HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005 08 22 Regular Item 507- Floor Area Ratio In Town Center
CITY COMMISSION
August 22. 2005
Meeting
Consent
Information
Public Hearin2
Re2ular X
ITEM 507
/,
MGR. fl-/ IDEPT
Authorization
REQUEST: The Community Development Department - Planning Division requests the City
Commission consider changing the Floor Area Ratio in the Town Center from a 6.0 FAR to a 2.0
FAR, in response to objections raised in the State of Florida Dept of Community Affairs Objections,
Recommendations and Comments Report related to LS-CP A-05-05 (Ordinance 2005-07), LS-CP A-
05-06 (Ordinance 2005-11) and LS-CPA-05-07 (Ordinance 2005-12), received July 18, 2005.
PURPOSE: To consider providing a more realistic Floor Area Ratio in the Town Center, while
addressing DCA's concerns related to Amendment DCA 05-2 (specifically, LS-CP A-05-05
[Ordinance 2005-07, which changes the Future Land Use from Seminole County "Office" and
Seminole County "Commercial" to Winter Springs "Town Center" on the 1 0.65-acre Ondick
property]) .
APPLICABLE LAW AND PUBLIC POLICY
s. 163.3174. Florida Statutes. Local planning agency
s. 163.3184. Florida Statutes. Process for adoption of comprehensive plan or plan amendment.
s. 163.3187. Florida Statutes. Amendment of adopted comprehensive plan.
ss. 166.041(3)(c)2.b.. Florida Statutes. (required advertising)
Rule 9J-11.011. Florida Administrative Code
Winter Sprine:s Charter Section 4.15 Ordinances in General
Winter Sprine:s Article III. Comprehensive Plan Amendments
Section 15-30. Authority, purpose and intent;
Section 15-36. Review criteria;
Section 15-37. Local Planning Agency Review and Recommendation:
Page 1 of 15
August 22, 2005
REGULAR AGENDA ITEM 507
CHRONOLOGY:
AprilS, 2005- Planning & Zoning Board/Local Planning Agency recommended approval of Large
Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendments LS-CP A-05-05, LS-CP A-05-06, and LS-
CP A-05-07 [Ordinances 2005-07, 2005-11, and 2005-12]
April 25, 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 05-2).
July 18, 2005- Winter Springs received ORC Report from State Dept. of Community Affairs
Aug. 3, 2005- P& Z Board (LP A) reviewed DCA comments and made recommendation to change
the Floor Area Ratio in the Town Center (from a 6.0 FAR) to a 1.5 FAR.
CONSIDERA TIONS:
· DCA has identified concerns with Amendment DCA 05-2.
· The City has 60 days (until Sept 15, 2005) to address the objections set forth by DCA (in the
ORC Report) by adopting, adopting with changes, or not adopting the proposed amendments
included in DCA 05-2.
. Specifically of concern was LS-CP A-05-05 [Ordinance 2005-07]), which changes the Future
Land Use from Seminole County "Office" and Seminole County "Commercial" to Winter Springs
"Town Center" on the 1 0.65-acre Ondick property.
· The 10.65 acre parcel does not have a proposed development under consideration at this time.
· DCA indicated that the proposed FLUM Amendment was "not supported by adequate
infrastructure analysis demonstrating that the adopted level of service on affected public facilities
is not impacted by this development." The objection was raised because 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 ofthe future land use change to
"Town Center". [This realistic intensity figure (.52 FAR) was calculated based on the built-out
projection of Phase One ofthe JDC commercial/residential development ofthe 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 ofland development regulations, but such density and
intensity shall not exceed a floor area ratio ofthree (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 of6.0 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
Page 2 of15
August 22, 2005
REGULAR AGENDA ITEM 507
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.
As can be seen in the diagram, calculation ofthe 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
Page 3 of15
August 22, 2005
REGULAR AGENDA ITEM 507
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.
.
James Doran Company and Dover-Kohl have indicated their support ofa 2.0 FAR.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT ANALYSIS:
The following summarizes the data and issues which staff analyzed in making this recommendation:
Justification for FAR Change: Recognizing that the 6.0 FAR is unrealistic for Winter Springs, the
State has indicated:
"The City should reassess the need for a 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 area. An intensity standard closer to what the City wants to achieve in this
land use category will allow for better coordination of infrastructure and overall
planning. "
Staff has evaluated various F ARs to determine what is a reasonable FAR for the Winter Springs
Town Center given our vision for its development. lH. 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 courtyards. (Higher buildings would leave more room for streets and gardens, but
buildings higher than 4 stories are not desirable because they are expensive to construct and
unpleasant to live in.)"
Phase Two of the JDC commercial/residential development is estimated at a 1.2 FAR, including four
floors of habitable space in addition to structured parking. Should six stories be proposed
throughout, it might increase to as much as a 1. 8 FAR.
Staff proposes 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 ofa 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 standard 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.
Page 4 of 15
August 22, 2005
REGULAR AGENDA ITEM 507
FIND IN GS:
(I) 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
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 ofthe city or region; and
(9) An Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) will not be issued by the State DCA.
(I 0) The City has 60 days (until Sept 15, 2005) to address the objections set forth in the ORC Report
by choosing to adopt, adopt with changes, or not to adopt the proposed amendments included in
DCA 05-2.
P&Z / LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY RECOMMENDATION:
At the regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board/ Local Planning Agency on August 3,2005,
the Board held a Public Hearing and reviewed the comments in the ORC Report from DCA, received
July 18, 2005, as well as staffs recommendation. After reviewing these, the Board made a
recommendation to reduce the FAR in the Town Center from 6.0 to 1.5.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the City Commission direct the City Attorney to incorporate the change of Town
Center FAR into Ordinance 2005-07 (changes the Future Land Use from Seminole County "Office"
and Seminole County "Commercial" to Winter Springs "Town Center" on the 1 0.65-acre Ondick
property)
, which has already been transmitted to DCA and which will come before the Commission for
Adoption on September 12, 2005.
changes the Future Land Use from Seminole County "Office" and Seminole County "Commercial" to
Winter Springs "Town Center" on the 10.65-acre Ondick property]) .
Ordinance the hold a Public Hearing for First Reading on Ordinance 2005-27, a text amendment to
the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use and Housing Elements, defining Floor Area Ratio (FAR)
and changing the Floor Area Ratio in the Town Center from a 6.0 FAR to a 2.0 FAR, in response to
the State of Florida, Dept. of Community Affairs, Objections, Recommendations and Comments
Report, received July 18, 2005.
IMPLEMENT A TION SCHEDULE:
Sept. 1, 2005-
Public Noticing in Orlando Sentinel for 2nd Reading/Adoption
Page 5 of 15
August 22, 2005
REGULAR AGENDA ITEM 507
Sept. 19, 2005-
2nd Reading/Adoption of Ordinance LS-CPA-05-05 (Ordinance 2005-07), LS-
CPA-05-06 (Ordinance 2005-11), and LS-CPA 05-07 (Ordinance 2005-12).
Transmittal of Adopted Large Scale Comp Plan Amendments to DCA
(within 10 days)
Sept. 12, 2005-
ATTACHMENTS:
A- Excerpt from Unapproved Minutes of the Planning & Zoning Board/Local Planning Agency
Minutes from August 3, 2005.
B- Examples of Different Floor Area Ratios
c- Correspondence from Randall Paulson / Architects representing James Doran Company
D- Objections, Recommendations and Comments (ORC) Report from State of Florida, Dept of
Community Affairs
COMMISSION ACTION:
Page 6 of 15
August 22, 2005
REGULAR AGENDA ITEM 507
Attachment A
Excerpt from unapproved Minutes of the P&Z/LPA, August 3, 2005
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA
DRAFT UNAPPROVED MINUTES
PLANNING AND ZONING BOARDILOCAL PLANNING AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
AUGUST 3, 2005
PUBLIC HEARINGS
401. Community Development Department - Planning Division
Requests The Planning And Zoning Board/Local Planning Agency Hold A Public Hearing And
Make Recommendation To The City Commission Regarding Objections Raised In The State
Of Florida Department Of Community Affairs Objections, Recommendations And Comments
Report Related To LS-CPA-05-05 (Ordinance 2005-07), LS-CPA-05-06 (Ordinance 2005-11)
And LS-CPA-05-07 (Ordinance 2005-12).
Ms. Sahlstrom discussed this Agenda Item.
Ms. Sahlstrom said, "We would take this to the [City] Commission for two (2) Public Hearings even
though the State would only require just one (1 )."
Discussion.
Chairman Poe opened the "Public Input" portion of this Agenda Item.
No one spoke.
Chairman Poe closed the "Public Input" portion of this Agenda Item.
Discussion ensued.
"I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE THAT WE RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COMMISSION
TO AMEND THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT BASED ON OBJECTIONS RAISED IN
THE STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS OBJECTIONS,
RECOMMENDATIONS AND COMMENTS REPORT AS PRESENTED ON PAGES FIVE
(5) THROUGH SEVEN (7) OF [AGENDA] ITEM '401' WITH THE EXCEPTION THAT
WE USE A 1.5 MAXIMUM FLOOR AREA RATIO FOR THE TOWN CENTER INSTEAD
OF A 2.0." MOTION BY BOARD MEMBER TILLIS. SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER
BROWN. DISCUSSION.
VOTE:
BOARD MEMBER BROWN : AYE
BOARD MEMBER TILLIS: AYE
VICE CHAIRPERSON KARR: AYE
CHAIRMAN POE: AYE
MOTION CARRIED.
Page 70f15
August 22, 2005
REGULAR AGENDA ITEM 507
Attachment B
Different Floor Area Ratios
JDe Doran Phase 1
Winter Springs
Gross Site Area:
Total Building SF:
FAR:
15 acres
200,000 SF (at build out)
0.31
Page 8 ofl5
August 22, 2005
REGULAR AGENDA ITEM 507
!-~..
"..., a
I
- '-.. I
!'-. l:- Pt.,"
Attachment B
Examples of Different Floor Area Ratios
Joe Doran Phase 2
Winter Sprin s
I ~ '
""i....-: ...' ':!'" ",. T~ ,~,,~
I,~ ai '__. ." >I r ~.. ":1.
..IoL........_.~ '_'" 'tl..iIlL...
... .JI.
.; I~;l'; r
.,. ...'
w,..,.... fl.n'....n Tn','.1I e,..,.... ""A" Ii
IIr. -: I I'..'.
_ ._..... I.......... I ...-.....,.- . I"'. .... t
r
""- - , 't" 'JII:t
I lit,r7". 1. ..'.....:..,
......, ' , ''''1'1'
y..~........ ....,.I~!~- '-,: __....!.t!
'I ..i.-
I. I" '!l' .f
. J' Jill''''
.-. ....- 'Ir
~"'II" IF" '1.,. "'II an T n',~ II elF.., r f< "".1 r II
... .. t fill""
.. I_...~.. . 'I._"'~' I ._......._ . I~I., ....,...
Anticipated FAR:
1.4
Page 9 of15
August 22, 2005
REGULAR AGENDA ITEM 507
---
....~
.
-
;
liiiLI:-.
('Q. ~fJ
.
>-
....
Gross Site Area:
Total Building SF:
FAR:
23,958 SF
19,369 SF
0.81
Attachment B
Examples of Different Floor Area Ratios
Commercial Building
Boulder, Colorado
-
.1'-'. ... ....1
.
.It... uat
~
,I - I
.
I
I"" .ri ----
.
Gross Site Area: 63,663 SF
Total Building SF: 40,000 SF
FAR: 0.63
Commercial Building
Boulder, Colorado
-
Page 10 of 15
August 22, 2005
REGULAR AGENDA ITEM 507
Attachment B
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
::........_..:.~
':':~I :~i.i~iI?1
. ; ,,,"hl.
~~i"JII"1I
II I IIrl II 1
1.. 1.1111 If II II
i1l1l1lU1I1I
c 111110111111.
~111I1I11I11l.
''''~"~HU. L.
9t~ IIIW....."
U. "11 11111.
nil II 1 .u,
.... iil_
i Ut. ..J
II ~ '
,. ",
Base of the third tower, left
Page 11 of15
August 22, 2005
REGULAR AGENDA ITEM 507
Attachment B
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.
Tweede Laurierdwarsstraat
Laurierstraat
Page120f15
August 22, 2005
REGULAR AGENDA ITEM 507
Attachment B
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 10m wide. Some use is made of rooftops and balconies. This is a
mixed use area with many shops, especially boutiques. Bikes are widely used.
Corner Utrechtsestraat & Kerkstraat
Courtyard behind the Utrechtsestraat
Page 13 of15
August 22, 2005
REGULAR AGENDA ITEM 507
Attachment C
Correspondence from Randall Paulson IArchitects
representing James Doran Company
Eloise,
The calculations are based on the latest overall site plan with 1 story of retail and 4 stories of office/residential.
5 total stories. A 2 FAR seems like a reasonable density for this type of area.
It would probably never reach a built FAR of 6 even if the ordinance wasn't revised.
.
- !:I~
cnnll
)AUI~OH
(udy Patton
JZ",\\t'J1 Mill
:-\5-.\ \1011 ">[red ">llit~ 200
Ro-.:;w ,II. Clt"orgl;.l ,()()75
l "'/().f) ')5x 4' II 6:'iP 75S\}
1...1' :tttonta ran\hllpaub. In. :(11l1
www.randallpaulson.com
From: Eloise Sahlstrom [mailto:esahlstrom@winterspringsfl.org]
Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 20055:19 PM
To: Cody Patton
Subject: RE: WSTC Phase 2 FAR
How many stories are you including? Do you support the change to a 2.0 FAR?
From: cpatton@randallpaulson.com [mailto:cpatton@randallpaulson.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2005 3:47 PM
To: Eloise Sahlstrom
Cc: gtullos@jamesdoranco.com; rmaxian@Randallpaulson.com
Subject: WSTC Phase 2 FAR
Eloise,
Estimated FAR for the latest proposed development of Winter Springs Phase 2 is at 1.4.
This does not include parking decks as square footage.
A maximum FAR of 2 as proposed would allow approximately 2.4 million SF of building on the site.
Please let me know if there are any questions.
.
-~
(n]A II
)AUI~OH
( ody Patton
R,]","dl Mdl
t\S- '\ IfJ', ~h'l'I.:.~l ~lJ1t... '1<H./
I{o~\'.di. ( ~'(HJla .)00'" ""l
7' i b~l 7,,~ f 71 h'\O 7",~q
'p;.lttl I'.l HJillpal.l' 'lU'onl
www.randallpaulson.com
Page 14 of15
August 22, 2005
REGULAR AGENDA ITEM 507
Attachment D
Objections, Recommendations and Comments (ORC) Report
from State of Florida, Dept of Community Affairs
Page15of15
STATE OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS
"Dedicated to making Florida a better place to call home"
JEB BUSH
Govemor
THADDEUS L. COHEN, AlA
Secretary
July 15,2005
~~
C}~ 1? (\~
('\0-<, " ~~
"~i:1-)- d' d ~
()~t-? II' ~ 0
~/- ~
~'?~1<
&.,....QIl'
The Honorable, John F. Bush
Mayor, City of Winter Springs
1126 State Road 434,
Winter Springs, FL 32708
Dear Mayor Bush:
The Department of Community Affairs has completed its review of the proposed
Comprehensive Plan Amendment for City of Winter Springs (DCA 05-2), 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 05-2 consisted of one Future Land Use
(FLUM) amendment and several text amendments. The FLUM amendment (l.S-CP A-05-05)
will re-designate approximately 10.95 acres from County Office and Commercial to City Town
Center. The text amendment (LS-CP A-05-06) and (LS-CP A-05-07) 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
Ph on e: 850.4 8 8 . 84 66/ S un com 2 7 8 . 8 466 FAX: 8 50 . 921 . 078 1 / Sun com 2 9 1 . 0 7 8 1
Internet address: htto:/Iwww.dca.state.fl.us
CRITICAL STATE CONCERN FIELD OFFICE COMMUNITY PI.ANNING EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
2796 averse as Hi~hwa" Suite 212 2555 Shurmrd aak Boulevard 2555 Shumard aak Boulevard
"........11.._... CI '):""''II::I'L'''''''' T.qlt~h~s.see. FL 32399-2100 Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100
HOUSING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard
Tallahassee. FL 32399-2100
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 if we may be of further assistance as you formulate your response to this Report,
please contact me at (850) 922- 1818 orTowanda Anthony at (850) 922-1782.
Sincerely,
,
es D. Stansbury,
egional 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 05-2
July 15, 2005
Division of Community Planning
Office of Comprehensive Planning
This report is prepared pursuant to Rule 9J-11.01O, F.A.C.
TRANS MITT AL PROCEDURES
The process for adoption oflocal comprehensive plan amendments is outlined in s.
163.3184, Florida Statutes, and Rule 9J -11.0 11, 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-l1.011(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 ofthe 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 05-2) 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 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 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-
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 "Obj ections" heading in this report.
OBJECTIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND COMMENTS
FOR
CITY of Winter Springs
AMENDMENT 05-2
I. OBJECTIONS
The City of Winter Springs is amending five parcels ofland 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. Staffhas 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-OS-
05.
TRANSPORTATION
1.0biection: 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 163.3177(2),163.3177(3), 163.3177(6)(a), 163.3177(6)(b), 163.3177(JO)(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 5., and 9J-
5.016(3)(c), 9J-5.016(4), 9J-5.019(4)(b)2., 3., and 5., 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 transpo~ation 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. Objection: The proposerl 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 max-imum 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 IV -A-I) 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 5), 9J-5.006(2)(a) and 9J-5.006 (3) (b) 9 and 10, 9J-5.006(3)(c)3., 9J-
5.011(1)(f) and 9J-5.011 (2)(b) and (c), 9J-5.016(3)(b)1., 9J-5.016(3)(b)3., 4., and 5., 9J-
5.016(3)(c), and 9J-5.016(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 ofthe 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 maifitain 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 the 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 use 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 I-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 infrastructure 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.
=\\
--- -"
.., './
~ Ts
(p!ll/OS
Florida Department of Transportation
JEB BliSH
GOVERNOR
JOSE ABREU
SECRETARY
Planning & Public Transportation
133 South Semoran Boulevard
Orlanao, 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:
LOCAL GOVERNMENT:
DCA#:
PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS
WINTER SPRINGS
05-2
Dear Mr. Eubanks:
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 e-mail meatbettv.mckee@dot.state.f1.us.
Sincerely,
~Mc~
Betty McKee
Systems Planner
BMcK
attachment
cc: Don Fisher, Seminole County
Rob Magee, FDOT
Bob Romig, FOOT
Eloise Sahlstrom, Winter Springs
James Stansbury, DCA
Tony Walter, Seminole County
File' J: \GrooM h Management\Comprehensive Plans\CommentsandCoverletters\Seminole Co\WinterSr-nngs05-2Coverletter06160S. doc
Florida Department of Transportation
Intermodal Systems Development
Technical Applications Section
Page 1 of 2
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT REVIEW COMMENTS
Local Government:
Winter Springs (Seminole County)
DCA Amendment #:
05-2
Date of DCA's Request Memo:
May 19, 2005
Review Comments Deadline:
June 17, 2005
June 162005
Today's Date:
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 Analysts 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 Square feet Avera~e Dallv TriDs
Current Desianations Countv Office 92.238 . 1,016
County Commercial 70132 3,011
Subtotal 4027
ProDosed Desianation City Town Center 2,783,484 119,523
Subtotal 119523
Net TrlDs 115 496
The request is not supported by appropriate data and analysis. As shown on FOOT'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 FIHS!SIS 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.
FOOT 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 -27 5-4188 904-730-7165
E-mail: bettY.mckee@dot.state.fl.usebertoni@qenesisqrouP.com
File: J:\Growth Manage menOComprehenslve PlansICommenlsand CoverLetterslSeminole Co\WinlerSpringsO~2Commenls0616<l5.doc
.'
Florida Department of Transportation
Intermodal Systems Development
Technical Applications Section
Page 2 of2
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT REVIEW COMMENTS
Local Government:
Winter Springs (Seminole County)
DCA Amendment #:
05-2
Date of DCA's Request Memo:
May 19, 2005
Review Comments Deadline:
June 17, 2005
Today's Date:
June 16 2005
ELEMENT:
RULE REFERENCE:
Transportation Element: Text Amendment
9J-5.019 Transportation Element
9J-11.006 Submittal Requirements
9J-11.007 Data and Analysis Requirements
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
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 COMMENTSI RECOMMENDATIONS:
Map 11-6 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
FOOT's 2004 LOS_ALL spreadsheet.
FOOT Contact: Betty McKee, Systems Planner Reviewed by: Ellen Bertoni, AICP
FOOT Genesis Group
Telephone: 407-482-7856 (Suncom: 335-7856) 904-730-9360
Fax: 407-275-4188 904-730-7165
E-mail: bettv mckee@dot state.t1 us ebertonilalQenesisQroupcom
File: J :\Growth M anagemenl\Comprehensive Plans\CommenlsandCoveri.etters\Seminole Co\W1nlerSprtngs05-2Commenls06160 5.doc
East Central Florida
REGIONAL
PLANNING
COUNCil
Chairman
Welton G. Cadwell
Commissioner
Lake County
Vice Chairman
Jon B. Rawlson
Governor's
Appointee
Orange County
Secretary/Treasure
r
~chael S. Blake
Commissioner
Tri-Cou~ty Le~~ue
of Cities
~linter Spri"Js
Executive Director
Sandra S. Glenn
StI/1'illg
Brevard, Lakl'.
Orange.Osceo/a.
')l'l/Iil1oll' Clnd /'o/lIsia
COllllties.
631 N. \'ij11\ore ?.:Jad
Suit.;! lOG
Maitland, Flcri~a
.32751
Phone
407.623.10/5
Fax 40/.623.1084
Sun com 334-11)75
Suncom Fa:,
334.1084
Website:
.,....,..;.~". ecrrpc. srg
T
a V0q~~
I
o
MEMORANDUM
Ts
v/~)cJ5,
TO:
D. Ray Eubanks, FDCA, Community Program Administrator
James Stansbury, FDCA
FROM:
Jeffrey A. Jones
Thursday, June 02, 2005
DATE:
SUBJECT: Comprehensive Plan Amendment Review
LOCAL GOVERNMENT:
Winter Springs
LS-CPA-05-05; LS-CPA-05-06; LS-CPA-05-
07.
05-2
LOCAL AMENDMENT #:
DCA AMENDMENT II:
Council staff has completed a technical review of the above referenced
comprehensive plan amendment. The review was conducted in accordance
with the provisions of the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council's
current contract with the Florida Department of Community Affairs for Plan
and Plan Amendment Reviews.
We have not identifiep any significant and adverse effects on regional
resources or facilities, nor have any extra-jurisdictional impacts been
identified that would adversely effect the ability of neighboring jurisdictions
to implement their comprehensive plans.
The East Central Florida Regional Planning Council is available to assist in the
resolution of any issues that should arise in the course of your review. If you
should have any questions, please contact me at Sun Com 334-1075 x327.
Thank you.
cc:
Local Government Contact: Eloise Sahtstrom, Senior Planner
File
.'
o Ts
~!l((j\
"'''''e ,~(.J-'
.'\l. fl,.It,1I ,\,' ~I.e, f
..~\. .... ~
..t'f?,... x :~: .~"
.::~" t>-~ /Y): fl1
~ \ :i.: \,
...l . .,--- ,
E FLORI;!:"'!
Department of
Environmental Protection
-=--
Jeb Bush
Governor
Marjory Stoneman Douglas Building
3900 Commonwealth Boulevard
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
Colleen 'J!, Castille
Secretary
June 9, 2005
Mr. Ray Eubanks
Florida Department of Community Affairs
Plan Review and DR! Processing Team
2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100
RE: Winter Springs 05-2, Comprehensive Plan Amendment Review
Dear Mr. Eubanks:
On behalf of the Department of Environmental Protection, the Office of Intergovernmen-
tal Programs has reviewed the proposed comprehensive plan amendment in accordance with the
provisions of Chapter 163, Florida Statutes. As required by law, the scope of our comments and
recommendations is limited to the environmental suitability of the proposed changes in light of
the Department's regulatory and proprietary responsibilities. Based on our review of the pro-
posed amendment, the Department has found no provision that requires comment, recommenda-
tion or objection under the laws that form the basis of the Department's jurisdiction and author-
ity. If the amendment pertains to changes in the future land use map or supporting text, please be
advised that at such time as specific lands are proposed for development, the Department will
review the proposal to ensure compliance 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,
Nfl?,.
Suzanne Ray
Office of Intergovernmental Programs
/ser
'."\/'I/"L.' ()""II/\..I..-;/;)r,'. L...'\\ f'r'.J...L'\.,'.'
St. Johns River .
~:~:~,,~:~:?;,~~,?:~~:~:!~~ & 15
4049 Reid Street · P.O Box' 429 · Palatka. Fl 32' 78-1429 · (386) 329-45(,0
On the Internet at www.sjrwmd.com.
~(:yGl6S
June 17,2005
D. Ray Eubanks, Administrator
Plan 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 05-2
Dear Mr. Eubanks:
St. Johns River Water Management District (District) planning' staff have reviewed the above-
referenced proposed comprehensi ve 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) 329-43 IIISuncom 860-4311 or ,
pbrolV/l@jjnvmd.com.
Sincerely,
~~~~ SL.
Linda Burnette, Director
Office oT Communications and Governmental Affairs
LB/PB
cc: Eloise Sahlstrorn. City of Winter Springs
Jeff Jones, ECFRPC
Lindy McDowell, FDEP
Nancy Christman, SJRWMD
Jeff Cole, SJRWMD
Peter Brown. SJRWMD
GOVERNING BOARD
~!"'~".(~
..~(v,-'.; ::'r.', f
R eta'! A:hri~h1. 5FC':~f,~:''''''
(' ~~:.: ).
Dua:e O-:e:rstrGer. GE;''-;,:!=";:~
~>:';C""I'.,.:
Ome!r.;,~ D Lcng. t".h:.H\I.:....
O"vid G Grat-am. 'r.:t: ~H';;:~!~':
'II L8enard Wced
C::~I.)~IDI~;': ::f';'CI"i
jern G Sowinski
'\'l:::IJIT) Ker~
~r.n T tA,~.:'e
Susan N HJghes
~:p.:"..l.~.,x,
'.J.:~7'-:..C.~IC ~E';'-.-.-
5,,'~.J;: _.
?c'''''~'I:.:m:A