HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006 01 26 Other - Letter by Robert King
RECEIVED
JAN 1 0 2006
1/9/2006
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS
OFFICE}, OF THE CITY cLeR~
C 'c ~ l Cc..( CM....l L A-( <...1:::.
Comment to the ERAPOC of Winter SprIngs CJ'::).b
by ROBERT KING
This is the third written comment submitted to the committee and commissioners
regarding the progression of the committee. While I have attended and tried to participate
on this committee, I do not feel that what I had envisioned as an acceptable outcome is
forthcoming. In communicating my dissatisfaction of the progress with staff, both within
the committee proceedings and individually, I have not gained any confidence
whatsoever that the outcome is improving. As we have progressed, a series of
assumptions have steered the committee in the direction we have gone. I reject those
assumptions and the outcome I see us poised to potentially recommend. Weare now at
the point that the committee is about to forward a recommendation to the commission and
I find myself unable to endorse the direction the proceedings have taken. I volunteered
for this committee willingly because I believed that this would be an open ended process,
with a good outcome possible.
I think that the major turning point in my perception came when it was made clear
in the meetings that a overall density of 1 Du/acre, calculated against gross acreage, was
what the consultant had been instructed to base his work and handling of the process to
achieve. I had understood this to be an initial study 'scenario' only and do not remember
it being a consensus conclusion to be used to drive the rest of the process. A density of
IDu/acre as proposed would mean up to 1000 families and their attendant impact would
be allowed to live in the study area. This is an area that now is allowed to have less than
150 families. Quite frankly, 150 units, if built poorly enough, could degrade the character
of the area. But 1000 units, regardless of how well they are accomplished, is the
elimination of any semblance of rural. No amount of conserved land can cover up the
impact of that many urban-type dwellers upon the existing quality of life.
To achieve this increased density will require urban utility services be extended to
the far reaches of the study area. Roads and Public-Safety services will need to be
expanded to serve those distant urban developed areas. Outdoor lighting, something all
city dwellers seem unable to live without, will crop up throughout the study area and
eliminate darkness for all who live in the surrounding area. Air conditioning, made
necessary by closely packed dwelling units, will reject the heat from within the new
structures and ultimately raise the ambient temperature in summer well above what is
currently experienced. Noise generated by urban lifestyle will end the level of quiet that
is currently available at the county's rural density designation. The list goes on but the
destruction of cool, dark and quiet is reason enough to reject the idea of urbanizing the
Black Hammock area.
:
What is appropriate for this area would be a m~hanism to protect the
environmental value and character of the area, and allow landowners the ability to
maximize their investment within the constraints of that mechanism. What has
actually occurred with our committee is that we have somehow gotten hung up on
making the product such that it will be desirable to annex into the city, while attempting
to retain a remnant of the quality of life that now exists. This is understandable, due to the
fact that the act of annexation is legally synonymous with the act of urbanization. Why
else would landowners voluntarily request to annex rural lands into a corporate limit but
to urbanize their property? As you well know the same landowners in the study area that
have applied to Oviedo for annexation have also applied to Winter Springs for annexation
simultaneously, it is clear they are cooperating toward a single end. Seems like a
shopping expedition, looking for one of the cities to allow them to do what they cannot
do currently under county jurisdiction. I think the question that we all should be asking
ourselves is whether urbanization of the study area is the right thing to do. If it is not, the
most appropriate action would simply be to not annex the properties into the
corporate limits of either city. What stands in the way of this is the mistrust between the
cities that they both will stand firm against inappropriate annexation and urbanization of
Seminole's rural lands. The proponents for annexation are counting on this mistrust and
each city's misguided belief that they can benefit by converting rural lands, regardless of
the loss that the county as a whole will suffer.
Now with all of that said, I will offer my suggestion for what would be an
appropriate approach to accomplish the task at hand. Staff has suggested I do this as a
way of at least getting my comments accurately on record in the process.
1. Adopt development scenario #2 from the Resolution 2005-09. This
will allow density to be calculated on build-able land and not inclusion
of jurisdictional wetlands. This will cap the overall density of the
development in the study area at slightly more than 1 Du/ 5acres,
thereby maintaining the total number of families in the study area to
under 200. 'Tier Two' densities and lot sizes for Conservation
Development would need to be adjusted, due to less total units in the
calculation.
2. Allow transfer of density from parcel to parcel within the study
area. This will allow some level of master planning and will make
possible a 'Large Picture' approach. Bear in mind these voluntary
annexation applicants have already linked themselves together, one
property making the next contiguous to the city limits (serpentine), and
are the driving force attempting to circumvent the existing County Rural
Area development regulations.
3. Cluster aU non-rural development to an area compactly located
adjacent to the currently built urban area, and prohibit further
extension of services outside that designated area. Transfer of the
intense development activity to this compact area will increase
profitability by minimizing the cost of infrastructure such as roads,
sewers, waterlines, police, :fire, and drainage.
4. Place any lands that development rights have been transferred
from, north and east of the designated development, into
Conservation or Agricultural Easements to preserve them in
perpetuity. This will include an easement-protected land corridor south
of Howard Ave. and west of Lake Charm St., providing at least a 500'
wide wooded buffer between the developed area and the conservation /
agricultural lands and the remainder of the county's Rural Area.
. 5. Limit Access to the development area. Traffic created by the newly
developed area must be directed into the urban area of Oviedo and
Winter Springs and restricted into the rural area. Road improvements
needed would then be limited to the intersections of Florida and Deleon,
Deleon and SR434, and Florida and Lake Charm. Under this plan, all
other roads in the hammock would not be impacted by the development
6. Remove the minimum lot size requirement within the 'Tiered'
approach. This concept penalizes property owners who do not have
parcels as large as the minimum size requirements. Once the
surrounding area becomes urbanized, 3, 5 and 10 acre owners adjacent
to the intense developed area will no longer wish to remain, but will be
unable to market their parcels at the density of the property next to
them.
7. Remove the 'Lakefront Hamlet' zoning district from the permitted
densities. The creation of such high intensity zoning was based solely
on the assumption that it would be better to adopt an intensity level to
reflect accurately the existing condition, in a very small and unique
portion of the study area, than to identify it as non-conforming and
accept that it is an anomaly. This zoning district will set precedent and
later attempts will be made to enlarged and implement it elsewhere. It
would simply be better to acknowledge the tiny existing area as non-
conforming with the rural area.
8. Remove Active Recreation from the permitted uses of common
open space. Active recreation does not function as part of the non-built
environment, rather involves outdoor lighting, impervious surfaces, and
activity that has little connection to the function of conserved natural
space. Facilities for active recreation should be located within the built
environment in the developed area.
r
9. Conserved lands should always have a conservation easement held
by a nonprofit conservation organization. While ownership may
change over time the easements restrictions and management provisions
will best be preserved by a third party concerned with the best interest
of the property, not the changing political climate.
These suggestions are a response to the draft East Rural Area Development
Standards provided at the December 5th ERAPOC meeting. I am awaiting reviewing of
the draft committee report to the commission to form my final opinion of whether I can
support the outcome of our effort. I have no hesitation in stating that I am satisfied with
the members of the committee, its leadership, and the abilities of the consultant. As I
have said before, it is the flawed assumptions that formed the foundation of the work we
have done.! will not attempt to elaborate on all of the issues I feel are assumptions, but
will share one in particular to illustrate how they can influence all of the work that
follows a flawed assumption. . . . . . . . ..
In the beginning I had made it a point to request that a formal decision be made to
define Transitional, transition, transitioning. I was surprised when later I was informed at
a meeting that "it was decided" to drop the nomenclature rather than define what
'Transitional' meant. Did I miss a meeting or something? And off we went from there,
Transition no longer being discussed. That language is still in the resolution passed by the
commission, and I believe the intent of the commission remains in finding a way to
transition into the rural area. Instead we are now working in the context of a long range
plan to develop the study area. I personally feel that what I am being told is "It can be a
whole lot worse, so accept these densities or you will get something worse."
My goal from the beginning was to develop a plan to provide a clean transition
between the urban area and the rural area, something that would last, something that
would be fair. Instead what I am seeing evolving is a plan to exponentially increase
density, expand urban services, and forever alter the study area into something that little
resembles what I have known as Black Hammock. So what to do? I write this to you all,
await the next meeting and hope that somehow our product has grown up since we last
met. When I receive my draft recommendation to the commission I will comment again.
But, at some time there is the point of no return, when my name on the final document
would mean I endorse its content. I intend to finish my commitment to this committee,
but I will not be used to add credibility to something I do not believe in.
Looking forward to our next meeting,
Respectfuj;
/ / 1 '
'It ,
/' ,
.'.../ /'
Jj~f/l ~