DRC 10/11/2007 Page 1 of 30 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE, PASCO COUNTY, FLORIDA REGULAR MEETING MINUTES THE MINUTES WERE PREPARED IN AGENDA ORDER AS PUBLISHED AND NOT IN THE ORDER THE ITEMS WERE HEARD OCTOBER 11, 2007 1:30 P.M. – Historic Pasco County Courthouse, Board Room, 2 nd Floor 37918 Meridian Avenue, Dade City, FL 33525 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE ADVISORY STAFF John J. Gallagher Cynthia M. Jolly, P.E. County Administrator Development Director Michael Nurrenbrock Samuel P. Steffey II OMB Director Growth Management Administrator Daniel R. Johnson James C. Widman, P.E. Assistant County Administrator Engineering Services Director (Public Services) Debra M. Zampetti Bruce E. Kennedy, P.E. Zoning/Code Compliance Assistant County Administrator Administrator (Utilities Services) Ahsan Khalil Bipin Parikh, P.E. Transportation Planner II Assistant County Administrator Paul J. Montante (Development Services) Technical Specialist II Chris Williams Representative of the Clerk District School Board of Pasco County of the Circuit Court Ali Atefi, P.E. LEGAL COUNSEL Engineer III Michael LaSala, AICP David A. Goldstein, Senior Planner Senior Assistant County Attorney Cynthia D. Spidell Planner II Jennifer M. Boham Planner I I. ROLL CALL Ms. Donalee Schmidt, Deputy Clerk, called the roll. All Committee Members were present.
Transcript
DRC 10/11/2007 Page 1 of 30
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE, PASCO COUNTY, FLORIDA REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
THE MINUTES WERE PREPARED
IN AGENDA ORDER AS PUBLISHED AND NOT IN THE
ORDER THE ITEMS WERE HEARD
OCTOBER 11, 2007
1:30 P.M. – Historic Pasco County Courthouse, Board Room, 2nd Floor 37918 Meridian Avenue, Dade City, FL 33525
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE ADVISORY STAFF John J. Gallagher Cynthia M. Jolly, P.E. County Administrator Development Director Michael Nurrenbrock Samuel P. Steffey II OMB Director Growth Management Administrator Daniel R. Johnson James C. Widman, P.E. Assistant County Administrator Engineering Services Director (Public Services) Debra M. Zampetti Bruce E. Kennedy, P.E. Zoning/Code Compliance Assistant County Administrator Administrator (Utilities Services) Ahsan Khalil Bipin Parikh, P.E. Transportation Planner II Assistant County Administrator Paul J. Montante (Development Services) Technical Specialist II Chris Williams Representative of the Clerk District School Board of Pasco County of the Circuit Court Ali Atefi, P.E. LEGAL COUNSEL Engineer III Michael LaSala, AICP David A. Goldstein, Senior Planner Senior Assistant County Attorney Cynthia D. Spidell Planner II Jennifer M. Boham Planner I I. ROLL CALL Ms. Donalee Schmidt, Deputy Clerk, called the roll. All Committee Members were present.
DRC 10/11/2007 Page 2 of 30
II. MINUTES None Scheduled III. PROOFS
A. Proof of Publication Ms. Schmidt noted proof of publication.
B. Proof of Public Notice Ms. Schmidt noted proof of publication. Ms. Schmidt swore in everyone who planned to present testimony. IV. REGULAR AGENDA
Unit Development Passive Park Plan (Continued from the September 27,
2007, Development Review Committee Meeting)
Proposed Development: The developer is requesting approval of a Passive Park plan in accordance with MPUD Master Planned Unit Development Condition No. 9.
RECOMMENDATION: Approval with conditions. Ms. Debra Zampetti explained the item. She reviewed the conditions that had been revised since the last DRC meeting. Staff recommended approval including the recent revisions.
DRC 10/11/2007 Page 3 of 30
Mr. Ben Harrill, representative, agreed with Staff’s recommendation and thanked Ms. Dianne Naeyaert and Mr. Christopher Dewey for their efforts regarding the project. Ms. Amye Cox spoke under public comment. She thanked the DRC for sending the item back to Staff to work out the conditions. She thanked the developer and Staff for working through the issues. MR. NURRENBROCK MOVED approval of Staff’s recommendation. Chairman Gallagher called on the motion; the vote was unanimous and the motion carried. V. VARIANCE PETITIONS 1. Zoning None Scheduled
2. Development Plans
a. Memorandum No.: DR08-002 Project Name: Sun Toyota Pre-Owned Vehicle
Center Applicant: Caldwell Family Properties, Ltd. Proposed Development: Automobile parking lot/display area. Requested: Relief from Section 613.3 to allow a
45-foot encroachment into a 75-foot green space.
RECOMMENDATION: Denial of the applicant’s request and approval of a 30-foot encroachment into a 75-foot green space.
Ms. Cindy Jolly explained the item. Staff recommended denial of the applicant’s variance request, but approval of a variance request to encroach 30-feet into the green space. Mr. Paul Manuel, representative, spoke regarding the project. Items discussed included:
• Appreciation for Staff’s efforts.
DRC 10/11/2007 Page 4 of 30
• The revised plan was a compromise.
• All conditions of the site permit would be adhered to.
• The dedication of right-of-way and pond/stormwater requirements.
• Lighting of the site.
• Removal of the connections to 19. Discussion followed regarding the location of the site; storage of motor homes on site; the new site plan was for vehicle display parking with the pre-owned center; and access to the site. Mr. Nurrenbrock suggested an additional condition be included to allow passenger vehicle storage or light truck storage, but not for motor homes. He was concerned with large motor homes trying to access the site. MR. NURRENBROCK MOVED to add a condition that the site would not be used for the storage or sale of motor homes. Chairman Gallagher called on the motion; the vote was unanimous and the motion carried. There was no public comment. MR. NURRENBROCK MOVED approval of the remainder of the agenda item. Chairman Gallagher called on the motion; the vote was unanimous and the motion carried.
b. Memorandum No.: DR08-003 Project Name: Plaza of the Oaks
Applicant: Plaza of the Oaks Station, LLC Proposed Development: Remodel of the Plaza of the Oaks
Shopping Center. Requested: Variance from 1) Section 319,
Transportation Corridor Management, not to dedicate additional right-of-way along S.R. 52, which would necessitate removing the circulatory drive parallel to S.R. 54, numerous required parking spaces, and terminal landscape islands; 2) Section 603.7, Building Perimeter Landscaping, for a reduction in the required square
DRC 10/11/2007 Page 5 of 30
footage due to existing sidewalks and pavement around the entire building by providing 63 planter pots five feet wide; 3) Section 603.9, Landscape Buffering and Screening, to allow installation of the required Type “A” buffer on the northwest section of the parking lot to be located on the “interior side” of the drive aisle/main entry off S.R. 52 instead of the “exterior side” (next to an adjacent commercial property); 4) Section 603.9, Landscape Buffering and Screening, to allow a reduction in the required Type “A” buffer on the south and west side of the bank parcel. The bank parcel is at the northeast corner of the site. On the south side of the reduction would be from ten feet to eight feet and on the west side the reduction would be from ten feet to five feet; 5) Section 603.9, Landscape Buffering and Screening, to not install a Type “D” buffer along the northwest portion of the site abutting S.R. 52; and 6) Section 603.9, Landscape Buffering and Screening, to not install a Type “D” buffer in the middle north portion of the site between Arby’s and the bank abutting S.R. 52.
RECOMMENDATION: Approval with conditions. Ms. Jolly explained the project and noted there was a total of 6 variance requests for the site. Section 319 - Transportation Corridor Management Staff withdrew the variance as it was not required. Section 603.7 - Building Perimeter Landscaping Ms. Jolly explained this variance would allow for a reduction in the required square footage of the perimeter parking due to the existing sidewalks and pavement around the entire building. She spoke regarding the landscaping requirements and explained because of the construction of the existing shopping center, the applicant would be
DRC 10/11/2007 Page 6 of 30
required to remove some of the building area and sidewalk to install the required perimeter landscaping. The applicant proposed to plant 63 planter pots with vegetation around the building area. Staff recommended approval of the variance request. Ms. Martha Borg, representative, was present. There was no public comment. MR. NURRENBROCK MOVED approval of Staff’s recommendation. Chairman Gallagher called on the motion; the vote was unanimous and the motion carried. Section 603.9 – Landscape Buffering and Screening Ms. Jolly explained this variance would allow the installation of a required Type A buffer on the northwest section of the parking lot to be located on the interior side of the drive aisle instead of the exterior side of the drive aisle. Staff felt this would meet the intent of the Code and would not require a re-evaluation of all the access management points on the site. Staff recommended approval of the variance. MR. NURRENBROCK MOVED approval of Variance 3. There was no public comment. Chairman Gallagher called on the motion; the vote was unanimous and the motion carried. Section 603.9 - Landscape Buffering and Screening Ms. Jolly explained this variance involved the northeast corner of the site. There was an existing bank which abutted the site. The bank had a landscape buffer on the south and west side. The Code would require the proposed shopping center to install a 10-foot buffer. This area also included a main drive aisle with parking. If the buffer was installed it would impede the drive aisle. She explained the proposed buffer reductions were from 10 feet to 8 feet and from 10 feet to 5 feet. Staff recommended approval of the 4th variance request. MR. NURRENBROCK MOVED approval of the 4th variance request. There was no public comment. Chairman Gallagher called on the motion; the vote was unanimous and the motion carried.
DRC 10/11/2007 Page 7 of 30
Section 603.9 - Landscape Buffering and Screening Ms. Jolly explained the request was to not install a Type D buffer along S.R. 52. She noted when the roadway was widened by FDOT, plantings and trees were installed. Staff recommended the applicant not be required to install another buffer and recommended approval of the variance request. She noted added vegetation would be provided within the parking medians. Chairman Gallagher spoke regarding the spacing between the trees and asked if plantings could be installed between them. Ms. Jolly suggested the trees be spaced at 30 foot intervals. MR. NURRENBROCK MOVED approval of the 5th variance with an additional condition as recommended by Ms. Jolly. There was no public comment. Chairman Gallagher called on the motion; the vote was unanimous and the motion carried. Section 603.9 – Landscape Buffering and Screening Ms. Jolly explained the variance would be to not allow a Type D buffer in the middle, north portion of the site between Arby’s and the Bank abutting S.R. 52. Staff recommended approval of the variance request and if any trees were needed to supplement the existing trees, they also be installed at 30-foot intervals. MR. NURRENBROCK MOVED approval of the 6th variance with an added condition to supplement the DOT plantings. There was no public comment. Chairman Gallagher called on the motion; the vote was unanimous and the motion carried. Mr. Johnson corrected page 1, item 1 to reference State Road 52. Ms. Jolly stated she would correct the item.
c. Memorandum No.: DR08-010 Project Name: Walgreen’s U.S. 41 and Pleasant
Plains Parkway/Roaches Run
DRC 10/11/2007 Page 8 of 30
Applicant: R.K.M. Development Corporation Proposed Development: Pharmacy. Requested: Variance from Section 603.9.D,
Landscape Buffering and Screening, to allow a reduction of the Type D landscape buffer from 15 feet to 10 feet along the south project boundary adjacent to Pleasant Plains Parkway/Roaches Run.
RECOMMENDATION: Denial. Ms. Jolly recommended the item be continued to November 8, 2007, at 1:30 p.m. in New Port Richey. Mr. Ben Harrill, representative, agreed with the continuance. There was no public comment. MR. NURRENBROCK MOVED to continue the item to November 8, 2007, at 1:30 p.m. in New Port Richey. Chairman Gallagher called on the motion; the vote was unanimous and the motion carried.
d. Memorandum No.: DR08-018 Project Name: Bella Terra Subdivision, f.k.a.
single-family detached lots. Requested: The applicant is requesting a
variance from Section 306.17, which, if approved, would not require the dedication of public facilities and would allow for privately maintained, gated roadways.
RECOMMENDATION: Denial. Ms. Jolly recommended the item be continued to November 8, 2007, at 1:30 p.m. in New Port Richey. Mr. Steve Booth, representative, agreed with the continuance.
DRC 10/11/2007 Page 9 of 30
There was no public comment. MR. NURRENBROCK MOVED to continue the item to November 8, 2007, at 1:30 p.m. in New Port Richey. Chairman Gallagher called on the motion; the vote was unanimous and the motion carried.
e. Memorandum No.: DR08-019 Project Name: Trinity Corporate Center Variance
Request Applicant: CEK/Schluter, LLP Proposed Development: To subdivide approximately 73.74
acres into 40 commercial lots. Requested: The developer of Trinity Corporate
Center is requesting a variance from 1) Section 603.9.D.4., Landscape Buffers and Screening, which, if approved, would allow the developer to install the Type D (nonlocal) buffer at the entryways for each future driveway; and install the proposed Type 1B roadway (Corporate Center Drive) now, along with the lift station and water-management-pond landscape. The remainder of the roadway landscape shall be installed when each individual lot is developed; and 2) Section 603.12.A., Water Management Systems, which, if approved would relieve the applicant of installing the retention pond landscape between the west pond and abutting wetlands.
RECOMMENDATION: Approval with conditions. Ms. Jolly explained the item. Staff recommended approval of both variance requests with conditions. Mr. Mike Bronson, representative, agreed with Staff’s recommendation. There was no public comment.
DRC 10/11/2007 Page 10 of 30
Discussion followed regarding this variance would run with the land and the systems currently in place. MR. NURRENBROCK MOVED approval of Staff’s recommendation. Chairman Gallagher called on the motion; the vote was unanimous and the motion carried.
f. Memorandum No.: GM07-1331 Project Name: Lowe’s Home Center, Inc.
(Continued from the September 27, 2007, Development Review Committee Meeting)
Applicant: Lowe’s Home Center, Inc. Proposed Development: A 166,000-square-foot home
improvement center. Requested: The developer is requesting a
variance from the Land Development Code, Section 402.6.C.3, which, if granted, would allow the developer to proceed forward with an existing traffic methodology and analysis based upon the methodology approved by the County prior to the adoption of the Concurrency Ordinance. The variance would also allow the applicant to provide transportation mitigation for the proposed Lowe’s Project in accordance with the previously approved methodology.
RECOMMENDATION: Approval with condition. Ms. Debra Zampetti explained the item. Staff recommended approval of the variance subject to a condition that “if an agreement can not be reached on the equal mitigation improvements the applicant will have to submit a revised traffic study statement in accordance with the new TIS guidelines and the Concurrency Ordinance”. Mr. Ben Harrill, representative, spoke regarding the item. Items discussed included:
• A meeting held between Staff and FDOT to determine the proposed flyover improvement and whether DOT had sufficient right-of-way from the Lowe’s parcel to accommodate the ultimate design section for the flyover.
DRC 10/11/2007 Page 11 of 30
• The applicant intended to improve the intersection.
• The ultimate funding of the interchange would probably be done with the adoption of a long-term capital improvement program in conjunction with impact fees and contributions by FDOT.
Mr. Jim Widman spoke regarding a meeting held with DOT which confirmed that 41 would flyover 54. He spoke regarding the conceptual plan and noted the overpass was not funded at this time. Obviously it would take a partnership for the improvement to work; the anticipated cost was over 160 million dollars. Discussion followed regarding a diagram of the intersection; the necessary right-of-way; funding of the overpass; and if Lowe’s was not required to pay their proportionate share it would set a precedent. Mr. Harrill explained the variance request involved the previously submitted traffic study. He spoke regarding the submission of the final traffic study. He did not feel any other development had the same foundation for a variance. A long term concurrency plan was needed for the interchange, because the Ordinance would require any project at that intersection to fund the entire interchange. Mr. Steve Henry, Links and Associates, explained this project was distinct from other projects because the traffic study was submitted prior to the December 1st deadline. Instead of filing the traffic study, the applicant should have filed an amended methodology. No other developer had filed a traffic study prior to December 1st. After December 1st, the applicant received a letter that stated they were required to complete the methodology; they were beyond the deadline date and had no option but to file a variance. There was no public comment. Chairman Gallagher stated he had spoken with Mr. Bob Clifford of the FDOT regarding the intersection of 41 and 54. Mr. Clifford felt the intersection improvements that were being made by Lowe’s would take care of the requirements of Lowe’s. Mr. Clifford spoke regarding future developments and indicated they would probably need to wait for a combination of different funding sources. He felt the proposed intersection improvements were acceptable. Mr. Goldstein stated Staff was working on a request to the Department of Community Affairs to have this corridor considered as part of the Long Term Concurrency System. This would allow a 15-year window to develop the funding sources to improve this link. He was not sure the ultimate improvement would be what was designed by DOT. Discussion followed between the representatives, the DRC and Staff regarding requirements of the CIP; alternate mitigation versus proportionate share; the variance request was not to pay the proportionate share but to do alternative mitigation under the previously approved methodology; the installation of a light at the entrance of Lowe’s
DRC 10/11/2007 Page 12 of 30
would also help Emergency Services; the light would not make the intersection worse; the light would be coordinated with other signals; and EMS would have two ways out. Mr. Widman stated Staff was told no light would be installed. Mr. Henry stated the FDOT Median Review Committee approved variances to signal spacing criteria and approved the location of the signal. Mr. Goldstein clarified Staff and the County’s consultants had not yet approved the proposed improvements. This variance was to allow the developer to pursue that option. MR. PARIKH MOVED approval of Staff’s recommendation. Chairman Gallagher called on the motion; the vote was unanimous and the motion carried.
g. Memorandum No.: PMA08-012 Project Name: TECO Substation
(Continued from the September 27, 2007, Development Review Committee Meeting)
Applicant: Tampa Electric Company Proposed Development: A 707-square-foot switching station. Requested: Variance request from Section
618.12, to delete the requirement to provide interconnection to adjoining properties.
RECOMMENDATION: Approval. Mr. Jim Widman explained the item and gave the location of the property. Staff recommended approval of the variance. Mr. Jerry Figurski, representative, agreed with Staff’s recommendation. Mr. Gallagher stated a letter of objection had been received from the Zephyr Shores Property Owners Association. Mr. Figurski referred to the letter and noted it involved a connection point. The residents wanted the developer to give them the corner of the property. TECO had agreed to give the residents the corner, the problem was whether to give the property to the mobile home association or the public.
DRC 10/11/2007 Page 13 of 30
Mr. David Murphy, representative for Zephyr Shores, agreed as outlined by Mr. Figurski. The residents wanted the property for access. Discussion followed regarding ownership of the access. Mr. Figurski indicated he would place a quit claim deed in escrow subject to the determination of who owned the parcel. Mr. Murphy and the TECO representatives agreed with Mr. Figurski’s suggestion. There was no public comment. MR. NURRENBROCK MOVED approval of Staff’s recommendation with an additional condition as stated by Mr. Figurski. Chairman Gallagher called on the motion; the vote was unanimous and the motion carried. VI. TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT
A. Dedication Waiver
None Scheduled B. Dedication Variance
1. Memorandum No.: PMA08-013
Project Name: C.R. 54/I-75 Commercial (Continued from the September 27, 2007, Development Review Committee Meeting)
Applicant: 54 West Capital, LLC Proposed Development: A 31,376-square-foot retail/
restaurant. Requested: A variance for Sections 319, 618.7,
and 618.12 of the Land Development Code.
RECOMMENDATION: Approval of variance from Sections 319, 618.12, and 618.7 on Oakley Boulevard; denial of variance from Section 618.7 on C.R. 54.
DRC 10/11/2007 Page 14 of 30
Mr. Jim Widman explained the request. Staff originally had indicated support for the request as long as FDOT was in agreement. Unfortunately, FDOT originally came back with an objection. This morning, Staff received a reversal from DOT and indicated they would allow a right in only at this location. Staff and FDOT were concerned that vehicles traveling westbound on 54 would be required to merge across the vehicles coming down the ramp of the interstate coming onto 54; the weaving distance. He stated he would support a temporary right in at that location subject to the possible removal by either the County or DOT at a later date should it be deemed necessary. Discussion followed between Staff and the DRC regarding:
• Access to the site.
• Spacing requirements along Oakley.
• A bi-directional travel lane would distribute the trips internally.
• Redevelopment in the area.
• The collector arterial standards and high volume intersection criteria had been imposed.
• The future configuration. Mr. Widman recommended approval of the variance request concerning proximity subject to the installation of a right-turn lane which would require the applicant to obtain the necessary right-of-way. He spoke regarding the interim use and referred to the memorandum. Staff recommended approval of the interim use proposed by the applicant. Discussion followed regarding ownership of the property; issuance of a license agreement; removal of the parking when the future right-of-way was needed; and the TIS issue was being worked out. Mr. Widman recommended Condition 4 be added to state “The County Road 54 drive shall be right in only and be temporary subject to future closure by the County or FDOT”. Mr. Ben Harrill, representative, explained site plan approval would be coming within 30 days. The applicant understood there may be additional conditions as a result of the site plan. He spoke regarding the request and explained:
• This site was formerly a gas station with 4 driveways.
• The applicant had redeveloped the site in a much better condition.
• The applicant agreed with a right in only as recommended by DOT. There was no public comment. Chairman Gallagher indicated each request would be taken separately.
DRC 10/11/2007 Page 15 of 30
1st Request Chairman Gallagher clarified the first request involved the right-in off 54 from FDOT. MR. NURRENBROCK MOVED approval of the temporary right-in only. Discussion followed regarding the meaning of temporary; if problems developed with the traffic weaving, they wanted the ability to close the access; the weaving movement was very dangerous; they needed to be clear on what would close the access; if the County Engineer came back to the DRC and stated a dangerous situation existed, the access needed to be closed; could the County exercise jurisdiction over driveway connections for State Roads; the roadway discussed was County Road 54; the standards used by DOT; and the criteria used to close the access would be too many rear-end collusions. Mr. Harrill stated they would agree if both FDOT and the County felt the access needed to be closed. He was unsure of the criteria the County had to close the access. He was in agreement with the condition. Mr. Widman said the criteria would be if it became a high accident area. He noted the County would be working in conjunction with DOT. Mr. Goldstein felt legally the County could close the access without DOT’s permission. The County controlled access to this roadway; DOT had jurisdiction because of its proximity to the interstate. Mr. Johnson asked what was the overall benefit of having the right in at that location as opposed to going onto Oakley Boulevard. Mr. Harrill felt it would enhance the circulation and access to the parcel and would reduce flow on Oakley Boulevard. MR. PARIKH MOVED approval of Staff’s recommendation regarding the variance, with the understanding it would be a temporary right in and that the developer enter into a license agreement. Mr. Harrill suggested the temporary language be removed and language be inserted to state “if it becomes a safety problem and the County and/or FDOT determines as a result of that it has to be shut down”. He felt temporary made it sound as if it was only there for a little while and that the access could be taken away for any reason. Mr. Widman suggested the language read “the County Road 54 drive shall be right in only and be temporary subject to future closure by the County and FDOT”. Mr. Goldstein suggested the language read “the County or FDOT if determined to be a danger to the health, safety and general welfare”.
DRC 10/11/2007 Page 16 of 30
Mr. Harrill agreed with Mr. Goldstein’s proposed language. Mr. Widman stated he agreed with Mr. Goldstein’s proposed language but was concerned about business damages. Discussion followed regarding business damages. Mr. Goldstein suggested his language be used, and include the wording temporary. MR. NURRENBROCK MOVED approval of Mr. Goldstein’s language including the word temporary at the end, and that it can be closed by the County or DOT if determined to be a danger to the health safety and general welfare. Chairman Gallagher called on the motion; the vote was unanimous and the motion carried. Interim Use of Right-of-Way Corridor Mr. Harrill explained they were providing a substantial amount of right-of-way. When the plans came forward, the applicant could give the right-of-way and complete a license maintenance agreement or give an easement and reserve the interim use. The applicant would reserve responsibility and indemnify the County in the easement agreement. Chairman Gallagher requested the easement agreement be done. MR. NURRENBROCK MOVED approval to allow the applicant to use it as an interim use for the parking with the applicant granting an easement and indemnifying the County. Discussion followed regarding Condition One. Chairman Gallagher called on the motion; the vote was unanimous and the motion carried. Variance Request for Right In Mr. Harrill stated the applicant had no control over the property owner to get the right turn lane. Mr. Shawn Cashion, Gulfcoast Consulting, spoke regarding the request and explained:
• The distance was 200 feet from the intersection with 54.
• There would be a lot of traffic going down Oakley Boulevard to serve the mall.
• Traffic would enter the site off the connection to Oakley Boulevard.
DRC 10/11/2007 Page 17 of 30
• The driveway entrance was not obstructed by any parking spaces.
• The need to provide good traffic circulation.
• Different points of ingress/egress.
• People entering the site from Oakley Boulevard would be able to make good traffic movement into the site along the drive aisle.
• There would be a free flow of traffic.
• Dayflower Road would carry on westward and loop back and connect into 54.
• There would be different means for vehicles to enter the site and the mall.
• The applicant was not required to prepare a traffic study because they were under the threshold for a TIS.
• He did not feel a right turn lane would be warranted.
• Oakley Boulevard was not the only access to this site.
• Access at that point would offer a convenient means of access off of Oakley.
Discussion followed regarding the needed parking area; traffic backing up to 54; the only obstruction would be at the Dayflower extension; for years Staff had heard that Oakley Boulevard was too close to I-75; the applicant was doing redevelopment in the area and had eliminated a lot of the driveways; and the situation was improved. Mr. Kennedy asked if a right hand turn lane off of Oakley was required. Chairman Gallagher explained Staff’s recommendation required a right hand turn lane. Mr. Kennedy suggested the right turn lane be further up off of Oakley onto Dayflower and elimination of the access. Mr. Harrill explained then a parking variance would be needed. Chairman Gallagher clarified Staff’s recommendation was to allow the access as a right in/right out with a decel lane. Mr. Widman explained it would be a right in/right out driveway with a right turn lane into the site. MR. PARIKH MOVED approval of a right in/right out without a decel lane off Oakley Boulevard. Chairman Gallagher called on the motion; the motion failed with Mr. Williams, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Nurrenbrock and Chairman Gallagher voting nay. MR. NURRENBROCK MOVED approval of the right in/right out with the decel lane. Chairman Gallagher called on the motion; the vote was unanimous and the motion carried.
DRC 10/11/2007 Page 18 of 30
Mr. Widman explained the remaining item involved allowing the corridor to function as it’s interconnect to the north. Chairman Gallagher asked Mr. Widman if the proposal was acceptable as long as the decel lanes, right in/right out were installed. Mr. Widman indicated he was in agreement. Discussion continued between Staff, the DRC and the applicant regarding the diagram; interconnections to the property; the internal circulation; parking on the site; the width of the travel lane; and angled parking versus perpendicular parking, which angled parking was better. Chairman Gallagher requested a motion of approval subject to the final plans coming back to the DRC to look at widening the through way and a recommendation on angled parking. MR. NURRENBROCK MOVED approval as stated by Chairman Gallagher. Chairman Gallagher called on the motion; the motion carried with Mr. Johnson voting nay. MR. NURRENBROCK MOVED approval of the remainder of the agenda item, with any of the conditions subject to change depending upon the results of the TIS if required. Chairman Gallagher called on the motion; the vote was unanimous and the motion carried. Chairman Gallagher requested a motion to receive and file information submitted by Mr. Shawn Cashion, P.E. MR. NURRENBROCK MOVED to receive and file items submitted by Mr. Shawn Cashion, P.E. Chairman Gallagher called on the motion; the vote was unanimous and the motion carried. VII. APPEALS
A. Class I
None Scheduled
DRC 10/11/2007 Page 19 of 30
B. Class II
None Scheduled
C. Class III
None Scheduled
D. Class IV
None Scheduled
E. Consistency
None Scheduled VIII. PUBLIC NOTICE AGENDA
A. Class II
None Scheduled
B. Class III
1. Memorandum No.: DR08-017 Project Name: Long Lake Ranch Increment I,
Phases 1, 2A, 2B Preliminary Plan; and Phase 1, Construction Plan and Stormwater Management Plan and Report
Proposed Development: The developer is requesting preliminary plan approval to subdivide approximately 402.8 acres into 626 single-family detached lots
DRC 10/11/2007 Page 20 of 30
and construction plan and Stormwater Management Plan and Report approval for Phase 1 only (approximately 107.67 acres divided into 329 units).
RECOMMENDATION: Continue to the October 25, 2007, 1:30 p.m., Development Review Committee meeting in New Port Richey.
Ms. Jolly recommended the item be continued to December 20, 2007, at 1:30 p.m. in New Port Richey. There was no public comment. MR. NURRENBROCK MOVED to continue the item to December 20, 2007, at 1:30 p.m. in New Port Richey. Chairman Gallagher called on the motion; the vote was unanimous and the motion carried. 2. Memorandum No.: GM08-022
Project Name: CPAS07 Small-Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendments
(Continued from the September 27, 2007, Development Review Committee Meeting)
Proposed Development: Varies by amendment. RECOMMENDATION: Continue to the October 25, 2007,
1:30 p.m., Development Review Committee meeting in New Port Richey.
Ms. Jolly recommended the item be continued to October 25, 2007, at 1:30 p.m. in New Port Richey. Chairman Gallagher said at the last DRC meeting he requested the Comp Plan Amendments be scheduled for a Special Meeting. Mr. Parikh explained there was only one small-scale amendment.
DRC 10/11/2007 Page 21 of 30
MR. NURRENBROCK MOVED to continue the item to October 25, 2007, at 1:30 p.m. in New Port Richey. Chairman Gallagher called on the motion; the vote was unanimous and the motion carried. IX. REGULAR AGENDA
A. Class II
None Scheduled
B. Class III
1. Memorandum No.: GM08-04 Project Name: Epperson Ranch DRI Development of
Regional Impact – Development Agreement (Continued from the September 13, 2007, Development Review Committee Meeting)
Proposed Development: The Development Agreement sets the terms and conditions for the construction of Curley Road and other site-related transportation improvements in conjunction with the development order for 3,905 residential dwelling units, 209,000 square feet of retail, and 50,000 square feet of office, 100 motel rooms, and one elementary school.
RECOMMENDATION: Approval. Ms. Cynthia Spidell explained the item. Staff recommended approval of the Development Agreement with the red line changes distributed. Item 6 of the memo was revised to require the deletion of 4 such signalizations.
DRC 10/11/2007 Page 22 of 30
Discussion followed between Staff and the DRC regarding the proportionate share amount; construction of Curley Road; meetings held with the developer; the transportation mitigation requirements; developments in the area; and funding sources. Chairman Gallagher felt until there was a policy or a means to fund these improvements, the DRC should look at the agenda item, except for the transportation. He would meet with the applicant and Staff to better understand the issue to try to determine what the funding source would be. He was concerned they were running up a large tab, and taking a fragile transportation plan and making it worse. Mr. Ben Harrill, representative, felt the issue was the proportionate share amounts and the Developer’s amount versus the County’s amount. Discussion included:
• When he became involved with the project, they had discussed a proportionate share amount of 42 million dollars.
• Was the specific approval for phase one or phase two, when they were only looking at phase one.
• It was suggested that Curley Road needed to be done.
• The Curley Road costs.
• The applicant was in agreement and understood a pipeline agreement could be done.
• Staff felt the proportionate share needed to be reanalyzed because of the passage of time.
• The developer estimated the proportionate share amount to be 55 million dollars and the County’s amount was approximately 77 million dollars.
• An agreement was never reached upon those numbers.
• Credit provisions within the Ordinance for those types of developments.
• Similar developments.
• The applicant would agree to meet with Chairman Gallagher to address the issues and concerns.
• Increases in impact fees, the Pasadena Hills area, and possible toll facilities.
• A combination of solutions would be needed to address some of these issues.
• This roadway was identified as one of the primary roadways in the Pasadena Hills Study.
Mr. Arnold Beckett, Ms. Susan Burtle; Ms. Margo McConnell, Ms. Valorie Sconyers, Mr. Ronald J. Garner, and Ms. Kristin Holms spoke under public comment. Concerns included: the Comprehensive Plan recognized that rural neighborhood protection areas deserved and required special protection from urban uses; the west side of King Lake was in the NPA; the residents felt the proposed development was adjacent to the NPA, north of Elam Road; standards and options available to step down development densities and transition land use to minimize impact had not been used; the west side of King Lake was zoned one residence per 10 acres; the transition area on the east side of the lake; noise from the proposed subdivision; this density was in direct conflict with the intent, creation, and preservation of the RNPA and compatible land use in the transition area; if all of the currently permitted residences were constructed in Pasco County by
DRC 10/11/2007 Page 23 of 30
2025 there would be a 600 percent over build for the projected population; traffic in the area; the Pasadena Lakes area plan included 40,000 homes; traffic from Overpass would flow through this area; amendments proposed to the Land Development Code included specific review criteria for the protection of existing rural neighborhoods; compatibility with adjacent rural neighborhoods; methods to protecting rural neighborhoods from sensory and physical access; no standards had been referenced or used in this plan; the community was entitled to a neighborhood meeting in order to give input prior to the DRC meeting; standards of the NPA were expressly tailored to address the protection of existing rural neighborhoods by ensuring adjacent development did not intrude on the character of that area; deed restrictions; the need for water quality restrictions; the use of pesticides; transportation was a problem for everyone; the density of the development; stepping down of density; high density would be inconsistent; half of the lake was located within the rural protection area; boat ramps would cause high traffic onto the lake; the lake was not large enough to accommodate a high level of boat traffic; the lake was pristine; the Comp Plan valued Pasco; the density on the north side of Elam should be addressed; concerns with the paving of Tindale Road; do not require the residents to give up their land to pave the road; impacts to septic tanks in the area; trees in the area; Curley Road needed to be widened; and the watershed. Chairman Gallagher responded to concerns raised by the speakers. Ms. Spidell explained after the DO approval they would review the development standards. A zoning application had been submitted; however they had not yet gotten into the level of detail. She referred to the diagram and noted the wetland area would be designated as CON. She responded to questions regarding Tindale Road and explained a condition was included which required the developer to bring the roadway up to County Standards and provide up to 135 feet of right-of-way. Mr. Harrill noted the applicant had not yet gone through the MPUD zoning process and many of the issues raised would be addressed during the MPUD process regarding the standards. One major concern would involve the lake and use of the lake. The applicant expected to have defined standards and protection of the residents’ interests. He noted the MPUD zoning would determine the densities, the specific type of development standards, buffering, and neighborhood protection for the adjoining properties. MR. JOHNSON MOVED to receive and file photographs submitted by Mr. Ronald J. Garner. Chairman Gallagher called on the motion; the vote was unanimous and the motion carried. Mr. Harrill responded to concerns raised by the residents. The Development Agreement required the applicant to provide 135 feet of right-of-way, but it did not clearly delineate Cannon’s obligation. It was not the developer’s intent to obtain
DRC 10/11/2007 Page 24 of 30
additional right-of-way from the residents; they had agreed on their property to provide up to 135 feet of right-of-way. Staff included a provision in the wetlands portion which stated there would be no more than 2 community boat docks and no residential docks or boat ramps. The motor craft horse power for boats launched from within the development on King Lake was limited to 10 horsepower with the requirement being enforced by the CDD or Homeowners Association. Exhibit E Mr. Harrill spoke regarding the land use equivalency matrix. At some point there was change on the maximum use tradeoff to cap it at 10 percent. The developer had not caught the revision. Staff had discussed the need with the retail and shopping center uses because they may change the traffic distribution. He requested the maximum on the land use equivalency matrix for the residential categories be increased to 30 percent which was typical in the region and consistent with the region’s report on this DRI. Chairman Gallagher explained when this project originally came in it included a town center which would allow high density around the town. There was going to be no swapping out to create more residential. Mr. Harrill noted those restrictions were still included. Ms. Spidell clarified the restriction was on office, not on the retail. Staff’s main concern was between the land uses, residential to retail, retail to residential because of the distribution of the traffic would be altered if it was changed to 30 percent. Mr. Goldstein recalled it would have been a DCA issue. She contacted DCA which indicated they would oppose anything greater than 10 percent because they saw that as a substantial deviation. She did not have any concerns within the residential, with the exception of the age restricted. The developer had assumed a significant amount of age restricted and if they switched 30 percent of the age restricted to the non-age restricted there would be impacts on parks and schools. She had less of a concern with a change from townhouses to detached. Mr. Harrill felt DCA’s position from a transportation standpoint was sound in considering conversions from office or retail to residential because it would impact traffic. He felt the condition did not allow them to change their retail or office to residential. The revision he requested would allow the developer to exchange within residential to residential and not necessarily be limited to the 10 percent, but instead 30 percent. He spoke regarding the Ashley Glen project. Typically with most DRIs 30 percent was the norm. Chairman Gallagher asked what would be changed. Right now there was a 10 percent cap on residential, if they went to 30 percent, what would be the development mix. Mr. Harrill referred to the diagram showing the land uses. He spoke regarding the age restricted requirement and felt if they used that matrix for over 10 percent they would need to demonstrate either they were not having an additional adverse impact on those
DRC 10/11/2007 Page 25 of 30
facilities or that they mitigated the impact. He felt the concern could be addressed by conditions. Mr. Goldstein noted this was not a County issue. The Department of Community Affairs adamantly told them they would not allow it and would appeal it. He felt they were taking a risk if they were going to do something that they had already been told would be appealed. Mr. Harrill requested the Committee allow the applicant to contact DCA prior to going to the Board. Pasco was one of the few counties where in the land use equivalency matrix they locked in the commercial and office and allowed that to be traded off. Mr. Goldstein spoke further regarding DCA’s concerns. He noted DCA had indicated if they could analyze the potential impact now, they would allow it, but they wanted to see the analysis now rather than later. Mr. Harrill referred to other developments. Chairman Gallagher suggested the item be continued to address the issues raised. Discussion followed regarding a continuance and the dates advertised. Mr. Harrill spoke regarding the commencement date included in the DO. He requested the date be 3 years for the development. Ms. Spidell explained 3 years was the County’s standard, but the region felt 3 years was too long and that 2 years was more appropriate in this instance. Chairman Gallagher suggested they follow up on the issue. Mr. Harrill explained as part of the Development Agreement the applicant had committed to provide the transportation improvements for Phase 2 and to get specific approval for Phase 2. The employment conditions that were negotiated related to Pasco Town center and an employment center at I-75/Overpass were still included. He suggested those conditions be reviewed and discussed with Staff. He explained other than the issues discussed, the applicant was in agreement with Staff’s recommendation. Chairman Gallagher wanted to ensure that Curley Road was built in a timely manner. He spoke regarding other developments within the area. Discussion followed regarding the development requirements of other projects within the area; each of the developments would need to work together; the other developments were precluded from going forward until the whole Master Plan was completed; Staff would review the triggers of the other developments in the area; water and sewer impacts; enforcement of the community docks; would the residents be able to enforce the regulations; and development of the CDD.
DRC 10/11/2007 Page 26 of 30
MR. JOHNSON MOVED to receive and file letters and photographs submitted by the residents. Chairman Gallagher called on the motion; the vote was unanimous and the motion carried. Discussion followed between the DRC and Staff regarding the community docks. It was determined to strike the deed restriction language; it would be a straight restriction on 2 docks and 10 horsepower boats. MR. JOHNSON MOVED to continue the item to October 25, 2007, at 1:30 p.m. in New Port Richey. Chairman Gallagher called on the motion; the vote was unanimous and the motion carried.
2. Memorandum No.: GM08-05 Project Name: Epperson Ranch Development of
Regional Impact/Application for Development Approval
(Continued from the September 13, 2007, Development Review Committee Meeting)
Proposed Development: Approval if being sought for 3,905 residential dwelling units, 209,000 square feet of retail, 50,000 square feet of office, 100 motel rooms, and one elementary school.
RECOMMENDATION: Approval. MR. JOHNSON MOVED to continue the item to October 25, 2007, at 1:30 p.m. in New Port Richey. Chairman Gallagher called on the motion; the vote was unanimous and the motion carried.
3. Memorandum No.: GM08-20 Project Name: Long Lake Ranch – MPUD Master
Planned Unit Development Alternative Standards Request
DRC 10/11/2007 Page 27 of 30
(Continued from the September 27, 2007, Development Review Committee Meeting)
Proposed Development: Long Lake Ranch MPUD Master Planned Unit Development – Alternative Standards Request.
RECOMMENDATION: Denial. Mr. Mike LaSala explained the item. Mr. Rick Millian, representative, spoke regarding the vision map and Leonard Road. He displayed a diagram which showed an alternative that would connect to the Loop Road. Staff was not certain that an alternative standards request was appropriate at this time as they would show a potential future Leonard Road connection. The applicant would work with Staff over the next two weeks to determine the appropriate right-of-way width. Mr. Parikh explained the biologist wanted to review the site to make sure the alignment would work. Chairman Gallagher suggested the item be conceptually approved. If there was a problem, they would hear the item in 2 weeks. Mr. Millian was in agreement with Chairman Gallagher’s suggestion. There was no public comment. MR. NURRENBROCK MOVED to conceptually approve the alignment, and if Staff and the applicant were unable to work out the issues, the item would be brought back to the DRC in 2 weeks. Chairman Gallagher called on the motion; the vote was unanimous and the motion carried.
4. Memorandum No.: GM08-21 Project Name: Long Lake Ranch – MPUD Master
Planned Unit Development Roadway Alignment and Construction Phasing Plan
(Continued from the September 27, 2007, Development Review Committee Meeting)
DRC 10/11/2007 Page 28 of 30
Proposed Development: Roadway Alignment and Construction Phasing Plan.
RECOMMENDATION: Approval with conditions. Ms. Jolly recommended the item be continued to October 25, 2007, at 1:30 p.m. in New Port Richey. Mr. Rick Millian, representative, agreed with the continuance. There was no public comment. MR. NURRENBROCK MOVED to continue the item to October 25, 2007, at 1:30 p.m. in New Port Richey. Chairman Gallagher called on the motion; the vote was unanimous and the motion carried.
C. Class IV None Scheduled X. DEVELOPMENT ISSUES DISCUSSION
A. Discussion of Policy Issues
None Scheduled XI. INFORMATION None Scheduled XII. NOTED ITEMS Agenda items XI.A.1 through XI.F were noted.
DRC 10/11/2007 Page 29 of 30
A. Class I Development Actions from September 19, 2007, to September 25, 2007:
Applicant: Coastal Caisson Corporation Proposed Development: A one-story, 1,440-square-foot
modular office building. Type of Action: Approved with conditions. Date of Action: September 19, 2007
B. Class IIIE Development Actions None Scheduled
C. Class IIIR Development Actions from September 19, 2007, to September 25, 2007:
1. Memorandum No.: DR07-2407
Project Name: Happy Tails Pet Lodge Applicant: Mary Leigh Anderson Proposed Development: Boarding kennel with residence. Type of Action: Approved with conditions. Date of Action: September 25, 2007
D. Administrative Variance Actions
None Scheduled E. Class II Construction Plan Actions
None Scheduled
DRC 10/11/2007 Page 30 of 30
F. Class III Construction Plan Actions
None Scheduled RECESS THE COMMITTEE RECESSED AT 3:05 P.M. AND RECONVENED AT 3:12 P.M. ALL COMMITTEE MEMBERS WERE PRESENT. ADJOURN The Committee adjourned at 4:09 p.m. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 11, 2007 (SEAL) Prepared By: Donalee Schmidt, Deputy Clerk
