PASCO COUNTY, FLORIDA

Transcription

1 PASCO COUNTY, FLORIDA NEW PORT RICHEY (727) PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DADE CITY (352) WEST PASCO GOVT. CENTER LAND O LAKES (813) CITIZENS DRIVE FAX (727) NEW PORT RICHEY, FL April 5, 2013 John M. Meyer DRI Coordinator Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council 4000 Gateway Centre Boulevard, Suite 100 Pinellas Park, FL Re: Wiregrass Ranch Development of Regional Impact (DRI) #260 Notice of Proposed Change No. 4 Application Date: December 27, 2012 Comments Sent: January 24, 2013 Additional Information (SR1) Submittal Date: March 11, 2013 Comments Due: April 9, 2013 Dear Mr. Meyer: We have reviewed the Applicant s Notice of Proposed Change Application (NOPC4) (per the above referenced submittal dates) and offer the following comments: 1. This application is intended to implement the settlement agreement/development agreement (DA) that was approved by the Board of County Commissioners on February 5 th, In accordance with the County comments dated January 24, 2013, the following comments address both the December 27, 2012 and March 11, 2013 submittals. 2. As requested by the TBRPC, please add the following estimated mobility fees & County buy down figures to Exhibit I: a. $110 Million Total Impact /Total Mobility Fees b. $65 Million Total Estimated Mobility Fees to be paid by Developer c. $45 Million County Buy Down (Amount to be subsidized/funded by County) 3. It appears that many of the park changes presume that the park closing currently in process between the Master Developer and the County will be completed by the time NOPC4 is adopted. It should be noted that if indeed the park closing is not completed or falls through, then this NOPC application and all DO conditions pertaining to such will need to be changed as applicable. 4. Although the park relocation is listed as a change to Map H, please also indicate as a change that such area currently designated as park is being changed with this application to mixed use (Parcel M23). As this area is abutting residential Page 1 of 4

2 neighborhoods outside of Wiregrass, it is important to list this as a change for informational purposes to adjacent landowners. Staff suggests the applicant consider breaking up Parcel M23 into smaller parcels and to re-designate the parcel that was previously identified as park to residential. 5. The consolidation of phases necessitates revisions to Exhibit E. Please revise accordingly. The applicant shall send staff the latest updated version of Exhibit E as the only version received to date is blank. 6. Please ensure MUTRM is abbreviated as such throughout the document as there appears to be a scrivener s error in at least one place. 7. Please fix Change #6.i in the DO. There appears to be an incorrect reference to the SR 581 realignment. It is incorrectly identified as the SR 56 realignment. 8. It appears that Change #19 needs to be revised as some of it was already covered in NOPC3. Please have the applicant make the change or clarify why it was included as part of NOPC4. 9. Please add for purposes of school impact analysis to Change # After discussions between staff and the applicant, the parcel configurations for M11 and O2 may be changing due to revised site planning and ownership. Staff recommends using this NOPC4 as an opportunity to reflect any parcel boundary changes to these two parcels for consistency purposes and to help facilitate staff review of the site plans for such parcels. 11. Definition of Exempt Uses (Page 14 of 78 Section 3.g): Staff is concerned that multiple topics are being mixed up in this paragraph. For example both FLU categories and Zoning classifications are being referenced which may create confusion. Another example is the reference to IH, Heavy Industrial which is not an approved use for the project. Staff recommends the following revision: g. Exempt Uses. For the purposes of this Development Order, Exempt Uses shall include those uses exempt from traffic impact studies pursuant to Section of the LDC and transportation analysis review pursuant to Section (c) of the LDC., including, but not limited to those principal uses permitted in the Office, Employment Center, Industrial Light (IL), or Industrial Heavy (IH) plan categories or the Professional Office 1 (PO-1) zone district in the LDC, and shall include government buildings, offices and medical offices, hotels, industrial or light industrial uses, corporate business parks, and TOD uses. In applying this definition, government buildings, community college, university, office, medical office, hotels, industrial, light industrial, corporate business park and TOD uses that have previously been defined as limited exemption projects under Section A of the LDC and the DRI DO shall be considered to be and treated as Exempt Uses. TOD uses shall be those that meet the requirements of the County s mobility fee regulations found in Section 1302.f.2.i of the LDC, or shall be TOD Neighborhoods designated and approved within Mixed Use Transportation Reduction Measures (MUTRM) Designated Parcels pursuant to the MPUD and DA. Page 2 of 4

3 12. LUEM and changes Section 5.c: Staff does not support the complete deletion of Section 5.c as proposed by the applicant. Staff recommends it be replaced by the following condition: Exempt uses as defined in Section 3.g may not be exchanged for nonexempt uses. Please update Exhibit F, the LUEM accordingly, e.g. remove the modifications that allow exempt uses to be exchanged to non-exempt uses such as Light Industrial to Residential. 13. LUEM: The Trip Generation Rate for University/College (Student) should be revised from 0.21 to 0.15 in accordance with ITE 9 th Edition. 14. Why did the applicant accept all changes to the Min/Max table on the LUEM in the latest sufficiency response? Please provide 2 exhibits. One which represents a tracked version from what is approved and one clean version for adoption. 15. Regarding the changes to the PCPT/transit language: a. Staff suggests the actual HART route numbers be removed as they may be subject to change. b. The December 31, 2013 deadline appears to be acceptable; however, please clarify if the applicant/master developer will be drafting and initiating this easement agreement. 16. Please see the attached comments from the Pasco County Utilities Department and respond accordingly. 17. Please see the attached comments from the District School Board of Pasco County and respond accordingly. 18. Staff reserves the right to comment on all changes to the DO language as this application continues to go through the review process. Should you have any questions, please contact this office at (727) x7889. Sincerely, Cynthia D. Spidell Senior Planner & DRI Coordinator Enclosure cc: Megan McKinney, URS Corporation Dan Santos, Florida Department of Transportation Chris Williams, District School Board of Pasco County David Goldstein, Chief Assistant County Attorney Frederick J. Buckman, Parks and Recreation Director Amanda Boone, P.E., Development Review Manager Page 3 of 4

4 Michael H. Carroll, Transportation Manager, Public Transportation Div., Community Services Dept James Edwards, Transportation Planning Manager Deborah Bolduc, Program Administrator for Engineering Services Ali Atefi, P.E., Engineer III, MPO Martha S. Campbell, Administrative Services Manager, Parks and Recreation Dept. Jennifer Carpenter, Planner II Dawn Sutton, Planner I Page 4 of 4

5

6

7 Cvnthia D. kidell From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Christopher G. Williams Thursday, March 14, :34 AM Cynthia D. Spidell Richard M. Tonello Wiregrass Ranch NOPC #4 Comments Cynthia, Here are my comments in regards to NOPC #4 Sufficiency Response #1: Page 5 - B. The statement was made, "Student generation rates were not reduced for age restricted units, and were therefore accounted for as a typical unit for school impacts." This statement is not accurate. The school district has always run the student generation rates for this development on non-age restricted units only. We acknowledge that there has been a reduction in the number of residential units and we have attempted to update the anticipated number of students based on the information we have received. Please keep in mind that projects often develop with a higher number of students than what would be anticipated using the county-wide based student generation rate. We will continue to coordinate with Wiregrass and only wish to have the minimum number of school sites needed to handle the actual number of students that are generated by the development. Page 62 of 78 -I see that the language regarding the collocation of neighborhood park sites with the elementary school sites on V3 and V4 has been stricken. I believe that it is beneficial to all parties involved, the developer, the community, the county and the school board for parks to be collocated with school sites. This enhances the opportunity to provide joint-use of facilities and often results in the need of for less acreage for the school board if there is shared parking or retention involved. I'm not saying that it has to be a requirement for these neighborhood parks to be collocated with our school sites but I certainly believe that it is something that should be done whenever possible. Kathryn Starkey's comments from the last time Wiregrass went to the County Commission seemed to put the onus on the School Board to collocate schools with parks. However, the School Board is not the sole entity in collocation and opportunities must be provided for by the developer and/or the county if this is to happen. Thank you, Chris Williams Director for Planning Services I District School Board of Pasco County Tree Breeze Dr~ve I New Port R~chey, TL w~ww.pa~co.kl2.fl us/planning