VARIANCE REQUEST (CONSENT) - SDG Acquisition, LLC - Reduction in the Required Minimum Side Yard Setback From 7.5 Feet to 5 Feet for All Single- Family Residential Lots Within the Proposed Subdivision in an R-4 High Density Residential District - South Central Pasco County - On the North Side of Collier Parkway/County Line Road, approximately 550 Feet West of Livingston Road - Containing Approximately 39.58 Acres
What the county recorded
Staff recommendation
Approval with conditions
DispositionApproved
Approved Staff's recommendation with Mr. Cox voting nay.
The source document
The county’s agenda for Planning Commission, Jan 23, 2020
The published PDF, as served by the county. This item is one entry in it.
The county’s minutes for Planning Commission, Jan 23, 2020
The published PDF, as served by the county. This item is one entry in it.
This case, across meetings
PDD-20-2079 in full →Heard once. PDD-20-2079 appears on no other agenda in the archive.
- Jan 23, 2020PlanningPC5▶Approvedthis item
What was said
Machine transcription of 16m of recording, with speaker names inferred from voice matching. 96% of 74 lines carry a name. It shows what was said, not what was decided, and both the words and the names can be wrong.
Road. If this looks familiar to you, is because this came to the Planning Commission sometime in May or June of last year for rezoning, which was rezoning 7406 to R4 from AR to R4 with deed restrictions. To limit the number of lots to a total of 65. The reason for this variance request is that at some point in time, probably sometime in 2018 or so, there was a conversation about Lessening
the side setback for R4 high density residential district lots where that the R4 lots can potentially go down to five feet, very similarly as you see in MPUD master plan unit development districts. Um my my thought is that perhaps that setback was never contemplated in the land development code because it wasn't until Sometime in 2014, that the Board of County Commissioners made some changes to the land development code to
add some specific requirements in 901.2.2 B to have five foot setback reductions. So we will be within the ordinance development team and it may happen either this summer or during the fall where that we will be amending the R4 high density residential district. uh zoning to have the potential of reducing the setback to five feet in R4 so as long as
the requirements in 901.2.k2b are met.
Yeah.
So uh I did put in front of you uh a gentleman by the last name of Pritchard, did submit into record a uh let a letter of opposition. He was also the same gentleman that opposed the rezoning uh back in uh last year uh because uh he had some issues with the buffer along the western boundary of this property which would have been the eastern property of his boundary. I th the uh recommendation is approval with conditions. I
did consult with uh the The County, uh, the Planning and Development Department engineer, and one of the conditions that was very important to the Planning and Development Uh Department engineer is that these homes, when they're proposed, that they not be proposed with site entry walkways. And the applicant has agreed to do front-entry, uh front-loaded. Sorry, that's not what I mean. Front entry walkways. If they're side entry
walkways, so as long as this a walkway is not in the five feet, that's acceptable as well. But these will not have five foot and entry walkways within that five-foot setback, which would further may have further issue with the with the drainage. So I'm I'm here for any questions you may have. And you may want to call for anyone in the audience.
Is anyone here to object?
No hands.
Barbara Well Hight again, 6327 permit. Excuse me. I keep doing that. Grand Boulevard, three four six five two. I was there too long, I guess. I guess so. We brought this um variance forward. It's kind of a code catch-up. Uh quite a few years a couple years ago when County Engineer was Jim Whidman, the issue was five foot versus seven and a half feet. Seven and a half feet was was the county's code because of drainage, and it's the drainage between the lines. And the county's code provided a mechanism for five foot setbacks with certain conditions.
And that's why you heard about this the side entry. That was important to staff because it's all about the difference between five and seven and a half in the county's code is about drainage. And so if we put if we have side entry, we have a sidewalk in the drainage area. And so that's why that condition is a condition of this. So We're just providing for something that the county provided for in their code for this project and providing for the uh five-foot side side yard setback. Okay. I'm available if you have any questions. Okay.
So I I do have a few. Barbara How so didn't he say that it's gonna be limited to sixty five units? Is that still gonna be the case?
That's correct. Yes, it's a deed restriction. It's recorded in official records book of the Pasco County.
So What do we what are we giving up by them not going through the MPUD process? Probably a better question for I should have asked earlier.
So my my understanding and Barbara may want to chime in on this, the sixty-five units was also part of what would have triggered an MPUD. with the trip generation. Is that accurate or?
So no. Okay. Single family trip M PUDs at about 159 units under your table 901.5. I read it a lot. Um What h what the difference is we had to go through transportation review As preliminary plan we have to go through habitat review. So we had to go through the same things for this zoning and for the site development as an MPUD.
So there's there's no different other than cultural resource assessment, which is a which is a state requirement anyhow that you have to do in connection with your permitting, there's no particular difference between MPUD and and the counties, the M PDs are really for for m m mixture where you have more than one product, taking a one product 65 unit subdivision through an MPUD process when they're trying to focus on mixed-use master plan developments isn't the most efficient use of of everybody's time because our review is the same. So That's the answer between doing
a Euclidean and doing an impute.
If I remember right, when when that item came up before It was being limited to the sixty five lots, but I don't remember what it was capable of being built at.
Yeah, yeah. yeah. I'd I'd have have to just I'd have to pull out my file button.
I think the memory was the fact that there if I'm correct, was that because there was uh some some w a water fixture in the back or something to deal with the w the uh the drainage of the area. But I think that the uh That's what I recall on this particular period. Reviewing the map I it looks appear it appears to have some some Some water towards the back of it.
Right. I don't have the calculation, but you can look it's a res three and it's forty acres. So our engineer project engineer is here and he may know that number, but
But it's
fair to say it's a lot more than
sixty five lots. Okay. I guess what I'm trying to do. Just in general general I don't like smaller setbacks. I just think it's a good idea. Yeah. isn't isn't the best way to develop a a neighborhood by having houses ten feet apart. Um
So on the surface I don't really care for that. I would prefer to see larger setbacks and I guess what I'm trying to figure out is where is the hardship by us if the property is able to hold more than sixty five units Why do we need to have this this variance granted?
So the i the issue with five foot versus seven and a half is drainage. And so we're able to meet the same requirements. for five foot setbacks to meet the drainage requirements. That's the difference in the County's code, that's the difference between the two. The county's but
I think that if you can do it in five, you sure certainly ought to be able to do it in seven and a half.
Right. Well we're just w we'd like to be able to use the code that says we can use five foot setbacks because that's the county policy. Board of County Commissioners have said We find it appropriate to have five foot setbacks if you can meet the these drainage requirements. That's what the code says. So we're asking for the variants to be able to use the code because when they did the code, they didn't link it to the Euclidean districts, which they are now going to do. It's just I I think that was just an oversight, 'cause the Board of County Commissioners was saying It's our policy that it's five
foot setbacks are acceptable if you meet these drainage requirements.
Providing you go through an MPUD.
It's debatable under the current code whether it whether the intent was to provide that for all developments or just for MPUDs. By going to the variance we don't have we can come forward and and do the variance so that it's clear that we can do the five foot s side yard setbacks under that provision of the code.
So the variant standards it you know, it says that you have to m to meet all of the the um Compliances. And the criteria of the land development code. So when I read through the Through what we're doing. the criteria is and then I read the the response
I I honestly don't think that they meet all of 'em. Um
You know, because it it states in here it shouldn't be for a financial gain. But in the very first response it says given the time and expense associated, that that is why we're asking for this variance. So
we don't have to go to the
easy thing.
That's county time and expense as well. They have a lot of MPUDs, Mr. Cox, and so this was with staff, how does the best way to to move the project forward, working together with staff, and this was our our the way we thought was the best way given all the resources, having people spend money just to spend money and and put more burden on county staff for no benefit was the reason why we we brought it forward in this manner.
I don't think that you've demonstrated the need to having a five foot setback versus a seven and a half.
Well the need is based upon the product type.
So
I don't know. I don't know what the rest of the c commission thinks.
Going through an MPD would not have made any difference to this this particular i issue.
I have m lots of M PUDs and
It wouldn't have made a difference.
It just seems like you have plenty of land there. And you're trying to build only sixty five units. Why not spread them out a little bit? Because wouldn't it make a better development?
So it's product driven, market driven, and that is people want smaller lots, larger houses, and so that's We have lots of product and lots of market, that that's the market. These just happen to be bigger lots, because there are four lots, but the side yard setback, it is the norm to have the ten foot in between the units.
I think people want as much as they can afford. And they may not just be able to afford a little larger land.
Well, this is the right-of-way. I mean, your engineer has walked up, so
he he he has some comments, I'm
sure.
Commissioner Yeah, 1793, Huntingbow Circle Lutz, 33558. Um it's it's also about an efficient use of land. Um The side yard of a home right now if you could drive through All of the neighborhoods being built in Pasco County. five foot side yard is the standard. Um Pretty much every uh new community that we see has a five foot side yard and the code has some very um
Yeah. to allow that to happen. What that does though. It's an efficiency standpoint also. Um it a lot of people don't sit on their side yard whether it's five foot or seven and a half foot and enjoy it. But what it does is it's changed um the model of single family from a a wider, shallower lot to a narrower, deeper that maximizes the backyard also. So instead of having a lot like the code requires, which is sixty by one hundred, you end up with
a lot that is still sixty by one hundred that fits a fifty foot house. Um and uh the backyards typically go to 120 now. uh because it allows that amenity to be in the home. So I understand um Conventionally, some of the older neighborhoods have smaller side yards. but the trend has truly shifted and it is efficient. It's uh it's it makes sufficient of the infrastructure out front. And again it's a in the side yard it's it's it's really how you get to your back yard.
It's not anything you would enjoy. Um on a regular basis. Um As far as uh this project Um we do have higher density, but we are uh designing a community that maximizes open space. We have some really cool lakes on this specific project um that we want to uh make maximum use of and congregate our large parks around it. That's our selling point here. Um so I think um The code does provide um The
fact that the R4 does not give us this option that it affords others is a hardship that we want to take advantage of. Got it.
Thank you, Jeremy.
Okay. Are any other questions from up here?
I'll move to approve uh PC five with conditions. Okay, we
have a motion.
Do
we have
a second?
Second.
engineers up here, do you guys agree with this? Just curious.
Okay. I'm an architect, I know an engineer. Uh in the architectural point of view, yes I agree. I understand your concerns in reference to the setback. It's in my opinion, it's more attractive. Uh bigger setback in this case will be fifteen feet between the edge of every single house. But uh I understand the reasonable point of view of the engine here. So is uh It's uh basing the interpretation, the code is there. I
think they have been doing everything that they need to do to meet the requirements from the staff. Um is uh I don't see how we can I myself can oppose to something like this. You know, hi it's clear that we have so many communities in Pasco County that we had five feet setbacks, not all. We have communities that we have much bigger setback. There's no doubt about it. But it's just based on the concept of the design of the houses that they are offering that is kinda a little bit more different
and like he says trending. It is. It's it's it's like that. And and again I don't see a a firm argument here to how myself can oppose to the development. I would like to see a preliminary side plan that would be much better. Uh And that will give us a better idea about the implantation of those uh houses in the land. But we see just a lot. But I understand your criteria and I believe that is is uh reasonable.
Mr. Chairman M motion was made and seconded and I call the motion.
Okay. So we have a motion and a second. Uh we've had the motion called All in favor?
Aye. Aye.
Opposed? Aye.
All right, so now we're moving on to uh PC6, which is a variance, PD20, 2080. And uh this is a variance uh under the name of Jacob Cross Holdings LLC for reduction in the required minimum east front setback from 20 feet to 17.5 feet for buildings, building numbers three through seven, reduction in the required minimum west front setback from twenty to seventeen point five feet for buildings building number twelve, reduction in the required minimum side setback from ten feet to seven