HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006 06 07 Public Hearing Item 204 Ordinance 2005-29
PLANNING & ZONING BOARD
LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY AGENDA
ITEM 204
Consent
Information
Public Hearin
Re ular
x
June 7. 2006
Meeting
REQUEST:
The Community Development Department - Planning Division requests the Planning and Zoning
Board/Local Planning Agency hold a Second Public Hearing related to Ordinance 2005-29, a
Large Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment, referenced as LS-CP A-06-01 which changes the
Future Land Use Map designation from "Industrial" to "Medium Density Residential" for seven
(7) parcels containing 47.27 acres, more or less, less areas I & 2, located between Shepard Road
and Florida Avenue and to give consideration to the Objections, Recommendations and
Comments (ORC) from the State Department of Community Affairs and the Applicant's
response.
PURPOSE:
To allow the Local Planning Agency opportunity to review the ORC Report and the Response to
the ORC Report and make Recommendation to the City Commission.
APPLICABLE LAW AND PUBLIC POLICY
Florida Statute 163.3174 (4): The Local Planning Agency shall have the general responsibility for the
conduct of the comprehensive planning program. Specifically, the Local Planning Agency shall:
(a) Be the 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. . .
(b) Monitor and oversee the effectiveness and status of the comprehensive plan and recommend to the
governing body such changes in the comprehensive plan as may from time to time be required. . .
Florida Statute 163.3187 Amendment of adopted comprehensive plan.
Florida Statute 166.041 Procedures for adoption of ordinances and resolutions.
Winter Sprines Charter Section 4.15 Ordinances in General.
Winter Sprine:s Article III. Comprehensive Plan Amendments
Section 15-30. Authority. purpose and intent:
Section 15-36. Review criteria:
Section 15-37. Local Planning Agency Review and Recommendation:
Prior to the City Commission's consideration of the application, the Local Planning Agency shall
consider the application(s) at a Public Hearing, along with the staff review board's recommenda-
June 7, 2006
Public Hearing Item 204
tion, and recommend that the City Commission approve, approve with modifications (text only),
or deny the application for transmittal to the Department of Community Affairs. At a minimum,
the Local Planning Agency shall consider the same factors considered by the staff review board.
The LP A shall hold at least one (1) public hearing prior to making its recommendation to the
City Commission.
CHRONOLOGY:
Oct. 19. 2005- The Keewan Real Property Company of Winter Park, Florida, submitted a
revised application for a Large Scale Future Land Use Map Amendment for seven (7) parcels
containing 47.27 acres, more or less, less areas 1 & 2 [as described under parcel information] to
change the Future Land Use Map designation, so that it can be developed into as many as 334
residential townhouses.
Dec. 6. 2005- The Local Planning Agency of the City of Winter Springs held a duly noticed
public hearing, in accordance with the procedures in chapter 163, part II, Florida Statutes on the
proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment and considered findings and advice of staff, citizens
and all interested parties submitting written and oral comments and recommended Denial (3-2) to
the City Commission;
Feb. 13. 2006- The City Commission of the City of Winter Springs held a duly noticed public
hearing on the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment and considered findings and advice of
staff, citizens and all interested parties submitting written and oral comments, and after complete
deliberation, approved the amendment (4-1) for transmittal to the Florida Department of
Community Affairs;
Feb. 17. 2006- The City Transmitted the Large Scale Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use
Amendment to the State Department of Community Affairs for review.
April 24. 2006- The City received the Florida Department of Community Affairs' Objections,
Recommendations, and Comments Report (ORC Report) which included recommendations to
bring the subject Comprehensive Plan amendment into compliance with Rule 9J-5, Florida
Administrative Code and Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes.
Florida Statute states that the local government shall have 60 days (until June 22.2006) from the
ORC's Report date of receipt (Apr. 24, 2006) to adopt the amendment, adopt the amendment
with changes, or determine that it will not adopt the amendment. The action shall be made at a
public hearing.
Florida Statutes do not require that the Local Planning Agency review any changes to the
proposed amendment after an ORC has been issued by the Department of Community Affairs.
However, Staff believes it is appropriate that the LP A be given the opportunity- 1) for review of
the Objections, Recommendations and Comments (ORC) Report; 2) for review of the
Applicant's response to the ORC Report; and 3) to make further Recommendation on Adoption
of the Future Land Use change to the City Commission.
Page 2
June 7, 2006
Public Hearing Item 204
CONSIDERATIONS:
. The ORC Report indicated that the amendment was not appropriately supported by data and
analysis regarding the planning and provision of public facilities (sanitary sewer, recreation
and open space, and school facilities), land use compatibility, and land use need.
. The ORC Report included recommendations to bring the subject Comprehensive Plan
amendment into compliance with Rule 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code and Chapter 163,
Part II, Florida Statutes.
. The Applicant has met with City Staff and has prepared a Response (supported with data and
analysis) based on the State's recommendations.
FINDINGS: (Based on Section 15-36. Review criteria)
(1) The proposed amendment will have favorable effect on the City's budget, as the vacant land
is developed and generates tax revenue;
(2) The Applicant has substantiated that the proposed amendment will not reduce the LOS of
public facilities;
(3) The proposed use is not expected to have any unfavorable impact on the environment or the
natural or historical resources of the city or the region as a result of the proposed amendment;
(4) The proposed amendment is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the State
Comprehensive Plan set forth in chapter 187, Florida Statutes. Consistency with the East Central
Florida Regional Policy Plan, adopted by Rule 29F-19.001, Florida Administrative Code is no
longer required as this rule was repealed;
(5) The proposed amendment will not unduly burden public facilities;
(6) The proposed amendment is compatible with the surrounding residential land use to the east
and south. Adjacent properties (under different ownership to the south) remaining with an
"Industrial" land use (that were not initially part of this project) are being considered
concurrently for a small scale land use change to "Medium Density Residential" so that they
might be incorporated into this project, reducing any incompatibility that might otherwise exist.
Development of the property will include a berm with landscape and irrigation to buffer the
residential development from the adjacent industrial uses;
(7) The proposed amendment will not cause the comprehensive plan to be internally inconsistent;
(8) The proposed amendment will promote the public health, safety, welfare, economic order, or
aesthetics of the city or region; and
(9) The request is consistent with Florida Statute Chapter 163, Part IT and Rule 9J-5, Florida
Administrative Code.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff requests that the Local Planning Agency hold a Second Public Hearing and accept the ORC
Report from the State DCA along with the Modifications to the Comprehensive Plan
Amendment submitted as the Applicant's Response (in order to bring the amendments in
compliance with Rule 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code and Chapter 163, Part II, Florida
Statutes), and based on these Findings and Actions, Recommend Approval of the Plan
Amendment to the City Commission.
Page 3
June 7, 2006
Public Hearing Item 204
ANTICIPATED IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE:
May 24. 2006- Public Noticing in Orlando Sentinel for City Commission 2ND Reading! Adoption
Hearing (at least 5 days prior to adoption)
June 12.2006- City Commission 2ND Reading/Adoption Hearing
ATTACHMENTS:
A- Objections, Recommendations and Comments (ORC) Report
B- Applicants Response incorporating the Recommendations from the ORC Report
C- Ordinance 2005-29 with Exhibit A (Map & Legal Description)
LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY ACTION:
Page 4
---\-,-------- --------------------
.
ATTACHMENT A
STATE OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS
"Dedicated to making Florida a better place to call home"
April 20, 2006
THADDEUS L. COHEN, AlA
Secretary
~~
C,">. ~ t\+,t.,
,0-<, <f .~
"''''';~1-.>l ~ ~
~t"i>.s; ~
ok ~...
l?c 'l;I~
"'\9. ~"
"I' ".
JEB BUSH
Govemor
The Honorable John F. Bush
Mayor, City of Winter Springs
1126 East State Road 434
Winter Springs, Florida 32708
Dear Mayor Bush:
The Department has completed its review of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment for
the City of Winter Springs (DCA 06-1), which was received on February 20,2006. Based on Chapter
163, F.S., we have prepared the attached report, which outlines our findings concerning the amendment.
It is particularly important that the City address the "objections" set forth in our review report so that these
issues can be successfully resolved prior to adoption. We have also included a copy of local, regional and
state agency comments for your consideration. Within the next 60 days, the City should act by choosing
to adopt, adopt with changes or not adopt the proposed amendment. For your assistance, our report
outlines procedures for final adoption and transmittal.
The City's proposed Amendment 06-1 consists of one amendment to the Future Land Use Map
(FLUM) to change 47.27 acres from Industrial and Conservation Overlay to Medium Density Residential
and Conservation Overlay. The Department is concerned that the amendment is not appropriately
supported by data and analysis regarding the planning and provision of public facilities (sanitary sewer,
recreation and open space, and school facilities), land use compatibility, and land use need. These issues
need to be addressed prior to adoption of the plan amendment.
If you, or your staff, have any questions or if we may be of further assistance as you formulate
your response to this Report, please contact Scott Rogers, Principal Planner, at (850) 922~1809.
n rely yours,~
es D. StanU
egionalPlanning Administrator
JS/sr
Enclosures:
Objections, Recommendations and Comments Report
Review Agency Comments
cc: Ms. Eloise Sahlstrom, Senior Planner, City of Winter Springs
Mr. Phil Laurien, Executive Director, East Central Florida Regional Planning Council
2555 SHUMARD OAK BOULEVARD TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399.2100
Phone: 850.488.8466/Suncom 278.8466 FAX: 850.921.0781/Suncom 291.0781
. Internet address: htto:lIwww.dca.state.fl.us
CRITICAL STATE CONCERN FIELD OFFICE
27M Ov...... Highway, Suile 212
Marathon. FL 33050-2227
(306) 289-2402
COMMUNITY PLANNING
2555 Shutrerd Oak Boulevard
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100
(850) 488.2356
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
2555 Sl1ummI Oak 8auI.vard
TlIIlehe-. FL32399-21oo
(850) 413-eM9
HOUSING & COM,lUNITY DEVELOPMENT
2555 SIuNnI Oek Boulevard
TelIahusee. FL 32399-2100
(850) 488-7866
TRANSMITTAL PROCEDURES
The process for adoption oflocal comprehensive plan amendments is outlined in s.
163.3184, Florida Statutes, and Rule 9J-l1.011, Florida Administrative Code.
I Within ten working days of the date of adoption, the City must submit the following to
the Department:
Three copies of the adopted comprehensive plan amendment;
A copy of the adoption ordinance;
A listing of additional changes not previously reviewed;
A listing of findings by the local governing body, if any, which were not included in the
ordinance; and
A statement indicating the relationship of the additional changes to the Department's
Objections, Recommendations and Comments Report.
The above amendmen.t and documentation are required for the Department to conduct a
compliance review, make a compliance determination and issue the appropriate notice of intent.
In order to expedite the regional planning council's review of the amendment, and
pursuant to Rule 9J-l1.011 (5), F.A.C., please provide a copy of the adopted amendment directly
to Mr. Phil Laurien, Executive Director, of the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council.
Please be advised that the Florida legislature amended Section 163.3184(8)(b), F.S.,
requiring the Department to provide a courtesy information statement regarding the
Department's Notice ofIntent to citizens who furnish their names and addresses at the local
government's plan amendment transmittal (proposed) or adoption hearings. In order to provide
this courtesy information statement, local governments are required by the law to furnish to the
Department the names and addresses of the citizens requesting this infonnation. This list is to be
submitted at the time of transmittal of the adopted plan amendment (a sample Infonnation Sheet
is attached for your use).
DEPARTMENT OF CO~IUNITY AFFAIRS
OBJECTIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND COMMENTS
FOR
~~
~
C)-0-.f~ ~~
"~o.<- <., ~
"'''I),~1-~ ~~ (>
o..,;~ ~ "
'""\l~ ~.....
l?o";'1711
~..QIS'
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS
AMENDMENT 06-1
Apri120,2006
Division of Community Planning
Bureau of Local Planning
This report is prepared pursuant to Rule 91-11.0 to, F .AC.
OBJECTIO~S, RECOMMENDATIONS AND COMMErItt: c
. FOR I:'''e
CITY OF \VINTER SPRINGS APR 2 0
AMENDMENT 06-1 CI ~ 200B
c7Y o/: 1'\17
Otnrnl./lli "'reR SP
ty Oellelo RINGs
P/1Jellt
I. CONSISTENCY WITH CHAPTER 163. PART II. F.S.. AND RULE 9J-5. F.A.C.
The City's proposed Amendment 06-1 consists of one amendment to the Future Land
Use Map (FLUM) to changeaA7.27 acre parcel from Industrial and Conservation Overlay to
Medium Density Residential (9 dwelling units per acre) and Conservation Overlay. The
Department raises the following objections to proposed Amendment 06.,.1:
A. FLUM Amendment
1. Obiection: The FLUM amendment is not supported by a public facilities analysis (including
assumptions, data sources, and description of methodologies used) for the five year and long
term planning timeframes addressing the following: (I) the amount of sanitary sewer demand
generated by the maximum development potential allowed by the FLUM amendment combined
with the projected five year and long term community-wide growth (background growth) in
demand for sanitary sewer; (2) the available and planned uncommitted capacity of sanitary sewer
facilities that would serve the demand; (3) the impact of the demand for sanitary sewer on the
projected operating level of service and impact on available and planned uncommitted capacity
of the facilities; (4) the need for sanitary sewer facilities improvements (scope, timing and cost of
improvements) or other planning alternatives to maintain the adopted level of service standards
for the facilities; and (5) coordination of any needed improvements or other planning alternatives
with the Future Land Use Element, Infrastructure Element, and Capital Improvements Elements,
including implementation through the Five-Year Schedule of Capital Improvements. The
amendments are not supported by data and analysis demonstrating that the amendments are
consistent with the following provisions of the City's Comprehensive Plan: Capital
Improvements Element Goal 1, Objective 1.1, and Policies 1.1.1, 1.1.2, 1.1.3, 1.2.1, 1.2.2, and
1.2.3.; FutureLand Use Element Objective 1.3 and Policy 1.2.3; and Infrastructure Element Goal
N-A, Objective N-A-I, and Policies N,.A.:1.l, IV-A-1.6, and N-A-1.5.
The FLUM amendment is not supported by a public facilities analysis (including
assumptions, data sources, and description of methodologies used) for the five year and long
term planning timeframes addressing the following:. (1) the amount of recreation and open space
demand generated by the maximum development potential allowed by the FLUM am'endment
combined with the projected five year and long term community-wide growth (background
growth) in demand for recreation and open space; (2) the available and planned uncommitted
capacity of recreation and open space facilities that would serve the demand; (3) the impact of
the demand for recreation and open space facilities on the projected operating level of service
and impact on available and planned uncommitted capacity ofthe facilities; (4) the need for
recreation and open space facilities improvements (scope, timing and cost of improvements) or
other planning alternatives to maintain the adopted level of service standards for recreation and
open space; and (5) coordination of any needed improvements or other planning alternatives with
the Future Land Use Element, Recreation and Open Element, and Capital Improvements
Elements, including implementation through the Five-Year Schedule of Capital Improvements.
The amendment is not supported by data and analysis demonstrating that the amendment is
consistent with the following provisions of the City's Comprehensive Plan: Capital
Improvements Element Goal I, Objective 1.1, and Policies 1.1.1, 1.1.2, 1.1.3, 1.2.1, 1.2.2, and
1.2.3.; and Recreation and Open Space Element Goal I, Objective 1.1, and Policies 1.1.1 and
1.1.2.
The proposed amendment is not consistent with the following requirements: Rules 9J-
5.005(2 and 5); 9J-5.006(3)(b)l; 9J-5.006(3)(c); 9J-5.006(4); 9J-5.011(1)(a through f); 9J-
5.01 I (2)(a); 9J-5.011(2)(b)2JH-5.011(2)(c)1 a~d 2; 9J-5.016(1)(a); 9J-5.016(2)(b, c, and f); 9J-
5.016(3)(b)I, 3, and 5; 9J-5.016(3)(c)1.d, l.e, 1.f, and I.g; 9J-5.016(4)(a); 9J-5.015(3)(b)1 and 2;
9J-5.015(3)(c)1 and 11, F.A.C.; and Sections 163.3177(2,3, and 8); 163.3177(6)(a, c and e); and
163.3177(6)(h)1 and 2, F.S.
Recommendation: Revise the amendment to include the required data and analysis
necessary to support the FLUM amendment and demonstrate coordination of the land use with
the planning and provision o~public facilities (sanitary sewer, and recreation'and open space),
demonstrate coordination among plan elements (Future Land Use Element, Infrastructure
Element, Recreation and Open Space Element, and Capital Improvements Element), and
demonstrate consistency of the amendment with the Comprehensive Plan goals, objectives and
. policies. Revise the amendment as necessary to be consistent with and supported by the data and
analysis.
2. Objection: The proposed FLUM amendment increases the residential density on the subject
parcel and has the potential to increase the student population for schools. The proposed FLUM
amendment is not supported by an analysis for the five year and ten year planning timeframes of
the Comprehensive Plan addressing the following: (I) the number of students for each school
resulting from the FLUM amendment; (2) the impact ofthe FLUM amendment students on the
five year and ten year community-wide projected student enrollments and five year and ten year
planned capacity of each school; (3) the need for school facility improvements (scope and timing
of school facility improvements) or other planning alternatives to provide capacity to serve the ."
impacts; and (4) coordination ofthe amendment and school facility improvements with the
Seminole County School Board. The amendment is not supported by data and analysis
demonstrating that the amendment is corisistent with the following provisions of the City's
Comprehensive Plan: Intergovernmental Coordination Element Goal I , Objective 1.2, and
Policies 1.2.2, 1.2.3, and 1.2.5.
The proposed amendment is not consistent with the following requirements: I Rules 9J-
5.005(2 and 5); 9J-5.006(3)(c); 9J-5.006(4); 9J-S.015(3)(b)I; 9J-5.01S(3)(c)1 and 12, F.A.C.;
and Sections 163.3177(6)(a); and 163.3177(6)(h)1 and 2, F.S.
Recommendation: Revise the amendment to include the required data and analysis
addressing (1) coordination of the amendment with the School Board; (2) the five year and ten
year student impacts to school facilities and the capital improvements or other measures
necessary to provide school capacity to serve the anticipated school students, including analysis
of additional coordination with the School Board regarding additional school facility
improvements that may be needed; and (3) consistency of the amendment with the goals,
objectives, and policies of the City of Winter Springs Comprehensive Plan. Revise the
amendment as necessary to be consistent with and supported by the data and analysis.
3. Obiection: The FLUM Amendment is not appropriately supported by data and analysis
demonstrating the need for the additional proposed FLUM designation of Medium Density
Residential on the FLUM in order to accommodate the City's projected population growth
within the planning timeframe of the City's Comprehensive Plan. The amendment is not
supported by data and analysis demonstrating that the amendment is consistent with the
following provisions of the Qty's Comprehensive Plan: Housing Element Goal 1, Objective 1.1
and Policy 1.1.1; and Future Land Use Element Policy 1.1.5.
The proposed amendment is not consistent with the following requirements: Rules 9J-
5.002(8); Rules 9J-5.005(2 and 5); 9J-5.006(1, 2, 3, and 4); 9J-5.006(5); and 9J-5.01O(I, 2, and
3), F.A.C.; and Sections 163..3177(2, 6, and 8), F.S.
Recommendation: Revise the amendment to include an analysis, based on professionally
acceptable methodology and assumptions, demonstrating whether there is a need for the
additional acreage of Medium Density Residential use on the FLUM inorder to accommodate
the City's projected population growth within the planning timeframe of the City's
Comprehensive Plan. Revise the amendment as necessary to be consistent with and supported
by the analysis.
4. Land Use Compatibility: The proposed amendment is not appropriately supported by data
and analysis demonstrating the proposed designation of Medium Density Residential is
compatible with the existing and planned future industrial land uses located 'in the surrounding
area where the industrial land uses may potentially affect (adversely impact) Medium Density
Residential land use on the amendment parcel. The proposed amendment is not appropriately
supported by data and analysis demonstrating the amendment is consistent with the land use
compatibility goals, objectives and policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan (Future Land Use
Element Objective 1.5 and Policies 1.5.1, 1.5.6, L5.Tand 1.5.8; and Housing Element Objective.
2.2 and Policy 2.2.7.
.'
The proposed amendment is not consistent with the following requirements: Rules 9J-
5.002(8); Rules 9J-5.005(2 and 5); 9J-5.006(1, 2, 3, and 4); F.A.C.; and Sections 163.3177(2,6,
and 8), F.S.
Recommendation: Revise the amendment to include an analysis demonstrating that the
proposed Medium Density Residential land 'use is compatible with the existing and planned
future industrial land uses located in the surrounding area, and demonstrate that the amendment
is consistent with the land use compatibility provisions of the City's Comprehensive Plan.
Revise the amendment as necessary to be consistent with and supported by the analysis.
II. CONSISTENCY WITH STATE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Obiection: The proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment 06-1 is not consistent with and does
not further the following provisions of the State Comprehensive Plan (Chapter 187, Florida
Statutes) for the reasons noted in the objections raised above in"Section I:
(a) 00a19.a (Natural Systems and Recreational Lands); Policy 9.b.11;
(b) 00a115.a (Land Use); Policy 15.b.1;
(c) Goa116.a (Urban and Oowntown Revitalization); Policy 16.b.8
(d) 00a117.8 (public Facilities); Policy 17.b.7; and
(e) 00a125.a (plan Imp1emen.,Sation); Policy 25.b.7.
Recommendation: Revise the plan amendment as recommended for the objections raised
above.
--
.
..-'
~"
- '..:=;
=
===
===
;;:;;;:
~
~..
o~ ~)()!?
Florida Departlllellt of Trallsportation
.IED nrslI
GOHR\OR
Intermoda! So.'stems De'lelopmerlt
133 South Se:1'1oran Bc~:evard
Orland::>. FL 32807-3230
DE:\\"ER .r. STrTLER. .JR.
SECRET.\RY
Mr. Ray Eubanks, Community Program Administrator
Department of Community Affairs, State of Florida
Plan Review & DRI Processing Section
2555 Shumard Oaks Boulevard
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100
~~.
~A ~ ~.
0.' J- 7p ,~
\0.(\ ~ ~~
\\ , ;;A
~O~1'> ~ ,~
\,~ ~ V
\~
II 't-,..,.
".-"iJI
March 22, 2006
SUBJECT:
LOCAl GOVERNMENT:
DCA#:
PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS
WINTER SPRINGS
06-1
Dear Mr. Eubanks:
The Department of Transportation has completed its review of the above proposed
comprehensive plan amendments as requested in your memorandum dated, February 23,
2006.
We appreciate the opportunity to participate in this review process and we offer our comments
with this letter. If further information is received from the local government prior to the issuance
of the aRC Report, the Department will revise the comments.
If you have any questions, please contact me at 407-482-7856 (Suncom: 335-7856) or e-mail
me at bettv.mckee1Vdot.state.f1. us.
Sincerely,
~~~
Betty McKee
Systems Planner
BMcK
attachment
cc: Rob Magee, FOOT-Cia
Eloise Sahlstrom, Winter Springs
James Stansbury, DCA
Tony Walter, Seminole County
File: J:\Orowth M.nagel1'oenl'.comp~tnsl... PI.nsICommenlsandCo'ttll..lllers\Semind. Colv..lnterSpringlO6-' Covelletlet032106.dOC
,
e
e
'.
Florida Department of Transportation
Intermodal Systems Development
Technical Applications Section
Page 1 of 1
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT REVIEW COMMENTS
Date of DCA's Request Memo:
February 23,2006
March 23. 2006
March 22. 2006
~~
4A C'~/~
Clry ~; ~.A
"o~~,t- ~ ~ <'a "
ClI)'i 'Vr.... ~6'
~o"'~
0" 05'.0
0/0.0 "il-\\
"""''1.G~
Local Government:
Winter Springs (Seminole County)
DCA Amendment #:
06-1
Review Comments Deaclllne:
Today's Date:
ELEMENT:
RULE REFERENCE:
Future Land Use Element: FLUM Amendments
9J-5.006 Future Land Use Element
9J-5.019 Transportation Element
9J-11.006 Submittal Requirements
9J-11.007 Data and Analysis Requirements
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
LS-CPA-06-01 47.27 acres; current future land use: Industrial (.05 FAR); proposed Mure land use:
Medium Density Residential (9 dwelling units per acre)
REVIEW COMMENTSf RECOMMENDA nONS:
1,029,541 square feet of industrial uses could be developed under the current future land use
designation. which translates to 7.176 average daily trips and 1,309 PM peak hour trips (ITE 110). 425
dwelling units could be develOped under the proposed Mure land use designation. which translates to
3,936 average daily trips and 394 PM peak hour trips (ITE 210). The difference betWeen the scenarios
represents a potential decrease of 3,240 daily trips and 915 PM peak hour trips.
Land Use I Maximum Allowed Average Dally PM Peak Hour Trips
Develooment Trios
Current Designation Industrial I 1,029,541 sq. ft. 7,176 1,309
I
Proposed Medium Density I 425 dwelling units 3,936 394
Oesianation Residential
Net Trios T -3240 -916
Based on FOOT calculations, this amendment would result In a decrease in daily trips. Therefore. FOOT
has no comments on this amendment.
FOOT Contact: Betty MeKee, Systems Planner
FOOT
Telephone: 407-482-7856 (Suneom: 335-7856)
Fax: 407-275-4188
E-mail: bet1v.mckee(Cj)dot.slate.f1.t.:5
File: J:\GrOWlh Management\C~nsiw Plans\Ccmnent$8lldCowrt..etlers\Seminole Col'MnterSprtngs06-1 Comments032106.doc
e
FLORIDA DEPART~ffiNT OF STATE
Sue M. Cobb
Secretary of State
DIVISION OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES
0055
3/13/0'
Mr. Ray Eubanks
Department of Community Affairs
Bureau of State Planning
2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100
It"Q
4A ~/~
ell). ~ < ~.^.
o~ Ok ~ II' V
""I.I~~~~ vOl
~o~~
$"",.~
""'Oi'",~/~G~
~t
March 8, 2006
Re: Historic Preservation Review of the Winter Springs (06-1) Comprehensh:e Plan Amendment
Request
Dear Mr. Eubanks:
According to this agency's responsibilities under sections 163.3177 and 163.3178, Florida Statutes, and
Chapter 91-5, Florida Administrative Code, we reviewed the above document to detennine if data
regarding historic resources have been given sufficient consideration in the request to amend the Winter
Springs Comprehensive Plan.
We reviewed one proposed amendment to the Future Land Use Map to consider the potential effects of
this action on historic resources. Although this tract does not contain any sites listed in the Florida
Master Site File or the National Register of Historic Places, it remains the city's responsibility to ensure
that potentially significant historic resources will not be adversely affected by this action. This parcel
appears to have at least moderate archaeological site probability. The most effective way to guarantee
that such sites are not damaged is for the city to sponsor or require historic resource surveys so that it can
ensure its archaeological resources and hi~toric structures fifty years of age or older will be considered
when substantive changes in land use are proposed.
If you have any questions regarding our comments, please feel free to contact Susan M. Harp of the
Division's Compliance Review staff at (850) 245-6333.
Sincerely,
~.Q. .Q ? G~
Frederick P. Gaske, Director
Xc: Mr. James Stansbur)'
Soo S. Bronougb Street. Tallabassee, FL 32399-0250 · bttp:/lwww.fiheritage.com
o Director's Office 0 Archaeological Research ./ Hlatoric Preservation 0 Hlatorical Museums
(850) 24~OO . FAX: 245-6436 (850) 2~ . FAX: 2~52 (850) 2~3 · FAX: 245-6437 (850) 245-6400' FAX: 245-6433
o Southeast Regional Office 0 Northeast Re~on.al Office a Central Florida Regional Office
IQ:u., ,U;7...1QQn . 'I: A y. 4.f.7...1t;}fq1 I<lIUI R"~l;{U'I . 'I: A y. R"~c;n.u IR1 "'" 'l??_'U.1'\ . 'I: A y. ?'7? 7Ul1
East Central Florida
REGIONAL
PLANNING
COUNCIL
Chairman
Welton G. Cadwell
Commissioner
L,,;.:oe Cc'.:nty
Vice Chainnan
Jon B. Rawlson
Governor's
AppointQe
Or,,:1g~ C:'IJnty
Secretary/Treasure
r
Michael S. Blake
Commissioner
7:~-:~llnt~ L~~~~~
:: (:i~:.~:)
~';i=--.":::-r ~~=ir~",;s
Executive Director
Sandra S. Glenn
Sl',,'il1:.!
!I,\'\'lI/'d. Lak,',
()nll/g<.', (),,'<.'oI(/,
\,n:ill"l<.' (/11.1 "OlllShl
( 'orll/li,'s,
;: ::. :;. ~'!i 7".: =:-~ F.::1:i
:'~it'=: :.jl)
:-:':;:':::1:11, :!.?ri:\:'l
32-::
I'h:~,::
4'::.62;.1075
:!~ 407.€:3.1(~~
2~'::-.':'Jm :.;. ~ -1 07 S
~'Jnc':.::'. Fa:,:
334.1:34
:';~bs:.:-=:
...;........,.. ecf =;:'=. O~;;
e_
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
ee
oCr! y
31 If /0(,0
MEMORANDUM
~~
~
C7J)- ~~ ~. ..
~<J.<. <' ~~
D. Ray Eubanks, FDCA, Community progr~~m~~toj()
James Stansbury, FDCA ~~'\)~ 3'
'C!',: >()
q,~~1'.
0.,1 G'IS'
Jeffrey A. Jones
Monday, March 13, 2006
SUBJECT: Comprehensive Plan Amendment Review
LOCAL GOVERNMENT:
Winter Springs
LOCAL AMENDMENT #:
DCA AMENDMENT #:
L5-CPA-06-1
06-1
Council staff has completed a technical review of the above referenced
comprehensive plan amendment. The review was conducted in accordance
with the provisions of the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council's
current contract with the Florida Department of Community Affairs for Plan
and Plan Amendment Reviews.
We have not identified any significant and adverse effects on regional
resources or facilities, nor have any extra-jurisdictional impacts been
identified that would adversely effect the ability of neighboring jurisdictions
to implement their comprehensive plans. '
The East Central Florida Regional Planning Council is available to assist in the
resolution of any issues that should arise in the course of your review. If you
should have any questions, please contact me at Sun Com 334-1075 X316.
Thank you.
cc:
Local Government Contact: Eloise Sahlstrom, Senior Planner
File
","n'O" ~t~.. .
.~\I, ,1..,lt':l .l/t< t
~~..." ~.
:~~.. ~\" " ";
;;<;l f>.>,.~ . .~1 .,~
;.,~ '\ i.
f FlORI;!:'-:- .".
~
e e
Department of
Environmental Protection
: ::::~
Ma~ory Stoneman Douglas Building
3900 Commonwealth Boulevard
Tallahassee, Florida 32399.3000
Colleen M. Castille
Secretary
Jeb Bush
Govemor
March 17, 2006
It~C~1 t) '" 3>
c''>- 4P;p l ~ .,~() 3/~f /(J0
co",o,t:' l1? 1006'
~1.t1),,,'Iv,.~
"0 "Ys
eV8/0;"YIIVG
""81)1 S
Mr. Ray Eubanks
Florida Department of Community Affairs
Plan Review and DR! Processing Team
2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100
RE: Winter Springs 06-1, Comprehensive Plan Amendment Review
Dear Mr. Eubanks:
On behalf of the Department of Environmental Protection, the Office of Intergovernmen-
tal Programs has reviewed the proposed comprehensive plan amendment in accordance with the
provisions of Chapter 163, Florida Statutes. As required by law, the scope of our comments and
recommendations is limited to the environmental suitability of the proposed changes in light of
the Department's regulatory and proprietary responsibilities. Based on our review of the pro-
posed amendment, the Department has found no provision that requires comment, recommenda-
tion or objection under the laws that form the basis of the Department's jurisdiction and author-
ity. If the amendment pertains to changes in the future land use map or supporting text, please be
advised that at such time as specific lands are proposed for development, the Department will
review the proposal to ensure compliance \\ith environmental rules and regulations in effect at
the time such action is proposed.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposal. If I may be of further
assistance, please call me at (850) 245-2187.
Sincerely,
DEe
Lori Cox
Office of Intergovernmental Programs
Ilec
n
. . .. ."..." ~ " ,
... -... .... . - ... . . . - ... ...... .. . - ............
e _
St. Johns River
Water Management District
Kilty B. Green III, Executi'le Director · David W. Fisk, Assistant Executive Director
4049 Reid Street · P.O. Box 1429 · Palatka, FL 32178.1429 · (386) 329.4500
On the Internet at www.sjrwmd.com.
()(p&,b
AlA ~'t~
~1).. 1> <> v~
~o,c- 'I ~A
"'", ~;\f &'.1> V
"'1- ~~ uv6'
0(1 "i>~
~~;, \()
'?o ~-1r.
"'.. Gn
'/}/ U'
March 27,2006
D. Ray Eubanks, Administrator
Plan Review and Processing
Florida Department of Community Affairs
2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100
Subject:
City of Winter Springs Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment
DCA Amendment #06-1
J .
I .'
'.'. .J!
"
,.
~-: t~ ...
('\..,:':)"
Dear Mr. Eubanks:
St. Johns River Water Management District (District) planning staff have reviewed the above-
referenced proposed comprehensive plan amendment. The proposed amendment consists of one
change to the City of Winter Springs' future land use map. The District staff review focuses on
water supply availability and related water resource issues in an effort to link land use planning
and water supply planning. District staff have no comments because no substantial water supply
availability or related water resource issues were identified.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide comments. If you have any questions, please contact
District Policy Analyst Peter Brown at (386) 329-43111Suncom 860-4311 or
pbroWll@sjnvmd.com.
Sincerely,
,~. j} cJ:.;
",,1 \'. 24'- ~ l ,-,w~ ',,,, ,
Linda Burnette, Director
Office of Communications and Governmental Affairs
LBIPB
cc: Eloise Sahlstrom, City of Winter Springs
Jeff Jones, ECFRPC
Jim Quinn, FDEP
Nancy Christman, SJRWMD
Jeff Cole, SJRWMD
Peter Brown, SJRW}..1D
David G. Graham, QlAIf;!.l,lN
JACKSOIMllE
GOVERNING BOARD
.'eM G. Sowinsld, VICE CIiA~LWi Ann T. Moore, SECRETARY
~ BU~~
Wilr.~", W Kl!rr
.
Duane L Ottensl1Oer,1'RE.'SUIlER"
JACI(SONVIUE
W. Leonard Wood
Ometr'oas D. Lena
----
-
.---
"
,.
t~,
J~~
~\~~~
RICHARD H. MORETTI
1996 OVERSEAS HIGHWAY, G41
MARATHON, FLORIDA 33050
(305) 393-1688
Honorable Valerie Hubbard
Director, Division of Community Planning
Florida Department of Community Affairs
2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard
Tallahassee, Florida 32399
o'f -:55j lp
It~~ 3/f:; 0
4A ./~
011'). ~ ~ ~O
()~~~ ~ ~ lll~
V'I'i;. 'Iy~~ '6
ot> .Ii' ,sA
~/O.o i'?1A(,...
'I17e"t.s
VIA HAND DELIVERY
March 8, 2006
RE: Winter Springs 06-1
Dear Ms. Hubbard:
Pursuant to Section 163.3184(4), Florida Statutes (2005), I
am providing comments on the City of Winter Springs'
proposed comprehensive plan amendment sent to the
Department on or about February 20, 2006.
I own property immediately adjacent to the property that is
the subject of the proposed future land use map amendment,
and I spoke in opposition to the transmittal during the
City Commission's transmittal hearing. I also retained an
attorney, Ross Stafford Burnaman, to make written and
verbal presentations during those proceedings. I understand
that the City's transmittal package did not contain Mr.
Burnaman's comment letter dated February 6, 2006 (copy
enclosed), and did not contain a large aerial photograph of
the area that showed my property, the subject property, and
adjacent properties.
I request that you consider both of Mr. Burnaman's letters
along with this letter stating objections to the City's
proposed amendment. The Department should object to the
proposed amendment pursuant to Section 163.3184(6), Florida
Statutes (2005).
"
II
Pl.a.. provide me wi~ a copy o~ the DepaxtaaDt'.
objection., rec~Dda~ion. and Com-eDt. raport on the
City's transaitta1.
I would uso z:equest. t.b.&t. you provi.cIe .. witb & ccPy oE the
Department's Notice of Intent, .hou1d the City dec~da to go
fo%'Ward with the &4optiOD of an a.endllent.
Th&nk you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Richard 1l1ti.cl\i.~:,~ei/ In." .; i-
E.el. ../ "-11/.1/ {Y'//
cc: 3~. Stansbury (w/eDcl)
/
-
~
,/
/
/
(
ROSS STAFFORD BURNAMAN
Attorney at Law
1018 Holland Drive
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
rossburnaman@earthlink.net
(850) 942...,1474
February 6, 2006
Honorable John F. Bush, Mayor
City of Winter Springs City Commission
1126 East State Road 434
Winter Springs, Florida 32708
RE: Objection to Proposed Ordinance 2005-29
Large-seale Future Land Use Map Amendments
Dear Mayor Bush and Commissioners:
By letter dated January 18, 2006, Attorney Rebecca Furman
wrote to you on behalf of her client, Keewin Real Property
Company ("KRPC"). Her letter takes exception with comments
that I made to you on behalf of Mr. Richie Moretti and
Richard Moretti, LLC (collectively "Moretti"). As you will
recall, I wrote to you on December 30, 2005 regarding a
proposed large-seale future land use map (FLUM) amendment
application.
The "KRPC" FLUM application was postponed from the City
Commission's January 23, 2006 agenda (Item 201). The matter
had previously been postponed from the November 1, 2005
agenda (Item 400).
This letter augments and clarifies the Moretti objections,
to KRPC's FLUM amendment application and responds to Ms.
Furman I s letter.
Moretti's Property
In 1979, Moretti acquired property within the City (and
adjacent unincorporated Seminole County) based upon
assurances that the property could be used for an
automobile paint and body shop and wrecking yard. On
October 11, 1979, Moretti appeared before the City's Board
of Adjustment for a variance to expand that business into
the City. The variance was granted. The Board granted an
extension of this "special exception" on April 10, 1980.
..//
("
)
r-
/
1#
.
/
Moretti broke ground for the expansion of his business,
Ritchie's Economy Cars, on the City property in September
1980, and thereafter built a 10,000 square foot building
and began to recondition Volkswagens. The business
continued for about ten years, and thereafter Moretti
leased it for the manufacture of sheds, and manufacture and
sale of gazebos.
Presently, Moretti's property is designed in the City's
Comprehensive Plan ("Plan") as "Industrial." The present
zoning is "C-2" - "General Commercial."
In July 2002, the City adopted Ordinance 2002-07 that
created a new zoning classification "1-1" "Light
Industrial..1I The Ordinance eliminated the industrial uses
in the former C-2 zone, and included them within the new 1-
1 district. Staff was directed to begin the administrative
rezoning process to implement the new 1-1 zoning.
After considerable discussion and delay in implementing
Ordinance 2002-07 administrative rezonings, the City
adopted two ordinances. First, Ordinance 2004-02 was
adopted on February 9, 2004, to create another new zoning
classification known as "CC - Commerce Center" intended to
address the vicinity of Belle Avenue. Second, Ordinance
2004-28 was adopted on July 12, 2004 to create another new
zoning classification known as "C-3 Highway 17-92
Commercial" intended to address the vicinity of Highway 17-
92.
As for consistency with the City's Plan, the 1-1 zone was
appropriate for lands designated IIIndustrialll on the FLOM,
whereas the C-3 zone was appropriate for lands designated
"Commercialll of the FLUM.
In August, 2004, City staff began an effort to change the
FLOM designation for several parcels along Highway 17-92,
including Moretti's, property owned by State ST Bank and
Trust Co. of CT, TR, (7-11 convenience store and gas
station); property owned by Dittmer Properties, Inc.
(Superior Sheds); and property owned by RCJ of Winter Park
No.2, Ltd. (Holler Kia - Mitsubishi Dealership. The
parcels were cl.ustered into two nodes, one at the
intersection of Shepard Road and Highway 17-92, and another
south of Boat Lake. At that time, there was no discussion.
of the change from "Industrialll to "Medium Density
Residentialll for the subject parcels to the east. Wisely,
./'
/
-
.
~
~
(
you declined to adopt Ordinance 2004-36 at the October 25
,
2004, city Commission meeting. City Manager McLemore
stated: "We need to withdraw it at this point in time and
bring it back to you at a later date. II To date, the City
staff has not contacted Moretti about subsequent
consideration to change the FLUM designation on his
property, nor has the City initiated an administrative
rezoning of his property from C-2 to I-I.
Ms. Furman letter states that the proposed FLOM amendment
IIdoes not change the rights of adjacent or surrounding
property owners." While that is true in a narrow, legal
sense, one purpose of the City's Comprehensive Plan (Plan)
is to ensure that uses are compatible. A major purpose of
the City's Plan is to ensure that all residents and
property owners in the community benefit from properly
planned growth and mitigation of impacts on public
facilities and services.
Buffering and Development Agreement
Ms. Furman's letter is replete with references to
references to lIappropriate buffers" which she states will
include "a berm, wall and heavy landscaping." She states in
part: IIRegardless, we have agreed to a buffer including a
berm, a wall and enhanced landscaping to be approved by the
City Commission at the time of rezoning." As to the PUD,
Ms. Furman's letter states in part: "[i]t is questionable
whether the property still has entitlements to develop with
office, commercial, and industrial uses under the PUD since
those approvals may have expired." The City Staff states
"The 1984 PUD Master Plan and Preliminary Site Plan for the
property has expired and is no longer valid. II (Page 15).
Under the City's PUD regulations (adopted in 1987), lIan
approved planned unit development shall be considered as a
separate zoning district in which the final development
plan, as approved, established the restrictions,
regulations, and district description according to which
development shall occur. II City Code Section 20-360.
If Ms. Furman's client is contemplating a rezoning of the
subject property, as suggested in her letter, then the
validity of the PUD would seem to bear on the existing
zoning classification(s). The City's staff indicates that
the PUD was last amended by Ordinance 436 on October 20,
1988, and indicates that the current zoning is "PUD"
, ,/
/
('
"
,.
(subject to uncertainty about parcel "F" and Ordinance
436) .
I offer no op1n10n as to the legal status of the POD, or
the underlying POD zoning on the subject property.
Arguably, the City Commission should have a full
understanding of this issue in considering KRPC's FLUM
amendment application.
It is my understanding that the City should take action on
KRPC's FLUM amendment application, and comments by City
staff and members of the public. It is my opinion that the
City should not take action on KRPC's application based
upon phantom agreements between KRPC and the City.
While the Florida Local Government Development Agreement
Act, Sections 163.3220, et seq., Florida Statutes (2005)
authorizes the City to enter into a development agreement;
such authority is subject to a number of statutory
requirements. For example, before entering into such an
agreement, newspaper notice is required and two public
hearings are required. Section 163.3225, Florida Statutes
(2005) .
Moretti is not aware of any such notice or hearings, and I
have not been able to find any development agreement
between Ms. Furman's client and the City regarding the
property subject to the proposed FLUM amendment. The City
Staff reports "no development agreement is known to exist
for the subject property." (Page 15).
Absent such an agreement, I am not aware how the City and
KRPC could enter into a binding contract for such buffers.
Likewise, I am not aware of how KRPC has agreed to "make
certain improvements to the Wildwood community to make it'
safer and more aesthetically pleasing."
History of Future Land Use For Subject Property
My understanding of the 1979 planned unit development (PUD)
(the Wildwood POD). is that it included residential
development both east and west of the Florida Power
Corporation (FPC) power line easement, and south of Shepard
Road. Single-family development was anticipated on the
eastern portion of the POD, and multi-family on the western
portion. In 1982, Mr. Walter Dittmer and National Homes,
--
,
/>
(
.
.
Inc. sought to change the northwestern corner of the POD on
Sheppard Avenue from Neighborhood Services to Industrial.
Later in 1982, Mr. Walter Dittmer and National Homes, Inc.
sought to amend the Wildwood POD to change the mUlti-family
to an office park/industrial park. The matter was postponed
until January 1983. Mr. Walt Dittmer and National Homes
,
Inc. sought to amend the POD the Wildwood POD (and change
the name to the Winter Springs Commerce Center), Mr.
Dittmer testimony was recorded in the January 19, 1983
Planning and Zoning Minutes as follows:
Mr. Dittmer's reasons for finding this land
unsuitable for residential development are that
no natural or legal buffers existing on the 17-92
side (sic), which means abutting commercial
development; there is property abutting here that
is County, where the City has no control; no
utilities (water/sewer) are presently available
if it was to be developed as residential, whereas
light industrial might have septic tanks; and the
high density of multi-family would increase
crime, in his opinion.
The residents of the area were concerned about increased
noise and truck traffic. The Planning and Zoning Committee
recommended against the change. At the March 8, 1993, City
Commission meeting, the request to change the POD was
denied. The Planning and Zoning Board considered the
request again on April 11, 1984, and voted to approve it
subject to conditions, including a 6-foot high fence to
buffer residences. According to Ms. Furman's letter and the
City staff, the POD was amended in 1984 to include a tiered
office park concept with a mix of industrial, commercial
and office uses. The City staff indicates that the POD wa~
last amended by Ordinance 436, in 1988. (Presumably, the
staff meant to refer to Amended Ordinance 436).
Notwithstanding whatever development rights existed under
the amended POD, the City's Comprehensive Plan was
subsequently enacted under the 1985 landmark planning
legislation, Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, often
known as the "Growth Management Act."
Pursuant to this mandate, the City enacted a Comprehensive
Plan on April 27, 1992 by Ordinance 513. The 1992 Plan
included property west and south of the power line easement
as "Industrial" extending to the south to Florida Avenue.
/'
(
,
.
.
In addition the parcel at the southeast corner of Highway
17-92 and Shepard Road was designated "Industrial." The
power line easement was designated as "Utility
Installations." The 1992 Plan did not take effect, however,
since it was found "not in compliance" by the Department of
Community Affairs (DCA). In order to resolve the dispute
with DCA over the 1992 Plan, the City adopted a remedial
Plan by Ordinance 539. DCA approved that remedial 1993 Plan
on March 4, 1993, and it therefore became effective. Later
in 1993, the City annexed the land to the north of Shepard
Road across from the POD and designed it as "Industrial."
The 1985 Act also mandated that every seven years, each
local government conduct an Evaluation and Appraisal Report
(EAR) process. Section 163.3191, Florida Statutes (2005).
The City adopted an EAR in 2001. The 2001 EAR listed FLUM
amendments since the 1993 Plan. None of the FLUM changes
added more industrial land; however, through the annexation
process, 14.13 acres were added in the "Industrial" land
use. According to the EAR, as of 1996, 116 acres in the
City were "Industrial" out of a total 8,993 acres (1%).
As anticipated by the Act, the City adopted EAR-based Plan
amendments on May 13, 2002. Ordinance 2001-55. These
amendments were found "in compliance" by the Department of
Community Affairs on July 3, 2002. The City's next EAR is
due to be adopted by May 1, 2008.
Thus, based upon a comprehensive planning effort,
coordinated with State and regional agencies and adjacent
local governments, the subject property has been planned
for industrial use since at least the early 1990's. After
an evaluation and appraisal process in 2001, the subject
property remained in the Industrial future land use
category.
Notwithstanding Ms. Furman's criticisms of my December 30,
2005, letter, I remain of the view that the proposed FLUM
change represents "opportunism rather than planning" with
regard to the subject property, and with regard to the
surrounding areas.
The City should take note that two areas are excluded from
the FLUM amendment (Area 1 and Area 2), which are located
along Shepard Avenue on each side of the anticipated access
from the subject property to Shepard Road. These parcels
//
(
.
.
would remain "Industrial" but it would be reasonable to
anticipate that a later FLUH amendment would be submitted
to change them to "Commercial."
Since my letter, Ms. Furman states that KRPC has reached an
agreement to purchase the IIElsea property" which she
indicates is "to be incorporated into the proposed
townhouse development in the future. II The Elsea property is
presently a 1950's era single-family homestead. This simply
confirms my view that the pending application is premature
and is not the result of good comprehensive planning.
Comprehensive Plan Inconsistency
1. Compatibility. FLUE Objective 1.5 and Policies 1.5.1 and
1. 5 .10. Ms. Furman states that IIAppropriately buffered
medium density residential is compatible with industrial
and commercial land uses,lI
The City Staff states, in part (page 11):
However, the change could result in
incompatibility between the proposed IIMedium
Density Residentialll use and III.ndustrialll uses to
the south and west (along US 17-92), both
existing and future. Additionally, approval of
the requested change in the land use of the seven
(7) parcels will leave three (3) parcels to the
south (which also have an lIindustrial" land use
and that are not part of this application) as an
industrial enclave.
Moreover, in enacting Ordinance 2002-07 (creating the 1-1
zone), the City found that: IIcurrent C-2 zoning ... does
not provide adequate safeguards to protect against
introducing incompatible land uses which may impact
adjacent or surrounding land uses; and makes it very
difficult to create a system of transitional commercial and
industrial zoning districts throughout the City...."
Likewise, in enacting Ordinance 2004-28 (creating the C-3
zone and amending the C-1, C-2 and 1-1 zoning regulations),
the City found: "the current 1-1, C-1 and C-2 zoning
schemes do not provide adequate safeguards to protect
against introducing incompatible land uses which may impact
adjacent or surrounding land uses and may make it difficult
,
,
;'
/(-.
,
.
.
to create a system of transitional commercial and
industrial zoning districts throughout the City."
So, according to the City's zoning ordinances, residential
land uses may be compatible with some types of commercial
and industrial development.
FLUE Policy 1.5.1 provides that:
Inconsistencies. Proposed land use amendments
which are inconsistent with the character of the
community or inconsistent with adjacent future
land uses shall not be approved by the City.
Compatibility issues concerning the residential development
on the eastern portions of the Wildwood (Winter Springs
Commerce Center) PUD and commercial or industrial
development on the western portions of the PUD have been
considered by the City since the early-1980's. Ultimately,
the City has resolved these issues, in part, by approving a
preliminary plan for Phase I, on April 24, 1984 (Attachment
A to Staff Memorandum). The plan shows a transition (from
residential development to the west) with "Garden Office"
within the power line easement and extending to the west,
with "Light Industrial" to the west of the "Garden Office"
along with "Office/Warehouse" to the west and south of the
"Garden Office."
As noted previously, the 1994 Plan contemplated that most
of the moderate density residential within the PUD would be
buffered from the industrial land use along Highway 17-92
by the power line easement, which was designated "Utility
Installation." At some point, part of the easement was
changed to "Industrial" and part to "Medium Density
Residential."
Moreover, planning should be informed by reality. The
status of the PUD development approves needs to be resolved
in order to ascertain how the property can be developed,
and what transition is contemplated between the mix of uses
contemplated in the 1984 PUD plan. The reality is that
several businesses along Highway 17-92 are presently
classified as "Industrial" and are being used for those
purposes: Dittmer Aluminum Fabrication (north of Shepard
Avenue); Moretti Automotive; Apex Transmission; and
Superior Sheds, Inc., and automotive body shops.
,(
.,~--
r
/
.
..
2. Need. The "Industrial" land use category includes both
light and heavy industrial uses. Industrial lands are
located predominately in the north and west part of the
City along SR 419, the abandoned railroad, and US 17/92.
The Plan indicates a need for an additional 105 acres of
Industrial land to meet the 2010 demand. While the "Mixed
Use" category allows light industrial uses, it does so as
part of a PUD rezoning process. On the other hand, the
"Town Center" and "Greenway Interchange" FLOM categories do
~ contemplate industrial uses. (Plan, FLUE I-4) .
FLUE Policy 1.1.5 ("Housing Diversity") requires the FLOM
to'contain an adequate diversity of lands for residential
uses to meet the demands identified in the Plan's Housing
Element.
The Plan's Housing Element considered "Land Requirements
and Availability for Projected Housing Needs." (Plan,
Housing Element, III-14 - III-15). This analysis considered
possible residential development in the Mixed-Use, Greenway
Interchange and Town Center FLOM categories. The analysis
concludes (III-15):
As the table shows, the City will be able to
accommodate approximately 3,439 additional units,
for a total of 15,745 (12,306 plus 3,439)
residential units by 2010.... Therefore, it can
be safely assumed that the Future Land Use Map
shows adequate supply of land to satisfy the
housing needs of the future population of Winter
Springs.
Accordingly, Ms. Furman's letter is not accurate as to the
ability of other land use categories to meet the demand for
industrial lands, only the "Industrial" FLUM category
allows for "heavy" industrial uses (such as automobile
reconditioning, and shed/gazebO manufacture), and the
proposed change in land use would deplete the City's
inventory of "Industrial" lands for which the Plan
recognizes a substantial need. As noted by City Staff:
"Whereas, residential property is able to locate in most
parts of the City, industrial property cannot." (Page 7).
The KRPC has not demonstrated the need for additional
"Medium Density Residential" lands to the exclusion of
"Industrial" lands.
.
.
,.
(
3. Level of Service - Transportation
As noted by the City Staff, FLUE Policy 1.6.4 states: "The
City shall prohibit proposed land use amendments which are
anticipated to reduce the LOS for transportation facilities
below the standard." The City Staff report states: "A
traffic study will be required during the final engineering
phase. The results of that study will determine further
compliance measures, if needed." (Pages 14-15).
The applicant has not met the burden of demonstrating
compliance with FLUE Policy 1.6.4. By letter dated October
19, 2005, Mr. David Evans of Evans Engineering provided
"summary" traffic projections. Mr. Evans' letter cites to
the "ITE." That is a reference to the Institute for
Traffic Engineers. The City staff cited to the appropriate
ITE source, the Trip Generation Handbook, 7th ed.
("TGH") (page 8). The City Staff report agreed with Mr.
Evans' assumptions as to the development scenarios. For
industrial, 850,000 square feet maximum; and for
townhouses, 334 units.
The TGH provides different trip generation rates for
different types of development. There are at several types
of industrial uses in the TGH: general light (110), general
heavy (120), industrial park (130), etc. Evans used the
6.96 trips per gross square foot for "industrial park."
Staff used the 6.97 trips per gross square foot (and 51.80
trips per acre) for "general light industrial."
The TGH provides:
1000 SQ FT.
ACRE
General Light Industrial
General Heavy Industrial
Industrial Park
6.97
1.50
6.96
51.80
6.75
63.11
Accordingly, using the 850,000 square foot figure cited by
Evans and Staff, the range of trips per day ranges from
1,275 trips per day to 5,924.5 trips per day.
Since the square footage of development is unknown, the
acreage figure may be considered. The range is from 319
trips per day to 2,983 trips per day.
As for residential development, Evans and Staff assumed
that only 334 townhouses would be developed. However, the
maximum density for "Medium Density Residential" is 9 units
per acre.
.'--
e
.
Absent a development agreement, the City should evaluate
t.he maximum number of units allowed by the FLUM category. A
fair comparison would evaluat.e the maximum number of units
allowed for both types of uses, industrial and medium
density residential. The maximum number of units is (9 x
47.27 acres) 425 unit.s, instead of 334.
Using the TGH for residential townhouse/condominium (230)
yields (5.86 trips per day x 425 unit.s) 2,490 trips per
day.
The summary analysis submitted, as supplemented by the city
staff, and considering the Trip Generation Handbook, 7th
edition, does not. yield a conclusive result that the FLUM
amendment would reduce traffic impacts. In fact, if one
assumes that "liqht industry" were to be developed on the
47.27 acres, 2,449 trips per day would be generated,
compared to 2,490 for the residential
townhouse/condominium.
In any event, it is unclear whether or not the FLOM
amendment would reduce the LOS on Florida Avenue. The City
Staff indicates in part: "Florida Avenue is a paved local
County road and may require upgrading to support an
increase in traffic." (Page 9).
As for US 17-92, the segment from Shepard Avenue to SR 434
is operating at LOS F. According to the FLUM application,
"vehicle access to Shepard Road will be offset by the
proximity to 17-92." Adding additional trips to US 17-92
will certainty degrade the LOS beyond that adopted by the
Florida Department of Transportation for the segment from
Shepard Avenue t.o SR 434.
4. Recreation and Open Space
The FLOM application does not address the adequacy of
recreational facilities, nor the impact that the FLUM
amendment would have on the LOS for recreational
facilities. Both of these issues are required to be
addressed in the FLUM amendment application.
The City Staff correctly indicates that there are "no
public or open space parcels adjacent to the area.. ....
e
.
(
Recreation and Open Space ("ROS") Objective 1.1 "Level of
Service for parks" requires the City to use level of
service standards for parks and other criteria specific to
population, park size and location. ROS Policy 1.1.1 sets
the overall LOS for "overall parkland" (5 acres/1000
residents) and for "community and neighborhood parks" 5
acres/1000 residents). The City has a deficit of parklands
for "active" parks. (Plan, ROS Table VI-6) .
ROS Policy 1.1.2 sets criteria for the type and location of
parklands. At present, there are no "neighborhood park"
lands within ~ of a mile from the site, and there are no
"mini park" lands within a six-block radius of the site.
This is shown on the "Park Service Area" map in the ROS
Element (Map VI-3). Map VI-4.depicts "Target Areas for New
Parks" and target area number one depicts the subject
property.
without elaboration, the Staff Report states "the subject
property will be required to provide recreational amenities
on site, if the property is developed as residential
townhouses...." (Page 10). The March 2005 "Conceptual Plan
No.3" submitted with the KRPC FLUM application does not
depict any recreational amenities on site. However, the
"Community Meeting" "factsheet" distributed by Ms. Furman
on January 30, 2006 represents that there would be a
"jogging trail, pool, fitness course, cabana/clubhouse,
gazebo and lakeside park, tot lot, pet park and barbeque
and picnic area." Ironically, the "factsheet" lists as a
fact "preservation of boat lake" when, in fact, KRPC plans
to use the lake as a stormwater receiving area. Dumping
polluted stormwater into a natural lake hardly qualifies as
"preservation."
Conclusion
Rather than approve this legally insufficient request for a
large-scale nUM amendment for transmittal to the various
State and regional agencies for review, the City should
deny the request and maintain the status quo for these
properties.
The applicant has not met its burden to demonstrate that a
FLUM amendment is warranted. If the existing PUD is not
economically viable, then the landowner should consider a
r
e
e
(
revised POD instead of an abandonment of the partially
developed POD and speculative townhouse development.
Thank you for your consideration. Please provide me with
notice of the City Commission's action on this item.
Sincerely,
~-~
Ross Stafford Burnaman
Attorney at Law
Fla. Bar No. 397784
cc: Eloise M. Sahlstrom, Senior Planner
ATTACHMENT B
OBJECTIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND COMMENTS
FOR
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS
AMENDMENT 06-1
I. CONSISTENCY WITH CHAPTER 163. PART II. F.S.. AND RULES 9J-5. F.A.C.
The City's proposed Amendment 06-1 consists of one amendment to the Future Land
Use Map (FLUM) to change a 47.27 acre parcel from Industrial and Conservation Overlay to
Medium Density Residential (9 dwelling units per acre) and Conservation Overlay. The
Department raises the following obiections to proposed Amendment 06-1 :
A. FLUM Amendment
I. Obiection: The FLUM amendment is not supported by a public facilities analysis
(including assumptions, data sources, and description of methodologies used) for the five year
and long term planning timeframes addressing the following: (1) the amount of sanitary sewer
demand generated by the maximum development potential allowed by the FLUM amendment
combined with the projected five year and long term community-wide growth (background
growth) in demand for sanitary sewer; (2) the available and planned uncommitted capacity of
sanitary sewer facilities that would serve the demand; (3) the impact of the demand for sanitary
sewer on the projected operating level of service and impact on available and planned
uncommitted capacity of the facilities; (4) the need for sanitary sewer facilities improvements
(scope, timing and cost of improvements) or other planning alternatives to maintain the adopted
level of service standards for the facilities; and (5) coordination of any needed improvements or
other planning alternatives with the Future Land Use Element, Infrastructure Element, and
Capital Improvements Elements, including implementation through the Five-Year Schedule of
Capital improvements. The amendments are not supported by data and analysis demonstrating
that the amendments are consistent with the following provisions of the City's Comprehensive
Plan: Capital Improvements Element Goal 1, Objective 1.1, and Policies 1.1.1, 1.1.2, 1.1.3,
1.2.1, 1.2.2, and 1.2.3.; Future Land Use Element Objective 1.3 and Policy 1.2.3; and
Infrastructure Element Goal IV-A, Objective IV-A-l, and Policies IV-A-1.I, IV-A-1.6, and IV-A-
l.5.
The FLUM amendment is not supported by a public facilities analysis (including
assumptions, data sources, and description of methodologies used) for the five year and long
term planning time frames addressing the following: (1) the amount of recreation and open space
demand generated by the maximum development potential allowed by the FLUM amendment
combined with the projected five year and long term community-wide growth (background
growth) in demand for recreation and open space; (2) the available and planned uncommitted
capacity of recreation and open space facilities that would serve the demand; (3) the impact of
the demand for recreation and open space facilities on the projected operating level of service
and impact on available and planned uncommitted capacity of the facilities; (4) the need for
recreation and open space facilities improvements (scope, timing and cost of improvements) or
other planning alternatives to maintain the adopted level of service standards for recreation and
0909576\112882\949769\2
open space; and (5) coordination of any needed improvements or other planning alternatives with
the Future Land Use Element, Recreation and Open Element, and Capital Improvements
Elements, including implementation through the Five-Year Schedule of Capital Improvements.
The amendment is not supported by data and analysis demonstrating that the amendment is
consistent with the following provisions of the City's Comprehensive Plan: Capital
Improvements Element Goal 1, Objective 1.1, and Policies 1.1.1, 1.1.2, 1.1.3, 1.2.1, 1.2.2, and
1.2.3.; and Recreation and Open Space Element Goal 1, Objective 1.1, and Policies 1.1.1 and
1.1.2.
The proposed amendment is not consistent with the following requirements: Rules 9J-
5.005(2 and 5); 9J-5.006(3)(b)l; 9J-5.006(3)(c); 9J-5.006(4); 9J-5.011(1)(a through f); 9J-
5.011(2)(a); 9J-5.011(2)(b)2; 9J-5.011(2)(c)1 and 2; 9J-5.016(1)(a); 9J-5.016(2)(b, c, and f); 9J-
5.016(3)(b)l, 3, and 5; 9J-5.016(3)(c)1.d, 1.e, 1.f, and l.g; 9J-5.016(4)(a); 9J-5.015(3)(b)1 and 2;
9J-5.015(3)(c)1 and 11, F.A.C.; and Sections 163.3177(2,3, and 8); 163.3177(6)(a, c and e); and
163.3177(6)(h)1 and 2, F.S.
Recommendation: Revise the amendment to include the required data and analysis
necessary to support the FLUM amendment and demonstrate coordination of the land use with
the planning and provision of public facilities (sanitary sewer, and recreation and open space),
demonstrate coordination among plan elements (Future Land Use Element, Infrastructure
Element, Recreation and Open Space Element, and Capital Improvements Element), and
demonstrate consistency of the amendment with the Comprehensive Plan goals, objectives and
policies. Revise the amendment as necessary to be consistent with and supported by the data and
analysis.
RESPONSE:
A. Sewer. The projected sewer flow for this project is 0.100 MGD. The current
permitted plant capacity from the West Water reclamation Facility that will serve this project is
2.07 MGD. The three month maximum average recorded flow into this plant over the past 12
months is 1.255 MGD. The current outstanding commitment for this plant by the City is 0.159
MGD excluding this project.
Projected Flows for the next five years for the West Water Reclamation Facility are as
follows:
2006 - 1.313 MGD
2007 - 1.345 MGD
2008 -1.380 MGD
2009 - 1.415 MGD
2010 -1.460 MGD
2011 - 1.505 MGD
0909576\112882\949769\2
-2-
Although the city's sanitary facility capacity can meet projected demand through the
planning period, several projects are planned to enhance the provision of sanitary sewer
services for future growth. Policy 1.7.2 states that "when applicable, the City shall utilize
developer's agreements to ensure the timely and appropriate installation of needed capital
faculties to service new development." Additionally, Policy 1.7.5 states that "New developments
shall be responsible for installing all internal water and sewer systems ... within their
development. In addition, connections of internal systems to the City's designated major water
and sewer truck systems ... shall be the financial responsibility of the developer." As
demonstrated above, there is sufficient sanitary sewer capacity available for the proposed
amendment, in addition, in the event the City may utilize a developer's agreement to ensure that
the developer pays for the necessary capital facilities.
B. Recreation and Open Space.
The City has determined that it has adequate Community Parks. In addition, the City
recently added 27 acres to Central Winds Park (a Community Park). The City, as outlined
below, will require that the Developer provide an adequate neighborhood park on-site. Such
commitment is found in the binding Developer's Agreement. The City determines park and
recreation concurrency as follows:
Section 9-514. Parks and Recreation LOS
A parks and recreation concurrency evaluation shall be required
for any residential development on a citywide and per development
basis. Citywide minimum levels of service for parklands shall be
determine on a two level basis for community parks and
neighborhood parks. In addition to the citywide minimum levels of
service, new residential development shall supplement the system
of neighborhood parks and recreation services by providing
parklands ( or fees in lieu oj) consistent with the level of service
criteria and requirements established for parks and recreation
under the city's comprehensive plan and this section.
(1) The parks and recreation level of service standards for
community parks shall be monitored by the city through
concurrency evaluations to ensure that the minimum level of
service standard for citywide community parks remains at or
above one and six-tenths (1.6) acres per one thousand (1,000)
population. In performing the concurrency evaluation for
community parks for a proposed residential development, the
development review committee shall determine the number of acres
of community parkland which would be necessary to serve the
number of citywide dwelling units existing or approved prior to the
development plus the number of proposed new dwelling units. If
the development satisfies the level of service standards for
community parkland, then the development shall be deemed
concurrent for community parks and a certificate shall be issued
0909576\112882\949769\2
- 3 -
consistent with section 9-533 of this article. If a residential
development causes or continues to cause the level of service for
community parks to be not concurrent, the developer shall pay the
city a fair share community parks and recreation impact fee, as
established by the city commission by resolution. All such fees
collected shall be allocated and appropriated to the city's
recreation budget to be expended to enhance the city's community
parks system with priority given to expend such funds to acquire
parkland.
(2) The parks and recreation level of service standards for
neighborhood parks shall be based on the application of the level
of service standards established for each residential development
by particular region of the city as follows:
Northwest Regions -- 5.9 acres per 1,000 population
South-Central Region -- 5.3 acres per 1,000 population
Southeast Region -- 6.9 acres per 1,000 population
In performing the concurrency evaluation for neighborhood parks
and recreation for a proposed residential development, the
development review committee shall determine the number of
acres of parkland which would be necessary to serve the number of
dwelling units on-site (minimum one-half (5) acre). If such
amount of parkland can be provided while meeting the level of
service standards set forth in this section, then the development
shall be deemed concurrent for parks and recreation. If such
amount of parkland can not be provided while meeting the level of
service standards set forth in this section, then the development
shall be deemed not concurrent for parks and recreation and a
certificate shall not be issued. However, if a development can not
provide the required on-site parkland, the development review
committee shall permit the developer to satisfy the parks and
recreation standard by providing a combination of on-site and off-
site parkland and a fair share neighborhood parks and recreation
impact fee as established by the city commission by resolution. In
such cases, the development review committee shall require on-site
parkland to the maximum extent feasible and practicable, off-site
parkland shall be located in the same region as the proposed
development, and said impact fee shall only be paid if on and off
site parkland can not be provided as required herein. Any and all
such fees collected shall be allocated and appropriated to the
city's recreation budget to be expended for public recreational
purposes and priority shall be given to expend such funds to
acquire parkland. At such time the development satisfies the level
0909576\112882\949769\2
-4-
of service for parks and recreation, a certificate shall be issued
consistent with section 9-533 of this article, with the condition that
the necessary parkland and recreational services (including any
impact fees) shall be in place or paid when the impacts of the
development occur or shall be guaranteed to be in place through
an enforceable development order or agreement not more than one
(J) year after the issuance of a certificate of occupancy or its
functional equivalent.
(3) For purposes of determining levels of service for parks and
recreation facilities within the City under this section, the term
"parkland" shall mean a public or private use of land that is
dedicated as exclusively set aside as a neighborhood or community
recreational area including, but not limited to, playground,
playing field, swimming pool, tennis court, fishing hole or pier,
nature trial, landscaped city square or green for the pursuit of
leisure activities, stadium, conservation area suitable for passive
recreation, water sport area, or other similar type areas suitable
for bona fide recreational activities, storm water retention pond
shall not be considered parkland unless the retention pond
includes upland suitable for bona fide recreational activities or
incorporated by design into a bona fide recreational area (e.g., a
place to install a water fountain and littoral plantings in a park
like setting). If a storm water retention pond is used for parkland
purposes, the pond shall include abutting uplands for park
purposes at least equal to the size of the pond and the pond shall
not be fenced and shall be designed in a safe manner to protect the
public (e.g., gradual pond slopes). All parkland required by this
article shall be minimum of one-half (5) acre and have a minimum
width and length of one hundred twenty-five (J 2 5) feet unless a
lesser width or length is approved by the city commission by
variance. When considering a variance, the city commission shall
consider whether the requested size and dimensions of the park
will provide a functional recreational area in light of the
recreational amenities proposed, the recreational demands of the
residential community that the recreational area is intended to
serve, and the compatibility of the recreational area with the
surrounding neighborhood.
(4) For purposes of complying with the concurrency requirements
of this section, properties zoned Town Center on June 1, 2000
shall satisfY concurrency by providing the parkland required by
the Town Center Zoning Code and applicable development
agreements.
As demonstrated by the City's Code the applicant must either provide sufficient
recreation and open space to accommodate the proposed development or pay a fee in lieu
0909576\112882\949769\2
- 5 -
thereof The City's Code also requires that any property rezoned to Planned Unit Development
("PUD ") must provide recreation and open space. The PUD rezoning requires that "an area of
land or water or any combination thereof, within the area of a planned unit development which
is designated and intended for the use and enjoyment of the residents of the planned unit
development in common." LDC Section 20.351. Such common open space and recreational
facilities must be built in accordance with the standards of the National Recreation Association
shall be provided to serve the residents of the planned unit development - LDC Section 20-354.
In addition, "All lands shown on the final development plan as common open space, parks, and
recreational facilities shall be protected through deed restrictions which shall ensure the
preservation of its intended use, the payment of future taxes, and the maintenance of areas and
facilities for a safe, healthy and attractive living environment." "All common open space and
recreational facilities shall be specifically included in the phasing plan and shall be constructed
and fully improved by the developer at an equivalent or greater rate than the construction of the
residential structures which they serve. "
2. Objection: The proposed FLUM amendment increases the residential density on the
subject parcel and has the potential to increase the student population for schools. The proposed
FLUM amendment is not supported by an analysis for the five year and ten year planning
timeframes of the Comprehensive Plan addressing the following: (1) the number of students for
each school resulting from the FLUM amendment; (2) the impact of the FLUM amendment
students on the five year and ten year community-wide projected student enrollments and five
year and ten year planned capacity of each school; (3) the need for school facility improvements
(scope and timing of school facility improvements) or other planning alternatives to provide
capacity to serve the impacts; and (4) coordination of the amendment and school facility
improvements with the Seminole County School Board. The amendment is not supported by
data and analysis demonstrating that the amendment is consistent with the following provisions
of the City's Comprehensive Plan: Intergovernmental Coordination Element Goal 1, Objective
1.2, and Policies 1.2.2, 1.2.3, and 1.2.5.
The proposed amendment is not consistent with the following requirements: Rules 91-
5.005(2 and 5); 91-5.006(3)(c); 91-5.006(4); 91-S:015(3)(b)l; 91-5.01S(3)(c)1 and 12, F.A.C.;
and Sections 163.3177(6)(a); and 163.3177(6)(h)1 and 2, F.S.
Recommendation: Revise the amendment to include the required data and analysis
addressing (1) coordination of the amendment with the School Board; (2) the five year and ten
year student impacts to school facilities and the capital improvements or other measures
necessary to provide school capacity to serve the anticipated school students, including analysis
of additional coordination with the School Board regarding additional school facility
improvements that may be needed; and (3) consistency of the amendment with the goals,
objectives, and policies of the City of Winter Springs Comprehensive Plan. Revise the
amendment as necessary to be consistent with and supported by the data and analysis.
Response: Pursuant to that certain Interlocal Agreement between the City and
Seminole County Public Schools dated April 15, 2003, the applicant and the City coordinated
with the Seminole County School Board ("SCSB ") regarding the proposed amendment. The
0909576\112882\949769\2
- 6-
evidence of this coordination is a letter to the School Board from the applicant attached hereto
as Exhibit "A". SCSB determined that the project would generate 76 students, see Exhibit HB".
SCSB also determined that there is adequate capacity in the affected schools Highland
Elementary School, South Seminole Middle School and Winter Springs High School, see
attached Student Generation Analysis Worksheet, Exhibit HB". The SCSB has also agreed to
accept a mitigation payment in the amount of $1,235.00 for each dwelling unit in addition to the
impact fee for each unit. This mitigation payment is set forth in the attached letter, Exhibit HA"
and included in the binding Developer's Agreement.
3. Objection: The FLUM Amendment is not appropriately supported by data and analysis
demonstrating the need for the additional proposed FLUM designation of Medium Density
Residential on the FLUM in order to accommodate the City's projected population growth within
the planning time frame of the City's Comprehensive Plan. The amendment is not supported by
data and analysis demonstrating that the amendment is consistent with the following provisions
of the City's Comprehensive Plan: Housing Element Goal 1, Objective 1.1 and Policy 1.1.1; and
Future Land Use Element Policy 1.1.5.
The proposed amendment is not consistent with the following requirements; Rules 9J-
5.002(8); Rules 9J-5.005(2 and 5); 9J-5.006(1, 2, 3, and 4); 9J-5.006(5); and 9J-5.01O(1, 2, and
3), F.A.C.; and Sections 163.3177(2,6, and 8), F.S.
Recommendation: Revise the amendment to include an analysis, based on professionally
acceptable methodology and assumptions, demonstrating whether there is a need for the
additional acreage of Medium Density Residential use on the FLUM in order to accommodate
the City's projected population growth within the planning tirneframe of the City's
Comprehensive Plan. Revise the amendment as necessary to be consistent with and supported
by the analysis.
ReslJonse: The proposed amendment is consistent with the Winter Springs
Comprehensive Plan. The City Comprehensive Plan sets forth need for additional residential
acreage and units and a better mix of housing types. In particular, the Comprehensive Plan
indicates that approximately 5,579 new housing units will be needed from 2000 to 2010 to serve
City residents. The Future Land Use Element (pg 1-13) states that " it is estimated that
approximately 16,476 total housing units will be needed by 2010 to serve the City residents
(5,579 new unitsfrom 2000 to 2010)." The City's Housing Element, Objective 1.1 states that the
City shall "assist the private sector to provide approximately 1,124 new dwelling units of
various types, sizes and costs between 2000 and 2005, plus an additional 2,249 units between
2005 and 2010 necessary to house the City's anticipated population through the planning
horizon. " Table 1-4 of the Comprehensive Plan shows that 'future growth will demand 4,474
residential acres." (pg 1-14) Table 1-4 titled "Projected Demand for Vacant Land (2010)"
shows a 328 acre deficit in medium density residential land. Since the adoption of City
Ordinance #2006-02, annexation is no longer an instrument for the City to increase its
residential acres. Ordinance #2006-02 prohibits the annexation of land east of Deleon Street. In
addition to the City's inability to expand eastward, a recent Local Area Study demonstrated that
the City has no ability to expand: (1) South because that land is either built out or the City of
Oviedo; (2) North because that land is mostly in either State or County Conservation easements;
0909576\112882\949769\2
- 7 -
or (3) West because that is the City of Longwood. Any additional residential land will be created
through comprehensive plan a changes and annexation of small enclaves.
Housing Element Goal 1 is "to ensure adequate supply of a wide range of housing types,
at various levels of ajJordability, to accommodate the needs of the residents of Winter Springs. "
Future Land Use Element Policy 1.1.5 furthers illustrates the City's goal of a diversity of
housing options. It states that "The Future Land Use Map shall contain an adequate diversity of
lands for residential uses to meet the future demand for residential densities identified in the
Housing Element." As depicted on Table 1//-11 of the Housing Element approximately 86.6%
of the City's housing stock is single family. More current data shows that single family detached
housing makes up 71% of the housing stock (outside the Town Center). The proposed townhomes
further Goal 1 by adding a variety of housing for residents who either cannot ajJord single
family homes or prefer a different type of housing and amenities.
4. Land Use Compatibility: The proposed amendment is not appropriately supported by
data and analysis demonstrating the proposed designation of Medium Density Residential is
compatible with the existing and planned future industrial land uses located in the surrounding
area where the industrial land uses may potentially affect (adversely impact) Medium Density
Residential land use on the amendment parcel. The proposed amendment is not appropriately
supported by data and analysis demonstrating the amendment is consistent with the land use
compatibility goals, objectives and policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan (Future Land Use
Element Objective 1.5 and Policies 1.5.1, 1.5.6, 1.5.7 and 1.5.8; and Housing Element Objective
2.2 and Policy 2.2.7.
The proposed amendment is not consistent with the following requirements: Rules 9J-
5.002(8); Rules 9J-5.005(2 and 5); 9J-5.006(1, 2, 3, and 4); F.A.C.; and Sections 163.3177(2, 6,
and 8), F.S.
Recommendation: Revise the amendment to include an analysis demonstrating that the
proposed Medium Density Residential land use is compatible with the existing and planned
future industrial land uses located in the surrounding area, and demonstrate that the amendment
is consistent with the land use compatibility provisions of the City's Comprehensive Plan.
Revise the amendment as necessary to be consistent with and supported by the analysis.
Response: Future Land Use Element Objective 1.5 states that future
development must be consistent with the adopted Future Land Use Map and
existing incompatible uses shall not be allowed to expand and shall be eliminated,
when feasible." Future Land Use Policy 1.5.1 states that "proposed land use
amendments which are .inconsistent with the character of the community or
inconsistent with adjacent future land uses shall not be approved by the City. "
Currently the property has a future land use designation of Industrial and this
amendment proposed that it be changed to Medium Density Residential. The
properties to the south have a future land use designation of Low Density
Residential (the applicant has a contract to purchase and has applied for a small
scale amendment for the 1.72 acres of Industrial property located on Florida
Avenue). The properties to the east have a future land use designation of Medium
Density Residential, the properties to the west have a future land use designation
0909576\112882\949769\2
- 8 -
of both Industrial and Commercial, and the property to the north has a future
land use designation of Industrial. Although some properties to the west have an
industrial land use designation, the properties are all zoned C-2 (either in Winter
Springs or Seminole County). As demonstrated by the confluence offour future
land use designations (Low Density, Medium Density, Commercial and
Industrial) and two jurisdictions (Winter Springs and Seminole County) this
property is an appropriate place for a transitional designation such as Medium
Density Residential. The proposed Medium Density Residential is located
between Commercial/Industrial properties and the Low Density/Medium Density
properties. The applicant proposes to rezone the entire property planned unit
development and agrees to provide buffering in excess of the City's code
requirements. The buffering between the subject property and commercially
zoned property will include a buffer consisting of a 6' high wall on top of a 5'
berm with trees, shrubs and irrigation which are set forth in a binding
Developer's Agreement. In addition, the applicant, as set forth in a binding
Developer's Agreement, has agreed to include in the Covenants, Conditions, and
Restrictions for the property a notice indicating that the properties to the west
have a future land use designation of Industrial.
Future Land Use Policy 1.5.6 states that "low densitv residential areas shall be
buffered from intensive commercial and industrial land use. This will be
accomplished by locating less intensive transitional uses in between, or by
buffering with berms, trees or other methods to be included in the Code of
Ordinance as deemed appropriate by the City. "
Future Land Use Policy 1.5.6 requires that low density, not medium density which
is proposed, be buffered from intensive commercial and industrial uses. Although
the proposed amendment requests medium density residential, the applicant has
agreed to provide a berm and a wall to buffer the proposed townhomes from the
existing commercial properties. The City, via the Planned Unit Development
process can require buffering between the medium density residential and the
commercially zoned property to the west.
Future Land Use Policy 1.5.7 states that the City shall "maintain a landscape
ordinance that requires adequate buffering between incompatible uses." Policy
1.5.8 states that "the City shall maintain site design requirements and subdivision
regulations in the Code of Ordinances which adequately addresses the impacts of
new development on adjacent properties in all land use categories and zoning
districts. " The subject property will comply with the landscape buffering
required by the City and will comply with any necessary site design requirements
to address the impacts of new development on adjacent properties. The PUD
process setsforth in the City's LDR (Section 20-351 through 362) grants the City
considerable discretion in its ability to require specific buffering and design
criteria.
Housing Element Objective 2.2 states that the "City shall promote housing
opportunities for new households in already established neighborhoods and
0909576\112882\949769\2
-9-
insure the stabilization of all neighborhoods through the following policies when
applicable." The neighborhood to the east (Medium Density Residential) has
experienced a significant decline in value. The proposed townhomes will assist in
stabilizing he adjacent neighborhood by increasing the value of housing in the
area, and developing a property that currently is used by vagrants. Policy 2.2.7
states that the City shall continue to require, through the City code, adequate
buffering and screening of residential neighborhoods from incompatible uses,
which could adversely impact existing neighborhoods. Landscape buffering and
transitional uses shall be utilized to further this policy. Objective 2.4 states that
the City shall promote infill development. The proposed amendment is for vacant
land inside the City that is surrounded on all sides by development. This is a
classic infill site.
II. CONSISTENCY WITH STATE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Objection: The proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment 06-1 is not consistent with and does
not further the following provisions of the State Comprehensive Plan (Chapter 187, Florida
Statutes) for the reasons noted in the objections raised above in Section I:
(a) Goal9.a (Natural Systems and Recreational Lands); Policy 9.b. 1.1;
(b) Goal15.a (Land Use); Policy 15.b.l;
(c) Goal 16.a (Urban and Downtown Revitalization); Policy 16.b.8
(d) Goal 17.a (Public Facilities); Policy 17.b.7; and
(e) Goal 25.a (Plan Implementation); Policy 25.b.7.
Recommendation: Revise the plan amendment as recommended for the objections raised
above.
0909576\112882\949769\2
- 10 -
ATTACHMENT C
ORDINANCE NO. 2005-29
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, SEMINOLE COUNTY,
FLORIDA, RELATING TO COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING;
SETTING FORTH AND ADOPTING A LARGE SCALE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT, REFERENCED AS
LS-CP A-06-01, PROVIDING FOR ADOPTION OF AN
AMENDMENT TO THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP BY
DESIGNATING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY WITHIN THE
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS GENERALLY DESCRIBED AS
SEVEN (7) PARCELS OF LAND, CONTAINING 47.27 GROSS
ACRES MORE OR LESS, AND LOCATED GENERALLY
ALONG SHEPARD ROAD AND NORTH OF FLORIDA
AVENUE, MORE P ARTICULARL Y AND LEGALL Y
DESCRIBED HEREIN IN EXHIBIT "A," ATTACHED
HERETO AND FULLY INCORPORATED HEREIN BY THIS
REFERENCE, FROM CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS
"INDUSTRIAL" TO CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS "MEDIUM
DENSITY RESIDENTIAL"; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE
DATE AND LEGAL STATUS OF THE PLAN AMENDMENT;
PROVIDING FOR TRANSMITTAL OF THE PLAN TO THE
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS; PROVIDING
FOR THE REPEAL OF PRIOR INCONSISTENT
ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS, SEVERABILITY, AND
AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, section 163.3161 et. seq., Florida Statutes, establish the Local Government
Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act; and
WHEREAS, section 163.3167, Florida Statutes, requires each municipality in the State of
Florida to prepare and adopt a comprehensive plan as scheduled by the Florida Department of
Community Affairs; and
WHEREAS, sections 163.3184 and 163.3187, Florida Statutes, establish the process for the
amendment of comprehensive plans, pursuant to which the City of Winter Springs has established
procedures for amending the City of Winter Springs Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Local Planning Agency of the City of Winter Springs held a duly noticed
public hearing, in accordance with the procedures established in chapter 163, Part II, Florida
Statutes, on the proposed comprehensive plan amendment and considered findings and advice of
staff, citizens, and all interested parties submitting written and oral comments and has recommended
adoption to the City Commission; and
City of Winter Springs
Ordinance No. 2005-29
Page 1 of 3
. .
WHEREAS, the Local Planning Agency recommended that the City Commission transmit
the subject property large scale comprehensive plan amendment (LS-CPA-06-0l) to the Florida
Department of Community Affairs for its review and comment; and
WHEREAS, the amendment adopted by this Ordinance complies with the requirements of
the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act; and
WHEREAS, the City Commission hereby finds that this Ordinance is in the best interests
of the public health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of Winter Springs, Florida.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF WINTER
SPRINGS HEREBY ORDAINS, AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Recitals. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and are fully incorporated herein
by this reference.
Section 2. Authority. This Ordinance is adopted in compliance with, and pursuant to, the Local
Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulations Act, sections 163.3184
and 163.3187, Florida Statutes.
Section 3. Purpose and Intent. The purpose and intent ofthis Ordinance are to adopt the large
scale comprehensive plan amendment (LS-CPA-06-0l) designating the subject property from
Seminole County "Industrial"to City of Winter Springs "Medium Density Residentia1."
Section 4. Adoption of Amendment to the Future Land Use Map. The City of Winter
Springs' Comprehensive Plan, Future Land Use Map, is hereby amended by designating the real
property, depicted in Exhibit "A" as City of Winter Springs "Industrial," to City of Winter Springs
"Medium Density Residentia1." Exhibit "A" is attached hereto and fully incorporated herein by
this reference.
Section 5. Transmittal to the Department of Community Affairs. The City Manager or his
designee is hereby designated to sign a letter transmitting the adopted comprehensive plan
amendment to the Florida Department of Community Affairs, in accordance with section
163.3187(4), Florida Statutes, and Section 9J-ll, Florida Administrative Code.
Section 6. Repeal of Prior Inconsistent Ordinances and Resolutions. All prior inconsistent
ordinances and resolutions adopted by the City of Winter Springs City Commission, or parts of
ordinances and resolutions in conflict herewith, are hereby repealed to the extent of the conflict.
Section 7. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, word or provision
of this Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent
jurisdiction, whether for substantive, procedural, or any other reason, such portion shall be deemed
a separate, distinct and independent provision, and such holding shall not affect the validity of the
City of Winter Springs
Ordinance No. 2005-29
Page 2 of 3
~
. .
remaining portions of this Ordinance.
Section 8. Effective Date and Legal Status of the Plan Amendment. The effective date of
the comprehensive plan amendment adopted by this Ordinance shall be the date a final order is
issued by the Florida Department of Community Affairs, or the date of the Administration
Commission finding the Amendment in compliance with section 163.3184, Florida Statutes. No
development orders, development permits, or land use dependent on this amendment may be issued
or commenced before it has become effective. If a final order of noncompliance is issued by the
Administration Commission, the amendment may nevertheless be made effective by adoption of a
resolution affirming its effective status. After and from the effective date of this amendment, the
comprehensive plan amendment set forth herein shall amend the City of Winter Springs'
Comprehensive Plan and become a part of that plan and the amendment shall have the legal status
of the City of Winter Springs' Comprehensive Plan, as amended.
ADOPTED by the City Commission of the City of Winter Springs, Florida, in a regular
meeting assembled on the _ day of ,2005.
John F. Bush, Mayor
ATTEST:
Andrea Lorenzo-Luaces, City Clerk
Approved as to legal form and sufficiency for
the City of Winter Springs only:
Anthony A. Garganese, City Attorney
First Reading:
Second Reading:
Effective Date:
City of Winter Springs
Ordinance No. 2005-29
Page 3 of 3