Council schedules May hearings for Aria at Oviedo mixed‑use, applicant proposes 55+ residences and limited retail

The City Council scheduled public hearings May 5 on a proposed small‑scale comprehensive plan amendment and zoning amendment for the Aria at Oviedo project, a mixed‑use plan that would add age‑restricted multifamily and limited retail on a 9.63‑acre parcel within the River Oaks Reserve PUD.

Planning staff and the applicant described the proposal as 172 age‑restricted (55+) multifamily units, about 6,200 square feet of commercial/retail, parking, amenities (clubhouse, pool, pickleball) and a conservation buffer around wetlands. Staff said the project would provide about 37.8% open space on the subject parcel and proposed a maximum building height of 70 feet. As part of negotiations the applicant self‑limited the development to households aged 55 or older and agreed to several design and traffic‑mitigation commitments presented to council.

Staff told council the property’s existing PUD entitlements currently allow up to about 96,300 square feet of commercial use on the commercial tract; planners provided a side‑by‑side trip generation comparison and said the applicant’s proposed age‑restricted multifamily plus limited retail would generate substantially fewer weekday and peak‑hour trips than the maximum commercial build‑out allowed under the existing entitlements.

Representatives reviewed history: the River Oaks Reserve PUD was approved in the 1990s and incorporated a mix of residential and commercial elements; that prior development agreement had been carried forward in staff analysis and the city’s updated land‑development code includes language to maintain standards for expired DAs pending amendment. Staff recommended approval of the proposed comp plan and PUD amendments based on policy goals for mixed use, compact infill, and a lack of direct school impact because the use is age‑restricted.

Residents spoke in opposition during public comment, citing traffic, the parcel’s long-standing commercial entitlement and a preference for preserving the existing future land‑use designation. Several council members requested additional material for the May 5 public hearing, including a clearer depiction of proposed tree and landscape buffers, updated trip and parking counts, and confirmation of utility capacity. City staff said public‑works and utilities had reviewed capacity and indicated adequate water and sewer capacity for the proposal; staff also said they would supply updated maps and the revised development‑agreement language before the hearing.

Council voted to schedule the required public hearings on both the comprehensive plan amendment (Ordinance 17‑54) and the zoning/PUD amendment (Ordinance 17‑55) for May 5; no final approvals were given at the April 21 meeting.