The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2002 05 13 Public Hearings E Third Reading - Ordinance 2001-55 Transmit to Proposed Comprehensive Plan COMMISSION AGENDA , ITEM E Consent Informational Public Hearing X .Regular May 13, 2002 Special Meeting /L.. Mgr. / Attor / Authorizatio REQUEST: The Community Development Department requests the City Commission consider the Objections, Recommendations and Comments (aRC) report received from the Department of Community Affairs (DCA), along with the recommendations of Land Design Innovations (LDI) and adopt the Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) based amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. PURPOSE: The purpose ofthis item is to request the Commission conduct a public hearing for the third reading and adoption of Ordinance 2001-55, which would authorize staff to transmit the proposed Comprehensive Plan to the Department of Community Affairs for compliance review. APPLICABLE LAW AND PUBLIC POLICY: Rule 9J-11.011, Florida Administrative Code, Local Government Adoption of the Comprehensive Plan or Plan Amendment and Submittal for the Compliance Review Chapter 163.3184, Florida Statutes, Process for Adoption of Comprehensive Plan or Plan Amendment CONSIDERATIONS: . The City's Comprehensive Plan, adopted in 1992, is the guiding document that identifies the future development patterns in the City and the services that will be necessary to meet the demands of future growth. COD/May 7, 200211 :57 PM May 13, 2002 PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA ITEM A Page 2 . The City is required by State Statutes to prepare an evaluation and update the Comprehensive Plan with current data every seven (7) years. . The City successfully completed an Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) of the Comprehensive Plan, which was determined to be sufficient by DCA on March 26, 1999. . The EAR concluded the entire document was poorly written and should be completely rewritten as part of the EAR Based Amendments. . Land Design Innovations (LDI) was contracted to supplement staff resources and prepare the EAR Based Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. . The proposed Comprehensive Plan (Attachment D) represents LDI's final deliverable in response to the ORC report and several joint workshops held by the Local Planning Agency and City Commission to review the plan. . On November 7, 2001, the Local Planning Agency recommended the City Commission approve transmittal of the proposed Comprehensive Plan to DCA for review. . On November 26,2001, the City Commission approved first reading of Ordinance 2001-55 and authorized transmittal of the proposed Comprehensive Plan to DCA for review. . On February 19, 2002, the Community Development Department received the ORC report from DCA, detailing objections and comments prepared pursuant to Rule 9J-ll.0l 0, Florida Administrative Code. . From the date the ORC report is received, the City has 120 days to adopt, adopt with changes, or not adopt the proposed amendments. The last available regular meeting date of the City Commission to take action on the proposed amendments is June 10,2002. . On May 6, 2002, the City Commission deferred action on the Comprehensive Plan until its May 13, 2002 regular meeting. FINDINGS: Section 15-36 of the City's Code of Ordinances describes the review criteria for Comprehensive Plan amendments. The proposed amendments meet the criteria as follows: 1. The proposed amendments will not have an adverse effect on the City budget and will have a favorable effect on the economy of the City and the region. 2. The proposed amendments will not diminish the adopted level of service (LOS) of public facilities. 3. The proposed amendments will have a favorable impact on the environment and the natural and historical resources of the City. 4. The proposed amendments are consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the State's Comprehensive Plan and the East Central Florida Regional Policy Plan. 5. The proposed amendments will promote the cost-effective use of public facilities. 6. The proposed amendments will cause the Comprehensive Plan to be internally consistent. CDD/May 7, 2002/1 :57 PM May 13, 2002 PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA ITEM A Page 3 7. The proposed amendments will promote the public health, safety, welfare, economic order and aesthetics of the City and the region. 8. The proposed amendments are consistent with the previously adopted Evaluation and Appraisal Report. ADOPTION SCHEDULE: Should the City Commission adopt Ordinance 2001-55 and authorize transmittal of the proposed amendments to DCA for compliance review, the remainder ofthe adoption schedule would proceed as follows: . May 23, 2002 Last available date to transmit adopted Comprehensive Plan to DCA for compliance review, following May 13,2002 adoption date. DCA completes 45-day compliance review and issues a Notice of Intent to find the proposed amendments either in compliance or not in compliance. Assuming the proposed amendments are found in compliance, a 21- day period to allow for petitions (by affected persons) that challenge the determination of compliance follows. Assuming no petitions are filed to challenge the determination of compliance, the Notice of Intent becomes final agency action and the Comprehensive Plan becomes effective. . July 2002 . August 2002 . August 2002 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the City Commission consider staffs and LDI's recommendations in response to the ORC report and adopt Ordinance 2001-55, which would authorize the transmittal of the proposed Comprehensive Plan to DCA for compliance review. PLEASE BRING COPIES OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, APPROVED FOR TRANSMITTAL ON NOVEMBER 26, 2001, TO THIS MEETING FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES. ATTACHMENTS: A. Ordinance 2001-55 B. Objections, Recommendations, and Comments Report (ORC) from DCA. C. Staff response to the ORC report D. Letter from City Manager, dated May 8, 2002 COMMISSION ACTION: CDDlMay 8, 2002/3:38 PM ATTACHMENT A \:)t:::'(ll oy: onu,...."..;~nu,.::>kLLI.I__j.................................,. ........ J _....,j _.:...... ~-,::;,....., ...... '" .... .... . -. -.-' ."J . -":J - ."- \ \ ORDINANCE NO. 2001-55 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF WINTER SPRINCS, SF:MJNOLE COUNTY, FLOlUDA, ADOPTING THE EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT (EAR) RASED PLAN AMENDMENTS TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OF THE CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA; REPEALING THE PRIOR CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IN ITS ENTIRETY AND REPLACING IT WITH A NEW COMPREHENSrvE PLAN ENTITLED "CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2001" WIllCH IS ATTACHED 'I HERETO AS EXHIBIT "A"; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF PRIOR INCONSISTENT ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR INCORPORATION INTO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; PROVIDING FOR LEGAL STATUS OF THE COMPREHENSI V E PLAN AMENDMENTS I\ND EFFECTI\' E DATE. WHEREAS, Section 163.3161 et. seq" Florida Statutes (1987) established the Loeal Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act; and 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 City has conducted an evaluation and appraisal of the City of Winter Springs' Comprehen~lve Plan pur~l1ant to Section 16JJ191, Florida Statutes; and WHEREAS, during the evaluation process, the City commis~ion determined it was in the best interests oft11e public health, safety and welfare of the City to update the ComprchcClsi VI: Plan by adopting a new Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, the Local Planning Agency of the City ofWinler Springs held a duly noticed public hearing, in accordance with the procedures in chapter 163, part 11, Flurida Statute.,', on the Evaluation and Appraisal Report, the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments und DCA's ORC City of Winter ~prings , Ordinance No. 200 t-26 I"~c 1 of 5 Sent By: BROWN,!~ARDJSALZMAN&WEISS,P.A,; 407 425 9596; NOV.l,j.Ol 12:48PI.1; Page 5/9 RepMt and considered findings and advice of slat,!: citizens, and all inlerested parties submitting wriUen and oral comment,; flnd has recommended adoption to the City Commission; and WHEREAS. on November 26, 200 \. the Cil)' COllunission of the City of Winter Springs held a duly noticed public hearing 011 the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment and considered findings and advice of the Land Plaruting Agency, staff, citizens, and all interested parties submitting written and oral comments, and after complete deliberation, approved the amendment for lra.nsmittal to the Florida Depat1ment of Community Affairs; amI WHEREAS, on , the Florida Department of Community Affairs issued its Objections, Recommendations, and Comments Report ("ORC Report") to tile City and made rccomrm:ndatioCls to bring (he ~uhjecl Comprehensive Plan amendmems in compliance with Rule 9)-5, f10rida Adminislrative Code, and Chapter 163, Part II. Florida Statute.\'; and WHEREAS, the City Commission and the Land Planning Agency have evaluated the ORC Reporl and hay\:: acct:ptt:d the reconunendations contained therein. by making the necessary modifications to the Comprehensive Plan amendments originally transmitted to the Florida Department of Community Affairs in order to bring the amendments in compliance with Rule 9.1-5. Florida Adminburafive Code, and Chapler 163, Part II, Flurida Statutes; and WHEREAS. pursuant to Section 91-11.006, Florida Administrative Code. this Comprehensive Plan amendment will not cause the City to exceed its twice yearly suhmittal allowance for comprehensive plan amendments; and WHEREAS, on , the City Commission of the City of Winter Springs held a duly noticed public adoption hearing on (he proposed amendments set forth hereunder and City of Winter Springs Ordinance No. 2001-55 Pug~ 2 vf S Sen t By: BRO\'IN, WARD, SAL ZMAN&\\'E 155, p, A, ; 407 425 9"96; NOV.14-0112:49PM; Page 6/9 considered findings and ad vice of (he r ,and Planning Agency, staff, ci ti/,ens, and all intcrcslt:d Parties sUbmitting written ~U1d oral comInents and supporting data dnd analysis, as well as the Objeclions, ReCQIlUlll:(\(lalions, and Conuncnts of the Florida Department of Community Affairs. and after complete deliberation, approved and adopted Lh(: proposed all1elldlw::nt.s hereunder; and WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan amendments adopteo by this Ordinance (;omply with, the requirements uf the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Reb'll1ation Act and the amendments are in the hest intereSb (lrthe public health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of Winter Springs. Florida. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CJTY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF WINTER SPRlNCS, HEREBY ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Section J. Recitals. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and are fully incorporated herein by this referenee_ Section 2, Authority. Thi~ Ordinance is adopted in compliance with, and pursuant to, the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulations Act, Scetiol1~ 163,1 H4 and 163.187, Flodda Statutes, Section 3. Pu....pose and Intent. It is hereby declared 10 be the purpose and intent of this Ordinance to clarify, expand, (;orrcct, update, modify and otherwise further th~ provisions oflhe City of Winter Springs' Comprehensive Plan. Seclion 4. Repeal of Prior Comprehensive I'lan. The previously adopted Comprehensive Plan of the City of Winter Springs, florida, is hereby rc~aled in its entirety and shall 110 longer be in force and eITecl. Ciry (If Winter Spring!< Ordinance No. 2001.55 PJ;?( J uf 5 Sent By: BROWN,WARD,SALZMAN&WEISS,P.A.; 407 425 9596; NOV-14-0112:50PM; Page 7/9 Section 5, Adoption of Ncw Cumprehensive Plan, The City of Winter Springs' Cvmprehensivc Plan-200l, attached hcrelo a<; Exhibit "A" and fully incorporuted herein by thi~ rderence, is hereby adopted and ~hall be given full legal status as the new Comprehensive Plan of the City of Winter Springs, Florida. Section 6. Repeal of Prior Inconsistent Ordinances and Resolutions. All pridr incon~istcnl ordinances and n:solutions adopted by the City Commission, Or parts of ordinances and resolutions in conDict herewith, are hereby repealed to tbe l:xtent of the conflict Section 7. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, word or provision of this Ordinance is tor any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, whether for substantive. procedural, or any other reason, such portion shall be ~kemed u separate, dis-linct and independent provision, and such holding shall nol affect the val idity of the remuining portions of this ordinance. Section 8. Incorporation into Comprehensive Plan. Upon the effective date of the new Comprehensive Plan adopted by this ordinance, said Comprch~nsivc Plan shall bc incorponlted as lhe City of Winter Springs Comprehensive Plan and any section Of paragraph number or letter and any heading may be changed or modified as necessary to effcctwlte the foregoing. Section 9. Effective Date and Legal Status of the Plan Amendments. The effective darc of the new Comprehensive Plan adopted by this Ordinance shall be the date a final order is issued by the Florida Department ofConununity Affairs, or the Administration Commission finding the new Comprehensive Plan in compliance with Section 163.3184, Flurida S/afutes. No development orders, development permits, or land use dependent On the new Comprehensive Plan . City of Winter Springs Ordinllllce No. 2001-55 I'ae;c 4 vf s Sent By: BRO~N,WARD,SALZMAN&WEISS,P_A.; 407 425 9596; Nov-14-01 12:50PM; Page 8/9 \ \ l11ay be issued Or commenced hefore it has becom~ effccli vc. If a final order of nont:Ompliance is issued by the Administration Commission. the new Comprehensive Plan may nevertheless be made dfective by adoption or a resolution affirming its effective status, After and from the effective dale of the new Comprchcnsi ve Plan set l<ll1h herein shall have (he legal status of the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Winter Springs. " ADOPTED by the City Commission of the City of Wimer Springs, folorida, in a regular meeting assemhled on the _'_ day of ,2002. A1TEST: PaufP.Pnrtyka,~ayor Andrt:n Lorenzo-Luacc~, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM AND SUFFICIENCY FOR THE CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS ONLY: Anthony A. Cargnncse, City Attorney First Reading: Second Reading: Effccti ve Date: f:\doc;\Cily of Winter $prillg.&\OnJinances\EAR-COllll' Plun ()rdinWlcc 2001-55 Cjty of Winter Springs OrJinancc Nn,200 1-2/l ~ I'-ac 5 of 5 Sent By: BROWN,WARD,SALZMAN&WEISS,P.A.; 407 425 9596; Nov-14-Ql 12:51PM; EXlHBIT "A" NEW WINTF.R SPRINGS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Page 9/9 ,\ ,t ATTACHMENT B , , ~ JEB BUSH Governor STEVEN M. SEIBERT. Secretary February 14, 2002 Hanarable Paul p, Partyka, Mayar City af Winter Springs 1126 East State Raad 434 Winter Springs, Flarida 32708-2799 lt~ q~l2c I , ~I'V~~ FE" I [J l 9 200 City 0 2 COrn, F'vi/INrI:;: nUlJily 0 R SPR eVelo INGs Pfl1efJt Dear Mayar Partyka: The Department has campleted its review afthe prapased Camprehensive Plan Amendment far the City af Winter Springs (DCA No.. 02-1ER), which was received by the Department on December 11, 2001. Capies af the propased amendment have been distributed to. the appropriate state, regiallal and lacal agencies far their review and their camments are enclased. I am enclasing the Department's Objectians, Recammendatians and Camments (ORC) Repart, issued pursuant to. Rule 9J-l1.01O, Flarida Administrative Co. de (F.A.C.). The issues. identified in this ORC Repart include a lack af infarmatian regarding what specific changes are propased far the City's Future Land Use Mapalang with the data and analysis to. suppart such changes, the lack of percentage distribution standards far Mixed Use and Greenway Interchange future land use ca.tegories, and a lack af supparting data and analysis far prapased provisions of the plan that increase densities in the High Density Residential future land use category and the allawance of a density and intensity banus without adequate criteria for their application. Upan receipt of this letter, the City afWinter Sp~ngs has 120 days in which to. adopt, adapt with changes, or determine that the City will nat adapt the propased amendment. The process far adaptian of lacal gavernment camprehensive plan amendments is autlined in s. 163.3184, Flarida Statutes, and Rule 9J-I1.0 II, F.A.C. .;; 2555 S HUM ^ H 0 a ^ K '8 a U LEV ^ RD. T ^ L L ^ H ^ SSE E. F La RID ^ J 2 J 9 9 - 21 00 Phonc: (050) 400-04GG/Suncorn ?70-04GG FAX: (050) 9?1-0701/Suncom 291-0781 Intcrnet addrc55: I1tlp://ww\f/.dc<J.51<Jle.rl.us CHlTIC^L 5TATE COIICEHII r-IEI.O Or-FICE COMMUNITY PLNWING ~79r; OV':(";':.H IIlOhW:J"{. SUllr: ?: 1]. 2~~S ShIJ(f\Hd 0.11{ BoulCViJt(j EME:flGENCY MNl^GEI.'E'H ?~~5 SlIumlfd OJ.... c.oulf:.";l(d /lOUSING I'. COMMU/lfTY OEVELOPMENT 2~55 $hvo'O(d Oa'< Q.ouICv:J(d \ \ \ Honorable Paul P. Partyka, Mayor February 14,2002 Page Two Within ten working days of the date of adoption, the County must submit the fo,llowing to the Department: Three copies of the adopted comprehensive plan amendments; A copy of the adoption ordinance; A listing of findings by the local governing body, if any, which were not included in the ordinance; A listing of a<iditional changes not previously reviewed; and, A statement indicating the relationship of the additional changes to the Department's Objections, Recommendations and Comments Report. The above amendment and documentation are required for the Department to conduct. a compliance review, make a compliance determination and issue the approp.riate notice of intent. In order to expedite the regional planning council's review of the amendments, and pursuant to Rule 9J-11.011(5), F.A.C., please provide a copy of the adopted amendment directly to the Executive Director of the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council. Please be advised that the Florida Legislature amended Section 163.3184(8){b), Florida Statutes, requiring the Department to provide a courtesy illformation statement regarding tlte Department's Notice ofltlteltt to citizens who fumish their names and addresses at the local government's plan amendment transmittal (proposed) or adoption hearings. In order to provide this courtesy information statement, local govemments are required by the law to furnish to the Department the names and addresses of the citizens requesting this information. This list is to be submitted at the time of transmittal of the adopted plan or plan amendment. As discussed in our letter sent to you Oil May 25, 2001, outlining the changes to Section 163.3184(8){b) which are effective July 1, 2001, and providing a model sign-in illformation sheet, please provide these required names and addresses to the Department when you transmit your adopted amendment package for compliallce revielv. For efficiency, Ive encourage that the illformalioll sheet be provided ill electronic format. .:; "- ~ Honorable Paul P. Partyka, Mayor February 14,2002 Page Three I would be pleased to alTange a visit to Winter Springs to work with your staff and consultants to help resolve the issues discussed in the ORC Report in order to facilitate the adoption of the proposed amendments. Please contact Russell Grace, Planner IV, at Us50) 922- 1794 or Brenda Winningham, Community Program Administrator at (850) 922-1800, to coordinate this visit, of if we can be of assistance in any way as you formulate,your respCJnse to this Report. ,- Sincerely yours, ~}0~ )/V7 ~ ~~l Je'/\.. Charles Gauthier, AICP Chief, Bureau of Local Planning Enclosures: Objections, Recommendations and Comments Report Review Agency Comments cc:~Gharles'G/;Carrington~ AICP, City of Winter Springs Community Development Department Sandra S. Glenn, Executive Director, East Central Florida Regional Planning Council .; .~. . FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS \ , ~. OBJECTIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND COMMENTS FOR ,- CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT 02-1ER February 14,2002 Division of Community Planning Bureau of Local Planning , ., ~ \ lNTRODUCTfON The following objections, recommendations and comments are based upon the Department's review of the City of Winter Springs proposed amendment to their comprehensive plein pursuant to s.163.3184, Florida Statutes (F.S.). Objections relate to specific requirements of relevant pO!iions of Chapter 9j-5, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.), and Chapter 163, Part IT, F.S, Each objection includes a recommendation of one approach that might be taken to address the cited objection. Other approaches may be more suitable in specific situations. Some of these objections may have initially been raised by one of the other external review agencies. If there is a difference between the Department's objection and the external agency advisory objection or comment, the Department's objection would take precedence. Each ofthese objections must be addressed by the local government and corrected when the amendment is resubmitted for our compliance review. Objections which are not addressed may result in a determination that the amendment is not in compliance, The Department may have raised an objection regarding missing data and analysis items which the local government considers not applicable to its amendment. If that is the case, a statement justifying its non-applicability pursuant to Rule 9J-5.002(2), F.A.C., must be submitted. The Department will make a determination on the non-applicability of the requirement, and if the justification is sufficient, the objection will be considered addressed. The comments which follow the objections and recommendations. section are advisory in nature. Comments will not form bases ofa determination of non-compliance. They are included to call attention to items raised by our reviewers. The comments can be substantive, concerning planning principles, methodology or logic, as well as editorial in nature dealing with granunar, , organization, mapping, and reader comprehension. Appended to the back of the Department's report are the comment letters from the other state review agencies and other agencies, organizations and individuals. These comments are advisory to the Department and may not form bases of Departmental objections unless they appear under the "Objections" heading in this report. , , \ \ 0I3JECT10NS, RECOMiVIENDAT10NS, AND COiVIMENTS REPORT CITY OF WINTER SPRlNGS PROPOSED AMENDMENT 02-lER CONsrSTENCY WITH CHAPTERS 9J-5 AND 9J-l L F.A.C., AND CHAPTER 163. 'p,s. .. The Department identifies the following objections, recommendations and comments to the proposed amendment. 1. OBJECTIONS A. Future Land Use Map 1. General Revision to the Future Land Use Map: The City is proposing a new future land use map in its entirety, but has failed to indicate which properties are proposed to be changed to a different future land use category, and has not provided the data and analysis to support any potential impacts on public facilities and natural resources of those specific changes. It therefore cannot be determined where or to what extent the future land use map has been revised when compared to the currently adopted future land use map. Thus, the proposed Future Land Use Map in its entirety (including all specific proposed changes) has not demonstrated consistency with requirements in Chapter 163.3177(6)(a), Florida Statutes (F.S.), and with Rule 9J-5.006(3)(b)l, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.), to support the map with appropriate data and analysis on allocation, impacts to natural resources, and to coordinate land uses with appropriate site characteristics and facilities and services. Based on a comparison of the proposed and existing Future Land Use Map, it appears that the City is proposing to designate properties in the East Rural Area (Weaver, Minter, and Carroll properties) to Low Density Residential. These properties appear to contain wetland areas which are designated Conservation in the County. The sites are also within the County's Rural Area Boundary. Adequate data and analysis was not provided demonstrating that the proposed uses for the eastern area are suitable for the proposed sites, compatible with surrounding land uses, needed to accomodate the'projected population, will not result in the promotion of urban sprawl, nor that the City has adequate public facilities available to serve the area with the proposed use. Section: 163.3177(3), 163.3177(6)(a), 163.3177(8), and 163.3187(2), F.S, Rule: 9J-5.005(2), 9J-5-005(5), 9J-5.006(3)(b), 9J-5,006(4), f,A.C. ,." ",' .\ \ \ ,\ Recommendation: Provide a future land use map or maps that indicate what propeliies are proposed to be re- designated, and for each of these changes, provide data and analysis regarding 1) the location of the amendment site including a map clearly identifying the boundaries of the site on an individual amendment basis; 2) individual acreage amounts for each amendment identifying the acreage for each of the current future land uses and the reciprocal acreage for the adopted amendments. The data and analysis should be clear on the amount of acreage and the type of current land use each individual amendment is converting and clearly identify the land u~,e category and acreage for the adopted land use; 3) the existing land use onsite, specifically, the character of the property, for example is it vacant or developed, and if developed what type of development currently exists on the site. The data and analysis to address the impacts from the change in land use should include a public facilities analysis based on the maximum density or intensity allowed, and analysis of the suitability of the proposed land use for the site related to natural resources and compatibility with adjacent land uses. If the amendment is projected to increase demand or impacts then the amendment should explain how this increase is addressed consistent with the goals objectives and policies of the comprehensive plan, Include a demonstration of how each amendment is internally consistent with the overall goals, objectives and policies of the comprehensive plan including whether the amendment is consistent with goals, objectives and policies on limiting urban sprawl. B. Future Land Use Element 1. Mix of Uses: The City does not establish the percentage distribution among the mix of allowed uses within the proposed Mixed Use and Greenway Interchange future land use categories or other objective measurement that ensur~s a balanced mix of land uses based on data and analysis will be achieved. The proposed plan also lacks specific language on what types of land uses wiUbe allowed beyond stated density and intensity standards. Section: 163.3 1 77(6)(a), F.S. Rule: 9J-5.006(4)(c), F.A.C. Rccommcndation: The City provides specific language under Goal 2 and corresponding olJjectives and policies concerning mixed t~se standards associated with the TOIVII Cel/ler [utdre land Lise , , , \ category. The City should revise the proposed A/fixed Use and Creenway Interchange future land use designation to include specifically what the allowed land uses are, along with standards that regulate the percentage distribution of the range of allowed uses in a manner similarly applied to the Towll Center deslgnation. The range of uses and percent distribution should be based on relevant c1ata and analysis, 2. High Density Residential I. Proposed Policy 1,1,1 provides for a maximum residential density in the .!iigh Denlsity Residential future bnd use category at 21 units per acre. The current plan caps this density ().t 12 units per acre. The City has not provided data and analysis that supports this proposed increase or has indicated what potential impact this change might have on properties currently designated High Density including impacts on public facilities and natural resources. Section: 163,3177(8), F.S. Rule: 9J-5.005(2), 9J-5.006(2)(a) F.A,C. Recommendation: Provide an analysis of the lands currently designated High Density on the Future Land use Map to determine the extent of acreage with this designation, and how much of this acreage is , developed, undeveloped, and the potential for re-development based on the proposed density standard of 21 units per acre, Once this is determined, conduct a public facilities analysis based on the additional demand, and a site suitability analysis to determine potential impacts on natural resources. Unless the data and analysis is found to clearly support the proposed density standard, the City should retain the existing standard of 12 units per acre. 3. Policy 1.1.6 - Density Bonuses: This proposed policy allows up to a 25% increase of the maximum permitted density and intensity for all future land use categories where "exceptional provisions" in site design are made. The proposed bonus has the potential to significantly increase the number of units and. development intensity on a particular site without any meaningful standards and thus lacks guidance to the land development regulations, or any suitability analysis to show that the site can support this increase above the maximum allowed. The City also has not supported this policy with data and analysis to indicate that this directive is needed, and what potential impacts on allocation, public facilities, and natural resources it might have. Section: 163.3177(8), F.S. Rule: 9J-5.005(2), 9J-5,OOG(2)(a) F,A.C. , .. c\ Recommendation: \ \ Conduct an analysis to determine what impacts a 25% density bonus beyond the maximum permitted standard will be on public facilities, natural resources, and site suitability, and, is consistent with density and intensity use allocations, Should the data and analysis clearly support this provision, the City should then revise the proposed policy to more clearly ~ndicate under what circumstances a project may be awarded the bonus density or intensity. Fur-ther, a provision should be included stating that such increases in density must still be consistent with , the comprehensive plan goals, objectives, and policies, and that the site can accqmmodate. the additional density and intensity without adverse impacts to public facilities, traffic circulation, natural resources, and land use compatibility. II. COMMENTS A. Future Land Use Element 1. Policy 1.4.3 .; Intense Development Outside of Utility Service Area: Proposed Policy 1.4.3 would allow "intense development" outside of the established utility service areas if alternative service delivery systems are provided. The use of such delivery systems have historically resulted in the proliferation of urban sprawl and is therefore in conflict with corresponding Objective 1.4 (preventing urban sprawl). The policy should be revised to remove this conflicting. 2. .Joint Planning Agreements Policy 1.8.1 of the Future Land Use Element is proposed to be changed in a manner that will lessen its enforceability and measurability. This policy addresses the joint planning agreement process with Seminole County, and has eliminated the date by which a lP A is to be entered into, and has taken out the directive of "shall" and replaced with "may." The County has objected to the City's proposed changes and provided a suggested alternative as follows: By January 1,2003, the City and Seminole County shall enter into ajoint interlocal planning agreement (JP A) to address, at a minimum, future annexations, provision of services and facilities and land use compatibility in the East Rural Area of Seminole County. The JPA shall also include agreement on future densities and intensities of properties that may be annexed to protect the rural integrity of and discourage urban sprawl into the County's Rural Arca and the area know as "Black Hammock,." The IPA shall set forth a procedure for rcso!ution of any future conflicts and/or disputes, shall include criteria for when and how the urban uo'undary can be .~.:. .' amended and include standards for cut through [ra ffie. The City should consider the County's position on this issue and revise the proposed policy accordingly. The County also suggested that the City's annexation of enclaves be part of a IP A as discussed in Future Land Use Element Policy 1.8,2 3. Historical Resources: I I I The plan indicates in its data and analysis that there are no known histori'cal or archaeological resources located within the City. However, there are occurrences within the City of archeological sites identified in the Florida Master Site File, This section should be revised to include this information, along with an ,analysis as to their significance and what, if any, additional measures of protection should be undertaken. According to the records of the Division Of Historical Resources, archeological sites are preseht within the area designated as Town Center. The City should revise or add a new policy under Goal 2 of the Future Land use Element to address these resources, Future Land Use Element Policy 1.9.2 directs the City to prohibit development that alters or damages any site or building determined to historically significant, and refers to a "register of historically significant properties maintained by the State of Florida," The state maintains the Florida Master Site File, which is a data base of statewide Occurrences of archeological sites and structures. Many of the sites have not been evaluated for significance, and is not comparable to the National Register of Historic Places. The City should revise this policy to apply to any development that might impact such resources, whether that particular site is included on the Master Site File or not. In the Housing Element Data and Analysis, the City has identified 12 structures that were built prior to 1950, and 117 buildings constructed in the 1950's. The City should include an analysis to determine the historical significance of these structures, and describe what, if any, measures need to be undertaken to ensure their protection. Housing Element Policy 2.3.2 directs the City to conduct a survey of buildings to identify those that have the potential to become historically significant. A date by which time this survey is to be completed should be included in this policy. 4. Water Resources: Policy 1.2.5 of the Future Land Use Element prohibits land uses potentially detrimental to drinking water quality within 500 feet radii of public potable water wells. To improve the enforceability of this directive, the City should consider the prohibition of rndus~oal Future Land Use designations in areas wh~re public drinking waler well fields are located. .. ~ , amended and include standards for cut through traffic. The City should consider the County's position on this issue and revise the proposed policy accordingly. The County also suggested that the City's annexation of enclaves be part of a JP A as discussed in Future Land Use Element Policy 1.8.2 3. Historical Resources: The plan indicates in its data and analysis that there are no known histori'~al or archaeological resources located within the City. However, there are occurrences within the City of archeological sites identified in the Florida Master Site File. This section should be revised to include this information, along with an,analysis as to their significance and what, if any, additional measures of protection should be undertaken. According to the records of the Division Of Historical Resources, archeological sites are present within the area designated as Town Center. The City should revise or add a new policy under Goal 2 of the Future Land use Element to address these resources. Future Land Use Element Policy 1.9.2 directs the City to prohibit development that alters or damages any site or building determined to historically significant, and refers to a "register of historically significant properties maintained by the State of Florida." The state maintains the Florida Master Site File, which is a data base of statewide occurrences of archeological sites and structures. Many of the sites have not been evaluated for significance, and is not comparable to the National Register of Historic Places. The City should revise this policy to apply to any development that might impact such resources, whether that particular site is included on the Master Site File or not. In the Housing Element Data and Analysis, the City has identified 12 structures that were built prior to 1950, and 117 buildings constructed in the 1950's. The City should include an analysis to determine the historical significance of these structures, and describe what, if any, measures need to be undertaken to ensure their proteCtion. Housing Element Policy 2.3.2 directs the City to conduct a survey of buildings to identify those that have the potential to become historically significant. A date by which time this survey is to be completed should be included in this policy. 4. Water Resources: Policy 1.2.5 of the Future Land Use Element prohibits land uses potentially detrimental to drinking water quality within 500 feet radii of public potable water wells. To improve the enforceability of this directive, the City should consider the prohibition of rndus~rial Future Land Use designations in areas wh:~re public drinking water well fields are located, .. " Future Land Use Element Policy 1.2,11 provides for a50 foot minimum upland lake ~ buffer, and Policy 1.2.13 provides a minimum 25 foot upland wetland buffer. It is not clear if these policies cover major creeks and streams, which should also retain an upland buffer. The City should consider revising policy 1.2.11 to include major streams along with lakes. B. Conservation Elcmcnt 1. Wetland Buffcr"s ,', I " Conservation Element Policy 1.4.2 directs the City to establish upland buffers to wetlands with a minimum of 15 feet and an average of25 feet. Future Land Use Element Policy 1.2.13 also addresses wetland buffers and requires a 25 foot minimum wetland buffer. These policies should be consistent with each other. C. Transportation Element 1. Transportation Analysis: Per Chapter 9J-5.019(3), F.A.C., the transportation analysis section of the comprehensive plan should address the effect of transportation concurrency management areas as well as transportation concurrency exceptions~ where applicable. If no transportation concurrency management areas exist in the City, Section b. on page II-13should be revised to include management areas as well. In Addition; the transportation analysis section of the comprehensive plan should consider the projects planned for in FDOT's adopted work program. The first state road project listed in Table II-IO (page II-33) is not included in FOOT's adopted 2002-2006 work program. As indicated in the table, the other three state road projects listed are not funded or planned by the state. Applicable projects in FDOT's work program, such as those below, should be included in the analysis. SR 15/600 (17/92) from Lake Triplet Drive to Shepard Road (add lanes and reconstruct) SR 15/600 (17/92) interchange at SR 436 SR 419 from 17/92 to SR 434 (resurface) SR 419 from Moss Road to Edgemon Avenue (add right turn lanes) SR 434 from 17/92 to SR 419 (traffic control devices/system) SR 434 from East Street to SR 419 (resurfacing) SR 434 from SR 419 to east ofTuskawilla Road (add lanes and reconstruct) 2. Policy Clarifications: Per Chapter 9J-5.019(4)(c)l, F,A.C., the City should adopt the level of~.ervice standards established by FOOT for fac~lities on the Florida Intrastate Higll\vay System (Fil-fS). SR 417 \ \ (Eastern Greeneway) is a component of the FIT-IS and should be identified as such in Policy 1.1.'1. Per Chapter 9J-5.0 19(4)( c) 10, F.A,C., the element should contain a policy which establishes numerical indicators against which the achievement of the mobility goals of the community can be measured, such as modal split, annual transit trips per capita or automobile occupancy rates, Per Chapter 9J-5.019(4)(c)16, F.A,C., the element should contain a policy which establishes measures for the acquisition and preservation of existing and future public tran!sit rights-of-way and exclusive public transit corridors. Several policies contained (n the element address the. protection and acqu.isition of rights-of-way and the public transit system, but none directly address public transit rights-of-way. 3. Future Transportation Map: Per Chapter 9J-5.0 19(5), F.A.C., the future transportation map should include the future public transit system, the maintenance responsibility for all roads, and the projected peak hour levels of service for all transportation facilities (it is not clear if public transit features shown on Map 11-3 represent both existing and future conditions). These features are not found on the maps contained in the submittal. III. 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 (10), Natural Systems, and Policies bel), b(3), b(7), and b(IO); b) Goal (16), Land Use, Policy (b)2 and (b)6 c) Goal (18), Public Facilities, Policy (b)l; d)Goal (20) Transportation, Policies (b)3, and (b)13. B. RECOMMENDATION 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.b) Goal (20) Transportation, Policies (b)J, and (b) I J, ATTACHMENT C City of Winter Springs Comprehensive Plan Objections, Recommendations & Comments Report Response Plan Element I Maps Objection I Comments Recommendation Response Future Land Use Map OBJECTION: . Provide FLUM that indicate . The proposed FLU for the General revision to the Future what properties are properties in the East Land Use Map (Proposal of proposed to be Rural Area (Minter, new FLUM & failure to redesignated & supporting Weaver & Carroll) is being indicate which properties are data & analysis. rescinded until a future proposed to be changed to a date. Any proposed different FLU category, as designated will be well as supporting data & transmitted at a later date analysis) as separate amendments. There are no FLU amendments proposed as part of the EAR-based amendments at this time. Map 1-4 is the current FLU map of the City, which incorporates all amendments (approved by DCA) since the 1992 Comprehensive Plan. Future Land Use Element OBJECTION: . Indicate allowed land uses . See ATTACHMENT A. Mix of Uses (Failure to & standards that regulate establish percentage the percentage distribution distribution among the mix of of the range of allowed allowed uses in the proposed uses. Mixed Use and Greeneway InterchanQe FLU cateqories) Plan Element I Maps Objection I Comments Recommendation Response Future Land Use Element OBJECTION: . Provide data and analysis . The maximum HiQh Residential Density to support proposed density/intensity for High (Failure to provide data and increase in high residential Density Residential in analysis that supports density and indicate what proposed Policy 1.1.1 is proposed increase from 12 to potential impact this change changed to 12 dwelling 21 dwelling units per acre) will have on public facilities units/gross acre to be and natural resources. consistent with Table 1-1, Existinq Land Use Table. Future Land Use Element OBJECTION: . Conduct analysis to . Proposed Policy 1.1.6 is Density Bonuses (Proposed determine what impacts a withdrawn in its entirety. Policy 1.1.6 fails to provide 25% density bonus beyond data & analysis to indicate the maximum permitted will the need for this directive & be on public facilities, the potential impacts on natural resources, & site public facilities, natural suitability. resources, & site suitability) Future Land Use Element COMMENT: . Proposed Policy 1.4.3 is in · Proposed Policy 1.4.3 is Policy 1.4.3 Intense conflict with corresponding withdrawn in its entirety. Development Outside of Objective 1.4 (preventing Utility Service Area urban sprawl) & should be (Proposed Policy 1.4.3 would revised to eliminate conflict. allow intense development outside of established utility service areas if alternative service systems are provided) Future Land Use Element COMMENT: . Revise Proposed Policy . Policy 1.8.1 adequately Joint Planninq Aqreements 1.8.1 to include language addresses the pursuit of a (Proposed Policy 1.8.1 would suggested by Seminole Joint Planning Agreement. lessen enforceability & County. measurability by eliminating data by which JPA is to be entered into and by replacing the directive of "shall" with "may" Future Land Use Element Housing Element Plan Element I Maps Objection I Comments Recommendation Response COMMENT: Historical Resources (Failure of plan to indicate known archaeological sites identified in the Florida Master Site File and failure to identify sites that have potential to become historically significant) . Revise Proposed Policy 1.9.2 (Future Land Use Element) to include archaeological sites identified in the Florida Master Site File, along with analysis as to their significance & measures of protection that should be undertaken . Revise Proposed Policy 2.3.1 (Housing Element) to provide a date by which time a survey of buildings to identify historically significant structures will be completed. . Proposed Policy 1.9.2 (Future Land Use Element) is revised to state, "Development shall be prohibited which damages any site or building determined to be either historically or archeologically significant, as designated on the state's register of historically significant property. The City may adopt standards in addition to those of the State. . Proposed Policy 2.3.1 (Housing Element) is revised to state, "The City shall conduct a survey of buildings by December 2003 to identify those that have the potential to become historical or siQnificant structures. n Plan Element I Maps Objection I Comments Recommendation Response Future Land Use Element COMMENT: . Revise Proposed Policy . Proposed Policy 1.2.5 is Water Resources (Failure of 1.2.5 to improve revised to state, Proposed Policy 1.2.5 to enforceability by prohibiting 'Wellheads. Industrial protect Industrial FLU Industrial FLU designations Future Land Use designations in areas where in areas where public designations shall not be public drinking water well drinking water well fields permitted within a fields are located) are located wellhead protection area, as defined bv State law." Conservation Element COMMENT: · Proposed Policies 1.4.2 . Proposed Policy 1.4.2 is Future Land Use Element Wetland Buffers (Conflict (Conservation Element) & revised to state, "By between Proposed Policies 1.2.13 (Future Land Use January 2003, the City 1.4.2 & 1.2.13) Element) should be made shall require within its consistent to address Code of Ordinances minimum wetland buffers minimum upland buffers of twenty-five feet (25') from the edge of the wetland." . Proposed Policy 1 .2.13 is revised to state, "Wetland Buffers. The minimum vegetative cover buffer required upland from a wetland is twenty-five feet (25'). Transportation Element COMMENT: . Revise plan to include . See ATTACHMENT B. Transportation Analvsis management areas if no (Failure to address the effect concurrency management of transportation concurrency areas exist management areas & · Revise plan to consider transportation concurrency projects planned for FOOT's exceptions in the work program Transportation Element) Plan Element I Maps Objection I Comments Recommendation Response Transportation Element COMMENT: · Revise Proposed Policy . See ATTACHMENT C. Policv Clarification (Failure to 1.1.1 to identifyS.R. 417 adopt LOS established by (Eastern Greeneway) as a FOOT for facilities on Florida component of the Florida Intrastate Highway System & Intrastate Highway System) failure to address protection . Revise element to include & acquisition of public transit policy which establishes ROW) numerical indicators against which achievement of mobility goals of city can be measured . Revise element to include policy which establishes measures for acquisition & preservation of existing & future public transit ROW & exclusive public transit corridors Transportation Element COMMENT: . Revise Map 11-3 to include . The title of Map 11-3 is Future Transportation Map future public transit system, revised to read, "Existing (Failure to include future maintenance responsibility and Future Public Transit transportation map indicating of all roads, & projected System; Major Traffic future public transit system, peak hour LOS for all Generators. " maintenance responsibility of transportation facilities . Table 11-1 shows roadway all roads, & projected peak maintenance hour LOS for all responsibility . transportation facilities) . Table 11-8 shows peak hour LOS for all transportation facilities. Plan Element I Maps Objection I Comments Recommendation Response Transportation Element OBJECTION: Inconsistency with State Comprehensive Plan (Proposed plan is inconsistent with Goals 10, 16, 18, & 20 of the State Comprehensive Plan) . Revise plan to be consistent with above COMMENTS for the Transportation Element · See ATTACHMENTS B through C and above responses to Transportation comments. ATTACHMENT A GOAL 3: Greeneway Interchange. The City of Winter Springs hereby creates a Greeneway Interchange land use category to target and attract a limited variety of regional land uses and intensities in order to provide employment opportunities and an increased tax base. Objective 3.1: Location. The Greeneway Interchange area shall be located in close proximity to the Central Florida Greeneway (State Road 417). The Greeneway Interchange area should be a compact area in close proximity to the intersection of State Road 417, as depicted on the City's Future Land Use Map. Policy 3.1.1: From time to time, the City Commission may revise the Future Land Use Map to designate land "Greenway Interchange" consistent with this Objective. Policy 3.1.2: From time to time, the City Commission may adopt appropriate transportation maps to identify future roads and traffic patterns related to the Greeneway Interchange that assure best routes through, and safe and convenient access to, land while attempting to maximize development potential and opportunities consistent with the Greeneway Interchange Goal. The final location of future roads within the Greeneway Interchange area will be determined by the City during the development procedure. Objective 3.2 Land Uses. The intent and purpose of the Greeneway Interchange is to attract regional businesses which will afford employment opportunities to the citizens of Winter Springs and which will increase the City's tax base. Policy 3.2.1: Through the adoption of land development regulations, land uses within the Greeneway Interchange shall be limited to hotels, convention centers, professional training facilities, professional office parks, restaurants, and educational and research facilities. Additional regional-type commercial uses may be added by the City Commission as a conditional use provided the use complies with this Objective. Policy 3.2.2: Through the adoption of land development regulations, medium to high density residential uses may be added by the City Commission as conditional uses, but shall not be required. If added and approved during the development review process, medium to high density residential uses shall be incidental to existing Greeneway Interchange uses set forth in Policy 3.2.1. Medium to high density residential uses shall not be permitted within the Greeneway Interchange area until such time as at least thirty percent (30%) of the developable Greeneway Interchange land has been developed with the uses set forth in Policy 3.2.1. Medium to high density residential uses shall not occupy more than twenty-five percent (25%) of the developable land designated Greeneway Interchange. Policy 3.2.3: Professional office parks shall be limited to providing professional-type services, such as financial, high-tech, educational and research, data processing, communications, engineering, architectural, legal, real estate, and medical laboratories. Objective 3.3 Private/Public Investment. The City shall encourage and promote regional businesses to invest and locate on land designated Greeneway Interchange. Policy 3.3.1 To the extend financial resources are available, public money should be spent as a catalyst to encourage private investment within the Greeneway Interchange area. In coordination with private development, the City may undertake such capital improvements for public infrastructure and provide economic incentives as identified in Town Center Policies 2.1.5 and 2.1.6. Objective 3.4 Compatibility of Uses. Through the adoption of land development regulations and the development review process, the City shall require that the land uses within the Greeneway Interchange area be compatible. Policy 3.4.1: Alternative modes of transportation shall be required to encourage pedestrian circulation and compatibility of land uses. Policy 3.4.2: Tracts of land shall be developed as a whole to provide continuity among the various land uses and to create a compact and walkable living environment and workplace. Policy 3.4.3: Transitional uses are required to protect lower intensity and density uses from more intense and dense uses. Building heights must be stepped down adjacent to lower intensity and density uses. Policy 3.4.4: The City Commission may require a Master Plan for the Greeneway Interchange area to ensure compatibility of land uses and compliance with Goal 3. GOAL 4: Mixed Use. The City of Winter Springs seeks to promote a Mixed Use category, which provides for a variety of land uses and intensities within a development site to preserve conservation areas, reduce public investment in service provision, encourage flexible and creative site design, and provide public amenities with area wide benefits. Objective 4.1: Location. The Mixed Use category shall be located proximate to major transportation corridors as depicted on the City's Future Land Use Map. Policy 4.1.1: From time to time, the City Commission may revise the Future Land Use Map to designate land "Mixed Use" consistent with this Objective. Objective 4.2: General Uses and Intensities. Through the enactment of creative and flexible land development regulations and master planning design standards, permit a variety of mixed uses consistent, compatible and in harmony with the Mixed Use Goal, including low, medium and high density residential; commercial (retail and office); light industrial; educational facilities; recreational facilities; and compatible public facilities. Policy 4.2.1: As part of the master planning process, an appropriate set of uses and distribution of uses will be established unique to each that development that will allow no more than 75 percent of anyone type of land use to dominate the Mixed Use category. Policy 4.2.2: A minimum of ten (10) acres shall be required to develop a site in the Mixed Use category. Policy 4.2.3: The City may require a Master Plan, Development Agreement, and Planned Unit Development Zoning, unique to each development, to ensure that tracts of land are developed as a whole throughout the Mixed Use category to provide continuity among the various land uses and create a compact and walkable environment. ATTACHMENT B b. Transportation Concurrency Management Areas and Concurrency Exception Areas Chapter 163, F.S., and 9J-5.0055(5), F,A.C., allow the option of exempting certain developments from the transportation concurrency requirements if a project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan, if an areawide level of service standard is established and maintained for certain facilities and transportation concurrency management areas are depicted on the future conditions map. Chapter 163, F,S., and 9J-5.0055(6), F.A.C., allow the option of exempting certain developments from the transportation concurrency requirements if a project is consistent with the comprehensive plan; promotes public transportation; or is within an area designated for infill development, redevelopment, or downtown revitalization. The City of Winter Springs does not have any designated Transportation Concurrency Management Areas or Transportation Concurrency Exception Areas. Tables II-9 and II-10 of the Transportation Element is revised to incorporate all programmed and planned highway system improvements, based on the most recent schedules as of April 2002. . CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TRANSPORTATION ELEME~~T Table II- 9: Programmed and Planned Highway System Improvements Roadway Seqment Improvement Proqrammed' Planned 2,4 SR 419 Edgemon to Moss Turn Lanes 2002 S.R.434 US 17-92 to SR 419 Traffic Control 2002 Lake Drive Seminola Boulevard to Add 2 Lanes 2002-2005 I Tuskawilla Road I Moss Road S.R. 434 to S.R. 419 Add 2 Lanes 2000-2005 Red Bug Lake SR 436 to Eagle Circle Widen to 6 2000-2005 Rd Lanes Seminola Blvd, -'US 17-92 to Lake Drive Widen to 6 2015 Lanes S.R. 434 U.S. 17-92 to S.R. 419 Add 2 Lanes 20102.3 (Removed in 4 below) (6 Total) S.R. 434 S.R. 419 to Eastern Add 2 Lanes 20102.3 Beltway (6 Total) (Removed in 4 below) U,S. 17-92 Shepard Road to Airport Add 2 Lanes 20102.4 Boulevard SR 426 County Line to Widen to 6 2015 Greeneway Lanes 1. Contained in construction program of FOOT or Seminole County, 2, Contained in OUATS 2010 Plan Update (Adopted Highway Needs Network), Not in current 2020 Long Range Transportation Plan Update. 3. Latest date based on need. This applies to all "2010" numbers in this column. 4. 2020 Long Range Transportation Plan. Source: CPH Engineering, Inc., February 2001. Il-32 . City of Winter Springs Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element Table II-9: Programmed and Planned Roadway System Improvements. (Revised) Roadway Segment Improvement Programmed' Phlllned2.,J FDOTWORK PROGRAM 2002-2006 S.R,419 Edgemon ~~$-.'\ \'c, :\del NB right turn ~r:Y 0.'\/04 lanes & sij!nal nlids) S.R.41') U,S, 17.9'2 to S,R, 4.'\.:1 Resurfacing FY 02/0.1 (const.) S, R. .1.>4 \'israwilla Drive Tr:ll'fie signal FY 02/0.1 (eonst.) I S,R. 434 US 17.92toS,R419 Traffic control ~F'y' 02/03 deviccs/ s)'stcm (const) S,R. '13'1 US 17 92 to S.R -119 . \del 2 lanes (6 totRI) ~B (Rcmo ,'cd il: 'I be~ S,R, 434 S,R, 419 to East of Tuskawilla Add Lanes and FY 02/03 (ROW) Rd, Reconstruct S,R. 434 East of Tuscawilla Rd, Cross Seminole Trail FY 02/03 overpass S.R. 434 East St. to S.R, 419 Resurfacing FY 02/03 (const) V.S, 17-92 Lake Triplet Dr. to Shepard Rd, Add lanes and FY 02/03 (ROW, reconstruct RR & Vtil.) S,R.nl S.R, '119 to ERstcrn Bclt\.-ay .\dd 21allcs (6 toht!J ~B (Rcmo ,'cd in 'I below) S.R, '126 Getmr)' Linc to C rccncwRY \X'iden to G lancs ~ SEMINOLE COUNTY CIP (FY 01/02 to 05/06) Lake Drive Seminola Blvd,to Tuskawilla Add 2 lanes for total 20022005 FY 01 /02 Rd, of4 (RO\\! & const,) Red Bug Lake Rd. S.R. 436 to Eagle Cir. Widen to 6 lanes 20002005 FY 01 /02 to Fl' 04/05 ;"{os.; Rond S.R. 131 to S.R. 41-9 . ',dd 2 lancs 2000 2005 BASED ON NEED* Seminola Blvd, U,S. 17-92 to Lake Dr, Widen to 6 lanes 2015 V,S. 17-92 Shepard Rd. to Airport Blvd, Add 2 lanes 2010 * As determined b)' CPH, l.Contained in constru€ti6n progm~FDaT or Scminole County. 2,Contained in au.' TS 20 I 0 Plan Update (. 'dortcd High NU)' t'-Jceds Nct\vorlt). t'-~ot in currcnt 2020 Long Rungc ~l:lpeffil+.ieft-llhm-Yp4tre., 3.Latc:;t dlltc b1l3Cd on lIced. '[hi.; lIpplies te-?t!1 "2010" f1l1mberJ in this colllfflfr ~Of1!; Range Trall:l~ Source: CPI I Engineering, Inc., February 2001. FDOT Work Program 2002-2000 (Adopted); Seminole COllnty'S Capital Improvements Program 200l /02 - 'JOOS/Go; land Design Innovations. Inc.. I\pril 2002. II-32 CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT Table II- 10: Year 2010 Road Needs (Developer and Other Funding) Local Developer 1. Improve Tuskawilla Road north of SR 434 (formerly Brantley Avenue), (Switch to Impact Fee Funding) 2. Improve Spring Avenue (existing dirt road) with drainage and paving improvements. County. 1, Improve Shepard Road to three (3) lanes from U,S. 17-92 to Sheoah Boulevard. (County portion) Note: This project is not funded or planned by the County. 2, . Improve East Lake Drive from two (2) lanes to four (4) lanes, (Under design)* State" 1. Improve U.S. 17-92 from Seminola Boulevard to SR 419 from four (4) lanes to six (6) lanes. (Construction for six [6J lanes completed to Shepard.) Six (6) lanes are planned in the 2020 Long Range Transportation Plan,. 2. Improve SR 434 from U.S, 17-92 to Moss Road from five (5) lanes to seven (7) lanes. Note: This project is not funded or planned by the State. It was in the previous OUATS 2010 Plan Update. It is not in the current 2020 Long Range Transportation Plan Update. 3, Improve SR 434 from SR 419 to Eastern Beltway from four (4) lanes to six (6) lanes. Note: this project is not funded .or planned by State. It was in the previous OUATS 2010 Plan Update. It is not in the current 2020 Long Range Transportation Plan Update, 4, Improve SR 419 from SR 434 to U.S, 17-92 from two (2) lanes to four (4) lanes, Note: This project is not funded or planned by the State. NOTE: Projects 2 and 3 may not be necessary and should be watched closely to determine if capacities exceed expected projections. It appears that the City should start lobbying for improvements to SR 419 as current counts exceed the existing roadway capacity. Source: CPH Engineers, Inc., February 2001. fI-33 ,City of Winter Springs Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element Table II-10: Year 2010 Road Needs (Dc.rcloper Hnd Other Funding) Local f)e~ef 1, Improve Tuskawilla Road north of S,R, 434 (formerly Brantley Avenue). (S\\'irch to Imp"ct Fce Funding) 2, Improve Spring A venue (ex.is ting dirt road) with drainage and paving improvements. County 1. Improve Shepard Road to three (3) lanes from U.S. 17-92 to Sheoah Boulevard. (County portion) Note: This project is not funded or planned by the County. 2. Improve East Lake Drive from two (2) lanes to four (4) lanes. (U nder De~lignJ.n FDOT's \.\Iork program). State 1. Improve U.S. 17-92 from Seminola Boulevard to S.R. 419 from four (4) lanes to six (6) lanes. (Construction to six lanes completed to Shepard.) Note: Si:{ (6) lanes arc planned in the 2020 Long R.ll1ge Tran3portation PLn This proieet is not currently funded or planned by FOOT. 2. Improve S.R. 434 from U.S, 17-92 to Moss Road from five (5) lanes to seven (I) lanes. Note: The FOOT \.\Iork Program shows improvements to S,R. 434 from U,S. 17-92 to east 0 f Tuscawilla Road, I mprovemcnrs include widening and tra ffie control devices ~ project is not funded or planned by the State, It '>'v'as in the previous aLTAI'S 2010 Plan Update, It is not in the current 2020 Long Range Transportation Plan Update. 3. Improve S.R. 434 from S.R, 419 to Eastern Beltway from four (4) lanes to six (6) lanes. Note: This project is not funded or planned by the State. It was in the previoW! OUAT'S 2010 Plan Update, It i:l not in the current 2020 Long Range Transportation Plan Up~ 4. Improve S.R. 419 from S.R. 434 to u.s. 17-92 from two (2) lanes to four (4) lanes. Note: This project is not funded or planned by the State. NOTE: Projects 2 and 3 may not be necessary and should be watched closely to determine if capacities exceed expected projections. It appears that the City should start lobbying for improvements to S.R. 419 as current counts exceed the existing roadway capacity. Source: CPH Enginners, Inc.; Land Design Innovations, Inc., April 2002. II -33 @ City of Winter Springs -f,' @ , " t -L --.. ,. ' '\ . 'J",:' ~ ,., :~'r~', '} , . , ~ : , -, " , .. .' , '11 :., ---- . ,. - ,'.( i; ~, " - ,'- ., J ~' :r ... .... II" : f :, Source: ELS Engineering & Land Systems and land Design Innovations, Inc., October 2001 Map is for graphic representation purposes only; actual data must be verified by City staff. Map 1-4: Future Land Use NMAJOR ROADS " ",' LOCAL STREETS N CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY I!!!!!!IJ WATER FEATURES SS:J CONSERVATION OVERLAY FUTURE LAND USE: ~.<., Residential Rural Residential Low 'e;'1I Residential Medium n Residential High o Town Center o Greenway Interchange Q3j Mixed Use ~ Commercial Industrial Recreation " Conservation Public I Semi-Public ~ N o Miles ....(1 LAN!) DESIGN rNNOVA~,:I,?~~ ~, 1'10 Orlanda Avenue, Su;te 295 'Winter Park, Florida 327&9 '/07-975.1273 ~ City of Winter Springs I I LY.~I~:'. ~~.J =<<-r /-~ ;1 }..;::~~- 6 ,~~ ~ ( (/"r __ I~~' .' ~ L ~ ,~~" ~':~~~~;'\-.::~'.;~ ~ t~~., .._";-,~,, .:Ul- r.. !~'.J.I;' ...':. :'--~"4 ...4. . (. ,", _' .. . . :~ ~.:'). ;.,"~:..;:(.,; ~~"'~J.'~: ,.J 'J..,::> -.}, .' r, ' "'.,,- ' I'.... 1",..111['"' "'p' ';' "0" W.. \: .r:, ~ ~ ~ r ~.. ' ~ \: .~.~ ~\ = If I Ii II: ~.~;.i},CJJ:'iHJ: i~~::-!.~.-.)!!llii]~~i:3~.~' :~i': ~ 1-Y T:~~ " ~ ...;t -"'" <<'I:"'" '.'?!~lB:\i.~J\ --" ~ d.:. r", -!l r- ~ '1.\,_:'~~r.(~,(~),r;P~'IWI'''''' " \-\=\11 ...,~.,.,.;~.. ~~~;~ r._ . ..,;..:~~'" rJ/I7!l!&:~~~ ..-==:. ~t.~ ~ t." - .~:- . .~~'.,! ';";~jJf?'J '(!l}'?"i';;-~ .---:::<'(1"" 1"':h7<_''i)~'''I' ';-;':.:.: );'.<--. .':;O(;;':-'-;"C''3"" .1""1' .. ."",. -.A r.. ~ ~:! .~J." ;'~" "tt...~ ':_'. ~I~ ~~ :...~~.j.;1/=-:S~r;~~..:~ '_.4 , ~ I;, _,. '.>.:l- -, '.-, '", "')'. ." "'",' ._",0,'..'...."'- ,~. ,,_. .t : . "...... .;. "i'';, ~-l.t.~ ~.: :,.,.t h :;:. "i:'\~:.' ;.tt.:~~I'~~~;.:(~.:;......7:'...~1 ...,:.'~ ..t ~ , .~ ". _ __, . - ~I\C.l'f~h'~ ,\If.; ,~~.'.--.,......, ,.~;,. '..'...:.:I. '1::" :"":::. ':~ . \ VJ,_'~~~l':..;;;~<;1 ,....,,;;,,~I~.,.;>'}; ,..::.::;~ _ {::1\.~.~.,_,,'.:~ ;:,..~'",.,.t:-l .I-!IJ.r- .., .-, ....... _ . :-'If. r._.~. 1'~':_ "l:'"j-1"':!'..';r:r -.,,'1':;~:U"'~(i },1;<,....:1\~_, '''f t."....~,1.~~'?~::...J~....r...1..:.~-J;~i.l,.,J~~,tr- · l-..a~ b ~ ,"~;,;:'4><:;:;e!:F.~:. J, .:h', ,,,..,..',....'-,,,:','. .' ;;;'h'V" ~,;i,~-.".';:'.f . .:"j~2~'~,C'.;':-'~"1~~':r..'-",;oj.~ .., ~ . ~~ -' ~ ~~;~ $'~~'~:@~; .~. .J4: 1: ~~~;i :ti.~ ;(:~'~i;::\{'~;.~"- ~~..",~i;r;:i! [;;;T~ ;'~:...; ~,..,~.: '1~~..t ~}:' :-~;~ f~l?'~J\~1f.~J~:;~' ~'Sr ';{~ Lr I ~ ~ 1\ ~;[;.~, ",' '1'\.'"'1' ":;,, ..-, .".i'. :-1'.;' ~~!.'" ....,,>-;;.'.,'~,-'}~ "i..f<' t', ,'...;" ~.\.:;\,Ii., ,,'-" J '" \'~:X" "..'~ '--- ')_ ~ f;i~~ ~ ~J' :~~;,~.~~~~ ~~~~lr.~~~~}:~:~~~~j ~~?~~~:::.:5:~~~r~,' '1. _.. ~_',"" ~~:.;.;,~~:~~~ :~:~~~~~ ~ I.~~:. ~~~ I ,~~: c~~~;::;~t;~.!1~jny9 ~f,:;.::.,~ l.';~:' ~'j., (~i;<~\# 'I ~) '-/" f,~'~~ ;.:. 'i;\i~: ,al';~i-~~.t~~ ~ I=:t=.. ~ ~l~ I[ 1k3' It=.f.f:i\; .', ;-:-""",-"0,' ",. '~"""-""'''''''~';~ ""~,, ,.,.' ..~,o.'" ,"'...:~~". rEf ,I~ ~: 1" ~~ ~',:. ,",.,;~.' ":;"':';:, ,r,:~,:',,,:~'I. .~,~? ~::;~F,;.,~7~J ~rr'~ #~~':~'~:~:~~';.);H~:~::~~~ 'J~ ::----\ h l!f?;Jfi ",~~,,~ ;-. 5~.,.,:,';I';".:i~>":~~~?:"~~J~~~~>,:;:j::I;~.~.J~~SI '....rl ''..1r ~ ~ ~ ~'~~.,:;";~~~:-' ,."":,J;:l '.. .:,:r,iJ~'.Rf:/~~r~1$i"~~~:l"~~e'J.0~ :'i.~' "'::-'.~" ~r-- D , ~~ ~" I" ~..,-.- :' '.\' ~ . h '.', , '. ""', J' ",,~;l~:~'L :,., " ..;~ " "\~m' \ I ~f--.,: L. - "-."-L-. . . ,;j. '.,'., :....<,~ . '~"'jJ;:4.t" ~~ J . h . :.~ 1 1--1..- .__ _ J 1)'/1____ ., . '~:... ..,:.",- ", .;;$."~'"~,, .';i.:n:;".;\'i:.i .~ ..,...., ' .;'=::.", I~ - /1. ~... ,..~;~t'l.';'~~ ,~~ ,~"'Y'....~'''~.. "'I':~;:~i,[".;~" " i' :,I::'~.t r-- f--- .. r", ,.. >",.' ~ :.~'l\ ,.~,,,,~;;,_;." r' '<'iv":'" ~ \:.'l N>VJIi!1 ""- ~ T ~ '", ~la:.l"~"'f':;;'Y"'l.; ~K "',.' ~ , , " ~ ET .~ J:f"DC~I,,.'m ri- - }F?-J \ ~};~ ~r.f~). I 0.:.=n~ ~ E'Va.eJ r-, Gm TI R I ~.J 8 u~. n ~ / -!f r- ~u I ~~ ~ ~ r' r-1-=;O:\rL ~"vJ=I-=l c:t:J 1 / I r"kiI: ~ .-:11 , '~"qJ .I._.~~ 'I -I - ..... J ,I. - ~- , ~~'-- Source: Land Design Innovations, July 2001 Map is for graphic representation purposes only; actual data must be verified by City staff. Map 11-3: Existing and Future Public Transit System; Major Traffic Generators o FUTURE TRAFFIC GENERATOR 1\1 PUBLIC TRANSIT ROUTE /\I MAJOR ROADS /\I STREETS N CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY D MAJOR TRAFFIC GENERATOR _ WATER FEATURES ~ N o 1 Miles . ~(t L\ND DESIGN rNNOVA~:.2~,~ ~ ' 1'/0 O~lando Avenue, Suite Z95 \<linter Pa~k, Florida JZ789 '/07.975 -I Z73 ATTACHMENT C . The City will adopt data and analysis by ordinance, in addition to goals, objectives and policies. In the data and analysis, the City recognizes that the Central Florida Greeneway (S.R. 417) is a limited access facility and a component of the Florida Intrastate Highway System. · The following policy is added to Objective 1.5 of the proposed Transportation Element: Policy 1.5.17 By January 2004, a monitoring system will be established to measure the achievement of the City's multi-modal transportation goals. . Objective 1.4 of the Transportation Element provides policies, which establishes measures for acquiring and preserving existing and future public rights-of-way. To address public transit, the following policy is added to Object 1.4: Policy 1.4.12 The City shall designate U.S. Highway 17/92 as a mass transit corridor. ATTACHMENT D CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA 1126 EAST STATE ROAD 434 WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA 32708-2799 Telephone (407) 327-1800 Ronald W. McLemore City Manager MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: Ron McLemore, City Manager ~- DATE: May 9,2002 SUBJECT: Reduction and/or elimination of wetland buffer The purpose of an upland buffer is to reduce secondary impacts to the wetland. Secondary impacts are primarily adverse effects to visual and audible factors to wildlife. Secondary impacts also include stockpiling, dumping and/or storing of yard wastes. The most favorable buffer is an undisturbed natural vegetated area upland of the wetland in some cases, but not all. We have amended the language in the Comprehensive Plan to provide for 25-foot buffers to wetlands as you instructed. I think it would be irresponsible for me not to point out that this may not be good public policy as written. Along with the opinion of the City Attorney, I am proposing that under the following circumstances, the wetland buffer requirement of 25-foot could be reduced on a case by case basis. 1. The buffer could be reduced or eliminated as part of a wetland mitigation plan that is approved by the St. John's River Water Management District and/or the United States Army Corps of Engineers. 2. Amendments to the 25-foot buffer could be made under the following conditions: a. If the 25-foot upland buffer cannot be met for small wetlands and the only alternative is to destroy the small wetland, then the buffer requirement should be reduced or eliminated. For example, Torcaso Park. There is a small wetland approximately 0.8 acre in size adjacent to Moss Road that the City originally proposed to destroy and mitigate offsite. However, working with the St. John's River Water Management District, the City is now proposing to preserve this wetland. In order to preserve the wetland, and to maintain the overall goals and objectives of constructing a new park, a 25-upland buffer will not be possible. b. If the 25-foot upland buffer is needed for the installation of public utilities such as the construction of a water main or storm sewer, the initial impact to the buffer could be fully overcome by replanting wetland desirable species. c. If the 25- foot upland buffer would be utilized by the installation of a boardwalk or observation area so that the wetland could be used to allow the public to enjoy this amenity or for educational purposes. d. If the 25-foot upland buffer were to be replaced by an alternative buffer such as a wall, a road, or pond in situations where these buffers would be more effective in helping to prevent intrusion into the wetland by people, domestic animals, and unlawful dumping. For instance, a pond adjacent to a wetland serves as a buffer by screening daily activities from the wetland, the back side of the pond berm can also be planted to provide an additional buffer. 3. Any determination by the City to reduce or eliminate the wetland buffer must be consistent with the overall goals, objectives and policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan and must comply with applicable law. U:\Docs\Word\Memos\May 2002\Reduction & Elimination of Wetland Buffer.doc Page 2 of2 ~... " ~ ORDINANCE NO. 2001-55 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA, ADOPTING THE EV ALVA TION AND APPRAISAL REPORT (EAR) BASED PLAN AMENDMENTS TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OF THE CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA; REPEALING THE PRIOR CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IN ITS ENTIRETY AND REPLACING IT WITH A NEW COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ENTITLED "CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2001" WHICH IS ATTACHED HERETO AS EXHmIT "A"; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF PRIOR INCONSISTENT ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR INCORPORATION INTO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; PROVIDING FOR LEGAL STATUS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS AND EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, Section 163.3161 et. seq., Florida Statutes (1987) established the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act; and \VHEREAS, 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 City has conducted an evaluation and appraisal of the City of Winte( . Springs' Comprehensive Plan pursuant to Section 163.3191, Florida Statutes; and WHEREAS, during the evaluation process, the City commission determined it was in the best interests of the public health, safety and welfare of the City to update the Comprehensive Plan by adopting a new Comprehensive Plan; 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 Evaluation and Appraisal Report, the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments and DCA's ORC City of Winter Springs Ordinance No. 2001-55 Page 1 of 5 ;; Report 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 26,2001, 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 the Land Planning Agency, 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 February 14, 2002, 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 Plan amendments in compliance with Rule 9J- 5, Florida Administrative Code, and Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes; and WHEREAS, the City Commission and the Land Planning Agency have evaluated the ORC Report and have accepted the recommendations contained therein by making the necessary modifications to the Comprehensive Plan amendments originally transmitted to the Florida Department of Community Affairs in order to bring the amendments in compliance with Rule 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code, and Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 9J-I1.006, 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 May 13,2002, the City Commission of the City of.Winter Springs held a duly noticed public adoption hearing on the proposed amendments set forth hereunder and considered City of Winter Springs Ordinance No. 2001-55 Page 2 of 5 ~ findings and advice of the Land Planning Agency, 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 amendments hereunder; and WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan amendments adopted by this Ordinance comply with the requirements of the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act and the amendments are in the best interests of the public health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of Winter Springs, Florida. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, HEREBY ORDAINS 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 Statutes. Section 3. Purpose and Intent. It is hereby declared to be the purpose and intent of this Ordinance to clarify, expand, correct, update, modify and otherwise further the provisions ofthe City of Winter Springs' Comprehensive Plan. Section 4. Repeal of Prior Comprehensive Plan. The previously adopted Comprehensive Plan of the City of Winter Springs, Florida, is hereby repealed in its entirety and shall no longer be in force and effect. _ City of Winter Springs Ordinance No. 2001-55 Page 3 of 5 l. EXHIBIT "A" NEW WINTER SPRINGS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ;0- Section 5. Adoption of New Comprehensive Plan. The City of Winter Springs' Comprehensive Plan-2001, attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and fully incorporated herein by this reference, is hereby adopted and shall be given full legal status as the new Comprehensive Plan of the City of Winter Springs, Florida. 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 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 new Comprehensive Plan adopted by this ordinance, said Comprehensive Plan shall be incorporated as 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 Amendments. The effective date of the new Comprehensive Plan 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 new Comprehensive Plan in compliance with Section 163.3184, Florida Statutes. No development orders, development permits, or land use dependent on the new Comprehensive Plan may be issued or City of Winter Springs Ordinance No. 2001-55 Page 4 of 5 commenced before it has become effective. If a final order of noncompliance is issued by the Administration Commission, the new Comprehensive Plan may nevertheless be made effective by adoption of a resolution affirming its effective status. After and from the effective date of the new Comprehensive Plan set forth herein shall have the legal status of the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Winter Springs. ADOPTED by the City Commission of the City of Winter Springs, Florida, in a regular meeting assembled on the 13th day of May, 2002. PauIP.Partyka,~layor ATTEST: , \ '. ( I' .(' ...__---. '\ . ..;>,;............. ..../ '. - '''._''4_-~ .; I; Andrea Lorenz?-:-Luaces, City Clerk ../......'1 / / APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM AND SUFFICIENCY FOR THE CITY OF ~ Anthony A. Garganese, City Attorney First Reading: NOVEMBER 26, 2001 Second Reading: MAY 13, 2002 Effective Date: See Section 9. f:\docs\City of Winter Springs\Ordinances\EAR-Comp Plan Ordinance 2001-55 City of Winter Springs Ordinance No. 2001-55 Page 5 of 5