HomeMy WebLinkAboutFlorida Department of Community Affairs 2001c r.
- :~s.
ti~
1T
`-+. r •°-
STATE OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUt~iTY AFFAIRS
"Dedicated to making Florida a better place to call home"
STEVEN M. SEIBERT
JEB BUSH Secretary
Governor
January 26, 2001
The Honorable Paul P. Partyka
Mayor, City of Winter Springs
1126 East S.R. 434
Winter Springs, Florida 32708
Dear Mayor Partyka:
RECEIVED
,~ pN 2 9 2001
CITY OFC)TY H~PRINGS
The Department has completed its review of the proposed Comprehensive Plan
Amendment for the City of Winter Springs (DCA No. O 1-1), which was received on November
15, 2000. Copies of the proposed amendment have been distributed to appropriate state, regional
and local agencies for their review and their comments are enclosed.
I am enclosing the Department's Objections, Recommendations and Comments (ORC)
Report, issued pursuant to Rule 9J-11.010, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). The
Department identified issues with four of the proposed Future Land Use Map amendments and
the proposed Transportation Element. The Department has objections to the Greeneway
Interchange, Minter, Weaver, and Town Center amendments based on natural resources and
transportation concerns. There aze several areas including wetlands and floodplains that appear to
warrant conservation designations under the City's plan. Similarly, the Transportation network
should be evaluated to determine if adequate facilities are available to accommodate the proposed
amendments.
The Department identified two objections to the new Transportation Element based on the
need to meet new statutory requirements. The Transportation Element needs to be revised to
include coordinated and updated programming schedules and mapping requirements for current
level of service on roadways.
Specific recommendations for both the Future Land Use Map amendments and the
Transportation Element aze included in the ORC report. It is important that the adopted plan
amendment address all the issues in the Department's ORC report. If you have questions or require
assistance, please do not hesitate to contact the Department staff.
Upon receipt of this letter, the City of Winter Springs has 60 days in which to adopt, adopt
with changes, or determine that the City will not adopt the proposed amendment. The process for
adoption of local government comprehensive plan amendments is outlined in s. 163.3184, Florida
Statutes (F.S.), and Rule 9J-11.011, F.A.C. The City must ensure that all ordinances adopting
2555 SHUMARD OAK BOULEVARD TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-2100
Phone: 850.488.8466/Suncom 278.8466 FAX: 850.921.0781lSuncom 291.0781
Internet address: http://www.dca.state.fl.us
2798tOverseas Hi hway, SR a 2EZ0 OFFICE 2555 Shu a 0 Oak Boulevard 2555 Shuma d Oak Bc~ eva dT 2SSSSShuma d OaM9ouTevard ELOPMENT
Marathon, FL 33050.2227 Ta~lahassee, FL 32399.21 W T8~h4t Y9989 3^3S~~t~ (85C) 48&7954 32399-2100
(305) 289-2402 (85C) 488-2354 ( )
The Honorable Paul P. Partyka
January 26, 2001
Page Two
Within ten working days of the date of adoption, the City of Winter Springs must submit the
following to the Department:
Three copies of the adopted comprehensive plan amendments;
A listing of additional changes not previously reviewed;
A listing of findings by the local governing body, if any, which were not included in the
ordinance; and
A statement indicating the relationship of the additional changes to the Department's
Objections, Recommendations and Comments Report.
The above amendment and documentation are required for the Department to conduct a
compliance review, make a compliance determination and issue the appropriate notice of intent.
In order to expedite the regional planning council's review of the amendments, and pursuant
to Rule 97-11.011(5), F.A. C., please provide a copy of the adopted amendment directly to the Execu-
tive Director of the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council.
Please contact Susan Poplin, Planning Manager, or James Stansbury, Community Program
Administrator, at (850) 487-4545 if we can be of assistance as you formulate your response to this
Report.
Sincerely yours,
<~=
C~ ~ ~~
Charles Gauthier, AIC
Chief, Bureau of Local Planning
CG/sps
Enclosures: Objections, Recommendations and Comments Report
Review Agency Comments
cc: Mr. Thomas Grimms, Comprehensive Planning Coordinator
Ms. Sandra Glenn, Executive Director, East Central Florida Regional Planning Council
INTRODUCTION
The following objections, recommendations and comments are based upon the Department's review
of the City of Winter Springs 01-1 proposed amendment to their comprehensive plan pursuant to s.
163.3184, Florida Statutes (F.S.).
Objections relate to specific requirements ofrelevant portions of Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative
Code (F.A.C.), and Chapter 163, Part II, F.S. Each objection includes a recommendation of one
approach that might be taken to address the cited objection. Other approaches may be more suitable
in specific situations. Some of these objections may have initially been raised by one of the other
external review agencies. If there is a difference between the Department's objection and the external
agency advisory objection or comment, the Department's objection would take precedence.
Each of these objections must be addressed by the local government and corrected when the.
amendment is resubmitted for our compliance review. Objections which are not addressed may result
in a determination that the amendment is not in compliance. The Department may have raised an
objection regarding missing data and analysis items which the local government considers not
applicable to its amendment. If that is the case, a statement justifying its non-applicability pursuant
to Rule 9J-5.002(2), F.A.C., must be submitted. The Department will make a determination on the
non-applicability of the requirement, and if the justification is sufficient, the objection will be
considered addressed.
The comments which follow the objections and recommendations section are advisory in nature.
Comments will not form bases of a determination of non-compliance. They are included to call
attention to items raised by our reviewers. The comments can be substantive, concerning planning
principles, methodology or logic, as well as editorial in nature dealing with grammar, organization,
mapping, and reader comprehension.
Appended to the back of the Department's report are the comment letters from the other state review
agencies and other agencies, organizations and individuals. These comments are advisory to the
Department and may not form bases of Departmental objections unless they appear under the
"Objections" heading in this report.
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS
OBJECTIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND COMMENTS
FOR THE
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS
AMENDMENT 01-1
January 26, 2001
Division of Community Planning
Bureau of Local Planning
This report is prepared pursuatrt to Rule 9J-11.010
,.-, R
3 AND COIVIMEN"
2401
I. AMENDMENTS WITII OBJECTIONS
A. Future Land Use Map Amendments
1. Amendment LS-CPA-1-00:
a. Suitability Based on Natural Resources and Facilities: The City proposes a Land Use
Map Amendment Annexing and Redesignating 67.58 acres from Seminole County (Suburban
Estates 1 du/acre) and Conservation to Greeneway Interchange (5-10 du/acre, Open Space and 1
FAR non-residential). The City has not demonstrated that the natural resources on-site will be
protected. It appears that a portion of the site is currently in a conservation category under the
Seminole County Plan. The data also indicate the presence of wetlands over approximately 1/3
of the site and proximity to the Lake Jessup shoreline. There is no indication how the current
proposal for a Greeneway Interchange designation will protect resources such as wetlands.
The Department also has questions regarding the impacts to roadway facilities and services since
the analysis provided does not indicate the current and projected capacity and availability for
roadway facilities. FDOT commented the City lacked an adequate analysis.
Recommendation: Revise the amendment to retain the wetland and floodplain areas in a
conservation land use designation or other designation to protect the natural resources on-site.
Revise the amendment to include an adequate transportation analysis. The analyses should
include: 1) An assessment through the planning period of the impacts to facilities based on the
most intense use including cumulative impacts (traffic) generated by proposed amendments
herein; 2) Data and analysis demonstrating coordination of facilities with the proposed land
uses; and 3) An assessment of the timing of provision of services such that all services are
provided at the adopted level of service.
The analyses should assess the demand for services with regard to available capacity of services.
For example, the City should assess traffic generation with regard to available capacity on
existing roadways based on both the peak hour and the daily average trips; and should take into
account the traffic generated by proposed amendments contained within this package.
1
All analyses should be based on the most intense use proposed for development as identified and
guided by the future land use map and future land use element policies, and should assess
impacts in the short-term within five years and through the planning period (to 2015). Again,
using the transportation example, the analysis should identify current operating LOS for SR 234
and 417, as well as any applicable local roadways. Include any FIHS facilities. The analysis
should then factor in anticipated impacts from any proposed amendment such that a comparison
ofbefore-amendment and after-amendment conditions can be made.
The analyses should then identify if and where deficiencies will be realized based on the LOS
maximums as established by the local comprehensive plan and FDOT. This procedure should be
repeated for a projected LOS through 2005 and 2015. For any identified deficiencies within five
years, the City should identify how the deficiency will be remedied through capital
improvements planning including the amount and source of funding necessary, the type of
project, and the expected timing of the project to coincide with anticipated demands. If it is for a
facility that is not within the City's. funding jurisdiction than the applicable work program
(FDOT, and/or County) should be used to identify pertinent projects. Any projects needed
should then be reflected through a change to the comprehensive plan and/or corresponding
capital improvements schedule. For deficiencies identified beyond five years, the City should
identify the types of planning strategies that will be used to alleviate facility challenges including
any revisions to the plan that may be necessary. The strategies should address the overall service
network countywide and take into account the anticipated operational levels through the planning
period.
b. Internal Consistency: Because the amendment has not demonstrated consistency with
statutory requirements for protection of natural resources, and for coordination of land uses with
transportation facilities and services, amendment has not demonstrated internal consistency with
the City's goals, objectives and policies of the comprehensive plan as listed:
Traffic Circulation: Objective B, Policy 1 and 6, requiring coordination, Objective C,
and Policies 1 through 7 requiring level of service maintenance, Objective D, Policies 2
and 3;
Future Land Use Element: Goa12, Objective A, Policies 1 through 3, requiring
protection of natural resources;
Conservation: Goal 1, Objective B, Policies 1, 2, 4, and 5, protecting natural resources,
Objective c, Policies 6 and 7, regarding protection of floodplains and coordination;
Capital Improvements: goal 1, Objective C, Policy 1, Transportation LOS
Recommendation: Retain the conservation areas as recommended and perform the necessary
analyses for transportation as recommended. Revise the amendment as necessary to be
supported by the conservation and transportation data.
Sections: 163.3177(1), 163.3177(6)(a), 163.3177(6)(c), 163.3177(6)(d),
163.3177(6)(j),163.3177(8), 163.3187(2), F.S.
Rules: 9J-5.005(2), 9J-5.005(5), 9J-5.006(2)(b) and (c); 9J-5.006(3)(b)3, (b)6, (b)10 and (c)2;
9J-5.006(4); 9J-5.006(5), 9J-5.013(2), F.A.C.
2
2. Amendments LS-CPA-2-00 (Weaver Property) and LS-CPA-3-00 (Minter Propertv):
a. Suitability based on Natural Resources and Facilities:
The City proposes land use map changes on annexed property from Seminole County (Rural 3, 1
du/3 acres/Conservation) to City Low Density Residential (3.5 du/acre) on 30 acres (Weaver
Property) and 34.7 acres (Minter Property). The amendments do not appear to recognize
environmentally sensitive areas. The County designation appears to include conservation areas
within the Minter and Weaver properties. It is not clear how the current proposal is consistent
protecting the resources that are currently in the Conservation areas.
Similar to LS-CPA-1-00, the amendments' impacts to roadways could not be fully assessed since
the analyses did not include an adequate assessment of available and projected capacity based on
the adopted levels of service.
Recommendation: Revise the amendment as recommended in part I.A.1.a to address natural
resource and facility issues.
b. Intergovernmental Coordination and Urban Sprawl: The amendments do not appear to
encourage intergovernmental coordination with adjacent jurisdictions. While the City did notify
the County of the proposed land use changes, there is no further evidence of coordination with
these entities to plan for the subject area. Furthermore, the City has not met the new
Intergovernmental Coordination Element requirements to establish Joint Planning Agreements
for applicable infra and extra jurisdictional issues including land use, development, schools,
annexation, etc.
There is data in the amendment and from the County indicating these amendments will
contribute to urban sprawl in the County. While need is not identified as an issue, the supporting
data suggest these amendments will change the rural character of the area, allow single-use
development, and will not maximize existing and planned City facilities and services. Data from
Seminole indicate the intent to combat urban sprawl by retaining a rural character through
limited density.
Recommendation: Do not adopt the amendments. Alternatively, revise the amendment to
consider three things. One issue is to address joint planning within the area by establishing a
joint planning agreement with the applicable entities, and/or retaining the current land use
density in the County. A second consideration is the new requirements for intergovernmental
coordination. The City should revise the plan to include provisions for Joint Planning
Agreements to address a wide variety of issues as necessary and as required by statute.
A final issue is urban sprawl. Revise the amendment to include a revised analysis within the
context of the indicators of urban sprawl as described in Rule 9J-5.006(5)(g) and (h), Florida
Administrative Code. For the subject area, the City should assess the impacts to development
and development patterns as it relates to residential lands, rural uses, and provisions of facilities
and services. The analysis should provide a determination as to the extent of sprawl created by
the proposed amendment. The amendment should be revised as appropriate based on the data
and analysis.
3
~,
c. Internal Consistency: Because the amendment has not demonstrated consistency with
statutory requirements for protection of natural resources, for coordination of land uses with
transportation facilities and services, for intergovernmental coordination and urban sprawl, the
amendment has not demonstrated internal consistency with the:
Traffic Circulation: Objective B, Policy 1 and 6, requiring coordination, Objective C,
and Policies 1 through 7 requiring level of service maintenance, Objective D, Policies 2
and 3;
Future Land Use Element: Goal 2, Objective A, Policies 1 through 3, requiring
protection of natural resources; Goa13, Objective A and Policy 1 to prevent urban sprawl;
Conservation: Goal 1, Objective B, Policies 1, 2, 4, and 5, protecting natural resources,
Objective c, Policies 6 and 7, regarding protection of floodplains and coordination;
Capital Improvements: goal 1, Objective C, Policy 1, Transportation LOS
Intergovernmental Coordination: Goal 1, Objective A, Policy 6 regarding
coordination; Objective D, Policy 1 regarding coordination; Objective E, Policy 1,
regarding dispute resolution; Objective F Policy l.b and 3, regarding execution of
interlocal agreement for areas outside City's jurisdiction;
Recommendation: Do not adopt the amendments. Alternatively, make necessary revisions as
listed in parts I.A.2.a and b above to justify the amendment.
Sections: 163.3177(1), 163.3177(6)(a), 163.3177(6)(c), 163.3177(6)(d),
163.3177(6)(j),163.3177(8), 163.3187(2), F.S.
Rules: 9J-5.005(2), 9J-5.005(5), 9J-5.006(2)(b) and (c); 9J-5.006(3)(b)3, (b)6, (b)10 and (c)2;
9J-5.006(4); 9J-5.006(5), 9J-5.013(2), F.A.C.
3. Amendment LS-CPA-5-00 (Tuscawilla):
a. Suitability Based on Natural Resources and Facilities:
The City proposes a Land Use Map amendment revising 148 acres from Mixed use to Town
Center. Staff could not identify, based on the package, how current conservation-areas totaling
+100 acres will be treated under the current land use amendment proposal. The current future
land use map shows the area as conservation and the text indicates that some areas will be
retained conservation. None of the proposed maps reflect the conservation intent. Policies in the
Town Center Category require jurisdictional wetlands be reflected as conservation.
Furthermore, it is unclear what the impacts to roadway facilities and services will be since the
analyses do not include an adequate assessment of available and projected capacity based on the
adopted level of services. FDOT commented the City lacked an adequate analysis.
Recommendation: Make applicable revisions as recommended in Part I.A.I.a.
4
b. Internal Consistency: Because the amendment has not demonstrated consistency with
statutory requirements for protection of natural resources, and for coordination of land uses with
transportation facilities and services, amendment has not demonstrated internal consistency with
the City's goals, objectives and policies of the comprehensive plan as listed:
Traffic Circulation: Objective B, Policy 1 and 6, requiring coordination, Objective C,
and Policies 1 through 7 requiring level of service maintenance, Objective D, Policies 2
and 3;
Future Land Use Element: Goa12, Objective A, Policies 1 through 3, requiring
protection of natural resources; and Goal 4 Objective B, Policies 1, 3, and 5, regarding
open space and wetland preservation in Town Center Areas;
Conservation: Goal 1, Objective B, Policies 1, 2, 4, and 5, protecting natural resources,
Objective c, Policies 6 and 7, regarding protection of floodplains and coordination;
Capital Improvements: goal 1, Objective C, Policy 1, Transportation LOS
Recommendation: Make applicable revisions as recommended in Part I.A.I.b.
Sections: 163.3177(1), 163.3177(6)(a), 163.3177(6)(c), 163.3177(6)(d),
163.3177(6)(j),163.3177(8), 163.3187(2), F.S.
Rules: 9J-5.005(2), 9J-5.005(5), 9J-5.006(2)(b) and (c); 9J-5.006(3)(b)3, (b)6, (b)10 and (c)2;
9J-5.006(4); 9J-5.006(5), 9J-5.013(2), F.A.C.
B. Traffic Circulation Element
1. LS-CPA-6-00: The City has not met the requirements of the Transportation because certain
tables are not consistent with the FDOT work program and the revised element does not include
a current LOS for all roadways in the City.
Recommendation: Revise Tables 14, 15, and Figures 7, 8 for SR. 434, CR 419, SR 419, and Us
17-92 to be consistent with the FDOT work program. Reflect applicable roadway improvements
as scheduled in the FDOT work program as was recommended in the original 98-1 ORC.
Furthermore, the City has not revised the listing of facilities in the program to be consistent with
Seminole County. The City should revise the element to demonstrate coordination of facilities
with the County by including a schedule of improvements.
Other requirements should be met under chapter 163.3177(6)(j), F.S., and 9J-5.019(4) and (5),
Florida Administrative Code. The Element should include the current Level of Service for
roadways in the City. Given that the data is from 1996 and 1997, the City should revisit the
issue to determine if this is still the best available data. The map series should include current
level of service for roadways. The plan includes projected level of service but the table should
be reviewed to see if the information is still applicable.
Sections: 163.3177(6)(b), 163.3177(6)(j), 163,3177(8), F.S.
Rules: 9J-5.006(4), 9J-5.019(4), 9J-5.019(5), F.A.C.
5
~.
II. STATE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CONSISTENCY
A. OBJECTION
1. The proposed amendments are not consistent with the following goals and policies of the
State Comprehensive Plan:
a Goal (8) Water Resources, and Policies (b)2, (b)4, (b)8, and (b)10;
b. Goal (10) Natural Systems, and Recreational Lands and Policies (b)1, (b)3, (b)6,
and (b)7;
c. Goal (12), Energy, and Policy (b)3;
d. Goal (16), Land Use, and Policies (b)1, (b)2, (b)3, and (b)6;
e. Goal (18), Public Facilities, and.Policies (b)1, and (b)6;
f. Goal (20), Transportation, and Policies (b)2, (b)3, (b)13, and (b)15; and
g. Goal (26), Plan Implementation and Policy (b)7.
B. RECOMMENDATION
The City should revise the proposed amendment, as necessary, to be consistent with the
above-referenced goals and policies of the State Comprehensive Plan. Specific
recommendations can be found following the objections cited elsewhere in this ORC report.
6
ECOSYSYSTEM MGMT
Fax:850-922-5380 Jan 18 '01 12:57 P. 02/03
De~pairtrn~ent of
~~nrri~'onmen~l Protection
Jeb Bush
Governor
Twin Towers BUfldir>g
2600 Blalr Stone Road .David B. Struhs
Tal(aliassse, Florida 323;x9-2400 Secretary
December 20, 2000
Mr. Ray Eubanks
Plan Review and Process Team ~ '
Florida Department of Comrnunity Affairs ,
2555; Shumard Oak Boulevard ~ ~ ~ ;
TalXahassce, Florida 32399-2100 ~ ,
RE: City of Wintrrr Springs, 01-1,;,S,cminole,~ounty,
~'
Dean Mr. Eubanks:
The Office of Legislative, and tovcminental Affairs has reviewed the proposal under the
procedures of Chapter'163, Florida Statutes,~andiChapters 9J-5 azid 91-I1, Florida Administrative
Code, and we offer the following comments;and Suggestions:
LS-CPA-1-00:
'i
This ameradrnent seeks to change the ~tuce Land ~Jse Map designation from County "Suburban ,
Estates" at one development unit'per acre ma~imuat, to~the tJreeneWay Interchange designabirnn.,
The~(~reenelJVay Interchange d~esignxtiott~is a commercial designation. This 67.58 acre parcel
contains botk~ wetlands and tloodplains~ and ~th isuch lands, is considered environmentally
sensitive. Wbila there is a residential b~ffer~betwecn L>~lce Jessup and the parcel, extreme care
should be taken in stortx~water;treatment desiga as,iivell'.~s iuiitial constivction of the project.
Sinec a portion of the parcel is also within aFlood -Zone, Gaze should be taken to prevent
downstream flooding.
LS-CPA-2-U0:
This amendment seeks. to change the Future Land Use~Map designation from Rust-3(one
Building unit per three acres) to the Ci 's. L;iower ]~en~ity Residential {11 to 3.5 building units
per acre). There axe no provisions forp~otable~wateF or~sewer for this parcel of thirty acres. It is '
recommended that taus parcel be servedl,by water and sewer before development begins. The
soils'oz~ thin parcel appear to be unsu2table fo'r oz>R-sste septic tanks.
LS-CPA-3-Q0:
This amendment concerns a 3~acre pacelwitli a landowner who seeks to develop the property
as a single faarily residential subdivision. The current Rural-3 designation, if this amendment
"omtect, Conserve and Manage Aorfda ~ Environment and lYatura/Resources"
Wlnfed on recycled Asper.
ECOSYSYSTEM MGMT.
Mr. Ray Eubanks
December 20, 2000
Page Two
Fax:850-922-5380 Jan 18 '01 12:57 P.03~03
passes, would be changed to Lower Density ~tesidential~ at l .l -3.4 building units per acre. This
site is south of Lake ressup with no potable crater of sewer lines serving the area. The northeast
comer of the parcel is within Flood Zonc~B~ and the northwest maybe in a flood zone as well.
l3ecause of area soils, it is recomnrend~ed that sewer service be provided before this parcel i s
developed. Care should also be, taken wpith ~stormwater treatment design to prevent downstream
#looding.
LS-CPA-5-00:
This ,amendment seeks~to change the land usejdesignation on the 148-acre parcel from Mixed
1Jse~to they new Town Center designat~an. Approximately half of the site is wetland and some
Aoodplains note also located yvit?iin this parcel'; A wetland delineation is recommended on this
site beforee a:oy development begims. WEflands aazd;floodplains should both remain within a
conservation easement designation for protection in the future.
Tha~olc you for the opportunity to comment on this proposal. If 1 may be of further
assistance, please call me at {850) 487-2231' '
Sincerely, ~ '
~i
M~rlane Castellanos
Office'of Legislative and Governmental Affairs
MC/
,~
' '~;
r,
Is
Printed on recycled paper.
Florida Department of
JEB BUSH
GOVERNOR
Transportation
Planning & Public Transportation
133 South Semoran Boulevard
Orlando, FL 32807
January 18, 2001
Mr. Ray Eubanks, Community Program Administrator
Plan/DRI Processing Section
Department of Community Affairs
2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100
SUBJECT:
LOCAL GOVERNMENT:
DCA AMENDMENT #:
Dear Mr. Eubanks:
THOMAS F. BARRY, JR.
SECRETARY
Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments
City of Winter Springs
00-2
As requested in your memorandum, the Department has completed its review of the City of
Winter Spring's proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments. The Department's comments are
attached.
If you have any questions or need further information, please contact me at 407-482-7879 or via
email (dawn.bisplinghoff@dot.state.fl.us).
Sincerely,
.~~
Dawn S. Bisplinghoff
Systems Planning Analyst
Attachments
www.dot.state.fl.us
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS
AGENCY:
RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT:
NAME OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT:
Florida Department of Transportation
District Five Systems Planning
City of Winter Springs, 00-2
ELEMENT: Proposed Future Land Use Map Amendment
RULE REFERENCE: 9J 5.006 Future Land Use Element
9J 5.019 Transportation Element
REVIEW COMMENTS:
LS-CPA-5-00 Background Information: 148 acre parcel; current future land use designation: Mixed Use;
requested future land use designation: Town Center; affected state roads: SR 419, SR 434
It is stated in the narrative that the road network will provide adequate capacity to accommodate the
development, but the request is not supported by appropriate data and analysis. A traffic impact analysis that
assumes the maximum development scenario and addresses impacts to all state roads in the vicinity should be
prepared and submitted for review. 9J-11.006(1)(b)4, 9J-11.007(1)
RECOMMENDATIONS:
A traffic impact analysis that addresses the following issues should be prepared and submitted in order to determine
impacts to state roads.
• existing conditions (proposed land uses by intensity and type, access requirements, functional classification of
facilities, jurisdiction responsible for facilities, area type, number of lanes, intersection locations, transit routes,
bicycle and pedestrian routes, identification of any Florida Intrastate Highway System (FIRS) or State Highway
System (SRS) facilities, programmed facility improvements, levels ofservice, current AADT and peak hour
traffic counts)
• background traffic
• trip generation
• trip distribution
• future conditions analysis
• mitigation measures (if necessary)
Reviewed by: Dawn Bisplinghoff, Systems Planning Analyst Telephone: 407-482-7879
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS
AGENCY:
RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT:
NAME OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT:
Florida Department of Transportation
District Five Systems Planning
City of Winter Springs, 00-2
ELEMENT: Proposed Future Land Use Map Amendment
RULE REFERENCE: 9J-5.006 Future Land Use Element
9J-5.019 Transportation Element
REVIEW COMMENTS:
LS-CPA-1-00 Back~xound Information: 67.58 acre parcel; current future land use designation: County Suburban
Estates (lunit/acre); requested future land use designation: City GreeneWay Interchange; affected state roads: SR
417 (Greeneway, FIRS), SR 419, SR 434
It is stated in the narrative that the road network will provide adequate capacity to accommodate the
development, but the request is not supported by appropriate data and analysis. A traffic impact analysis that
assumes the maximum development scenario and addresses impacts to all state roads in the vicinity should be
prepared and submitted for review. 9J-11.006(1)(b)4, 9J-11.007(1)
RECOMMENDATIONS:
A traffic impact analysis that addresses the following issues should be prepared and submitted in order to determine
impacts to state roads.
• existing conditions (proposed land uses by intensity and type, access requirements, functional classification of
facilities, jurisdiction responsible for facilities, area type, number of lanes, intersection locations, transit routes,
bicycle and pedestrian routes, identification of any Florida Intrastate Highway System (FIRS) or State Highway
System (SRS) facilities, programmed facility improvements, levels of service, current AADT and peak hour
traffic counts)
• background traffic
• trip generation
• trip distribution
• future conditions analysis
• mitigation measures (if necessary)
Reviewed by: Dawn Bisplinghoff, Systems Planning Analyst Telephone: 407-482-7879
cc: Mr. Thomas Grimms, City of Winter Springs
Mr. Bob Romig, FDOT Central Office
Ms. Ellen Bertoni, Genesis Group
www.dot.state.fl.us
_, +
~~ ~~~3'~~LL"I LAG F6(l"/-G(~C~
., .,
~~
REGIONAL
~~
~{ _--P L~ N N I N G
_ ,,
°C O;U N C I L
.~~ Chaimndn/
ndall Mortis
ilnole County
~~ -
e ;claclirtnan
n.G.`Cadwell
5~ Lake `county
~ ~. ,
;._
(j'S• ..
t Nancy N., Higgs
~~revard County
rx'?
~~ ExeCUtiy~ Director
,,> Sandra S. Glenn
~: `_` Sen~Eng
~ ` ~ Breyait~; Lake,
z~, , ~ ;~ra±ige;:Osceola,
Mfr Setrunble and Volusia
~t . ~~
,r,,.,;a~_c, ~_ , _ ~ .
~~, a~
,~~a _
~Sttte;100
dtlan(i; Florida
~_
~.~3275 T
,'r PFione .
D7:~i231075
;407.623.1.084
:, ~.
eom;3~34:1075
~uri'dom'Fax
December 27, 2000
Mr. Ray Eubanks
Community Program Administrator
Plan Review and DRI Processing Team
Florida Dept. of Community Affairs
2555 Shumard Oak Blvd.
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100
Re: City of Winter Springs
Comp Plan Amendment
Dear Mr. Eubanks:
_ __ __
,~ji
~~C~C~~~~~~~~
r-
DEC 2 9 2007
.. RPM BSP ~~
PLAN PROCESSING T~:Af+?
,..
We are supportive of efforts to develop joint planning agreements (JPA)
as mechanisms to address regional level issues, particularly issues
related to urban development patterns and intergovernmental responses
to the facility and services needs generated by future growth.
We note that a JPA between Seminole County and the City of Oviedo has
been entered into covering some of the same areas as those included in
the proposed comprehensive plan amendment package submitted by
Winter Springs. Seminole County has designated the eastern portion of
the county as -rural and has taken formal action through their
comprehensive plan to maintain that character. The .JPA also shows
Oviedo's interest in managing growth of this area in ways that are
consistent with the existing rural character, availability of services and
environmental resources. The efforts on the part of both Seminole County
and Oviedo are consisten# with and supportive of Regional Policy 6.4 of
the Strategic Regional Plan. We encourage the City of Winter Springs to
work closely with its neighbors to ensure that the interests of all three
jurisdictions are represented in the development that is ultimately
approved for this area.
The ECFRPC is available to assist the local governments in this endeavor.
Please do not hesitate to contact this agency should the need arise. I -
have attached a copy of our Dispute Resolution Process for your
information and. future reference. This process can be a very valuable tool
for local governments in sorting through the many technical and political
issues presented by expansion of the northeastern edge of the Orlando
metropolitan area.
a ~ M 1
Mr. Ray Eubanks
Dec. 27, 2000
page two
On a minor note, future reference on consistency with regional plans should refer to the
Strategic Regional Plan. The Comprehensive Regional Policy Plan was superseded by
the Strategic Plan in 1998. A copy of the plan was provided to the City at that time.
Additional copies are available if needed.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this amendment. If you should have any
questions, please call.
Sincerely,
~~~~
Sandra Glenn,
Executive Director
c. Mr. James Stansbury, DCA
Q
.
CHAPTER 29F-3 -REGIONAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROCESS
29F-3.001 Organization. (Repealed)
29F-3.002 Membership. (Repealed)
29F-3.003 Meetings. (Repealed)
29F-3.004 Voting. (Repealed)
29F-3.005 Chairperson. (Repealed)
29F-3.006 Duties and Responsibilities. (Repealed)
29F-3.007 Council Staff Responsibilities. (Repealed)
29F-3.008 Project Review Procedures. (Repealed)
29F-3.009 Development of Regional Impact (DRI) Review Procedures. (Repealed)
29F-3.010 Development of Regional Impact (DRI) and Florida Quality Development (FQD) Review Fees.
(Repealed)
29F-3.011 DRI Transportation Level of Service (LOS) Standards. (Repealed)
29F-3.012 Informal Interjurisdictional Mediation Process. (Repealed)
29F-3.101 Purpose.
29F-3.102 Defmitions.
29F-3.103 Participation.
29F-3.104 Costs.
29F-3.105 Timeframes.
29F-3.106 Public Notice, Records and Confidentiality.
29F-3.107 Pre-Initiation Meeting.
29F-3.108 Situation Assessment.
29F-3.109 Initiation of the Process by Jurisdictions.
29F-3.110 Requests to Initiate Submitted by Others.
29F-3.111 Settlement Meetings.
29F-3.112 Mediation.
29F-3.113 Advisory Decision-Making.
29F-3.114 Settlement Agreements and Reports.
29F-3.115 Other Existing Dispute Resolution Processes.
29F-3.001- Organization.
Specific Authority 186.505 FS.
Law Implemented 120.53, 120.54 FS.
History -New 9-16-75, Formerly 29F-3.01, Amended 4-22-87, 9-10-89, Repealed 9-22-99.
29F-3.002
- Membership.
Specific Authority 186.505 FS.
Law Implemented 120.53, 120.54 FS.
History -New 9-16-75, Formerly 29F-3.02, Amended 4-22-87, 9-10-89, 7-19-90, Repealed 9-22-99.
29F-3.003
-Meetings.
Specific Authority 186.505 FS.
Law Implemented 120.53, 120.54 FS.
History-New 9-16-75, Formerly 29F-3.03, Amended 4-22-87, 9-10-89, 7-19-90, Repealed 9-22-99.
29F-3.004 -Voting.
Specific Authority 186.505 FS.
Law Implemented 120.53, 120.54 FS.
History -New 9-16-75, Amended 10-16-78, Formerly 29F-3.04, Amended 4-22-87, 9-10-89, 7-19-90, Repealed 9-
22-99.
29F-3.005 -Chairperson.
Specific Authority 186.505 FS.
Law Implemented 120.53, 120.54 FS.
History -New 9-16-75, Amended 10-16-78, Formerly 29F-3.05, Amended 4-22-87, 9-10-89, Repealed 9-22-99.
29F-3.006 -Duties and Responsibilities.
Specific Authority 186.505 FS.
Law Implemented 120.53, 120.54 FS.
History -New 9-16-75, Amended 10-16-78, Formerly 29F-3.06, Amended 4-22-87, 9-10-89, Repealed 9-22-99.
29F-3.007 -Council Staff Responsibilities.
Specific Authority 186.505 FS.
Law Implemented 120.53, 120.54 FS.
History -New 9-16-75, Amended 10-16-78, Formerly 29F-3.07, Amended 4-22-87, 9-10-89, Repealed 9-22-99.
29F-3.008 -Project Review Procedures.
Specific Authority 186.505 FS.
Law Implemented 120.53, 120.54 FS.
History -New 9-16-75, Amended 10-16-78, Formerly 29F-3.08, Amended 4-22-87, 9-10-89, Repealed 9-22-99.
29F-3.009 -Development of Regional Impact (DRI) Review Procedures.
Specific Authority 186.505 FS.
Law Implemented 120.53, 120.54 FS.
History-New 9-16-75, Amended 10-16-78, 7-18-81, Formerly 29F-3.09, Amended 4-22-87, 9-10-89, 7-19-90,
Repealed 9-22-99.
29F-3.010 -Development of Regional Impact (DRI) and Florida Quality Development (FQD) Review Fees.
Specific Authority 186.505 FS.
Law Implemented 120.53, 120.54 FS.
History -New 7-8-81, Amended 12-31-81, 11-21-85, Formerly 29F-3.10, Amended 4-7-86, 4-22-87, 12-6-87, 4-
17-88, 9-10-89, Repealed 9-22-99.
29F-3.011 - DRI Transportation Level of Service (LOS) Standards.
Specific Authority 160.02 FS.
Law Implemented 380.06 FS.
History -New 4-1-85, Formerly 29F-3.11, Repealed 9-22-99.
29F-3.012 -Informal Interjurisdictional Mediation Process.
Specific Authority 160.02 FS.
Law Implemented 186.509 FS.
History -New 4-7-86, Repealed 9-22-99.
29F-3.101 -Purpose.
(1) The purpose of this rule is to establish a voluntary regional dispute resolution process (RDRP) to reconcile
differences on planning, growth management and other issues among local governments, regional agencies and
private interests. The process consists of two required components: (a) process initiation (initiation and response
letters); and (b) settlement meetings; and four optional components: (a) pre-initiation meeting; (b) situation
assessments; (c) mediation; or (d) advisory decision-making.
(2) The RDRP's intent is to provide a flexible process that will: clearly identify and resolve problems as early as
possible; utilize the procedures in a low-to-high cost sequence; allow flexibility in the order in which the procedures
are used; provide for the appropriate involvement of affected and responsible parties; and provide as much process
certainty as possible.
(3) The RDRP may be used to resolve disputes involving extra jurisdictional impacts arising &om: the
intergovernmental coordination elements of local comprehensive plans required by s. 163.3177, F.S.; inconsistencies
between port master plans and local comprehensive plans; the siting of community residential homes required by s.
419.001(5), F.S.; and any other matters covered by statutes that reference the RDRP.
(4) The RDRP shall not be used to address disputes involving environmental permits or other regulatory matters
unless alt the parties involved agree to initiate use of the RDRP.
(5) Use of the RDRP shall not alter a jurisdiction's, organization's, group's or individual's right to judicial or
administrative determination of any issue if that entity is entitled to such a determination under statutory or common
law.
(6) Participation in the RDRP as a named party or in any other capacity does not convey or limit intervenor status or
standing in any judicial or administrative proceedings.
(7) The RDRP does not supplant local processes established for resolving infra-jurisdictional disputes and is not
intended to be used by parties dissatisfied with the appropriate application of local rules and regulations within their
jurisdiction.
Specific Authority 186.505 FS.
Law Implemented 186.509 FS.
History -New 12-8-99.
29F-3.102 -Definitions.
(1) "Situation Assessment" is a procedure of information collection or "fact finding" that may involve review of
documents, interviews or an assessment meeting leading to a written or verbal report identifying: the issues in
dispute; the stakeholders; information needed before a decision can be made; and a recommendation for appropriate
dispute resolution procedures.
(2) "Pre-Initiation Meeting" is an informal conference with the RPC staff in order to ascertain whether the likely
dispute is appropriate for the RDRP.
(3) "Facilitation" is a procedure in which the facilitator helps the parties design and follow a meeting agenda and
assists parties to communicate more effectively throughout the process. The facilitator has no authority to make or
recommend a decision.
(4) "Mediation" is a procedure in which a neutral person assists disputing parties in a negotiation process to explore
their interests, develop and evaluate options, and reach a mutually acceptable agreement without prescribing a
resolution. A mediator may take more control of the process than a facilitator and usually works in more complex
cases where a dispute is more clearly defined.
(5) "Advisory Decision-Making" is a procedure aimed at enhancing the effectiveness of negotiations and helping
parties more realistically evaluate their negotiation positions. This procedure may include fact-finding, neutral
evaluation, or advisory arbitration, or any combination of these in which a neutral party or panel listens to the facts
and arguments presented by the parties and renders anon-binding advisory decision.
(6) Jurisdiction is any local or regional public agency, including a special district, authority or school board.
(7) "Named Party" shall be any jurisdiction, public or private organization, group or individual who is named in an
initiation letter, including the initiating jurisdiction, or is admitted by the named parties to participate in settlement
of a dispute pursuant to 29F-3.103. Being a "named party" in the RDRP does not convey or limit standing in any
judicial or administrative proceeding.
(8) "Representative" is an authorized agent who is given guidance by a named party to represent the named party in
an RDRP case. Section 29F-3.103(5) sets forth the designation process.
(9) "Initiation Letter" is a letter from a jurisdiction formally identifying a dispute and asking named parties to
engage in this process to resolve the dispute, and, at a minimum, attend the initial settlement meeting. Section 29F-
3.110specifies what must be included in an initiation letter.
(10) "Response Letter" formally notifies the initiator and other named parties that a party is willing to participate in
the RDRP and, at a minimum, attend at least one settlement meeting.
(11) "Settlement Agreements" are voluntarily approved by the individual or governing body authorized to bind the
named party. Agreements shall take the form of memorandums of understanding, contracts, interlocal agreements or
other forms mutually agreed to by the signatory parties or as required by law. A settlement may be agreed to by
some or all of the named parties.
Specific Authority 186.505 FS.
Law Implemented 186.509 FS.
History -New 12-8-99.
29F-3.103 -Participation.
(1) Named parties shall automatically be allowed to participate. Other jurisdictions, public or private organizations,
groups, or individuals suggested by named parties in response letters or during RDRP meetings or submitting a
petition to participate, may become named parties if agreed to by a two-thirds majority of the participating named
parties, except as provided for in 29F-3.103(2). Fee allocation agreements will be amended as appropriate.
(2) All initiation and response letters made in accordance with intergovernmental coordination elements (ICE) of
local government comprehensive plans shall only list affected jurisdictions as named parties. The named parties may
at the initial settlement meeting or at subsequent RDRP meetings add public or private named parties by mutual
agreement of all the current named parties.
(3) Named parties who do not respond within 21 calendar days of receipt of the initiation letter may not participate
in the RDRP unless they submit a petition for participation.
(4) Jurisdictions, public or private organizations, groups or individuals seeking to become named parties shall
submit to the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council (RPC) staff a written petition to participate, including
reasons for the request. Such jurisdictions, public or private organizations, groups, or individuals shall become
named parties if agreed to by a two-thirds majority of the named party, prior to or during RDRP meetings.
(5) Each of the jurisdictions, organizations, groups or individuals participating as named parties in this process shall
designate a representative, in writing, or be represented by the chief executive officer. Such a representative shall
have authority to act, subject to such qualifications imposed by the party as the representative may advise all other
named parties in advance, and the responsibility for representing that party's interest in this process and for
maintaining communications with that party throughout the process. Jurisdictions are encouraged to designate a
representative to participate in the RDRP in advance of initiating or receiving a request.
(6) Any named party may invite individuals or organizations to attend meetings under this process who can provide
information and technical assistance useful in the resolution of the dispute. The parties, by agreement, or the
presiding neutral shall determine when and under what circumstances such invited parties may provide input.
(7) All communications by a named party called for in this process shall be submitted to all other named parties and
the RPC staff in writing.
(8) All named parties who agree to participate in this process commit to a good faith effort to resolve problems or
disputes.
(9) Any named party may withdraw from participation in the RDRP at any time upon written notice to all other
named parties and the RPC staff.
Specific Authority 186.505 FS.
Law Implemented 186.509 FS.
History -New 12-8-99.
29F-3.104 -Costs.
(1) The RPC shall be compensated for situation assessments, facilitation of settlement meetings, mediation,
technical assistance and other staff services based on reasonable actual costs. Outside professional neutrals shall be
compensated at their standard rate or as negotiated by the parties.
(2) The costs of administration, settlement meetings, mediation or advisory arbitration shall be split equally between
the parties unless the parties mutually agree to a different allocation. The agreed upon cost allocation shall be
documented in a written fee agreement.
Specific Authority 186.505 FS.
Law Implemented 186.509 FS.
History -New 12-8-99.
29F-3.105 - Timeframes.
(1) The initial meeting of the participating parties shall be scheduled and held within 30 days of the date of receipt of
the last response letter or conclusion of the 21 calendar day response period referenced in 29F-3.103(3), whichever
occurs first.
(2) Additional settlement meetings, mediation or advisory decision-making shall be completed within forty-five (45)
days of the date of the conclusion of the initial settlement meeting.
(3) Excepting the 30-day period for the initial meeting, all time frames specified or agreed to in this process may be
shortened or extended by mutual agreement of the named parties.
(4) Where necessary to allow this process to be effectively carried out, named parties should address deferring or
seeking stays of judicial or administrative proceedings.
(5) The participating parties may, by agreement, utilize procedures in the RDRP in any order.
Specific Authority 186.505 FS.
Law Implemented 186.509 FS.
History -New 12-8-99.
29F-3.106 -Public Notice, Records and Confidentiality.
(1) Named parties should consider appropriate opportunities for public input at each step in this process, such as
allowing the submittal of written or verbal comments on issues, alternative solutions and impacts of proposed
agreements.
(2) Applicable public notice, public records, and public meeting requirements shall be observed as required by
Chapters 119 and 120 or other applicable Florida Statutes.
(3) Participants in these procedures agree by their participation that no comments, meeting records, or written or
verbal offers of settlement shall be entered by them as evidence in a subsequent judicial or administrative action.
(4) To the extent permitted by law, mediation under this process will be governed by the confidentiality provisions
of applicable laws, which may include Chapter 44, F.S.
Specific Authority 186.505 FS.
Law Implemented 186.509 FS.
History -New 12-8-99.
29F-3.107 -Pre-Initiation Meeting.
A jurisdiction, oganization, group or individual contemplating initiation of this process may request an informal
pre-initiation meeting with the RPC staff in order to ascertain whether the potential dispute would be appropriate for
this process.
Specific Authority 186.505 FS.
Law Implemented 186.509 FS.
History -New 12-8-99.
29F-3.108 -Situation Assessment.
(1) A jurisdiction, organization, group or individual may request that the RPC staff or other neutral perform a
situation assessment at any time, before or after initiation of the process.
(2) The situation assessment may involve examination of documents, interviews assessment meetings or any
combination of these and shall recommend issues to be addressed, parties that may participate, appropriate
resolution procedures and a proposed schedule.
Specific Authority 186.505 FS.
Law Implemented 186.509 FS.
History -New 12-8-99.
29F-3.109 -Initiation of the Process by Jurisdictions.
(1) This process is initiated by an initiation letter from the representative of the governing body of a jurisdiction,
other than the regional planning council, to the named parties as provided for in 29F-3.103 and to the RPC staff. The
initiation letter must be accompanied by a resolution of the governing body authorizing initiation or by a copy of a
written authorization of a representative to initiate requests to use the RDRP.
(2) Such an initiation letter shall identify: the issues to be discussed; named parties to be involved in the RDRP; the
initiating party's representative and others who will attend; and a brief history of the dispute, indicating why it is
appropriate for this process.
(3) Named parties shall send a response letter to the RPC staff and all other named parties confirming their
willingness to participate in a settlement meeting within twenty-one (21) calendar days of receiving the initiation
letter. This response shall include any additional issues and potential named parties the respondent wishes
considered, as well as a brief history of the dispute and description of the situation from the respondent's point of
view.
(4) Upon receipt of a request, the RPC staff shall assess its interest in the case. If the RPC is a named party or sees
itself as a potential party, it shall notify the named parties of the nature of its interest and ascertain whether the
parties desire an outside facilitator for the initial settlement meeting.
(5) In instances where the RPC is not a named or potential party, it may, upon its own initiative, recommend that a
potential dispute is suitable for this process and transmit its recommendation to potential parties, who may, at their
discretion, choose to initiate the RDRP.
(6) The RPC staff shall schedule a meeting at the most convenient time within the thirty (30) day period provided
for in 29F-3.105(1).
(7) In the event that a dispute involves jurisdictions under two or more regional planning councils, the process
adopted by the region of the initiating jurisdiction shall govern, unless the named parties agree otherwise.
Specific Authority 186.505 FS.
Law Implemented 186.509 FS.
History -New 12-8-99.
29F-3.110 -Requests to Initiate Submitted by Others.
(1) Private interests may ask any jurisdiction to initiate the process.
(2) Any public or private organization, group or individual may request that the RPC recommend use of this process
to address a potential dispute pertaining to a development proposal that would have an impact on an adjacent local
government or identified state or regional resources or facilities, in accordance with 29F-3.109(5). Such a request
shall be submitted in writing and shall include the information required for an initiation letter in 29F-3.109(2).
(3) After reviewing the information submitted by, and consulting with, the requesting organization, group or
individual, the RPC staff will conduct a situation assessment and respond in writing. The situation assessment shall
involve an informal review of provided documents and other information, interviews or meetings as necessary to
determine the issues in dispute, the stakeholders, additional information which is needed to reach a decision and an
opinion of whether the dispute meets the intent and purpose of the RDRP, as stated in 29F-3.101.
(4) If the RPC staff determines, through the situation assessment, that the potential dispute is suitable for the
process, it shall transmit that determination in writing to the potential parties, as agreed upon by the RPC and the
requester. If determined to be suitable for the process, the written determination shall include a recommendation that
one or more of the jurisdictions among the potential parties initiate the process. The RPC may also suggest that other
processes be used. Any party may request that the staffs determination of the suitability of the dispute for this
process be reviewed by the governing board of the RPC at its next regularly scheduled meeting. Such requests must
be made in writing and delivered to the Executive Director of the RPC within 15 days of the date of the staff s
written determination. In making its decision, the governing board shall consider the situation assessment report, and
other information which may be presented, for conformity with the criteria and intent of this chapter.
Specific Authority 186.505 FS.
Law Implemented 186.509 FS.
History -New 12-8-99.
29F-3.111 -Settlement Meetings.
(1) Settlement meetings shall, at a minimum, be attended by the named parties' representatives designated pursuant
to Section 29F-3.103(3).
(2) Settlement meetings shall be facilitated by an RPC staff member or other neutral facilitator acceptable to the
pazties and shall be held at a time and place acceptable to the parties.
(3) At the settlement meeting, the parties shall: consider adding named parties, consider guidelines for participation,
identify the issues to be addressed, present their concerns and constraints, explore options for a solution and seek
agreement.
(4) The parties shall submit a settlement meeting report in accordance with 29F-3.115(4) of this process.
(5) If an agreed-upon settlement meeting is not held or a settlement meeting produces no agreement to proceed to
additional settlement meetings, mediation or advisory decision-making, any pazty who has agreed to participate in
this procedure may withdraw and, if so inclined, proceed to a joint meeting of governing bodies pursuant to Chapter
164, F.S., litigation, administrative hearing or arbitration as appropriate.
Specific Authority 186.505 FS.
Law Implemented 186.509 FS.
History -New 12-8-99.
29F-3.112 -Mediation.
(1) If two or more named parties submit a request for mediation to the RPC, the RPC shall assist them to select and
retain a mediator or the named parties may request that the RPC select a mediator.
(2) All disputes shall be mediated by a mediator who understands Florida growth management issues, has mediation
experience and is acceptable to the parties. Parties may consider mediators who aze on the Florida Growth
Management Conflict Resolution Consortium rosters or any other mutually acceptable mediator. Mediators shall be
guided by the Standards of Professional Conduct, Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 10, Part 11, Section 020-
150.
(3) The parties shall submit a mediation report in accordance with 29F-3.115(4).
Specific Authority 186.505 FS.
Law Implemented 186.509 FS.
History -New 12-8-99.
29F-3.113 -Advisory Decision-Making.
(1) If two or more of the named parties submit a request for advisory decision-making to the RPC, the RPC shall
assist the parties to select and retain an appropriate neutral, or the parties may request that the RPC make the
selection.
(2) All disputes shall be handled by a neutral who understands Florida growth management issues, has appropriate
experience and is acceptable to the parties.
(3) The parties shall submit an advisory decision-making report in accordance with 29F-3.115(4).
Specific Authority 186.505 FS.
Law Implemented 186.509 FS.
History -New 12-8-99.
29F-3.114 -Settlement Agreements and Reports.
(1) The form of all settlements reached through this process shall be determined by the named parties. The following
aze examples of acceptable formats for presenting the settlement: interlocal agreements, concurrent resolutions,
memoranda of understanding, plan amendments, deed restrictions.
(2) Agreements may be reached by two or more parties even if all of the named parties do not agree or do not sign a
formal agreement.
(3) After settlement meetings, mediation or advisory decision-making under this process, the named parties shall
submit a joint report to the RPC staff which shall, at a minimum include:
(a) identification of the issues discussed and copies of any agreements reached;
(b) a list of potentially affected or involved jurisdictions, organizations, groups or individuals (including those which
may not be named parties);
(c) a description of agreed upon next steps, if any, including measures for implementing agreements reached;
(d) a time frame for starting and ending informal negotiations, additional settlement meetings, mediation, advisory
decision-making, joint meetings of elected bodies, administrative hearings or litigation;
(e) any additional RPC assistance requested;
(f) a written fee allocation agreement to cover the costs of agreed upon RDRP procedures. The report shall include
all material any named party wishes to include.
Specific Authority 186.505 FS.
Law Implemented 186.509 FS.
History -New 12-8-99.
29F-3.115 -Other Existing Dispute Resolution Processes.
{1) The RDRP is a voluntary opportunity for parties to negotiate a mutual agreement. It may be used before, in
parallel with or after judicial or administrative proceedings.
(2) When appropriate, parties may obtain a stay of judicial or administrative proceedings to provide time for RDRP
negotiations.
(3) Use of the RDRP shall not alter a jurisdiction's, organization's, group's or individual's right to judicial or
administrative determination of any issue if that person is entitled to such a determination under statutory or
common law.
(4) Participation in the RDRP as a named party or in any other way does not convey or limit intervenor status or
standing in any judicial or administrative proceedings.
(5) In addition to the RDRP 186.509, F.S., parties may consider the applicability of other resolution processes which
exist within Florida Statutes including: Intergovernmental Coordination Element, Section 163.3177(h)(1) & (2),
F.S.; Port Master Plans, Section 163.3178, F.S.; Community Residential Homes, Section 419.001(5), F.S.; Cross
Acceptance Negotiation Process, Section 186.505(22), F.S.; Location of Spoil Sites, Section 380.32(14), F.S.;
Termination of the Development of Regional Impact Program, Section 380.27, F.S.; Administration Procedures Act,
Chapter 120, F.S.; Florida Governmental Cooperation Act, Chapter 164, F.S.; Mediation Alternatives to Judicial
Action, Chapter 44, F.S.
Specific Authority 186.505 FS.
Law Implemented 186.509 FS.
History -New 12-8-99.