Sheeler Avenue Sheeler Avenue TownhomesTownhomes

Planned DevelopmentPlanned Development

The Keewin Real Property Company, LLCThe Keewin Real Property Company, LLC

Evidence BookEvidence Book

1.1. Printed Slides of Powerpoint Presentation to Orange County BCC on 7/10/07Printed Slides of Powerpoint Presentation to Orange County BCC on 7/10/07

2.2. Professional Credentials of Traffic Engineer Mohammed Abdallah, PEProfessional Credentials of Traffic Engineer Mohammed Abdallah, PE

3.3. Professional Credential of Civil Engineer David Evans, PEProfessional Credential of Civil Engineer David Evans, PE

4.4. Traffic Impact Analysis for Sheeler Road dated December 2005Traffic Impact Analysis for Sheeler Road dated December 2005

5.5. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment dated December 13, 2005Phase I Environmental Site Assessment dated December 13, 2005

6.6. OC Capacity Reservation Certificate No. 06-90 dated November 29, 2006 OC Capacity Reservation Certificate No. 06-90 dated November 29, 2006

7.7. Sales Comparison Analysis as of May 2007Sales Comparison Analysis as of May 2007

8.8. Capacity Enhancement Agreement with OCPS dated May 22, 2007Capacity Enhancement Agreement with OCPS dated May 22, 2007

9.9. Orange County Final Staff Recommendation dated June 20, 2007Orange County Final Staff Recommendation dated June 20, 2007

10.10. Traffic Impact Memorandum dated July 9, 2007Traffic Impact Memorandum dated July 9, 2007

LocationLocation

Area Future Land Use MapArea Future Land Use Map

Commercial

Low Density Residential

Medium Density Residential

Keewin’s RequestKeewin’s Request

Overturn Planning and Zoning Commission Overturn Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation for denial and approve Planned Recommendation for denial and approve Planned Development Rezoning for 174 townhomes Development Rezoning for 174 townhomes (reduced from 200) in accordance with staff (reduced from 200) in accordance with staff recommended conditionsrecommended conditions

Surrounding ResidentialSurrounding Residential

Surrounding ResidentialSurrounding Residential

Surrounding ResidentialSurrounding Residential

Surrounding ResidentialSurrounding Residential

Nearby CommercialNearby Commercial

Nearby CommercialNearby Commercial

Nearby CommercialNearby Commercial

Development ConsiderationsDevelopment Considerations

1. Future Land Use1. Future Land Use

2. Schools2. Schools

3. Traffic3. Traffic

Future Land Use DesignationFuture Land Use Designation

Medium Density Residential future land use adopted 16 years ago in Medium Density Residential future land use adopted 16 years ago in 19911991

MDR Allows up to MDR Allows up to 2020 Units Per Acre Units Per Acre• Low Medium Density Allows up to 10 DU/ALow Medium Density Allows up to 10 DU/A• Low Density Allows up to 4 DU/ALow Density Allows up to 4 DU/A

We Are We Are reducingreducing our request to our request to 8.138.13 DU/A DU/A

School ImpactsSchool Impacts

Capacity Enhancement Agreement Approved by Capacity Enhancement Agreement Approved by OCPS May 22, 2007 and OCPS May 22, 2007 and ExecutedExecuted

Additional Contribution Amount of Additional Contribution Amount of $1.3 Million $1.3 Million Less the Prepaid School Impact FeesLess the Prepaid School Impact Fees

Capacity Available Upon PaymentCapacity Available Upon Payment

Traffic ImpactsTraffic ImpactsCapacity Reservation Certificate Capacity Reservation Certificate ExecutedExecuted

“ “The purpose of the Capacity Reservation process is to The purpose of the Capacity Reservation process is to allow property owners and developers to ensure that allow property owners and developers to ensure that capacity is available when it is needed for a particular capacity is available when it is needed for a particular project.” (Orange County Land Development Code)project.” (Orange County Land Development Code)

Issued in November 2006Issued in November 2006..

Total Obligation of $429,275 with first Total Obligation of $429,275 with first payment of $144,727 made to Orange payment of $144,727 made to Orange County on November 29, 2006County on November 29, 2006

Orange County Staff Orange County Staff Recommendation for ApprovalRecommendation for Approval

Project “Project “compatiblecompatible with the existing with the existing development in the area.”development in the area.”

Project “Project “consistent consistent with the Medium with the Medium Density Residential land use.”Density Residential land use.”

Traffic Concurrency – “Traffic Concurrency – “Capacity is Capacity is availableavailable to be encumbered for this to be encumbered for this project.”project.”

Planning & Zoning: DenialPlanning & Zoning: Denial

Reasons Stated:Reasons Stated:• Traffic/Inadequate Infrastructure Traffic/Inadequate Infrastructure

• Consistency with Comp PlanConsistency with Comp Plan

• CompatibilityCompatibility

Changes to Project Since P & Z Changes to Project Since P & Z Commission DecisionCommission Decision

Project size has been reduced from 200 DU to 174 DU Project size has been reduced from 200 DU to 174 DU since hearingsince hearing

Density has been reduced from 10 DU/A to 8.13 DU/ADensity has been reduced from 10 DU/A to 8.13 DU/A

Capacity Enhancement Agreement has now been Capacity Enhancement Agreement has now been executed by OCPSexecuted by OCPS

Implication of having a Transportation Concurrency Implication of having a Transportation Concurrency Reservation Certificate was not adequately Reservation Certificate was not adequately understood by P & Z Commissionunderstood by P & Z Commission

Grounds for denial cited by P & Z are not legally defensibleGrounds for denial cited by P & Z are not legally defensible

June 2007 Community Meeting Issues

Traffic Impacts

Environmental Issues

Accidents on Sheeler Road

Compatibility

Traffic ConcernsCommunity 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 conditionsHowever, 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 projectAnd, 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.

Traffic ConcernsTraffic Concerns Project meets Traffic Concurrency Project meets Traffic Concurrency

Requirements Requirements Project has a Concurrency Reservation Project has a Concurrency Reservation

Certificate with substantial funds paid to Certificate with substantial funds paid to Orange County Orange County

Project contributed 33 feet of right of way Project contributed 33 feet of right of way to Orange County for widening of Sheeler to Orange County for widening of Sheeler RoadRoad

With Concurrency Reservation Certificate, With Concurrency Reservation Certificate, traffic concurrency is not a legal issuetraffic concurrency is not a legal issue

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

Compatibility IssuesCompatibility Issues Current Land UseCurrent Land Use

• North: Single Family (R-1)North: Single Family (R-1)• East: Manufactured Homes (R-3) East: Manufactured Homes (R-3) and Commercial and Commercial (Church)(Church)

• West: Single Family (R-1)West: Single Family (R-1)• South: City of Apopka PUD (Single Family)South: City of Apopka PUD (Single Family)

Future Land UseFuture Land Use• North: Medium Density ResidentialNorth: Medium Density Residential• East: CommercialEast: Commercial• West: Single Family ResidentialWest: Single Family Residential• South: City of Apopka Commercial, Residential and South: City of Apopka Commercial, Residential and

Orange County Medium Density ResidentialOrange County Medium Density Residential

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

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

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

Community Meeting Concerns About Compatibility

Concerns were expressed that the townhomes could be rentedThe 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:

Orange County Zoning Standard Comparisons of Adjacent

Residential Properties

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

CompatibilityCompatibilityCompatibility does not mean that housing types Compatibility does not mean that housing types

have to be the samehave to be the same

Orange County Code identifies setbacks, buffers, Orange County Code identifies setbacks, buffers, and walls, as methods to facilitate compatibilityand walls, as methods to facilitate compatibility

Orange County regulations and practice Orange County regulations and practice encourage transitional land use designations encourage transitional land use designations as a compatibility toolas a compatibility tool

Project has a 25 foot buffer, meets all setback Project has a 25 foot buffer, meets all setback requirements, and has a masonry wall along requirements, and has a masonry wall along Sheeler Avenue Sheeler Avenue

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.

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.

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.

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.

Keewin respectfully requests that the Board of County

Commissioners Approve the Project with the reduced unit count and in accordance with

staff recommendations