Download
sheeler avenue townhomes planned development n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Sheeler Avenue Townhomes Planned Development PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Sheeler Avenue Townhomes Planned Development

Sheeler Avenue Townhomes Planned Development

133 Views Download Presentation
Download Presentation

Sheeler Avenue Townhomes Planned Development

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. Sheeler Avenue TownhomesPlanned Development The Keewin Real Property Company, LLC

  2. Evidence Book • Printed Slides of Powerpoint Presentation to Orange County BCC on 7/10/07 • Professional Credentials of Traffic Engineer Mohammed Abdallah, PE • Professional Credential of Civil Engineer David Evans, PE • Traffic Impact Analysis for Sheeler Road dated December 2005 • Phase I Environmental Site Assessment dated December 13, 2005 • OC Capacity Reservation Certificate No. 06-90 dated November 29, 2006 • Sales Comparison Analysis as of May 2007 • Capacity Enhancement Agreement with OCPS dated May 22, 2007 • Orange County Final Staff Recommendation dated June 20, 2007 • Traffic Impact Memorandum dated July 9, 2007

  3. Location

  4. Area Future Land Use Map Commercial Low Density Residential Medium Density Residential

  5. Keewin’s Request Overturn Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation for denial and approve Planned Development Rezoning for 174 townhomes (reduced from 200) in accordance with staff recommended conditions

  6. Surrounding Residential

  7. Surrounding Residential

  8. Surrounding Residential

  9. Surrounding Residential

  10. Nearby Commercial

  11. Nearby Commercial

  12. Nearby Commercial

  13. Development Considerations 1. Future Land Use 2. Schools 3. Traffic

  14. Future Land Use Designation • Medium Density Residential future land use adopted 16 years ago in 1991 • MDR Allows up to 20 Units Per Acre • Low Medium Density Allows up to 10 DU/A • Low Density Allows up to 4 DU/A • We Are reducing our request to 8.13 DU/A

  15. School Impacts Capacity Enhancement Agreement Approved by OCPS May 22, 2007 and Executed Additional Contribution Amount of $1.3 Million Less the Prepaid School Impact Fees Capacity Available Upon Payment

  16. Traffic Impacts Capacity Reservation Certificate Executed “The purpose of the Capacity Reservation process is to allow property owners and developers to ensure that capacity is available when it is needed for a particular project.” (Orange County Land Development Code) Issued in November 2006. Total Obligation of $429,275 with first payment of $144,727 made to Orange County on November 29, 2006

  17. Orange County Staff Recommendation for Approval • Project “compatible with the existing development in the area.” • Project “consistent with the Medium Density Residential land use.” • Traffic Concurrency – “Capacity is available to be encumbered for this project.”

  18. Planning & Zoning: Denial • Reasons Stated: • Traffic/Inadequate Infrastructure • Consistency with Comp Plan • Compatibility

  19. Changes to Project Since P & Z Commission Decision Project size has been reduced from 200 DU to 174 DU since hearing Density has been reduced from 10 DU/A to 8.13 DU/A Capacity Enhancement Agreement has now been executed by OCPS Implication of having a Transportation Concurrency Reservation Certificate was not adequately understood by P & Z Commission Grounds for denial cited by P & Z are not legally defensible

  20. June 2007 Community Meeting Issues • Traffic Impacts • Environmental Issues • Accidents on Sheeler Road • Compatibility

  21. Traffic Concerns • Community Meeting statements that there were numerous accidents on Sheeler Rd. • However, Orange County crash data states that in the vicinity of the project entrance and 10th Street, there were only 3 crashes between January 2006 and May 2007 • Community Meeting statements that it was difficult to exit 10th Street today and that the project will significantly impair the conditions • However, current traffic studies reflect that there are only 60 vehicles in the evening peak hour and the road has a capacity many times that amount with average delays of 16 seconds at the stop sign at the 10th Street intersection with Sheeler. The intersection is operating at LOS C • The project traffic is only 6.5% of the total traffic on Sheeler and does not cause the road to fail. Sheeler is presently operating at 70% of capacity and can easily accommodate the project • And, opening of Keene Road Interchange with SR 414 in 2009 (before project fully opens) is expected to reduce amount of vehicles going north on Sheeler Road.

  22. Traffic Concerns • Project meets Traffic Concurrency Requirements • Project has a Concurrency Reservation Certificate with substantial funds paid to Orange County • Project contributed 33 feet of right of way to Orange County for widening of Sheeler Road • With Concurrency Reservation Certificate, traffic concurrency is not a legal issue

  23. Environmental Issues • Community Meeting statement that the area had many endangered or protected species • However, the facts are that an Ecological Constraints Review performed by environmental scientists reflects that only gopher tortoises actually appeared on site and they will be handled in the manner required by new regulations • Additional detailed environmental surveys by licensed professional required in accordance with Orange County land development regulations at time of Preliminary Subdivision Plan approval

  24. Compatibility Issues • Current Land Use • North: Single Family (R-1) • East: Manufactured Homes (R-3) and Commercial (Church) • West: Single Family (R-1) • South: City of Apopka PUD (Single Family) • Future Land Use • North: Medium Density Residential • East: Commercial • West: Single Family Residential • South: City of Apopka Commercial, Residential and Orange County Medium Density Residential

  25. What Does Compatibility Not Mean? • Does it mean that housing adjacent to each other must be the same density? ABSOLUTELY NOT! • What is the basis for that conclusion? • The Orange County Comprehensive Plan requires diversity of housing types • Common sense would suggest that if that were the case, then all housing would be the same everywhere • Best example might be to simply look at the Orange County Land Use Map • Another example-group homes in single family neighborhoods are compatible-case decided by the 5th DCA • Planning and Zoning Commission erroneously concluded that because there were no townhomes in the area, then the introduction of townhomes would create incompatibility

  26. Community Meeting Concerns About Compatibility • Statements were made by area residents that they were opposed to this “low income housing project” and that it would devalue their homes • Public is misinformed about the nature of the project since it is a market rate “for sale” project that will have units in which the minimum sales price projection is in the range of $205,000 to $235,000 per unit • An analysis of home sales in the area of the project reflects 58 sales over the 2005-2006 time period when prices of homes were rapidly rising. • The average sales price of a home in the vicinity of the project was $176,000 during that period

  27. Community Meeting Concerns About Compatibility Concerns were expressed that the townhomes would be populated by two and three families Facts are that Orange County code limits the number of people that can reside in a residence Townhouses will be subject to mandatory Homeowners Association which will assess fees to assure proper maintenance and to enforce occupancy restrictions to be contained in a recorded Declaration of Restrictive Covenants

  28. Community Meeting Concerns About Compatibility • Concerns were expressed that the townhomes could be rented • The owners of townhomes have the same right to rent their homes as the owners of single family detached residences • There may have been a misconception as to the development standards for townhomes as compared to the those applicable to single family residences:

  29. District Lot Size AC Area Width Front Back Side Height R-1    5,000    1,000   50    20     20    5    35    R-3  4,500    1,000   45  20    20    5    35 TH NA 1,200 NA 20 20 0 35 Orange County Zoning Standard Comparisons of Adjacent Residential Properties

  30. Compatibility Compatibility does not mean that housing types have to be the same Orange County Code identifies setbacks, buffers, and walls, as methods to facilitate compatibility Orange County regulations and practice encourage transitional land use designations as a compatibility tool Project has a 25 foot buffer, meets all setback requirements, and has a masonry wall along Sheeler Avenue

  31. Public Policy Considerations FUTURE LAND USE: The Growth Management Plan for this property has been in place for 16 years designating a density of up to 20 dwelling units per acre. To deny the project based upon compatibility with the Comp Plan is to ignore the County’s own policies, the planning horizon for future land use, and the fabric of the Future Land Use Map itself.

  32. Public Policy Considerations URBAN SPRAWL: This project is within the Urban Service Area and is essentially an infill project. Population projections as reflected in the Penn Study, My Region.org, and the Bureau of Economic and Business Research at the University of Florida all reflect enormous population gains in Orange County and central Florida through 2030 (Florida will become the 3rd most populous state behind California and Texas). Failure to provide housing densities inside the Urban Service Area will unquestionably impact housing needs that stimulate urban sprawl.

  33. Public Policy Considerations HOUSING: There is a present and growing housing need in Orange County for work force housing. While this project may ultimately not meet those standards, clearly, the housing costs for this townhome product in this location provides housing in a more affordable range and quality than can be achieved with traditional housing stock.

  34. Public Policy Considerations CONCURRENCY: This project meets concurrency in the two most critical areas-transportation and education. The County sets up infrastructure regulations that land developers must meet in order to build projects. The developer has met ALL the County requirements, and to deny the project when it meets all standards is not good public policy.

  35. Keewin respectfully requests that the Board of County Commissioners Approve the Project with the reduced unit count and in accordance with staff recommendations