Laserfiche WebLink
CASSELBERRY CITY COMMISSION <br />Minutes of March 24, 2025 — Regular Meeting <br />Page 5 of 14 <br />The City Clerk read Ordinance 25-1620 by title, as follows: <br />"AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CASSELBERRY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE CITY'S <br />OFFICIAL ZONING MAP AND CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION FROM <br />CASSELBERRY R-9 (LOW DENSITY SINGLE-FAMILY) TO CASSELBERRY RMF -13 <br />(MEDIUM DENSITY MULTIFAMILY) FOR THE PROPERTY WITH PARCEL <br />IDENTIFICATION NUMBER 09-21-30-506-0300-0050, TOTALING APPROXIMATELY 0.59 <br />ACRES, AS DESCRIBED IN SECTION I OF THIS ORDINANCE; PROVIDING FOR <br />CONFLICTS, SEVERABILITY, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE." <br />Staff Presentation: City Attorney Kristin Eick announced that since this was a quasi-judicial item, ex <br />parte communications, if any, should be disclosed at this time. None were disclosed. Chief Planner Antonia <br />DeJesus then gave an overview of Ordinance 25-1620 which amends the City's Official Zoning Map from <br />R-9 (Low Density Single -Family) to RMF -l3 (Medium Density Multifamily) for one (1) parcel with Parcel <br />Identification Number 09-21-30-506-0300-0050. The subject parcel is approximately 0.59 acres in size, is <br />currently undeveloped and is located on the west side of Hill Street, approximately 190 feet south of its <br />intersection with Seminola Boulevard. The applicant intends to develop the parcel with townhomes. The <br />subject property currently has a Medium Density Residential (MDR) Future Land Use Map (FLUM) <br />designation with an inconsistent zoning classification of R-9 (Low Density Single -Family); therefore, an <br />amendment to the City's Official Zoning Map is required to accommodate the proposed use. The RMF -13 <br />zoning district is intended to accommodate single-family and multifamily residential development with a <br />maximum density of thirteen (13) dwelling units per acre, and for this 0.59 acre site, this translates to <br />approximately seven (7) dwelling units; however, the maximum density is not automatically granted. <br />Instead, it will be determined through a site-specific assessment that considers the natural features of the <br />site, as well as the performance standards outlined in ULDR chapter III. The Planning and Zoning <br />Commission, acting as the City's Land Planning Agency (LPA) at an advertised public meeting on February <br />12, 2025 voted to recommend approval of this item to the City Commission. City staff assessed the <br />proposed amendment based on the established criteria outlined in the Unified Land Development <br />Regulations (ULDR) Section 1-2.9.A. and a detailed staff report containing the criteria was provided to the <br />City Conunission in their agenda packets for review prior to the meeting. In response to questions from <br />the Commission, Ms. DeJesus explained that this parcel was not the same parcel about which there had <br />been recent resident complaints, and that the maximum density for the proposed R-13 zoning designation <br />was seven (7) units per acre which was only two (2) units above the five (5) units per acre for the current <br />zoning designation of R-9. She also explained that the future land use designation for the property had <br />always promoted medium density residential, so the change to R-13 would actually make the zoning <br />consistent with the future land use. Also, the maximum density of seven (7) units is not guaranteed; it has <br />to be proven that the dwelling units can be oriented on the site within the required buffers and setbacks, and <br />that storinwater and parking are accounted for, which takes up the buildable portion of the site. If that <br />cannot be done, the number of units would have to be reduced. However, that process had not yet taken <br />place so it was unknown whether the site would be able to accommodate the maximum of seven (7) units. <br />Budget Impact: No impact to the Budget is anticipated at this time. <br />Recommendation: The City Manager and the Community Development Director recommended approval <br />of Ordinance 25-1620 on first reading. <br />Audience Participation: No one came forward to address Ordinance 25-1620 <br />