he assumed the study did not include the cut-through traffic he sees on a daily basis, taking a short cut through the post office parking lot at Minton/Henry.)

The mayor and a council member asked if there would be a traffic light at the Henry/Doherty intersection. The traffic engineer said no, there would be stop signs in both directions. A council member recommended that a traffic signal be installed, but operated in the flash mode until traffic counts are completed. (Note: It was not added.)

A council member asked about a street light at the Heritage Boulevard/Doherty Drive intersection (the ninety-degree turn), and the city manager stated that a streetlight could be added to the plan. (Note: It was not added.)

Many citizens expressed opposition to the project, citing concerns about cost, flood risk, increased congestion at Henry/Doherty, decreased property values, loss of natural beauty of the neighborhood, safety issues related to cut-through traffic, inadequate turn radius at the ninety-degree turn for large vehicles, etc. There was also a criticism that the Council had not given serious consideration to any other options such as using the area for a walking or bike path. There was also a suggestion that the decision might be tainted by conflict of interest on the part of decision-makers. Residents also said that the current plan, without the extension south to Fell Road, would not improve traffic circulation because it merely funnels traffic into an overloaded intersection at Henry/Doherty, which is also a school crossing.

During various discussions, some council members indicated that the engineering order and subsequent bid effort would produce new information relevant to a final decision; so a vote in favor of the task order was not necessarily a vote for actual construction of the road.

Eventually, the council voted to approve the task order for the engineering effort.

The city tasked an engineering contractor, DRMP, to commence with the design effort.

As stated above, the preliminary stormwater management study had concluded that swales could be constructed next to the road, but when soil testing was done by a city contractor, it was found that the swale design would not work. Test results showed that, on the Heritage Oaks Boulevard Extension (east-west segment), the soil type was inadequate to support effective swale design, and the water table level was too high. On the Doherty Drive Extension (north-south segment), there was insufficient space for swales within the right of way.

The city engineering contractor, therefore, undertook a different approach. The new design called for ditches with storm drains connected to underground pipes, which would conduct run-off to a "Nutrient Separating Baffle Box" and then into the canal adjacent to the Doherty Drive Extension. This design was submitted to the St. John's River Water Management District (SJRWMD) for permitting.

SJRWMD pointed out that this did not attenuate the peak run-off during a storm, so it was not compliant with the requirements. After some discussion, the city withdrew its permit application, stating that it would have to revise the stormwater management approach.

A new permit application was submitted on 29 March, 2022.

NEXT>