Zoning Amendment (Consent) –Schrader 52 CC - MPUD Master Planned Unit Development– Mary Burke and Thomas Schrader– A Rezoning from an R-1 Rural Density Residential and A-R Agricultural Residential District to an MPUD Master Planned Unit Development District to Allow the Development of 625 Multi-family Units and 106, 686 square-feet of Commercial Uses on Approximately 57.49 Acres. PC Addendum Agenda Page 3 of 5 File Number PDD23-7679
What the county recorded
Staff recommendation
Approval with Conditions
No disposition in the minutes
The approved minutes do not say what became of this item. That is a gap in the record, not a decision. It is the normal state for 24% of items. Most of those are regular business and board reports that the minutes do not dispose of in writing. This archive never infers an outcome from the fact that someone called a vote.
The source document
The county’s agenda for Planning Commission, Sep 21, 2023
The published PDF, as served by the county. This item is one entry in it.
The county’s minutes for Planning Commission, Sep 21, 2023
The published PDF, as served by the county. This item is one entry in it.
What was said
Machine transcription of 56m of recording, with speaker names inferred from voice matching. 60% of 326 lines carry a name. It shows what was said, not what was decided, and both the words and the names can be wrong.
On APC 10, are we pulling that one? Um, because I think there's some questions. I have questions. Okay, all right. So APC 10 is being pulled as well. So um I suppose we can go back to PC or PC six. Trader fifty two C C M Puty.
Good afternoon, William Vermilion Planning and Development. This is the Schrader fifty two Connected City Master Plan Unit Development.
This is a zoning amendment from R1 Rural Density Residential District and AR Agricultural Residential District. to an M P U D. Uh to allow approximately six hundred and twenty-five multifamily dwelling units as well as 106,686 square feet of commercial on approximately 57 and a half acres. This uh project is located south of County Road 52 as well as east of I-75. Here's the site location.
Here is the aerial location map for the property.
This is a context map of the property that shows the proximity of the city limits of San Antonio as well as the city park that is right there to the east. The current zoning districts are one. And A R As well as the future land use that's res six. The applicant has three variations with this project, the first one being from LDC 522.9.p, neighborhood parks. The applicant requests
to waive the standard park requirements for the multifamily portion of this project. Uh from LDC 9016011 Street Design and Dedication Requirements. Uh the applicant does not propose an interconnect to the west or the east side of the property. As well as five twenty nine or 5229 R on-site parking, uh the applicant requests to reduce the parking standards from the two point two five uh spaces per unit to one point nine, as well as a waiver from the
standard parking stall of nine, uh nine by twenty.
Here is the master plan.
And now so going back to the staff analysis of these variations, uh staff does support uh the first one to neighborhood parks. Uh the parks and rec department has determined Uh that the addition of condition of approval 12 will suffice, uh which talks about specific parks review at PSP PDP stage. As well as planning and development, does support the on-site parking reduction and the reduction in the overall stall area for the parking spaces. Uh there is a category three wetland in regard to nine
oh one sixty eleven to the east. that prevents a connection as well as an existing self-storage facility. However, uh planning and development staff does not support The deviation to nine oh one sixty eleven for the connection two Um
which would be um Oak Street.
If you can
So the uh the interconnect there, if I could zoom in, it's uh the intersection of Oak Street and Florida Avenue is where the applicant is proposing not to interconnect. Um planning and development in accordance with the LDC as well as the Board of County Commissioners Directives does not support the deviation and proposes a full access interconnection at the intersection of Oak Street and Florida Avenue.
With this uh with these specific conditions of approval, this comes to you with a recommendation uh for approval with conditions to the Board of County Commissioners.
All right. Thank you, William. Is there any questions from up here?
William, I've a got a couple of questions. As far as the the commercial or the non residential, is that minimum or maximum? Because I've I've seen it a couple of different ways. The tables in the conditions of approval represent minimum square footage. And I don't know that it's referenced that way in the text.
So I I don't know if the applicant I'm I'll just ask these questions and maybe the applicant can address them whenever they make their presentation. Um th the other question I had was on the neighborhood parks and I I didn't know Is there an explanation for why they're asking for a deviation or why Why staff supports the deviation and then actually what is the deviation? Because the way I read the condition is it says that They're only required to have neighborhood parks if there's apartments three stories or taller.
Uh correct. So that specific deviation um was only for the parks requirement for the multifamily portion. And the the parks and rec um department did approve this with the addition of uh condition twelve, which is specifically speaking to a specific parks plan being reviewed at PSP PDP and that each um
Each uh each PSP PDP submittal will be in compliance with the section of the code 5229 P, which is the parks requirement for connected city.
Which says what?
It's uh it's essentially just the uh the the percentage of part they have to have per unit, which was their uh So six hundred and twenty five.
I'm just trying to get clarity. So th they build six hundred and twenty five apartments. Do they have to have a park or not?
Yes, yes, they have to have a park.
Okay, because the the way I I that's that's that's what I wanted clarity on because the way I read the variation.
So the number of stories is w is Mm-hmm.
And by the way, in Williams' defense he was not this yeah, he was not the He's filling in for somebody Red tip and planning and development.
Hot seat. Yeah.
Um so in Connected City, when you have uh an apartment complex that is four stories or higher, instead of doing the acreage based on the number of units, it's done based on a percentage of the developable area. Uh so what this request was doing was saying that they wanted to apply it to a three-story
So they want to apply that that percentage based on the stories rather than the units. That makes sense?
Okay, so if they if they build townhomes, single story townhomes, they're still doing as outlined in the requirements of the connected cities. the acreage based on the connected cities. They're not asking for I got confused 'cause the first time I read this I'm like, Well if they do townhomes and they're not three stories, they don't have to put any parks there. And I'm like, Well that doesn't doesn't sound right. right. So uh
just trying to clarify actually what's being said and what's getting approved.
I think it would be more helpful, Brad, if in the write up in the agenda memo it said what Requirement.
By having the deviation.
Okay. We we can definitely do that and and there is uh uh statement by uh the
parks. So they're basically not complying with the per unit Re acreage requirement. Instead they're they're complying instead with the percentage of land requirement. Correct.
That's I believe that's the intent of that deal.
And does that work out for a park that would be smaller or larger than if if they just adhered to the requirement without the alternative standard.
So I don't know exactly because I don't know the internal amenities and other things are happening here, but generally it will be less land but likely have more uh uh programming, more things in the area related to those that kind of apartment density because apartments will tend to have their own gym and other things, pools and whatnot. So it's kind of a trade off.
Mr. Chairman Mariano.
On the parking variation. The The way the condition of approval is the way I read it Is there's no limit on the amount of compact spaces they can have? They can make a hundred percent compact?
Is that what I said? I don't remember if that was
The they think the condition says is that they're they're not held to the twenty five percent maximum and that's all it says.
Yeah.
Is that the intent? It just says they should be allowed, as it's condition fifty-one on page twelve, it says they should be allowed to exceed the LDC maximum of twenty-five percent allowable compact parking stalls. So there there's n is that the intent, I guess is my question, is that there's no limit on compact spaces. It's
yes, it would provide allow them the flexibility to have all compact spaces if that was how they designed the property.
Well how does that work if I drive my truck there?
Yeah, typic typically that's a market decision. They I don't know that most people would do that, but a lot of times we do have s have these that they want to mix that's different than the twenty-five seventy-five. But sometimes they have larger ones on the outside, smaller ones on the inside, different different designs, but the numbers just don't work. But theoretically based on this condition, yes, it could have all compact. I don't know if you wanted to ask the applicant they can they can speak to what their intentions are. Okay.
That's all I had.
And then I was curious. It you're not supporting the alternative standard to provide the not provide An interconnect. Does the applicant agree with that?
Uh we'll let the applicant speak to what they agree to. I'm just curious
because this was as it was listed on the consent agenda. At first and I'm like, Well if if there's a dispute between the applicant and the staff, why would it be on the consent agenda?
Uh We can we can work through that that quirk. But yes, that's uh we we I believe it's to the west where they actually have the wetland area. And to the to the east where oak is is where we want them to connect. Uh so we we agree with one of their uh non-connections that they were requesting with that alternative standard, but not the other. Okay.
Maybe staff was just hopeful that you would agree agree with staff.
Yeah.
Because if you approved it on consent, that you would be agreeing with staff, basically.
Yeah, yeah.
We'll talk about that later.
Okay. Mr. Chairman, I would just wanted to add, um we're talking about that parks and rec discussion. There's 148 students that'll be there, so it's pretty important to have a park there. Okay.
All right.
Okay. Anything further from the applicant?
Good afternoon. Christy Barrera with High Design representing the applicant. My address is 5904 Hampton Oaks Parkway, Tampa, Florida. And yes, we did request to pull this from the consent agenda when I saw the agenda on Friday afternoon. Condition two was new to me. So quickly called the county and said we need to talk about this, that as we have in our application, we are requesting an emergency access only to the east to Oak Street,
not a full access. We wanted to discuss that with you all today. So I can do that now or I can answer any other questions that you have.
Uh well is there anyone here to speak uh in opposition?
No one on WebX. Okay. Since there's no one here in opposition, you're free to take your time and tell us what you need to tell us.
Um so I don't know if you can pull up the context map or uh Pasco mapper. I think that that the aerial shows uh a good information about east of the property. So our project is proposing three access points. There will be two on County Road 52, one that is south of Let's see, I can't read that far away. South of I believe Saint Angelina Road.
Um the other one is the new construction of Teak Follow Road that will be on the eastern property boundary. And then Teak Follow is part of the Connected City Vision Roadway Map. And that road will be eventually constructed down to Clinton Avenue, and it's currently being constructed north through the Murata Project. So Teak Follow will go from County Road 52 to Clinton and then farther south through Murata. So that will be an important project or important road. So we feel
that because we have those three access points, one to the east isn't necessary for development. Also, if you can see from this map, east of us is the city of San Antonio, Oak Street, which is the North South Street, and Florida Florida Avenue, which is the east-west street, are both maintained by the city. There are eight single-family homes on Oak Street, and there are eight additional parcels, not all of them have homes on them, on the north side of Florida Avenue.
The South Side of Florida Avenue has two property owners, multiple parcels, but only two property owners. So we feel that having a full access to Oak Street. Would be something that those residents of San Antonio would not like the extra traffic on their roads that currently are not county standard roads. By having a full access, that those roads or one of those roads would need to be
brought up to county standards. We feel that that is an undue burden for this project. because constructing a quarter mile of either one of those roads up to county standards is a pretty significant cost and would only get 16 or less residents or homes to be able to use our our road through our project. It could be a cut-through for other people to go through our project and go into
Florida or to go onto Oak Street rather than having those few people use our road to go west. To Teak Follow and then be able to go to County Road 52 or Clinton Avenue. So we think it's not a good idea for the existing residents that are in the city, and it it really doesn't make sense for our project. We think an emergency access is appropriate. And if the county feels that a full access is something that makes sense, then
we would suggest that we have an emergency access for the time being. And then when the county or the city feels it appropriate to bring one of those roads up to county standards, then we could open it up as a full access. The last thing that I wanted to bring up is the location of the access that we were proposing. It's very close to our southern boundary. And it would create a very odd jog in the roadway network because Florida Avenue um kind of Would
only the the 25 feet on the north side of Florida Avenue is the same as our southern property line. And so there would be this jog in the road that wouldn't make sense from a traffic standpoint. I do have Ali Atefi here with me today that he can talk more of the traffic logistics, but if it was a full access, we would potentially have to work with another property owner to the south. To make that intersection work properly. But at the end of the day, you know, those 16 residents in San Antonio I
think would have less of a benefit and more of a detriment to their homes and the traffic on that road if it was a full access. So we're recommending it stay emergency.
So Christine, can I ask you a question and staff? W why Is the property to the northeast of your project in V O P H?
So this is Connected City. I'm
sorry, Connected City.
In Northeast, yes. Um well so everything in blue is not in Connected City because it's in incorporated San Antonio.
My question for you and staff is
Why why is is Why not connect to the property to the northeast? as opposed which it is in Connected City, which isn't part of the existing city of San Antonio as opposed to Trying to connect to the east to Oak Street. I mean 'cause their code requires a connection in theory to the east. It didn't necessarily require to be at Oak Street, so Why not interconnect to your northeast instead?
Here.
Okay. Um we could. We are proposing an apartment complex that typically we like to have those gated. So the thought was um Less access points so we could also gate this project. But that's something that I could talk to the applicant about between now and the board hearing if that is a better location.
I mean I Brad connec you can correct me if I'm wrong, but i if they had shown a connection to the east to the vacant land That would not have been an L D C variation, right? That still would have met our code.
Correct, technically it would have. What we were trying to consider, you know, that that grid and the ability to get to Curley Street and the ability to get north to fifty two through another route by making that connection. So um but yes, technically the other one would also Uh meet the code. It would technically be to the east.
Well it seems to me, I mean I I'm not the planner you guys are, but It seems to me that would be more important to connect to
Connected city. Uh we're using the name connected now. But that would be more important to connect the property in connected city as opposed to property that's not in connected city.
Hard in the pocket. Well Connected City was given that name for multiple reasons, but part of it was interconnectivity. Yeah. Um so I'm not sure why we're not interconnecting to other property in Connected City.
So we are connecting to other property via Teak Follow and um our east-west road that will be east of Teak Fallow is going to be on the property boundary. So we will have connection to the south as well. David, I think the area that you were pointing out, there I believe is a large wetland. I don't know if it's a category one wetland or not. So there would be limited connection to the east in that location
because of this wetland chain that starts in our property and kinda goes northeast from there.
I mean are you saying that those two parcels to the northeast are basically undevelopable? I I can't tell from the aerial
No, I don't think they're undevelopable, but I do think that there is a it appears there's a big area of trees. I think it's a wetland because there's one on our site that I think continues off site. So I had the concept plan that I was gonna see if we could pull up. Up and share with you all. Yeah,
three yeah, it's kind of here. Right. And then this should be too. This looks like a creek. That is,
yeah. That's a great.
So I'm sure somebody will develop it, but I don't know about the connectivity and a road going through the wetland. There might be some connectivity, but I don't know how far it could get.
if Oak Street is as bad as you say it is If those two parcels came in for development, I'm not sure we would want them using It seems like we'd rather have them orient their development towards fifty two and teak as opposed to Having the development go out to Oak Street.
Mm-hmm.
Because they're gonna have the same they're gonna have the same issue that you're describing, which is they're gonna be Potentially loading their traffic on that road
Right. Or County Road fifty two. And and they
would likely need multiple Access points as well.
I know but the way this is being developed they'd have n that northeastern parcel It doesn't appear they'd have any ability to get to Peak Road other than going to fifty two.
There there may be an opportunity and I think Christie may talk with her client about the the southeast portion with a northward access point into those properties as opposed to directly out onto Oak. Um we would be willing to to talk about that as well um as an option I think uh
again you guys are the planners I'm not I'm just saying that To me the bigger harm would be not the people that live above Oak Street not being able to get to this new development. It's more the
Did you want to do that? If it's in connected city it could be intense levels of development. And it would seem to me that we'd want it to be able to connect to Tick. What's the name of that road T. Deakfall Road. Without having to go on to fifty two.
I think that makes sense. Um, where we're showing the bright green park, uh, there might be a potential that we can have access to the north there. So we can obviously this is the concept plan, this isn't part of the zoning approval, um, but we can look at adding a northern access uh to those parcels that are in connected city and continue potentially to have the emergency access on Oak or just have this access to the north.
Does that work? Okay. I think that probably would meet the code because now they do have a connection to the property to the east. Then they wouldn't even need an L D C variation.
Correct. Well, they still need one for the West, but we agree with the one in the West.
Right.
And what's the reason for the one? To the west, not to have a
read into the approval.
Well, I haven't heard Christy definitively say that they're going to add a connection at that point yet. But if they're gonna
I just heard her say that.
So I would like to talk to the client between now and the board, but I believe that sounds reasonable.
Okay.
Do you have any more information on the uh parking that we the parking spots?
So yes, um the condition does read that we could have a hundred percent compact spaces. In all likelihood, that's not gonna happen. Um at this time the applicant is not the developer of the site, and so they just want to keep it flexible for whoever the end u user is. Um they're thinking it might be more than twenty-five percent. It's highly unlikely it will be a hundred percent because we know the people drive larger vehicles these days and they're in the business of, you know, renting out their
apartments, so they're gonna want to accommodate all of their residents with adequate parking.
Okay. And then this might be a question for staff potentially. Um, how does the uh I I see it's Pasco County Utilities, but how does the utility situation work out with um neighboring San Antonio? Are they I'm not familiar enough with the city.
So there are a ton of utilities that are going in in Clinton currently. Okay. Um the thought for this project is that those utilities will continue uptique follow to this project.
Okay. So from the south as opposed to
I believe there may be water in County Road fifty two, but uh most of the utilities will be coming from the south.
Okay. That makes more sense 'cause it looked like everything in the north was San Antonio, so
Christy, where is Take Fellow? Is that the Vision Road that you're showing on the
So it has about three or four names right now, but it is that large vision road on the east side of the property.
On the west side of the property.
Yes, I'm sorry, west side of the property. East west. Gotta get my left's and rights.
On the the non residential entitlements, what is the clarification there? Is that a maximum, a minimum?
So, in the transportation analysis, we studied 106,000 in change square feet of non-residential. That is the minimum that is required in Connected City for each MPUD. They're called service-ready site areas. So it's this red square at the intersection of. Of Teak Falo and County Road 52. So the plan is to have about 106, but we can have more um if there
is a user that comes in that wants that, what we would need to do if we wanted more than the hundred and six is to use the land use equivalency matrix and convert residential to non residential or um come back to you and ask for additional square footage.
But the land use equivalency matrix that's attached with the conditions of approval doesn't have any conversion.
Well we might have to update that too.
Um so this is just showing correct apartments to townhomes, so we'll we'll update that.
Yeah, I just I was just curious, I I just don't know how it works. I mean if they have to provide at least a hundred and six, but I mean how uh you normally we we say you you get a hundred thousand square feet of non residential and so many units of residential and that's your cap. I mean I understand if Connected City has you gotta have that as a minimum but It's just not
clear
to
me. Yeah, we're we're very flexible with the service ready site acreage and connected city in terms of the square footage. The intent is to bring business there and there's actually restrictions on the uses that can go there. There can't be a lot of your typical stuff. This is this is more a closer to target industry type things. Job production, different things like that. So uh you know we we tend to be very flexible if they have a user that comes in and wants 110,000 or something like that and we will work with them at that point if that happens. Uh but the hundred
and six thousand is the minimum requirement required by the code uh for a property of this size. So that's that's what what they they've come in with.
But that's not that's only a minimum per connected city, right? I mean this is a hundred and six thousand if they want more than a hundred and six they're converting to multifamily. So I don't I'm that's where I'm confused is where the hundred and six thousand minimum is part of this approval.
Because if they want more than that, they're going to use the Land O' Lakes equivalency matrix to convert it. Right. Because that cap was set at the transportation at the traffic
center. They may, they may not, because Those entitlements are Basically considered exempt uses for timing and phasing analysis. So They may be able to just add additional square footage. through a non substantial amendment to the M PUD, it may not require them to add it to the loom but I'd defer to Brad on that. Yeah we
that's historically what's happened is they they've been a type of use that's exempt and and we haven't had to do anything substantial to to get
Usually our problem is them not wanting to build Those environments. That's a good problem to have if they want to build more than The minimum. So I suspect Brab to find a way to make sure they can build more than the minimum. Probably is a non substantial amendment if they need to do But I don't have a problem if they want to modify the loom To allow for that 'cause that that would be
Yeah, usually everybody's coming in here wanting to take that away and add more residential and I I understand.
Yes, we know we can't do that.
Um I s I still have one concern and that's the parking. If we green light this and we have uh let's say zero an effect on compact parking As Mr. Mooney stated, if a person comes in with a very large vehicle like a pickup truck or something along that line It's difficult. Four cars. Let me rephrase this. If that car is parked in a compact parking place, then the vehicles that are next to it, both the left and right
side,
to opening doors and that type of thing. That's my concern if th is the fact that they could go to a hundred percent compact. Parking. And that's my issue.
Would there be any objection to putting um Bracket. Some type of cap in there that needs to be something needs to be
Yeah, I think that that would be fine if we cap it just do the inverse, that we say at least twenty-five percent must be standard parking spaces or size spaces.
You said twenty-five percent. You want it the other way around, I think.
So twenty-five percent would be standard, we could have up to seventy-five percent compact.
I just threw a number out there. I don't know if that's a number you had in mind.
Well I think that's probably what they did when they said no more than twenty five percent compact anyway. So that's like where that number come from. Um
That's where I'm going from. Okay. Thank you.
Yes, we would be agreeable to that.
It it just makes common sense because as you said, you're gonna have a number of people living in this area and we have seen issues with people hitting other cars when they open doors and that type of thing. Yes. So yes.
Yeah, I think it would be a self fulfilling prophecy to to uh put all compact there and uh Not being able to rent the unit. So I think you know, that's
I think you do that once and you left for your mistake, right?
It's like uh putting a survival clause in your agreement, you know, just You know, you you're not gonna do something that's foolish. You
wanna do something that hits the market. So that'd be an amendment to condition fifty one. Then
to say that there would be a minimum of twenty five percent Of the of the space is not Compact. Is that what you want to say, Peter? Yeah what you're saying? Standard. Standard spaces.
If they can live with it, I can live with it. As long as there's something there.
Yeah. In the proposed parking ordinance that's soon to come before us, does the standard parking space dimension change?
I don't know.
I don't I don't have it in front of me, I would have to have to look at it, but yeah,
something like
that.
Careful on the language. Yeah.
I'm guessing that in the proposed ordinance the standard space is getting smaller.
Yeah, we can we can change that to say nine by twenty spaces in the condition just to be clear. That's fine. I don't think it's a good idea.
We're treading on dangerous territory. The most popular selling truck in this country is the Ford F one fifty and most people drive Mm-hmm.
Yeah. Well, she did make a good point though that the end user is gonna want to sell rental units and they're gonna have to cater to their clientele, so in theory they should I'm gonna tell you something.
I've been doing engineering for thirty years and what my clients wanna do is maximize the size of the gross leaseable area and they wanna minimize the cost of the infrastructure on the outside of the building. And that means if they can make a s parking space that's three feet wide by ten feet long, that's what they will do. And I will caution everybody when this parking ordinance comes, 'cause the proposal is to wanna change the word minimum to ma uh I'm sorry.
Minimum to maximum. I literally have clients who will build. developments with zero parking. And I think that's going to backfire in your face. That's gonna be something that you're gonna wish you didn't propose. They will do this. And there's nothing you're going to be able to do to stop them when you do that. We've got MPUDs that have come through here in the last couple of months where the proposal is literally for one hundred percent lot coverage.
We'd be real careful. Okay, we probably should focus on this particular condition though. Well I just saying we're a much longer discussion. So it sounds like the
Planning Commission I did originally say she could have a lot of time, but you know
public comment? But yes, I did.
I was gonna Christine would you talk a little bit about the parks and recreation and what the idea behind
that is?
So before we move on. While we're on the topic of parking, can we just get a motion to change condition fifty one? However you all want it to read, so then we can move on to whatever the next issue is.
Do you want to make that motion, Peter?
So you want a cap can you recite
it for a minute?
Not more than 75%.
A minimum of 25% standard spaces.
And that's 75% compact.
Up to 75% compact.
Well you have 25 here and you got 75 there.
But it that line isn't always right there. It's going to be 36 or 42 or something, is what it's ultimately going to end up. But you mean twenty five years. Okay, but the goal will be
twenty five to seventy five. But you could add at the end of the first clause, but not to exceed seventy-five percent. Yeah,
you do the same thing. Yep.
That's a simple way to do it.
So that's what Peter just said, right Peter? Yes sir.
As
long as it comes out correctly in the minutes.
We'll make sure we get it right.
Okay, we have a motion, I think. Do we have a second?
I think Jamie seconded. I'll second, yeah. I'm sorry.
All in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye, aye. O's like sign. Okay, so we're
down
with
parking.
Now
what's the next what' what what was the next issue?
Well I I think the other items that are gonna be addressed and I don't know how if that needs to be as part of our approval, but the the loom needs to be updated to include a conversion. For non residential, right?
Mm-hmm.
There I I still think there needs to be some kind of revision to the park language.
Well yeah, I think you ni your motion needs to state that staff needs to revise the neighborhood parks variation to better describe What the deviation is. It in other words what we're doing. What the code requires And what they're not doing. Okay. Because we still
haven't exactly heard what
that is. My understanding and again not very well described in the memo, is that If it was normally if a three story building would have to comply with the Per unit requirements of the neighborhood park ordinance. In other words, they have to provide one is it one unit for every
hundred
one one acre for every hundred units.
Mm-hmm.
There's an exception in Connected City for if your four stories are higher that you provide A percentage of the land area as opposed to a per unit requirement. they're trying to say that they want to take advantage of the four story and higher benefit even if they're only three stories. Is that accurate?
Yes, that's correct. So it's 10% of the buildable land area that the apartment site takes up. This has been approved in other zone other MPG zonings in Connected City and also outside of Connected City. I think at one point the parks department was working on a new ordinance. Because they felt, and so did we, that the parks ordinance is more geared towards single family, detached, and town home units.
When you have to have one acre per hundred units, that takes up a lot of space for apartment complexes. So in this instance, if we had 625 apartment units, that'd be six and a quarter acres of park space. Um what the Parks Department typically doesn't count in their acreage calculation is the amenities that are inside the building, that are inside, you know, a lot of them have gyms or, you know, other recreation spaces under the roof. Um that they
are now saying, okay, that can count towards some of your park space as well. So it's more of a percentage of that overall apartment site rather than an acreage specific number.
So you said it's ten percent of buildable area that the building covers. So what would that work out to be in this concept?
Um I don't have that number and I don't believe it's just the what the building covers. It would include the drive aisles, the parking spaces, all of that as well. Buildable upland. Right. Yeah. The stormwater ponds that are needed to support the buildings. So it's a larger area.
Okay.
So in most cases it's slightly less than the one acre per hundred units to give a little bit of a relief to this type of product.
I think that's covered with condition of approval twelve. And maybe it's just that I wasn't clear on the memo or the memo to me needed to be clarified in which case.
I think the condition prop, I agree with you. The condition works as written. But the description in the memo was not complete.
Okay.
It should say something similar to what I just said verbally. Correct.
Okay. So nothing needs to be revised as far as that goes.
Well I think you can make a motion if you your motion for approval could ask that it
Be revised to better describe The neighborhood parks deviation.
Okay.
And does anything need to be revised on the conditions of approval for the
Well I was looking I was looking at condition two. All it says is Provide a master plan to show full access to the east side of the M P. So if they are willing to Provide a connection to the northeast property, I would argue that's still the east side of the M PUD. And that they could comply with that.
I agree.
So I don't think you need to change condition two.
Unless you don't want them to interconnect at all.
Does does that get rid of the emergency access to OG or is does that
stay? No, I don't think condition two doesn't prohibit them from having an additional emergency access. Okay. This is just saying that staff wants to see a full access on the east side of the property, but If they can provide it. To the northeast piece. I think that would comply with condition two.
Right. I actually support the applicant. In not providing the internet connect to the east. And I understand the general requirement, the general need for interconnects. And I know we have A commissioner or more. That's right. That's one of their hot buttons. But I'll point a couple of examples. where an interconnect has destroyed a neighborhood.
Fox Hollow Drive between US nineteen and Little Road. You took a wonderful
Quiet street. And have turned it into a cut through. It's a de facto highway. I would never walk on one of the sidewalks. along Fox Hollow Drive, that would be taking your life into your hands. And if I had children I could never live along Fox Hollow Drive. Jasmine. Same thing. We took a street, we cut it from US nineteen to Little Road, yep, we got interconnection. and now we've made it miserable for the residents who front along
that road. So Interconnections can be good, but we can't do them at the expense of a neighborhood. So I appreciate that the applicant was willing to respect the and I'm sorry, the screen went dark.
Is Florida Ave the residence on Florida Ave? I'd be mad if that became a cut-through street because somebody wanted to build an apartment complex over here. So I I support you in your alternative standard request there. I think sometimes we have to apply some common sense to some of this, and sometimes there's exceptions to
Yeah, I think these requirements.
There is no neighborhood in the northeast though. There's no neighborhood you'd be destroying If you have an interconnect to the vacant land. So I was asking why didn't staff require an interconnect there instead. Well I
think they can show an interconnect up at the northeast corner and I think they're gonna find it's a wetland. And a useless interconnection.
But if you do it if you do it in the eastern part of the M PUD there is some developable land Where I think Christy's talking about putting it is that eastern part of the L Um
But aren't we affecting that landowner's rights to develop his property. We don't know what his or her development plans are for that property. We don't know if that's compatible with This multifamily development and
Well if they're in connected
multi-to-family development being a cut through for somebody, we don't know what they're going to develop. And then all of a sudden they may be cutting through a multifamily development.
Well, the difference is they are in a connected city. So they have the right to do fairly intense development and there was at least a concept in Connected City that even if you didn't have vehicular connections that you'd have golf cart connections. That that all these roads in connected city are supposed to have the ability to have
Golf cart. Maybe so Teak Road, if you look at the cross section of Teak Road, it's gonna have A separate ability for you to drive golf carts on it. So it's all supposed to be one giant golf cart friendly community. So even if you're not gonna have a car interconnect, you it seems like you would want at a minimum to have The ability for golf courts to get to that golf cart. Okay. I'm not saying. It's up to the Planning Commission.
Connected City was approved assuming there would be at a minimum Strong golf cart interconnectivity between uses. That was part of the premise of of Connected City being approved the way that it was.
And there's been other projects that have come to the Planning Commission that have required even if there wasn't a vehicular interconnection that there at least be a golf court interconnection. So can we limit that to the golf court? That's up to Planning commission, the applicant and staff. You know, I d I don't have a opinion one way or the other, but I think if you didn't at least require the golf cart interconnectivity It's probably not really consistent with the intent of connected city.
So we we as staff agree basically with what David just said and and also with you, John, as far as using common sense. However, we've been given a very clear directive from the Board of County
Commissioners.
Destroy a neighborhood for the sake Of providing an interconnection. We need to look and make sure that it's a responsible interconnection. So and I'm not saying you I understand and I understand I watch the commission meetings, I I hear the discussions and the debate. But I think we need to think about them. It hey, it's one thing when we're out in the middle of the County and we're planning One giant MPUD next to the next giant
MPUD next to the next one, and we've got a blank canvas to work with. But when we've got some existing conditions to work with, it's not fair to destroy somebody's neighborhood for the sake of a new development. That's all I'm saying.
Uh understood. And and and we can't consider that we have the other thing, even if this was not connected city, this was a standard Euclidean zone, uh we do have the requirement for the continuation of the existing street pattern. Uh that's also in the code. So that's another one of those. So we've again we're weighing a bunch of different things here. Uh we we were in slight disagreement because of that, because of the board direction, but we you know if the if the planning commission believes otherwise, we will amend our recommendation to include whatever the planning commission decides on this.
And I d personally don't think the compromise position that apparently the applicant seems to be in agreement with does what you're talking about. Because it's not connecting to the existing neighborhood.
I would
wholly in support if you want to do a golf cart connection, that's great.
Well I don't I mean I don't really know that we're amending any of the conditions of approval. These are all things that are for discussion that necessarily
Well I mean condition two says full access. Typically when staff says full access, that means Full vehicular access. If you if you don't want full vehicular access, You'd probably need to change that to say full golf cart access.
Well wouldn't the wouldn't the connection to the northeast still meet that condition? Therefore there wouldn't be a change need to be a change?
But what I'm hearing Mr. Moody say is even the connection to the northeast, he wants to be golf cart, not Cars.
That's a policy decision for I'm just saying that the way the conditions worded. When staff says full access That typically means full vehicular access. But I yes, to the northeast would fulfill that requirement. But if you want it limited to golf cart access, it would not it wouldn't say full access, it would say Golf cart access.
Yeah, and and to David's point earlier that you know Connected City does have a uh an intensity and density level that's higher than most, so all of those trips then without a vehicular connection in S area would be going up onto that V
two. I'm not opposed to whether it's a golf cart access or a full vehicular access. What I'm more concerned with is that they're if we're going to burden someone else's property who's not even here to participate in this discussion. I'm not
sure I would view that as a burden. I mean to to Mr. Tippin's point. I I think if they had a big connection to get over to Teak follow road that doesn't require
them to go on the depends on what they want to build. I mean Unfortunately we don't get to choose pick and choose what's gonna be.
There there was a presumption that they're entitled to fairly intense levels of development. I'm not saying they have to develop that, but There's a big difference between that vacant land
It's it's not
an issue of intensity. It's an issue of flexibility. Well, if if they come first and decide, well, I'm putting a stub out right here, then the next guy's forced to design his project around where they put a stub out.
If he develops it in an intense manner. If he just puts one house there, t staff would never make him use that interconnect. The the reason for these interconnects is they they're trying to assume that somebody does want to come in and develop their property with intense levels of development.
And and this is gonna likely not be low density. There's there's no single family entitlements left really. So this is going to be a a a higher intensity when they come in.
Right. And And what I'm saying is you're forcing them into designing their site at whatever intensity it is around wherever that interconnect may be that they never had a choice in America.
And we do that with every project in the county. County.
Then that's not planning, is it? That's
reacting.
Well, I I guess he this that neighboring property owner of Vicky Landor was probably noticed with this M P U D. I mean is that accurate? I understand. So they had every opportunity to come in and weigh in on this project.
And and there's always a difference between planning and predicting the future too. So we we can plan but
Well,
I think that's a good thing.
instance, there's a section in our land development code that requires interconnection of commercial parcels. And How many developments do we have up and down where the interconnection w on the site was built over here and the other guy built the interconnection over there so nobody actually got interconnected? So we defeated the whole purpose. Bec and why? Because there was no pre-planning in advance. Yes, you can make a grandiose statement like that in the land development code, but that doesn't ensure that that's the way it gets built in the field. And it's not one
example of that. I can show you where that happens all over the county.
Well to speak to your discussion about you know, traffic issues with neighborhoods that never had those intended consequences is uh you know, and this may be better suited for the board to to uh discuss, but you can discuss traffic calming as well. That could be a good uh compromise to those interconnections to do things to calm the traffic and You know, so your example with Jasmine, for example, if there were more stop signs, if there was other traffic calming things in there, it might not create such an issue with
those residents and that might be something the board can discuss. We can you can get your interconnections but also not really burden those those neighbors. I hear you. I'll put
it on your street. The code really only requires one Interconnecting can Uh road, right?
I'm sorry, say that
again? The board really only requires one interconnect.
No, the typically it's uh interconnect to the north, to the south, to the east, and to the west.
Okay.
One at one in each direction. And the code the code requires continuation of existing stream pattern on top of that. So if there are other streams. If
they connected to the northeast,
it would meet our code. Yeah. Okay.
It says that it says that. The only issue is If it's if you leave the wording as currently worded Staff would interpret that as a full vehicular interconnect. Not just golf carts.
Okay, so the question is we want to change it. Do a minimum uh of uh You wanna change it to f leave it a full connect or change it to uh Uh but
personally I think we leave it as a full connect because looking at the property owners, the existing property owners, it's all the same person that owns all the rest of the property over to Oak Street. Um fair enough. And in that case, they did not want to sell. In in that case, the I mean you're actually helping by providing that connection to them to keep traffic off Oak Street. So I think we leave the condition as is.
To to that effect.
Do you want to just make a motion for the balance of the agenda item? You want to do that. And then the correction to the agenda memo for the neighborhood parks.
And the addition of the non residential stuff to the loom.
So just just to clarify for us, uh we're talking about not making the connection at Florida and Oak, but making the connection to the vacant land and make that a full connection. Is that the
Well I think we still talk about I didn't hear anybody object to the emergency connection?
Right. We can have an emergency or a a golf cart only or something like that to that intersection at Florida and Oak. But the full connection you're
talking about is to the
right-of-way.
Does the applicant want the emergency interconnect to Oak? Are we were you doing that to Meet some code requirement.
Uh we were doing it to meet a code requirement. There may be more than a hundred units on that east side, so we would have needed it for that. Um I will also mention that even though everyone has the same last name to the north, um, you know, families don't always get along and my um Folks that were trying to get this approved tried to also purchase that property and they did not want to sell at the time that they sold sold this property.
Gotcha. So now you're trying to complicate it again.
Never mind. I'm just saying you got it all figured out. Families, cousins, sisters, whatever. I
was calling a recommended not make planning decisions based on family dynamics.
I like most of my family.
I you amending your motion? I'm not amending my motion. Okay. So what is your motion? Could you restate it please?
You want
to
have a little bit of a little bit of a little bit
of motion to approve the conditions of approval the way they are, with amendments to the memo and amendments to the loom.
That includes a prior change to condition fifty
one, which we already
did.
That's correct.
I'll second that. Okay, we have a motion. Wait a second. Further discussion of the motion.
And the applic so you're not opposed to the emergency act no, okay, can we?
So if we're gonna potentially have to have an access to the north, I would like to talk to the my uh the applicant before the board hearing just to make sure that if we're adding a full, then maybe they would want to get rid of the emergency. I'm not sure though. So I would like that to be at least an option still.
Okay, but that's something you'll discuss before. Yes.
Okay, well we have a all right, so it Got a motion on the floor. We got a second. Right. Anything else? Nope. If not, all in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed, like, sign. Thank you.
Thank you for all your time.
Thank you.
Yeah.