DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE, PASCO COUNTY, FLORIDA MINUTES

Transcription

1 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE, PASCO COUNTY, FLORIDA MINUTES THE MINUTES WERE PREPARED IN AGENDA ORDER AS PUBLISHED AND NOT IN THE ORDER THE ITEMS WERE HEARD AUGUST 9, :30 P.M. Historic Pasco County Courthouse, Board Room, 2 nd Floor Meridian Avenue, Dade City, FL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE John J. Gallagher County Administrator Michael Nurrenbrock OMB Director Daniel R. Johnson Assistant County Administrator (Public Services) Bruce E. Kennedy, P.E. Assistant County Administrator (Utilities Services) Bipin Parikh, P.E. Assistant County Administrator (Development Services) Chris Williams District School Board of Pasco County LEGAL COUNSEL David A. Goldstein, Assistant County Attorney ADVISORY STAFF Michele L. Baker, Chief Assistant County Administrator Cynthia M. Jolly, P.E., CFM Development Director Samuel P. Steffey II Growth Management Administrator James C. Widman, P.E. Engineering Services Director/ County Engineer Debra M. Zampetti Zoning/Code Compliance Administrator Representative of the Clerk of the Circuit Court Paul J. Montante Technical Specialist II Michael LaSala, AICP Senior Planner Matthew J. Armstrong, AICP Planner II Ahsan Khalil Transportation Planner II Jennifer M. Boham Planner I Page 1 of 28

2 I. ROLL CALL Ms. Donalee Schmidt, Deputy Clerk, called the roll. All Committee Members were present. II. MINUTES May 24, 2007 MR. NURRENBROCK MOVED approval of the Minutes. 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. VARIANCE PETITIONS 1. Zoning Page 2 of 28

3 2. Development Plans a. Memorandum No.: DR Tampa Bay Water Central Pasco Improvements Project U.S. 41 Point of Connection Applicant: Tampa Bay Water Proposed Development: Unmanned booster station. Requested: Variances from Land Development Code Sections , Cross- Access/Frontage/Reverse-Frontage Roads; 603.9, Landscape Buffering and Screening; and 610.5, Standard Roadway Typical Sections for Collector and Arterial Roadways. RECOMMENDATION: Approval with conditions. Ms. Jolly explained the request. Staff recommended approval with the conditions as listed. Ms. Mandy Rice, representative agreed with Staff s recommendation. Discussion followed between the DRC, the applicant and Staff regarding: why the fence and landscaping could not be set back for the interconnection; and the facility was already in existence. Ms. Rice responded to the questions raised and explained the property would be fenced as an unmanned facility. The applicant needed to ensure there was no public access within the area. She spoke regarding the existing above grade piping that was necessary for the potable water facility. This was a replacement for the current facility that was undersized. If the building was pushed further west, it would be within wetland areas. There was no public comment. Discussion continued regarding the potential future widening of Tower Road; wetlands in the area; there was no possibility of reserving the corridor; this issue was already approved as part of the original Development Review approval; and a 25-foot reserved area would remain along the northern boundary. MR. KENNEDY MOVED approval of Staff s recommendation. Chairman Gallagher called on the motion; the motion carried with Mr. Nurrenbrock voting nay. Page 3 of 28

4 Later in the meeting, Mr. Goldstein stated it came to Staff s attention there was a notice error. The notice stated the item would be heard in New Port Richey and a citizen in opposition appeared in New Port Richey regarding the item. Ms. Jolly requested a motion to reconsider be made to allow Staff to withdraw the item. The applicant had been notified of the error. MR. JOHNSON MOVED to reconsider the item. Ms. Jolly withdrew the item and stated it would be brought back at a future meeting. MR. NURRENBROCK MOVED to withdraw the item and for Staff to bring the item back at a future date. b. Memorandum No.: DR CVS Pharmacy, S.R. 54 and Morris Bridge Road (Continued from the July 12, 2007, Development Review Committee Meeting) Applicant: Principal Developers Proposed Development: Pharmacy Requested: Relief from 1) Section , requiring a 24-foot cross-access connection to the adjacent property; 2) Section B, allowing interim use of the future right-of-way dedication for the S.R. 54 Transportation Corridor; 3) Sections D.4 and B, to allow reductions in the required Type D buffer width from 15 feet to 10 feet along the north property line adjacent to S.R. 54 as an interim use; and 4) Section D.2, to allow a reduction in the required Type B buffer width from 15 feet to 10 feet Page 4 of 28

5 RECOMMENDATION: along the south property line adjacent to currently residential property. Approval with conditions. Ms. Jolly reviewed each of the variance requests and spoke regarding the surrounding area. Staff recommended approval with conditions. A condition was added which required the applicant to record the approval. Mr. J.D. Alsabbagh, representative, was present. Discussion followed between the Committee, Staff and the applicant regarding: the future cross-access requirements; the future retention pond was for the Morris Bridge Road improvements; parallel facilities; the route study and pond citing report had been approved, but no design work had been completed; mobile homes in the area; a possible access point for the retention pond; was the parcel too small; they were overdoing the drive aisle and parking until 54 was widened; and the full landscaping would be installed once the full right-of-way was provided for the widening. Chairman Gallagher felt the variance for the cross-access to the south should be denied. Mr. Nurrenbrock suggested a possible condition which stated the temporary landscaping, drive aisle, and temporary parking would be removed at the applicant s expense; and the new landscaping would be done at the applicant s expense. Mr. Alsabbagh agreed with the suggested condition. Discussion followed regarding the standard interim use condition. MR. NURRENBROCK MOVED to add the standard interim use condition. There was no public comment. MR. NURRENBROCK MOVED to allow the variance on the landscaping at the north and south of the property, deny the variance for the interconnect, include an additional condition regarding the interim use, and to allow the interim use for parking with the removal of anything within the right-of-way to be at the expense of the applicant or successor. Chairman Gallagher referenced a letter of objection from the Department of Transportation. Ms. Jolly explained the objection involved the dedication of right-of-way; the applicant would be dedicating right-of-way. Page 5 of 28

6 Mr. Alsabbagh spoke regarding the cross-access requirements. c. Memorandum No.: DR Cypress Creek Town Center Mall District Applicants: Pasco 54, Ltd., Pasco Ranches, Inc., and Pasco Properties of Tampa Bay, Inc. Proposed Development: Shopping center. Requested: Relief from Section 306, Platting, prior to Building Permit issuance. RECOMMENDATION: Denial. Withdrawn; no action was required. d. Memorandum No.: DR ABC Truck Facility Applicant: Suncoast Lots 579, LLC Proposed Development: Office/warehouse. Requested: A variance from Section to allow landscape buffers to be located within the Hudson Avenue Transportation Corridor. RECOMMENDATION: Approval with conditions. Ms. Jolly explained the request. Staff recommended approval of the request and to include the interim use and license and maintenance agreement condition. Mr. Chris Weddle, representative, questioned when or if Hudson Avenue was widened, would the remaining 4 foot landscape buffer be all that was required. Ms. Jolly stated a variance would be necessary. Mr. Weddle suggested the request be continued in order to revise the variance language. Mr. Goldstein suggested the interim use condition also be included. Page 6 of 28

7 Ms. Jolly recommended the item be continued to September 13, 2007 in New Port Richey to allow Staff to advertise the additional variance. MR. JOHNSON MOVED to continue the item to September 13, 2007, at 1:30 p.m. in New Port Richey. There was no public comment. Discussion followed regarding the possibility of the roadway being widened in the future. V. TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT A. Dedication Waiver B. Dedication Variance VI. APPEALS A. Class I B. Class II Page 7 of 28

8 C. Class III D. Class IV E. Consistency VII. PUBLIC NOTICE AGENDA A. Class II 1. Memorandum No.: DR Shops at Wiregrass, Phase 2A Proposed Development: Retail/restaurant shopping center. RECOMMENDATION: Approval with conditions. This item was heard in conjunction with DR , Shops at Wiregrass, Phase 2. Ms. Jolly explained both requests. On Phase 2A, page 70, Finding of Fact 1 was deleted as the DRI had been approved. MR. PARIKH MOVED on Phase 2, page 70, to delete Finding of Fact 1 as outlined by Ms. Jolly. Mr. Rick Millian, applicant, agreed with the deletion. Ms. Jolly explained the only remaining issue involved the reverse frontage road and spoke regarding the requirements. When the item was originally approved, a sketch was included which showed the dominate travel way. At that time, there was discussion that because of the light at S.R. 56 they did not want to stop the flow of traffic. Everyone was in agreement, but the sketch was not revised when it was attached to the final approval. She reviewed the sketch with the Committee members. The applicant Page 8 of 28

9 did not object to the roadway being the sweeping dominant travel, but since they did not have any plans in for parcels O-2 or M-11, in the interim the applicant wished to direct people throughout the life style center. When either a preliminary plan came in for M-11 or O-2, or at the latest, by December 31, 2012, the applicant would reconfigure and construct the roadway to make the dominate travel. She noted the roadway would be aligned to minimize wetland impacts. She spoke extensively regarding the diagram showing the placement of the roadways. She asked if the Committee wished to require the improvement now, or if they would allow the applicant to delay the improvement. Extensive discussion followed regarding the diagram and placement of the roadway. Mr. Millian explained the reverse-frontage would be a condition of the MPUD and was a condition of the Master Roadway Phasing Plan for the entire development. Chairman Gallagher felt once the roadway was constructed it would take pressure off the intersection. Mr. Millian stated 2012 was the latest date. There was no public comment. Mr. Parikh corrected the agenda item, page 69, the existing right-of-way should read 200 feet, not 250 feet and Bruce B. Downs was 200 feet, with 250 required. The same correction was needed on page 135. MR. PARIKH AND MR. NURRENBROCK MOVED approval of the correction as outlined. Mr. Goldstein explained technically, there was not an approved Master Roadway Phasing Plan for this portion of the DRI; the applicant had agreed to complete a revised plan. He suggested the timing condition be added as a condition of the revised Master Roadway Phasing Plan for the entire DRI. Mr. Millian agreed with Mr. Goldstein s suggestion. MR. PARIKH MOVED approval of Mr. Goldstein s suggestion. Mr. Johnson spoke regarding Condition 38 on page 74 regarding the calculation. He asked if the amount was 5 thousand or 5 million. Page 9 of 28

10 Ms. Jolly stated it should read 5 million. MR. JOHNSON MOVED to correct Condition 38 to read 5 million. Ms. Jolly recommended Conditions 2.I.2 and 2.I.4 be deleted and replaced with the roadway can be laid out in the interim as described and it had to be revised when either a preliminary plan came in for O-2 or M-11, or December 31, 2012, whichever occurred first. She recommended Condition 3 be deleted as the DRI was approved by the Board of County Commissioners. MR. NURRENBROCK MOVED approval as suggested by Ms. Jolly. Mr. Goldstein stated they should keep Condition 3 in place until the appeal period had expired. He recommended Condition 3 be revised to add the condition terminates upon the expiration of the appeal period or upon the conclusion of any appeals. Mr. Millian agreed with the revised language. MR. NURRENBROCK AMENDED THE MOTION as stated by Mr. Goldstein for Condition 3. Chairman Gallagher called on motion; the vote was unanimous and the motion MR. NURRENBROCK MOVED to delete Conditions 2.I.2. and 2.I.4 and substitute the language regarding the revision. Ms. Jolly restated the revised language would read the roadway in the interim would be as the through movement would be to JC Penney, and at the time of the preliminary plan for O-2 or M-11, or December 31, 2012, this would be revised to be the dominate travel, whichever occurred first, and the applicant would also record these conditions of approval and make them a condition of the Master Roadway Plan. Ms. Jolly recommended Condition 2.I.1. be deleted as the Master Utility Plan had been submitted under a separate set of plans. MR. JOHNSON MOVED to delete Condition 2.I.1. Page 10 of 28

11 MR. NURRENBROCK MOVED approval of the balance of agenda item DR Memorandum No.: DR Spacebox Land O Lakes (Continued from the May 24, 2007, Development Review Committee Meeting) Proposed Development: Preliminary/construction plan approval for 5 one-story and one 2- story miniwarehouse storage buildings totaling 129,287 square feet. RECOMMENDATION: Approval with conditions. Ms. Jolly explained the item. Staff recommended approval with conditions. Mr. Scott Lincoln, representative, was present. There was no public comment. MR. NURRENBROCK MOVED approval of Staff s recommendation. B. Class III 1. Memorandum No.: DR Hill Country Estates (f.k.a. Hidden View Estates) (Continued from the May 24, 2007, Development Review Committee Meeting) Proposed Development: Preliminary/construction plan and Stormwater Management Plan and Report approval, with variances Page 11 of 28

12 requested from Sections , , and , to subdivide 49.3 acres into 37 single-family lots. RECOMMENDATION: Approval of the preliminary/ construction plan, Stormwater Management Plan and Report, and the variance requested from Section with conditions, and denial of the variances requested from Sections and Ms. Jolly submitted a fax she received from EMK Consultants dated August 6, MR. JOHNSON MOVED to receive and file the fax received from EMK Consultants of Florida. Ms. Jolly explained the item and noted when the item last appeared before the DRC there was discussion regarding the interconnection to the west and south, and whether the road should be public or private. The applicant proposed a 20 foot road, interconnect to the back of the existing development and to provide an interconnect to the west. Staff felt the interconnection should be 24 feet, but did not have a strong objection to 20 feet. She referred to the diagram and explained the roadways should remain as public streets and not be gated. She recommended approval as described. Mr. Clarke Hobby, representative, explained the main issue involved the interconnect. He requested approval of 20 foot interconnects with private streets. Items discussed included: The property the applicant would interconnect to already had frontage onto U.S. 301 and DeRossier Road. The property owned by the Moose Club had a direct interconnect to 301. The applicant had a related entity that owned the property with an RV park that had an interconnection to 301. Discussion followed between the applicant, the DRC and Staff regarding: the location of the interconnect; the driveway location for the single-family home; Power Line Road; the location of the RV park; the right-of-way width; the roadways in the mobile home park were private; the RV residents did not want traffic from this subdivision going into their park; future road maintenance issues; a possible connection from 301 to Power Line Road; roadways in the area; the limit of DeRosier Road; the railroad right-of-way; there was quite a distance between DeRosier Road and the north side of the subject property; 24 feet versus 20 feet was not a huge issue for the applicant; there was an Page 12 of 28

13 issue in requiring a full 50 foot right-of-way; they were looking for a long time solution; there should be public access; opportunities for east-west connections in the area; the need to provide a second access; the developer wished to have private roadways; the proximity of Christian Road and Frazee Hill Road to this project; and there was an approved route study to improve the connection between Frazee Hill Road to 301. Mr. Jeff Cole, property owner, spoke regarding the necessary right-of-way and roadways in the area. Ms. Jolly suggested a 24-foot roadway in a 30-foot easement with a private connection. She noted the front portion of the roadway would be public. Mr. Hobby proposed for the roadway to be public to the first interconnect, with everything else being private, the developer would work out the easements, and the applicant would control the property to the south. The only easement the applicant would need to give to an independent third party would be with the Alfords to the immediate west. MR. JOHNSON MOVED to keep the north-south piece the access interconnect, 24-feet instead of 20-feet, allow the private roads as discussed, with any future modification/rezoning/development of the RV park then to provide an appropriate rightof-way along that area for a future east-west link over to Power Line. Chairman Gallagher called on the motion; the motion carried with Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Parikh voting nay. Mr. Hobby recommended the standard private road condition be added which governed the use of gates. He noted it was included in the original Staff write-up as Condition 30. MR. JOHNSON MOVED approval as recommended by Mr. Hobby. Mr. Goldstein felt an additional condition needed to be added which required the recording of a document that was binding on the other property. They had imposed a condition on this property that was binding on another piece of property. Mr. Hobby agreed to record a document to cover both properties. MR. JOHNSON MOVED approval of an additional condition as outlined by Mr. Goldstein. Page 13 of 28

14 There was no public comment. MR. NURRENBROCK MOVED approval of the balance of the agenda item. 2. Memorandum No.: GM Middle School HH Proposed Development: Middle school. RECOMMENDATION: Approval with conditions. Mr. Matt Armstrong noted the item included both the consistency determination and a concurrency limited exemption determination. Staff recommended the DRC find this site consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. He gave an extensive presentation regarding the site. Mr. Williams noted the School Board planned to open the middle school in either 2010 or 2011; they currently did not have any set plan for an elementary school at this location. There was a possibility of an elementary school in this location, but they would prefer a site further to the north. The high school was slated to open in 2012 or later, depending upon the budget. Mr. Ray Gadd, School Board, explained the elementary school was a very remote possibility; this was not a good place for an elementary school. It would be a fall back site. Other items discussed included: Typically there were 400 student parking spaces located on the high school sites. Most middle school students to this site would be bused. Neighborhood in the immediate area. There were no plans or funding to build a transportation facility or a maintenance facility. Several compounds throughout the County included a maintenance shop. This site was considered a good site because of its location to the interstate and accessibility to 52 and 54. The building of a transportation facility or maintenance facility were just possibilities. If those buildings were to be constructed, they would need to back before the DRC to discuss the structures. Discussion followed regarding the determination of consistency; the projected number of students on the site; approximately 5,200 daily trips would be generated from the site; carrying capacity of Old Pasco Road; roadways in the area; long-term facilities; the Page 14 of 28

15 need to know the improvements that were needed; differences between consistency on a school site and consistency on a subdivision; the proposed new interlocal agreement; growth in the area; proposed DRIs in the area; and existing deficiencies. Mr. Gallagher suggested approval be contingent upon the School Board and the Board of County Commissioners approval of the new Interlocal Agreement. Mr. Gadd stated he was in agreement with Mr. Gallagher s suggestion. Mr. Parikh clarified Staff was now directed to perform a traffic study on every consistency for the school, as done with private developers, and to identify all off-site improvements. Mr. Gadd explained the School Board realized this was a problem. He requested the School Board Construction Department to at least get a model for traffic for each type of school for use in the future. Extensive discussion continued regarding the language included; by law they had to reach some kind of agreement on the Interlocal Agreement; and traffic impacts to the site. Mr. Gallagher explained the argument would apply to sites that were outside of DRIs or MPUDs. Mr. Gadd said it was confusing, but it boiled down to the comments on page 6 of 9 which involved the substandard road analysis. Mr. Gallagher recommended in the last paragraph language be added to state any improvements identified through these analyses shall be decided through the Interlocal Agreement approved by the School Board and the Board of County Commissioners. It would be a policy level decision. He wanted to know what was needed in the area so they could plan to fix it. Mr. Gadd committed to looking with his Staff at what kind of development was coming into the area and to give the County a clearer picture of what was needed, along with a timeframe. He agreed with Mr. Gallagher to make approval contingent upon the new Interlocal Agreement. Discussion followed regarding who would be responsible for the traffic analysis and traffic study. Mr. Goldstein stated he was unsure whether the existing Interlocal was clear on this issue. Page 15 of 28

16 Mr. Kennedy felt the preliminary plans for these site developments should be reviewed more than 90 days prior to construction. He felt the preliminary plans for the sites should be reviewed a year ahead of construction. Mr. Patransic from the School Board suggested 6 months be given. MR. KENNEDY MOVED to initiate preliminary design discussions/conceptual plan approvals 6 months prior to commencement of construction. Extensive discussion continued regarding requirements of an access management traffic study. Mr. Gadd stated he was reluctant to commit the School Board to state they would pay for all studies when they were still developing a new Interlocal Agreement. At a Staff level this had never been a problem. Mr. Johnson understood without a new Interlocal Agreement, if they found this consistent, they would need to find it consistent with conditions or restrictions. If not, it would go through and they would not review it again without a new Interlocal Agreement. Chairman Gallagher stated this would trigger the School Board purchasing the property. Mr. Gadd said in the new Interlocal Agreement the site plan would come back before the DRC. He would agree to acknowledge they were willing to bring site plan approval back to the DRC. Mr. Johnson stated if found this item consistent today without the new Interlocal Agreement, they would have no other hook. Mr. Goldstein stated that was correct. Mr. Williams asked if they were aware the school site would generate 5,200 trips, would a traffic study be required to determine what was needed. Mr. Nurrenbrock said they all knew what needed to happen, the question was what would be the proportionate share amount. Mr. Goldstein said the fair share was not the only issue; their position was the County should also participate in the access related improvements. Mr. Gadd stated they were still discussing the issue with Mr. Sumner. The definition involved what constituted access. The School Board had repeatedly demonstrated and Page 16 of 28

17 acknowledged that they would take care of the decel/accel lanes and turn lanes for the schools. They had not acknowledged at the corner of 52 and Old Pasco Road that it would be the School Board s obligation to install a light. Discussion followed regarding School EEE; the distance to the intersection; February 2008 was the deadline for the School Concurrency Plan; what would happen if there was no Interlocal Agreement; and the current Interlocal Agreement included a dispute resolution clause. Mr. Gallagher suggested the School Board complete the studies and the funding would be contingent upon the Interlocal Agreement approved by both the School Board and the Board of County Commissioners. He asked what scope of work would be requested of the School Board. Mr. Widman explained besides projecting their trip generation, they would need to review the current levels of service and the future at the intersections of 52 and Old Pasco Road, 54 and Old Pasco Road, and Overpass Road and Old Pasco Road. These number of trips would definitely degrade the level of service and geometric improvements may be needed to make the intersections work. He anticipated the study cost to be approximately $15, MR. PARIKH MOVED to require the School Board to perform the traffic study for the access management and substandard road at a cost not to exceed $15,000.00, and the results of the study and outcome of the off-site improvements would be subject to the Interlocal Agreement, with the scope of the study to be determined by Pasco County and approved, and the site plan would come back to the DRC. Discussion followed regarding the motion; the substandard road analysis; and the condition of Old Pasco Road. Mr. Ahsan Khalil noted there were no other substandard road issues on Old Pasco Road other than trees and utility poles within the clear zone. Chairman Gallagher called on the motion; the motion carried with Mr. Williams voting nay. Dr. June Hammond spoke under public comment regarding the condition of Old Pasco Road, access management, Wells Road, and the residents in the area. MR. JOHNSON MOVED approval of the remainder of the agenda item. Page 17 of 28

18 VIII. REGULAR AGENDA A. Class II 1. Memorandum No.: DR Shops at Wiregrass, Phase 2 Proposed Development: Reverse frontage road location. RECOMMENDATION: Denial. This item was heard in conjunction with DR , Shops at Wiregrass, Phase 2a. Ms. Jolly recommended approval of the proposed amendment Condition 3 which was revised to delete items a, b, c, d, and e, with item f being changed to the roadway condition as was stated under the previous agenda item and to include the recording condition. Item 4 regarding the DRI would be deleted when the appeal period for the DRI expired. MR. NURRENBROCK MOVED approval of the revisions as outlined by Ms. Jolly. Mr. Johnson clarified under item 4 it would read the appeal period or the appeal itself was resolved. Ms. Jolly stated that was correct. There was no public comment. MR. NURRENBROCK MOVED approval of the balance of the agenda item. B. Class III 1. Memorandum No.: GM Connerton Employment Center/ Commerce Center MPUD Master Planned Unit Development/ Development of Regional Impact Master Pedestrian and Bicycle Circulation Plan Page 18 of 28

19 Proposed Development: Connerton Employment Center/ Commerce Center MPUD Master Planned Unit Development/ Development of Regional Impact Master Pedestrian and Bicycle Circulation Plan. RECOMMENDATION: Approval with conditions. Mr. Mike LaSala, Growth Management, explained the item. Discussion followed regarding construction of the roadway down the middle of the rightof-way. Mr. Pat Gassaway explained they had reviewed the ultimately build-out traffic conditions and they did not feel the roadway would ever be 4 laned. If they built the 2 lanes off-set, they would spend approximately 3.9 million dollars in retaining walls because of the wildlife crossing. Later in the meeting, the DRC returned to the item. Mr. LaSala recommended the deletion of Condition 1B. MR. NURRENBROCK MOVED approval of Staff s recommendation and the deletion of Condition 1B. There was no public comment. 2. Memorandum No.: GM Connerton Employment Center/ Commerce Center MPUD Master Planned Unit Development/ Development of Regional Impact Roadway Alignment, Construction Phasing, and Transit Accommodation Plan Proposed Development: Connerton Employment Center/Commerce Center MPUD Master Planned Unit Development/Development of Regional Impact Roadway Alignment, Page 19 of 28

20 RECOMMENDATION: Construction Phasing, and Transit Accommodation Plan. Approval with conditions. Mr. Mike LaSala explained the item. Staff recommended approval with conditions, including the elimination of Condition 1B and to correct the date in Condition 3 to read August 21 st. Mr. Pat Gassaway, representative, agreed with Staff s recommendation. MR. NURRENBROCK MOVED approval of Staff s recommendation including the deletion of Condition 1B and the change of the date in Condition Memorandum No.: GM Connerton Employment Center/ Commerce Center Development of Regional Impact/ MPUD Master Planned Unit Development Amendment Proposed Development: Connerton Employment Center/ Commerce Center Development of Regional Impact/ MPUD Master Planned Unit Development Amendment. RECOMMENDATION: Approval with conditions. Mr. Mike LaSala explained the item. Staff recommended approval. Ms. Liz Abernathy, representative, agreed with Staff s recommendation and language. Mr. LaSala explained the language would read the cross-section shall comply except for the design speed and except for the 4-foot undesignated lane. Chairman Gallagher directed the revision to the 4-foot undesignated lane would be global. There was no public comment. Discussion followed regarding Condition 37. Page 20 of 28

21 MR. NURRENBROCK MOVED approval. 4. Memorandum No.: GM Scarpo MPUD Master Planned Unit Development (Continued from the July 26, 2007, Development Review Committee Meeting) Proposed Development: The applicants are proposing to revise substandard road improvements conditions. RECOMMENDATION: Continue to the August 23, 2007, 1:30 p.m., Development Review Committee meeting in New Port Richey. Ms. Jolly recommended the item be continued to August 23, 2007, at 1:30 p.m. in New Port Richey. There was no public comment. MR. NURRENBROCK MOVED to continue the item to August 23, 2007, at 1:30 p.m. in New Port Richey. 5. Memorandum No.: ZN Ehren Cutoff MPUD Master Planned Unit Development (Continued from the June 7, 2007, Development Review Committee Meeting) Proposed Development: The applicant proposes to rezone 40 acres from an A-R Agricultural- Residential District to an MPUD Master Planned Unit Development for the purpose of developing a Page 21 of 28

22 RECOMMENDATION: maximum of 35 single-family dwellings. Withdraw. Ms. Jolly stated the item had been withdrawn. 6. Memorandum No.: ZN Pine Ridge Estates MPUD Master Planned Unit Development (Continued from the July 26, 2007, Development Review Committee Meeting) Proposed Development: The applicant is requesting to rezone approximately acres from A-C Agricultural and A-R Agricultural- Residential Districts to an MPUD Master Planned Unit Development District to allow 300 single-family detached units. RECOMMENDATION: Denial. Ms. Jolly recommended the item be continued to August 23, 2007, at 1:30 p.m. in New Port Richey. Mr. Theodore Blummol spoke under public comment and displayed a diagram of the site. Concerns raised included: the number of septic tanks; the Cypress Creek Watershed; drainage in the surrounding area; percolation testing; and Tampa s drinking water. He stated he might be in favor of the project if a sewage system was installed. MR. NURRENBROCK MOVED to continue the item to August 23, 2007, at 1:30 p.m. in New Port Richey. 7. Memorandum No.: ZN WaterGrass Master Roadway Plan Amendment Proposed Development: The developer is requesting approval of a revised Master Roadway Plan for Page 22 of 28

23 RECOMMENDATION: the WaterGrass MPUD Master Planned Unit Development. Approval with conditions. Ms. Debra Zampetti explained the item. Staff recommended approval with conditions. Mr. Pat Gassaway, representative, agreed with Staff s recommendation. MR. NURRENBROCK MOVED approval of Staff s recommendation. Discussion followed regarding the fire station site and construction of the roadways. There was no public comment. C. Class IV IX. PUBLIC NOTICE AGENDA A. Class III 1. Memorandum No.: DR Connerton Commerce Park Preliminary/Construction Plan, Stormwater Management Plan and Report, Alternative Standards Request, Mass Grading, and Infrastructure Proposed Development: The developer is requesting preliminary/construction plan, Stormwater Management Plan and Report, Mass Grading, and infrastructure approval to divide acres into eight commercial lots. The developer is also requesting deviation from the Page 23 of 28

24 RECOMMENDATION: following sections of the Land Development Code: Section L, Horizontal and Vertical Alignment, to reduce the design speed for Symphony Parkway from 45 miles per hour to 30 miles per hour; and Section 610.5, Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities, to eliminate the bicycle lane on Symphony Parkway in favor of using a ten-foot multiuse path. Approval with conditions. Ms. Jolly explained the request. Staff recommended approval. Discussion followed regarding the surrounding area. Mr. Pat Gassaway, representative, thanked Staff for their efforts. Mr. Nurrenbrock questioned the elimination of the bike lane on the traveled roadway in favor of a 10-foot bike path off of the roadway. Ms. Jolly stated they were not recommending elimination of the extra lane on the roadway. Mr. Mike LaSala clarified there was a requirement for a sidewalk on each side of the roadway, in addition to a bicycle path. The applicant had requested elimination of one of those sidewalks to be a multi-use path on one side, and to have the sidewalk on the other side, rather than a sidewalk on each side in addition to a multi-use path. Staff agreed a wider path could substitute for one of the sidewalks and the other side would have a sidewalk. This did not address the 4-foot roadway lanes. Mr. Gassaway disagreed and proposed to construct 40 feet of asphalt with a 10-foot multi-use path on one side of the roadway and a 5-foot sidewalk on the other. This was an allowable alternative standard in the Land Development Code which had previously been granted in both Village 1 and Village 2. Mr. LaSala felt this involved the substitution of one of the sidewalks to be a wider multiuse path and a sidewalk on the other side. He felt Mr. Gassaway was discussing something within the MPUD. Condition 2J3 Mr. Gassaway requested the condition be deleted. The applicant wished to be able to construct within the park prior to the permit with FDOT being finalized. He suggested the trigger be prior to record plat approval. Page 24 of 28

25 MR. NURRENBROCK MOVED to modify Condition 2J3 to state the developer shall submit prior to record plat approval revised construction plans. Condition 41 Mr. Gassaway explained the last sentence mandated there shall be no building permits issued prior to record platting. He wished to issue a building permit for the L-Tack which was the first building the hospital would construct prior to the record plan. Ms. Jolly stated a variance would be required. Discussion followed regarding the issuance of building permits. Condition 41 remained as written. Condition 52 Mr. Gassaway requested the same as for Condition 41. Ms. Jolly stated a variance would be required. Condition 52 remained as written. There was no public comment. Mr. Kennedy confirmed the stormwater permit modifications could be accommodated to be consistent with the currently planned construction of the building site; this did not preclude that from proceeding. Also, the applicant would file the appropriate modifications with the Water Management District to revise the overall stormwater management plan. Mr. Gassaway stated that was correct. Discussion continued regarding the elimination of the bike path and the MPUD requirements. Mr. Gassaway spoke regarding the requirement to construct 4-foot asphalt bike lanes, undesignated within the travel way. He felt that was unsafe and preferred to remain consistent. MR. NURRENBROCK MOVED to allow the elimination of the 4-foot undesignated bike lane. Page 25 of 28

26 Mr. Jolly explained if the Committee wished to eliminate the requirement, they would need to delete Condition 2J1. Mr. Widman spoke regarding the deletion of 4-foot non-designated lanes adjoining the travel lanes on collector roads. The lane was there for more things than a bike lane; it was there for drainage conveyance, to minimize spread out into the travel lane, additional safety, and provided additional off-set. He did not feel they could follow DOT standards and not require the 4-foot bike lane, designated or non-designated. Chairman Gallagher asked how did they get around the requirement in the past. Ms. Jolly said at the time the other roadways were approved, they were subdivision roads and were not on network roads, designated as having to comply with FDOT. Mr. Widman explained if this roadway was determined to be a residential street, the design standards would not be applicable. Discussion followed regarding the constructed roadways depicted on the diagram. MR. NURRENBROCK MOVED approval of the remainder of the agenda item. X. DEVELOPMENT ISSUES DISCUSSION A. Discussion of Policy Issues XI. INFORMATION Page 26 of 28

27 XI. NOTED ITEMS Agenda items XI.A.1 through XI.F were noted. A. Class I Development Actions from July 25, 2007, to August 9, 2007: 1. Memorandum No.: DR Cummer Road Applicant: Warren Neumann Proposed Development: A one-story, 10,000-square-foot office/storage building. Type of Action: Approved with conditions. Date of Action: July 25, Memorandum No.: DR Bank Atlantic at Northwood Applicant: Northwood Centers Partnership Proposed Development: Bank Atlantic with three drivethroughs totaling 4,500 square feet. Type of Action: Approved with conditions. Date of Action: July 31, Memorandum No.: DR Brooks Animal Hospital Applicant: Dr. J. Roy Brooks Proposed Development: A one-story, 5,600-square-foot animal hospital; a one-story, 3,040-squarefoot office building; and a one-story, 2,500-square-foot kennel, for a total of 11,140 square feet on 2.07 acres. Type of Action: Approved with conditions. Date of Action: August 3, 2007 B. Class IIIE Development Actions C. Class IIIR Development Actions Page 27 of 28

28 D. Administrative Variance Actions E. Class II Construction Plan Actions F. Class III Construction Plan Actions RECESS THE COMMITTEE RECESSED AT 2:41 P.M. AND RECONVENED AT 2:56 P.M. ALL COMMITTEE MEMBERS WERE PRESENT. ADJOURN The Committee adjourned at 4:41 p.m. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 9, 2007 (SEAL) Prepared By: Donalee Schmidt, Deputy Clerk Page 28 of 28