The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2005 04 05 Public Hearings 403 Ordinance 2005-12 Large Scale Comprehensive Plan Text AmendmentPLANNING & ZONING BOARD / LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY ITEM 403 Apri15, 2005 Meeting Consent Information Public Hearin X Re ular REQUEST: The Community Development Department -Planning Division requests the Planning & Zoning Board/Local Planning Agency hold a Public Hearing for Ordinance 2005-12, a Large Scale Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment (referenced as LS-CPA-OS-07) which amends the Conservation Element and the Future Land Use Element relating to upland wetland buffers. PURPOSE: To revise language in the Comprehensive Plan related to upland wetland buffers to clarify the intent. 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 Springs Charter Section 4.15 Ordinances in General. Winter Springs Article III. Comprehensive Plan Amendments Section 15-30. Authority, Uurpose 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 ~~r'` April 5, 2005 PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA ITEM 403 recommendation, 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 LPA shall hold at least one (1) public hearing prior to making its recommendation to the City Commission. CHRONOLOGY: May 13, 2002-City Commission adopted Ordinance 2001-55 adopted the EAR-based plan amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. Mar. 24, 2005- Public Noticing in Orlando Sentinel of LPA Public Hearing Apr. 5, 2005- LPA to hear the request and make recommendation re: Ord. 2005-12. CONSIDERATIONS: The City of Winter Springs is the Applicant seeking the Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment to the Future Land Use Element and the Conservation Element. The amendment addresses discrepancies between what is currently required and what the SJRWMD will mitigate. The language requiring a 25-foot upland buffer adjacent to wetlands, was included in the Conservation Element and the Future Land Use Element when the City adopted the EAR-based plan amendments to the Comprehensive Plan in May 2002. According to minutes from the workshops, transmittal hearing, and the adoption hearing, the City had quite a bit of discussion related to this item. (Minutes from discussions relating to the adoption of this text is included as Attachment B.) The proposed text revision retains the 25' upland wetland buffer, except for wetlands that are already impacted due to mitigation. The St. John's River Water Management District (SJRWMD) does not allow wetlands to be reduced for the purpose of providing for uplands. The purpose of the buffer is to reduce secondary impacts to wetlands that are not being impacted or mitigated, as stated in the SJRWMD's Applicant's Handbook: Management and Storage of Surface Waters, secondary impacts to a wetland will not be considered adverse, if buffers are provided "abutting those wetlands that will remain under the permitted design". The proposed text amendment clarifies that the upland wetland buffer is for those wetlands that are not being mitigated. Current buffer criteria under the SJRWMD is a minimum width of 15' and an average width of 25' for upland wetland buffers. The SJRWMD also allows an applicant to propose buffers that do not meet the described dimensions, buffers of different dimensions, measures other than buffers, or to provide information including the required reasonable assurance. The proposed text amendment retains the City's more conservative policy of requiring a 25' buffer. -2- Apri15, 2005 PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA ITEM 403 FINDINGS: (1) The proposed amendment will have no effect on the city's budget, or the economy of the city or the region; (2) The proposed amendment will not diminish the level of service (LOS) of public facilities; (3) There will have a continued favorable impact on the environment of the city 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 does not affect the cost/effective use of or unduly burden public facilities; (6) The proposed amendment does not affect compatibility with surrounding neighborhoods and land use; (7) The proposed amendment will not cause the comprehensive plan to be internally inconsistent. The amendment addresses discrepancies between what is currently required and what the SJRWMD will mitigate. (8) The proposed amendment will not adversely affect 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 II and Rule 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the P&Z/Local Planning Agency hold a Public Hearing and recommend adoption to the City Commission related to Ordinance 2005-12, a Large Scale Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment (referenced as LS-CPA-OS-07) based on the Findings enumerated above. IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE: Apr. 14, 2005- Public Noticing in the Orlando Sentinel of the City Commission Transmittal Hearing Apr. 25, 2005- Transmittal Hearing for Large Scale Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment to the Transportation Element and the Future Land Use Element (Ordinance 2005-12) May 2, 2005- Transmittal to DCA July 25, 2005-Anticipated Adoption Hearing Date ATTACHMENTS: A. Proposed revisions to the Future Land Use Element (only proposed changes included) and proposed revisions to the Conservation Element (only proposed changes included). B. Minutes from Adoption of Comprehensive Plan C. Ordinance 2005-12 P&Z /LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY RECOMMENDATION: -3- Apri15, 2005 PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA ITEM 403 ATTACHMENT A Text Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan Proposed Text Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan related to wetland buffers: FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT Future Land Use Element- Policy 1.2.13: Wetland Buffers. The minimum vegetative cover buffer required upland from anon-mitigated wetland is twenty-five (25) feet. CONSERVATION ELEMENT Conservation Element- Policy 1.4.2: The City shall require within its Code of Ordinances minimum upland buffers for non-miti ag ted wetlands, , to be a minimum of twenty-five feet (25') from the edge of the wetlandSas defined by the St. Johns River Water Management District). Conservation Element- Policy 1.4.3: Additional upland buffers maybe required to ensure the preservation of natural systems, and their possible use for treated effluent disposal and stormwater management systems. Such standards shall be included within Code of Ordinances_ -a- Apri15, 2005 PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA ITEM 403 ATTACHMENT B St. John's River Water Management District Applicant's Handbook: Management and Storage of Surface Waters Secondary impacts to the habitat functions of wetlands associated with adjacent upland activities will not be considered adverse if buffers with a minimum width of 15' and an average width of 25' are provided abutting those wetland that will remain under the permitted design, unless additional measures are needed for protection of wetlands used by listed species for nesting, denning, or critically important feeding habitat. The mere fact that a species is listed does not imply that all of its feeding habitat is critically important. Buffers shall remain in a undisturbed condition, except for drainage features such as spreader swales and discharge structures, provided that construction or use of these features does not adversely impact wetlands, Where an applicant elects not to utilize buffers of the above described dimensions, buffers of different dimensions, measure other than buffers, or information maybe proposed to provide the required reasonable assurance. -5- April 5, 2005 PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA ITEM 403 ATTACHMENT C Minutes from Adoption of Comprehensive Plan CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS MINUTES CITY COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING MAY 6, 2002 PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Community Development Department Requests The City Commission Consider The Objections, Recommendations And Comments (ORC) Report Received From The Department Of Community Affairs (DCA) And The Recommendations Of Land Design Innovations (LDI) For The Evaluation And Appraisal Report (EAR) Based Amendments To The Comprehensive Plan. *** Discussion next encompassed wetland buffers. Commissioner McLeod returned to the Commission Chambers at 8:02 p.m. Tape 2/Side A Objective 1.4 was discussed next which included discussion on the minimum required for buffers. Ms. Tyjseski stated, "The second one is the one that you had as .1, now is .2 -the 15 and 25." Commissioner Blake asked Ms. Tyj seski, "When did we add - in the language to go down to fifteen feet (15'), because it doesn't show up in either one of my areas, and I don't recall doing that." Mr. McDonald commented, "These changes are the result of either directives from the series of Workshops, because this was the copy of the Comprehensive Plan that was transmitted to DCA [Department of Community Affairs], and this is in fact a copy that was reviewed, upon which the ORC Report is based." Commissioner Blake stated, "I've got to tell you, I would like to see the Minutes to find out when that occurred. I was here for every one of those Meetings and I don't remember adding a provision to go down to fifteen feet (15'). In fact, I think if it would have been discussed, that there would have been some opposition to that from this Commission." Additionally, Commissioner Blake asked, "How did this get in there." Mr. McDonald advised Commissioner Blake, "We will be happy to produce the Minutes to clarify any oversights." Members of the Commission briefly discussed this with Mayor Partyka stating, "Let's look it up in the Minutes." Then Mayor Partyka inquired, "Does this Commission agree with thetwenty-five (25)?" Commissioner Martinez stated, "Yes." Furthermore, Commissioner Martinez spoke on the wetlands and the acquifer and stated, "I thinktwenty-five feet (25') is the minimum we should establish as a rule." Mayor Partyka summarized that "Right now, this Commission is saying twenty-five (25) minimum is what they want." *** -6- Apri15, 2005 PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA ITEM 403 ATTACHMENT C Minutes from Adoption of Comprehensive Plan CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS MINUTES CITY COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING SEPTEMBER 25, 2001 A. Community Development Department Requests That The City Commission And Local Planning Agency (LPA) Conduct A Workshop To Review The Recommendations OfLand Design Innovations (LDI) For The Evaluation And Appraisal Report (EAR) Based Amendments To The Recreation And Open Space, Conservation And Solid Waste Elements Of The City Of Winter Springs Comprehensive Plan. *** A brief overview of the Conservation Element was given by Ms. Wimer who stated, "We have suggested changing the minimum -upland buffer from fifteen (15) to twenty-five feet (25) feet for wetlands and that's as defined by the St. John's Water Management District." *** Discussion ensued regarding upland buffers. Commissioner Michael S. Blake asked, "Don't we already have a provision or wouldn't the newly revised Comp Plan have provisions for mitigation that would allow if the current or existing wetlands was less than twenty-five (25) feet and they wanted to still build there that they could use some sort of mitigation to retain atwenty-five (25) foot buffer? In other words, there aze other options." Attorney Buak stated, "This particular Policy that we're talking about, and it's Policy 1.4.1, I believe it is stronger than the current Policy that we had in this proposed Comp Plan." Commissioner Blake inquired, "What is the current Policy, how is it listed? - Is there a buffer required at all?" Attorney Buak responded, "Twenty-five (25) feet." Attorney Buak then explained, "Vegetative wetland buffer of twenty-five (25) depending upon site conditions, shall be maintained between all structures in a wetland jurisdiction..." Commissioner Blake stated, "So the words `Depending upon site conditions."' "That's true. It's in the current one," stated Attorney Buak. Commissioner Blake stated, "Okay, and the elimination of that individual phrase makes the new Policy more stringent." "Yes," stated Attorney Buak. Commissioner Blake said, "Because the new Policy states, or would state the City shall require within its Code of Ordinances, minimum upland buffers for wetlands as defined by St. John's Water -~- Apri15, 2005 PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA ITEM 403 ATTACHMENT C Minutes from Adoption of Comprehensive Plan Management District. Which may also be more prescriptive because now we're creating a definition of what an upland buffer is by reference to St. John's rules to be at least twenty-five (25) feet from the edge of the wetland. I would agree that this new language does sound more restrictive -this still does not take away the opportunity for a landowner to provide some sort of mitigation to allow development closer to where an existing wetland is than twenty-five (25) feet. And through mitigation, still preparing abuffer oftwenty-five (25) feet while providing mitigation elsewhere, may be on-site or off-site. That opportunity would exist under this." Attorney Buak stated, "I believe it does, but this particular Policy will provide for a potentially stronger challenge for consistency. And - it was our recommendation that perhaps we could loosen up the language just a little bit to provide that the LDR's would provide specific characteristics. And there were three (3) characteristics that the City Attorney had provided previously. They would be `The buffer should be reduced or eliminated as part of a mitigation plan that is approved by the St. John's Water Management District;' `The City must determine that the site conditions reasonably support the reduction or elimination;' and the third would be, `That any determination by the City to reduce or eliminate the wetland buffer must be consistent with the overall `Goals, Objectives and Policies of the Comp Plan."' Commissioner Blake said, "Commission, I do not like that language. I am in favor of keeping Policy 1.4.1 exactly as it's stated here. I think there are other provisions in the plan that would provide for a developer or a landowner to alter their plans somewhat. To still provide for the buffer and provide them use of the property, and still protect the wetlands and other areas through mitigation if that's what's required. But I would not be in favor of that language that was just read." *** -a- Apri15, 2005 PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA ITEM 403 ATTACHMENT D Ordinance 2005-12 ORDINANCE N0.2005-12 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA, RELATING TO COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING; SETTING FORTH AND ADOPTING A LARGE SCALE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TEXT AMENDMENT, REFERENCED AS LGCPA-OS-07, WHICH SHALL AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN RELEVANT TO THE CONSERVATION ELEMENT AND THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT; CLARIFYING THE PLAN'S INTENT WITH REGARD TO WETLAND UPLAND BUFFERS; PROVIDING FOR TRANSMITTAL OF THE PLAN TO THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF PRIOR INCONSISTENT ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS; SEVERABILITY; AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (Entire Ordinance to be supplied at the meeting.) -9-