2025 Comprehensive Plan 2006 Land Development Code

Transcription

1 Attachment I CITY OF OVIEDO, FLORIDA 2025 Comprehensive Plan 2006 Land Development Code Zoning Map Amendment ZMA PUD Ordinance No.1638 Supporting Data & Analysis LPA September 13, 2016 City Council 1 st Reading September 19, 2016 City Council Adoption Hearing October 3, 2016

2 File Number: ZMA PUD Ordinance No: 1638 Application Type: Applicant: Owner: Requested Change: Planned Unit Development Zoning Map Amendment The Viera Company, Subsidiary of A. Duda & Sons, Inc Murrell Road, Suite 3 Viera, FL A. Duda & Sons, Inc Duda Trail Oviedo, FL From: Seminole County Industrial (M-1) and Agriculture (A-1) To: City of Oviedo Planned Unit Development (PUD) I. PROPERTY LOCATION A. General Location of Property: The subject property consists of approximately forty two point three four (42.34) acres located on the east side of State Road 426 and approximately 918 feet south of Mitchell Hammock Road. B. Seminole County Property Appraiser Parcel ID Numbers: CA CA CA CA A II. PURPOSE AND INTENT The purpose of the zoning map amendment is to change the existing Seminole County Industrial (M-1) and Agriculture (A-1) zoning districts to City of Oviedo Planned Unit Development (PUD) zoning district for approximately forty two point three four (42.34) acres of the subject property. The total subject parcels measure approximately 1,844,330 square feet. The site contains approximately twenty one point five one zero (20.10) acres of wetland. The applicant plans to impact and mitigate the wetland. The remaining eight point eight zero (8.80) acres of wetland will be used for wetland mitigation and conservation. After impacts and mitigation to wetland, the net developable acreage maximum development capacity is 1,461,000 sq. ft. The Applicant wishes to designate the subject property with a Planned Unit Development (PUD) zoning district consistent with the existing Commercial (CM) and Medium Density Residential (MDR) future land use designation. A summary chart of the approved intensity and density under the existing zoning district and proposed zoning district are show in Tables 1 and 2. Land Development Code (LDC) Section 4.6(C) and (D) require the review and approval of a Development Agreement and a Conceptual Development Plan with a PUD Zoning Map Page 2 of 24

3 Amendment. LDC Section 4.6(C)(2) requires the Development Agreement be included as an exhibit in any ordinance adopting an amendment to the official zoning map which changes the zoning of a property to PUD. The Applicant has submitted a Development Agreement and Conceptual Development Plan for inclusion into Ordinance No Table 1 Current Zoning City of Oviedo - Calculation of Maximum Square Footage and Dwelling Units Seminole County Property Appraiser Parcel Id Number Parcel Size (acres) Parcel Size (square feet) Current Zoning Max Density (DU/acre) Intensity (square feet) Approved Density (DU) CA ,648 Seminole County Industrial (M-1) CA , Seminole County Industrial (M-1) CA A ,559 Seminole County Industrial (M-1) CA ,954 Seminole County Agriculture (A-1) 19 Total ,843, Source: Planning & Development Division, 2016 Table 2 Proposed Zoning - City of Oviedo - Calculation of PUD Square Footage and Dwelling Units Land Use Type Parcel Size (acres) Parcel Size (square feet) Intended Intensity (FAR) Intended Density (DU/acre) Intended Intensity (square feet) Intended Density (DU) *Office (Parcel 3 and 4) , FAR 182, *Commercial (Parcel 1 and 2) , FAR 106,634 - Residential , du/acre - 70 du Total ,096,448.7 Maximum Intensity/Number of Dwelling Units 288, 867 sf 70 du Source: Planning & Development Division, 2016 *The subject parcels are designated with the Commercial (CM) Future Land Use Designation III. PROPERTY PROFILE A. Existing Use: Duda Headquarter Office and Sod Farm B. Current Future Land Use: Commercial (CM) and Medium Density Residential (MDR) C. Existing Zoning: Seminole County Industrial (M-1) and Agriculture (A-1) Page 3 of 24

4 D. Proposed Zoning: Planned Unit Development (PUD) E. Total Area: Approximately forty two point three four ( 42.34) acres F. Area of Proposed Amendment: Approximately forty two point three four (42.34) acres IV. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICY ANALYSIS A. Consistency with the Goals, Objectives, and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan and the Future Land Use Map Series 1. Supporting Goals, Objectives, and Policies: The City of Oviedo Comprehensive Plan was evaluated to determine if the requested zoning map amendment is supported by the City s Comprehensive Plan. This evaluation concludes that the following applicable objectives and policies of the Land Use Element of the City of Oviedo Comprehensive Plan support the requested zoning map amendment: Policy ; Policy ; Policy ; Policy ; Policy ; and Policy Conflicting Goals, Objectives, and Policies: There are no conflicting Goals, Objectives, or Polices. B. Compatibility with Existing and Proposed Land Uses 1. Adjacent Land Use Table: The proposed Planned Unit Development (PUD) zoning district is compatible with the adjacent FLU designations, zoning districts and existing uses as shown in Table 3 below: Direction Table 3: Adjacent Land Use Table: 2025 FLU Designations Zoning Districts Existing Land Use North: Seminole County Industrial (IND) Seminole County Industrial (M-1) and (M-1A) Vacant South: East: West: Seminole County Low Density Residential (LDR) City of Oviedo Low Density Residential (LDR) Seminole County Planned Development PD Seminole County Agriculture (A-1) Seminole County Seminole County Planned Unit (PD), Commercial (COM), Medium Density Industrial (IND) and Residential (MDR) and Industrial (IND) Agriculture (A-1) Source: City of Oviedo Planning & Development Division, 2016 Single Family Residential and Nursery Sod Farm Commercial Shopping Center Page 4 of 24

5 2. Zoning Impact and Scope of Uses: The Applicant requests the Planned Unit Development zoning district. The Planned Unit Development zoning district is consistent with the Medium Density Residential and Commercial future land use designations. Per LDC Section 4.6 the Planned Unit Development (PUD) District combines various residential, commercial, industrial, recreational, and/or public uses to create a planned community with a more desirable environment than would be possible through the strict application of conventional zoning district regulations. The uses and structures proposed are to be planned and developed as unified and coordinated developments. Per LDC Section 4.6, the purpose of a PUD is the following: (a) To incorporate a more flexible management structure for negotiation and coordination of private sector development objectives, which may be inconsistent with conventional zoning district provisions, with public sector goals, objectives and policies that govern the City's development and conservation of resources; (b) To achieve high standards in the quality of urban design amenities within residential and non-residential developments by encouraging the development of land as planned communities; (c) To promote efficient use of land by facilitating more cost effective, flexible and creative concepts as well as environmentally sensitive site planning; (d) To stimulate opportunities for varied housing types and a mixture of land uses that would not be possible through conventional zoning districts; (e) To conserve and protect the natural environment including wetlands, natural habitat, drainage corridors, flood prone lands, and other environmentally sensitive lands by encouraging scenic and functional open areas; (f) To provide more useable, landscaped, and suitably located open space and recreation facilities, and other public and common facilities than would otherwise be provided under conventional land development procedures; (g) To encourage the accomplishment of a more complete living environment through the application of enlightened and imaginative approaches to community planning and shelter design through the introduction of a variety of architectural solutions; (h) To preserve and protect historic resources; (i) To provide safe and convenient vehicular circulation including access and sufficient area for effective delivery of emergency services; (j) To provide for safe, convenient, and integrated pedestrian circulation systems; and (k) To establish neighborhood identity and focus consistent with the community character as promoted by the City Council. Page 5 of 24

6 Below is a table summarizing the City s lot use regulations as specified in the LDC zoning district for Seminole County Industrial (M-1) and Agriculture (A-1) compared to that of the proposed Planned Unit Development (PUD) zoning district. Table 4 Summary of Proposed PUD and City of Oviedo LDC Lot Use Regulations Seminole County Zoning District Medium Density Residential (MDR) Commercial (CM) Land Use Designation Lot Standards Minimum Lot Size Minimum Lot width Minimum Building Front Setback Minimum Building Side Setback Minimum Side Street Setback Minimum Building Rear Setback Existing Zoning Seminole County (M-1) Existing Zoning Seminole County (A-1)) Proposed Zoning (PUD) for Residential Residentia l (R-1B) Residenti al (R- 1BB) R-2 O-C C-1 C-2 Proposed Zoning (PUD) for Commercial/ Office N/A 1 acre N/A 6,000 sf 5,000 sf 7,500 sf N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 150 ft N/A 60 ft 50ft 70 ft N/A N/A N/A N/A 50ft 50ft 25 ft Building 20 ft Garage 25 ft Building 20 ft Garage 25 ft Building 20 ft Garage 25 ft 25 ft 30ft 30ft 25 ft. (50 ft from SR 426) 50ft 50ft 10ft 7ft 5ft 8ft 10ft 10ft 10ft 10ft 10ft 10ft N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 10 ft 30ft 20 ft 25 ft 20ft 25 ft 20 ft 20ft 20ft 25 ft 3. Impact on Established and Projected Levels of Service: The impacts of the proposed amendment were analyzed by comparing the impacts of the maximum allowable intensity and density of the subject property s current Seminole County Industrial (M-1) and Agriculture (A-1) zoning districts versus the proposed Planned Unit Development zoning district. As illustrated by Table 4 below, there is an increase in the total of maximum allowable dwellings units and a decrease in the maximum allowable gross floor area as a result of change in zoning district. The analysis of the impact on public facilities indicates that is a net increase of fifty-one (51) dwelling units and a decrease of 283,047 square feet of gross floor area. 1. Recreation: The analysis for recreation services impact is based on the neighborhood park acreage. The proposed Zoning Map Amendment is from Seminole County Industrial (M-1) and Agriculture (A-1) to Planned Unit Development (PUD) Zoning district. Commercial and Office zoning districts do not require recreation use. Page 6 of 24

7 2. Solid Waste: Based on the Seminole County and City of Oviedo Solid Waste Management Agreement (approved October 20, 2008), the City provides for collection and disposal of solid waste from the residents and businesses located within the City. Seminole County provides for construction, operation, repair and maintenance of countywide solid waste disposal facilities. by Seminole County to maintain the projected capacities of the County facilities. The analysis for residential solid waste impact is based on 4.2 pounds per capita per day for the Osceola Landfill and 4.4 pounds per capita per day for the Transfer Station Site. Table 4 shows that the solid waste demand will have a net increase of 15,068 pounds per day at the Osceola Landfill and a net increase of 6,818 pounds per day at the Transfer Station Site. Seminole County has provided evidence and supporting documentation confirming the County s availability of solid waste facilities to absorb this increase. The current LOS for Solid Waste collection in the City is 2.61 PCD; therefore the City has enough capacity to provide solid waste collection services for the proposed land use. 3. Potable Water and Sewer: The subject property is located within the City of Oviedo s service area for potable water and sanitary sewer. The analysis for residential potable water and sanitary sewer impact is based on the City's level of service (LOS) standard of 135 gallons per capita per day (GPCD) for potable water and 300 gallons per day (GPD) per equivalent residential unit for sanitary sewer. As illustrated by Table 4, there will be a total net increase of 19,363 GPD of potable water needed and a net decrease of 14,786 GPD of sanitary sewer needed. The Applicant has provided approximate calculations of estimated demand for potable water and sanitary sewer based on the maximum proposed development. The City has provided a letter stating that there is sufficient potable water and sanitary sewer capacity to serve the intended density and intensity for the proposed development. Reclaimed water is not currently available to this area. 4. Drainage: Drainage impact is determined on a site by site basis and development shall comply with the City s drainage level of standards prior to the issuance of a site development order. The City s solid waste levels of service standards are consistent with the ones adopted. Page 7 of 24

8 Oviedo Level of Service (LOS) Standard Maximum Dwelling Units (DU) Table 4 Public Facilities Supporting Data Summary Maximum Gross Floor Area (GFA) (Sq. Ft) Recreation (acres/pop) Solid Waste (lbds/capita/day) (1) Impacted Public Facilities Potable Water (GPD) (2) Sanitary Sewer (GPD) (3) Neighborhood Residential= Residential= Park 2/1,000 Landfill = 4.2 Transf.St.= 4.4 Disposal- Seminole County Collection-City of Oviedo Site Developable Area acres 1,844,330.4 square feet Total acres 1,844,330.4 square feet Seminole County Industrial (M-1) (Max. FAR 0.65) Maximum Density/Intensity of Existing Zoning NA 642,354 10,792 11, GPCD Commercial = 15 GPD per 100 Sq.Ft. 300 GPD per DU Commercial= GPD per 100 Sq.Ft. 96,361 82, Seminole County 8,567 19,038 Agriculture 19 N/A 279 (A-1) 22, , , Total , , ,645 Proposed PUD CM (Max.0.50 FAR) NA Maximum Density/Intensity of Proposed Zoning 359,958 sf 6,047 6,335 53,994 GPD 46,291GPD Proposed PUD MDR ( NA ,563 70,140 du units per acre) 1,029 7,029 85,557 Total , , , 431 GPD GPD 14, ,068 Net ,396 sf ,363-14,786 6,818 Notes: (1) Seminole County has provided evidence and documentation confirming the county's availability of solid waste facilities. The calculus was based on 3.34 persons/ DU for residential use and 1 employee/250 sq. ft. of commercial space. (2) Available capacity in water must be available prior to the City authorizing a development order or permit (3) Available capacity in sewer must be available prior to the City authorizing a development order or permit Source: Planning Division, 2016 Drainage Drainage is determine d on a site by site basis. Prior to the issuance of a developm ent order or permit, a developm ent must comply with the City's LOS standard. Page 8 of 24

9 5. Transportation: In order to determine if there is sufficient roadway capacity to serve the proposed change in zoning district, the maximum density of the existing zoning district Seminole County Industrial (M-1) and Agriculture (A-1) is compared to the maximum intensity and density of the proposed zoning district using trip generation rates provided by the Applicant. Under the development scenario for the current zoning district, a maximum of 104,000 square feet of Industrial and Agriculture (A-1) development and 19 dwelling units could be developed generating an estimated 1,459 daily trips. Under the maximum development scenario for the proposed zoning district of Planned Unit Development, (70 dwelling units, 134,466 General Office, 47,804 Medical Office, 87,451 Retail, 5,000 Drive in Bank and 14,184 High Turnover Restaurant) it would generate an estimated 12,624 total daily trips for the proposed uses. In this evaluation, there is an estimated net increase of 6,504 daily trips. Table 5: Existing Trip Generation Summary ITE Daily Trips P.M. Peak Hour Generation Code Land Use Size Rate Trips Rate Enter Exit Total 140 Manufacturing 20.0 KSF 3.82/R /R Warehousing KSF 3.56/R /R General Office KSF 16.40/E /E Specialty Retail KSF 50.97/E /E Automobile Care Center 9.30 KSF /E Single-Family Detached Housing 19 DU Total Trips 1, Retail Pass-by Trips (34%) New Net Trips 1, Table 6: Proposed Trip Generation Summary ITE Daily Trips P.M. Peak Hour Generation Code Land Use Size Rate Trips Rate Enter Exit Total 230 Townhome 70 DU 6.74/E /E General Office KSF 12.23/E 1, /E Medical Office KSF 36.40/E 1, /E Retail KSF 71.17/E 6, /E Drive-in Bank KSF /R /R High Turnover Restaurant KSF /R 1, /R Total Trips 12, ,234 Internal Capture (16%) 2, Retail Pass-by Trips (34%) 1, Bank Pass-by Trips (47%) Restaurant Pass-by Trips (43%) New Net Trips 7, Vested Trips from Existing Uses New Net Trips 1,378 6, Page 9 of 24

10 The City s Transportation Consultant has reviewed the Applicant s trip generation data and has concluded that there should be adequate capacity within a one-mile radius to absorb the proposed new trips. 6. Development Agreement Land Development Code (LDC) Section 4.6(C) requires the review and approval of a Development Agreement with a PUD Zoning Map Amendment. 1. Permissible Uses. Permissible Uses provided for in the Development Agreement include the following: Land Use Summary Parcel(s) Land Use Acres No. of Units /Tract(s) 1 (square feet) Percent of Subject Property Density/Intensity 1 Commercial , %.30 FAR 2 Commercial , %.30 FAR 3 Professional Office , %.50 FAR 4 Professional Office , %.50 FAR 5 Residential dwelling units 20.46% 8 dwelling units/acre 2 A Private Right-of N/A 2.30% N/A Way Access B Stormwater Pond N/A 3.83% N/A and Open Space C Parks/Recreation and Open Space N/A 2.66% N/A D Stormwater Pond N/A 10.93% N/A and Open Space E Conservation N/A 20.79% N/A and Open Space TOTAL: % Notes: 1 With the exception of the dedicated tract for the 30 x 30 lift station, all other Parcels and Tracts within the Project will be privately owned. The privately-owned Parcels and Tracts shall be be maintained by a commercial or residential property association, as appropriate, or as determined by a private agreement entered into between the various Parcel owners. 2 The residential density in the above chart is based on a net residential area of acres in Parcel 5. The net residential density is dwelling units per acre. Pursuant to Future Land Use Element Policy , the net density is rounded down to the nearest whole number which results in a net density of 8 dwelling units per acre. When Tract C is included in the amount of acres designated as Medium Density Residential, the gross residential acreage is which results in a gross density of 7.14 dwelling units per acre. Page 10 of 24

11 Office Uses permitted within the O-C zoning district; Commercial Uses permitted within the C-2 zoning district; and Residential may Townhome, Condominium or Senior Restricted Living for persons ages 55 and over. 2. Transportation. The development will have one access. The access will be from State Road 426 and will be right in/right out access. Internal accesses will be determined during site development order review. 3. Landscaping and Buffering. The Developer is proposing the following standards as to landscaping and buffers: The Developer shall plant 1 medium tree on each residential lot. For non-residential lots, landscaping shall comply with the City s LDC. A 10 foot wide landscape buffer area along the perimeter of the PUD with buffer yard type A1. A 10 foot wide landscape buffer area shall be provided along the interior Parcel lines with buffer yard A1 between commercial and office parcels. A 10 foot wide landscape buffer area shall be provided along interior Parcel lines with buffer yard type A2 between office and residential parcels plus 1 row of shrubs at the Parcel 4 property line. A 20 foot wide landscape buffer area with buffer type C-1 along the south PUD perimeter of Parcel 1 and along the south and west PUD perimeters of Parcel 4 abutting residential areas. A 15 foot wide buffer yard type B1 or a 10 foot wide buffer yard type B1 shall be provided with a 6-foot high masonry wall at the south and southwest property line of Parcel 5. A 10 foot wide landscape buffer area shall be provided along State Road 426 with buffer yard type A1. The City s existing Land Development Code does not have requirements for townhome lot trees. The Zoning in Progress requires either one (1) large tree or one (1) medium tree and one (1) palm tree on Townhome lots. The Applicant proposes one (1) medium tree. The Applicant s justification for proving one (1) medium tree is as follow: The Development Agreement for Andrew s Crossing proposes one under-story tree in the front yard of each townhome dwelling unit. The City of Oviedo is in the process of adopting a new landscape code that will require either 1 canopy tree per townhome unit or 1 under-story tree and a palm tree per unit. The width of a townhome lot is usually 20 to 25. As such, planting a canopy tree within this smaller area is neither productive nor recommended by industry standard. Canopy trees require 40 to 50 spacing to grow properly, and dense canopy casts too much shade onto sub-canopy vegetation below. This limits the growth of other plants and weakens the health of grassed lawn areas. Furthermore, tree planting in smaller confined spaces is potentially damaging to surrounding driveways, curbs, sidewalks and underground utilities. In lieu of this requirement, the Development Agreement proposes 1 medium tree on each residential lot. This requirement is more conducive and consistent with the proposed townhome development Page 11 of 24

12 and lot size widths. Additionally, the Land Development Code does not require a perimeter buffer. The Applicant has provided a perimeter buffer for the project. The Applicant complies with the City s Land Development Code buffer requirements for individual parcels. 4. Parking. The Applicant proposes that Townhomes parking is provided at a rate of 2 parking spaces per townhome. The required parking, if townhomes, may be satisfied by 1 enclosed singlecar parking garage with a driveway designed to accommodate at least 1 parking space on the portion of the driveway within the boundary of the applicable lot (as opposed to the driveway apron which lies in the right-of-way). In lieu of the 1 parking space on the portion of the driveway within the boundary of the applicable lot, the second parking space may be accommodated by a separate designated area off the lot but within the Parcel. Parking for condominiums shall be satisfied by off-street parking spaces in the appropriately designated common areas. Guest parking for residential shall be provided at rate of.10 spaces per dwelling unit and may be accommodated in designated parking areas. Parking for non-residential uses is not addressed in the Development Agreement and shall comply with the City s Land Development Code in effect at the time of development. The City s LDC does not provide for parking requirements for Townhomes. Zoning in Progress proposes on-site parking for townhomes to be calculated as the number of bedrooms minus one (1), with a minimum of 2 parking spaces per unit. Guest parking is calculated at 0.25 parking spaces per unit. The Applicant s justification for Townhome parking is below: The Development Agreement for the Andrew's Crossing Planned Developed provides parking at a rate of 2 parking spaces per townhome. Additionally, the Development Agreement provides for 0.1 space per unit for guest parking. The proposed development program includes 70 townhome units. At 2 spaces per unit, the development will allow up to 140 parking spaces to account for the residential units and an additional 7 designated guest spaces for a total of 147 parking spaces. This is more than adequate to accommodate the proposed 70-unit townhome community. A typical townhome unit has either a one or two-car garage, depending on the size of the lot and the unit. It is common for local governments to require townhome developments to have at least a onecar garage. Townhomes are popular among small families, younger or older married couples, and unmarried individuals. Usually, one or two parking spaces are sufficient for residents of townhomes. Conversely, larger families with 3 or more family members generally prefer singlefamily dwelling units with not only more parking spaces but also a larger yard area for pets and children. The standard townhome unit is typically constructed on a lot approximately 22 to 25 wide, which is also generally the width of the unit. Unless an alley is provided, the enclosed garage is normally street facing at the front of the unit. The 22' to 25' lot width can accommodate an 8 -single-wide or a 16 -double-wide driveway. As a result, 1 to 2 additional cars can park off the street and in the Page 12 of 24

13 driveway of the townhome unit. Guests usually park their cars at or nearest to the residential unit they are visiting; most likely using the additional parking provided within the driveway. Although the Development Agreement provides for guests parking in a designated common area, parking in a remote guests area is generally not the guests' or visitors' first choice. Guests or visitors will park on the street in front of the unit first before looking for a designated guest parking area. Biltmore (see Figure 1), a successful townhome community in the City of Oviedo, does not have designated guest parking and neither has it experienced any problems with guest parking. Within Biltmore, Developers and residents have a choice between a single-wide or double-wide driveway. For some corner units, the length of the driveway is extended. The additional length of the driveway provides an additional opportunity for visitor parking. Although we anticipate that guests and visitors will park their cars in the respective townhome driveway or on the street before looking for designated guest parking, the Developer's Agreement specifically accommodates guest parking. Smaller townhome communities, as proposed for Andrew's Crossing, oftentimes provide additional parking near common areas such as clubhouses, mailboxes, and maintenance offices. Here, however, the Developer has the opportunity to place some guest parking spaces near such facilities and near the recreational area, which will serve the townhome community. This allows the Developer to more than adequately accommodate for any guest or overflow parking, should the need ever arise. As a benchmark and comparison of the parking requirements for townhome communities, we reviewed the Parking Generation 4 th Edition, a study published by the Institute of Transportation Engineering (the "Parking Study"). The Parking Study identified parking ratios based on certain land use categories. The Parking Study includes a category referred to as "Land Use 224, Rental Townhouse". The Rental Townhouse category is defined as "townhouse developments with rented rather than owned units and a minimum of two attached units per building structure. Units are not stacked on top of one another." The Parking Study concluded that 1.7 parking spaces per Rental Townhouse was sufficient to accommodate the parking needs. The Parking Study also includes a category identified as "Land Use 230, Residential Condominium/Townhouse". The Land Use 230 Residential Condominium/Townhouse category is defined as "ownership units that have at least one other owned unit within the same building structure. Both condominiums and townhouses are included in the land use." The Parking Study identified an average parking supply ratio of 1.4 parking spaces per dwelling unit. The parking ratio that results from the parking requirements proposed in the Development Agreement equates to 2.1 parking spaces per dwelling unit. This 2.1 parking ratio exceeds the recommended and identified ratios found in the Institute of Transportation Engineering's Parking Study described above. The proposed parking in the Development Agreement exceeds the Parking Study's requirements for Land Use 224 and Land Use 230 by 23% and 50%, respectively. For this and previously discussed reasons, we are confident that the townhome community will have more than adequate parking for residents, guests, and visitors. Page 13 of 24

14 Figure 1 Aerial view of Biltmore, Oviedo, Florida 5. Signage The Applicant proposes to have one (1) project entrance (freestanding monument) sign not to exceed 70 square feet in sign area, and twelve (12) feet in height. The sign will be located within Tract A or within an easement on Parcel 1 or Parcel 2. Parcels shall also be allowed to erect their own freestanding and wall signs in accordance with the Land Development Code. Parcels one (1) and two (2), if further subdivided; each subdivided parcel shall be permitted a freestanding and wall signage in accordance the Land Development Code. Type of Development Total No. of Signs Total of freestanding signs allowed on subject development Development Agreement Standards Project Entrance Sign *1 for Development or on easement on Parcel 1 and 2 in sign easement Shopping Centers per 25,000 less 1 per parcel Shopping Centers per 25, 001 up to 75, 000 Table 3 Freestanding Sign Shopping Centers per 75,001 up to 250,000 More than 250, 000 Office Parks 1 per parcel 1 per parcel 1 per parcel 1 for each public right of way entrance Commercial Office 1 per parcel 1 per parcel * *Per the Development Agreement, Section 6. Land Use Classifications Per FLU , Section 22. Signage, B. Subdividing: If Parcels 1 and 2 are further subdivided, each sub parcel shall be permitted freestanding and Page 14 of 24

15 wall signage in accordance with the City s LDC and the Agreement. At this time it is undetermined the total amount of sign that will be erected on the subject property. The development will exceed more than eight (8) signs in total if Parcel 1 and 2 are subdivided. Per the LDC, the maximum number of signs the development is allowed is a total of seven (7) signs, two of which would be multi-frontage signs for the parcels adjacent to SR 426. The Applicant proposes to place one (1) additional sign on the subject property. 6. Maximum Height The maximum height of buildings or structures shall not exceed 75 feet on Parcel 3. The maximum height for buildings and structures on Parcel 2 shall not exceed 60 feet. The maximum height for buildings and structures on Parcels 1 and 4 shall not exceed 50 feet. The maximum height of buildings and structures on Parcel 5 shall not exceed 45 feet. On December 7, 2015, City Council adopted Resolution approving Zoning in Progress related to Architectural Design Guidelines. Per the Design Guidelines, the maximum height of townhomes is 45 feet and the maximum height of Office and Commercial buildings is 60 feet. Per LDC Section 4.6(A) Purpose of the PUD District, it states, 1) To incorporate a more flexible management structure for negotiation and coordination of private sector development objectives, which may be inconsistent with conventional zoning district provisions, with public sector goals, objectives and policies that govern the City's development and conservation of resources; PUD s are allowed to be flexible and may not always comply with the terms of the City s Land Development Code. When considering the proposed height for the different parcels of the development, the following rationale was considered. Parcel 1 is located north of a vacant property, for which Seminole County has approved a 55 lot single family residential subdivision (Lukas Landing). Given the proximity of parcels 1 and 4 to the proposed subdivision, the Applicant is proposing a lesser height than the 60 foot maximum Zoning in Progress height. The Applicant is proposing 50 feet on Parcels 1 and 4. Parcel 5 at 45 feet in height is consistent with the City s Zoning in Progress for townhomes. The Applicant is proposing 75 feet on Parcel 3. The Applicant s justification for the 75 foot building height is as follow: The Development Agreement proposes a maximum height of 75' for only Parcel 3. Parcel 3 is designated for office development. The City of Oviedo's Land Development Code (LDC) allows a maximum height up to 60'. While it is not anticipated that any buildings will be constructed to 75' tall, the additional 15' in height allows for additional flexibility. Particularly since the A. Duda & Sons, Inc., new headquarters may be located on Parcel 3. The Andrew's Crossing PUD could also attract a hotel use, which is another land use where the maximum building height is a critical factor. Additionally, modern architecture tends to incorporate higher ceiling spaces in its design, and the modern building exterior features are expressively proportioned with 3 distinctive masses for building bases, typical floors (body), and roof top features. The floor-to-floor dimensions (of typical floors) tend to be higher in class A office buildings, such as corporate headquarter offices. High-ceiling features can often be found in Page 15 of 24

16 interior open spaces, especially on the ground floor level (base) of new high-end buildings. These spaces generally form atriums, lobbies, or other public gathering spaces. Modern architecture also emphasizes roof top features. The rooftop floor office units or penthouse office spaces are distinctive and command premium rent; extra ceiling height is needed for flexibility in design. Furthermore, the southern edge of the Parcel 3 is more than 160 feet away from the edge of the nearest residential development. The additional 15' in height will not adversely impact the surrounding areas. The area surrounding Parcel 3 is described below. Parcel 3 Surrounding Area North of Parcel 3: general contractor office and self-storage facility East of Parcel 3: Andrew's Crossing PUD designated stormwater pond, recreation tract, and conservation area South of Parcel 3: Andrew's Crossing PUD access road and designated office Parcel 4 West of Parcel 3: Andrew's Crossing PUD Parcel 2, Commercial (with a maximum height of 60') 7. Mobility Strategy The proposed project has a driveway connecting to SR 426. SR 426 is identified as a Minor Arterial Roadway and within a Development Corridor per the City s Comprehensive Plan. Per Policy of the 2025 Comprehensive Plan identified Development Corridors, shall be required to implement, or provide a funding contribution directly to implement mobility strategies, based on a proposed development s anticipated net, new external P.M. peak hour trip generation, according to the schedule in Table Table 2.11-Criteria for Provision of Mobility Strategies, proposed net, new external P.M. peak hour trip generation of proposed development requires five (5) mobility strategies for 400 to 599 trips. The applicant is required to incorporate five mobility strategies. The applicant has incorporated nine (9) strategies in the Development Agreement for Mobility but will implement only five of the strategies. The proposed strategies are as follows: 1) An approximately 10 foot x 50 foot school bus drop-off and pick-up facility within Parcel 2; 2) Bicycle parking racks will be provided on Parcels 1, 2, 3, and 4 pursuant to the LDC with 1 additional 4-space bicycle rack per parcel. This exceeds the minimum code requirement; 3) Bicycle parking racks will be provided on Parcel 5 pursuant to the LDC with 2 additional 4-space bicycle racks. This exceeds the minimum code requirement. The bicycle parking racks for Parcel 5 may be located in the common area or within Tract C; 4) Bicycle access from State Road 426 to residential Parcel 5 and recreational Tract C by either a designated bicycle lane on the north side of Tract A or by a 10-foot wide Page 16 of 24

17 multi-purpose path for pedestrians and bicycles. The bicycle lane will be designed with signage and or pavement markings to indicate the designated bicycle lane The multipurpose path may be located on or extended to the Parcels and Tracts abutting Tract A; 5) A decreased speed limit that is 5 miles per hour less than the permitted posted speed limit; 6) Designated gathering space with outdoor seating and tables to serve the office Parcels 3 and 4; Developer has the sole discretion to determine the location of the gathering space and in determining the amount and type of outdoor seating and tables to provide; 7) Enhance the pedestrian experience by providing benches along the north side of Tract A; Developer may utilize this option in conjunction with a sidewalk or a multipurpose path; 8) Provide a sidewalk with a width of 5-feet on the north side of Tract A, which is 1-foot more than the 4-foot wide sidewalk required by the LDC; 9) Designated carpool parking spaces on Parcels 3 and 4. Developer will provide a maximum of 3 carpool parking spaces; 2 carpool parking spaces will be located on Parcel 3 in close proximity to the front entrance doors of the office development and 1 carpool parking space will be provided on Parcel 4 in close proximity to the front entrance doors of the office development. C. Conceptual Development Plan Land Development Code (LDC) Section 4.6 (D) requires the review and approval of a Conceptual Development Plan with a PUD Zoning Map Amendment which is approved as an exhibit to or referenced by a development agreement. The Applicant has submitted a Conceptual Development Plan provided in Exhibit B. D. Current Supply of Vacant Land Already Designated for the Proposed Land Uses According to the current City of Oviedo Land Inventory, there are approximately 5,021 acres designated with the Planned Unit Development zoning district. The proposed change of zoning will add forty-two point three four (42.34) acres of land with the Planned Unit Development zoning district. E. Funding Commitments for Required Improvements No additional capital improvements beyond what has already been approved within the City s Comprehensive Plan will result because of the proposed request for a zoning map amendment. Therefore, no funding commitments for capital improvement projects are required of the Applicant at this time. Page 17 of 24

18 F. Impact on Natural Resources 1. Drainage Basin: The subject property is located Bear Creek Drainage Basin. 2. Wetlands/Floodplain: According to the Environmental Assessment Report submitted by the Applicant and reviewed by the City s Environmental Consultant, the property contains 10.9 acres including 0.26 acres of Forested Wetland, acres of Herbaceous (Sod Field), and 0.40 acres of surface water. The wetlands will be mitigated for development acres of remaining on site Herbaceous will be used for wetland mitigation and designated as permanent open space/concentration areas. The subject property has five (5) distinct habitat type: a) Sod Farms - 242: This community consist bahia grass, bermuda grass, paper mulberry, muscadine vine sword fern, saltbush, cogongrass and chinaberry tree. b) Temperate Hardwoods-425: Vegetation observed within this community type are Common persimmon, pignut hickory, citrus, hackberry sugarberry, sother red cedar, slash pine live oak, laurel oak, water oak, sand live oak, sweetbay, black cherry, red maple, sweetgum, American, beautyberry, pokeweed, common ragweed, sedges, Chinese tallowtree, rattlebox and paper mulberry. c) Streams and Waterways; located to the north of the property, such vegetation observed pickerel weed, salt buss, way myrtle, elderverry, arrow arum, marsh pennywort, maidencane, Carolina willow, duck potato, and Peruvian primrose willow, elephant ear, and torpedgrass. d) Reservoirs less than 10 acres; located to the north of the property, such vegetation observed bahiagrass, pickerel weed, arrow arum, marsh pennywort, maiden cane, duck potato, elephant ear, and Peruvian primrosewillow. salt buss, way myrtle, elderverry, arrow arum, marsh pennywort, maidencane. e) Cypress-Pine-Cabbage Palm -624: This property is small forested wetland. The vegetation found in this community type bald cypress, slash pine, cabbage palm, sweetgum, red maple, black cherry, loblolly bay, royal fern, cinnamon fern, swamp fern, chalky bluestem, beaksedge, nutsedge, muscade grapevine, poison ivy, greenbriar, Virginia creep, and marsh pennywort. According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) of Seminole County, the property is located within Zone X and Zone A. A portion of the subject property lies within the 100 year flood plain. 3. Endangered Species: According to the Environmental Assessment Report submitted by the Applicant and reviewed by the City s Environmental Consultant no plant species are listed as being endangered or threatened were present on the subject property. However, the species of royal fern, and cinnamon fern were found on the subject property. Royal fern and cinnamon fern are not permitted for harvesting for commercial gain. Five (5) wildlife species, the Florida Sandhill Crane, Gopher Tortoise, Little Blue Heron, Snowy Egret and White Ibis were identified on the subject property. These species are listed on the Florida Endangered Species, Threated, Species and Species of Special concern list. Page 18 of 24

19 a) Florida Sandhill Crane is a subspecies of Sandhill Crane that is a exclusively resident to Florida. Six (6) Florida Sandhill Cranes were observed. If nesting occurs, FFWCC will require a 400 ft. buffer around the nest. No nests were observed on site or nearby. b) Little Blue Heron is listed a Species of Special Concern. The Little Blue Heron, Snowy Egret and White Ibis were observed foraging within the small ponds located on the subject property. No protection required for these species unless they are observe nesting on site. c) Gopher Tortoise are classified as Threaten Species. Seven (7) inactive/active burrows on site. The FFWCC provides three(3) options developers that have gopher tortoise on their property: a. Avoidance provide a 25 foot buffer around burrow b. Preserve habitat c. Offsite relocation 4. Soil Conditions: According to the Soil Survey of Seminole County, Florida (published by the United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, in cooperation with the University of Florida, 1990), there are two (2) predominant soil types within the property boundary: (10)Basinger, Samsula and Hontoon soils, depressional is nearly leveled and poorly drained. These soils are located near wetlands and are in swamps and depressions. Basinger soil has a surface layer of very dark gray mucky fine sand. Samsula soil has 30 inches thick of muck as a layer. Hontoon soil surface layer is about 18 inches thick. (20)Myakka and EauGallie fine sands has a surface layer of dark gray fine sand about five (5) inches thick. The subsurface layer is light gray fine sand. The permeability of Myakka soil is rapid. The permeability of EauGallie soil is rapid in the surface and subsurface layers. The sands are not well suited to cultivate crops. (27) Pomello fine sand, 0 to 5 percent is nearly level to gently sloping and moderately, well drained. Typically its surface layer consists of light gray fine sand about 2 inches thick. The permeability is very rapid in the surface and subsurface layers, moderately rapid in the subsoil and rapid in the substratum. (17)Brighton, Samsula, and Sanibel mucks are nearly level and very poorly drained. The soils are generally not suited for citrus crops, and pastures. (29)St. Johns and EauGallie fine sands are nearly level and very poorly drained. The soil has a surface lay of black fine sand about 12 inches thick. G. Consistency with efforts to increase the supply of non-residential lands available for economic use. The proposed zoning map amendment will have no effect on decreasing the supply of nonresidential lands available for economic use. Page 19 of 24

20 H. Consistency with efforts to increase the provision of a viable mixture of land uses in a compact, walkable area that is accessible to the full range of feasible non-motorized and motorized transportation modes. The subject property is located approximately 1,064 feet way from the Oviedo Pickup Line 622. There will be internal sidewalks. The applicant will provide a pedestrian plan at time of Preliminary Subdivision Plan and Site Development Order. The proposed zoning map amendment is consistent with the City s effort and will provide for a mixture of land uses. V. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS A. Housing If the acre subject property designated with the MDR future land use designation were developed at the maximum 8 dwelling units per acre, this development would yield an estimated 70 single family dwelling units. It will have no effect on the acres of property designated with the Commercial (CM) FLU. B. Population Impact If the acres subject property were developed at the maximum density, the estimated additional population would be 234 people (70 dwelling units X 3.34 persons per dwelling unit). It will have no effect on the acres of property designated Commercial (CM) FLU. C. Public Health/Safety/Welfare Issues There is no public-health, safety, and/or welfare issues associated with this zoning map amendment request. D. Impact on Schools If the maximum allowable density on the property designated with the MDR flu is reached, the subject property will generate a total of 31students (70 du x 0.448). This will have no effect on CM flu designation. E. Other Comments Adoption of a zoning map amendment does not reserve or guarantee capacity in water, sewer, transportation, drainage, recreation, or solid waste facilities, nor does it guarantee maximum density or intensity in a zoning district can be achieved. VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the proposed change in zoning district from Seminole County Industrial (M-1) and Agriculture (A-1) to Planned Unit Development (PUD) based on the findings presented in this report. Page 20 of 24

21 EXHIBITS EXHIBIT A EXHIBIT B EXHIBIT C EXHIBIT D Location Map/Site Map Existing Zoning Map Proposed Zoning Map Table of Permissible Land Uses (Land Development Code-City of Oviedo) Page 21 of 24

22 Exhibit A: Location Map/Site Map Page 22 of 24

23 Exhibit B: Existing Zoning Map Page 23 of 24

24 Exhibit C: Proposed Zoning Map Page 24 of 24