HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992 02 06 City Commission Workshop Minutes
.
CITY COMMISSION WORKSHOP
FEBRUARY 6, 1992
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Kulbes at 7:00 P.M.
PRESENT WERE:
Mayor Philip A. Kulbes
Commissioner John V. Torcaso
Commissioner Don Jonas
Deputy Mayor John Langellotti
Commissioner Terri Donnelly
Commissioner Cindy Kaehler
City Manager Richard Rozansky
Fred Goodrow, Heninger and Rae Inc.,
Mayor Kulbes stated that the consultant is present and ready to proceed. He said
he would like to begin by asking about the document he received from the
consultant and with reading the original document that was given out on October
12th with all the objections etc., is it correct to assume that the City must
respond to all the objections they have whether they are minor or major.
Goodrow stated that is correct, in some manner the City will have to respond.
Kulbes said with going through this he noticed that quite a few that are not
addressed in the report; is it because the report is not complete.
.
Goodrow stated that was correct, because of the time schedule we are on, we feel
it was necessary to start putting some things as far as policy behind us and move
on. So we are at this point in completion of at least our recommended changes or
changes that are open for discussion at this point, so we can put a final draft
together. He said that he would be back to the Commission shortly with the rest
of the responses that have not been filled in and at that time go over those.
Those will be the tougher ones; land use, conservation, and CIE.
Kulbes said that one of the things that he noted was conservation element, and
the State Comprehensive Plan Consistency Element were not included.
Goodrow said that what was sent is a first cut at answers to certain objections
or comments from DCA. They represent only some of the actual responses that have
to be made. We are not at the point where we can answer all the comments at this
time, and felt it necessary at this time, to start making some policy decisions
so we can start putting together the final draft which will be the actual
public hearing draft for that phase of the approval process of this response.
Goodrow stated that he will go through each response as they see them and answer
any questions as they go along. He said that he would stop at points where he
feels that some significant policy decision that needs to be made. After we are
through hopefully he will have some indication of what is acceptable as far as
policy, so when they write the actual public hearing draft things will be in the
general format.
.
Goodrow said the actual response begins on page 5, the first one being to land
use element #12, objections - we changed the police that deals with protection of
natural resources. (He mentioned that some of the policies will be duplicated in
other elements also). The change states that now that "through the year 2010 the
City Commission Workshop
.
February 7, 1992
Page 2
City shall ensure the protection of natural drainage features and other natural
resources such as nat i ve vegetat i ve carm...ln i ties. . . . . " The one th i ng not yet
addressed in this response is historic resources, which still needs to be done.
Goodrow stated that most of the changes are innocuous, they are just a matter of
wording to meet statutory requirements.
Kulbes asked about #'s 9 & 10 on page 4. These are objections, and there is no
response to those and is the Commission to assume that the response to #11 is the
answer to 9 and 10. Goodrow said no, where there is no response, they have not
prepared a response yet, but there will be responses to all of them.
Goodrow stated that there is a response to #11 - "An analysis of the revised
technical document for the future Land Use Element indicates that there are no
uses currently existing in the City which are not compatible with the Goals,
Objectives and Policies of the comprehensive plan, therefore there is no need to
revise Objective A".
.
Goodrow stated that #13 the objection was to discourage the proliferation of
urban sprawl - We corrected that by revision objective 3-a, to basically add the
statement "...and to discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl." We took out
some things that we didn't feel was necessary.
Goodrow - #14 was the objection to ensure the available land suitable for utility
facilities necessary to support proposed development - We change and responded
objective 3-B by striking out some wording in the existing objective.
Goodrow - #15 was an objection that the policy did not specify the implementation
activities for regulation of land use categories included on the future land use
map - our response to that was to add a new policy A-5 as follows "The revised
land development regulations, to be adopted by the statutory deadline, shall
implement standards for the regulation of subdivisions, signage, and areas
subject to seasonal or periodic flooding in each of the land use categories and
new zoning districts.", virtually quoting from 9J-5.
Goodrow - #16 Policy A-3 does not sate how the City shall protect residential
regions - we simply said "in policy A-2 we revised it to say commercial uses
shall not be permitted in residential land use categories.
Commissioner Kaehler asked if this means that all non-conforming uses such as
home businesses, would no longer be permitted. Goodrow stated it would means
they will become a non-conforming use and the City will have to handle non-
conforming uses in some manner within the City's land use regulations.
.
Kaehler stated that in the Code now, where in specific - where residential areas
are allowed to have a home business, a commercial enterprise is not built in a
residential area; now, does this particular section then preclude from being able
to have a home business, such as something that is permitted in R-1AA now.
Goodrow stated they will address home occupations and report back at the next
meeting.
City Commission Workshop
.
.
.
February G, 1992
Page 3
Goodrow - Objection #17 is a policy that provides that facilities and services
meet the locally established level of service standards and are available
concurrent with the impacts of development is not included we added a new
policy 4(a)(G) this is a substantial policy consideration" Winter Springs shall
adopt a Concurrency Management system to ensure facilities and utility services
meeting the established levels of service standards contained in the
comprehensive plan shall be in place when the impacts of residential development
occur.
Commissioner Jonas asked what exactly does that mean. Goodrow stated it means
that in the land development regulations and included in the plan in other
places, a system will have to be set out for reviewing and assuring that no
development takes place must breach any of the City's level of service standards.
Art Hoffmann, Mt. Laurel Drive, asked if DCA requires the City make a statement
on how we will carry out these policies. Goodrow stated that the plan itself
will have to have the frame work for the City's system in the plan, and those
will be policy statements that we will be dealing with at the next meeting.
Jacqueline Koch, Dir. Adm. Services, Comprehensive Planning, asked how this
differs from rule 4. Goodrow stated that is a policy statement not a goal
statement. Koch read rule 4. Goodrow said this simply addresses the policy
problem that DCA said under A-G; A-G specifically states that the City will do
this specifically with residential development, and B-7 it will be done with non-
residential development. He stated that this isn't changing the objectives and
goals.
Goodrow #18 says a policy that provides for drainage and stormwater
management, open space, and safe and convenient on-site traffic flow - we have
drafted a new policy that states "The revised land development regulations, to be
adopted by the statutory deadline, shall contain provisions for drainage and
stormwater management, allocation of open space and adequate traffic circulation
to protect natural resource areas. He stated that this response may need more
measurability.
Goodrow - #19 has not been addressed yet.
Goodrow - #20 is a policy for the protection of potable water wellfields - we
added a new policy 2-G as follows: "The revised land development regulations, to
be adopted by the statutory deadline, shall contain provisions and standards to
adequately protect potable water wellfields. Specifically, the LOR's shall
contain provisions to designate an interim protection area of between 200 to 400
feet from any potable water wellfield, depending on soil characteristics and
surrounding uses. Septic tanks, storage of hazardous waste and industrial uses
shall not be permitted within 200 feet of a potable water wellfield. The
regulations shall contain additional provisions for intensity and density of
other uses proposed for location within the wellfield protection zone." Kulbes
asked where the figures of 200 and 400 feet came from. Goodrow stated that 200
feet is what is established right now by the water districts that is acceptable
to them. The 400 feet is an area where we are telling them that we will deal
City Commission Workshop
.
.
.
February 6, 1992
Page 4
with other intensity and density factors but not say what it is just yet. We
don't feel we have to be to specific right now on this.
Goodrow - item B & C has not been addressed as yet and D and E. We haven't
address the next items until objection #22. Objection #22 - a policy for the
identification, designation and protection of historically significant properties
- our response is simple - "The City does not have any, we don't know what your
problem is..... It is that simple we don't need to address it, but we wi 11
address potential historical structures being designated in the future should
that happen.
Goodrow - Traffic Circulation page 14, Our first response is comment #7 on page
15, - the comment is include a specific, measurable objective, based on relevant
data and analysis, to protect rights-of-way from building encroachment - we don't
have a response at this time but it will be something to the effect that we will
establish set-backs standards and buffering requirements off of major roadways.
Policy B on page 16 - Policy D-2 does not address monitoring for all state roads
within the City - our response is we revised the existing policy to read: "The
City shall... and all state roadways within the City including US Hwy. 17/92 and
the expressway....... We are just naming the roadways that they considered a
problem.
Goodrow - Item #10 - A policy addressing specific implementation activities for
the provision of safe and convenient on-site traffic flow, considering needed
motorized and non-motorized vehicle parking - our response is we revised policy
A(3)(d) as follows: "By the statutory deadline, Winter Springs shall adopt
revisions to the Land Development Regulations to include guidelines
and criteria consistent with nationally recognized standards and tailored to
local conditions which provide for safe and convenient on-site traffic flow,
adequate pedestrian ways and sidewalks, as well as sufficient on-site parking for
both motorized and non-motorized vehicles."
Goodrow said item #11 is not address at this time.
Goodrow - item #12 - a policy addressing specific implementation activities for
the consideration of bicycle and pedestrian ways in the planning of
transportation faci 1 ities - our response is a revised pol icy F-4 as follows: ..
The City, through its revised land development regulations to be established by
the statutory deadline, shall establish standards for the provision and
maintenance of bicycle and pedestrian walkways.....
Housing Element
Goodrow - item 16, an objective regarding adequate and affordable housing for
the existing population, anticipated population growth, and households with
special housing needs - our response is an added objective F as follows: "The
City of Winter Springs will encourage the private sector to provide new, safe,
and affordable dwelling units of all types in order to meet the housing needs of
the carmunity."
City Commission Workshop
.
.
.
February 6, 1992
Page 5
Goodrow - item #27 is the policy that implements the preceding - our response: we
have deleted policy C-3 and policy F(1) is created as follows: "Adequate sites
for affordable housing shall be made available in all residential land use
categories and zoning districts. The amended Land Development Regulations, to be
adopted by the statutory deadline, may implement some of the following provisions
to guide the establishment of affordable housing units: 1) Set specific standards
for density bonuses to be awarded for providing a certain percentage of
affordable housing units. 2) Provide specific standards for the establishment of
clustered and zero lot-line development. 3) Permitting reduced minimum house
sizes, floor areas and impervious surface ratios for affordable housing units. 4)
Establishing density bonuses to be awarded for the provision of affordable
housing. 5) Allowing accessory housing (e.g., "granny flats") to be constructed
adjacent to single-family units. 6) Waiving application and processing fees for
affordable housing projects. 7) Allowing small minimum house size and floor
space. 8) Requiring new construction above a certain threshold to reserve a
percentage of their total units for affordable housing or pay in-lieu of fees.
9) Creating a citizen-based affordable housing task force to make specific
recommendations to the local government. 10) Entering into specific inter local
agreements or identifying specific activities that will be undertaken to
negotiate an inter local agreement for the provision of affordable housing.
Kaehler questioned "granny flats" and the parking required. Goodrow stated that
the parking problem could be addressed in the land development regulations. He
said if this is a problem then we don't have to include that. Kaehler stated
that she has a problem with it; the neighborhoods that would do this would be the
ones with generally smaller lot sizes therefore, creating more traffic problems,
more off-street parking problems, set-back problems, etc., she stated that it is
opening a "pandora's box", if it 15 neighborhoods with bigger lots such as
Tuscawilla then the deed restrictions would take over, and that is not
permissable. Goodrow asked if there was a consensus to delete that portion. The
consensus of the Commission was to delete that portion. Discussion on
#6. Goodrow mentioned that this section is optional. Koch mentioned the
original wording of this section. It was determined to clarify #8 more
specifically to avoid any misconceptions from developers. Number 7 will be
deleted as it is the same as number 3. Kaehler asked if we really need more
affordable housing as we have a whole area of town that we are trying to
revitalize which meets all the criteria for affordable housing. The
consensus of the Commission was to delete number 8. Goodrow stated that what is
really needed is a policy that allows it to occur you don't have to make sure,
you have to take some steps to provide atmosphere for it to occur. Discussion.
Goodrow suggested to include #2,3,9&10 and delete the rest. Discussion. It was
determined to keep #'s 2,3,9 and 10 with the deletion of the word reduced from
#3.
Kulbes stated that we will now go back to page 20, item 19 - he said he has a
problem with the response that states "By 1993......, and he said he doesn't think
the City will be ready next year. Goodrow stated that they have a suggested
change on that item, he would like to change it to say "the land development
regulations shall provide that and strike "by 1993", which means that the City
will not provide the group homes and foster care facilities it will just provide
the mechanisms within the land development regulations to allow that to happen.
.
City Commission Workshop
February 6, 1992
Page 6
It was the consensus of the Commission to strike the wording "By 1993"
and add "the land development regulations shall provide that".
Commissioner Donnelly questioned number 27 on page 25, which stated that
affordable housing and mobile homes shall be allowed in all residential land use
categories. Goodrow stated that is what the original policy stated and they just
changed it completely to what we were just discussing, you will have to make some
provisions for manufactured housing in all land use categories. You can make
manufactured housing look like, talk like and walk like a regular house and meet
the standards.
Goodrow item 20, an objective that provides for the conservation,
rehabilitation or demolition of housing and for the identification of
historically significant housing - our response as follows: add to the response
the City has already "Housing determined in the future, to be historically
significant, shall be preserved and protected for residential or other such
suitable use". He said also the policy implementing this objective is created in
the response to objection #25.
.
Item #21 - Goodrow stated that YOLl will have to identify in some manner the
adequate sites for relocation housing, it may be in the land development
regulations that the City will allow houses to be relocated, you may want to
delete "1993" to state the above. The policy implementing this objective is
created in the response to objection #30.
Item 22 will be addressed next meeting.
Item 23, A policy specifying inlplementation activities for the involvement,
including partnerships, of the City with the private and non-profit sectors to
improve coordination among participants involved in housing production - our
response is a new policy D(3) to read as follows: "Involve the private sector and
non-profit organizations in cooperative projects and assistance programs such as
grant applications in order to improve coordination of those organizations
providing housing".
Item 24 - Goodrow stated that he doesn't see the need to address this item as it
is addressed in another item.
.
Item 25, a policy to establish standards that will be used by the City to
identify and improve historically significant housing; our response: a new policy
G(1) to read: "The City of Winter Springs, will, when requested, assist property
owners of historically significant housing (qualifying for the National Register)
in applying for and utilizing state and federal assistance programs by
maintaining an inventory of historically significant housing units." Also, a new
policy B(1) is created to read: "The useful life of the existing housing stock
will be conserved and extended in order to improve neighborhood quality and
stability, through the implementation of necessary amendnlents to the housing and
health codes, and standards relating to the care and maintenance of residential
f aci 1 it i es . "
Item 26, A policy establishing principles that will be used by the City to guide
conservation, rehabilitation and demolition program techniques and strategies;
.
.
.
City Commission Workshop
February 6, 1992
Page 7
our response; a new policy D(3) is established to read: "Procedures enabling the
rehabilitation or demolition of any housing structure determined to be
substandard are implemented by ll"Onitoring a list of substandard units, including
the date found to be substandard and the subsequent data that a structure is
removed from the list due to its removal, renovation or demolition."
Discussion. Donnelly asked about the demolition of houses such as "crack homes".
Kaehler also mentioned about a permit to rent houses and have the rental homes
inspected as these are the homes that deteriorate quicker. Koch repeated a
clause from the land use element which has a statement regarding homes that are
leased or rented. Goodrow stated that he will add that the City will adopt in
the land development regulations appearance standards of housing and enforcement
mechanisms; he stated that that goes beyond this issue. Discussion. The
Commission determined they want that statement local regulations will be adopted
by a certain date that implement minimum standards for maintenance for all
residential structures, to be implemented as soon as possible.
Item 28, policies E(2),(3) and (4) are inadequate because they do not fully
comply and re not consistent with the provisions of Chapter 419, F.S. concerning
group homes and do not establish principles and criteria that will be used to
guide the location of group homes. In addition, Policy E(4) defers guidelines
and standards to the land development regulations and does not include principles
and criteria to guide the location of group homes. Our response: delete policies
E(2,3 &4) and add new policy E(2) as follows: "The City shall regulate the
operation of group homes in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 419,
Florida statutes. The revised Land Development Regulations, to be adopted by the
statutory deadline shall contain standards for permitting group homes containing
six (6) or fewer persons to be located in any residential land use category or
zone, and group homes of seven (7) or more persons to locate in the multi-family,
mixed use or commercial land use categories or zones."
Item 30, A policy specifying implementation activities for the prOV1Slon of
relocation housing; our response: new policy H-1 is created as follows: "The City
shall implement and enforce standards for the provision of relocation housing."
Sanitary Sewer, Solid Waste, Drainage, Potable Water and Natural Groundwater
Aquifer Recharge Element and Sanitary Sewer Sub-Element:
Item 9, our response we do not have any deficiencies.
Item 11, Policy b(9) relies on "impact fees to offset the cost of capacity" that
is caused by new users but does not ensure that facility improvements are made
and are available concurrent with the impacts of development; our response:
policy B(9) will remain as currently stated, however a new policy A-10 is created
to read: "The City, shall adopt along with its revised Land Development
Regulations to be completed by the statutory deadline, a Concurrency Management
System that shall implement procedures insuring that, a development or building
permit is not issued unless adequate sewer facility is available at the adopted
level of service concurrent with the impacts of development." Also policy A-5
shall be revised to read: "The City shall upon plan adoption require all proposed
.
City Commission Workshop
February 6, 1992
Page 8
development and redevelopment projects within one quarter mile of a public sewer
system to connect to that system, in accordance with Chapter 381, F.S. Existing
septic tank users within 50 feet of a sanitary sewer line shall upon plan
adoption be required to connect to a sanitary sewer system within one year of
notification that service is available." Discussion. Goodrow stated that they
will look at this and see if there is a deficiency or not and determine if the
language in this proposed policy is what we want. Also, policy A-6 will be
revised as follows: "The revised Land Development Regulations to be adopted by
October 1, 1992, shall not permit the use of septic tanks on lots less than
20,000 square feet in area. The City shall coordinate with the agency
responsible for the implementation of Chapter 10D-6 of the Florida Administrative
Code to ensure that septic tanks are not placed in soils unsuited for their use."
Discussion. Goodrow stated that they will do more data analysis on this.
Item 12, our response; policy B-8 will be revised as follows: "The City, shall
prioritize any deficiencies through the annual reV1Slon of its capital
improvement program, and shall set aside a minimum of 5% of the previous years
revenues for the renewal and replacement of those deficiencies in its sanitary
sewer facilities that may occur during the planning period."
.
Item 13, our response: "The level of service standard set forth in policy A-1 is
consistent with the Data & Analysis Section of the element, and, therefore, will
not be amended.
Solid Waste Sub-Element, these will be addressed next meeting.
Sanitary Sewer, Solid Waste, Drainage, Potable Water, and Natural Groundwater
Aquifer Recharge Element, Drainage Sub-Element:
Item 10, our response is objective A shall be revised as follows: "The City shall
develop coordination mechanism and implementation programs in order to upgrade
existing drainage facilities not meeting the adopted level of service in the
Comprehensive Plan. The plan shall be an1ended to implement the findings of the
report campi led by the Stormwatet~ Management uti 1 ity to be establ ished by the end
of 1993." Discussion.
Item 11, our response: to refer to the referenced coordination mechanisms and
stormwater management utility discussed in the previous response, and since
objective A has been revised and objective B will not be amended.
.
Item 12, our response: a new objective 2(C) is created to read: "The City shall
conserve and protect the value and function of natural drainage features through
adoption of land development regulations by the statutory deadline and
coordination with federal, state and local agencies throughout the planning
period." Discussion. The City Attorney will research this.
Item 13, our response: the following language will be added to policy 1(A)(4):
"...The City Commission will conduct a study by October of 1993 to determine the
deficiencies of the stormwater management system, then set primary and secondary
priorities to correct identified deficiencies. A schedule of corrections will be
.
City Commission Workshop
February 6, 1992
Page 9
established with a time frame for correction. After the deficiency is corrected,
a final inspection will be made. The City Commission will also carry out the
following functions: 1) Establish a preventative maintenance program to specify
elements of the stormwater drainage facility in need of maintenance and
inspection at certain time intervals. 2) conduct a study by October 1993 to
examine the need for retro-fitting or modifying the drainage infrastructure to
meet the latest optimal stormwater utilization concepts for the most efficient
and functional design of the drainage facility. 3) Establish, as necessary, a
water quality monitoring program for stormwater, the impact of the treated
stormwater discharging into surface waters and the percolation of discharge into
groundwater."
.
Item 14, our response; change policy 8(3) and 8(4) to read: 8(3) - "The land
development regulations shall include the 25-year frequency, 24-hour duration,
design storm as the basis for stormwater management system design for proposed
new and redevelopment projects, and for determining availability of facility
capacity. The developer will also be required to analyze the ultimate effect of
the disposal of storm water from storm events, up to and including the 100 year
24-hour duration, storm event. In addition, the developer will canply where
applicable with the Water Management districts flood control criteria (SJRWMD
chapter 40C-40, 40C-42 and 40C-4)." 8-4 - "The demand for stormwater faci 1 ity
capacity by new development shall be determined based on the difference between
the per-development and post-development stormwater runoff characteristics
(including rates and volumes) of the development site using the design storm
level of service standard adopted in Policy 8(3) and facility design procedures
consistent with accepted engineering practice."
Item 15, our response - a new policy 2(B)3 is created as follows: The revised
land develop~ent regulations, to be adopted by the statutory deadline, shall
contain these provisions to protect the functions of natural drainage features:
1) A conservation land use district which shall apply to all lands containing
natural drainage features and establish development limitations to protect those
features. 2) Require the establishment of conservation easements on
jurisdictional wetlands. 3) Development of restrictions on unplanned,
unengineered parcels which contain natural drainage features."
Potable Water Sub-Element - Items 9 & 10 - no deficiencies but look at again.
Item 11, our response - objective F shall be revised as follows: "In order to
discourage urban sprawl and promote infill development, the City... throughout
the planning period. The City will require developers to bear all of the costs
of extension or expansion of the system to meet the required level of service
standard applicable to their development."
.
Item 12, our response - objective D will be revised as follows: "By 1993, the
City shall enact a water conservation program which will result in a 10%
reduction in per capita consumption by 1996." Discussion.
Item 13, our response - a new policy G-5 will be created to read: "The City of
Winter Springs will budget 5% of the previous years revenues for renewal and City
.
Commission Workshop
February 6, 1992
Page 10
replacement of potable water facilities. This reservation of funds
accordance with the bond covenants and applied according to
established in the Capital Improvements Elements." Discussion. It was
that the same statement will be used in both.
wi 11 be in
priorities
determined
Item 14, our response: objective A
and the new policy A(1) shall
f aci 1 it i es. . . . " 14.3 - de 1 ete the
the words "requires and, continue
revised as follows - delete the word "minimum"
read as follows: ....for the East and West
words "does and continue to", 14.4 - delete
to" .
Item 15, our response - policy D(2) is revised as follows: "the City shall adopt
the following water conservation strategies as part of the revised land
development regulations to be adopted by the statutory deadline: 1) Amend the
building and plumbing code to require low water consumption plumbing devices. 2)
Require 50% xeriscaping and native planting material as part of the tree and
landscaping ordinances. 3) Provide educational materials to the public on water
conservation techniques. 4) Adopt rate schedule that increase permit cost as
consumption increases." Discussion. It was determined that in #2 delete 50% and
just put "require a per'centage". Number 4 - delete the word "permit".
. Natural Groundwater Aquifer Recharge Sub-Element: no response as yet.
Recreation and Open Space Elanent- item 6, our response: a new objective 1 is
established and shall read: "The City shall ensure that publ ic access to future
recreation sites is provided". And to implement the objective a new policy 1(1)
is established and shall read: "The revised land development regulations, to be
adopted by the statutory deadline, shall contain such provisions as adequate
right-of-way and parking standards to ensure adequate public access to future
recreational facilities including publicly owned freshwater beaches and shores."
Discussion. The Commission decided to add "where there is no health or safety
problems."
Item 7, our response - add the following to objective C - by coordinating
with the other local governments and the private sector to ensure that future
recreation needs are n1et throughout the planning period and available to City
residents.
.
Item 8, our response - objective B shall be amended as follows - "Throughout the
planning period, the City will provide parks and recreation facilities in an
adequate and efficient manner by allocating and acquiring park land consistent
with the adopted Level of Service Standards and the concurrency management
system. Also, objective E shall be amended as follows - "Throughout the planning
period, the City shall require developers to supplement the public recreation by
allocating private parks on a proportional share basis consistent with adopted
level of service standards and the concurrency management system." Objective F
shall be revised as follows: "Throughout the planning period, the City will
integrate open space areas into the parks and recreation facility system as
informal playgrounds in residential neighbol~hoods."
.
City Commission Workshop
February 6, 1992
Page 11
Item 9, our response - objective H will be revised as follows: "Throughout the
planning period, the City and the private sector shall coordinate in a continuing
and professional effort to provide adequate open space with the County. This will
be accomplished using subdivision and site plan review process, which shall
require the provision of open space consistent with adopted level of service
standards and the concurrency management system." Police E(1) shall be reviewed
as follows: delete "Encourage...private developments", and add The City shall
require developers to provide on-site recreational facilities to be included with
private developments if existing publ ic recreational faci 1 ities are not adequate
to maintain the adopted level of service standard."
Itan 10, our response - create a new policy
revised land development regulations, to be
shall contain a definition for open space, and
allocation of open space.
A(5) to read as follows - "The
adopted by the statutory deadline,
standards and guidelines for the
.
Item 11, our response - policy A(2) shall be amended as follows: delete the words
.....preserved...dedicated to the perpetual use of the public for passive
enjoyment" and add "conserved for the public use through execution of an
environmental easement, land dedication or other method. The revised land
development regulations, to be adopted by the statutory deadline,
shall contain provisions such as, but not limited to floor area ratios,
impervious surface i~atios, transfer of development rights and other standards to
provide for the conservation of upland habitat areas.
Item 14, our response, policy 8(2) shall be revised as follows: .....The City
shall, by October 1993...final 1990 census delete "characteristics thru
adequate" and add "Data to determine if recreational facilities are provided in
accordance with the adopted level of service standards. If facilities are found
to be deficient, the City will amend the comprehensive plan by October, 1994 to
include imp 1 anent at ion programs or activities to correct or improve the
def ici encies. ..
Intergovernmental Coordination Element - Item 7, our response: an objective E is
created to read as follows: "The City shall coordinate with Seminole County and
other units of local government to ensure that the City of Winter Springs plan is
compatible with those adopted by adjacent ccmnunities."
Item 8, our response - objective
shall. ..to ensure that the impacts
coordinated with development in
municipalities and the county.....
D is
of
and
amended to read as
development proposed
the Comprehensive
follows: "The City
in the plan are
Plan of adjacent
.
Item 9, our response - an objective F is created to read as follows: "The City
shall coordinate with any state, regional or local entity having operational and
maintenance responsibility for such facilities in establishing or amending level
of service standards."
Item 10, our response - a policy F(1) is created to read as follows: The revised
land development regulations, to be adopted by the statutory deadline, shall City
.
.
.
Carmission Workshop
February 6, 1992
Page 12
contain procedures for informing adjacent local governments of planning and
development activities taking place within one mile of the City limits."
Item 11, our response - a policy E(1) is created to read as follows: "If a
conflict arises regarding annexation or the compatibility of the City's
comprehensive plan to that of the county or other governmental agencies, the City
shall try to resolve the conflict through the regional planning council's
informal mediation process if no other resolution can be agreed to by all of the
parties involved." Discussion. Kaehler stated that with regard to the regional
planning council informal mediation process all of the cities have signed a
informal mediation in the inter local agreement so that needs to be restated,
because there is one that is in existence and has gone through the council of
local governments and that is what we have been using as far as mediation is
concerned. Goodrow stated that if that solves the problem, then there is no need
to go beyond that.
Item 12, our response - a policy F(2) is created to read as follows: "The revised
land development regulations, to be adopted by the statutory deadline, shall
contain provisions for sharing information and services between the City and
other goverrmenta 1 agenc i es . "
Item 13 - our response - see new policy E(1) which would include the resolution
of annexation conflicts.
Item 14, our response - a new policy E(3) is created to read as follows: "The
City shall review the relationship between development proposed 1Il its plan and
the existing plans of adjacent governments on an annual basis."
Capital Improvements Element - this item will be addressed at the next meeting.
Goodrow stated that he is hoping for another workshop in two weeks, hopefully
before that. He also stated at some point that he will meet with DCA to talk to
them about our responses. He stated that he will not be going through the change
to the data and analysis section because of the time frame; we will provide that
to the Commission, for your information and will refer to it when we talk about
the future goals, objectives and policies. He said that if the Carmission has
any questions on that then we can address it at that time.
Kulbes asked about a deadline. Goodrow stated that they will work as fast as
they can and stated that it was more then they had anticipated.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:50 P.M.
Respectfully Submitted,
Margo Hopkins
Deputy City Clerk