Z O N I TEM # 1 2

Transcription

1 Staff Report to the Municipal Planning Board April 15, 2014 Z O N I TEM # 1 2 THORNTON PARK TOWNHOMES PD Mariposa St E. Jackson St Location Map Subject Site S U M M A RY Owner Stephen Bozarth, Manager Jackson-Mariposa Properties Applicant Franco Scala, F&J Developers, LLC Project Planner Michaëlle Petion Property Location: 620 Mariposa St., 615 & 621 E. Jackson St. (north of E. Jackson St., south of Mariposa St., east of S. Eola Dr. and west of S. Summerlin Ave.) (Parcel ID # , , ) (±1.11 acres, District 4) Applicant s Request: The applicant is requesting to amend and rename the Carriage House PD to allow a 28 unit townhome development. 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 March 31, As of the published date of this report, no inquiries have been received from the public. Updated: April 8, 2014

2 Page 2 F U TURE LAND USE MAP Z O N ING MAP

3 Page 3 P R O JECT ANALYSIS Project Description The acre subject site is in the South Eola neighborhood, north of E. Jackson St., south of Mariposa St., east of S. Eola Dr. and west of S. Summerlin Ave. The subject property currently consists of three parcels with one single-family residence and five duplexes, all built in The site is zoned PD/T/AN (Planned Development/Traditional City/Aircraft Noise overlays) and has a Future Land Use designation of Residential Medium. The proposal is consistent with the proposed Zoning and Future Land Use designations. Previous Actions: 1913 Properties platted as part of the Wimott s Plan Subdivision Residences constructed Property rezoned from R-3B/T to PD/T for a 5-story, 66-bed assisted living facility. (ZON , CC Doc#: ) March Subarea Policy S.7.4 (Addressing the South Eola Small Neighborhood Plan) became effective. May South Eola Small Neighborhood Plan Area adopted by City Council. August 2007 PD amendment adopted by City Council to allow a 7-story, 108-bed assisted living facility. (ZON ; CC Doc#: ). Project Context The site currently contains 6 residential structures. The property to the north contains 3 story townhomes. To the east are duplexes. The west consists of a single-family residence as well as a triplex. See Table 1 Project Context for more details. The property to the south is currently vacant but used as a park space. Table 1 Project Context Future Land Use Zoning Surrounding Use North Residential Medium Intensity Residential Medium Intensity/ Traditional City/Aircraft Noise overlay (R-3B/T/AN) South Residential High and Medium Intensity Holding District/ Traditional City/ Aircraft Noise overlay (H/T/AN) Residential Constitutional Green Park East Residential Low Intensity Residential District/ Traditional City overlay (R-2A/T) West Residential High Intensity Mixed Residential-Office District/ Traditional City/ Aircraft Noise overlay (MXD-2/T & MXD-2/T/ AN) Residential Residential Conformance with the GMP As indicated in Figure LU-1 of the Future Land Use Element, the proposed residential use is allowed under the Residential Medium Intensity future land use designation. The future land use designation allows between 12 and 30 du/ac. The proposed 28 units results in a density of 25 du/acre. GMP future land use subarea policies S.7.1 and S.7.4 affect this subject site. Subarea Policy S.7.4 deals with the South Eola Neighborhood Plan mitigating the impacts of new development. Subarea Policy S.7.1 states the following: "Because this is an area of transition adjacent to the Downtown Activity Center and has an existing land use pattern of housing and offices, and in order to encourage downtown infill residential development, residential uses and mixed residential-office development shall be encouraged by the Land Development Code in this area." This project meets the intent of this subarea policy and is consistent with the GMP.

4 Page 4 P R O JECT ANALYSIS Conformance with the LDC/PD The PD district is intended to provide a process for the evaluation of unique, individually planned developments which are not otherwise permitted in the zoning districts and provide superior design. The subject site is zoned PD/T/AN (Carriage House Planned Development/Traditional City/Aircraft Noise Overlays) on the Official Zoning Map, with a default zoning of R-3B/T (Medium Intensity Residential/Traditional City Overlay). Table 2- Development Standards of this report details the maximum allowable density. The R-3B/T zoning district allows a maximum Impervious Surface Ratio (ISR) of The applicant proposes an ISR of Staff will allow the increased ISR. A height of 32 ft. is proposed with the parapet and architectural elements extending to approximately 42 ft. in height. Phase Acreage Use Sq. Ft./ Dwelling Units Table 2 Development Standards Density (dwelling units per acre) Max. 200 du/ac Allowed Proposed Current PD Allowance FAR (floor area ratio) Max FAR Proposed Building Height Allowed Proposed Maximum Existing PD ISR* (impervious surface ratio) Proposed/ Existing/ Allocated 1.11 acres Residential 28 du proposed 12 to 30/ du/ac* 25 du/ac N/A N/A 40 ft. 3-stories ±32 ft *Per Residential Medium Intensity Future Land Use Designation City codes has specific lot standards and setback requirements for attached dwellings (townhomes). Tables 3 & 4 outlines the required and proposed standards, which are being modified as a part of this PD request. Front setbacks on Jackson St. and Summerlin Ave. are 8 ft. with a variation of 7 to 10 ft. deep front setbacks for the interior lots that front on the mews. The lots have a rear setback of 2 ft. with a balcony that overhangs in this area. In regards to side setbacks, the lots that terminate adjacent to the internal drive have 5 ft. setbacks, while the building with frontage on Jackson St has a 12 ft. setback adjacent to the west property line. The building with frontage on Summerlin Ave. has a south street-side setback of 10 ft. and a north setback of 7 ft. The interior facing attached structures have a 5 ft. street-side setback which will contain a city services easement for a public sidewalk. The subject property is located within the South Eola Neighborhood Plan, which outlines specific streetscape requirements/cross sections for properties based on whether the streets are considered Primary or Secondary Corridors. Table 3 Minimum Lot Standards Table 4 Setback Requirements Yard Required Proposed Front 20 ft ft. Required Proposed Side 10 ft.* 5-12 ft. Minimum lot area 1600 sq. ft. 980 sq. ft. Average lot area 1800 sq. ft. 999 sq. ft. Minimum lot width 20 ft ft. Street-side 15 ft ft. Rear 20 ft. 2 ft *Applies to end units only. These required cross sections, see Figure 1: South Eola Neighborhood Plan Cross Sections, are measured from the back of curb to the building face. Under the plan, Jackson St. is defined as a primary corridor, which require 8'6" on-street parking (with bulb outs), 7'6" parkway/parkstrip, and a 7' sidewalk (including a 3 ft. easement). Mariposa St. is defined as a secondary corridor, which requires 8'6" on-street parking width (with bulb outs), a 7' parkway/parkstrip, and a 5' sidewalk. To allow for a non-meandering sidewalk, on Mariposa St., the sidewalk shall be permitted adjacent to the on-street parking, with the 5 ft. of landscaping adjacent to the residences. Summerlin Ave. is not required to follow the dedication of right-of-way as are the other streets due to its pending removal from the major thorough fare plan. As a result, a minimum 7ft. wide sidewalk, with a clear path of travel, shall be required for the length of the property with adequate parkway landscape in addition to the sidewalk. A Bufferyard A (5-7 ft, per new landscape code effective April 1, 2014) is required along the western property line. A range of 1ft. to 12 ft. is proposed to accommodate vehicular uses areas as well as the refuse container. Staff will allow this subject to the addition

5 Page 5 P R O JECT ANALYSIS of opaque fencing and landscaping. Also, the refuse container will require screening from the top in addition to the sides. Transportation The subject development will have access to the City s roadway network via two, two-directional driveways onto Mariposa Street on the north side of the development site. Mariposa Street is classified as a secondary corridor under the direction of the South Eola Neighborhood Small Area Plan. The new Grapefruit - East/West LYMMO route currently under construction will run westward along Church Street, within one block of the subject development site. This LYMMO route will provide direct access to the Amway Center, Lake Approved Development Program Table 5 Trip Generation Development Size Average Daily Trips (vpd) PM Peak Hour Trips (vph) Assisted Living Facility 108 bed Proposed Development Program Multifamily Residential 28 dwelling units Change All values based on ITE, Trip Generation, 9 th ed. Eola, and LYNX Central Station, which will provide service in the metro Orlando area through SunRail and various bus routes. A trip generation of the approved and proposed land uses within the subject area is provided in Table 5. The proposed use will result in a reduction compared to the currently approved assisted living facility. Orlando Engineering Standards Manual (ESM) Table 8.5. requires a minimum 125 ft. driveway separation from a street. Due to site constraints the applicant is requesting a reduction to the minimum driveway separation distance from the intersection of Mariposa St. and S. Summerlin Ave. The reduction to the minimum driveway separation is granted only under this Planned Development (ZON ) ordinance, providing superior design and approval by the City's Transportation Engineer (F. Consoli). If the project is altered or redesigned from this plan submittal the applicant will need to meet all City Codes and design criteria located in the ESM and LDC. Urban Design/Appearance Review Board (ARB) This project is located in the DDB (Downtown Development Board)/CRA Overlay District, which requires review by the Appearance Review Board (ARB) for all new construction. ARB provided a courtesy review of this project on March 20, Final approval of the building and site plans is required through the Appearance Review Board. Stormwater Ground elevations in the block boardered by Eola Dr., Mariposa St., Summerlin Ave., and Jackson St. show grading from high on the west side to lower on the east side. Consequently, the consulting engineer must show how the stormwater sheet-flowing from the properties west of the development will be handled to prevent ponding on those properties. School Impacts 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 concurrency review. A list of exemptions from this review is provided under Section 16.2 of the Agreement. Included in the list of exemptions 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 proposals that may have the effect of increasing existing density. This proposed density for this site is within the previously permitted density allowed on this site. Further, 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. A School capacity enhancement agreement shall be required.

6 Page 6 F I G U R E 1 : S O U T H E O L A N E I G H B O R H O O D P L A N C R O S S S E C T I O N S A E R IAL PHOTO Subject site

7 Page 7 S U RVEY

8 Page 8 ZO N T h o rn t o n P a r k T o w n h o me s P D DEVELOPMENT PLAN Mariposa St Two-directional S. Summerlin Ave Refuse container E. Jackson St 6 ft. tall fencing and landscaping required.

9 Page 9 Elevations Partial East Jackson Street Remainder East Jackson Street South Summerlin Avenue

10 Page 10 ZO N T h o rn t o n P a r k T o w n h o me s P D West Elevation East Elevation South Elevation

11 Page 11 Rendering

12 Page 12 ZO N T h o rn t o n P a r k T o w n h o me s P D SITE PHOTOS Subject property as viewed from Mariposa St. looking west. A portion of the site as viewed from Jackson St. The single-family residence can be seen on the west. Single-family residence located west of the subject property. Townhomes located north of the subject property. Duplexes located east of the subject property.

13 Page 13 F I N DINGS 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. Staff recommends approval of ZON subject to the conditions below: C O N D ITIONS OF A PPROVAL Growth Management 1. The proportionate share transportation contribution in accordance with GMP Subarea Policy S.7.4. shall be required. Land Development 1. Land Use and Zoning. The underlying zoning shall default to the standards of the R-3B/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. Minor modifications and design changes including but not limited to fences, accessory structures, signs, landscaping, interior alterations, and other minor changes, that are required beyond those previously reviewed by the Municipal Planning Board, may be approved by the Planning Official without further review by the Municipal Planning Board. Major changes shall require additional review by the Municipal Planning Board. 4. Conformance with PD Required. Construction and development shall conform to approved site plans, elevations, and landscaping plans on file with the City Planning Division and all conditions contained in this report, or as modified by the Municipal Planning Board and City Council. When submitting plans to the Permitting Division for permitting, the applicant shall attach to each submittal a copy of this staff report, and the excerpts of the Municipal Planning Board minutes. 5. 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. 6. Maximum Impervious Surface Ratio (ISR). The maximum ISR for the PD shall not exceed Setbacks. The minimum required setbacks for the overall property shall be as follows: 5 ft. on Mariposa St., 8 ft. on Summerlin St., 9 ft. on E. Jackson St. and 12 ft. along the west property line, consistent with the proposed site plan. 8. School Capacity. The project shall be subject to school capacity and shall coordinate with OCPS. 9. Signage. Signage shall conform to the requirements of Chapter 64 of the LDC. 10. Bufferyard. The proposed buffer along the western property line, varying from 1 ft. to 12 ft. in width shall be acceptable, in lieu of the consistent 5ft. or 7 ft. required by code, provided that the required vegetation is provided as well as 6 ft. tall opaque fencing. 11. Overhangs. Balconies and other such overhangs shall not encroach into any easements.

14 Page 14 C O N D ITIONS OF A PPROVAL(CO NT.) Urban Design 1. ARB. Development shall be consistent with the conditions of approval of ARB Transportation Planning The Transportation Planning Division supports the applicant's request provided that the owner/applicant complies with the following: 1 Work within 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 construction/ 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 ). b. Roadway plans including paving, grading, pavement markings and signage (Contact the Permitting Transportation Engineering Reviewer at for details). c. A copy of all required County and State permits (If permits are pending attach a copy of the application). 2. Driveway Separation to Inlet. The Orlando Engineering Standards Manual (ESM), Section 8.11.E. states that no driveway shall be permitted which includes any facility such as trees, utility poles, catch basins, fire hydrants or any other similar type of structure, unless such facility is relocated at the developer or owner's expense. No curb cut shall be made within 3 feet of a drainage inlet. The proposed driveway to be located at the northeast corner of the development site appears to be encroaching on an existing drainage inlet. 3. Driveway Design. If a new driveway is proposed it shall meet the requirements of the Orlando Land Development Code (LDC), Chapter 61 (Sections ), and Engineering Standards Manual (ESM), Section 8.11, design requirements including, but not limited to the following: a. Driveway width; b. Dead-end drive aisles shall provide a 3-foot indentation to facilitate the backing up of vehicles c. Spacing (driveway spacing from other driveways); d. Pedestrian safe path of travel e. Angle; f. Radii; and g. Grade 4. Commercial Plans Submittal. The submitted construction plans shall include a site plan (prepared to a standard engineering scale) showing the following: driveway approach, curb, street pavement edge, public sidewalk, etc. (Please see the Commercial Plans Submittal Checklist: Reference Orlando Land Development Code (LDC), Chapters 60 and 65, and Engineering Standards Manual (ESM), Article Section Parking Design. Parking stalls shall have a minimum width of 9 feet, and 18.5 feet in depth. For two-way traffic flow, the minimum aisle width shall be 24 feet, reduced down to 23 feet with approval by City Transportation Engineer. 6. HC Ramps at Intersections. Handicap (HC) ramps shall be constructed at the street intersection(s) and driveway connection(s) to comply with the Americans with Disability Act (ADA). Pedestrian ramps at street corners shall be designed to provide a separate ramp in each direction. 7. Dumpster/Compactor. The final site plan shall show the location and size of the on-site solid waste compactor(s) / dumpster(s) with concrete pads, and enclosures with doors. The solid waste container(s) shall not be located directly adjacent to the public street. Dumpsters shall be located to provide a minimum 50 feet of clear backup space and constructed per Orlando Engineering Standards Manual (ESM) requirements, OR documentation shall be provided from the City's Solid Waste Division indicating other approved arrangements. If a dumpster will not be provided documentation shall be provided from the City's Solid Waste Division indicating curb pick-up or

15 Page 15 C O N D ITIONS OF A PPROVAL(CO NT.) other approved arrangement. You may contact Mr. Jonathan Gilliam, Solid Waste Operations Manager at: or jonathan.guilliam@cityoforlando.net 8. Clear Sight Distance. Clear sight distances for drivers and pedestrians shall be provided at the proposed project access driveway, and 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 street corner visibility requirements (Chapter 60, Sections through Sections ) and the driveways and curbcuts requirements 9. Traffic Control Device. Traffic control devices shall be shown per Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) standards (stop signs, stop bars, etc.). A stop bar shall be shown at the exit from the property. Stop signs and stop bars shall be located inline and 4 feet behind sidewalks/crosswalks. 10. Public sidewalk within S Eola Plan. All sidewalks shall be a minimum of 7ft. wide, with a clear path of travel, for the length of the property along East Jackson Street as required in the South Eola Plan for a primary corridor. Mariposa Street shall be designed with a secondary corridor as shown in the South Eola Neighborhood Small Area Plan streetscaping, with a minimum sidewalk width of 5 ft. located adjacent to the on-street parking. S. Summerlin Avenue is not required to follow the dedication of right-of-way as needed in the major thorough fare plan, a minimum 7ft. wide sidewalk, with a clear path of travel, for the length of the property along S. Summerlin Ave. A City Services Easement shall be provided for the length of East Jackson Street and Mariposa Street as necessary adjacent to the public road R-O-W to accommodate any portion of the public sidewalk that is not within the public R-O- W. 11. Pedestrian Crossing. The main pedestrian crossing areas between the buildings and the parking areas shall be clearly marked with pavement markings and maintained at all times in accordance with Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) standards. 12. Driveways Local Streets. The spacing between adjacent driveways accessing public streets classified as local shall meet the Orlando Engineering Standards Manual (ESM), Table 8.5, due to site constraints the applicant is requesting a reduction to the minimum driveway separation distance from the intersection of Mariposa St. and S. Summerlin Ave. The reduction to the minimum driveway separation is granted only under this Planned Development (ZON ) ordinance, providing superior design and approval by the City's Transportation Engineer (F. Consoli). If the project is altered or redesigned from this plan submittal the applicant will need to meet all City Codes and design criteria located in the Engineering Standards Manual (ESM) and Land Development Code (LDC). 13. Transportation Impact Fees. a. Any new construction, change in use, addition, or redevelopment of a site or structure shall be subject to a review for Transportation Impact Fees. An estimated Transportation Impact Fee in the amount of $61,320.00, based on the construction of 28 multi-family units, will be due at the time of building permit issuance, subject 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: planning/transportation/ifees.htm b. 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. c. 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:

16 Page 16 C O N D ITIONS OF A PPROVAL(CO NT.) Transportation Engineering 1. Sight Distance. The on-street parking proposed near driveways must meet the sight line criteria established in the FDOT Design Standards Index Minimum Parking Restrictions for Nonsignalized Intersections, Index sheet 12. Stormwater 1. The contour layer in the City's GIS system shows ground elevations in the block boardered by Eola Dr., Mariposa St., Summerlin Ave., and Jackson St. grading from high on the west side to lower on the east side. Consequently, the consulting engineer must show how the stormwater sheetflowing from the properties west of the development will be handled to prevent ponding on those properties. 2. The applicant must provide a topographic survey showing the limits of the AE Flood Zone on the property to the City Engineer. The City Engineer or designee will review the survey before determining the amount of compensating storage. The applicant is encouraged to discuss the survey methodology and format with the City Engineer or designee before conducting the survey. Fire 1. Department Access. Every building constructed shall be accessible to fire department apparatus by way of access roadways with all-weather surface of not less than 20 feet of unobstructed width, adequate roadway turning radius, capable of supporting the imposed loads of fire apparatus, and having a minimum vertical clearance of 13 ft. 6 in. [NFPA 1: ] 2. Fire Code Review. 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. 3. Fire Permits Required. Underground main contractor must apply for a Fire permit for the installation or modification of any underground mains serving fire hydrants and/or fire protection systems prior to any installation. If the water distribution system and fire hydrants are located in a right-of-way or recorded easement and owned/installed/maintained by the water purveyor, we will only require installation to the water purveyor's standards for underground components and connections. However, hydrants must be in compliance with hydrant spacing, location, distribution, color coding, and needed fire flow minimums as specified in City Fire Code. Underground main and fire hydrant installations on private property will require an FIR permit and full compliance with NFPA 24. [City Fire Code, Section 24.13(t)(13)] 4. Construction Code. Please inform contractor that where underground mains and hydrants are to be provided, they shall be installed, completed, and in service prior to storage of combustibles on site. [NFPA 1: ] Fire department access shall be provided at the start of the project and shall be maintained throughout construction. [NFPA 1: ] In all buildings more than one story in height, at least one stairway shall be provided that is in usable condition at all times and that meets the requirements of of the Life Safety Code, NFPA 101. [NFPA 1: ] 5. FD Access to building. A fire department access road shall extend within 50 ft of a single exterior door providing access to the interior of the building. Fire department access roads shall be provided such that any portion of the facility or any portion of an exterior wall of the first story of the building is located not more than 150 ft (450 ft for sprinkler protected structures) from fire department access roads. [NFPA 1: ] 6. Required Fire Access. All structures must be protected by fire hydrants in accordance with City Fire Code 24.30(f). A determination will be made at the time plans are submitted for permitting. We will need a Required Fire Flow calculation in accordance with the ISO method demonstrating the water distribution system and new/existing fire hydrant(s) can deliver the demand.

17 Page 17 C O N D ITIONS OF A PPROVAL(CO NT.) 7. Sprinkler Ord 5000 and Res. All structures must be protected by fire hydrants in accordance with City Fire Code 24.30(f). A determination will be made at the time plans are submitted for permitting. We will need a Required Fire Flow calculation in accordance with the ISO method demonstrating the water distribution system and new/existing fire hydrant(s) can deliver the demand. 8. Florida Fire Prevention Code. Be advised that any new construction must adhere to the requirements of the Florida Fire Prevention Code, 2010 Edition, and The City of Orlando Fire Prevention Code. Police 1. CPTED. The Orlando Police Department has reviewed the plans for Thornton Park Townhouses located at 620 Mariposa St., 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, Territorial Reinforcement and Target Hardening. 2. 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. 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 A lighting plan was not available at the time of this review. All lighting for this project shall meet the guidelines in Orange County Ordinance No and Orlando city code. o In order to give residents a sense of safety, pedestrian-scale lighting should be used in high-pedestrian traffic areas to include all walkways, at entry doors and throughout common areas. o Appropriate lighting should be included in any areas throughout the project if it is anticipated these areas will be utilized after dark. This would include common areas and interior garage access routes. 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 units. Benches placed in common areas are a good way to increase natural surveillance and encourage community interaction. Consider bench 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). All sides of the buildings should have windows to observe the walkways, common areas and garages. Bicycle parking pads (if installed) shall meet Chapter 61, part 3, 3D of Orlando city code and should be observable from building entrances, securely fastened and not obstructed by landscaping. Ensure that any canopies or awnings do not interfere with lighting. 3. Natural Access Control. Design the site to decrease crime opportunity by denying access to crime targets and creating in offenders, a perception of risk. This can be accomplished by designing street, sidewalks, building and parking lot entrances to clearly indicate public routes and discourage access to private areas with structural and landscape elements. Public entrances should be clearly defined by walkways, signs, and landscaping. Landscaping used around building entrances should create clear way-finding, be well lit and not block entrances or create ambush points. There should be no easy access to the roof of any of the buildings. Way-finding located throughout the property should help guide users to authorized areas while discouraging potential offenders. Traffic calming techniques such as surface and gateway treatments are recommended to encourage safe vehicle speeds, reduce collision frequency and increase the safety and the perception of safety for non-motorized users. Walkways throughout the project should be a minimum of 5 feet in width to support pedestrian flow and safety. 4. 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 private spaces from public spaces such as; landscape plantings, pavement designs, gateway treatments and CPTED open design (seethrough) fences. The property should be designed to encourage interaction between neighbors. Each residence should have an address that is clearly visible from the street (and internal road network) with numbers a

18 Page 18 C O N TACT INFORMAT ION Growth Management For questions regarding Growth Management plan review, please contact Michelle Beamon at (407) or Michelle.Beamon@cityoforlando.net Land Development For questions regarding Land Development review, please contact Michaëlle Petion at (407) or Michaelle.Petion@cityoforlando.net. Urban Design For questions regarding Urban Design plan review, please contact Doug Metzger at or douglas.metzger@cityoforlando.net. Transportation Planning For questions regarding Transportation Planning plan review, please contact Nancy Ottini at or nancy.jurusottini@cityoforlando.net Transportation Engineering For questions regarding Transportation Planning plan review, please contact Lauren Torres at or Lauren.torres@cityoforlando.net Engineering/Zoning For questions regarding Engineering or Zoning contact Keith Grayson at (407) or keith.grayson@cityoforlando.net. To obtain plan review status, schedule/cancel an inspection and obtain inspection results, please call PROMPT, our Interactive Voice Response System at Stormwater For questions regarding Stormwater review, please contact Ben Gray at or ben.gray@cityoforlando.net. Fire For any questions regarding fire issues, please contact Jack Richardson at or at jack.richardson@cityoforlando.net. To obtain plan review status, schedule/cancel an inspection and obtain inspection results, please call PROMPT, our Interactive Voice Response System at Police For questions regarding Police plan review, please contact Audra Nordaby at or Audra.Nordaby@cityoforlando.net. Building For questions regarding Building Plan Review issues contact Don Fields at (407) or don.fields@cityoforlando.net. Parks For questions regarding Tree removal issues contact Justin Garber at (407) or justin.garber@cityoforlando.net R E V I E W/AP P R O VA L PROCESS NEXT STEPS 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.