HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997 12 03 Regular Item A
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA
1126 EAST STATE ROAD 434
WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA 32708-2799
Telephone (407) 327-1800
Community Development
LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY AGENDA ITEM:
II. A.
REVIEW OF DRAFT PORTION (TASK 1.01) EV ALUA TION AND
APPRAISAL REPORT
STAFF REPORT:
APPLICABLE LAW AND PUBLIC POLICY:
The provisions of 163. 3174(4) F.S. which states "The local planning agency shall have
the general responsibility for the eonduct of the comprehensive planning program.
Specifically, the local planning agency shall: (b) Monitor and oversee the effectiveness
and status of the comprehensive plan and recommend to the governing body such changes
in the comprehensive plan as may from time to time be required, including preparation of
the periodic reports (i.e. EAR) required by 163.3191".
The provisions of9J-5.0053(1) F.A.C. which states "It is the intent of the Legislature that
each unit oflocal government required to adopt a comprehensive plan. pursuant to Chapter
163, Part IT, periodically update its comprehensive plan through the preparation and
adoption of an evaluation and appraisal report (EAR) and adoption of an evaluation and
appraisal report-based plan amendments in aceordanee with 163:3191 F.S.
The provisions of9J-11.018 F.A.C. which states in part "The proposed evaluation and
appraisal report will assess and evaluate the success or failure of the local government's
adopted comprehensive plan, including the validity of the projections, the realization of the
goals and objeetives, and implementation of the plan's policies. The proposed evaluation
and appraisal report shall also address changes in local conditions, the effect on the
comprehensive plan of changes to : the state comprehensive plan, Chapter 163 Part IT,
Florida Statutes, Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code, and the appropriate regional
policy plan; suggest ehanges needed to update the eomprehensive plan, elements, or
portions thereof; suggest reformulated or additional goals, objectives, policies, maps,
schedules, and procedures; and otherwise address the requirements specified in 163.3191
Florida Statutes and this Rule."
DECEMBER 3, 1997
P&ZILP A AGENDA ITEM II. A.
Page 2
CONSIDERATIONS:
*
Berryman & Henigar has been contracted to prepare the EAR for the City.
*
For the City of Winter Springs, as with most munieipalities in Seminole county, the
deadline to submit the draft of its EAR is 5:00 p.m. June 3, 1998.
*
The City commission must adopt the EAR by September 1, 1998.
CHRONOLOGY:
*
City Commission through Ordinance 513 adopts Comprehensive Plan
Apri127, 1992.
*
City Commission adopts Ordinance 553 amending the Future Land Use Element,
the Traffic Cireulation Element, and the Future Land Use Map January 10, 1994.
*
The City Commission on November 13, 1995, hired Conklin, Porter & Holmes to
prepare update of the Traffic Cireulation Element in the City's Comprehensive
Plan.
FUNDING:
The cost of this project is $ 34,740. The City will receive $ 14,069 from the Florida
Department of Community Affairs pursuant to the 1997-98 General Appropriations Aet,
Line Item 1096.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
No action by the LP A is required at this time. The Board expressed a desire to review the
drafts of the EAR each month.
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA
1126 EAST STATE ROAD 434
WINTER SPRINGS. FLORIDA 32708-2799
Telephone (407) 327-1800
Community Development
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Loeal Planning Agency Members
Thomas Grimms, AICP Co'~prehensive Planning Coordinat~ ::::::;i-
August 18, 1997
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Draft of Task 1.01 of the Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR)
Attached is a copy of the Agreement for Professional Services between the City and Berryman &
Henigar for preparation of the City's Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) of its
Comprehensive Plan.
This report, the EAR is part of Florida's GroMh Management Program and is found in the "Local
Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Aet",
The Local Planning Agency is responsible for monitoring and overseeing the effectiveness and
status of the comprehensive plan and recommend to the City Commission such changes in the
comprehensive plan as may from time to time be reql!ired, including preparation of the periodic
reports required by 163.3191 Florida Statutes.
Please find attached a draft of Task 1.01 which fulfills the requirement of 163.3191(2)(b) Florida
Statutes relating to "The condition of each element in the comprehensive plan at the time of
adoption and at date of report."
This draft which will be further refined if necessary for inclusion with the next Task (1.02) and
transmitted to the Florida Department of Community Affairs as eompletion of our grant
requirements. No official action by the City is required at this time.
I am sending this draft to you now before the regular agenda mail out for the September Jrd
meeting to give you time to review it. This is in fulfillment of the desire of the Board, as
expressed at the last meeting, August 6th, to receive regular updates on the progress of the
preparation of the EAR.
AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into the 1. / day of J u L y ,1997, by and between
BERRYMAN & HENIGAR, (hereafter "CONSULTANT', with offICeS at 1414 SW. Martin Luther King Avenue
Ocala, Florida 34474-5055 and THE City of Winter Springs (hereafter .CLlENT"), is for the professional
services described in Exhibits "A" attaehed to this Agreement upon the following terms and conditions:
CLIENT:
The City of Winter Springs
Address:
1126 East State Road 434
Winter Springs, Florida 32708
OWNER:
Same as above
1.
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT:
Preparation of Evaluation and App,aisal Report for City of Winter Springs Comprehensive
Plan
2. DESCRIPTION OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED BY CONSULTANT:
See Exhibit "A" attaehed to this Agreement.
3. The Compensation to be paid to CONSULTANT for providing the services described in Exhibit
"A", attaehed hereto, shall be as set forth in Exhibit "A".
Additional services not included in the scope of services set forth in E>:tlibit "A" hereto and
requested by CLIENT will be based on a time charges/reimbursable e)(;Jenses basis unless otherwise agreed
to in writing.
4. GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS: The terms and conditions of this Agreement are set
forth in Exhibit "B" to this Agreement and are hereby accepted by all parties exeeuting this Agreement.
IN WITNESS 'NHEREOF. this Agreement is accepted on the date set forth abOve subject to all
terms, conditions and provisions set forth herein and set forth within Exhibits "A" and "B" hereto.
CONSULTANT:
CLIENT:
By:
By:
Chuek A. Piaeon. P.E.
;fPk4~j#'L r-
j' (/ I
Title: ~ ~
Dal.' )~11-1f
Title: Vice PresidentlPrinQJal
Date: 7/ Z3 /'11
/
Q:\IC\WOlUCINO ~u:DcHT.IXlC
Page 1 of 3
Exhibit A
1.0 Scope of Services
1.1
Phase 1
Task 1
Ear Preparation
Project Initiation
Immediately after the contract for services is awarded, the Consultant team will
meet with staff and the Local Planning Agency. The purpose of this meeting will
be to introduce the consultant team, receive preliminary comments about the
plan, to provide any initial thoughts about the plan and its status, and present an
outline of the tasks and milestones. Our objective will be to insure that all of the
parties are aware of the responsibilities and time frames for action, and to
answer any questions about the process or the product.
. ..
Milestone Date:
August 6, 1997 (1 week after contract
initiation)
Fred Goodrow, Project Manager, Berryman &
Henigar
Milestone Responsibility:
1.01 Summarize Conditions of the Adopted Plan
The task team members will prepare summaries of the adopted plan elements.
These summaries will be inclusive of all of the data elements required by the
Rule 9J-S. The format of the summaries will include narratives, maps and tables~
Emphasis will be placed. on those tables to be updated in later sections of the
EAR. Each plan element will be assigned to a team member to serve as the
lead preparer for that element. The project manager will establish a common
format and numbering system to be used by each preparer. All drafts will be
reviewed for quality control/quality assurance.
Element summaries will address level-of-service considerations, as appropriate.
These will include listings of deficiencies at the time of plan adoption, facility
improvements planned to correct deficiencies, and facilities which were planned
to meet new demand.
A comparison of population estimates and projections will be made as part of the
Land Use EAR, and transmitted to all team members. This will be used to guide
the estimates of facility needs. Population estimates for both permanent and
peak seasonal demand will be prepared and submitted to the Client Project
Manager for acceptance as part of this task.
All plan amendments since adoption will be summarized. Documentation of
A-1
Future Land Use Plan amendments will include acreage, location and type of'
change. Amendments will be aggregated, and a summary table prepared of net
changes.
Milestone Date:
Milestone Responsibility:
August 27, 1997
Task team members, Project Manager
Task 1.02
Update data to Current (1996) Conditions
Data will be updated using information from the following sources: U.S. Census,
City of Winter Springs Planning Department building permits, Bureau of
Economic and Business Research population estimates, private population
studies, Florida Department of Transportation (FOOT) traffic counts, traffic
counts available from development applications, Metropolitan Planning
Organization (MPO) transportation.plans, Sheriffs Department and Florida
Highway Patrol accident data, private transit providers, U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development, Farmer's Home Administration, Florida
Department of Community Affairs, Affordable Housing Needs Assessment
(Shimberg Center), Department of Children and Families, Department of
Environmental Protection, St. John's River Water Management District, City of
Kissimmee, City of St. Cloud, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Florida Game and
Freshwater Fish Commission, East Central Florida Regional Planning Council,
City of Winter Springs Public Works Department, City of Winter Springs Parks
Department, City of Winter Springs Property Appraiser, City of Winter Springs
Solid Waste Department, City of Winter Springs Office of Management and
Budget, and other sources, as appropriate.
Maps and tabulations as may be available from staff will be used as preliminary
information to update the existing land use map. This will be supplemented a
review of aerial photography to determine the base information on existing land
use conditions. To the extent feasible, existing land use maps and data will be
copied to Berryman & Henigar's Geographic Information System (GIS) using
ARC/nfo, AUTOCAD, or other compatible system. Existing resource information
from the St. John's River Water Management District on land use/land cover,
water use caution areas (as applicable), aquifer recharge areas, land uses
within the 100 year floodplain, existing and potential pollutant loading, DEP
water quality assessment (305(b)), groundwater quality and regionally significant
wildlife habitat will be included as overlay layers to augment information on the
built environment. These data sources, as well as local knowledge, will be used
to support the vacant land analysis, the public facility analysis, and conservation
analysis.
Data will be compiled and organized consistent with the basic format established
A-2
in Rule 9J-5 F.A.C.
The extent to which level-of-service standards have been met will be analyzed in
this task.
New tables will be prepared for each element, using the same (or similar)
headings and formats as were presented in the adopted plan elements. All
drafts will be reviewed for quality control/quality assurance. The Affordable
Housing Needs Assessment prepared by the Shimberg Center will be
incorporated into the EAR for the Housing Element.
The results of this analysis will be summarized in a brief format (1-2 pages per
element) and presented as discussion sheets, to help elected and appointed
officials and the public get a quick overview of the data issues which are
relevant to the review of each element. One workshop will be held with the LPA
and the staff to present the finding-s of the data and analysis update.
Current issues can be discussed for possible inclusion within the EAR report.
Issues such as the SR 434 corridor redevelopment and the impacts of
annexation can be noted for inclusion within the EAR report. To the extent that
comprehensive plan amendments may be sought to address emerging issues,
inclusion in the EAR will allow these amendments to be treated as EAR-based
amendments by the Department of Community Affairs. This reduces the burden
on City staff to process individual comprehensive plan amendments.
Milestone Date:
October 1, (substantial completion),
December 1 for final
Task team members, through Project Manager
Milestone Responsibility:
Task 2.01 Objectives Analysis
The consultant project manager will submit a sample matrix format for this
analysis to the staff director for concurrence prior to beginning this task. This
format will include the objective statement, a summary of the baseline conditions
which were documented in the Plan, the measurable objective, and adequate
data to determine whether the objective has been met.
Each objective from every element will be analYzed using the identical format to
determine whether it has been achieved, partially achieved, or not achieved. In
cases where the achievement is ongoing, this will be so-noted. If the objective
has not been fully achieved, the reason(s) will be determined, to the extent
possible. . Possible rationale for lack of full achievement will be used to evaluate
objectives. Use of categoric rationale for less-than-full achievement will provide
direction as to further treatment of the objective in the plan update. For those
A-3
objectives which will be affected by statutory or rule changes, this will be noted
here.
Milestone Date:
Milestone Responsibility:
October 15 (sample format)
Project Manager
Task 3.01 Evaluation and development of objectives achievement matrix
The results of this objectives analysis will be placed in a matrix format, in order
to meet the minimum standard for submittal for pre-adoption review. A detailed
analysis of the objectives and policies which were not achieved will be provided
elsewhere in the EAR report, and will reflect public involvement as well as a
detailed consideration of constraints and opportunities.
A workshop will be held with staff tG discuss the determinations included in this
matrix. Revisions to the matrix will be made as necessary after the staff
workshop.
Milestone Date:
Milestone Responsibility:
January 15
Task team members, through Project Manager
Task 3.02. Analysis of Major Problems and Social and Economic Effectsl
Unforseen Problems and Opportunities
This task will include a summary discussion of the result of visioning efforts in
City of Winter Springs. This task will generally be a narrative discussion and
mapping effort, with less emphasis on quantitative data than in previous
sections. The sub-tasks which address major problems of development and
location of land uses are closely related in a developed community. such as the
City of Winter Springs. These will be addressed in narrative, tabular and map
formats. A comparison of the rate of development to projected development
levels will have already been developed in an earlier task; however, the
implications of this for the future will be examined in this task.
Map analysis regarding the comparison of actual and projected location of land
uses will narrative and tabular data. The impact and effectiveness of the Future
Land Use Map will be determined as a narrative description of regional and
area-wide growth factors. The extent to which urban growth boundaries have
been maintained and urban sprawl contained will be addressed in both narrative
and map formats.
Map and narrative assessments will be provided to support the evaluation of the
impact of development on environmentally sensitive areas.
A-4
The evaluation of social and economic effects will be addressed as a narrative.
Supporting data, reports and information will be sought from organizations such
as economic development organizations, social welfare agencies, and
educational institutions.
A narrative discussion of unforseen problems and opportunities will include a
discussion of community initiatives. Preliminary conclusions regarding plan
amendments will be made as a result of this task.
Milestone Date:
Milestone Responsibility:
February 15
Task team members, through Project Manager
Task 3.03 Identify Effect of Statutory and Rule Changes
..<<
This task will include identification of consistency with the State Comprehensive
Plan, the East Central Florida Strategic Regional Policy Plan, Chapter 163 F.S.,
and Chapter 9J-5 F.A.C. In addition to these statutes, compliance with school
siting provisions of Chapter 235 F.S. will be addressed.
Any plan amendments which are indicated to achieve compliance with revised
State rules and laws will be identified.
Milestone Date:
Milestone Responsibility:
March 15
Project Manager
Task 4.01 Recommended Future Actions
A summary listing of recommended plan amendments will be provic;ied in draft
form for consideration by the staff and the LPA. This draft list of
recommendations will be revised for the 90 day review submittal to the
Department of Community Affairs. Specific attention will be directed to plan
policies. Recommendations for revisions of policies is one desired outcome of
. .
the workshop process.
At the completion of this task, the Consultant Task Team will present a draft EAR
report for staff review prior to establishing the date for transmittal to the
Department of Community Affairs.
A draft EAR summary will be prepared by the Consultant to be used as a public
involvement tool. This will be a concise document, which is designed to provide
staff and elected officials with a brief "state of the plan" summary, and a list of
recommended amendments. Use of this guide will make it easy to reference
A-S
necessary future actions.
Milestone Date:
Milestone Responsibility:
Apri/15
Project Manager, with Task Team Members.
Task 5.01 Transmittal Hearing
A public hearing on the transmittal will be scheduled by the LPA. Berryman &
Henigar staff will assist the City of Winter Springs at a public hearing on
transmittal of the draft EAR for Department of Community Affairs (DCA) review.
This hearing generally takes the form of an informational meeting. Any changes
made in the EAR at the transmittal hearing will be included in the draft prior to
transmittal to the DCA.
Milestone Date:
Milestone Responsibility:
May 1
Project Manager, with Task Team Members.
Phase 2 Ear Adoption
Task 6.01 Preparation of Final Draft EAR
After receipt of the comments from the Department of Community Affairs and the
public, the consultant team hold a workshop with the staff and the LPA to
consider the comments and obtain guidance for preparation of the final draft
EAR.
The final draft EAR will be prepared by the consultants and submitted for staff
and LP A review and recommendation. This will include a detailed policy
analysis. A public hearing will be scheduled to obtain the recommendation of
the LPA. Consultants and staff will present the final draft EAR at public hearing
before the City Commission.
Milestone Date:
Milestone Responsibility:
September 1, 1998
Staff and Project Manager
A-6
2.0 Instruments of Service
Phase 1
Ear Preparation
General:
Monthly reports of .activities will be submitted with project
billings. These monthly reports will address work completed
during the previous month, problems or issues encountered
during the prior month, suggested problem resolutions, and
proposed work for the upcoming month.
Specific instruments of service, per scope of services
Task 1.01 Summary of each adopted plan element, 5 copies
Task 1.02 Summary of Cenditions at time of EAR with existing land use
map. This is inclusive of Task 1.01 and provides all of the
information needed to comply with the grant terms of the
Department of Community Affairs; 5 copies plus 3 copies for
DCA
Task 2.01 Sample format for objectives achievement matrix, 5 copies
Task 3.01 Objectives Achievement Matrix, each element, 5 copies.
Tasks 3.02 Plan analysis sections of EAR, each element, 5 copies.
Task 3.03 Effect of Statutory and Rule Changes, each element, 5
copies.
Task 4.01 First draft EAR, 15 copies;
Task 5.01 Revised draft EAR, 30 copies. Executive Summary, 30
copies; Slides, transparancies or hand-outs, one copy.
PHASE 2. Ear Adoption
Task 6.01 EAR adoption, Revised draft, 5 copies; Final adopted 5
copies.
A-7
3.0 Project Budget
Invoices will be submitted based on the percentage of project complete. The project
budget for labor is allocated by task.
Task 1
Task 1.01
Task 1.02
Task 2.01
Task 3.01
Task 3.02
Task 3.03
Task 4.01
Task 5.01
Task 6.01
Project Initiation
Summary of Adopted Plan
Analysis of Existing Conditions
Objectives Analysis
Evaluation of Objectives
Analysis of Unforseen Problems
Statutory and Rule Changes
Recommended Future Actions
Transmittal Hearing ".
Preparation of Final Draft EAR
TOTAL LABOR
660
3,300
14,850
1,650
4,950
3,300
1,650
660
990
1.650
$33,660
Reimbursable Expenses
TOTAL FEE
Travel
Telephone, fax
Copies
Mail. FedEx
TOTAL EXPENSES
360
300
320
100
$1080
$34,740
A-a
EXHIBIT "B
GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS
1. PARTIES AND SCOPE OF WORK: "WorkM means the specific professional technical serv;ces to
be perfonned by CONSULTANT as set forth in Scope of Services. "CLIENr refers to the person or entity
ordering the work to be done by CONSULTANT. If CLIENT is ordering the work on behalf of another,
CLIENT represents and warrants that CLIENT is the duly authorized agent of Owner for the purpose of
ordering and/or directing with work. Any additional work which may be required due to changes in the project
initiated by CLIENT, shall be paid by CLIENT. No ehanges in the work shall be required absent a written
change order therefore. CLIENT agrees that CONSULTANT shall not be responsible for any errors or
omissions contained in or caused by work performed by others and fumished by CLIENT to CONSULTANT.
2. OPINIONS: CLIENT understands that opinions rendered by CONSULTANT are opinions only
and that governing laws or regulations may change. CLIENT agrees that any serv;ces required in addition to
those set forth in Scope of Serv;ces resulting from changes to governmental regulations shall be at CLIENT'S
expense.
3. USE AND OWNERSHIP: All documents ineluding drawings and speeifications prepared by the
CONSULTANT pursuant to this Agreement are ih'~ruments of serv;ee in respect to the Project.
4. ACCESS TO SITE. PERMITS AND TESTS: CLIENT shall arrange and provide access to the
records, plans and doeuments as arenecessary for CONSULTANT to perfonn the work.
S. PAYMENT:
A B~weeklv Invoices: Payments for basic serv;ces shall be billed on a b~weekJy basis for work
performed to date and shall be in proportion to services performed. Included in this billing shall be any
eharges for additional services and for reimbursable expenses as defined in Paragraph B. below.
B. Reimbursable Exoenses: Include actual expenditures, sueh as travel, copies and mailing
made by the CONSULTANT in the interest of the project., up to a limit of $300.00.
C. Termination Exoenses: If the Project is suspended or abandoned in whole or in part for
more than three (3) months, the CONSULTANT shall be compensated for all serv;ees performed prior to and
up to the date of receipt of notice from the CLIENT of such suspension or abandonment, together with
reimbursable expenses then due and for completion of such serv;ces and records as are. necessary to place
CONSULTANT'S fifes in order and/or protect its professional reputation. If the Project is resumed after being
suspended for more than three (3) months, the CONSULTANT'S compensation shall be equitably adjusted.
D. Interest and Collection Costs:
1. Late Pavments: If CLIENT fails to make any payment due the CONSULTANT for
services and expenses within ten (10) days after reeeipt of the CONSULTANT'S invoice, the amounts due the
CONSULTANT shall include a finance charge of 1.5% per month, or 18% per annum, from said tenth (10th)
day.
2. Should it be necessary to collect this account, CLIENT agrees to pay all costs of
collection, including any reasonable attorney's fees, or fees for trials or appeals.
6. LIMITATION OF LIABILITY: In the event that CLIENT requests or receives from CONSULTANT
work product in a computer generated form such as a floppy disk, CLIENT shall not be entitled to rely on the
work product contained therein and CONSULTANT shall not be responsible for the work product contained
therein, it being understood by all parties hereto that computer ready documents are capable of being easily
altered and may not be CONSULTANT'S final work product. Accordingly, the parties hereto agree that the
documents for which CONSULTANTS shall be responsible for the preparation and completion of shall be
limited to documents constituting CONSULTANT'S finished work product. Any use by CLIENT of computer
generated or comparable items such as floppy disks shall be at CLIENT'S sole risk.
7. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS:
A. The CONSULTANT shall not be liable for failure to perfonn for delay in perfonnance of this
Contract due to fire, strike, or other labor drtficulty, act of any governmental authority, riot, embargo, wrecks
or delay in transportation, or any other unawidable cause beyond the reasonable control of either party.
B. This Agreement shall be govemed by the laws of the State of Florida.
C. As to all acts or failures to act by either party to this Agreement, any applicable statue of
limitations shall commenee to run and any alleged cause of action shall be deemed to have occurred in any
and all events not later than the relevant Date of Substantial Completion of the Work, and as to any acts or
failures to act occurring after the relevant Date of Completion not later than the Date of Issuance of the Final
Certmcate for Payment.
D. The CLIENT and the CONSULTANT, respectively, bind themselves, their partners,
successors, assigns and legal representatives to the other party to this Agreement and to the partners,
successors, assigns and legal representatives of sueh party with respect to all covenants of this Agreement.
Neither CLIENT nor CONSULTANT shall assign, sublet or transfer any interest in this Agreement without the
written consent of the other. "-
E. This Agreement represents the entire and integrated agreement between the CLIENT and the
CONSULTANT and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations or agreements, either written or oral.
This Agreement may be amended only by written instrument signed by both the CLIENT and the
CONSULTANT.
Inftials: \JfR
CI;ent ;( pUt/. /J<< if
Consultant
IIIl1 Be"yman & Heniga,
~ aSI Consultants, Inc. - Henigar& Ray, Inc.
LETTER OF TRANS MITT AL
To: Mr. Tom Grimms
City of Winter Springs
1126 East SR 434
Winter Springs, FL 32708
DATE: 7/14/97
PROJECT NO: 77853.00
PROJECT: Winter Sprin,gs EAR
We are sending you (x)attached ( )under separate cover via
the following:
( )drawings
( )specifications
(x)documents
( )other
( )shop drawings
( )submittals
( )samples
( )legal description
'.</
( )correspondence
( )schedules
( )calculations
( )plats
( )reports
( )payment request
( )maps
( )mylars
COPIES DATED DESCRIPTION ACTION
1 7/21/97 Draft Evaluation and Appraisal Report - Summary of plan at 3, 11, 12
Adoption (Task 1.01)
.'
ACTION CODE:
I-at your request
2-for your information
3-for review & comment
4-for approval
5-reviewed
6-approved
7-make corrections noted
8-revise & resubmit
9-rejected - see remark
lO-for your signature
II-for your files
12-see remarks
REMARKS: Tom:
Attached is a draft copy completing Task 1.01. This is a draft which will be further refined if
necessary for inclusion with the next Task (1.02) and transmitted to FDCA as completion of your grant
requirements. No official action by you or the city is required at this time.
BY:
141
Fred Goodrow, AICP
COpy TO: File
1414 S.W. Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue. Ocala, FL 34474-3129
tel: 352-368-5055 fax: 352-368-5063
An Equal Opportunity Employer
Evaluation and Appraisal Report
City of Winter Spring"S
TABLE OF CONTENTS
L SUMMARY OF CONDmONS AT TIME OF PLAN ADOPTION ._..._......................._._..._.._.__ 1
A. F'lJTlJRE LAND USE ELE~ ...................................................................... ........... ............................... 1
B. TRAFFIC CIR.CULA TION EL~......................................................................................................... 7
C. CONSERVATION ELE~ ..................................................... ............................ .................................. 15
D. HOUSING ELElIifENT.............. ......................................... .............. .................................... ............. .......... 20
E. RECREATION/OPEN SPACE ~ ................................................................................................. 31
F. SOLID WASTE SUB-ELElIifENT .. ....... ................... ............................................................................. ...... 39
G. POTABLE WATER SUB-ELE~ ........................... ............................................. ................................ 46
H. SANIT AAY SEWER SUB-ELE~ ......................................................................... ............... ............... 49
II. DRAINAGE SUB-ELElIifENT....... ...................................................................................................... ......... 53
J. NATURAL GROUNDWATER AQUIFER RECHARGE DATA & ANALYSIS .......................................... 57
K. CAPITAL IMPROVElIifENTS ELElIifENT ................................................................................................. 58
L. INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION ELElIifENT ................................ ..................... ................... 68
'.<<
W:IWlNTERIWIN11!IlSPIUNOS I!AR.DOC
DRAFT
July 21, 1997
evaluation and Appraisal Report
City of Winter Sprfn~
Exhibit I.A. 1: Land Use ..... ............... ......... ...... ................. .....~.. .................... .... ............. ... .......... .............. 1
Exhibit I.A.2: Residential Density..................................... ...... .............................................................. ..... 1
Exhibit 1.A.3: Estimated and Projected Population 1970 Through 2010.........................................;........... 5
Exhibit I.A.4: Future Land Use Utilization .................................................................................................7
Exhibit I.B. 1: Base Year 1988 Roadway Functional Classifications........................................................... 8
Exhibit I.B.2: Existing Roadway Classification and Number of Lanes...................................................... 10
Exhibit I.B.3: Base Year 1988 Roadway Unk Levels of Service.............................................................. 11
Exhibit I.B.4: Year 1997 Recommended Improvements.......................................................................... 12
Exhibit I.B.5: Year 2010 Roadway Unk Levels of Service....................................................................... 13
Exhibit I.B. 6: 2010 Future Traffic Circulation Map................................................................................... 14
Exhibit I. C. 1: General Soil Map. .......... ........ ........................ .................. .................... .......... ........ ........... 16
Exhibit I. C.2: Surface Water Quality Data............................................................................................... 17
Exhibit I. D. 1 ........ ......... ............... ........... ........... ......... ........................... ...... .................... ... ................... 21
Exhibit 1.0.2: 1990 Housing Stock age Summary ...............................................................:................... 21
Exhibit 1.0.3: 1990 Dwelling County Summary By Development & Dwelling Type.............................23
Exhibit 1.0.4: 1990 Household Income.......... ............ ............... ..... ...... .................. ............... ......... .......... 24
Exhibit 1.0.5: Projected Change in Household Counts By Income Group............................................... 26
Exhibit I. D. 6 Future Housing Construction Needs............ ..... ....... ............ ......... ....... ........... ................... 27
Exhibit 1.0.7: Current and Projected Dwelling TyPe Mix Percentage of Housing Units............................. 30
Exhibit 1.0.8 Current and Projected Dwelling Type Mix Total Number of Housing Units ..........................31
Exhibit I.E. 1 Existing Recreational Facilities LOS Standards Population Served..................................... 36
Exhibit I.E.2 Existing Recreational Acreages By Geographic Area.......................................................... 37
Exhibit I.E.3 Neighborhood/PrivatelPassive Park LOS Standards........................................................... 37
Exhibit I.E.4 Future Recreational Acreage Projections By Geographic Area ........................................... 38
Exhibit 1.F.1 Seminole County Solid Waste Facilities.. ....... .................... ................. ..... ....... .........
Exhibit 1. F. 2 Seminole County Solid Waste Service Area.............................................................
Exhibit 1.F.3 Winter Springs Recoverable Materials Recycling Program..........................................
Exhibit I.G.1aWinter Springs East Capacity (Based on 185 GPCD)........................................................ 47
Exhibit I.G.1bWinter Springs East Capacity (based on 130 GPD/Unit) ...................................................47
Exhibit I. H. 1.......... ......... .................. ..... ..... ....... ......... .... ... ..... ................................ .......... .... ............. ..... 51
Exhibit I. H. 2 ............ ............... ........... .......... ................... ........................ .............. ..................... ..... ........ 52
Exhibit I.K. 1 Captiallmprovements Needs ............................................................................................. 61
Exhibit 1.K.2 General Fund - Revenue & Expenditure-Five Year Projection............................................. 62
Exhibit 1.K.3 Projection of Debt Service Obligations................................................................................ 64
Exhibit I.K.4 Ad Valorem Tax Base & Millage Rage-History & Five Year Projection ................................ 65
Exhibit 1.K.5 Transportation Impact Fees-History and Five Year Revenue Projections............................ 66
Exhibit I.K. 6 General Obligation Bonding Capacity.. ............................................................................... 67
Exhibit I.K. 7 Revenue Bonding Capacity Water and Sewer Fund ........................................................... 67
Exhibit IL 1 Coordination with Municipalities and Seminole County........................................................ 68
Exhibit 1.L.2 Committees, Associations and Task Forces........................................................................ 69
W:IWlNTERIWINTelSPRINOS IWLDOC
ii
DRAFT
July 21, 1997
Evaluation and Appraisal Report
City of Winter Sprlnds
I. SUMMARY OF CONDITIONS AT TIME OF PLAN ADOPTION
A. FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT
As a suburb of Onando, Winter Springs was a predominantly residential community. An
analysis of the City's existing land uses detennined that neany 49% of the total acreage was
residential (Exhibit 1.A.1).
Exhibit I.A.1: Land Use
Land Uses Existina Acreaae Percent
Residential 4218 48.9%
Greenbelt & Recreation ''I 874 10.1%
Public Facilities 384 4.5%
Aariculture 216 2.5%
Industrial 103 1.2%
Commercial 68 0.8%
Vacant 2757 32.0%
TOTAL 8620
Thirty-two percent of the City had yet to be developed or utilized for agriculture and was
classified as vacant. The City had a total area of neany fifteen (15) square miles.
Existing residential land use classification cleany illustrated that 90% of the City's residential
acreage is devoted to housing at densities of less than five dwelling units per acre (Exhibit
I. A. 2)
Exhibit I.A.2: Residential Density
Land Use Classification
Density Definition
1 DU or less er acre
1.1 to 4.9 DU er acre
5.0 to 9.9 DU er acre
10.0 to 12.0 DU er acre
12.0 + DU/acre
(Note: These parcels include all
developments greater than 12.0
units per acre that were, in
1991, pre-existing or pre-
a roved.
W:\WlNTEllIWlN!1:llllPlllN I!AIlDOC
1
DRAFT
July 21, 1997
Evaluation and Appraisal Report
City of Winter Sprln~~
COMMERCIAL LAND USES
Nonresidential land uses occupied only a small percentage of the City's total acreage.
Commercial land uses occupied only 68 acres, or .8% of the City's total acreage. The vast
majority of uses were small retail or service operations working out of a business park or a
small strip center.
INDUSTRIAL LAND USES
Industrial land uses within the City were characterized by light industrial manufacturing,
automotive services and warehousing/storage yards and occupied 86 acres, or 1.0% of the
City's total acreage.
AGRICULTURAL LAND USES
'..
The City's major agricultural area was a 216 acre section on the northwest side of Winter
Springs, just north of S.R. 434 and south of Lake Jesup. It represented 2.5% of the City's total
acreage.
GREENBELT AND RECREATION LAND USES
Designated greenbelt and recreation areas comprised 874 acres within the City (10.1 % of total
acreage). These areas were situated throughout the city with major concentrations in the
northeast, central and within the Tuscawilla P.U.D. The Winter Springs Golf Course and the
Tuscawilla Country Club comprised major portions of the recreational acreage while a large
greenbelt area existed in the central portion of the City. The non-recreational areas were
dominated by Bayhead and Hardwood Swamp wetlands and are characterized as depressions
in the f1atwoods which are either submerged or saturated part of the year. Left in their natural
state, the areas served as land buffers and wildlife corridors.
Winter Springs was well served by its existing parks and recreational facilities, which included
two golf courses and numerous neighborhood parks. Existing recreational lands (528 acres)
comprised 6.1 % of the City's total acreage. Central Winds Park was under construction.
PUBLIC FACILITIES
Public facilities within Winter Springs comprised 4.5% of the total acreage (384 acres) and
included two elementary school, six churches, the municipal complex, two fire stations,
associated services facilities, effluent disposal areas and power and utility easements.
HISTORIC RESOURCES
Winter Springs had no historic properties listed with the State Division of Historic Resources
Florida Master Site File, National Register of Historic Places, or designated by the City of
Winter Springs by local ordinance.
W~W1NIER\WlNT'EIW'llINOS I!AIUlOC
2
DRAFT
July 21, 1997
Evaluation and Appraisal Reporl
City of Winter Springs
VACANT LANDS
Winter Springs had over 2700 acres of vacant land, much of it concentrated in the northern
sections of the City. The land north of S.R. 434 from the City's eastern boundary west to
Tuskawilla Road encompassed approximately 720 acres. Much of the land contained
wetlands vegetation including hardwood swamps, bayheads and hydric hammock areas. A
large tract of vacant land also lay in the central portion of the City and contains approximately
140 acres of hardwood swamp. Throughout the City several vacant sections existed which
were scheduled for residential and nonresidential infill development.
SOILS
The City's dominate soils include Urban Land-Astatula Apopka and Tavares-Millhopper soils
which are well draining soils that are sandy throughout and are found on the uplands areas.
Those areas are suitable for development of any of the planned residential density or
commercial intensity uses. Areas of development concern included the land south of Lake
Jesup, which is composed of Pompano-Nittaw-Basinger and St. Johns-Malabar-Wabasso
soils, which are poorly drained soils.
WETLANDS AND DRAINAGE
The flood plain closely paralleled the hardwood swamp and hydric hammock wetland types
throughout the City. As there had not been any major flooding in the area since 1960, the
drainage constraints to development corresponded to the wetland resource constraints. The
major wetlands resources were located primarily along the northern portion of the City, north of
S.R. 434 and south of Lake Jesup, with a second major wetlands area central to the City west
of Tuskawilla Road and south of S.R. 434.
GROUNDWATER RESOURCES
The Floridan aquifer is the primary source of potable water for most of north central Florida.
This aquifer is a series of limestone formations up to hundreds of feet in thickness and is
recharged by infiltration of rainwater through permeable surface sands into the uppermost
limestone formations. Discharge from the aquifer occurs naturally through artesian springs
and artificially through wells which penetrate it.
ANALYSIS OF POPULATION AND ECONOMY
POPULATION COMPUTATIONS
Winter Springs population estimates as of April 1990 were based on a combination of
information from the best available sources:
Actual dwelling unit counts by development from City records;
Actual vacancy ratios by Census tract from the 1990 Census preliminary report;
Household size derived by interpolation from County Data for 1988 and 1997, by
Census tract and dwelling unit type;
Preliminary Census City total population was a check of City estimates.
W~WINI1!R\WIN1l!RSI'RINOS EAlUXlC
3
DRAFT
July 21, 1997
Evaluation and Appraisal Reporl
City of Winter Spring.
-
Winter Springs had experienced phenomenal growth since 1970, when the population was
only 1,161. As of census date 1990, the City boasted a population of 22,653. The estimated
and projected City populations from 1970 through 2010 are presented in Exhibit 1.A.3.
t.,.
W~WIHTE]l\WINT1!IW'RJNOS I!AIUlOC
4
DRAFT
July 21, 1997
Evaluation and Appraisal Report City of Winter Springl
ESTIMAlED AND PROJE{;l'~lJ POPULA nON Exhibit'I.A.3
1970 TIlROUGH 2010
40
30
(f)
-0
c:
~ 20
::3
o
.c
.....
10
o
APA 70 APA 75 APA 80 APR 85 APR 90 APR 95 JAN 2000 JAN 05 JAN 10
Data analyzed 1/27/92.
Population Estimates and Projections - 1970 to 2010
Description 1970 1980 1990 1997 2010
----------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------
Population est./proj. 1,161 10,350 22,683 28,865 37,537
Period growth rate N/A 791.47% 119.16% 27.25% 30.04%
i~?nUalized growth rate N/A 24.45% 8.16% 3.50% 2.04%
.,:- )
Source: winter Springs Planning Department
W~WIIm!Jl.\W1NTEllSPRJIoIO I!AIl.DOC
5
DRAFT
July 21, 1997
Evaluation and Appraisal Report
City of Winter Sprlnga
Seventy-three percent of the City was 18 years or older. The median age of the City was 34.1.
A survey of businesses concluded in 1990 by the City's Commerce and Industry Board found
that:
1. 68% of the businesses were less than five years old,
2. 79% had five or fewer employers while another 11 % had to six to ten,
3. 54% plan to expand their business in the next five years,
4. 68% of those planning to expand expect to grow within the City,
5. 67% view the City as an excellent or good place to do businesses;
INFRASTRUCTURE
The City had two major water public utilities serving Winter Springs. The conditions of these
existing facilities was good and no immediate deficiencies existed in the equipment. No new
water facility siting was anticipated to meet the projected demands for the long term planning
period.
The Winter Springs East and West public utilities systems also provided the sewer service for
Winter Springs. Winter Springs East had a commitment to serve portions of the Tuscawilla
P.U.D. which are within the Oviedo City limits, leaving 93% capacity reserved for Winter
Springs. The capacity of Winter Springs West is 100% reserved for the City.
Planned capital improvements to the West system included expanding the effluent disposal
system and expanded treatment plant. Specifically, residential irrigation projects and the
irrigation of public easements and recreational areas were to comprise a significant portion of
the improvements.
The East system had projected capacity through the year 2003.
TRANSPORTATION
The community was served by one major north-south route, Tuskawilla Road, and one major
east-west route, S.R. 434. Sections of these facilities were operating at a level of services
standard E, below the minimum requirements for such arterial roadways.
The existing roadway network was found to be substantially deficient when considering that
less than half of the property within Winter Springs had not been developed at that time.
Another concern was the proposed completion of new Florida's Turnpike section along the
eastern edge of the City.
The City had planned a central loop roadway system to relieve the congestion around S.R. 434
and Tuskawilla Road and to provide residents with alternative routes for intra-City trips.
W:\WINTEI!.\WlNT'EItSI'IUNO I!AIl.DOC
6
DRAFT
July 21, 1997
Evaluation and Appraisal Report
City of Winter Sprin~
STRATEGY FOR GROWTH MANAGEMENT
GUIDELINES
The City of Winter Springs envisioned a change in its basic mix of residential to nonresidential
land uses over the following twenty years. It was the City's goal to increase the economic
viability of Winter Springs to the benefit of residents, prospective employers and employees
and to the benefit of the overall financial health of the City. To that end, the analysis proposed
drastically increasing the percentage of land designated as conservation, industrial,
commercial and mixed use. Exhibit 1.A.4 indicates those changes.
Exhibit I.A.4: Future Land Use Utilization
Existing Proposed
Land Uses Acreaoe Percent Acreaae Percent
Residential 421'8 48.9% 5368 62.3%
Recreation 528 6.1% 584 6.8%
Conservation 346 4.0% 993 11.5%
Public Facilities/Utilities 384 4.5% 523 6.1%
Agriculture 216 2.5% 0 0.0%
Industrial 86 1.0% 196 2.3%
Commercial 68 0.8% 476 5.5%
Mixed Use 0 0.0% 480 5.5%
Vacant 2757 32.0% 0 0.0%
Total 8620 100.0% 8620 100.0%
B. TRAFFIC CIRCULA TION ELEMENT
INTRODUCTION
Winter Springs is served by one major north-south route, Tuskawilla Road and one major east-
west route, S.R. 434. Located in south-central Seminole County in a rural/suburban residential
setting, the City's major roadways provide access to neighboring towns for Winter Springs
residents and employees and facilitate the flow of through traffic.
INVENTORY OF EXISTING SYSTEM
The City's inventory contained arterial and collector roadways as well as local and residential
streets. While the City did not have a limited access freeway within its confines, a portion of
Florida's Turnpike was being constructed which was to cross the northeast boundary.
The functional classification of roadways within the City were consistent with the Florida
Department of Transportation (FOOT) definitions which include the following five categories:
Residential
A residential street functions only to serve a local residential community
and does not connect any higher classified roadways.
W;\WJNreIl\WINTElSl'RINGS I!AJU)()C
7
DRAFT
July 21, 1997
Evaluation and Appraisal Report
City of Winter Springs,
Local
The primary function is to serve "the adjacent property by providing the
initial access to the highway network. These roadways are chara.cterized
by short trip lengths, low speeds and low traffic volumes.
Collector
Collectors serve as the link for local streets and highways to provide intra-
neighborhood transportation. Trip lengths are moderate, as are operating
speeds and traffic volumes. Access to collectors should be restricted to
local streets and highways and major traffic generators.
Arterials
Intended to serve moderate to large traffic volumes travelling relatively
long distances, arterials require higher speeds and levels of service.
Access should be well controlled and, in general, limiteQ to collector
streets and highways. The arterial system should form a continuous
network designed for a free flow of through traffic.
Freewavs
A freeway is a Iimit~~" access divided arterial street or highway with a
minimum of four lanes. Access is completely controlled and
accomplished by special auxiliary lanes. The functions is to serve large
traffic volumes traveling long distances at high speeds.
Exhibit 1.8.1 depicts the functional classification of the City's roadway network.
Exhibit I.B.1: Base Year 1988 Roadway Functional Classifications
No. OF ROADWAY
ROADWAY FROM To LANES GROUP CLASS
S.R. 434 U.S. 17-92 Florida Ave. 4 B Arterial
Tuskawilla Rd. Dvson Rd. S.R. 434 2 B Arterial
Shepard Rd. U.S. 17-92 Sheoah Blvd. 2 N/A Collector
Sheoah Blvd. Shepard Rd. S.R. 434 2 N/A Collector
Edaemon Ave. Seminola Blvd. S.R. 419 2 N/A Collector
Moss Rd. Edgemon Ave. S.R. 419 2 N/A Collector
Northern Way Trotwood Blvd. Winter Springs Blvd. 2 N/A Collector
Trotwood Blvd. Oak Forest Northern Way 2 N/A Collector
Winter Springs Blvd. Oak Forest S. R. 426 2 N/A Collector
Exhibit I. 8.2 shows, at the time of plan adoption, the FOOT roadway functional classification
for the roadways within the City, along with the number of lanes per segment. The
dassification did not indicate any principal arterials within the City, however, US 17-92 and
S.R. 436 are in the adjacent area. Minor arterials within the City include S.R. 419, S.R. 434
and Tuskawilla Road.
The City had only one four-lane roadway - S.R. 434 from the western City limit to the
intersection with S.R. 419. The remainder of the roadways were two lane roads.
W:IWINTEJllwttm!llSPRlNOS \!AILDOC
8
DRAFT
July 21, 1997
Evaluation and Appraisal Report
City of Winter Springs
ANALYSIS OF EXISTING FACILITIES
Using statewide operating Level of Service standards, traffic counts, estimated peak hour
volumes, roadway lanage, and classification and the FOOT Generalized Peak Hour Level of
Service Maximum Volumes table, the level of service standards were detennined and present
in Exhibit I.B.3.
Only two roadways were operating at less than Level of Service D. Those roadways were (1)
a two lane section of S.R. 434 from S.R. 419 to Tuskawilla Road and (2) Tuskawilla Road from
Dyson Road to Winter Springs Boulevard.
....
W~WINTEK\WINI1!IW'IlINOS I!AItDOC
9
DRAFT
July 21, 1997
Col C
c
c:
r.
r- .-
..- . J"
~ ~ '>.. I- 1::. t-:. L C.
......~
.' ....
Ii
Ii
11;1
hU
Ih~
~
. .
...
o
"'''''''
:t",,,,
"':to\:
:t"'-l:
:t",,,,
@ :to-l'+."
+."
"'or
"'."
.........~ l
'-.f-~ Us
~Jr-l'Jr-l' 17-92
-i-"t, J<<JrJ/fiYJrJ()Or JrJrJr I
~:~ Jro\'~ I
~ ~~.q,
ClTP ~If? T-I.}.."
# ~ & Jr~~~
++~ ;;: 0\' xxxxxxxxxxxJ(l!xt .
~~~ ~ ~
~\ ~ I'~
N \ IS' ~ '" I ++,
'-" ~IiK _ f'J O\l.\~ '" _ I ......Jl.:'
-r-__...... --- ~--_J +++
I ~ ~
I ~
~ N .~O~,.... :--...tVe N. ......T
" "v~"";-,,, ...
~ ~" " ...... " "
,.. "".... 11'0.... +~
p ~~9 1 ~
@: @)
'~
~
r-J
I
I
I
(
~ I
@) F :~ I
-......;, "'-....' ~j
, ~---,
! I \ Iz
Q&~~~l{ ~ \
\2 if(}
\~ ~ I!
@~ if t
-.........,--4'~ -" @
CV-.... I
I
I
1-'/.o{ICXXXX
~
DODD R.Q
@/-
-,
~
~
\
\
\
In
N \".Xl
(
\
)
I
'f
I
I
I
1\.lS\<.AWlLLA
@/
@
'\
~-
@/~~
I
I
10
l:J:
@~
~
~
S.R. 434 I
@/
f"T1
~
"Tl
C)
C
;0
fTl
(J)
-I
)>Z
ZG"')
o
;0
ZO
C)>
5:0
CD:f
fTl)>
;0-<
O()
"Tlr
r)>
)>Ul
ZUl
fTl::!J
(j)()
)>
::!
o
Z
-'
,..
Ul
io
.,..
t..4
.,..
\
'@
.
@)I ! I
)( r
)C M
>( G"l
>( M
Z
9
Z ::0 -n::: -0
c )>::l: z::O
3:: pOoz
tD::ol::oo
M O::E -
::0 )>)>)>~
o O-<::Or
..., if 0 iT! )>
r )>~C]::o
~ 0 f;; ~ ill
M~OUlC]
Ul -i )>
o r
::0 Ul
Ul
NOT TO SCA/...E:
\- <:
....
~
M
0-1
n'
. ,
...
...
a'
:r
6'
~
hi
N
(l
~
~
~
~
~
~
~~
\
Evaluation and Appraisal Report
ID
No
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
ROADWAY
S.R. 434
S.R. 434
S.R. 434
S.R. 419
S.R. 419
TUSKAWILLA RD.
TUSKAWILLA RD.
TUSKAWILLA RD.
SHEPARD RD.
SHEOAH BLVD.
EDGEMON AVE.
EDGEMON AVE.
Moss RD.
Moss RD.
NORTHERN WAY
NORTHERN WAY
NORTHERN WAY
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
NORTHERN WAY
TROTWOOD BLVD.
TROTWOOD BLVD.
V\IINTER SPRINGS BLw.
V\IINTER SPRINGS BLw.
V\IINTER SPRINGS BLw.
V\IINTER SPRINGS BLw.
V\IINTER SPRINGS BLw.
W:IWINT1!RIWM1!IlSPIlIN03I!A1l00c
Exhibit I.B.3: Base Year 1988 Roadway Link Levels of Service
FROM
To
U.S. 17-92 S.R. 419 4
S.R. 419 TUSKAWILLA RD. 2
TUSKAWILLA RD. FLORIDA AVE. 2
U.S. 17-92 EDGEMON AVE. 2
EDGEMON AVE. S.R. 434 2
DYSON RD V\IINTER SPRINGS BLw. 2
V\IINTERSPRINGSBLw. TROTWOOD BLVD. 2
TROTWOOD BLVD. S.R. 434 2
U.S. 17-92 SHEOAH BLVD. 2
SHEPARD RD. S.R. 434 2
SEMINOLA BLVD. S.R. 434 2
S.R. 434 S.R. 419 2
EDGEMON AVE. S.R. 434 2
S.R. 434 S.R. 419 2
TROlWOOO BL\iO. \MNTER SPRINGS BLw. 2
TROTWOOD BLVD. WINTER SPRINGS BLw. 2
WINTER SPGS. SHETLAND AVE. 2
BLVD
SHETLAND AVE.
OAK FORREST
TUSKAWILLA RD.
OAK FORREST
TUSKAWILLA RD.
NORTHERN WAY
GREENBRIAR LN.
NORTHERN WAY
WINTER SPRINGS BLw. 2
TUSKAWILLA RD. 2
NORTHERN WAY 2
TUSKAWILLA RD. 2
NORTHERN WAY 2
GREENBRIAR LN. 2
NORTHERN WAY 2
S.R. 426 4
No. OF ROADWAY
LANES GROUP CLASS
B ARTERIAL
B ARTERIAL
B ARTERIAL
B ARTERIAL
B ARTERIAL
B ARTERIAL
B ARTERIAL
B ARTERIAL
N/A COLLECTOR
N/A COLLECTOR
N/A COLLECTOR
N/A COLLECTOR
N/A COLLECTOR
N/A COLLECTOR
N/A COLLECTOR
N/A COLLECTOR
N/A COLLECTOR
N/A COLLECTOR
N/A COLLECTOR
N/A COLLECTOR
N/A COLLECTOR
N/A COLLECTOR
N/A COLLECTOR
N/A COLLECTOR
N/A COLLECTOR
11
LOS D PEAK
PEAK HR. ESTIMATE
CAPACITY VOLUME
3,120 2,438
1.470 1,718
1,470 908
1,470 1,220
1,470 765
1,470 1,637
1,470 1,173
1,470 1,097
1 ,11 0 442
1 .11 0 440
1 ,11 0 358
1;110 419
1,110 716
1,110 366
1 ,11 0 205
1 .110 179
1 ,11 0 158
1 .11 0 182
1 .110 142
1.110 370
1,110 261
1.110 675
1 ,110 492
1,110 346
2,330 215
DRAFT
July 21, 1997
City of Winter Springs
January 11, 1993
HR.
VIC PEAK HOUR
RATIO LOS
0.78 C
1.17 F
0.62 C
0.83 C
0.52 C
1.11 F
0.80 C
0.75 C
0.40 C
0.40 C
0.32 C
0.38 C
0.64 D
0.33 C
0.18 C
0.16 C
0.14 C
0.16 C
0.13 C
0.33 C
0.24 C
0.61 D
0.44 C
0.31 C
0.09 C
:,...
Evaluation and Appraisal Report
City of Winter Sprln~
'f
A review of accident data showed the majority of accidents occurring along the City's two main
arterials: S.R. 434 and Tuskawilla Road. A study commissioned by the FOOT in 1988, State
Road 434 multi-Lane Reconstruction StudY, noted that the S.R. 434 section from S.R. 419
eastward and southward to the Orange County line experienced higher overall accident rates
than were experienced on similar types of roadways in Florida.
The FOOT report noted that without improvements, the intersection of S.R. 434 and Tuskawilla
Road would be at a LOS F by the year 2013.
ANALYSIS OF PROJECTED NEEDS
Pursuant to 9J-5 requirements, projections of 2010 traffic volumes and system improvements
based on future land uses shown on the Future Land Use Map within this Comprehensive Plan
had been prepared. These projections, presented in Exhibit I.B.4, served as a basis for
determining the need for new roadway facilities and expansions to support planned
development and to maintain adopted LOS standards.
....
In addition to the 2010 analyses, interim year analyses for the five year planning period had
been made. The recommended improvements are identified in Exhibit 1.8.5 and illustrated on
Exhibit 1.8.6.
Exhibit I.B. S: Year 1997 Recommended Improvements
Exist # FundinQ
Roadwav Line From To Lanes Improvement Entitv
S. R 434 S.R.419 Tuskawilla Rd. 2 2 New Lanes FDOT
Tuskawilla Rd. Red Bug Rd. Winter Springs Blvd. 2 2 New Lanes County
Eastern Beltway S.R 426 Lake Mary Blvd. 4 New Lanes SCEA
Panama Rd. Ext. S.R 434 Tuskawilla Rd. 4 New Lanes County
Winter Springs Loop Brantley Ave. City Park 2 New Lanes City
Shore Rd. Ext. Fisher Rd. S.R 419 2 New Lanes City
Panama Rd. Ext. Shore Rd. Tuskawilla Rd. Corridor Study City
Winter Springs Loop Brantley Ave. S.R 434 4 New Lanes Developer
Brantley Ave. S.R 434 Winter Springs Loop - 4 New Lanes Developer
Shepard Rd. Ext. East End Edgemon Ave. 2 New Lanes Developer
Eagle Ridge Rd. S.R. 434 Panama Rd. Ext. 2 New Lanes Developer
Tuscora Dr. S.R 434 R.R. Tracks 2 New Lanes Developer
Vistawilla Dr. S.R 434 RR Tracks 2 New Lanes Developer
ISSUES AND OPPORTUNITIES
The City of Winter Springs, as well as the majority of the Central Florida area, faced a
significant transportation challenge in providing the infrastructure required to support expected
growth over the next twenty years. Winter Springs traffic deficiencies resulted from the
existence of only one northlsouth and eastlwest route through the City. The recommendations
provided for both 1997 and 2010 directly address these deficiencies.
W~WII'<TER\WlNTERSPIUNOS I!AIlDOC
12
DRAFT
July 21, 1997
Evaluation and Appraisal Report
City of Winter Spring~
Exhibit 1.8.4
YEAR 2010 ROAD~AY lINK LEVELS OF SERVICE
LOS 0 MooEl MooEL
10. NO.OF ROADIJAY DAILY DAILY VIC DAILY
NO. ROAD~AY FRQ1 TO LANES GROUP CLASS CAPACITY VOLUME RATIO LOS
.------------------------.-------------------------------------------.-------------.----.---------------------------------------
1 U.S. 17-92 SEMI NOLA BLVD. S.R. 434 6 C ARTERIAL 47;900 50,450 1.05 F
2 U.S. 17-92 S.R. 434 SHEPARD RD. 6 C ARTERIAL 47,900 49,100 1.03 E
3 S.R. 434 U.S. 17-92 MOSS RD. 4 B ARTERIAL 32,500 32,650 1.00 E
4 S.R. 434 MOSS RD. C. R. 419 4 B ARTERIAL 32,500 17,350 0.53 A
5 S.R. 434 C. R. 419 TUSKAUlllA RD. 4 B ARTERIAL 32,500 21,900 0.67 8
6 S.R. 434 TUSKAUlllA RD. EASTE~"BELTIJAY 4 B ARTERIAL 32,500 26,700 0.82 B
7 S.R. 434 EASTERN BELT~AY FLA AVE. 2 B ARTERIAL 15,300 11,650 0.76 B
8 S.R. 419 U.S. 17-92 EDGEMON AVE. 2 B ARTERIAL 15,300 20,4 ?S 1.34 F
9 S.R. 419 EDGEMON AVE. S.R. 434 2 B ARTERIAL 15,300 20,4 ?S 1.34 F
10 S.R. 426 CHAPMAN RD. RED BUG lie:. RD. 4 !J ARTERIAL 32,500 19, ?SO 0.61 A
11 S.R. 426 RED BUG LK. RD. MITCHELL HAMMOCK RD. 4 B ARTERIAL 32,500 8,300 0.26 A
12 S.R. 426 MITCHELL HAMMOCK RD. UINTER SPRGS. BLVD. 2 B ARTERIAL 15,300 14,300 0.93 C
13 S.R. 426 UINTER SPRGS. BLVD. S.R. 434 2 B ARTERIAL 15,300 11,550 O.?S B
14 SEMI NOLA BLVD. U.S. 17.92 UINTER PARK RD. 6 NIA COLLECTOR 37,200 26,800 o.n 0
15 SEMI NOLA BLVD. ~INTER PARK RD. E. LAKE DR. 6 NIA COLLECTOR 37,200 24,600 0.66 C
16 E. LAKE OR. SEMI NOLA BLVD. SHORE RD. EXT. 4 NIA COLLECTOR 24,300 18,550 0.76 0
17 E. LAKE DR. SHORE RD. EXT. TUSKAIJILLA RD. 4 NIA COLLECTOR 24,300 21,950 0.90 0
18 TUSKAUILLA RD. RED BUG LK. RD. EAGLE BLVD. 6 B ARTERIAL 48,900 38,400 0.79 B
19 TUSKAUILLA RD. EAGLE BLVD. DYSON RD. 4 B ARTERIAL 32,500 30, 150 0.93 C
20 TUSKAUILLA RD. DYSON RD. UINTER SPRGS. BLVD. 4 B ARTERIAL 32,500 18,450 0.57 A
21 TUSKAUILLA RD. UINTER SPRGS. BLVD. TROTIJOOO BLVD. 4 B ARTERIAL 32,500 16,500 0.51 A
22 TUSKAIJILLA RD. TROTIJOOO BLVD. PANAMA EXT. 4 B ARTERIAL 32,500 15,000 0.46 A
23 TUSKAIJILLA RD. PANAMA EXT. S.R. 434 4 B ARTERIAL 32,500 13,400 0.41 A
24 \lINTER PARK RD. RED BUG U:. RD. SEMI NOLA BLVD. 4 NIA COLLECTOR 24,300 22,550 0.93 0
25 ~INTER PARK RD. SEMI NOLA BLVD. S.R. 434 4 N/A COLLECTOR 24,300 15,050 0.62 C
26 CHAPHAN RD. S.R. 426 S.R. 434 4 NIA COLLECTOR 24.300 13,450 0.55 C
27 EAGLE BLVD. DooD RD. TUSKAIJ I LLA RD. 2 NIA COLLECTOR 11,600 3,100 0.27 C
28 0000 RD. REO BUG Lie. RD. EAGLE BLVD. 2 NIA COLLECTOR 11,600 2,350 0.20 C
29 CITRUS RD. RED BUG U:. RD. SHETLAND AVE. 2 NIA COLLECTOR 11 ,600 4,450 0.38 C
30 SHEPARD RD. U.S. 17-92 SHEOAH BLVD. 2 NIA COLLECTOR 11,600 3,450 0.30 C
31 SHEPARD RD. SHEOAH BLVD. EDGEMON AVE. 2 NIA COLLECTOR 11,600 3,300 0.28 C
32 SHEOAH BLVD. SHEPARD RD. S.R. 434 2 NIA COLLECTOR 11,600 2,150 0.19 C
33 MOSS RD. PANAHA RD. DOLPHIN RD. 2 NIA COLLECTOR 11,600 3,550 0.31 C
34 MOSS RD. DOLPHIN RD. S.R. 434 2 NIA COLLECTOR 11,600 4,200 0.36 C
W~WINTER\WIHT1!lW'RlNOS I!AIlOOC
13
DRAFT
July 21, 1997
- ,)
o
FIGURE Te .1:'0
~
a..
,
,
__---J-.., !
/' '-~'-
/,'
i
....
;
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS
1997 FUTURE TRAFFIC
CIRCULATION MAP
-
u.r.-
, -
,-
JfSU,Q
5'~
...;
~
-
v
-
....
} j
-,
'-'
~
~
V
./-~ /~
u ... .
t'"\
~~
~ .C
~-
"
"
c
~
l
:'A
-...
'\. ~\
<>
t~A
. co..
~1l."34
. ,
. .
, ,
/.'
I:
. ,
,
--,
\.J
....
"
r=S;
;
~IIl.YI)
(6)
.,
b
,
,
\
~
~
i~
MC
l.wr Olt
II:
'"
12!
...
North
~-:r:=
!"!~::
~;
l
;-.
,/
/
<{
2
'2'>
_ 0
l)^...........
-
30llD
-
2000
'.
sc:...I; .. rt:r;T
--'-~e-____'
EXISTING ROAOW A YS
ArterIGI
R~
We;or CoIectllr
~
w...icipQI
CoIlect.ora
STATE ~ COUNTY FUNDED
<>O<X>O<:: ~~,,:=
ttttttttttt
County F..-d.t
mpc-o...-..nta
County Sole. TOll
F'un484 lmpt'o"....."t.8
..,1,..,.,'..
MUNICtP AL
IMPACT FEE FUNDED
- - - I
o."eIo9et' F'rOftted
mpro...m."a
mpoet F' e. F'rOftted
mpro........,a
F' un". lrT'!)ro.......nt.8
lConatr\lctod After 1996)
I I I I
-
FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION
PA
MA
RA
MC
CMC'
Pmc:;pd
Artrill
t.Snor
Art.,;m
Rural
Artericl
Wejor
Colector
eollflty
Winor eoa.ctor
Hot. : M ~hted roods not
lGo.Ie4 aro loIun;cipal CoIlecton.
NUMBER OF LANES
(4)
Numo.r of
Roadway ~_
Note : Roodweya not ~.d
hay. two lon...
...
..
.
..
,.;
Exhibit J.B.6
ENGINEERING & UJO SYSTEJlS Irr::..
City of Winter Springs 'I:
,
\ '
~ ---,
~~~ " ~
'..
",,'V
c.~
r;'/...'. ~llq:I~'~" ""'" ----- ~~,...., ~I 7 ~~k.. ~~_.
' 7 ~~______ ~ , ~ ~" ~~_ ~
/ '~- - llo"""" . , ~ C
r;.. 7 l' '- """'- " . .. ",l '''' 0''''., " . ""
' - ""-<Ti"'- , ~, W, , . _ ' .~
~ . ~ =- .. ,., '.,,- ~
7r · I Lob~'ia""'" -~ :' :'-';:';r- COUNTY"" ",~, ",; "
~ T /q' 'Ie' P ,_ ~... __,",.., ". Ell lj ""'.. ',!, , ..
't'
o,J
I. (... _J--...., . I. I . _ '". 81 I ~,Q.. ",.., .. '~<
ff , ~. , " '~ =_ ,', ',' ",.. "
\~i [J, ~ :=J! .. "r,+ ';c-~ . I '- ~L,;~~I \7-f.II'c;J~~;~:" 7 ;
! , 2 ~) ~ '--\ \, .:: i'...n y ~ 17 I~~ 5 (~ f':;'~ ~b~~_-:-.:, J, !
~ ! ~ I 1 ,',' _II I \. \~ '\.. ~'\' ,:~~~,_ ~~, )' I
~l ~~1-~~7' 2 ~~--n~' ,,~~t@! 3 - I J fJ J · L>~~< ~i ~
.. - -- ~:<:~.) J L~ ' ftfr ~ VH~' ~iJ 5 'I 2 I " .~ 'Z~ f
I~'\,~""~ ~0?~ _yll~/'~I~~~ ~ . ~ft\;~ ~~
~ ' I 1\'--1 '\. Ii'~ r.../ /I r--J 0) ~~, '-,\b? .. '. ~~
" I J J'...-f : OJ ~ J J"'"7 \I~ I """'", fli' "":;~, .' ='~'Crr~;:-" i~: ';~ I <~~~~
. I "~l 1./'\ I 'lJ .~ " ""'~ , I l"'.t-r ~ ""_ , ,-\,~
. 'J '--- ":! , . '---". ",' ~I J_ J,,& ',~ .._ ';;. 1 _ .,( li2 ~'- -;'~ 0' "-
I '. , " 'h 'b,'''$" '1/7 II t'.. '." , 'l';,
,,-~ ~lJ ~ ~~. - ~~~~. 5 ~ FJffI' r171~_~'.~~:.......:~ ?:~'tt l.)~'.. ~. ~ ~\~_~;
.' 'OJ ''L- I - r I t ~~J\ It \'~ , .~~, ~ 'I ",-,], _'~" '. ,.....;, 7 1....1&='
' T /w -"'''~'.- . ~~ 1;;..' oN, ~ . .
I ,2 I . Y ~ ~ ~ F" .' J l\ . ~ I,::' 0 if~-~; 31 0 :~':4' ~~V".., l\' .:.;
r' 1 .~ '5' I -:z....! ~ l;j J f 1::.,. I;!fi" 2 ) · "~FII] _ 1 Oviedo TIl i iff ~~j, .-1:',\' /': fii~ ,-. \ \~;
If') /7 <::7 1;9 hu:::. '.1 \) .l'k' ~ _ . 'I 2 . .~. ~.
~ I I, I '9 ~, ('L3, 'A=\I }..J.... / n 0 J ~ ~ I 0 ~~ "'r.!1i1.1 -.... L ""u'I' "'.f .
: - J )i5priDP'~ ~X,...JL.1A I)\I,RT ~ii' -, I' ) V\\~ --'I /~I ~2c.
'P",= ' L_~ JIF=M-~J- 7b '\ Lf1_h; \~ ...J;;-~: ~~! l'Jr'~'[ I ~
Cr'I I' .-J' F~Ci'Y~ m "'~ )::rt::J7 ~J ~J ,,- 3 ~ 3 _~~ '';''''ii ~7 I ~'I _ ~_ L_._
!i T (""--.,- -, n 1......<\\ 1 @!I ....H_~ ..k 1\ I I /..~ 'r '.J.g;; . .. _~_. ""E
~ ~ ~ 241.~O '~-"~--r;'\l\: ~ I 3, I~ 0 , -: 1 J./~ V '1}, _ri----
'1.:"'5::: - LL - -. Ui! ! \ ~ \A.l . I .>~ I, '" CO"''TY ,
~_L___ ~29E . '~-f0 i Q:~ ~I I-P~ --'-- I
@ I .' I ..1 .. - 16
-':... =-- - ~.1Jl - - 3\ E
' . '-, ,
""" - --
~ . ,--
\'Ol.US1-i
Exhibit J.C.1
~
f..
~
~
o
CJT
20
S
'I.
on this map consists of
~ -ch area outlined The map IS thus
~ ... dafsal/. ... 's
than one ..In t..-. tnan a .....Sl
more , plannlnB ra '''<:>'
meant tOl' genera of specific tracts.
tor decIsions on the use
R 30 E
ORANCE
Evaluation and Appraisal Report
City of Winter Sprln9f
';.
C. CONSER VA TION ELEMENT
Winter Springs is located in Seminole County, in east-central Florida. Lake Jesup serves as
the City's northerly boundary The entire City is located within the St. John' River Drainage
Basin. The natural resources in Winter Springs include clean air; wetland and upland forests,
which provide habitat for wildlife; groundwater, activities as well as open space and storage of
floodwaters.
PHYSIOGRAPHY, GEOLOGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES
According to The GeomoroholoQv of the Florida Peninsula, White, Geological Bulletin No. 51,
1980, Winter Springs is located in the Osceola Plain physiographic province. Elevations range
up to 60 feet. The City's mineral resources generally consist of sand, according to Mineral
Resources and Industries of Florida, J. Calver, Florida Geological Survey, 1956. According to
the Florida Bureau of Geology (Campbeli, 1986), no sands were commercially mined in
Seminole County. The historical development patterns in Winter Springs preclude future
mining activities within City limits.
SOILS
The soils in the City are dominated by Urban Land-Astatula Apopka and Tavares Millhopper
soils, as surveyed in the 1990 Soils Survey of Seminole County. These soils are characterized
by well draining soils that are sandy throughout and have a loamy sub-soil at a depth of 40
inches or more and found on the uplands areas. The areas south of Lake Jesup are
composed of Pompano-Nittaw-Basinger soils, characterized by level, poorly drained soils
found on the flood plain. Also evident on the southwestern portion of Lake Jesup are St.
Johns-Malabar-Wabasso soils which are level, poorly drained soils that are sandy and are
found on the flatwoods or in sloughs.
The soils underlying Winter Springs are depicted in Exhibit I.C.1. According to the USDA Soil
Conservation Service, there were no major soil erosion problems in the Winter Springs area.
However, significant erosion problems occurred in portions of Howell Creek and other creeks
where agricultural ditches and canals drained. This may be due to land alteration which has
resulted in unstable stream side slopes, and loss of flood plain vegetation, which may result in
sedimentation and water quality problems. Agricultural runoff was noted to occur in Howell
Creek and Lake Jesup, though Winter Springs had no existing agricultural lands. Therefore,
erosion and sedimentation problems were predominately due to wind and stormwater runoff
over sandy uncovered soils during construction activity or other clearing activities. In order to
minimize erosion and sedimentation associated with development activitiesl best management
techniques for erosion control were recommended to be required by developers. Landscaping
plans were recommended to be required for all industrial, commercial and multi-family
residential development.
It was recommended that all new development, other than infill of existing single-family
residential lots that are served by regional systems, should include methods of stormwater
detention which ensure post-development water runoff rates do not exceed pre-development
runoff rates.
W,IWINl"ERIWIN'IEIW'IlINOS I!AIlOOC
15
DRAFT
July 21, 1997
f'l-hibit J.C.l CD t.
CD
[2]
[2]
o
o
w
o
m
-
fJ!]
10'
~
~\
~:"-'BRE\;ARD
, COlI NT"
LEGEND
MINERAL SOILS ON RIDGES ON THE UPLANDS
f.
t,.,., .;1
'.
URBAN LAND.POMELLO.PAOLA: Nearly level to Sloping areas of Urban land and moderately well
drained and excessively drained soils that are sandy throughout; on the uplands
URBAN LAND-ASTATULA APOPKA: Nearly level to strongly sloping areas of Urban land. exces-
sively drained soils that are sandy Ihroughout. and well drained sandy soils that have a loamy subsoil
at a depth of about 40 inches or more; on the uplands
URBAN LAND.TAVARES.MILLHOPPER: Nearly level to sloping areas 01 Urban land and moderately
well drained soils that are sandy throughout or have. loamy subsoil at a deplh of abOut 40 inches or
more: on the uplands
MINERAL SOILS ON THE FLATWOODS AND IN SLOUGHS AND DEPRESSIONS
MYAKKA.EAUGALLIE.URBAN LAND: Nearly level. poorly drained soils that are sandy throughout
or have a loamy subsoil at a depth of abOut 40 inches or more and areas 01 Urban land; on the
f1atwoods . ...
ST. JOHNS.MALABAR.WABASSO: Nearly level. poorly drained soils that are sandy throughout or
have a loamy subsoil at . depth of abOut 30 inches or more; on the flatwoods and in sloughs
BASINGER.SMYRNA.DELRAV: Nearly level. poorly drained and very poorly drained soils that are
sandy throughout or have a loamy subsoil at a depth of abOut 50 inches; in sloughs and depressions
on the f1atwoods
MINERAL AND ORGANIC SOILS ON THE FLOOD PLAINS AND IN DEPRESSIONS AND SWAMPS
Nittaw.Felda.Floridana: Nearly level, very poorly drained and poorly drained mineral soils; some
are mucky and have a clayey subsoil at a depth of abOut 10 inches or more. and some are sandy to a
depth of 20 to 40 inches and have a loamy subsoil; on the flood plains and in depressions
NITTAW.OKEELANTA-TERRA CEIA: Nearly level, very poorly drained mineral and organic soils;
some are mucky and have. clayey subsoil at a deplh of abOut 10 inches or more. some are mucky
and have a sandy layer at a depth of abOut 40 Inches or more. and some are mucky throughout; on
the flood plains and In depressions
BRIGHTON.SAMSULA-SANIBEL: Nearly level. very poorly drained organic and mineral soils; some
are mucky throughout. some are mucky and have I sandy layer .t a depth of abOut 30 inches or
more. and some are sandy throughout; in depressionS and swamps
POMPANO-NITTAW.BASINGER: Nearly level. poorly drained and very poorly drained mineral soils;
some are sandy throughout. and some Ire mucky Ind have a clayey subsoil .t I depth of abOut 10
inches or more: on the floocl plains
COMPILED 1988
N
1
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE
UNIVERSITY OF flORIDA
INSTITUTE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES
AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATIONS
SOIL SCIENCE DEPARTMENT
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND CONSUMER SERVICES
GENERAL SOil MAP
SEMINOLE CqUNTY, FLORIDA
o
I I I ,
Scale 1: 126.720
1 2
I I
J
I
6 Km
J
'- .
3 C MII~
I I
1 0
I , I
Evaluation and Appraisal Report
City of Winter Sprlnflf;.
SURFACE WATER RESOURCES
Surface water resources in Winter Springs consisted of: Soldier's Creek; Gee Creek; Howell
Creek (Branch); Bear Creek; portions of Little Lake Howell; and portions of the south shore of
Lake Jesup. There are a number of isolated lakes as well, including: Lake Tuscawilla; and,
Lake Talmo. Water quality data is provided in Exhibit I.C.2 from the 1990 Florida Water
Quality Assessment 305(b) Technical Appendix, by Joe Hand et all Florida Department of
Environmental Regulation (FDER). The waters of Soldier's Creek, Gee Creek and Lake Jesup
were classified as Class III recreational waters by the FDER.
Gee Creek, Howell Creek and Soldier Creek are all major tributaries to Lake Jesup. The data
indicated that water quality for creeks and Lake Jesup in Winter Springs was fair to poor. Lake
Jesup was very eutrophic with an almost constant algal blooms and yearly fish kills. Although
wastewater no longer empties into the system, recovery will likely be slow due to very low
flushing rates. The lake bottom was covered with muck from three to ten feet in most
locations. The FDER had included wateu~uality monitoring, assessment of cultural impacts,
development of nutrient and water budget, and recommendation for a course of action.
It was recommended that the City require all new development that drains into the Lake Jesup .
watershed adequately treat stormwater, ensure that clearing of vegetation of wetlands
adjacent to the 100-year flood plain, and alteration of surface waters and wetlands are
regulated in Winter Springs. It was also recommended that future land uses be developed to
be compatible with lake management goals, by designating flood plains and wetlands areas as
conservation, and that the City develop land development regulations that require
development to mitigate negative impacts on lake water quality.
Exhibit LC.2: Surface Water Quality Data
Water
Surface Water Svstem Quality Index Trophic State Index
by Joe
..
FLOOD PLAINS
Winter Springs was enrolled in the Federal Emergency Management Agency's Flood
Insurance Rate Program. Therefore, FEMA maps delineating' flood-prone areas' were
available. Data for flood-prone areas, as identified by FEMA, is depicted in the map series.
The 100 year flood plains of Winter Springs were predominantly limited to the shorelines
adjacent to Lake Jesup; Little Lake Howell; Lake Talmo; and the riverine flood plains of
Soldier's Creek; Gee Creek; Bear Creak and Howell Creek.
W~WImER\WINTI!RSPRlNOS I!AILDOC
17
DRAFT
July 21, 1997
Evaluation and Appraisal Report
City of Winter Sprind$
In order to ensure public health and safety and minimize flood hazard to public and private
property, it was recommended that net encroachment within the flood plain be prohibited.
Where development did occur in flood-prone areas, the land development regulations should
ensure building designs indude features which reduce public safety hazard and property
damage. Additionally it was recommended that requirements should ensure first floor
elevation, as well as electrical, heating, ventilation, plumbing, air conditioning equipment and
other service facilities are above the 100-year flood elevation, all structures are anchored to
resist flotation, and structures will be elevated on piers, with breakaway walls below the flood
elevation. Other requirements recommended in order to maintain the functions and natural
features of flood plain lands. 1) All proposals for development in the 100-year flood plain
should be required to redesign the site plan to avoid alteration in the 100-year flood plain. 2)
Where the applicant documents that the project cannot be completed without alteration of the
100-year flood plain, the project may be approved if all structures are placed on pilings with a
minimum amount of fill. 3) All structures should be constructed so that the first floor elevation
is above the 100-year flood plain. 4) No septic tanks should be located within the 100-year
flood plain, as this can contribute to surface" water quality problems.
It was recommended that clearing of flood plain vegetation be limited to 25% of the site, that
no hazardous materials or wastes be stored within the 100-year flood plain and that the 100-
year flood plains in Winter Springs be designated for conservation use.
WETLANDS
Wetlands within Winter Springs consisted of: hydric hammocks, hardwood swamps,
freshwater lakes, and shoreline marsh habitat associated with freshwater lakes.
The freshwater marshes serve as a filter system for the lakes, because the natural vegetation
assimilates the nutrients, stabilizes the soils and prevents erosion. This protects the rivers
from overloading of nutrients, which would have negative effects on fisheries. Marshes and
lakes will retain water during drought and slow down water during flood times.
UPLAND VEGETATION
Much of the upland natural resources, such as wildlife and vegetative communities were
predominated by residential, commercial and other urban uses. Predominately all the upland
natural resources in the City had been significantly disturbed by urban uses.
According to Endemism and Florida's Interior Sand Pine Scrub, prepared by Steve Christman,
1988, there were no identified rare scrub endemic plants in Seminole County. The dominant
vegetational communities in the area consisted of: pine f1atwoods and mesic hammocks,
according to Buffer Zones for Water. Wetlands and Wildlife in the East Central Florida Reaion,
Brown et at, October 1989.
WILDLIFE AND SPECIES DESIGNATED AS ENDANGERED, THREATENED OR SPECIAL
CONCERN
No federally listed endangered plants are known to exist in the County. No specific inventory
of endangered and threatened species had been completed which defines species occurring
in Winter Springs.
W~WINl1!R\WIHTEJlSI'lUNOS I!AIUlOC
18
DRAFT
July 21, 1997
Evaluation and Appraisal Report
City of Winter Spring,
'"
AIR QUALITY
There were no Department of Environmental Regulation (FDER) or other known ambient air
monitoring stations in Winter Springs. Based upon the data available, it was concluded that
existing air quality in Winter Springs is good, and no air quality problems were projected for the
near future.
Based on the information assessed, it was recommended that the City adopt a landscape
ordinance which ensures adequate buffering between incompatible land uses.
WATER NEEDS, SOURCES AND USES
The Floridan Aquifer is the principal source of water for potable water use in the groundwater
basin. The natural quality of groundwater in this groundwater basin varies greatly depending
on the location and the depth from which water is obtained. Based on the information
assessed it was concluded that the Florid~!J Aquifer underlying Winter Springs is of good water
quality .
There were no agricultural or industrial water users within the City that utilize City potable water
facilities. Further, there were no industrial or agriculture users within the City that utilize water
from the surface waters or from wells that require SJRWMD consumptive use permits. The
agricultural land uses utilized irrigation wells from the surficial aquifer. All agriculture wells are
under the well size limitations for SJRWMD permitting, thus no information is available on
these wells. Current and projected water needs and sources for the next ten-year period had
been projected to be as follows:
LAND USE
YEAR
1992. 2002
Aariculture n1a 0*
Domestic Potable 4.2 mgd 4.4 mgd
Water
Industrial Processina n/a n1a
*The Future Land Use Map indicates agricultural land uses
will eventually change to non-agricultural land uses.
Chapter 17-40, F.A.C., State Water Policy, advocates the use of water of the lowest
acceptable quality for the purpose intended, and the direct reuse as an integral part of water
management rules and programs. According to the District's groundwater basin inventory,
Seminole County has the potential to implement direct wastewater reuse programs in addition
to existing programs. Effluent from a wastewater treatment plant can be treated to a specified
level and then reapplied to land such as golf courses, landscapes, and agricultural areas or
reused by industry. In areas of increasing population and water use demands, reuse is an
important conservation strategy, and ensures that the lowest quality use of water is used.
W~WOO1!R.\WIIm!IW'iUNOS I!AIlDOC
19
DRAFT
July 21, 1997
Evaluation and Appraisal Report
City of Winter Springs
The City had already adopted an ordinance for water reuse. Additional policies were
recommended to promote even greater reuse in the City. 1) Reduce water use for irrigation
needs by encouraging the use of xeriscaping in landscaping plans. 2) Xeriscaping (the
incorporation of drought tolerant, native plants in a landscaping plan in order to reduce the
need for irrigation and maintenance) and, 3) the use of native plants rather than exotics to
help prevent exotics from invading other disturbed areas, where they compete with beneficial
natural species.
The City currently had no wellfield protection ordinance or other regulations for protection or
use of water. It was recommended that the City adopt a wellfield protection ordinance limiting
development within 200 feet of its wells, except certain passive recreation or other appropriate
uses within the 200-foot radius.
KNOWN SOURCES OF POLLUTION, INCLUDING HAZARDOUS WASTES
There were no known hazardous waste sites within Winter Springs, according to the
Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) Sites List. The only known potential pollution
problems within the City included untreated stormwater runoff which empties into the area's
lakes.
EXISTING AND POTENTIAL COMMERCIAL, RECREATIONAL AND CONSERVATION USES
There were no natural resources in commercial use within the City. Natural resources in
existing recreational use consisted of boat ramps on Lake Jesup. Future Recreational uses
were to be designated on a portion of the south shore of Lake Jesup, where the Winter
Springs Recreation Area was being developed. There were no natural resources in existing
conservation use. However, the City had designated the areas characterized as 100 year
flood plain and jurisdictional wetlands for conservation use on the Future Land Use Map. In
addition, a large area of forested wetlands and flood plain, located between Lake Mary and
Winter Springs, was being acquired by Seminole County as Springs Hammock Preserve.
D. HOUSING ELEMENT
Winter Springs was predominately a residential community of approximately 23,000 whose
population focus was shifting toward the east. The original Village of North Orlando, as Winter
Springs was incorporated, consisted of standard homes on quarter-acre or larger lots centered
around the western section of S.R. 434. In 1970, the City's population was only 1,161 persons
and concentrated on the western side of town. By 1980, the population increased nearly
eight-fold and exceeded the 10,000 level. The new Tuscawilla P.U.D. was attracting a great
number of residents to the eastern half of the City.
This trend of "eastern expansion" continues into the 1990's. Exhibit 1.0.1 presents a summary
of this growth.
W~WINrER\WlmEJlSPIl.lNOS I!AIlOOC
20
DRAFT
July 21, 1997
Evaluation and Appraisal Report
City of Winter Sprin~
Exhibit 1.0.1
POPULATION peNT.
CITY - 1980
W.S. East 2,338 22.6%
W.S. West 8012 77.4%
W.S. Total 10,350
CITY - 1990
W.S. East 7,295 32.9%
W.S. West 14,856 67.1%
W.S. Total 22,151
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
At the time of plan adoption the City had approximately 13.6 square miles of land area. The
density disparity between the east and west sides narrowed over the decade of the 1980's, as
evidenced by the persons per square mile. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, in 1980 the
east side had only 460 persons/mile2 while the west side had 1367 persons/mile2. By 1990,
these figures converged significantly to 1236 and 1929 persons/mile2 respectively. While the
west side of the City experienced a substantial amount of infill development among existing
residential areas, the Tuscawilla area was being developed at a more rapid race.
CHARACTERISTICS OF HOUSING STOCK
Winter Springs is a relatively young city in terms of its residential housing stock. Over 47% of
the existing housing was built since 1980. The following table provides a view of the
residential developments according to the year they were approved and developed. The table
excludes mobile homes from the analysis.
Exhibit 1.0.2: 1990 Housing Stockage Summary
DECADE DEVELOPED TOTAL DWELLINGS PERCENTAGE
1950 - 1959 1,111 13.6%
1960 - 1969 282 3.5%
1970 - 1979 2,880 35.3%
1980 - 1989 3.883 47.6%
8,156
Source: Winter Springs Planning Department
Based on City analysis of property plats and building permits, over 77% of the existing housing
was classified as single family dwellings, including mobile homes. Exhibit 1.0.3 illustrates the
dwelling type mix for all housing units. The majority of multi-family units were rentals (42.7%)
while fee sample units (when the resident owns the land under the building with condominium
ownership of the common grounds) comprised 35% of the multi-family mix.
W:IWINTI!]lIWlNlERSl'RlNOS I!AIlOOC
21
DRAFT
July 21, 1997
Evaluation and Appraisal Report
City of Winter Sprin~
The 1990 U.S. Census reported that Winter Springs had 6,104 owner-occupied dwelling units
(76.2% of total housing stock) and 1,907 renter-occupied units (23.8% of total). Over a9.1 % of
the owner-occupied units are one unit detached or attached units while the comparable
percentage for renter-occupied units was 49.1 %.
There had been considerable growth in the number of renter-occupied housing over the
previous decade. In 1980, that number was only 376 units. The 400-plus percentage increase
was evidence of the City's growth as a well-balanced community offering affordable housing
and alternative housing arrangements. A review of the fact that nearly half of the renter-
occupied housing were single dwelling units indicated the amount of single family unit rentals
in the Winter Springs market.
The 1990 Census reported that 695 housing units were vacant, representing 8.0% of the total
housing stock. Of these units, 108 are for seasonal, recreational or occasional use. The
owner-occupied vacancy rate was 3.8% while the renter-occupied vacancy rate was 10.6%.
These vacancy rates were similar to SeminSJle County's rates for the 1990 Census.
W~WIIm!R\WINl1!JIlIPRJNO I!AItOOC
22
DRAFT
July 21, 1997
TABLE HO-T3
City of Winter Sprinfllf
HOUSING
Existing Exhibit 1.0. 3
1990 Dwelling Count Summary
By Development and Dwelling Type
WINTER SPRINGS
+----- SINGLE FAMILY ------+ +- MULTI-FAMILY -+
TOTAL ACR HOB OUA T FEE TOTAL VACANT
LOTS MIN STO PAT lOlL HC>>4 TOlL SMP CON RNT TOTL DWELL LOTS
WILDWOOD 292 0 o 292 292 o 292 0 0 0 0 292- 0
HIGHLANDS 1285 o 321 170 491 o 491 94 294 248 636 1127 158
INDIAN RIDGE AREA 84 0 o ""0 0 0 0 0 n 0 n n 12
MUL TI-FAMIL Y DEVELOPMENTS 951 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 595 611 611 340
NORTH ORLANDO 645 o 638 o 638 o 638 0 0 0 0 638 7
NORTH ORLANDO TERRACES 531 o 530 0 530 0 530 0 0 0 0 530
FOXMOOR 309 0 271 0 271 0 271 0 0 0 0 271 38
- 'RTH ORLANDO RANCHES 833 131 604 0 735 0 735 0 0 0 0 735 98
DUN MAR ESTATES 31 17 0 0 17 0 17 0 0 0 0 17 14
MOUNT GREENWOOD 419 0 19 13 32 0 32 158 0 0 158 190 229
HACIENDA VILLAGE 447 0 0 0 o 447 447 0 0 0 0 447 0
SEMINOLE PINES 118 0 0 0 0 102 102 0 0 0 0 102 16
SMALL DEVELOPMENTS 30 6 0 0 6 0 6 0 0 0 0 6 24
TUSCAWILlA P.U.D. 4345 189 2298 682 3169 o 3169 421 T7 0 498 3667 678
GRAND TOTALS 10320 343 4681 1157 6181 549 .6730 689 443 843 1975 8705 1615
.-:1:",
:'_.:-:'~ource: \linter Springs C~rehensive Plaming Department
DUSUM90 . PRG
Pg. 1
01/20/92 17:20:54
23
DRAFT
July 21, 1997
Evaluation and Appraisal Report
City of Winter Sprin~
The median value for owner-occupied houses within the City in 1990 was $96,500. This was
up nearly 50% from the 1980 median value of $64,133. Seminole County's median .value is
comparable to the City at $91,500 for 1990.
There was a significant difference in values upon examination of the east and west sides of
Winter Springs. The 1990 value for homes on the east side was $139,200 while the west
side's value was only $81,700. This was due both to the lower cost of housing in the originally
developed areas of the City and due to the country dub environment of the Tuscawilla P.U.D.
on the east side.
An analysis of the monthly cost of owner-occupied housing indicated a median cost of $868 if
the home still had a mortgage, and only $208 if there was no mortgage. The following table
presents an analysis of the monthly owner-occupied expenses of Winter Springs residents.
Rental costs within the City were felt to be both reasonable and in line with the surrounding
County's rent costs. Over half (51.5%) Qf"the rents within the City were less than $500 per
month, compared to 59% for the County. The median rent for'the City was slightly higher than
the County at $496 versus $471 respectively.
It was also noted that there was a difference in the housing costs between the east and west
sides of the city. The east's median rent was $539 while the west's was $482. Data from the
1990 Census indicates that the median household income for Winter Springs residents was
$40,563. Exhibit 1.0.4 presents 1990 Census data on household income for the City.
Exhibit 1.0.4: 1990 Household Income
Count: 8078
INCOME RANGE
HH
COUNT
PCNT.
< $5,000 123 1.5%
5,000 - 9,999 259 3.2%
10,000 - 14,999 435 5.4%
15,000 - 24,999 1175 14.5%
25,000 - 34,999 1351 16.7%
35,000 - 49,999 1812 22.4%
50,000 - 74,999 1813 22.4%
75,000 - 99,999 622 7.7%
100,000 - 149000 378 4.7%
150,000 + 110 1.4%
8078
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
The plan calculated that ~e affordable median income monthly rent would be $781. Ninety-
three and nine-tenths percent of the City's monthly rents were $750 or less. Over 51% of the
City's rental contracts had a monthly expense at a rent-to-income ratio of less than 20%.
W:\WlNll!Il\~ EAIUlOC
24
DRAFT
July 21, 1997
Evaluation and Appraisal Report
City of Winter Springs.
After applying the same analysis to owner-occupied housing costs, it was determined that over
63% of owner-occupied households paid 30% or less of their monthly income toward housing
costs.
The City did not have any substandard or dilapidated housing. The older sections which were
part of the original town and were built in the 1950s were nearly built out and occupied. As a
result, no properties were left unattended and allowed to degrade below standard. As most of
the City was built in the 1970s and 1980s, the majority of the housing stock was relatively new
and was in excellent condition.
The City had no subsidized housing, group homes, or public housing arrangements operating
within its boundaries.
Winter Springs had two mobile home parks, Seminole Pines across from City Hall on S.R. 434,
and Hacienda Village on west S.R. 434. The Seminole Pines park had 102 homes within its
28 acres and had an additional 16 lots which were vacant. The park was characterized by
generous lot sizes nestled in a forested environment.
Approximately three miles west. of Seminole Pines was the Hacienda Village mobile home
park. Consisting of 87 acres, this park was home to 447 units. A picturesque, well planned
park, Hacienda Village was often used seasonally by residents of other areas of the country.
The City had conducted an inventory of housing, and had found no historically significant
housing to exist in the City.
The City had more than doubled its population in the last decade from 10,350 residents to
22,683. This 119% rate of growth was expected to decrease to approximately 35% by the
year 2000 and to 22% by 2010.
By the year 2010 the City was projected to grow to over 37,500 residents requiring
approximately 14,800 homes.
The average household size in the City had decreased over the past decade. The City
experienced in the Person Per Household (PPH) factor of renter-versus owner-occupied
housing units. The renter-occupied PPH rate was 2.65 while the owner-occupied rate was
2.80. In 1980, 87.1 % of all City households were family households (defined as a householder
and one or more related persons living in the same household) while in 1990, that percentage
had dropped to 77.8%. The City's 1990 PPH factor for families (3.11) was the same as the
County's factor.
The 1990 Census estimated that nearly 72.9% of the residents were 18 years or older, while in
1980, that percentage was 68.5%. The significant change over the decade was seen in the
percentage of those 65 or older - 9.2% in 1990 versus 6.9% in 1980. A nominal increase of
1,330 persons, this group was sent to require more specialized housing needs such as
affordable housing as many were on fixed incomes from Social Security or fixed investments
such as bonds or certificates of deposit.
The median age of the City had increased 2.63 years over the past decade to 34.05 years.
This was comparable to Seminole County's median age of 33.3 years. While the increase in
W~WINTfR\WINIEJlSPRINOSI!AIUXlC 25 DRAFT
July 21, 1997
Evaluation and Appraisal Report
City of Winter Sprin~
persons aged 65 or older was significant for the City, its percentage of the population was
substantially lower than the surrounding area. Even though the City had experienced an
increase in elderiy residents over the past decade, it still maintained a large portion of younger
persons who are at the beginning or middle of their income-producing years. Such a finding
was believed to portend the continued financial health of the community as well as the
potential for increased commercial development and operations.
The City was classified as having 15.9% very low income in 1980, increasing to 17.4% in
1990. The proportion of low income residents also increased over the decade from 20.7% to
24.0%. This was a disturbing trend as more households were eaming less than 80 percent of
the median income. A look at the opposite end of the spectrum showed that those households
eaming high incomes increased from 17.5% to 25.0%.
The City was assessed to be a bipolar community with a larger percentage eaming either high
or low incomes with fewer households falling into the moderate to middle ranges. In fact, in
1980,45.8% of the households were in thiSr"middle class" income range. In 1990, this number
decreased to 33.6%.
It was felt that trends exhibited during the last decade were unique in a number of ways: 1)
skyrocketing real estate values most of the decade then a nationwide bust. 2) phenomenal
economic growth at the expense of extensive debt structurings, and 3) military buildups which
directly contributed to the Central Florida area. As a result, it was recommended that one
should take caution in extrapolating the trends experienced during the eighties when projecting
future conditions. In analyzing the projected number of households by income group for 1997
and 2010, the City carefully weighed the trends of the past decade against local knowledge of
the real estate markets and economy. The following table is a result of that analyses.
Exhibit 1.0.5:
Projected Change in Household Counts By Income Group
INCOME CATEGORY
1980-1990
1990-1997
1997-2010
Very Low Income 841 583 380
Low Income 1,202 790 528
Moderate Income 1.041 715 1,025
Middle Income 50 370 1,684
Upper/High Income t.L395 600 47
TOTAL 4,529 3,058 3,664
HH per annum 453 437 282
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Winter Springs Planning Department
The Tuscawilla P.U.D. had been the primary focus of construction and development activity
during the last decade. As a result, the development activity within that country club
community had resulted in the substantial increase in upper middle to high income category
households during the past decade. The City believed many of these trends would be
moderated or reversed during the short term planning period and would make further
adjustments through 2010.
W:IW1NTERIW1NTERSI'lUNOS I!AIUXlC
26
DRAFT
July 21, 1997
Evaluation and Appraisal Report
City of Winter Sprin~
The non-family data illustrates the need for additional apartments or smaller rentals as 94% of
these households have 2 or fewer persons. The majority of rental arrangements in the City are
held by non-family households. Shifts in both income group proportions and preferred living
arrangements necessitate more dwelling alternatives to the single family house.
The housing construction needs for the future were outlined in the table below. These figures
represent the construction of single family and multi-family dwelling units as required to meet
the City's projected population increases. Since the City currently had no substandard or
dilapidated housing, no construction activity for replacement or rehabilitation was projected for
the short term planning period, but was calculated for the period from 1997 to 2010 at a rate of
five percent. Finally, vacancies ran at two percent of the housing stock inventory and were
projected to remain at that level through both planning periods.
Exhibit 1.0.6
FUTURE HOUSING CONSTRUCTION NEEDS
1990 - 1997
1997 - 2010
FACTOR Annual Total Annual Total
Units for New Household Formation 428 2,997 276 3,591
Replacement/Rehabilitation of
Substandard Units 0 0 57 740
Allowance for Vacancies 9 61 6 73
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION NEEDS 437 3,058 339 4,404
Source: Winter Springs Planning Department
Winter Springs currently had 4218 acres of residential land, comprising 48.9% of the total land
usage. This acreage supported over 8700 dwelling units and a population of 22,683. By the
year 2010, the population was projected to be over 37,000 requiring 14,801 dwelling units.
With a total area of nearly 15 square miles and over 32% vacant land within its boundaries.
Winter Springs was projected to meet the land requirements for housing with primarily infill
development.
It was felt the City seeks to provide more infill residential development and better utilize
remaining acreage, the use of multi-family dwelling units would become more prevalent in the
future. The single family share of the population was projected to decrease from 78.0% in
1990 to 71.8%. Meanwhile the multi-family population percentage was expected to increase
from 17.2% to 24.3%. The use of single family patio homes would increase from 17.9% to
23.6% as would the use of rentals for multi-family units (from 36.9% to 63.7%). The trend
would be toward a more conservative use of remaining acreage to provide quality dwelling
units for the City's expanding population.
By the year 2010, the City projected the need for 1150 additional acres for residential
development (to a total of 5368 acres). Residential acreage would represent 62.3% of the
City's entire land area. Approximately 6800 new dwelling units would be constructed on the
1150 acres for an average density of 5.91 DU/acre.
W~WlNTl!ll\WIIm!IlSI'llINO I!AIl..OOC
27
DRAFT
July 21, 1997
Evaluation and Appraisal Report
City of Winter Sprin!A
Winter Springs had experienced a substantial amount of residential construction activity
through the last decade. A number of private homebuilders had developed a variety Qf single
family and multi-family dwelling units which are immediately purchased and occupied. The
demand for housing in the entire Central Florida region was incredible as more than 300
persons per day move into the area.
A review of the single family detached construction activity showed a fairly constant level of
development through the decade, with the annual figures falling around the mean of 332 units
per year. The average cost of construction over the period was $63,461. This number has
steadily increased from $35,000 in 1980 to over $100,000 in 1989. This reflected the
development focus on the Tuscawilla country club community which offered homes from the
mid-80's to above $300,000.
Housing values on the west side of the City was more modest The majority of new house
prices fell within the $70,000 to $90,000 range, with numerous options for housing above and
below that range. ....
The construction of multi-family units had experienced wide fluctuations in terms of the number
of units built during the decade. While the average annual construction activity was 82 units,
the actual annual numbers varied from 358 units in 1985 to zero units during the late 1980's.
The development of multi-family units in the early part of the decade met the needs of the
community for the latter part.
The average value of multi-family units averaged $15,700 and ranged from $11,000 to
$37,000 depending of the specified type of building structure and configuration.
The private sector was meeting the requirements of all households in the middle and upper
middle to high income ranges. Those households had annual incomes of $48,675 or more
and using the 30% affordability rule, could afford over $1,200 in monthly housing expenses.
Assuming a 30 year fixed rate mortgage at 10%, this monthly amount could purchase a house
up to $135,000 in value.
The 1990 Census showed the City as having 2,923 households in the middle to high income
ranges, up from 1980's figure of 1,478. By 19971 the City projected 970 units to be built to
meet this income range. while over 1,700 units were projected to be constructed from 1997
through 2010.
Moderate income households had incomes in the range of $32,450 to $48,675 and could
afford a minimum of $810 in monthly housing expenses. Using the same mortgage
assumptions, this equated to a home purchase price of $92,300. This was just below the
median housing value of owner-occupied units in the Cityl which was $96,500. As noted
previouslYI there was a vast difference in median house values between the east and west
sides of town. The west median value of $811700 was over $57,000 lower than the east's
median value. Persons in the moderate income range could easily afford housing on the west
side of Winter Springs and could find many dwelling options on the east side as well, often in
the form of patio homes and condominiums.
W:IWII'lTBIWlN'l'I!Il.!PIU EAR..DOC
28
DRAFT
July 21, 1997
Evaluation and Appraisal Report
City of Winter Sprin~.
:.
In 1980, the City had only 771 households in the moderate income range. By 1990, this
number had increased by over 1,000 to 1,821. To meet the increased demand, projects
showed this segment to increase by 715 units in the short range planning period, and show an
increase by 1,025 units for the period 1997 through 2010.
Households in the low income category earned between $20,281 and $32,450 per year. While
a household at the bottom of this range could afford only $507 in monthly housing expenses,
an average household could afford $659 monthly. The $507 could purchase a $57,800 home
while the average of $659 could purchase a $75,000 home. Both of these prices were below
the median home prices for the City.
Winter Springs had experienced increases in the number of households within the low income
category over the past decade. In 1980, there were 736 such households while in 1990, the
number increased by 1,202 to 1,938. Projections the need for future construction of low
income housing included 790 for the next seven years and 528 from 1997 through 2010.
These planned units would include fee si.n;Jple and condominium arrangements as well as a
substantial increase in rental units.
The very low income families have incomes which generally do not permit them to purchase
adequate housing without assistance. Defined as having an income of less than 50% of the
median income, or less than $20,281, these households have special needs in terms of the
provision of affordable housing. This income range can only afford housing with purchase
prices less than $57,800.
The 1980 Census counted 564 households in this category, while the 1990 Census reported
over 1,400. Housing projections for the period 1990 through 1997 show the need for
construction of 583 units targeted for very low income households. During the 1997 through
2010 period, another 380 units were projected to be required.
Population projections for the year 2010 indicated that Winter Springs would grow to 37,537
residents requiring 14,801 dwelling units. This was an increase of 6,096 dwelling units over
the City's 1990 estimate of 8,701. The City had a phenomenal growth rate of over 1,800%
since 1970 and was projected to grow by another 65% by 2010. The supply of housing
provided by the private sector had always kept pace with the market demand and this
condition was expected to continue.
The construction of single family detached housing would continue to comprise the majority of
residential development. The City's projections, however, illustrated the changing mix of
dwelling types through 1997 and 2010. The projected dwelling type mix for 1990, 1997 and
2010 for the entire City, including segregation of single family and multi-family arrangements is
presented in the following table.
W~WlNT'fJI.\WINTEIlSPRINOS I!AR.DOC
29
DRAFT
July 21, 1997
Evaluation and Appraisal Report
City of Winter Sprin!1',
Exhibit 1.0.7:
CURRENT AND PROJECTED DWELLING TYPE MIX PERCENTAGE
OF HOUSING UNITS
DWELLING TYPE
1990
1997
2010
Sinole Familv 71.0% 71.4% 64.7%
Multi-Familv 22.7% 23.5% 30.3%
Mobile Home 6.3% 5.1% 5.0%
SINGLE FAMILY
Standard 75.7% 73.2% 70.8%
Patio 18.7% 21.7% 24.3%
Acre Minimum 5.5% 5.1% 4.9%
'.~
MULTI-FAMILY
Fee Simple 34.9% 29.6% 18.3%
Condominium 22.4% 19.2% 17.8%
Rental 42.7% 51.2% 63.8%
Source: Winter Springs Planning Department
A review of this table illustrates the City's projected trend of increasing the proportion of multi-
family housing though 2010. Single family dwelling units drop from 71% of total housing to
64.7%. The multi-family units increase their proportion from 22.7% of the market to over 30%.
The need for additional affordable housing to meet projected population increases combined
with diversifying the City's mix of alternatives to single family housing was driving this trend.
An analysis of the components of the single and multi-family units provides more insight into
the housing transition. In the single family category, patio homes grow from 18.7% of the mix
to 24.3% while standard single family detached homes drop from over 75% to 70.8%. The
patio homes can be constructed for lower costs, occupy less land, and assist in clustering
development around common amenities such as recreational facilities. The Tuscawilla P.U.D.
has several variations of patio homes which have proven very popular with the market.
Within the multi-family category, the proportion of condominium-type of dwellings decreases
substantially through the planning periods. The rental supply, however, projects a significant
increase as a percentage of the total multi-dwelling market (42.7% in 1990 to 63.8% in 2010).
More rental units are required to handle the increased number of young couples with no
children or more elderly couples with fixed or limited incomes.
The following exhibit presents the number of dwelling units by dwelling type category.
W~WINIEJl.\WlNTEllSI'RINOS I!AR.OOC
30
DRAFT
July 21, 1997
Evaluation and Appraisal Report
City of Winter Sprlng-,
Exhibit 1.0:8
CURRENT AND PROJECTED DWELLING TYPE MIX
TOTAL NUMBER OF HOUSING UNITS
DWELLING TYPE
1990
1997
2010
Single Familv 6181 7949 9575
Multi-Familv 1975 2622 4484
Mobile Home 549 565 742
SINGLE FAMILY
Standard 4681 5818 6718
Patio 1157 1726 2330
Acre Minimum 343 405 467
MUL TI-FAMIL Y ..
Fee Simole 689 716 822
Condominium 443 503 800
Rental 843 1343 2862
Source: Winter Springs Planning Department
E. RECREA TlON/OPEN SPACE ELEMENT
As the City grows from 23,000 person to over 37,000 by the year 2010, additional recreational
facilities will be required. Not only will new residents demand more of the same types of
facilities (i.e. tennis and basketball courts) but they will be looking for new recreational and
cultural opportunities. Most of the City's parks are small neighborhood or private parks located
throughout the City's residential areas. A more comprehensive recreational and open space
plan is necessary to address the phenomenal population growth projected.
Another basic justification for public recreation planning involves natural resource
management. Winter Springs is blessed with several scenic creeks and streams as well as
large wetland areas. Further, the northern City limits are defined by the southern portion of
Lake Jesup, which is part of the St. John's River. The City has the responsibility to plan for
recreational facilities which provide for both active and passive enjoyment while still preserving
the natural areas so valued by Central Floridians.
INVENTORY OF EXISTING RECREATIONAL AND OPEN SPACE FACILITIES
Much of the existing park system was composed of community and neighborhood parks which,
in general, serve discrete geographic areas. The City differentiated between the two types of
parks as they differ in the area served as well as the recreational amenities provided. A,
community park is located near a major roadway easily accessible by residents from several
surrounding neighborhoods or from the entire City. Offering a wide array of both active and
passive recreational opportunities, this type of park was to encompass a larger area than a
neighborhood park.
w~wtmEIt\WOO1!RSI'lUNOS EAIUlOC
31
DRAFT
July 21, 1997
Evaluation and Appraisal Report
City of Winter Spring_f
Winter Springs was just completing construction on - its first community park, the 59 acre
Central Winds Park, located on Lake Jesup. The level of service standard for colTlmunity
parks was to be based on this park's acreage and the current population of 22,683.
Neighborhood parks, including the existing inventory of passive parks, served the population of
a single neighborhood, and were generally accessible by walking or bicycle and had fewer
amenities than a community park. Usually containing picnic tables or areas, children's
playground equipment, and nature paths or open spaces, these parks required only a
maximum of a few acres. Level of service standards were to be set higher than for the
community parks as the neighborhood parks had a greater proportion of open spaces to serve
as informal play areas.
The City had several private parks located throughout the City limits. Provided by private
developers, additional private parks were to be added to the parks system as new residential
construction activity proceeded. Level of service standards similar to standards for
neighborhood parks were to be set and maintained through City requirements of developers.
The existing facilities available included swimming pools, 'tennis and basketball courts,
children's playground equipment and picnic areas.
Located on the west side was a semi-private golf club providing access to both the general
public and members. Within the Tuscawilla P.U.D. was the Tuscawilla Country Club, a private
facility offering golf, tennis, swimming and various other amenities.
The following listing provides a comprehensive inventory at the time of plan adoption of the
neighborhood, community and private parks within the City. Amenities and facilities are also
listed for each park.
NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS
1. The Civic Center - a 4000 sq. ft. facility which included a commercial type kitchen,
commercial type kitchen, restrooms, stage and dance floor. This facility handled
over four hundred (400) activities a year.
2. The Senior Center - a 4000 sq. ft. facility which included a kitchen, restrooms, great
room, arts & crafts room, meeting room, lounge area and two offices. The
membership was two hundred thirty (230) with the following activities:
3. Sunshine Park - approximately ten (10) acres which included:
a. Two tennis courts (not lighted)
b. One basketball court (not lighted)
c. Two little league baseball fields
d. Two barbecue pits
e. One volleyball court
f. Playground equipment
g. Horseshoe pit
h. One retention pond 300' x 150'
i. One 50' x 30' pavilion
j. Outdoor restrooms
W~WImEIl\WlNl1lRSI'IlINO I!AIlOOC
32
DRAFT
July 21, 1997
Evaluation and Appraisal Report
City of Winter Sprin~
4.
Moss Park - one acre (mini park) which incluaed:
a. One basketball (half-court)
b. One tennis practice wall
c. One tennis court
d. Playground equipment in a complete sand area for safety
e. One 10' x 15' pavilion
f. A creek runs around the east and southeast area of the park which includes a
utility plan for open space walks, jogging and picnics.
5.
Fruitwood Park - one-half acre (mini park) which included:
a. Playground equipment
b. Passive area with retention pond and benches
6.
Ranchlands Park - one acre (mini park) which included:
a. One pavilion 10' x 20'
b. Barbecue Pit
c. Volleyball court
d. Horseshoe pit
e. 150' pond front - no swimming or boating allowed
....
7.
Tuscawilla Park - (approximately 40 acres) which included:
a. Two Pavilions 20' x 30'
b. Two basketball courts
c. One handball court
d. Playground equipment
e. Three baseball fields
f. Two soccer fields
g. Jogging track
h. One football field
i. Restrooms
j. Two tennis courts
8.
Sam Smith Park - approximately 5 acres which included:
a. One picnic pavilion 20' x 30'
b. Playground equipment
c. Six picnic tables
d. One twelve station exercise track
e. Barbecue pit
f. One retention pond 200' x 300'
g. Open space area around retention pond and water and sewer plant used for
walking, jogging and exercise course. This facility is used for private parties,
homeowner's functions, and open play for families.
h. No swimming or boating allowed.
33
DRAFT
July 21, 1997
W,\WINIE!.\WINTER.SPIUNOS I!AIlOOC
Evaluation and Appraisal Report
City of Winter Sprinflf
,
9. Nature Trail- (approximately one-quarter mile) which included:
a. Four picnic tables
b. Four barbecue pits
c. Three bridges
d. Creek running though the area. The trail is used for picnics, walking and
jogging.
COMMUNITY PARKS
1. The 59 acre Central Winds Park was the City's only community park and it was
under construction. The following facilities were to be constructed.
a. Four baseball fields
b. T-Ball field
c. Soccer field
d. Tot lot
e. Children's playground '..
f. Amphitheater
g. Picnic tables and barbecue pits
h. Multi-purpose field
i. Three group pavillions
j. Two volleyball courts
k. Six tennis courts
I. Two racquetball courts
m. Two basketball courts
n. Oversized pool
o. Therapy pool
p. Pathway and exercise course
q. Boardwalk over lake
r. Fishing pavilion
s. Scorekeeper/concession building
t. Restrooms
u. Conservation areas
PRIVATE PARKS
1. Highlands and Seville on the Green is located in the northwest section of the City
with a 1,155 membership. Recreation facilities were as follows:
a. Five lighted courts
b. Five one acre tot lots
c. Three swimming pools (Highlands 97 capacity), (Seville 40 capacity), (Cypress
40 capacity)
d. 4000 sq. ft. club house
e. Basketball court
f. Volleyball court
g. Open space (nature trail 5 miles)
h. Retention pond (2 acres), no swimming or boating. Fishing pennitted.
W~WINreR\WINTEJlSPRINOS EAILOOC
34
DRAFT
July 21, 1997
."
Evaluation and Appraisal Report
City of Winter spring;:
2. Wildwood Planned Unit Development Northwest Section one half acre. Private park
served 288 houses with a population of 1 000.
a. Swimming pool (15 persons)
b. Two tennis courts
c. One mini tot lot
d. Open space has a walking trail around the development
3. Seminole Pines is located in the central section (2 acres) 106 mobile homes.
Recreation included:
a. One swimming pool (48 person capacity)
b. One 2000 sq. ft. clubhouse
c. Basketball court
d. Shuffleboard court
4. Tuscawilla is 10q)ted in the east section. Tuscawilla has a country club semi-private
with 875 members at the time of!:nan adoption, with the following facilities:
a. One eighteen hole golf course 6600 yards
b. One swimming pool (145 capacity)
c. Eight tennis courts
d. One new membership building (approximately 10,000 sq. ft.)
e. One older clubhouse that has been revamped (approximately 4000 sq. ft.)
5. Hacienda Village is located in the southwest section. Hacienda Village had the
following recreation facilities:
a. Two swimming pools (swimming pool east - 27 capacity, swimming pool west-
42 capacity)
b. Two Recreation Halls (east - 2,796 sq. ft 40 capacity; west - 3,895 sq. ft. 550
capacity)
c. Shuffleboard
d. Horseshoes
6. Winter Springs Municipal Golf Course is located on the west side on S.R. 434 and is
semi-private, allowing members and non-members access to the facilities, which
included the following:
a. One eighteen hole golf course, 6560 yards
b. Lighted driving range
c. Putting greens
NEEDS ASSESSMENT AND FUTURE DEMAND
In July 1990, the City commissioned a survey to assess the recreational facility preferences of
residents. When questioned about their most popular recreational activity practiced on a
regular basis, the results were as follows:
Swimming
Walking/Hiking
Bicycling
Sightseeing
8.0%'
7.0%
6.3%
6.3%
Attending Fairs
Att. Sports Events
Jogging/Running
Picnicking
6.0%
5.6%
5.6%
4.7%
W~WINII!R\WINTER.SPRINOS I!AILOOC
35
DRAFT
July 21, 1997
Evaluation and Appraisal Report
City of Winter Spring;
Over 21 percent used their own home for these recreational activities, while others used the
beach (7.8%), Tuscawilla Park (5.3%), Tuscawilla Country Club (4.8%), and other area parks
(4.3%). Over 87 percent traveled by car to these facilities.
According to the survey, the most needed facilities were as follows:
Playground Equip. 21.4%
Baseball Fields 15.0%
Swimming Pool 14.3%
Bike Paths 10.5%
Tennis Courts 10.2%
Walking/Hiking Paths 6.9%
Softball Fields 6.6%
Soccer Fields 6.4%
When asked if they would be willing to pay a user fee for the above requested facilities, over
63 percent of the survey respondents responded affirmatively while 31.9% said no.
The following exhibit presents an analysis of the City's recreational facilities at the time of plan
adoption and how they compare with the median DNR Level of Service (LOS) standard for the
State.
Exhibit I.E.1
EXISTING RECREATIONAL FACILITIES LOS STANDARDS
POPULATION SERVED
FACILITY CITY CITY LOS DNR
COUNT LOSS
Tennis Court 26 879 2,000
Basketball Court 8 2,858 5,000
Baseball/Softball Field 10 2,268 5,000
Vollevball Court 5 4,573 6,000
Playground Equipped Lot 12 1,905 15,000
Horseshoe Pitch 3 7,621 n/a
Handball/Racauetball Court 3 6,621 10,000
Soccer/Football Field 4 5,716 6000
Swimmina Pool (communitv sized) 3 7,621 25,000
Shuffleboard Court 4 5,716 3,600
Jogging/Walkina/Hikina Trail 7 3,266 15,000
Picnic Pavilion 9 2,540 6,000
Golf Course (18 hole) 2 11,431 25,000
Source: Dept. of Natural Resources, Winter Springs Parks and Recreation Dept.
The exhibit illustrates how the City met and exceeded the DNR's median standards on
practically all recreational facilities. The expanse of the neighborhood park system combined
with the newly constructed Central Winds community park kept the City's level of service up to
a point where all residents throughout the City had adequate access to user-oriented
recreational facilities.
W~WImEl!.\WINIEW'Il1NGS IWUlOC
36
DRAFT
July 21, 1997
Evaluation and Appraisal Report
City of Winter Springj
Winter Springs had an expansive system of passive parks, conservation areas and related
resource-based outdoor recreational facilities. Such settings provided the opportunity for such
activities as fishing, camping, picnicking, hiking, and nature study. The City's Future Land Use
Map classified over 990 acres as Conservation to ensure the proper management and
preservation of such environmentally sensitive lands. Greenbelt and recreational acreage was
84 acres, with 528 consisting of recreational lands. Parks designated as Passive Parks
accounted for 51 acres. These parks were undeveloped, natural settings which had been set
aside for the passive recreational enjoyment of the residents. The City's level of service
standard for Passive Parks by population served was 448 acres per person.
A common level of service standard measure for the provision of recreational and open space
facilities for a community is the number of acres per thousand population. An inventory of the
City's recreational acreages by geographic subdivision at time of plan adoption is presented in
the following exhibit. This list includes only acreages which are actively used for recreational
purposes and does not include the Conservation land use classification areas. To provide a
better assessment for the purpose of level'of service standards, it also excludes the acreages
for the two golf courses.
Exhibit I.E.2
EXISTING RECREATIONAL ACREAGES BY GEOGRAPHIC AREA
AREA NEIGHBORHOODI PASSIVE
PRIVATE
Northwest 30.7 0.0
Southcentral 4.9 45.6
Southeast 36.1 19.3
Source: Winter Springs Parks and Recreation Dept.
TOTAL
30.7
50.5
55.4
LOS standards for neighborhood, private and passive parks were calculated on an area by
area basis to reflect the requirement for equitable access throughout the city. As such parks
served one or two neighborhoods usually within a one mile radius, the analysis of service
standards were conducted on a scale of less than the aggregate city.
Exhibit I.E.3
NEIGHBORHOOD/PRIV ATE/PASSIVE PARK LOS STANDARDS
AREA CURRENT 1990 LOS PER 1000
ACREAGE POPULATION
Northwest 30.7 5,186 5.92
South central 50.5 9,493 5.32
Southeast 55.4 8,004 6.93
Source: Winter Springs Planning Dept., W.S. Parks and Recreation Dept.
Through the use of population projections and adopted LOS standards by geographic area,
the City can calculate the required recreational acreage for 1997 and 2010. The following
exhibit presents those projected acreages.
W:\wtmERIWJlolIEIlSI'lUN I!AIlDOC
37
DRAFT
July 21, 1997
.
Evaluation and Appraisal Report
\
City of Winter Springs
1997 2010
REO. NEW REO. NEW
AREA LOS ACREAGE ACREAGE ACREAGE ACREAGE
N.E. 5.92 36.4 5.7 37.9 1.3
S.C. 5.32 61.4 10.9 72.8 ,11.4
S.E. 6.93 77.4 22.0 120.9 43.5
Exhibit J.E.4
FUTURE RECREATIONAL ACREAGE PROJECTIONS BY GEOGRAPHIC AREA
Source: Winter Springs Planmng Dept., W.S. Parks and Recreation Dept.
The required new acreages for the southeast area reflected the substantial projected
population increases within Tuscawilla as well as the relatively high LOS standard based on
current conditions. Most of the Tuscawilla residents chose that development for the private
country club amenities afforded them. The Tuscawilla PUD recreational facilities and acreages
were not included in the LOS standard' .talculation. While the above table presented a
potential problem in the need for significant additional acreage in the southeast by 2010, it was
pointed out that this is only a statistical aberration and not reflected to the actual situation.
THE PLAN FOR RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE
The City's recreational survey results indicated the need for several types of facilities including
playground equipment, baseball/softball fields, tennis courts and soccer fields. Central Winds
Park, designed after that survey was taken, met all of these demands and much more.
Planned to be one of the most complete recreational facilities in the entire Central Florida
Region, this park would meet the majority of the community's needs for the long term planning
period.
Winter Springs was well within DNR level of service standard ranges for all recreational
facilities in terms of population served. Despite this fact, the following facility upgrades of
existing parks were projected.
1. Sunshine Park
a. Tennis courts will be resurfaced and lights installed.
b. T-Ball field will be built.
c. More playground equipment will be installed.
2. Tuscawilla Park
a. Chain link fence around entire park will be installed.
b. Irrigation system will be installed in ballfield and soccer areas.
c. Park completely lighted for security purposes.
d. Parking lots installed.
e. Baseball field built.
f. Two soccer fields relocated and two half fields built.
3. Moss Park
a. Resurface tennis courts.
W~WINJ'I!R\WINIEIlSPIlINGS IWl.OOC
38
DRAFT
July 21, 1997
Evaluation and Appraisal Report
'"
''''1
City of Winter Springs
The new required park acreages outlined in Exhibit 1.E.3 above would be required to meet
adopted LOS standards. The facilities which will be provided within these new acreages were
to depend greatly upon a continued analysis by the City of the existing facilities count and the
median facilities count of the DNR standards. The City was to ensure that LOS standards by
population served for specific facilities would remain within the DNR guidelines.
Many of the existing parks within the City had open space areas around ponds, wetlands,
forests and other natural features. The expansive conservation areas provided substantial
opportunities for outdoor enthusiasts to enjoy the natural surroundings. Not only did those
areas provide recreation and leisure activities, but they preserved ecologically significant
resources.
The majority of the passive parklands existed in the central portion of the City. Paralleling
wetland areas consisting of hardwood swamps and bayheads, those open spaces provided a
wealth of opportunities for bird watching, .~king and jogging. The open space areas on the
east side were more developed and allowed for informal ball games and related activities. A
large portion of Central Winds Park is to be devoted to open space, consisting of hiking
pathways, an exercise course, picnic areas and a boardwalk along the edge of Lake Jesup.
Additional open space amenities were planned within existing parks to diversify recreational
offerings to residents and visitors. Those upgrades are summarized below:
1. Sunshine Park
a. A twelve station exercise track installed around the park.
b. A larger nature trail built with picnic tables and Bar-B-Que pits installed.
2. Tuscawilla Park
a. Upgraded open space area on the south side of the park.
3. Moss Park
a. 12 station exercise track.
. b. Upgrade picnic area.
F. SOLID WASTE SUB-ELEMENT
At the time of Plan Adoptionl the City of Winter Springs had no transfer stations or land filling
operation within the City limits, but relied on Seminole County facilities.
INVENTORY OF EXISTING CONDITIONS AND FACILITIES
The following solid waste facilities were available to the City of Winter Springs within Seminole
County:
.
Sanlando Transfer Station. Operated by Seminole County, this facility was opened
in 1973, and is located on a 40 acre site in the southwest section of the County. It is
open 361 days per year, and accepts all solid waste except hazardous waste, white
goods, large tree parts, construction debris and tires. Its design capacity is 1620
W:IWllm!RIWlNIE1W'IlINGS I!AIlDOC
39
DRAFT
July 21, 1997
Evaluation and Appraisal Report
'"
City of Winter Spring~
tons per day. Waste is compacted by a hydraulic mechanism, then transferred to
the County landfill. The structure was in fair condition with no major problems,
however the hydraulic equipment was worn and a source of potential problems. No
equipment update has been scheduled, since this facility was scheduled to close
once the Central Transfer Station is operational.
.
Central Transfer Station. This facility was to open by 1993, and is located on a 20
acre parcel in the central part of the County. It will replace the Sanlando site once it
is closed. The design capacity was to be 1900 tons per day, with a peak capacity of
3000 tons per day. It was to accept municipal solid waste and yard trash. Waste
was not to be compacted, thereby reducing capital costs and maintenance
significantly. Given the central location and large capacity of the fadlity, no new
transfer facilities were planned for the remainder of the planning period.
.
Osceola Landfill. This facility .V,fas opened in 1970 on a1 ,233 acre site in the
northeast part of the County. It is open 312 days per year and accepts for disposal
all solid waste except hazardous waste, whole tires, waste oil, lead acid batteries
and oil-based paint. All structures were in good condition and capital equipment
averaged less than 3 years old at the time of adoption of the Seminole County plan.
Solid waste was compacted to about 1200 pounds per cubic yard before covering.
In 1989, approximately 28.8 cubic yards of Class I capacity remained. It was
expected to be operational for another 33 years, based on the projections contained
in the Seminole County Comprehensive Plan.
.
Oviedo Material, Inc. Landfill. This private facility was a 100 acre Class III landfill
operated in the City of Oviedo. In 1988, 110,000 tons of clean construction debris
were accepted; discussions were underway at the time of Plan Adoption to
determine if the City will permit the landfill to increase its height. If approved, the
landfill would have had approximately ten years of disposal capacity remaining, vs.
four years without the increase.
.
Sanford Class III Landfill. The City of Sanford operated a yard trash landfill just
North of Lake Mary Boulevard. This facility had a chipper which eliminated the need
for ground cover, and extended the life of the Osceola Landfill site to the year 2010.
Exhibit I.F.1 depicts the Seminole County Service Waste Facilities, Exhibit I.F.2, the Existing
and Future Seminole County Solid Waste Service Areas.
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS CONDITIONS
The City of Winter Springs did not operate a solid waste disposal facility or a solid waste
collection service. All solid waste is taken to one of the solid waste collection facilities in
Seminole County. By franchise agreement, the City granted exclusive right to collect
household and commercial refuse and trash to a private entity. The current contract was held
by Industrial Waste Service, Inc. (IWS); collection was not mandatory within the City. Both the
City and the County had attempted to establish mandatory collection by 1992, however, at the
time of Plan Adoption, had been unable to do so due to collection enforcement problems with
private haulers, and the fact that the legal procedures necessary to provide for issuance of
40
DRAFT
July 21, 1997
W~WINTER\WJNl1:JlSPRINOS EAIUlOC
Evaluation and Appraisal Report
'II
City of Winter Spring"
solid waste collection charges to all real property were lengthy and could not be accomplished
at that time. The City and County planned to revise the date of activation of mandatory
collection to 1993.
The Seminole County Plan did not allocate disposal capacity on a proportional basis, therefore
there was no specific capacity allocated for the City of Winter Springs in the County Plan.
However, the IWS dump report data was analyzed to assess the City's generation rate on a
per capita per day basis. The average weight in pounds per month was 1,302,614 pounds, the
average pounds per home per month was 190 pounds, and the average pounds per capita per
day was 2.33 pounds.
Chapter 403, Florida Statutes mandated that the volume of municipal solid waste deposited in
landfills be decreased by 30 percent per capital by the end of 1994. This reduction was to be
accomplished by diverting certain categories of solid waste from landfilling to recovery. To
accomplish that objective, the City and the private collector cooperated to initiate a recycling
program in January of 1991. The City provided each single family residence a recycling bin in
which to set out disposal of newspapers, green, clear and brown glass, plastic bottles and
aluminum cans. IWS acquired vehicles equipped for curbside separation of these recyclables
and began weekly collections. Those recovered materials were transported to a private
recycling company for sale and disposition.
Public response and cooperation with the recycling program had been successful. The
average participation rate in the program was approximately 40 percent; and the average
pounds per capita per day recycled was 24. These participation and pound per capita per day
rates were considered excellent, and could be expected to improve if the City were to make
additional materials available for recycling, and find methods to extend recycling, to the private
haulers commercial and multi-family customers.
Seminole County had implemented a Household Hazardous Waste Program that provides
citizens in the municipalities and unincorporated area a place to dispose of their chemicals,
pesticides, paints, batteries, used oil, and other hazardous waste materials. The County had
installed two certified hazardous waste storage buildings, one at the Sanlando Transfer Station
and one at the County landfill. Citizens were able to dispose of their hazardous material seven
days a week. The County contracted with a certified hazardous waste handling company to
collect and properly dispose of the material on a quarterly basis.
FACILITY CAPACITY ANALYSIS
The Seminole County Land Use Plan is the source of the data of this analysis. Exhibit I.F.3
shows the demand of facility capacity at the time of adoption. The existing level of service
provided in the service area by County is adequate, each facility has capacity well in excess of
current refuse demand. As indicated on Exhibit I.F.3, there are no deficiencies.
The projected total waste stream tonnage for the City in 2910 was 56,026 tons and the County
was 727,606. Based on the Osceola Landfill would have 12 years of capacity remaining and
the Central Transfer Station 25 years in the year 2010.
W~WIN1E!.\WINIERSPIUNOS I!AIlOOC
41
DRAFT
July 21, 1997
Evaluation and Appraisal Report
"
City of Winter Spring;
The County adopted a level of service of 5.14 PCD at the landfill, and 4.94 PCD at the Central
Transfer Station. This determined concurrency until 1996, after that the future level of service
at the landfill was to be 3.77 PCD, and 3.43 at the transfer station.
The City generated an average of 2.33 pounds of solid waste per capita per day. Based on
that data and rates of generation, the City set its solid waste level of service at 3.77 pounds
per capita per day, the same as the 1996 future County level of service.
'.",
W:IWIIffl!IllWImEllSPlUNOS I!AR.DOC
42
DRAFT
July 21, 1997
City of Winter Springs
~
to)
Exhibit I.F.1
SEMINOLE COUNTY
I
I
~
~
i
[j
. SANFORD YARD TRASH
~ . OVIEDO LANDFILL .A. PROPOSED TRANSFER STATION
~
~!:t tl * EXISTING TRANSFER STATION . SEMINOLE COUNTY lANDFILL
004~
:g."
......-i
SOURCE: SEMINOLE COUNTY PLANNING OFFICE
NOVEMBER 1989.,J#
SEMINOLE COUNTY S~~- LID WASTE FACILITIES
I
I
~
~
~
C0-
t::
~
~!:t tl
004~
:g"
......-t
City of Winter Springs
Exhibit I.F.2
a-
t/:
..,JJI
I
.......8...._. ... ""_.,....." ",
'" ,.,. "'..... "'" --. " - - ........
'.
Evaluation and Appraisal Report
:\
..~
City of Winter Springs
Exhibit I.F.3
'.",
VINTE. SPliNes RECOVERABLE KATERIAlS RECTCllNe PROCAAM
VOLUMES COllECtED I SIWClE IAMllY HOKES PARTICIPATING I POUNDS PER CAPITA PER DAT RECYCLED
(j
--------------.-.-------.-.-------
TOTAL
S.I. H~ES
'/1/91 695'
10/1/91 7019
TOTAL I
S.I. POP I
18317 I
18502 I
.................. POUNDS OF MATERIAL .........................SINClE rAM. PART. L8S/H~E LIS/CAPITA
I PAPER CLASS AltJ4JN\J4 PLASTIC I 101 A l I HeMES lATE PEl \lEEK PER DAY
\.lEEr: OF I I I
I I I . .
07/01191 I 3,311 1,783 300 a7' I 6,268 I 724 10.3X
07/08/91 I 36,7'53 17,337 2,280 '. 4,921 I 61,291 I '513 "~:3X
07115/91 I 22,2(6 7,213 8'0 2,255 I 32,554 I 2705 38.5%
07/22191 I 22,155 8,703 1 " 00 2,242 I 34,500 I "74 63.7X
07129191 I 21.558 9. 095 1.180 2,166 I 33.999 I 33M 48.31
168,612 10.67 0.29
, .
- 08/05/91 27,aoa 11.a56 1,140 2.356 I l.3.160 I 3124 " .5X
-08/12191 23.549 8,369.- 1,220 2,242 I 35,380 I - 3374....- --.48:,1
08/19191 20,106 8,585 1,140. 1,818 I 31,649 I 3311 41.2%
08126/91 27,203 8,193 1,060 2,193 I 38,649 I 3905 55.6%
149,1.38 10.90 0.26
\
) \lInter Spring. CClq)rehtnllvt Plamlne Depart1llent i
Souru: .--)
W~WIN1EIl\WImEIlSI'RINOS I!AR.DOC
45
DRAFT
July 21, 1997
Evaluation and Appraisal Report
'"
City of Winter Spring~
G. POTABLE WA TER SUB-ELEMENT
Within the City limits of Winter Springs, there were five utilities providing water service as
follows:
1. Winter Springs West served the western part of the City. This was a public facility
operated by the City of Winter Springs.
2. Winter Springs East (formerly Seminole Utilities) served the eastern part of the City. The
current service area was the Tuskawilla PUD. Under City ownership, the service area
expanded North to Lake Jesup. This was a public facility operated by the City of Winter
Springs.
3. Seminole Pines trailer park. was served by a privately owned water system.
4. Seminole County Environmental Services provided service to Tuskawilla Unit 2.
5. Casselberry provided water to a one block section of Belle Avenue south of SR 434.
This was a public facility operated by'the city of Casselbe.rry.
The Winter Springs East and West water systems did not serve any areas outside the City
limits.
The Winter Springs East and West facilities consisted of three water treatment plants, which
served approximately 3860 equivalent connections. Water plants 2 and 3 were operated full
time, with water plant 1 being operated as a back-up plant and being placed in service when
needed. All three plants provided aeration, storage, chlorination and high service pumping. All
of the plants had hydropneumatic tank systems.
The entire distribution system had been looped where possible to provide a flow reinforced
system.
Water was supplied to the three plants by five wells. Well number 1 was used only on a back-
up basis for well number 2, and both are located at water plant 1. One well exists at each of
the Water Plants 2 and 3.
DESIGN CAPACITY ANALYSIS
Seminole Pines Trailer Park.
The Seminole Pines Trailer Park. served 112 trailers. At 250 GPO per trailer, it is estimated
their service capacity to be 28,000 gallons per day. Demand was equal to the capacity and
provided a level of service of 100 gallons per capita per day.
Seminole County
Seminole County Environmental Services provided service to Tuskawilla Unit 2, from the
Consumers Water Treatment Plant. The design capacity was 3.0 MGD on an average daily
flow basis and provided a level of service of 100 gallons per capita per day.
W:IWINI1!RIWImEIlSPIUNOS I!AR.DOC
46
DRAFT
July 21, 1997
Evaluation and Appraisal Report
'"
City of Winter Spring,
Casselberry
The area served by Casselberry came from the North Water Plant The entire Casselberry
system had the capability to serve 58,300 people. The limiting design capacity was high
service pumping. The high service capacity was 15,200 gpm with the largest pump out of
service as reported by the City of Casselberry. Demand for the City of Casselberry facilities
was 5.3 MGD or approximately 43,000 people. The level of service was 125 gallons per capita
per day.
Winter Springs East and West
These two systems were not interconnected. The capacities at time of plan. adoption are
stated below in Exhibit I.G.1 for each facility:
,.~xhibit I.G.1 a
WINTER SPRINGS EAST CAPACITY
(Based on 185 GPCO)
MAXIMUM
PROCESS CAPACITY POPULATION SERVED
Wells - Pennitted Criteria 5,200 GPM 22,000
With Largest Well Out of Service 3,200 GPM 12,500
Criteria
Aeration 5,400 GPM 21,093
Storage !Treatment 1,500,000 GAL N1A
Hiah Service - Total 7,400 GPM 16,650
Limiting capacity is based on one well out of service or 12,500 people. Design capacity is 2.30
MGD on an average daily flow basis.
Exhibit I.G.1 b
WINTER SPRINGS EAST CAPACITY
(Based on 130 GPO /Unit)
MAXIMUM
PROCESS CAPACITY POPULATION SERVED
Wells - Pennitted Criteria 5,200 GPM 31,400
With Largest Well Out of Service 3,200 GPM 17,857
Criteria
Aeration 5,400 GPM 30,133
Storage !Treatment 1,500,000 GAL N/A
Hiah Service - Total 7,400 GPM 23,785
The City had committed to a reduction in consumption for the East side from 185 GPCD to 130
GPCD by 1997.
W~WIIffl!Il\WlNTER.SPRlNGS I!AR.DOC
47
DRAFT
July 21, 1997
Evaluation and Appraisal Report
"
City of Winter Spring~
Demand on these facilities was approximately 10,386 people (1.04 MGD ADF) for the West
side and 10,284 (1.90 MGD ADF) for the East side. The level of service was approximately
100 gallons per capita per day for the West side and 185 gallons per capita per day for the
East side.
The condition of the facilities was good and no immediate deficiencies existed in the
equipment. Water Plant 2 was constructed in 1972 and improvements were made in 1986
and 1988. Water Plant 3 was constructed in 1972 and improvements were made in 1986 and
1990. The East System Water Plant was constructed in 1974 with improvements made in
1984 and 1989.
The facilities were all well maintained and the equipment had been renewed, replaced, and
upgraded as required to meet the demand of the system.
'.",
FUTURE CAPACITY ANALYSIS
No projected deficiency through the planning period was anticipated. The projected maximum
flows were less than the maximum daily flow permitted under the consumptive use pennit.
The reduction in East facility flow was to be accomplished through the implementation of a
water conservation program to include the following measures:
1. Merging the East and West facility into one facility.
2. Using treated effluent for irrigation and watering of golf courses.
3. Adoption of a block rate schedule for water service which will be designed to discourage
excessive water consumption.
4. Amending the building and plumbing code to require low water consumption plumbing
devices.
5. Requiring landscaping and buffering areas to be constructed with at least fifty percent
(50%) native xeriscape planting materials.
6. Providing educational material to the publiC on water conservation techniques to be
distributed in water bills on either an annual or semi-annual basis.
The City adopted the following level of service standard for the East and West Potable Water
facilities, measured by gallons per capita per day (GPCD).
Current Level of Service
West Facility 100 GPCD
East Facility 185 GPCD
Interim Level of Service (1995)
West Facility 100 GPCD
East Facility 150 GPCD
Future Level of Service (1997)
West Facility 100 GPCD
East Facility 130 GPCD
W:IWIIffl!IlIWlNlElllll'lUNO I!AR.DOC
48
DRAFT
July 21, 1997
Evaluation and Appraisal Report
?t
City of Winter Springs
For the other potable water providers, the following levels of service standards were adopted:
Seminole County
Seminole Pines
Casselberry
100 GPCD
100 GPCD
125 GPCD
A level of service for the combined facility was to become effective in 1997 and was
established at 115 gallons per capita per day as indicated in the goals, objectives and policies
of the plan.
To reach the adopted level of service standard, the following capital improvements had been
identified in the five year capital improvement plan: .
1991 TO 1996
West Facility
Well #81993
'.<<
$170,000
East Facility
Well #4 1993
Generator Upgrade
$170,000
$100,000
1996 to 1997
West Facility
Water Treatment Plant 3
High Service Pump Improvements
$ 30,000
Water Treatment Plant 2.
Discharge Pipe Improvements
$ 64,500
Water Treatment Plant 3
Discharge Pipe Improvements
$ 38,800
East Facility
Water Treatment
Plants 1 & 2 Change out pump
$200,000
H. SANITARY SEWER SUB-ELEMENT
No public or private sewer utility provided sewer service in the City limits of Winter Springs
except the Winter Springs East and West utilities, which are both public facilities operated by
the City of Winter Springs. The areas served water by the City of Casselberry, Seminole
County and Seminole Pines discussed in the Potable Water Sub-Element were on septic
tanks.
The West Wastewater Treatment Plant facilities were designed to meet public access criteria,
which permits continued disposal on the golf course and future expansion to residential and
commercial irrigation systems.
W~WIIffl!Il\WINTEIlSI'IlINO I!AR.DOC
49
DRAFT
July 21, 1997
Evaluation and Appraisal Report
....
City of Winter Springs'.
The facilities consisted of two 120 foot diameter package treatment plants each with a 60 floor
diameter clarifier and an outer ring (surrounding the clarifier which contains the aeration bays
and the aerobic digester). This size package plant was generally referred to as a 1.5 MGD
plant. However, due to the backup requirements of Class I reliability, the biological and clarifier
processes were rated in accordance with that criteria and the capacities were reduced
accordingly,
Following biological treatment and clarification, the effluent flowed into a small chamber that
can be used for chemical addition of pre-filtration chlorination or flocculent aid. From this tank,
the effluent flowed to the automatic backwash dual media filters. The final step in this
treatment process was high level disinfection in the chlorine contact chamber and then to
storage ponds. .
The per capita wastewater flow for this system was 81 GPCD, which was significantly below
the national average, and was not used fQr planning purposes. Based on 100 GPCD and
1.345 MGD disposal capacity, the system was estimated to have the capability to serve
approximately 13,450 people.
The last expansion of the East facility was completed in the latter part of 1988. With this
expansion, this system was permitted for 2.012 MGD.
The per capita wastewater flows for this system was 72 GPCD. This number was also
significantly below the national average and was not used for planning purposes. Therefore,
based on 100 GPCD and the limiting effluent disposal capacity, the system can serve a
population of 20,120.
The maps depicting the geographic service areas of each facility and the sewer system are
attached as part of the map series.
The treatment plant capacity of the East facility was permitted at 2.012 MGD; the treatment
capacity of the West facility was 1.345 MGD. The capabilities of Winter Springs East and
West facilities are described in Exhibits I.H.1&2.
W~WlNTl!Il\WINTEIlSPIlINOS I!AR.DOC
50
DRAFT
July 21, 1997
Evaluation and Appraisal Report
City of Winter Spring.
Exhibit I.H.1
CLASS I
DESIGN RELIABILITY
PROCESS SIZE CRITERIA MAXIMUM CAPACITY
Biological/Aeration Plant 1 - 83,017 CF 50# BOD /1000 CF 2.5 MGD
Plant 2 - 76,601 CF 2.3 MGD
Clarification Plant 1 - 2,827 SF 600 GPO /SF N/A
Plant 2 - 2,827 SF N/A
Total Combined Plant 2.5 MGD
Capacity
Digester Plant 1 - 46,511 Cf' Minimum 20 . Days 0.9 MGD
SRT
Plant 2 - 32,714 CF 0.65 MGD
Total Combined Plant 1.55 MGD
Capacity
Filtration 2 Units @ 360 SF 2.2 gpm /SF 2.07 MGD
Total 720 SF
Chlorine Contact 2 Units @ 1950 CF 15 Minutes DT @ 3.3 MGD
Chamber Total 3900 CF Peak Flow
Effluent Disposal 1.345 MGD
Permitted population 13,450 Persons
Service Capability
Meeting Class I
Reliability based on
100 GPCD
The capabilities of the East facility are shown below as Exhibit I.H.2.;
W~WIIffl!Il\WINI1!IlSI'IUNOS I!AR.DOC
51
DRAFT
July 21, 1997
Evaluation and Appraisal Report
City of Winter Sprlng.\
Exhibit I.H.2
CLASS I
DESIGN PERMITTED RELIABILITY
PROCESS SIZE CRITERIA CAPACITY CAPABILITY
Biological/Aeration Plant 1 . 42,300 CF 50# BOD 0.76 MGD
/1000 CF
Plant 2 - 80,250 CF 1.44 MGD
Total Combined 2.012 MGD
Plant Caoacitv
Clarification Plant 1 - 1,698 SF 600 PO /SF 1,0 MGD
Plant 2 - 2,040 SF 1.44 MGD
Total Combined 2.012 MGD 1.36 MGD
Plant Caoacitv
Digester Plant 1 . 30,094 Minimum 20 0.58 MGD
Days SRT
Plant 2 - 43,225 CF 0.84 MGD
Total Combined 1.44 MGD
Plant Capacity
Filtration 2 Units 35 2.2 gpm /SF 2.0 MGD
Total 700
Chlorine Contact 51,900 Gallon 15 Minutes 2.5 MGD
Chamber DT @ Peak
Flow
Effluent Disposal 2,012 MGD
Permitted 20,012
Population Service Persons
Capability
Class I Reliabilitv 14,783
Service Capability Persons
DiQester Service 15,434
Service Caoabilitv Persons
FUTURE CAPACITY ANALYSIS
The projected sewer flows and available capacity for the Water Sewer East and West Facilities
through the year 2010 indicated that the only deficiency would occur in 1992 for the West
facility. This was to have been alleviated through the capital improvement identified as being
under design and construction at the time of Plan Implementation. Other increases in
available capacity in the West Facility were projected to take place in 1998, 2000 and 2003,
through capital improvements to be undertaken at those times. All projected flows for the
West Facility were based on 100 gallons per capita per day (GPCD), which provides an
allowance for normal infiltration /inflow.
52
DRAFT
July 21, 1997
W:IWIIffl!IlIWlNl1!llSl'lUNG I!AR.DOC
Evaluation and Appraisal Report
City of Winter Spring}
There were no deficiencies indicated for the projected sewer flows for the East Facility.
Increases in capacity were projected to occur in 2002 and 2010, through capital improvement
projects to be undertaken at those times.
LEVELS OF SERVICE
The City adopted the following levels of service for sanitary sewer.
WEST FACILITY
Level of Service
100 Gal/Capita /Day
EAST FACILITY
Level of Service
100 Gal/Capita /Day
'.",
/. DRAINAGE SUB.ELEMENT
Management of stormwater runoff is important towards maintaining the water quality of the
City's lakes, creeks and wetlands. Stormwater runoff is responsible for over half the pollution
load entering Florida waters. In fact, in many watersheds, stormwater discharges are
responsible for all the pollution entering surface waters. Date and analysis in the Conservation
Element regarding water quality of the City's lakes and creeks indicated that stormwater runoff
was an issue of local concern.
INVENTORY OF PUBLIC AND PRIVATELY MAINTAINED DRAINAGE FACILITIES
The private stormwater drainage facilities were operated and maint~ined under a St. John's
River Water Management Stormwater Permit by either a private company, individual or
homeowner's association. The following are the private drainage facilities in Winter Springs of
Plan adoption:
Hacienda Village Mobile Home Park
Seminole Pines Mobile Home Park
Georgetown Subdivision
Brawwick Subdivision
Green Briar Subdivision
Casa Park Subdivision
Fairway Oaks Subdivision
Greenspointe Subdivision
Golf Terrace Apartments (Fountaintree)
Seville on the Green Apartments
Bentley Green Subdivision
Country Club Villas Subdivision
Bear Creek Estates Subdivision
Tuscawilla Country Club and Golf Course
Tuscawilla Tennis Villas Subdivision
Indian Ridge Subdivision
Cypress Club
W:\WINfD.\WINI'ERSPIlINOS I!AR.DOC
53
DRAFT
July 21, 1997
Evaluation and Appraisal Report
City of Winter Spring;'
The preceding subdivisions and apartment complexes had their own stormwater drainage
facilities. All stormwater was either retained on-site, or treated either through filtration or
vegetative nutrient uptake prior to discharge into the City's stormwater infrastructure piping.
All city paved public roads and infrastructure had a stormwater drainage facility. All the
stormwater retention/detention ponds existed in dedicated drainage/utility easements, but
various retention/detention ponds were maintained by private property owners or homeowner
associates.
This condition was to change once the stormwater management utility came into existence. At
that time, it was planned for the Stormwater Management Utility to take over the maintenance
and operation of those ponds that serve the public drainage systems.
A portion of the City referred to as the Ranchlands and Dunmar Estates with primarily large
acre lots had no paved roads with the associated stormwater infrastructure. This area had
pervious (dirt) roads and various swale sys'(ems that directed the stormwater runoff to various
isolated ponds.
State Roads 434 and 419 that traverse the City were under the jurisdiction and control of the
Florida Department of Transportation. All stormwater facilities associated with these two state
highways were designed, maintained and controlled by the Florida Department of
Transportation.
Tuscawilla Road, which traverses the City in a north/south direction again was under the
jurisdiction and control of Seminole County. Two county residential roads (Morgan and
Shetland) that enter the City had stormwater road runoff entering the City's stormwater system.
All stormwater facilities associated with these County roads were designed, maintained and
controlled by Seminole County.
A portion of Murphy Road entering the City from the City of Casselberry had stormwater runoff
entering into the City of Winter Springs stormwater facilities.
The areas of the City that had a paved infrastructure system under the control and
maintenance of the City and have a stormwater management system (drainage system) with a
design capacity to handle a twenty-five year/twenty.four hour storm event represented
approximately fifty-nine (59) percent of the City's overall.area. Approximately 95 percent of the
City's drainage facility capacity was apportioned to the City, the remainder served the cities of
Oviedo and Casselberry.
The responsibility for dedicated public stormwater drainage facilities belongs to the City of
Winter Springs. That responsibility encompassed the maintenance, upkeep and proper
functioning of all stormwater manholes and inlets, all stormwater piping, retention/detention
ponds, control structures arid outfalls, There were stormwater retention/detention ponds
serving public drainage needs located in drainage easements on private property. Through
property deed covenants, the owner of property where various retention/detention ponds
existed were required to maintain these designed ponds. Only in emergency conditions was
the City to engage in maintenance of these ponds. Funds received by the Stormwater Utility to
be established in 1992 were to be allocated towards an inspection and maintenance program
to ensure all facilities within the City are properly maintained.
54
DRAFT
July 21, 1997
W~WINTEIl\WINlERSI'\UNGS I!AR.DOC
Evaluation and Appraisal Report
City of Winter Spring~
GEOGRAPHIC SERVICE AREA
The geographic service area of the City's public stormwater drainage facilities consisted of
paved public City roads and streets. Paved private roads and streets as denoted on the
Stormwater Management Map fell within the service of those private entities. The exact
boundaries of the geographical service area served by each stormwater facility could not be
ascertained from the available data at the time of plan adoption,
The City committed to obtain that data as a part of the Master Plan to be prepared by 1993.
DESIGN CAPACITY AND EXISTING LEVELS OF SERVICE
The design capacity of existing stormwater system drainage facilities both public and private is
for a twenty-five year/twenty-four hour storm event (8.6 inches of rain). While the existing
public systems met standards for on-site retention/detention, the water treatment capability of
the systems designed prior to SJRWMD pefmitting standards was unknown.
LOCAL REGULATIONS
The rules and regulations of state agencies were adopted by reference in the City of Winter
Springs Land Development Code, Chapter 9-241 (d). In addition, the City addressed the land
use development of natural drainage features per Section 9-241 (f) of the Land Development
Code which stated "The City encourages the preservation of existing swamp areas, ponds
(including intermittent ponds), wetlands and wet areas, and bay heads for water storage and
conservation purposes."
Section 9-241 (f) Land Development Code required compensatory storage for incursions into
the natural drainage features. This section of the Code required compensating storage to be
calculated between the hundred-year flood elevation and the seasonal higher water table.
However, the Land Development Code was deficient in requiring the necessary dredge and fill
permits from the Florida Department of Environmental and/or the St. Johns River Water
Management District prior to the final approval of the development by the City Commission
and/or the City's Site Review Board,
NEEDS ASSESSMENT
The drainage facilities were performing and functioning as per their design criteria as best that
could physically be determined. In order to ascertain a more analytical determination of the
stormwater facilities, a study was to be implemented once a stormwater management utility is
in-place so that at a later date the City could provide the necessary information to satisfy Rule
9J-5.011(1)(f)2.
All stormwater discharge facilities must be designed so as to not degrade the receiving water
body below the minimum conditions necessary to assure the suitability of water for the
designated use of its classification as established in Chapter 17-302, FAC, These water
quality standards were to be incorporated as the City's adopted Level of Service Standards for
drainage.
W~WINTER\WINT'EIlSPRINOS I!AR.DOC
55
DRAFT
July 21, 1997
Evaluation and Appraisal Report
'"
City of Winter Spring'"
PLAN OF IMPLEMENTATION
The City committed to identify and eliminate existing and future drainage deficiencies through:
1. establishment of a stormwater utility by 1992; and
2. preparation of a comprehensive city-wide stormwater master plan by October of 1993.
The stormwater utility was to impose a fee on all developed property within the City for
services and facilities provided by the stormwater management program. Two classes were to
be set up for implementing the fee structure: residential; and, non-residential. Funds received
from the utility were to be used only for the following expenditures and held as .trust funds of
the City:
1. operation and maintenance of stormwater management facilities under the City's
jurisdiction; '.",
2. costs for the evaluation, design, construction management, and construction of major and
minor structural improvements of the stormwater management infrastructure;
3. administrative costs related to the management of the stormwater management program;
4. management services such as permit review and planning and development review related
to the stormwater management program; and
5. debt service financing of capital improvements related to the stormwater management
program.
The study was also to lay a foundation for the establishment of a preventative maintenance
and inspection program and a stormwater quality monitoring program. Upon completion of the
study, the City was to prioritize correction of deficiencies, and set a time frame for the
correction of identified deficiencies, The comprehensive plan was then to be amended for
consistency with the findings of that study.
The minimum level of service standards for stormwater treatment of all new development and
redevelopment was to be as follows:
Stormwater management systems shall be designed to either retain on-site the runoff
generated by a twenty-five year/twenty-four hour storm or detain and discharge the runoff from
a twenty-five year/twenty-four hour storm at peak discharge rates which do not exceed pre-
development rates.
Water quality treatment shall be provided for a volume equivalent to 1/2-inch depth over the
entire site or the runoff from the first one inch of rainfall on the entire site, consistent with
Chapter 17-25, FAC, All stormwater discharge facilities shall be designed so as to not
degrade the receiving water body below the minimum conditions necessary to assure the
suitability of water for the designated use of its classification as established in Chapter 17-302,
FAC.
Site-specific conditions may require other design criteria to be satisfied in order to obtain
Water Management District construction permits. To ensure compliance with those
requirements, a copy of a valid Water Management District permit or exemption letter shall be
presented before building permits or development approvals are granted.
56
DRAFT
July 21, 1997
W:IWIIffl!IlIWltllt!llSPRlNG I!AR.IXlC
Evaluation and Appraisal Report
City of Winter Spring~
J. NATURAL GROUNDWA TER AQUIFER RECHARGE DA TA & ANAL YSIS
Information pertaining to the natural groundwater aquifer recharge areas in Winter Springs was
obtained through the Middle St. Johns Ground Water Basin Resource Availabilitv Inventorv,
.SJRWMD Technical Publication SJ90-11, 1990. Winter Springs falls within the Middle St.
Johns Groundwater Basin. A groundwater basin is a particular groundwater flow system that
encompasses recharge areas and the associated discharge areas. According to the report,
the Southern West Central Florida Groundwater Basin is underlain by a multi-layer aquifer
system which includes the surficial, intermediate and Floridan aquifer systems. The surficial
aquifer consists of sands, shells, and some clays, and ranges in thickness from 20 feet near
the St. Johns River to approximately 60 feet in the central part of the basin. The top of the
aquifer is defined by the water table, which is free to rise and fall in response to atmospheric
pressure. Flow in the surficial aquifer usually follows the topography of the land. The surficial
aquifer is an important source of water for individual domestic wells and small-scale irrigation.
'.",
The intermediate system lies below the surficial aquifer but above the Floridan, and occurs
randomly throughout the groundwater basin. It is composed of clays, and thin, water-bearing
zones of sand, shell, and limestone; this aquifer is usually found within the confining unit of the
Floridan. The intermediate Aquifer occurs at 60 to 150 feet below land surface and supplies
water to some parts of the basin. The Floridan aquifer is an artesian aquifer composed of
limestone and dolomite; ground water is under pressure that is greater than atmospheric
pressure. This pressure is demonstrated by the potentiometric surface. Groundwater moves
from areas of higher to lower pressure. The Floridan Aquifer is the principal source of water
for consumptive use in the groundwater Basin.
According to Stewart, 1980, Winter Springs is located in an area characterized as having zero
recharge to the Floridan Aquifer.
GROUNDWATER QUALITY OF THE FLORIDAN AQUIFER
The natural quality of groundwater in this groundwater basin varies greatly depending on the
location and the depth from which water is obtained. A major concern in this basin is saltwater
intrusion in Seminole County. According to the District basin report, Winter Springs was
located outside the areas in Seminole County which have chloride and sulfate concentrations
of equal to or greater than 250 mg/1.
Because there is probably some potential for contaminants to enter the surficial aquifer
through sandy soils and discharge to surface waters or the intermediate/Floridan, it was
recommended that the City adopt a wellfield protection ordinance limiting development within
cones of influence.
The Future Land Use Map depicted the 200 foot radius of the cones of influence for Winter
Spring's wells, in order that land use decisions be consistent with potable water protection,
It was recommended that future activities regarding hazardous waste be regulated, in order to
protect surface water quality and potable water drinking supplies in the future. No hazardous
waste should discharge into lakes or wetlands, and any proposed land use which will generate
W~wum;Jl\WlNlElSPRINOS I!AR.DOC
57
DRAFT
July 21, 1997
Evalualion and Appraisal Report
,
City of Winter Springs
or handle hazardous waste should provide an emergency cleanup plan prior to permitting
approval by the City. The City was to adopt a wellfield protection ordinance by the statutory
deadline to regulate construction, land uses and handling of hazardous wastes affecting cones
of influences surrounding existing and future potable water sources, wells, and water recharge
areas. Septic tanks, storage or handling of hazardous wasle, and industrial uses were to be
prohibited within 200 feet of potable water wellfields. Additional standards for areas between
200-400 feet of potable waler wellfields and other high recharge areas were to be adopted in
the land development regulations.
The City had already adopted an ordinance for water reuse. Additional policies were
recommended to promote even greater reuse in the City.
EXISTING REGULATIONS AND PROGRAMS
The primary agency directly responsible for the protection of natural drainage features and
groundwater recharge areas was the St. J'6hns River Water Management District (SJRWMD).
This state agency had been delegated with responsibility for permitting of any activity which
draws water to or from or is placed in or across open waters and wetlands. State regulations
regulated the construction of surface water management system and ensured the quality and
quantity of surface water discharges associated with urban, silvicultural and agricultural land
uses. The District also had a stormwater discharge permitting program which requires that
discharge meet state water quality standards. Any land alteration or construction activity which
created a discharge of stormwater off-site or which modified an existing stormwater discharge
had to obtain a permit under Chapter 17-25, F.A.C. The SJRWMD was in the process of
developing maps of prime recharge areas to assist local governments with protection of
groundwater quality and quantity.
The SJRWMD, FDER, and FDHRS regulated activities associated with withdrawal of
groundwater. The water management district issued consumptive use permits for all uses
except potable water. The FDER had established drinking water standards, monitoring
requirement, construction standards and permitting requirements. Smaller water treatment .
systems, and systems consisting of distribution and storage facilities were subject to
requirements of the FDHRS.
K. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ELEMENT
Capital improvements were identified based on: 1) repair and replacement of existing facilities,
2) the need to correct existing deficiencies, and 3) needs generated by future growth within the
planning horizon.
The following inventory was concerned with those needed improvements which are of
relatively large scale, are of generally non-recurring high cost, and which may have required
multi-year financing. Below are detailed capital improvements identified at the time or plan
adoption for the years 1991 to 1997.
W:\WIN11!JtIWlN1'E1UPllINOS EAR.DOC
58
DRAFT
July 21, 1997
Evaluation and Appraisal Report
'"
City of Winter Sprin~
TRAFFIC CIRCULATION
Several roads were projected to need improvements during the planning time frame, including:
Vistawilla Drive, Shore Road S. ext, North Loop (partial), Brantley Ave., Shepard Rd" Tuscora
Dr., Eagle Ridge Dr., and Shore Rd. N. Ext.
SANITARY SEWER
The Winter Springs West Sanitary Sewer System was projected to need effluent disposal
improvements during the planning period to meet future demand, An effluent disposal project
was currently under design and construction which would increase capacity to 1.56 MGD upon
completion of the project. The West treatment plant capacity was committed through
development agreement to the permitted capacity of 1.345 MGD. Therefore, additional
disposal capacity was neeqed to meet future connections of properties without development
agreements.
'.",
The Winter Springs East Sanitary Sewer System was projected to need improvements which
would include an emergency power generator to be installed at the wastewater treatment plant
in 1995-96.
POTABLE WATER
The Winter Springs West Water System was projected to need the following improvements
during the planning time period: the addition of a new well which would increase the available
capacity from 1.6 MGD to 3.0 MGD: generator relocation; and high service pump and
discharge piping improvements.
The Winter Springs East Water System was projected to need during the planning time period
the upgrade of a generator, changing out of pumps and driveway paving. The City also
projected a need for the construction of a new well during 1993-94 which would increase the
available Capacity from 2.3 MGD to 3.7 MGD.
RECREATION
The City projected a need for a 59 acre community park, phase one of which was currently
under construction. By 1995, the City projections indicated a need for improvements to Eagle
Ridge Park.
Exhibit I. K.1 provides a brief description of the above mentioned capital improvement projects
and provides an estimate of the projected total project cost.
PUBLIC EDUCATIONAL AND HEALTH FACILITIES
Based upon existing and future planning conducted by the County School Board and Seminole
County, additional public educational facilities would be needed in order to adequately satisfy
the projected demand and maintain adopted level of service standards as proposed in other
elements of the Comprehensive Plan. Indian Trails Middle School was under construction and
expected to be operational in 1992. The school board was evaluating sites on which to locate
a high school. Estimated start date for construction on this project was 1994.
59
DRAFT
July 21, 1997
W~WINIEJl\wu.rreRSPRlN051!AR.DOC
Evaluation and Appraisal Report
City of Winter Springl
Public health needs within the City were determined adequately served by existing public
health facilities. Based upon existing and future planning conducted by the County and
regional health agencies, no additional public health facilities would be needed in order to
adequately satisfy the projected demand and maintain adopted level of service standards, as
proposed in other elements of the Comprehensive Plan.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS OF EXISTING DEFICIENCIES AND FUTURE NEEDS
The total cost of capital improvements over the planning time frame was $14,298,633. Road
improvements accounted for approximately 66% of that cost; 17% for sewer improvements;
6% for potable water improvements; and 17% for recreational improvements, Projected costs
for capital improvements were distributed evenly over the first three years, and. costs for the
last two years of the planning time frame were not expected to exceed one million dollars. No
revenue shortfalls were projected throughout the planning time frame, therefore it was
expected that all capital improvements would be adequately covered by the City's revenue
sources. Wastewater and water needs were to be funded by water/sewer connection fees and
revenue bonding. Revenue bonding capacity was projected to be sufficient to cover water and
sewer capital improvement needs throughout the planning time frame. The City had no
outstanding general obligation bonds, thus, general obligation bonding capacity was sufficient
to cover any future capital improvements, such as parks and recreation, to be financed in that
manner. If necessary, local road construction project bonding could have been supported by
revenues from the $.06 local option gas tax. The City also levied transportation impact fees to
finance road improvement needs.
FORECASTING OF REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES FOR FIVE YEARS
Exhibit I. K.2 shows the expected general fund revenues available to the City for the fiscal
years ending 1992 through 1997. The projected expenditures are aggregated into the
categories of taxes, licenses and permits, intergovernmental revenue, charges for services,
fines and forfeitures, miscellaneous revenue, and transfers in.
Exhibit 1.K.2 also shows the expected general fund expenditures to be made by the City during
the fiscal years ending in 1992 through 1997. The projected expenditures were aggregated
into the categories of general government services, public safety, transportation,
culture/recreation, capital improvements, transfers out and debt service.
W~WIIffl!Il\WImEIlSPIUNOS I!AR.DOC
60
DRAFT
July 21, 1997
Evaluation and Appraisal Report
PROJECT
City of Winter Springs
TABLE I
Exhibit I.K.1
\
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS NEEDS
CITT OF ~INTER SPRINCS
..__h.....
91/92
94/95
96/97
92/93
93/94
9S /96
----..-----.-----.-.--.------...-.-.-----.--.-.--.-.-----------------------------------------------------------------------
TRAFFIC
P22 Vistawilla Or.
P2 Shore Rd. S. Ext.
P3 Shore Rd. S. Ext.
P14 North loop (partial)
P19 Brantley Ave.
P4 Shore Rd. S. Ext.
P15 North Loop
P16 Shepard Rd.
P21 Tuscora Or.
P7 Eagle Ridge Or.
P1 Shore Rd. N. Ext.
SAN IT ART SE\JER
~est Effluent Disposal/Improvements Phase
Storage & Pump Station
Reuse Line to Central ~inds Park
Effluent Pump Improvements
Effluent Storage ~etwell
~est Effluent Disposal/Improvements Phase 2
Storage 1 MG at ~P
Irrigation system for power easement
12" Distribution main
~est Treatment Plant Improvements
Blower
Upgrade Generator
Pave the Entrance Road
Upgrade Laboratory
~est Effluent Disposal/Improvements Phase 2
6" irrigation distribution main
Legal, admin" engineering design (15%)
Contingency (10X)
East ~astewater System
Provide Emergency Power 500 ~ min.
POTABLE \lATER
~est \later System
. ~ell #6
East ~ater System
Construct ~ell #4 (2000 gpm minimum)
~est \later System
Generator Relocation to WTP 2
East Water System
Upgrade generator to min. 500 ~ w/ATS
\lest \later System
High Service Pump Improvements WTP 3
Discharge Piping Improvements WTP 2
DiSCharge Piping Improvements WTP 3
East ~ater System
Change out pumps 1 & 2
Dr;veway paving
RECREATION
Phase 1 of Central ~inds Park
Eagle Ridge Park
S6n,529
S327,183
S200,530
S1 ,025 ,800
S615,880
S1,510,361
S1,060,086
S595,437
S547,869
S1,886,546
S334,362
14 ;6~ 000
S390,000
S60,000
S50,000
$310,000
S110,000
S190,000
$70,000
S100,000
$75,000
S50,000
S270,000
140,500
S27,000
$150,000
$170,000
$170,000
$10,000
S100,000
S30,000
164,500
S38,800
S200,000
S11,250
S2,400,000
S25 , 000
TOT A L S
----------------------------.-.---------------.-.---..-----------------------------------.---------------------.-.-------.-
S832,OSO
plandata\cip5yr.wkJ
Source: City of Winter Springs, 1992
W:\WINI'BIl\WINIl!JlSI'IUNO I!AR.DOC
S3,982;529 13,119,393 $3,713,753 S2,316,546
S334,362
/~~..\
61
DRAFT
July 21, 1997
I
~
GENERAL FUND
REVENUE & EXPENDITURE - FIVE YEAR PROJECTIONS
FY 92/93 FY 93/94 FY 94/95
FY 95/96
FY 96/97
FY 91/92
REVENUES:
TAXES $2,298,186 $2,413,895 $2,533,758 $2,668,438 $2,793,459 $2,933,132
LICENSES & PERMITS $417,335 $431,942 $447,868 $462,787 $478,982 5495,663
INTERGOVERNHENTAL REVENUE 51,598,339 $1,717,566 $1,854,971 $2,883,369 $2,163,639 $2,336,738
CHARGES FOR SERVICES. $43,588 $44,378 $45,257 $46,163 $47,886 $48,828
FINES & FORFEITURES $287,811 $227,712 5258,483 $275,532 $383,885 $333,393
MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE $71,888 $73,848 $76,794 $79,865 $83,868 $86,382
TRANSFERS IN $949,717 $1,853,742 $1,151,818 $1,251,451 $1,363,252 $1,477,342
FUND 8ALANCE $588,888 $595,746 $592,869 $566,312 5512,242 5683,866
TOTAL REVENUE $6,877,888 $6,558,814 $6,952,283 $7,345,836 $7,744,724 $8,313,737
.
..
0> EXPENDITURES:
N
GENERRL GOV'T. SERVICES $1,538,668 $1,687,281 $1,687,561 $1 , 771 , 948 $1,868,537 $1,998,774
PU8LIC SAFETY 53,319,299 $3,568,246 $3,746,659 $3,933,992 $4,138,691 $4,419,848
TRANSPORTATION $848,758 $899,683 $962,575 $1,829,955 $1 , 881 , 453 $1 , 157, 154
CULTURE/RECRERTION $386,371 $482,964 $555,488 $618,949 $672,844 $745,969
CAP I TAL It1PROVEHENTS . S8 . $8 $8 $8 $8 $8
TRANSFERS OUT $8 $8 $8 $8 $8 $8
DEBT SERVICE 58 $8 $8 $8 $8 $8
TOTAL EXPENDITURES 56,877,888 $6,558,814 $6,952,283 $7,346,835 $7,744,724 $8,313,737
Source: City of Winter Springs, 1992
Co-
s..
'<
I\)
,004 I:)
~~
......-t
~
:T
0:
;::;:
-
?\
N
~
c:
III
g:
;:)
III
;:)
Cl.
:g
iil
c;;.
Pl.
:0
~
o
::l.
()
~
o
...
~
CD
....
~
;:).
'i~:""
Evaluation and Appraisal Report
;Ij
City of Winter Springl
Exhibit 1.K.3 shows the expenditures required to meet debt service obligations for outstanding
bond issues during the planning period. The City had three outstanding revenue bond issues:
a 1989 Series Refunding Revenue bond; a 1990 Series Water and Sewer Revenue bond to
finance the acquisition of the Seminole Utility Company; and a 1991 Series Water and Sewer
Refunding Revenue bond.
The City's tax base was expected to increase assuming a 12.5 percent rate of growth for the
non-exempt assessment of property, as shown in Exhibit I.K.4. Exhibit I.K.4 also shows the
projected assessment ratio and millage rate throughout the planning period.
Transportation impact fees are a source of revenue for the City. Exhibit 1.K.5 shows the history
and five year projections for these fees. .
In addition to the capital costs of providing the needed facility improvements, the City would
also incur increases in annual operating costs. These are the recurring expenses associated
with routine operation of the capital facilities, such as supplies, utilities, maintenance and
personnel costs. The anticipated increase in annual operating costs associated with the
general government operation needs are shown in Exhibit 1.K.2 above as expenditures.
W~WIIffl!Il\WINTI!UI'RINOS I!AItDOC
63
DRAFT
July 21, 1997
I
!
~
TABLE III
PROJECTION OF DEBT SERVICE OBLIGATIONS
ISSUE:
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS PRINCIPAL
IMPROVEMENT REFUNDING INTEREST
REVENUE SONOS, SERIES 1989
TOTAL
-FY-9I/92---FY-92/93---FY-93/94---FY-94/95---FY-95/96---FY-96/97--
S150,oeo 5160,000 S178,8e8 $180,800 5195,OOe 5205,880
S652,345 S641,145 S638,105 S618,290 5605,690 S592,040
5802,345 5801,145 5808,105 $798,290 S800,690 S797,040
------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------
PAVMENT OF THE ASOVE ISSUE IS SECURED BV PLEDGE OF
REVENUES FROM UTILITV TAX COLLECTIONS AND ELECTRIC FRANCHISE FEES.
0>
~
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS
WATER & SEWER REVENUE
BONOS, SERIES 1990
..
PRINCIPAL SO sa 50 so 5190,000 S2aO,OaB
INTEREST 59aO,5BO S9BB,50B S9BB,500 $900,500 S900,840 S886,68B
TOTAL
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS PRINCIPAL
WATER ~ SEWER REFUNDING INTEREST
REVENUE SaNDS, SERIES 1991
TOTAL
5900,~BO 5900,500 590B,500 S900,500 S1,090,040 S1,OS6,680
------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------
S3~,oae S8s,oeo S9a,eee S95,aeo S1ao,ee9 Sle~,eaa
$186,226 5445,368 S441,458 5436,823 5431,749 S426,198
------------------------------------------------------------------
5221,226 5530,368 S531,458 5531,823 5531,749 S~31,190
------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------
.PAYMENT OF tHE ABOVE WATER & SEWER ISSUES IS SECURED BY THE
REVENUES OF THE SYSTEMS.
Source: City of Winter Springs, 1992
tl
~
."
-i
#~.
( ...
" .)1
--'"
I.
!.P
Q)
e:-
Q)
g:
::l
Q)
::l
Q.
~
iil
in.
!It
::0
~
o
~
()
~
0
....
a' ~
::T iD
c: ""
;1: ~
" ~.
W ~~l'"
=valuation and Appraisal Report
AD VALOREM TAX BASE ANO MILL ~ RATE (Assessmenl Ralio = 188%)
HISTORY AND FIVE YEAR PROJECTION
City of Winter Springs
Exhibit I.K.4
Ta)(
% Populat.ion % % % Revenue Z
=lctua I: Assessed Value Change <Est.imat.ed) Change Assessment.s Change Millage Change <97%) ChCinge
19-88 S88,189,889 1981 11543 . $88,189,889
38-81 5147,681,269 67.5% 1982 12681 9.2% $147,681,269 67.5%
31-82 $159,787,989 8.1% 1983 13758 9.1/.: $159,787,989 8.1/.:
32-83 $199,117,742 2....7% 1984 15185 18.4/.: $199,117,742 24.7/.:
33-84 5227,463,863 14.2% 1985 16636 9.6/.: $227,463,863 14.2%
34-85 $258,973,862 13.9/.: 1986 17849 7.3,. $258,973,862 13.9/.:
35-86 $292,856,856 13.1/.: 1987 1934.4 8.4/.: $292,856,856 13.1/.:
36-87 5336,156,279 14.8/.: 1988 28627 6.6/.: 5336,156,278 14.8/.:
37-88 5394,488,579 17.4/.: 1989 21682 5.1/.: 5394,488,579 17.4/.:
38-89 5444,866,659 12.8/.: RV. 8.2/.: 21 . 77-
39-98 5486,416,187 9.3% ,;,
38-91 5548,669,328 11.2/.:
1998 22151 2.2Z $486,416,187 23.3/.: 3.6153 51,758,548
lROJECTEO: 1991 23157 4.5/.: 5538, 114, 392 18.6/.: 3.6153 8.8/.: 51,945,445 1 a. 6%
31 -92 5698,179,826 12.5% 1992 24163 4.3/.: 5581,163,543 8.8/.: 3.6153 8. a/.: 52,181,881 8.8%
32-93 5684,292,394 12.5% 1993 25169 4.2/.: $627,656,627 8.8/.: 3.6153 8. a/.: 52,269,167 8.8%
33-94 5769,727,592 12.5/.: 1994 26175 4.8/.: 5677,869,157 8.8,. 3.6153 8.8/.: 52,458,788 8.B%
34-95 5865,943,541 12.5/.: 1995 27181 3.8/.: $732,898,698 8.8/.: 3.6153 8.9/.: 52,646,756 8.B%
35-96 S974,186,484 12.5% 1996 28186 3.7/.: $798,666,585 8.8/.: 3.6153 B.9/.: 52,858,497 8.8%
l6-97 51,895,959,794 12.5% 1997 28865 2.4/.: $853, 919, 911 8.B/.: 3.6153 B.8/.: 53,887,177 8.8%
--------- ---------------------.- ---.- ----
75.8% B.ax 519,117,363 75.6%
ource: City of Winter Springs, 1992
ISSUHING RESIDENTIAL/COMMERCIAL MIX REMAINS CONSTANT
W~WIIffl!Il\Wllm!lW'RlNOS IlAItDOC
65
DRAFT
July 21, 1997
..,JM'
TABLE D
~ TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEES ~
I HISTORV AND FIVE VEAR REVENUE PROJECTIONS III
c:-
RESIDENTIAL PROJECTIONS ONLY III
I g:
::3
III
::3
Q..
TOTAL ANNUAL RESIDENTIAL AVG. FEES BALANCE ~
~ 1)
DWELLING UiCREASE IMPACT FEES PER NEW MINUS FUTURE 1)
X iil
VEAR UN ITS NQ. OF H/H GENERATED CHANGE HOUSEHOLD PROJECTS PROJECTS (;j.
Ilt
::tJ
1985/86 <Il
-g
1986/87 ~
1987/89
1989/89 9785
1989/98 9964 1~9 S19...,917 51,163
1998/91 9839 174 S282,362 9.4X 51,163
~
..
1991/92 9139 lea S125,689 -37.9x $1 , 256 59 $512,879
(J) 1992/93 9565 ...27 S536,312 327.9X $1,256 5735,989 5313,291
(J)
1993/94 9993 429 5537,569 a.2X $1 ,256 $1 , 821 , 852 (5178,993)
1994/95 la"'21 429 5537,569 a.ax 51 , 256 $8 5366,575
1995/96 18949 ...29 5537,569 a.8X S 1 , 256 5288,433 5783,718
1996/97 11277 429 5537,569 8.8x 51 , 256 $8 51 ,241 ,279
2239 52,812,19'" 51,959,185 S 1 ,241,279
Source: City of Winter Springs, 1992
C0-
t::
~
~!:t {:)
004~
:g"
......-t
n,
",---.. ..
~
::r
0:
;:;:
C')
~
o
....
~
~
.g>
~.
'i''''
?'
U'I
Evaluation and Appraisal Report
'"
City of Winter Spring;
PROJECTION OF DEBT CAPACITY
Exhibit 1.K.6 shows the general obligation bonding capacity of the City at the time of plan
adoption. At that time, the City did not have any outstanding general obligation bonds,
Therefore, the City could issue general obligation bonds up to the limit.
Exhibit I.K.6
GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDING CAPACITY
FISCAL YEARS 91.92 THROUGH 96-97
FISCAL YEAR ASSESSED TOTAL BONDING
TAXABLE VALUATION CAPACITY
91-92 $ 608,179,826 $ 91,226,973
92-93 $ 684,202,304 $ 102,630,345
'.",
93-94 $ 769,727,592 $ 115,459,138
94-95 $ 865,943,541 $ 130,491,531
95-96 $ 974,186,484 $ 146,127,972
96-97 $ 1 ,095,959,794 $ 164,393,969
Source: city of Winter Springs, 1992.
Henigar& Ray, Inc., 1992.
Exhibit 1.K.7 indicated the projected revenues generated by the Water and Sewer Utility
Systems operated by the City available for capital improvements for the fiscal years ending
1992 through 1997. Listed beneath the revenues are the projected expenditures for that year.
The expenditures are the sum of the annualized scheduled capital improvement costs, debt
service expenditures and operating and maintenance costs. The balance for each fund
indicated the difference between the projected revenues and expenditures.
Exhibit I.K. 7
REVENUE BONDING CAPACITY WATER AND SEWER FUND
FISCAL YEARS 91-92 THROUGH 96-97
CATEGORY 91-92 92-93 93-94 94-95 95-96 96-97
Balance 1,350,097 2,249,905 2,963,386 3,988,503 6,627,858
Forward
Revenues 4,779,725 4,776,980 5.078,547 5.356.161 7,324747 7,505,220
Expenditures 3,429,628 3,877,172 4,365,066 4,331,044- 4,685,392 4,706,330
Balance 1,350,097 2,249,905 2,963,386 3,988,503 6,627,858 9,426,748
Source: City of Winter Springs, 1992
Henlgar & Ray, Inc., 1992
W:\WlNTaIWll'lTE1lSl'lUN I!AR.DOC
67
DRAFT
July 21, 1997
Evaluation and Appraisal Report
,.
City of Winter Springs
L. INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION ELEMENT
Winter Springs had numerous agreements in place with other Seminole County municipalities
as well as with the County itself. These agreements provided for the coordination of service
provision, emergency response, and land use planning. Exhibit 1.L.1 presents a review of the
agreements and coordinating efforts Winter Springs participated in at the time of plan
adoption. It also lists the subject matter, the nature of the agreement, the City office
responsible for implementation, and the effectiveness of the agreement.
Exhibit 1.L.1
COORDINATION WITH MUNICIPALITIES AND SEMINOLE COUNTY
NATURE OF LEAD CITY
SUBJECT GOVT. AGREEMENT OFFICE EFFECTIVENESS
ENTITY '0"
Housing County Inter-local Agreement for Planning Satisfactory
Community Development
Block Grants
Traffic County Read Impact Fee Inter-local Planning Satisfactory
Aareement
Fire Countv Mutual Fire Aid Agreement Fire Deoartment Satisfactory
Traffic County Inter-local Agreement for Public Works Satisfactory
maintenance
Traffic County Traffic Enforcement and Fire Department Satisfactory
Management Team
Agreement for emergency
road closings
Solid Waste County Agreement for joint solid Planning Satisfactory
waste disposal solution (all 7
Seminole cities involved)
Schools Seminole Agreement for water and Utilities Satisfactory
County School sewer service to new middle Department
Board school
Elections County Agreement for County to City Clerk Satisfactory
provide poll services during
concurrent elections
Emergency County Agreement for E.911 Fire Department Satisfactory
Response telephone system setup and
maintenance asSistance
Taxes County Local Option Gas Tax Inter- Finance Satisfactory
local Aareement Department
Government County Agreement to provide services City Manager Satisfactory
Services to county residents located in
specified enclaves near city
limits
Land County and Agreement to notify other Planning Satisfactory
Planning Seminole jurisdictions of annexations,
Cities rezoning, land use changes
W~WIIffl!Il\WINTEIlSI'\UNOS I!AR.DOC
68
DRAFT
July 21, 1997
Evaluation and Appraisal Report
'.
City of Winter Spring.
Many of the inter-local agreements Winter Springs had with the surrounding cities were
organized through the County. As over half of the abutting property to the City limits was
unincorporated County land, agreements regarding services and planning issues affected the
County as well as the adjoining cities of Casselberry, Oviedo and Longwood.
The City had representation on a number of committees, associations and task forces at the
county, regional and state levels. This type of intergovernmental coordination was critical for
the continued sharing of ideas and concerns across jurisdictional lines. Exhibit 1.L.2 presents a
summary of these coordination efforts.
Exhibit I.L2
COMMITTEES, ASSOCIATIONS AND TASK FORCES
LEVEL OF SUBJECT COORDINATION GROUP
COORDINATION
County ICity Solid Waste ' .Seminole County Task Force on Recycling and Solid
Waste
County ICity Planning Concurrency Management Municipal Technical Advisory
Committee
County ICity Planning Council of Local Governments lCALNO)
County ICity Administration Local Government Council
County ICity Impact Fees Seminole County Impact Fee Municipal Advisory
Committee
County ICity Planning Seminole Countv Concurrencv Manaaement Committee
County ICity Building Seminole Countv Buildina Deoartment meetinas
County ICity Stonn water Seminole County Stonn- water Task Force
Reoional Plannino East Central Florida Regional Planning Council (ECFRPC)
Regional Planning ECFRPC Planners Committee
Regional Land Development ECFRPC Proiect Review Committee
Regional Planning ECFRPC Aging Commission
Regional Utilities South Seminole INorth Orlando County Wastewater
Transmission Authoritv
Regional Administration Tri-Countv League of Cities
Regional Admin. IPlanning Greater Orlando Chamber of Commerce
Regional Planning Economic Develooment commission of Mid Florida
Regional TranSpOrtation OUATS TranSpOrtation Technical committee
Regional Utilities Central Florida Utilitv Manaaers
Reoional Building Home Builders Association of Central Florida
Regional Building Central Florida Building Officials Association
State Planning Citizen Advisory Board for the Community Development
Block Grant
State Administration Florida Leaaue of Cities
State Administration International City Manaaement Association
State Administration Florida City and County Management Association
State Administration Florida Association of City Manaoers
State City Clerk Florida Association of Citv Clerks
State Utilities Florida Water and Pollution Control Ooerators Association
State Building State Enerav Code Seminars
W:IW1Nl'ERIWINT1!RSPRINGS I!AItDOC
69
DRAFT
July 21, 1997