HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996 02 26 Regular Item A
~ .
..
I .
COMMISSION AGENDA
ITEM A
REGULAR X
CONSENT
INFORMATIONAL
FEBRUARY 26. 1996
Meeting
REQUEST: General Services Department (Community Development Division) Requesting
the Board to transmit the Battle Ridge Large Scale Comprehensive Plan
Amendment to the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA) for review.
(See Attachment" I" - City Manager Memorandum)
PURPOSE:
The purpose of this Board item is two-fold:
1. To develop an independently objectively derived base of information to
assist the City to determine if the proposed amendment could be found to
be in compliance with the City's annexation policies, Comprehensive Plan
and Land Development Regulations
2. If found to be in compliance, to assist the City in determining the
advisability of approving or disapproving annexation.
APPLICABLE LA WIPUBLIC POLICY:
Following is a listing of the Law and Public Policies applicable to this
matter:
1. The Commission decision to transmit this item for review by DCA,
and other state agencies is a discretionary legislative decision. As such, the
Commission is not compelled to make the decision to transmit on the basis
of quasi-judicial proceedings, or to take any subsequent action relative to
adoption of the amendment, or approval of annexation.
2. The provisions of 163.3184 and 163.3187 Florida Statutes, 9J-l1.006
Florida Administrative Code, Section 15-30 Code of Ordinances of the
City of Winter Springs govern the procedural manner in which the review
will be completed.
February 26, 1996
AGENDA ITEM NUMBER A
Page 2
3. The Seminole County/Winter Springs Joint Planning Area Map and Report
adopted by the City Commission on August 14, 1995 establishing the
Battle Ridge area to be included in the area to be considered for
annexation.
4. Annexation policies stipulated in the Land Use, the Potable Water and
Intergovernmental Coordination Elements of the City of Winter Springs
Comprehensive Plan, and other relevant provisions of the City's
Comprehensive Plan.
CONSIDERA TIONS:
This agenda item is needed to determine the disposition of the request of the
property owners to amend the Future Land Use Map of the City of Winter Springs
Comprehensive Plan to allow IILower Density Residentialll uses not to exceed 3.5
units per acre on the Battle Ridge property.
November 09, 1995 - The Local Planning Agency held a public hearing and
recommended the City Commission not transmit the
proposed amendment to the Florida Department of
Community Affairs and other state agencies for their
review and comment.
January 11, 1996 - This agenda item was scheduled for a hearing before the
City Commission, but was tabled to give the new City
Manager an opportunity to become familiar with the
record of this matter.
ISSUES:
1. Why is the City considering transmitting this proposed amendment to DCA
when a similar proposal was turned down by the county?
a. According to Tony Mathews, Planner with the Seminole County
Comprehensive Planning Division, tQe county turned down a
specific development plan submittedjby the Battle Ridge property
owners, which consisted of multi-family, single-family and
commercial land uses as a PUD(Planned Unit Development). The
proposal being presented to the City is a proposal to provide less
density consisting only of single-family residential development.
b. The previous proposal to the county did not include public water
and sewer service due to the fact that County water and sewer
services are not as yet available to this area of the County.
The Battle Ridge proposal being presented to the City includes
municipal water and sewer provided by the City of Winter Springs.
February 26, 1996
AGENDA ITEM NUMBER
Page 3
A
c.
The Battle Ridge proposal presented to the county was a specific
development plan that would have resulted in authorization to
construct. The request before the City is to transmit to DCA and the
other state agencies a proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment
to the City's Future Land Use Map simply initiates an evaluation
process that does not obligate the City of Winter Springs to
approval of the proposed amendment, construction of the
development, or annexation of the Battle Ridge property.
d.
The proposal presented to the county was evaluated upon the
county's comprehensive plan and land development regulations.
The proposal presented to the City will be evaluated upon the
City's Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations.
In conclusion, staff believes the proposal made to the City is substantially
different from that made to the county.
2. Why is the City Commission being asked to transmit the Battle Ridge
proposal to the Florida Department of Community Affairs by the City staff
when the City's Local Planning Agency voted to recommend against the
proposal ?
a. The recommendation of the Local Planning Agency is advisory only
to the City Commission. The staff is not obligated to agree with
the Planning and Zoning Board/Local Planning Agency in its
recommendations to the City Commission. The staff is obligated
to make their professional evaluations and recommendations to the
City Commission when this differs from the Planning and Zoning!
Local Planning Agency.
b. In this case the staff feels the Local Planning Agency may have
failed to recognize the extent of the differences between the
proposal submitted to the County; and the proposal submitted to
the City. For example, testimony on the record by the county~
planning expert indicated that the staff would have given
consideration to increasing densities it recommended in the small
area study beyond one unit per acre if it had considered the
availability of public water and sewer services. This action would
be consistent with established environmental engineering standards
and practices.
February 26, 1996
AGENDA ITEM NUMBER
Page 4
A
c.
Additionally, the staff feels the Local Planning Agency may have
failed to take into consideration the need to evaluate the proposal
made to the City upon the provisions of the City's annexation
policies, Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations
rather than those of the county. A review of the public record
reveals a preponderance of discussion relating the proposal to
county policy. The record is virtually silent on discussion relating
the proposal to City policy.
d.
Staff believes that many issues were left open without adequate
closure based upon the applicationlof relevant facts, public policy
and law. For example, numerous important issues were raised by
parties on both sides of this issue. Comments were made on the
record that adequate information was not available to lend closure
to these issues.
e.
Additionally, the Local Planning Agency did not make specific
findings relative to the provisions of applicable public~policy and
law consistent with recognized!acceptaqle standards of good
practice in the deliberation of important~land use related matters by
governmental reviewing bodies.
f
In conclusion, the staff finds that the Battle Ridge proposal
presented to the City is substantially different from that presented
to the county, and that the proposal deserves a fair evaluation on
its merits to determine if it can be found to be in compliance with
the annexation policies, Comprehensive Plan and Land
Development Regulations of the City of Winter Springs.
3. Concerns have been voiced that the proposed amendment and annexation
would be destructive of the environment.
a. The City of Winter Springs Comprehensive Plan adequately
addresses the protection of the environment as evidenced in the
Land Use and Conservation, and Intergovernmental Coordination
Elements of the City's Comprehensive Plan. This City's
Comprehensive plan was reviewed by various state agencies and
approved by the Florida Department of Community Affairs in 1992.
In addition the City has requirements for environmental protection
within its Land Development Regulations.
February 26, 1996
" AGENDA ITEM NUMBER ~
Page 5
b. The evaluation to be generated by DCA and the other state agencies
as a result of transmittal will further assure the City in determining
if the proposal can be found to be in compliance with the City's
Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations.
4. The proposed amendment may lower the Level of Service on S.R. 434.
Current information presented on the trip generation from the proposed
project indicates no lowering of the Level of Service on S.R. 434 between
the Beltway and DeLeon Street for peak hour traffic; however, this will be
further analyzed by the state agencies and the City upon transmittal.
FINDINGS:
1. Transmission of the proposed amendment is consistent with annexation
policy of the City of Winter Springs as provided in the Seminole
County/City of Winter Springs Joint Planning Area Map and Report
adopted by the City Commission on August 14, 1995 establishing the
Battle Ridge area to be included in the are to be considered for annexation.
2. The "comprehensive plan amendment application" has been reviewed and
found to be consistent with the provisions of state and local law related to
the transmittal of plan amendments to the Florida Department of
Community Affairs.
3. The provisions of the proposed amendment are substantially different from
the proposal denied by Seminole County.
4. The City's Comprehensive Plan has adequate policies to address the issue
of wetlands that is a concern of citizens and various agencies.
5. The City has adequate policies in its Comprehensive Plan to address storm-
water that is a concern raised by citizens and various agencies.
6. The Battle Ridge property is within the county's "urban boundary",
indicating that the county would allow and expects that urban services,
such as sewer and water, will be provided in the reasonable future.
7. An urban pattern of development exists of single-family residential at 3 to 4
DU/acre within one (1) mile of the Battle ridge property, suggesting that
the amendment proposal may be compatible with the surrounding area.
Battle Ridge, Carroll, Weaver, and Minter properties are requesting the
same type of development and density as that which exists.
"
February 26, 1996
AGENDA ITEM NUMBER ~
Page 6
'8. The Florida Department of Community Affairs approved a similar land use
and density proposal for this land in the Comprehensive Plan of the .
City of Oviedo.
9. The Battle Ridge property is inside the "urban boundary" as indicated in the
Seminole County Comprehensive Plan, which establishes this area for
urban development.
Conclusions:
a. To date, the merits of the proposed amendment to the City have yet to be
adequately evaluated on the basis of compliance and consistency with the
City of Winter Springs' annexation policies, Comprehensive Plan and Land
Development Regulations.
b.. Transmittal of the proposed amendment is needed to assist the staff in
making intelligent objective findings of fact in a manner consistent with
laws and good practice relative to the proposed amendment's compliance
and consistency with the City of Winter Springs annexation policies,
Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations, and
determinations relative to the desirability for annexation.
AL TERNA TIVES:
The City Commission has two alternatives as follows:
1. Approve transmittal. The consequences of this action are as
follows:
a. Upon ~onclusion of the analysis staffwill return to the Board with
recommendation to approve or disapprove the proposed
amendment based upon point by point findings of fact relative to
provisions of law, applicable to the amendment and issues raised in
the process of analysis.
b. If the evaluation finds that the proposal cannot be brought into
compliance with the City's Comprehensive Plan and Land
Development Regulations, City staff will recommend
to the City Commission denial of the amendment proposal.
February 26, 1996
AGENDA ITEM NUMBER-L
Page 7
c. The evaluation will determine that the proposal can be found to be
in compliance with the City's Comprehensive Plan and Land
Development Regulations in which case the City could move to the
next step of determining if it desires to annex the area, or not to
annex the area.
d. If the City finds it to be desirable to annex the area, the owner will
in all likelihood request the City to annex the area, and then the
owner will develop the area in accordance wit this proposal.
e. If the City decides it is not desirable to annex this area, the owner
will in all likelihood request the City of Oviedo to annex this area,
the owner will in all likelihood request the City of Oviedo to annex
the property.
2. Deny transmittal. The likely consequences of this action are as follows:
a. The owner will not pursue any additional annexation.
This consequence is not likely. The owner desires to annex the
property. The City of Oviedo has indicated this area for annexation
in its comprehensive plan on Map 1-3 "2010 Long Range Land
Use" and has indicated this area for LDR "Low Density
Residential" (1-3.5 du/ac) - the same designation that the City of
Winter Springs has in its Comprehensive Plan and that has been
requested by the property owner.
b. The owner will pursue annexation. As discussed above there is
reason to believe that the owner will pursue this course of action -
requesting annexation into the City of Oviedo.
c. The owner will present another proposal to the county.
d. The owner will sell the property to the county as a conservation
area. Attempts to do this to date have failed.
e. The owner will not pursue any additional development of the
property. Our understanding is that this is not a likely course of
action based upon the owners investment in the proposal.
...;
February 26, 1996
AGENDA ITEM NUMBER A
Page 8
RECOMMENDATION:
Based on the findings discussed above, it is recommended the City Commission
consider approving the request by Gray, Harris & Robinson, (representing the
Battle Ridge property owner) for transmittal of the Large Scale Comprehensive
Plan Amendment (LG-CP A-I-96) to the Florida Department of Community
Affairs and other state agencies in accordance with 163.3184 Florida Statutes and
Section 15-30 of the City Code, for the purpose of:
a. Receiving an independently objectively derived base of information to assist
the City to determine if the proposed amendment could be found to be in
compliance with the City's annexation policies, Comprehensive Plan and
Land Development Regulations.
b. To assist the City in determining the advisability of approving or
disapproving annexation.
As stated, approval of this recommendation will not create an obligation on the
part of the City to take any further action regarding this proposal, nor does it
create any right on behalf of the applicant to require action by the City.
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE:
Upon approval for transmission, the City will send copies of the proposed amendment to
the appropriate agencies as indicated in 163.3184 F.S. and 9J-l1.006 F.A.C. According
to John Healey of D.C. A., the Objections, Recommendations and Comments (ORC)
Report takes up to 90 days to send back to the local government from DCA. There is
then a period for response to DCA's aRC Report by the local government if it chooses to
respond with further data and clarifications and "negotiation in good faith" with DCA on
the various issues etc. raised. Following this is action by the local government to adopt,
adopt with changes, or not adopt the proposed amendment.
Should the amendment be adopted by the local government, it does not take effect until
DCA issues a "NOTICE OF INTENT" to find the amendment in compliance with the state
comprehensive plan, ECFRPC's Regional Policy Plan, and the City's Comprehensive Plan
[per 163.3189(2)(a) F.S.]. The NOTICE OF INTENT is issued by DCA within 45 days
of receiving the adopted amendment from the City.
Depending on the complexity of the amendment, the whole process normally takes from
six (6) to eight (8) months.
.".
_ , I
February 26, 1996
AGENDA ITEM NUMBER ~
Page 9
A TT ACHMENTS:
1. City Manager's Memorandum.
2. Checklist for DCA Transmittal.
3. Large Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment Process.
COMMISSION ACTION:
MEMORANDUM
To: Mayor and Board of Commission
From: Ron McLemore, City Manager (2Wr'Y\
Date: February 26, 1996
Re: Battle Ridge, Carroll, Weaver, Minter, Plan Amendments
This is a follow-up memorandum to the memorandum of February 23, 1996 contained in your
Agenda Package relative to the Battle Creek, Carrol, Weaver and Minter Property Plan
Amendments. In that memorandum I advised you that I would have a memorandum that I
would like to publish in the record regarding the framework in which I believe we should
., .
conduct the transmittal process if the Board should decided to move in that direction.
The four plan amendments represent some 365.6 acres of land, 297 in Battle Ridge, 13.6 in the
Carrol property, 27 in the Weaver property and 28 in the minter property.
Preliminary review reveals, of the 365.6 acres of land being proposed for plan amendment and
annexation, approximately 113.2 will be developable, including 50 acres in the Battle Ridge
property, 8.2 acres in the Carrol property, 27 acres in the Weaver property and 28 acres in the
Minter property.
This would result in approximately 30.9 % of the property being developable, including 17% of
the Battle Ridge property, 60% of the Carrol property, 100% of the Weaver property and 100%
of the Minter property.
The decision to recommend transmittal of the proposal was made after an extensive review and
analysis of the record of this matter.
GOALS: If the Board decides to move forward with the transmittal it appears to me that
four goals need to be accomplished as follows:
1) That at the conclusion of the process everyone feels good about the open, fair,
disciplined manner in which the process was carried out regardless of what the
final recommendation might be.
2) The final recommendations will be based upon compliance with the City's
Comprehensive Plan based upon specific findings of fact applied to the revelent
law and good practice.
3) That the final decision provides an adequate measure of protection of the chosen
life style of the surrounding property owners based upon specific finding of fact
and good practice.
4) That the final decision provides an adequate measure of protection of the Lake
Jesup Ecosystem based upon specific findings of fct nd good practice.
5) That the final decision is acceptable with the economic and life style interest of
the residents of the City of Winter Springs.
If the Commission decides to move ahead with the transmittal and consideration of annexation
the Commissioners will eventually be faced with deciding two issues as follows:
1) Can the proposed annexation be found to be in compliance with the Comprehensive
Plan, and;
2) Is the annexation in the overall best interest of the City?
Since this is a discretionary legislative proceeding all of these issues can be merged at the final
public hearing of the Plan Amendment Process, or be taken into consideration in two separte
proceedings. It is my recommendation at this time that we make separte findings and decisions
on both questions, but both questions be addressed at the same final public hering date.
Due to the intensified concerns of the various interest groups in this project, I think it is fair to
advise that the owners may be held to a higher burden of proof in this project than might
otherwise be required of a project in this type of process in order to facilitate specific findings of
fact in all pertinent provisions of law and all issues. For example:
1 ) Wetland jurisdiction lines
2) Endangered species
3) Economic feasibility
4) Transitional land uses
5) Traffic impact
6) Dedication of Public Conservation Lands
Additionally it is quite possible that the final plan that the Staff would be willing to recommend
may be different from that proposed, or that Staff may not be able to recommend any form of a
plan that Staff believe is mutually acceptable to the property owner's and the City. Relatedly, it
is possible that the Staff may recommend dropping one or more of the properties from
consideration.
MEET AND CONFER STEERING COMMITTEE
In order to fascilitate open communications and confidence in the analytical process, I am
recommending that the Commission authorize me to appoint a Steering Committee that will
meet and confer on a regular basis during the process. No decision would be made in these
meetings. I am recommending that the Committee be composed of the following:
The City Manager
1 member from City Staff
1 member from County Staff
1 member from the Friends of Lake Jesup
1 member from the Black Hammock Property Owner's Association
1 property owner from each property and/or their designees
EX PARTE COMMUNICATION
Although this is not a quasi judicial process, I would like to recommend that the members of the
City Commission voluntarily agree to Ex Parte Rules during this process. I believe, in this case
this agreement would help the process.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT
CHECKLIST FOR DCA TRANSMITTAL
SA TTLE RIDGE COMPANIES
II. SUBMISSION PACKAGE
IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS FOR PROPOSED
LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TEXT AND MAP
AMENDMENTS: [9J-11.006( 1 )(b)]
Future Land Use Map Amendment of Battle Ridge Companies.
A. GENERAL:
SUBMIT TO THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS A TOTAL
OF SIX (6) COPIES OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT PACKAGE.
THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT PACKAGE SHALL INCLUDE:
*
RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE STAFF, LOCAL PLANNING
AGENCY, LOCAL GOVERNING BODY: [9J-11.006(1 He)]
*
ALL PROPOSED TEXT, MAPS, AND SUPPORT DOCUMENTS
WHICH INCLUDE DATA AND ANALYSES IN THE FOLLOWING
FORMAT: [9J-11.006(1)(b)]
1.
REQUEST SUMMARY:
a. OWNER: Battle Ridge Companies
b. BRIEF SUMMARY OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT'S
CONTENTS AND EFFECTIREASON FOR THE PROPOSED
AMENDMENT:
(1) SUMMARY:
The property owner has applied for annexation into
the City of Winter Springs. As part of the
annexation the property owner has applied for a
comprehensive plan amendment to change the
land use designation of the property from
Suburban Estates (Seminole County) to Low
Density Residential (Winter Springs). The effect of
the proposed amendment will be to change the
density from 1 dwelling unit per acre to up to 3.5
dwelling units per acre.
(2) REASON:
The reason for the proposed amendment is to
respond to market needs and to be consistent with
residential developments in the vicinity of the
property.
c. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: See Exhibit "A"
d. EXISTING ZONING: A-1 (County)
e. REQUESTED ZONING: R-1
f.
EXISTING USE:
Vacant
g. COMMENTS:
The property owner has filed an Application for
Annexation, an Application for Comprehensive Plan
Amendment and an Application for Rezoning.
2. PROPOSED TEXT CHANGES:
(AS REFLECTED ON NEW PAGES OF THE AFFECTED
ELEMENT, SHOWN IN A STRIKE THROUGH AND UNDERLINE
FORMAT OR SIMILAR EASILY IDENTIFIABLE FORMAT
IDENTIFYING THE PLAN AMENDMENT NUMBER ON EACH
PAGE AFFECTED): [9J-11.006(1 )(b)]
No text changes are requested.
3. PROPOSED MAP CHANGES:
PERTAINS ONLY TO A REGULATORY LAND USE MAP
AMENDMENT. [9J-11.006(1 )(b)]
a. THE BOUNDARY OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY,
SURROUNDING STREET AND THOROUGHFARE
NETWORK, SURROUNDING FUTURE LAND USES, AND
NATURAL RESOURCES:
See Exhibit "A" and report of Breedlove, Dennis &
Associates, Inc. included within this application.
2
b. THE PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNA TION(S) OF THE
SUBJECT PROPERTY AND ABUTTING PROPERTIES:
See Exhibit "A".
c. THE PROPOSED FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNA TION(S)
FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY:
Low-density residential.
d. THE SIZE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IN ACRES OR
FRACTIONS THEREOF:
296.96 acres.
e. GENERAL LOCATION MAP IF THE LAND USE PLAN MAP
DOES NOT SHOW THE ENTIRE JURISDICTION:
See Exhibit "A".
f. MAP OR DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING LAND USES (NOT
DESIGNATIONS) OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND
SURROUNDING PROPERTIES:
See Exhibit "A".
g. MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE DEVELOPMENT UNDER
EXISTING DESIGNATION FOR THE SITE:
One (1) unit per acre.
h. MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE DEVELOPMENT UNDER
PROPOSED DESIGNATION FOR THE SITE:
Three and one-half (3.5) units per acre.
i. LIST OF OBJECTIVE AND POLICIES OF THE FUTURE
LAND USE ELEMENT AND OTHER AFFECTED ELEMENTS
WITH WHICH THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT IS
COMPATIBLE: [9J-11.006(1 )(b)5.]
Goal 2, Objective A, Policies 1-3
Goal 2, Objective 8, Policy 2
*
SUBMIT SIX (6) COPIES OF THE EVALUATION AND
APPRAISAL REPORT, IF DONE IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE
3
PROPOSED AMENDMENT, IF APPLICABLE, OR A LETTER
CERTIFYING THAT THE E.A.R. HAS BEEN PREVIOUSLY SENT
TO THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS AND EACH
REVIEW AGENCY AS LISTED UNDER 9J-11.008(8). [9J-
11.006(A)(d)]
III. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT ANALYSIS:
B. ANAL YSIS/RE-ANAL YSlS: [9J-11.006(A)(b)4.,5.. and 9J-5.005(2),
F.A.C.]
1. TRAFFIC CIRCULATION, INCLUDING: [9J-5.007] (See Exhibit "B")
a. ROADWAYS SERVING THE SITE (INDICATING LANEAGE,
FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION AND RIGHT-OF-WAY,
CURRENT LOS, AND LOS STANDARD:
(1) FACILITY: State Road 434.
(2) DESIGN CAPACITY:
18,270 peak hour trips at LOS "E" for 2 lane minor urban
arterial roadway.
(3) CURRENT LOS:
13,125 peak hour trips at LOS "A ", per Seminole
County's 1994 Segment Counts.
(4) LOS STANDARD:
Peak hour interim LOS "E" of 18,270 trips through
1996 per City's Comprehensive Plan.
b. PROJECTED LOS (INDICATE YEAR) UNDER EXISTING
DESIGNATION:
1994: LOS "A"
2000: LOS "8", as a 2 lane principal urban arterial
c. PROJECTED LOS UNDER PROPOSED DESIGNATION:
There would be no change in the projected LOS under
the proposed designation.
4
d. IMPROVEMENTS/EXPANSIONS:
Turn lanes and deceleration lanes to accommodate ingress and
egress to the site. No other improvements are necessary as a
result of this annexation.
e. EVALUATION OF CONSISTENCY WITH THE ADOPTED MPO
PLAN AND FDOT'S FIVE (5) YEAR TRANSPORTATION PLAN:
No significant road improvements required by this development.
f. AVAILABILITY OF ACCESS:
The project has access to State Road 434.
g. APPROVED BY FDOT:
No driveway or connection permits have been applied for at this
time.
h. IDENTIFY THE OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES THAT SUPPORT
THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT; IDENTIFY ANY
INCONSISTENCIES AND EXPLAIN WHY THERE WILL BE NO
IMPACT(S):
Objective C, Policy 2
i. IS AMENDMENT TO THE TRAFFIC CIRCULATION ELEMENT
NECESSARY AS A RESULT OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT?
No.
B. MASS TRANSIT:
Mass transit is currently not available to this portion of the city.
C. PORTS, AVIATION, AND RELATED FACILITIES:
N/A.
5
D. HOUSING:
1. NEEDS ANALYSIS TO DETERMINE IF DEVELOPMENT IS
PROPOSED TO MEET THE NEEDS OF THE ANTICIPATED
POPULATION:
Winter Springs projects residential growth to a total population
of approximately 37,500 by 2010. This development is
consistent with the City's objectives for residential growth.
2. LAND REQUIREMENTS FOR THE TOTAL ESTIMATED HOUSING
NEED OF THE JURISDICTION:
The City projects the need for 1, 150 additional acres for
residential development by 2010 to allow development of up to
6,800 dwelling units with an average density of 5.91 DU per
acre. The proposed development, which involves annexation of
approximately 50 acres for residential development, will in part
address the City's need for additional land.
3. IDENTIFY THE OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES THAT SUPPORT
THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT:
Objective B.
4. IS AMENDMENT TO THE HOUSING ELEMENT NECESSARY AS
A RESULT OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT?
No.
E. SANITARY SEWER, SOLID WASTE, STORMWATER MANAGEMENT,
POTABLE WATER AND NATURAL GROUNDWATER AQUIFER
RECHARGE:
1. POTABLE WATER:
a. FACILITIES SERVING THE SITE, CURRENT LOS, AND
LOS STANDARD:
(1) FACILITY: Winter Springs Water and Sewer East
(2) DESIGN CAPACITY: 6.1 MGD
(3) CURRENT LOS:
A verage daily flow (ADF) = 2.02 MGD
6
(4) LOS STANDARD:
125 gallons per capita per day (GCPD)
b. PROJECTED LOS (INDICATE YEAR) UNDER EXISTING
DESIGNATION:
1997 Projected ADF = 2.39 MGD
1997 Projected Design Capacity = 6.1 MGD
2010 Projected ADF = 3.38 MGD
2010 Projected Design Capacity = 6. 1 MGD
c. PROJECTED LOS UNDER PROPOSED DESIGNATION:
1997 Projected ADF = 2.456 MGD
1997 Projected Design Capacity = 6. 1 MGD
2010 Projected ADF = 3.446 MGD
2010 Projected Design Capacity = 6. 1 MGD
d. IMPROVEMENTS/EXPANSIONS A,""READY
PROGRAMMED OR NEEDED AS A RESULT OF
PROPOSED AMENDMENT:
The developer proposes to extend a ten-inch (10") water
line along State Road 434 from its current termination at
Vista Willa Drive to the project site. With a projected
ADF in 2010 of 3.38 MGD and a projected design
capacity in 2010 of 6.1 MGD, the City's potable water
treatment facility is adequate to service the proposed
development; therefore, expansion of the City's potable
water treatment facility is not necessary as a result of
this amendment.
e. IDENTIFY THE OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES THAT
SUPPORT THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT:
Objective A, Policies " 3, 4 and 5
Objective D, Policies 2a-e, 3 and 4
f. IS AMENDMENT TO THE POTABLE WATER SUB-
ELEMENT NECESSARY AS A RESULT OF THE
PROPOSED AMENDMENT?
No.
7
2. SANITARY SEWER:
a. FACILITIES SERVING THE SITE, CURRENT LOS, AND
LOS STANDARD:
(1) FACILITY: Winter Springs Water andSewer East
(2) DESIGN CAPACITY: 2.012 MGD
(3) CURRENT LOS:
Average daily flow (ADF) = 0.974 MGD
(4) LOS STANDARD:
100 gallons per capita per day (GCPD)
b. PROJECTED LOS (INDICATE YEAR) UNDER EXISTING
DESIGNATION:
1997 Projected ADF = 1.88 MGD
1997 Projected Design Capacity = 2.012 MGD
2010 Projected ADF = 2.76 MGD
2010 Projected Design Capacity = 2.75 MGD
c. PROJECTED LOS (INDICATE YEAR) UNDER PROPOSED
DESIGNATION:
1997 Projected ADF = 1.93 MGD
1997 Projected Design Capacity = 2.012 MGD
2010 Projected ADF = 2.81 MGD
2010 Projected Design Capacity = 2.75 MGD
d. IMPROVEMENTS/EXPANSIONS ALREADY
PROGRAMMED OR NEEDED AS A RESULT OF
PROPOSED AMENDMENT:
The developer will extend a forcemain from its existing
termination at Vista Willa Drive along State Road 434 to
the project site.
8
e. IDENTIFY THE OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES THAT
SUPPORT THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT:
Objective C, Policies 1, 7, 9, and 13
f. IS AMENDMENT TO THE SANITARY SEWER SUB-
ELEMENT NECESSARY AS A RESULT OF THE
PROPOSED AMENDMENT?
No.
3. DRAINAGE/STORMWATER:
a. FACILITIES SERVING THE SITE, CURRENT LOS, AND
LOS STANDARD:
(1) FACILITY:
Storm drainage will be provided on site in
accordance with City of Winter Springs and St.
Johns River Water Management District criteria.
(2) CURRENT LOS/LOS STANDARD:
The City's Comprehensive Plan provides for
a stormwater system design for the 25-year,
24-hour duration storm event. Further,
water quality treatment shall be provided for
a volume equivalent to one-half inch of
depth over the site, consistent with Chapter
17-25, F.A. C.
b. PROJECTED LOS (INDICATE YEAR) UNDER EXISTING
DESIGNATION:
See 3.a(2) above.
c. PROJECTED LOS (INDICATE YEAR) UNDER PROPOSED
DESIGNA TION:
See 3.a(2) above.
9
d. IMPROVEMENTS/EXPANSIONS ALREADY
PROGRAMMED OR NEEDED AS A RESULT OF
PROPOSED AMENDMENT:
Other than on site improvements, no expansion or
improvements are necessary.
e. IDENTIFY THE OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES THAT
SUPPORT THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT:
Goal 1, Objective B, Policies 1, 2, 3, and 4
Goal 2, Objective A, Policies 1, 2, and 3
Goal 2, Objective B, Policies 1 and 3
f. IS AMENDMENT TO THE DRAINAGE SUB-ELEMENT
NECESSARY AS A RESULT OF THE PROPOSED
AMENDMENT?
No.
4. SOLID WASTE:
a. FACILITY:
The City contracts with Industrial Waste Services
(/WS) who delivers to Seminole County's Osceola
Landfill.
b. DESIGN CAPACITY:
The landfill is expected to be operational and thus
have capacity through the year 2022.
c. CURRENT LOS:
The City's current level of service is 2.33 pounds
per capita per day (PCD).
d. LOS STANDARD:
Seminole County has adopted a level of service of
5.14 PCD.
10
e. PROJECTED LOS UNDER EXISTING DESIGNATION:
In 1997, the County projects an LOS of 3. 77 PCD,
rising to 4.58 PCD by 2010. The projected impact
of the existing designation is 565.5 pounds of
solid waste per day in 1997 (50 dwelling units x 3
persons per unit x 3.77 PCD). The 2010 figure is
687 pounds of solid waste per day (50 dwelling
units x 3 persons per unit x 4.58 PCD).
f. PROJECTED LOS UNDER PROPOSED DESIGNATION:
There would be no change in the projected LOS.
There would be a reduction in the projected impact
under the proposed designation. The projected
impact of the proposed designation is 1979.25
pounds of solid waste per day in 1997 (175
dwelling units x 3 persons per unit x 3.77 PCD).
The 2010 figure is 2404.50 pounds per day (175
dwelling units x 3 persons per unit x 4.58 PCD).
g. IMPROVEMENTS ALREADY PROGRAMMED OR NEEDED
AS A RESULT OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT:
None.
h. IS AMENDMENT TO THE SOLID WASTE SUB-ELEMENT
NECESSARY AS A RESULT OF THE PROPOSED
AMENDMENT?
No.
F. COASTAL MANAGEMENT:
N/A.
G. CONSERVATION:
1 . HABITAT ANALYSIS AS TO WHETHER THE SITE CONTAINS
HABITAT FOR SPECIES LISTED BY FEDERAL, STATE OR
LOCAL AGENCIES AS ENDANGERED, THREATENED OR
SPECIES OF SPECIAL CONCERN:
A report has been prepared by Breedlove, Dennis & Associates,
Inc. and attached to this application as Exhibit "C".
11
2. TYPE AND DEGREE OF DISTURBANCE TO THE NATURAL
FUNCTIONS OF ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE LANDS;
SPECIFICALLY IDENTIFY WETLANDS:
Any impacts will be in accordance with local, state and federal
guidelines.
3. THE EFFECT ON VEGETATIVE COMMUNITIES:
The effect on vegetative communities will be analyzed as part
of an impact and mitigation analysis in accordance with local,
state and federal guidelines.
4. IDENTIFY THE OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES THAT SUPPORT
THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT:
Objective 8, Policies 4, 5, and 6
Objective C, Policies 5a-f and 6
H. RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE:
1. FACILITY: Northeast Region neighborhood parks.
2. CURRENT LOS:
There are no neighborhood parks within the immediate
area. The closest park is the 59 acre community park,
Central Winds Park, which is within approximately 3
miles of the site. There are also neighborhood parks
within the nearby Tuscawilla Planned Unit Development.
3. LOS STANDARD:
6.9 acres per 1000 population.
4. PROJECTED LOS UNDER EXISTING DESIGNATION:
For 1997 and 2010, there would be no change from the
current LOS.
5. PROJECTED LOS UNDER PROPOSED DESIGNATION:
See H.4. above.
12
6. IMPROVEMENTS ALREADY PROGRAMMED OR NEEDED AS A
RESULT OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT:
Improvements to the open space system needed as a
result of the proposed development will be created on-
site in accordance with the City's Code.
7. IDENTIFY THE OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES THAT SUPPORT
THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT:
Objectives D, E, F and H
8. IS AMENDMENT TO THE RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE
SUB-ELEMENT NECESSARY AS A RESULT OF THE PROPOSED
AMENDMENT?
No.
I. INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION:
1. STATE THE IMPACTS AND THEIR SIGNIFICANCE OF THE
PROPOSED AMENDMENT ON ADJACENT LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS:
The proposed amendment will have no impact on adjacent local
governments. It has previously been established by Seminole
County and by the City of Winter Springs that the proposed
development will be served by Winter Springs Utilities. The
City of Oviedo has no desire or capacity to serve the proposed
development.
2. . LIST COMMENTS OR OBJECTIONS FROM ADJACENT LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS:
There have been no comments or objections from the City of
Oviedo. Seminole County has previously provided to the City a
letter dated November 9, 1995, a copy of which is included
within this application as Exhibit liD ".
3. IDENTIFY THE OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES THAT SUPPORT
THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT:
Objective A, Policies 2, 3, 4, 8
Objective C, Policy 1
Objective D
13
J. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS:
1 . ANALYSIS AS TO WHETHER THE AMENDMENT IS BASED ON
THE ANNUAL MONITORING AND EVALUATION REVIEW OF
THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT ELEMENT:
The developer will extend a water line and a forcemain in order
to provide water and sewer service to the property. There are
no significant improvements to State Road 434 required by the
proposed amendment.
2. FISCAL IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT ON THE
CITY, IF ANY, ON PUBLIC FACILITIES AS IDENTIFIED IN
OTHER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ELEMENTS AND RELATIVE
PRIORITIES OF THOSE NEEDS:
The proposed amendment will provide additional water and
sewer users to the City, resulting in the payment of service
fees, connection and meter fees and utility revenue to the City.
Additionally, the City will benefit from the payment of real
property taxes by property owners. There will also be payment
of impact fees to the City.
3. IMPROVEMENTS ALREADY PROGRAMMED OR NEEDED AS A
RESULT OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT:
The Developer will provide the necessary capital
improvements.
4. IDENTIFY THE OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES THAT SUPPORT
THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT:
Objective C
5. IS AMENDMENT TO THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS SUB-
ELEMENT NECESSARY AS A RESULT OF THE PROPOSED
AMENDMENT?
No.
14
K. VACANT LAND CHARACTER ANALYSIS IN ORDER TO DETERMINE
SUITABILITY FOR USE, INCLUDING:
All of the Property is vacant. Approximately 50 acres are
planned for development of single family detached residences.
The balance of the Property is wetlands and will become
conservation lands.
Attached hereto as Exhibit "e" is the report of Breedlove, Dennis &
Associates, Inc. which discusses soils, natural resources and other
matters.
A ttached hereto as Exhibit "E" is the Soils Map and the Flood Map.
The population projections relative to the proposed amendment are as
follows:
1995 = 0
2000 = 612
2005 = 612
L. 1992 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN INCONSISTENCIES:
None.
\KB\BA TTLE\CHECKLST .CPA
15
-r/
.
I
o ~~ s
; =~ s
~ a~ ~
;j ;;
~ ~~ &
a ;;0
S ~r;
~ :~
"
~~
~.
~!'
""
c
~
g I! I
III _"" :
11/,1 ,,,0 <0,,,,,"\1;; ~ _._~
....')...i ".:::-4'-.
~... .,.,.....'Et~
I .,.-'" "': oJ
""-.-' ."
__"-1j-/-,. .-'
-' I
I I
0'_ r-'-{fl .
.d I IL!II
I otJ /
I .. "it I
~i' ; ;1" I
l.. . "'f
~ll "J J I
.., I
-J~"""""U~I
10
.-J~I
I ~ '"
-1 i I'll
LI
1/1
/'1
~ II
" - U'l/ · .:"..,. .
I I ....'".
..I
I t:
G!:_~Ji
. -- -, H f::;~'::'. .
'I : ..;:~ 3
ilLI ~. ~ ~'~
I ~:. \ ·
III . .:;,~.!.~: .
,.
JI
II .
,fl ~:: I
II J :~ ,
~"
E.
. ;:
;;
Erz
n._
api'
.-~
,,-0
~.
~c_
....;:0
.-.
~.n
~n
c~o
Oee
__0
:~~
:~:
~!~
~-II
iB~
n~C
~ .
.,of""'"
~:~
=~-
~~!
c_
~;Z
e-.
-....
~=!2
~C"::
. :;
BATTLE RIDGE
EXISTING ZONING
." -
'"
..-
....,..,...------ -,.,.,..~
...-
. .
-,
i~ f
;
~
. &.;'''"u' .
'6',\.110
=i F3F53i3Sf:fir:E.'5ii:i;':f~5ff;f'~~~r'~~ f: C
r~ !tf.iE~.'f:i:~'~;'E.!c!licg;rE;Efl~~rrt: ?~I
! ci~ii;iX~E{!::~:~l!:r=.:.l$iiri=~;;i~~~: :
, :~;~;~;I':l~Si~iff~fE!:~i~~~e!:e~;~-~if: f~
a ;~5"~~:!'Z..-~-fr rrf:..; .:~ ~;:!Z~~~. .6
I "..! i.l....r:rr~'-,_:.I~~'i"~l=:,~;.:E ._
~ ~::~~f.~~~_;E:~~I~!~~i~!~Q5~.~!D~~~.~~f= :1
A :~iEArX~~s..~~r..~~c::.il_,'r~.A.ie~!.~~ AI
, '::~.:i':'f~;::~~'~r~~:..~~fl;~l~_'E~~.' .~
r ~iEf;~:~!i~:~i';":~!~fiii~i~;i~Q~j~:~~E: ,!i
· I '-- '-." :::",f"~'I-.,~HS!~_~:ra-.. Ir "
~ ~;,;~&'i~AQ:; ft,I:'!~.r~AtS~t_ Gf:~:~-~ i
t ;:;,,.;.....~;._rF: fIE:.~;::.~~1i..z..:~~.~:::ii :;.
6 : l:s":'E~~:,f. ::'~:~:..'~:'.~l'i~::r ~r
r f'I'.~~! ~ .~.~-.. ~'~-!'t=r~: ~~.~a- ~ ~,
! "i":.<::riCI!':"'iP;':H"'-:':~"'~.'~i'.
~>t 'H~;s W~:'i~'61 ..!Il:t:i~:g.~.H~ G-
i :E~i~c' f.:f::i,.; ,..I:Et"o'.,rp~,~~, :f
f ~~r.~ki~I:C!~i~=&!f:=i;~~:~I./=rA=iJE~~ E-'
t'lt.......,,_..~ ..~... t..- to -~-c; " i:: 2M1!._ .
l cir.B.~~j." _,ii '.i"fl." f ~_fr'ol'f f'
:: .1b:...:l!-~.: :rJl.' I-:C"s"= =i..- ~:':..~.' . ,.~
. ~'rf~~';~"~ ...,'~.I.-. "'foE ~."..rK~ "
- .- ~~"., ~"'.!f"r I....el;~.,. ill r -c'.t""c. ..
; ~,a~~' .!f.:l:~:=~~',~, :Hf~ -lHE;PH E
.. . r &,. ,- ." ~ . ~ ~ . : ~ 'III' S. C' ... ;:.. 'r.l. i H _
. iEi'!~f~';i:~.l!(;;r.fl._...f"f'~:~l~~ .
A 'f-.' ."p- "I't< -. 1<'1, ,'" t. r
1 "~:I~il~~~fJS;':/.~:i l'=!~rrZ ~~~~i~i! .
r e-.a.:; ,.. Il "":1;_11(._ ;'Il .4 r~ :..{"" "
I i~A;= ~ rI f"it I : ~ .
.-
Itlt, . rp.e
eeL CCNSULTANiS .I/.Ie
(-C"'UJ, J-"'""t,C'11 "u.-"I
Illt
I~I
I~
='1 ,e:.. It:
"r.'Cr ~ Jr.
I., t-:,-tS
IJ"'''''''I~t.~
tt.,,,,,,,) ''-'':Jt
-"''11'' ...!".....::J'I.IU'.. 1..",....,lul~f
p.u.oo Wi,. '4llf' .t.e" ,.r-- s,.,lC
J'(StCI'l:Dtf
EXlllBIT "A"
Page 1 of 2
:~
~~
\:"
><
,.,
....
,.,
'"
'"
c:
"
I
,
I
~
Is
r
-
-- .-'
__ -- ..c-...:_________
./'
..
~
I
;.
;;
:2
iI
~
,.
~
I!I ./'
I,'! .o,-j:J-.J"''''~''./' __ ./' ;__..~_..-..-..-ul-------
",.ll-.P /., :,
I ...,..'l ~ ".,-
/',1' ./' ",.' :
./' / I
I I I ,...- ".. :
.rl-(' / I
.....- I! I r'''---' i
,..,..., ,', . I
'I' i i
/,/ i '
r-, 'I' .
: L--+i !
~ I '/' (
_~.J !"1 II' i
: I I II i
! L-iii i
I ';' i
,: ~ ~i~ i I
II! ~ 3;~' !
!h Z .Ii'
III ~ 1'1 i
-II '. "
,-...... I :~:_ fJi!,.
" ,) I!:/ 1" i
_....J '---i: 0"
:~: .
I I i
r-1~ ,
I 'I' !
rJ i, i i
L___I' i
i'i i
,I, i
I." II' .
q III !
3 '" ,
---1 :. ii' !
I ~ 'I' I _._u_.__..j
I r: ,!-
I P I';
I I:
L..-:::~_-: !-.._..,
I': i
,', :
" I
/I: i I
" I : :
i! i---L,,-,,-"-,,_u_,,_u_u_,,-,,~,,-,,_u_"-"-"-"-"-"l--~_- -- - -- -- -- -- -- ---
'I ' i! I ;i
I '/>, I
I' , f I ;;
I' .. I ;;
; I 0 I ~
II'I--~~-l I ~
, . I I !:
...
!1
~
j:
~
s
~~
"0
gO:
g:
~~
~"
;;E
.i:~
...
A
..
;:
g
:t
ill
r
.<>
;;
~
iI
~
~
rj ~
- ........., ~ - ...
:J.).. ~ '
~ ~ ~ I
O.
o
~
" -- ! ::i i j
" E~ E! i
i.l 2. i
~ l! g~ ;[ i~ ! ii
;l ~K " .
;I
~ ~~ I ~f E iF Hi
I; J:i! I
II" !!
~ ;f . E- f i E!i
-2 - I
. ~~ i ~~ . ~ii tefi
2 ~
. [-.
~ :;8 ~~ ~ .. .~~ ....
~ H !~" II:
! ~ ;:2 ~J eel I
~ ... !
" ~ ~- .R
~ $ I ~~i
~ ~
.. . i ~;5
~ ~ ! ~ !.~
i1 e ~ ~ ih
" !
. 2 ~ ;B
F c
::l
SA TTLE RIDGE
~.. 'Joe
b-
C C L CONSULT/..I\TS ,rNC 6
t.w~"'({J1 ,~ ~u:s.o
6
~ ,.. -~-...-... tn, I"''' -.... l::A
oc,.t"~ W'tJ1 'A.Ui It...oc '" ,...'C
~'toe
EXISTING LAND USE
.'rY_
t,. l-1..--'S
EXHIBIT IIA"
Page 2 of 2
s:
X
M
....
M
VI
VI
c:
."
IlCs.cCI"U:N
'./
~.
".,,-. ,.....".
-,""'" -
I, f. ...,. ,...,...,,,
Iii' I -~_.-~......::-......-.
-.u."'1" ____-- ..
f .,r;J,\J"f" ."....,.",......
-/4/ :.:=~//-
. II
'II
i ,I
'/1
II
//'/
/1
III
I"
I~I
Iii
'P ".~tl
~! ; ~ ~~i Ii tl I'
r-e ~ b ~:~
~;. =io E;J!i //11
c: S ~ ~ ~~~ :
b ~ ~ ~2.!: 1/'1
.e r,': o~5 I
:: ~ ~ E~~ I'
at ... _,..
)- . . ""'"0,.. I
~ ;; ~g I}
~ ~: c: I
a .: - ;~ I
g ~./
II
II
II
I,
I .. 'I
,- ;"-...J ~ _ .
I ~A ~I . .
i~ li~;;1 ~
- I~
SA TilE RIDGE
EXHIBIT B
..
..
...
..,
'"
a
Cl
..,
~
..,
l-
~
f
~
~
...
'"
r.
'<
I_
i<">
iZ
~
I
;~
'>
iU
I~I
eeL CC\'SULT.l.NTS .'I\"C~I
t..c:....tr.. 1l.~0<<1 1':,.t.....('1 w
6.1
"-""'t I.' -...~"w. """1 t_1'j _to" I~
t.......u "'n '&4.01 .(.eN "I'" :""1(
11"'~(JoCIl.II"""1
'c.,...... lI(,e..
X"_I"J:_
EXHIBIT I'B"
95144-10.1
ANALYSIS OF THE POTENTIAL
FOR OCCURRENCE OF THREATENED
AND ENDANGERED SPECIES AND
SPECIES OF SPECIAL CONCERN
ON THE BATTLE RIDGE
PROJECT SITE
Submitted to:
Mr. James W. Allen, Jr.
President
Battle Ridge Companies of Florida, Inc.
4221 Maine Avenue
P.O. Box 1118
Eaton Park, Florida 33840-1118
TEL: (813) 667-1115
FAX: (813) 667-1937
January 15, 1996
Submitted by:
Patrick E. Miller, B.S.
Associate Scientist II
illOOffi~u
W. Michael Dennis, Ph.D.
Yice President
EXffiBIT "e"
TABLE OF CONTENTS
UST OF FIGURES .................................................. 11
UST OF TABLES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 111
1.0 INfRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . '1
2.0 EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.0 THREATENED, ENDANGERED, AND SPECIES OF SPECIAL CONCERN.... .7
3.1 Protected Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " 7
3.2 Wildlife. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11
4.0 CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 14
APPENDIX PROTECTED PlANTS AND ANlMALS WITH POTENTIAL FOR
OCCURRENCE ON THE BATI'LE RIDGE PROJECT SITE,
SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA
95144\ RcPORTS\/\NAL YSIS.RPr
1
'. ".,. :....; ':'1.'I'i~'::':I?""" .....'.'.,.. ijf{.~tl.l. . .~ "~:7,/:''''~'';:~'tti:Y' 7 __--..n:
"'. .1:... ::..I.':'~:,~~\!~:., I,,' ~:i,~; !~i, .~:'~.., '~ '--
: . . ',. . ,; . ,"j' (;.;I . . . ',i'" ~~t ,.,).; '. G. ~.-. /5
\:~ '. f: r~ I"'i~~~ ~ 'i;'" ~ ,'. \ .' ~~k~';\!, V 0'/
. I". 0" .' I.{:..,~~.~ "".t ."'" .:,~ h;:\;\I. ~ . ~ I .,l!p',Io(!~f'.1 t;:)
.~~,: ~;.~~. t~it.~:'~'~,&..~t:~~\I!':\li..,)\' ,..,'r-li ,1~'~{i\V ~ \'v"." ..\1. ~f~.. V
\. ",J_ ....'I.J ,'....:w.q,.~.n. 'n'~<' \.~;l'(O' ....;\>. ~ . ~I ~". I
:}' "':"1 ...; il"'" ./;;:;(1.: J' l:I>', ~,::,,';;.I I"f." -::.; 1..... -- 0 ......--1 ~ ~
',".,' ..J' " '. ~i~.,.i.."i:l.~..'.1it.~~;l'~.,\:::.,...c. '. - ~ . ~d na'.l' .. , N M I
.~:., ..'~.~:". "~;~~:~\J,~:-"!.,~~,,.....g~?I\i:i~:~"Iif<;t. .,_....~..;: ~(~.: ~L.- i,'::
....,:. .(~..:.;. ~J'rr:"'F,:"\ ~\'l l:-:;..'~)tl.~..:... ..........' _ n('~ I' U
I. .."......:.. .(,rJ'.I....,.~ '"4)1\.\'i..'~ltiJ..~,,. ..... --...... - __-...... - I (: II 1/
," ,:'.l"~/;'~"'i'~"!.-~~\\ ..11t"~~lcre...~.....-.... ......~.....~---~_~-...l 01 . . ..
'.\~ '. ...... f\'~ . \:\.'~.J'~~?r 1~....'r,}.,~,,"~,:::"i~ _ - - ...'.....-..... -:.':;" -+.... -.1 .....L....... 0' p ~r
:t-=\ "K" } .~ "'1!t! ~\r:Jl.~.l:.\I.c ~ _.... ..... ~ ......,7..... -e:.. -.....-.......... ...... ~ ~ \~ .
~f;,o ';",,;,~,,,,",,,,--r~-""'- .....-.....- -_..._......-:..._ ......1) ~ 1
,1 a... ~ I \.::10 :;:.~...- -~... ~4.~r ....- ...._......-........ -: 'A 0") ~ / 1
bc~. 'V' ~ ~- -.... - ;.e.. - - . ~ ..... I I
. : ~s ., .= - ~ -.....- -=------ -- --~.. -=,,",:'- I ~ '
.
o .......... .
/ - . ~ ~
.( I' /"r < ' 'I "'... 0
\ ~ ~.~ II CO~S~ ~3
~ ""_I~, "'~f' . n (~~ ~ N~heb'lr
~~~ -I ./ ~ "~..~.. . " :'1\1::~ ~ p::
\E" :Z-"~i i}.\--r'~ .:~~/. 'ro'f~'-~#' (I~~'
'~~ . J' ! II : I . ~f:s..d ) ~ oQ r / . -\ _' ~C:C:~
A lin ~ j J:' II 1 I \ n.~} . n ......
'7 \.:: r~~~;t: Do -~ ...~ - - ------ :' ~', !I,a~f. " .- --. '-, -- -
t:4 ..\ I r jS~<' ~} -1.\ ':: !fl- !~B.\ ~'~". .:": ,~t--<~.,~
~ I ~ ~ ' \,:-\ I ~ o~ . , / ,~
. '. ~: ;i~~} ~'~ ~ ~'. ~\ ;~ (r~ .~,~' "-
o 0 -: _!.:... " \ Yo , ~~, "
" : o' ;..~ ~ ~ ".....-"1Lo-'~..._!:. '~.' . ~~Clf Chc rm...!!!
..~"...~. '. ~\.. :~~ "o:~ ~~~/fj1:J- V;"'g ~~, . :. ~ ~~ 0: '( ~ 4 ~ 'o:i ~.
. ~.. "'~. ~L_. jr' ~75--:-; '-J~ ~:I"~~'-= ~,'f.. )~\(c~~ .~~~I
i .. (I;, '. ..I.~ ":, 0::"" _II ~ ~II-~~'~~({.. )t~~"!;I~) ~ 4~ 01
fSprfg .!~ . ,,~~ ~-,CTn:-::l'-i:"?i"~~'~' ~'\\.:&. \ 7.: ~..",:~~, ;O-~i.:;~)~':;1
l;C.1B IQ '~'ft(l> ~ ~ 'f/f 0, ~ .'1. ~ I' I, ~'~ f)} ~\] _c~: ~~ .
\ '. ? \. . R' 0 0 ~:J .1. ' ~ I/(lj :... ~ : '"~~
'. :~-, 0 ~ ~1 c :J)"~ ~. ~"o: ~" '" 0:.. ,:9::": ~!"::::. J: o~J
:/ ~ I 1! 0 ~ 'I-H :-,.- ;.:: ': .:j ~ ~RJv l
.___ j ~--5. ____ ~l ) ~ ~ 1 ,,~!.{I - V~. ~ :~ .;'OVi~do ( I
'"72-:::_> vi. '- ['~ i1~~ ItPl)'T~ ,0. r;;;.~: .',',\: ~ \..-), T
~.- I. ~ . ch~~,?;I.... 0_ . L~;--""" '~~ '-;::;J N
)~~) /1 ,.~34l . !l~~< '::<1--Ii(M~100 ~j~;':>&~ ~
. '. ~ - -' 1 l!2.j R? ~', () '~J:: ,
~ -- , . - - I 1/1/'~ f1 - ~
, r'?t~ I / .,. .;..,.;.; -: '.l\ ~!. ~~i1l~:: ~CALE'- ~ 20::~O' .
~
U.S.G.S. OVIEDO, FL 1956 XREts: BELlWAY.DWG
PHOTOREVISEO 1980. PROPERTY.DWG
ROA08UF..DWC
BT'\A BREEDLOVE DENNIS 95144-10.1 I BATTLE.OWG
~n&: ASSOCIA.TES', INC. 1":12-1996 I CBT-Ip
4301 Metric Dr. Winter Pork. FL. .32792 (407)677- 1882 Fox: 657-700E
FIGURE 1.0-1. LOCATION MAP OF THE 297-ACRE BATTLE RIDGE PROJECT SITE,
SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDAo
(SECTION 4, TOWNSHIP 21 So, RANGE 31 E.)
2.0 EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS
The 297.:!:.-acre site is currently comprised of upland communities consisting of m~sic hammocks,
improved pastures, abandoned fields, and wetlands consisting of mixed forested wetlands and hydric
hammocks. Woods roads, ditches, and a borrow pit occur within the forested portions of the site.
Evidence of past logging activity is present.
SoiL~
Soil mapping units which occur within the site include Basinger, Samsula, and Hontoon soils-
depressional (10), Basinger and Smyrna fine sands-depressional (11), and Myakka and Eaugallie
fine sands (20), according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service Survey
of Seminole County. Myakka and Eaugallie fine sand are considered non-hydric, the remainder of
the soils are considered hydric. The topography for the project site ranges from -5 to 25 feet in
elevation.
Ve~etation Descriotions
Tract A
Tract A (Figure 2.0-1) contains abandoned fields located in the southeast corner of the property.
This area contains scattered orange (Citrus sp.) trees, laurel oak (Quercus laurifolia), and scrub live
oaks (Quercus geminata). The groundcover includes dog fennel (Eupatorium capillifolium),
broomsedge (Andropogon virginicus), begger-ticks (Bidens alba), and field grasses. Evidence of some
dumping of debris on these areas is present.
95144\REPORTS\ANAL YSIS.RPT
3
Tl3
-------------.--
------------ I
1----------------.--.------------- ~
Tract C
Tract
..... .........J
. -
....._~.--.
~_.-..........
,
,
~ \
,
,
\ \
'6 '
'Y '
~ \
~ ..
~.L \
-"
,
\
Tract D
_.
/
.-- - -~.. - -- -- .-..---.--....-------.. -. ---
TJ
,
,
TII
Tg rs
TI
17
f
N
~.
TRANSECTS
S.ft. 4\9
Tract A
o
.
600'
.
SCALE ,. = 600'
XREFS: BELTWAY.DWG, ROAOBUF.DWG
PROPERTY.DWG
FIGURE 2.0-10
BD~A BREEDLOVE, DENNIS 95144-10.\ I BATTLE.OWG
n& ASSOCIAT'ES, INC. 1-19-96 I CBT-rp
4.301 Metric Dr. Winter Pori<, Fl. 32792 (407)677-1B82 fox:657-7Q08
GOPHER TORTOISE CENSUS TRANSECTS WITHIN THE BATTLE RIDGE PROJECT SITE. SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA.
Tract B
The southeastern portion of the property (Figure 2.0-1) is an upland mesic oak (Quercus sp.)-palm
hammock community dominated in the canopy by live oak (Quercus virginiana), laurel oak, and
water oak (Quercus nigra). The subcanopy consist of cabbage palm (Sabal palmetto), sweetgum
(Liquidambar styraciflua), southern magnolia (MagnoJiagrandiflora), and water oak. The shrub layer
is represented by saw palmetto (Serenoa repens), cabbage palm, and American beautyberry
(Callicarpa americana). The groundcover found in this area indudes bracken fern (Pteridium
aquilinum), fetterbush (Lyonia lucida), cinnamon fern (Osmunda cinnamomea), greenbrier (Smilax
hona-nox), grape (Vitis sp.), Boston fern (Nephro/epi9 exaltata), goldenrod (Euthamia sp.), Panicum
sp., gallberry (flex glabra), wiregrass (Aristida stricta), and blue maidencane (Amphicarpum
muhlenbergianum) .
Tract C
The northeast corner of the property (Figure 2.0-1) is an improved pasture with livestock currently
occupying the area. The overstory includes live oak, cabbage palm, southern red maple (Acer
rubrum), and sweetgum. The groundcover dominating Tract C is dog fenneL coinwort (Centella.
asiatica), field grasses, flat sedge (Cyperus sp.), greenbrier (Smilax sp.), Caesar-weed (Urena lobata),
blackberry and (Rubus sp.). The area is intersected by ditches running north-south and east-west.
Tract 0
The majority of this site (Figure 2.0.1) is composed of a mixed forested wetlands and hammock
wetlands system which includes cypress (Taxodium sp.). cabbage palm, laurel oak, water oak, black
gum (Nyssa sy[vatica var. biflora), southern red maple, and loblolly bay (Gordonia lasianthus) in the
overstory and cabbage palm, buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidenta/is), and ironwood (Carpinus
9' IM\REPO.R.TS\ANAI.YSIS, RPT
5
caroliniana) in the shrub la~er. The groundcover is dominated by netted chain-fern (Woodwardia
areola/a), cinnamon fem, green arum (Peltandra virginica), Boston fern, swamp fern (Bled1llum
serrulatum), and woodsgrass (Oplismenus setarius). Soils are saturated to the surface and numerous
indications of surface ponding. Soils have several inches of mucky texture.
9SI44\REPORTS\i\NAL ysrs.RPT
6
3.0 THREATENED, ENDANGERED, AND SPECIES OF SPECIAL CONCERN
BOA conducted an analysis of the potential for T&E species occurrence on the project site during
December 1995. A 20% wildlife survey was also conducted for the presence of gopher tortoise
(Gopherus polyphemus) as well as other T &E species, utilizing the guidelines set forth by the Florida
Game & Fresh Water Fish Commission (FGFWFC) (Figure 2.0-1).
301 . Protected Species
The FGFWFC criteria (Cox, et. al, 1987) were applied to conduct surveys of gopher tortoise, a
species listed as an SSC, on the Battle Ridge project site. Transects established for gopher tortoises
were also carefully searched for signs of other listed species with potential for occurrence on the
site.
Approximately 20% of the upland vegetation cover types on-site were quantitatively censused.
Transects were placed systematically throughout the entire upland area (Table 3.1-1). The uplands
identified during the census were classified as low potential for gopher tortoise habitation, based
on vegetation structure, soil characteristics, and prior disturbance.
The wildlife survey and gopher tortoise census indicates that the project site does not provide
essential habitat for any federally- or state-listed T&E species. Likewise, there are no known
occurrences of any T &E plant species on the project site.
95144\RF.PORTS\ANI\L YSI5.RPT
7
Table 301-1 Results of the Gopher Tortoise Census Conducted in December 1995 on the
Battle Ridge Project Site, Seminole County, Florida.
.. .. .. ... '. '. . .1. . ... . ~. ~ - . ," ...~ ~. ,<",- '. :~ " , ,.'.: , ", :: .:~~~~~.~~:~:.;;:~n<! .:i.~:;:r~~b~~~~~~~?~\:~.~~i
. ~~~~~~:~t~~ .~;;.: : .. '. ..' UUgrli' H' . ..
- .,'" '. . . ..
.. ... ..... ~ ~ ..... .. ..
,.. ..... '" .., ..".
.. .. . :.",.', ...........,.,.,.-.,,' ;
..., ""'" '.l.....:. :r::"(::';: -...,. .....:.:.... ::,t., :~,;;~:~;:In.adlte:~':..; ":;::;:.::
" .. .. -- ., '. .,.:......!. '"
.., .. H ;...,........ . . ., .. , .' ... .' .... .. . .... " ." :./.::..:.:.::..,....:.:..."..'..
T-1 625 0.66 0
T-2 600 0.63 0
T-3 625 0.66 0
T-4 445 0.45 0
T-4A 300 0.32 0
T-5 720 0.76 0
T-6 650 0.69 0
T-7 600 0.63 0
T-8 712 0.75 0
T-9 964 1.02 0
T-10 1,010 1.07 0
T-ll 340 0.36 0
T-12 1,150 1.21 0
T-13 1,150 1.21 0
9Sl44\REI'OR1'S\t\NI\L YSIS.311
A list of protected species.. as published by the fGFWFC "Official List of Endangered and
. Potentially Endangered Flora and Fauna of Florida" dated June I, 1994, was reviewed. Potential
federally-listed T&E species for the Battle Ridge project site in Seminole County are provided in
the Appendix. The site does not provide critical habitat for any of these plant or animal species,
based on the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service "Threatened Species of the Southeast United States" (The
Red Book) dated January 1992.
There are four bald eagle (Ha/iaeetus I. leucocephalus) nests in proximity to the Battle Ridge
property according to Mr. John White of FGFWFC as of January 2, 1995 (Figure 3.1-1).
Nest No. SE31 is located just south of the southwest corner of the property at the
intersection of County Road 419 and the GreeneWay (State Road 417). Year 1993 was the
last year in which young were produced. This bald eagle nest is located in Section 9,
Township 21 South, and Range 31 East.
Nest No. SE04 is called the Tuscawilla Eagle Nest located in Section 9, Township 21 South,
and Range 31 East. The nest's last production was in 1993. The nest is approximately 2,700
feet southwest of the property.
Nest No. SE18 is just east of the property. It produced three young in 1995 and at times
rhe eggs are removed for relocation. The nest is approximately 3,300 feet southwest of the
project site in Section 3, Township 21 South and Range 31 East.
9S144\REPORTS\ANAL YSJS.RPf
9
. ~ >I. ~I~t:t~\\: r.o"\ . c'.r\.~'. . .. .' '~l J'.... ,....:<l.l^..~.,.~.., -. ~I~r:i..~.i~ '''~~~.::!R ./:' '., 'I~ ,',. ...
I ,~,rl"JJ\"';I"lr" . ....;...',..... . .' ~.,:: ,. )1 ' ~ "r~' . '1l'.t~",-1,!:l'~:(-l. ~.., ~
~~fJ:~tr.;~.S." :",,"~\.:"\Y~'.' .:..\;~~..~;~..~I.~.\o'\:1 ~~ '" ..~..,....(p.~~;;..'jJ( /v:' . ',.
~'i~ !:.'If:..'Ci..~.\.....L,>. I .,.oIl...W.... \.' 1"""" " ,II ~~ . \,1~N.\~\" r....
~....:::.::...\:. ::";'J,' ;1~'.'I'ri""'~-~' ~~~i~-}?,.;' /.-
~;\t~ .-.;..... ,'. . ~. ~ .....~.~d~:.\ 1~'~~""'I\~ ..''''..- ,.,
.r-:.kr ...I~ : ,: .' ''';''. . . . p',.(\. ;~, i..' Il. '''';:-l ~ ).')'~. iF\:Q;. . U fc
it.,,,:.::.,:,. ,. '. '. .....:.::~~.:.1~';~\}~~.,ll\;~. :;>...."\!!~;~~~.. 'b.lil I ~
,'J..:,......, J." ..1;'.... ~....,.\:-.\~\~.. I ~, ~'ii\.... t'r- '
..~~,').........:. ........' l"I':"''''i'l,,'i~(~~,..1 (.;;Jr, >r.~ ." 01'
'.e;'l~<"':~''':/: :.....;..' ~ "!:~\:-~"'.'''1\i\'':'i.'~:~~C''''''' ... ~ ..
\~i}',~!~"<: ". . '.. ,,'. ., ':!t"",,,,,,,':"J"lr'I'I'\"U -~. "0 -=.- p~-
".: . .... .., .' .' \~"'.11':~;\1 :\e~ ~~:ol,,~:\~~~.::~':\ _ ' .... - ~"-'t II... 1\
. ...;. . .'~'" :~'....~.::,;PJla3"" .:,,;~}.., _:!'"" - ~ - .A ~d ng.], ~
.",{:.~.~:..::.., .J.....:. ." ...~ - ........-~.~ /7 . II .
~'1:''''''7~''~ ..) .~.,".A!....y" ,'. ........ _ I'" JI :
.l'....I>,:~P.llo~, . . .' --.......... ... - -- - ..... i --I /' JL- ~ ,.
;,', ..:::..:;;'~~. .- -------- -. !? I . 0 ~. I
..-::.':1 .", ~- ___ ~............. ....;;::~V.. .1............<.. . - ~ I6f
_ ,. ://.-.. -~:...... _ _-:_'... - r- II .
~o. cc" f. ~ ---~t~:.~ ~.;.=:'~..:_ ~ \ 01) ~ / I I
. . ~ I:"~ ..... ~-~.... ~.......'-..... .~1 ~ ~
.";'10 ~I' I~'. --....,;.L-~--=""!!""'":--;;..."!::,:=::.--=.1111 0000 " U ~ .,
. - . ~R'~"'"~ ~~--:4?:....-E~-~~i~--;- 11 ~~~. !Ii! I RI3
. 0 -- ........,........ -- - - - ~ I....
, . -_-:~7_-__--_-,,;,,__~"'_4 · X ~
.; - '. . ~:g~~itt~' v _ ~ . /,....'" ,~.
-\.' ( r;-' . \i-...~~ ~::~:..;-..;:~~_. ..:-::-..' I .~- \
,'"A.I
. r'I f.. ~,~lf...,~ .')'. -;'\ u.. f ~ \ ~ It; 'i.
15JJ39 -J \1 ~ ~ r 'wn\J~) . ~f:: o~:l~l"'~ ... .. / ~:.
~.:. . ,~ - ."" 'S:: /. ,'\..=-'/1 r!::. I \I . \H'ifi.---=' l...t _ _ '1: i. r (j.
\ ~. 'l~' ~ ~ -)~jl D --"":0 )~ J ~~ " ') 5E18 ;
SEAS Rr _., :-:'f\. .)........,. /1' fl ... (..,...~ '1
~7\~ !. .n \ ( La '""'- '
~ ~\ ~ ~.~ '-)<. _ ____._' _2~ _ . . u__~.
~ " }~(it"~:: ~\ f!~ ~?i~~f~~~..:. ..,~
,~ \., ~~ r. \",,~1I~" ~ \ ~h i r==\~~'d](:'1/ ~ .~
z'/ 1. <~~!}...kIVI ~~ t. . ...: ~ :~ (7 V2j7')1 -l ~ ' '_
4 ~'i- \ - ~ '. 0 i'-.\ ~ \... ~~..#'n,")l'
o '. \.:,.,;~~~. f!ft.....,,<::o~~==_ ~q'!A. ~"I ~ ~(~l74,.o .~~~ ~1a.,~~~
"<::~:':""'~~~'~f':' '~'!i~::'~~lf'~~~ t/;="g~~:~ ~"~ ~o~ I ~~~~'
'~-h-~~ Q5 -, "" ~ V:OO-rlf~ '- !l/>'~ .[ .~. ,&.
~ ~I: " ~~. ::f:; ..e'.. r~ .~. ~,,: ~~ /!~ )~[ ~~~. -
r Spr . \"" . -0. "~:'''+:";.'._ . ~- ," :: \ - c ~~~:' ....:.:~o/J L^~ ~~ .
'-..' ~'-., 7f; .-- .'.". "--.,,, iac.p--===== ~ 0-:)( '. .L' no: O' 'J. ===~ 0 0 .~
J9 Q()'a!~ r~: (-~~1'"(J 1"~\j).J~IW ~~~\~,
1J..,. .U -f . '- 01....- ~ o;s-k'", ,~~'17..:. J ;;...:::;./ ~Q9 -:n-.:-. :' ~ 1
o l,: ~ j3f/~ ~-! (\... :. : ~ ~\!!:m /'"J: :.';, i'r:....J~~.;:P
. Ii ~ ~ ! 0 ~ 'I-H . :.:: J '... ;;.' ~ ..~ t
.0__ ::€.t. 0____ L ~ l ~ I ~ ~./ .~ \1~. . . ~ ~Ovi~do C. N
~-:i -. . t .~~~~ 1~~~ ~"~~:'\~ ~~U)I ~
~. ~:; \ 1{f--"~\Jl~l-~ D '..J0.~;'...~~~
~ .//f),f/' ~) ~-~- ~~_,~f ~I 1~\\\6 I ~.Jl~ ~\i .6\1'5i ~<. ?
;)..~ !', WI I~ ~~ " ',"\ltt~ (i:.n I~''''I\~';;: SCALE ,n =2000'
~:""~:11'
f::~.~ .
~"';'f\
l~'l~i)'\.
1",:/..
&1,:",'
..",OJ
40':"\r:-
I"""'t':":'
,.." y.~
; ~~i~;P
U.S.C.S. OVIEDO. F'L 1956 XREfS: BELTWAY.OWG
PHOTOREVISED 1980. PROPERTY.OWG
ROADBUF'.DWG
)/$ .... ~I.'l'
" ,i .i:
..' ,::}j:.
. . .,'.J,
2000'
BD~A BREEDLOVE, DENNIS 95144-10.1 I BATTLE.DWG
n'" ASSOCIATES, INC. 1-15-1996 I CBT-Ip
4301 Metric Or. Winter Pork. FL. 32792 (407)677-1882 Fox: 657-7001
FIGURE 3.1-1. BALD EAGLES' NEST LOCATIONS WITH THE PRIMARY ZONE OF 750 FEET
AND AN ASSUMED SECONDARY ZONE OF 1.500 FEET UNTIL VERIFIED ON
A NEST-BY-NEST BASIS BY FGFWFC AND USFWS, SEMINOLE COUNTY,
FLORIDA.
Nest No. SE45 is located in Section 33, Township 20 South, and Range 31 East. The nest
is actively producing one young in 1995. It is approximately 3,500 to 4,000 feet from the
southeast portion of the property.
The bald eagles undoubtedly feed along Lake Jesup. The possible development of the southeast
portion of the Battle Ridge site is outside the primary (750 feet) and secondary (1,500 feet)
management zones, and shouW not affect this species. The bald eagle nests are currently located
within and adjacent to urban development and major transportation corridors.
Based on the T&E survey of the site and the known habitat preferences of the T&E species that
are in the area, four wildlife species and one plant species were observed to feed or rest on the
project site. The site, however, is not critical hahitat for these species, which use a variety of
habitats in this portion of Seminole County. The listed wildlife species include American alligator
(Alligator mississippiensis), white ibis (Eudocimw albus), and wood stork (Mycteria americana). The
listed plant species is needle palm (Rhapidophyllum hystrix). AU of these are wetland species which
would use or be found in the wetland forests adjacent to Lake Jesup.
302 WHdlife
Wildlife observations were made during the site reconnaissances of the Battle Ridge property (Table
3.2-1).
?Sl44\RJ:I.f'ORTS\ANAL'rSJS.1U'T
11
Table 302-1 Wildlife Observed on the Battle Ridge Project Site, Seminole County, Florida.
. ". '. l' ..... /..- I ."~~ ....J "'... , ." '..t f... :'. ,..... ............, ,,,,,,,~ '"':'::.,.l....,.,ft..'~...."'...,.~ ..... ............
". Com"mon." ;:$ I . :iU1~: N" fu";: .;: ~: . 'mb~j:.. ' ~ .,: oli' ~... if ~: -:2::.:" ::nifsigriii(d~stillijS! ~ ::;
..... · ..~~~......,;:.. .~f.::, .' ,.'.t'r~:~,; ,-.::-';!:)']:: ]:-;;~::Lji:Uril;. -i1~F;'- ~i~~E:
WUdllfe
wood stork
Mycteria
americana
great blue
heron
Ardea herodias
white ibis
Eudocimus
a/bus
armadillo
Dasypus
novemcinctus
gray squirrel SciUTUS
carolinensis
opossum Didelphis
marsupia/is
barred owl Strix varia
whit~tailed Odocoileus
deer virginian us
black vulture Coragyps atratus
red-bellied Melanerpes
woodpecker carolinus
American Turdus
robin migrarorius
blue jay Cyanocitta
cristata
!lS144\REPORTS\ANAL. YSIS.321
Mixed
wetland
system
Mixed
wetland
system
Improved
pasture
Improved
pasture, field,
and mesic
hammock
Mesic
hammock
Abandoned
fields
E'
Sighted
E
Sighted
Sighted
ssct
Burrow
Audible
Sighted
Mesic
hammock
Sighted
Mixed
wetland
system
Mesic
hammock
Mixed
wetland
system
Mesic
hammock
ditch
Feces
Sighted
Sighted
Sighted
Mesic
hammock
Sighted
Table 3.2-1 Contlnuedo
... ..~~~i'....~~~~7~i;\ i'.'}:~~.i'~~:'.. '~.6;~~I:{i :~=~=~il
raccoon Procyon lotor
fish crow Corvus
ossifragus
boat-tailed Quiscalus major
grackle
brown Toxostoma
thrasher rufum
northern Cardinalis
cardinal cardinalis
American Alligator
alligator mississippiensis
needle pahn
Rhapidophyl/um
hystrix
IV.S. Fish & Wildlife SeIVice.
Mesic
hammock
Sighted
Mesic
hammock
Mesic
hammock
Audible
Sighted
Mesic
hammock
Mesic
hammock
Improved
pasture
Sighted
Audible
T(S/A)S
Sighted
sse
Plants
Mixed
wetland
system
C3C6
Sighted
2Florida Game & Fresh Water Fish Commission.
~ndangered.
4species of special concern.
SThreatened due to similarity of appearance.
6Non-candidate due to removal of threat.
9S144\R.Et'ORTS\I\NAL YSIS.321
4.0 CONCLUSION
Four bald eagle nests exist near the Battle Ridge project site according to FGFWFC. Uplands in
the southeast corner of the site are outside recommended primary and secondary zones, 750 and
1,500, respectively. The bald eagles are classified as urban, due to their close proximity and
adaptability to existing urban development and transportation corridors,
As a result of the gopher tortoise census, no gopher tortoise or commensal species were identified
within. the upland communities. Upland habitat areas were determined to be potentially low for
gopher tortoise and commensal T&E species. The site has a potential for occasional incidental use
by listed bird species, including the white ibis and wood stork; however, any use of the upland areas
by these species would be merely incidental. There are no roosting or nesting habitats available on-
site. The uplands on the Battle Ridge project side do not provide critical habitat for any T &E plant
or animal species.
Based on the location of the site adjoining two major transportation corridors, surrounded by
existing development and its past disturbance of logging activity, we do not believe there is any
significant occurrence or use by any protected plant or animal species.
Any opinions expressed in this report concerning environmental regulatory matters, including
but not limited to wetland jurisdiction, wetland permitting, wetland mitigd.tion requirements,
water quality. and threatened and endangered species, are provided based on data, site
conditions, and information available on the date of issuance of this document. The opinions
expressed concerning these matters are for planning purposes only, and should not be used as
a final determinant of regulatory agency position. The only assurance of agency position can
be obtained through the appropriate environmental regulatory process.
9S144\RE1'OJtTS\~ YSJS.R.Yl"
14
APPENDIX
PROTECTED PLANTS AND ANIMALS WITH POTENTIAL
FOR OCCURRENCE ON THE BATTLE RIDGE
PROJECT SITE, SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA
9S144\REPORTS\I\NAL YSrs,RP'l"
Table 10 Protected Plants and Animals with Potential for Occurrence on the Battle Ridge Project Site, Seminole County, Floridao
Taxa
Habitat
Designated Statusl
USF\VS2 FGFWFC3 FDA 4
FISH
CentTopomus undecimaJis
common snook
sse
REPTILES
Alligator mississippiensis
AmeJican alligator
Wetlands, lakes, and S1reams.
T(SjA)
sse
Drymatchon corais couped
eastern indigo snake
Pine f1alwoods, tropical hammocks.
T
T
Gopherus polyphemus
gopher tortoIse
Xeric; sand pine, longleaf pine, turkey oak and live oak hammocks and
sand pine scrub.
e2
sse
BIRDS
Campephi/us pdncipaJis
ivory-billed woodpecker
Mature stands of lowland hardwood <May from man and without cutting.
E
E
Dendroica kil1landii
Kirtland's warbler
Migrant in Florida in a variety of habitats.
E
E
. Egretta. thula
snowy egret
Ponds, stream banks, marshes, and pastures.
sse
Egretta tricolor
tricolored heron
Ponds, stream banks, marshes, and pastures.
sse
t.5131\REPORTS\ANAL YSlS.l
Table 10 Protected Plants and Animals with Potential for Occurrence on the Battle Ridge Project Si1e, Seminole County, Florida.
Taxa
Habitat
Designated Slatus!
USFWS2 FGFWFc3 FDA 4
E1anoides f. forfictJ1JJs Woorjlands. especially wooded swamps. C3C
American swallow-tailed kite
Eudocimus albus Wetlands; nests on islands In marshes or mangroves. SSC
wh1\e ibis
Grus americana T SSC
whooping aane
Grus canadensis pratensis Wet prairies, marshy lake margins, and low-lying improved cattle pastures. T
Florida sandhill crane
Mycteria americana Wetlands; nesting in cypress or mangrove swamps. E E
wood stork
MAMMAlS
CanIs TUtus floridanus Preferred warm, moiS1 densely vegetated habitat Both upland and E
Florida red wolf wetland areas, ocoupying pine forests, bottomland hardwoods, and
coastal m81shes. Considered extinct.
Felis concalar MoS1 hahita1s. T(SjA)
Ursus amsricarws lIoridanus Swamps, bays, and thickets. Protective status not applicable within the C2 T
Florida black bear Apalachicola National Forest.
PLANTS
Asplenium platyneuron Hammocks and woods. T
eb<lny spleenwort
9S13T\REPORTS\ANAL YSlS..l
Table 10 Protected PlarTts and Animals wltt1 Poten1ial for Occurrence on the Battfe Ridge Project Site, Seminole County, Floridao
Taxa
Habitat
Designated Status1
USFWsl FGFWFc3 FDA4
Aster pinifolius
pale-violet aster
Pine lands, wet woods, and banens.
C3B
Bromellads
bromeliads
All na1ive species except Spanish moss and ball moss and those on the
Endangered or Commercially Exploited Plant Ust.
T
Catopsis spp.
catopsis
All na1ive species (bromeliads).
E
Chryspphy/lum oliviforme
satinleaf
Hammocks and pine lands.
E
Dennstaedtia bipinnata
cuplet fern
Epiphyte in hammocks, thickets, or denser swamps on deep soil.
E
Ferns
fems
All native species except Mosquito tern, swamp fern, cinnamon and royal
fern, serpent fem, resurrection fern,common bracken, water fern, shield
fern, and Virginia chain film, and those on the Endangered or
Commercially Exploned Plant List.
T
/lex cassine
cassine
Floodplains, COas1al f1atwoods, and swales.
C
lIex opaca
American holly
Hammocks and bluffs.
C
/lex spp.
ilex
All nalive species except cassine. large gallberry,gallberTy, myrtle-leafed
holly, American holly, & yaupon, and those on the Endangered or
Commerclally Exploited List.
T
lIficium patVifforum
star anise
Wet woods and swamps
C2
T
9S137\REPORTS\ANAL YSIS.l
Table 10 Protected Plants and Animals with Potential for Occurrence on the Battle Ridge Project Site, Seminole County, Florida.
Taxa
Habitat
Designated Status1
USFWs'l FGFWFC3 FDA 4
Undera mefisslfolla
pondbeny
Basin and. dome swamps and hydric hammocks.
E E
Nemastylis f10ridana
fall-flowering ixia
Swamps, man;hes, and wet pine flatwoods.
C2 E
Ophioglossum palmatum
handfem
Palm hammoc.i<S; as an epiphyte on cabbage palms.
C3C E
Orchids
orchids
All native species (terrestrial and epiphytic) exoept Ihose on the
Endangered or Commercially ExploitedUst.
T
Osmunda cinnamomea
cinnamon fern
Acid swamps, wet flatwOods, and floodplalns.
c
Osmunda regaJis
royal fern
Wetwoods and swamps.
C
Palms
palms
All nalive species except. cabbage palm and saw palmetto and those on
the Endangered or ComlTl€rcially Exploited list.
T
Pinguicula spp.
butterworts
All nalive species, except those on the Endangered list. Bogs and
adjacent swamps.
T
RhBpidophyllum hystrix
needle palm
Hammocks.
C3C
C
Rhododendron spp.
rhododendrons
All native species except those on the Endangered or Commercially
Expleited Ust
T
Stachys tenuifolia
nanew-leaved betony
Calcareous mesic woods.
E
95131\IU'J'ORTS\ANAL YSlSJ
Table 1. Protected Plan1s and Animals with Potential for Occurrence on the Battle Rfdge Project Site, Seminole County, Florida.
Taxa
Habitat
D~aled StalUS1
uSFWs2 FGFWFCJ FDA 4
Tillandsia fasciculata
common wild-pIne
Epiphyte in cypress swamps and hammocks.
C
Tillandsia simufata
wild pine
Hammocks and swamps.
T
Tilfandsia utlicufata
giant wild-pine
Epiphyte in cypress swamps & hammocks.
C
Vittaria Iineata
shoestring fern
Hammocks; epiphytic.
T
Zephyranthes spp.
zephyrarrthes
All white species except those on the Endangered or Commercially
Exploited list.
T
1 E = Endangered; T = Threatened; T(S/A) = Threatened due to Similarity of AppeaIance; SsC = Species of Special Concern; C1 = Candidate tor US1lng, Sufficient Information
Available; C2 = Candidate for Lis1lng, Insufficient Information at Present; C3A = Non-Candidate due to Possible Extinction; C3B = Noo-Candidate due to Invalid Name; C3C = Non-
Candidate due to Removal of Threat; C = Commercially Exploited
2U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
3florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission
4Florida DepaTlment of Agricult1Jre and Consumer Sesvices
9S131\R.BPORTS\ANA!.YSlS.1
11 v'" '" '" 1 V' '" I 4U\.. .. ..\'\.J..u '\.J...... V"
NOU-09-'95 THU 10:46 IL
TEL NO:
:;116 P"02
Seminofe County Government
COllll'reho,uiv. PI""".", Oh'i,lon 1101 fAn Pi", $,,,,,,. SanFord FL 32771.1468 Tol.phone (407) 321.1 UO {((o/lflon 1j!)4 FAX "~0'?~~6
November 9, 1995
Mr. Tom Grimms, AICP
Community Development CoordInator
City of Winter Springs
1126 East S.R. 434
Winter Springs, FL 32708
Subject:
AnneXlitlon and Plan Amendment of Battl. RIdge Campania..
Carroll. Weaver, and Minter Propsrtles
Deer Mr. Grlmms:
The County is in receipt of the draft staff report for the annexation and plan amendment
requests for the subject properties and has conducted a preliminary review of the
information provided. Based upon this Initial review, County staff offers the following
commentso
_itt~
Page 3, Item #6, of the support documentation prepared for the land use amendment of
the Battle Ridge property Identifies that the projected traffic impact for the amendment
to Low Density Residential (3.5 dwelling units per acre) would be 188s than the
projected impact of the existing Suburban Estates (1 dwelling unIt per acre) land use
designation. As you know, all density calculations under the Seminole County
CO(J'lDrehBllsive Plan are based on "net buildable acres," This means of course that
the calculations are made based upon the number of acres within the boundary of a
development exclUding aress devoted to road rights-of-way, transmission power line
Basements, lakes and wetland or floodprone areas. Therefore the maximum units
sllowed for this property under the County's current adopted future land use
dellgnation of Suburban Estates would be approximately 70 dwelling units (as opposed
to the 300 units Indicated).
~_~6J~
The County also reviewed a request for increased density on the Batlle Ridge
properties site during the Spring 1994 Plan amendment cycle, and on January 25,
1994, the Board of County Commissioners (the "Board") approved for tr&lnsmittal to the
Department of CommunIty Affairs (the "Department") a land use amendment from Rural
10 (1 dwelling unit per ten acres) to Planned Development and associated rezoning
from A-10 to PUD. The Department 6ub6squently issued an Objections,
Recommendations and Comments (ORC) Report objecting to the proposed amendment
citing several concerns. The enclosed attachment includes a summary of these
EXlllBIT "D"
1 1 V V V V 1 V . V I ~ Ul.I.
NOV-09-'95 THU 10:47 It
TEL NO:
til i6 P03
Tom Grimms
November 9, 1995
Fa~~ 2
objections as well as the complete text of the ORC Report. Of significance, however,
was the primary objection of the State regarding the Incompatibility of the amendment
with the Rurlil Area Including adjacent Rural 1 0, Rural 5 and Suburban Estates uses.
In response to theobjectlona raised by the Department the Board dIrected staff to conduct
a small area study that would be desIgned to definitively establish a boundary for urban
development in this area. including appropriate land use designations within the urban
boundary adjacent to the Rural Area, end that would successfully address the need to ·
trsneition land uses from the Central Florida GreenaWay (SR 417) to the East Rural Area
of Seminole County. The acc acknowledged that this re-evaluatlon was to be predicated
on two significant changes that had occurred In thIs ares whict1 warranted a re-evaluatlon
of land use compatibility. These were:
1. The completion of the Central Florida GreenaWay (S.R. 417); and
2. Acknowledgment by the City of Winter Springs that It has both the available capacIty
and desire to extend central water and sewer servIces into this area of Seminole
County.
This .tudy, which became known as the GreeneWav/S. R. 434 Sn:mJL&ea Studv, included
a total of five (5) communIty meetings during the months of September, October snd
November. 1994, to identify community issues end prepare recommendations relating to
future growth and development within the study ares (see attached study which also
Includes a map of the study area boundary).
In preparing the findings and recommendations for the small araa study, Seminole
County staff focused on the expectations and direction given by the Board at the June
14, 1994 Public Heerlng which was to "establish an boundary for urban development In
this ell rea. .. to prevent the erosIon of the rural character of the area." The most clear and
cons/atent finding throughout the study process was the overwhelming desire of the
community to preserve the rural character of the study area. Pertinent specific findings
from the study are summarized be/ow.
i:L~'
10 Preaerving a Rural Lifestyle. While the desire to preserve a rural lifestyle is in and
of itself a very simple goal. there ara cIrcumstances unique to this area thBt make
achieVing thl. go'al more difficult. Foremost, this is the first area in Seminole County
with II long established rural communIty in the vicinity of two rapidly growing cities. In
moat other cases, the expansion of urban areBS occurs In infi" areas that are vacant or
sparsely occupied.
11 VJ JJ lU..J1 I\m l"I\Vm \JIll V ,I: Hl111Lo1\ 'Jl1\V'J
, V'll VV
.-
NQU-e9-' 95 THU 113: 48 10:. .
TEL NO:
~li6 P04
Tom Grimms
November 9, 1995
Pai8 3
Indeed, In the context of rural area preservation end futurB urban expansion, future
transitions through time are dIfficult to visualize because they affeot lands that era
predominantly vacant. Existing patt&rns of vacant land should nat be confused with
those lands that are In specific use as rural residential neighborhoods. DIstinctions
should be made regarding lands essential to preserving a rural lifestyle, (large lot
single family residential) and land on the fringe of urban development which is only
considered rural because it Is vacant.
2. Rural Core Area. Defining the areas that constitute the existing rural community
and the lands which are essential to preserve the Integrity of the rural area are, then,
particularly critical to preserving the rural character of this area. As we evaluated the
entire study area and through our discussIons with the community, It Is very claar that
the core of the existing rural community Is In the area generally described as Black
Hammock. This area has historically been an agricultural community with a growing
rural residential neighborhood base.
3. DI.tlnguishlng Urban Areas from Rural Areas. To help define the boundary
between existing and future urban and rural communities there Qre two traditional
techniques available to preserve compatibility between different densities or intensities
of uses;
Jranaitjon8 - The steppIng down of land usss from higher densities to less
intense uses. Staff believes that this technIque Is ineffective In a rural area
because it does not clearly identify the future limIts of urban development and
wlllllkely lead to urban sprawl.
Urban Boun~arv - A line that defines where urban uses stop and rural uses
begin. The timing of Increased densityllntenslty of uses within the urban area
should be based upon actual surrounding uses, physical and environmental
constraints and public facility capacity. Staff believes this' Is the most
appropriate technique to ensure the preservation Of the rural community Into the
future.
4. Land Uae Influence. along SR 434. SR 434 is currently a two lane facility of rural
dealgn with heavy tre~ canopy from Tuskawllla Road east through~ the study area.
FDOT is preparing to construct a four-lane urban design section west of SR 417
(GreenaWay) from Tuskawllls Road to SR 4171n fiscal year 1997/1998.
Because land along SR 434 18 predominately vacant today, this corridor is viewed as
an entrance Into rural east Seminole County.
SR 434, east of S.R. 417, Is included in the 20 year Financially Feasible Regional
Transportation Plan for future four-lane construction. However, FOOT will not progrilm
11 V;;.J..) IV...)I nm. .I.-.l.\vm V.I..l.L VL lILL111.Jl\
NPU-09-'95 THU 10:48 ID;
TEL NO:
Ul i6 P05
Tom Grlmms
November 9, 1995
fa.&e 4
Improvements until resolution of the conflict with the constrained Intersection at SR
426/CR 419/SR 434 in downtown Oviedo.
5. I!nvlronmental Influencfilso Unincorporated Seminole County, eas1 of SR 417 and
north of SR 434, is bounded on the north by Lake Je!up and contains environmentally
sensitive lands which constrain Intense development. Seminole County's current land
development regulations are designed to protect and preserve environmental features
and would serve as a limitation to Intense development.
_~~9il
Based upon these findings of the Q[$eneWav/SR 434 SmQJI Area Study, staff
recommended a change from Rural 10 to Suburban Estates with Ii maximum density of
one (1) dwelling unit per net buildable Bcre for the Battle Ridge site and adjacent land.
Staff further recommended a change from Rural 1 0 to Rural 3 for those properties east
of the Battle Ridge site to DeLeon Stre~t 118 transitional land uses between the urban
end rursl areas. On December 13, 1994, the Board approved the ~
~ including staff recommendations.
." ............l~.J1.........,~.
I.t I""......~,. ...,.... "
'. .'1" If ~"( ~ .1" ...~."
F.....,....L.L.. .J,.. ,...........:
Thus based upon staff findings and issues of the community documented above,
County staff would suggest that the City of Winter Springs Local Planning Agency must
conclude that the proposed amendment to Low Density Is inconsistent with sound
planning practices in view of the following:
1. Although this land is predominantly vacant today and It 15 located within the
future urban boundary, both the environmental and roadway influences constrain
this land use to the minimum ecceptable urban density, that Is Suburban Estates
(I dwelling unit per acre).
2. DesIgnation of higher densities along SR 434 and within the urban area must be
timed with the expansion of SR 434 east of SR 417.
3. There has been no change in the area since the ~reeneWaY/S.R. 434 Small
Area. Study was completed last December. The findings and recommendations
presented in the study represent the moat effectivEf and appropriate solutions to
sucoessfully transition urban land uses from the SR 417 interchange at SR 434
to the Rural Ares.
4. The proposed amendment& to Low Density Residential currently under review by
the City of Winter Springs would be Inconsistent with the Gre9neW8y/S. R. 434
11 V.J.J"; IV.";I nm l-l\Vm \I~~~ V~ ll~~'J.~.I\ Vll\U'",/
~ V VI V V
_..~_, . .NOU-109-' 95 THU 110: 49 IDI'
TEL NO:
~116 P.06
Tom Grimms
November 9, 1993
Pille 5
~melll Area Stud'i since this Intenla urban designation would not protect the
fural chafacter of the abutting properties.
If the amendment Is recommended, staff would suggest that the Local Planning Agency
consider no greater Intensity than the City's desIgnation of Rural Residential (1
dwelling unit per acre, or le68) to reduce the impacts from future development on the
adjacent rural area of unIncorporated Seminole County.
Staff appreciates the opportunity to comment on this amendment. If you have any
questIons, please contact Tony Matthews of the Comprehensive Planning Division at
(407) 321-1130, extension 7371.
Sincerely,
~;tw~f~
Frances E. Chandler
Comprehensive Planning Manager
Encloaure
FC:tm
p:brannex.doc.tm (11/95)
cc: Seminole County Board of County Commissioners
Ron Rabun, County Manager.
Kevin Grace, Deputy County Manager
Tony VanDerworp, Planning & Development Director
Lonnie Groot, Deputy County Attorney
Winter Springs City CommIssioners
Winter Springs Local Planning Agency
John Govoruhk, City Manager, Winter Springs
David Moon, City of Oviedo
11 UJ JJ !U..Jlom I-I\vm VI41 VI.-
'., .',!UV-~:I-' ';j::J I HU lEl: 50 I.
TEL NO:
:U16 P07
ATTACHMENT
Summary of DCA ObJectIons, RecomMendations, and Comments
to the SemlnolG County Future Land Use Map Amendment
for Sattle Ridge Propertl..
A. .b!wt Use ComDatlbilitv
. The proposed amendment is Inconsistent with the objectives/policies of the Future
Land Use Element regarding urban sprawl, development of rural areas and
prt9Vention of strip commercial, as the proposal would set a precedent for
commercial development along SR 434. .
. . The proposed amendment is incompatible with surrounding uses of Rural 10. Rural
5 and Suburban Estates. and would allow intrusion of higher density uses into IiIn
ares of lower density, rural and semi-rural uses.
. In additlon, DCA objected that the amendment is not supported by data and analysis
demonstrating that the future land use change 18 ntilded to accommodate the
County's projected pOpulation (and employment).
Bo EnviroQOlentallv SeD.ltlve Area./Natural Re80urces
. The proposed amendment Is Inconsistent with object/ves/policies of the Future Land
Use Element regarding protection of natural, historic and E1rchaeologlcal resources.
The amendment should be made consistent, Including revIsions if appropriate
based upon data and analysls.
. The proposed amendment is Inconsistent with the Conservation Future Land Use
Element, since some of the property Is Indicated to be In the Conservation Overlay,
and the proposal may need to be revised basad upon appropriate data and
analysis.
Co Conseryfttlon ElemfmWeaetl1lon alJd Wildlife H~~ltat
. The proposed amendment Is inconsistent with Comprehensive Plan
objectives/policies regarding wildlife protection. The amendment should be made
consistent. Including appropriate revisions based upon adequate data and analysis.
. This appears to involve habitat areas, which could be permanently lost, for several
threatened and endangered species or speCies of special concern.
Page 1
II UJ JJ IU.JI l\1\I l'l\vm \/111 VI' lTI"'''''\ VI1\V..'
~ V VI V V
--. ....-.
- - .. ,- ... _. _CJ ,..
II::L. NU:
;;116 PI:ji::l
Do Potabre Water an~ Sant.tarv Sewer Eremenht
. The proposed land use amendment would be inconsistent with Future Land Use
Element objectives/policies prohibiting expansion of central water and sewer
facilities in the arGS covered by the Rural Area Plan.
. The proposed Qmendment IS fer development which requires central water and
sewer services, but involves property locsted withIn the area covered by the 1991
Rural Area Plan, outside of any presently depicted central water/sewer service area.
Eo Trame CircyJ.@tlon Element
. The proposed amendment would be Inconsistent with objectives and policies of the
Traffic Circulation Element concerning coordination of land uses with transportation
facilities.
. The proposed amendment would generate eddltlonal traffic (5,400 ADT estimate)
impacting SR 434 &nd potentially other roads.
. It is not identified how improvements needed to maIntain adopted Level of Service
(LOS) standards on affected roadways, including SR 434, will be scheduled and
funded.
F. Q!b!l
. DCA's objections cite numerous goals and policIes of the State and Regional
Comprehensive Plans. Several agencie8 and citizen groups also opposed the PUD
propose I (see enclosed).
Paie 2
j~l __,,--:~.
I ' ------..-' L
:11 ,.--' ~' ~ ---
~II~~;~~'--:' /' ' -----
I I .tf'TJl ' .
, I / ."" ., ~ ." ./"
~ ~tr~'~'.:' /"
~ --- ./
, __- II .'
~~~---'ril--- ~~ ~ .
r""L III .=
I --'\1 :
!!.!:..II1t~II~__-.J n III ' ,:.
11 III . .
IL....J I
:! Ii! ...:.:.'
:1 I ii". 0,
I~I
lOll
Iii a": a
-~ ' ' '
ril' 0 . :
L' J1" : :
l/I~~ .
II' :
I I .
-------;In '11["'=
~I~ ',I
~I~ 'rll'tr _:
gl~ I. ~ i
~E...__~I ] :
I! I ~
i!~- . '(
:11
)i~---I
I ,JA I
I ............~~' I nl2
==a====~- ~_J ~IZ
I Q Q
'"'It:;
.,---1 On
// I ~'1g
-- I ~I~
I I
I :
: I
__ _c:T.!:! ~I~q_ __ _ _ ___-1
SEW/NelLE COUNY
I
I
r
~
I
L______.--I
.
"
'.
~
"
~
............. ..
"
~
. -~l"
~I~
g Ji~
~In
8 g
~~
I
....... ..
BATTLE RIDGE
SOILS li4AP
~
Q,I. -II-el1
~~
~~
~d
~ en ~ w:
B~ ~ ~ ~
~i ~ ~ ~
~S s ... ~
~!'.l ~ c:
~ ? ~
a ~ ~
o ::l
~ '" ~
:!!
g
~
I
~
@
'.
.
o
---...--.
: ~
o ~
~
,.
I
I
I
I
I
~~ &: I
B~ ~~ I
_51 -!3 I
~~ ~~ 0 I
~ ~ I
~ ~ I
~ % I
~ I
~ g I
o. '"
yo ~ I
~ I
I
I
I
~ ~ :g ~
eeL CONSULTANTS ,INe .
CIflldI'U 1\fM'POn l'\.MI",a A
'DlI'IItGI ~r\olIqnl '(..n1..,...'.
0MAMl0 WQT ,~ .tACH Dt.TC
EXHIBIT "E"
.'CIIIp'fICN
IT
1"(
,
.I.I"?
:v.,. --
,o.<OD __/'
~,\,,~.p /.../
.'"' /
...-'...
/'"
...-' -
,....,.,., -,-'/
,..,...- .,,~---
"."" ..~"..
,. ...--
,..,/ .."'-
,.....
--------
...~ n----
~ L
f ~
H
/--
[~
l~
~
..
~=l
ITI ffil ~l /
GJ lSJ bij
$~l:
..~~
s-~
r~U
e~i
..-
till:!
"~
~~ ~~:~ ~
~ a~i ~ ~
~ ~B' ~
a ~E~ ~ ~
~ .-.. ~ ~
Q ~~a' I"
~ ~~~~
!: ~r:;-:Q
~ 65118
:l 8Q~.a
~ U
R
~
BATTLE: RIDGE
-..AI'--
eeL CONSULTANTS .INC
e"OI_U:as ,\,IM'OllS l"\.lJbICO 6.
i:>.
IYI't l~ - ,'f1\,MIQl\Io ...", lAD" MO-tn. A
onwflO "p, hlll UolCN tv '''''(
Ots.C"~
FLOOD MAP
x
oa1 ,..n..,.s
?~
- ,.,
~ ~
~.
...
..
c:
...
t::.
DUClur'IOW