HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006 02 22 Other ERAPOC Sahlstrom
Date: February 22, 2006
The attached Documents were distributed on
February 22, 2006 by Ms. Eloise Sahlstrom.
Comments to the Winter Springs ERAPOC
From Rex Clonts
January 25,2006
This committee was given the difficult task of balancing the wishes of citizens
with divergent views about the future of Black Hammock. The normal way land use
occurs is initially for governments to heed the cries of the no-growth few because saying
"no" is the easiest thing to do. The result is that growth pressures build and at some point
the delayed development begins to encroach sporadically, piecemeal and ultimately worst
for all concerned. A better approach is to recognize the benefit of area wide planning and
adopt a realistic position on the long term land use that recognizes the rights and needs of
everyone involved before market forces begin to make those decisions for us.
I want to commend the city of Winter Springs for taking the bold step forward
and addressing this tough problem while responsible planning can still have a positive
impact. Staff has called on a number of respected consultants to provide guidance to the
committee and has been responsive to request for additional information and meeting
times. The meetings have been structured with plenty of opportunities for input from
members and staff has altered recommendations when appropriate to reflect input from
the committee. The committee has been responsive to the views of all members.
While no one will consider these recommendations perfect, it is my belief that our
effort can result in a much better future for the area.
1/9/2006
RECEIVED
JAN 10 2006
RECEIVED
JAN 10 2006
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS
Community Development
Comment to the ERAPOC of Winter Springs
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. We are 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 I Du/acre, calculated against gross acreage, was
}Vhat 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 mechanism 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 IDu/ 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 all 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 Ruml 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 ruml 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-confonning 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.
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.I 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,
Respectfully,
RECEIVED
OCT 2 7 2005
10/27/2005
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
Comments on the September 22nd, 2005 meeting of
ERAPOC and the Development Scenarios presented.
After reviewing the minutes ofthe 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 ofthese 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 ofthese septic systems would be controlled by the'
existing lot size restriction, placing 1 each of them on predominantly 3,5,and lO-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.
Robert King
RECEIVED
OCT 27 2005
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Memo
TO: The Winter Springs East Rural Area Property Owners Committee
FROM: Rex Clonts
DATE: 1 0-26-05
SUBJ: Northeast Quadrant (Short-cut canal area east to Canal St lying N of Howard Ave)
Consultants John Femsler and Mickael Clarke presented a thoughtful and logical
overview of alternative scenarios" at our September meeting. I agree with the concept of
conservation design and I like the "lakefront hamlet" designation applied to the area
around the fish camp. However, they were working from available land feature maps
with little or no opportunity to spent time at the site, much less do an in depth study to
verify the accuracy of this base information and I feel some the "potential zoning
strategies" should be reconsidered.
It should be first acknowledged that the historic land features have been altered
almost a hundred years ago by pioneering farmers. The relative flatness ofthe area (lake
@ approx. 3ft. msl and land @ 15ft msl) meant it was easy to ditch even with the limited
machines of the day or hand labor. The result is a hydraulic, and to a lesser extent, floral
change that cannot realistically be reversed. An in-depth study would likely conclude that
prudent development be based on today's reality rather than questionable historic data
(see maps pages 1.9 and 1.10).
Specifically, I feel the presentation has missed an opportunity to maximize the
clustering concept in the northwest quadrant of the study area. The trend of declining
densities from west to east may appear to fit a transitional area, but this effect can be
achieved without the punitive restrictions of the "Rural Conservation II" designation.
First, this sector, comprising approximately 1/3rd of the study area, is owned by no
more than four landowners and, as Randal Arendt pointed out, large parcels are much
more effective when applying the principles of conservation design.
Secondly, the sector contains significant lakeshore wetlands. More importantly,
there are large areas of grove land that are impacted by the 100 yr. flood-plane, which can
never be built upon. This grove land should be used for ponds to improve the water
quality entering the lake from the Short-cut Canal and the North Boundary Canal. With
the additional of the required on-site water retention, this sector will provide the best
conservation/restoration acres in all of the study area. The result is that this sector will
have naturally occurring open spaces that should support higher density while providing
quality open space and environmental benefits.
There is an opportunity to provide trails and wildlife corridors along the sides of
Short-cut canal and a buffer along Howard Ave. and Canal 81. using a combination of
restored woodlands and commercial tree farming. The resulting developable land within
those natural and man made buffers would be compact and unobtrusive.
These kinds of effective clustering aids are likely not possible on small tracts.
This northwest quadrant contains the largest tracts in the study area, but if the property
owners are going to conform to the conservation design model they need densities that
justify the unique characteristics of the sector.
Robert J King, member
July ih 2005
Initial written comments to the proceedings of the
EAST RURAL AREA PROPERTY OWNERS COMMITTEE
The following comments are to help clarify for the record my oral comments to
staff and commissioners, some made at the last meeting of the committee on June 16th
and commission meeting June 2ih. These are also my observations about the task at hand
and the pitfalls we may encounter.
Follows is my review of the Winter Springs resolution # 2005-09 that formed the
committee..... ..
Sections I and II
Mission and Vision statement are good, and could be interpreted in a very positive
manner, but there is also a clearly stated assumption that "population growth" is to be
"accommodated" in the study area. While population growth is indeed a factor in urban
Central Florida, it can not automatically be assumed that it will be allowed or encouraged
in the rural study area at higher density than is currently adopted in the approved
comprehensive plan.
This committee should not allow this subjective assumption to in any way limit
or influence the selection offinal recommendations.
Section VI
The analysis criteria and the four 'Land Development Scenarios' called out in the
resolution were a good starting point to allow the city Commission to initiate the study
and begin discussion. They are somewhat limited in being able to analyze all possible
future options, and should be considered as 'general guidelines' rather than hard and fast
final choices or options. The city Commission has been very clear in its direction that
flexibility and inclusion are their intent in the function ofthis committee, and that no
limits are to be placed on the options to be explored.
This committee should not allow the specific language of this 'guideline' to in
any way limit discussion or potential considerations.
Throughout the resolution document;
The word "transitional" is used heavily throughout the entire document. The
definition of the term is the subject of much controversy and legal maneuverings. The
importance of this cannot be emphasized enough, as the final product ofthis committee's
effort is to write and adopt a "Transitional" Development Code.
The controversy of defining and interpreting "transition" seems to revolve around
whether the area identified as transition is permanent or temporary. Does it mean that it
provides a permanent 'buffer' between two different areas and is required permanently to
make the abstract areas compatible? Or does it mean that this "transition" area is in a
state of flux and is only temporarily required or expected to remain at its assigned
intensity? Vague definitions can be twisted into whatever meaning the person wants them
to be at the moment and can confuse many people into believing that some large
concession may have been made, only to find out later that it was quite meaningless.
Before this committee begins discussion it is critical that a clear, and fIXed
definition be assigned to the words "transition ", "transitional" and "transitioning" and
to allfuture use of them in conjunction with this committee's work.
I would also like to comment on some of the other peripheral implications of
potential annexation of lands currently governed by the County comprehensive plan,
Rural Area Plan, and Land development code........
First, the City of Winter Springs currently does not have comparable Land Use
Designations for Rural density (3,5,10 acre lots) to make any annexation a lateral move.
Any annexation will require an increase in intensity (change of land use designation) on
the parcel or would require that the city adopt new Rural Land Use (3,5,10 acre lots)
categories into their plan. This really pivots on the city commissions mindset, whether
they view all land annexed as ultimately becoming urban, or if they by policy endorse the
commitment to the land remaining rural. This is a policy decision that needs to be clearly
articulated and documented to prevent future commissions from reneging on the
commitment.
Even under the best conditions annexation into a municipal boundary sets into
motion many mechanisms that, on their own, preclude sustainable rural land uses. Most
significantly is the U.S. Census Data that automatically lumps all lands within a
incorporated city as urban lands. This federal designation affects the data that is used to
make many decisions at the regional, state and federal levels such as road, utility, and
growth projections and service areas. It is truly a snowball effect; there is absolutely no
such thing as a benign annexation.
Another subject that appears to have wide disparity of policy is the land use and
zoning categories in which Commercial Agriculture is allowed to exist and operate. The
County's perspective is that it is a compatible use in many categories while the city views
it as a generally incompatible use, except in a commercial zone. This has led to city lands
being converted to commercial designation, under the pretense that the code requires the
change if the owner wishes to continue Commercial Agricultural use of the parcel.
The study area is comprised of lands that were long ago drained and converted
from their natural state and environmental function. This was done clearly for the
purposes of agriculture and have been operated since that time as agricultural lands. The
environmental regulation and tax relief that have been extended to these properties
historically were granted as incentive to continue agricultural viability ofthe land. To
drain the same swamp or clear-cut that much land for other uses such as housing or
commercial use would be met with significantly stricter regulation, especially in today's
world. The presence of Agriculture on the property is not a viable reason for the city to
assert that the Land Use or Zoning designation must be changed to Commercial to make
the use "compatible". The city will need to resolve this conflict before annexing any land
that may wish to retain its tax exempt Agricultural Status.
Thank you for the opportunity to make comment to the study,