1 / 41

Board of County Commissioners

Board of County Commissioners. PUBLIC HEARING. August 11, 2009. Board of County Commissioners. District #: 1 Case #: RZ-08-06-037 Applicant: Daniel T. O’Keefe for Village F Master PD Request: A-1 (Citrus Rural District) and A-2 (Farmland Rural District)

crescent
Download Presentation

Board of County Commissioners

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Board of County Commissioners PUBLIC HEARING August 11, 2009

  2. Board of County Commissioners District #:1 Case #:RZ-08-06-037 Applicant:Daniel T. O’Keefe for Village F Master PD Request:A-1 (Citrus Rural District)and A-2 (Farmland Rural District) PD (Planned Development District) to Proposed Use:Mixed-use development in accordance with the approved Land Use Plan (LUP) Non-Residential…………240,000 sq. ft. Residential Dwellings……..3,463 units

  3. Board of County Commissioners RZ-08-06-037 Zoning Map

  4. Board of County Commissioners RZ-08-06-037 Future Land Use Map

  5. Board of County Commissioners Village F Master PD Land Use Plan

  6. Board of County Commissioners DRC Recommendation • Make a finding of consistency with the Comprehensive Policy Plan and Approve the PD zoning subject to the following conditions:

  7. Board of County Commissioners DRC Conditions of Approval 1. Development shall conform to the Village F Master PD Land Use Plan dated “Received April 22, 2009,” and shall comply with all applicable federal, state and county laws, ordinances and regulations, except to the extent that any applicable county laws, ordinances or regulations are expressly waived or modified by any of these conditions. Accordingly, the PD may be developed in accordance with the uses, densities and intensities described in such Land Use Plan, subject to those uses, densities and intensities conforming with the restrictions and requirements found in the conditions of approval and complying with all applicable federal, state and county laws, ordinance and regulations, except to the extent that any applicable county laws, ordinances or regulations are expressly waived or modified by any of these conditions. If the development is unable to achieve or obtain desired uses, densities or intensities, the County is not under any obligation to grant any waivers or modifications to enable the developer to achieve or obtain those desired uses, densities or intensities. In the event of a conflict or inconsistency between a condition of approval of this zoning and the land use plan dated "Received April 22, 2009," the condition of approval shall control to the extent of such conflict or inconsistency.

  8. Board of County Commissioners DRC Conditions of Approval Cont’d. 2. This project shall comply with, adhere to, and not deviate from or otherwise conflict with any verbal or written promise or representation made by the applicant (or authorized agent) to the Board of County Commissioners at the public hearing where this development was approved, where such promise or representation, whether oral or written, was relied upon by the Board in approving the development, could have reasonably been expected to have been relied upon by the Board in approving the development, or could have reasonably induced or otherwise influenced the Board to approve the development. For purposes of this condition, a “promise” or “representation” shall be deemed to have been made to the Board by the applicant (or authorized agent) if it was expressly made to the Board at a public hearing where the development was considered or approved. 3. All acreages regarding conservation areas and wetland buffers are considered approximate until finalized by a Conservation Area Determination (CAD) and a Conservation Area Impact (CAI) Permit. Approval of this plan does not authorize any direct or indirect conservation area impacts.

  9. Board of County Commissioners DRC Conditions of Approval Cont’d. • 4. Final configuration of the Parcel N-17 Elementary School / Park site shall be approved by both the Orange County Parks and Recreation Division and Orange County Public Schools. • 5. There shall be a 20-foot fee simple access provided between the Parcel S-17 Park site and the Parcel S-25 Elementary School site. • 6. A waiver from Section 38-1386(a)(2) is granted to allow Parcel N-33 to have structures and uses to serve civic (excluding education / daycare / telecommunication towers & fields) and non-commercial recreational needs without having to obtain Special Exception Approval from the Board of Zoning Adjustment. • 7. The Garden Home and Village Home districts shall contain a mix of single-family detached and single-family attached residences. The exact configuration of this mix shall be determined at the time of Preliminary Subdivision Plan review.

  10. Board of County Commissioners DRC Conditions of Approval Cont’d. • 8. The Developer shall obtain water, wastewater, and reclaimed water service from Orange County Utilities. • 9. A Master Utility Plan (MUP) for Village F shall be submitted to Orange County Utilities prior to approval of the first Preliminary Subdivision Plan/Development Plan. The MUP must be approved prior to Construction Plan approval. • 10. The Developer shall be responsible for building master utilities • transmission and collection infrastructure adequate to serve the project • to accommodate the ultimate flows for the entire Village. Utilities • infrastructure shall be built connecting to the existing County force main, • water main, and/or reclaimed water main. • 11. Prior to construction plan approval, all property owners within Village F, excluding public entities, shall be required to sign an agreement between the parties addressing their proportionate share of funds for the costs of the offsite and onsite master utilities sized to Village requirements.

  11. Board of County Commissioners DRC Conditions of Approval Cont’d. • 12. Unless the property is vested and/or exempt, the applicant shall be • subject to school concurrency and required to go through the review • process prior to platting. • 13. A waiver from Section 38-1384(f)(1) is granted to allow each block face to • contain one (1) district size in lieu of each block containing at least two (2) • district lot sizes (excluding end units). This waiver shall apply only to • block faces with five (5) or fewer lots. • 14. The following Education Condition of Approval shall apply: • a) The Developer shall comply with all provisions of Capacity • Enhancement Agreements (CEA’s) numbered 06-011-01, 06-011-02, 06- • 011-03, 06-011-05, 06-011-06-T2, 06-011-07, 06-011-08, 06-011-10, 06-011- • 12, 06-011-14, 06-011-15, and 06-011-16 entered into with the Orange • County School Board [and Orange County] in November 2006 and • recorded in the official records of the Orange County Comptroller.

  12. Board of County Commissioners DRC Conditions of Approval Cont’d. • b) Upon the County’s receipt of written notice from Orange County Public Schools that the developer is in default or breach of the Capacity Enhancement Agreement, the County shall immediately cease issuing building permits for any residential units in excess of the residential units allowed under the zoning existing prior to the approval of the PD zoning, as indicated in each of the CEA’s listed above. The County shall again begin issuing building permits upon Orange County Public Schools’ written notice to the County that the developer is no longer in breach or default of the Capacity Enhancement Agreement. The developer and its successor(s) and/or assign(s) under the Capacity Enhancement Agreement, shall indemnify and hold the County harmless from any third party claims, suits, or actions arising as a result of the act of ceasing the County’s issuance of residential building permits.

  13. Board of County Commissioners DRC Conditions of Approval Cont’d. • c) The Developer, or its successor(s) an/or assign(s) under the Capacity Enhancement Agreement, agrees that it shall not claim in any future litigation that the County’s enforcement of any of these conditions are illegal, improper, unconstitutional, or a violation of the developer’s rights. • d) Orange County shall be held harmless by the developer and its successor(s) and/or assign(s) under the Capacity Enhancement Agreement, in any dispute between the Developer and Orange County Public Schools over any interpretation or provision of the Capacity Enhancement Agreement. • e)At the time of platting, documentation shall be provided from Orange County Public Schools that this project is in compliance with the Capacity Enhancement Agreement.

  14. Board of County Commissioners DRC Conditions of Approval Cont’d. • 15. The cross-section for Seidel Road is not approved with this plan. The final cross-section shall be designed to be pedestrian-oriented, with a maximum speed limit of thirty (30) miles per hour. The final design shall be reviewed and approved by the Development Review Committee (DRC).

  15. Board of County Commissioners P&ZC Recommendation • Make a finding of consistency with the Comprehensive Policy Plan and approve the PD zoning, subject to fifteen (15) conditions.

  16. Board of County Commissioners Action Requested • Find the request consistent with the Comprehensive Policy Plan and approve the Village F Master PD Land Use Plan dated “Received April 22, 2009,” subject to the fifteen (15) conditions as stated in the Planning and Zoning Recommendations of the staff report.

  17. Board of County Commissioners District #:2 Case #:RZ-09-02-006 Applicant:Darcy Unroe for Wesley Place PD Request:R-CE (Country Estate District)and R-1 (Single-Family Dwelling District) to PD (Planned Development District) Proposed Use:Residential – up to twenty-six (26) single- family lots

  18. Board of County Commissioners RZ-09-02-006 Zoning Map

  19. Board of County Commissioners RZ-09-02-006 Future Land Use Map

  20. Board of County Commissioners Wesley Place Land Use Plan

  21. Board of County Commissioners DRC Recommendation • Make a finding of consistency with the Comprehensive Policy Plan and Approve the PD zoning subject to the following conditions:

  22. Board of County Commissioners DRC Conditions of Approval 1. Development shall conform to the Wesley Place PD Land Use Plan dated “Received April 17, 2009,” and shall comply with all applicable federal, state and county laws, ordinances and regulations, except to the extent that any applicable county laws, ordinances or regulations are expressly waived or modified by any of these conditions. Accordingly, the PD may be developed in accordance with the uses, densities and intensities described in such Land Use Plan, subject to those uses, densities and intensities conforming with the restrictions and requirements found in the conditions of approval and complying with all applicable federal, state and county laws, ordinance and regulations, except to the extent that any applicable county laws, ordinances or regulations are expressly waived or modified by any of these conditions. If the development is unable to achieve or obtain desired uses, densities or intensities, the County is not under any obligation to grant any waivers or modifications to enable the developer to achieve or obtain those desired uses, densities or intensities. In the event of a conflict or inconsistency between a condition of approval of this zoning and the land use plan dated "Received April 17, 2009," the condition of approval shall control to the extent of such conflict or inconsistency.

  23. Board of County Commissioners DRC Conditions of Approval Cont’d. 2. This project shall comply with, adhere to, and not deviate from or otherwise conflict with any verbal or written promise or representation made by the applicant (or authorized agent) to the Board of County Commissioners at the public hearing where this development was approved, where such promise or representation, whether oral or written, was relied upon by the Board in approving the development, could have reasonably been expected to have been relied upon by the Board in approving the development, or could have reasonably induced or otherwise influenced the Board to approve the development. For purposes of this condition, a “promise” or “representation” shall be deemed to have been made to the Board by the applicant (or authorized agent) if it was expressly made to the Board at a public hearing where the development was considered or approved. 3. All acreages regarding conservation areas and wetland buffers are considered approximate until finalized by a Conservation Area Determination (CAD) and a Conservation Area Impact (CAI) Permit. Approval of this plan does not authorize any direct or indirect conservation area impacts.

  24. Board of County Commissioners DRC Conditions of Approval Cont’d. • 4. Tree removal/earthwork shall not occur unless and until construction plans for the first Preliminary Subdivision and/or Development Plan, with a tree removal and mitigation plan, have been approved by Orange County. • 5. Unless a Conservation Area Impact (CAI) permit is approved by Orange County consistent with Chapter 15 prior to Construction Plan approval, no conservation area or buffer encroachments shall be permitted. • 6. At the time of platting, the CC&Rs shall state that solid waste disposal facilities, a mushroom growing facility, and a septic waste processing facility are within one mile of the subject property. • 7. This project shall comply with the adopted Comprehensive Policy Plan amendments for the Wekiva Parkway and Protection Act.

  25. Board of County Commissioners P&ZC Recommendation • Make a finding of consistency with the Comprehensive Policy Plan and approve the PD zoning, subject to seven (7) conditions.

  26. Board of County Commissioners Action Requested • Find the request consistent with the Comprehensive Policy Plan and approve the Wesley Place PD Land Use Plan dated “Received April 17, 2009,” subject to the seven (7) conditions as stated in the Planning and Zoning Recommendations of the staff report.

  27. Board of County Commissioners PUBLIC HEARING

  28. Board of County Commissioners PUBLIC HEARING August 11, 2009

  29. Board of County Commissioners Project : Goldenrod Townhomes PD/LUP Substantial Change Applicant:Kenneth J. Leeming District #: 3 Request: To consider a substantial change to the approved Goldenrod Townhomes Planned Development/Land Use Plan (PD/LUP) in order to develop the property as an affordable housing project with Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) and Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) certification:

  30. Board of County Commissioners Substantial Change Request • Increase the number of units from 90 to 136, • Change the type of units from townhomes to multi-family, • Request a waiver from Section 38-1258(a) & (b) to allow for the proposed 45 foot / 3-story buildings to be 100 feet from single-family zoned property, in lieu of 150 feet, • Request a waiver from Section 38-1254(3) to allow for a 30-foot building separation in lieu of 40 feet, • Request a waiver from Section 38-1258(d) to allow 45-foot building height in lieu of 40-feet, • Request a waiver from Section 38-1258(e) to allow for a paving setback of 10 feet in lieu of 25 feet, and • Request a waiver from Section 38-1258(f) to allow for enhanced landscaping and a PVC fence in lieu of a 6-foot wall, along the north, east, and south property lines.

  31. Board of County Commissioners Zoning Map

  32. Board of County Commissioners Future Land Use Map

  33. Board of County Commissioners Goldenrod Townhomes Land Use Plan

  34. Board of County Commissioners Action Requested • Find the request consistent with the Comprehensive Policy Plan and approve the Substantial Change to the approved Goldenrod Townhomes PD/LUP dated “Received July 20, 2009,” subject to the fourteen (14) conditions in the staff report.

  35. Board of County Commissioners DRC Recommendations 1. Development shall conform to the Goldenrod Townhomes PD Land Use Plan dated “Received July 20, 2009,” and shall comply with all applicable federal, state and county laws, ordinances and regulations, except to the extent that any applicable county laws, ordinances or regulations are expressly waived or modified by any of these conditions. Accordingly, the PD may be developed in accordance with the uses, densities and intensities described in such Land Use Plan, subject to those uses, densities and intensities conforming with the restrictions and requirements found in the conditions of approval and complying with all applicable federal, state and county laws, ordinance and regulations, except to the extent that any applicable county laws, ordinances or regulations are expressly waived or modified by any of these conditions. If the development is unable to achieve or obtain desired uses, densities or intensities, the County is not under any obligation to grant any waivers or modifications to enable the developer to achieve or obtain those desired uses, densities or intensities.In the event of a conflict or inconsistency between a condition of approval of this zoning and the land use plan dated "Received July 20, 2009," the condition of approval shall control to the extent of such conflict or inconsistency.

  36. Board of County Commissioners DRC Recommendations Cont’d. 2. This project shall comply with, adhere to, and not deviate from or otherwise conflict with any verbal or written promise or representation made by the applicant (or authorized agent) to the Board of County Commissioners at the public hearing where this development was approved, where such promise or representation, whether oral or written, was relied upon by the Board in approving the development, could have reasonably been expected to have been relied upon by the Board in approving the development, or could have reasonably induced or otherwise influenced the Board to approve the development. For purposes of this condition, a “promise” or “representation” shall be deemed to have been made to the Board by the applicant (or authorized agent) if it was expressly made to the Board at a public hearing where the development was considered or approved. 3. This property lies within Airport Noise Zones D & E and is subject to Airport Noise Ordinance 2000-07.

  37. Board of County Commissioners DRC Recommendations Cont’d. 4. All acreages regarding conservation areas and wetland buffers are considered approximate until finalized by a Conservation Area Determination and a Conservation Area Impact Permit. Approval of this plan does not permit any proposed conservation impacts. 5.The developer shall obtain water and wastewater service from Orange County Utilities. 6. Due to the lot configuration and to encourage infill development, the following two waivers from County Code have been requested: A waiver from Section 38-79 (20) (j) is granted to allow a rear to rear building setback of 40 feet in lieu of the required 60 feet. 7. A waiver from Section 38-1254 (l) is granted to allow a PD Perimeter setback of 20 feet, along the southern property boundary, in lieu of 25 feet.

  38. Board of County Commissioners DRC Recommendations Cont’d. 8. Developer shall comply with all provisions of the Capacity Enhancement Agreement (CEA #07-008) entered into with the Orange County School Board as of May 8, 2007, (executed on 07/24/07), and is on file with the Orange County Planning Division. - Upon the County's receipt of written notice from Orange County Public Schools that the developer is in default or breach of the Capacity Enhancement Agreement, the County shall immediately cease issuing building permits for any residential units in excess of the three (3) residential units allowed under the zoning existing prior to the approval of the PD zoning. The County shall again begin issuing building permits upon Orange County Public Schools' written notice to the County that the developer is no longer in breach or default of the Capacity Enhancement Agreement. The developer and its successor or assign under the Capacity Enhancement Agreement, shall indemnify and hold the County harmless from any third party claims, suits, or actions arising as a result of the act of ceasing the County's issuance of residential building permits.

  39. Board of County Commissioners DRC Recommendations Cont’d. - Developer, or its successor or assign under the Capacity Enhancement Agreement, agrees that it shall not claim in any future litigation that the County's enforcement of any of these conditions are illegal, improper, unconstitutional, or a violation of developer's property rights. -Orange County shall be held harmless by the developer and its assigns under the Capacity Enhancement Agreement, in any dispute between the developer and Orange County Public Schools over any interpretation or provision of the Capacity Enhancement Agreement. - At the time of platting, documentation shall be provided from Orange County Public Schools that this project is in compliance with the Capacity Enhancement Agreement. 9. Prior to DRC approval of a Development Plan for the Goldenrod Townhomes PD Substantial Change or by December 1, 2009, whichever is greater, the applicant must obtain a letter of mitigation agreement from PCPS to determine that school capacity remains available for the students generated from this project.

  40. Board of County Commissioners DRC Recommendations Cont’d. 10. A waiver from Section 38-1258(a) & (b ) is granted to allow for the proposed45 foot / 3-story buildings to be 100 feet from single-family zoned property, in lieu of 150 feet. 11. A waiver from Section 38-1254(3) is granted to allow for a 30-foot buildingseparation in lieu of 40 feet. 12. A waiver from Section 38-1258(d) is granted to allow 45-foot building heightin lieu of 40 feet. 13. A waiver from Section 38-1258(e) is granted to allow for a paving setback of10 feet in lieu of 25 feet. 14. A waiver from Section 38-1258(f) is granted to allow for enhancedlandscaping and a PVC fence in lieu of a 6-foot wall, along the north, east,and south property lines.

  41. Board of County Commissioners PUBLIC HEARING

More Related