HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000 11 13 Public Hearings K Large Scale Comprehensive Plan - Weaver Property
COMMISSION AGENDA
ITEM
K
Consent
Informational
Pu bUe Hearing X
Regular
~ovemberI3,2000
Meeting
Mgr. /
Authori
REQUEST: The Community Development Department - Planning Division requests the City
Commission hold a public hearing to consider transmitting a large scale
comprehensive plan amendment (LS-CPA-2-00) to the Florida Department of
Community Affairs, which would change the Future Land Use Map designation
from (County) "Rural-3 (1 DU per 3 acres max.) to the City's "Lower Density
Residential" (1.1 - 3.5 DU per acre) designation on the Weaver property.
PURPOSE:
The purpose of this large scale compreh(~nsive plan amendment is to consider changing the
Future Land Use Map designation from (County) "Rural.3" (1 DU per 3 acres max.) to the
City's "Lower Density Residential" (1.1-3.5 DU per acre) designation on a 30+/- acre parcel in
order to develop the property as a single family residential subdivision in the future.
APPLICABLE LAW AND PUBLIC JPOLICY:
The provisions of 163.3184(3)( a) F. S. which state: "Each local governing body shall transmit
the complete proposed comprehensive plan or plan amendment to the state land planning agency,
the appropriate regional planning counc.il and water management district, the department, and the
Department of Transportation immediately following a public hearing pursuant to subsection
(15) as specified in the state land planning agency's procedural rules. The local governing body
shall also transmit a copy of the complete proposed comprehensive plan or plan amendment to
any other unit of local government or government agency in the state that has filed a written
request with the governing body for the: plan or plan amendment."
CDDfNovember 6, 2000110: 11 AM
NOVEMBER 13,2000
PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA ITEM K
Page 2
The provisions of 163.3 1 84(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:
1. 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.
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 of9J-I1.006(1) F.A.C. which state "Each proposed amendment including
applicable supporting documents which include data and analyses shall be submitted directly to
the Florida Department of Community Affairs, Division of Resource Planning and Management,
Plan Processing Team, the appropriate mgional planning council, water management district(s),
Department of Transportation and Department of Environmental Protection. Proposed plan
amendments, except those discussed under the exemption provisions of Rule 9J-I1.006(1)(a)7.
F.A.C., shall be consolidated into a single submission for each of the two plan amendments
adoption times during the calendar year. The comprehensive plan submitted pursuant to Section
163.3167 F.S., shall be counted as one of the two plan amendment adoption times during the
calendar year; however, only the submittal requirements of Rule 9J-I1.004 F.A.C. must be
followed. "
CHRONOLOGY:
.
In 1996 Donald Weaver expressed interest to the City staff in annexing his property into
the City.
CONSIDERATIONS:
.
Applicant, Donald Weaver has submitted an application for annexation of his 30 +/- acres
.
The subject property is located on the east property line of the Battle Ridge property
.
The first (Transmittal) public hf:aring is a forum in which the governing body votes to
either transmit or not transmit the proposed large scale comprehensive plan amendment
to the Florida Department of Community Affairs, other state agencies and regional
planning council to request their professional review and recommendations on the plan
amendment resulting in an ORC (objections, recommendations and comments). The ORC
Report is forwarded to the City within two (2) months from the date that the plan
amendment submittal is found sufficient.
CDDfNovember6, 2000/10:12 AM
NOVEMBER 13, 2000
PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA ITEM K
Page 3
FUNDING:
~o funds are required to transmit the large scale comprehensive plan amendment to the
Florida Department of Community Affairs.
FINDINGS:
· The City's Comprehensive Plan indicates that the Battle Ridge Property (aka
Bellfaire Subdivision) is designated on the Future Land Use Map as "Lower Density
Residential" (1.1- 3.5 DU pl~r acre) The subject property (Weaver) is adjacent on
the east side of the Battle Ridge Property. The applicant, Donald Weaver, requests
the same Future Land Use M:ap designation as the Battle Ridge Property. The
proposed Future Land Use Map (FLUM) designation is for a similar density range
designation as found in the surrounding residential areas of Oviedo. Adjacent to the
southeast the City of Oviedo has designated on its FLUM that the Weaver property
and property to the east and south as "Low Density Residential" (1.0 - 3.5 DU per
acre). This is essentially the same as the applicant, Donald Weaver, has requested
from the City of Winter Springs which is "Lower Density Residential" (1.1 - 3.5 DU
per acre). The area of McKinley's Mill is designated on the City of Oviedo's FLUM
as "Low Density Residential. In the immediate and general area all properties
developed as single family n~sidential are designated essentially the same density as
the applicant is requesting. ][t continues a density pattern established by the City of
Winter Springs and the City of Oviedo in their respective Comprehensive Plans.
. The surrounding properties are essentially vacant. Any development of a single
family subdivision in the near future should not present a nuisance to surrounding
properties.
. At the time of site development, a traffic impact analysis will be required to
determine the measures required to offset the impacts and maintain traffic flow.
. The City has development standards in its land development regulations to ensure
minimal impacts on surrounding properties, such as buffering. The State can require
deceleration lanes and cente:r turn lanes to maintain traffic flow. The City's land
development regulations and the site plan review process of the Development Review
Committee can help prevent or minimize potential nuisances.
. The comprehensive plan amendment is compatible with the other elements of the
City's Comprehensive Plan
. The comprehensive plan amendment is compatible with and furthers elements of the
State Comprehensive Plan, in Chapter 187 F.S.
CDD/November 6,2000/10:47 AM
NOVEMBER 13, 2000
PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA ITEM K
Page 4
. The comprehensive plan amendment is compatible with and furthers elements of the
East Central Florida Comprehensive Regional Policy Plan.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Based on the Staff Report and the Findings, staff recommends the Local Planning Agency make
the following recommendation to the City Commission:
1. That the City Commission hold a first (transmittal) public hearing and transmit
to the Florida Department of Community Affairs the proposed Large Scale
Comprehensive Plan Amendment (LS-CP A-2-00), to change the Future Land
Use Map (FLUM) designation from Seminole County "Rural-3" (1 DU per 3
acres maximum) to the City's FLUM designation of "Lower Density
Residential" (1.1 - 3.5 DU per acre) on the Donald Weaver Property on the
Future Land Use Map of the City's Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element
(Volume 2 of 2); and
2. Hold a second public hearing, after receiving and reviewing the ORC Report, to
adopt the plan amendment.
LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY m:COMMENDA TION:
MOTION BY BOARD MEMBER GREGORY:
"I move to accept the staff findings and their recommendation." Seconded by board member
Brown. Discussion.
VOTE:
Chairperson Rosanne Karr: nay
Board Member Carl Stephens: nay
Board Member Brent Gregory: aye
Board Member Tom Brown: aye
Vice-Chairman Bill Fernandez: nay
Did not carry.
MOTIO~ BY VICE-CHAIRMAN FERNANDEZ.
"Madam Chair I'd like to make a motion. I would recommend that the City Commission not
transmit this matter to the Department of Community Affairs for consideration of a 'ORC'
(objections, recommendations and comments) Report, not to hold a second public hearing to
CDDfNovember 3, 2000/4:34 PM
NOVEMBER 13, 2000
PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA ITEM K
Page 5
receive any 'ORC' Report, and those are for the very reasons that I expressed previously under
discussion and the letters, the five different letters that we've received - two from Oviedo, one
from Seminole County, one from the President of MacKinley Mills, and one from Ms. Jamell
and the presentation of those members - of the public, who are present here and made
presentations this evening opposing this recommendation during this transmittal." seconded by
Board Member Stephens. Discussion.
VOTE:
Board Member Carl Stephens: aye
Board Member Brent Gregory: nay
Board Member Tom Brown: nay
Vice-Chairman Bill Fernandez: aye
Chairperson Rosanne Karr: aye
Motion carried.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Map of Subject Property.
B. Local Planing Agency Agenda Item II. B.
C. Supporting Data, Inventory & Analysis for the Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment
LS-CP A-2-00 (This Attachment same as LP A Agenda Item II. B. Attachment B)
D. Legal Notice.
COMMISSION ACTION:
CDD/November 3, 2000/4:34 PM
ATTACHMENT A
o '
.~ - - --~'.'~': . - J"N .,\\'.:>>)
u ..___ -l--~~ I ,.:~~~ ')\./ { ,-:_':J
1\ f ' )' f: :":
. t'.' "':::',j/ /" - r. I'
gtE~~.ron ... ...(::. ....1X. '~l L,]'-"I.":U" f " .)
) " _ .\1,.","'. IN \ I
~ ~ . 'C"-.; ..~__--=-;; '~. r~-~ .... \
:-_ :c- _:--; -<--l-..- -""0... V. ':.',
,\&_-::-'_~'- ('::......' /_ . Pt ..
.."'_ ,..., H Q
, . " . . .. , "" ~ 'w"., . --
'.. ,: '. yl_. . """"&/H>1 .m.m ~" -<,:~~.., ",,' ,""." . ~,h ' /'
'......m ' . -' . ..,"
-<,_":'-" -...:.:' ,.' ' ,)
(;S:!}/~~:. .'''0. ~
~~
.o..~~~
Wapner ~'"'Y\
- \
w.r.
"'-.
.JESSUP
I
I
I
LEG SEe 03 TWP 21S RGE 31E
E 245 FT OF S ~85.75 FT OF S 2/3 OF
N 3/4 OF E 1/2 OF SW 1/4 OF NW 1/4
(LESS S 100 FT & RD)
F'AI): 16:50 DE L.EClt~ 5T
I
I
LEG SEC 03 TWP 21S RGE 31E .
N 2/3 OF S 3/4 OF E 1/2 OF SW 1/4
OF NW 1/4 (LESS BEG SE COR RUN
N 385.75 FT ~ 245 FT S 42 FT W 197
FT S TO A PT W OF BEG E TO BEG
~. F\D)
PAD: 1740 DELEON ST
I
I
I
SEC 03 TWP 21S RGE 31E
W 197 FT OF E 442 FT OF S 343.75 FT
OF S 2/3 OF N 3/4 OF E 1/2 OF SW
1/4 OF NW 1/4 (LESS-S 100 FT OF E
19FT)
I
LEG SEC 03 fwp 21S RGE 3it-.--.
W 1/2 OF SW 1/4 OF NW 1/4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Property Legal
Descnption
BoWYER
S,llNGLETON
& .AssOCIATES, INCORPORATED
Weaver
Property
I
Prepared For:
Don Weaver
520 SOUTH MAGNOUA AVENUE
ORLANDO. FLORIDA 32801
(407) 843-5120
FAX 407-649-8664
Comprehensive Policy
Plan Amendment
(NCIH(('UNC . PlANNINC . SUftV(VINC . [NVlftONM[HrA.
I
10-/7-00
8SA-/4
ATTACHMENT B
ATTACHMENT A
l'
{ :." ;"~:J
I
I
I
LEG SEe 03 TWP 215 RGE 31E
E 245 FT OF S 385.75 FT OF S 2/3 OF
N 3/4 OF E 1/2 OF SW 1/4 OF NW 1/4
(LESS 8 100 FT 8, HI))
F'Al>: 1I.1:"iO DE LEClI~ ST
I
I
LEG SEC 03 TWP 215 RGE 31E .
N 2/3 OF 5 3/4 OF E 1/2 OF SW 1/4
OF NW 1/4 (LESS BEG 5E COR RUN
N 385.75 FT ~ 245 FT S 42 FT W 197
FT S TO A PT W OF BEG E TO BEG
:1, f"\D)
PAD: 1740 DELEON ST
I
I
I
SEe 03 TWP 218 RGE 31E
W 197 FT OF E 442 FT OF S 343.75 FT
OF S 2/3 OF N 3/4 OF E 1/2 OF SW
1/4 OF NW 1/4 (LESS-S 100 FT OF E
19 FT)
I
LEG SEC o3fwp 21S RGE 3i~-'-".
W 1/2 OF SW 1/4 OF NW 1/4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Property Legal
Descnption
~BpWYER
0]1l ~GLEIDN
& ASSOCIATES, INCORPORATED
Weaver
Property
I
520 SOUTH MAGNOUA AVENUE
ORLANDO. FLORIDA 32801
(407) 843-5120
FAX 407-849-8664
Comprehensive Policy
Plan Amendment
I
Prepared For:
Don Weaver
(HCINUltlNC . 'LAHNINC . IUftV(VIHC . (HYlftONM[HrAI
10-17-00
BSA-14
ATTACHMENT B
ATTACHMENT C
ATTACHMENT D
~'
i.
November 13, 2000
CITY OF OVIEDO FLORIDA
400 ALEXANDRIA BOULEVARD. OVIEDO, FLORIDA 32765. (407) 977-6000
~-;r.;W<'-.._"~:~"'~-T({{~7(JD b1
gi~i':~ Y~~.Y .~ D~.<-
, ;''11;'' _ >1 ',.' "
;i~:.2:.=(1 -.. q-'. It<~l/
L-____~____"_
V. EUGENE WILLIFORD, III
CITY MANAGER
__ ~__.._____~.___ ._____...J
Honorable Paul Partyka, Mayor
City of Winter Springs Local Planning Agency
1126 East State Road 434
Winter Springs, FL 32708
Re: City of Winter Springs Large Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Comprehensive Plan Amendment LS-CP A-2-00
Weaver Property
Dear Mayor Partyka:
The purpose of this letter is to formally object to the large scale comprehensive plan amendment of
the subject property to be considered on November 13, 2000 by the City of Winter Springs City
Commission. In 1999, Seminole County and the City of Oviedo entered into a Joint Planning
lnterlocal Agreement (JPA). The IPA established the Oviedo/Seminole County Joint Planning Area
and the Oviedo Future Annexation Area, which includes the subject property. One of the main
purposes of the JPA is to protect the rural integrity of and discourage urban sprawl into the Black
Hammock Area. The subject property is located within the Black Hammock Area and designated
Rural-3 on Seminole County's Comprehensive Plan future land use map.
The JPA includes a "Future Land Use Equivalency Chart" which identifies compatible land use
designations adjacent to the County's East Rural Area. According to this Equivalency Chart, the
equivalent future land use designations to the existing County future land use designation are Low
Density Residential-Transitional and Rural. Thus, the proposed Winter Springs future land use
designation is not consistent with the Equivalency Chart of the JPA.
The subject comprehensive plan amendment is inconsistent with the JP A's planning objectives to
protect the integrity of and discourage urban sprawl into the rural area of the County known as the
"Black Hammock". Rule 91-5, Florida Administrative Code, defines urban sprawl as "urban
development or uses which are located in a predominantly rural areas, or rural areas interspersed with
generally low-intensity or low-density urban uses, and which are characterized by one or more of the
following conditions: (a) The premature or poorly planned conversion of rural land to other uses; (b)
The creation of areas of urban development or uses which are not functionally related to land uses
which predominate the adjacent area; or (c) The creation of areas of urban development or uses
which fail to maximize the use of existing public facilities or the use of areas within which public
services are currently provided. Urban sprawl is typically manifested in one or more of the following
land use patterns: Leapfrog or scattered development; ribbon or strip commercial or other
development; or large expanses of predominantly low-intensity, low-density, or single-use
development."
..
A ~ ."-.
Honorable Paul Paryka, Mayor, City of Winter Springs
Comprehensive Plan Amendment LS-CPA-2-00
November 13,2000
Page 2
The subject property is not only located in a predominantly rural area but is located in Seminole
County's adopted East Rural Area. The surrounding area is predominately rural single family and
agricultural uses. As one drives through the area, it is obvious that development of the subject
properties at the proposed densities and intensities is premature. Assigning the Lower Density
Residential future land use designation to the subject property equates to the creation of an area of
urban development or uses which are not functionally related to land uses which predominate the
adjacent area and fails to maximize the use of areas within which public services are currently
provided. Thus, the subject comprehensive plan amendment meets the State's definition of urban
sprawl which is inconsistent with the IP A's planning objectives for the Black Hammock area. In
addition, the subject comprehensive plan amendment is inconsistent with the City of Winter Springs
Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Goal 3, Objective A; which discourages the proliferation of
urban sprawl.
The subject comprehensive plan amendment is inconsistent with the UrbanlRural Boundary adopted
in the Seminole County Comprehensive Plan. The subject property is located within the designated
Rural Area of the Seminole County Urban/Rural boundary. The intent of the Urban/Rural Boundary
is to prevent the erosion of the character of the rural area by establishing a line that separate urban
and rural uses and defines the limits where urban services should not be extended. Thus, the subject
comprehensive plan amendment is an intrusion into the adopted Rural Area.
At its October 25, 2000 special meeting, the City of Winter Springs Local Planning Agency
conducted a public hearing, and thereat, recommended that the City Commission not transmit the
subject amendment to the Department of Community Affairs. The City of Oviedo concurs with the
Local Planning Agency's recommendation and requests that the City of Winter Springs City
Commission not transmit the subject large scale comprehensive plan amendment to the Department
of Community Affairs for the reasons stated above. If you have any questions, please contact Mr. V.
Eugene Williford, Ill, City Manager at (407) 977-6000.
Sincerely,
THE CITY OF OVIEDO
cr2:
Tom O'Hanlon, Chairman
City of Oviedo City Council
cc: Honorable Mayor and City Council of the City of Oviedo
V. Eugene Williford, III, City Manager, City of Oviedo
William L. Colbert, Esquire, City Attorney, City of Oviedo
Mr. Bryan Cobb, Director of Planning and Zoning, City of Oviedo
City of Winter Springs City Council
Mr. Ronald Mclemore, City Manager, City of Winter Springs
Seminole County Board of County Commissioners
Mr. Kevin Grace, County Manager, Seminole County
Ms. Frances Chandler, Deputy County Manger, Seminole County
COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE
November 13, 2000
Honorable Paul Partyka, Mayor
City of Winter Springs
1126 East SR 434
Winter Springs, FL 32708
Subject: Annexation and Plan Amendment for Donald Weaver and Thomas
Minter
Dear Mayor Partyka:
The County has received notice of the subject annexation and plan amendment
requests for Mr. Donald Weaver and Mr. Thomas Minter (see enclosed maps).
We understand that on November 13, 2000, the City will conduct the second of
two public hearings regarding annexation of these properties. We also
understand that on November 13 the City will consider transmitting a large scale
plan amendment to the Florida Department of Community Affairs to change the
land use from the County's Rural-3 [one dwelling unit per three (3) net buildable
acres] to the City's Lower Density Residential (1.1 to 3.5 dwelling units per acre)
for the Weaver and Minter properties.
After careful review, we believe that Lower Density Residential land use on these
properties would be an encroachment of an incompatible use into the County's
Rural Area and would be inconsistent with the intent of the "1999 City of
Oviedo/Seminole County Joint Planning Interlocal Agreement", as described
below. '
First, it is our belief that the proposed annexation and plan amendment requests
for these properties by the City of Winter Springs would be at odds with the
County's long standing efforts to protect the character and lifestyle of the Rural
Area. The subject properties are located within the County's East Rural Area and
designated as Rural-3 on the County's Future Land Use Map and zoned the A-3
rural zoning classification (see enclosed future land use map and excerpts from
the Future Land Use Element of the Seminole County Comprehensive Plan).
Secondly, we have enclosed a page from the minutes of the City Commission's
meeting regarding the Battle Ridge property. At this meeting, Mr. Ron
McLemore, City Manager, stated that "the City has gone on record saying that
we respect the Urban Service Line and we have no interest in trying to go
beyond that point (see enclosed page 16 of the Regular Meeting Minutes of the
City Commission, January 26, 1998). Also enclosed is a copy of page 8 of the
Annexation and Pre-Development Agreement for Battle Ridge, which provides for
ten feet of property on the east property line of Battle Ridge to ensure that the
1101 EAST FIRST STREET SANFORD FL 32771-1468 TELEPHONE (407) 665-7219 FAX (407) 665-7958
Honorable Paul Partyka, Mayor
November 13, 2000
Paqe 2
road system is not connected to future development to the east (see enclosed
page 8, Section 7(E)4 of the Annexation and Pre-Development Agreement of
1998 for Battle Ridge Companies, Inc.).
Thirdly, on October 25, 2000, the County submitted a letter to Ms. Rosanne Karr,
Chairperson of the City's Local Planing Agency, objecting to the proposed plan
amendments and rezonings (see enclosed letter from Frances Chandler). It
should be noted that the Local Planning Agency recommended against these
amendments at their hearing on October 25 (see enclosed pages 4-5 of the staff
reports for the Weaver and Minter amendments).
In addition, Seminole County and the City of Oviedo entered into a Joint Planning
Interlocal Agreement (JPA) in 1999. One of the main purposes of this agreement
is to "Protect the general rural character of the Rural Areas of Seminole County
as depicted in the Seminole County Comprehensive Plan..."[see enclosed JPA
page 4, Section 2(a)(3)]. The subject properties are located within the County's
East Rural Area and designated as Rural-3 on the County's Future Land Use
Map and zoned the A-3 rural zoning classification (see enclosed future land use
map). These properties are also located within the "Transitional Areas", identified
in the subject JPA (see enclosed JPA Exhibits "B" and "C"). Consequently, the
proposals fail to address the issues, which are adequately addressed within the
JPA between the County and City of Oviedo.
Finally, you are aware that for some time now, staff from the County and City of
Winter Springs have been working toward the development of a joint planning
agreement to address land use issues along the borders of the County and City
of City of Winter Springs.
Given the above concerns, we respectfully request that the City Commission:
1. Deny the proposed annexation and plan amendment requests for Mr. Donald
Weaver and Mr. Thomas Minter; and
2. Direct City staff to expedite development of a joint planning agreement that
will address protection of the County's rural community and provide an overall
approach to joint land use planning between the County and City of Winter
Springs.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comments on these matters. We
look forward to working with you and your staff toward completion of a much-
discussed joint planning agreement between our jurisdictions.
<~ !~S ~~ l~j
o~ 6"1- ~~
(z,~ ~ ~\/l1C0
i)~.~ '-p~~
~(~( UK/(
Honorable Paul Partyka, Mayor
November 13, 2000
Paqe 2
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Frances Chandler, Deputy
County Manager, who may be reached at 407-665-7224.
Sincerely,
#y~~
.~
ounty Manager
Enclosures:
. Page 4, Section 2(a)(3) of the Seminole County/Oviedo JPA
. Future land use map
. Objective 2. 11 and related policies from the Seminole County Comprehensive
Plan
. Exhibits "B" and "C" of the Seminole County/Oviedo JPA
. Page 16 of the Regular Meeting Minutes of the City Commission, 1/26/98
. Page 8 of the Annexation and Pre-Development Agreement for Battle Ridge
· Letter from Frances Chandler dated October 24, 2000
· Pages from the staff reports for Minter and Weaver
KG:tm
cc: Ronald McLemore, City Manager, City of Winter Springs
V. Eugene Williford, III, City Manager, City of Oviedo
Seminole County Board of County Commissioners
Frances Chandler, Deputy County Manager
Jim Marino, Deputy County Manager
I:\old_ dp_ voI2\cp\projects\special\jpa\wsjpa\weaverminter11_ 13_00 .doc
SECTION 1.
RECITALS.
The foregoing recitals are true and
correct and form a material part of this Agreement upon which the
parties have relied.
SECTION 2. PURPOSES OF AGREEMENT/JOINT PLANNING AREA.
(a) The purposes of this Agreement are to:
(1) Provide for joint land use planning.
(2) Develop planning and land use principles and
goals, policies and objectives relative to land use planning in
areas of Seminole County that are impacted by the actions of both
.
the COUNTY and the CITY or which are of concern to the COUNTY
and/or the CITY.
(3) Protect the general rural character of the Rural
Areas of Seminole County as depicted in the Seminole County
Comprehensive Plan, as it may be amended, by establishing limits
for and conditions relating to future annexations by the CITY.
(4) Provide for mutually agreeable future land use
designations that will ensure land use compatibility between the
COUNTY and the CITY.
(5) Provide each party with a level of confidence that
their respective planning efforts will be implemented in a
harmonious manner and that the planning efforts of a party will
not detract from the planning efforts of the other party.
(6) Promote continued intergovernmental coordination
and cooperation between the COUNTY and the CITY.
(7) Reduce conflicts relative to land use matters and
resolve any disputes that may arise in accordance with agreed
upon procedures-and State law.
4
----- Cm
e_. ... L
Lake ~ ...
..
Jesup . ..-.....
-' ....
0,./0'-''" .\......::, 0' .... .d
~.. ..
,0 m R10
_.- _.0
4',..- ...4'........
-- - -
, - .=:c:::-
--- ----
R10
ARRAV'
.. -.. .-- ... -.. .... .'. .-- ...- ..... .... -.- -'.,. ....,. .,.... .... ... -... .... ...- ...
.
-
-
.
=
- S
Battle Rid,e 0 R5
(Belfaire z
=
- lA AVE
FLORI
s_ \ "
"
".i....._ "....COM ii
'..-'. ......... --....
~ coRt " I I "
"
\\ " ---L--
Wit --" "
~"V "
~ ~ I ~II urr UTrUT'i""W ".rrnJT,... n..,..,,-urrL.i1.(l,..J'Tr... ';':0: ..... "c-- ..-
~ ...--: LDR ~~~
00 J 1 ~~. L R SE
\ ~~ ~. '-. I
F T t z I
I "1- >
I / ee
~~ ~ nil n t- ee .g -----' ~\ ~
I. Tll II: -
f.. \y ...
Z ~
~ ~I I I I I I I I ~ W ---\ ~
u T
'\ :;:>\?~ ::: ~ 1,1, \ Ir~ T 'j ~ " If ~ -p: )..)<
,y '^' I 'J.-. I I rn:::
0.6
I
o
I
0.6
I
1.2 Miles
I
Future Land Use Map
Cal.ll'JroU, MiR'ilh~Jr &
W eaveJr IPJr((J)lPeJritie~
Legend
D Parcel
/^.} Urban Rural Bnd
_COM
DLDR
DR10
DR5
I.,,-cjiiil R3
DSE
D WATER
~",;!J;'''1 Minter Property
IiII Weaver Property
IDID Carroll Property
D City of Oviedo
D City of
Winter Springs
A
Source: Prepared by Cartographies
with information from the Seminole Co
GIS data library. Original data provided by
Seminole Co. Comp Planning Dept
within Seminole County. FLU Base is
1998 data, with current updates to
County land uses.
11/6/00
Iplanlcpms01/wkgrpa/nov3wsparcel.apr
~1EM~lNIOJ1lE CC<OlDJJNrurl'
1991 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
continue to exist notwithstanding its incompatibility
with any land use designation created in this Plan.
However, if such sites are undeveloped or the uses
are abandoned (including as a result of acts of God or
similar occurrences or events) for a period of one
hundred and eighty (I80) days; then such sites shall
be assismed a new land use designation and rezoned
to be c;nsistent \\1th that land use designation.
Policy 2.10.5 Special Land Use Considerations
The County shall establish an advisory council to
recommend land use and land development code
measures to help meet the needs of handicapped
residents in the County.
OBJECTIVE 2.11 PRESERVE RURAL
LIFESTYLES IN EAST SEMINOLE COUNTY
The County shall institute policies and programs
designed to preserve and reinforce the positive
qualities of the rural lifestyle presently enjoyed in
East Seminole County, referred to herein on
occasion as the "Rural Area," (as defined in
Figure 2.9) and thereby make sure the rural
lifestyle is available to future residents.
(Amendment: 95F.FLU 11)
Policy 2.11.1 Recognition of Rural Areas
The County shall develop land development
reoulations and land use strategies by April 1992 that
re~osmize East Seminole Councy as an area with
specifiC rural character rather than an area anticipated
to be urbanized. It shall be the policy of the County
that rural areas require approaches to land use
intensities and densities, rural roadway corridor
protection, the provision of services and facilities,
environmental protection and code enforcement
consistent with the rural character of such areas.
Policy 2.11.2 Agricultural Primacy
The County shall encourage continuation of
arncultural operations in East Seminole County.
AlITicultural uses on lands that have an agricultural
"
exemption from the Seminole County Property
Appraiser will be considered to have "primacy" in the
area. Primacy means that conflicts between such
a!ITicultural lands and other non-agricultural uses, all
o~her factors being equal, will be resolved in favor of
the agricultural interests.
AMENDMENT 95F.FLU II, ORDINANCE 95-14 (12/12/95)
Policy 2.11.3 Land Development Code Revisions to
Accommodate Rural Uses
The Countv shall revise The Land Development Code
by April 1992 to accommodate the "Rural" series of
land use designations with the institutional, public
and other support uses offered as Special Exceptions
to the appropriate rural zoning category, rural
clustering and roadway corridor districts.
Policy 2.11.4 Rural Cluster Development
The County shall develop rural cluster land
development regulations by April 1992 which will be
designed to preserve open space along roadway
corridors, preserve open space in rural residential
areas, preserve natural amenity areas, enhance the
rural character of the area and ensure that
development along the roadway corridors improves
or protects the visual character of the corridor by
encouraging the clustering of dwelling units, as long
as lots are no smaller than I acre, with the perpetual
reservation of the undeveloped buildable land as open
space. The rural cluster regulations are intended to
affect the location of the number of dwelling units
authorized by the future land use designation and not
serve as a vehicle for increasing the lot yield above
the number of units authorized by the designated rural
land use designation.
Policy 2.11.5 Roadway Corridor Overlay District
for the Major Roadways in East Seminole County
The County will develop and enact, by April 1992, a
Rural Roadway Corridor Zoning Classification
Overlay for the major roads in East Seminole County
in order to regulate land development along the major
roadways to improve or protect the rural character of
the area. The overlay corridor classification shall
extend 200' on each side of the road right-of-way
which will generally correspond to the b~ilding,
parking, and clearing setbacks unless s~c.lfically
determined that a particular structure or activIty that
is located upon property assigned the classification
uniquely re-enforces the rural character of the area.
The overlay classification shall regulate land
development along the major roadway system in East
Seminole County by, at a minimum, establishing
standards for:
o land use types and frequencies
o preservation of existing canopy trees
o planting of new canopy trees
o landscaping requirements
o clearing setbacks and restrictions
B-49
~,.,.'..".'.'."
~
FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT
S~MKNOlIn1E C01DJJNJT1f
1991 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
o building character, setbacks and locations
o location of parking
o location of equipment storage
o walls, fences, entrance features and similar
structures
o location and design of retention ponds
o access management
o the number of travel lanes
o the number and location of traffic signals
o the absence or presence of overhead powerlines or
their presence on only one side of the street with
lateral crossings underground
o the location and design of signage
o the location and design of street lights
o easements, deed restrictions and other instruments
required to perpetually preserve the undeveloped
portion of th~ roadway corridor. For the purposes
of this policy the term "major roadway system"
means County Road 419, State Road 46, County
Road 426 and Snowhill Road to the Extent tltat
they are located in East Seminole County.
B-SO
~""":""
:~::,~~~..:;;;;i.~".._ ~~~;".
. ~> -..'1.1;' ":" ~ -',." '.
. ;:FK:~'~,;~;:::: :/~~i~!!~,~
FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT
\
~
~~Ml[~T01k~ COlUJl~rl~1f
1881 COMPIBHBN8IVB PLAN
Figure 2.9: SEMINOLE COUNTY
SPECIAL AREA BOUNDARIES
~
I
VI
......
~_..--L_~tl~
\('.U
I:c ,1....,1.. I. ./.1.., ,... "'.'4 .aJ. ...., ,..,. '.
13-51
FtJ'l'tJU LAND UIB '".~
LEGEND:
WEJ<IVA RIVER PROTECTION AREA
BOUNDARY
UflBANIRURAL BOUNDARV
(See Objective 2.111
[~]
~
WI
[]
RURAL AREA (OUTSIDE URBAN
SERVICE AREA)
EAST LAKE SYLVAN TRANSITIONAL
AREA (S.. Objective 2.14)
PROPERTES SUBJECT TO LOT SIZE
RESTRICTIONS ISee ObJecllve 2,14)
URBAN AREA
AMENDMI~NTS flHF.TXT:3.7
anti 9BF.\VHI'A.TXTI7-:W
ORDINANCE gn-GO
(Decemher If>, 199H)
~JEMITNOJ1JE COUJNI1r'f
1991 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Policy 2.11.6 Landscaping and Maintenance
Standards for Rural Roadways
By December 1996, the County will prepare corridor
evaluations and establish landscaping/maintenance
standards for roadways in rural and transitioning
areas (SR 434 and Florida A venue). These standards
shall include: (Amendment: 95F.TXT 3.2)
o access management
o trees and landscaping
o accommodation of bike/pedestrian movement
o speed limits. signage. markings and other
operational devices
o drainage
o maintenance
o utilities.
Policy 2.11.7 Prohibit Future Connection of
Florida Avenue with Stone Street
In order to preserve the rural area of Eas1 Seminole
County and maintain the ruml chamcter of the
entrance roadways into the rural area. any future
connet:tion of Florida Avenue with Slone Street shall
he prohihited. (Amendment: 95F.TXT 3.5)
Policy 2.11.8 Roadway Corridor Overlay District
for the Minor Roadways in East Seminole County
The County shall develop and enact, hy April 1992. a
Rural Roadway Corridor Overlay Zoning
Classification for the minor roads in East Seminole
County in order to regulate land development along
1he minor roads to improve or protect the rural
character of the area. The overlay corridor district
will extend to a point between 50- 100 feet on each
side of the road right-of-way which will generally
correspond to the building. parking and clearing
setbacks unless specifically determined that a
particular structure or activity that is located upon
property assigned the classification uniquely re-
enforces the rural character of the area. The overlay
classification will regulate development along the
minor roadway system in East Seminole County by. at
a minimum, establishing the standards for:
o land use types and frequencies
o preserva1ion of existing canopy trees
AMENDMENT 95F. TXT 3.2. ORDINANCE 95-14 (12/12/95)
AMENDMENT 95F. TXT 3.5. ORDINANCE 95-14 (12/12/95)
o planting of new canopy trees
o landscaping requirements
o clearing setbacks and restrictions
o building character. setbacks and locations
o location of parking
o location of equipment storage
o walls. fences. entrance features and similar
structures
'0 location and design of retention ponds
o access management
o the number of travel lanes
o the number and location of traffic signals
o the absence or presence of overhead powerlines or
their presence on only one side of the street with
lateral crossings underground
o 1he location and design of signage
o the location and design of street ligh1s
o easements, deed restrictions and other instruments
required to perpetually preserve the undeveloped
ponion of 1he roadway corridor.
For the purposes of this policy the term "minor
roadway system" means Florida Avenue. Lockwood
Rd.. Lake Mills Rd/Brumley Rd. that "loops" Lake
Mills. the proposed Chuluota By-Pass, Lake Geneva
Road.. 1st Street. Lake Harney Rd., Old Mims
Rd./Jungle Rd. south of SR 46, Osceola Rd., and
Mullet Uike Park Rd.
Policy 2.11.9 Rural Roadway System Level of
Service Standards
The Coun1y has adopted rural roadway level of
service standards. The major and minor roadway
system in the Rural Area currently consists of two
lane (2l) facilities. CR 419 west of the proposed
Chuluota By-Pass is the only segment programmed
for a four lane improvement. The other roads are not
expected to require, nor are they planned to receive,
capacity improvements over the 20 year planning
period. The County shall discourage additional
roadway capacity expansions and proceed to regulate
these facilities consisten1 with the Rural Roadway
Corridor Overlay zoning classification requirements.
Policy 2.11.10 Methods of Providing
Water Outside of the Adopted Urban
Area (as depicted in Figure 2.9)
Potable
Service
The County shall:
(
"
B-52
~.."'-'..
~
FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT
S~MKlNrOIIn1E ~OlDJlNrur1f'
1991 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
o Continue to rely primarily upon individual wells
as the method of providing potable water to the
residents and other occupants outside the urban
serVice area.
o Encourage private central systems that exist as of
the adopting date of this Plan to continue 10
provide an adequate level of service to users in
their respective service area<;, although the County
shall discourage them from expanding their
service areas.
o New development outside adopted central service
areas shall not he designed nor constructed with
central water and/or sewer systems. Public and
private central systems may he permitted in the
future if it IS clearly and convincingly
demonstrated hy the proponents or the system
expansion that a health problem exists in a huilt
hut unserved area for which there is no other
feasihle solution. In such cases, the service area
expansion plans will be updated concurrent with
an area-wide administrative land use update
(Amendment 98CSAS.TXT6).
Policy 2.11.11 Methods of Providing Sanitary
Sewer Outside of the Adopted Urban Service Area
(as depicted in Figure 2.9)
The County shall:
o Continue to rely primarily upon individual septic
lank systems as the method of disposal of waste-
water outside the urban serviccs area.
o Encourage priva1e central sys1ems that exist as of
the effective date of this Plan to continue to
provide an adequate level of service to users in
their respective service areas. The County shall
discourage the expansion of service areas.
o New development outside adopted central service
areas shall not be designed nor constructed with
central water and/or sewer systems. Public and
private central systems may be permitted in the
future jf i1 is clearly and convincingly
AMENDMENT 98CSAS. TXT6, ORDINANCE 99.13
(5/11/99)
demonstrated by the proponents of the system
expansion that a health problem exists in a built
but unserved area for which there is no other
feasible solution. In such cases, the service area
expansion plans will be updated concurrent with
an area-wide administrative land use updatc.).
(Amendment 98CSAS.TXT7).
Policy 2.11.12 Methods of Managing Stormwater
The County shall:
o Regulate stormwater management consistent with
County-wide regulations with thc ohjective of
maximizing aquifer recharge, minimizing flooding
and protecling wetland systems.
o Continuc to use Municipal Service Benefit Units
to fund drainage improvements when appropriate.
Policy 2.11.13 Methods of Collecting and
Disposing of Solid Wastes
The County shall continue to use the solid and
hazardous waste collection and disposal systems
provided throughout the county to serve the Rural
Area.
Policy 2.11.14 Recreation System Plan
The County shall prepare a Recreation System Plan
for East Seminole County by December 31, 1999 thaI
maximizes 1he collective advantages of the several
parks and trails in the Rural Area.
Policy 2.11. 15 Protection of Natural Resources
The County shall:
o Protect the wetland and flood prone areas in the
Rural Area consistent with the provisions of the
Future Land Use and Conservation Elements of
this Plan and through the potential purchase of
properties with funds deriving from the Natural
Lands Program authorized by voter referendum in
1990.
AMENDMENT 98CSAS. TXT7, ORDINANCE 99.13
(5/11/99)
B-53
&13"." ,
...' "', "
.;, , '.~ ... "'; .' ,
'. ... .. .~~. ..... l,o.,.
:;':' . .:":: ....:. I:
~. .
.. .
FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT
~18MTI1NJ0J1~ (COtuJN1rl'
1991 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
o Re-evaluate the effectiveness of the County Arbor
Ordinancc. referenced by Policy 2.1.6.
pcriodically.
o Protect the groundwater systems in the Rural Area
as depicted in Figure 2.9, including, but not
limitcd 10. the Geneva "Lens" by:
· Continuing to permit only large lot residential
development in the Rural Area to minimize
water consumption and maximize aquifer
rc!.:harge due to' small impervious surface
areas;
· Relying on a system of small individual
residential wells for the provision of potable
water that disperse the potentially adverse
effects of groundwater drawdown associated
the excessive pumping of the aquifer;
· Relying on properly installed and periodically
inspected septic tanks on large lots that return
water to the aquifer to be the primary system
of wastewater disposal; and
· Rclying on stormwater management systems
designed as required by the Rural Subdivision
standards enacted in accordance with the
provisions of this Plan to maximize recharge
of stormwatcr into 1he aquifer.
o Protc!.:t thc E!.:onlockhatchec River In East
Seminole County by:
· Regulating development adjacent to the River
in accordance with the existing Wetlands
Ordinance (see Policy 2.1.3).Regulating
development adjacent 10 the River in
accordance with the Econlockhatchee River
Basin Protection Ordinance enacted by the
Board of County Commissioners in 1991.
· Purchasing properties, when appropriate, with
funds from the Natural Lands Program and
other Federal, State, and regional programs.
· Enacting provisions in the Land Development
Code by April 1993 regarding the prohibition
of additional bridge crossings of the River.
o Protect the SI. Johns River by:
· Continuing to enforce the eXIsting Wetlands
Ordinance (see Policy 2.1.3).
· Purchasing properties, when appropriate, with
funds from the Natural Lands Program and
other Federal, State, and regional programs.
· Preparing an overlay pro1ection ordinance
creating standards similar to the
"Econlockhatchee River Protection
Ordinance". (Amendment 98CSAS.TXT8)
Policy 2.11. 16 Code Enforcement and
Implementation
The County has:
o
Enacted and enforced Rural
Standards, as necessary, designed
unique needs of the Rural Area.
Subdivision
to meet the
o Completed a study to determine the most effective
method of providing improved inspection and
code enforcement services in the East Rural Area.
o Pursued Joint Planning Agreements with the City
of Oviedo and the City of Winter Springs for the
purpose of achieving Objective 2.11.
o Provided that lots originally recorded or platted as
5 acres and/or 10 acres in size in the old Black
Hammock Plat that have been reduced in size by
the amount of land dedicated to public road
rights-of-way, shall be considered as 5-acre and/or
IO-acre lots for purposes of land use consistency
and dwelling unit yield determination. For
example, a lot that was originally platted as a I D-
acre lot that now contains only 9.17 acres
because, and solely because, land from the
original lot was dedicated to a public road right-
of-way, will be considered a IO-acre lot; 5 acre
lots, and multiples of 5-acre lots. similarly
reduced, will be treated likewise.
AMENDMENT 98CSAS. TXT8. ORDINANCE 99-13
(5/11/99)
t
'.
B-54
[:].....'.....
.' -~'."'. .
..
FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT
~1EMTIINJOlLJJE (COlUJ1NJTl'
1991 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
() Address conditions existing prior to adoption of
this Plan as follows:
It is the intent of the rural residential land use
desi~l1alions (Rurall. Rural 5. Rural 10) 10 guide Ihe
future development and use of these areas. For the
purpose of the Rural 3. Rural 5 and Rural 10
categories. structures existing as of the adoption date
of the 199/ Comprehensive Plan shall be permitted to
be rebuilt in the event of an accident or otherwise
improved ns long as the gross density of residential
property or intensity of non-residential property of the
property is not increased and/or the land use remains
consistent with those regulations in effect as of the
adop1ion date of this Plan. Lots and parcels of record
as of the dnte of adoption of the Comprehensive Plan
shall be allowed to be built upon even if they are
smaller than the new lot size standards, as long as all
other land development regulations are met. Parcels
of record shall include all parcels of land recorded
and all lots which are part of a subdivision plat, 5
acre Resolution or Waiver to Subdivision Regulations
which have received final approval or execution prior
to the adoption of this Plan. This provision is based
on the following findings:
· These lots and parcels are a generally accepted
developmen1 pattern by residents of the East
Area of the County;
· The grand fathering of these certain lots and
parcels will not adversely affect the overall intent
and objectives of the Rural Area Plan;
· Development of lots deriving from these lots and
parcels will be subject to all Land Development
Code provisions and therefore will further
implemen1 the provisions of 1he Rural Area Plan;
and
· There are expressed expectations and intent by
these existing property owners to use their
properly in a certain manner as evidenced
through their applicalion for and action by the
Coun1y to record a parcel, approve and maintain
as valid a final Development Order or execute a
5-a<.:re Resolution.
o Facili1a1e 1he continua1ion of the family farm by
permitting family subdivisions. It is the intent of
the "Rural 10" and "Rural 5" Land Use categories
to permit the development of tracts of land for the
use of family mcmbers for their primary
residences. For the purpose of the "Rural 10" and
"Rural 5" category. properly developed and/or
suhdivided for the use of immediate family
members for their primary residence shall not he
limited in densily to one dwelling unit per ) 0
acres. but mny be devcloped for up 10 three family
residences on a minimun of 10 acres
notwithstanding the density pursuant to the
clustering provisions established in this Plan.
Immediate family is defined as persons related by
blood. marriage. or adoption, such as parents.
spouses. siblings and children. Those provisions
shall not be construed to permit land to be
subdivided in a lot size smaller than I acre.
(Amendment: 95F.TXT 3.3)
Policy 2.11.17 Facilities Improvements
Consistent with the Rural Character
Improvemen1s to public facilities sh:lll be
accomplished whenever possible in a manner so as to
preserve or enhance the rural character of East
Seminole Coun1y. This criteria shall apply to level of
se~vice standards, location, design standards,
materials and any other items impacting 1he final
result.
OBJECTIVE 2.12: PROTECTION OF
PRIV A TE PROPERTY RIGHTS (Created in its
entirety by Amendment 95F.TXT 7.3)
The County shall not intentionally enact or
impose any unreasonable land development
regulation or apply any land development
regulation in an unreasonable manner such that
the taking of private property rights would result.
Policy 2.12.1 Private Property Rights Act
The County shall fully implement the provisions of
the Bert J. Harris, Jr., Private Property Righls
Protection Act (Sec1ion I, Chapter 95-181, Laws of
Florida). Each slaff recommendation relative to any
land use decision shall consider lhe provisions of that
Act and other general principles of law relating to the
AMENDMENT 95F. TXT 3,3. ORDINANCE 95- 14 (12/12/95)
AMENDMENT 95F. TXT 7.3. ORDINANCE 95- 14 (12/12/95)
~
~~,'.~J~:~l:;'_ _'
, '. - ~ "'. ' ..., '''' . ' , .
'", .'-......:.,. .,.\,
"" ,"-
FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT
EXHIBIT "B"
FUTURE LAND USE EQUIVALENCY CHART
Future Land Use City Land Use County Land Use
LDR-T "
Suburban -Single Family R-lAAA: 20,000 sq. ft. Suburban Estates
PUD: 10,500 sq. ft. 1 DU/Acre --.
Low Density ResidOltial ~ I LDR I LDR
Single Family 3.5 DUtAcre 4 DU/Acre
3.85 DU/Acre (PUD) I 7 DUt Acre
Medium Density Residential MDR MDR
8 DU/Acre 10 DU/Acre
8.6 DU/Acre (PUD)
High Density Residential HDR HDR
15 DU/Acre > 10 DU/Acre
15.75 DU/Acre (PUD)
Offu:e I ' Office - I" Office
.30 FAR 35 FAR
Commercial Commercial : I Commercial
.5 FAR I (mcludes Office)
PUD: .6 FAR (includes Office. Recreation., 35 FAR
Light Industrial. Public, or Institutional) I
IndustriaL Industrial: <.6 FAR Industrial
PUD: Industrial/<.6 FAR (includes Office & Commercial)
Commerci.all .5 FAR .65 FAR
Office/.3 FAR
Publici .5 FAR
High Intensity Mixed Use Planned Unit Development I High Intensity Planned Development
Planned Development Residential: <5.0 20 DU/Acre - Transitional
Commercial: <.5 FAR 50 DUI Acre - Core
Office: <.3 FAR . .' " .35 FAR
Industrial: <.5 FAR ' .
Pub/ic/Recreation Public I PubliclQuasiPublic
Recreation
Conservation I Conservation I Conservation
Rural-II LDR-T I Rural 10; Rural 5; Rural 3
R-CE: 40,000 sq. ft. I lOU/I0 Acres
PUD: 10,500 sq. ft. i I DUt5 Acres
Rural I 1 DU/3 Acres
< 1 DUtAcre I
(1) The equivalency chart does not apply to the area between the Wmter Springs Eastern City Limit and DeLeon Street
which is outside the "Transition Area" and is adopted as RuraI-3 on the Seminole County Future Land Use Map.
Rel!ufar Meetin2 City Commission
January 26, 1998
07-98-08
Pa2.e 16
(
City's Comprehensive Plan, to add the plan policy. Mr. Matthew said the County is hoping to start
this year working with all the Cities to do joint planning agreements and said this would give rhe
County time to do that, because once this is started it may take time to put a JP,A together. This
recorrnnendation would get the County to a joint planning agreement in the interim for the adoption
of this policy and the second issue is the trail issue, the Rorida National Scenic Trail runs east to west
and traverses this property along the old R.R line and what they ask is that some kin<! of provision
or statement be put in the development agreement to accommodate that trail whenever it is
developed. Mr. Matthews said he can't speak to the details of the trail issue tonight, and how that
would impact this proposed subdivision but those things could be worked out as long as it was a part
of the agreement to do that so that the applicant would be required, as a condition of the agreement,
to at least meet with the County and discuss the trail issue.
Mayor Partyka asked Mr. Matthews if he knew how Commissioner Morris came to the position
regarding the 10 foot easement. Mr. Matthews said he knows that the 10 foot easement was a
recommendation that carne from their current manager of their Planning Division. Mayor Partyka
asked about Commissioner Monis' recommendation that the residential floor area going from 1,800
to 2,000 because of McKinJey's Mill was at 2,00 S<}.ft. Mr. Matthews said the reason for that was
that they looked, (using their O.IS. system) at the median lot sizes and home sizes in'McKinIey's Mill
and said the 2,000 sq.ft., was a recommendation that was from him to be that much more compatible
with McKinJey's ~1ill. l\1r. Matthews mentioned that the Seminole County Board of Commissioners
adopted Suburban Estates and said he has not had an opportunity to go back and meet with the (
Commission (at a full board) to ask them if they have changed their mind, and said he is making the
assumption that the County Commission still maintains the current position as stated in the letter.
Mayor Partyka asked the developer if they could consider going from 1,800 sq.ft. To 2,000 sq.ft..as
a minimum residential home, which would eliminate a major point of the County. Mr. Leonhardt said
not being a home builder, what they are finding in talking to the home builders in the community that
they are talking with are happy with the R-l A zoning and they have alerted the home builders that
there is a requirement that we achieve a retail sales value for the lot and home in the $180,000 and
higher price range, and said the R-IA standards call for 1,800 sq.ft. so it is difficult to ask Mr. Allen
to pick a number out of the air, and so the answer is no.
Manager McLemore said to Mr. Matthews, that the City has gone on record saying that we respect
the Urban Service Line and we have no interest in trying to go beyond that point and said he thinks,
as indication as to the sincerity about that, we have amended our planning map back to that line,
Manager McLemore said the part that bothers him is with a joint agreement between the City of
Winter Springs and the City of Oviedo relative to annexation, he said he doesn't have a problem with
that and said the City has tried to say that, but what bothers him is getting "stonewalled" (and said
he doesn't know that this would happen) by Oviedo to come to the table and get to an agreement and
said it kind of puts the City in a difficult position.
Manager McLemore said for clarification as to what the County is asking and that being "no
NOV-06-2000 09:19 P.09
2. The costs of all street signs and traffic control signs and devices
located within the Property, shall be borne by the Owner or
Developer.
3. The Owner or Developer agrees to improve the State Road 434
project entry, as part of required installations of subdivision
improvements required by the City Code on the Property, to allow
two (2) outbound and one (1) inbound entry movements,
acceleration and deceleration lanes along State Road 434,
provided these improvements are allowed by Florida Department of
Transportation.
4. The Owner will design its internal road network to preclude
connection to adjacent properties to the east. To further assure
that the road system is not connected to future developments to
the east, Developer wi1l dedicate on the plat or by separate
recorded instrument ten feet of property on the east property line of
Owner's developable property to the project's homeowner's
association as a preserve area. The only improvements which
shall be allowed in said preserve area are those necessary to
effectuate any type of natural scenic trail, as expressly authorized
by Owner.
F.
w
Ul
\..0
W
CJC
Q-r
a-r
:::z;-
r.
Wall.
U)
f"'I1
:r
The Owner or Developer of the Property shall install a six (6) foot masons
wall on that portion of the Property separating any actual residential unit~
from proposed commercial properties along the north side of State Roade"")
4~. p
"
r-
""-
-
r-
o
N
N
~
--
:-r
':'"':
-oc
J>;::;:
C'>C
r " <.r:
G.
, Building Restrictions.
The building restrictions shall be those found in the R-1A Single Family
Dwelling District, Chapter 20, Article III, Division 4 of the Code of
Ordinances of the City. They are:
1. Residential Areas:
a. Minimum lot size of residential sites within the Property shall
be eight thousand (8,000) square feet with a minim.um lot
width of seventy five (75) feet measured at the front building
line. The maximum number of lots shall be one hundred
and ten (110).
8
"
ADMINISTRATION
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
October 25, 2000
Ms. Rosanne Karr, Chairperson
Local Planning Agency/
Planning and Zoning Commission
City of Winter Springs
1126 East SR 434
Winter Springs, FL 32708
Subject: Plan Amendment and Rezoning for Luther and JoAnn Carroll
Dear Ms. Karr:
The County has reviewed the subject request (see enclosed map) and is
submitting this letter in objection to the proposed small scale plan amendment
and rezoning based on the following findings.
In 1999, as you may know, Seminole County and the City of Oviedo entered into
a Joint Planning Interlocal Agreement (JPA). One of the main purposes of this
agreement is to "Protect the general rural character of the Rural Areas of
Seminole County as depicted in the Seminole County Comprehensive
Plan..."[JPA, page 4, Section 2(a)(3)]. The subject property is located within the
County's East Rural Area and is designated as Rural-3 on the County's Future
Land Use Map and zoned the A-3 rural zoning classification.
The proposed plan amendment and rezoning request for this property by the City
of Winter Springs would be at odds with the County's long standing efforts to
protect the character and lifestyle of the Rural Area. Consequently, the proposed
annexation fails to address the issues which are adequately addressed within the
JPA between the County and City of Oviedo.
Secondly, in 1995, the County adopted several land use amendments in the
vicinity of the Central Florida GreeneWay/SR 434 Interchange. One of these
amendments (Amendment 95F.FLU5) established approximately 25 acres of
Commercial land use on the east side of the Central Florida GreeneWay. This
amendment was based on findings of the 1994 GreeneWay/S.R. 434 Small Area
Study and in response to development trends and the need to provide
neighborhood commercial uses in the immediate vicinity of the Interchange.
11 01 EAST FIRST STREET SANFORD FL 32771-1468 TELEPHONE (407) 665-7397 FAX 328-2576
Ms. Rosanne Kerr, Chairperson
October 25, 2000
Paqe 2
In contrast, the proposed plan amendment to Commercial land use and
associated rezoning to C-1 by the City of Winter Springs would introduce an
incompatible use into the County's East Rural Area and be inconsistent with the
intent of the GreeneWay Small Area Study. Also, please note that the property is
located within the ''Transitional Areas", identified in the subject JPA, which does
not allow commercial uses [JPA, page 6, Section 3(b)].
You may also be aware that for some time now, staff from the County and City of
Winter Springs have been working toward the development of a joint planning
agreement to address land use issues along the borders of the County and City
of City of Winter Springs.
Given the 'above concerns, we ask that the Local Planning Agency:
1. Recommend denial of the subject plan amendment and rezoning; and
2. Recommend development of a joint planning agreement that will address
protection of the County's rural community and provide an overall approach to
joint land use planning between the County and City of Winter Springs.
Thank you for the opportunity to review this important matter. If you have any
questions, please feel free to contact me or Tony Matthews of the County's
Planning Division at 407-665-7371.
Sincerely,
C2Ccha~r ~
Planning and Development Director
Enclosure
FC:tm
cc: Honorable Mayor and City Commission, City of Winter Springs
Ronald McLemore, City Manager, City of Winter Springs
V. Eugene Williford, III, City Manager, City of Oviedo
Seminole County Board of County Commissioners
Kevin Grace, County Manager
Jim Marino, Deputy County Manager
Tony Matthews, Principal Planner
I:\old_dp _ voI2\cp\proj ects\special\jpa\wsjpa\carrolannexl.doc
i;::J: ~~ --1,=.
,;:
.~.....::.~
~ i
~ i
"'"
I
I i
DI:::SIG:"\.-\ TJO,"\iS i' N' -:-u
I : .
I _ II I
,I '-- I
"LOW DE:'iSITY RESlDE:\TIAL" !~;_
B;J(cic Ril1gc (plus enlfance) \ urn !
"CO.\I\lERCL-\L" I:I--'! r .~
_'/ I; I I I
I . ' I
, I
J .....-
ern.' 0 r \\' I .\'TER SPRI:\'GS
fl"TL:RE tr\:'-iD CSE MAP
f: ILl I
I ,; ~
r---.;=:-o,: l I .
"I t I~
{ L j i~
l II; I
---=~~
' ~~ I
[ If~
CARROLL PROPERTY
S~L\LL SCALE AlVIEl'l'DMENT
I
I
I
NOVENffiER 13, 2000
PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA ITEM L
Page 4
minimal impacts on surrounding properties, such as buffering. The State can require
deceleration lanes and center turn lanes to maintain traffic flow. The City's land
development regulations and the site plan review process of the Development Review
Committee can help prevent or minimize potential nuisances.
. The comprehensive plan amendment is compatible with the other elements of the
City's Comprehensive Plan
. The c<?mprehensive plan amendment is compatible with and furthers elements of the
State Comprehensive Plan, in Chapter 187 F.S.
. The comprehensive plan amendment is compatible with and furthers elements of the
East Central Florida Comprehensive Regional Policy Plan.
STAFF REC01\tIMENDA TION:
Based on the Staff Report and the Findings, staff recommends the Local Planning Agency make
the following recommendation to the City Commission:
1. That the City Commission hold a first (transmittal) public hearing and transmit
to the Florida Department of Community Affairs the proposed Large Scale
Comprehensive Plan Amendment (LS-CP A-3-00), to change the Future Land
Use Map (FLUM) designation from Seminole County "Rural-3" (1 DU per 3
acres maximum) to the City's FLUM designation of "Lower Density
Residential" (1.1 - 3.5 DU per acre) on the C. E. & Mary M. Minter Trust
Property on the Future Land Use Map of the City's Comprehensive Plan Land
Use Element (Volume 2 of2); and
2. Hold a second public hearing, after receiving and reviewing the ORC Report, to
adopt the plan amendment.
LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY RECOMMENDATION:
MOTION BY VICE CHAIRMAN FERNANDEZ:
"I'll make a motion not to recommend transmittal to the Department of Community Affairs, nor
to hold a second public hearing on this particular application for Thomas Minter large scale
comprehensive amendment (LS-CP A-3-00), for the reasons previously expressed. I believe the City
4
NOVEivffiER 13, 2000
PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA ITEM L
Page 5
of Winter Springs made a commitment not to extend services out pass Battle Creek. It was an
implied agreement. I was present at those meetings. I do know that it occurred and I think we are
reaching out quite far beyond any logical boundary for the City of Winter Springs.
We're addressing property truly that is not even in the City of Winter Springs yet and even though
an application for annexation is pending it can be withdrawn at any time and if their proper vote
isn't forthcoming fonn the City Commission, the applicant can certainly withdraw and he can still
develop his property so we aren't depriving him the use of his property, 1 DU per 3 acres, buildable
property, for the reasons expressed by Seminole County in their letter of October 25, for the reasons
expressed in the letter from the City of Oviedo of October 25, for the reasons expressed by the
President of MacKinley Mills Homeowners Association dated October 25, Ms Regina Bereswill,
and for the reasons expressed by Ms. or Mr. Valerie EI-lamil, for the reasons previously expressed
by members of the public in their presentations under the - Weaver, i believe it was, Weaver large
scale comprehensive plan amendment and for all those reasons i do not envision this as a goal for
the city of Winter Springs to increase the density of this particular property, or the intense use of this
particular property and a transition area that should attempt to maintain the integrity of the
neighborhood. it is not a gateway to, the City of Winter Springs, it is not visible from the '417' as
was the CassceIl's Property and for those reasons i do not recommend transmittal to the Department
of Community Affairs." seconded by Board Member Stephens. Discussion.
VOTE:
Board Member Brent Gregory: nay
Board Member Tom Brown: nay
Vice-Chairman Bill Fernandez: aye
Chairperson Rosanne Karr: aye
Board Member Carl Stephens: aye
Motion carried.
A TT ACHMENTS:
A. Map of Subject Property.
B. Local Planing Agency Agenda Item II. C.
C. Supporting Data, Inventory & Analysis for the Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment
LS-CPA-3-00 (This Attachment same as LPA Agenda Item II. C. Attachment B)
5
NOVEMBER 13,2000
PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA ITEM K
Page 4
· The comprehensive plan amendment is compatible with and furthers elements of the
East Central Florida Comprehensive Regional Policy Plan.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Based on the Staff Report and the Findings, staff recommends the Local Planning Agency make
the following recommendation to the City Commission:
1. That the City Commission hold a first (transmittal) public hearing and transmit
to the Florida Department of Community Affairs the proposed Large Scale
Comprehensive Plan Amendment (LS-CP A-2-00), to change the Future Land
Use Map (FLUM) designation from Seminole County "Rural-3" (1 DU per 3
acres maximum) to the City's FLUM designation of "Lower Density
Residential" (1.1 - 3.5 DU per acre) on the Donald Weaver Property on the
Future Land Use Map of the City's Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element
(Volume 2 of2); and
2. Hold a second public hearing, after receiving and reviewing the ORC Report, to
adopt the plan amendment.
LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY RECOMMENDATION:
MOTIO~ BY BOARD MEMBER GREGORY:
"I move to accept the staff findings and their recommendation." Seconded by board member
Brown. Discussion.
VOTE:
Chairperson Rosanne Karr: nay
Board Member Carl Stephens: nay
Board Member Brent Gregory: aye
Board Member Tom Brown: aye
Vice-Chairman Bill Fernandez: nay
Did not carry.
MOTION BY VICE-CHAlRMAN FERNANDEZ.
"Madam Chair I'd like to make a motion. I would recommend that the City Commission not
transmit this matter to the Department of Community Affairs for consideration of a 'ORC'
(objections, recommendations and comments) Report, not to hold a second public hearing to
CDJ)/Novcmber 3. 2000/4:34 I'M
NOVEMBER 13, 2000
PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA ITEM K
Page 5
receive any 'aRC' Report, and those are for the very reasons that I expressed previously under
discussion and the letters, the five different letters that we've received - two from Oviedo, one
from Seminole County, one from the President of MacKinley Mills, and one from Ms. Jamell
and the presentation of those members - of the public, who are present here and made
presentations this evening opposing this recommendation during this transmittal." seconded by
Board Member Stephens. Discussion.
VOTE:
Board Member Carl Stephens: aye
Board Member Brent Gregory: nay
Board Member Tom Brown: nay
Vice-Chairman Bill Fernandez: aye
Chairperson Rosanne Karr: aye
Motion carried.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Map of Subject Property.
B. Local Planing Agency Agenda Item II. B.
C. Supporting Data, Inventory & Analysis for the Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment
LS-CP A-2-00 (This Attachment same as LP A Agenda Item II. B. Attachment B)
D. Legal Notice.
COMMISSION ACTION:
CDD/Novcmber 3, 2000/4:34 I'M