HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006 06 12 Public Hearing 201 Ord 2005-29 Lg FLU
CITY COMMISSION
ITEM 201
June 12, 2006
Meeting
Consent
Information
Public Hearin
Re ular
frMgr.~ePt~
x
REQUEST:
The Community Development Department - Planning Division requests the City Commission
hold a Public Hearing for Second Reading/Adoption of Ordinance 2005-29, a Large Scale
Comprehensive Plan Amendment, referenced as LS-CPA-06-01 which changes the Future Land
Use Map designation from "Industrial" to "Medium Density Residential" for seven (7) parcels
containing 47.27 acres, more or less, less areas 1 & 2, located between Shepard Road and Florida
Avenue and to give consideration to the Objections, Recommendations and Comments (aRC)
from the State Department of Community Affairs and the Applicant's response which includes a
Binding Development Agreement.
PURPOSE:
To change the Future Land Use Map designation for seven (7) parcels located between Shepard
Road and Florida Avenue.
APPLICABLE LAW AND PUBLIC POLICY
s. 163.3174, Florida Statutes. Local planning agency
s. 163.3184, Florida Statutes. Process for adoption of comprehensive plan or plan amendment.
s. 163.3187, Florida Statutes. Amendment of adopted comprehensive plan.
ss. 166.041(3)(c)2.b., Florida Statutes. (required advertising)
Rule 9J-11.011, Florida Administrative Code
Winter Sprin2s Charter Section 4.15 Ordinances in General
Winter Sprin2s Article III. Comprehensive Plan Amendments
Section 15-30. Authority, purpose and intent;
Section 15-36. Review criteria;
Section 15-37. Local Planning Agency Review and Recommendation
CHRONOLOGY:
Oct. 19, 2005- The Keewan Real Property Company of Winter Park, Florida, submitted a
revised application for a Large Scale Future Land Use Map Amendment for seven (7) parcels
containing 47.27 acres, more or less, less areas 1 & 2 [as described under parcel information] to
change the Future Land Use Map designation, so that it can be developed into as many as 334
residential townhouses.
June 12,2006
Public Hearing Item 201
Dec. 6, 2005- The Local Planning Agency of the City of Winter Springs held a duly noticed
public hearing, in accordance with the procedures in chapter 163, part II, Florida Statutes on the
proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment and considered findings and advice of staff, citizens
and all interested parties submitting written and oral comments and recommended Denial (3-2) to
the City Commission;
Feb. 13, 2006- The City Commission of the City of Winter Springs held a duly noticed public
hearing on the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment and considered findings and advice of
staff, citizens and all interested parties submitting written and oral comments, and after complete
deliberation, approved the amendment (4-1) for transmittal to the Florida Department of
Community Affairs;
Feb. 17, 2006- Staff transmitted the Large Scale Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use
Amendment to the State Department of Community Affairs for review.
April 24, 2006- The City received the Florida Department of Community Affairs' Objections,
Recommendations, and Comments Report (ORC Report) which included recommendations to
bring the subject Comprehensive Plan amendment into compliance with Rule 9J-5, Florida
Administrative Code and Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes.
June 7, 2006- Local Planning Agency second Public Hearing for review of Objections,
Recommendations and Comments (ORC) Report, review of the Applicant's response to the ORC
Report, and recommendation to the City Commission.
CONSIDERATIONS:
. The ORC Report indicated that the amendment was not appropriately supported by data and
analysis regarding the planning and provision of public facilities (sanitary sewer, recreation
and open space, and school facilities), land use compatibility, and land use need.
. The ORC Report included recommendations to bring the subject Comprehensive Plan
amendment into compliance with Rule 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code and Chapter 163,
Part II, Florida Statutes.
. The Applicant has met with City Staff and has prepared a Response (supported with data and
analysis) based on the State's recommendations.
. The Local Planning Agency reviewed the ORC Report, the Applicant's response, and will be
making a recommendation to the City Commission at their regular meeting on Wednesday,
June 7. [Florida Statutes do not require that the Local Planning Agency review any changes
to the proposed amendment after an ORC has been issued by the Department of Community
Affairs. However, Staff believes it is appropriate that the LP A be given the opportunity- 1)
for review of the Objections, Recommendations and Comments (ORC) Report; 2) for review
of the Applicant's response to the ORC Report; and 3) to make further Recommendation on
Adoption of the Future Land Use change to the City Commission.]
Page 2
June 12, 2006
Public Hearing Item 201
. Winter Springs has 60 days (until June 22,2006) from the ORC's Report date of receipt
(Apr. 24, 2006) to adopt the amendment, adopt the amendment with changes, or determine
that it will not adopt the amendment. The action shall be made at a public hearing.
FINDINGS: (Based on Section 15-36. Review criteria)
(1) The proposed amendment will have favorable effect on the City's budget, as the vacant land
is developed and generates tax revenue;
(2) The Applicant has substantiated that the proposed amendment will not reduce the LOS of
public facilities;
(3) The proposed use is not expected to have any unfavorable impact on the environment or the
natural or historical resources of the city or the region as a result of the proposed amendment;
(4) The proposed amendment is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the State
Comprehensive Plan set forth in chapter 187, Florida Statutes. Consistency with the East Central
Florida Regional Policy Plan, adopted by Rule 29F-19.001, Florida Administrative Code is no
longer required as this rule was repealed;
(5) The proposed amendment will not unduly burden public facilities;
(6) The proposed amendment is compatible with the surrounding residential land use to the east
and south. Adjacent properties (under different ownership to the south) remaining with an
"Industrial" land use (that were not initially part of this project) are being considered
concurrently for a small scale land use change to "Medium Density Residential" so that they
might be incorporated into this project, reducing any incompatibility that might otherwise exist.
Development of the property will include a berm with landscape and irrigation to buffer the
residential development from the adjacent industrial uses;
(7) The proposed amendment will not cause the comprehensive plan to be internally inconsistent;
(8) The proposed amendment will promote the public health, safety, welfare, economic order, or
aesthetics of the city or region; and
(9) The request is consistent with Florida Statute Chapter 163, Part II and Rule 9J-5, Florida
Administrative Code.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff requests that the City Commission accept the Objections, Recommendations and
Comments (ORC) from the State DCA along with the Modifications to the Comprehensive Plan
Amendment and Binding Development Agreement, submitted as the Applicant's Response (in
order to bring the amendments in compliance with Rule 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code and
Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes), and based on these Findings and Actions, recommends
that the City Commission hold a Public Hearing for Second Reading/Adoption of Ordinance
2005-29, a Large Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment, referenced as LS-CPA-06-01 which
changes the Future Land Use Map designation from "Industrial" to "Medium Density
Residential" for seven (7) parcels containing 47.27 acres, more or less, less areas 1 & 2, located
between Shepard Road and Florida Avenue.
ANTICIPATED IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE:
May 24,2006- Public Noticing in Orlando Sentinel for City Commission 2ND Reading/Adoption
Hearing (at least 5 days prior to adoption)
Page 3
June 12,2006
Public Hearing Item 201
June 12.2006- City Commission 2ND Reading/Adoption Hearing
June 21. 2006- Submittal to DCA for Compliance Review (within 10 days of adoption)
The ordinance would become effective after 21 days of the issues of "Notice of Intent" by the Florida
Department of Community Affairs to find the large scale comprehensive plan amendment in compliance.
[ref: 163.3184 (lO)(a) F.S.]
ATTACHMENTS:
A- Proposed Future Land Use Map, June 2006
B- Excerpts of Minutes of the P&Z/LP A Meeting of June 7, 2006 (under separate cover)
C- Public Noticing in Orlando Sentinel, May 24, 2006
D- FL. Dept of Community Affairs ORC Report
E- Applicants Response incorporating the Recommendations from the ORC Report &
Binding Development Agreement
F- Ordinance 2005-29 with Exhibit A (Map & Legal Description)
COMMISSION ACTION:
Page 4
ATTACHMENT A
Dittmer Property FLUM Change Request
Proposed FUTURE LAND USE October 2005
LEGEND
I
\
1---'--
_ Commercial
D Industrial
_ Medium Density Residential
_ Public I Semi-Public
_ Recreation
~
>
~
:r
"
i:
<Ii
::j
300
I
600
I
1,200 Feet
-".,. '"..' ^
.."""..,w
N
I
o
ITEM 201
ATTACHMENT B
Excerpt from Planning & Zoning Board
Minutes of June 7, 2006
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA ?i
UNAPPROVED DRAFT MINUTES
PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY .
REGULAR MEETING
JUNE 7, 2006
CALL TO ORDER
The Planning and Zoning Board/Local Planning Agency Regular Meeting of Wednesday,
June 7, 2006 was called to order at 7:03 p.m. by Chairperson Rosanne Karr in the
Commission Chambers of the Municipal Building (City Hall, 1126 East State Road 434,
Winter Springs, Florida 32708).
Roll Call:
Chairperson Rosanne Karr, present
Vice Chairperson Linda Tillis, present
Board Member Tom Brown, present
Board Member William H. Poe, present
Board Member Ned Voska, present
City Attorney Anthony A. Garganese, present
After a moment of silence, Chairperson Karr led the Pledge of Allegiance.
Under Agenda Changes, Chairperson Karr remarked, "There was a request to move Item
Number '204' to the beginning of the Agenda."
PUBLIC INPUT
No one spoke.
AWARDS AND PRESENTATIONS
AWARDS AND PRESENTATIONS
100. None
None.
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA
UNAPPROVED DRAFT MINUTES
PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING - JUNE 7,2006
PAGE 2 OF 11
~
.:..:. AGENDA NOTE: THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC HEARINGS AGENDA
ITEM WAS DISCUSSED NEXT, FOLLOWED BY THE REST OF THE
AGENDA, AS DOCUMENTED. .:. .:.
PUBLIC HEARINGS AGENDA
PUBLIC HEARINGS
204. Community Development Department - Planning Division
ADD-ON
Requests The Planning And Zoning Board/Local Planning Agency Hold A Second
Public Hearing Related To Ordinance 2005-29, A Large Scale Comprehensive Plan
Amendment, Referenced As LS-CPA-06-01 Which Changes The Future Land Use
Map Designation From "Industrial" To "Medium Density Residential" For Seven
(7) Parcels Containing 47.27 Acres, More Or Less, Less Areas 1 And 2, Located
Between Shepard Road And Florida Avenue And To Give Consideration To
The Objections, Recommendations And Comments (ORC) From The State
Department Of Community Affairs And The Applicants Response.
Ms. Eloise Sahlstrom, ASLA, AICP, Senior Planner, Community Development
Department spoke on this Agenda Item and stated, "Staff does recommend that you hold
a Second Public Hearing and also accept the ORC (Objections, Recommendations and
Comment Report) Report from the State along with the modification to the
Comprehensive Plan Amendment submitted as Applicant's response in order to bring the
Amendments in compliance with Rule 9J-5 Florida Administrative Code in Chapter 163
Part II Florida Statutes. Based on these findings and actions, [Staff] recommends
approval of the Planned Amendment to the City Commission - as part of the Applicant's
dedication to making sure that their proposed development would be compatible with the
surrounding uses and other concerns, they have memorialized that language in the
Development Agreement that will also be going forward to the Commission and that
Development Agreement specifically relates to the provision of open space the provision
of funding for schools, the buffer area being implemented along the west boundary."
Lastly, Ms. Sahlstrom said, "We do have a Comprehensive Plan Citizen Courtesy
Information List - it is available for you in the Lobby to sign if you want to be included
from the State as to - ifthey were to publish a Notice of Intent, you would be notified."
Chairperson Karr opened the "Public Input" portion of the Agenda Item.
Ms. Rebecca Furman, Attorney, Lowndes Drosdick Doster Kantor & Reed, P.A., 215
North Eola Drive, Orlando, Florida: spoke on behalf of the Keewin Real Property
Company and presented a PowerPoint presentation. Ms. Furman said, "The first
recommendation is to include data analysis to include sewer capacity." Ms. Furman
added, "So, that is what we included in the ORC (Objections, Recommendations and
Comments Report) response to the State."
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA
UNAPPROVED DRAFT MINUTES
PLANNING AND WNlNG BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING - JUNE 7, 2006
PAGE30Fll
~
Furthermore, Ms. Furman said, "They asked us to revise the transmittal to include data
analysis regarding recreation and open space. The Applicant has proposed in our
Developer's Agreement and the City Attorney has reviewed comments that we are
'Okay' with to provide an on-site neighborhood park. The first draft of this Developer's
Agreement is in your package. So, we would include an on-site neighborhood park and
we also worked with the City's Recreation Department, and they determined that the City
has sufficient community parks - it was mentioned by the Park's Department that the
impact fees that these units will have to pay for recreational facility will go to the build-
out ofthat land that was added."
Furthermore, Ms. Furman added, As mentioned before when we came before you, we
have agreed to make a mitigation payment to the school system of$1,235.00 per unit that
is on top of our impact fees. This is also included in the Developer's Agreement and the
School Board is satisfied that the capacity either is in some of the schools, or will be
available and that this payment will cover additional Capital costs for the student station."
Ms. Furman said, "The next is requesting analysis regarding the need for Medium
Density Residential." Ms. Furman added, "We went through the Comprehensive Plan
and your Comprehensive Plan says that you need 5,579 new housing units by 2010. It
also indicates that future growth will demand 4,474 residential acres - with the adoption
of Ordinance 2006-02 which is where the City Commission decided not to annex any
property to the east of - Deleon [Street]." Ms. Furman added, "We have also proposed as
far as compatibility - a binding Developer's Agreement to provide and it specifically
states in the Developer's Agreement it is a six foot (6') high wall on top of a five foot (5')
high berm with trees, shrubs and irrigation and that would be on our western boundary
where the commercial and the industrial properties are. We want to be good neighbors.
But, we also want our residents to enjoy where they are living." Ms. Furman said, "In
our Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for this project, we would include a notice
indicating that the properties to the west have an 'Industrial' designation."
Discussion.
Ms. Helga Schwartz, 720 Galloway Court, Winter Springs, Florida: spoke as a resident
and addressed the Board Members and is opposed to the Large Scale [Comprehensive]
Plan Amendment.
Then Ms. Schwartz spoke on behalf of the Highlands Homeowner's Association and
noted their objection to the Large Scale [Comprehensive] Plan Amendment.
Ms. Cindy Gennell, 706 Meadowbrook Drive, Winter Springs, Florida: as President of
the Wildwood Homeowner's Association, Ms. Gennell commented that their subdivision
is immediately adjacent to the proposed project and that they remain supportive and look
forward to the approval of the City Commission.
Chairperson Karr closed the "Public Input" portion of the Agenda Item.
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA
UNAPPROVED DRAFT MINUTES
PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING - JUNE 7,2006
PAGE 4 OF 11
~
"I MAKE A MOTION THAT THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
ACCEPTS ITEM '204' CHANGES OVER FROM THE INDUSTRIAL TO
MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND ADVISE THE COMMISSION FOR
THE PROJECT AS NEEDED FOR THE CITY." MOTION BY BOARD
MEMBER VOSKA. SECONDED BY VICE CHAIRPERSON TILLIS.
DISCUSSION.
VICE CHAIRPERSON TILLIS SAID, "WE SHOULD ACCEPT DCA'S
[DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS] REPORT AS WELL AS THE
APPLICANT'S MODIFICATION, BUT I AM STILL NOT CONVINCED THAT
THIS IS THE BEST USE OF THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY - CONSIDER
THIS IN TWO (2) SEPARATE PARTS; ADDRESS ACCEPTING THE DCA
[DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS] REPORT AND THE
MODIFICATION AND THE RESPONSES TO THAT, AND PERHAPS
CONSIDER SEPARATELY RE-RECOMMENDING OR AFFIRMING THE
APPROVAL OF THE PLANNED AMENDMENT TO THE CITY
COMMISSION."
CITY ATTORNEY ANTHONY A. GARGANESE SAID, "YOU WANT TO SAY
THAT THEY WERE RESPONSIVE TO DCA'S (DEPARTMENT OF
COMMUNITY AFFAIRS) OCR (OBJECTIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND
COMMENTS) REPORT AND THEN HAVE A SEPARATE MOTION AS TO
WHETHER OR NOT THIS PROJECT IS ACCEPTABLE FOR THIS
PROPERTY?" VICE CHAIRPERSON TILLIS SAID, "THAT IS CORRECT."
CHAIRPERSON KARR SAID, "THAT IS A GOOD MOTION." ATTORNEY
GARGANESE SAID, "YOU CAN GO AHEAD AND DO THAT. I THINK YOU
ARE ALREADY ON THE RECORD - RECOMMENDING DENIAL. AM I
CORRECT, ELOISE?" MS. SAHLSTROM SAID, "THAT IS CORRECT."
ATTORNEY GARGANESE SAID, "YOU CAN SAY THAT IT IS RESPONSIVE
AND NOT CHANGE YOUR PRIOR RECOMMENDATION. YOU CAN DO IT
IN TWO (2) PARTS."
VOTE:
BOARD MEMBER VOSKA: AYE
VICE CHAIRPERSON TILLIS: NAY
BOARD MEMBER POE: NAY
BOARD MEMBER BROWN : NAY
CHAIRPERSON KARR: NAY
MOTION DID NOT CARRY.
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA
UNAPPROVED DRAFT MINUTES
PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING -JUNE 7, 2006
PAGE 5 OF II
"I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE THAT WE RECOMMEND ACCEPTING THE
STATE'S DCA (DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS) REPORT AS
WELL AS THE APPLICANT'S RESPONSE, THEIR MODIFICATION -
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AS ACCEPT ABLE." MOTION BY VICE
CHAIRPERSON TILLIS. SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER BROWN.
DISCUSSION.
VOTE:
BOARD MEMBER BROWN : AYE
CHAIRPERSON KARR: AYE
VICE CHAIRPERSON TILLIS: AYE
BOARD MEMBER POE: AYE
BOARD MEMBER VOSKA: AYE
MOTION CARRIED.
"I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE THAT WE RECOMMEND THAT THE
COMMISSION DENY THE PLANNED AMENDMENT TO THE FLUM
(FUTURE LAND USE MAP) CHANGE ON THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY."
MOTION BY VICE CHAIRPERSON KARR. SECONDED BY BOARD
MEMBER BROWN. DISCUSSION.
VOTE:
CHAIRPERSON KARR: AYE
BOARD MEMBER BROWN: AYE
BOARD MEMBER VOSKA: NAY
BOARD MEMBER POE: AYE
VICE CHAIRPERSON TILLIS: AYE
MOTION CARRIED.
Attorney Garganese said, "The Board's action is that you found that the Applicant was
responsive to addressing DCA's (Department Of Community Affairs) concerns in the
ORC (Objections, Recommendation and Comments) Report, but you still do not believe
it is an appropriate land use designation?" Board Member Poe said, "That is correct."
Discussion.
Tape l/Side B
~
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA
UNAPPROVED DRAFT MINUTES
PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING - JUNE 7, 2006
PAGE 6 OF 11
PUBLIC HEARINGS
200. Community Development Department - Planning Division
Requests The Planning And Zoning Board/Local Planning Agency Hold A Public
Hearing For Ordinance Number 2006-05, A Small Scale FLUM (Future Land Use
Map) Amendment Which Changes The Future Land Use Map Designation Of Two
(2) Parcels Totaling 1.17 Acres, Located On Lake Lucerne Circle From (Winter
Springs) "Industrial" To (City Of Winter Springs) "Medium Density Residential".
Ms. Sahlstrom presented this Agenda Item and stated, "It is Staffs recommendation that
you hold a Public Hearing and make recommendation to the Commission related to this
Ordinance which would be a small scale Future Land Use Map Amendment changing the
Future Land Use Map (FLUM) designation of two (2) parcels totaling 1.17 acres located
on Lake Lucerne Circle from Winter Springs 'Industrial' to City of Winter Springs
'Medium Density Residential' ."
Chairperson Karr opened the "Public Input" portion of the Agenda Item.
Ms. Rebecca Furman, Attorney, Lowndes Drosdick Doster Kantor & Reed, P.A., 215
North Eola Drive, Orlando, Florida: briefly spoke to the Board Members.
Ms. Sahlstrom read into the Record comments from Mr. Kip Lockcuff, Director, Public
Works Department.
Ms. Sahlstrom added, "It would be Staffs recommendation that the Applicant be on
'Notice' that we do not support townhouses on these two (2) properties."
Ms. Helga Schwartz, 720 Galloway Court, Winter Springs, Florida: on behalf of the
Highland's Homeowner's Association, Ms. Schwartz noted their objection to the Small
Scale [Comprehensive] Plan Amendment for this parcel.
Chairperson Karr closed the "Public Input" portion of the Agenda Item.
Discussion.
Ms. Furman stated, "We would be willing, in the Binding Developer's Agreement, to put
something that says, 'There would not be units on this'." Ms. Sahlstrom said, "I think
perhaps just at this point in time to indicate that you are not looking to put units there,
might suffice for consideration of this Board."
~
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA
UNAPPROVED DRAFT MINUTES
PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING - JUNE 7, 2006
PAGE 7 OF 11
"I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO DISAPPROVE A SMALL SCALE
FUTURE LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT (FLUM) WHICH CHANGES THE
FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF TWO (2) PARCELS TOTALING 1.17
ACRES LOCATED ON LAKE LUCERNE CIRCLE FROM WINTER SPRINGS
'INDUSTRIAL' TO 'MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL'." MOTION BY
BOARD MEMBER POE. SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER BROWN.
DISCUSSION.
FOR CLARIFICATION, ATTORNEY GARGANESE SAID, "WOULD YOUR
OPINION CHANGE IF THERE WAS SOME WAY TO LIMIT THE
CONSTRUCTION OF ANY MULTI-FAMILY HOMES ON THIS PROPERTY?"
BOARD MEMBER POE SAID, "IT PROBABLY WOULD BUT MY OTHER
CONCERN ALSO IS THE LOSS OF INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY."
FURTHER DISCUSSION.
VOTE:
BOARD MEMBER BROWN: AYE
BOARD MEMBER VOSKA: AYE
VICE CHAIRPERSON TILLIS: AYE
CHAIRPERSON KARR: AYE
BOARD MEMBER POE: AYE
MOTION CARRIED.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
201. Community Development Department - Planning Division
Requests The Planning And Zoning Board/Local Planning Agency Hold A Public
Hearing For Ordinance Number 2006-06, A Small Scale FLUM (Future Land Use
Map) Amendment Which Changes The Future Land Use Map Designation Of One
(1) Parcel Totaling 1.72 Acres, Located At 1228 Florida Avenue From (Winter
Springs) "Industrial" To (City Of Winter Springs) "Medium Density Residential".
Ms. Sahlstrom introduced this Agenda Item and stated, "Staff recommends that the P and
Z (Planning and Zoning) Local Planning Agency hold a Public Hearing and make
recommendation to the City Commission related to Ordinance 2006-06 a Small Scale
Future Land Use Map (FLUM) Amendment which changes the Future Land Use Map
(FLUM) Designation of one (1) parcel totaling 1.72 acres, located at 1228 Florida
Avenue from (City of) Winter Springs 'Industrial' to (City of) Winter Springs 'Medium
Density Residential' ."
Discussion.
Chairperson Karr opened the "Public Input" portion of the Agenda Item.
~
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLDRIDA ~
UNAPPROVED DRAFf MINUTES
PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING - JUNE 7, 2006
PAGE 8 OF 11,
Ms. Helga Schwartz, 720 Galloway Court, Winter Springs, Florida: as a resident, Ms.
Schwartz objects to changing the designation of this parcel.
On behalf of the Highland's Homeowner's Association, Ms. Schwartz said, "We would
like you to deny moving forward with the Small Scale [Comprehensive] Plan
Amendment. "
Ms. Rebecca Furman, Attorney, Lowndes Drosdick Doster Kantor & Reed, P.A., 2i5
North Eola Drive, Orlando, Florida: briefly spoke to the Board Members.
Chairperson Karr closed the "Public Input" portion of the Agenda item.
"I RECOMMEND DISAPPROVAL OF THE SMALL SCALE FUTURE LAND
USE MAP (FLUM) AMENDMENT WHICH CHANGES THE FUTURE LAND
USE MAP DESIGNATION OF ONE (1) PARCEL OF 1.72 ACRES LOCATED AT
1228 FLORIDA AVENUE FROM WINTER SPRINGS 'INDUSTRIAL' TO (CITY
OF) WINTER SPRINGS 'MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL'." MOTION BY
BOARD MEMBER POE. SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER BROWN.
DISCUSSION.
VOTE:
CHAIRPERSONKARR: AYE
BOARD MEMBER POE: AYE
BOARD MEMBER VOSKA: AYE
VICE CHAIRPERSON TILLIS: NAY
BOARD MEMBER BROWN : AYE
MOTION CARRIED.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
202. Community Development Department - Planning Division
Requests The Planning And Zoning Board/Local Planning Agency Hold A Public
Hearing For Ordinance Number 2006-07, A Small Scale FLUM (Future Land Use
Map) Amendment Which Changes The Future Land Use Map Designation Of Two
(2) Triangular Pieces Totaling .37 Acres, Located On Shepard Road From (Winter
Springs) "Industrial" To (City Of Winter Springs) "Medium Density Residential".
Ms. Sahlstrom presented this Agenda Item and said, "Staff recommends that the P and Z
(Planning and Zoning)/Local Planning Agency hold a Public Hearing and make
recommendation to the City Commission related to Ordinance 2006-07 a Small Scale
Future Land Use (FLUM) Amendment which changes the Future Land Use Map (FLUM)
Designation of Two (2) Triangular pieces totaling .37 acres, located on Shepard Road
from Winter Springs 'Industrial' to City of Winter Springs 'Medium Density
Residential' ."
Ms. Furman stated, "We actually would like to withdraw the Request."
.' . PUBLIC HEARING.
\ FOR SECOND READING',AND ADOPTION
WILL BEH~LD ON
MONDA~JUNE 12,2006. AT 6:30P.M,'
OR SOON THEREAFTER IN THE COMMISSION, CHAMBERS
LOCATED AT TRf,WINTER SPRINGS CITY HALL
J 1126'EAST.STATERDAD434" '
, WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA
, I..' . The proposed amendment may be obtained by interested parties between
l 8 a.m. and 5 p.m" Monday through Friday, at the City's Clerk's Office,
I located at 1126 E. SR 434, Winter Springs, Florida, FormoreinfOrmation, call
; (407) 327.1800 #227. Persons with disabilities needing assistance to
participate In any of these proceedings should contact the Employee
Relatl,ons Department Coordinator, 48 hours in advance of the meeting at
(40n 327.1800, #236. This Is a public heanng. Interested parties are
advised that they may appear at the meeting and be heard with respect to the
proposed amendment. If you decide to appeal any. recommendation or
decision made by the CI~ Commission with respect to any matter
conSidered atthis mee~ng, you will need a record of the proceedings, and
for such purposes, you may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the
,proceedinos Is made UDon which the aDDealls based. '
'i i
, ~
, \
, ,
,
i
\
,
(,
J
I
I' i
I I
) ;
, I
I' I
I
:1
I
I
,1
I
,i'
I
--------~T
_-__,.,M-'.~"-,..~"<~".v--,..,........-",.,--.".~,.,...,.""'-~.......~ . .,'. "'".' "",.~"''''~._'
!;IN~:A.
1h
..
o
NOTICE OF CHANGES TO THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE CllY COMMISSION
OF THE CllYOF WINTER SPRINGS
, PROPOSES TO ADOPT:
ORDINANCE. NO, 2005.29
AN ORDINANCE Or THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS,
SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA, RELATING TO COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING; ,
SETTING FORTH' AND ADOPTING A LARGE SCALE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AMENDMENT, REFERENCED AS LS.CPA.06.01, PROVIDING FOR ADOPTION OF
; AN AMENDMENT TO THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP BY DESIGNATING CERTAIN
REAL PROPERlY WITHIN THE CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS GENERALLY
DESCRIBED AS SEVEN (7) PARCELS OF LAND, CONTAINING 47.27 GROSS
ACRES MORE OR LESS, AND LOCATED GENERALLY ALONG SHEPARD ROAD
AND NORTH OF FLORIDA AVENUE, MORE PARTICULARLY AND LEGALLY
DESCRIBED HEREIN IN EXHIBIT "A, ~ ATTACHED HERETO AND FULLY
INCORPORATED HEREIN BY THIS REFERENCE, FROM CllY OF WINTER .
SPRINGS ~INDUSTRIAL TO CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS "MEDIUM DENSITY
RESIDENTIAr; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE AND LEGAL STATUS OF THE
PLAN AMENDMENT; PROVIDING FOR TRANSMITTAL OF THE PLAN TO THE
. DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS; PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF
PRIOR INCONSISTENT ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS, SEVERABIUn AND
AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
. SUBJECT PROPERTY, LESS AREAS1.12
8
. N
I!
I
I,
I'
I
I-
I
I
o . 1Il l&l.! QI,... '.
..
i
I
. ,
I
I ~
...
8
STATE OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS
"Dedicated to making Florida a better place to call home"
JEB BUSH
Governor
April 20, 2006
THADDEUS L. COHEN, AlA
Secretary
+~
~
"I"). "',.o~ ~~
"0-:; 0-<, <' f . ~
">",,/~1t~ ~ . ~
O$:~ Q' ~
$;.: ;()""
<?c .~
'?;I\Il Q"
'?,.. ..-
The Honorable John F. Bush
Mayor, City of Winter Springs
1126 East State Road 434
Winter Springs, Florida 32708
Dear Mayor Bush:
The Department has completed its review of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment for
the City of Winter Springs (DCA 06-1), which was received on February 20,2006. Based on Chapter
163, F.S., we have prepared the attached report, which outlines our findings concerning the amendment.
It is particularly important that the City address the "objections" set forth in our review report so that these
issues can be successfully resolved prior to adoption. We have also included a copy of local, regional and
state agency comments for your consideration. Within the next 60 days, the City should act by choosing
to adopt, adopt with changes or not adopt the proposed amendment. For your assistance, our report
outlines procedures for final adoption and transmittal.
The City's proposed Amendment 06-1 consists of one amendment to the Future Land Use Map
(FLUM) to change 47.27 acres from Industrial and Conservation Overlay to Medium Density Residential
and Conservation Overlay. The Department is concerned that the amendment is not appropriately
supported by data and analysis regarding the planning and provision of public facilities (sanitary sewer,
recreation and open space, and school facilities), land use compatibility, and land use need. These issues
need to be addressed prior to adoption of the plan amendment.
If you, or your staff, have any questions or if we may be of further assistance as you formulate
your response to this Report, please contact Scott Rogers, Principal Planner, at (850) 922-1809.
n rely yours,t1
es D. StanMr
egional Planning Administrator
JS/sr
Enclosures:
Objections, Recommendations and Comments Report
Review Agency Comments
cc: Ms. Eloise Sahlstrom, Senior Planner, City of Winter Springs
Mr. Phil Laurien, Executive Director, East Central Florida Regional Planning Council
2555 SHUMARD OAK BOULEVARD TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-2100
Phone: 850.488.8466/Suncom 278.8466 FAX: 850.921.0781/Suncom 291.0781
Internet address: htto:/Iwww.dca.stale.fl.us
CRITICAL STATE CONCERN FIELD OFFICE
2796 Overseas Highway. Suile 212
Marathon. FL 33050-2227
(305) 289-2402
COMMUNITY PLANNING
2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100
(850) 488-2356
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard
Tallahassee. FL 32399-2100
(850) 413-9969
HOUSING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard
Tallahassee. FL 32399-2100
(850) 488-7956
TRANSMITTAL PROCEDURES
The process for adoption of local comprehensive plan amendments is outlined in s.
163.3184, Florida Statutes, and Rule 9J-11.011, Florida Administrative Code.
I Within ten working days of the date of adoption, the City must submit the following to
the Department:
Three copies of the adopted comprehensive plan amendment;
A copy ofthe adoption ordinance;
A listing of additional changes not previously reviewed;
A listing of findings by the local governing body, if any, which were not included in the
ordinance; 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 appropriate notice of intent.
In order to expedite the regional planning council's review of the amendment, and
pursuant to Rule 9J~11.011(5), F.A.C., please provide a copy of the adopted amendment directly
to Mr. Phil Laurien, Executive Director, of the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council.
Please be advised that the Florida legislature amended Section 163.3184(8)(b), F.S.,
requiring the Department to provide a courtesy information statement regarding the
Department's Notice ofTntent to citizens who furnish 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 governments 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 amendment (a sample Information Sheet
is attached for your use).
DEPARTMENT OF COMl\IUNITY AFFAIRS
OBJECTIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND COMMENTS
FOR
+~
~
0/>;..cf1> ~ ~
oo-?] o^'. <' f ~A
~" ~ ':>>A V
"/1- '1t~ c-V&'.-l'
oll'~& q
~II';.: \<)
C?o-?]~-},
II'I'J,.G.s-
CITY OF \VINTER SPRINGS
AMENDMENT 06-1
April 20, 2006
Division of Community Planning
Bureau of Local Planning
This report is prepared pursuant to Rule 9J-11.01O, F.A.C.
OBJECTIO~S, RECOMMENDATIONS AND COMMErltt:C
FOR f:'''e
CITY OF 'VINTER SPRINGS APR 2 I)
AlVIENDMENT 06-1 CiTy ~ 1006
c Ot: I. A '
OIl1Il1 'VIIy'r.:b
/Jnlly 0 "Sp",
eVe/o "'IyGS
Pf1)ent
I. CONSISTENCY \VITH CHAPTER 163. PART II. F.S.. AND RULE 9J-S. F.A.C.
The City's proposed Amendment 06-1 consists of one amendment to the Future Land
Use Map (FLUM) to change aA7.27 acre parcel from Industrial and Conservation Overlay to
Medium Density Residential (9 dwelling units per acre) and Conservation Overlay. The
Department raises the following objections to proposed Amendment 06,. 1:
A. FLUM Amendment
1. Obiection: The FLUM amendment is not supported by a public facilities analysis (including
assumptions, data sources, and description of methodologies used) for the five year and long
term planning timeframes addressing the following: (1) the amount of sanitary sewer demand
generated by the maximum development potential allowed by the FLUM amendment combined
with the projected five year and long term community-wide growth (background growth) in
demand for sanitary sewer; (2) the available and planned uncommitted capacity of sanitary sewer
facilities that would serve the demand; (3) the impact ofthe demand for sanitary sewer on the
projected operating level of service and impact on available and planned uncommitted capacity
of the facilities; (4) the need for sanitary sewer facilities improvements (scope, timing and cost of
improvements) or other planning alternatives to maintain the adopted level of service standards
for the facilities; and (5) coordination of any needed improvements or other planning alternatives
with the Future Land Use Element, Infrastructure Element, and Capital Improvements Elements,
including implementation through the Five-Year Schedule of Capital Improvements. The
amendments are not supported by data and analysis demonstrating that the amendments are
consistent with the following provisions of the City's Comprehensive Plan: Capital
Improvements Element Goal 1, Objective 1.1, and Policies 1.1.1, 1.1.2, 1.1.3, 1.2.1, 1.2.2, and
1.2.3.; FutureLand Use Element Objective 1.3 and Policy 1.2.3; and Infrastructure Element Goal
IV-A, Objective IV-A-l, and Policies IV,.A.;1.l, IV-A-1.6, and IV-A-!.5.
The FLUM amendment is not supported by a public facilities analysis (including
assumptions, data sources, and description of methodologies used) for the five year and long
term planning timefrarnes addressing the following: (1) the amount of recreation and open space
demand generated by the maximum development potential allowed by the FLUM amJendment
combined with the projected five year and long term community-wide growth (background
growth) in demand for recreation and open space; (2) the available and planned uncommitted
capacity of recreation and open space facilities that would serve the demand; (3) the impact of
the demand for recreation and open space facilities on the projected operating level of service
and impact on available and planned uncommitted capacity of the facilities; (4) the need for
recreation and open space facilities improvements (scope, timing and cost of improvements) or
other planning alternatives to maintain the adopted level of service standards for recreation and
open space; and (5) coordination of any needed improvements or other planning alternatives with
the Future Land Use Element, Recreation and Open Element, and Capital Improvements
Elements, including implementation through the Five-Year Schedule of Capital Improvements.
The amendment is not supported by data and analysis demonstrating that the amendment is
consistent with the following provisions of the City's Comprehensive Plan: Capital
Improvements Element Goal I , Objective 1.1, and Policies 1.1.1, 1.1.2, 1.1.3, 1.2.1, 1.2.2, and
1.2.3.; and Recreation and Open Space Element Goal I, Objective 1.1, and Policies 1.1.1 and
1.1.2.
The proposed amendment is not consistent with the following requirements: Rules 9J-
5.005(2 and 5); 9J-5.006(3)(b)l; 9J-5.006(3)(c); 9J-5.006(4); 9J-5.011(1)(a through f); 9J-
5.011(2)(a); 9J-5.011(2)(b)2;.JJ-5.011(2)(c)1 and 2; 9J-5.016(1)(a); 9J-5.016(2)(b, c, and f); 9J-
5.016(3)(b)l, 3, and 5; 9J-5.016(3)(c)1.d, l.e, I.f, and I.g; 9J-5.016(4)(a); 9J-5.015(3)(b)1 and 2;
9J-5.015(3)(c)1 and 11, F.A.C.; and Sections 163.3177(2,3, and 8); 163.3177(6)(a, c and e); and
163.3177(6)(h)1 and 2, F.S.
Recommendation: Revise the amendment to include the required data and analysis
necessary to support the FLUM amendment and demonstrate coordination of the land use with
the planning and provision of public facilities (sanitary sewer, and recreation and open space),
demonstrate coordination among plan elements (Future Land Use Element, Infrastructure
Element, Recreation and Open Space Element, and Capital Improvements Element), and
demonstrate consistency of the amendment with the Comprehensive Plan goals, objectives and
policies. Revise the amendment as necessary to be consistent with and supported by the data and
analysis.
2. Obiection: The proposed FLUM amendment increases the residential density on the subject
parcel and has the potential to increase the student population for schools. The proposed FLUM
amendment is not supported by an analysis for the five year and ten year planning timeframes of
the Comprehensive Plan addressing the following: (I) the number of students for each school
resulting from the FLUM amendment; (2) the impact ofthe FLUM amendment students on the
five year and ten year community-wide projected student enrollments and five year and ten year
planned capacity of each school; (3) the need for school facility improvements (scope and timing
of school facility improvements) or other planning alternatives to provide capacity to serve the
impacts; and (4) coordination of the amendment and school facility improvements with the
Seminole County School Board. The amendment is not supported by data and analysis
demonstrating that the amendment is consistent with the following provisions of the City's
Comprehensive Plan: Intergovernmental Coordination Element Goal 1, Objective 1.2, and
Policies 1.2.2, 1.2.3, and 1.2.5.
The proposed amendment is not consistent with the following requirements: I Rules 9J-
5.005(2 and 5); 9J-5.006(3)(c); 9J-5.006(4); 9J-5.015(3)(b)l; 9J-5.015(3)(c)1 and 12, F.A.C.;
and Sections 163.3 I 77(6)(a); and 163.3177(6)(h)1 and 2, F.S.
Recommendation: Revise the amendment to include the required data and analysis
addressing (1) coordination of the amendment with the School Board; (2) the five year and ten
year student impacts to school facilities and the capital improvements or other measures
necessary to provide school capacity to serve the anticipated school students, including analysis
of additional coordination with the School Board regarding additional school facility
improvements that may be needed; and (3) consistency of the amendment with the goals,
objectives, and policies of the City of Winter Springs Comprehensive Plan. Revise the
amendment as necessary to be consistent with and supported by the data and analysis.
3. Obiection: The FLUM Amendment is not appropriately supported by data and analysis
demonstrating the need for the additional proposed FLUM designation of Medium Density
Residential on the FLUM in order to accommodate the City's projected population growth
within the planning timeframe of the City's Comprehensive Plan. The amendment is not
supported by data and analysis demonstrating that the amendment is consistent with the
following provisions of the ~ity's Comprehensive Plan: Housing Element Goal 1, Objective 1.1
and Policy 1.1.1; and Future Land Use Element Policy 1.1.5.
The proposed amendment is not consistent with the following requirements: Rules 9J-
5.002(8); Rules 9J-5.005(2 and 5); 9J-5.006(1, 2, 3, and 4); 9J-5.006(5); and 9J-5.01O(I, 2, and
3), F.A.C.; and Sections 163.3177(2,6, and 8), F.S.
Recommendation: Revise the amendment to include an analysis, based on professionally
acceptable methodology and assumptions, demonstrating whether there is a need for the
additional acreage of Medium Density Residential use on the FLUM in order to accommodate
the City's projected population growth within the planning timeframe of the City's
Comprehensive Plan. Revise the amendment as necessary to be consistent with and supported
by the analysis.
4. Land Use Compatibility: The proposed amendment is not appropriately supported by data
and analysis demonstrating the proposed designation of Medium Density Residential is
compatible with the existing and planned future industrial land uses located in the surrounding
area where the industrial land uses may potentially affect (adversely impact) Medium Density
Residential land use on the amendment parcel. The proposed amendment is not appropriately
supported by data and analysis demonstrating the amendment is consistent with the land use
compatibility goals, objectives and policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan (Future Land Use
Element Objective 1.5 and Policies 1.5.1, 1.5.6, 1.5.7and 1.5.8; and Housing Element Objective
2.2 and Policy 2.2.7.
The proposed amendment is not consistent with the following requirements: Rules 9J-
5.002(8); Rules 9J-5.005(2 and 5); 9J-5.006(1, 2, 3, and 4); F.A.C.; and Sections 163.3177(2,6,
and 8), F.S.
Recommendation: Revise the amendment to include an analysis demonstrating that the
proposed Medium Density Residential land use is compatible with the existing and planned
future industrial land uses located in the surrounding area, and demonstrate that the amendment
is consistent with the land use compatibility provisions of the City's Comprehensive Plan.
Revise the amendment as necessary to be consistent with and supported by the analysis.
II. CONSISTENCY WITH STATE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Objection: The proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment 06-1 is not consistent with and does
not further the following provisions of the State Comprehensive Plan (Chapter 187, Florida
Statutes) for the reasons noted in the objections raised above in Section I:
(a) Goal9.a (Natural Systems and Recreational Lands); Policy 9.b.11;
(b) Goal 15.a (Land Use); Policy 15.b.1;
(c) Goal 16.a (Urban and Downtown Revitalization); Policy 16.b.8
(d) Goal 17.a (public Facilities); Policy 17.b.7; and
(e) Goal 25.a (Plan Implemen,tation); Policy 25.b.7.
""":;.
Recommendation: Revise the plan amendment as recommended for the objections raised
above.
e
.
..-'
-~
,-,
o~ ~ID&
Florida Departlllent of Trallsportation
,J f.I3 lIlSI1
GO\ER\OR
Intermodai S'/stems Development
133 South SS:'Y",oran Bc~/evard
Orland:), FL 32807-3230
DE\\'ER .1. STlTLER. .JR.
SECRETAR Y
Mr. Ray Eubanks, Community Program Administrator
Department of Community Affairs, State of Florida
Plan Review & DRJ Processing Section
2555 Shumard Oaks Boulevard
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100
~
~-
g1-~~
%~o'" ~ ~~,
~~ Sf ~
'a 1-", d ~
~~~ ~ ;;A
~~ ~ V
\~
~ 1-....
".- "\II
March 22, 2006
SUBJECT:
LOCAL GOVERNMENT:
DCA#:
PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS
WINTER SPRINGS
06-1
Dear Mr. Eubanks:
The Department of Transportation has completed its review of the above proposed
comprehensive plan amendments as requested in your memorandum dated, February 23,
2006.
We appreciate the opportunity to participate in this review process and we offer our comments
with this Jetter. If further information is received from the local govemment prior to the issuance
of the ORC Report, the Department will revise the comments.
If you have any questions. please contact me at 407-482-7856 (Suncom: 335-7856) or e-mail
me at betty,mckee1i)dot.state,fl.us.
Sincerely,
~ (vk~
Betty McKee
Systems Planner
BMcK
attachment
cc: Rob Magee, FOOT -C/O
Eloise Sahlstrom, Winter Springs
James Stansbury, DCA
Tony Walter, Seminole County
File: J: IGrowth Managerr.enl'.comprehensive PlanslCommentsandCoverLetlerslSeminde CoI'MnterSplings06-1 CoverLene~321 OS.doc
,
e
e
'.
Florida Department ofTransportation
Intermodal Systems Development
Technical Applications Section
Page 1 of 1
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT REVIEW COMMENTS
Today's Date:
March 22. 2006
It~
4A <:'~/~
Cll).. ~ ~ ~^
COIq~~ 11.?, 'I <a ..,
Ct/)'i '\r)'-~ ~6'
ryO(!}v.~ oS',o
610.0 fi'/ i\(
"/J]s,GoS'
~,
Local Government:
Wnter Springs (Seminole County)
DCA Amendment #:
06-1
Review Comments Deadline:
February 23,2006
March 23, 2006
Date of DCA's Request Memo:
ELEMENT:
RULE REFERENCE:
Future Land Use Element: FLUM Amendments
9J-5.006 Future Land Use Element
9J-5.019 Transportation Element
9J-11.006 Submittal Requirements
9J-11.007 Data and Analysis Requirements
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
LS-CPA-G6-01 47.27 acres; current future land use: Industrial (.05 FAR); proposed Mure land use:
Medium Density Residential (9 dwelling units per acre)
REVIEW COMMENTS! RECOMMENDA TlONS:
1,029,541 square feet of industrial uses could be developed under the current future land use
designation, which translates to 7,176 average daily trips and 1,309 PM peak hour trips (lTE 110). 425
dwelling units could be developed under the proposed future land use designation, which translates to
3,936 average daily trips and 394 PM peak hour trips (ITE 210). The difference betWeen the scenarios
represents a potential decrease of 3,240 daily trips and 915 PM peak hour trips.
Land Use I Maximum Allowed Average Daily PM Peak Hour Trips
Develooment Trios
Current Designation Industrial I 1,029,541 sq. ft. 7,176 1.309
I
I
Proposed Medium Density I 425 dwelling units 3.936 394
Oesianation Residential
Net Trios I -3240 -915
Based on FOOT calculations. this amendment would result in a decrease in daily trips. Therefore. FOOT
has no comments on this amendment.
FOOT Contact: Betty McKee, Systems Planner
FOOT
Telephone: 407-482-7856 (Suncom: 335-7856)
Fax: 407-275-4188
E-mail: bettvmckee(a')dotstatefl, L:S
File: J: \Growth ManagementIComprehensive Plans\CoovnentsandCovert..ettef'SlSeminole Co\WinterSprtngs06-1 Comments0321 06.doc
e
FLORIDA DEPART!\.'fENT OF STATE
Sue M. Cobb
Secretary of State
DIVISION OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES
00 S5
3!13/o~
Mr. Ray Eubanks
Department of Community Affairs
Bureau of State Planning
2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard
Tal1ahassee, Florida 32399-2100
't~~
4A ~/~
011'1-'. ~ < ~^
C~Ok ~ II' "
~1I1l Vv,1y7', elQ}'
'I). ~Ii> u
0$ ,s,()
Ito/o,o ~11v.
~$, G,s
''It
March 8, 2006
Re: Historic Preservation Review of the Winter Springs (06-1) Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Request
Dear Mr. Eubanks:
According to this agency's responsibilities under sections 163.3177 and 163.3178, Florida Statutes, and
Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code, we reviewed the above document to determine if data
regarding historic resources have been given sufficient consideration in the request to amend the Winter
Springs Comprehensive Plan.
We reviewed one proposed amendment to the Future Land Use Map to consider the potential effects of
this action on historic resources. Although this tract does not contain any sites listed in the Florida
Master Site File or the National Register of Historic Places, it remains the city's responsibility to ensure
that potential1y significant historic resources will not be adversely affected by this action. This parcel
appears to have at least moderate archaeological site probability. The most effective way to guarantee
that such sites are not damaged is for the city to sponsor or require historic resource surveys so that it can
ensure its archaeological resources and historic structures fifty years of age or older will be considered
when substantive changes in land use are proposed.
If you have any questions regarding our comments, please feel free to contact Susan M. Harp of the
Division's Compliance Review staff at (850) 245-6333.
Sincerely,
~1l. .q ~ '..D..
Frederick P. Gaske, Director
Xc: Mr. James Stansbury
500 S. Bronough Street. Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250 . http://www.fiheritage.com
o Director's Office
(850) 245-6300 · FAX: 245-6436
o Archaeological Research
(850) 245-6444 . FAX: 245-6452
./ Historic Preservation
(850) 245-6333. FAX: 245-6-137
o Historical Museums
(850) 245-6400 · FAX: 245-6-133
a Southeast Regional Office
(Q"-1\ JJ;7-o1QQ(l . J:; A y. .1J',7JQ01
o Northeast Regional Office
10fU\ Sl?"-.c;(U::; . J:; A y. Sl?"-.c;(\ll
o Central Florida Regional Office
1111 "l.\ ?7?_"-lU'l . J:; A y. ?7"?_?'Un
East Central Florida
REGIONAL
PLANNING
COUNCIL
Chairman
Welton G. Cadwell
Commissioner
Ls.ke Ce""::1ty
Vice Chairman
Jon B. Ra'"lson
Governor's
Appointee
:Jr.::::.qo::: C::'lJnty'
Secretary/Treasure
r
Michael S. Blake
Commissioner
~:~-:~11nt~. L~~]'~~
~ =- r: i --= :. .::; :3
',.; ~ .:"". ': .:; r .::=::- i r~ 1"; .5
Executive Director
Sandra S. Glenn
SC/Tin::
/:re' run I, LUhc,
()rulI,'.:c. (hccolu,
.\t..'ln/notu (/lId r.()/l/.\'iu
( 'orllllie'S,
:. ~:.. :;. ~.!:: -;~. -: :- ~ F. -: ) j
:: '_: i t c: ~') I)
:':';.:'~::i:1rj, :l0ri:~3.
~ '1 - = .
...I L. __
Phc~.=:
-i'~;:. 62; .1()7S
~~X ~07.~:3.1CS4
.:'''::-.:'Jffi ::::~-lOiS
~'jnc':,::-. caz
334.l~;4
:';ebs i:~:
"..:',,:'..:. ec f r;c. 01:;;
e_
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
e_
oCr? y
31H!O(P
MEMORANDUM
~~
~
C} ~~ ~~
O~Ok <', ~
D. Ray Eubanks, FDCA, Community progra~~m~~to;()
James Stansbury, FDCA ()$~"?<5'" ~
lS'/. ~'"
C?o . "'1:
'?J$"t <>'<5'
Jeffrey A. Jones
Monday, March 13, 2006
Comprehensive Plan Amendment Review
LOCAL GOVERNMENT:
Winter Springs
LOCAL AMENDMENT #:
DCA AMENDMENT #:
LS-CPA-06-1
06-1
Council staff has completed a technical review of the above referenced
comprehensive plan amendment. The review was conducted in accordance
with the provisions of the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council's
current contract with the Florida Department of Community Affairs for Plan
and Plan Amendment Reviews.
We have not identified any significant and adverse effects on regional
resources or facilities, nor have any extra-jurisdictional impacts been
identified that would adversely effect the ability of neighboring jurisdictions
to implement their comprehensive plans.
The East Central Florida Regional Planning Council is available to assist in the
resolution of any issues that should arise in the course of your review. If you
should have any questions, please contact me at Sun Com 334-1075 X316.
Thank you.
cc:
Local Government Contact: Eloise Sahlstrom, Senior Planner
File
.' ":r1'O" ~r.r. "":'
,..;:;;~\. ,r,~I.~1 'l_ft;,~~f~
~""~ X~.' '" '
~~~~;. ~~ .A-":'" j~1""
~ '1;
~. FlORIDA.:..:.7 .'
. e
Department of
Environmental Protection
-
1 r
-
---
i .
Ma~ory Stoneman Douglas Building
3900 Commonwealth Boulevard
Tallahassee. Florida 32399-3000
Colleen M, Castille
Secretary
L
Jeb Bush
Governor
March 17, 2006
It~c-~ f) G Y
c,,,. 4fJ~ < ~ l,,~O 3/J-t!CJ~
cOtr,~/': ~ 1006
I.tf)/fy tv'r~
oeV.1Y Sf>
elo.o t?llvG
tr,SIJ/ oS
Mr. Ray Eubanks
Florida Department of Community Affairs
Plan Review and DR! Processing Team
2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100
RE: Winter Springs 06-1, Comprehensive Plan Amendment Review
Dear Mr. Eubanks:
On behalf of the Department of Environmental Protection, the Office of Intergovernmen-
tal Programs has reviewed the proposed comprehensive plan amendment in accordance with the
provisions of Chapter 163, Florida Statutes. As required by law, the scope of our comments and
recommendations is limited to the environmental suitability of the proposed changes in light of
the Department's regulatory and proprietary responsibilities. Based on our review of the pro-
posed amendment, the Department has found no provision that requires comment, recommenda-
tion or objection under the laws that form the basis of the Department's jurisdiction and author-
ity. I f the amendment pertains to changes in the future land use map or supporting text, please be
advised that at such time as specific lands are proposed for development, the Department will
review the proposal to ensure compliance ,\ith environmental rules and regulations in effect at
the time such action is proposed.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposal. If I may be of further
assistance, please call me at (850) 245-2187.
Sincerely,
DEe
Lori Cox
Office of Intergovernmental Programs
flee
e __
St. Johns River
Water Management District
Kirby B. Green III, Executive Director. David W. Fisk, Assistant Executive Director
4049 Reid Street · P.O. Box 1429 · Palatka, FL 32178-1429 · (386) 329-4500
On the Internet at www.sjrwmd.com.
OroJ~b
c ..t/,b.l) ~,. -
ll} ". ~ V'A-.
ch o~ ~ L ~^
l?,~ '% )f d '-'
(,1}/1. ~)-(: 1706'
o~ Ii>.s-
j..~ ~
~90 ~J\.:
0(\l G,<,
'/)/ \J
March 27, 2006
D. Ray Eubanks, Administrator
Plan Review and Processing
Florida Department of Community Affairs
2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100
Subject:
City of Winter Springs Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment /.
DCA Amendment #06-1
.,
(L:;:" ,....
J
Dear Mr. Eubanks:
St. Johns River Water Management District (District) planning staff have reviewed the above-
referenced proposed comprehensive plan amendment. The proposed amendment consists of one
change to the City of Winter Springs' future land use map. The District staff review focuses on
water supply availability and related water resource issues in an effort to link land use planning
and water supply planning. District staff have no comments because no substantial water supply
availability or related water resource issues were identified.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide comments. If you have any questions, please contact
District Policy Analyst Peter Brown at (386) 329-43111Suncom 860-4311 or
pbrowll@sjnvmd.com.
Sincerely,
'~,' ~
J I ( I ' \ L \..,\.l -~Jj
~. \,,\ ('-4.--- '~
Linda Burnette, Director
Office of Communications and Governmental Affairs
LBIPB
cc: Eloise Sahlstrom, City of Winter Springs
Jeff Jones, ECFRPC
Jim Quinn, FDEP
Nancy Christman, SJRWMD
Jeff Cole, SJRWMD
Peter Brown, SJRW~1D
GOVERNING BOARD
David Q, Graham, CHAIRWN
JACKSOlNlLLE
~~r.n G. Sowinski, VICE CHAiRMM.
ORLANDO
Ann T. Moore, SECRETARY
BUNNELL
.
Duane L. Ottenstroer. TREASURER"
JACKSONVillE
Williom W KF'rr
Omemas D. Lonq
W. Leonard WoOO
----
.---
.
"
~~\ ~~~
'\~\~\~~
RICHARD H. MORETTI
1996 OVERSEAS HIGHWAY, G41
MARATHON, FLORIDA 33050
(305) 393-1688
Honorable Valerie Hubbard
Director, Division of Community Planning
Florida Department of Community Affairs
2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard
Tallahassee, Florida 32399
o f(; 55} I ^
~ It3 O~
~~ '3
4A :tt/~
0/7). ~ l ~C
00", o~ 11? ~ <Oil
'I>1vlI/ty 'Iv?-12 '6
ol;> '" <5',0
l--&fo.o ~/~
'117& G~
'1]/
VIA HAND DELIVERY
March 8, 2006
RE: Winter Springs 06-1
Dear Ms. Hubbard:
Pursuant to Section 163.3184(4), Florida Statutes (2005), I
am providing comments on the City of Winter Springs'
proposed comprehensive plan amendment sent to the
Department on or about February 20, 2006.
I own property immediately adjacent to the property that is
the subject of the proposed future land use map amendment,
and I spoke in opposition to the transmittal during the
City Commission's transmittal hearing. I also retained an
attorney, Ross Stafford Burnaman, to make written and
verbal presentations during those proceedings. I understand
that the City's transmittal package did not contain Mr.
Burnaman's comment letter dated February 6, 2006 (copy
enclosed), and did not contain a large aerial photograph of
the area that showed my property, the subject property, and
adjacent properties.
I request that you consider both of Mr. Burnaman's letters
along with this letter stating objections to the City's
proposed amendment. The Department should object to the
proposed amendment pursuant to Section 163.3184(6), Florida
Statutes (2005).
Ii
jj
~lease prov~de .. .i~ a copy of the DepartaaDt's
objcc~ions, recDmmandatiofts and com-ant. XQport on the
City's transaitta1.
I would. a1so request 'that you provi.de me with a copy of the
Department's Notice of Intent, .hc~d the City d.ecide to go
forward with 'the adoption of an amendment.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincere1y,
Richard "1U.cl\i~:,~~t:ti;Jl'" .' / // /
//j II ~.///
Encl. ./" r; I II t. ,
cc: 3~s Stansbury (wfencl)
~
II
"
/
/
//
(
ROSS STAFFORD BURNAMAN
Attorney at Law
1018 Holland Drive
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
rossburnaman@earthlink.net
(850) 942-1474
February 6, 2006
Honorable John F. Bush, Mayor
City of Winter Springs City Commission
1126 East State Road 434
Winter Springs, Florida 32708
RE: Objection to Proposed Ordinance 2005-29
Large-scale Future Land Use Map Amendments
Dear Mayor Bush and Commissioners:
By letter dated January 18, 2006, Attorney Rebecca Furman
wrote to you on behalf of her client, Keewin Real Property
Company ("KRPC"). Her letter takes exception with comments
that I made to you on behalf of Mr. Richie Moretti and
Richard Moretti, LLC (collectively "Moretti"). As you will
recall, I wrote to you on December 30, 2005 regarding a
proposed large-scale future land use map (FLUM) amendment
application.
The "KRPC" FLUM application was postponed from the City
Commission's January 23, 2006 agenda (Item 201). The matter
had previously been postponed from the November 1, 2005
agenda (Item 400) .
This letter augments and clarifies the Moretti objections,
to KRPC's FLUM amendment application and responds to Ms.
Furman's letter.
Moretti's Property
In 1979, Moretti acquired property within the City (and
adjacent unincorporated Seminole County) based upon
assurances that the property could be used for an
automobile paint and body shop and wrecking yard. On
October 11, 1979, Moretti appeared before the City's Board
of Adjustment for a variance to expand that business into
the City. The variance was granted. The Board granted an
extension of this "special exception" on April 10, 1980.
/
/
/
/"
I
~
/
'"
J
/
Moretti broke ground for the expansion of his business,
Ritchie's Economy Cars, on the City property in September
1980, and thereafter built a 10,000 square foot building
and began to recondition Volkswagens. The business
continued for about ten years, and thereafter Moretti
leased it for the manufacture of sheds, and manufacture and
sale of gazebos.
Presently, Moretti's property is designed in the City's
Comprehensive Plan ("Plan") as "Industrial." The present
zoning is "C-2" - "General Commercial."
In July 2002, the City adopted Ordinance 2002-07 that
created a new zoning classification "1-1" "Light
Industrial." The Ordinance eliminated the industrial uses
in the former C-2 zone, and included them within the new 1-
1 district. Staff was directed to begin the administrative
rezoning process to implement the new 1-1 zoning.
After considerable discussion and delay in implementing
Ordinance 2002-07 administrative rezonings, the City
adopted two ordinances. First, Ordinance 2004-02 was
adopted on February 9, 2004, to create another new zoning
classification known as "CC - Commerce Center" intended to
address the vicinity of Belle Avenue. Second, Ordinance
2004-28 was adopted on July 12, 2004 to create another new
zoning classification known as "C-3 Highway 17-92
Commercial" intended to address the vicinity of Highway 17-
92.
As for consistency with the City's Plan, the 1-1 zone was
appropriate for lands designated "Industrial" on the FLUM,
whereas the C-3 zone was appropriate for lands designated
"Commercial" of the FLUM.
In August, 2004, City staff began an effort to change the
FLUM designation for several parcels along Highway 17-92,
including Moretti's, property owned by State ST Bank and
Trust Co. of CT, TR, (7-11 convenience store and gas
station); property owned by Dittmer Properties, Inc.
(Superior Sheds); and property owned by RCJ of Winter Park
No.2, Ltd. (Holler Kia - Mitsubishi Dealership. The
parcels were clustered into two nodes, one at the
intersection of Shepard Road and Highway 17-92, and another
south of Boat Lake. At that time, there was no discussion
of the change from "Industrial" to "Medium Density
Residential" for the subject parcels to the east. Wisely,
----
/'
/
"
,
.J
r
I
you declined to adopt Ordinance 2004-36 at the October 25
,
2004, city Commission meeting. City Manager McLemore
stated: "We need to withdraw it at this point in time and
bring it back to you at a later date." To date, the City
staff has not contacted Moretti about subsequent
consideration to change the FLUM designation on his
property, nor has the City initiated an administrative
rezoning of his property from C-2 to I-1.
Ms. Furman letter states that the proposed FLUM amendment
"does not change the rights of adjacent or surrounding
property owners." While that is true in a narrow, legal
sense, one purpose of the City's Comprehensive Plan (Plan)
is to ensure that uses are compatible. A major purpose of
the City's Plan is to ensure that all residents and
property owners in the community benefit from properly
planned growth and mitigation of impacts on public
facilities and services.
Buffering and Development Agreement
Ms. Furman's letter is replete with references to
references to "appropriate buffers" which she states will
include "a berm, wall and heavy landscaping." She states in
part: "Regardless, we have agreed to a buffer including a
berm, a wall and enhanced landscaping to be approved by the
City Commission at the time of rezoning." As to the POO,
Ms. Furman's letter states in part: "[i]t is questionable
whether the property still has entitlements to develop with
office, commercial, and industrial uses under the POO since
those approvals may have expired. II The City Staff states
liThe 1984 POO Master Plan and Preliminary Site Plan for the
property has expired and is no longer valid." (Page 15).
Under the City's POO regulations (adopted in 1987), lIan
approved planned unit development shall be considered as a
separate zoning district in which the final development
plan, as approved, established the restrictions,
regulations, and district description according to which
development shall occur. II City Code Section 20-360.
If Ms. Furman's client is contemplating a rezoning of the
subject property, as suggested in her letter, then the
validity of the POO would seem to bear on the existing
zoning classification(s). The City's staff indicates that
the PUD was last amended by Ordinance 436 on October 20,
1988, and indicates that the current zoning is IIpoo"
/
/
('
II
"
(subject to uncertainty about parcel "F" and Ordinance
436) .
I offer no opinion as to the legal status of the PUD, or
the underlying PUD zoning on the subject property.
Arguably, the City Commission should have a full
understanding of this issue in considering KRPC's FLUM
amendment application.
It is my understanding that the City should take action on
KRPC's FLUM amendment application, and comments by City
staff and members of the public. It is my opinion that the
City should not take action on KRPC's application based
upon phantom agreements between KRPC and the City.
While the Florida Local Government Development Agreement
Act, Sections 163.3220, et seq., Florida Statutes (2005)
authorizes the City to enter into a development agreement;
such authority is subject to a number of statutory
requirements. For example, before entering into such an
agreement, newspaper notice is required and two public
hearings are required. Section 163.3225, Florida Statutes
(2005) .
Moretti is not aware of any such notice or hearings, and I
have not been able to find any development agreement
between Ms. Furman's client and the City regarding the
property subject to the proposed FLUM amendment. The City
Staff reports "no development agreement is known to exist
for the subject property." (Page 15).
Absent such an agreement, I am not aware how the City and
KRPC could enter into a binding contract for such buffers.
Likewise, I am not aware of how KRPC has agreed to "make
certain improvements to the Wildwood community to make it
safer and more aesthetically pleasing."
History of Future Land Use For Subject Property
My understanding of the 1979 planned unit development (PUD)
(the Wildwood PUD) is that it included residential
development both east and west of the Florida Power
Corporation (FPC) power line easement, and south of Shepard
Road. Single-family development was anticipated on the
eastern portion of the PUD, and multi-family on the western
portion. In 1982, Mr. Walter Dittmer and National Homes,
/
(-
--
,
.
.
Inc. sought to change the northwestern corner of the POD on
Sheppard Avenue from Neighborhood Services to Industrial.
Later in 1982, Mr. Walter Dittmer and National Homes, Inc.
sought to amend the Wildwood POD to change the multi-family
to an office park/industrial park. The matter was postponed
until January 1983. Mr. Walt Dittmer and National Homes,
Inc. sought to amend the PUD the Wildwood PUD (and change
the name to the Winter Springs Commerce Center), Mr.
Dittmer testimony was recorded in the January 19, 1983
Planning and Zoning Minutes as follows:
Mr. Dittmer's reasons for finding this land
unsuitable for residential development are that
no natural or legal buffers existing on the 17-92
side (sic), which means abutting commercial
development; there is property abutting here that
is County, where the City has no control; no
utilities (water/sewer) are presently available
if it was to be developed as residential, whereas
light industrial might have septic tanks; and the
high density of multi-family would increase
crime, in his opinion.
The residents of the area were concerned about increased
noise and truck traffic. The Planning and Zoning Committee
recommended against the change. At the March 8, 1993, City
Commission meeting, the request to change the PUD was
denied. The Planning and Zoning Board considered the
request again on April 11, 1984, and voted to approve it
subject to conditions, including a 6-foot high fence to
buffer residences. According to Ms. Furman's letter and the
City staff, the POD was amended in 1984 to include a tiered
office park concept with a mix of industrial, commercial
and office uses. The City staff indicates that the POD was
last amended by Ordinance 436, in 1988. (Presumably, the
staff meant to refer to Amended Ordinance 436).
Notwithstanding whatever development rights existed under
the amended POD, the City's Comprehensive Plan was
subsequently enacted under the 1985 landmark planning
legislation, Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, often
known as the "Growth Management Act."
Pursuant to this mandate, the City enacted a Comprehensive
Plan on April 27, 1992 by Ordinance 513. The 1992 Plan
included property west and south of the power line easement
as "Industrial" extending to the south to Florida Avenue.
/
(
"
.
.
In addition the parcel at the southeast corner of Highway
17-92 and Shepard Road was designated "Industrial." The
power line easement was designated as "Utility
Installations." The 1992 Plan did not take effect, however,
since it was found "not in compliance" by the Department of
Community Affairs (DCA). In order to resolve the dispute
with DCA over the 1992 Plan, the City adopted a remedial
Plan by Ordinance 539. DCA approved that remedial 1993 Plan
on March 4, 1993, and it therefore became effective. Later
in 1993, the City annexed the land to the north of Shepard
Road across from the PUD and designed it as "Industrial."
The 1985 Act also mandated that every seven years, each
local government conduct an Evaluation and Appraisal Report
(EAR) process. Section 163.3191, Florida Statutes (2005).
The City adopted an EAR in 2001. The 2001 EAR listed FLUM
amendments since the 1993 Plan. None of the FLUM changes
added more industrial land; however, through the annexation
process, 14.13 acres were added in the "Industrial" land
use. According to the EAR, as of 1996, 116 acres in the
City were "Industrial" out of a total 8,993 acres (1%).
As anticipated by the Act, the City adopted EAR-based Plan
amendments on May 13, 2002. Ordinance 2001-55. These
amendments were found "in compliance" by the Department of
Community Affairs on July 3, 2002. The City's next EAR is
due to be adopted by May 1, 2008.
Thus, based upon a comprehensive planning effort,
coordinated with State and regional agencies and adjacent
local governments, the subject property has been planned
for industrial use since at least the early 1990's. After
an evaluation and appraisal process in 2001, the subject
property remained in the Industrial future land use
category.
Notwithstanding Ms. Furman's criticisms of my December 30,
2005, letter, I remain of the view that the proposed FLUM
change represents "opportunism rather than planning" with
regard to the subject property, and with regard to the
surrounding areas.
The City should take note that two areas are excluded from
the FLUM amendment (Area 1 and Area 2), which are located
along Shepard Avenue on each side of the anticipated access
from the subject property to Shepard Road. These parcels
//
(
.
It
would remain "Industrial" but it would
anticipate that a later FLUM amendment
to change them to "Commercial."
be reasonable to
would be submitted
Since my letter, Ms. Furman states that KRPC has reached an
agreement to purchase the "Elsea property" which she
indicates is "to be incorporated into the proposed
townhouse development in the future." The Elsea property is
presently a 1950's era single-family homestead. This simply
confir;ms my view that the pending application is premature
and is not the result of good comprehensive planning.
Comprehensive Plan Inconsistency
1. Compatibility. FLUE Objective 1.5 and Policies 1.5.1 and
1.5.10. Ms. Fur;man states that "Appropriately buffered
medium density residential is compatible with industrial
and commercial land uses."
The City Staff states, in part (page 11) :
However, the change could result in
incompatibility between the proposed "Medium
Density Residential" use and "Industrial" uses to
the south and west (along us 17-92), both
existing and future. Additionally, approval of
the requested change in the land use of the seven
(7) parcels will leave three (3) parcels to the
south (which also have an "industrial" land use
and that are not part of this application) as an
industrial enclave.
Moreover, in enacting Ordinance 2002-07 (creating the 1-1
zone), the City found that: "current C-2 zoning ... does
not provide adequate safeguards to protect against
introducing incompatible land uses which may impact
adjacent or surrounding land uses; and makes it very
difficult to create a system of transitional commercial and
industrial zoning districts throughout the City...."
Likewise, in enacting Ordinance 2004-28 (creating the C-3
zone and amending the C-1, C-2 and 1-1 zoning regulations) ,
the City found: "the current 1-1, C-1 and C-2 zoning
schemes do not provide adequate safeguards to protect
against introducing incompatible land uses which may impact
adjacent or surrounding land uses and may make it difficult
~'--
(
,
.
.
to create a system of transitional commercial and
industrial zoning districts throughout the City."
So, according to the City's zoning ordinances, residential
land uses may be compatible with ~ types of commercial
and industrial development.
FLUE Policy 1.5.1 provides that:
Inconsistencies. Proposed land use amendments
which are inconsistent with the character of the
community or inconsistent with adjacent future
land uses shall not be approved by the City.
Compatibility issues concerning the residential development
on the eastern portions of the Wildwood (Winter Springs
Commerce Center) PUD and commercial or industrial
development on the western portions of the PUD have been
considered by the City since the early-1980's. Ultimately,
the City has resolved these issues, in part, by approving a
preliminary plan for Phase I, on April 24, 1984 (Attachment
A to Staff Memorandum). The plan shows a transition (from
residential development to the west) with "Garden Office"
within the power line easement and extending to the west,
with "Light Industrial" to the west of the "Garden Office"
along with "Office/Warehouse" to the west and south of the
"Garden Office."
As noted previously, the 1994 Plan contemplated that most
of the moderate density residential within the PUD would be
buffered from the industrial land use along Highway 17-92
by the power line easement, which was designated "Utility
Installation." At some point, part of the easement was
changed to "Industrial" and part to "Medium Density
Residential."
Moreover, planning should be informed by reality. The
status of the PUD development approves needs to be resolved
in order to ascertain how the property can be developed,
and what transition is contemplated between the mix of uses
contemplated in the 1984 PUD plan. The reality is that
several businesses along Highway 17-92 are presently
classified as "Industrial" and are being used for those
purposes: Dittmer ~uminum Fabrication (north of Shepard
Avenue); Moretti Automotive; Apex Transmission; and
Superior Sheds, Inc., and automotive body shops.
/
I (
r
.
.
2. Need. The "Industrial" land use category includes both
light and heavy industrial uses. Industrial lands are
located predominately in the north and west part of the
City along SR 419, the abandoned railroad, and US 17/92.
The Plan indicates a need for an additional 105 acres of
Industrial land to meet the 2010 demand. While the "Mixed
Use" category allows light industrial uses, it does so as
part of a PUD rezoning process. On the other hand, the
"Town Center" and "Greenway Interchange" FLUM categories do
~ contemplate industrial uses. (Plan, FLUE I-4) .
FLUE Policy 1.1.5 ("Housing Diversity") requires the FLUM
to contain an adequate diversity of lands for residential
uses to meet the demands identified in the Plan's Housing
Element.
The Plan's Housing Element considered "Land Requirements
and Availability for Projected Housing Needs." (Plan,
Housing Element, III-14 - III-15). This analysis considered
possible residential development in the Mixed-Use, Greenway
Interchange and Town Center FLOM categories. The analysis
concludes (III-15):
As the table shows, the City will be able to
accommodate approximately 3,439 additional units,
for a total of 15,745 (12,306 plus 3,439)
residential units by 2010.... Therefore, it can
be safely assumed that the Future Land Use Map
shows adequate supply of land to satisfy the
housing needs of the future population of Winter
Springs.
Accordingly, Ms. Furman's letter is not accurate as to the
ability of other land use categories to meet the demand for
industrial lands, only the "Industrial" FLOM category
allows for "heavy" industrial uses (such as automobile
reconditioning, and shed/gazebO manufacture), and the
proposed change in land use would deplete the City's
inventory of "Industrial" lands for which the Plan
recognizes a substantial need. As noted by City Staff:
"Whereas, residential property is able to locate in most
parts of the City, industrial property cannot." (Page 7).
The KRPC has not demonstrated the need for additional
"Medium Density Residential" lands to the exclusion of
"Industrial" lands.
e
.
3. Level of Service - Transportation
As noted by the City Staff, FLUE Policy 1.6.4 states: "The
City shall prohibit proposed land use amendments which are
anticipated to reduce the LOS for transportation facilities
below the standard." The City Staff report states: "A
traffic study will be required during the final engineering
phase. The results of that study will determine further
compliance measures, if needed." (Pages 14-15).
The applicant has not met the burden of demonstrating
compliance with FLUE Policy 1.6.4. By letter dated October
19, 2005, Mr. David Evans of Evans Engineering provided
IIsummary" traffic projections. Mr. Evans' letter cites to
the "ITE." That is a reference to the Institute for
Traffic Engineers. The City staff cited to the appropriate
ITE source, the Trip Generation Handbook, 7th ed.
("TGH") (page 8). The City Staff report agreed with Mr.
Evans' assumptions as to the development scenarios. For
industrial, 850,000 square feet maximum; and for
townhouses, 334 units.
The TGH provides different trip generation rates for
different types of development. There are at several types
of industrial uses in the TGH: general light (110), general
heavy (120), industrial park (130), etc. Evans used the
6.96 trips per gross square foot for "industrial park."
Staff used the 6.97 trips per gross square foot (and 51.80
trips per acre) for "general light industrial,"
The TGH provides:
1000 SQ FT.
ACRE
General Light Industrial
General Heavy Industrial
Industrial Park
6.97
1.50
6.96
51. 80
6.75
63.11
Accordingly, using the 850,000 square foot figure cited by
Evans and Staff, the range of trips per day ranges from
1,275 trips per day to 5,924.5 trips per day.
Since the square footage of development is unknown, the
acreage figure may be considered. The range is from 319
trips per day to 2,983 trips per day.
As for residential development, Evans and Staff assumed
that only 334 townhouses would be developed. However, the
maximum density for "Medium Density Residential" is 9 units
per acre.
e
.
Absent a development agreement, the City should evaluate
the maximum number of units allowed by the FLUM category. A
fair comparison would evaluate the maximum number of units
allowed for both types of uses, industrial and medium
density residential. The maximum number of units is (9 x
47.27 acres) 425 units, instead of 334.
Using the TGH for residential townhouse/condominium (230)
yields (5.86 trips per day x 425 units) 2,490 trips per
day.
The summary analysis submitted, as supplemented by the City
staff, and considering the Trip Generation Handbook, 7th
edition, does not yield a conclusive result that the FLUM
amendment would reduce traffic impacts. In fact, if one
assumes that "light industry" were to be developed on the
47.27 acres, 2,449 trips per day would be generated,
compared to 2,490 for the residential
townhouse/condominium.
In any event, it is unclear whether or not the FLUM
amendment would reduce the LOS on Florida Avenue. The City
Staff indicates in part: "Florida Avenue is a paved local
County road and may require upgrading to support an
increase in traffic." (Page 9).
As for US 17-92, the segment from Shepard Avenue to SR 434
is operating at LOS F. According to the FLUM application,
"vehicle access to Shepard Road will be offset by the
proximity to 17-92." Adding additional trips to US 17-92
will certainty degrade the LOS beyond that adopted by the
Florida Department of Transportation for the segment from
Shepard Avenue to SR 434.
4. Recreation and Open Space
The FLUM application does not address the adequacy of
recreational facilities, nor the impact that the FLUM
amendment would have on the LOS for recreational
facilities. Both of these issues are required to be
addressed in the FLUM amendment application.
The City Staff correctly indicates that there are "no
public or open space parcels adjacent to the area...."
e
.
(
Recreation and Open Space ("ROS") Objective 1.1 "Level of
Service for Parks" requires the City to use level of
service standards for parks and other criteria specific to
population, park size and location. ROS Policy 1.1.1 sets
the overall LOS for "overall parkland" (5 acres/1000
residents) and for "community and neighborhood parks" 5
acres/1000 residents). The City has a deficit of parklands
for "active" parks. (Plan, ROS Table VI-6) .
ROS Policy 1.1.2 sets criteria for the type and location of
parklands. At present, there are no "neighborhood park"
lands within ~ of a mile from the site, and there are no
"mini park" lands within a six-block radius of the site.
This is shown on the "Park Service Area" map in the ROS
Element (Map VI-3). Map VI-4 depicts "Target Areas for New
Parks" and target area number one depicts the subject
property.
without elaboration, the Staff Report states "the subject
property will be required to provide recreational amenities
on site, if the property is developed as residential
townhouses...." (Page 10). The March 2005 "Conceptual Plan
No.3" submitted with the KRPC FLUM application does not
depict any recreational amenities on site. However, the
"Community Meeting" "factsheet" distributed by Ms. Furman
on January 30, 2006 represents that there would be a
"jogging trail, pool, fitness course, cabana/clubhouse,
gazebo and lakeside park, tot lot, pet park and barbeque
and picnic area." Ironically, the "factsheet" lists as a
fact "preservation of boat lake" when, in fact, KRPC plans
to use the lake as a stormwater receiving area. Dumping
polluted stormwater into a natural lake hardly qualifies as
"preservation."
Conclusion
Rather than approve this legally insufficient request for a
large-scale FLUM amendment for transmittal to the various
State and regional agencies for review, the City should
deny the request and maintain the status quo for these
properties.
The applicant has not met its burden to demonstrate that a
FLUM amendment is warranted. If the existing PUD is not
economically viable, then the landowner should consider a
r
e
e
(
revised PUD instead of an abandonment of the partially
developed PUD and speculative townhouse development.
Thank you for your consideration. Please provide me with
notice of the City Commission's action on this item.
Sincerely,
~~-~
-
Ross Stafford Burnaman
Attorney at Law
Fla. Bar No. 397784
cc: Eloise M. Sahlstrom, Senior Planner
OBJECTIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND COMMENTS
FOR
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS
AMENDMENT 06-1
I. CONSISTENCY WITH CHAPTER 163, PART II, F.S., AND RULES 9J-5, F.A.C.
The City's proposed Amendment 06-1 consists of one amendment to the Future Land
Use Map (FLUM) to change a 47.27 acre parcel from Industrial and Conservation Overlay to
Medium Density Residential (9 dwelling units per acre) and Conservation Overlay. The
Department raises the following obiections to proposed Amendment 06-1:
A. FLUM Amendment
1. Obiection: The FLUM amendment is not supported by a public facilities analysis
(including assumptions, data sources, and description of methodologies used) for the five year
and long term planning timeframes addressing the following: (1) the amount of sanitary sewer
demand generated by the maximum development potential allowed by the FLUM amendment
combined with the projected five year and long term community-wide growth (background
growth) in demand for sanitary sewer; (2) the available and planned uncommitted capacity of
sanitary sewer facilities that would serve the demand; (3) the impact of the demand for sanitary
sewer on the projected operating level of service and impact on available and planned
uncommitted capacity of the facilities; (4) the need for sanitary sewer facilities improvements
(scope, timing and cost of improvements) or other planning alternatives to maintain the adopted
level of service standards for the facilities; and (5) coordination of any needed improvements or
other planning alternatives with the Future Land Use Element, Infrastructure Element, and
Capital Improvements Elements, including implementation through the Five-Year Schedule of
Capital improvements. The amendments are not supported by data and analysis demonstrating
that the amendments are consistent with the following provisions of the City's Comprehensive
Plan: Capital Improvements Element Goal 1, Objective 1.1, and Policies 1.1.1, 1.1.2, 1.1.3,
1.2.1, 1.2.2, and 1.2.3.; Future Land Use Element Objective 1.3 and Policy 1.2.3; and
Infrastructure Element Goal IV-A, Objective IV-A-1, and Policies IV-A-1.1, IV-A-1.6, and IV-A-
1.5.
The FLUM amendment is not supported by a public facilities analysis (including
assumptions, data sources, and description of methodologies used) for the five year and long
term planning timeframes addressing the following: (1) the amount of recreation and open space
demand generated by the maximum development potential allowed by the FLUM amendment
combined with the projected five year and long term community-wide growth (background
growth) in demand for recreation and open space; (2) the available and planned uncommitted
capacity of recreation and open space facilities that would serve the demand; (3) the impact of
the demand for recreation and open space facilities on the projected operating level of service
and impact on available and planned uncommitted capacity of the facilities; (4) the need for
recreation and open space facilities improvements (scope, timing and cost of improvements) or
other planning alternatives to maintain the adopted level of service standards for recreation and
0909576\112882\949769\2
open space; and (5) coordination of any needed improvements or other planning alternatives with
the Future Land Use Element, Recreation and Open Element, and Capital Improvements
Elements, including implementation through the Five- Year Schedule of Capital Improvements.
The amendment is not supported by data and analysis demonstrating that the amendment is
consistent with the following provisions of the City's Comprehensive Plan: Capital
Improvements Element Goal 1, Objective 1.1, and Policies 1.1.1, 1.1.2, 1.1.3, 1.2.1, 1.2.2, and
1.2.3.; and Recreation and Open Space Element Goal 1, Obj ective 1.1, and Policies 1.1.1 and
1.1.2.
The proposed amendment is not consistent with the following requirements: Rules 9J-
5.005(2 and 5); 9J-5.006(3)(b)1; 9J-5.006(3)(c); 9J-5.006(4); 9J-5.011(1)(a through f); 9J-
5.011(2)(a); 9J-5.011(2)(b)2; 9J-5.011(2)(c)1 and 2; 9J-5.016(1)(a); 9J-5.016(2)(b, c, and f); 9J-
5.016(3)(b)1, 3, and 5; 9J-5.016(3)(c)1.d, 1.e, 1.f, and 1.g; 9J-5.016(4)(a); 9J-5.015(3)(b)1 and 2;
9J-5.015(3)(c)1 and 11, F.A.C.; and Sections 163.3177(2, 3, and 8); 163.3177(6)(a, c and e); and
163.3177(6)(h)1 and 2, F.S.
Recommendation: Revise the amendment to include the required data and analysis
necessary to support the FLUM amendment and demonstrate coordination of the land use with
the planning and provision of public facilities (sanitary sewer, and recreation and open space),
demonstrate coordination among plan elements (Future Land Use Element, Infrastructure
Element, Recreation and Open Space Element, and Capital Improvements Element), and
demonstrate consistency of the amendment with the Comprehensive Plan goals, objectives and
policies. Revise the amendment as necessary to be consistent with and supported by the data and
analysis.
RESPONSE:
A. Sewer. The projected sewer flow for this project is 0.100 MGD. The current
permitted plant capacity from the West Water Reclamation Facility that will serve this project is
2.07 MGD. The three month maximum average recorded flow into this plant over the past 12
months is 1.255 MGD. The current outstanding commitment for this plant by the City is 0.159
MGD excluding this project.
Projected Flows for the next five years for the West Water Reclamation Facility are as
follows:
2006 - 1.313 MGD
2007 - 1.345 MGD
2008 - 1.380 MGD
2009 -1.415 MGD
2010 - 1.460 MGD
2011 - 1.505 MGD
0909576\112882\949769\2
- 2 -
Although the city's sanitary facility capacity can meet projected demand through the
planning period, several projects are planned to enhance the provision of sanitary sewer
services for future growth. Policy 1.7.2 states that "when applicable, the City shall utilize
developer's agreements to ensure the timely and appropriate installation of needed capital
faculties to service new development." Additionally, Policy 1.7.5 states that "New developments
shall be responsible for installing all internal water and sewer systems ... within their
development. In addition, connections of internal systems to the City's designated major water
and sewer truck systems ... shall be the financial responsibility of the developer." As
demonstrated above, there is sufficient sanitary sewer capacity available for the proposed
amendment. In addition, the City may utilize a developer's agreement to ensure that the
applicant pays for the necessary capital facilities.
B. Recreation and Open Space.
The City has determined that it has adequate Community Parks. In addition, the City
recently added 27 acres to Central Winds Park (a Community Park). The City, as outlined
below, will require that the Applicant provide an adequate neighborhood park on-site. Such
commitment is found in the binding Developer's Agreement attached hereto as Exhibit "A". The
City determines park and recreation concurrency as follows:
Section 9-514. Parks and Recreation LOS
A parks and recreation concurrency evaluation shall be required
for any residential development on a citywide and per development
basis. Citywide minimum levels of service for parklands shall be
determine on a two level basis for community parks and
neighborhood parks. In addition to the citywide minimum levels of
service, new residential development shall supplement the system
of neighborhood parks and recreation services by providing
parklands ( or fees in lieu of) consistent with the level of service
criteria and requirements established for parks and recreation
under the city's comprehensive plan and this section.
(1) The parks and recreation level of service standards for
community parks shall be monitored by the city through
concurrency evaluations to ensure that the minimum level of
service standard for citywide community parks remains at or
above one and six-tenths (1.6) acres per one thousand (1,000)
population. In performing the concurrency evaluation for
community parks for a proposed residential development, the
development review committee shall determine the number of acres
of community parkland which would be necessary to serve the
number of citywide dwelling units existing or approved prior to the
development plus the number of proposed new dwelling units. If
the development satisfies the level of service standards for
community parkland, then the development shall be deemed
concurrent for community parks and a certificate shall be issued
0909576\112882\949769\2
- 3 -
consistent with section 9-533 of this article. If a residential
development causes or continues to cause the level of service for
community parks to be not concurrent, the developer shall pay the
city a fair share community parks and recreation impact fee, as
established by the city commission by resolution. All such fees
collected shall be allocated and appropriated to the city's
recreation budget to be expended to enhance the city's community
parks system with priority given to expend such funds to acquire
parkland
(2) The parks and recreation level of service standards for
neighborhood parks shall be based on the application of the level
of service standards established for each residential development
by particular region of the city asfollows:
Northwest Regions -- 5.9 acres per 1,000 population
South-Central Region -- 5.3 acres per 1,000 population
Southeast Region -- 6.9 acres per 1,000 population
In performing the concurrency evaluation for neighborhood parks
and recreation for a proposed residential development, the
development review committee shall determine the number of
acres of parkland which would be necessary to serve the number of
dwelling units on-site (minimum one-half (5) acre). If such
amount of parkland can be provided while meeting the level of
service standards set forth in this section, then the development
shall be deemed concurrent for parks and recreation. If such
amount of parkland can not be provided while meeting the level of
service standards set forth in this section, then the development
shall be deemed not concurrent for parks and recreation and a
certificate shall not be issued However, if a development can not
provide the required on-site parkland, the development review
committee shall permit the developer to satisfY the parks and
recreation standard by providing a combination of on-site and off-
site parkland and a fair share neighborhood parks and recreation
impact fee as established by the city commission by resolution. In
such cases, the development review committee shall require on-site
parkland to the maximum extent feasible and practicable, off-site
parkland shall be located in the same region as the proposed
development, and said impact fee shall only be paid if on and off
site parkland can not be provided as required herein. Any and all
such fees collected shall be allocated and appropriated to the
city's recreation budget to be expended for public recreational
purposes and priority shall be given to expend such funds to
acquire parkland At such time the development satisfies the level
0909576\112882\949769\2
- 4 -
of service for parks and recreation, a certificate shall be issued
consistent with section 9-533 of this article, with the condition that
the necessary parkland and recreational services (including any
impact fees) shall be in place or paid when the impacts of the
development occur or shall be guaranteed to be in place through
an enforceable development order or agreement not more than one
(1) year after the issuance of a certificate of occupancy or its
functional equivalent.
(3) For purposes of determining levels of service for parks and
recreation facilities within the City under this section, the term
"parkland" shall mean a public or private use of land that is
dedicated as exclusively set aside as a neighborhood or community
recreational area including, but not limited to, playground,
playing field, swimming pool, tennis court, fishing hole or pier,
nature trial, landscaped city square or green for the pursuit of
leisure activities, stadium, conservation area suitable for passive
recreation, water sport area, or other similar type areas suitable
for bona fide recreational activities, storm water retention pond
shall not be considered parkland unless the retention pond
includes upland suitable for bona fide recreational activities or
incorporated by design into a bona fide recreational area (e.g., a
place to install a water fountain and littoral plantings in a park
like setting). If a storm water retention pond is used for parkland
purposes, the pond shall include abutting uplands for park
purposes at least equal to the size of the pond and the pond shall
not be fenced and shall be designed in a safe manner to protect the
public (e.g., gradual pond slopes). All parkland required by this
article shall be minimum of one-half (5) acre and have a minimum
width and length of one hundred twenty-five (125) feet unless a
lesser width or length is approved by the city commission by
variance. When considering a variance, the city commission shall
consider whether the requested size and dimensions of the park
will provide a functional recreational area in light of the
recreational amenities proposed, the recreational demands of the
residential community that the recreational area is intended to
serve, and the compatibility of the recreational area with the
surrounding neighborhood
(4) For purposes of complying with the concurrency requirements
of this section, properties zoned Town Center on June 1, 2000
shall satisfY concurrency by providing the parkland required by
the Town Center Zoning Code and applicable development
agreements.
As demonstrated by the City's Code the applicant must either provide sufficient
recreation and open space to accommodate the proposed development or pay a fee in lieu
0909576\112882\949769\2
- 5 -
thereof The City's Code also requires that any property rezoned to Planned Unit Development
("PUD") must provide recreation and open space. The PUD rezoning requires that "an area of
land or water or any combination thereof, within the area of a planned unit development which
is designated and intended for the use and enjoyment of the residents of the planned unit
development in common." LDC Section 20.351. Such common open space and recreational
facilities must be built in accordance with the standards of the National Recreation Association
shall be provided to serve the residents of the planned unit development - LDC Section 20-354.
In addition, "All lands shown on the final development plan as common open space, parks, and
recreational facilities shall be protected through deed restrictions which shall ensure the
preservation of its intended use, the payment of future taxes, and the maintenance of areas and
facilities for a safe, healthy and attractive living environment." "All common open space and
recreational facilities shall be specifically included in the phasing plan and shall be constructed
and fully improved by the developer at an equivalent or greater rate than the construction of the
residential structures which they serve. "
2. Obiection: The proposed FLUM amendment increases the residential density on the
subject parcel and has the potential to increase the student population for schools. The proposed
FLUM amendment is not supported by an analysis for the five year and ten year planning
timeframes of the Comprehensive Plan addressing the following: (1) the number of students for
each school resulting from the FLUM amendment; (2) the impact of the FLUM amendment
students on the five year and ten year community-wide projected student enrollments and five
year and ten year planned capacity of each school; (3) the need for school facility improvements
(scope and timing of school facility improvements) or other planning alternatives to provide
capacity to serve the impacts; and (4) coordination of the amendment and school facility
improvements with the Seminole County School Board. The amendment is not supported by
data and analysis demonstrating that the amendment is consistent with the following provisions
of the City's Comprehensive Plan: Intergovernmental Coordination Element Goal 1, Objective
1.2, and Policies 1.2.2, 1.2.3, and 1.2.5.
The proposed amendment is not consistent with the following requirements: Rules 9J-
5.005(2 and 5); 9J-5.006(3)(c); 9J-5.006(4); 9J-5.015(3)(b)1; 9J-5.015(3)(c)1 and 12, F.A.C.;
and Sections 163.3177(6)(a); and 163.3177(6)(h)1 and 2, F.S.
Recommendation: Revise the amendment to include the required data and analysis
addressing (1) coordination of the amendment with the School Board; (2) the five year and ten
year student impacts to school facilities and the capital improvements or other measures
necessary to provide school capacity to serve the anticipated school students, including analysis
of additional coordination with the School Board regarding additional school facility
improvements that may be needed; and (3) consistency of the amendment with the goals,
objectives, and policies of the City of Winter Springs Comprehensive Plan. Revise the
amendment as necessary to be consistent with and supported by the data and analysis.
Response: Pursuant to that certain Interlocal Agreement between the City and
Seminole County Public Schools dated April 15, 2003, the applicant and the City coordinated
with the Seminole County School Board ("SCSB'') regarding the proposed amendment. The
0909576\112882\949769\2
- 6 -
evidence of this coordination are letters to the School Board from the applicant dated November
28, 2005 and June 5, 2006 attached hereto as Composite Exhibit "B ". SCSB determined that the
project would generate 76 students, see Composite Exhibit "C". SCSB also determined that
there is adequate capacity in the affected schools Highland Elementary School, South Seminole
Middle School and Winter Springs High School, see attached Student Generation Analysis
Worksheet, Composite Exhibit "C" and the Florida Department of Education 5-Year Survey
attached hereto as Exhibit "D ". The SCSB has also agreed to accept a mitigation payment in
the amount of $1,235. 00 for each dwelling unit in addition to the school impact fee for each
unit. This mitigation payment is set forth in the attached letters and included in the binding
Developer's Agreement attached hereto as Exhibit "A ".
3. Obiection: The FLUM Amendment is not appropriately supported by data and analysis
demonstrating the need for the additional proposed FLUM designation of Medium Density
Residential on the FLUM in order to accommodate the City's projected population growth within
the planning timeframe of the City's Comprehensive Plan. The amendment is not supported by
data and analysis demonstrating that the amendment is consistent with the following provisions
of the City's Comprehensive Plan: Housing Element Goal 1, Objective 1.1 and Policy 1.1.1; and
Future Land Use Element Policy 1.1.5.
The proposed amendment is not consistent with the following requirements; Rules 9J-
5.002(8); Rules 9J-5.005(2 and 5); 9J-5.006(1, 2, 3, and 4); 9J-5.006(5); and 9J-5.010(1, 2, and
3), F.A.C.; and Sections 163.3177(2, 6, and 8), F.S.
Recommendation: Revise the amendment to include an analysis, based on professionally
acceptable methodology and assumptions, demonstrating whether there is a need for the
additional acreage of Medium Density Residential use on the FLUM in order to accommodate
the City's projected population growth within the planning tirneframe of the City's
Comprehensive Plan. Revise the amendment as necessary to be consistent with and supported
by the analysis.
Response: The proposed amendment is consistent with the Winter Springs
Comprehensive Plan. The City Comprehensive Plan sets forth need for additional residential
acreage and units and a better mix of housing types. In particular, the Comprehensive Plan
indicates that approximately 5,579 new housing units will be neededfrom 2000 to 2010 to serve
City residents. The Future Land Use Element (pg /-13) states that "it is estimated that
approximately 16,476 total housing units will be needed by 2010 to serve the City residents
(5,579 new units from 2000 to 2010)." The City's Housing Element, Objective 1.1 states that the
City shall "assist the private sector to provide approximately 1,124 new dwelling units of
various types, sizes and costs between 2000 and 2005, plus an additional 2,249 units between
2005 and 2010 necessary to house the City's anticipated population through the planning
horizon." Table 1-4 of the Comprehensive Plan shows that "future growth will demand 4,474
residential acres." (pg 1-14) Table 1-4 titled "Projected Demandfor Vacant Land (2010)" shows
a 328 acre deficit in medium density residential land Since the adoption of City Ordinance
#2006-02, annexation is no longer an instrument for the City to increase its residential acres.
Ordinance #2006-02 prohibits the annexation of land east of Deleon Street. In addition to the
City's inability to expand eastward, a recent Local Area Study demonstrated that the City has no
ability to expand: (1) South because that land is either built out or the City of Oviedo; (2) North
0909576\112882\949769\2
- 7 -
because that land is mostly in either State or County Conservation easements; or (3)West
because that is the City of Longwood Any additional residential land will be created through
comprehensive plan a changes and annexation of small enclaves.
Housing Element Goal 1 is "to ensure adequate supply of a wide range of housing types,
at various levels of affordability, to accommodate the needs of the residents of Winter Springs. "
Future Land Use Element Policy 1.1.5 furthers illustrates the City's goal of a diversity of
housing options. It states that "The Future Land Use Map shall contain an adequate diversity of
lands for residential uses to meet the future demand for residential densities identified in the
Housing Element." As depicted on Table 111-11 of the Housing Element approximately 86.6%
of the City's housing stock is single family. More current data shows that single family detached
housing makes up 71% of the housing stock (outside the Town Center). The proposed townhomes
further Goal 1 by adding a variety of housing for residents who either cannot afford single
family homes or prefer a different type of housing and amenities.
4. Land Use Compatibility: The proposed amendment is not appropriately supported by
data and analysis demonstrating the proposed designation of Medium Density Residential is
compatible with the existing and planned future industrial land uses located in the surrounding
area where the industrial land uses may potentially affect (adversely impact) Medium Density
Residential land use on the amendment parcel. The proposed amendment is not appropriately
supported by data and analysis demonstrating the amendment is consistent with the land use
compatibility goals, objectives and policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan (Future Land Use
Element Objective 1.5 and Policies 1.5.1, 1.5.6, 1.5.7 and 1.5.8; and Housing Element Objective
2.2 and Policy 2.2.7.
The proposed amendment is not consistent with the following requirements: Rules 9J-
5.002(8); Rules 9J-5.005(2 and 5); 9J-5.006(1, 2, 3, and 4); F.A.C.; and Sections 163.3177(2, 6,
and 8), F.S.
Recommendation: Revise the amendment to include an analysis demonstrating that the
proposed Medium Density Residential land use is compatible with the existing and planned
future industrial land uses located in the surrounding area, and demonstrate that the amendment
is consistent with the land use compatibility provisions of the City's Comprehensive Plan.
Revise the amendment as necessary to be consistent with and supported by the analysis.
Response: Future Land Use Element Objective 1.5 states that future
development must be consistent with the adopted Future Land Use Map and
existing incompatible uses shall not be allowed to expand and shall be eliminated,
when feasible." Future Land Use Policy 1.5.1 states that "proposed land use
amendments which are inconsistent with the character of the community or
inconsistent with adjacent future land uses shall not be approved by the City."
Currently the property has a future land use designation of Industrial and this
amendment proposed that it be changed to Medium Density Residential. The
properties to the south have a future land use designation of Low Density
Residential (the applicant has a contract to purchase and has applied for a small
scale amendment for the 1.72 acres of Industrial property located on Florida
Avenue). The properties to the east have afuture land use designation of Medium
0909576\112882\949769\2
- 8 -
Density Residential, the properties to the west have a future land use designation
of both Industrial and Commercial, and the property to the north has a future
land use designation of Industrial. Although some properties to the west have an
industrial land use designation, the properties are all zoned C-2 (either in Winter
Springs or Seminole County). As demonstrated by the confluence of four future
land use designations (Low Density, Medium Density, Commercial and
Industrial) and two jurisdictions (Winter Springs and Seminole County) this
property is an appropriate place for a transitional designation such as Medium
Density Residential. The proposed Medium Density Residential is located
between Commercial/Industrial properties and the Low DensityIMedium Density
properties. The applicant proposes to rezone the entire property planned unit
development and agrees to provide buffering in excess of the City's code
requirements. The buffering between the subject property and commercially
zoned property will include a buffer consisting of a 6' high wall on top of a 5'
berm with trees, shrubs and irrigation which are set forth in a binding
Developer's Agreement. In addition, the applicant, as set forth in a binding
Developer's Agreement, has agreed to include in the Covenants, Conditions, and
Restrictions for the property a notice indicating that the properties to the west
have a future land use designation of Industrial.
Future Land Use Policy 1.5.6 states that "low density residential areas shall be
buffered from intensive commercial and industrial land use. This will be
accomplished by locating less intensive transitional uses in between, or by
buffering with berms, trees or other methods to be included in the Code of
Ordinance as deemed appropriate by the City. "
Future Land Use Policy 1.5.6 requires that low density, not medium density which
is proposed, be buffered from intensive commercial and industrial uses. Although
the proposed amendment requests medium density residential, the applicant has
agreed to provide a berm and a wall to buffer the proposed townhomes from the
existing commercial properties. The City, via the Planned Unit Development
process can require buffering between the medium density residential and the
commercially zoned property to the west.
Future Land Use Policy 1.5.7 states that the City shall "maintain a landscape
ordinance that requires adequate buffering between incompatible uses." Policy
1.5.8 states that "the City shall maintain site design requirements and subdivision
regulations in the Code of Ordinances which adequately addresses the impacts of
new development on adjacent properties in all land use categories and zoning
districts. " The subject property will comply with the landscape buffering
required by the City and will comply with any necessary site design requirements
to address the impacts of new development on adjacent properties. The PUD
process setsforth in the City's LDR (Section 20-351 through 362) grants the City
considerable discretion in its ability to require specific buffering and design
criteria.
0909576\112882\949769\2n
- 9 -
Housing Element Objective 2.2 states that the "City shall promote housing
opportunities for new households in already established neighborhoods and
insure the stabilization of all neighborhoods through the following policies when
applicable." The neighborhood to the east (Medium Density Residential) has
experienced a significant decline in value. The proposed townhomes will assist in
stabilizing he adjacent neighborhood by increasing the value of housing in the
area, and developing a property that currently is used by vagrants. Policy 2.2.7
states that the City shall continue to require, through the City code, adequate
buffering and screening of residential neighborhoods from incompatible uses,
which could adversely impact existing neighborhoods. Landscape buffering and
transitional uses shall be utilized to further this policy. Objective 2.4 states that
the City shall promote infill development. The proposed amendment is for vacant
land inside the City that is surrounded on all sides by development. This is a
classic infill site.
II. CONSISTENCY WITH STATE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Objection: The proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment 06-1 is not consistent with and does
not further the following provisions of the State Comprehensive Plan (Chapter 187, Florida
Statutes) for the reasons noted in the objections raised above in Section I:
(a) Goal 9.a (Natural Systems and Recreational Lands); Policy 9.b. 1.1;
(b) Goal 15.a (Land Use); Policy 15.b.l;
(c) Goal 16.a (Urban and Downtown Revitalization); Policy 16.b.8
(d) Goal 17.a (Public Facilities); Policy 17.b.7; and
(e) Goal 25.a (Plan Implementation); Policy 25.b.7.
Recommendation: Revise the plan amendment as recommended for the objections raised
above.
0909576\112882\949769\2
- 10 -
THIS INSTRUMENT WAS PREPARED BY:
AND SHOULD BE RETURNED TO:
Anthony A. Garganese
City Attorney of Winter Springs
Brown, Garganese, Weiss & D'Agresta, P.A.
225 E. Robinson St., Suite 660
Orlando, FL 32801
(407) 425-9566
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (the "Agreement") is made and executed
this day of June, 2006, by and between the CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, a
Florida Municipal Corporation (the "City"), whose address is 1126 East S.R. 434, Winter
Springs, Florida 32708, and THE KEEWIN REAL PROPERTY COMPANY, a Florida
corporation ("Developer") whose address is 1031 West Morse Blvd., Winter Park, FL
32789.
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, Developer is the contract purchaser of that certain real property
located in Seminole County, Florida consisting of approximately 47 acres, as more
particularly described on Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein (the
"Property"); and
WHEREAS, Developer desires to develop townhomes or condominiums on the
Property (the "Project"); and
WHEREAS, Developer has applied for an amendment to the Winter Springs
Comprehensive Plan in order to accommodate the Project; and
WHEREAS, at this stage in the development review process, the City and
Developer have agreed to certain conditions of development related to, among other things:
(i) buffers; (ii) notices to potential purchasers; (iii) school mitigation; and (iv) recreational
land; and
WHEREAS, the Developer acknowledges and agrees that as the Project is taken
through the City's development review process, the City may require that this
Development Agreement be modified to incorporate additional terms and conditions in
order to safeguard the public's interests; and
WHEREAS, the City and Developer desire to execute this Agreement in order to
more fully set forth the conditions of development.
Development Agreement
City of Winter Springs and Keewin Real Property Company
Page 1 of9
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promIses and covenants
contained herein, the parties mutually agree as follows:
1. The recitals set forth above are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this
reference.
2. Buffer. Since the properties to the west of the Project are zoned commercial and
industrial, the Developer has agreed to build a buffer between the Project and those
properties to the west. The buffer will include a 6' high wall on top of a 5' berm. The
buffer shall also include trees, shrubs and irrigation in accordance with a landscape plan
deemed acceptable to the City.
3. Notice to Purchasers. The Developer will include in the Covenants, Conditions and
Restrictions for the Project a notice to all potential purchasers that the properties adjacent
to the west have zoning designations of industrial and commercial. Said notice shall be
subject to the approval of the City Attorney.
4. Parks and Recreation. In accordance with Winter Springs Code Section 20-354 and
other applicable provisions of the City's Comprehensive Plan and Code, the Developer
agrees to dedicate an appropriate amount of land as a park for the residents of the Project.
Such park shall have recreational facilities built in accordance with the standards of the
National Recreational Association. In addition, such park shall be protected through deed
restrictions recorded in the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for the Project which
shall ensure the preservation of its intended use, the payment of future taxes, and the
maintenance of the park and facilities for a safe, healthy and attractive living environment.
The park shall be included in the phasing plan, if any, and shall be constructed and fully
improved by Developer at an equivalent or greater rate than the construction of the
residential structures for which it serves.
5. School Mitigation Payment. In order to mitigate the potential impacts of the Project
on the Seminole County Public Schools, Developer has agreed to pay One Thousand Two
Hundred Thirty-Five Dollars ($1,235.00) for each residential unit in addition to the School
Impact Fees charged for each residential unit. The Mitigation Payment shall be paid to the
School Board upon the date that the City grants the first vertical building permit for the
Project. The School Board shall be considered a third party beneficiary under this
Development Agreement for the limited purpose of enforcing the provisions of this
paragraph against the Developer. Nothing herein shall be construed as obligating or
requiring the City to pay, or otherwise enforce the payment of, the Mitigation Payment to
the School Board. Developer agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the City from any
action, dispute, claim, or litigation directly or indirectly involving the Mitigation Payment.
6. Notices. Any and all notices, elections, demands, requests and responses thereto
permitted or required to be given under this Agreement shall be in writing, signed by or on
behalf of the party giving the same, and shall be deemed to have been properly given and
Development Agreement
City of Winter Springs and Keewin Real Property Company
Page 2 of9
shall be effective upon being personally delivered, or upon being faxed to the number set
forth below to the appropriate party, or upon being deposited in the United States mail,
postage prepaid, certified with return receipt requested, or upon being deposited on a paid
basis with a nationally recognized overnight delivery service, to the other party at the
address of such other party set forth below or at such other address as such other party
may designate by notice specifically designated as a notice of change of address and given
in accordance herewith, provided, however, that the time period in which a response to any
such notice, election, demand or request must be given shall commence on the date of
receipt thereof; and provided further that no notice of change of address shall be effective
until the date of receipt thereof. Personal delivery to a party or to any officer, partner,
agent or employee of such party at said address shall constitute receipt. Rejection or other
refusal to accept or inability to deliver because of changed address of which no notice has
been received shall also constitute receipt. Any such notice, election, demand, request or
response, shall be addressed as follows:
If to Developer:
The Keewin Real Property Company
1031 West Morse Blvd., Suite 325
Winter Park, FL 32789
Attn: Jay Folk
Phone: 407-645-4400
Fax: 407-645-0340
With a copy to:
Lowndes, Drosdick, Doster, Kantor & Reed, P,A.
215 N. Eola Drive
P.O. Box 2809
Orlando, FL 32801
Attn: M. Rebecca Furman, Esquire
Phone: 407-843-4600
Fax: 407-843-4444
If to City:
City of Winter Springs
1126 East S,R. 434
Winter Springs, FL 32708
Attn: City Manager
Phone: 407-327-5999
Fax: 407-327-4753
Development Agreement
City of Winter Springs and Keewin Real Property Company
Page 3 of9
With a copy to:
Anthony Garganese, Esq.
City Attorney of Winter Springs
Brown, Garganese, Weiss & D'Agresta, P.A
225 E. Robinson St., Ste. 660
Orlando, FL 32801
Phone: 407-425-9566
Fax: 407-425-9596
Either party may change the address provided hereinabove by giving written notice
of such change to the other party or parties as herein provided.
7. Entire Agreement. The making, execution and delivery of this Agreement by the
parties hereto have been induced by no representations, statements, warranties or
agreements other than those expressed herein. This Agreement embodies the entire
understanding of the parties hereto with respect to the subject matter hereof, and there are
no other written or oral agreements in effect between the parties hereto relating to the
subject matter hereof. This Agreement or any part thereof may only be amended or
modified by an agreement in writing by both ofthe parties hereto.
8. Severability. Whenever possible, each provision of this Agreement shall be
interpreted in such a manner as to be effective and valid under applicable law, but should
any provision of this Agreement be prohibited or invalid under such law, such provision
shall be ineffective to the extent of such prohibition or invalidity without invalidating the
remainder of such provision or the remaining provisions of this Agreement.
9. Binding Effect. Except as provided hereinabove, this Agreement shall be binding
upon and shall inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and their respective successors and
assIgns.
10. Waiver. A waiver of any provision hereof or any default hereunder by either party
shall be effective only in writing. A waiver of one provision shall not constitute a waiver of
any other provision hereof, and a waiver of default shall not apply to any other default
whether occurring simultaneously or at a later date.
11. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in two or more counterparts, each
of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which if taken together shall constitute one
and the same Agreement.
12. Governing Law. The laws of Florida shall govern the validity, performance and
enforcement of the Agreement.
13. Headings. The headings of these several paragraphs contained herein are for
convenience only and do not define, limit or affect the contents of such paragraphs.
Development Agreement
City of Winter Springs and Keewin Real Property Company
Page 4 of9
14. Authorization. Each of the parties represents that this Agreement has been duly
executed by a partner or officer authorized to bind such party and that this Agreement
constitutes the valid, binding and enforceable obligation of such party.
15. Attorney's Fees. Any party to this Agreement who is the prevailing party in any
legal proceeding against any other party brought under or in connection with this
Agreement or the subject matter hereof, shall be additionally entitled to recover court costs
and reasonable attorney fees, and all other litigation expenses, including deposition costs,
travel and expert witness fees from the non-prevailing party.
16. Construction. The parties acknowledge that each party and its counsel have
reviewed this Agreement and the parties hereby agree that the normal rule of construction
to the effect that any ambiguities are to be resolved against the drafting party shall not be
employed in the interpretation of this Agreement or any addendums or exhibits hereto.
17. Venue. Venue for any legal proceedings under this Agreement shall lie solely in the
state courts in and for Seminole County, Florida, or in the United States District Court for
the Middle District of Florida.
18. Representations of the Parties. The City and Developer hereby each represent
and warrant to the other that it has the power and authority to execute, deliver and
perform the terms and provisions of this Agreement and has taken all necessary action
to authorize the execution, delivery and performance of this Agreement. When title to
the Property is vested in Developer and when duly executed and delivered by the City,
then this Agreement will be recorded by the City in the Public Records of Seminole
County, Florida, and will constitute a legal, valid and binding obligation enforceable
against the Property in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement.
Developer represents that it has voluntarily and willfully executed this Agreement for
purposes of binding the Property to the terms and conditions set forth in this
Agreement. In the event Developer does not acquire title to the Property pursuant to
the Contract for Sale and Purchase or within one year of both parties signing this
Agreement, which ever occurs sooner, then this Agreement shall be of no force and
effect unless both parties agree in writing that Developer will be given additional time
to acquire the Property. Developer represents and warrants that they will notify the
City Attorney, in writing, within three (3) business days of closing on the Property.
19. Successors and Assigns. This Agreement shall automatically be binding upon
and shall inure to the benefit of the City and Developer and their respective successors
and assigns.
20. Amendments. This Agreement shall not be modified or amended except by
written agreement duty executed by both parties hereto (or their successors or assigns)
and approved by the City Commission.
Development Agreement
City of Winter Springs and Keewin Real Property Company
Page 5 of9
21. Effective Date. This Agreement shall become effective upon approval by
the City Commission and execution of this Agreement by both parties hereto.
22. Relationship of the Parties. The relationship of the parties to this
Agreement is contractual and Developer is an independent contractor and not an agent
of the City. Nothing herein shall be deemed to create a joint venture or principal-agent
relationship between the parties, and neither party is authorized to, nor shall either
party act toward third persons or the public in any manner, which would indicate any
such relationship with the other.
23. Sovereign Immunity. Notwithstanding any other provision set forth in this
Agreement, nothing contained in this Agreement shall be construed as a waiver of the
City's right to sovereign immunity under Section 768.28, or other limitations imposed on
the City's potential liability under state or federal law. As such, the City shall not be liable,
under this Agreement for punitive damages or interest for the period before judgment.
Further, the City shall not be liable for any claim or judgment, or portion thereof, to any
one person for more than one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000.00), or any claim or
judgment, or portion thereof, which, when totaled with all other claims or judgments paid
by the State or its agencies and subdivisions arising out of the same incident or occurrence,
exceeds the sum of two hundred thousand dollars ($200,000.00). This paragraph shall
survive termination of this Agreement.
24. City's Police Power. Developer agrees and acknowledges that the City
hereby reserves all police powers granted to the City by law. In no way shall this
Agreement be construed as the City bargaining away or surrendering its police powers.
25. Third-Party Rights. Except as provided in paragraph 5, this Agreement is
not a third party beneficiary contract and shall not in any way whatsoever create any
rights on behalf of any third party.
26. Specific Performance. Strict compliance shall be required with each and
every provision of this Agreement. The parties agree that failure to perform the obligations
provided by this Agreement shall result in irreparable damage and that specific
performance of these obligations may be obtained by a suit in equity,
27. Development Permits. Nothing herein shall limit the City's authority to
grant or deny any development permit applications or requests subsequent to the effective
date of this Agreement. The failure of this Agreement to address any particular City,
County, State and/or Federal permit, condition, term or restriction shall not relieve
Developer or the City of the necessity of complying with the law governing said permitting
requirement, condition, term or restriction. Without imposing any limitation on the City's
police powers, the City reserves the right to withhold, suspend or terminate any and all
Development Agreement
City of Winter Springs and Keewin Real Property Company
Page 6 of9
certificates of occupancy for any building or unit if Developer is in breach of any term and
condition of this Agreement.
28. Termination. The City shall have the unconditional right, but not obligation, to
terminate this Agreement, without notice or penalty, if Developer fails to receive building
permits and substantially commence vertical construction of the Project within three (3)
years of the effective date of this Agreement. If the City terminates this Agreement, the
City shall record a notice of termination in the public records of Seminole County, Florida
if this Agreement is recorded pursuant to paragraph 18.
[SIGNATURE BLOCKS BEGIN ON NEXT PAGE]
Development Agreement
City of Winter Springs and Keewin Real Property Company
Page 70f9
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have hereunto set their hands and seal on the
date first above written.
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS
By:
John F. Bush, Mayor
ATTEST:
By:
Andrea Lorenzo Luaces, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY
For the use and reliance of the City of Winter Springs,
Florida only,
CITY SEAL
Date:
By:
Anthony Garganese, City Attorney for
the City of Winter Springs, Florida
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF SEMINOLE
Personally appeared before me, the undersigned authority, John F. Bush and
Andrea Lorenzo Luaces, well known to me to be the Mayor and City Clerk respectively,
of the City of Winter Springs, Florida, and acknowledged before me that they executed
the foregoing instrument on behalf of the City of Winter Springs, as its true act and deed,
and that they were duly authorized to do so.
Witness my hand and official seal this _ day of
,2006.
(NOTARY SEAL)
Notary Public
My commission expires:
Development Agreement
City of Winter Springs and Keewin Real Property Company
Page 8 of9
Signed, sealed and delivered in the
presence of the following witnesses:
THE KEEWIN REAL PROPERTY
COMP ANY, a Florida corporation
Printed Name of Witness
By:
Name:
Title:
Signature of Witness
Date:
Signature of Witness
Printed Name of Witness
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF ORANGE
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of
, 2006, by , as of THE
KEEWIN REAL PROPERTY COMPANY, on behalf of said company. He is personally
known to me or produced as identification.
(NOTARY SEAL)
(Notary Public Signature)
(Print Name)
Notary Public, State of
Commission No.:
My Commission Expires:
Development Agreement
City of Winter Springs and Keewin Real Property Company
Page 9 of9
COMPOSITE
EXHIBIT "BI1
o 0
~
INVESTMENTS AND REAL ESTATE
o
o
November 28, 2005
Via Fax and Mail
Mr. George Kosmac
Deputy Superintendent
Seminole County Public Schools
400 E Lake Mary Boulevard
Sanford, F132773-7127
Re: Townhome ProjectJCityofWinterSprings
Dear George:
It was a pleasure meeting you and discussing our proposed Townhome Development Project in
the City ofWinterSprings. We have applied to the City for a Large Scale Comprehensive Plan
Amendment, which changes the Future Land Use Map designation from "Industrial" to "Medium
Density Residential" for approximately 334 Townhome Units.
The Project. know as the Dittmer Property, encompasses approximately 47 acres and is located
between Shephard Road and Florida Avenue. Our discussion brought forth that the schools
serving our Project are the Highlands Elementary School which is near school capacity, the South
Seminole Middle School which is over school capacity, and the Winter Springs School which is
also over school capacity.
In order to support the Seminole County School Board and to provide financial means to have
the schools upgraded to meet additional capacity we have agreed to fund $1,235.00 for each
townhome approved. The total payment for the school capacity fund will be paid to Seminole
County School Board upon the date that the first townhome building permit is pulled.
Thank you for your time and assistance with this matter.
Jay E. Folk
President
xc: Allan E, Keen
THE KEEWJN REAL PROPERTY COMPANY
1031 WEST MORSE BOULEVARD. SUITE J25 . WINTER PARX, FLORIDA 32789
TELEl'IlONS: 407.645.4400 FASCIMrUl: 407.645.0340
BROKER
"Growmg and Developing With Central Florida Since 1978"
IfliI&=
COMPOSITE
EXHIBIT IIBn
0 0
~
INVESTMENTS AND REAL ESTATE
0 0
May 31, 2006
Mike Rigby
Planner
Seminole County School Board
Educational Support Center
400 E. Lake Mary Blvd.
Sanford, FL 32772
RE: The Keewin Real Property Company ("Developer") - Townhomes in Winter
Springs, Florida (the "Project"); Parcel ID #: 26-20-30-5AR-OCOO-0210; 33-20-
30-503-0000-0240; 33-20-30-503-0000-025A.
Dear Mr. Rigby:
The Developer is requesting approval from the City of Winter Springs for up to 334
townhouse or condominium units within the Project located in Seminole County as more
particularly described on Exhibit A. In the event that such approvals are granted, the Developer
agrees to make a contribution to the Seminole County School Board (the "School Board") in the
amount of $1,235.00 per unit for purposes of mitigating any impacts to the school system
resulting from the Project's additional residential units. It is uncertain at this time exactly how
many units will be approved and developed in the Project. The Developer shall donate the total
contribution, to be calculated by multiplying the approved number of units by the contribution
amount of $1,235.00 ("Mitigation Payment"), The Mitigation Payment shall be paid to the
School Board upon the date that the first building pennit for the Project is pulled.
The Developer acknowledges that the above mitigation payment is in addition to and not
in lieu of any fees, including but not limited to school impact fees that may be required by any
governmental entity having jurisdictions over the Project. The Developer further agrees that it is
not entitled to and will not seek any credits against any fees required by any governmental entity
jurisdiction over the proposed project, including but not limited to school impact fees. It is
understood that the School Board's use of the funds shall be limited to capital construction
projects included in the School Board's annual five (5) year capital Construction/Outlay Plan.
The Developer acknowledges that the mitigation payment is a voluntary donation and that it
expects no benefit or consideration of any kind from the School Board.
THE .KEEWIN REAl. PROPERTY COMPANY
1031 WEST MORSE BOULEVARD. SUITE 325. WINTER PARK, FLORIOA 32789
0909576\112882\956011\1 TELEPHONE: 40;.645.4400 FASCJMILI'.: 407.645J)340
BROKER
"Growing and Developing With Central Florida Since 1978"
HIff==
This letter is written in recordable form. In the event of default by the Developer,
recordation of this letter will evidence the Developer's obligations. The Developer consents and
agrees to the voluntary mitigation payment described herein as evidenced by the executed
"Consent and Agreement" attached to this letter. In addition, the provisions of this letter are
covenants running with the land, binding upon the parties hereto and their respective successors
in title and assigns. As always, it has been a pleasure working with the Seminole County School
System on the Project.
cc: City of Winter Springs
CONSENT AND AGREEMENT
The Keewin Real Property Company, consents and agrees to the covenants set forth
herein.
Dated this ~'J.t day of June, 2006.
ATTEST: ~
~
Jay Folk
Its: President
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF ORANGE
SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED before me thi~ day of June 2006 by Jay Folk who
is personally known to me or produced N J yq as i ntification:
I
(NOTARY SEAL)
Notary ubli Signatu e
(~::;~lin~~)
Notary Public, State of
Commission No.:
My Commission Expires:
~~T"~ SHERRYMCOOPER
'.::!. 9'..1' MY COMMISSION # ODs.:9700
~.f\~ EXPIRES: JUM23,20IO
1407}MoOl53 ~NoIary~
G9095?6\112882\95601l\1
COMPOSITE
EXHIBIT nCn
PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET:
Name:
Dittmer Property
Jurisdiction:
City of Winter Springs
Project Address:
South of Shepard Rd. & North of Florida Ave., Winter Springs
Tax Parcel Numbers: 28-20-30-5AS-OBOO-015A; -0170; 26-20-30-5AR-OCOO-021O; 33-20-30-
503-0000-00150; -0240; -025A; 33-20-30-503-0S00-0000
Requested Action: Proposed FLU change to MDR, adding 334 MF units to development plan
Existing Zoning: PUD & C-2
Existing Land Uses: Vacant
Future Land Use: Industrial
Site Area: 47.27 Acres
Proposed Residential Development: 334 MF units (Townhouses)
Student Generation:
Elementary
Middle
High
Total
334 X .115 = 39
334 X .053 = 18
334 X .057 = 19
76
Fee Generation
Current School Impact Fee
334 X $639 (SF fee) =
$213,426
Capacity Mitigation Model
334 X $1,235 =
$412,490
Total Funds
$625,916
Affected School Attendance Zone:
Elementary
Middle
High
Highlands
South Seminole
Winter Springs High
I-
W
W
J:
UJ
~
0::
o
~
en
UJ
>-
...l
<(
Z
<(
Z
o
~
w
z
w
(!)
I-
Z
W
o
::)
I-
en
00
00
..,flli
t- (')
'!:!. N_
N~
<h <h
<l.>
rn
~
o
J:~
'0 c
<l.>::J
.cO}
U c
!!l=
<l.> <l.>
o ~
..<:;-0 <l.>
'E~ E
ro E 0
tLrnI
~'t~
oE15
c ::l 0
v):;E~
'<t()')1.O
OO(')l.O
(')(O()')
~E/7u)'
<h
<l.>
rn
::l
o
I~
"0 c
<l.>::J
.cO}
U c
2=
<D <D
O~
..<:;-0 <l.>
'E ~E
rn E 0
ll..rnI
dltt~
Cil:eB
c ~ 0
V):a:a
<b3~~
'<tN(,)
000
.c'<tt-1.O
OlNl.Ot-
.- ~ 0 0
:r: . . .
000
O>'<t(')(')
-.....l.OOO
'0.....00
:2000
:!l
EIDl.O<O
G)~~(X)
_-N~~
Wooo
..<:;- <l.>
'E ,?;- E
ell E 0
ll..ruI
<l.> ll.. <l>
~Cil:eB
~~~~
COMPOSITE
EXHIBIT "Cfl
~ ~
Q) .$ $
c c c
~~w
~~~
.'D ~ .'D
'c 'c
::J .'D ::J
..<:;- ~ <l.>
'E ..<:;- g
~ 'E I
4) ~ ~
en ~ :0
c '5 0
(/) ~ :a
000
ID in :v
.0 D .0
E E E
::l ::l ::l
Z Z Z
c-.J <0
<0
o
o
>::-!
.....
<0
'0
<D
C
&
III
-'0
c 0
<l>.r;
~g
['(l to
Q.. ""
<D..a
o ::l
010...
c >.
'c C
c ::J
['(l 0
0::0
rn.!!!
<l> 0
E .~
'5 E
rn (l)
lL(/)
0'.
N
N
8
0-.
EXHIBIT unu
;:r
-5
::::
r:o
"Cl
"Cl
'tl
8
C-
o
0.
o
<>
~
~
r
::::.
i:::
~
-.j
-.j
-.j
00
'-
<>
::tl
:s
"o;l
!ZI
1"'0
~
I~
;J>
to
"
m
1-
-
1'1
~~~~~5~~~~@c~~~G~a~~~~~~fflffl~
~~~~~z~s~~m~~:P~~z~:PG~~~~z>~
~ <Gm~mm~1 ~-omm%~~~~-~~_
nz~~>::;~oo~x~~x~~<~~~oo~m~~r~
~mnn~omz~>mFZ~Ooo>~m~~r~o~>o
oo~rr~o~mm~~oo~z~~Q~mo~mzm~~
~~~~mc~~~~~m~m~om~~~~>~~~mm
~~Z~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~>mm~~>~~~>~~~~~~~>~~r~~~m~
~~~~~g~~~~~g~~>g~g~~gi~~~~g
~ ~m ~g ~~ ~~~~:P > ~~~~~~~~ ~
~ ~~ ~o >~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~~>> ~mn
~~ ~ ~ > ~~ ~5
~~ ~ ~o
~ mr
Zn
~~
~iri
;;tI
o~~~wm~~m~~wm~~m~OO~OO~IDmoo
O~~~WA~~m~~~~~~~ ~~w~~~~~~
~OO-~~W~~rnO~~~m~w OW~WWN~~W
000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000
~ ~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~3
~~ ~~~~~ci~8~g~~~~~~~ffi~~~~8
m~OOWm~N_N~~~O~WWW~W~WON~~~
00
o
o
o
000
00
"'~
o ~
"'0
~N
"''''
..'"
...
o
I ~ N
"'''''''
"'....
,l\:,l......t\j.......
0;...... I\.J N-(O
w(t}J:o.Cco-
~;:
~ ~w ~N ~
~oj~cooo8~ooooooo~ooooooooo
g
- '"
~ ~
~~j~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ffi~~~2~
~w~~wom~~~~~-~O~~WONWNW
00.
_ 0 <:>
......................,..),""--'>.................
ggg8ggg88gggg gggg88gg
g~~~~~~~~*~~~~~~8~~~~*~~~~~
m~~~~~~~~O~rn~~~~~ WONw~w
~ ~- ~~ - -~~~~
~~i~~~g~~~m~~~~ffi~~~~~Bg~~~~
~~~~N~N~~~~o8~om-w~~~~ooo~rn
;;tI
m
n
o
~
~~~
-C!l- Omm
"" tII~Z
mr:u~
Xmo
'f. gill~
_ ~Xm
rv ~:o~
r:::
c
m
z
....
~
u,
-
~
~
U>
:P
~~::!~
>c:~-
g~~~
zz~z
",~oCl
~
'" ,
"''''
0'>'"
;g ;7J ~
r::: [:l",,,,~
~o~~n
o~g't
~ momz
~ ~z!ifri
'" G z
n
o
U>~z
~;::l~z
~-~m
o~c::;
zzn
~~::!
o
z
~
m
"'''' n
>~~o
::!6Sl~
om>m
zzrz
"'~ 0
m
o
r:::
.,,::!
~~
0...
;>;5
z
;;tI
m
~~2
"C~
~~~
::!~S
m
o
;lj
m
nn
~~>o
om~"
E>n"
~~_m
~ :g
m
c
>
00
r
m
;;
o
~
g
<>
<>
<>
'"
<<>
U>
m
~
z
o
r
m
n
o
c
z
~
~
n
x
o
o
r
C
~
~
;;g
o
~
'"
~(n~
)>C<
~::om
c<-<
~m-<
{r;:;~
:;:" <;u
<om'"
)>::0"
'0",0
'0 ~<:>
~O'"
~=~
a. 0
<5
;;:r'i~.-I
~ ~,tf, ''OJ
:~:q~~~!
\_~--'l. -,'1
L-J
"
r-
o
;:0
(J'lO
-<)>
me
)>m
;:0"
)>
(/);:0
C:-l
~s:
mm
-<~
~o
OJ"
r-m
mC
_C:
-(')
~
o
z
o
'"
-tfir
;;"0
g"
.c L
~c
~z
::::;N
",8
...,'"
r
S"
o
'"
-0
~
-0
..
~
o
.,.,
o
a
'"
N'
II!
V>
-<
tTl
>
iO
en
c::
iO
<
tTl
-<
-I
>
to
"
m
"
5"
S
0'
.,
-
-
-0
'"
'<l
"
o
:il
"
@
0'
;0
'0
o
[
"o;l
.,
rro
"
o
....,
w
::r "';;:: e;:o::r e~~g~!<~~>~fJ I~ -; -; '" '" ;0 Z Z ;;:: ;;:: ;;:: '; ~ Z Gl lii~:!i~:!i~~~~!G!(!fB~ V1
.g mm QiCC Qi1if~g!Cg~~~F~~o!2i1l -<
;;::,... "'"Q Qi:!'j;;::mffi3::;>;;>;;>;GlO O:!'jr;;~2S,...9}~2!~02' tTl
=::: -,... 6~ril d9}~~g!C~~~9}~ 6~~:UJ"'-n"'m~~ciB:~ 60mO""<@"""'i5""~~
"" Zc >-
'1j Cz ~~;:o ~cn,...~",cn>~~:t'" >:!imcneJ,;~~m1!::~Z~-;:E -;,;;oZC)>o;o2';;j "OGl:E ::0
'r.:l f;;s ,...~~ "":-g~)>o~~~mZ:E~ ,...,...i:m ",;=;=1!;e 0 $!O ~z!ilp:!:Ep:!mGlo';Qm {JJ
'1j )>0"" >a!!H;m~~o;;::~:Eili-O ~~m~mhi::a:::JI\zr-~
(3 1i!M 00 z~~o~~:::~~1; ;;::?,!~01!; ?!1!;O:;;Cir;;~ -;;::m;;:: m-;mm c:
0- -> ~~ g)(5!'!i~:I::i!:ffl-<cn~ -m,...?'!O-nmmoOcn:I:;;::)>o P:!i5!ll3::~~~~p:!p:!~;;:: ::0
0 zz o::t g mm}2l1ffl :ag~~a@ ~~>S1>:!i[!!3::~~:!i!.l1 <
(iiZ mO cn;:O -BOz"'o-< tTl
0... -;mo "Oz m::r Gl::r;>:1(5m:I: :;; ~ m~~ m!;g!;?!cn m"";Q>;>:1~m!llmm)>o> -<
0 ~)(O g~~ 35 ::r :E;:o~8!il o 00 o,...om!; :!i~-<;Q-<-<!:-;ZZ~;ll
,.. ~ !ii z",O ~::r !il;;;;>:1""z r'" f"'"l"'" ~mo 0: )>om -< cn!;l1>>> -< ....,
~ >-;m ;;; !il~ ;S~ m mm m~r:;;?,! ~:!'j o>~;o;J:l >-
"" m ::I r-e"O )>0 :I: -<-< to
r; 0 J> ",o::t !il ::r ~O!'i :I: m3:: ;>:1 0;0 r'
~ -n 0 -;mo o _ -< 12-<
." ;;:: CZz >0 0 0 tTl
i::: (5 z 0-;)>0 ::1;0 ,... c -
m mmr- o;E r- -
~ '" c;:; ZCcn m
-.l -; -jet:! ZG'l
-.l ~ mj;c -;:I:
m
-.l g:::lm 0
Q:C' 0 <'lOZ ::r
<0 Z )>oz-; Z
::tl ::10 0
,...
'" Om 0
-- zz
:.:a o;;j ~
{JJ ~;J:l
I'" ;;j
;::0 ;0
'"
I~
>-
to '" -
l' l.oOOO;lOJ-.....jr;o'-..lIDOOmocc......
l~ 00 ~~~ 00000000000 000000000000-000 N..p.......(XlW{OWtO"-J!...;J_......O
wOO-Nmw......~......w~Q'l
-. - 11~1~ - - -
-.Ol- 00 "'o-t}vW....a.A---'t~~~ltI ~(..J},.}
00 ""0 co 00-0.00000 :eRS~~g~o;~~~ oO{~ 000000.0000000
f-
'"
NNVl- :/'V!'-J-NNr>..)N
coco 0,1:0 ":.....!l1Imw'io~Q:)
00 <1><1>0 ;:3O"1~&;~~~~~~~ oooooooooooo~ 0000000000000
'" ~.......................... ~ -
"'Nw .N~N~./'>J. !'V!V~N
b1d.,:..o -.....!<n-r.QW-iD-..J:CO lnw'(,.,:..a.:':":"".$),W1-.J(nNWW"W 1s~~g:~~~ffi~~~~~
co..", -.J.,fl,..WWNl'.)NO'1otoJoWO (D-CD(X:l~O~-..lmO'.lW~N~"""-l-..l
00 "''''Ol ~t1Io)OO'"'-.lO'l-..J.WAo>m ..j:l.1\;;(QtoCJW~~N-OO""'WOa:...... "'"'OO......rvfJ:'J/D.....A_(..:J{oU'I
~~
"''''-
-0-
~':::'2.
'"
.f:>.-N~ w!\.3VJf\JI;Mr-v
omb......1..:amiu):.,J...,col.O
m"lON<O..........CDA~~
-#...r...tOVlnNt.~-..l-..j{pOOO
-::~m1u~N ~~~J:..J:..(nb3
::t(i~oa;~oogf2~~f~iD
~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
00
-
o '"
o 00
o 000
00
o
o
f-f-
"'N
-0-
.....0
""
w
'"
'"
...
..
o
~
'" , -
Oi~~
'"
o
""
~..... ,
R3~~
'"
..
......
-ill
(Xl",
'" , '"
"'co",
'" "" '"
...
'"
'"
'"
~~;j8
- ....,I,:;I~ ~ -
~ ~~ ~ E!.
"''''
N",
00 ~4::0-0
e ::: ~
-c.o .p., -..J(X)
QlOOOU"lOOOOOo
N _
~ -:no,!\J Ut
o W-"W N
Q"lOOOOO_trE.mJ.OQOOOOO
...
'".....J N ~N -b.
ooooo~o~Rjo~oo
"''''~
"''''0
~~ ..t~o
'"
(...l/'>.:JW NNWNWN
/.oo,t..:l-o,Cno-:"'oo,lJ)
j~g~~~::8~~~t;
w__........;a,-o. ..........-0..-1.""""...............
bJ:;:..(.nVJfN~lt1~:...r(..;,):..o,b1).,.
~tVOl""" {nw.......-o.i'V(OCOOJ:o.N
~.t;../'.jO ...........(;lwoo oow
::;
~ ~ :r;: ~ ~ ~ {j $ :~ Ie; I~::: ~ d
..$lt. " :0 -niio- N- -r.o -r.:o ..... ..p. I~ Iz; \C ...."
I I ,
:-" :-" ,. ~ll
00 l Qta~~~QW;;oi:oCo
.;:) o. i 01 r"."1 0 <.l'1 0; GJ {il Ul (J'I r"n
I
8:g~g888:g
-'-.......... .....
8:g8~ f-~~b8~~~~~~~~
:;;0
'" "'-
"''''0
....0
f-
'"
N1'J(.IJ I\.J"I'o.JNN
*~~~~~~~
~-J....... __........-0.-0.-0...........
b1N~:...~.....J:>"WNr;,NWW0.>N
~~~~~2j~~;j*~~gm~
::; -
~~~g:~~;j~~R3~~C3
.;:..OO......Nr.o(!l.......A........~(1?Ut
'="
k:>
k:>
o
o
~
,
I
WN .....l
~g~1
I
II.~""','" 5"8WW '5" I <~-~.- _-~.. .-.-1
.....wm~N ~~~ ~~ ~ ~m~~l
'I'" W '" 0 '" '" q! - '" '" -. g) '" '" '" "'ll
~.~~m ~~~I ~m ~~ -md~~i
W
l)::.... ...... ..... ....._ ......
~g~~~~g;~S:~~~~
OOON-.JCf;O"""-lf.OteQlO'lwo:.
"l;1
;l:l
(JQ
,..
N
o
-.
w
co
::r I~~ c-l-lm c:cn3:m I~;;: V>
-6 C -<
tD$!l'lg tDc!a~ tD~ tD
~ zm -IZ::I:O -Io;:E- -Iz -I tTl
0::1: O",zlo omloZ:: 0-1 ~ :>
f.l -Ilo -1",,0-1 -Iz-<z -1m ~
o:!l ;eg5i3 ~~~;;: )>z
'0 r-lo r-
'0 >;>1 -IelZ c::....m Z iZl
-r r-~ ~-<~ ",m~ 0 c:
0 !!!
0.- C --0", m:rlo .... ;;0
0 lo Dloc Clot'" ~ <
Z Z;tl-o S:;>1", tTl
0.. "-0 tD-I ;=
Z 100li: Oc -<
0 m z;oc ;>1S!8 ::j
(!l X z-lt'" ffi ....,
~ mo:1 !J);;: Ulli: 6;
0-' Xm-o oS: Ul~
r; zr- mC mz
S -1m ZZ ~;;l r
~ mc iri:i tt1
:I: ;tlUl
i:: m lorn Oz ::::
;>1 ;>1", mlo
'" Z<il m "'z
-..j ZC ;>1 0
-..j ~~ < m
-..j 0 0
00 :!l m
0-
::::-.
~
'"1:1
iZl
1"'Ci
~
l~
:>
ttl ~
r '"
tt1 :,:::", 0000 0000 ~o ~
I -
- ~
...
~ 0000 0000-
... '" ~~ ~
...
...
'"
'" 0000 0000 "''''
'" '" ~
i:::l
'"
.... 00.00 0000 "''''
"'''' ~
.~
....
.... 00 Co-O 0000 0'"
"'0 ~
0 0000 .0000 "'''' ~
'"
~
~!- ....
-
'"
t:o
0000
0000
"''''
;2,
...
'"
'"
'" 0000 0000-0 0'" ;;;,
~'"
:
- -- -
~ ggg boa !-~
000 l-
I I
... j
'"
'"
... I
"'~ 00,00 0-000 ~..:; ~
I
, I "'Ci
~. lec co ""
(Jq
t::; C1)
N ~ ~l w
8 0
,..."
i':J' -0 000'0 00 '" w
ORDINANCE NO. 2005-29
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, SEMINOLE COUNTY,
FLORIDA, RELATING TO COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING;
SETTING FORTH AND ADOPTING A LARGE SCALE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT, REFERENCED AS
LS-CP A-06-01, PROVIDING FOR ADOPTION OF AN
AMENDMENT TO THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP BY
DESIGNATING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY WITHIN THE
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS GENERALLY DESCRIBED AS
SEVEN (7) PARCELS OF LAND, CONTAINING 47.27 GROSS
ACRES MORE OR LESS, AND LOCATED GENERALLY
ALONG SHEPARD ROAD AND NORTH OF FLORIDA
AVENUE, MORE PARTICULARLY AND LEGALLY
DESCRIBED HEREIN IN EXHIBIT "A," ATTACHED
HERETO AND FULLY INCORPORATED HEREIN BY THIS
REFERENCE, FROM CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS
"INDUSTRIAL" TO CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS "MEDIUM
DENSITY RESIDENTIAL"; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE
DATE AND LEGAL STATUS OF THE PLAN AMENDMENT;
PROVIDING FOR TRANSMITTAL OF THE PLAN TO THE
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS; PROVIDING
FOR THE REPEAL OF PRIOR INCONSISTENT
ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS, SEVERABILITY, AND
AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, section 163.3161 et. seq., Florida Statutes, establish the Local 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, sections 163.3184 and 163.3187, Florida Statutes, establish the process for the
amendment of comprehensive plans, pursuant to which the City of Winter Springs has established
procedures for amending the City of Winter Springs 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 established in chapter 163, Part II, Florida
Statutes, on the proposed comprehensive plan amendment and considered findings and advice of
staff, citizens, and all interested parties submitting written and oral comments and has recommended
adoption to the City Commission; and
City of Winter Springs
Ordinance No, 2005-29
Page 1 of 3
WHEREAS, the Local Planning Agency recommended that the City Commission transmit
the subject property large scale comprehensive plan amendment (LS-CPA-06-01) to the Florida
Department of Community Affairs for its review and comment; and
WHEREAS, the amendment adopted by this Ordinance complies with the requirements of
the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act; and
WHEREAS, the City Commission hereby finds that this Ordinance is 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 163.3184
and 163.3187, Florida Statutes.
Section 3. Purpose and Intent. The purpose and intent ofthis Ordinance are to adopt the large
scale comprehensive plan amendment (LS-CPA-06-01) designating the subject property from
Seminole County "Industrial"to City of Winter Springs "Medium Density Residential."
Section 4. Adoption of Amendment to the Future Land Use Map. The City of Winter
Springs' Comprehensive Plan, Future Land Use Map, is hereby amended by designating the real
property, depicted in Exhibit "A" as City of Winter Springs "Industrial," to City of Winter Springs
"Medium Density Residential." Exhibit "A" is attached hereto and fully incorporated herein by
this reference.
Section 5. Transmittal to the Department of Community Affairs. The City Manager or his
designee is hereby designated to sign a letter transmitting the adopted comprehensive plan
amendment to the Florida Department of Community Affairs, in accordance with section
163.3187(4), Florida Statutes, and Section 9J-ll, Florida Administrative Code.
Section 6. Repeal of Prior Inconsistent Ordinances and Resolutions. All prior inconsistent
ordinances and resolutions adopted by the City of Winter Springs 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
City of Winter Springs
Ordinance No, 2005-29
Page 2 of 3
remaining portions of this Ordinance.
Section 8. Effective Date and Legal Status of the Plan Amendment. The effective date of
the comprehensive plan amendment adopted by this Ordinance shall be the date a final order is
issued by the Florida Department of Community Affairs, or the date of the Administration
Commission finding the Amendment in compliance with section 163.3184, Florida Statutes. No
development orders, development permits, or land use dependent on this amendment may be issued
or commenced before it has become effective. If a final order of noncompliance is issued by the
Administration Commission, the amendment may nevertheless be made effective by adoption of a
resolution affirming its effective status. After and from the effective date of this amendment, the
comprehensive plan amendment set forth herein shall amend the City of Winter Springs'
Comprehensive Plan and become a part of that plan and the amendment shall have the legal status
of the City of Winter Springs' Comprehensive Plan, as amended.
ADOPTED by the City Commission of the City of Winter Springs, Florida, in a regular
meeting assembled on the _ day of , 2005.
John F. Bush, Mayor
ATTEST:
Andrea Lorenzo-Luaces, City Clerk
Approved as to legal form and sufficiency for
the City of Winter Springs only:
Anthony A. Garganese, City Attorney
First Reading:
Second Reading:
Effective Date:
City of Winter Springs
Ordinance No, 2005-29
Page 3 of 3
I
o
I
460
Ordinance 2005-29
Exhibit' A'
I
920 Feet
PARCEL NUMBERS
26-20-30-5AR-OCOO-0210 28-20-30-5AS-OBOO-015A
28-20-30-5AS-OBOO-0170 33-20-30-503-0S00-0000
33-20-30-503-0000-0150 33-20-30-503-0000-0240
33-20-30-503-0000-025A
LESS AREAS 1 & 2 AS DESCRIBED:
Area 1
A parcel of land being a portion of Lot 18, Block "B" of OAK GROVE PARK, according to the
plat thereof as recorded in Plat Book 7, Page 83, Public Records of Seminole County, Florida,
Being more particularly described as follows:
BEGIN at the Northwest corner of WILDWOOD according to the plat thereof as recorded in Plat
Book 19, Page 7 through 10, Public Records of Seminole County, Florida; thence South
03057'20" East, along the Westerly line of said WILDWOOD, for a distance of 166,02 feet to a
point of curvature of a curve concave Westerly, having a radius of 175,00 feet and a delta angle
of 29059'46"; thence, continuing along the Westerly line of said WILDWOOD, run Southerly
along the arc of said curve for a distance of 91,62 feet to the point of tangency; thence,
continuing along the Westerly line of said WILDWOOD, South 26002'26" West for a distance of
126,10 feet; thence, departing said Westerly line of said WILDWOOD, South 86002'40" West for
a distance of 94,04 feet; thence North 03057'20" West for a distance of 362,73 feet to the
Southerly right of way line of Shepard Road and Northerly line of said Lot 18; thence North
86002'40" East, along said Southerly right of way line, for a distance of 180,52 feet to the POINT
OF BEGINNING,
Area 2
A parcel of land being a portion of Lot 18, Block "B" of OAK GROVE PARK, according to the
plat thereof as recorded in Plat Book 7, Page 83, Public Records of Seminole County, Florida,
Being more particularly described as follows:
COMMENCE at the Northwest corner of WILDWOOD according to the plat thereof as recorded
in Plat Book 19, Page 7 through 10, Public Records of Seminole County, Florida; thence run
South 86002'40" West, along the Southerly right of way line of Shepard Road and Northerly line
of said Lot 18, for a distance of 260,52 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; thence, departing
said Southerly right of way line of Shepard Road and Northerly line of said Lot 18, South
03057'20" East for a distance of 298,01 feet; thence South 86002'40" West for a distance of
113,09 feet; thence North 04049'25" East for a distance of 301,55 feet to the Southerly right of
way line of Shepard Road and Northerly line of said Lot 18; thence North 86002'40" East, along
said Southerly right of way line, for a distance of 67,07 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING,