Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994 05 16 Site Plan Review Board Meeting Minutes CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA 1126 EAST STATE ROAD 434 WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA 32708-2799 Telephone (407) 327-1800 May 16, 1994 ~ Mr. B.K. "Kerry" Godwin, III Manager .of PI anning Services Bowyer-Singleton & Assoc. 520 South Magnolia Avenue Orlando, FL 32802-2769 MAY 1 7 1994 CITY OF WINTER SFRiNGS Community Development Coordinator RE: Parcel 15 - Project # 94-SUB-3 Residential Subdivision Site Plan Review Board Comments Dear Mr. Godwin: Attached, please find the Site Plan Review Board comments. We ask that you review these comments, and if you have any questions about an item, make sure you discuss it with the appropriate department head. In your response, 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 any further Staff comments, or to schedule a Site Plan Review Board meeting. The developer must identify any substantial plans which the developer makes, and are not comments contained herein. chang es to in response the to 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 a~~ any questions, please give me a call. pZY~tI- Bruce C. Behrens, General Services Director BCB/saf cc: John Govoruhk, City Mgr. Carl D. Gosline, Community Dev. Coord. All Department Heads - - CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS SITE PLAN REVIEW BOARD REPORT DATE: May 16, 1994 PROJECT: Parcel 15 - Project # 94-SUB-3 PLANS: Preliminary Engineering Plans Received by Winter Springs, April 20, 1994 PROJECT ANALYSIS: Zoning: PUD Future Land Use Map Designation: -Urban Density Residential 12.1 DUlAC to 21.0 DUlAC EAST VILLAGE site Area: Number of Units: Density: Lot size: Front Yard setback Rear Yard setback Side Yard setback Corner setback 35 Acres 109 Single Family detached 3.1 DUlAC 50 X 110 20 Feet 20 Feet 7.5 Feet 20.0 Feet WEST VILLAGE site Area: Number of Units Density: Lot size: Front Yard setback Rear Yard setback Side Yard setback Corner setback 70 Acres 172 Single Family detached 2.46 DUlAC 75 X 120 20 Feet 20 Feet 7.5 Feet 22.5 Feet Water Service Sewer Service City of Winter Springs City of winter Springs We have completed our review of Parcel 15, PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING PLANS. Attached is a list of items that need to be addressed prior to our approval of these plans: SPR Report - Parcel ,15 May 16, 1994 Page 2 UTILITY/PUBLIC WORKS DEPT: Kipton Lockcuff - 327-2669 1. Reclaimed water distribution lines will be required for this project. If DEP has not issued a reuse certificate by the time this project is built, the reuse distribution system will be fed fr0m the potable water line until the reuse certificate is received. A master meter would be installed at the reuse connection to the potable water system, and the developer or Homeowner's Association will be responsible for payment. This will save the residents money by eliminating the sewer charges for irrigation water. It will also simplify the conversion to reuse with minimal disturbance to the residents. A note should indicate that the reclaimed water lines will be shown on the final engineering. -2. There is an exis~~ng 6 foot utility easement along a por~~on of the East side of Vistawilla Drive which should be shown. 3. Water lines on all cul-de-sacs with the exception of court "A" of West Village should be looped onto themselves. 4. On sheet 2 of 4, it appears the scale should be 1" = 100', NOT 1"=200'. 5. We would request that the management guidelines of the Game and Fish Commission for construction activity in the eagle nest secondary protection zone be followed, particularly as it relates to construction activity during the October 1 to May 1 nesting season. 6. Sufficient water and sewer capacity has been reserved for this project through assignments from the WSDJV Developer Agreement. Guaranteed revenues will begin to accrue in April, 1995 for the 300 ERC's reserved until such time as the utility infrastructure is accepted by the City. BUILDING DEPARTMENT: Don Houck - 327-1800, Ext. 304 1. Item #1 of the General notes, noted that fill material quantities will be noted on final plan. The location of those quantities also needs to be noted by shading. 2. Item #10 of the General notes specified a finished floor elevation of 12" above the 100 Year Flood Elevation. This needs to be corrected to 18" to comply with Section 9-241 (c) of our Land Development Ordinance. - - SPR Report - Parcel 15 May 16, 1994 Page 3 3. If there are lots with different building setback lines than the stated "typical", then they need to be noted, and the setback established. 4. Location of nearest 100 Year Flood Elevation needs to be noted on the o~erall site plan, and the site plan for the East Village. FIRE DEPARTMENT: Timothy J. Lallathin, Fire Chief - 327-2332 The "above referenced development plan as submitted on April 21, 1994 have been reviewed by the Fire Department. The development plans have been revised to incorporate the required changes as requested by this Department. No additional comments are required at this time. POLICE DEPARTMENT: Charles Sexton, Chief of Police - 327-1000 1. Sidewalks to be constructed throughout the project in compliance with Winter springs City Ordinance 9-221. 2. All traffic control signs, markings, and street name signage will conform to F.D.O.T. standards, and Winter Springs City Ordinance. 3. 20 MPH speed limit signs posted at both accesses to the project from Vistawilla Drive East and West Village: (a) East Village - Court "A", lot 109 (b) West Village - Street "A", lot 167 4. "STOP" sign with stop bar at intersections of Vistawilla Drive: (a) East Village Court "A", lot 1 (b) West Village Court "A", Tract G 5. "STOP" signs posted as follows: (A) East Village: 1. street A at Court A, lot 5. 2. Court B at Court A, lot 75. 3. Court D at Court A, lot 87. 4. Court C at street A, lot 51. 5. Street B at street A, lot 13. / ./ SPR Report - Parcel 15 May 16, 1994 Page 4 (B) West Village: 1. Court A at street A, lot 167. 2 . Court B at street A, lot l. 3. Court C at street A, lot 143. 4'. Court D at street A, lot 8 . 5 . Court E at street A, lot 13. 6. Court F at street A, lot 25. 7. Court G at street A, lot 36. 8. Court H at street Loop A, lot 118. 9. Loop A at street A, lot 127. 6. To prevent using the right-of-way along Vistawilla Drive as a "short cut", or "back access" to the lots Court A in both East and West Vi 11 ages, a comp 1 ete wall shoul d be constructed rather than just a landscape buffer: (A) East Village Tract G & H, from lot 95 to 109, and lot 1. (B) West Village Tract J, East of Court A, Southeast of lot 167 to 175. Community Development Coordinator: Carl D. Gosline 327-1800 Ext.315 1. Parcel 15 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 504 multi-family dwelling units; 416 single family units; and 67.0 acres 7 of commercial land use. This request only concerns the residential portion of Parcel 15. 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 ".. .This Agreement is intended to be performed in accordance with and only to the extent permitted by all applicable 1 aws, ruLes and regul a tions . . . " 4. ~~s a~he requirements of Chapter 163.3167, Florida statu~e~ th ~it'~ iompr~hensive Plan was ado~ted April 2:, 19~2. The P\lan es~U-shed sJ.x separate categorJ.es of resJ.dentJ.al development. The residential portion of Parcel 15 was designated '- - SPR Report - Parcel 15 May 16, 1994 Page 5 in the PI an as Moderate Density Residential, dwelling uni ts per acre to 6.5 dwell ing uni ts Volume II, pg. 19, City Comprehensive Plan). a densi ty of per acre. 3.6 (see 5. This parcel recei ved a Vested Rights Special Use Permi t (permit #93-,02) in conformance with the Settlement Agreement. This permit vests Parcel 15 with a Future Land Use Map classification of Moderate Density Residential. This Permit contains the following Orders: a. " . . . All 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 of intensity of development 3. other specifically vested development entitlements approved in the Agreement on which the Vested Rights Special Use Permit is based..." (Order #4) 6 depict DU/AC. to the 7. The proposed development is NOT consistent with the land use designation of Moderate 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...It 10. Chapter 163.3163 (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..." /' SPR Report - ParcellS May 16, 1994 Page 6 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 tion def ers to Chapter 163.3164 (8). 12. A Plan Amendment changing the designation of this property from Moderate Density Residential to Mixed Use was submitted as part of a package of other Plan Amendments. At the adoption hearing in January 1994, the Future Land Use Map designati on amendments were withdrawn from consideration, and the City Commission adopted the remaining te~~~ments to the Plan. The Map Amendments were withdrawn becauie the Dppartment of Community Affairs (DCA) said the Map Amendmen~s ware not necessary since they were implementing the Settlement A~~ 13. The Department of Communi ty Affairs (DCA) Objection, Reconunendations, 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, ORC Report dated September 29, 1993). 14. In order to clarify the record, the Ci ty wi 11 process a Future Land Use Map Amendment for the subject property to change the designation from, Moderate 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. 16. Lot numbers 144 through 159 should be removed from the next version of the development plan. These lots lie within the portion of ParcellS that is designated Commercial by the Settlement Agreement. A Comprehensive Plan Amendment will be required to change the portion of Parcel 15 covered by lots 144 through 159 from its present commercial designation to a Lower Density Residential designation. Representatives of the applicant verbally agreed to delete these lots from further considerationo './" -.. .,- ... ~.... .......-. ,--~.__."~._,~~._---_.__..,.. SPR Report - ParcellS. May 16, 1994 Page 8 7. The lot surface drainage arrows for lots 39 through 44 are shown drawn against natural grade (uphill). Please explain and/or change these. 8. The "SHWL 33.3'" is shown for Conservation Tract ItB", while some of the surrounding natural grade elevations are shown less than this. Please explain how this potential flooding problem will be avoided. Sheet 3 of 4: 9. The "SHWL 25.2'" is shown for Conservation Tract "A", whi 1 e some of the surrounding natural grade elevations are shown less than this. Please explain how this potential flooding problem will be avoided. 10. Section 9-36 par (b.2.h) of the LDC requires building setback lines be shown for irregularly shaped lots. Please provide. 11. The soi I s report states that the ShGv7T, at Court "B" and "e" will be a the ground surface. Please explain how this problem will be addressed. Sheet 4 of 4: 12. It is noted that you are proposing a volumetric encroachment into the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) defined Floodway along Howell Creek (Lots 61, 62, 63, 67,71 and Pond 22). The Floodway is the flow channel of the lOa-year flood and development wi thin this area is hiahl v discouraged by FEMA, the City's Comprehensive Plan and the city's code, as well as other regulatory agencies. It is hiahlv recorrroended that development (volumetric encroachment) be kept outside of the Floodwav line. ! am attaching a photocopy of your site plan with the Floodway boundary sown. If you wish to proceed i~ 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 is attached to this letter. After Checking for completeness, I will forward it to FEMA for their approval (4 to 6 weeks). It must show that what you propose to construct in the Floodway will have no effect on the Floodway, at the site, upstream and downstream. The FEMA "No Rise" submittal must be made through this department, which is FEMA policy. Part of the "No Rise" submittal will be creek cross sections, during the lOa-year flood, at 100 foot intervals, showing the "before" and "after" ,encroachment areas. '.- ..... .... ~-- . .............. .--.' - r ...... ... ". , SPR Report - ParcellS May 16, 1994 Page 9 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 eastern hal f of Winter Springs. The flow rat 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. Postdevelopment flow velocity past this site was calculated to be approximately'3 to 3.5 feet per second. This is erosion velocity. - Based on the proposed encroachment, I cannot give an engineering approval of this site plan, as drawn, to Planning and Zoning or the City Co~mission. Please reconfigure the site outside the Floodway. 13. Section 9-46 par (b.2.u) of the LDC requires the Preliminary submittal to show the Wetland Boundaries. Please show this on the engineering plans. Soils Report bv GEe dated March 25, 1994 14. Figure 5 shows boring flAB-19" with 3 feet of "PT" Unified Soil Classification Symbol (USCS) at the surface, but then states it is "brown fine sand, trace silt & some organics." In the USCS soil c 1 assifica ti on sys tem "PT" is "Peat, muck, and other highl y organic soils" and is not a "fine sand." "Sands" in the uses system are SW, SP, SM and SC, or a combination of these symbols. Since 'AB-19 is in the proposed "Street A", in the East Village, please have GEe state whether the top 3 feet of this boring is "highly organic soils (PT)" or a "fine sand (SW, SP, SM, SC) with traces of organics. If it is "PT", Section 9-46 par (b.2.u) of the LDC requires the Preliminary engineering plans to show "...location and extent of muck pockets.It ". ',. -.. - ,-.. ..'.-,. \ - ',' . ~ ~, --..:-._-- - ~----.---.._--....-....