HomeMy WebLinkAboutComments by Robert King on 2005 10 27RECEIVED
OCT 2 7 2005
C CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS
10~27~2OOS OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
Comments on the September 22nd, 2005 meeting of
ERAPOC and the Development Scenarios presented.
After reviewing the minutes of the September meeting I wish to comment on the
information that we were presented and discussed then. Overall the city's vision for the
East Rural Area, as described in city resolution 2005-09, could be a model of good
planning. However, the process we are involved in has brought to light questions whose
answers will have bearing on the way we all interpret the vision.
First of these questions is the intended concept of the word `transition' (includes
words Transitional and Transitioning). The best way to describe this concept is to explain
the choice that must be made. One way to view `Transition' is to define it as a function of
time, as a snapshot in an evolutionary process. The other option is to define it as a
function of space, a place that is fixed to provide a permanent buffer between abstract
places. A clear choice must be made and adopted as the intended definition, in regards to
the implementation of any East Rural Transitional Area Design Standards or
Development Code. Truthfully, the committee must know this before any of us can
endorse a final plan. This was discussed at the September meeting and a decision was
postponed to investigate what was being done in this regard elsewhere in the county.
My understanding of the scenario discussions, as we left the September meeting, were as
follows.......
• Alternative #1 has already been dismissed without consideration due to the fact
that it violates property rights law and could not be implemented.
• Alternative #2 is the currently adopted plan, and has been expanded to include a
#2B option, depicting the inclusion of actually implementing the county's
clustering provision.
• Alternative #3 is a depiction of an urban pattern and is apparently what the
committee is attempting to avoid. It has value though, to compare what the
outcome might have been if the city had not chosen to convene the committee and
do this study, and instead chose to simply annex and try to change land use
designations.
• Alternative #4 is to be developed based on the committee's findings?
Significant questions arise from the potential development scenarios as they are being
discussed. First is the assumption that septic tanks are bad for the environment. In #2 and
#2B the density and total number of these septic systems would be controlled by the
existing lot size restriction, placing 1 each of them on predominantly 3,S,and 10-acre
parcels. We do not have the answer to the question of how large a parcel is needed to
make a septic system harmless or even desirable as opposed to central sewer. Inversely,
we do not know how small parcels need to be before septic systems would become
detrimental to the environment. Simply assuming all septic systems are detrimental is not
realistic. Alternative #4 should consider the city's long-term maintenance cost of
central sewer versus the maximum non-harmful density of septic systems ($0 cost to
city) when identifying appropriate density designations.
Traffic and road impacts do not appear to be addressed as we compare the various
scenarios. Even under alternative #2 and 2b, the number of trips on the existing roadways
will increase exponentially. This is based on the amount of property rights that have
already been given to the landowners today. Any plan that increases the density for any
reason will only exacerbate the already constrained situation. One of the stated reasons
why alternative #3 is undesirable is urban zoning will have negative traffic impacts. We
cannot improve on the traffic situation by giving additional property rights above the
existing level.
Alternative #4 should not rely on a substantial increase in the quantity of
development rights as incentive to the landowners to accept the rest of the
wonderful planning concepts it may embody.
A concern that resounds in the conversations among rural residents is that the area
where we live is not suited for all personality types of people. There is some compromise
associated with living in a rural area, and not everyone is interested in living that
compromise. We have dark, but that comes at the cost of no street and lot lighting. If
everyone decides to put up floodlights, then no one will have dark. If everyone dries up
the wetlands on their property in an attempt to wipe out the mosquitoes, then we will
have no functioning wetlands. Instead we live with the mosquitoes and enjoy the wetland
habitat we are surrounded by. This list is endless, from having quiet at night and being
able to sleep with the windows open, to being able to go talk to your neighbor and discuss
and resolve conflicts and un-neighborly behavior. We do not expect others to resolve our
every little issue for us, instead we deal with it ourselves. The plan our committee arrives
at must leave us with a development pattern that attracts and sustains the type of people
that can relate to, and preserve, our values.
Alternative #4 should not allow development that will encourage the types of people
to move here and then wish to change what we already have. It will not demand
services and amenities that detract from the lifestyle we are able to have as residents
under unincorporated Seminole County jurisdictiction.
V~~ ~'~l ~i^~ir