open public hearing and allow public comment request to continue LPA public hearing to January 16, 2014 at 10:30 am

TODAY S AGENDA Work Session LPA Transmittal Public Hearing open public hearing and allow public comment request to continue LPA public hearing to January 16, 2014 at 10:30 am staff will issue a recommendation in January BCC Transmittal Public Hearing - January 28, 2014

PRESENTATION OUTLINE Staff Presentation Challenges Considerations Concepts Applicant Presentation Community Perspective LPA Discussion

PROJECT AREA THE REGIONAL CONTEXT

COMMUNITY MEETINGS Three (3) Community Meetings: October 16, November 13, and December 11 Meeting 1: General Overview of Text and Map Amendments (Urban Transect) Meeting 2: Concept Plans A and B (Urban Transect) Meeting 3: Concept Plan (Rural Transition)

PRESENTATION STRUCTURE Staff Presentation Challenges Considerations Concepts Applicant Presentation Community Perspective LPA Discussion

EXISTING CONTEXT UCF (LESS THAN 2 MILES) LAKE PICKETT RURAL SETTLEMENT LAKE PICKETT DR BITHLO RURAL SETTLEMENT COLONIAL DR CORNER LAKE RURAL SETTLEMENT URBAN SERVICE BOUNDARY

ECONLOCKHATCHEE RIVER UCF (LESS THAN 2 MILES) LAKE PICKETT RURAL SETTLEMENT LAKE PICKETT DR BITHLO RURAL SETTLEMENT COLONIAL DR CORNER LAKE RURAL SETTLEMENT URBAN SERVICE BOUNDARY

OPEN SPACE & CONSERVATION UCF (LESS THAN 2 MILES) LAKE PICKETT RURAL SETTLEMENT LAKE PICKETT DR BITHLO RURAL SETTLEMENT COLONIAL DR CORNER LAKE RURAL SETTLEMENT URBAN SERVICE BOUNDARY

EXISTING NETWORK UCF (LESS THAN 2 MILES) LAKE PICKETT RURAL SETTLEMENT LAKE PICKETT DR BITHLO RURAL SETTLEMENT COLONIAL DR CORNER LAKE RURAL SETTLEMENT URBAN SERVICE BOUNDARY

URBAN BOUNDARY PRESSURE UCF (LESS THAN 2 MILES) LAKE PICKETT RURAL SETTLEMENT LAKE PICKETT DR BITHLO RURAL SETTLEMENT COLONIAL DR CORNER LAKE RURAL SETTLEMENT URBAN SERVICE BOUNDARY

RESIDENTIAL PRESSURE UCF (LESS THAN 2 MILES) LAKE PICKETT RURAL SETTLEMENT LAKE PICKETT DR BITHLO RURAL SETTLEMENT COLONIAL DR CORNER LAKE RURAL SETTLEMENT URBAN SERVICE BOUNDARY

COMMERCIAL PRESSURE UCF (LESS THAN 2 MILES) LAKE PICKETT RURAL SETTLEMENT LAKE PICKETT DR BITHLO RURAL SETTLEMENT COLONIAL DR CORNER LAKE RURAL SETTLEMENT URBAN SERVICE BOUNDARY

PROTECTION OF RURAL SETTLEMENTS UCF (LESS THAN 2 MILES) LAKE PICKETT RURAL SETTLEMENT LAKE PICKETT DR BITHLO RURAL SETTLEMENT COLONIAL DR CORNER LAKE RURAL SETTLEMENT URBAN SERVICE BOUNDARY

CHALLENGES RECENT APPLICATIONS 2009 Rybolt 2013-1 New Ideas 2013-2 Lake Pickett North 2014-1 Urban Transect 2014-1 Rural Transition Residential 5,000 du 223 du 3,200 du 5,390 du 4,961 du Nonresidential 2,225,000 s.f. N/A 200,000 s.f. 740,000 s.f. 250,000 s.f. Gross acreage 1,441 acres 223 acres 1,441 acres 2,677 acres 2,677 acres Result of Application Denied at Transmittal Withdrawn by Applicant Insufficient Application Replaced by Rural Transition In Process

PRESENTATION STRUCTURE Staff Presentation Challenges Considerations Concepts Applicant Presentation Community Perspective LPA Discussion

CONSIDERATIONS Provision of infrastructure and services - Transportation facilities - Water and wastewater - School Capacity Sprawl criteria Goal of infill and redevelopment within the Urban Service Area Context sensitive/compatibility Impact of the proposal on surrounding areas Demand for development Adjacency to Seminole County Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan

PRESENTATION STRUCTURE Staff Presentation Challenges Considerations Concepts Applicant Presentation Community Perspective LPA Discussion

CONCEPTS The Rural Transition (RT) is intended for areas where an urban scale of development may be appropriate, but where compatibility, natural resources and/or infrastructure conditions suggest a rural to urban transition may be more appropriate.

PROPOSED TRANSITION ZONE UCF (LESS THAN 2 MILES) LAKE PICKETT RURAL SETTLEMENT LAKE PICKETT DR BITHLO RURAL SETTLEMENT COLONIAL DR CORNER LAKE RURAL SETTLEMENT URBAN SERVICE BOUNDARY

CONCEPTS 1. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 2. DEVELOPMENT CLUSTERING 3. COMPLETE COMMUNITIES 4. WALKABLE NEIGHBORHOODS

UCF (LESS THAN 2 MILES) LAKE PICKETT RURAL SETTLEMENT LAKE PICKETT DR BITHLO RURAL SETTLEMENT COLONIAL DR CORNER LAKE RURAL SETTLEMENT URBAN SERVICE BOUNDARY ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

OPEN SPACE MASTER PLANNING CREDIT: FCCDR.USF.EDU

UCF (LESS THAN 2 MILES) LAKE PICKETT RURAL SETTLEMENT LAKE PICKETT DR BITHLO RURAL SETTLEMENT COLONIAL DR CORNER LAKE RURAL SETTLEMENT URBAN SERVICE BOUNDARY DEVELOPMENT CLUSTERING

DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS A B C LOW DENSITY NEIGHBORHOODS CONSERVATION NEIGHBORHOODS TRADITIONAL NEIGHBORHOODS

E C A B D COMPLETE COMMUNITIES

WALKABLE NEIGHBORHOODS

SUMMARY CHALLENGES CONSIDERATIONS CONCEPTS

CURRENT APPLICATION

PRESENTATION STRUCTURE Staff Presentation Challenges Considerations Concepts Applicant Presentation Community Perspective LPA Discussion

NEXT STEPS Work Session LPA Transmittal Public Hearing open public hearing and allow public comment request to continue LPA public hearing to January 16, 2014 at 10:30 am staff will issue a recommendation in January BCC Transmittal Public Hearing - January 28, 2014

Work Session Agenda Format Application Background/Chronology Proposed RT Policies Development Program and Concept Plan Existing/Projected Transportation Conditions Question and Answer

Proposed RT Policies RT Policy Framework Introduction 1. RURAL TRANSITION 2. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 3. DEVELOPMENT CLUSTERING 4. COMPLETE COMMUNITIES 5. WALKABLE NEIGHBORHOODS 6. PROCESS

Proposed RT Policies RT Policy Framework Introduction 1. Rural Transition Designation Applicable County Wide 2. Core Concepts Expressed in Policy 3. Transmittal Based on Core Concepts 4. Core Concepts Refined/Expanded between Transmittal and Adoption

Proposed RT Policies RT Policy Framework Introduction 1. What does Transmittal include: Rural Transition Policies Three FLU Map Amendments 2. What does Transmittal not include: Conceptual Master Plan Development Program (4,961 dwellings/250,000 sq. ft. nonresidential

Proposed RT Policies RT Policy Framework Introduction 1. What does the RT Policies require concurrent with Adoption: Conceptual Master Plan Property Specific Development Program Transportation, Utilities, Public School and Adequate Public Facilities Master Plans and Term Sheets/Agreements

Proposed RT Policies RT Policy Framework Main Concepts 1. RURAL TRANSITION/COMPLETE COMMUNITIES Policy 6.4.2 Development Framework. All proposed RT areas shall be in the form of one or more communities containing a mix of neighborhoods, interconnected open space systems, adequate public facilities and a balance of neighborhood serving non-residential uses including the following: (continues)

Proposed RT Policies RT Policy Framework Main Concepts 1. RURAL TRANSITION/COMPLETE COMMUNITIES Policy 6.4.5 Residential Density. As a transitional area between rural and urban served uses, the [maximum] residential [yield]shall be 2.5 dwelling units per net acre as a balance between rural densities and minimum urban densities. Densities shall include the following: Neighborhood density up to 6 dwelling units per net acre. Community center density of up to 12 dwelling units per net acre.

Proposed RT Policies RT Policy Framework Main Concepts 1. RURAL TRANSITION/COMPLETE COMMUNITIES Policy 6.4.6 Non-Residential Development. Non-residential development shall be permitted in community center(s) as follows: Permitted uses include commercial, employment, residential, lodging and civic uses. Maximum area for a community center is 35 net acres. Maximum gross square footage permitted in a community center is 50,000 square feet.

Proposed RT Policies RT Policy Framework Main Concepts 2. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Policy 6.4.7 Open Space. Each community in the RT shall have an interconnected open space system comprised of wetlands, flood plain, storm water management facilities, park lands and preserved uplands. Each community shall have a total of 50% open space. (continues)

Proposed RT Policies RT Policy Framework Main Concepts 2. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Policy 6.4.8 Storm Water Management. Drainage facilities in the RT shall exceed the standards for the St. Johns River Water Management District and Orange County and include low impact development best management practices for water quality.

Proposed RT Policies RT Policy Framework Main Concepts 3. DEVELOPMENT CLUSTERING/WALKABLE NEIGHBORHOODS Policy 6.4.4 Neighborhood Development. All residential development will emphasize a pedestrian orientation including an interconnected trail and sidewalk system with walkable destinations including schools, parks and civic uses. Policy 6.4.4.1 Size. Neighborhoods should not exceed 120 acres.

Proposed RT Policies RT Policy Framework Main Concepts 4. PROCESS Policy 6.4.9.2 Conceptual Master Plan. To facilitate coordinated roadways, trails, utilities and school locations, there shall be an RT Master Plan approved by the Board of County Commissioners. This overlay shall not be considered part of the Future Land Use Map but will guide coordinated development within the RT. If an amendment to the RT Master Plan is requested, it will require Board action to amend the Master Plan. Approval of the Future Land Use map Amendment and the Conceptual Master Plan must include the following agreements for all property proposed for RT designation: Master Utilities Agreement. Multimodal Transportation [Term] Agreement. OCPS Capacity Enhancement Agreement. Adequate Public facilities agreement for sheriff, fire, parks and recreation.

Proposed RT Policies RT Policy Framework Main Concepts 4. PROCESS Policy 6.4.9.3 Planned Development Regulating Plan (PDRG). A PDRG shall have a Regulating Plan documenting the general location of collector roads, neighborhoods, schools, parks and community center(s). In addition to all Planned Development zoning requirements found in the Land Development Code, the PDRG shall provide detailed development performance standards cited as the PDRG Development Model. (continues)

Utility-Related Policies Potable Water Policies PW1.4.2 and PW1.4.3 Criteria to extend service outside of the Urban Service Area Potable Water Policy PW1.5.3 Speaks to non-vested development connecting to utility lines intended to serve the Bithlo Rural Settlement Wastewater Objective WW1.4 and Policy WW1.4.3 Criteria to extend service beyond the Urban Service Area

Preliminary Staff Comments Draft Objectives/Policies - RT 1. FLU6.4.1 Number of homes that constitute a community 2. FLU6.4.4.5 Street connectivity standard/0.18 per neighborhood acre 3. FLU6.4.6 Non-residential development standard to determine housing based demand is lacking; policy guidance relative to intensity of use is lacking

Preliminary Staff Comments Draft Objectives/Policies - RT 1. FLU6.4.7 Community and neighborhood open space not defined and composition (uplands, wetlands, etc.) unclear 2. FLU6.4.9.2 Criteria for Conceptual Master Plan are not clear, required info not addressed 3. FLU6.4.9.3 Policy should clarify the subject matter/content for Regulating Code for Communities/Neighborhoods and Centers

Preliminary Staff Comments Draft Objectives/Policies - RT 1. FLU6.4.13 Substantial work remains to identify the elements and criteria for a transportation related global term sheet

Conceptual Master Plan

Transportation Impacts

Existing Deficiencies Chuluota Road (CR 419) Colonial Drive to Seminole County Line Colonial Drive Avalon Park to Chuluota Road McCulloch Road Lockwood Blvd to North Tanner Road Lake Pickett Road Colonial Drive to Chuluota

Trip Generation Data* Phase I (2018) 12,423 Daily Trips/708 pm/ph Phase II (2023) 37,847 Daily Trips/2,019 pm/ph Phase III (2030) 67,255 Daily Trips/3,544 pm/ph * Trip generation reflects original development submittal

SR50 Improvement Schedule 408 $2.000 FY19 (Old Cheney Highway to Chuluota Road)

Planned/Programmed Projects

Phase 1 Impacts

Phase 2 Impacts

Phase 3 Impacts

Phase 3(a) Impacts

Consistency Consistency with Comprehensive Plan T1.3.1 - Requirement to maintain the designated level of service T1.3.2 - Improvements based on factors (safety, capacity, row availability, partnerships, located in the urban service boundary, etc. OBJ T2.1 - County will continue to ensure minimum level of service standards on County and state roads T2.21- service T2.2.2 T2.2.3 T2.2.4 T2.2.6 Review the impacts of development in conjunction with issuance of development Proportionate share calculation for projects that degrade LOS Enforce applicable concurrency regulations Mitigation agreement Utilize corridor method of analysis when appropriate

Consistency Transportation Mitigation Options Concurrency/Mitigation within the constraints of HB 7207 & SB 319 Mitigation/proportionate share agreement (limited to addressing project impacts not existing deficiencies) Global Road Term Sheet Outlines developer(s) infrastructure placement tied to development program Commitment to agreements BCC approval of Term Sheet prior to BCC adoption of Comprehensive Plan approval

Impact Fee Zones 1 2 4 3