HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999 05 24 Public Hearings Item E
COMMISSION AGENDA
Consent
Informational
Pu blie Hearing X
Regular
ITEM E
May 24. 1999
Meeting
;Jd~
AvtA/"
Mgr. /
Authoriz on
The Community Development Department Planning Division requests the
Commission hold a public hearing for a first reading of Ordinance 724 on a
proposal to adopt the GreeneWay Interchange District large scale comprehensive
plan amendment.
REQUEST:
/
/'
PURPOSE:
The purpose of this agenda item is to request the Commission hold a public hearing for a first
reading of Ordinance 724 on a proposal to adopt the GreeneWay Interchange District large scale
comprehensive plan amendment. The City in discussions with the Casscell Trust representative
desires to take advantage of the transportation nexus of the beltway (S.R. 417 "The
GreeneWay") and S.R. 434 and create a higher density and intensity mixed use Future Land Use
Map designation.
APPLICABLE LAW AND PUBLIC POLICY:
The provisions of 163.3184(7) F.S. which state in part: The adoption of the proposed plan or
plan amendment or the determination not to adopt a plan amendment, other than a plan
amendment proposed pursuant to 163.31919 F.S., shall be made in the course ofa public hearing
pursuant to subsection (15).
CONSIDERATIONS:
. The City staff and consultant, in discussion with the affected property
owners, have recommended to the City Manager that a new district be
created on the Future Land Use Map that would facilitate development that is
oriented to the type of commercial activity generated by a major highway.
MAY 24,1999
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM E
Page 2
. The GreeneWay Interchange District is intended to add text and revise the Future
Land Use Map in the Land Use Element Volume 2 of2. The changes in the text
and map required the submission of a large scale comprehensive plan amendment
to the Florida Department of Community Affairs.
I
t
· The Department of Community Affairs has sent an Objections, Recommendations
and Comments (ORC) Report and the City's consultant has made responses to the
ORC Report,
· A second public hearing on the proposed large scale comprehensive plan
amendment to create a new Future Land Use Map designation of "GreeneWay
Interchange District" will be held at the City Commission's June 14th meeting.
FUNDING:
N/A
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
City staff and the City's consultant recommend that the City commission hold a public
hearing to adopt the large scale comprehensive plan amendment creating a new Future
Land Use Map designation of "Greene Way Interchange District".
IMPLEMENTATION:
The City must submit the adopted comprehensive plan amendment to the Florida
Department of Community Affairs within ten (10) days of adoption. The DCA has forty-
five (45) days to review and notify the local government of its "Notice of Intent" to find
the plan amendment in compliance with the state comprehensive plan, the regional
policy plan, and the City's comprehensive plan. Hence, the ordinance would become
effective around July 18, 1999.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Ordinance 724
B. The Florida Department of Community Affairs ORC Report on the proposed Future Land
Use Map category of "GreeneWay Interchange District"..
C. Response to ORC Report Pertaining to the GreeneWay Interchange District Plan
Amendment.
MAY 24, 1999
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM E
Page 3
D. Local Planning Agency Minutes, November 19, 1997.
E. Findings and Recommendation from the Staff Report (LG-CPA-3-97) on proposal to
create a '<Greeneway Interchange District".
COMMISSION ACTION:
ATTACHMENT "A"
ORDINANCE NO. 724
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF WINTER
SPRINGS, FLORIDA CREATING A NEW
FUTURE LAND USE MAP DESIGNATION
"GREENEW A Y INTERCHANGE DISTRICT";
PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY AND AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, 163.3167(11), Florida Statutes, encourages local
governments to articulate a vision of the future physical appearance and
qualities of its community. . . ";
WHEREAS, the City, in accordance with 163.3167(11) F.S. has
developed a collaborative planning process with meaningful public participation
in the development of the "Greene Way Interchange District" Future Land Use
Map designation;
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Board/Local Planning Agency
has reviewed the Greene Way Interchange District large scale comprehensive
plan amendment and has recommended to the City Commission adoption of
same;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED that the City
Commission of the City of Winter Springs, Florida, creates the GreeneWay
Interchange District to include the Casscells Trust Property indicated in the
accompanying map to this ordinance as Exhibit "A".
SECTION I
SEVERABILITY.
If any provision or portion of this Ordinance is declared by any court of
competent jurisdiction to be void, unconstitutional, or unenforceable, then all
remaining provisions and portions of this Ordinance shall remain in full force
and effect.
SECTION IT
EFFECTIVE DATE.
This Ordinance shall take effect upon notification by the Florida
Department of Community Affairs of its "Notice of Intent" to find the large
scale comprehensive plan amendment creating a Future Land Use Map
designation of "Greene Way Interchange District" in compliance with the state
comprehensive pl~ the regional policy plan, and the City's comprehensive
plan..
Adopted this
day of
, 1999.
PAULP. PARTYKA, MAYOR
CITY OF WlNTER SPRINGS
ATTEST:
ANDREA LORENZO-LUACES
lNTERIM CITY CLERK, CITY OF WlNTER SPRINGS
FIRST READING
POS1ED
SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARlNG
;". '"'''''''\E~t,c;~.;:';: .
.... ..p ".' .
.r"~1:;'>j'ES UP
.i1:?Z%:;~{';'!}:;'~';:: '::'. ",. .
".-,;...,;?:- ..'.,
EXHIBIT
"A"
) :~\.~):;~it.,,~..~.~\1~;:;'';'~;';'" ,'\c. -<.~:~.:,.
I
/
I
\
\
\
I
I
I
/
/
I
I
(
I
\
\
\
\
""
-.......
.',
\
"'--
'\
\1-"'"
, ....
State Road 434
...",
~:
ATTACHMENT "B"
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COl\1l\1UNITY AFFAIRS
ORC REPORT
[Pertaining to the propos,~'d GreeneWay Interchange District Future Land Use Map
designation]
2. The following objection is raised to amendment LG-CP A-2-97 proposing to amend the
text of the Future Land Use Element to incorporate the "State Road 434 Corridor Vision
Plan" vision statement and goals, objectives and policies.
a. Objection: The City did not provide data and analysis supporting the proposed goals,
objectives and policies.
Section 163.3177(6)(a) and (8), F.S,; and Rules 91-5.005(2), and 91-5.006(1), (2), (3), and (4),
F.A~C.
Recommendation: Provide data and analysis in support of the proposed amendment. Data and
analysis may detail the concepts the City wishes to encourage, maps depicting the areas affected
by the proposed amendment, a description of the current conditions, needs and desired future
conditions based on the results of the public participation and workshops held to develop the
proposed amendment. The City should use the best available existing data.
3. The following objections are raised to amendment LG-CP A-3-97 proposing to create a
new Future Land Use Category: Greenway Interchange District and re-designate 250 acres
currently designated as Mixed-use and Conservation.
a. Ob1ection: The amendment does not indicate how many acres of Conservation and Mixed-use
designated land will be changed to the new designation nor was a revised future land use map
that depicts the new land use submitted for review.
Section 163.3177(6)(a), F.S. and Rule 91-5.005(2), and 9J-5.006(4)(a), F.A.C.
Recommendation: Revise the amendment to indicate the acreage of the current land uses and
the proposed land uses based on the results of the analyses recommended below. Provide a
future land use map that depicts the new land uses. Those lands that are currently designated as
Conservation should retain that designation.
2
b. Objection: The City did not provide adequate data and analysis demonstrating that the site is
either suitable for the proposed land use or that the proposed land uses are compatible with the
adjacent land uses and the protection of natural resources both on and off-site.
Sections 163.3177(6)(a) and (6)(d), F.S,; and Rules 9J-5.005(2)(a), 9J-5.006(1), (2)(b), (2)(e),
(3)(b) and (4), and 9J-5.013(3), F.A.C.
Recommendation: Provide data and analysis which assesses the suitability of the site for
development at the increased intensities of land use based on the character of the undeveloped
land. This analysis should include, but not be limited to the following: (1) a comparison of the
proposed land use to the current approved land use, include maps depicting the current approved
land uses and existing and future land uses adjacent to the amendment site; and (2) an
identification of the character of the amendment site considering soils, vegetation, floodplains,
and wildlife habitat.
The analysis should identify what level of development would be appropriate in order to
ensure the protection and continued viability of natural resources both on-and off-site. The
analysis should then identify what future land use category is the most appropriate for the site
considering the impacts of development allowable under that land use category.
To support development of higher density or intensity than that allowable under the
current designation, the site must be demonstrated to be suitable for the maximum amount of
development allowed under the proposed land use(s) and that such development is compatible
with adjacent land uses. The amendment should ensure that land uses which are incompatible
with the protection and conservation of wetlands and wetland functions are directed away from
wetlands.
This analysis should also identify how protection would be provided (i.e., guidelines and
limitations on development consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the City's
Comprehensive Plan). The amendment should be revised and amended, as necessary, to be
consistent with and supported by the data and analysis.
c. Objection: The proposed change for the lands currently designated as Conservation to
Greenway Interchange District is not consistent with plan requirements to protect and preserve
wetlands, Lake Jesup, and environmentally sensitive areas from the impacts of incompatible
uses.
Sections 163.3177(6)(a), (6)(d), and (8), F.S.; and Rules 9J-5.005(2), 9J-5.006(2) and (4), and 9J-
5.013(1) and (3), F.A.C.
Recommendation: The City should revise the proposed amendment to retain the Conservation
designation on all portions of the subject parcel currently designated as Conservation. The City
should also provide data and analysis which demonstrates that the proposed land use is
compatible with the protection and preservation of these environmentally sensitive areas. The
amendment should be revised and amended, as necessary, to be consistent with and supported by
the data and analysis.
3
d. Obiection: The City did not provide data and analysis demonstrating that it requires this
increase in land use residential density and intensity of land uses is needed to accommodate the
City's projected population growth and land use needs through the planning timeframe.
Section 163.3177(6)(a) and (8), F.S.; and Rules 9J-5.005(2)(a); 9J-5.006(2)(c)l, (4), and (5),
F.A.C.
Recommendation: Revise the amendment to include data and analysis addressing the need for
additional medium density residential and commercial land use acreage. An inventory of the
current vacant acreage of existing land use categories should be provided. An analysis (in terms
of acreage need compared to acreage availability) of the adequacy of this inventory to
accommodate the projected population should be provided. Increases in the projected population
over that originally projected may be one basis for supporting this amendment. Revise the
amendment as necessary, to be consistent with and supported by the data and analysis.
e. Objection: The City did not provide any data and analysis addressing the availability of
public facilities for the proposed land uses. The amendment does indicate that facilities would be
available, however, no analysis of the potential demand (based on the densities and intensities of
the Greenway Interchange District land use category), or the available capacities was provided.
No data and analysis was provided to address the impacts of the proposed land uses upon the
roadway network.
Sections 163.3177(2), (3)(a), (6)(a), (8), (lO)(h) and (10)0), F.S.; and Rules 9J-5.005(2)(a) and
(3); 9J-5.006(2)(a), (3)(b)1, (4) and (5), F.A.C.
Recommendation: Provide data and analysis which assesses the availability of and demand on
the following public facilities for the property based on the proposed land use: sanitary sewer,
solid waste, drainage, potable water, and traffic circulation based upon the maximum
development potential for the proposed land use. This analysis should identify the impacts upon
the level of service standards for each facility. If improvements are necessary, these should be
identified along with the associated costs and the ability of the City to finance the improvements.
The amendment should be revised and amended, as necessary, to be consistent with and
supported by the data and analysis.
f. Obiection: The City did not provide data and analysis demonstrating that the proposed
amendment is compatible with plan requirements to protect and preserve historic resources.
Section 163.3 I 77(6)(a) and (6)(g) I 0, F.S.; and Rules 9J-5.005(2) and 9J-5.006(2)(b)5, F.A.C.
Recommendation: The City should provide data and analysis demonstrating that the proposed
amendment is consistent with plan requirements to identify, protect and preserve historical and
archaeological resources from the impacts of the proposed development. Revise the amendment
as necessary, to be consistent with and supported by the data and analysis.
~. Obiection: The proposed amendment has not been demonstrated to be compatible with plan
goals, objectives and policies, including, but not limited to the following: Objective C of the
4
Traffic Circulation Element; Objectives A, Band C and associated policies of the Conservation
Element; Objective C and Policy 1 of the Capital Improvements Element; and Goal 1, Objective
A, Policy 3, Goal 2, Objective A, Policy 1 and 3g, and Objectives Band C of the Future Land
Use Element, and Objective A, Policy 8, Objective B, Objective C, Policy 1, Objective E and F,
including associated policies, of the Intergovernmental Coordination Element.
Section 163.3177(2), (6)(a), (8) and (9)(b), F.S.; and Rules 9J-5.005(5); 9J-5.006(3)(c) and
(4)(c); 9J-5.013(2)(b) and (c); and 9J-5.0l5(3)(b) and (c), F.A.C.
Recommendation: Clearly demonstrate with data and analysis that the amendment is compatible
with the goals, objectives and policies of the City's,Comprehensive Plan. Revise the
amendment, as necessary, to be consistent with and supported by the data and analysis.
A TT ACHMENT
"C"
RESPONSE TO ORC REPORT
pCl'taining to the
GREENEW A Y INTERCHANGE DISTRICT
Plan Amendment
3. The following objections are raised to :amendment LG-CPA-3-97 proposing to create a new Future
Land Use Category: Greeneway Interchilnge District and re-designate 250 acres currently designated as
Mixed-use and Conservation.
a. Objection; The amendment does not indicate how many acres of Conservation and Mixed-use designated
land will be changed to the new designation nor was a revised future land use map that depicts the new land use
submitted for review,
Section 163.3177(6)(a), F.S. and Rule 9J-5'.005(2), and 9J-5.006(4)(a), F.A.C.
Recommendation: Revise the amendment;to indicate the acreage of the current land uses and the proposed land
uses based on the results of the analyses re~ommended below. Provide a future land use map that depicts the
new land uses. Those lands that are currently designated as Conservation should retain that designation.
Response to Objection:
The current future land use map designates: the :1:250 acre parcel included in the amendment as Mixed-Use and
Conservation. The Mixed-Use area is approximately 166 acres and the Conservation area is approximately 84
acres. The Conservation designation is based on a preliminary assessment that identified the 84 acres as a mix of
Hydric Hammock and Hardwood Swamp. The actual extent of the Conservation area will be as determined by
field review by State agencies (Conservation Element Obj. B Policy 2). A map showing the current future land
use is attached.
The intent of the amendment was to designate the :1:250 acre parcel as the Greeneway Interchange District.
Because it is in one ownership, it would function much the same way as an overlay district. The area designated
Conservation on the current map would remain as Conservation on the proposed map and would be subject to all
the Objectives and Polices contained in the Conservation Element. This allows the property owner to utilize the
Conservation area to satisfY Open Space requirements. This serves as an incentive to protect the area designated
as jurisdictional wetlands rather than have the property owner apply to impact wetlands and provide other forms
of mitigation. The area designated as Mixed-Use (166 acres) would be exchanged for a Greeneway In~erchange
District designation. A map is attached that shows the proposed land use mix for the :1:250 acre parcel.
The summary of the acreage for the current and proposed land use designations for the :1:250 acre parcel are
shown below:
Current Land Use Map Proposed Land Use Map
Mixed-Use 166 acres Greeneway Interchan.ge District 166 acres
Conservation 84 acres Conservation 84 acres
Total 250 acres Total 250 acres
As shown in the table above, there is no loss of Conservation Area with the proposed amendment.
h. Ohjection: The City did not provide adeC]uate (lata and analysis demonstrating that the site is either suitable for the
proposed land use or that the proposed land uses are compalible wilh the adjaccntland uses and the protection of natural
resources both on and off-site.
Sections 163. 177(6)(a) and (6)(d), F.S.; and Rules 9J-5.005(2)(a), 9J-5.006(1), (2)(b), (2)(e), (3)(b) and (4), and 9J-
5.013(3), FAC
Recommendation: Provide data and analysis, which assesses the suitability of the site for development at the
increased intensities of land use, based on the character of the undeveloped land. This analysis should include,
but not be limited to the following: (1) a comparison of the proposed land use to the current approved land use,
include maps depicting the current approved land uses and existing and future land uses adjacent to the
amendment site; and (2) an identification oIthe character of the amendment site considering soils, vegetation,
floodplains, and wildlife habitat.
The analysis should identify what level of development would be appropriate in order to ensure the protection
and continued viability of natural resources both on-and off-site. The analysis should then identify what future
land use category is the most appropriate for the site considering the impacts of development allowable under
that land use category.
To support development of higher density or intensity than that allowable under the current designation, the site
must be demonstrated to be suitable for the maximum amount of development allowed under the proposed land
use(s) and that such development is compatible with adjacent land uses. The amendment should ensure that land
uses which are incompatible with the protection and conservation of wetlands and wetland functions are directed
away from wetlands,
This analysis should also identify how protection would be provided (i.e., guidelines and limitations on
development consistent with the goals, objbctives and policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan). The
amendment should be revised and amended, as necessary, to be consistent with and supported by the data and
analysis.
Response to Objection:
A map is attached depicting adjacent uses to the :1:250 acre parcel addressed in the amendment. As shown on the
map, the area proposed to be developed with ~e active uses permitted in the Greeneway Interchange District are
adjacent to areas designated as urban uses with similar densities and intensities.
The Greeneway Interchange District is appropriately located at the intersection of a major expressway and state
road which is a major arterial. The site is bounded on two sides by major arterials.
The table below
Direction
Future Land Use Desi nation
Com atiblelNot Com atible
North
Lake Jesup/Conservation/Suburban Estates
(Count Desi ation)
Compatible with appropriate
buffers, (See discussion below)
East
Com atible
South
SR 434/Commercial/Drban Density
Residential
Compatible
West
Commercial/Conservation
Com atible
As shown in the table and the attached map, the area designated for active uses is compatible with the adjoining
off site uses. The County enclave to the north is currently designated as Suburban Estates at I dwelling unit per
acre, The owners of the majority of the undeveloped acreage to the north have applied to the City of Winter
Springs for annexation, They arc requesting low dcnsity residential at a maximum density of 3,5 dwelling units
per acre. The design guidelines for the Greeneway Interchange District that have been drafted for adoption
include performance standards for setbacks and buffers. Buffers are required between different land uses, both
on and off site, Setbacks and buffers vary depending on the differences in intensity of adjacent uses. Adequate
measures are contained in the design guidelines to protect less intense uses on or offsite. It is concluded that the
proposed Greeneway Interchange District is highly compatible with surrounding adjacent uses.
The area within the Greeneway Interchangy District designated for active uses is the same area that was
previously designated as Mixed-Use. The Mixed-Use area was proposed for a mix of residential and commercial
uses of similar intensity as being proposed ~n the Greeneway Interchange District. When the future land map
was originally developed, the area designa~ed as Mixed-Use was determined to be suitable for urban uses, The
area of the :1:250 acre parcel thought to be unsuitable for development was designated as Conservation. This will
not change with the current amendment.
The primary soil types identified by the U~DA Soil Conservation Service that are found in the area outside the
Conservation area are shown in the table below.
SCS Key Soil Type Limitation (A) Hydrolo2:ic Group
4 Astatula fine sand, 0-5% slopes Slight A
13 EauGallie & Immokalee fine sands Severe (B) BID
16 Immokalee sand Severe (B) BID
20 Myakka & EauGallie fine sands Severe (B) BID
24 Paola - S1. Lucie sands Slight A
27 Pomello fine sand Moderate (C) C
Notes:
(A) Based on Small Commercial Buildings,
(B) Water control, including surface and subsurfuce drainage, and fill material can overcome the limitations.
(C) Water control, including surface arid subsurfuce drainage, can overcome the limitations.
The area outside the Conservation area is not within the 100-year flood area,
The area outside the Conservation area is improved pasture and citrus grove, The area of the site with the
potential for significant wildlife habitat is within the area designated as Conservation,
c. Obiection: The proposed change for the lands currently designated as Conservation to Greenway Interchange
District is not consistent with plan requirements to protect and preserve wetlands. Lake Jesup, and
environmentally sensitive areas from the impacts of incompatible uses,
Sections 163.3177(6)(a), (6)(d), and (8), F,S.; and Rules 9J-5.005(2), 9J-5,006(2) and (4), and 9J-5,013(I) and
(3), F,A.C,
Recommendation: The City should revise the proposed amendment to retain the Conservation designation on
all portions of the subject parcel currently designated as Conservation, 1l1e City should also provide data and
analysis which demonstrates that the proposed land use is compatible with the protection and preservation of
these environmentally sensitive areas. The 'amendment should be revised and amended, as necessary, to be
consistent with and supported by the data and analysis.
Response to Objection:
As previously discussed, the area currently! designated as Conservation will remain Conservation.
d. Obiection: The City did not provide data and analysis demonstrating that it requires this increase in land use
residential density and intensity ofland uses is needed to accommodate the City's projected population growth
and land use needs through the planning timeframe.
Section 163.3177(6)(a) and (8), F.S.; and Rules 9J-5.005(2)(a); 9J-5.006(2)(c)l, (4), and (5), F.A.C.
Recommendation: Revise the amendment1to include data and analysis addressing the need for additional
medium density residential and commercial land use acreage. An inventory of the current vacant acreage of
existing land use categories should be pro0ded. An analysis (in terms of acreage need compared to acreage
availability) of the adequacy of this inventQry to accommodate the projected population should be provided.
Increases in the projected population over ~at originally projected may be one basis for supporting this
amendment. Revise the amendment as necessary, to be consistent with and supported by the data and analysis.
Response to Objection:
The current Mixed-Use designation allows'a mix of residential and commercial uses, The proposed Greeneway
Interchange District also proposes a mix of residential and commercial uses. The total developed area remains
the same (166 acres) under the current and proposed land use designations. The intent of the Greeneway
Interchange District is to encourage the development of more nonresidential development than was allowed
under the Mixed-Use district. The City of\Vinter Springs is heavily dependent on a residential tax base to
finance the needs of the City. Approximately 90% of the tax base is residential. Very little undeveloped property
that is not environmentally sensitive is available in the City to remedy this imbalance. The proposed amendment
is a way to promote an increase in nonresidential development without decreasing the residential component. By
allowing a higher density in the Greeneway Interchange District, the number of residential units can be
maintained while maintaining the same overall acreage devoted to urban uses of similar density and intensities,
The comparison below illustrates the point;
Land Use Max. % Acres Max. Density Potential
Permitted Units
Mixed-Use
Residential 75% 124,5 Up to 10 du/ac. 1,245
Commercial 50% 83.0 NA NA
Greenewa y
Dist.
Residential 50% 83.0 Up to 20 dulac, 1,660
Commercial 75% 124.5 NA NA
The lack of available land for residential d~velopment in the City outside of environmentally sensitive areas was
documented in the Battle Ridge Amendme~t. The analysis is summarized below:
reSidential uses
271 acres
of vacant buildable Iresidentialland
2,509 du's
A vera e household size
2.76 ersons
2,509 x 2.76
6,924 ersons
Po ulation estimate as of 4/1/97
37,537
27,207
10,330
6,924
3,406
3.0 du er acre
1,234
411
Total 0 ulation on vacant land outside enyironmentall sensitive areas
Additional land is needed to accommodrite future residents
A vera e residential dens it
Additional acres needed for 3,406 residehts (1,234/3.0)
There is a total of approximately 401 acres; outside of environmentally sensitive areas left in the City for
development. The analysis outlined above demonstrates that the City does not have adequate land available to
satisfy the projected demand for residential. The Greeneway Interchange District encourages higher density
residential on less land; therefore, the approval of this amendment helps to alleviate the projected shortfall of
residential acreage.
As previously noted, the City's tax base is heavily dependent on residential uses. In recent years, the City has
seen a decline in the amount ofland availa\>le for commercial development. Two areas along SR 434 that were
designated on the future land use map for <!:ommercial have been developed as residential. The two projects are
shown below:
Parkstone
Stonegable
Total area
35 acres
14 acres
49 acres
The Greeneway Interchange District can pQtentially add 41,5 acres of commercial over what would be possible
with the Mixed-Use designation, This is offset by the loss of 49 acres of commercial in the Parkstone and
Stonegable projects. Also, if the commercial area is increased in size, there will be a corresponding decrease in
residential acres,
In addition, the Mixed-Use designation was assigned prior to the Grceneway being planned or constructed, This
interchange is a significant change in the character of the area, Higher density residential and commercial uses
are appropriate uses adjacent an interchange such as this,
The Greeneway Interchange District is also located approximately seven miles south of the Orlando Sanford
Airport. This fast growing airport is showi~g a strong increase in international charter flights and cargo. This
airport, which was previously a military bake and airport, has adequate size to become a significant economic
generator for Seminole County. i
i
Winter Springs has primarily been an afilu~nt bedroom community for employment centers in Orange County to
the south. The Greeneway Interchange Disirict will provide opportunities to create an employment center closer
to the major residential areas in Winter Spnngs.
e. Objection: The City did not provide anY, data, and analysis addressing the availability of public facilities for
the proposed land uses. The amendment d~es indicate that facilities would be available, however, no analysis of
the potential demand (based on the densities and intensities of the Greeneway Interchange District land use
category), or the available capacities was provided. No data and analysis was provided to address the impacts of
the proposed land uses upon the roadway n:etwork,
Sections 163.3177(2), (3)(a), (6)(a), (8), (lP)(h) and (l0)(j), F.S.; and Rules 9J-5.005(2)(a) and (3); 9J-
5.006(2)(a), (3)(b)l, (4) and (5), F.A.C. ~
Recommendation: Provide data and analy~is which assesses the availability of and demand on the following
public facilities for the property based on t?e proposed land use: sanitary sewer, solid waste, drainage, potable
water, and traffic circulation based upon the maximum development potential for the proposed land use, This
I
analysis should identify the impacts upon the level of service standards for each facility, If improvements are
necessary, these should be identified alonglwith the associated costs and the ability of the City to finance the
improvements. The amendment should be revised and amended, as necessary, to be consistent with and
supported by the data and analysis.
Response to Objection:
Central water and sewer service is plannedito be extended by the developers of the Battle Ridge development
along SR 434 in front of the Greeneway Interchange District. As development comes on line, such as within the
Greeneway Interchange District, they will reimburse the developers of Battle Ridge for a portion of the cost of
the water and sewer facilities, These facilities are currently being designed and the size of the lines have not
been finalized. The City has the capacity to serve the Greeneway Interchange with sewer as shown by the
anal sis below,
Land Use
Acres
Sq. Ft. of Buildings
or Residential Units
Commercial 75%
124.5 acres
1,500,000 s.f.
0,15 m d
Residential 25%
41.5 acres
830 dwellin units
0.21 m d
Total 166 acres
Available treatment capacity:
Existing and committed development:
Available capacity:
Less Grccneway Interchange District:
Remaining capacity:
NA
2,00 mgd
1.30 mgd
0,70 mgd
0,36 mgd
0.34 mgd
0.36 m d
Potable Water Demand:
Commercial: 1,500,00 s.f.
Residential: 830 units
0,15 mgd
0.25 mgd
The City has adequate capacity to supply t~e Greeneway Interchange District with potable water.
The development will be required to meet the stormwater standards of the SJRWD (Infrastructure Element:
Storm Drainage Section, Obj. B) Policy 1).
The proposed Greeneway Interchange District will benefit from the recent 4-laning of SR 434 and the
construction of the Greeneway. SR 434 is ~urrently operating at a LOS "B". In the year 2000, it is projected to
operate at LOS "B" and "C". The roadway I system can accommodate the proposed development. Concurrency
will effectively prohibit development fromlreducing the LOS below an acceptable level.
f. Obiection: The City did not provide data and analysis demonstrating that the proposed amendment is
I
compatible with plan requirements to prote:ct and preserve historic resources.
Section 163.3177(6)(a) and (6)(g) 10, F.S.; and Rules 9J-5,005(2) and 9J-5.006(2)(b)5, F.A.C.
Recommendation: The City should proviqe data and analysis demonstrating that the proposed amendment is
consistent with plan requirements to identify, protect and preserve historical and archaeological resources from
the impacts of the proposed development. ~evise the amendment as necessary, to be consistent with and
supported by the data and analysis,
Response to Objection:
Existing maps compiled by Seminole COUllty were reviewed and it was determined that there are no known
historical or archaeological resources within the :1:250 acre parcel.
2:. Obiection: The proposed amendment has not been demonstrated to be compatible with plan goals, objectives
and policies, including, but not limited to tl;1e following: Objective C of the Traffic Circulation Element;
Objectives A, B and C and associated poliCies of the Conservation Element; Objective C and Policy I of the
Capital Improvements Element; and Goal I, Objective A, Policy 3, Goal 2, Objective A, Policy I and 3g, and
Objectives B and C of the Future Land Us~ Element, and Objective A, Policy 8, Objective B, Objective C,
Policy I, Objective E and F, including associated policies, of the Intergovernmental Coordination Element.
Section 163.3177(2), (6)(a), (8) and (9)(b),'F.S.; and Rules 9J-5.005(5); 9J-5.006(3)(c) and (4)(c); 9J-?,013(2)(b)
and (c); and 9J-5,OI5(3)(b) and (c), F.A.C.'
Recommendation: Clearly demonstrate with data and analysis that the amendment is compatible with the goals,
objectives and policies of the City's Comp~ehensive Plan, Revise the amendment, as necessary, to be consistent
with and supported by the data and analysis,
Comprehensive Plan Element: Requirement: Response:
Traffic Circulation: Obj. C. Adequate capacity is available The proposed development
tb accommodate the impacts of will be subject to concurrency.
development. No development can occur that
would degrade SR 434 below
; the adopted LOS "E".
,
Conservation Element: Obj. A,B, <!:onserve water; prohibit Prior to development, wetlands
and C. 4evelopment in jurisdictional will be delineated on site plans
tetlands; protect and conserve according to FDEP, SJRWMD
native vegetation and wildlife and USACOE definitions, The
habitat, especially endangered, strictest interpretation shall be
threatened or of special used to determine the limits of
concern. Conservation areas. The
applicant will abide by all
, policies in the Conservation
Element.
Capital Improvements Element: Adopted Level of Service Development will be in
Obj. C & Policy 1. ~tandards. accordance with adopted LOS.
No development can occur that
will cause the LOS to fall
below the adopted standards,
Future Land Use Element: Goal A coordinated development The Greeneway District will
1, Obj. A, Policy 3, Goal 2, scheme shall be proposed have an overall master plan
Objective A Policy 1 and 3g, and qonsidering conservation and that will establish a
Obj.'s B and C. tfaffic circulation. Conservation area consistent
~onservation land use with the proposed land use
dlassification. No industrial or map included in this
commercial land uses adjacent amendment. The Conservation
to Lake Jesup; 50' buffer area will provide a buffer
adjacent to Lake Jesup; higher approx. 1,500 feet deep along
iinpervious surface standard Lake Jesup, The stormwater
adjacent to Lake Jesup; no system will be designed to
direct discharge of storm water I meet SJRWMD and City
into the Lake; avoid standards so as not to have
alterationof 100-year flood direct discharge into the Lake,
plain. The applicant will identify the
100-year flood plain and
natural drainage features
within the property, The
developer will employ best
development practices in
protecting flood plains and
natural drainage features.
Intergovernmental Coordination Coordinate with Seminole The City, on an ongoing basis,
Element: Obj. A, Policy 8, Obj. County Expressway Authority coordinates with other
B, Obj. C, Policy 1, Obj.'s E & F, to ensure there will be no agencies to ensure that plans
detrimental effects on nearby and services/facilities are
property in County and compatible. Any proposed
0viedo. Coordinate with development will be required
School Board. Observe to meet all permitting
;
tegulations of all permitting requirements of other state and
I
~gencies. Coordinate with federal agencies.
I
qther local governments to
~nsure that the City's plan is
compatible with adjacent
communities.
o
1000
2000
Legend
. . . . .
.....
.....
Mixed-Use
_ Commercial
Urban Density
Residential
~ Conservation
L.AlqS. J"~UP
.
.
..
., ..... ........
.... ........
............
..............
'. . . . . .. . . . . . .
..............
. . .........
. . .
51'1'3t
CURRENT
FUTURE LAND USE MAP
GREENEWAY INTERCHANGE DISTRICT
ORC RESPONSE
o
2000
1000
Legend
A A A Greeneway
A A A Interchange
A A A District
_ Commercial
Urban Density
Residential
~ Conservation
---,
,
LAKe.:If;SJP
PROPOSED
FUTURE LAND USE MAP
GREENEWAY INTERCHANGE DISTRICT
ORC RESPONSE
A TT ACHMENT
"D"
,1
/,
I'
MINUTES
LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY
NOVEMBER 19,1997 - REGULAR MEETING
Page 4 0[6
completed, especially such projects as "meandering" sidewalks, lighting and other pedestrian-
oriented projects. He further stated that the plan was written to be "all-inclusive and to be
flexible, and to provide opportunities for improvements along this corridor."
Mr. Easton then discussed the tax increment issue, providing continuity throughout the entire
corridor, redeveloping the sites on the corridor that currently have a negative impact, and the
proposed Board of Directors to oversee this project. He also discussed how Casselberry and
Sanford have already established their own CRA's and how we could all work together and make
significant progress.
Vice Chairman Brown confirmed that we were in Area Two (2) - the "Winter Springs/Spring
Hammock" area. Chairman Fernandez th~ii asked how was the Redevelopment Area determined?
Mr. Easton explained that the boundary was determined by a number of factors to include breadth
of space, property lines, natural features and changes in land use.
"We as the Local Planning Agency recommend to the City Commission that they do pass the
Resolution in support of the County for initiation of 17/92 CRA Corridor Redevelopment Plan. "
Motion by Brown. Second by Karr. Vote: Lein, aye; Fernandez, aye; Karr, aye; Stephens, aye;
Brown, aye.
Motion passed.
3. Large Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the Land Use Element
Volume 1 of 2 and Volume 2 of 2
LG-CPA-3-97
Tom Grimms presented staffs findings and -recommendations regarding the creation of a new
future land use map designation - the "GreeneWay Interchange District." Mr. Grimms mentioned
to the Board that since they have received their information package for this evening's meeting,
there has been a further development: an "interim development agreement has been tendered."
Mr. Grimms elaborated by saying that "if the interim development agreement is agreeable to the
property owner, and they execute it with the City, then this property is pulled out of the New
Development Area Overlay Zoning District." This matter is scheduled to go before the City
Commission on November 24, 1997.
Margaret (Missy) Cassells, 907 Old England Avenue, Winter Park, Florida 32789 spoke further
on this issue. Gene Lein asked "if after all the time periods are concerned, and Missy doesn't
come back in with the property...does that deeply affect the Development...New Development
Area?" Charles Carrington responded that basically "all it is,..is a written agreement between both
parties that the City and the property owner will work diligently during the next eighteen months
to accomplish these tasks,..that have to be accomplished to realize this new district." There was
further discussion on this subject.
MINUTES
LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY
NOVEMBER 19, 1997 - REGULAR MEETING
Page ~ of6
"I'd like to make a motion that the Local Planning Agency recommend to the City Commission
the findings from the staff's recommendation, that the City Commission hold a first transmittal
public hearing, and transmit to the Department of Community Affairs, the proposed Large Scale
Comprehensive Plan Amendment, LG-CPA-3-97, creating a new future land use designation...the
GreeneWay Interchange District in the Comprehensive Plan Use Element Goals, Objectives and
Policies, Volume 2 of2. Discussion.
Motion by Brown. Second by Karr. Vote: Stephens, aye; Lein, aye; Karr, aye; Fernandez, aye;
Brown, aye.
Motion carried.
ATTACHMENT "E"
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION FROM THE STAFF
REPORT ON PROPOSAL TO CREATE A "GREENEW A Y
INTERCHANGE DISTRICT"
IV, FINDINGS:
*
The proposed future land use change from "Mixed Use" to "Greenway Interchange
District" is compatible with surrounding land use designation, since on the north side
of S.R. 434 the land is designated FLUM "Commercial" also or "Conservation". The
land on the south side of S,R. 434 opposite the subject land is FLUM designated
"Commercial" .
*
The comprehensive plan amendment is compatible with the other elements of the
City's Comprehensive Plan
*
The comprehensive plan amendment is compatible with and furthers elements of the
State Comprehensive Plan, in Chapter 187 F.S.
*
The comprehensive plan amendment is compatible with and furthers elements of the
East Central Florida Comprehensive Regional Policy Plan,
NO\'~lll"..:r I 9. I ()c)7
12
LG.C1','\.).n
V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Local Planning Agency make the following recommendation to the
City Commission:
That the City Commission hold a first (transmittal) public hearing and transmit to the
Department of Community Affairs the proposed Large Scale Comprehensive Plan
Amendment (LG-CP A-3-97), creating a new Future Land Use Map designation
"GreeneWay Interchange District" in the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element
Goals, Objectives and Policies (Volume 2 of2).
ATTACHMENTS:
Map of subject land proposed to be included in new FLUM designation "GreeneWay
Interchange District".
November 19. 1997
13
LG.CI'I\.).97