Work session: Seminole County begins refining land‑development code changes on housing bonuses, open space, buffers and zoning

Seminole County staff and consultant Kimley‑Horn led the board through the second work session on a targeted update to the county’s Land Development Code on Tuesday, asking for direction to proceed with drafting changes that respond to recent comprehensive plan amendments and community‑identified issues.

Eliza Juliano, consultant with Kimley‑Horn & Associates, framed the updates as follow‑up to a significant 2024 zoning update and to newly adopted comprehensive‑plan policies that require additional code changes. Juliano said staff will run pro‑forma tests with affordable‑housing developers and the county Community Services Department to define density‑bonus ratios that will be placed in the LDC so the board can adjust incentives to market conditions.

On low‑density residential (LDR) zoning, staff reported a mismatch between theoretical maximum densities in the comprehensive plan (up to 4 dwelling units per acre in LDR) and what conventional lot sizes and required infrastructure realistically allow. Juliano said conventional lot standards and infrastructure requirements (streets, stormwater) often reduce achievable density to about 2–3 units per acre; the consultant recommended allowing additional zoning districts within LDR (R‑1B and R‑1BB) plus mandatory project open‑space standards and connectivity requirements so smaller lots or alternative layouts can achieve higher practical densities without requiring a planned development (PD) process.

On small‑lot mixed use, staff recommended clarifying that missing‑middle and mixed‑use corridor (MUCD) rules can accommodate small‑lot mixed‑use buildings with limited tweaks — for example, flexibility on side/rear setbacks for lots under a quarter acre and height limits (two stories) where the rear of a small lot abuts single‑family homes.

Juliano said the open‑space chapter needs rewriting to state clear policy goals — preservation of natural resources and uplands, community recreation, and greenery for wellbeing — and to tighten what counts as open space. She noted some recent additions (a 25% tree‑save requirement) and suggested establishing minimum usable‑open‑space dimensions for common amenities, limiting how much stormwater retention may count toward open space, and offering enhanced credits for higher‑value open space.

Buffer and fence standards would be reorganized for clarity, include new diagrams, and consider requiring a percentage of native species in required plantings. Staff proposed avoiding double walls between adjacent properties and allowing nonopaque fencing to improve visibility and maintenance; if developers elect opaque screening on roadways, durable materials such as masonry would be required.

Commissioners asked for additional data and context. Multiple commissioners urged staff to coordinate with Community Services for the affordability bands most in need (one commissioner suggested 80% of area median income as a priority), examine market feasibility and infrastructure impacts before setting bonus ratios, and present best practices from other jurisdictions. Commissioner Lockhart requested clearer data on which income bands show the greatest shortage. Commissioner Galarri and others emphasized redevelopment and incentivizing infill where infrastructure already exists. Jose Gomez, development services director, said staff would evaluate all options and noted that decisions on lot sizes, setbacks and required open space influence the cost to develop and therefore housing affordability.

Juliano closed by asking for direction to proceed with drafting code language and performing the pro‑forma and market coordination steps. Commissioners did not take a formal vote but gave direction to proceed with further technical analysis, developer outreach and coordination with community services on affordability targets.