3927ORDINANCE NO. 3927
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SANFORD, FLORIDA,
AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 3528 (CITY OF SANFORD
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN) AS PREVI
PROVIDING FO ,~,- ....... OUSL¥ AMEND ~.
R ~mcnlUMENT OF T E_,
_U.S._E ELEMENT AND THE H.E_FUTURE LAND
· .E FUTURE LAND USE LA"° USE MAP OF
r~.~m I=LEMENT OF THE CITY
OF SANFORD .COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; AMENDING
POLICY 1-2.4.7, PROVIDING FO
PROVIDING FOR RATIF"*' ..... R SEVERABILITY;
.'-,,~JlUN OF PRIOR ACTS OF
THE CITY COMMISSION, PROVIDING
P.R._OVIDING FOR CODIFICAT,,'~,, _.._FOR CONFLICTS;
/HE CODE CODIFIER AN~~"'~ ,~NU DIRECTIONS TO
EFFECTIVE DATE. PROVIDING FOR AN
WHEREAS, the City of Sanford's Planning and Zoning Commission, as the
City's local planning agency, held a public hearing on March 17, 2005, to consider
amending the Future Land Use E~ement ('Policy %2.4.7) and the Future Land Use Map
Of The Future Land Use Plan Element of the City of Sanford Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City Commission, as the City's governing body, held a
transmittal public hearing on March 28, 2005, to cons/der the same amendments to the
City of Sanford Comprehensive P/an; and
WHEREAS, the City Commission, as the City's governing body, held an
adoption public hearing on October 10, 2005, to cons/der the same amendments to the
City of Sanford Comprehensive P/an after reviews in accordance with the controlling
provisions of State law; and
WHEREAS, the City of Sanford has complied with all requirements and
Ord. No. ~.~==27 Page 1 of 3
procedures of Florida law in processing its first annual large scale amendment in 2005
to the City of Sanford Comprehensive Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ENACTED BY THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF
SANFORD, FLORIDA:
SECTION 1. AMENDMENT TO FUTURE LAND USE MAP. That portion of the
Future Land Use Plan Element referenced as the Future Land Use Map is hereby
amended by changing Future Land Use Plan Element as set forth in the Future Land
Use Map as attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and by this reference incorporated herein
which the changes made hereon hereby made a part of the City of Sanford
Comprehensive P/an.
SECTION 2. AMENDMENT TO POLICY 1-2.4.7. Policy 1-2.4.7 of the City of
Sanford Comprehensive Plan attached hereto as Exhibit "B" and included herein is
hereby amended and made a part of the City of Sanford Comprehensive Plan.
S~ECTION 3. SEVERABILITY. If any section, sentence, phrase, word, or POrtion
of this Ordinance proves to be invalid, unlawful or unconstitutional, it shall not be held
to impair the validity, force or effect of any other action or part of this Ordinance.
SECTION 4. CONFLICTS/RATIFICATiON OF PRI R ACTIONS. All
ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby repealed. The prior
actions of the City Commission and its agencies in enacting and amending the City of
Sanford Comprehensive P/an are hereby ratified and affirmed.
S~ECTION 5. EFFECTIVE DA'Ii This Ordinance shall become effective
immediately when the State Land Planning Agency issues a final order determining the
Ord. No. ~_~c~ '~ Page 2 of 3
adopted amendment to be in compliance in accordance with Section 163.3184(9),
Florida Statutes, or when the Administration Commission issues a final order
determining the adopted amendment to be in compliance in accordance with Section
163.3184(10), Florida Statutes, whichever occurs first.
PASSED and ADOPTED this 10th day of October, 2005.
City Commission of the City of Sanford, Florida
Attest:
J,I~NET R. DOiJGHER~"Y, CITY/~LERK
CERTIFICATE
I, Janet R. Dougherty, City Clerk of the City of Sanford, Florida, do hereby certify
that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Ordinance No. 3927, PASSED AND
ADOPTED by the City Commission of the City of Sanford, Florida, on the 10th day of
October, 2005, was posted at the front door of the City Hall in the City of Sanford,
Florida, on the 12th day of October, 2005.
JANET R. DOUGHERTY~CITY CI~RK
Ord. No.J ~,:~ 7
Page 3 of 3
CITY OF SANFORD
FIRSTcOMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AMENDMENT
2005
September 26, 2005
prepared by the City of Sanford
Planning and Development Services Department
TABLE OF coNTENTS
pAGE
AMENDMENTS TO TIlE TEXT ....................
MAP 1-13 AVIGATION EASEMENT BoUNDAR,Y,.,
EXISTING FUTURE LAND USE MAP: EXHIBIT A
pRoPOSED FUTURE LAND USE MAP: EXHIBIT 'B'
SITE LocATION MAP
DATA, iNVENTORY Arqb, m., ··
poTABLE WATER WORKSHEET ........................
ATTACItMEblT A: ENVIRONMENTAL AssESSMENT OF SITE 13
cHAPTER 1: LAND USE ELEMENT
and south to minimize airport noise
~ and runways shall be focused to the east The Airport Authority shall continue to
Airport~ property
development impacts to urban residential areas to the north and west.
monitor noise impacts generated by airport operations and enforce compliance-
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. shall ensure that land uses surrounding the airport are compatible with noise levels generated by the
The City
airpOrt use through the following measureS:
All land east ~ '~xposure Maps and Compatibility plan prepared
1. shall be developed based on the part 150 Noise
the Orlando Sanford International Airport by Environmental Science Associates (ESA), as
that may occur as the result of
2001 for ~istdcts are rm~tted an
and any revisions to the noise exposure maps
approved by the FAA ....... residential land u
ai oft development- u nc~
2. ~ . · ~famil detached du lexes
is_he~b~ ~in classificat~°ns
and residential develo merit for tee mm ~e nv...- -
townhomes or condominiums shall he rohibited Where. noise, con,ours are r~ater than 60 DNL
Land Use Guidelines-
The following uses are compatible with the Airport:
· Industrial parks;
, Business parks;
· Commercial DevelopmentS;
, Attendant retail;
· Service and Hotel Uses;
· Medium and high-density rental residential developments between the 60 and 65 DNL;
· Agricultural uses; .... :A, ~'~
Public Uses;
~tfic4io~. Page I
Multifamily developments shall ~noise reducing features such as acoustical insulation or
other soundproofing-
An avigation easement shall be required and included in the recorded deed of
prior to the construction of a single family dwelling unit or a multifanuly dwelling unit~
GOAL 1-2: FLrFURE LAND USE MAP. CONTINUE TO MAINTAIN AND MANAGE A FUTURE
LAND USE MAP.
14 through 14g 13, reflect City policy for managing the allocat!on
The Futura Land Use Map Series, Maps Map Series (Base Year 2005) is supported by the Comprebens~ve
of future land use. The Future Land Use have been
together with
plan Data Inventory And Analysis (1991)- Land use designations on the future land use maps
designations has
allocated pursuant to goals, objectives and policies stipulated in the Comprehensive Plan,
analysis of population, housing and land resources- The process of allocating these land use Shoreline, flood
consideration of capital improvement needs, and conservation
considered the need to conserve natural resources including wetlands, the Lake Monroe
plains, water recharge areas, fish and wildlife,
of fiscal resources-
The future land use map series shall designate areas for the following uses:
FUTURE LAND USE MAP DENSiTIES/INTENSITIES
MAP~ ~ DENSITY/INTENSITY
AND USE DESIGNATIONS SYMBOL ..... A,,/acre
L du/acre
RESIDENTIAL USES
Low Density Residential-Single Fmmly
Low Density Residential-Mobile Home
Medium Density Residential- t0
Medium Density Residential- 15
High Density Residential-20
COMMERCIAL USES
Neighborhood Commercial, Office
General Commercial, Office
INDUSTRIAL USES
SUBURBAN ESTATES
pUBLiC/SEMI-pUBLIC USE
Includes: Education, Public Facilities
less than or = 6 du/acre
LDR-SF less than or = 6 du/acre
LDR-IVIH less than or = 10 du/acre
MI)R-10 less than or = 15 du/acre
MDR-15 less than or = 20
ItDR
Floor Area
.35
NC .35
.50
I
I du/acre
SE
.35
PSP
Page 2
Transportation, private Recreation, and
Other Institutional-
PARKS, RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE
includes Municipal Recreation and Open Space
PRO
.25
REsoURCE pROTECTION
Wetlands and Aquatic Habitats
Floodways and Drainageways
Aquifer Recharge Area
Wellfield Protection Areas
RP (1)
(2)
(2)
(2)
Upland Wildlife Habitats (2)
Floodplains is permitted pursuant to policies 5-!.4-l (togetbe[ with
Itowe'~ar, in certain cases, m order
(l) within wetlands, ~quatic habi[ats, floodways and drainageways no developn~eot · to avoid a taking of property without
5_l.2.5, respectively- . ,, asonable, use of the land. . In such c.ases~'
and 5-1.8.1); 5-1.2.1; and ....... dolt necessary to provide re . ,--~nt dvhts within the wettanu,
policies 5-1.7.1 ~. L ,, -~-otiate a mfimal devetopu~,, t,---_ -.'here lid upland exists, aeve~ut~ while
just compensauon, the .~- a.~ .,,~ d ~ottion of the sae. uoweve,, preserve -reasonable" use of the land
development shill be shinea to ~ ~v-an -- to protect private property rights and
- h sical and biological functions of the wetlands, floodways and/or dramageways through mitigation techniques identified in
floodways or draiaageways shall be negotiated in order
preservmgtbe P Y .... s refercnee policy I-2.7.1). ~ ~ '~ ~ 5182and51.3.1. fund
the polictes citedbere ntcw~ - ~ ocdteriaidemifiedin policies 5126 ~ ,- · .
..... nation However, ~he bufld/ng fo°timert
Tile FAR for these areas shall be restricted pursuant to pertormano~ ~ ' ' ' ' .... - ' '
- :-,~ Plan Future Land use ues~ . '" -~nab e" development
(2) , a.~ FAR for the underlying Com~ . ~,~eab e surface while preser~mg a
case shall the FAR e.x. cee~..~,e shall be restricted to maYonaze pe---
pursuant to the policies identified herein (cross-re ference Policy l-2-7-1)-
state or regional agency has jurisdiction over a resourCe protection are~ the City shall not gram a development right
(3) Where a federal, · ........ ;ami by such agencies having jurisdiction.
which exCeeds the devefuptneot ngm t ........ Residential
MIXED USE DISTRICTS
1-4 High Intensity
Waterfront/Downtown
Business District
Westside Industry
& Commerce
Airport Industry
& Commerce
Map Commercial Industrial
HI 1.0 FAR .50 FAR Less than or
= to 50 u/a
WDBD 2.0 FAR 1.0 FAR Less than or
= to 50 u/a
W1C .35 FAR .50 FAR Less than or
= to 20 u/a
AIC 1.0 FAR 1.0 FAR Less than or
= to 50 u/a (multifanuly rental)
Less than or
= to 1 du/a (single family)
, Less than or
ROI .35 FAR = to 20 u/a
Residential/Office/Institutional
permitted under land use designation-
*Asterisks denote land use not . _ ' .
Note: F.A.R. denotes: Floor Area Rat~o - Gross Floor Are~Stte Area
Page 3
plan & DIA.doc
The density and intensity of historic resources shall be governed by the density/intensity assigned to the
future land use designation regulating the respective historic resources.
specific land use element shall define the nature, density and intensity of the allowable uses
This section of the future the future land use map- Nothing in this section shall preclude
for each of the designations represented on future land use designation when such activity
necessary community facilities from locating within any
satisfies established criteria of this plan and the city's code of ordinances-
The future land use map series shall be maps I-I through I-IT The future land use map: the future land use
policy designation shall depict the proposed distribution, extent and location of land
· - inch to one thousand feet) is on file with
map (sheets 1214) and ..... :~ futura land use map (scale. one~ .. ~ .,._ future land use map series shall
~ -,- .,ear 2005 'l'lle ol[lctm ~ ~ a ..n~l re:tn l-~J Oi thc '
usestormey - ,~ ' · -,--hall ManS l-I through t-,,~ .......
conserved through plan implementation- Map I-5 shall indicate historiC
the city planning ofnce m city, .........
denote natural resources to be l-7 denotes areas targeted for
resources. Map l-6 denotes vacant and undeveloped lands. Maps the City of Sanford. Map
redevelopment and renewal. Map I-8 denotes planned developments within
denotes the Aiq~ort Layout Plan (ALP). Map l- l I denotes the ALP boundaries. Map 1-12.denoteS the City's
Regional Activity Centers- ~tion easementS are re tared.
Page 4
City of Sanford Comprehensive Plan Amendment
September 2005
LEGEND
AIC
WDBD
GC
ItDR
HI
INDUSTRIAL
(Sem. Co.)
HIGH iNTENSITY
pLANNED
DEVELOPMENT
(sem. Co.)
wIST ST
~5~d ~ Ci~ Limits
Scare = 600:1
change (HIpTI- County---~
to HI - City)
Comprehensive plan Site
Acreage: 4,4
~ Development Se~k~s, September 2005
City of sanf~d DepaOment of Planning ~
j..wRCvIEW~COMP pLAN~Cpa2005a_l~u-a¢'
Proposed Future Land Use
paoe 1
City of Sanford Comprehensive Plan Amendment
September 2005
LEGEND
I
I
I
City Limits
Scale = 600:1 .-'
cONSERVATION
(Sem. Co.)
H;GH iNTENsITY T
~NED DEvELoPMEN
(Sem. Co.)
Proposed Future Land Use
paoe 2
City of Sanford Comprehensive Plan Amendment
September 2005
LEGEND
~ City Limits
NORTH
Scale = 600:1
HIGH INTENSITY
PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT
(Sem. Co.)
HIGHINTENSITY
pLANNED
DEVELOPMENT
Land Use Change (HIPTI- County
to WIC - City)
Comprehensive Plan Site 4
Acreage: 2.5
Proposed Future Land Use
Page 4
City of Sanford Comprehensive Plan Amendment
September 2005
~ PSP
~ PRO
NORTH p~ ENT
8~ale = 600:1
~"* ~ ~'"~<"'"~'- ~"~ Proposed ~uture ~nd ~se
to wig - Oi~)
Compr~ensive Plan ~ite 3
A~reage: 19.98
Page 3
City of Sanford Comprehensive Plan Amendment
September 2005
J~ WDBD HIG INTENSITY
~ GU pLP, NNED DEVELOPMENT(sem. Co.) 1 HIG ,NTEN$11~'pLANNED
~ ~RIO
~ ~R15 ~
~ PSP '
~0~1~
~nd Use Change (HIPTI- ~un~ ProposedFuture Land Use
to wig -
~prehensive Plan ~e 5
A~eage: 4.78
Page 5
City of Sanford Comprehensive Plan Amendment
September 2005
LEGEND
City Limits
NORTH
$oale = 600:1
Land Use Change (PUB- County
to PSP - City)
Comprehensive Plan Site 6
Acreage: 5~0
Proposed Future Land Use
Page 6
City of Sanford Comprehensive Plan Amendment
September 2005
LEGEND
~ City Limits
NORTH
Scale = 400:1
(Sem. Co.)
Land Use Change (MDR- County
to MDR15 - City)
Comprehensive Plan Site 7
Acreage: 0.24
Proposed Future Land Use
Page 7
City of Sanford Comprehensive Plan Amendment
September 2005
LEGEND
AIC
HDR
LDRMH
LDRSF
~R~0
MDRI5
PSP
ROI
WI(?
PRO
City Limits
NORTH
Scale = 400:1
Land Use Change (LDR, CONS -
County to LDRSF, RP - City)
Comprehensive Plan Site 9
Acreage: 0.3
Proposed Future Land Use
page 9
City of Sanford Comprehensive Plan Amendment
September 2005
LEGEND
~ City Limits
NORTH
Scale = 400:1
Land Use Change (LDR- County
to LDRSF - City)
Comprehensive Plan Site 10
Acreage: 1.95
Proposed Future Land Use
City of Sanford Department of Planning & Dev~oprnent Se~ices, Sep{ember 2005
J:~RCVIEW~COMP PLAN\Cpa2005a_llu~lpr
Page 10
City of Sanford Comprehensive Plan Amendment
September 2005
LEGEND
~ City Limits
NORTH
Scale = 400:1
Land Use Change (GC, ROI
to LDRSF)
Comprehensive Plan Site 11
Acreage: 2.4
E. 23RD ST
E. 24TH ST
W. 24TH PL
E. 24111 PL
~<
E. 25TH ST
Proposed Future Land Use
ity of Sanford De~t of Planning & E)ev~opment Services, September 2005
~ARCVIEW~COMP PLAFACpa2OOSa_flu.apr
Page 11
City of Sanford Comprehensive Plan Amendment
September 2005
LEGEND
~ City Limits
NORTH
Scale = 600:1
Land Use Change (COM- County
to GC - City)
Comprehensive Plan Site 12
Acreage: 1.5
Proposed Future Land Use
.~ity of San ford Department of Planning & Development 8~ices, September 2005
I:~RCVIEW~COMP PLAN~,Cpa2005a flu.apr
Page 12
City of Sanford Comprehensive Plan Amendment
September 2005
LEGEND
City Limits
NC
scale = 600:1
Lar'Xl Use (PSP, LDRSF, RP-~
to MDP,10
Compreheasive plan Site 13
Aoreage: 13.95 J
Proposed Future Land Use
page 13
City of Sanford Comprehensive Plan Amendment
September 2005
LEGEND
City Limits
NORTH
Scale = 400:1
Land Use Change (LDR - County
to LDRSF - City)
Comprehensive Plan Site 14
Acreage: 0.41
\ : .~*~AV
'i
' LOW DENSITY
.......... : :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
' i (Sem. Co.) ;,,,
......... .. _/~
INDUSTRIAL
(Sem. Co.)
Proposed Future Land Use
Pag~ 14
City of Sanford Comprehensive Plan Amendment
September 2005
LEGEND
AIC
WDBD
LD~
LDRSF
~R10
~RI5
PSP
ROI
s~
PRO
~ City Limits
NORTH
Scale = 600:1
::
2TTH ST
28'111 ST
COMMERCIAL
(Sero Co) MAI-I'IE AV
E. 28311 PL
WOODLANDS DR
LAUREL DR
W. 30TH ST
29TH ST
CONSERVATION
(Sem. Co.)
Land Use Change (LDR- County
to LDRSF - City)
Comprehensive Plan Site 16
Acreage: 0.34
Proposed Future Land Use
Page 16
City of Sanford Comprehensive Plan Amendment
September 2005
LEGEND
AIC
WDBD
LDRMH
ClmSlr
MDRI0
MDRI5
ROI
s~
RP
PRO
~ City Limits
NORTH
Scale = 600:1
Land Use Change (LDR- County
to LDRSF - Ci{y)
Comprehensive Plan Site 17
Acreage: 0.16
Proposed Future Land Use
Page 17
City of Sanford Comprehensive Plan Amendment
September 2005
LEGEND
City Limits
NORTH
Scale = 400:1
Land Use Change (MDR- County
to MDR10 ~ C/fy)
Comprehensive Plan Site 19
Acreage: 1,6
PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT
(Sem. Co.)
LOW DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL
(Sem Co.)
Proposed Future Land Use
City of Sanford Deparlmenf of Planning & Deve{opmer~ Services, September 2005
J:~RCVIEW~COMP PLAN~Cpa2005a_flu.apr
Page 19
City of Sanford Comprehensive Plan Amendment
September 2005
LEGEND
HIGH INTENSITY
PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT
(Sem. Co.)
ST JOHNS F
~z~o~
HIP
~%~ City Limits
NORTH
Scale = 400:1
Land Use Change (HIPTI- County
to WIG - City)
Comprehensive Plan Site 20
Acreage: 0.55
Proposed Future Land Use
City of Sanfo*d D~partment of Planning & Development Services, September 2005
J:~RCVIEVV'iCOMP PLAN~Cpa20OSa_llu.apr
Page 2O
City of Sanford Comprehensive Plan Amendment
September 2005
LEGEND
~ City Limits
NORTH
Scale = 1000:1
E. LAKE MARy BLVD
SUBURBAN
ESTATES
(Sem. Co.)
CONSERVATION
(scm Co)
CONSERVATION
(Sem. Co.)
Land Use Change (SE, CONS- County
,o sE, RP-City) ~ Proposed Future Land Use
Comprehensive Plan Site 21
Acreage: 187.58
City of Sanford Deparln~nt of Pla~Mng & Development Services, September 2005
J:~&,RCVIEW~COMP PLAN~Cpe2005a_IlU. apr
DATA, INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS
FOR TEXT AND MAP AMENDMENTS
A. Text Amendment: Policy 1-2.4.7: Protection from Noise Exposure
The amendments to this policy ensure that the policy is consistent with the Orlando-Sanford International
Airport's (OSIA) FAA-approved Puff. 150 ' -
Noise and Land Use Compatibility program, recently updated by
OSIA and with Seminole County's policies for noise abatement. Map 1-/3 is new and depicts the area
where avigation easements are required. The proposed amendment is consistent with the State
Comprehensive Plan.
B. Future Land Use Map Amendment Exhibit A is a map depicting the existing future land use
designations of the amendment sites and the City in general. Exhibit B is the future land use map oftbe
entire City as approved by the City Cormmssion on April 11, 2005. An individual map of each site depicts
the future land use designation as approved by the City Commission on April l 1, 2005.
1. General Comment on Public Facilities: In general, the public facilities of water and sewer are all
within the City of Sanford Service Area per interlocal agreement with Seminole County. Therefore, all of
the City's and County's water and sewer facilities planning are based on similar data, inventory and
analysis. There is an underlying assumption that the water and sewer infrastructure will be served by the
City of Sanford in the Sanford Urban Planning Area. This assumption has been in effect since the Joint
Planning Agreement of 1991 and is incorporated in the City and County plans.
When a future land use designation is proposed to change, the impacts of the change are based on the
impact of the maximum development that is allowed to occur in the new future land use designation
minus the maximum impacts of development under the existing future land use designation.
2. Transportation: The City of Sanford provides funding to, and participates in, the regional transportation
modeling process by Metroplan Orlando (the MPO for Orange, Osceola and Seminole Counties).
Seminole County performs transportation modehng for the area that includes Sanford. Therefore, the
City has no need to conduct independent traffic analyses. Our traffic impact review of specific plan
amendment sites is based upon data, inventory and analysis that are compiled through the Metroplan
Orlando transportation modeling. The future land use data upon which the Metroplan analysis is based
reflects existing and future land use planning data from the City of Sanford. That information is
compiled by Seminole County with input from the seven cities within the county. Sanford's Traffic
Circulation Plan Element and the City's analysis of individual sites incorporates traffic analysis that
reflects future development for the entire Sanford area including the unincorporated area around the City,
much of which is subject to annexation. Traffic projections are based on modeling by Seminole County
and Metroplan Orlando. Therefore, with regard to the future land use plan map amendment sites, unless
the proposed future land use designation is different than the Seminole County Future Land Use Plan
Map Designation, there would be no significant change to traffic impact.
There is only one map amendment included in this comprehensive plan amendment package that will
increase impacts on public facilities. The maximum impact of the amendment upon facilities and services is
identified in Tables 2 and 3. Service and Facilities Impacts were evaluated by subtracting the impacts on
Page 5
FfiSHA_EaNG~Comp Plan~CPA2005\lst Amendment~opiComp Plan & DL~doc
water, sewer, solid waste, parks and traffic of the maximum amount of development in the existing future
land use designation from the impact of the maximum amount of development in the proposed designation.
3. Needs Assessment and Compatibility of proposed amendments with objectives and policies of the
Comprehensive Plan:
Site 8, This .28-acre site contains a single family residence and is served by all public facilities and services.
The site has recently been annexed into the City. Under the jurisdiction of Seminole County, the site was
located within the Medium Density Residential (MDR) future land use designation. The City is proposing
that the site be included in the contiguous Low Density Residential - Single Family (LDR-SF) designation.
This reduces the density on the site from two units to one unit. While both the MDR and the LDR-SF
designations are appropriate for the site, the LDR-SF designation is the only designation in the City that is
adjacent to the site. In addition, the surrounding area is predominantly single family residential units and
vacant lots and thus the proposed future land use designation and its allowable uses are compatible with
surrounding land use designations as well as with the preferred growth and development pattern of the City.
The amendment will not alter acceptable existing land use patterns or adversely affect the livability of the
area or the health and safety of the residents.
This map amendment is consistent with Pohcy 1-1.1.1 and with Policy 1-2.1.2: Low Density Residential
Single Fmmly Development CLDR-SF) both of which require that development be compatible with the
quality and character of existing low density single family neighborhoods . It is also compatible with the
criteria for map amendments in Policy 1-3.2.1: Future Land Use Map and Related Policies, in particularly
with the directive that the proposed future land use designation and its allowable uses be 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 Comprehensive Plan.
The amendment is compatible with the State Comprehensive Plan (Chapter 187, F.S.), the Growth Pohcy Act
(Chapter 163 F.S.) and with Rule 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code.
Site 11. This site contains 2.4 acres and is located on one of Sanford's oldest residential streets. The
proposed amendment changes the designation of the site from the General Commercial (GC) and
Residential, Office, Institutional (ROI) future land use designations to the Low Density Residential - Single
Family (LDR-SF) designation. The site is located in a residential neighborhood that includes Sanford's
residential historic disthct. To the south, a small pocket of conunercial development exists adjacent to SR
46. This site was originally intended for commercial development. However, Sanford has strict buffer
regulations to ensure land use compatibility which make the site difficult to development for commercial
purposes. In addition, there has been a change in the character of the area with local residents desiring to
enhance the quality of residential environments and to strengthen residential neighborhoods by protecting
them from inconsistent uses. Since most of the surrounding neighborhood is residential, it is logical to extend
the residential designation to this site.
Public facilities are adequate to serve the proposed development of this site. In addition, according to the Soil
Survey of Seminole County (1990) soils on the site are classified as urban land (34) indicating that the
surrounding area is highly urban with large impermeable surface areas.
The amendment is consistent with the following objectives and policies of the Sanford Comprehensive Plan:
Page 6
Objective 1-1.l: Plan And Design For Residential Quality. The City of Sanford shall continue to enforce
land development regulations with performance criteria and a zoning map designed to provide sufficient
space for residential development and required community facilities to adequately meet the housing needs of
the present and expected future population. Residential development shall be planned and designed to create
and perpetuate stable residential neighborhoods and implement policies stipulated below.
The proposed amendment will permit residential uses that are compatible with the surrounding residential
development. Commercial uses in this area increase traffic and noise and can be dismptive to the
neighborhood. Maintaining the residential character of the area will ensure a stabile residential neighborhood.
Policy 1-2. 1.2: Low Density Residential Single Family Development (LDR-SF). The areas delineated for
"low density" residential single family development shall include existing stable single family areas as well
as those areas which have been selected for future low density residential single family development in order
to provide sufficient land area to meet projected single family housing needs for low density development.
The amendment is compatible with the State Comprehensive Plan (Chapter 187, F.S.), the Growth Policy
Act (Chapter 163 F.S.) and with Rule 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code.
Impacts of the amendment are based on the fact that one acre of the site is in the commercial future land use
designation and 1.4 acres are in the ROI designation. The commercial designation allows a floor area ratio
of .35 for commercial uses. The ROI designation allows a density of 20 units per acre and/or a floor area
ratio of .35 for office uses.
Site 13.
Background: The site is located between Art Lane and Sterling Pines Street to the north of Lake Mary
Boulevard. The total site contains 23.4 acres. However, the site contains two lakes totaling 9.45 acres which
will remain in the Conservation Future Land Use Designation. The applicant proposes to amend the future
land use designation of 13.95 acres from Public/Semipublic (PSP), Resource Protection and Low Density
Residential - Single Family (LDR-SF) to Medium Density Residential - 10 (MDR-10) in order to construct
132 townhomes. The property is bordered by single family homes on the north, west and east. A new
townhome development has been approved for property to the south. An apartment complex is located on
Sterling Pines Street to the southwest. The development will take its access from Sterling Pines Street.
A .79-acre wetland will be filled in order to provide access to the site from Sterling Pines Street. Pursuant to
Comprehensive Plan Policy 5-1.8.1, Managing the Impacts of Development on Aquatic Habitats, destruction
of wetlands may be permitted if 'such activities are not contrary to the public interest and there is no practical
alternative which reduces or avoids impacts to wetlands or deepwater habitats. Unavoidable losses of viable
wetlands shall be mitigated through the demonstrably successful restoration, creation or preservation of
wetlands whose functional values are at least comparable to those of the wetlands lost.' The applicant is
proposing mitigation on the northern portion of the site. The applicant has submitted a report from Bio-Tech
Consulting (attached) regarding the low quality of the wetlands.
Consistency with Criteria for Map Amendments:
· The amendment shall be consistent with all elements of the City of Sanford Comprehensive Plan:
Page 7
FAS HA_ENOComp P!aa~ePA2005~lst ~ Plan &DIA. doc
The proposed amendment is consistent with the following obiectives and policies of the City's
Comprehensive plak.n: For Residential Quality. The City of Sanford shall continue to enforce
Objective l-lA: man And Design and a zoning map designed to provide sufficient
. _:~ft community facilittes to,a ,,q~ .-t.mned and designed to create
land development regulations with performance criteria · de uately meet the housing needs of
.. - , .l_.,~lnnment uno requn~-~ . , ~-.,o/,,,,ment snail t,~ u,,~
s ace for restaentlai uc-,~,-.v ..l~ti,,n Residennal uc~,~,-,v
P ~ -~.-,-,-ted future popma ......
and perpetuate stable residential neighborhoods and implement policies stipulated below.
the present ann ,~,-v,~-
development of townhomes has many elementS consistent with stable residential
The proposed including rear-entry garages, gated entrance, water features, open space tracts and clubhouse
neighborhoods Townhomes will be individually owned.
and recreational amenities, densities shall
identified on the
policy 1-1.l.3: Promote Orderly Transition in Residential Densities. Highest residential
same or higher density.
continue to be allocated to sites accessible to major thoroughfares or collector streetS as
City's Major Thoroughfare Plan as well as adjacent to existing development with the
Residential densities shall be allocated in a manner compatible with available public services, natural features
of land as well as existing and anticipated future development- use
with the
reinforces the surrounding stable neighborhood by providing a furore land
- · --~-t from encroaching on. the
The proposed amendment with existing development- The MDR-10 designation is compatible
designation that is compatible - ibits higher intensity aeve}o, pm~" ..-..- -.one between the smg~e-
public services, Preh . ~_,~,,,. transutun ,~
availability of sensitive portions of the project, provtdes an accct'~l~'i~gnation to the southwest-
environmentally
family residential designations to the north and east and the MDR-I 5
· eas delineated for "medium density
:. Density esidential Devel°pme~t- 5~MDme~)iu2c~;nsity residential neigh'b' °rh°~' ds :~'
Policy l-2.1.3: Med, u~ .... ,-R-ne~s existing and comrmucd m . .~., housing needs for memu. m. cl~ ns~:2
~,~sid~ntial development .s.nan m,_c~m~selected tn order to meet p.ro~sc}.~u existing or planned mul!,pte.t.a~.:l~Y,
areas which nave ucc, . ~ ~-~ced on their proximity tv . .,- ..~,,iecteCi resloenuat
well as those ~ , .... areas were setecteCi uo~2. - .... ~c facilities to servtce ute F~-,J .
development- the tattc~ u~..a on the availabtl~ty ot pm,- -
housing development ann u,,~,*-- ~ ~ennal developmentS should be located
development demands . Review of specific densmS, s of devd°pme, ts s~all be dtrected toward preserving
lower density residential areas and areas developed and/or
stability of established res~denttal areas. Sttes for medmm denstty res~
that they provide a smooth transition between designation should be located between the
so density residential areas and areas of higher density or intensity ....
designated for other more intense uses. Generally, the MDR-10
perimeter of low
The proposed amendment is consistent with this policy because the site is located between the LDR-SF
designation and the higher density MDR- 15 designation- . ..... :.-~ation has been established, to
· ~ ......ource nrotectton u~?- . ~ ..,rich the C~ty nas
· - 7' Resource Protection (RP)-. l, nel:~,,viro~nentally fragile wettantm '~- be
Obiecttve 1-2. - - ----~ ~,,stems mclucun~ '~,' within the
dir~ect the preservauon ot narmm =J as essential open space systems. This designation shall
committed to retain, preserve, and/or conserve -
considered identical to the ,,Conservation" designation as defined in 91-5.003(19)., FAC- Uses
resource protection areas shall be regulated pursuant to State law as though they were designated
· ,, of the
-conservation - . __; in the Resource ProteCtion designation- The
amendment is consistent with this objective because it does not change the designation
The. sensitive portions of the stte. They. wi~[I re2~n.,.~in i~- e resource protection des~gnat~on-
envrronmentally ~ .~ oq-foot wide wetlanOs uniter m~u ......... n th
100-year flood zone aha m,* ~-- ~ Page 8
· The amendment shall be consistent with the State Comprehensive Plan (Chapter 187, F.$.) and the
Growth Policy Act (Chapter 163 F.S.):
The proposed amendment is compatible with the State Comprehensive Plan and furthers the Land Use Goal:
In recognition of the importance of preserving the natural resources and enhancing the quality of life of the
state, development shall be directed to those areas which have in place, or have agreements to provide, the
land and water resources, fiscal abilities, and service capacity to accommodate growth in an environmentally
acceptable manner.
The proposed project avoids development of environmentally sensitive lands and instead proposes the
redevelopment of an unused school site which has services and resources in place to accommodate the
development.
The proposed amendment is consistent with the Growth Policy Act and furthers Chapter 163.3180,
Concurrency, because sanitary sewer, solid waste, drainage, potable water, transportation and parks and
recreational facilities are in place and available to serve the development. The project is also served by a
LYNX bus route than runs along Lake Mary Boulevard.
· The amendment shall be consistent with Rule 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code:
The proposed development is consistent with the concurrency standards of Rule 9J-5. All facilities are in
place and operating at acceptable levels of service in the area of the proposed amendment. The proposed
amendment is also consistent with 9I-5's requirements [or compatibility of adjacent land uses in that it
provides a transition land use from low density residential uses to higher density residential uses and
commercial uses. The proposed amendment does not create urban sprawl according to the indicators listed in
9-J5. The density of the project is medium density. It is located in an urban area with an established mix of
commercial, public and residential uses. All properties surrounding the site am developed or have comnutted
development. Public facilities are in place to support the proposed development. The site is easily accessible
to an arterial road and a bus route.
· Publicfa¢ilitiesandservicesshallbeavailablee°neurrentwithdevel°pment°fthesite:
The proposed development is located in an urban area adjacent to an arterial road, Lake Mary Boulevard.
The immediate vicinity is well-developed with a community college, a shopping center and numerous small
businesses as well as many residential developments. All facilities and services are in place in this area,
including water, sewer, parks, solid waste disposal and public transportation.
· There have been changes in population, land use or economic development trends and/or projeetions
that warrant a change in the future land use designation:
The current land use designations that will be amended are public/semipublic and LDR-SF. A private school
used to be located on a part of the site but has been closed for many years. The public/semipublic
designation accommodated the school. The PSP designation, with its limited uses, makes it difficult to
redevelop the site for any use that is appropriate to the surrounding area. The MDR-10 designation acts as a
buffer between the single family uses to the north and east and the higher density uses to the southwest. It is
also a good transitional designation between the more commercial properties on Lake Mary Boulevard and
the single family residential designations.
Page 9
FSSHA_ElslG'~x~np p~nkCPA2005\lst ~6adopiComp Plan & DIA.doc ~
· Therehavebeensufficientchangesinthecharacterofthearea°radjacentlandst°warrantadifferent
land use designation:
This has always been an area with a variety of residential land use designations. The adjacent land to the
south has recently been approved for town houses and, through a small scale amendment, the land use
designation has been changed from single family residential to MDR-10. Property to the south west is
designated MDR-15 and contains rental apartments. The existing PSP designation, while not inconsistent
with the surrounding land use designations, is not as compatible as the proposed residential designation. The
character of the area has not changed but infill development has become increasingly attractive throughout
the City and the applicant has seized the opportunity to develop an unoccupied piece of property in a highly
developed area.
· 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 Comprehensive Plan. The 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:
The proposed future land use designation is consistent with the surrounding area. The surrounding area is a
mixture of residential land use types, including apartments, townhomes and single-family residences and
commercial development. The proposed residential designation is more consistent than the existing
designation of PSP.
· 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 suituble for development,
vegetative habitats, wetlands, wetland protection zones or flood-prone areas, well field protection zones,
wildlife habitats, archaeological, historical or cultural resources:
According to the preliminary site plan, there is no development in flood-prone areas or wetland protection
zones surrounding the lakes. The site does not contain well field protection areas or archaeological or
historical resources. The attached environmental assessment prepared by Bio-Tech Consulting describes
soils, vegetative communities and presence of protected flora and fauna on the site. Eight inactive gopher
tortoise burrows were observed on the site. The developer will have to comply with one of Florida Fish
and Wildlife Conservation Commission's options for the preservation of the gopher tortoise prior to any
site construction. No other protected species were observed.
The applicant is proposing to fill a small wetland on the southwest side of the site and to mitigate for the
filling on-site in the northwest portion of the site. This wetland has been evaluated by Bio-Tech
Consulting, Inc., which found that:
the ecological value of this wetland has been significantly limited by the
residential development and road improvements to the west and north, the
power line easement and substation to the south, and the previous landfill
operation to the east. These activities have negatively influenced the
hydrology of the wetland, as well as directly impacted the majority of the
edges of the system. Those impacts (i.e. dredge, fill, dumping, etc.) in
Page 10
F:xSHA_ENGxComp Plan~CPA2005klst Amcndm~mt~adoptComp plan & DIA.dc~
conjunction with the altered hydrology, have lead to the establishment and
spread of nuisance and exotic vegetation. Currently, this wetland would score
a Wetland Significance Rating of LOW per the Seminole County Wetlands
Field Guide and would fall in the NOT PRESENT to MINIMAL range per the
State of Florida's Uniform Mitigation Assessment Method. This wetland
should not be considered significant, as it possess only nominal ecological
value.
Page 11
F:kSHA_EN(BC~mP Plan~CPA2005Xlst ~ plan & DIA.doc
0 0 0
ATTACHMENT A
16:1l 40724~9~3 F~CHT E:''~//~J''~ ENG H~; p/~- 0'2
~ ~m'~onra~nt~ ~d P r~
d.lll.tl ck;elllltllll ~ lie
Janunsy~ 6, 2005
David Evans
Evans Engineering
719 Irma Avenue
Orlando, FL 32g03
~ro~:
gel
Reserve at Sanford Project Site- S~minole Counly, FL
Section lO, Township 20 South, Range 30 East
BTC File #244-01.03 (aka Barclay Woods Ill)
Southern Wetland Evaluation
Dear Mr. Evans:
This letter was drafted pursuant to our recent oonversation r~garding the
above referenced project. During April and September of 2004, Bio-Tech
Consulting, Inc. (BTC) conducted m'~ cnvironmenlal assessment of thc
approximately 22-acre Reserve at ganford Project Site located in Sa~ford,
just norUh'of the intersection of A_et Road and Lake Mary Boulevard, within
Section 10, Township 20 South, Range 30 East, Seminole County, Florida.
This assessment was conducted to determine the location and condition of
any jurisdictiorml wetland-~/surfacc waters that exist on the site, and to
identity' the occurrence of any li~ted plant or wildlife species oo the
property'.
The w~land that exists along the southern boundm'y of thc Ream-ye at
Sanford Project Site is a mixed forested systent This system extends off-
site to' the south. Common vegetative species present in this wetland
include, Carolina willow (/gala earoliniana), primrose willow (Ludwigia
octovalvi,~), cldcrbo~ (~ambucus cav_od~nsts). Chinese tallow (Sapium
sebi.£¢non), blackbody (Rubus cuneifolius), muscadine grape (Vitis
rotundifolia],red maple (Acer rubrum): Iobiolly bay (Gordonia
/as/anthus), sweetgum ./.Liquiclambar ~tyraciflu. a),Ioblolly
16:ll
40724GOgG3
pagt 2 of 2
pine (pin~s taeda), xvate~ oak (Quercus nigra), cabbage pahu (Sabal palmetto),
poison ivy (To×wodendron radicanz), and ferns such as
greenbrier (Smilax spp-), einnamomea), royal fern (Osmunda regalia) and Virginia
cinnamon fern (Osrnunda - . c ecological value of this wetland has been
_u.:.t.~ t34roodwardia virgiruca) '[]a . - --d road improvements to the
~,~,~:~v.., ,. . thc residential development ~,
significantly limited by
west and north, the powerline easement and substation to the south, and the
previous landfill operation to the cast. These activities have negatively influenced
well as directly impacted the majority of the edges
the hydrology of the wetland, as flil, dumping, etc...), in conjunction
of the ay. slcm. Those impacts (i.e. dredge, establishment and spread of nuisance
with the almrcd hydrology, have lead to the Wetland Signiftcance
and exotic vegetation. Currently, this wetland would score a
Rating of LOW, per 0ac $cmlnol¢ County Wetlands Field Guide, and would fall in
the NOT pRESENT to lvllbilMAL range per the State of Florida's Uniform
Mitigation Assessment Method. This wetland should not be considered
significant, as it possess only nominal ecological value. Impacts to this system,
par6cularly edge impacts, should be considered negligible.
Should you have any questions or require any additional information, please do not
hesitate to contact me at (a07) 894-5969. Thank you.
Kcgards,
subject property. Vegetation observed within this area includes, red bay (persea borbonia),
sweet bay (Magnolia virginiana), loblolly bay (Gordonia lasinanthus), pond pine (Finns
royal fern
grape (Vitis rotundifolia)
serotina), red maple (Acer rubrum), Chiuese tallow-tree (Sapium sebiferum),
(Osmunda regalis), primrose willow (Ludwigia peruviana), muscadine
and Virginia chain fern Ogoodwardia virginica)-
which would also be considered jurisdictional by the interested regulatory
of Engineers), includes
The surface water area, .
' the lake includes maidencane (Pantcum
agencies (St. Johns River Water Management District and Army Corps
Low Vegetation identified within, ~-~vrasbes (Rhynchospora spp-), fragrant
Lake Loch ;rimrose willow (Ludwtgta peruvtana], u~,~,~ (Hydrocotyle
hernitornon),
water lily (Nymphaea odorata), spatterdock (Nuphar luteum), peru~ywort
umbellata), cattails (l'ypha latifolia) and toq>edograss (Panicurn repens). '/here is also a
significant amount of punktree (Melaleuca quinquenervia) within and around the perimeter of
Lake Loch Low. This is an exotic and highly invasive species.
The only listed wildlife species identified on the subject property was the gopher tortoise
(Gopherus polyphernus)- Currently the gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus) is classified as a
- ~ m" b" FFWCC- The basis of the "Species of Special Concern"
of
· 'Snecies of Special c, once J
cl~sification by the FFWCC for the gopher tortoise is due to habitat loss and destruction
burrows- Gopher tortoises are commonly found in areas with well-drained soils associated with
xeric pine-oak hammock, scrub, pine flatwoods, pastures and abandoned orange groves. The
burrows of this species were identified within the hardwood - conifer mixed portion of the
property- Several other protected species knov~n to occur in Seminole County have a possibility
of occurring in this area, as they are gopher tortoise commensal species- These species include
the eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon corals couperO, Florida mouse (Podomys floridanus) and
the gopher frog (Rana capito). Additionally, there are no recorded Bald Eagle nests within one
mile of the subject site as of 2002-
The attached aerial photograph depicts the approximate limits of the areas which would be
regulatory agencies (SJRWMD and ACOE). Please note
deemed jurisdictional by the interested to be set and subsequently reviewed/approved by the
that the actual jurisdictional limits will need
regulatory agencies prior to site permitting.
Barclay Woods I11 Project Site - Sermnale County, Florida
Initial Environmental Assessment (BTC File g147-02)
Should you have any questions or require any additional infom~ation, please do not hesitate to
contact me at (407) 894-5969_ Thank you.
attachment
Regards,
//ay aker
t, Project Manager
President
Barda~, [foods 111 Project Site - Seminole County, Florida
Initial Environmental Assessment (BTC File #147~2)
315 N. g ~-- --~L Aw. 407.894~969
Othaao, la--~2a03 ,..~a-- - , Bal'day Woods II[ Project ~i~e t. l~a~ B
Bio Tech Consul~ng Inc.
En~omefltM and Permitti~ Services
B-.-
. lO f~h ConsulHng Inc.
~nv~onment~ and Permitting Services
Bio-Tech Consulting Inc.
Environmental and Permitth~g Services
Barclay Woods BI Project
Seminole Coun~
USGS Wopognphic Map
Drawn By: DBG
Date: Aug. 2. 2004
Scale: ~
1
! Bio-Tecll Con.lUng Inc.
[ ~fironmcmM and Permit~g Services
l~ay Woo~ III Ptoj~t Si(
F~e4
USD~-I~aCS ~ ~
N
:,.,~:~,~c~s.,...,.,:. I ~ :~'~"~~~.~
ermitting Services FLIJCI~C~ Map Scale: NTS
Scientific Name
Ba~i Site - S~Co~
Potentially, Occurring Listed Wildlife and Plant .~pecies in
Seminole County, Florida '
Common Name Federal State
Status Status Status
Pteronotro_ql~is welalca
Drymarchon corais
Pituophis melanoleucus
Stilosoma extenuatum
Eudocimus albus
Falco sparverius paulus
Haliaeetus i
Pandion haliaetus
Deeringothamnus rugelii
Dennstaedtia bipinnata
Lechea cernua
Lechea divaricata
Pterogloxsaspis ecristata
var
bluenose shiner
N LS C
N LS p
eastern indigo snake LT
LT C
Florida pine snake
N LS C
N LS C
short-tailed snake N LT
little blue heron__ __N LS
white ibis N LS --
southeastern American N LT
kestrel
bald eagle LT LT
P
P
P
P
C
wood stork
LE LE p
N LS** C
Florida mouse N LS C
Sherman's fox N LS C
Rugel's pawpaw LE LE R
hay scented fern N
LE C
nodd N LT C
N LE R
wild coco N LT C
mistletoe cactus N LE C
star anise N LE C
N LT C
_bog spicebush N LE R
scrub lupine LE LE C
floridana
} chartacea
humili~
inte rag5~~
myriophylla
Pteroglossaspis ecristata -
simpsonii
Flor/da sp_iny-~l
fall-flOwering ixia
~F. lorida bear~
__ Britton's beargrass
paper-like nailwort
terrestrial peperomia
,ellow fringeless orchk
Lewto~'s_~olygala
Small's jointweed --
wild coco
~Florida willow
s~crub s~isma
clasping warea
rain lily
N
N
N
N
LE
I,T
N
N
LE
LE
LE
N
N
N
LE
N
LE
LE
LE
LT
LE
LE
LE
LE
LE
LE
LE
LT
LE
LE
LE
LT
C
C
FEDERAL LEGAL STATUES
LE-Endangcred: .' . - . . _ .
spec~¢~ m danger of e×tmct~on Ilmmgho~t all ~ a st~,fi~l ~nion of/ts ~ge
I.T-~at~: ;~i~ likely to ~)me E~gered within fl~¢ f~c~e~lc future Ihroughaa all or a ~ignificm~t
i~ r~ge.
~S/A~g~ due ~ simd~i~ of~ to a s~ics ~ ~ f~Mly list~ such t~t enf~ment
have diff~ul~ in ~em~ing to differentiae ~tw~n ~e list~ ~M ~lisl~ s~cies.
T(~AJ-~mle~ due 1o simil~ty of ap~ (~
PE-Pro~ f~ listing ~ En~g~ed s~i~.
PT-Pro~s~ f~ listing a ~ca~ s~.
C-C~id~e s~i~ for which l~&ml lis6ag ~eies have sufficient informafi~ on biologist vulne~bility
supra ~siag to list Ce s~cies ~ E~ger~ ~
XN Non<~n6M cx~enml ~pul~ion
MC-Not c~tly list~, ~t ofm~em conc~ m USFWS.
N~Nm ~fly lis~ ~r c~en{ly ~ing ~idered f~ listing ~ Endangered or ThreatenS.
STATE LEGAL STATI/S - ANIMA~
LE-End~g~ed: s~ies, subs~ies, or isolai~ ~pu at/on ~ few ~ de e '
in immin~t ~g~ of extinction p I~ m numl~r or so res~ict~ in
LT-'~rmten~: s~i~, subspecies, or isolat~ ~pulation facing a ve~ high r sk of ex ' '
~-S~i~ or.iai Concern is a s~cles ~.h.~- - m~on m ~e future.
PE-Pro~s~ for listing ~ End.gered.
~'-Pro~ f~ listing ~
P~Pm~ for listing ~ S~ies ofS~cial C~.
N-N°t c~tlY lis~d, nor cu~ently ~ing ~idered for sting
STATE LEGAL ~ATUS - PI.ANTS
LE-En~g~: s~i~ ofpl~ ~tive to Flofi~ ~ ~ in immin~t ~g~ of e~inction within ~e state, the sumival
of which is ~likely ' - .
~ffl~e caus~ ora d~hne m ~e n~r ofpl~ ~minue; inclu&s all s~cies dete~in~
end~g~ ~ ~l~ ~u~t lo ~e U.S. En~g~ed S~i~ Act.
LT-~{~: s~i~ native lo the s~e ~at ~e in ~id ~line in O~e num~ ofpl~8 wi~in ~e state, but which have
~1 ~ d~ in numar ~ to ~use them to ~ ~g~
PE-P~ for Iis6ag ~ E~gered.
~-Pro~ f~ listing ~ ~emened.
N-N~ cu~en~y list~ ~r cu~en~ly ~ing ~mid~ f~ 1~6ng.
COUNTY ~CURRENCE ~TII~
Vea~nt~ aad lave~ebra/e~:
C =
P._lants:
C: Confirmed
R = Reported
/ o-Tech Consulting inc.
& ]~llV~foFIill(~ntal arid Permilting Services
iflfo@bjo-tecbconslJltiflg.ce~
www.blo-lechcollsuitiflg.cem
April 14, 2004
Tom Corkcry
Cougressiooal Homes and Developers
1085 W. Morse Blvd., Suite A
Winter Park, FL 32789
Proji
Re.'
Barclay Woods Ill Project Site - Seminole Count, Florida
Section !0, Township 20 Sooth, Range 30 East
BTC File//147-02
Initial Environmental Assessment
Dear Mr. Corkery:
During April of 2004, Bio-Tech Consulting, Inc. conducted an initial environmental
assessment of the approximately 22-acre Barclay Woods I1[ Project Site located in
San£ord, just north of the intersection of Art Road and Lake Mary Boulevard, within
Section 10, Township 20 South, Range 30 'Fast, Seminole County, Florida. This initial
assessment was conducted in order to determine the approximate location of any
jurisdictional wetlands/surlPaee waters which exist on the site, as well as to identify the
occurrence of any listed plant or wildlife species on the property_
The subject site included both uplands, wetlands and surface water areas. The uplands
existing on the site consisted of hardwood conifer mixed and shrub and brushland areas.
Vegetation within these upland areas includes, slash pine (Pinus elliotlii), laurel oak
(Quercus laurifolia), bahia grass (Paspalum notatun.), ragweed (An*brosia
arten*ia'iifolia), lantana (Lantana camara) and winged sumac (Rhus copalina). The
wetland areas, which would be considered juhsdictional by the interested regulatory
agencies (St. Johns River Water Management District and Army Corps of Engineers)
consisted of mixed forested wetland and the shoreline associated with Lake Loch Low.
There is a mixed forested wetland that extends onto the southern boundary of the
governments submitting
St. Johns River Water Management District
Potable Water Availability Worksheet
This worksheet is for use by local governments submitting
COmprehensive plan amendments to determine the availability of potable
water resources to Serve proposed development. Instructions and St.
Johns River Water Management Distr/ct (SJRWMD) staffcontact
information are attached.
1. General Information
Date: 4/12/05
Contact name: Antonia Gerli Phone.
Local -overnm ..... -- . - ' 407 330-5672 E-mail:
P°tab'~ . ~.t: ~ord
s~ Water supplier:~Same ~
2. Infrastructure Information
Water treatment plant permit number: 3590205
Permitted capacity of the ~ Perm/tting agency: _DEp
water treatment plant(s): 15.5 million gallons a day (mgd)
Total design capacity of the water treatment plant(s): 15.5mgd
Are distribution lines available to serve the property? Yes X[~ No []
If not, indicate how and When the lines will be provided:
Are reuse distribution lines available to serve the property? Yes [] N~
If not, indicate if, how and when the lines will be provided:
served b reuse lines
3. SJRWMD Consumptive Use Permit (CUP) Information
CUP number: 2-117-0026NYMYR & 50965 Expiration date: 6/20/19 for surface ermit-
~roun~nd_~pd ermit
Total CUP duration (years): ~rmit- ex ired for roun~er~
CUP allocation in last year of permit: 8.2 - ro nd: 2 6 surface
Current status of CUP: , ,°~,~u~.~ ~or .u.nr~ 2.6- surface
m compoance X[_J No~
Allocations to other local governments: pnance I_.J
Reserved capacity:_ Seminole Count included in consum tion
4. Consumptive Use Analysis
A. Current year CUP allocation: D~ignate mgd Xf-] or mgy []
13. Consumption in the previous calendar year: J0.8.
C. Reserved capacity [] or growth projection X[] (check me one asea): 5.__:42
D. Projected consumption by proposed comprehensive plan amendment areas .6.__Q0
E. Amount available for all other future uses (^ _ t~ - c - D = E): .3~7
If the amount in E is zero or a negative number, explain how potable water will be made available
for future uses: 4.41
DEPARTMENT
JEB BUSH
STATE OF FLORIDA
OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS
"Dedicated to making Florida a better place to call home"
June 15, 2005
THADOEUS L. COHEN. AIA
Secretary
The Honorable Linda Kuhn, Mayor
Department of Planning and Community Development
P.O.Box 1788
Sanford FL, 32772
Dear Mayor Kuhn:
The Department of Community Affairs has completed its review of the proposed
Comprehensive Plan Amendment for City of Sanford (DCA 05-1), which was received April 20,
2005. Based on Chapter 163, Florida Statues, we have prepared the attached report that outlines
our findings concerning the amendments. It is especially pertinent that the City address the
objections set forth in our review so that the identified issues can be successfully resolved prior
to adoption. We have also included a copy of the local, regional and state agency comments for
your consideration. Within the next 60 days, the City should act by choosing to adopt, adopt with
changes or not to adopt the proposed amendments. For your assistance, our report outlines
procedures for final adoption and transmittal.
The C' '
lty s proposed Amendment 05-1 consists of 21 Future Land Use Map (FLUM)
amendments and one text amendment. The 2 l map changes total 258 acres, involving annexation
and land. use. trends. The text amendment Policy 1-2.47 revises The Future Land Use Element to
ensure mat the policy is consistent with the OSIA-FAA-approved Part 150 Noise and Land Use
Compatibility program as well as adds Exhibit Map 1-13 to the future land use series.
The Department has identified concerns with one of the proposed amendments. The
proposed map amendment is not supported by an adequate transportation analysis demonstrating
that the adopted level of service on affected state roadways, are not impacted by this
development. This issue needs to be addressed prior to adoption of the plan amendment.
2555 SHUMARD OAK BOULEVARD TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-2100
Phone: 850*488.8466/Suncom 278.8466 FAX: 850-921.0781/Suncom 291.0781
Inlernet address: ht--~.P_l ://WWw.dca.s[~e fi.us
.... ~ 4~=~ ~numard Oak 8o~ev~-cl 2555 SflU~rd Oek 8oule~er¢
The Honorable Linda Kuhn, Mayor
June 15, 2005
Pa~e Two
"The Department looks forward to working with the Citv of S
objections. We will be available to assist in any wa,, ....... ~- anford to address the
questions or if we may be of further assistance as you formulate your response to this Report,
-' ~J ,,~ V~tll. ~ Y°U or your staffhave any
please contact me at (850) 922- 1818 or Towanda Anthony at (850) 922-1782.
JS/ta
Enclosures: Objections, Recommendations and Comments Report
Review Agency Comments ·
cc: Jeff Jones, Acting Executive Director, East Central Flor/da Regional Planning Council
Russell L. Gibson, AICP, Director, Department of Planning and Community Development
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS
OBJECTIONs, RECOMMENDATIONS AND COMMENTS
FOR
CITy of SANFORD
AMENDMENT 05-1
June 15, 2005
Division o£Community Planning
Office o£ Comprehensive Planning
This report is prepared pursuant to Ruie 9J-I 1.010, F.A.C.
INTRODUCTION
The. following objections, recommendations and comments are based upon the Department's
~vlew of City of Sanford's proposed amendment to their comprehensive plan (DCA, number 0S-
pursuant to Chapter 163.3184, Florida Statutes (F.S.).
The objections relate to specific requirements of relevant portions of Chapter 9J-$, Florida
Administrative Code (F.A.C.), and Chapter 1153, Part II, F.S. Each objection includes a
recommendation of one approach that might be taken to address the cited obiect/on. Other
approaches may be more suitable in specific situations. Some of these objec-tions may have
initially been raised by one of the other external review agencies. If there is a difference between
the Department's objection and the external agency advisory objection or comment, the
Department's objection wOuld take precedence.
Each of these objections must be addressed by the local government and corrected when the
amend, mant is res.ubm, itted for our compliance review. Objections, which are not addressed, may
re.sul! m a .de. re .r~mat,on t.hat the amendment is not in compliance. The De artme
raises an oojectlon regarding missing data and analysis items, which the lo
considers not cpa~1 goevnetrn~mnaeYn~aVe
applicable to its amendment. If that is the case, a statement justifying its non-
applicability pursuant to Rule 9J-5.002(2), F.A.C., must be submitted. The Department will
make a determination on the non-applicability of the requirement, and if the justification is
sufficient, the objection will be considered addressed.
The comments, which follow the objections and recommendations section, are adv
nature Comments will not form bases of a determin -' - isory in
to call' auon olnon-compliance. They are included
attention to items raised by our reviewers. The comments can be substantive, concerning
planning principles, methodology or logic, as well as editorial in' nhture dealing with grammar,
organization, mapping, and reader comprehension.
Appended to the back of the Department's report are the comment letters from the other state
review agencies and other agencies, organizations and individuals. These comments are
advisory to the Department and may not form bases of Departmental objections unless they
appear under the Objecttons heading in this report.
OBJECTIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND COMMENTS
FOR
CITY of SANFORD
AMENDMENT 05~1
OBJECTIONS
The Department identifies the following 9bjection to the following proposed amendment
Transportation Analysis (Site 21): The City did not include adequate data and analysis
for the roadways in the vicinity &the proposed site demonstrating the availability of adequate
transportation facilities. The proposed amendment will generate an additional 7,713 trips on
roadways US 17/92, between Lake Mary Boulevard and Airport Boulevard as well as between
SR 46 and SR 415, which according to City transportation analysis are already operating at level
of service standard (LOS) F. Furthermore, traffic analysis did not identify the impacts to all
segments of SR 15/600 (US 17-92); and SR 46, SR 415 and SR 419 in the vicinity of the site
which are currently over capacity.
The proposed amendment has not demonstrated consistency with the public facilities
provisions (goals, objectives, and policies) of the Future Land Use Element Goal 1-3.1 and
Policy 1 ~3.7.1, Capital Improvements Element Objective 8-1.4 and Policy 8-1.4. 1., and
Transportation Element Issue Policy 2-1.1.5.
Sections 163.3177 (2); 163.3177 (3a and c); 163.3177 (6a and j) F.S.
Rules 9J-5.006(2)(a);Rule 9J-5.019(3)(d) and (3)(0, Rules 9J-5.006, Rules 9J-5.006 (3)(b)(1)
and (3)(c) and (3)(0, F.A.C.
R_ eecommendation: Revise the amendment to include detailed transportation data and analysis,
cond. ucted based on'the maximum development proposed for the site, at the adopted level of
servme standard for SR 15/600, SR 46, SR 415 and SR 419. The data and analYsis should
identify the short and long term facility needs and demonstrate that the City will be able to
maintain the adopted level of service on the identified roadways in the vicinity of the site. The
transportation impact analysis should indicate if there is adequate roadway capacity to serve the
current daily trips as well as the potential daily trips generated by the proposed development.
Alternatively, do.not adopt the amendment.
CONSISTENCY WITH STATE CONIPREHENSIVE PLAN
~ The proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment 05-1 is not consistent with and does
not further the following provisions of the State Comprehensive Plan (Chapter 187, Florida
Statutes) for the reasons noted in the objections raised above in Section I:
(a) Goal 17.a (Public Facilities); Policy 17.b.7;
(b) Goal 19.a (Transportation); Policies 19.b.2, 19.b.3, 19.b.9, 19.b. 13, and 19.b. 15;
(g) Goal 25.a (Plan Implementation); Policy 25.b.7.
.Recommendation: Revise the plan amendment as recommended for the objections raised above
in Section I.