Discussion on the Subject of Single Family Detached Lots that are between 40 and 50 Feet Wide and on the Subject of Standards for Townhomes
What the county recorded
Staff recommendation
Presentation Only
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 Board of County Commissioners, Aug 8, 2023
The published PDF, as served by the county. This item is one entry in it.
The county’s minutes for Board of County Commissioners, Aug 8, 2023
The published PDF, as served by the county. This item is one entry in it.
This case, across meetings
PDD-23-0526 in full →Heard once. PDD-23-0526 appears on no other agenda in the archive.
- Aug 8, 2023BoardR59▶No disposition in the minutesthis item
What was said
Machine transcription of 1h 14m of recording, with speaker names inferred from voice matching. 74% of 283 lines carry a name. It shows what was said, not what was decided, and both the words and the names can be wrong.
So we move to R fifty-nine, discussion of single family detached lots between forty and fifty wide. Mr. Peters.
Good morning Mr. Chairman Mariano Speedos Planning and Development Department. So item R59 is the discussion on the subject of single-family detached losses that are between 40 feet wide and 50 feet wide. And some standards on town homes. A little bit of the history here, the BCC has had some discussions on the subject between January and May of 2023. And there have been previous uh BCC meetings in in 2022. They had also touched upon
townhomes and generally speaking the bullets that you see on the overhead are the subject areas that uh various comments from the BCC have sort of bounced around. Um we discussed this uh last at the May twenty third BCC meeting in New Port Richey. And at that meeting it was discussed that some of the commissioner well the commissioners should go on tour with some of the home builders in the in the area to Take a look at what the forty-four wide lots look like and how they're actually forming up in the built environment. And so those tours
happened through the month through the months of June and July. Having conducted those tours, uh feedback was then gathered from the board members and from the uh home builders and we've basically come to uh a general understanding. Understanding of some of the sentiments that exist towards the 40-foot-wide lots issue. And so we're going to talk today about policy memo 26. This is the a new memo that's going to help clarify how we want to approach this subject in MPUDs. And
the title will be Single Family Detached and Attached Lot Sizes and Allowances in MPUDs. I'm not going to go into a deep dive on every aspect of the memo, I'll give you all of summary of sort of where everything has landed. But the memo is organized according to these uh bullet points here. So we'll talk you'll see the memo talk first about the forty foot wide lot. standards for the 45-foot wide lot, standards for the 40-foot-wide lot, additional standards for all single-family detached lots, updates to policy memo 10
in order to harmonize policy memo 10 with uh this policy memo that we're talking about today, PM26. Uh the townhome standards specifically, and we'll have a short discussion on villas and duplexes. Duplexes and then uh applicability temp UDs and a 24 month assessment.
So uh what you see on the overhead is going to be an image on the left of the actual memo in case anybody is uh interested in the specific language. Um but in summary in this first section what we're talking about here is no more 40-foot-wide lots in general in Pasco Come. Uh 40-foot-wide lots will only be allowed in specific instances, uh in TNDs or TOD development patterns. or in 55 plus communities, which in those 55 plus communities typically there's
a sort of a master developer that has worked out how the landscaping is going to be controlled over time. Uh and then for all all other development that would take place in Pasco, the idea would be to have a a new minimum lot size at 45 feet wide, uh and then there's a 50% threshold such that if uh a development exceeds fifty percent of its single family detached lots uh with a forty-foot-wide lot
size, they would have to have those be re-eloaded.
Uh as we move through the memo, uh we come to the standards for the 45-foot-wide lot. So the new minimum lot width would be 45 feet. This would include a 7.5 foot side setback, and but there would be options available uh to enable higher landscaping and uh only on the explicit notice to the BCC that they would resist. Reduce the lot size, have the higher landscaping, and get the BCC's approval given the lot design that
they that they want to do.
Then w if we continue through the memo, we'll talk about standards uh for the forty-foot-wide lot specifically. So forties, as I mentioned, would only be allowed in the T and D development pattern or in the TOD development pattern or in 55 plus communities. Here you would continue to see the five-foot setback, side setback, uh between the houses. Uh this makes sense in the T and D and TOD development patterns because uh These are traditionally development patterns that are looking for that higher density, more walkable, built environment.
And then it makes sense in the 55 plus communities because you have less landscaping to maintain for people that are generally, well, 55 plus. And so in the TND and TOD scenarios, you would have these lots be rear-loaded because you'd be following that ordinance. Uh we are currently working on updating the T and D ordinance um and preliminary ideas that will be discussed actually this month, if I'm not mistaken. So those conversations will will uh engage the development
community to streamline our our current team T and D code. Um and then uh and so that when we update that code, you know, we'll have better clarity on how the lots actually form up and what kind of rear loaded requirements we're going to have. And then at uh 55 plus communities we would actually allow the 44 wide lot to be front loaded.
Some additional standards for all single-family detached lots in Pasco undergo going through the MPUD process would mean that shade trees would be in the front areas of the house, whether that's in the front yard or in the uh right-of-way, uh the space between the sidewalk and the street, for example. Uh, there would be minimum landscape beds required for all four. These in all 40 and 50 foot wide lots. Um and those landscaping requirements, you can see them
in the memo text.
Um
Coming up.
Right here. So a hundred hundred square foot uh landscape bed area for forty-foot wide lots and forty-five foot wide lots, and a hundred and twenty-five square foot landscape bed areas for the fifty-foot wide lots. Um these would come with uh these lots would come with a twenty-three foot long driveway requirement. There would be fronting on fifty foot wide right-of-way and this would would enable on-street parallel parking allowances to exist um in these neighborhoods that would
get uh constructed.
Um in the in policy memo 10 there needed to be a a number of updates uh so that such that that policy memo could be harmonized with what we're with the direction that this policy memo is issuing. And so uh in summary, uh the T and D incentive that was discussed uh is there's a sunset that's been added. Uh previously we were saying that. That if you were required to build an alley, uh you would be given the TND mobility fee incentive. We want
to sunset that incentive for when the TND code is actually updated and you can actually build to a much optimized standard and a better standard that's actually buildable. Um, and so if you do that, if you build according to TND, you will get the Indian center properly. And then of course the state statute changed with regard to architectural monotony controls on single-family detached lots. And so PM10 had to be updated according to the state statute changes.
And we've added the necessary language in there to enable the voluntary architectural controls that the development community has been imposing through the through their projects. Uh additionally, um right, we added that language, not we've been adding that language into our conditions of approval and MPUDs that have been coming before the board. Uh the memo now clarifies that this language has to be standard and and implemented in every case. Uh no quarterly reporting. Uh after
all, the county is now out of the business of controlling architectural standards, so there's no reason for the quarterly reporting anymore. So we've eliminated that. Um and then we move into clarification on the on tree placement, uh how to put it in the in the front of the of the house. Um we've made some additional landscaping harmonizations with PM26 as it relates to the townhome standards, which I'll talk about in just a second, and we've clarified
the applicability to single-family homes and town homes, which PM 10 was kind of ambiguous whether Tom Holmes uh applied uh in that memo. Uh they will not.
Finally, I think the state statute said that we can't control uh architectural controls, uh we can't place architectural controls on two unit town homes. These are also known as villas or duplexes, so we've upped the number from two to eight now to three to eight per uh Senate Bill 1604, which is now a state statute. Uh and then we've clarified what rear loaded off the alley should mean uh essentially that garages for rear loaded townhomes garages should be located off an alley or
similar access drive in the rear of the home. Here are the PM26 townhome standards that have been talked about with the development community. Mainly uh in summary, we're talking about a 15-foot distance between buildings. So you still see that 7.5 foot setback uh existing between buildings now. Uh we you still see the 23-foot uh lengthened driveway for front loaded town homes. Uh
a two foot wider driveway than the garage door is built into the memo. Uh for town homes we are requiring flating. Uh this that's a new feature uh to the discussion. And also for one car garages w there should be one car driveways in order to preserve the front the front landscaping. And then there's a list of architectural features that uh similar to how we did previously with single family detached homes, now the state statute
precludes us. However, we can do this for uh townhouse products. Here's a list of the architectural features that we would control so that monotony could be avoided among townhouse developments. I won't go through the whole list, but you can see it there in the in the presentation.
Additionally, with the townhome standards, we've introduced a new table for minimum green space on townhouse products. Actually, in some of the more recent MPUDs that have come before the board, these standards have been previewed. The board has actually approved this table in at least two or three MPUDs in the last couple of meetings. The ratio for palms to Shade trees has been explicitly stated, three palms to one shade tree if you're going to substitute. And then
no substituting sh uh shade trees with understory or ornamentals. Uh and of course townhomes should also front a fifty foot residential landingway. And and both of the right-of-way I should mention are the same. It's the same uh orientation and division of elements within uh town homes developments or single family detached developments. Uh with regard to villas and duplexes, this memo is
not applicable to villas and duplexes in terms of the standards here. There hasn't been much discussion uh from the BCC or the development community identifying that villas and duplexes are an issue. Um and so uh they will continue to come forward as they have in the past. The one uh default uh change that we're making for villas and duplexes is that we're going to ask that they be re that they be platted uh
as a as a default in terms of the planning and development department's approach to billas and uh and duplexes. Um so that that leaves uh the applicability to MPUDs. So there are two things that uh the board needs to take into consideration. Under PM 10, the logic was that any project that had not yet appeared uh before the Planning Commission, if I'm not mistaken, um the rules would apply
to them. Uh Earlier this year there was a discussion from the BCC that said these rules should apply all the way up to the moment of the of the BCC approval. It's basically trying to figure out what the the uh the grandfathering, so to speak, um, point would be if you were in the process. Uh there's a lot of projects that move through uh the review process. It does take a little bit of time to review them many months. Some projects begin prior began
prior to the articulation of the BCC's concerns and so what you could potentially be seeing is MPDs coming before you that likely include much of what we've talked about today uh in their conditions of approval but are not a hundred percent there because they started earlier and had different uh assumptions built into their um their project timeline. So this is a a a decision point I think for the
Board of County Commissioners to um uh apply here in this in the red text. The policy memo is applicable to all MPD applications that have not yet received their first round of review comments as of August 8th. Such MPD shall be required to adopt the new standards. Or this policy memo is applicable to all MPD applications that have not yet been heard by the BCC, including those that are currently in the review process. So that's a decision point for the Board of County
Commissioners to consider. Uh lastly, there's a 24-month assessment. Uh in previous demos, we've talked about a six-month assessment because in six months we could properly gauge the uh success rate of implementing our conditions of approval. Well, we've been very successful in doing that. However, the the issue has been uh what's actually being constructed in the field. between approval and construction is
a time period of about 18 to 24 months to make sure that that development actually follows the rules that we've set in place. And so this memo is updated to talk about a 24-month assessment such that in two years from now in August of 2025.
the board could take an assessment of all the different MPUDs that have been approved since today. Did they follow through and how uh what what is the success rate, what is the uh end product look like and are we satisfied with that?
And then finally this is exhibit A, which kind of shows how the 45-foot-wide lots would form up in development with their driveways and their lot lines and the side setback distances and how the right-of-way is divided to ensure the proper landscaping exists within our residential neighborhoods. That'll conclude my presentation. There are some of the stakeholders here today from the Tampa Bay Builders Association as well as other stakeholders.
Frank Starkey there he is. Okay. So Frank Starkey is also here today also to speak to the board a little bit about some of the details.
All right. Any questions for Terry from the board?
I I have a couple.
Commissioner
Starkey. Can you and can you put that slide back up? And I think we might see a picture of what this looks like, but I have to say there, you know, this is a big improvement. But um the last slide that showed the diagram. But um, Terry, um, are we did we make any mention of ADUs in this? Because maybe this is a way we can weave the approvals of ADUs in. Because if you have a an accessory
dwelling unit. If you have a rear-loaded uh home, it's very easy to add a single apartment or whatever over a garage. You may have uh a college student who still needs to live at home but wants a little more freedom or a family member family member or you rent it out and you get some more income. So uh people will tell you having ADUs is one of the best ways to uh mix in affordable housing.
Can we not is this not a place where we could make sure that this is getting into our vernacular? This is
not a place where you could do this.
Takes so long.
But this is a this is a policy memorandum. This is not an amendment to your land at all mic. Right. Right. This is a design a design So it's an enhancement to your planning. Yeah, but
it's a policy memo is a guidance for how the Planning and Development Department ought to negotiate with the development community to make sure that we are meeting certain objectives within the MPUDs that we negotiate. Okay. So to to the to the to the uh to the point of negotiation, can can we negotiate A B Us into an M P U D? Yes. We could negotiate ADUs into an M P U D. This memo doesn't really consider A B Us, that's a whole other uh discussion. We were trying to solve
the the forty foot wide or the the width of the lot uh question that the board had put forward.
So I I I think Frank has his presentation ready and you have the photos. So I and one of the things I want us to look at is this third house down on the left. Which is a four I'm guessing that's a forty foot lot. Uh
the car
garage?
Uh this is an image of the 45.
So the whole front is is concrete?
No the the um
basically
The third one down. See these these black lines here are the loft lines. And so this this is illustrating a forty-five foot wide loft dimension. Um what you're seeing is a a dark shadow. Um that's kind of on the on the slide. I'm
looking at the driveways compared to the front width of the house. But I think we have some photos. Can we can we have Frank's comments and then Well let's let's take
the board members first. Thank you. Commissioner Weightman.
In this in this memo we have projects that come before us where we talk about kind of concessions with reduction of the park space or the green space in them. Was that subject addressed
in this no because in in a single family detached or even in a single family attached townhouse uh development the developers typically will meet the park requirements. Without without alternative standard and without changing the code. So so you w what I guess what I'm saying is that in a single family residential neighborhood they will have the necessary park space that the code requires. Okay. And
then the the uh Next piece of this is Is there Is there any synergies between this memo and built to rent product memo that we can do? Um
to expound upon what we've already done? There is, in the sa I believe in the sense that uh if one were to build a built-to-rent product, what they're really building is is a single family neighborhood. And they'll have to meet the single family requirements that this memo is is speaking to. So going forward then they would be forty five.
Right.
For for the for the for that single family development type. We have to remember that built-to-rent is a business model, it's not a land use type. Uh the land use type is what we're talking about here in terms of the lot widths. What ends up happening with that lot later on, whether that's sold fee simple or used as a built-a rent, uh what we get is the standard that we've set.
So this will
be implemented to that product, but
Mr. Roker. Yes. Um Terry, it's showing a car parked in that road. And this project did we widen the road? To be able to park on one side. 'Cause you didn't widen the roads that we have in place now and park a car in the road, there's no way two lane traffic can go by that car.
We have uh not widened the right-of-way. We've kept the right-of-way at our standard 50-foot right-of-way. Um what you see in the image is two travel lanes that are 11 feet apiece. Um that's uh what 22 feet wide uh travel lane. A parked car is typically about nine feet wide. Uh so you you'll be able to To uh transit around uh a parked car that's parked on one side of the street. So yes, in
this kind of scenario you wouldn't want two cars parked right across from each other because you can't get through. And neighbors are are generally aware that they have to keep the road clear in order for them to get to their houses. So people in often uh self regulate and stagger their car parking appropriately.
Well, the problem happens is people don't self regulate like they should. So and that gets to be a problem, but Are when these are built you just have them where they're parked on one side of the road and not be not the other.
Yeah, w that would not talked about in this uh memo, but there are conditions of approval within MPUDs and I believe in the code too that talk about how how uh the the if there's going to be allowed any on street parking, how it should be placed refining the right of way.
Yeah. Okay. Thank you.
Point. We're not adding any additional space for say garbage truck to get down and turn around and service folks if folks aren't self-regulating as you described that they do, because I can assure you they don't. And it increases a lot of liability for people who have to provide services to neighborhoods like these. There needs to be Some more room. to be able to get down and provide the essential services that you know, to keep the neighborhood clean.
Yeah. I mean that's gonna be I think a a standard dilemma. I mean uh
If you want your garbage to get picked up, don't park in front of your garbage can. Let the garbage truck access your garbage can. I've I learned that lesson myself. And that I've had to sit with a full can uh for an extra couple of days because my car was parked on the street and the garbage truck couldn't reach and lift it up. So um
Point taken. Understood.
Anything
else we're talking?
Um no I just uh it was funny I was having a little sidebar with Jeff on the on street on street parking. Um but uh I I like on street parking, it's columns of traffic down, but you do have to be able to get the garbage truck trail. And the way we get around that in Long League is it's one on one side of the street only. But and I think there's certain widths that we need to think about. about an I and I think Frank will touch on that when you speak.
Uh Terry got a couple of comments. Um On the width of the driveway, let me get them like two weeks two feet wider than what the garage is, or the opening is. And I think that should be moved up to about four feet. And I'll give you an example why. Let's say you get a two-car garage and part of it's gonna have some stuff in it, maybe only one car garage like my house is being done. If I don't park in the very, very edge right next to my sprinklers, I'm gonna run over those sprinklers. I wanna give the flexibility to the
builders if they want to go two feet wider. that they have that flexibility. Uh just makes it a little bit more usable depending on how it it gets gets played out. I don't know what the board thinks about that, but
I figured that
because you're just gonna have con uh you know, if you like that that town home look with the whole concrete front that I can show you a picture of, that's that's what you're proposing. Is a house with only concrete in the front. No, no.
And again, I'm looking at two feet extra, not anything more than that. And I want to give the flexibility to the builders if they want to make it that way that they can go do it.
We we did give we di he did put two feet in.
No, I I know I I want to give 'em two foot more. You've got two foot now. I want to give
them the flexibility to go to floor. I mean depending on the design of the house, the garage, you could easily exceed the width of the home.
Yes, if you like that look where it's all concrete, you can find
it.
Carry on as far as in the front area, looking where that car is parked in the on the map, you see that green area that's right there? That front area in Hillsborough County, from what I understand, has gone to where they say you can't put an oak tree there. And we can go to neighborhood after neighborhood where the oak trees are planted so close to the roadway. Uh my neighborhood, Bothiz has got it. Balance Ray, we had to do a big project where we took all the Trees out there were oak trees in the middle that ruined all the sidewalks, and their liability kind of falls back on us. We get calls,
you know, who's gonna fix my sidewalk? Hillsborough County put an ordinance in place. I sent it to Terry to take a look at it. And if we put that in place there, at least we don't have to deal with that issue there. The oak trees, if they're back in the in the part of the lot, they won't have a problem, but I think it's something we should. uh strongly take a look at it and I think we'll have a conversation from the people in the audience of stakeholders as well. Um And when the stakeholders come up, I want them to talk. Right now we got a ratio from three to one with palm
trees. Um I think palm trees are good as far as like affecting things. Um not a not as much for a shea tree, but if you're okay with that ratio, I'm okay with it. But if they have an issue with that, I'd like to have them to say so. Um last thing, using their rear yards, I think, is something that's very big and recently went to a neighbor's house that had taken their whole backyard. They got a pool, they've got a R they got a cornhole, etc. And they made an artificial turf and it works really
well for them to maintain it. You don't have to mow it, you don't have to do any lawn maintenance, no pesticides going in, no water being used. I think it's a good use if we need to to allow it, but again we talked about that so I'll I'll listen to the stakeholders as well on it, but I'm gonna float that to you before we go. Commissioner Weightman
Thanks, Chairman Mariano. So when you'd say
We're we're in this memo we're doing two feet. You're asking for you know another foot on either side. Are you s are you saying the language to allow the builder to go up to four feet? Not mandatory, but up to the option. Okay. Thank you for clarification.
Okay. All right, that's all I have. Now do one of some stakeholders speak as well, Derek?
Yes, we have some stakeholders here that uh can present uh some of their information and perspective on the subject.
Um Terry, before we do that, can we have Frank's present for this? You got that?
Yeah, they're they're loading it right now.
Well Frank's coming up too, one thing I did want to comment on the on on on street parking. I do think one side, if so if we're gonna keep twenty two foot streets is something we need to let them go put in their regulations to
So um Good morning from commissioner.
Name and address please.
I'm sorry. Name
and address please.
Uh Frank Starkey, fifty nine thirty-nine Grand Boulevard in Newport Ritchie. I'm um a architect and real estate developer by trade. Um my brother Trey and I, who's married to Commissioner Starkey, developed Longleaf, um which is the original and so far only real t um T and D um developed in the county and a lot of the lessons learned there um were applied in the T and D ordinance but I I think they went over went a little bit too far. But in the process uh that we'll come back to that later
on the street discussion, but in the process of doing that, of developing Longleaf, I served as the town architect and inter interacted with the develop with the home builders and negotiating the design of the house. Houses, as well as when we were doing the entitlements for Starkey Ranch DRI, I talked a lot with home builders there. So I'm familiar with a lot of their concerns and issues, both as builders and as the architects designing the houses for them.
Frank, could you talk more about what you do nationally and your affiliations?
Well, I can email you on my CV. I'm on I'm on I'm the vice chair. Of the um Board of the Congress for the New Urbanism, and I'm also a past president of the National Town Builders Association, which is an organization of developers who do um New Urbanist traditional neighborhood development projects across the country. Um I've been involved with the leader at a leadership level with the New Urbanism movement for 20 plus years. The um the a couple of the The issues that um
Bayonet Point. To consider about front-loaded 40-foot lots, which I understand are are problematic from an aesthetic standpoint. Y'all have have expressed an interest in in limiting or eliminating eliminating those.
Example of just some of the laws of physics. The when you have a 40-foot wide lot with 10-foot wide setbacks, that leaves you a 30-foot wide house. The thing that happens as you make a house narrower is garages don't get any narrower because they have to be a 16-foot-wide door and you need space, they basically have to be 20 feet. They cannot squeeze any less than that. I've occasionally seen 18-foot, but I don't know. any builders in Pasco County that are building 18 foot wide garages because it's just um unless you drive too many Coopers
it's just too hard to use on the inside. So the um so the garages doesn't the garage doesn't get any narrower beyond twenty below twenty feet. What happens is that as you make the house narrower the the house part of it gets narrower. When you get below about twelve feet you don't have enough width for a room um so all you can have is a foyer. So what you have th in this photo um you can see that the twenty foot of a garage with the um around
ten feet of the house the garage dominates it just by pure math. But also because that width for the livable space is or the air conditioned space is so narrow that it's not really practical to build that out. So you so a a plan is typically going to typically typically going to push that back towards the back of the garage so that you're not air conditioning a corridor for no good reason. So what y this is an example of it where the entrance to the house is recessed,
which makes the garage even more visually dominant. that right now in in that example there the driveway is sixteen feet wide, garage doors are sixteen feet wide. Um if you make it two feet wider on once uh on if you make it two feet wider which is what the proposal is, you can picture that that's just gonna be, you know, that much wider. Um and uh Commissioner Mariano to your to your point, I think I I d I I don't know what Terry's written, but I think he's talking
about minimums. If builders want to build wider, I don't know why they wouldn't. Um if they wanted to do an eighteen-foot, you know, if the market demanded a 20-foot wide driveway instead of an 18, because it's currently 16. You said I'm saying so um 16 is the width of the garage doors, and that's standard practice. The proposal is to widen that. two feet to eighteen feet um in your suggestions.
I'm talking about the go the driveway. Garage door is a a garage door. They're always sixteen feet. Yes they make eight they make twenty feeders, but um I don't know any builders that use those um except in custom houses and things. So um uh go to the next slide. Does this control the slides? Okay. These are two houses that are adjacent to each other in a development that's being built right now. These are front-loaded 40-foot lots. You have the same dynamic
happening here, and I've got the floor plans on the next slide, but the entrance side of the house is recessed somewhat, but not as far as the other one. It has a little bit more street presence because it's a two-story. house and especially the one on the right, the the two-story part is over the garage so it looks like a two-story house. This is you know a little bit better looking than um because you see more house there. I think what what people are are appealed what people find appealing
is the housey parts of the house not the garagey parts of the house. Eight-foot garage doors by the instead When you have a single car garage door, that's kind of in the scale of a house and it doesn't look too bad, but the market pretty much demands two car garages and that's what generally gets built, so that's what you're dealing with. This can you okay so this is the floor plan of those two houses. Um one of them's the one on the left is mirrored, but you um you get the point. So you've
got a um the 20 foot of the garage and the 10 feet of the entry just doesn't leave much for um usable space there. In both of these cases there is there are entries there and storage. Um I've seen some some other plans that have a utility room up there. The when it comes to walkability, whether it's in a T and D or a conventional neighborhood, people still walk in. It's not like people only walk in T and D's and walkability only matters there. The shortcoming of the front of this house is
that it doesn't have any windows on the any live in any living spaces. The only windows are on the upstairs, which are likely bedrooms or maybe bathrooms, and not likely to have the curtain. open and not not conversational things where you're gonna see your neighbors um and have the eyes on the street to make walkability a little bit better. Also with these narrow side porches, they're not really big enough to furnish. Yes you could put a chair and table out there as some people do or maybe a porch swing but it doesn't really create a um a friendly
front porch like you see when you've got um Like this. These are this is in a s another neighborhood in the same subdivision, I think, or the same project. These are both 40-foot lots. Garage front and garage back. You can see that the you have the two-thirds, one-third situation going on on the right, and these are both obviously a little bit more architecturally bumped up properly. Higher price point houses. I don't
think you should rely on price point and architectural features because that's just gonna push affordability out of reach for a lot of the market, which is just not um not a good or um realistic thing to expect. The um the there's a there was a suggestion that um well if we widen the side setbacks that will help the situation. situation. What that does if you've got the same size live, widening the setbacks narrows the house, which going back to that twenty foot wide, you
know, the the the it comes out of the fat it comes out of the meat, not out of the bone um of the house, then you you're just making the house part of the house narrower and the garage isn't going to get narrower. So we actually you actually can exacerbate the aesthetic problem of front loaded houses by making those setbacks bigger and the houses narrower. The other thing it does is that extra space just kind of gives a little more a more gap-tooth look to the street facade and it gives
you more view of the side length the boring side um of the house which usually have very few windows and are just kind of blank. Setbacks just give you a more view of that. So you're just looking more at the less interesting part of the house. When the houses are closer together, then you're paying more attention to the front where the architectural interest is more, there's more detail put in place there. Another comment, again, the comment on the house on the left, by having a full porch with furniture
on it, in this case, an extravagant double porch. Porch, but even just a single porch, that makes a much more conversational streetscape than the one on the right, which unfortunately has its landscaping block in what would be a view of the porch, even if there wasn't a house of chair out there. These are some lots in Longleaf that were originally platted to be townhouse lots, and after the Great Recession, when townhouses were just not a reality in the market, F-Street Homes, went in and re-platted these to 30-foot-wide
lots that are rear-loaded. And my suggestion would be if you're going to make a requirement that if you're if you want to do 40-foot lots, they have to be rearloaded, which I think is a sensible requirement. You should also consider allowing those to be even narrower lots to help offset the cost of the alley. So architecturally, a 30-foot a house on a 30-foot lot is superior that's
rear-loaded is equivalent to or superior to a 40-foot lot that's front-loaded. I would argue even a 50-foot lot. lot because there you've got twenty feet of actual house. With a fifty foot lot you might get twenty feet of actual house and twenty feet of garage. But um if you're I would I would give a concession on the lot width to allow higher density to help offset the cost of the um alley for rear loaded lots, which I think gives you a win-win-win
all the time. Um these are a couple um situations that um Catherine sent me pictures of of some of your parking issues. I think that Hillsborough County, jokingly, I think that Hillsborough County Sheriff's Deputy should be ticketed for parking like a jerk. That's you know very um irresponsible way of for an officer of the law park.
I think there's two of them there. The other
one parked alright. Yeah, the other one's where they should be, though but the one parking um I mean he's not only
the street. You didn't even leave enough gap for somebody able-bodied to even squeeze between the two vehicles. The ones on the left, I don't I don't know what you do about um that. The if there were a vertical curve there at the sidewalk, that would obviously have kept the cars from parking on the sidewalk. There's no there's no width constraint in that street, so I don't know what the problem is. I don't know why cars chose to park that way. It's there seems to be, I guess there just needs to be some sort of visual clue that it's okay to park on the asphalt
completely. Um and to the to the comments earlier and the questions earlier about um blocking streets, if you've got and this is going back to front-loaded streets and the illustration that Terry showed, if you've got driveways on the street, people, you know, you can't park in front of the driveways um for the most part. So that that very much limits the number of cars that are going to be on the street anyway. So the conditions where you will have the ability for cars to park directly across from each other, yes, people can be idiots and
park stupidly, but that's always the case anyway.
In general, I think your street standards are far too wide for, especially for traditional neighborhood developments, but for a lot of cases, your alley standards are off the charts.
They're built heftier than streets with curves on not only outsides, but also required down the center. That upper left inset picture shows where an alley intersects. Sects the street, and you can tell where the alley ends because the curve in the center, the gutter curve ends. Um it's just kind of uh extravagant, like we want these alleys to never ever fail under any circumstance. And I think generally in development, you just have to kind of allow a little bit of slack for things to not always be perfect. Um, and
this is an entrance street into a neighborhood, but gosh, that's Wide enough to taxi assessment. There's just no need for that to be that wide. It's got dedicated off-street, it's dedicated parallel parking, which is not the same thing as on-street parking. So that that's those are parking that are in bays completely outside the travel way. Plus it's got bike lanes, which is really unnecessary. This is a neighborhood street that doesn't even go through to anywhere. Um and all that does is serve to
just widen the visual heft of the street and make you want to just drive faster. So I would I would seriously narrow down your street standards. Um and this is a another um condition. This is a silly situation that happened from the application of a of a requirement to have mid-block passages on the picture on the left plan there this um where that red arrow is where uh uh just to the left of that you can see that there's a that sidewalk just
goes and stops. This is a picture of how it ends. Clearly a silly um condition but the bigger issue with this is is this a laser beam um is that the this the the sidewalks don't connect out to Chansea Road and it really only is doing anything to connect within neighborhood which is not really walkability in the in the reducing the transportation issues that's the term. So that's that's that's all
I've got. Any questions or I'm ready to
Mr. Starkey.
The wider space between the houses. I get what you're saying. But it does allow for that on-street car to be parked there for extra parking. Actually,
not. Huh?
The space for on-street parking is a function of how far apart the driveways are, which is a function of how wide the lots are. It has nothing to do with the side, the setbacks have no impact on that whatsoever. Whatsoever.
The if the drivew so if the setbacks I mean it'll push two too far too closer together but the other ones will be farther apart um or vice versa. So if you've got um forty foot lots you're you're gonna have driveways on average every forty feet, regardless of what the building setbacks are. You could have no building and you could have just a garage on that and wherever it is in that on average you're gonna Which means sometimes it'll be 20 and sometimes it'll be 60 if you have car if you have houses that are flopped next
door to each other. But it's really not going to have a material impact on the number of on-street spaces if you increase the side setbacks. Commission
Whitman,
thank you.
Chairman Mariano
Basically what boilerplate what I heard what I heard is Larger Lop size. to account for the current way houses are built. and or we decrease the lot size to the 30 foot. So what I heard out of your you explained is we either go a larger lot size to accommodate kind of the s the size houses being built now to avoid that rectangle, more narrow narrow
shape, or we go to the smaller lot size with what you described on on the on the thirty or thirty foot example there.
Uh
Yeah. It puzzles me a little bit because that's that's they're kind of you know, they're they're polar from one another. The
difference is front loaded versus rear loaded.
Yeah.
Go narrower if the if the lots are rearloaded and um then you can and and the developer may want to go to narrower lots because the alley costs more to build. The so you kind of have to make up for that with lot with more lots on the same amount of street. So if you're front if you're rear loading then you can can go to a narrower lot than if you're front loading. So that's what I'm saying.
So when you talk with the additional costs and alleyways and everything you're describing there, I mean what's I'll just throw it out there generally. I I can't imagine the the the cost difference to just have your standard larger lot size, say fifty, I mean it's more green space, same size house, you'd have Less road, no alleyway, kinda you know, less infrastructure there. So I've I've really have my my wheel wheels turning and with with
your your presentation on what is the b best fit which would be interesting to hear from the the the T B B A group but it's really pushed me to have more more questions uh you know what what is the most efficient model here and as far as narrowing streets for the parking I I I tend to disagree to be able to provide the services provide the services that need need to be with the residents. We we saw um
pictures of people's you know self-discipline of parking with tight spaces like that, especially if they have a service vehicle that their works allow them to bring home. They have kids and they have one or two personal vehicles. They'll have to figure out a way to park. So narrowing your street. I I'm struggling with that a little bit, so that's just that's just my comments, but I appreciate your your expertise on this.
I
think.
Commissioner
Starkey.
I think you know I'm always a carrot and a ki like a carrot and so um I think it's a carrot to say if you will do if you wanna do um more density You can if you do the alleys you can get more more homes. You can have more density if they're rear-loaded. Because it makes a very nice streetscape. Um and it's it makes a community. So I think that that's a trade off that we're suggesting
that 'cause we don't allow for I don't know if we allow forties, Terry, do we? I mean thirties. Without is it what What does our code say about thirties?
The land development code has a minimum flat rate of sixty feet. So the only way to get thirties would be through an M P U D
Well so anything. Saying don't discount thirties.
This is all M P U D discussion.
Yeah, don't discount thirties if they're rear loaded. This is this is look at that street. That's a great looking street right there. Those sold out like crazy. Now they're small, they're not for everybody.
They're well some of those are twenty four hundred square foot houses. They're not that small. They're um uh Commissioner Weightman the you just said to address your your question, that's a that's you know that's a question that a that the developer of a specific project would answer, but in general, the more houses you can get per gross acre, um the better off your you wanna you're you're gonna be. Um Um if you can get more dwellings, I mean it reduces your infrastructure costs per unit. Um
and as land prices go up, which they obviously are, then that becomes more and more critical. So simply um lowering or increasing lot sizes um as the only answer is is um you know is gonna work against the um ability to you know the financial drivers that are that are pushing development to say nothing of affordability um you know getting larger lots uh makes makes for an automatically higher price point just to just
out of the gate um so for off you know for all of those reasons so generally smaller lots um with you know more units per acre I don't like to use the D word because it's it gets people's hackles up. But um but generally the if a developer can get more units on a given piece of land um they're gonna want to do that. And it also means that that many more units that don't have to go to the next given piece of land um start to push into the areas that you want to um
protect from development or or keep and truly truly low density development. Fifty foot lots are not low density at all. It's it's it's just a um you know it's kind of a you know it still consumes land at a pretty high rate.
Much welcome. Yes, sir. Um somebody was asking me one day if I cared about the law they they put in I think something happened in Hernando County with forty and pitch foot lots and things and he said, Well, I was I worried about that law coming into being and I said No, it doesn't affect me at all. And he said, why not? And I said, 'cause I don't want forties and fifties. So that law doesn't have anything to do with what we want. But I definitely not move into thirties. Um I've
seen some forty foot lots in some areas with houses that are all two story.
Did
you send it to me?
There is absolutely no green area between 'em or around 'em or in front of 'em. I mean it there's just no green area.
Is are they withdrawing?
Kids have no place to play.
Are they with driveways in the front or with driveways in the back? That's
the right point. They were in the front. Well
yeah, n never thirties in the butt
with the front garage. I mean we're talking we're talking about not cheap houses. We're talking about houses selling for over five hundred thousand dollars.
I I bet I don't think that's what our citizens really want. Pasco County's been with a rural area and and tended to go urban in some areas more so than I think people want. And I like more green space and I I like homes to look nice in the front and good landscaping. So we've we've missed that on some of the homes that we've gotten developed so far and that's what we're trying to do now is correct it. So
I I understand your point, Commissioner Oakley. I I was just I'm m the point of my presentation is to is to say that I'm not advocating for anything, but I'm just saying if you're if you've got an equivalent forty foot lot, if it's rear loaded then it does have the green space on the front, it does have a friendlier street, it does have um uh a better appearance, and even if you go narrower It still is an improved street appearance. Um and it's and also remember that um you know, right down
the street, well, right down the street from any of these is a pretty darn good neighborhood park. Um that's that's part of the county code requirements.
I understand, but some people have small kids that can't walk to the park and their mother can't take 'em and they have no yard to play in and at their house. So
Okay.
Thank you, Frank.
Well next you'd like to come up.
By the way, look I want to thank the T B B A for being so flexible to listen to us to what uh what our statements about here on the day is to actually go through these voluntary things that we're going through. So Mr. Briggs can I
Mr. Chairman Commissioner Edward Briggs of the Far SA Consulting Group, two three five West Brandon Boulevard, Brandon, Florida, representing the Tampa Bay Builders Association today. I just want to start and stop by just wanting to say this. I just want to thank you. The commissioners, the chair, and I really want to thank Mike Carbella and his staff for all the time they've spent working on this issue with you all, with us, because a lot of labor of love has gone into this policy middle. So thank you also to Terry Petos and his team as well. And I think what you had before
you're listening to also want to appreciate Frank for coming up and talking as well and and adding his comments. I think one of the biggest things that came out of all This is options. That's what you're looking at today: different options, different options for home buyers, different options for the market. And really, this memo that we have before you today, the TBBA really feels comfortable supporting. Is it everything that we want? No. Is it, you know, and I think that's one of those things that even when I talk in Tallahassee, that's really good public policy. When it hurts everybody across the industry, we probably have a good product right there on
the table. And I think But this memo really does keep the integrity of the market, allows those options to continues, allows for that flexibility of the home buyer to be able to afford different particular price points, but also gives you all something that we've heard over and over again, which is quality and a product that will last the test of time. And that's something that you all wanted. And that's something that I think this memo gets you at when you start looking at it. Are there things maybe that Do you want to tweak here and there? Absolutely, we completely understand that, but we're very comfortable with it
today. And the biggest thing is the market helps drive that. And that's something I wanted to give you all today on behalf of the TBBA to all to pass out is really the home obtainability by lot size. And I think this is very, very important for you all to look at as you look at the average salaries throughout Pasco County here and how that equates to what a single Person versus a married couple can afford to live here in Pasco and what they can get out for a mortgage versus FHA, BA, or your or your typical conventional loan. Because I think that will tell you a
lot based on what you're seeing that was displayed on the different price points and what people can actually afford to get into. And I think that's a key factor when you're starting to think about things and how you want to make sure that people hear. So I'd love to pass this out to Commissioner Yeah. Move
to
receive and
file. Second.
All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Okay. Good pencil to clerk and
And with that, Mr. Chair, I also wanted to say with me today, and I would allow them if you um do if your indulgence allow them to come up, I have Martin Frame, the president-elect for T B B A, as well as um Trent Stevenson, who was our T B BA government affairs chair for Pasco County, and also one of our Pasco GA members, Jeff Oleshager. So I would also have to say a few words.
Okay.
Thank you very much. Martin Frame with David Weekly Homes and President Elect for TBBA. I just wanted to start by just thanking you all for your time. We spent a lot of time with staff over the last two months. We've been able to give tours to most of the commissioners. I think that it was beneficial to get out and see some of this, some of the developments, some of the items that we have in here for landscaping, what we're going to be doing about creating Longer driveways to allow for larger trucks in these driveways so they don't overhang the sidewalks.
Working with staff on the right-of-way to have enough space for cars and trucks to get around. So just sp getting into some of the specific items that were uh brought up today. Seth, you had uh brought up some of the issues with Bond Street parking. Um I do want to add that to The additional uh 22 feet that we have for drive lanes. There's also a uh two additional feet on either side of what we call a mountable curve, where uh a car could put a tire or a truck could drive over
without getting into the grass. So effectively a vehicle would have 26 feet to maneuver. I think that's important to note. Uh it does give you substantial uh more space than a mountable. Curve, which is what the vertical curve is. And that is one item I talked about with Terry making an adjustment in the memo. Right now it does say vertical curve. I think the intent is for us to go with a mountable curve that you'd be able to drive over. So that'd give us a little bit more space without having to go past the 50-foot right-of-way.
PBA is perfectly happy with precluding the oak trees from areas where they would cause damage. We can work with staff to create some language to that effect and probably reference what's been done in Hillsborough County and other counties who have been outlawing oak trees in certain areas because they do cause damage. So no issues there. And then as far as just the lot width. That we're talking about today. I think it is important to note that we're not talking about 40s today. We're really talking about 45s. So
we are agreeing to a larger lot size than we have initially hoped for. You know, uh you've had had me up here but in the past and we were looking for a 42, which would have been a six-foot side yard. Um we're at a 45 today, and while it's not exactly what we want, uh we're willing to support. it because we know it's a negotiation and we want uh a back and forth relationship with y'all.
Wanted to see if you all had any other specific questions in regards to the document that's been floated around. Uh one other item just thought Mary, I know on the the widths of the driveways, I don't think that we'd have any issue with the lattering uh more width on the driveways to accommodate for uh people not having to step out and break their sprinkler heads and such.
Okay. Mark I want to say I greatly appreciate your hosting us. I'm sure you hosted everybody. For for me to go out there and actually look at it, because I was I'm a big fan of the front loader. I like the way that goes, but I'll tell you the product that you put out there, the landscaping you put out there, um showed for a good look.
Yeah, and I think that's important. Um it's something that we've been able to work with all of the developers and all of the home builders on to get to a place that's um not just representative of twenty or thirty percent of the home builders. We have, I think, probably what is effectively eighty-five percent of the homes being built in the county as part of our group and as part of this discussion. So it's very important to know that we were all along for this ride together with all of them. And so we have a lot of support internally. And it's not without some um internal debate to get
where we are today.
Well I I know I know we all greatly appreciate you guys listening to comments were made. I know the conversation I was having before these even started to get surfaced where there's dialogue going back and forth. 'Cause I think we're all in agreement. We want to make a top quality product, so it's good for you to have your great sales going, keep on going, but at the same time we can have a good long lasting product down the road that we can all be proud of and uh happy to see. And we've seen some mistakes out there that we've seen. that uh I I think the way you've laid it out and your cooperation with these architectural landscaping other features
that uh is going to be good for all of us. Commissioner Weightman.
Chairman Mariano.
But I prefer the look of an oak tree, the live oak tree over palm trees. So wherever they're appropriate, but I'm I'm a fan of our oak trees, so I'll just leave it there.
And we are working to give a little bit more space. Um a lot of communities have five feet between the curb and the uh sidewalk. We we are looking at this new standard to have seven feet and we can work with staff to figure out what's appropriate uh and where they're appropriate because I I think everybody loves oak trees. It's just getting them in the right place.
And Ms. Commissioner Weightman, literally we've been through and and I've seen in in my neighborhoods and around us, if you put 'em out right on the edge in that little space that's right there as they grow up, it may not happen for ten, fifteen, twenty years, but it's gonna and when it does you get you get an issue that you've got to deal with. Uh so if they put 'em closer to the house in those sections there they work great. But just out on the very edge of the street, and again for Hillsborough to take 'em. motion on it. Um I think is a is a smart thing. I know we're not Pushing to go, but sometimes people
who don't do like the oat trees will put them in there but they're just gonna cause problems for down the road. Uh Commissioner Starkey.
Um so I I've just spent uh some time in Key West that has um oak trees that have been there for hundred years in the in the sidewalk. And they it's amazing that I rode my bike all around those sidewalks and I didn't fall down and crack my leg open because they find ways to deal with a bumpy uh Um root structure. And a lot of these guys live in Old Northeast,
Hyde Park. But most of them are living in a rear loaded. I will let you know that on alleys. And they have an oak canopy. And I was so grateful for that oak canopy in Key West because it was hot. So I'm with you. I'm a big fan of oak trees. We're knocking them down when we don't need to. And I've had discussions with Mike Caval about valuing these large oak trees a little more because I don't think we value them enough.
And I there was some research I saw somewhere that an oak tree supports either 400 and 500. under different species, but a palm tree supports about three, and I think it's rats and and and and uh those.
My my boathouse and a dead rat mouth house is so um though I love I love monkeys, but um I wanna I too wanna thank you guys. I know you guys have put a lot of time into this and I know it caused you all a lot of angst. Um caused us a lot of angst too, but I think we we all want uh a better Pasco. And so I really appreciate it. You know, it's not a hundred percent Where I would like it to be, but it's so much better than what it was before. Um, I'm glad we'll be doing
our TND ordinance. No one has ever used it, it's so bad. Even those of us who did a TND neighborhood, we didn't use it either. Um, so uh I'm I'm glad to hear that, and and I hope that we uh can get that alley issue fixed so. It's not so expensive and and our road widths aren't so wide, and get those development costs down. Because I I do really think that um people uh who want to live in
a community where they know each other like that kind of community. We a lot of our county county um staff live live in communities like that actually. So I I'm grateful to y'all for all the time and um and I I know this will look better. Uh I did I did want to show one photo of what it looks like when you have a really wide driveway from the strip. Very If you can she could put that up. It is a town home but you can just get get the idea and and um and I did meet with I'm not gonna say the name of this developer. Um but I did
meet with them and they are not gonna do these anymore. Um so this is not to denigrate that developer. Um but just to show you what no, not that one. The one I just emailed you. Uh it um
Hopefully you got it.
I mean when you have a really wide driveway. That's all I can get.
Yeah, and that's a town home. I'm and I'm just talking about a foot and when you look at a foot, one of those pictures that Frank was actually showing actually showed an angle on the driveway coming out the bottom that kind of f formed at a thirty degree angle coming through. You get a sidewalk goes across through, so I don't think it would have the same effect that that's got. But if you go take a look at drive d drive down Reg. Go look at all the street all the ho all the cars that are parked in the yards because they can't have enough room to get in there. So I'm just trying to accommodate if somebody's gonna have a small house They
may fill up the garage. They may need they may get one car out of the two in the garage, like it is my like I said, my house. If you don't have the room to get to the side, it makes it really tough to get in and out. It just if the builder wants to do it, I want to give them the flexibility, that's all. Let them make the call. I don't think it's a dramatic change, so I want to give them flexibility to build the product they think. And again, I want to thank you guys for coming forward to work with us every step of the way. been a combative thing whatsoever and I think it's been to a a very good product coming up. As we go, your members themselves
may want to comment to us about the different things that may affect them. Share that information, you know reach out to them, reach out to us, because this is presentation only today. We'll be taking the steps forward to go to to work the policy.
Mr.
Starkey.
So uh Frank pointed out and I hadn't realized that but um in his in in the layout of and I don't know who's what plans those were, but I get it when you have the garage, when you have a front load of forty Um the the the door area, the entry is is narrow. Is there no way to push that forward and push the garage back so you don't have this I think I've heard it called snout nosed or
I believe that was handled actually last year um in the memo last year that we're updating and it's still included I believe. Yes.
Yeah, w we do have the strategy to bring the house elements forward so that you see parts of the house and not so much the garage dominating the
So we we are requiring the door to be more forward? Oh we don't want a flat front. I think it was but I think it's three feet back.
We allow the encroachment to take place.
So I you know I I think there there's some code in there from last year because that was one of the big issues that was brought up with with the memo last year and this memo is um restating that memo. Um that should still be in it in its entirety from my what I understand.
But and there's only there's a minimum amount of forties that can be on a block anyway. And yes, Mamma. Or forty five. Whatever. I mean 'cause forty five may be a wider lot, but it's still gonna be a twenty foot garage and what a ten foot space for the door or eight foot or whatever it is. So it's still that awful look. Plus it's two story. Yeah. Yeah.
The the the ability to bring the house forward is still it was part of P M ten, maybe part of PM twenty six and everything is harmonized between the two memos. So you should still be able to uh give that encroachment and incentivize the architecture of the house.
Like I said, it's not a hundred percent what I want, but it is better.
All right. Mark anything else? Thank you. Okay, thank you. Anyone else from T B A wanna speak? All good? Okay. All right. Well thank you all very much. We greatly appreciate your working with us and uh look for your feedback as we go a little bit further down the road.
So Mr. Chair, um I'm gonna have planning staff implement this. The question really back to the board is applicability. Uh Terry had mentioned it before as far as looking at it when it was uh Terry, it was when it was first first comes to the board or when the application, if you could just expand upon that real quick.
This policy memo. Uh I I would I would need direction from the Board of County Commissioners to go and implement the directives of the memo. Um but we need to know when to apply it. So we have a bunch of MPUDs in the process. Do we want to allow all the MPUDs that have received their first round of comments to proceed without this memo? Do we want Do we want uh new MPUDs only, basically up anything that hasn't received its first round comments to uh be
uh answerable to this memo? Or do we want all MPUDs up to the point of Board of County Commissioners approval to be applicable to this memo?
Um Mark, I can make a comment if you want.
Yeah, if you don't mind. This was a hot button issue for us because we have a lot of projects that have taken quite a while to get through comments and in some cases a lot of the comments have been delayed getting to the developers and the home builders. We would like some flexibility here as much as possible. At the very least, a cutoff of the first round of comments because there have been a lot of projects. that uh are have been in the planning for many months
and maybe even years um based on the old rules. So we'd like to have some uh relief given to those projects.
So any and any MPs that have been in with their first round of comments?
I I believe that's what we had talked about was the first round of
comments. And and I think that's a fair fair thing. Um I think if they would still work with us, great. The landscaping's pretty easy. So that's right. Hopefully hopefully hopefully they'll work with us, but I th but I think you're right. They'd spend all this time engineering to to throw the switch on it would be would not be the right thing to do. And we haven't done that in the past with other things we've changed in the county, so I don't want to start that now. Thank
you.
Commissioner Starkey.
So we talked about the 10-foot reserved uh utility easement being reduced to five. Did we take care of that in this?
Uh I think we've settled that generally speaking. Um it's not explicit in the memo but yes, that you could put the utilities under the uh or the easement rather um w under the sidewalk areas.
Right, 'cause that's another way that we can help uh achieve the landscaping goals that I think we all we w we were reserving too much and it's not necessary.
All right, so let's say as far as like trying to put a thing the w the one thing that's different than I had brought up was that given the flexibility for the extra two feet from the sides, Commissioner Starkey's voice very clearly she doesn't like that. What do the other two commissioners think?
I'm I'm if it's up if the if it's up to and there's discretion if that's what the builder wants to build then I'm for it but Right.
I'm not I'm not opposed, but to mandate it, I'm opposed to that. But if it says up to and they choose to do it, I I'm good
with that.
Commissioner Oakley?
Yeah. I feel pretty much the same way. I um those projects that have been in the portal and been working toward their forties can other forties and fifty lots I I wouldn't force I don't think I would force them to go into this unless they chose to No no
he's saying do you want a wider driveway with Do you want more complex
just
the on just the
driveway part
at this point.
I'm not
I'm not necessarily guessing that if it's up to them, so
Okay. All right. So there's direction here.
But are we gonna come up with um Just one car garages or we still have two car garages. Two cars.
See I like a one car garage on on thirty foot.
I don't because you got a problem with parking. You don't have the space, you don't have two guard rods, you don't have space to bark. You got families that got kids that got cars too, so you get a family with two Teenage kids and they both have cars. You got four cars in that right and and one garage won't won't work.
I agree.
We're not we're not saying that the developers
up to four feet. It's not saying the developers wanna want to voluntarily go pour more concrete. I I can't imagine that they they would. I mean
not.
But if the homeowner says, hey, I'd like a little bit wider Gross do that, yeah. Drive away. Uh yeah, w uh driveway 'cause I have a a larger family or a work vehicle. I mean, gives the the customer the ability to maybe have a little bit more flexibility in what they what they want. Y'all do rock, paper, scissors.
Okay, so so we gotta you gotta consensus on the timeline, you gotta consent with that flexibility. Um if you guys want to look at that ordinance about Hillsborough County about the oak trees, uh I think we can look at that 'cause it's not fair to like throw that right at you right now. But it's something that we can consider if we want to bring it back, we're gonna bring it back. But for the rest of it I think we can go the way we are. Yeah. Okay. Thank
you.