PC-4 PDD-19-7406 rezoning to R4 for 65 dwellings
What the county recorded
This item is not from the published agenda
This archive found it in the recording: a call to order, a recess, or business the board never listed. The county recorded nothing about it, so everything below is our reading.
The source document
The county’s agenda for Planning Commission, Jun 6, 2019
The published PDF. Its text could not be extracted, because it is an image-only scan, so nothing in it is searchable here. It still reads normally.
The county’s minutes for Planning Commission, Jun 6, 2019
The published PDF, as served by the county. This item is one entry in it.
What was said
Machine transcription of 26m of recording, with speaker names inferred from voice matching. 98% of 108 lines carry a name. It shows what was said, not what was decided, and both the words and the names can be wrong.
So I'm gonna move on to item PC four.
Item PC four is PDD 19-7406 in the name of SDG Acquisition LLC. It's for a rezoning from an AR agricultural residential district to an R4 high density residential district. The parcel is located in south central Pasco County on the north side of Collier Parkway slash County Line Road and it's approximately 550 feet west of Livingston Road. It contains approximately 39.58 acres. The out on this parcel, the applicant is proposing a
total of six single fam 65 single family detached Dwellings in conformance with the R4 High Density Residential District standards for development, the applicant has actually volunteered. voluntarily agreed rather to record a deed restriction limiting the density to 65 dwelling units. The surrounding area is characterized by residential subdivisions, which consists of the Willow Bend MPUD, which is adjacent to the west. Collectively, the Willow Bend MPUD is
732 acres with a mixture of residential, multifamily, commercial, and professional office uses. Directly to the west of the subject of request is Willow Bend Unit 1, which is approved for a total of eight lots on 3.83 acres, which is approximately 2.1 dwelling units per acre. The Orange State MPUD is adjacent, located adjacent to the north, which is approved for 206 single-family attached townhomes or villas. That is a total of 1.9 dwelling units per acre. And Sunridge
Estates, which is across Collier Parkway on Cali County Line Road, so it's on the south side, it's in Hillsborough County. That was approved for a total of thirty-three. Residential lots, those lots I don't have the density, but the lot sizes are anywhere between uh approximately or just under half an acre to over an acre in size, a total of thirty-three. And if uh the here are the surrounding uh the surrounding zonings, this is the Willow Bend MPUD, collectively 732 acres. This is Unit 1 adjacent to
the west. Um here is the Sun State Um MPUD which has not yet been developed, but it was approved in 2010. It's been extended and the last uh modification to the Sun State MPUD occurred this year in February. The land use is res three, uh the potential for three dwelling units per gross acre. And uh the access to the pro properties from Collier Parkway.
Staff recommendation from the Planning and Development Department is approval of the MPUD. Of course, there is a notification on there, and it's included in your agenda packet that the applicant intends to record a deed restriction limiting the density to 65 single-family dwellings on the property. There was also a petition of objection that was received. It was on my document. on Monday and I'm I'm hoping that Mr. Chair you can ask to uh to move to receive and file
the the item.
So moved.
Second, yeah, second.
I'll second that.
All in favor?
Aye. Aye. Thank you. Thank you.
And uh are there any questions?
Any questions from the board?
The applicants present.
Good afternoon. Barbara Will Hight, 6327 Graham Boulevard, New Port Richey, 34652 for the applicant. I understand there's a gentleman here related to the what you're reviewing there. So I'm just gonna defer um to see what the questions and comments are and then I will uh respond or staff. Okay.
All right, thank you. Thank you.
Calling up, young man.
Please state your name and address.
My name is John Pritchard, P-R-I-T-C-H-A-R-D. I live at [address removed]. It's uh got a loot's peeling address, 33549.
I s submitted ahead of time this information and But essentially to sum it all up, and I want to read it all, just to sum it all up. Hmm Our objection to this Rezoning. Is that Behind our property, to the west of our property, there's a growth line of very old growth trees. Uh
Can you show us where your property is on this?
I'm gonna try to bring them a bigger.
It's if you have the thing I had, it's in um Picture three. I said that some pictures with it.
under the house under the picture under the Willowin unit number. Did you see there are the there's seven houses right along this tree line? And uh Our goal is simply that Bukhazis are all goat trees and 'Cause I spoke with the other folks the All of this land is in a flood zone. So in order to build on it, they're gonna have to trip out all these trees and fill it down. And that's my concern is that with
their twenty acres of developer land for 65 houses, I believe that they could make room to put in an amusement. to protect this old growth trees as a part of their development and develop on other parts of the land. So that's what we're asking is that they put in a deed is they're putting in a deed restriction for the uh 65 houses total that they put in a deed restriction to provide an easement. I had recommended a hundred feet, but I don't have any access to the property, so I can't
tell what a hundred feet is. Uh also referred to it as you doing the tree ordinance, uh the drip line for the trees that are more than 10 inches. So that's what what I like to see the easement is make that drip line of the trees that are more than 10 inches so those trees wouldn't have to come out.
Mm-hmm.
Any questions on the board, this gentleman?
That's it. Thank you, sir.
Barbara Wallhead again. So our request is for an R4 zoning and a res three land use, and rarely do I come before you following your code. It's an R4 zoning district following the county's standards, perfectly consistent with the Res 3 land use on the property. The density is much lower than the Orange State, which Denise told you about the MPV to the north. That nor that P M P UD is
is approved for villas, apartments and townhomes. It's approved at three point six two eight. Um units per developable acre. And there's absolutely no reason actually why we could be seeking the same for this property, but for the client wants to actually do an R for uh zoning district compliant Um project was six thousand square foot lots, sixty by a hundred. Town home the town home lots to the north are um Fifteen by fifty. The bill
lots are thirty-two by a hundred. So our density is 2.64 units per developable acre. So we're very much in line and actually lower than what you see just to the north in the same land use category in the same area. We've also have it kind of interesting that we've we put a deed restriction on so we can only have sixty-five units. The comp plan would allow eighty one units maximum density. With regard to the trees and buffers, um We're following
the code. The code says that your R4 district is consistent with their zoning district, no buffers required. No actually under the existing zoning of AR no buffers required. So it's per se compatible, no buffer required between the two. I I read through Mr. Pritchard's letter that you have the benefit of now and I I understand they like the trees that they've seen. um behind their house. But he went on to point out in his letter that many of the lots in Willow Bend back up to wetlands so people
could make sure that they were preserving what was going to happen in their backyard. These lots did not do that. These lots were purchased. Not on any protected area. So the expectation that trees would remain after the property was developed is an unreal reasonable expectation. Even under the existing zoning. the property could be developed and the trees removed. So um
That is where we're at with this project. Staffs reviewed it and recommended approval, and we're available for any questions.
Any questions from the board? Yeah, I have one quick question. In the documents that the county provided us, it indicates that a minimum 25-foot upland buffer is required around post-development category one wet lines. Now, does that conflict with what we were given from the your the party that's uh uh objecting to this and on page two he talks about Of
buffer zone, the second paragraph I'm reading, page two. Uh we have been told No I don't know who by whom. That's why I'm asking this question.
Okay.
The a natural border or buffer between the lots in the new in the new development and Willow Bent Willow Bend Lots uh on a wayward court w indicating that he says they're not gonna be develop but so my conflict that I'm having with myself is in here says that they are going to have
Buffers built. A buffering. And this one says they're not. So can you help clear that one up for a
minute? Sure, and I can also pull up our engineer who knows the property really well. But so we're talking about two potentially different things. We're talking about trees. and we're talking about wetlands. Where there is a wetland, there's buffering required. But I think adjacent to um the gentleman's lot. There's not a wetland, there's just trees on our property. Um so That's and then the reference there is also to the fact that the land development code doesn't require any particular buffer from residential to residential. But let me see if I think you
can answer a little bit better.
Jeremy Couch with Tampa Civil 17 17937 Huntingville Circle Lutz 33558. Forget my own business address. So sir, you're correct. The the LDC requires a 25-foot buffer between development and category one wetlands. Unfortunately, um well fortunately for us the category one wetlands are on the far east and the far north portions of
the property. Um I don't have a pointer, but
so the east is to my right, is that correct? Yes. How I'm doing
sure. So um
the point was not easy.
This is oh okay, well.
Sorry.
One at a time. Yeah.
Okay,
sure.
So so the wetland system, the category one wetland system, um it starts over here on the west side of uh the unit we're talking about in Willow Bend. It goes to the north, then it goes to along the north property line and it comes back down way over here. Um I really don't like this. This area here is all uplands. To the northeast of the pointer, maybe just uh right here, this is a category
two wetland. It's a small pond that's historically been used for cattle. This is also a category two, isolated wetland, and the old home that was here before Willow Bend or any of us used to use this. This is where their dock was and their lake. So the land between here, uh between here and the western parcel is all uplands, and this is the land we'd prefer to develop because it's there's no environmental impact there.
Thank you. Thank you.
I would also note that they have very different purposes. The purpose of the buffer around the wetlands is to protect the integrity of the wetland to make sure I'm trying to prevent people from mowing their lawns and effectively mowing into the wetland, trying to protect the integrity of the wetland. What this gentleman is requesting is a buffer to protect the houses. So one's an environmental protection, he's asking for something very different.
Can I ask what how um I mean how difficult would it be to mitigate some of that wetlands to try to shift your development a little bit to provide a bit of a buffer?
Um Jeremy Couch. Um sir that'd be very complicated. Um we would have to get permits from Pasco County Uh the Swift Mud. and the Corps of Engineers. And um Uh potentially the core. um if it's greater than a half an acre. And one of the requirements is is to prove that we've done everything we can to minimize the avoidance minimize and avoid the impact of the wetlands. And
so um I don't think we would be able to get approval to impact that wetland in order to save uh oak trees.
So so what are you planning up for that down in that corner? I mean are is that gonna be people's where these trees are now, is this gonna be backyards e going against backyards?
Yes sir. It it would be single family backing up to single family.
So why not try to preserve some of those trees? for the backyards of your future homes?
Um we would like we would like to preserve as many of those trees as possible. Um because that landscaping is not something you can go to a nursery to to buy and install as as you would imagine. Um I don't know if it's gonna be practical at this point though. Um Because um you know, we'll need to put drainage between that property and this property and sometimes um putting in the proper infrastructure um would damage the tree and make 'em a hazard. So Work on it.
Yeah, I I would just add that we have to do a tree plan. And we actually get credit for saving trees. Um so to the extent that they can be saved. they'll be saved. But to s stand here and say that When we're talking about a rezoning, um to say that we c know that we can save the trees, we don't know that.
So what can we put in place the
Or is there something in place that would require you to do a best effort to try to save these these trees? I you know, this sort of strikes a chord with me as I was driving over here today, I was driving past Long Lake Ranch and they just absolutely cleared every anything that was green off that piece of property. And it just it sort of bothers me that when we approve these developments that's what happens and there's there's It's just easier to replace on later than it is to save what's there. And I'd
like to see us try to s save what's there if we can. As opposed to just, you know, go from property line to property line and mow it over.
Well the county received a tree plan and they have to ha review that and re approve it in connection with the actual development of the property. And that is the time for those discussions. And for the county to say, Did you save the trees? Did you just plow 'em over? What is your plan? Why are you planting it that way? So That is how the tree plan review goes.
It doesn't seem like it's it's working though. You know, as I look at some of these developments they're just mowing 'em all over. So so that's a I guess a question to the staff is, you know, what can be done
Well,
to take a different approach
to some of this. There's a history to this and related to our tree ordinance. There was a older this is back when Barbara was here. There was an older version of the tree ordinance that arguably did require them to preserve more of their trees on site. That was modified sometime and do you remember the year of Barbara when we allowed you to pay into the tree fund?
Right. Oh, two thousand five maybe?
Two thousand five. The board modified that requirement to allow applicants to take down the trees and they can't replace them on site pay into a tree fund and so we take money instead of trees. Um the result is we get money in the tree fund but we don't necessarily
protect the trees. Right. So that was a policy decision by the board back in two thousand four or five, whatever the year was. Um and I don't know, Brad, do you want to comment further about I mean, unless the board's willing to change that policy, I'm not sure what else can be done.
Hi, Brand Tippin, Planning and Development. Uh I don't think that there's any intention at this time to be looking at that policy to make any changes to it. And when the, unfortunately that particular policy, when the site plans do come in for review, the development plans come in, if the applicant is willing to make the payments rather than replacing trees that can't fit on site, we don't necessarily have any code provisions that we could enforce to maintain those trees.
So the short answer is you'd have to talk to one of your commissioners and ask them to initiate a change to that policy because otherwise the developers are it's probably gonna be cheaper for them to in many cases just pay into the fund than to protect the tree. Now, we do use that money to plant trees in the median. We use it to help beautify the county and to help sites redevelop their sites to propose more landscaping in. So it is used to help beautify
the county, but it's not necessarily meeting the goal that you just said.
Yeah, we can't guarantee the tree is retained in that particular space.
Yeah, Susan you said tree fund a lot, but came flashing back to me. So You may have been on the board with that, Paul said. No, I was not. I was not, but uh but I do remember the tree fund. Um
So basically I don't think staff can do much to implement what you're discussing unless the board's willing to change that policy.
Right. So so the gentleman who's opposing, so he's hearing this, you know, there's not a lot that can be done uh to try to protect that unless the applicant would be willing to try to make the best efforts to protect those trees that are there.
So I mean you heard uh it's Euclidean zoning, so it's not like we're con we're writing conditions. We're following the county standards. I rarely stand up here and follow the county standards. So So it's kind of a new thing. Um so we're not talking about
give your turn over a new leaf.
We're not talking about writing conditions. But you did hear Mr Couch as project engineer say, We want to save trees we can and and your ordinance does give us credit. For saving trees. So um
But you have imposed a a a deed restriction on here and So you've certainly agreed to some things already that you didn't necessarily have to agree to. And I d you know, obviously we're just a recommendationary board, but if if you were to put best effort forward to try to save some of these things then maybe that would make the gentleman feel a little better, but
Sure, sir. I mean Jeremy Couch, we we would really like to save as many trees as possible. It makes the community look good when we build homes. Folks drive in and they it looks a lot nicer when there's uh canopies already in place versus when you drive into some of these communities like you're saying that is just twigs sticking out of the ground and you don't see a tree anywhere. The problem to agree into that now and is that similar to when um this gentleman's subdivision built, they raised the land six
feet and they put a vertical retaining wall right on the property line. And the man that lived on this farm looked over at that wall and saw that wall and saw those houses all the way up there. To put the infrastructure in, I can't tell you during zoning whether or not we can save them. We definitely want to save them. But for the sake of drainage or flooding a a home or something like that, the tree may have to go. Um but we will make every effort possible to save as many of the trees as possible.
The only other thing I would point out is even if they were willing to put something in their deconstruction about using best efforts, it's not really something staff can enforce anyway. I understand that I understand that. It they can just say we used our best effort and we can't we gotta take the trees down. I mean it I'm not sure it's gonna make any difference for staff's review of the site play unless Brad tells me otherwise. Okay, so he's he's shaking his head now. So
I agree with you. Um I understand that we don't have any resource or any tools to enforce because we already have a code in place. But I believe that it's in the best interest of the developer to keep those three also to provide privacy for the future houses that they're going to build there. So I think you are going to sell uh better houses for more money if you provide that but nature barrier between those two developments. So I agree, it's the best
interest for you guys, the designer and the developer, to work together to provide that kind of barrier that is there already. Maybe you remove some tree to mitigate the draining issues that you have, but in the same time it's in the best interest for both parties here.
And I think that will occur because we have a developer who's coming forward and looking for six thousand square foot lots, which I don't hear much of. So we already have somebody who's coming forward and not asking for the townhomes that's doing single family at six thousand square foot lots. So we have somebody who's being very thoughtful of of a high end development here.
I'll move for approval. I got a quick question. I'm sorry. So if if it's I'm guessing like a sixty by one hundred foot lot. Just and then in the as as the uh in the backyard that's where the trees would be. So for the drainage, how did the tr when you take out the trees, how does that all work with the drainage and the trees and why do you take out the trees for the drainage at the end of the lot? Sure. Just walk me through that.
Sure, absolutely. So um you know when you when you go through and you design a development um and you calculate the required um stormwater infrastructure needs. Um the lots have to be at a certain elevation so that way the streets drain and the yards don't hold water. I mean So at some point though in the perimeter portions of a project you have to tie your grade back down. Um with our neighbors to the west, the way they connected back to grade was they built a giant
retaining wall all along the whole property line. And so if you look at stand at our property and look to their property, you know, we have these trees and then right behind the trees is this large wall that's that's this tall and the houses are Way up high. So what happens is is when you tie back into the grade There's sometimes you maybe need to build a swale or put some pipes in to capture the water and push it towards a retention pond or a wetland area. And in doing that, oak trees are not tolerant to fill. If you cover the
roots of an oak tree with six or eight inches of dirt, the tree is going to die. And then in a storm it's gonna uproot and fall on someone's house or fall on someone's kid, you know, so That's the reason I'm saying here today I can't Promise that we're gonna save every tree. We'd like to save the trees. We'd like to buffer our neighborhood from their neighborhood. Um but we just don't want the the question of zoning compatibility to determine that. More or less um engineering. Okay.
Yeah, yeah.
Any other questions from the board?
Thank you, ma'am.
I will move
for approval.
I'll second it.
Have a motion of a second. All in favor?
Motion.
Sir, thank you.
Sir Sir, thank you sir. Sir, this is going to the Board of County Commissioners and you can start Sir you can speak to the Board this is going to the Board of County Commissioners so if you have additional comments you can make them at at that time. Thank you.