Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002 03 06 Regular Item C City of Winter Springs, Florida Community Development Department 1126 East State Road 434 Winter Springs, FL 32708-2799 (407) 327-1800 Phone (407) 327-6695 Fax \ M E M o R A N D u M To: Members of the Local Planning Agency (LPA) CommunityDevelopment Department Distribution Mr. Earnest McDonald, Advance Planning Coordinator ~ February 27, 2002 From: Date: Subject: Status Report of the Comprehensive Plan The Community Development Department is in receipt of the Objections, Recommendations and Comments (ORC) Report prepared by the Department of Community Affairs (DCA). As you are aware, this report was prepared in accordance with Rule 9J-11 of the Florida Administrative Code, which governs the procedure for the submittal and review of local government comprehensive plans and amendments. The City Commission has 120 days from the ORC Report's date of receipt (February 19,2002) to adopt, adopt with changes or not adopt the proposed amendments. For your information, a copy of the ORC Report is attached. Please be reminded that no additional action is required by the Local Planning Agency pursuant to the adoption of the proposed amendments. If you should have additional questions concerning the comprehensive plan or ORC Report prior to next week's regular meeting, do not hesitate to reach me at 407- 327-5967. Thank you in advance for your consideration. STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS "Dedicated to making Florida a better place to call home" \ JEB BUSH Governor STEVEN M. SEIBERT Secretary February 14, 2002 Honorable Paul P. Partyka, Mayor City of Winter Springs 1126 East State Road 434 Winter Springs, Florida 32708-2799 !:~ ~ ... CtE:I'V . ~t) FER < - ~- I g 20 Cf,},O . 02 CUtlJ/}; '.I1;INr,~,.., Ul]ify '-C" Sp oeVefo ~fNGS Ptne/}( Dear Mayor Partyka: The Department has completed its review of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment for the City of Winter Springs (DCA No. 02-1ER), which was received by the Department on December 11, 2001. Copies of the proposed amendment have been distributed to the appropriate state, regional and local agencies for their review and their comments are enclosed. I am enclosing the Department's Objections, Recommendations and Comments (ORC) Report, issued pursuant to Rule 9J-11.01O, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). The issues identified in this ORC Report include a lack of information regarding what specific changes are proposed for the City's Future Land Use Map along with the data and analysis to support such changes, the lack of percentage distribution standards for Mixed Use and Greenway Interchange future land use categories, and a lack of supporting data and analysis for proposed provisions of the plan that increase densities in the High Density Residential future land use category and the allowance of a density and intensity bonus without adequate criteria for their application. Upon receipt of this letter, the City of Winter Springs has 120 days in which to adopt, adopt with changes, or determine that the City will not adopt the proposed amendment. The process for adoption of local government comprehensive plan amendments is outlined in s. 163.3184, Florida Statutes, and Rule 9J-11.011, F.A.C. 2555 SHUMARD OAK BOULEVARD .TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399.2100 Phone: (850) 488-8466/Suncom 278-8466 FAX: (850) 921-0781/Suncorn 291-0781 Internet address: http://www.dca.state.fl.us CRITICAL STATE CONCERN FIELD OFFICE 2796 Ovetseas Highway. Suite 212 Marathon. FL 33050-2227 COMMUNITY PLANNING 2555 Shurrord Oak Boulevard Tallahassee. FL 32399-2100 EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee. FL 32399.2100 HOUSING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee. FL 32399-2100 fal::;"\ I\QQ.70C,a.. \ Honorable Paul P. Partyka, Mayor February 14,2002 Page Two Within ten working days of the date of adoption, the County must submit the following to the Department: Three copies of the adopted comprehensive plan amendments; . A copy of the adoption ordinance; A listing of findings by the local governing body, if any, which were not included in the ordinance; A listing of additional changes not previously reviewed; 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 detern1ination and issue the appropriate notice of intent. In order to expedite the regional planning council's review of the amendments, and pursuant to Rule 9J-11.011(5), F.A.C., please provide a copy of the adopted amendment directly to the Executive Director of the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council. Please be advised that the Florida Legislature amended Section 163.3184(8)(b), Florida Statutes, 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 or plan amendment. As discussed in our letter sent to you on May 25, 2001, outlining the changes to Section 163.3184(8)(b) which are effective July 1, 2001, and providing a model sign-in information sheet, please provide these required names and addresses to the Department when you transmit your adopted amendment package for compliance review. For efficiency, we encourage that the information sheet be provided in electronic format. , Honorable Paul P. Partyka, Mayor Febmary 14,2002 Page Three I would be pleased to arrange a visit to Winter Springs to work with your staff and consultants to help resolve the issues discussed in the ORC Report in order to facilitate the adoption of the proposed amendments. Please contact Russell Grace, Planner IV, at (850) 922- 1794 or Brenda Winningham, Community Program Administrator at (850) 922-1800, to coordinate this visit;o[ if we .can be. of assistance in anyway as you Jormulat~ your response to this Report. Sincerely YO,urs, . ( -}rvJ~ 1~1 ~ ~~r JC'A. Charles Gauthier, AICP Chief, Bureau of Local Planning Enclosures: Objections, Recommendations and Comments Report Review Agency Comments cc:."Charles C..Carrington; AICP, City of Winter Springs Community Development Department Sandra S. Glenn, Executive Director, East Central Florida Regional Planning Council \ FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS OBJECTIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND COMMENTS FOR CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT 02-1ER February 14,2002 Division of Community Planning Bureau of Local Planning \. lNTRODUCTION The following objections, recommendations and comments are based upon the Department's review of the City of Winter Springs proposed amendment to their comprehensive plan pursuant to s.163.3184, Florida Statutes (F.S.). Objections relate to specific requirements ofrelevant portions of Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.), and Chapter 163, Part IT, F.S. Each objection includes a recommendation of one approach that might be taken to address the cited objection. Other approaches may be 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 governn1ent 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-applicability pursuant 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 of non-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 REPORT CITY OF 'WINTER SPRINGS PROPOSED AMENDMENT 02-lER CONSISTENCY WITHCHAPTERS9J:-5 AND 9J-l L F.A.C., AND CHAPTER 163. F.s. The Department identifies the following objections, recommendations and comments to the proposed amendment. I. OBJECTIONS A. Future Land Use Map 1. General Revision to the Future Land Use Map: The City is proposing a new future land use map in its entirety, but has failed to indicate which properties are proposed to be changed to a different future land use category, and has not provided the data and analysis to support any potential impacts on public facilities and natural resources of those specific changes. It therefore cannot be determined where or to what extent the future land use map has been revised when compared to the currently adopted future land use map. Thus, the proposed Future Land Use Map in its entirety (including all specific proposed changes) has not demonstrated consistency with requirements in Chapter 163.3177(6)(a), Florida Statutes (F.S.), and with Rule 9J-5.006(3)(b)l, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.), to support the map with appropriate data and analysis on allocation, impacts to natural resources, and to coordinate land uses with appropriate site characteristics and facilities and services. Based on a comparison of the proposed and existing Future Land Use Map, it appears that the City is proposing to designate properties in the East Rural Area (Weaver, Minter, and Carroll properties) to Low Density Residential. These properties appear to contain wetland areas which are designated Conservation in the County. The sites are also within the County's Rural Area Boundary. Adequate data and analysis was not provided demonstrating that the proposed uses for the eastern area are suitable for the proposed sites, compatible with surrounding land uses, needed to accomodate the projected population, will not result in the promotion of urban sprawl, nor that the City has adequate public facilities available to serve the area with the proposed use. Section: 163.3177(3), 163.3177(6)(a), 163.3177(8), and 163.3187(2), F.S. Rule: 9J-5.005(2), 9J-5-005(5), 9J-5.006(3)(b), 9J-5.006(4), F.A.C. ,. Recommendation: Provide a future land use map or maps that indicate what properties are proposed to be re- designated, and for each of these changes, provide data and analysis regarding 1) the location of the amendment site including a map clearly identifying the boundaries of the site on an individual amendment basis; 2) individual acreage amounts for each amendment identifying the acreage for each of the current future land uses and the reciprocal acreage for the adopted amendments. The data and analysis should be clear on the amount of acreage and the type of current land use each individual amendment is cQnyerting and clearly i~entify the land use. category and acreage for the adopted land use; 3) the existing land use onsite, specifically, the character of the property, for example is it vacant or developed, and if developed what type of development currently exists on the site. The data and analysis to address the impacts from the change in land use should include a public facilities analysis based on the maximum density or intensity allowed, and analysis of the suitability of the proposed land use for the site related to natural resources and cOf!1patibility with adjacent land uses. If the amendment is projected to increase demand or impacts then the amendment should explain how this increase is addressed consistent with the goals objectives and policies of the comprehensive plan. Include a demonstration of how each amendment is internally consistent with the overall goals, objectives and policies of the comprehensive plan including whether the amendment is consistent with goals, objectives and policies on limiting urban sprawl. B. Future Land Use Element 1. Mix of Uses: The City does not establish the percentage distribution among the mix of allowed uses within the proposed Mixed Use and Greenway Interchange future land use categories or other objective measurement that ensures a balanced mix of land uses based on data and analysis will be achieved. The proposed plan also lacks specific language on what types of land uses will be allowed beyond stated density and intensity standards. Section: 163.3177(6)(a), F.S. Rule: 9J-5.006(4)(c), F.A.C. Recommendation: The City provides specific language under Goal 2 and corresponding objectives and policies concerning mixed use standards associated with the Town Center future land use ,. category. The City should revise the proposed Mixed Use and Greenway Interchange future land use designation to include specificaily what the allowed land uses are, along with standards that regulate the percentage distribution of the range of allowed uses in a manner similarly applied to the Town Center designation. The range of uses and percent distribution should be based on relevant data and analysis. 2. High Density Residential Proposed Policy 1.1.1 provides for a maximum residentiaLdensityintheBigh J)r;nsity .. Residential future land use category at 21 units per acre. The current plan caps this density at 12 units per acre. The City has not provided data and analysis that supports this proposed increase or has indicated what potential impact this change might have on properties currently designated High Density including impacts on public facilities and natural resources. Section: 163.3177(8), F.S. Rule: 9J-5.005(2), 9J-5.006(2)(a) F.A.C. Recommendation: Provide an analysis of the lands currently designated High Density on the Future Land use Map to determine the extent of acreage with this designation, and how much of this acreage is developed, undeveloped, and the potential for re-development based on the proposed density standard of 21 units per acre. Once this is determined, conduct a public facilities analysis based on the additional demand, and a site suitability analysis to determine potential impacts on natural resources. Unless the data and analysis is found to clearly support the proposed density standard, the City should retain the existing standard of 12 units per acre. 3. Policy 1.1.6 - Density Bonuses: This proposed policy allows up to a 25% increase of the maximum permitted density and intensity for all future land use categories where "exceptional provisions" in site design are made. The proposed bonus has the potential to significantly increase the number of units and development intensity on a particular site without any meaningful standards and thus lacks guidance to the land development regulations, or any suitability analysis to show that the site can support this increase above the maximum allowed. The City also has not supported this policy with data and analysis to indicate that this directive is needed, and what potential impacts on allocation, public facilities, and natural resources it might have. Section: 163.3177(8), F.S. Rule: 9J-5.005(2), 9J-5.006(2)(a) F.A.C. , Recommendation: Conduct an analysis to determine what impacts a 25% density bonus beyond the maximum pern1itted standard will be on public facilities, natural resources, and site suitability, and is consistent with density and intensity use allocations. Should the data and analysis clearly support this provision, the City should then revise the proposed policy to more clearly indicate under what circumstances a project may be awarded the bonus density or intensity. Further, a provision should be included stating that such increases in density must still be consistent with the comprehensive'plangoals, objectives, and policies, and that the.site.canaccornrnodate the additional density and intensity without adverse impacts to public facilities, traffic circulation, natural resources, and land use compatibility. II. COMMENTS A. Future Land Use Element 1. Policy 1.4.3 - Intense Development Outside of Utility Service Area: Proposed Policy 1.4.3 would allow "intense development" outside of the established utility service areas if alternative service delivery systems are provided. The use of such delivery systems have historically resulted in the proliferation of urban sprawl and is therefore in conflict with corresponding Objective 1.4 (preventing urban sprawl). The policy should be revised to remove this conflicting. 2. Joint Planning Agreements Policy 1.8.1 of the Future Land Use Element is proposed to be changed in a manner that will lessen its enforceability and measurability. This policy addresses the joint planning agreement process with Seminole County, and has eliminated the date by which a JPA is to be entered into, and has taken out the directive of "shall" and replaced with "may." The County has objected to the City's proposed changes and provided a suggested alternative as follows: By January 1,2003, the City and Seminole County shall enter into ajoint interlocal planning agreement (JP A) to address, at a minimum, future annexations, provision of services and facilities and land use compatibility in the East Rural Area of Seminole County. The JP A shall also include agreement on future densities and intensities of properties that may be annexed to protect the rural integrity of and discourage urban sprawl into the County's Rural Area and the area know as "Black Hammock.." The JP A shall set forth a procedure for resolution of any future conflicts and/or disputes, shall include criteria for when and how the urban boundary can be ,. amended and include standards for cut through traffic. The City should consider the County's position on this issue and revise the proposed policy accordingly. The County also suggested that the City's annexation of enclaves be part of a JP A as discussed in Future Land Use Element Policy 1.8.2 3. Historical Resources: The plan indicates in its data and analysis that there are no known historical or archaeological resources located within the City. However, there are occurrences within the City of archeological sites identified in the Florida Master Site File. This section should be revised to include this information, along with an .analysis as to their significance and what, if any, additional measures of protection should be undertaken. According to the records of the Division Of Historical Resources, archeological sites are present within the area designated as Town Center. The City should revise or add a new policy under Goal 2 of the Future Land u~e Element to address these resources. Future Land Use Element Policy 1.9.2 directs the City to prohibit development that alters or damages any site or building deternlined to historically significant, and refers to a "register of historically significant properties maintained by the State of Florida." The state maintains the Florida Master Site File, which is a data base of statewide occurrences of archeological sites and structures. Many of the sites have not been evaluated for significance, and is not comparable to the National Register of Historic Places. The City should revise this policy to apply to any development that might impact such resources, whether that particular site is included on the Master Site File or not. In the Housing Element Data and Analysis, the City has identified 12 structures that were built prior to 1950, and 117 buildings constructed in the 1950's. The City should include an analysis to determine the historical significance of these structures, and describe what, if any, measures need to be undertaken to ensure their protection. Housing Element Policy 2.3.2 directs the City to conduct a survey of buildings to identify those that have the potential to become historically significant. A date by which time this survey is to be completed should be included in this policy. 4. Water Resources: Policy 1.2.5 of the Future Land Use Element prohibits land uses potentially detrimental to drinking water quality within 500 feet radii of public potable water wells. To improve the enforceability of this directive, the City should consider the prohibition ofIndustrial Future Land Use designations in areas where public drinking water well fields are located. Future Land Use Element Policy 1.2.11 provides for a 50 foot minimum upland lake \ buffer, and Policy 1.2.13 provides a minimum 25 foot upland wetland buffer. It is not clear if these policies cover major creeks and streams, which should also retain an upland buffer. The City should consider revising policy 1.2.11 to include major streams along with lakes. B. Conservation Element 1. Wetland Buffers Conservation Element Policy 1.4.2 directs the City to establish upland buffers to wetlands with a minimum of 15 feet and an average of25 feet. Future Land Use Element Policy 1.2.13 also addresses wetland buffers and requires a 25 foot minimum wetland buffer. These policies should be consistent with each other. C. Transportation Element 1. Transportation Analysis: Per Chapter 9J-5.019(3), F.A.C., the transportation analysis section of the comprehensive plan should address the effect of transportation concurrency management areas as well as transportation concurrency exceptions, where applicable. Ifno transportation concurrency management areas exist in the City, Section b. on page II-13 should be revised to include management areas as well. In Addition, the transportation analysis section of the comprehensive plan should consider the projects planned for in FDOT's adopted work program. The first state road project listed in Table II-I 0 (page II-33) is not included in FDOT's adopted 2002-2006 work program. As indicated in the table, the other three state road projects listed are not funded or planned by the state. Applicable projects in FDOT's work program, such as those below, should be included in the analysis. SR 15/600 (17/92) from Lake Triplet Drive to Shepard Road (add lanes and reconstruct) SR 15/600 (17/92) interchange at SR 436 SR 419 from 17/92 to SR 434 (resurface) SR 419 from Moss Road to Edgemon Avenue (add right turn lanes) SR 434 from 17/92 to SR 419 (traffic control devices/system) SR 434 from East Street to SR 419 (resurfacing) SR 434 from SR 419 to east of Tuskawilla Road (add lanes and reconstruct) 2. Policy Clarifications: Per Chapter 9J-5.019(4)(c)l, F.A.C., the City should adopt the level of service standards established by FDOT for facilities on the Florida Intrastate High\'iay System (FillS). SR 417 (Eastern Greeneway) is a component of the FIHS and should be identified as such in Policy 1.1.\. Per Chapter 9J-5.0l9(4)(c)10, F.A.C., the element should contain a policy which establishes numerical indicators against which the achievement of the mobility goals of the community can be measured, such as modal split, annual transit trips per capita or automobile occupancy rates. Per Chapter 9J-5.019(4)(c)16, F.A.C., the element should contain a policy which establishes measures for the acquisition and preservation of existing and future public transit rights-of-way and exclusive public transit corridors. Several policies contained in the element address the protection and acquisition of rights-of-way and the public transit system, but none directly address public transit rights-of-way. 3. Future Transportation Map: Per Chapter 9J-5.0l9(5), F.A.C., the future transportation map should include the future public transit system, the maintenance responsibility for all roads, and the projected peak hour levels of service for all transportation facilities (it is not clear if public transit features shown on Map II-3 represent both existing and future conditions). These features are not found on the maps contained in the submittal. III. ST ATE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CONSISTENCY A. OBJECTION 1. The proposed amendments are not consistent with the following goals and policies of the State Comprehensive Plan: a) Goal (10), Natural Systems, and Policies b(1), b(3), b(7), and b(10); b) Goal (16), Land Use, Policy (b)2 and (b)6 c) Goal (18), Public Facilities, Policy (b)1; d) Goal (20) Transportation, Policies (b)3, and (b)13. B. RECOMMENDATION The City should revise the proposed amendment, as necessary, to be consistent with the above-referenced goals and policies of the State Comprehensive Plan. Specific recommendations can be found following the objections cited elsewhere in this ORC report.b) Goal (20) Transportation, Policies (b)3, and (b)13.