HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001 03 21 Public Hearings A First Reading - Ordinance 2001-18 Elizabeth Morse Foundation Property
COMMISSION AGENDA
ITEM
A
Consent
Informational
Public Hearing X
Regular
March 21, 2001
Meeting
Mgr. fY:: I apt
Authorization
REQUEST:
The Community Development Department - Planning Division requests the City Commission
hold a public hearing for first reading and consideration of Ordinance 2001-18 to adopt the large
scale comprehensive plan amendment (LS-CP A-I-00) that would change the Future Land Use
Map designation of the Elizabeth Morse Foundation Property from (County) "Suburban Estates"
(1 DU per acre) to (City) designation "GreeneWay Interchange".
PURPOSE:
The purpose of this Agenda Item is to request the Commission hold a public hearing for first
reading of Ordinance 2001-18 to change the Future Land Use Map designation to allow
development of the property according to the requirements of the "GreeneWay Interchange"
District in order to take advantage of the commercial opportunities provided by the transportation
nexus of S.R. 417 (The GreeneWay) and S.R. 434.
APPLICABLE LAW AND PUBLIC POLICY:
The provisions of Florida Statutes Chapter 163.3184(15)(b) F.S. which state: "The local
governing body shall hold at least one advertised public hearing on the proposed comprehensive
plan or plan amendment as follows:
I. The first public hearing shall be held at the transmittal stage pursuant to subsection
(3). It shall be held on a weekday at least 7 days after the day that the
advertisement is published.
CDDllvlarch 21, 2001/1:28 PM
MARCH 21,2001
PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA ITEM A
Page 2
2. The second public hearing shall be held at the adoption stage pursuant to
subsection (7). It shall be held on a weekday at least 5 days after the day that the
second advertisement is published."
The provisions of 166.041(3)(a) which state in part: "Except as provided in paragraph (c), a
proposed ordinance may be read by title, or in full, on at least 2 separate days and shall, at least 10
days prior to adoption, be noticed once in a newspaper of general circulation in the municipality."
CONSIDERA TIONS:
. The City Commission annexed the Elizabeth Morse Foundation property on
September 27, 1999.
. Discussions were held on several occasions about including the subject property in the
"GreeneWay Interchange" District and later in the expanded Town Center.
. The Florida Department of Community Affairs issued its ORC (Objections,
Recommendations, and Comments) Report on January 26,2001.
· The Local Planning Agency at its March 7,2001 meeting reviewed the ORC Report and
the Response to the ORC Report and made its recommendation to the City Commission.
FINDINGS:
1. Wetlands do exist on the subject property although the exact location and extent of
these wetlands are not known at present because a jurisdictional wetland boundary
has not been established by the appropriate governmental agency.
2. Wetland delineation on the City's Future Land Use Map and the County's Future
Land Use Map are understood to be approximations and only at the time of site
development review are they required to be accurately delineated. [ref.: Goal 2,
_,Objective A, Policy 3)b. of the Land Use Element and in Goal 1, Objective C,
Policy 5)a. of the Conservation Element]
3. The Future Land Use Map will be modified to reflect the presence of wetlands on
the subject property. [ref: Goal 1, Objective B, Policy 1 of the Conservation
Element]
CDD/March 2], 200111:15 PM
MARCH 21,2001
PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA ITEM A
Page 3
4. There is a well established permit application process in the development of
property, whereby a detailed analysis is conducted by the St. Johns River Water
Management District (and sometimes other agencies) to determine the location,
extent, and type of on-site wetlands. [ref.: Goal I, Objective C, Policy 5)a. of the
Conservation Element]
5. The Florida Department of Community Affairs recognizes the permit application
process of the St. Johns River Water Management District for preservation of
wetlands.
6. The City's Comprehensive Plan provides for preservation of environmentally
sensitive areas through creation of an environmental easement either indicated on
the plat for the development or by a separate instrument approved by the City.
[ref: Goal 2, Objective A, Policy 3)c. of the Land Use Element]
7. The "GreeneWay Interchange" Future Land Use Map designation allows for
flexibility of mixed use development and provides a range of development densities
but does not determine specifically the mix of uses or densities. The City has the
authority at the time of development review to require a traffic impact study that
can specifically relate to what the development is proposed, rather than request a
traffic impact study based on any number of mix of uses and densities.
8. The City has a Concurrency Management requirement in its Comprehensive Plan
that can ensure adequate public facilities and services are available or programmed
at the time of development.
. FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
IMPLEMENTA TION SCHEDULE:
A public hearing for second reading and adoption of Ordinance 2001-18 is scheduled for
March 26,2001. The ordinance would become effective after 21 days of the issue of "Notice of
Intent" by the Florida Department of Community Affairs to find the large scale comprehensive
plan amendment in compliance. [ref: 163.3184(1O)(a) F.S. ]
CDDt1vlarch 21, 2001/1:15 PM
MARCH 21,2001
PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA ITEM A
Page 4
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the City Commission hold a public hearing for first reading and consideration
of Ordinance 2001-18 to change the Future Land Use Map designation of the Elizabeth Morse
Foundation property from (County) "Suburban Estates" (1 DU per acre) to (City) designation
"Greene W ay Interchange", incorporating the City staff and the Local Planning Agency's Findings,
and the Response to the ORC Report as the basis for the adoption of the plan amendment.
LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY RECOMMENDATION:
The Local Planning Agency at its March 7, 2001 meeting recommended the City Commission
approve the change of Future Land Use Map designation of the Elizabeth Morse Foundation
property from (County) "Suburban Estates" (1 DU per acre) to (City) designation "GreeneWay
Interchange" District, incorporating the City staff and the Local Planning Agency's Findings, and
the Response to the ORC Report as the basis for the adoption of the plan amendment.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Ordinance 2001-18
ORC Report for Large Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment LS-CPA-1-00.
[ See Local Planning Agency Agenda Item II. E. Attachment 1 ]
Response to the ORC Report for LS-CP A-I-00
[ See Local Planning Agency Agenda Item II. E. Attachment 2 ]
LS-CP A-I-00 Plan Amendment Original Data & Analysis Submission Included in the Transmittal
to the Florida Department of Community Affairs.
[ See Local Planning Agency Agenda Item II. E. Attachment 3 ]
COMMISSION ACTION:
CDD/March 21, 200 III: 15 PJ\.I
ATTACHMENT A
ORDINANCE 2001-18
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, SEMINOLE COUNTY,
FLORIDA, CHANGING THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP
DESIGNATION ON A 67.85 ACRE PARCEL KNOWN AS THE
ELIZABETH MORSE FOUNDATION PROPERTY FROM
SEMINOLE COUNTY FUTURE LAND USE ~
DESIGNATION "SUBURBAN ESTATES" TO CITY FUTURE
LAND USE MAP DESIGNATION "GREENEWAY
INTERCHANGE", DISTRICT, LOCATED ON THE WEST
SIDE OF STATE ROAD 417 "THE GREENEWAY", NORTH
OF STATE ROAD 434, SOUTH OF LAKE JESSUP AND EAST
OF SPRING AVENUE, AND MORE PARTICULARLY
DESCRIBED BELOW; PURSUANT TO 163.3184(15)(B) AND
166.041 FLORIDA STA TUTES; PROVIDING FOR THE
REPEAL OF PRIOR INCONSISTENT ORDINANCES AND
RESOLUTIONS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY;
PROVIDING FOR INCORPORATION INTO THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; AND PROVIDING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE AND LEGAL STATUS OF THE PLAN
AMENDMENTS.
WHEREAS, section 163.3161 et. Seq., Florida Statutes (1987) established the
. Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act,
and
Ordinance 2001-18
City of Winter Springs
WHEREAS, section 163.3167, Florida Statutes, requires each municipality in
the State of Florida to prepare and adopt a Comprehensive Plan as scheduled by the
Florida Department of Community Affairs, and
WHEREAS, the Local Planning Agency of the City of Winter Springs held a duly
noticed public hearing, in accordance with the procedures in Chapter 163, Part II,
Florida Statutes, on the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment and considered
findings and advice of staff, citizens, and all interested parties submitting written and
oral comments and has recommended adoption to the City Commission; and
WHEREAS, on November 13, 2000, the City Commission of the City of
Winter Springs held a duly noticed public hearing on the proposed Comprehensive
Plan amendment and considered findings and advice of staff, citizens, and all
interested parties submitting written and oral comments, and after complete
deliberation, approved the amendment for transmittal to the Florida Department of
Community Affairs; and
WHEREAS, on January 26, 2001, the Florida Department of Community
Affairs issued its Objections, Recommendations, and Comments Report ("ORC
Report") to the City and made recommendations to bring the subject Comprehensive
Ordinance 2001-18
City of Winter Springs
2
Plan amendment in compliance with Rule 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code, and
Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes; and
WHEREAS, the City Commission has reviewed and evaluated the ORC
Report and has made certain modifications to the Comprehensive Plan amendment
. originally transmitted to the Florida Department of Community Affairs in order to
bring the amendment into compliance with Rule 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code,
and Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to section 9J-ll.006, Florida Administrative Code, this
Comprehensive Plan amendment will not cause the City to exceed its twice yearly
submittal allowance for comprehensive plan amendments; and
WHEREAS, on March 26, 2001, the City Commission of the City of Winter
Springs held a duly noticed public adoption hearing on the proposed amendment set
forth hereunder and considered fmdings and advice of staff, citizens, and all
interested parties submitting written and oral comments and supporting data and
. analysis, as well as the Objections, Recommendations, and Comments of the Florida
Department of Community Affairs, and after complete deliberation, approved and
adopted the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment set forth hereunder, and
Ordinance 2001-18
City of Winter Springs
3
WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan amendment adopted by this Ordinance
complies with the requirements of the Local Government Comprehensive Planning
and Land Development Regulation Act and the amendment is in the best interests of
the public health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of Winter Springs, Florida and
. serve a legitimate governmental interest.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA, AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1 Recitals. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and are fully
incorporated herein by this reference.
Section 2 Authority. This Ordinance IS adopted in compliance with, and
pursuant to, the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development
Regulations Act, sections 163.184 and 163.187, Florida Stahltes.
Section 3 Purpose and Intent.
It is hereby declared to be the purrose and
. intent of this Ordinance to clarify, expand, correct, update, modify and otherwise
further the provisions of the City of Winter Springs' Comprehensive Plan.
Section 4 Adoption of Amendment to the Future Land Use Map. The City of
Winter Springs' Comprehensive Plan, Fuhlre Land Use Map, is hereby amended by
Ordinance 2001-18
City of Winter Springs
4
designating the real property depicted on Exhibit I as "Greene Way Interchange"
District. Exhibit 1 is attached hereto and fully incorporated herein by this reference.
Any real property with a "Conservation" future land use designation depicted on the
City or County Future Land Use Map on the effective date of this Ordinance shall
maintain its "Conservation" designation.
Section 5 Transmittal to the Department of Community Affairs. The City
Manager or his designee is hereby designated to sign a letter transmitting this adopted
Comprehensive Plan amendment to the Florida Department of Community Affairs,
in accordance with section l63.3l87(I)(c)(4), Florida Statutes, and section 9J-11,
Florida Administrative Code.
Section 6 Repeal of Prior Inconsistent Ordinances and Resolutions: All
prior inconsistent ordinances and resolutions adopted by the City Commission, or
parts of ordinances and resolutions in conflict herewith, are hereby repealed to the
extent of the conflict.
Section 7 Severability:
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase,
word or provision of this ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional
by any court of competent jurisdiction, whether for substantive, procedural, or any
other reason, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent
Ordinance 2001-18
City of Winter Springs
5
provision, and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of
this Ordinance.
Section 8 Incorporation into Comprehensive Plan. Upon the effective date of
the Comprehensive Plan amendment adopted by this Ordinance, said Amendment
shall be incorporated into the City of Winter Springs Comprehensive Plan and any
section or paragraph number or letter and any heading may be changed or modified
as necessary to effectuate the foregoing.
Section 9 Effective Date and Legal Status of the Plan Amendment. The
effective date of the Comprehensive Plan amendment adopted by this Ordinance
shall be the date a final order is issued by the Florida Department of Community
Affairs, or the Administration Commission finding the Amendment in compliance
with section 163.3184, Florida Statutes. No development orders, development
permits, or land use dependent on this Amendment may be issued or commenced
before it has become effective. If a final order of noncompliance is issued by the
. Administration Commission, the Amendment may nevertheless be made effective by
adoption of a resolution affinning its effective status. After and from the effective
date of these Amendments, the Comprehensive Plan amendment set forth herein shall
amend the City of Winter Springs' Comprehensive Plan and become a part of that
Ordinance 2001-18
City of Winter Springs
6
plan and the Amendment shall have the legal status of the City of Winter Springs'
Comprehensive Plan, as amended.
ADOPTED by the City Commission of the City of Winter Springs, Florida, in
a regular meeting assembled on the 26th day of March, 2001.
PAUL P. PARTYKA, MAYOR
REVIEWED AS TO LEGAL FORM AND SUFFICIENCY FOR
THE CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS ONLY.
ANTHONY GARGANESE, CITY ATTORNEY
ATTEST:
ANDREALORENZO~UACES
INTERIM CITY CLERK
1ST READING
POSTED
2ND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING
Ordinance 2001-18
City of Winter Springs
7
J
~~l
-J
J
]
EXHIBIT 1
,
~;
,~.:-
]
"l
~
']
j
J.
"
J
"I
.~
OTHER ATTACHMENTS
ORC Report for Large Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment LS-CPA-I-00.
[ See Local Planning Agency Agenda Item II. E. Attachment 1 ]
Response to the ORC Report for LS-CP A-I-OO
[ See Local Planning Agency Agenda Item II. E. Attachment 2 ]
LS-CPA-I-00 Plan Amendment Original Data & Analysis Submission Included in the Transmittal
to the Florida Department of Community Affairs.
[ See Local Planning Agency Agenda Item II. E. Attachment 3 ]
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS
OBJECTIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND COMMENTS
FOR THE
,CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS
, AMENDMENT 01-1
January 26,2001
Division of Community Planning
Bureau of Local Planning
This report is prepared pursuant to Ru Ie 91-1 J. 0 10
I. AMENDMENTS WITH OBJECTIONS
A. Future Land Use Map Amendments
1. Amendment LS-CPA-I-OO:
a. Suitability Based on Natural Resources and Facilities: The City proposes a Land Use
Map Amendment Annexing and Redesignating 67.58 acres from Seminole County (Suburban
Estates 1 du/acre) and Conservation to Greeneway Interchange (5-10 du/acre, Open Space and 1
FAR non-residential). The City has not demonstrated that the natural resources on-site will be
protected. It appears that a portion of the site is currently in a conservation category under the
Seminole County Plan. The data also indicate the presence of wetlands over approximately 1/3
of the site and proximity to the Lake Jessup shoreline. There is no indication how the current
proposal for a Greeneway Interchange designation will protect resources such as wetlands.
The Department also has questions regarding the impacts to roadway facilities and services since
the analysis provided does not indicate the current 'and projected capacity and availability for
roadway facilities. FDOT commented the City lacked an adequate analysis.
Recommendation: Revise the amendment to retain the wetland and floodplain areas in a
conservation land use designation or other designation to protect the natural resources on-site.
Revise the amendment to include an adequate transportation analysis. The analyses should
include: 1) An assessment through the planning period of the impacts to facilities based on the.
most intense use including cumulative impacts (traffic) generated by proposed amendments
herein; 2) Data and analysis demonstrating coordination of facilities with the proposed land
uses; and 3) An assessment of the timing of provision of services such that all services are
provided at the adopted level of service.
The analyses should assess the demand for services with regard to available capacity of services.
For example, the City should assess traffic generation with regard to available capacity on
existing roadways based on both the peak hour and the daily average trips; and should take into
account the traffic generated by proposed amendments contained within this package.
All analyses should be based on the most intense use proposed for development as identified and
guided by the future land use map and future land use element policies, and should assess
impacts in the short-term within five years and through the planning period (to 2015). Again,
using the transportation example, the analysis should identify current operating LOS for SR 234
and 417, as well as any applicable local roadways. Include any FIHS facilities. The analysis
should then factor in anticipated impacts from any proposed amendment such that a comparison
of before~amendment and after-amendment conditions can be made.
The analyses should then identify if and where deficiencies will be realized based on the LOS
maximums as established by the local comprehensive plan and FDOT. This procedure should be
repeated for a projected LOS through 2005 and 2015. For any identified deficiencies within five
years, the City should,identify how the deficiency will be remedie,d through capital
improvements planning including the amount and source of funding necessary, the type of
project, and the expected timing of the project to coincide with anticipated demands. Ifit is for a
facility that is not withiIi the City's funding jurisdiction than the applicable work program .
(FOOT, and/or County) should be used to identify pertinent projects. Any projects needed
should then be reflected through a change to the comprehensive plan and/or corresponding
capital improvements schedule. For deficiencies identified beyond five years, the City should
identify the types of planning strategies that will be used to alleviate facility challenges including
any revisions to the plan that may be necessary. The strategies should address the overall service
network countywide and take into account the anticipated operational levels through the planning
period.
b. Internal Consistency: Because the amendment has not demonstrated consistency with
statutory requirements for protection of natural resources, and for coordination of land uses with
transportation facilities and services, amendment has not demonstrated internal consistency with
the City's goals, objectives and policies ofthe comprehensive plan as listed:
Traffic Circulation: Objective B, Policy 1 and 6, requiring coordination, Objective C,
and Policies 1 through 7 requiring level of service maintenance, Objective D, Policies 2
and 3;
Future Land Use Element: Goal 2, Objective A, Policies 1 through 3, requiring
protection of natural resources;
Conservation: Goal 1, Objective B, Poli~ies 1, 2, 4, and 5, protecting natural resources,'
Objective c, Policies 6 and 7, regarding protection of floodplains and coordination;
Capital Improvements: goal 1, Objective C, Policy 1, Transportation LOS
Recommendation: Retain the conservation areas as recommended and perform the necessary
analyses fortransportation as recommended. Revise the amendment as necessary to be
supported by the conservation and transportation data.
Sections: 163.3177(1), 163.3177(6)(a), 163.3 I 77(6)(c), 163.3177(6)(d),
163.3177(6)0),163.3177(8), 163.3187(2), F.S. '
Rules: 9J-5.005(2), 9J-5.005(5), 9J-5.006(2)(b) and (c); 9J-5.006(3)(b)3, (b)6, (b)10 and (c)2;
9J-5.006(4); 9J-5.006(5), 9J-5.013(2), F.A.C.
2
r-
F
r
r
I
I
ELIZABETH MORSE FOUNDATION.
ORC REPORT RESPONSE
LS-CPA-I-OO
- -
~f
FEBRUARY 19,2001
I
--'1
]
']
J
]
J
~
]
J
~
1.:
]
J
]
]
J
J
J
ELIZABETH MORSE FOUNDATION
AMENDMENT LS-CPA-I-OO
ORC REPORT RESPONSE
1. FUTURE LAND USE MAP AMENDMENTS
a. Suitability Based on Natural Resources and Facilities: The City proposes a Land Use
Map Amendment annexing and redesignating 67.58 acres from Seminole County
(Suburban Estates 1 du/acre) and Conservation to Greeneway Interchange (5 - 10
du/acre, Open Space a 1 FAR non-residential). The City has not demonstrated that the
natural resources on-site wi)) be protected. It appears that a portion of the site is
currently in a conservation category under the Seminole County Plan. The data also
indicate the presence ofwetlands over approximately 1/3 of the site and proximity to the
Lake Jessup shoreline. There is no indication how the current proposal for a Greeneway
Interchange designation will protect resources such as wetlands.
The Department also has questions regarding the impacts to roadway facilities and
services since the analysis provided does not indicate the current and projected capacity
and availability for roadway facilities. FDOT commented the City lacked an adequate
analysis.
Recommendation: Revised the amendment to retain the wetland and floodplain areas in
a conservation land use designation or other designation to protect the natural resources
on-site.
Response:;:The Future Land Use Map Amendment will be modified to reflect the presence of
wetlands on the property. Exhibit A identifies the preliminary jurisdictional wetland limits
on the subject property. It is important to clarify that the final determination of the limits and
-1-
ORC Report Response
Elizabeth Morse Foul/datiol/
j
l
a conservation land use designation of anyon-site wetlands is subject to a detai led analysis by
the governing environmental agency which shall include the St. Johns River Water
Management District (SJR WMD). The extent of and location of on-site preserved wetlands
will be established as a result of a SJRWMD permit application addressing wetland limits,
preserved wetlands, wetland buffers and a mitigation for any wetland impacts.
",j
'/
-:1
I
J
J
I
]
J
J
]
]
I
J
.J
Upon approval of the Master Wetland ConservationlMitigation Plan, the preserved wetland
areas will be identified and a conservation easement established.
Through this action, the DCA should be satisfied that the preliminary wetland/conservation
area designation and the subsequent final designation will address the concerns and
recommendations outlined above.
Revised the amendment to include an adequate transportation analysis. The analyses
should include: 1) An assessment through the planning period of the impacts to facilities
based on the most intense use including cumulative impacts (traffic) generated by
proposed amendments herein; 2) Data and analysis demonstrating coordination of
facilities with the proposed land uses; and 3) An assessment of the timing of provision of
services such that all services are provided at the adopted Level of Service (LOS).
The analyses should assess the demand for services with regard to available capacity of
services. For example, the City should assess traffic generation with regard to available
capacity on existing roadways based on both the peak hour and the daily average trips;
and should take into account the traffic generated by proposed amendments contained
within this package.
All analyses should be based on the most intense use proposed for development as
identified and guided by the Future Land Use Map and Future Land Use Element
Policies, and should assess impacts in the short-term within five years and through the
planning period (to 2015). Again, using the transportation example, the analysis should
identify current operating LOS for SR 234 and 417, as well as any applicable local
roadways. Include any FIHS facilities. The analysis should then factor in anticipated
Elizabeth Morse F olll/dation
-2-
ORC Report Respollst'
I
l
]
"]
]--
j
]
~
]
]
]
J
J
]
J
I
.J
J
impacts from any proposed amendment such that a comparison of before-amendment
and after-amendment conditions can be made.
The analyses should then identify if and where deficiencies will be realized based on the
LOS maximums as established by the local comprehensive Plan and FDOT. This
procedure should be repeated for a projected LOS through 2005 and 2015. For any
identified deficiencies within five years, the City should identify how the deficiency will
be remedied through capital improvements planning including the amount and source
of funding necessary, the type of project, and the expected timing of the project to
coincide 'with anticipated demands. If it is for a facility that is not within the City's
funding jurisdiction than the applicable work program (FDOT, and/or County) should
be used to identify pertinent projects. Any projects needed should then be reflected
through a change to the Comprehensive Plan and/or corresponding capital
improvements schedule. For deficiencies identified beyond five year, the City should
identify the types of planning strategies that will be used to alleviate facility challenges
including any revision to the plan that may be necessary. The strategies should address
the overall service network countywide and take into account the anticipated operational
levels through the planning period.
Response: The Greeneway Interchange District is a mixed use land use category which
provides for flexibility in the mix ofland uses. Inasmuch as the subject of this amendment is
to establish a generalized land use category and the specific land use mix is to be addressed in
a subsequent zoning application, it is not possible to accurately identify the specific mix of
uses at this time. The Greeneway Interchange District offers a variety of detailed guidelines
and controls to ensure that development of the subject property reflects the desires of the
community. This zoning district has been developed to clearly establish the design standards
applicable to this property and thereby provide assurances that development of this property
will properly reflect the character of the land and its importance as a gateway into the City of
Winter Springs.
A fundamental philosophy of the City Comprehensive Plan is the compliance with the
Concurrency policies as contained in the adopted plan. The Concurrency Regulations provide
Elizabeth Morse FOllndation
-3-
ORC Reporr Rl:!spol/se
l
adequate assurances that prior to development approvals, the developer must demonstrate that
there are adequate public facilities and services available or programmed at the time of
development to accommodate the intensities of the planned development. Inasmuch as the
Future Land Use Designation is not a development approval and the mix of land uses are not
identified at this stage of the land planning process, it is not appropriate to conduct a
theoretical traffic analysis based on a fabricated development program that is most likely
unrelated to the final development program.
-I
~J
]
J
]
~
J
I
J
J
-J-
"
J
J
I
J
J
Prior to granting the Greeneway Interchange Zoning approval, the developer will be required
to: 1) Establish a specific land use mix with corresponding development intensities; 2)
Conduct a full Concurrency Analysis including transportation to demonstrate to the City the
ability of the infrastructure either current or planned; and 3) Establish the appropriate
conditional zoning conditions to ensure a direct relationship between infrastructure and any
improvements necessary to accommodate the specific development program. If necessary, the
development program will be appropriately reduced to establish the proper balance between
infrastructure capacity and development intensities.
It is clearly understood by the City and the land owner that the Comprehensive Plan
Amendment/Future Land Use Designation does not establish a specific development intensity.
Further, prior to development, the property must be rezoned under the Greeneway Interchange
District which shall include a specific development program and a corresponding Concurrency
analysis and infrastructure mitigation, if necessary, to ensure adequate public facilities and
services are available to accommodate the proposed development.
b. Internal Consistency: Because the amendment has not demonstrated consistency with
statutory requirements for protection of natural resources, and for coordination ofland
uses with transportation facilities and services, amendment has not demonstrated
internal consistency with the City's goal, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive
Plan as listed:
-4-
ORC RepOrT RespoJ/se
Elizabeth Morse Foundation
-j
Traffic Circulation: Objective B, Policy I and 6, requiring coordination,
Objective C, and Policies 1 through 7 requiring Level of Service maintenance,
Objective D, Policies 2 and 3:
-1
-1
I
J
J
I
Response: The mandatory compliance of the development intensities under the
Greeneway Interchange District, the City Concurrency Management System and the
fundamental requirement of ensuring that development intensities do not exceed
established Levels of Service herein demonstrate that the City has established adequate
controls to satisfy the concerns represented in the ORC Report such that a traffic study
is not necessary prior to adopting this amendment.
Future Land Use Element: Goal 2, Objective A, Policies 1 through 3, requiring
protection of natural resources;
Response: The inclusion of a conservation designation over the on-site wetlands
combined with the policies in the Future Land Use Element are sufficient to address
the ORC Report.
Conservation: Goal I, Objective B, Policies 1, 2, 4, and 5, protecting natural
resources, Objective C, Policies 6 and 7, regarding protection of floodplains and
coordination;
J
Response: Development of the subject property shall conform wit the City
Conservation Policies as well as the permitting requirements of the St Johns Ri\"er
Water Management District.
J
J
]
.J
I
Capital Improvements: Goal 1, Objective C, Policy 1, Transportation LOS
Recommendation: Retain the conservation areas as recommended and perform the
necessary analyses for transportation as recommended. Revised the amendment as
necessary to be supported by the conservation and transportation data.
Elizabeth Morse Foundation
-5-
ORC Report Respol/sl:'
,.1
J
]
:1
!
d
~'
.'...'
"
]]
~
],
:~
."
J
~
]
,]
]
]
]
J
J
Section: 163.3177(1), 163.3177(6)(a), 163.3177(6)(c), 163.3177(d)(d), 163.31 77(6)(j),
163.3177(8), 163.31876(2), F.S.
Rules: 9J-5.005(2), 9J-5.006(2)(b) and (c); 9J-5.006(3)(b)3, (b)6, (b)10 and (c)2; 9J-
5.006(4); 9J-5.006(5), 9J-5.013(2), F.A.C.
MORSElORC/4135
Elizabeth Morse FOl/ndation
ORC Reporr Rf!spo/lsl'
-6-
/'" ---.
~r' .
I "
I': (:.',~ :.'
J
1:".
~ J .
F"
'I'
. .'~:'
r-
.m".'...,~
..... ..-.
.,
.~.: In.
, ,
~
J-."
"
J
1.1/../
~".'
,.
'\~
J
WI - ~t/
,~J
]
J
.,
u;t~oB
r --:-.
I. ':
....
,..,(: ,
-,
;..'
. ..... .
~:f~~
:."
.;. ..'.
.', . . '" .'
.. ........".;(.~q~l~f
;.t'''tjlt~,~j~11~W~:'t,. .
'. _w_ _~.~._.:. .._.::)..:.i;':-t~-::;:'';;:.:i...~.',,;,.::-.::.
. ~.' '... .
. , ,
..... .
.:- ........;'~.~.~ :",- :~.:.:
" ....." . ','-. ....
. .... ,...-..........--
.. '"
... ",',. -
.: ~: ~"I):!:'
:. ," ..:':..~..~!.;:i:-.\
/.. .' ,',: ,-
"'-' .
. .- ,", . "','
:... - ;... :'~~'." .--;..;':;'-:.~-:..::.;.-.-..,'.~. .
~.~:.:'.~ ~:"" .....~.:./.~...:: ~'.. :~. .',., "
.... ., ~... .;.:.~' ~.~:;'..r.-.'~':;::, .......__- " .
. . ".., .,. -', ~.~. .'
. '. ."' .
.- ~ . ". t.".. . ': .' ~ -.. :
.' :i" ;',. ~ I.; .
, - ..... '".-. ..........:..- ,,,. .......
..~._~~.:;.:..:.;...~:.. ....:. .~
',r....;. .. ~ .. ......._. .. .
.....,.-~.!'..7:"....:..!:.""'i:'~"":.."!'...~..;;...:
':"-' _:..,;..::.:..._;....::~~..;.~~... .....
.' . ':..~~<i/~:~::".:."
. :.. . .... .
__~__~_____'_.__._.'4'" .
". ". '"
'.. .~*_. .........-... .
..-.-..-..-...... ..... ._...
.J-~
I..t J.. -- ). d..
@ Potential Conservation Areas
J
]
~m;~Q Lotspeich and Associates, Inc.
a!. ECOLOGiCAl CONSULTANTS
U2 Wotl F ~ A........ SlilA 201. \'WIlt< Por\. Fl. 3m9
(~1~&.4a1 Fa:6H.1JCS ...u.t.l",""""lIGocI,,,,",
_J
File:
98184.B.COR Drawn By :
JM Job No :
Lake Jessup Grove Property
Boundary Map
.... North
+/- 7O.creo In
SKlion ~7. Townohip 2\ S"""'- Reno. ~I E-t
SeminoItt Coo..nty. _
Scale: 1 "=4::Q'
96184.33 Dale: 12 January 1999
Figure 1
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS'1 FLORIDA
, 1126 EAST STATE ROAD 434
WINTER SPRINGS. FLORIDA 32708-2799
Telephone (407) 327-1800
Community Development Depl.
Planning Division
LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY REGULAR AGENDA ITEM:
II. E.
ELIZABETH MORSE GENIUS FOUNDATION PROPERTY
LARGE SCALE PLAN AMENDMENT (LS-CPA-I-OO)
STAFF REPORT:
APPLICABLE LAW AND PUBLIC POLICY:
The provisions of 163.317 4{ 4) Florida Statutes which state "Be the agency (Local
Planning Agency) responsible for the preparation of the comprehensive plan or plan
amendment and shall make recommendations to the governing body regarding the
adoption or amendment of such plan. During the preparation of the plan or plan
amendment and prior to any recommendation to the governing body, the Local Planning
Agency shall hold at least one public hearing, with public notice, on the proposed plan or
plan amendment."
The provisions of Sec. 20-57 of the City Code which state in part ". .the planning and
zoning board shall serve as the local,planning agency pursuant to the county
comprehensive planning act and the local government comprehensive planning act of the
state. . ."
It is City Administration policy that the applicant must provide the data, inventory and
analysis in support of the proposed comprehensive plan amendment and provide the
response to the ORe Report.
APPLICANT:
OWNER:
Henderson Planning Group, Inc.
112 South Lake Avenue
Orlando, FL 32801
(407) 872-3025
Casscells Trust
907 Old England Ave.
Winter Park, FL 32789
LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY
March 7,200]
Morse Foundation Tract Plan Amendment
LS-CPA-l-OO
Page] of4
REQUEST:
For the Local Planning Agency to review and recommend adoption of the plan amendment
taking into consideration the Response to the ORC Report provided by the consultant.
PURPOSE:
.' The property owner of the 67.58 acre Morse Foundation land desires to develop the
property for mixed use, taking advantage of the new "Gn~eneWay Interchange" Future
Land Use Map designation, designed by the City to take advantage of the commercial
opportunities provided by the transportation nexus of S.R. 417 (The GreeneWay) and
S.R. 434. The Future Land Use Map designation provides for higher density residential
and higher intensity commercial than allowed under the City's other Future Land Use Map
and zoning designations.
OBJECTIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND COMMENTS REPORT (ORC) FROM
THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS:
The consultant for this proposed plan amendment is Henderson Planning Group, Inc. The
consultant received a copy of the ORC Report and has made the responses.
[ See Attachment 2 ]
FINDINGS:
.
Henderson Planning Group, Inc. has provided the response to the ORC Report
relating to the proposed plan amendment LS-CPA-I-00.
.
Wetlands do exist on the subject property although the exact location and extent of
these wetlands are not known at present because a jurisdictional wetland boundary
has not been established by the appropriate governmental agency.
.
Wetland delineation on the City's Future Land Use Map and the County's Future
Land Use Map are understood to be approximations and only at the time of site
development review are they required to be accurately delineated. [ref.: Goal 2,
Objective A, Policy 3)b. of the Land Use Element and in Goal 1, Objective C,
, policy 5)a. of the Conservation Element]
.
The Future Land Use Map should be modified to reflect the presence of wetlands
on the subject property. [ref.: Goal 1, Objective B, Policy 1 of the Conservation
Element]
LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY
March 7,2001
Morsc Foundalion Tract Plan Amendment
LS-CPA-I-OO
Page 2 of 1)
.
There is well established permit application process in the development of
property, whereby a detailed analysis is conducted by the St. Johns River Water
Management District (and sometimes other agencies) to determine the location,
extent, and type of on-site wetlands. [ref.: Goal, Objective C, Policy 5)a. of the
Conservation Element]
.
The Florida Department of Community Affairs recognizes the permit application
process of the St. Johns River Water Management District for preservation of
wetlands.
.
The City's Comprehensive Plan provides for preservation of environmentally
sensitive areas through creation of an environmental easement either indicated on
the plat for the development or by a separate instrument approved by the City.
[ ref.: Goal 2, Objective A Policy 3)c. of the Land Use Element]
.
The "GreeneWay Interchange" Future Land Use Map designation allows for
flexibility of mixed use development and provides a range of development densities
but does not determine specifically the mix of uses or densities. The City has the
authority at the time of development review to require a traffic impact study that
can specifically relate to what the development is proposed, rather than request a
traffic impact studies based a any number of mix of uses and densities.
.
The City has a Concurrency Management requirement in its Comprehensive Plan
that can ensure adequate public facilities and services are available or programmed
at the time of development.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Local Planning Agency make the following recommendation to
the City Commission:
That the City Commission hold a second (adoption) public hearing and adopt the
'';;large scale comprehensive phm amendment (LS-CPA-I-00) incorporating the City
staff and the Local Planning Agency's Findings, and the Response to the ORC
Report as the basis for the adoption of the plan amendment.
LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY
March 7, 200 I
Morse Foundation Tract Plan Amendment
LS-CP A-I-OO
Page 3 of 4
ATTACHMENTS:
1. ORC Report for Proposed Plan Amendment (LS-CP A-I-OO).
2. Response to the ORC Report for LS-CP A-I-00.
3. LS-CP A-I-OO Plan Amendment Original Data & Analysis Submission.
LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY
Moreh 7,2001
Morse Foundalion Traet Plan Amendmenl
LS-CP A-I-OO
Page 4 of 4
ATTACHMENT 1
~-
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS
OBJECTIONS', RECOMMENDATIONS AND ~O:MMENTS
FOR THE
,CITY OF WINTER SPRlNGS
, AMENDMENT 01-1
January 26, 2001
Division of Community Planning
Bureau of Local Planning
TIlls report is prepared pursuant 10 Rule 9J-l 1.010
I. AMENDMENTS WITH OBJECTIONS
A. Future Land Use Map Amendments
1. Amendment LS-CP A-I-OO:
a. Suitability Based on Natural Resources and Facilities: The City proposes a Land Use
Map Amendment Annexing and Redesignating 67.58 acres from Seminole County (Suburban
Estates 1 duJacre) and Conservation to Greeneway Interchange (5-10 duJacre,Open Space and 1
FAR non-residential). The City has not demonstrated that the natural resources on-site will be
protected. It appears that a portion of the site is currently in a conservation category under the
Seminole County Plan. The data also indicate the presence of wetlands over approximately 1/3
of the site and proximity to the Lake Jessup shoreline. There is no indication how the current
proposal for a Greeneway Interchange designation will protect resources such as wetlands.
The Department also has questions regarding the impacts to roadway facilities and services since
the analysis provided does not indicate the current 'and projected capacity and availability for
roadway facilities. FDOT commented the City lacked an adequate analysis.
Recommendation: Revise the amendment to retain the wetland and floodplain areas in a
conservation land use designation or other designation to protect the natural resources on-site.
Revise the amendmenfto include an adequate transportation analysis. The analyses should
include: 1) An assessment through the planning period of the impacts to facilities based on the
most intense use including cumulative impacts (traffic) generated by proposed amendments
herein; 2) Data and analysis demonstrating coordination of facilities with the proposed land
uses; and 3) An assessment of the timing of provision of services such that all services are
provided at the adopted level of service.
The analyses should assess the demand for services with regard to available capacity of services.
For example, the City should assess traffic generation wit~ regard to available capacity on
existing roadways based on both the peak hour and the daIly average trips; and should take into
account the traffic generated by proposed amendments contained within this package.
All analyses should be based on the most intense use proposed for development as identified and
guided by the future land use map and future land use element policies, and should assess
impacts in the short-term within five years and through the planning period (to 2015). Again,
using the transportation example, the analysis should identify current operating LOS for SR 234
and 417, as well as any applicable local roadways. Include any FIHS facilities. The analysis
should then factor in anticipated impacts from any proposed amendment such that a comparison
ofbefore~amendment and after-amendment conditions can be made.
The analyses should U1en identify if and where deficiencies will be realized based on the LOS
maximums as established by the local comprehensive plan and FDOT. This procedure should be
I repeated for a projected LOS through 2005 and 2015. For any identified deficiencies within five
years, the City should,identify how the deficiency will be remedie.d through capital
improvements planning including the amount and source of funding necessary, the type of
project, and tije expected timing of the project to coincide with anticipated demands. If it is for a
facility that is not within the City's, funding jurisdiction than the applicable work program .
(FDOT, and/or County) should be used to identify pertinent project~. Any projects needed
should then be reflected through a change to the comprehensive plan and/or corresponding
capital improvements schedule. For deficiencies identified beyond five years, the City should
identify the types of planning strategies that will be used to alleviate facility challenges including
any revisions to the plan that may be necessary. The strategies should address the overall service
network countywide and take into account the anticipated operationallevels through the planning
period. '
b. Internal Consistency: Because the amendment has not demonstrated consistency with
statutory requirements for protection of natural resources, and for coordination of land uses with
transportation facilities and services, amendment has not demonstrated internal consistency with
the City's goals, objectives and policies of the comprehensive plan as listed:
Traffic Circulation: Objective B, Policy 1 and 6, requiring coordination, Objective C,
and Policies 1 through 7 requiring level of service maintenance, Objective D, Policies 2
and 3;
Future Land Use Element: Goal 2, Objective A, Policies 1 through 3, requiring
protection of natural resources;
Conservation: Goal 1 , Objective B, Policies 1,2,4, and 5, protecting natural resources,'
Objective c, Policies 6 and 7, regarding protection of floodplains and coordination;
Capital Improvements: goal 1, Objective C, Policy 1, Transportation LOS
Recommendation: Retain the conservation areas as recommended and perform the necessary
analyses fodransportation as recommended. Revise the amendment as necessary to be
supported by the conservation and transportation data.
Sections: 163.3177(1), 163.3177(6)(a), 163.3177(6)(c), 163.3177(6)(d),
163.3177(6)0),163.3177(8),163.3187(2), F.S. '
Rules: 9J-5.005(2), 9J-5.005(5), 9J-5.006(2)(b) and (c); 9J-5.006(3)(b)3, (b)6, (b) 1 0 and (c)2;
9J-5.006(4); 9J-5.006(5), 9J-5.013(2), F.A.C.
2,
II. STATE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CONSISTENCY
A. OBJECTION
1. The proposed amendments are not consistent with the following goals and policies of the
State Comprehensive Plan: . "
a Goal (8) Water Resources, and Policies (b )2, (b )4, (b )8, and (b) 10;
b. Goal (10) Natural Systems, and Recreational Lands and P.olicies (b)l, (b)3, (b)6,
and (b)7; ,
c. Goal (12), Energy, and Policy (b)3;
d. - Goal (16), Land Use, and Policies (b)l, (b)2, (b)3, and (b)6;
e. 'Goal (18), Public Facilities, and. Policies (b)I, and (b)6; .
f. Goal (20), Transportation, and Policies (b)2, (b)3, (b)13, and (b)15; and
g. Goal (26), Plan Implementation and Policy (b)7.
B. RECO~ENDATION
The City should revise the proposed amendment, as necessary, to be consistent with the
above-referenced goals and policies of the State Comprehensive Plan. Specific
recommendations can be found following the objections cited elsewhere in this ORC'report.
6
ATTACHMENT 2
ELIZABETH MORSE FOUNDATION
ORC REPORT RESPONSE
LS-CPA-I-OO
FEBRUARY 19,2001
I
I
ELIZABETH MOHSE FOUNDATION
AMENDMENT LS-CPA-I-OO
ORC REPORT RESPONSE
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1. FUTURE LAND USE MAP AMENDMENTS
a. Suitability Based on Natural Resources and Facilities: The City proposes a Land Use
Map Amendment annexing and redesignating 67.58 acres from Seminole County
(Suburban Estates 1 du/acre) and Conservation to Greeneway Interchange (5 - 10
du/acre, Open Space a 1 FAR non-residential). The City has not demonstrated that the
natural resources on-site will be protected. It appears that a portion of the site is
currently in a conservation category under the Seminole County Plan. The data also
indicate the presence of wetlands over approximately 1/3 of the site and proximity to the
Lake Jessup shoreline. There is no indication how the current proposal for a Greeneway
Interchange designation will protect resources such as wetlands.
I
The Department also has questions regarding the impacts to roadway facilities and
services since the analysis provided does not indicate the current and projected capacity
and availability for roadway facilities. FDOT commented the City lacked an adequate
analysis.
I
I
I
I
Recommendation: Revised the amendment to retain the wetland and floodplain areas in
a conservation land use designation or other designation to protect the natural resources
on-site.
I
Response: The Future Land Use Map Amendment will be modified to reflect the presence of
wetlands on'the property. Exhibit A identifies the preliminary jurisdictional wetland limits
on the subject property. It is important to clarify that the final determination of the limits and
I
I
Elizabeth Morse FOlll/datiol/
- 1-
ORC Report Rl!sp{)II.I"l'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
a conservation land use designation of anyon-site wetlands is subject to a detai led analysis by
the governing environmental agency which shall include the St. Johns River Water
Management District (SJR WMD). The extent of and location of on-site preserved wetlands
will be established as a result of a SJRWMD permit application addressing wetland limits,
preserved wetlands, wetland buffers and a mitigation for any wetland impacts.
UpOJ;l approval of the Master Wetland Conservation/Mitigation Plan, the preserved wetland
areas will be identified and a conservation easement established.
I
Through this action, the DCA should be satisfied that the preliminary wetland/conservation
area designation and the subsequent final designation will address the concerns and
recommendations outlined above.
I
Revised the amendment to include an adequate transportation analysis. The analyses
should include: 1) An assessment through the planning period ofthe impacts to facilities
based on the most intense use including cumulative impacts (traffic) generated by
proposed amendments herein; 2) Data and analysis demonstrating coordination of
facilities with the proposed land uses; and 3) An assessment of the timing of provision of
services such that all services are provided at the adopted Level of Service (LOS).
I
I
I
The analyses should assess the demand for services with regard to available capacity of
services. For example, the City should assess traffic generation with regard to available
capacity on existing roadways based on both the peak hour and the daily average trips;
and should take into account the traffic generated by proposed amendments contained
within this package.
I
I
I
I
All analyses should be based on the most intense use proposed for development as
identified and guided by the Future Land Use Map and Future Land Use Element
Policies, and should assess impacts in the short-term within five years and through the
planning period (to 2015). Again, using the transportation example, the analysis should
identify current operating LOS for SR 234 and 417, as well as any applicable local
roadways. Include any FIHS facilities. The analysis should then factor in anticipated
I
I
I
Elizabeth Morse FO!ll/dation
-2-
ORC Report Respol/sl:'
I
I
I
impacts from any proposed amendment such that a comparison of before-amendment
and after-amendment conditions can be made.
I
The analyses should then identify if and where deficiencies will be realized based on the
LOS maximums as established by the local comprehensive Plan and FDOT. This
procedure should be repeated for a projected LOS through 2005 and 2015. For any
identified deficiencies within five years, the City should identify how the deficiency will
be remedied through capital improvements planning including the amount and source
of funding necessary, the type of project, and the expected timing of the project to
coincide with anticipated demands. If it is for a facility that is not within the City's
funding jurisdiction than the applicable work program (FDOT, and/or County) should
be used to identify pertinent projects. Any projects needed should then be reflected
through a change to the Comprehensive Plan and/or corresponding capital
improvements schedule. For deficiencies identified beyond five year, the City should
identify the types of planning strategies that will be used to alleviate facility challenges
including any revision to the plan that may be necessary. The strategies should address
the overall service network countywide and take into account the anticipated operational
levels through the planning period.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Response: The Greeneway Interchange District is a mixed use land use category which
provides for flexibility in the mix ofland uses. Inasmuch as the subject of this amendment is
to establish a generalized land use category and the specific land use mix is to be addressed in
a subsequent zoning application, it is not possible to accurately identify the specific mix of
uses at this time. The Greeneway Interchange District offers a variety of detailed guidelines
and controls to ensure that development of the subject property reflects the desires of the
community. This zoning district has been developed to clearly establish the design standards
applicable to this property and thereby provide assurances that development of this property
will properly reflect the character of the land and its importance as a gateway into the City of
Winter Springs.
I
I
I
I
I
A fundamental philosophy of the City Comprehensive Plan is the compliance with the
Concurrency policies as contained in the adopted plan. The Concurrency Regulations provide
I
Elizabeth Morse FOUl/dation
-3-
ORC Report RI!Jpo/lse
I
I
I
I
adequate assurances that prior to development approvals, the developer must demonstrate that
there are adequate public facilities and services available or programmed at the time of
development to accommodate the intensities of the planned development. Inasmuch as the
Future Land Use Designation is not a development approval and the mix of land uses are not
identified at this stage of the land planning process, it is not appropriate to conduct a
theoretical traffic analysis based on a fabricated development program that is most likely
unrelated to the final development program.
I
I
I
I
Prior to granting the Greeneway Interchange Zoning approval, the developer will be required
to: 1) Establish a specific land use mix with corresponding development intensities; 2)
Conduct a full Concurrency Analysis including transportation to demonstrate to the City the
ability of the infrastructure either current or planned; and 3) Establish the appropriate
conditional zoning conditions to ensure a direct relationship between infrastmcture and any
improvements necessary to accommodate the specific development program. If necessary, the
development program will be appropriately reduced to establish the proper balance between
infrastmcture capacity and development intensities.
I
I
I
I
It is clearly understood by the City and the land owner that the Comprehensive Plan
Amendment/Future Land Use Designation does not establish a specific development intensity.
Further, prior to development, the property must be rezoned under the Greeneway Interchange
District which shall include a specific development program and a corresponding Concurrency
analysis and infrastructure mitigation, if necessary, to ensure adequate public facilities and
services are available to accommodate the proposed development.
I
I
I
I
b. Internal Consistency: Because the amendment has not demonstrated consistency with
statutory requirements for protection of natural resources, and for coordination of land
uses with transportation facilities and services, amendment has not demonstrated
internal consistency with the City's goal, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive
Plan as listed:
I
I
,
-4-
ORC Report RespollSe
I
Elizabeth Morse FO/lndation
I
I
I
Tr;lffic Circulation: Objective B, Policy ] and 6, reqlllnng coordination,
Objective C, ;lnd Policies] through 7 requiring Level of Service maintenance,
Objective D, Policies 2 and 3:
I
I
Response: The mandatory compliance of the development intensities under the
Greeneway Interchange District, the City Concurrency Management System and the
fundamental requirement of ensuring that development intensities do not exceed
established Levels of Service herein demonstrate that the City has established adequate
controls to satisfy the concerns represented in the ORe Report such that a traffic study
is not necessary prior to adopting this amendment.
I
I
I
Future Land Use Element: Goal 2, Objective A, Policies 1 through 3, requiring
protection of natural resources;
I
Response: The inclusion of a conservation designation over the on-site wetlands
combined with the policies in the Future Land Use Element are sufficient to address
the ORC Report.
I
I
Conservation: Goal 1, Objective B, Policies 1, 2, 4, and 5, protecting natural
resources, Objective C, Policies 6 and 7, regarding protection of floodplains and
coordination;
I
I
Response: Development of the subject property shall confornl wit the City
Conservation Policies as well as the permitting requirements of the St Johns Ri\'er
Water Management District.
I
I
Capital Improvements: Goal 1, Objective C, Policy 1, Transportation LOS
I
Recommendation: Retain the conservation areas as recommended and perform the
necessary analyses for transportation as recommended. Revised the amendment as
necessary.cto be supported by the conservation and transportation data.
I
I
-5-
ORC Rl!port Rl!sp(jll.w
I
Elizabeth Morse Foundation
I
Section: 163.3177(1), ] 63.3177(6)(a), 163.3177(6)(c), 163.3177(cJ)(cJ), 163.3J77(6)(j),
163.3177(8), 163.3 I 876(2), F.S.
Rules: 9J-S.00S(2), 9J-S.006(2)(b) and (c)j 9J-S.006(3)(b)3, (b)6, (b)10 and (c)2; 9J-
5.006(4); 9J-S.OP6(S), 9J-S.013(2), F.A.C.
.'
MORSElORC/4135
Eli::.abeth Morse Foundation
ORC Repol"l R~S{i()11St'
-6-
I~'
I
I
I:
1.-
I,:
1--
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~/,I
WI - ~t/
~.' (.'
"
D:f;o~ ,
,-'''. ,',
.:,,':':,), .
0' ","
.. .f?.."?Y2':;fM~fif::
."'"',:-'v J..v~ .', ,.""J,~'-""
,,' : .'..,.:... 0 :':':: ':';'":::, ,:"
... :"::':':.;:"'~.." ....:. ........,...~ i...'_.......:~...:
. ''':..:~. .'... ';,. ...:.~. .~-:~:.': :.,
.4 _...... ~....__ ._...-.._......., .........,....... .... ,'" ....
. .., .
" .',
. ", . '.
. "..
" .", .' ..... "__.. ........ ..4.... ....... ',' .
<'
..'. .
.: .~ :::;.;~t;e:' .... .. .:::::c,:~;::'
. ..-..... ......-.. .-....... ...
u;l'~oB
I..t ).. ... ). ~
@ Potential Conservation Areas
~m;t"g Lotspeich and Associates, Inc.
I!.. ECOLOGICAl.. CONSULTANTS
U2 w... r ~ A.......... s..... 20'. 'Nrl._ p", n. 11119
(~7J 1~a.<4l ru: I>H.IJCS o-J.lJ: l~.o,"""
Lake Jessup Grove Property
Boundary Map
+'.70 0""" In
s.a"" :J7. Townohic 21 Soum. fW,O. 31 (&.1
S~ Coumy. rJorl<Jo
Scale: 10=4:{)'
~
Figuro 1
File: 98164-B.CDR Orawn By:
North
JM Job No :
98184.33 Dale: 12 January 1999
ATTACHMENT 3
0;:.
.1
- J
]
1
-~
J
9
.~J
'1
.~.-
~
]
j
}
JJ
J
.,J
)
j
'1
j
'J
.'
J
J
.'
MORSE FOUNDATION
TRACT
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AMENDMENT
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA
Prepared for:
Margaret Casscells
and
Pizzuti Development Co.
Prepared by:
I HENDERSON
PLANNING
HPG GROUP, INC.
August 2, 2000
)
',)
MORSE FOUNDATION
TRACT
"J
.J
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AMENDMENT
.J
J
SJ
.J
]
~
]
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PART I - APPLICATION AND LEGAL DESCRIPTION
1.1 Application and Legal Description
1.2 Agent Authorization
P ART II - LAND USE AMENDMENT NARRATIVE
l
1
2.1 Subject Property
2.2 Adjacent Land Use
2.3 Area Zoning
2.4 Approved Future Land Use
2.5 Proposed Future Land Use Amendment Request
2.6 Statement of Compatibility
2.7 Greene W ay Interchange District
2.8 Urban Sprawl
2.9 Future Land Use Element
2.9.1 Goal 2 Review
2,9.2 Goal 3 Review
2.9.3 Goal 4 Review
2.10 Infrastructure
2:}l Wetlands
2.12 Soils
2.13 Flood Hazard Areas
2.14 East Central Florida Regional Planning Counci 1 and
State Comprehensive Land Use Plan
"1
~;~1
'1
J
,)
J
J
J
r
I
I
, j
J
)
)
]
1
J
]
1
:}
~
J
}
J
PART I
APPLICATION
and
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
J
J
.J
]
J
.J
J
J
;1
'J'
J
]j
~~IJ
j.'."
'~;
:.: ~
.,..]
,.
~
J
, '1
.~ ..
Part 1.1
Application
&
Legal Description
" )
:.::1
'I
~j
. .'.)
,'.
']
'")
; ?
/....1.
: '"I
1
,-)
J
)
1
: }
, ]
'--I
)
.:.J
;'-{
'1
,:)
~
J
,J
J
I,
I,
..i
J
J
J
.,!
\
J
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA
1126 EAST STATE ROAD 434
WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA 32708-2799
Telephone (407) 327-1800
APPLICATION FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT
TO MAPS (OTHER TIIAN FUTURE LAND USE MAP)
APPLICANT: Henderson Planning Group, Inc.
Last First
Middle
ADDRESS:
112 South Lake Avenue
,Orlando
City
FL
State
32801
Zip Code
PHONE:
407-872-3025
This is a request for change to
Future Land Use
Map
in the
Future Land Use
EI~ment in Volume~of
20f the city of winter Springs Comprehensive Plan as adopted
April 27, 1992 and as amended from time to time.'
Reason for request of change of Future Land Use Designation:
To establish a Future Land Use Designation on the Morris Foundation property
recently annexed into the City of Winter Springs.
TO BE SUPPLIED AT TIME OF SUBMISSION OF APPLICATION:
*
Fee.
Copy of proposed map
Comprehensive Plan.
*
,Comprehensive Plan
Applicant/ow~nature:
Date:
Henderson Planning Group, Inc.
August 2, 2000
J
.~]
']
,,]
:
1J
d'
11
.:V
--]
~
J
']
-;-,
,.J
~~:
:J
J
",
,J
],
,J
:J
J
MORRJS FOUNDATION TRACT
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Page I of2
DESCRIPTION AS FURNlSF
Lois /,2,J.4.5 and 6, Seclion J2, Township 20' South, Range 31 fast, ALSO Lots
/.2.J,7, und 8 of Seelion 5,Township2/Soulh. Range J1 fast" (Less' beginning .','
20 feel Eosl of and 274.1 feel Soulh of the NW corner of Lot. 3. Section 5; rur.' [osl
J66.6 (eel (J46.6 field), N 06'.05' E,' 50i'.J (eat; N 0'.,12' f, 321.7 (eel, .s, 8~ 32'1\',;
/9J (eel. N 04' JO' W, 269.1 feel, S 89' '04' E, 652.1 feet, S '89' 56'E,..' : '
420 feel, N 241.9 fee'I'to shore of Loke"Jessup, IVesterly'o/ong shore..l,286"..
(~el 10 Ihe Eosl line of Spring Avenue: Soulh " 17J feel 10 beginning), being 9.7 .
:Jcres, more or less; All above real properly being 0 perl of ,Ihe . p'hill~p R, ,:' . .
Young Grant accordmg 10 Ihe plot Ihereof: os recorded In Pial Book" " 'Page J5,'
Public Records of Seminole County, Florida::, ' ,.
ALSO'
.' . .
A righl of ingress and egress over Ihol' 10-(001' slrip of land adjoining', aild'
running along Ihe Northerly side of a /ine' commencing 20 feel East and' 275./
feel South of Ihe NW corner of Lot'3 of Seclion 5, Township 21 South, Range.' 31"
fasl, run EostJ66.6 feet ond 0 right' of Ingress' and egress' over" that 10-fool '
strip of land adjoining and running along' the; Westerly 'side o( line commencing, ,..,
J66.6 feet East of a poinl 20 feet Eost and 274.1 . feet ,South of'the NW' corner' d' . '.
Lot J,. Section, 5; Township 21 South, Range,J1 ~East, :fun N.06', 05',':E,::507.J :..-;, :-:-.'.,.",
feet; thence N,OO' 12' E.321.7 feel,'!:aid Lof..,J.:oppeors"in, the 'plat 0(.,:":"":':.:'.. ': '
Phillip R. Young' Grant as' recorded" in, Plot, Book '" Page: 35' of the' Publit; Records-
of Seminole County, Florida. " ',:'
. , .
Less Ihe Eosl 25 feet of lots 2' and 8 o('said Sec/ton 5; less' We~t 25 feet' of
Lots 1,J and 7 of said Sec/ion 5 and les's Wesl 25, feel ,of Lot 2" and East' 25 feef' :,
of Lot 3 of ,soid . See/ion J2. ."...
LESS
., ,
, ,
. ..... . .
A porI of Lot I, Seelion 5. Township,21.Sotilh~',Ronge' Jl::tost."-ond'Lols "1,2. and',::
J, Section J2, Township 20 South, RongeJ I East, of the, Phillip" R. . Young Grant". '
accoraing to Ihe pIal thereof os: recorded. in Plot, Book.1, Page: :35., of, the Public',
Records of Seminole County, Florida. being'more particularly ,described' os . ", ",','
follows: "
Commence 01 Ihe NE corner of said Section' 5: thence. run S' 88' 49' 39..., 'IV: o/ong
the North line of said Section 5, 0 distance of .1 89.88 ,feel to the NE corner m'.
said Lot I, Section 5 of the Phillip R. Young Gront for 0 point of beginning:' '
thence run S. 04' 42' 40" W along Ihe [asl' line of said, Lol " Seclion 5" 0 '
dislance of 665.23 feel to Ihe SE cornu of said Lot 1" See/ion 5; thence 'run
S 88' 49' J9";~IV along Ihe South line of 'soid Lot 1,. Section 5. " 0 distance' of
204.39 feet; thence, deporling said South line run N 25' 45' 00" W,' '0 'dislonce., '.
of I.J86. 79 I~r!t to 0 puinl on the Eosl line of the, West 25.00 feel of. said Lot, ':
2. 5~di.:m J:? 11I':III:e ,.011 tI d" I 7' I 2ff W along said East line, 0 distanc;e' of "
4U8.~O fcd Iv ,J /Ju;III JII IIIe lI.jrlh lille of said tal 2. Section 32:' thence. :
dr?fJIJllin.] 'Sui,) i',)')! li.1<: "m ~,~.r 47' 20." EOo along', said, Norlh line' ci ,distance. "',,
of 9./9.0J (~~I 10 tho fI[ !:",;rer :of SJiJ 1.01 I;' Seclion J2;, Ihence run. ,',' , ::
SO-I' 42' .Iu" IV along the Eus! line ojf s;JiJ ,lol I;, See/ion J2. 0 distance o(
39/.00 feel 10 Ihe point of bcyinninr.J.
{
-1
1
./
J
l
, ,,}
]
1
J
J
j'
I
(
j
./
-..:
I
.J
-J
MORRIS FOUNDATION TRACT
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Page 2 of2
AND ALSO L[SS
, . .... " , ' '.". ..', \' , ",
Cummence at Ihe N[ corner of sOld Sec"ion 5 also. being"'theS{ corner. 'of s,):d ' ,
See/ion 32;.lhence run S 88' 49"J9M 'W along the Norlh.1ine.of. saidSec!ion 5.." :
also, being lhe South line 'of said' Section J2; 0 dislance 0(.' 7,088.05, .feet 10 '0", '
point on the Wesl line of the [ast 25.00 feet of said Lot' 3;Seclion J2; lh~ncc, '
deporting Ihe Soulh line of said See/ion 5 and ,the' Soulh - line' of, said, Section ,,' " ,: ' " '
J2, run N 01: 77' 12M IV along said Wesl line, 0 dislance of 709.22 feet lor, '0' "
.' point of beginning; Ihence deporling,said West line run N, 25' 4~'OO",.IV'a' " '
distance of 103.97 ftel; thence run,S 88' 46' 48", W, 0 distance of ,69.93' feet,
, , to, a poinl on"the fost line of' Amended Plot of First, Addition to'Mineral .;' ',' "
Springs, according to the plot there,:,f, os.recorded, in Pic!, Boo,k, 8, PClges ,46 'a.,d,', ,',
,4/ of the r-ut,lic Records of Semi."icAe County;' Florida;" ttiMe!) :-u",:.', N (. l' 0')'" :;:": ;'/
along' said [ast line II distonce of 225.66 feet 10 0 point, on the North' lifJe of..', .'",','
said Lot J. Section. 32: thence. deporting said fast line. ru" S' 8.3- 47".20.\' E ~: .:.".... ..' .
.:JIang said Norlh line, 0 distance of I IJAJ feel to 0 point of lho aforesaid,.', "
\Vest line of the fast 25.00 feet 01 soid Lot J, 'See/ion J2; thence deporling
soid North tine run 5 0" , I 7' , 2M, [ along said' \Vest tine' a distance':' of '305.58
feel 10 the point of beginning.
ALSO L[SS
, ,
" ".'
. .:r
",' ,.' "'.
A part of the West 25.00 feet of Lot 2 o~d'the [os't '25.00" fe'~t "of Lot" J, Section
.32, Township 20 South, Range 31, [ost of the Phillip R, Yoting Grant. according to
the plot thereof, os recorded in Plot Book ,1, Page 35 of the, Public Records,c(,
Seminole County, Florida" being more, parUcu/orly described os (ofJows: :., _ '
Commence at the Sf corner of said Seclio~ 32: thence' run S 88' 49' J9" W along'
the South line of said Section J2, a distance of 1,038.05 feet to 0 point 0" the
[ast line of Ihe West 25.00 feet of soid Lot 2: thence departing said South' line
run N 07' 77' 12M W along 'said [ast line ,a distance of 599.42 (eet for 0 point'
of beginning; thenc~ deporting said fast line run N 25' 45' OOH W a, distance .
'of 120.74 feet to 0 point on' the West line of the' fast 25.00. feet of, said Lot J;
thence run N 0 J' 17' 12" W along said West line 0 distance of, J05.58 ,feet lei 0
point on the North line of said Lot J; thence' departing said West, line' run ' ,,' .'
S 83' 47' 20" E along the North line of said Lot" 2 and J' a' distance of 50.4J ,_',
feet to a point on the [ost lins' of the West ,25.00 feet of said Lot. 2: thence " .
deporting said North, line run SOl" 17' ,2M E along said East line 0, distonce," ,
01 408.90 feet to the poInt of beginning., ;' . , ',' ,,< ,'" ,,'
'.. .
, '
, , ,
.... .
~ " .'. " .
: '-. ;
"
..
: . . . ~',,'.', I
: '.: . ',.. '. . .. . . ~ ..' '.
~.l
::: i
..f
j
~
,:,j
~
,e'l
'::~.
-,
I
-\
jJ
]
]
]
J
l
J
1
J
]
J
\J)
~
>
~
M
':'
~
~
iJ
~
~
~
~
.~
~
~
~
~
J
67.850
TOTAL
ACRES
(NOT [XCLUDINC)
ANY INT[F?!OR
PLATTED P./W
OR LrSS OUTS
F~F? OrSCR:PTiON
-:::l
\
GRAPHIC SCALE
J~'~O, ,. ~,~~~ ~JOI) __,', _ ,L'"
::;: _ _-,-,--~ - ':"-~;"'-7~00:,,::
_., - _,__ _'fr.$....._~ ~- ,-_ .
( I N fEET )
1 inch = 300 (t.
\
j
l
J
']
J
~
.J
,]
Part 1.2
I
wJ
Agent Authorization
.J
,.,..J
...
J
J
]
]
]
.J
J
J
)
'1
I
,}
\. J
'rl
.....
"
T
:",)
~
J
1
,,]
July 21.looo
TO WHOM 11' MAY CONCERN:
Thille~ is 10 SctVe u ~utboril:arion fOt J. Scott Henderson of Henderson PI;mning Group.
lnc. to ~trVe &s ugcnt 00 my behalf on mat1en relal~ to the Annexation into the: City of
Winter Springs. Comprehal$i\lt PIll' Amendment, Planned Oe'\lclopmcnt zoning And
ADAlDIU approvals for lbc Casscdls site whlch is a 325 AC!: tratt localed in Saninole
COWlty. Florida known as the Genius. Morris Property.
SincclclV.
~#k~
MarClll!t Cil&Sl;ells
Property Owner
TIle fOfFEoing instrument W3S acknowledged before me thii'~ l_ cUy of July 2000 by
MlUga:~t Ctl..S.SC~Us wnl> is personally knovm to me or has prodl1ced identification
~ml did/did not take om Ollth.
j,
J
~}..Q^^ Vd,<D~,l~
No rublic
llii' eN (\1\ Qsoe\()
(Prim qr Type Name of Notary)
C~~li:1~t- -'
O ::::. ~~, ~ M,OSORlO
rJ t \C1 -: A "'Y~'CC7J4SS1
Cir, \ ~'P.2oo:l
CoR\mUajion Expi "-u...-..
.]
J
.J
I
)
i
..)
J
\
i
'~l
. )
J
'-l
]
9
,::.]
:1
J
ttiJ
"]
'J
}
~d
]
1
]
J
J
OJ
:J
PART II
LAND USE AMENDMENT NARRATIVE
.J
J
,J
PART II - LAND USE AMENDMENT NARRATIVE
. ~
".1
J
~,."
....'
IJ(
':'1
J
~
OJ
2.1 Subject Property
The Morse Foundation tract is a 67.85 acre parcel located on the west side of the
GreeneWay/SR 417, north ofSR 434, south of Lake Jessup and east of Spring A venue.
The Location Map (see Exhibit I) identifies the subject property in relation to the
surrounding physical and natural features.
2.2 Adjacent Land Uses
The aerial photograph (see Exhibit I) identifies the adjacent land uses which are more
specifically defined as follows:
North - Single Family/Conservation
East - SR 417 /Greene W ay
West - Single Family/Conservation
South - Vacant
The Site Aerial (see Exhibit I) identifies the land uses adjacent to the Morse'
Foundation Tract.
,
f
2.3
Area Zoning
The Zoning Map (see Exhibit I) identifies the existing zoning on the surround
properties which include:
North - R-1 (Seminole County)
South - PUD & RU
East - SR 417 & PLI (Seminole County)
West - R-l & RM-l(Seminole County)
:J
J
1
I
J
, i
Morse Foundation Tract
Page -1-
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
I
I
I
,)
J
/
2.4 Approved Future Land Uses
The subject property does not have an established future land use designation within
the City of Winter Springs. The annexation ofthe Morse Foundation tract into the City
of Winter Springs was completed in 1999. However, the annexation approval was
separated from the Future Land Use designation which occurred due to a pending
purchase and sale agreement wherein the prospective buyer was to pursue the Future
Land Use and Zoning designation. That agreement has since been cancelled which
resulted in the City completing the annexation of the subject property and the Future
Land Use/Zoning application being withdrawn.
'-1
)
" .l
I -},
:. f
1- Ii
' ~~ .
""}
'-:]
:-}
'~
,]
,J
~,..
"'.
, .
'J
'J
'g
J
B
'.<'
J
',... \
'J
iJ
The Future Land Use Map (see Exhibit I) identifies designations of the surrounding
property as follows:
North - Low Density Residential
South - Mixed Use
East - SR 417, GreeneWay/Public LandsIMixed Use
West - Low Density Residential/Conservation/Mixed Use
The subject property is currently an enclave within the City of Winter Springs
Comprehensive Plan with no Future Land Use designation. The amendment presented
herein will establish a Future Land Use designation consistent with the current mixed
use designation to the south and southwest.
There is existing residential along the perimeter of the subject property to the north and
west. This is historic residential with older homes that are approximately 30 years or
older with a number of mobile homes and a few newer homes. These residential areas
remain within the jurisdiction of Seminole County and are a remaining enclave of
County lands.
Morse Foundation Tract
Page -2-
Comprehensive Plan A mendmenl
)
)
2.5
- ]
I
\
f
-1
J
1
J
J
2.6
J
J
I
,
{
J
I
;
j
(
)
Proposed Future Land Use Amendment Request
The request to amend the City of Winter Springs Comprehensive Plan, Future Land
Use is to establish a Mixed Use designation on the subject property. This request is
based on the existing Mixed Use designation on the Casscells tractto the south of the
subject property as well as discussions with the City staff directing this application for
a Mixed Use designation. Through this request, the staffs desire is to see the subject
property and the Casscells tracts developed as a compatible and cohesive development
under the GreeneWay Interchange District. It is the applicants' intent to comply with
the staff request and, towards that end, the two properties (Morse Foundation and the
Casscells parcels) are being evaluated to provide coordinated planning to present a
cohesive development approach.
Statement of Compatibility
The City has viewed the subject property and the Casscells tract to the south as an
important area to the future growth of the City in view of its location at the SR 434/
GreeneWay interchange. The City has evaluated the desired development of this area
and implemented the GreeneWay Interchange District to provide strict guidelines on
the development to occur in this area. The GreeneWay Interchange District regulations
are identified in Exhibit II.
Once the Future Land use designation is established, the owner will pursue a
GreeneWay Interchange zoning application. The application of the GreeneWay
Interchange Zoning District will provide the necessary assurances of compatibility
between the higher intensity commercial/office uses and the residential on the adjacent
properties.
Morse Foundation Tract
Page -3-
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
)
~J
J
2.7
\
:, J
','1
'r\
~J
""'/
' l
,; J
]
~
2.8
"J
.J
..'.'\
,J
J
,J
GreeneWay Interchange District
The City of Winter Springs has recognized the importance of the subject property (in
combination with the Casscells tract to the south) as a part of the eastern gateway to
the City of Winter Springs off the GreeneWay and SR 434. As a result, the City has
established goals and design guidelines to set the direction for this key property. The
City's vision of a mixed use development was the first step in providing guidance to
the future development of this area. To ensure the development is properly
implemented, the City has established the Greene W ay Interchange Zoning District (see
Exhibit II). This district incorporates a variety of development requirements to ensure
that the new development implements the City's intent. The design standards present
the guidelines to provide for the appropriate compatibility between the various uses
within the district as well as the adjacent properties.
URBAN SPRAWL
9J5.006 (5), Future Land Use Element, of the Florida Administrative Code
pertains to the review of plans and plan amendments for discouraging urban
sprawl.
The following is a list of urban sprawl indicators with respective responses as to
why this proposed Plan Amendment does not promote urban sprawl.
Question A: Promotes, allows or designates for development substantial areas of the
,.,.,\
j
J
,.1
.J
jurisdiction to develop as low intensity, or single-use development or uses
in excess of demonstrated need.
The subject property is within an area designated by the City of Winter Springs
for urban development. Although the property is at the eastern edge of the
City, the property is adjacent to the GreeneWay and directly associated with the
Response:
Morse Foundation Tract
.~
j
Page -4-
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
I
J
.J
I
J
SR 434 corridor which serves as a major development node for the area. Urban
development is planned and is occurring to the east, south and west thereby
establishing this an infill area.
The intensity of development on the subject property, under a mixed use
designation, is consistent with the intent of the City at the time of annexation.
Questions B: Promotes, allows or designates significant amounts of urban development
to occur in rural areas at substantial distances from existing urban areas
while leaping over undeveloped lands which are available and suitable for
development.
'l
J
'1
~
.J
Response:
11
J
The subject property and the proposed development are within the area
identified by the City for compact development. Through the proposed mixed
use program, development of the property will provide for a higher
concentration in a desirable location thereby reducing the influences of
sprawling development to accommodate the growth demands in the City.
Question C: Promotes, allows, or designates urban development in radial, strip,
isolated or ribbon patterns generally emanating from existing rural
developments.
"]
]
Response:
..J
i]
d
, J
J
:]
The subject property is contiguous to the mixed use land use designation along
SR 434. The configuration of the property offers a logical extension of the
mixed use designation to the north along the GreeneWay. The existing
conservation lands to the west create a natural limitation of any westerly strip
expansion of the mixed use area. The development pattern on the south side
Morse Foundation Tract
Page -5-
Comprehensive Plan Amendmelll
\
/
'J
of SR 434 is a compatible land use pattern for higher intensity land use along
the GreeneWay.
Question D: As a result of premature or poorly planned conversion of rural land to
other uses, fails to adequately to protect and conserve natural resources,
such as wetlands, floodplains, native vegetation, environmentally sensitive
areas, n~tural groundwater aquifer recharge areas, lakes, river, shorelines,
beaches, bays, estuarine systems, and other significant natural systems.
,: \
1
Hj
;'"1
J
)
Response:
\
;.,::1
~
'J
The location of the subject property is outside the primary conservation areas
of Lake Jessup as indicated on the current Future Land Use Map (See Exhibit
I). There is existing single family and mobile home development between the
subject property and Lake Jessup. By remaining outside the conservation lands
associated with the lake, the proposed land use does not conflict with this
policy.
Question E: Fails to adequately protect use of existing public facilities and services.
Response:
\
,I
1
J
I
1
J
The proposed land use is in direct response to the change in the land use pattern
for the area created by the construction of the GreeneWay and the interchange
with SR 434. Adequate public facilities and services are existing or planned
to support urban development in this area.
Question F: Fails to maximize use of future public facilities and services.
Response: By clustering higher intensity land uses in proximity to existing and planned
public facilities and services, this proposal reduces the sprawl character of
Page -6-
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Morse Foundation Tract
\
J
\
I
;.J
I.:'~l
7 ~j
'''J
.,
development that would occur if the intensities of this proposal would not be
approved.
Question G: Allows for land use patterns or timing which disproportionately increase
the cost in time, money and energy, of providing and maintaining facilities
and services, including roads, potable water, sanitary sewer, stormwater
management, law enforcement, education, health care, fire and emergency
response, and general government.
: \
I I'
~,
,J
I~ 1
1'f.1l
;':'.'\1
'~'-':1
Response:
)
..\.J
~j
~
fJ~
,t.. ,
I,
, }
..'.']'
,.::."
,,:.
~~.
'::1
'jj
The proposed development will not adversely impact the availability of
capacity in the supporting infrastructure. Development ofthe subject property
will comply with the City of Winter Springs Concurrency Management System
ensuring that there will be adequate capacity for roads, sewer, water and
stormwater.
The subject property is located in close proximity and within urban response
times for the City services for law enforcement, health care, fire and emergency
servIces.
Question H: Fails to provide clear separation between rural and urban land uses.
Response:
,,1
,.:~
'7
jj
"')
j1
Question I:
,j
J
.J
The location of the subject property between SR 434 and the GreeneWay
provides a clear separation between the urban land uses of the area and any
rural areas occurring a considerable distance to the east and outside the City.
Discourages or inhibits infi)) development or redevelopment of existing
neighborhoods and communities.
Morse Foundation Tract
Page -7-
Comprehensive Plan Amendmenl
\
I
J
Response: The proposed land use will encourage infill development by shortening the
distances from commercial and office land uses that are otherwise located in
J
t
J
the Oviedo Mall area, or other areas outside the City.
Question J: Fails to encourage an attractive and functional mix of uses.
Response: By definition, the project will be a mixed use development that is the focus of
this policy.
].
~1
:\
.1
"~,I
&)
J
Question K: Results in poor accessibility among linked or related land uses.
Response:
The subject property is linked by proximity to the adjacent mixed use land use
and is intended to be developed in a manner to ensure compatibility and an
inter-relation of land uses.
Question L: Results in loss of significant amounts of functional open space.
Response:
Development of the subject property will comply with applicable regulations
.'
and criteria relating to the functional open space. The Greene Way Interchange
District has specific open space criteria to ensure compliance and an adequate
provision of functional open space.
>
J
i:
,}
2.9 Future Land Use Element
"
,1
2.9.1 Goal (2)
To preserve the natural drainage features within Winter Springs as assets
complementing the residential and commercial area.
.1
)
,I
Morse Foundation Tract
Page -8-
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
, J
\
..1
Comment: The natural drainage character of the area focuses on the wetlands
associated with Lake Jessup. Development ofthe property will evaluate these
characteristics and comply with applicable City and State criteria related to this
natural feature.
D
:"j
'.:l,
....,
(~
Objective (A): Perpetuation of the existence and benefit of naturaJ drainage
feattIres, . excluding them from uses that require the support of urban
infrastructure.
71
'1"
";J'
'.r.
'~"'.
.'\ .
Policy A 2: The precise boundaries of land to be permanently classified
Conservation shall be those jurisdictional lines prescribed by State
agencies at the time of fieJd review preparatory to engineering
contiguous property for development.
, 'I
.' I
J
J
~
]
Comment:
Development of the property will comply with all City and State Water
Management District criteria to ensure that the area drainage is properly
addressed and protected from adverse impacts that could occur in
association with development.
J.
I
.:~
J
:Ji
.>
j
}
Policy A 2 B: Require all wetlands to be accurately identified at the time of site
development review. Alternation of wetlands may be permitted, however specific
mitigation standards in accordance with policies of the St. Johns Water
Management District will be established to ensure no net loss of wetlands either
by functionaJ value or extent.
-1
j
1
j
J
Comment: Development ofthe property will comply with the S1. Johns River Water
Management District criteria for identification of wetlands, preservation and/or
mitigation per the Water Management District criteria,
Page -9-
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Morse Foundation Tract
\
\\
Policy A 2 F: Wetlands shall be delineated on the site plan according to DER,
SJRWMD, and US ACOE definitions, whichever standard is more restrictive.
Wetlands shall mean those areas established as jurisdictional by the above
agencies.
1
Comment: The project will comply.
, \
"]
']
}
~.l
i<.~
J
f
Policy A 2 G: Developments adjacent to Lake Jessup shall not be permitted to
include Light Industrial, Industrial, or Commercial Land Uses.
Comment: The location of the subject property is not abutting Lake Jessup. The
existing residential lands provide a buffer between the lake and the proposed mixed
use.
2.9.2 GOAL 3
)
Once the preceding goals are satisfied, land uses assigned to the balance
of the undeveloped property will reflect priorities of unmet needs for
residential and civic-commercial construction determined by on-going
review and analysis of population projections and residents' demographic
characteristics and the feasibility of commercial growth. The siting oflar.d
uses will be amended as necessary over time to adjust to changes in these
variable factors.
.~
,..I'
J
Objective C: Allocation of acreage and diversity ofland uses sufficient for
civic, commercial, and industrial activity, either separately or within a
mixed use classification.
\
1
J
.1
{
Morse Foundation Tract
Page -10-
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
J
I
I
Policy 1: Mixed use classifications are created to allow flexibility and efficiency
to development design. The reviewed land development regulations, to be
adopted by the statutory deadline, shaH contain specific standards relating to
density and intensity provisions for each mixed land use category, minimum
requirements for aHocation of residential, commercial, industrial and open space
1
, J
land uses, impervious surface ratios, and landscaping and buffering.
Development standards for the Mixed Use classification shall include:
'-.1
.. 'Densitv: No mixed use development shall exceed a gross residential density of 10
dweJJing units per gross acre.
,.]
~
J
I
Proportion of Uses: No mixed use shall have a non-residential use exceeding 50%
of the gross land area. Open space shall not be less than 20%, and public uses,
utilities or wetland conservation easements not less than 5%. Residential uses
.. ,
I
may take up to 75% of the gross land area.
Impervious Surface Ration. Maximum Heieht and Floor Area Ratios: In the
mixed use category, for commercial uses, intensity of use shall be limited by a
maximum impervious surface ratio of 70%, maximum height of 50 feet and a
oJ
j
. J
FAR of 1.0.
Comment: Adoption by the City of the GreeneWay Interchange Zoning District,
establishes the specific criteria under which the subject property will be governed.
Development of the subject property will comply with the GreeneWay Interchange
District.
I
\
J
1
Morse Foundation Tract
Page -11-
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
I
,)
j
.,,\
\'
, --I
r
j.
1
'I
i'J
1"'.1.
, ,
" ..
j "}
~]
~
"]
'J
~l
J
,i)
" J
,0]
\'\
IJ
!...1
'.J
U
2.9.3 GOAL 4
To verify that all development adheres to Concurrency requirements
based on the relevant levels of service established for public services and
facilities in this plan.
".
Objective B: Prior to granting a development order for non-Residential projects,
the City must be assured that at the time ofimpact of a new development or phase
thereof, all Concurrency requirements are met and no level of service set by a
relevant jurisdiction will be degraded below its standard or before its budgeted
timetable for improvement.
Policy 1: Determination shall be made that the traffic generated by non-
Residential development can be accommodated both on-site and off-site.
Policy 1 a: The criteria established in the Transportation Concurrency
Ordinance being drawn up at present shall guide the City's decision that
a development mayor may not be permitted.
Policy 1 b: Standards to be included in revised land development
regulations will be applied to new development to provide internal traffic
circulation, adequate parking, pathways, access to adjacent property if
appropriate, and control of access to major roads.
Policy 2: All non-residential projects shall be landscaped according to standards
to be drawn up relating quantity of green area to intensity of activity and
including xeriscaped areas.
Morse Foundation Tract
Page-12-
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
J
-J
j
Policy 3: Adherence to regulations on signage, lighting, and outdoor display and
storage will be determined.
J
J
J
J
I
~
J
"'I
]
j
J
J
]
J
"-
J
']
Policy 4: Review by any applicable citizen board of business owners' association
with respect to architectural control or community appearance standards adopted
by the City shaH be concluded.
Policy 5: Provision shaH be made for proper solid waste storage and collection.
Policy 6: Plans for potable water and sanitary sewer service will have been
reviewed and approved by the City, as well as for stormwater management and
for irrigation through reuse of wastewater effluent.
Comment: Development of the subject property will comply with all applicable City
regulations.
2.10 Infrastructure
2.10.1 Roads: The subject property is accessed off SR 434 which recently been
improved as a 4-lane divided arterial highway. The SR 434 improvements,
combined with the GreeneWay and the Interchange with SR 434, provide
adequate capacity to accommodate development ofthe property.
2.10.2 Wastewater: Service to accommodate development of the property is
available along SR 434 with adequate service capacity to accommodate
development.
2~10.3 Water: Water service is available along SR 434 with adequate capacity to
serve the project.
Morse Foundation Tract
Page -13-
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
I
~l
2.]] Wetlands
The subject property contains some wetland areas as identified in the environmental
assessment prepared by Lotspeich & Associates, dated March 30, 1999 (see Exhibit
III). The site analysis is limited to an inventory of potential site wetlands. The limit
of the wetlands has not been configured by the St. John River Water Management
District or the US Army Corp of Engineers.
I .~
~:"{
l
}
Development of the subject property will take into account the site conditions, the
character ofthe wetlands, proposed development and the alternative of on-site or off-
site mitigation as appropriate and permitted by the St. Johns River Water Management
District and the US Army Corp of Engineers.
-.
~
J
2.12 Soils
The on-site soils, as identified by the Soils & Conservation Service, are identified in
Exhibit I. These soils identify both suitable and unsuitable soil conditions. The
development application for the property will further evaluate the site soils and provide
guidance into the master site planning. Impacts in areas with unsuitable soils, if any,
will be addressed in the development process.
.1
2.13 Flood Hazard Area
A portion of the subject property is located within the I OO-year flood hazard area (see
FEMA Flood Map Exhibit I). Development ofthe property will address this existing
condition and properly mitigate for any encroachments within the flood hazard areas.
The development plans and mitigation of flood impacts shall comply with the St. Johns
River Water Management District criteria.
Page -14-
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Morse Foundation Tract
J
2.14 East Central Florida Regional Planning Council Regional Plan and State
Comprehensive Land Use Plan
--J The application to amend the Winter Springs Comprehensive Plan is consistent with
)
both the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council Regional Plan and the State
'.) Comprehensive Land Use Plan.
J
1
,
J
']
I
~'l
]
I
.-,
J
J
t
I
I
i
J
Page -15-
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Morse Foundation Tract
J
J
]
J
]
]
]
J
]
J
]
:J
]
J
J
,
~
J
J
J
J
EXHIBITS
'"
J
'~l
"I
,,J
n
10
" J
J
iU
]
,I
]
J
,1
, ]
J
I
J
J
"
EXHIBIT I
MAP SERIES
LOCATION MAP
J
]
']
]
.
J
]
~
::]
}
d
J
AERIAL
ZONING MAP
,/
LEGEND
PUD - Planned Unit Development
R-U - Rural Urban
~.nA-II A-I 0 - Agriculture
~ J R-U - Rural Urban
PLI - Public Lands and Institutions.
8M-I - Residential Mobile "orne
R-I - Residential Dome
~J
J
-............."..
./ I'
~: "Tl',T.:I.JT:"j i ,I[Ii.j i i i
. .11: /l
I . ~~\ .,.;S ~_J_--
d "., ""-'. ~~. lJ~rijR-.-
.... '.............-- . :\Y\)-::<:\.>l ~---' I. f
\. \. <<'"'\" '. ~ -r-; ,---0-'" j"', '-.
.. \: ' ,~.._, ,...,.... I "-. ,..,
v\ \\..;~::-::.,.z.. H f- ~-1 h
Tf
lJ
]
pun
~
\
,
\
.:]
C-I
]
~'_~""_A~
R-U
j
I
"pUn;
PUD
'1
j
W-_ .... ....,. ~........,-_........,....,--'
- - .".41914-34:----,
i .:i:
]
I
· Dr] !
i:::; f
t:~l f
. i,i Tn/::/ !
".::,~(~?? ;
\.~ .
J
. . ..----("1"\ ~ i { J ...lt~.... '. "
/--'....-\\).~,...>.-._._L-L.~ ~"
.i~t-t[~~~~1'-.
r:
,...~:,/
.1
'", .'v....
J
.. ,..,'-~~--;.... .. "-----...._.....~<~;::... ,~;'
....' ,.., ;--~~,=.:~: ~~~~:~~;:~\,=:--: :. ..
...-::<::..,.~ I
. '-~-,
J
A-IO
A-I
-JI[
..:::-....--.. .
J
FUTURE LAND USE
\\, MAP
, \
\ \
\ \
\ \
\ \
\\ \
\ \
\ \
\ '.
\ \
\ '
\
~UBO
\
~
I
C
C.
I
I
I
I
I
I
L______
LEGEND
l LDR - Low Density Residential
.J COMM - Commercial
Mixed Use
'.'] R-IO - Residential max. 10 DUlAC
PUBO - Public Other Govt. Owned
CONS - Conservation
~.
MIXED
USE
RIO
71
,J)
:':J CONS
J-'
-'),",..
. .....~
LDR
I
II Il
~JI ~D ;'
,\ ~~)
.! C<jlMM
J----,
I
!
,
i i
ChMM ,-~
i i I
r--L, i
i I
~\
\ .
~71Tst~ }
..J.Y y;. ;
]!!!~
; J
.;. : ~ 1 l
SOILS MAP
\ LEGEND
I' 2 - Adamsville-Sparr rme sands
4 - Astatula rme sand
6 - Astatula-Apopka fine sands
J 9 - Basinger and Delray fine sands
10 - Basinger, Samsula, and "ontooo
~. II - Basinger and Smyrna rme sands
13 - BauGallie and lmmokalee fine sands
'.J 19 - Manatee mucky fine sands
20 - Myakka and BauGallie rme sand
27 - Pomello fine sand
29 - St. Johns and BauGallie rme sands
] 31 - Tavares-Millhopper rme sands
W
\
\
]
10
J
J
10
~
~'I"
'I iH I
~~ ~fq
~I .----.~
~I=____l,...,
. ~ r LOob ZONE ! I !
00 YEAK~. \ , !
'i '~I \ '-~\ 'f ,-1
---+----....1 I l '. __._ I
,----; I I" ,
/ ill!!
;: '} i." I: i i II i
II / )[i L-~l~-----!
( I',' -- I , ,
J ! ) I [-- Ii i /
:. '__..L_ " , , I I a i
i L.__ / / i l ~,'- ~=-"':;'=:T.I
"'J ~ \ ~ ~'I i ", 'Ui :.,}
....---....--. 41rgi434J~ I i-'-1/ ' , ,
~- sm RD ~~ L.-=J f, ~--i \ _ ,.., _q l-
-~- ' IT , ..; ., I : .i.1T-! f _.i:::---~-,-,
-=l'-d-J' \. n -; , ; }-----LJI-#~ {i;, i~~~:~~ '
'l"-,~\ I_I ' --I ", r'-, ,.....-~-, r-- I I '"
" ,,,' I ,,-, - , _. /} A q '--f"j t::1 , ,.", , ,
' ~," I ' / ''VI '-" "--=, ,-.. '''~''-T'1l
-- '-;:-/, , \ , / /,G C::L...L ~l-i H I _\ , ,_,
":Jl"lLll.._. A/I I J ;jj~'A' //'\(~4'>-~lJjJJ' I'I ~~~ n fJ. i, "" :=tdt
-s."" -^ v--- --0' / '\ - "Y:V/' I , ' , 'K I:::-/AII ' t'- """'_ ,\
'~-~~--:. rrrc@\ ..._.-~ !J~i /', /...... -<<')-)-....--~ ...---:;:;;:~~ ,1., Sir", _...... ,_,. '.._
" r, '-<'\ >;:<'.,.) _, /, '" ,)>;; ~ ~ \(" ) ',<:--",/ " ~_, _'_,
\_, [-:'..-,-,-1' \' v'x:tr"r-- \ f:' / \ r>' 'v, I '>~. Ii, , I ',~","~
'j ~ ~ . I , , '~\, \ .. _,"" ~'--'.~, """'" I ,__ . __.
".iLL. -rT", L-Y \ L , I ~ '-..... I , , """,'Tn,,] \ //1 ! \ '_.. ~L--. ", ,_ ,_"
.' -~ "'1, J' ~ -, ~'~ ' " , "" ,," I , !Y', , L _'" , '.. ,_
- I; b 'Cj~~:'n'-j ---\ \. . '~~-;:,:.~::---.(~ \\ : J...:__',--_~~__
' ~'-, "':', c LU.Lu.~ /! < " I ! /'-... I ,.' i /~'! '>- "2:,J~....,.,,. _.___,
' j ,- ''---'-.:.J.. ~ / 'j \ ''-'-:'.'''-...fr-- ~ ,I,;" lc,.').., '",..'..,..___..
-- ) C".. I V />/~ "';,...... ,<:"'. 1"'_.' /"'fu,:.!,..;!~~~~~_..___.
'I , / .... 7' " /\' -. / ! " '--
' ---'-'-- , , !, I ~.. '\. / ,,,"-_ \/ \_L:_\_____
' , , " ! Ii' ''" .( ,-".L...=~ . '-.....
' , ,;..~::...:.....:~::-=---(-,-- ------:-:"7; ", '\ / -< ~_
-. J ',,~'. " I -'---- /:....' ~
~L':..,-l,---i--=-~.l_____ ___
.~~..:-:::::.::',=~--
~'~.M.J\ .t'LUUU
MAP
$
~
.
~
~
...~_._..,l...
]
I
"1
"]
,/
I
""1
~"J
I
J
J
J
"]
J
,:I
]
J
I
,J
J
EXHIBIT II
GREENEW A Y INTERCHANGE DISTRICT
...1
]
l
J
J
TI
..,
']
,.
~
J
J
~
~'
4
I
.'
J
]
J )
J
J
, GREENEW A Y INTERCI-IANGE ZONING DISTRICT
DIVISION 3.
DISTRICT REQUIREMENTS
Sec. 20-483
Purpose.
The GreeneWay Interchange Districl is designed as a mixed-use category which combines a strategy to attract
higher density residential and commercial enterprises oriented toward a major transportation nexus of an
expressway and arterial road and minimize urban sprawl. This district is specifically designed to:
a. Provide high density residential development in close proximity to economic centers for employees.
b. Discourage urban sprawl by clustering economic development activities along growth corridors.
C. Promote business development in close proximity to the regional road network providing high visibility
and convenient access.
d. Ensure sufficient availability of land to realize the economic development needs of the City.
e. Provide for choice and diversity in living arrangements and work environments.
Sec. 20-484
General Uses and Intensities.
(1) The GreeneWay Interchange Development District is designed to provide a variety of land uses, development
intensities, and target industry development. The uses are:
a. Planned commercial developments, corporate business parks, office complexes, commercial, service and
hotel uses.
b. Planned medium to high-density residential developments.
c. Planned mixed-use developments.
(2) Development Intensities:
The City shall apply the following development intensities. The criteria for establishing appropriate
; intensities include, but are not limited to, compatibility with surrounding existing and planned uses, adequacy
of existing and programmed City services and facilities, economic development objectives, and consistency
with the City's Comprehensive Plan and site characteristics.
Residential Uses:
Medium Density 5-10 Dwelling Units per net acre
High Density 11-20 Dwelling Units per net acre
Non-Residential Uses:
1.0 Floor Area Ratio (FAR)
Adopted August 23, 1999
Grecneway Interchange District
. ] ..
1 )
J
J
'}
....
OJ
J
.~ '~
ql
-1
~
]
--1.
.;.~
J
I
]
J
.,j
J
(3) Land Use Mix:
The GreeneWay Interchange Districl shall be developed to accommodate an overall mix of land uses as
described below:
Land Uses
Minimum
Maximum
Residential
Non- Residential
0%
75%
25%
100%
(4) Open SpacelRecreation:
.' A minimum of twenty-five percent (25%) of the overall site must be designated as recreation and common
open space. Individual land uses may have more or less than twenty-five percent (25%) of its area devoted to
common open space.
Recreation areas are not required within non-residential areas. In non-residential areas, landscaped pedestrian
connections between buildings, parking and adjacent development is required.
Sec. 20-485
Permitted Uses, Conditional Uses, Accessory Uses & Structures, Prohibited Uses.
(1) Medium Density Residential:
)
Single- Family AuachedfDelached
Patio Homes
Duplex
Multi-Family
(2) High Density Residential:
(3) Office:
Variety of office uses from single-tenant professional offices to corporate office parks.
(4) Commercial:
)
Alterations and tailoring
Automotive accessory sales
Bed and Breakfast inn
Bicycles sales and service
Bookstores, newslands
Cleaners
CommunitY,Regional and Sub-Regional Shopping Centers
Computers," hardware, software sales and service
Convention center
Convenience store without gas pumps
Daycare Nurseries
Drug store
Electronic equipment sales and service
Financial institutions
Florist
Government service facilities
Adopted August 23, 1999
- 2 -
Grcencway Interchange District
]
]
".1
.]
TI
\",
"}
, '
..,:
~
'\-
J )
J
~
' ..
j
,I
]
"
]
J )
.J
.J
Hardwar(; s!ort:
HOld, 11101(;]
Medical clinics
Medical laboratories
Medical supplies and renlals
Neighborhood Convenience Slores
Offices - (general)
Offices - (regulated professions)
Parking garages
Parks and recrealion facilities
Personal services
Physical fitness and health clubs
Private clubs and lodges
Public utilities and service structures
Residential - mulIifamily
Restaurants
Sidewalk cafes
Theaters
(5) Conditional Uses in Commercial Areas:
Before a conditional use may be granted within the GreeneWay Interchange District, the Development
Review Committee must find that the use or uses are consistent with the general purpose and spirit of the
district and with the public interest.
Alcoholic beverage sales (package)
Alcoholic beverage sales (on-premises consumption)
Amusement enterprises
Automobile and Iruck rental
Automobile Gasoline Service Station
Automobile repair
Child care facilities
Drive-in restaurants
Hospitals
Mini-warehouses
Nursing Homes (senior independent living)
Schools (public or private)
Any other retail store or business enterprise not listed that in the judgement of the Development Review
Committee is consistenl with those included above, and further, that will be in harmony with the purpose and
spirit of the GreeneWay Interchange District.
(6) Permitted accessory uses and structures.
. Accessory uses customarily associated Wilh, dependent on, and incidental to the permitted prinCipal uses.
(7) Prohibited Uses.
Check cashing eSlablishments (other than banks)
Fica markets
Funeral homes
Pawn Shops
Adopted August 23, 1999
Grecneway Interchange District
- 3 -
"J
.,]
, "1
-J
:;.,;'
"~...
; ::~
L':':
:]
~
;:.:~
,rJ
,.J
'"1
~.:J
J
1
0]
J
I
..1
J
Strip centers
All uses listed in See. 20-252 in the C-2 General Commercial and Induslrial District of the City Code,
except 20-252(1) uses permitted in the C-l "Neighborhood Commercial District"
DIVISION 4.
GENERAL DESIGN STANDARDS
Sec. 20-486
Building Height.
No building shall exceed seventy-five (75) feet in height.
Se~ 20-487
Setbacks.
(1) No improvement shaH be located on any property closer to any property line than the minimum setbacks set
forth below:
S.R. 434
Collector Street
Internal Street
Side (a)
Rear (a)
Buildings
25 feet
25 feet
15 feet
o feet
10 feet
Parking
15 feet
15 feet
10 feet
5 feet
5 feet
(a) Unless abutting a residential area. See Section 20-491.
(2) The narrowest dimension of a lot adjoining a road right-of-way shaH determine its front for the purpose of
establishing yard requirements.
(3) On corner lots, the front yard shaH be considered as abutting the street upon which the lot has its least
dimension. The rear lot, in this case, shall be opposite the front yard.
(4) The following structures are specifically excluded from the setback restrictions:
a. Steps and walks.
b. Landscaping and landscape berms.
c. Planters three (3) feet in height or less, or
d. Other improvements as may be permitted under applicable regulations of the City.
The Board of Adjustment will consider any request for the placement of such other improvements within a
setback, only afrtr a Development Review Commillee review and recommendation. In determining whether
to recommend City consent, the Development Review Commillee may consider, without limiting the scope of
their review, the following: (1) the extent to which any hardship exists that would justify a variance from the
normal setback requirements; (ii) the aesthetics of the proposed improvements and their visibility from
common roads and adjacent properties; (iii) the consenl or objections of adjacent property owners; and (iv)
the nalurc and use of the proposed improvements. It is the owner's burden and responsibility to provide such
informalion and documenlation as may be requested by the Dcvclopmcnl Review Committee in order to
Adopted August 23, ] 999
- 4 -
Greeneway Interchange District
-1
.I
J
-1
J
1
'.1
J
J
J
J
J
justify to the Development l~eviL:w Committec thatthL: inlrusion of additional improvemcnls within the
normal selbacks is bencfici..d to the corridor and will not adversely affect m.ljucent properly owners.
Sec. 20-488
Land Coverage.
The overall site shall contain 25% open space or recreation. Individual sites within a planned development may
have more or less than 25% open space. Stand alone single commercial or office sites may contain a minimum of
15% open space.
Open space includes pervious surfaces, landscaped or natural areas, recreation areas and storm water
retention/detention areas. Open space does not include designated conservation areas.
See. 20-489
Off-Street Parking and Driveway Requirements. ,
(1) Paved Driveway and Parking Spaces: All driveways and parking spaces shall be paved with asphaltic
concrete and/or concrete and shall be curbed.
(2) On-Site Parking: All parking areas shall be on-site and shall be adequate to serve all employees, visitors and
company vehicles.
(3) Rights-Of-Way: Parking is prohibited on rights-of-way or along driveways.
(4) Parking Space Size: Each off-street parking space shall be a minimum of two hundred (200) square feet, 10' x
20', in addition to space for access drives and aisles. The minimum width of each space shall be ten (10) feet.
The two (2) foot area of paving at the end of each parking space may be omitted provided the area is
) landscaped with sod or another acceptable ground cover. The two (2) foot landscaped area shall not be
counted toward any other greenspace requirement or setback. Lines demarcating parking spaces may be
drawn at various angles in relation to curbs or aisles, so long as the parking spaces so created contain within
them the rectangular area required.
(5) Handicapped Spaces: Handicapped spaces shall be provided and sized in accordance with 316.1955,
316.1956,316.1958,320.0843,320.0845,320.0848 Florida Statutes.
(6) Access drive Width: Each access drive shall have a minimum width of twenty-four (24) feet.
(7) Number of Access Drives: If a site has less than two hundred (200) feet of frontage on a right-of-way, one (1)
access drive shall be permitted unless there is a joint access drive, in which case two (2) may be permitted. If
a site has more than two hundred (200) feet of frontage on a right-of-way, F.D.O.T permit guidelines (found
in 1496-7 Florida Administrative Code) and restrictions shall apply.
(8) Turning Radius: The minimum turning radius shall be thirty (30) feet.
(9) Coordinated jO~!1t use of parking areas during off -peak hours shall be encouraged to be incorporated into the
design of projects 10 reduce the total number of required parking spaces.
(10) Whenever practical, vehicular and pedestrian circulation systems shall be separated. A system of
multi-purpose walkways connecting buildings, common open spaces, recreation areas, community facilities
and parking areas shall be provided and adequately lighted for nighttime use. The intent is to create a
pedestrian orienled system to connecl all properties within the Greeneway Inlerchange Dislrict.
Adopted August 23, 1999
Grecnew<lY Interchange Districl
- 5 -
J
'~l
.:..J
'~l
, '.'J
.,},.
l.D.::'
;;...
1:::::::
!.ft,:"'.:
',,'\.
",
Sec. 20-490
Landscaping.
The following landscape standards establish the minimum criteria for the development of the roadways, parking
areas, and other features to ensure continuity in aesthetic values throughout the corridor.
(1) AU areas requiring landscaping shall meel or exceed the following general landscape requirements. Such
Landscaping Requirements are required for:
a. That part of the site fronting a public or private right-of-way that is within the designated corridor.
O. Around and within all off-street parking, loading and other vehicular use areas within each site. Loading
areas shall be screened with the intent to block the view of such loading areas from public streets or
adjacent properties to the greatest extent practicable. Loading areas shall not front on public streets.
c. Along the outside of screening walls and fences.
d. Adjacent to buildings on the site to complement the architectural style.
'J (2) All landscaping shall be installed according to accepted commercial planting procedures. Fertile soil, free of
lime rock, pebbles or other construction debris shall be used in all planting pits.
I,J..
i1
~:,.,
.;;..;..
\.'\.'
.""}
.1',"
~\:.
:\,
[l
ili1
'?
JI
,~
jl
'I
JI
I
, 'I
,,;J )
J
J
(3) The owner of a site shall be responsible for all landscaping so as to present a neat, healthy and orderly
appearance free ofrefuse and debris. Any dead or dying plant material, including sod, shall be promptly
replaced or shall be treated to restore healthy growth to achieve a uniform appearance.
(4) All landscape areas shall be adequately irrigated, with reclaimed water if available, based on the following
criteria:
a. An automatic sprinkler irrigation system shall be provided for all landscaped areas.
b. The irrigation system shall be designed to provide full coverage of all landscaped areas and shall be
equipped with rain sensors.
c. The irrigation system shall be designed and operated to prevent or minimize run-off of irrigation water
onto roadways, driveways, and adjacent properties not under the control of the owner of the site.
d. The irrigation system shall be maintained so as to be in optimum working order at all times.
(5) All plant material shall meet or exceed standards for Florida No.1 plants, as specified in Grades and
Standards for Nursery Plants. Parts I and II. 1973, published by the State of Florida, Department of
Agriculture and Gonsumer Services. Trees shall be selected from the Recommended Tree Pallet found at the
end of these design standards.
(6) The preservation and utilization of a site's natural trees and shrubbery is strongly encouraged. Existing
vegetation shall be incorporated into the landscape concept for a site wherever practical.
(7) Natural growth may be used to satisfy specific landscape requirements. Relocalion of onsite landscaping
material is encouraged.
Adopted August 23, 1999
Greeneway Interchange District
- 6 -
, ,J
J
,]
i]
..~,.
~J
,i;:.'
lJ
1:
'-1
~
] ,)
1
~]
"'
J
. .
.a
:]
J
..J
.J
(8) When an accessway inlersects a right-of-way, landscaping may be used to define the intersection provided
however that all landscaping within the triangular area described below shall provide unobstructed
cross-visibility at a level between two (2) feet and six (6) feet above finished grade. Pedestrian sidewalks may
cross the triangular area. Landscaping, except grass and ground cover, shall not be located closer than three
(3) feet from the edge of any accessway pavement The triangular area shall be defined as:
a. The areas of the site on both sides of an accessway which lie within a triangle formed by the intersection of
each curb of the accessway with the street right-of-way with two (2) sides of each triangle being ten (10)
feet in length from the point of intersection and the third side being a line connecting the ends of the two
(2) other sides.
b. The area of the site located at a corner formed by the intersection 'of two (2) or more streets with two (2)
sides of the triangular area being measured thirty (30) feet in length along the right-of-way lines from
their point of intersection; and the third being a line connecting the ends of the other two (2) lines.
(9) All landscape plans and specifications shall be prepared by a landscape architect licensed to practice in the
State of Florida.
(10)A11 parking areas and vehicular use areas shall be screened from the public right-of-way by a landscape
screen. This screen may be composed of a berm not less than three (3) feet in height and not more than five
(5) feet in height or a maintenance free wall at least (3) feet in height, or a screen of landscaping at leas t three
(3) feet in height twelve (12) months after planting. If a wall or hedge is used, a meandering berm a
minimum of one and one-half (1 V2) feet in height, with a maximum slope of 3:1 shall be required. Berms
shall not be used where coverage conflicts with existing vegetation. This screening requirement may be
combined with other requirements within the landscape easement. Berm slopes shall vary in order to provide
visual interest; however, the maximum slope shall be 3:1. The berm shall be completely covered with grass or
other living landscape materials. A berm shall not be constructed around existing vegetation where the grade
will be raised more than six (6) inches. Walls and shrub screens shall be setback a minimum of ten (10) feet
from the property line.
NOTE: For the purpose of this ordinance hedge, screen and landscaping are to be used interchangeably.
(11) Concrete walkways shall be a minimum five (5) feet wide and shall be encouraged to meander, where
, appropriate, to create visual interest. The construction of the walkways shall be coordinated with adjacent
, properties to ensure continuity of design. Where a sidewalk intersects a street or driveway, a curb ramp shall
be installed.
(12)Landscaping shall be installed to screen parking areas from adjacent and proxima Ie properties as follows:
a. Where vehiC?.ular use areas are adjacent to properties assigned a zoning classification which allows only
residential uses or properties assigned a residential land use designalion, the provisions of Section
20-491 active/passive buffer and setback design standards shall apply.
)
b. A hedge or other durable landscape screen at least thirty (30) inches in overall height above grade when
planted, to grow to thirty-six (36) inches wilhin twelve (12) months under normal growing conditions,
shall be used between Ihe common property lines. When two (2) hedges occur along a common property
line, use of the same plant species is required. If a hedge exists on an adjacent property along a common
Adopted August 23, 1999
- 7 -
Greeneway Interchange District
1
.J
.J
;J
']
[ ':
...'
,
d
~
'"
;;.,..
[J
1
;]
,
;
U
\-
: 'J
:]
']
,I )
J
J
properly lilll:, a Juplicale Ill:dge is not required; IH)Wl:Vl:r, ill ;111 C1Sl:S, trl:e planting requiremcnts for cach
proper! y shall apply,
c. Live screening material shull be planted in areas not less than five (5) feet in width. Planting areas shall
be mulched a minimum of two (2) inches thick with cypress mulching or other organic mulch.
d. At least one tree shall occur for every seventy-fivc (75) linear feet, or fraction thereof, along side
(non-street side) and rear property lines. These trees shall be any canopy trees selectcd from the
recommended plant pallet found at the end of this seclion.
(13)Landscaping shall be provided for all vehicular use areas so as to provide visual and climatic relief from
broad expanses of pavement and to channelize and define logical areas for pedestrian and vehicu lar
circulation. The requirements for landscaping in vehicular use areas are as follows:
'.
a. Parking areas shall include landscaped curbed islands at the ends of each row of parking. These islands
shall be a minimum of ten (10) feet wide and as deep as the combined parking space(s) plus median, if
any and shall include at least one (1) canopy tree.
b. Each parking bay shall have no more than ten (10) continuous parking spaces unbroken by a landscape
island. Shade trees shall be provided.
c. Parking bays shall have a maximum of forty (40) spaces. Where total parking requirements for a
parcel exceed forty (40) cars, parking lots shall be broken into distinct areas separated by continuous
landscaped islands at least five (5) feet wide. Landscaped islands shall contain one (1) tree for every
thirty (30) linear feet of island.
d. Each separate required landscaped island shall contain a minimum of one hundred sixty-two (162)
square feet with a minimum interior dimension of nine (9) feet and shall include at ,least one (1) tree.
e. As an option, a six (6) foot wide landscaped island may be constructed between rows of parking which
shall count towards the required open space. If Ihis option is used, the parking spaces abutting the
island may be shortened to nineteen (19) feet in length and the unbroken rows of parking may be
extended to twenty (20) spaces. The landscaped island shall conlain one tree for every thirty (30) linear
feet of island.
(14) A landscaped unpaved area shall surround each non-residential building, occurring between the facade of
the building and paved areas whether a parking area, drive or sidewalk as described below.
a. Along the front and side of a non-residential building a minimum landscaped area of ten (10) feet for
the first floor plus three (3) feet for each additional floor shall be maintained. Sidewalks are not
considered part of the landscaped area.
b. Along the rear of a non-residential building a minimum of five ( 5 ) feet of landscaped area shall be
maintaineq; Loading areas may be permitted along the rear or side facade of a building.
c. For retail buildings, paving may be allowed up to the fa<;ade of a continuous storefront building if
landscaping is provided intermittently along the fa<;ade of the building consislent with the following:
1. A minimum of fifIy (50) percent of the front or side with continuous storefront must be landscaped.
2. Each landscaped area must have a minimum width or three (3) feet.
Adopted August 23, 1999
- 8 -
Grccncway Interchange District
l
.-.1-
h
]
71
ill
ffJ..'..
":;r.:
~
J
J
~
"'}
J
. -1
.-.j
J
,}
]
OJ
.J
J
(15) Foundation and accent planting shall be provided around all structures for the purpose of enhancing and
complcmenling the architectural character of the structure.
(16) Wet retenlion/detention ponds along S.R. 434 shall be designed so as not to require fencing. Wel
retention/detention ponds in the rear of buildings shall be fenced if required by slope. No dry
retention/detenlion pond shall be localed along S.R. 434.
(17) All stormwater management areas shall conform to the design criteria promulgated by the City of Winter
Springs and the S1. Johns River Water Management District. \
(18) A tree survey shall be submitted with any application for site plan review showing all trees over four (4)
inches in caliper consistent with Chapter 5 of the City of Winter Springs Code of Ordinances. Prior to any
,,~ site clearing activities all existing trees required to remain by the Dev~)opment Review Committee shall be
tagged in the field for inspection and approval. Barriers shall be erected at the dripline of trees for
protection against construction activities.
(19) Any existing tree(s) indicated to remain on construction plans approved by the Development Review
Committee that are damaged or removed shall be replaced with new tree(s) Consistent with Chapter 5;
Section 5.5 of the City of Winter Springs Code of Ordinances.
(20) All areas not otherwise landscaped, including the right-of-way, shall be sodded with S1. Augustine solid sod
by parcel owners. Other suitable sod may be permitted in low visibility areas or areas subject to periodic
water inundation.
(21) Pedestrian access through the perimeter wall and buffer may be provided at the abutting resident's or
homeowners association's option to provide convenient pedestrian access to non-residential uses such as
commercial areas, office parks or schools.
(22) Additional green space and landscaping shall be required at access drives.
Sec. 20-491
ButTers and Walls.
(1) Unless otherwise specified, the following active/passive design standards shall apply to all commercial,
office, and multi-family development adjacent to properties assigned a residential zoning classification or a
residential land use designation. Buffers and setbacks required by this section are intended to separate
incompatible land uses and eliminate or minimize adverse impacts such as light, noise, glare and building
mass on adjacent residential uses. The Development Review Committee shall make the final determination
of active and passive edge (s) during the site plan review process.
(2) Front setbacks shall comply with the requirements of Section 20-87. Side and rear setbacks shall comply
with Table 1 of this Section.
(3) Passive buffers: The use of passive buffers may occur only on the passive edges of a building site. In using
passive buffers: Ihe following requirements shall be met:
a. Buffer Widlh: Minimum fifteen feet (15')
b. Buffers shall contain a perimeter brick or lTlasonry wall six feet (6') in height.
)
Adopted August 23, 1999
.9-
Greencway Interchange District
\
J
l
-1
I
-'
j
-1
:J
J
,-"I
~
f:j
J
J
J
J
j
J
]
,
,
. .
- i
J
J
c, Buffers shall contain fOllr (4) canopy lrees a minimum of two and one hall' inches (2.5") in diameter
(dbh) for everyone hundred (100) linear feel of buffer. Trees may be clustered or planled al regula r
intervals.
(4) Active buffers: In using active buffers, the following requirements shall be met:
a. Buffer Width: Minimum twenty-five feet (25') for one-story buildings.
Minimum fifty feet (50') for buildings two (2) story and over.
b. Buffers shall contain a perimeter brick or masonry wall six feet (6') in heigh\.
c. Buffers shall contain eight (8) canopy trees a minimum of two and one half inches (2.5") in diameter
(dbh) for every one hundred (100)linear feet of buffer. Trees may be clustered or plante d at regular
intervals.
(5) The following table prescribes the landscape buffer and setback requirements relating to the height of
buildings when the following uses are adjacent to existing residential land uses and/or properties assigned a
residential zoning land use classification or land use designation.
Table 1
Passive/Active
Landscape Buffer and Side and Rear Setback Requirements
. )
Building Height
and Use
Passive Side of Building
Buffer Setback
Active Side of Building
ButTer Setback
One Story
Office
Commercial
Multi-Family
2 or more stories
Office
Commercial
Multi-Family
15'
15'
15'
50'
SO'
100'
100'
100'
100'
a. On internal streets, no existing or dedicated public or private right-of-way shall be included in
calculation of the buffer widths.
b. Existing vegetation shall be used where possible to meet these requirements.
(6) Walls: All freestanding walls, sound barriers, ground sign enclosures, planters, man -made slructures
fronting along the designated roadway or its major intersections shall be of brick decoralive or split-faced
concrete block. When these materials are used for a visual screen, they shall conform 10 the architectural
style, materials, and color of the development.
Adopted August 23, 1999
- ] 0 -
Greeneway Interchange District
!"\
., \
I
, I
,.;"
-',1.
(j
,>:.:'~
_I
-r
r
~
'......
"
~
J
1
~'l
;.;..J
J
Sec. 20-492
Signs.
All signs and sign clements, including shape, form, lighling, materials, size, color and location shall be subjecl to
approval by the Development Review Commillee if such signs or sign clements are visible from adjacent
properties or a street righl-of-way. .
(1) Ground Mounled Muhi-Tenant or Project Identification Sign: For each muhi-tenant development under
separate ownership, one (1) wide-based monument style permanent sign with landscaped base identifying the
name of the development and businesses within the development shall be permitted. For developments with
five hundred (500) feet of frontage or more on a major road, one (1) additional sign may be permitted. The
minimum separation for all signs on an individual ownership parcel shall be 200'.
a. Shall only advertise the name of the commercial development companies, corporation or major
." enterprises within the commercial development. The primary address of the building shall be
incorporated into the sign wilh numeralslletters a minimum of eight (8) inches in height, but the address
shall not be counted against allowable copy area.
b. Shall be located no closer than fifteen (15) feet from S.R. 434 right-of-way and ten (10) feet from inld'nal
streets and side and rear setbacks if setbacks are not adjacent to S.R. 434.
c. Shall have a maximum of two (2) faces.
d. Shall be consistent in design, format and materials with the architecture of the proposed building(s).
e. A wall sign shall not be higher than eight (8) feet above the closest vehicular use area.
f. Signs shall be in an enclosed base a minimum width of two-thirds (2/3) the width of the sign.
Landscaping shall be incorporated around the base to include low growing shrubs and groundcover
andlor annuals 10 promote color.
g. Signs shall be in accordance with the following schedule:
Fronting on S.R. 434 the following shall apply:
Building Size (Gross Floor Area)
Under 75,000 square feel
75,000 - 250,000 square feet
over 250,000 square feet
Maximum Copy Area
32 square feet
48 square feet
64 square feet
Maximum Height
12 feet
14 feet
16 feet
" Fronting on internal streets the following shall apply:
j
1
J
..i
J
Building Size (Gross Floor Area)
Under 75,000 square feet
75,000 - 250,000 square feet
over 250,000 square feet
Maximum Copy Area
56 square feet
84 square feet
150 square feet
Maximum Height
14 feet
14 feet
16 feet
h. Multi-tenant centers arc permilled additional signs for anchor tenants according to the
following schedule:
)
Adopted August 23, ] 999
Grceneway Interchange District
- J I -
t
" )
\ --I
, "
~ t
'J
.J
9
:.J
;f
~
]
..1
-..,
:1~
i I
......J
'-:J
')
I
_..!J
]
: I )
,~ I
'1
"
.J
Building Size (Gross Floor l\re;l)
Under 75,000 square feel
75,000 - 250,000 square feet
over 250,000 square feel
Anchor Tenant Additional Signs
2 of 12 square feet
3 of 12 square feel
4 of 12 square feet
NOTE: An anchor tenant is defined as the major relail store(s) or office tenanl in a center that is in
excess of 100' front feet and a minimum area of 10,000 square feel.
(2) Ground Mounted Single-Tenanlldentification Sign: One (1) wide-based monument style, permanent project
identification sign shall be permitJed per single-tenant parcel. One additional permanent wide-based
monument style projecl identification sign may be permitJed for parcels in excess of one (1) acre with more
than one (1) ingress/egress serving more than one (1) building. The minimum separation for all signs on an
: individual ownership parcel shall be 200'.
a. . Shall only advertise one (1) person, firm, company, corporation or major enterprise occupying the
premises.
b. Shall be located no closer than fifteen (15) feet from S.R. 434 right-of-way and ten (10) feet from internal
streets and side and rear setbacks if setbacks are not adjacent to S.R. 434~
c. Shall not exceed two (2) faces_
)
d. Sign copy area shall not exceed thirty-two (32) square feet per face for signs fronting on S .R. 434 and
forty-eight (48) square feet for signs on internal streets. For parcels in excess of 4.0 acres, the project
identification sign face fronting S.R. 434 may be increased to forty-eight (48) square feet.
e. Shall be consistent in design, format and materials with the architecture of the proposed building.
f. When fronting on S.R. 434 the sign shall not be more than eight (8) feet in height above the closest
driveway or vehicular use area. Internal signs shall not be more than twelve (12) feet in height above the
closest driveway or vehicular use area.
g. Signs shall be in an enclosed base that is at a minimum the full width of the sign. Landscaping shall be
incorporated around the base to include low growing shrubs and groundcover and/or annuals to promote
color.
h. A matching entry sign may be placed on either side of the primary entrance to a development if enhanced
landscaping al the enlrance is provided.
(3)
Building Mounted Multi-Tenant Identification Sign for Buildings with Separate Exterior Tenant Entrances: In
addition to the ground mounted identification sign, tenant signs shall be permitted on the exterior walls of the
building at a location near the principal tenant entrance, and be consistent wilh the following criteria:
a. Shall only advertise one (1) person, firm, company, corporation or major enterprise
occupying the premises.
b. The sign(s) shall be clearly integrated with the architecture of the building. Shall be consistenl in design,
format, and materials with lhe architecture of Ihe proposed building.
c. The sign(s) shall not project above any roof, canopy elevations, or top of parapet wall.
Adopted August 23, 1999
Grecncway ] nlerchange District
- ] 2 -
--,
__I
~l
l
J
1
.-.l
J
J
I
.,
- !
i
,'!
I
..1
d. Wall signs shall display only one (I) surface and shall not be mounted more than six (6) inches from any
wall.
e. When more than one (1) lenant sign is used on one (1) building, each lenant sign shall be consistent in
size, materials, and placemenl.
f. The maximum size of sign letters and logos, including any sign backgrounds, shall be 24" in height for
individualtenanls other than anchor tenants. The maximum of letters and logos for anchor tenants in a
retail center shall not exceed 25% of the building height. An anchor tenant is defined as the major retail
store(s) or office tenant in a center that is in excess of one hundred (100') front feet and a mini~ um area
of 10,000 square feet.
.' g. The length of the sign may occupy up to seventy (70%) percent of the linear feet of the storefront the
business occupies. The anchor tenant may have the signage permitted for a Building Mounted Single
Tenant Identification Sign.
h. For office buildings without separate exterior tenant entrances, one wall sign not exceeding two (2)
square feet shall be permitted identifying each individual tenant. The sign shall be located adjacent to the
building entrance.
(4) Building Mounted Single Tenant Identification Sign: In addition to the ground-mounted identification sign, a
building mounted identification sign may be permitted consistent with the following criteria:
a. Shall only adverIise one (1) person, firm, company, corporation or major enterprise occupying the
premIses.
b. The identification sign is located on the exterior wall of a building.
c. The sign shall be clearly integrated with the architecture.
d. The sign shall not either project above any roof, canopy elevations or top of parapet wall. The top of the
sign shall not be higher than fourteen (14) feet above the main entry floor with the exception of signature
buildings as described in these regulations.
e. The sign shall display only one (1) surface and shall not project more Ihan six (6) inches from any wall.
f. Signs shall conform to the following schedule:
Building Size (Gross Floor Area)
Less than 50,000 square feet
50,000 to 100,000 square feet
Over 100,000 square feet
Maximum Copy Area
16 square feet
32 square feet
48 square feet
. The maximum height of lellers and logos shall be as follows:
Building Height
3 slories in height and under:
4 stories (signature building)
5 stories and up (signature building)
Max. Sign Size
Per max. copy area above
60 square feet
76 square feet
Letters
17"
19"
21"
Logos
22"
24"
26"
Adopted August 23, ] 999
- 13 -
Greencway Interchange District
~'j
" )
J
J
ml.......
LJ
]
~
J
C}
~:i'
i::
~~,;.
"
":1.
11
J
]
J,
,.
,:.1
,J
J
For sign;llure huildings Ihc following shall....'..l.I?12!Y..
(a) The overall size of lhe sign shall nOI exceed fifleen (IS) percent of a signable wall area 10 which Ihe
sign is all ached or Ihe maximum allowahle sign size, whichever is less. Signable wall area is defined
to be a continuous portion of a building unbroken by doors, windows, columns, trim or olher
architectural delails.
(b) If a sign consisls'of a boxed display, the lotal area,of the display, including copy, logo and
background musl be no greater than the maximum size allowances.
(c) If a sign consists of individual letters and a logo, the total area of the letters and logo, the negative
space in the letters and the spaces between the letters, logo and words shall be included in
determining compliance with maximum size allowances.
(d) The sign shall not project above any roof, canopy elevation, or top of parapet wall..
(e) The sign shall be clearly integrated in design and materials with the architecture of the building. The
sign shall be carved into the fabric of the building or securely attached to it and mounted so as not to
project more than two (2) inches from the wall surface to which it is attached. The maximum
thickness of the sign shall be two (2) inches.
(f) The sign shall display the name of one (1) signature business and its identifying logo if applicable.
(5) Additional Signs/Variances: Under special circumstances, such as for parcels on comer lots, additional signs
consistent with these design standards may be approved, upon a request granted by the Board of Adjustment
pursuant to Sec. 20-82 and 20-83 or the City Code. The Board of Adjustment shall recommend variances of
this sign code in specific cases where such variances will not be contrary to the public interest and where,
owning to special conditions, a literal translation of this sign code would result in unnecessary hardship. All
requirements, procedures, findings and appeals of sign code variances shall follow those provisions for
zoning variances.
(6) Commercial Ouldoor Advertising (i.e. Billboards)
)
Off-site advertising signs such as billboards are prohibited.
(7) Changeable Copy Signs: In order to create continuity throughout the corridor all changeable copy signs shall
be as follows:
a. The sign cabinel shall be all aluminum extrusion or better as approved by staff. Changeable copy signs
may be incorporated into permitted signs and shall be included as part of the permitted sign area as
described below:
I. Changeable copy signs shall not comprise more than twenty-five (25) percent of the permitted sign
area;
II. Movie theaters and other performance/enterlainmcnt facilities may utilize up to 80% of the
permitted sign area for display of films, plays or other performances currently showing. Such
copy arca shall be included as part of the permitted sign area.
111. Movie theaters may use up to 80% of permitted wall sign area for display of names, films, plays
or other pcrformances currently showing.
IV. One changeable copy sign advertising thc price of gasolinc is permitted on gasoline station sites
provided il shall not exceed 12 square feet per sign face.
b. The sign face shall be acrylic Pan X IS or Equal.
Adopted August 23, ] 999
Grecneway Interchange District
- ]4 -
-1
I
J
"]
.J
J
.J
,]
J
\
J
J
j
C, TilL: klters and track sllalll1L: WagllL:r Zip-Ch:'ngL: or Equal.
(8) Backlit Signs: Backlighting of signs, including awning signs, shClII bc pcrmillcd.
(9) Window Signs: Window signs may be pcrmilled under spcciClI circumstanccs for retail eSlablishmcnls such as
signs inside and on a window or in a display of merchandise when incorporated with such a display. The total
area of all window signs, shall not exceed twenty (20%) percent of the window glass area to be caJculaled
separately for each separate storefront Window signs shall count against total allowable copy area if they are
permanently attached.
(lO)Construction Signs: One (1) construction sign, denoting the owner, architect, landscape architect, engineer,
financial institution, contractors, or containing any statement pertaining to the project for which a building
permit has been obtained, will be permitted during construction. The construction sign shall not exceed
: sixty-four (64) square feet in area and shall not exceed fourteen (14) feet in height or sixteen (16) in width.
The construction sign shall be removed from the site by the owner upon substantial completion of all
construction, or upon the issuance of a final Certificate of Occupancy, whichever is sooner. If the sign is not
removed when required, it may be removed by the City at the owner's expense.
(ll)Marketing Signs (e.g. "Space for Rent" sign):
a. Only one (1) marketing sign shall be permitted on each parcel during the building's "leasing period". At
the end of the leasing period, marketing signage shall be removed from the site by the owner of the site.
b. All marketing signs shall be submitted to the City for approval and location prior to the sign's
installation.
c. Marketing signs shall be set back a minimum of twenty-five (25) feet on S.R. 434 and fifteen (15) feet
from the front, side and rear property lines. They shall not create a visibility obstruction to vehicular
traffic.
d. For parcels in excess of five (5) acres or with frontage on more than one (1) road, one (1) additional
marketing sign may be permitted. Signs must be a minimum of 200' apart.
e. Marketing signs may be double faced. Sign faces shall be parallel and mounted on the same poles. The
copy area shall not exceed sixty-four (64) square feet and no more than ten (10) fee t in height. The total
of a single sign face shall not exceed thirty-two (32) square feet.
f. Marketing signage may be incorporated within the construction signage, but the signage shall not exceed .
sixty four (64) square feet in area.
g. Marketing signs may be lighted so as to illuminate the lettering on the sign.
(12)Political Signs only by permit
(13)Prohibited Sigrts: The following signs and/or devices are prohibited in the corridor.
a. Any sign or part of a sign which is designed, devised, or construcled so as to rotate, spin, gyrate, turn or
move in any animated fashion. Signs shall not incorporate reflective materials so as 10 create the
appearance of mOlion or neon.
b. Any sign painted directly on any exterior wall.
Adopted August 23, 1999
Greeneway Interchange District
- 15 -
I,
-I
"'1
~
.J
1
H,J
I
J
1
j
J
c. Signs projecting more than six (()) inches in depth.
d. Roof signs.
e. Bench signs.
f. Snipe signs (e.g. signs allached 10 Irees and poles).
g. Freestanding signs unless otherwise provided for herein.
h. Trailer signs.
." 1. Signs attached to temporary slructures.
J. Billboards
k. Any vehicle with a sign or signs attached thereto or placed thereon with three exceptions as follows: (a)
any vehicle when parked or stored within the confines of a building, or (b) any vehicle upon which is
placed a sign identifying a firm or its principal product if such vehicle is one which is operated during the
normal course of business and shall be parked in the least visible spot from the road, or (c) a trailer
placed on a job site during construction.
1. Pole signs.
m. Balloon signs.
n. Ribbon signs.
(14)Permanent Flags: Only project flags or governmental flags shall be permitted in conformance with the
following standards:
a. One (1) flagpole and one (1) flag may be permitted per parcels of two (2) acres or more.
b. The maximum width from top to bottom of any flag shall be 20% of the total distance of the flag pole.
c. Flagpoles shall maintain the same setback requirements as project identification signs.
'd. Flagpole heights shall be between twenty (20) and thirty-five (35) feet in height above grade.
e. A project flag shall only contain information permitted on the project identification sign. A project flag
shall be submitted to the Development Review Committee for approval.
(15)Temporary sign,S for special events.
a. Permits for temporary signs, such as pennanl and banner signs, not otherwise prohibited are allowed for
such purposes as auctions, special events, notice of opening of new businesses, and going out of business
sales. Permils for temporary signs shall aulhorize the ereclion of the signs and maintenance thereof for a
period not exceeding fourteen (14) days; and permils cannol be renewed on the same sign, nor shall
another temporary permit be issued on the same location, within 90 days from Ihe date of expiration of
any previously issued temporary permit.
Adopted August 23, 1999
Grecncway Interchange District
- 16 -
] a.
J b.
c.
d.
J
e.
j f.
i
-I
_OJ
_ J
J
]
J
1
.~
J
,
i
-1
J
h. Signs for specific events shall he removed within lwo (2) working days after conclusion of the evenl. A
freestanding temporary sign shall be no larger than a maximum of Ihirty-two (32) square feel, and may be
double sided. Banner signs may be sized to extend across roads.
(16)Maintenance: All signs and associated apparatus shall be maintained by the owner of the sile. Violations
shall be processed through the City's Code Enforcement Division.
(17)Nonconforming Signs.
a. Any sign, other than billboards, having an original cost in excess of one hundred ($100) dollars and which
is nonconforming as to permiIted sign area or any other reason which would necessitate the complete
removal or total replacement of the sign, may be maintained a period of from one (1) to five (5) years
from the effective date of these design standards. The term of years to be determined by the cost of the
sign or of renovation, including installation cost, shall be as follows:
Sign Cost or
Renovation Cost
Permitted Years from
Effective Date of Design Standards
$ 0 - $3,000
$ 3,001 - $ 10,000
Over $10,000
2
3
5
b. Violations shall be subject to Chapter 2. Article 3. Division 2. Code Enforcement. City of Winter Springs
Code of Ordinances.
(18)Greeneway District Gateway Identification Sign:
One (1) architectural feature may be located adjacent to the Greeneway right-of-way within the northeast
quadrant of the District that identifies the overall Greenway Interchange development consistent with the
following:
Maximum height of thirty-five (35) feet as measured above existing grade without a special exception
being granted by the City Commission.
Copy area can only identify the name of the overall development and the City of Winter Springs.
Consistent in design and materials with the architecture of the overall development.
No part of the architectural feature may be designed, devised, or constructed so as to rotate, spin, gyrate,
turn or move in any animated fashion. The architectural feature shall not incorporate reflective materials
so as to create the appearance of motion.
In no way shall this architectural feature resemble an outdoor advertising sign (billboard).
The words "Winter Springs" shall be incorporated into the sign.
Adopted August 23, 1999
Greeneway Interchange District
-17-
r-j
"I
J
'-']
~]
" 'J
~
]
1
"]
:
......
j
,;,1
J
J
.J
,..\
Sec. 20-493
Utility Lines.
All new or relocated utility lines wilhin the district shall be constructed and installed beneath the surface of the
ground unless i[ is delcrmined by the City that soil, topographical, or any other compelling conditions, make the
underground installation of such utility lines as prescribed herein unreasonable and impracticable.
(1) It shall be the developer's responsibility on-site to make the necessary arrangement with each utility in
accordance with the utility's established policy.
(2) The underground installation of incidental appurtenances, such as transformer boxes, switch boxes, pedestal
mounted boxes for the provision of electricity shall not be required. However, such appurtenances where not
rendered impractical by the determination of the City shall be installed on the site of any development
approved after the adoption of this section. The necessary easements to allow the utility company access and
: service to such appurtenances shall be dedicated to the service provider by the developer prior to issuance of
a building permit.
(3) All transformers and switch boxes related to development approved after the adoption of this section shall be
set back a minimum of fifteen (15) fed from any right-of-way and visually screened using landscape
materials or masonry construction in conformance with these land development regulations.
Sec. 20-494
Cross-access Easements
(1) All development except single family residential and duplex uses, with parking lots or direct access to a
public road shall, as part of the development approval process, establish cross-access easements which
provide for the internal connection of the parcel to adjacent parcels unless the City Engineer makes a finding
that such joint-access is not feasible or practicable based upon circumstances unique to the properties.
(2) Shared parking areas shall be permitted a reduction in required parking spaces if peak demand periods for
proposed land uses do not occur at the same time.
Sec. 20-495
Building and Screening Design Guidelines
(1) Projects shall use materials consistent with materials used in the area. Acceptable materials include stucco,
split-faced or decorative concrete block reinforced concrete with tile, and brick and terra coma accent
material. Inappropriate materials are river rock unfinished timber (unpainted), shake roofs, reflective/mirror
glass, and metal siding. Materials should be high quality and well crafted.
(2) Mechanical equipment and appurtenances, including but not limited to air conditioner units, ventilation
equipment, refrigeration systems, heating units, must be screened so that they are not visible from any public
right-of-way. The screen shall consist of a solid wall, facade, parapet or other similar screening material
which is architecturally compatible and consistent with the associated building. Such screening material shall
extend at least one (1) foot above the object to be screened. If landscaping is utilized, the plantings must be
high enough within one year of planting to provide a screen which will screen the entire unit with a minimum
of seventy-five '(75%) percent opacity. In the case of satellite dishes, they shall be screened from view from
ground level of adjacent rights-of-way and properties by buildings, dense landscaping or screen walls. The
Development Review Committee may permit dishes on buildings if no part of the dish is visible from the
ground of surrounding properlies. Sethacks for antennas and satellite dishes shall be the same as the building
setbacks.
Adopted August 23, ] 999
- 18 -
Greeneway Interchange District
j
]
~ .1
J
J
J
]
~
J )
J
]
.:;:-
]
.J
]
]
J
)
]
J
(3) Dumpsters and similar facilities shall he screelled Oil all fnur (4) sides from public view. Both sides and the
rear of such facilities shall be screened hy an opaque concrele wall, or similar material. Dumpsters shall be
placed in an area that is least visible from a public righl-of-way.
(4) All storage areas shall be screened from view from the right-of-way and from adjacent residential zoning
districts. Screening enclosures may consist of any combination of landscaping and opaque building materials.
If building materials are utilized, such material shall be consistent with the architectural design of the
principal structures.
(5) Side and rear elevations of buildings visible from a public street or adjacent property shall be designed in the
same architectural style as the main facade.
(6) All doors for service entrances or bays shall not face a public street unless they are screened to obscure
: service activities.
(7) Outparcels shall conform to the architectural, signage, and landscape theme of the overall project and must
share an internal access with the overall project.
(8) Newspaper, magazine and other such vending machines, ATM's, pay telephones, and trash receptacles shall
be encased in a structure that is architecturally compatible and consistent with the adjacent building and other
site details and must meet building setbacks.
(9) Exterior lighting shall be a cut-off light source to protect adjacent properties from glare. All exterior lighting
shall be consistent and compatible throughout the project.
(10) Buildings with multiple storefront entries are encouraged to incorporate overhangs in the design of front
facades as appropriate to promote pedestrian activity.
(11) Backflow preventers and other above ground valves shall be screened so they are not visible from the street
right-of-way using either landscaping or an opaque building material and shall be subject to buffer setback
req uiremen ts
(12) Drive-thru pick up windows shall not be permitted on the front or sides of a building fronting on S.R. 434.
Sec. 20-496
Developer's Agreement
Any developer may propose to enter into a developer's agreement with the City designed to set forth terms and
conditions appropriate to meet the circumstances-of the specific proposed development. Such Development
Agreement shall be reviewed and approved by the City Commission. The City Commission may vary the
standards of this ordinance, including building or perimeter setbacks, parking standards, signage, and other
standards. If an increase in building height beyond fifty-five (55) feet is requested, the City Commission must
find the Fire Department capabilities are adequate to address the change. Such consideration shall be based on
building site constraints or physical characteristics of the property; provided specifically, however, that any such
concessions for a constrained site shall only be considered by the City Commission in a Development Agreement
if enhanced perimetti-Iandscaping or buffering is provided to assure that the objectives of this ordinance are
achieved.
AoOrlCO August 23, 1999
- 19 -
Grceneway Interchange District
1 LARGE SHRUB
l COMMON NAME
"1 Cherry Laurel
Anise
Sweet Viburnum
J Wax Leaf Ligustrum*
Photinia *
J Wax Myrtle
J MEDIUM SHRUB
~:... .
COMMON NAME
JfJ
.r.,
.;>;
Pittosporum
- J Variegated Pittosporum
Sandankwa Viburnum
Hetzii Juniper
~ Pfitzer Juniper
'-.' Shrub Holly
Silverthorn
J Azalea
Yew Podocarpus
I SMALL SHRUB
COMMON NAME
"J
DwarfYaupon Holly
~-~ Indian Hawthorn
.J Dwarf Pittosporum
Evergreen Giant
Border Grass
: Azalea
.1 Thyrallis
. .
Yew Podocarpus
"j GROUNDCOVER
COMMON NAME
J Liriope Border Grass
Mondo Border Grass
I Dwarf Confed. Jasmine
Parsonii Juniper
Dwarf Shore Juniper
J African Lily
J
TABLE I
RECOMMENDED SHRUB PALLET
BOTANICAL NAME
MINIMUM HEIGHT REQUIRED
Prunus caroliniana
Illicium anisatum
Viburnum odoratissimum
Ligustrum japonicum
Photinia spp.
Myrica cerifera
3D"
3D"
3D"
3D"
30"
30"
BOTANICAL NAME
MINIMUM HEIGHT REQUIRED
Pittosporum tobira 24"
Pittosporum tobira "Variegata" 24"
Viburnum Suspensum 24"
Juniperus chinensis var. chinensis "Hetzii" 24"
Juniperus chinensis "Pfitzerana" 24"
Ilex spp. 24"
Elaeagmus pungens 24"
Rhododendron indica 24"
Podocarpus macrophyIlus 24"
BOTANICAL NAME
MINIMUM HEIGHT REQUIRED
Ilex vomittoria "Nana" 18"
Raphiolepis indica 18"
Pittosporum tobira "Wheeleri" 18"
Liriope muscari "Evergreen Giant" 18"
Rhododendron indica 18"
ThyraIlis glauca 18"
Podocarpus macrophyllus 18"
BOTANICAL NAME
MINIMUM HEIGHT REQUIRED
Liriope muscari 10 Pips/clump 9" o.c.
Ophiopogon japonicus 10 Pips/clump 9" O.c.
Trachelospernum jasminoides "Nana" 15" Spread 18" O.c.
Juniperus chinensis IS" Spread 18" o.c.
Juniperus conferta "Compacta" 12"-15" Spread 18" o.C.
Agapanthus africanus 10 Pips/clump ]8" O.c.
1
\
I
I
.1 ')
--j
..
'j
:.1
]
1
J
J
J )
1
J
J
.1
]
]
J
]
J
DayLily
Lantana
African Iris
Holly Fern
Hcmcrocallis spp.
L1ntana montcvidcnsis
Dietes vcgcta
Cyrtomium falcatum
English Ivy
Hedera helix
*Must be used with a row of lower growing shrubs in front.
JO Pips/clump I~" O.c.
15 "sprcad ]8" O.c.
10 Pips/clump 18" o.c.
Gal. can 12"-15" spread 24"
O.c.
4" pots - 2-3 plants/pot 12"
O.c.
Note: Plant list subject to administrative amendment from time to time.
2
I
.,. )
j
]
'.J
~;.\
'ill::'.
'.'
. ~\
~.
CANOPY TREES
COMMON NAME
Live Oak
Laurel Oak
Sycamore
:Red Maple
Sweetgum
OTHER LARGE TREES
~'.:r
:h:'
;-,,:'
COMMON NAME
.,
:11
~
')1]
1]
J
51
ill
::il.:
JJ
,(~
~~I
]
..,.
.J
J
Tulip Poplar
Bald Cypress
Pines
Southern Magnolia
River Birch
MEDIUM TREES
COMMON NAME
American Holly
Dahoon Holly
East Pal atka Holly
Golden Rain Tree
Sweet Bay
Loblolly Bay
: Drake Elm
Winged Elm
Cherry Laurel
Weeping Willow
SMALL TREES
COMMON NAME
Wax Myrtle
Tree Ligustrum
J
J
TABLE 2
RECOMMENDED TREE PALLET
BOTANICAL NAME
Quercus Virginiana
Quercus laurifolia
Plantanus occidental is
Acer rubrum
Liquidambar styraciflua
BOTANICAL NAME
Liriodendron tulipifera
Taxodium distichum
Pinus spp.
Magnolia grandiflora
Betula nigra
BOTANICAL NAME
Ilex opaca
Ilex cassine
Ilex opaca 'East Palatka'
Koelreuteria formosana
Magnolia virginiana
Gordonia lasianthus
Ulmus parvifolia sempervirons
'Drake'
Ulmus alata
Prunus caroliniana
Salix babylonica
BOTANICAL NAME
Myrica ccrifera
Ligustrum japonicum
(Also L. lucidum)
3
MINIMUM HEIGHT
REQUIRED
16'
12'
12'
12'
12'
MINIMUM HEIGHT
REQUIRED
12'
12'
12'
12'
12'
HEIGHT
REQUIRED
10'
10'
10'
10'
10'
la'
10'
10'
10'
10'
HEIGHT
REQUIRED
8'
8'
I
-'-1
I
1
I
" J
,l
~"l
-j
J
.'
J )
J
'J
J
1
]
..J
I )
1
J
Crape Myrtk
Yaupon I-lolly
Chickasaw Plum
Flowcring Dogwood
Redbud
Tabebuia
ACCENT PALMS
COMMON NAME
J Canary Island Datc Palm
Washington Palm
Pindo Palm
Cabbage Palm
Lagerslorcmia indica
lIcx vomiloria
Prunus anjustifolia
Comus 1l0rida
Cercis canadensis
Tabcbuia spp.
8'
8'
8'
8'
8'
8'
BOTANICAL NAME
HEIGHT
REQUIRED
Phoenix canaricnsis
Washingtonia robusta
Butia capitata
Sabal palm
5'
5'
5'
6'
Pruning of trees shall be allowed to maintain appropriate clearance for access and minor pruning
shall be allowed to promote healthy growth. The intent is to allow trees to achieve a natural tree
canopy.
Note: Plant list subject to administrative amendment from time to time.
4
\
. )
.,-\
.1
.j
.J
]
\]
]
~
~. ~
.J
.1
~
"
j
.1
]
,...~
.]
'J
J
J
EXHIBIT III
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
,
.,
I
I
]
1
.1
J
J
:1
,J
~
J
I
.]
J
.,1
]
J
I
~
J
~~ h~,~~~~~~u~~~1 Associates, Inc.
J ~ ; . ~':
;:'.:~<J
MEMORANDUM
TO:
lnterested Parties
Michael J. Howe -1111 fI
DATE: 30 March 1999
L&A No. 98184.23
L&A Doc: \JMHD\98184C30.MEM
FROM:
PROJECT:
Lake Jessup Grove Property
SUBJECT:
St. Johns River Water Management District Site Revie~
A site review was conducted with the St. Jolms'River Water Management District (SJRWMD) on the
Lake Jessup Grove property on 16 March 1999. Present for the site review were:
Anthony Miller; SJRWMD
Michael Howe; Lotspeich and Associates, Inc. (L&A)
The purpose of this site review was to field verify the landward extent of wetlands within the subject
property which had been previously flagged by L&A in accordance with the Unified Wetland
Delineation Methodology for the State of Florida dated July 1995. The review was limited to the
wetland areas within the forested southern section of the site.
Two wetlands had been flagged in the forested southern area. Mr. Miller agreed with most of the
wetland boundaries as flagged by L&A. Additional flags were added to the line around the wetland
in the western portion of the site as shown in the attached figure. This additional area (0.6:t acre)
was detennined to be jurisdictional based on the presence of hydric soil indicators. These new flags
should be located by a surveyor and included on all permit plans submitted to the SJRWMD.
Also noted during the field visit was an adult and juvenile bald eagle (Haliaeerus leucocephalis). The
two birds were observed roosting in a large pine tree on-site. No nests were found in any of the trees
in the area. As noted during our preliminary evaluation, there are numerous bald eagle nesting sites
in the vicinity of the site, but none are known to occur on-site. We would recommend that the site
be monitored prior to the beginning of the next nesting season (:t September - October) to determine
if any new bald eagle nests have been built on-site.
This is the writer's opinion and interpretation of the site review. Unless advised in writing to the
contrary. it is assumed those in attendance are in agreement with the statements set forth and work
will proceed on thIS basis.
Distribution List:
Tim Grusenmeyer; Grusenmeyer, Scott & Associates, Inc.
Dick Strous; Elizabeth Morse Genius Foundation
File/Carol S. Lotspeich
422 West Fairbanks Avenue, Suite 201, Winter Park, Florida 32789 (407)740-8482 FAX (407)645-1305
I
- .\
.1
'j
.J
J
71
j
]
~
J
']"
o.
J
j
]
,J
)
]
~
0/"""
iii
o
-
...
~
",
~"
~
~
~~....
~I~
~~~
~~~
~~{
~
~
~
~
. .... - --.-. .. .
3.8" ._....- --- - -. -~..:~.~.-....... -....
_rr.-.-. __--.T.O.D. .--- ~._;~, -.' ....... ',.
_..._--.....- . ............... . 1.0.U:
I
",-I
'"
~
!'"
f;l
Ce>/'~~ <...t
WI-P -L> wI-5'-t
.5 L.. . "".11
5..3 ./............ 5"/ ~~...
. ..- ...-
WI-SL/: ~
: ~'~
,-, I . ~\
.:-4; I ..J,
..' I ~~ V
~ 100 (PI to:2. ,~
If -.. "'-I ~ I<e-I'Y/.C<I~
I: I W 1- I P: Ii{ 20
1 WI-tD LAPLAND ",_"~ ) .J
. C~~nc(~
. I
1,)1-.-' {.o
I W\-l.,2-
EASTE1lL Y R/W
UN!
,1'1-1
\
~J-J
~f"'~ .'-6
-"&... ",.
'" -
re€.~OJ-e... ~ ...
Cc."""~c.-\:.
W\-3 \..r..WI-S
l.J 1-5" ~D 0\-S'
u.Sc........"'ec.l .
W\ -.&-- ~or""\ WI' 'i'
( 0 "'<",e <....l
L..J 1-'1 lo W\.l;O
Slf~ ~~ ;:: - ~-~
:0:
;::~
:-~
~~
I c ~"'.~. or Lor 16, S1:'C. !J
(P.s. I. PC. 35)
AS ~ OH ~ D,,"~ ()('
. T/WlSPOlftAJlOIJ rvw /oW. SfCTlON No.
\ 8777o-2JOZ. ~1ID O'-PO
Il~ C. H~O
(r-~
: 1": ffO"M'I ON nom oe,.,,/flWU'{T or
, SPOITTA T70H ~ SI!CTTOtl Ho.
,~ 'n7Yr.2J02, ~TF:D ()I-SO)
", .."t
Ct:>........<l.-t
l.,..1 \-:u to
'-.) \- .:r 0
~ ",. "
\
~ "'-71
.,,- ";6
/
"..,.13 15.
~ .' . ",_'J
1"-"
I
{A.",_n
I
,,//
;///'.
: /
\ '
, ~
I "
I \
I
. .
\ \
\ I
I .
.' J
...1
...,.t7
'G.
\
t Wl-'J
6 ,"oz'
I
~WI'I~
~ 1'1-11
/
/
~ ""-11
f wl-l~
Ii. . .-'
WI-JI '6' .' ,g~
WI-J:! '
- .;;-'
". ". Ifl-U
.~~.
Il'1-JD
lJNJ
~
GRAPHIC SCALE
120
t
D eo
; ~l~~{:
~M ~
120
L
( IN FEET )
1 1noh = 120 !L
'4D
" ~=I
.: -9
R'ECEIVED
MAR 2 L 1999
---......
,-1 Jc~J!A f (.... uv (.. Pr opel f.. J
it, '7 P, f'I
LOTSPEICH AND ASSOC. JHC..
I
:1
./
j
:J
J
.111.....
j
.J
'J
Ii
J'~
.'
'1
.J,..
..... .
~.
3
.;~
. .~
,. :
]
]
]
J
J
r-'
f
I
JUN ;~ (i 1999
28 June 1999
L&A No. 98184.23
Doc. \JMHD\98184F28.LET
Mr. Dick Strous
Elizabeth Morse Genius Foundation
400 N. New York Avenue
Winter Park, Florida 32789
RE: Lake Jessup Grove Property
70:1: acres in Sections 37, Township 21 South, Range 31 East
Seminole County. Florida
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Jurisdictional Determination
Dear Mr. Strous:
Please fmd enclosed for your files a copy of the verified wetland survey from the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers (US ACE) and the accompanying correspondence from the USACE. The jurisdictional
determination has been assigned number 199900781 (JD-TH), and is legally binding for a period of
five years.
The acquisition of the jurisdictional determination completes Lotspeich and Associates Inc. (L&A)
scope of services contracted in the Memorandum of Agreement dated 1 December 1998. Please feel
free to call us if you have any questions regarding this jurisdictional determination or other related
land use issues regarding the project site. L&A looks forward to working with you as the
development of this property progresses.
Sincerely,
LOTSPEICH AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
--a4--/------/;? ~
Michael Howe
Research Scientist n
Enclosures
cc: File/Carol,S. Lotspeich
422 West Fairbanks Avenue, Suite 201, Winter Park, Florida 32789 (407)740-8482 FAX (407)645-1305
.\
-I
.f
I
;..1
.]
~'l
J
'F1
ia4
"'}
J
I
J
j
:1
:]:
.,
J
I
1
J
....EPARTMEHT OF THE ARMY
JACKSONVILLE DISTRICT CORPS OF ENGINEERS, PAlATl<A REGULATORY OFFlCE
002 NORTH PALM AVENUE
PAlAn<A, FLORIDA 321n-2502
June 9, 1999
Regulatory Division
Atlantic Permits Branch
199900781 (JD-TH)
Ms. Ann M. Hague
Lotspeich & Associates, Inc.
422 West Fairbanks Avenue
Suite 201
Winter Park, Florida 32789
Dear Ms. Hague:
Reference is made to'your request for a jurisdictional
validation, submitted on behalf of your client Lake Jessup Grove.
Enclosed is a copy of a survey showing the approximate Department
of the Army jurisdiction of the property in question. The
property.is located in Section 37, Township 21 South, Range 31
East, Seminole County, Florida. A Department of the Army permit
will be required in the area marked as wetlands or waters of the
United States. The ju~isdictional determination has been assigned
number 1999007-81 '(JD-TH). Please refer to th:is number :in future
correspondence.
Please be advised that the jurisdictional delineation shown is
based on the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (1987)
and is valid for a period of no longer than five years from the
date of this letter. Additionally, this delineation has been
based on information provided by your office. Should we determine
that the information was incomplete ~r erroneous, this delineation
wo.uld be invalid. If after a five-year period this jurisdictional
delineation has not be specifically revalidated by the Corps of
Engineers, it shall automatically expire. Any reliance upon
jurisdictional correspondence beyond that time frame may lead to
incor.rect planning and design efforts, as well as possible
violation of current Federal laws and/or regulations. You may
revalidate o~ update the jurisdictional delineation as appropriate
for your project duration. Any revalidation or updating will then
reflect current Federal laws.
If there is any proposed encroachment into wetlands within the
Department of the Army jurisdiction, a joint permit application
should be submitted.
'R ECI:I'~ ~lS.:~'
JUN 2 5 1999
LOTSPEICH AND AS90o. me.
C?5ldlf .;l. I _
__ "'i""\. 0........,0
I
')
J
j
i.,:
.J
"]
.]
.J:,
~
J
J
J
].::
j
:1
]
].
J
"]
]
-2-
You are cautioned that work performed below the mean high
water line or ordinary high water line in waters of the United
States, or the discharge of dredged or fill material into adjacent
wetlands, without a Department of the Army permit could subject
you to enforcement action. Receipt of a permit from the Florida
Department of Environmental Protection does not obviate the
requirement for obtaining a Department of the Army permit for the
"work described above prior to commencing work..
Thank you for your cooperation with our permit program. If
you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact me
at the letterhead address of by telephone at 904-325-2028.
Sincerely,
~J{J~
Thaddieus L. Hart
Environmental Protection Specialist
'1
'.
'1
,..:1
J
i...1
'-'~l
w'l
,~. ".
"
.J
~"
.....
.....',
J
1
:J
j
I
..J
:J
}
, J
I
uJ~B
~/~I
W/-'1L{
~~~~ Lotspeich and Associates, Inc.
I!. ECOLOGICAl CONSULTANTS
422 \Yost F -. A........ SIiu 201. 1'>IrO... Pri. F1. 32719
(401) 740-Ma2 FID: 6H.l~ .-Moo!: l,""*~ooI.,,,",
Fite : 98184-B.CDR Drawn By :
..... .' ~
1):1';J..
L/ ). ... ). ;;,.
Lake Jessup Grove Property
Boundary Map
+ 1- 70 ."'" In
Soclion 37. Townohip 21 SOUItl. Rano. 31 Eu1
Seminole CO<61ly, Florida
... North
Scale: 10=400'
Figure 1
JM Job No: 98184.33 Date: 12 January 1999