Special Subjects
This Subcommittee will focus on all the other things that are important to the lucky people who live here – things we may not have mentioned so far, but which are equally important to our quality of life. Some of these things we can manage or influence, others are more difficult for us but are still things we have to know about and take into consideration in shaping a long-term vision for Melbourne Village.
Many of these things also directly help shape the "look and feel of Melbourne Village" in the eyes of its residents, and are subjects we will want to ask residents about when we conduct the Village Survey , which will take place in September/October. If you would like to work on any of these please contact one of the co-chairs of this Subcommittee, Sandi Dix, at or Bill Moon, at They can also put you in touch with others who share your particular interest, such as the individuals identified below, who are additional contacts for this subject, and who in some cases are leading a small study group which will report back to the Vision 2012 Committee.
- How do we fit into the ongoing, high profile public discussion of growth and development in Central Florida? What laws, regulations, and/or public discussion in other Brevard communities, or at the County or the State levels are relevant to us? To what extent do State regulatory and legislative frameworks govern what we can or cannot do here? What must we do, if anything, to adjust our policies to fit "their" requirements? When there is a conflict, who prevails? Contact: Gail Griswold,
- Outside experience: What are other towns and villages across America doing to assure that they develop and change in accord with the wishes of their residents, and not at the whim of outside forces? How do they handle the tricky issues of lot coverage, setbacks, architecture, etc.? Are there lessons for us? What are they? Contact: Sandi Dix, ; and Rod Stiefbold,
- Historic preservation: We hear a lot about this these days, and it’s a hot issue all over the country. How does it apply to Melbourne Village? What do we have to "preserve"? How important is it? What role does it play in guaranteeing our future "specialness" as the unique town in Brevard County? Contact John Daly,
- One major Vision issue that begs to be dealt with is the "mix" of older and younger citizens, and wealthier and less wealthy citizens, and citizens from diverse backgrounds.
- "Communities for a Lifetime" is a new initiative by the State of Florida to help towns like us figure out how to make our communities user-friendly to people of all ages and incomes over the next 10 or 20 years, despite the threats of over-development and huge tax increases.
- How does it apply to us? What can we do to make use of the idea, and of the State resources behind it? What steps can we take to implement it here? Can we figure out how to make every citizen who lives here now at least have the option of always living here?
- What are the zoning implications, and what options are potentially available for creative approaches to this issue?
- What about the mix of different ethnic and other social groups? What is our situation now? Can we improve the diversity of our community and should we take proactive steps to do so?
Contacts: Grayson Dix, or Stephen Seiler - AHF and TMV. Our situation is unique in many ways, but perhaps nothing is more difficult for the outside world to grasp than the dual role that the Town and the AHF play in the daily life of Melbourne Village.
- When you think about either one, what is it that you think each contributes most to your own sense of the special "look" and "feel" of living here?
- What can we do to make more residents aware of the dynamic interaction of AHF and TMV in shaping the quality of life here?
- What can we do to make sure that Town and AHF cooperate and work together in the most constructive way possible?
- Are there special areas where in your opinion cooperation between AHF and TMV could be improved?
- Are there things that the AHF does which the Town should learn from, or vice versa?
Contact: Sandi Dix, - Water, water, everywhere, or not. How do all the water-related issues of dry spells, rains and storms, rapid or slow runoff, and everyday drainage affect us, and how do they impact what we take for granted as the "look and feel" of Melbourne Village? Individual homeowners have to comply with various water issues, some of which affect the appearance and convenience of their properties. At some point we will have to consider these issues within this broader context of Vision 2012. Contact: Bill Moon,
- Economics: What we want, or think we want, will cost money. Where do we get it, if not from taxes on bigger and more expensive properties? What tradeoffs can we live with, what tradeoffs do we want to reject in order to preserve what we have? Can we have both? Can we continue to live with just a moderate "scale" of buildings on properties, and still meet our future financial obligations? The economic issues are complex, in part because bigger and more expensive properties may also require more services but not necessarily produce more tax revenues, if certain "portability" legislation pending in Tallahassee becomes law. Contacts: Rod Stiefbold, ; and Bob Daubert,
- Police presence and coverage. How important is the current situation of "24/7" coverage to you? What do you know about it? What do you experience? What is its value to you compared with other "values" you have as a resident of Melbourne Village? How important a consideration in your moving here was the issue of public safety, and how important is it going forward? Contact: Sandi Dix,
- Trees, greenery, habitat. How carefully do you observe what it is that we already have? Parklands? Wild yards? Manicured lawns? What is your own "sense" of greenery and wildlife in Melbourne Village? How much does that contribute to your wish to remain here? Could you live with changes, and if so, what kind and how extensive? We know how important this is, and that it’s way more than just the parklands that people love about "the green Village". We also know that the generally green feel is, to some extent, fragile. What we don’t know is how dedicated residents are to preserving visually what we have now, or what threats to this environment they are worried about in the future. Contact: Iver Duedall,
- Architecture and Design: What is it about the Village’s physical appearance that you appreciate? What kinds of changes would you worry about? How strict do we want to/have to be about what we allow future developers to build in the Village? What is compatible, and what isn’t? Design and architecture have a lot to do with subjective impact of the building stock. Height, bulk, and setbacks are but three of many issues under this rubric that may seriously affect residents’ perceptions of the Village’s "look and feel". Contact: Scott McCoy,
- Lighting. How important is it to residents to preserve the almost total lack of street lighting throughout the Village, and the zoning ordinances which prohibit homeowners from having lights which also illuminate the street ? How do we assure that public desires are not somehow subverted by private parties, utilities, or other entities? Should there be strict fines and other consequences for that?
- General appearance. How do residents feel about the continuing, as opposed to incidental, presence of such things as large recreational vehicles, boats, junk cars, or heavy equipment in front yards or visible carports? Are these things that matter to "the community", or are they best left to the discretion of individual homeowners? Where current code exists should it be enforced, altered, or eliminated?
- Traffic Patterns. Are current speed limits, stop signage, etc. what they should be? Are there parts of the Village where it’s not as safe to ride bicycles or walk because of speeding drive-through vehicles? Can those areas be made safer? How? How important is this? Contact: Bob Daubert,
Write a Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
2 Comments
Ordered from oldest to newest comment.
#11 | Bob Daubert writes on October 1, 2006 at 7:41 pm
In most conversations I hear, the “Traffic Problem”, if there is one, seems to depend upon where one lives in The Village and how often and at what time of day one moves into and out of the Village.
To me though, it has nothing to do with my own convenience or inconvenience. If you consider the normal driving activities in which most of us engage, how one gets into or out of The Village is a minor factor (negligible?) in the total trip. It is my believe that how one hits the timing of the traffic lights at Nasa and Wickham or at Evans and New Haven, for example, affect overall trip time far more than whether one enters or leaves The VIllage from Sheridan or Dayton. Now I will grant you that the cumulative effect of several annoying bottlenecks can induce the “straw that breaks the camel’s back” phenomenon but I still would maintain that the issue of trafiic issues in the VIllage SHOULD be viewed from the point of view of the STATIONARY OBSERVER in The Village and not from the point of view of anyone’s automobile cockpit.
Please join me in a little thought experiment. Image a neutral sentinel positioned high above the organism that is Melbourne VIllage. Wouldn’t one of the first observations of such a sentinal be “What are all of these agents doing passing through the body of this organism?” Most do not originate in the body nor do they terminate there. They bring no value to the body, they are not involved in any metabolic processes, they do not catalyze any process - - - they are intruders, in every sense of the word.
My first question is: why do we permit these intruders? Or, more to the point, why don’t we do ANYTHING to discourage them? Even if we can’t point to specific risks they present, wouldn’t we want to make some token effort at least, to disoucrage them?
Personally, as one who occasionally likes to take a walk along South street early in the morning or late in the day, I find that there are specific risks, like getting run over, that interfere with my enjoyment of the neighborhood. Sure, some of the traffic I encounter are VIllagers, but very few as far as I can tell. As the areas around us continue to build out more and more intruders will find there way here. Sooner or later, one of these people who “has no business” here, will recognize that we are a soft target and they will develop business here that will be a law enforcement issue.
At the present time, this is not a law enforcement issue. My complaint is not that these people are breaking the law, most are not. My complaint is that they are here at all. Sooner or later, a passer-by will engage in nefarious activities either accidentally or intentionally. And why? Because we did nothing to discourage it. Because we wanted the trip to, oh say, Macy’s, to take 9 minutes instead of 11?
Blog entry feeds.
#9 | Bob Daubert writes on October 1, 2006 at 7:13 pm
Minutes of the Ad Hoc Traffic Committee
Tuesday September 14, 2006
Attendees were committee members Steve Dixon, Alan Robbins, Bob Daubert, and commission liaison Rand Carroll. Members Tom Kjerulff and Roberta Reed were excused.
In chairman Reed’s absence, Mr. Daubert was selected as acting chairman.
The members exchanged impressions of the current status of the committee since it has been inactive for several months. Mr. Daubert offered the materials in Appendix A as recap of some of the earlier work.
All agreed that the problem is the cut through traffic and that even though it affects some villagers more than it affects others, the quality of life for everyone who uses the village roadways is affected by it. While speeding is a concern, it is not the real problem; volume is the problem and it will get worse once the left turn lane and widening is completed on Wickham Road at Sheridan. Commissioner Carroll and the members agreed that any solution must not “move the problem” to somewhere else in the Village.
Mr. Daubert discussed some efforts to do a traffic count and the difficulties. Mr. Dixon suggested that we further investigate traffic counting devices. He noted that they could be purchased or perhaps even fabricated by villagers.
Commissioner Carroll pointed out that two streets in surrounding West Melbourne (Bossieux Blvd. and Sylvan Drive) now have new speed bumps installed on streets that are popular cut through routes.
Mr. Robbins and Mr. Dixon pointed out that oversized commercial vehicles are disregarding the “No Trucks” signs at the entrances to the Town and using the Sheridan-Pine-South-Dayton route purely for convenience and not only for deliveries in the Town. The committee requests that the Mayor ask Chief King to pay a visit to the businesses on US192 and Sheridan Road and ask them again to instruct their employees not to use the Town as a convenient cut through path.
There was general agreement that speed bumps, humps, or plateaus are the first thing that come to mind but that they should not be the only thing we consider. From this discussion the committee decided that a report should be prepared for the Town Commission of the results of committee research and deliberations. The core of this report is to be a list of all traffic management devices deemed applicable to our situation by the committee along with their advantages, disadvantages, and cost estimates, where possible.
Mr. Daubert volunteered to prepare a version of the report by mid-October and the committee members agreed to meet again and review the report at that time.
Mr. Robbins wished to express the sense of the committee and proposed a motion that the report include this text: “It is the opinion of the Traffic Committee that a complete closure of either the Dayton or Sheridan entrances is the most effective solution to cut through traffic.” The motion was seconded and passed unanimously.
The participants then prepared a list of the options (in no particular order) to be included in the report as candidates for reducing or eliminating cut through traffic.
Speed bumps
Speed tables (or humps)
Cobblestone/brick segments
Chicanes
One way streets
One lane (but two-way) street segments
Permanent Closures
Temporary/Intermittent Closures
Changing Speed Limits (either by time of day or always)
Adding Stop Signs
The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Bob Daubert.
Appendix A
Miscellaneous Information Relevant to Traffic Committee Deliberations
The following were obtained in phone conversations with the individuals identified.
March 23, 2005
Ms. Ronnie Grove
Senior Project Manager
386-943-5307
Florida State Department of Transportation
Deland, FL
Checked with permitting departments at FDOT level. As long as we do not alter the traffic flow at the intersection with US 192 we do not have to get state approval for any changes we wish to make up to and including road closures.
Mr. Carl Fisher
Traffic Analyst (handles permitting)
He asserted that when Orlando makes streets one-way, for example, they do not have to coordinate with the state unless the change requires changes in traffic signals that are on state roads or they intend to change the footprint of the intersection itself. If they do that, it’s very expensive and time consuming.
March 25, 2005
George Thompson
Director of Traffic Engineering
Brevard County
Viera, FL
He asserted that the County had no jurisdiction unless we directly affect the intersection between Sheridan and Wickam. He echoed the statements by Ms. Grove above that the State of Florida would have no interest unless we directly affected the intersection between Dayton and US 192. He also noted that Target would probably have a claim against us if we interfered with US 192 traffic making it’s way into Target from US 192..
Minutes of the Traffic Committee Fact Finding Workshop
Held Thursday, March 17, 2005
The Workshop was held in Chief King’s office at the Town Office. In attendance were Roberta Reed, Bob Daubert, Chief King, and Ivan M. Horodyskyj, P. E., City Traffic Engineer with the City of Melbourne. The meeting began at 11:00 AM and lasted one hour and fifteen minutes.
Mr. Horodyskyj described the process by which changes in traffic patterns or traffic control devices are introduced into communities in general and specifically in Melbourne. The City of Melbourne guidelines for citizen requests for traffic calming or elimination were discussed. A copy is attached to these minutes.
He also emphasized the importance of good data and recommended a “tag study”. This is an analysis of traffic flow by observation. Observers positioned on Dayton and Sheridan would log partial tag numbers and the time of the observation. Comparison of the two logs would give us estimates of cut-through volume as well as total counts.
Mr. Horodyskyj confirmed that any alterations to traffic flow will have to be approved by the state DOT. He believes that a request within state law, properly presented with supporting data, would likely be approved. The process can take as much as a year.
Mr. Horodyskyj offered the following professionals as resources for us.
Motorist Design
Traffic/Transportation Consultants
Rhonda Pieper-Schmitz
459-2905
Frazier Engineering, Inc.
Consulting, Civil, and Structural Engineers
Michael J. Sweeney
253-8131
Dick Thompson
Director of Traffic Engineering
Brevard County
633-2077
Mr. Horodyskyj gave a brief discussion of some traffic calming measures and their effectiveness. He provided the following via e-mail after the meeting.
“Speed humps are placed only after an engineering study is performed. We hire Frazier Engineering to do such studies. The fee ranges from $2000 to $6000 per study, depending upon location. They produce a report and draw plans that show where and how the humps are to be built. Then we hire a contractor to build the devices. The cost is about $1000 each ($500 for the asphalt and $500 for the labor to install).”