HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994 05 06 Site Plan Review Board Meeting Minutes
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS
SITE PLAN REVIEW BOARD REPORT
DATE: May 6, 1994
PROJECT: Tuscawilla Parcel 80
Pro ject No. 94-SUB-l
PLANS: Preliminary Engineering Plans
.Received by Winter Springs, April 18, 1994
PROJECT ANALYSIS:
Zoning:
Site Area:
Total Number of Lots:
Minimum Lot Size:
Minimum Lot Sq. Footage:
100 Year Floodplain:
Phasing:
Projected School Age Population:
Projected Average Daily Trips:
Setback: Front - 25 FT; Rear - 25
PUD
77 + Acres
92
70 X 120
I - 47 Units; Phase II - 45
Phase
60
920
FT;
Side - 7.5 FT
Water Service
Sewer Service
City of Winter Springs
City of Winter Springs
We have completed our review of Tuscawilla Parcel 80, PRELIMINARY
ENGINEERING PLANS. The following is a list of items that need to
be addressed prior to our approval of these plans:
PUBLIC WORKS/UTILITY DEPARTMENT: Kipton Lockcuff - 327-2669
Note: Comments remain the same as submitted on April 4, 1994.
1. Please add valves at the southern connection point of the 10"
water main, and on the north side of the tee at Tuscora Drive and
Street "B". If irrigation is required at the 434 entrance, the
latter valve can be moved to 20' before the Northern plug. This
minor change can be incorporated into the final engineering.
2. Please include the
engineering.
DOT stationing for 434 on the final
3. The CSX permits for the casing installation under the railroad
have been provided to the developer. The final engineering plans
should note the installation shall be in accordance with those
permits.
. SPR Report - Tuscawilla Parcel 80
May 6, 1994
Page 2
4. A review of the capabilities of the existing lift station to
which this project is discharging, will have to be made as part of
the final engineering.
5. Water and sewer capaci ty has been reserved for this project
through the WSDJV Developer Agreement. Guaranteed revenues will
begin to aecrue in April, 1995 for the ERC's until such time as the
utility infrastructure is accepted by the city.
The aforementioned comments are minor in nature, and can be
reflected in the final engineering. We recommend approval of the
preliminary engineering for Parcel 80.
BUILDING DEPARTMENT: Don Houck - 327-1800, Ext. 304
(No Comments)
FIRE DEPARTMENT: Tim Lallathin - 327-2332
The above referenced development plan as submitted on April 18,
1994 have been reviewed by the Fire Dept. The development plans
had been revised during previous submittals and all requirements of
this Department have been applied.
No additional comments or submittals will be required.
POLICE DEPARTMENT: Charles Sexton - 327-1000, Ext. 352
1. Sidewalks to be constructed throughout the entire project in
compliance with Winter Springs City ordinance 9-221.
2. Street name signs, traffic control signs, and markings to
conform to F.D.O.T. and City Ordinance.
(a) Tuscora Dr. posted at 25 MPH (Southbound from the
intersection of S.R. 434) to conform to the existing
section of Tuscora Drive.
(b) 20 MPH Speed Limit signs posted on Street "B" (lot 45,
Phas e I I), and Street "c" (lot 1, Phase 1).
(c) "STOP" signs to be located as follows:
1. Tuscora Drive at S.R. 434
2. street "B" at Street "A" (lot 39, Phase II)
3. street "B" at Tuscora Dr. (lot 1, Phase II)
4. street "C" at Tuscora Dr. (lot 34, Phase I)
5. street "c" at Street ItC" (lot 35, Phase I)
6. Street "n" at street "c" (lot 29, Phase I)
,
'.......=.........,~~~..._"....".-
SPR Report - Tuscawilla Parcel 80
May 6, 1994
Page 3
Community Development Coordinator: Carl D. Gosline 327-1800 Ext.315
1. Parcel 80 was part of the Settlement Agreement between the
City and the Winter Springs Joint Venture dated November 21, 1990.
This Agreement vested this parcel with the ability to develop 1420
multifamily dwelling units.
2. Recital #5 (see Pg. 5) of the Settlement Agreement,
states".. .The Land use designations set forth herein are inclusive
of less intensive uses under the City Codes for development of the
remaining property, subject to the regulations of applicable
governmental agencies..."
3. Recital # 22 (see pg. 7) of the Settlement Agreement states
in part fl.. .This Agreement is intended to be performed in
accordance with and only to the extent permitted by all applicable
laws, rules and regulations..."
4. Pursuant to the requirements of Chapter 163.3167, Florida
Statutes the city's Comprehensive Plan was adopted April 27, 1992.
The Plan established six separate categories of residential
development. Parcel 80 was designated in the Plan as Urban Density
Residential, a densi ty of 12.0 dwelling uni ts per acre to 21.0
dwelling units per acre. (See Volume II, Pg. 20, City
Comprehensive Plan).
5. This parcel received a Vested Rights Special Use Permit
(permit #93-02) in conformance with the Settlement Agreement. This
permit vests Parcel 80 with a Future Land Use Map classification of
Urban Density Residential. This Permi t contains the following
Orders:
a. ".. .AlI development of the property must be consistent
with the terms of the Agreement on which this Permit is based..."
(Order # 2)
b. "... Development of the Property shall remain subject to
the requirements of the Comprehensive Plan, and implementing Land
Development Regulations except to the extent that the application
of such requirements would result in the denial of:
1. The vested land uses;
2. The vested density or intensity of development
3. Other specifically vested development
entitlements approved in the Agreement on which
the Vested Rights Special Use Permi t is based. . ."
(Order # 4).
6. The preliminary development submitted April 19, 1994,
depicts a 92 lot single family subdivision, or a density of 1.2
DUlAC.
SPR Report - Tuscawilla Parcel 80
May 6, 1994
Page 4
7. A single family development is NOT consistent with the land
use designation of Urban Density Residential in the Comprehensive
Plan.
8. Chapter 163. 3194, Florida statutes requires all
development undertaken, and all development orders issued shall be
in conformance with the requirements of the Comprehensive Plan.
'9. Chapter 163.3164 (7) defines development order as "...means
any order granting, denying or granting with conditions an
application for a development permit.. .."
10. Chapter 163.3164 (8) defines development permit as
".. .includes any building permit, zoning permit, subdivision
approval, rezoning, certification, special exception, variance, or
any other official action of local government having the effect of
permitting development of the land. .."
11. The City's Comprehensive Plan and Municipal Code are
silent regarding the City's definition of the term final
development order. Therefore, the defini ti on defers to Chapter
163.3164 (8).
12. A plan amendment changing the designation of this property
to Lower Density Residential was submitted as part of a package of
other Plan Amendments. At the adoption hearing in January 1994,
the Future Land Use Map designation amendments were withdrawn from
consideration, and the City Commission adopted the remaining text
amendments to the Plan. The Map Amendments were withdrawn because
the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) said the Map Amendments
were not necessary since they were implementing the Settlement
Agreement.
13. The Department of Community Affairs (DCA) Objection,
Recommendations, and Comment report (ORe) regarding these
amendments (dated September 29, 1993) also stated that, although
the map amendments were not necessary, the proposed uses of this
Parcel must be consistent with all appropriate elements of the
Comprehensive Plan, particularly the Traffic Circulation Element,
and the Capital Improvement Element (pg. 8 & 9, ORe Report dated
September 29, 1993).
SPR Report - Tuscawilla Parcel 80
May 6, 1994
Page 5
14. In order to clarify the record, the City will process a
Future Land Use Map Amendment for the subject property to change
the designation from, Urban Density Residential to Lower Density
Residential, at its earliest opportunity.
15. In view of the facts stated above, the applicant should be
permitted to continue the subdivision review process subject to the
requirements of Chapter 9 of the City Code; the Settlement
Agreement dated November 21, 1990, and Vested Rights Special Use
Permit 93-02.
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT: Mark Jenkins, P.E. - 327-1800, Ext. 326
Enqineerinq Plans
1. It was noted during review that the topo lines have changed
somewhat since the previous submittal. Both submittals indicate
that the topo was "...supplied by client." During my telephone
conversation with you on April 28, 1994, you indicated that Madden
Engineering performed the latest topo shown on this submi t tal.
Please indicate the source of the topo on the engineering plans in
note #12 on sheet 2 of 4. Also, you stated you would send me a
topo-only sheet (no development details or jurisdictional lines),
signed and sealed by your surveyor, for the file. Please provide.
sheet 2 of 4
2. In Phase II, please move the Building Setback Line (BSL) at
least 25 feet upland of the Wetland boundary line on Lots 23
through 27. In volume 2 of the city's Comprehensive Plan, page 12,
sta tes; flThe minimum vegetati ve buffer requirement shall be twenty-
five (25) feet upland from the wetland area."
3. It is noted that you are proposing substantial volumetric
encroachment into the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
defined Floodway along Howell Creek. The Floodway is the flow
channel of the 100-year flood, and development within this area is
hiqhly discouraged by FEMA, the city's comprehensive Plan and the
City's code, as well as other regulatory agencies.
The proposed encroachment into the Floodway, by fillinq for
Lots 9 throuqh 17. and a portion of the pond will not be permitted.
It is highly recommended that development (volumetric encroachment)
be kept outside of the Floodway line. I am attaching a photocopy
of your site plan with the Floodway Boundary shown.
SPR Report - Tuscawilla Parcel 80
May 6, 1994
Page 6
If you wish to proceed in the site plan approval process, with
the Floodway encroachment you show on this latest submittal, you
will need to submit all the requirements for the FEMA "No Rise"
policy that I FAXed to you recently.
It must show that what you propose to do in the Floodway will
have no effect on the Floodway, at the site, upstream and
downstream. This submittal must be made through this department.
I wi 11 not accept submi t ta 1 s or the resul ts of same submi t t ed
directly to FEMA without going through this department. This is
FEMA policy also.
Part of the "No Rise" submittal will be creek cross
sections,during the lOO-year flood, at 100 foot intervals, showing
the "before" and "after" encroachment areas.
According to the st. John's River Water Management District's
(SJRWMD) Surface Water Management Study, Howell Creek receives
runoff from 44.5 square miles of land south of this site and into
Orange County. It serves much of the easter hal f of Winter
springs. The flow rate of water past this site, on its way to Lake
Jesup, during a 100-year flood is projected to be 7,130 cubic feet
of water per second. Ninety Six percent (96%) of the Howell
Creek's drainage basin is upstream of and flows past this site.
Post-development flow velocity past this site was calculated to be
approximately 3 to 3.5 feet per second. This is erosion velocity
for the proposed lots you show.
Based on the above information, I cannot give an engineering
approval of this proposed si te plan, as drawn, to Planning and
Zoning, or the City Commission.
Please reconfigure the site outside the Floodway.
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA
1126 EAST STATE ROAD 434
WINTER SPRINGS. FLORIDA 32708
Telephone (407) 327-1800
May 6, 1994
Mr. Scott Culp
Vision Developers, Inc.
P.O. Box 195368
Winter Springs, FL 32719-5368
Project No. 94-SUB-l
RE: Parcel 80 - Residential Subdivision
Preliminary Engineering Plans
Received by Winter Springs, April 18, 1994
Dear Mr. CuI p:
We have attached, a Site Plan Review Board Report of May 3,
1994 in response to the above mentioned project. We ask that you
review this report. If you have any questions about an item, make
sure you discuss it with the appropriate department head.
In your response to this SPR Report, we ask that you address
each comment in writing. Submit your letter along with ten (10)
revised plans to Shirley A. Frankhouser, Administrative Secretary.
You will be notified of Staff comments, or to schedule a Site Plan
Review Board Meeting.
The Developer must identify any substantial changes to the
pI ans which the Developer makes, and are not in response to
comments contained in this Site Plan Review Report.
If you have any difficulty in obtaining information from any
department, please inform me, and we will get back to you right
away. If there are any questions, please give me a call.
BCB/saf
cc: John Govoruhk, City Mgr.
Carl D. Gosline, Community Dev. Coord.
All Deparatment Heads