Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008 01 17 Regular 600 Evaluation And Appraisal Report - Draft CITY COMMISSION & LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY ITEM 600 Consent Information Public Hearin Re ular January 17,2008 Special Joint Meeting /L-- / Mgr./Dept. REQUEST: The Community Development Department - Planning Division requests that the City Commission remove the draft Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) from the table, and hear the recommendations of the Local Planning Agency, related to the City's List of Major Issues in the draft EAR. PURPOSE: To enable a discussion between the City Commission and the Local Planning Agency on the Major Issue recommendations and to allow further refinement and agreement on the recommendations included within the draft EAR, before they are sent to the Dept. of Community Affairs for a courtesy review. APPLICABLE LAW AND PUBLIC POLICY: Florida Statute s. 163.3191 Evaluation and appraisal of the comprehensive plan. Florida Statute 163.3174 (4) (related to responsibilities of the Local Planning Agency regarding the comprehensive plan) BACKGROUND: The Evaluation and Appraisal Report functions as an audit of the successes and shortcomings of the City's Comprehensive Plan and suggests how the plan should be revised to better address community objectives, changing conditions, trends affecting the community, and changes in state requirements. The identification of maj or planning issues last spring, set the stage for revisions to the City's Comprehensive Plan. CONSIDERATIONS: . The City Commission and Local Planning Agency (LPA) generated a List of Major Issues as the focus of the EAR and generated it to the State Dept of Community Affairs (DCA) on April 24, 2007. · On October 8, 2007, the City contracted with the firm, Planning Communities, LLC, for the preparation of the EAR. . On October 9, 2007, the DCA responded with their Letter of Understanding, accepting the City's List of Major Issues. · A draft of the EAR was circulated to the City Commission and LPA on January 3, 2008. January 17,2008 Joint Meeting of the City Commission and Local Planning Agency REGULAR AGENDA ITEM 600 · On January 7, 2008, ajoint meeting of the City Commission and Local Planning Agency was held. The intent of the meeting was to review the recommendations included in the section tab labeled, "Part II - Local Issues" of the draft Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) through a facilitated discussion by the City's consultant, Planning Communities, LLC. However, the City Commission tabled the item and instead directed the Local Planning Agency to meet and bring back their recommendations to the Commission. · On January 9, 2008, at a special meeting of the LPA, the Board participated in a discussion led by Planning Communities, LLC and voted on their recommendations related to the major issues. · The City will submit the draft EAR to the DCA by February 1, 2008 for a courtesy review to obtain initial feedback prior to the deadline for submittal of the EAR which is due May 1,2008. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Community Development Department - Planning Division requests that the City Commission remove the draft Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) from the table, hear the recommendations of the Local Planning Agency related to the City's List of Major Issues in the draft EAR, participate in a discussion of the recommendations, and further refine the recommendations as necessary for their inclusion within the draft EAR that will be sent to the DCA for a courtesy review. ATTACHMENTS: A Draft Unapproved Minutes from LPA Meeting of January 9, 2008 B Recommendations of the LPA, related to the City's List of Major Issues in the draft EAR. CITY COMMISSION ACTION: -2 - ATTACHMENT A -1-% CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA UNAPPROVED MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING BOARDILOCAL PLANNING AGENCY SPECIAL MEETING JANUARY 9, 2008 CALL TO ORDER The Planning and Zoning Board/Local Planning Agency Special Meeting of Wednesday, January 9,2008 was called to Order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Robert L. Heatwole in the Commission Chambers of the Municipal Building (City Hall, 1126 East State Road 434, Winter Springs, Florida 32708). Roll Call: Chairman Robert L. Heatwole, present Vice Chairman Charles Lacey, present Board Member Tom Brown, present Board Member Rosanne Karr, present Board Member William H. Poe, present A moment of silence preceded the Pledge of Allegiance. Mr. Randy Stevenson, ASLA, AICP, Director, Community Development Department addressed the Board Members and said, "Staff and the Consultants want to move forward tonight based upon the presentation that was prepared." Mr. Stevenson then said, "We will use the information and discuss that at tonight's meeting to refine and amend the Recommendations included in Part II ofthe Draft (Evaluation And Appraisal Report) that you have. This refinement will be emailed to you and the LP A (Local Planning Agency) Members - and the Commission prior to the City Commission Meeting on the 17th of this month. We will need to set a schedule for that tonight." INFORMATIONAL AGENDA INFORMATIONAL 100. Not Used. CONSENT AGENDA CONSENT 200. Not Used. CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA UNAPPROVED MINUTES PLANNlNG AND ZONING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY SPECIAL MEETING - JANUARY 9, 2008 PAGE 2 OF 15 ~~ AWARDS AND PRESENTATIONS AWARDS AND PRESENT A nONS 300. Not Used. 400. REPORTS Deputy City Clerk Joan Brown reviewed the Sunshine Law to the Board Members. PUBLIC INPUT No one spoke. PUBLIC HEARINGS AGENDA PUBLlC HEARlNGS 500. Not Used. REGULAR AGENDA REGULAR 600. Community Development Department - Planning Division Requests That The Local Planning Agency Review The Draft Evaluation And . Appraisal Report (EAR) And Participate In A Discussion Led By Planning Communities, LLC On The Recommendations Related To The City's List Of Major Issues. Ms. Eloise Sahlstrom, AICP, ASLA, Senior Planner, Community Development Department addressed the Board Members on the review of the Evaluation And Appraisal Report. Ms. Teresa Townsend, AICP, Chief Executive Officer, Planning Communities, LLC, 2510 Wild Tamarind Boulevard, Orlando, Florida: spoke on reviewing the major issues of the Evaluation And Appraisal Report (EAR) and presented a PowerPoint presentation. Discussion. Ms. Townsend spoke on Major Issue 1 - "Population, Housing Density and Greenspace" and reviewed with the Advisory Board Members. Discussion ensued on Building heights. CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA UNAPPROVED MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING BOARDILOCAL PLANNING AGENCY SPECIAL MEETING - JANUARY 9, 2008 PAGE 3 OF 15 vf(}* Tape I/Side B "I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO AMEND RECOMMENDATION NUMBER ONE (1) UNDER POPULATION, HOUSING DENSITY AND GREENS PACE TO BE MODIFIED ALLOWING HEIGHTS OF THE BUILDINGS TO BE INCREASED NO LARGER THAN SIX (6) STORIES IN THE TOWN CENTER." MOTION BY ADVISORY BOARD MEMBER POE. SECONDED BY ADVISORY BOARD MEMBER KARR. DISCUSSION. VOTE: BOARD MEMBER KARR: AYE VICE CHAIRMAN LACEY: AYE CHAIRMAN HEATWOLE: AYE BOARD MEMBER BROWN : AYE BOARDMEMBERPOE: AYE MOTION CARRIED. Ms. Townsend stated, "The second one is to focus a High Density Housing within the Town Center and the US (Highway) 17-92 Corridor." "I WOULD GLADLY MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE IT." MOTION BY ADVISORY BOARD MEMBER POE. SECONDED BY ADVISORY BOARD MEMBER BROWN." DISCUSSION. VOTE: BOARD MEMBER BROWN: AYE VICE CHAIRMAN LACEY: AYE CHAIRMAN HEATWOLE: AYE BOARD MEMBER POE: AYE BOARD MEMBER KARR: AYE MOTION CARRIED Continuing, Ms. Townsend said, ''Number '3.' allow vertically integrated multi-family and commercial areas as a Conditional Use." There were no objections from the Board Members. Chairman Heatwole said, "Let's move to Number '4."'. Ms. Townsend stated, "Area wide evaluation of environmental resources; use incentives and acquisition." There were no objections from the Board Members. Ms. Townsend discussed Recommendation Number '5.'. Continuing, Chairman Heatwole said, "Any other - for Number '5.'?" There were no objections from the Board Members. CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA UNAPPROVED MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING BOARDfLOCAL PLANNING AGENCY SPECIAL MEETING - JANUARY 9, 2008 PAGE 4 OF 15 vf(}4\ Mr. Stevenson said, "The City of Winter Springs has a policy - that we strongly, strongly, highly, highly - encourage the relocation of gopher tortoises." Chairman Heatwole stated, "Let's move to Number 6." Ms. Townsend discussed LEED (Leadership, Energy and Environmental Design) Certification for buildings. There were no objections from the Board Members. Discussion. "IF THERE IS NO DISCUSSION ON ITEM NUMBER '6.', I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM [NUMBER] '3.', '4.', '5.', AND '6.', RECOMMENDATIONS UNDER POPULATION, HOUSING DENSITY AND GREENSP ACE." MOTION BY ADVISORY BOARD MEMBER POE. SECONDED BY ADVISORY BOARD MEMBER KARR. DISCUSSION. VOTE: BOARD MEMBER KARR: AYE BOARD MEMBER BROWN: AYE VICE CHAIRMAN LACEY: AYE BOARDMEMBERPOE: AYE CHAIRMAN HEATWOLE: AYE MOTION CARRIED. Next, Ms. Townsend discussed Major Issue 2 - "Redevelopment of West Side". Referring to Recommendation number' 1. " Advisory Board Member Poe said, "I have no discussion on item '1.'." Advisory Board Member Karr said, "I am 'Okay' with it." There were no other objections. Chairman Heatwole said, "Okay - for Number '2.'." There were no objections with Number '2.'. Ms. Townsend reviewed Number '3.' with the Board Members. There were no objections. Continuing, Ms. Townsend said, "Number '4.' is Staff, Board and Commission review for obstacles and opportunities for Redevelopment." No objections from the Board Members were voiced. Referring to Number '5.', Ms. Townsend stated, "Incentives for Redevelopment." Advisory Board Member Poe said, "I have no problem with this." There were no objections noted. CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA UNAPPROVED MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING BOARDILOCAL PLANNING AGENCY SPECIAL MEETING - JANUARY 9, 2008 PAGE 5 OF 15 fJ-1-t Ms. Townsend said, "On Number '6.', the Vertical Integration of Uses." Discussion ensued on "Mixed Use Designation". Advisory Board Member Poe said, "I have no problem with Number '6.'." There were no other objections from the Board Members. Continuing, Ms. Townsend said, "Number '7.' - Accessory Dwelling Units and Conditional Uses." Discussion. Tape 2/Side A Further discussion continued on Accessory Dwelling Units and Conditional Uses. There were no other objections on Number '7.'. With discussion on Number '8.' And '9.', Chairman Heatwole stated, "Any other questions or concerns on Number '8.' and Number '9.', since they were brought together." Vice Chairman Lacey said, "Actually, I think there does need to be some recording of [Number] '8.'." Vice Chairman Lacey then said, "What you got here is stated fine, except I think emphasis can be misread. I would rather be more clear that we are talking about instances where the word 'only' in an upgrade situation rather than having such a strong clause that talks about 'independent of whether they are in harmony' or say 'upgrades only' and emphasis that part a little more." Advisory Board Member Karr said, "Right. Exactly. Good point." Referring to Number ' 10.', Ms. Townsend said, "Support transition of older homes located along arterial roadways convert to live-work or commercial use." Advisory Board Member Poe said, "We have done that along [State Road] 434 already. I have no problem with that." There were no other objections noted. Next, Ms. Townsend stated, "Number' 11.' - Design Standards for density increases or mixed use in neighborhoods." There were no other objections from the Board Members. Continuing to Number' 12.', Address Infrastructure deficits, there were no objections. "I MOVE THAT WE ACCEPT ITEMS NUMBER '1.' THROUGH '12.' AS WRITTEN IN THE REPORT WITH THE EXCEPTION OF WORDING IN NUMBER '8.' TO BE DRAFTED THAT MAKES MORE EMPHASIS ON THE UPGRADE PROVISIONS AND THIS IS TO MAJOR ISSUE NUMBER 2 REDEVELOPMENT OF THE WEST SIDE." MOTION BY VICE CHAIRMAN LACEY. SECONDED BY ADVISORY BOARD MEMBER POE. DISCUSSION. CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA UNAPPROVED MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY SPECIAL MEETING - JANUARY 9, 2008 PAGE 6 OF 15 1Z}1t VOTE: BOARD MEMBER BROWN: AYE VICE CHAIRMAN LACEY: AYE CHAIRMAN HEATWOLE: AYE BOARD MEMBER KARR: AYE BOARDMEMBERPOE: AYE MOTION CARRIED. Chairman Heatwole called a Recess at 8:46 p.m. The Special Meeting was called back to Order at 8:56 p.m. Mr. Mark Sievers, AlCP, President, Sievers & Associates, LLC, 444 Opal Court, Altamonte Springs, Florida: presented to the Board Members Major Issue 3 - "GreeneWay Interchange Employment District". Advisory Board Member Poe said, "I highly support Recommendation Number '1.', as a matter of fact - I sat on the Port Authority Board which also endorsed the SeminoleW A Y initiative as did a number of other organizations." Advisory Board Member Poe then said, "I believe the SeminoleW A Y initiative is something that is going to be a very positive impact on Winter Springs along with others all the way down the greenbelt [GreeneWay]. So, I am definitely in support of that Recommendation." Vice Chairman Lacey stated, "I endorse what Mr. Poe just said." Advisory Board Member Karr said, "I agree also." Mr. Sievers discussed Number '2.' and there were no other objections from the Advisory Board Members. Chairman Heatwole stated, "Number '3.'. Advisory Board Member Karr said, "And I agree with that also." There were no other objections. Continuing, Mr. Sievers spoke of the Master Plan on Number '4.'. Advisory Board Member Poe stated, "I have no problem with that." Discussion. Next for discussion was Number '5.'. Mr. Sievers spoke about Transit Services. Discussion. There were no other objections for Number' 5.' . Referring to Number '6.', Mr. Sievers discussed the Future Land Use Element Policy 1.4.1. Ms. Sahlstrom said, "So, the word on Number '6.' instead of the word 'Density' it should be saying 'Intensity'." CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA UNAPPROVED MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING BOARDILOCAL PLANNING AGENCY SPECIAL MEETING - JANUARY 9, 2008 PAGE 7 OF 15 tfJ-~ "I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE RECOMMENDATION '1.' THROUGH '6.' WITH THE CHANGE OF THE WORD 'DENSITY' TO 'INTENSITY' ON THE MAJOR ISSUE NUMBER 3 GREENEW A Y INTERCHANGE EMPLOYMENT DISTRICT." MOTION BY ADVISORY BOARD MEMBER POE. SECONDED BY ADVISORY BOARD MEMBER KARR. DISCUSSION. VOTE: BOARD MEMBER KARR: AYE BOARD MEMBER POE: AYE VICE CHAIRMAN LACEY: AYE CHAIRMAN HEATWOLE: AYE BOARD MEMBER BROWN: AYE MOTION CARRIED. Next, Mr. Sievers discussed Major Issue 4 - "State Road 434 Corridor". For Recommendation Number' 1.', it is my understanding that the City is now looking to delete the first sentence of that - the reasoning may have to do with it being covered in Number '2.' and/or capabilities of the City being able to do it itself." Mr. Sievers stated, "F or Number' 1.', I think we are presenting it as deleting the first sentence and keeping - and consider dropping the LOS (Levels of Service) standard on State Road 434. The State does allow the City to set the Level of Service on that road." Ms. Townsend said, "But, we might want to confer more with Brian [Fields, P .E. City Engineer, Public Works Department] but, that was confirmed." Advisory Board Member Poe stated, "We are deleting the entire first sentence and the first word of the second sentence which was 'Additionally', and starting it with 'Consider dropping LOS (Level of Service) standard on State Road 434...'?" Ms. Townsend said, " . . . Correct. " Discussion. Vice Chairman Lacey said, "I suggest that this one (1) sentence be reworked to speak of what we are talking about and what is really meant by Level of Service reduction." Advisory Board Member Karr said, "Right." "I MOVE THAT NUMBER '1.' BE REWRITTEN IN ITS ENTIRETY TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE COMMENTS MADE HERE TO - SPECIFYING LOCATION, APPLICABILITY AND A MORE EXTENSIVE DISCUSSION ON WHAT THE LEVEL OF SERVICE CHANGES ARE AND THEIR REAL WORLD IMPACT." MOTION BY VICE CHAIRMAN LACEY. SECONDED BY ADVISORY BOARD MEMBER POE. DISCUSSION. 1f~ CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA UNAPPROVED MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING BOARDILOCAL PLANNING AGENCY SPECIAL MEETING - JANUARY 9, 2008 PAGE 8 OF 15 VOTE: BOARD MEMBER POE: AYE BOARD MEMBER KARR: AYE BOARD MEMBER BROWN : AYE CHAIRMAN HEATWOLE: AYE VICE CHAIRMAN LACEY: AYE MOTION CARRIED. Continuing with Major Issue 4, Mr. Sievers discussed Recommendation Number '2.'. Advisory Board Member Poe stated, "I have no problem with it." There were no objections noted. Continuing, Mr. Sievers said, "Numbers '3.' and '4.' are pretty straight forward." Vice Chairman Lacey said, ''No objection." Advisory Board Member Poe said, "No objection." Next, Mr. Sievers stated, "Number '5.' is what we talked about a little earlier, the feasibility of connections for transit bicycle and pedestrian. We currently show it as north of [State Road] 434, we could delete that part. We also have a two (2) page study in there and - we could delete if necessary too." Vice Chairman Lacey said, "I think 1 agree with Mark's [Sievers] suggested first change anyway that the specific north route be changed to a general goal of making connection to the Gill (GreeneWay Interchange District) feasible from the Trail." Advisory Board Member Karr said, "I agree with that." Ms. Sahlstrom said, "Can we also take out the two-phase study and just say' Add a policy regarding the feasibility' ...." Advisory Board Member Karr said, "That would be fine with me." There were no other objections from the Board Members. On Recommendation Number '6.', Advisory Board Member Poe said, "I would like to see that sentence, 'Consider jurisdictional transfer of SR (State Road) 434 to City maintenance' be - deleted." Ms. Townsend stated, "I already have it crossed out in mine." No objections were voiced. Mr. Sievers spoke on Recommendation Number' 7. '. Chairman Heatwole said, "It might be better to specify - west of Vistawilla [Road]." Mr. Stevenson said, "This is just my opinion. I think we do need to change it to address..." Vice Chairman Lacey said, "...It is already at its maximum constraint the way it is worded, so we are talking about loosening the constraint." Mr. Stevenson then said, "Exactly." Discussion. CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA UNAPPROVED MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING BOARDILOCAL PLANNING AGENCY SPECIAL MEETING - JANUARY 9, 2008 PAGE 9 OF 15 # "I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE THE PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED ITEMS SO THAT WE KNOW WHERE WE STAND SO, I AM MOVING THAT WE APPROVE AS WRITTEN THE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR MAJOR ISSUE NUMBER 4 - STATE ROAD 434 CORRIDOR ITEMS NUMBER '2.', '3.' AND '4.', '5.' SUBJECT TO STRIKING OUT THE TWO PHASE STUDY AND MAKING MORE GENERAL THE SPECIFICATION OF THE ROUTE OF THE STATE ROAD 434 TRAIL. APPROVING NUMBER '6.', WITH THE REMOVAL OF THE LAST SENTENCE. APPROVING NUMBER '7.'; WITH THE PROVISION THAT THE CONSTRAINT APPLIES ONLY TO THAT AREA OF [STATE ROAD] 434 WEST OF VISTA WILLA [ROAD]." MOTION BY VICE CHAIRMAN LACEY. SECONDED BY ADVISORY BOARD MEMBER POE. DISCUSSION. Tape 2/Side B VOTE: CHAIRMAN HEATWOLE: AYE BOARD MEMBER BROWN: AYE VICE CHAIRMAN LACEY: AYE BOARD MEMBER POE: AYE BOARD MEMBER KARR: AYE MOTION CARRIED. Continuing with Recommendation Number '8.', Mr. Sievers said, "There is a lot of text there, but the goal is just to keep our options open at this point. Getting this input will really help a lot." Mr. Sievers then stated, "If' 1.' or '2.' are decided to be implemented by the City Comp[ rehensive] Plan Policies, it will need to be added for most of those. And then Number '9.' is pretty much hopefully a non-controversial one too." There were no other objections from the Board Members. Ms. Sahlstrom said, "There was one other comment from the City Engineer that I just wanted to comment is that we should add a policy supporting the widening of [State Road] 434 east ofthe GreeneWay Interchange [District] because right now that is two (2) lanes and if we were to annex land into the GreeneWay Interchange District, it is very problematic over here, and ifthis land in here is brought into the GreeneWay Interchange District, it needs to be wider than two (2) lanes." Ms. Sahlstrom then said, "The City could pursue just for that section that would then support the [Greene W ay] Interchange [District]." Advisory Board Member Poe stated, "That then would appear as Recommendation '1O.'?" Mr. Stevenson said, "I would believe so." Discussion. CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA UNAPPROVED MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY SPECIAL MEETING - JANUARY 9, 2008 PAGE 10 OF 15 1~ Chairman Heatwole stated, "We are good on [Recommendation Number] '8.', good on '9.' and '10.' as a new one to add another Comprehensive Plan that would encourage the widening of [State Road] 434." "I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT UNDER MAJOR ISSUE NUMBER 4, STATE ROAD 434 CORRIDOR THAT RECOMMENDATIONS '8.', '8a.', '8b.', 'Se.', '8d.', '9.' BE APPROVED AS WRITTEN WITH THE ADDITION OF ITEM '10.' WHICH WOULD WIDEN STATE ROAD 434 TO THE EAST ALL THE WAY THROUGH THE GREENEWAY INTERCHANGE DISTRICT." MOTION BY ADVISORY BOARD MEMBER POE. SECONDED BY ADVISORY BOARD MEMBER BROWN. DISCUSSION. MR. STEVENSON SAID, "IF I MAY CLARIFY THE LANGUAGE - NOT WIDENING, BUT SUPPORTING THE WIDENING OF [STATE ROAD] 434." ADVISORY BOARD MEMBER POE SAID, "THE MOTION IS SO AMENDED." VOTE: (ON THE AMENDMENT) BOARD MEMBER KARR: AYE BOARD MEMER POE: AYE BOARD MEMBER BROWN: AYE VICE CHAIRMAN LACEY: AYE CHAIRMAN HEATWOLE: AYE MOTION CARRIED. VOTE: (ON THE MOTION AS AMENDED) CHAIRMAN HEATWOLE: AYE BOARD MEMBER POE: AYE BOARD MEMBER KARR: AYE BOARD MEMBER BROWN: AYE VICE CHAIRMAN LACEY: AYE MOTION CARRIED. Ms. Karen T. Campblin, Senior Planner, Planning Communities, LLC, 2510 Wild Tamarind Boulevard, Orlando, Florida: presented Major Issue 5 - "Elderly Housing and Medical Care to the Board Members". On Recommendation Number '1.', Advisory Board Member Brown said, "I have no problem with that." Advisory Board Member Poe stated, ''Nor do 1." Advisory Board Member Karr said, ''Neither do 1." Continuing to Recommendation Number '2.', Vice Chairman Lacey stated, ''No problem." Advisory Board Member Poe said, "No problem." CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FWRIDA UNAPPROVED MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY SPECIAL MEETING - JANUARY 9, 2008 PAGE II OF 15 #* Next, Recommendation Number '3,', Vice Chairman Lacey said, "I think the language that is in here is sufficient subject to strict design compatibility guidelines to protect neighborhood character. So, I am satisfied as written." There were no objections from the Board Members on Recommendation Number '4.'. On Recommendation Number '5.', Advisory Board Member Poe said, "1 am for it." There were no other objections noted. On Page 45 of the Evaluation And Appraisal Report (EAR), the Recommendation Numbers '7.', '8.' and '9.' should be listed as '6.', '7.' and '8.'. Continuing to Recommendation Number '6.', Advisory Board Member Poe said, "1 have no problem." There were no objections from the Board Members. On Recommendation Number '7.', no objections were voiced. Lastly, there were no other objections on Recommendation Number '8.'. "I MOVE WE ACCEPT UNDER MAJOR ISSUE NUMBER 5 'ELDERLY HOUSING AND MEDICAL CARE', ITEMS'!.' THROUGH '8.' AS WRITTEN, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF CORRECTED SEQUENTIAL NUMBERING." MOTION BY VICE CHAIRMAN LACEY. SECONDED BY ADVISORY BOARD MEMBER BROWN. DISCUSSION. VOTE: VICE CHAIRMAN LACEY: AYE CHAIRMAN HEATWOLE: AYE BOARD MEMBER KARR: AYE BOARD MEMBER POE: AYE BOARD MEMBER BROWN: AYE MOTION CARRIED. Continuing to Major Issue 6 - "Affordable and Work Force Housing", Ms. Campblin discussed the Recommendations. On Recommendation Number' 1.', Advisory Board Member Karr stated, "1 am okay with this." There were no objections from the Board Members. Next, Recommendation Number '2.', there were no objections from the Board Members. For Recommendation Number '3.', Vice Chairman Lacey said, "No objection." Advisory Board Member Poe stated, "None." There were no other objections. .. CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA UNAPPROVED MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING BOARDILOCAL PLANNING AGENCY SPECIAL MEETING - JANUARY 9, 2008 PAGE 12 OF 15 i}% Continuing to Recommendation Number '4.', there were no other objections from the Board Members. On Recommendation Number '5.', Advisory Board Member Karr said, "Again, if you can define the Level of Service (LOS)." Advisory Board Member Karr then said, "Although this one says Traffic Level Of Service." Chairman Heatwole said, "It may need some clarification when we get to that with the Commission." There were no objections for Recommendation Number '5.'. Lastly, with further discussion on Recommendation Number '6.', Vice Chairman Lacey stated, "I am a little concerned about the ramifications of Number '6.'." Discussion continued on Work-Force Housing. Vice Chairman Lacey said, "Then on the second clause of Number '6.', seems different then the first and now we are talking about a commercial project has to provide a certain number of apartments for workers. We are not using the phrase 'Work-Force Housing' there. Number of apartments for workers seems to be not saying much." Ms. Sahlstrom said, "I believe it is intended to be Work-Force Housing to clarify that, but it is a different aspect. One is residential projects, the second portion of that is commercial projects." Vice Chairman Lacey then said, "Both parts seem very open ended." Advisory Board Member Poe said, "I am in support of the concept. There is no question there, but I agree with Mr. Lacey. We need to define it as apartments for Work-Force Housing and we probably need to quantify it or..." Advisory Board Member Karr said, "... Or take out the specifics of the first part of it. Can you be sufficiently vague in the first part of it as you are in the second part to leave it open for discussion or do you want to be that specific for residential projects?" Discussion. Mr. Stevenson said, "I think in the refined document that we send you, we need to define 'large' and we need to define 'certain number'." Advisory Board Member Karr said, "Right." Mr. Stevenson then said, "Is that what we are asking here?" Advisory Board Member Poe said, "It is for me." Vice Chairman Lacey said, "I'm probably going to oppose Number '6.'." "I MOVE THAT WE ADOPT THE TEXT AS WRITTEN FOR ITEMS NUMBER '1.' THROUGH '5.' WITH NUMBER '5.' BEING MODIFIED TO GIVE A BETTER DEFINITION OF LEVEL OF SERVICE FOR MAJOR ISSUE NUMBER 6 AFFORDABLE AND WORK FORCE HOUSING." MOTION BY VICE CHAIRMAN LACEY. SECONDED BY ADVISORY BOARD MEMBER POE. DISCUSSION. CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA UNAPPROVED MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING BOARDILOCAL PLANNING AGENCY SPECIAL MEETING - JANUARY 9, 2008 PAGE 13 OF 15 ~ VOTE: BOARD MEMBER POE: AYE BOARD MEMBER KARR: AYE BOARD MEMBER BROWN: AYE VICE CHAIRMAN LACEY: AYE CHAIRMAN HEATWOLE: AYE MOTION CARRIED. Advisory Board Member Poe suggested to the Board Members and said, "That we provide Staff some time to go back and take a look at Number '6.' So that they can define some of the issues there that we have addressed as a concern and I know we are to meet on the 17th. [January 2008] with the City Commission and I believe that just prior to that Meeting we could re-Iook at Number '6.' - and we could draw a Consensus prior to that Meeting whether we agree with [Number] '6.' or not." Discussion. "I MOVE THAT WE PROVIDE STAFF SOME ADDITIONAL TIME TO REDEFINE ITEM NUMBER '6.' UNDER AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND AT THE MEETING ON THE 17TH [JANUARY 2008] JUST PRIOR TO THE MEETING WE RE-LOOK AT THAT AND COME TO A CONSENSUS OF AGREEMENT AT THAT TIME." MOTION BY ADVISORY BOARD MEMBER POE. SECONDED BY ADVISORY BOARD MEMBER KARR. DISCUSSION. DISCUSSION. MR. STEVENSON SAID, "I NEED TO ASK A 'QUESTION MAYBE OF THE CITY CLERK. IS IT POSSIBLE UNDER THE SUNSHINE LAW TO DISTRIBUTE OUR RECOMMENDATION BY EMAIL AND GET A CONSENSUS BACK FROM THE COMMITTEE [BOARD]. THEY HAVEN'T DISCUSSED IT, THEY ARE GIVING US THEIR THOUGHTS ON IT SO THERE HAS BEEN NO DISCUSSION, BUT WE CAN AT LEAST AT THAT POINT SAY THAT THERE WAS A MAJORITY VOTE IN FAVOR OF THIS OR THESE ARE THE CHANGES THAT WERE REQUESTED BY THE MEMBERS OF THE LPA (LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY). I DO NOT KNOW IF THAT IS AN OPTION OR NOT." MS. SAHLSTROM SAID, "WHEN WE HAD THE EAST RURAL AREA PROPERTY OWNER'S COMMITTEE AND WE HAD A - THE DRAFT REPORT WAS PRESENTED, I THINK THERE WERE SOME - MINOR EDITING CHANGES AND SO FORTH. THOSE WERE MADE THAT WERE RE-SENT OUT TO THE COMMITTEE FOR THEM TO COMMENT ON. IN OTHER WORDS, SO THAT THEY COULD SAY THIS WAS NOT WHAT WE AGREED TO AT LEAST A COMMENT BEFORE IT WENT TO THE COMMISSION AS THE RECOMMENDED REPORT." CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA UNAPPROVED MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING BOARDILOCAL PLANNING AGENCY SPECIAL MEETING - JANUARY 9, 2008 PAGE 14 OF 15 fJ1r ADVISORY BOARD MEMBER POE ASKED, "AND THAT WAS DONE BY EMAIL?" MS. SAHLSTROM SAID, "YES. WE WOULD HAVE TO DO IT BY EMAIL." MR. STEVENSON SAID, "IT WOULD HAVE TO BE DONE INDIVIDUALLY AND TALLIED BY THE STAFF TO BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE SUNSHINE LAW." VOTE: BOARD MEMBER KARR: AYE VICE CHAIRMAN LACEY: AYE CHAIRMAN HEATWOLE: AYE BOARD MEMBER BROWN: AYE BOARD MEMBER POE: AYE MOTION CARRIED. Tape 3/Side A Vice Chairman Lacey asked, "So, at the Meeting next week, you will have a revised version of at least Section [Part] II that would have been distributed by then?" Ms. Townsend said, "Yes." Ms. Townsend then said, "The format of the Workshop will be redefined." Ms. Sahlstrom asked, "On the distribution of the Agenda Item for the 17tb. [January 2008], would you like it to only include the Recommendations or would you like it to include all of Part II that has the background data as well?" Advisory Board Member Karr said, "No. Just the Recommendations." Chairman Heatwole said, "Just the Recommendations." Advisory Board Member Poe said, "Recommendations." Vice Chairman Lacey said, "We've made no changes here to the background information only Recommendations." Mr. Stevenson said, "In terms of total disclosure, at this point, there does not appear to be any changes that were made to the Recommendations tonight that are - for some reason not supported in the verbiage." Ms. Townsend said, "I think so. Yes." 1ft CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA UNAPPROVED MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING BOARDILOCAL PLANNING AGENCY SPECIAL MEETING - JANUARY 9, 2008 PAGE 15 OF 15 ADJOURNMENT Chairman Heatwole adjourned the Special Meeting at 10:27 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: JOAN L. BROWN DEPUTY CITY CLERK APPROVED: ~f~-;~:::; CHAIRMAN PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY NOTE: These Minutes were approved at the Agency Meeting. ,2008 Regular Planning And Zoning Board/Local Planning ATTACHMENT B Major Issue 1 - Population, Housing Density and Greenspace Recommendations The focus of development in Winter Springs is shifting to an infill perspective. While the development recommendations for this issue focus on designated areas or corridors, the City has scattered vacant parcels as well as numerous enclaves with the potential for annexation. Therefore, it is essential for the City to put into place a comprehensive framework or strategy to promote quality infill development and to establish priorities and/or programs that promote targeted infill development 1 . Revise land Use Element Policies 2.2.6 and 2.2.7 to limit building height to 4 stories; however, development credits for the preservation of significant greenspace as a part of a greater network of conservation lands would allow building heights to be increased up to 6 stories in the Town Center. 2. Add or revise policies under land Use Element Objective 1.4 - Discourage Urban Sprawl and Encourage Redevelopment limiting development of new high density housing to the Town Center and the US 17-92 Community Redevelopment Area (CRA) Corridor. 3. Add a policy that would allow multi-family housing in commercially zoned areas, contingent upon the provision of greenspace mitigation elsewhere (similar to the transfer of development rights program). 4. Add an Objective to the Conservation Element to address the preservation of the rich biological diversity of Winter Springs most significant natural areas and to establish a strategic approach for the preservation of these resources. Policies under this Objective would call for performing an area-wide evaluation to identify environmentally significant pieces of land that would create a network of conservation/educational resources to protect; develop additional incentives for natural resource and open space protection; require sound land stewardship management practices to preserve, restore and/or maintain native ecosystems within conservation lands; prioritize properties to acquire; and identify additional funding sources for direct acquisition. 5. Add or revise policies under Conservation Element Objective 1.6 - Wildlife Protection to call for the City to coordinate further with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection to enhance wildlife protection efforts. 6. Add a policy or policies which support construction of buildings which are leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (lEED) Certified and the use of green roofs to reduce stormwater demands. Major Issue 2 - Redevelopment of West Side Recommendations 1. As a component of redirecting the City's focus of development to that of a redevelopment and infill perspective, add a policy or policies under Future land Use Objective 1 .4, Discourage Urban Sprawl and Encourage Redevelopment and/or Housing Objective 2.4, Infill for the City to study and proactively identify acceptable locations, priorities and implementation strategies for potential infill development and redevelopment. Updated policies should address residential, commercial and mixed use opportunities. Include a statement that the City will encourage infill and higher density and intensity development within 1 the priority infill development and redevelopment areas identified through these efforts (similar to current statements for the Town Center and GID). These efforts may result in updates to the Future land Use Map, enhancements to the vacant residential parcel map and database or development of an additional map illustrating infill development and redevelopment opportunities. 2. Add a policy or policies under Future land Use Objective 1.4, Discourage Urban Sprawl and Encourage Redevelopment and/or Housing Objective 2.4, Infill that address the creation of redevelopment and small area plans identified through the strategic review of infill development and redevelopment opportunities. 3. Add a policy under Objective 1.4 Discourage Urban Sprawl and Encourage Redevelopment that supports bike and pedestrian connections to the new SR 434 Crosstown bus route. 4. Add a sentence at the start of Future land Use Policy 1 .4.3 to direct the City Commission to hold a Visioning Workshop to discuss specific issues that impede redevelopment and infill. Participants shall include key City staff (Police, Fire, Code Enforcement, Community Development, Public Works, and Utilities) and the Planning and Zoning Board. The results will create development standards that reflect and support the City's focus on infill development and redevelopment and will generate updates to policies in various areas of the Comprehensive Plan beyond the Future land Use and Housing Elements including the Transportation, Infrastructure and Capital Improvement Elements. 5. Add or revise policies under Future land Use Objective 1.4 and/or Housing Objective 2.4 to provide for incentives for infill development and redevelopment that support the City's targeted program priorities. 6. Add a policy under Future land Use Element Objective 4.2 - Mixed Use that the City will allow and promote vertical integration of uses. Conduct discussions regarding the ten (1 0) acre minimum requirement to develop a mixed use site. 7. Add a policy under Housing Element Objective 2.4 - Infill that the City shall consider allowing accessory dwelling units as a conditional use in residential districts to support development/redevelopment that integrates diverse choices of housing. 8. Revise Future land Use Element Policy 1.5.8 under Objective 1.5 land Use Compatibility to encourage property upgrades which enhance the neighborhood. 9. Add a policy under Objective 1.5 land Use Compatibility which addresses the incompatibility of non- conforming uses and structures and calls for their removal. 10. Revise policy 1.5.3 to support the transition of older residential homes located along arterial roadways to convert to a live-work or commercial use. 11. Review Future land Use Element Policies 1 .5.2 and 1.5.3 to ensure that policies are in place to address the neighborhood preservation needs of the City, including design standards and review criteria for infill areas and redevelopment areas to ensure compatibility even when greater density or mixed use is considered. 12. Identify infrastructure deficits in existing neighborhoods and identify how to address whether through partnerships, grant funding or as part of capital budgeting. 2 Major Issue 3 - Greenway Interchanae Employment District Recommendations 1. Add a policy or policies under Objective 3.1 of the Future Land Use Element to address collaboration in the regional SeminoleWAY initiative. 2. Add a policy prohibiting stand alone residential development in the GID, so that residential is allowed only, as part of a vertical mix under Objective 3.2 of the Future Land Use Element. 3. Add a policy under Objective 3.2 that supports building height increases where sensitive lands are protected, as long as the FAR of 1.0 (gross acreage) is maintained. 4.. Revise Policy 3.4.4 as follows: "The City shall develop a Master Plan for the Greeneway Interchange area to ensure compatibility of land uses and compliance with Goal 3." 5. Add policies under Objective 3.4 of the Future Land Use Element to address future transit service including heliport, future transit circulator, trail connections, and bicycle facilities (such as bicycle racks and/or lockers) as they relate to the GID. 6. Revise Future Land Use Element Policy 1 .4.1 ., which encourages higher intensity adjacent to the Greeneway interchange. Major Issue 4 - State Road 434 Corridor Recommendations 1. Consider dropping Level of Service (LOS) standard (reclassifying from a Class I to a Class II arterial) to allow for a reduction in the speed limit on SR 434 for a segment of at least 1 mile segment (FOOT guideline for arterial analysis) centered around a 0.6 mile segment through the center of town from Doran Drive to the Cross Seminole Trail Bridge and adding policies to support maintenance of this new LOS standard. 2. Strengthen policies requiring interconnection of new development to existing facilities. Ensure that new development has more than one access point. Adopt pay-as-you go as part of the comprehensive plan transportation element update to address connectivity as well as capacity enhancements. 3. Add policies under Transportation Element Objective 1.3 supporting an interconnected trail and bike route system, trail and bike route identification and utilization. 4. Revise policy 1.5.12 of the Transportation Element to read: "The City shall amend the City Code to require that interconnected sidewalks be constructed concurrently with new development, by the developer." 3 5. Add a policy to Objective 1.5 of the Transportation Element regarding feasibility of a route along SR 434 connecting the Town Center and the GID, with the proposed facility to be limited to transit, bicycle, and/or pedestrian access. Environmental feasibility and traffic circulation would be the primary effort of the first phase. If permitting issues are not found to be insurmountable, a study would address issues such as potential routes and potential funding sources for capital and operating costs, and for a transit component, additional factors such as operating agency, headways, hours of operation, projected ridership, and pricing. 6. Add a policy to Objective 1.9 of the Transportation Element addressing coordination with the Florida Department of Transportation regarding a reduction in the speed limit on SR 434 in the Town Center to better reflect the pedestrian-friendly environment being created in the Town Center. 7. Add a policy to Objective 1.9 of the Transportation Element adopting a policy constraint for SR 434 west of Vistawilla to ensure that the highway will not be considered for widening by METROPLAN ORLANDO. 8. Add a policy or policies to the Comprehensive Plan where appropriate to lay the groundwork for meeting statutory and rule requirements for comprehensive plans regarding any concurrency management alternatives being considered by the City and which support the Town Center's Urban Central Business District overlay designation. These policies may include the concurrency alternatives: 8a. Add a policy or policies to the Comprehensive Plan establishing guidelines for granting exceptions to transportation concurrency for urban infill development, urban redevelopment, downtown revitalization, or a similar purpose allowed under the Florida Statutes. Ensure any such policies are consistent with and support a comprehensive strategy adopted in the Plan to promote the purpose of the exceptions (such as Goals 2, 3, and 5 of the Future Land Use Element). 8b. Add a policy or policies to the Comprehensive Plan designating one or more areas as urban infill development, urban redevelopment, downtown revitalization, or a similar designation to allow for the creation of one or more transportation concurrency exception areas within the City. 8c. Adopt into the Comprehensive Plan long-term strategies to support and fund mobility within any designated transportation exception areas (including alternative modes of transportation) and demonstrate how the strategies will support the purpose of the exception and how mobility within any designated exception areas will be provided. The strategies should also address urban design, appropriate land use mixes (including density and intensity) and network connectivity plans. Data and analysis justifying the size of the area must also be included. 8d. Consider Transportation Concurrency Management Area (TCMA), a Multimodal Transportation District (MMTD), or a Long Term Concurrency Transportation Management System (LTTCMS). 9. Add a policy to Objective 1.5 of the Transportation Element which supports the SR 434 Crosstown bus route and linkage to the planned Central Florida Commuter Rail. 10. Add a policy encouraging widening of SR 434 (within the extent of the GID) to 4-lanes east of SR 417. 4 Major Issue 5 - Elderly Housing & Medical Care Recommendations 1. Add policies to the Comprehensive Plan under Objective 1.4 of the Housing Element calling for the City to require and/or implement incentives for a certain percentage of townhouses and condominiums to conform to "Communities for a Lifetime" standards; to provide incentives for incorporating universal design principles in rehabilitation projects that incorporate universal design principles; and to work with programs that provide technical assistance on elderly housing policies to educate private and non-profit developers on these standards and universal design principles. 2. Add a policy to the Comprehensive Plan under Housing Element Objective 1.4 for the City to explore attracting an Assisted Living Facility (AlF) including studying potential locations, size requirements, market demand, and timing. Discuss partnerships and identify funding sources and programs such as the Elderly Housing Community loan program, which provides loans of up to $750,000 to developers that are making substantial improvements to elderly housing. htto: / / wwwJloridahousina.ora/Home/Develooers/SoeciaIProa rams /EHClProgram.htm 3. Update Policy 1.4.6 regarding the City's investigation of adaptive construction techniques, "Granny Cottages", and accessory apartments. Add a policy to the Comprehensive Plan under Housing Element Objective 1.4 and/or in the Future land Use Element to allow Accessory Dwelling Units as a conditional use in single family zoning districts subject to strict design compatibility guidelines to protect the neighborhood character (similar to Future land Use Policy 1 .5.3 - Conversions). 4. Add a policy in an appropriately identified section of the Comprehensive Plan for the City to explore attracting an Urgent Care Facility. 5. Revise Transportation Element Policy 1.6.6 and add policies in the Transportation Element addressing elderly mobility and access to community facilities (public transportation, private transportation providers, access to services, circulators). Discuss coordination opportunities with private/non-profit service providers. Senior housing and services should be located with good access to transit, goods and services as well as workforce housing for caregivers, and the pedestrian network and Cross Seminole Trail. 6. Add a policy or policies under the Recreation and Open Space and/or Transportation Elements addressing exercise and health opportunities for elderly residents, based on the changing demographics of retirees. 7. Add a policy encouraging state licensed group homes for the elderly (as allowed under Chapter 419, Florida Statutes) for six or fewer clients to locate in existing neighborhoods in Winter Springs. 8. Revise Policies 1.4.7 and 1.4.8 and/or adding a policy to the Comprehensive Plan under Objective 1.4 of the Housing Element calling for additional coordination with the identified groups and programs on elderly housing policies and identifying additional programs or groups. The City may be able to link with non-profit groups and community organizations to provide for education to seniors, not only on senior housing, but also on issues such as medical, health, and community resources. 5 Major Issue 6 - Affordable and Work-Force Housina Recommendations 1. Add a policy to the Comprehensive Plan under Housing Objective 1.3 to discuss programs and the City's partnership with private/non-profit developers on additional programs such as SHIP, HOME and CWHIP (similar to Housing Policy 2.1.6 for CDBG and Florida Neighborhood Housing Services Grants, which focus on rehabilitation and existing housing stock). 2. Add a policy to the Comprehensive Plan Intergovernmental Coordination Element Objective 1 .2: Land Use and Housing Coordination calling for the City to work with Seminole County to address affordable housing in the region, as well as to potentially develop a workforce housing program for the County. 3. Add a policy to the Comprehensive Plan under Housing Objective 1.3 calling for the City to cooperate with non-profit groups and community organizations to provide for education on affordable housing topics such as available grant programs, rehabilitation and maintenance to further engage low and moderate income homeowners in the entire process from purchase and rehabilitation of housing to maintenance, upkeep and care of housing. Involvement of local youth through the school system may also be applicable. 4. Consider a revision to Housing Policy 1.3.4 calling for the establishment of a program of density/development bonuses in return for developer contributions to affordable housing (currently calls for examination of a program). 5. Consider adding a policy to the Comprehensive Plan under Housing Objective 1.3 or further revising Policy 1.3.4 to call for examination of a program that provides developers with a reduced traffic level of service (LOS) for development applications to encourage geographic dispersal and expansion of affordable housing opportunities (i.e. a slight reduction in required traffic performance, see Traffic Performance Standards Affordable Housing Exception used in Palm Beach County). 6. Consider a policy that requires residential projects with more than 200 units to include a certain number (1 0% ?) of workforce housing units and requires developers of large commercial projects in the Town Center (over 100,000 SF ?) to provide a certain number of workforce housing units (10% of SF?) for workers to be interspersed into the development. [NOTE- The LP A directed that the terms "large" and "a certain number" be clarified. As a result, Staff added the clarifying language which was then distributed to each of the LPA members for review; however, the LPA has not formally acted upon the clarifying language which is included within the parentheses.] In addition to these policy recommendations, as illustrated by the Assessment of Comprehensive Plan Goals, Objectives and Policies, the City has numerous policies in the current Comprehensive plan that support affordable and workforce housing goals. The implementation of these policies through specific programs, projects and funding actions would advance affordable and workforce housing goals. 6 Date: January 17, 2008 This was provided to the City Commission by Ms. Eloise Sahlstrom at the January 17,2008 City Commission Special Meeting during Regular Agenda Item "600". Major Issue 4 - State Road 434 Corridor Current: 1. Consider dropping Level of Service (LOS) standard (reclassifying from a Class I to a Class II arterial) to allow for a reduction in the speed limit on SR 434 for a segment of at least 1 mile segment (FOOT guideline for arterial analysis) centered around a 0.6 mile segment through the center of town from Doran Drive to the Cross Seminole Trail Bridge and adding policies to support maintenance of this new LOS standard. Proposed: 1. Add a policy addressing coordination with FDOT to appropriately re-classify S.R. 434 within the Winter Springs Town Center corridor as a Class /I or Class /II arterial based on the increased density of traffic signals along S.R. 434. Reasoning: S.R. 434 is currently a Class I arterial, which is based on speed limits of at least 45 mph and a traffic signal density of less than 2 per mile. The current traffic signal density is 3 per mile, which qualifies as a Class II arterial, which has typical speed limits of 35-45 mph. Over the longer term, the S.R. 434 corridor through the Town Center may evolve into a Class III arterial with at least 4.5 signals per mile and speed limits of 30-40 mph. The change in roadway class will help efforts to reduce the speed limit in the Town Center.