BCC Land Use Meeting April 23, 2026 — Transcript

Mhm. >> Welcome to a meeting of your Manatee County Board of County Commissioners. Representing District 2, Amanda Ballard. >> [music] >> Representing District 3, Tal Siddique. Representing District 4, Mike Rahn. Representing District 5, Dr. Bob McCann. Representing District [music] 6 at large, Jason Bearden. Representing District 7 at large, George Kruse. The County Administrator is Charlie Bishop. Time is set aside at the beginning of each meeting [music] for citizens to speak on any issue. Citizens are asked to limit their comments to 3 minutes. Today's meeting is [music] brought to you with closed captioning. All right. Good morning everyone. Today is Thursday, April 23rd, 2026. The Land Use Meeting of the Board of County Commissioners. Today we'll begin with an invocation by Pastor Wendy Thompson from Glory Cloud Ministries, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance from Commissioner Amanda Ballard. Please rise for the invocation. Please bow your heads. Dear Lord, thank you for bringing us here today on another beautiful day in Manatee County. Help us to make good decisions, to be respectful, and to honor the land and place that you've given us. Amen. 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. Ms. Napper, are there any changes to the agenda today? Good morning, Commissioners. There are several. Item number four has additional public comment. Item number six has a revised motion to continue to no date set and be re-advertised. This is due to an advertising error. Item seven has additional public comment. Item eight has a revised title and motion to correct the ordinance number. And number 11 has additional public comment. This concludes your changes. Thank you, Ms. Napper. Uh go ahead. Oh, so Ms. Napper, so item six is a school resolution? Will you follow through on getting the the extension email from the school board? >> We've already discussed that. There was a discrepancy on their plans and narrative regarding the square footage, so it was advertised incorrectly. So, they should get they should give us a written affirmation on a deadline. Okay, thank you. That's six. But, are we still hearing that then today? No. Okay. All right. I'll open it up to public comment for consent agenda. Does anyone have public comment on consent? We have two items there. Seeing none, I'll close public comment. Do any commissioners like to pull from consent today? Seeing none, I'll take motions to approve consent. So moved. Second. That's a motion by Commissioner Run, seconded by myself to approve the consent agenda. We'll do a voice vote for the clerks. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Nay. All right, that passes unanimously. Okay, we'll start with citizen comment on future agenda items. I missed the order of that, but we Why don't we just go to that? Please state your name, county of residence, and you have 3 minutes. For the record, Glenn Jubilena. On Tuesdays On Tuesdays' meeting, >> [clears throat] >> I was cut off by the chair when I was trying to explain to them about Mosaic for a future agenda item. So, the chair doesn't think that Mosaic will ever come up again. And that's just not true. So, the role of the chair is to take public comment without interruption. And he's been doing it consistently the last couple of times. The public doesn't appreciate it. I don't appreciate it. So, you are not to act as a gatekeeper. Future agenda items means anything. I could say that the sky is going to be blue on the next agenda. That's a future agenda item. You cannot restrict public comment on future agenda items. And for you when I when I had someone else up here and I trying to rebut George's rolling of the eyes and you said, "Oh, talk to me." You're an elected official. We're here to redress our elected officials. And if someone's got a beef with George, they can address him directly. Doesn't have to be filtered through you. So, please be more respectful. Do your job and you know, we'll all move on. So, there are very strong Florida laws that are case laws that I've pointed out here that you cannot restrict the public. I suggest you bring them to the county attorney, have them look it over, and again get a second opinion. So, that is your role, chairman. Stay in your lane. Don't disrespect the public. And then we'll all be better off. Last thing I want to say is future agenda items for infrastructure. Now, the planning board just denied a massive project because there was not the sewer capacity. There was not enough water or sewer capacity for that project. That alone you can deny a project. Not to mention everything else. You you have the right. Public safety should come first. And that's what you should consider. We're running out of water. The roads are clogged. We don't need one more square foot of market rate housing that's crashing anyways. So, when I try to edge And by the way, I've been talking about Mosaic for decades. So, that's nothing new with me. So, when you say I'm doing it for a rant or a rave or a campaign speech, you couldn't be farther from the truth. So, watch your Ps and Qs when you talk to the public out here, for the record. On Jablon [clears throat] A. All right. Anyone else for public comment? On future agenda items. Good morning, Mark Vanderee, Manatee County. Uh speaking on behalf of the Waterline Road Preservation Group, once again. That was quick. Sorry. >> [laughter] >> So, um Waterline Road, uh I've discussed this before. Uh the issue where Waterline Road meets Rye Road is still a big problem. It hasn't gone away with the snowbirds. It's actually seems to be getting worse. Uh just last week, there were a number of near miss accidents. And even though the road is posted 45 mph, people are doing in excess of 60 mph. There's no There's no enforcement out there on traffic. Um that's an issue with the sheriff, I know. But, the county has created a safety hazard at that intersection. And the county has had a lot of help from the state. I'll I'll admit that, too. But, the county has to solve this problem. Uh even uh Charlie Bishop agreed that because it's unsafe, something has to be done there. Signalization, there's not really enough room for a roundabout, but something has to be done because each month, the hazard uh increases because of the traffic, not just on Rye Road going southbound, but on Waterline Road because now with the construction on State Road 64 and the backups of the roundabout at 64 and Rye, uh you got that new roundabout in going in at Uline and 64. There's a proposed roundabout for Dam Road board board um Morningside and State Road 64. You just approved building a strip mall on that corner, but you don't have the roundabout done yet. That's going to be a problem. That's going to be a real problem. It's already a problem. You need to do something out there. You need to stop all this approval of, of, of houses going in until you get those roads fixed. I know concur, concurrency is a dirty word, but it's real. It's real, and you're you're risking people's lives. You really are. Now, once upon a time, Waterline Road was called Pipeline Road because the transmission pipes, big ones, uh, 24-in, 36-in are, for the county, run under Waterline Road. All right? Those are the original pipes from over 50 years ago. They're brittle. They're made out of concrete. The county needs to do something eventually. They have to be replaced. And the best way to, I think the best way to replace them is to, uh, reroute them to other locations other than under Waterline Road and abandon them in place. If you're not going to abandon them in place, then now is the time before traffic gets even worse than it is now. Now is the time to start working on that. Put a signal at that intersection of, uh, Waterline and Rye Road. Start working on those pipes. If there's a, uh, a real bad fire from, due to an accident or something there, you're going to jeopardize that water supply because those concrete pipes are very brittle. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Anyone else public comment on future agenda items? Good morning, Commissioners. Julie Spicer, for the record, Manatee County resident. Um, I just wanted to come up and agree with Mark. Um with all the additional housing developments and the traffic on Rye Road um coming off Waterline, um not only is it terribly dangerous, um you can spend ex- a very long time sitting there waiting for a kind person to come up Rye Road that's going to actually let you in. It is solid traffic and when it's not coming from one way, it's coming through um especially with the school being down there. So, I I agree with Mark wholeheartedly. We really need to get a a signal just to control traffic even if it's not a full-time signal um even a part-time um that only happens during peak hours. I mean, that that would it would allow the traffic to flow a little bit better. Um the other thing I do want to bring up to you, I don't know if you've been out on 64 and traveling, you know, with all the construction and everything. Um there continues to be water in the ditch um even in this extreme drought. I always talk to you guys about water. Um is anyone looking into why the ditches along 64 still have water in when we're in an extreme drought? We really need to look at the water issues in that area. And now, you know, we have a number of uh developments coming before you for approval, but there's obviously water issues back there and water management needs to get that under control before anything else is approved. Right now, it's out of control. There shouldn't be any water in those ditches. There's water and garbage. So, I would like someone to make an effort to really look at water management in that area. Um especially as we move forward and look at future development and any use of that land. you know, until that water is being directed properly and efficiently, any housing development or commercial project that you put through in that area is only going to make it worse. So, I'm just asking for your support and your help to start looking into these issues before we keep adding to them because they're not going to get better. They're going to get worse. Thank you. Thank you, ma'am. Anyone else for public comment? All right. Seeing none, I'll close public comment. Couple quick things. Uh Mr. Vander and Ms. Spicer, we have uh a traffic calming website. You can make the requests for traffic calming. We've got 10 projects in progress, four completed, quite a few more underway as well. So, that'll cover most projects that don't They're not ex- that are are cheap enough to not be in the CIP, but be pretty quick fixes. We've done a few in my district. Roundabouts, raised intersections, crosswalks. Morgan Johnson's another pretty famous one for traffic calming. There's no one-size-fits-all solution. Just had an accident in my district the other day. Some intersections are just oddly shaped. But, I think we can figure something out. Our staff are willing to accommodate Ryan. Those are county roads. So, just uh go to the website, take a look. That Specifically the CIP website, there's a drop-down. You can look at transportation safety improvements. And a lot a lot of us, myself included, were working hard to make sure there was a pretty easy public process around getting traffic calming, whatever that looks like. So, please take a look at that. And then, if you have any questions, please let us know. Um other than that, yeah, nothing else worth really talking about. I'll go on to the agenda today. Ms. Knapp, would you read the first item into the record, please? The first item is uh number three, which is being withdrawn. PDRV 1906 PR the Surf RV Resort LLC and the application has been withdrawn. All right, let's skip over that one. >> Yep. Item number four, approval and execution of LDA 2402 So, local development agreement for Crosswind Ranch. It's approval of an LDA relating to future projects within an area identified as Crosswind Ranch to establish terms under which the applicant shall commit to design, engineer permit and construction. It's a proportionate share of required improvements to the Manatee County thoroughfare network. And that the applicant shall dedicate right of way required for the thoroughfare improvements. Crosswind Ranch Development LLC landowners uh 1,740 acre site has an approved large project application for a planned development residential project generally located north of State Road 62 and east of US 301 in Parrish. The site is made up of three project tracks subject to the following three individual zonings, PDR 2210 ZG um which is approval for up to 288 single-family detached residential units and PDR 2209 ZG, which is approval for 1,322 single-family detached residential units and PDMU 06102 PR approval for up to 2,048 residential units and up to 6,550 square feet of commercial. The maximum permitted height of any residential building within the project site is 35 feet. And your staff presenter is Rachel Layton. Would any commissioner like to disclose ex parte communication? All right, seeing none. Nicole, you don't have to read the whole thing. That's a whole lot essay over there. Title is good enough. No, you don't need a presentation. All right, we're done. >> [laughter] >> All right, we'll go to the applicant. Presentation time. Or I'm sorry, presentation. Yeah, I missed that. Would anyone like a presentation? Seeing none, we'll have no presentation. No, I want a presentation. All right, Commissioner McCann wants a presentation. Go ahead, then, sir. Good morning Mr. Chair, Commissioners. Kyle Grimes attorney at Grimes Galvano and I have been sworn. Here today on behalf of the applicant Crosswind Ranch Development Corporation. As Ms. Knapp read this is the final reading of the local development agreement for the Crosswind Ranch development. I think we went into pretty extensive discussions about it last time. Essentially this is for how the infrastructure improvements will be done throughout this development specifically with regard to the construction of Spencer Parish Road for lane ultimate thoroughfare in the county system from the south end of the site to the north end. As well as Rancho Parkway formerly known as Keen Road building that from the south end to the north end and exchange for impact fee credits for the proportion of added improvements beyond what is needed to serve the site. Since that last hearing we just did one minor Oh, I haven't been sworn. I'm sorry. I need to be sworn. For anyone providing public comment today on anything quasi judicial please rise and take an oath. I do. And and I do swear and affirm that every everything I said previously is accurate. And so since that last hearing we did make one minor change. I mentioned before that we did an appraisal it was reduced some of the right of way value to account for the Florida Power and Light easement that goes through the site so that impact fee credit has gone down. I'd be happy to to get into any more details if there's any specific questions on it. All right, any questions for the applicant? Seeing none, I'll recommend we go on. Just want to ask you know, so that the public knows all of this has already been approved all three sections, correct? The it has received zoning approval and they're under development in this area. Okay. And when was it approved? Our original approvals were Sorry, let me see my dates. Over the last 4 years or so over for three of the development zoning sites. Okay. Thank you. All right, seeing no more questions. Thank you very much. Would anyone like a staff presentation? All right. >> [laughter] >> All right, public comments on this. I have Miss Cynthia Key signed up. All right, seeing none we'll close public. Go ahead, Glenn. For the record, Glenn Joblin, I have been sworn. >> [clears throat] >> When is enough enough? You know, we're talking three 3,000 homes. The sewer capacity is not there. What I don't hear in these presentations are the utility department up here and say well that's an extra 52 million gallons of waste we got to treat. It's 15 lift stations down the road. They're all going to be overworked because of this additional 50 million gallons. Listen, I object to this and I'll tell you why. This is a firm opposition to proposed because of this project. While this agreement seeks to outline proportionate share the thoroughfare improvement, it fails to address the fundamental reality that Manatee County and specifically the Parrish community can no longer sustain this level of uncontrolled rapid expansion. Our infrastructure is not just lagging, it's a state of failure. These big These big projects, they should have their own wastewater treatment plant. They should have their own wells and their own solar farms. They should not taxpayer They should not tax the taxpayer for the next 50 years. Our wastewater systems are already strained at a breaking point, adding thousands of new households to an overburdened network inviting environmental and public health risks. Transporta- way gridlock. I feel like a broken record down here. We have a traffic problem. And I wish you would you would you would take that in consideration. And by the way, any one of these is a public safety issue. You can deny this project just on public safety, much less we don't have the capacity, the sewer capacity, or the lift station capacity on those numbers alone. This madness has got to stop. So, we are effectively trading our long-term stability for immediate high-density residential rooftops. Conclusion, approval of this LDA signals to the residents of Manatee County that developer timelines take priority over infrastructure reality. The timing's wrong for this project. Maybe Maybe 10 years down the road when we got 6 12 lanes out there. Maybe when uh the wastewater can handle it, but I see nothing but problems with this. We've already We're in a drought. We're in a level three um uh fire hazard uh water restrictions. If you If you don't see anything wrong with this project, uh we're going to You have a problem because we are overdeveloped. We are straining all our resources for the record. All right. Any other public comment? Seeing none, I'll close public comment. No staff response. Nothing there. Okay. Any Q&A for anyone who spoke today? >> [clears throat] >> Seeing none, close that. Applicant rebuttal. Thank [clears throat] you, Mr. Chair. Again, Kyle Grimes. Just briefly, I just want to reiterate this is not approval of the project. This is approved project. This is for the roadway infrastructure. Um the sewer lines and everything to serve this site have already been put in place by this developer and actually were oversized and part of an agreement that came here. So, uh just wanted to indicate that. Thank you. Got it. Thank you, sir. All right. I'll close rebuttal. Any deliberations? I don't see anyone on the board. No, because there's What What deliberation? This is not an approval of a project. say we're approving 3,000 homes. Those 3,000 homes have been approved or whatever number it is. I I don't know what your chat GTP said it was. It It's It This is just the approval of how they're building what they're already approved and legally allowed to build. And they made accommodations. We've seen this multiple times already. We've had discussions about this. This is the final hearing to allow them to put in the infrastructure that we say they need to put in to be able to build what they're already legally allowed to build. This is not approval. You can't twist this around for the public and pretend we're approving thousands of new homes and post stuff about it. We're not approving anything. This is approved. This is the final step to allow a developer to build infrastructure, which is what we all sit up here and say, "We need to get infrastructure in before development." They're here getting a development agreement to put in the infrastructure we say we need. And we don't have the recourse to push back on that. We've had negotiation. They've put in outsized pipes so that we can extend them to others so we can make sure the sewer and water capacity for other developments out there that have already been approved as well. But, this is the the final step of a project, not the first step of a project. You can come here when there's an original request for rezone, and you do. But, this is not the time or place to try to stop somebody from doing something they're legally allowed to do on the land that's already zoned to allow them to do it. So, I make a motion to approve. I'll second that. That's a motion to approve the approval and execution of LDA 2402 by Commissioner Cruz, seconded by myself. I'll I'll just echo his comments. We're not approving a project, just to clear up some misinformation there. This is to allow them to build the infrastructure. Okay? Uh just waiting for Commissioner McCann. All right, that passes unanimously with Commissioner Beard in absent. Thank you all very much. Ms. Knapp, would you read the next item? Oh, actually, would anyone like a presentation on item five? No? Okay, no presentation. I'll take motion. This is an Yeah, this is an amendment to the Rye Crossing CDD. >> But, they're requesting to take acreage out of it. They're shrinking the development. Anyone? Ms. Knapp? Just waiting to read the title. Oh, go ahead. That's all right, I'll just do it. Ordinance number 26-12, second petition to amend the boundaries of the Rye Crossing CDD. Yeah, that's it. Okay. Okay, then I'll accept motions to approve ordinance number 26-12. Motion to approve. Second. All right, that's a motion by Commissioner Cruz, seconded by Commissioner Ron to approve ordinance number 26-12. You can cast your votes in a second here. Uh first was Cruz, second was Ron. That's all right. All right, passes unanimously with Commissioner Beard and absent. And then item number six, SSP 2301R, North County Middle School, that was withdrawn, so we'll skip over that one. >> No, sir. No. Or do you need to? No. The motion is um to continue to no date certain and to re-advertise. >> Okay. I'll accept motions. Motion to continue. Second. That's a motion by Commissioner Baller, seconded by myself, to continue as resolution SSP 2301 to no date certain. Public comment. Seeing none, I'll close public comment. We'll wait for this to come up on the board. I would do a voice vote. All in favor of the continuance no date certain no date certain, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? None, that passes unanimously. Give you all a second there. It's all right. All good? Excellent. Thank you. Ms. Knapp, would you read item seven and we're on to presentations scheduled. Item number seven is PDC 2417ZG. This is State Road 64 and Uline Road commercial. It's a rezone of approximately 15.3 acres of a 37-acre parcel, generally located on the north side of State Road 64 at the intersection of Uline from general agricultural to planned development commercial zoning district, approving a general development plan for a maximum of 195,000 square feet of commercial uses distributed in three three commercial areas identified on the GDP as project areas one, two, and three, and approving a schedule of permitted and prohibited uses is voluntary provided by the applicant and attached as exhibit B and your staff presenter is C.J. Mills. Got it. So, this one's an interesting one. The motion was This was denied previously by the board 4 to 3. I tend to honor that, but the motion for the approval of the denial resolution was tabled. So, two things for the board. One, I'll need a motion to pull to bring from the table the denial resolution. And then the second will be the approval of the denial resolution. But I'll of course I'll open up comment, but And Miss Sarah Shanklin clarify some comments here. Yeah, Mr. Chair, that was Yeah, the procedural note, but we since the board allowed the applicant to have a another public hearing, we have to let the applicant have their presentation and then go through the whole nine yards of the hearing. And at the end, if you don't move to approve, this is two-step process for denial. One is to take from the table the prior denial resolution. That's one vote. And then the second vote would be a move to adopt the denial resolution. But first we have to go through the public hearing. Why do we have to go through a public hearing when this is denied? Well, I mean, it wasn't the board that said to re-advertise this. Well, the board did authorize re-advertise and the applicant came down February and asked in written letter and presentation to have another hearing to submit supplemental information. And the board approved that. We tabled the denial though. Yes. Okay. >> It's still both coming back to you the same day. Okay. Uh would anyone like to disclose ex parte communication? Seeing none, I'll go to the applicant. Come on up, ma'am. Good morning, commissioners. For the record, Rhea Hunter with RBI Planning and Landscape Architecture and I have been sworn. So, we're here today before you to provide additional information on the State Road 64 Eline Road commercial project for which we're seeking a rezone to plan development commercial. Before we dive into the presentation, I want to express my gratitude to the board for allowing us this opportunity to come before you again and present additional information on the project. At the previous discussion before the board, we believe there were several items that we can provide additional clarity on. Ultimately, we believe that this project is appropriate and timely for its location and will provide a benefit for the community. So, again, we truly appreciate the opportunity. Here with me today, we have our entire project team available should there be any detailed questions. I'm first going to get started with a brief overview of our request just because I know there has been some time lapse since we last presented before this board, and then we'll get into the specific items or concerns raised by the board during the previous discussion and address them. It is our goal today to win over the confidence of the board and ultimately allow for this project that will provide uh commercial uses in this area that is rapidly expanding with residential growth. So, the request we have before you today is to rezone the subject property outlined in red from general agricultural to plan development commercial. We are seeking a maximum of 195,000 square feet of commercial use. The site, as you can see on this aerial map, is outlined in red. It is 15.3 acres in size, located at the intersection of State Road 64 and Eline Road. The entire property is in an activity node and meets all commercial locational criteria of the comprehensive plan. In terms of future land use, it is mixed-use community residential on the southern portion of the property and res one on the northern portion of the property. An important thing to note here is the site is currently vacant. It was previously used for agriculture, so as you can see here, it's it's not only vacant, it's also free of any wetlands, any vegetation, and again, as I mentioned, very suitable to house such commercial uses as we're proposing. Our request is to rezone to plan development commercial with a general development plan, which is what you see on the screen before you. With this general development plan, it was our intent to provide as much information as possible to the board as well as to the community to really refine the intent of what will be developed here. As we've mentioned in previous hearings, it is difficult to completely provide a detailed plan for commercial uses as demand varies over time, and we want to build in that flexibility for the future build-out. But that being said, the proposed general development plan locks in our access points. We will have one access point to State Road 64 and two to Travelers Palm Drive. We've also provided the internal circulation system as well as the future development tracks on the general development plan. We're seeking a maximum of 195,000 sq ft of commercial uses, but what we've done with the general development plan is allocated three distinct project areas within this larger development. And each of these are assigned a certain square footage of commercial use. And again, this will provide further refinement of the ultimate build-out. So, project area one, which is to the south with frontage on State Road 64, will have a maximum of 45,000 sq ft of commercial use. Project area two, which is to the northwest, will have 20,000 square feet of commercial use. And finally, project area three, which is along Travelers Palm Drive, will have a maximum of 130,000 square feet of commercial use. Besides this, we have also proffered a schedule of uses. So, rather than permitting the entire extent of uses in planned development commercial, we have reduced these uses to specifically those that are permitted in the neighborhood commercial medium zoning district with the addition of self-storage and gas stations, which again two uses that have a strong demand in as residential support. Here, we are using the planned development format to provide as much clarity as possible, like I mentioned, while maintaining adequate flexibility. Something that we've done as a step beyond is add specific use restrictions. Again, the goal here is not to leave commercial square footage on the table for the future build out, but it's to refine the project to provide as much clarity as possible up front to not only this board, but to the public. Grocery store will be permitted only in project area one and be limited to 30,000 square feet. Again, grocery stores are a higher trip generating use, so the purpose here is to limit traffic generation. The other purpose, as I'll explain in future slides, is again to refine the picture of what is going to be coming in with this project. Next, for project area three, we are proposing self-storage to be the only use that's permitted up to the 130,000 square feet of commercial. If self-storage is not developed, all other commercial uses will be developed up to 90,000 square feet. And again, this is a realistic picture. As you know, self-storage, it's a very compact use and it has very few trips generated from it. But in any other event, the uses that could be accommodated realistically on this property would be up to 90,000 square feet. So, coming to our items for clarification, firstly, we want to discuss the uses proposed again and provide some more um information on uses that we anticipate already to be introduced into this project. We'll then get into a discussion on mitigation of transportation impacts as we know that's a big concern for this board. And finally, we'd also like to discuss our master storm water management system, which will ensure that storm water is managed on this property. So, getting into the clarification of uses, firstly, I want to start off by discussing the small grocery store. So, the reason we are limiting the grocery store use to 30,000 square feet is because there is a Publix already under construction immediately south of this property. So, our intent here is to provide an optional grocery store. This smaller format grocery store can be comparable to something like Aldi. And the benefit of having something like this in this location despite the Publix to the south is that you're giving your residents an option. This way, if you do not wish to shop at Publix, you have an option to get other groceries at an alternate grocery store. And not only this, but it also helps for affordability because ultimately, when you have just one grocer in a 3-mile radius of so much residential, there's unexpected gouging in prices and no incentive to reduce prices or create any competitive offers. The next use I want to discuss is a child care center. And this is something that we're adding in the um upper northeast parcel. This is uh going to be the Discovery uh Point Child Care Center. I know this board is well aware of the strong demand for a childcare center and it's it's almost an urgent need across the country across the county, sorry. Um what we have here is an opportunity to plan for childcare in advance while this area is rapidly growing. Next we have the restaurant. This is again going to be potentially a sit-down restaurant which will be a different format from the quick service restaurant that's proposed to the south. And then finally the self-storage use. This is again something that's proposed only for project area three. It's a residential support use but again we do not want it to have prime frontage on State Road 64 and so it is located in the interior of the property. So overall again, what we're trying to propose here are commercial uses that are responsive to demand in the area and address gaps in service provision. With that I'm now going to hand it over to Kyle Grimes to discuss our traffic mitigation. Good morning again, Commissioners. Kyle Grimes, attorney [clears throat] with Grimes Galvano and I have been sworn. Um while we do have our traffic concern consultant Yuri here that can get any specific details about our submitted traffic study of the surrounding area. I just want to speak a little more generally about the traffic discussions we've had on this project and others particularly uh with regards to State Road 64. Uh so first I want to reiterate and and as is established in your staff report and our traffic study that this section of State Road 64 today is currently operating above its adopted level of service. Uh it is operating uh through traffic counts uh at level of service B with the adopted being level of service C. And and as we've discussed with this project and with my many others throughout the county, um it is the background or or vested trips. Um those being projects that have some form of approval, but have have not been constructed that um lead to the anticipated uh exceed exceeding of level of service for State Road 64 at some point in the future. Um and as that that road has been identified for needing expansion in the future due to these background or vested trips, that's what triggers the county or FDOT or here jointly uh to start the process of of doing that widening. And and here we have that underway. Uh there is a PD&E study uh currently being processed to analyze the the widening of State Road 64 in this area. Um it and since uh the last hearing, we we took the opportunity to take a look at what are some of these vested background trips in this area. Um are they are they ones that are imminent underway? Are there there some that are not anticipated be constructed? Just kind of wanted to to get a feel for what are these background vested trips. And uh we see that a uh some of these come from the development immediately to the southeast in Lakewood Ranch um of the area known as the northeast quadrant. Um and I know we've we've had some discussions about that area in recent past. Um and just as a reminder, that is a master project where there was a local development agreement that kind of established um the the long-term plan for residential and non-residential uses. Um and went ahead and mitigated for all those um anticipated uses up front through the the improvements of various roadways throughout that area. And so we we approached and and spoke with SMR, the master developer of that area and and actually the previous owner of the parcel we're discussing today, um and who has long planned for this parcel to be a a commercial use to serve uh, this area of the county, to serve the homes that are coming into Lakewood Ranch, and talked to him about what what is going on in that northeast quadrant, and um, what we have found is that there are currently unused uh, square footage, significant amount of square footage of commercial uses in that northeast quadrant that have been mitigated. They are considered background vested trips in your county thoroughfare system. And so, um, I believe you you've already received a letter from SMR. Um, what they're they're wanting to do in the interest of seeing this this parcel develop for commercial to serve this area is waving the some of the square footage that they have available at an equal amount, 195,000 square feet of commercial uses, such that the the uses we're adding now are not increasing what's already vested, what's already in the background calculations on this roadway network. So, that that is something that we we looked into, and that SMR is willing to do to to support this project. And again, more more importantly than that, I want to talk about the project itself. Uh, Rhea mentioned it a little bit, but we we've talked a lot about this in providing uh, commercial in close proximity to residential, where there's not a lot of it today, is a solution to traffic concerns. It allows for shorter trip lengths. It it prevents people from heading all the way east on on State Road 64 to get to your White Eagle centers or or places within. Providing these uses that are lacking in this area, ones that the the residents need, the residential houses that are in place, the ones that are to be built, providing it in that close proximity is a solution to to traffic concerns. And here, you know, with the improvements to uh, State [clears throat] Road 64 and Uline, the roundabout, providing crosswalks will have connectivity of sidewalks to the the Palm Grove community, to all the Lakewood Ranch communities to the south that allow for biking, walking to these establishes as well. Uh maybe golf carts from the Palm Grove area, which again takes trips off the roadway network. Um so a and in addition, we're we're having that connection directly to Travelers Palm to Eline, where people from Lakewood Ranch can come up to this community without getting on State Road 64, without getting on State Road 70, and provide those those alternatives. Um so we feel this is very appropriate and can ultimately help with the traffic in the area. Uh with that, I'd like to turn it over to our engineer, Matt Morris, to discuss stormwater. Thank you. Good morning. Uh Matt Morris with Pape-Dawson. Uh I had no idea we would already be on number seven before 10:00 this morning, so I have actually not been sworn. That's all right. Please swear him in. If your name was called to arrive after the swearing in, could you please stand and raise your right hand? Do you swear or affirm that the factual statements and representations you are about to make to the Board of County Commissioners are truthful and accurate? Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Please state your name and spell your name, and your address and your phone number. Ignore the timer if it goes off. I'll give you some time cuz it was going while you're Appreciate it. Go ahead. Uh again, Matt Morris with Pape-Dawson. Uh here to talk about stormwater. Uh what you'll see in front of you is an exhibit showing existing stormwater uh as it rolls through our site, which uh effectively all flows to the west to an existing uh swale or ditch that uh dates back into uh we believe about the 1970s or prior to the 1970s based on historical aerials uh that then flows the water up to the north. Um so uh as you know, with uh county requirements and state requirements, we're required to uh ensure that our stormwater, after it's collected into our internal ponds, which there will be an internal pond on this project, uh just to the north of the area that is uh part of the rezone, as you'll see here. Uh so, it's on property that is owned by the applicant. Um all of our stormwater will be collected internally in inlets and pipes and be conveyed to our stormwater pond uh to provide the requisite treatment and attenuation uh for the stormwater before it's discharged into that existing ditch uh to the west side of the property uh to continue to flow to the north. Uh we are uh analyzing the stormwater uh with both the typical regulatory storms up to the 100-year 24-hour uh as well as looking at the NOAA Atlas uh 14 results as well. Um what you'll see uh in front of you as well on that uh chart is uh some actual data from the stormwater models that we've run with our site uh incorporated into the county's watershed model, actually showing some improvement uh in some of the adjacent nodes there. You'll see a uh decrease of uh 8,600s, 5,600s, and 4,100s. So, uh in in some cases, we're actually uh expecting water levels to decrease in that uh 100-year 24-hour storm off of our site. So, this is not on our site, but off of our site by uh upwards of 4 to 6 in uh in some cases that we're uh actually showing some improvement uh in that area. So, again, we are we are providing for an internal stormwater pond that will capture all of our runoff, treat it, attenuate it before we discharge. Uh oh, sorry. And we are doing the uh 50% runoff rate reduction as well, which I believe that's uh probably evident there with the results that we uh provided there. And we do agree with the proposed stipulation for the uh NOAA Atlas 14. Thank you. So, I'll be really brief in conclusion. I know we're getting to the end of our time. Uh but again, this project presents a unique opportunity where the site is extremely ready for development, having no native habitat, no wetlands on it. It's in a location few of these exist in the eastern portion of the county which are on commercial nodes and this project is entirely within an activity node. And not to mention there has been explosive residential growth that will continue over the next few years. And so we believe this is timely and appropriate for the area responsive to market demand. And as we've clarified through this presentation we have transportation impacts that are effectively mitigated as well as a robust storm water management system designed on site. So with that if there are any further questions my team and I are available. And we respectfully request for this board's approval. Thank you. Thank you. I'm just on the board to clarify comments so just to be fair and not violate due process I'll just withdraw some of my comments from earlier. It was more of a user error on my part with my notes not recognizing that this is a representation if you will. So I just confirmed that in the notes so I apologize. I'll go to Commissioner Ballard next. So I did have a question. I think this might be a question for Kyle. Um so you said that SMR has actually agreed to cut vested rights to 190 95,000 square feet of commercial within their development south. Yes at the if I can go back to the immediate so you can see the star on your screen the immediate southeast area and we have those commercial areas to under that LDA is to waive the right to the 195,000 square feet of vested commercial. Okay. transportation perspective. Okay so what you're saying is that commercial to the south will no longer happen. They have given that up in favor of this site. Is that correct? Okay. Thank you. And and and as they indicated in the letter and from Ms. Shakes that they they consider that waived if this goes forward, but will execute any additional instruments that may be necessary to ensure that. Thank you. All right, no more questions. >> a question. >> Mr. McGinn. If they're waiving that, are they waiving it just for commercial purposes or are they saying they're not going to build on it at all? The it's uh they have a significant amount of commercial entitlements under that LDA, and these are the ones that they are not going to build the 195,000 square feet. There are some commercial projects that have already gotten approval in that area that are underway. They're not going to build anything else there. They're not going to come back asking for housing or something like that. No, that's not the intent here. Okay. All right. Yeah, and just to clarify the if if that were to happen, that'd be a whole rezone and application because they don't have those entitlements, so From the board. All right, any staff presentation? All right. Good morning, CJ Mills, will staff. I have been sworn. This is for the State Road 64 and Eline Road commercial project. We know the location here at this point uh is 15.3 acres of the overall 37.3 acre site. It is in the MUCR and partially in the RES 1 future land use categories, which both support the uh range of potential uses and the proposed uses that are coming before you today. This is just showing a bit of the intent for the existing uh agricultural and the proposed PDC planned development commercial zoning districts. So, this is the approval of the site uh is going rezoning from A to PDC uh zoning district and it's for 195,000 square feet commercial uses distributed in three commercial areas. And there's also exhibit B is a schedule permitted and prohibited uses a voluntary proffered by the applicant. And project area one is 445,000 square feet, area two is 20,000 square feet and then project area three is 130,000 square feet. There's one access from State Road 64 and two from Travelers Palm Drive. Uh the roadway buffers that are along State Road 64 and Travelers Palm Drive are 10 feet and then on the west is 10 feet as well and then the perimeter buffers to the north are going to be reviewed later on during the FSP and PSP approval process. Um some of the specifics for each site is that the grocery store is only permitted in commercial project area one. Uh self-storage is only allowed in project area three. And if the self-storage is not built only 90,000 square feet of other commercial entitlements are allowed there and the 40,000 square feet cannot be reallocated to areas one or two. And project area two is intended for restaurant uses. There were two neighborhood workshops on January 6th and one August 5th. Some of the summary issues and concerns were just the communities be served the PDC versus the GC zoning districts uh possible neighborhood commercial uses and the right-of-way reservation on State Road 64. The one of the neighborhood workshops was held prior to the memo that they were required to held the to hold that uh so that was on them and then the other one they were required to do so. These are just some of the existing public facilities in the area potable water, waste water, and uh reclaim reclaimed water. For stormwater as Mr. Morris was saying, the it is within the Mill Creek watershed and project will be required to use the Mill Mill Creek watershed uh management plan which utilizes the NOAA Atlas 14 and the applicant has proffered to use that NOAA Atlas 14 for the onsite design. And this project shall be required to reduce the calculated pre-development flow rate by a full 50% for all stormwater outflow or outfall flow directly or indirectly into Mill Creek watershed. This is the transportation link capacity analysis for State Road 65 and different links on Elon Road. You can see the adopted level of service there, uh the existing level of services, and then the future future level of services specifically for um State Road 64 with the project. Uh this is a future level of service with the project and is anticipated be a uh level of service C as State Road 64 is widened from two lanes to four lanes according to the 24 2045 traffic circulation map. This is just some of the comprehensive plan uh policies that what we analyzed for consistency with the development. It included urban sprawl, um consideration of compatible growth, um prohibiting urban sprawl east of the future development area area boundary, and then also promoting development in currently undeveloped areas which have the greatest level of public facility. And these are the other ones as well, looking again at some of the timing of the development, the uh future land use categories that they're in, which is the MUCR and the RES1, and the commercial uses and node and nodal development to discourage scattered incremental commercial development, and also the requirement for that access to commercial use to be established on at least one roadway classified as a collector or higher. These are the LDC sections that we reviewed for compliance. Uh you can see the neighborhood workshops, uh the rezone, building height compatibility, and general design requirements for all planned development sites, and also the PDC uh review criteria analysis. Some of the positive aspects of this uh application is it is at a a commercial node with a frontage on State Road 64. The proposed uses will address the commercial needs of the surrounding residential developments. Traveling distances for shopping could be reduced and potentially lower vehicular trip lengths and duration on other segments for customers and employees. And also the public facilities are available to serve the development. One of the negative aspects is that the project will add 289 PMP average trips to State Road 64 from Lorraine Road to Rutland Ranch, which is projected to be deficient in terms of level service due to vested trips. And there's uh not a mitigating measure for that. This was the Planning Commission recommended 3:1 uh approval, and just a couple of concerns were timing of the project and the traffic conditions. And in conclusion, the request can be found to be consistent with the policies of the comprehensive plan and applicable standards of the LDC. And staff will conduct a thorough analysis of club compliance with the requirements of the comprehensive plan and LDC at time of future PSP FSP submittal. And I will be here if you have any questions. Thank you, CJ. Are there any questions for staff? I have no one on the board. All right, seeing none. Thank you very much. Thank you. I'll go ahead and open up public comment for item number seven. I have a couple of speakers here. Please remember if you wish to provide public comment on anything today, you need to uh swear the swear an oath and sure your statements are factual, truthful. So, if you haven't done that, please let me know now. All right. Seeing none, we're good. Just please state your name, county of residence, and you have 5 minutes. I'll start with Mr. Mark Bruce. And let the record reflect he is for this project. Good morning. My name is Mark Bruce. I live in Mill Creek at Lorraine and 64. I've lived there since 2005. So, we've seen the uh responsible growth in that corridor over the last 20 years. Um I just want to speak for myself and some of my neighbors that walk our dogs and talk about what we're seeing in the eastern corridor. The growth of Lakewood Ranch is obvious, and they need services. They need grocery stores. They need child care and all those things to prevent more westbound traffic towards White Eagle and the uh corridor that we live in. So, we are all in favor of this project, and I appreciate your approval. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Cynthia Keel. Cynthia Keel, Manatee County. Been sworn. Um I got I got a question uh the the safety of the entrances to a child care center on a curved road. I happen to live on one in Manatee County where it's designated as commercial node and is no longer suitable for turning in and out of without good 5 minutes of prayer. Um so, my question I guess to the developers of it is that they their standard was 3 miles. Within 5 miles of this proposal, there are six grocery stores including a Sam's Club and a Costco. There are five storage offerings currently. There are eight restaurants currently of varying degrees of delicacy from Season's 52 to fast food. Um and that's as so the gentleman who just stood up said, "Well, you know, it'll keep them out of our area." Okay, but how would you feel as one of the residents who's planning on or those homes building where now you're going to have behind your property 35 ft of storage? I live on a street like this that this that the previous board approved. It sucks. There's no other word to put it. Good use for this property if they insist on putting child care there, grocery store, everything like that with two entrances on a curved road would be to add a Morgan and Morgan and any freestanding ER cuz that's what you're going to need for all the accidents ingressing and leaving that property. Thank you, Ms. Keough. That's all I have for signed up speakers. Would anyone else like to speak on the item? For the record, Glenn Jablon, I have been sworn. And I find it interesting that you know, we got to jam in all these in there because the Publix down the road is price gouging. I'm going to go down and talk to that manager and give him the piece that said, "Oh, well, it could be price gouging." I don't think Publix would appreciate that very much. So, here's the deal. 30% of that property is zoned residential. That's what they're allowed. If they want to do residential on that third of the property, they're entitled to it. They're not entitled to it today. They're entitled to some somewhere down the road when all the capacity is done they can do that. So, storage locker, gas station, but I missed the car wash. How come there's no car wash in this one? It's just it's unbelievable that we keep rubber stamping these storage units and the zoning. So, here's the thing on the zoning. They want to jump two levels. So, 30% of that property is res three. That's not good enough for them. They want to change that to commercial. So, that that's that's not within what they're zoned for. And the egg, leave it egg until everything else is done. When you're adding that kind, 64 is a primary artery for commuters, adding high-intensity commercial during movements is just going to make it worse. And your traffic traffic study, you know what they say? Well, we only had 500 cars go through here, so we're going to go from a from a class C to class D, and everybody will work around that. What I don't hear from the traffic study is, "Yeah, there's 500 additional cars, but they're bumper-to-bumper for 2 hours to go 2 miles." You don't hear that from the planning people or the traffic study, but real people that use that road, they know that for sure. Again, the upzone is a privilege, not a right. You can deny zoning, upzoning until all the infrastructure, public safety, good point on the daycare, that's going to be a disaster. You know, they come with these carrots, we're going to put this, this, and this. It's a bad I'm not saying it's a it's it's a bad concept, I'm saying the timing is not right. We are overdeveloped. and again, we're talking about Carol's district. I know how she would want to vote. You guys should take that into consideration as well. For the record, Glenn Gadfly people. All right, anyone else for public comment? Start with the gentleman in the tie, then Mark you can come on up next. And then we'll just start the 5-minute clock now. Good Good morning, Commissioners. I'm Dr. Roger Clough, and this is my wife, Robin. Oh, have you been sworn? Yes, I have been sworn. >> Thank you. Both of you? Yes. Good. Uh we currently own and operate Discovery Point 12 Oaks in Bradenton in the 12 Oaks Plaza. It's a child care center that serves over 235 children and their families. We proudly just celebrated our fifth anniversary this past December and have maintained a full enrollment of um of children during that time. With over 30 years of experience in education, including roles as a kindergarten teacher, a principal, a superintendent of schools, I am deeply familiar with early education. For us, child care is more than just a business. It's a passion. We are also Lakewood Ranch residents committed to supporting the best for our community. In partnership with our franchiser, we've chosen 2 acres on the northeast corner of the property of Uline and Traverse Palm as the site of our second location and had have had under contract for over a year waiting for rezoning. Our new facility is modeled very much like our current center. We offer child care, but this one will be about 250 children ranging from preschoolers, school age children, and it provides holiday, spring, summer camps, early dismissal days, and before and after school services to many of the local elementary schools in the region. And this new school will offer services to the Lake Manatee K-8 school. The center will also create employment for up to 50 teachers and staff members. And our most recent demographic data it shows [clears throat] that there are over 300 3,500 children under the age of nine in Lakewood Ranch. Over 41,000 children under the age of nine in Manatee County. Over 11,000 households with a 3-mile radius of this lot. >> [snorts] >> And over 2,600 children under nine within a 3-mile radius of this lot. Again, these figures don't account for the new rapid growth that's happening in that area. Like Collusa, Pom Grove, Saddlebrook, East River, Seawater, Buck Landing, and any other future developments in Parrish. >> [snorts] >> So, despite the expanding population, there's currently no child care center in any of these new developments this far east. We need to start development now to have a center open in a year's time to serve the families and children in need of these services. >> [snorts] >> Discovery Point franchise has been in business for over 38 years. And they are partners with franchisors like us. There's over 76 um franchise child development centers. I just want to repeat this that child care is essential to the community workforce in this area and is already underserved. You have two more minutes. The clock was off. It's even underserved even as a housing growth continues to rise. Commissioner Cruz, I you mentioned in a previous meeting about it's your responsibility to bring these services to the areas that you vote on and approve. We could not agree more. We are fully committed to investing in this project and meeting the needs of the community by establishing a child development center. We appreciate your time and consideration rezoning the property at Uline and Travelers Palm to provide for this critical use. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Thank you, ma'am. There you go. Good morning, Mark Randel, Manatee County. I have been sworn. Speaking again on behalf of Wardline Road Preservation Group. And we have some questions about the drainage on this property. The staff report indicates that the area does have flooding issues. We see water in the ditches along there State Road 64 all the time. That's primarily coming from the nearby wetlands that are being backed up by the Palm Grove development. But obviously this property is going to need to have some type of drainage retention ponds or wet or dry. I don't see provisions on the property, the layout, the area where that's going to be. Where Where are they providing any amount of area for adequate drainage ponds, whether wet or dry. I'd like to have that pointed out. Now again, the timing for this is not right. I understand the need for commercial with all the development going on out there. Of course, the developments that were approved east of the FDAB line with Taylor Ranch and East River, they've got commercial zones in them as well. Quite a bit of commercial actually. But the discussion earlier on this project was that the development of roads and structures concurrency south of State Road 64 has been built out and and it has. But the problem we have with the traffic problem is the infrastructure north east and west of the site. That has not been developed. Uh we ask that you postpone approving this project until you can complete the roundabouts on State Road 64 from Lorraine east to Burnside and Dam Road. Um we you need to fix Lorraine Road. It's a mess. And that's all going to be impacted by this project. The uh what has become a problem on Waterline Road, which is a deficient road, it's