Planning Commission

Mhm. >> Mhm. >> Morning. I would like to call the regularly scheduled planning commission for April 16th to order. Please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. >> I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> Thank you. Are there any changes to the agenda? >> Sorry about that. Yes, there are. There was some um general public comment um and additional public comment on Village of of Amazon that was submitted after the update, so I'll pass those out. >> Thank you. Is there anything from the county attorneys? >> Nothing, Mr. Chairman. >> Thank you. We have uh March 12th, 2026 minutes for approval. Has everybody had a chance to review? Any comments or Yeah, I'll take a motion. >> I'll approve it. >> You have a First by Mr. Brown. Second by Mr. Scullion. Shula. Close. Please cast your votes. >> Is Mr. Zeigler on Zoom? Yes. >> Yes, I'm here. >> Okay. I was going to make sure he said his vote. >> Okay. >> Right. >> You need to state your vote. Scott. >> I vote I. >> Okay. So, the motion passes 5-0. >> Thank you. Let's move on to citizen comments. This is for consideration for future agenda items that are not on today's agenda. Each person will be limited to 3 minutes. Please step forward. Not seeing any, let's close citizen comments. Clerk, would you like to swear people in? >> Do you swear or affirm that the factual statements and representations you're about to present to the Planning Commission are truthful and accurate? >> I do. >> Thank you. Please read item number one in. >> Item number one, PDRV 1906 PR, The Surf. Um The Surf RV Resort LLC is the owner. It's a quasi-judicial, but it has been withdrawn. >> Thank you. Item two, then. >> Item number two, PDMU 1806 ZGR2. It's a rezone with amended GDP for Villages of Amazon South. It is um we have Alyssa Grove here as planner. And it's amending and restating ordinance PDMU 1806 GR2 1 add 35.53 acres to a 1,032.23 acre site, zone plan development mixed use, and two, to provide for the zoning of the additional um acreage from general agricultural to suburban agricultural and suburban agricultural A1 to plan development mixed use, consolidating the plan development mixed use zoning district for the entire site totaling 1,067.76 acres. Three, it's to res- revise the approved entitlements adding 313 multi-family units, 18,000 square feet to retail commercial, and 30,000 square feet to office use. Four, it's to approve and revise the general development plan for the entire acreage site for the mixed use project consisting of 3,158 residential units including 627 multi-family units resulting from the exchange of 279 single-family detached units based on um the loom that was approved, and 247,000 square feet of medical offices, 50,000 square feet of office, 220,000 square feet of retail and commercial uses, 150 hospital beds, and 327 assisted living beds inclusive of the previously approved development, and lastly, to remove condition 17 that no changes to the approved schedule of uses attached as exhibit B are proposed. The site is located in the northwest intersection of Moccasin Wallow Road and US 301. And we do have an update to the staff report which I'll hand out. Um mainly some numbers and acreages got transposed. So, it's just um resolving that issue. >> Thank you. Can we have the applicant's presentation, please? >> Mr. Chair, can we disclose ex parte communications? >> Has there been any ex parte communications? >> I would have thought Mr. Ziegler respond to. >> Okay. Mr. Ziegler, could you respond? Thank you. >> Hello commissioners. My name is John Neal, lifelong and current Manatee County resident and I have been sworn. Here today with me are my team of experts. From Neal Land we have Tom Pendergast, Ivory Matthews and myself. From Stantec, Katie Labar, Frank Domingo and Rob Ingle. From Kimley-Horn, Alec Hoffner and from Vogler Ashton, Ed Vogler senior counselor and man of the law. These are all folks who you know and whom your staff has worked for many years and with whom I have great confidence in their findings and advice and experience on these matters. We are here today to discuss and introduce a small expansion of a land area within our already approved mixed-use village at North River Ranch. Within these walls which is technically known as phase two of Amazon where other phases one, three and four have already been fully built out and platted. Combined these phases together with other parts of North River Ranch with the North River Ranch encompasses 2800 acres, 6000 approved units, parks, trails and schools. All within an area of fully completed and constructed or at least fully funded transportation nodes related to this build-out. So this 40 acre addition to phase two is a very small piece of a larger mixed-use community combined with other parts of phase two which completed will add the service of services of a hospital and ER, apartments, offices, medical offices, restaurants and retail in an attractive form the conceptual of which you can see here on your slide presentation. We are also here today asking to mitigate the impact of the remainder of a low-grade wetland which has already been impacted twice by others on two sides due to its due to its proximity to two major state and county road improvements. On its south side by Manatee County when it expanded Moccasin Wallow Road and by the state of Florida in its expansion of US 301 on its east side. It is not an ask I make lightly. We have proudly made zero impacts of this huge project in within this huge project, but in this case, it is a necessity and so mitigation I feel is the best policy. What I really want to talk about, however, is the context of the proposed place we are creating in North River Ranch Village and why we are creating it. This is not just another strip center for groceries and kitchen doodads and fast foods. It is a village which brings much-needed services and jobs with a mixed-use, livable, walkable, bikeable employment centers for residents of North River Ranch and the larger Parrish area. Really, we are in the center of a lot of activity, the center of the universe we like to say, and unlike other parts of the county which require residents to get in their car to go anywhere, we know that the predominantly young younger people moving to and living in North River Ranch and the surrounding area, some of whom may be here today in support, will appreciate being able to walk to shop or go to dinner or even to their place of employment without getting in their vehicles. Therefore, we we can do so with the off-road trails we have created with the 10-ft multi-use paths that Manatee County has created to reach these new and much-needed services. This multimodal reduces cars on the road, eliminates trip length, and so it actually reduces traffic. And as a result, this and as a result, this addition today requires zero new transportation improvements. Not by building more hugely expensive roads, but by improving services where people are living or or or moving. In closing for my part, I want to highlight that North River Ranch has in the last eight or so years of its existence become a special place in Manatee County. We are proud to offer homes to young people, to working people, to retired folks, all across the income spectrum. If you have not been there, you should go. The trails are being used. Kids walk to school or campus. We have four schools, you know. We have a lot of business owners, and if we could just provide a dynamic mixed-use village, they would set up shop there instead of across town. We offer a low This development offers a low-traffic alternative to traditional development. And with this mitigation and the services which we will offer, we will combine to make this proposed addition non-controversial and easy. We do this all within our codes and our allowances, which are created for this specific purpose. And therefore, I ask for your approval today. To discuss our zoning in more detail, I present Katie Labar of Stantec. Thank you. >> Thank you, John. Good morning, Commissioners. I'm Katie Labar, um an AICP certified planner with Stantec, uh representing Neal Land & Neighborhoods, and I've been sworn. The Villages of Amazon South is a large project uh that has had some form of approval since 2008. The plan's been amended twice, and phases 1 and 3 are constructed and fully platted. The request today is for the addition of 35 acres to phase 2, which is located at the intersection of US 301 and Moccasin Wallow. So, in the context of the overall project, the proposed changes are small, but they're important to fulfill the vision of the walkable, connected, vibrant, mixed-use community that John just spoke of. Infrastructure's in place to support uh the existing and proposed development, and the native habitat requirements of the land development code have been met uh with the overall project. The existing future land use for this property is urban fringe 3 and mixed-use, and uh no changes are proposed with this amendment today. Existing zoning is planned development mixed-use for the existing project and suburban agriculture with a little bit of general agriculture along the southern border of the 35 acre parcel, which is proposed to be rezoned to plan development mixed-use so that it may be incorporated into the overall project. In terms of density and intensity, we will add 18,000 square feet of retail square footage and 30,000 square feet of office. We also will add a total of 661 additional units to the overall project. The exhibit on the slide here illustrates the four districts that are proposed within phase two. The village center is envisioned as a walkable mixed-use hub that supports daily living and promotes community interaction through shops, restaurants, places to work, community gathering spaces, parks, and pedestrian connections. Landmark buildings, programmed events, and public spaces will create a vibrant social focal point for North River Ranch. The Village Gateway is located at the southeast corner of phase two and will serve as a more vehicular oriented edge district with prominent roadway frontages, which will accommodate uses like restaurants, convenience and fueling stations, and inline retail and other service oriented businesses. While the hospital campus will grow beyond the existing facility to include medical office and health care oriented facilities. The residential neighborhoods will prioritize higher density residential development to energize and activate this village center. In support of the mixed-use walkable design vision for Village Center, we've we have two requests for specific approval, which will allow for buffer vegetation to be relocated to other areas within phase two. This application is consistent with the comprehensive plan and the proposed uses are consistent with established future land use categories. The amendment will implement a diverse, high-quality, efficient, and functional community design. And finally, this proposed development supports strong communities through providing diverse housing, access to retail, commercial, healthcare, and office uses proximate to residents' homes. With that, I'll turn it over to Alec Hofner with Kimley-Horn to discuss the environmental aspects of this application. >> Thank you. Good morning. Um I'm Alec Hofner with Kimley-Horn, and I'm here today to represent the uh environmental aspects of the proposed project. And I haven't Well, I haven't I haven't been sworn. Um I wasn't in here for that. No need? Okay. Um Okay. I do. Thank you. All right. Um For those who of you who Those of you that don't know me, I'm a graduate of the University of Florida, and I've been working as an environmental consultant in Manatee County for over 30 years. And on this particular property since uh 2013. Uh the property we're discussing today has been used for intensive agriculture for for many years. Uh uplands of the site are mostly disturbed uh with little native habitat. There are approximately 138 acres of wetlands within the project area. Uh these wetlands are mostly ditched and drained from historical agriculture activity. As such, they have degraded functions and are largely vegetated with invasive species such as Brazilian pepper and primrose willow. Uh there are two items that I really want to focus on today. Uh one is the inactive eagle nest um that's located within the project area. And uh the second is the proposed wetland impact and mitigation that John uh mentioned earlier. So, let's take a look at the slide here. There's an eagle nest location shown on the slide. Uh this we've been monitoring this nest for for quite a while. For at least 2 years there's been no activity with this nest. So, currently there are no protection zones required. But be assured that if the eagle were to return, the applicant has a disturbance permit in place with US Fish and Wildlife Service. And so they are allowed to develop within 100 ft of the nest already. And if an eagle was to to establish a nest there again, we would follow all management guidelines in the disturbance permit to ensure that the eagles were not disturbed during construction. So, I want to move on to the wetland. Wetland 37 is indicated on the on the slide. And the applicant is proposing to impact this wetland in its entirety. This is a 24-acre wetland and is adjacent to the intersection of 301 and Moccasin Wallow Road. As John mentioned earlier, it's been impacted over the years. US 301 actually bisected right middle of the wetland. And then Moccasin Wallow has impacted the southern portions of the wetland. It's also been ditched and drained historically. It was a more of a herbaceous wetland historically, but now it has more of a forested or shrubby character. There's a quite a few nuisance and exotic species in this system and really has limited use by wildlife just because it's so disconnected from other offsite habitats. So, the reality is this wetland is located at a major intersection and will be completely surrounded by development if it is preserved. So, in my opinion given the current degraded condition of the wetland and the future anticipated disturbances, it's unlikely that this wetland will have long-term viability. So, can we go to the next slide, please? Oh. I guess I push this button. All right, great. All right, let's talk about the mitigation. Uh so, this is going to be an offsite mitigation project. So, it's not you know, near the um impact wetland or adjacent to the impact wetland, but it is within the same drainage basin as the impact wetland. So, it's located closer to the coast over uh north of Port Manatee. Um so, we believe the long-term functions of of wetland 37 can be maintained into the future by providing high-quality mitigation to offset wetland impacts. Um this will be accomplished through a a mitigation area that includes um 53.5 acres of creation from uplands and the enhancement of 11.4 acres of existing wetlands that are on the site. And the site is is shown on the on the map uh before you. Um it's located in a desirable place. Uh it's adjacent to lands owned by Manatee County uh that are shown in green that that surround Curiosity Creek. And this is a corridor of of native and wet upland and wetland habitats that are uh owned by the county. In addition, it's the mitigation area is going to be just to the east of the um Rock Ponds Ecosystem Restoration Area that Swiftmud has done. Uh this is a 1,000-acre ecosystem restoration project that's been very successful. So, uh so, we're in a in a good place here. Um So, in conclusion, the fact that the proposed mitigation area will be preserved and managed in perpetuity and is adjacent to other preserved native habitats, um we believe it gives it a much higher probability of long-term viability when compared to the impact wetland. Uh this concludes my portion of the presentation. Uh going to turn it over to Rob Ingle with Stantec. Thank you. >> Thanks, Alec. My name is Rob Ingle. I'm an engineer with Stantec and I have been sworn. I've also worked on this property since approximately 2013 and its surrounding infrastructure. Um I wanted to uh point out that uh from a stormwater perspective, this site sits at the northeast corner of the Buffalo Canal and Frog Creek drainage basin. Um the stormwater for this project and the surrounding projects utilizes the FEMA, county, and state approved uh Buffalo Canal Watershed Study as its design tool and is considered best available information. This This phase of the project has been contemplated in the surrounding infrastructure um that has been developed all around this project and no offsite stormwater improvements would be required uh for this phase of the project. I'd like to point out two stipulations um that will come along with the uh proposed approval for uh this site stormwater stipulations. One being that the um man it The stipulation mandates that the pre-developed discharge peak rate of runoff would be reduced by 50% in the post-developed condition. And the second would be that any impacts to flood plains would be compensated via the creation of an equal or greater storage volume. Uh and that um the Buffalo Canal Watershed Study would be utilized to um show no adverse impacts via no rise to any surrounding properties uh with the development of this project. Um tra- transportation and traffic, I just wanted to um highlight what uh John stated earlier in that um the approved traffic study requires no new improvements for this uh phase of the project. All those improvements have already been made in the extensions of roads uh providing access points and a signal at Fort Hammer uh and uh Moccasin Wallow. And with that, I'd like to turn it over to Ed Vogler. >> Mr. Chairman, my name is Ed Vogler. I have been sworn. I've got about a minute and a half, but you've got 4 seconds left, so I'd appreciate your indulgence for just a short summary. Thank you very much. The Planning Commission is an important resource for our community. And we appreciate your service very much. This is the type of project and project planning that should be appreciated by the board in our view. It's an incredible project that was commenced in 2013. The land use land use has been master planned. The storm water has been master planned and constructed for the whole project. The transportation network and project has been master planned and constructed. Our project has two land development agreements with local development agreements with Manatee County, which we completed all of the project infrastructure. We also have two or maybe three joint development agreements between the developer and Manatee County that has resulted in the design, permitting, and construction of Fort Hamer Road from US 301 through our project and ultimately to Buckeye. Number two, under those JDAs, we have arranged for the funding, the planning, the permitting, and now the construction of Moccasin Wallow Road from I-75 to you to US 301. So, all of the infrastructure has been planned and and implemented. And this is why the approved traffic study reflects the idea that even though we're adding a few additional units six 600 additional units, even though we're adding that use, there's no additional transportation required because it's all been constructed and planned. The other thing I wanted to mention just briefly is John said it, but I I want to unders- underscore it. We built this whole project on roughly 2,600 acres with no wetland impacts to date. This reflects a development culture for our projects that we do not seek to impact wetlands except to the extent necessary, and this is one of those. You'll see from your staff report that there are sufficient safeguards for the nat- native habitats, and that has also been completed on our project. The wetland impact here and the decision to allow it is a good policy decision. This will result, as Alex explained to you, in real-world mitigation in the basin. Real-world mitigation where we're going to make the mitigation and monitor it. And I can tell you and represent to you that the mitigation lands we own today our client owns today, and we're in a position to accomplish all of that mitigation. Utilization of this land on the corner of Moccasin Wallow and US 301 is a good planning decision. Use of um use of the land as an integral part of our project is really the planning essence that we've tried to achieve rather than piecemeal in an integrated project that's a large project in a developing area. And this is exactly how we, as a community, I think, Manatee County, uh should promote large projects in these developing areas, and for all of those reasons we think that this deserves your support today. Thank you. >> Are there any questions for the applicant this time? >> Yeah, I do. >> Mr. Brown. >> Um Yes. First, the history of this property it's started um back in 2008. Um there was a uh preliminary site plan for you know, the 1,032 acres again in 2014, 2019, and more recently in 2022. Uh all with the 1,032 acres. Why now is it is necessary for these 35 acres to be added? Why wasn't it added in one of those other >> I think I'm best to answer that. Um Commissioner Brown, uh we acquired the property in the first tranche that we call Villages of Amazon. Subsequent to that, we acquired the property to north which has its own project approval called Havel Farms. So, we went from I'm going to use round numbers 1,100 acres to 2,600 acres. The corner piece was owned by uh the Chin family. And we've worked very carefully with them over the years both for this property and the adjacent property across the way. As a matter of fact, we have a a project that we're applying for uh across US 301. Um if it's not applied for, it's going to be very soon applied for. So, we had intended to acquire the 35 acres from Mr. Chin and it just took a while to do that. But >> All right. Um I have some questions on Kimley-Horn's environmental study. Um This 35 acres, about 70% of it's wetlands. Correct? >> We measured uh 24 acres of wetland. >> Yeah, out of 35 acres, that's about 70% of the site is wetlands. Um can you explain to me um how the U U M score is evaluated? It's got a U M score of with all the impacts that we've seen and everything else, you U M score of 0.633. >> Yes, sir. >> And what does 0.633 mean? >> So, it'd have uh 63% of the um function of a uh pristine wetland. >> Right. So, it's moderate to high-functioning wetland, would you agree? >> I would say that it's uh a significantly degraded system. Um it does have wetland function. Yes, it has wetland function. >> Right. 0.633 is a highly functional wetland. Even with all the stresses that it's been under right now, it's still a functioning wetland. Um so, you know, your your your report starts off by stating that your um basically addressing section 705 and 70 uh 706 of the land development code. And a couple of parts that you're really missing, especially out of 706, the wetland protection, is uh avoidance minimization. We're having addressed avoidance minimization uh of those wetlands. And the second part is the public benefit of impacting those wetlands. >> Okay, well >> Um >> if if I can answer your question, um it's our opinion that the wetland is degraded. It's been significantly impacted by historical activities. It will continue to degrade um and that the functions of that wetland are better served in a offsite mitigation area. >> Which is not in this watershed. >> No, it is within the watershed. >> It is not in this basin. >> It is in that basin, yes. >> I know where Rock Pond is. I mean, Rock Pond is up in Hillsborough County and adjacent to Manatee County. >> It's in the Tampa >> not in It's not It's not in Gamble Creek. It's not in >> It is in the basin that the impact wetland is located. We've had um a pre-application meeting with the water management district and they agree with us that this mitigation is appropriate for an impact in this location. So, and that it is in the same basin. >> And again, mitigation is not a natural system. You're taking uplands and you're going to create a wetland system. >> It has wetland function, yes. >> Correct. This has wetland >> years and and I've had very successful >> And this has wetland function existing and you're going to create a wetland function, which has to be monitored, which has to be evaluated. Um I don't know who I don't know what kind of guarantees there's going to be. Um >> Well, there's financial guarantees, uh bonds that are put in place. There's uh regulatory guarantees that we're going to have to provide to the regulatory agencies. So, there's There's a lot of things in place that will require us to have a successful outcome with our mitigation project. >> And who's going to monitor that other than water management district? Is the county going to monitor? >> will. >> Is How is How is the county going to be notified uh >> They will be copied on the monitoring reports that will be submitted to the water management district. >> Okay. Um again, this is I don't think you've met the criteria for 705 uh 706 as far as I I don't see the public benefit of I mean, basically, it's just mitigation. I don't see the public benefit of impacting this wetland. That's just my opinion. >> Okay. Any more questions? >> What what is the exchange on >> Well, see, we're we're impacting 24 acres. Uh we're going to be providing uh a little over 50 acres of creation and another 11.4 acres of enhancement. >> Almost double. >> Yes. >> Okay. Yes, sir. >> Are you done, Mr. Brown? >> Um the 11 acres of enhancement, where is that? >> It's on the mitigation site. Uh there are uh some existing wetlands that are contained within that property that will be enhanced as part of the mitigation project. >> Could there be enhancements on the existing site? I mean, you know, kind of the trade-off of of of >> I'd like to respond to that, Commissioner. Obviously, this is an important question for this for this decision. >> Yes. >> But, you know, there are a lot of competing policies in our comprehensive plan and our planning objectives. Lots of competing policies. And that's why we come to the board to try to debate those. And you identified your position on that. And what we've said is that when you have these competing policies, on balance, this is a better use of this property. This is a better use of the property for the community as a whole, not just North River Ranch, but for the community as a whole. You create the walkability. You create the bikeability. You reduce the transportation trips. It's in the staff report. It's the methodology of transportation engineers. You create the uses where the demand is. You improve the lifestyle of the people in our community. And these are important objectives. And so, while I recognize that the preservation of wetlands is an important policy as well. When the two policies butt against each other and you can demonstrate the proper mitigation through the agency that permits the mitigation. That's a good decision. And it's really hard like I get 2 minutes to speak and say this is good policy. This is a good policy decision. This is a good policy decision. And um we don't take this lightly either. And so I just want to assure you we own the land for the mitigation. We've designed the mitigation. We've had pre-op for the mitigation. We expect it to be approved by the Swiftmud. And we're we have to financially guarantee it for an extended period of time and we will. >> Whoops. Sorry. Anything more, Mr. Wright? >> Um Go ahead. Everybody else. >> Go ahead, sir. >> I just have a a quick question. Um I don't know who to direct it to. The uh I believe it's the HCA hospital there. Do we know will there be EMS paramedic ambulances there stationed there? >> Uh Yes, I We have a it's pre-approved and you can see it actually in this diagram in the top right. It'll have an it'll be the I met with a Chief Bailey and we'll actually have a hot helicopter pad there and it's approved in our in our approval. So there's a fire station where EMS is stationed, but this is the closest location and we'll have a heliport for Uh no, I'm sorry. No ambulances on site at this time. >> Yes, sir. >> Great. Thanks for the presentation. I appreciate that information. I was a little unclear. >> Sure. >> Is that better? >> Yes. >> So, uh the I was unclear on the community workshop information. Did the community workshop include the additional rezone details and comments? It seemed to like I was trying to figure that out. Uh like the rezone was a little bit later. There's a number one and a number two in the agenda. Did the Did the workshop include, when those folks were there, all of the details and the changes in quantity uh of residential dwelling units as well? Was that all part of the year's workshop? >> Commissioner Shula, Katie Labar with um with Stantec. And yes, the the neighborhood workshop that we hosted was all-encompassing. We addressed all of the changes that were proposed with this application. It was in our uh public notice, but it was also discussed with the residents. Um it was a workshop-style meeting, so that each of the residents were really able to approach the team and ask the questions that they were most interested in, and we were able to give them those specific uh answers to the questions that they were interested in. But, we did we did address each of those specific aspects of our request. >> Thank you. The um I was uh the adjacent property, I know is your property, right? The North Ranch and all of the phases of it. Um but I didn't see any real comment from anybody significant in any of those HOAs. Do you still retain control of those HOAs as a 70% landowner in those properties? Cuz I don't see a specific and I would think that when you had a residential community that's adjacent, you're fortunate that you own all of those voices, let's say, in the HOA, perhaps. Uh Are there any Are there Are there any uh HOA concerns that were raised from the um other properties of your own? >> Well, first of all, there's a stewardship district for the project. And so there's in addition to local HOAs for neighborhoods, um there's a stewardship district for the entire project. And so there's a stewardship board, and they have regular meetings. A stewardship district is a public body. It's a limited purpose government that applies only to the area of the stewardship district. Within the community itself, there is one HOA, one essentially master HOA. And as each of the communities have been developed, we have added those lands into the HOA. And there are multiple home builders out there. In addition to Neal Communities, there five or six other home builders. And so they have their own communities, both the price points and the design and community design. I'm simply not aware of any um objection to what we're trying to accomplish here. As a matter of fact, um I believe that we anticipated some level of support actually at a planning commission meeting, which is very unusual, I might add. Normally, you get people to object. But Mr. Sciullo, let me just say, when they don't come to object, that sends a message, too. >> I I wasn't The comment wasn't necessarily whether they are in favor or reject the project. It was just surprising to me that there are HOAs or stewardship districts, as you explained. I'm not sure what their level of control or turnover has been there. So it concerns me sometimes when you have an HOA that may not have turned over control completely to the residents of those HOAs based on home sales and so forth. They haven't provided a collective public comment about an adjacent development. And I didn't see that in there. I saw several individual comments, right? Th- Those are on the record, but I was just expecting to see something collective from the >> There's a premise to your question that I think is not correct. Um the stewardship district has a completely independent board from the developer, completely. That That the stewardship district is a public body, and those seats are ultimately elected. But that's completely independent. On the HOA side of it, you you say developer control, um no. There are independent members of the HOA board, too. And there are budgets. And when you have how many residents do we have? Um I don't know. 3,000 or something like that. There's a huge budget, and there's a lot of interaction. And so people want this project, and that's why um we haven't heard any um opposition to it. But in terms of quote control, the statute requires that independent members of the board get elected at certain intervals. The essence of control, and the reason the developer retains control, is so that it can apply for zoning approvals, that it can make adjustments to easements, that it can modify common areas, that it can create a budget to improve sales. So developer control is um I don't know if you're characterizing it as something that would um diminish uh um public input, but it doesn't. >> I think we're talking past each other. You you keep almost insinuating that I'm I think that this developer control is doing something nefarious. I'm just asking for the collective group of people that live there. Sometimes you would ask the representation from the collective group to provide public comment. That's it. I'm not I'm not insinuating that, you know, you guys are strong-arming individuals. I'm just saying that what's the It was surprising to me. A general statement that those folks didn't get together and say, "What do we feel about this?" That's all. >> John John Neil, developer, Neil Land and Neighborhoods. And I've been sworn. Uh Sir, that we are experienced in huge disclosures. I I think that they've been aware of this for a long time, longer, in fact, than anybody anybody in this room or at anybody at this board, because we we forecast it and we take their consideration, you know, that the neighborhood meeting is just a requirement of of of this board, but it's our responsibility to our customers to make sure that they're aware of what's going on. And And they really demand it. And they are uh at least everybody who's reached out to me is interested in having this go forward, because they want the services we've approved as Manatee County, something like 44,000 units east of the interstate in this region, but we just haven't provided the services for them, so they have to get in their car and drive somewhere to get them. Whether they're driving into Palmetto, to Lakewood Ranch, to St. Petersburg, to Tampa, and it's becoming kind of a problem. And you see that expressed in the in the uh letters that we got or the letters that you received, you see this angst or this anger expressed, but we can deal with it by providing the services where we have designated for folks folks to live in the North County. And, you know, and that's And that's essentially what we're trying to do here. >> I appreciate that. >> That's Thank you. >> I'm sorry, go ahead. >> Just from a procedural standpoint, I just wanted to make the point also that staff has the latitude to require applicants to um increase their notice areas. And so, in this instance, both for the um public for the neighborhood workshop as well as for Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners, we were we were required to notice the typical uh notice radiuses of 500 ft from the property line. We were required to notice 1,300 plus feet beyond the property line as well as within. So, all of the residents within the neighborhood and beyond were noticed for this for this application. So, I just I wanted to make that point just for awareness. >> Great, thank you. The other question I had was in the in the environmental narrative the avoidance statement, it says community benefits such as improved infrastructure. That's what it said in the the first paragraph of that statement. What infrastructure improvements are you talking about here? Um Well, and and I understand the traffic density you said didn't increase. But it says in the avoidance statement that the community benefits such as improved infrastructure. Is there some additional infrastructure on that parcel, that 35 acres that's going to provide additional community benefit, something infrastructure-related? Because you mentioned earlier that the infrastructure was already in place, meaning the roads were already in place, the storm water system was already in place as part of your master plan. But then in the environmental narrative it says there's additional community benefits. What are they? >> What I think what we're we're stating is that the development itself will benefit the the surrounding community. I think that's been been stated by >> But it says infrastructure. So, I mean are you are you are you saying the commercial businesses are part of the infrastructure? >> I I don't think it was really specific to any sort of like storm water or anything along it was infrastructure meaning buildings and you know, other structures to serve the the development. >> Okay. >> Just just to supplement, um the 35 acres is undeveloped today. So, when we talk about the master plan and the master systems, they're off-site. So, when you have authorization to develop the 35 acres, infrastructure will be developed on that site. Both stormwater and utility and roadway in addition to buildings. And so that's the reference to infrastructure on the new infrastructure on the 35 acres. So the the existing systems are in place, but we'll have to connect them from the new infrastructure. >> So it's not a it's not Manatee County infrastructure. It's just the infrastructure for your site to drain to the master plan. >> Well, that's correct. It's mostly the stewardship district infrastructure. It outfalls um almost exclusively to is it Buffalo Canal? >> Correct. >> It outfalls almost exclusively to Buffalo Canal, which of course is a county-owned facility. >> Okay. And I I just sort of wanted to make one other point there to one of what the other commissioners had had spoke about. You said that it's been historically altered. This wetland has been historically altered. But I I think we can all hopefully agree that um that's one of the only pervious surfaces remaining in that area. So whether the wetland area has been previously altered over time uh in that in that little segment, it's it's just a it's a 35-acre piece of uh of wetland that that you're talking about removing. So uh you know, it's important I think to think about in terms of the whole project because you said it's this was critical piece of your project. This was critical to the entire master plan. Uh I think you had said in there that um Oh, there was a couple other, you know, emphatic words that this was the probably the key piece here. But it comes at the very end of of your your project. If it was that critical, I would have thought you'd have secured it earlier on. And you did speak about that. So I understand it's hard to get those properties. >> We We uh Neil again. Historically actually, if you look backwards, use the little the little slider on the Google Maps. If you slide it back, you'll see that there's no wetland here at all. This The wetland is created in this place by two big roads because they didn't used to uh plan for drainage in the in the way that we model them today. So, historically it wasn't there at all, but we have hundreds of acres of wetlands at North River Ranch and they're preserved and they're beneficial and they're protected and they have nature corridors and they have everything else. Uh Mr. Brown said something earlier. I just want to sort of get back to that. Even though I'm not an environmental scientist, I do now own the property. Uh I wish I had owned it a long time ago, but I own it now. And the fact of the matter is even with the 0.6, what you can see walking around the property is that everything that's born in it dies in the ditch at the side of the road cuz it's isolated. It's separated completely by two six-lane roads. You just can't you can't get there. Even the the eagle who once lived here moved away and he doesn't have to cross the road. So, it's our point is is that it's good policy to take something that is impacted and will be further degraded, you know, tire bits, cups from 7-Elevens and, you know, the all the stuff that comes off the side of the road and put it into a place that's in a in a more advanced collected system, which is what uh we're proposing. We just think that that's better. It has the net benefit to the community. That's the net benefit we're talking about and and that's the measure. >> But your your specific question was about critical elements. I believe you used the word a couple of times. So, it is clearly true in all marketplaces like this that commercial follows residential. You have to have enough residential users to have the power that can drive commercial uses. And so and it's almost axiomatic that commercial uses come at the end of a residential development project. And we're fortunate to be able to acquire this land from a family that's owned it for about a hundred years. Not an easy thing to do, but we did it and we're and it is a critical element of our project. And the reason it's delayed is because of what I said to you. >> Thank you. Any additional questions? Mr. Ziegler, do you have any questions? >> Nothing from here, John. Thanks. >> You're welcome. Uh, could we have the traffic guy come up and just kind of go over riding more residents, but not more traffic, I guess. >> Um, for the record, uh, Frank Domingo with the Stantec firm, uh, I'm your traffic guy and I have been sworn. So, um, you have a question about um, the >> Just the volume of >> how we added units and so, um, what we have in place is a land use exchange matrix and what we did was we exchanged, um, single family residential um, which is a higher, uh, higher trip generator than multi-family. Um, the, uh, land use exchange matrix is based upon the Institute of Transportation Engineers trip, um, trip generation manuals and their rates and it's basically a ratio that is taken from, uh, those standardized rates. Um, if if you're looking for how much less is multi-family than, um than single-family residential or or commercial for that matter. Um it's about uh 40% less trips uh per per dwelling unit for uh for multi-family when you compare it to um when you compare it to single-family dwelling units. So, it's basically if you're if there's one trip in the PM peak hour for a single-family dwelling unit, multi-family is around uh point point six uh trips per um per unit. >> And that's based on bedrooms or >> It is just based on units. Um that is the it doesn't get down to as far it doesn't get down to that gran that um that granular because the the way the data is collected. Um and but that data has been collected for by ITE for probably since 1950. Um but it's also regularly updated. We actually uh Stantec counts and monitors a lot of traffic. We actually submit studies to the um to ITE to actually incorporate that in so their data is refreshed. Um we've been doing that for as long as I've been a consultant, 20 uh 20 years. Um and you know, so some of the questions are, well, 1950's data, that doesn't really apply. Well, it doesn't. You know, the it it constantly gets updated over time. So, um you know, it's it's the national standard, but it also is updated for um uh with data that's um from states like Florida which have more recently grown. Um air quote recently, but um that data has also been incorporated in there to kind of capture that. I will also go uh on record of saying we've been individually counting multi-family in Southwest Florida versus residential for, um, at least for nearly 20 years. And, um, what we've also found is the trip generation in Southwest Florida is generally lower than the rest of the country, um, probably because of the age the the demographics down in, uh, Southwest Florida. >> Okay. Any additional questions for applicant? >> Yes, since transportation was there, do you anticipate that traffic will move through this location if it's commercial from those residential sites to the back? I didn't really see how it was connected to there. But, I did see the addition of them. So, is there an expectation that let's say adjacent communities can now move through those commercial nodes that are towards the corner there instead of departing on Fort Hamer or uh, maybe to the north on Buckeye. They're going to move through that commercial site. >> Okay. So, um, um, I'll I'll I'll give you a little history and then why where we're at with that. Um, when we first started this project and we met with county staff and Nelson Galliano talked about interconnectivity and mixed use. And he says, "You really need to have more interconnectivity and mixed use." And that's one of the reasons why we had to why we wanted to buy the Chin parcel for so long. Um, so the answer to that is absolutely we will be interconnecting with local roadways. And what one of the folks didn't answer, I didn't think they answered it well on the, on the infrastructure, we're actually including trails. The whole point of this is not just cars. We this community and what's really cool about this community is they walk and bike to the amenities, to the non-residential. That's the point. That's the whole point of this. The other point of this is that multi-family those are the folks that are going to get the starter jobs at the hospital and they will actually be able to get to work without even using a car. The goal of this is to get actually have multimodal transportation in there. One of the things that I said is there's a trail going in there. That's infrastructure that makes a huge difference because that's what community wants. The other thing about this um this site is it's younger than the rest of Southwest Florida and guess what those folks are more than likely going to ride the bike because they're more physically capable. They're going to walk and they're going to walk there and the other great thing about it is they're starting to get they're changing the next generation cuz guess what they're doing? They're living and walking to the places if they want to go get ice cream, if they want to go get their prescription, if they want to go to work. All those things are self-contained in here and that's part of the land use piece that's interconnected with the transportation design. It is truly multimodal. And if you go out when they say go out there, they also have one thing that Neal Communities that I think um does incredibly well and I'm sorry for the long answer is they create events and community events and people walk out to them and that's changes that's the behavioral change that traffic engineers can't do but communities can. And I think that is one of the bigger important things that um that when you look at this this development and this community and this district it's got everything that um traffic engineers say are best practices from a land use standpoint. And I'll I'll stop. >> Thank you. Any additional questions? >> Right. Can we have a staff presentation, please? >> Good morning. Alyssa Grove with staff and I have been sworn. Uh as we know, we're here for Villages of Amazon South. I'll try not to be too repetitive with the information, uh but here we have our general site location and we're at the intersection of Moccasin Wallow and US 301 in Parrish. Uh this is a summary of the request, which we've heard, but pretty much we are adding or the applicant is asking to add 35.53 acres to the existing site uh and asking to rezone that added acreage um from A and A1 to PDMU. Uh they are also requesting to increase the entitlements for residential, retail commercial, and office um within this application. Um a little summary of the entitlement increases, we see an increase of the uh multi-family units by 940. Uh just to give a little breakdown of that, 313 of those units are an ask for increase, whereas 627 of them are going to be that exchange with the land use equivalency matrix. Uh so just a breakdown of that request right there, and then 18,000 uh increase of commercial and 30,000 increase of office. Um we've got our access points, four of them, which are on US Highway 301, and three access points from Moccasin Wallow. There is no change to the schedule of uses. There are two requested uh specific approvals, and there are two changes to the conditions of approval, A1 and A17, uh which we can talk about a little bit more. Uh here is a site map that in red the added acreage in comparison to the entire parcel or the entire project site. Uh, just give some context of where we're looking. And then here is the general development plan that was submitted by the applicant. Uh, we've got our future land use categories for the site. Uh, majority urban fringe UF3. Small portion of it is mixed use MU and then an even smaller portion is public semi-public. And this is for the entire project site, not just that added acreage. And then going into zoning districts. With the existing, we've got general agriculture and suburban agriculture. Uh, within the added portion, that 35 acres, and then within the whole development, it's planned development mixed use. And the proposal is to rezone that added 35 acres, uh, to be consistent with the entire project, uh, so changing it to PDMU. These are the two specific approval requests submitted by the applicant. They're both related to buffering. Um, not getting rid of buffering, just moving it to a different location, uh, to help with, uh, the design process. There was a neighborhood workshop held, uh, as mentioned by the applicant. It was located at Parrish United Methodist Church on December 15th, 2025. Uh, here you can see a summary of the issues and concerns, uh, brought forth by the attendees. So, questions related to the entitlement process, next steps, and timing of the development. And then some discussion about access off of Fort Hammer and general transportation questions, but also specific to the two roundabouts at 301 access points. Uh, here we have a little bit of history on this site. Uh, it's been discussed a little bit. Uh, I'm just going to give an overview just for context. So, in 2008 was when the project was first rezoned from A to a plan development PDR. So, a PSP was approved for residential units, recreational amenities, an elementary school, fire station, park, etc. The PSP has since expired. In 2014 is when the site was rezoned from PDR to PDMU and approved for single-family residential, commercial, and office space. And then 2019 is when we get the zoning ordinance that we see today and that we're that the applicant is requesting to amend today. So, that's PDMU 1806. It was approved for residential units, single-family and multi-family, 40,000 square feet of commercial, and 20,000 square feet of office space. And 2022 is when there was an amendment to the said zoning ordinance to approve 2,497 residential units, adding some of that medical office, keeping the regular office square footage the same, adding some more retail and commercial, and adding hospital beds and assisted living facility beds. There was also a concurrent comprehensive plan map and text amendment in order to change the future land use category from UF3 to mixed use of a small portion of the entire project site in order to facilitate that development of the hospital. Here is an overview of public facilities. Potable water, wastewater, and reclaimed water are all available. And there is capacity available within the school service area or contiguous school service area for those residential units being proposed. A quick overview of the flood plain. It is in the FEMA 1% annual flood hazard area. As for storm water, which was spoken about briefly already, within the Buffalo Canal watershed, and there is the conditions for post development runoff must not exceed 50% of pre-developed runoff. Here is the transportation link capacity analysis. And this is a a long one. There's a whole another slide, too. Um so you can take a quick glance at that before I move on. Another one. Um so all of those link capacity analysis. And then getting into positive and negative aspects. So as for the positive, we do see buffers that are exceeding the minimum requirements. Um but the proposed commercial and office uses in the residential portion of the development will serve that area and surrounding residential communities. And the proposed mixed-use development will encourage internal trips, which can reduce congestions on the roadways as the applicant had mentioned. As for the negative aspects, uh as we heard, the impacts is going to be to the entire 24.7 24. 79 acres of wetlands. Um but the applicant does have a mitigating measure and proposing to provide mitigation through a combination of offsite permittee responsibility mitigation um or wetland enhancements. Um Environmental noted that none of the native pine oak habitat within that 35.53 acre is proposed for preservation. Um and no mitigation measures were proposed. Uh we also see the construction activities proposed within 330 ft of the bald eagle's nest. But as the applicant mentioned, they do have the required necessary incidental take permits for construction within those parameters. And then lastly, we've got several road segments need to be widened to address background efficiencies that are not yet addressed by the existing LDA and CIP. It's only about three of those segments of all the ones that you saw in those two charts. Um and none proposed for that. Uh here we have the two conditions of approvals that are being adjusted. One of them did mention that no lot shall be plotted through any landscape buffers, retention ponds, wetlands, wetland buffers, or upland preservation areas. As we know, the added uh acreage does have wetlands. So, that condition of approval uh would need to be removed. And then the applicant requested for A17 to be removed as well, which says all non-residential developments within the UF3 portion of phase two shall meet commercial locational criteria. And this is in order to make sure that they can do development within the site cuz commercial locational criteria requires that road frontage. You can't really put commercial internally if you're requiring it along those road frontages. Um so, it helps create uh the neighborhood design plans that they're they're intending to for mixed use. And here are the policies where this is this application is consistent with our comprehensive plan. And same with the land development code. So, in conclusion, this request may demonstrate consistency with the goals, objectives, and policies of comprehensive plan and the applicable standards of the land development code. Uh and staff will conduct a thorough analysis for compliance with the requirements of the LDC and the comprehensive plan at time of final site plan submittal. Thank you. >> Thank you. Are there any questions for the staff? >> Yes, I do. >> Go ahead, sir. >> Okay. Um going through your staff report, I don't know whether you can answer all of these or not, but um surface water, um existing conditions, um being a large project, it requires a um pre-post development for ni- uh for nutrient management plan. >> Okay. >> Okay, has it it says that the um the monitoring program shall be subject to the county approval conditions of the first permit. Um it says has been submitted. Has the plan for the entire development been submitted and approved, do you know? >> So, they have different phases that have already been submitted and approved, and right now we're just looking at phase two. Well, when they come in with their next application, it'll be for phase two. >> Okay, was there a nutrient reduction requirement for I mean, I I I we hear that there has to be a a flow reduction, but for these large projects, these uh surface water you know, management plans are pre-imposed for uh like nutrient reduction. Has that been established? >> I've got Denise here to answer. >> So, that is something that Swiftmud regulates. So, that will have to be part of their Swiftmud permit. >> Okay, my question is why why isn't the county looking at that, too, since the county is partnered to the Tampa Bay nitrogen management consortium, and the county has uh nutrient reduction commitments of their own, how how aren't these, you know, these should be in the >> of our stormwater requirements right now. That would have to be added to our our stormwater requirements in the public works manual. >> But, you do have a you do have a commitment with the nitrogen management consortium as a partner, um and on the policy management board, there are projects that need to be added to this. I would suggest that these be looked at in in in that vein as well. >> And I would think that would be something maybe that you should bring up when we have our workshop with the board on stormwater. >> Yeah. >> But >> But again, it's already existing, it's been in existence for 10 15 years. These projects, again, large projects where the data is available should be incorporated for the county use as well. I mean, we're using all kinds of or historically we've used all kinds of different projects for nitrogen management reduction that the private sector does. To me, these large developments This It's written in here, so it should be utilized. I wouldn't depend on Swiftmud only. >> And we can let the engineer of record speak to that. He may have the information right at his fingertips. >> Sure, these projects and all the stormwater management systems except for this 35 acres that we're adding here have been designed and permitted to the state and county criteria. The new criteria that you're talking about is will apply to this new 35 acres in the actual reduction of nutrients. Previously, we were held to a standard of not to increase nutrients and we did meet those standards. >> Right. Well, that's >> we will be required to reduce in this new 35 acres. >> And that's the pre-post. So, you did an evaluation, engineering evaluation, pre-development and you've done a post-development and to show that you have not increased those. >> Yeah, that will that will come in effect with these new 35 acres. >> Great. Thank you. Um In the public facilities, um I don't know what point in time we're going to start talking about water water supply. I mean, this project we're looking at 1. or 1,700,000 gallons a day for this project. Uh in addition, they're looking at you know, reclaim you talked about uh 34,000 gallons uh from non-potable water sources, which is reclaimed and apparently there's existing wells on site um that they could utilize both of them. Um when are we going to start looking at water conservation? I mean, though if there's wells on site and there's uh reclaimed available, let's retire those wells. Let's I mean, our groundwater is being impacted severely right now. There's no reason to use groundwater uh from the existing wells from agriculture to to irrigate lawns. I mean, we need to look at conservation. So, I would encourage the county to start looking at, you know, some water conservation measures as we go forward um because that's again that's a lot of water uh just to water grass. So, um that's listed in here. Um also in the wastewater management, basically states that there's no uh wastewater capacity at the North County plant for this project. Why are we permitting something or approving something when there's no capacity for the wastewater? >> Um there is capacity at the plant. It's it