Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Kingsbridge Pud topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Oviedo council approves Kingsbridge PUD amendment to allow short‑term RTS housing and bed limit
Summary
After staff described the changes, the council approved Ordinance 1766 to amend the Kingsbridge PUD and permit Reformed Theological Seminary to realize up to 163 beds (up to 40 as dormitory beds on Tract F) while keeping the multi‑family unit cap. Residents pressed for written protections for adjacent tracts.
Oviedo City Council adopted Ordinance 1766 on June 15, 2026, approving an amendment to the Kingsbridge planned unit development that authorizes a second amendment to the Kingsbridge development agreement and a revised community development plan for approximately 63.16 acres on Eastridge Drive and East Mitchell Hammock Road.
City planner Dr. Correa told council the change preserves the existing cap of 120 multi‑family units but converts the entitlement to a 163‑bed limit across the tract, with up to 40 beds allowed on Tract F to be used as a dormitory. Dr. Correa said staff used an "off‑campus student apartment" trip rate for analysis and that projected traffic impacts fall well below prior planning assumptions; open‑space, building‑height and wetland protections remain unchanged.
Rob McAdams, who identified himself as "on staff at Reformed Theological Seminary," told the council RTS crews cleared fallen fence material and that he received a verbal, not written, confirmation from St. Johns that the fence was not on the St. Johns easement and that St. Johns "were not opposed to the removal of it" as long as equipment was used carefully.
Resident William Ryan spoke during public comment and urged the council to put explicit protections for Tracts J and J1 into the PUD text, saying, "verbal assurances of intent do not bind future development. Only the explicit text of the ordinance carries the force of law."
During discussion, city counsel and Mr. Voss clarified the amendment is targeted only to Tracts F and H; Tracts J and J1 are largely owned by other property owners and any change affecting those tracts would require the participation or application of those owners. Mr. Voss emphasized that the sentence Mr. Ryan cited is not being changed by the amendment and that Exhibit E's architectural guidelines remain incorporated in homeowners association documents.
Council members moved and seconded adoption of Ordinance 1766; a roll‑call vote was taken and the ordinance passed. The council did not require additional changes to the development agreement for fence removal after staff confirmed the berm functions as the barrier called for in the DA.
What happens next: Ordinance 1766 is adopted and the DA/CDP revision proceeds; specific site‑level building footprints and details will be reviewed as part of later site development approvals and site development orders.
