Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Planned Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bella Viva PD proposal fails Planning Commission recommendation after dispute over setbacks and infrastructure
Summary
A proposal to reinstate the Bella Viva Planned Development-Housing 1 (±76.28 acres) with reduced side setbacks failed to receive a favorable recommendation (2–3). Attorneys and staff outlined prior infrastructure and foreclosure history; the item will go to the City Commission and requires a supermajority.
The Planning Commission considered a request to re-establish the Bella Viva Planned Development‑Housing 1 (PD‑H1) on approximately 76.28 acres that had been annexed in 2020. The developer proposes to keep the previously approved density (2.44 units per acre), retain lot sizes and amenities from the 2021 approval but reduce side setbacks from 10 feet to 7 feet to allow three‑car garages. Community Development Director Julie Womble described the site history, the Green Swamp density cap and the developer’s plan to reapply the prior binding site plan conditions.
Land use attorney Bart Allen, representing Highland Homes and Clayton Properties, said prior infrastructure work had been installed by the previous owner and that a foreclosure delayed activity on the project. "It took from August 31, 2022, when the complaint was filed until June of this year to get all the way through that foreclosure process," Allen said, explaining the gap in development. Allen added the developer intends to re‑establish the prior PD with minor tweaks. Womble and Allen discussed lot sizes, existing pipes and force-main testing that has been performed to preserve installed infrastructure.
Commissioners debated setbacks, green‑space requirements, traffic on Cone Road and whether requiring three‑car garages would increase building footprints. Commissioner Dave Holt proposed architectural or footprint controls; staff replied the Florida Building Code sets minimums for garage stalls. When the commission voted on the recommendation to the City Commission, the roll call was Commissioner Chandler — No; Commissioner Holt — No; Commissioner Lawson — Yes; Commissioner Tijerina — No; Chairman Price — Yes, producing a 2–3 result against the recommendation. Julie Womble stated for the record that the item would still go to the City Commission and would require a supermajority for approval at that body.
Because the commission did not recommend approval, applicants will address remaining issues and present the project to the City Commission, where final decisions on reestablishing the PD and any setback changes will be made.
