Zoning Amendment (Consent) – Deer Springs MPUD Master Planned Unit Development – Deer Springs, LLC – A Rezoning Request from A-C Agricultural and A-R Agricultural-Residential Zoning Districts to an MPUD Master Planned Unit Development District to Allow for the Development of a Maximum of 115 Residential Dwelling Units or 100 Residential Dwelling Units and Up to Five (5) Acres of Office Uses on Approximately 38.29 Acres.
What the county recorded
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, Nov 3, 2022
The published PDF, as served by the county. This item is one entry in it.
The county’s minutes for Planning Commission, Nov 3, 2022
The published PDF, as served by the county. This item is one entry in it.
This case, across meetings
PDD-23-7612 in full →PDD-23-7612 was taken up 3 times between Nov 3, 2022 and Dec 6, 2022 — this is appearance 2.
- Nov 3, 2022PlanningPC5Approved
- Nov 3, 2022PlanningPC5▶No disposition in the minutesthis item
- Dec 6, 2022BoardP109▶Approved
What was said
Machine transcription of 52m of recording, with speaker names inferred from voice matching. 89% of 262 lines carry a name. It shows what was said, not what was decided, and both the words and the names can be wrong.
Okay. I think we're back to PC five.
That's correct and um Ms. Snyder is going to present the item.
Okay.
We're bringing up the PowerPoint.
Well. Exactly.
Okay.
SRP ending there at Valley Boulevard on the west. The cobblestone MPD that's approved and In in the works is um just north of this one. And the next slide.
The request is a rezoning from AC Agricultural and AR Agricultural Residential Zoning Districts to an MPU to allow for the development of either a maximum of 115 residential detached dwelling units or a maximum of 100 residential detached dwelling units and up to five acres of office uses. Total site area is approximately 38.29%. Nine acres. Next slide.
The applicant is also seeking the following variations from the code. Section 901.1.8, special design requirements for subdivision collectors, which requires public type 1A and Type 1B roadways. The applicant wants any internal roadways to this MPUD to be private. Uh section 901.6. D.11 street access to adjoining property requires interconnects between projects. There's currently an east-west right-of-way bisecting
the project and no potential connection to the north. There are planted lots on the northeast and southwest and a rural dirt road to the south, which may possibly be an emergency only connection in the future. Next slide.
The PDD has reviewed these requested variations and is amenable to allowing both for the reasons stated and there are further details in your agenda memo. Next slide.
Here's the Mr. Plan. You'll see that I did include the north arrow on the top. The north is to the left. Next slide.
The subject set is in the East Market area and is being used for agricultural pursuits. No increase in density from the existing REST-3 future land use is proposed. Any proposed office uses may not occupy more than five acres of the MQD per the comprehensive plan, and they must be consistent with the registry floor area ratio of 0.27 for any actual acreage committed to these office uses. LDC section 402.2.8
specifies that variations from the code may be reviewed and approved by the PC and BCC during the public hearing held. And the if the BCC finds a feature exceeds the intent of the code. The Planning and Development Department has reviewed the request of variations and find that they do meet the intent of the LDC as noted. Therefore the proposed request is consistent with the Pasco County LDC Chapter 400 Subsection 402.2 Zoom in PUD and with the applicable provisions of the Pasco
County comprehensive plan And I explained. And with that, the PDB recommends approval with conditions. Thank you.
All right. Ms. Shelley?
Thank you, Shelley Johnson, 6400 Madison Street, and I have been sworn. Um I just wanted to address I I know Mr. Sierra is here to speak on this today, and I did have a chance in the interim to have some correspondence with my clients and the engineers who are not here today. Um, because my understanding from my conversation with him outside is his concern on this and why he pulled it as the route of the State Row 56 extension. Um and there's I think there's some concern that it's maybe potentially planned to go through this particular property. and that there's not enough right-of-way
being preserved. So I did um check with my clients and I I they've sent me F DOT emails and there is absolutely no proposal for the State Road 56 extension to go through this property. They are specifically asking or the 50-foot is specifically what they want, which is what we've provided with regards to the east-west right-of-way dedication and set aside it through the middle of this property. Um and he's also saying that there's no funding for design or construction right now for that extension.
So there's no PD ⁇ E or anything of that nature. Um So we're happy to answer any questions. Uh my concern is that what's kind of the his concern is not really anything to do with this property, but we're here to answer questions. So
you wanna hang close there somewhere, Shelley, where we can get response if we need to? Yeah. Okay. Is there anyone else, Shelley, you can speak on your side? Okay. Very good. Can we have
your permission? My name is Michael Sierra. I'm an attorney with OSCE at 703 West Swan and Tampa. I'm here today with the pleasure of representing my wife and my children and myself as owners of Festival Park, which is immediately west of the property here in question. I I'm not opposing development of the property. Uh I am concerned about the the agenda memorandum that you've received. Uh there are a lot of factual issues that I would Oh. contest, if you would. Hello?
For one thing, it it says that formerly the State Road 56 extension, which has now been realigned Well I have been in touch with the Department of Transportation. pretty consistently every couple of months for the last three or four years since prior to fifty six being finished and dead ending in my front gate. uh twenty feet of which I gave them, gave it to the state to facilitate it for no compensation. I'm in favor of developing going forward and I would want to see 56
be extended. There are several. Uh proposed routes for fifty six. There have been public hearing And there have been uh news put out by the Department of Transportation and people invited to attend. There are five corridors that have been offered. Some of which go through the very property which you're now uh being considering for zoning, and it's almost impossible for it not to go through my property, and and I'd be happy if they could find some other way to do it. But I think that's going to be the public need and I'm
I'm happy to accommodate when the time comes. However, It should be considered. And if you're considering this development, and you are planning, which means tomorrow and many tomorrows to come, if you don't take into account a major need, such as the extension of of State Road fifty six, you you're you're simply not taking into account what needs to be for future on the plan, in my humble opinion. Oh. The the recommended the agenda memorandum further
states that there is an existing public east-rest right-of-way. If you'd see the picture up there, it goes from nowhere to Crystal Springs Road. It's a forty foot road that was platted with the Colony Springs Uh uh long, long ago, at least forty, fifty years ago, I've owned the property since eighty seven and I know that at that time I vacated right-of-way through the park so that I could use it without worrying about that. Th the property has wet on it and has And they're certainly not drivable. Uh
and by Um by this development placing the road over where it did on the north side as opposed to the south side, didn't utilize the forty foot right-of-way because if it did, it was going to have to help all of its neighbors out with access as well. Uh I I'll move along because I know I'm to be limited on my time. Uh in in the memorandum it says that they didn't take into account the needs of Springdale because there's only a handful of I mean there's a substandard rule dirt road uh to which
the project is not proposing cor uh connection because Springdale Road only serves a handful. Of rural residents. Well I I I don't know why there's a distinction between rural and city, but whatever they are, they're residents, they're voters, they're taxpayers. And it's not it's not a handful, at least in my mind, a handful is four or five. There's actually 24, if you go and count, all of which are going to be impacted by this traffic. Uh Springdale. Uh
Go ahead. Go ahead. Try to finish.
May I go on?
Please go.
Okay. Uh Crystal Springs
Road
comes to to a halt, to an end, uh, at Chansey Road. Uh and I I would invite you to come out there at eight o'clock in the morning any day of the week, including weekends. It's a traffic jam, get in and out. And since 56 has been open, you can stand at my front gate and count hundreds of cars coming through there, going to the bypass, going Chansey Road. Well if you dump another 115 families With with their cars, and in today's world, we have at least two cars per household.
When we have children like like we've all like I've had, certainly, they each have to have a car. And when you start counting it, I'm not sure that we've properly accounted for these people's traffic needs. I'm not asking you to deny the request. What I'm asking you to do is to have them c reconsider it. and contact us. I received notice of this for the first time on this on the 20th that was dated the 17th. I called the the developer whom I know and I could not get an answer back
until yesterday. She answered all my questions and as I had gotten all the plans that I could from the county. I uh hired an engineer to look this over for me. Uh unfortunately he's he's uh suffering with COVID and couldn't be here today. Uh but nonetheless I I'm I'm telling you the things that I'm concerned about. We have drawn a plan for Festival Park. And in our plan we took into account what the state had asked us to do, which is to provide for County Road uh fifty six or state
road fifty six. Uh we I've I've got those plans. I have not submitted a rezoning for it because the state of Florida hadn't decided where they want to put the road. And I don't want to put a right-of-way where they want it if if I if they're not going to be accommodated. I think 56 and this project could both go forward, and I think it should be aligned with this 40-foot uh right-of-way, which is already owned by the county and the developers proposing to give another five feet on each side making it fifty feet. I'm not sure what what
the State Road 56 would need. I rather suspect it's more than fifty feet. But the state could pay the difference to the developer. And and they we could both coexist. But let me apologize, I am Uh uh hearing impaired and I I've not been able to understand some of this. I'm I'm sorry if I stood up out of out of turn uh but I appreciate your giving me a couple of extra minutes to to give you this information and I hope this information will be of use or benefit to you.
Well thank you very much. We appreciate you being here and
thank you.
And we'll make note of those items. And Shelley, if you wanna come back up and respond, uh and make sure that uh you know, th that he can hear what you're saying. Yeah. Definitely I just wanna did you need to come up closer so he can hear?
Did you need to come up closer so you can hear that? You can stand right
next to her if you want.
That way you can hear what I'm saying. It'll help you hear.
I can't hear in the right ear at all and I'm severely impaired in the left ear. I've got a hearing aid. It just doesn't do a
stand here so you can hear her.
So you can hear what I'm
saying. I'll be quick, I promise.
Um I did actually get a map that I just forwarded to Tammy via email, which is the F DOT map, and there's literally no alternative. Again, no PD ⁇ E, no design, no funding for this extension, obviously right now. But none of the alternatives that they're looking at are actually even there's the only one that's even close is south of this property, so none of them are within the project development. area at all. Um I understand maybe you would like it to go through the middle of the development, but that's not what F D O T's plan is and that's what F D O T has confirmed with us and with your engineers,
the County's engineers.
So what what you're saying is you have n you you haven't funded for that and you don't have any control over it.
Yeah, it doesn't they from what they're saying is um you know they're they're looking at alternatives they're not doing they're not in a design or anything like that. There's just no funding. So but none of the even proposed alternatives in the event that this happens someday are even near this property. They're south the closest one is south of the development boundary. So
But you have no objection to what he's requesting.
In regards to where he'd like to see it go if if it did eventually.
No, I mean I think that's F D O T's decision that the route that it goes. I mean I don't think our client has any control over that um and the route obviously isn't proposed to go through this property. So
is this the map you're referring to? I just got an email from David. Yeah, I just I don't know there's a way to put it up there or not. I sent it to you, Denise, too. I don't know. It might be helpful to see that. Yeah, it is
because if you can
see this is
not
a
free to see
that. Yeah. Can we is there any way to put it up there? I don't put it up. Perfect. Thank you so much everyone.
Yeah, I think if you look at this map you'll see that there's thank you, David. It doesn't involve the company.
He's homesick.
But we did um staff did request that um we dedicate ten more feet 'cause there's forty foot already existing through the east west you know, middle of the property. So we did give the additional ten feet. We don't have any access to Springdale Road. Um our access is out to Crystal Springs Road like Cobblestone. We're actually doing the improvement from our southern boundary to the Cobblestone southern boundary to bring that road up to standard.
But I'm here
to answer any other questions.
Um just I want to make sure that he got all that.
Did you hear all that?
I'm sorry. I I I heard what she said, yes. But I I uh I'm not sure what her address was on the existing right-of-way and why it wasn't used. Had we had an opportunity to have discussion while this was being done, uh I think some of the these thoughts could have been at least considered. Uh but what I'm pointing up is that that the the neighbors weren't considered the Department of Transportation As of Monday, had not been contacted or discussed or questioned about where 56 was going or
their thoughts on this project. And I certainly haven't been and I I I'm thirteen hundred and twenty feet on them and and nobody'd call me before I I called them. There is a right-of-way already existing of forty feet on the On the south side of the leg that comes out to Crystal Springs. If the road had been put on that side as opposed to the opposite side, it could have accommodated a lot of use and and 56 could have gone through there without the major damage. So now we're gonna have the r a road, the what
they're calling, I guess, a interior collector road. There is no real collector road anywhere. Uh Crystal Springs Road uh at at best is is marginal to handle the traffic it's handling now. Uh and I guess she's got the right to develop it anyway. But it would be better if it were planned to where the state could pick up that right-of-way through that already exist and put their road on top of that. It would enhance their project, it would certainly enhance the neighborhood, give everybody that lives in the area much better access.
Thank you. If there's any questions, I'm happy to try to answer.
Are there any questions? Thank
you.
Okay. Thank you.
I mean I I have some questions for the applicant. Um Uh it's gonna go go down my list here. Um The first one being the actual dimensional standards that are proposed to the residential lots. I don't know, maybe Tammy, this is for you, but Personally I haven't seen one that was written this way, but the way that the dimensional standards are written, yes they're fifty foot wide lots. But they're asking for ten foot front setbacks for the primary structure and twenty foot setbacks for the garage. Um I
know we've heard a lot of people. things from the board, which I tend to agree with. You end up with these neighborhoods with these small lots with no landscaping in the front. I'm just having a hard time visualizing landscaping in front of any of these houses. with ten foot setbacks to the house where you're required to have a ten foot utility easement, And then you're gonna have the rest of the frontage is gonna be driveway for the garage. So I don't know how What what's I guess what was the thought behind asking for ten foot front setbacks? Um I
guess I'll start there.
I mean that's just the the planning how they d how they designed it, how they laid it out. I think it's you know I don't know that any other MPs have done it, but this is what their design was. I mean they're gonna have to comply with the land escaping code in regards to anything that they're doing. So
Well I just as I look through all the dimensional standards, they're they're asking for ten foot front setbacks. They're pretty significantly above and beyond what you would ask for in the Euclidean zoning as far as um lot coverage. They're asking for 75% lot coverage for principal and accessory structures. I think the equivalent Euclidean zoning category for similar lot sizes would be forty five percent. So I mean that that's that's quite a bit more lot coverage. I I just I've got a lot of heartburn with some of these dimensional standards that are included in this approval.
I agree with you with other than you weren't here at the last meeting in R4 we did vote to recommend approval of an ordinance that would make lot coverage in R for sixty five percent, inclusive of accessory structures. Currently right now it's forty five and twenty. Okay. But it would make it a total of sixty-five on the lot. But I agree with you, seventy-five is excessive. And I agree if you have a ten foot utility easement in the front, there is no room for landscaping. Utilities will not let you landscape over the utilities.
And I brought this up about planting trees in the right-of-way during the last meeting too. We had storm sewers and utilities in the right-of-way and We're trying to plant them in utility strips that are less than we require for a landscape island and a parking lot. So I And I said this during the Hale Call year, I mean the forty and fifty foot wide lots I believe are proving to be a problem. I think the public is seeing that they're a problem.
Um tha that's my that's my thoughts and my feelings on the residential lots. On the on the office lots I guess I'm having trouble picturing thirty-five foot by eighty foot wide lots for the office product. What what is the what's the thought there or what's the intent there?
Again, I'm not the planner on this. Um I don't I don't know why the planner laid it out that way and I actually wasn't even part of the comment process on it. So um all I know is that's what they propose and we have a recommendation of approval. I mean Obviously if there's things that are gonna have to be massaged when they go to planning, there's things that are gonna have to be massaged. I mean they're way below their density. They're I think the density on this is a red six and But I think as Tammy mentioned, we're way below that. Um so I mean this is the first time that we're hearing any of these concerns. So
Okay, yeah. I mean I just I just wanted to voice those for the record that I uh from what I'm saying.
I will definitely take those into consideration and talk to the clients about it, but yeah, this is the first time we're hearing any issues with it, so
Okay, and then on the the this is an alternative standard request for the roadways. Um there's a request I believe and I'm I'm I'm not going off memory here, but I think there's a request to go with private roads instead of 1A, 1B roads.
Because we um have no connection to anything. If you look at the surrounding development and properties, there's nowhere to interconnect to based on the existing infrastructure and development around the property. So that was why they supported their request, is my understanding.
But with a development of this density you would be required to provide twenty four foot roads and you're proposing twenty two foot roads, is that correct?
Yeah, I mean what's on the plan is what they're proposing, yeah.
I mean I uh again we we have extreme density, e extremely I mean this is
a
very
small
development,
this is a hundred and fifty.
You're gonna have a twenty four twenty-two foot wide road and you're gonna have problems with accessibility and being able to navigate through the roads. There's one way in, one way out of this entire project. Naturally the two parcels are connected, but there's one way in, one way out. Um I think there's a lot of problems here personally with this what's being asked for.
Well I know that your traffic department looked at it and your traffic engineers um and they signed off on you know what was being proposed in terms of the access. So Well is somebody online that can answer to those questions.
That can speak to that.
So let's say.
I have a few people online. Let me see who reviewed this project.
think Amir um was one of the people that worked
Essen, can you answer some of these questions that are being asked on this project?
Right. Yeah, hi, uh good afternoon. This is Aston. I May have not looked at this comp plan amendment and the associated traffic study, but Do not look at The internal gateway, the width of it And what uh Mr. Girardi is talking about.
uh external roadway whether they can handle the capacity or not. I don't think this is a capacity issue that we're talking about right now.
The only reason I'm asking that question and I I'm raising it here is 'cause I have a feeling if they come in with their construction plans and they ask for twenty two foot wide roads and they ask for one way in, one way out, Somebody's gonna tell them they can't do that and they're gonna say, Well yeah we can per these MPD approval conditions.
Well I think your conditions of approval actually allow access management to go back in and re review when you go into plan approval. There's actually a provision in your standard conditions that reserve that right and jurisdiction over it.
So it'll still be looked at further when it's further nailed down through engineering.
We can you know do the access management review part of it, but again Access management doesn't get into what you're talking about right now, whether this should be a twenty-four foot wide or twenty-two foot wide. Uh our other team members in the technical group they they do get into that kind of uh review. And they would be commenting on it. Um however it would be the the planning folks I think that would uh comment on whether this form is correct or not and if twenty two foot
can be supported or not.
Okay. I mean staff reviews this stuff. I just wanted to raise this. I I saw these as potential.
Um At site plan we will definitely consider what she just mentioned. And for any development with more than hundred units. Um Provided an emergency access out. And obviously when you do their access management study, we have to ensure that their access actually works, whether any injunctions are needed, whether a signal is needed. We get into that at final site plan review. But from the traffic transportation study perspective, there weren't any uh
issues identified.
That's all I had?
So, John, are you comfortable with the setback?
Not particularly
no.
I mean we just made it I caught the same thing.
But I agree I saw the ten the ten foot setbacks stuck out like a sore thumb to me and I it was my exact same thought was mm there's a requirement for a ten foot utility easement. That takes a lot of things. Takes up the entire distance between the right-of-way line and the front of the house, yeah, where does this landscaping go?
Sure. If my f when I first read it I thought it was a typo. I thought it was it was backwards. But the thing I had to read it two or three times.
twenty foot set back to a garage. I mean I drive a full size pickup truck. If my trailer hits, you're gonna be sticking out over the sidewalk. And I I understand that there's a conditions of approval that requires the HOA or the C D D to enforce parking on the street, but when you've got a lot where there's no place to park and everly they're gonna park on the street. I mean not one of us has a house that doesn't host a birthday party or a Super Bowl party or have great. grandma and grandpa over and they Uh
they didn't take the bus, they brought their own car and they had to park it somewhere. So I think we need to think twice about
Well didn't we just make a compromise on setbacks that we just you you just mentioned that w at our last meeting. But that was
a lot coverage. Yeah, that was
coverage. It was a lot coverage.
Because we talked about the
landscaping issues. And that's for an ordinance yet to be adopted.
Oh okay.
Right.
But Jamie makes the point, and I've seen this in multiple MPUDs coming through here since I've been back. is that the In most of these MPUDs, they're allowing 75% lock coverage. There's no Euclidean zoning district. That would allow seventy-five percent lot coverage. In fact, like said staff just brought us an ordinance during the last meeting that would bring it up to sixty-five in R full R whether that be the principal structure or some combination of
principal and accessory structures, but Seven five foot setbacks, seventy-five percent coverage, but yet then the same requirement, we want more trees on the lot. And then I mean I realize I didn't win I was not on the winning or actually we were at the Planning Commission but not at the County Commission, the winning side for the tow truck driver who makes his living towing cars out of common developments like this.
He's behind this.
So
what is the landscaping for like these units? What can you do? Well
they're required the the ordinance that we considered last meeting would require a minimum of two trees per lot for this size lot. Mm-hmm. And they want one of them in the front yard. But there's a Jamie's point there's no room to put it. It's in process.
But there's no requirement for shrubbery if you're talking about landscaping in that regard, so it's just trees. But
just a tree. It
could
be a tree and a pot. proposed ordinance, said well they could landscape in the right of way, but I went to show pictures of Starkey Ranch and the distance between the back of the curb and the The strip where they could plant was almost seven and a half feet wide and generally was occupied by storm sewers and utilities.
Yeah.
Well Shelley, I understand this is not your a problem you created.
Well, I mean again we've
got
your curve. I it to me it sounds like some of the concerns and I'm listening to them are again we have staff recommendation of approval. This is something that's been done on other MPDs, this isn't any different. It's a hundred and fifteen unit development. Um that's gonna do a huge improvement to um to the roadway, to Crystal Springs. And my only reaction is if if the planners and the engineers for this for the owner and the buyers are comfortable with the design th if those are some issues they're gonna face, then I guess that's the risk they're taking. But They seem comfortable that they comply with the code and I think staff seems comfortable
that they can comply with the code and that's why we came here on consent agenda with a mech recommendation of approval. So we would ask for your recommendation of approval and the support of staff's recommendation.
Tammy is Tammy still online? Is she is are the ten foot setbacks and the seventy five foot coverage is that what we've approved on other MPUDs east?
Yes, the um ten foot front setback with a twenty foot to the garage has been approved uh most recently, I think on the Denton Place M PUD. Um and the 75% lot coverage has been approved. There's even been greater lot coverage was approved. Um, like up to eighty five percent I believe I've seen in some for the primary and accessory structures. That includes pool enclosures and things like that.
Just because it's approved doesn't mean it works.
Yeah, I mean I mean Shame on me. I I missed it when we approved it previously, but I just uh on the record, I I I think just 'cause I mean again like John just said, just 'cause we approved it once I I don't think it's a good precedent to set, but it's already been set, so
Has both the ten foot setback and seventy five percent coverage been combined like this in an approval prior?
Have they been constructed?
I'm sorry, I didn't quite get it.
Yeah.
Tammy? Tammy, did you hear my question? No, that's what I was just saying. I'm sorry, I didn't quite catch it. Have we ever have has this board ever approved the combination that's as proposed today with a ten foot setback and seventy five percent lock coverage?
Uh that information I would have to look into. I do not know if off the top of my head if that combination has been a
My job.
um
and Single family patched has a 10-foot front primary setback, 20-foot garage setback, 75% lock coverage. The villas have the same setbacks and they have 85% lock coverage.
D fibes. What the
In Denton Place. Correct. And although it got approved, there was a long line of members of the public there to object quite vocally.
Good afternoon, uh Brad Tippin, Planning Development. Uh just to uh clarify that a little bit, I think somebody uh on the panel did say it just because it is approved in this manner. These are maximums and they may work in some lot areas and not in others. They're still required to comply with the other sections of the code that aren't superseded. So they still have to apply, uh comply with the landscaping codes and the limitations on on what they can do with an easement and all those. other things. So if they can't actually construct to this maximum, they're not going to be constructing to the maximum. It won't be approved.
uh but where they can, then this would allow them to do so. So the the other aspects of engineering that that both uh Mr. Jardy and Mr. Moody have been speaking to would still need to be followed uh ultimately at the site plan stage because they are not directly superseded here.
Uh-huh. I hope that clarifies a little bit of that. clarifies its own. I I I still have concerns and I I still have trouble picturing the product product that where we how we're getting away from the problem that's created with these smaller lot developments that are all crammed in.
Is there any requirement if we do this? I'm thinking about things like air conditioning condensers. Five foot setback. The air conditioning condenser is three foot wide and the building code requires it to be at least a foot off the wall of the building, but yet there's going to be drainage swales down between the houses. How does that happen?
Yeah. Brad Tipping again, yes, there are there are requirements for whenever those setbacks go below seven and a half feet uh as to what can be done within that area. Um there's some very specific requirements. Doesn't the code
require that the air conditioner not be on the ground?
They they either be elevated or they be in the rear of the house, or there's there are other other types of issues there on the roof, depending on what type of structure it is, those office structures, different things. But yes, those those other areas
Yeah, I mean that all that
being said, I mean y yes, w we have approved this before, but we've approved forty foot lots before. I so it it's
I mean I see it. I do a lot of things over in Gulf Harbors. there's an older community and again there's small setbacks in there and the people they want to build a sidewalk along the side of the house.
And you build a three or four foot wide sidewalk and then the next door neighbors complaining well he built the sidewalk and it's causing water to run off on my property and the other one plants a shrub, thinks that I got no problem with the shrub. But the shrub grows up, the shrub is now three feet wide, and the other neighbor says I can't walk from the front yard to the back yard because my neighbor's shrub blocks the distance between the two houses.
Is there always a utility easement in front on the on the road? Yes. I mean how would they ever put a tree in front of it? They never could. They couldn't. So I don't understand why why we prove It's a conflict. And again, how would why would we do something that could is not even possible, I guess, is my question. Does that make sense? I mean if you always have a ten foot utility easement and the requirement is to put a tree there and you can't put a tree there, why would it even be shown that way?
Again, I think it gives flexibility from the perspective I think like what Brad was saying is this is maximum. So if they go in and they can't p comply with the provisions of the code that require them to do certain things, then they'll have to come down off of some of those maximums. But it gives them flexibility in terms of the product that they're putting on there. I mean these are typical fifty and a hundred and ten foot lots. I mean That's what these are, so
I understand, but I mean if that is never feasible to be able to put a tree when you have a ten foot set back, why would we even show 'em as a hot I don't know, I just struggle with that. So we would be approving something that practically speaking isn't possible. That's what uh that's what yeah, that's what goes into my head.
So why would that why would you even show something that's not feasibly possible?
What is what's the M P U D that's right north of this cobblestone? That's just north of this?
Yeah. I was gonna ask about that.
Yes. What is do we know what the Design criteria are for that one.
Sounds more
like a brown stone.
No, but you can just sound like you know the four.
Okay.
Mr. Chairman, while uh while she's looking up that information for you, there was another gentleman out here that wanted to make some public comment, but I think we cut away as soon as Mr. Sierra finished. Um if you wanted to give him an opportunity to speak right now.
Did you speak on this, you mean? Yes, you can Please come forward.
I have the answer for cobblestone. Um forty foot wide lots, 110 feet in depth. Uh front setback for garage is twenty-five feet, twenty feet for a house. Um And then the coverage for principal is 60%, coverage for accessory is 15%. That's for the single family detached project product.
All right, if you'd
like to state your name and address please. Yes, my name is Robert Bellantine. My address is [address removed]. And I do need to get sworn in because I Have you been sworn? Sorry.
So I'm thinking at the bottom here, that's Lothlorian Lane going up to the northwest corner. When CG Pasco LLC started building cobblestone, they found out that the fence line that's been there for over a hundred years did not follow the survey line. That statute in Florida says that any fence line that has been there for over 20 years is now the new boundary of the property. So
C. G. Pasco then lost ten feet of their nine building lots to the north of that property, which means if they have building lots along the end of that northwest corner, they will lose ten feet according to Florida Statute's law. Otherwise, if they change it to the survey line, they will block my access to my property, which is illegal.
So they've just lost another ten feet. You said that they didn't have too much to begin with.
All right. That's it. Any questions?
Thank you very much. I think there's one other person wanted to speak.
Yeah, and g give us your name and address and then we'll swear you're in. Alright, uh Jerry Sligal, resident at [address removed]. All right.
Yes, ma'am. Uh I wasn't gonna speak until I kinda kept hearing the comment come up, it's only a hundred and fifteen homes. If you don't live in Crystal Springs It's only 115 homes. But if you don't drive down Crystal Springs Road Or you don't drive down Chansey coming from 39 to 301. 115 homes is 115 homes. Our firehouse is getting ready to be gone in Crystal Springs. That's a concern for a lot of residents. It's gonna be moving
further down. uh Chansey Road across train tracks. Um Sheriff's Response is extremely slow already in Crystal Springs. I have 911 calls myself. that have had over a two hour response time. And that call involved a weapon. response time and the county care for Crystal Springs has really been laxed. We have two paved roads in Crystal Springs, and both of 'em are beyond needed
repair. We have a bridge on Crystal Springs Road, That hasn't passed a safety inspection since the early eighties. It's a very narrow bridge. It's a dangerous bridge. It's a thirty mile an hour road and I can count more accidents and fatalities than probably thirty nine itself on a thirty mile an hour road. There's a lot of traffic, There's a lot of drunk drivers on Crystal Springs Road. There's a lot of dumping. We don't have the infrastructure to accommodate more building. We're actually
losing infrastructure. And to think that we're losing a fire station. That is embedded in the community and we have development right there at thirty nine and Chansey that's being done. You have the Development on three on one near Chansey, across from the prison being built. Now you're adding another hundred and fifteen homes to a road that is extremely narrow. And it ha it just has a lot of accidents. You can pull up the police records and see those accidents. We don't need another 115 homes in that area until other things
are addressed. Chester Taylor School is beyond capacity. We don't have school buses that can do their jobs already in Crystal Springs. Kids are having to be driven more than six blocks to a bus stop. So we need to be looking at the infrastructure before we just build just another hundred and fifteen homes. I thank you. Thank you.
Question have any comment on the school though?
Um Chester Taylor is over. Um we'll be uh Should the penny pass and be extended, we aim to remodel that in that capacity to Chester Taylor in addition Um we plan to do something on two rivers which may impact that area w as well, but that's a few years out. Okay. But a hundred and fifteen if it was a hundred and fifteen houses we'd
expect about um twenty or so elementary students out of that. Okay.
Could did Tammy repeat the design criteria and the adjacent development? She was a twenty-foot minimum setback, twenty-five foot to the garage.
Yes, um the lots are forty by a hundred. So minimum lot width is forty, minimum lot depth is a hundred. Uh front setback uh twenty-five feet for garage, twenty feet for residences. Um side setback is seven and a half, which can be reduced to five, uh based on um meeting the criteria nine oh two point two K two B and uh rear setback is fifteen and um Sixty percent coverage for principal, fifteen percent for accessory. And those are the uh
dimensional standards for single family detached.
And it was twenty foot to the front.
Twenty foot to the front for the house, twenty five for the garage.
And then um there's a notation that on corner lots where there's m uh an ad you know more than one front, um the setback may be reduced to fifteen.
Understood.
I'd move to approve with the same conditions.
Uh the same conditions as the
land conditions. Twenty-five foot to the garage, twenty foot to the front, seven and a half foot side with the possibility to reduce to five by meeting the other requirements of land development code. Rear fifteen, sixty percent max principal structure, fifteen percent maximum accessory structures. I don't particularly like the seventy-five percent lock coverage, but You're willing to deal with this case?
All right. So we have a motion.
I'll I'll second that.
Okay, Don, we have a second and a mo a motion and a second. Further discussion on the motion.
So those are forty foot lots up on cobblestone cracks over You're talking about applying that to a fifty foot sink right there, the fifty-foot lot.
Yes, because my concern here has to do with as Jamie well brought up having room for landscaping. So in this case we now would have twenty foot, which leaves ten foot for the utility easement and ten foot for landscaping. It addresses my concern about you park a full-size truck in the driveway and if your trailer hitches and hanging over the sidewalk twenty-foot. five feet to the garage, not twenty feet to the garage. Seven and a half feet addresses being able to put sidewalks and air conditioners and the like and it does give them the opportunity
with some creative design to potentially get that down to five.
And it does give them the seventy five percent lock coverage that they're asking, although unparticularly reliable, right?
Did did I understand Essen correctly in that the roadway width would also be looked at as part of the design and the construction plans? Or are they locked in at twenty two feet?
I just want to mention also that I have Stacy Burgess on the on the line as well that can answer some of those questions also.
Mm-hmm.
Mm-hmm.
Uh Mr Girardi, I I believe we will be, you know, we have the opportunity to look at this again at time of site plan review.
Essen and Stacy,
if they have a twenty-two foot width of pavement, will they still be required to have a minimum fifty foot right-of-way?
Um
I think that is the minimum that we need. For a local
road. I think that is correct. Our tech team will ask for a fifty foot right over a local for a local road. Yes.
This is Brad Tippen. Uh just again to reiterate um those are land development code details that are not superseded by the MPD. So those those things do still need to right away. I believe that is it, but those those details cannot be superseded by this if they're not directly in here. They can always get alternative standard. Exactly. They would have to go through some process to get something where it would be reviewed to see if it was appropriate or not.
Jamie, the thought, my thought, the reason behind that question was having two less feet of pavement width doesn't bother me and that one of my concerns that when we get density in small lots is there isn't enough parking, at least okay now if the road's a little narrower they have a little more room Between the edge of the pavement and the right away if they got a park. Mm-hmm. Off the road. Yeah. foot on either side
for
what
that's worth.
Okay,
any other discussion?
No, I mean and again I just I mean the only reason I brought that up was more of a policy thing and my concern on the policy more more so than just this single project. I I think that you know, we've heard the concerns about the developments that have come out in the and are in the ground. That you go out there and they just all you see is building, you see no landscaping, you see the street, you see building and and driveway. Um so tha that's primarily the reason I brought it up was more of a a kind of policy Position on that than anything else?
I agree with you.
Um before you all continue, I've been obviously emailing David. Um does Shelley have the opportunity to come up and address the concerns raised by the last two speakers that spoke after she last spoke? Does your rules allow for that?
I can certainly do that because Shelley. Well would you like to tell us anything other than
also the in regards to be nice
though.
In regards to the question about the survey and the fence, is that something you can explain?
Yeah, I mean obviously we're not gonna encroach on anybody's easement and we're we have no intention of blocking anybody's access that I'm aware of. So Um There's nothing that's come up in the title work and in the year we've been in process that that's been an issue. So I'm not aware of any issues with blocking people's access or encroaching on easement. Um and again the the work that we're doing is to Crystal Springs Road. We're actually bringing that road up to standard from the southern boundary of our property to the southern boundary of the cobblestone M PUDs. So that road will be brought up to standard 'cause I know there was some cons concerns about trips going
out on that road.
And I have I have one other question. So and maybe you said this and maybe I missed it. But remind me what the um Offering requirement is between this and the neighbors to the east.
Pursuant to the land development code. Um if it's residential, I think it's ten foot, but maybe staff can It's not against any right away that I'm aware of. It's all residential on that other side.
It'll be pursuant to the land development code, whatever perimeter buffer requirements are, depending on what the adjacency is to it.
Oh yeah yeah yeah. Yeah.
Yeah, there's gonna have to be landscaping on the perimeter of the property, yeah. Depending on what the adjacency is. Which is what your code calls for.
Yeah.
Mr. Chair, I've got a question. I'm not quite sure how we handle this one.
Oh we have a motion.
I know we set that aside for one moment before we call the question. And the reason is because it says that it's alleged that I have a an L L C with mister Sierra and would therefore have a conflict in voting Could somebody explain that? 'Cause I'm not aware of any L L C I have with Mr. Sierra.
Okay.
Okay.
There's no con there's no concept. I have no business with
if you're addressing me, I I don't know about your mother.
No, I've never seen you before today.
Okay.
Well maybe you should send them and then voice. Yeah. Or ask for your distribution, one or the other.
All right. If there are no further questions or discussion. We have a motion. We have a second. Uh any further discussion? If not, all in favor of the motion signify by saying aye.
Oh no for like sign? Motion carries. Okay.