Zoning Amendment (Consent) - Evans Pasadena Villages of Pasadena Hills Master Planned Unit Development - WestBay Homes - A Substantial Modification to Three Previously Approved MPUDs (f.k.a Parcel G-1, Parcel H- 1, and Parcel H-2) To Consolidate Into A Single MPUD Named Evans Pasadena, And Relocate Previously Approved Land Uses Within The Consolidated MPUD
What the county recorded
Staff recommendation
Approval with Conditions
DispositionApproved
Approved Staff’s recommendation including the noted revision to change the neighbor park reduction from fifty percent to twenty-five percent.
The source document
The county’s agenda for Board of County Commissioners, Apr 4, 2023
The published PDF, as served by the county. This item is one entry in it.
The county’s minutes for Board of County Commissioners, Apr 4, 2023
The published PDF, as served by the county. This item is one entry in it.
This case, across meetings
PDD-23-7635 in full →PDD-23-7635 was taken up 3 times between Feb 15, 2023 and Apr 4, 2023 — this is appearance 3.
- Feb 15, 2023PlanningP3No disposition in the minutes
- Mar 15, 2023PlanningP5No disposition in the minutes
- Apr 4, 2023BoardP54▶Approvedthis item
What was said
Machine transcription of 26m of recording, with speaker names inferred from voice matching. 97% of 116 lines carry a name. It shows what was said, not what was decided, and both the words and the names can be wrong.
All right, item P fifty four.
P fifty four publication temporary times. Oh wait, yeah, it's twenty twenty three.
Yeah, we already did the publication for these consultants. It's okay, no problem.
Good morning. Gavin Covey Planning and Development.
So this is gonna be Evans, Pasadena, P D twenty three, seven six three five. Um
Just really quickly, so the applicant's request is a substantial modification to three previously approved MPUDs and consolidate them into a single MPD named Evans Pasadena and re relocate previous approved land uses within the consolidated MPD. So here is the location within the county, the location within the villages of Bastina Hills. Here's the um aerial.
Here's the zoning. The future land use. And the master plane.
Um so there are variations that they're requesting are three. Uh the first one is from section eight oh five point six for non-residential parcels under single ownership and not plated a separate law to be exempt from being included in an HOA or CDD. Section 905.1.E to reduce the amount of parkland required for both multifamily and single-family developments, 50% for single-family. and a minimum of ten percent for uh multifamily. And then section 901.6d2
to reduce internal local roadways from 12-foot-wide travel lanes to 10-foot-wide travel lanes. And the staff analysis of this is 805.6. The parcel owner of the non-residential parcel shall act as the responsible party for any maintenance and activities that a HOA or CDD would normally maintain. 905.1E, residential properties, single-family, multifamily, within the MPUD will receive a reduction in total land area. Uh required for neighborhood parks due to the proximity of the superpark site.
The reduction in neighborhood park space combined with alternative transportation routes providing connection to the area will encourage more residents to visit the superpark.
Let me ask you a question before you go further. Yes,
sir.
I don't on the map I don't see a picture where the superpark is. What is the distance from it?
Yeah, so I'm gonna go back to the master plan for you really quick. And see if we can get that oh. Thank you.
Hi, I'm so sorry. Um this is the Hopkins. I'm sorry.
As you're bringing that up, I I
Commissioner Starkey.
Yeah, I'm you know I'm not in favor of getting rid of the neighborhood parks. Oh maybe. Um when you have high density Uh Yeah, these there's not a lot of yard space. And so one of the benefits of Putting that density um in is making sure there's green spaces close by and You don't wanna always have to walk to a m big park far away to to have
some kind of park activity happened near your house. So I I'm really I need someone to explain to me why we would want to get rid of those neighborhood parks.
So let me give my answer my question. How far is it?
I won't answer the chairman's
uh
factual question. Um Mr. Chairman, it in fact is part of the MPUD. Um this superpark site uh was majority owned by Evans properties from the outset through Pittman owned a small piece on the north. But the superpark literally, the upland active park portion is part of the MPD, so it lies within and contiguous to the MPD itself. The same property owner is the one that provided that parkland, as it turns out now,
for about one-third of its current market value for the county to acquire on very advantageous terms. Is dedicating the co-located school site, which is part of the MPUD, adjacent to the superpark. So they they are in fact the party providing. eighty percent of the superpark which is two or three hundred acres just to give you the magnitude compared to your eighty acre district parks. So that that's
the factual scenario on the land it is it is literally integrated into. We were asked by county staff to relocate commercial parcels as frontage parcels to your superpark. So you You could add supporting cafes, coffee shops, and we're even providing an access entrance off Kiefer Road directly into your superpark. So they they are one and the same. They'll be developed one and the same. We're providing the streets and the utilities adjacent to
your superpark in the MPUD.
Mr. Chairman Mariano. So if you look at the top left picture where this very small font says superpark. That's where it is.
That's it.
These three MQDs were approved thirteen years ago. So these are not new entitlements. They're pre existing. Lot sizes previously approved, all pre existing. We're simply consolidating the three into one. And doing these things to facilitate the school in the superpark. Frankly, the changes are to accommodate that. And so, if I may to get to Commissioner Starkey's question as to the justification, that is the justification. And in fact, this is not a new request. This board last
year, on two of my matters alone. Did this exact thing for two rivers M PUD because we reserved a district park and a co-located co-co-located school. I asked for a 50% reduction in neighborhood parks. This board unanimously approved it. And on Newport Corners, where we were asked to provide an urban park location for the parks district in the Northeast Parcel, in exchange for doing that, this board unanimously approved the 50%
park reduction. So if you're going to be consistent with board policy with what you've done on similar projects, this project goes beyond that. Those were only donating eighty. Acres or 20 acres, or or providing 80 or 20, this is literally two or three hundred acres that's being provided. So I I I respect you, Commissioner, but I have no idea where this objection is coming from in this case because it's completely inconsistent. with what everyone has supported the last few years.
Okay. Thank you. Chair Oakley.
Commissioner
Oakley? I have the same issue about the uh doing away with the park in the in the neighborhood, mainly because you have young children and families that live close to that park that's in this neighborhood. that can actually walk there. This major, major park we're talking about. There's people gonna there's gonna be sports that are all set up for schools, but n not the youngest kids. You need something those youngest kids and their mothers can go to and share that part in this
development right here, in this cluster. So I think it's very important that we we keep some of that in these in these clusters. I don't know how far is this from from the major part?
A quarter of a mile.
And how many roads and how many roads you have to cross.
Only only from Kiefer up. Uh mo half of the project has no road other than internal streets. Uh for the record, Joel to land consultant for the applicant, I would and I have been sworn. Um I understand what you're saying, but if you look at the entitlement level, your code requires one acre for every hundred unit single family. Given the entitlement level, We're still talking about fifteen or twenty acres of neighborhood parks. I don't want you to get the perception that we're not gonna have neighborhood parks. You're gonna have a huge quantity
of neighborhood parks. We're just saying it's not reasonable to require it to be forty or fifty acres when you granted the same except I mean how do you rationalize two rivers and Newport Corners and then here where you've got a friendly landowner provide the superpark, you're now going to treat them worse Then you treated those other two projects and this is one of the projects that's trying to save you your six and a half million dollar utility grant by building your utilities and building forty million
dollars worth of infrastructure. I just frankly don't understand the backlash in this case. It it's it's out of character.
Commission Wade. Thank you.
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yeah, so I've I pulled fifty-four and fifty-five or fifty-seven for the same for the same reason. And I'm I'm in support of of fifty-four and fifty-seven just as consistency because a month ago we approved three three or four they they matched and and the projects align with the utility project that's very important the hand caught road but my what but
drew my attention to these is is moving forward is the moving the reducing the road width from twelve to ten feet um I think we need to have a a a talk a discussion about that. moving forward from these these projects because of the amount of commercial traffic that is now on residential roadways from you know getting the fire marshals say yeah that's sufficient but a fire truck isn't on the road is often as say a garbage truck. It's
not often on the road is UPS, FedEx, Amazon, other utility vehicles that are on our internal roadways all the all the time. Uh so what I was hoping to get out of fifty four and fifty-five is to have a discussion on moving instead of with the ten feet, which I know is for traffic calming, uh, but moving forward, moving to the twelve foot road width based on, you know parking and getting getting trucks down the road that that provide the essential services that these folks these
folks need. So that's that's piece one and I'll let Mr. Two respond.
Yeah in response to that we completely understand that we've had this discussion one on one with Commissioner Weightman. Um the reason what we're going to ask you if you could see fit to allow this to move forward with the deviation is We literally are 99% complete on the construction plan submittal for phase one based on these widths because we had staff support and because last month on Harvest Hills, you approved that 10-foot lane width on my other three MPUDs, all
of which are under this same global development agreement. So if I get stymied here. and the engineer has to go back for a couple of months and redo construction plans for drainage, et cetera. then we're not gonna be able to pull a site development permit, which means we're not gonna be able to pull the permit for the hand cart utilities and the hand cart road work, and we're all in $6.5 million worth of trouble. So I have no problem if this is a philosophical or a policy change the board would like to look at. And we told Commissioner Weightman we understand that.
If you think the 10-foot lanes are a bad idea, staff and a lot of people, a lot of planners think it's a good idea because it's traffic calming in these subdivisions. And what it gives you is it gives you that two extra feet between pavement and sidewalk to have the large larger trees and have more green space and more streetscape, which we've been hearing for a couple years, you really would like us to enhance that. So our we actually thought we were responding to your goal of better streetscape that you would like grass and trees and
bushes more than two more feet of asphalt. The other thing it does is if we're not spending money on two feet of asphalt throughout this, when we get to paving those alleys for the rear-loaded product, we have some savings and development costs from asphalt that can be used to put in alleys and rear-loaded products. So a lot of this stuff, I'm not saying don't change it, but I I I respectfully submit that you you kind of have a workshop discussion on that issue. Yeah. going forward because I think there is a legitimate
You know, there's some c competing Concerns. I understand the safe the safety vehicles, no question about it, the service vehicles, but you got to balance it. But at any rate, and I I think Commissioner Weightman uh is inclined to support us to allow these three to go forward with the deviation, but that the board focus on this issue moving forward. The development community certainly would like direction moving forward because we just spent a lot of money on the engineering. Plans assuming it would be approved because you've been you've been approving
it.
Okay. Good. Let them follow up. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman Mariano. Commissioner Weightman.
And in the second piece, too, like fellow board members was the was when I read that the reduction in the uh the uh the parkland. I think we can do that better. And we had a further discussion. Instead of this the county's current form And this this kind of this ties in with having a a a discussion going forward with the roadwith. is instead of the county's formula of requiring you know, point two, three acres or whatever the formula comes to in these random spots within these projects
of having parkland that we consolidate These. these pieces of land and make a more significant part. Maybe two more two or three more significant parts instead of these little you know, these little squares that don't really have enough size to offer any real amenity. I think if we restructure the way that the formula and capture the the land uh that's designated within our rule zone you you consolidate them into larger
spaces and you have a real significant park space which I think adds more value to a community. So you can strategically put of uh two larger north, south, east, west river versus these little these little pockets of not much of anything. And so that's that's what caught my attention to to fifty four and fifty seven was to get past today and move forward with a more policy discussion or workshop on uh kind of a change the way that we manage those two items m moving forward based on the utilities.
You know, we hit we have an obligation to fulfill the utilities on Hancock Road and I think that that's really important and it just finished this section of of project out for which is a Pasadena Hill.
Okay. Commissioner Oakley My concern for the smaller ten foot wide rather than a twelve foot line. is I lived in a development that had 50 foot lodge. had similar roads like you're talking about, but they parked on both sides of the road and it kept traffic from being able to move or even emergency vehicles being able to go down the road. And I mean. Parking is very important. I think Mr. Two can uh answer some of that question
about the parking. But we need extra parking spaces and if they're gonna do these smaller lanes and if they want parking near the street, then you have to do it outside those lanes and not in one of those lanes that blocks traffic. So I'm very much concerned about that.
Yes, sir and Commissioner Oak discuss this and for the record, uh because we have a little bit of a chicken and egg, we're here at the MPD bubble plant level. and and you haven't officially seen the lot layout. So it makes it hard, you know, to say, well, we're going to address that. But I'll state here on the record the following. And staff saw a preview of this last week, as did uh Mr. Goldstein. But uh for example in Pasadena and Avoschematic here, um I think you'll be relieved to hear that when
you see these layout plans come in right on the heels of this MPUD. We do have a meaningful portion of the smaller plot that is rear alley loaded, which I know is going to make several of you happy. And it's true not only of Pasadena, but of a lot of the stuff on Prospect and Hankart. You're going to be very happy when you see the layout. I offered last month at the Harvest Hills hearings that we would be happy to have a planning charrette as a work session with the board. and and actually
go through these layouts. And to Commissioner Oakley's point, we have rear loaded, which helps solve the problem on on smaller some smaller products. We have a section here Of your 40-footers, which are the are are the one of the primary problems on the parking. And we actually, on our plan, you're going to see one, two, three, four, six designated areas, exactly as the commissioner stated. And where we have the 40-footers, where we have the trouble with parking and driveways and sidewalks, we're going to have six
designated community parking areas that Are pull-in spaces outside the drive lane so that within that area, there in this example, there'll be 90 of those spaces in this pod where for the first time I'm aware of, we actually, for single-family development, were providing parking to try to address that problem. So if you can bear with us today, I promise you that at the charrette going forward on the detailed plans, we're very comfortable we can get you comfortable with these
six or seven projects that are under that global DA and that you're going to be happy happy with that layout.
Commissioner Starkey.
Yeah so um on the parks situation um and I think what you're describing now reinforces my desire to see more green elements woven into into the neighborhood. because we don't want streets and parking and no green space. So I'm back to wanting those parks. And Commissioner Weightman um I I still prefer the traditional neighborhood park uh sightings
where they're interspersed within the blocks and it it breaks up the concrete nature, especially when everything's close together and you could drive through Longleaf and maybe see some of that where uh some of our county employees live. Um I'm not sure the width of those roads there, but I do agree that narrow
Narrow roads. Our traffic calming. Um but I have a question Uh about on street parking. So Are you in front of your rear loaded product. Are we allowing on street parking at least on one side? That's how we do it in parts of the county where the roads are narrow and traditional neighborhoods.
They outside the lane.
You can park on the street, but it's only on one
side. We we can certainly review that in the layout when we do the work session with you is the answer to that. I don't have that answer standing here because I was given the ninety designated areas, which is what I knew was Commissioner Oakley's concern, was having those designated areas outside of the drive lanes.
Well if we had parking on the street, which To me, it's a good thing. Well we will
in the town center. We will in the town center areas um and we can address other areas. I also remind you because you made us adopt a uniform condition of approval in every MPUD in the last year or so where we have to have the HOA or C D D regulate the on-street parking and enforce that parking. This this M P D Does that just like everyone has that you've approved for the last 12 months, to my knowledge. So we're kind of back to an issue that you made an
issue last year that we addressed on the terms that all of you said you were comfortable with. We're offering to go a step further here and provide some designated community parking areas and do some rear loaded product that under your own policy memorandum that you adopted last year for VOPH, we don't have to do that. So So I again you're I don't know why you're you're picking on these projects at the eleventh hour when when it's so critical that we get
I'm gonna cut you off just because we have f two of us have to leave at five o'clock and we won't get through today. It's not that we're picking on you, it's that we realize we have made some mistakes up here. And we're s we're seeing the fruits of our mistakes around the county and it isn't a good thing.
And you're about to make a six point five million
dollar mistake. Well we didn't say we weren't gonna prove it, but but there's but we Does putting parks back in make you have to stop?
Or does it it's not under the where you've approved that for two other projects and we provided the superpark on the terms we did, that is a non starter for us and we're gonna draw the line there because it's not fair. It's patently unfair with your policy.
Mr. Bradford and Winnie Good Doc.
Thank you too. I apologize for uh and I didn't have the luxury of this uh for obvious reasons I didn't get the the briefing. However um I appreciate the briefing in the future. Uh especially about the super parks and parks. I understand what it is to be fair. Um I understand understand investment.
So I'm inclined to agree with you today on that particular issue.
Yeah, and I I apologize if you feel slighted for the record. I did not brief anyone because we had staff approval, we hadn't we had uh recommendation from PPC, we were on consent. My discussions with the other commissioners were one on one when they contacted me with issues. So I didn't leave I would never leave any of you out if we're briefing on a subject matter and I think I would I think all of the
And that'll be this my last point. Yes sir. I love our staff. They do a great job. Staff doesn't run the place. We run the place.
Well I'm well aware of that after forty four and a half years. I understand
that.
So I have a compromise. Mr Starkey. Yeah, I have a compromise and I don't think we can mess with the roads and I not say I don't think that's traffic calming is a good thing in a neighborhood that you want. people to be walking to the downtown and all that. However I have a little concern on the park, so what if we split the difference uh of a set to seven to half that difference? What is it, a fifty percent reduction? So
instead of fifty
percent, it
would
only be a twenty
five percent. And we're being treated differently than two rivers and new port corners because
So what do you think of the twenty five percent? Uh instead of fifty.
What happened?
I'll have to give you that yes or no.
Mr. Chair, while they're discussing just a quick informational item, staff is working on amendments to our cross-sections for local subdivision streets. In fact, it was item P42 on your agenda, which got continued. Part of the reason that got continued is because staff was not, in my opinion, adequately addressing the board's concerns about on-street parking and roadways and lane width. So I want you to be sure the staff is working on this issue about roadway with and on street parking it just that it's gonna take them
some time to get it done. But that that was item P forty two on your agenda which now continue.
All right. Let's see if we have an answer.
Yes, for the record, Commissioner Starkey, yes. Uh Mr. Matheny advises that the developer will accept a twenty-five percent reduction in the neighborhood park rather than fifty percent reduction if that meets your concern. You want to cut our reduction in half, right?
Yeah. Yeah.
So instead of reducing fifty percent, we can only reduce twenty five percent of the required acreage. If that's exactly
and what what will your final street width be? What are we going to? Twenty feet?
Well the right-of-way are fifty feet. We're talking about the pavement width going from twelve to ten, but in that regard I point out that the engineer advises these are Miami curves, so you actually have and they're flat. So you actually have the one foot on each side. So counting them you still have twelve feet, but you know the the paved drive part will be ten feet. But what that gives you is it gives you the two extra feet between between the curb and the sidewalk. for the plantings and the tree sizes.
Is that for two-way traffic? Ten feet?
Yeah. No, no, ten per lane.
Ten per lane.
Okay. So yeah, it's twenty. Yeah, I'm sorry, you're right. There'll be twenty foot. Right. The internal local private streets will be twenty feet of pavement plus effectively two feet of Miami curve.
So in Longleaf we have twenty feet plus parking on one side. So that is very doable. I would stick those lanes are fine with me. I mean I think you can still add parking on one side.
All right.
Okay, move to approve with that.
Uh do we do public comment? Oh.
No, you need our public comment.
All right. Is there anyone here to speak to this item? P forty-four, P fifty four.
Oh it's fine.
I see no public no one on WebEx?
No, only Mr. Two was signed up.
Okay, to the board. Okay, move to
approve with that uh change? Minor minor change?