Developer seeks OK for 85 townhomes on Maitland Concourse North Lot 6

City staff and a developer presented an early proposal to the City of Maitland City Council to amend the Maitland Concourse North planned development and the related comprehensive plan to permit up to 85 townhomes on Lot 6.

Mark (City Manager) told the council the planned development, approved in February, covers eight lots with mixed uses and that any change to Lot 6’s allowed uses would require a PD amendment and a matching comprehensive plan amendment. “They are still in the pre‑application process,” Mark said, and the session was intended to give the applicant feedback before a formal filing.

Jonathan Martin, representing Gilmore and Associates for the applicant, said the site is about 7.5 acres and the design goal is a walkable residential neighborhood that works with existing natural vegetation. “The goal of the plan was to really work with the natural environment,” Martin said, describing proposed building footprints, pocket parks and a lower impervious surface than the previously entitled office development.

Under the current PD the site carried a nonresidential entitlement such as a roughly 150,000‑square‑foot office building with associated parking; the PD also previously allowed for 350 residential units overall, which the staff said have been used elsewhere in the Concourse (Tri Lago apartments). The applicant’s proposal would add 85 owner‑occupied townhomes to the PD in place of the office/hotel/retail entitlement.

Neighbors and commenters raised concerns about scale, compatibility and precedent. Nicole Verghe, a resident, said she visited an example project in Tampa and found it “a high density infill urban housing project” that she considered incompatible with Maitland’s residential character. Paul (resident) reminded the council that “a maximum of 350 residential units were allowed, not an additional 85 units,” and said he opposed rezoning for that reason.

Council and staff questions addressed parking, traffic and visibility. The applicant said each townhome unit would include two parking spaces and additional visitor parking; Martin and staff estimated the townhome scheme would generate less traffic—about 25% of the traffic—than the previously entitled office building. The applicant said the proposed townhomes would be three stories; staff noted that an office building of three stories could be taller in feet because of different floor‑to‑floor heights.

Council members also asked about short‑term rentals and state policy options. Staff said the proposal is for owner‑occupied units and that the city regulates short‑term rentals, requiring owner occupancy; staff also explained that the parcel, if redeveloped under Florida’s recently discussed “Live Local” administrative pathway, could be treated differently because that program would allow certain nonresidential lots to be converted under administrative review without a public PD amendment process.

Staff and the applicant emphasized that this remains a pre‑application stage and that a formal PD/comprehensive plan amendment has not been filed. Mark told the council the applicant could revise the plan or proceed to a formal application based on feedback; no vote or formal direction was taken at the meeting.

Background: the Concourse North PD was approved earlier this year and includes a mix of parks, multifamily, office, retail and hotel uses; Lot 8 is owned by the city and will remain a conservation/passive park area, staff said. The applicant said existing dense vegetation along the lake would screen much of the proposed townhomes from view and that further landscaping and buffering could be added during the PD review.

The council and community will have additional opportunities for review and public input if and when the applicant files a formal amendment application.