Office
of the |
|
|||
| [
City Council ] [ Meetings & Events ] [ Boards
] [ Elections ] [ Orlando's
History ] [ Home ] |
April 30, 2001 |
||
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
On Monday, April 30, 2001 at 10:09 a.m.,
the Orlando City Council met in City Council Chambers, 400 S. Orange
Avenue, Orlando, Florida for a Special City Council meeting. Mayor Hood called the meeting to order. Interim City Clerk Amy T. Iennaco announced there was a
quorum with all members present. Present:
Mayor Hood called on Planning and Development Director
Dean Grandin to explain the history of the Infill Housing ordinance’s
development. Mr. Grandin
reviewed the history and the intent of the proposed ordinance as outlined
in the attached powerpoint presentation. Mrs. Iennaco read an ordinance amending the Land
Development Code of the City of Orlando by amending Chapter 58 (Zoning
Districts and Uses), by amending Figure 2A.LDC, Figure 2C.LDC, Figure
2C.LDC, and footnotes; by amending Section 58.510 “Purpose of Attached
Dwelling Development Regulations”; by amending Section 58.153
“Development Site Standards and Principal Building Setbacks”; by
amending part 3C “Tandem Single Family Developments”; by amending
58.514 “Purpose of Tandem Single Family Development Regulations”; by
amending Section 58.515 “Review Standards”; by amending Section 58.516
“Procedural Requirements”; by amending Section 58.517 “Development
Site Standards and Principal Building Setbacks”; by deleting Section
58.518 “Access”; by amending Section 58.901 “Location”; by
amending Chapter 61 (Roadway Design and Access Management), by amending
Figure 18 “Minimum Number of Parking Spaces required for Residential
Uses”; by amending Chapter 62 (Historic Preservation and Architectural
Design), by amending Section 62.706 “Standards for New Construction”;
by amending Chapter 66 (Definitions), by amending Section 66.200
“Definitions” and providing for repeal of Infill Moratorium ordinance
Documentary #33618. It was
moved by Commissioner Lynum and seconded by Commissioner Wyman to approve
the ordinance on first reading. Mayor Hood then called upon the following members of
the public to speak regarding the Infill Housing Ordinance.
1]
Frank Anderson spoke regarding the Golden Brick Awards that he had
won for projects that would now be prohibited under this ordinance.
He specifically expressed concern over the floor to area ratio
restrictions. He believes
that this type of development is attractive for first time homeowners,
empty nesters and young professionals.
2]
Staci DeBolt spoke in favor of allowing tandem development.
Although she was initially opposed to such projects, she has seen
the high quality and is now thrilled to have it in her neighborhood.
She is also a realtor and such products are selling.
3]
Michael Halpin thanked staff and the Council for taking the time to
work through this difficult topic. He favored higher FARs, but was
primarily concerned with not allowing tandem development on interior lots.
4]
Tony Mars requested that Council leave duplexes by right and
through lot development.
5]
Bill Murphy spoke against the elimination of by-right tandems on
interior lots and showed examples on different tandem projects on the
overhead projector. He also explained his position regarding driveway setbacks.
6]
David Rose raised concerns about the timing and notice of the
hearing on this ordinance. His family members own R-2 property and they were not noticed
about the meeting today, which is a major concern since the ordinance may
have a detrimental impact on the value of their property.
7]
Michael Spencer expressed his disappointment that the
recommendations presented in the public meetings are not consistent with
the proposed ordinance.
8]
Martha Morris wanted confirmation that the ordinance did prohibit
tandem development in historic districts and opposed the increase in the
FAR.
9]
Virginia Rice stated her opposition to the ordinance.
She felt that the “workshops” were misleading because they did
not explain the severity of the impact on property rights.
Ms. Rice indicated that the duplexes of today are nothing like
those of the past and that there is a demand for these products.
She currently has a project in Colonialtown North and does not see
any problem with interior lot tandems.
10]
Cherl Roane, who lives in Colonialtown North, opposes the
restrictions and suggested dealing with the issue on a district by
district basis.
11]
John Pocock, a Colonialtown resident and realtor, opposes the
ordinance because he sees a demand for the product.
12]
Ann Berendzen stated that she was happy with the workshop and
surveys that were done, but was surprised and disappointed with the .5
FAR. She expressed her
disgust with the developers since she felt it is supposed to be a give and
take process and questioned whether there was an overlay proposed.
13]
David Van Gelder suggested that no changes be made until a
neighborhood can produce input saying they want it.
He suggested different zoning designations by neighborhood, not
City or district wide.
14]
Sue McNamara spoke in favor of the ordinance except that the FAR of
.5 is too high. She thanked Council for protecting the historic districts
since the Lawsona Ferncreek neighborhood is strongly opposed to tandem
development.
15]
Scott Glass, Esq., on behalf of Historic Holdings, Inc., spoke in
opposition to the ordinance and stated that the Harris Act should be kept
in mind when reducing private property rights.
In this case, Mr. Glass stated that he wasn’t sure that the City
was not launching a missile to kill a mouse.
16]
Mark Kinchla, a developer of tandems and duplexes downtown, opposed
the restrictions and asked that Council leave things alone and allow
private enterprise to revitalize downtown.
17]
Aimee Spencer strongly stated her disgust with the developers’
statements and stated that single-family homes on single-family lots are
not worthless. She felt
that it was the sweat equity of homeowners like her that were responsible
for increased values, not the developers. Mayor Hood called on Mr. Grandin to respond to the
questions raised by the public speakers.
Mr. Grandin indicated that all participants in the workshops were
sent notices of the hearing today as were owners of R-2 property. Mr. Grandin stated, with respect to interior lots, that if
they were more than 10,000 square feet in size, a developer could propose
a PD. With respect to Mr.
Murphy’s concern about driveway setbacks, Mr. Grandin indicated that the
restriction was so that cars would not overhang the public sidewalks.
He confirmed that there would be no future tandem development in
historic districts per Section 62.706.
He clarified how duplexes would be handled and discussed how
special plan overlays would work. City Council members discussed among themselves and
with staff the details and merits of various aspects of the ordinance
including through lots, parking for duplexes, bedroom counts vs. square
footage, the cost of getting a PD, legal notice requirements for zoning
changes that were exceeded in this case, housing values in downtown, the
merits of a City-wide policy vs. an overlay plan, implementation concerns
with proper permitting with an overlay system. Mayor Hood mentioned that if it was the desire of
Council to consider the second hearing of this ordinance at the 2 p.m. May
14, 2001 meeting, the motion should be amended to provide for that instead
of a 5:01 p.m. hearing. Commissioners
Lynum and Wyman, the maker and seconder of the motion to approve the
ordinance on first reading, both agreed to so amend the motion.
Commissioner Sheehan then moved to amend the motion to eliminate
through-lots by-right Citywide from this proposal and allow them only on a
conditional use basis. Commissioner
Page seconded the motion. Discussion
ensued regarding the proposed amendment. On the proposed through-lot amendment, Commissioners
Sheehan, Page and Vargo voted in favor of the amendment and Mayor Hood and
Commissioners Lynum, Ammerman, Wyman voted against it.
Council then voted 5-2 (Sheehan and Vargo) to pass the original
motion as amended to reflect second hearing at 2 p.m. on May 14, 2001.
There being no further business to come before Council, the meeting
was adjourned at 12:07 p.m. ________________________________ Mayor-Commissioner Glenda E. Hood
_________________________________ Interim City Clerk Amy T. Iennaco
|
|
