Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-11-2014 Agenda PacketMayor S. Scott Vandergrift City Manaaer I k4� \1 Robert Frank 0 C 0 florida PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION (LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY) FEBRUARY 11, 2014 AGENDA I. CALL TO ORDER A. Invocation and Pledge of Allegiance B. Roll Call and Determination of Quorum C. Election ILCONSENT AGENDA Commissioners John Grogan, District 1 Rosemary Wilsen, District 2 Rusty Johnson, District 3 Joel F. Keller, District 4 A. Minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting held January 14, 2014 III. OLD BUSINESS IV. NEW BUSINESS 7:00 PM A. Lake Olympia Square Phase 3 Public Hearing City Planner Rumer 1. Conceptual Use Approval in a Special Overlay Area B. Casa Mirella at Belmere PD Public Hearing City Planner Rumer 1. Substantial Change to PUD/Land Use Plan Amendment V. MISCELLANEOUS A. Project Status Report B. February Calendar VI. ADJOURNMENT NOTE: Regular Planning and Zoning Commission meetings take place on the second Tuesday of every month at 7:00 pm in the Ocoee Commission Chambers in City Hall unless otherwise advertised. Any person who desires to appeal any decision at this meeting will need a record of the proceedings and for this purpose may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made which includes testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is based. More than one Commissioner may participate or hear discussions regarding a matter which will come before the Commission for action. Also in accordance with Florida Statue 286.26: Persons with disabilities needing assistance to participate in any of these proceedings should contact the Office of the City Clerk, 150 North Lakeshore Drive, Ocoee, FL 34761 (407) 905-3105, 48 hours in advance of the meeting. City of Ocoee • 150 North Lakeshore Drive • Ocoee, Florida 34761 phone: (407) 905-3100 • fax: (407) 905-3167 - www.ocoee.org ITEM NUMBER II. A. MINUTES OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JAN UARY 14, 2014 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ACTING AS THE LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY MEETING HELD TUESDAY, JANUARY 14, 2014 CALL TO ORDER Chairman Campbell called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. Following a moment of silent meditation and the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag, a quorum was declared present. PRESENT: Chairman Campbell, Vice -Chairman McKey, Members de la Portilla, Dunn, Keethler, Marcotte, Sills, and West. Also present were City Planner Rumer, Principal Planner Fabre, Assistant City Attorney Drage and Recording Clerk Turner ABSENT: Member(s): Dillard (A/E) CONSENT AGENDA Minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting held on Tuesday, December 10, 2013. Vice -Chairman McKey, seconded by Member Dunn, moved to accept the minutes of the December 10, 2013, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting Motion carried unanimously. Member Keethler arrived to the meeting at 7:03 p.m. OLD BUSINESS - none NEW BUSINESS Ocoee Pines PUD (FKA Whispering Pines) — Public Hearing City Planner Rumer explained that the applicant wishes to revise the plan; therefore, the item is cancelled and will be re -advertised for a later date. Ocoee Elementary School Annexation & Rezoning — Public Hearing Principal Planner Fabre gave a brief presentation with exhibits of the proposed project. The subject parcel is the expansion site for the existing Ocoee Elementary School. The parcel is located on the northeast corner of East Orlando Avenue and South Lakewood Avenue. The property size is 6.42 acres. City staff has requested a City of Ocoee zoning designation of A-1 (Agriculture) which is consistent with the zoning of adjacent properties, and is intended for areas shown on the Future Land Use Map as "Low Density Residential". The public hearing was opened. Julie Salvo, Orange County Public Schools representative, attended the meeting to express her concurrence with City staff's recommendation. The public hearing was closed Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 14, 2014 DISCUSSION Member West stated that this item poses a conflict of interest; therefore, he will abstain from voting (completed Form 88). Vice -Chairman McKey asked if this project will cause an additional expense to the City. Principal Planner Fabre stated that City staff reviewed the site plan and they do not find any issues with the project. Vice -Chairman McKey asked if the traffic load will cause additional traffic issues in the area. City Planner Rumer explained that the school board worked with the City to resolve traffic issues. He continued by saying that the serpentine student drop-off is larger than the present school. Additionally, the City is acquiring an easement on Bluford Avenue as part of a stormwater drainage project that will serve as a designated lane. Board discussion ensued regarding the traffic issues in that area. Member Keethler asked if the City is paying for the easement. City Planner Rumer stated that the City is purchasing the land for a stormwater drainage project. Member Sills, seconded by Vice -Chairman McKey, moved that the Planning and Zoning Commission acting as the Local Planning Agency, recommend to the Ocoee City Commission approval of the Annexation of the +/ 6.42 parcel of land known as the Ocoee Elementary School Expansion Site (Project No AX 11 13 42) with an Initial Zoning classification of "A-1" (Project No RZ 13 11 10) Motion carried unanimously. Spring Lake Reserve — Public Hearing Principal Planner Fabre gave a brief presentation with exhibits of the proposed project. The subject property is located on the south side of A.D. Mims Road directly across from the City's Jim Beech Recreation Center. The subject site is approximately 43.21 acres in size, of which 17.56 acres are uplands and 25.65 acres are wetlands/surface water. The site is comprised of two parcels and is currently undeveloped with a variety of trees, wetlands and 100-year floodplain areas. The Future Land Use designation for the site is "High Density Residential" which allows up to 16 dwelling units per acre. To the south there is a "Conservation/Floodplains" future land use designation that is associated with the Spring Lake basin. The rezoning would be from "R-Y (Multiple -Family Dwelling) to "PUD" (Planned Unit Development) with a corresponding Land Use Plan. The Spring Lake Reserve PUD is a planned residential subdivision that proposes a total of 99 single-family detached residential lots with a requested net density of 5.59 units per acre. The PUD is proposed to have a neo-traditional neighborhood design with on -street parallel parking, park muse, reduced setback requirements and residential lots with rear loading alleys. The 100-year flood plains will not be disturbed, and approximately 6.01 acres of wetlands will not be developed and will be a conservation area. There is a small wetland area that is 2 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 14, 2014 programed to be disturbed. The applicant has proposed an onsite mitigation program which will serve as an additional buffer area. The subdivision will have one main access from A.D. Mims Road with a designated left - turn lane. There is a proposed internal street stub -out for the potential future cross -access to the west, and a 6-foot high privacy wall with landscaping along A.D. Mims Road. The proposed buffer abutting the Reflections Subdivision is a PVC vinyl fence. Along the frontage of A.D. Mims will be a brick wall, and along the open areas is a proposed brick column and decorative fencing. The applicant has requested one waiver from the Land Development Code. The request is to have two trees on lots that are 33.7 feet wide instead of the three -tree per lot requirement. He continued by saying that the required third tree will be planted in the common areas of the subdivision. The DRC met on January 8, 2014, and voted unanimously to recommend approval of the project subject to the resolution of the remaining staff comments. DISCUSSION Vice -Chairman McKey asked if the required third tree will be planted in the common area. Principal Planner Fabre answered in the affirmative. Board discussion ensued regarding the existing trees on the land. Principal Planner Fabre explained that they will try to keep as many of the existing trees. He also reminded the board that what is presented at the meeting is only a PUD plan, and more details will be offered upon the presentation of the final engineering plan. Vice -Chairman McKey asked if there will be a trail or boardwalk around the lake area. Principal Planner Fabre explained that it is not offered in the plan, but this is something that can be looked into. Principal Planner Fabre informed the board that the City's Transportation Planners have concluded that the proposed development will not adversely impact the City of Ocoee's roadway network or intersections. School capacity for the development has been determined to be available by Orange County Public Schools. Vice -Chairman McKey inquired if there will be a flashing light for people to cross A.D. Mims Road. Principal Planner Fabre stated the City could look into that. Member de la Portilla asked if PVC privacy fencing is considered to be a standard buffer for the City. Principal Planner Fabre explained that the City does not have a buffer requirement for the separation of residential subdivisions. The public hearing was opened Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 14, 2014 The applicant, Richard Wohlfarth, approached the podium and asked to address any issues the residents may have once the board has heard their concerns. The chairman conceded. The following residents voiced their concerns regarding the Spring Lake Reserve project: • Jeff Santeler, 1731 Sparkling Water Circle • Debi Kerkhoff, 1744 Sparkling Water Circle • Polly Rorbeck, 1719 Sparkling Water Circle • Laura Gleason, 1433 Spring Lake Terrace • Frances Brender, 1305 Ridgefield Avenue • Dwayne Depaiva, 1388 Century Oak Drive • Mark Davis, 1688 Sparkling Water Circle • Dan Daly, 1732 Sparkling Water Circle Some of the shared concerns and requests from the residents included: • The quality and security of the proposed PVC vinyl fence • Extending the fence to the entire length of the subdivision on the east side (abutting the Reflections Subdivision's common recreational area) • Preservation of the wildlife in the area • A fence higher than 6 feet to divide the neighborhoods • More space between the new development and the Reflections Subdivision • Encroachment into the wetlands and the floodplains • Drainage into Spring Lake • Pollution of Spring Lake • Increase in the noise level • Emergency and sanitation vehicles getting through the neighborhood Board discussion ensued regarding approval from the St. Johns Water Management District due to the wetlands on the property. Principal Planner Fabre stated that initial contact has been made with the agency by the developer. He continued by saying that the City has regulations similar to the agency, and the project complies with the City's requirements. Additionally, the agency does concur with the preliminary environmental report conducted. He continued by saying that Bio-Tech Consulting provided a report that addressed the wildlife in the area. The results showed that the observed species were not managed species. The applicant, Richard Wohlfarth, addressed the concerns and suggestions by offering the information below. 4 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 14, 2014 • The proposed rezoning to "PUD" will decrease the density of the development, compared to the current zoning, "R-Y. Additionally, under the "R-Y zoning, the developer has the option to construct three-story buildings; however, the proposed project will only have two-story homes. • A two-day wildlife study was conducted, and it concluded that there are no endangered species inhabiting the area. • The developer is very aware of the wetlands, and is providing buffers as required by the City. • Trees will be planted that are close in grade to the existing trees. The intent is to keep the area green, and to save as many of the existing trees as possible. • Offered to increase the diameter of the trees (4-inch caliper trees instead of 2-inch caliper trees) along the PVC vinyl fence adjacent to the internal roadway, in order to provide a larger buffer. • The proposed PVC vinyl fence is beyond what is required by the City. • Offered to extend the fence on the east side of the subdivision (abutting the Reflections Subdivision's common recreational area) Member Keethler cautioned the applicant from planting oak trees as the roots often damage sidewalks and streets. Mr. Wohlfarth stated the trees will be planted at least 5 feet from the curbing, so this should not happen. Mr. Wohlfarth addressed the concern of emergency and sanitation vehicles travelling in the subdivision through the use of AutoTURN software; some adjustments were made based on the results. He continued by saying extensive studies and surveys have found that the development will provide for proper drainage. Additionally, the developer has extended the distance of the homes from the floodplain. Mr. Wohlfarth agreed to look into providing a boardwalk or observation deck by the lake. Member Keethler asked if the developer can offer alternative barriers to PVC vinyl fencing. The applicant stated there are other options, but very expensive ones. He offered to look into ways to reinforce the proposed fence. He continued by saying that the subdivision will have a Homeowners' Association (HOA) that will maintain the fence. Member McKey asked if the vinyl fence will meet hurricane codes. The applicant stated that all requirements will be met. Member de la Portilla asked if the board could condition the approval requiring the applicant to provide something other than a PVC vinyl fence. City Planner Rumer answered in the affirmative. Mr. Wohlfarth stated that he will look into alternatives that will work for everyone. Harry Lipton, 1684 Sparkling Water Circle, approached the podium and suggested modeling the proposed fence to the one for the subdivision on State Road 50. He continued by saying the fence he is referring to is a PVC fence with brick mounting brackets, and it has insets for trees or shrubs. 5 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 14, 2014 Gary Fowler, 1305 Richfield Drive, approached the podium and voiced his concerns with the project. Mr. Wohlfarth approached the podium and readdressed the residents' concerns and suggestions. He stated that he will look into Mr. Lipton's suggested fence idea. Chris Haliday, 1725 Sparking Water Circle, approached the podium and voiced his concerns with the project. The public hearing was closed. Vice -Chairman McKey inquired regarding the drainage of the water entering the lake and wanted to know what would be done to mitigate any issues. City Planner Rumer stated that the City engineer and staff will look into this. He reminded the board that the development will not move forward without first receiving a permit from the St. Johns Management District. Chairman Campbell asked City Planner Rumer to explain the project development approval process for the attending residents. City Planner Rumer explained that the first step is to set the zoning designation for the property. The next step is the preliminary subdivision plan, and the last step is the final subdivision plan with a development plan. The final step will contain hard facts on the drainage system. Member West stated the applicant has addressed many of the residents' concerns. He continued by saying that the development is nice, and will better serve the area than a multi -unit project. Member Marcotte inquired regarding the lot sizes of the proposed Spring Lake Reserve development as compared to the lots of the Reflections Subdivision. Discussion ensued, and it was determined that the lot sizes for the proposed development are 37.5 feet compared to the 75-foot lot sizes of the Reflections Subdivision. Member Marcotte also asked if the right-of-ways will be dedicated to the City for maintenance. Principal Planner Fabre confirmed, and added that the development's alleys will be maintained by the HOA. Member Keethler opined that development of the sanctuary -type land may be shocking to the residents; however, the land is private property and will be eventually developed. Additionally, the developer has tried to mitigate many of the residents' concerns as possible. Member West, seconded by Member Keethler, moved that the Planning and Zoning Commission, acting as the Local Planning Agency, recommend to the Ocoee City Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 14, 2014 Commission approval of the Spring Lake Reserve PUD Rezoning/ Land Use Plan (Project No. RZ-13-11-09). Member de la Portilla asked Member West to consider an amendment to the motion requiring the developer to upgrade the proposed PVC vinyl fence to something other than PVC. Member West stated he would not consider amending the motion as requiring the developer to upgrade the fence would hurt the project. He continued by saying that the developer did say he would look into the fence. After board discussion, the motion carried (7-1), with Member Marcotte opposin Casa Mirella at Belmere PD — Public Hearing 18`" Amendment to Ocoee -Orange County Joint Planning Area Agreement City Planner Rumer gave a brief presentation of Casa Mirella at Belmere PD. He stated that this an applicant -initiated amendment of the Joint Planning Area Agreement (JPA) changing the JPA future Land Use designation on 2.7 acres from "Low Density Residential" to "High Density Residential". The subject property is Lot 3 of Casa Mirella and is located on the west side of Maguire Road and south of Roberson Road. The parcel of land has a Planned Unit Development (PUD) zoning designation within Belmere PD. This lot has been set aside for 85 Adult Living Facility (ALF) units. The applicant is proposing to covert the 85 ALF units to 12 residential units and add 48 more units to the PUD in order to construct 60 multi -family units. The Belmere PD was originally approved by the Orange County Board of County Commissioners on May 21, 1985. The northern portion of the PD was set aside as Tract G, which consisted of 177 acres. In 1995, the PD Land Use Plan was amended to permit 708 dwelling units in Tract G. A subsequent amendment in 1999 carved out Tract H from Tract G. The property has retained the Orange County Citrus Rural land use designation. The DRC met on January 8, 2014, and voted unanimously to recommend approval. DISCUSSION The public hearing was opened. James Johnston, Shutts & Bowen, LLP, attended on behalf of the applicant to support City staffs decision. Vice -Chairman McKey asked what the proposed density of the project is. Mr. Johnston stated that the overall density will be 12.75 units per acre. He continued by saying that this project is a continuation of the existing project. The public hearing was closed. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 14, 2014 Member West, seconded by Member Sills, moved that the Planning and Zoning Commission, acting as the Local Plannina Aaencv_ rarnmmanrl to th m n,.,.ee r•:#., w.nn112-WHn aWPrvvai yr me 78 Hmenament to the Joint Planning Area Agreement between the Cityof Ocoee and Orange County providing for an amendment to the JPA Future Land Use Map to change the future land use designation on 2.7 +/ acres from Low Density Residential (LDR) to High Density Residential (HDR) for properties located in the Belmere PUD. Motion carried unanimously. Small -Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment The public hearing was opened. The public hearing was closed. DISCUSSION Member de la Portilla inquired what type of buffer divides the Belmere Subdivision and this apartment project. City Planner Rumer answered that a 6-foot brick wall divides the properties. Member West, seconded by Member Sills moved that the Planning and Zoning Commission, acting as the Local Planning Agency, recommend to the Ocoee City Commission approval of the Casa Mirella at Belmere PUD Small Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment (Project No CPA-2013-004) Motion carried unanimously. Member Dunn asked if Oakland Avenue will be repaved or resurfaced. City Planner Rumer stated he will look into this. MISCELLANEOUS Project Status Report None ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 8:57 p.m. Attest: Diana Turner, Recording Clerk APPROVED: Bradley Campbell, Chairman ITEM NUMBER IV. A. PUBLIC HEARING LAKE OLYMPIA SQUARE PHASE 3 CONCEPTUAL USE APPROVAL IN A SPECIAL OVERLAY AREA Mayor_ S. Scott Vandergrif't City Manauor Robort, Frank florida STAFF REPORT Commissioners John Grogan, Drstri.ct 1 rosemary° Wilsen District 2 rusty- <Johnson, District Joel F. Keller, District l DATE: February 11, 2014 TO: Planning & Zoning Commission (Local Planning Agency) FROM: Michael Rumer, City Plannerw)Q SUBJECT: Lake Olympia Square Phase 3 Conceptual Use Approval ISSUE: Should the Planning & Zoning Commission recommend a conceptual use approval for multi- family residential in Phase 3 of Lake Olympia Square? BACKGROUND: Lake Olympia Square is a seven (7) lot commercial subdivision approved for construction in 1994 with Phase 2 being approved in 1996 (see plans attached). The subject site is vacant and contains 6.22 acres. Currently there is a Winn Dixie anchored shopping center, restaurants and service uses with out -parcels containing a bank, gas station, and an oil and lube center. The current zoning designation on the property is C-2 Community Commercial. The existing land use designation for the property is "Commercial". Under the Commercial Land Use designation, forms of medium and high density residential are permitted in a mixed and multi -use development under certain market conditions. The subject site is located within the Silver Star Activity Center which was established in the Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code. The boundaries are designated as % mile in each direction from the intersection of Clarke and Silver Star Road. The Silver Star Activity Center does not contain any development criteria specific to the overlay. Under Article 4, Section 4-6, (A)(4), procedures are set up whereby an applicant may obtain conceptual approval of a use as long as the general impacts are equal or lesser intensity than the uses specifically permitted with the underlying zoning district. The conceptual use is required to provide a bubble concept plan. However, the approval is not tied to the concept plan. See additional conditions and limitation under "Discussion." P&Z Meeting Date: February 11, 2014 Project: Lake Olympia Square Phase 3 The table below references the future land uses, zoning classifications and existing land uses of the surrounding parcels: Direction Future Land Use Zoning Classification Existing Land Use North Road right-of-way Road right-of-way SR 438 Silver Star Road) East Commercial C-2 (Community Commercial Winn Dixie Shopping Center South Low Density Residential PUD (Residential) Lake Olympia Subdivision West Low Density Residential I PUD (Residential) Lake Olympia Club Subdivision DISCUSSION: The applicant is requesting conceptual approval for multi -family dwelling units achieving a medium or high density on the 6.22 acres of vacant land. The applicant is seeking the conceptual use approval in order to be able to market the property as approved for multi -family. The applicant has provided a transitional use analysis and a Multi -family Apartment and Retail Market Analysis in order to make the case for a multi -family use. If the conceptual use is approved by the city commission, the approval comes with the following conditions and limitations: The approval will only approve the proposed uses and major waivers and not the bubble plan. The City will have the right to disapprove the proposed uses and waivers in connection with its review of a preliminary subdivision or site plan if such a plan is inconsistent with the bubble plan submitted with the Application or any other condition of the City approval. 2. The approval will be subject to the approval of a preliminary and final subdivision and site plan acceptable to the City Commission and in compliance with the requirements of the Land Development Code, including those regulations related to Special Overlay Areas and the special development plan and access management plan applicable therein. 3. The applicant will be required to submit a preliminary site plan and, if applicable, a preliminary subdivision plan, within 90 days from the date of approval. The approval will expire if such plan is not submitted; provided, however, that the City Commission may grant an extension of this deadline. 4. The approval granted by the City Commission will be valid for one year. In the event such plan has not been approved within one year from the date of approval, then the City Commission approval pursuant to this section will automatically terminate unless extended by the City Commission. 5. The applicant will be required to maintain an active application for such plan approval and to proceed in good faith to seek final approval of any such plan. 6. Approval of the Application shall not be considered approval of the bubble plan. The bubble plan is conceptual only and its submittal with the Application will not be construed as an approval of the bubble plan or impose any obligation on the City to approve a subdivision plan or site plan consistent with the bubble plan. P&Z Meeting Date: February 11, 2014 Project: Lake Olympia Square Phase 3 7. The applicant shall be entitled to develop the property consistent with the Application if it complies with the conditions of approval with respect thereto and all other applicable provisions of the Land Development Code. 8. The City Commission may impose such additional conditions of approval as it deems appropriate. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE (DRC) RECOMMENDATION: The Development Review Committee (DRC) met on February 5, 2014, and reviewed the applicant's request. The DRC voted unanimously to accept the proposed use subject conditioning the approval so as to not guarantee the site will develop to the maximum density allowable. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff is supportive of the requested conceptual use request of 6.22 acres complying with a medium or high density dwelling unit count. Attachments: Location Map Aerial Zoning Map Bubble Concept Plan 1994 Site Plan 1996 Site Plan Transitional Use Analysis Multi -family and Retail Market Study LAKE OLYMPIA 11 e Lake Olympia Square Phase 3 Conceptual Plan Approval Location Maa 901 id `-° J J Lake Olympia Square Phase 3 Surrounding Zoning Map VA 000d C��f GLr�� Ocoee Community Development Department 1 inch = 534.692509 feet 180 90 0 180 360 540 Feet Printed: Feb.2014 13Subject Property Unincorporated Territory ®and Other Municipalties Zoning Classification: General Agricultural (A-1) Suburban (A-2) Single -Family Dwelling (R-1AAA) Single -Family Dwelling (R-1AA) Single -Family Dwelling (R-1A) Single -Family Dwelling (R-1) One- & Two -Family Dwelling (R-2) Multiple -Family Dwelling (R-3) ■ Mobile Home Subdivision (RT-1) ■ Professional Offices & Services (P-S) Neighborhood Shopping (C-1) Community Commercial (C-2) General Commercial (C-3) Restricted Manufacturing & Warehousing (1-1) General Industrial (1-2) ■ Commercial (PUD) Low Density (PUD) ■ Medium Density (PUD) ■ High Density (PUD) Public Use (PUD) Unclassified Lakes and Water Bodies EXCLUSIVE SILVER STAR ROAD (STATE ROAD 43B) SIGN EASEMENT I I 200.00' 216.54' +f � LANDSCAPE BUFFER (PER PLAT) — —25' LO I 2� s159.70' �-- 10 II O I! O SD 100 I 'I 100 N ' Q SCALE IN FEET 1 a- I ' PROPOSED 10'----I & w LANDSCAPE _ a BUFFER I a i I W i w---- 200.99' J M LOT 18 Ln I r I I 0- I P WINN DIXIE PLAZA MULT—FAMILY UNITS r I p I�[r I I I IJI G C� 'o ' INGRESS/EGRESS (TYPICAL) 32.89' --- I -4o r25' ---------------------------- ----- 7---------------- ,------ PROPOSED 10' LANDSCAPE I I I RETAIL BUFFER I i ; DAY CARE 1 j I — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — I L----------------a WINN o� I^ �rn I I I RETENTION AREA I I EXIST. SVC. DRIVE I I �120.00' 1 , + (� EXIST. ++ LOr 19 LOr + I I POND---------------- ++ ----- ' I _j �. o : /— I , �� ' ' I i 2a:os" ' \ I i i I LOT 2 � \ I I • \ Ii j I♦ LOT 6 I i 2) ♦ LOT 8- O0, \ n r s LAKE OL WP14 CZ UB OVERSIZED LANDSCAPE &I" LE , WALL BUFFER (PER PLAT) PLAT 900/( 25 PACES 91-9J DIXIE JAN - 9 2014 i LEGAL DESCRIPTION LOT 5A, LAKE OLYMPIA SQUARE REPLAT, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 34, PAGE 100-102, PUBLIC RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA. AND LOT 2B, LAKE OLYMPIA SQUARE REPLAT TWO, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 35, PAGE 59-60, PUBLIC RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA. SITE DATA TOTAL AREA: 6.24 ACRES 16 DUSZ ACRE TOTAL = 99 MULTIFAMILY UNITS Multi -Family Units af W 0 U7 LL_ Q Z� Q LJ J ry � Q Q C1 J U7 Q W v) C) J Z0 Q Lli Y Q U J c� z E w w z z IJ Of Y Li li r m Y Of z O Landscape Buffer DEJK SIGNED JK Retention Area DRAWN 12120113 —••—�•— Property Line DATE 1 OF 1 III II I I 11 wx rrrwmn Anc sueEcr ro roor j I II + wzc ZCWEP Ai'/D "'$ fe sR ue rm,m un•..s �N �Ii G .tK..y.1 ' EA7Sr 57NCYE FAANCY RE.4Lk"NnAC l.OT !9 LOT 20 I �"7 � pwlKwAr cpgEc,w�®rpUer wfaMc xw,l Z `,-1 I � I' 1 I T UNLi''Y£LP FO �1 L+ - - sar--.....- -- --- -.—....._•..a>'-w. _�- - - - --- - - - - -- -� lye $ ALBER7YL39WNC C7R. _ III) � —�- �«�. ,"c+.w� V, ""X °, -- -_ �� _75YY✓S _- uu . Fs � -__ _. __. cmr � � i \ ti -.. N a - �.,— s8 — s — — - m sReu v+a -inA mumna __ - k ROAD __- �—��— r o no ,,. ,..�«2.-. 0. �9'•.:..e-,.�.«„<�..� � - - - -------------' _ ,rw rAKv >IaenEn . ." •-- '— -- — � --- �--rA3r. , wNc rRArr¢ ser � s '-- ZaV a . ",•ssar _I >a �— r � m• , ..., ,.,g.-s® ... �,... 1229.71' �— --- n 53.50 ___ rAcr s• wNc smnux 206.16 -- -._. - ' "'' �uNL �/ ,YRn.rif� 1 it N 89'S9'46" E_— --- -� s•. IlwaacArE SITE DATA ;£S 200.00 -" w 274.54' rw. e' axc 41 - �e . rwnN sex i rxAa •.wr APE^ Ya' OIeK m __ � I „" �. eemc w,s ,. 3 s. a e. I S 44'44'13" E ,' ••••"••" sa III _ r /,� 1 �► W aw 35.19' I i II 8 y `O LOT 5 W ns• jt N I• - $TORYWAIER RETENTION AREA '8+ t ^ O A LOT 6 O o r NOT INCLUDED I .� oJn Axel o N LOT 4 6 • ••'� �' R,z M sas sr Manew sEv raven, 'B"'Y�w�:'ffitY,.6o",iw :.dS n.7'dR`0 1 _ \ .� "� 1OTI U ..... , ,A mw xseAweAl wenN!w. I _. ~ __.._ I Iw a ss° ou�n�. s¢r ruxm. wnNi vwoAer amw. cm P I ilr,7 r6..! 33 II I i am,u rwowm er a,vr. me o0I g� _ i 1 / t j t j N 89204.3 " E _ oo v "iyR€ 1 III I�{ ..,.... _ " a / 204.39' c Y �04 o c� i 89'S9'46" E 200.99' .. " _ S 89.28_12" E 22o\so' .0 ._ - ,_ - 236,52'�� IIII mot» �t `� eaWIT +t ,sR I� t i e Il! w ip N a LOT y lcw D ?�` O au Aomro ��� 96 Q I O (wcnewn xnenxa �wr) I � y O N / E ; y § �pyaooinsrrmeusnm sas AAAm. I� _ " V I 6 &? q ` V O 1 p au .aowm er s,!�r $ \ Nil �1 ( I N 89'S9'46 E ylq E.. �€ a ¢ I� _ i J, 11 1 q N 89,51,10" E 1%srrxo t J• 1 + t o _- 228.65_"°�`_� 'brD--�2 \ ��`�ooerlmaeawa�c b y,n� • .� � I K LOR 1 l A e S el'9x Iwo I yy�y __ �_rv99zez"_ _._�9a ner � _.� 'E 4 i�� .,:»,m.., RETAIL r3. L: NTJwC •JOMi I8'FSY peK SOAK . �� ♦� I II I - wrs 3 s w e ro ec cRn pgXll',// ..._........".... -._ ..«..........: y y 6+ sdva�Nwr ar ,or j I' II II rea. e' awa smm, wru - RfASE ca+smuc,wN I NINN DIXIE _ <+4 ww^o, i �,� yy; 7j ;� . ,•••••,•^•,,•,• "^ , �•• .,,....,.... Z rRACf c, , _ -_ / 'I p _ •71 I O,° ICI ' ra I _ J W A BCBC ,� o ,li CL �y + � I III x I `�«o.,,..!b I n.w.. wwror� it � � - � '! �' •-• � W - --- - - --- 1 - 7. R '.a"b.' — i}-� 4I� �� I �,. �..._..".. .,."•... n O N 9'43'1 lV o238.5 ..�..... �b O .. "... . FFF '-, -� LOT 1 .. - _ _- Asoewo Exsnxw i I � I N � � - � / ,ec C ,cu. I / s, Cr rRAsi Cw51RUC1wR� STOvMuWr,�ux RETENTION AREA.smw ,K aro bT' Po Jmo� .. ....m... ",.".,�. 6�2y �� I � v k. kp I / o \ \ * 3,_ S 8a959'46" N _..-- --- _ - ____. - , � I J .-�......,. S Z `o: / zew[n R e / 35.01' .. u� �_,:,JV 889*28 12 N 547.03' • F I'I k f02.80' ; E<asrsrRESEr<Nn N 00'16'S0" E II Lc::._.... ...,". ,:...� a W M fp^r�� �o 10 si x,. _<M� +H,..se:,+r.,»:.." 4d F Q ^ Z. p"•e�.,,:�.%" O I ? W a LL / / I i `. ol;l'n� 111 I spy a o g€ C4 v rror. mxE- w muo t0 �. LAKE OIL )WA aUB �i a , m 6 nNwRe ci �i co Z `u�i /xAr ~ zs -Ac 5 e1-&JjLOT 1, p o p NOT INCLUDED < of € LOT 2 NATCHLINE JJ _ I xs a- Z.i�...,,- a- p. u n NOT INCLUDED a $ ENG VEER LOT 2 .I y R dux x s Msq I + h 4GN ORW CNEC% ,1 A ' lR RMN osc _- 1 lil1t ` 93 JECT NO. (->_%E xs a TIDY — 13 r I g a� I , � * � 9-16-9 � ATE SEPT., 1993 ES RIRECTOR aait � ;il.�I e,e EET 2 0F1E x4 n..f�� w I MATCHLINE ' oN n+vaa aaon3a —~I (zoo) dQI�(07'd ''�'�Q0Q SO A'�'1D OM1LNil 1V12-0t MN3 OMtl33MON3 emli N0� —N"d 4L9 r O N0110na1SNOO — 90D>-9L9 Cue—= (to) b M °i . II `r [� SNVId Dill "G'-41117 9we va19m.4 'mslrssaxrr xlsax sn1Na .Eva 957.109 gm II IVsVxd — LVUYnbS OSLZE VOINO13'OOOMON01 EEi 4 4,Jlb ❑ SNVId AaVNIWll3ad daa9a 9977/R 3IId /�' i�Id�liiTO 133tl1S 1NVtl+J tlS9E Sn1V1S SNVld 31VC f1XY7 dnoa9 NosL,lx —d— - NVId Aa13W030 3115 331AJJS 3 � ¢ H � - a' o W o 5§5p §2' €E t7el§2?I§ i5 r I, €sE8E- fie€ €aa4 E§3;3 3 S:ai` 9 `§! . a3�3 s�,a S ie_Fy's:p tg313 �t1 _- i•iclE a�sc'c�a 4;i q .:_ii.a5- �s°y,ei� E3S �Y 35F3 g, i.�4° 3aiS! i� 4 € 6 Ti , - a e€ pa €F?2 �_o Fi gi, +.2.f§f -z. g¢ 9.::F s e9S: __. 5555E �a pEpS:i6 € .5 S55§3 d' . e € § Y 5• Y c 3 € 5 F - F fl _ 6 9..{ ' {; R a . k 2?:P 5 ! s€:.;; ¢,e.s; [.a 5 . 6 S••• p €i t I t Y E 22 Sz. z--+'i 3s 5r 'i' aF� a ica ci ei+ 9 ;��a+ F. s z ` :3 j ei ° 5• Y 4�s 9 •e �i 2ss ��e�56:�. $ [ n € 3 :9 ! g F i5 a � 4�a� i 4 � E { ` .. 5 € � 5�' §_ :: � as'°§ f� � gg S2'g3as y e� � �2 � €.13f5,zF 5 � :`i � .zF__ . izsE� i +a =eEe °' e53 •;"5F €ni--.•`s. 5 !.€:3. ; i;fii i y a.9E�6 . : �E y §e - i 5 g ;2 -€'9s 8 � € ' = r 3 € e ,:€ ;E i; § 4§�g��S 2_..: __ ` c 5 - Eii =_35 �s YE �'-§�z.€• �j �€ �3 � :`s� :I�SS E3 � 5 €y § '° g'i '+�3€•. = €"•e4 I' I < -` ::aY.: YY a a _; 4 9 € a s a v i - 3 •a4`.I _ liz E:.e 3 L�.:� d ..:E J 5- 3 €. . :. aF � ' E',`. AVY 001 avow ._� _- I—__ +y �., �._ �—�» -__$ ,.s _� _ _-_.mod !2_ P 6 ➢— —Y m 3 i E Z 6 ` 8 w zl es> 0 �� II �, (I ,I I lli III 'III I I i I i Iljl h l la's I r? d PI I$II�I I �" Igafl Im11'I I I I ly I I Ilda 1 8g �I I I s r 7•, J I Z6 691 l 1 3 ..P,1, 00.00 S a J -- ------- TOosl 8+ W 11ry C rr� 00.00vS Gil I�a''�I17 � I R J Iryjf p 4pSQ�,.e4'ri / 12 pp 6 1 Y4 '.' p : g til9 LIJI I ® \� ® I �@ ] - q ``.ai r �I 3 ..09, 1.00 IN I '�- Qom y \ = f ��l14� ��� � seraa smx.[a9 Nam' �y 6g^g h�P s�Y �a 2*60 mw .,0.. 77V.L3 a3sodoag Ps§3 y N z CA- 00.3 .09,91.00 N `LpOO A�' g \\\ \\ l�0€i 'i lip i NAN "- ! V LU ir Q Fib`€i146 Fj E'. Sg A WI COMPANY RESEARCH C O N S 0 L T A N T 5 MEMORANDUM TO: Dana Kilbome President and CEO I !' Florida Bank of Commerce (FBC) JAN - 9 2014 FROM: C. Douglas Kelly, AICP DATE: May 13, 2013 RE: FBC East Silver Star Road Parcels City of Ocoee Zoning Modification —Transitional Land Use Analysis INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE Florida Bank of Commerce owns two parcels of record at the southeast quadrant of Silver Star Road and Olympus Drive, approximately 835 feet west of the intersection of Silver Star Road and Clarke Road. The two vacant, undeveloped parcels combined measure 6.22 acres with 416+/- feet of frontage along Silver Star Road (S.R. 438), and 589+/- feet of frontage along Olympus Drive, a local street which serves two separate residential subdivisions to the south and west. A landscape subdivision entry sign for "Lake Olympia Club" is located at the northwest corner of the site. The two parcels owned by Florida Bank of Commerce are currently zoned C-2 (Community Commercial) as well as the adjacent shopping center parcel to the east. The C-2 zoning district is intended for personal and business services and general retail uses. This district is primarily intended for areas shown on the City's Future Land Use Map as "Commercial," Property to the north, south and west consists of low density, single family detached residential uses (up to 4 dwelling units/acre). Property to the east Is developed with a Winn -Dixie anchored shopping center on 12.78+/- acres and includes three out parcels. According to the Orange County Property Appraiser, the residential subdivisions adjacent to the subject property were developed during the early to mid 1990's. The shopping center complex to the east was constructed between 1995 and 1997. A recent site visit indicated that a 6 ft. high brick screen wall was constructed along the south property line of the shopping center and the FBC property as well as the southwest corner of the FBC property extending along Olympus Drive. Oak trees were planted adjacent to the brick screen wall and over the years have created a West Silver Star Road Transitional Land Use Analysis Page 2 of 11 mature tree canopy along the south property line of the subject property, the shopping center and the nine single family residential parcels abutting the south property line. Direction From Subject Property Zoning Classiflcation Existing Use NorthI PUD Low Density Silver Star Rd./Deatched Single Family Residential South R-lAA I Brick Wall/Detached Single Family Residential East I C-2 I Shopping Center and Associated Parking Lot West I PUD Low Density Detached Sin le Family Residential Source: 2013 Orenge County Property Appraiser Real Estate Research Consultants (RERC) was retained to evaluate the City's land use compatibility standards, and basic code provisions and policies to demonstrate land use compatibility and the application of transitional land uses in context to the subject property. Our research also identifies and analyzes transitional strategies used in other communities associated with retail and multi -family uses adjacent to single family residential and the issues and difficulties of using retail as a transitional use. West Silver Star Road Transitional land Use Analysis Page 3 of 11 Further, our firm was asked to compare and contrast appropriate transitional land uses and to provide a conclusion based on our land use analysis. This memorandum is provided for strategic planning purposes. However, it fors the initial foundation for submitting a request to the City of Ocoee City Commission to proceed with imposition of the contemplated use of the property for a multi -family use in lieu of submitting a small scale future land use amendment and zoning change. The land use amendment process would take significant time, require additional resources and would likely lead to the same results. Cities such as Ocoee "plan" to identify important community issues (such as new growth, housing needs, and environmental protection), project future demand for services (such as sewer, water, roads, etc.), anticipate potential problems (such as overloaded sewer facilities or crowded roads), and establish goals and policies for directing and managing growth to foster attractive communities with a strong sense of place. Local governments use a variety of tools in the planning process including the comprehensive plan, specific area plans, zoning, and the land development code. The examples which follow represent common devices or methods used by the City of Ocoee and other similar size communities to establish transitional land uses and ensure land use compatibility. State law establishes a framework for local planning procedures, but local communities adopt their own unique responses to the land use issues they face. The City's Future Land Use Element is the keystone of the Comprehensive Plan. It sets forth the physical plan for the future development of Ocoee. It describes the appropriate location for the future land uses and promulgates the policies regulating the location and development of all land uses. The Future Land Use Element sets forth not only the density and intensity of land uses appropriate for all locations but also considers other factors affecting land use . development, such as timing, current development trends and providing for land use compatibility. The City's Land Development Code (LDC) is largely responsible for implementing West Silver Star Road Transitional Land Use Analysis Page 4 of 11 the comprehensive plan. We will briefly address both regulatory documents regarding their application to the transitional land use analysts. Policy 7.1 a. of the City's Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Element requires the City to enforce standards in the Land Development Code to promote compatibility of adjacent land uses. The City of Ocoee requires buffer zones to protect new and established residential areas adjacent to new and established non-residential uses. Three buffer zones are defined by the comprehensive plan and two zones are applicable to the subject property. The plan states that "Minor' buffers shall be provided between low-rise (two stories or less) office or multi -family uses and single family areas, and shall consist of a minimum of fifteen (15) feet of buffer area supplemented by walls, and landscaping typically six feet in height. Policy 7.1 b states that "Medium" buffers shall be provided between retail commercial or high-rise (over two stories) office and any residential use, consisting of a minimum of twenty-five (25) feet of buffer area supplemented by walls and landscaping. And finally, Policy 7.3 of the Future Land Use Element states that the City may permit non- residential uses within residential areas after analysis of the proposed use has indicated that such use will not adversely affect the residential area, will be compatible with the residential character of the area, and will not be otherwise inconsistent with this comprehensive plan. Natural open space areas, special setbacks, parkways, landscaped roadway buffers, natural landscape features, and transitional development densities all provide for suitable buffers between commercial and multi -family uses adjacent to low density residential uses in these situations. According to city staff the subject property is located in the Silver Star Road/Clarke Road special overlay area. Per Section 4-6 of the Land Development Code (LDC), spectral overlay areas are created by the City of Ocoee to facilitate unique development activities where there is need for coordination between different land owners in the development of high density, mixed - and multi -use projects where there are special issues of infrastructure, environmental protection, employment activities, or other public issues deemed by the city commission to be appropriate for special treatment. The special overlay district identifies standards to be followed in the development of the area, and encourage, but not require, the use of the PUD zoning district which would require a zoning change and public hearings. While the intent of the special district is to promote a diversity of land use types, a priority is given to the concentration of business activity, employment and residential densities capable of successfully supporting pedestrian activity and transit use, and promoting the reduction of the use of single occupancy vehicle and reduced trip lengths. Section 6-14 of the land development code encourages "innovative buffers between incompatible uses and developments" and the city "encourages a mixture of housing types and densities within and along the edges of commercial areas." The land development code establishes procedures by which an applicant may obtain conceptual approval from the city commission for a special project. This procedure is available only if the proposed uses generate impacts of equal or lesser intensity than the uses permitted in the underlying zoning district. This is purely the case with multi -family uses relative to commercial retail uses for the subject property. The conceptual review process requires the submission of a market study which can justify the proposed use(s) and must at minimum include a bubble plan showing the proposed uses and any major waivers requested. The proposed uses do not need to be specifically permitted with the underlying zoning district in order to be approved by the city commission which could eliminate the need for a future land use amendment and rezone public hearing process which would add significant cost to entitle West Silver Star Road Transitional Land Use Analysis Page 5 of 11 the site. The Ocoee City Commission, at its sole discretion, may waive provisions within the Ocoee Land Development Code. MULTI -FAMILY AS A DESIREABLE TRANSITIONAL USE Multi -family residential is an attractive transitional land use. Such residential land use provides opportunities for a variety of housing types and designs. Multi -family development on the subject property could serve as a beneficial transitional land use that buffers the existing single- family homes from the more intensive C-2 land uses currently in place and the noise impacts associated with a shopping center on a major transportation corridor such as Silver Star Road In addition, a multi -family use will more likely absorb and buffer some of the site issues generated by the commercial use such as semi -truck deliveries, trash pick-up after hours, poorly maintained stormwater ponds and exterior lighting often perceived as noxious service intrusions. Enhanced landscaping features associated with multi -family developments are elements that could further support multi -family as a transitional use on the subject site. Good planning provides for more than one type of land -use within a walkable community. Multi- family adjacent to commercial uses can add to functional convenience, architectural character and community identity. With the adjacent commercial uses to the east a mixture of shops that cater to the convenience needs of residents may create a more functional, safer community, enabling walking or bicycling to replace convenience auto trips. Additionally, this community set could be very beneficial to older persons who normally must rely on a car to shop. General Policies and Practices Our research of codes from other communities indicates that multi -family residential uses are an excellent transitional land use adjacent to single family development especially when compared With other potential uses in urban Infll areas. Multi -family development can be a compatible and a desirable land use adjacent to single family use. The architectural design and building massing will play a significant role in support of that land use. (However, it is vitally important West Silver Star Road Transitional Land Use Analysis Page 6 of 11 i for the multi -family developer to engage the surrounding single-family land owners and HOA early on during any development process). When new multi -family development is constructed adjacent to existing single family residential uses (which are not part of an overall mixed use development), those communities in our sampling always require a physical buffer yard (horizontal distance) that can vary typically from 10 to 25 feet. Generally, the buffer yard is counted toward the zoning district setbacks and open space requirements. Passive recreational uses such as walkways,par courses do I p walks, bikeways and retention areas may be located 9 Y y td within buffer yards to the extent they are allowed by zoning, provided that buffer yard width and screening requirements are maintained. Building setbacks may be increased as the multi -family building height is increased. We found that most new communities were required to "stair step" multi -family development adjacent to single family uses (i.e., a maximum of 2- story multi -family along the perimeter of a single family project with the building height increased as the distance from the single family residential use is increased). In Ocoee, setbacks from side and rear property lines and building separations shall relate proportionately to the design height of the structures. All one-story and two- story multifamily structures shall - e Used to Provide Building Separation provide a minimum twenty-five (25) foot setback from all boundaries of the development. Structures in excess of two (2) stories should increase the setback to reflect the additional structural height. However, increased setbacks or separations may be required depending upon conditions and design considerations. Lastly, it's also not uncommon for multi -family adjacent to single family to be developed under a planned development zoning classification. In addition to the buffer yard, a visual buffer (vertical) is required by all the communities we surveyed. A minimum 6 ft. high wall, fence or landscape planting is typical between single family residential and multi -family residential uses. Screening between a site and all adjacent residential uses should include one or more of the following treatments: • A six-foot high board -on -board fence along the property line. However, more upscale communities require masonry, stucco or brick walls. • In urban locations, the screen wall could be replaced with a six-foot high wall constructed of materials complimentary to the principal building material. West Silver Star Road Transitional Land Use Analysis Page 7 of 11 . Deciduous trees should be planted, at a target ratio of one canopy tree per 20 lineal feet depending on the selected species in consultation with the city forester and located on the inside of the screen wall. . A continuous 30-inch evergreen hedge planted along the property line adjacent to the trees. . In lieu of a screen wall and were space permits some communities also allow a landscaped mound or berm at least five feet wide, with no more than a 3:1 slope, placed within a landscape easement (no -build zone). However, mounded buffers must be designed in such a way that they do not drain to adjacent properties. The down side is that maintenance can be more expensive. . Preserving existing dense natural vegetation on the subject property, and incorporating r into the site plan or zoning commitments is another option when sufficient land area is available. . Use of screening materials that are different from or inferior to the principal materials of the building and landscape are not recommended by most communities. In fact the Ocoee code no longer permits wood stockade fences for buffers due to maintenance issues in our sub -tropical environment. Multi -family as a Transitional Land Use . Multifamily rental housing is a critical piece of the housing market for reasons of affordability, lifestyle, and sound land use planning adjacent to single family. . Whether fee simple or rental, the grounds of multi -family developments are generally well maintained by management or the HOA. Enhanced landscaping can create curb appeal and increase the overall value of the development. . Fewer infrastructure requirements than traditional low -density suburbs can result in a higher quality project since those funds can be directed to the design features of a project `,- . Enhance landscaping is often the centerpiece of a multi -family project . Shorter roads and walkable communities, decrease vehicle miles traveled, thus reducing carbon emissions. It's an efficient land use. . Residential populations can be large enough to support adjacent neighborhood retail . Multi -family projects create open, public space . Multi -family projects provide residential options for an increasing number of single - person and empty -nester households THE ISSUES OF RETAIL AS A TRANSITIONAL USE While retail uses can be an acceptable transitional use they often generate far less support and encounter significant opposition whether the land is already entitled for the use or undergoing rezoning. Several years ago, a development application was submitted for a major new shopping center that would include a CVS pharmacy, a gas station, restaurants and a future big '• box home improvement retailer. The limited developable retail land in a predominantly residential part of town drove the need for the project. While housing had sprung up across the area, with no virtually no land set aside for retail uses, residents in this part of town had little to no local shopping or dining options. Despite the sensible land -use planning embodied in bringing retail choices closer to residential areas, and reducing travel time, the process can be daunting. Developing new retail centers West Silver Star Road Transitional Land Use Analysis Page 8 of i t requires the arduous task of changing the land -use designation and zoning despite community opposition from adjoining neighbors. Some of these opponents expressed concern that changing the land use designation of nearby properties would impact their quality of life, add traffic, crime and harts their property values. The community opposition, while concentrated, was very well organized with block captains, petitions and structured communications channels via the email age. The Planning Commission voted to approve the concept of a shopping center at this location but also voted to delay the project for 60 days to address community concerns. This was a clear testament to the persuasive power of the opposition. A consultant was later engaged to conduct an aggressive community outreach effort. This type of opposition is reflected in communities throughout Florida and elsewhere. While nearby residents will shop at retail centers they once protested, the process of developing retail as a transitional use to single-family residential is a challenge in almost every community. Simply putting up a screen wall and providing a significant landscape buffer does not satisfy community opposition. There are other issues they are more far reaching. Why does retail use adjacent to existing single family attract so much opposition? • The perception or fact that traffic from commercial uses will create more congestion • Commercial uses adjacent to residential are perceived to lower property values. Research from the NHBA indicates otherwise • Commercial developments may generate more crime • Noise generated by commercial development (idling semi trucks behind the center, early morning trash pick-up) • Illegal dumping in the rear of the commercial centers (mattresses) • Little to no maintenance behind commercial centers other than mowing (no man's land) • Lack of maintenance of stormwater ponds often located along the rear property line • Potential increase in varmints • Vagrants congregating behind or near commercial uses West Silver Star Road Transitional Land Use Analysis Page 9 of 11 • Odors from trash dumpsters (organics) • Lighting spilling over to the residential area • Rear view of shopping centers include roof mounted mechanical systems, and generally provide unappealing views Land use compatibility speaks to the extent to which a new land use is compatible with — and thereby minimizes impacts — to an existing land use. This is a fundamental issue in rezonings and cases where new development is proposed in locations that have not otherwise witnessed such development (i.e. infill areas). The intent of good planning is to minimize (or eliminate) the impacts to adjacent uses while moving forward with the proposed project. A mix of low, medium and higher residential densities in neighborhoods conserves land and can contribute to a more vibrant, walkable community, and enhance the potential for people and families of a variety of ages and income levels to live in the same geneml neighborhood. The vast majority of communities evaluated use a standard formula consisting of a landscape buffers and visual screening to establish compatibility directly between uses and a hierarchy of land uses to ensure a transition (or step-down) between uses. Medium density multi -family and/or office uses are usually found adjacent to single-family residential uses; medium density residential is often designated next to high density residential or commercial uses and so on. That's typical with the use of conventional zoning districts. Of the communities we reviewed one local county adds an additional component which is site specific and is promulgated by the building design. Section 30453 (a) of the Seminole County Land Development Code generally requires a PUD zoning when mixed use and/or non -compatible single use development are proposed adjacent to existing residential uses. Their code sets perimeter development requirements. The Board of County Commission with consideration given to the recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Commission, may impose one (1) or both of the following requirements in order to protect the privacy of existing adjoining uses: 1) Structures, buildings and streets located at the perimeter of the development shall be permanently screened in a manner which sufficiently protects the privacy and amenities of the adjacent existing uses; 2) Increased setbacks from the perimeter line may be imposed to protect privacy of adjacent existing uses. The dimensional requirements and the landscape buffer components are generally determined during the concept plan process and follow the active/passive buffer guidelines discussed below. West Silver Star Road Transitional Land Use Analysis Page 10 of 11 Sec. 30.1232 of the Seminole County Code was written by this author in 1992 and is still being used by the county to provide a method to establish land use compatibility based on active and passive sides of the proposed building and/or development. The active/passive design standards apply to all commercial, office, industrial and multi -family development adjacent to properties assigned a residential zoning classification or a residential land use designation. Buffers and setbacks required by this section are intended to separate incompatible land uses and eliminate or minimize adverse impacts such as light, noise, glare and building mass on adjacent residential uses. Active sides of the building include parking areas, balconies, AC equipment and the like. In summary, with regard to building setbacks, the front setback must comply with the requirements of the applicable zoning classification for the parcel under development. But side and rear setbacks shall comply as noted by identifying active and passive sides of the building and the assigning the buffer type. The use of passive buffers may occur only on the passive edge(s) of a building site. In using passive buffers, the following requirements must be met: 1) A minimum of fifteen (15) feet in width. Buffer yards shall be located at the perimeter of the building site for any given use and not in any portion of a public or proposed right-of-way. Buffer components shall include a perimeter brick or masonry wall six (6) feet in height located within the buffer, to maximize compatibility with surrounding uses. A landscaped earthen bens or a combination of brick or masonry wall and earthen berm may be used in lieu of the wall if the height of landscaping �- reaches six (6) feet with approximately one hundred (100) percent opacity within one (1) year after planting. Landscaping shall consist of four (4) canopy trees with an overall average of three (3) inches in diameter for every one hundred (100) linear feet of buffer. Trees may be planted at regular intervals or clustered into groups if the Planning Division Manager finds that groupings provide a better visual/noise screen for adjacent residential uses. Pedestrian access through the perimeter wall and buffer may be provided at the abutting resident's or homeowners association's option to provide convenient pedestrian access to non-residential uses such as commercial areas or schools. Active buffers adjacent to residential follow the same parameters but with a minimum of twenty- five (25) feet in width required for buildings and uses up to one (1) story and a minimum of fifty (50) feet in width for buildings and uses two (2) stories and over. Parking areas are not permitted within the buffer. Landscaping is essentially doubled from what is required in a passive buffer. CONCLUSION r Our research indicates the following: . Compatible land uses protect investments of private individuals and companies from the adverse impacts of incompatible uses. . Compatible land uses reduce or eliminate negative impacts to adjacent land uses. . Compatible land uses reduce or eliminate negative impacts on the public transportation network including sidewalks and bike paths/routes, open space, and other public ( facilities. . Buffering and screening are critical components of multi -family development. . Buffering and screening separates accessory uses or structures that impact adjacent uses, such as trash dumpsters, parking areas and ground -mounted mechanical units. r West Silver Star Road Transitional Land Use Analysis Page 11 of 11 • Mixed use developments can be very successful in greenfield and urban infll areas. Single use retail adjacent to established single-family development is challenging and controversial. • Overall, multi -family and office uses are by far the most recognized "compatible land use" adjacent to existing residential communities. A compatible building height and large open spaces play a significant mitigating role in the support of multi -family uses adjacent to residential uses. In conclusion, there are two general options for the subject property: 1) Continue the development pattern on the adjacent C-2 zoned shopping center plaza which would likely include extending the retail shopping center westward to Olympus Drive or constructing a freestanding retail building or buildings on the vacant site; 2) Developing the site with a multi -family residential use; Overall, a multi -family use is by far the most recognized "compatible land use" adjacent to the existing residential communities. Six residential lots abut the subject property and Olympus Drive separates the subject property from the adjacent subdivision to the west. A compatible building height and integrated open spaces could play a significant mitigating role in the support of multi -family development adjacent to the existing residential uses. RESEARCH C O N S U L T A N T S 618 E. South Street, Suite 600 JAN - 9 2014 Orlando, El 32801 Multi -Family Apartment and Retail Market Analysis Florida Bank of Commerce Final Report October 2013 NOMM NESEMICH C O N 5 D L r A N r 5 October 29, 2013 Dana Kilborne President and CEO Florida Bank of Commerce 105 East Robinson Street Orlando, FL 32801 Dear Dana: Real Estate Research Consultants, Inc. (RERC) has completed its analysis of multi -family apartment and commercial retail product at property owned by the Florida Bank of Commerce (FBC). FBC owns two vacant parcels at the southeast quadrant of Silver Star Road and Olympus Drive, totaling approximately 6.22 acres. The study was completed as outlined in our contract with you dated March 22, 2013. The attached report summarizes the results of our analysis. The report is based on estimates, assumptions, and other information related to the above. Such estimates, assumptions, or other information were developed from prior research, knowledge of the industry, and discussions with you. The sources of information and basis of estimates and assumptions are stated in the report. Since our documentation is based on estimates and assumptions which are inherently subject to uncertainty and variation depending upon evolving events, we do not represent the data as results which would actually be achieved. The following paragraphs express conditions and limitations which our firm necessarily states with any engagement of this nature. Please call us if you should have questions. Our services did not include legal and regulatory counseling, comments on matters associated with zoning or other state and local government regulations, permits and licenses. Further, no effort was made to determine the possible effects on any specific projects as they may be influenced by present or future federal, state, or local legislation, including any bond restrictions, changes in tax structure or tax law, environmental or ecological matters, or interpretations thereof. Any conclusions and/or any prospective financial information that is included in our documentation were based on estimates and assumptions from previous studies, information developed from supplemental research, knowledge of the industry, and other sources, including certain information that you have provided. These sources of information and bases of significant estimates and assumptions are stated in our documentation. Some assumptions inevitably will not materialize and unanticipated events and circumstances may occur. Therefore, actual results achieved will vary from any estimates, and the variations may be material. The terms of this engagement are such that we have no obligation to revise the document to reflect events or conditions, which occur subsequent to the date of the documentation. Our documentation is intended solely for your information, internal planning, potential financial partners, lenders, and presentation to other interested parties. Neither our 618 EAST SOUSTREE , SUM 600 . ORl DO, FLORIDA 32801 . P 407 8 3-5635 . F 9W-8399-619]. WWw.RERCIN000M MULTI -FAMILY APARTMENT AND RETAIL ANALYSIS OCTOBER 2013 documentation nor its contents, nor any reference to our firm may be included or quoted in any real estate offering or registration statement, or other agreement or document without our prior permission. Permission will be granted upon meeting certain conditions. Please contact us if you have any questions about this report. It was a pleasure working with you on this assignment. Sincerely, David R. Darsey Senior Principal Owen M. Beitsch Senior Principal, PhD REAL ESTATE RESEARCH CONSULTANTS, INC. 2 MULTI-FAMILYAPARTMENr AND RETAILANALYSIS OCTOBER 2013 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................4 SITEANALYSIS...................................................................................................4 APARTMENTANALYSIS....................................................................................7 'i PLANNED AND PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS...............................14 �I DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS.............................................................................14 RETAILANALYSIS............................................................................................17 + OVERALL CONCLUSIONS...............................................................................21 i i, (I it �I C` l I REAL ESTATE RESEARCH CONSULTANTS, INC. 3 t c' MULTI -FAMILY APARTMENT AND RETAIL ANALYSIS OCTOBER 2013 INTRODUCTION Real Estate Research Consultants, Inc. (RERC) was retained by the Florida Bank of Commerce (FBC) to conduct an analysis of potential multi -family apartment or commercial retail product at property owned by the bank in the City of Ocoee and to explore the market opportunities for each. FBC owns or controls two vacant parcels at the southeast quadrant of Silver Star Road and Olympus Drive, totaling approximately 6.22 acres. The two parcels are currently zoned C-2 (Community Commercial). We understand the bank may be able to pursue a multi -family designation under specific circumstances. An applicant seeking this designation must document the economic and/or market challenges of the current use (C-2 Community Commercial) and contrast these with the ostensible advantages of the alternate use (multi -family rental apartments). Further, there is also a requirement to demonstrate the alternate use is compatible with the nearby areas. A transitional land use analysis was prepared by RERC and submitted to FBC in May of this year to demonstrate the compatibility of multi -family residential with the nearby areas. Our scope of work for the remaining part of the study effort focuses on a brief analysis that documents the prevailing market opportunities in multi -family rental housing versus commercial retail. SITE ANALYSIS The subject property ('the site") is located on approximately 6.22 acres southeast quadrant of Silver Star Road and Olympus Drive, just west of the intersection of Silver Star Road and Clarke Road. Property to the north, south and west consists of low density, single family detached residential uses (up to 4 dwelling units/acre). Property to the east is developed with a Winn -Dixie anchored shopping center on 12.78+/- acres and includes three out parcels. According to the Orange County Property Appraiser, the residential subdivisions adjacent to the subject property were developed during the early to mid 1990's. The shopping center complex to the east was constructed between 1995 and 1997. The maps on the following page identify the property within the context of the greater Orange County and Ocoee area. REAL ESTATE RESEARCH CONSULTANTS, INC. 4 MULTI -FAMILY APARTMENT AND RETAIL ANALYSIS OCTOBER 2013 Site Location within the Greater Orange County Area Site Location within the Ocoee Area REAL ESTATE RESEARCH CONSULTANTS, INC 5 MULTI -FAMILY APARTMEW AND RETAIL ANALYSIS OONeER 2013 Site and Adjacent Area The property has excellent visibility from Silver Star Road, a main road corridor that sees over 16,500 automobiles daily. Clarke Road provides access to the north and south, including Colonial Drive (SR 50), the East-West Expressway (SR 408) and the Florida Turnpike. SR 429 can be accessed from Silver Star Road about 2.5 miles west of the site. These regional highways provide good access to other areas within the Orlando metro area and the state and might support both a retail or a multi -family use. As noted earlier, the site is adjacent to the Winn Dixie anchored Lake Olympia Shopping Center. Three other retail centers are located on the corners of the Clarke Road/Silver Star Road intersection. In total there is about 300,000 SF of existing retail in the vicinity of the site. All of the retail would be considered neighborhood in nature, including tenants such as grocery stores, fast food outlets, health clubs, drug stores, auto service and gas stations, and services such as dry cleaners and real estate agents. REAL ESTATE RESEARCH CONSULTANTS, INC. 6 MULTI -FAMILY APARTMENT AND RETAIL ANALYSIS OCTOBER 2013 The single family residential areas to the west and south of the site are of good quality. Some of the homes are on Lake Olympia, a modestly large lake to the southwest of the site. There is an assisted living facility just south of the Lake Olympia Shopping Center and east of the residential homes. APARTMENT ANALYSIS Three -County Area Apartment Trends RERC evaluated three of the four counties that make up the Orlando Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA), including Orange, Seminole, and Osceola Counties, to identify key trends in the apartment market. RERC has organized the data into five major sectors within the metro area, all of which are independent and have distinct market characteristics. These sectors include: Northeast Seminole County Northwest Generally west of Seminole County and SR 436, north of the East-West Expressway (SR 408) Southeast Generally east of SR 436, south of Seminole County and north of Osceola County Southwest Generally west of SR 436 and south of the East-West Expressway (SR 408) Osceola County All areas south of the Orange County line The subject property is located in the Northwest sector. The following maps present the five sectors as generally defined. 0 c Southeast Maps are representations only and not to scale REAL ESTATE RESEARCH CONSULTANTS, INC. 7 MULTI -FAMILY APARTMENT AND RETAIL ANALYSIS OCTOBER 2013 In September of 2013, the inventory of apartments in the three -county area was just under 157,000 units. Factors such as remodeling and damage repair influence the number of rentable units, and prior to the recent recession, condominium conversions have affected the available supply as well. There are reports of as many as 20,000 to 25,000 units taken out of inventory between 2005 and 2007 due to condo conversions. Since inventory was taken out of the market, the overall number of units occupied decreased in that time period. Between 2003 and 2013, the number of rentable units grew at an average annual rate of 0.4 percent. The following two exhibits illustrate the number of units available over time and the period of construction for individual units. Supply of Rentable Units - Orange, Osceola and Seminole Counties I� I I I I111 LI11111 11111111 1001,III "';IIIIIIIIIIIIIII�JIIIIIIILLI Rentable Units by Sector and Period Constructed, September 2013 Time Period Northeast Northwest Southeast Southwest Osceola Cty Total Prior to 1970 981 2,657 88 1,033 0 4,759 1970-1979 5,227 3,044 4,545 8,436 1,257 22,509 1980-1989 10,618 4,113 8,841 10,668 2,695 36,935 1990-1999 7,129 4,336 10,184 16,139 3,247 41,035 2000-2009 6,438 5,994 8,413 12,059 4,687 37,591 2010-2014 591 544 11088 1,769 730 4,722 Total 30,994 20,688 33,159 50,104 12,616 147,551 Source: Charles Wayne Consulting; RERC In the three -county area, approximately 83,000 or 56 percent of the current rentable units were built after 1990. In the Northwest sector, approximately 20,700 units or 53 percent of the current rentable units were built after 1990. To date, the sector represents about 14 percent of the total available rental units in the three -county area. REAL ESTATE RESEARCH CONSULTANTS, INC. 8 MULTI -FAMILY APARTMENT AND RETAIL ANALYSIS OCTOBEn 2013 Rentable Units by Sector 9% • Northeast ■ Northwest ■Southeast ■Southwest • Osceola Cty The number of rentable units under construction as of September 2013 within the three - county area totaled 6,936. The number of units under construction is beginning to recover towards pre -recession levels as financing restrictions have begun to ease. In 2013, the number of units under construction increased significantly over levels seen in the past three years. The Northwest sector of the three -county area had 1,699 units under construction as of September of 2013. The Northwest sector currently represents about a quarter of the volume of construction activity in the metro area. Rentable Units Under Construction by Sector Sector Northeast Northwest Southeast Southwest Osceola Cty Total Units UC 1,164 1,699 2,260 1,512 301 6,936 %of Total Units UC 16.8% 24.5% 32.69% 21.8% 4.39/6 100.0% Source: Chades Wayne Consulting; RERC Looking at single and multi -family building permits is a good indicator of market conditions. Permits in all counties making up the Orlando MSA share a trend of peaking in 2005 and 2006 and hitting a low in 2009 and 2010. This is a trend that follows the recession and housing market collapse. The positive growth seen from 2010 to present is evidence that the housing market is stabilizing. REAL ESTATE RESEARCH CONSULTANTS, INC. 9 MULTI -FAMILY APARTMENT AND RETAIL ANALYSIS OCTOBER 2013 Total Annual Single Family and Multi -Family Building Permits in Orlando -Kissimmee - Sanford MSA, 1999 -July 2013 nb% 90� x6,M rl- aa% 6m6 6w6 zn% ,i wi4 y-pgNxS ,53[b i0y9 i4)ib i;%)13.9% 546Y ix}m Y.W 4)tl 5]% i]E ].YO 6 sbss . �.Oy4fan,y ys) So35 1 15]Y 63)6 9p)0 l.%6 VKK ) iPM ib% y-SenlrcY frmy Sj16 46b 1M5 x115 Y% VM 635i x iY ]/A nn6,% x9A5 YSY iYx9 x6,Fb 1p33 3195i Ax3) ]6966 186Y to 6� s}u 4f% 5'3A06 >. Source: FHUD SOCDS Building Permibs Database (U.S. Bureau orthe Census); RERC The number of units absorbed between September 2012 and September 2013 increased by approximately 3,000 units in the three -county area. The Southeast sector had the weakest absorption performance. Absorption in the Northwest sector was the highest of any sector by over four times. The Northwest sector includes Downtown Orlando, Baldwin Park, and Maitland which are areas known to be growing in population and popularity with Orlando residents. Absorption by Sector: 2012 to 2013 Sector Total Units Absorbed MonthlyAvere e Northeast 193 16 Northwest 4,270 356 Southeast 9 1 Southwest 974 81 Osceola County 712 59 Total 3,000 250 Source: Charles Wayne Consulting; RERC Occupancy rates in the overall metro market fell below 90 percent from 2008 to 2010, which had not happened since before 1990. Since the later part of 2009, occupancy rates have been increasing and are currently above 93 percent. During the booming real estate market of 2005 and 2006, occupancy rates were seen as high as 96.4 percent for the metro area. REAL ESTATE RESEARCH CONSULTANTS, INC. 10 MULTI -FAMILY APARTMENT AND RETAIL ANALYSIS OCTOBER 2013 Occupancy by Sector: 2012 to 2013 Northeast 94.0% 95.1 Northwest 91.9% 91.8% Southeast 94.8% 95.79/6 Southwest 91.6% 91.7% Osceola County 94.71/ 95.7% Total 93.1 % 93.7 Source: Charles Wayne Consulting, RERC As a whole, the three -county region has maintained a high occupancy percentage in the current and previous year, with growth seen in 2013. The Northwest sector has remained stable from 2012 to 2013, about two percentage points below the average for the three -county region. Select Comparable Projects In order to ascertain the competitive environment in which the proposed apartment project would operate, RERC selected a more focused area encompassing both the site and the surrounding comparable product in the Northwest Orlando market. The focus area is bordered by West McCormick Road to the north, roughly Westover Roberts Road to the south, State Road 429 (SR 429) to the west, and Apopka Vineland Road to the east. Focus Area Map Source: Bing Maps: RERC REAL ESTATE RESEARCH CONSULTANTS, INC. 11 MuLTFFAMILY APARTMENT AND RETAIL ANALYSIS OCTOBER 2013 Within these bounds, RERC identified nine competitive and comparable apartment projects to analyze. The following map depicts the area and selected projects relative to the subject site. The Key Isle at Windermere complex has two distinct phases and thus is analyzed as two separate developments, despite having the same location. Map of Selected Comparable Projects / i 1 Oak ail Forest Key Isle at Windermere Casa : )Cas. �% , A ...w"� FF Lake Sherwood V Landmark Bala a at Stafford Sands Landing Villa Tuscany qk R r '4dY,. sY Hawthorne Groves REAL ESTATE RESEARCH CONSULTANTS, INC. 12 MULTI -FAMILY APARTMENT AND RETAIL ANALYSIS OCToeER 2013 Selected Projects: Physical Characteristics Project Year Built Total Units Acres pensittdAcre Bala Sands 2002 298 29.0 10.3 Casa Mirella 2013 216 14.7 14.7 Hawthorne Groves 2001 328 27.5 11.9 Key Isle at Windermere 1999 2a2 24.4 11.6 Key isle at Windermere Ph 2 2007 165 11.5 14.3 Lake Sherwood 2006/2011 210 8.9 23.6 Landmark at Stafford Landing 1997 522 33.5 15.E Oak Forest 1989 408 26.9 15.2 Villa Tuscany 2002 342 24.0 14.3 Subtotals or Averages 2002 Z771 22.3 14.6 Source: Chades Wayne Consulting; RERC The comparable properties were chosen based on their location, age, and price per square toot relative to the proposed project site. With the exception of the first phases of Key Isle at Windermere and Oak Forest and the Landmark at Stafford Landing, the comparable product was all built in 20M or later. All properties have done necessary renovations and upkeep in order to remain relevant in the market even as newer product is built. The most recent project is Casa Mirella which is currently under construction. Casa Mirella has 19% occupancy as of September 2013, meaning it leased 7 of its 36 available units in the first month of leasing. Most selected projects achieve densities between 10 and 15 dwelling units per acre. The average 96 percent occupancy rate of the selected comparable projects (not including Casa Mirella which is still in lease up) is higher than the Northwest sector at 91.8 percent and the metro area at 93.7 percent. These high occupancy rates in the focus area indicate sustained demand levels that could carry over to new product. Across all propenies surveyed, unit size generally averages around 1,000 square feet. Selected Projects: Operational Characteristics Protect Occupancy Rate Avg Base Rent Avg Unit Sr Ft Avg Rent Per S Ft Bala Sands 97% $1,182 1031 $1.15 Casa Mrella 19°! $1,367 1,135 $1.20 Hawthorne Groves 96% $1,009 852 $1.18 Key Isle at Windermere 96% $1,154 1,100 $1.05 Key Isle at Windermere Ph 2 94% $1,224 1,097 $1.12 Lake Sherwood 99 % $917 1,322 $0.69 Landmark at Stafford Landing 97% $798 738 $1.08 Oak Forest 95 % $974 830 $1.17 Mlla Tuscan 96% $1,066 986 $1.08 Comparable Project Averages 8-1.7% $1,077 1,010 $1.08 Source: Chades Wayne Consulting; RERC RESEARCH CONSULTANTS, INC. MULTI -FAMILY APARTMENT ANn RETAIL ANALYSIS OCTOBER 2013 PLANNED AND PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS While we have to qualify those projects which are planned or proposed, we are aware of at least four projects under construction near the focus area. They are Windermere Cay (272 units), Citra at Windermere (332 units), Retreat at Windermere (332 units), and the Rialto (200 units). None of these new projects are located inside the focus area and therefore are not considered close enough to the proposed project site in order to be directly comparable. In terms of those proposed, the Residences of Lakeside Village is planned for 360 units. Although located in the Northwest Sector, it is not within the focus area. Rents for the project are expected to range from $950 to $1,600. Also proposed is a mixed use development containing 192 multi -family units in the Arbours at Crown Point PUD, which is located within the focus area. There are three developments proposing townhomes that are in the final planning stage. They are Eagle Creek of Ocoee (62 townhomes), Oak Trail Reserve PUD (80 townhomes), and Ocoee Pines (164 townhomes). These townhomes are for -sale product and would not be directly competitive with rental product at the subject site. The Park Place PUD contains a proposed 240-250 unit multi -family apartment complex in the final planning stages and is located within the focus area DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS Employment The recent economic recession affected employment throughout the country, and Florida was no exception. Declines in employment figures were seen in 2008, 2009, and 2010, with the biggest drop of between 4 and 6 percent from 2008 to 2009 in all geographies. However, Orange County saw positive employment growth in 2010, and Florida and the Orlando MSA followed with modest growth in 2011. Employment in all three geographies grew once again in 2012. The annual figures for 2013 have not yet been released, but the Florida unemployment rate in August 2013 was 7.0 percent, compared to 8.7 percent in September of 2012. Prior to the recession, both the MSA and the county's employment figures were growing at a rate faster than the average for the State of Florida. The following table presents employment figures from 2005 through 2012. Employment, 2005 to 2012 r91,:5UU 1,W3,dUU 6,U19,8011 7,T ,100 7.245.200 7,186,400 7,266,100 NSA 1,019,900 1,064,100 1,091,000 1,072,900 1,006,600 1,001,500 1,014,9D0 ida Research and Economic of the Census, RERC HEAL ESTATE RESEARCH CONSULTANTS, INC. 14 MULTIFAMILY APARTMENT AND RETAIL ANALYSIS OCTOBEn 2013 Population The Orlando Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) represents approximately 12 percent of the State of Florida's population. The Orlando VISA is comprised of four counties in Central Florida including Orange, Osceola, Seminole and Lake. The four counties combined have a current total population of just under 2,300,000. As mentioned previously, the site is located in Orange County. With a total population of approximately 1.2 milllon, Orange County represents about 54 percent of the entire four -county MSA. The following table presents the historical population figures for 2000 and 2010, as well as current and projected population figures for 2013 and 2018. Population of Various Geographies, 2000 to 2018 Annual % Annual % Annual % Change Change Change Geography 2000 2010 2013 2018 20OD-2010 2010-2013 2013-2018 USA 281,421,942 308,745,638 317,199,353 328,309,464 0.9% 0.9% 0.7% Fonda 15,g82,a77 18,801,310 19,654,457 20,782,174 1.6% 1.6% 1.1% Orlando MSA 1,644,563 2,134,411 2,277,414 2,447,840 2.6% 2.2% 1.5% Orange County 896,281 1,145,956 1,233,012 1,334,323 2.5% 2.59/6 1.6% Focus Area 46,289 59,757 64,225 6%685 2.6% 2.4% 1.6% Source.' Claritas. RERC The historical, current, and projected average annual population growth rates in the Orlando MSA, Orange County, and the focus area exceed the State of Florida's growth rates for all periods. Overall, population in Florida and the Orlando area can be expected to increase at an annual rate of around 1.0 to 1.6 percent from 2013 to 2018. Household Characteristics Median household income has followed a pattern of slight growth over the past 13 years which is expected to continue for at least the next five years. Due in large part to the economic recession from late 2007 to mid 2009, the annual change from 2000 to 2013 was lower than what may have been expected, especially in recent years as the market continues to recover. Median Household Income, 2000 to 2018 Annual% Annual% Change Change Geography 2000 2013 2018 20OD-2013 2013-2018 USA $42,728 $51,579 $53,666 1.5% 0.8% Florida $39,304 $44,318 $46,012 0.9% 0.8% Orlando MSA $42,304 $45,240 $46,512 0.59/6 0.6% Orange County $41,945 $43,596 $44,582 0.3% 0.4% Focus Area $51,469 $57,063 $59,410 0.8% 0.8% Source: Claritas, RERC The distribution of households between owner occupied and renter occupied housing is a valuable tool to gauge demand for additional apartment units in the future. For Florida, the Orlando MSA, Orange County and the focus area, there was a shift in the distribution of occupied housing units towards renters between 2000 and 2010. The largest shift occurred in the focus area which saw a gain of 7 percentage points in renter tenure. As REAL ESTATE RESEARCH CONSULTANTS, INC. 15 MULTI -FAMILY APARTMENTAND RETAIL ANALYSIS OCTOBEn 2013 people lost their homes to foreclosure during the recent recession, home ownership percentages were negatively impacted. For Florida, the Orlando MSA, Orange County, and the focus area, occupied housing distribution characteristics are projected to stay consistent through 2018. Between 2000 and 2010, the number of renter occupied units in the focus area increased annually by 6.0 percent; between 2013 and 2018, the number of renter occupied units is projected to increase annually by 1.7 percent. The annual increase results in an incremental demand between 2013 and 2018 of about 513 units within the focus area, which represents about 2.1 percent of the Orlando MSA incremental demand. Owner vs. Renter Occupied Housing, 2000 to 2018 Owner Renter Omer Renter Omer Renter Omar Ranter nmide Housing Lines 4,441,825 1,89el16 4,998,979 2,421,823 5,AG.W6 2.542.514 5,489,60 2,700,149 Distribution of Occupied LTils 70% 30% 67% 33% 67% 33% 67% 33X Orlando MSA Housing units 414,488 210,756 504,792 293,653 534.802 314,506 572.426 me389 Distribution of Occupied Units fib% 34% 63% 37% 63% 3A6 63% 3P Orange Only Housing Units 204,184 132,078 243,950 1A,897 281,587 191,887 282,A5 208,182 Distribution of Occupied Win 91% 39% 59% 42% 58% 42% 59% 4ZK Focus Area Housing Unite 12,554 3,078 14,780 5,520 15.780 5,945 17,034 s. Distribution of Occuad Units 80% 20% 73% 27% 73% 2A/ 73% Source: Clantas, RERC Incremental Demand, Orlando MSA and Focus Area, 2013 to 2018 Orlando MSA Focus Area Owner Renter Owner Renter Total Households 37,624 24,783 1,254 513 %Annual Growth 1.49% 1.5% 1.5% 1.7% Source: Clantas, RERC APARTMENT MARKET CONCLUSIONS Absorption from 2000-2010 can be looked at in two time periods: those projects completed before the housing market collapse and those that came after. The housing market peaked in late 2005-early 2006. After that date, prices began to plummet, which led to the start of the recession in 2007. Then, since 2010, the market has begun its recovery and rents and occupancies have generally stabilized. The comparable properties that were leased after late 2006 are Casa Mirella, Key Isle at Windermere Phase 2, and the second phase of Lake Sherwood. These properties saw an average absorption of 19 units per month which is likely to increase as Casa Mirella continues the lease up period. Lake Sherwood is the best example since it is the most recent project completed that has been through a full lease up period. Lake Sherwood's strong monthly absorption is a good sign that a new project entering the market could have similar results. The following table presents lease -up characteristics for the most recently built comparable projects. REAL ESTATE RESEARCH CONSULTANTS, INC. MULTI -FAMILY APARTMENT AND RETAIL ANALYSIS OCTOBER 2013 Unit Absorption for Selected Comparable Projects Total Average Year Rentable Monthly Unit Project Online Units Abaorptlon Casa Mrefa 2013 216 14 Key Isis at Windermere Ph 2 2008 165 17 Lake Sherwood Ph 2 2011 210 27 Average Monthly Unit Absorption 19 Source. Charles Wayne Consulting, RERC As noted earlier, RERC anticipates the focus area will capture just over 500 renter households from 2013 through 2018. This would produce an average annual absorption in the focus area of just about 100 units annually, although that number will fluctuate over the years within the projection period. The number of renter households is growing not just due to steady population growth in the area, but also due to the pronounced shift toward rental units. It is predicted that by 2018 nearly 27 percent of households in the focus area will be renter occupied, up from 20 percent in 2000. Given that the property's size is just over six acres, it may be best suited for a townhome style product. We envision a rental product with a density of about 8 units per acre, although other concepts may push densities. At the lower density, the site could accommodate 40 to 50 units. This means that the project would need to capture 10 % of the multi -family development over the next 5 years in order to be successful. The rental market has maintained high occupancies, rents, and absorption rates which would all contribute to the success of a new project as it is introduced into the market. Given the strong rental market, and taking into consideration planned and proposed projects, a 10 % capture within a specific area is a reasonable penetration expectation. If the density is raised to about 15 units per acre, the site could accommodate around 80-90 units and would likely be a three story walk up product. This higher unit count would have to capture about 20 % of the rental market over the next 5 years. While this is not unattainable, planned and proposed projects may have to be carefully examined to be sure that the new product is not brought into the market all at once. RETAIL ANALYSIS RERC also analyzed the potential for retail development on the subject site. The following series of tables profile the retail market over several years. REAL ESTATE RESEARCH CONSULTANTS, INC. 17 MULTI -FAMILY APARTMENT AND RETAIL ANALYSIS ODTOBen 2013 Orlando Metro Area Retail Characteristics Period Rentable Properties Building SF Occupied Building SF Vacant Building SF % Occupied % Avg Lease Vacant Rate Cunent 4,444 70,638,089 65,699,913 4,938,176 93.0% 7.0% $15.33 201330 4,438 70,614,408 65,533,113 5,081,295 92.8% 7.2°/ $15.88 20132Q 4,435 70,602,503 65,405.976 5,196,527 92.69/6 7.4% $15.82 20131Q 4,430 70,468,579 65,295,797 5,172,782 92.7°% 7.3% $16.28 201240 4,422 70,415,118 65,059,240 5,355,878 92.4% 7.6% $16.44 20123Q 4,409 69,923,167 64,547,459 5,375,708 92.39/6 7.7% $16.66 201220 4.401 69,879,197 64,361,629 5,517,568 92.1% 7.9% $16.73 20121Q 4,397 69,839,901 64,530,28E 5,309,613 92.49% 7.6% $16.93 2011 4Q 4,3B7 69,740,016 64,098,600 5,641,416 91.9% 8.1% $16.78 201130 4,383 69,640,345 64,083,954 5,556,391 92.09/6 8.0% $16.65 201120 4,376 69,594,485 63,800,168 5,794,317 91.7% 8.3% $17.1 20111Q 4,374 69,586,251 63,928,225 5,658,026 91.9% 8.1% $17.2 Some: COStar, RERC This table demonstrates the general improvement in the retail market in the Orlando metro area. Vacancy rates have generally been declining since 2011. However, lease rates have not recovered and have been dropping over the past three years. Increases in inventory have been modest given the lingering effects of the most recent recession. In 2012 about 675,000 SF of space was added, but the other years generally saw an increase of only about 250,000 SF or less. The West Colonial submarket within the Orlando metro area is defined as shown in the following map. West Colonial Retail Submarket REAL ESTATE RESEARCH CONSULTANTS, INC. 18 MULTI -FAMILY APARTMENT AND RETAIL ANALYSIS OCTOSER 2013 The retail properties within this defined area have the following characteristics. West Colonial Area Retail Characteristics Period Rentable Properties Building SF Occupied Building SF Vacant Building SF % Occupied Avg Lease Vacant Rate Current 762 11,887,163 10,514,721 1,372,442 08.5% 11.5% $11.16 20/33Q 761 11,684,667 10,502,179 1,382,488 BSA% 11.6% $12. 201324 761 11,884,667 10,546,100 1,338,567 88.7% 11.3% $12.21 201310 761 11,e84,667 10,594,584 1,290,083 69.1% 10.9% $14.04 20124Q 759 ll,$72,778 10,566,212 1,306,566 89.0% 11.0% $14.17 201230 759 11,872,778 10,470,878 1.401.900 88.2% 118% $14.22 20122Q 759 11,872,778 10,426,194 1,446,584 87.8% 12.2% $13.58 20121Q 759 11,872,778 10,679,173 1.193.605 69.9% 10.1% $14.29 201140 759 11,872,778 10,594,614 1,278,164 89.2% 10.8% $13.90 2011 SO 759 11,872,778 10.594,785 1,277,993 89.2% 10.8% $13.61 20112Q 756 11,868,978 10,532,593 1,334,385 88.8% 11.29/6 $13.90 201110 758 11,866,978 10,523,741 1,343,237 88.7% 11.3% $13.76 Source: CoSfar, RERC The West Colonial market has not seen the improvement that has occurred in the larger metro area. Vacancy rates are much higher than in the metro area and have shown no real improvement over time. Lease rates are also much lower than the Orlando metro area and have fluctuated significantly over the past three years. Given this generally poor operating environment, it is not surprising that only about 20,000 SF of space has been added to the market since 2011. Also, this submarket includes the West Oaks Mall, which has significant vacancies in and around the center. We also explored the operating characteristics of retail properties within the City of Ocoee. City of Ocoee Retail Characteristics Properties Rentable Building $F Occupied Building SF Vacant Building SF % Occupied sePeriod VacateCurrent 112 3,302,559 2,728,174 574,385 82.6% 17.47020133Q ill 3,300,063 2,715,333 584,730 82.3%% 17.74220132Q ill 3,300,083 2,720,580 579,483 a2.4°/ 17.632201310 JAVgLeaw Ill 3,300,063 2,909,076 390,987 88.2% 11.860201240 111 3,200,063 2,90%218 390,845 88.2% it.8201230 111 3,300,063 2,905,486 394,577 88.0% 12.0492012 2Q 111 3,300,063 2,885,970 414,093 87.5% 12.517201210 ill 3,300,063 2,877,192 422,871 87.2% 12.8.30 201140 ill 3,300,063 2,840,282 459,781 86.1% 13.9% $22.89 2011 SO Ill 3,300,063 2,839,098 460,965 86.0% 14.0% $22.59 201120 111 3,300,063 2,819,065 480,998 85.4% 14.60/6 $21.42 20111Q 111 3,300,063 2,636,036 463,977 85.9% 14.1% $20.1 Source: CoSter. RERC REAL ESTATE RESEARCH CONSULTANTS, INC. 19 ( I MULTI -FAMILY APARTMENT AND RETAIL ANALYSIS ! OCTOBER 2013 The retail properties within the City of Ocoee are significantly underperforming both the West Colonial submarket and the Orlando metro area. Vacancy rates are now over 17 and lease rates have been cut in half since 2011. The amount of retail SF has been stagnant over this time frame, reflecting the poor operating climate. Within the immediate vicinity of the site there is about 300,000 SF of existing retail space, including outparcels. All of this space would be considered neighborhood retail, which would include such operators as grocery stores, fast food chains, gas stations, auto parts, drug stores and services such as insurance agents, real estate brokers, etc. The Lake Olympia Shopping Center is immediately adjacent to the subject site and is anchored by a Winn Dixie grocery store. Although vacancies are not significant in this center, in our opinion it is at best in moderate condition and may be of lower quality than what is available in other nearby competing locations. Proposed Retail \' While we cannot absolutely confirm that this is all that is planned, we have identified the following retail projects that are proposed within the Ocoee area. • Silver Ridge Crossings, 22,872 SF of retail located just west of the subject site at the intersection of Silver Star Road and Ridgefield Avenue. • Dollar General Store, 12,480 SF, located east of the subject site at the intersection of Silver Star Road and Silver Bend Road. • Shops at the Village, 6,828 SF located at the intersection of Silver Star Road and North Bluford Avenue. • Ocoee Town Shops, 29,155 SF of retail at the intersection of Clarke Road and Colonial Drive near the West Oaks Mall. • Fountains at Tivoli Place, 126,200 SF of retail near Maguire Road and Tomyn Boulevard. • Casa Mirella at Belmere, 20,000 SF of retail to be built In phases at the intersection of Maguire Road and Roberson Road. • Maguire Shops, 48,000 SF of retail near Maguire Road and Jordan Rose Avenue. • Main Street Village, 300,000 SF of retail at Colonial Drive and South Bluford Avenue. These projects total approximately 566,000 SF and are in various stages of planning. The Silver Ridge Crossings and Dollar General Store are the closest to the subject site and combined total about 35,000 SF. Data provided by the City of Owes indicates many of these projects could be under construction within one to three years. However, given the current status of the retail market in the area, the timing of these projects is uncertain. RETAIL MARKET CONCLUSIONS Given the subject site's size of just over 6 acres, it likely could accommodate up to 40,000 to 45,000 SF if developed as retail and assuming the full site is developable. If two outparcels were sold on the property's Silver Star frontage, those buildings would likely total about 13,000 to 14,000 SF, leaving about 30,000 SF to be developed on the remaining available land. Such a small center would be unanchored, which could be a significant disadvantage in attracting developer interest in the parcel. Small, unanchored ( 1 REAL ESTATE RESEARCH CONSULTANTS, INC. 20 MULTI -FAMILY APARTMENT AND RETAIL ANALYSIS OCTOBER2013 retail space is generally more difficult to till and would, at this location, most likely have to rely on local operators who in many cases cannot afford market rate rent levels. There are about 566,000 SF of proposed retail in various stages of planning in the Ocoee area. About 35,000 SF of this total is close to the subject site. However, the relatively poor retail market conditions in the Ocoee area present challenges for future retail in the near future. The rent levels are a particular challenge in attracting development. Together with the volume of existing vacancies and the other planned projects, it could make it difficult to market the subject site for retail development. Given the quality and stability of the nearby residential development, there is the added consideration of the quality level likely to be possible for a retail project at this location. All in all, current market conditions would position a retail project, if it did proceed, at the lower end of the market's pricing spectrum. If outparcels are an option, they could grossly limit the utility and develop ability of the remaining parcel. OVERALL CONCLUSIONS The project site, though small in size, appears better suited from a market perspective, for residential usage than retail. The retail in the area is much weaker than the apartment market. Much of what exists has declining lease rates and occupancies, despite the steady recovery of the housing market and the economy. Size constraints also make retail the less suitable option for the site, since there is not enough room for a main anchor, effectively requiring a series of small users. Based on the strength of the surrounding market, among other factors, the project should be able to capture at least 40 to 50 units of rental apartments, or about one tenth of units the area is projected to need over the next five years. Lower density multi -family residential will fit in well with the existing fabric of the neighborhood and would likely be a more popular option with neighbors than strip commercial users. REAL ESTATE RESEARCH CONSULTANTS, INC. 21 ITEM NUMBER IV. B. PUBLIC HEARING CASA MIRELLA AT BELMERE PD SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE TO PUD/ LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT Nfoa r. 4. Sc.+ott, Vonderl rift City Pdnn<a­or Robor t Frank florida STAFF REPORT Commissioner; John (arogan. District: I Kosc rn arti �Vllsen. District `? HLI,14V Johnson, District 3 Joel F'. Keller. District 11 DATE: February 11, 2014 TO: Planning & Zoning Commission (Local Planning Agency) FROM: Michael Rumer, City Planner SUBJECT: Casa Mirella at Belmere PUD Substantial Amendment to the PUD and PUD Land Use Plan Project No(s): RZ-13-12-12 ISSUE: Should the Planning & Zoning Commission (LPA) recommend approval of a substantial amendment to the Belmere PUD for an additional 60 multi -family dwelling units on 2.7 acres and an amendment to the Belmere PUD Land Use plan located in Phase V of the Belmere PUD? BACKGROUND: The subject property is located on Lot 3 of Casa Mirella located on the west side of Maguire Road and south of Roberson Road. The parcel of land is approximately 2.72 acres. The subject property is zoned Planned Unit Development (PUD) and is located within the Belmere PD. The Belmere PD, which encompasses +/- 455 acres, was originally approved by the Orange County Board of County Commissioners on May 21, 1985, as the Lake Whitney PD. The northern portion of the PD was set aside as Tract G which consisted of 177 acres that was labeled as `Future Development". In 1995, the PD Land Use Plan (LUP) was amended to permit 708 dwelling units in Tract G. A subsequent non -substantial amendment in 1999 carved out Tract H from Tract G. Tract H is the property that is now owned by the Unicorp entities. The 1999 LUP delineates Tract H as (1) Commercial totaling 42,960 s.f. and 5 acres maximum (2) Multi -family totaling 180 units and (3) Adult Care living Facility (ACLF) or Adult Living Facility (ALF) totaling 130 units. The LUP also explains how the multi -family and ACLF or ALF units can be converted to single-family units. The LUP states that one multi -family unit is to be counted as equal to one single-family unit and seven (7) ACLF or ALF units are to be counted equal to one single- family unit. The property has retained the Orange County Citrus Rural land use designation because of previous vesting. To date, Tract H has been developed as Casa Mirella with 42,960 sq. ft. of commercial and 216 multi -family units. Lot 3 has been set aside for 85 ALF units. The applicant is proposing to convert the 85 ALF units to 12 residential units and add 48 more units to the PUD in order to construct 60 multi -family units. P&Z Meeting Date: February 11, 2014 Project: Belmere PUD Substantial Amendment Project Number(s) RZ-2013-12-12 The current future land use and zoning classifications of the surrounding properties: DIRECTION: CURRENT FUTURE LAND USE CURRENT ZONING North Orange County Citrus Rural PUD (Commercial) East Ocoee Commercial PUD Commercial and Residential South Orange County Citrus Rural PUD (Residential) West Orange County Citrus Rural PUD (Residential) DISCUSSION: The applicant/owner is requesting a substantial amendment to the Belmere PUD for an additional 60 multi -family dwelling units on 2.7 acres and an amendment to the Belmere PUD Land Use plan located in Phase V of the Belmere PUD. SITE ANALYSIS: Floodplain Impacts: The site does not lie within the 100 year floodplain. Wetland Impact: There are no jurisdictional wetlands. Utilities: The site is located within the Orange County utility service area for water and sewer. Reclaimed water is provided from the City. Transportation / Traffic: The proposed PUD accesses Maguire Road and Roberson Road. Both roads operate at an acceptable level of service. Schools: The applicant has applied for a Capacity Enhancement Agreement with Orange County Public Schools. An agreement is required before the amendment to the PUD increasing residential density can be approved. Public Safety: The nearest Fire Department, Station Number 39 located on Maguire Road, is approximately .25 miles from the subject property. The estimated response time is less than 2 minutes. The Police Station is located 2.5 miles from the subject property. The estimated response time is 2- 4 minutes. Drainage: The subject site is located within the Apopka Drainage Basin and therefore must meet the requirements of Section 11.7 (a) SJRWMD Management and Storage of Surface Water Handbook. A master stormwater pond is existing. Recreation and Open Space: No impacts on recreation facilities levels of service are proposed with the permitted density. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE (DRC) RECOMMENDATION: The Development Review Committee (DRC) met on February 5, 2014, and reviewed the applicant's request. The DRC voted unanimously to recommend approval of the amendment to the PUD and PUD Land Use Plan subject to resolution of outstanding comments. RECOMMENDATION: Staff is supportive of the proposed Substantial Amendment to the PUD/Land Use Plan Amendment to increase multi -family density. Attachments: Location Map Aerial Land Use Plan Renderings �rhebrOO4 Jlz ___-�__ _ Moore Roberson '` - _ " 1. 1.4 �, a `i''.,,� o�E ea�o -�r N x w U) a J W V a� a± 0 E- 31 SECTION 31, TOWNSHIP 22 SOUTH, RANGE 28 EAST MIN JIM I Ste- AA A I I 'I At PARCEL ID ■ i r 28�1204�41)3 I I CITY OF OCOEE, LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT 3, CASA MIRELLA, according to the plat thereof as recorded in Plat Book 72, Pages 124 through 126, of the Public Records of Orange County, Florida, also being described as: BEGIN at the Southeast corner of sold Lot 3; thence run the following courses along the boundary of said Lot 3. thence N00'15'51 "W, 403.28 feet; thence S89'50'10"W, 213.28 feet, thence S00'09'50"E, 21.21 feet, thence S89'50'10"W, 105.51 feet; thence S00109'50"E, 76.40 feet, thence S41'4931 "E, 14.16 feet; thence S00'00'00"E, 150.65 feet, thence S4429'46"E, 64.01 feet; thence S00'00'00"W, 99.12 feet, thence N89'44'09"E, 266.07 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Containing 2.717 acres more or less and being subject to any rights —of —way, restrictions and easements of record. OWNER/APPLICANT: MAGUIRE ROBERSON, LLC 7505 WEST SAND LAKE ROAD ORLANDO, FL 32819 PHONE: (407) 999-9985 FAX: (407) 999-9961 CONTACT: CHUCK WHITTALL & ART WELLINGTON WATER AND SEWER ORANGE COUNTY UTILITIES 9150 CURRY FORD ROAD ORLANDO, FLORIDA 32825 PHONE (407) 254-9817 FAX (407) 254-9999 CONTACT: ANDRES SALCEDO, P.E. RECLAIMED WATER CITY OF OCOEE ENGINEERING/UTILITIES DEPARTMENT 150 NORTH LAKESHORE DRIVE OCOEE, FLORIDA 34761 PHONE (407) 905-3100 FAX (407) 856-8265 CONTACT: DAVID A. WHEELER, P.E. ENGINEER/SURVEYOR: DONALD W. MCINTOSH ASSOCIATES, INC. 2200 PARK AVENUE NORTH. WINTER PARK, FL 32789 PHONE: (407) 644-4068 CONTACT: JOHN T. TOWNSEND, P.E. UTILITY SERVICE PROVIDERS ELECTRIC DUKE ENERGY 3300 EXCHANGE PLACE LAKE MARY, FLORIDA 32746 FAX (407) 938-6690 CONTACT: LILLIAN FIQUEROA—MARALES TELEPHONE SPRINT 33 N. MAIN STREET WINTER GARDEN, FLORIDA 34787 PHONE (407) 814-5344 FAX (407) 814-5320 CONTACT: MIKE SHELL LEGAL CONSULTANT SHUTTS & BOWEN, LLP 300 SOUTH ORANGE AVENUE, SUITE 1000 ORLANDO, FLORIDA 32801 PHONE: (407) 835-6795 FAX: (407) 237-2278 CONTACT: JAMES JOHNSTON CABLE TV BRIGHTHOUSE NETWORKS, LLC 844 MAGUIRE ROAD OCOEE, FLORIDA 34761 PHONE (407) 532-8508 FAX (407) 656-1162 CONTACT: P.J. KING DONALD W. McINTOSH ASSOCIATES, INC. ENGINEERS PLANNERS SURVEYORS 2200 PARK AVENUE NORTH, WINTER PARK, FLORIDA 32789 (407) 644-4068 4 a I L I 114VAi 1. COVER SHEET 2. BOUNDARY INFORMATION PLAN 3. OVERALL SITE PLAN & NOTES 4. PHASE V SITE PLAN d- N N C. z W 0 z O U z !n U Z N U O N N x (n O F- z V J z O 0 F- c F C c c F C. L U U Li a F- C_ a C de rk LL 4 C 2 C LL } Z Q Z C W a C U O 6 W C, Z U 0 W U 0 O W d W W m F- O z Q U_ i CD z 0 U) F— F (n F- U tY W d O Cr a 0 z F- 2 0 95 0- 0 w0 Cn J U X UJ W FS En W W Cn W U z �yN�y,,�� F�— U O Cn to Q C= 0 z U 0 J z O 0 NOTES: — Apparent Physical Use onto or from adjoining property or abutting streets is shown hereon as "APU". Apparent Physical Use (APU) may indicate the existence of written or unwritten property rights between adjoining owners. — Bearings based on the East line of LOT 3, CASA MIRELLA, as recorded in Plat Book 72, Pages 124 through 126 of the Puclic Records of Orange County, Florida, being N00'15'51 "W (Per Plat). — No underground improvements, installations, foundations or utilities located. — No environmental issues have been addressed by this survey. — All dimensions shown from boundary lines to improvements (other than buildings) are to center of said improvements. All symbols used to depict improvements are not to scale. — All adjoining rights —of —way, subdivisions and information on adjoining properties shown hereon is from information shown on County Tax Assessor Maps. The undersigned surveyor and Donald W. McIntosh Associates, Inc. neither attempted nor were required to do a title search regarding such information. Users of this survey are placed on notice that reliance on such information is at their own peril, in this regard. — Monument offset directions and distances are computed in cardinal directions from boundary comers relative to the bearing basis (i.e., N 0.25' — North 0.25'). — Lands shown hereon were not abstracted for rights —of —way, easements, ownership or other instruments of record by this firm. This survey does not show or address handicap ramps and slopes, sidewalk cross —slopes, exact dimensions of striping of handicap parking spaces or any other Items relating to Federal, State or local handicap compliance matters. — Fence ownership not determined unless otherwise noted. L1 C1 A= R= L= CB= C= TB= T= 9g9 X M SEC 5-18 31 CS ■ DMH • MES ■ INLET'V CIMH T CB ■ UD . YD ai USM El SSo SMH 0 RV o4 URM® Co . FMV N ARV N FM — ROL • LINE NUMBER (SEE LINE TABLE) A/C CURVE NUMBER (SEE CURVE TABLE) APPROX CENTRAL ANGLE (APU) RADIUS ASPH ARC LENGTH CHORD BEARING BC CHORD BLW TANGENT BEARING BWF TANGENT CW SPOT ELEVATION (EXISTING) CLF CONC NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES C8 (INCLUDING HANDICAP) q CM SIGN CMP SECTION, TOWNSHIP, RANGE C&G (C) CONTROL STRUCTURE DRAINAGE MANHOLE (D) MITERED END SEC71ON CURB INLET ELY CURB INLET WITH MANHOLE ELEV CATCH BASIN EP UNDERDRAIN ESMT YARD DRAIN FND UNDERGROUND SANITARY MARKER FPC SANITARY SEWER STUB -OUT FC SANITARY MANHOLE FF REUSE VALVE FOC UNDERGROUND REUSE MARKER FOOT SANITARY CLEAN OUT FM FORCEMAIN VALVE AIR RELEASE VALVE GOVT UNDERGROUND FORCEMAIN LINE ROI 1 APn HB AIR COND177ONER APPROXIMATE APPARENT PHYSICAL USE ASPHALT BACK OF CURB BLOCK WALL BARBED WIRE FENCE CONCRETE WALL CHAIN LINK FENCE CONCRETE CONCRETE BLOCK CENTERLINE CONCRETE MONUMENT CORRUGATED METAL PIPE CURB AND GUTTER COMPUTED DESCRIPTION EASTERLY ELEVATION EDGE OF PAVEMENT EASEMENT FOUND FLORIDA POWER CORPORATION FENCE CORNER FINISH FLOOR ELEVATION FIBER OPTIC CABLE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF 7RANSPORTA710N FORCEMAIN GOVERNMENT HOSEBIB tzo 30' � 30' 0 30' 60' 90' x Co co W Z Z WO Z O Q 3Q�Q U IV <0WO 0 Q ogi 0 Q U(J)Op to Zot }- I � VI Q U r- 0 N rrnn M rVr n/ 0 V/ Q O J cn W (� < Z O Z ZCLZ 0 _ Of Of O • z W z W ® w ¢ Q LJ UJ Q ZZ_ 0 0 o owN W W W W W O O J W 0 W F_ U X U Z 0 F IL X U W in a O L,J W m LO M =) N Z O 0 a 00 0 � N V_ m W F— Y F— U W U J 04 W W LL U) V] c. LL U 2 c 2 LL v v a c v a c z 2 C a z c c c F_ a a > z a 0 CI w z a Q LiJ En h z a U 0 z 0' W z z Q 0 0 z z 0 W 0 U O 0 W C9 z a x U Ct W U CI O m CL w m F- 0 z a x U_ z a 0 0 x H w W d O 0 z F- CD O U Fn U x W W h U) w U) W z vi a U 0 W W Q x cn o z U m 0 J Q z 0 �� c uH �i utvtwrnntiv i �rci i trciH PHASES III & IV MULTI —FAMILY: (CONSTRUCTED) I 100' TOTAL GROSS ACREAGE: 26.64 ACRES E U.ILDIN_G TYPE I (LESS) WETLAND/CONSERVATION AREA: 0.00 ACRES TOTAL BUILDINGS 3 UNIT TYPES (EQUALS) NET ACREAGE: 26.64 ACRES UNITS PER BUILDING 24 UNIT A — 1 BEDROOM — 48 UNITS MULTI -FAMILY UNIT B — 2 BEDROOM — 120 UNITS PER NFPA-1 2003 ED. TABLE H.5. PHASING: THE PROJECT SHALL BE DEVELOPED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PHASING SCHEDULE BELOW. BU1LDI.NG TYPE 1.1 UNIT C — 3 BEDROOM — 48 UNITS CONSTRUCTION TYPE PER ARCHITECT: V(111) EXISTING CITY OF OCOEE ZONING: ORANGE COUNTY PD - PLANNED DEVELOPMENT TOTAL BUILDINGS 4 216 UNITS 55,278 SF, THEREFORE 4,250 GPM REQUIRED UNITS PER BUILDING 36 SPRINKLED, THEREFORE 35% CREDIT NFF = 4,250 X 0.65 = 2,762.5 GPM (USE 2,750 GPM) OPEN SPACE TOTAL UNITS SITE 216 I TOTAL PARCEL OPEN SPACE REQUIRED: A MINIMUM 30% OPEN SPACE FOR THE OVERALL PROJECT PARCEL WILL BE PROVIDED PER PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT - REGULATIONS. THESE AREAS WILL BE COMPRISED OF BUFFERS, WET AND DRY RETENTION AREAS (5:1 MAXIMUM SLOPE, UNFENCED), COMMERCIAL NEEDED FIRE FLOW (NFF) RECREATION AREAS AND FACILITIES, LANDSCAPED ISLANDS, PARK SPACES AND WALKING NETWORKS AND OTHER OPEN SPACE. PER NFPA-1 2003 ED. TABLE H. .1 TOTAL PARCEL OPEN SPACE PROVIDED: 38.4% OR 10.22 ACRES = (10.22AC / 26.64AC) CONSTRUCTION TYPE PER ARCHITECT: 111�000) 16,000 SF, THEREFORE 2,750 GPM REQU RED BUFFERS � � SPRINKLED, THEREFORE 35% CREDIT I NFF = 2,750 X 0.65 = 1,787.5 GPM (USE 2,000 GPM) WEST AND SOUTH PERIMETER PUD BUFFER: 25 FEET NORTH AND EAST PERIMETER PUD BUFFER: 20 FEET 7L, i TRACT AA ' �,.=%r" i .`.' *-- ROBERSON ROAD LAND USES / _ .+ �\, , -'�- - �, .. / / 960 SF (CONSTRUCTED) + (30 000 SF IN PHASE V) = UP TO 72 960 SF `'" �-j I ONED: PD COMMERCIAL RETAIL OFFICE 42, '' -�' ``: � ` 't�-'" '' E - `�'� ` `� MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 216 = � f � � '1-% -' '��,�� � -�-: ''• •-`',� `•� RIGHT—OF—WAY UNITS (CONSTRUCTED) + (60 UNITS IN PHASE V) UP TO 276 UNITS _ PAT 0 CASA MIRELLA I ' / _,/P 72, PGS 24 126 I I PHASIN ;� f (r 7f f f PHASE I (CONSTRUCTED) 12,900 SFt OF COMMERCIAL RETAIL WITH 14,000 SF f CVS STORE THIS PHASE NOT INCLUDED IN THIS PLAN / / !.: r; ` L _ "-- T; PHASE II (CONSTRUCTED) 16,000 SF t OF COMMERCIAL/ RETAIL ( ) ? E r-- - -- PHASE III (CONSTRUCTED) NO LESS THAN 50% OF THE MULTI -FAMILY WITH CLUBHOUSE AND AMENITY AREA, BOTH ENTRY AREAS --.'.mom PHASE IV (CONSTRUCTED) REMAINDER OF THE MULTI -FAMILY IF SPLIT IN TWO (2) PHASES4,z \ i", 0 PHASE V 60 MULTIFAMILY UNITS ` z °�`` .■=r: `` . `�THE APPLICANT SHALL BE PER IT .�'.,..�M TED TO CONSTRUCT PHASES CONCURRENTLY OR ALL AT ONCE. lDEVELOPER RESERVES THE RIGHT TO RE SEQUENCE THE PHASING SO LONG AS EACH PHASE IS INDEPENDENT AND HAS THE ABILITY TO STAND ALONE.\\-_'jS > ✓ rr >Rt1�1 i3 �y:.�_ i.1`.:s�p'uu`.'LLJ COMMERCIAL RETAIL OFFICE PHASES I & 110 S / i,9... „a 'l'i:... -.....i` 1 .. `"'°Y� j^J�+\\', E .,ENT 3 t,.�� , M. I I ` , / ,� -, -a (2 S N \� - •�'N i M. 7 /rY£ �'�•-' h•� ! •. �' S�y OIL_. 'r1• ....J""" ,... "'' .' TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE 42,960 SF MAXIMUM ZONED: PD �', r f . = f'/� t`;` '-�.. `'�;�; ! I r i m APPROXIMATE TOTAL AREA 5.00 ACRES f f /I - . ' `•� /( % MAXIMUM BUILDING COVERAGE AREA / �� / '" : "� %��:..." "''r''=�" ' ~: y t r _ �" 0 S AREA � � .� .�^ ' �•..,;_�-_..__.-._.._....� /-'`; ;:•�-.A.� r : - `�'-� MAXIMUM IMPERVIOUS 70% /! �- ---' /r�k `v BUILDING SETBACKS ,/ � .� / !'_"...,n �/ i��fr;! �,' 'J'z+.t��`"'�,n,� • t '`'.\`.\•`` `'.`�' ``•..,,�`--•--_.._......_.---"' f .,f`� '`'.,� `a,� ``�,-, `\�r,, �.,._„_ ( i .... I ....' ` '; 1 E ..._. I -- � . FRONT YARD 25 FEET SIDE YARD 20 FEET /� �`�� POND A _ !£" r 1�, r ._ J f �! I REAR YARD 20 FEET 1� / ! '`... 1 _ �; kf l"1 l 1 - -� k J�x.- �r..,�...,,,,T 1 t' x t i E 1 / ��' �P£ 1 ss » i r" � �'�,� MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT UP TO 35 FEET _ / �, �p�.� f-; r 1 / �J� ADDITIONAL BUILDING SETBACKS 100 FEET FROM THE CENTERLINE OF MAGUIRE ROAD l ! ;`` t { t''`' -..% ` ! f ,PHASE 111% r - - _ € RETAIL PERIMETER PARCEL H BOUNDARY SETBACK 35 FEET ALL SIDES MINIMUM /�kpll� iF f EXISTING fv 5-q_ E M. ; ,..,3. PARKING MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS 5 SPACES PER 1,000 SF - 1 SPACE PER 200 SF OR 214 SPACES REQUIRED Ij '` / i1 r;�'' ' �., Y �" I ,M1y .�•:;f r B ( ) �, #0Z/, +% I NOT PART OF I ' ' PARKING PROVIDED 228 SPACES IN EXCESS OF CODE REQUIREMENT SEE ADDITIONAL SUMMARYSHEET) f �I THIS t t4 PHA`8F.--__�r I Q (-}y t ;���-- fJ THIS AMENDMEN�'' �tJ 1�w f ;i . ~� -%.-Kr l .r�,x•--"'',� , f' •�--...,.:T/ _____ ..—.— ,/ /�' s 'S/. V_Cy: f 1-..__.. _ JryiJr', ,.4`.,&,r € E {c :._�.._....._ SI N PHASE III IV MULTI FAMILY �C N TR TED) RCEL H /, �. , _ �,/`� rv---� ,�� ,,. f (� ( )� L ION B ERE PD ,.. t !� t� t -`ter, :F //R�•�' �....W ;, NOT . T TOTAL NUMBER OF UNITS 216 UNITS r ,_ /� ; ". �, t�\� Lj €(_ _ €x - _ - `, r.THIS^;wyKt i,t' it�l w �:x' i `t �"'� £ ' € ----n-.^.^..i..._�. ._. 1 APPROXIMATE TOTAL AREA 18.84 ACRES �, �... E...l....,.... � ,. r --•=; r r .J ,-'-kA „.�,. ��;�„s, ,�.,q.. �...__„_____. ' -: � � y MULTI -FAMILY GROSS DENSITY 8.1 DU AC = 216 DU 26.64 GROSS AC)1 MULTI -FAMILY NET DENSITY 11.5 DU/AC = (216 DU / 18.84 NET AC) I ... - ...... „_-...... XV,._...,.,..._ ,..k-..,....m ...R-... a..n_ _ MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT UP TO 45 FEET ' 1 '� C i;' !t `, _ a ; g j - - _ _ - f.... _. _ _ ._ _ - - r > b $,•' Jns.. rfzss,vss»,i' . , s .... A ,,,. . ,.., I 0 MAXIMUM BUILDING COVERAGE AREA 30% ` vm MAXIMUM IMPERVIOUS AREA 70% `u , ifs, .�; , [ `t I RTAIL I ' MINIMUM NET LIVING AREA 850 SF MINIMUM t' / - - ' �' _ _ - € E ( _ / CVS ``: �-•.r — �' PH ` 3�'s. ? f i �'ws' �.I V�7 ENCLOSED GARAGE SPACES 70 STALL SPACES ARE PROVIDED IN 10 UNIT BUILDINGS AS SHOWN ON THE PLAN. Al, ! /'"•.-.�� 7E.-' .-..._.. .. ..xyh,.s l.-""`.ri?`?�;j:'w.Y'C- xr j � r , t ; f F i i E i � i ! BUILDING SETBACKStF FRONT BUILDING SETBACK FROM PARKING AREA 25 FEET »..��/�:ti \:`iris _ I f i4 �t f ��_ :. Y �i# I S GrK - PHASSIDE YARD TYPICAL 30 FEET MINIMUM tl i , I j�- f F-- - .-- - -••_-{ Iu SIDE YARD - 3 STORY BLDG TO BLDG 30 FEET MINIMUM I t �, `� I Y,� I ? L©CATION �� p EXISni NG POND B � tM1 �, _ l � � REAR YARD - TYPICAL 30 FEET MINIMUM `�`ti�. �ftE. Y 111 NOT P ;; q ( I A(�TQF E° REAR YARD - AGAINST STORMWATER POND 15 FEET MINIMUM I ` . �_ __ _ 1� " I I' l '� TH°IS AMENDMENT ' ADDITIONAL BUILDING SETBACKS 100 FEET FROM CENTERLINE OF MAGUIRE ROAD --__._._ _.__ _� - I �, - ---- RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PERIMETER BOUNDARY SETBACK 35 FEET ALL SIDES MINIMUMy{ 3 I �e� _? IL �� GARAGE BUILDING PERIMETER BOUNDARY SETBACK 25 FEET ALL SIDES MINIMUM PARKING PROVIDED, INCLUDING CLUBHOUSE 2.14 SPACES PER DWELLING UNIT TOTAL = 461 SPACES"""•"""""""�—""�.."..... �- PHASE V M wm, ` — o+t r.— - ey.. _ •.eu Lfw — — _-... — — n m ` nN -xm..,,,rrn>mmmaw�..rmvnw.��eSYrH^d',. Fi£ ma .- TOTAL NUMBER OF UNITS 60 UNITS (MULTIFAMILY) APPROXIMATE TOTAL AREA 2.8 ACRES t _ _ _r MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT UP TO 45 FEET MAGUIRE RO���D MAXIMUM BUILDING COVERAGE AREA 40% MAXIMUM IMPERVIOUS AREA 70% € Iz g� FRONT BUILDING SETBACKS 100 FEET FROM CENTERLINE OF MAGUIRE ROAD a ZONED: PD I ZONED: PD COMM PERIMETER PARCEL H BOUNDARY SETBACK 35 FEET ALL SIDES MINIMUM PARKING MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS 2.25 SPACES PER UNIT = 60 UNITS * 2.25 SPACES = 135 SPACES j PARKING PROVIDED 135 SPACES r KENTSHIRE BLVD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR PHASES III THROUGH V ONE COMMUNITY CLUBHOUSE WILL BE PROVIDED FOR PHASES III THROUGH V. THIS BUILDING WILL ALSO SERVE AS THE LEASING CENTER FOR PHASES III THROUGH V, AND PROVIDE FOR A COMMUNITY MEETING AREA. / f AMENITY AREAS TO BE WITHIN THE OPEN SPACE AREAS MAY INCLUDE: SWIMMING POOL (AS SHOWN), PEDESTRIAN / if ' TRAILS, BOARDWALKS, TOT -LOTS, AND PICNIC AREAS. 4 TOTAL AMENITY AREAS HAVE BEEN PROVIDED. 4r i' t % o COND111ONS OF APPROVAL FOR PHASES 11. III. IV AND V f% Q BENCHES, BIKE RACKS, AND TRASH RECEPTACLES SHALL BE PROVIDED AND LOCATED AT THE ENTRANCE TO EACH BUILDING. ,o RIGHT-OF-WAY AND ROADS INTERNAL TO THE PROJECT SHALL BE PRIVATE. r E WATER & WASTEWATER SERVICE BY ORANGE COUNTY UTILITIES 3 I I RECLAIM WATER SERVICE BY CITY OF OCOEE i I WAIVER TABLE (PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PER ANNEXATION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR BELMERE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (ORB 9741/PG 8367) 1 `t It ITEM CODE ISSUE STANDARD PROPOSED JUSTIFICATION AND PUBLIC BENEFIT 1 ARTICLE V BUILDING HEIGHT SEC11ON 5 FOR MULTIFAMILY 35 FEET MAX. 45 FEET MAX. PROPOSED RIGHT-OF-WAY DEDICATION TABLE 2 RESIDENTIAL NO NEW WAIVERS ARE REQUESTED `t \ t , INSTALL 8 EASTERN RED CEDAR TREES (10'-12' HEIGHT) 15' O.C. STAGGARD. TREES SHALL BE NO CLOSER THAN 6' FROM BACK OF CURB PHASES I & II RETAIIL/COMMERCIAL PARKING SUMMARY: 228 SPACES PROVIDED FOR RETAIL A, RETAIL B & CVS RETAIL A & CVS REQUIRE 135 SPACES RETAIL A & CVS PROVIDE 159 SPACES (24 SPACES ARE AVAILABLE FOR RETAIL B USE) RETAIL B REQUIRE 80 SPACES RETAIL B PROVIDE 62 SPACES FOR INFORMATION CROSS ACCESS/PARKING AGREEMENT WILL BE REQUIRED ONLY BETWEEN RETAIL A/CVS AND RETAIL B (APPLICANT SHALL EXECUTE AND RECORD A DECLARATION OF CROSS PARKING EASEMENT FOR MAGUIRE SHOPPES 11 LOTS 2 & 3 AND CASA MIRELLA LOT 2 WITH A JOINDER BY CVS AS LESSEE OF MAGUIRE SHOPPES II LOT 2 AND ANY OTHER NECESSARY ENTITIES.) TRIP GENERATION (PHASE V) *PER ITE 8TH EDITION (ADT ON A, WEEKDAY) —60 UNIT MULTIFAMILY x 6.65 TRIPS PER UNIT = 399 ADT w Z S d w U O zi oN z o a N a w w V O U 0 w 0 0 Q �r c J r U X c W Z N W Z M (/�� V / U m t-- 0 Q a, U M Q o 0 Q �- (V) V/ Q o w � T 1 to X Z a d O Z � o M I— J I N Z_CLz SV = fs O m Z w � W � Z U ® U) Q Y a Lu ZZ a _ m m O(.D0 0 0 w LL1 N CD -� 0 r r nzt C } m n m Q a_ w S ,^ VJ Q Q 0 � Z ® C 0 W W W H W Q J W OU m 0- O p �= LI J o W W m >- Q J F- U = d of F- Z0 F- V) m V) m 1--: z Ld (n z 0 0 z cn (6 U 0 U) U) p z 3i z 0 0 O Ld z C-9 V) V) LLI m z 0 cr- 0 z 13E Ld z z cr- 0 m irf 0 LL. z Z 0 LAJ CL 0 0 w 0 d LAJ 0 z r 0 d LAJ 0 D O CL LLI w Ld m F- 0 z 0 z U) O f2 r 0 LLJ O F- CD 0 0 M x Ld Ld iE cf) uj (10 LLJ U: C3 z M LLI F- C-) 0 U) (n O 0 0 -4-11- — --- -1-2> —.- Az, OD LL. ZC5 �0- z 0 z 2— 70 (6wz Ld <0 < 0 N 00P -i cr w 'o <U)UJO V) z< W 0 0 M r7 I I I I I Wu ,"e PIA (n 00 rw rp L0 l- w LAJ M Lo LLI It It z C-4 > V) M 0 W 0 V) 't < C7) 00 r- 04 UJ -1 n 0 6) SITE DATA V) < 0 V) TOTAL UNITS: 60 UNITS < o u- PARKING REQUIRED: 2.25 SPACES/UNIT W (60 UNITS * 2.25 SPACES/UNIT) 135 SPACES w V) Z PARKING PROVIDED: 5 HC SPACES z 0 < < 130 STANDARD SPACES —i F C14 135 TOTAL SPACES Z (L z SET BACKS: FRONT. 90' m 0 m Z a rW W Z) X 0 Z w V) Q < LLJ Y LLJ Z Z m 0(.D0 z 0 0 w z F- Wc-4 04 Q F- rn W m m - --------------- Tw • < z 0- 000- -J u- F- LLj Ld Lj Z F- F- W W wW0 0 0 > u- z LJ 0 m w cl) M < Q a- z V) M D n c w o W I Z > W LL w CL m 0 NOTE: THE SCALE OF THESE PLANS MAY o N (n HAVE qq- CHANGED DUE TO REPRODUCTION. Unicorp National Developments Orlando, Florida (?AW A" aerial view � I Unicorp National Developments Orlando, Florida CAW W" conceptual rendering � Unicorp National Developments Orlando, Florida C,444 A" conceptual rendering � 3 Unicorp National Developments Orlando, Florida conceptual rendering � Unicorp National Developments Orlando, Florida (?A4 a ft " conceptual rendering � Unicorp National Developments Orlando, Florida 0 25' W 100, "=MINI Q.L.F. I I6W'= V-Q' site plan Orlando, Florida ITEM NUMBER V. MISCELLANEOUS A. Project Status Update B. February Calendar All Sports Memory Care Arbours at Crown Point Arden Park North Phase 2 Barkeritavil le Casa Mirella Casa Mirella Citrus Medical Family Dollar Store (Silver Star Rd) Family Dollar Store (Wurst Rd) Fountains at Tivoli Place F/X Warehouse Complex Heaven Bound Church Iglesia Cristiana Sendero De Luz Iglesia Cristiana Sendero De Luz Lake Olympia Square Phase 3 Marshall Farms Business Center Oaks Commerce Center Ocoee Elementary School Expansion Ocoee Glad Tidings Assembly of God LS-2013-002 Site Plan 10/29/2013 AF 3rd Approved by City Commission on 12/03/13 PUD/Land Use RZ-14-01-01 Plan Amend 01/16/14 AF 1st Comments due 02/04/14 Preliminary Subdivision LS-2013-003 Plan 07/10/13 AX-08-13-41, RZ-13- 08-07 & CPA-2013- Annex, Rez & 002 CPA 08/28/13 PUD/Land Use RZ-13-12-12 Plan Amend 12/20/13 JPA-13-001 & CPA- JPA & CPA 2013-004 Amendment 12/13/13 LS-99-014 FSP Revision 01/17/13 Small Scale SS-2013-009 Site Plan 12/18/13 SS-2013-007 Site Plan 12/20/13 Plat Review 01/09/14 Preliminary / LS-2007-023 Final Site Plan 05/11/09 AX-07-13-39, RZ-13- Annex, Rez & 07-05 & 1-13-SE- Special 019 Exception 07/24/13 Special 1-12SE-018 Exception 05/16/13 SS-2013-006 Site Plan 12/18/13 CP-1-1-2014 Conceptual Use 01/09/14 LS-2009-003 Final Site Plan 12/10/09 SS-2007-005 Final Site Plan 09/19/11 Annexation & Rezoning 11/14/13 Small Scale SS-2014-001 Site Plan 01/30/14 AF 1st Comments sent 08/01/13 MR 2nd Approved by City Commission on 11/05/13 Comments sent 01/24/14; Scheduled for P & MR 1st Z meeting on 02/11/14. MR 1st Comments sent 01/13/14; on hold AF 1st Comments sent 01/30/13 Comments sent 01/21/14; TSRC Meeting AF 1st held 01/30/14 AF 2nd Comments sent 01/24/14 AF 2nd Comments sent 01/29/14 On hold pending receipt of the Joinder & BH 4th Consent Forms AF 1st Comments sent 08/15/13 MR 2nd Comments sent 06/11/13 MR 2nd Comments sent 01/08/14 MR 1st Comments due 01/28/14 AF 2nd Staff Comments sent out 1 /11 /10 AF 6th Staff comments sent out 09/28/11 Scheduled for P & Z on 01/14/14 & City AF 1st Commission on 02/18/14 AF 1st Comments due 02/17/14 Current Project Report Feb 2014/Review 2/5/2014 1 of 2 Health Care Center Addition Ocoee Pines Park Place Paws & Play Roberson Road AX & RZ RT Ocoee, LLC Shoppes at the Village Spring Lake Reserve Wendy's Restaurant Whisper Winds Lanc SS-2013-002 Site Plan 04/24/13 AF 1st Comments sent 05/09/13 PUD Land Use Comments sents 10/12113; DRC meeting Plan held 11/05/13; Scheduled for P & Z on RZ-13-10-08 Amendment 10/08/13 AF 1st 12/10113; Continued to 01/14/14-Cancelled Preliminary/Fin al Subdivision LS-2013-004 Plan 12/13/13 MR 2nd Comments sent 01/08/14 Small Scale SS-2013-003 Site Plan 11/25/13 AF 4th Approved 12/18/13 AX-05-010-21 Initial Zoning of RZ-10-05-04 PUD 05/24/10 AF Small Scale SS-2013-008 Site Plan 01/27/14 AF Small Scale Site SS-2008-005 Plan 04/23/10 AF RZ-13-11-09 AX-07-10-26 RZ-10-11-12 PUD Rezoning 12/13/13 AF Plat Review Annexation & 12/17/13 AF 01/07/14 AF 1 st Staff comments sent out 6/17/10 2nd Comments due 02/11/14 3rd Staff comments sent out 5/24/10 Comments sent 12/31/13; DRC held on 01/08/14; Scheduled for P & Z on 01/14/14 2nd City Commission on 02/18/14 Approved by City Commission 01/21/14; 3rd Pending recording 5th Comments due 02/05/14 Current Project Report Feb 2014/Review 2/5/2014 2 of 2 dun Mon Tuo Wod Thu Sri fat 1 2 3 5 6 7 City Commission HRDB @ 7:00 pm / Meeting @ 7:15pm / Conference Room Comm. Chambers 9 10 11 12 13 1* 15 Planning and Zoning Community Grant Citizen Advisory Commission @ 7:00 Review Board @ Council to Fire Dept. pm / Comm. 7:00 pm/ Comm @, 7:00pm / Fire Chambers Chambers Station 25 2/18 Sfafilepo' cluE, 16 17 19 20 21 22 CRA Update Mtg. @ 6:00 pm/ Comm. Chambers City Commission Meeting @ 7:15pm / President's Day Comm. Chambers (VffB ?Yj Aojodjod) 4 23 24 25 26 27 28 Code Enforcement West Orange 03/04 Agenda Items due to City ClerkCity Board @ 7:00 pm / Comm. Chambers 03/04 Staff Reports due Manager Airport Authority 10:00 a.m./ in Commission Chambers Black History Month( Essay Awards @ 7:00 pm in Comm. Chambers 1