Comprehensive Plan Amendment (Regular) – CPA23(03) Text Amendment - Providing for Comprehensive Plan Text Amendments to Chapter 5 Recreation and Open Space Element, the Glossary, and Proving Additional Text Amendments as Necessary for Internal Consistency; Providing for a Repealer, Severability, and an Effective Date
What the county recorded
Staff recommendation
Approve
No disposition in the minutes
The approved minutes do not say what became of this item. That is a gap in the record, not a decision. It is the normal state for 24% of items. Most of those are regular business and board reports that the minutes do not dispose of in writing. This archive never infers an outcome from the fact that someone called a vote.
The source document
The county’s agenda for Planning Commission, Apr 20, 2023
The published PDF, as served by the county. This item is one entry in it.
The county’s minutes for Planning Commission, Apr 20, 2023
The published PDF, as served by the county. This item is one entry in it.
This case, across meetings
PRN-23-0123 in full →Heard once. PRN-23-0123 appears on no other agenda in the archive.
- Apr 20, 2023PlanningP2▶No disposition in the minutesthis item
What was said
Machine transcription of 23m of recording, with speaker names inferred from voice matching. 95% of 106 lines carry a name. It shows what was said, not what was decided, and both the words and the names can be wrong.
And the following item P two, P three, and P four, um, are going to be presented by Keith Wiley, the Director of Parks Recreation Natural Resources. Okay. My good friend, so be gentle. Be
kind. No guarantees. If it's okay for the commission I'd like to just present here, so I
have
the materials in front of me. Uh again, I am Kuth Wiley, uh Director of Parks Recreation and Natural Resources.
To hold it down, hold on.
All right. So again, thank you for this opera.
Hey Brad, you messed it up, see? Is
that better? All right.
I have done this before, I can assure you.
All right, so we're good to go. So again, I'm Keith Wiley, Director of Parks Recreation, Natural Resources. Before we get started, I wanted to it's actually in the second item. I wanted the commission to know that last September we presented by introduction this whole packet with the increase for park impact's fees. Uh the board approved the process, so this is actually the the start of that adoption cycle, if you will. So So the first item we're going to present is the comprehensive plan amendment. Which is a text amendment providing for comprehensive plan text amendments to Chapter 5, Recreation
and Open Space Element. I am on also Clicker.
So some significant history here.
Um we actually had a parks master plan back in 2015. We were able to get a general obligation bond back in 2018 to handle most of the deferred maintenance, well at least the deferred maintenance identified at the time back in 2018. Since that time, we've also identified and prioritized new facility needs, and we've we're calling that basically the PARKS 2022 to 2045 capital plan. In the process of uh getting ready to propose an impact fee increase, we contracted the services of Pritchard and Steinbeck. One of those members here, Mr.
Alan Steinbeck, is here to uh answer any questions as well. But we were able to complete the impact fee study. basically focused on a um not a consumptive plan but a or a consumptive impact fee study but a plan based study. This amendment incorporates that new method, measuring parks level of service, which is aligned with the new capital plan that I just referenced and was used in the impact fee study.
So on the left what we have is the current park uh acreage level of service standards. On the right is what we're proposing to uh have changed and be included into the comp plan.
This is the rather impressive capital plan that I was running.
This is the uh 2022 to 2045 capital plan that we pil built in. Again, it's project-based, plan-based approach. And how we basically came to that was we identified, um, I probably have that in the PowerPoint, but
Yeah.
We basically focused on these definitions. So you have a community park, a district park, and a natural resources park. And what we did was we actually mapped out Um the level of service. We defined our level of service as five miles on existing roadway networks, but so at the end of the day how we came up with the capital plan was why d we identified the deficiencies within those level of service areas. And that's basically how we were able to get to that point.
So this is the fun part. Just for clarification.
Talking about special use facilities, these needs of special facilities such as an aquatic facility, skate park, BMX park, dog park, shall be evaluated and maybe collected within a district park. So the idea is they would be incorporated into the amenities, which I thought was an important distinction to discuss. Because they're they stand outside of the the other the other park definitions.
Timeline for implementation. Um this is obviously again the Planning Commission meeting as you know that better than I do. Uh transmittal is scheduled for May 23rd with the final adoption hearing July 11th. The effective date will be thirty one days after the state Uh Land Planning Agency notifies Pasco County and we're proposing the effective date, which I'll cover later, to be January 1st of 2024 for the fee to actually go into effect.
Parks team recommends approval and I'm here for any questions.
All
right. Well
do we have any questions from the
Well I have one question. I'm curious, uh District Park
What okay, what is the number or the population that you anticipate use in a district park? I know you had one figure in there and I noticed there was a decrease of in the number. Um yeah, that one you had a community. Uh Of twenty five thousand people and yet it goes down to twenty thousand.
I that that kinda throws me off a little bit. W why would you go down?
From which from which category?
Upland Upland acre acres.
Current to new.
Yeah, and then it goes down the people and to uh the new one would be twenty thousand. I'm just curious on to why it decreased the number of people.
People per park, twenty five K and then if you go to the next Line over it's twenty K.
When we went through and did an a assessment of the number of parks by each category within the county, we looked at the existing number of persons per park and the future number of persons per park. And the way that worked out, we we started to tie those numbers more closely to what actually exists on the ground today and more importantly, tie them to the master plan improvements so that when we're done implementing the master plan and funding it, it aligns with these levels of service. And so these are approximately the levels of service
that will be achieved through the master plan. Okay.
But my way of thinking is that a community park
the definition would be for the community as whole, whereas a district park is for a much larger area. And I would assume that we're not going to be able I know what it some can mean sometimes, but it would the assumption could be that more people would use a community park because they're n more like a neighborhood park or they're close in.
So different different set of amenities. So your community park will provide more of your open space elements, but not necessarily Your
district park you said would be more open space?
No, no, no. The community park would be a step up from your neighborhood park that is obviously in the LDC that the development community is responsible for. Your community park would be a step up from that. but may not have the suite of athletic fields or other amenities that would that the community would need to let's say run various youth sports organizations. So
it's what what you just defined there to me would be a district park.
Where you have a great
greater number of assets you're running and you're tracking, your baseball fields, your soccer fields, those kinds of things become a district park, don't they?
Yeah. These these are all basically obviously triggered through concurrency by population. So so for example if a if the geographical area that we're looking at only supports the need for a community park space, then that's that's the concurrency requirement. If if you're looking at a population that's above that, then you're going to obviously need to serve more residents and have more amenities to do that.
This is also There's another way to look at this, Peter. Gotta kinda look at it inversely. I was confused when I first looked at this first, but what's real what this is really saying is that we'll have A higher density of community parks since we're decreasing the population served by indiv individual park. Your comment might be more applicable to the district park, where in that case we're slightly decreasing the density of dis
district parks per capita.
Whereas in the natural resources park we're increasing the density.
Well. The natural resources park doesn't it's not specified. Uh like the regional it said a hundred acres or greater, but natural resources it doesn't specify so.
Yeah, so the the I think the takeaway is that you we had to look we had to compare the existing inventory that we had with what we are ultimately trying to achieve through the level of service. And I don't wanna I don't wanna get in Allen's uh territory in terms of the level service stuff, but We were kind of we were kind of boxed in a little bit with the existing inventory that we had and we had to make sure that we that it all matched up through the level of service change that we were proposing.
I have a question with regard to the concurrency. There's a statement in here and I'm paraphrasing Um that basically the payment of the park impact fee would deem one concurrent I've read it. satisfy the concurrency requirement for natural resources parks. But community and district parks payment of the impact fee that may not necessarily be the case and with developments of
a thousand or more units. Or the aggregation of developments with a thousand or more units. that there may be other requirements imposed upon the developers other than just the payment of the fee. And where I'm somewhat bothered by that a little bit is there's no explanation about how we would achieve what would be deemed to be concurrent in that case. And I also see a
danger to that. And I look at that similar to mobility fees. The idea of mobility fees was that we kept them low in the ur low to none in the urban service area so that we would keep development in that area and keep it from spreading out into the less developed areas.
this particular provision, if I were a developer, would incentivize me to get away from developments that might trigger the thousand home, a thousand unit threshold so that I wouldn't have to bear some other unknown fee for a park.
Are you referring, Commissioner, to language in the comprehensive plan currently and and extant language that's in there based on this this recommendation? Find it here. Good so.
Yeah. No, this is all underlined. It appears to be new language. It says the concurrency standard for natural resources parks defined below is deemed to be satisfied by the payment of the Parks and Recreation Impact fees andor the allocation of penny for Pasco revenues to natural resources parks. Concurrency requirements are not automatically satisfied for community parks and district parks by the payment of parks and recreation impact fees and or the allocation of penny for Pasco revenues. Specifically
for large area plans in or master plan communities that are individually or cumulatively with surrounding projects. Greater than a thousand dwelling units and are either A. generally located outside the five-mile community park or district park service areas. in the most recent capital plan or B significantly exceed the most recent capital plan growth assumptions, additional community parks or district parks may be required to satisfy the level of service standards in the comprehensive plan. Community and district parks are defined below.
So you you have um existing a concurrency management form of managing parks facilities and the capacity thereof. Um what what that language enables the county to do. is to negotiate um Like it's been like it's done in the past for large scale developments to provide public facilities that are called for in the master plan in terms of of need. um as a function of development and for there to be a public-private partnership for the provision of those. All of the statutes
based under the system that you're in. require the county um if there is any sort of uh dedication of land facilities or what have you that meet the the needs of the county in terms of its community and district parks or natural resources parks, that developer would have a credit um against the impact fee owed. And um the the the there's always the need to make that person whole in terms of their participation in the public private partnership that minds you want a large scale development
when providing parks. So it gives you that option But um it wouldn't it wouldn't necessarily be a mandate uh to enforce that provision of the comprehensive
There language somewhere else in the comprehensive plan that establishes that a developer would be entitled entitled to a credit.
That's a state statutory requirement. There's no way there's no way around it.
Okay. And I and I will I and unfortunately Mr. Goldstein's not here, but I do remember that this section specifically was something that the County Attorney's Office needed felt like we needed to get in to address to address this issue.
I I was not a part of any of the work on this project. So I'm just filling in for David to make sure you all all vote, make your motions, that sort of thing. So I I was not involved. Don't go to jail. Sorry.
Thank you, Keith. Keith, before you move away from that are are you done? Go ahead. Okay. Keith, before you move away from that uh slide, so why are we getting away from an acreage description on, for example, Natural Resources Park. Um, you know, why are we not Understand the concept of it and alike, but why are we kinda moving away from the regional park being a hundred acres? Why is that not gonna be the same for a natural resources type type park? What's the Theory.
So again, we based off the existing inventory and how the uh the original level of service was calculated, this was the direction that we need to go in to make sure that we weren't and I don't remember the technical term, Alan, maybe you can help me out, but um we didn't want to basically Over provide service is the yeah, I think that was that was kind of the goal. But um again, our current inventory of wilderness parks, they vary in acreage across the board. So there's really not a an exact an an exact number that we can stick with. Um
They you know again from forty acres to six hundred acres to twenty thousand acres. So it's a little difficult to pinpoint an actual number on there. I don't know.
I mean from what I see, you know, based on the level of service, we're gonna actually have more There'd be a higher density of theoretically of natural resource parks. So I mean that's that's a good thing I think in the In the end. Yeah, for the for the layman that's kind of looking that at that, um, you know, it was an easy kind of definition of what a hundred acres is a regional park um Just just wondering what the
In addition through natural resources is. I mean it's Seems to be You know, you can figure it out just by the the words. But it should be more clearly defined. That's that's yeah what I'm thinking.
I would agree you you need to have some definition and We can have an administration today that sees a natural resources park as being eighty or a hundred acres and we could have an administration tomorrow that says well that five acres over there is natural resources call that at park.
So
there is an inventory of the natural resource parks and all the parks in the impact fee study. So I mean you you can see that I mean correct me if I'm wrong, but I mean they range in size from five to twelve thousand acres. Now there's three of the however many natural resource parks there, but there's only three that exceed that hundred acres. So that would lead me to believe why they took the hundred acres away.
Yeah, I think we need another definition or level of classification of the parks. I mean I think of the natural resources park
as like Starkey Park. It is it is defined here, but um natural resource parks are the areas that provide opportunities for those recreational activities that are compatible with the maintenance of natural conditions. A full service natural resources park shall provide basic service amenities such as parking and restrooms and low impact recreation amenities which include but are not limited to trails, picnic areas, campground, Fishing piers, boat ramps. The level of service standard for a full-service natural resources park is
one per 85,000 population.
And if I may two or three acres for every eighty five thousand people. That's tough.
Keith, I have a question for you. The the natural resources parks that are newer than say Starkey, they're the ones that are purchased with Penny for Pasco funding, right?
So no? Um that would be the E Lamp. Well, I mean again, so there's a difference between conservation areas and actual preserves that could be activated for parks. We are trying for that very reason to be a little flexible in ultimately what we would define as a natural resources uh park. So You can argue that passive recreation from a natural resources base point can happen in many, many different shapes. And I think that that's ultimately what we're trying to capture here. So uh for example, Key Vista Nature Park, I think that's slightly under a
hundred acres. Very, very popular, you know, location for people. A lot of people consider that a nature park. Uh Boy Scout is a property that Elamp purchased. It's on Greek Key Road. It's 18 acres, but also provides the same level of natural resource-based, you know, recreational opportunities. So it's uh and then I could put my biologist hat on and say that for a parcel to be whole and to be able to maintain itself in the perpetuity, it should be no less than two hundred acres. So again, there's lots of ways to look at this. We are just looking at
our inventory of what the community calls or uses as a natural resource park and trying to kind of make that definition match effectively.
The only thing worrisome about that is just future additions to inventory and whether or not It will fit that existing definition.
Well I mean I I think that I think it it I think it's easier to fit this way, quite honestly. Yeah.
I know for instance district park it s specifies specific parks that are under eighty acres. Um So there's a potential in the future that a district park is acquired or a park that you know, we designated district park is acquired that uh is less than eighty acres and then it won't be carved out in this existing definition if this is uh adopted.
Well how d how are you gonna calculate the impact fee, the actual impact fee to a developer?
S so we'll get uh we'll get that we'll get to that in the next series of presentations. Yeah.
Yeah, I'd like to get I'd like to see us get to the practical numbers so we can see. How it changes could
I make a motion to table this until after we've heard the presentation so that we're not voting on something until we have all of the information?
Yeah.
Yeah, you're gonna go through this the sections, right?
Yeah. So the next so the next item is
Um just a second, Mr. Chair, just for um there is someone signed up to speak specifically on this item. Okay.
Okay, is that the person that eagerly raised the right-of-way.
That troublesome looking person back there.
Yeah.
Can you give us your name and address, please?
Good afternoon, Cynthia Spidel. I'm with Stearns Weaver at 401 East Jackson Street, and I'm the only person who's been sworn. So we uh met with staff about the very um language that Commissioner John Moody brought up with respect to um concurrency and what satisfies concurrency. And staff worked with us and we actually made sure, you know, that that language that thousand units was in there um uh in aggregation or alone. And we talked about proportionality and impact fee agreements, that type
of thing. And David Goldstein said, you know, state law and the land development code require if a conveyance is to be triggered as a result, then obviously state law and the land development code require that that be proportionate. And there's impact fee agreements and development agreements that could cover that. So we were comfortable with the addition to the language of the thousand units. And it also has to be outside that five-mile service area. So with that language, I just came to speak in support of it. And thank you for bringing it up because that was exactly the concern
from the development community. Thank you.
Thank you. Any questions?
Nobody wants to grow a little bit. Another question.
this hearing was advertised Were the stakeholders invited? Personally, Were the big home builders, the big developers invited to attend this because I'm shocked none of 'em are here.
Yeah, so for well over a year and a half I've been talking to the Tampa Bay Builders Association about this. They were informed of the schedule. They've they were delivered the actual impact fee study. We've had numerous meetings. So I mean I could I could confidently say yes, in fact that they told of the day of the hearing. Yes, yes.
And in addition to that, we just had our horizontal roundtable meeting yesterday at which one of his staff folks presented and there was about 60 participants in that meeting and most of them are builders and builders representatives. And they heard they actually had gotten a presentation at a previous horizontal round table meeting fully of all the materials. So they have been informed.
All right.
Keep going.
Are you teeing up the other presentation? Okay. Thank you.