Zoning Amendment (Consent) - 4G Ranch West MPUD - 4G Ranch LLC - A Petition for a Rezoning from MPUD Master Planned Unit Development and A-C Agricultural District to MPUD Master Planned Unit Development District to allow for the development of 1500 Single Family Detached Residential Units on Approximately 1,102 Acres Located North of S.R. 52, 3.19 Miles East of U.S. Highway 41

53:26Mr. Chairman the following item is PC three and that will be presented by Amy Toll who is presenting um from um WebEx.

53:40Thank you Denise. Uh good afternoon at the A New School. Mm-hmm. Today are hearing, maybe for the next slide, Sloan Yam. This is the 4G Ridge West MPUD and PDB 23-7661.

54:00W the proposed the proposal uh is a zoning amendment for rezoning from MPV master plan unit development to MPD master plan unit development to allow for the development of uh one thousand five hundred single family detached residential units on approximately one thousand one hundred and two acres located north of State Right 52 um and Okay.

54:26Subject property is located in the this is actually the wrong spy. It's actually located in the North Market area and it's also located in the Rural Service area.

54:44This is the wrong one that you sent you or sending the updated one

54:47earlier.

55:10Thank you. Uh okay, so it's in the North Park area and rural transition area being area two.

55:19There is the location map for the proposed amendment. Perfect questions on Indian. The existing zoning is AC Agricultural and the MPUV Master Plan Union Power is being proposed to MPUV. This is your surrounding zoning districts.

55:41And your current future land use is AG agricultural. There is a companion comprehensive plan amendment to PE Plan Development that the Plan Commission has already.

56:04Yeah, uh this is going to be your master plan. So the 4G Ranch master plan uh is allowing for approximately 1500 so you don't get detached units. Um that is going to be equate to a lower density of a little over one uh one building unit for Gross Acre. Uh on their com on that master plan as you can see I've identified the area to the west because the Pasco trails and viewing your access points along State Route 52. There's

56:35also a protected eagle's nest that is conserved within the MP conditions of approval and additionally the subject site of lots of critical linkage to the east.

56:52The applicant is also requesting the following variations from the code. The variations from the code, the LDC section 901.3M and LDC section 901.6.d11 due to the eliminate or they would like to eliminate the connection. Is a massive

57:16Is bound by the north, being the crossbar well fields, which is conservation lands. And it's not appropriate to provide interconnections along the northern boundary, as well as the eastern boundary is the ecological corridor and the future conservation lands. Additionally, interconnections are not appropriate there as well. And so the west is a planet subdivision already. The amendment has been in conversations with the Pasco Charles Development and they

57:46requested to ensure no connections to the West as well to that development.

57:55And with that, we recommend approval of those pleason conditions to the Board of County Commissioners. And I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have.

58:04Okay. Any questions from the sta uh from the Daiest or Crystal?

58:12Questions? Okay.

58:14So Clark, at some point during your presentation could you please address why these conditions look a little different than prior ones that the Planning Commission has seen 'cause I think this is the first one they will have seen after Senate Bill sixteen oh four. Sure. So that language is different. In addition, I think it's the first one with potentially the new town home standards. So if you could explain those to the

58:38Right.

58:40So Clark Hobby, Hobby and Hobby PA 109, North Brush Street, Tampa, Florida, and have been sworn. I was gonna make it a little bit briefer because I think we only have one person here that may be answered uh asking questions. I think in Ms. Hazelwood, and I'll be happy to answer that. But David is right. We uh you all will recall we had a pretty lengthy discussion uh with When the comp plan amendment came through about what the project's about, and Amy's highlighted some of those things. But just a few things I would remind

59:11you of, and then to address David's point. You know, 4G is owned by the Phillips family, and they own the property on the other side of the eco corridor where their family compound is, and they're uh in the middle of planning a very large addition to their compound. And plan to keep that for many years. So they're very interested in having a high-quality development here and the current plan of attack. is probably going to result in a large lot uh subdivision, really the likes of which we haven't

59:41seen in many years, a very high quality, probably a gated community. And we have been working with various um I I'll just say it without naming project. Projects that are gonna have a lot of high end employment in the county to hopefully be able to provide some of the executive housing we believe those projects are gonna need. But because the family has this long term vested interest and they're not constrained by the normal market forces that our builder clients are, they've been able to take a little bit of latitude

1:00:11here and give me more latitude. So as an example, Even though the board hasn't formally weighed in on the new architectural standards for townhouses, the new right-of-way standards for townhouses in 40s and 50s, and new green space and landscaping requirements that are additional standards that if the board approves it in a month or so would apply to new MPUDs, we went ahead and took the and incorporated them here. So we've

1:00:41gone above and beyond the memo from last year, which we should have been complying with, and added a bunch of new stuff about the architecture of the townhouses and so forth. And then again, just to remind you all, we did work with Pasco Trails. We had a community meeting with probably 50 attendees. It's been some number of months ago now, maybe eight, nine months ago. And we did a combination of buffers along their side that they wanted, in some case, uh creating some large

1:01:11uh retention pond areas. So they're happy. And we had one last neighbor to the very southwest corner that originally was objecting and we're working with them and we should have a letter of no objection. Hopefully by the time we get to the board, they're not here to object today. And I think they informally told staff they didn't object to it. Just a couple last couple of things I would say, and then I'll answer Ms. Hazelwood's questions. Just remember On this project, it

1:01:42it is where the reuse system occurs um pursuant to the tri-party deal with the Phillips family, Swift Mud, and the County for the Reclaim Water Reinjection System. All of our project has been designed to stay out of that area and we've designed and will design the engineering from the higher elevations of the groundwater that are occurring now rather than the pre-reuse system. So other than that, I'm just happy to answer any questions you may have.

1:02:10So the only thing the clerk didn't cover was the Senate Bill sixteen oh four issue, which is that on July MPUDs that are approved after July first, we are now preempted from regulating architectural features on single family detached or two-family units. Um what it doesn't preempt us from doing is if the applicant wants to voluntarily impose their own architectural requirements and

1:02:40enforce through the developer and the HOA, the statute clearly allows for that. So what you what used to be a condition that said that the county was imposing these architectural requirements now been changed in this MPD to see that the developer is proposing some market very similar, probably identical architecture requirements to what the county would have imposed. But now they're going to be entirely enforced by the developer in HOA as opposed to accounting. So that's one big change in job person of Bill sixteen oh

1:03:10four. Yeah. Did I say that accurately, Clark?

1:03:14Yeah, that's sounds good to me. Okay. Well I never thought I'd see the day when a less than ten thousand square foot lot, less than quarter acre lot, is considered A place for executive housing. You'd think we were building a state residential on less than a quarter acre.

1:03:29Well, but Mr. Murray, to to be clear, I think what they're gonna actually end up building uh when we come out of the ground will be eighty and ninety foot lots and greater is what they're that's where we're probably gonna end up a hundred by one. Hundreds, ten thousand. Yeah. Quarter quarter acre quarter acre and larger, which nowadays Nowadays that's considered a large lot.

1:03:49Yeah.

1:03:49Wow. Ten times larger

1:03:52than a forty by one hundred. So what justifies eighty five percent lot coverage on these lots? We well there's no zoning district we have in our code that allows 85% lot coverage and Unfortunately, we've approved quite a few MPUDs in here with 75% lot coverage. And now this one comes through at 85%.

1:04:17I I think it's an it's an illusory number. We've simply picked a number that's to be large enough that once the landscaping and the other requirements are met, we'll never have a coverage issue. There have been times in the last few years when the coverage and what was included in the coverage was at issue, whether it was measured for instance on townhouses on the basis of the entire block or the specific county.

1:04:41I understand that with the townhouse that when they own just the land under the townhouse that the lot coverage is a hundred percent. But on an eighty by a hundred lot or a hundred by a hundred lot, eighty that's on a ten thousand square foot lot we're leaving fifteen hundred square feet. Of non built on space thing. And remember in our land development code, lot coverage is just the principal structure and accessory structures. That does not include

1:05:11driveways and sidewalks and I'm like, well why don't at this point we're going to end up with lots that are ninety nine point nine percent impervious surface.

1:05:24We we we can't achieve it anyway because of the landscaping and other requirements. My guess is on this one, Mr. Moody, and I and I honestly can't recall on the single family detached product, but my guess is that we simply took standards from other MPUDs that have been approved recently. I have yet to see one at eighty five percent.

1:05:45And Epperson have a hundred percent. There's and I believe two rivers may have a hundred percent also. I wasn't here for those, but so I haven't seen them. I don't know what the magic number is, John. I I don't. Um but I also think it's really it's a phantom issue because I don't think if you're building fifty foot and larger lots that you're gonna run into a coverage issue. Uh well you're not gonna affect you're not gonna get any

1:06:11I'm not done. Where that goes to is to setbacks. Setbacks control coverage. And I'm looking at

1:06:26the fifty foot lots and you want five foot setbacks. And I think that's In the

1:06:33rear. No, I think we went to seven and a half. Seven and a half. Yeah, we moved to all of the new standards, which has a twenty twenty twenty-three foot driveway. Well, I have

1:06:42a question about villas. And I see that that you've got twenty three foot minimum setback similar to the last case we just heard, the fifty two groves. What makes the single family attached villa different? That don't it don't requires a twenty foot setback.

1:07:00The reason why I've been reluctant to change anything on villas is it hasn't been vetted through the development community. All of the board discussion was about single family at the forty and fifty foot wide lots and townhouses and we spent probably a hundred man hours test fitting everybody's product and we haven't done it for villas. All right. So

1:07:25Explain to me how does the villa diff differ from a townhouse product wise. I'm not talking about setbacks, I'm trying to understand the product.

1:07:34Well, generally a uh a dupe either a duplex or a villa is an attached single f single story product that tends to be more horizontal in nature, whereas a townhouse usually is two to three stories and is not as wide historically. Okay, so um I'm still trying to figure that out then. So it why would because it's more horizontal it's potentially taking out more than the issue about the

1:08:03setback is Is that I've noticed, Planning Commission members have noticed, the County Commission members have noticed that when we have a garage that's twenty feet from the back of the sidewalk, the back of my pickup truck and my trailer hitch hangs over the the sidewalk and I'm trying to figure out how that's different in a villa than it is with a single family home or a townhouse.

1:08:26These are all valid questions and they should be discussed in the same process we've been going through with the development community for regulations on if we want to regulate villas differently, we should look at doing that.

1:08:39Well I'm suggesting that we regulate them all the same. In fact, I asked earlier that we should potentially change the Euclidean districts to include that twenty three foot setback rather than twenty

1:08:53Your housing type. is dictates the type of vehicle you drive or the number of vehicles that you park in your driveway.

1:09:02I I I understand the point. Like I said, what we haven't done yet, and and and if your if your point is we should instruct staff to work with the development community and maybe in this new memo that we're working on or the next memo we want to look at that issue for duplexes. We can certainly do it. I just haven't done it and I I can't tell you will fit now. And that's why I haven't included it

1:09:24here. David, I want to ask you for some help. Sure. An interpretation. I went back this morning and looked at our land development code and I looked at M P U D standards. And then five twenty two four A two. It talks about residential setbacks. It says the land use standards, as enumerated in this code, Chapter 500, shall be used as the baseline setback for each single-family detached residential

1:09:54housing type. Variations and setbacks from those standards enumerated in this code, Chapter 500, may be allowed for housing types other than single family detached were permitted on the master plan. And it says the county may impose standards that are greater than ordinance requirements where deemed necessary to mitigate a compatibility issue. What I'm not understanding is This section of the code seems to dictate that we can't allow

1:10:24setbacks which are smaller. Then the code. requires for detached. It clearly states for attached we can do that, but not for detached. And I so I'm curious.

1:10:39So are you can we we do we mort from you were talking about villas which are not

1:10:45I know, but he has uh in this particular and I haven't gotten to this point yet We've got 50 by 100 lots, 60 by 100 lots, 80 by 100 lots, 100 plus by 100 foot lots. And what I'm more concerned is, and I appreciate the effort for the 23-foot garage set back in Greyhood. What I'm not liking is the ten foot primary setback. There was a case we had

1:11:15here Oh, it was a few months ago and it was over in Zephyrhills near where the old festival park was. And I remember Mr. Girardi pointing out that the primary front setback being ten feet, then being burdened by a utility easement wasn't enough to plant a tree, and we made that applicant go increase the primary front set back to fifteen feet

1:11:44Mm-hmm.

1:11:45So that there was a little bit of green space. I appreciate the effort here and we talked about this with having only five feet of the front yard burdened by a utility easement.

1:11:58But nonetheless there's still utilities in that easement. And If one wants to plant a shade tree in that little area where are the roots going How close is this tree now to the front of the house? You know, we have a building code that requires that you have windows that are capable of being hit by a two by four at over a hundred miles an hour, but we're not worried about planting a Oak tree five feet from the front of your house.

1:12:26Okay, so I want to make sure I understand your question. So

1:12:30So I'm asking Well

1:12:32I guess I need to ask staff is there are there any Euclidean districts that have

1:12:40front primary setbacks in them. Or did are they all just I mean, part of the confusion I have with your question is this MPUD has something called a front primary setback and a front garage setback which are Two different setbacks. I don't know if the rest of our the Euclidean districts even have that. And Is it then the corollary to the question is do we have any including districts that have a setback of Front setback is only ten feet residential.

1:13:11The answer to the first question is that the districts don't specify, they just basically state a front setback regardless of whether it's a um uh the primary or the the garage. Um and the answer to the second question, we have no zoning district that has a tent foot front setback.

1:13:28Yeah, the reason I can't it's not a free answer to your question is because

1:13:33Staff could take the position that that they're they're still honoring the Euclidean setback as it relates to the garage.

1:13:42Even if they're not honoring the Euclidean setback as it relates to the front primary, 'cause there's two different setbacks. W I don't know which one we would use to determine Whether they've complied with this code section.

1:13:56I mean literally we I mean I I don't have them all in front of me, but these standards have been used on a great number of MPUDs

1:14:04the last

1:14:05year.

1:14:05I understand that and

1:14:06that may be and I'm

1:14:08and I've even heard increases. I even heard Commissioner Starkey say it one day, we've made some mistakes. And she was up there trying to correct those mistakes. I remember arguing her arguing with a very prominent land use attorney. about that and I actually appreciated the statement that

1:14:35So I I mean, without getting into trying to figure out how to apply this code section with your two different front setbacks If the Planning Commission and or the Board have an issue with ten foot front yard setbacks, you can recommend and or require that there be a fifteen foot subject. I mean You don't have to make this argument and I understand why it's helping

1:14:56you. And that's why I ask you for illegal I appreciate that.

1:14:59I I just think it'd be hard to apply this to something that's got two different setbacks in That's the problem, Mike. So I can't definitively say that if these setbacks are prohibited by this section.

1:15:10What I would hate to do is we We forced another applicant to do it and the board forced that at well. I think ultimately they voluntarily complied, but the board was gonna go there too. to not have that ten foot front, set, back, especially when we're looking for more trees and landscaping. in

1:15:33the front yard. But to be clear, we're effectively with the additional driveway, we're going five feet beyond what anyone else has done to this point on the driveway side. And we're adding new green space and landscaping actual areas out front. So there's going to be considerably more green space no matter what. No one's no one has ever done those things.

1:15:57I am well I understand that and we're I still haven't finished my line of questioning 'cause this got completely skipped over in the staff's presentation. You're asking for a variation. I'm sorry, 'cause I'm gonna change gears a minute. And that variation is not to comply with the transit requirements and land development code because you've got a statement from GoPasco that they don't run the bus out there. But you also want garage apartments. or

1:16:28guest suites approved. which won't be counted as against entitlements in the project. And I'm trying to figure out if we have a twenty-three foot setback from the back of the sidewalk. And I've only got ten feet to that front of the house. Where's the people that are in my guest apartment? And I'm not opposed to guest departments or Granny flats. In fact I think that might be a needed housing category, but if we're gonna

1:16:58have it We have to have a place that they can park. And when we're already squeezed just for the primary structure, the principal residence, to figure out how we're gonna get the cars in the driveway, where are we parking the guests and those who live in the garage apartment now? Ask you if you would clarify what is a garage apartment.

1:17:21What is that? What's envisioned for that?

1:17:25We haven't envisioned anything. The Board of County Commissioners asked us to include the ability to have garage apartments. So we pulled the same conditions that have been approved and probably five of the largest M P U D I'm accounting into it. That's all we've done.

1:17:42So the question is is does that mean I can take my garage, which is a parking space under our code and convert it into an apartment? Is that what a garage apartment is? Like when you drive through Regency Park and Embassy Hills and they've pulled out the garage door but the

1:17:58garage is usually I

1:17:58mean

1:17:58the apartment's usually above the garage.

1:18:00Okay, all right so that's but nonetheless With my

1:18:06Gen Z or millennial. That hasn't moved out of the house, needs to live in the garage apartment. I don't think it's unreasonable to think that they're not gonna have a car and especially if I'm in a neighborhood where there's no bus service and It's a long way to any commercial from this place. So we're not walking there. There's no commercial entitlements in this PUD. I can't go to the convenience store in this PUD. I have to drive out on fifty two. So I gotta have a place to park.

1:18:37And I don't know how I'm gonna do it with twenty three feet between the sidewalk. How am I gonna put three or four cars in that driveway? I think that's the issue here that we've been struggling with with these types of locks.

1:18:48So you're saying that if I add more driveway That's creating a parking problem for the same garage apartments that the board has stated publicly that it wants these standards in the code and is now approved and Angeline Two Rivers uh Newport Pointers right

1:19:07on that. We're parking them because that's a something that's a practical issue in living in a neighborhood. I'm not opposed to garage apartments. I think we I think we should have added those to our code a long time ago. And there was a point where I had an aging parent who I thought I Might have to house unfortunately COVID took him but Um I think that that's a great opportunity for somebody to to house an elderly parent or a kid that's trying to decide

1:19:37whether to go off to college or That those types of housing opportunities are needed, but you have to have a place to park. So this whole issue of forty foot lots and fifty foot lots and the and setbacks has all been A lot of this discussion is focused about how we're going to park the cars. And in this you know, and some of the answers is transit, but in this particular development There is no transit. So

1:20:07I think you need to get staff to address how they handle parking on a garage for a garage apartment or guest suite because this condition doesn't relieve them from any parking requirements. What it says is that it won't count towards density, right. And it has certain requirements they have to comply with and they still have to pay so they have to pay the mobility fees.

1:20:34it doesn't relieve them from any parking requirements, I don't believe. So I guess staff would have to address do they require an additional space or not. I don't know the answer to the question.

1:20:50Brad, do you know?

1:20:53Well it's carrying down.

1:21:01No

1:21:01do I

1:21:03Okay. Hi, Brad Tippen, uh Planning and Development. Uh yeah, the way our code is uh specified, it goes by number of bedrooms. So if if you can hit a certain number of bedrooms, I think it's four, it's four plus. Once you hit four bedrooms, there's no additional parking required.

1:21:23Okay, but let's let's say it's a So

1:21:24if this is a four bedroom house and they add a garage apartment, there would be no additional apartment. So

1:21:28what

1:21:28if

1:21:28it's a three bedroom house and they add a garage apartment? Do they need to provide additional

1:21:33that would essentially trigger the fourth in my opinion? Um I don't know that we've had that come up, but uh yeah, I believe that's the way that we would interpret it.

1:21:41So

1:21:41so they believe the number is f I believe it's four. Well I think it's four four bedrooms and maybe three. Um three plus. But yes, wherever that dividing line is, I think we would consider this an additional bedroom.

1:22:01Yeah.

1:22:02Where? Which section of the code I just recall and I apologize. I'm not trying to be argumentative. I just recall that a single family home requires two parking spaces. Where is it on based on

1:22:15the

1:22:15easier?

1:22:21It's a nine oh seven point one.

1:22:23That is

1:22:24a table, yes.

1:22:30So one, two, and three bedrooms is two spaces per unit and then uh four more bedrooms is three spaces per unit.

1:22:37Is that gonna become a maximum?

1:22:42Well, no, that assumes that we actually pass such maximums, but

1:22:50I just see that at issue and we're seeing this, three bedroom homes having only two parking spaces is proving to be inadequate. We're seeing it in spa in places. We can drive through the older neighborhoods of Holiday Hills and Embassy Hills and Regency Park. And some of those are two bedroom, one bath houses and they've got three cars parked on the front yard 'cause they don't have the place to park. A carz and a boat.

1:23:21So uh sand the boats.

1:23:24I I I agree, Mr. Moody. But uh one of the things that that's a that's really a planning principle policy decision, um I believe, and and

1:23:33that's

1:23:33why

1:23:33we're here. So Brad, isn't staff proposing aren't there some upcoming amendments to the parking aren't there some proposed upcoming amendments to the parking standards in our code?

1:23:44Yes, there are.

1:23:46So so I think that's probably the best place to address that issue as opposed to the because this this particular project is not seeking any deviation from code parking

1:23:55requirements. Well I understand, but are you familiar with what the proposal is on the code parking requirements? It's a wholesale change.

1:24:05Minimum. and change it to maximum. That's it.

1:24:10It's actually a lot more

1:24:12Well I sat I listened to the HRT but that is in an in a nutshell. There's no more minimum parking. It will be all maximum parking. I think that was Mr. Girardi's reason for the comment over there.

1:24:25That those may or may not be a good idea. I'm not s I don't

1:24:30be discussed. My point is this project, and I'm gonna say what Clark probably wants to say, is they're not seeking any deviations from whatever our code requires as relates to parking, even for the garage apartments. So If the Planning Commission has concerns that we're don't have enough parking for single family neighborhoods with or without garage apartments. The appropriate place to address that I think would be in those future land development code amendments that are coming to the Planning Commission. We're that's the appropriate time

1:25:00to be looking at those standards. I don't know that this project is Do you want anything that's gonna be inconsistent with whatever you might do. In other words, if you change the parking standards as part of that code amendment, this project will have to comply with them.

1:25:17So if you decide to make it Four spaces per unit. They're gonna have to comply with four spaces per unit for any project that's not built.

1:25:26It goes to

1:25:27Yeah, anything that's not built basically.

1:25:29Mr. Chairman Mariano is to the setback. It goes to the front setback and making sure we have room to accommodate parking spaces. If I have a house in which I have and I appreciate the the twenty three so we don't hang over the sidewalk. I've got a two car garage. And I've got two cars parked side by side that don't hang over the sidewalk and the rest of the house has a primary front set back. Of

1:26:00ten feet. How will I ever accomplish the parking that I need for that garage apartment or guest suite, or if I have the larger number of bedrooms that requires that I accommodate that parking? How will I do that? that would be in that setback would be in conflict with that.

1:26:19Mr. Moody, i if I might I talk with my client. I I I I I understand you're an engineer, you know way more about this than I do, and I'm not doing the test fits all day. I can tell you in the first few I think it's the top three in the table, we can go to fifteen on the front primary and I hope that addresses your concern. We weren't uh trying to you know, scare anybody. We're literally taking these out of other MPUDs. That's all we're doing. And if the and if the board doesn't like how those are written,

1:26:49I just need to know so we'll stop using 'em.

1:26:53Is that sufficient?

1:26:57Well I'm not the only boat up here. Okay, yeah, I know. But what would it I'm I'm asking you if I think that addresses your specific concerns. So that would be in the single family detached villa And the single family detached A, single family detached B, and single family detached B.

1:27:15So I have one other question. And I don't know and I'm not picking on you about this because I don't know that it's already

1:27:21twenty five feet in rain. Okay. So

1:27:24it'd just be the first three, right? I'm

1:27:26sorry.

1:27:26Yeah. Yeah, you're right, you're right. Yeah. It was just clear.

1:27:31I don't know that I've seen anything different in any other MPUD. So this particular one We might have a couple of commissioners that get excited that hey, I know one that's been pushing for sixty by a hundred lots and then to have some eighty by a hundred lots and hundred by a hundred lots those seem like a luxury. But there's actually no language in the condition of approvals that says he has to actually provide any of those size lots.

1:28:00N

1:28:00and further you can literally build fifteen hundred townhouses or villas in this MPUD, there's nothing that requires some minimum mix of these types of units or some density matrix to

1:28:20where they could trade them in and out.

1:28:28Otherwise you'd be concentrating on a very small portion of that big piece of land.

1:28:32To be to be clear, there is a fifty we have no forties in this project. I have to probably the only project over a hundred acres that hasn't had forties in a decade. So we're getting beat

1:28:43up. I would tell I would tell you and the others that are doing those and the builders, the issue of forty foot width really isn't the width of the lot, it's how much house we're putting on the forty foot lot. That's why I go to the lot coverage and to setbacks. And that's why it's got a fifty foot lot. I'm not afraid of you can put twenty foot lots if you want to put five foot wide houses on them. Right.

1:29:08Under understood. But but but also, Mr. Moody, again, we're going to seven and a half feet on the side, no one else's. So we're already adding five more feet on every lot at fifty feet. So we're now we're ten percent larger

1:29:21than

1:29:21that.

1:29:22And I can appreciate that and what I'm trying to get at is is I don't know and I'm not excited. I haven't seen this in others either. There's nothing that says he has to build anything. fifty foot lots or hundred foot lots or eighty foot lots, is that appropriate? I don't know. I don't think I'll ask David.

1:29:42So

1:29:43how's that been addressed in the past?

1:29:48Right, but what we're saying is he Non the left. Without getting into a bunch of technical things that engineers will have to address if one looks at a floodplain map of this property. You want to look at the Swift Mud floodplain map viewer, you're going to see a giant sea of yellow. So yes, although the gross density is one point three dwelling units per acre, the net density where houses are

1:30:18actually clustered and constructed is going to be much, much greater because of those floodplain and wetland issues.

1:30:26Well I figured that, but

1:30:27I

1:30:27didn't

1:30:27think it'd be that. So to answer your question Yes, you can impose a requirement for a certain minimum number of larger lots. It probably should be based on a concern for compatibility. I mean if you think if you view this as a more rural area that that needs a mix of larger lots to be compatible with the area, then that would be a basis to do that. I would I think it's got to be area specific though. I don't know that you

1:30:57necessarily if it was in the middle of the urban service area if you're requiring ninety foot lots on the and everything around it is forties, that's probably not a good planning decision because you're it's now you you've you have a compatibility problem. So I think you could do it in the right area. If it's an area that's generally got larger lots in it, then I I do think you could defend a larger lot requirement, if that's your qu if that's your question.

1:31:25in my personal opinion. I think it would be appropriate. And I can understand this from a project marketing perspective, I may want to have a pot of development that offers larger lots and I may want to have one that offers more compact lots. But there's nothing that stops him from only building an attached pr there's nothing that forces the developer to provide a detached product. There's nothing that stops him from pri providing only

1:31:55attached product.

1:31:58Mr. Chairman Mariano.

1:32:06Well, and I'm not I don't I've asked for legal advice. I understand. I'm just telling you, we're not agreeing to it because it's arbitrary and capricious. Well I haven't. And the and the hold on the project the project next door did not have to

1:32:19comply with it. Well no one's Ask I asked for legal advice. I can may put that in the form of a motion. I haven't tried to impose it and I'm not sure that it's appropriate. to oppose this, but I'm asking.

1:32:33Yeah, I think it would have to depend it's like I said it has to be location specific. For example, if the area if the lots right across the street were eighty ninety foot lots, then it might not be arbitrary that for you to impose an eighty ninety-foot lot requirement because you're trying to ensure compatibility with the adjacent neighborhood. I don't know what the lot sizes are on next to this project.

1:32:55The the two other projects and the rural train transitionary are approved with 40 and 50 foot lots.

1:33:04But our our net density is one point eight three units per acre.

1:33:12All I tend to think the market's gonna drive the lot sizes and the house prices and the house sizes, so um I think it's really gonna be a market decision anyway. Um they're not gonna build something that's not gonna sell. And uh And I th I don't think we have uh enough knowledge to tell them what to build and to build. Didn't know if that was a

1:33:35prototype or device. I just noted that what I don't want is the expectation that just because this has standards for s sixty, eighty and hundred foot wide lots that one thinks that this is necessarily going to be developed as such. It there's nothing that requires that. I

1:33:55do think th that that it's good that they accept that the Twenty five foot setback. I think that's very important.

1:34:02Yeah. I

1:34:02do

1:34:03too. The only thing that might indirectly require is just the overall density. That if they did develop the way you're talking about with smaller lots or cash product they'd be leaving a lot of Land undeveloped, basically. They'd be clustering in a very small bottle. I

1:34:19think they might be forced to when they have to deal with all the floodplains that exist on this property, but That's to for their engineers to figure out later. That's not our job.

1:34:32J just to clarify a couple of things, Clark on the there there was a conceptual Plan included in the agenda memo. Um just from a lot layout standpoint, has anything been done as far as like product mix in order to get that fifteen hundred dollars?

1:34:46That's that was purely and that was done a year and a half ago before we even charaded the property and the accounting as you know, Jamie, requires that when you're going to submit an MPUD you have to show that the lots could fit. Right. And all that was was showing that the number

1:35:04And

1:35:04kinda where I was going with that was obviously they're not gonna leave a a large swath of developable property without units on it, but at the same time they've got to take into account all the other factors. Clark, just in in again, David, I don't know if this matters, but in the title of the the memo It says that it's development of 1,500 single family detached residential units. Then in the memo itself, and I think in all the other approvals, it's detached slash attached.

1:35:27It should just say fifteen hundred residential units is what it what it should read. And I think that probably carried over from the traffic study 'cause we studied with the higher amount.

1:35:38Ex I I just again I don't want the the misrepresrepresentation of this is gonna be fifteen hundred estate units when in fact it might not be, it might be fifteen hundred town home or villa units. I agree.

1:35:54I agree, Jamie. There's no way we know that. Uh and and I without speaking out of turn of things I've heard from the charreds that have occurred. But I would tell you all that the the more recent charrettees that they've done have yielded basically about a quarter of the number of lots that are sought in here. And if that's how they'll ultimately go, there will be considerably less lots. And and John John knows for all that.

1:36:22That's right. That's right. Well and but again, to your point In addition to the areas that we have to stay out of for the county's reuse system and the wetlands that are addition to that, there's significant floodplain impacts that'll have to have ponds. So it will be a low density.

1:36:39I realize we still need to hear public comment, but I don't want to forget These two changes that have already been discussed.

1:36:47A, B, and C front primary setback to fifteen feet.

1:36:51So I guess can we get a motion to change the front primary setback for A B is it A B and C or d just A B and B? I don't know. It's A B and C

1:37:01the single family at

1:37:09It's attached villas A and B, the top three.

1:37:11Oh yeah, you're right. It's the top three. That's what I mean, I'm sorry.

1:37:14So if we get a motion to change that setback from ten feet to fifteen feet, I'd like to get that out of the way now.

1:37:19So moved.

1:37:21Oh

1:37:21motion. Somebody seconded already?

1:37:23Can we have a second further discussion on that motion? If you're all in favor, aye.

1:37:29And then if we could get a motion to change the subject line of the application to from fifteen hundred single family detached residential units to just fifteen hundred residential units.

1:37:40No moved. Second. Motion is second for the discussion. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Opposed, like, sign. Okay. Okay. I don't know. Mr.

1:37:50Chairman Mariano.

1:37:51We can hear public comment. Okay.

1:37:53Thank

1:37:54you. All right. So is there somebody uh would like to speak on this or ask questions?

1:37:59Ms. Nancy Hazel would sign up to speak on this item.

1:38:02Pardon pardon me?

1:38:10Well the heck do I follow that? Nancy Hayeswood, [address removed]. Um Um so Mr Goldstein, I liked what you said about architectural standards and those are going away and he's doing a nice job on those. That's fine. But this is and normally I'd love that. But I'm I'm concerned about all the water around there and it being close to the well fields. This

1:38:41is one of those where I was thinking that if we had a bo biologist come in and talk to us and said, actually what's the impact of all these

1:38:50Like you said.

1:38:51Cars you're putting on the roads, all the new roads you're putting on that. Where's that runoff going to go eventually? I'm sure they have some things, but The major road fifty two they can't do anything across that road and this stuff's still gonna go over there. Where's it going to? And, you know, sometimes after they say things it doesn't come to pass. So Anyways, um

1:39:22It would be nice if we had somebody up here to explain actually the impact on our natural resources. Well

1:39:29I Can I help you? Speaking as an engineer. The applicant is going to be required to comply with all of the county's stormwater regulations and the states' regulations. In some respects, the county's regulations exceed what the states are, which is probably a good thing. I would tell you that I personally had some of the same concerns given the relationship. of this property

1:40:00to the well field, although I would tell you from experience, I don't I haven't looked at the wound. well logs for this particular well field, but generally those are deep wells into the floor in an aquifer whereas stormwater runoff is going into the shallow groundwater aquifer. This is separated by lots of clay and lots of rock. So I'm not sure that one necessarily endangers the other. There are actually regulations that

1:40:30make sure one can't cut through that protective clay layer to endanger drinking water aquifers. But this property also has some something else that's unique to it in that I'm sorry but for lack of a better term, we pumped treated sewage onto this property for infiltration into the ground high groundwater recharge area. So I'm not sure that stormwater is probably the worst problem.

1:41:04I'm figuring what, eight thousand cars on the road from this project? Four thousand?

1:41:12Far?

1:41:12I

1:41:12don't

1:41:12know if there's another

1:41:13thing.

1:41:14Well, I think it typically and um you they can let the traffic engineers get up there, but it's typically roughly ten trips a day per residential unit, so Rough math is fifteen thousand.

1:41:27Yeah. So

1:41:28But unfortunately there's no interconnectivity to anything, so they're all going out on fifty two. Well the clerk was saying it's uh gonna be closer to a quarter of those fifteen hundred Well that like I said, I'm hoping those executives choose to live on bigger than quarter acre lots.

1:41:46I don't know, I just keep hearing all this stuff about water and I think just, you know, something with all the wetlands and adding to it, I think we need to be careful with the injections and the whole rest of it. Or we're all going to have problems in the future. So yeah. And I ha it was interesting listening to your setbacks, by the way, guys. Thank you.

1:42:12Thank you.

1:42:17Okay. Was there anyone else? I don't think I saw anyone.

1:42:24Want to talk about your water?

1:42:25Well, I'll talk about the water just for a minute. Uh in addition to the regular standards we would meet, we do have two uh specific conditions. One is to Tampa Bay Water. In addition to staying out of any of their lines and easements that run through the site, we're actually going to notice them on all of our site plans and plats going forward, which I I'm only a aware one or up maybe two. Two other projects in the whole county that have done that. So they'll be fully involved in the process. And then we have a specific condition number thirty-three,

1:42:56which tells us that we have to stay away from the county's reuse project unless the county pulls it out.

1:43:01With with regard to Tampa Bay Water, that's just that they have transmission lines going through.

1:43:06Yeah, or an

1:43:07easement going through there.

1:43:08But it's not

1:43:09that they're have

1:43:09production facilities. No, no, no. It's just to get up to the well feel.

1:43:14Are there projec projection facilities on the project uh for

1:43:17They're not on our site, they're north of ours on Cross Park. Yeah, they're on north of north of four G on Cross Park.

1:43:25All right. Thank you.

1:43:27All right. Thank

1:43:27you. Appreciate it. All right, so I think we've ever heard everybody by our motion.

1:43:36You want to construct that motion. I have a

1:43:38motion to approve uh C three.

1:43:44Yes. I did. I thought yes.

1:43:46So So you have a motion to approve the uh the application as amended through our prior motion.

1:43:51And I will second that with an apology to Mr. Hobby because he didn't know that I was going to use this opportunity to start a discussion about setbacks and lot widths and all of that. And thank you for the productive discussion.

1:44:07Okay, so we have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? If not, all in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed, like, signed. Okay. Thank you.