June 11, 2026 - Planning Commission Meeting — Transcript

Good morning. I want to call the planning commission for June 10th uh 2026 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. >> Okay. Up first, can uh do we have any discussions on the minutes or a motion to approve, please? Motion to approve. >> Second. >> Miss Pos. >> Okay. >> Mr. Brown. >> Second. >> Mr. Brown. Was the second >> is not here today. >> I discussion. I saw a couple technical issues on there >> on the um >> Okay. So, we need let's hold off on the vote. >> Yeah. Basically, there was one that um said talking about chairman Delesline who wasn't here and they they said that he had uh seconded things or approved it or whatever. I have to dig through it again. There a couple minor glitches in there. >> Bring that up real quick. >> We can make those changes. >> Other than that, I have no issues. I just want to be correct on it. Where is that listed? >> Let me go back to it. >> If they weren't substantive, would you like to make a motion to approve those with the edits u for the the the missing commissioner names and so forth? That' be fine. >> Okay. If you make that motion, I'll second it. >> Did you get that, Madam Cler? >> Yes. >> Okay. Everybody make their >> No, madam. I I Are we waiting on anybody else? >> Oh, okay. >> I need that up here. I need to current items. He's not. >> I'll tell you, while we're uh working on Mr. stands technical issues. Uh just a vote by raise of hands. Everybody in favor? >> All in favor? >> All right. Uh Rachel, any updates to the agenda? >> Yes, there is one update to the agenda. >> Microphone, [clears throat] >> I think. Yes, there is an additional public comment for item number five, Ivy Run. Sorry, item number four, Ivy Run. Um, additional public comment and it's been distributed. That's it. >> Okay, perfect. Um, I think request by commissioners, M Commissioner Skoola has something to add. >> Yeah, good morning, Mr. Chair. Thank you so much. Uh so uh since we're here in the open forum, I wanted to just um make a suggestion here or recommendation. I sent an email off to Miss Leighton yesterday and this is regards to the comprehensive plan and uh future amendments or future substantive changes to the comprehensive plan. Uh this would not be considered at the current time or impact any discussions we've had about the uh the changes that uh may move forward here. uh in August. But uh what I'd like to discuss um are both comp plan and LDC amendments to be pursued for um an opportunity probably a year and a half from now, but now's the time to start talking about these things. Um so a comprehensive plan and LDC amendment. I'd like to look to amend a comprehensive plan to establish a policy element similar to something like uh a land use amendment and resonings or any land use amendment and resoning shall evaluate existing topography and drainage patterns to ensure development does not adversely impact adjacent properties or public infrastructure. Now, I put I I have this and I'll and I'll transmit it electronically, but I I wrote it up here so it was all ready to go. Um then what I'd like to do is amend the LDC to implement that policy through specific survey and drainage submitt requirements. Um so uh what this does is create a legal link between the policy and the regulatory requirement. That's why you do the two things uh simultaneously. I'm suggesting limited applicability to target projects with the greatest drainage impacts focusing on resoning within FEMA flood planes. resonings affecting wetlands, agricultural to residential conversions, and resonings exceeding a specific acreage. For example, let's say it was a reszone over 20 acres. What that does is the language moves the discussion beyond whether the site can meet engineering standards and towards whether the basin that it's in can absorb the additional development. So, um, pieces of this already exist in in both of these, if you know the comprehensive plan or you've read it like I have at Nauseium, pieces of this exist. They also exist in the land development code. Our engineer has testified to that many times. However, what I'm proposing is a more prescriptive piece of governance to establish the county evaluation of basinwide drainage consequences before granting additional density or intensity through reszoning. Uh, I have a whole write up on how I I I would like to, you know, sort of kick this off and it's pretty geeky, so I'm not going to read it out loud here, but uh, prior to approving any reasonzoning that incre increases residential density, non-residential density, impervious surface coverages, or otherwise has the potential to alter storm water runoff characteristics. The applicant shall submit a preliminary drainage and basic basin impact statement prepared by the qualified professional engineer. You might say, "Oh, what's all that mean?" Well, some some projects come in front of us and they have very detailed topography or topographicals because they know they're in a, you know, dicey situation for approval. They've preloaded that and then they're telling us, "Hey, it's all great." And then it's up to the county's storm water engineering and the engineering department to look over those and verify them. And uh we constantly, well, at least I do anyways, I scrutinize those those maps every time I see a project because we're moving water from where it was to where it's going to be. And we get lots of questions and everybody thinks like, hey, you're you're not following the process. But that detailed requirement isn't isn't necessary until FSP, final site plan, uh, or after a project is approved. And I really do think that if our whole county and we're putting a plan together is looking at a project and we're just going to reszone it and say, I hope they do a good job. I think that's that's wrong to do, especially now that we're starting to fill up, right? We have an FDAB that's a boundary. Lots of things are what folks are calling infill. So now we're starting to fill up the bucket that we're all in. And if we're going to wait until they have an approved reszone and then they gave us a GDP that we said, "Yeah, it's looks like a pretty good project." You know, kind of, yeah, I think we can make it. Well, what happens later is when that site plan is there's a change made or there's additional projects in that same basin. Um, some of them have great topography done already. Others don't. Um, I commend the projects that come forward with them, but I also think some of the other ones maybe they don't know. U, but more importantly, the county needs to know. So, uh, I have an email that I'll transmit to Miss Leighton. I'm sure she'll share. I didn't share it with anybody else prior to this for obvious reasons, but just wanted to bring that up to you guys and let you know that that's a future um improvement that I'd like to see considered. And I'm sure staff can can tell us more about it later, but there any objection to submitting that um to Miss Leaden and the rest of the team? I don't know the process to do that uh correctly. Ma'am. >> Uh, so typically, um, I think that there would be more discussion from the commission. Um, maybe during we could do set up a a work session once staff has had a chance to kind of look at those things and then we can have an open dialogue with planning commissioners and staff before it moves uh forward as a recommendation to the board of county commissioners. Yeah, I was just going to say it sounds like an excellent work session kind of deal >> and it it could be one where it's at the start of a planning commission meeting. >> You can you can organize the agenda that way. >> Okay. I would like to know is is it okay to transmit this just on like the the more detailed explanation? I mean, I I shot you an email yesterday and I'm going to bring it up today so I didn't catch you flatfooted, but I'd like to just transmit this email to you and then you can digest it however you like and share it. And is that legally appropriate? Ma'am, >> I think >> Yeah, Mr. Chair, interacting with staff first would be the first level, >> right? I was just thinking perfect for public record standpoint if we can maybe agree to shoot for say a January work session, then all that information regarding the work session will come out publicly at which time we will have access to that all that information. Is that accurate? I think so. Yeah. Yes. >> Okay. Sure. And uh again, this would be a specific change at a future date that uh you know, when we have the opportunity to hopefully make >> some substantive changes to the comprehensive plan. This might be something we would consider to strengthen our our governance. So, thanks for the opportunity, Mr. Chair, to share that. I went ahead and transmitted that information to you, Miss Leaden, and then hopefully we hear about it later. Thank you. >> Okay. Um, at this time, if anybody here plans to speak on behalf of anything at all, uh, the clerk will swear you in. Okay. At this time, I'll open public comment for any future agenda items. If you'd like to speak on a future agenda item, please step up to the podium. microphone, please, sir. >> Nope. >> There you go. >> All right. For the record, newly [snorts] qualified Glen Jabelina, District 4, Manatee County, future gen items. You know, there's an old adage [clears throat] that says garbage in, garbage out. And that's what we have. We're going through a tax amendment now by a company that is geared to get developers through the process. I was amazed at the last meeting I was at that Trevor who represented Kimley Horn has not even heard of the Sarasota 2050 plan probably one of the best comprehensive plans in the state. So that's their mindset when they start doing the text amendment and they're not using best practices. You know, I looked over the 700 pages and I went to AI and I I think in about 20 minutes we had a very good plan. I don't think they're using AI. They should. I think they should be wellversed in the best practices that are out there. They don't, you know, and I hear from some of the commissioners, well, they got 10,000 people, $3 billion budget. Yeah. For who? For the developers. They find the loopholes. And when they're writing this stuff, they're going to make sure those loopholes are in there. I wouldn't take anything from that 700page because it's not it's not geared for the public in the best interest that we have. So, I would I would I would I would take that uh into consideration. When you have a a tax plan that's coming up that's geared for developers and not the people, we're in trouble from the get-go again. And and where does that get us today? We have all these hodgepodge developments. 50 houses here, 200 here, 5,000 here. There's no cahucus to that plan. You look at the best practices around the state and the country, everything flows. When you put in these subdivisions and there's one exit in and out, you just exasperate everything. Traffic, water, aggravation. Uh the other thing I don't see in here is the is the uh evacuation routes. Oh, they just check it off. You can get out. No, you can't. We can barely get out during, you know, rush hour traffic, much less a hurricane evacuation. So you people should take that very very seriously when you when you approve this and reszone. Where's where's the added value in that? It has to be a public interest and we should have added value coming back. Oh, we need five acres for a fire station. Oh, we need three acres for a substation. You don't see any of that there. And you're taking, you know, rest three going to nine, increasing that value by millions of dollars with no public benefit. And it's amazing all the staff we have. We do not have an environmental engineer on staff in Manatee County. It's unbelievable. For the record, anybody else for public comment? Okay, closing public comment. Rachel, would you mind reading number one, please? I would be happy to. Item number one is PDC 18-14 parent G parent Rife Storage Hotel at Bradenton. Um I'm going to go ahead and um read it into the record and then introduce the applicant. Um amending a previously approved general development plan um removing 6,500 square feet of commercial and reducing room count. Um parcel A is 3, sorry, 3.15 acres. Parcel B is 3.13 acres for a 6.2 acre site of two parcels. Um, retaining plan development commercial zoning district and overlays generally located souththeast corner of State Road 64 and 64th Street Court East commonly known as 92164 Street and 6620 State Road 64 East Bradenton. If the applicant would Uh, good morning, commissioners. I'm Scott Rutil. I'm here on behalf of the applicant and I've been sworn. Um, we are on behalf of the applicant, we're going to withdraw this application and we're going to work within the um the requirements of the original GDP. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Thanks, sir. So that'll close item number one. And Rachel, would you read I guess two and three together, please? >> Yes. Ordinance 26-29PA2508 Vineyard Creek CPA, smallcale comprehensive plan map amendment. It this is a legislative item. Your case planner is Elizabeth Schulman and PDR 2516 pair uh sorry, let me go back to item number two. That is a uh privately initiated small-cale map amendment to change the future land use map of these four parcels totaling 29.83 acres of real property from res 3 to res 9 future land use category PDR 2516 paren vineyard creek Almina Properties LLC and Manatee County owners. This is quasi judicial item. Your case planner is Elizabeth Schulman. This project is in district two. reszone of approximately 16 acres on one parcel generally located 16 sorry south of 28th Street Court east on the westernmost parcel of a four parcel project site between 16th Avenue East and 24 a 24th Avenue East Palmetto from suburban agriculture and residential single family to plan development residential zoning district approving a general development plan for up to 204 single family residential units on the four parcel subject area of 29.83 acres. >> All right. Thank you. Um applicant. >> Good morning members of the commission. My name is Jack Weber um land acquisition manager with Simply Dwell. I reside in Sarasota County and um we are here this even or this morning rather to present to you a concept plan uh for development um for your review and consideration. Uh the actions we are seeking are those as entered into the record here previously and uh we have our team with with us here this morning to uh answer any questions and present our our concept plans. Let me see if I can advance this. With us this morning, um Ivory Matthews, who's also with Simply Dwell Homes. We have Philip Dearia, who's with Kimley Horn as our planner. Uh along with Taylor Deetro. Uh Chris Kennedy, who's our environmentalist, is here this morning. Uh in route is Matt Morris, who's our project engineer. Uh and we also have Becca Bond who's our traffic uh planner for the uh project. Um, Simply Dwell Homes, you know, who are we? Uh, we are a localowned and operated uh, company. We were founded in 2023. Um, we evaluated the market and understood that there is a need for firsttime home buyer homes as well as those for um, our hometown heroes. So with that, we put together a a company full of u experienced professionals to um design and build homes specifically for that market. Um, our mission, as I generally stated, is to design and construct quality quality homes and neighborhoods at affordable prices uh for the firsttime home buyers and our hometown heroes, which we're typically not seeing in the in the market today. Um, we design and build all of our homes in accordance with local and national building codes and regulations. So, we have quality homes with warranties. Um, we offer single family, attached, and detached homes. Uh, what we're showing on the screen here are some of our communities that we currently have. Uh, Broadleaf, uh, which is just north of us, uh, also in Manatee County. Uh, we have Booker uh, properties. Uh, it was a unique uh, assemblage of lots just adjacent to Booker High School. Uh, it was a neighborhood rejuvenation project that we took on. Uh we had three lots that were uh and built five homes on those lots. We also have Strasera just to the south um located in Sarasota County, more of a traditional neighborhood with amenities. Oasis, which is a townhouse development just outside of Wellland Park. And we also have two upcoming communities in uh Fort Myers, North Fort Myers, uh which will be opening next year. So, with that, I'll turn it over to Philip who will walk you through the uh project uh the location and our uh requested actions. Thank you. [snorts] >> Great. Thank you, Jack. And good morning, commissioners. How are you? Once again, for the record, my name is Philip Di Maria. I'm a certified planner with Kimley Horn. Um representing Simply Dwell today. It's my pleasure um to to walk you through this part of the project. So, um, starting with project location, it's about 15 minutes. >> Just confirm you've been sworn, please. >> And I have been sworn. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, chair. >> Um, [clears throat] uh, the project's located about 15 minutes north of where we sit today, uh, just over the bridge in Pal Meadow, uh, unincorporated Manatee County, of course, uh, with a high degree of access to the employment, industrial uses, etc., uh, that exist in in this particular part of the county. I'll cover a variety of, uh, as positive aspects of the project. Um, but I do want to mention the staff report did a very excellent job of covering uh all aspects of the project as well. Um, the project itself consists of four parcels of the variety of ownership. We've been working on this project for a while, but a summary of the request is we're asking for approvals today that would allow for the implementation of 204 single family attached town home style units on just a little under 30 acres. Um, it would require a comprehensive plan amendment and a reszoning. Um that's what's before you today. Um there is a portion of the site that's already been zoned PDR. So that's why you see some discrepancies in the acreages here. Um but the comprehensive plan amendment is from res 3 to res 9, but the density requested is just a little over six units per acre and that's implemented through the reszone and the adopted GDP. Um I think uh staff member Schulman did a fantastic job of covering some of the history on site but u once again the the site was originally or portion of the site was originally reszoned to PDR in 2006 before the great financial crisis. Um that plan has expired. The site was partially developed and abandoned. So there were structures on site that have since been demolished. But there's a a long history of management and code enforcement and issues with um folks that were on the property potentially in an illegal fashion. Um and that coordination is ongoing. Um so this project has the added benefit of obviously u increasing investment on the property itself in this area of Manatee County, but also resolving a lot of those longer term issues that have been occurring over the last uh 20 odd years. Um going to briefly speak about attainable housing. Uh what what is being implemented by the by my client is a form of attainable housing and it's true to their values is providing long-term um wealth to the folks that purchase into their homes. Uh the Manatee County, the typical Manatee County LURA agreements that you're familiar with um restrict resale values, etc. They're fantastic for four for for rent projects. Um, but we do have some difficulties in um uh for folks that may want to resell their properties that um may be uh counterintuitive for for my client's philosophy when it comes to attainable housing, providing attainable housing to the units. But I do want to be clear, the proposed development does have a target for sale price of between 290 and 300,000 at least today. Um whereas the median price obviously in Manatee County is much much higher than that. um mentioned this already, access to to services, roadways. This is really where the grid is still established in Manatee County. Not a there has been uh historic investment in both utilities and roadway network. Um and that's uh been supported also by the types of uses that you see in this area of the county. Uh there's some discussion um here at the beginning of this hearing about infill development. This is this is in Phil development west of 75 obviously west of the urban service area and in close proximity to existing housing services jobs etc. Um this is the subject property in the context of the land uses. Um currently res 3 you'll see a smattering of land uses here. there's a a high degree of um density of differing land uses in the area, which is typical for a lot of these parts of the county that have historic uses um that have changed slowly over time as opposed to some of the the newer more uh uh newly developing areas of the county where you see a lot of the urban fringe 3, etc. So, um there's res 16, res 9, res 6, res 3 industrial, light industrial, all within pretty close proximity of the property. Um our re our uh comprehensive plan amendment would take this once again from res 3 to res 9 in this area. And then um this map shows the existing PDR um zone property along with the the A1 uh part of the property um that is being proposed to uh be uh consolidated under one PDR plan development residential uh zoning district with an associated GDP. Uh speaking of GDPs, this is what it looks like here. Um 6.83 83 units per acre is what's being proposed. Um, some key aspects uh that I'll cover and happy to answer these in in more detail uh during the question and answer portion, but want to be clear about a few things. One is the improvement of the sidewalks around the property. There are existing sidewalks. Um the the wetland buffers um wetland buffers are adhered to in all places to protect the existing wetlands on site. There is one location um kind of centrally located in that uh um on the northern blue area that you see along the border. Uh if you go directly south of that, you'll see a small clip of a wetland buffer 476 square feet that's called out. That's being compensated for mitigated for elsewhere on site. But the the wetland itself is not touched um by this plan. It's just the buffer that's clipped, if that makes sense. um variety of different uh pieces of this, but I think the key thing that I want to point out is that there are no special approvals being requested. We've got two access points, an emergency access point, special requests um uh um here. Um we evaluated the site many many times. It's an iterative process, but really we wanted to come forth with you with a plan that made the most sense for the area um and would be sensitive to to the existing natural features. Um at this time, I'd like to actually pass it over to my partner, Becca Bond, who will discuss traffic. Thank you. >> Good morning. Um I'm Becca Bond, licensed professional engineer and certified planner with Kimley Horn. I'm the transportation engineer for this project and I have been sworn. The primary access for the site is proposed along 28th Street Court East and the secondary access is proposed along 7 along 16th Avenue East. Additionally, as mentioned, there's an emergency only access proposed again along 28th Street Court East. There were two different traffic analysis that were completed for the applications. The first being the comprehensive plan amendment traffic analysis which included both short and long-term scenarios which project five years into the future and 20 years into the future respectively. In both scenarios, the study roadways are anticipated to operate acceptably based on county adopted level of service standards. For the reasoning GDP, an analysis was conducted for both study area roadways and intersections for the future buildout conditions of the project. All study roadways again are anticipated to operate acceptably based on county adopted level service standards and all the study intersections operate with acceptable volume to capacity ratios. On this slide, we've provided a visual to help understand what that level of service D uh county adopted standard looks like and then where uh the study roadways um will operate in the future conditions with project traffic. So, as shown, the county's adopted level of service standard for these roadways is level of service D. Roadway standards often target level of service D for suburban areas where maneuverability may be restricted, but the speeds remain acceptable. Level of service D means that volumes are nearing the roadway capacity, but the roadway is still operating with a stable flow. In the future uh conditions with project traffic, 28th Street Court East is anticipated to operate at level of service C with project traffic and Canal Road is anticipated to operate at level of service D with project traffic, which is the same as as the level of service in the existing conditions. We've also provided this graph to show a visual of the traffic volumes along each study roadway segment. The existing volumes represented by the dark navy. The reserve background volume is represented by the dark blue. The additional project volume associated with this uh proposed site is then represented by the light blue. The green represents the remaining volume along each study roadway before exceeding that level of service D volume. As you can see in this chart, excess capacity is available along each of the study roadways with project trips included. Finally, I just want to briefly mention that there are scheduled improvements within the Manatee County Capital Improvement Project along Canal Road near the project site. The Canal Road project is divided into three separate segments. Segment one from US 301 to 17th Street East includes widening to four lanes and intersection realignment. Segment two includes multimmoal and safety improvements, and segment three includes an additional intersection realignment. I'll now hand it over to Matt Morris to speak on storm water. Good morning. Uh Matt Morris with Cape Dawson Engineers. Um I've actually not been sworn. >> Anybody else who has uh not been sworn and plans to speak, please uh stand up to be sworn. >> Please the factual statements and representations you're about to make to the planning commission are truthful and accurate. >> Thank you. And you step to the podium. Please state your name, county of residence, and if you've been sworn. Thank you. So, uh again, Matt Morris with Pape Dustin Engineers and uh I have been sworn. Um so, with regard to storm water, uh on the site, what you see before you is an uh a site plan or uh a plan showing the current flow of the storm water through the site. Uh we will be accounting for existing off-site flows uh making sure that those flows are continued uh continue to be allowed to flow through our site. Um we will be meeting historic discharge locations. Um, as was stated before, part of this site is actually already developed with a storm water system that's been uh constructed on the site. Um, so we will be uh adding to that existing storm water system with our proposed uh storm water analysis uh with expansions of those existing ponds and creating new ponds. Um, and uh we have uh agreed to your uh staff's uh recommended recommended stipulations with regard to storm water. So I'll pass it back. Great. Thank you. Um, one thing I'd just like to emphasize here is uh we held a community workshop uh back in uh November for uh back in November of last year. Um had good participation from the neighbors uh in the neighborhood surrounding us. A lot of good questions about hey what's occurring on site? We have issues with what's existing out there. Um and and there were I think the general sentiment was some level of excitement about what's to come. there being some change, there being some investment in the community, those some obvious concern about locations of access and um you know what what sort of change would occur but really positive workshop been a part of a number of these right and I think that once again the general sentiment was uh level of excitement for um you know what's to come um as with any um application uh resoning or comprehensive plan amendment we're required to do a comprehensive plan consistency review. Your staff's required to do the same per the code. Um we pulled some of the uh policies here um but generally found um that this is this application and the proposal before you is extremely consistent with the uh with the comprehensive plan. Um specifically future land use policy 21114B promotes infill development west of I75 with access to existing infrastructure and compatibility with surrounding development patterns. Future land use policy 2123 supports continuous expansion of existing development with compatible design, density, and land use patterns. 611 provides a variety of housing types to support a range of income levels. Uh so we're contributing to all of those. Um there's a a larger list you see at the bottom of the screen and um a full analysis is included within your packet. Um, as I said previously, and I'm I'm sure Miss Michulman will go through her analysis here shortly, but pulled some expert excerpts here from the staff analysis. The key thing that I'd like to identify here though is that negative aspects, none, mitigating measures, none. A lot of P positive aspects um from a planning uh from a planning standpoint and from an engineering standpoint on this project and staff supports this application. Um, as I said earlier, we're open and available. We've got a team of experts here as well as uh folks from the uh uh from the ownership team that are available and and willing to answer any questions you may have. Thank you for your time. >> Okay, Mr. Stam, I'm guessing you have questions. >> A couple. Yeah, >> please. Um, out of the 2004 town homes that you are asking for, what is the percentage of rental versus uh owners? >> Yeah, great question, Commissioner. All of the town homes will be for sale. >> So, you don't you don't um you don't project any going toward rentals if you're not able to sell the town home? >> Not at this time, sir. I'd be if ownership has any other comments they'd like to make. >> Jack Leber with Simply Dwell. Yes, that is correct. We do not anticipate any rentals whatsoever. We do not build build for rent product. These are for sale products for firsttime and first-time buyers. Yes. >> The other question I had uh regarding the u traffic. >> Great. I'll ask Becca to come back up. when you mentioned the um the CIP components um that tends to be a moving target in the county. H has the funding actually been allocated? Is it planned? Where where are with that? Um I see things on CIP that is there one year and gone the next because it's the discretion of the county commission obviously. >> Yeah, I I want to direct that question towards staff. I will say I know that portions of these projects are underway. I believe they're funded, but that would be more of a question for the transportation staff, the county. >> Thank you, >> Mr. Brown. >> Um, yes. Can you go back to your slide with the GDP map on there? >> Absolutely. >> Yes. Right there. Um, I just wanted to get some clarification. uh in the staff report uh as far as the wetland buffers and I appreciate you guys for preserving those those wetlands. The there's some mix up with the language on the wetland buffers. In the staff report says wetland buffers is a 30-foot average 15t minimum. Um in the Kimley Horn environmental it's 20 foot average 15 minimum. Um, and then when you had your public meeting, the question was asked, are you impacting the wetlands on site? The answers are, we are proposing to impact, we're not proposing to impact the wetlands on the property. We providing a 30-foot wetland buffer with a 15t wetland buffer setback. And on this GDP, it shows 30 foot wetland buffer. But then there's some other language in there. It says average. you know what is it? >> Sure. Yeah. No, great questions and I appreciate the the thoughtful analysis here. I'll ask my environmental scientist uh Chris Kenny to come up for a thorough response. I think you know part of part one aspect of um the process that we went through right that that neighborhood workshop was held in November. We've had a lot of discussions with staff internally um you know we've been working on this plan um over time and for the most part our intention has remained the same right um but some very specific aspects may have been modified but I'll ask Chris to answer your question more directly thank you >> yeah and for clarification it is a 30foot >> sir could you please state your name and if you've been sworn >> Chris Kennedy environmental scientist Kimley Horn and I have sworn um to answer your question is a 30foot average wetland buffer. The reason why the language 30 foot average is used is because of those small encroachments that you see on the northern wetland. Um those encroachments have been compensated for which is why the language is average because of those small encroachments in compensation but again it is a 30-foot average for clarification. >> Okay. Um and then with 15 foot uh wetland buffer setback as well. >> Correct. >> Yes. As required by code. Yes. >> Right. >> And >> okay. So so the term average is only because of the the one compensation. >> Yes sir. That is correct. And it is the language for 15 foot minimum is 15 foot minimum um to ensure there's no secondary impacts for the state which is why that language was also in there. But again, yeah, it was just because of those small encroachments and compensation why it's 30 foot average. >> Okay. Thank you. Uh, one other question about your, you know, your meeting. >> Yes, sir. >> Uh, meeting with the community. Um, again, I I visited the site and definitely has got some issues out there um with the previous development and looking through the history, it's pretty complex. Um but there are a lot of adjacent to this a lot of uh [clears throat] you know large acreage horse farms and so forth. Um is there you think there's a good transition between that and 204 houses. Um I know some of the community was concerned about that. Um, and are we are there adequate buffers to make sure that there's protection for those large parcels? >> Yeah. No, that's a great question. Um, you know, I think I think a couple things come to mind. One is there are obviously areas of the county, you and I have both lived here for a long time. most of us most of us had we know there are areas of the county where this transition right how how will we grow that sort of conversation occurs so I think that's the the first aspect that comes to mind here recognizing that there are a lot of historic uses um but there's also a lot of investment in this area from from an infrastructure standpoint from a from a job standpoint um so from a planning perspective right and this is um you strictly, you know, somewhat myopic myopic point of view, right? But, um, it's important for there to be density in areas like these, right? Its proximity to incorporated parts of the county, its proximity to industrial uses. I think one of the first things that we looked at here too is were those industrial uses too and recognizing that look the the the mix of um industrial higher densities much lower densities um create a situation which diversity is really the norm in this part of the county. So I'm not really concerned um about the 208 town homes specifically because of that diversity in uses. And then thinking also back to the history of what was planned for the site. Um you know that that creates some level of understanding of maybe what was acceptable in the past to this community. And in our neighborhood workshop the general sentiment once again was just excitement about investment rather than change itself being scary. Great. >> Thank you. >> Yes sir. Commissioner >> SC any questions? >> Please go ahead. So, I did have a similar question and I'll wait for staff to answer that about [clears throat] the SIP or the the uh capital improvement plans there uh for those roads. Um, so I wanted to ask the if you can leave this this GDP up for me. So, just to make sure I understand, there's 15.9 acres that that's going from A1 to res 9, right? >> That's correct, sir. And uh the future land use category is at res three now. >> That's correct. >> Okay. So why not go to res 3? How many units would you get at res 3 and is that not you'd only get 90 but going to res 9 will get you to 204? You said 208 a minute ago, but it said on here 204. That's why I'm saying, >> right? No, that's that's a good question. So the the we evaluated a number of different land use options for this site when we first came across it. I think um you know from my client's perspective I would like them to share theirs too. You know a lot of it has to do with economics of course right um the infrastructure that was on site as well lends itself to this sort of um density as well. Um so I think that's something that's important to consider. Um as far as evaluating which land uses to use. Of course there's there are density bonuses within the comprehensive plan that you're very familiar with. Um so resz 3 itself allows for three units per acre flat but allows for density bonus to exceed that. Um we also evaluated res six right there's some res six portions in this area as well. Um that would permit up to 12 units per acre with a density bonus. Um ultimately our client's philosophy towards affordable housing, attainable housing, providing it at um you know uh with fewer restrictions on resale drove us to res9 being the appropriate land use for this category. I'll remind you that this GDP also institutes an effective cap on the number of units that are permitted, right? Um so the 204 units that you see here um provide that cap on um you know what can be developed on the property as opposed to what's the maximum permitted in the in the res 9 land use. >> Thank you. Uh, so I'm sort of looking at this GDP and it's blocked up three ways, but I don't really I mean, can you explain to me? I see a flood zone X on this western portion, this L-shaped portion. Um, and then this center section here. I don't I can't see what flood zone you have in there. Uh, but then the the parcel that's on the right. I maybe I just can't zoom in, but I see X on the left and the right. What flood zone is this center section in? >> Matt, do you have that off the top of your head? I think I believe it's I know flood zone X is certainly on the eastern side of the site and on the western side of the site. That might be flood zone X across the site as a whole. But >> yeah, I didn't want to make an assumption because I see you're sort of preserving wetland in this area. If you look at a GIS, you can see the greenery moving through there. So it that whole area is low already. So I'm just trying to figure out where you're placing homes and are you well I'll let you answer the first question. Is that is that flood zone X in the center? >> Sure. Uh Matt Morris with Pap Dawson. Yes, it is flood zone X in the center. Uh what we have identified on here within the wetland areas what's colored in blue. Uh that's flood zone A. So the actual flood zone is essentially limited to those couple pockets in those those wetlands. I think there's one other very very small pocket uh somewhere else on the site to the west of that. Um but again they're very small isolated and then the two main areas of the flood planer in the wetlands are going to be preserved. >> And is there detail now on where your intention is to place or spread the 204 um approved uh dwelling units on there? Is it all the way across there? Are you trying to concentrate them towards the east, towards the west, across the center? >> Yeah, it would be spread across the entire site with um you know avoid it specifically avoiding the wetlands and natural features on site. >> And how much elevation change is necessary to uh to get you to your final floor across the site? >> So uh on the east side of the site, obviously that portion of the site's already developed um and has already been filled. So on the eastern portion where the property has already been developed from the the previous uh work there, there really wouldn't be any additional fill being brought in on the east side of the site. Uh on the western portion of the site, it varies anywhere from 2 to 3 feet kind of typical uh you know fills that you would see on on most developments in the area. >> Okay. >> Um >> uh I just had just just a couple more questions. Um, you used a term earlier, you said attainable housing, but then you used both terms together in the discussion we just had. Attainable and affordable. You use those both sort of simultaneously. Uh, attainable. What's the difference between attainable and affordable housing? What's that mean? >> That's a great question. One I one I anticipated. So I think there's the there's the attainable housing that you see defined in the comp plan, the code, etc. associated with livable manity. There's attainable housing you see defined in Florida statutes and other locations. Excuse me. The housing that we're providing, like I discussed, is is lowercase affordable, attainable, you know, but it is uh what I would say like an informal undefined form of affordable housing, which is to say that it doesn't necessarily align with what the county defines or the state defines as affordable housing, but with the purpose and intent of Simply Dwell Homes. They're providing housing at a price that is appropriate for first-time home buyers that are middle class um you know middle-ass families can afford. Is it a market rate home though? You're selling them at a market rate that you feel you could achieve though. Correct. It's this isn't a live local uh sort of project, right? So it's still a market rate uh product that you're selling, right? >> With a target buyer. Yes. But there's no rent control associated with >> Yeah. Who's the market in that area? That's what you're looking for. I gotcha. Uh, and what basin is this in? I I maybe staff could explain that to me. What basin does this this flood plane lie in, Mr. Morris? Perhaps. >> Yeah, that might be appropriate for staff. >> Yeah, thank you. >> And I'm all set. Thank you so much. >> All right. Thank you. >> Uh, regarding the uh followup on Mr. Royo's question regarding the uh flood zones. >> Yes, sir. >> U there was I don't know whether you reviewed the entire record. Um there was a document under public comment that was submitted along with some video and it showed pretty extensive flooding through the area there. And I'd like to know whether you've reviewed that and how do you square up? you're in flood zone X formerly, but the video the pictures say a thousand words sometimes and um it showed pretty good amount of flooding in that area. So, how are you going to uh compensate or address uh what I've seen on the video, maybe perhaps you have seen as well? >> Sure. Uh Matt Morris again, Paps Engineering. Um so, yes uh I mean you're exactly right. We've got to evaluate the site uh based on existing uh topographic information. We'll be utilizing that information for our site as well as off-site areas, making sure that any water that flows into our site, we'll continue to do that so we're not damning anything up from uh any adjacent properties. Um there are low spots on the site where water does hold on the site. We have to take that into account and that's taken into account effectively. is kind of cooked into the books in our storm water calculations that we do where uh we have to take into account that existing storage and make sure that our storm water ponds that we're designing still maintain that uh that historical storage, historical discharge points, historical inflow points so that we're not adversely impacting anything. We're going to be building the site into the overall wershed model that the county has that shows all those different flows, shows all the uh existing pipes in the surrounding area, shows all the existing uh flowways in the in the surrounding area. So all that will be taken into account when we do that storm water analysis uh and doing a no adverse impacts analysis as well. Uh we also have agreed to a stipulation about uh providing cup for cup flood plane uh uh impact compensation. Um so we'll be providing that compensation in sole use uh flood plane compensation ponds on our site as well. Um so we're kind of doing both a bit of belts and suspenders on this one um because of those additional uh storm water uh comments and stipulations that staff has put in um that we're in agreement with. So we'll have to demonstrate that both to your staff as well as to uh water management district staff in order to get our permits from the state uh to build the site. So, so again all that uh existing off-site flows coming into our site and leaving our site, we have to analyze all those and make sure that we're uh keeping those flows coming and going in our site at the correct location and the correct uh volume and capacities for all that. >> One of the questions chair um once again addressing the issue of affordable housing versus market rate. So say that you uh this we this would get approved and you find that you have a um pretty overwhelming demand for your 204 house town [clears throat] homes between your target of 290 and 300. Um is there a commitment on your part to stay at the proposed development? Are you going to say, "Hey, you know what? We can we under, you know, we can get more money for these town homes and, you know, and we'll abandon or or or lessen the commitment to uh the first responder issue, the workforce issue, and then just go, hey, let's go market rate. We can make a little bit more money here." How would that be? Uh, is there a firm commitment on your on your part? Good morning. Jag Ruparian, president at Simply Dwell Homes. I've been sworn resident of Manity County. So, to answer your question directly, our existence is to provide attainable housing and that's driven off price. Uh we obviously have costs that drive retail price. Um and as you know there's several costs pending uh resulting in increased prices and it's unrelated to our desire to um make more profits and that's related to impact fee increases as an example. Um so to answer your question squarely um we are focused on the first-time home buyer and we price to that market. Well, is there going to be a stipula a a stipulation part as part of this uh application to do that or is it just hey this is what we're committed to but if the market changes we're going to take advantage of it. I understand where you can have some increased costs are beyond your control but you're not in business to stay flat or lose money. And so if you have an opportunity because of demand to perhaps raise it by whatever percentage you think you can raise it to or that your market can afford. Um how you you know would you please address that? >> Yeah we we don't we don't look at our business as a as a being opportunistic to price to demand. We focus on pricing to the market and satisfying the customer's needs. Um, as of yesterday, we did the same exact thing that I'm saying right now. We we sold a home to a longtime resident of Manity County who's a prominent business person who bought a home for his daughter who can't afford rent. Uh, that contract was written yesterday. That's what we we plan on doing, but locking price based on unknown cost is not something we're committed to doing at the moment. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Thank you. Can you remind me it was touched a little bit about if what is the restrictions or capabilities from the difference especially for me and the public between a res six and a res 9. >> Sure. Absolutely. So they represent similar land use types low to medium in the case of res 6. Uh, in res 9, I believe it's medium to medium high is the term used in the comp plan. Um, in terms of densities permitted, res six permits up to six units per acre. There is a bonus um available for those who choose to go under a land use restriction agreement with attainable housing at 120% or below. Um, uh, that permits densities that exceed six units per acre. Um, res 9 permits up to nine units per acre with once again a density bonus available for those who choose to do affordable housing that allow you to exceed nine units per acre. The commercial uses permitted in each category are very similar. Um, at activity nodes, you can do light [clears throat] commercial uses. Um, but I think that's a general summary of the two land use types. >> And remind me your request density max is what? uh 6.83 units per acre. >> So right now without any affordable housing credits, whatever, you're a little bit higher than what a res six would allow. >> Correct. If there was a res seven category, if you will, that's what we've chosen. Yes, sir. So the the first concern I had when when looking at this is it's not uncommon for reszones to be approved based off of an idea and intent. But as you know and previous you know people on this property economics tend to happen. So, my biggest concern is um if we were to approve and the board was to approve a res 9 designation um and something goes south with this project, then we would have approved a reszone that effectively could be resold to somebody else who has the economic capabilities of building, but now it's a res nine and not a six. Does that make sense? >> Yes, sir. So what >> I can speak to that if you'd like me to or you know where I'm getting at. >> Yes sir. >> So I agree with you from the comprehensive plan standpoint. I think one aspect that can't be ignored about this project is the fact that the reszone is coming with it right with the GDP attached. So anyone that wants to exceed the 6.83 83 long units per acre or anyone who wants to modify the plan that you see in front of you. The GDP that would be adopted and attached to the reasonzoning would be required to come back to this board for an amendment. Um for the record, right? >> All right, that's all the questions I have. Any other ma'am? >> Just a a quick one. Um the school district was um stating that a bus may need to come into the subdivision for special needs students. [clears throat] Is there any plans to have a culde-sac or a roadway that's wide enough for that bus to turn around in? >> Yes, that's a good question. I can't speak specifically to the turnaround portion. I don't believe we did um Matt I I can't remember we didn't do a auto turn analysis on a school bus internal to the site. However, one aspect of the GDP that we're including and this is this is written into the GDP is the inclusion of a bus stop waiting area and that was in response to that comment. Um and that's on 28th Street Court East uh just near that main entrance point. >> Okay. And just a statement about if you play around with the math. So technically they they would be asking for which doesn't exist a res 6.85 which would give them. So they're they're 26 units above res six right now that that they're asking for. >> Commissioners, any other do you have a follow-up, ma'am? >> Yeah. Thank you. Just a quick clarification. And I know you asked about the the CIP, which I know staff will will address, but I wanted to clarify that we included the CIP information in the presentation based upon, you know, what we heard at the community workshop. However, um, in our analysis to be conservative, we did not include any of those improvements when we ran and and looked at the volume to capacity ratios at the intersection or the level of service of the roadways. We did that based on existing conditions plus project traffic. So, um, that was provided for for information purposes that there are mobility and and safety improvements and intersection realignment, which were concerns that we heard at the neighborhood workshop, but that that was not part of our analysis. >> Thank you. >> All right, staff. [clears throat] >> I'm Elizabeth Schulman, senior planner with staff, and I have been sworn Okay. Um, so, Vineyard Creek, uh, it's both a comprehensive plan amendment and a reszone. Um, the applicant went over a lot of this, so I'll be quick. Um, as you may have read in the staff report, there's a complicated parcel ownership. Um, parcel one is owned by Manity County. Parcel 2 is private ownership and it completely surrounds parcel three, which is also owned by Manatee County. And parcel four four also has private ownership. And the history on that um is pretty complicated. So, if you have any questions from the staff report, just let me know. Okay. Um, so we're going from res 3 to res 9. And then I just wanted to um include a graphic about the uh res 9 that is around the site and also the IIL um industrial light that is around the site. So you can see that it's it's touching some IL there. And um the applicant did state that this is a very diverse area in terms of housing types and other types. um GDP request 204 units. There is um county infrastructure facilities near the project. And I just wanted to point out that this is the FEMA map. Okay. And then um also wanted to point out that any fill within the 1% annual chance flood hazard area will be compensated um and drainage easements and accessments are required that um this is the transportation link capacity analysis. It shows that um the this project will not change the level of service of the road. And um as they mentioned, a very positive aspect about this project is that it will demolish the vacant buildings on the property that were built as part of the previously approved PDR. Um and just to state that that previously approved PDR had 228 units approved. So there were going to be there was going to be 228 units on this site already approved without that western most parcel um being a part of it. So that and that western most parcel the intention was for that parcel to be developed as well. So uh just to and then the general de development trend of the surrounding area is consistent with 6.89 dwelling units per acre. they're exceeding their open space requirements and there are no wetland impacts. Um notable conditions of approval is that the site plan submitted with this application will be part of the approval. Um they're going to be held to that GDP and capped at that number. Um and then they'll have to connect to the county water and wastewater system. Consistency with the comprehensive plan. applicant did a good job of going over how it's consistent with the comprehensive plan and the land development code as well. Um, and then residential compatibility um requires that they use appropriate buffers screening setbacks with adjacent properties and uses um and that this process does achieve that. Uh so in conclusion the request demonstrates consistency with the goals, objectives and policies of the comprehensive plan and the applicable standard of the land development code and initial analysis will be conducted conducted at time of FSP. Thank you. >> Commissioners have any questions for staff? >> Do you want to ask the question that you had earlier that was directed to the staff from the applicant? I'm good. Um, the CIP uh issue. Good morning. Punish for staff. Uh, we have two CIP for this uh specific word. The first segment is funded. It should be completed on 2028. The segment based on the CIP dashboard yesterday, it should be completed 3032. I'm not sure the segments already is already funded. But this analysis was not they didn't take into account the widening of the road. Which means even with two len roads now the old has capacity to end the tube that will be generated by this project. >> So essentially we're like all CIPs it's a moving target it can be changed at any point in time despite the plan to fund it. Is that correct? In other words it's not written in stone. Isn't it Isn't it true that projects in the CIP at the discretion of the county commissioners can be changed? >> Yes. >> So therefore, if you state that it's planned for any year other than the current year, the at the discretion of the county commission, they could again do whatever they feel like doing in terms of shifting money around. >> Yes. >> Okay. Thank you. Can you do me a favor and bring up the slide with the parcels real quick? Yes. So what I didn't hear earlier that I think I heard you say is partial three which was approved for developed >> yeah that was part of the PDR >> back that parcel alone was approved at 228. >> No. So that parcel parcel 3 came into county ownership. Um someone stopped paying taxes on it and it came back into county ownership. So, but all parcel 3, four, and two made up that previous PDR. Yeah. >> Okay. Yeah. So, between >> 2, three, and four, it was previously approved at 228 dwelling units, >> but that approval is no longer it doesn't follow anymore. So like nobody can come in and say is already approved for 228. >> No, that that is gone. >> That's gone. Yeah. >> Okay. Got it. >> I had a follow on to that. So I'm I'm looking at each parcel here. Just breaking it down, you know, on the county site here. They're all all those parcels are res three parcels though, right? >> Oh, yeah. It's the entire >> so every single not to confuse anybody but you know to say hey this you could put 228 on less than half of this total site >> it almost implied that there was a larger res category applied to them but I'm looking at each parcel and >> each one was a res three already. >> So you're I guess you're maxing out all of those and aggregating the total of each parcel and saying yeah you could get 228. >> It was an affordable housing project. It had an affordable housing bonus. Sorry. >> Right. Yeah, that's >> Thanks for clarifying that because I just >> it I was like, you're doubling the size, but you're going to do you can do less. So, I just have >> No, there's a there's a canceled lura on that. Yeah, >> that's what I thought. Okay. Um, yep, that was the question I had for you regarding density. Thank you. >> Any further questions before I open public comment? >> Okay. Thank you, ma'am. Thank you. >> Uh, at this time, I'll open public comment. Anybody wish to speak on this matter can please step up, state your name, county residence, and if you've been sworn. [clears throat] >> For the record, Glenn Jabelina, and I will be talking three minutes on item two and three minutes on item three. [clears throat] So, >> should I >> Okay. >> Yep. >> Because he gets five minutes, please. >> No, then I'll take 10 minutes. I don't I >> I wasn't going to correct them, madam clerk. >> Yeah. >> Well, you know, [laughter] >> so I'm entitled 10 minutes. I doubt if I'll take it. For the record, Glen Jubelina, Manatee County District 4. I don't even know where to start. I I really don't. Um, first of all, they got the land next to nothing from the county. All the infrastructure is there, the water, the sewer. Second of all, the the attainable and affordable. Let me as being on the board for three terms, I know a little bit about it. If if you make if you make a million dollars a year, your attainable housing is $20,000 a month. That's what you can afford. That's attainable. So, I don't know where he's getting his numbers for. Affordability. Average homeowner is 39 years old in Manatee County. That's a fact. Um 120% AMI. That's market rate. There's no break