PDD-20-2080

Every appearance1 of 1 are in a recording

TranscriptWhat was said at each appearance is below it. Machine transcription, with speaker names inferred from voice matching. 76% of 45 lines carry a name. It shows what was said, not what was decided, and both the words and the names can be wrong.

1. 1Jan 23, 2020
   Planning CommissionPC6Public hearingApproved

   Approved minutes

   Approved the item as part of the Public Hearing Consent Agenda.

   Open this item →▶ Play from 31:30
   ▶ 31:3010m

   Denise

   31:30and a half feet for buildings number 1 through 5, 7 through 8, and 12 through 18, and a reduction in the required minimum rear setback from 15 feet to 5.9 feet for building number 4 in a multifamily medium density district. Yeah the uh parcel is located in southwest Pasco County. It consists of the pr preserve at Cypress Creek, or yeah, preserve at Cypress Creek. And uh it's on the northeast and northwest intersection of Gulf Trace, Preserve at Gulf Trace, I apologize, Gulf Trace Boulevard

   32:00and Jack Jacob Crossing Lane. On this item, the set the side setback reductions come to you as a result of a s of a staff error. The preliminary development plan, it was approved on 827 of 18 for 10 for 100 actually townhome units. That's incorrect. There's conflicting setback information between the approval memo and the construction plan. So the, and I'll try to depict that, show that to you here. So as you can see, the approval memo and the preliminary development

   32:30plan clearly states that the front setback is 10, side is I mean front setback is 20, side is 10, rear is 15. But if you look at the actual Um the actual graphic, it shows you that you can have a seven and a half foot setback. And the same situation, this is part of the construction plan, the typical lot layout in the construction plans. So we approve that. Um so basically the engineer of record um approached me um with some questions on

   33:01their property and as I looked at the rest of their construction uh the rest of their proposed plans I found that there were issues with side setbacks throughout When that actually came to the Planning and Development Department staff, we also found that there were two front setback issues and a rear setback issue on these lots. And again, it's I can show you all the visuals where they're using seven and a half foot side setbacks as

   33:32was shown in their approved construction plan. And their approval memo and This comes to you with a recommendation of approval with conditions. on this item and I'm here for any questions. Okay.

   Michael J. Cox

   33:47So there was a um

   33:52There was a disconnect between what was uh approved and what then was actually permitted to have?

   Denise

   34:00The s yeah, it was complet it was a it was contradictory. So the V the vrbal information on what was approved, so when sh things were shown verbally, it says ten foot side setbacks. When things were shown pictorically pictorally, so graphically in uh drawings, they were showing seven and a half foot setbacks. So and that was on their approval memo on their approved construction plans.

   Michael J. Cox

   34:32So David.

   34:35Where does this I mean? Tell me if I'm wrong, but I'm I'm assuming that the county shouldn't have issued the permit for it. But they did. So but Did the developer submit this? And they

   Jaimie GirardiVice Chair

   34:51Well if there's really an error I'm Both the developer's part and county staff's port. D the developer submitted something that would Didn't meet the setbacks. But then the county staff approved it. So it's an error on both sides. If that's your question.

   Michael J. Cox

   35:09And this project's under construction, correct?

   Denise

   35:11Yes. Uh and the engineer record may be here. Um my understanding if is that they have at this point it's all platted and at this point they have submitted for, I believe, some model setter lots.

   Michael J. Cox

   35:25So it could be

   Charles GreyChair

   35:26changed then.

   35:29Well they'd have to replot the pro pro project, wouldn't they, if they did that?

   Unidentified speakerVoice A

   35:35Good afternoon. Uh Jay Hunting, I'm with Thought. thirty thirty Starkey Boulevard to Port Ritchie. Three, four, six, five, five. The Uh The project I think during the review of the project of the preliminary plan and also of the construction plans the focus by the engineers. And the focus by county staff was the constraints that are on the land because of the category one by ones that are on both the east side and the west side

   36:05of the project. In addition to Uh there's a right-of-way preservation corridor along Gulf Trace that we needed to respect. And I believe that That's right. that's how the process went forward with that focus and that the that the setback issues were Um Or up. it was an error on the part on both sides. I I don't think there was it's just

   36:35staff, I think the engineer there was some issues there also. Um The other thing I'd like to point out is that in the code and this may have been Uh uh. part of the confusion on the part of the Developer. Uh on the code and the yard regulations. for the MF One district that talks about the required setbacks. But it also under B, you

   37:05have five and one eight point seven says all structures shall be separated by not less than fifteen feet. So it it there may have been some confusion there as to what the separation between the buildings needed to be. So that's really the uh Really the the issue with the setbacks was because of the constraints on the property due to the environmental considerations. And we the development itself is quite

   37:35a distance away from any any uh adjoining properties because of those wetlands that are there.

   Michael J. Cox

   37:46adjoining properties, it it's this development and the people who are gonna few eventually lived there. Um I mean I know there's a lot of drainage issues and wetland concerns with this piece of property. Um and I'm I'm Really concerned that by allowing this, um, that we're gonna create some some flooding issues. there now. And I'm also very concerned about the front setbacks. I mean twenty feet. front setback

   38:16is not a lot. You know, I I I actually tried to get a perspective of it today and my wife drives a s a mid sized car and I measured it at sixteen and a half feet. So you want to go from twenty down to seventeen and a half. So

   38:35I mean I'm not sure how you would park a car there.

   Denise

   38:38On those, those are just on two corner corner lots. So they're all they they don't affect the principal front. It affects the secondary front. So it's on a corner lot. So they will not be parking please correct me if I'm incorrect. They will not be parking a vehicle on that because that's really In essence, their side, but it's their secondary front. So if I can show that perhaps here. Here's an example. If you look at Eighteen? Their driveway is at

   39:08the twenty. This is their corner. So the seventeen point five one the reduction is in the secondary front.

   Amy Behrens

   39:16Okay.

   Denise

   39:16Not in the principal front. And that's the case for the two buildings that are the two Um lots that are requesting that reduction. It's their secondary front. Yeah, let me see if I can find the other to show you.

   39:37Yeah, here's a second one. Same situation. Um on this lot, lot thirty. Their entry is at this is now going crazy. Their entry is at Inlet Breeze Way. And that's where they would park their vehicle. This is the secondary front on Jacob Crossing Lane. So no vehicle would be parked here. Is that

   Unidentified speakerVoice A

   39:59That's correct.

   Denise

   40:00Correct statement.

   Unidentified speakerVoice A

   40:01That's correct. And also let me just briefly issue address the the flooding issue. Uh this project we've was issued all the appropriate permits. The water management district reviewed it. County staff was scrutinized this quite a bit because of the location, because of the wetlands on both sides. Um and we have Looked over our firm has looked over. the drainage calculations and the and the plans themselves that were done by the by the engineer

   40:31and we don't see any flooding issues that could be Exasperated by Reducing the setback by Between the uh buildings.

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   40:46Okay.

   Charles GreyChair

   40:48Any other questions from up here?

   Chris Williams

   40:53Did did you call for public comment on this one? Not yet. Oh okay.

   Charles GreyChair

   41:00Okay, is there anyone here that uh to object or have questions?

   41:05Anyone?

   41:08All right. Do I have a motion then?

   Chris Williams

   41:10I have moved that we approve PC six with conditions.

   Charles GreyChair

   41:16Okay, second.

   Unidentified speakerVoice C

   41:18I'll second.

   Charles GreyChair

   41:20We have a motion and a second. Is there any further discussion? All in favor?

   Unidentified speakerVoice C

   41:25Aye.

   Charles GreyChair

   41:26Opposed?