West Viera Community Advisory Panel Meeting
August 4, 2005
Facilitator’s Summary

Introduction
The meeting was called to order at 6:15 p.m. by Steve Johnson, President of The Viera Company. Mr. Johnson welcomed everyone and thanked panel members for giving their time and participating in the process. He introduced the facilitator, Analee Mayes.

The following Community Advisory Panel members were present:

Kristin Bakke
Joanna Bass
Alan Bekkenhuis
Mario Busacca
Kay Burk
Rob Dale
Tom Dillon
Cynthia Ford
Kathy Harter
Franck Kaiser
Lidia Lynch
Deborah Maliski
Joe Mayer
Jennie Ninesling
Dean Pettit
Ayn Samuelson
Laurilee Thompson
Bob Wille
Keith Winsten
Roy Wright

Transportation Issues
A brief explanation of the transportation impact analysis process and methodology was presented by Brent Lacy of Glatting Jackson, Viera’s transportation consultant. Highlights of Mr. Lacy’s presentation are presented below.

The process used for analyzing transportation impacts in the development of regional impact review process involves:
• Analyzing different sources of traffic, including project and non-project traffic
• Following a standard procedure, according to Florida Administrative Rules and Florida Statutes, and a specific methodology
• Evaluating every roadway segment and intersection in a study area that extends from approximately US 192 to SR 520
• Considering current conditions, background traffic, programmed improvements, and expected project traffic based on Viera’s land use mix
• Determining internal and external trips
• Distributing all the traffic (project and non-project) using an approved model
• Identifying improvements that are needed to maintain the adopted level of service on the roadway network
• Determining improvements for which The Viera Company is responsible, that is, the improvements required because of Viera traffic, if significant. The Viera Company can 1) make the entire improvement and get impact fee credits for the capacity that is created in excess of that needed for Viera’s traffic, 2) make proportionate share payments toward the improvements, or 3) do what is called “pipelining”, which means applying proportionate share payments to just one regionally significant improvement, such as the Pineda Extension and interchange with I-95, which would provide regional benefit by relieving traffic congestion on Wickham Road and helping with emergency evacuation

Great Streets
Following the same transportation theme, Carey Hayo of Glatting Jackson made a presentation on the design of great streets. The highlights of her presentation were:

• Traditionally, when roads get congested we widen them. But with growth, we are facing situations where roads are constrained and can’t be improved or widened further. An alternative way of looking at transportation, instead of looking at roads as a way to move more cars, we look at moving people, improving quality of travel, and moving fewer people fewer miles. Also in such cases, people may need to accept a higher level of congestion.
• The conventional land use pattern provides for the segregation of uses
• In the traditional land use pattern, uses are connected by a fine grained pattern of streets, so people can get from one place to another without going out on an arterial road. With this pattern, for the same number of lane miles, you have more capacity in the network.
• The highest efficiency is achieved with two-lane roads intersecting with left turn lanes.
• You can move the highest volume of cars with speeds of 25 to 30 mph.
• We have learned that wider streets encourage unsafe driving practices, whereas, two-lane roads regulate drivers passively.
• Although the grid system is the most familiar pattern, it doesn’t have to be a street grid system. There are different patterns can perform the same function, as long as there is a fine-grained network of streets.
• Design matters. Some designs present a hostile environment for pedestrians. A better design is when buildings address the street; the front instead of the back is on the street. Otherwise, the street is a wasteland.

Forces That Shape the Master Plan
Ms. Hayo highlighted for the panel the many forces that will ultimately shape West Viera’s master plan, including:

• Citizen Input
• Community Design Principles
• Government Approvals
• Financial Feasibility
• Market Demand
• Offsite Traffic Network Capacity

Preliminary Concept Plans
Mr. Joe Anglin, one the principals of Glatting Jackson, presented two preliminary concept plans for consideration by the panel. In his presentation he described the village form as follows:

• Network of streets
• 1000 – 1500 acres in size
• Village center with 80,000 to 100,000 square feet of retail/office space
• Elementary school within walking distance
• Civic uses, i.e., churches, park, gathering place
• Residential neighborhoods located in a ¼-mile zone within a ¼-mile radius (5 minute walk) of the village center with approximately 3500 units

Other highlights of both plans include:

• Both preliminary plans provide for 28,000 units on the west side of I-95, 8,000 of which are already built and 6,000 of which have been approved but not yet built, for a total of 14,000 new units proposed.
• The concepts cover the West Viera planning area and a portion of the existing approved DRI.
• The plans provide for a mix of home types including single family, duplexes, town homes, and multi family. Higher densities are located closer to the village centers. Further away from the village centers are rural hamlets, open spaces, potential equestrian areas.
• Rural clusters are low density clusters with open space located on the western perimeter.
• Higher intensity areas are planned near the proposed Pineda interchange, deemphasizing Wickham Road.
• The remaining lands of the existing Viera town center are being analyzed to further intensify the uses planned in that area.
• Information is still coming in that will shape these plans, primarily in the areas of transportation and wildlife.

Characteristic features of the two concepts are:
Concept A
• Evenly spreads development across the property
• Very similar to existing neighborhoods in Viera
• Doesn’t use all the land
• Incorporates recreational lakes, a chain of lakes
• Primarily single family
• Multi lane arterial roads
• Some connectivity
• Automobile oriented
• Difficult to serve by transit
• Isolated conservation areas
Concept B
• Consists of 5 village centers
• Interconnected streets to the Pineda Extension and interchange with I-95
• Homes could face streets
• Incorporates chain of lakes
• District villages – separation
• ¼ mile radius
• Retail and office space scaled to serve the villages to maximize internal capture
• Complete cross section of housing types in each village
• Uses 2,000 fewer acres, involves lower infrastructure costs and a faster absorption rate than Concept A
• Lots are fronting roads on main streets
• Continuous open space system

Questions on the Presentation:
Following the presentation, most of the questions for clarification had to do with transportation issues. They were:

1. Why aren’t you analyzing the intersection of US 1 and Eau Gallie Causeway? The study area will include the US 1/Eau Gallie Causeway if Viera traffic is projected to be significant, i.e., amount to more than 5 percent of the service volume capacity.
2. Will there be more traffic on the Pineda Extension going to beaches? Yes, but it will include traffic that shifts from other east-west roadways.
3. Are you looking at Washingtonia parallel to I-95 on west? It would relieve traffic on Wickham Road. Yes, that is being considered.
4. How many lanes for Washingtonia? 2 or 4 lanes
5. Your definition of transportation improvements seems to be adding lanes. Do you consider the effect on existing communities? Yes

Panel Members Comments
Next, panel members were asked to share their thoughts on the following:

1. Advantages and disadvantages of each concept
2. What do you like about A? B? Why?
3. What concerns do you have about A? B? Why?
4. How well has the team taken your comments into account?

A summary of members’ comments, organized by major theme is presented below:

Unsure about marketability/feasibility of Concept B
• Expect some resistance to Concept B because of the problem of cut through traffic when main roads get congested
• People don’t know what they’re looking for in a community. It’s good that a marketing firm is recommending Concept B. It’s not what people are used to, and they may not understand
• Family structure has changed. Nowadays, both parents work, all family members have cars, there’s a reliance on automobiles. Concept B is not realistic. People don’t have time to walk to store. They don’t shop every day and can’t carry a week’s worth of groceries
• With smaller commercial centers you may not attract commercial we want. You won’t fit the store’s formula
• Not sure a house facing a main street would appeal to buyers
• Concept A is what we have now and selling well. Why change? Can see good reasons for Concept B, if it’s viable
• Grew up in a town like Concept B with interconnected neighborhoods. When people reached choke points on main roads, they would go to neighborhood streets
• Have to address transportation, not sure Concept B is marketable
• The viability of Concept B will depends on what’s in village center, e.g., services, employment
• Will Concept B be marketable? Can it be presented in such a way that people will want to live there? Does it meet what people need and want?
• 28,000 units and 2 cars per unit. Have to provide for them
• Murrell Rd. is an arterial that people walk along
• Example of Tradition in St. Lucie County. There’s not much in their community center

Prefer A as “tried and true”
• Prefer A personally – it’s better defined and would have fewer problems w/ cut through traffic
• Viera has some interconnectivity now

Need to provide for jobs
• Missing the “work” of “live-work-play”. If want to reduce traffic, need industrial & commercial uses. If West Viera is primarily residential people have to get in and out to go to work
• Employment needed, e.g., technology parks
• Employment centers and commercial centers have to be viable
• Jobs are the main concern. When the housing market cools, jobs will drive market for housing
• Need more than service sector jobs. It should be a coordinated effort of the County, EDC, and state to recruit a major employer. For each manufacturing job, you get 10+ service jobs
• Health First is creating 1500 – 2000 jobs
• Quality of life helps recruits employers. Major employers don’t need the same transportation access and infrastructure as they used to, e.g., good housing helped attract physicians for new hospital
• Convincing corporations to relocate is hard. It’s very competitive. The Viera Company should set aside a place for an employment center

Can overcome concern about Concept A or B with good design, incorporate elements of both
• Prefer Concept B; don’t expect problems with cut through traffic because of design of roads.
• Larger lots on feeder roads addresses concern about small lots with Traditional Neighborhood Developments
• Depends on what is put in village centers, and whether they sell goods and services people can use
• Prefer elements of both. Concept A with improvements, such as more home choices and connectivity, can work
• Prefer Concept B, but just residential with school, park (not commercial). Like interconnectivity, so kids can get around on their own in the neighborhood. Agree smaller roads designed to passively regulate traffic.
• Put Concept B’s road system in Concept A
• Maybe a mix

Prefer Concept B
• Like more open space of Concept B. Expect houses in Concept B will sell for more money w/ open space. Concept B will make money for the developer
• Concept B brings back the charm of small scale communities (village’s w/squares). Prefer B. People want to live like that
• I’ve lived in B. It really works
• Change is hard, scary. When bought a house in Viera, did not have a choice. People will walk and bike in Viera now and don’t have grocery store now. I like the diversity in neighborhoods. I’m looking for as much of Concept B as could get in Viera now
• Can have best of both worlds. Even in gated communities there’s a need for traffic calming. Favor Concept B. It can meet the needs of market that prefers Concept A
• Prefer Concept B, which presents an opportunity to manage traffic with curvilinear streets, connectivity, and open space system
• Work in Viera would more likely be professional services. All that’s needed is a Publix, a large hardware store, and a movie theater. Prefer Concept B
• More opportunities with Concept B
• Concept B preferred – traffic looks relaxed and there seems to be less risk that roads would need to be widened in the future
• Brevard County has enough of Concept A. We need work place housing variety of types/ cost of housing. Brevard County is trying to attract young professionals, who won’t be able to afford to live in houses on large lots in Concept A. Those types of homes would be available in Concept B on the perimeter
• Concept A has worked and made money, but I’m sick of it. Prefer to have diversity of opportunity

Stick to Plan
• Concept B is attractive and could be workable. Would the plan be followed? With Windover Farms there were objections to plans from the neighbors. The Viera Company needs to stick to the plan.
• Viera has a unique opportunity to master plan a large parcel and won’t have the problems of lot of smaller developers. Do the plan (Concept B) and stick to it.
• Show plan when homes are marketed. Be upfront with prospective buyers.
Other
• County-owned parcel within West Viera planning area will be a treasure for bird watchers and wildlife photographers.
• Need arts and culture in the plan. Don’t reduce it to “civic spaces”.

Next Steps
The next meeting of the Community Advisory Panel will be September 8, 2005 at the Wingate Estates Clubhouse, starting at 5:30 pm. This is planned as the last meeting of the Community Advisory Panel.