staff report to the zon2015-00010 municipal planning board … · 2017-11-04 · page 4...

Property Location: 205 & 215 E. Central

Blvd., 1 N. Rosalind Ave. (Northeast intersec-

tion of E. Central Blvd. and N. Rosalind Ave.)

(Parcel ID # 25-22-29-3140-03-010,050,060)

(±0.55 acres, District 4)

Applicant’s Request:

Planned Development rezoning request with a

proposed density of 391 du/ac (bonus of 105

units) to allow a mixed-use development com-

prised of 215 multifamily units and +42,000 sq.

ft. of commercial uses at 28-stories.

S U M M A RY

Location Map Subject Site

Staff Report to the

Municipal Planning Board

July 21 , 2015

CITY CENTRE PD-

215 E. CENTRAL BLVD

Z O N 2 0 1 5 - 0 0 0 1 0

I T E M # 1 2

Staff’s Recommendation:

Approval of the request, subject to the conditions

in this report.

Public Comment

Courtesy notices were mailed to property owners

within 400 ft. of the subject property during the

week of July 6, 2015. As of the published date of

this report, no inquiries have been received from

the public.

Updated: July 14, 2015

Owner

City Centre Properties, LLC

& Murrel Legacy, LLC

Applicant

Jennifer Slone Tobin, Esq

Shutts & Bowen LLP

Project Planner

Michaëlle Petion, AICP

ZON2015-00010— City Centre PD - 215 E. Centra l Blvd

EX IS TI N G FU TU RE LAN D US E MA P


ZO N IN G MA P


PR O JE CT AN A LYS IS Project Description

The +0.55 acre subject site is located in the Downtown Development of Regional Impact (DRI) and the South Eola neighborhood, at

the northeast intersection of E. Central Blvd. and N. Rosalind Ave. The applicant is requesting PD/T (Planned Development/ Tradi-

tional City Overlay) rezoning for a 28-story mixed-use development comprised of 215 multifamily units, 9,467 sq. ft. of ground floor

retail, 1,955 sq. ft. café and 30,669 sq. ft of commercial/ retail with mezzanine space on the 11th floor and an integrated parking

structure. The site is zoned AC-3A/T (Downtown Metropolitan Activity Core/Traditional City Overlay) and has a Future Land Use

designation of Downtown Activity Center (DT-AC). The proposal is consistent with the Future Land Use and proposed Zoning des-

ignations.

Previous Actions:

1905– Property platted as part of the Grannis & Sperrys Addition Subdivision.

1925– Structure at 205 E. Central Ave. constructed.

1927– Structure at 215 E. Central Ave. constructed.

1958– Structure at 1 N Rosalind Ave. constructed.

Nov. 2006– MPB recommended denial of a rezoning from AC-3A/T to PD/T with an intensity bonus to allow a 39-story mixed-

use development with 86 residential units, 225 hotel room, ground-level commercial and a restaurant. The application was sub-

sequently withdrawn prior to action by City Council. (ZON2005-00039)

July 2007– City Council approved a rezoning to PD/T with an intensity bonus to allow a mixed-use building consisting of a 22-

story (295 ft. tall), 225 room hotel with ground-level commercial and a restaurant. (ZON2006-00065, Doc# 0707091004)

Sept. 2008– City Council approved a PD amendment to enlarge the development site to the include the 0.12 acre parcel to the

west and allow a 25-story (317 ft. tall), 225 room hotel with ground-level commercial and a restaurant. (ZON2008-00003, Doc#

0809081003)

June 2015– The ARB provided courtesy review of the proposed development (ARB2015-00028).

Project Context The site currently contains 3 structures (office and commercial uses) built between 1925-1958 (see above for descriptions) and sur-

face parking. See Table 1– Project Context for more details on surrounding structures and zoning/future land use designations.

Conformance with the GMP The DT-AC future land use designation has a maximum density/ intensity, respectively, of 200 du/acre and 4.0 FAR and a minimum

of 75 du/acre and/or 0.75 FAR. Future Land Use Element Policy 2.1.3 encourages concentration of development in Activity Centers

and allows for the allocation of intensity bonuses through the Land Development Code. “These standards shall encourage mixed-use

development, multimodal public transit facilities, pedestrian-oriented amenities, high quality building and site design, affordable

housing, and other features that foster livability, community identity and civic pride.” Section 58.1101 (b) of the Land Development

Code, the progression of intensity of Downtown Activity Center can be doubled (maximum allowed density and intensity with a bo-

nus is 400 du/acre and/or 8.0 FAR). The proposed planned development amendment is consistent with the adopted future land use

designations, the zoning designation, the Downtown CRA, Downtown DRI and is compatible with the surrounding area.

Table 1—Project Context

Future Land Use Zoning Surrounding Use

North Downtown Activity Center

(DT-AC)

Rosalind Club Downtown Metropolitan Core/ Tra-

ditional City overlay (AC-3A/T)

South Hotel Downtown Activity Center

(DT-AC)

Downtown Metropolitan Core/ Tra-

ditional City overlay (AC-3A/T)

East Lake Eola Park Public Recreational Institutional

(PUB-REC-INST)

Public Use/ Traditional City overlay

(P/T)

West Public Library Downtown Activity Center

(DT-AC)

Public Use/ Traditional City overlay

(P/T)


PR O JE CT AN A LYS IS

Conformance with the LDC

The PD district is intended to provide a process for the evaluation of unique, individually planned developments which are not other-

wise permitted in the zoning districts and provide superior design. The subject site is zoned AC-3A/T (Downtown Metropolitan Ac-

tivity Core/Traditional City Overlay) on the Official Zoning Map. This zoning district is intended for development which strengthen

Downtown as the economic, governmental and cultural hub of the Central Florida region. It provides for concentrated residential,

commercial, office and recreational and cultural facilities. The District serves the entire metropolitan area, and at the highest intensi-

ties available within the region. The default zoning shall be AC-3A/T with the PD rezoning. Table 2- Development Standards details

the total proposed intensity for this PD. At a proposed density of 391 du/ac the development is below the maximum allowed density

of 400 du/ac with bonus.

Table 3-Setback Requirements lists the proposed standards com-

pared to code requirements. The development is conforming

along all property lines except the east. This PD request proposes

modification to the minimum allowed rear setback of 10 ft. to

allow an eastern setback of 0 ft. The AC-3A/T has no maximum

permitted height but rather is limited based on FAA approval.

Bufferyard requirement are not applicable within the AC-3A/T

zoning district. Proposed ISR calculations have not been pro-

vided but with the open space triangle easement located along the

northernmost property boundary (to the rear of the Rosalind

Club), the project should be in compliance. An FAA letter of ap-

proval and ISR calculations shall be required at the time of per-

mitting.

Density Bonus

As previously mentioned, the development requests a density bonus to achieve the proposed 215 units (bonus of 191 du/ac). Chapter

58, Part 6 of the LDC requires that a project seeking a bonus demonstrates several factors. Section 58.1103 also establishes orienta-

tion, parking, services, as well as site and building design requirements. Density bonuses also require a mixed use component in the

development program. The proposed development consists of both commercial and residential. Site design improvements include

enhanced streetscapes as well as landscaping in the park. Building design improvements include differentiation between the base

middle and top. Also, the proposed mansard roof at the top of the building is distinctive, integrates well with the body of the tower

and podium creating a unique feature in the downtown skyline. In regards to parking and service areas, they are well screened and

the use of ground floor retail maximizes architectural interest and human activity.

Table 3—Setback Requirements

Yard Min./Max. Proposed

Front– S. Rosalind Ave. 15 ft. max. 11.8 ft.*

Side– north property line 0 or 3/25 ft. 0 ft.

Street-Side– E. Central Blvd. 5 ft. max. 2 ft.

Rear– east property line 10 ft. min. 0 ft.**

*Setback includes Rosalind Ave streetscape requirements.

** Seeking relief requested via the PD

Table 2—Development Standards

Phase Acreage Use Sq. Ft./Dwelling

Units

Density (dwelling units per acre)

FAR (floor area ratio)

Building Height ISR (impervious surface

ratio)

Min./Max. Proposed Min./Max. Pro-

posed

Maximum Proposed Maximum

Pro-

posed

1

0.55

acres/

23,958

sq. ft.

Residen-

tial 215 units 391 du/ac

N/A ** 333 ft. 0.95

TBD

75-200

du*

Commer-

cial

42,091 sq. ft.

proposed N/A

1.76

FAR

0.75-3.0

FAR*

*Not including density/intensity bonus allowance

**As limited by the FAA


PR O JE CT AN A LYS IS CRA Plan

The site is located within Downtown Community Redevelopment Area (CRA) which includes a recently updated area plan (The

DTOutlook). The mission of the Community Redevelopment Agency is to aggressively pursue redevelopment and revitalization

activities within the Downtown Orlando Community Redevelopment Area, with emphasis on providing more housing and cultural

arts opportunities, improving long-term transportation needs and encouraging retail development. Downtown Orlando is comprised

of several neighborhoods and activity centers, each with its own unique, distinguishing characteristics. The subject property is

within the Lake Eola Heights planning area of the CRA which supports context sensitive infill development. While this property is

adjacent to Lake Eola on the north and east sides it is not adjacent to the historic neighborhoods. It should also be noted that the sub-

ject property abuts the Central Business District planning area to the west, the core of Downtown Orlando and heart of the Metro

Orlando region, and the South Eola planning area to the south, described as an emerging residential, dining and entertainment area.

The project is consistent with the CRA Plan (2015 Update), specifically consistent with the following strategies.

Transportation Access and Connectivity, Opportunity 2, Strategy 4: Support the provision of public parking within new develop-

ment projects, particularly in areas that are underserved with public parking.

Parks and Open Space, Opportunity 1, Strategy 3: Encourage development of plazas and open spaces in new construction pro-

jects throughout the CRA.

Housing and Neighborhoods, Opportunity 3, Strategy 4: Promote and encourage neighborhood-oriented retail and service oppor-

tunities in underserved areas of the CRA.

Housing and Neighborhoods, Opportunity 4, Strategy 1: Encourage future higher density development to locate in areas cur-

rently zoned for such development and limit support for zoning changes that would result in altering the traditional charm

and character of existing neighborhoods.

Education and Social Fabric, Opportunity 4, Strategy 9: Support creation of additional “3rd Places” in Downtown, such as coffee

shops, lounge spaces, and seating within plazas, to allow for increased social interaction.

Lake Eola

The proposal includes enhancements to Lake Eola Park and the activation of an area that presently contains relatively under utilized

park space. The applicant proposes outdoor seating, a waterwall and the addition of pedestrian pathways and landscaping along east-

ern property line of the development site, within Lake Eola Park. The seating is proposed at 20 ft. in width but shall be limited to a

maximum width of 15 ft. The Developer must enter into agreement with the City of Orlando to include agreed upon improvements,

lease of the portion of the park where the Developer intends to make improvements, access to the park and improvements, the in-

tended use of the area and other items, prior to being issued a permit for any construction on park property.

Urban Design/Appearance Review Board (ARB)

This project is located in the DDB (Downtown Development Board)/CRA Overlay District, which requires review by the Appear-

ance Review Board (ARB) for all new construction. ARB provided a courtesy review of this project on June 18, 2015. Final ap-

proval of the building and site plans is required through the Appearance Review Board. The subject property is located outside of the

Downtown Special Sign District and is therefore subject to Part 2 of Chapter 64. A Master Sign Plan shall be required for the devel-

opment.

Transportation

The subject development will have access

to the City’s roadway network via a right-

in/right-out driveway onto S. Rosalind

Ave. along the northwest portion of the

development site and full-access along E.

Central Blvd. The E. Central access is

limited to solid waste collection with resi-

dential and commercial vehicular access

on S. Rosalind. Ave. The subject parcel

is currently occupied by several busi-

nesses in smaller buildings. Each of these

businesses relies heavily on walk up traf-

fic and parking off-site. With less than 10

parking spaces on site these are minimal

Table 3—Trip Generation

Existing Use Units/Square Feet Ave Daily Trips

(vpd)

PM Peak Hr

Trips (vph)

Multiple Uses 10 Spaces <50 <10

Proposed Development

Multi-Family (220) 215 Units 1,456 136

Retail Space (826) 40,136 SF 1,779 109

Eating/Drinking (932) 1,955 SF 249 21

3,484 266 Total Trips Proposed:


PR O JE CT AN A LYS IS generators of automotive traffic to this location. The mixed use project includes 467 parking stalls in 9 stories of parking deck. These

are currently expected for the residential uses, however, the above minimum parking could be allocated to the commercial spaces

show on the ground level and the 11th floor.

Located within the Downtown Parking Area, the proposed retail and restaurant uses are exempt from minimum parking requirements

with a maximum of 3 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. The Downtown Parking Area allows minimum residential parking requirements at the

same rate as outside of downtown, though a maximum of 2 spaces per unit applies. At 467 parking spaces, the development is within

the minimum and maximum allowed parking requirements.

Stormwater

The site currently has no existing stormwater facilities on site. An underground stormwater exfiltration system is proposed with the

redevelopment.

Schools

On July 7, 2008, the City adopted a Public School Facilities Element (PSFE) and the Amended Interlocal Agreement for Public

School Facility Planning and Implementation of Concurrency which requires all residential developments be subject to school con-

currency review. A list of exemptions from this review is provided under Section 16.2 of the Agreement. Included in the list of ex-

emptions are DRIs that have filed a complete application for a development order prior to May 1, 2005 (Section 16.2(j)). Under the

terms of the agreement, the City will advise OCPS of comprehensive plan amendments, zoning amendments, and development pro-

posals that may have the effect of increasing existing density. This site is located within the Downtown DRI, which is included in the

list of exemptions of DRIs that have filed a complete application, therefore this site is exempt from concurrency. The development

is also exempt from a capacity enhancement agreement.

Table 4—Parking Requirements

Use Units/sq. ft. Minimum

Ratio

Minimum Spaces

Required

Maximum

Ratio

Maximum Spaces

Permitted

Multifamily

1 bdrm 120 1.5/unit 180

2/unit

240

2 bdrm 90 1.75/unit 158 180

3 bdrm 5 2/unit 10 10

Retail/Commercial 40,136

Exempt*

N/A 120

3:1000 sq. ft GFA Eating/Drinking

1,955 N/A 6

Total Required: 348 556

Total Proposed: 467

*Per Downtown Parking Area


SU RVE Y

Subject property

Lake Eola

E. Central Blvd.


DE V EL OPME NT PL AN

Resid

ential an

d co

m-

mercial g

arage access

Ease

ment

to R

osalin

d

Clu

b

So

lid w

aste

pick

up

access

Pro

po

sed

park

im-

pro

vem

ents

Existin

g p

ark

equip

ment


GA R A GE FL O OR PL ANS

Level 2

Level 3

-9


FL OO R PLAN S 1

1th

Level R

etail

Resid

ential


Ro

of P

lan

Am

enities

FL OO R PLAN S ( C O N T . )


Elevations


Elevations ( C O N T . )


Cross Sections


Renderings


S I TE PH OTO S

Subject property as viewed from the intersection

of E. Central Blvd. and S. Rosalind Ave.

Existing structures on site.


S I TE PH OTO S

Eastern property line adjacent to Lake Eola

Park. Portion of park is proposed to include

outdoor dining encroachment.

Western façade of subject property with the

Rosalind Club to the left (north).

Eastern property boundary as viewed from

Lake Eola. Location of proposed to include

outdoor dining encroachment.


AE R IA L PHO TO

Subject site

F I N DI N GS Subject to the conditions contained herein, the proposal is consistent with the requirements for approval of Planned Development

applications contained in Chapter 65 of the Land Development Code (LDC):

1. The proposal is consistent with the City’s Growth Management Plan.

2. The proposal is consistent with the purpose and intent of the PD zoning district and all other requirements of the LDC.

3. The proposal is compatible with surrounding land uses and the general character of the area.

4. The necessary public facilities will be adequate to serve the proposed use, or will be provided by the applicant as a condition of

this approval.

5. The proposal presents clear and convincing evidence that the design, density, intensity, and mix of uses will result in a superior

development that is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and achieves the criteria for approval of a bonus as provided

in section 58.1103, Orlando City Code.

Staff recommends approval of ZON2015-00010 subject to the following conditions:

ZON2015 -00010— Ci ty Centre PD - 215 E. Central Blvd

Page 21

CO N D IT IO NS OF APP RO VAL


Growth Management The Comprehensive Planning Studio has no objections to the proposed PD.

Land Development 1. Land Use and Zoning. The underlying zoning shall default to the standards of the AC-3A/T zoning district.

2. General Code Compliance. Development of the proposed project should be consistent with the conditions in this report and all

codes and ordinances of the City of Orlando, the State of Florida, and all other applicable regulatory agencies. All other applicable

state or federal permits must be obtained before commencing development.

3. Minor Modifications. Zoning variances and modification of standards may be approved pursuant to the procedures set forth in Part

2J and Part 2F, Chapter 65, Orlando City Code, respectively. The planning official may also approve minor modifications and design

modifications to fences, walls, landscaping, accessory structures, signs, and bufferyard requirements. Additionally, recognizing that

development plans can change in small ways between the planning and permitting stages of development, the planning official may

approve up to a 10% modification of any applicable numerical development standard if the planning official finds that the proposed

modification is consistent with the applicable goals, objectives, and policies of the GMP, is compatible with nearby existing land

uses, would not result in inadequate public facilities, and is otherwise consistent with the public health, safety, and welfare. When

approving such a modification of a development standard, the planning official may impose one or more of the conditions of devel-

opment provided at section 65.334, Orlando City Code, but such condition or conditions must be reasonably calculated to mitigate

the identifiable land use impacts of the modified standard.

4. Review by City Attorney’s Office. Municipal Planning Board recommendation of the conditions contained herein is subject to

review by the City Attorney’s Office for legal sufficiency and drafting of implementing documents.

5. Density/Intensity. Development shall be limited to 215 residential units and an FAR of 1.76.

6. Setbacks. Setback requirements shall conform to code except a minimum setback of 0 ft. is allowed for the rear .

7. Demolition. Demolition of the existing structures shall be prohibited until issuance of a foundation or building permit.

8. Building Height. The building height shall not exceed 333 ft. FAA approval must be obtained for the proposed height. A copy of

said approval shall be provided to the Planning Division prior to adoption of the PD ordinance.

9. Public Art. The project is requesting a density bonus and accordingly shall contribute at least 1% of the total construction costs to

the public art fund and/or provide art on site consistent with LDC section 58.1100(b).

10. Smoking. Smoking shall be prohibited in the Outdoor dining area. Smoking in the outdoor dining area shall be governed in ac-

cordance with the City Council approved Resolution relating to Public Health and Secondhand Smoke in City Parks or any subse-

quent and applicable regulatory doctrine. Patrons shall be urged not to smoke.

11. Overhead Door. The overhead door located on E. Central Blvd. shall be inset no more than 1 ft. from the principal façade of the

building.

12. PD Adoption. City Council adoption of the PD ordinance shall occur simultaneously with Council approval of the agreement

with the City of Orlando for improvements to Lake Eola Park.

Urban Design

1. Streetscape

A. Streetscape Design Guidelines

i. All streetscape design and construction is required to comply with the design and construction requirements of the Down-

town Orlando Streetscape Design Guidelines and the conditions in this staff report.

ii. Maintenance Agreement—The applicant shall enter into a maintenance agreement with the City to define maintenance

responsibilities for the streetscape and proposed outdoor dining area.


Page 22

CO N D IT IO NS OF APP RO VAL (CO NT . )


iii. City Services Easement—A City Services easement shall be provided by the applicant for any portion of the 15-foot

streetscape zone outside of the right-of-way.

B. General Streetscape Requirements:

i. Street Trees – High rise live oaks trees shall be planted as the primary street tree. Sylvester Palms may be used as accent

trees at the building entrances.

ii. Structural Soil – To minimize root damage to adjacent pavement areas, structural soil or a Planning Official approved

equivalent shall be installed around all canopy street trees consistent with Detail 3.4-O and 3.4-P of the Downtown Orlando

Streetscape Guidelines.

iii. Street Lights – Double acorn LED streetlights, consistent with the Downtown Streetscape Design Guidelines shall be

used on all streets and spaced based on OUC lighting requirements.

iv. Corner Treatments—The Central and Rosalind corner treatment shall be Lawrenceville brick and installed with a 6-inch

thick concrete sub-base for the first 6-feet from back of curb and all ADA ramps transitioning to a 4-inch sub-grade to the

face of building. Corner treatments shall provide two accessibility ramps at each corner perpendicular to the centerline.

v. Valve and Junction Boxes—All at grade junction, valve and control boxes in the streetscape zone shall be traffic bearing

grade boxes and lids.

vi. Pedestrian Crossings—The pedestrian crossings at the garage and service area entries shall be raised to be at same grade

as the sidewalk adjacent to the driveway. A pavement treatment that matches the pedestrian clear zone treatment or that

contrasts with the vehicle lanes shall be used in order to clearly define the pedestrian area. Reflective paint alone is not ac-

ceptable, however may be used in conjunction with pavers or other surfaces to outline the pedestrian path for night time

safety. The mid-block curb cuts into the garage and service areas shall meet the mid-block curb cut standard in the Down-

town Streetscape Guidelines.

vii. Building Entries—Building entries should be recessed, or the door ways shall open inward so that ingress, egress and

entry doors do not conflict or open directly into the pedestrian clear zone.

viii. Curb Cuts—All existing curb cuts shall be removed and the streetscape and curbing restored during construction.

ix. ARB Final Review—Final landscape and hardscape plans shall be submitted for ARB Final Review and approval prior

to submittal for building permits.

C. East Central Avenue

i. Width—The minimum streetscape width on E. Central Avenue shall be 15-feet from back-of-curb. The furniture zone

shall be a minimum of 6-feet wide along the entire project frontage. The concrete sub-base in the furniture zone shall be 6-

inches thick. The pedestrian clear zone shall be a minimum of 9-feet in width.

ii. Treatment 4 —The E. Central streetscape shall meet the requirements of Treatment 4 in the streetscape design guide-

lines. However the concrete shall be scored to match the existing scoring pattern of the E. Central Avenue sidewalk adja-

cent to Lake Eola Park to the east of the project site.

iii. Street Trees—Street tree wells shall be 6-feet by 9-feet; the use of tree grates is optional.

iv. Loading Zone—The location of the Service Area shall require approval by the Transportation Engineering Division. A

minimum 9-foot pedestrian clear zone shall be maintained adjacent to the loading zone.

D. North Rosalind Avenue

i. Width—The minimum streetscape width on N. Rosalind Ave. shall be 15-feet from the back-of-curb. The furniture zone

shall be a minimum of 6-feet along the entire project frontage. The pedestrian clear zone shall be a minimum of 9-feet in

width. The sub-base in the furniture zone shall be a minimum of 6-inch thick concrete transitioning to a 4-inch thick con-

crete sidewalk in the pedestrian clear zone.

ii. Treatment 4 —The N. Rosalind streetscape shall meet the requirements of Treatment 4 in the streetscape guidelines.

The concrete shall be scored to match the E. Central Ave, streetscape scoring.

iii. Street Tree Wells—Street tree wells along N. Rosalind shall be 6-feet by 9-feet. The use of tree grates is optional.

2. Architecture

A. Design Intent

i. ARB and City Staff is very excited about the developing design of the City Centre project as presented in this submittal

package. The redevelopment project is located at a major intersection in the core of the downtown district and adjacent to

one of the most active areas of Downtown Orlando—Lake Eola Park.

ii. The traditional design and architecture of this building will have a positive impact on the downtown skyline, ground

level activities and will be a suitable complement to the more contemporary architecture in the area.

iii. Continued focus on the design and details at the base, through the middle and especially at the crown of the building

will continue to be critical through the design and development process.

iv. Final architectural plans, elevations, materials and finishes shall be submitted for ARB Final Review and approval prior

to submittal for building permits.


Page 23



B. Tower Crown

i. The proposed mansard roof at the top of the building is distinctive, integrates well with the body of the tower and podium

and will be a unique feature in the downtown skyline. As the design process continues emphasis should be placed on an

architectural lighting plan for the crown that will make the City Centre tower a beacon in the nighttime skyline.

C. Tower Body

i. The rhythm and cadence of the middle of the residential tower transitions well from the stone base to the mansard roof

with long vertical lines and a varied yet consistent glazing pattern and balcony accents.

ii. Windows—The windows on the tower units shall be recessed from the façade to provide additional design texture and

shadow lines to the building façade.

D. Tower Base [Ground Floor Elevation]

i. Service Area—Decorative doors or gates that are architecturally integrated with the building design shall be utilized at

the loading area. The doors or gates shall be closed when the loading area is not in use.

ii. Canopies and awnings at the building entries may project into the city services easements. Canopies or awnings that

project into the right-of-way will require Transportation Engineering approval. In no instance shall a canopy be less than

17’6”above finished grade to meet transportation maintenance requirements. Awnings shall be a minimum of 9-feet above

finished grade.

iii. ARB Staff supports the use of stone as the finish material on the ground floor street facing facades.

iv. Exterior Doors—A minimum 4”x6” security view panels shall be provided in all pedestrian accessible exterior doors

including emergency exit doors to provide visibility and security for pedestrians exiting the building.

E. Parking Garage

i. Elevations—The parking garage elevations compliment the tower and base elevations. The openings in the parking ga-

rage floors shall incorporate an architectural mesh infill. At the ground level the mesh shall be security grade.

ii. Screening—The parking garage shall be designed to minimize direct views of parked vehicles from streets and side-

walks. An opaque minimum 36-inch tall wall shall be installed to avoid headlight and spill-over light glare. Noise and ex-

haust fumes onto public use areas or adjacent properties shall be mitigated. Lighting that may be potentially visible from the

garage shall be shielded. .

iii. Pedestrian Connection—A minimum 5 ft. pedestrian walkway shall be provided adjacent to the driveway entries into

the parking garage.

iv. Ramping—Angled exterior ramping shall not be visible from the right-of-way and shall be obscured from view through

the use of exterior metal screening, or other alternative methods. Interior ramping and walls that might be visible thru the

garage openings shall be painted a dark gray or black.

v. Egress Slope—The slope of the grade preceding the exit of a parking garage shall not exceed 2% for a minimum of 25

feet from the garage entry.

F. Transparency

i. The ground floor building walls facing all streets shall contain a minimum of 30% of transparent materials. A minimum

of 15% transparency shall be provided on all floors facing the street above the ground level.

ii. All glass at the ground level shall be clear. Minimum light transmittance shall be 80%. High performance or low-e glass

may be considered as an alternative with a minimum transmittance of 60%.

iii. No windows at the ground floor level shall be dry-walled, or have permanent partitions installed on the interior to block

natural surveillance.

iv. Tinted, reflective, or spandrel glass does not count towards meeting the transparency requirements.

3. Outdoor Dining Area

A. ARB staff supports the outdoor dining area use on the east side of the project. However, final design and configuration of

the outdoor dining area and adjacent landscape design will require approval from the City’s parks and real estate divisions. The

approval by parks shall incorporate a maintenance agreement defining the maintenance requirements and responsibilities of the

Applicant.

B. The outdoor dining pad areas shall extend no more than 15-feet from the building facade.

C. The outdoor dining area pads shall be as close to finished grade as is feasible so as to maintain its presence as part of the

park.

D. The collection basin/water feature at the base of the water wall shall extend no more than 20-feet from the building façade.

E. The walkways connecting the outdoor dining area to Lake Eola Park shall be no more than 10-feet in width. The sidewalk

surface shall match the materials and finish of existing sidewalk surfaces in the area and surrounding the historic Speery foun-

tain.

F. Impacts and removal of existing mature or specimen trees shall require mitigation as determined by the city arborist.


Page 24



G. The final design of the outdoor dining area and adjacent landscape improvements shall be submitted as part of the ARB Fi-

nal Review.

H. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the café space the outdoor dining area shall receive a Sidewalk Café Permit

and an ARB Minor Review and for the proposed layout, furniture, lighting, landscape and other pertinent features of the outdoor

dining area.

4. Lighting

A. A lighting plan compliant with the City’s lighting regulations [Chapter 63.2M.] including photometrics and all proposed

exterior lighting fixtures shall be submitted for ARB Final Review and approval prior to issuance of building permits.

B. It is encourage that the top of the building be significantly lit in order to make the building be a beacon in the night time sky-

line.

C. Night time building elevations shall be submitted with the ARB Final Review application.

5. Mechanical Equipment

A. Venting & Exhaust—All potential restaurant venting and restaurant exhaust shall be directed to the roof of the building and

shall not be visible from the public right-of-way. Restaurant venting is not permitted on any façade of the building. All other

venting and exhaust for mechanical and other utilities shall be a minimum of 12 ft. above grade and shall be integrated with the

building design so as to be seamless with the overall architecture of the building.

B. Transformer Area Screening—Transformer areas including the switch gear and transformer in the park shall be screened

with decorative, opaque walls and gates up to 6-feet in height; decorative columns maybe 7-feet in height.

C. Mechanical Equipment—All ground mounted and rooftop mechanical equipment shall be screened from view and meet the

conditions of the Land Development Code.

Backflow Preventer—Backflow preventer[s] shall be located so as to not be directly visible from the right-of-way and should be

screened from view where necessary. They shall be clearly identified on the final utilities plan.

D. Fencing—Any fencing on the site shall be an open, CPTED-approved fence, such as aluminum or wrought-iron picket fenc-

ing. Chain link fencing is prohibited.

E. Final Elevations—The location and configuration of all exterior venting and mechanical equipment shall be depicted on the

building elevations in the Final ARB Review application. Fencing and walls within the park are subject to final review and ap-

proval by the City Parks Division.

6. Signage. A Master Sign Plan [MSP] including both the residential, retail and high-rise signage shall submitted for a separate ARB

Major Review approval prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the tower or retail spaces. The MSP shall clearly show

how signage will be allocated between the tenants and the site as a whole and provide placeholders for locations of proposed sign-

age. High-rise signs are permitted consistent with Sec. 64.246 of the Land Development Code but will require an ARB Major Re-

view prior to permitting.

7. Telecommunications Equipment Screening. Buildings should be designed to accommodate future placement of telecommunica-

tions equipment. Screening areas should be built into rooftop areas so that the placement and screening of the equipment does not

become an afterthought.

8. Model. Prior to permitting, a physical 1"= 100' scale model of the project should be provided for the DDB/CRA model located in

the Downtown Information Center.

Transportation Planning

The Transportation Planning Division supports the applicant's request provided that the owner/applicant complies with the following:

1. Commercial Plans Submittal. The submitted construction plans shall include a site plan (to engineering scale) and show the fol-

lowing: property lines, legal description, curbs, street pavement edges, public sidewalks, loading/unloading areas, parking spaces,

solid waste location, etc. (Please see the Commercial Plans Submittal Checklist: http://www.cityoforlando.net/permits). Reference

Orlando Land Development Code (LDC), Chapters 60, 61, and 65, and the Engineering Standards Manual (ESM).

2. Traffic Analysis. The proposed project is located inside the City's Transportation Concurrency Exception Area (TCEA). Policy

1.8.11 of the Transportation Element of the Orlando Growth Management Plan (GMP) states that applicants for development propos-

als inside and outside the TCEA shall conduct a neighborhood impact analysis if the proposed development is projected to generate

more than 1,000 daily trips. If existing traffic on collector or local streets is projected to increase by more than ten percent (10%)


Page 25



due to the project, the developer shall mitigate through appropriate traffic calming or transportation demand management measures.

3. Work within Road ROW. For any construction work planned or required within a public right-of-way or City sidewalk easement

adjacent to a public right-of-way (including but not limited to: irrigation, drainage, utility, cable, sidewalk, driveway, road construc-

tion/reconstruction or landscaping), the owner/applicant shall submit the following:

a. Maintenance of traffic plans (M.O.T.) (For more information/detailed requirements contact the Office of Special Events &

Permits at 407-246-3704)

b. Roadway plans including paving, grading, pavement markings and signage (Contact the Permitting Transportation Engi-

neering Reviewer at 407-246-3079 for details)

c. A copy of all required County and State permits (If permits are pending attach a copy of the application)

4. Driveway Removal. The Owner/Applicant shall remove all unapproved curb cuts / driveways and shall restore all curbs, gutters,

parkways and sidewalks to Orlando Engineering Standards Manual (ESM) requirements and standards.

5. Parking Garage Design. Dimensions for all parking stalls, drive aisles, and turning radii within the parking garage shall conform to

all applicable provisions of the City Code and Engineering Standards Manual. Current Code requires minimum stall dimensions of 9

ft by 18.5 ft, and 2-way aisle width of 24 ft. Stalls located adjacent to lateral obstructions shall have a minimum width of 10 ft.

6. Driveway Gates. Any gates for the access on Rosalind Ave shall be positioned in such a way to allow for vehicles to enter the

parking structure and clear the speed ramp before navigating the gate. Gates shall be equipped with optical sensor or approved lock

boxes for fire department access. Plans need to show the location of the actuation device(s), and show driver's clear sight distance.

7. Driveway Sight Distance. At all project entrances, clear sight distances for drivers and pedestrians shall not be blocked by signs,

buildings, building columns, landscaping, or other visual impediments. No structure, fence, wall, or other visual impediment shall

obstruct vision between 2 feet and 8 feet in height above street level. The street corner / driveway visibility area shall be shown and

noted on construction plans and any future site plan submittals. The applicant shall design the site plan as necessary to comply with

the street corner visibility requirements (Chapter 60, Sections 60.141 through Sections 60.143) and the driveways and curb cuts re-

quirements (Chapter 61, Sections 61.101 through Sections 61.107) of the Orlando Land Development Code (LDC).

8. Service Driveway Requirements. The access to any trash or delivery area intended only for freight type operations will be secured

using a gate to clearly denote when the area is operational and that any adjacent pedestrian path is clear for uninterrupted use. The

hours of operation for delivery are to be limited and subject to further limitation based on operation of this site. Delivery during AM,

PM, and Event peak hours will be prohibited.

9. Autoturn analysis. The applicant shall commission an operational study using AutoTurn or equivalent design software to docu-

ment the functionality of movements throughout the project drive areas, loading/unloading, and at access points to the surrounding

roadway network by the appropriate design vehicles. The results of this study shall be submitted with the Engineering plans.

10. Dumpster/Compactor. Garbage containers shall be located to allow direct access without requiring excessive maneuvering or

backing up more than 50 ft.

11. Parking Space Requirement. The proposed number of parking spaces must comply with the Orlando Land Development Code

(LDC) requirements set forth in Chapter 61, Part 3C. Any proposed reduction in parking allowable in the LDC must be accompanied

by a written justification. Please note that the number of spaces per unit may be reduced by 0.25 within a one-half mile radius of a

commuter rail station.

12. Bike Parking: General Requirement. Per City Code Sec. 61.333, twelve (12) long-term and twenty (20) short-term bicycle park-

ing spaces shall be provided for employees and others to use. At least one double sided bike rack should be placed near the entrance

to the retail use on the ground floor, for use by the general public. The remaining required spaces may be located within the parking

garage. In all instances, the racks shall be located so as not to create conflicts with pedestrians or other vehicles.

13. Overhangs/ Canopies Over Sidewalks. Orlando Land Development Code (LDC), Section 61.204, provides minimum require-

ments for awnings, marquees, and overhangs over public right-of-way(R-O-W). Cantilevers, architectural overhangs, and columns

are not permitted within public R-O-W and must be no less than 17 ft 6 in above finished grade when overhanging City Services

Easement areas. Awnings or marques are permitted above easements or R-O-W with a minimum of 9 ft of clearance from finished

grade.


Page 26



14. Door Openings. Doors (and any pedestrian entrances) that lead directly from the sidewalk shall be recessed so the doors do not

swing open into the sidewalk area.

15. Bus Shelters. There is one bus stop located in front of the subject property on Rosalind Ave. The current bus stop has no shelter

or protection from the weather. An equal or better bus stop accommodation needs to be called out on the engineering plans when

they are submitted to the City of Orlando.

Transportation Engineering

1. The City of Orlando will provide a loading zone on Central Blvd and the developer/owner will be required to pay for the loss of

revenue from the removal of the metered parking spaces.

2. The bus stop on Rosalind Ave shall be relocated north of the proposed driveway and the loss of revenue due to the removal of the

metered parking space shall be paid by the developer/owner.

3. Solid waste collection shall be provided on site.

4. All surrounding sidewalks shall be 15' wide at a maximum 2% cross slope.

5. A combined handicap ramp is required at the north east intersection of Rosalind Ave and Central Blvd; this may include the up-

date of crosswalk pavement markings.

6. Provide an autoturn analysis that shows the largest design vehicle that will be utilized to show that there is sufficient room for ma-

neuvering.

7. Twenty feet of overhead clearance will be required over the solid waste collection area.

8. The slope for the first twenty five feet from the garage entrance shall be no greater than 2%.

9. Driveway Sight Distance. At all project entrances, clear sight distances for drivers and pedestrians shall not be blocked by signs,

buildings, building columns, landscaping, or other visual impediments. No structure, fence, wall, or other visual impediment shall

obstruct vision between 3 feet and 8 feet in height above street level. The street corner/ driveway visibility area shall be shown and

noted on construction plans and any future site plan submittals. The applicant shall design the site plan as necessary to comply with

the Florida Greenbook requirements for sight distance at intersections. Sight lines shall be shown on both the site plan and landscape

plan. Landscaping located within intersection triangles as defined by the Florida Greenbook shall be trimmed or spaced according to

FDOT Design Index 546.

10. Work Within Road ROW. For any construction work planned or required within a public right-of-way or City sidewalk easement

adjacent to a public right-of-way (including but not limited to: irrigation, drainage, utility, cable, sidewalk, driveway, road construc-

tion/reconstruction or landscaping), the Owner/Applicant shall submit the following:

Engineering/Zoning

1. On-Site Fees. At the time of development, the owner/developer is required to pay an on-site inspection fee at a rate of up to 3% of

the on-site improvements, excluding the building, in accordance with City Land Development Code, Section 65.604.

2. Concurrency– chapter 59. All new construction, change in use, additions, or redevelopments are required to submit a Concurrency

Management application as a part of the building plan review process.

3. Refuse Container. In accordance with City Code Section 28.6 (f) 1-3, the Office of Permitting Services is authorized to make a

determination of approval/disapproval of refuse container sites. The dumpster must have a minimum opening of 12' wide and a clear

depth of 10' forward of any bollards within the enclosure. Approval/disapproval of the use of commercial hand pick-up of refuse

from any non-residential entity shall be determined solely by the Refuse Collection Bureau Staff.

4. Engineering- Misc. All proposed generators and transformers must be located in the interior portion of the new structure (s) on the


Page 27



subject site. If proposed mechanical equipment will be located on the roof of the structure it must be properly screened from view.

Review and approval for the proposed building height is required from the "Airport Zoning Board" prior to permit plan submittal.

Development plans will need to locate and label the "property lines" on the elevation plans, foundation plans, and the "building sec-

tion's plans".

All future elevation shown on a boundary/topographic survey shall use the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD 88).

5. ESM. The City Council Adopted the Engineering Standards Manual (ESM), Fourth Edition on March 9, 2009. All plans must

conform to the ESM and all construction must be accomplished in accordance to the ESM.

6. Plat. This property is required to plat in accordance with Section 65.401 of the City's Land Development Code prior to the issu-

ance of building permits.

Wastewater 1. Sewer– Misc. A 219 unit apartment complex, retail and cafe is proposed. Contact the Wastewater Division to discuss the sanitary

sewer system capacity of the Downtown District sewer system and its ability to serve the wastewater flow generated by the proposed

density and uses of the development. A capacity analysis shall be prepared for review by the Wastewater Division.

Police 1. CPTED Review. The Orlando Police Department has reviewed the plans for 215 E Central Blvd PD, a multi-family, mixed use

development, located at 215 E. Central Blvd., utilizing CPTED (Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design) principles.

CPTED emphasizes the proper design and effective use of a created environment to reduce crime and enhance the quality of life.

There are four overlapping strategies in CPTED that apply to any development: Natural Surveillance, Natural Access Control, Terri-

torial Reinforcement and Target Hardening.

2. Territorial Reinforcement. Design can create or extend a sphere of influence, where users develop a sense of territorial control,

while potential offenders are discouraged. This is promoted by incorporating features that define property lines and distinguish pri-

vate spaces from public spaces such as; landscape plantings, pavement designs, gateway treatments and CPTED open design (see-

through) fences. • The property should be designed to encourage interaction between users.

• Each retail space or dwelling unit should have an address that is clearly visible with numbers a minimum of five-inches high

made of non-reflective material.

o Note: If the parking facility has spaces that are reserved for residents, the numbers should not coincide with the

dwelling unit addresses for the safety of the residents. • Fencing could be used in select areas to add security, delineate property lines, allow transparency for surveillance, be unob-

trusive, and create a sense of community. CPTED open style fencing is a good option to consider. Another option is land-

scape buffers, which include hostile vegetation, to delineate public from private spaces. The fencing and landscape buffer

may be used together to further define and control spaces. • Maintenance is an important aspect of territorial reinforcement. A well-maintained area sends the message that people no-

tice and care about what happens in an area. This in turn discourages vandalism and other crimes.

3. Target Hardening. This can be accomplished by features that prohibit entry or access such as window locks, dead bolts for doors

and interior door hinges.

Overall Project: • Door locks should be located a minimum of 40 inches from adjacent windows.

• Air conditioner units should be caged and the cages should be securely locked.

• An access control system should be considered so only authorized personnel have access to restricted or non-public areas.

This can be incorporated into the parking facility and residential amenities areas as well. • Common area doors or gates should have locks that automatically lock when the doors close.

• If alarm or security systems are installed, each retail space, suite or dwelling unit should have a separate system that can be

regularly tested and maintained by the occupants. During working hours, commercial alarm systems (to include any com-

mon areas and residential amenities) should be programmed so that a short beep is sounded if an exterior door opens. • A security camera system capable of recording and retrieving an image to assist in offender identification and apprehension


Page 28



should be used throughout this project. Security cameras should be mounted at an optimal height to capture offender identi-

fication ("aiming" down from high angles often results in images of the offender's hat). CCTVs should also be placed in

several locations throughout the parking facility, property access points and common areas; especially areas with limited or

no natural surveillance. • Back or service doors (non-public) should be kept locked from the outside at all times. Internal business policy should pro-

hibit the "propping open" of exterior doors. • Large glass doors and windows should be made of impact resistant glass or a security film (such as Lexan™). If installing

security film, ensure that the light transmittance of the security film is greater than or equal to the light transmittance of the

window's glass. • Each retail or restaurant space should contain a drop safe or cash management device.

• A conspicuous sign should be placed at the entrance which states that the cash register contains $50 or less.

• Emergency call boxes are a consideration in areas with limited natural surveillance such as the amenities level.

Residential Units: • Exterior and non-public doors should contain 180° viewers/peep holes, interior hinges, single cylinder deadbolt locks with a

minimum two-inch throw, metal frames with 3" screws in the strike plates, and be made of solid core material. This in-

cludes facility and storage room doors. • All windows that open should have locks.

• Sliding glass doors should have one permanent door on the outside and the inside moving door should have a docking de-

vice and a pin or secondary lock. • An access control system should be considered so only residents have access to their building, floor, parking, common

amenities, and pedestrian access points. Common area doors or gates (leasing office, fitness center, pool, etc.) should have

locks that automatically lock when the doors close. • Common areas should have signs that clearly identify operating hours and state if facilities are only for use by residents.

• If alarm or security systems are installed, each dwelling unit should have a separate system that can be regularly tested and

maintained by the occupants.

Parking Facility: • Including signage and an access control system is a good option to delineate public vs. private areas and further define and

control spaces.

Additional precautions, such as silent alarms, hold-up alarms, retail training (what to do during a robbery) and Neighborhood watch,

should be discussed with OPD's Crime Prevention Unit Officer Karen Long, 407.246.2489.

4. Natural Surveillance: Design the site to keep intruders easily observable. This is promoted by features that maximize visibility of

people, parking areas and building entrances; doors and windows that look out onto streets and parking areas; pedestrian-friendly

sidewalks and street; porches or patios and adequate nighttime lighting.

Overall Project: • A lighting plan was not available at the time of this review. Lighting plays a very important role in CPTED. It is crucial

that lighting sends the right messages to the public about the safe and appropriate use of space at different times of the day

and night.

o All lighting for this project shall meet or exceed the guidelines in Orlando City Code, Title II, Chapter 63, Part 2M.

o In order to create a sense of safety, pedestrian-scale lighting should be used in all high-pedestrian traffic areas

throughout the development to include building entrances, pedestrian promenades, parking facility entrances, common

areas, parks spaces/courtyards, amenity deck, outdoor café areas, walkways and service areas.

o Appropriate lighting should be included in all areas anticipated to be used after-dark.

o Lighting should not be screened out by landscaping (especially pedestrian scale lighting) or building structures

such as overhangs or awnings.

o Uniformity of light is crucial to avoid 'dark' spots, especially in parking areas.

o Any illumination shall not cause a glare or excessive brightness that adversely affects the vision of pedestrians or

motor vehicle operators on public or private property.

o Pedestrian walkways, back lanes and access routes open to public spaces should be lit so that a person with normal

vision is able to identify a face from a distance of 30 feet during nighttime hours.

o The use of full cut-off or shielded light fixtures can direct light where it is intended while reducing light trespass,

glare, and waste.


Page 29



• Landscaping is another crucial aspect of CPTED. Trees branches should be kept trimmed to no lower than 6 feet from the

ground and shrubs should be kept trimmed to no higher than 30 inches. Avoid conflicts between landscaping and lighting,

especially lighting adjacent to canopy trees. Landscaping should not create blind spots or hiding places and should not

block/cover windows. Open green spaces should be observable from nearby structures. • Outdoor furniture placed in common areas is a good way to increase surveillance and encourage community interaction.

Consider furniture designs that encourage stopping and resting but reduce opportunities for potential offenders (i.e. a ribbed

design rather than solid and center rails or arm rests to discourage sleeping). • Bicycle parking should be observable from entrances, securely fastened and not hidden behind landscaping or shear walls.

• Ensure that any canopies or awnings do not interfere with pedestrian scale lighting, especially in all locations used during

nighttime hours.

Parking Facility: • Vehicle and pedestrian entrances into the parking facility should be well lit and defined by landscaping, signage and/or ar-

chitectural design. • Lighting is universally considered to be the most important security feature in a parking facility. Illumination, uniformity,

and glare should all be taken into consideration. Lighting fixtures should be reliable, easy to maintain, withstand the ele-

ments, and be vandal-resistant. • White concrete stain on the ceilings and beams within the parking facility can reflect light and improve uniformity.

• The use of anti-graffiti coating on the walls is a good option to discourage potential offenders from vandalizing these areas.

• A parking facility design that is "open" on all sides is highly recommended. Shear walls should be avoided, especially near

turning bays and pedestrian travel paths. The use of cabling and other architectural elements that allow for visibility are

encouraged. • Stairwells should be constructed of an open design (not behind solid walls) and the staircase design should allow for visibil-

ity. • Elevator lobbies should be well lit and reflective surface materials may be used in these 'coves' to aid in natural surveillance

and safety for users. • Consider convex mirrors or reflective material to facilitate surveillance around interior 90° corners.

• Residential Units:

• Entry doors on all residential units should contain 180° viewers/peep holes.

• Consider convex mirrors or reflective material to facilitate surveillance around interior 90° corners.

• Retail and Commercial Spaces:

• Since there is typically no natural surveillance between buildings and dumpsters or service areas, be sure these areas are

well-lit and that lighting is well maintained. • A security camera system (CCTV) capable of recording and retrieving an image to assist in offender identification and ap-

prehension should be installed in areas without natural surveillance including parking facilities, service areas and any place

a shear wall may exist. • Where possible, offices, reception areas, lobbies, or host stands should have exterior windows and furniture oriented to im-

prove surveillance of public areas. • All sides of a building should have windows to observe the walkways, parking areas and driving lanes.

• Advertisements and product displays should not be located in windows. If advertisements must be used, they should be

small in size and located in an area that will not interfere with visibility through the windows. • Decals which display height measures should be posted inside any public entrance.

• Public restrooms should be visible from the main customer areas and away from outside exits.

• Park area and Amenities Deck:

• Pedestrian scale lighting should not be screened out by landscaping or building structures such as overhangs or awnings.

• Trees branches should be kept trimmed to no lower than 6 feet from the ground and shrubs should be kept trimmed to no

higher than 30 inches. Avoid conflicts between landscaping and lighting, especially lighting adjacent to canopy trees. Land-

scaping should not create blind spots or hiding places and should not block/cover windows.

Fire

1. TRC fire code review is preliminary in nature, and is intended to expose or prevent evident design deficiencies with State and City

Fire Codes. The design will be reviewed in detail for State and City Fire Code compliance at the time of permit application. Dead

ends shall be in accordance with NFPA 101 30.2.5. Common path of travel, exit arrangement, exit capacity, and number of exits for

the 29th floor shall be in accordance with NFPA 101 chapter 12. Exit separation for the parking garage shall be in accordance with

NFPA 101 7.5.1.3.2. Exit access, exits, and exit discharge for the entire building shall be in accordance with NFPA 101 7.5.1.3.2.


Page 30



Transportation Impact Fees

1. Any new construction, change in use, addition, or redevelopment of a site or structure shall be subject to a review for Transporta-

tion Impact Fees. An estimated Transportation Impact Fee in the amount of $556,228.00, based on the construction of 215 multi-

family units, 9,467 square feet of retail use and 2,148 square feet of café use, will be due at the time of building permit issuance, sub-

ject to change upon final permit plan review.

For a copy of the complete ordinance or impact fee rate chart, you may reference our website at: http://www.cityoforlando.net/

planning/Transportation/ifees.htm

2. Any exemptions or credits against the Transportation Impact Fee must be reviewed prior to permit issuance. All Transportation

Impact Fee Credits shall be initiated and processed by the Transportation Impact Fee Coordinator. Credit shall be available for the

previous use located on the subject site.

3. The applicant shall comply with all applicable requirements of Chapter 59, the Concurrency Management Ordinance, to ensure

that all public facilities and services are available concurrent with the proposed development, and that the potential impacts on public

facilities and services are mitigated.

All new construction, changes in use, additions or redevelopment are required to submit a Concurrency Management application as a

part of the building plan review process. A Concurrency Management application is available on the City's website: http://

www.cityoforlando.net/permits/forms/concurrency.htm


Page 31 ZON2015-00010— City Centre PD - 215 E. Centra l Blvd

CO N TAC T IN F ORM AT IO N Growth Management

For questions regarding Growth Management plan review, please contact Michelle Beamon at

[email protected] or 407.246.3145.

Land Development

For questions regarding Land Development review, please contact Michaëlle Petion at (407) 246-3837 or

[email protected].

Urban Design

For questions regarding Urban Design plan review, please contact Doug Metzger at 407.246.3414 or doug-

[email protected]

Transportation

For questions regarding Transportation Planning plan review, please contact Matt Wiesenfeld at (407) 246-2290 or mat-

[email protected]

For questions regarding Transportation Engineering plan review, please contact Lauren Torres at 407-246-3220 or lau-

[email protected]

Engineering/Zoning

For questions regarding Engineering or Zoning contact Keith Grayson at (407) 246-3234 or

[email protected]. To obtain plan review status, schedule/cancel an inspection and obtain inspection

results, please call PROMPT, our Interactive Voice Response System at 407.246.4444.

Wastewater

For questions regarding Wastewater review, please contact David Breitrick at 407-246-3525 or

[email protected]

Police

For questions regarding Orlando Police Department plan review, please contact Audra Nordaby at 407.246.2454 or

[email protected].

Fire

For questions regarding fire issues, please contact Kermit Johnson at 407.246.2676 or at [email protected]. To ob-

tain plan review status, schedule/cancel an inspection and obtain inspection results, please call PROMPT, our Interactive Voice Re-

sponse System at 407.246.4444.

Building

For questions regarding Building Plan Review issues contact Don Fields at (407) 246-2654 or [email protected].

Parks

For questions regarding Tree Plan Review issues contact Justin.Garber at (407) 246-4047 or [email protected].

For questions regarding Parks Plan Review issues contact Denise Riccio at (407) 246-4249 or [email protected].

Transportation Impact Fees

For questions and information regarding Transportation Impact Fee Rates you may contact Nancy Ottini at (407)246-3529 or

[email protected]

RE V I E W /AP P R O VA L PRO C ESS—NE X T ST E P S 1. MPB minutes scheduled for review and approval by City Council.

2. City Council review and approval of First reading of ordinance.

3. City Council review and approval of Second reading of ordinance.

4. Applicant submits for building permits.

staff report to the zon2015-00010 municipal planning board … · 2017-11-04 · page 4...

Documents