HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996 02 26 Regular Item C
COMMISSION AGENDA
ITEM C
REGULAR X
CONSENT
INFORMATIONAL
FEBRUARY 26.1996
Meeting
REQUEST: General Services Department (Community Development Division) Requesting
the Board to transmit the Weaver Large Scale Comprehensive Plan
Amendment to the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA) for review.
(See Attachment" 1 " - 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. Iffound to be in compliance, to assist the City in determining the
advisability of approving or disapproving annexation.
APPLICABLE LA W /PUBLIC 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 C
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 "Lower Density Residential" 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 Commission being asked to transmit the Weaver 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.
February 26, 1996
AGENDA ITEM NUMBER
Page 3
C
b.
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.
c.
Staff believes that many issues were left open without adequate
closure based upon the application of 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. Additionally, the Local Planning Agency did not
make specific findings relative to the provisions of applicable public
policy and law consistent with recognized acceptable standards of
good practice in the deliberation of important land use related
matters by governmental reviewing bodies.
d.
In conclusion, the staff finds that the Weaver proposal
presented to the City 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.
2. 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.
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.
February 26, 1996
AGENDA ITEM NUMBER-L
Page 4
3. 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.
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 City has adequate policies in its Comprehensive Plan to address
stormwater, which is a concern raised by citizens and various agencies.
4. The City has adequate policies in its Comprehensive Plan to address the
issue of wetlands, which is a concern of citizens and various agencies.
5. An urban pattern of development exists of single-family residential at 3 to 4
DU/acre within one (1) mile of the Weaver property, suggesting that the
amendment proposal may be compatible with the surrounding area.
Battle Ridge, Carroll, Weaver, and Minter properties are requesting the
same density as that which exists.
6. The Florida Department of Community Affiars approved a similar land use
and density proposal for this land in the Comprehensive Plan of the
City of Oviedo.
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 staffin
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.
February 26, 1996
AGENDA ITEM NUMBER~
Page 5
AL TERNA TIVES:
The City Commission has two alternatives as follows:
1. Approve transmittal. The consequences of this action are as
follows:
a. Upon conclusion of the analysis staff will 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.
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.
February 26, 1996
AGENDA ITEM NUMBER ~
Page 6
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 not pursue any additional development of the
property. Our understanding is that this is not a likely course of
action based upon prior dicussions with the owner and the property
owner's representative.
RECOMMENDATION:
Based on the findings discussed above, it is recommended the City Commission
consider approving the request by Harling, Locklin & Associates (representing Mr.
and Mrs. Donald Weaver, property owners) for transmittal of the Large Scale
Comprehensive Plan Amendment (LG-CPA-3-96) 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 91-11.006 F.A.C. According
to 10hn 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 ORC 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.
February 26, 1996
AGENDA ITEM NUMBER ~
Page 7
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.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. City Manager's Memorandum.
2. Checklist for DCA Transmittal.
COMMISSION ACTION:
i
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA
1126 EAST STATE ROAD 434
WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA 32708-2799
Telephone (407) 327-1800
Community Development
LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY AGENDA ITEM:
IV. E.
NEW BUSINESS
WEAVER - LARGE SCALE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENOMENT
LG-CPA-3-95
STAFF REPORT
DATA , ANALYSIS CHECKLIST FOR DCA TRANSMITTAL
NOTE:
This checklist has been reviewed and recommended by DCA
for preparation and transmi ttal of large scale
comprehensive plan amendment.
PER SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: [9J-11.006 F.A.C.], [Chap 163 F.S.]
IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS FOR PROPOSED LOCAL
GOVERNMENT (LARGE SCALE) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS PER
9J-ll.006(1) (a)1.,2. F.A.C.; 9J-11.006(1) (a) 3 through 10 F.A.C.,
THE TRANSMITTAL SHALL INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING:
1. BOARD MEETING DATES:
A. THE DATE OR DATES ON WHICH THE LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY
(LPA) HELD THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PROPOSEO PLAN
AMENDMENT [l63.3174(1), (4) (a); F.S., 9J-11.003(1);
9J-11. 006 (1) (a) 1. F.A.C.].
B. THE DATE OR DATES ON WHICH THE LOCAL GOVERNING BODY HELD
THE (FIRST) PUBLIC HEARING AT WHICH THE TRANSMITTAL OF
THE PROPOSEO PLAN AMENDMENT TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
COMMUNITY AFFAIRS WAS APPROVED AND THE DATE THAT THE
PROPOSED AMENDMENT AND ONE COPY OF EACH ITEM SPECIFIED
UNDER 9J-11.006(1) (a),(b),(c),(d) WAS SUBMITTED TO THE
REVIEW AGENCIES, PER 9J-11. 006 (6); [9J-11. 006 (1) (a) 2. ;
163.3184(15) (b) F.S.]
comprehensive Plan Amendment
Checklist for DCA Transmittal
n. GENERAL INFORMATION:
A. SIZE OF PROPERTY: [9J-11.006(1) (a)3.]
25 acres
B. TYPE OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT:
[9J-11.006(1) (a)3.]
Text Amendment
Future Land Use Map
Other
x
C. BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT(S) CONTENT AND
EFFECT: [9J-11.006(1) (a)3.]
Owner requests redesignation of his land from Seminole
County Future Land Use Map IRural-3" to City of winter
Springs Future Land Use Map "Low Density Residential".
The effect would be to allow development of the property
between 1.1 to 3.5 dwelling units per acre.
O. EXPLANATION OF THE REASON FOR THE PROPOSED AMENOMENT:
[9J-11.006(1) (a)3.]
The property owner has requested the City of winter
springs to annex his property into the City and has
requested the City provide sewer and water service. The
City has indicated it is very interested in providing
these services and the other urban services presently
provided to all other properties within the city.
E. INDICATE HOW THE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION REQUIREMENTS OF
9J-1l.003, 9J-5.004, F.A.C., 163.3174, 163.3181, CHAPTER
119, ANO CHAPTER 286, F.S. HAVE BEEN MET. INCLUOE THE
REQUIREMENTS OF 9J-11.004(2) (a)6,(b):
The Local Planning Agency public hearing was advertised
twice, on and again on in the
Orlando sentinel, which circulates throughout the City of
winter Springs (per 9J-ll.003(5) F.A.C. and 163.3174
F. s. ) . The public hearing notice in the newspaper
indicated that interested person may attend and be heard
[per 9J-11. 003 (3)] and that information on items of
public hearing agenda may be obtained at the City Hall
[per 9J-5.004(3), 119.07(1) (a) F.S. and 286.011(1) (2)
F.S.] The public hearing notice also indicated that
2
..
1
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Checklist for OCA Transmittal
person with disabilities needing assitance to participate
in any of the proceedings should contact the City 48
hours in advance of the meeting [per 286.26(1) F.S.].
The city Commission held a first public hearing on
, a weekday days after the day that the first
advertisement was published in the Orlando sentinel,
which circulates throughout the City of Winter springs
[per 163.3184(15) (b) (1) F.S. and 9J-ll.003(5) F.A.C.].
The public hearing notice in the newspaper indicated that
the public hearing was to be held on day of
at interested person may attend and be
heard [per 9J-ll. 003 (3)] and that information on items of
the public hearing agenda may be obtained at the City
Hall [per 9J-5.004(3), 119.07(1) (a) F.S. and
286.011(1) (2) F.S.] The public hearing notice also
indica ted that person with disabilities needing assi tance
to participate in any of the proceedings should contact
the city 48 hours in advance of the meeting [per
286.26 (1) F.S.].
F. IS THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT REQUESTING THE DEPARTMENT OF
COMMUNITY AFFAIRS REVIEW THE PROPOS EO AMENDMENT?:
[9J-l1. 006 (1) (a) 3.]
Yes.
G. PROPOSED MONTH OF ADOPTION OF THE PROPOSED PLAN
AMENDMENT: [9J-11.006(1) (a)4.]
60 days after the receipt of the ORC Report from the
Florida Department of Community Affairs,
per 163.3184(7) F.S., or after clarification and
resolution of items in the ORC Report with the Florida
Department of Community Affairs.
H. IS AMENDMENT IN AN AREA OF CRITICAL STATE CONCERN OR
RESOURCE PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT PROGRAM ?:
[9J-11.006(1) (a)5.]
No.
I. (FOR PLAN AMENDMENTS WITHIN ORANGE, LAKE AND SEMINOLE
COUNTIES) DOES THE PLAN AMENDMENT APPLY TO THE WEKIVA
RIVER PROTECTION AREA? [CHAPTER 369, PART III, F.S.]
No.
3
'..
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Checklist for DCA Transmittal
J. IS AMENDMENT WITHIN OTHER PROTECTED AREAS?:
[9J-11.006(1) (a) 3.]
No.
K. IS THE AMENDMENT AN EXEMPTION TO THE TWICE PER CALENDAR
YEAR LIMITATION ON THE AOOPTION OF PLAN AMENOMENTS?:
[9J-11. 006 (1) (a) 7.]
No.
IF YES, IS THE PROPOS EO AMENOMENT OIRECTLY RELATEO TO:
1. A proposed development of regional impact (DRI) or
substantial deviation [380.06(6) (b), F.S.].
2. Small scale development activities
[163.3187(1) (c) F.S.].
3. Emergency [163.3187(1) (a) F.S.].
4. Amendment submitted to the Department of Community
Affairs pursuant to a compliance agreement.
[9J-11.006(1) (a)7.d.; 163.3184(10), (11) F.S.]
5. Amendment to an Inter-Governmental Coordination
Element [9J-11.006(1) (a)7.e.;
163 . 3177 ( 6 ) (h) 1. a. ,b. ,c and d., F. S . ]
L. HAS THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT SENT A COPY OF ITS COMPLETE
ADOPTED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN INCLUDING AMENDMENTS WITH
SUPPORT DOCUMENTS TO ALL REVIEW AGENCIES?
[163.3184(3) (a), F.S.; 9J-11.006(1) (a)8.; 9J-11.008(9),
F.A.C.]:
1. Regional planning agency;
Yes.
2. Department of Environmental Protection;
Yes.
3. Department of Transportation;
Yes.
4
I
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Checklist for DCA Transmittal
4. Water management district;
Yes.
5. Any other unit of local government or government
agency in the state that has filed a written
request with the governing body for the plan or
plan amendment.
No request has been made.
6. Appropriate county planning agency
(NOTE: Only for newly created jurisdictions).
7. Florida Oepartment of state
(NOTE: Only for newly created jurisdictions).
8. Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission
(NOTE: County plans only); and
9. The Department of Agriculture and Consumer
Services, Division of Forestry
(NOTE: County plans only).
M. IS THE AMENDMENT TO BE ADOPTED UNDER A JOINT PLANNING
AGREEMENT? [163.3171 F.S.; 9J-11.006(1) (a) (9) F.A.C.]:
1. If yes, list the local governments included in the
agreement:
(Not Applicable)
2. Is transmittal letter signed by the chief elected
official (or his designee) of each local
government?:
(Not Applicable)
N. LOCAL GOVERNMENT CONTACT: NAME, ADDRESS, PHONE OF LOCAL
GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATIVE FAMILIAR WITH PROPOSED
AMENDMENT{S) AND IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ENSURING THAT THE
MATERIALS TRANSMITTED ARE COMPLETE: [9J -11. 006 ( 1) (a) 10. ,
F.A.C.]
Thomas J. Grimms, AICP Community Development Coordinator
City of winter springs City Hall (407) 327-1800
1126 East state Road 434
winter springs, FL 321708-2799
5
T
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Checklist for DCA Transmittal
ll. NATURE OF PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT:
IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS FOR PROPOSED
LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TEXT AND MAP AMENDMENTS:
[9J-11. 006 (1) (b)]
NOTE:
ADDRESS ITEMS BELOW AS APPROPRIATE TO THE SPECIFIC PLAN
AMENOMENT.
A.
GENERAL
SUBMIT TO THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS A TOTAL OF
SIX (6) COPIES OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT PACKAGE. THE
PROPOSED AMENOMENT PACKAGE SHALL INCLUDE:
* RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE STAFF, LOCAL PLANNING
AGENCY, LOCAL GOVERNING BOOY: [9J-11.006(1) (c)]
* ALL PROPOSEO TEXT, MAPS, ANO SUPPORT OOCUMENTS
WHICH INCLUDE DATA AND ANALYSES IN THE FOLLOWING
FORMAT: [9J-11.006(1) (b)]
NOTE:
Impact calculations should be done for
each amendment as well as on a cumulative
basis for all the amendments, together,
if more than one amendment is submitted.
1. 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.o06(1) (b), F.A.C.]
No text changes are requested.
2. PROPOSED MAP CHANGES
Pertains only to a Regulatory Land Use Plan Map
Amendment. [9J-11.006(1) (b) F.A.C.]
a. The boundary of the subj ect property,
surrounding street and thoroughfare network,
surrounding future land uses, and natural
resources:
(see Exhibit "A")
6
comprehensive Plan Amendment
Checklist for DCA Transmittal
b. The present land use designation (s) of the
subject property and abutting properties:
Seminole County Future Land Use Map "Rural-5"
for the subject property.
NOTE: Seminole County has submitted a
comprehensive plan amendment (95-F.FLUM7)
to DCA to change the land use from
Rural-l0 and 5 to Rural-3.
c. The proposed future land use designation(s)
for the subject property:
City of winter Springs Future Land Use Map
"Low Density Residential" (1.1 - 3.5 DU/acre).
d. The size of the subject property in acres or
fractions thereof:
25 acres
e. General location map if the land use plan map
does not show the entire jurisdiction:
(See Exhibit "B")
f. Map or description of existing land uses (not
designations) of the subject property and
surrounding properties:
1 structure; mostly vacant; tree foliage
covers southwest 1/5th of property.
g. Maximum allowable development under existing
designation for the site:
Maximum 1 DU per 5 acres (Seminole County
Comprehensive Plan)
NOTE:
Seminole County has submitted a
comprehensive plan amendment (95-F.FLUM7)
to DCA to change the land use from
Rural-l0 and 5 to Rural-3.
Under Rural-5 designation: (4.4) or 4 single-
family residential units. Under the proposed
7
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Checklist for DCA Transmittal
county amendment Rural-3 designation:
or 7 units.
(7.3)
h. Maximum allowable development under proposed
designation for the site:
Proposed City designation of Lower Density
Residential (1.1 - 3.5 DU per acre): 3.5 X 25
= 87.5 X .12 (for r-o-w) = 77 actual single-
family units.
i. List of objectives and policies of the Future
Land Use element and other affected elements
with which the proposed amendment . is
compatible: [9J-11.006(1) (b)S.]
Goal 2, Objective A, Policies 1 -3
Goal 2, objective B, Polciy 2
* SUBMIT SIX (6) COPIES OF THE EVALUATION AND
APPRAISAL REPORT, IF OONE IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE
PROPOSED AMENDMENT, IF APPLICABLE, OR A LETTER
CERTIFYING THAT THE E.A.R. HAS BEEN PREVIOUSLY SENT
TO THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS ANO EACH
REVIEW AGENCY AS LISTED UNDER 9J-l1.008(8). ANO
[9J-11. 006 (1) (d) ]
(Not Applicable)
Ill. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT ANALYSIS:
B. ANALYSIS/RE-ANALYSIS: [9J-11.006(1) (b)4.,S. and
9J-S.00S(2), F.A.C.]
NOTE:
IF THE ORIGINAL PLAN DATA AND ANALYSIS OR THE DATA
AND ANALYSIS OF A PREVIOUS AMENDMENT SUPPORT ANO
MEET THE REQUIREMENTS CITED IN 9J-S.00S(2} AND
9J-11.006(1) (b)l. THROUGH S. F.A.C., THEN NO
ADDITIONAL OATA AND ANALYSIS ARE REQUIRED TO BE
SUBMITTED UNLESS THE PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED DATA AND
ANALYSIS NO LONGER INCLUOE AND RELY ON THE BEST
AVAILABLE EXISTING OATA. SPECIFIC REFERENCE TO THE
SPECIFIC PORTIONS OF THE PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED DATA
AND ANALYSIS ON WHICH THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT RELIES
TO SUPPORT THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT MUST BE MADE AT
THE TIME OF SUBMITTAL TO THE DEPARTMENT OF
COMMUNITY AFFAIRS. [9J-11. 007 (1), (2)]
8
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Checklist for OCA Transmittal
1. TRAFFIC CIRCULATION, INCLUOING: [9J-S.007]
a. Roadways serving the site (indicating laneage,
functional classification and right-of-way,
current LOS, and LOS standard:
DeLeon street .2 lanes; functional
classification is "local"; current LOS not
determined and do not have an established LOS
Standard according to seminole county.
S.R. 434 2 lanesundivided; functional
classification is "Urban principal Arterial";
Current LOS (1994) is "A" [13,265 peak hour
trips] per Seminole County 1994 Segment
Counts; LOS standard is "D". ADT is 13,174;
LOS is "A"; LOS Standard is liE" for segment
S.R. 417 to DeLeon.
For this segment, FDOT does not have counts.
Segment from S.R. 419/S.R. 434 eastward and
southward on S.R. 434 to W. Broadway (S.R.
426), a 7 mile 2-lane undivided road segment
with 3 major intersections and 4 traffic
signals: (1994) Current LOS is "F" and the LOS
Standard is "Oil with 50 mph average speed;
total AADT is 17,000.
b. Projected LOS (indicate year) under existing
designation:
Existing FLUM designation is "Rural-S" (Max 1
DU/S acre) per County FLUM-2010. NOTE:
Seminole County has submitted a comprehensive
plan amendment (95-F.FLU7) to DCA to change
the land use from Rural-l0 and 5 to Rural-3.
Under proposed amendment, approximately 54
total trips per day would be generated from a
single-family residential subdivision on this
property (utilizing ITE Trip Generation 5th
Edition). No effect on the projected LOS "A"
(per Seminole county 1994 Segment Counts).
c. Projected LOS (indicate year) under proposed
designation (calculate anticipated number of
trips and distribution on roadway network, and
identify resulting changes to the proj ected
los) :
9
comprehensive Plan Amendment
Checklist for DCA Transmittal
Under proposed City FLUM designation "Lower
Denisty Residential" (1.1 to 3.5 DU/acre),
approximately 596 total trips per day would be
from a single-family residential subdivision
on this property (utilizing ITE Trio
Generation 5th Edition). No effect on the
projected LOS "A" (per Seminole county 1994
Segment Counts).
d. Improvements/expansions (including right-of-
way acquisition) already programmed or needed
as a result of the proposed amendment:
Turn lanes and deceleration lanes to
accommodate ingress and egress to the site.
e. Evaluation of consistency with the adopted MPO
plan and FDOT's 5-year Transportation Plan:
The Orlando MPO indicated that for the project
envisioned, a small residential subdivision,
there would be no inconsistency with the MPO
Plan. The MPO Plan (in the Needs Section and
Cost Feasible Section of adopted Plan to the
Year 2010) does have indicated a widening to
six lanes the section of S.R. 434 from the
GreeneWay (S.R. 417) eastward and southward to
Aloma Ave. (S.R. 426 "W. Broadway Street").
Discussions with FDOT District 5 Office at
Adanson street in Orlando indicated no
inconsistency with the 5 year TIP.
f. Availability of access:
The property has access to DeLeon street and
via DeLeon street to S.R. 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) and/or why it is not necessary to
resolve the inconsistencies:
10
.,
. ,
i
I
i
,
.1
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Checklist for OCA Transmittal
.J
.J
;1
;~
h.
Identify the objectives and policies that
support the proposed amendment; identify any
inconsistencies and explain why there will be
no impact(s) and/or why it is not necessary to
resolve the inconsistencies:
I
I
I
Objective c, policy
circulation Element
comprehensive Plan.
2 of
of
the
the
Traffic
city's
i. Traffic Circulation Element amendment
submitted in conjunction with the regulatory
land use plan map amendment, if required:
(Not required)
j. Is amendment to the Traffic Circulation
Element necessary as a result of the proposed
amendment ?
No.
k. CUmmulative Impact Calculation on S.R. 434 of
trips generated from Battle Ridge, Carroll,
Weaver, and Minter proposed comprehensive plan
amendments submitted together:
Battle Ridge = 1,650 trips
Carroll = 317
Weaver = 542
Minter = 651
3,260
AnT is 13,174; LOS is "A"; LOS Standard is "E"
for segment S.R. 434 to DeLeon. 13,174 +
3,260 = 16,434. county indicates trip
generation would have to exceed 18,270 Defore
LOS is negatively affected.
2.
MASS TRANSIT:
[9J-S.008]
NOTE:
Not Applicable. There are no mass
transit facilities serving the site, or
planned in the future to serve the
general area.
11
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Checklist for DCA Transmittal
(preliminary Estimate of 25,673 per
University of Florida Bureau of Economic
and Business Research)
4. HOUSING: [9J-S.010]
a. Needs analysis to determine if development (if
it provides housing) is proposed to meet the
needs of the anticipated population:
This section of the Orlando Metropolitan Area
(north and east) is experiencing tremedous
growth. The recent completion of S.R. 417
(the beltway), the widening of S.R. 434 and
the expansion of the cities of Winter springs
and Oviedo in the region has provided for many
housing opportunities for a variety of income
levels. Some of the major employers that have
added to the demand for housing in this area
through new loca tion or expanisons are
University of Central Florida, Oviedo crossing
Shopping Mall, the Quadrangle Office Park and
the Central Florida Research Park.
b. Land requirements for the total estimated
housing need of the jurisdiction:
The low-density designation for this site will
not allow for density of more than 3.5
DU/acre. It is anticipated that much more
land will be needed to house the popu1ation of
this area than can be afforded by the subject
property.
The City's Comprehensive Plan indicates the
need for 1,150 additional acres for
residential develpment by 2010 to allow
development of up to 6,800 dwelling units with
an average density of 5.91 DU/acre. This
comrpehensive plan amendment involving 25
acres for residential development, will in
part address the City's need for additional
land.
The City has very little land vacant for
additional residential development. Much of
the remaining vacant land is environmentally
12
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Checklist for DCA Transmittal
sensitive. The influence or impact of the
beltway (GreeneWay S.R. 417), economic
conditions, the Orlando area housing market,
and no doubt other exogenous variables have
been underestimated at the time of the
formulation of the Future Land Use and Housing
Elements of the adopted comprehensive Plan.
c. Identify the objectives and policies that
support the proposed amendment; identify any
inconsistencies and explain why there will be
no impact(s) and/or why it is not necessary to
resolve the inconsistencies:
In the eity's Comprehensive Plan Housing
Element:
Goal 1, Objective D
d. Housing Element amendment submitted in
conjunction with regulatory land use plan map
amendment, if required:
(Not Applicable)
e. Is amendment to the Housing Element necessary
as a result of the proposed amendment ?
No.
S . SANITARY SEWER, SOLID WASTE, STORMWATER MANAGEMENT,
POTABLE WATER AND NATURAL GROUNDWATER AQUIFER
RECHARGE: [9J-S.011]
POTABLE WATER, INCLUDING: [9J-S.011]
a. Facilities serving the site, current LOS, and
LOS standard:
No facilities presently serve the site. The
county has a LOS standard for annual average
daily volume in gallons of potable water per
capita of 100 GCPD. The City has a LOS
standard of 125 GePD. NOTE: There is a
functioning well and septic system on the
property.
b. Projected LOS (indicate year) under existing
designation:
13
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Checklist for DCA Transmittal
No facilities presently serve the site. The
county has a LOS standard for annual average
daily volume in gallons of potable water per
capita of 100 GCPD.
c. Projected LOS (indicate year) under proposed
designation:
The projected level of service standard is 115
GCPD (gallons per capita per day) for the city
owned system. .
d. Improvements/expansions already programmed or
needed as a result of proposed amendment:
The developer proposes to extend a ten-inch
(10") water line along S.R. 434 from its
current termination at vista willa Drive to
the project site.
e. Identify the objectives and policies that
support the proposed amendment; identify any
inconsistencies and explain why there will be
no impact(s) and/or why it is not necessary to
resolve the inconsistencies:
Objective "C" and Policy 3 under Objective "C"
of the Potable Water Sub-element of the City's
comprehensive Plan.
f. Potable Water Sub-Element amendment submitted
in conjunction with regulatory land use plan
map amendment, if required:
(Not Applicable)
g. Is amendment to the Potable Water Sub-element
necessary as a result of the proposed
amendment ?
No.
SANITARY SEWER, INCLUDING: [9J-S.011]
a. Facilities serving the site, current LOS, and
LOS standard:
14
comprehensive Plan Amendment
Checklist for OCA Transmittal
No facilities presently serve the site. NOTE:
There is a functioning well and septic system
on the property.
b. Projected LOS (indicate year) under existing
designation:
The subject property is not within the service
area of the Seminole county sanitary sewer
system.
c. Projected LOS (indicate year) under proposed
designation:
300 gallons per day single family unit for
1996-97.
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 S.R. 434 to the project site.
e. Identify the objectives and policies that
support the proposed amendment; identify any
inconsistencies and explain why there will be
no impact(s) and/or why it is not necessary to
resolve the inconsistencies:
Objective "C", Policies 1, 7, 9, 13
f. sanitary Sewer Sub-element amendment submitted
in conjunction with regulatory land use plan
map amendment, if required:
(Not Applicable)
g. Is amendment to the Sanitary Sewer Sub-element
necessary as a result of the proposed
amendment ?
No.
ORAINAGE/STORMWATER, INCLUOING: [9J-5.011]
a. Facilities serving the site, current LOS, and
LOS standard:
15
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Checklist for DCA Transmittal
Drainage ditches at the sides of the road for
DeLeon street. In near proximity is S.R. 434
with drainage ditches~
b. Projected LOS (indicate year) under existing
designation:
County's projected LOS is pre-post attenuation
rate of 25 year 24 hour storm with outfall.
FDOT, for ADT over 1,500, uses 50 year storm
event for cross drain with intensity
calculations determined per specific site;
ditches are 10 year storm event; and storm
sewers are 3 year storm event.
c. Projected LOS (indicate year) under proposed
designation:
The 25 year frequency, 24 hour duration,
design storm shall be used as the basis for
stormwater management system design for
proposed new and redevelopment projects, and
for determining availability of facility
capacity for 1996-97 and beyond. The
developer will also be required to analyze the
ultimate effect of the disposal of stormwater
from storm events, up to and including the 100
year 24 hour duration storm event. In
addition, the developer will comply where
applicable with the st. Johns River Water
Management District's flood control criteria.
d. Improvements/expansions already programmed or
needed as a result of proposed amendment:
Other than on site improvements, no expansion
or improvements are necessary. storm drainage
will be provided on site in accordance with
the City's regulations and st. Johns River
Water Management District criteria.
e. Identify the objectives and policies that
support the proposed amendment; identify any
inconsistencies and explain why there will be
no impact(s) and/or why it is not necessary to
resolve the inconsistencies:
16
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Checklist for DCA Transmittal
In the storm Drainage and Natural Groundwater
Aquifer Recharge Sub-Element of the City's
Comprehensive Plan:
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. Drainage Sub-element amendment submitted in
conjunction with regulatory land use plan map
amendment, if required:
(Not required)
g.
Is amendment to
necessary as a
amendment ?
the Drainage Sub-element
result of the proposed
No.
SOLID WASTE, INCLUDING: [9J-S.011]
a. Facilities serving the site, current LOS, and
LOS standard:
No facility/service serves the site since
there is solid waste generated from the site.
The site is a vacant, wooded area. The LOS
standard is 2.77 pounds per day per resident
(1992)
b. Projected LOS (indicate year) under existing
designation:
LOS standard is projected to be 2.85 pounds
per day per resident (1998).
c. Proposed LOS (indicate year) under proposed
designation:
The City has established a present and future
LOS of 3.77 pounds per capita per day.
d. Improvements/expansions already programmed or
needed as a result of proposed amendment:
The City's current franchise agreement with a
solid waste hauler would cover and apply to
17
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Checklist for DCA Transmittal
the annexed property. Present agreement
requires that franchisee shall make the
collections at each location on the same days
each week for each of the following categories
of material:
1. Garbage - 2 collections per week;
2. Yard trash - 1 collection per week;
3. Recyclable - 1 collection per week.
e. Identify the objectives and policies that
support the proposed amendment; identify any
inconsistencies and explain why there will be
no impact(s) and/or why it is not necessary to
resolve the inconsistencies:
In the solid Waste Sub-element of the City's
Comprehensive Plan:
Objective A, Policy 7
f. Solid waste Sub-element amendment submitted in
conjunction with regulatory land use plan map
amendment, if required:
(Not required)
g. Is amendment to the Solid Waste Sub-element
necessary as a result of the proposed
amendment ?
No.
6. COASTAL MANAGEMENT: [9J-5.012]
NOTE:
Not Applicable. The annexed property
prompting this comprehenisve plan
amendment is not along or in a coastal
area.
7. CONSERVATION; [9J-S.013]
a. 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 (Indicate species habitats on map):
According to the Seminole County Comprehensive
Plan Conservation Element "No federally listed
18
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Checklist for DCA Transmittal
endangered plants are known to exist in
Seminole County." Figure I (based on the
Florida Natural Areas Inventory) indicating
generalized locations of specially designated
species does not show any such locations of
specially designated species on the property.
b. Type and degree of disturbance to the natural
functions of environmentally sensitive lands;
specifically identify wetlands: .
No distrubance of wetlands is proposed. Any
such impacts will be in accordance with local,
state and federal guidelines. A portion of
the property is indicated as having wetlands.
The city through policies in the Conservation
and Land Use Elements of its Comprehensive
Plan requires protection of wetlands. For the
annexation, property owner requests a Future
Land Use Map designation of Lower Density
Residential (1.1 to 3.5 DU / acre) . Proposed
development would ba a residential subdvision
with the usual disturbance associated with
construction of such a development.
c. The effect on vegetative communities:
Existing vegetation will be saved in
accordance with the City's land development
regulations.
According to the soils Survey of Seminole
county, the soils on this property indicate
the natural vegetation would consist mostly of
mixed stands of cypress, red maple, sweetqum,
cabage palm, sweetbay, and blackgum, longleaf
and slash pines and live and laurel oaks,
maidencane, giant cutgrass, sawgrass and
rushes. The understory includes lopsided
indiangrass, inkberry, saw palmetto, pineland
threeawn, waxmyrtle, bluestem, panicum, and
other grasses. These vegetation types may be
disturbed in any residential subdvision with
the usual disturbance associated with
construction of such a development. Until
such development is proposed the effect on
vegetative communities is difficult to
determine at this time. It should be noted
19
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Checklist for DCA Transmittal
that the City's comprehensive Plan requires
conceptual engineering proposals to include
identification and mapping of natural
resources within property intended to be
developed, which shall include an inventory of
plants and animals designated as endangered,
threatened or species of special concern and
associated habitat required for the species to
remain viable.
d. Identify the objectives and policies that
support the proposed amendment; identify any
inconsistencies and explain why there will be
no impact(s) and/or why it is not necessary to
resolve the inconsistencies:
In the Conservation Element of the city's
Comprehensive Plan:
Objective B, Policies 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
Objective C, Policies 1, 3, 5a-f
8. RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE, INCLUDING: [9J-5.014]
a. Facilities serving the site, current LOS, and
LOS standard:
County LOS standard is: 3.6 acres per 1000
residents within urban community park sites;
1.8 developed park acres per 1000 residents
for total park acreage needs. This standard
includes active and passive recreational
facil.ities.
b. Projected LOS (including year) under existing
designation:
3. 6 acres per 1000 res iden ts wi thin urban
community park sites; 1.8 developed park acres
per 1000 residents for total park acreage.
c. Projected LOS (indicate year) under proposed
designation: .
Community Parks
Neighborhood Parks
1.6 acres/l000 population
5.9 acres/l000 population
20
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Checklist for DCA Transmittal
d. Improvements/expansions already programmed or
needed as a result of proposed amendment:
Private passive recreation for the residents
of the development, such as trails.
e. Identify the objectives and policies that
support the proposed amendment; identify any
inconsistencies and explain why there will be
no impact(s) and/or why it is not necessary to
resolve the inconsistencies:
objective E, Policies 1, 2
Objective H
f. Recreation and Open Space Element amendment
submitted in conjunction with regulatory land
use plan map amendment, if required:
(Not Required)
g. Is amendment to the Recreation and Open Space
Element necessary as a result of the proposed
amendment ?
No.
9.
INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION:
[9J-S.015]
a. state the impacts and their significance on
the proposed amendment on adjacent local
governments:
The major impacts would be that the county
would lose 25 acres to the jurisdiction of the
City of winter Springs through annexation of
the property; and the county's comprehensive
plan and land development regulations would no
longer be effective once the comprehensive
plan amendment receives a "Notice of Intent"
from DeA.
b. List comments or objections from adjacent
local government(s):
None received at the time of this report
preparation (September 25, 1995).
21
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Checklist for OCA Transmittal
c. Identify the objectives and policies that
support the proposed amendment; identify any
inconsistencies and explain why there will be
no impact(s) and/or why it is not necessary to
resolve the inconsistencies:
Objective A, policy 1
Objective C, Policy 1
Objective D, policy 1
10. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS: [9J-S.016]
a. Analysis as to whether the amendment is based
on the annual monitoring and evaluation review
of the capital improvements element:
This comprehensive plan amendment is not based
on the annual review of the capital
Improvements Element since all costs of
construction of infrastructure for the
provision of urban services will be paid by
the developer. The intention of the City is
that private development will not incur a
fiscal impact on the City.
b. 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:
There will be no fiscal impact to the city
wi th respect to the extension of sewer and
water lines. The City has a policy that "In
no event shall the city be required to pay the
cost of the installation of the water and
sewer trunk line system." [Sec. 9-261(b) City
Code]. Similarly, the City does not pay for
required drainage, stormwater improvements
related to private development. There should
be no fiscal impact to the City with respect
parks and recreation since the city requires a
"contribution to the (recreation) system
proportionate to the magnitude of the new
subdivision or project", or "require
developers to supplement public recreation by
allocating private parks on a proportional
22
., .
, '
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Checklist for DCA Transmittal
share basis consiste with adopted level of
service standards". The City does not pay for
any portion of road development for private
projects.
c. Identify the objectives and policies that
support the proposed amendment; identify any
inconsistencies and explain why there will be
no impact(s) and/or why it is not necessary to
resolve the inconsistencies, if applicable:
In the Recreation and Open Space Element of
the City's Comprehensive Plan:
Objective D, Policies 1, 2
Objective E, Policy 1
In the Sanitary Sewer Sub-Element:
Objective C, Policy 9
In the City Code [Sec. 9-261(b)
In the City Code [Sec. 9-151]
d. Capital Improvements Element amendment
submitted in conjunction with regulatory land
use plan map amendment, if required:
(Not Required)
e. Is amendment to the Capital Improvements
Element necessary as a result of the proposed
amendment ?
No.
f. Indicate ability to finance proposed capital
improvement, including forcasting of revenues
and expenditures and projections of debt
service obligations, tax bases, assessment
ratio, other revenue sources, operating cost
considerations, and debt capacity:
Proposed capital improvements relating to
private developments, such as would be
involved in this comprehensive plan amendment,
are all paid up front by the developer.
Therefore, the City does not involve itself
issues of ability to finance, forcasting of
revenues, etc. for such projects.
23
'"' ~
I.
..:, i .
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Checklist for DCA Transmittal
11. VACANT LAND CHARACTER ANALYSIS IN ORDER TO
OETERMINE SUITABILITY FOR USE, INCLUDING:
[9J-S.006(2) (b) (c)]
a. Soils.
Basinger, Samsula, and Hontoon soils,
depressional as well as Basinger and Delray
fine sands.
b. Topography, including flood prone areas.
Flat to gently rolling hills. There is a
small floodprone area along Sweetwater Creek
that traverses northward along the west edge
of DeLeon street.
c. Natural resources.
None.
d. Historic resources.
None.
e. Population projections, or revisions, for:
1995; 2000; 200S
1995 - 25,673 (BEBR university of Florida
4/1/95 preliminary Estimate)
1997 - 28,174 (Table TU-T7 Vol. 1 Of 2 City'S
Comprehensive Plan)
2010 - 36,653 (Table TU-T7 Vol. 1 Of 2 city's
comprehensive Plan)
The 1990 population (U.S. Census) was 22,151.
with the BEBER estimate at 25,673 for 1995,
which closely approximately the City's
estimate utilizing building permits issued,
then there has been a 15.9% growth. A number
of new large developments are now being
proposed along S.R. 434 (now being widened)
towards the newly opened northeast portion of
the beltway (S.R. 417) around Orlando.
24
. i'~ ,.
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Checklist for DCA Transmittal
The City has very little land vacant for
additional residential development. Much of
the remaining vacant land is environmentally
sensitive. The City discourages development
in these areas per Policies 1-8 under
Objective B and Policies 1-6 under Objective C
of the Conservation Element and policy 3 under
Objective A of Goal 2 of the Land Use Element.
f.
Relationship
(included in
land needed
population:
of amendment to the analysis
9J-S.006(2) (c) of the amount of
to accommodate the projected
The City has very little land vacant for
additional residential development. Much of
the remaining vacant land is environmentally
sensitive. The influence or impact of the
beltway (GreeneWay S.R. 417), economic
conditions, the Orlando area housing market,
and no doubt other exogenous variables have
been underestimated at the time of the
formulation of the Future Land Use and Housing
Elements of the adopted Comprehensive Plan.
C. CONSISTENCY OF PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT WITH
THE STATE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: [163.3177(10) (a) F.S.]
NOTE:
A LOCAL (COMPREHENSIVE PLAN) SHALL BE
CONSISTENT WITH A COMPREHENSIVE REGIONAL
POLICY PLAN OR THE STATE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IF
THE LOCAL PLAN IS COMPATIBLE WITH AND FURTHERS
SUCH PLANS. [9J-S.021(1) F.A.C.];
LIST THE APPROPRIATE GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND POLICIES THAT
INDICATE CONSISTENCY WITH THE STATE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
[9J-S.021(4) F.A.C.]
(10) NATURAL SYSTEMS AND REeREATIONAL LANDS
Goal (a), Policy 1, 7, 11, 13
(16) LAND USE
Goal (a) , Policy 3, 6,
(18) PUBLIC FACILITIES
2S
; -.. q
. f,'
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Checklist for DCA Transmittal
Policy 1, 3, 4
(20) TRANSPORTATION
Policy 13
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The Staff Review Board makes the following recommendation:
The Local Planning Agency recommend to the City Commission that the
comprehensive plan amendment concerning the Oonald Weaver property
(LG-CPA-3-95) be transmitted to the Florida Department of Community
Affairs for its review and comment.
26
/ ..
II .~....""'..J .. l" ...
Pare 03-21-31-300-o08C-oOOO
See 03 TWP 21S RGE 31E
NW 1/4 of NW 1/4 (less S 340 ft of E660 fc & Rds)
TW f?21S-F
-
NORTHEAST.
SEMINOLE C
TWR20S:RNG.3i E.
HOWARD
CLON T S
G ROV E S
INC.
A.~
JONES h..:
TR. V;
~
C. E. B MARt V)
MINTER
J.o.a L.W
G AN 0 T
,I
a WHEELER
. C . E VtoNS
.to I
r<J "
. 8.F wHE:E~R JR.
<.:)
.< Z
} ,t= a::: DONA LO a DORIS
I W E A V ERr R. I
I ..~ (f) ~ A LlOYD
N I
~ 0..: f
3 I
r- I
B. F: WHEaER JR
-{
~
1
DONALD B OORI 51- d
WEAVER
3
iJ,..~Cli:r:~;-
. .I ll'i' .' .
t. IV'
.\ t
t~ --
_0'.
P\U~ :> ,. '
1
rS.GALLO WAY S.
ANNE lEASE 8.
JBARNETT
BAN K TR. CO.
QTt ~ ~~~-;.~ -
p~~~.:::-.
'C'..-,~ '\'
. ~~,,~\~'P":'..
8
~
.-'
")
LL1
01
ALL EN B
EDITH
S HARU
h,..
V)
,
· F a B.
~ .<E E:s
G,BM.
OGL::S 21
J. a c.
).tAL roNJ
a,Be.
KIfER
.....
I.J< c z
~- In Z
C::V Ito.l <
C C::..J C
1..1< C) ""J
~2: 0
-
<
ci -
~ 3
, -
~ ~
CHI.
bJIB
,
B:F. V
BeL
EVA
~d
f-
er""
<z
z<
~8
- .
oL
DONALD WEAVER PROPERTY
(
~
~.
~~ L/l/1.L' Jii'SUP
~t
1~
~... '0
\~ 'Y
CI
~
t1_
t}
Y,J...
.'.
~I
I~)
-----l.
~
.'
EXHIBIT n
~) .
.
, ;0
-
.--------
LM<E JESUI' /---.. ~--'
-----~
~1 nUI1AL-1U
I1UI1AL.1U
nunAL-3
"
" nUnAl-3
5J5;~&4.I ~ATE5,
..:.
CITY
-- .., T I.
_nUnAL.fO'
719 't' '-drJ. COM
--o..~ ~ I
~,
. E,
., , . I .
. .. . qlR
-CITY OF
OVIEDO
~~~R:
. FUTURE LAND USE
^PPLlCMfT:~!K",'UYlCUIJ ~~.~R.~ HI<!:, L::o..JAI..C W:=~
___ +/ I r-UTUnE L^,fO USE
ACnEAGE: . ~ /- '.
-, ~ FnOM:~l:-~ 10:.!:&"N OEI-.'!:>rr'("
SIJtJJECT I'nOl'EI1 r'l' ~IDE.\..IT 'AI--
S-T-n:3'21-:J I ZONING
EXISTIIIG USE:'YACAHT f mOM: .A':5 10: g-I-A,.
ZONING
--
.....-
LAKE JESUP C;::---..-~
~~
~l::
PUD
....-~.~....
..... .,;. "", ..
tJ~;:r. .,
A. '?:J
(1.UG
3l~"":
'..
Of W\~i~~\'
,.~ \",0,:,
~~Ull " '.~ - .
~,- COO(I."'-"
~
!t....'l'.Jf)tJ
I'v'=. ,
., . ,
',1 'PUD I ,/.
." ~.
.,;. =s:n?-i'3't-,~iJ
ir~} .. ~uri;;~:II~/W ~ ,
c ru_:..D LW.JlUEJt:s ~ n / tH1 s ~,
. " I ~l~~ I c.! .
"J
: . "'~~'J1
'!l-
;J'~
A-Ht
.!v,....".
I
l'
, ,
,II
L'
:"j"
i...
fl,j':II. '!..' .
, J
.I..!
;I