15-1387 Adopting the 17-92 Small Area PlanRESOLUTION 15-1387
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
LONGWOOD, FLORIDA, ADOPTING THE 17-92 SMALL AREA
PLAN; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICTS AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the City has implemented a temporary moratorium (suspension) on the
acceptance, processing and consideration of all applications for development orders,
development permits and building permits for all properties within the Study Area until January
4, 2016, unless terminated earlier by the City Commission; and
WHEREAS, there is a need to create a vision for the redevelopment of property located
with the East End Planning District as adopted by the Longwood Design Guidebook which area
is generally located adjacent or proximate to U.S. Highway 17/92 and depicted in the plan
attached hereto as Exhibit "A" (the "17-92 Small Area Plan") and incorporated herein; and
WHEREAS, the City is currently in the process of adding aesthetic improvements to
U.S. Highway 17/92, and specifically to the intersection of State Road 434 and U.S. Highway
17/92; and
WHEREAS, the City retained the Gibbs Planning Group to perform a major retail study
of the major corridors within the City, including along U.S. Highway 17/92; and
WHEREAS, the City staff is in the process of evaluating the Study Area to create a
vision for redevelopment, and shortly thereafter will prepare and process a proposed ordinance
amending the City land development regulations (a/k/a Longwood Development Code and
Longwood Design Guidebook) affecting the permitted uses, conditional uses, prohibited uses,
supplemental standards, design standards and other development regulations governing
properties within the Study Area; and
WHEREAS, the City of Longwood wishes to continue to support the vision in the City's
Complete Streets Policy and reverse the auto -dependent development pattern of recent decades
by constructing the bicycle and pedestrian facilities to provide mobility choice, promote
economic development, and improve the health and welfare of Longwood citizens; and
WHEREAS, the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan identifies the projects and strategies
necessary to realize a vision for the 17-92 corridor; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Commission of the City of Longwood,
Florida, as follows:
Section I. The Longwood 17-92 Small Area Plan, in the form provided hereto as "
Exhibit A" is hereby adopted.
Section II: Conflicts. Any resolutions or policies in conflict herewith are hereby
repealed.
Resolution 15-1387
Section III: This resolution shall become effective immediately upon adoption.
PASSED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF LONGWOOD, FLORIDA, IN REGULAR
SESSION THIS /_�AY OF _ ��1-- 2015.
Joseph Durso, Mayor
ATTE T:
7o o
'che le I:dW, 4f Clerk
Approved as to form and legality for the use and reliance of the City of Longwood, Florida only.
Resolution 15-1387
City of I ongwood IA I
17w92 SM2114rea PlanCSTO
Draft
Table of Contents
Introduction
1
Data Collection Highlights
3
Public Engagement Summary
5
Action Items
8
Scheduled Investments
13
Map Series
Current Land Uses
14
Wetlands and Flood Plains
15
Multi -modal Connectivity
16
Commercial Structure Age
17
Annexation
18
Signage
19
Landscaping
20
Appendix
Survey Results
21
Acknowledgements
This study could not have been completed without the dedication of time and engagement by the citizens of the City
of Longwood. The level of participation in this effort is representative of a community that cares about making a
difference and embracing a vision of the revitalized 17-92 corridor.
Longwood City Commission
Joe Durso, Mayor
Ben Paris, Deputy Mayor
John C. Maingot, Commissioner
Brian D. Sackett, Commissioner
Mark Weller, Commissioner
Focus Group Contributors
Rich Bergen, Fidelity Bank
Rob Gina, Boatwrench
Trevor Hall, Colliers
Greg Hansen, the Sharing Center
Lori Rice, Chair, Parks and Recreation
Advisory Board
Angie Romagosa, the Sharing Center
Prepared by:
Longwood Community Development Services Department
Sheryl Bower, AICP
Director
Chris Kintner, AICP
Senior Planner
000—t11S'r01?IC�
lv�
LONGWOOD
FLORIDA
1.1 -
About This Stud
U.S. Highway 17-92 through Longwoodis asix-lane stretch ofmajorhighwaythat runs
parallel to Interstate 4 and connects Longwood to a number of local municipalities
including Sanford, Casselberry, Maitland, and Orlando. A construction boom in the
early 1980s set 17-92 on a course of auto -dominated, pedestrian -unfriendly strip
development. More than 30 years later, the 17-92 corridor is an unsightly, unsafe, and
decaying reminder of that development boom. The City Commission, determined
not to let the corridor's stagnation continue, passed a development moratorium to
allow City staff time to study the corridor and recommend changes that would allow
the City to use newfound development interest to transform the corridor for the
better. This study represents an aggressive effort by the City Commission to make
17-92 something that Longwood and its residents and business owners can be proud
of.
Study Boundaries
The study evaluated the 17-92
corridor from Raven Ave. to
Dog Track Rd., including some
areas outside of the City limits in
Casselberry, Winter Springs, and
Seminole County. Because the
jurisdictional boundaries are not
immediately evident, it is important
to evaluate the corridor as a
whole because all of the adjacent
properties can have an impact on
the perception of business owners,
prospective businesses, and visitors.
2
To evaluate the condition of the corridor, data available from the
Seminole County Property Appraiser's office was supported by
visual inspections and aerial photography to conduct a study of
the current state of 17-92.
Utilizing ArcGIS, various characteristics of the corridor were
identified including structure age, sign conformity, current land
use, and more. The map series generated as a part of this effort
is included with this report. This section is intended to provide a
quick glimpse at some of the results of the data collection effort.
Inadequate Bike-Ped Facilities
Designed as an auto -dominant thoroughfare, 17-92 is particularly
unfriendly to pedestrians and inconsistent with the City's vision
for Complete Streets.
• Sidewalks along the corridor are 5' wide with a variable buffer
between the sidewalk and the right-of-way.
• Curb cuts are excessively placed throughout the corridor,
creating an unfriendly pedestrian environment full of vehicle -
pedestrian conflict points.
• There are no bicycle lanes in the corridor, leaving no safe
bicycle facilities.
An assessment of the ability of pedestrians to directly
access building entrances from SR 434 via a sidewalk
and/or crosswalk was conducted. Throughout the entire
corridor, only 5 properties had an uninterrupted sidewalk
connection,meaning that for the majority of properties,
pedestrians are left to negotiate through auto access aisles or
ditches to enter buildings.
• Some key gaps in sidewalk and bicycle facilities exist,
including oil both sides of Florida Ave. (adjacent to the Old
Courtesy Pontiac site) and in adjacent neighborhoods.
The city-wide standards for signage
require permanent ground signs to be in
the form of monument -type signs with a
maximum height of 15 feet. Pole signs
are the most common non -conformity,
with sign height another common non-
conformity in the corridor.
7 he current codes�idlows ooe monument
sign per entrance. In some cases, a single
development may have 5-6 separate sign
structures, creating sign clutter.
• In conjunction with the 2007 adoption
of an ordinance prohibiting pole signs "Wiedfeather" type signs are prevalent
in favor of monument signs, the City along 17-92, despite only being allowed with
considered, but eventually decided Temporary Use permits for special events.
against requiring non -conforming signs
to be brought into compliance in 7 years.
8 years later, signage in the corridor is
much in the same condition it was in
2007 with 90% of signage in the City out
of compliance with current codes.
• The prhnarytriggers for sign compliance
are site plans for new development
or significant redevelopment or any PP —
change to the structure of the sign, Billboards, difficult to regulate due io.lederol
which requires full compliance. That protection, hire ubigitaoas on 17-92, with
the nature of signage of 17-92 hasn't 9 large billboards in (lie 2.2 miles between
changed significantly in 8 years is a key Raven Ave. and Dog Track Road.
sign of the lack of investment.
A Lack of Investment
It is not a revelatory statement to say that 17-92 has suffered
for investment in the past 3 decades, but the magnitude of that
stagnation is noteworthy. A map of the age of structures in the
corridor shows the vast majority of structures to be more than 30
years old. A construction boom in the early 1980s that saw many
of the areas primary shopping centers has given way to decades of
no new development, with only 4 new or significantly rehabilitated
buildings having been built in that time, one of which being the
City's Public Works Building.
Open ditches throughout the
corridor create a pedestrian
impediment that is inconsistent
with the transit supportive goals
of tine Comprehensive Plan. they
also provide as opportunity for
improved aesthetics when piped.
'
Me medians oa 17-92 are wholly
devoid of landscaping, showing a
further lack of investment in the
corridor.
Landscaping
Landscaping along the 17-92 corridor,
particularly landscaping adjacent to
the right-of-way, is nearly non-existent
for long stretches. A visual assessment
conducted in September 2015 revealed:
• Less than 10% of the parcels in the
17-92 study area have front perimeter
landscaping that appeared to be
conforming with LDC standards.
• Similar to signage, landscaping is
required to be brought into compliance
when site plan approval or a change of
use is required. That non -conforming
or non-existent landscaping is the
norm in the corridor reflects properties
that have fallen out of compliance
with their site plan as well as the lack
of investment in recent decades in the
corridor.
0 6
JESSVPAVE W
CHURCHAA 3
. I -us
L�
VIN � 4
aisnwE nvE
he,Z CV
mvt c
Lpd
runs. LMW U..
9 Rll
Ll--
Development
Potential
17-92 has lacked in development in
the last 30 years, but the corridor
is not lacking in development
potential. Parcels directly adjacent
to the corridor carry the "Infill and
Mixed -Use (IMU)" designation,
which is a broad land use category
with provisions for commercial,
multi -family residential, and
mixed -use development. While the
corridor has not seen significant
investment in redvelopment, in
2010 the City adopted dramatic,
large-scale changes to the allowable
densities and intensities in an effort
to incentivize development and
become more transit -supportive.
2.25 35
Floor Area Dwelling Units
Ratio Per Acre
Maximum Maximum
Intensity Density
809,099 SF
Current Commercial Square
Footage in the Study Area
13,824,310 SF
Allowable Commercial Square
Footage in the Study Area
4,937
Total Maximum Dwelling
Units Allowed
Vacancy and Opportunity
Parcels with vacant structures represent the highest single land
use in the 17-92 study area at 22% of the total land area. With
nearly 100,000 SF of vacant, stand-alone structures and tens of
thousands more square feet of vacancies within strip centers, the
corridor is plagued with high vacancy rates.
Aw"75F
it
The 2008 closing of Courtesy Pontiac-Buick-GMC left nearly
16 acres vacant. The site is the largest single parcel of land on
17-92 and is a very visible reminder of the corridoes decline.
Given its size and location, it is also one of the most important
opportunities for redevelopment.
Perhaps the most high -profile vacancy is that of the old Albertsons
building, which was vacated in 2012. Its position at the eastern
gateway of the City at SR 434 and 17-92 makes this a highly visible
eyesore, but a great opportunity as well.
Auto -Oriented
Auto -Oriented Uses, including new and usedvehicle sales, represent 10% of the
total land area in the Longwood portion of the study area. More than 30% of
the land area outside of the City limits is in the form of used and new vehicle
sales and gas stations.
Private Investment Highlights
While private investment in the corridor has been sorely lacking, two
developments over the last decade demonstrate investment by businesses in the
corridor The Fifth -Third Bank, completed in 2007, is an attractive batik facility
that is a positive influence on the eastern gateway of the City. Slone Brothers'
Furniture, a long-time fixture of the 17-92 corridor, completed a significant
facade improvement in 2008. This facade improvement was often mentioned
as a highlight of the 17-92 area.
The Process
A month -long survey was conducted to help better understand how business owners, residents, and visitors
perceived the 17-92 corridor. More than 150 surveys were mailed to property owners on 17-92 and the survey
was made available on the City's website. 143 responses to the survey were received between both paper
survey and online respondents, with the majority of the respondents identifying as frequent visitors to the
study area (44%) and property owners (39%). The survey received an unexpectedly enthusiastic response with
55 survey responses within the first 24 hours of the survey going live on the City website.
hi addition to the survey, the Department hosted a focus group with stakeholders from the 17-92 corridor.
The group included business owners, real estate representatives, and residents to help represent the various
interests in the study area. The Department also met individually with each City Commissioner to receive
input and insight.
Survey Results: Corridor Uses
Respondents were asked to rate 24 land uses in the corridor. The conditions below were the 5 conditions
rated "desirable" and "undesirable" by the highest percentage of respondents.
Desirable
Sit -Down Restaurants
62% rated "significantly
promote"
gyp_
Parks • i
53% rated "significantly
promote"
Large Grocery Store
35% rated "significantly
promote"
Small Retail
35% rated "significantly
promote"
Undesirable
Used Vehicle Sales
47% rated "significantly
reduce"
Fleet vehicle storage
37% rated "significantly
reduce"
New vehicle sales
3S% rated "significantly
reduce"
Mini -storage facilities
29% rated "significantly
reduce"
Common Concerns
Landscaping
The most common recurring theme correcting the survey results, focus group,
and interviews was a desire to see landscaping improvements on 17-92. Because
of the lack of recent investment in the 17-92 corridor, many properties in the
corridor have not been required to come into compliance with present-day
landscaping standards. Combined with the state of the medians in 17-92, which
are sodded but have no trees or shrubs, the corridor is devoid of landscaping
through long stretches.
Survey Respondent: "Less asphalt and more plants and landscaping are needed,
perhaps a median with trees and landscaping. Businesses along there need to
improve the appearance of their areas with less asphalt and more plants and
landscaping."
W,
Buildings and Vacancies
The general state of the building stock in 17-92 was the single most -
mentioned item in the free -form response sections of the surveys.
Respondents specifically cited the vacant Albertsons building, the vacant
Courtesy Pontiac site, as well as a general need for reinvestment and
reinvigoration.
Survey Respondent: "There are about three large stropping centers in this
area in need of revitalization in this area, and bringing brand name anchor
stores to this area is a must"
Code Compliance
A need for the City to provide increased and consistent code enforcement
was the 2nd-most desired program Focus group participants stated that
a lack of code enforcement helps lead to a decline in the corridor as a
whole in terms of building and landscape condition. Businesses that have
continuously invested and maintained their properties indicated that a
lack of code enforcement negatively impacts their businesses. Owners
also described confusion about how various types of signage including
whndfeathers and balloons could be so prevalent when they are not allowed.
Survey Respondent: "Die first impression in this area is trashy with no eye
appeal. [Die] area needs to be cleaned up of trash and disrepair find "enforced'
code et forceiuent."
Restaurants and Retail
Hand -in -hand with a desire to see vacancies in the corridor filled was a desire
to see new restaurants and retail options on the corridor. Residents specifically
cited fast-food (Chipotle), sit-down restaurants (Cheesecake Factory), and
other national chains including LA Fitness. Respondents said that they were
tired of having to go to Winter Park, Lake Mary, and other surrounding cities
just to go to dinner.
Survey Respondent. "There is nothing mice our 17-92 in Longwood. Thrift stores,
dollar stores, and bars seen like the only businesses that are allowed there. Why
not draw businesses such as Chipotle, Starbucks, Chick.(il-a, or any business that
will draw customers to come to Longwood to spend theirmoney. There is PLENTY
of room to build nice shopping centers. No snore bars and dollar stores."
Community Identity
The nature of the 17-92 corridor gives the impression of Longwood's
identitybeing that ofrun-down, vacant, blighted commercial development.
Cacselberry's improvements have lelt the impression that the negativity is
wholly in Longwood, although the corridor is shared with Winter Springs
and Seminole County. Even though it can be argued that the worst
elements of the corridor are actually outside of the City limits, this stretch
is generally identified negatively with Longwood.
Survey Respondent. "There is no "W elcorne to Longwood"feeling when
you travel through that major intersection."
Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety
Survey respondents were asked to rate the conditions of various features on the
�- corridor, and the quality and safety of bicyclists and pedestrians represented
3 of the top 5 categories rated "poor" by the highest number of respondents.
With sidewalks approximating 5 feet wide throughout the corridor and with no
\ bike facilities to speak of, it is no wonder that these conditions scored so poorly.
Surrey Respondent: "This area is high traffic: commuting, bike, and walking.
The sidewalks do not seent wide enough to accommodate this nor are there
enough bench areas for those waiting on the bus. 1 often see theta sitting on
\, shopping carts."
Survey Results: Corridor Condition
Respondents were asked to rate IS conditions in
the corridor. The conditions below were the 5
conditions rated "poor" by the highest percentage
of respondents.
7 %Attractiveness of landscape in
the public right-of-way
7 0 % Safety of bicycle facilities
6 7 % Quality of bicycle facilities
Attractiveness of landscape on
6 5 /o private properties
Respondents were asked to rate the importance of
improvingeach condition tothefutureofthecorridor.
These conditions are the 5 conditions rated "most
important"bythehighestpercentageofrespondents.
80p/O Attractiveness of landscape in
the public right-of-way
7 p p/p Quality and condition of
O commercial buildings
7 4% Overall safety of the corridor
and pedestrian facilities
72 % Attractiveness of landscape on
private properties
5 6 % Quality of pedestrian facilities 6 7 % Mixture of retail and services
Survey Results: Desired Standards
Respondents were asked to rate 9 conditions in the corridor. The conditions below were the 5
conditions rated "desirable" by the highest percentage of respondents.
Require improved landscape
1
buffer standards along right-
of-way frontages
Require stormwater ponds to
2)
be aesthetically designed into
/
projects
3)
Prevent stormwater ponds
from being designed as linear
moats
4)
Removal of/stricter limitations
on billboards
5)
Consolidate curb cuts along
corridor
Focusing Our Efforts
Survey respondents were asked to choose which sections of 17-92 required the most immediate
attention in an effort to determine where initial efforts should be focused. The response was
overwhelmingly in favor of two sections adjacent to the critical intersection with SR 434 that
marks the City's eastern gateway. Some of the responses from the free -response section are 1 )
included below:
Longdale to SR 434 (Section 2)
• "Stop with the pawn shops, GET RID OF THE BILLBOARDS ALL
OVER LONGWOOD, set up some retail signage guidelines for all strip
mall owners, and can we please see some walking paths, trees, specialty
shops and restaurants? I have to go to Lake Mary or Altamonte for an
3 8 % ice cream or bagel and it's more enjoyable to do so because we can sit
somewhere pleasant:'
• "There are about three large shopping centers in this area in need of
revitalization in this area, and bringing brand name anchor stores to
this area is a must. Additionally, there are a lot of pedestrians in the
area, and pedestrian improvements are vital in this area, especially the
corner of 434 and 17/92. Throw in landscaping, and that intersection
could become another "anchor" forming Longwood's east side."
SR 434 to Wildmere Ave. (Section 3)
• "Remove the thrift stores and add more restaurants and retail, and get
rid of all the biker bars:'
• "Albertson building is empty and whole plaza is ugly. Would love to see
31 % landscaping in medians. Too many ugly or empty lots and buildings"
• "Of the four sections, this section is the worst looking. Less asphalt
and more plants and landscaping are needed, perhaps a median
with trees and landscaping, businesses along there need to improve
the appearance of their areas with less asphalt and more plants and
landscaping'
Raven Ave. to Longdale Ave. (Section 1)
1 6 % "It's more run down than the rest."
• "It's an entrance way to residential areas and a school:'
Wildmere Ave. to Dog Track Rd.(Section 4)
• "Tesla closed, theres run down motels, a lot of empty property etc. Not
14 % sure what can be doner'
• "Force the broken-down [Hotel, car lots, etc. to modernize their
buildings, or condemn them
• "People trying to cross the road are in danger."
2)
3)
4)
5)
Survey Results: New Programs
Develop a comprehensive
beautification program for
rights -of -way & medians to
improve the visual character of
the corridor
Strengthen code enforcement
of negligent properties
Initiate a fagade grant program
to improve buildings in the
corridor
Strengthen design standards
for private development
Develop strategy for
undergrounding overhead
utility lines within the corridor
Participants in the 17-92 Focus Group were asked to
i
SWOT Analysis
evaluate strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats
on the 17-92 corridor.
Strengths
Opportunities
• Traffic counts
• Mixed -use development
• Accessibility
. Higher lease rates
• Public Transit
. More businesses means "sharing the burden"
• Not in the CRA
of property taxes
• Residential support
. SunRail
Weaknesses
. Large parcels that can be redeveloped
Destination retailers like Trader Joe's
• Ave of structures
• Vacancies
• Inconsistencies in the code between
municipalities (flags, reader boards, etc.)
• Lack of high income jobs
• No identity or sense of place
• Lack of green space
• Not bike/ped friendly
• No good restaurants/national retailers
Threats
• Crime
• Homelessness
• Property values
• Existing older businesses unwilling to
renovate or improve
• Property taxes
• Lack of code enforcement
Action Items Summar
Using the data collected and supported by survey responses, the action items
of this study are intended to address hindrances to the new development
and redevelopment that is critical to addressing the aesthetic of the 17-92
corridor.
Generally, these items are intended to:
• Attract new development through incentives
• Make the corridor desirable for development by reversing the impact of
35+ years of neglect and a lack of public and private investment
Common Concerns Addressed
Action Item 1: Create Opportunity Node Overlay Zone
• Improve Landscaping
. Promote Code Compliance
• Improve Buildings and Reduce Vacancies
• Promote Restaurants and Retail
• Improve Landscaping
Action Item 2: Improve the 17-92 HardScape/Landscape
Improve Buildings and Reduce Vacancies
Promote Restaurants and Retail
• Promote a Sense of Community
• Improve Bicycle -Pedestrian Safety
Action Item 3: Clean Up the Corridor
• Promote Code Compliance
Improve Landscaping
• Improve Buildings and Reduce Vacancies
• Improve Landscaping
Action Item 4: Adopt Code Changes
Promote Code Compliance
Improve Buildings and Reduce Vacancies
• Promote Restaurants and Retail
Improve Landscaping
• Improve Buildings and Reduce Vacancies
Action Item 5: Increase Multi -Jurisdictional Cooperation
• Promote Code Compliance
• Promote Restaurants and Retail
• Promote a Sense of Community
• Improve Landscaping
Action Item 6: Pursue an Annexation Strategy
• Improve Buildings and Reduce Vacancies
Promote Code Compliance
• Promote Restaurants and Retail
Promote a Sense of Community
1. Create Opportunity Node Overlay Zone
In 2015, the City engaged the Gibbs Planning
Group to prepare a retail study. The study .
identified a signficant amount of retail demand
in Longwood and also identified 14 "opportunity
sites, 5 of which were located on 17-92. The
primary recommendation of this study is to .
take that effort one step further by creating an
"Opportunity Node Overlay Zone" that establishes .
automatic incentives for redeveloping sites that
have the potential to be a catalyst for development
in the corridor.
Opportunity Node Overlay Zone
Provide an incentive package that could include: reduction
in building and planning permitting fees, reduction in Water
and Wastewater Development Assistance Fees, tax abatement
and city assistance with stormwater management.
Expedited processing (including administrative approvals,
go to the front of the line, assigned project facilitator.)
Make the sites ready for redevelopment. Identify any
potential contamination issues and, for the sites that have not
had an assessment done, apply for funding for assessment
and remediation through the Florida Brownfield Program.
- M7
r atYfl�gAt�fl
Old Courtesy Pontiac Site
The old Courtesy Pontiac site is perhaps
the most prominent reminder of the 17-
92 corridor',s decline but also potentially
the biggest single redevelopment
opportunity. Located adjacent to
Candyland Park, a sports complex that
holds a number of regional events, this
site provides an opportunity for mixed -
use development including various
housing types and a hotel.
Identified Opportunity Sites
Old Albertsons'
S1}e The 2012 closing of the
l Albertsons building was
-•-s�, another blow to the 17-92
,r�C�yF corridor. When combined
F with other sites including
adjacent shopping centers
y and surrounding vacant and
' underutililzed properties, the
site provides an opportunity
Ow
for mixed -use development
and, using an existing pond,
a chance for a much -desired
park/public space.
Longwood Plaza
Long plagued by vacancies,
Longwood Plaza with its adjacent
undeveloped property is an
opportunity to develop near the SR
434 and 17-92 intersection. The
retail study indicated the site may
have some difficulty attracting retail
as its on the the opposite side of the
road from homebound traffic, but
may have a future for office space
with great visibility.
Old Tesla Location
Recently home to a Tesla dealership,
this location adjacent to residential
neighborhoods, the Dog Track Rd.
intersection, and Northland Church,
may be able to redevelopment
with limited improvements to the
building and facades.
W Contour Properties
The retail study indicated an
opportunity for this site that builds
on the success of the popular Enzo's
Restaurant and its location on
beautiful Fairy Lake as a chance
to develop as a destination for
restaurants, retail, and housing.
ra
2. Improve the 17-92 Hardscape/Landscape
Integral Streetscape Elements
Reclaim Space for Pedestrians
Open ditches along 17-92
are a characteristic of rural,
exurban environments not
built for pedestrians. By piping
the ditches, the area can be
recaptured for an 8'-10' multi-
use path that will provide an
amenity and also a safer option
for cyclist not wanting to utilize
the heavily -traveled 17-92.
With benches, shelters, and
other human scale pedestrian
improvements, the City can
move closer to its goal of being
transit -supportive and more
attractive for multi -family and
mixed -use development.
Credit: U.S. 17.91 Redevelopment Master Plan, Srminulr Carenty
Median/ROW Landscaping
Median landscaping
was one of the most
consistently identified
improvements neededon
the corridor. Combined
with reclaiming
the open ditches, a
significant investment
in landscaping will help
renew the corridor and
make it more attractive
to investment.
"Welcome to Longwood"
Brick inlaysinthe sidewalk,
historic-themed lighting,
and "Historic Longwood"
signage included as part
of the streetscape would
help create something
"uniquely Longwood; I ,
that ties to the Historic �i a
District. These elements e� __ y,
would help to distinguish
Longwood from adjacent
munipalities.
Given the wide right-of-way widths and
opportunities presented by open ditches that can
be recaptured forpublic space, a streetscape project
that represents a commitment to and investment
in the public reahn would dramatically transform
the 17-92 corridor.
creart: v..l.ii-YzRed-cloprocoil Ddnstrr AIII, Snmi nolr('nuufI
17-92 Streetscape Project
Phase 1. Install Median Landscaping
In order to show an immediate investment in 17-92, staff recommends
planting median landscaping to improve the overall aesthetics of
the corridor. This phase will require the preparation of a plan by a
consultant for review and approval by FDOT, and will require boring
under 17-92 to provide irrigiation to the medians. While a relatively
small investment, this phase will demonstrate a commitment to the
corridor.
Estimated Cost: $400,000
Based on 2012 U.S. 17-92 Master Plan. May be decreased with City labor.
Phase 2. Complete the 17-92 Streetscape
The design and construction of a 17-92 streetscape is a bold move
that would fundamentally transform the corridor. Piping the open
ditches would allow for the installation of an tl'-10' shared use
path along with hardscape elements, landscaping, historic-themed
lighting, undergrounded utilities, the 17-92 streetscape can revitalize
and transform the corridor. While a tremendous investment and
commitment, the cost should be shared and coordinated with
neighboring Winter Springs and Casselberry.
Estimated Cost: $25 Million
without Cost -Sharing and Based on 2012 U.S. 17-92 Master Plan
Credit U.S. 17-92 Redevelopment Master Plato,
Seminole County
10
3. Clean Up The Corridor
Require Compliance with Approved Landscape Plans or Newly -
Adopted Standards within 1 Year
Under the Land Development Code, property owners are required to
maintain compliance with approved site plans. As many of die site plans
approved on 17-92 are 20-30 years old, many properties have fallen out of
compliance with original landscaping requirements. An action item resulting
from this study is that all property owners on 17-92 either be brought into
compliance with a landscape plan approved as part site plan approval, or
be brought into compliance with newly -adopted landscape standards within
1 year of adoption. While mindful of not promoting an overly -regulatory
environment, the gradual degradation of properties in the corridor acts
to discourage private investment Requiring landscape to meet current
standards or existing site plans will create a jolt of investment in the corridor
that, as recent history has shown, would not occur otherwise.
Establish a 5-Year Amortization Schedule for Non -Conforming
Pole Signs
In 2007, the City Commission adopted a change to the Land Development
Code that prohibited pole -type signs in favor of monument signs and set
a sign height of 15 feet. At the same time, the Commission discussed but
later decided against a 7-year amortization schedule. More than 7 years after
that discussion, more than 90% of the signage along the corridor is out of
compliance with current codes. A recommendation of this study is that the
Commission institute an amortization schedule to require the investment in
the corridor that has been nearly nonexistent in the last 7 years, combined
with a sign improvement grant program intended to accelerate that effort
and lessen the burden on businesses.
Establish a Sign Improvement Grant Program
In conjunction with the amortization schedule, a sign grant program should
be implemented. Over the first 3 years of the amorization schedule, the
City would pay up to 25% of the cost to replace non -conforming signage,
up to $2,500. This would not apply to the Opportunity Node Overlay Zone
districts.
Stop the Illegal Use of "Attention -Getting Devices"
While the LDC prohibits the use of attention -getting devices, a lack of code
enforcement along the coridor has resulted in a proliferation of windfeathers.
balloons, yard signs, and other sign types that are not permissible outside of
a temporary use permit. To counter this trend, increased code enforcement
along the corridor is necessary. Beyond simply degrading the aesthetics ofthe
corridor, these signs generate a pereception of inconsistent code enforcement
and concern from code compliant property owners who question: if attention
getting devices are not allowed, then why are there so many?
4. Adopt Code Changes
Develop Standards for Opportunity Node Overlay Zone
Recomnnended code changes include the standards by which a project
would have to meet to be eligible for the incentives in the Opportunity
Node Overlay Zone. While the projects envisioned by the Retail Study
are largely hypothetical, the code should ensure that certain desirable
" elements (open space, connectivity, intensity, mix of uses, pedestrian -
oriented design) should be present in any design seeking incentives.
Strengthen Private Landscape Requirements
While the City is proposing significant investments in the public realm, the
corridor cannot be turned around on private investment alone. Property
owners will benefit from a tremendously improved corridor and must play
an active role inachieving it. Strengthening the requirements for right-of-
way adjacent landscaping and creating more realistic triggers for sites to
update their landscaping is recommended. Other recommended changes
include requiring more shading of parking lot areas and pedestrian areas
while being mindful of the need of businesses to maintain visibility.
Strengthen Requirements for Used Vehicle Sales
Perhaps the single most prevalent use in the 17-92 corridor is usedvehicle
sales, a use that is generally marked by a lack of site investment - limited
to no landscaping, cluttered outdoor storage, and high turnover. The
LDC is already fairly restrictive on vehicle sales, requiring a site plan in
full compliance with the LDC whenever a a new or expanded vehicle sales
operation is proposed. The code be should be further strengthened to
ensure that vehicle sales operations are a positive to the corridor with
well -maintained sites rather than a detracting element.
Reduce the Number and Length of Curb Cuts
Excessive curb cuts create a number of safety and aesthetic issues along
the corridor. In serving vehicle access, curb cuts create conflict points
for pedestrians and bicyclists that can make a corridor unusable for non -
automobile users. As part of the City's commitment to Complete Streets,
standards that reduce the number and length of curb cuts to promote
bicycle and pedestrian safety while still allowing proper access for
businesses must be adopted.
Require Appropriate Buffering With Residential
The 17-92 corridor in Longwood is almost completely designated
Infill and Mixed Use, a broad zoning district that allows for a range of
commercial and residential uses. Much of the corridor is bordered by
single-family residential property. In promoting development along the
corridor, impacts to adjoining residential shall be minimized through site
design and buffers.
Within the area included in this study
' is a number of different jurisdictions:
Winter Springs, Casselberry, and
-- •� Seminole County. A boundary map
for the study area shows a hodgepodge
of jurisdictional boundaries, which
1 creates a number of issues for land
Legend 00
`-+, uses and code compliance. Two of the
..«
'Longwood Boundary ..� n recommendations of this report relate
17-92 Study Area in Longwood - 1. - , in part to clarifying the boundaries in
Annexable by Longwood ; j, the study area.
Annexable by Casselberry
Annexable by Winter Springs
..., L/
WintCasselberrySprings
Limits ... '
fi Winter Springs City Limits + ,
i
5. Increase Multi -Jurisdictional Cooperation
The issues that are prominent in Longwood are present to varying degrees in the surrounding municipalities. Winter
Springs and Casselberry each have stakes in the future of the 17-92 corridor and a global improvement to the corridor
cannot be realized without the commitment (and the sharing of improvement costs), cooperation, and coordination
with the adjoining entities. The surrounding jurisdictions should be engaged to drawfocus to the corridor and address
common issues:
• Streetscape Improvements
• Bicycle/Pedestrian Safety Improvements
• Annexation
• Code Enforcement
• Code Changes/Land Uses
6. Pursue an Annexation Strategy
The 17-92 Corridor is subject to a number of annexation agreements, including agreements with Winter Springs,
Casselberry, and an interlocal agreement regarding enclaves with Seminole County. A number of parcels are eligible
for annexation by the City under those agreements, but the City may want to pursue a more comprehensive annexation
strategy to reduce the jurisdictional confusion in the corridor.
Current annexation policies should be reviewed to consider the following:
• Review the current annexation agreements and coordinate with Winter Springs and Casselberry to enact an
updated, comprehensive annexation policy.
• Annexing into the City comes at a tangible cost to property owners in the form of an increased millage rate.
Additionally, the City's current annexation agreement requires property owners to provide a site plan in some cases
and also to address non -conformities with buffers, lighting, and access. Combined with the increased millage rate,
these requirements have discouraged some property owners from bringing their property in. However, allowing
properties in with substantial non -conformities at the same time as the City is seeking to beautify the corridor could
be considered unfair to current property owners within the City with code -compliant properties. The annexation
agreements should be reviewed with these concerns in mind.
• After establishing a comprehensive annexation policy and reviewing the agreements, staff recommends that the City
aggressively pursue annexations on the 17-92 corridor to eliminate gaps in the boundaries and increase consistency
in the corridor.
12
1901
17-92/434 Streetscape Project
i —amok Concurrent to this study, the City has been coordinating on a project with
j the City of Whiter Springs to make improvements to the intersection of
x SR 434 and 17-92. This eastern gateway to the City of Longwood wdl be
improved with a faux -brick crosswalk, median landscaping, and accent
pavers. Longwood has coordinated with Winter Springs on tite design of the
project and construction will be complete in 2016.
I
WE
Context Sensitive
a , w-
- , �� _ A� �■ Improvements
�I Preliminary design and engineering for a context sensitive
3 improvements project on 17-92 from Raven Ave. to Dog
Track Rd. is currently on the FY 2020/21-2039/40 Prioritized
' - I
E STATE ROAD 434 Project List for MetroPlan Orlando. At Priority #27, it is
unclear when this project will actually receive funding to
move forward.
mow.
� f
F
LEGEND
- .1 Florida Ave.
Streetscape Project
The City of Winter Springs is seeking CRA
funding for streetscape improvements at Florida
Ave. which will improve the street with sidewalks
and landscaping in order to support development
somewhat off of the 17-92 corridor. The project
will result in improvements just to the north of
the Longwood city boundary on the east side of
the study area. The project is listed in the the
Winter Springs Capital Improvements Program
for completion in FY 2016.
iT
d� iSECiW / j
: �_�"M'y�l i
:- rill 5�`19 4►�i.. h ..
Current Land Uses
r •,� �, r s �iF
f
ram' S L fS ;rl-/■ ayh1� 'y.
+ .�f, (�• .i..{fi',. RkS�T ,,,i• 'z �;�'�� � � zl-•• �rl■ � �, �� 1: F, ti..' ,�.
..
•�fl f s1
Pk
URFA
o i f r ti
41,
i�1
"a a �` �l.a'.5i'.p►:�1�� Nr ,y7 k �j► "" 'rL^ __ �w2n1 ir.` /S,7kii •.....f
s
4
Legend
ti gvLongwood Boundary
Wetlands (NWI)
FEMA
0.2%Annual Chance Flood Hazard
Zone AE
Zone AH
15
Multi -modal Connectivity
�r �... .. �Gt� �� '"• .aA��1'c,3 `. N I
it Ilt 1
rt".3 Miles
�. -
. F
,
44
'— � - < ��F�riij'• �f 4��R�� ems, Y�.
i
lb
ifllPj
..MO
,
1 M'1
_ 4
4� q� .
n
� ''%�I �,C►� "fir. � "�' � i1' . i (r li .��-, ,4
6 ;Fjj� • F 'r � � ; � • t I t 3 �... � � .. r ��_ �L R' �.. ,�,t �' r ,�1 ^�+��L-•
F �.y •-• - �' r _ 't L i a<. ,ate 8 "\
i � �.—i.► � }i d R4k�; .p �� + � F ,. �, . r [G . nca.= 'v �,;...:�# nwir.+•— i,
� ter - _•- r 1 .. r � r
r, put . A46
..r�� '" � T� .•.ilt �:,ti Sy 7'S'.F"��J �,, J. y Y 1� _ ",lam .^�
UL
-i
a•
Commercial Structure Age
� ®��� �I�fs�r.a��i'���xr, it .r , -- � r �" : ' � � J ♦ �� Y�ta�`� Y1•f
�i- ,• �,R f "t�!!AI 4+'• � �• �' ` tics � ��, �`� ,or�� 4��4k�'�,+�����,.z
' r
_ �•,hh
�� 1 �. ` fir, � � yRi' � _ �• '. 4 ;� �h �t ��
.�v1 J jg I . i• j , . ? { �N 1, �lI 1� ►�� • 4,' '
Li
�"s�~• dw'``,� �11 i r � .. �' • t ��ti +.ra . �f���1 1`� �Fr«I
g� ,
;
..h,, � . y�. a , a , � +r �• '� 4rifV� CAM ! ..J��'i
wyy~ a, r� a . L ti r.. f * "y il" vr.� sr ~:s `,a y' ■ J '
+1 v7�. ? Yi A4 Y F i � 6 :, I��';L- ua� "w , `.■ ' ♦ 'E•;� 'R
t ;,d n n!ni � u1R.'� ri��.+ ,�„ „',G .. � �1 rr•rl � ��r g��� y !
`
,�-s :� �il�i� "E �"1 • r1R5 6� s�� � �,., [(► v
/ r.0.075 / 1 rat' 1� h•'d ■j�`x" r�,:I i�i jjil� } -a
srwr - 1G .a awi�t � : e• 3S ,r, r �� Rf 1' /.;,t �
r � MppJinY � i M I f
rL '
�rRNrp
ARnpUWLARN pUrrY < �..��* � ;.7j&V.
a �r
VROM4L pl.RGIINI. �'i � � VIX[VIEW InMEvIEn �r � � 3
[1RIOlE 9Ay�N w MRRpr � r.�l4Eni ONFUPp � ���
SPAMUn FELrM
WAYI.�nri
PfIIGN REYN4 W WUpl6 VINE
fAPDp
ZVI
Legend
Longwood Boundary
' 17-92 Study Area in Longwood
OAnnexable by Longwood
f .-: ! Annexable by Casselbeny
Annexable by Winter Springs
M Casselberry City Limits
11M Winter Springs City Limits
18
Signage
ey f •� Fr� +��. _
At
1
UA14
fam
�!
' .r,.■�� _I� , ,fir ti, r/, N
-_.�4M1 t1yi'Iq ..N• yt. + ' -'C �'x C '`rr �� - 41,i .A
fi t'
rOr�J #f w :� 2 i i C jai . }•' f,a ■ • �. '� t•t*' S
.� yr41W , •r. ty1
+:4 hype +•: �+t•
� K+�r'+i r•d:�aw A.� tss', a�,� �, ��}, �`p,r � y x
..�rl 1•rtf}+ r tirr- ar � � K., "` y �•• ,y ��'jr(Cb/n.
t•k,6 } a e �•1 xar`JjjL(:
or
i
��wT.a.� _` •rr� x�'t�� y � 6 � t ;a.Y� YY �1 t� yry f ,�t �L ��.�lIII 1�..i
� ,'y.+>{M �Y�('. ►�.q�\ � / �•.'�' A��? `�. � r 1L..�e./rF � ..'� L.r�•m +� r..'I �.Y •�.:1",* YT- -�.
W.
ti
jr
------------
-JAI
W,
4g,
A.
Landscaping
A -17ti
JrA
ndr
14. a,
Lu
0,
94 Irk, 4w
Ig
.INA.
1111hL
'WA 145 no
- - ------------
-
. ..........
The following responses are from a SurveyMonkey survey hosted on the Cityas website from September 4,
2015 to October 4, 2015, and also mailed to approximately 150 business and property owners along 17-92.
Free form responses, including questions 2, 3,10, and 11 have been omitted.
Q1 Which of the following describes you?
(Check all that apply)
•nawrfr chak.4
Rpapanfa4
I am a emmmydwnm tl me aam, ores
]0.57v. d
am a butincaa -I, bat ml a pmpmdy owner In Ilro sluey prod
LecS: 4
1 nor nrepm,munbve1mmm'. aRemay, etc 1 1pr pmpMy" mI clad,'emu
0.71% 1
I am a lmalmm-1W of lho awdy aea
441.% 62
Irva wlmin walkup C"W-IRM nIWY amo
12AeI'll 10
dee o U. weal to be 1011 to me study elea
I.M. 1
Tabl
IQ
21
04 Please evaluate each of the existing
conditions along the 17-92 corridor and
Indicate how important improving that
condition is to improving the condition of
the corridor.
'mr Fat, Oooe Idnril .,at by -ml
Vary
T-
Mnow lmpp-11p Impamenl to
Imprarinp Impmvinp
Imparlanl 1.
e-mmanlf
llla lha
cdmmr .pump.
rinp the
c Rmar
aml�ry and ea-lm al eammmridl
30.75% 27.351: 3A2'% 34- 3.56". 11.1116
le.4]'.'.
wyeme,
117
oeualy IN wmlibpn of malxnemml
2521% ]0 IS% S.eBT. O.BSy. e8A'. 11A5%
42.14%
.preen
Il 11 1 t .I
56
It7
nrreunl of bat mre I. m." In eamMr
2241% 20.1M 1.-1 7 70% I I.I OK HM%
21.53%
26 JI .. 111 .1
25
116
(],,ably IN coN.-pl hilmpms
IMM ".02% 16.61% 7.89% ! 13.16% 2-M
21.51%
21 u 19 a 1. .6
26
114
lh..lum.11-IN 0ervlce,
31.9m 23J0% 10.3a% 4a,%-M 12.01%
40.N%
]T 30 12 5 4 1a
47
116
Mmunl of-mW develap--min
U14%', IIJM 15,15% ILM% t/."% 21.1]%
11.61%
I,, cmrdm
:5 11 17 t u r4
13
112
Mb1ylo W.vaop endar me Land
12.01% 1031% 11.71% 4L14% 9.01% 9.01%
10.02%
UarvWCmpnl tutu
14 12 13 11 u. 1,
.0
11,
uabry a meevran ImNlm.
41.Dx OL11% CM 4.31% 1.03% 12AM
41.30%
(,dnwllAa, shoee. crosswnlb IN
10 8 7 W
U
110
paee.dapn cmaa.m ¢�pnam
Seklr It gda.lrml lawmen
37.13% 22AI% 1.70% "M LPo% 4.62%
43.10%
M -11smed-m-A. and
a4 26 0 x x 16
50
110
"al.- cmasbp vpnelai
Uuulily al biryem laalilka la.a bmal
11.17% 1531% 4.3M 15.70% 5.11% 14.01%
3-116
,1 12 1 Ib 16 Ie
:;
1W
Saklyolbroycle lacnllpa lb4a moral
13.SM 123M 0M% 1L63% e.eM t3.tw.
A..%
a Iv 10 11,
31
110
n5uly of nulpnrolnlea to accpsf
"'M 21.14% 3211% 4.359. e.00% 11.5M
31.30%
bus�nessoa lmm 17.p2
1U .; ]r IY
43
115
ea'.".' me'amem
.6.31% 213- 11.64% 1.2e% 1- LT%
a..%
'U :x In 6 6 10
19
1W
nropaiwnp.a pl laneauPpmlhf
Ms., 11..,% 337% zOx lAt% LW%
47M%
public rghl.al.wav
'u 11 1 1 e
53
112
ldbactwpm4, of lam-mam Pnvale
4525% 11Ar6 7.07% 203% 263% 14M%
42.11%
lama-.
[ I e I 1 16
10
114
Adaeuaq el Wbk 0dmpoNlbn
1T.54% 18.57% 21.05% 11.1]% 0.77% 20.16%
21.05%
16 19 14 1_ 16 2,,
21
114
4ccev�b6ry and ue.mebc.G banal
2M% 20.15% 14.91% 31.05% 1.- 12.25%
20.32%
laolaks
.. J 11 24 14
]0
114
n4s11wtca of slamwnlm lddim.
14.04% 17M% 16.67% =a0t, 13-% 14.04%
11.04%
11. 1'3 19 I I.� IG
10
111
rVi Please rate the desirability of the
following programs.
unm.bnLla
vnry Dawrel spmp..na
pnvalda
rota)
wmpmw
av4lrade dvell HLly
Averpv
w.YWronw 1pr HUnk9-c µveal vcausiean.nmomtluyc
D_n5'.'.
0.05': 31.09!:
31.73x
Via%
arrd MVYtlopnronl
a
!J
19
101
362
Pramalo Impmrod potle;lrvin 5 tl[yclo access abM Nv 1192
4.a'%
1.41% 17.79%
28.04%
44-IM
wrridv.
19
.nl
44
107
3,93
Dnvebp a canpeMr+si.v Lwlunncalwn pryrem la agMcol,vay
210!:
a.9]X 1121%
2420%
1175%
b madans to rmvmve lnv usual Narudu WNe cYMa•
,
I 12
20
5•:
10,
4,39
mLlv4 panda sunaob bcalimalar nlaala clommvvlvr
IA2%
3i5!: 4Um
aim
27AM
ralanaen lucLLLes la Dhow cansbsnN parcels la dwdop
2
,!
20
29
IN
3.73
54vM1Mri coda anlarcumanl al neNFpenl pccenlm
3.14%
3.ODY. 2.35%
19.03%
44A9%
4
+V
2'
fin
'd,
4.35
5lmrralMn desgnaWd.d. la pnvaly dvwlapmvnl
2.83%
23]% IBASIA
24.53%
SLU%
I
Iv
24
.s
I%
4.22
Uavebp sb'vlepY for ur+Eer9rourMmp-,-d-.11-whin
0.95%
447% MI%
205
"Aa%
Nv cwrator
1
7 25
HI
a,
105
4.00
Iniaale a facade Maul poprpn b rmvmve bu4dlrgs �n Ina cortrdcr
•T2%
4.70% 2.51%
aim
10A31:
5
. 9
105
9.21
QG Please rate
the desirability
of the
following strategic improvements.
pndaslrebb
Nvl very NvvVel
Bvmewhal
pealreWe
Tvla1
WHIBM1IVJ
doalraVlo deelraLN
Avv.apv
Enmurupo tuldn0e to Le npn slpsa Nlno raabwvy
23.11%
25.7]11 28.11%
11.01%
oil%
RepuHu rlwmnobr poMa W ba apalnepuly OehpnW Ma
1.11%
5.1m 17.12%
37.51%
AM
Malacl:
1
V 10
.0
31
fat
404
F.mWapo >t•.omd plwnwater papf rhslpn
0.95%
415% no?%
21.73%
a."%
1
5 JJ
27
Sr
101
3.89
Pra.enl vtwnrndp ponoa lmm OekA deaMed aH linear mad :
102%
Cam aim
VJM
39.39%
dar9 npnlplwaY lmnNpe
-.
4 a.
29
vs
90
400
Requav lmprwvd brgxnpe UWler ulandaMs nlonp rgnl W wvY
1.9.%
4.90% 13,73%
MAM
"Am
Irodagas
I
11
w.
102
4.25
NOMII/Il NuroquwmunlWpek alas wiN conlomMlp mpMlnlent
4.0a%
9A.% M.-
]IiM
Izim
tvnv mmo Weci5e0 pupa of l,melMnon¢dwnl
.1
11
11
'00
381
l:pnnWidalu tyro tvly abrrq mnidor
1oa%
5.00% 10.0m
10.00%
39Aw•
IN
380
Enwuru9v vnomd aseaa drwva
4001.
9..m U.-
2.00%
13.00%
.1
11 ..
1n
11
IN
3.75
Nvmvrd of GIIeoMd 111 romvvW ie m1 Vmvibly. diner unnv on
7.80%
S.77% 142M
2212%
4S.157.
--d-M
b 19
LI
'W
104
3.93
Please rate the following uses based on
whether
the current
amount of each use
should
be promoted,
decreased,
or kept the
same.
9lpnlllunlly
9umvnLal lHduca
uel lno 9omvwM1el
91pnI0uIOr
Told
9V-Va11
radpcv Inv curronl
amvunl
Inv currvnl
anwunl
•Ipnl
vmvunl currvnl
mole IM
ameunl amvunl
currvnl
r1791uM
Aa411e0 Uvinp FMHn C:.
543%
11 1-
00.52%
21.74%
4.33%
1
12
TU
4
.1
308
Pub O y Snaps
15.95%
47.01':
34.01%
113%
0.00%
I,
..
32
2
0
94
222
Aubmovvn lWpalr
1703%
42.55%
3123%
113%
IAm
11
at
1,
.
I
V4
220
Bun4
2.11%
111.14%
15.19%
11A5%
421%
_
19
SJ
It
4
95
3.04
cur LvvWw
411%
17.21%
4521%
Vim
121%
I
11
43
11
1
s,
112
Fasl Frwd NesW1-
toM
14.13%
4119%
aim
1113%
1
11
19
1V
11
92
3A0
-7%
12.17%
5521%
111.0%
1A1%
51dIa1rJCwvmenu
,
19
51
15
n
95
3.0T
slave
Gmcvry abro lldmvl
GAO%
2.4%
111.1m.
25A2%
43.TSx
0
,
n
„
42
90
421
.
Grocery sbre
3.13%
.13%
21.06%
b.31%
3021%
IsmaUNeipnMdloodl
3
u
2G
12
29
:W
381
H-1.
IVA2x
aim
3021%
3125%
31.18%
10
0
29
,.
21
98
3,48
Inaoa Necrevlipn
aim
421%
112m
48.32%
31.86%
wWbybea 9ssnc, dnace
U
a
t7
44
JU
95
11,5
alydlus. elc.l
15anNeclw,M.
NA]%
UAII,
1144%
1a.Tm
43M
poreeehp. vassmblY
+.
25
.,
IU
.1
V3
202
Y4dli-Famly laesvJar.9d
921%
131%
34,41%
13.11%
11.44%
IApa--
9
11
9G
328
Trmnhanvsl
gnccs
4.13%
1137%
31.N%
12.19%
11A11%
4
IT
31
11
+U
97
3.49
PbrkH
2Am
Coo
I531%
20.51%
53A5%
2
1
+b
.1
rat
90
4 30
Pbnl Nursnrles
3.19%
/22%
bum
VIM
13.51%
-
.2
20
13
94
337
NONn 10g Be•I
9A2%
a-
2"Im
7525%
w.u%
5
d
20
2a
29
95
381
NOWJISmalll
].29%
$AD
MAM
03M
35.11%
+1
24
...
31
o2
389
5mpla Fnmdr Nomea
12A0%
820%
Y21%
19J5%
13.11%
1�
45
I.
11
0
31U
51 Donn Nvnnumnb
0.90%
1A5%
11A1%
lli-
9111%
p
+
11
14
%
95
4A9
Slorapa tmmi sbn9a
28.27%
MAM
4021%
1.0]%
1.01%
1edlHgal
28
20
39
1
+
91
210
sWr;pe, vvnkb1111ec1
37.11%
aim
25.17%
200%
Gill%
veM1gbv Lo. von Duos..
alcl
30
11
25
2
n
9r
1.93
Veh,. S.W.lrww. xiln
MAM
24.74%
28.17%
1.19%
5.13%
wldwr salve)
34
14
It
G
,
97
222
VeM1:W 5.1 M..won
47.42%
24.Tm
2xll%
1.113%
3A9%
wboor aeka)
40
N
21
1
3
97
1,BB
22
07 Please rate the following uses based on
whether the current amount of each use
should be promoted, decreased, or kept the
same.
1 : 2 e 2
a Ta.1 scot.
Du1mal Fund newrmnlFvneoU U/PtaVerry lnunl 12.26x 4M% 12.26% 1e.61% 20.111
1U a 111 17 11
MAT%
'!tl R1 2ti9
•., C". S.We Tv. D.1— 11.11% 1L161: 7.11% am% 28.63%
20 %
15 4 1 Ze
61 67 7.74
Tnalncmmenl F— lA mvlhod Uy wMNo 111. of -11od 7A1x 1164% 2— 2L27% 1L26%
Let%
vvlarem Iv m+ — t mi —d Info F datrkll r. I 21 31
i91 ] Sfi
Smta nntl Faeoml G-1 Funding 3&75% 1VM 19.75% 1L50% 6.15%
5.00%
3t 13 11 In 7
- N 4.49
fivllneaa lm0mvomenl OilNclwi6l GpeclVl Teilnp Aumomy 11M 2162% 2B.1B% 1110% 1e.6Tx
1V 19 1 11 la
6.62x
5 Re 1>7
DevabVcr ConUihulbns 26.M NAM 12] 1.70% 7.79%
14A%
N 2R 11 7 1
1.1 .1 4.16
09 The City of Longwood has a number of
distinct areas and corridors with the
potential for redevelopment. Please rank
these areas 1-5 In order of the funding
priority that should be given to each area
when determining infrastructure
investment, with "1" being the top priority.
1 2 2 e 6
Ulm k—
6ble Hood e2e CO dor 21.161E 34.71% 13.BB% B.N% B %
25 l5 13 9 5
93 2.75
HIpllway 1792 Demdor N.57% 48A% 10.67% 12.0/% 1-4%
a 17 1V 1, I.
9[ 6.66
Hunch Heapon hnd. Cottle« O.TOx 14.n% 4zW Mom 1L01%
U 13 30 1V tf
9 2.8G
fiunNai16L1lion Amo e.]0% 1LB0% 1L60% 30.11% 2B.TB%
a 11 12 2R :1]
v3 212
Lmgwovd-1—Dh1W 15.56% 14.67% I.M% 21.11% 27.76%
t4 11 11 1Y 31
911 211
23