Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006 01 26 Other (2) . Memorandum To: Eloise Salstrom, AICP, ASLA Senior Planner City of Winter Springs Date: From: January 20, 200S John Fernsler, AlA Principal Ref. No. Project: Pages: Re: Response to I/S/OS letter from Robert King ERAPOC CC: The following is in response to the "Comment to the ERAPOC of Winter Springs" document received from Robert King. In the first paragraph, Mr. King expresses his expectation that the committee's work in planning for the ERA would be an "open- ended process". Resolution 200S-0S laid out a specific purpose and process - to examine how the ERA might be developed if annexed into the City of Winter Springs, consistent with a vision statement that talks about accommodating population growth while protecting open space and environmental character. Specifically, the committee, staff and consultants were to examine four scenarios and to identify a preferred scenario. I believe the committee was well aware that it had the discretion to select a scenario other than the four identified in the resolution, which is in fact what they did. Operating by consensus, the committee directed staff and consultants to make several refinements to the current preferred scenario, including the inclusion of existing Seminole County zoning districts in "Tier One", as well as adjustments to the density provisions in "Tier Two". In the second paragraph, Mr. King expresses his opinion that the IOU/acre scenario was driving the process and that it would result in "the elimination of any semblance of rural". Mr. King refers to Scenario 4. Rural Transitional Development which initially was intended to achieve an average density of IOU/acre. This was set out in the Resolution and was intended as an alternative to the current County large lot zoning, and the current higher density City zoning, incorporating principles of conservation development to retain open space. At the outset of the process, Randall Arendt. a well-known proponent of conservation development. made presentations to the City Commission and the ERAPOC during which he provided innumerable examples of successful conservation developments which succeed in protecting rural character and retaining significant open space in perpetuity, many of which were at gross densities of approximately IOU/area. Scenario 4 was intended to depict such a conservation development approach, suitable for the ERA. While the first iteration of Scenario 4 did seek to achieve an average density of IOU/acre, later versions, modified at the direction of the committee, downplayed the need to achieve this average. In addition, as noted above, the committee directed that we include a "Tier One" to permit the retention of existing Seminole County zoning if property owners so choose, which would further reduce average densities. In the forth paragraph, Mr. King makes several statements that warrant a response. In the first sentence Mr. King says "what is appropriate for this area would be a mechanism to protect the environmental value and character of the area and allows landowners the ability to maximize their value". Among all of the scenarios considered, the only one which has any significant prospect of "protecting environmental value" is the conservation development scenario. By creating incentives to retain a network of at least 50 percent permanently protected open space, a framework is created for large scale environmental restoration, unachievable in the other scenarios. The development of the entire ERA area and its fragmentation into residential lots, regardless of whether they are 5 acre or I acre lots, represents rural sprawl and would not protect existing rural character or environmental value, nor would it "maximize" economic value. Further, as we heard from several real estate experts, retained open space does indeed enhance property values. Mr. King goes on to state that the process has "gotten hung up on making the product such that it will be desirable to annex into the city, while attempting to retain a remnant of the quality of life that now exists". The principal purpose of the study is to determine how the City of Winter Springs should allow the area to be developed ~ it were to be annexed into the City. That is a fundamental premise, not a hang up. U:\RURAllANOS\rob,rtkingl'U,r(1).doc Wallace Roberts & Todd, LLC 191 Giralda Avenue, Penthouse Coral Gables, FL 33134 305.448.0788 www.wrtdesign.com fax 305.443.8431 . Memorandum Page 2 Mr. King makes a nine-point proposal to develop the ERA at an average gross density of lOUIS acres by applying a transfer of development rights (TOR) program within the ERA. The following is my response to this proposal. I. The proposed gross density of IDUI5 acres represents a very substantial reduction in property values relative to the current scenario for conservation development. Since the committee directed that we modify the proposed tier structure by eliminating the lowest density tier (IDUn acres), I do not see that dramatically reducing densities to I DUI5 acres, or returning to Scenario 2, is consistent with the consensus of the committee or the direction they have provided. 2. With only 200 units permitted, the proposed density accommodates little of the growth that is on the horizon and that will inevitably pressure the development of the ERA. It therefore runs counter to Resolution, in which the Vision Statement includes "accommodating population growth" as part of the intent. 3. The proposed TOR structure is unworkable for several reasons. First. the scenario assumes that all or most of the current owners of large properties would choose to sell their development rights, as opposed developing their properties or selling their land for development. Since development rights typically sell for a fraction of actual property values. I foresee little motivation to do so. Likewise, it is not plausible that owners of 3. 5 or IO-acre lots would sell a single "right", rather than either sell it or build a home on it. Typically TOR "sending areas" are either economically viable agricultural lands or areas which are environmentally pristine and unsuitable for development. Clearly, economically viable agriculture is on the decline in the ERA and the bulk of the area is highly disturbed. Second. I see no mechanism to force property owners to "purchase" higher densities rather than simply requesting a rezoning I annexation into either Winter Springs or Oviedo. Third. the bulk of the area that would remain undeveloped would remain in unincorporated Seminole County. since there would be no motivation to annex. nor would the City have any interest in annexing un buildable land. The portion of the ERA with the 200 units would be incorporated because City infrastructure would be required. This represents a transfer of development rights from the unincorporated County into the City, necessitating that the City of Winter Springs and Seminole County create a joint City-County TOR program. This is a highly unlikely occurrence, unwieldy to administer and impractical at such a small scale. Also, nothing would preclude property owners from requesting a rezoning into Oviedo to avoid having to pay to purchase development rights and go through the administrative complexity of a TOR to become annexed into Winter Springs. Forth. Mr. King's proposal to make the lakefront Hamlet area non-conforming is punitive to the existing property owners and residents. In the event of a hurricane. or other event that causes severe damage or destruction. these owners would be prevented from rebuilding or occupying their properties, rendering their lots unbuildable and virtually worthless. likewise. it would prevent redevelopment at existing densities, which would remedy some evident building deficiencies. Finally, I am skeptical that a conservation organization would be interested in taking responsibility for an area that. in its present state, has limited conservation value. 4. In his last two paragraphs Mr. King again raises the issue of the use of the term "transitional". This term originates in the Resolution. referring to Scenario 4 - Rural Transitional Development. I recall that. at I believe the second committee meeting, Mr. King asked for a definition and objected to the use of the term because it suggested that the ERA would become something other than what it is today. I also recall that we suggested to the committee that. if it causes discomfort or confusion, that we simply drop the use of the term and that the committee agreed. Regardless, I do believe that the current proposed development scenario, one which retains approximately 50 percent of the ERA as permanently protected open space. and at densities less than is occurring nearby in Winter Springs and Oviedo, in fact does constitute the "clean transition between the urban area and the rural area" that Mr. King calls for. U\RURAllANOS\l'1lbertkingletler (Z).doc Ora ft East Rural Area Property Owner's Committee REPORT to the Winter Springs City Commission January 2006 The following report specifically addresses the findings and recommendations for the City of Winter Springs related to a defined study area and was the result of extensive study and public input. Please note that the greater Black Hammock area is beyond the scope of this report; and therefore, it should not be assumed that the findings and recommendations of this study apply to the greater Black Hammock area. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Dramatic impacts to Florida's natural ecosystems are occurring as environmentally sensitive lands and open spaces are converted into housing projects. Traditional land use control programs have not addressed this problem. Regulations are needed that encourage the protection of open space and natural resource areas while accommodating development pressures. One solution is the "conservation subdivision." "Conservation subdivisions" respond to market demands for housing, while protecting open space and natural resource areas. During 2005, the City of Winter Springs embarked on a public participation process to identify a development pattern to accommodate growth while preserving significant areas that could become an integrated network of open space. A seven person committee was appointed from property owners within a 1 ODD-acre study area. Property owners preferred a two-tiered system, in which existing zoning was retained as Tier One and Conservation Subdivision zoning was an option under Tier Two Overlay. The Tier Two Overlay allows for three development options depending upon tract size and percentage of open space preserved. As more land is preserved in conservation, densities are allowed to increase on the remaining land. This flexibility allows the market to dictate lot size while accommodating conservation at 50-70% of the gross acreage. The result of this effort will provide the City of Winter Springs with needed planning tools to address the relationship of conservation planning and development in the East Rural "Study Area". - 2 - INTRODUCTION The Problem: Ninety percent of all new development in America occurs on the urban fringe.1 Farms, forests, natural areas, and other cherished open spaces on the edge of America's major metropolitan areas are fast disappearing to accommodate our rapidly increasing population.2 The seven county Central Florida region is expected to grow by 136% by 2050, compared to the national growth rate of 49%.3 Such an increase in our population will have dramatic impacts to central Florida's natural ecosystems as environmentally sensitive lands and open spaces are converted into housing projects. Without comprehensive standards for the quantity, quality, and configuration of open space, land is removed from its natural state and divided entirely into lots and streets. Resulting open spaces, if any, are the remnants- lands unsuited for anything else. Traditional land use control programs do not address this problem. As a result, private landowners are encouraged to make land use decisions that are in their own short-term best interest without regard for whether these decisions will be beneficial to the broader community. This type of development pattern wastes land resources, provides too little public open space, destroys wildlife habitat, and puts our environmentally sensitive lands, open space, and agricultural lands at risk.4 A new development form is needed that is more land efficient, fiscally secure, environmentally responsive, and that delivers a better way of life for all. Land preservation must be an effective part of a comprehensive planning process and smart growth strategy rather than a reactionary ad hoc effort. Rather than just planning for development, jurisdictions need to be proactive and strategic about the land to be preserved. A simple and straightforward process is needed for laying out residential development around the central organizing principle of land conservation. Green infrastructure is as important to a community's economic well being as are its streets or its sewage treatment plants.s The Alternative: One solution is the "conservation subdivision". "Conservation subdivisions" respond to market demands for housing, while protecting open space and natural resource areas. The "conservation subdivision" approach is associated with Randall Arendt who began popularizing the concept in the mid-1990s. The concept builds on the older concept of cluster housing, but takes it to a different level. Whereas cluster housing may result in some open space, the open space is a secondary consideration, resulting in fragmented areas leftover after the lot layout. "Conservation subdivision" design, on the other hand, requires a significant portion of the site to be set aside as undivided, permanently protected open space in a conservation easement, with houses clustered on the remainder of the property (ideally on the least environmentally sensitive lands). Conservation easements are a means of protecting land from development without the expenses of fully acquiring the land. Conservation easements can be used to keep land in a natural state or to keep it actively farmed. The intention is to preserve the area's most important attributes and help maintain the health of the local ecosystem, goals associated with smart growth. 1 Kessler, Kristina (Ed.). (2005). Green Fringe. Urban Land, 64(5), p. 57. 2 McMahon, Edward T. (2005). Green Infrastructure. Urban Land, 64(5), p. 73. 3 myregion.org. (2005). PennDesign Central Florida. Retrieved online on 12/20/05 from http://www.nasiles.comlcmvroiects/proiect5/MvRel!ion/docs/PENN Desi g-n Cen Ira!. vdf 4 Daniels, Tom, & Mark Lapping. (2005). Land Preservation: An Essential Ingredient in Smart Growth. Journal Of Planning Literature, 19(3),p. 317. 5 McMahon, Edward T. (2005). Green Infrastructure. Urban Land, 64(5), p. 73. - 3 - The primary attraction of the "conservation subdivision" is the amount and permanence of the open space protection. Whereas, land use regulations are notoriously impermanent, subject to variances, rezonings, special exceptions, and conditional uses, the "conservation subdivision" approach ensures the long-term protection of integrated open space corridors. Areas of potential open space are pre-identified within each new residential subdivision "in such a manner that every development contributes a segment to the community-wide conservation network.,,6 Randall Arendt spoke at a workshop of the Winter Springs City Commission in February 2005. His presentation made it clear that the use of, "conservation subdivisions" as a land management tool is especially appropriate for areas at the edges of expanding metropolitan regions, such as the East Rural Area. As a response to Mr. Arendt's presentation, the Winter Springs City Commission defined an area at the eastern edge of the City of approximately one thousand acres, as a Study Area and adopted Resolution 2005-09. The one thousand acres was determined to be the minimal acreage necessary to appropriately understand and plan the area. The Resolution included the City's Vision Statement for the East Rural Area. The Study Area: The East Rural Study Area is approximately 1000 acres located in Seminole County at the eastern edge of the City of Winter Springs and to the immediate north of City of Oviedo. It is bounded on the west by Barrington Estates, on the east by Canal Street, on the north by Lake Jesup and on the south by Florida Avenue. LOCATION MAP Vision Statement: "It is the vision of the City of Winter Springs that development patterns in those portions of the "East Rural Area" that may be annexed into the City of Winter Springs should be developed in such a manner that creates a sustainable quality of life; that accommodates population growth in a manner that conserves open spaces; that balances development potential and conservation of lands; that protects lakes, waterways, and potable water resources; that protects environmentally significant wetlands, animal and plant life; that preserves historically significant places and building artifacts; protects significant natural occurring landscape features; that balances the interest of property owners; and that minimizes the negative impacts of urban sprawl"- Resolution 2005-09 East Rural Area Property Owners Committee (ERAPOC) Established: The Resolution directed the establishment of a property owners committee to evaluate and to bring forth recommendations for a development pattern for the East Rural Area. The Commission directed that a letter go out to all of the property owners inviting participation. From those property owners who indicated an interest in serving, a committee of seven property owners was appointed by the Winter Springs City Commission and Mayor. 6 Arendt, Randall (2004b). Linked Landscapes Creating Greenway Corridors Through Conservation Subdivision Design Strategies in the Northeastern and Central United States. Landscape and Urban Planning, 68, p. 241. - 4- Purpose of the ERAPOC: The purpose of the committee was to work with City staff and the City's consultant to develop a Rural Transitional Development Code to accomplish the mission and vision established by the City Commission for those portions of the East Rural Area (Study Area) that may be voluntarily annexed into the City of Winter Springs in the future. The Committee's work will include development standards identifying how growth should be allocated within the 1000-acre Study Area to achieve greater permanent (and effective) preservation of open space. Meetings: Beginning in June 2005, meetings were held on a regular basis at approximately 4-6 week intervals. City Staff and a consultant team from Wallace Roberts and Todd LLC worked with the Committee. A fair, open and representative public process was used to determine what the Study Area property owners envisioned for the future of the area. STUDY AREA CHARCTERISTICS An extensive evaluation of the Study Area provided information important to an understanding of the area's characteristics, including its significant attributes, opportunities and constraints. Included in this evaluation were: · 2004 Aerial Map · Future Land Use Map · Zoning Map · Existing Land Use Map · Drainage and Hydrology Map · Soils, Septic Tanks and Wells Map · Florida Land Use and Land cover Map · Agricultural Data for Seminole County · Natural and Cultural Resources and Constraints Map · Resource Lands Map · Property Sales Map · Residential Activity Map Future Land Use and Zoning: There are four categories of future land use with four corresponding zoning designations within the Study Area. Lots located down by the Fish Camp are Low Density Residential with a R-1 (8000 SF) zoning designation. Lots west of Division Street are Rural 3 with an A-3 (one dwelling unit per three acres) zoning designation. Lots east of Division Street are Rural-5 with an A-5 (one dwelling unit per 5 acres) zoning designation south of Howard and Rural-10 with an A-1 0 (one dwelling unit per 10 acres) north of Howard. Commercial and industrial uses are typically not allowed under the current land use and zoning, unless it is an ancillary use to agriculture. There are two parcels under public ownership, one by Seminole County and one by the St John's River Water Management District. Existing Land Use: The current land use is predominantly active agriculture. This is mixed with some fallow agricultural lands, single-family residential, non-conforming commercial (Black Hammock Fish Camp, etc.) and non-conforming light industrial uses (Cress Run). The character of the area is mostly rural with an increasingly suburban flavor as undeveloped lots are replaced with country estates. - 5 - Aqriculture: According to the NASS 2002 Census of Agriculture, agricultural statistics for the five year period (1997-2002) indicate all of the following have declined in Seminole County: the number of farms (-21 %); the amount of land in farming (-32%), the average size of farm (-15%), and the market value of production (-8%). Only the market value of production average per farm has increased (+17%). The majority of farms in Seminole County are now less than 50 acres in size, with 41% being less than 10 acres. In value of sales, nursery, greenhouse, floraculture and sod outperform all other commodity groups at 86.8%, illustrating a move to more profitable product lines and a shift away from producing food for people. However, where land values are high, the greenhouse/nursery sector may also transition again into an even more profitable product, that of housing. Summary: · Historic land features have been altered (cleared and drained) to make way for farming operations. · From aerial data, most of the clearing has occurred since 1940. · Historically, Seminole County was a big producer of celery, until the California market prevailed. · Most of the citrus groves have been heavily impacted by pests, disease and poor return because of foreign competition. · Damaged groves in the Study Area are not being replanted in citrus and either lay fallow or have been replanted in nursery ornamentals. · Niche markets are present, but utilize very little of the total acreage. · About In the mid 1900s, the promise of a rail line through Oviedo caused a substantial expansion in local agriculture production with the hopes of being able to get it to market quickly. . Residential: The residential market in central Florida is extremely strong. This trend is predicted to remain strong, given the projected population growth expected during the next 20 years and beyond. Several parcels have recently developed as country estates. Summary: · There are currently forty-five (45) residences within the Study Area. · 76% of the residences claim a homestead exemption. · The majority of residences were built during the 1960's, when the properties adjacent to the Black Hammock Fish Camp were developed. · The oldest residence was built in 1944 and the most recent in 2005. · The smallest residential lot is .072 acres, which is adjacent to the Black Hammock Fish Camp and is zoned R-1. · The largest residential lot is 8.6 acres and is zoned A-3. · Five (5) parcels have mobile homes. · Under the Seminole County Code, any lot that existed prior to 1992 is considered a "lot of record" and can be developed for a residence even if the lot is non-conforming under current zoning. Geographic Features: · The area is relatively flat, only rising about 12 feet above the lake level. · The hydraulics of the area have been altered by the addition of ditches for draining agricultural fields. · Significant lakeshore wetlands remain. · Less than 200 acres of native vegetation (including the lakeshore wetlands) remains ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT SCENARIOS EXPLORED - 6 - Four development scenarios were prepared and presented. The four scenarios included: Scenario 1. No Further Development · Curtails development rights under existing County zoning; · Does not provide any permanent protection of conservation lands; and · Contingent upon agriculture being economic viable in the future. Scenario 2. Build-out under existing County Zoning · Would require a proliferation of septic systems, resulting in possible watershed management and groundwater contamination issues; · Is vulnerable to future assembly and intensification of land use; · Bonus densities are available in A-10, however in place since 1992 and has never been utilized; and · No provision for an areawide conservation network. Scenario 3. Typical Suburban Development · Average density of three units per net buildable acre; · Incompatible with rural character; · Watershed impacts- impervious cover and stormwater runoff; · No retained open space or opportunities for conservation; and · Traffic impacts. Scenario 4. Rural Transitional Development · Average density of one unit per net buildable acre, equaling approximately 840 units; · Density of development and percentage of open space vary based upon location within the Study Area; · Replicates to a large extent, the variation in density under the current county zoning classifications; and · Development pattern immediately adjacent to the municipal boundaries of Winter Springs and Oviedo most similar to suburban development. What Have We Tried to Accomplish? · Anticipate and resist future urban development pressures; · Accommodate levels of population consistent with a permanently protected natural setting and provision of infrastructure; · Retain significant network of conservation lands; · Provide opportunities for environmental restoration and remediation; · Provide better choices to property owners; · Reconcile positions of Seminole County, City of Oviedo and City of Winter Springs. The Committee examined the options related to the typical lot size, percentage of open space and resulting quality and amount of open space preserved. This data is important in understanding the factors that make a "conservation subdivision" code effective as Winter Springs moves forward to implement a "conservation subdivision" zoning district. No preference was given to the concept of varying the pattern based upon its location within the Study Area. Additionally, it was the consensus of the committee that they wanted to hear from someone familiar with the development market to be assured that the patterns being discussed were marketable here in central Florida and to understand any differences in resulting property value between conventional subdivision zoning and conservation subdivision zoning. Scenario 4. Rural Transitional Development, Revised Several more rounds of refinement ensued. The resulting development pattern is a two-tiered concept. Tier One retains the existing County zoning densities of R-1, A-3, A-5, and A-10 as it - 7 - exists today. Tier Two describes the "conservation Subdivision" overlay zoning district. The overlay includes a menu of three variations which can be applied anywhere within the Study Area, dependant upon the tract size to be developed. The minimum tract size under this structure is twenty (20) acres. In many cases parcels will have to be assembled together in order to develop under Tier Two, given the existing parcel sizes and ownership patterns. The minimum tract size is required to effectively accomplish the intent of the zoning classification of providing a significant network of preserved open space. Smaller tracts (less than 20 acres) are too constrained to effectively accomplish the goals of "conservation subdivision" design. Property owners preferred the opportunity to retain the current County zoning while also having a development alternative available to them which includes permanently preserved open space. The Tier Two overlay provides three development options depending upon the tract size and percentage of open space preserved. Allowable densities increase as more land is permanently preserved in conservation. The typical lot size is included to illustrate what the resulting lot size would be if the allowable density is applied to the remaining land after the open space and road network is configured. Typical lot size can also be understood as the average lot size, because lot size is not dictated. This flexibility allows the market to dictate lot size while accommodating conservation at 50-70% of the gross acreage. In response to the request of the committee, the City invited a real estate broker and a developer to attend the December meeting to provide outside input on the proposed development options and to answer questions of the Committee. The consultants concurred that the tier structure "should be able to gain market acceptance" and that "values will be there for the owners". TIER STRUCTURE The tier structure allows flexibility in application. Lot sizes are not regulated, but rather are driven by the percentage of open space preserved and the market demand. A development could conceivably include a mix of lot sizes if demand warrants or could include fewer lots (less density) resulting in larger lots. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS The resulting Standards identify the specific details of how the "conservation subdivision" will be implemented to achieve the East Rural Area vision. (The draft Development Standards are included in the Appendix.) As the existing large lot rural area transitions (changes) over time into a developed "conservation subdivision", these Standards ensure that the new development permanently preserves a significant quantity of open space (50-70% of the development), that the quality of the open space is preserved by limiting the uses that are permitted, and that the open space is configured in an interconnected network to support the objectives of the conservation subdivision (such as agricultural production, wildlife habitat, environmentally sensitive areas, and stormwater filtration and management). Provision of open space shall be configured in a manner which will add value and enhance the existing rural character of the community. The provision of permanently protected open space will also act to buffer the new development from existing residences. - 8 - FINDINGS This process has provided the City of Winter Springs with needed public input and planning tools to address the relationship of conservation planning and development in the East Rural "Study Area". The East Rural Area lends itself to future opportunities for restoring and enhancing its natural areas as it develops. The use of the conservation subdivision overlay (Tier Two) zoning district to the existing County zoning will provide Winter Springs with a regulatory mechanism to restore, protect and enhance resulting open space as property that annexes into the City becomes developed. - 9 - WINTER SPRINGS CITY COMMISSION John F. Bush, Mayor Robert S. Miller, District 1 Michael S. Blake, District 2 Donald A. Gillmore, District 3 Sally McGinnis, District 4 Joanne M. Krebs, District 5 EAST RURAL AREA PROPERTY OWNERS COMMITTEE CITY COMMISSION APPOINTMENTS Paul G. Aubreck William Rex Clonts Robert J. King William Thomas Minter Helen E. VanHouten Whittall Susan L. Wooley Robert D. Wright TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE WRT- Wallace Roberts &. Todd LLC, Lead Consultant John Fernsler, Project Manager Michael Clarke Randall Arendt, Greener Prospects, Advisory Consultant Supplementary Consultants: Owen Beitsch, Real Estate Research Consultants Trevor Hall, Colliers Arnold Orlando Chip Webb, Trammell Webb, Inc. City of Winter Springs' Staff Ron McLemore, City Manager Anthony Garganese, City Attorney Randy Stevenson, Commuity Development Director Eloise Sahlstrom, Senior Planner John Baker, Senior Planner - 10 - Revised DRAFT 01.20.06 EAST RURAL AREA DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS A. PURPOSE The development standards for the East Rural Area of the City of Winter Springs are established to accomplish the following: A. To meet the intent of City of Winter Springs Resolution 2005-09 to promote sound development in the East Rural Area should lands be annexed into the City of Winter Springs; B. To provide flexibility and creativity in the use and development of land and in the placement and type of dwelling units in residential development patterns and subdivisions; C. To accommodate moderate levels of population growth through a compact form of residential development consistent with the retention of the East Rural Area's natural character and the provision of water and sewer service; D. To retain significant open space as a watershed protection measure and to preserve in perpetuity unique and sensitive natural resources including wetlands, floodplains, woodlands and other valuable habitats; E. To provide opportunities to restore previously disturbed lands as native landscapes, habitats, vegetation patterns and riparian systems; F. To provide opportunities for the retention of compatible agricultural activities; G. To conserve scenic rural character, and enhance property values by maximizing the number of houses with direct access to and views of open space; H. To promote an interconnected network of open space, habitats, greenways and trails throughout the East Rural Area; I. To encourage efficient well planned development and avoid fragmentation of open space through a sliding scale of density based on property size; J. To encourage intergovernmental consistency and coordination among local governments including Oviedo and Seminole County in the sustainable development of the East Rural Area; and K. To meet the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. B. DEFINITIONS Agricultural: Land whose use is devoted to the production of livestock, crops, and equestrian activities. 1 Conservation Easement: A nonpossessory interest of a holder in real property imposing limitations or affirmative obligations the purposes of which include retaining or protecting natural, scenic, or open-space values of real property, assuring its availability for agricultural, forest, recreational, or open-space use, protecting natural resources, maintaining or enhancing air or water quality, or preserving the historical, architectural, archaeological, or cultural aspects of real property. Common Open Space: Undeveloped land within a conservation subdivision that has been set aside for use as agricultural, natural habitat, greenway corridors, stormwater treatment, and/or compatible passive recreational purposes, and that is undivided and permanently protected from future development. Development and incompatible use of the common open space is restricted in perpetuity through the use of conservation easement or other approved legal instrument. Common Recreation Area: Areas and facilities for recreational use not included within common open space. Conservation Easement: A permanent legal restriction stipulating that common open space shall be permanently protected from development. Conservation Subdivision: A residential development characterized by compact clustered lots interspersed with significant common open space which is left in or restored to its natural state to the greatest extent possible. Developable Area: Land in a proposed subdivision that is not retained as open space and which may be subject to subdivision and development. Development: An activity other than agricultural that materially alters or affects the existing conditions or use of land. Gross Density: A density standard establishing the maximum number of lots and/or dwelling units allowed to be built in a subdivision based on the total size of the tract. Homeowners Association: A formally constituted non-profit association or corporation made up of the property owners and/or residents of a subdivision for the purpose of owning, operating and maintaining common open space, recreational areas, landscaping, and/or facilities. Nonprofit Conservation Organization: A charitable corporation, association or trust (land trust) the purposes or powers of which include maintaining and/or protecting common open space. C. ZONING DISTRICT DESIGNATIONS Development may occur in one of eight zoning districts. These districts are divided into two (2) tiers representing existing Seminole County zoning and conservation subdivision development. The intent is to provide for flexibility and adaptability of development patterns to particular site or ownership conditions within the East Rural Area. 2 1) Tier 1- Existing County Zoning I Large Lot Subdivision Property owners in the East Rural Area have the option to retain existing zoning designations as established by Seminole County, to permit development of large lot rural subdivisions and redevelopment of the existing small lot Lakefront Hamlet. Permitted densities in Tier One are determined by the applicable minimum lot sizes. 2) Tier II - Conservation Development Development in Tier II will consist of residential subdivisions in the three designations below, which applicants may choose to apply for based on acreage. The total number of permitted dwellings is determined by the designated gross density applied to the acreage. Minimum lot sizes are not directly regulated, but are determined by area of a tract minus the amount of open space required to be retained divided by the gross density. Mrri"RolUI I I ~._- I . I - I .- ( ~ Large Lot Rural Subdivision CD-1 - Single family subdivisions with a permitted Conservation Development gross density of 1 lot I dwelling unit per acre and a rrmllfTlUfTl UI oU~/o UI me slle area retained as common open space, applicable on tracts of twenty acres or greater. CD-2 - Single family subdivisions with a permitted gross density of 2 lots / dwelling units per acre and a minimum of 60% of the site area retained as common open space, applicable on tracts of thirty acres or greater. CD-3 - Subdivisions comprising single family detached or attached dwellings (townhouses, patio homes, etc.) with a permitted gross density of 3 lots / dwelling units per acre and a minimum of 70% of the site area retained as common open space, applicable on tracts of forty acres or greater. 3) Permitted Uses Within any CD - Conservation Development district no building, structure or land shall be used except for one or more of the following: . Single family detached dwellings; . Single family attached dwellings; . Home occupations; and/or . Uses permitted in required common open space per section E(3). 4) Conditional Uses In CD-3 zoning districts uses permitted in C-1 Neighborhood Commercial Districts may be permitted as conditional uses, not to exceed the total gross square footage of fifty (50) square feet per dwelling unit in the subdivision. 3 D. DENSITY AND OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS Permitted residential densities and required common open space shall be as follows: TIER ONE - EXISTING COUNTY ZONING I LARGE LOT DEVELOPMENT A-10 1 DU I 10 NA 10 10 Acres A-5 1 DU I 5 NA 5 5 Acres A-3 1 DU I 3 NA 3 3 Acres Lakefront Hamlet 5 DU I NA NA 0.2 8712 Acre TIER TWO - CONSERVATION DEVELOPMENT CD -1 1DU I 20 50% 0.425 18,513 Acre CD-2 2 DU I 30 60% 0.255 7405 Acre CD-3 3 DU I 40 70% 0.085 3703 Acre * Typical lot sizes are determined by subtracting from the total tract size, the required common open space, and the area devoted to roads and utilities, then dividing this residual developable area by the permitted number of lots (gross density times total tract size). Lot sizes are not mandated and can vary. 1) Non Conforming Lots of Record Except as hereinafter provided, the minimum lot area shall be required for the establishment of any new subdivision in Tier One. For Nonconforming Lots of Record established prior to annexation into the City of Winter Springs, an administrative 4 variance may be issued to permit the construction of a single dwelling where the lot is at least eighty percent (80%) of the required lot area, where it is found that the proposed new construction is consfstent with the structure size, orientation and pattern of development on the street and in the immediate neighborhood. On Nonconforming Lots of Record with an area less than eighty percent (80%) of the minimum required, approval for construction of a single dwelling may be granted by special permit by the City Commission, where the Commission finds the application meets the following conditions: . The proposed structure has a finished floor area of not less than ninety percent (90%) of the amount of finished floor area prevalent in comparative homes; . The proposed structure is compatible with comparative homes in terms of building orientation, scale, proportion and site layout; and . The site grading provides for adequate drainage on and off the site, with no adverse impact onto adjoining properties. If any Nonconforming Lot of Record contains a conforming use and/or structure, such use and/or structure may be replaced in the area of the preexisting use and/or structure should damage or destruction occur. E. COMMON OPEN SPACE 1) Configuration of Common Open Space Common open space shall be configured in a manner consistent with the following considerations: . Common open space shall be configured and located to provide a scenic amenity to the residents of conservation developments; . To the extent practicable, common open space shall be configured to create a contiguous open space network, adjoining common open space on adjacent conservation developments, as well as designated greenways and trails; . As determined by specific site conditions, common open space shall be of a size and shape to enable conservation, restoration and functioning of natural landscapes and habitats and/or as working landscapes for agricultural use; . Small areas of impervious surface may be included within the common open space but cannot be counted towards the minimum open space requirement; . At least 75 percent of the common open space shall be contiguous; and . The common open space shall be directly accessible to the largest practicable number of lots within the subdivision. Non-adjoining lots shall be provided with safe, convenient access to the common open space. 2) Designation of Common Open Space All dedicated common open space shall incorporate those site features considered most worthy of long-term protection, environmental restoration and with the greatest amenity value to residents of conservation developments. The following guidelines shall apply in the identification and delineation of lands to be included in common open space. . Areas subject to flooding with a recurrence interval of 1 DO-years or greater frequency; 5 · Wetlands regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, as determined by the National Wetlands Inventory, or more accurate on-site studies, including a buffer of at least 100 feet around such wetlands; · Habitats of threatened, endangered, or listed species; · Riparian corridors associated with natural water courses and existing or proposed drainage ways flowing to Lake Jesup; · Shoreline buffer areas of 250 feet, unless modified as warranted by mitigating actions; · Indigenous plant communities, including but not limited to bald cypress, lowland hardwoods, pines and oaks, as well as lands well-suited for restoration to indigenous plant communities; · Areas in productive agricultural use; · Areas contributing to the recharge of groundwater or aquifers, or to the contribution of freshwater to Lake Jesup as identified by the St. Johns Water Management District; and · Historic, archaeological or other culturally significant sites. 3) Use of Common Open Space Permitted Uses and Activities: · Meadows, woodlands, wetlands and upland buffers, wildlife habitats, or similar conservation-oriented areas; · Passive recreational areas including open fields and unpaved trails; · Stormwater retention areas which meet are gently sloping, landscaped with indigenous material, unfenced and designed to be an integrated element of the landscape of the common open space; · Pasture lands for equestrian facilities; and · Agricultural uses, provided that applicable best management practices are used to minimize environmental impacts. 4) Dedication Requirements All required common open space shall be protected by a permanent conservation easement, the form of which shall reflect U.S. Internal Revenue Service guidelines as well as the requirements of Section 704.06, Florida Statutes, as amended, and shall include at minimum the following provisions: · The easement shall be perpetual and shall run with the land; and · The easement shall prohibit all use or development other than specified herein as permitted uses. 5) Ownership and Management of Common Open Space The designated common open space may be dedicated and managed by one of the following entities, as may be approved by the City of Winter Springs: A) Homeowners' Association Lands and facilities to be held by a homeowners association must be approved by the City. The conveyance to the homeowners association must contain appropriate provisions for reversion in the event that the association becomes unwilling or unable to uphold the terms of the conveyance. Membership in the association is mandatory for all purchasers of homes in the development and their successors. The homeowners' association bylaws, guaranteeing 6 continuing maintenance of the open space and other common facilities, and the declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions of the homeowners association shall be submitted for approval to the City as part of the information required for the preliminary plat. The homeowners' association bylaws or the declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions of the homeowners association shall contain the following information: · The legal description of the common land; . A description of common facilities; · The restrictions placed upon the use and enjoyment of the lands or facilities; . Persons or entities entitled to enforce the restrictions; . A mechanism to assess and enforce the common expenses for the land or facilities including upkeep and maintenance expenses, real estate taxes and insurance premiums; . A mechanism for resolving disputes among the owners or association members; · The conditions and timing of the transfer of ownership and control of land facilities to the association; and . Any other matter the developer deems appropriate. B) A Nonprofit Conservation Orqanization If the common open space is to be held by a nonprofit conservation organization, the organization must be approved by the City. The conveyance to the nonprofit conservation organization must contain appropriate provisions for reversion in the event that the organization becomes unwilling or unable to uphold the terms of the conveyance. C) Public Dedication of Open Space and Streets The City of Winter Springs, may at its discretion accept a dedication of fee title or dedication of a conservation easement to the common open space. The City may accept the common open space provided that: · The common open space is accessible to the residents of the City; and . The City agrees to and has access to maintain the common open space. D) Individual Ownership An individual may hold fee title to the land while a nonprofit or other qualified organization holds a conservation easement for the common open space. 6) Open Space Management Plan Every conservation development must include a plan that provides evidence of a means to properly manage the common open space in perpetuity and evidence of the long-term means to properly manage and maintain common open space, including any storm water facilities. The plan shall be approved by the City prior to final plat approval. A) The plan shall do the following: . Designate the ownership of the common open space; . Establish maintenance responsibilities; . Estimate costs and define the means for funding the same on an on-going basis; . Include a land stewardship plan specifically focusing on the long-term management of common open space lands. The land stewardship plan shall include a narrative, based on the site features specifically referencing: a. Existing conditions including all natural, cultural, historic, and scenic elements in the landscape; 7 b. The proposed use of each common open space area; and the measures proposed for achieving the end state; c. Proposed restoration measures suited to proposed uses, including measures for restoring riparian areas, natural drainage features, wetlands, hammocks and other habitats or ecosystems indigenous to the Black Hammock and other areas of the East Rural Area; and d. The operations needed for maintaining the stability of the resources, including: mowing schedules; weed control; removal of exotic species; planting schedules; clearing and cleanup. At the City's discretion, the applicant may be required to place in escrow sufficient funds for the maintenance and operation costs of common facilities for a maximum of one year. B) In the event that the organization established to own and maintain the open space and common facilities, or any successor organization, fails to maintain all or any portion of the common facilities in reasonable order and condition the City may provide notice to the residents and owners of the open space and common facilities, setting forth the manner in which the organization has failed to maintain the common facilities in reasonable condition. Such notice shall set forth the nature of corrections required and the time within which the corrections shall be made. Upon failure to comply within the time specified, the organization, or any successor organization, shall be considered in violation this Section, in which case the bond, if any, may be forfeited, and any permits may be revoked or suspended. The City may enter the premises and take corrective aGtion. The costs of such actions by the City may be charged to the owner and may include administrative costs, and at the City's discretion, may become a lien on all subdivision properties. E. CONSERVATION DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 1) Dimensional Requirements Lot sizes in conservation developments are not directly regulated and can vary. Lot sizes are a function of the permitted number of lots under the gross density provisions, the percent of open space required and the proportion of the site developed as roads and utilities. The following standards apply to yard setback, coverage and building heights. Zoning Min. Min Side Min. Rear Max. Max District Front Yard Yard Coverage Building Yard Height - CD -1 40' 15' 40' 35% 35' CD-2 30' 10' 30' 50% 35' CD-3 10' NA 15' 70% 35' 8 2) Subdivision Design Characteristics · All lots shall be accessed from interior streets, except for pre-existing structures that will be incorporated into the conservation development; · To the maximum extent possible lots shall abut open space on at least one side. A local street may separate lots from open space (single-loaded street); · Rear residential lots and any structures including fences shall be located no closer than 35 feet from any exterior public road; and · Conservation subdivision developments shall not be designed as disconnected "gated communities". Fencing and walls surrounding conservation developments and individual lots are generally discouraged, so as to preserve scenic views. However, rustic and traditionally rural fencing which is largely transparent (such as split rail) is permitted. 3) Street Requirements · Internal streets shall have 60' right of ways. The right of ways shall include 2-10' paved travel lanes with l' ribbon curbing, natural ground swales for drainage and 8' wide recreation trails on each side constructed of a stabilized material as illustrated in Chapter 9 of the City of Winter Springs' land development regulations; · Native or naturalized trees shall be planted (or retained) in groupings with non- uniform spacing on both sides of internal streets at an average interval of 75 feet; . Street lighting shall be discouraged except in CD-3; and · Street and trail connections to adjacent conservation developments are encouraged to provide pedestrian and vehicular connectivity within the East Rural Area and shall be provided in logical locations to avoid creating landlocked parcels. 4) Stormwater Requirements As a minimum the first 1-1/2" of stormwater runoff must be captured. In addition, development of CD districts shall comply with the stormwater standards of Chapter 9, Article IV, Division 4, Sections 9-241 and 9-242 of the City of Winter Springs Code of Ordinances. F. APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS The application and approval procedures for conservation development in the East Rural Area shall generally follow those set out in Chapter 9, Article II - Procedures for Approval of Plans and Plats of the City of Winter Spring Code, modified as follows. 1) Initial Conference Before submitting an application for a subdivision or re-zoning for a conservation development, the applicant shall schedule an appointment and meet with the Director of Community Development or his designee to discuss the procedure for approval of a conservation subdivision, including submittal requirements and conservation design standards and principles. Applicant shall be notified of the requirement that an initial sketch plan be prepared by a landscape architect licensed by the State of Florida Department of Professional Regulation. The initial conference may be conducted in coordination with a site visit. 9 After the initial conference, the applicant shall submit a series of maps and descriptive information to the Director. Mapping for the initial application can be done in any combination of features as long as individual map components can be distinguished and the relationship between map components can be determined. 2) Sketch Plan Submission In addition to the requirements set out in Section 9-46 - Filing and Contents of a Preliminary Map and Plan, applicant shall submit the following: . Views of the site, including views onto the site from surrounding roads, public areas and elevated areas, including photographs with a map indicating the location where the photographs were taken; . Sketch plan indicating the site's natural conditions, including vegetation, soils, wetlands, floodplains and habitats; . Sketch Plan depicting conceptual layout of lots, roads, and land to be reserved as common open space and protected by a conservation easement; and . Proposed method of ownership and management of common open space. 3) Final Plan In addition to the requirements of Section 9-73 - Form and Contents of Final Development Plan, applicant shall submit the following: . Open Space Manaqement Plan - An open space management plan, as described herein; and . Instrument of Permanent Protection - An instrument of permanent protection, such as a conservation easement. 10