 |
|
Lake Mary Jane Alliance 12232 Lake Mary Jane Road Orlando, FL 32832
Mr. F. Milch East Central Florida Regional Planning Council February 5, 2009 631 North Wymore Road, Suite 100 Maitland, FL 32751 Dear Mr. Milch The Lake Mary Jane Alliance is a group of some 600 property owners in the Lake Mary Jane area of southeast Orange County. Our mission is to preserve and protect the environment and rural character of this area of the county, with particular emphasis on the Lake Mary Jane Rural Settlement, while acknowledging and accepting properly managed growth. The group has carefully reviewed the Camino Reale application for approval of a Development of Regional Impact (DRI) in the southeast Orange County area, resulting in the comments, issues, concerns, and recommendations provided in the attachment. We have tried to be understanding in recognizing the need for properly managed growth by identifying areas of general agreement with the proposed DRI, but have also identified those areas of the DRI where we are totally opposed to the proposed development. Overall, we can support the development plans for the northern areas of the proposal with only minor issues that should be capable of resolution. However, we are totally opposed to certain elements of the proposed development for the southern parcels. We believe these plans are inconsistent with the Innovation Way goals and policies, the Orange County policies governing future land use and the How Shall We Grow county wide study. Further, they are incompatible with the existing Rural Settlement and the policies protecting these settlements. We trust that you will deny the application until these areas of inconsistency and incompatibility have been resolved and our other recommendations incorporated into the development plans. We have met with the developer in the past and have attended all meetings to make sure the developer understands our concerns and requests. We are available to meet with you and/or the developer at your convenience to mutually resolve the issues we have identified.
Peter Betterman President, Lake Mary Jane Alliance
cc: Mr. Thomas Daly, Daly Design Group Commissioner Linda Stewart, Orange County District 4 Ms. Susan Caswell, Orange County Planning Ms. Jane Healy, Orlando Sentinel Lake Mary Jane Alliance Response to Camino Reale Application for Approval of a Development of Regional Impact
We have carefully studied the application documentation, compared the application with the relevant Orange County Policies, growth management goals and the Innovation Way vision. We have solicited and incorporated comments and views from some 600 local residents and indentified the resulting issues, concerns and areas of total disagreement as outlined in the summary below. Each of these issues is explained further in following sections. Consistent with our policy of supporting properly managed growth and the Innovation Way vision as originally presented, we have identified recommendations to make the application policy compliant and acceptable to area residents. Summary of Issues and Recommendations · Application is inconsistent with Innovation Way policies. The southern portion of Camino Reale in this DRI application is outside the Innovation Way corridor and is not even adjacent to the corridor. This southern area is designated as rural agricultural, not allocated for development to Innovation Way densities. Recommendation. Develop only the northern parcels to Innovation Way densities, retain southern parcels next to Live Oak as rural densities. · Application is inconsistent with policies protecting Rural Settlements and their local roads. Recommendation. Require a minimum of 1 per 2 acre or 1 acre lots in areas adjacent to the rural settlement. Prohibit access to local roads within the rural settlement. · Potable / and reclaimed water is not available. Recommendation. Require a water master plan defining how water will be provided before any approvals. · No jobs prior to housing plans as required by Innovation Way policies. Recommendation. Revise the project master plan to provide jobs before housing per Orange County policies. · There is no established need for the project. Approved development meets county needs through 2025 at least, probably longer given current economic conditions. Recommendation. Application is premature. · Master Plan is 180 degrees contradictory to “How Shall we Grow” study results. Recommendation. Develop only within, or adjacent to, Innovation Way corridor as originally presented to residents. · Wildlife corridors ignored or compromised and residents feel that the studies are not accurate. Recommendation. Provide needed corridors free from development in areas currently used by wildlife and additional studies must be done. · Road networks open up access to rural lands south of the area encompassed by this application. Recommendation. Require outside access, or potential access, from north or northeast only. · Transportation relies on a “Business as Usual” projected building of roads and vague potential for multi mode transportation. Recommendation. Require defined access roads to be completed before any development can commence. Require elements of multi mode transportation to be completed before the development can proceed beyond an initial fixed percentage. · Site is incorrectly described as being within the Urban Service Area. Recommendation. Clearly state this application requires an extension of the Urban Service Area. Details of Issues, Inconsistencies and Incompatibilities Application is Inconsistent with Innovation Way Policies The Innovation Way corridor is clearly defined by Orange County Policies FLU 5.2.1and FLU 5.2.4. These policies state that the Innovation Way corridor is “generally depicted within the bold black lines shown on Exhibit B”(attached). Also “The conceptual prototype scenario ( Exhibit B) is intended to provide for the generalized and illustrative location and extent of Urban land uses ---“. Exhibit B shows the entire Study Area and is color coded to aid in determining Orange Counties intent for allowable land uses such as, Rural Agriculture, Preservation or Community District. While there has been dispute over the meaning of the very light green shading on this Exhibit, the definition of the mid green Rural Agriculture and dark green wetlands areas is indisputable. The County’s Innovation Way policy plans for higher density development within the corridor, supported by additional, lower density development outside, but still adjacent to the corridor. Areas further outside the corridor are to be preserved to current allowable land uses. The Camino Reale DRI application states that all the property is within the Innovation Way corridor. This is not correct. The land is within the Innovation Way Study Area, but only the northern tip of the land is within the corridor defined by the above policies and shown by Exhibit B with an overlay of Camino Reale. The applicant also states (in ADA Appendix ll policy 8.2.2)”as noted in the July 11 2008 letter provided by Orange County, the Property is within the Innovation Way corridor.” The July 11 letter is included in our response – and it never states this. Much of the southern portion of the land next to Live Oak is in an area Exhibit B defines and color codes as Rural Agriculture. Thus, use of the Innovation Way development densities for the entire development is totally incorrect and is in direct violation of the policies defined above. Application is Inconsistent with Policies protecting Rural Settlements and their local roads Orange County has numerous policies concerning Rural Settlements to control, protect and preserve the rural lifestyle chosen by existing area residents. Most specifically, Policy 2.1.18 dictates “Adjacent development shall be designed to produce minimal impact on local roads within the Rural Settlement”. (Webster’s defines minimal as very small or slight). Further “----development adjacent to a Rural Settlement shall not negatively impact the character of the Rural Settlement”. The application is totally and massively inconsistent with the policy regarding local roads. The depiction of the local roads on the application transportation map J is incorrect. Moss Park Road is shown as leading into the Rural Settlement. This is incorrect; Moss Park Road leads to Moss Park. When turning off Moss Park Road, Lake Mary Jane Road is the main local road through the rural settlement. The application proposes using Lake Mary Jane Road for one of the access roads to the development. Such use of a quiet, narrow, rural cul-de-sac road is totally incompatible with the character of the rural settlement and is specifically not permitted by Policy 2.1.18 for the reasons defined below. Further, this incompatible use proposes to use an existing entrance on a dangerous blind curve that has experienced two major accidents in recent years. The impact on Lake Mary Jane Rd is also significantly understated. The developer’s analysis, Table 21-16, shows the current traffic volume on Lake Mary Jane Road as 4,181 daily trips. The same data shows a projected 2031 level of 6,124 daily trips. According to their numbers, this is a 46% increase in traffic on a rural settlement local road, clearly totally inconsistent with Policy 2.1.18. The 46% growth must be solely due to the Camino Reale development, since there is almost no vacant land within the rural settlement for internal growth. But even this 46% increase is significantly understated. First, the analysis was hand manipulated (fudged) to lower the 2031 traffic volume when the analysis model showed a much greater increase. (See page 21-21). Second – there are only 565 homes in the rural settlement. Of the 4000 new dwelling units – supposedly only 18% will use Lake Mary Jane Rd by phase 4 (figure 21-7)– so that would be 720 dwelling units – which would equate to a 127% increase in traffic – which we feel is a more accurate estimate. Third, access to Camino Reale will also mean access to all the interconnected developments and businesses along Innovation Way, resulting in massive traffic increases for the rural settlement and inviting untold accident potential. Another major inconsistency with Policy 2.1.18 is the negative impacts on the character of the rural settlement. The development plans, Map H, show significant development on Parcels K and L, directly next to the rural settlement. This development appears to be single family, apartments, and office/light industrial. Placing such intense development next to a 1 house per acre rural settlement will drastically degrade the existing character and there is also no transition to the rural lands east or south either. Potable Water is not Available for the Project The Orange County Utilities letter regarding potable water supply is contradictory but the key message in the letter is “OUC cannot guarantee capacity to any project beyond its permitted 2013 capacity”. Thus, it is inappropriate to approve any project when there is no known availability of potable water. There is no reclaimed water available either. Inconsistent with Orange County Jobs before Housing Policy To meet economic development goals, Orange County has established Policy FLU 5.6.1 requiring creation of high value/high tech jobs prior to residential development. The application does not directly address this requirement but, from the data provided, the project is inconsistent with this requirement. Phase I consists of 1,000 dwelling units (Table 10.B.1), or 25% of the total dwelling units planned. But appears to create only 5%, or 60 of the 1131 high value/high tech jobs promised to be created. Developing 25% of the project housing while creating only 5% of the high value jobs is totally inconsistent with the Orange County vision of jobs before development. No established Need for the Project The application justifies the need for the project by stating “The demand for this project was determined based on the substantial Growth expected to occur in Orange County over the next 25 years”. Almost everyone knows this statement to be ridiculous. Orange County already has enough land approved for development for needs through 2025 even without the present economic meltdown. These approvals include projects in the Innovation Way corridor and surrounding areas, as well as infill and pockets of undeveloped land. Further, the massive backlog of new and existing housing needs to be cleared before any demand for new projects is justified. Contrary to How Shall We Grow Study Recognizing the need for properly managed growth, Orange County Chamber of Commerce conducted a Central Florida, multi county wide study involving some 5,000 area residents in extensive community meetings. This study “How Shall we Grow” , showed that residents desired a future where the region consumed less land, preserved environmental resources and natural countryside, created more distinctive places to live in urban and rural areas and provide more choices for travel. The application, by spreading out beyond the Innovation Way corridor and adjacent areas, violates this important and recent study by virtual Greenfield, business as usual, build more roads type of sprawl development. Controlling the application to only the more northern land areas would be much more consistent with the study results. Wildlife Corridors Ignored Orange County has spent millions of dollars to establish and preserve the existing wildlife corridors stretching from the Hal Scott Preserve north of the Beachline, to Hampton Bay, Split Oak Preserve, Moss Park and Eagle Creek in the southern parts of the Innovation Way Study area. This corridor is part of a larger corridor that runs from the St. John’s River down to the Everglades. The applicant lists wildlife in this area including endangered and threatened species. However, the application does nothing significant to preserve wildlife corridors and activity areas, instead paving them over with business as usual sprawl. An unacceptable degradation of wildlife habitat. Residents know the surrounding area is filled with sightings of rare and endangered species that live in and travel through the surrounding wildlife corridors. There have been sightings and photos of black bear, fox, bobcats, eagles and numerous other birds and animals, along with multiple panther sightings documented in this area over the past 20 years. Lake Mary Jane also has an Audubon designated “Important Birding Area” rookery that attracts thousands of nesting birds including the endangered wood stork that feeds in wetland areas nearby such as the Disston Canal on the southern portion of Camino Reale. Residents are not satisfied with the environmental findings and want more in-depth studies done. Road Network Threatens Additional Rural Land We have previously described Orange County Exhibit B, indisputably defining areas to the south of the Innovation Way Corridor and its environs, as rural agriculture and wetlands. However, the application seeks to open up these rural lands to further development by providing road access to these areas. Map H shows the developers plan to put a dagger in the heart of these rural areas by providing a major road to the south that has no purpose other than to open up these rural lands. This road access potential must be firmly rejected. Transportation Relies on Projected or Overloaded existing Roads The transportation analysis provided with the application relies on building of projected new roads and/or dumping more traffic on already overloaded existing roads. This “Business as Usual”, more cars, more roads approach is at variance with the counties vision for Innovation Way as a multi mode transport model getting way away from the cars/roads approach. While the project does incorporate design features compatible with multi mode, there are no requirements tying project phases to percentage completion of multi mode transportation elements. This must be corrected prior to any approvals to ensure compliance to the Innovation Way vision and to get us away from cars and roads. Site is incorrectly described as within Urban Service Area. Section 18, Paragraph E states the site is located within the established service area for Orange County Utilities. Map A shows the current Urban Service Area (USA) clearly shows the site is outside the USA boundary. This application has numerous issues that need to be addressed properly before this application should move forward. As mentioned earlier, members of the Lake Mary Jane Alliance Board are available to meet with you and/or the developer at your convenience to reach a mutually acceptable growth plan.
Note: The application consistently lists the phase 4 time frame incorrectly in their documents. Examples - Map H shows Phase IV as a 2037 to 2031, Table 10.B.1 shows Phase IV as 2027 to 2016.
Documents & Maps: “Exhibit B” Map of Innovation Way Study Area with overlay of corridor & land use coloring “Exhibit B” Map showing location of Camino Reale properties Map of Lake Mary Jane Rural Settlement Map “A” Urban Service Area July 11, 2008 Letter from Orange County Staff “Exhibit B” Map of Innovation Way Study Area with overlay of corridor & land use coloring “Exhibit B” Map showing location of Camino Reale properties
Map of Lake Mary Jane Rural Settlement
Map “A” Urban Service Area
July 11, 2008 Letter from Orange County Staff (2 pages)
|
