Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Parks topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council directs staff to explore SR‑524 trailhead options after neighbors warn of Cox Road impacts
Summary
Council discussed a staff proposal for a Cox Road trailhead ($131,807 design/permitting) and, after neighbors cited drainage, fill and privacy concerns, directed staff to also explore alternatives for a trailhead or crossing tied to SR‑524 and coordinate with FDOT; the motion passed 4–1.
Staff presented a task order for design and permitting of a trailhead to the Cocoa Conservation Area off Cox Road at an estimated $131,807.50. The design scope includes a picnic pavilion, children’s play area, a sand volleyball court, connections to existing trails and interpretive signage.
Residents who live adjacent to the proposed Cox Road access urged caution, warning the access easement is narrow, that any fill could raise neighboring lots and cause drainage problems, and that increased foot traffic could bring nuisance and security concerns. Several residents said they prefer an alternative access and noted the existing, established entrance and footpath at other points in the conservation area.
FDOT and crossing issues: Staff and council noted that establishing a trailhead off SR‑524 would require FDOT traffic engineering justification for a mid‑block crossing (typical pedestrian demand threshold cited as about 20 pedestrians per hour) and that mid‑block crossing installations with flashing beacons can exceed $500,000. Council discussed options including pursuing a crossing justification study, pursuing partnerships for parking (private property owners or shopping center agreements) or examining future FDOT widening plans to coordinate access.
Council direction: After extensive debate balancing neighborhood concerns, public access goals and FDOT constraints, council voted to direct staff to explore all feasible alternatives for establishing access to the Cocoa Conservation Area from SR‑524 — including potential partnerships, crossings, and coordination with FDOT and pending roadway projects — and to continue work on the Cox Road design/permitting as appropriate. The motion to explore alternatives passed 4–1 (one dissent stressed protecting adjacent homeowners and the narrow easement).
Next steps: Staff will return with analysis of SR‑524 options, including any traffic study needs and preliminary cost estimates, and will report on coordination with FDOT and potential private partners for parking or easement agreements.
