Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999 11 03 Regular Item B CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA 1126 EAST STATE ROAD 434 WINTER SPRINGS. FLORIDA 32708.2799 Telephone (407) 327.1800 Community Development Dept. Planning Division PLANNING & ZONING BOARD / LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY AGENDA ITEM: II. B. TUSCA WILLA PUD PARCEL 7 AND PARCEL 8 LARGE SCALE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT LG.CPA-3-99 STAFF REPORT: The Community Development Department - Planning Division Staff Report to the Development Review Committee on the above proposed comprehensive plan amendment is attached along with the minutes of the DRC on this item. CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA 1126 EAST STATE ROAD 434 WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA 32708-2799 Telephone (407) 327.1800 Community Development Dept. Planning Division MEMORANDUM TO: Development Review Committee FROM: Thomas Grimms, AICP Comprehensive Planning/Zoning C:~:/~~' ',,,/ October 15, 1999 DATE: RE: DRC Review of Proposed Tuscawilla PUD Parcel 7 and Parcel 8 Property Large Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment for October 19th meeting. DRC REVJEW OF TUSCAWILLA PUD PARCEL 7 AND PARCEL 8 PROPERTY PLAN AMENDMENT: The proposed large scale comprehensive plan amendment for the Tuscawilla PUD Parcel 7 and Parcel 8 property results from the Second Amendment of the Stipulated Settlement Agreement, approved by the Circuit Court of the 18th Judicial Circuit in and for Seminole County. The Development Review Committee historically has been the staff level forum to review developments proposed in the City. This comprehensive plan amendment has a direct bearing on the type and density of development that would be allowed on the property when the owner proceeds to develop the property. The DRC needs to review and make recommendation on the proposed plan amendment to the Local Planning Agency (LP A) on October 19th. The LP A will review the amendment and make recommendation on November 3, 1999 to the City Commission whether the plan amendment should be transmitted to the Florida Department of Community Affairs and whether it should be adopted, adopted with changes, or voted down at a second public hearing to be held by the Commission. PLAN AMENDMENT REVIEW PROCESS: October 19, 1999 November 3, 1999 _ December 13, 1999 Near End of February, 2000 In, April, 2000 In May, 2000 [ Fall Amendment Cycle] Development Review Committee review and recommendation to the Local Planning Agency Local Planning Agency review and recommendation to City Commission City Commission votes to transmit plan amendment to DCA for its review and ORC Report. DCA sends ORC Report to City. City responds to ORC Report and advertises for 2nd public hearing. City Commission holds 2nd public (adoption) hearing. CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA 1126 EAST STATE ROAD 434 W1Ni"ER SPRINGS. FLORIDA 32700-2799 Telephone (407) 327.1600 Community Development Dept. Planning Division DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE AGENDA ITEM: IV. LARGE SCALE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT, VOLUME 2 OF 2 FUTURE LAND USE MAP (FLUM) [2010] CHANGING THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP DESIGNATION FROM "RECREATION" TO DESIGNATION "LOWER DENSITY RESIDENTIAL" (LG-CP A-3-99) COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT- PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT TO THE DRC 'APPLICABLE LAW AND PUBLIC POLICY: The Development Review Committee (DRC) has historically been the staff level forum to review developments proposed in the City. The provisions of 163.3174(4) Florida Statutes which states "Be the agency (Local Planning Agency) responsible for the preparation of the comprehensive plan or plan amendment and shall make recommendations to the governing body regarding the adoption or amendment of such plan. During the preparation of the plan or plan amendment and prior to any recommendation to the governing body, the Local Planning Agency shall hold at least one public hearing, with public notice, on proposed plan or plan amendment." The provisions of Sec. 2-57 of the City Code which state in part ". . .the planning. and zoning board shall serve as the local planning agency pursuant to the county comprehensive planning act and the local government comprehensive planning act of the state. . ." I. BACKGROUND: APPLICANT: OWNER: Tuscawilla Investors, Inc. 4 Embarcadero Center, Suite 2200 San Francisco, CA 94111 (Same as Applicant) Development Review Commiltcc October 19. 1999 Fall Amendment Cycle, 1999 Tuscawilla PUD Parcel 7 and Parcel 8 LG-CPA-3-99 REQUEST: The applicant is requesting a change of Future Land Use Map designation from "Recreation" to "Lower Density Residential" (1.1 - 3.5 DU per acre). PURPOSE: To provide additional lots for single family residence in a manner consistent with a Stipulated Settlement Agreement between the City and Florida Country Clubs, Inc. A. SITE INFORMATION 1. ]~ARCEL NUMBER 3 1-20-3 1-5BB-0000-004A 2. ACREAGE: 37.53 3. GENERAL LOCATION: Parcel 7 is located on the south side of Winter Springs Blvd. along the northwest edge of the golf course adjacent on the east to Country Club Village Unit I and Unit 3. Parcel 8 is located on the south side of Winter Springs Blvd. adjacent on the east side of the Tuscawilla Country Club tennis courts. 4. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: (see blueprint of Parcel 7 and Parcel 8 with legal description) 5. CHRONOLOGY OF SUBJECT PROPERTY: The property has been subject to litigation resulting in the Stipulated Settlement Agreement decreed by Circuit Court of the 18th Judicial Circuit in and for Seminole County on September II, 1990. There have been amendments to the Stipulated Settlement Agreement. NOTE: For purposes of this large scale comprehensive plan amendment and eventual development of Parcels 7 and 8, the Second Amendment to the Settlement Agreement is controlling. (See Attachment B) September 30, 1996 Second Amendment to Settlement Agreement between City and Florida Country Clubs. 2 Development Review Committee October 19, 1999 1'.11 Amendment Cycle, 1999 Tuscawilla PUD Parcel 7 and Parcel 8 LG-CPA-3-99 April 21, 1994 May 5, 1992 March 18, 1992 June 10, 1991 - December, 1990 Sept{,mber 11, 1990 March 25, 1990 1989 1988 September 27, 1987 June 5, 1986 October 11, 1971 Settlement Agreement and Amended Settlement Agreement No. I approved by the Circuit Court between the City and Florida country Clubs, Inc. City and Florida Country Clubs, Inc. mediate issues involved in the litigation. Circuit Court of Seminole county entered an order referring the parites in the lawsuit to mediation. City Commission denied FCCI request to construct either guest cottages or condominiums. FCCI submitted to the City staff a plan for the development of ISO guest cottages and a proposal for 120 condominiums. The P & Z Board refused to consider it and directed FCCI to present its plan to the City Commission. Parts of the Original Map wer revised in accordance with a Settlement Agreement. Order of the Circuit Court of Seminole County resulted in the current official map for the Tuscawilla PUD. The clubhouse was constructed. FCCI submitted to the City plans for the improvement of a portion of the FCCI property with a clubhouse. FCCI acquired about 24-0 acres ofland within the Tuscawilla PUD. Florida Department of Community Affairs determined that the Original Plan for the Tuscawilla development was vested. The Village of North Orlando, predecessor to the City adopted Ordinance 64 which annexed certain property commonly known as the Tuscawilla PUD. 6. DEVELOPMENT TRENDS: The area has been developed with upscale homes centered around a golf course, tennis courts and clubhouse. The whole area is residential in land use and has been developed over a period of 20 years. With respect to Parccl 7 and J Development Review Committee October 19, 1999 Fall Amendment Cycle, 1999 Tuscawilla PUI) Pared 7 and Parcel 8 LG-CPA-3-99 Parcel 8, Florida Country Clubs, Inc. under the tenns of the Second Amendment to the Settlement Agreement, is permitted to develop not more than 19 lots on Parcel 7 and 46 lots on Parcel 8, provided said lots can be developed in accord ",>ith applicable City codes and State andlor Federal laws or regulations. 7. E:XISTING LAND USE OF SUBJECT PROPERTY: ])arcel 7 covers part of the golf course and Parcel 8 is a vacant treed area. 8. LETIERS/PHONE CALLS IN FAVOR OR IN oPPOSmON: No inquires or comments in favor or in opposition to the proposed large scale comprehensive plan amendment at the time of preparation of this Staff Report (101] 5/99). B. EXISTING LAND USES ADJACENT TO SUBJECT PROPERTY: North: Parcel 7: Parcel 8: South: Parcel 7: Parcel 8: East: Parcel 7: Parcel 8: West: Parcel 7: Parcel 8: single family residential. single family residential. single family residential and vacant. golf course, vacant. golf course. single family residential. single family residential. Tuscawilla Country Club tennis courts and club house. C. FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY: Existing: Parcel 7: Parcel 8: Requested: Parcel 7: Parcel 8: "Recreation" "Recreation" "Lower Density Residential" (1.1 - 3.5 DU per acre). "Lower Density Residential" (1.1 - 3.5 DU per acre). D. FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATIONS ADJACENT TO SUBJECT PROPERTY: North: Parcel 7: Parcel 8: South: Parcel 7: Parcel 8: "Moderate Density Residential" (3.6 - 6.5 DU per acre) "Moderate Density Residential" (3.6 - 6.5 DU per acre) "Moderate Density Residential" (3.6 - 6.5 DU per acre) "Recreation" 4 Development Review Committee October 19. 1999 Fall Amendment Cycle. 1999 TusC8willa PUD Parcel 7 and Parcel 8 LG-CPA-3-99 East: Parcel 7: Parcel 8: Golf course, "Moderate Density Residential" "Higher Density Residential" (9.1 - 12 DU per acre). West: Parcel 7: "Urban Density Residential" (12 < 21 DU per acre), "Moderate Density Residential", "Recreation". "Recreation" Parcel 8: E. ZONING OF SUBJECT PROPERTY: Existing: Parcel 7 and 8: PUD Reauested: (no request made at this time). F. ZONING ADJACENT TO SUBJECT PROPERTY: North: PUD. South: PUD. East: PUD. West: PUD. III. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT ANALYSIS: The following summarizes the data and/or issues which the applicant analyzed in reviewing this application: (See Attachment B ) NOTE: It is City policy that the applicant of a large scale comprehensive plan amendment provide the necessary data and analysis in accordance with 9J-5.005(2) Florida Administrative Code, and Rule 9J-11.006(1)(b)1. - 5. Florida Administrative Code. City staffperfonns the analysis of "consistency/compatibility" of the proposed large scale comprehensive plan amendment with the City, State and Regional comprehensive plans. [ per 163.3177(10)(A) F.S. , 9J-5.001(9) F.A.C. and 9J-5.021(4) F.A.C. ] 5 Tuscawilla PUD Parcel? and ParcelS LG-CPA-3-99 Development Review Committee October 19. 1999 Fall Amendment Cycle, 1999 D. CONSISTENCY/COMPATIBILITY WITH CITY, STATE, AND REGIONAL COMPREHENSIVE PLANS: NOTE: Parcel 7 and Parcel 8 are the subject of a Stipulated Settlement Agreement and Second Amendment to Settlement Agreement. The Second Amendment to the Settlement Agreement was approved by the Circuit Court of the 18th Judicial Circuit in and for Seminole County, Florida. (See Attachment C; ref. Page 2) Therelore, the Florida Department of Community Affairs is under the mandate of the Court to allow development of the property in accordance with the Stipulated Settlement Agreement and Second Amendment to the Settlement Agreement. ThereJore The City is under the mandate of the Court to allow development of the propelty in accordance with the Stipulated Settlement Agreement and the Second Amendment to the Settlement Agreement. 1. WITH THE CITY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The proposed plan amendment is compatible with and consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and not in conflict with the other elements of the City's Comprehensive Plan, specifically: Land Use Element: Goal 1 Policy 4 of Objective A under Goal 4 Policy 2a and 2b of Objective A under Goal 3 Sanitary Sewer Sub-Element: Policy 5 of Objective A under Goal 1 Policy 6 of Objective A under Goal 1 2. WIlli THE STATE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: 163.3177(10)(A) F.S. The comprehensive plan amendment is compatible with and furthers goals and policies of the State Comprehensive Plan in Chapter 187 F.S. List of goals, objectives and policies that indicate consistency with the State Comprehensive Plan: 9J-5.021(4) F.A.C. STATE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (8) Water Resources Goal (a), .Policies 5, 10 6 Development Review Committee October 19,1999 Fan Amendment Cycle, 1999 Tuscawilla PUD Parcel 7 and ParcelS LG-CPA-3-99 (16) Land Use Goal (a), Policy 3 (22) The Economy Policy 3 NOTE: A Local comprehensive plan shall be consistent with a Comprehensive Regional Policy Plan or the State Comprehensive Plan if the local plan is compatible with and furthers such plans. 9J-5.021(1) F.A.C. The term "compatible with" means that the local plan is not in conflict with the State Comprehensive Plan or appropriate comprehensive regional policy plan. The term "furthers" means to take action in the direction of realizing goals or policies of the state or regional plan. 9J-5.021(2) F.A.C. For the purposes of determining consistency of the local plan with the State Comprehensive Plan or the appropriate regional policy plan the state or regional plan shall be construed as a whole and no specific goal and policy shall be construed or applied in isolation from the other goals and policies in the plans. 9J-5.021(2) F.A.C. 3. WITH THE EAST CENTRAL FLORIDA COMPREHENSIVE REGIONAL POLICY PLAN: 186.507 F.S.; 27-E-4 F.A.C. The comprehensive plan amendment is compatible with and furthers goals and policies of the East Central Florida Comprehensive Regional Policy Plan. List of goals, objectives and policies that indicate consistency with the East Central Florida Comprehensive Regional Policy Plan 9J-5.021(4) F.A.C EAST CENTRAL FLORIDA COMPREHENSIVE REGIONAL POLICY PLAN: Policy 57.1: 1,4 Policy 58.1,2 NOTE: A Local comprehensive plan shall be consistent with a Comprehensive Regional Policy Plan or the State Comprehensive Plan if the local plan is compatible with and furthers such plans. 9J-5021(1) F.A.C 7 Development Review Committee October 19, 1999 Fall Amendment Cycle, 1999 Tuscawilla pun Parcel 7 and Parcel 8 LG-CPA-3-99 The term "compatible with" means that the local plan is not in conflict with the State Comprehensive Plan or appropriate comprehensive regional policy plan. The term "furthers" means to take action in the direction of realizing goals or policies of the state or regional plan. 9J-5.021(2) FAC. For the purposes of determining consistency of the local plan with the State Comprehensive Plan or the appropriate regional policy plan the state or regional plan shall be construed as a whole and no specific goal and policy shall be construed or applied in isolation from the other goals and policies in the plans. 9J-5.021(2) F.A.C. IV. FINDINGS: . The property has been subject to litigation resulting in the Stipulated Settlement Agreement decreed by Circuit Court of the 18th Judicial Circuit in and for Seminole County on April 21, 1994. There have been amendments to the Stipulated Settlement Agreement. For purposes of this large scale comprehensive plan amendment and eventual development of Parcels 7 and 8, the Second Amendment to the Settlement Agreement is controlling. · This plan amendment seeks to effectuate the Second Amendment to the Settlement Agreement. · The requested Future Land Use Map (FLUM) designation of "Lower Density Residential" is generaUy consistent with residential nature of the Future Land Use Map designations of land to the north, south, east and west of Parcel 7 and 8. . The requested Future Land Use Map (pLUM) designation of "Lower Density Residential" (1.1 - 3.5 DU per acre) is consistent with and less dense than the FLUM designations to the north and south and west of Parcel 7 and 8. . The proposed plan amendment is compatible with and consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and not in conflict with the other elements of the City's Comprehensive Plan · The comprehensive plan amendment is compatible with and furthers goals and policies of the State Comprehensive Plan in Chapter 187 F.S . The comprehensive plan amendment is compatible with and furthers goals and policies of the East Central Florida Comprehensive Regional Policy Plan. 8 Development Review Committee October 19, 1999 Fall Amendment Cycle, 1999 Tuscawilla PUD Parcel 7 and ParcelS LG-CPA-3-99 V. SUGGESTED DRC RECOMMENDATION TO THE LPA: The Community Development Department - Planning Division requests the Development Review Committee make the following recommendation to the Local Planning Agency: 1. That the City Commission hold a first (transmittal) public hearing and transmit to the Department of Community Affa.irs the proposed Large Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment (LG-CPA-3-99), to change the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) designation "Recreation" to the FLUM designation of "Lower Density Residential" (1.1 - 3.5 DU per acre) the Tuscawilla PUD Parcel 7 and Parcel 8 property on the Future Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element (Volume 2 of2); and 2. Hold a second public hearing, after receiving and reviewing the ORC Report, to adopt the plan amendment. ATTACHMENTS: A. Map of subject land proposed to be included in new FLUM designation "Lower Density Residential", and Aerial View of Area Surrounding Parcel 7 and Parcel 8. B. Applicant's supporting data & analysis for the comprehensive plan amendment. C. Second Amendment to Settlement Agreement, dated September 30, 1996. D. Blueprint Sketch of Parcel 7 and Parcel 8 With Legal Descriptions. 9 Tuscawilla PUD Parcel 7 and Parcel 8 LG-CPA-3-99 Development Review Committee October 19. 1999 Fall Amendment Cycle, 1999 ATTACHMENT A .,;"" ':".:( T 20 S 11 I I r--..J , 32i ~~;~ :~ ~i <:i? ~ :* .h [tJ , ___..J 44 , ~ Pin ... Jeiaii 3.;/' B ~ "$wId\! \. . -:N '1~~''" Ef7 ,~" ":!J' ~'/l"" ., w X' ?'" RED. canion WlltO\'1i~:. 5 ~U111\,. . Scale; not to scale linkside at TUlCawilla Parcels 7&8 Date: /l.J.99 Winter Ipringl, Florida Drawn By: Me Project#: 1908.000 ,....... Locm..lh7 lubject location .~~~~ 1111. "11111.1/ Illl. Ill. 611InthDrl,...Arcllt 1.lu1ll IIJltcr'uk.f1.rll'l11&' IIUPflOKE: 401'61,-1'" fR 4'1"11'/111 ..t . ~ . :..:=4;:" : ' : :..:." ...J..\.. . 4...::::J ATTACHMENT B NARRATIVE The applicant requests an amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map for certain real property known as "Parcels 7 and 8" of Tuscawilla from Recreation/Open Space to Low Density Residential. This request is intended to implement a stipulated Settlement Agreement between the City of Winter Springs and Florida Country Clubs, Inc. In 1991, litigation was initiated to resolve the issue of the entitlements granted to the subject property by the original Tuscawilla PUD. The entitlements issue was resolved by a court-ordered Settlement Agreement in 1993, which was subsequently amended (with permission of the court) in 1994 and 1996. In addition to complying with the requirements of the stipulated settlement agreement, the applicant has met on several occasions with City staff and with the owner/operator of the Tuscawilla Country Club to deliver a project that is generally compatible with their recommendations. In a subsequent filing, the applicant intends to request an amendment to the Tuscawilla PUD to be consistent with this plan amendment. The proposed amendment consists of approximately 37.53 acres, more or less, located to the east and southwest of Tuscawilla Country Club, and is depicted on Exhibit 1. Surrounding land uses consist of a mix of moderate density residential (generally to the west and north); low density (to the south and west). The golf course and its ancillary amenities would remain recreational. The applicant wishes to amend the plan to effectuate the settlement agreement and because the perceived demand for single family product (especially low density product) continues to be in strong demand in Seminole County and Winter Springs particularly. The applicant has reviewed the City's Comprehensive Plan and believes the attached application is generally consistent with the Goals, Objectives and policies contained therein. The following appears to be especially relevant. Land Use. Implementation of the proposed amendment is supportive of Goal 3, Objective A, in that it represents infill development and does not represent urban sprawl. The subject application anticipates that the undeveloped property immediately east of the Tennis Club and the property between the golf course and the power line would be developed as low density residential. Lower Density Residential is consistent with Goal 3, Objective A, Policy 2, (a.) and (b.) in that the applicant's project will be limited to the referenced densities (1.1 to 3.5 units per acre) as is appropriate for infill projects. Finally, the project is consistent with and directly supportive of Goal 4, Objective A, Policy 4, requiring central water and sewer. G .\PROJ\Ol9QHlOlWPIAPPLlCINAARA TlVWPO Recreation and Open Space. The amendment anticipates refinement of the existing land use designation of recreational. The subj ect property of the application is not used for recreation at this time, but rather consists of undeveloped land abutting the golf course and tennis club. In order to minimize potential conflicts between the remaining recreational use, the applicant has met with the owner/operator of the golf course and presented draft lot plans. The owner/operator is conceptually supportive of a low density residential design provided that the applicant can offer some flexibility on future golf course modifications. Second, the applicant is advocating implementation of a land use density that is as low density as any land currently abutting the golf course. Approval of the amendment would not diminish land that is currently used for active recreation. Similarly, the subject property is not used currently for passive recreation. Finally, both the proposed use and the proposed density are consistent with the stipulated Settlement Agreement between the City and Florida Country Clubs, Inc. Transporta ticm. The application is generally consistent with the transportation element. At the request of the applicant, consultants prepared an estimation of a "reasonable worst case" development scenario. While several draft plans for the property have been developed, the consultant evaluated the plan that would yield the most trips. (As of July 29, 1999, the applicant anticipated submitting a plan with less than 70 lots.) Such an evaluation anticipated 90 single family homes which yielded 941 average daily trips with approximately 98 of those trips occurring in the peak hour (p.m. was the worst peak). The ability of Winter Springs Boulevard to accommodate the additional traffic assumed to be generated by the proposed worst case scenario was then evaluated. The section of Winter Springs Boulevard that will be directly affected by the project runs between the loop created by Northern Way. After requesting any available traffic count data from the City of Winter Springs, it was determined that the latest traffic counts for the roadway were from 1996. A capacity analysis performed at this time showed that there was significant reserve capacity available on this segment. To update these numbers, the consultant "grew" the 1996 volumes to 1999 assuming a growth rate of 5%. Ba<3ed on the assumption that the TU<3cawilla PUD is essentially built out, the numbers yielded by this analysis were considered to be reasonably conservative. The "worst case" project traffic was then added to the "grown" 1999 volumes. The net result was that there was still capacity for approximately another 2,000 to 2,500 daily trips on this segment. A copy of this analysis is provided as Exhibit 2. The applicant will comply with the City'S concurrency requirements at the appropriate time. G ;\PRO.J\01906.00\WPlAPPL+CINARRA TJVWPD Summary. In summary, the applicant wanted to achieve four goals with the implementation of this amendment: 1. Be consistent with the intent of the stipulated Settlement Agreement and have the City agree that the intent is met. 2. Produce a project that would be acceptable to the owners and operators of the golf and tennis club. 3. Provide a project that would be compatible and generally consistent with the Goals, Objectives and Policies of the Winter Springs Comprehensive Plan. 4. Provide a project which could be accommodated by the existing infrastructure. 5. Meet the continued demand for low density residential product. G.\PRO.Nl1908.00\I'W\A.PPllC\NARRA TfII,WPO ATTACHMENT C f'y~ :/ ~'V r))'0 '. <t, ., o :;0- c! (1 J) 3 p ~ '3 @ '.': ,-,'-'.\H~tt. ~1uRSL _ .... ,~\./ Or CIP.CUI T COUll.. I L.\. _.' ,\ .j' I Ill.v,.... '. - -. . i1.ECORDED &. VERIF lED 903590 96 OCT 22 AM 8: 09 SECOND AMENDMENT TO SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT THIS SECOND AMENDMENT TO SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT (the "Sec0nd Amendment"), is made and entered into this3L';!Jday of _.(~ /)f,L'm /;;,v --' 19Q{. by and w between FLORIDA COUNTRY CLUBS, INC., a Florida corporation ("FCCI") and THE CIffiY- OF WINTER SPIUNGS, FLORIDA, a Florida municipal corporation (the "CITY"). :r ~ z 0) e> WITNESSETH ~ C") WHEREAS, on or about May 5, 1992 the CITY and FCCI did reach the tenns ofa settle~nt~ through mediation of Case No. 91-2244-CAC, FCCI v. CITY in the Circuit Court for Sem~lec..n County, Florida (the "Court"); and ~ Ole> 0-., 0-., :XC=; :t>- o :;u fT1 C") -:10 >:;u :."")0 ..., (/) 'iIHEREAS, on or about June 16,1993, FCCI and the CITY did execute and enter into ;hat certain :iettlement Agreement (the "Settlement Agreement"), now on file with tht. Court; and WHEREAS, the Settlement Agreement was intended by the parties to memorialize the iS3ues resolved by the parties in their mediation conference (the "Mediation"), and was intended by the parties to be binding upon each of them in order to settle the pending litigation; and WHEREAS, the parties entered into an Amendment to Settlement Agreement No. I (the "First Amendment") on April 14, 1994, now on file with the Court amending the Settlement Agreement; and WHEREAS, FCC I and the CITY have determined that it is in their mutual best interest to clarifY certain of the terms of the settlement contained in the Mediation Settlement Agreement and the First Amendment based upon the representations of FCCI to the City at its City Commission meetings on May 8, 1995 and July 24, 1995, that are incorporated herein by reference. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the recitals and other good and valuable cooside.ltion, FCCI aod the CITY agree to modifY and clarifY the meqiated settlement ofM':; 5, 1992, th, Settlement Agreement and the First Amendment as follows: I. The parties acknowledge and agree that the Setti'ement Agreement as amended by the First Amendment and this Second Amendment is valid and binding upon the parties, e:.:cept as specifically modified herein. The parties agree that they have been fully informed of all matters relating to the mediation, the Settlement Agreement as amended by the First Amendment and this Second Amendment, and intend to be bound by this Second Amendment. 2. Paragraph 2(b) of the First Amendment is hereby deemed to '.le replaced and substituted by the following: "(b) FCCI has not as yet completed the preliminary engineering for the lots depicted on the Conceptual Plans for Parcels 7 and 8. Parcels 7 and 8 are those described more fully in Exhibit" A" attached hereto ~nd incorporated /I. I . , , . ( !? / (l\ ~. .' herein. FCC! may increase the number and/or reduce the size of lots located in Parcels 7 and 8 (the parcel bounded by the 10th fairway, 18th fairwa)" and Howell Branch Creek). Subject to approval of the prel;minary and 11nal engineering plans and plats, FCCI shall be pennitted to develop not more than nineteen (! 9) lots on Parcel 7 and forty-six (46) lots on Parcel 8, providedW (f) - said lots can be developed in accord with applicable City Codes, and ~t~ and/or Federal laws or regulations. The City shall promptly process, re~vP"I and present to the City Commission for its approval or disapprovalliilch modifications to the Conceptual Plans (as well as preliminary and Mal engineering and plats) for each of such parcels as and wilen submiltelPbe FCCI. As provided in the Settlement Agreement, the ter:n "Developiill:n~ Property" shall hereafter be deemed to include the following: (a) the land:.n lying north of the ninth green directly east of the parcel commonly known as the "Hooker Parcel" adjacent to the country club clubhouse and parking lot; and (b) the purcel bounded by tloe 10th fairway, 18th fairway and Howell Branch Creek. Each of these areas may be used in conjunction with the development of single-family uses and not be required to be maintainl'd as "Golf Property". (DC 0-" 0-" ::>;:- c-: :> r ~ ~ n ''Va >- ~ '~JO . -;(J) 3. The approximate one hundred feet (100') ofland lying adjacent to the 2nd through the 4th holes of the Club and the property commonly known as "Woodstream" shall be part of Woodstream Unit 2 Development and shall be considered "Development Property". 4. All other terms of the Settlement Agreement and the First Amendment not modified herein shall remain in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, FCCI and the CITY have executed this Second Amendment as of ,~~_J.~,30 . 1996. Witnesses: FLORIDA COUNTR~S, INC.. aFlon 7;;;~r ~~~" ..---/ Witnesses: . ," '" . C~J\ O~\IW.~~,R. SPRINGS, I 3> Flonda murilc(pal c;:orporatlon . .:...... . . - \::::)",--,.ciCl \?~=--_ ~~1lJ ~. .~fi~ By:' : ,r,' , "/ . '51( , / . "'" , ~... \'" ." " ,," '1. U)lI,,1 CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA 1126 EAST STATE ROAD 434 WINTER SPRINGS. FLORIDA 32708.2799 Telephone (407) 327-1600 Community Development Dept. Planning Division DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMIlTEE OCTOBER 19, 1999 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES Submitted by: Tania Haas Administrative Secretary Community Development Department CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS MINUTES DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 19,1999 I. CALL TO ORDER The Development Review Committee meeting was called to order Tuesday, October 19, 1999, at 9:30 a.m. by Chairman Charles Carrington, AICP in the East Conference Room of the Municipal Building (City Hall, 1126 East State Road 434, Winter springs, Florida 32708). Roll Call Carrington Grimms Cook Jenkins Houck Hall Dallas LeBlanc Tolleson II. REGULAR AGENDA A. Winter Springs Executive Park Pre-Application Meeting, Final Engineering The above referenced final engineering, pre-application meeting for Winter Springs Executive Park. There was discussion between City staff and D. Cathcart and 1. Cathcart who represented the project. Stan Mann ofFDOT made comments also. B. :Elizabeth Morse Foundation Property Large Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment LG-CPA-2-99 Changing the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) Designation from County A-to "Agriculture" to City FLUMDesignation "Lower Density Residential". The Development Review Committee considered the Elizabeth Morse Foundation Property Large Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the Land Use Element, Changing the Future Land Use Map Designation from County R-l 0 "Agriculture" to "Lower Density Residential". Randy Kirkwood represented Harling Locklin Associates. Staff members present were Carrington, Grimms, Cook, Jenkins, Houck, Hall, Dallas, LeBlanc and Tolleson. Randy Kirkwood noted the property is located north of S.R. 434 and south of Lake Jessup, west of the beltway and cast of Spring Avenue. The Chairman noted for the record that the subject property was approved for annexation at the September 27, 1999 Commission meeting and is pending rezoning approval. Houck, LeBlanc, Jenkins, Hall, Dallas and Tolleson had no comments at this time. Grimms discussed the boundary survey that calculated greater acreage from 59.45 to 67.85 acres. Grimms made a motion that the Development Review Committee make the following recommendation to the Local Planning Agency: 1. That the City Commission hold a first (transmittal) public hearing and transmit to the De:partment of Community Affairs the proposed Large Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment (LG-CP A-2-99), to change from Future Land Use Map (pLUM) designation R-lO "Agriculture" (1 DU per 10 acres maximum) to the City's FLUM designation of "Lower Density Residential" (1.1 - 3.5 DU per acre) the Elizabeth Morse Foundation property on the Future Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan Use Element (Volume 2 of2); and 2. Hold a second public hearing, after receiving and reviewing the ORC Report, to adopt the plan amendment. Tolleson seconded the motion. The chairman called for any discussion. Hearing none, the chairman called for the vote. All were in favor. Motion passed. C. Tuscawilla PUD - Parcel 7 and Parcel 8 Large Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment LG-CPA-3-99 Changing the Future Land Use Map Designation from "Recreation" to Designation "Lower Density Residential". The Development Review Committee considered the Tuscawilla PUD Parcel 7 and Parcel 8 Larg': Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the Land Use Element, the Future Land Use Map Designation from "Recreation" to "Lower Density Residential". Rob Holland and Steve Loveland represented Tuscawilla Country Clubs Inc. John Howell represented the firm Holland and Knight. Joel Ivey represented Ivey, Harris and Walls, Inc. Staff members present were Carrington, Grimms, Cook, Jenkins, Houck, Hall, Dallas, LeBlanc and Tolleson. Joel Ivey presented a brief overview of the proposed project and stated a commitment to deliver a proje:ct consistent with the proposed amendment and also noted his commitment to deliver a product acceptable to the marketplace. Grimms summarized Section IV- Findings located in the memo and staff report attached. Houck raised the question how this would impact the tennis court and golf course areas and had staff made a determination if what has been proposed coincides with the development agreement. Joel Ivey state:d after a brief discussion that there would be no impact on the tennis court and golf course areas. Cook sought clarification on easements. Joel Ivey noted that easements would be maintained. Hall discussed concerns as they relate to Howell Creek and asked if a wetland survey had been performed. Dallas had no comments at this time. Grimms made a motion that the Development Review Committee make the following recommendation to the Local Planning Agency: 1. That the City Commission hold a first (transmittal) public hearing and transmit to the Department of Community Affairs the proposed Large Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment (LG-CP A-3-99), to change the Future Land Use Map (pLUM) designation "Recreation" to the FLUM designation of "Lower Density Residential" (1.1 - 3.5 DU per acre) the Tuscawilla PUD Parcel 7 and Parcel 8 property on the Future Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan Land Use element (Volume 2 of2), and 2. Hold a second public hearing, after receiving and reviewing the ORC Report, to adopt the plan amendment. Houck seconded the motion. The chairman called for any discussion. Hearing none, the chairman called for the vote. All in favor except LeBlanc. Motion passed. LeBlanc began discussing inclusion of additional language to motion as passed. Houck added that he agreed with LeBlanc's suggestion for additional language. LeBlanc requested the chairman to entertain a second motion modifying the motion as voted. The chairman accepted the request, but remarked that there must be a motion to amend a previously adopted motion. LeBlanc stated "so moved"; seconded by Houck. LeBlanc stated the he makes the following motion: That the development conform to the existing Development Agreement and that any development meets all the current regulations of the City. Houck seconded the motion. The chairman hearing no further discussion called for the vote. Motion passed unanimously. D. Town Center Large Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment LG-CPA-1-99 Creating a New Designation "Town Center". The Development Review Committee considered the Large Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the Land Use Element, creating a new designation "Town Center" to the Future Land Use Map. Staff members present were Carrington, Grimms, Cook, Jenkins, Houck, Hall, Dallas, LeBlanc and Tolleson. Chairman Carrington briefly discussed the proposed project's history and informed staff the third reading of Ordinance 707 dealing with the Town Center District boundary and (Zoning) Code was scheduled for the October 25, 1999 Commission meeting. Grimms discussed the current status of the Town Center Large Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment. (memo and staff report attached) LeBlanc, Cook, Jenkins, Dallas, Tolleson, Hall had no comments at this time. Grimms made the motion that the Town Center Large Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment be forwarded to the City's Local Planning Agency. Grimms noted the suggested DRC recommendations to the LPA (attached). All voted aye. There was much discussion on staff's preference of obtaining legal advice from the City Attorney upon submittal of site plans that are contrary to the adopted guidelines. III. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS (None) IV. ADJOURNMENT Hearing no further business, the Chairman adjourned the meeting at 10:47 a.m.