HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996 06 10 Informational Item F
COMMISSION AGENDA
ITEM F
REGULAR
CONSENT
INFORMATIONAL X
June 10. 1996
Meeting
MGR. !?JJP1 !DEP~ f
Authorization
REQUEST: Community Development Division presents, for informational purposes, an update
on the Battle Ridge, Carroll, Weaver, Minter Large Scale Comprehensive Plan
Amendments.
PURPOSE:
The purpose of this agenda item is to notify the City Commission that the
Objections, Recommendations and Comments (ORC) Report from Department of
Community Affairs (DCA) concerning the Battle Ridge, Carroll, Weaver, Minter
Large Scale Compehensive Plan Amendment has been issued and advising the
Commission that the report is flawed and incomplete as submitted.
APPLICABLE LAW:
The provisions of 163.3184 and 163.3187 Florida Statutes, 9J-11.006 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.
The Seminole CountylWinter Springs Joint Planning Area Map 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.
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.
CONSIDERATIONS:
*
The City Commission on February 26, 1996, voted to transmit the Battle
Ridge, Carroll, Weaver, and Minter comprehensive plan amendments to the
Florida Department of Community Affairs to begin the process of review
and comment per 163.3184 F.S. [See attached flow chart on process]
June 10, 1996
AGENDA ITEM
Page 2
'"
*
On May 3, 1996, a phone call was made to Mr. Charles Gauthier, Growth
Management Administrator at DCA, seeking to provide additional
information. Mr. Gauthier invited the City Manager to send the points
made over the phone in a letter. Such letter (dated May 16, 1996) was
faxed and hard copy that same day to Charles Gauthier reaffirming various
points made in the call.
*
The Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA) has submitted its
Objections, Recommendations and Comments (ORC) Report on May 23,
1996 and was received in the City Manager's office on May 28, 1996.
*
A call to the DCA staff (plans reviewer) indicated "They probably did not
receive it in time" to review for the preparation of the aRC Report. As a
result, the ORC Report is flawed and incomplete as submitted. The
information contained in the May 16, 1996 letter to Charles Gauthier
addressed the majority of issues, objections, and concerns of the aRC
Report.
*
East Central Florida Regional Planning Council indicated that their staff
review "did not result in the identification of any significant impacts related
to regional resources, facilities, or extra jurisdictional matters."
[letter dated April 25, 1996]
*
The nature of an ORe Report is to call attention to areas that need further
clarification and explanation usually involving additional supporting data
and analysis. The present ORC Report requests further data and analysis
and clarification with respect to: natural resource protection, pubic
facilities, land use compatibility, needs, intergovernmental coordination,
and urban sprawl.
Scott Rogers, Brenda Weningham, Plans Reviewers, and John Healy,
Community Program Administrator at DCA, indicated that an aRC Report
should not be viewed as a final statement, but is intended to provide a
focus on specific questions, concerns etc. The DCA staff expects and
invites the applicants to respond and that typically there is a series of
exchanges back and forth to provide requested clarification, data and
analysis, and resolution of such questions, concerns, etc. indicated in the
aRC Report.
June 10, 1996
AGENDA ITEM
Page 3
RECOMMENDATION:
Information only; no action required.
The process established in 163.3184 F.S. which is now being followed by the applicants
allows for a response phase leading to a final review and "NOTICE of INTENT" by the
Florida Department of Community Affairs.
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE:
See attached flow chart. At this time the applicants are in the response phase.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. aRC Report (May 23, 1996)
2. Memorandum to Ray Eubanks, DCA Planning Manager and John Healy, DCA
Community Program Administrator concerning Battle Ridge Amendment (96-1)
3. Letter to Mr. Charles Gauthier from City Manager dated May 16, 1996.
COMMISSION ACTION:
LARGE SCALE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AMENDMENT
PROCESS
," - . " -
. . ." . .
.' . . . .
. ." ;.' "". - ..
. , '.
. . ~'" . .
. .... :",....~ . . ~ . ':" ~.". ~; . . . '" .
. '..... :. .' .,.... ," ... '," .....< ...,.. ':'" ,....c.....,:",:. ...,....'...;~....:.:.::..~...; '..,..........:..~....:...._ <:':'!:,;:~....;.".:";.' ....,..,.,.~.~,:;,.;...-:~.::'~...,".:'.....,. ..".',::..,:...,~.'.,;>.:..::.~';".,....~:.'.:.~.>:.~ ".';'.:-,.:.:.:/.:~_.:.:.
. .' . . . ..- . ,- - .,.: .~. . '"'". ...... ~ ::" -'. -' . .::" ".
. -: . . . '.
.... ~_ .<',<....< \,'},:.:,::.:::::.-;;.-:...., >.... .'.::, .' '.' .. .'. .. . ".:" .' ...... '. : ,.J'
TRANSMITTAL
PHASE
<
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
fo-I .
)K
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TRANSMIT I
TIME VARIES (approximately 30 Days)
l.Dca1 Planning Agency holds
Public Hearing per
163.3174(4)(a) F.S. with
due pubrlC notice per 9J-
11.003(1) FA.C. NOTE:
LPA may hold more than
one Public Hearing.
city Commission holds first
Public Hearing on
Transmilllll of amendment
to stale review agencies
with due public notice per
163.3184(15)(b) F.S. NOTE:
City Commission may hold
more than one Public
Hearing on proposal 10
transmit
Local Government Transmits
Plan Amendmen1s and Support
Documents to DCA, RPC, WMD.
DOT, and OEP
Not Transmit
Applicant notified of
decision.
"
'. :'., ~., . '
..".....
(within 75 days)
". ~.::. . .',
COMPLETENESS
PHASE
\
V
5 WORKJNG DAYS
If
Complete
DCA ~ Local Government transmittal fOf .
I completeness per 9J-ll.006 F A.C. I
.
If Incomplete
DCA Notifies Local Government and Agencies
That Submillal is Incomplete
(within 5 wOOing days of receipt)
..' '
,~-. 'c.
..'
:', ..
~.:'
<
ORC
PHASE
65 - 90 DAYS
ORC Review Initiated: Copies to Other Review
Agencies (DOS, County, OEM,
FGFWFC, ACS)
(within 5 working days of determination
review)
Comments to DCA
(within 30 days after
receipt of DCA's I
request for comments)
DCA Issues Objections,
Recommendations and
Commenls Report
(within 30 days after
the 30 day deadfll'le for
agency comments)
RESPONSE
PHASE
local Government may
respond to ORC report.
"Negotiation in good faith"
will delay 60 day action
requirement per
163.3184(7) F.S.
" '~I
local Government Adopts
Plan Amendmerns with
Effective Dale
(within 60 days after rece;pt I
of ORe) per 163.3184{7)
F.S.
'j' ~..
....
ADOPTION
PHASE
60 DAYS
Local Government Submits 5 copies
of adopted plan
amendments to DCA;
1 copy to RPC
(within 10 working
days aller adoption)
. - . ~~ ::
'."~.
COMPLIANCE REVIEW
PHASE
EFFECTIVE
DATE
(
45 DAYS
)K
Affected Party files cnaUenge within 21
Days after NOTICE OF INTENT
If cnaUenged. Adminislrative
Proceeding Pursuant to
s. 120.57, F.S.
DCA or Adminislralion
Commission Issues Final Order
TIME VARIES (with chaUenge or DCA request)
"IF NO CHALLENGE. 22 DAYS"
I
I
I
1
I,
I:
I
I
I
~
I
I
I
I
DCA issues "NOTICE OF INTENT"
(within 45 days of
receipt of a
complete adopted plan amendment)
If chalenged or found not in
compliance, compliance
negotiations may lead to a
setlleIMnt agreement and
remedial plan amendment
pursuant to 163.3184(16). F.S.
Not In Compliance
DCA Requesls Ioonal hearing by
DMsIon Of Adminislrive Hearings
I I
Administrative Proceeding
Purnuantto 120.57, F.S. ·
-I Administration Commission t
Issues Final Order
_I Effective Date I
.... ~.
-, ~ .,;>,.~
;.."
-~ .:..,
.......
P 'i"fi! '1"'""'lnlTIWIEJD)
)' I: ~ . ~ j i~.I! ,
_' r, .,~.fi.~,t~I""J.
/'. , ...
1 ,
MAY ~ 8 1996,
S TATE 0 F F LOR I D A CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS
D E PAR T MEN T 0 F COM M U NIT Y A F F A IRS City Manager
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT. HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT. RESOURCE PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT
LAWTON CHILES
JAMES F. MURLEY
Secretary
Cove. nor
May 23, 1996
The Honorable John F. 8;Jsh
Mayor, City of Winter Springs
1126 East S. R. 434
Winter Springs, Florida 32708
7tJ~
~ frV"" ""'" ~
J4 c;;4 ;1
il~
Dear Mayor Bush:
The Department has completed its review of the proposed Comprehensive Plan
Amendment for the City of Winter Springs (DCA No. 96-1), which was received by the
Department on March 18, 1996. Copies of the proposed amendment have been
distributed to appropriate state, regional and local agencies for their review and their
comments are enclosed.
I am enclosing the Department's Objections, F{ecommendations and Comments
(ORC) Report, issued pursuant to Rule 9J-11.01 0, florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.).
The issues identified in this ORC Report include the lack of protection of natural
resources, public facility analysis, land use compatibility, needs analysis,
intergovernmental coordination and the failure to discourage urban sprawl. It is very
important that the adopted plan amendment address these issues, and all of the
objections in the Department's ORC Report.
Upon receipt of this letter, the City of Winter Springs has 60 days in which to
adopt, adopt with changes, or determine that the City will not adopt the proposed
amendment. The process for adoption of local government comprehensive plan
amendments is outlined in s. 163.3184, Florida Statutes, and Rule 9J-11.011, F.A.C.
Within ten working days of the date of adoption, the City must submit the
following to the Department:
2555 SHUMARD OAK
FLORIDA KEYS AREA OF CRITICAL STATE CONCERN
FIELD OFFICE
2796 Overseas Highway, Suite 212
Marathon, Florida 33050.2227
BOULEVARD. TALLAHASSEE,
SOUTH FLORIDA RECOVERY OFI'ICE
P.O. Box 4022
8600 NW. 36th Street
Miami, Florida 33159-4022
FLORIDA 32399-2100
GREEN SWAMP AREA OF CRITICAL STATE CONCERN
FIELD OFFICE
155 Easl5ummerlin
Bartow, Florida 33830-4641
Honorable John F. Bush
May 23, 1996
Page Two
Fiive copies of the adopted comprehensive plan amendments;
A copy of the adoption ordinance;
A listing of additional changes not previously reviewed;
A listing of findings by the local governing body, if any, which were not included
in the ordinance; and
A statement indicating the relationship of the additional changes to the
. Department's Objections, Recommendations and Comments Report.
The above amendment and documentation are required for the Department to
conduct a compliance review, make a compliance determination and issue the appropri-
ate notice of intent.
In order to expedite the regional planning council's review of the amendments,
and pursuant to Rule 9J-11.011 (5), F.A.C., please provide a copy of the adopted
amendment directly to the Executive Director of the East Central Florida Regional
Planning Council.
Please contact Scott Rogers, Planner IV, John Healey, Community Program
Administr8tor or Charles Gauthiel. AICP, Growth Management Administrator, at (904)
487 -4545 if we can be of assistance as you formulate your response to this Report.
Sincerely,
CJJ\~~ ~.
J. Thomas Beck, Chief
Bureau of Local Planning
Foil-
JTB/srj
Enclosures: Objections, Recommendations and Comments Report
Review Agency Comments
cc: Mr. Ron McLemore, City Manager
Mr. Aaron M. Dowling, Executive Director, East Central Florida
Regional Planning Council
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS
OBJECTIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND COMMENTS
FOR THE
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS
Amendment 96-1
May 23, 1996
Division of Resource Planning
and Management
Bureau of Local Planning
This report is prepared pursuant to Rule 9J-11.010
INTRODUCTION
The following objections, recommendations and comments are based upon the
Department's review of the City of Winter Springs. proposed amendment to their
comprehensive plan pursuant to s. 163.3184, Florida Statutes (F.S.).
Objections relate to specific requirements of relevant portions of Chapter 9J-5,
Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.), and Chapter 163, Part II, F.S. Each objection
includes a recommendation of one approach that might be taken to address the cited
objection. Other approaches may be more suitable in specific situations. S(~me of these
objections may have initially been raised by one of the other external review agencies. If
there is a difference between the Department's objection and the external agency advisory
objection or comment, the Department's objection would take precedence.
Each of these objections must be addressed by the local government and corrected
when the amendment is resubmitted for our compliance review. Objections which are not
addressed may result in a determination that the amendment is not in compliance. The
Department may have raised an objection regarding missing data and an81ysis items which
the local government considers not applicable to its amendment. If that is the case, a
statement justifying its non-applicability pursuant to Hule 9J-5.002(2), F.A.C., must be
submitted. Tile Department will make a determination on the non-applica(Jility of the
requirement, and if the justification is sufficient, the objection will be considered addressed.
Thf' comments which follow the objections and recommendations section are
advisory in nature. Comments will not form bases of a determination of non-compliance.
They are included to call attention to items raised by our reviewers. The comments can
be substantive, concerning planning principles, methodology or logic, as well as editorial
in nature dealing with grammar: organization, mapping, and reader comprehension.
Appended to the back of the Department's report are the comment letters from the
other state review agencies and other agencies, organizations and individuals. These
comments are advisory to the Department and may not form bases of Departmental
objections unless they appear under the "Objections" heading in this report.
OBJECTIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND COMMENTS
for
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS
AMENDMENT 96-1
A. FUTURE LAND USE MAP AMENDMENTS
The City proposes four amendments (CPA-1-96, CPA-2-~6, CPA-3-96 and CPA-4-96) to the
Future Land Use Map (FLUM) on parcels located in unincorporated Seminole County south of
Lake Jessup and generally northeast of the intersection of State Road 417 (Central Florida
Greenway) and State Road 434. The City has proposed these amendments in anticipation of
annexing these parcels. Am!:ndment CPA-1-96 changes a 296.97 acre parcel (Battle Ridge
Parcel) from Seminole County Suburban Estates (1 du/ac) and Conservation to City Lower
Density Residential (range of 1.1 to 3.5 du/ac); and the three other amendments change the
FLUM designations from Seminole County Rural-3 (1 du/3 ac) and Conservation to City Lower
Density Residential (range of 1.1 to 3.5 du/ac) on 13.6 acres (CPA-2-96), 27 acres (CPA-3-96)
and 28 acres (CPA-4-96) located adjacent to the eastern boundary of the Amendment CPA-1-96
parcel. The following objections are raised to the proposed amendments to the FLUM:
1. Objection: The proposed FLUM Amendments CPA-1-96, CPA-2-96, CPA-3-96 and CPA-
4-96 request an increase in the maximum allowable development density on each parcel;
however the amendments are not supported by data and analysis that demonstrates the proposed
land uses are needed to accommodate the projected population of the City. The proposed
amendments do not analyze the extent to which the land use needs projected in the City's
. comprehensive plan are met or are not met by the City's currently adopted FLUM, and the
amendments do not analyze the extent to whic1. the projected needs would support FLUM
amendments to designate additional vacant developable land to accommodate any unmet
projected need. Therefore, the amendments are not supported by a demonstrated need for the
additional designation of Lower Density Residential land uses on the FLUM e'ther individually
or cumulatively for the amendment parcels.
Rules 9J-5.005(2 and 5); 9J-5.006(2); 9J-5.006(3)(b)8.; 9J-5.006(5); 9J-5.010(2); 9J-
11.006(3); and 9J-11.007, F.A.C.; and Section l63.3177(6)(a), F.S.
Recommendation
Do not adopt the amendments. Alternatively, include data and analysis to demonstrate that
the proposed amendments are needed to accommodate the land use needs based on the projected
population of the City contained in the City's Comprehensive Plan. Revise the proposed FLUM
designations as necessary to be consistent with and supported by the data and analysis.
2. Objection: In reviewing the Seminole County FLUM designations for the parcels for
proposed amendments CP A-1-96, CP A-2-96, CP A-3-96 and CP A-4-96, it appears thata portion
of each of the amendment parcels is designated as Conservation on the County FLUM.
However, the amendments do not propose to designate the areas currently designated
Conservation by the County as Conservation on the City's Future Land Use Map. No data and
analysis has been provided demonstrating that the subject parcels are suitable for the proposed
land uses.
Rules 9J-5.005(2 and 5); 9J-5.006(2)(b); 9J-5.006(3)(b)1.; 9J-5.006(3)(c)1.; 9J-5.013(1)(a);
9J-5.0l3(2)(b)2., 3., and 4.; 9J-5.013(2)(c)1., 5., 6., 7., and 9.; 9J-5.013(3); 9J-11.006(3); and
9J-l1.007, F.A.C.; and Sections l63.3l77(6)(a) and (6)(d), F.S.
Recommendation
The proposed amendments should be revised to designate as Conservation all portions of the
subject parcels which are currently designated as Conservation by Seminole County. Include
data (ind analysis identifying the acreage of the existing Conservation areas and the proposed
areas to be designated Conservation. Revise the proposed FLUM designations as necessary to be
consistent with and supported by the data and analysis.
3. Obie(tion: The proposed amendments CPA-1-96, CPA-2-96, CPA-3-96 and CPA-4-96 are
not supported by data and analysis demonstrating that the amendment site~ are suitable for the
proposed Lower Density Residential FLUM designation. No analysis has been provided
demonstrating how the Lower Density Residential designation ensures the protection of natural
resources consistent with the requirements of Rule 9J-5, F.A.C., and the City's Comprehensive
Plan goals, objectives and policies of the Future Land Use Element and Conservation Element.
The parcel for Amendment CPA-I-96 contains wetlands, floodplains, surface water, soils,
vegetation, wildlife and wildlife habitat and listed plant and animal species and amendments
CP A-2-96, CP A-3-96 and CP A-4-96 are not supported by an adequate suitability analysis for
each parcel regarding the presence and quality of wetlands, floodplains, surface water, soils and
wildlife and wildlife habitat.
Rules 9J-5.005(2 and 5); 9J-I1.006(1)(b)4.; 9J-11.006(3); 9J-11.00'i'; 9J-5.006(1 and 2); 9J-
5.006(3)(b)1., and 4.; 9J-5.006(3)(c)1., and 6; 9J-5.013(a and b); 9J-5.013(2)(b)2., 3., and 4; 9J-
5.013(2)(c)1., 3., 5.,6.,8., and 9.; and 9J-5.013(3)(a and b), F.A.C.; and Sections
i63.3l77(6)(a) and (6)(d), F.S.
Recommendation
Revise the amendments to identify and analyze the natural resources on the subject parcels
and those in the surrounding areas which might be impacted by the amendments. Include an
analysis of each parcels suitability for the proposed land uses, iJ~duding an analysis
2
demonstrating how the proposed designations ensure the protection of natural resources
consistent with the requirements of Rule 9J-5, F.A.C., ,ind the City's Comprehensive Plan goals,
objectives and policies. Designate environmentally sensitive areas as conservation use. Revise
the proposed FLUM designations as necessary to be suppOlied by and consistent with the data
and analysis.
4. Objection: The proposed Amendments CPA-l-96, CPA-2-96, CPA-3-96 and CPA-4-96 are
not supported by data and analysis regarding the availability of roads, potable water, sanitary
sewer and recreation facilities to serve these sites based upon the impacts generated by the
proposed land uses. The road facility analyses only addresses a small segment of S.R. 434 (from
S.R. 417 to DeLone Street) and does not address the segment of S.R. 434 from S.R. 419 to S.R.
426 to which FDOT has raised an objectie'n regarding the lack of data and analysis. The data
and analysis do not address the cumulative demand and impact upon road facilities for all four of
the proposed amendments. The four parcels are not currently served by central potable water
and central sanitary sewer. The data and analysis indicate that the developer will fund the
extension of the City of Winter Springs central potable water and central sanitary sewer facilities
to the parcels and that the City has available capacities to serve each parcel, but the data and
analysis do not address the cumulative effect of the four amendments on potable water and
sanitary sewer facilities. The potable water and sanitary sewer analysis is incomplete because it
does not specify the number of dwelling units which are the basis of the projected demands for
potable water and sanitary sewer. The recreation facility data and analysis is inadequate because
it does not include a quantitative analysis of the specific demand generated by each amendment
and the impact upon and availability of recreation facilities, including level of service standards,
to serve the specific demand. In addition, the data and analysis do not address the cumulative
effect on recreation facilities and solid waste facilities of all four amendments.
Rules 9J-5.005(2 and 5); 9J-5.006(2)(a); 9J-5.006(3)(b)1; 9J-5.006(3)(c)3; 9J-5.011(1); 9J-
5.01 1 (20(b and c); 9J-5.016(3)(c)6; 9J-ll.006(1)(I:' :~; 9J-ll.006(1)(b)5; 9J-11.006(3); and 9J-
11.007, F.A.C.; and Sections 163.3177(6)(b and e), i'lorida Statutes.
Recommendation
Revise the amendments to include adequate data and analysis of the public facility demands
and impacts created by the proposed land use designations, including an analysis of each parcel
and the cumulative effect of amendments to all four parcels. The public facility analysis should
estimate the maximum amount of road trips, potable water demand, sanitary sewer demand,
solid waste demand and recreation demand generated by the :nost intensive land use allowed on
the parcels and identify the basis (number of dwelling units, population, etc.), or assumptions of
the analysis. Include an analysis of the impact of these demands on the level of service
standards, facility needs and the implementation of needed facility improvements. The City
should coordinate the analysis of road facilities with the Florida Department of Transportation.
, .
Revise the proposed amendments as necessary to be supported by and consistent with the data
3
and analysis. For any improvements which are identified, include an analysis of the estimated
costs and revenue sources available to fund these improvements. Revise the Schedule of Capital
Improvements, as necessary, to include these improvements.
5. Objection: The proposed Amendments CPA-1-96, CPA-2-96, CPA-3-96 and CPA-4-96 do
not completely identify the surrounding existing land uses of each parcel, do not analyze and
demonstrate the compatibility of the proposed Lower Density'Residential designations with the
surrounding existing land uses or current surrounding FLUM designations and does not
demonstrate that the proposed designation is consistent with the FLUM location criteria of the
Future Land Use Element Goal 3, Objective A, Policies 1 and 2 (including but not limited to the
criteria which provide that the Lower Density Residential designation is not proposed to be
applied widely to undeveloped unplilnned lands and the City has no intent to extend the
municipal boundaries outward to the east).
Rules 9J-5.005(2 and 5); 9J-5.006(3)(c)2.; 9J-11.006(3); 9J-11.006(1)(b); and 9J-11.007,
F.A.C.; and Section 163 .3177(6)(a), F.S.
Recommendation
Revise the proposed amendments to include data and analysis which identifies the
surrounding existing land uses, analyzes the compatibility of the proposed Lower Density
Residential designation with the surrounding existing uses and FLUM designations and
demonstrates that the proposed Lower Density Residential designation ensures the compatibility
ofland use consistent with the requirements of Rule 9J-5, F.A.C., and the City's Comprehensive
Plan goals, objectives and policies. Revise the proposed ameildments as necessary to be
supported by and consistent with the data and analysis.
6. Objection: The proposed Amendments CPA-1-96, CPA-2-96, CPA-3-96 and CPA-4-96
are not supported by dda and analysis demonstrating that the intergovernmental coordination
requirements of Rule 9J-5, F.A.C., and the City's Comprehensive Plan have been met regarding
(1) the Seminole County Comprehensive Plan, (2) Seminole County Greenway/S.R. 434 Small
Area Study (dated December 13, 1994) recommendations that the natural resources on these
parcels be protected through the Conservation designation, the nonconservation portion of the
parcel for CPA-1-96 be designated at a density of 1 dwelling unit per acre and the
nonconservation portion of the parcels for CP A-2-96, CP A-3-96 and CP A-4-96 be designated at
a density of 1 dwelling unit per 3 acftS and (3) interlocal agreements between the City and
Seminole County regarding the planning and annexation of unincorporated lands.
Rules 9J-5.005(2 and 5); 9J-11.006(3); 9J-11.006(l)(b)5; 9J-11.007; and 9J-5.015, F.A.C.;
and Sections 163.3177(6)(a) and 163.3177(6)(h), F.S.
4
Recommendation
Revise the amendments to include data and analysis which demonstrate how the proposed
Lower Density Residential designations have been coordinated with Seminole County (including
the Seminole County Comprehensive Plan, Seminole County Greenway/S.R. 434 Small Area
Study and interlocal agreements between the City and Seminole County) and which demonstrate
that the amendments are consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan goals, objectives and
policies regarding intergovernmental coordination with Seminole County.
7. Obiection: The proposed Amendments CPA-1-96, CPA-2-96, CPA-3-96 and CPA-4-96 are
not supported by data and analysis which demonstrates that they discourage the proliferation of
urban sprawl. The proposed amendments promote urban sprawl by (1) allowing the intrusion of
development of higher density land uses into an area of lower density, rural land uses, (2)
designating land for higher density use wI.en there is no demonstrated need for the additional
urban use, (3) creating the need to extend central potable water and sanitary sewer into a low
density area to serve a development for which there is no demonstrated need, and in addition,
this extension will further encourage other urban development in rural areas, (4) fail.ing to
demonstrate that the amendments result in an efficient land use pattern regarding the provision
of public facilities; (5) adversely impacting state road facilities (S.R. 434) which already operate
below the adopted level of service standard, (6) failing to demonstrate that the amendment will
not adversely impact natural resources in a rural undeveloped area, (7) failing to demonstrate the
compatibility of the proposed urban land use with the surrounding rural land uses and (8) failing
to demonstrate that the propos,;d designation is consistent with the FLUM location criteria of
Future Land Use Element Goal 3, Objective A, Policies 1 and 2. The amendments promotes
urban sprawl and this is inconsistent with the Rule 9J-5, F.A.C., requirements and the Ci!:y's
Plan goal, objective.:> and policies regarding the discouragement of urban sprawl.
Rules 9J-5.005(2 and 5); 9J-5.006(2); 9J-5.006(3)(b)8.; 9J-5.006(5); 9J-l1.006(3); 9J-
11.006(1)(b)4; 9J-11.006(l)(b)5; and 9J-l1.007, F.A.C.; and Section 163.3 1 77(6)(a), F.S.
Recommendation
Do not adopted the proposed amendments. Alternatively, revise the amendments to include
data and analysis addressing the indicators of urban sprawl as set forth by Rule 9J-5.006(5),
F.A.C., and the City's Comprehensive Plan goals, objectives and policies. Revise the proposed
amendments as necessary to be sl,pported by and consistent with the data and analysis.
8. Obiection: The proposed Amendments CPA-1-96, CPA-2-96, CPA-3-96 and CPA-4-96
involve parcels located in unincorporated Seminole County which the City anticipates dnnexing
prior to adoption of the amendments. The purpose of the amendments is to include the subject
parcels on the City's Comprehensive ~lan FLUM. However, the City is not proposing to amend
5
the entire FLUM map series to include the annexed parcels and update all relevant
Comprehensive Plan data and analysis to reflect the annexed parcels in order to maintain the
internal consistency of the Comprehensive Plan.
Rules 9J-5.005(1)(e); 9J-5.005(2 and 5); 9J-5.006; 9J-5.0l0; 9J-5.01I; 9J-5.0I3; 9J-
11.006(3); and 9J-l1.007, F.A.C.; and Section I63.3177(6)(b and e), F.S.
Recommendation
Revise the amendments to include the subject parcels on the entire FLUM series and tu
update all relevant plan data and analysis.
B CONSISTENCY WITH ST ATE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
1. The proposed comprehensive plan amendments are not consistent with and do not further the
following goals and policies of the State Comprehensive Plan as noted in the objections raised
above (Rule 9J-5.021, F.A.C.):
(a) Goal 8 (Water Resources), Policies 2, 5, 7, 8, 9 and 10;
(b) Goal 10 (Natural Systems and Recreational Lands), Policies 1,2,3,4,6,7 and 10;
~ Goal 16 (Land Use), Policies 1,2,3,6 and 7;
(d) Goal 18 (Public Facilities), Policies 1,2 and 7;
(e) Goal 20 (Transportatioll), Policies 2, 3, 9, 11 and 13;
(f) Goal 21 (Governmental Efficiency), Policies 1, 5 and 7;
(g) Goal 26 (Plan Implementation), Policies 6, 7 and 8;
Recommendations
Revise the plan amendments as recommended for the objections raised above.
6
C CONSISTENCY WITH THE EAST CENTRAL FLORIDA COMPP,.EHENSIVE
REGIONAL POLICY PLAN
1. The proposed comprehensive plan amendments are not consistent with and do not further the
following Regional Issues and Policies of the East Central Florida Comprehensive Regional
Policy Plan as noted in the objections raised above (Rule 9J-5.021, F.A.C.):
(a) Regional Issue 39 (Protection of Water Supply), Policies 39.5, 39.6, 39.7, 39.8,
39.10, 39.13 and 39.9;
(b) Regional Issue 43 (Protection of Natural Habitat), Policies 43.1,43.2,43.3,43.5,
43.6,43.7,43.8,43.12 and 43.13;
@ Regional Issue 44 (Protection of Endangered Species), Policies 44.1 and 44.2;
(d) Regional Issue 46 (Parks and Recreation), Policy 46.2;
(e) Regional Issue 57 (Balanced and Planned Development), Policies 57.1, 57.2,
57.3, 57.4, 57.5, 57.15, 57.16 and 57.17;
(f) Regional Issue 58 (Natural Resources Preservation), Policies 58.1 and 58.2;
(g) Regional Issue 59 (Maximizing the Use of Existing Public Facilities),
Policy 59.2;
(h) Regional Issue 60 (planning for Public Facilities), Policies 60.1, 60.2, 60.3, 60.4,
60.5,60.6,60.9,60.18,60.19,60.20,60.21,60.22, 60.23, 60.24, 60.25, 60.26, 60.27,
60.28, 60.29,60.31, 60.32, 60.33 and 60.34;
(I) Regi.onal Issue 63 (Integrated Transportation Systems), Policies 63. 1 and 63.9;
(j) Regional Issue 64 (Transportation to Aid Growth Management), Policies 64.1, 64.2,
64.10,64.13 and 64.20;
(k) Regional Issue 65 (Intergovernmental Coordination), PoliCies 65.2, 65.4 and 65.5.
RecolTIm endation
Revise the plan amendments as recommended for the objections raised above.
7
[DA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
L"W1'O:>l t:H1..FJ;
OOVl:RNOl\
DEN G, \\'A'JTIj
8Kt:Rt:TAIl\'
5151 Adanson Street
Orlando, Florida 32804
Telephone: (407) 623-1085
April 23, 1996
Mr, P. Ray Eubanks, Planning Manager
Department of Community Affairs
2740 Centerview Drive
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100
ru 'j \:\
o ~\d-~\9f
S11BJEC'l' z
LOCAL GOVBRNMENT:
DCA AMENDMENT NO.
proposed Amendment Comments
Winter Springs
96..1
Dear Mr. Eubanks:
Attached are the Florida Department of Transportation's comments,
objections, and/or recommendations from our review of the City of
Winter Spring's Comprehensive Plan Amendment 96-1, as requested
in James L. Quinn's memorandum of March 19, 1996,
,I
If you have any questions or need further information, please
contact Mr. Richard prine at (407) 623-1085, extension 125.
Sincerely,
Orl~ Q.(Ld~'
X'~~l! _~oore ~
District Planning Manager
LM/rp
Attachment
cc: Bob Romig, Director, Office of Policy Planning
Ron McLemore, City Manager
WINTERSP,LTR
~ -
".......a\1lI":1"l~"',C",.. ..,...
.
.
PLAN AHEN'tlMBNT
NAME or AGENCY: Departmect of TranSDortation
RESPONSIBLE DIVISION/BUREAUI District 5 p Plannin~
NAME OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT:
AMENDMENT RECEIVED PROM DCA:
REQUIR.ED RE'1"C1RN DATE POR. COMMENTS:
City of W;nter Springs
March 21. li96
A~ril 23. 19~~
..cm....~===.....a.a..~====~....=.......c===a.............=====.
ELEMENT I Traffic Circulation
Amen<Smett.t Nos.
PAGE # CPA-1-96 throua~ CPA~4-~6
RULE REFBRENCB a
9J-l1.00fi(1} (b}4. 9J-S.Q97(2) (a)Q(b)
Rei Land use Hap Amendments LG-CPA-1-96 through LG-CPA-4-96
OBJECTION:
An accurate description of the availability of
and. the demand on local traffic circulation
facilities was not provided. Calculations to
dete~ine inc1ivi4ual anc1 cummulative trips
generated fram the proposed land uses was not
correct. A statement from Plan AmenCSment LG-'
CPA-2p96 identifying the current Level of
Se~vice (LOS) for S.R.. 434 as LOS "pa is
correct. The cummulative effect from all four
amendments will create LOS RFa on the complete
section of B.a. 434 from S.R. 419 to S.R. 426.
RECOMMKNDATIONr
The proposed amendments should not ~e found in
compliance sinoe there is not adequate
capacity to prevent adverse impa.cts to S.R.
434.
REVXEWEl) BY I
R.ichard Prine
PHON!s li07) 623~~08~
,extension 125
WINTKRSP.OOl
PLAN AMENDMENT
NAMS 01 AGENCY, Department of Transno~t~tio~
RESPONSIBLE DIVISION/BUREAUa District 5 - Planning
NAME OF LOCAL GOVERNME~I
AMENDMENT RECEIVED FROM DCA,
~EQUXRBD RETURN DATE FOR COMMENTJI
City of Winter SDrin9~
March 21~ 1996
I\pril 23~ 1996
_.=====~a~_adDaB.a.~mp_m===Baa.-_a...a~aa........a======~.......
Amendment Nos.
ELEMENT: Traffic Circ~lation PAGE # CPA-1-96 throuqh CPA-4.iU
RULE REFERENCE; 9J-S.007(3) (9)2
COXMENTSa If approved, the proposed amendments will require
accesS to State Road (S.R.) 434. It should be
un6ersto06 that pe~its are required from the
Department of Transportation for connection to the
roadwa.y or drainage on the State Highway System.
Access per.mits must comply with PAC Rules 14~96 and
14-97. permits are also required for any roadway
improvements including modifications to utilities,
signal improvements, addition or modification of
lanes, or roadway drainage ~lterations within the
Depa:('tment's right-of-way. 'AnY development that
abuts the D8parqment's right-of-way may require a
drainage pe~1t' regardless of whether or not a
driveway connection is constructed.
REVIEWED BYI
Richard Prine
PHONE: (407) 62~.1085
extension 125
WINTERSP.002
...
.t,..."~.,~.,
);r:f:/):,,:,~;-"~';:'~~;L8\:;;;;C!:::
!,'::"..,..,...,. ..""':.:;;.'"":,,,,,.:~ ""..'.....:'1.'"::.: WATER
......1'" "" .,... '''''MANAGEMENT
DISTRICT
Henry o..an, E>cecutive Diraclor
JQ~n R. Wohlo, Ani.uanl EllltQy\j.H. Oir.ao,
Charle6 T, Myali III, Oeputy AUl6tllnl e""culivll OtreC1Qr
. I.
.~---'
POST OFFICE BOX 1429 PALATKA, FLORIDA 32178-1429
TELePHONE 904.329.4500 5UNCOM 904.!l6O~500
roe 90-4.~29.~4S0 TOO S'JNCOM 860.4450 .
FAX (EXec\.mVSJl.EGALl329-4125 CPERMITTlNGl32g.431S IAD~.NISTi'lATIONIFII~M~CGI ~2g.4~08
S~RV1CE CENrERS
7n5 B1'I"l"DdOWS Way PERMITTING:
I;uilll 102 ~05 Ea51 Driv.
JlIc:bmwi11e, fICrioa 12258 lllltlaumll, Flon~ 3;!9D4
lID4-73008270 407.984.4940
TOO 904-730-71100 TDO 4D7.72:>-53~~
618 E, $0"", SVeel
0itar-40, Fiorillo :12801
407-897~Joo
TOO 407.897.~O
OPERII lIONS:
2133 N, Witkham RoM
llebo<(M, Florid. 3293r.-5109
407-~G-4-1'&'Z
TDD 407.2~:l,.\2D3
April 23, 1996
YIr. Ray Eubanks. Planning Manager
Department of Community Affairs _-"--r-;:'~~-7~~-^-':f~'-\';;-".~'-~;,
B fL alPl' f,'" " In, F. \' \'1 " Ie ,
ureau 0 ~',. ~ng f\\ J~ _,:.L_J,__3L'~; ..."',-;', "':
2740 Centervlew Dnve t;., i . .
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100 \ [(\\ IIPR 2. 9 \996 :'.'
\U\,d '
. . !
Dear Mr. Eubanks: . L-----;-z:-~.r::.;;--..,,_.~. ';
PL~~@~~;:LU:JL~ ._____.l
Staff of the 81. Johns River Water Manag;~~nt District have reviewed the Comprehensi~e Plan
Amendment submitted by the City of Winter Springs as 96-1.
@5t1
5)~)~
'.
We have concerns about tbe amendment which will deslgQate the Battle Ridge Property (LG-
ep A-1-96) as low density residential. We submitted a letter stating our position when Seminole
County submitted a land use amendlllent for the same pl'operty and we have sent letters to the
City of Winter Springs when the project was reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Board and 1:he
City CommIssion, The fact that central water and sewer are availabl~ by the City of Winter
Springs if the property is annexed is an improvement over the County's past proposal. but the
fact remains that the property is environmentally sensitive and important to the ecosystem of the
Lake Jesup area.' .
The amendment proposal states that the entire 297 acre site is proposed to be designated as low
density resi.dential, We do not think this is appropriate due to its proximity to Lake Jesllp and the
fact that a vast majority of the site is wetlands and in the 100 year floodplain, We feel that the
wetlands portion of the site should be designated as Conservation on the future land use map
rather than waiting until the site plan approval to depict a conservation easement. The density for
the site should be based solely on the developable portion of the pr.operty. Although City staff
'has stated in a letter to District staff that the representatives for Battle Ridge Properties are
willing to designate the environmentally sensitive areas as "Conservation". the amendment as
submitted does not include the Conservation designation for any of the site.
The other amendments in the submittal for lands eas~ of and adjacent to the Battle Ridge property
also contain environmentally sensitive areas and are partially in the 100 year floodplain, There is
less information provided about the envirorunental constraints of these properties, but we have
tbe same concern that the wetlands and 1. 00 year floodplain areas are pr.oposed to be designated
with an urban land use.
Kathy Chino>,
JACXSONIIILLE
William Segal, C~IRlml
flW'I'LANO ,
Gnffin A. Greene
VERO BEACH
Dan Roach, VICE CfWRMAN
FERNANOI"" BEACH
James H. Williams
0CAl.A
Jame$ T. Swann.7RIlASURER
ccx:~ .
Patricia T. Harden
SAN"ORO
Otis Mason. SECRETA~Y
ST.Au<lUSIINE
Reid Hughee
OA'r'TON'" OEACH
In November 1995, The Local Planning Agency recommended that the City Commission not
transmit the proposed amendments to the Department of Community Affairs. We agree with
their detern1.i.nation, and recommend tbat these sites not be approved as submitted for urban land
uses.
OUT:' agency provides the technical support to the Friends of Lake Jesup Restoration and
Management Team, With the implementation of restoration plans for Lake Jesup, we would like
to ensure that any development will not have a detrimental impact on Lake Jesup. There are
impOltant environmental factors such as protection of the wetlands and stormwatel' drainage to be
considered. The planning for the area should be done now when land use designations are to be
determined not at the permitting stage of the process.
If YOll have any questions, please contact Nancy Christman, Intergoverrurlental Coordinator, at
(407) 897-4346.
Sincerely,
JIi't~~
Margaret Spontak, Director
Di vision of Policy and Planning
"
, ' ..~'i\\\ \i:j1WIO.f .~- ','
~~,. ,r.,'
-# ~ /~~o;- ,
~ ~._-' ~
'- - '
~ -:\;~
I HOR -A '\
~~~~.~....-.....~..;..!
~~~~~~.....~
... -___...f.~.....
Department of
Environmental Protection
Lawton Chiles
Governor
Marjory Stoneman Douglas Building
3900 Commonwealth Boulevard
Tallahassee. Florida 32399-3000
April 23, 1996
Virginia B. Wetherell
Secretary
~...'"'" :---. ,!'-... ~~"'~Mf'":::\1N
.. f~~' ;T1. .'-4' ~ ~ ...., f} " 1;<'--,('"
J.. i!:I ,1" ~ ~ : ~ Iii \f Jj .;; i~ ' -
. ...'".tt" '~.~ ",;;,.-! ','.. .-.}' ! ~ I ( l!l
.j "-, ~....." J },,~::: ; 'iJ~
~i ~ ...~ ?'~.:' ....:;
4;.... ",
Re: Review of Proposed Amendments
Comprehensive Plan, 96-1
AFR 26 \996
rt::'\ ~f I' --- BURCAU OF STATE
~ f~ ~ PLANN;NG
. i\i1-~ ~YJ
to the City of winter Springs
Mr. D. Ray Eubanks
Department of community Affairs
Bureau of Local Planning
2470 Centerview Drive
Tallahassee, Florida 32399
Dear Mr. Eubanks:
The Office of Intergovernmental Programs of the Department of
Environmental Protection has performed a review of the proposed
amendments under the required provisions of Chapter 163, Part
II, Florida Statutes, and Chapter' 9J-5 and 9J-11, Florida
Administrative Code.
Recom~ended Ob;ections
1.) LG-CPA-1-96: The proposed land use change involves an
annexation from Seminole County into the city of winter
springs. The proposal would effect a change in land use from
the present Suburban Estates (at 1 dwelling unit per acre) to
the City's low density residential designation (at 3.5 units
per acre).
The Department reviewed and commented on a similar requested
increase in density and intensity for this property in a 1994
Seminole County land use change proposal (Seminole County-94-1,.
attached) . .Our concerns about the environmental sensitivity of
this property are still valid today.
In addition, as a result of issues raised during the previous
proposed Seminole County amendment, there were various public
meetings and the development of a "Seminole County Greeneway
Small Area Study" (December 1994, which includes the lands
affected by these amendments). This report emphasized the
community desire to preserve the rural character of the area
and noted that the Low Density Residential and even Suburban
Estates Land Use designations may not be appropriate
transitional land uses adjacent to rural lands (e.g., see Table
2.1 from that report, attached). The particular Battle Ridge
parcel was recommended to have a maximum density of Suburban
Estates (maximum of 1 dwelling unit per acre) .
Page 1 of 3
"Ptl~rC-:L (on~('f\'C d'::] !"~(it;.]t.;c ,::.~..~.](1':. t~:n,'I!O~ltll~-I': e!l,..} j.' .> .
Printed on recycled paper.
The site has severe development limitations which were noted in
the data and analysis provided in the amendment package and in
the supplemental report entitled, "Analysis of the Potential
for Occurrence of Threatened and Endangered Species and Species
of special Concern on the Battle Ridge site". The predominate
hydric nature of the soils, hydric vegetation types, ample
wildlife sightings and the flood prone nature of much of the
parcel logically argue for a corresponding low density land use
designation and, for careful site planning to direct allowable
densities to the more upland portions of the site (primarily
the southeast corner of the site).
Recommendation
The Department recommends that the proposed area not receive
the increase in density sought under the city's "Low Density"
designation. Land use planning for this area should work to
preserve the overall environmental characteristics unique to
the Lake Jesup system through a coordinated approach with
seminole County, city of Oviedo, city of winter springs,
landowners and citizens.
2.) LG-CPA-2-96, LG-CPA-3-96 & LG-CPA-4-96 : These amendments
involve the requested change in land use from the previous
seminole County Rural-3 (lDU/3 acres) to city of winter springs
ULow Density Residential" designation which allows up to 3.5
unit per acre.
The proposed sites are adjacent to the Battle Ridge property
discussed above. These sites share many of the same limitations
to higher development densities that are found in the Black
Hammock area along the south side of Lake Jesup. As with the
Battle Ridge property, the 1994 Special Area Study carried out
by Seminole County (noted above) considered these parcels and
recommended that they increase/in density from the previous
Rural-10 designation (1 DU/IO acres) to the current Rural 3 (1
DU/3 acres).
The present proposals (from Rural-3 to the city "Low Density
Residential) would again increase the allowable density of use
and would be a clear divergence away from the recommendations
of the recent Seminole County special Area Study that
emphasized the importance of preserving the rural character of
this area. The proposed land use densities move the area
towards suburbanization of this presently rural area and do not
reflect the natural limiting characteristic of the area.
Recommendations
The Department recommends that the proposed amendments not
receive the increase in density sought under the City's "Low
Density Residential" classification. Land use planning for
this area should work to preserve the overall environmental
characteristics unique to the Lake Jesup system through a
coordinated approach with Seminole county, city of oviedo, city
Page 2 of 3
,.'
.'
of winter springs, landowners and citizens.
Please call Mr. Dan Pennington at (904) 487-2231 if you have
any questions about our response.
Cordially, ,
c(;::;:if~
Environmental Administrator
Office of Intergovernmental
Programs
LGjdp
cc: Ruth McLemore, Central Florida DEP
Barbara Bess, Central Florida DEP
Margaret Spontak, SJRWMD
,I
Page 3 of 3
. U'/~b/SU lU;~~
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
'u' 't V I U ~ ,} 1. V () Ii
c.. ~. r ..t:'. ~. l.,
tiJ vO 1
East Central Florida
Regiollal fYd'anlling fl:'ollllci'
1 011 Wymo~e Rood + Suite 105 + Winter Pa~,(. FlorIda 32789 + Telephone Locol: (407) 623-1075
Telephone Suncom: 334-1075 + FAX Locol: (407) 623-1084 + FAX Suncom: 334-1084
MEMORANDUM
April 25, 1996 FAX TRANSMITTAL
Ck) '3 1t
LJlaCJI/;Jo
D. Ray Eubanks, FDCA, Planning Manager
John Healy, FDCA, Community Program Administrator
Leslie~~
SUBJECT:
LOCAL GOVERNMENT:
DCA AivlENDMENT #:
Pr~;posed Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Winter Springs
96-1
Council staff have completed the technical review of the above proposed comprehensive
plan amendment. The staff review did not result in the identification of any significant
impacts related to regional resources, facilities. or extrajurisdictional matters, The review
was conducted in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 93-206 Laws of Florida,
Chapter 9J-5 Florida Administrative Code, and the ECFRPC's current contract with
FDCA for Plan and Plan Amendment Reviews. Please contact me if you have any
questions.
c: Thomas Grimms, Winter Springs
CHAIRMAN
F.A. FORD, JR.
VOlUSIA COUNTY
VICE CHAIRMAN
COMMISSIONER LARRY WHALEY
OSCEOLA COUNTY
SECRETARY-TREASURER
COMMISSIONER EVELYN H. SMITH
CITY OF EUSTIS
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
MR, AARON M. DOWLING
:=0.
-:V
CITY OF WI~TER SPRINGS, FLORIDA
Ronald W. McLemore
City Manager
1126 EAST STATE ROAD 434
WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA 32708-2799
Telephone (407) 327-1800
May 16, 1996
Mr. Charles Gauthier, Growth Management Administrator
Florida Department of Community Affairs
2740 Center View Drive
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100
Dear Mr. Gauthier:
This letter will serve to reaffirm various points made in our phone
conversation on Friday, May 3, 1996 concerning the City's 1996
first round transmittal of comprehensive plan amendments concerning
the Battle Ridge, Carroll, Weaver, and Minter properties. These
points to serve to help further clarify the comprehensive plan
amendment transmittals.
Point # 1:
Environmentally Sensitive Area of Battle Ridge
Property.
The representatives for the owners of the Battle Ridge property
have indicated the owners willingness to separate out the
environmentally sensitive area of the property, the extensive
wetlands. This area would be marked as a "conservation area" and
conveyed by a fee simple deed to a public agency to preserve and
maintain the wetlands in an undeveloped state. This portion of the
property would not be figured into any calculation of density.
Point # 2
Intergovernmental Coordination.
ci ty staff have met with county staff and developed a Joint
Planning Area and work program.
The city Manager has requested and the City Commission directed the
appointment of a Battle Ridge steering Committee to be comprised of
representatives from: the county; the cities of winter Springs and
Oviedo; the Black Hammock Community; McKinley's Mill Subdivision;
the Friends of Lake Jesup; Battle Ridge; Carroll, Weaver, Minter
properties. [A copy of the memo and minutes is attached]
The purpose of the steering committee is to aid the City Manager
and City commission in formulating its decision(s) on the Battle
Ridge, Carroll, Weaver, and Minter properties. The City commission
felt it would help provide a forum for the exchange of viewpoints
and keep the various parties updated on the progress of the Battle
Ridge, Carroll, Weaver, Minter amendments, annexation, rezoning.
NOTE: At the May 13, 1996 meeting of the City commission motion
was unanimously passed to send a letter to the County Manager
suggesting the county consider the potential of accepting
acquisition of the environmentally sensitive lands of the Battle
Ridge property into its Land Acquisition Program if the property is
annexed. [A copy of this Commission Agenda Item is attached]
Point # 2:
winter springs Joint Planning Area.
City staff attended two (2) meetings with Seminole County Planning
Department comprehensive Planning Division staff to develop
proposed boundaries of a Joint Planning Area. As a result of these
meetings a revised JPA Map was prepared by the county staff that
took into consideration the sewer and water service areas of the
cities of Casselberry and winter Park (see JPA Map #1).
On August 14, 1995, the City Commission reviewed the map generated
by the county staff on the proposed winter Springs Planning Area.
The city commission agreed with the boundaries of the JPA.
The county delayed any further consideration of the winter Springs
JPA pending completion of the Seminole County Water and Sewer
utility Master Plan. This plan was finally approved this past
January. The county staff has been working with the City of Oviedo
on their JPA and has prepared a map as a result of their
discussions (see JPA Map #2). It is noted that the area of the
Battle Ridge, Carroll, Weaver, and Minter properties are not
included.
Point # 3:
Need for More Land to Accommodate Population
Growth.
The City's Comprehensive Plan approved by DCA and adopted by the
City on April 27, 1992 indicates in the Housing Element (Vol. 1 of
2) on page HO 10 at the last sentence of the page that "By the year
2010, the city projects the need for 1150 additional acres for
residential development. The city's remaining open areas are
primarily environmentally sensitive areas, leaving very little
available land to accommodate the influx of population. The City
has restrictions on development in environmentally areas. The
widening of S.R. 434 to four (4) lanes with six (6) lane potential
will serve as an attractor for people to locate in the area.
Point # 4:
The Movement of the Urban Boundary from Deleon
street to East Boundary of Battle Ridge.
The original urban boundary line proposed in the Seminole County
GreeneWay/S.R. 434 Small Area study Staff Report was proposed by
the Seminole County planning staff to be aligned along DeLeon
Street. The County Commissioners revised the alignment along
DeLeon street westward to the east property line of Battle Ridge
due to opposition from Black Hammock Community residents who oppose
urbanization of the are at all cost.
In a letter to J. Thomas Beck, the City Commission of the City of
winter Springs objected and stated that it believes that the Urban
Boundary originally indicated as aligning with DeLeon Street in the
Seminole County GreeneWay/S.R. 434 Small Area Study Staff Report
dated November 28, 1994 should remain at that location and not as
indicated in the Seminole County comprehensive plan amendment
(95F.FLU11) transmitted to your department on
September 18, 1995.
The City bases its position on the following:
* The GreeneWay (a 4 lane controlled access facility) has
been built and is creating development pressure in the
area.
* The current traffic volume on S.R. 434 west and east of
the GreeneWay is characteristic of urban roadways.
* S.R. 434 will shortly be widened to 4 lanes to the
GreeneWay. While S.R. 434 is not planned to be widened
to 4 lanes east of the GreeneWay at the same time, this
will not forestall an increasing volume of "urban level"
traffic from using this portion of the roadway as a
result of the road improvement and opening of the
GreeneWay (S.R. 417). Discussions with FDOT (District 5
Office at 5151 Adanson Street in Orlando) indicate that
they are aware that traffic is at an urban level and that
the "Needs Analysis" in the update of the TIP will likely
show the need to widen S.R. 434 well east of the
GreeneWay.
* The City of Winter Springs has the capacity to supply
both sewer and water and other urban services in areas
along S.R. 434 east and west of the GreeneWay.
* The City has expressed an interest in providing such
urban services to these areas, specifically to the
"Battle Ridge" area, and up to DeLeon Street as requested
by three property owners (Carroll, Weaver, Minter).
* The adopted Seminole County Comprehensive Plan allows for
transitional land uses in Table 2.1 page B-17 [revised
1/95J involving. . "a low density development at an
urban fringe between an urban area and surrounding
general rural areas." The County Comprehensive Plan
defines Low Density Residential as up to 4 DU per acre.
The Battle Ridge property owners and the adjacent
property owners between Battle Ridge and Deleon Street
have recently contacted the City to express their desire
to annex into the City and to develop their properties
only up to 3.5 units per acre. The City's Comprehensive
Plan defines Lower Density Residential as 1.1 - 3.5 DU
per acre.
* 3.5 and 4 DU per acre are representative of urban pattern
development.
* The City of Oviedo corporate limits extend around the
S.R. 434 curve encompassing part of DeLeon street. This
city's Future Land Use designation for this area is Low
Density Residential (1-3.5 DU per acre). According to
Oviedo's Comprehensive Plan "Any new development in areas
with this designation will require central sewer and
water service." (Policy 1-1.1.1 c.) The City of Oviedo
Comprehensive Plan envisions an urban pattern of
development for this area as construed by the definitions
of urban area and rural area in 9J-5.003(117) and (139)
Florida Administrative Code respectively.
* The City's staff has met with County staff on developing
a Joint Planning Area in furtherance of County Future
Land Use Policy 2.7.1. and is substantiated per "Comment"
on page 100 of the Fall 1995 Large Scale Plan Amendments
and Associated Rezoninqs to the Seminole Comprehensive
Plan, dated August 8, 1995. The City's staff indicated
that the owners of the Battle Ridge property and the
adj acent property east to Deleon Street are interested in
annexation into the City and desire to develop the
properties up to 3.5 DU per acre in the near future.
* The concept of an urban boundary is to indicate those
areas where urban services are or can be made available
and where there is reasonable expectation, based on
availabili ty of urban services, proximity to existing
development, significant upward change in land values
that an urban pattern of development is likely to occur
in a reasonably near future.
* It is indicated on page 96 of the Fall 1995 Larqe Scale
Plan Amendments and Associated Rezoninqs to the Seminole
Comprehensive Plan, dated August 8, 1995, that, among
three intentions of the [urban] boundary, is that it
"Provides for urban uses on those properties that abut
municipalities in the event of future annexations."
As mentioned, two property owners of land between the
east property line of Battle Ridge and DeLeon Street have
met with the City of winter Springs and expressed their
interest in being annexed and in receiving City water and
sewer service, which the city has the interest and
capacity to provide. It should be noted that .43 miles
to the intersection of S.R. 434 and DeLeon Street there
is the 107 lot McKinley Mill Subdivision at approximately
4 units per acre - an urban pattern of development.
These facts provide a reasonable basis for setting the "Urban
Boundary" at DeLeon Street. with the opening of the GreeneWay, the
improvements to S.R. 434 and the availability of urban services to
the surrounding areas, a normal progression of development pattern
can be expected with highway oriented commercial around the
intersection of the GreeneWay and S.R. 434 and various residential
forms in surrounding proximity.
Point # 5:
sizing of Sewer and Water Lines to Battle Ridge and
Carroll, Weaver, and Minter Properties.
The owners of the Battle Ridge, Carroll, Weaver and Minter
properties have approached the City of winter Springs and have
requested the City to provide sewer and water service to their
properties. They have requested annexation. It has been the
intent of the City to size the sewer and water lines to accommodate
the residential development only for the Battle Ridge, Carroll,
Weaver and Minter properties. The costs of extension of the lines
to the properties for sewer and water service would be shared by
the four (4) property owners.
Point # 6:
seminole County GreeneWay/S.R. 434 Small Area
study.
This study was prepared in response to the Spring, 1994 Large Scale
Plan Amendment Cycle involving Battle Ridge Companies of Florida
land and the recognition by the Board of County commissioners that
two (2) significant changes had occurred in the area which
warranted re-evaluation of land use compatibility. These were:
1. The completion of the GreeneWay (S.R. 417, a 4-laned,
limited access road as part of the beltway around
Orlando) which began service in this area in the Summer
of 1994 [It was acknowledged by county staff, the County
Commissioners and the Community that the GreeneWay would
'have an effect upon the character of the area]; and
2. Acknowledgement 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.
The county has designated the Battle Ridge property for "Suburban
Estates" (1 unit per acre) on its Future Land Use Map with
corresponding zoning (A-1). At the November 9, 1995 meeting of the
winter Springs Local Planning Agency Public Hearing on the Battle
Ridge comprehensive plan amendment, the Chairman questioned the
county senior planner saying "if water and sewer had been
available, you have no idea what the county's position would be?"
The county planner said "if that had been in a central service area
perhaps the decision might have been different as far as the
density goes, because there would have been the services there".
The small area study was premised on no sewer and water service to
the Battle Ridge, Carroll, Weaver, and Minter properties. This is
understandable since the county does not have this area in its
sewer and water service area. But, since the City has the capacity
and the willingness to extend sewer and water service to these
properties, it significantly changes the conclusions of the small
area study for these properties.
The small area study indicates that the structure and format for
all community meetings was designed to ensure that the strategies,
policies and recommendations presented in the study were developed
and reviewed by a broad spectrum of the community. This was not
the case. The structure and format of the meetings did not ensure
a balanced representation of the various interested parties of the
"Community" i.e. homeowners, neighborhoods, owners of vacant
property, businesses, agricultural interests and surrounding
cities. A review of the sign-in sheets at the meetings indicates
the great proportion of people from the McKinley's Mill and Black
Hammock Association. In the words of some of the large property
owners "They were overwhelmed" by the numbers and vocalness of the
people from these two groups. As one participant noted when the
audience was asked about issues and options "there was the Black
Hammock crowd raising their hands in unison." However one may feel
about the Black Hammock community, they are certainly well
organized. A better approach would have been to have one or two
representatives from each group at the meetings. Later when the
study came before the County Commissioners, the Black Hammock
people called the County Commissioners and showed up in force at
the hearings. For these reasons, it is argued that the Seminole
County GreeneWay/S.R. 434 Small Area Study is as much a political
document as much as it is an attempt at a professional planning
document.
If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to
call me at (407) 327-1800.
Sincerely,
Ron McLemore
City Manager