HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000 05 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 Dept.
Planning Division
PLANNING & ZONING BOARD / LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY
AGENDA ITEM
II A. UPDATED TRAFFIC CIRCULATION ELEMENT (VOLUME lOF
1 AND 2 OF 2) LARGE SCALE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AMENDMENT TRANSMITTAL (LG-CPA-1-97)
STAFF REPORT:
NOTE:
The Local Planning Agency (LPA) at its March 22,2000 meeting reviewed the
proposed Update of the Traffic Circulation Element large scale comprehensive
plan amendment along with the addition (Supplement # 1 0 [ LG-CP A-I-97 ] and
recommended to the City Commission adoption of the proposed amendment at a
second (adoption) public hearing.
The City Attorney concerned about potential procedural difficulties (the time
period between initial review by the Local Planning Agency, the ORC Report,
and the second public hearing by the City Commission), has recommended
commencing the plan amendment process again.
Since the LP A has recommended transmittal previously, and recommended
adoption by the Commission recently, and the staff has no further comment, the
staff recommends the LP A make the same recommendation it did previously to
the City Commission:
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-CPA-I-97) ,
updating the Traffic Circulation Element in Volume 1 of2 and
2 of2 of the City's Comprehensive Plan.
Staff will ask DCA for an expedited review since it was reviewed already with a resultant ORC
Report issued to the City.
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA
1126 EAST STATE FlOAD >13>1
WINTEFl SPFlINGS, FLORIDA 32700-2799
Telephone (>107) 327-1000
Community Development Depl.
Planning Division
LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY REGULAR AGENDA ITEM:
II. B.
FURTHER REVISIONS TO THE CITY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AMENDMENT TO THE TRAFFIC CIRCULA nON ELEMENT
SUBSTITUTING CITY'S TRANSPORTATION STUDY FOR ALL TEXT
AND MAPS IN VOLUME I AND n. (LG-CPA-l-97)
STAFF REPORT:
APPLICABLE LAW AND PUBLIC POLICY:
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 n. . .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. . ."
The provisions of 163.3187 F.S. which state in part "Small scale development amendments
adopted pursuant to the paragraph (1)(c) require only one public hearing before the
governing board, which shall be an adoption hearing. . .Small scale development
amendments shall not become effective until 31 days after adoption."
March I. 2000
Supplemcnt to LG-CPA-I-97
f
I. BACKGROUND:
APPLICANT:
City of Winter Springs
] ]26 East S.R. 434
Winter Springs, FL 32708
(407) 327-]800
REQUEST:
For the local Planning Agency to review and recommend additional requested changes to
the City's Comprehensive Plan Traffic Circulation Element Data, Inventory & Analysis
section and Goals, Objectives and Policies section. As indicated in SUPPLEMENT NO. 1
TO CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS TRANSPORTATION STUDY - December, 1999.
PURPOSE:
The City previously intended to update the Traffic Circulation Element based on the
results of the completed City of Winter Springs Transportation Study prepared by
Conklin, Porter & Holmes. The contents of the Study are intended to replace completely
the current text and maps in the Traffic Circulation Element Volume] of2 and
Volume 2 of2. Since that time, the Town Center Concept has required a further revision
of the Updated Traffic Circulation Element Volume] of2 and 2 of2.
CHRONOLOGY:
*
City of Winter Springs Comprehensive Plan adopted on April 27, 1992.
.
City Commission on November 13, 1996, hired Conklin, Porter & Holmes to
prepare update of the Traffic Circulation Element of the City's Comprehensiv~
Plan.
.
In 1997, the City Commission hired Dover, Kohl & Partners to develop a Town
Center Concept Plan. The Commission adopted said plan.
March I, 2000
2
Supplement to LG-CP A-I-97
· In March, 1998, the City Commission contracts with another Master Developer of
the Town Center, Joshi & Associates. Rohit Joshi proposed expanding the Town
Center to approximately 1,000 acres, extending to the beltway, as well as including
verious properties on the south side of S.R. 434.
CONSIDERA TIONS:
· The ORC Report on the Update to the Traffic circulation Element has been
received from DCA and Conklin, Porter and Holmes, the City's Transportation
consultant, has developed the response to it.
· The Update to the Traffic Circulation Element based on the City of Winter Springs
Transportation Study, August 1997, was delayed for adoption 1998 due to: (1)
the new Town Center Concept Plan adopted by the Commission, (2) and later the
new Master Developer's desire to expand the Town Center Concept.
· DCA is now reviewing the proposed large scale comprehensive plan amendment
LG-CPA-I-98 which involves the creation ofa Town Center District on the Future
Land Use Map along with a vision statement, goal, objectives, and policies for the
new district.
· While it is not a requirement that the Local Planning Agency review any changes
to the proposed amendment (Update to the Traffic Circulation Element) after an
ORC has been issued by the Department of Community Affairs, City staff believes
it is appropriate never-the-Iess to bring such additional changes before the LP A for
their further review and recommendation to the City Commission.
· It is expected that DCA will send the ORC Report on the proposed Town Center
large scale comprehensive plan amendment by mid-March. Staff will respond to
any objections or recammendatians in the ORC Report and schedule a second
(adoption) public hearing on the Town Center amendment in April. Because of the
relatedness of the Update to the Traffic Circulation Element plan amendment,
based on the Winter Springs Transportation Study, August 1997 and its
supplement (Supplement No.1) to the Town Center plan amendment, it is
recommended that the LP A review and make recommendation on Supplement
No. 1 to the City Commission for the April adoption public hearing.
March], 2000
3
SUJ1plcmcnt 10 LG-CP A-] -97
FUNDING:
The City paid Conklin, Porter & Holmes for the update of the Tramc Circulation Element
from the Transportation Impact Fee, and now paid CPH for Supplement No. I to City of
Winter Springs Transportation Study, dated December, ) 999.
II. SUMMARY OF SUPPLEMENT NO. 1 TO THE CITY OF
WINTER SPRINGS TRANSPORTATION STUDY, DATED
DECEMBER 1999:
The City of Winter springs Transportation Study, dated August, 1997, identified no deficiencies in
the transportation infrustructure of the City's local system for the projected 2010 traffic loadings.
Roadways identified for improvements included U.S. 17-92, S.R. 434, Seminola Boulevard, Lake
Drive, and TuskawilIa Road which are under the control of the County and FDOT. U. S. 17-92 is
under final construction of a six-lane improvement project from Shepard Road (Winter springs)
south to Melody Lane (Casselberry). State Road 434 has been improved to four (4) lanes from
S.R. 419 to the GreeneWay (S.R. 417). Seminola Boulevard has been improved to four (4) lanes,
Tuskawilla Road has been improved to four (4) lanes divided and Lake Drive is currently under
design for four (4) lanes, divided. This supplement updates the 1997 study to acknowledge these
improvements and the ones also constructed by the City. No changes were made to the land use,
existing uses, or projected development.
It has become evident that a collector road system is required for the undeveloped area east of the
City Hall. This area has been designated as the Town Center and is scheduled for growth within
the planning period. A roadway collector system has been identified to serve this area. Since
these roads are for new growth, the funding is projected to come from the transportation impact
fee. This collector system is shown on the attached revised drawings.
NOTE:
Only updated materials are attached to this supplement. Since the growth
projections have not been revised, the overall traffic study remains valid.
NOTE:
Terry Zadtke, Conklin Porter & Holmes, wilI give a presentation on the
Supplement No.1 to the City. of Winter Springs Transportation Study
August 1997.
March I, 2000
4
Supplement to LG-CP 1\-1-97
III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Local Planning Agency make the following recommendation to the
City Commission:
That the City Commission hold a second (adoption) public hearing and adopt the
proposed large scale comprehensive plan amendment (LG-CP A-1-97), updating
the Traffic Circulation Element in Volume 1 of2 and Volume 2 of2 of the City's
Comprehensive Plan, incorporating the response to the ORC Report and
Supplement No.1 to the City of Winter Springs Transportation Study. August
1997.
A TT ACHMENTS:
B. City of Winter Springs Transportation Study - August 1997.
A. Supplement No.1 to City of Winter Springs Transportation Study, August 1997.
C. Local Planning Agency Regular Agenda Item II. 1. For November 19, 1997
relating to LG-CP A-I-97 (Update to the Traffic Circulation Element).
March I, 2000
5
Supplement 10 I.G-CP 1\-1-97
, "
,J! '
. "
ATTACHMENT A
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS
TRANSPORTATION STUDY
AUGUST 1997
Conklin, Porter and Holmes - Engineers, Inc.
1104 E. Robinson Street
Orlando, Florida 32801
CPH Project No. W0459.00
U
I
,
I
I
I
!
INDEX
CHAPTER I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . INTRODUCTION
CHAPTER II ........................ FINANCIAL RESOURCES ANALYSIS
CHAPTER ill.. .... .... . . .. .... ...... TRANSPORTATION PLAN
CHAPTERrv ....................... CONCURRENCY PLANNING
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Background
Winter Springs, a community of26,000 persons, is served by one major north-south route in the
central part of the city, Tuskawilla Road, and one major east-west route, S.R. 434. Two major
north-south routes exist on the western and eastern boundaries. On the western boundary is U.S.
17-92 and on the eastern boundary is the Greeneway, a multi-lane tollway. Located in south-
central Seminole County in a ruralIsuburban residential setting, the Cit}ls major roadways
provide access to neighboring towns for Winter Springs residents and employees and facilitate
the flow of through traffic.
State Road 434 provides access to Oviedo and the Greeneway to the east and to Longwood and
U.S. 17-92 to the west. U.S. 17-92 and the Greeneway provide major arterial routes to Sanford
to the north or Orange County to the south. Recent widening of S.R. 434 from S.R. 419 to
TuskaWilla Road and projected widening from Tuskawilla Road to the Greeneway have positive
benefits for the City of Winter Springs.
Traffic circulation patterns are directly dependent upon the land uses associated with the property
adjacent to the roadway. While other factors such as major trip attraction (a theme park or an
airport) can have a substantial effect, it is often the land uses which dictate the current and
projected traffic volumes on a given road. A thorough examination of the land. uses and
projected COnstruction was performed as part of this Transportation Plan update.
Purpose
There are two primary purposes for the City of Winter Springs Transportation Study. The first is
to develop a tranSportation plan that defines the needs of the city.m. .the forecast year 2010. The
second purpose is to establish a mechanism for monitoring new development to insure that
needed transportation facilities are in place concurrent with impacts from such development. In
addition, the following purposes are also important:
1. Develop a plan to guide the city in future transportation decisions; .
2. Provide the Traffic Circulation Element of the City's Comprehensive Plan;
3. Develop a plan that assures that transportation improvements requirectof
developers in the city are in accordance with the long range needs of the city;
4. ", Define capital improvements needed ta maintain a satisfactory level of service;
5. Review ClUTent financial resources available for transportation funding in the city.
I - I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
f
I,
I
Transportation Plan Methodology
The City of Winter Springs is an integral part of the Orlando Urban Area Additionally, the city
is one of the larger municipalities within Seminole County and is located between two principal
arterials, S.R. 434 and Red Bug Lake Road. As such, transportation planning for Winter Springs
requires close cooperation with other planning efforts within the Orlando Region and Seminole
County. For this reason, the transportation planning methodology used to develop the
transportation plan must necessarily be compatible with transportation planning methodologies in
adjacent jurisdictions.
In order to accomplish this requirement, extensive use of data sources and planning models from
the Orlando Urban Area Transportation Study (OUA TS) and the Seminole County
Transportation Management Program (TIvlP) were used in the development of the Winter
Springs Transportation Plan. The transportation plan development was divided into two phases.
These are:
Phase I - Organization and Data Collection; and
Phase II - Analysis and Plan Development.
Additianally, a third phase of the project was defmed to allow for the monitoring of new
development:
Phase III - Concurrency Planning.
Wherever passible, existing data from the OUA TS and the Seminole County TIvfP were used in
the development of the Winter Springs Transportation Plan. This not only provides compatibility
with other planning activities within the region but, in addition, the use of existing data sources
minimizes the need for creating extensive new data.
- All data collection efforts were designed to permit complete use of existing data sources. After
existing data .'.'tere carefully reviewed, additional data were collected. Among the data required
ta conduct the technical analyses were land use/socio-economic data, traffic caunts,
transportation planning models currently used in the surrounding region and existing data for
,planned developments wit.b..i.U the city and adjacent areas.
Transportation models developed from the OUATS and the TMP were applied for.existing
conditions to validate their effectiveness in forecasting existing traffic patterns withiri the Winter
Springs Study area. These tests were made in order to validate the use of the models .and the data
!nputs to the models for forecast conditions. In order to permit more detailed analysis of
conditions ~thin the Winter Springs Study area, a more refined highway network and a zonal
system compatible with this network were developed.
1-2
I
I
Existing deficiencies on city, county and state systems were defmed and Capital Improvement
Programs identified tOJesolve these transportation deficiencies. No existing deficiencies were
defined on the 'city collector system.
I
I
Forecasts of anticipated land use/socio-economic activities for 201 O'were made and the validated
transportation models applied against them. This allowed the definition of future capacity
deficiencies so that funding sources can be. developed to correct these deficiencies.
I
I
W045900.lNT
I
1-3
I
I
CHAPTER II
I
'FINANCIAL RESOURCES ANALYSIS
I
I
I
Local governments in Florida are now confronting the fiscal situation of ever increasing demands
for services and capital facilities contrasted with declining assistance from traditional State and
Federal sources. National imperatives to reduce Federal budget deficits appear to offer little hope
for a resurgence of external funding sources for local improvements. In addition, recent changes in
the State Comprehensive Planning legislation now mandate that adequate infrastructure capacity be
present or programmed by the governing jurisdiction as a condition precedent to new development
approval. The local manifestations of these policy changes are twofold. First, local governments
must now develop alternative funding strategies to accommodate new growth and development.
Second, the local government must ensure that the timing of the revenue collections and the
subsequent improvement construction are such that new infrastructure capacity is available when
required to accommodate new growth.
I
For pUrposes of this Transportation Study, funding will only be evaluated from the perspective that
projects contained herein are growth-induced. In cases where a roadway impravement is clearly
required to satisfy travel demand related to new growth and development, local governments are
entitled to pass this cost along to development in the form of regulatory fees collected prior to the
occupancy of the building. On the other hand, highway construction required as a result af existing
capacity deficiencies must be funded through traditional general revenue sources. These deficiencies
are being covered by other City programs and resources. The transportation impact fee should
provide the City of Winter Springs with sufficient revenue to maintain the desired level of services
on the highway network within its jurisdiction.
Financial Analysis Format
This analysis evaluates the City of Winter Springs Transportatian Impact Fee Funding to establish
the fallawing:
1. Historical revenue collection and expenditure patterns;
2. Project revenue sources available to amortize any roadway deficiencies and/or
construct growth induced improvements; .
3. Provide a Capital Improvement Program fonnat for the initial five year period of the
transportation study.
A general ~ytical framework is provided with which the city staff can replicate the type of fiscal
impact deterIninations provided in this report. By so doing, the City of Winter Springs will derive
maximum benefit from this study.
II-I
I
I
I
-
I
I
I
I
I
!
I.n
Data Base
Data for this portion of the report have been taken from the following sources:
1.
2.
City of Winter Springs Annual Budget, FY 1995-96 and 1996-97;
City of Winter Springs Annual Financial Statement, FY 1993-94 and FY 1994-95.
All data contained herein have been provided by the City of Winter Springs and are shown in
Appendix Table A-I through A-4 and represent all funding sources and expenditures for
transportation purposes available to the City.
Local Option Gas Tax - During the past five years, Winter Springs has made extensive use of Local
Option Gas Tax (LOOT) funds for area wide roadway construction. In fact, the LOOT contingent
of funding has constituted the most significant revenue source for roadways in the City of Winter
Springs dming the historical period surveyed. During this time, LOOT funds have ranged from a
10wof$205,765 inFY 1993-94 to a high of$268,779 in Fy 1990-91. Winter Springs has used these
funds for a variety of transportation related projects. All funds have been allocated from this fund
to improve existing deficiencies and maintenance and are not available for construction of the growth
related roadway improvement projects.
One Cent Sales Tax - Seminole County has a one cent sales tax which is used specifically in the
County for transportation/roadway improvements.
Federal Revenue Sharing (FRS) -1bis revenue source has typically not demonstrated stability in year
to year appropriations. Local entitlements are always uncertain as a result of the Federal budget
process, and the program is always in danger of termination. Far these reasons, it is recommended
that this revenue source be considered expendable. The City of Winter Springs should not consider
fimding any critical roadway project primarily from FRS fimds. Instead, to the extent that FRS fimds
are availabl<;,. if at all, the City should accelerate its Capital Improvement Program, or cansider
adding projects which are not considered financially feasible when using only hard-revenue sources.
Special Assessment Proiects - During the past twenty years, the City of Winter Springs has only used
this mechanism on improvements to Moss Road from S.R 434 to S.R. 419. It is recommended. that
. the City of Winter Springs 'use special assessment projects as little as possible to improve local
streets.
General Fund Appropriations - These revenues, generally derived from ad valorem assessment, are
not used for funding major capital improvements in the roadway system. They are appropriated to
repair and replacement (R&R) expenditures, and to operation and maintenance (O&M) expenditures.
In addition, these revenues are generally used for major debt service by most cities in the State of
Florida The' City of Winter Springs has adhered to these principle dtrring the five year period of the
financial inventory.
IJ-2
Transportation Impact Fees
I
These are fees collected from new development/growth for the construction of new and improved
roadways.. The improvements must provide capacity for growth. Impact fees are not used for
correcting existing roadway deficiencies or repair and maintenance projects. These funds are used
to provide roadway capacity when and where it is needed in a timely fashion in order to allow growth
in an orderly fashion. It is advisable to periodically review the projects funded by impact fees to
determine that the funds are going to the area with the most need.
Roadway Revenue Resources
, As noted earlier) this review emphasizes only hard revenue somces. Therefore) while Federal
revenue Sharing or State DOT discretionary funding may play a role in funding some roadway
segments) this analysis assumes that only those revenues identified as hard revenue sources will be
used to fund improvements.
Table 1
Available Transportation Revenues for Roadway Improvements
Local Option Gas Tax
One Cent Sales Tax
Transportation Impact Fees
W045900.FIN1tm
TI-3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CHAPTER ill
TRANSPORTATION PLAN
This Chapter documents the updating of the transportation plan for the City of Winter Springs. This
plan was developed using procedures and data from similar planning activities in the surrounding
jurisdictions as well as information from the 1988 Transportation Element of the Comprehensive
Plan. The planning process focused on a detailed analysis of the roadways in Winter Springs
including the Municipal Collector System.
The City of Winter Springs is an integral part of the Orlando Urban Area In order to be compatible
with planning efforts in the Orlando area, extensive use was made of data sources from the Orlando
Urban Area Transportation Study (OUA TS) and the Seminole County Transportation Management
Program (fMP). Transportation planning models and procedures from these processes were also
used wherever possible.
I
Goals and Objectives
I
Traffic circulation Goals and Objectives were developed as part of the Comprehensive Plan and
updated in this study. The updated goals, objectives and policies are as follows:
GOAL
I
I
Provide a road system within the City that facilitates internal traffic circulation, assists ingress and
egress from the municipal area, and accommodates through traffic simultaneously to coordinate
safely, efficiently, economically and conveniently the flow of all modes of transportation in and
around Winter Springs.
OBJECTIVE
A) ,Throughout the .planning period, the City shall develop and maintain a safe convenient and
efficient motorized and non-matorized transportatian network, through establishment of
criteria to be enforced during site plan review, concurrency management and access
management by the Statutory deadline.
Policies
1) The collector road. system shall be funded by the standards-driven impact fee created
in 1990 by the City.
2) The collector road system shall be developed according to the master conceptual plan
and design standards derived under the auspices of the City, to coordinate the
construction of segments of the system by both the public and the private sectors.
Ill-I
3) The conceptual plan does and shall continue to address through periodic review these
factors:
a. Current and projected deficiencies of arterial roads under other jurisdictions;
b. Existing deficiencies of City collector streets; and
c.Winter Springs shall continue to adopt revisions to the Land Development
Regulations to include guidelines and criteria consistent with nationally-
recognized standards and tailored to local conditions which provide for safe
and convenient on-site traffic flow, adequate pedestrian ways and sidewalks,
as well as sufficient on-site parking for both motorized and non-motorized
vehicles.
4) Land development regulations, contain specific access management alternative
. techniques to control access and preserve level of service. These techniques include
but are not limited to the following:
a. Limit access to roads by controlling the number and location of site access
driveways and other intersecting roads;
b. Cross-access easements of adjacent properties where feasible; and
c. Use of frontage or back-lot parallel access roads where feasible.
OBJECTIVE
B). Keep apprised of the schedules for improvements and ongoing policies of all jurisdictions
whose-transportation responsibilities within the City limits affect the quality of life and the
levels of service on which-Winter Springs citizens depend.
Policies
1) Continue to monitor the construction schedules of Department of Transportation
regarding improvement of SR 434 through the City so that the level of service is not
degraded below the State's criteria for a principal arterial link. In applying the
lenience to permit three years in advance of funded improvements, be selective so
that development 'permitted to proceed prior to actual construction o~ the higher
capacity road will include only those projects which further progress toward other
goals.
2) Require all development plans for property abutting state highways to include
controlled access and minimal driveway cuts, with common service roads connecting
ill-2
Throughout the planning period, the City will coordinate the transportation system needs
with land use designations; planning for land use and transportation is to be closely
correlated by ensuring that adequate capacity is available to accommodate the impacts of
development.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
J
I
OBJECTIVE
J
C)
I
Policies
I
1)
I
2)
I
to adjacent development whenever possible, to minimize interruption of traffic on
the principal arterial sections. Coordinate permitting with the D.O.T. Access
Management Program.
3)
Pursue one of the objectives of the City's municipal collector road building program
- that of providing residents alternative routes over collector roads.
4)
Participate biannually in the update of the Seminole County impact fee road
construction schedule to press the need for widening of the northern section of
Tuscawilla Road, the only north-south arterial through Winter Springs.
5)
Coordinate development of all property in the City adjacent to Tuscawilla Road with
County requirements for laneage and intersection improvements to lessen
development impact until the road is improved.
6)
Continue to work with other jurisdictions to convert the former railroad into a
corridor for alternative modes of travel within the City - walking trails, bicycle paths,
equestrian and recreation.
t.,1ake-bi-annual traffic counts, plus increases to occur from permitted development
as of the effective date of the concurrency requirement.
No development orders will be issued that will degrade the level of service standard
of D on all roadways. Level of service must consider vested development and
transportation facilities committed for construction within three years.
3) Design and engineer the collector road system to minimize traffic impact on these
arterial roads.
4) Create intersections of the new City collector roads with arterials where they will
coordinate with the functioning of arterials.
5) Monitor the functioning of the arterial and collector road system by use of the
ill-3
m
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TRANPLAN/FSUTMS model updated (1996) by the City's traffic consultant so that
collector road improvements may be scheduled according to valid priorities.
6) Establish the level of service for municipal collector roads at LOS D.
7) Require a traffic study for all new development generating more than 300 Daily
Trips. Such study to be conducted in accord with written procedures provided by the
City.
OBJECTIVE
D) Throughout the planning period, the City shall enforce the level of service standard on all
arterial and collector roads.
Policies
1) Update and monitor transportation concurrency with formalized procedures that
ascertain the permittability of proposed. developments according to criteria
established by an expert consultant.
2) The City shall annually monitor the LOS status of arterial and all state roadways
within the City including U.S. Highways 17 and 92 and the Eastern Beltway, by
obtaining from the State and County their most recent traffic counts at points along
all roadways which would be affected by development in the City.
3) Permit no development Within the municipal limits that will cause the level of service
of any state arterial road to decrease below LOS D no sooner than three years prior
to construction funding of the impacted arterial as reflected in the Florida Department
of Transportation's then adopted Five-Year Plan.
I
I
I
I
OBJECTIVE
E)
Create through the configuration of the City-wide collector road system the interaction and
cohesiveness that have been lacking among the residential neighborhoods of Winter Springs,
but do so in a manner that enhances and preserves the quality of life within each community.
Policies
1) Extend the several true collector roads that now end abruptly or degrade from paving
to unimproved status within existing neighborhoods without connection or outlet to
another collector road or arterial, to complete valid collector linkages for these
communities.
IIl-4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
OBJECTIVE
2)
When designing extensions of existing collector roads to their logical arterial
connection south of the City - the Lake Drive-Seminola Boulevard major collector
that is planned for improvement by the county - choose rights-of-way that minimi7e
intrusion and cut-through high speed traffic, so that improved traffic circulation is
not at the expense of peaceful habitation.
3)
Plan for completion of the one-ended collector roads in existing developments on a
. neigbborhood-by-neighborhood basis so that input from the residents is acquired.
4)
The City, shall ensure the provision and maintenance of bicycle and pedestrian
walkways to supplement collector roads between residential areas and parks, schools,
and other major attractors. Specific provisions for the establishment and
maintenance of bicycle pedestrian walkways shall include, but not necessarily be
limited to the following:
a. The City shall review all proposed development for its accommodation of
bicycle aIid pedestrian traffic needs.
b. The land development regulations, shall continue to reqwre all new
developments to provide bicycle parking space.
c. Sidewalks or other pedestrian ways shall be provided where feasible and
appropriate along all roadways.
F) In the design of the municipal collector road system, seize opportunities to solve specific
problems.
Policies'
1) Eliminate landlocked parcels by providing for rights-of-way to reach these properties.
2) Emphasize iniproved access for emergency vehicles to secluded areas in the design.
3) Permit no individual residential driveways onto the collector roads .where feasible.
4) Encourage "green.commerce" along the abandoned CSX railroad corridor to create
an open view near any intersections of crossroads and the tracks. Green commerce
is to be defined by the City and shall include such commercial activities as nurseries,
truck farming, and outdoor recreation which does not require large areas of vertical
construction to block the drivers' clear view.
Ill-S
i
I
I
I
OBJECTIVE
G) Conserve the natural environment and augment open space in the City as functions of road
development.
Policies
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1) Where valid options are available, choose rights-of-way for the City collector system
distant enough from natural drainage features and upland habitats to coexist with
these natural areas.
2) The incursion of a roadway through these natural areas shall be allowed if it benefits
the public need,. such as for access by emergency vehicles or transporting school
children, outweighing other concerns.
3) Include in all new road plans adequate right-of-way for potential landscaping and
provide for maintenance, in the annual budget of the City.
. 4) Designate scenic drives along which collector road construction will be adapted to
preserve as much as possible of existing vegetation and canopy.
OBJECTIVE
H) Ensure that current and future rights-of-way are protected from encroachment from structures
or ancillary uses inconsistent with the designation of rights-of-way. Rights-of-way necessary
for the maintenance of level of service standards and for the safe design of roadways in
accordance with State standards shall be required. Existing rights-of-way shall be preserved
through enforcement of setback provisions, which prevent encroachments into the rights-of-
way.,
I
Policies.
1)
The City, in its land development regulations shall require the dedication of all
needed rights~f-way and necessary roadway improvements for all new development,
and adopt provisions to protect existing rights-of-way by limiting the use and/or
encroachment by structures and ancillary uses.
I
I
2)
The City shall acquire right-of-way for future transportation needs as funds become
available.
I.
r
ill-6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
E:-d.sting Condition.s
To plan for the future transportation needs of the City of Winter Springs, a complete understanding
of the community's existing transportation system is necessary. 1'lm includes a thorough
understanding of existing transportation conditions and existing transportation deficiencies. To
accomplish this, an extensive data collection and review process was accomplished. TIlls effort
included a categorization of the existing roadways in the city .and their functional use or
classification, a detailing of existing traffic flows within the city and its surrounding area as revealed
in daily and peak hour traffic counts, a detailing of transportation planning models currently used
in the area including those used by Seminole County and the OUA TS, a detailing of the data
currently used in the area for transportation planning including computer coded networks and
socioeconomic data, and a review of existing transportation plans within the area including the city,
county, and the region.
Study Area -: The development of a transportation plan for .the City of Winter Springs requires a
detailed analysis of transportation plans and systems in the city and the surrounding area. In addition
to the City's Comprehensive Plan, current transportation planning activities generally consider the
entire Orlando urban area which is defined as Seminole, Orange and Osceola County. While the
City of Winter Springs Transportation Plan must consider the established relationships between the
City and this entire region, a study area for more detailed analysis was defmed.
In order to measure the impacts of growth within the City, the study area must include all of the city
and fringe areas surrounding the city that.affect traffic flows within the city limits. For the purposes
of this analysis, a study area meeting these requirements was developed (see Figure 1). This area
is generally bounded on the north by Lake Jessup, on the east by the Eastern Beltway (C.R. 417), on
the south by Red Bug Lake Road, and on the west by U.S. 17-92. These boundaries are compatible
with traffic zone boundaries established in the OUATS and the Seminole County TMP.
Existing Roadways - The existing roadway system within the study area defined above has been
functionally ciassi.5.ed in the Orlando Urban Area Transportation Study and in the Seminole County
TMP. These definitions of roadway usages as seen from the county perspective were reviewed so
that a similar classification.ofroadway usage from the City's perspective could be made.
. Functional Classification of Existing System - Seminole County has developed a set of definitions
in order to functionally classify the roadways in the county according to their usage. These
definitions were adopted as a part of this study effort so that compatibility with local planning efforts
could be maintained. Thus, the roads shown in Seminole County traffic segment counts were
functionally classified and were adopted for use in this study. The list of the roadways within the
study area boundary is shown in Table 2. The functional classifications are also shown in Figure 2.
Existing Traffic Counts - Seminole County maintains a comprehensive traffic counting program
within the study area and the city. The most recently published counts from this agency were
reviewed and posted within the study area These state and county counts were available for 1995
III-7
t
+-rl--I'~&.'?--. ; z; ..~-= . --,' LB I i . "ru"_Y '1'" ~Z\ ~,~;I'~
u '-"-I--n ~. I ,~~&:;;;&
I +-J'W~~;~t~'~- ~~I./~NCOAO.:::- jJ~,"~: <~ ~~
I '",-,"~,.no::7>!., 1-1 ~~!A 6, ~b ~', \ "
I L IT'. I ~ . "-' ~~~0J./~~ ~Acf 3~ ~ .)J I ! JL iL
~~ / .- l_wgjn'~ ~J h\' :J~ lr-l~ _Lr,. ; ~~,~
'"' I ,,~e~-r4~AUvrb ~~u c"U . )~~
I Ii \j:~ 16=//1111:"' 1\ .~ < I .\,J...r' - . ~I n ~,
i1_1t.<,;' I 7 rJ_~ ~lt',: "oi n \::~ ,~
I 1" :~ ..= _. ,_,,,,,,,", ~rn,,; -' , ".- \\-
lI~HOImf ~ ~ ......J<l. uu/u j" ".~IlN BE'~"AY _
I. . ~'~l)r~uml f~~ .':-1 -h~ ~'L ~~. ~~,
I . l 111';J~ q \\. _ p , : J
I m,-C ~J~iLD~1 i ~,~~, (;-
I g ~vIJ~~. ~. ~~ s~~~~'1 ~J \1 , !~ I !
I ~/. -1.-,1.1 :.";::1 \ . ~ : I h I
lJ-j ';7.1~) l 11.' . ,'STUDY~ ~. . ~
.j . ~ ~r~ .~"~~ _ ~VCI
I R -dl'-c- y.i 0 . - ~;:;' =,~~ ~ ..; ,,'~ ~
434 I . . l&AMo~t: ~ .. _ f ra I; '.. '.. . ~ r~
I ~ ..' : I'. :;i;l 1 ""' <>ua M~~-"OAO I ./ I' I ~ WOOO:I "It
~ ~ .' " I , I. '. I :! ~ ~
I ~~ ~
G >'/ioi....T.,m', I~' C
I ~ IT\.A;"'~ c-;';.o . ~ ~ Q
'.......T/. .>'/. ~"'J' I ~ I =: I ! I '< I -'" ;m:
:, -- . l I -..""'~ ~ I P .1.":.' vL-
. > . ~. I ~o(. w'\Iw.T-'-1m v=->rr cr.l~
~ I ~~Tl.AN~:;;::';' "."..0< 4 0 I I ~: 7." " I?; - ""''''''''''''
~! 5 .~~TO~ :.:;. ::..::J ~~..; ~.~:..,..-." ~L \ : \! ;. / ~ . ~.J~/ l J%~
I . ~ .Gf.. .~-' ..,:., ~<" ~-.: '.;~~':i" G\1:?c;'-DfNROC\1 ~ ! I .l1\.v)WilE~ '.
'":...J I""'~~ ~~:tJ '~iN-r)~~;:::':.::-:" I' }JJ;;;Jkf~' I \~ s....ooo......u-_..~ ~~ ~ ~
g 1\1 I Q3 ?-....1..U.i1'f'i"., .A~X. .'. .L.. ~ ~ I --- fA . ~ . ~~ q . .~~cnt~
. j. .}~ .\.... .,... r ~. !\ ~ ~ =UT' ./ "-D."'" ~
J .... ,~\. L\ '" '..!..L I ". .}:;"y. ' ~ ~ ~ .
;~bJ\'F""7"i "' ~~~~~ .::. -iA.%:::~".. :~( 1(~u-.v"F'( I ~I , ~~),,_ i ~ I. /
~l ~~ .\~ :,~? '~;;~~il1P.~~~:~ ..~,_I_h, !~i~~ 0 I ' .-=-!
I 1: "~~l::-- ~ ~G:m ::s::-....:~~~ ;,w, ~ ~.~.:-,:". . . .' ~ . "'\'! A ~.~.". ~~ . .. .
. ~.~:-~. ~~ .~... r 55'., ~j // - .U.3CA.e><.......
~[f .~~.;.;r: .:;;:;~ ....:~ o>'R. L~~'A~' N"~.1D 9 ___i.) VI 'J:, ~L _ U 420
I :~~::.. 'iJ~~ ,I -. 11 .. ~ I \
. i ~ ~~hi\-; ;):~ ::...~~~.~~.:;':-r.':-:.' ~ I ~ 8! : J \ ~ /! i !
'. .' -r'. V~ ~ "-"CX.I" . ~ V ~ ~ . . ~ --U '3 "
I ~+--: F"~'~ ;~{. .~ :~.:~~:; ~c~.~:Z)<~ 1'-j i':I ~ \' ~~ I ~. ~-
-. ~ .':~"'"~ ~ ~ ST. -:'0. ....:~ . . ....v>'/O
r-n'.' I~ ~ .; ; .:-~ C<7<Tln< ...../]~..... . -. !..-:., .', ~~
~I!)!;/.~~.;~ ~~~~ f:~~";;~'~~:~,~~x~~;~~; ..... :" I ~~~v ~~. ~
r ~~{~~:-:~:I.:~~.; i~~'. '1~ ~~.;: J <.~.~.::-:.~~i::~~ ,:.:>:;'-\! ! ~ I. ~.
~:-~..: l\. - .....:.... .,.'> ;:.;~ I --,'.~ .~.: ~ . ~. _ i ~
~Hb. J! 1$:"[;~::[3 ~ 1li f,,~i ~ i ;,) ~ vfJt~" ~ ;,;.~
I
~
O<LJt ,.",.... 3CV'n
Conklin ~orter snd Holm..
~ ~ IINOIH.BRS, INC-
"0.. ( I>O(J)<SCN SOll m
~oo. ~OA ll.OO1
Tn. +07 "~1
f-U ..07 6-4..0-tQ..)O
SCALE: NTS
DATE: J-l~97
STUDY AREA LOCA TlON
WINTER SPRINGS TRANSPoRT A TlON SlUDY
RGlJRE
1
.xm NO.; WO~9.01
~
q
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
J
I
I
I
I
I
I)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7) .
8)
9)
10)
11)
12)
13)
.14)
15)
16)
17)
18)
Table 2
1996
FUNCIlONAL CLASSIFICATION
WINTER SPRINGS TRANSPORTATION STUDY
Freeways
Principal Arterials (State)
I)
Eastern Beltway (State)
I)
2)
S.R. 434
S.R. 419
Princioal Arterials (County)
Maior Collectors (County)
1)
2)
Red Bug Lake Road
TuskawiIJa Road
1)
2)
East Lake Driye
Red Bug Lake Road - TuskawilIa
Road to Eastern Beltway
Minor Collectors (County)
1) Dodd Road
2) Eagle Boulevard
3) Shepard Road - U.S. 17-92 to Winter Springs City Limit
Municioal Collectors (City)
Bahama Road - Shore Road to Hayes Road
Dolphin Road - Moss Road to Hayes Road
Dyson Road - Tuskawilla Road to Shetland A venue
Edgemon A venue - Panama Road to .S.R. 419
Fischer Road - Panama Road to E. Lake Drive
Greenbriar Lane - Northern Way to Winter Springs Boulevard
Hayes Road - S.R. 434 to Bahama Road
Moss Road - S.R. 419 to Panama Road
NorihtmWay - All
Panama Road - Shore Road to Edgemon A venue
Shepard Road - Seminole County Line to End
Sheoah Boulevard - Shepard Road to S.R. 434
Shore Road - Panama Road to End
Winding Hollow Boulevard - S.R. 434 to End
Winter Springs Boulevard - Tuskawilla Road to Eastern Beltway
Trotwood Boulevard - Tuskawilla Road to Northern Way
Tuscora Drive - S.R. 434 to Northern Way
Vista-WilJa Drive - S.R. 434 to N?rthem Way
IIl-9
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
J
~
I
I
J
J
I
~f~
E
z
=:J
0'8fff
-<{.........zzu
I-...J=:J=:J"--'
~:::;800::
...Jo::........(.) 0
~ "-'I-
~ 0::: cr.: 0:: (.) ~
~-<{gg~~
e::: e::: ~ (.) 0 ...J
-<{ 0 ::1::1 LLI u u...
Z 0 ...J 0
:;t ~ (.) 8 -<{
a.. a.. cr.:
"ze:::e:::uW
...., -<{ 0 0 CD
Z CD J Z Z :::!:
R:~~~~~
i ~ III @
V1
{~
z
ci
a
w
:x:
-<{
-1
~ ~.1 .
.J (S)( · ~H
co ~. J
fY ~ L...~.
:s' ~
...J c::i
C'l 0::
W
~
-<(
.J
'-'
=:J
CD
a
LLI
cr.:
.Y-
aaoa
Conklin ~ort.r and Holmea
~ ~ -NQINJlJlR., INC.
110-4 ( RCO>fsr::N STRa-T
OlUHoo. F\1:R1:)A J2W1
10. .w7 .~7
fAX -<<J7 ~~IQ..)e
SCALE: NT:>
1996 EXJS1lNG ROADWAY CLASSIFICATIONS RGURE
AND NUMBER OF LANES
WINTER SPRJNGS TRANSPORT A noN S1UOY 2
DATE: 3-20-97
-XJB NO.: \'r'\H59.01
I
I I en
~T c ..-:
z
I
I <( m 0
<( m 0
I 0 I I !
z
w
C>
~
I C/) I i I
w
z
::J
z 1'1 0
w
I w
cr;
u
C/)
(J)
ci
cr;
ci w
c ~
w <:
:x: -l
-<( C>
-J :J
en
c
,W
cr;
cr;
en
Conk'Un norter and Holmes
ce ~ ENGINEERS, IHC.
a 110< r ROOlHSCH srna-r
ORL.VlOO. 1l.ORlOA J1001
1U. 4{)7 '2~~
'A:1. ..07 O~l~
SCAlE: NTS
DA TE: 3-20-97.
SCREBlUNES MODEL V AUDA T10N 1996 RGURE
WlNTER SPRINGS TRANSPORT A T10N STUDY 5
JOB NO.: 'MJ~9.01
I
I
and are swnmarized in Table 3. Municipal collectors were not counted by Seminole County;
thus, the consultant made hourly machine counts on all of the roadways currently paved in early
1996. These counts are summarized in Tables 4 and 5. These counts were used to help
determine roadway classifications and were also used as a base for model validation.
I
I
A vailable Model Inputs - The City of Winter Springs and the study area defined above are part of
the Orlando Urban Transportation Study and the Seminole County TMP. Each of these
transportation studies has developed a set of transportation planning models and a set of data that
is input to these models. These input data include descriptions of the roadway networks which
normally only include collectors and high classified roadways. Additionally, these studies used
socioeconomic data files which describe land use activities in discreet areas known as traffic
analysis zones (T AZ's).
I
I
I
I
These computer files and listings were gathered so that a complete understanding of the
transportation planning efforts in this area could be obtained. Additionally, these files were
transferred to the proper format for input to the model chosen for this study.
I
Existing Transportation Plans - Both state and county transportation planning activities have
produced transportation plans within the Winter Springs Study Area. These plans have been
reviewed and a listing of the transportation improvements presently planned and programmed
(within 5 years) for the City of Winter Springs and the study area is provided in Table 6. These
improvements will be studied in the 2010 Transportation Plans and Existing Plus Committed
Plans in the development of recommendation and concurrency management procedures.
I
I
I,
I
(This space intentionally left blank)
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ill-II
-
I
I.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I:
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table 3
1995
DAILY SEMINOLE COUNTY COUNTS
WINTER SPRINGS TRANSPORTATION STUDY
Roadway Location 1995 ADT
U.S. 17-92 Dog Track Road to S.R. 434 52,114
S.R. 434 to S.R. 419 36,123
S.R. 434 S.R. 419 to U.S. 17-92 24,892
S.R. 419 to Tuskawilla Road 24,757
TuskawiIla Road to Springs A venue 16,552
Springs A venue to Eastern Beltway 15,286
S.R. 419 S.R. 434 to Edgemon A venue 12,271
Edgemon Avenue to U.S. 17-92 15,553
Red Bug Lake Road Eagle Circle to Dodd Road 34,888
Dodd Road to Tuskawilla Road 35,790
Tuskawilla Road S.R. 434 to Trotwood Boulevard 12,058
Trotwood Blvd. to Winter Springs Blvd. 16,071
Winter Springs Blvd. to Dyson Drive 16,572
Dyson Drive to E. Lake Drive 22,867
E. Lake Drive to Eagle Boulevard 24,573
-~....
EagleBoulevard to Red Bug.Lake Road 25,398
.Red Bug Lake Road to Dike Road 22,684
E. Lake Drive Seminola Boulevard to Fischer Road 12,617
Fischer Road to Tuskawilla Road 9,472
Red Bug Lake Road Tuskawilla Road to Brooks Cave 30,448
Brooks Cave to Citrus Road 26,829
Citrus Road to Slavia Road 25,390
- Slavia Road to Eastern Beltway 17,589
...
Eagle Boulevard Dodd Road to Tuskawilla Road 4,278
IIJ-12
Table 4
1996 AVERAGE ANNUAL DAILY TRAFFIC COUNT RESULTS
w
., I RAW AVERAGE ADJUSTED
I ,
I TRAFFIC COUNT ANNUAL ANNUAL
ROADWAY FROM TO COUNTS DATE FOOT ADJ. TRAFFIC
TWO WAY 1996 FACTOR TWO WAY
SHEPARD RD U.S. 17-92 SHEOAH BLVD 3081 1/24 1 3081
SHEOAH BLVD SHEPARD RD. S.R. 434 5881 1/25 1 5881
HOSS RD. S.R. 434 C.R. 419 2431 1/24 1 2431
HOSS RD. PANAHl\ S,R. 434 4707 1/24 1 4707
EDGEMON AVE. SEMI NOLA PANAHl\ 2774 1/25 1 2774
EDGEHON AVE. PANAHl\ S.R. 434 3783 1/25 1 3783
EDGEMON AVE. S.R. 434 C.R. 419 2480 2/6 1 2480
WADE ST. S.R. 434 C.R. 419 1034 1/25 1 1034
DOLPHIN RD. HAYES RD. SHORE RD. 241 1/25 1 241
HAYES RD. PANAHl\ S.R. 434 3381 1/29 1 3381
SHORE RD. PANAHl\ S.R. 434 475 1/29 1 475
TROTWOOD BLVD. TUSCAWILLA NORTHERN WAY 4121 1/29 1 4121
TROTWOOD BLVD WEST OF TUSKAWILLA 2046 1/29 1 2046
NORTHERN WAY WINTER SPRS. BLVD. TROTWOOD BLVD. 1868 1/29 1 1868
NORTHERN WAY TROTWOOD BLVD. VISTAWILLA 2501 1/30 1 2501
NORTHERN WAY WINTER SPRS. BLVD. SHETLAND 2'136 1/30 1 2736
NORTHERN WAY GREENBRIAR WINTER SPRS. BLVD 1991 1/30 1 1991
VISTAWILLA NORTHERN WAY SENECA 1410 1/31 1 1410
WINTER SPRS. BLVD TUSCAt/ILLA NORTHERN WAY 7384 1/30 1 7384
WINTER SPRS. BLVD. NORTHERN WAY GREENBRIAR 6099 1/31 1 6099
WINTER SPRS. BLVD. NORTHERN WAY NORTHERN WAY 7484 1/31 1 7484
WINTER SPRS. BLVD. NORTHERN WAY CITY LIMITS 12260 1/31 1 12260
GREENBRIAR WINTER SPRS. BLVD. NORTHERN WAY 1141 1/31 1 1141
DYSON DR. TUSCAWILLA SHETLAND 3262 1/31 1 3262
SHETLAND CITRUS RD. DYSON DR. 4474 1/31 1 4474
ALTON RD. HAYES SHORE 1380 2/1 1 1380
BIRD RD. LAKE DR. NORTH 1267 2/1 1 1267
TUSKAWILLA S.R. 434 NORTH 917 2/1 1 917
TUSCOR{\ NORTHERN WAY SR. 434 765 2/1 1 765
SENECA WINTER SPRS BLVD. 1/2 WAY 1418 2/1 1 1418
SENECA 1/2 WAY VISTAWILLA 1054 2/1 1 1054
>-'
>-'
>-'
I
-
-
.-
-
-
-
-
.,.-
-
-
-
-
-
-
--
TABLE 5
1996 AVERAGE ANNUAL A.M. AND P.M. PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC COUNT RESULTS
c-
.' , AM PEAK HR PH PEAK AM PEAK PH PEAK
{ RAW AVERAGE RAW ADJUSTED ADJUSTED
TRAFFIC COUNT ANNUAL ANNUAL ANNUAL ANNUAL
ROADWAY FROM TO COUNTS DATE FOOT ADJ. TRAFFIC TRAFFIC TRAffIC
TWO WAY 1996 FACTOR TWO WAY TWO WAY TWO WAY
SHEPARD RD U.S. 17-92 SHEOAH BLVD 284 1124 1 290 284 290
SHEOAH BLVD SHEPARD RD. S.~. 434 501 1/25 1 552 501 552
t10SS RD. S.R. 434 . C.R. 419 183 1/24 1 224 183 224
MOSS RD. PANAMA S.?. 434 371 1124 1 426 371 426
EDGEMON AVE. SEHINOLA PANAMA 243 1/25 1 291 243 291
EDGEMON AVE. PANAMA S.R. 434 381 1/25 1 332 381 332
EDGEMON AVE. S .R. 434 C.R. 419 213 2/6 1 320 213 320
WADE ST. S.R. 434 C.R. 419 108 1/25 1 115 108 115
DOLPHIN RD. HAYES RD. SHORE RD. 26 1/25 1 38 26 38
HAYES RD. PANAMA S.R. 434 319 1/29 1 344 319 344
SHORE RD. PANAMA S.R. 434 38 1/29 1 66 38 66
TROTWOOD BLVD. TUSCAWILLA NORTHERN WAY 444 1/29 1 498 444 498
TROTWOOD BLVD WEST OF TUSKAWILLA 230 1129 1 204 230 204
NORTHERN WAY WINTER SPRS. BLVD. TROTWOOD BLVD. 212 1/29 1 228 212 228
NORTHERN WAY TROTWOOD BLVD. VISTAWILLA 241 1/30 1 215 241 215
NORTHERN WAY WINTER SPRS. BLVD. SHETLAND 270 1/30 1 301 270 301
NORTHERN WAY GREENBRIAR WINTER SPRS. BLVD 179 1/30 1 210 179 210
VISTAWILLA NORTHERN WAY SENECA 120 1/31 1 162 120 162
WINTER SPRS. BLVD TUSCAWILLA NORTHERN WAY 521 1/30 1 109 521 709
WINTER SPRS. BLVD. NORTHERN WAY GREENBRIAR 475 1/31 1 516 415 576
WINTER SPRS. BLVD. NORTHERN WAY NORTHERN WAY 653 1/31 1 165 653 765
WINTER SPRS. BLVD. NORTHERN WAY CITY LIHITS 1043 1/31 1 1211 1043 1211
GREENBRIAR WINTER SPRS. BLVD. NORTHERN WAY 101 1/31 1 129 101 129
DYSON DR. TUSCAWILLA SHETLAND 261 1/31 1 319 261 319
SHETLAND CITRUS RD. DYSON DR. 461 1/31 1 453 461 453
ALTON RD. HAYES SHORE 134 2/1 1 156 134 156
BIRD RD. LAKE DR. NORTH 113 2/1 1 135 113 135
TUSKAWILLA S.R. 434 NORTH 144 2/1 1 162 144 162
TUSCORA NORTHERN WAY SR. 434 71 2/1 1 19 11 19
SENECA WINTER SPRS BLVD. 112 WAY 126 2/1 1 144 126 144
SENECA 1/2 wAY VISTAwILLA 86 2/1 1 149 86 149
H
H
H
I
I
I
I
Table 6
1996
PROGRAMl\1ED AND PLANNED IDGHWAY SYSTEM Il\1PROVEMENTS
WINTER SPRINGS TRANSPORTATION STUDY AREA
I
Roadway Segment Improvement Programmedl Planned}
U.S. 17-92 Lake Triplet Drive to Add 2 Lanes 1998
Shepard Road
S.R. 434 S.R. 419 to TuskawiIla Rd. Add 2 Lanes 1997
S.R. 434 Tuskawilla Rd to Eastern Add 2 Lanes 1998
Beltway
TuskawilIa Rd. Dike Rd to Red Bug Lake Add 4 Lanes 1997
TuskawiJla Rd. Red Bug Lake Rd to E. Add 2 Lanes 1998
Lake Drive
TuskawiIla Rd. E. Lake Drive to Winter Add 2 Lanes 1998
Springs Boulevard
TuskawiIla Rd. Winter Springs Boulevard Add 2 Lanes 1998
to S.R. 434
Lake Drive Seminola Boulevard to Add 2 Lanes 2002
Tuskawilla Road
Moss Road S.R. 434 to S.R. 419 Add 2 Lanes 2000
Winter Park Dr. Wilshire Dr. to Seminola Add Turn Lanes 1997
Boulevard
S.R. 434 U.S. 17-92toS.R.419 Add 2 Lanes 20103
(6 Total)
...~~,
S.R. 434 S.R. 419 to Eastern Beltway Add 2 Lanes 2010
(6 Total)
U.S. 17-92 Shepard Road to Airport Add 2 Lanes 2010
Boulevard
Red Bug Lake Rd Tuskawilla Rd. to S.R. 426 Add 2 Lanes 2010
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1. Contained in construction program ofFDOT or Seminole County.
2. Contained in OUA TS 2010 Plan Update (Adopted Highway Needs Network).
3. Latest date based on need. This applies to all "2010" nwnbers in this column.
I
Ill-I 5
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Level of Service Policies - Level of service (LOS) standards are essential for transportation
planning to determine both existing traffic conditions as well as project future deficiencies and
required facility improvements. The LOS of a roadway or roadway section analyzes the
condition of an existing facility in terms of its operating condition. There are six levels of
service used in transportation planning that are ranked in descending order of safety and
convenience of travel from level A to level F. A description of the accepted service levels is as
follows:
Level of Service
Description
A
Highest quality of service a particular road segment can
provide. General ,condition of free flow in which there is
very little or no restriction on spread or maneuverability
caused by the presence of other vehicles.
B
Reasonable unimpeded traffic and stable flow. Ability to
maneuver within the traffic stream is only slightly
restricted, and stopping delays are not bothersome.
C
Characterized by s~ble flow, but restrictions in freedom to
select speed, to change lanes, or to pass is becoming
restricted for most drivers.
D
Approaching unstable flow. Tolerable average operating
speeds are generally maintained but are subject to
considerable and sudden variation. Driving comfort and
freedom to maneuver are low because of increased lane
density, adverse signal progression, inappropriat'e signal
timing, or some combination of these factors.
E
.-L,dicates significant delays and lower operating speeds.
Suc.h operations are caused by some combination of
. adverse progression, high signal density, extensive queuing
at critical intersections, and inappropriate signal timing.
Driving comfort is low and accidental potential is high.
F
Forced flow operations at extremely low speeds. Roadway
tends to act as a storage area and intersection congestion is
likely at critical signalized intersections, with high
approach delays resulting. Adverse signal progression is
frequently a contributor to this condition.
1lI-16
I
I
I
f
1
I
I
I
I
I
The FOOT outlined in their Florida's Level of Service Standards and Guidelines Manual
for Planning (1995) the minimum acceptable operating LOS standards, as presented below.
TABLE 7
ST A TEWIDE l\1IN1MUM LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARDS
FOR THE STATE IDGHWAY SYSTEM
(Urbanized Areas Over 500,000)
*Means the level of service standard will be set in a transportation mobility element that meets requirements of Rule
91-5.0057.
The City of Winter Springs falls into the category of "Inside Transportation ConcUrrency
Management Areas" for the purposes of determining LOS standards. Lacking the concurrency
management designation, the City is part of the existing Orlando Urbanized Area as defmed by
FDOT and the MPO which requires LOS D.
Seminole County has determined that Tuskawilla Road within the City limits falls within an
Urban Center Traffic Impact Area. The County's strategy, as per their Traffic Circulation
Support Document Volume IV of the 1991 plan update, allows a LOS E within these areas while
a LOS D is the minimum standard outside of the defined area.
In accord with the-Comprehensive Plan and previously adopted standards, Level of Service "D"
conditions on all roads within the City of Winter Springs and the study area was used as the
minimum standard. This corresponds with FDOT recommendations shown in Table 7 above.
Level of Service standards have been reduced to daily roadway capacity (service volumes) terms
in order to permit assessment of both existing and forecast conditions. The FDOT daily roadway
capacities as shown in Table 8 for LOS D were used (circled service volumes).
Existing Deficiencies - Given the standards defined above, the existing roadway system in the
study area and the City of Winter Springs were evaluated. This evaluation was based upon
existing roac:lway volumes as documented in the previous discussion on traffic counts.
These analyses indicate that many roadways on the state and county system within the study area
were not operating within LOS Din 1996 (see Figure 3). Almost all are contained .in Table 6 as
committed improvement projects. However, the following are not and need immediate attention:
IJJ-17
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE 8
GENERAUZED ANNUAL AVERAGE DAlLY VOLUMES FOR FLORlDA'S
URBANIZED AREAS.
STAn: TWO- WAY ARTIJUA1..S FJU:.[WAYS
UNl1'fl"ERR UI'TED FLOW Groapl (witbin arbUlittd UU OY'Cr m.ooo and ludlDl10 01' pa,uinl
witb.iD 5 mika of lhc primuy city ccntnllnuiDeu distria)
Unsl~ l...evd of Scrvioo
l.Avcl of Sc:rvia l..lna ^ B C D f
una ^ B C D E <4 22,000 35,200 52,900 67J1XJ 80,800
2 Uadiv. 8,900 13,900 18,900 2<4.800 33.100 6 33.100 52,900 79.<400 100.600 126.900
<4 Diy. 21.soo 35.800 SO.loo 60,100 71.600 8 .....100 7O.soo 1 ~,900 13-4.100 169 ,200
6 Diy. 32,200 53.700 75;lOO 9O;lOO 107.400 10 SS,200 88,200 132,<400 167.700 211.<400
12 63,200 101.100 131.700 192,200 2"2,3()0
INrElUtUP1'1J) fLOW
Groap:1 (witlWa ~ ara aDd DOt ill Groap 1)
Oa.u b (:>0.00 to 2..9 aiguli:tcd 1nl.encctioas pet mile) Lcvd of Service
Lcvd of Sc:rvia l..lna .A B C D E
l..aDa A.. . B C D-.. E... .. . 2O,.JOO 32,.500 48,800 61.soo 74-'00
2 UDdiv. 12.600 15;lOO 16,600 17,00:1 c 6 30,600 <48,900 73.-400 93.000 117,.300
4 Diy. 'Il.900 33,.300 .35.700 35,.800 L 8 4O.BOO 65;200 97,900 124.000 156,300
6Div. 43.200 50,400 53.700 .53,700 It. 10 .51.000 81,..500 122,300 155.000 1~.4OO
8 Div. S3.aoo 6.2,000 . 65,800 65,.800 s U 58,<400 93,200 1040J1XJ 177.300 223.600
s
Oa.u lb (250 10 <4.50 siguali:tcd iDlcJXCllolls per mile)
IJ:vcl of Sc:rvia
C
8.800
19;1OO
29,.300
Jj.800
UDcs
2 Undiv.
4 Div.
6 Diy.
a Di....
AU
BOO
E
15,900
3<4,000
51,400
62.900
Class U (more: llwI4.50 aipaJiud iDlcrxctiocu pet mile aDd DOl
within primazy cily o:ntnI bu3iDeu di3tJic:l of urb~
arca over 500.000)
l...evd of Se:vio:
I..>.nc3 An BOO COO D E
2 Undiv. 11,800 15,200
4 Diy, 26,.500 33,400
6 Diy. 40,700 50,600
8 Diy. 49,700 61.800
Oa.u Ul (mon: t.ban 4.50 sipali:tcd iDlcDcC1iau pet.mlIe !lid witJl!ll
primMy city c:cntn1 bu3.incn dUtria DC arlnniz=d
:uu 0Y'C1 500.(00)
Lana
2 Undiy.
4 Diy.
6 Div.
8 Diy.
Lcvc.l of SctvX:e
Boo CU D
lJ.200
29.soo
.....800
54,700
E
1<4,800
32.600
<49,300
60,100
A"
NON-STATEROADWAYS
~OR CITY/COUNTY ROADWAYS
Level oC Service
l.=cs A'. B" C ~ E
2Undiv 10.900 1.5.soo
<4 Div. 24.400 33.200
6 Di..., 37.800 47,.500 50.200
OTHER SIGNALIZED ROADWAYS
c (sipilizal in1eocction a.Wysis)
L Level of Sero-ia:
It. Lalle3 A" Boo C E
s 2 Undiv 5,.200 11.700
s 4 Div. 11400 !5loo
I)
C
L
A
S
S
III
Lanes
2
2
Multi
Multi
ADJUSTMENTS
DMDED/UNDrvIDED
(aller COCTapOnding ~Wlyvolumc indicated pcrt%1ll)
Mcdb.8 WI Tam Bays Adjusllncnl FIlClOD
D~ . Yu +,~
lJudiyidcd No .2()'lI;
UaolmdaI Ya .5~
U~ ~ .~~
ONE-WA.Y
(a1ler corrcspocding lw().W1ly volume IDdicatcd ~Ill)
One. Way ConapocldIng AdjUSZJmnl
Unes Two. Way Unes FIlClOf
2 <4 ~
J 6 ~
<4 8 ~
5 a .25~
1M.- olooo _....-...-.. -'_ bo _",., b -" ~ ~ Tho ~.- - _".. _.~ -.wboo _ b..,...,..ofIc~ ~
,...... UIIt* -....d~ ~ ~ ~..,. b. --.d b a:wrIdorOf ~__~...,.... __ ~ ~ c::.u... v.... ~ 1ft ~ ~..., traIftc (AADT) ~_____
('--I... II:.- boon. _ pooll .. ~ ........ "" ~ 04"";"" -.I ... -... .. I.... H......, c.,..c;r, ..-... U,.- -.I ~ lnIl\c. -.., oM ~ -. 1M ...,..., _
-...d........ol~CJ'lMfi...ll9f""":Wc-u...t.d...
c-...~
V~___~~~~io-~......~
~~...o/T~)~j.
"'-<<;
., OVT
~
III-I8
I
I
I VJ
---;f f ~ c .-:
I z
.tl"J
I "3AV
,-... ~NltldS
0
If)
0
I .-J
If)
0
w
w
()
I x
w
'-'
I-
Z
w
I 0
[:;:
w
0
J ~ I
w.
~
w
I .-J
I d
a::
w
~
1 ci -<
a .-J
w ~
~ :=l
-<( CD
I -l a
w
0::
J
I
I
,.
I
Conklin ~orter and Holm..
~ [P) IIMQINIIIIR., INC.
"... ( R06lHso. SlRtXT
(>>>UNDO. 11.CfllOA ;Ul101
m -407 .2:)-...~2
fA> -407 ~lroo
SCAlE: NTS
1996 EXlSllNG DERCIENCIES
WINTER SPRINGS TRANSPORTATION STUDY
FIGURE
3
DATE: ;}-20-97
JOO NO.: WO-459.01
T 1'"l _ 1 0
f@
II
,
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
I. S.R. 419 - U.S. 17-92 to Moss Road.
2. U.S. 17-92 - Shepard Road to S.R. 419.
3. Red Bug Lake Road - Winter Park Drive to Tuskawi]]a Road.
U.S. 17-92 is in the long range plans of the Iv1PO (OVA TS); however, it is very deficient and
should be moved to the fOOT five-year construction program. Neither the.S.R. 419 nor Red
Bug Lake Road sections mentioned above are contained on any programmed or planned 20 I 0
improvements list. There are no municipal collector facilities within the City of Winter Springs
operating at a LOS of less than D in 1996.
Model Development and Validation
To adequately forecast future traffic conditions in a rapidly urbanizing area such as the City of
Winter Springs, a set of transportation planning models must be developed and validated. In the case
of the City of Winter Springs, such models exist and these models have been previously used to
develop City, regional and countY-wide plans. These models are contained in the model set
documented for the Orlando Urban Area Transportation Study.
In order to provide the more detailed analysis required for the City of Winter Springs, this model set
was modified. These modifications include the development of a more detailed T AZ set
(microzones), a more detailed highway network, and the use of TRANPLAN/FSUTMS model
structure. These changes require the validation of the model set used in this process even though this
model set is derived from and closely resembles the OVA TS model set.
The model set used was originally tested and confirmed in the Casselberry Transportation Plan and
Impact Fee Study. It is derived from and based upon the OUATS model set; This model set has
been modified as detailed below.
OVA TS Model Set - The transportation planning models used in the Orlando Urban Area
Transportation Study have-evvlved from a set of models developed in the mid-sixties and based upon
extensive home interviews conducted..aLthat. time. The model set is divided into four general
functions and modifications to each of these fimctions have occurred over the last twenty-five years.
. Trip Generation - The existing OUA TS trip generation model is a cross-classification person trip
production model with attractions calculated using expressions derived from regression analysis.
This model currently uses II purposes including special generator purposes for the major tourist
attractions, the various universities and colleges in the region, and the Orlando International Airport.
The model requires extensive data .not generally available such as the forecast of the median income
and car ownership by zone for the calculation of home-based productions.
Trip Distribution - The OUA TS trip distribution model utilizes each of the 11 purposes for which
productions and attractions are generated. friction factors for each of these] I purposes have been
developed, although the special generator purposes generally borrow friction factors from other
[1l-20-
B
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
purposes. There are not K-factors utilized in the model.
Modal Split} Auto Occupancy - The OUA TS model set includes a multi-nomiallogit expression for
calculation of splits of trips to the transit sector. Auto occupancy is calculated with simple rates by
purpose. The modal split model is system-sensitive in that it requires the coded description of a
transit system.
Traffic Assignment - The current OUATS traffic assignment procedure consists of a 4-iteration
equilibrium assignment with capacity restraint. This process is applied using network descriptions
in accordance with the 1979 version of the Urban Transportation Planning System (UTPS)
developed by the US Department of Transportation.
Trip Generation Modifications - In order to make use of the data available from Seminole County
and to avoid the necessity to forecast income and car ownership as required by the OUATS trip
generation model, modifications were made to this model. The trip generation models used are
based upon the OUATS models, but these models incorporate simpler rate expressions instead of
the more complex cross-classification models. These models have successfully been used numerous
times in the Orlando area including Casselberry and for Seminole County projects. In addition to
the Transportation Plan and Impact Fee Study in Casselberry, the models were used to forecast trip
generation for the Lake Mary Boulevard Corridor Study and the Lake Mary/l-4 interchange study
for the Florida Department of Transportation. The models forecast vehicle trips instead of person
trips so they additionally do not require a separate auto occupancy model. The structure of the trip
generation statements used as input to the model validation procedure are detailed in Table 9. The
input socio-economic data for the Winter Springs traffic zones (Figure 4) was approved by the City
for 1996 and 2010 (see Appendix). All other zones used Seminole County or OUATS data (in
Orange County).
J
I
I
I
J
I
I
Use ofOUATS 11 Trip Pm:pose Models - Since trip generation expressions were available for each
of the OUATS non-special generator purposes, it was decided to use the entire 11 purpose models
.available in QUA TS. This required incorporating the special generator expressions available"from
OUA TS into the Winter Springs Model Set. This use of the full OUA TS model purposes
additionally permitted use of the OUATS friction factors.
]1L-21-
I
I
I
I
Homebase Work
Homebase Shopping
I
Homebase Pers.-Bus.
Homebase Social - Rec.
J
Homebase School
I
Non-Homebased
I
Homebase Work
Homebase Shopping
I
Homebase Pers.-Bus.
f
Homebase Social - Rec.
I
Homebase School
Non-Homebased
J Truck Production
I Truck Attraction
Internal-External
Attraction
f
Internal-External
I Productions
TABLE 9
TRIP GENERA T10N EXPRESSIONS (VEHICLE TRIPS)
Winter SpringsTransportation Study - 1996
PRODUCTION EOUA 110NS
'" 1.41 (Dwelling Units) + 0.32 (Hotel-Motel Rooms)
1.37 (Dwelling Units) + 0.48 (Hotel-Motel Rooms)
=> 0.68 (Dwelling Units) + 0.48 (Hotel-Motel Rooms)
=> 0.76 (Dwelling Units) + 0.96 (Hotel-Motel Rooms)
= 0.83 (Dwelling Units)
=> Same as attractions
ATrnACTIONEOUA110NS
=> 0.43 Retail Employment + 1.13 Other Employment - 8.15
= 4.20 Retail Employment + 12.06
= 0.23 Single Dwelling Units + 0.54 Hotel-Motel Units
+ 0.59 Total Employment - 11.05
= 0.30 Total Dwelling Units + 0.84 High School Attendance
+ 0.69 Retail Employment + 19.25
=> 0.08 (1-6 Attendance) + 0.13 (7-12) Attendance) + 3.02
= 0.56 Total Dwelling Units + 3.80 Retail Employment
+ 0.32 Total Employment + 6.52
OTHER TRiP PURPOSE PRODUCTION AND A lTRACTION
= 0.96 Retail Employment + 0.37 Total Dwelling Units
+ 0.14 Other Employment + 27.56
= Truck Trip Production
= 0.42 Retail Employment + 0.12 Total Dwelling Units
+ 0.13 Hotel-Motel Units + 0.0.1 Other Employment + 24.36
= Calculated Through the Use of Growth Factors
J1J. -22-
I
I
I
I
I
J
I OO(L
0<(
f z~
a:o
OOz
I a: z i
W Z a:
I-<(~
I Z...J s
3:(Lg '"
~
LLa:
I O~
~~
I 02
J
I
I
I
:z -f-
~
...
...
...
...
Ie
3
J
.J
~
Conklin ~ortor and Holmes
~ ~ UUQINIUtRS, INC.
,,()+ E ~ 5"TllfIT
~ n.~A 32M1
m -+07 ..:n-~2
,AX +07 ~I~
SCAlE: NTS
DATE: 3-20-97
1996 TRAffiC ZONES RGURE
'NlN1ffi SPRINGS TRANSPORT A 1lON STUDY 4
JOO NO.: WO-\S9.01
] 11-?1
J
I
OUA TS Highway Network Modifications - The micro-computer process selected for use in this
Winter Springs Transportation Study is the TRANPLAN battery of programs as incorporated by the
Florida Department of Transportation into Micro-FSUTMS. This battery of programs was
developed by the Florida Department of Transportation in order to provide a standardized tool to
local planners throughout the state. This model is designed to enable the local planner to utilize the
data files and routines available throughout the State of Florida on micro-computers.
I
f
I
)
I
r
I
I
I
I
J
I
I
I
I
The regional network chosen for use in both Casselberry and Winter Springs was used by Seminole
County in the development of their Transportation Management Program (TIv{P). This network
required some modifications as zone sizes are extremely large.
Zone Structure Modifications - pi order to conduct the detailed analysis required in this effort,
modifications to the zone stiucture incorporated above were required. The Seminole County
network and zone structure used as input included only 300 zones for the entire three county region
including 91 zones in Seminole County. The resultant highway network was equally coarse. lbis
network and zone structure was subdivided into new zones compatible with the detailed highway
network previously described. Since the zone structure in Casselberry was previously developed
for a very detailed study, it was retained outside the City of Winter Springs. The resulting network
contained 400 zones with 29 micro-zones within the City of Winter Springs and 86 in the
Casselberry area. Micro-zones used in the City of Winter Springs are shown in Figure 4 and those
in Casselberry are provided in the Appendix.
Winter Springs Transportation Network - Since the OUA TS basic network was utilized as a skeleton
for the Winter Springs Study, roadways had to be added to the model structure. Existing major
roadways in the planning area are:
I. S.R. 434
2. TuscawiUa Road
3. Red Bug Lake Road
4. S.R. 436
5. U.S. 17-92
6. Seminola Boulevard-Lake Drive
7. S.R. 419
8. Winter Park Drive
9. S.R. 426
Roadways added to the Winter Springs Network in this study are:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Northern Way
Winter Springs Boulevard
Dyson Road
T rotwood Boulevard
Panama Road
)]--24-
I
I
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
Hayes Road
Moss Road
Edgemon A venue
Sheoah Boulevard
Sheparel Road
Shore Road
I
I
I
The complete 1996 network used in this study is shown in Figure 2, 1996 Existing Roadway
Classification and Number of Lanes.
Model Validation
I
I
As a means of checking and validating travel inventories, several screenlines are normally defined
which would completely bisect the planning area. Screenlines should follow natural topographic
features and cut as few major streets as possible to Dlinimize the cost of travel inventories which
would be conducted at those points. In the Winter Springs planning area, there are three screenlines.
Screenline A runs east-west, and Screenlines B and C run north-south. These screenlines are shown
in Figure 5.
I
I
I
I
I
I
Model validation was accomplished by loading of the current trip table (1996) on the network (see
Appendix for Traffic Assignment Node Map) and comparing assigned volumes to observed volumes
as determined by traffic counts. The FSUTMSffRANPLAN computer programs examine the paths
from origin to destination to determine which links are used and then accumulates trips from the
origins to destinations on the links. Capacity restraint was used in the process of calibration to
change link speeds in response to loaded volumes with the objective of providing realistic
assignments. The files necessary to reproduce the 1996 E + C and 2010 traffic are shown in Tables .
10, 11 and 12, provided to the City along with the [mal report.
An Equilibrium Assignment (FSUTMS) was used to have a more balanced loading on the network.
Table 13 shows the screenline results on screenlines A, Band C in the Winter Springs area. The
overall amount of trips are correct with very slight differences on both north-south and east-west
screenlines. As can be seen from Figure 6, most links in the Winter Springs network had very
acceptable assignment loadings.
I
I
I
I
I
1)t-2S-
I
I v)
------::I. T ~ I r-:
z
[Lv 'cl"8
'31\ Y 'ClO
/r
<t: m 0 ~NICldS" I~ ...l...
<t: m 0 P:t,s-, ~ ~"(";
?f
0 I I I
z
w
"
w I
.....J I
C/l .
w I
z I
::i
z I
w I
w 0
0::
0
C/l
-
aaoa
CD-
(J)
ci
o
w
~
~
.....J
ci
0::
W
~
~
.....J
"
::J
CD
o
W
0::
Conklin ~orter and Holmes
ce ~ ENGINEERS, INC.
O 1104 E ROOlNSON SlREET
ORl.ANOO, FLORIDA 32801
TEL ~07 425-0~52
FAX 107 6<a-l036
SCALE: NTS
DATE: 3-20-97
SCREENUNES MOOEL V ALIDA llON 1996
WINTER SPRINGS TRANSPORT A llON SWOY
FIGURE
5
JOB NO.: W04-59.01
111-26
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
J
I
I
,
r
I
!
File Name
LINKS.WSE
GRVTOT96.PRN
HASSIGN.WSE
File Name
LINKSEC. WSE .
GRVTOTEC.PRN
HASSIGN.WEC
File Name
LINKS 1 O. WSE
GRVTOTI0.WSP
HASSIGN.WSP
Table 10
MODEL VALIDATION FILES
(TRANPLAN)/(FSUTMS)
Table 11
E & C FTI..ES
(TRANPLAN)/(FSUTMS)
Table 12
2010 FILES
(TRANPLAN)/(FSUTMS)
-27-
Content
1996 Road Network
Gravity Model-Input
1996 Assignment
Content
1996 + Committed Road
Network
Gravity Model-Input
1996 + Committed
Assignment
- .content
2010 Road Network
. Gravity Model-Input
2010 Assignment
I
I
I
~z
I
vi
-c.-:
z
,.......
00
00
<Ot')
u5vi
~ ~
.....,
DC
O~
CO..:
.....,
I
n t 'cfJ
w
-l::::E
w::>
C-l
00
~>
()Cl
-z
tF
<~
~?j
C D U
~ g~g
WOO
-l ......
,.......
00
00
COO
rici
~~
......
00
00 .
COCOa::
..: c-r c
..- ~W
:x::
-<(
-l
0......
O~
LOr--
. -.t"
::e
C
a::: ,.......
O~
WOO
:::.:: CO CO
<: ri-.i
-l t')!2
<:>
::>
CD
Cl
W
a:::
Conklin ~ortor and Halmoll
~ ~ ENQINI!BRS, INC.
110-4 ( ~SCJ-4 smcrr
~OO. T\..CRlOA J1001
TO. 4(J7 42j-~
FA.."( ...07 6-~I0.J6
SCAlE: N 15
COMP ARlSON OF EXISTING AND
COMPlJTB1 ASSJGNED VOLUMES
'NlNTER SPRlNGS TRANSPORT A 1100 STUDY
RGURE
6
DATE: 3-31-97
JOB ~w.; \\1::I-l-59.01
1 ] ] -? .'l
I
I
I
Table 13
SCREENLINE CaMP AlUSONS
1996 MODEL VALIDATION
(Average Daily Traffic)
Screenline
Model
Rruili
Traffic
.Gmm1
Percent
Validated
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
AA
BB
CC
25,600
67,600
61,300
25,141
69,029
61,713
1.02
0.98
0.99
Plan Development
In order to detail the transportation improvements that are needed in a particular area, the future
demand for transportation facilities must be quantified. This is normally done by using forecasts of
future socioeconomic activity to generate future trip making potential. These. trips are then assigned
to a network in order to determine the transportation facilities necessary to meet these demands.
Socioeconomic Forecast - The basis for the forecast of socioeconomic (SE) data for the 1996 Winter
Springs Transportation Study outside the City are similar forecasts that are available from OUA TS.
Seminole County also has base year (1995), and 2001 data by OUA TS T AZ. The forecasts for
Winter Springs micro-zones were developed by the consultant with the cooperation of the City of
Winter Springs.
The 1996 Winter Springs Transportation Study involved the creation of29 micro-zones within the
City as previously described. These micro-zones permitted the kind of detailed analysis of
socioeconomic growth that is critical to the detailed forecasts of future traffic that was required in
order to fully measure transportation impacts on municipal collector streets. This type of detailed
analysis was accomplished for the micro-zones within the city and changes to the previously
published socioeconomic projections for the city resulted. The :final 201 0 forecast of socioeconomic
data for the 29 micro-zones within the city is provided in the Appendix. It is important to understand
that this 2010 city projection is based on current vested projects, approved PUDs and growth trends.
It does not assume a high density urban center at S.R. 434 and Tuscawilla Road. 2010 BE data for
the other zones within the region were taken from the OUA TS.
Test Highway Network - The 2010 test network was developed by the City in an attempt to
accommodate the type of2010 development described above and quantified with SE data in the
Appendix. This network incorporated all of the programmed improvements from the FDOT and
Seminole County as well as modifications to the 2010 Future Traffic Circulation Map (see
ill -29-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I.
I
I
l
I
Appendix) to respond to the change in land development assumptions and minimize the impact on
residential areas as provided for in the Transportation Goals, Objectives and Policies, previously
described. This test network is illustrated in Figure 7.
An analysis of the assignment of Year 2010 trips to this network is provided in Table 14. It is clear
that LOS D will be exceeded on some major segments and several transportation improvements are
required in the Winter Springs study area in order to satisfy future traffic demands. These needed
improvements are primarily on the arterial system and the responsibility for making most of these
improvements has been undertaken by either the Florida Department of Transportation or Seminole
County. However, this test assignment also indicates that some improvements are needed on the
local street system. These improvements are the responsibility of the City.
Final Transportation Plan
The results of the assignments to the Test Highway Network were analyzed in order to develop a
final plan that represents the roadway improvements required in the City of Winter Springs and the
study area by 2010 (see Figure 8). These include improvements committed to by FDOT (5 Yr. Plan),
those committed to by Seminole County and in the OUA TS 2010 update. These are shown in Table
6. Those improvements needed within the City Limits that are funded by sources other than the City
are shown in Table 15. Projects that are the City's responsibility are shown in Table 16.
Jll30-
I
I I u)
~z ~ c r-:
I z
I (1101)
^ VMl138 Ntl3.1SV3
I en en
w
en w z en
Z -<( w
w -<( -' z
Z ...J W :s
I -<(
-' 0:: w 0
x ~ ~ ~
0
Vi I.&..
I 0 I I I
z
w
I <.?
W
-'
J
I
I
ci
I 0::
ci w
a ::.:::
-<(
w -'
I ~ C>
-<(
-J ~
en
a
w
0::
J
"<t"
t'")
"<t"
Ii
vi
G6-L. L 'S-n
Conklin ~orter and Holmes
~ ~ IIlNOu.lurRSJ, INC.
11 ()4 ( ROOlN SOH STRtI"T
cm.ANDO. FtCR"O" J1001
1U.. -4{)7 .1=>-~2
(AX 407 ~......e-I030
SCALE.: N TS
DATE: 7-31-97
2010 TEST HIGHWAY NETWORK
WINTER SPRINCiS TRANSPORT A T10N STUDY
RGURE
7
JOB NO.: ~9.01
.- - - - - .... ..- - -- - - - - - - - - 8m!
TA13LEI4 (I or3)
YEAR 2010 ROADWA Y LINK LEVELS Or- SERVICE
WITH 2010 NETWORK
ROADWAY FROM TO NO. OF ROADWAY LOS'D MODEL VIC RATIO MODEL
LANES CLASS DAILY DAILY DAlL Y
CAPACITY VOLUME LOS
U.s. 17.92 S.R. 434 SHEPARD RD. 6 ARTERIAl.. 47,500 52,200 1.10 F
U.S. 17.92 SHEPARD RO. C.R. 419 6 ARTERIAl.. 47,500 55,200 1.16 F
S.R.04 U.S. 17-92 MOSS RD. 6 ARTERIAl.. 47,500 41,800 0.88 0
S.R.04 MOSS RD. C.R.419 ARTERIAL 31,100 26,900 0.87 0
S.R.04 C.R.419 TUSKAWILLA RD AR TERIAI.. 31,100 39,000 I.H F
S.R.04 TUSKAWILLA RD EASTERN BEL TW A Y AR TERIAI.. 31,100 42,800 1.38 F
S.R.419 U.S. 17-92 EDGEMON AVE. ARTERIAl.. 14,300 19,900' 1.39 F
S.R.419 EDGEMON AVE. S.R. 434 2 ARTERIAl.. 14,300 16,600 1.16 F
E. LAKE DRIVE SEMINOLA BLVD FISHER ROAD COLLECTOR 22,600 21,SOO 0.9S 0
E. l.AKE DRIVE FISHER ROAD TUSKAWILLA RD. COLLECTOR 22,600 22,600 1.00 0
TUSKAWILLA RD. REO BUG Ll( RD EAGLE BL YD. 6 ARTERIAl.. 47 ,500 39,500 0.83 0
TUSKAWILLA RO. EAGLE BLVD. E.LAKE DRIVE ARTERIAl.. 31,100 35,500 1.14 F
TUSKAWlllA RO, E. LAKE DRIVE WINTER SPGS. BLVD ARTER I AI.. 31,100 25,200 0.81 0
TUSKA WillA RO. WINTER SPGS BLVD TROTWOOD fiL VD ARTERIAL 31,100 20,700 0.67 C
TUSKAWlllA RO. TROTWOOD BLVD. S.R. 434 ARTERIAl.. 31,100 20,200 0.6S C
SHEPARD RD. U.S. 17-92 SHEOAH BLVD. COLLECTOR 10,200 11,200 1.10 E
SIIEPARD RD. SHEOAH BLVD. EDGEMON AVE. 2 COLLECTOR 10,200 7,900 0.78 0
SHEOAH BLVD. SHEPARD RO. S.R. 434 COLLECTOR 10,200 8,400 0.82 0
[lA/lAMA ROAD HAYES ROAD WINDING HOLLOW BL COLLECTOR 10,200 100 0.01 C
MOSS ROAD PANAMA ROAD DOLPHIN ROAD 2 . COLLECTOR 10,200 6,800 0.67 0
MOSS ROAI) DOLPHIN ROAD S.R. 434 COLLECTOR 10,200 7,300 0.72 D
11I.32
- .- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - .... IlIDZ!II
TABLE 14 (20f3)
YEAR 2010 ROADWAY LINK LEVELS OF SERVICE
WITH 2010 NETWORK
ROADW A Y FROM TO NO. OF ROADWAY LOS 0 MODEL VIC MODEL
LANES CLASS DAILY. DAILY RATIO DAlL Y
CAPACITY VOLUME LOS
MOSS ROAD S.R.434 C.R.419 4 COLLECTOR 22,600 14,100 0.62 D
NORTHERN WAY TROTWOOD BLVD TUSCORA DR.. 2 COLLECTOR 10,200 6,100 0.60 D
NORTHERN WA Y TUSCORA DR. VISTA VILLA DR. 2 COLLECTOR 10.200 3,200 0.31 C
NORTHERN WAY VISTA VILLA DR. WINTER SPG BLVD-E 2 COLLECTOR 10,200 3,600 0.35 C
NORTHERN WAY TROTWOOD BLVD WINTERSPG BLVD.S 2 COLLECTOR 10,200 2,500 0.25 C
NOltTHERN WAY WINTER SPG BLVD SHETLAND AVE. 2 COLLECTOR 10,200 3,600 0.35 C
NORTHERN WAY SHETLAND AVE. GREENBRIAR LN. 2 COLLECTOR 10,200 3,900 0.38 C
NORTHERN WAY GREENBRJAR LN. WINTER SPRG BLVD 2 COLLECTOR 10,200 2,200 0.22 C
TROTWOOD BLVD TUSKA WILLA RD. NORTHERN WAY 2 COLLECTOR 10,200 4,500 0.44 C
WINTER spa BLVD TUSKAWILLA RD. NORTHERN WAY 2 COLLECTOR 10,200 8,500 0.83 D
WINTER spa BLVD NORTHERN WAY GREENBRIAR LN. 2 COLLECTOR 10,200 5,600 0.55 D
WINTER spa BLVD GREENBRJAR LN. NORTHERN WAY 2 COLLECTOR 10,200 5.000 0.49 C
WINTER spa BLVD NORTHERN WAY NORTHER!'J WAY 3 COLLECTOR 12,000 11,100 0.93 D
WINTER spa BLVD NORTHERN WAY S.R. 426 4 COLLECTOR 22,600 11,900 0.53 D
PANAMA ROAD EDGEMON AVE. MOSS ROAD 2 COLLECTOR. 10,200 9,100 0.89 D
PANAMA ROAD MOSS ROAD SHORE ROAD 2 COLLECTOR 10,200 1,300 0.13 C
IIA YES ROAD BAHAMA ROAD DOLPHIN ROAD 2 COLLECTOR 10,200 2,000 0.28 C
HA YES ROAD DOLPHIN ROAD S.R.434 2 COLLECTOR 10,200 6,600 0.65 D
DOLPHIN ROAD MOSS ROAD HAYES ROAD 2 COLLECTOR 10,200 2,700 0.26 C
FISHER ROAD EAST LAKE DRJVE PANAMA ROAD 2 COLLECTOR 10,200 1,400 0.14 C
11/.33
- - - - - - - - -. - EIIIIilIIII
(3 of))
TABLE 14
YEAR 2010 ROADWA Y LINK LEVELS OF SERVICE
WITH 2010 NETWORK
ROADWAY FROM Tq NO. OF ROADWAY . LOS D MODEL VIC MODEL
LANES CLASS DAILY DAlLY RATIO DAlL Y
CAPACITY VOLUME LOS
TUSCORA DlUVE NORTHERN WAY S.R.434 2 COLLECTOR 10.200 2,700 . 0.27 C
VIST ^ WILLA DR. NORTHERN WAY S.R.434 2 COLLECTOR 10.200 4.000 0.39 C
GREENBRIAR LN. NORTHERN WAY WINTER SPRG BLVD. 2 COLLECTOR 10.200 1.500 0.15 C
DYSON DR. TUSCA WILLA RD. S HETLAND AVE. 2 COLLECTOR 10,200 2.600 0.26 C
SHETLAND AVE. RED BUO LAKE RD DYSON ORJYE 2 COLLECTOR 10.200 3,500 0.34 C
SHETLAND AVE. DYSON DRIVE NORTHERN WAY 2 COLLECTOR 10,200 5.000 0.49 C
EDGEMON AVE. SEM1NOLA BLVD PANAMA ROAD 2 COLLECTOR 10.200 9.100 0.89 D
EDGEMON AVE. SHEPARD ROAD S.R.419 2 COLLECTOR 10,200 4,300 0.42 C
EDGEMON AVE. S.R.434 SHEPARD ROAD 2 COLLECTOR 10,200 5,600 0.39 D
11I-34
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
f
I
I
I vi
~ z~ tr-:
I z
>-
~
w
~
w 0
(:> .........w
-<( -Ie.:> (TlOl)
Z -<
(/) ZZ
(/) (/) w < 00 ^ VMl.138 NtG.l.SV3 1
w
z (/) w ~ (/) 0:: z -1=
Z w Cl (/)()
-< w -< -I Z ......... 0
-I Z -I -< ii5 ow
-< W -I e.:> ~~ 31\'1
I- -I 0:: Z Z
:c ::> w 0 5 I:! ~NI~d
0 X 0 ~ ~ -<( x ~~
W U5 I.L. a.. W
. I I I I
. 1
i:i . 10-
z
w . 1
"
~ . I
-.t-
t<')
-.t-
Ii
vi
a::
c
w
~
<(
-J
ci
a:::
w
~
-<
-I
o
::>
CD
c
w
a:::
..
2'6'~ ...
<~ .
~.~ w
/) ... :I:
+
I')
"t
ci
-....;
Conklin ~orter and Holmea
ce ~ l!tJIQINURS, INC.
ll04 ( ROOHSCH SlR'O:'T
CY<\.N<DO. f'l.Cf1lOA =
TO.. 4()7 ..~
FAX ~ e.~10J0
SCALE: NTS
2010 NEEDED rMPROVEMENTS PLAN
WINTER SPRINGS TRANSPORT A 1l<:)N Sl1lOY
RGURE
8
DATE: 7-J1-97
.:os NO.: WO~9.01
TTl-J5
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
J
I
Table 15
CITY 2010 ROAD NEEDS
DEVELOPER AND OTHER FUNDING
(Inside City Limits)
Developer
1. Connect Shepard Road to Edgemon Avenue.
2. Improve Tuskawilla Road north ofS.R. 434 (formerly Brantley Avenue).
3. Improve Spring Avenue with drainage and paving improvements.
County
1. Improve Tuscawilla Road from two (2) lanes to four (4) lanes.
2. Improve Shepard Road to three (3) lanes from U.S. 17-92 to Sheoah Boulevard.
3. Improve East Lake Drive from two (2) lanes to four (4) lanes.
State
1. Improve U.S. 17-92 from Seminola Boulevard to S.R. 419 from four (4) lanes to eight (8)
lanes.
2. Improve S.R. 434 from U.S. 17-':)2 to Moss Road from five (5) lanes to seven (7) lanes.
3. . Improve S.R. 434 from S.R. 419 to Eastern Bel~y from four (4) lanes to six (6) lanes.
4. Improve S.R. 419 from S.R. 434 to U.S. 17-92 from two (2) lanes to four (4) lanes.
11l-36
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
J
I
I
I
t
I
~
Table 16
CITY 2010 ROAD NEEDS
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS FUNDING
Phase I
The following improvements should be undertaken by the City at the earliest possible date:
1. Improve Panama Road from Moss Road to Edgemon Avenue.
2. Improve Hayes Road north of Bahama Road to existing paving on Hayes.
3. Improve Moss Road from Panama Road north to existing paving on Moss Road.
4. Replace Hayes Road bridge.
5. . Replace Moss Road bridge.
Phase n
1. Paving and drainage improvements to Bahama Road from Shore Road to Hayes Road.
2. Paving and drainage improvements to Panama Road from Shore Road to Moss Road.
3. Paving and drainage improvements to fisher Road from Panama Road to City Limits.
4. Add stacking lanes to Hayes Road at the S.R. 434 intersection.
Phase In
1. Upgrade Moss Road from S.R. 434 to S.R. 419 from two lanes to four lanes.
Phase IV
1. Improve Winter Springs Boulevard to three lane capability from Northern Way to Northern
Way (east section). This will be accomplished by adding turn lanes at each intersection for
both traffic flow directions.
IlI-37
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I..
(
~
!
Table 16
(Continued)
New Traffic Signals
The following traffic signals on major intersections should be installed when warranted by using lTE
standards. Signals shall be constructed using County mast arm standards:
1. S.R. 434 & Tuscora Drive
2. S.R 434 & Vista Willa Drive
3. S.R 419 & Edgemon Avenue
4. S.R 419 & Moss Road
The following traffic signals on minor intersections should be installed when warranted by using ITE
standards. Signals shall be constructed using Seminole County mast arm standards:
1. . Moss Road & Dolphin
2. Winter Springs Boulevard & Northern Way (westernmost)
3. ~orthern Way & Shetland Avenue
4. Northern Way & Tuscora Drive
5. Northern Way & Vista Willa Drive
6. Trotwood Boulevard & Northern Way
7. Edgemon A venue & Shepard Road
8. Winter Springs Boulevard & Northern Way (easternmost)
1I1-38
I
I
CHAPTER IV
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
J
,
CONCURRENCY PLANNING
In 1985, the Florida Legislature adopted the "Growth Management Act," (Florida Statutes, Chp. 163)
to provide a framework for local governments to use as they develop or modify their long-range
Comprehensive Plans. One of the major provisions of this Act required local governments to insure
that the public facilities and services that are necessary to support development, be available
"concurrent" with the impacts of development. This means that all new development must be
located where existing services are available or where there are plans and funds to provide these
services. It is understood that the Winter Springs City Commission intends to pass a concurrency
management ordinance in compliance with this requirement.
OBJEC~OFTITISREVffiW
As of this date, the City of Winter Springs has not monitored traffic impacts from new development
since ~doption of the Comprehensive Plan; thus, approved (vested) development traffic mayor may
not be under the Level of Service (LOS) threshold established in the Comprehensive Plan. To
determine whether existing and committed (funded for construction within three years)
transportation facilities can accommodate existing and approved development, a comparison of
existing and committed traffic to adopted roadway capacities was accomplished. Since traffic
studies have not been required for new development, it was necessary to simulate this vested
(committed) traffic using traffic models calibrated for the City of Winter Springs (Chapter III).
These models require socioeconomic data by traffic zone for the existing plus committed (E+C)
development. This data was developed by the Consultant from data provided by the City (see Table
17), and the application of the model resulted in an assignment of E+C traffic to the system of
arterial and collector roads in the Winter Springs Area.
AVAILABLE CAPACITY
Since the traffic model results are in Average Daily Traffic (ADT), daily capacity was used for this
analysis. Peak hour traffic must be used in intersection analysis and for traffic impact studies (see
. following section). Where capacity is not available using ADT values, the applicant must show that
. peak hour traffic generated by the development will not cause any roadway link or intersection to
exceed the LOS provided for in the Comprehensive Plan (LOS D). /
Table 18 shows the status of each link in the City of Winter Springs as of the end of 1996. Those
links showing a negative "Available Capacity" will require widening before additional development
traffic can--..be accommodated. In some instances, it may be possible to accommodate the
development using a peak hour analysis which must be performed by the applicant. ADT traffic
IV- ]
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
J
J
I
I
values shown in Table 18 may be converting to peak hour using factors developed by FDOT' in their
derivation of LOS D Capacity.
Tbe information in Table 18 (as updated) may be given to development applicants. It is understood
that as developments are approved, the table should be updated by adding traffic (AD'!) obtained
from a Traffic Study Report. The table should be fully updated every two (2) years with new traffic
counts and E+C traffic either from the model or manually by deleting that portion of each project's
traffic that is builtout.
TRAFFIC IMP ACT REPORTS FOR CONCURRENCY AND MITIGA nON
It is the intent of the City Commission to responsibly monitor growth and development in order to
ensure that adequate public facilities are in-place to se:ve new development, and that such facilities
perform at adopted levels of service so defined in the City's Comprehensive Plan.
In order to assess and monitor the impact of new development and comply with concurrency
requirements, a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) is required for all new development, with the
exception of that provided by ordinance. The TlA will be used to determine the extent of site related
traffic improvements, mitigation for off-site improvements, and will be used as the basis for
concurrency determinations.
For proposed developments that will add 300 or more new Average Daily Traffic (AD'!) to adjacent
roads, the TlA will provide a comprehensive assessment of the development's impact on the
surrounding road system. For proposed developments that will add less than 300 new ADT, the TlA
shall provide information regarding the development's impact on access points onto the adjacent
street system.
All developments with more than 300 ADT (''New Trips") shall be required to demonstrate that the
additional vehicle trips generated by such development would not cause any road segment or
interSection within the distances shown""in Table 1 (primary impact area) to exceed the Levels of
Service (LOS) as specified in the Comprehensive Plan and under Objective D given in Chapter ill.
The primary impact area shall be determined by drawing a circle with a center point at the centerline
of each development's access point(s), using the appropriate radius as provided in Table 1 based on
. the estimated "New" ADT. Any arterial or collector intersection that is captpred within the primary
. impact area must be evaluated and shall be the starting point for a road segment that must also be
evaluated; except that any intersection which cannot be reached by normal driving practices on a
paved access from the development's access point may be excluded from the evaluation.
I Florida's Level of Service Standards and Guidelines Manual for Plannine, FDOT 1995
(or as updated), See Table E-l.
fY-2
----......~.....-....--...---_15!llIB
TABLE 17
H
<
I
W
October 1996 City of Winter Springs Existing Plus Committed Socioeconomics Data
Seminole Subzone Existing Exls~fng Existing Existing Existing Total School School
County Single Multi-Family Industrial Commercial Service Employment Enrollment Enrollment
Traffic Zone Family DU DU Emoloyment Emoloyment Emoloyment K-8 9-'12
70 71 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
776 60 0 0 0 0 0 0
72 72 113 0 0 0 0 0 0
778 468 0 0 0 15 15 0
82 82 1371 0 0 9 30 39 0
83 83 545 0 0 104 0 104 0
780 127 0 10 0 10 20 0
78.1 1005 0 0 30 0 30 0
782 129 0 0 0 0 0 0
84 84 92 0 72 0 57 139 0
783 243 460 166 10 54 230 2458
85 85 0 0 0 28 0 26 0
86 86 3 0 0 0 0 0 0
785 25 0 0 54 0 54 0 2715
87 87 260 0 0 6 72 78 0
786 473 0 0 0 0 0 0
787 557 0 0 0 0 0 0
88 88 130 0 0 0 11 11 0
788 498 0 0 0 0 0 0
789 103 0 0 0 0 0 0
89 89 170 0 0 3 8 11 0
90 90 370 0 0 11 55 86 0
790 447 .. 32 0 40 0 40 0
791 349 157 0 0 0 0 0
91 91 962 40 0 96 0 95 1280
92 92 633 392 6 124 369 499 0
93 93 2 0 412 8 27 447 0
94 94 461 622 1340 531 568 2439 815
95 95 350 1066 110 227 457 794 0
TOTALS: 9946 2769 2116 1281 1733 5157 4553 2715
- - - - -- - .... - - - - - - - - - -- GIll!
TABLE 18 (I of))
WINTER SPRINGS
E + C SYSTEM CAPACITY ANALYSIS
(A VERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC)
ROADWAY FROM TO NO. OF ROADWAY LOS D 1996 1996 E&C NEW AVAILABLE TRIPS
LANES CLASS DAILY COUNT COMMITTED TRAFFIC TRIPS CAPACITY THIS
(E & C) CAPACllY . (E) TRAFFIC SINCE PROJECT
(C) 1996
U.S. 17.92 S.R. 434 SHEPARD RD. 0 ARTERIAL 47,500 36,123 4,271 40,394 7. lea
U.S. 17.92 SHEPARD RD. C.R. 419 4 ARTERIAL 31,100 36,123 4,010 40,133 .9.035
S.R.434 U.S. 17.92 C.R. 419 4 ARTERIAL 31,100 24,842 3,996 28,890 2.2,10
S.R. 434 C.R.419 TUSKAWILLA RD 4 ARTERIAL 31,100 24,752 5,509 30,258 8044
S.R. 434 TUSKAWILlA RD EASTERN BELTwAY 4 ARTERIAL 31,100 16,552 7,478 24,030 7.070
S.R.41g U.S. 17.92 EDGEMON AVE. 2 ARTERIAL 14,300 15,553 2,541 18,094 3,7g2
S.R.41g EDGEMON AVE. S.R. 434 2 ARTERIAL 14,300 12,271 1,274 13,545 755
E. LAKE DRIVE SEMINOLA BLVD FISHER ROAD COLLECTOR 22,600 12,617 6,596 19.213 3.387
E. LAKE DRIVE FISHER ROAD TUSKAWILLA RD. 4 COLLECTOR 22,600 9,472 6,826 . 16,298 6,302
TUSKAWILLA RD. RED BUG LK RD EAGLE BLVD. 4 ARTERIAL 31,000 25,396 11,400 36,793 .5,4g3
TUSKAWILLA RD. EAGLE BLVD. E. LAKE DRIVE 4 ARTERIAL 31,100 24,573 10,470 35,043 -4.043
TUSKAWILLA RD. E. LAKE DRIVE WINTER SPGS. BLVD ARTERIAL 31,100 16,572 5,164 21.758 9.2044
TUSKAWILLA RD. WINTER SPGS BLVD TROTWOOD BLVD 4 ARTERIAL 31,100 16,071 2,374 18,441 12.559
TUSKAWILLA RD. TROTWOOD BLVD. S.R.434 4 ARTERIAL 31,100 12,058 2,289 14,327 16.673
SHEPARD RD. U.S. 17.92 SHEOAH BLVD. 2 COLLECTOR 10,200 3,081 80 3,141 7,059
SHEOAH BLVD. SHEPARD RD. S.R. 434 2 COLLECTOR 10,200 5,831 1,060 6,941 3.259
BAKMIA ROAD HAYES ROAD WINDING HOLLOW 2 COLLECTOR 10,200 Dirt NlA
BL
MOSS ROAD PANAMA ROAD DOLPHIN ROAD 2 COLLECTOR 10,200 Dirt NlA
MOSS ROAD DOLPHIN ROAD S.R. 434 2 COLLECTOR 10,200 4,707 608 5,315 4.885
IV-4
~ - ... - - -- -- ..... --- - .... - -.. ... ... -- -
-- ...
TABLE 18 (2 of 3)
WINTER SPRINGS
E + C SYSTEM CAPACllY ANALYSIS
(AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC)
ROADWAY FROM TO NO. OF ROADWAY LOSD 1996 1996 E&C NEW AVAILABLE TRIPS
LANES CLASS DAILY COUNT COMMITTED TRAFFIC TRIPS CAPACITY THIS
(E &C) CAPACITY (E) TRAFFIC SINCE PROJECT
(C) 1995
MOSS ROAD S.R. 434 C.R. 419 4 COLLECTOR 22,600 2,431 1,589 4,020 18.580
IIORTHERli WAY TROTWOOD BLVD TUSCORA DR. 2 COLLECTOR 10,200 2,500 84 2,584 7.515
NORTHERN WAY TUSCORA DR. VISTAVILLA DR. 2 COLLECTOR 10,200 2,500 900 3,400 . 5.800
IJORHIERN WAY TROTWOOD BLVD WINTER SPG BLVD-S 2 COLLECTOR 10,200 1,666 129 1,997 8.203
NORTHERN WAY WINTER SPG. BLVD SHETLAND AVENUE 2 COLLECTOR 10,200 2,736 1,572 4,304 5.896
NORTHERN WAY GREENBRLAR LN. WINTER SPRG BLVD 2 COLLECTOR 10,200 1,991 530 2,521 7.579
TROTWOOD BLVD TUSKAWILLA RD. NORTHERN WAY 2 COLLECTOR 10,200 4,121 906 5,027 5.173
WINTER SPG BLVD TUSKAWILLA RD. NORTHERN WAY 2 COLLECTOR 10,200 7,384 2,448 9,832 358
WINTER SPG BLVD NORTHERN WAY GREENBRIAR LN. 2 COLLECTOR 10,200 6,099 1,226 7,324 2.876
WINTER SPG BLVD NORTHERN WAY NORTHERN WAY 2 COLLECTOR 10,200 7,284 430 7,714 2.485
WINTER SPG BLVD NORTHERN WAY S.R. 428 4 COLLECTOR 22,600 12,260 301 12,561 10,039
PANAMA ROAD EDGEMON AVE. MOSS ROAD 2 COLLECTOR 10,200 DIRT NlA
PAIIAl/.A ROAD MOSS ROAD SHORE ROAD 2 COLLECTOR 10,200 DIRT NlA
HAYES ROAD BAHAMA ROAD DOLPHIN ROAD 2 COLLECTOR 10,200 DIRT NlA
HAYES ROAD DOLPHIN ROAD S.R. 434 2 COLLECTOR 10,200 3,381 460 364 6.359
DOLPHIN ROAD MOSS ROAD HAYES ROAD 2 COLLECTOR 10,200 241 35 276 9,924
FISHER ROAD EAST LAKE DRIVE PANAMA ROAD 2 COLLECTOR 10,200 1,287 218 1,485 8.715
IV-S
~
{tmll:l
--
-
~
-
lIDI
~
-
..
..
-
-
-
-
-
..
..
-
TABLE 18
WINTER SPRINGS
E + C SYSTEM CAPACllY ANALYSIS
(AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC)
(3 of 3)
ROADWAY FROM TO NO. OF ROADWAY LOS D 1996 1996 E&C NEW AVAILABLE TRIPS
LANES CLASS DAILY COUNT COMMITTED TRAFFIC TRIPS CAPACITY THIS
(E& C) CAPACITY (E) TRAFFIC SINCE PROJECT
(C) 1996
SHORE ROAQ PANAMA ROAD END 2 COLLECTOR 10.200 425 170 595 . Q.605
EAGLE RIDGE RD. BAHAA'A ROAD S.R.434 2 COLLECTOR 10,200 NOT OPEN
TUSCORA DRIVE NORTHERN WAY S.R. 434 2 COLLECTOR 10,200 765 2,127 2,692 7.308
VIST AWILLA DR. NORTHERN WAY S.R. 434 2 COLLECTOR 10,200 1,410 174 1,564 8.616
GREEtlBRLAR LN. NORTHERN WAY WINTER SPRG BLVD. 2 COLLECTOR 10,200 1,141 20 1,161 Q,OJQ
DYSON OR. TUSCAWILLA RD. SHETLAND AVE. 2 COLLECTOR 10,200 3,262 281 3,543 6.657
SHETLAND AVE. DYSON DRIVE NORTHERN WAY 2 COLLECTOR 10.200 4.474 125 4,599 5,601
EDGEMON AVE. E. LAKE DRIVE MOSS ROAD 2 COLLECTOR 10,200 2.774 49 2.823 7,377
EDGEMON AVE. SHEPARD ROAD S.R.419 2 COLLECTOR 10,200 2,480 365 2,845 7,355
IV-6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
r
I
I
TABLE 19
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS
PRIMARY IMPACT AREA
FOR
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS (TIA)
(DEVELOPMENTS WITH 300 OR MORE ADT)
DAILY NEW TRIPS (ADTY
GENERA TED
PRIMARY IMPACT AREA
(RADIUS)
300-1500
1501-5000
5001-10,000
10,001 +
~-mile
1 mile
2 miles
3 miles
..
2Total and "Passer-by" trips to be determined from the latest edition of Trip Generation,
Institute of Transportation Engineers or "M.icrotrans" software (Equations if available). "New
Trips" include trips ends above those generated by existing use (parcel must be occupied within
last 5 years to qualify as existing) less "passer-by" trips.
fV-7
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Definitions
The following terms are used to help specify the procedures necessary for the TIA:
Methodology Meeting - This is a meeting with the City of Winter Springs Staff to discuss the
methodology that will be used to prepare the TIA. This meeting is strongly recommended for
projects where the trip generation will be over 300 new daily (ADT). It is also suggested for projects
where new trip generation is under 300 ADT.
Intersection Analysis - Analysis of the Level of Service (LOS) of the intersection using the
"Operations Analysis" as defined by the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual (or latest edition).
Site-Related Road Improvements - These are road capital improvements and right-of-way
dedications for direct access improvements to the development in question. These include, but are
not limited to:
1. Site Driveways and Roads;
2. Median cuts made necessary by such driveways or roads;
3. Right and left turn deceleration or acceleration lanes, leading to or from those
driveways or roads;
4. Traffic control measures for those driveways or roads;
5. Access or frontage roads not considered in impact fee calculations; and
6. Roads or intersection improvements whose primary purpose at the time of
construction is to provide access to the development.
J
J
I
I
I'
I
Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis - This is an analysis of the project's site(s) to verify whether a traffic
signal will be required. It shall include, at a minimwn, an investigation of Traffic Signal Warrants
No; 1,2,9 and 11 from the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), latest edition.
This analysis may not be required if it can be shown that the traffic volumes are too low.to warrant
such analysis. The need for such analyses should be determined in the Methodology Meeting.
Turn Lane - This means the width of pavement required to protect the health, safety and welfare of
the public and reduce adverse traffic impacts from turning movements, generated by a development
onto and off of a street. Such turn lanes would include separate left-turn, right-turn deceleration
lanes, right-turn free-flow traffic lanes, and right-turn acceleration lanes.
Traffic Generating Development - Land development designed or intended to permit a use of the
land which will contain more dwelling units or floor space than the existing use of the land, or to
otherwise change the use of the. land in a manner that increases the generation of vehicular traffic.
Trip End - A one-way movement of vehicular travel from an origin (one trip end) to a destination
(the other trip end). For the purpose of this requirement, "trip" shall have the meaning which it has
fY-8
I
I
in commonly accepted traffic engineering practice.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Trip Generation - Tbe attraction and/or production of trips caused by a given type of land
development, as documented in the current Institute of Transportation Engineers (lTE) "IriJ2
Generation" publication, or as calculated using the computer software "Microtrans."
Traffic Modeling - Tbe application of a series of mathematical formulae, converted to computer
software, for the purpose of estimating trip generation, trip distribution and traffic assignment to a
system of transportation facilities. Such models, calibrated for Winter Springs, currently in use by
Seminole County, or by the Orlando Urban Area Transportation Study (OUATS), may be acceptable
if approved for use in the Methodology Meeting. Other such models will require documentation of
their appropriate application in the Winter Springs area.
Pm:pose .of TIA
The TIA is to identify transportation related impacts on the roadway that are likely to be generated
by a specific proposed development because of type, size, density, trip generation or location. The
TIA will identify access improvements, near-site improvements, and on-site improvements. The
. improvements are defined as follows:
1. Access Improvements
Road improvements necessary to provide safe and adequate ingress and egress and
for efficient operations. Access improvements include but are not limited to the
following:
I
I
a.
b.
Right-of-way easements;
Left and right turn lanes;
Acceleration and deceleration lanes;
Traffic control devices, signage and markings; and
Drainage and utilities as they relate to transportation improvements.
c.
d.
e.
I
2.
Near-Site Improve~ents
I
I
I
I'
f
Off-site or near-site improvements may be required in addition to impact fees to
satisfy concurrency requirements within the primary impact area.
3.
On-Site Improvements
Road and parking improvements located within the boundaries of the specific parcel
proposed for development and road improvements which provide direct access (turn-
lane, tapers, signalization, etc.) and right-of-way dedication are deemed to be totally
the responsibility of the developer and exclusive of the transportation impact fee.
On-site circulation and parking issues will also be addressed including traffic
rv-9
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I.
I
I
I
I
I
I
controls, pavement markings and traffic safety.
Content of TlA
A TIA shall be prepared by a qualified Transportation Engineer pursuant to an acceptable
methodology of transportation planning and engineering procedures. It is understood that the report
and/or recommendations would be sealed by a professional engineer, registered in the State of
Florida. The expense of preparing the TIA is to be borne solely by the Owner/Developer. The TIA
shall be reviewed for accuracy and content by the City or its representative prior to acceptance. Cost
of such review shall be borne solely by the Owner/Developer.
The TIA shall include the following items and describe the methodology, practices and principles
utilized in determining the findings and recommendations:
Requirements ofTIA with less than 300 new daily trips. The following shall be provided in letter
form with Engineer's seal and appropriate backup tables:
a. Number of units (i.e. dwelling units, square feet, etc.);
b. Description of development and lTE category for trip generation;
c. Trip end rates, or equations (to be used if available) used to generate the traffic, and the
source of this information (use of the ITE Trip Generation Manual, latest edition is required
unless otherwise approved or required by the City);
d. Total trips generated for the Average Daily Traffic (ADT) and the A.M. and 'P.M. peak
hours. (The peak hour for adjacent street traffic is usually the most appropriate peak hour
to use);
e. An analysis check if turn lanes, traffic signals, or other site related improvements will be
required at the project access points and roads. Turn lane warrants prescribed at the end of
this chapter are required. Turn lane design and length of storage lanes shall be based on
calculated "queue" length and shall conform to FDOT Roadway and Traffic Design
Standards (latest edition).
f. Sight distance trianglei' shall be plotted and included on site plans bein~ reviewed with this
TIA. Limitation and restrictions within the sight distance triangle shall be identified and
removed if contained on the property of the applicant.
JUse Index Nos. 545 and 546 ofFDOT Roadway and Traffic Design Standards (latest
edition) or alternative approved by the City.
fV-IO
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TIA Requirements for Developments with 300 or More New Daily Trips - In addition to the
information listed above for projects generating less than 300 new trips, the following shall be
provided:
1. Existing Conditions:
a. General Site Description - A detailed description of the proposed development
including site location, type of development, projected construction completion date,
and phasing. This section shall also provide a description of the roadway network
for the area under study, right-of-way and pavement widths, signal locations and
slgnage.
b. Discussion of Standards and Analysis Techniques - A detailed discussion of the
proposed analysis methodology, including intersection analysis, roadway capacities
and service volumes.
c. Analysis of Existing Condltions - For all roadways and intersections within the
subject area, the existing average daily traffic, and peak hour traffic volumes shall be
reported, and roadway link analysis and intersection analysis provided. The peak
hour of the generator (development) should be provided as it relates both to the A.M.
and P.M. peak hour of the adjacent street. This discussion should occur at the
methodology meeting and an agreed peak hour(s) determined for the TIA.
I
d.
Programmed Improvements - The analysis shall indicate any programmed
transportation improvements funded for the primary impact area A programmed
improvement is one that has been funded and is contained in a.work program. The
analysis shall indicate what program improvements are assumed in the analysis.
Programmed improvements expected to be under contract more than three (3) years
following the Certificate of Occupancy of this development shall not be used to
determine concurrency.
I
I
I
I
Statement of Project Trip Generation Characteristics - This shall indicate the project's trip
generation characteristics in terms of daily and peak hour generation. Full documentation shall be
provided if the trip generation rate utilized is other than that shown in the most recent ITE Trip
Generation Manual.. Such documentation shall be provided at the methodology meeting and
subsequently approved by the City prior to use. Special trip generation studies may be appropriate;
however, specific procedures, number of studies and location shall be reviewed and concurred in by
the City.
I
I
I
I
Statement of Background Traffic - The analysis shall include background traffic on the adjacent
roadway network. This shall include current traffic counts as well as projection of this base line
traffic to the occupancy date and/or concurrency date. All such growth factors require
documentation and justification. They should be discussed and agreed on at the Methodology
IV-II
I
I
I
Meeting.
I
I.
Statement of Trip Distribution and Assignment - The TlA shall provide projected trip distribution
with appropriate justification and documentation. The distribution of traffic approaching the
development shall either be based on demographic data, current turning movements in the area, or
"gravity model." The procedure to be included should be discussed and documented in the
Methodology Meeting. The project traffic shall be shown and superimposed over the background
volumes with totals indicated in map and/or table format. ADT and peak hour are required on all
links.
I
I
I
I
I
Traffic Impact Analyses - All analyses shall be on a peak hour basis. For intersection and driveway
analyses, turning movements will be required for a LOS analysis. Highway capacity manual
software (HCS or equivalent to be agreed at methodology meeting) would be used for intersection
and driveway access points. Link analysis shall be performed using software available from FDOT
and described in Florida's Level of Service Standards and Guidelines Manual for Planning.
Driveway access points as well as intersections within the primary impact area shall be evaluated for
the Levels of Service indicated in the traffic element of the City's Comprehensive Plan. Critical
intersections to be analyzed shall be agreed to in the Methodology Meeting. At a "minimum, all
signalized intersections in the primary impact area shall be analyzed. In addition, a roadway link
analysis using the FDOT software shall be developed for all impacted (more than 30 new peak hour
trips) roadways shown in the City's Comprehensive Plan and located within the primary impact area.
I
Tables and figures shall include but not be limited to the following:
TABLES
I
I
1.
Proposed Land Use by Phase, Type and Size;
2.
Passerby and/or Diverted Traffic Percentages by Phase and Land Use;
I
3.
Daily Trip Generation by Phase, Land Use, and Size with New Trips and
Passerby/Diverted Trips Separated;
I
I
I
I
I
4.
Peak Hour Trip Generation in the Same Categories as Daily Trip Generation;
and
5.
Trip Distribution - Percentages Approaching the Site hy Direction.
FIGURES
1.
Vicinity Map Showing Site;
2.
Existing Traffic Counts by Link (ADT and Peak Hour);
IV-12
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
3. Post-Development Peak Hour Traffic (Turning Movements) - Project and
Total Traffic Separated;
4. Post-Development Daily Traffic; and
5. Recommended Improvements (either listed and described, in table format, or
on a drawing).
Traffic count summary documents and other reference material should be included in a Report
Appendix.
Conclusions and Recommendations - The report shall contain recommended improvements and
mitigating measures made necessary by the proposed development, including but not limited to:
a. Road Widening;
b. Provision of tuniing, acceleration and deceleration lanes;
c. Signalization;
d. Regulatory Signage; and
e. New Roadway Construction.
I
I
While the payment of impact fees is presumed to mitigate off-site impacts, programmed
improvements (three years) may not be sufficient to accommodate the traffic impact of the project,
thus violating concurrency requirements contained in the Comprehensive Plan. It will be encumbent
upon the applicant to identify such intersections and links of the roadway system where Level of
Service standards will be violated at project buildout, or where improvements are planned three years
from the occupancy date of the development. It is understood that. in those developments which are
not to be occupied within one year. growth of background traffic before Levels of Service are tested
is required.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
lV-I3
I
@
i
TURN LANE POLICY
I
I
LEFT TIJRN LANES
1. A left turn lane on the major cross street will be required when any two (2) or more of the
following warrants are satisfied:
I
I
I
I
a.
Posted speed limit is equal to or greater than thirty-five (35) mph.
b.
Number of Left Turn Movements
I. On multi-lane fa~ilities, the number of left turning vehicles from the major
roadway is equal to or ~ater than fifteen (15) during either the A.M. or PlM. .
peak hour of the major street.
2. On two (2) lane two-way facilities, the number of left turning vehicles from
the major roadway is equal to or greater than ten (10) and the opposing
through traffic volume exceeds three hundred and fifty (350) vehicles during
either the A.M. or P.M. peak hour.
c. Available Sight Distance
If the available sight distance for left turning vehicles to observe approaching traffic
or for approaching traffic moving in either direction to observe the left turning
vehicle is less than the value shown in Table A-I for the posted speed of the major
street.
d. Access Control
1. The street has been designated as a controlled access facility by Seminole
County, FDOT, or the City of Winter Springs.
2. The roadway is a multi-lane divided facility and there is sufficient room in
the median to allow construction of a left turn lane.
e.
Traffic Control
The intersecting minor street or access point driveway is controlled by a traffic signal.
2. Separate lefttum lanes are required on the intersecting minor streets or access point
driveways when any two (2) or more of the following warrants are satisfied:
IV-14
I
I
a.
Posted Speed Limit
I
I
I
I
I
I
When the posted speed limit of the intersecting street or access point driveway is
equal to or greater than thirty (30) mph.
b.
Number of Turning Vehicles
When the number of left turning vehicles from the intersecting street or access point
driveway is equal to or greater than sixty (60) vehicles during either A.M. or P.M.
peak hour of the arterial street.
c.
Available Sight Distance
Available sight distance is not. an applicable warrant in this case:
d.
When the street which is being entered has been designated as a controlled access
facility by Seminole County, FDOT, or the City of Winter Springs.
e. Traffic Control
When the intersecting street or access point driveway is controlled by a traffic signal.
DECELERA DON AND RIGHT TURN LANES
1. A deceleration and right turn lane on the major street will be required when any two (2) or
more of the following warrants are satisfied:
a. Posted major street speed limit is equal to or greater than forty (40) mph.
b. Number of right turning movements from the major roadway is equal to or greater
than thirty (30) during either the A.M. or P.M. peak hour of the major street.
c. A vail~ble Sight Distance
If the available sight distance for a right turning vehicle to be seen .by through traffic
traveling in the same direction is less than the value showri in Table A-I for the
posted speed limit of the major street.
d. Major street has been designated.as a controlled access facility by Seminole County,
- FDOT, or the City of Winter Springs.
rv-IS
e. Traffic Control
Intersecting street or access point driveway is controlled by a traffic signal.
2. Separate right turn lanes are required on a minor intersection street or access point driveway
whenever any two (2) or more of the following warrants are satisfied:
a. Posted speed limit of the intersecting or access point driveway is equal to or greater
than thirty (30) mph.
b. Number of right turning vehicles from the intersecting street or access point driveway
is equal to or greater than sixty (60) during either the A.M. or P.M. peak hour of the
major street.
c. Available sight distance is not an applicable warrant in this case.
d. Access Control
If the arterial street which is being entered has been designated as a controlled access
facility by Seminole County, FDOT, or the City of Winter Springs.
e. Traffic Control
1. Intersecting street or access point driveway is controlled by a traffic signal.
2. An acceleration lane is provided on the arterial street and the right turn
movement is not controlled by a yield or stop sign.
rv-16
D
I
I
I
!
I
I
I
I
f
I
TABLE 20
SIGHT DISTANCE FOR TURN LANE POLICY
(Rounded Values)
POSTED SPEED (1\1PH)
20
30
40
50
60
STOPPING SIGHT DISTANCE
Minimum (FT) 125 200 275 400 525
Desirable (FT) 200 250 375 475 650
[V-17
- ---
TABLE A-1
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS
PU.BLlC WORKS - LOCAL OPTION GAS TAX
PROPOSED PROJECT EXPENDITURES BY YEAR
Project Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Total Prior
Project Name Number ' 97/98 98/99 99/00 00/01 01/02
Wagners Curve Removal 97~411-062 $80.000 $80 000
Public Works Compound 99-4411-063 $60 000 $60,000 $60 000 $60 000 $240,000
ResurfacinQ 98-4411-064 $150000 $150000 $150,000 $150000 $150000 $750000
Underdrains 98-4411-065 $50 000 $50.000 $50 000 $150000
TOTAL , $280 000 $210000 $260,000 $210000 $260,000 $1,220000 $0
.
,
PROPOSED PROJECT REVENUE SOURCE BY YEAR
).
"0
"0
"
::J
"'-
::;.
Project Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Total Prior
Revenue Source Number 97/98 98/99 99/00 00/01 01102
Local Option Gas Tax 97 -4411-062 $80.000 $80 000
Local Option Gas Tax 99-4411-063 $60 000 $60,000 $60 000 $60 000 $240 000
Local Option Gas Tax 98-4411-064 $150000 $150000 $150,000 $150000 $150,000 $750 000
Local Option Gas Tax 98-4411-065 $50 000 $50 000 $50,000 $150000
TOTAL $280 000 $210,000 $260 000 $210000 $260,000 $1.220000 $0
PROPOSED EQUIPMENT EXPENDITURES BY YEAR
Project \ Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Total Prior
Equipment Name Number 97/98 98/99 99/00 00/01 01/02 .
Vehicle 98-4411-066 $26,000 $20 500 $21 000 $67 500
TOTAL $26 000 $20 500 $0 $21 000 $0 $67 500 $0
PROPOSED EQUIPMENT REVENUE SOURCE BY YEAR
Project ; Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Total Prior
Revenue Source Number " 97/98 98/99 . 99/00 00/01 01/02
Local Option Gas Tax 98-4411-066 $26.000 $20 500 $21 000 $67 500
ITOTAL $26.000 $20 500 $0 $21 000 $0 $67 500 $0
~
smw:a
-
-
.....
....
-
-
B!
t1e
TABLE A-2
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS
LOCAL OPTION GAS TAX
Historical Data
FY 91 FY 92 FY 93 FY 94 FY95 FY96 FY97 FY 98 FY 99 FY 2000
TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT FUND ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET PROJECTION PROJECTION PROJECTION
REVENUES:
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVENUES $268,779 $245,312 $237,753 $205,765 $221,816 $224,256 $245,644 $257,926 $270,822 528~.363
INTEREST '$35,483 $31,427 S13,261 S26,604 $30.451 S17,OOO S25,000 S20,000 520.000 520.000
MISCELLANEOUS $0 SO SO so so so so so 50 SO
TOTAL REVENUES $304,262 S276,739 $251,01<4 $232,369 $252.267 $241 ,256 S270,644 S277,926 5290.822 530~.363
PERCENT INCREASE 5.14% -9.05% -9.30% .7.43% 8.56% -4.36% 10.11% 4.62% 4.6,(% ~.66'1o
> RECURRING EXPENSES: $30,073 $19,901 $24.913 $28,556 $96,028 $197,500 $50,000 575,000 $75,000 575,000
"tJ
"tJ
g RECURRING CAPITAL OUTLAY $165,872 $366,256 $228,259 $0 $355.147 $344,804 $258,050 $250,000 $200.000 5200.000
P-
t"":.
'1
,'-'
TOTAL EXPENSES $195,945 $386,157 $253.172 $28,556 $451,175 $542,304 $308,050 $325.000 $275.000 5275.000
PERCENT INCREASE 3.74% 97.07% -34.44% -88.72% 1479.97% 20.20% -43.20% 5.50'10 -15.38% 0.00%
REVENUES OVER (UNDER) EXPENSES $108,317 ($109,418) ($2,158) 5203,813 ($198,908) ($301,048) ($37,406) ($47,074) $15,822 529.363
BEGINNING FUND BALANCE $505,352 $613,669 $504,251 $502,093 $705,906 $506,998 $205.950 $168,544 5121.470 5137.292
ENDING FUND BALANCE $613,669 $504,251 $502,Q93 $705,906 $506,998 $205,950 $168,544 $121.470 $137.292 5166.655
------IK2IB~
------~-..IZBil2~
TABLE A-4
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS
FINAL BUDGET FIGURES
TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEES
REVENUES & EXPENDITURES (UNAUDITED)
Description of Revenue
TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE FUND
Impact Fees Collected '
Interest Earned
Amended *To Dale
FY 95/96 FY 96/97 FY 96/97
Actual Budget Actua"
$282,993 $310,436 $158,121
$91 ,583 $50,900 $39,903
$374,576 $361,336 $198,024
$0 $1 ,470,164 $268,765
$374,576 $1 ,831,500 $466,789
TOTAL TRANSP. IMPACT FEE REVENUE
APPROPRIATION FROM FUND BALANCE
TOTAL TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE REVENUES
.f; AND APPROPRIATION FROM FUND BALANCE
u
9
~ Account No. Description of Expenditure
1. TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE FUND
53180 Consulting Services
54620 Signalization
56310 Capital Improvements
56930 Reserves
$92,613 $107,000 $77,111
$0 $21,000 $0
$0 $1,703,500 $399,678
$0 $0 SO
$92,613 $1,831,500 $466,789
$281 ,963 $0 SO
$374,576 $1,831,500 $466,789
TOTAL EXPENDITURES
APPROPRIATION TO FUND BALANCE
TOTAL EXPENSE AND APPROPRIATION
TO FUND BALANCE
CHANGE IN FUND BALANCE
FUND BALANCE - October 1,'.
Appropriations to (from) Fund Balance
FUND BALANCE - September 30,
. To Date: 4/15/97
$1,874,226
$281,963
$2,156,189
$2,156,189
($1,470,164)
$686,025
$2,156,189
($268,765 )
$1 ,887,424
-6
-g
3..
~.
X
I
V'
-
--w.........._..__.......
TAilLE A-5
-
October 1996 City of Winter Springs Existing Socioeconomics Data
Seminole Subzone Existing Existing Existing Existing Existing Total School School
County Single Multi-Family Industrial Commercial" Service Employment Enrollment Enrollment
Traffic Zone Family DU DU Emoloyment Emoloyment Emoloyment K-8 9-12
.,
70 71 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
776 60 0 0 0 0 0 0
72 72 113 0 0 0 0 0 0
778 454 0 0 0 15 15 0
82 82 1132 0 0 9 30 39 0
83 83 545 0 0 104 0 104 0
780 120 0 10 O. 10 20 0
781 940 0 0 30 0 30 0
782 129 0 0 0 0 0 0
84 84 44 0 72 0 67 139 0
783 243 388 166 10 54 230 2450'
85 85 O. 0 0 26 0 26 0
86 86 3 0 0 0 0 0 0
, 785 25 0 0 54 0 54 0 2715
87 87 97 0 0 6 72 78 0
786 473 0 0 0 0 0 0
787 370 0 0 0 0 0 0
88 88 20 0 0 0 11 11 0
788 477 0 0 0 0 0 0
789 103 0 0 0 0 0 0
89 89 156 0 0 3 8 11 0
90 90 359 0 0 11 55 66 0
790 441 32 0 40 0 40 0
791 227 157 0 0 0 0 0
91 91 955 40 0 96 0 96 1200
92 92 633 392 6 124 304 434 0
93 93 2 0 412 8 27 447 0
94 94 449 622 1340 531 568 2439 815
95 95' 327 796 110 227 457 794 0
TOTALS: 8897 2427 2116 1279 1678 5073 4465 27'15
f
r
6,
------amdlml
TABLE A-6
City of Winter Springs 2010 Socioeconomics Data Projections
Seminole Subzone Existing Existing Existing Existing Existing Total School School
County Single Mull/-Family Industrial Commercial Service Employment Enrollment Enrollment
Traffic Zone Family DU DU Employment Employment Emolovment K-8 9-12
70 71 62 100 0 100 0 100 0
776- 118 40 0 100 0 100 0
72 72 346 0 0 640 0 1328 0
778 468 0 0 0 30 30 0
82 82 1371 16 0 9 30 39 0
83 83 585 0 0 104 0 104 0
780 127 0 15 0 325 340 0
781 1031 0 0 30 0 30 0
782 129 0 0 0 0 0 0
84 84 92 0 72 0 67 139 0
783 243 460 166 10 54 230 2458
85 85 31 0 26 1080 72 1178 0
86 86 89 140 12 100 0 112 0
785 107 106 0 54 0 54 0 2715
87 87 260 0 0 6 11 17 0
786 473 0 0 0 0 0 0
787 557 0 161 0 11 172 0
88 88 130 0 0 0 8 8 0
788 498 0 0 0 0 0 0
789 103 0 0 0 0 0 0
89 89 170 0 0 0 8 8 0
90 90 370 0 0 11 55 66 0
790 447 32 0 63 0 63 0
791 349 157 0 0 0 0 0
91 91 962 40 86 96 65 182 1200
92 92 633 392 213 124 369 706 0
93 93 2 _0 1344 8 27 1379 0
94 94 461 622 1340 531 568 2439 1000
95 95 350 1066 695 227 457 1379 0
TOTALS: 10564 3171 4130 3293 2157 10203 4658 2715
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE A-7
WINTER SPRINGS
TRAFFlC ZONE CONVERSION
INDEX
Planning Data
Zone (Fi gure 4)
Assignment
Zone
71
776
72
778
82
83
780
781
782
84
783
85
86
785
87
786
787
88
788
-.-789
89
90
790
791
91
92
93
94
95 ..
150
150
148
149
97
98
147
96
190
151
146
152
187
192
153
191
144
99
100
46
45.
143
6
14
3
4
5
1
2
Appendix-7
I
I
0
I a 0
0
I
I
I
~
SEE FIGURE 4
WINTER SPRINGS ZONES
.,1)
/'/
/
.(
~
IJ1J1ff-
LEGEND 48
j
-. SiOOY AREA BOt.t<OARY.
-.-. MJCRo-ZONE BOUNDARY
32 MJCRo-ZONE NU.A:8ER 50
62
-..
MICRO-ZONE SYSTEM
FIGURE A:"1
Source: Casselberry Transportation Plan by Foxworth, Swift and Associates.
;>.ppendix-8 .
11
-r
V If)
I u) 0 -r <0
~z ~ --C r-: -t" ;;:;-+-
I 'z <0 ",'Jo.
If) L()
t') '-t" "
""f"
I t')
01 L() L()
0 '-t" r--
~
-t" .-
~JID ,.I(~
I <0 ,.1(.....
<0
r--
I
I
I
( IX)
0
~
-~
r ~
.-
r (ID- Ol
1'1
C'l 0 0
t') ~-
'-t"
Ol
~
"}
r--
01
0
/ .- r-.
/ 0 (Q
./ "
~ <'.(', ~ 0
I 6'~, Z90 ~ ~
;;:; " .-
1'1 S~ 8........
"
~~
ConkJln
~[p
~ort.r and Holm..
Il)fQlJ(J[lUt., INC.
110-4 ( ~ S(:N STRt:["T
~ I1..C>llDA Jzro>
m ..:)7 '7:>-~
rA.1' .o..Q7 ~10.)6
SCALE: NTS
1996 TRAFRc ASSlGNMENT NETWORK
NODAL MAP.---
\VlNTER SPR1NGS TRANSPoRT A noN STUDY
RGURE
A=2
DATE: 8-20-97
JQ3 NO.: W0-l59.01
I ..
~ e ~ 1
, ~ Co, l 2
, z ~
I ~ ') ~~ ~~ (2 i= ~
i: :z: 2= c '1
2 -< u ~g 3 ~
~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ u t ~_
~ ?:: ~ >- ~
Bl ~ t ~ ~. ~~ .
~ a ~o ~o '" .
-< z .w ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~.u~~ W ~
:l< 8 ;;~ d t 'I ~ ~ !i Qt 3
I Q "- .. 2
0 I j ~ I I ~ ~~~~~n b
a: 0 ~ .. !:
0 ~ ~ ~ ~ i
:z "- i= -< -< -< u u :./~
i= ~ U U al
tn ~ Z z a...~o::~~8 ::l ........8
I 13 => 2 =>
tn ::> U fl -.r 0
'--' z
I
(J)
I 00
z-o...
ceLL-<={
o...LL::2
I (J)~
cel-z ~
wwO
~o:f-
I -;:):)
3:!:)::)
LLLL 0
I 000:
~~o
0
I
I .....
j
~
~
\
I
I
I
L.
ConJcJln ~orter and Holmes
~ rP IlHQlNJU[RS, INC.
1 J (\.4 E RCO NSl:::Ji S'TRE!:T
C<<l.N<OO. f1.CR:OA JZOJ1
TU +07 .rr-~1
rA::t. 4.07 e4-0-lo..3O
D
S
I - a ~
--=;;C-ZI ~ 3
B i
SCALE: NTS
D^TE: 5-22-97
TEST HIGHVv' A Y NE1WORK
WlNTER SPRiNGS TRANSPoRT A TlON STUDY
RGURE
A-3
.:os NO.: ~9.01
I
, I vi
----:c- t '- =f ~
z
I
I <0
<0
l'-
I
I l'-
co
l'-
I
f
I
'to
lI)
0 -r to
"<t" "'.... ;;:;~
to
li) li)
t') "<t" "
"<t"
10
Ol l(J li)
0 "<t" l'-
,....
"<t" ~jID ,....
~
~
IX)
o
<~"
~ 0.9
~J.VX~
...,.. ./
..-/' I
/' r
I
I
I
..-1 co
~I "<t"
... -~
10
I<)
o
10
...,..
o
~-
Ol
~
~
t')
o
..-
..-
l'-
~~
g60~ l'-
(])
/C60 0
.... ,....
/ ~ <0
~ ...- l'-
OLn ~ 0
..-
I 6'.9~} Zgo ~ ~
U1 l'-
10 ~l b........
,....
COnkHn ~ortGr and Holm..
~ ~ IDIQlNJDrn~, IJ(C.
O ltO-t ( 1tCIOO'(~ sntt:rT
~f\.~""'~
TU 4C7 4~
FA..X +07 ~lc..\O
SCAlE; NTS
2010 TRAFRC ASSiQ..lMENT NElWORK
NODAL MAP.
VYlNTER SPRINGS TRANsPoRTATION STUDY
RGURE
A-4
DATE: 6-20-97
JOe NO.; ~9.01
-
-
-
-
-
...
. .
. . .' . . i.. I. .
. .
778 Tuscawilla Unit 11 66 .
778 Chelsea Woods 321
778 Bear Creek Estates 67
778 Chestnut Estates Ph. 1 & 2 37 14
491 0 0 0 14 0 0 0
72 Ea~les Watch Ph. 1 & 2 57 53
72 Howell Creek Ph. 1 & 2 56 100
72 Tuscawllla Tract 15 Parcel 3 80
113 0 0 0 233 0 0 0
82 Tuscawilla Unit 11 B 28
82 Tuscawilla Unit 12 90
82 Arrowhead Unit 1 (Parcels 3 4 5) 0 11
82 Fairway Oaks 72
82 Woodstream (Arrowhead Unit 5) 32 56
82 Greenbriar Phase 1 86
82 GreenbrIar Phase 2 34 81
82 Chesea Pare Phase 2 36
82 Chelsea Pare Pha~e 3(Fox Glen) 11 51
82 Chelsea Pare Phase 4 40
82 Bentley Green 44
82 Bentley Club 41
82 Glen Eaqle Units 1 2 & 3 257
82 Carrlnqton Woods 76
82 Davenport Glen 70
82 Chestnut Ridge 52
82 Tuscawllla Unit #13 39
82 Braewick 85
82 Tuscawllla Unit 7 79
1132 0 0 0 239 0 0 0
mal
tLm:U
"/
------...------.....RD
'. . . . '. . . .
. .
. .
. .
. .
783 Tuscawilla Unit 8 78 .
783 Tuscawilla Unit 9 & 9B 164
783 Casa Park Villas 316
783 Tuscany Place 72 72
783 Indian Trails Middle School 1
783 Keeth Elementarv 1
242 388 2 0 0 72 0 O.
84 The Reserve at Tuscawilla 44 48
44 0 0 0 48 0 0 0
83 Tusca Oaks Phase 1 & 2 98 40
83 Wedoewood TennIs Villas 233
83 Georoetown Units 1 2 & 3 214
545 0 0 0 40 0 0 0
85 Sl. Jonns LandIno 31
85 McDonalds 1
0 0 1 0 31 0 0 0
785 W.S. Munlcloal Bulldino 1
785 W.S. Hiqh School 1
785 Bills Landscaplno 1
785 Central Winds Park 1
0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0
780 Arbor Glen 37 1
780 Tuscawlila Unit 6 89
780 St. Steohens 1
780 Kinder Care 1
780 Seven-Eleven 1
780 Tuscawiila ReallY 1
780 Tuscawiila Office Complex
126 0 4 0 1 0 0 0
T
----...--li!I!:t\mlI
I
781 Tuscawilla Unit 1 111
781 Tuscawllla Unit 2 65
781 Tuscawilla Unit 4 379
781 Wedgewood'Unlts 1 2 & 3 128
781 Country Club ViflaQe 1 2 & 3 245
781 Arrowhead Unit 2 10 18
781 Arrowhead Unit 1 - (Partial) 1 7
-
781 Tuscawilla Country Club 1
781 Arrowhead Unit 3 20
781 Arrowhead Unit 4 20
939 0 1 0 65 0 0 0
782 Winter SprlnQs Unit 3 129
129 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
788 Oak Forest Unit 1 114
788 Oak Forest Unit 2 2A & 28 163
788 Oak Forest Unit 3 120
788 Oak Forest Unit 4 75
788 Tuscawilfa Unit 5 10
788 Grand Reserve :4 12
.(\86 0 0 0 12 0 0 0
786 Oak Forest Unit 5 lots 468 to 561) 94
786 Oak Forest Unit 6 lots 562 to 715) 154
786 Oak Forest Unit 7 716 to 808) 93
786 Oak Forest Unit 8 lots 809 to 940) 132
473 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
87 Winter SprinQs Post Office 1
87 Seminole Pines 102 100
87 Winding Hollow (east of Easement) 63
102.. 0 1 0 163 0 0 0
- - - IDI!IIIII DIn:!
. .... .
. . .
787 North Orlando Ranches Sec. 9 109 .
787 North Orlando Ranches Sec. 10 112
787 WindinQ Hollow 149 187
" 370 0 0 0 187 0 0 0
90 North Orlando Ranches Sec. 2 52
90 North Orlando Ranches Sec. 2A 196
90 North Orlando Ranches Sec. 5 22 3
90 North Orlando Ranches Sec. 8 72
90 North Orlando Ranches Sec. 1 (Part) 14 3
90 North Orlando Ranches Sec. 4 (Part) 3 5
359 0 0 0 11 0 0 0
88 Seville Chase 0 110
Dunmar Estates 20
20 0 0 0 110 0 0 0
791 Mosswood Acartments 147
791 Moss Glen Townhomes 10
791 The Vineyards 171
791 The Seasons 26 115
791 North Orlando Ranches Sec. 4 (Part) 5 2
791 North Orlando Ranches Sec. 1 (Part) 25 5
227 157 0 0 122 0 0 0
790 Hacienda VillaQe 441 6
790 Plnewood Terrace 32
790 State Farm Insurance 1
790 Cumberland Farms 2
441 32 3 0 6 0 0 0
-
- --
- -
-
92 Hlqhlands Section 6 56
92 North Orlando 141
92 North Orlando 1st Addilfon 138
92 North Orlando 4th Addition 242
92 North Orlando 5th Addition (partial) 34
92 North Orlando 8th Addilfon 22
92 Lori Ann Acres 64
92 Doug's Unit 10 56
92 Moss Road Quads 20
92 Indian Ridge 84
92 Deer Song 152
92 Fairfax Apartments 16
92 La Petite Nursery 1
92 Mr. Bubbles Car Wash 1
92 Dr. Pete Corum
92 Banfield Funeral Home 1
92 Excelsior Park 1
92 Winter Springs Center 33
92 Barnett Bank 1
92 Village Market Place
92 Automotive One 1
92 Circle K 1
92 Public Works Complex 1
92 Fire Station 1
92 Public Safety Complex 1
633 392 42 0 0 0 0 0
om
sa
-------------------EimlI
. '. .: . -
93 Winter Spr/nqs Industrial Park .
93 Broadway Gymnastics
" 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
94 Hiohlands Section 1 102
94 Hlohlands Section 2 41
94 Highlands Section 4 75
94 HIQhlands Section 7 & 8 56 2
94 HIQhlands (Blades Court) 8
94 Hlohlands East Quadraplxes 16
94 Highlands Patio Homes 25
94 Cypress Club 75
94 Cvoress Villaoe 22
94 Sheoah Section 2 144
94 Sheoah Section 3 28
94 Hiqhland VlllaQe One 62
94 Hlohland VillaQe Two 74
94 Hiohland Lakes 31 10
94 Highlands Elementarv School 1
94 Bavtree 182
449 492 1 0 12 0 0 0
95 Sheoah Site A 46
95 Golf Terrace Apartments 380 250
-
95 Wildwood 120 170
95 Seville on the Green 200 20
95 Greenspofnt 107 9
95 HiQhlands Section 5 41
95 Winter Sorinos Golf Course
95 Hiohlands Glen 15 14
95 Sheoah Sec. 1 44
327 796 0 0 23 270 0 0
89 North Orlando Ranches Sec. 1 12 6
89 North Orlando Ranches Sec. 1A &1 B 55 3
89 North Orlando Ranches Sec. 6 37 2
89 North Orlando Ranches Sec 7 43 3
. 147 14
.,
,.
. . ~~ .
, ;', '.
'0- \'
, r .'"~ . .
; ',-f
....,:
" to;,
, :"
::..-
.'1<'..:.
,-: .
',. .:.
-' ~-.
:. ~.:: {'j\
"',,!':
}. .'~
c'
:'/it;.:
,:"t
. ,!'
.'
.,
.' ..: ..', ,',; ~
"
-. '.
'~~I" ',J" ':.r~
'"j
.', [/ .;~.
l;
.',
.,'~. .. .,' ., ,,'::: "-:,:' ..:':';:::+{;' .;. .~,.' .::'t'"
ATTACHM' .E.NT'.",iB!:':';;~(.;"i,~:.""., .
. '~'.I.'.:' ':.. .'. ::..'~:':\~'''''. <~"~~~: '\ '," /';';
0'"
""I
.:'
. ,"'j.
, . .:
'\1 .',
. I....
.~;,'
';'. \;
)
]
)
)
1
J
]
}
J
)
i
I
I
I
SUPPLEMENT NO.1
To
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS
TRANSPORTATION STUDY
December 1999
CPH Engineers, Inc.
1117 E. Robinson Street
Orlando, Florida 32801
(407) 425-0452
CPH Project No. W0459_03
The Tmnsportation Study was completed in 1997 and identified no deficiencics in thc tmnsportation
in fmstructure of thc City of W intcr Springs' local system for the pro j ectcd 20 I 0 tra m c loadings.
Roadways identified for improvements included U.S. 17-92, S.R. 434, Semin01a Boulevard, Lake
Drive, and T uskawi lIa Road which are under the control of the County and FDOT. U.S. I 7 -92 is
under final construction of a six-lane improvement project from Shepard Road (Winter Springs)
south to Melody Lane (Casselberry). State Road 434 has been improved to four lanes fonn S.R. 419
to the Greeneway. Seminola Boulevard has been improved to four lanes, Tuskawilla Road has been
improved to four lanes divided and Lake Drive is currently under design for four lanes, divided. This
supplement updates the 1997 study to acknowledge these improvements and the ones also
constructed by the City. No changes were made to the land use, existing uses, or projected
development.
It has become evident that a collector road system is required for the undeveloped area east of the
City Hall. This area has been designated as the ToWn Center and is scheduled for growth within the
planning period. A roadway collector system has been identified to serve this area. Since these
roads are for new growth, the funding is projected to come from the transportation impact fee. This
collector system is shown on the attached revised drawings.
i:;,:~
Only updated materials are attached to this supplement. Since the growth projections have not been
revised, the overall traffic study remains valid.
,
I
1
J
]
]
1
J
J
J
I
J
I
)
I
I
I
I
I
REVISEDIUPDATED TABLES and FIGURES
OBJECTJVE
G) Conserve the natural environment and augment open space in the City as fW1ctions of
road development.
Policies
1)
Where valid options are available, choose rights-of-way for the City collector
system distant enough from natural drainage features and upland habitats to
coexist with these natural areas.
2)
The incursion of a roadway through these natural areas shall be allowed if it
benefits the public need, such as for access by emergency vehicles or transporting
school children, outweighing other concerns.
3)
Include in all new road plans adequate right-of-way for potential landscaping and
provide for maintenance, in the annual budget of the City.
4)
Designate scenic to preserve as much as possible of existing vegetation and
canopy.
0(:.
OBJECTIVE*
H) Ensure that current and future rights-of-way are protected from encroachment from
structures or ancillary uses inconsistent with the designation ofrights-of-way. Rights-of-
way necessary for the maintenance of level of service standards and for the safe design of
roadways in accordance with State standards shall be required.
Policies
1) The City, in its land development regulations shall require the dedication of all
needed rights-of-way and necessary roadway improvements for all new
development, and adopt provisions to protect existing rights-of-way by limiting
the use and/or encroachment by structures and ancillary uses.
2) The City shall acquire right-of-way for future transportation needs as funds
become available.
*Item H - Revised 12/99
Dl-6
]
]
1
J
J
1)
2)
3)
4)
. ~-( 5)
~'1 6)
7)
8)
9)
10)
11 )
12)
13)
14)
15)
16)
17)
18)
19)
j
]
]
.J
]
]
J
]
j
Tablc 2
(Rcviscd 12/99)
1999
FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICA TlON
WINTER SPlUNGS TRANSPORT A TlON STUDY
Freeways
Principal Arterials (State)
1)
Eastern Beltway (State)
1)
2)
SR 434
SR 419
Principal Arterials (County)
Maior Collectors (County)
1) Red Bug Lake Road
2) Tuskawilla Road
1)
2)
East Lake Drive
Red Bug Lake Road - Tuskawilla
Road to Eastern Beltway
Minor Collectors (County)
Dodd Road
Eagle Boulevard
Shepard Road - U.S. 17-92 to Winter Springs City Limit
Tuskawilla Road (North of SR 434)
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
Municipal Collectors (City)
Bahama Road - Shore Road to Hayes Road
Dolphin Road - Moss Road to Hayes Road
Dyson Road - Tuskawilla Road to Shetland Avenue
n Avenue - Panama Road to SR 419
Fischer oad - Panama Road to E. Lake Drive
r en riar Lane - Northern Way to Winter Springs Boulevard
Hayes Road - SR 434 to Bahama Road
Moss Road - SR 419 to Panama Road
Northern Way - All
Panama Road - Shore Road to Edgemon Avenue
Shepard Road - Seminole County Line to End
Sheoah Boulevard - Shepard Road to SR 434
Shore Road - Panama Road to End
Winding Hollow Boulevard - SR 434 to End
Winter Springs Boulevard - Tuskawilla Road to Eastern Beltway
Trotwood Boulevard - Tuskawilla Road to Northern Way
Tuscora Drive - SR 434 to Northern Way
Vista-Willa Drive - SR 434 to Northern Way
Town Center Collector SR 434 to Tuscawilla (East and West)
11I-9
~
j
]
]
J
J
J
1
]
]
.J
]
]
J.
J
]
T ^ II U. 1\
GENERAUZED ANNUALAVERAGE DAILY VOLUMES Fon FLORJDA'S
URBANIZED AREAS.
Sf A IT DVa- w ^ y ARTER1A1...S
UN Il'ITERR UI'TED FLO W
U n.ai pl allitd
uno
2 Undiy.
-4 Diy.
6 Diy.
uvtl or S<rvicc
C
18,900
~.IOO
75.200
o
24,800
60,100
90,200
E
33,100
71,600
107,400
E
15,900
3-4,000
51,400
62.900
E
15.200
33,400
50,600
61.800
UI>e3 A" BOO C" 0 E
2 Und;y. 13.200 14.800
4 Div. 29..500 32.600
6 Diy. M,800 49;Joo
8 Diy. 5-4,700 60,100
~'--"'--'-"~'lfMlInU>>l'~.A'C~A:~l"'l!.- '!W1\CrAZ..J<P~au.\.....~rr"'I ...........-
^
8,900
21..soo
32.200
D
13,900
35,800
53,700
lNTERRUl'TED FLOW
Group 1
l..a.no
-4
6
8
10
12
fREEWA YS
(within urbaniud afU 0"'" 5OO.<XXl an<.ll~iDll 10 Of Pu>inll
witbin.5 miks orlhe Plimary city ccnlnl b\Uinc:u dulrict)
l..cYc lor Se rvla:
C
52, 900
79. -<<Xl
1~.900
132,-<<Xl
151,700
^
22,000
33,100
+1.100
55~
63.200
D
35.200
52.900
70,S00
88.200
101,100
o
67.OCXJ
100.600
1)..4,100
167.700
192,200
E
80,800
126.900
169,200
211,400
242.300
Group:2 (within urbaniud IIU IDd not in Group I)
Cua b (>0.00 10 2.49 liglU!iud IntcDcClioll3 per mile) uvel 01 Servicx
~J of Suvice t..u.a A a c D E
UIla A.. a c E... " 20,300 32,..500 048,800 61,800 74..soo
2 UDdiy. 12.600 15.200 17,000 c 6 30,600 48,900 73.400 93,OCXJ . 117,300
4 Di.,. 27,900 33,300 35,800 L 8 40.800 65,200 97,900 12-4,OCXJ 156,300
6 Diy. " 3,2.00 50,400 53.700 A 10 51,000 81..500 122,.300 15.s,ooo 195,400
8 Diy. 53.800 62.000 65,800 65,800 s 12 .sa, 400 93.200 140,CXX> 171.300 223,600
:s
CUI Ib ~O 10 4SO siglU!i:ud inlelXClJons per mile)
uvel of Savicc
C
8.800
19.200
29,300
35.800
UDe3
2 Undiv.
" Diy.
6 Di.,.
8 Div.
AU
Boo
Q.us 11 (more lhu 4.50 Ii gu.! i:ud i D tcncdi00.3 pel mil e Uld DOl
within primV)' city ccotnJ bu,iDa.s di3lric:t or urbUliz:::d
Irel over 500.000)
UDC3
2 Undiy.
" Diy;
6Div.
BDiv.
Uye! or S<rvicc
C"
o
11,800
26..500
40,700
49.700
AU
BOO
Qua 111 (mo~ thaD 4.50 lignaliud intcDCCIiOlU per mile and within
prirmry city anlnJ blUinc:n dutric:t oC urbutiz.cd
3ru over 500.00))
uvc/ of Scrvio:
NON-STATEROADWAYS
MNORcrrY/GOUNTY ROADWAYS
Level of Servio:
UI>e3 AU Boo C ~ E
2Undiv 10,900 15.500
4 Diy. 24.400 33,200
6 Div. 37.800 47.500 50.200
OTHERSIGNAllZED ROADWAYS
c (siZJUli=l intcr=ion l..Il.a1ysu)
L l..cYc I 0 f Servia:
^ un~ AU BOO C E
2 Undiy 5.200 11.700
s 4 Diy. 1/.400 25100
II
C
L
^
S
S
III
Unes
2
2
Muhi
Multi
ADJUsrMDiTS
DIVlDEDlUNDIVlDED
(..her conapondins two-way volume indi~lcd pa-ccnl)
Malw, ufl Turn &ys Adjustment FKton
Divi6cxl Yes ..5%
Ur:xliYi6cxl No .20%
UndMdcd Ya .5%
Ur:xliY;&d No -2.5%
ONE-WAY
(>.Iter corresponding two-way voJume indic:ucd percent)
One.Way Con=ponding AdjuIDmnt
UIlC3 Two-Way Unes Faacr
2 -4 ~
3 6 -4{)%
" 8 ~
5 8 -2.5%
1M bbl. olooo 100I ............. . ~ .d _ bo _ crlt ax r--V pWwW-c ~_ The -..- rn<:>Odo !roe _llW l>blc ;, cla'-d """"'" bo ...., ":' ""'" >podf>c pl-~ ~
n.: t..IbIe and ~ ~ ~ bI ~ b ~ Oil ~i04 ~ ~ InOn n::6r.d ~ 0-" v...... Wro- ..,.. _W.U ...---...,.. daiJ., ~ (AADT) "'-U..J--'~__
lb..d DO K.- r.oo... :;;:: 10 0.:., ..;,.) :: "'-" .. --nc.. ..J .. _ ... lloo 1'>>< H...... J Caf-;ry )of......... Up.lau """ flonao rnrnc.. ~.., .... oOpoIlDI;.,. _ 1M...,..., ~
a.I'lod I....... of ~ ctnaU a.ppc:w 01'\ Ol.c h-c.l..
c..,.1tOI b. a.dt~
VoIl:UDCa W"'C ao..n~. t:-:- ~ioct ~."" ~
Fhido Dcponn."" 0( T~ I~.
Soun:..:;
IlI-18
...
~DlIT
=m
- '--"" ----
WO~5900 1 :rAll/lmz Dcccmbcr I ~~l)
TABLE (1 of 3)
YEAR 2010 ROADWAY LfNK LEVELS OF SERVICE
WITH 2010 NETWORK
ROADWAY FROM TO NO. OF ROADWAY LOS D MODEL VIC RATIO MODEL
LANES CLASS DAILY DAILY DAl1..Y
CAPACITY VOLUME LOS E
u.s. 17.92 S.R.434 SHEPARD RD. 6 ARTERIAL 47,500 52,200 1.10 F
U.S. 17.92 SHEPARD RD. C.R.419 6 ARTERIAL 47,500 55,200 1.16 F
S.I\.434 U.S. 17-92 MOSS RD. 6 ARTERIAL 47,500 41,800 0.88 0
S.R.434 MOSS RD. C.R.419 4 ARTERIAL 31,100 26,900 0.89 0
SR.434 C.R.419 TUSKA WILLA RD 4 ARTERIAL 35,700 39,000 1.09 F
S.I\.434 TUSKAWILLA RD EASTERN I3ELTWA Y ARTERIAL 35,700 41,800 1.19 F
S.R.419 U.S. 17-92 EDGEMON AYE. 2 ARTERIAL 14,300 19,900 1.39 F
S.R.419 EDGEMON AYE. S.R. 434 2 ARTERIAL 14,300 16,600 1.16 F
E. LAKE DRIVE SEMINOLA BLVD FISHER ROAD 4 COLLECTOR 22,600 21,500 0.95 0
E. LAKE DRIVE FISHER.ROAD TUSKAWILLA RD. 4 COLLECTOR 22,600 22,600 1.00 0
TUSKAWILLA RD. RED BUG LK RD EAGLEBLYD. 6 ARTERIAL 47,500 39,500 0.83 0
TUSKAWILLA RD. EAGLE BLVD. E. LAKE DRIYE 4 ARTERIAL 35,700 35,500 0.99 0
TUSKAWILLA RD. E. LAKE DRIVE WINTER SPGS. BL VD ARTERIAL 35,700 25,200 0.71 0
TUSKAWILLA RD. WINTER SPGS BLYD TROTWOOD BLYD 4 ARTERIAL 35,700 20,700 0.60 C
TUSKAWILLA RD. TROTWOOD BL YD. S.R.434 4 ARTERIAL 35,700 20,200 0.57 C
SHEPARD RD. U.S. 17-92 SHEOAH BL YD. COLLECTOR 10,200 11,200 1.10 E
SHEPARD RD. SHEOAH BL YD. EDGEMON AVE. COLLECTOR 10,200 7,900 0.78 0
SHEOAfI BLVD. SHEPARD RD. S.R. 434 2 COLLECTOR 10,200 8,400 0.82 0
BAHAMA ROAD HAYES ROAD WINDING HOLLOW BL COLLECTOR 10,200 \00 0.01 C
MOSS ROAD PANAMA ROAD DOLPHIN ROAD 2 COLLECTOR 10,200 6.800 0.67 0
MOSS ROAD DOLPHIN ROAD S.R. 434 2 COLLECTOR 10,200 7,300 0.72 0
'---' w..-..J '-- ~ v.--J - ~ l..-.i ~ l...--J ~ ----.. I........J ' . _...J
'---~
Deccmbcr ll)l)l)
TABLE (2 of 3)
YEAR 2010 ROADWA Y LINK LEVELS OF SERVICE
WITH 2010 NETWORK
ROADWAY FROM TO NO. OF ROADWAY LOS D MODEL VIC MODEL
LANES CLASS DAllY DAD..Y RATIO DAD..Y
CAPACITY VOLUME LOSE
MOSS ROAD S.R. 434 C.R.419 4 COLLECTOR 22,600 14,100 .62 D
NORTHERN WAY TROTWOOD BLVD TUSCORA DR. 2 COLLECTOR 10,200 6,100 0.60 D
NORTHERN WA Y TUSCORA DR. VISTA VILLA DR. 2 COLLECTOR 10,200 3,200 0.31 C
NOR THERN WAY VISTA VILLA DR. WINTER SPG BLVD.E 2 COLLECTOR 10,200 3.600 0.35 C
NORTHERN WAY TROTWOOD BLVD WINTERSPG BLVD-S 2 COLLECTOR 10,200 2,500 0.25 C
NORTHERN WA Y WINTER SPG BLVD SHETLAND AVE. 2 COLLECTOR 10,200 3.600 0.35 C
NORTHERN WAY SHETLAND AVE. GREENBRIAR LN. 2 COLLECTOR 10,200 3,900 0.30 C
NORTHERN WAY GREENBRIAR LN. WlNTERSPRG BLVD 2 COLLECTOR 10,200 2.200 0.22 C
TROTWOOD BLVD TUSKA WlLLA RD. NORTHERN WAY 2 COLLECTOR 10,200 4,500 0.44 C
WINTER SPG BLVD TUSKA WlLLA RD. NORTHERN WA Y 2 COLLECTOR 10.200 8.500 0.83 D
WINTER SPG BLVD NORTHERN WAY GREENBRIAR LN. 2 COLLECTOR 10,200 5,600 0.55 D
WINTER SPG BLVD GREENBRIAR LN. NORTHERN WAY 2 COLLECTOR 10,200 5,000 0.49 C
WINTER SPG BLVD NORTHERN WAY NORTHERN WA Y 2 COLLECTOR 12,000 11,100 0.93 D
WINTER SPG BLVD NORTHERN WAY S.R. 426 4 COLLECTOR 22,600 11,900 0.53 D
PANAMA ROAD EDGEMON AVE. MOSS ROAD 2 COLLECTOR 10,200 9,100 0.89 D
PANAMA ROAD MOSS ROAD SHORE ROAD 2 COLLECTOR 10,200 1,300 0.13 C
HAYES ROAD BAHAMA ROAD DOLPHIN ROAD 2 COLLECTOR 10,200 2.000 0.28 C
HA YES ROAD DOLPHIN ROAD S.R.434 2 COLLECTOR 10,200 6,600 0.65 D
DOLPH1N ROAD MOSS ROAD HAYES ROAD 2 COLLECTOR 10,200 2,700 0.26 C
fiSHER ROAD EAST LAKE DRIVE PANAMA ROAD 2 COLLECTOR 10,200 1,400 0.14 C
L--
"'---'
----
"-
..........
-
L...--
~
""---"
~
I.:.l.i-..J
""--oJ
'----'
~
'--
TABLE
YEAR 2010 ROADWA Y LINK LEVELS OF SERVICE
WITH 2010 NETWORK
December 1999
(3 of 3)
ROADWA Y FROM TO NO. OF ROADW A Y LOS 0 MODEL VIC MODEL
LANES CLASS DAILY DAILY RATIO DAILY
CAPACITY VOLUME LOSS
TUSCORA DRIVE NORTHERN WAY S.R. 434 2 COLLECTOR 10,200 2,700 0.27 C
VISTAWILLA DR. NORTHERN WAY S.R. 434 2 COLLECTOR 10,200 4,000 0.39 C
GREENBRIAR LN. NORTHERN WAY WINTER SPRG BLVD. 2 COLLECTOR 10,200 1,500 0.15 C
DYSON DRIVE TUSKA WILLA RD. SHETLAND A VENUE 2 COLLECTOR 10,200 2,600 0.26 C
SHETLAND AVE. RED BUG LAKE RD. DYSON DRIVE 2 COLLECTOR 10,200 3,500 0.34 C
SHETLAND AVE. DYSON DRIVE NORTHERN WA Y 2 COLLECTOR 10,200 5,000 0.49 C
EDGEMON AVE. SEMINOLA BLVD. PANAMA ROAD 2 COLLECTOR 10,200 9,100 0.89 0
EDGEMON AVE. SHEPARD ROAD S.R.419 2 COLLECTOR 10,200 4,300 0.42 C
EDGEMON AVE. S.R. 434 SHEPARD ROAD. 2 COLLECTOR 10,200 5,600 0.39 0
W0459002.T AB/llmzld4
I if)
--=l~ z. -~-c ......
I :2
>-
0::
I-
1 w
::;
w 0
0 ..........w
<{ -10 (1101)
z <{
lfl zZ ~
~ lfl lfl W ::;{ 00 )..VMll38 N~31SV3
w w Z lfl 0::
Z lfl Z -<( w 0 z Vi 1= 0:::
-<( w -<( -1 Z .......... 0 U 0
-1 Z -1 -<( 0 Vi UW I-
-<( -(f) '3^V
I- w -1 Z Z u..o::: zU
-1 0:::
:c w 5 ~ u..w 3:~
(? X ::J 0::: 0 <{I- 8NI~dS
0 ~ 3: <{ x o:::z 0-1
W lfl u.. l- n. w 1-- 1-0
U
. I I Z
0:::0:::
. ww
] O. 1-1-
(J)Z
0 I -<(w
Z wU
w I
(?
w .
] -1
0:::
o
I-
zU
3:~
0-1
I- 0 .q-
U t"l
Z .q-
0:::0:::
ww
1-1-
lflz
~t5
~
0000
J
J
]
]
ci
o
w
X
-<(
-1
o
0:::
W
~
<(
-1
)
(?
::J
m
D
w
0::
J
.q-
I")
..q-
0::
-.....;
]
]
--.
-.
Z6_~ l '~n'''
~31NlM
~.
<0"
~
0<<;:-
<;f
Gj
J
J
& REVISED 12-7-99
Conklin ~orter and Holmes
ENGIHEERS, IHC.
110<\ ( ROE!:NSCI'O smEET
~ ~ CRLA:-':~O. rlCRlOA J1eOl
T[L "07 .15-0"~2
r A)' .07 &.:~- iC,!~6
SCALE: N1S
DA1E: 7-31-97
2010 NEEDED IMPROVEMENTS PLAN
WINTER SPRINGS TRANSPORT A llON STUDY
FIGURE
8
JOB NO.: W0459.01
1
I
j
J
]
}
)
I
J
J
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table 15
2010 ROAD NEEDS
DEVELOPER AND OTHER FUNDING
(Insiue City Limits)
(Revised 12/99)
Developer
1. Connect Shepard Road to Edgemon Avenue. (Completed)
2. Improve Tuskawilla Road north ofSR 434 (formerly Brantley Avenue).
(Switch to Impact Fee Funding)
3. Improve Spring Avenue with drainage and p~ving improvements.
County
1. Improve Tuskawilla Road from two (2) lanes to four (4) lanes. (Under construction)
2. Improve Shepard Road to three (3) lanes from U.S. 17-92 to Sheoah Boulevard. (County
portion)
3. Improve East Lake Drive from two (2) lanes to four (4) lanes. (Under design)
State
1. Improve U.S. 17-92 from Seminola Boulevard to SR 419 from four (4) lanes to eight (8)
lanes. (Construction for six [6] lanes completed.)
2. Improve SR 434 from U.S. 17-92 to Moss Road from five (5) lanes to seven (7) lanes.
3. Improve SR 434 from SR 419 to Eastern Beltway from four (4) lanes to six (6) lanes.
4. Improve SR 419 from SR 434 to U.S. 17-92 from two (2) lanes to four (4) lanes.
T:lblc ]6
20]0 HOAD NEEDS
CITY OF WINTEH SPRINGS FUNDING
(Revised] 2/99)
Phnse I
The following improvements sho'uld be undertaken by the City at the earliest possible date:
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
!
I
I
1. Improve Panama Road from Moss Road to Edgemon A venue. (Completed)
2. Improve Hayes Road north of Bahama Road to existing paving on Hayes. (Completed)
3. Improve Moss Road from Panama Road north to existing paving on Moss Road.
(Completed)
4. Replace Hayes Road bridge. (Completed)
5. Replace Moss Road bridge. (Completed)
Phase II
1. Paving and drainage improvements to Bahama Road from Shore Road to Hayes Road.
2. Paving and drainage improvements to Panama Road from Shore Road to Moss Road.
(Completed)
3. Paving and drainage improvements to Fisher Road from Panama Road to City Limits.
4. Add stacking lanes to Hayes Road at the SR 434 intersection. (Completed)
Phase III
1. Upgrade Moss Road from SR 434 to SR 419 from two lanes to four lanes.
2. Improve Tuskawilla Road north of SR 434 (formerly Brantley Avenue). (Switch project
from developer funded to impact fee.)
3. Construct Town Center collector road to accommodate new development. Roads will
connect SR 434 and Tuskawilla Road for collection traffic from this area.
Phase IV
1.
Improve Winter Springs Boulevard to three lane capability from Northern Way to
Northern Way (east section). This will be accomplished by adding turn lanes at each
intersection for both traffic flow directions.
J'
i
,
(f)
00
ZLL(L
a:LL~
(L~2
({)a:
a:I-Z
WWO
1-a:1-
Z:J<t:
~I--.J
:J:J
LLLLO
OOU:
~50
_ C\I
o
J .,;
0 J
~ '"
8 Cl ~)
. 7-
" <.1 " :::> 0 :? -'
" 7. ~ , 1= ~
w :::> " ;: <( ::;vi ~
,
~ ~ ;: loJ U ~ :~
'LI ;;: 2-
" K ~ (1) >
~ C: ~ 1
~ ~ V) i)':! V) "
-< :z a ..... V) ;, ~ ~ n d 'LI R ~
30 :::> u -< l:' f:l~ 2:
0 0 <( --' . ~ 5 -<
n. u . g~ --' "
-( I u ~ r. ~ :z
0 -. ~ ~ ~ k ~
'" D -( 0' 0 ;:
:z --' 2: 5 , " "
-< ", ,
Cl -( a. 0 ~~ '" :l !1
z F w ~
F ~ ~ u -<(-<(-<(00 . . <D
V) -< 2: :z 0.. :::Ur:L ::E 10' ::1 ---- 8
x f- ::J 2 0 a => V- a
w V) ::1 :z Z '-'" :z
j \ .,. "'"
'-'-
1;;'
~
~
.........~.
..
0:
~
,.
'\
i
\.
\
; --..
: -V
:i;~
S
D
I D Ii
--=:;;;;;f- z ~ .
I D a
~
.& REVISED 12-7-99
Conklin
CGlP
~orter and Holmes
ENGINEERS, INC.
tlO'" ( Roe::'-ISCS S'ffi((T
Q,QLM:OO. nCR:C.A J2e01
lfl ..e7 ..:;::--C"~2
r,,:-. "c") E"~-10)6
SCALE: NTS
DATE: 8-22-97
TEST HIGHWAY NETWORK
WINTER SPRINGS TRANSPORT A 1l0N STUDY
FIGURE
A-3
JOO NO.: '.'10459.01
!
I
1
1
1
1
J
J
}
1
1
J
1
I
I
I
I
EXISTING and PROJECTED
DEVELOPMENT
by
TRAFFIC ZONE
----iiiilr_liiiiS
778 Tuscawilla Unit 11 66
778 Chelsea Woods 321
778 Bear Creek Estates 67
778 Chestnut Estates 51
505 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
72 Eagles Watch 110
72 Howell Creek 153
72 Creeks Run 50 32
72 Courtney Sprinqs
72 Kash n' Karry Center
72 Yeager Commercial
82
82
82
82
82
82
82
82
82
82
82
82
82
82
82
82
82
82
82
Tuscawilla Unit 11 B
Tuscawilla Unit 12
Arrowhead Unit 1 (Parcels 3,4,5)
Fairwav Oaks
Wood stream
Greenbriar
Wicklow Greens
Chesea Parc phase 2
Chelsea Parc Phase 3(Fox Glen)
Chelsea Parc Phase 4(Fox Glen II)
Bentlev Green
Bentlev Club
Glen Eagle Units 1,2 & 3
Carrinqton Woods
Davenport Glen
Chestnut Ridqe
Tuscawilla Unit #13
Sraewick
Tuscawilla Unit 7
783 Tuscawilla Unit 8
783 Tuscawilla Unit 9 & 9B
783 Casa Park Villas
783 Tuscany Place
783 Indian Trails Middle School
783 Keeth Elementary
84 Schrimsher Town Center
84 The Reserve at Tuscawilla
12/07/1999
313
28
90
o
72
32
172
17
36
57
15
44
41
257
76
70
52
39
85
79
1262
78
164
.--.J
252
1
4 acres
252 1 0 32 0 4 acres 0
3
17
31
5
26
o
o
o
82
o
o
o
316
79 65
1
1
242 395 2 0 0 65 0 0
16.3 Acres
80 12
80 0 0 0 12 0 16.3 Acres 0
Page 1.of6
___-iiiiiiSitillii1BTtwM
83 Georgetown Units 1,2 & 3 214
83 Tusca Oaks 136
83 Wedgewood Tennis Villas 233
583 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
85 Sl. Johns Landing 10 21
85 McDonalds 1
85 Schrimsher Town Center 113 448 56 Acres
10 0 1 0 134 44856Acres 0
785 W.S. Municipal BuildinQ 1
785 W.S. High School 1
785 Bills Landscaping 1
785 Kinqsbury Tract 1 27 Acres
785 Blumberg Tract 1 10 Acres
785 Central Winds Park 1
2 0 4 0 0 0 37 Acres 0
780 Arbor Glen 38
780 Tuscawilla Unit 6 89
780 Sl. Stephens 1
780 Kinder Care 1
780 Seven-Eleven 1
780 Tuscawilla Realty 1
780 Tuscawilla Office Complex
781 Tuscawilla Unit 1
781 Tuscawilla Unit 2
781 Tuscawilla Unit 4
781 Wedqewood Units 1.2,& 3
781 Country Club Village 1,2, & 3
781 Arrowhead Unit 2
781 Arrowhead Unit 1 - (Partial)
781 Tuscawilla Country Club
127
111
65
379
128
245
23
6
782 Winter Springs Unit 3
957
129
129
114
163
120
75
10
14
496
788 Oak Forest Unit 1
788 Oak Forest Unit 2,2A & 28
788 Oak Forest Unit 3
788 Oak Forest Unit 4
788 Tuscawilla Unit 5
788 Grand ReseNe
12/07/1999
o
4
o
o
o
o
o
5
2
o
1
1
o
o
7
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
2
2
I
o
o
o
o
o
Page 2 of 6
]...1- . " ., I J ...., I , .' , .' I I
inttMR;(lrmU.tMniIW~;I~t~:~4Mtbt~$.~glmit:iiif:tti li!.N~~m:J~Wnti:li:il~i::@.~~~.tiW~oo.~: m{Q:me.W2Q;1i~Im]:t;:i:t::i:mfi:;:::;::t
ililllfllll iil~;"'~~1 ;;i,immm: :t,I~i~:fiili ~1:'i~~!f"llilli MUlWa~fflll:':~ Itili~i:III;I~:i:::::;i::!'i::I: :mj::::;:~B:gl:::i::::::::::
Wln:d.M1M::l{m
~:;:;::::::~~::::::::::::::::::::~: :~~:i:~:~:mr~r~:~::1:!:r~:~:
;.;.:.;.:.:.:.:.:.:.;.:.;.;.;.;.;.;.;.;
786 Oak Forest Unit 5 (lots 468 to 561) 94
786 Oak Forest Unit 6 (lots 562 to 71 5) 154
786 Oak Forest Unit 7 (716 to 808) 93
786 Oak Forest Unit 8 (lots 809 to 940) 132
473 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
87 L.O. Plante (unincorporated)
87 Winter SprinQs Post Office 1
87 Seminole Pines 102 100
87 Winding Hollow (east of Easement) 51 12
153 0 1 0 1 12 0 0 0
787 Winding Hollow 330 6
787 North Orlando Ranches Sec. 9 , 109
787 North Orlando Ranches Sec. 10 1 12
787 Stone Gable 50
787 Stone Gable Commercial 0.5 acres
601 0 0 0 6 0 0.5 acres 0
90 North Orlando Ranches Sec. 2 52
90 North Orlando Ranches Sec. 2A 1 96
90 North Orlando Ranches Sec. S 22 3
90 North Orlando Ranches Sec. 8 72
90 North Orlando Ranches Sec. 1 (Par 14 3
90 North Orlando Ranches Sec. 4 (Par 4 3
360 0 0 0 9 0 0 0
88 Seville Chase 91 1 9
88 Ounmar Estates 20
1 1 1 0 0 0 19 0 0 0
791 Mosswood Apartments 147
791 Moss Glen Townhomes 10
791 The Vineyards 1 71
791 The Seasons 141
791 North Orlando Ranches Sec. 4 (Pan 5 2
791 North Orlando Ranches Sec. 1 (Pan 25 5
342 157 0 0 7 0 0 0
12/07/1999
Page 3 of 6
-.. . .. i!?:fiiii!fmbM%;fM.~:w.ti(Q9:ni~::1~lkit:e.~!i4p.Mt!:m!:m!i!:!iii:;:i((iii!i!i):};
---__illlI
~~~\~~I"~!il Mmm~~mW; ~!~illlll!IIIIIIII!:II!:I!: !lfI!::m#i:!:::i!::l::
;m;IH'~l1M!;~;~ :::::::::::::~::::~:::::;::::::::::::::~::
......................
:.;.:.;.;.;.:.:.:.;.:..:.;.;.:.:.;.:.:.;.:.;.:
......................
790 Hacienda VillaQe 441 6
790 Pinewood Terrace 32
790 State Farm Insurance 1
790 Cumberland Farms 2
441 32 3 0 6 0 0 0
"
91 Walden Terrace 63
9 1 North Orlando 2nd Addition 1 70
9 1 Garden Club Apartments 40
91 N.O. Terrace Section 1 64
91 N.O. Terrace Section 2 41
91 N.O. Terrace Section 3 77
91 N.O. Terrace Section 4 72
9 1 N.O. Terrace Section 5 45
9 1 N.O. Terrace Section 6 48
91 N.O. Terrace Section 8 64
9 1 N.O. Terrace Section 9 58
91 Foxmoor Uhit 1 84
91 Foxmoor Unit 2 2
91 Foxmoor Unit 3 1 04
9 1 Foxmoor East 31 3
9 1 North Orlando Ranches Sec. 3 36
91 Winter SprinQs Elementarv 1
9 1 WalQreens 1
91 Dr. Martins 1
9 1 Winter Springs Food/Used Appliances 2
9 1 Cahill Property
91 The Atrium
9 1 Winter SprinQs Plaza
9 1 Winter Springs Vet 1
91 Storage World 1
959 40 7 0 3 0 0 0
12/07/1999
Page 4 of 6
.__~_.._iiiiGr._--.w
92 Hiqhlands Section 6 56
92 North Orlando 141
92 North Orlando 1 st Addition 138
92 North Orlando 4th Addition 242
92 North Orlando 5th Addition (partial) 34
92 North Orlando 8th Addition 22 -
92 Lori Ann Acres 64
92 Doug's Unit 10 56
92 Moss Road Quads 20
92 Indian Ridge 84
92 Deer Song 152
92 Fairfax Apartments 16
92 La Petite Nursery 1
92 Mr. Bubbles Car Wash 1
92 Dr. Pete Corum
92 Banfield Funeral Home 1.
92 Excelsior Park 1
92 Winter Springs Center 33
92 Barnett Bank 1
92 Village Market Place
92 Automotive One 1
92 Circle K 1
92 Public Works Complex 1
92 Fire Station 1
92 Public Safety Complex 1
633 392 43 0 0 0 0 0
93 Winter Springs Industrial Park
93 Broadway Gymnastics
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
94 Hiqhlands Section 1 102
94 Highlands Section 2 41
94 Highlands Section 4 75
94 Highlands Section 7 & 8 57 1
94 Highlands (Blades Court) 8
94 Highlands East Quadraplxes 16
94 Highlands Patio Homes 25
94 Cypress Club 75
94 Cypress Village 22
94 Sheoah Section 2 144
94 Sheoah Section 3 28
94 Highland Village One 62
94 Highland Village Two 74
94 Highland Lakes 41
94 Highlands Elementary School 1
94 Baytree 182
94 The Oaks (cred its owed) 19 8
~ ..., 1(\ '/~ l"If'l("j 479 492 1 Cl I.""D.:: a 9 0 0 0
v
:i~::~:~:~;';i~ii:~i~~;:~I~;~:II~~iil~jll~'!"i!ij~'~i':'j~"~I~ljl'II'jl~~~' ,....".....,*' ..,.".....','Ult..lllll.. ~~~u~u.~::.~~ ~t'~.i~~..;~' ~A*~~~~.,~~ """'"."".'''''''.''')''''''',,;r.~I''''''.' .....,.." lifiili:i~ii~,'~":iii'ii:ii~i'i~':ij:i:jji:ii
:11~1'~II!B :$r"r~~n"'~~~'m~.. .. mw~ ,.., 'HW.
:~;;!~?M~l.li~~i 11'1:i~I~~::j: .!!::':t~~i1~1 ;:@:I~\iDW~lt:[{,~ !;[ii:;~~lhlti
95 Sheoah Site A 46
95 Golf Terrace Apartments 630
95 Wildwood 120 1 70
95 Seville on the Green 200
95 Greenspoint 1 1 1 5
95 Highlands Section 5 41
95 Winter Springs Golf Course
95 Highlands Glen I 29
95 Sheoah Sec. 1 44
95 Golfside Villas 20
95 Kia/Mitsubishi
345 1046 0 0 5 20 0 0
89 North Orlando Ranches Sec. 1 15 3
89 North Orlando Ranches Sec. 1A &1 55 3
89 North Orlando Ranches Sec. 6 37 2
89 North Orlando Ranches See 7 43 3
150 11
776 Morse 0 206
776 Sprinas Landina 60 0
776 Caseells 0 0 0 270 67.5 acres
210 217 270 67,5 acres 0
71 Schrimsher 46.6 acres
71 Caseells 120 30 acres
0 0 0 0 0 120 76.6 acres 0
785 Blumberq 15 acres
785 Kinasbury 15 acres
785 Parker 36 19 acres,
0 0 0 0 36 0 49 acres 0
86 Parkstone 353
86 Parkstone Commercial 13.7 acres
86 Seminole County Facilities Maint. 1
0 0 0 1 353 0 13,7 acres 0
TOTALS 9963 2806 68 1 1 062 923 320.6 acres 0
12/07/1999
Page 6 of 6
."
't:'
~ '.
.I'
"I,'
. \ :~:;"<lfL':
.)"
j .~
, ,\
,-J 'i
','.
.,. ',".,_..t,'
':i;'.}f!:'({~:<~:<:',.,. ......:.:;.;: . ;:t:'.,.,\':';';';,'
:.;&~TA:e,HMEN'T,;.C ,"!;.
~~l~l:~t::,r.,1 .,.... '<'::-".':":'(;1 :,";':" ".. ~.:'., .1., ',"'",;;':'
;1,
.....t'...
... . :;~
,\,1
;:.
'.' .
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA
1126 EAST STATE ROAD 434
WINTER SPRINGS. FLORIDA 32708-2799
Telephone (<:07) 327.1800
Community Development
LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY REGULAR AGENDA ITEM:
II. 1.
CITY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT TO THE TRAFFIC
CmCULATION ELEMENT SUBSTITUTING CITY'S
TRANSPORTATION STUDY FOR ALL TEXT AND MAPS IN VOLUME I
AND II. (LG-CPA-I-97)
STAFF REPORT:
_ APPLICABLE LA \XI AND PUBLIC POLICY:
The provisions of163 .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. . ."
The provisions of 163.3187 F.S. which state in part "Small scale development
am,endments adopted pursuant to the paragraph (I )(c) require only one public hearing
before the governing board, which shall be an adoption hearing. . .Small scale
development amendments shall not become effective until J I days after adoption."
~
~
Novcnbc119. 1997
LG-CP A.!.97
.
::~
~
1. BACKGROUND:
APPLICANT:
City of Winter Springs
1126 East S.R. 434
Winter Springs, FL 32708
(407) 327-1800
REQUEST:
For the local Planning Agency to review and recommend the requested changes to the
City's Comprehensive Plan Traffic Circulation Element Data, Inventory & Analysis
section and Goals, Objectives and Policies section.
PURPOSE:
The City needs to update the Traffic Circulation Element based on the results of the
recently completed City of Winter Springs Transportation Study prepared by Conklin,
Porter & Holmes. The contents of the Study are intended to replace completely the
current text and maps in the Traffic Circulation Element Volume] of2 and
Volume 2 of 2.
CHRONOLOGY:
*
City of Winter Springs Comprehensive Plan adopted on April 27, ] 992.
*
City Commission on November 13, 1996, hires Conklin, Porter & Holmes to
prepare update of the Traffic Circulation Element of the City's Comprehensive
Plan.
FUNDING:
The City pays Conklin, Porter & Holmes for the update of the Traffic Circulation Element
from the Transportation Impact Fee.
Novcm"';r 19. 1997
2
lG.("PA-I-97
Il. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT ANALYSIS:
The following summarizes the data and issues which staff analyzed in reviewing this application.
CHANGES TO VOLUlVIE 1 OF 2 CITY OF \VINTER SPRINGS COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN 190-2010, THE TRAFFIC CIRCULA TJON ELEMENT'S GOALS, OBJECTIVES,
AND POLICIES.
NOTE:
Changes are indicated as "shading" for additions to original text, and
"strikethroughs" for deletions.
GOAL
Provide a road system within the City that facilitates internal traffic circulation, assists ingress and
egress from the municipal area, and accommodates through traffic simultaneously to coordinate
safely, efficiently, economically and conveniently the flow of all modes of transponation in and
around Winter Springs.
OBJECTIVE
A)
Throughout the planning period, the City shall develop and maintain a safe, convenient
and efficient motorized and non-motorized transponation network, through establishment
of criteria to be enforced during site plan review, concurrency management and access
management by the statutory deadline.
.
POLICIES
1) The collector road system shall be funded by the standards-driven impact fee
created in 1990 by the City.
2) The collector road system shall be developed according to the master conceptual
plan and design standards derived under the auspices of the City, to coordinate the
construction of segments of the system by both the public and the private sectors.
3) The conceptual plan does and shall continue to address through periodic review
these factors:
a. Current and projected deficiencies of anerial roads under other
jurisdictions.
b. Existing deficiencies of City collector streets.
Jj.~
W
Nov=.b;r 19, 1997
~
J
LG-C?';.I-97
......
c.
The oplimaltrafTic circulation system to serve the creation in the
undeveloped central area of Winter Springs of a primary civic, business and
service focus for the City.
d. Dy tIle .51<ltulOIY c!c<lJI;lIc, Winter Springs shaIlGqh:Hp.:p.:;~:tfQ adopt revisions
to the Land Development Regulations to include guidelines and criteria
consistent with nationally-recognized standards and tailored to local
conditions which provide for safe and convenient on-site traffic flow,
adequate pedestrian ways and sidewalks, as well as sufficient on-site
parking for both motorized and non-motorized vehicles.
4) The re.v;scd land development regulations, to be. adopted by tIle. !.tatutolY de.adl;ue
shaH contain specific access management alternative techniques t'J...control access
and preserve level of service. These techniques may include but M~ not be limited
to the following: .
a. Limit access to roads by controlling the number and location of site access
driveways and other intersecting roads:
b. Cross-access easements of adjacent properties where feasible;
c. Use of frontage or back-lot parallel access roads where feasible.
.
OBJECTIVE
B. Keep apprised of the schedules for improvements and ongoing policies of all jurisdictions
whose transportation responsibilities within t he City limits affect the quality of life and the
levels of service on which Winter Springs citizens depend.
POLICIES
1) Continue to monitor the construction schedules of the Department of
Transportation regarding improvement of S.R. 434 through the City. T;lIIe
dcveloplllclIL pellll;L.s La tlj(~ dCltG of cllIt;c;pated w;dell;lIg ;11 1995 - 199G so that the
level of service is not degraded below the State's criteria for a bad.logged UI LalI
l11aqIP:m arteriaJ link. In applying the lenience to permit three years in advance of
funded improvements, be selective so that development permitted to proceed prior
to actual construction of the higher capacity road will include only those projects
which further progress toward other goals.
2) Require all development plans for propeny abutting state highways to include
controlled access and minimal driveway cuts, with common service roads
~
~ovonba 19. 1997
4
LG.CP A.I.9?
---,
.
7)
8) .
9J
il
~
connecting to adjace~ldevelopment whenever possible, to minimize interruption of
traffic on the t:rrban pli,n.c:ipal arterial sections, Coordinate permitting with the
D.O,T. Access Management Program.
3)
Pursue one of the objectives of the City's municipal collector road building
program - that of providing residents alternative routes over collector roads. to
rcduce. tllC de.J-Il;;lIdcllcy 011 ovclliu, de."e.J Steltc (II tCI ial, oads,
4)
Ke.c.p D.O.T. ;lIfoll'led of 11,(. CIIICJ,:;CIIC)' sel v;ces p, OVi;S;OII dilelllllla tl.e. Cty 1I0W
face.oS witll 0111) a two-lam. ;)lIbstalld'IIJ COllllcCtiol1 bc.tv'vc.('I' tile t\NO sides oftl,c
City so tllal tlie 1Ic.c.d to VViJe.11 S.R. 43-1 as SOOII <IS J-Ioss;blc is 1I0t OVe.1 looked
wllclI C.OIISlluClioll sckcluks ale. ICvi(.,-vcclyGc'lIly to dc.vdop tile IICAt 5 ye.al State
phnr.
4-5)
Participate biannually in the update of the Seminole County Impact Fee road
construction schedule to press the need for widening of the- northern section of
Tuskawilla Road, the only nO/1h-south anerial through Winter Springs, SOOllel
thall 1999 a~ 1I0W plallllcd.
5 6)
Coordinate development of all propeny in the City adjacent to Tuskawilla Road
with County requirements for laneage and intersection improvements to lessen
development impact until the road is improved.
rlOcc.cd witll dlc IlIullie.ipal c.ollccto, 10<lJ pia II ~e':;IIICllt5 tllat will I ed;, ect II aIT;c
fi011l e.ollgestcJ sectiolls ofT u:,ka\v;lIa RoaJ 10 t!.c. colkctol loop, 10 lIuglllellt tile
capacity of 111;5 all(.l ial c\'IIJ lIIail,laill 1/1(. kvcl of S"::'I vice. sel Ly II.c. COUllty, as
applovcd fo, ;ts plall.
Coopeil~le. wit!. Ille SCII,il'olc eOuIII)" L<PICSoSW'I)" Aulllo,;ty to plepalc fOI tile
opCljil,g ill 199-t of II,e ;IItCI cIlClIl':;(. 'It S.R. 43.:1 witllill tl,e. Cily alld I cview
. , I d . , . f d I . " ,. . I '11 b
CJlgUle.Cllug p ails all IJIIC.IISIIICS u (.\'C oplllellt III n lilt..::., SPllllgS LIlIt WI e
geuc.lat(.d by tll;S llIajo, [".Jr., ;II[(.I.:>(.(.[ioll 10 c15.sUI e. 11.(., (. w;1I be. 110 de.tl ;11lc.llta)
eff'-Gls Ou ucalL,y plOJ-l~dy ullde, jlll;sdiGlioll of II Ie. e.OulIly 01 111e. Cly of Oviedo to
th e. cas t.
[Comprehensive Plan Amendment to delete 9), adopted on January 10, 1994)
_ Egll~~~~ii:~1t::~~i~~~e~{~~:11I_
)-;"'=nbcr 19, 1997
LG.CP'\.I-97
:)
OBJECTIVE
C) Throughout the planning period, the City will coordinate the transportation system needs
with land use designations; planning for land use clOd transportation is to be closely
correlated by ensuring that adequate capacity is available to accommodate the impacts of
development.
POLICIES
1) m:R~~~!f~'!.!'9.:y.:aJ D~tellll;llc tllG <\Gtu<l1 traffic counts, plus increases to occur from
then permitted development, 011 S.R. -4::4 (tIlJ Coullt)'-III";lIta;lIcd Tuskawilla Road
as of the effective date of the concurrency requirement.
2) Establ;51, pca!... hoUl kvd of ~e.1 v;cc ~taIlJ'lId of"D" fOI S.R. -134 alld S.R. 419.
No development orders will be issued that will degrade the level of service
standard of"D" on all other roadways.
J) Establisll all illtClill1 lc.vd of Stl vice. stalldcll d of"[" fOI T uskawilla Road. Tllis
Ic.vc.l of S(.I v;(.'- 5t'lllclcH J :sllidl be. dlCllI.::;cd UPOIl cOlllpkt ;011 of tll(. SClIlillole cOullty
T llsk.a.....illit ROaJ IllIpl OVCIllc;IIL PIO'::;1 dill ;11 1996. 'vVln:'11 l..olllpleted, Ille. Cily shall
alllclId its COIllPldICIIS;vG plnl' 10 LOS D.
a
~
3 4) Design and engineer the collector road system to minimize traffic impact on these
arterial roads.
4)
a:-
Create intersections of the new City collector roads with arterials where
they will coordinate with the nmctioning of arterials.
b. IlItelsecttlle wCStCl1I Gild ortlle illtClllCd loop ortlle ety collectol load
S)'51CIIl ....(.51 oflLe illtelSCGI;ull of S.R. ..:j]..:j 'lIld S.R. --119, Wkl e S.R. 434
is ah~aJy ~ve l<llles.
c. IlIlelsecL the castelli Clld oftllc City loop clI;d S.R. 434 Ga!>t of tile
il1tel~ecliol1 oftJ.c S.R. 434 cllId TLlskawilla Road, WllCle Plojected tlaffic
COUlltS 011 S.R. 43-i dcel (,"5(, S;':;II;fICc'lIItly.
5) ~~ni.~.<?r t.~.~..!1mctioning of the arterial and collector road system by use of the
t~~/FSUTMS model dGvdopeJ {;'pdhtedXt"99$y by the City's traffic
consultant so that collector road improvements may be scheduled according to
valid priorities.
6) Establish the level of service for municipal collector roads at LOS "D".
n
~
Nov=b<;r 19. 1997
6
LG.CP A.t.97
OBJECTIVE
7)
A!:. ~c1c.ll ':'1..':;111~llt o[ ti,e I..llrmllCCU 1I11l11;C;pcd (,OHc:dO' 10clJ !:.yste.111 ;~ C.Olllptet-cd-;
calc.ulatl.. tile additiollaltl c1n~G e.clpclcilj \,.1 Gclted, clud (I cJ;t Il,;,:, c1111011llt to the C;ty
to euabk e.qu;'c.lellt glowtll to bc p~llll;ttcd witll;11 Wil,tCI Spliugs.
8)
The. Ctj sll<111 adopt tile. 1II0St 1 Gecllll} Pllblisllcd rDOT !eve.! of SCI viee stalldards
publie.atioll 'Tlol ;da Le.vc/ of Sel v;e.c Stcludm d~ <lllcl GLI;dclilles Mallllal for
rJallJliug" a!> it ;5 I cccivecl Ly tile. Cily 10 lIpJcdC Ik level of Se., v;cc voluJIle. tables
fOJ COIICUlI 'uCy Illclllc\gelllc;llt CllIcll c1cltccl tl cllISPOI t<lt;OII pldllllillg.
@)
.~II!~{t~~a~~~~~:I~:~~,~\f~~k~(t~It'i.'.~~
D) Throughout the planning period, the City shall enforce the level of service standard on all
arterial and collector roads.
.
POLICIES
1)
trooptJlB~.~!~:.:~nm[m:p.nhQr ,1. tr.ansportation concurrency 01 dillallcc by Octobcl,
T99t; wiIfi fOllllClli~llg f.6imaJi~~.d. procedures to rh~t ascertain the perrnittability of
proposed developments according to criteria established by an expert consultant.
2) The City shall annually monitor the LOS status of arterial and all state r<?~.d..':".~}'s
~~~.~,..~.~e City including U.S. Highways 17 and 92 and the e.xpJ essway P:~:~t~Jn
~:e1i}[?y" by obtaining from the State and County their most recent traffic counts at
points along all roadways which would be affected by development in the City.
3) Pennit no development within the municipal limits that will cause the level of
service of any state arterial road to decrease below LOS "D" no sooner than three
years prior to construction funding of the impacted arterial as reflected in the
Florida Depanment of Trans po nation's then adopted Five-Year Plan.
~
relJllib 5hall1l0t Lc dell;ed, 1,0wcvl..l. Lased Oldy 011 a telllpol a, y dC':;1 adatioll ill
LOS tl.at wOuld oceUI if tIle. ;lIle.leLClJJ':;~s oftllCo Sc.lI';lIolc COllllty .cxpleSS~ay at
Red Dug Lake Road alld c1t S.R. 4J.:4 wel e opel led Pi ;01 to tI,e cOlJlpktioJI of the
CaUSc.l'vcly aelOSs Lakc ]c.:.up. Tile. tCIIIPOIZ\1 y Gxcess till Ou,€5l, 11 ougl. tl affic sllall
hOt be. ;lIcluJeJ ;,1 Gc\lculclt;II':; LOS. IlItellm-:J;atc; .:.til.:;CS w;tll wl,;c11 illtclcllallgcs
OPCIl 011 Red Du.:; Lake RUc,J CIlIJ S.R. ..\3-1 ",;11 dl aw tlCd1";c tIll ougll \VillteJ
SpJill~!:. to tIle. [-<plessWCI] 11",1 w;lIlcJ;lccI C1WCI)' [10111 111(, City to tIle. Ilodl, of
NOVember 19. 1997
LG.CPA.I.97
7
"
~
a
'~
-
bkc-J(.~up Wll(.ll tllclt ;IIIGI dmng... ;;:, VpCIICd. Tile. ...X(U;$ tl c1fTic 5112dl be eOlllputcd
by lll~all;:' of till:' rSUTMS 1lIOJe.1 o[IIIG C;\/;:, tlClff;... C;IGulat;OIl alld tllilt f.gUlC
sbaJJ 1101 l.,c c.llc'll~cclblc 10 tile. C;\y ;11 JC.!CIIII;II;II'::; S.R. ~IJ4 e.ClpClC;ty 01 T us~awjlla
Road capac;ty to PCllll;\ Je.VdOPllll..llt ;11 tile. City.
OBJECTIVE
E) Create through the configuration of the City-wide collector road system the interaction
and cohesiveness that have been lacking among the residential neighborhoods of Winter
Springs, but do so in a manner that enhances and preserves the quality of life within each
community.
POLICIES
1) Extend the several true collector roads that now end abruptly or degrade from
paving to unimproved status within existing neighborhoods without connection or
outlet to another collector road or arterial, to complete valid collector linkages for
these communities.
2)
When designing extensions of existing collector roads to their logical arterial
connection south of the City - the Lake Drive-Seminola Boulevard major collector
that is planned for il!l.p~().vellle.~t..by' the couflty - choose rights-of-way that
minimize intrusion ~Ji~Ii2t)'i'~tJl.iq4.gh"hjgh .spe~d:.ii#l!c 011 tIle 1 c.s;deJlts, so that
improved traffic circulation is not at the expense of peaceful habitation.
3) Plan for completion of the one-ended collector roads in existing developments on a
neighborhood-by-neighborhood basis so that input from the residents is acquired.
4) The City, shall ensure the provision and maintenance or bicycle and pedestrian
walkways to supplement collector roads between residential areas and parks,
schools, and other major attractors. Specific provisions for the establishment and
maintenance of bicycle and pedestrian walkways shall include, but not necessarily
be limited to the following:
a. The City shall review all proposed development for its accommodation of
bicycle and pedestrian traffic needs.
b. The lev;sed land development regulati?lls, to be. adopted by tIle statutol)'
dcadl;llc, shall illdude. SI<lllclCII Js continUe to require all new developments
to provide bicycle parking spaces.
Navcm~T 19. 1997
s
LC-CPA.I.97
.
G
C. Sidewalks or other pecleslriClJ) wClyS shClII be provided where feClsible and
appropriate Cllong all roadways.
OBJECTIVE
F) In the design of the municipal colleclor road system, seize opponunities to solve specific
problems.
POLICIES
1) COOl dillat~ tile illtCI.)l..octioll vf thl.. (.vllc;l..lol loop Cllld Tusk" w ;lIa Road w;tll 1I,e
Sdlool DOiuJ 10 d~vc.lop CIII nl;':;lIIm;1I1 tllClt lIIClY offcl cdt~lIlClt;vC access to tIle
Pi eS'-lIt elelllGlltal Y sc.llool 'lIId tIle plcllllled lII;Jdle sc.l.ool 011 T u~k.a willa Road.
1 2) Eliminate landlocked parcels by providing for rights-of-way to reach these
properties.
2 3) Emphasize improved access for emergency vehicles to secluded areas in the
design.
3 4) Permit no individual residential driveways onto collector fg:@i~~~FH.~r~;!f~~$!~l~ or
artclialloads ~..llell 10callocldvvcIYs (.'111 be desigllcd '11Id developed wllicJl
cOII!>ol;date II ;ps 10 tIle. e.olkdOI VI clIlel icd I O<lJ ;:,y~tGIII.
4 5) Encourage "green commerce" along the aJ;i~pp..bh~.q CSX railroad corridor to
create an open view near any intersections of crossroads and the tracks. Green
commerce is to be defined by the City and shall include such commercial activities
as nurseries, truck farming, and outdoor recreation which does not require large
areas ofvenical construction to block the driver's clear view.
OBJECTIVE
G) Conserve the natural environment and augment open space in the City as functions of road
development.
POLICIES
1) Where valid options are availClble, choose rights-of-way for the City collector
system distant enough from natural drainage features and upland habitats to
coexist with these natural areas.
N"""mbcT 19. 1997
9
LG.CP A.I.n
2) The incursion of a roadway I hrough I hese natural areas shall be allowed jf it
benefits the public need, such as for access by emergency vehicles or transporting
school children, outweighing other concerns.
3) Include in all new road plans adequate right-of-way for potential landscaping and
provide for maintenance, in the annual budget of the City.
4) Designate scenic drives along which collector road construction will be adapted to
preserve as much as possible of existing vegetation and canopy.
OBJECTIVE
H) Ensure that current and future rights-of-way are protected from encroachment from
structures or ancillary uses inconsistent with the designation of rights-of-way. Rights-of-
way necessary for the maintenance of level of service standards ~'riij~f.gffJhgl~~t.~14.:~$.~gn~p:f
EQ1Q~y.~l~ig:~f9.ra~'h~~[wn:K:$l~te:s(a.rl~ar~ls shall be required. Existing rights-of-way
shall be preserved through enforcement of setback provisions, which prevent
encroachments into the rights-of-way.
POLICIES
1)
The City, in tile I (....;~cd Ifs land development regulations to be adoptc.d by the
statutolY J('c'\cll;lIc, shall require the dedication of all needed rights-of-way and
necessary roadway improvements for all new development, and adopt provisions
to protect existing rights-of-way by limiting the use and/or encroachment by
structures and ancillary uses.
8
2) The City shall acquire right-of-way for future transportation needs as funds
become available.
m~m:@~
m
1IIIt~~!t~;~;~fl:qYl;:::#~y~tOrrpO I~Eles: fe 1 a t in g t<:Fleft turn J ane$'~':::q':~~;~!.~f:~tfgW':~n~H1gBl
'.',.8'lWi'.....:'IE'.~':.:N.
B0ih@S
......~.-...IY...."......_....-.....................
~ ~M~j]i;!g[ff0I~'D~iQ'tJ!IH~;::!nWJpf,::cF9#:i?sire~t'':\;J!Jr:b.:e:.}e'CjJWed}:wji~D;::gnyi:lwQ::;(gJ.:i::q:[
mQE~1p.flI!{~~f.QUQ}Y!f{g:i:Y.J,W6 a n i~:,.~re'sa ti sfi e~.::
.-
a~
gp.$.I~'m:$p'~:~:~.::HI")1.iitl{~qVal to or gre~t~r t hartJhir1y8fiY~i:t~:$J::.m:p..B.:;:
.~
~~
~
November 19. 1997
10
LG.CP A.J.97
~.\
.
@
2)
G.'
a~
!w
.m
Qnplul t i~lane faci Ii t ies,:1 he number.of left I urning vehicJe~::fr()Jni b~r.najor
~~~~~~~~~If.@l~iJ$~~ hO:~I;ij~ ~ e~~ ~I;~~. "fi ft ee n (J 5) .,.d urii1 gei(.~~(:th~:A::M;:b.i
g:~
Illl~l,il'~tllr~j~~!'IIIII"gW
gj
lii!~iff{~ttl~~1~~~~~1~i~~~~~~lit~~tilil;ilF
gj
i~~~f~~;I!i;r.l?~~~~~~:t.11 \t~'~:~~~U:~~i~[:K2c~.~$.::[t~~HmY:::B.yii:$~JnlHQti.
~
~r.~~~~f~;f~;~~ii:~ft~~~~~~~~:c~ ;~~~~.ral~~.~;u'Z:'?ri~~H~:I$.:i!$P:t$.:g;~D.l'i!rQ.9.mit6.
>::::;::=
g~
~1!ii~1it~I.i:Dg:!iil.inO f,:st ~ee[ or access: pqi ntJJrivew.a.~(i~:::gQnlrQH:~~i::~.Yi;?
.I:&I.!~i{!ii~ifR\~~~~~s~~~M~~~l~I.la~~
~
R~tfJ~~1i1~~~I,w~~ti~~egiihfbf~ig~~tg~~KQ(4\1r~fl'#~~i
g}
~,&~gi;~~~~.}~k~E~':~;~~?:;~;:n~t~;~1;(~~~~~!lit'fi]
A'x~:D.~~I~::$.Jgm::::ms taHt.~:js/ri 6 t. an'. ap pi i tab I e :~~rni nt:[:i=n::.JD~$.;:::g~$~i:
t.II~~&1~~~{~~~~it;l~~;:.~~~~~~3I._"~
~h~h::~th~!!):D'fHs~cilnifsheet .0 r. acdess. poi nt.:dh v.ewaYi~~:::f:9.p'{rQn~fn4y::!g
i.?:~m~/signAE:
NovcmbcT 19. 1997
LG.CP A-I.97
II
'.
.
~
~
3.)
..~/J
~)
::;.:1-
g~
ft
t\...:::~.~s~I~r~iing andhghr .turn lane on I he major streelwill be.:fec]uiredwhej1~I1Y
hYQ::cg):::Pf::r.:np r e:QDI 11~ folIo \Vi n g.-w a ITa n t s Cl r e : S at i sf, ed :
tV
gQ:~t~.P'I1jM9f:~Y e e t .s.peed..J il~ ii l i se.q u a l't9:()i:;grea te d.ih~h:::t9nY/(4:Q):.mph~
1#
IJI;ll~;i~~~~~:~;i~~]K1~11~'i~I~JI'llhllJflt2Ql
!?!
1!!fitrf:;!{"jai;~::~~ri~!:~ril:}lil'II\'i~~
in
_:J!
MillQf::sf.f~~]::::ff~.s..w~en?a~~~ighat ed.as;W'd6}1t.tq.lfed .~tG~~~~:f~:9.m!Y@!yI$~:m!n$.I~
@.l?Iiply~:;;EQ:QJT~.:':QV th~?Qiiy':.6f Win( er,.:Spl5 Dg~:,
gj
mI~fJi~t.JIlg;;~it.:eeLor;ia~~:~.e..~.s.j)oi n t:: dfiv.'~W~y.:T~f'toii~l:p:fl:~:~~~:b.yi:~:;Jdf.mgj:~!gn~H
Ililil~~.~~~~~~~~~~{~~:':;~]~V~1~0~~:;:~~~~~~;gI1~~t~j~~lii~~~!~I!I~ii;~llrJ.~I
..::~::c
m
~ii~t:t~ili~l~;j~~~J:t:~:d}.:~~~ctiri.g:,:o:f:a:qf:~~s';Pb!Q:t::P'~!g~W~y~1~~;~qq~ijlQ
~1
Itifflifiif!~;H;{~,~JJ~~~(~JI11.1.1~
:~:l~
g>~
~y~nabj~:!::~!gIm#is.ta n~~:::is\Wotarla:ppliC'~bj:&.~Yf~ci:HHl.h:::tBf#;::g?:~gi:
~~
ilm,;o~~.~~al~~::~~~~I~ti~hb~S ;:I~I:i~:I:t~~~:i~~ .~~;:~~:~~r~i1@ir~~!~fj&Ylnt~
$'RD.l)gs:
mf~H.i..~.t!.Qg~~:(i.~~.(:Q r:~~ce.~~.: poi n i.driy'.~}ya Y.::Is.','co 11 tf.9.n~9::::~y:::?::J:@iQ:::$.!gn?!~
~~~:~~~.j~:!:i~n~p'/(~n.e::~:~'ip.lc):y.~ de'd: ;on)!j~.::~6.~!}~J:~tre.:~:6~p.ff::::f:hg:.Dgijt:w.rn
mp'y~yne=~t~[$.:~::QBtIEpn a.plJ~'d::b.y..~s::yjfJd::B;::::~f9p:3J@C
l'OVcmba 19. 1997
LG-C'P A. 1.97
12
CHANGES TO VOLUj\'JE 2 OF 2 CITY Or- WII'\TER SPRINGS COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN 190-2010, THE TRAFFIC CIRCULATIO~ ELEMENT'S DATA AND ANALYSIS.
A. EXISTING CONDITIONS AND PROJECTIONS; CONCURRENCY
Substitute pages JII-7 to IV-13 inclusive in place of existing pages TC-I to TC-42
inclusive.
B. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT:
The proposed changes in the City of Winter Springs Transportation Study, August 1997,
prepared by Conklin, Porter & Holmes will help promote economic development by
requiring the provision and timing of roadway infrastructure to meet the market demand
for new land use development, thereby creating a etlicient and convenient flow of traffic
through Winter Springs.
c. CONSISTENCY/COMPATIBJLITY WJTH CJTY, STATE, AND REGIONAL
COl\1PREHENSIVE PLANS:
1.
WITH THE CITY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
e
This City initiated comprehensive plan amendment is intended to update the Traffic
Circulation Element' Data, In\'entol)' & Analysis (Volume I of2) and the Goals,
Objectives and Policies (Volume 2 of 2). These changes will be compatible with
the other elements of the City's Comprehensive Plan.
The comprehensive plan amendment is compatible with and not in conflict with the
other elements of the City's Comprehensive Plan, specifically:
Capital Improvements Element:
Policy I a under Objective A
Policy I under Objective C
Policy I under Objective 0
Objective E
~
NO'Vonba 19. 1997
13
LG.CPA.I.97
2. WITH THE STATE COtvJPREHENSIVE PLAN: 163,3 J 77( I O)(A) F.S.
The comprehensive plcll1 amendment is compCltible with and n.lrthers the following
goals, objectives and policies of the Stille Comprehensive Plan in Chapter J 87 F.S.
91-5.021(4) F.A.C.
(16) Land Use
Policy 5
(12) Energy
Policy 3
(18) Public Facilities
Policy 4,7,9
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.
91-5.021 (I) F.A.C.
a
.-V
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 constnled or applied in isolation
from the other goals and policies in the plans. 9J-5.02 I (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 the following
goals, objectives and policies of the East Central Florida Comprehensive Regional
Policy Plan. 9J-5.021(4) F.A.C.
Policy 64.2: 3
'14
~
N",-cnba 19. 1997
14
LG.CPA.\.97
.
III.
@
Policy 64.6: 3
Policy 64.S: ]
Policy 64.23: I
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 (I) 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. 91-5.02] (2) F.AC.
FINDINGS:
*
A number of changes have occurred since the preparation and adoption
(on April 27, ] 992) of the City's comprehensive Plan, prompting' the need for an
update of the Traffic Circulation Element.
*
City Commission hires Conklin, Poner & Holmes to update the Traffic Circulation
Element.
*
The City initiated comprehensive plan amendment updates the Traffic Circulation
Element' Data, InventolY & Analysis (Volume I of2) and the Goals, Objectives
and Policies (Volume 2 of2). These changes are compatible with the other
elements of the City's Comprehensive Plan.
*
- The comprehensive plan amendment is compatible with and not in conflict with the
other elements of the City's Comprehensive Plan.
November 19. 1997
15
LG.CP.A..I-97
-
e
..
The comprehensive plan ilmendment is compiltible with and furthers the gOills,
objectives and policies of the Stille Comprehensive Pliln.
..
The comprehensive plan ilmendment is compatible with and furthers the goals,
objeclives and policies of the East Central Florida Comprehensive Regional Policy
Plan.
IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Local Planning Agency make the following recommendation to the
City Commission:
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-I-97), updating the Traffic Circulation Element in
Volume 1 of2 and Volume:2 of2 ofrhe City's Comprehensive Plan.
ATIACHMENTS:
City of Winter Springs Transportation Stud\' - August. J 997
NC1VCmkr 19. 1997
16
LG.CP ".1.97
Volume XII, No. 2
ING
February 2000
NEWSLETTER OF THE FLORIDA CHAPTER OF THE AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION
GROWTH MANAGEMENT REFORM:
An Open, Objective Process is Essential
By: Tom Pelham, AICP
The Department of Community Affairs
has played a valuable role in calling at-
te~tion to the need to improve the state's
growth management process. To his
credit, DCA Secretary Steve Seibert
called last summer for a thorough evalu-
ation of the growth managemenl system.
Simultaneously, he announced a pro-
gram of active public participation
through a written survey and cleven re-
gional workshops, with any resulling
legislative proposals to be considered in
the 200 I Legislative Session after de-
liberative review and analysis and input
from affected interests. Many observ-
ers, including myself, assumed and
hoped that this process would produce
consensus on responsible changes to our
existing growth man'agement frame-
work.
Unfortunately, subsequent develop-
ments have raised serious concerns
about the direction of growth manage-
ment reform. First, before his an-
nounced public participation process
commenced, Secretary Seibert pub-
lished in Florida Planning (Nov.lDec.
2000) and major state newspapers his
view that a major revision and restruc-
turing of Florida's growth management
system "must" take place. The
Secretary's position appears to call for
radical revisions of the existing process
with the primary objective of returning
most growth issues to "local contro!."
He has voiced his views strongly in nu-
merous public forums.
Second, State Representative George
Albright announced in November that
he and the Secretary were 95% in agree-
ment on how the growth management
process should be changed and that he
would be filing a bill to overhaul the
process in the 2000 Legislative Session.
The Secretary responded that the Ad-
ministration could no longer call for law-
makers to wait until 200 I to tackle the
growth management issue. Represen-
tative Albright later publicly announced
that the Governor was supportive of his
efforts. As a result, great concerns have
arisen about the possibility of a rush to
judgment and a hasty rewrite of the
growth management laws in the 2000
Legislative Session which convenes in
early March.
At the outset let me make it clear that 1
am no proponent of the status quo. For
a variety of reasons, our growth man-
agement process has not worked as well
as many had hoped. It is not perfect,
and it has not solved all of our many
growth-related problems. Although the
1985 Growth Management Act was
comprehensively amended by the 1993
Florida Legislature following a year-
long review by the ELMS III Commit-
tee, further improvements are now
needed. In particular, a comprehensive
assessment of the plan amendment re-
view process is long overdue. Some
problems with the process. both real and
perceived, can also be solved or elimi-
nated through improved administration
and enforcement of the growlh manage-
menL laws by both DCA and local gov-
ernments.
However. I believe strongly that reform
of our growth management system
should be accomplished through a care-
ful, deliberative. and inclusive process
and that changes should Iw adoptcd he-
cause thc\' will facilit:llc more clkctive
(col//il/lled OIlIJ(lgl' 6)
Florida 1'lalllliIlR. Fchnlary 2000 I
r.:.. _.
2 Fcbl'uary 2000 . Florida'" Planning
.~..{(~.~.t
..,... ':1
President's Message
By Marie York, AIC?
DWIGHT EISENHOWER: PR~:SIDENT, GENERAL, WAR HERO, AND CRE-
ATOR OF THE AMERICAN ASSEMBLY. HUH? EISENHOWER DEVELOPED
A VISIONING AND CONSENSUS BUILDING PROCESS CALLED THE AMERI-
CAN ASSEMBLY, IN 1950 WHILE AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. FLORIDA
APA IS HOSTING SUCH AN ASSEMBLY PRECEDING OUR SEI)TEMBER CONFERENCE IN TAMPA
TO DISCUSS THE IMPORTANT ISSUES FACING FLORIDA AS IT RELATES TO GROWTH AND DE-
VELOPMENT. TITLED THE FUTURE OF FWRIDA: LAND, WATER AND COMMUNITY, THE
ASSEMBLY WILL LAST FOR TWO AND ONE-HALF DAYS.
The process begins with a FAPA Oversight Committee whose tasks include the lo-
gistics of administration and production. Led by Bob Hunter, this committee is in the
process of raising sponsorships and identifying the affiliated stakeholders in Florida.
Participants in the assembly will be wide-ranging, including, planners, architects,
developers, environmentalists, educators, civic leaders and a host of others. After
the parties are identified, the Oversight Committee will ask identified stakeholder
groups to nominate a person to serve on the Assembly Steering Committee, whose
task will be to develop the invitation list and identify the issues and questions to be
addressed
The 200 participants will begin the first day in an opening session wherein they will
receive their charge as delivered by professional moderator, Dr. Lance deHaven-
Smith of the Florida Institute of Government. Then the participants will be assigned
to groups, each with a facilitator whose tasks will be to guide the discussion based
upon the agenda and stimulate open communication. The groups will be organized
with a cross-section of representation in each, with the same agenda and discussing
the same questions at the same time. The agreements that they reach about each
issue will be recorded.
The recorders will turn over their notes to the writers of the policy consensus docu-
ment. The writers will distill all the groups' discussion into an objective consensus
statement reflecting the majority opinions of the positions that have been articulated.
At the end of each day, the writers will meet with the facilitators and recorders to
ensure accuracy, and revise the draft during the night. In this way a document is
constructed. On the third morning all participants reconvene to vote, paragraph-by-
paragraph, on the policy document. In this last session they will make the decisions
to add, delete or amend the document, by majority vote of the group. The final policy
statement, as amended, wi II be adopted as a whole at the end of the plenary session.
This final product will be published and distributed to all the participants, as well as
state decision makers, other stakeholder groups and interested parties. It will be a
topic of onc of the FAPA conference sessions. It will be made available on the web
and distributed to the press. This American Asscmbly is a vasl undertaking but is
especially important as the Slate of Florida addresses the rewrite of the State"s Com-
prehensive PI<ln and the growth managcment process.
STATE MISSES THE MARK ON GROWrrH
MANAGEMENT NEEDS
Misdiagnosis of Problems Leads to Faulty "Solutions"
By Richard Grosso, Esquire
Executive Director & General Counsel
The Environmental and Land Use Law Center
Recently, Secretary Steve Seibert of Florida's Department of Com-
munity Affairs, has articlulated in writing the Bush Administration's
guiding principles for growth management reform. Essentially, the
Administration's intent is for the State to playa reduced role in
growth management issues except on issues where there is an im-
portant State interest. In concept the approach appears to make sense.
But the reality is that most issues that growth management efforts
seek to address require, at a minimum, regional solutions; and al-
most everyone requires a significant State role. For example, in
south Florida, the restoration and protection of the greater Ever-
glades system falls within the jurisdiction of three regional plan-
ning councils, a water management district and several dozen local
governments.
I very much agree with Secretary Seibert that Florida's growth
management process must be changed, but I also strongly believe
the new emphasis must be on stricter enforcement and clearer and
simpler rules and procedures.
Unfortunately, while he is indeed right that the current system is
broken and must be fixed, for the most part, Secretary Seibert seri-
ously misdiagnoses the problem. True, the "one size fits all" ap-
proach is ineffective. He is also correct that the system is too lost in
minutiae, and individual land use decisions almost never support
the big picture. But, the State's "least common denominator" ap-
proach to making local governments comply with the law has given
us local planning and development laws that too often have no real
relationship to the reality of local conditions and resources. Also,
the way that local governments approve development is so difficult
for the public to follow and so easy for savvy developers and com-
pliant local officials to manipulate that projects are regularly ap-
proved that violate local comprehensive plans and zoning codes.
The decision making paradigm that favors more local control may
one day he warranted. But the current realities of the dependence of
local tax bases on property taxes, the role of developers, Realtors,
consulting firms and related interests on electoral fundraising, the
seeming lack of real understanding of economic and environmental
impacts of development, and the high linancial cost to affected third
parties of enforcing the law have not changed much since commen-
tators lirst began calling for mandatory planning and "consistency"
laws.
These an.: the reasons that Secretary Seibert is correct in saying that
"the same issues which led to the enactlllenl of I the growth man-
agcmcllllla\V continue to burden us today'" In fact. our problems
~tn: much \Vorsc now than they were in 19X:'\. whell the law was
wrillcll - Ilmre pcople. less land. more polluti()n. morc crowding.
And the inability of government to deal with it has worsened, due
mainly to the constant and increasing role of money and political
inlluence by the development community at the local government
level.
Moreover, it is not because the growth management process is too
"litigious" and "state-driven" that it is not working. Indeed, a sad
lack of enforcement. both at the state andlocallevcls, is the reason
growth management law must be improved. My tcn years' experi-
ence with the substance and process of growth managcment in
Florida - in all parts of the state - causes me to be greatly con-
cerned, not with the statement of the four principles that are pro-
posed by thc Secretary, but with the reality of what they would
likely mean on the ground.
First. while it sounds good, and can make sense, to "leave to local
government authority over mattcrs of purely local concern", the
rcality is that most land use issues impact more than one local po-
litical body. and the rest impact at least one neighborhood or group
that needs somebody or something to protect its interests. Anyone
with any experience watching local governments make zoning and
development decisions knows that neighbors, taxpayers and con-
servationists arc (as a general matter; there arc exceptions) regu-
larly ignored. and often mocked by local otlicials who are domi-
nated by development and real estate interests. That is the reality of
the campaign finance system and local power politics.
While I can accept the notion that land use decisions impacting
only local neighborhoods should possibly not be subject to enforce-
ment by the slate, the result will be that most local citizens will
have no real recourse when the law is violated, unless state law is
changed to make il easier for thcm 10 keep track of development
projects and have access to a more inexpensive and clear process
for challenging violations of land use rules. Also, the premise of
this effort is faulty. State law docs not, as the Secretary inaccuratcly
suggests, "control e\'ery detail of local comprehensive planning
without regard to local or regional differences." The law specifi-
(('(llIlillllnt (III tJ{lgl' 4)
Florida: l'lall II il/g . Fchnlal'Y 2000 3
(continI/I'd jiwl/!wgl' 3)
cally makes these diflcrences relevant to the question of local com-
pliance with the law. Further. it puts the burden on the person chal-
lenging local decisions to prove they are wrong, and this presump-
tion of correctness effectively insulates local governments that fail
to properly manage growth from meaningful citizen enforcement.
Moreover, threats and actual lawsuits by developers intimidate lo-
cal citizens from opposing projects or suing to stop them.
Without a strong state law that they can use to protect their inter-
ests, local residents like you and I will forever lose out for lack of
money and political power. Perhaps saddest of all is that Secretary
Seibert cites the fact that his agency objects to only a fraction of
proposed changes to local comprehensive plans as support for the
conclusion that State oversight is unnecessary. There are those such
as myself who would argue that the State's unwillingness to do its
job in the face of local political pressure is a main reason growth
management is not working,
Second, most would probably agree that the State's enforcement
should emphasize state-interests. But the Secretary's prophetic words
- "what those critical state interests are will be hotly contested"
- reveal the problem with this approach. No-one involved with the
politics of growth management could doubt for a minute that
Florida's Legislature would surely view most issues of environ-
mental and community protection to be of purely local concern.
Just as surely they would view, and the Secretary seems to agree,
the building and expansion of more roads and highways to facili-
tate more development as an important state interest.
Third, I completely agree with Secretary Seibert and laud his un-
derstanding that regular people must have better access to the growth
management process. But again, the motivation to address this is-
sue appears to stem from the desire to prevent "harassment and
delay" by ordinary people who get in the way of developers, in-
stead of from a desire to make sure that illegal development is not
snuck through a complex process before citizens even figure out
what happened. In my extensive observation, for everyone project
that is delayed by a baseless challenge to its compliance, dozens
are approved when they should not have been.
The current regulatory scheme in the state emphasizes process over
substance. It is a boon to attorneys and other consultants, favors
wealthy and politically connected people over small landowners
and contractors, and allows many terrible decisions to go unchal- .
lenged. But it yields results not fundamentally different than we
would probably be seeing without them. The state needs quicker,
clearer decisions about land use and development proposals. Land
acquisition should be more proactive and integrated with the com-
prehensive planning and permitting processes. Substantive standards
must seriously reflect the science and policy that underlies the is-
sues. Currently, the types and location of development and land
uses are most often compromises between competing interests, but
arc doomed to ultimately fail each of them, The process too often
creates long delays, uncertainty and economic waste. while not ac-
tually protecting the environment or properly planning for growth.
Florida must have more stringent development standards that arc
derived from locally focused study and clearly calculated to pre-
serve biological diversity and the essential functions of its land.
4 February ZOOO . Florida ,. Plal/I/ing
water and air. If they mean that a particular area can realistically
not be developed, then public compensation should be provided to
ensure its protection.
Finally, I also strongly agree that we must improve the current pro-
cess that allows and encourages local governments to approve of
projects that increase demands and impacts on adjacent communi-
ties, the residents of whom do not vote in that jurisdiction. The
answer here has always been some form of limited regional regula-
tory power. Indeed, many would be more supportive of the
Administration's effort to shift some power away from Tallahas-
see, in favor of a regional review of the process of amending com-
prehensive plans and approving large scale development projects.
Unfortunately, largely at the urging of the development industry,
the role of Florida's regional planning councils in the growth man-
agement process has steadily decreased in recent years.
Every Florida citizen who has seen a .speeial place disappear or
lose its appeal, or who has had his or her taxes go up to pay for
greater traffic jams and larger classroom sizes, has a significant
stake in the current efforts to change Florida's growth manage-
ment laws. What we need are tougher rules but simpler processes
and real enforcement. While it does not in all cases need to be the
State that has the last word on growth issues, the current balance of
power that so greatly favors large landowners and developers over
local neighborhoods and residents must be shifted in the direction
of protecting and restoring this state's vanishing natural heritage
and special communities.
"What we need are
tougher rules but simpler
processes and real
enforcement."
The Administration's intent to reduce the State's role in growth
management could be acceptable in some form only if current laws
were to be significantly strengthened to provide for an inexpen-
sive, efficient, clear and meaningful approach to citizen enforce-
ment. Unless this happens, reducing the State role in enforcing or
overseeing local land use decisions will, as a practical matter, re-
sult in significantly less compliance with the letter and purposes of
the Growth Management Act.
Richard Grosso is the Executive Director and General Counsel of
the Environmental and umd Use UIII' Center, fne. (ELULC), a
public interest law firm which provides representation to citizens
in South Florida and around the state in environmental and land
use cases. Mr. Grosso directs the ELULC's public interestlitiga-
tion practice and clinic at the Shepard Broad Law Center at No\'(/
Southeastern Universit\, in Ft. Lauderdale. M,: Grosso was the Legal
DirectorIor 1000 Friellds of" F!oridajimll 1<)90 ul/ti! /996 and is
also a .IiI/mer sel/ior (/Ilomey (/t the Department of" Cmlll/lImit.\'
Allilirs. al/d Assist(/lIt Geneml COl/l/se! ill the Departmellt ojEII\'i.
mill/tell to! Regl/latioll.
"Back to the Future"
. . . oj
, by James F. Murley, Esq. '
Secr.etary, Florida Department of
. Community Affairs, 1995-1999 .
. .
Think back to 1984. Under the 1975
Comprehensive Planning Act, we had
clear and convincing evidence that
planning without a process for resolv-
ing intergovernmental problems
would fail. Governments were suing
each other, and citizens were contem-
plating a constitutional amendment to
guarantee citizen standing.
Recall the coastal erosion resulting
from the big storms of that year. En-
tire buildings fell into the sea. That
became the image of what unbridled
growth--absent a process for ensur-
ing that statewide issues and concerns
were addressed at the local planning
level--could result in. The 1985 Leg-
islature responded by passing the
Growth Management Act. All Florida
cities and counties now have plans in
compliance with state law. Is it
enough to absorb another 6 million
people by 2025?
GROWTH MANAGEMENT
SUCCESSES
Because of' our growth managcmcnt
process, the State of Florida is now
first among all 50 states in this nation
wilh regard to planning and imple-
menting land acquisition, affordable
housing, and hazard mitigation pro-
grams.
Land Acquisition
Preservation 2000 and its successor
program, Florida Forever (1999 Leg-
islative Session), place Florida as
Number One in the United States in
the commitment to acquiring and pre-
serving environmentally sensitive
lands for future generations. Starting
in 200 I, Florida Communities Trust
will dedicate $70 million per year to
help implement open space, recre-
ation, and coastal management ele-
ments of local plans.
Affordable Housing
Another success is the 1992 passage
of the William E. Sadowski Afford-
able Housing Act. This legislation is
named to honor the late Bill
Sadowski, a former DCA Secretary.
This landmark housing legislation es-
tablished a dedicated revenue source
of more than $160 million per year
for the provision of housing to
Florida's lower-income residents.
These funds have become an impor-
tant source of revenue for communi-
ties to implement the housing ele-
ment of their local plans.
Hazard Mitigation
Florida is also a leader in hazard miti-
gation planning at the local level. In
the aftermath of Hurricane Andrew
in A lIgllst I 992--and latcr floods, tor-
nadoes. and fires--billions of dollars
have been spent trying to rebuild.
Communities have received more than
$20 million in federal and state funds
to revisit their plans during the post-
storm reconstruction process.
Florida is Number One in these areas
because of our planning. It helps bring
all sectors--government and private--
together in a consensus-building pro-
cess that leads to real improvements
in our quality of life.
WHAT HASN'T WORKED
There are a variety of decision-mak-
ing bodies that affect policy and pl,,m-
ning in our communities at the local
level. They often act in isolation and
their decisions may have negative im-
pacts on neighboring communities
and essential statewide interests. We
are increasingly experiencing negative
citizen reaction to schools, ports,
mixed-use and affordable housing
projects. More needs to be done to in-
tegrate these facilities into the com-
prehensive planning process. We need
to tie state funding to local plans, re-
write the State Comprehensive Plan,
streamline conflict resolution, and re-
place process with results.
RECOMMENDATIONS
I. Technology is a big issue that
should not be overlooked. A
hlloc amount of data is collected
b
(col/lil/lled 01/ fluge 6)
Florida ,. PIa II II illg . Fehruary 2000 5
(colI/illued jimllllllge 5 )
in support of our state, regional,
and local plans. We have missed
the opportunity of taking infor-
mation from these plans and us-
ing it in constructive ways. With
the Internet technology that ex-
ists today, this data can help lis
plan for the future.
2. The process for conflict resolu-
tion must be refined. The
Florida Cabinet will be reduced
to four members in 2002. We
must undertake an analysis of
the roles that the Administration
Commission and the Land and
Water Adjudicatory Commis-
sion play in resolving land and
water conflicts. It may be help-
ful to examine the processes used
in the states of Oregon and
Washington where special ad-
ministrative law C01ll1s have been
created to handle land use cases.
3. The Florida Constitution man-
dates the adoption of a state plan-
ning document; hence, we must
undertake the process of revis-
ing the State Comprehensive
Plan. This must be done given
the current debate over the en-
tire budget process in Florida. A
state priority plan, tied to local
plans, can be used to set priori-
ties in the state budget process
for funding transportation,
schools, community facilities,
and infrastructure.
4. Recent demonstration programs
for Sustainable Communities
and Sector Plans offer a new al-
ternative for less process and
more focus on collaborative
planning with measurable results.
5. In conclusion and last but not
least, there should be an ongo-
ing, active role for "private attor-
neys general" in Florida.
Charged with "keeping public
officials honest," citizen enforce-
ment must continue and indeed
be strengthened.
Reprinted with pennissionfrom
Foresight, newsletter of 1000 Friends
of Florida, Volume 12,
No.4.
(continued from page 1 )
growth management in our state and not
simply because they promote the phi-
losophy of "local con trol." Conse-
quently, I, along with many others, have
been alarmed by the possibility of a
hasty, ill-considered rewrite of the
growth management laws in the com-
ing legislative session.
Fortunately, reasonable voices are
emerging. Senator Tom Lee, with the
support of the Senate Leadership, has in-
troduced a bill to appoint a special com-
mission to review the growth manage-
ment process and recommend changes
for consideration by the Legislature in
2001. (See Florida Planning, Jan.
2000). This concept represents a respon-
sible approach to growth management
reform, one that hopefully will lead to
an objective assessmenl of the growth
management process and responsible
recommendations for reform. Senator
Lee and the Senate Leadership are to be
commended for their efforts.
Senator Lee's proposal follows a long-
6 Fehruary 2000 . Florida ,. J>{a II II illg
standing Florida tradition: the appoint-
ment of broadly based citizen commis-
sions and task forces to recommend so-
lutions to the state's growth problems
based on independent and objective
studies and analyses attended by free
and open discussion and debate. Be-
ginning with Governor Askew's ap-
pointment of the Land and Water Task
Force and the first ELMS Committee
in 1972-73, all Florida Governors have
followed this model. For example,
Governor Graham appointed the
ELMS II Committee; Governor
Martinez appointed the Commission on
Florida's Environment and Task Force
on Urban Growth Patterns; and Gov-
ernor Chiles appointed the ELMS III
Committee and the Commission for a
Sustainable South Florida. The Florida
Legislature has also followed this prac-
tice by either creating study commit-
tees (e.g., the recent school
concurrency committee), or directing
the Governor, the Departmenl of Com-
munity Affairs or other state agencies
10 appoint such committees (e.g., the
Slate Comprehensive Plan Committee,
the ICE Technical Advisory Commit-
tee, and the Transportation and Land Use
Study Committee). An important hall-
mark of all of these previous efforts is
that neither the Governor, the Legisla-
ture, nor DCA attempted to dictate any
particular agenda or outcome for the spe-
cial commissions.
The special commission approach has
several important advantages. It brings
together a geographically diverse group
of people with relevant knowledge and
experience and an independent and in-
formed perspective. It provides for an
inclusive process through representation
of all of the key stakeholder groups. It
allows for an open and deliberative pro-
cess in the "sunshine" through public
meetings and forums around the state.
It affords an opportunity to investigate,
scrutinize and carefully evaluate the
merits of proposals for change. It cre-
ates a process for achieving consensus
or at least oroad support for the
Committee's recommended solutions.
Finally, it eliminates, or at least mini-
mizes, the influence of purely partisan
or parochial political considerations. In
(cOIl/illlled Oil 1}(lgl' 8)
Florida Transportation Plan:
Public Involvement in the 2020 Update
'I'm: 2020 FLOIW)A TI{ANSPOKTATION PLAN
(FfP) WAS ADOI'rED IN 1995 II\' TIlE FU>KJI)A
DErAKTI\IENT OF TKANSPOIUATION (FOOT).
SINCE TIIAT TIME, A GIUAT DEAL liAS CIIANGED IN
FLOKJI)A. Tm: FEDERAL TRANSI'OIUATION EQ-
UITY ACT FOR THE 21sT CENTURY (TEA-21)
liAS IIEEN ENACrED, FLORJI)A'S 25 METROPOLI-
TAN PLANNING ORGANIZATIONS IIAVE ADOPTED
LONG-RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLANS, AND
FLORIDA CONTINUES TO EXI'ERIENCE STAGGER-
ING POPULATION AND TOURISM GROWTII. IT IS
NOW TII\IE TO REVISIT TilE 2020 FTP TO EN-
SURE THAT IT SETS FORTH A roLlCY FRAMEWORK
THAT WILL ALLOW FLORIDA TO RESPOND TO THE
NEEDS OF TIlE NEXT CENTURY. FOLLOWING l" AN
ARTICLE FROM FDOf ON OI'I'ORTUNrm:S TO PAR-
TICIPATE IN THIS PROCESS.
The 2020 Florida Transportation Plan (FrP)
is the State's official guide for decisions and
actions regarding the provision of transpor-
tation facilities and services. The FrP serves
as a blueprint for Florida's future, setting
the direction for transportation as we move
into the 21 st Century. Because this is
Florida's Plan, not the Florida Department
of Transportation 's plan, it is important that
the public playa sig-
nificant role in its up-
date so all of Florida's
transportation con-
cerns are considered
during the update pro-
cess.
cI/(lI/ge auivities on a regular !Jasis using
I'ariolls techniques adapted to local area
conditions IInd projeu requirements."
A public involvement plan has been cre-
ated to help facilitate citizen participation
during the update process. The plan is di-
vided into three clearly defined phases -
Awareness, Input and Feedback.
The Awareness phase is necessary to in-
crease public awareness of the FrP Update
and the update process. Many Florida resi-
dents do not even know there is a plan to
guide Florida's transportation future. So, it
is during this phase that we try to engage
the public's interest and encourage partici-
pation in the plan update.
To begin, the Office of Policy Planning has
developed a website dedicated to the Up-
date. The site contains the schedule of ac-
tivities of the Steering Committee and three
Advisory Committees selected to guide the
Update. Meeting agendas and summaries
are also posted as soon as they are avail-
able.
the site has been updated.
In addition to the Web site, the Forum news-
letter, published by the Office of Policy Plan-
ning, will print the calendar of Update ac-
tivities and provide a summary of latest ac-
tivities in each issue.
During the Input phase, Florida's residents
will be encouraged to get involved by ex-
pressing their views and concerns before the
plan update is completed. This will ensure
the updated plan reflects the values and per-
spectives of the community.
The Input phase of the Update is occurring
on an ongoing basis through opportunities
provided by the Web site. In addition to the
Web site activities, workshops will be held
in late March and early April to seek input
on the draft of the updated 2020 FrP.
The goal of the Feedback phase is to show
Florida's residents how and when their sug-
gestions and comments may be used in the
decisions of the FrP Update. This will be
accomplished through collection and re-
sponse to public
input, using a
data assessment
plan and incorpo-
rating the input to
the Update pro-
cess.
The Florida Department of Transportation
encourages public involvement in transpor-
tation decisions as illustrated by the follow-
ing policy statement adopted in April
19997 :
"The Department recognizes the importance
of'il/\'oll'ing the public in information ex-
change IVhen providing transportation fa-
cilities (/nd services to best meet the state"s
trclllSl)()rllllion challenges. Therefore, it is
the IJolicy of the Florida Department of
'liwls/wrlatioll to promote Public involve-
/)/(~lIt o/Jportllllities and illj(Jr!Jwtion ex-
We are committed to involving the public
in the update process. We are increasing
awareness through new and existing activi-
ties, actively seeking input during imple-
mentation of all phases of the public in-
volvement plan and will seek feedback as
the process ends. The outcome will be a
statewide effort that reflects a plan that
addresses public concerns and ideas rela-
tive to their transportation needs.
Florida;" Plallnillg . Fehruary 2000 7
(coII/illlled Jimll pllge 6)
sum, it is our best bet for a careful, ob-
jective, informed and balanccd assess-
ment of our growth management systcm.
Another closely related Lradition in the
growth management legislation arena is
consensus decision-making. Growth
and development issues are complex and
affect a broad spectrum of interests and
constituencies - local, regional, and
state governments; developers and build-
ers; related professional groups, includ-
ing planners; environmental, citizen and
civic groups; and the public at large.
Typically, the Legislature has only en-
acted growth management legislation
which has the consensus or broad-based
support of the affected interests. Over
the years, this consensus-making pro-
cess evolved into the Growth Manage-
ment Advisory Committee (GMAC), a
forum in which numerous stakeholder
representatives met with DCA Secretary
and legislators to discuss and exchange
views about growth management issues
and to participate in the development of
new legislation. Along with the special
commissions and task forces mentioned
above, this process has led to the suc-
cessful enactment of all of Florida's ma-
jor growth management legislation.
The Legislature, the Governor, and lhe
DCA should utilize this approach in
evaluating Florida's Growth Manage-
ment Act. It has served the state well in
the past, and there is no good reason why
any new assessment and revision of our
planning laws should take place in a
X Fchruary 2000 . Florida t I'lall II illg
rushed, exclusive, or biased manner.
The imporlance of sound planning to
Florida's future demands nothing less
than an objectivc and delibcrative cvalu-
ation of our growth management sys-
tem.
Another tradition must also be honored
if any new "ELMS" type committee is
to have credibility. In the past, the De-
partment of Community Affairs has not
been allowed to control the reform pro-
cess. For example, past ELMS Com-
mittees were not chaired by the DCA
Secretary, and their executive directors
were not DCA staff members. Continu-
ing this tradition is especially important
in light of Secretary Seibert's strong
public advocacy of his own reform
agenda.
The Secretary, through his strong pro-
nouncements about the failures of the
current system and his preference for
local control, has sought to frame the
broader discussion and debate about
growth management in terms of his own
reform agenda, both in the
Department's regional public work-
shops which commenced in January and
in other forums. Significantly, during
his first year as head of the DCA, the
Secretary has convened GMAC only
once - in late Fall, 1999 - and only
then after FAPA and others urged him
to do so. Instead of working within the
traditional GMAC process or otherwise
engaging the various affected interests
in a shared, constructive dialogue, he
has chosen to develop, announce and
advocate his own position, in a virtual
vacuum.
The Secrctary has shown leadership in
provoking debate abolltthe effectiveness
of our growth management system and
initiating a reform movement. He has
the prerogative to advocate reform or
even repeal of the growth management
laws, and his views are entitled to re-
spect and consideration. Clearly, he
should be a member of any commission
appointed to review the growth manage-
ment process. But in keeping with a
sound tradition, the commission should
not be controlled by the Secretary or the
Department, nor should it be saddled
with any particular bias or pre-conceived
agenda.
A broadly representative commission
with a diversity of views and experi-
ences, and a neutral mandate, is essen-
tial to an objective and balanced review.
The growth management process is not
the property of the Governor, the DCA
Secretary (past or present), or any indi-
vidual. It belongs to all of us. It affects
the future of the entire state, and it should
be reviewed and evaluated carefully,
openly, and objectively by an indepen-
dent citizen commission.
Tom Pelham, AIC? serves as Immediate
Past President of Florida APA and Chair
of the Chapter's Legislative Committee.
He was Secretary of the Florida Depart-
ment of Community Affairs under Repub-
lican Governor Bob Martinez. He cur-
rently practices law in Tallahassee and is
a recognized expert inland use planning
and growth management.
>GR() Wl'tfMANAGEMENT
REMAINS IN SPOTLIGHT
EMERGENCE OF THE SENATE BILL
TO CREATE A GROWTH MANAGE-
MENT REVIEW COMMITTEE AND
PROVIDE FOR AN OPEN, DELIBERA-
TIVE REVIEW PROCESS PUT A
DAMPER ON THE EFFORTS OF THOSE
WHO HAD WANTED TO SEE THE
GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT
HURRIEDLY REWRITTEN AS PART OF
THE UPCOMING LEGISLATIVE SES-
SION. WHEN THE BILL WAS AN-
NOUNCED, ACCOMPANIED BY PUB-
LIC PRESSURE TO SLOW THE PROCESS DOWN
FROM WHAT WAS BREWING IN THE HOUSE, THE
BUSH ADMINISTRATION SAID THAT GROWTH
MANAGEMENT WOULD BE DEALT WITH IN THE
2001 SESSION. As PART OF ITS INITIAL PUBLIC
FORUMS ON GROWTH MANAGEMENT, THE DE-
PARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS HAS SINCE
ANNOUNCED THAT THERE MIGHT BE SOME
"RELATIVELY NON-CONTROVERSIAL" CHANGES
WORTH MAKING THIS SESSION, AND THAT DCA
STAFF HAVE BEEN ASKED TO DEVELOP THEM.
agrees and wants to change it
now. The Department does not
object and the lawmaker an-
nounces (what the rumor mill of
Tallahassee insiders was already
buzzing about) that the Gover-
nor is supporting his efforts.
Senate leaders concerned about
the matter demonstrate their
leadership by bringing forth a
bill to slow the process down.
The Administration responds
that it, too, wants to deal with the issues right,
not fast, and that growth management would
be dealt with in the 2001 Session. Yet, the
rumors continued that behind-the-scenes ef-
forts to promote changes in 2000 were un-
derway.
It seems that the Administration wants to
"have its cake and eat it too." Better than
six months ago, the DCA called. for a delib-
erative review process, with a survey, work-
shops and lots of public input, to define
changes that would go forward in 2001. They
then announced their own reform agenda in-
volving sweeping changes to the current pro-
cess. They promoted that agenda with the
statewide press and state lawmakers. One
vocal House member steps forward to say he
FAPA continued to ask questions, and to lis-
ten. The Secretary has since answered a piv-
otal question through the Department's ini-
tial regional forums: that the Department may
want policy changes this Session. The fol-
lowing week a top DCA official commented
at a public meeting that the Department has
always said it wanted such changes this Ses-
sion. News to the many who have. been all
ears on the subject for months.
Turns out, the Administration has been dis-
cussing such matters with many legislators,
and has called for sponsors of the review
committee legislation to add their yet-to-be-
drafted proposals to these bills - and to in-
corporate the DCA's reform agenda as well.
So far the Senate hasn't been persuaded and
has questioned their objectives.
Meanwhile, the Department's agenda (albeit
a conceptual one) is on center stage in the
public workshops, through the information
packet provided to all participants, the testi-
mony request form, and the Secretary's re-
marks. Before the workshops began, FAPA
had urged that the agency instead assume a
neutral approach to inviting public input.
FAPA and many others are all for improving
upon the growth management process. How-
ever, changes in the public interest can only
be made through an open and deliberative
review process. The Administration may in-
deed put forward some viable ideas for
change in the weeks ahead. But their ap-
proach to-date has undermined public trust
and confidence.
Now they are looking for growth manage-
ment supporters to go along with the notion
of making "limited" changes in the Session
that will be underway in a month, proposals
that have not yet been released to the public,
much less clearly defined. Several of the ex-
amples they have given as "relatively non-
controversial" - such as removing marinas
from the DRI process - give cause for con-
cern.
When questioned about their proposals in a
January Senate hearing, the Department also
said that some may come from the ongoing
public forums, scheduled to conclude at the
end of February. Bringing forward substan-
tive proposals to such an important and com-
plex area of the law at such a late date sets
the stage for a hurried review process. As
Senator Lee put it, proposed additions to his
bill will be subject to a test of scrutiny as to
why (and if) they are urgent now or can wait
for the review process created by his bill.
As our readers receive this issue of Florida
Planning, it is too early to say how things
will go from here. Much is up in the air, and
much is at stake for those who care about the
future of our state. To keep up on related
developments, and on how you can help, sub-
scribe to the Chapter's Capitol Highlights
newsletter - and, if you haven't already done
so, (and are a current member) provide your
e-mail address for our broadcast updates and
alerts on the subject to: David Van Horn at
econplan@mediaone.net .
Private Property Rights
State Representative J.D. Alexander has
filed HB 659, along with 22 co-sponsors,
to substantially broaden the definition of
"inordinate burden" to include action by a
governmental entity that changes the den-
sity, intensity, or use of areas of develop-
ment below the equivalent of one residence
per five acres thereby qualifying the prop-
erty owner for relief under the Bert J. Har-
ris, Jr. Act.
FAPA strongly opposes this bill and is
working with Representative Alexander in
an effort to find a better way to address his
concerns.
FOR UPDATES ON OR COI'IES OF PROI'OSEU LEGISLATION, CALL: LEGISLATIVE INFORMATION
1-800-342-1827 OR VISIT THE FLOHIOA ONLINE SUNSHINE HOME PAGE A-r WWW.LEG.STATE.FL.US
Intergovernmental Law Suits:
Are You Complying with the Law?
Has your city or county sued or been sued by another city or county since May 1999? That is when Florida's
Governmental Conflict Resolution Act, Florida Statutes, Chapter 164 (CS/HB 223) became
effective.
It is the intent of the Act that "conflicts between governmental entities be resolved
to the greatest extent possible without litigation." The new law mandates local
and regional governments to make use of the Act's dispute resolution procedures
once a lawsuit is filed and before formal court proceedings commence. Failure to
participate in a properly noticed resolution process can result in an award of attor-
neys' fees to the prevailing party in litigation.
The governmental entities covered by this Act include counties, cities, school boards,
special districts, other local entities within the jurisdiction of one county, regional plan-
ning councils, health councils, MPOs, water supply authorities functioning in more than one
county, and water management districts. The Act also provides very specific notice requirements, time limits and
tolling provisions. Certain disputes are excepted from the Act.
For further information on the Act and how to comply effectively, visit the website of the Florida Conflict Resolu-
tion Consortium at http://consensus.fsu.eduorcalltheConsortium,attentionPatrickKennedyorTomTaylor,at
(850) 644-6320.
New Developlllent, Traditional Patterns
Collection of articles provides
introduction to New Urbanism
The Planning Commissioners
Journal has announced that the
feature article of its Fall issue, "New
Development, Traditional Patterns"
- a 10-page introduction to New
Urbanism prepared by noted plan-
ning journalist Philip Langdon
(author of A Better Place to Live:
Reshaping the American Suburb)-
is now available in reprint form,
with eleven "companion" articles.
The eleven articles, which previ-
ously appeared in issues of the
Planning Commissioners Journal,
focus on topics discussed in
Langdon's later article and include:
a look back at why zoning
ordinances came to segregate
residential, commercial, and
industrial uses, by planning
12 Fehrllal'Y 2000. Florida ,.I'lallllillK
historian Laurence Gerckens.
an exploration of lhe importance
of "lhird places" to the well-
being of people and communi-
ties, by author Ray Oldenburg.
articles on the changing compo-
sition of households, and the
importance this has for planning.
an introduction to "traffic
calming" with examples of
several key techniques.
. . a look at neighborhood car
rentals, near transit mortgages,
and other ways of making it
easier to do without a second
car.
plus articles on: rethinking
residential street standards;
developing more flexible zoning
and encouraging l1lixeduse
centers.
This collection. one of seven current
releases, not only provides a con-
cisely written introduction to New
Urbanism, but through the compan-
ion articles, gives readers a context
for better understanding some of the
principles underlying New Urban-
ism. The 43- page set is bound and
3- hole punched so it can be easily
stored upright or in a binder, and is
available to the public for $17.50 (or
$15.75 for PCJ subscribers). Copies
of this reprint set may be purchased
by phone. mail, or on-line at the
PCJ's PlannersWeb
www.plannersweb.com.
Philip Langdon's article can also be
read online at the Planners Web.
For Details. COIIWCf: Wt/Ylle
Sellvi/le. Plonnillg CO/l/l/lissio/lers,
Jour/lol EditOl: Pho/le: (888) 475-
3328, FAX: (802) 862-/882. e/l/(/il:
fJei@toge,hel:/let
Florida Department of Community Affairs
.
Winter 2000
.
Volume 9, Number 1
Dear Floridians:
I am pleased ro provide the results of our
"first ever" Growth Management Survey. This
survey was an attempt ro elicit thoughts and
concerns from a wide range of Floridians.
Nearly 3.700 people responded co the survey
and 70 percent of those did so via the Internet.
We have learned important lessons about how
a state agency communicates effectively in this
computer age.
(urge rhe reader to remember rhis was nor
a "scientific" survey. It was not based on a rep-
resentative sample and cannot be considered
co represent the opinions of our citizens as a
whole. It was, however, a method co engender
thoughts, concerns and ideas, and co provide a
sampling of what citizens truly care about. We
hereby report the conclusions of the survey,
but do so with the following caution. Please
look to the ideas contained in answers co the
survey, not solely to the numbers,
With that important caveat in mind, those
who responded to the survey generally sup-
SU.RC/iIN}'
t"I}ji/illlll'({ 1111 pI/Xl' 1
Growth Management Survey
Summary Report - www.dca.state.fl.us
tative of Florida's population. How-
ever, an advantage of this survey over
a general public opinion survey is
the possibility co question those hav-
ing greater day-co-day involvement
in these growth management issues.
Overall, respondents generally
support keeping the basic compo-
nents of Florida's growth manage-
ment framework in place. Although
the local and regional levels received
most of the attenrion in the 1985
and 1992 revisions co the growth
management system, respondents
co the survey suggest moving in an-
other direction.
:'~i::,.
.. _, iil: .
. ; 5 r ~-~-~~-;~'i be ;.; t ~
' . ,,('((I.t"'" ~ ,on Y
111. . :::.: '..... '.;.. ~ ~:-:.. I~
Secret,,,y Sieve Seibert listens 10 comments at a Growth
Manilgemcnl Forum.
Under the direction of Secretary Steven
Seibert, the Department ot Community At-
f..irs embarked upon a survey ot Floridians
who arc active in growth management. The
survey is fundamental to Secretary Seibert's
evaluation of possible reforms co Florida's
growth management system. Secretary Seibert
believes that changes may be needed ro
Florida's growth management laws.
The survey is the beginning of a continu-
ing and open process to gather public input
trommany diverse interests regarding growth
management policies.
This survey \Vas not intended to be a poll
ofpuhlic opinion because it was not based on
a randonl sample survey process. Theretore, it
should nOl he considered :IS heing represen-
Survey respondents endorse a srrong, wide-
ranging role for the state and expanded access
for citizens. Also, they believe there is a need
for a state vision, a stronger state plan, protec-
tion of identified state interests, and increased
technical assistance. Regarding the local level,
SURVEY. COII/inlled on page 2
INSIDE
Growth Management Survey, Summary Report .................... 1
Ask 0 CA ................,..............................:......................................... 3
Briefly Speaking ,.............................................,.....'..................... 4
Online Permitting .......................,...........................................,...... 8
City of Palm Coast ,.........................................................,............ 8
Transportation Concurrency....................................................... 9
2020 Transportation Plan Update ...........,...............................12
L.....'.'.",.,,,t1t
PLANNING
SU.IWEl~ji"(J/Ili'lIgC /
respondelHs favor beneI' enforcemelH of local
comprehensive plans, and a grealCl' emphasis
on communiry visioning and design in lhe plan-
ning process. They would conrinue the con-
currency requiremelH and expand il for school
and emergency managemelH facilities.
. !..~"
,f:...!
,
:~
fa
r~~
~
Sf:C;~T.11}'f" fro.rI!pqge! u
port keeping the basic componenrs of Florida's
growth managemenr framework in place. They
recommend strengthening certain aspects of
the system and changing the role of some of
the participams.
We are very pleased with the high level of
interest in growth managemelH issues. We ap-
preciate the time and effort Floridians have taken
to complete the survey, allend the regional fo-
rums, and personally express their views on
growth management. Your suggestions will be
valuable as we proceed.
Very truly yours,
Sreven M. Seihert
Secreta ry
Survey Highlights
^ report providing a summary of the Growlh Management Survey is available online at:
www.dca.state.f1.us
Response
A mral of 3,671 responses were received.
Sevenry percelH of the responses (2,510) were
submilled online, the remainder were received
in writing. The Department distributed
10,000 copies of the survey. Although not a
rypical response rate due to the availabiliry of
the survey on the Internet and through news-
papers, the 37% response rate can be consid-
ered a high rate of response for surveys of this
rype.
Characteristics of Survey Respondents
The most frequent survey respondelHs
were white, highly educated, with a median
household income between $50,000 and
$75,000, and were not born in Florida. The
majority of the respondenrs (56%) lived in
coulHies with a population of 75,000 to
500,000 people. Thirty-five percenr of the
respondents lived in coulHies of over 500,000
people, and 4% lived in counties of under
75,000 people.
Affiliation of Respondents
RespondelHs were asked to indicate rheir
affiliation with growth management issues.
The highest percelHage idelHified rhemselves
as an inlerested person (20%), followed by
a local governmelH staff member (16%) and
associated with a citizen group, civic group or
a neighborhood association (11 'JI,J).
Assessment of Conditions
Sixty percenr of the respondelHs believed
the general qualiry oflife in Florida had changed
for the worse. Specifically, 71 % stated that the
qualiry of Florida's environment had worsened,
48% noted Florida's rural areas had suffered,
and 57% indicated that suburban qualiry of
life has declined.
Growth Management Problems
The most serious growth management
problems noted by the respondents were traf-
fic congestion (72%), urban sprawl (70%),
loss of wildlife and habitat (66%), and limited
water supplies (60%).
Effectiveness of Various Levels of
Government
Few respondents considered the various lev-
els of governmenr to be "very effective" at ad-
dressing growth management issues. Fifteen
percent indicated that local government was
"very effective;" 8% listed state government as
"very effective;" and 4% listed regional levels
of government as "very effective."
Changing Florida's Growth Management
System
There is broad support for changing
Florida's growth management system: to pro-
vide incentives for urban redevelopmem
(83%); place limits on urban sprawl (79%);
provide incentives for community visioning
and design (74%); develop requirements for
intergovernmental coordination (72%); and
provide incentives ro keep land in agricultural
uses (69%).
Support is high for: strengrhening the links
berween transportation and land use (86%);
limiring development by the available water
supplies (82%); encouraging colllllluniry vi-
sioning (79%); providing financial incentives
to discourage rhe conversion of agricultural land
SUNV/:T. (III/Iillllrd III/ page 7
1',\(;1 ('( )1\,\Mll~11 \' !'IANNI0:C; . \O\'IN I rl~ ~(H)()
ASK DCAi ...
, 1
. I
Transmitting Comprehensive Plan
Amendments and Evaluation
and Appraisal Reports
Q . How many copies of their compre-
. hensive plan amendments and
Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) do
local governments have to submit to the De-
partment of Community Affairs (DCA) and
other external agencies pursuant to the
Florida Statutes and Florida Administrative
Code Rules (FAC)?
A:
The submittal requirements fOr trans-
mitting proposed and adopted com-
prehensive plan amendments and Evaluation
and Appraisal Reports are located in Chapter
163. Florida Statutes (FS) and Rule 9j-ll.
Florida Administrative Code (FAC).
Transmitting the proposed
comprehensive plan amendment:
Local governments must send six copies of the
proposed amendment to the Department ofCom-
munity A./ftirs (DCA) and one copy to each of
the fOllowing external agencies: /?e,gionrzl Pltll1-
ning Council (RPC). Water Management Dis-
trict (WMD), Department tlTinnsporttltion
(DOT), and Department of Environmental Pro-
tection(DEP). Refirto /63.3/84(3)(a), J-\'and
9j-/l.006(J) tlnd (6). FAC
Transmitting the adopted comprehen-
sive plan amendment (excluding small
scale amendments):
Local governments must send three copies of
the adopted amendment to the Department of
Community A./ftirs (DCA) and one copy to each
of the fOllowing external agencies: RPc, WMD.
DOT. DEP. Department of State (DOS). ap-
propriate county (if they are a municipality). and
to any local government or other interested party
that has filed a written request fOr a copy of the
amendment. If the local government is a county,
it must send one copy to the Department of Ag-
riculture (AG) and the Florida Fish and Wild-
lift Conservation Commission (FFWCC). Re-
fir to 163.3184(7), FS and 9j-/1.011(5) and
9}-11.009(8). FAC
Transmitting the adopted small scale
amendment:
Local governments must send one copy of
the adopted small scale amendment to the DCA.
one copy to the RPC and one copy to any per-
son or entity who requests a copy. Refer to
163.3187(J)(c)2.b., FS and 9}-11.0/5. FAC
county. If the local government is a county, one
copy of the proposed EAR must also be sent to each
of the fOllowing agencies: the Department of
Agriculture. the Florida Fish andWildlift Con-
servation Commission; one copy must also be
sent to any adjacent jurisdictions and to any
interested citizem. Refer to 163.3191 (5), FS
and 9}-11.018(2). PAC
Transmitting an adopted EAR:
[Transmitting a proposed Evaluation
and Appraisal Report (EAR):
-----------+
If the 10Ctll government is a municipality, and
ifit has elected to SIIbmit a proposed EAR. it must
send one copy of the proposed tll/? to each of the
following agencie,-: DCA. RPC, WMD, D07:
DEe DOS. and one mpy to the appropriate
lfthe local government elected to submit a
proposed EAR. the local government must sub-
mit three copies of the adopted EAR to DCA and
also. one copy to any of the external agencies. ad-
jacent jurisdictions and any interested citizens who
have submitted written comments to the local gov-
ernment concerning the proposed EAR Refir to
163.3191(6). FS and 9}-11.018(3)(a), FAC
lfthe local government is a municipality and
has elected not to mbmit a proposed EAR, it
must submit three copies a/the adopted EAR to
DCA and one copy each to the RPC, WMD,
DOT. DE? DOS. and to the appropriate county.
If the local government is a county, it must also
submit one copy each to the Department of Ag-
riculture and the Florida Fish and Wildlift Con-
servation Commission and to any adjacent ju-
risdictiollS and any interested citizens. Refir to
163.3/9/(6), FS and 9j-11.018(3)(a). FAC
.. .
For further information. contact Ray
Eubanks at (850) 488-4925; SIC 278-4925;
or by e'lI/ail: rayeubanks@dCtl.state.Jl.us. .
(( ),\\,\1111'11 \" 1'1 ,'"','\:1,'\:(,
I'N;[ \
.
\\,1, II" .'IHIII
}i'LANNING.
BrieflySpealdng ,.,>',< .
Case Notes and Updates from DCA's General Counsel- Cari L. Roth, hsq.
$. .
~'''.0~:' '~:~~~~
Sumter County ID.I-Acre Future Land Use
Amendment SubmiUed As A Small-Scale
Plan Amendment Recommended As "Not
In Compliance"
Wilq, et al. v. Sumter County and Hi- Tech
Metals, Inc., DOAH Case No. 99-3444GM
(Administrative Law Judge Alexander, January
10, 2000).
Hi-Tech Metals Incorporated, owns a large
parcel in Sumter County. It separared rwo
parcels from the larger landholding. Sumter
County changed rhe land use designation on
the newly-creared I O.I-acre tract from agri-
cultural to commercial. Neighboring land-
owners challenged the amendment.
The challengers narrowed the challenge
to one ground: that the amendmenr did not
qualify for adoption as a small-scale plan
amendmenr since it exceeded the Section
163.3187(1 )(c) I, Florida Sratutes,limitation
ro "ren acres or fewer."
The Adminisrrative L1.W Judge's Recom-
mended Order applied the plain language of
rhe srature and recommended rhar rhe Ad-
minisrrarion Commission find rheamendmenr
"nor in compliance."
The Deparrmenr was nor a party to the
administrarive hearing.
...
Hallandale Small-Scale
He-Development Amendment
Recommended To Be "In Compliance"
/Ji.iS fl. Ci~y of.Haffal/dafc, 1'1 a/., DOA H CrI.iC
No. 99-2598GM (Administrative Law Judge
Sartin, November 19, 1999).
Petitioner Biss, a Hallandale property
owner challenged the City's small-scale com-
prehensive plan amendmenr to double rhe al-
lowable density on a 5.75 acre tract from a
maximum of25 units per acre to 50 units per
acre. The subjecr property was partly devel-
oped in 1956 with a 80-unit motel, which has
substantially decayed.
Biss claimed that the amendment did not
meet the Section 163.3187(1 )(c) 1.[, Florida
Statutes, density limitation criterion. How-
ever, the Recommended Order concluded that
the property was in an urban inflll area (and
in a transportation concurrency exception
area) and hence the small-scale density cap was
not exceeded. ~ 163.3180(5), Florida Statutes.
Biss also challenged the amendment based
upon alleged inconsistencies with the State
Comprehensive Plan: internal inconsistencies
with goals, objectives and policies addressing
coastal high hazard area density increases; deg-
radarion of transportation levels of service; and
public school impacts. Biss conrended that the
amendment was nor adequarely supported by
dara and analysis.
The Administrative Law Judge and the
Department found that rhe amendment
qualified as a small scale amendment and that
it was "in compliance."
For filrther infOrmation plcase contact Karen
Brodeen. Assistant Geneml Counsel (It (850)
488-04/0.
...
Small-Scale Up-Planning
On Pine Island Recommended
As "In Compliance" - Exceptions
Pending
Dubin and Greater Pine Island Civic Asso-
ciation Inc., v. Lee County, DOAH Case No.
99-2046GM (Administrative Law Judge
Stevenson, December 27, 1999).
Individual landowners and a civic associa-
tion challenged Lee County's small-scale fu-
ture land use map (FLUM) amendment for a
9.9 acre vacant area on Pine Island, which
changed the land use classification from Ru-
ral (1 unit maximum per acre) to Outlying
Suburban (3 units maximum per acre).
Petitioners challenged the amendment
based upon:
· lack of data and analysis;
. inconsistency with Secrion 163.3178(2),
Florida Statutes, and Chapter 9J-5,
Florida Administrative Rules, provisions
governing density in the coastal high
hazard area;
· lack of suitability for increased density;
· eleven alleged inrernal inconsistencies
wirh other goals, objectives and policies;
· inconsisrency with the State Com-
prehensive Plan provisions at
Sections 187.20 I (7)(b) 23 and
187.201 (10)(a), Florida Statutes.
Administrarive L1.W Judge Srevenson rec-
ommended that the amendment be found "in
compliance." The Department was not a party
to rhe administrative proceeding, but rhe Rec-
ommended Order was transmitted to the
Department for final agency action.
~ 163.3187(3)(b), Florida Statutes. The De-
partment accepted the Administrative Law
Judge's recommendation and found the
amendment "in compliance."
For jilrther information please contact
Da/Jid Jordan, Deputy General Counsel at
(850) 488-0410.
...
/',\(;1.1
(-()'\'\I'.\tINIIYI'lt\~;\!I:'\!(: . \VINfll,.!IIlIlJ
.... . . 0"'" ..
BNlEFI_Y. cIJ/ltill/led 0/1 page 5
1JNI En.>~ fio/ll ptlge -1
Four City Of Stuarlllmendment
Packages Challenged - Two 1997
Future Land Use Map IImendments
Found "Not In Compliance" But
Remainder Of Amendment Packages
Found "In Compliance"
Martin County v. City of Stuart. DOAH
Case Nos. 97-4582GM; 98-0794GM; 98-
5501GM; 98-5503GM; 98-5510GM (Ad-
ministrative Law Judge Sartin. October 1.
1999); Final Order No. DCA-99-GM-267G.
January 7. 2000; Determination ofNon-Com-
pliance No. DCA-99-GM-267G. January 7.
2000.
Three comprehensive plan amendment
packages adopted by the City of Stuart were
challenged by Martin County and one
amendment package was challenged by 1000
Friends of Florida, Incorporated.
In September 1997. Stuart adopted ten
small-scale Future Land Use Map (FLUM)
amendmenrs; nine were challenged by the
County. After some interventions were granted.
the case was abated. (Package 97 -S I).
In December 1997, Stuart adopted a text
amendment to create a new land use category
- Neighborhood/Special District - and then
adopted nine FLUM amendments for seven
parcels annexed into the City contemporane-
ously (Package 97- t). The Department noticed
its intent to find 97-1 "not in compliance" and
filed a Petition for Hearing (DOAH Case No.
98-0794GM). Marrin Counry inrervened.
The Department and the City signed a com-
pliance agreement; the County did not sign.
In August 1998. Stuart adopted remedial
amendments called for in the compliance agree-
ment (Package 98-Rl). The Department no-
ticed 98-R 1 as "in compliance." The parties
were realigned in Case No. 98-0794GM. but
the County also initiated a new case challeng-
ing 98-RI (DOAH Case No. 98-550IGM).
In August 1998, Stuart also adopred Evalu-
ation and Appraisal Report (EAR) based
amendmenrs ro rhe comprehensive plan texr
and adopted 33 FLUM ;Imendments involv-
ing 1 () annexed p;lrccls; cleven FI.UM ;lI11end-
lI(11/(~)' Circle ;1/ (/OIl.'Il/(JIlIIJ SII/(1I1.
ments were small-scale. (Package 98-ER I). The
Department noticed the 22 large-scale FLUM
amendments and the text amendments as "in
compliance." Martin County and 1 000 Friends
of Florida Incorporated, challenged the
Department's compliance determination.
The various challenges were consolidated
for hearing and a Recommended Order was
submitted to the Department suggesting that
all the challenged amendments be found "in
compliance." Exceptions were filed to the
87 -page Recom mended Order.
In light of the exceptions, the Department
considered evidence that on November 24,
1998, the Circuit Court. Nineteenth Judicial
Circuit, Martin County, had invalidated the
annexation of two parcels - the 25.5 acre
Sunbelr/Stetson parcel F 17 and the 205.9 acre
Debartolo parcel F24 and rhat on December
3. 1999, had invalidated the re-annexation of
those parcels. The Department granted the
exception to Finding of Fact 84, determining
thar it was a mislaheled Conclusion of Law.
and finally concluding that the City lacked
authority to adol1t amendmellts fix parcels that
were nO[ v;llidl)' annexed into the Ciry when
rhe FI.UM amendmcllls werc adopted.
.,~
1::
~
5i
'c-
c'
(j
..
""
~
~,
E
8
Q
c
""
C>..
The Department issued a Final Order
finding all remaining amendments "in com-
pliance." Martin County and 1000 Friends
of Florida have appealed the Final Order to
the Fourth District Court of Appeal.
For jilrther information please contact Shaw
Stiller, Assistant General Counsel at (850) 488-
0410.
...
Plan IImendmentlldding Shoreline
Setback Exception Found "In
Compliance"
lohnson II. City ofTa~/JOn Springs and De-
partment ofComrnunity A/pirs. DOAH Case
No. 97- 5003GM (AcllIlinistrttti/le Law Judge
Meale.June /. 1999). Finrd Order. August 30.
1999.
After the Administration Commission's
Final Order determining a City land devel-
opmenr regulation to be inconsistent with
the -rarpon Springs Comprehensive Plan, the
City adopted a plan amendment that would
authorize rhe regulation,
The plan amendmenr allo\\'s accessory
HR//:FI. }.: (III"'IIII/'(( 1111 pflge 6
<:< ),\1MlINITY 1'1 ,\,"~l'(;
\ \'1." I F~ ~ill" I
1',\(;1: ,r;
~ .
j;L.ANNrNG:
Ii 1</ I:FIJ~ .limJl page 5
srrucrures wirhin the 30-foor aquatic land ser-
back on parcels where an exisring seawall has
effecrively e1iminared rhe narural funclion of
rhe shoreline.
The Deparrmenr noriced rhe plan amend-
menr as "in compliance" and some Ciry resi-
denrs challenged rhe dererminarion based
upon alleged deficiencies in dara and analysis,
inrernal inconsisrency wirh orher plan provi-
sions, deficient public parriciparion in rhe adop-
rion process, and numerous inconsistencies with
Chaprer 163, Parr II, Florida Srawres, and
Chaprer 9J-5, Florida Adminisrrarive Code.
The Adminisrrarive Law Judge rejecred rhe
Peririoners' contention that the amendment
affecred restrictions associated with the Ciry's
IS-foot wetland buffer. He also interprered the
amendment to apply to seawalls in existence
at the rime of a development application for
an accessory use, rejecting the Petitioners' as-
serrion that the amendment was a "grandfa-
rher" clause. The challenges to the amend-
ment based upon natural resource concerns
were found to be unsubsrantiated. Lastly, rhe
Ciry's adoption process materially complied
with local public participarion requirements.
The Deparnnenr denied all of the excep-
tions to the Recommended Order and adopted
the findings, conclusions and recommenda-
tions as the Deparrment's agency action.
For fUrther infOrrruuion please contact Karen
Brodeen, Assistant General Counsel at (850)
488-0410.
...
Land Development Regulations
Citizen Challenge To Escambia County
land Development Regulation
Dismissed As "Untimely" - Appeal
Filed
Department o.,fCommunil] AJJrtirs, et al. v.
1:.scamhia County, DOAH Case No. 99-
2039CM (Acfministmtive Lawjuc{[(,e Alexander.
Angust 9. 1999).
In July 1998, rwo citizens wrore ro the
Counry Adminisrraror asserring thar numer-
ous land developmenr regulations were incon-
sisrent wirh rhe comprehensive plan. Attached
ro the brer was a petition for hearing from one
of rhe cwo cirizens, along wirh several anach-
ments. The petition was sryled as if before rhe
Division of Adminisrrative Hearings. It con-
tesred thirteen ordinances, including Ordi-
nance 97-51, which was adopted in Ocrober,
1997.
The Administraror promptly acknowl-
edged receipt of the mailing, noting that since
a formal petition for hearing had been filed,
the maner would be resolved in that forum.
In August 1998, the citizens forwarded the
peririon to the Deparrment, along with a let-
ter requesting a review of whether the Counry
should be designared as an Area of Critical
Srate Concern, and expressing concern over
adoption of land developmenr regularions.
Shortly rhereafter, rhe Secretary of the De-
parrment responded by outlining rhe require-
ments for challenging a land development
regulation, citing Secrion 163.3213(3), Florida
Srarures.
While the cirizens did nor file anyrhing fur-
ther wirh the County, they met with
Department's counsel in October 1998, (Q dis-
cuss rhe matter. The next day, the cirizens wrore
rhe Deparrmenr asking rhar rhe Augusr 1998,
peririon be considered rimely filed under rhe
doctrine of equitable tolling.
The Department prompdy indicated rhar
the petirion would be deemed filed in Octo-
ber 1998, under rhe doctrine of excusable
neglect, but four months later wrote rhar rhe
perition would be deemed filed as of Augusr
1998.
The Department conducred an informal
hearing and determined rhat Ordinance 97-
51 was parrially inconsisrent wirh rhe compre-
hensive plan. The Deparrment forwarded rhe
marrer ro rhe Division of Adminisrrarive Hear-
ings for a hearing, The Counry moved to dis-
miss rhe proceedings as untimely.
The Adminisrrarive Law Judge dismissed
rhe proceedings as untimely, determining rhar
rhe cirizens failed ro provide norice ro rhe
Counry wirhin one year of acloprion of rhe
Ordinance as required by Secrion
163.3213(3), Florida Stawres. The Judge re-
jected the applicarion of excusable neglecr and
equirable tolling.
The cirizens requested rehearing on rhe
Final Order. The Motion for Rehearing was
rejected since there is no srature or rule au-
rhorizing a motion for rehearing.
On Seprember 2, 1999, cirizen Peririoners
Veal and Culligan filed a Notice of Appeal.
This maner is pending before rhe Firsr Dis-
rricr Courr of Appeal in Case No. 1999-3359.
For fimher infOrmation please contact Colin
Roopnarine, Assistant General Counsel at (850)
488-04 / O.
...
Area Of Critical State Concern Program
Third District Court Of Appeal Affirms
Department's Determination That
Monroe County Vacation Rental
Ordinance Complies With Florida Keys
Principles For Guiding Development
And Rejects Constitutional Challenge
To Section 30D.0552(7j, Florida
Statues
Rathkam/J. et al. v. De/Jflrtment of Com-
a . ~
munil] A/ftirs, 24 Fla. L. Weekly D /807 (Fla.
3d DCA August 4, /999).
Afrer a formal adrninisrrarive hearing,
Monroe Counry Ordinance 004-1997 (rhe Va-
carion Rental Ordinance) was found to be con-
sisrenr wirh rhe Florida Keys Area of Crirical
Srare Concern guidelines. A cirizen and some
business organizarions appealed, sraring rhar
1',\( ;1' (,
("( )'\\1\\1 iN11 Y 1'1 t\1'!Nli~(; . \\fINI U~ ~!lI(IO
BRIEFLY. contilll/ed Oil page /2
SLJNI~J;'Y. Jimn /,"gf' 2
~f
1(
!'b%s sllpplied collr/esy o//be Nor/betlst noridtl 1<{~~irJlI(I!!'/(lIlllillg COllllcil
to urban uses (78%); esrablishing urban
growrh boundaries (76%); and developing a
state comprehensive plan wirh clear prioriries
for growrh (75%).
Developments 01 Regionallmpact
The majority of rhe respondents indicated
support for the Developments of Regional Im-
pact (DRI) process (53%). Sixty percenr of
the respondents believe ORIs rhat have nor
substantially commenced developmen t should
lose their vested rights, and thar cirizen stand-
ing should be created in the 0 RI review pro-
cess. Fifty-four percent of the respondenrs in-
dicated the review process should be srream-
lined in some way.
Issues 01 State Concern
The issues of state concern where rhe re-
spondents thought state involvement is needed
are: the protection and conservation of signifi-
cant natural resources (89%); disaster prepared-
n'ess (88%); the provision ofan efficienr trans-
portation system to enhance mobility (88%);
assistance to shape community character and
quality (82%); the promotion of economic
development and a sound economy (77%);
and the provision of affordable housing (68%).
Role 01 State Covernment
The survey respondenrs showed wide sup-
port for the continued roles of state, regional,
and local government in growth managemenr.
Survey respondenrs indicated that ir is "very
important" for rhe Departmenr of Commu-
niry Aff.'lirs to: prorecr idenrihed srare interesrs
(60%); develop a stare vision (57%); develop
a srare plan that guides growrh (55%); pro-
vide rcchnical assistance to local governments
(55%); and investigate citizen complaints abour
comprehensive plan implementation (50%).
Role 01 Regional Planning Councils
Roles for rhe regional planning councils to
fulfill deemed "very important" are: the pro-
tection of rcgional intcrests (49%); the devel-
opmenr ofa rcgional vision (46%); providing
technicalassisrance (45%); funding growth
man~gemcnt programs (44%); mapping re-
gional growth areas (42%); and acting as an
information clearinghouse (42%).
Role of Local Government
The respondcnts indicated that local gov-
ernment has a "vcry importanr" role ro: con-
rinue rhc adoprion of comprchensive plans
(76%); rhe continued adoprion ofland devel-
opment regularions (80%); updaring local
plans through rhe evaluation and appraisal rc-
port process (67%); rhe adoption of manda-
tory plan e1cmenrs (64%); rhc inclusion of
communiry visioning in thc planning proccss
(58%); and the designation of local growth
areas (57%).
Concurrency
Concurrency continues to be an imporrant
acrivity for local governments ro perform. Over
90% of rhe respondents indicated the facilities
that are currently subjecr ro concurrency
- porable warer, wasrewarer, stormwarer, and
roadways - should continue ro be subject to
concurrency requirements. The concurrency
requirement should be expanded for schools,
orher modes of rransportarion and emergency
management faciliries.
Role of the Citizen
Over 75% of rhe respondents indicated the
role of cirizens should be changed to provide
for more public involvement in plan develop-
ment and land development regulations. The
citizen's ability to perition state agencies ro
invesrigare local acrions should be enhanced,
and increased public notice for rhe approval
and issuance of development orders should be
provided.
+++
For additio/Jal infOrmation regarding the
G"row/h Ma/Jagement Survey. contact Maria
A!Jtu/a! Cahill at (850) 488-4925 or by e-maiL-
mtlritl.tlbada!-cahil!@dca.5tate.jl.us .
( ( )\ \,\IlINll Y !'I :\NNli\'!C . \,\111'.' fER .!()()()
l',\cr: 7
pLANNING
Florida's
On-Line Permi ttin
o
http://permitting.state. fl.us
Now On-line
The 1999 Florida Legislature (99-244.
Laws of Florida) created: "...a fimctional state-
wide one-stop permitting system in order to make
permitting in this state more user-friendly with-
out diminishing environmental, public health.
or saftty standards. In addition. the Legislature
intends to encourage local governments to expe-
dite and streamline permitting. to adopt best-
management practices. and to integrate the local
permitting process with the statewide one-stop
permitting process.
The first phase of Florida's Internet site for
the One-Stop Permi[[ing System went on-line
January 1,2000. Operated by the Department
of Management Services, this new site is an
on-line depository of state and local permit-
ting information. Secretary Tom McGurk of
the Department of Management Services said
that this site, which is designed to give both
businesses and citizens easy access to the ca-
pabilities of several state agencies, the five water
management districts and participating local
governments, will "simplify the permitting
process by linking information from multiple
jurisdictions."
The 1999 Florida Legislature appropriated
$500,000 in grants to assist Florida's counties
to integrate their local permitting process with
the On-Line Permitting Center. Currently, the
site connects the Departmenrs of Environ men-
tal Protection, Ti-ansportation and Community
Affairs together with the eighteen counries
which have developed web sites linking to the
state center. Another eight more are scheduled
to be on-line by May 2000. It is anticipated
that additional funding provided by the 2000
Legislative session will help other counties
complete their permitting linkages.
Administration of the Florida Quality De-
velopment Program is the only development
permitting function of the Department of
Community Affairs. This program, as defined
in section 380.061, Florida Statutes, provides
an alternative and expedited review process for
qualifying developments of regional impact.
Further information may be obtained on the
Department's One-Stop Permitting page:
Imp:/ /www.dca.state.f1.us/fdcp/DCP /.
The permitting site is to be developed in
three phases. Phase Two, scheduled for comple-
tion by January I, 200 I, will link additional
state agencies: the Florida Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Commission, the Departments
of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Busi-
ness and Professional Regulation, Health, In-
surance, L1bor and Employment Security, Rev-
enue and State. Phase Three will enable users
to submit both permit applications and appli-
cation fee payments on-line.
For further information,
8ebe Smith at (850) 414-6771,
smithb3@dms.state.fl.us .
contact
or e-mail:
The City of Palm Coast was officially incorporated
January I, 2000. Mayor - Jim Canfield
Major Planning Issues
. Development of new plan for the City
. Coordination with Flagler County for urban
services
. Redesignation of the properties owned by Palm Coast
Holdings, Inc., within the city boundary to
establish a commercial corridor/center
Status of the Plan
As of January 1, 2000, the City is operating under
the Flagler County plan (adopted as a transitional
interim plan until Palm Coast develops its own plan).
For additiol/al il/formatiol/, col/tact Ms. Marlene
Foord. of the Fiagler Coullty plallllillg stafl She Cflll be
retlched at: (904) 437-7484. .
1'1\(;1 H
("( ),\.\I'\llNITY I'L^NNINC . \.VIN I rl~ .~1)()1I
Part one
This is the first ofa two-part series on trans-
portation concurrency. The second part. on the
subject of recent concurrency legisUttion. will ap-
pear in the next issue.
Introduction
Since 1985, Florida planning law has re-
quired local comprehensive plans to ensure
that adequate public facilities are available ro
meet the needs of permirred developmenr.
Concurrency was a key component of the
s[ate's new integrated planning process but it
was apparent from the beginning that some
Aexibility was needed to avoid widespread de-
velopment moratoria.
As concurrency management systems were
implemented, unintended consequences
emerged, especially in the area of transpor-
tation concurrency. The heavy emphasis on
maintaining the mobility of motor vehicles in-
hibited the attainment of goals for community
design that promoted compact urban devel-
opment, urban infill and redevelopmenr. This
has encouraged a low densiry development
pattern that limits the feasibility of other trans-
portation modes such as transit and walking.
Another problem is associated wi th the ap-
plication of concurrency to Florida's Intrast-
ate Highway System (FIHS). When highways
on the FIHS also serve as local thoroughfares,
heavy volumes of through traffic, coupled with
an inadequate local road system, can make it
nearly impossible to maintain the levels of ser-
vice established by the Florida Department of
Transportation (FOOT). As traffic volumes
exceed level of service standards, development
permitS must be denied. However, restricting
local development docs not curtail the growth
of through traffic.
The following describes opportunities for
the Aexible application oFconcurrency man-
agement requirements authorized under
presellt law including some new provisions
enacted by the 1999 Legislature to help deal
with the issues nllled ;lhove. It also highlights
administrative measures fin managing concur-
rCllcy and discusses pl:lIlning str;ttt:gies to ad.
dress puhlic f:\ciliry crp;\ciry needs.
Authorized Flexibility
Florida's local comprehensive planning laws
and rub allow considerable Aexibility in the
local implementation oFconcurrency require-
ments. For some public Facilities, "concurrent"
does nor actually mean "at the same time" or
"simultaneously." For example, needed park
and recreation f.,cilities may be under construc-
tion within one year after the occupancy per-
mit is issued. Similarly, construction of needed
transportation Facilities may begin within three
years after issuance of the occupancy permir.
Also, Rule Chapter 9]-5, Florida Admin-
istrative Code) allows local governments to
enter into development agreements that guar-
antee needed public Facility capacity will be
available when required.
The Aexibility noted above does not apply
to sanitary sewer, solid waste, drainage or
potable water services. These Facilities must
be in place when the certificate of occupancy
is issued because they are essential to public
health and saFety.
Florida law allows local government Fur-
ther opportunities to incorporate Aexibiliry
in their concu rrency managemen t systems for
transportation Facilities. These options are
available to offset the tendency of transpor-
tation concurrency requirements within ur-
ban areas to encourage urban sprawl and to
discourage urban infill, urban redevelopment
and dowlltown revitalizatioll.
lRIlNS/'O/(filF/ON. CfJlllilll/cr.! Oil /,agc /0
U ),\\'\-\II;'-1II\, 1'1.\,'1'11'1<; . \\'1;'\111" lllllll
P,\( ~E l)
t>I:ANNiNG
Ji~II/J/JIII"/,,/i(ll/.ji"fl/11 /,"gi' 9
De Minimis Impacts
DevclopmelHs havinga negligible (de mini-
mis) impact on transportation needs arc not
required to meet concurrency if the following
conditions are met: (1) the proposed develop-
ment would not affect more than 1 percent of
the maximum service volume at the adopted
level of service standard for the af-
fected transportation facility; (2) the
sum of existing roadway volumes
and projected volumes from ap-
proved projects would not exceed
110 percent of the maximum ser-
vice volume at the adopted level
of service standard for the affected
transportation facility; and (3) the
adopted level of service standard
of a designated hurricane evacua-
tion route would not be exceeded.
ning period may be permitled. The local gov-
ernment must adopt a lO-year (or 15-year)
schedule of capital improvements that includes
the facilities needed to correct existing defi-
ciencies and meet future necds. Interim level
of service standards may be established for de-
velopment on backlogged facilities.
and must demonstrate that the designated atea
mcets applicable standards. While dcvelop-
ments within TCEAs are not required to meet
transportation level of service standards, local
governments must adopt, as an amendment
to the comprehensive plan, guidelines and/
or policies that specifY programs to address
transportation needs within the
area. Such guidelines and/or poli-
cies and programs must also dem-
onstrate by supporting data and
analysis, including short and long
term traffic analyses, that consid-
eration has been given to the im-
pact of the TCEA on the Florida
Intrastate Highway System.
Redevelopment
Projects
A proposed redevelopment
project located within a defined and mapped
Existing Urban Service Area is not subject to
concurrency requirements if the transponation
impact of the ptoject does not exceed 110 per-
cent of the transportation impact of the pre-
viously existing use. Special part-time demand
facilities located within existing urban service
areas or in areas designated as urban infill, ur-
ban redevelopment, downtown revitalization
areas, or areas designated as urban infill and
redevelopment areas pursuant to section
163.2511, Florida Statutes, are not required
to meet concurrency requirements if they have
no more than 200 scheduled events per year
and do not affect the 100 highest traffic vol-
ume hours.
Long Term Concurrency
To correct deficiencies on backlogged trans-
portation facilities, local governments may
adopt a long term transportation concurrency
management system that provides for correct-
ing the deficiencies over a period of ten years.
For locll governments with severely back-
log.,l;ed transporration t.1cilities, a 15-ye:lr plan-
Concurrency Management
Areas
Local governmen ts may establish ttanspor-
tation concurrency management areas
(TCMAs) for promoting urban infill or ur-
ban redevelopment. The areas must be com-
pact and must contain multiple, viable alter-
native travel paths or modes for common trips.
Areawide level of service standards for road-
ways within TCMAs must be based upon an
analysis that provides a justification for the
standards and demonstrates how urban infill
or urban redevelopment will be promoted and
how mobility will be maintained.
Concurrency Exception
Areas
LOCII governments may establish transpor-
tation concurrency exception areas (TCEAs)
to promote urban infill, urban redevelopment.
downtown revitalization, or projects that pro-
mote public transporration. -1"0 exercise this
option, 10cII governments must delineate a spe-
cific geographic area in t he comprehensive plan
Pay-and-Go
An option known informally
as the "pay-and-go" approach al-
lows local governments to issue a
development order or permit de-
spite a failure to meet transporta-
tion concurrency requirements
(provided the local government has adopted a
financially feasible capital improvement ele-
ment that provides for adequate facilities).
This alternative is available to limit liabilities
when a local government has failed to imple-
ment its capital improvement element. The
local governmenr must establish a process
within the comprehensive plan For assessing a
fair share of the COSt of providing the trans-
portation facilities needed to meet adopted
level of service standards.
Local governments choosing to implement
one or more of the options described above,
(which apply only to transportation concur-
rency,) must initiate a comprehensive plan
amendmenr. Because they are essential to
public health and safety, facilities for sanitary
sewer, solid waste, drainage and potable
water services must be in place when the
certificate of occupancy is issued.
FNIINSI'O/rtilT/ON. COli/iI/lid Oil pl/gi' II
1 '1\(;1 I"
('(II\\M(li'-'llYI'I/\NNIN(, . \VJi',III~.~II(UI
I ;fIIl'!l()rlalion, Jimn jJflge / ()
.~,
Level of Service Standards
A final measure rhar offers Aexibiliry in meer-
ing rransporrarion concurrency requiremenrs is
rhe provision aurhorizing local governmenrs [()
esrablish rhe level of service srandard for all
roads on rhe Srare Highway System except cer-
rain faciliries on rhe Florida lnrrastare High-
way Sysrem (FIHS). The adequacy of rhese
srandards must be documented by dara :lIld
analysis in the comprehensive plan demonstrat-
ing that sufficient capacity is available to meet
rhe demands of current and future land uses.
Local governments musr adopt FOOT sran-
dards for all FIHS facilities located outside ur-
banized areas. Within urbanized areas, local
governments may establish the standard with
the concurrence of FOOT.
Administrative Measures
When the level of service f.11lS below rhe
adopted Level of Service (LOS) srandard for a
public facility, local governments have at least
three alternatives: they can deny developmenr
permirs; rhey can adjusr level of service sran-
dards downward; or they can schedule con-
strucrion of rhe needed public improvements.
1111/'!.>OIOS/()I" Ihis arlicle cOllrles!, (i! Florida Deparlmelll o/1i"(/l/sjJorlalioll
The second and third oprions require amend-
menrs to rhe comprehensive plan.
Local governmenrs have a wide larirude in
esrablishing LOS srandards rhat meer rheir
particular needs. Likewise, local governmenrs
may make financially feasible amendments to
their five-year schedule of c.1piral improvemenrs
and may accept fi nancial contributions from
private sources for rhe cosr of needed public
f.1cilities,
Planning Strategies
Although the concurrency management
system is esrablished in rhe comprehensive
plan, ir is administered ar the regulatory
stage of rhe growth management process.
Concurrency determinarions are made at the
permitti ng phase near rhe end of rhe process
while planning occurs much earlier.
Sound advance planning can avert capac-
ity problems by ensuring rhat land develop-
menr parterns, densiries and inrensities are
appropriarely balanced with public faciliry
requiremenrs. This is particularly importanr
in transporration planning because rerrofirring
roadway improvements is extremely coscly af-
rer an area becomes fully developed. Concur-
rency deficiencies often reHect a failure by the
local governmenr to balance land development
plans adequarely with rhe anticipared capaci-
ties of public facilities.
While communiries can nor attain a land
use/public faciliry balance in the short term,
over time rhey can improve rhis balance
rh rough land use srraregies rhat maximize th~
use of exisring public faciliries and ensure rhar
future developmenr can be efficiently served.
In rhe transportarion arena, this may include
compacr devclopmenr srraregies rhar encour-
age rhe higher densities and inrensiries required
to support public rransportation services,
mixed use devclopmenrs to f.1cilirare walking
and bicycling, or limirarions to off-srreer
parking which encourage ridesharing and rhe
use of public rransit.
For fi,rther injormation regarding
transporlation concurrency. contact Dale
E:acker tit (850) 488-4925 or bye-mail:
dale.eacker@c!Cfl.slate.j!.1IS .
(()I\'\,\.\UNITY PI./\NNli\!(;
I'..\(:E I I
.
ININI"EI< ~1I1111
l~IANN](NG
2020 Florida Transportation
Plan Update
The Florida Depanment oITransportation
is updating the Florida Transportation Plan
[0 ensure that the Plan sets forth a policy
framework that is responsive to the needs of
the 21" Century. The Florida Transportation
Plan was adopted in 1995. Since that time,
conditions affecting transportation in Florida
have changed:
. A new federal law has been enacted [0
guide the expenditure of federal funds,
The Transportation Equity Act jOr the
21" Century,
. Florida's 25 Metropolitan Planning
Organizations (MPOs) have adopted
long-range transportation plans;
. As a result of the Evaluation and Appraisal
Process (EAR), Florida's local governments
have updated their local comprehensive
plans;
. Florida continues to experience excep-
tional population and economic growth.
The 2020 Transportation Plan update process
will involve stakeholders through:
- The guidance of a steering committee;
- Technical and policy support provided
by advisory committees for Mobility,
Economic Development, and Preserva-
tion and Sustainabiliry;
- Public involvement [0 be facilitated by
workshops and meetings;
-Internet access: www.dot.state.fl.us
...
For further information concerning the
2020 7i"flllSportation Plan update, please con-
tact Bob Romig, Director, Office of Policy
Planning, Florida Department ofTransporta-
tion, at (850) 4 J 4-4800, or bye-maiL:
robert. romig@dot.strtte.jl.us .
UNIl:F/.l~ Jim/1 jif/.'!,I" 6
some findings of fact in the Department's Fi-
nal Order were not supportcd by compctent,
substantial evidencc and that the underlying
statute was an unconsritutional delegation of
legislarive authoriry to the Department.
Thc court, Judges Cope, Levy and Green,
affirmed the Department's Order, per curiam,
with a written opinion rhat rejected both at-
racks on the Department's action.
For further infOrmation please contact Sherry
Spiers, Assistant General Counsel at (850) 488-
04 J O. .
Community Planning is published by
the Division of Community Planning
to provide technical assistance to local
governments in the implementation of
Florida's g1l7Nlh management laws. Ma.
terial in Community Planning may be
reproduced with credit to the Depart.
ment ot Community Affairs.
Jeb Bush. Governor
Steven M. Seibert. Secretary
David Bishop, Communications Director
Tom Beck, Director. Division 01 Community Planning
Jim Quinn, Chief, Bureau 01 State Planning
Charles Gauthier. Chief, Bureau of Local Planning
. . .
Caroline Knight. Editor
Lida Maxwell. Design and Layout
Dena Rader. Technical Assistance
Ross Burnaman. Assistant General Counsel
Subscriptions to Community Planning are free, available
upon request. To be added to the mailing tisl, call (850)
488.4925, SIC 292.4925,
Websltc: http://www.dca.statc.f1.usJfdcpIOCP/
~ This document is printed on recycled paper.
Department of Community Affairs
Division of Community Planning
Bureau of State Planning
2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100
T~~***.*********~LL FC~ ~.r=
H :; {'Ij J. ~ ~ C T :.! j"j ~. .... -
~: Ty'5:: :1\::.;.;'T'.::_r"
.. r',S._,:::;:::'.J.:3
1 1 2 .~ :: A, S T S;': .. .-<
~:~!T.~P S?R:~~S FL 327~~
Bulk Rate
US Postage
PAID
~ermil No. 181
Tallahassee, FL
32399
::; 27 19
ING
Volume XII, No.4
NEWSLETTER OF THE FLORIDA CHAPTER OF THE AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION
Florida Lawmakers Debate Growth Policies
The question of whether lawmakers wi II
make major changes to Florida's growth
management laws as part of the 2000 Ses-
sion or wait for the recommendations of a
proposed study commission, or hOlh. re-
mains pending as we go to press. ;\ state
lawmaker who announced in Novemher his
wishes to see the growth management slat-
utes fundamentally rewrilten as pan of this
year's Session has just released a hilllO do
just that. Some of his term-limiled col.
leagues in the Florida l'louse (whll ;Ire in
the midst of their last Session as stalL' legis.
lators) have likewise expressed suppllrl fllr
making suhstantial policy revisillns in the
remaining weeks of Ihe ()O day Ses~ion,
The new House proposal, offered by Repre-
sentative George Albright of Ocala, would
shift responsibility for growth management
reviews back to the local level, at the op-
tion of individual local governments. Sixty-
seven review councils would be created, one
for each county, to oversee development
decisions, absent minimum standards and
with no funding provided to implement the
new system. In addition, the proposal:
Mandates school concurrency on a
statewide basis. and if not imple.
mented by July 200 I, each ;dTected
area is subject to a mandalory huilding
moratori u m:
Eliminates Ihe Developments of Re-
gionallmpact (DRI) process:
Substantially undcrmines citizen ac-
cess and enforcemcnt rights:
Changes thc cUITenl threshold fur small
sc,de amendments from len (10) acn:s
to up 10 ninely.ninL' (I)'}) aL"l"L'S. ;lIld
without governing standards, plus
eliminates the cap on cumulative an-
nual totals;
Rewrites the new statutes on sector
plans and, as part thereof, eliminates
the 5,000 acre threshold for such plans;
Adds the state Department of Health as
a commenting agency for local plans
and amendments; and
r ncorporates controversial legislation
that would have the effect of transfer-
ring ownership for potentially hundreds
of thousands of acres of public lands to
private landowners.
In the nll:;lIllime. Ihe Senatc is positioned to
gi I'e ;IP11I"ol'al to proposed Iegisl;ltion by
Senator Tom Lee and llther Senate leaders to
create a growth management review commis-
sion (CS/SI3 75X). The commission would
ellnduCl an in-depth assessmcnt of Ihe growth
managemcnl proccss and offer findings and
reconllllendations to the 200 I Legislature.
Representative Sharon Merchanl is sponsor-
ing the same legislation in the /-louse (/-IB
(93). and Representative Lee Constantine
has just released a variation of the proposal
that 'changes the scope of the commission's
review and includes in the study various is-
sues that have drawn conlroversy this Ses-
silln. Under his approach, the review would
also he conducted over a two year period.
with interim recommendations presented 10
the 20{) I Legislature.
As of this writing, the Department of Com-
munily Affairs is in the proccss of finalizing
it's legislative package, consisting of eight
sep:lrate proposals which agency officials
feel are needed for streamlining purposes.
The original proposals drew controversy
and the Department has worked over recent
weeks to address the concerns of various
interests. Several of the proposals remain
problematic while others have either been
removed from the package or revised in a
way that has eliminated objections.
By the time our n::;lders receive this eclition
nflhe ncwsletter.legislation combining pro-
posals from all of the ahnvc sources will
likely be nl;lking il's \I';IY to Ihe House Flnor.
This heing an eleL"lilln year. and given Ihat
nver 00 bwmakers are subject to term lim-
ils this ye;IL anything GIn happcn and the
risk or prllhlem 1C);isl;llion ac\ually passing
nlllsl be 1;lken seriously - on growth man-
agemelll as well as other conecrns of plan-
ners such as private properly rights and sub-
merged lands.
The time is now for planners and other
concerned citizens to let your views be
known.
Stay Informed. . .
Get Involved
For updates. check out the FAPA web
site at www.floridaplanning.org or
contact the Chapter office and give us
your email address or fax number.
Also check out Online Sunshine at
www.leg.state.fl.us for copies of pend-
ing legislation; bill status reports and
both phone numbers and email ad-
dresses for state legislators. .'
Relay your views .to the Governor by
. : calling (8S0)A8S:7J46 oremail him
'," at'O~ove~nor.~eog.stat~.n.us., '.',
t ~'. '.' . ',..' ~ 'r, ' .' ",.;; '1"."' : '. ...... . .
.....f'..
"j' ,-j .:.:.~
~ . :i:'~i'
, .. <-7."..J
. '~-~;1
-..+.....
, " .., 'Y" er..~
-r;.: <t:.~~ ~:.;.:>>~~~:;"~.~.:'~~..~~...\:.:..;-~-~",,t;,,~':'\.
. t!flftjve!.Dir.e.cto.r;;'El1itotISiaJJ)~ n/[!r. .~c: ,
" .. _~.., 'li-.. '..,-1zJ- ,_', ':'\' " ..\.. to'"~ ~.--' 1;;+<.' ,.i:)>l,,:t.... .:J:>..,;...i.f.
~~l!~~~~~,1!~B~.~:(Cf;~,(~~g~i?J~:.3Z.11.,'~.:;'{:,
a,~l!,'f.f?,{ ~ cfe.ii(iVeput~i{i/si1ic:'c'dh!, -1'~\~ ":lj<
f:"".~<;'::~_1-~;~~ :'!J':,;:.._...:?...~t: ::""~~'-~'~f :.c:-~;+" oA-~i;',..~::. ~ '. ')'~,:1!: )lj
ll:.!'!;':<'l!'\'.~"-'ii~,l,f'l'.w. F*.,...,.Nabon.a. .111-;;-."':."~' "";:';.<.~.':'
"/f)t',,., 'I?"~~\ .' '\''''\~'''r:.~.~'_", . '!.:.!,' 1 ,-o';{:',\:- i{t.' :.:'t' , -.-.~,i:.;~.
:\.,;,~~k"',', ~':;'>Y202J'8'12;o061J4VaShi1;ig/on;;':. ':-'::"'~f:r: I
, . " }?;~~:{(;ltfJ}~l~~io/.!jr.~if:ai~,'i::;:."~}<:i~~l
:h)~ ,..";A:meriCarUnstitUtc.,'.? i'" :.:::.i::J
:l~i~\:of,r€e~tifi~d':.Plh~h~~: r '::':';>:";::,
"~:k.r.i_.~;:':.t...:'t~'l'~. ~.. _-..' ,~J'V .~-.~.~. -;. _-'t.....'t-~_
., ,,{ t.~[:(2Q?\8rFO'6U.'W.afliiiig~6ii:, :,':,,' ';;i:~~;'.
!{i~~,t:;~;'::~:: -}f~~I"f':'.' , ,;,., .,::.,~~; >~'..;< ','2~,:'J
2 April 20()() . FLorida r PLallllillg
. Presid~nt's Message '.
By Marie York, Alep
The forthcoming election of state officers is your opportu-
nity for leadership and service within your professional or-
ganization. Holding state office also provides the opportu-
nity to learn from a diverse group of planners through the
interaction of the executive and legislative committee meet-
Ings.
The nominating committee's mission is to suggest a slate of
officers that is reflective of our membership's diversity, varied specialties within
the planning profession, private and public sectors, and geographic areas. We
seek two candidates of equal proficiency for each office, knowing that we
will invariably lose one talented person for each elected. There is also our
desire to include new faces, yet select those who are recognized as capable
and effective leaders.
I ask you to consider submitting your name. An expression of interest on
your part is not an obligation. The offices available are:
· president-elect (chair of the legislative committee; also the one
who takes the helm when my term is up... or should I run off to
the Himalayas-just kidding),
· vice president for professional development (creates profes-
sional development programs and shepherds the AICP training
sessions)
the newly created position of vice president for section affairs
(assists members through section support),
· vice president for membership services (the conference man-
ager),
· secretary (recorder of executive committee meetings and par-
liamentarian),
treasurer (who works to ensure solvency as well as account-
ing).
For a more complete and authoritative statement of responsibilities for each
office, please see the Chapter's by-laws at http://www.f1oridaplanning.org/
fapa_la wS.htm l#anchorS 32003.
Holding office is challenging, fun, educational, and includes a statewide net-
work like no other. It is an opportunity to make a contribution, to develop
new friendships, and to think outside the parameters of your job or role in the
profession. If you want to have a hand in shaping your organization, let us
hear from you.
The nominating committee includes Tom Pelham (tgpelham@ao1.com), Tim
Brown (plan@co.st-johns.tl.us), Bruce Stiftel (bstiftel@coss.fsu.edu), Patti
Tobin (patriciat@jupiter.f1.us) and yours truly (myork@fau.edu). (Phone num-
bers are also included in the column to the left of this article.) Time is of the
essence - the slate is due by the beginning of May. Hope to hear from you.
By Neno J. Spagna
If your community isn't suffering from
"sprawlitis", please call me collect and send
me a road map, cause I'd like to move there.
What's sprawlitis? It's an urban disease
spread by the fallacy that "low rise is good,
high rise is bad; that less density is good,
more density is bad." The battle cry of these
proponents is, "go out, not up."
There are two main forces at work that keep
sprawl well and alive:
The population growth, with all its
attendant factors of economic ex-
pansion, is "highballing" develop-
ment faster than the community is
able (for whatever reasons) to pro-
vide the basic infrastructure it
needs to avoid shortages, such as
water supply, and overloads, such
as road gridlock.
This is a .'result of misplaced
priorities... not necessarily by the
governmental officials because
they generally reflect the wishes of
the electorate, but because it is the
human nature of community Jiving;
as the saying goes, "the squeaky
wheel gets the grease". Misplaced
prioritization of community re-
sources will end when enough citi-
zens of the comlllunity tell their
elected officials to stop spending
money on what the people (mostly
special interest groups) want and
start spending it on what the people
(the community at large) needs.
The second force fueling sprawl is
the fallacy that low-density
coupled with low profile is the key-
stone to a quality oflife in the com-
munity. If this were true, nearly
every low density, low profile COIll-
munity in Florida would be a true
paradise free of the problems of
sprawl. This does not seem to be
the case. Quite to the contrary, no
growing community in Florida is
completely free from sprawl. The
degree of sprawl inlhe COllllllunity
for
Sprawlitis
is in direct proportion to the degree
of low density, low profile devel-
opment that is permitted in the
co mmu nit y.
The sprawl mentality had its ori-
gin with the mass production of the
automobile. People were now free
to move about and live on a little
piece of paradise in suburbia away
from the clutter and din of the cen-
tral city. This frame of mind lives
on today even though the popular
use of the automobile is diminished
by its own gridlock and communi-
ties are running out of suburbia.
Some say that the resultant sprawl has a]-
ready infected too much of the suburban area
and it is too late to correct the errors of the
past.
Others say that with proper planning, there
is much that can still be done to avoid fur-
ther sprawl, and to foster healthy growth,
save the environment and farm land, and
pass an even better community on to the next
generation.
]f the latter point of view is to prevail, then
a complete reversal in the attitude of the citi-
zens toward height and density will have to
take place. A new attitude of "go up, not out"
is going to have to come about.
The question is, "How can a new attitude of
'Go up, not out' replace a half century old
attitude of 'Go out, not up'?"
I. Discontinue the practice of approv-
ing rezones and PUDs that en-
croach into suburbia and are unre-
lated to and have no nexus to ex-
isting major access roads and pub-
I ic services. These rezones and
PUDs are often located in remote
areas and end up being uninten-
tional sprawl engines for generat-
ing more sprawl. Only permit new
developments thal can be served by
an existing public or privately fran-
chised system. Developments 10-
caled outside of existing service
areas should be poslponed unlil the
existing services reach them.
2. Create a new optional Mixed-user
Residential/Neighborhood Com-
mercial Super PUD (SPUD) dis-
trict (if one doesn't exist), to help
compensate for I., above and al-
low the continuation of vital and
sensible growth. I
In order for a SPUD district to be
successful, it should consist of ap-
proximately two (2) square miles
of area, approximately 40% of
which is for development and the
remaining 60% is a set-aside to re-
main in its natural state for open
space and farm land protection.
Height is the controlling factor of
sprawl; the greater the height, the
less sprawl and vice versa.
SPUDs should be self-contained
and support a minimum population
of 7,500 people.
The SPUD district minimizes
sprawl by encouraging compact
mixed-use (multi-family dwellings
in combination with neighborhood,
commercial, and other similar
uses), greater building height, and
reduced density. Further, the SPUD
district regulations arc designed for
maximum concentration of struc-
tures and people activity and mini-
mum intrusion into the surround-
ing environmental and agricultural
lands.
Florida" Plallllillg . April 2000 3
(colltil/lled Jimll flllg/' 3)
Super PUDs will be Ihe lifestyle of
tbe Internet generation that will
want to live in a small. self-con-
tained community in which one can
enjoy the benefits of privacy and
self-sufficiency and at the same
time avoid the problems and the
inconveniences of sprawl. The
SPUD community will provide this
"togetherness", where most daily
needs such as work, shopping, rec-
reation and health care can be
found within the complex. Internal
travel of the residents will be by
foot or by bicycle, and the neces-
sity for off-site automobile travel
will be minimized along with the
subsequent overload of highways.
SPUDs should provide an option
of being designed as an open com-
munity or as a gated community
(provided it does not impede or ob-
struct intra-county through traffic)
and should prohibit off-site by-pass
traffic from being attracted to the
complex by its non-residential fa-
cilities such as shopping, entertain-
ment, etc.
3. Prohibition of urban developments
outside of the urban boundaries, in
Natural Resources Protection Ar-
eas (NRPAs), and in agricultural
lands. Preserve these lands for en-
vironmental enhancement and sus-
tained agricultural production.
Allow any legal vested develop-
ment rights on these lands to be
transferred to other lands within the
urban area that can be served by
existing infrastructure. This will
help preserve wildlife habitat. sus.
tain agricultural production, and
compensate the properly owner for
any vested development rights that
would no longer be permitted un-
der this prohibition.
4. Encourage multi-level parking
structures in place of ground sur-
face parking (in all large-scale de-
velopments but especially in
SPUDs) by giving a density credit,
impact fee credit or other bonus for
providing multi-level parking
structures.
5. Encourage the provision of a pri-
vate bus service for the residents
(in all large-scale developments but
especially in SPUDs) by giving the
developer who provides such a ser-
vice a density credit, impact fee
credit or other bonus. Such a bus
service can be maintained, oper-
ated, and paid for by the
Homeowners Association through
its membership dues.
6. If not already being done, desig-
nate selected major thoroughfares
throughout the county as "express
lane thoroughfares" and time their
street intersection signals in a man-
ner that favors maximum safe
speed through traffic and discour-
ages side-street entry at any inter-
section along the route except at se-
lected intersections.
7. Encourage the restoration of
former NRPAs and wetland areas,
the reintroduction of former wild-
life and plant species, and the res-
toration of former sheet flow-ways
by giving a density credit, impact
Florida Communities Trust:
P2000 Grants Available
The Florida Communities Trust (FCT) opened a new Preservation 2000 Pro-
gram grant application cycle on March 27,2000. Approximately $22,000,000
will be available through funding cycle for local government grants to ac-
quire land for conservation and outd90r recreation purposes. The deadline
for submitting applications is June 9, 2000.
For a copy of the grant application form (FCT/P2000-4) or more informa-
tion about the grant program, please contact FCT at (850) 922-2207 or visit
the FCT web site at www.dca.state.f1.us/ffct/
4 April 2000 . Florida ,. l'lal/l/il/g
fee credit, TDR credit or other bo-
nus,
S. Encourage the establishment of an
environmental land bank to handle
TORs, mitigation credits, purchase
of environmentally endangered
land, etc., in order to permanently
protect NRPAs and wetland, wild-
life, or environmentally sensitive
lands from encroachment or devel-
opment.
9. Encourage the donation of parks
and open space, street, drainage
and easement right-of-ways and
land for public use by giving the
donor a density credit, impact fee
credit, TOR credit or other bonus.
These suggestions, especially SPUDs, may
not be helpful to every community, espe-
cially cities and communities that are already
built up, but if a community is suffering from
growth and prosperity and is running out of
suburbia, a little SPUD might go a long way
in preventing the further spread of sprawlitis.
It could be the silver bullet for helping solve
many of the problems of gridlock, water ra-
tioning, solid waste disposal, air and water
pollution and the salvation of what's left of
the environment and farm lands.
FOR A FREE COPY OF SUGGESTED SPUD DIS-
TRICT REGULATIONS, SEND A SASE TO DR.
NENO J. SPAGNA, 3850 27 AVE. SW,
NAPLES, FLORIDA 34117. PLEASE BEAR IN
MIND THAT THIS EXAMPLE IS NOT MEANT TO
COVER ALL COMMUNITY SITUATIONS AND EACH
COMMUNITY HAS TO CUSTOMIZE THIS EXAMPLE
TO FIT ITS GOALS AND CONDITIONS.
Neno 1. Spagna has he en a Florida planner
since 1947. He participated in much of the
early planning progress in Florida, includ-
ing the introduction of PUDs, transfer of
developmelll rights and early optimum popu-
lation and urban growth plan (OPUG). He
barnstormed throughout southern Florida
during the 50's to promote the needfor plan-
ning. He holds a Bachelor's degree in Biol-
ogy, a Master's degree in Urhan Geogra-
phy, and a Doc/orate in Public Administra-
tion. He is {/ .f(mner Planning Director for
Hollywood. FL. Manatee County, FL, and
Collier COllnt\'. FL. Currently, he serves as
Presidellt If)r 'Florida Urban Institute, Inc.
lInd tellllll~mrr PllIl/l/el; City of Naples, FL.
---
What Does the Future Hold?
By David J. Martin
Executive Director
Urban & Regional Information Systems
Association (URISA)
As I talked with friends during the lat-
ter part of 1999, the conversation often
turned to whal the future holds, both in
the near and far term.
As it turns out, predicting the future is
not a new venture for URISA members.
Barry Wellar, University of Ottawa pro-
fessor and frequent URISA workshop
instructor, made several predictions that
turned out to be right on target.
Twenty years ago, Barry predicted that
"computer wizards will prove to be the
bona fide stars of the future and society's
newest millionaires." Consider Time
magazine's Person Of The Year, Jeff
Bezos, 35, and founder and CEO of
Amazon.com and you can easily see that
Barry was right on the money.
He further predicted that "Governments
at all levels will be threatened because
of today's (1980's) teenage players of
electronic games...". With arrests and
prosecutions of hackers and other cyber-
terroists now a regular occurance, we
can see that, again, Barry's vision of the
future was clear.
Certainly, the industrial age has given
way to an information age. This was
made possible by improvemenls in
communcations and computer technol-
ogy and is just now reaching its zenith.
But what comes nexl? Changes will
bring many new jobs and professions,
while at the same time destroying jobs
and reshaping economics and affecting
the enLire world. Survival depends on
staying at the forefront of emerging tech-
Ilologies. So, what docs the next 100
years hold?
EllvirolllllcntJAg.-iculturc: Water scar-
city is the single greatest threat to glo-
bal food production, according to water
expert Sandra PosLel. "Groundwater is
being pumped faster than nature is re-
charging it in many of the world's most
important food-producing regions... in-
cluding the western U.S.". In fact, feed-
ing a projected world population of
nearly 8 billion by 2025 will require dou-
bling the productivity of the world's
water according to Postel. "Meeting this
cording to the Federal Bureau of Pris-
ons, inmales who completed its drug-
abuse treatment program were 73% less
likely to be re-arrested than were un-
treated inmates. And for those involved
in a crime or other emergency services,
locating and quickly assisting the vic-
tim will be essential.
Growth Management: Those of you
involved in growth management have
challenge will involve making irrigation
leaner and smarter-substituting knowl-
edge and better management for water."
It is estimated that the world's meat con-
sumption is predicted to more than
double by 2050. And as farmland
shrinks and populations expand, meet-
ing future demands for food will require
more productive use of land. Certainly
getting more production from each par-
cel of cropland will be a necessity in the
21 SI Century.
Crime/Emergency Services: Nearly
3% of the U.S. adult population (5.9
million adults) were either incarcerated
or on probalion or parole in 1998.
Nearly 60% of inmates are in on drug
offenses. The recent decline in crime
rates is largely the result of a shrinking
YQl!..!lg adult population. Continued
cmphasis wi II need to be placed on cri me
reductioll, holh from law enforccmenl
and in Ireat mcnt and rehahi I i tal ion. Ac-
your work cut out for you. But are you
working in the right place? Small towns
are seeing booming population growth
while megacities are growing only
slightly. The fastest-growing cities in
the U.S. according to .the October 1999
Futurist magazine (www.wfs.org), have
populations of just 10,000 to 50,000.
And, while urban areas are not growing
at the rate of small towns, urban rede-
velopment is becoming more demo-
cratic. In the past, downtown revital-
ization cenlered on building big sports
complexes and focused too little on com-
munity development. The new urban-
husbandry approach involves residents
in the planning and development of com-
munities in our inner cities.
Local Government: In 1980 Barry also
predicted that, "Regional government
will become the most important and
powerful level of government," and that
(clIl/lil/lIOIIII/ flllge (j)
Florida ..Plal/I/il/g . Ap..jl 2000 5
(clIl/lil/lled .fi"()/Ilf)(I,I;I' 5)
prediction couldn't be more true today.
During the last 20 years, much empha-
. sis has been placed on the imporlance
of making decisions where we live, at
the local level. And I think we can all
count on the facL that this will conlinue
throughout the nexL 20 years.
More people are taking the law into their
own hands-creating new rules to gov-
ern previously unregulated situations
like Internet use and gated communities.
Private communities with homeowner
associations claim to do a better job than
governments do in providing security,
collecting garbage, and performing other
services. Local governments will have
to be more responsive providing resi-
dents 24-Hour access and services via
e-commerce and the Web. However,
with identity fraud on the rise, local gov-
ernments will have to provide systems
that ensure personal information (social
security number, date of birth, mother's
madien name, etc.) is secure.
Technology: Obviously, technology
will continue to grow and provide us
with new tools to serve our constituents.
But what changes in technology will
impact us most during the next 100
years? I asked numerous people this
question, and got many answers. Ev-
eryone agreed that technological inven-
tion will no doubt bring us tools we have
only dreamt about. But the two I found
most intriguing (and they came up sev-
eral times) were nanotechnology and lit-
erate, talking VIVO computers.
Nanotechnology, otherwise known as
molecular engineering, will soon create
effective machines as small as DNA.
This capacity 10 literally program mat-
ter with atomic precision will change the
economic, ecological and cultural fab-
ric of our lives. And companies around
the world are already investing millions
of dollars to develop systems as com-
plex as microscopic surgical robots, to
self-cleaning carpeting.
(i April ZOOO . Florida" l'lal/l/il/K
VIVO Computers, voice-in voice-out, (a
term coined by futurist and professor
William Crossman) will change entirely
the way we not only interact with tech-
nology, but in fact how we store and
deliver information. Many of us think
of voice recognition techology as only
transcribing machines for those of us
who cannot type. However, since the
mid-19'h Century, we have been work-
ing to replace the written word, with de-
vices that communicate, store and re-
trieve information verbally. Machines
that we can talk to, and they will intelli-
gently talk back providing us with the
information we asked for (a la Star Trek)
without converting Ihe information to/
from a text form. And this technology
is not far off. Look for the new genera-
tion of cars with combination voice/text
systems that allow you to access the
Internet and "hear" your email. For
more information on this exciting
change, visit:
www.compspeak2050.org.
Education: The number of jobs requir-
ing science and engineering skills will
grow three times faster than other occu-
pat ions between I SlSl4 and 2005, to keep
up with an increasingly tech-driven
economy, according to the Department
of Labor. A continuous cycle of learn-
ing throughout ever-increasing life-
spans will also be required to be a pro-
ductive member of society. But tech-
nology skills will not be the only skills
you need. People skills will increasingly
become as important as technical skills
and managers are already seeking more
creative thinkers and nurturing innova-
tions among workers.
URISA members, working in planning,
public works, utilities, natural resources,
emergency services and all other facets
of state and local government, are poised
to accept the challenges ahead. While
there will be many challenges to face,
there will be many new tools and
techologies available to help us make the
most of the 21 SI Century.
This article has been reprinted from the
January/February 2000 issue of URISA
News. Excerpts reflected to tailor for
Florida Planning, with the approval of
URISA.
URISA's 37th Annual
Conference
and Exposition
August 19-23, 2000
Orlando, Florida
Join your colleagues who manage, plan and use
information technology to improve our urban
and regional environments at URISA 2000.
Much more than a User's Conference! Much
Inore than a Mapping Conference! For infor-
Ination, call (847) 824-6300, e-mail
info@urisa.org, or visit www.urisa.org.
Partnership Formed for
Growth Management Improvements
By Gail Y. Easley, AICP
Planners from across the state have
joined together in a partnership to look
at the DCA review process for plans and
plan amendments. While it is time to
evaluate the growth management pro-
cess in Florida, not all potential changes
require amendments to the statutes or
rules. Some of the "problems" noted in
recent months appear to be susceptible
to improvement without legislative
changes. Many believe that DCA has
the ability and authority to make improve-
ments in implementation.
In a February meeting with Secretary
Seibert, FAPA offered to convene a
group of planning partners to identify and
consider potential improvements. In early
March a group of planners met in a day-
long session to begin the process of iden-
tifying potential improvements. A week
later, planners from DCA, local govern-
ment, and RPCs gathered to continue
the review. An initial list of issues in-
cluded the following:
o The large number of amend-
ments processed by DCA
each year
o Amount of discretion and
flexibility availability or "one
size fits all"
ri Rule-orientation
o Organization of staff for review
ri Lack of local experience by
plan reviewers
Ii Lack of trust
By Ihe end ofa very productive session,
the partners had agreed to several fur-
ther effc)Its and potential improvemenL5.
ri Development of a training pro-
gram to provide continuing edu-
cation on growth management
in Florida. A work group was
formed to begin work on pro-
gram design and coordination
with the Institute of Government
ri Development of a peer ex-
change program and expansion
of an existing internship pro-
gram. A work group will focus
on how to coordinate and
implement these programs.
0' Preparation of a plan amend-
ment guidebook. A manual for
use by DCA planners has been
developed. Copies were dis-
tributed to the partners for re-
view and comment.
ri Revisions to the organizational
structure. A work group will
be established to look at pos-
sible redundancies in the review
process, organization of staff,
and other related issues.
ri FUlther consideration of where
and how the flexibility provided
in 9J-5.002(2) can be applied.
All partners will continue to
work on this issue.
ri DCA staff wi II look at ways to
improve the ORC report for
ease of understanding.
What are your ideas? Your comments
and suggestions are strongly encouraged!
Send an email to Gail Easley at
easleyg@aol.com or call her at 352-
564-0898.
V. Gail Easley. AlC? is a planning
consultant. based in Crystal River; FL.
She isfacilitating the Planning Part-
ners peer review process.
Roposals that the state's growth management policies be
subject to a major rewrite resulted in Florida APA undertaking
it's own review of the overall growth management process.
The review was premised upon the belief that the process can
and should be improved upon. Chapter officials concluded that
improvements can be accomplished in large measure through
better implementation of existing policies in varied ways. In an
effort to help bring about timely improvements, FAPA has or-
ganized a team of planners from throughout the state to help
identify opportunities for positive change through the adminis-
tration of growth management. This article discusses prelimi-
nary results from the initiative.
Special thanks to Gail Easley and her team of dedicated
planners who have made this initiative possible.
Florida ." Plal/I/il/K . April 2000 7
iIi~ ., AMERICAN
PLANNING
ASSOCIATION
PU BLlc!n vestment
MARCH 2000
A speciaL edition a/the PAS Memo pubLished quarterly and devoted to pubLic investment and finance
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Sprawl: We Don't Like It,
But There's More on the Way
By Marya Morris, AlCP
Two recent reports on sprawl-one a public opinion survey
on problems and concerns facing Americans and the other a
nationwide statistical analysis of where sprawl is occurring-
make it clear that planners' work to combat sprawl and create
better communities is likely to stay on the front burner of state
and local political agendas for quite some time.
The objective of the public opinion survey-conducted by
Princeton Survey Research Associates for the Pew Center for
Civic Journalism-was to provide journalists with a guide to
topics worthy of investigation and reporting in the next few
years. The Costs of SprawL-Revisited, the nationwide analysis of
where sprawl is occurring, was conducted for the Transit
Cooperative Research Program by a research team led by Robert
Burchell of the Center for Urban Policy Research at Rutgers
University. That srudy and report is the second of three reports
from the Transit Cooperative Research Program intended to
update the original Costs of SprawL study conducted by the Real
Estate Research Corporat'ion in 1974.
What We Think
The Pew survey polled 1,000 Americans nationwide and,
separately, approximately 500 additional people in each of the
Denvet, Philadelphia, Tampa, and San Francisco metropolitan
areas, on topics ranging from crime, morals, the economy, and
issues for children, to poverry, health care, and the environment.
Respondents were asked to reflect on the most important issues and
problems facing the nation as a whole and their local communities.
At a national level, crime and violence were the top concern
(15 percent), followed by moral decline (14 percent), the
economy (10 percent), and education (8 percent). Overall, 48
percent of respondents said they are satisfied with the direction
of the nation, and 44 percent said they are dissatisfied. Six years
ago, a similar survey indicated that only 24 percent of
Americans were satisfied with the direction of the country, and
71 percent were dissatisfied.
The picrure is very different at the local level, where 74 percent
of respondents said they are satisfied with the way things are going
in their local communities. Moreover, suburbanites are more apt to
be satisfied (91 percent) than are ciry dwellers (74 percent).
Despite their positive outlook, respondents do have serious
local concerns. Growth; traffic, and sprawl tied with crime and
violence as the top concerns people have about their local
communities. Forry-one percent of those living in suburbs see
PEW SURVEY: TRAFFIC CONGESTION AND GROWTH
BIG SMAll No
PROBLEM PROBLEM PROBLEM REFUSED
Traffic congestion
National 35 30
56 25
44 30
73 17
68 19
PEW SURVEY: CAUSE OF TRAFFIC CONGESTION
SAN
NATIONAL TAMPA PHILADElPHIA DENVER FRANCISCO
Population growth in the area 44 48 38 59 50
Lack of adequate planning 21 23 20 16 17
Overdevelopment 13 12 20 10 15
Not enough money spent on 15 10 15 8 14
highways and transportation
Don't know/ refused 6 7 6 7 5
n=668 n=416 n=368 n=456 n=441
too much growth and development as a big problem, compared
with only 31 percent in the big cities and 21 percent in rural
areas. Not surprisingly, perceptions about traffic and growth
vary between regions. In the Denver area alone, 73 percent of
respondents indicated that traffic congestion is a big problem,
and 65 percent said growth and development are also a big
problem. Conversely, in the Philadelphia area, 44 percent said
traffic is a big problem and 34 percent said growth and
development is a big problem.
Respondents were asked specific questions about the
possible causes and solutions to growth, traffic congestion,
and sprawl. Nationally, 44 percent of respondents said that
population growth in their area was the primary cause of
added congestion (see table above). Lack of adequate
planning was second with 21 percent, followed by
inadequate spending on highways (15 percent) and, finally,
overdevelopment (13 percent). Denver area residents
overwhelming pointed to population growth as the key cause
(59 percent), with lack of adequate planning a distant second
at 16 percent. Curiously, a greater percentage of Tampa
respondents (23 percent) indicated that.lack of adequate
planning is the cause of traffic problems, despite the fact that
Florida has an extensive state growth management program.
That program includes an infrastructure concurrency
requirement-whereas Colorado has neither a statewide
growth management program nor concurrency standards.
How should local governments plan for growth? In San
Francisco, Denver, and Philadelphia, a greater percentage of
respondents indicated that local governments should try to limit
growth in less developed areas and encourage growth in already
built-up areas rather than continue to plan for and encourage
growth in all areas (see table below). On the national level, the
picture was the exact opposite, with 52 percent (versus 40
percent) indicating that local governments should plan for and
encourage growth in all areas.
The implication is one that planners have recognized for some
time: While the public has a conceptual understanding of the need
and benefit of growth, they are less likely to support growth in their
own back yard where it has the potential to negatively affect their
quality oflife. When asked about possible solutions in their own
home community, the view was more favorable towards a smart
growth approach, particularly in Denver and Philadelphia.
For planners, the Pew sUlVey provides a window into the /inure of
the public's overall receptiveness towards planning and smart growth
policies. With the sUlVey results selVing as a guide to journalists
trolling for stories, we will no doubt see growth, traffic, and sprawl-
the issues planners work on evetyday--even more regularly on the
front page of the newspaper and on the 11 o'clock news.
PEW SURVEY: LIMITING VS. ENCOURAGING GROWTH
SAN
NATIONAL TAMPA PHILADELPHIA DENVER FRANCISCO
Local government should
continue to plan for and
encourage growth and new 52 47 41 39 43
development in all areas
Local government should try to
limit growth in less-developed 40 42 51 51 45
areas and encourage growth
only in areas that are already
built up.
Neither 5 6 5 6 10
Don't know/ refused 3 5 2 4 3
2
SPRAWL GROWTH COMPARED WITH OVERAll GROWTH IN EAs
PERCENTAGE
OF U.S. ' PERCENTAGE
2000-2025 2000-2025 HOUSEHOlO PERCENTAGE OF COUNTY
HOUSEHOLD HOUSEHOLD GROWTH OF All U.S, GROWTH
SPRAWL TOTAL GROWTH IN GROWTH IN DESIGNATEO HOUSEHOlO DESIGNATED
TRUNCATED EA NAME No. OF GROWTH GROWTH SPRAWL All AS SPRAWL GROWTH AS SPRAWL
(CODE #) COUNTIES RANK RANK COUNTIES COUNTIES (%) (%) (%)
Phoenix-Mesa (158) 8 6 715,750 725.011 5.5 3.1 98.7
Los Angeles-Riverside (160) 10 2 640,142 1.160.231 4.9 2.9 55.2
Miami-Fort Lauderdale (31) 10 3 8 547.741 678,757 4.2 1.8 80.7
Washington-Baltimore (131 52 4 5 459,204 794.409 3,5 4.9 57.8
Denver-Boulder (141) 49 5 10 437.473 636.246 3.3 2.7 68.8
Las Vegas (153) 11 6 14 422.883 424.361 3.2 2.6 99.7
Orlando (3Dl 13 7 11 415.559 614.319 3.2 3.4 67.7
San Francisco (163) 22 8 3 347.522 797.268 2.7 1.1 43.6
Houston-Galveston (131) 38 9 7 299.110 724,754 2.3 1.1 41.3
Atlanta (40) 67 10 4 298.464 795.581 2.3 0.9 37.5
Who' 5 Sprawling Now?
According to the second of three parts of The Costs of
Sprawl-Revisited, published in late 1999 by the Rutgers
University Center for Urban Policy Research, the Phoenix,
Los Angeles, Miami, Washington, D.C., and Denver
mei:ropolitan areas will experience the greatest share of
sprawling growth of all U.S. metropolitan areas in the next
25 years (see table above). Strikingly, in the next 25 years,
more than 33 percent of the nation's growth in households
and jobs will occur in just three states: California, Texas, and
Florida.
The first part of The Costs of Sprawl-Revisited, published in
1998, was a literature review analyzing 25 years of empirical
evaluations and analytic assessment of sprawl with the aim of
defining its basic characteristics. The definition that emerged
and which is used by the researchers is as follows:
Source: for (:lbles on pp. 3.4: Center for Urb.n Policy Research. Rutgers UniversilY
Sprawl is "significanr residenrial and nonresidential
development in places where it could be damaging; i.e., in
rural, undeveloped, and developing suburban areas. Thus, a
sprawl development scenario is unlimited ourward
development created in low-density and leapfrog form at the
outer reaches of the metropolitan area."
The second part of the study, which is the subject of this
issue, measures significant sprawl in the U.S. It is a
national-level analysis of where sprawl is occurring on a
county by county and regional scale. The researchers looked
first at the rates of growth in each county vis-a-vis the
surrounding counties and national average and, second, at
the location of growth, e.g., whether it is occurring in urban
counties (which according to this study cannot be
considered sprawl) or in undeveloped or rural counties,
which is considered sprawl.
EAs RANKED BY SPRAWL INDEX
PERCENTAGE
OF U.S. PERCENTAGE
HOUSEHDLD OF ALL U.S.
GROWTH HOUSEHOLD
SPRAWL DESIGNATED AS G ROWlH
EA NAME RANK INDEX SPRAWl (%) (%1
Phoenix-Mesa. AZ-NM 9.6 5.5 3,1
Miami-Fort Lauderdale, FL 2 6.0 4.2 2.9
Las Vegas. NV-AZ-UT 3 5.7 3.2 1.8
Los Angeles-Riverside-Orange. CA-AZ 4 4.8 4,9 4.9
Denver-Boulder-Greeley, CO-KS-NE 5 4.1 3.3 2.7
Orlando, FL 6 3.8 3.2 2.6
Washington.Baltimore. DC-MD-VA-WV-PA 7 3,6 3.5 3.4
Raleigh.Durham.Chapel Hill. NC 8 3,0 1.8 1.1
Philadelphia.Wilmington.Atlantic City. PA-NJ-DE-MD 9 2,9 1.8 1.1
Tucson, AZ 10 2.8 1.6 0,9
3
COUNTIES RANKED BY SPRAWL IN 0 E X
1980-1990 PERCENTAGE 1980-1990
1990 HOUSEHOLD OF U.S. 1990 HOUSEHOLD
HOUSEHOLDS GROWTH SPRAWL HOUSEHOLDS GROWTH
RANK COUNTY (#) (%) 2000-2025 MAJOR CITY (#) (%)
Maricopa, AZ 807,560 48.2 5.06 Phoenix. AZ 369.921 29.9
2 Clark, NV 287,025 65.1 2.69 Las Vegas, NV 99.735 60.5
3 Palm Beach, FL 365,558 56.0 1.77 West Palm Beach, FL 28.787 8.3
4 Riverside, CA 402,067 65.5 1,72 Riverside, CA 75.463 23.8
5 Broward, FL 528.442 26.6 1.69 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 66,440 -1.7
6 San Bernardino, CA 464.737 50.6 1.64 San Bernardino, CA 54.482 27.2
7 Pima, AZ 261)92 37.8 1.40 Tucson, AZ 162,685 29.9
8 Arapahoe, CO 154.710 45,9 1.14 Littleton, CO 3,905 30.7
9 Wake, NC 165.7 43 55.6 1.10 Raleigh, NC 85,822 56.5
10 Seminole, FL 107,657 70.2 0.95 Sanford, FL 12.119 45.1
The third part of the study, which is currently under way,
will compare the future alrernatives of growth in terms of land
consumed, public infrastructure costs, housing costs, public
service costs, and other key variables affected by land
development patterns.
The basis used in the study for measuring growth is the
nu~ber of households and the amount of employment
projected over a 25-year period. Data on households and job
growth were collected for every county in the U.S. Growth is
projected to occur at a rate of 23 million dwelling units and 50
million jobs in 3,100 counties over the next 25 years.
To analyze sprawl nationwide, density levels for states and
counties were classified. This is necessary because density levels
are relative. An "urban" area in Wyoming is vastly less dense
than what is considered urban in New Jersey, for example. The
50 states were classified according to whether they are very low
density, low density, moderate density, and high density. At the
counry level, the researchers placed existing county development
patterns into six categories:
(1) Urban center; (2) Urban; (3) Suburban;
(4) Rural center; (5) Rural; (6) Undeveloped
In short, the study regards sprawl as "significant growth in
locations where this growth is inappropriate." Essentially this
means rapid growth in suburban counties, rural centers, rural
areas generally, and undeveloped areas is considered sprawl. The
report acknowledges that sprawl occurs on a' micro basis in
almost every U.S. county, including those where there is no new
growth in the number of households or jobs.
Using the household and employment projections for
each county, two alternative development scenarios-one
characterized by sprawl and one of smart (or controlled)
growth-were devised. For the smart growth alternative, the
172 Economic Areas (EA) in the U.S. (as delineated by the
U.S. Census, Bureau of Economic Analysis) arc designated as
the appropriate unit for containing regional growth. (An EA
is composed of one or more economic nodes, sllch as a
metropolitan or other celHer of economic activity.) The
smart growth alrernative is modeled as (J) a portion of
4
overall growth redirected to already sprawled or existing
developed locations within the EA; (2) another component
of overall growth held close by means of urban service limits
or growth boundaries; and (3) a final component of overall
growth allowed to expand to the other reaches of a
metropolitan area (just as all the growth in the sprawl
alternative is projected to do). In the final part of the study
the two scenarios will be compared in terms of their resource
consumption, housing cost, and public service impacts.
Finally the report provides a "sprawl index" which is a
state-by-state measure of the potential for significant
amounts of development to occur in sprawl locations. To be
high on the list, a state must be projected to experience
significant household growth in relatively undeveloped
counties. The sprawl index is derived by dividing the
percentage contribution of each county to national sprawl
household growth by the percentage contribution to overall
household growth, then multiplying this fraction by the
percentage contribution to national sprawl household
growth.
The tables on pages 3 and 4 indicate where the worst
sprawl is likely to occur and which areas have the best
opportunity to accommodate growth in existing areas over
the next 25 years.
........ ... .... ........... ......
The PAS M,mo is a monthly publication for subscribers to the Planning Advisory Service,
II subscriprion research service of the American Planning Association: Fr:lnk S. $0.
Execmive Direcror; William R. Klein. Director of Resnrch.
The PAS M,mo is produced by APA mfT in Chicago. Research and writing by Research
Department scaff: Marya Morris and Meg;w Lewis. Edirors. Production by Publications
Department staff: Cynthia Chcski. Assistanr E.ditor; Lisa Barton. Design Associa[e.
Cnpyrighl @2000 by American Planning Associalion, 122 S. Michigan Ave,. Sui<< 1600.
Chicago. IL ll0603; e.mail: pasmemo@pbnning.org. The American Planning Association
also has offices at 1776 Massachusetts Ave.. N.W.. WashingtOn. DC 20036:
www.pbnning.org
All rights reserved. No p:uc of this puhlicJlion may be reproduced or llcilizcd in any form
or hy any means. electronic or mcchanical. including phorocopying, recording. or by any
information storage: and rcuicv:t1 SYSlcm, widlO\l{ permission in wricing from rhe
American Planning Association.
Printed 011 recycled p:Jper. including 50.70% rccrelet.! fiber
and 10% pOSlconsumcr w;t...[c.
@