4656 PD Rezone - 171 Red Cleveland BlvdOrdinance No. 2021-4656
An ordinance of the City of Sanford, Florida relating to
the rezoning of approximately 9.31 acres of real property
located at 171 Red Cleveland Boulevard (Tax Parcel
Identification Number 07-20-31-5LR-OD01-0000) to create
a Planned Development (PD) (map of the property
attached); rezoning the property from the MI -1, Medium
Industrial, zoning districtIclassification to the City's PD,
Planned Development, zoning district/classification with
implementation by means of a detailed development
agreement; providing for the taking of implementing
administrative actions; providing for conflicts; providing
for severability; providing for non -codification and
providing for an effective date.
Whereas, Red Cleveland Partners LLC is the owner of the property which is
the subject of this Ordinance (Tax Parcel Identification 07-20-31-5LR-OD01-0000) as
assigned by the Seminole County Property Appraiser); and
Whereas, to ensure that no conflict of interest or voting conflict arises it is
noted that the following are the managers of Red Cleveland Partners LLC: Sadique
Jaffer and Mohamedtaki Jaffer; and
Whereas, the subject real property (a site 9.31 acres in size) is located on the
corner of Lake Mary Boulevard and Red Cleveland Boulevard and is generally
addressed as 171 Red Cleveland Boulevard; and
Whereas, the subject real property was annexed by means of the enactment
of Ordinance Number 1269 on December 22, 1974 and the Property Owner now desire
to rezone the property to a mixed use Planned Development (PD) project consisting of
retail and other commercial uses; and
Whereas, the Property Owner's Applicant/Agent is Robert Ziegenfuss of Z
Development Services of Orlando and the legal representative of the Property Owner is
Stephen H. Coover of Sanford; and
Whereas, the subject real property is located within Sub Area 4 of 2015
Seminole County/City of Sanford Joint Planning Agreement (JPA) which results in the
subject property being subject to the following policies within the JPA:
(i). Establish Ohio Avenue as a north -south line separating low
density residential uses to the west and airport -related uses to the
east. Lands designated as industrial west of Ohio Avenue shall
maintain that designation.
(ii). An east -west alignment established by Eaglewood Trail shall
serve as a dividing line for residential density within Planning Area 4.
Properties to the north of this line shall develop at a maximum of 3.5
units per net buildable acre. Properties lying south of this line and
north of Pineway shall develop at a maximum of 2.5 units per net
buildable acre. These densities shall not apply to properties currently
assigned the County HIP -AP Future Land Use designation.
(iii). Future expansion of the Orlando -Sanford International Airport
(OSIA) property and runways shall be focused to the east and south
to minimize airport noise and development impacts to urban
residential areas to the north and west. Lands annexed near or
adjacent to the airport shall be assigned land use designations
compatible with the Airport Master Plan and in a manner consistent
with the joint planning agreement established with Seminole County.
(iv). Residential land uses and residential zonings shall be
; and
discouraged if within 300' of the centerline of the OSIA's new runway
system east to the conservation area adjacent to Lake Jessup.
Whereas, the modification zoning district/classification relative to subject
property be changed from the assignment of the MI -1, Medium Industrial, zoning
district/classification, to the City's PD, Planned Development, zoning
district/classification, is necessitated by the fact that, on January 28, 2019, a future land
use amendment was adopted to amend the future land use designation assigned to the
subject property from the HIP -AP, High Intensity Planned Development -Airport
(County), to the AIC, Airport Industry and Commerce (City), land use designation by
means of the enactment of Ordinance Number 4486 and Policy FLU 1.9.1 of the City's
Comprehensive Plan provides, among other things, that, upon annexation of lands
located such as the subject property, such lands will be automatically assigned the land
use designation of AIC, Airport Industry and Commerce, and that such properties must
be developed as a PD subject to a detailed development agreement which will address,
at a minimum, infrastructure needs, provision of services, development phasing,
development intensity and land use compatibility as part of an integrated design
scheme which includes, but is not limited to, very detailed strategies and techniques for
resolving development impacts; and
Whereas, the City's Planning and Zoning Commission (P&ZC), as the City's
local planning agency, held a public hearing on November 4, 2021 to consider
amending the zoning district/classification assigned to the property and recommended
approval of the proposed PD for the subject property as requested by the Property
Owner; and
Whereas, a modified Citizen Awareness and Participation Plan (CAPP)
process adhering to the requirements of the City has been accomplished in that a
modified CAPP letter (COVID-19) was mailed to property owners within a 500' radius
area was mailed on July 2, 2021; and
Whereas, the City's Planning and Development Services Department has
conducted a thorough review and analysis of the demands upon public facilities and
general planning and land development issues should the subject application be
approved and has otherwise reviewed and evaluated the application to determine
whether it comports with sound and generally accepted land use planning practices and
principles as well as whether the application is consistent with the goals, objectives and
policies set forth in the City's Comprehensive Plan and determined that the proposed
PD rezoning action set forth herein is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan
and the controlling provisions of State law; and
Whereas, the pertinent goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive
Plan support the approval of the PD rezoning action set forth herein; and
Whereas, additionally, this Ordinance is enacted pursuant to the home rule
powers of the City of Sanford as set forth at Article VIII, Section 2, of the Constitution of
the State of Florida; Chapter 166, Florida Statutes, and other applicable controlling law;
and
Whereas, the City Commission of the City of Sanford has taken all actions
relating to the PD rezoning action set forth herein in accordance with the requirements
and procedures mandated by State law.
Now, therefore, be in enacted by the People of the City of Sanford, Florida.
Section 1. Legislative findings and intent.
(a). The City Commission of the City of Sanford hereby adopts and
incorporates into this Ordinance, as legislative findings and intent, the above recitals
(whereas clauses) and the City staff report and City Commission agenda memorandum
relating to the PID rezoning action set forth herein.
(b). The approval set forth in this Ordinance is subject to the specific
conditions that are to be set forth subsequently in a detailed development agreement
and the Property Owner has agreed that no requirement will lack an essential nexus to
a legitimate public purpose and all conditions will be roughly proportionate to the
impacts of the proposed use that the City seeks to avoid, minimize or mitigate.
Section 2. Rezoning of real property/implementing actions.
(a), Upon enactment of this Ordinance the property, as depicted in the map
attached to this Ordinance, shall be rezoned PID consistent with the provisions of this
Ordinance.
(b). The Mayor is hereby authorized to execute the detailed development
agreement referenced herein which will address, at a minimum infrastructure needs,
provision of services, development phasing, development intensity and land use
compatibility as part of an integrated design scheme which includes, but is not limited
to, very detailed strategies and techniques for resolving development impacts. If City
staff and the Property Owner are unable to agree to the details of the development
agreement in any way, the matter will be submitted to the Planning and Zoning
Commission, for resolution at a public hearing, and the matter will be adjudicated by
means of a development order or denial development order relating thereto.
(c). The City Manager, or designee, is hereby authorized to execute any other
documents necessary to formalize approval of the PD rezoning action set forth herein
action taken herein and to revise and amend the Official Zoning Map or Maps of the
City of Sanford as may be appropriate to accomplish the action taken in this Ordinance.
Section 3. Incorporation of map.
The map attached to this Ordinance is hereby ratified and affirmed and
incorporated into this Ordinance as a substantive part of this Ordinance.
Section 4. Conflicts.
All ordinances or part of ordinances in conflict with this Ordinance are hereby
repealed. City staff shall harmonize the approval and actions set forth herein together
which those past actions of the City relative to the subject property which are hereby
ratified and affirmed.
Section 5. Severability.
If any section, sentence, phrase, word, or portion of this Ordinance is determined
to be invalid, unlawful or unconstitutional, said determination shall not be held to
invalidate or impair the validity, force or effect of any other section, sentence, phrase,
word, or portion of this Ordinance not otherwise determined to be invalid, unlawful, or
unconstitutional.
Section 6. Non -codification; Implementation.
(a). This Ordinance shall not be codified in the City Code of the City of
Sanford or the Land Development Code of the City of Sanford; provided, however, that
the actions taken herein shall be depicted on the zoning maps of the City of Sanford by
the City Manager, or designee.
(b). The City Manager, or designee, shall implement the provisions of this
Ordinance by means of a non -statutory development agreement which shall be
executed by the Property Owner, or their successor(s) in interest within 60 days of the
effective date of this Ordinance or the PD property's zoning classification shall revert to
an un -zoned property status.
Section 7. Effective Date.
This Ordinance shall take effect immediately upon enactment.
Passed and adopted this 10th day of January, 2021.
Attest:
03(1
Traci Houchin, MMC, FCRM
City Clerk
City Commission of the City of
Sanford. Rc 04) / I
ay.oi
M L. Colbert, City=tt-o—rKey
A),
C'A
7 1 P a g e
Requested Action:
Proposed Use:
Project Address:
Current Zoning:
Proposed Zoning:
Current Land Use:
PROJECT INFORMATION — 171 RED CLEVELAND BOULEVARD
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONE
Tax Pat -eel Number:
Site Area:
Property Owner
Rezone 9.31 acres 171 Red Cleveland Boulevard from MIA, Medium Industrial to PD,
Planned Development for a mix of commercial uses
Commercial Development
171 Red Cleveland Boulevard
MI -2, Medium Industrial
PD, Planned Development
Vacant
07-20-31-5LR-ODOI-0000
9.31 Acres
Red Cleveland Partners LLC
103 Commerce Street, # 160
Lake Mary, Fl, 32746-4215
Applicant/Agent: Robert Ziegenfuss
Z Development Services
708 E. Colonial Drive Suite 100
Orlando, FL 32803
Phone: (407) 271-8910 Email: bob@zdevelopmentservices.corn
CAPP Meeting: A Modified CAPP letter (COVID-19) was mailed to property owners within a 500 radius
feet area was mailed on July 2, 2021
Commission District: District I – Sheena Britton
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COMPLIANCE REVIEW
Planning staff has reviewed the request and has determined the use and proposed improvements to be consistent with
the Goals, Objectives and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan.
Future Land Use: AIC – Airport Industry & Commerce
Existing Land Use: Vacant and Conservation
SURROUNDING USES AND ZONING:
Zoning Uses
North RI -1, Restricted Industrial Vacant Lot
South PD, Planned Development Kensington Reserve
East A- I (County) Vacant Lot
West MI -2, Medium Industrial Vacant Lot
Affidavit
Land Development Regulations
City of Sanford, Florida
State of Florida
County of Seminole
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this day, before me, all officer duly authorized to administer oaths and take
acknowledgments, personally appeared CO"w—ho is personally known to me or 0 who produced
as identification and acknowledged before me that s/he executed the same, and after
being sworn upon his/her oath, deposes and says:
That he/she is the owner/agent of the subject property and that he/she caused a Notice to be posted on the
day of 1 202 1, notifying the Public that a Public Hearing Would be held on the 411, day of Novernbef-2021,
said Notice being posted on the following described property:
Request: A Planned Development Rezone for proposed commercial uses at 171 Red Cleveland
Boulevard.
Legal Description: PT OF TR D DESC AS BEG NE COR RUN SLY ON CURVE 61.81 FT S 47 DEG 44
MIN 44 SEC W 145 FT S 42 DEG 15 MIN 16 SEC E 15 FT S 47 DEG 44 MIN 44 SEC
W 40 FT N 42 DEG 15 MIN 16 SEC W 15 FT S 47 DEG 44 MIN 44 SEC W 615 FT S
42 DEG 15 MIN 16 SEC E 480.52 FT S 47 DEG 44 MIN 44 SEC W 15 FT SELY ON
CURVE 366.22 FT N 57 DEG 21 MIN 14 SEC E 17.8 FT N 26.55 FT E TO A PT S OF
BEG N TO BEG SILVER LAKES INDUSTRIAL PARK REPLAT PB 46 PGS 54
THRU 62
Tax Parcel Number: 07-20-31-5LR-OD01 -0000
The property being more generally described as 171 Red Cleveland Boulevard.
Further, affiant saith not. 4
O,(ier/Agent (Signature)
Owner/Age�t (Print Name)
Sworn and subscribed before me by I �,,rrs i '�M )le:, by means of {Pf--hysical presence or online
notarization and who is personally know by rnon the; p
Lt(qay of October, 202 1, the said person did take an oath
and was first duly sworn by file, on oath, said person, further, deposing and saying that s/he has read the foregoing
and that the statements and allegations contained herein are true and correct.
WITNESS my hand and official seal in the County and State last aforesaid this'z- I6y of
Q( A. D. 2021.
Notary Public; State of Florida
(Affix Notarial Seal)
Printed Name:
1� L
ANNETTE M BLAND
F'•Zt.'
Notary Public — State of Florida
Commission # GG 170900
5�
My Comm Expires Jan 16, 2022
C0100 :hro4n Na�,a Notary Assn
1� L
STEPHEN H. COOVER, PLLC
STEPHEN H. COOVER, ESQUIRE
PRACTICE LIMITED TO REAL ESTATE 230 NORTH PARK AVENUE
LAND USE AND RELATED MATTERS SANFORD, FLORIDA 32771
PHONE: (407) 322-4051
EMAIL: steve.coover@hmc-pa.com
June 8, 2021
Dear Neighbor
Subject: NE comer of E. Lake Mary Blvd./Red Cleveland Blvd. Sanford, FL
Parcel #07-20-31-5LR-OD01-0000
Dear Property Owner:
This letter is to inform you of the potential future development of the above properties located by
the Orlando Sanford International Airport within Seminole County, proposed to be annexed into
the City of Sanford, more particularly identified above.
The subject properties are currently zoned Industrial (MI -2) with a future land use designation of
Industrial and Resource Protection. The Resource Protection applies to the wetlands area on the
site and will not change the use. The current owner is proposing to change the zoning on the
uplands to planned development (PD) and to change the future land use on the uplands to
General Commercial (GC) and on the wetlands to Resource Protection.
Attached is our proposed site plan which includes the proposed uses. You are receiving this
notification because you own property within five hundred (500) feet of the site. Normally, we
would have an in person meeting to discuss the specifies of this request, but due to COVID 19,
we ask that you contact our office by phone (at the number above) or by email
with any questions before June 22, 2021.
Very truly yours,
Stephen H. Coover
SHC/rnJr
�'Ugz
Mi
H
0 x
g"P.HE
61§q9
8R N
c
n;Q m
<
m m
C
0 0A -Z
"0 o
I I ;am
0 r) <
m m
r, E5
>
G)
1> p
022
22
PIB LAND A(VISM DAIE REVISION -'t V
Z PE ELOPMENT
RED CLEVELAND BLVD. AND
EAST LAKE MARY BLVD. CA 29AS4
SANFORD, FL ?G2E�C0LDNlkO;t,SITIGU PH(407)2*3910
ORLANDO, FL 3�Rffl FAX� (401) eAl-0601
22
<
E 9&1�
1 1
�'Ugz
Mi
H
0 x
g"P.HE
61§q9
8R N
c
n;Q m
<
m m
C
0 0A -Z
"0 o
I I ;am
0 r) <
m m
r, E5
>
G)
1> p
022
22
PIB LAND A(VISM DAIE REVISION -'t V
Z PE ELOPMENT
RED CLEVELAND BLVD. AND
EAST LAKE MARY BLVD. CA 29AS4
SANFORD, FL ?G2E�C0LDNlkO;t,SITIGU PH(407)2*3910
ORLANDO, FL 3�Rffl FAX� (401) eAl-0601
Parcel Ma
17-20-31-5VC-OL00-0000 17-20-31-5VC-OG00-0000 17-20-31-5VC-0000-0950
KENSINGTON RESERVE HOMEOWNERS ASSN INC KENSINGTON RESERVE HOMEOWNERS ASSN INC IBISON, KAREN & DANIEL
755 W SR 434STE A 755 W SR 434STE A 3810 CRAWLEY DOWN LOOP
LONGWOOD, FL 32750 LONGWOOD, FL 32750 SANFORD, FL 32773
08-20-31-501-0000-0010
HUGHEY, CAROLYN J TR
PO BOX 790
OSTEEN, FL 32764
17-20-31-502-0000-0070
KNIGHT, TRAVIS C & SHARP, MICHELLE J
3746 SALTMARSH LOOP
SANFORD, FL 32773
17-20-31-502-0000-0080
KOCHANOWICZ, NICHOLAS M & REBECCA R
3752 SALTMARSH LOOP
SANFORD, FL 32773
07-20-31-5LR-ODOO-0000
SAFARI INV LLC
103 COMMERCE STUNIT 103
LAKE MARY, FL 32746
08-20-31-503-0000-0020
PALMETTO PROP PARNERS LLC
105 E ROBINSON ST#300
ORLANDO, FL 32801
17-20-31-502-0000-0140
MATA, LEODELYN A & EVAN A
3788 SALTMARSH LOOP
SANFORD, FL 32773
17-20-31-502-0000-0090
CONLON, BRENT A & LADIERO, SANDY G
3758 SALTMARSH LOOP
SANFORD, FL 32773
17-20-31 -5VC-0000-1 000
HUME, JERRY J & DANIELLA J
3840 CRAWLEY DOWN LOOP
SANFORD, FL 32773
17-20-31-502-0000-0120
MOLINA, ROBERTO A & MARJORIE A
3776 SALTMARSH LOOP
SANFORD, FL 32773
08-20-31-300-0360-0000
SANFORD AIRPORT AUTHiCITY OF SANFORD
1 RED CLEVELAND BLVDSTE 1200
SANFORD, FL 32773
17-20-31-5VC-0000-0970
SONTHALY, LENIN N
3822 CRAWLEY DOWN LOOP
SANFORD, FL 32773
17-20-31-5VC-0000-1040
PARKER, MICHAEL & HINES, JERRICA L
3864 CRAWLEY DOWN LOOP
SANFORD, FL 32773
17-20-31-5VC-0000-1050
ZULETA-ORTIZ, EURO E & VISSER. JOSEPHINE
3870 CRAWLEY DOWN LOOP
SANFORD, FL 32773
17-20-31-5VC-0000-1010
PERKINSON, BRENT W & JESSICA J
3846 CRAWLEY DOWN LOOP
SANFORD, FL 32773
07-20-31-5LR-0000-0050
SAFARI INV LLC
103 COMMERCE STUNIT 160
LAKE MARY, FL 32746
17-20-31-502-0100-0000
WYNDHAM PRESERVE HOMEOWNERS ASSN INC
Cr0 MELROSE MGMT1600 W COLONIAL DR
ORLANDO, FL 32804
08-20-31-300.0290-0000
JBT PROPERTIES OF CENTRAL FL LCC
25725 LAYLAINE DR
ASTATULA, FL 34705
17-20-31-502-0000-0100
MITCHELL, SHENIKA S & DIAZ, ERICA R
3764 SALTMARSH LOOP
SANFORD, FL 32773
17-20-31-502-0000-0130
LEWIS, DUANE A & MICHELLE K
3782 SALTMARSH LOOP
SANFORD, FL 32773
07-20-31-5LR-0000-005A
SEMINOLE B C C
1101 E 1ST ST
SANFORD, FL 32771
17-20-31-5VC-0000-0980
JOSHI, AMIT & SHALMALI
3828 CRAWLEY DOWN LOOP
SANFORD, FL 32773
17-20-31-5VC-0000-0990
CHAPMAN, MICHELLE & YEAGER, CASSANDRA
3834 CRAWLEY DOWN LOOP
SANFORD, FL 32773
17-20-31-502-0000-0150
MOYA, ARTHUR D & SIERRA, GENESYS
3794 SALTMARSH LOOP
SANFORD, FL 32773
07-20-31-5LR-OD01-0000
RED CLEVELAND LAND TRUST
225 S WESTMONTE DRSTE 2040
ALTAMONTE SPG, FL 32714
17-20-31-502-0000-0160 17-20-31-5VC-OHOO-0000 17-20-31-5VC-0000-1020
FLANNAGIN, ANDREA L KENSINGTON RESERVE HOMEOWNERS ASSN INC MCGEE, AMANDA P & CHRISTOPHER j
3800 SALTMARSH LOOP 755 W SR 434STE A 3852 CRAWLEY DOWN LOOP
SANFORD, FL 32773 LONGWOOD, FL 32750 SANFORD, FL 32773
17-20-31-5VC-0000-1030
CARTER STEWART; WENDY P
3858 CRAWLEY DOWN LOOP
SANFORD, FL 32773
08-20-31-300-0350-0000
SANFORD AIRPORT AUTHICITY OF SANFORD
1 RED CLEVELAND BLVDSTE 1200
SANFORD, FL 32773
17-20-31-5VC-0000-0960
FERMIN, MERIELY & RAFAEL
3816 CRAWLEY DOWN LOOP
SANFORD, FL 32773
17-20-31-502-0000-0110
FLOREZ, JAIME J & LEINY Y
3770 SALTMARSH LOOP
SANFORD, FL 32773
VIOPPONEW11W WOO NUM0011) WIN MOM 110M 10 IS VP TIVIVE M I IXINOW I � I flN
230 North Park Avenue, Sanford, FL 32771
(407) 322-4051 Email: Steve.Coover@hmc-pa.com
Practice limited to Real Estate
July 2, 2021
Mrs. Eileen Hinson, AICP
Development Services Manager
Planning and Development Services
City of Sanford
300 North Park Avenue
Sanford, FL 32771
Land Use and Related Matters
RE: FLU Amendment and SFB Crossing PD Rezone
Red Cleveland Blvd. and E. Lake Mary Blvd., Sanford, FL 32773
Parcel 407-20-31-5LR-OD01-0000
Dear Mrs. Hinson:
This letter shall serve as our Final Report under a modified CAPP for the SFB, Crossing
me
A letter explaining what is being done with this parcel was sent via US Mail on June 9
2021 to the property owners within 500' of the proposed project. A copy of this letter and the
list of property owners is attached for your reference.
We received calls in regard to the letter we sent out from the following parties:
PARTY
CONCERN
DATE
Daniel Ibson
Supports commercial uses
Call 6/16/21
We received one call and no emails. It was explained to the individual that called what
was being proposed at the site. The only respondent was okay with a commercial use. He lived
across the street in the subdivision and worked in Sanford.
To date we have had no other correspondence, either verbally or written with any other
parties that received the CAPP letter.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Very trul YOUTS,
Stephen phe Coover
SHC/rnjr
PRACTICE LIMITED TO REAL ESTATE
LAND USE AND RELATED MATTERS
Dear Neighbor
Subject:
Dear Property Owner:
STEPHEN H, COOVER, PLLC
STEPHEN H. COOVER, ESQUIRE
230 NORTH PARK AVENUE
SANFORD, FLORIDA 32771
PHONE: (407) 322-4051
EMAIL: steve.coover@hmc-pa.com
June 9, 2021
NE comer of E. Lake Mary Blvd./Red Cleveland Blvd. Sanford, FL
Parcel #07-20-31-5LR-ODO 1 -0000
This letter is to inform you of the potential future development of the above properties located by
the Orlando Sanford International Airport within Seminole County, proposed to be annexed into
the City of Sanford, more particularly identified above.
The subject properties are currently zoned Industrial (MI -2) with a Riture land use designation of
Industrial and Resource Protection. The Resource Protection applies to the wetlands area on the
site and will not change the use. The current owner is proposing to change the zoning on the
uplands to planned development (PD) and to change the future land use on the uplands to
General Commercial (GC) and on the wetlands to Resource Protection.
Attached is our proposed site plan which includes the proposed uses. You are receiving this
notification because you own property within five hundred (500) feet of the site. Normally, we
would have an in person meeting to discuss the specifics of this request, but due to COVID 19,
we ask that you contact our office by phone (at the number above) or by email
c°_r y] u with any questions before June 24, 202
Very truly yours,
SHC/mjr Stephen H. Coover
2 g, P z
Sl
A -'W> z
A
R
0
\\\ ~ s z o
g
A
c
m
> 0
in
M
> C7 `Fv \
;a m
n<
mm
0
7
m
PlB LAND REVISION GATE tIV11PN DATE
Z P�V�LOPMENT
RED CLEVELAND BLVD. AND
P
C1 A EAST LAKE MARY BLVD. CA 29354
SANFORD, FL70a E COLONIAL DR, STE 100 M (407) 271-6910
ORLANDO, FL 32803 FAR: (407) 442-0604
Ir SYR
Parcel Map
Parcel: 07-20-31-5LR-OD01-0000
Property Address: 171 RED CLEVELAND BLVD SANFORD, FL 32773
17-20-31-5VC-OL00-0000 17-20-31-5VC-0000-0000 17-20-31-5VC-0000-0950
KENSINGTON RESERVE HOMEOWNERS ASSN INC KENSINGTON RESERVE HOMEOWNERS ASSN INC ]BISON, KAREN & DANIEL
755 W SR 434STE A 755 W SR 434STE A 3810 CRAWLEY DOWN LOOP
LONGWOOD, FL 32750 LONGWOOD, FL 32750 SANFORD, FL 32773
08-20-31-501-0000-0010
HUGHEY, CAROLYN J TR
PO BOX 790
OSTEEN, FL 32764
17-20-31-502-0000-0070
KNIGHT, TRAVIS C & SHARP, MICHELLE J
3746 SALTMARSH LOOP
SANFORD, FL 32773
17-20-31-502-0000-0080
KOCHANOWiCZ, NICHOLAS M & REBECCA R
3752 SALTMARSH LOOP
SANFORD, FL 32773
07-20-31-5LR-ODOO-0000
SAFARI INV LLC
103 COMMERCE STUNIT 103
LAKE MARY, FL 32746
08-20-31-503-0000-0020
PALMETTO PROP PARNERS LLC
105 E ROBINSON ST#300
ORLANDO, FL 32801
17-20-31-502-0000-0140
MATA, LEODELYN A & EVAN A
3788 SALTMARSH LOOP
SANFORD, FL 32773
17-20-31-502-0000-0090
CONLON, BRENT A & LADIERO, SANDY G
3758 SALTMARSH LOOP
SANFORD, FL 32773
17-20-31-5VC-0000-1000
HUME, JERRY J & DANIELLA J
3840 CRAWLEY DOWN LOOP
SANFORD, FL 32773
17-20-31-502-0000-0120
MOLINA, ROBERTO A & MARJORIE A
3776 SALTMARSH LOOP
SANFORD, FL 32773
08-20-31-300-0360-0000
SA"•,FORD AIRPORT AUTRiCITY OF SANFORD
1 RED CLEVELAND BLVDSTE 1200
SANFORD, FL 32773
17-20-31-5VC-0000-0970
SONTHALY, LENIN N
3822 CRAWLEY DOWN LOOP
SANFORD, FL 32773
17-20-31-5VC-0000-1040
PARKER, MICHAEL & HINES, JERRICA L
3864 CRAVYLEY DOWN LOOP
SANFORD, FL 32773
17-20-31-5VC-0000-1050
ZULETA-ORTIZ. EURO E & VISSER. JOSEPHINE
3870 CRAVVLEY DOWN LOOP
SANFORD, FL 32773
17-20-31-5VC-0000-1010
PERKINSON, BRENT W & JESSICA J
3846 CRAV%lLEY DOWN LOOP
SANFORD, FL 32773
07-20-31-5LR-0000-0050
SAFARI INV LLC
103 COMMERCE STUNIT 160
LAKE MARY, FL 32746
17-20-31-502-0100-0000
WYNDHAIJ PRESERVE HOMEOWNERS ASSN INC
C 0 MELROSE MGMT1600 W COLONIAL DR
ORLANDO, FL 32804
08-20-31-300-0290-0000
JBT PROPERTIES OF CENTRAL FL LCC
25725 LAYLAINE DR
ASTATULA, FL 34705
17-20-31-502-0000-0100
MITCHELL, SHENIKA S & DIAZ, ERICA R
3764 SALTMARSH LOOP
SANFORD, FL 32773
17-20-31-502-0000-0130
LEWIS, DUANE A & MICHELLE K
3782 SALTMARSH LOOP
SANFORD, FL 32773
07-20-31-5LR-0000-005A
SEMINOLE B C C
1101 E 1ST ST
SANFORD, FL 32771
17-20-31-5VC-0000-0980
JOSHI, AMIT & SHALMALI
3828 CRAWLEY DOWN LOOP
SANFORD, FL 32773
17-20-31-5VC-0000-0990
CHAPMAN, MICHELLE & YEAGER. CASSANDRA
3834 CRAWLEY DOWN LOOP
SANFORD, FL 32773
17-20-31-502-0000-0150
MOYA, ARTHUR D & SIERRA, GENESYS
3794 SALTMARSH LOOP
SANFORD, FL 32773
07-20-31-5LR-OD01-0000
RED CLEVELAND LAND TRUST
225 S WESTMONTE DRSTE 2040
ALTAMONTE SPG, FL 32714
17-20-31-502-0000-0160 17-20-31-5VC-OHOO-0000 17-20-31-5VC-0000-1020
FLANNAGIN, ANDREA L KENSINGTON RESERVE HOMEOWNERS ASSN INC MCGEE, AMANDA P & CHRISTOPHER j
3800 SALTMARSH LOOP 755 W SR 434STE A 3852 CRAWLEY DOWN LOOP
SANFORD, FL 32773 LONGWOOD, FL 32750 SANFORD, FL 32773
17-20-31-5VC-0000-1030
CARTER STEWART, WENDY P
3858 CRAWLEY DOWN LOOP
SANFORD, FL 32773
08-20-31-300-0350-0000
SANFORD AIRPORT AUTHICITY OF SANFORD
1 RED CLEVELAND BLVDSTE 1200
SANFORD, FL 32773
17-20-31-5VC-0000-0960
FERMIN, MERIELY & RAFAEL
3816 CRAWLEY DOWN LOOP
SANFORD, FL 32773
17-20-31-502-0000-0110
FLOREZ, JAIME J & LEINY Y
3770 SALTMARSH LOOP
SANFORD, FL 32773
SHC
Practice limited to Real Estate
Land Use and Related Matters
STEPHEN H. COOVER, PLLC
230 North Park Avenue, Sanford, FL 32771
(407) 322-4051 Email: Steve.Coover@hmc-pa.com
July 1, 2021
Comprehensive Policy Plan Amendment Justification Statement
The property owner, the Red Cleveland Land Trust, has applied for approval of the SFB Crossing
Planned Development (PD) in the City of Sanford, Florida. The application for the PD includes a
request for a comprehensive plan amendment based on the existing comprehensive plan
designation of Industrial and Resource Protection (Policy 1.6). The proposed land use of the
property is General Commercial and Resource Protection. The current zoning is MI -2 and the
proposed zoning is Planned Development (PD).
Policy 1-1.1.1 of the Comprehensive Lane Use Element states the following numerical criteria for
any land use amendment:
1. The amendment shall be consistent with the State Comprehensive Plan (Chapter 187 F.S.)
and Growth Policy Act (Chapter 163 F.S.). Applicant notes that the only part of the Growth
Policy Act remaining relates to "urban infill and redevelopment areas", which are not
applicable here (see Sections 163.2511-.2520, F.S.). Therefore, the following comments
relate only to the state Comprehensive Plan:
a. The lands fronting Lake Mary Blvd. shall provide for general commercial uses
which will serve this and other residential communities of Sanford and Seminole
County, travelers along E. Lake Mary Blvd., the county park, and the Orlando
Sanford International Airport and its' passengers, in addition to "providing jobs" to
support these new businesses. (see Section 187.201 (15) (b) 3; Sections 187.201
(21) (a) and (b) 9; and Section 187.201 (24) (a), F.S.)
b. Being centrally located in the community allows this project to be served by
"existing local transportation facilities" including the Orlando Sanford
International Airport, SR 417, and 1-4 (see Section 187.201 (15) (b) 1; and Section
187.201 (19) (b) 9, F.S.). It is also noted that the Sanford Airport Authority has
requested that Sun Rail connect to the Orlando Sanford International Airport in the
future.
1
c. The project will be served by locally available utility services and other "existing
public infrastructure", which will not require on-site potable wells or septic tanks
or "the expenditure of public monies". The only utilities not located at the site are:
(i) reclaim water, which the applicant will bring across E. Lake Mary Blvd. to the
site, and (ii) sewer, which applicant will bring along the right-of-way from Brisson
Ave. (see Sections 187.201 (15) (a) and (b) 1; and Section 187.201 (17) (a) and (b)
1 and (b) 10, F. S.).
2. The amendment shall be consistent with all elements of the City of Sanford Comprehensive
Plan.
a. The existing land use is Industrial with a MI -2 zoning classification. The proposed
land use is commercial along E. Lake Mary Blvd. and Resource Protection to the
north and east. East of this property along E. Lake Mary Blvd. is the Industrial land
use designation. To the west and south are Red Cleveland Blvd. and E. Lake Mary
Blvd.
b. The resource protection lands creates a natural buffer within the project as well as
a separation to the adjacent properties. Policy 1.6.1 is met by this development
protecting these areas.
c. The project also meets Objective 1.3 which relates to the allocation of commercial
land uses, and Policy 1.3.6 which relates to where to locate commercial as set forth
below.
d. To show consistency with Objective 1.3, the proposed project applicant will
address the following Comp Plan considerations in Policy 1.3.1:
Trip generation characteristics, impact on existing and planned transportation
facilities and ability to achieve a functional internal circulation and off-street
parking system, with landscaping amenities; The applicant will demonstrate
internal circulation on the PD Master Plan, supported by a traffic study done by
Traffic Planning & Design, Inc. submitted with this application. The study used gas
station and fast food uses, which were reasonable uses, but only exemplary at this
point in the process.
3. Location and site requirements will be based on specific needs of respective commercial
activities, their market area, and anticipated employment generation and floor area
requirements; At this point there are no actual users for the proposed commercial property,
so any information provided would be somewhat speculative. The commercial lots are
large and deep, providing for large building sites capable of accommodating most general
commercial uses.
K
3.Compatibility with and impact on other surrounding commercial activities; The
proposed general commercial uses will be compatible with and have nominal
impact on surrounding commercial activities.
4. Relationship to surrounding land uses and natural systems; See 2 a., above.
5. Impact on existing and planned community services and utilities. This project meets
Objective 1.15 and Policy 1. 1. 10 and Policy 1. 1. 11 because the City has existing facilities
and capacities in place sufficient for the commercial land use elements of this project, and
the applicant will agree to provide reclaim water and sewer lines to the site. The reclaim
main and sewer main are of sufficient size for the project.
a. Policy 1.3.2 requires that commercial development shall be "concentrated in
strategically located areas having location characteristics which best accommodate
specific land, site, public facilities and market location requirements of the
respective commercial uses." The entrance to the Orlando Sanford International
Airport and a few blocks from the county park is an ideal location for this type of
land use. All public facilities are available and with capacity. If approved, the
commercial development would serve the airport, park, and commuters using E.
Lake Mary Blvd. The small area study being conducted by Seminole County favors
the location of commercial uses along this corridor.
b. Policy 1.3.4 is met by the applicants' request.
6. Public facilities and services shall be available concurrent with development of the site.
a. This project will utilize many public services, all of which are available at the site
except reclaim water and sewer as stated previously. Utilities will be provided by
the City of Sanford.
b. Police, fire and emergency services will be serviced by the local providers and will
have adequate access to the property, including multiple points of entry, and
compliant roadway widths.
7. There have been sufficient changes in the character of the area or adjacent lands to warrant
a different land use designation.
a. The area lying south of the Orlando Sanford International Airport between Sanford
Ave. and Cameron Ave. has been a largely rural area with industrial land use
existing in the former Silver Lake area for over 20 years. Tourism in Central Florida
created SR 417, which connected Sanford with the tourist attractions and Disney.
When the airport expanded into a commercial service airport in 1996 due to
proximity to SR 417, the area began a major transformation with local
transportation and utility improvements, noise related and future development
acquisitions by the airport, and over 2,000 acres placed into a new AIC land use
which allows high density residential, commercial and industrial uses. Multiple
residential subdivisions developed south of the airport after the recession.
b. There is a continuing obligation to analyze changes in population and land use as
indicators of the need for land use changes. The addition of multiple residential
subdivisions in the area, the new county park, and the resurgence of the airport due
to the end of COVID-19, suggests commercial development is needed along this
corridor.
c. Access to the property via Red Cleveland Blvd. has been improved for public use.
Sidewalks and connecting roads have been provided for use by the communities
that border E. Lake Mary Blvd.
8. The proposed future land use designation and its allowable uses are compatible with
surrounding land use designations and with the preferred growth and development pattern
of the City as evidenced by land use policies in the Comp Plan. This amendment will not
significantly alter acceptable existing land use patterns or adversely affect the livability of
the area or the health and safety of the residents.
a. This application proposes various desirable commercial uses on the PD plan. The
commercial uses front E. Lake Mary Blvd. This frontage will promote commercial
applications that will serve the local communities, commuters, the county park
users, and the airport property.
b. The commercial uses are consistent with the uses of the properties north, east, south
and west of the proposed development.
c. With the widening of SR 415 to four lanes to accommodate commuters, beach
traffic and tourists, the need for commercial services along E. Lake Mary Blvd.
seems to be warranted, as more and more travelers take advantage of this road
system.
d. The applicant supports the Seminole Way vision for the commercial portion of the
development.
9. The capability of the land to support development allowed under the proposed future land
use designation as evidenced by the presence or absence on the site of soil types suitable
for development, vegetative habitats, wetlands, wetland protection zones or flood -prone
areas, well field protection zones, wildlife habitats, archeological, historical or cultural
resources.
a. The existing land use classification is Industrial. Industrial land use supports a
number of uses including light manufacturing, heavy manufacturing and storage.
These uses tend to be more adverse to the environment than the proposed
commercial use.
El
b. The northern portion of the site will be conservation areas. These areas will be
protected by setback distances and natural buffers.
c. There are no flood zones relative to this development. Adequate protection from
flooding will be provided as required by the local jurisdictions.
d. A Threatened and Endangered Species report, archeological and historical survey
will be considered during construction plan review and permitting with the local
and state agencies.
10. The proposed amendment will create a demonstrated benefit to the City and enhance the
character of the community.
a. The proposed development includes a wide range of uses in the PD plan which are
either permitted in the GC -2 zoning, or are treated as conditional uses in that
district.
b. Leaving the property as Industrial would not fulfill the need for commercial
services along E. Lake Mary Blvd.
c. The proposed use offers more open space, is less intense than Industrial, and will
result in less impacts to the environment.
d. The services and infrastructure are in place to support this land use (see Policy
1.1.10 and 1.1.11).
11. If the amendment increases the density or intensity of use, the applicant shall demonstrate
that there is a need for the increase in the near planning future (10 years).
a. The applicant does not believe that the amendment increases the density or intensity
of use.
17
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
RED CLEVELAND BLVD. AND
E. LAKE MARY BLVD.
SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA
Safari Investments, LLC
103 Commerce Stree, 160 & 170
Lake Mary, Florida 32746
Prepared by:
Traffic Planning and Design, Inc.
535 Versailles Drive
Maitland, Florida 32751
407-628-9955
June 2021
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that I am a Professional Engineer properly registered in the State of Florida
practicing with Traffic Planning and Design, Inc., a corporation authorized to operate as an
engineering business, EB -3702, by the State of Florida Department of Professional Regulation,
Board of Professional Engineers, and that I have prepared or approved the evaluations,
findings, opinions, conclusions, or technical advice attached hereto for:
PROJECT: Red Cleveland Blvd. and E. Lake Mary Blvd.
LOCATION: Seminole County, Florida
CLIENT: Safari Investments, LLC
I hereby acknowledge that the procedures and references used to develop the results contained
in these computations are standard to the professional practice of Transportation Engineering
as applied through professional judgment and experience.
%%J11111111
NAME: Turgulwo i //
P.E. No.: 2041310
ENs
�
DATE: Jethua 2 4%
SIGNATURE:
ORI F
NAI- %
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................
I
EXISTING TRAFIC CONDITIONS .............................................................................................
4
Analysis of Daily Traffic Conditions
Analysis of Peak Hour Traffic Conditions
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AND TRIP GENERATION .........................................................
8
Trip Generation
Trip Distribution and Assignment
PROJECTED TRAFFIC CONDITIONS ..................................................................................... 10
Analysis of Daily Traffic Conditions
Analysis of Peak Hour Traffic Conditions
Turn Lane Analysis
CONCLUSIONS....................................................................................................................... 15
APPENDICES........................................................................................................................... 16
A Study Methodology
B Traffic Data and Roadway Concurrency Information
C Existing Intersection Counts and FDOT Seasonal Factors
D Existing HCS Capacity Worksheets
E Projected HCS Capacity Worksheets
Table Existing Roadway Conditions Analysis ._........_........—._...—..------4
Table 2Existing Intersection LOS Analysis ................................................................................ 5
Table 3Trhp Generation Summary ............................................................................................. 8
Table 4Future Roadway Conditions Analysis .—.—..—....—..—.—....~..—...—..j1
FigureSite Location .............................................................................................................. 2
Figure2 Site Plan ................................................................................................................... 3
Figure Existing /iK8./P.K8.Peak Hour Traffic Volumes .......................................................... 8
Figure Project Trip Distribution ....._......._.......—..--...—.—.—..--,.------..H
Figure 5 Projected A`K8.Peak Hour Traffic Volumes .............................................................. 12
Figure Projected p.M.Peak Hour Traffic Volumes .............................................................. 13
INTRODUCTION
This analysis was conducted in order to assess the traffic impact of a proposed development in
Seminole County, Florida. The project site is located on the northeast corner of East Lake Mary
Boulevard and Red Cleveland Boulevard. The proposed development will consist of a 2,400
square foot fast-food restaurant with a drive-thru and a 5,750 square foot super convenience
market/gas station. Figure I depicts the site location. Access to the site will be provided via a
full -access driveway on East Lake Mary Boulevard and a right-in/right-out access driveway on
Red Cleveland Boulevard. Figure 2 depicts the conceptual site plan.
The project is in the Seminole County Dense Urban Land Use Area (DULA). As per Seminole
County requirements, the classified roadways within the one -mile sphere of influence (or impact
area) and major intersections within a quarter mile from the site were included in the traffic
analysis. The analysis was conducted in accordance with a study methodology submitted and
reviewed by Seminole County. The study methodology and related correspondence are
included in Appendix A. Data used in the analysis consisted of site plan and development
information provided by the Project Engineers, daily traffic volume data obtained from Seminole
County, and A.M./P.M. peak hour intersection counts made by Traffic Planning and Design, Inc.
(TPD) personnel.
1 9Red Cleveland Blvd and E. Lake Mary Blvd.
Project Nee 5499
1 Page 1
rF
IJA 2 GO'
v[m Kyc
tl
C)
94 Z
z
A
0
SFB CROSSING
RED CLEVELAND BLVD. AND
EAST LAKE MARY BLVD.
SANFORD, FL
REVISION REVISION DATE
Z EVELOPMENT
P
3S4
COLONL DR STEID0 PH:(407)2n,8910
708 E. IA
FAX (407) 443
ORLANDO, FL 32803-0604
0
qa -
11 x P
M
'6
6
0
SFB CROSSING
RED CLEVELAND BLVD. AND
EAST LAKE MARY BLVD.
SANFORD, FL
REVISION REVISION DATE
Z EVELOPMENT
P
3S4
COLONL DR STEID0 PH:(407)2n,8910
708 E. IA
FAX (407) 443
ORLANDO, FL 32803-0604
EXISTING TRAFIC CONDITIONS
Existing traffic conditions were analyzed using daily traffic volumes for the study roadways and
A.M./P.M. peak hour traffic volumes for the study intersections. The roadway analysis consisted
of a generalized capacity analysis with the existing traffic volumes and the available capacity.
The intersection analysis was conducted as per the procedures of the Highway Capacity
Manual. Pertinent roadway segment data sheets showing the existing and committed trips
along with the corresponding segment capacities are included in Appendix B.
Analysis of Daily Traffic Conditions
A roadway segment analysis was performed for the study roadway segments by comparing the
total daily traffic volume of each segment with the corresponding capacity of the segment.
Table 1 shows each of the roadway segments along with their number of lanes, adopted daily
LOS/capacities, existing traffic volumes, available capacities and existing Levels of Service
(LOS). The results of the analysis indicate that the roadway segments currently operate
satisfactorily with excess traffic capacity available.
Table 'I
Existing Roadway Conditions Analysis
Red Cleveland Blvd and E. Lake Mary Blvd.
Project Ns 5499
Page 4
Daily
Existing
Available
LOS
Seg #
Roadway Segment
Lanes
Capacity
Daily
Capacity
Exceeded?
Traffic
Airport Blvd
AIR05
from Mellonville Ave to C.R. 425
2L
19,360
7,306
9,864
No
E. Lake Mary Blvd
LKM80
from CR 427 to Red Cleveland
4L
42,560
23,619
9,606
No
Blvd
LKM90
from Red Cleveland Blvd to
4L
42,560
19,375
18,006
No
Cameron Ave
Marquette Ave
MRQ10
from Ohio Ave to Sipes Ave
2L
19,360
224
18,054
No
Ohio Ave
OHO10
from Marquette Ave to Lake
2L
19,360
476
18,247
No
Mary Blvd
Pine Way Ave
PIN10
from Sanford Av to Sipes Ave
2L
19,360
576
18,784
No
Sipes Ave
SIP20
from Pine Way Ave to S.R. 46
2L
19,360
145
19,215
No
Red Cleveland Blvd and E. Lake Mary Blvd.
Project Ns 5499
Page 4
Analysis of Peak Hour Traffic Conditions
A capacity analysis was conducted for the A.M./P.M. peak hour traffic conditions for the
following intersections within one-quarter mile from the site:
b Lake Mary Boulevard and Red Cleveland Boulevard
o Red Cleveland Boulevard and Brisson Avenue
The analysis was conducted utilizing Highway Capacity Software (HCS) in accordance with the
procedures of the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). Existing traffic consisting of turning
movement counts are included in Appendix C along with the FDOT Peak Season Factor report.
The traffic counts were performed on June 15, 2021. The FDOT seasonal factor for Seminole
County during this week is 1.01, therefore, the counts were adjusted accordingly. The existing
peak hour traffic volumes are shown in Figure 4. The intersection capacity analysis results are
summarized in Table 2 and indicate that the study intersections are currently operating at
satisfactory Levels of Service except for the northbound approach of the intersection at Brisson
Avenue and East Lake Mary Boulevard which is operating a level of service "F." However, the
volume to capacity (V/C) ratio for this approach is less than 1.00. This level of service is due to
delays caused by long cycle length and coordination favoring the eastbound and westbound
movements and is not a capacity deficiency. Detailed capacity analysis worksheets are included
in Appendix D.
Table 2
Existing Intersection LOS Analysis
Intersection
Time
Period
Control
EB
Delay I
LOS
WB
Delay I
LOS
Delay
NB
LOS
S13 Overall
Delay LOS Delay LOS
Red Cleveland Blvd and E
Lake Mary Blvd
AM.
SIGNAL
3.8
A
7
A
0.0
---
55.2 E 7.2 A
P.M SIGNAL 7.1 A 7.1 A 0.0 ---
39.8 A 9.8 A
Brisson Ave and E Lake Ma rA
Blvd
AM
STOP
0.0
B
0.1
A
23.6
A
— —
I P.M STOP 0.0 A 0.4 B 95.6 F,
Red Cleveland Blvd and E. Lake Mary Blvd.
Project N2 5499
Page 5
:J asl 011"1 :1 Fill ill �1 111 � ZP11"I 2 1
11 F''I'llil 1, 11
The proposed development is a 2,400 square foot fast-food restaurant with drive-thru and a
5,750 square foot super convenience market/gas station. To determine the impact of this
development in the area, an analysis of its trip generation characteristics was made. This
included the determination of the trips to be generated and the distribution/ assignment of these
trips to the area roadways.
Trip Generation
The trip generation of the proposed development was calculated using rates provided by the
10th Edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual. The
results of the trip generation calculation are summarized in Table 3 and ITE trip generation
sheets are included in the Study Methodology. As shown in the table, the proposed
development will generate 2,460 new net daily trips, 324 A.M. new peak hour trips and 196 new
P.M. peak hour trips.
Table 3
Trip Generation Summary
ITE
Daily
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
Code
Land Use
Size
Rate
I Trips
Rate
Enter
Exit
Total
Flats
Enter
Exit
Total
934
Fast -Food Restaurant
2.4 KSF
470.95
1,130
40.19
49
47
96
32.67
40
38
78
w/ Drive-Thru
Super Convenience
960
NbrkeVGas Station
5.75 KSF
837.58
4,858
83.14
241
241
482
69.28
201
201
402
Project Trips Total
—
5,988
290
288
578
241
239
480
Pass -by Trips - Super Conv W / Gas Station (61 %)
2,963
109
109
218
91
154
245
Pass -by Trips - Fast -Food Restaurant (50%)
565
18
18
36
15
24
39
Total Pass -by Trips
3,528
127
127
254
106
178
284
NEW NET TRIPS
2,460
163
1 161
1 324
135 1
61
196
1. KSF =1,000 square -feet
2. Rates obtained from ITE LUC 853 - Convenience Market with Gasoline Pumps
3. Pass -by percentages obtained from ITE's Trip Generation Handbook, 3rd Edition
Trip Distribution and Assignment
A distribution pattern for the proposed development trips was determined with the use of the
2030 Central Florida Regional Planning Model (CFRPM). The model distribution included in the
study methodology was reviewed for reasonableness and an adjustment was made. The model
assigned 14 percent of trips on Beardall Avenue, these trips were reassigned to East Lake Mary
Boulevard. Figure 5 depicts the adjusted trip distribution pattern along with the project trips
assigned to the area roadways based on this distribution.
Red Cleveland Blvd and E. Lake Mary Blvd.
Project N2 5499
Page 8
U%9
ryl
6�,-dfosrd Rel
Vb
sU
7: S Park Avp
flu
rn
Sanlord.Aloe
.. ...... .
Owii
-11 com-Me Av e
F rTl
>
°� o',
CD
ky
100
Now=
M
S i es A v e
ar
CD `
iia
Yak
0.1111troll AV
PROJECTED TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
Projected traffic conditions were analyzed using daily traffic volumes for the study roadways and
A.M./P.M. peak hour traffic volumes for the study intersections. The roadway analysis consisted
of a generalized capacity analysis with the projected traffic consisting of background traffic and
project trips. The intersection analysis was conducted as per the procedures of the Highway
Capacity Manual. Background traffic consisting of existing traffic and committed trips was
provided by Seminole County.
Analysis of Daily Traffic Conditions
A roadway segment analysis was performed for the study roadway segments by comparing the
total daily traffic volume of each segment with the corresponding capacity of the segment. The
roadway segment analysis is summarized in Table 4. The table shows each of the road
segments along with their number of lanes, adopted daily LOS/capacities, projected traffic
volumes and resultant Levels of Service. The results of the analysis indicate that the impacted
road segments are projected to operate satisfactorily with excess traffic capacity available.
Analysis of Peak Hour Traffic Conditions
The peak hour traffic conditions at the study intersections were estimated by adding the project
trips to existing traffic and committed trips. Daily committed trips were converted to peak hour
directional trips using an A.M. and P.M. K=0.091 factors, and an A.M. and P.M. D=.568 factor.
These trips were assigned to the intersections based upon the existing traffic patterns at the
intersections. The projected A.M./P.M. peak hour traffic volumes are shown in Figures 5 and 6.
Red Cleveland Blvd and E. Lake Mary Blvd.
Project Ne 5499
Page 10
Table 4
Future Roadway Conditions Analysis
*Highest Percentage on the Segment
Red Cleveland Blvd and E. Lake Mary Blvd.
Project Np 5499
Page 11
Daily
Background Daily Traffic
Project Daily Trips
Total Daily
LOS
Exceeded
Seg #
Roadway Segment
Lns
Capacity
Volume
fi
Existing Committed
°h* Volume
Airport Blvd
AIR05
from Meliomhlle Ave to C.R. 425
2L
19,360
7,306
2,190
0
0
9,496
N
E Lake Mary Blvd
LKM80
from CR 427 to Red Cleveland Blvd
4L
42,560
23,619
9,335
78
959
33,913
N
LKM90
from Red Cleveland Blvd to
4L
42,560
19,375
5,179
15
984
Cameron Ave
25,538
N
Marquette Ave
MR010 Ifrom Ohio Ave to Sipes Ave 2L 19,360 224 1,082 0 344 1,650 N
Ohio Ave
OH010
fromd Marquette Ave to Lake Mary 2L 19,360 476 637 0
1
l3lv0 1,113 N
Pine Way Ave
PIN10
from Sanford Avto Sipes Ave
2L
19,360
576
0
0
0
576 N
Sipes Ave
SIP20 from Pine Way Ave to S.R. 46 2L 19,360 145 0 0 0 145 N
*Highest Percentage on the Segment
Red Cleveland Blvd and E. Lake Mary Blvd.
Project Np 5499
Page 11
-
n
C)
,±r� 0
C)
:3
r
+
A
(0
o
v
C)
6
Fi-—
C.
o
+ +
A
N
1
1 g
N
4—O
d-0
g -0 -4
9.
v T
. 0 E;
x gCD
Baa
00W
j. j
OiN
19
22
LIMMM=
20
[100]+(123)=223
—F,3
83
LTI
+
A
Cil
0
CD
4
v
m
A
N)
C)
V CO
4 W
[/65]+(68)=133
oo co -Al 0
j
I L�
.4-0)
�[151]+(13)=164
0-2=1
113
[1]+(2)=3
13
(A) 0 u
CA)
OD
-4
A
P, CD
00
W
v
M
+
A
Z5
v
c:'
11
+ A C)
+
FC)
C)
to
m -0
0 0
g -u -4
-4
v -
+ +
00-3.1
CID —
--
CO -4
CLco
Nmgyftp
to N
14
63
J
L
104
A
124
[129]+(72)=201
00 p.
F73
+
C.0
-4
al
(0
v
hum4
CD
00
NJ
90
A
.0, 73
00 cn
V
11 00
0) 11
[53]+(72)=125
;—[94]+(13)=107
Elml-TM
81
(1)
9 — — —
V
u�iN)
00
Tr
22,
A
N
0
(.0
V
4
m
0-
An analysis of projected peak hour traffic conditions was performed using the HCS7 software
and procedures of the Highway Capacity Manual for intersections. The analysis was
accomplished utilizing existing intersection geometry and traffic controls. The results of the
capacity analysis as summarized in Table 5 indicate satisfactory traffic operating conditions
(LOS "E" or better) for the intersection approaches except for the northbound and southbound
approaches at the intersection of Brisson Avenue and East Lake Mary Boulevard/Site Access 1.
These approaches are at a LOS "F" with turning movements due to delays caused by the stop
control. This situation will continue to prevail until a signal becomes warranted and installed.
Table 5
Proiected Intersection LOS Analvsis
Intersection
Time
Period
Control
EB
Delay
LOS
WB
Delay
LOS
NB
Delay LOS
SB
Delay
LOS
Overall
Delay LOS
Red Cleveland Blvd and E
Lake Mary Blvd
AM.
SIGNAL
12.7
B
17.5
B
0.0
64.9
E
16.6 B
P.M SIGNAL 12.6 B 12.1 B 0.0 46.4 D
14.5 B
Brisson Ave and E Lake Mary
Blvd/Site Access I
AM
STOP
0.8
C
0.1
A
161.2 F
335.3
F
— —
P.M STOP 0.2 A 0.4 C 514.8 F 60.4 F
— —
Site Access 2 and Red
Cleveland Blvd
AM
STOP
—
9.1
A
—
P.M STOP 1-7 9.7 A I —
The HCS capacity worksheets are included in Appendix E.
Turn Lane Analysis
A right turn lane is proposed on Red Cleveland Boulevard at Site Access 2. A 200 -foot left turn
lane exists at Site Access 1. Per the Seminole County Public Works Manual, Section 1.3, a right
turn lane will also be required on East Lake Mary Blvd at Site Access 1.
Red Cleveland Blvd and E. Lake Mary Blvd.
Project N2 5499
Page 14
CONCLUSIONS
This analysis was undertaken in order to assess the traffic impact of a proposed 2,400 square
foot fast-food restaurant with a drive-thru and a 5,750 square foot super convenience
market/gas station in Seminole County, Florida. The site is located on the northeast corner of
East Lake Mary Boulevard and Red Cleveland Boulevard The development is proposed to be
served via a full -access driveway on East Lake Mary Boulevard and a right-in/right-out driveway
on Red Cleveland Boulevard. The following is a summary of the results:
The proposed development will generate 2,002 daily trips of which 268 A.M. peak hour
and 195 P.M. peak hour trips to be added to the area roadways. These vehicles were
distributed and assigned to the area roadways within the development's one -mile impact
area.
The impacted roadways/intersections were analyzed utilizing projected traffic volumes
consisting of existing traffic volumes and project trips plus committed trips provided by
Seminole County.
® The roadway capacity analysis revealed that the impacted roadway segments currently
operate satisfactorily within their adopted LOS standards.
® The intersection capacity analysis conducted in accordance with the procedures of the
HCM revealed that the study intersections currently operate at satisfactory Levels of
Service except for the northbound approach at Brisson Avenue. In the projected
conditions both the northbound and southbound approaches at the intersection of
Brisson Avenue and East Lake Mary Boulevard/Site Access I are at LOS "F". This
intersection should be monitored to determine whether a signal becomes warranted.
® Per the Seminole County Public Works Manual, Section 1.3, a right turn lane will be
required on East Lake Mary Blvd at Site Access 1.
w. Red Cleveland Blvd and E. Lake Mary Blvd.
Project N2 5499
Page 15
I_1 �7 �►.17I��•�
Study Methodology
TO: Vasu T. Persaud, PE, AICP, PTOE
Transportation Analyst
Seminole County Public Works Engineering
FROM: Turgut Dervish, P.E.
Nadine Abu-Jubara
DATE: June 7, 2021, Revised June 8, 2021
RE: Traffic Impact Study Methodology
Red Cleveland
TPD No. 5499
The following is an outline of the proposed methodology for the Traffic Impact Study for the
proposed project in Seminole County. The project site is located in the Seminole County Dense
Urban Land Use Area (DULA) on the northeast corner of East Lake Mary Boulevard and Red
Cleveland Boulevard. Figure 1 depicts the site location and the area roadways.
1. Proposed Development
The proposed development will consist of a 2,400 SF fast-food restaurant with drive-thru
and a 5,750 SF super convenience market/gas station. Access to the site will be via two
right-in/right-out access driveways, one on Lake Mary Boulevard and one on Red Cleveland
Boulevard. Figure 2 depicts the conceptual site plan.
2. Trip Generation
Trip generation data from the 10th Edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE)
Trip Generation Manual will be used for the trip generation estimation of the development.
Table I provides a summary of the trip generation calculation. ITE Trip Generation sheets
are attached.
Traffic Planning and Design, Inc.
535 Versailles Drive, Maitland, Florida 32751 m Phone (407) 628-9955 a Fax (407) 628-8850 z www.tpdtraffic.com
Red Cleveland Methodology
TPD Ng 5499
June 7, 2021
Page 2
Table I
Trip Generation Summary
1. KSF = 1,000 square -feet
2. Pass -by percentages obtained from ITE's Trip Generation Handbook, 3rd Edition
3. Obtained from ITE LUC 853 - Convenience Market with Gasoline Pumps
Daily
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
ITE
Land Use
Size
Rate I
Trips
Rate
Enter
Exit
Total
Rate
Enter
Exit
Total
Code
Fast -Food
934
Restaurant w/
2.4 KSF
470.95
1,130
40.19
49
47
96
32.67
40
38
78
Drive- ru
960
Super Convenience
20 Fueling
230.52
4,610
28.08
281
281
562
22.96
229
230
459
Market/Gas Station
Positions
I
I
I
I
Project Trips Total
5,740
—
330
328
658
26.9
268
537
Pass -by Trips - Super Conv Mkt / Gas Station (AM -63%,
2,973
131
223
354
151
152
303
PM -66%)3
Pass -by Trips - Fast -Food Restaurant (50%)
565
18
18
36
15
24
39
Total Pass -by Trips
3,538
149
241
390
166
176
342
NEW NET TRIPS
2,202
181
87
268
103
1 92
195
1. KSF = 1,000 square -feet
2. Pass -by percentages obtained from ITE's Trip Generation Handbook, 3rd Edition
3. Obtained from ITE LUC 853 - Convenience Market with Gasoline Pumps
iE
�X
F ii
CD aC
Z
CD
<m
\M
'W'^^
(D
LA
7
rn
Njrcv
mn
r.
< j,
V)
-------
,W�N
N5
J,
Red Cleveland Methodology
TPD No 5499
June 7, 2021
Page 5
3. Trip Distribution
A distribution pattern will be determined with the use of the 2030 Central Florida Regional
Planning Model (CFRPM). See attached for the model distribution plot.
4. Impact Area
As per Seminole County TIA guidelines and review comments received by Seminole County
staff, major roadways within a one -mile radius and intersections within a quarter mile radius
of the site will be included in the analysis.
The concurrency roadways to be included in the area analysis are:
• AIR05, Airport Boulevard, from Mellonville Ave to C.R. 425
• LKM80, East Lake Mary Boulevard, from CR 427 to Red Cleveland Blvd
• LKM90, East Lake Mary Boulevard,from Red Cleveland Blvd to Cameron Ave
• OH01 0, Ohio Avenue, from Marquette Ave Lake Mary Blvd
• PIN 10, Pine Way Avenue, from Sanford Av Sipes Ave
• MRQ1 0, Marquette Avenue, from Ohio Ave Sipes Ave
• SIP20, Sipes Avenue, from Pine Way Ave S.R. 46
The intersections to be included in the area analysis are:
• Lake Mary Boulevard and Red Cleveland Boulevard
• Red Cleveland Boulevard and Brisson Avenue
• East Lake Mary Blvd and Project Access
• Red Cleveland Blvd and Project Access
5. Traffic Impact Assessment
a) Roadways
• Obtain background traffic volumes on the study roadway segments from Seminole
County for use in the traffic analysis.
• Determine background traffic by combining existing traffic counts with committed trips to
be provided by Seminole County.
• Combine project traffic with background traffic to obtain total traffic volumes.
• Perform daily roadway capacity analysis utilizing Seminole County standards. Seminole
County standard K = 0.091 and D = 0.568 factors will be utilized.
Red Cleveland Methodology
TPD NL) 5499
June 7, 2021
Page 6
Intersections
Conduct intersection counts during the A.M. and P.M. peak hour period at the study
intersections.
Determine background traffic by combining existing traffic counts with committed trips to
be provided by Seminole County.
® Combine project traffic with background traffic to obtain total traffic.
® Perform intersection capacity analysis utilizing the Synchro software for the A.M. and
P.M. peak hour. Synchro model files will be provided to Seminole County via email.
7. Traffic Report
Prepare traffic report summarizing study procedures, analyses and recommendations.
If you have any questions or concerns, please contact us at (407) 628-9955.
Centroid nn
CO ector
Z;
Vi
dwell
FD
CD
cu
Ta
ms IPUI?Rtla
rD
adij
Ala
11/110,
0
JozauuoJpm4«@J
Wo -Tech Consullino Inc.
Environmental and Permitting Services
March 5, 2015
Bobby Luthra
Safari Investments LLC
171 Red Cleveland Blvd
Sanford, FL 32773
Proj: Red Cleveland Site — Seminole County, Florida
Parcel IDs: 24-26-31-0000-0010-0000
Sections 8, Township 20 South, Range 31 East
(BTC File #372-27)
Re: Environmental Assessment Report
Dear Mr. Luthra:
infoObio-techconsulting.com
www.bio-techconsulting.com
During February of 2015, Bio -Tech Consulting, Inc. (BTC) conducted an
environmental assessment of the approximately 9.55 -acre Red Cleveland
Site. The site is located east of SR -417 and north of Lake Jesup at the
intersection of Lake Mary Boulevard and Red Cleveland Boulevard,
within Section 8, Township 20 South, Range 31 East, Seminole County,
Florida (Figures 1, 2 and 3). This environmental assessment included the
following elements:
0 Review of soil types mapped within the site boundaries;
• evaluation of land use types/vegetative communities present;
® field review for occurrence of protected flora and fauna; and
0 a discussion of anticipated development constraints.
SOILS
According to the Soil Survey of Seminole County, Florida, prepared by
the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resource
Conservation Service (MRCS), three (3) soil types exist within the subject
property boundaries (Figure 4). These soil types include the following:
Orlando Vern Reach lacksmville Tamna Rev West
Bobby Luthra; Safari Investments LLC
Red Cleveland Site — Seminole County, FL (BTC File #372-27)
Environmental Assessment Report
Page 2 of 9
Basinger, Samsula, and Hontoon Soils, depressional (#10)
Myakka and Eaugallie fine sands (#20)
Wabasso fine sand (#35)
The following presents a brief description of each of the soil types mapped for the subject
property:
Basinger, Samsula and Hontoon soils, depressional (#10) are nearly level, very poorly drained
soils found in swamps and depressions. Typically the surface layer of Basinger soil consists of
very dark gray mucky fine sand about 6 inches thick. Typically the surface layer of Samsula soil
is muck about 30 inches thick. Typically the surface layer of Hontoon soil consists of dark
reddish brown muck about 18 inches thick. During most years, the undrained areas of the soils
in this map unit are ponded for 6 to 9 months or more. The permeability of this soil unit is rapid.
Myakka and EauGallie fine sands (#20) are nearly level, poorly drained soils found on broad
plains on the flatwoods. Typically the surface layer of Myakka soil consists of black fine sand
about 5 inches thick. Typically the surface layer of EauGallie soil consists of dark gray fine sand
about 5 inches thick. During most years the seasonal high table for this soil type is within 12
inches of the surface for 1 to 4 months. The permeability of Myakka soil is rapid in the surface
and subsurface layers and in the substratum and moderate or moderately rapid in the subsoil.
The permeability of EauGallie soil is rapid in the surface and subsurface layers, moderate or
moderately rapid in the sandy part of the subsoil and moderately slow in the loamy part of the
subsoil.
Wabasso fine sand (#35) is a nearly level, poorly drained soil found on broad plains on the
flatwoods. Typically, this soil has a surface layer of very dark gray fine sand about 6 inches
thick. In most years, this soil has a seasonal high water table within 12 inches of the surface for
2 to 6 months. The permeability of this soil type is rapid in the surface and subsurface layers,
moderate in the sandy part of the subsoil, slow or very slow in the loamy part, and rapid in the
substratum.
The Florida Association of Environmental Soil Scientists (FAESS) considers the main
components of the Basinger, Samsula and Hontoon soils, depressional (#10) soil type associated
with the subject property to be hydric. Furthermore, the FAESS also considers inclusions
present in the Myakka and EauGallie fine sands (#20) and Wabasso fine sand (#35) soil types
associated with the subject property to be hydric. This information can be found in the Hydric
Soils of Florida Handbook, Third Edition (March 2000).
LAND USE TYPES/VEGETATIVE COMMUNITIES
The Red Cleveland Site currently supports three (3) land use types/vegetative communities
within its boundaries. These land use types/vegetative communities were identified utilizing the
Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System, Level III (FLUCFCS, FDOT,
January 2004) (Figure 5). The upland land use type/vegetative community on the site is
Bobby Luthra; Safari Investments LLC
Red Cleveland Site —Seminole County, FL (BTC File #372-27)
Environmental Assessment Report
Page 3 of
classified as Palmetto Prairies (321). The wetland/surface water land use types/vegetative
communities on the site are classified as Streams and Waterways (Ditch) (510) and Wetland
Forested Mixed (630). The following provides a brief description of the on-site land use
type/vegetative community identified on the site:
Uplands•
321 Palmetto Prairies
There is a small area of upland located in the southeast comer of the subject site comprised
mainly of saw palmetto and gallberry and this area is best classified as Palmetto Prairies (321),
per the FLUCFCS. Vegetation observed within this land use type includes saw palmetto
(Serenoa repens), laurel oak (Quercus laurifolia), muscadine grapevine (Vitis rotundifolia),
greenbriar (Smilax spp.), blackberry (Rubus pensilvanicus) and gallberry (Ilex glabra).
Wetlands/Surface Waters:
510 Streams and Waterways (Ditch)
There is a ditch/surface water located on the southeast property line of the subject site. The ditch
extends north -south and extends approximately 250 feet in length. This surface water feature is
best classified as Streams and Waterways (Ditch) (510), per the FLUCFCS. Vegetation
observed within this land use type includes laurel oak (Quercus laurifolia), water oak (Quercus
nigra), blackberry (Rubus pensilvanicus), marshpennywort (Hydrocotyle sibthorpioides),
cinnamon fern (Osmunda cinnamomea), muscadine grapevine (Vitis rotundifolia), earpod tree
(Enterolobium contortisiliquum), caesarweed (Urena lobata), Peruvian primrosewillow
(Ludwigiaperuviana) and common duckweed (Eemna minor).
630 Wetland Forested Mixed
The majority of the subject site is comprised of a forested wetland area containing a canopy of
primarily slash and pond pine and a mid -story of red maple and loblolly bay. This area is best
classified as Wetland Forested Mixed (630), per the FLUCFCS. Vegetation observed within this
land use type includes slash pine (Pinus elliottii), pond pine (Pinus serotina), red maple (Acer
rubrum), loblolly bay (Gordonia lasianthus), laurel oak (Quercus laurifolia), water oak (Quercus
nigra), saltbush (Baccharis halimifolia), cabbage palm (Sabal palmetto), Carolina willow (Salix
caroliniana), wiregrass ( Aristida stricta), gallberry (Ilex glabra), creeping primrosewillow
(Ludwigia repens), wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera), saw palmetto (Serenoa repens), blackberry
(Rubus pensilvanicus), eastern poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), marshpennywort
(Hydrocotyle sibthorpioides), soft rush (Juncus effusus), common ragweed (Ambrosia
artemisiffiblia), lantana (Lantana camara), cinnamon fern (Osmunda einnamomea), swamp fern
(Blechnum serrulatum), greenbriar (Smilax spp), muscadine grapevine (Vitis rotundifolia),
camphortree (Cinnamomum camphora), Brazilian pepper (Schinus terebinthifolia), earpod tree
Bobby Luthra; Safari Investments LLC
Red Cleveland Site —Seminole County, FL (BTC File #372-27)
Environmental Assessment Report
Page 4 of
(Enterolobium contortisiliquum), tuberous sword fern (Nephrolepis exaltata), caesarweed
(Urena lobata), cogongrass (Imperata cylindrica), coral ardisia (Ardisia crenata), Peruvian
primrosewillow (Ludwigiaperuviana) and guineagrass (Panicum maximum).
PROTECTED SPECIES
Using methodologies outlined in the Florida's Fragile Wildlife (Wood, 2001); Measuring and
Monitoring Biological Diversity Standard Methods for Mammals (Wilson, et al., 1996); Wildlife
Methodology Guidelines (1988); and Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission's
Gopher Tortoise Permitting Guidelines (revised February 2015); an assessment for "listed" floral
and faunal species was conducted at the site on February 23, 2015. This assessment, which
covered approximately 100% of the subject site's developable area, included both direct
observations and indirect evidence, such as tracks, burrows, tree markings and birdcalls that
indicated the presence of species observed. The assessment focused on species that are "listed"
by the FFWCC's Official Lists - Florida's Endangered Species, Threatened Species and Species
of Special Concern (January 2013) that have the potential to occur in Seminole County.
Reptiles and Amphibians
brown anole (Norops sagrei)
eastern black racer (Coluber constrictor)
eastern coral snake (Micrurusfulvius)
green anole (Analis carolinensis)
Birds
Black Vulture (Coragyps atratus)
Mourning Dove (Zenaida macroura)
Northern Cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis)
Mammals
eastern gay squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis)
common raccoon (Procyon lotor)
nine -banded armadillo (Dasypus novemcinctus)
None of the above identified species is listed in the FFWCC's Official Lists - Florida's
Endangered Species, Threatened Species and Species of Special Concern (January 2013). The
following provides a brief description of relevant species as they may relate to development of
the subject property.
Bobby Luthra; Safari Investments LLC
Red Cleveland Site —Seminole County, FL (BTC File #372-27)
Environmental Assessment Report
Page 5 of 9
Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)
State protected by F.A. C 68A-16, 002 and federally protected by both the Migratory Bird Treaty
Act (1918) and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (1940)
In August of 2007, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) removed the Bald Eagle from
the list of federally endangered and threatened species. Additionally, the Bald Eagle was
removed from FFWCC's imperiled species list in April of 2008. Although the Bald Eagle is no
longer protected under the Endangered Species Act, it is still protected under the Bald and
Golden Eagle Protection Act, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and FFWCC's Bald Eagle rule
(Florida Administrative Code 68A-16.002 Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leuchocephalus).
In May of 2007, the USFWS issued the National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines. In April
of 2008, the FFWCC adopted a new Bald Eagle Management Plan that was written to closely
follow the federal guidelines. Under FFWCC's new management plans, buffer zones are
recommended based on the nature and magnitude of the project or activity. The recommended
protective buffer zone is 660 -feet or less from the nest tree, depending on what activities or
structures are already near the nest. A FFWCC Eagle permit is not needed for any activity
occurring outside of the 660 -foot buffer zone. No activities are permitted within 330 -feet of a
nest during the nesting season, October 1 through May 15 or when Eagles are present at the nest.
In addition to the preliminary on-site review for "listed" species, BTC conducted a review for
any FFWCC recorded Bald Eagle nests on or in the vicinity of the subject property (see
attached). This review revealed three (3) recorded Bald Eagle nests site within one (1.0) mile of
the subject property. The closest nest is identified by the FFWCC as Nest SE078 and is located
approximately 217 feet off of the northern tip of the property. Nest SE026 is located
approximately 2,233 feet from the southwest boundary of the subject site and Nest SE028 is
located approximately 4,212 from the southern tip of the subject property. Nest SE078 is located
within the 660 -foot buffer zone and will require an FFWCC Eagle permit for any proposed
construction within this zone. There is a small area of the subject site in the northern tip of the
property which is within a 330 -foot buffer zone of this nest. No development activities within
this 330 -foot buffer zone are permitted during the nesting season, October I through May 15, or
when Eagles are present at the nest. Any work within this 330 -foot buffer zone will require an
FFWCC Eagle permit as well.
Wood Stork (Mycteria americana)
Federally Listed as "Endangered"
The subject site is shown to be located within a Wood Stork Nesting Colony Core Foraging
Area. Wood Storks typically nest colonially in medium to tall trees that occur in stands located
either in swamps or on islands surrounded by relatively broad expanses of open water (Ogden
1991; Rodgers et al. 1996). The Wood Stork (Myeteria americana) is listed as "Endangered" by
the USFWS. Wood storks are large, long-legged wading birds, about 45 inches tall, with a
wingspan of 60 to 65 inches. Their plumage is white except for black primaries and secondaries
Bobby Luthra; Safari Investments LLC
Red Cleveland Site —Seminole County, FL (BTC File #372-27)
Environmental Assessment Report
Page 6 of 9
and a short black tail. The head and neck are largely unfeathered and dark gray in color. The
bill is black, thick at the base, and slightly decurved. Wood Storks are birds of freshwater and
estuarine wetlands, primarily nesting in cypress or mangrove swamps.
Successful breeding sites are those that have limited human disturbance and low exposure to land
based predators. Because of their specialized feeding behavior, Wood Storks forage most
effectively in shallow -water areas with highly concentrated prey. Typical foraging sites for the
Wood Stork include freshwater marshes, depressions in cypress heads, swamp sloughs, managed
impoundments, stock ponds, shallow -seasonally flooded roadside or agricultural ditches and
narrow tidal creeks or shallow tidal pools. Good foraging conditions are characterized by water
that is relatively calm, open, and having water depths between 5 and 15 inches (5 and 38 cm).
The USFWS has identified core foraging area (CFA) around all known Wood Stork nesting
colonies that is important for reproductive success. In Central Florida, CFAs include suitable
foraging habitat (SFH) within a 15 -mile radius of the nest colony; CFAs in North Florida include
SFH within a 13 -mile radius of a colony. The USFWS believes loss of suitable foraging
wetlands within these CFAs may reduce foraging opportunities for the Wood Stork.
Based on our review of available databases, there is no record of a Wood Stork rookery on the
project site or within close proximity. The USFWS and the USACOE require that any impacts
to on-site ditches and/or wetlands, which would eliminate a portion of the Wood Stork foraging
habitat, be either mitigated through the purchase of mitigation credits or recreated elsewhere on-
site so that there would be no net loss of Wood Stork foraging habitat. No Wood Storks were
observed within the subject site during the wildlife survey conducted by BTC.
USFWS Consultation Areas
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has established "consultation areas" for certain listed species.
Generally, these consultation areas only become an issue if USFWS consultation is required,
which is usually associated with permitting through the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The
reader should be aware that species presence and need for additional review are often determined
to be unnecessary early in the permit review process due to lack of appropriate habitat or other
conditions. However, the USFWS makes the final determination.
Consultation areas are typically regional in size, often spanning multiple counties where the
species in question is known to exist. Consultation areas by themselves do not indicate the
presence of a listed species. They only indicate an area where there is a potential for a listed
species to occur and that additional review might be necessary to confirm or rule -out the
presence of the species. The additional review typically includes the application of species-
specific criteria to rule -out or confirm the presence of the species in question. Such criteria
might consist of a simple review for critical habitat types. In other cases, the review might
include the need for species-specific surveys using established methodologies that have been
approved by the USFWS.
Bobby Luthra; Safari Investments LLC
Red Cleveland Site —Seminole County, FL (BTC File #372-27)
Environmental Assessment Report
Page 7 of 9
The Red Cleveland Site is located within three (3) USFWS Consultation Areas which include the
Audubon's Crested Caracara (Polyborus planeus audubonii), Everglade Snail Kite (Rostrhamus
sociabilisplumbeus) and Florida Scrub -Jay (Aphelocoma coerulescens). The following provides
a brief description of the respective species, its habitat and the potential for additional review:
Audubon's Crested Caracara (Polyborusplancus audubonii)
Federally Listed as "Threatened" by USFWS
The subject site falls within the USFWS Consultation Areas for the species Audubon's Crested
Caracara (Polyborus planeus audubonii). Currently the Audubon's Crested Caracara is listed as
threatened by the USFWS due primarily to habitat loss. The Audubon's Crested Caracara
commonly occurs in dry or wet prairie areas with scattered cabbage palms, lightly wooded areas
with saw palmetto, scrub oaks and cypress. The Audubon's Crested Caracara also uses
improved or semi -improved pasture with seasonal wetlands. Audubon's Crested Caracaras
construct new nests each nesting season, often in the same tree as the previous year.
Although the subject site falls within the USFWS Audubon's Crested Caracara consultation area,
no Caracaras were observed or are expected to utilize the subject property. No further action
should be required pertaining to Audubon's Crested Caracaras.
Everglade Snail Kite (Rostrhamus sociabilis plumbeus)
Federally Listed as "Endangered"
The subject site falls within the USFWS Consultation Area for the Snail Kite. Currently the
Snail Kite is listed as "Endangered" by the USFWS. Snail Kites are similar in size to Red -
shouldered Hawks. All Snail Kites have deep red eyes and a white rump patch. Males are slate
gray, and females and juveniles vary in amounts of white, light brown, and dark brown, but the
females always have white on their chin. Kites vocalize mainly during courtship and nesting.
They may occur in nearly all of the wetlands of central and southern Florida. They regularly
occur in lake shallows along the shores and islands of many major lakes, including Lakes
Okeechobee, Kissimmee, Tohopekaliga (Toho) and East Toho. They also regularly occur in the
expansive marshes of southern Florida such as Water Conservation Areas 1, 2, and 3, Everglades
National Park, the upper St. John's River marshes and Grassy Waters Preserve.
No Snail Kites were observed within the subject site during the wildlife survey conducted by
BTC and the probability for their occurrence on this site is low. No further action should be
required pertaining to the Snail Kite.
Florida Scrub -Jay (Aphelocoma coerulescens)
Federally Listed as "Threatened"
The subject site falls within the USFWS Consultation Area for the Florida Scrub -Jay. Currently
the Florida Scrub -Jay is listed as "Threatened" by the USFWS. Florida Scrub Jays are largely
restricted to scattered, often small and isolated patches of sand pine scrub, xeric oak, scrubby
Bobby Luthra; Safari Investments LLC
Red Cleveland Site — Seminole County, FL (BTC File #372-27)
Environmental Assessment Report
Page 8 of 9
flatwoods, and scrubby coastal stands in peninsular Florida (Woolfenden 1978a, Fitzpatrick et al.
1991). They avoid wetlands and forests, including canopied sand pine stands. Optimal Scrub -
Jay habitat is dominated by shrubby scrub, live oaks, myrtle oaks, or scrub oaks from 1 to 3 in (3
to 10 ft.) tall, covering 50 to 90% the area; bare ground or sparse vegetation less than 15 cm (6
in) tall covering 10 to 50% of the area; and scattered trees with no more than 20% canopy cover
(Fitzpatrick et al. 1991).
No suitable habitat exists within the subject site boundaries and their potential use of this site is
low. No further action should be required pertaining to the Florida Scrub -Jay.
111 DETA 01 pro] ON
All wetlands and surface waters on the site have been delineated by BTC in accordance with
local, state and federal guidelines utilizing pink "Bio -Tech Consulting" flagging tape (Figure 7).
All wetland/surface water flag locations will need to be approved by the appropiate regulatory
agencies. The on-site wetlands/surface waters are located within the Lake Jesup hydrologic
drainage basin.
St. Johns River Water Management District
An Environmental Resource Pemit (ERP) will be required through the St. Johns River Water
Management District (SJRWMD) for all wetland and/or other surface water impacts (both direct
and secondary) in association with the proposed Red Cleveland Site. Impacts to the project's
wetland and/or other surface water communities would be permittable by SJRWMD as long as
the issues of elimination and reduction of wetland impacts have been addresssed and as long as
the mitigation offered is sufficient to offset the functional losses incurred via the proposed
impacts.
US Army Corps of Engineers
Permitting may also be required for the project's wetland and/or other surface water impacts by
the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE). As the ERP is a joint application between the
SJRWMD and the USACOE, the Corps will automatically be notified/copied upon submittal of
the ERP application to the District. As with the District, it is anticipated that all impacts to the
project's wetlands and/or other surface water communities would be permittable by the
USACOE as long as the issues of elimination and reduction of wetland impacts have been
addresssed and as long as the mitigation offered is sufficient to offset the functional losses
incurred via the proposed impacts.
Conservation Easement
The subject site is designated as conservation under the SJRWMD. For development purposes, a
release of the conservation easement is necessary and would entail an application for release
from the conservation easement. A release of conservation easement would be permittable by
Bobby Luthra; Safari Investments LLC
Red Cleveland Site — Seminole County, FL (BTC File #372-27)
Environmental Assessment Report
Page 9 of 9
the SJRWMD as long as the applicant can demonstrate that the alternative conservation
easement site, within the same drainage basin, exhibits equivalent or greater ecological and
monetary value. In addition to the alternative conservation tract, a contiguous land tract of at
least the same size and quality value must be provided.
The environmental limitations described in this document are based on observations and
technical information available on the date of the on-site evaluation. This report is for general
planning purposes only. The limits of any on-site wetlands/surface waters can only be
determined and verified through field delineation and/or on-site review by the pertinent
regulatory agencies. The wildlife surveys conducted within the subject property boundaries do
not preclude the potential for any listed species, as noted on Table I (attached), currently or in
the future. Should you have any questions or require any additional information, please do not
hesitate to contact our office at (407) 894-5969. Thank you.
Regards,
"-D-69-
David Holly
Field Biologist
attachments
Legend an rd
Red Cleveland Site
Q
'V
Blo-Tech Consulting Inc.
Environmental and Permitting Services,
2002 E. Robinson St. Orlando, FL 32803
Ph: 407-894-5969 Fax: 407-894-5970
www.bio-techconsulting.com
SourcewjEsri, HERE, Del-orme, USGS 'Intermap, increment P Corp., NRCAN,
EsriJapa%,,,. MET[, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand), TomTom,
Mapmylndia1;, @ OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community
Red Cleveland Site 0 0.5 1
ONE= wmm---i Miles
Seminole County, Florida AV% Project #: 372-27
Figure 1 qwProduced By: DPH
Location Map Date: 3/2/2015
N,
Ble-Tech Consulting Inc.
Environmental and flermittin- Services
2002 E. Robinson St. Orlando, FL 32803
Ph: 407-894-5969 Fax: 407-894-5970
www.bio-techconsulting.com
11,
Red Cleveland Site 0 100 200
mmmFeet
Seminole County, Florida Ae% Project #: 372-27
Figure 2 upProduced By: DPH
2012 Aerial Photograph Date: 3/2/2015
C) I
Legend
apmmm%
0 m Red Cleveland Site
%MMMEB
Blo-Tech Clonsufthm Inc.
Environmental and Permitting Semices
2002 E. Robinson St. Orlando, FL 32803
Ph: 407-894-5969 Fax: 407-894-5970
www.bio-tcchconsulting.com
9,
0-0111 JrT-M&'% %-%,
Red Cleveland Site 0 100 200
no= ffm= Feet
Seminole County, Florida Project #: 372-27
Figure 3 Produced By: DPH
USGS Topographic Map Date: 3/2/2015
Legend
Red Cleveland Site
MRCS Seminole County Soils
MUSYM,MUNAME
10: BASINGER, SAIVISULA, AND HONTOON SOILS, DEPRESSIONAL
20: MYAKKAAND EAUGALLIE FINE SANDS
36: WABASSO FINE SAND
Red Cleveland Site 0 100 200
Feet
Blo-Tech Consulting Inc. Seminole County, Florida Ae% Project #: 372-27
Environmental and flermirtin- Services
I
2002 E. Robinson St. Orlando, FL 32803 Figure 4 Produced By: DPH
Ph: 407-894-5969 Fax: 407-894-5970 %W
www.bio-techconsulting.com USDA-NRCS Soils Map Date: 3/2/2015
Red Cleveland Site
321, Palmetto Prairies
510, Streams and Waterways (Ditch)
630, Wetland Forested Mixed
...........
im
Blo,-Tech eponsuffing Inc.
Environmental and Permitting Services
2002 E. Robinson St. Orlando, FL 32803
Ph: 407-894-5969 Fax: 407-894-5970
www.bio-techconsulting.com
Red Cleveland Site 0 50 100
Feet
Seminole County, Florida &0% Project #: 372-27
Figure 5 IVProduced By: DPH
FLUCFCS Map Date: 3/2/2015
Blo-Tech Consulting Inc.
Envirnnniental and llermittinServices
2002 E. Robinson St. Orlando, FL 32803
Ph: 407-894-5969 Fax: 407-894-5970
www.bio-techconsulting.com
Red Cleveland Site
Seminole County, Florida Ae%
Figure 6
Wildlife Survey Map
0 100 200
mmr----i Feet
Project #: 372-27
Produced By: DPH
Date: 3/2/2015
Ble-Tech consulfirig 111C.
Ftivironniental and Permitting Services
2002 E. Robinson St. Orlando, FL 32803
Ph: 407-894-5969 Fax: 407-894-5970
www.bio-techconsulting.com
EN
Red Cleveland Site
Seminole County, Florida
Figure 7
Wetland Delineation Map
0 50 100
� mw= Feet
Project #: 372-27
Produced BY: DPH
Date: 3/5/2015
2/20/2015 Print Bald Eagle Nest Data
This report was generated using the bald eagle nest locator at
https://public.myfwc.com/FWRI/EagleNests/nestlocator.aspx on 2/20/2015 10:48:14 AM.
Search Entered: Within 5 miles of latitude 28.7587 and longitude -81.2399; All Search Results
37 record(s) were found; 37 record(s) are shown
Bald Eagle Nest Map:
Preserve State Park
DeBary
ite Forest
(400)
,Lake Monroe
nservation Area
t �31
t
to
00;
j
j
Heathrow
If Lake Mary
Geneva
69
e
)rings
ark
Weiva Longwood V
Sprinkgs
(41
1d)1
Cassellberry
Oviedo Liffle r.
Big Econ
)task City Altmonte
" State Forest
a
prings
Chuluota
�77
(414
Maitlein"d
_Ar
�nvillp . . - Map d Reportb map error,
Note: Maps are not labeled for searches returning 3S or more nests.
Bald Eagle Nest Data Search Results: Results per page:
VJ
Nest
ID
County
Latitude
Longitude
Town-
ship
Ran-
ge
Sec-
tion
Gaz
Page
Last
Known
Active
Last
Sur-
veyed
Act
9
Act
10
Act
11
Act
12
Act
13
Dist.
(Mi)
SE002
Seminole
28 42.09
81 16.55
20S
30E
38
80
2011
2011
Y
4.51
SE003
Seminole
28 41.72
81 14.87
21S
31E
37
80
2008
2011
N
4.40
SE005
Seminole
28 43.40
81 10.25
20S
31E
25
80
2011
2011
Y
4.84
SE018
Seminole
2841.62
81 12.31
21S
31E
03
80
2011
2011
Y
4.96
SE024
Seminole
28 48.31
81 14.90
19S
31E,
30
80
2011
2011
Y
3.25
SE025
Seminole
28 44.56
81 14.85
20S
31E
18
80
2011
2011
*
Y
Y
1.20
SE026
Seminole
28 45.28
81 14.79
20S
31E
17
80
2011
2011
*
*
Y
0.49
SE028
Seminole
28 45.26
81 13.59
20S
31E
16
80
2011
2011
*
*
Y
0.87
Seminole
28 41.50181
13.701
21S
31E
04
80
2002
2011
https://public.ny=.cortVFWRIlEagleNests/PrintData.aspx 1/2
2120/2015
Print Bald Eagle Nest Data
"Y"denotes an active nest "U"denotes a nest that was visited but status was undetermined
"N" denotes an inactive neat "*^ denotes a nest that was not surveyed
^-" denotes an unobserved nest
https//publ2/2
MUMMEM
MUMMEM
MUMEMIM
M
more
MI
MENEM=
MEME
WTI M,
MENEM=
MUMMUM
WE, M-1
MUMEMEM
MENEM
MUMEMIM
MUMMUM
EMEMEM
MUMMEM
MUMMEM
"Y"denotes an active nest "U"denotes a nest that was visited but status was undetermined
"N" denotes an inactive neat "*^ denotes a nest that was not surveyed
^-" denotes an unobserved nest
https//publ2/2
Table 1:
Potentially Occurring Listed Wildlife and Plant Species in
Seminole County, Florida
Scientific Name
Common Name
Federal
Status
State
Status
Occurrence
Status
FISH°
Pteronotro is welaka
bluenose shiner
N
LS
C
iYPIIBIANS''
Lithobates ca ito
gopher frog
N
LS
P
jkEPT11T,9,S ,
Alligator mississippiensis
American alligator
T S/A
LS
C
Drymarchon corais cou eri
Eastern indigo snake
LT
LT
C
Go herus polyphemus
gopher tortoise
N
LT
C
Pituo his melanoleucus mu itus
Florida pine snake
N
LS
C
Stilosoma extenuatum
short-tailed snake
N
LT
P
BIRDS
helocoma coerulescens
Florida scrub-jay
LT
LT
C
Aramus guarauna
lim kin
N
LS
P
Egretta caerulea
little blue heron
N
LS
C
Egretta thula
snowy egret
N
LS
C
Egretta tricolor
tricolored heron
N
LS
C
Eudocimus albus
white ibis
N
LS
P
Falco sparverius paulus
southeastern American
kestrel.
N
LT
P
Grus canadensis pratensis
Florida sandhill crane
N
LT
C
Haliaeetus leucoce halus
bald eagle
MC
*
C
M cteria americana
wood stork
LE
LE
P
Pandion haliaetus
osprey
N
LS**
C
Picoides borealis
red-cockaded
woodpecker
LE
LE
C
MAMMALS
Podom s oridanus
Florida mouse
N
LS
C
Sciurus ni er shermani
Sherman's fox squirrel
N
LS
C
Trichechus manatus (Trichechus
manatus latirostris(Florida
West Indian manatee
manatee
LE
LE
C
r;Ar1TS
Carex chapmanii
Chapman's Sedge
N
LE
C
Centrosema arenicola
Sand Butterfly Pea
N
LE
C
Cucurbita okeechobeensis
Okeechobee Gourd
LE
LE
C
Dennstaedtia bi innata
hay scented fern
N
LE
C
Illicium parviflorum
star anise
N
LE
C
Lechea cernua
nodding pinweed
N
LT
C
Lechea cernua
nodding inweed
N
LT
C
fJ hio lossum palmatum
Hand Fern
N
LE
C
Salix oridana
Florida willow
N
LE
C
FEDERAL LEGAL STATUS
LE -Endangered: species in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range
LT -Threatened: species likely to become Endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
E(S/A)-Endangered due to similarity of appearance to a species which is federally listed such that enforcement personnel have difficulty in
attempting to differentiate between the listed and unlisted species.
T(SIA)-T'hreatened due to similarity of appearance (see above).
PE -Proposed for listing as Endangered species.
PT -Proposed for listing as Threatened species.
C -Candidate species for which federal listing agencies have sufficient information on biological vulnerability and threats to support proposing
to list the species as Endangered or Threatened.
XN-Non-essential experimental population.
MC -Not currently listed, but of management concern to USFWS.
N -Not currently listed, nor currently being considered for listing as Endangered or Threatened.
STATE LEGAL STATUS - ANIMALS
LE -Endangered: species, subspecies, or isolated population so few or depleted in number or so restricted in range that it is in imminent danger
of extinction.
LT -Threatened: species, subspecies, or isolated population facing a very high risk of extinction in the future.
LS -Species of Special Concern is a species, subspecies, or isolated population which is facing a moderate risk of extinction in the future.
PE -Proposed for listing as Endangered.
PT -Proposed for listing as Threatened.
PS -Proposed for listing as Species of Special Concern.
N -Not currently listed, nor currently being considered for listing.
* State protected by F.A.C. 68A-16.002 and federally protected by both the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (1918) and the Bald and
Golden Engle Protection Act (1940)
** See Rank and Status Explanations and Definitions, Special Animal Listings - Federal and State Status
STATE LEGAL STATUS - PLANTS
LE -Endangered: species of plants native to Florida that are in imminent danger of extinction within the state, the survival of which is unlikely
if the causes of a decline in the number of plants continue; includes all species determined to be endangered or threatened pursuant to the U.S.
Endangered Species Act.
LT -Threatened: species native to the state that are in rapid decline in the number of plants within the state, but which have not so decreased in
number as to cause them to be Endangered.
PE -Proposed for listing as Endangered.
PT -Proposed for listing as Threatened.
N -Not currently listed, nor currently being considered for listing.
COUNTY OCCURRENCE STATUS
Vertebrates and Invertebrates:
C = Confirmed
P = Potential
N = Nesting
Plants:
C = Confirmed
R = Reported
WS RM X
Item No.
7
CITY COMMISSION MEMORANDUM 22-012
JANUARY 10, 2022 AGENDA
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Commission
PREPARED BY: Eileen Hinson, AICP —Planning Director
SUBMITTED BY: Norton N. Bonaparte, Jr., ICMA-CM, City Manager
SUBJECT: Planned Development Rezone of 9.31 acres from MI -2 to PD for a proposed
commercial subdivision at 171 Red Cleveland Boulevard.
THIS IS A QUASI-JUDICIAL MATTER AND, AS SUCH, REQUIRES DISCLOSURE OF ALL
EX -PARTE COMMUNICATIONS, INVESTIGATIONS, SITE VISITS AND EXPERT OPINIONS
REGARDING THIS MATTER.
STRATEGIC PRIORITIES:
❑ Unify Downtown & the Waterfront
❑ Promote the City's Distinct Culture
❑ Update Regulatory Framework
❑ Redevelop and Revitalize Disadvantaged Communities
SYNOPSIS:
A request to Rezone 9.31 acres located at 171 Red Cleveland Boulevard from MI -2, Medium Industrial
to PD, Planned Development for a mix of commercial uses has been received.
The property owner is Red Cleveland Partners LLC. A Modified CAPP (Citizens Awareness and
Participation Plan) meeting was conducted, by Stephen H. Coover, PLLC, of SHC on behalf of the
applicant.
The Affidavit of Ownership and Designation of Agent form is attached and additional information is
available in order to ensure that all potential conflicts of interest are capable of being discerned.
FISCAL/STAFFING STATEMENT:
Based on 2021 tax roll, the subject property had a total assessed value of $ 100. The total tax bill for the
subject property in 2021 was $1.82. If successfully rezoned, it is the applicant's intent to subdivide the
property into four lots, with three commercial outparcels with a fourth parcel preserved as Resource
Protection to protect the post development wetlands.
No additional staffing is anticipated if the rezone is approved.
BACKGROUND:
The 9.31 acre site is located on the comer of Lake Mary Boulevard and Red Cleveland Boulevard. The
property was annexed by Ordinance No. 1269 on December 22, 1974. On January 28, 2019 a Future
Land Use Amendment was adopted to amend the FLU from HIP -AP, High Intensity Planned
Development -Airport (County) to AIC, Airport Industry and Commerce (City), by Ordinance No. 4486.
Page I of 7
The property owner, Red Cleveland Partners LLC has now submitted a request to rezone the property to
Planned Development with the intent to establish a mixed use project consisting of retail and other
commercial services.
The subject property is located within sub -area 4 of the 2015 Seminole County/City of Sanford Joint
Planning Agreement (JPA). Per Exhibit D of the 2015 Seminole County/City of Sanford Joint Planning
Agreement (JPA), the subject property is within Sub -Area 4 of the JPA. Exhibit C identifies the
following about Sub -Area 4:
• Establish Ohio Avenue as a north -south line separating low density residential uses to the west and
airport -related uses to the east. Lands designated as industrial west of Ohio Avenue shall maintain
that designation.
• An east -west alignment established by Eaglewood Trail shall serve as a dividing line for residential
density within Planning Area 4. Properties to the north of this line shall develop at a maximum of
3.5 units per net buildable acre. Properties lying south of this line and north of Pineway shall
develop at a maximum of 2.5 units per net buildable acre. These densities shall not apply to
properties currently assigned the County HIP -AP Future Land Use designation.
• Future expansion of the Orlando -Sanford International Airport (OSIA) property and runways shall
be focused to the east and south to minimize airport noise and development impacts to urban
residential areas to the north and west. Lands annexed near or adjacent to the airport shall be
assigned land use designations compatible with the Airport Master Plan and in a manner consistent
with the joint planning agreement established with Seminole County.
• Residential land uses and residential zonings shall be discouraged if within three hundred (300) feet
of the centerline of the OSIA's new runway system east to the conservation area adjacent to Lake
Jessup.
Unless otherwise noted on the PD Master Plan when developed, the site will be required to meet all
standards of the GC -2, General Commercial zoning classification, as well as any required additional
buffers between commercial and residential where it applies, the provisions of the JPA and all criteria
of the Lake Mary Boulevard Gateway Corridor Standards in Schedule U, and all other relevant sections
of the City's Land Development Regulations (JPA).
Below is an excerpt from the City's Comprehensive Plan as it relates to Airport Industry & Commerce.
Policy FLU 1.9.1 Establish performance criteria for development within the AIC.
The following criteria shall be adhered to for all development within the AIC District:
a. The Airport Industry and Commerce designation is intended to encourage the expansion of
industrial land and provide additional areas for mixed-use development that would be compatible
with airport operations.
b. The majority of such land is located in airport property and is subject to the Airport Master Plan.
Certain properties, primarily east of Beardall Avenue, are located in the 2009 noise zone.
c. The Orlando -Sanford Airport shall develop according to the current Airport Layout Plan (ALP),
adopted by reference herein.
d. Upon annexation of lands that are currently within the jurisdiction of Seminole County and are
included in the ALP, the lands will be automatically given the land use designation of Airport
Industry Commerce and a zoning designation consistent with the existing zoning of the Airport.
e. The land use mix in the AIC is intended to provide a full range of urban services and facilities
including:
• Industrial and Business Parks;
• Office Complexes;
Page 2 of 7
• Commercial and retail developments;
• Service and hotel uses; and
• Medium to high density multifamily residential developments, where located in
accordance with those requirements contained within this policy.
L The maximum intensity of industrial and commercial development measured as floor area is 1.0.
The maximum intensity for residential uses is 50 units per acre, with a minimum density of 10
units per acre, where compatible with adjacent uses. Distribution of specific densities and
intensities for this district shall be in accordance with Table FLU -2 of this Element.
g. The Development Review Team, the Airport Zoning Board and the Airport Design Review Team
shall review development included in the ALP for compliance with the Sanford LDRs.
Development contemplated by the ALP shall comply with all LDRs included, but not limited to,
setbacks, landscaping, parking, drainage and floor area ratios except where such regulations
conflict with Federal Aviation Authority (FAA) rules and regulations.
h. Development within the AIC designated area must be developed as a Planned Development. As
a PD, all new development shall be required to address infrastructure needs, provision of services,
development phasing, development intensity and land use compatibility as part of an integrated
design scheme which includes very detailed strategies and techniques for resolving development
impacts.
i. The location of future high density residential developments shall comply with guidelines issued
by the Federal Aviation Administration and the Department of Transportation relating 11
COMMUNITY GROWTH 11 - 22 to airport compatible uses, noise zones, approach zones and
other safety measures.
j. Future high and medium density residential developments shall occur outside the 60 DNL
(day/night sound level) noise contours.
k. Residential developments shall be prohibited within 300 feet of the centerline of airport runways.
1. PD proposals in the AIC area will be the subject of negotiated development agreements. No
development order shall be granted prior to City approval of the development agreement. in.
Developments within the AIC that exist prior to the adoption of this Plan will be "grandfathered".
However, all new development in the Airport Industry and Commerce Area outside the Airport
boundaries shall incorporate those performance criteria established under Policy FLU 1.1.7, as
well as those criteria listed below:
• Narrative and graphic information required for review of rezoning petitions, for site
plan review, and other related procedural requirements;
• Impact analysis, including plans for managing any potential impacts on air operations;
• Noise impact analysis, including required sound insulation in areas within the airport
impact noise zones;
• Requirements for controlled access and internal circulation, including provisions for cross
access easements, and joint use of driveways;
• Requirements for perimeter buffer yards;
• Management framework for encouraging development of strategically planned sub centers
of commerce and industry;
• Dedication of necessary rights-of-way; and
• Use of pedestrian and mass transit facilities to reduce vehicle trips.
LEGAL REVIEW:
The City Attorney may or may not have reviewed the staff report and the specific analysis provided by
City staff, but has noted the following that should be adhered to in all quasi-judicial decisions: Section
166.033, Florida Statutes, as amended in the recent Legislative Session, in Chapter 2021-224, Laws of
Florida (deriving from Committee Substitute for Committee Substitute for House Bill Number 1059)
provides as follows (please note emphasized text):
Page 3 of 7
"166.033 Development permits and orders.—
(1) Within 30 days after receiving an application for approval of a development permit or development
order, a municipality must review the application for completeness and issue a letter indicating that all
required information is submitted or specifying with particularity any areas that are deficient. If the
application is deficient, the applicant has 30 days to address the deficiencies by submitting the required
additional information. Within 120 days after the municipality has deemed the application complete, or
180 days for applications that require final action through a quasi-judicial hearing or a public hearing,
the municipality must approve, approve with conditions, or deny the application for a development
permit or development order. Both parties may agree to a reasonable request for an extension of time,
particularly in the event of a force majeure or other extraordinary circumstance. An approval, approval
with conditions, or denial of the application for a development permit or development order must include
written findings supporting the municipality's decision. The timeframes contained in this subsection do
not apply in an area of critical state concern, as designated in s. 380.0552 or chapter 28-36, Florida
Administrative Code.
(2)(a) When reviewing an application for a development permit or development order that is
certified by a professional listed in s. 403.0877, a municipality may not request additional
information from the applicant more than three times, unless the applicant waives the limitation
in writing.
(b) If a municipality makes a request for additional information and the applicant submits the required
additional information within 30 days after receiving the request, the municipality must review the
application for completeness and issue a letter indicating that all required information has been submitted
or specify with particularity any areas that are deficient within 30 days after receiving the additional
information.
(c) If a municipality makes a second request for additional information and the applicant submits the
required additional information within 30 days after receiving the request, the municipality must review
the application for completeness and issue a letter indicating that all required information has been
submitted or specify with particularity any areas that are deficient within 10 days after receiving the
additional information.
(d) Before a third request for additional information, the applicant must be offered a meeting to attempt
to resolve outstanding issues. If a municipality makes a third request for additional information and the
applicant submits the required additional information within 30 days after receiving the request, the
municipality must deem the application complete within 10 days after receiving the additional
information or proceed to process the application for approval or denial unless the applicant waived the
municipality's limitation in writing as described in paragraph (a).
(e) Except as provided in subsection (5), if the applicant believes the request for additional information
is not authorized by ordinance, rule, statute, or other legal authority, the municipality, at the applicant's
request, shall proceed to process the application for approval or denial.
(3) When a municipality denies an application for a development permit or development order,
the municipality shall give written notice to the applicant. The notice must include a citation to the
applicable portions of an ordinance, rule, statute, or other legal authority for the denial of the
permit or order.
(4) As used in this section, the terms "development permit" and "development order" have the same
meaning as in s. 163.3164, but do not include building permits.
(5) For any development permit application filed with the municipality after July 1, 2012, a
municipality may not require as a condition of processing or issuing a development permit or
development order that an applicant obtain a permit or approval from any state or federal agency
unless the agency has issued a final agency action that denies the federal or state permit before the
municipal action on the local development permit.
(6) Issuance of a development permit or development order by a municipality does not create any right
on the part of an applicant to obtain a permit from a state or federal agency and does not create any
liability on the part of the municipality for issuance of the permit if the applicant fails to obtain requisite
Page 4 of 7
approvals or fulfill the obligations imposed by a state or federal agency or undertakes actions that result
in a violation of state or federal law. A municipality shall attach such a disclaimer to the issuance of
development permits and shall include a permit condition that all other applicable state or federal permits
be obtained before commencement of the development.
(7) This section does not prohibit a municipality from providing information to an applicant regarding
what other state or federal permits may apply."
The above -referenced definition of the term "development permit" is as follows:
"(16) 'Development permit' includes any building permit, zoning permit,
subdivision approval, rezoning, certification, special exception, variance,
or any other official action of local government having the effect of
permitting the development of land." (Section 163.3164(16), Florida
Statutes).
Thus, if this application is denied, a denial development order must be issued which must cite to the
applicable portions of each ordinance, rule, statute or other legal authority supporting the denial of the
application. For example, if a goal, objective or policy of the Sanford Comprehensive Plan were to be
the basis for a denial, then such goal, objective or policy must be part of the motion proposing the denial.
A denial development order would be drafted to implement the actions of the City Commission in the
event of such occurrence. Accordingly, any motion to deny must state, with particularity, the basis for
the proposed denial.
The term "development order" is defined as follows and, as can be seen, refers to the
"granting, denying, or granting with conditions [of] an application":
"(15) 'Development order' means any order granting, denying, or granting with conditions an
application for a development permit." (Section 163.3164(15), Florida Statutes).
(3) As used in this section, the term "development permit" has the same meaning as in s. 163.3164,
but does not include building permits.
(4) For any development permit application filed with the municipality after July 1, 2012, a
municipality may not require as a condition of processing or issuing a development permit that an
applicant obtain a permit or approval from any state or federal agency unless the agency has issued a
final agency action that denies the federal or state permit before the municipal action on the local
development permit.
(5) Issuance of a development permit by a municipality does not in any way create any right on the
part of an applicant to obtain a permit from a state or federal agency and does not create any liability on
the part of the municipality for issuance of the permit if the applicant fails to obtain requisite approvals
or fulfill the obligations imposed by a state or federal agency or undertakes actions that result in a
violation of state or federal law. A municipality shall attach such a disclaimer to the issuance of
development permits and shall include a permit condition that all other applicable state or federal permits
be obtained before commencement of the development.
(6) This section does not prohibit a municipality from providing information to an applicant
regarding what other state or federal permits may apply."
The above -referenced definition of the term "development permit" is as follows:
"(16) 'Development permit' includes any building permit, zoning permit, subdivision
approval, rezoning, certification, special exception, variance, or any other official action
of local government having the effect of permitting the development of land." (Section
163.3164(16), Florida Statutes).
Thus, if this application is denied, a denial development order must be issued which must cite to the
applicable portions of each ordinance, rule, statute, or other legal authority supporting the denial of the
Page 5 of 7
application. For example, if a goal, objective or policy of the Sanford Comprehensive Plan were to be
the basis for a denial, then such goal, objective or policy must be part of the motion proposing the denial.
A denial development order would be drafted to implement the actions of the City Commission in the
event of such occurrence. Accordingly, any motion to deny must state, with particularity, the basis for
the proposed denial.
The term "development order" is defined as follows and, as can be seen, refers to the
"granting, denying, or granting with conditions [ofd an application":
"(15) 'Development order' means any order granting, denying, or granting with
conditions an application for a development permit." (Section 163.3164(15), Florida
Statutes).
When voting on matters such as whether to recommend approval of an amendment to the City's
Comprehensive Plan or the enactment of, or amendment to, a land development regulation, those matters
are legislative in nature and not quasi-judicial matters.
The City Commission has also expressed its desire for all who vote against the majority decision to
express the rationale for their vote with regard to all matters.
The City attorney has drafted the ordinance for this item.
The City Commission approved the first reading of Ordinance No. 4656 on December 13, 2021.
The City Clerk published notice of the 2°d Public Hearing in the Sanford Herald on December 29, 2021.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff has reviewed the information provided and has found the request to Rezone 9.31 acres to Planned
Development at 171 Red Cleveland Boulevard to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
On November 4, 2021, the Planning and Zoning Commission conducted a public hearing and determined
the proposed rezoning to be consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the City's
Comprehensive Plan. The Commission unanimously recommended the City Commission adopt an
ordinance to rezone 9.31 acres at 171 Red Cleveland Boulevard from MI -2, Medium Industrial to PD,
Planned Development.
It is staff's recommendation to approve the request based on consistency with the Comprehensive Plan.
Although not included with the recommendation before the Planning and Zoning Commission, the
following standard conditions, and any additional conditions placed upon an adoption of Ordinance No.
4656 by the City Commission should be included in a Development Order if approved:
I . Pursuant to Section 4.3.G of the City's LDRs, this rezoning shall expire 3 years from the effective
date of this Ordinance if all improvements have not been completed or an extension granted.
2. All improvements shall be generally consistent with the land uses and development standards
depicted on the SFB Crossing PD Master Plan dated as received July 6, 2021 unless otherwise
specifically set forth in any associated development order.
3. All required building permits and site development permits, shall be obtained prior to any work
being performed. All such permits shall be subject to the controlling provisions of law applicable
thereto and the fee schedule associated therewith.
4. If City staff and the Property Owner are unable to agree to the details of this Development Order,
the matter will be submitted to the Planning and Zoning Commission for resolution at a public
hearing, and the matter will be adjudicated by means of a development order or denial
development order relating thereto.
Page 6 of 7
Additional comments or recommendations may be presented by staff at the meeting.
SUGGESTED MOTION:
"I move to adopt Ordinance No. 4656."
Attachments: Project Information Sheet
Site Zoning
Site Aerial Map
Affidavit of Ownership
CAPP Meeting Report
Justification Letter
Geotechnical Report
Traffic Impact Analysis
PD Master Plan with Survey
Ordinance No. 4656
TADevelopment Review\03-Land Developinent\2021\1 71 Red Cleveland Blvd - PD Rezone\PZC\CC Memo - 171 Red Cleveland - PD Rezone - Copy.doex
Page 7 of 7