HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005 08 03 Public Hearings 401 State of Florida Department of Community Affairs Objections, Recommendations and Comments Reporti~
PLANNING & ZONING BOARD /
LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY
ITEM 401
August 3, 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 and make recommendation
to the City Commission regarding objections raised in the State of Florida Dept of Community
Affairs Objections, Recommendations and Comments Report related to LS-CPA-OS-OS (Ordinance
2005-07), LS-CPA-OS-06 (Ordinance 2005-11) and LS-CPA-OS-07 (Ordinance 2005-12).
PURPOSE: The purpose of this request is to consider DCA's concerns with the proposed
amendment package.
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, purpose and intent;
Section 15-36. Review criteria;
Section 15-37. Local Planning Agency Review and Recommendation:
~~
Page 1 of 15
August 3, 2005
PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA ITEM 401
CHRONOLOGY:
Apri15, 2005- Planning & Zoning Board/Local Planning Agency recommended approval of Large
Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendments [Ordinances 2005-07, 2005-11, and 2005-
12]
Apri125, 2005- City Commission held a Public Hearing and approved transmittal of Ordinance
2005-07 and Ordinance 2005-11 to the State.
May 09, 2005- City Commission held a Public Hearing and approved transmittal of Ordinance
2005-12 to the State.
May 18, 2005- State Dept. of Community Affairs received the transmittal of Ordinances 2005-07,
2005-11 and 2005-12 (referred to as DCA OS-2).
July 18, 2005- Winter Springs received ORC Report from State Dept. of Community Affairs
Aug. 3, 2005- P& Z Board (LPA) to make recommendation to the Commission related to the Large
Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendments
CONSIDERATIONS:
^ DCA has identified concerns with the proposed amendment package.
^ The proposed amendment, LS-CPA-OS-OS (Ordinance 2005-07), changes the Future Land Use
from (Seminole County) "Commercial" and (Seminole County) "Office" to (City of Winter
Springs) "Town Center" on a 10.65 acre parcel.
^ The 10.65 acre parcel does not have a proposed development under consideration at this time.
^ The submittal package did not consider the maximum development projection. Rather a realistic
intensity expressed as Floor Area Ratio (FAR) was used for calculating the impact of the future
land use change to "Town Center". [This realistic intensity figure (.52 FAR) was calculated
based on the built-out projection of Phase One of the JDC commerciaUresidential development
of the Town Center, with the calculation amended to include all two-story structures. The
existing Seminole County "Office" and Seminole County "Commercial" each have a .35 FAR.]
^ However, the analysis (according to DCA and FDOT) must be based on the maximum intensity
or FAR of development that could potentially be developed under the Town Center
designation, independent of other comprehensive plan, code, site criteria or constraints.
Based on the Winter Springs Comprehensive Plan, Future Land Use Element Policy 2.2.7, the
Town Center designation can have a maximum intensity of a 6.0 FAR:
Policy 2.2.7: High density and intense commercial development shall be allowed in the
Town Center through the adoption of land development regulations, but such density and
intensity shall not exceed a floor area ratio of three (3.0) without structured parking and six
(6.0) with structured parking and shall not exceed six (6) stories in height.
^ What does a maximum intensity of 6.0 FAR mean?
Floor Area Ratio (FAR) is the gross floor area of a building divided by the total area of the
site on which the building is located, expressed as a decimal number. The FAR is used in
calculating the building intensity of a development project.
The diagram below illustrates three simple ways that a 1.0 FAR might be reached: one story
covering the entire lot, 2 stories covering half the lot, or 4 stories covering a quarter of the lot.
All result in the same FAR.
Page 2 of 15
August 3, 2005
PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA ITEM 401
t ~~~~..
t:
...~~
~; .
f
# ~~.., J ~
~~~.~~
"..:
t
As can be seen in the diagram, calculation of the FAR does not consider a maximum height
for the structure. Buildings of equal FAR, can have significant differences in appearance
depending upon the site, landscaping and architecture.
Gross Floor Area is the total square footage of all levels within the surrounding walls of a
building. The following are to be included in gross floor area for the purpose of computing
floor area ratio:
^ Exterior walls (that is, thickness included);
^ Stairways (internal and external), elevators, escalators, and similar features;
^ Storage and mechanical rooms (internal or external);
^ Laundry rooms, closets, storage rooms, built-in cabinets and media niches;
^ Mezzanines and lofts;
^ Porches, patios, and breezeways with a "solid" cover and enclosed by "solid" walls on
more than two sides;
^ In single family and duplex residential uses, attached or detached garages and carports;
and
^ Accessory buildings that are deemed habitable space, including, but not limited to guest
houses and second units.
^ For mixed-use developments, the residential square footage is added to the commercial
development to derive the total FAR.
The following areas are to be excluded from gross floor area ratio for the purpose of
computing floor area ratio:
^ Basement, underground parking, and attic spaces;
^ Porches, balconies, patios, breezeways, and decks (as well as overhangs, eaves,
cantilevers, awnings and similar features) with a "solid" cover but not enclosed by "solid"
walls on more than two sides;
^ Porches, balconies, patios, breezeways, decks and gardens which do not have a "solid"
cover;
^ Parking structures and garages which are incidental to a primary use on the same site in
multi-family, commercial, office, industrial and public/semi-public uses; or
Other uninhabitable space.
^ Given the 10.65-acre Ondick property, a 6.0 FAR would yield 2.78 million square feet of
commercial /residential space. Such intensity would be typical of a metropolitan downtown area,
such as Miami. Downtown Orlando has a 4.0 FAR (Downtown Activity Center District).
^ In addition to the 6.0 FAR, Policy 2.2.7 limits the building height to six-stories. In order to
achieve the 6.0 FAR, given the six-story height limitation, all vehicular circulation, all parking,
and all stormwater would have to be accommodated either off-site or underground.
Page 3 of 15
August 3, 2005
PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA ITEM 401
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT ANALYSIS:
The following summarizes the data and issues which staffanalyzed in nmaking this recommendation:
Justification for FAR Chance: Recognizing that the 6.0 FAR is unrealistic for Winter Springs, the
State has indicated:
"The City should reassess the need fora 6.0 FAR in the Town Center. An FAR of
1.5 is still a high intensity for the land use category but may achieve the City's vision
for this azea. An intensity standazd closer to what the City wants to achieve in this
land use category will allow for better coordination of infrastructure and overall
planning „
Staffhas evaluated various FARs to determine what is a reasonable FAR for the Winter Springs
Town Center given our vision for its development. J.H. Crawford in his book, Carfree Cities notes
that "a FAR of 1.5 is quite high, although this density is not unusual in Venice or central Paris, and is
considerably exceeded in most of Manhattan. It requires 4-story buildings and narrow streets with
modest interior courtyazds. (Higher buildings would leave more room for streets and gazdens, but
buildings higher than 4 stories aze not desirable because they are expensive to construct and
unpleasant to live in. )"
Phase Two of the JDC commerciaUresidential development is estimated at a 1.2 FAR, including four
floors of habitable space in addition to structured pazking. Should six stories be proposed
throughout, it might increase to as much as a 1.8 FAR.
Staffproposes a 2.0 FAR. This recommendation has been determined by evaluating the future goals
and objectives for the Town Center.
Public Facilities -The Town Center Master Plan includes a network of connected streets to absorb
and direct future traffic as the Town Center is fully realized. Additionally, the Cross-Seminole Trail
goes directly through the Town Center, providing an alternative transportation linkage. The City has
been proactive to ensure that needed public facilities are in place to accommodate the growth of the
Town Center. Additionally, as each project develops, a transportation study is required to ensure that
the project meets its concurrency requirements.
Nuisance Potential Of Proposed Use To Surrounding Land Uses - Adoption of a 2.0 FAR will not
negatively impact any of the existing development in the Town Center, because properties that have
already developed under the existing 6.0 FAR, have done so at standazd commercial intensities (such
as a 0.31 FAR). Although demand will drive the intensities higher as the Town Center continues to
expand, a 2.0 FAR will still accommodate any such demands.
Natural Lands Compatibility-The reduction in FAR will not impact the preservation of conservation
areas or environmentally sensitive lands.
Consistency With The Comprehensive Plan -The reduction in FAR is consistent with the Winter
Springs' Comprehensive Plan. By amending the FAR to 2.0, the City is able to accommodate its
vision for the Town Center and still maintain flexibility.
FINDINGS:
(1) The proposed amendment will not have an effect on the city's budget;
(2) The proposed amendment will not diminish the level of service (LOS) of public facilities;
(3) There will not be an unfavorable impact on the environment or the natural or historical resources
Page 4 of 15
August 3, 2005
PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA ITEM 401
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, and the East Central Florida Regional
Policy Plan, adopted by Rule 29F-19.001, Florida Administrative code;
(5) The proposed amendment will not unduly burden public facilities and will allow for better
coordination of infrastructure and overall planning and will not cause the comprehensive plan to be
internally inconsistent;
(6) The proposed amendment is compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods and land use;
(7) The amendment will not cause the comprehensive plan to be internally inconsistent;
(8) The proposed amendment will not adversely affect the public health, safety, welfare, economic
order, or aesthetics 'of the city or region; and will not adversely affect the public health, safety,
welfare, economic order, or aesthetics of the city or region; and
(9) An Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) will not be issued by the State DCA.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staffrecommends that the P&Z/Local Planning Agency hold a Public Hearing and make
recommendation to the City Commission to amend the Future Land Use Element based on objections
raised in the State of Florida Dept of Community Affairs Objections, Recommendations and
Comments Report, as follows:
Policy 1.1.1: The adopted Future Land Use Map shall contain and identify appropriate locations for
the following land use categories, as defined in the data and analysis of this element.
Land Use Categories
Rural Residential
Low Density Residential- _
Medium Density Residential __
High Density Residential
Commercial
Mixed Use
Town Center
Greeneway Interchange
Industrial
Public/Semi-Public
.Recreation and O,p~
Conservation
Conservation Over:
Maximum Density/Intensity
1 dwellingunit/dross acre_~
3.5_dwe~units/gross acre
9 dwelling unit~oss acre
21~ dwelling units/gross acre
0.5 floor area ratio
12 dwelling units per gross acre and 1.0 floor area
ratio
36 dwelling units per gross acre and ~ 2_0 floor
area ratio
12 dwelling units per gross acre and 1.0 floor area
ratio
0.5 floor area ratio
0.5 floor area ratio
0.25 floor area ratio
not Permitted
Not
Policy 1.1.2: Density/Intensiry. The City shall adopt maximum densities and intensities for each land use
category which encourage economic development while protecting the natural environment as indicated
in the above table.
Page5of15
August 3, 2005
PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA ITEM 401
Floor Area Ratio (FAR) is defined as the gross floor area of a building divided by the total
area of the site on which the building is located, expressed as a decimal number. The FAR is
used in calculating the buildin ing tensity of a development project.
Gross Floor Area is the total square footage of all levels within the surroundin~Ywalls of a
building The following are to be included in gross floor area for the purpose of comnutin~
floor area ratio:
^ Exterior walls (that is, thickness included);
^ Stairways (internal and external), elevators, escalators, and similar features;
^ Storage and mechanical rooms (internal or external);
^ Laundry rooms, closets, storage rooms, built-in cabinets and media niches;
^ Mezzanines and lofts;
^ Porches patios, and breezeways with a "solid" cover and enclosed by "solid" walls on
more than two sides;
^ In sin leg family and duplex residential uses, attached or detached garages and carports;
and
^ Accessory buildings that are deemed habitable space, including, but not limited to guest
houses and second units.
^ Formixed-use developments, the residential square footage is added to the commercial
development to derive the total FAR.
The following areas are to be excluded from gross floor area ratio for the purpose of
computing floor area ratio:
^ Basement, underground parking,, and attic spaces;
^ Porches, balconies, patios, breezeways, and decks (as well as overhangs, eaves,
cantilevers, awnings and similar features) with a "solid" cover but not enclosed by "solid"
walls on more than two sides;
^ Porches, balconies, patios, breezeways, decks and gardens which do not have a "solid"
cover
^ ParkingLtructures and garages which are incidental to a primary use on the same site 1T1
multi-family, commercial, office, industrial and public/semi-public uses; or
^ Other uninhabitable space.
Policy 2.2.7: High density and intense commercial development shall be allowed in the Town Center
through the adoption of land development regulations, but such density and intensity shall not exceed
a floor area ratio of ~,,,.oo r~ m ,..;+~,,.,,. ~~,..,,.,,,,.oa .,,,,.v;.,,, ,,,,a ~;,. r~.m ,,,;*~, ~*,.,~~,t,,,-~_~~r]._;r,a two
and shall not exceed six (6) stories in height.
Table I-1: Existing Land Use Table (2001)
rI'own Center I ~ 2_0 FAR/36 du/ac I
Table I- 2: Future Land Use Table
Town Center 16$ 2.0 FAR/36 du/ac '
Page6of15
August 3, 2005
PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA I'1~EM 401
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE:
Aug. 11, 2005- Public Noticing in Orlando Sentinel
Aug. 22, 2005- 1~ Reading of Ordinance amending Future Land Use Element text
Sept. 1, 2005- Public Noticing in Orlando Sentinel (10 days prior to adoption)
Sept. 12, 2005- 2"a Reading/Adoption ofOrdinance amending Future Land Use Element text
2"a Reading/Adoption of LS-CPA-OS-OS (Ordinance 2005-07), LS-CPA-OS-06
(Ordinance 2005-11), and LS-CPA OS-07 (Ordinance 2005-12).
Sept. 19, 2005- Transmittal of Adopted Lg Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendments to DCA
ATTACHMENTS:
A- Examples of Different Floor Area Ratios
B- Objections, Recommendations and Comments (ORC) Report from State of Florida, Dept of
Community Affairs
P&Z /LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY RECOMMENDATION:
Page7of15
August 3, 2005
PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA ITEM 401
Attachment A
Examples of Different Floor Area Ratios
JDC Doran Phase 1
Winter Springs
Gross Site Area: 15 acres
Total Building SF: 200,000 SF (at build out)
FAR: 0.31
Page8of14
August 3, 2005
PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA ITEM 401
Attachment A
Examples of Different Floor Area Ratios
Anticipated FAR: 1.2 - 1.8
Page9of14
JDC Doran Phase 2
Winter Sprinas
August 3, 2005
PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA ITEM 401
Attachment A
Examples of Different Floor Area Ratios
Commercial Building
Boulder, Colorado
,.,.. -
rr:~l- ^
x
... ~
Y
a y ear
~" • ~.y~.M ...
Commercial Building
Boulder, Colorado
Ts'
~'-•'~
Gross Site Area:
Total Building SF:
FAR:
23,958 SF
19,369 SF
0.81
Gross Site Area: 63,663 SF
Total Building SF: 40,000 SF
FAR: 0.63
Page 10 of 14
August 3, 2005
PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA ITEM 401
Attachment A
Examples of Different Floor Area Ratios
Amstel Station, Amsterdam
FAR-2.31 Floors-9.1
Most of the buildings on the site are 4-12 story office blocks and apartments clustered around a
small open space. Setback is the critical design parameter in skyscraper districts, and the average
story count here is held down by setbacks.
Rembrandt Tower
. It11A111+ '
'~ ~~
tltll.ai
~1UR11111
tlll 11+111
,.t~111f J+.11
,-~1u.,:..ll ~
illilblltllr.
.UUtlllll.+.
.nc:flv..:.. ~ .._.
~~., Yi'11.1~'iklli111 y~P ~
~. 1 ~ .i.111.~+ f11i .,
n
++j ,! 1 1:t
1 ~ M
r A(ya~q~~" ~y
„..
~ .aq~ M
o
rt ..
Base of the third tower, left
Page 11 of 14
August 3, 2005
PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA ITEM 401
Attachment A
Examples of Different Floor Area Ratios
Jordaan, Amsterdam
FAR-1.90 Floors-3.5
This area was originally built with private courtyards which have been encroached upon over the years,
and some have nearly disappeared, which gives rise in part to the high FAR. Cars are permitted
throughout this area, but many streets are too narrow to allow parking, so much of the area is optically car
free. This mixed-use area has enjoyed sharply increased popularity and urban renewal.
Laurierstraat
Page 12 of 14
Tweede Laurierdwarsstraat
August 3, 2005
PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA ITEM 401
Attachment A
Examples of Different Floor Area Ratios
Canal District, Amsterdam
FAR-1.65 Floors-4.5
The Canal District contains many of the sights by which Amsterdam is known. This area actually makes
rather inefficient use of space. Canal streets, such as the Keizersgracht, are about 40 m wide, including
roadways on both sides. The blocks are big with large interior courtyards accessible only to abutters.
The Utrechtsestraat is a major artery running north into the city center but only 12 m wide. Side streets,
such as the Kerkstraat, are about 10 m wide. Some use is made of rooftops and balconies. This is a
mixed use area with many shops, especially boutiques. Bikes are widely used.
Page 13 of 14
Corner Utrechtsestraat & Kerkstraat
Courtyard behind the Utrechtsestraat
August 3, 2005
PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA ITEM 401
Attachment B
Objections, Recommendations and Comments (ORC) Report
from State of Florida, Dept of Community Affairs
Page 15 of 15
'~ N~•
STATE OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS
"Dedicated to making Florida a better place to call home"
JEB BUSH THADDEUS L. COHEN, AIA
Governor
Secretary
July 15, 2005
The Honorable, John F. Bush
Mayor, City of Winter Springs
1126 State Road 434,
Winter Springs, FL 32708
Dear Mayor Bush:
~o ~
~~ ~ ~ ~~
~~ ~ ~~
,~~ ~~~~~ ~O~ O
A
~°a~''ti
~~~~s
The Department of Community Affairs has completed its review of the proposed
Comprehensive Plan Amendment for City of Winter Springs (DCA OS-2), which was received
May 18, 2005. Based on Chapter 163, Florida Statues, we have prepared the attached report that
outlines our findings concerning the amendments. It is especially pertinent that the City address
the objections set forth in our review so that the identified issues can be successfully resolved
prior to adoption. We have also included a copy of the 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 to adopt the proposed amendments. For your assistance, our report outlines
procedures for final adoption and transmittal.
The City of Winter Springs proposed Amendment OS-2 consisted of one Future Land Use
(FLUM) amendment and several text amendments. The FLUM amendment (LS-CPA-OS-OS)
will re-designate approximately 10.95 acres from County Office and Commercial to City Town
Center. The text amendment (LS-CPA-OS-06) and (LS-CPA-OS-07) involve changes to the
Future Land Use, Transportation, and Intergovernmental Coordination Elements.
The Department has identified concerns with the proposed amendment package. The
proposed FLUM amendment is not supported by an adequate infrastructure analysis
demonstrating that the adopted level of service on affected public facilities is not impacted by
this development. The Department looks forward to further discussions with the City to
determine whether a more appropriate intensity standard for the Town Center land use category
can be identified and incorporated into the comprehensive plan.
2555 SHUMARD OAK BOULEVARD TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-2100
Phone: 850.488.8466ISuncom 278.8466 FAX: 850.921.0781lSuncom 291.0781
Internet address: httD://www.dca.state.fi.us
CRITICAL STATE CONCERN FIELD OFFICE COMMUNITY PLANNING EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT HOUSING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
2796 Overseas High~nay, Sui!e 212 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard
.~.._,~.,., a ~anan_ooo~ Tallahassee. FL 32399-2100 Tallahassee, FL 32398-2100 Tallahassee, FL 323 942 1 0 0
The Honorable William D. Arthur, Mayor
July 15, 2005
Page Two
The Department looks forward to working with the City of Winter Springs to address the
objections. We will be available to assist in any way we can. If you or your staff have any
questions or ifwe maybe of further assistance as you formulate your response to this Report,
please contact me at (850) 922- 1818 or Towanda Anthony at (850) 922-1782.
Sincerely,
i
D. Stansbury,
ial Planning Administrator
JS/ta
Enclosures: Objections, Recommendations and Comments Report
Review Agency Comments
cc: Jeff Jones, Acting Executive Director, East Central Florida Regional Planning Council
Eloise M. Sahlstrom, Senior Planner, 1126 State Road 434, Winter Springs, FL 32708
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS
OBJECTIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND COMMENTS
FOR
City of Winter Springs
AMENDMENT OS-2
July 15, 2005
Division of Community Planning
Office of Comprehensive Planning
This report is prepared pursuant to Rule 9J-11.010, F.A.C.
TRANSMITTAL PROCEDURES
The process for adoption of local comprehensive plan amendments is outlined in s.
163.3184, Florida Statutes, and Rule 9J-11.011, Florida Administrative Code.
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 amendment 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-11.011(5), F.A.C., please provide a copy of the adopted amendment directly
to the Acting 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 of Intent 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 information. This list is to be
submitted at the time of transmittal of the adopted plan amendment (a sample Information Sheet "`
is attached for your use).
INTRODUCTION
The following objections, recommendations and comments are based upon the Department's
review of City of Winter Spring's proposed amendment to their comprehensive plan (DCA
number OS-2) pursuant to Chapter 163.3184, Florida Statutes (F.S.).
The objections relate to specific requirements of relevant portions of Chapter 9J-5, Florida
.Administrative Code (F.A.C.), and Chapter 163, Part II, F.S. Each objection includes a
recommendation of one approach that might be taken to address the cited objection. Other
approaches maybe more suitable in specific situations. Some of these objections may have
initially been raised by one of the other external review agencies. If there is a difference between
the Department's objection and the external agency advisory objection or comment, the
Department's objection would take precedence.
Each of these objections must be addressed by the local government and corrected when the
amendment is resubmitted for our compliance review. Objections, which are not addressed, may
result in a determination that the amendment is not in compliance. The Department may have
raised an objection regarding missing data and analysis items, which the local government
considers not applicable to its amendment. If that is the case, a statement justifying its non-
applicabilitypursuant to Rule 9J-5.002(2), F.A.C., must be submitted. The Department will
make a determination on the non-applicability of the requirement, and if the justification is
sufficient, the objection will be considered addressed.
The comments, which follow the objections and recommendations section, are advisory in
nature. Comments will not form bases of a determination ofnon-compliance. They are included
to call attention to items raised by our reviewers. The comments can be substantive, concerning
planning principles, methodology or logic, as well as editorial in nature dealing with grammar,
organization, mapping, and reader comprehension.
Appended to the back of the Department's report are the comment letters from the other state
review agencies and other agencies, organizations and individuals. These comments are
advisory to the Department and may not form bases of Departmental objections unless they
appear under the "Objections" heading in this report.
OBJECTIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND COMMENTS
FOR
CITY of Winter Springs
AMENDMENT OS-2
I. OBJECTIONS
The-City of Winter Springs is amending f ve parcels of land containing approximately 10.65
acres from Seminole County Office (6.0 ac @ 0.35 FAR) and Commercial (4.6 ac @ 0.35 FAR)
to City of Winter Springs Town Center (6.0 FAR) due to annexation. Staff has identified
potential objections to the FLUM amendment. The objections relate to insufficient infrastructure
data and analysis. The analysis is not based on the maximum 6.0 FAR allowed for the proposed
land use.
A. The Department raises the following objections to FLUM amendment LS-CPA-05-
O5.
TRANSPORTATION
l.Obiection: The proposed amendment has not demonstrated that the necessary transportation
facilities are available or planned to be constructed concurrent with the development.
The proposed amendment has not demonstrated consistency with the transportation provisions
(goals, objectives, and policies) of the following: Future Land Use Element (Objective 1.3),
(Policy 1.3.1) and (Policy 1.3.2); Transportation Element (Objective 1.9) and Capital
Improvements Element (Policy 3.1). The proposed amendment is not consistent with the
requirements of:
Sections 163.31.77(2), 163.3177(3), 163.3177(6)(a), 163.3177(6)(b), 163.3177(10)(h), F.S.
Rules 9J-5.005(5), 9J-5.006(2)(a), 9J-5.006(3)(c)3., 9J-5.016(3)(b)1., 3., 4., and S., and 9J-
5.016(3)(c), 9J-5.016(4), 9J-5.019(4)(b)2., 3., and S., 9J-5.019(4)(c), and 9J-5.019(5), F.A.C.
Recommendation: Provide data and analysis demonstrating the necessary improvements to
address the transportation impacts of the proposed development and demonstrate the necessary
roadway improvements needed are in the appropriate short range or long range capital
improvements plan, depending on when needed and based on the maximum density/intensity
allowed for the proposed land use. If the facilities are needed in the first five years then they
should be included in the appropriate financially feasible five-year capital improvement plan.
Any roadway improvements within the City should also be reflected on the Traffic Circulation
Map. Base the analysis on the amount of development proposed in the future land use map
amendment. If the City intends to rely on developer-funded improvements for the necessary
transportation facilities to support the proposed land use amendment, then the executed
development agreement must be submitted along with the amendment. Regardless of the entity
responsible for the transportation facility, the future land use map should be coordinated and
based upon existing or the planned availability of supporting transportation facilities. Revise the
amendment as necessary to be consistent with and supported by the data and analysis.
PUBLIC FACILITIES
2.Obiection: The proposed amendment is not supported by data and analysis to demonstrate
that public facilities, including potable water facilities and sanitary sewer services, are available
or will be available at the adopted level of service standards, to serve the potential maximum
development allowed for the proposed land use. The proposed FLUM amendment is not
supported by an adequate public facilities analysis addressing the following: (1) the amount of
potable water and sanitary sewer generated by the maximum development potential allowed by
the FLUM amendment; (2) the available uncommitted capacity of potable water and sanitary
sewer facilities that would serve the amendment site; (3) the impact of the demand for potable
water and sanitary sewer on the projected operating level of service and available capacity of
these facilities for the five year and long term planning timeframe; (4) the need for potable water
and sanitary sewer facilities improvements (scope, timing, and cost of improvements) to
maintain the adopted level of service standards for the facilities; (4) coordination of the needed
facilities improvements with the plans with the Infrastructure and Capital Improvement
Elements, including implementation through the five year schedule of capital improvements.
The proposed amendment has not demonstrated consistency with the public facilities provisions
(goals, objectives, and policies) of the following: Future Land Use Element (Objective 1.3),
Policy 1.3.1 and Policy 1.3.2), Infrastructure (Objective N-A-1) and (Policy IV-B-2.1), and
Capital Improvements Element (Objective 1.1). The proposed amendment is not consistent with
the requirements of
Sections 163.3177(2and 3, 163.3177(6)(a), 163.3177(6)(c), and 163.3177(10)(h), F.S.
Rules 9J-5.005(2 and S), 9J-S.006(2)(a) and 9J-5.006 (3)(b) 9 and 10, 9J-5.006(3)(c)3., 9J-
5.011(1)(~ and 9J--5.011 (2)(b) and (c), 9J-5.016(3)(b)1., 9J-S.016(3)(b)3., 4., and S., 9J-
5.016(3)(c), and 9J-S.016(4)(a), F.A.C.
Recommendation: Provide data and analysis, demonstrating the availability of potable water
and sanitary sewer facilities to serve the site affected by the proposed amendment. The data and
analysis should demonstrate how the facilities are coordinated with the proposed development as
it occurs within the planning horizon of the comprehensive plan. The amendment should also
demonstrate that adequate public facilities are planned for in the comprehensive plan to
accommodate the level of development projected within the next five-year period and the next
ten-year period. The amendment should address the public facility improvements (scope, timing,
and cost) needed to maintain the adopted level of service standards for public facilities. The
analysis should be based on the maximum development potential allowed by the proposed land
use. Revise 'the amendment as necessary to be consistent with and supported by he data and
analysis.
II. COMMENTS
1. Comment: The Department of Transportation noted that additional roadway segments were at
a deficient LOS and should be identified in the transportation element update. Currently
segments of US 17-92 and SR 419 are identified on Map II-6 as having a deficient. The map
should be revised to show US 17-92 and SR 434 as experiencing a deficient LOS.
2. Comment: The Department has coordinated with City Planning Staff in regards to the
currently adopted Floor Area Ration (FAR) of 6.0 for the land tise proposed for the site. We
have discussed alternatives for addressing the Department's concerns with the intensity of the
proposed land use category. The Department pointed out that the City may want to assess
whether such an intense land use is in keeping with your vision for the character of the
community. On a 1-acre lot a 6.0 FAR would allow up to 261,360 gross square feet of non-
residential development. This would allow the intensity of a large mall to be located on a four
acre parcel. This does not include any infrastructure (stormwater), open space, or parking
requirements. It would be difficult for any community to plan for such an intensity considering
the infrastructure needs and in some cases demonstrating the suitability and compatibility of such
an intense land use.
The City should reassess the need for such an intense land use. An FAR of 1.5 is still a
high intensity for the land use category but may still achieve the City's vision for this area. An
intensity standard closer to what the City wants to achieve in this land use category will allow for
better coordination of infrastnicture and overall planning. We look forward to further
discussions with the City to resolve the Department's concerns with the proposed intensity for
the site.
~_
Florida Department of Transportation
JEB BLIS!!
GOVERNOR
Planning 8 Public Transportation
133 South Semoran Boulevard
Orlando; FL 32807-3230
June 16, 2005
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
SUBJECT: PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS
LOCAL GOVERNMENT: WINTER SPRINGS
DCA #: 05-2
Dear Mr. Eubanks:
7s
~~i~~~s
JOSE ABRF:U
SECRETARY
The Department of Transportation has: completed its review of the above proposed
comprehensive plan amendments as requested in your memorandum dated, May 19, 2005..
We appreciate the opportunity to participate in this review process and we offer our comments
with this letter. If you have any questions, please contact me at 407-482-7856 (Suncom: 335-
7856) or a-mail me at betty.mckee(a~dot.state.fl.us.
Sincerely,
~'yl.clc.e,~
Betty McKee
Systems Planner
BMcK
attachment
cc: Don Fisher, Seminole County
Rob Magee, FDOT
Bob Romig, FDOT
Eloise Sahlstrom, Winter Springs
James Stansbury, DCA
Tony Walter, Seminole County
File: J:\Growlh hlanagementlComprehensive PlanslCommenlsandCoverLetierslSeminole Co\WinterS rings05-2Covertetter061605.doc
Florida Department of Transportation
• Intermodal Systems Development
Technical Applications Section
Page 1 of 2
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. AMENDMENT REVIEW COMMENTS
Local Government:
DCA Amendment #:
Date of DCA's Request Memo:
Review Comments Deadline:
Today's Date:
Winter Springs (Seminole County)
05-2
May 19, 2005
June 17, 2005
June 16 2005
ELEMENT: Future Land Use Element: FLUM Amendments
RULE REFERENCE: 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-05-05: 10.65 acres; current future land use: County Office (6.05 acres @ 0.35 FAR) and County
Commercial (4,6 acres @ 0.35 FAR); proposed future land use: City Town Center (6.0 FAR with
structured parking, 36 units/ acre); affected state roads: SR 15-600 (US 17-92), SR 417, SR 419, SR 426,
SR 434 and SR 436
REVIEW COMMENTSI RECOMMENDATIONS:
92,238 square feet of office uses and 70,132 square feet of commercial uses could be developed under
the current future land use designations, which translate to 4,027 average daily trips (ITE 710 and 820).
2,783,484 square feet of commercial uses could be developed under the proposed future land use
designation, which translates to 119,523 average daily trips (ITE 820). The difference between the
scenarios represents a potential increase of 115,496 average daily trips.
Land Use S uare Feet Avera a Dail Tri s
Current Desi nations Count Office 92,238. 1,016
Count Commercial 70,132 3,011
Subtotal 4,027
Pro osed Desi nation Cit Town Center 2,783,484
Subtotal 119 523
Net Tri s 115,496
The request is not supported by appropriate data and analysis. As shown on FDOT's 2004 LOS_ALL
spreadsheet, several affected segments of SR 15-600 (US 17-92), SR 419, SR 426, SR 434 and SR 436
are currently over capacity. These segments, as well as one segment of SR 417, an FIHSISIS facility,
are expected to remain so by 2014. A traffic impact analysis that assumes the maximum development
scenario possible under the proposed future land use designation and addresses impacts to all state
roads in the vicinity should be submitted to support the request or a new policy could be added to the
Comp Plan limiting development in this area to a .26 FAR.
FDOT Contact: Betty McKee, Systems Planner Reviewed by: GenesBs Group ICP
FDOT
Telephone: 40782-7856 (Suncom: 335-7856) 904-730-9360
Fes: 407-275-4188 904-730-7165
E-mail: betty mckee(a)dot state ft.us ebertoni(r~genesisgrouo.com
File: J:1Growlh Management\Comprehenslve PlanslCommentsandCoverLetters\Seminole Co\VVinterSprings05.2Comments061605.doc
Florida Department of Transportation
Intermodal Systems Development
Technical Applications Section
Page 2 of 2
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT REVIEW COMMENTS
Local Government:
DCA Amendment #:
Date of DCA's Request Memo:
Review Comments Deadline:
Today's Date:
ELEMENT:
RULE REFERENCE:
Winter Springs (Seminole County)
05-2
May 19, 2005
June 17, 2005
June 16 2005
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Transportation Element: Text Amendment
9J-5.019 Transportation Element
9J-11.OOS Submittal Requirements
9J-11.007 Data and Analysis Requirements
LS-CPA-05-06: The purpose of the text amendment is to incorporate the recently adopted update to the
Transportation Study (known as "Supplement 3"), and to revise and delete text regarding inconsistencies
related to the Town Center transportation network.
REVIEW COMMENTS! RECOMMENDATIONS:
Map II-6 shows only two road segments as deficient: US 17-92 (from SR 419 to Shepard Road) and SR
419 (from US 17-92 to SR 434). The map should be revised to include US 17-92 (from Orange County to
Shepard Road) and SR 434 (from US 17-92 to Edgemon Avenue); these segments are also deficient per
FDOT's 2004 LOS_ALL spreadsheet.
FDOT Contact: Betty McKee, Systems Planner Reviewed by: Ellen Bertoni, AICP
FDOT Genesis Group
Telephone: 407-482-7856 (Suncom: 335-7856) 904-730-9360
Fax: 407-275-4188 904-730-7165
E-mail: betty mckee(c~dot.state.fl.us ebertoni(a~genesisgroup.com
File: J:1Growth Management\Comprehensive PlanslCommentsandCoverLetterslSeminole Co\WlnterSprings05-2Comments061605.doc
East Central Florida
REGIONAL
PLANNING
C O U N C I L
~oV~~2
~.,
MEMORANDUM
~_
~s
%o ~ 'as
Chairman
Welton G. Cadwell
Commissioner
Lake count}• T0: D. Ray Eubanks, FDCA, Community Program Administrator
James Stansbury, FDCA
Vice Chairman
lson
Jo
x
a
s FROM: Jeffrey A. Jones
n
or
er
Go
Appointee
Orange county DATE: Thursday, June 02, 2005
Secretary/Treasure SUBJECT: Comprehensive Plan Amendment Review
r
Michael S. Blake
Commissioner
Tri-County Les3ue LOCAL GOVERNMENT: Winter Springs
of cities LS-CPA-05-05, LS-CPA-05-06, LS-CPA-05-
5~inter Springs
LOCAL AMENDMENT #: 07
Executive Director DCA AMENDMENT #: 05-2
Sandra S. Glenn
Council staff has completed a technical review of the above referenced
comprehensive plan amendment. The review was conducted in accordance
s`~~~`"`' with the provisions of the East Central Florida Regional planning Council's
Brei~arcf. Lnkc.
o,•~„~~>~. os~•E•or~,. current contract with the Florida Department of Community Affairs for Plan
s~~„~;,,~~i<<,,.d-~or~~~r~, and Plan Amendment Reviews.
Cbturrres.
We have not identified any significant and adverse effects on regional
631 M. Pl,:nore F.oad resources or facilities, nor have any extra-jurisdictional impacts been
Suit? lOG
[•1>itlanri, Florida identified that would adversely effect the ability of neighboring jurisdictions
,32'51 -~ to implement their comprehensive plans. -
Phone The East Central Florida Regional Planning Council is available to assist in the
407.62 3.10 ; 5 resolution of any issues that should arise in the course of your review. If you
Fax 40 t . c23. 1089 tease contact me at Sun Com 334-.1075 x327.
should have any questions, p
Thank you.
Suncom 334-1075
Suncom Fa:
334.1084
website: cc: Local Government Contact: Eloise Sahlstrom, Senior Planner
.. ,~~,~, ecfrpc...rg File
~- -~ -
N ~ ~ V'
"~ FLORI A ,I
~J
Jeb Bush
Governor
Department of
Environmental Protection
Marjory Stoneman Douglas Building
3900 Commonwealth Boulevard
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
June 9, 2005
Mr. Ray Eubanks
Florida Department of Community Affairs
Plan Review and DRI Processing Team
2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100
RE: Winter Springs OS-2, Comprehensive Flan Amendment Review
Dear Mr. Eubanks:
~ JS
~~~~~~
Colleen'. Castille
Secretary
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 tinder 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 with 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) 245-2172.
Sincerely,
SE12
Suzanne Ray
Office of Intergovernmental Programs
/ser
~ s
has River
St. o
JI -----------
''`~ ~ Water Management District S
Kirhy 8. Green ICI. Execu•.ne G~recbr ~ David Y~ Fisk. Assistant Executive G!rw~cr
4049 Reid Street • P.O. Box 1429 • Palatka, FL 32178-1429 • (386) 329-4560 `C
On the Internet of www.sjrNmd.com. O ~-' f ~ S
June l7, 2005
D. Ray Eubanks, Administrator
Ptan Review and Processing
Florida Department of Community Affairs
2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100
Subject: Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment
DCA Amendment # Winter Springs OS-2
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 and text changes to the Future Land
Use, Conservation, and Transportation elements of the comprehensive plan. 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) 329-431 L/Suncom 860-431 I or i
pbrotiwi C~sjnvn-d. com.
Sincerely,
~ ~~~
~~~,~~.~
~~'U`~'
Linda Burnette, Director
Office o~t Communications and Governmental Affairs
LB/PB
cc: Eloise Sahlstrom, City of Winter Springs
Jeff Jones, ECFRPC
Lindy McDowell, FDEP
Nancy Christman, SJRWMD
Jeff Cole, SJRWMD
Peter Brown, SJRWMD
Orre~r~s C Lcng. ~ ra a+.i-•: Oav r1 C
<;
`Tl Lecnard Ulocd Jc=hn G Scr~insk~
GOVERNING BOARD
Gratam....r_...:,c.~.._. R G7ay A:bti~hl. ,~ca~ ~ . Dua^e 0 ersheer.. =a;,:=~_
r v , ... ,-
14';am Ker' ?rn T Ph -,re Susan N H~ghe=.