MANATEE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE CENTER 1112 Manatee Avenue West Bradenton, Florida April 13, 2017

Transcription

1 MANATEE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE CENTER 1112 Manatee Avenue West Bradenton, Florida April 13, 2017 Present were Members: William Conerly, Chairman Tim Rhoades, First Vice Chairman Albert Horrigan, Jr., Second Vice Chairman Matthew Bower John DeLesline Mike Rahn Michael Pendley (non-voting member representing the School Board) Absent was Member: Paul Rutledge, Third Vice Chairman Also present were: Nicole Knapp, Planning Section Manager Sarah Schenk, Assistant County Attorney Quantana Acevedo, Deputy Clerk, Clerk of the Circuit Court Chairman Conerly called the meeting to order at 9:01 a.m. All witnesses and staff giving testimony were duly sworn. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chairman Conerly led the Pledge of Allegiance. AGENDA ANNOUNCEMENTS PC DOC001 Agenda Update Memorandum: Items 2 and 3, Ordinance 17-16, Lakewood Centre DRI 27, and PDMU-06-30(G)(R4), SMR North 70 LLC/SMR Northwest Land LLC/Lakewood Centre Public comment Item 5, Ordinance 17-05, Schroeder-Manatee Ranch, Inc./Cypress Banks DRI 17 School report and public comment Item 6, Z-86-30(G)(R16), Schroeder Manatee Ranch, Inc./Cypress Banks School Report and Public Comment Letter attached Item 7, Ordinance 17-06, Schroeder Manatee Ranch, Inc./University Lakes DRI 22 School Report and revised Development Order attached Item 8, PDMU-92-01(G)(R16), Schroeder Manatee Ranch, Inc./University Lakes School Report and revised Zoning Ordinance attached Item 9, LDCT-17-02/Ordinance 17-22, Land Development Code Text Amendment Airport Zoning Public Comment Letter attached Item 10, PDR/PDMU-15-10(Z)(G), Long Bar Pointe LLLP and Cargor Partners VIII, Long Bar Pointe LLLP Rezone/Aqua by the Bay Additional Public Comments, Revised Site Plan Sheet L1.03 revised to show correct zoning, school report, height analysis, pages 21 and 35 of the staff report to correct typographical errors, request from applicant for additional rebuttal time, revised utility stipulations, and revised recommended motion 1. MINUTES A motion was made by Member Rhoades, seconded by Member DeLesline, and carried 6-0, with Member Rutledge absent, to approve the minutes of March 9, PC MB 2017/20

2 CITIZEN COMMENTS (Future Agenda Items) There being no citizen comments, Chairman Conerly closed citizen comments. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS (Presentations Upon Request) 2. ORDINANCE/DRI A duly advertised public hearing was held to consider recommending adoption of proposed Ordinance 17-16, Lakewood Centre DRI 27. Staff recommended approval. and 3. ORDINANCE/ZONING Zoning Ordinance PDMU-06-30(G)(R4), SMR North 70 LLC/SMR Northwest Land LLC/Lakewood Centre. Staff recommended approval with stipulations. No ex parte communications were disclosed. Darenda Marvin, Senior Planner representing the applicant, stated the Planning Commission heard the associated plan amendment PA-16-06/Ordinance on February 9, 2017, which amended the future land use category from ROR (Retail/Office/Residential) to MU (Mixed Use). The plan amendment was transmitted and the adoption hearing will be on May 4, This portion of Lakewood Centre (300 acres) is known as CORE (Collaboration Opportunities for Research and Exploration), which is the vision for research and development that could include some light industrial and manufacturing. The request includes reducing 100,000 square feet of commercial/retail entitlements and adding 250,000 square feet of Light Industrial entitlements. The applicant wanted this request to be trip neutral and retail generates a higher number of trips than Light Industrial. Discussion took place about residents being able to voice their concerns regarding allowable uses (general development plan was displayed) and excluded list of uses (Note 6 on general development plan). Margaret Tusing, Building and Development Services, was available to address questions. Laura Whinfield, Bridgewater resident, stated her s to the applicant went unanswered. She expressed concern with access points on White Eagle Boulevard due to sight issues, truck traffic, CORE, lack of information on the future development, and possible increase in noise. Kim Herten, Bridgewater resident, expressed concern with the access points on White Eagle Boulevard and possible noise from traffic. Reeves Sperry posed a question about the project s affect on S.R. 64. There being no further public comment, Chairman Conerly closed public comment. Ms. Tusing pointed out the Lakewood Centre Development of Regional Impact (DRI) is a large project made up of 1,400 acres and 300 acres of the project the subject of the proposed requests and the aforementioned plan amendment. The 300 acres are located north of S.R. 70 East, south of Rangeland Parkway and between Lakewood Ranch Boulevard and White Eagle Boulevard. While displaying the general development plan (south) from the staff report, she pointed out the 300 acres, Parcel J (surrounded by White Eagle Boulevard, Rangeland Parkway, Lakewood Ranch Boulevard, and proposed New Haven Boulevard) where all of the uses Ms. Marvin mentioned will most likely go. She explained within the southern PC MB 2017/21

3 portion of the Lakewood Centre DRI all of the parcels are slated for commercial uses, not residential, which has been the intent for the area adjacent to White Eagle Boulevard (commercial, office, and non residential). She further reviewed the different parcels and their proposed uses. Clarke Davis, Transportation Planning Division Manager, elucidated the major roadways that have been referenced are designated thoroughfares. There are access management provisions for these roadways, but they have been designed for this type of development to connect to them. Upon question, Mr. Davis stated if there is an existing sight distance issue, traffic design staff will review it and pursue ways to correct it. The DRI approval includes Map H, which depicts the general location of access points. Ms. Marvin reported there are four DRIs contained within Lakewood Ranch: Cypress Banks, University Lakes, Lakewood Centre and Northwest Centre. She briefly highlighted the components of the Lakewood Centre DRI (proposed for Mixed Use) and Northwest Sector DRI (primarily residential Bridgewater, Central Park, and Esplanade). She displayed an aerial map to point out the Bridgewater Community and its access points. Any s and/or phone calls are directed to Ms. Marvin, so that she may respond to them. She discussed the median openings on White Eagle Boulevard, the plan amendment hearing not being the appropriate time to discuss details on the general development plan, and public notice letters and signs. Discussion ensued about the applicant using a different entrance for truck traffic, maximum height of buildings and buffering (Note 9 on the general development plan), neighborhood meeting, traffic signal or roundabout on White Eagle Boulevard, amount of possible traffic and planning process for staggering traffic. Mr. Davis spoke to net potential trip generation and trip generation. He confirmed White Eagle Boulevard is a County maintained arterial roadway and staff expects the applicant to utilize the established median openings for access in conjunction with other access points along White Eagle Boulevard. Motion Ordinance and finding the request to be consistent with the Manatee County Comprehensive Plan, the Manatee County Land Development Code, and Section , Florida Statutes, subject to the conditions of approval established in the Development Order, and subject to Plan Amendment PA-16-06/Ordinance becoming effective (to be heard on May 4, 2017), Member DeLesline moved to recommend approval of DRI 27 and recommend adoption of Manatee County Ordinance The motion was seconded by Member Horrigan and carried 6-0, with Member Rutledge absent. PC DOC002 Motion PDMU-06-30(G)(R4) and finding the request to be consistent with the Manatee County Comprehensive Plan and the Manatee County Land Development Code, as conditioned herein, Member Rhoades moved to recommend approval of Manatee County Zoning Ordinance PDMU-06-30(G)(R4); recommend approval of the revised General Development Plan with Stipulations; Granting Special Approval for a project in the Mixed Use Future Land Use Category; subject to Plan Amendment PA-16-06/Ordinance becoming effective ; as recommended by staff. The motion was seconded by Member Rahn and carried 6-0, with Member Rutledge absent. PC DOC003 PC MB 2017/22

4 AGENDA CHANGE Following a brief discussion, Chairman Conerly announced Item 4, Zoning Ordinance PDR (Z)(G), GTIS I VGC LP/Villages of Glen Creek MC1, would be heard after Item 8, Ordinance PDMU-92-01(G)(R16), Schroeder Manatee Ranch, Inc./University Lakes. 5. ORDINANCE/DRI Ordinance 17-05, Schroeder Manatee Ranch, Inc./Cypress Banks DRI 17. Staff recommended approval; 6. ORDINANCE/ZONING Zoning Ordinance Z-86-30(G)(R16), Schroeder Manatee Ranch, Inc./Cypress Banks. Staff recommended approval with stipulations; 7. ORDINANCE/DRI Ordinance 17-06, Schroeder Manatee Ranch, Inc./University Lakes DRI 22. Staff recommended approval; and 8. ORDINANCE/ZONING Zoning Ordinance PDMU-92-01(G)(R16), Schroeder Manatee Ranch, Inc./University Lakes. Staff recommended approval with stipulations. Chairman Conerly disclosed he received a phone call regarding University Lakes DRI and he did not address the question. Margaret Tusing, Building and Development Services, displayed an aerial from the staff report to introduce the Cypress Banks DRI. Darenda Marvin, Senior Planner representing the applicant, displayed an aerial to point out the Cypress Bank DRI and University Lakes DRI. There being no public comment, Chairman Conerly closed public comment. Discussion ensued about questions from Chris Kean having any merit (public comment for the Cypress Banks DRI). Motion Ordinance and finding the request to be consistent with the Manatee County Comprehensive Plan, the Manatee County Land Development Code, and Section , Florida Statutes, subject to the conditions of approval established in the Development Order, Member Rhoades moved to recommend approval of Ordinance 17-05, as recommended by staff. The motion was seconded by Member DeLesline and carried 6-0, with Member Rutledge absent. PC DOC004 Motion Z-86-30(G)(R16) and finding the request to be consistent with the Manatee County Comprehensive Plan and the Manatee County Land Development Code, as conditioned herein, Member DeLesline moved to recommend approval of Manatee County Zoning Ordinance Z-86-30(G)(R16) with stipulations, amending and restating Ordinance Z-86-30(G)(R15); for a project that previously was granted Special Approval for: (1) a project located in the watershed protection overlay; and (2) a mixed-use project in the RES-1 Future Land Use Category; and for a project that was previously granted Specific Approval for an alternative of the Land Development Code Section PC MB 2017/23

5 D.2 (formerly LDC Section , per Ordinance 90-01), as recommended by staff. The motion was seconded by Member Rahn and carried 6-0, with Member Rutledge absent. PC DOC005 Motion Ordinance and finding the request to be consistent with the Manatee County Comprehensive Plan, the Manatee County Land Development Code, and Section , Florida Statutes, subject to the conditions of approval established in the Development Order, Member Rahn moved to recommend approval of Ordinance 17-06, as recommended by staff. The motion was seconded by Member Horrigan and carried 6-0, with Member Rutledge absent. PC DOC006 Motion PDMU-92-01(G)(R16) and finding the request to be consistent with the Manatee County Comprehensive Plan and the Manatee County Land Development Code, as conditioned herein, Member DeLesline moved to recommend approval of Manatee County Zoning Ordinance PDMU-92-01(G)(R16) with Stipulations, amending and restating Ordinance PDMU-92-01(G)(R15), as recommended by staff. The motion was seconded by Member Rhoades and carried Member Rutledge absent. PC DOC007 RECESS/RECONVENE: 10:24 a.m. 10:33 a.m. All Members were present except Member Rutledge. 4. ORDINANCE/ZONING Zoning Ordinance PDR-15-24(Z)(G), GTIS I VGC LP/Villages of Glen Creek MC-1. Staff recommended approval with stipulations. No ex parte communications were disclosed. Clarke Davis, Transportation Planning Division Manager, submitted and reviewed amendments to the staff report. Barney Salmon, Building and Development Services, introduced the applicant. Misty Servia, Planner representing the applicant, displayed an overall aerial map to point out: (1) the existing larger project, Villages of Glen Creek, which is a 229 acre project with 1,373 units located within the City of Bradenton, that is currently under construction; (2) the major arterials (27th Street East and 26th Avenue East); and (3) the project site, MC-1, which is an expansion of the existing Villages of Glen Creek (5.5 acres). The applicant is proposing 21 single family homes on the project site. Due the the request being a general development plan, a conceptual traffic impact statement was submitted and approved by County staff and a detailed traffic analysis was submitted to the City of Bradenton. Discussion took place about a lack of connection from the proposed project to 20th Avenue East (access will be internally through the existing Villages of Glen Creek). Robin Waltz, Florida Dog Guides FTD, Inc., inquired if the rezoning of the property (MC1) would affect the zoning of her dog training facility, which is located to the east of the proposed site and has direct access onto 27th Street East. Ms. Servia noted Ms. Waltz s property will remain zoned agricultural. PC MB 2017/24

6 Nicole Knapp, Planning Section Manager, noted Ms. Waltz s property is located within County boundaries. Dean Mixon, Mixon Farms, expressed concern with drainage from the property as a whole including the project site (MC-1) and traffic at the intersection on 27th Street East and 26th Avenue East. Thomas Gerstenberger, Stormwater Engineering Division Manager, pointed out the staff report does contain Stipulation B.1, which addresses the flow rate for the subject property. He noted for the Villages of Glen Creek (City of Bradenton portion and the project site, MC-1), the drainage meets the 50 percent reduction requirement and it lies within the Sugarhouse/Glen Creek Watershed. Mike Pendley, School Board representative, reported Louise R. Johnson Middle School will be expanded to encompass students from Frances Wakeland Elementary School, which will close at the end of school year The closing of the elementary school should alleviate traffic on 27th Street East. He concurred with Mr. Mixon s assessment of the intersection of 27th Street East and 26th Avenue East. There being no supplementary public comment, Chairman Conerly closed public comment. and finding the request to be consistent with the Manatee County Comprehensive Plan and the Manatee County Land Development Code, as conditioned herein, Member DeLesline moved to recommend adoption of Manatee County Zoning Ordinance PDR-15-24(Z)(G); Approval of the General Development Plan with Stipulations A.1, B.1, C.1 C.4, D.1 D.2, and E.1-E.2; Adoption of the Findings for Specific Approval; and Granting Specific Approval of an alternative to Land Development Code Section D.5 (reduction/elimination of greenbelt buffer); Section D.2 (reduction in open space), as recommended by staff. The motion was seconded by Member Bower and carried 6-0, with Member Rutledge absent. PC DOC008 (Depart Chairman Conerly; First Vice Chairman Rhoades presiding) ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS (Presentations Scheduled) Sarah Schenk, Assistant County Attorney, reported Chairman Conerly has been advised to declare a conflict of interest and file the appropriate forms with the Clerk of the Circuit Court, because his employer, Kimley Horn, is the consultant for Item 9, LDCT-17-02/Ordinance 17-22, and also prepared the traffic analysis for Item 10, Zoning Ordinance PDR/PDMU-15-10(Z)(G). 9. ORDINANCE/LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE LDCT-17-02/Ordinance 17-22, Land Development Code Text Amendment, Airport Zoning. Staff recommended approval. Lisa Barrett, Planning Manager, reported references to Thomson Airfield will be deleted from the Land Development Code Text Amendment and stricken from all documents prior to the hearing for the Board of County Commissioners on May 4, She introduced the County s consultant, Kelley Klepper, Kimley Horn and Associates. Mr. Klepper utilized a slide presentation to review airport land use standards, why propose amendments to the County s zoning code, airport land use and the Florida Department of Transportation Aviation, what airports are included, what s included in the zoning code, and next steps. PC MB 2017/25

7 Discussion took place regarding height limitations (Federal Aviation Regulations Part 77) and letter from Edward Vogler (4/11/17) on behalf of The Concession Golf Club LLC. Sarah Schenk, Assistant County Attorney, stated The Concession is not located within the Airport Impact Overlay District and would not be affected by the proposed changes. Ed McMullen submitted and highlighted concerns on behalf of Al Hoffman. John Benson, Benson Engineering, stated the proposed changes far exceed what the State recommends in Florida Statutes, Chapter 333, Airport Zoning; Manatee County has Airport impact Overlay standards in its Land Development Code. The Airport Impact Overlay is based on the noise contour and this is a definable area of concern, and this would be a retroactive project and the term maximum use should be deleted. There being no additional public comment, First Vice Chairman Rhoades closed public comment. Mr. Klepper pointed out resident objections pertain to the areas of special consideration, and the County already has airport zoning standards for Chapter 333. The term maximum is used in the preamble. He has been working with airport staff regarding where the areas of special concern fall. Discussion continued about portions of Florida Statutes, Chapter 333 were already in the Comprehensive Plan, the primary area of difference pertains to surface areas (especially how the runway protection zone is defined and identified on the maps, the noise exposure model and how it impacts those in and around Sarasota Bradenton International Airport and the areas of special consideration), Bert Harris Act claims, and has staff and Mr. Klepper looked at buildable residential properties that will be affected by enacting this ordinance. Ms. Schenk explained the ordinance encompasses an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, the Land Development Code, and the Interlocal Agreement with the Sarasota Manatee Airport Authority. These updates are mandated by the State, and the regulations must be adopted by July 1, 2017, in order for the County to be in compliance. Any Bert J. Harris claims are dealt with as they are received, because many remedies have to be explored. Discussion continued regarding any application that is in process is handled by the rules and regulations that were in place at the time the developer made their application, any property is subject to some sort of change by the government, and the ordinance will be not be retroactive because it would require justification. Dan Bailey, Sarasota Manatee Airport Authority Counsel, noted the updates will be less restrictive than those in place now. He relayed noise contours are smaller because of quieter aircrafts, few night time flights, etc. The noise contours that are being used may seem dated, but they are not. Essentially, noise contours have to be updated if there are changes in operations that would increase or decrease the noise contours by 1.5 decibels, and that has not been the case. He stated their airport zoning regulations, which mirrors what is before the Planning Commission today, are not as enforceable, because the authority does not have zoning power. and finding the request to be consistent with the Manatee County Comprehensive Plan and in accordance with Section 341 of the Land Development Code, Member DeLesline PC MB 2017/26

8 recommended adoption of Ordinance 17-22, amending the Manatee County Land Development Code, as recommended by staff. The motion was seconded by Member Horrigan and carried 4-1, with Member Bower voting nay due to the lack of clarity, Member Rutledge absent, and Chairman Conerly abstaining. PC DOC009 RECESS/RECONVENE: 11:50 a.m. 1:00 p.m. All members present except Chairman Conerly abstaining and Member Rutledge absent. 10. ORDINANCE/ZONING Zoning Ordinance PDR/PDMU-15-10(Z)(G), Long Bar Pointe LLLP and Cargor Partners VIII, Long Bar Pointe LLLP Rezone/Aqua by the Bay. Staff recommended approval with stipulations. Stephanie Moreland, Building and Development Services, submitted a revision to Stipulation A.8 and additional public comment. No ex parte communications were disclosed. Edward Vogler, Attorney representing the applicant, reviewed points of reference, which he submitted. Misty Servia, Planner representing the applicant, displayed maps from the staff report to point out the site location, the two future land use categories (RES-6 and RES-9), and zoning districts (PDR, PD MU, RSF-4.5 and A 1). The site lies in the Coastal Planning Area (CPA) and partially in the Coastal High Hazard Area Overlay (CHHA) and the Coastal Evacuation Area (CEA). The plan is to rezone approximately 191 acres and the rezone will result in a portion that is zoned PD MU (Planned Development Mixed Use) with the remainder being PD R (Planned Development Residential). This is a large project with an estimated 20 year buildout, which consists of 2,894 residential units and 78,000 square feet of commercial. The site has historically been used for agriculture and for years 30-foot wide strips were used for agricultural drainage for the Manatee Fruit Company property. The general development plan depicts six points of access off of El Conquistador Parkway and the residential uses will vary including single family attached, single family detached, townhomes and multi family in addition to commercial. On the general development plan, pink illustrates the area where there will be mixed use development, multi family and commercial, and there is a range that equals between 2,000-2,500 units. The yellow area is reserved for single family detached and semi detached units with 75 to 150 units. The orange area is for multi family with 600 to 1,000 units. The blue area is an estuary enhancement area. The green area is the approximate wetland line and of the 264 wetland acres only acres will be impacted. The wetlands that will be impacted are low quality wetlands. The open space will have minimum range of percent. There will be 20 foot buffers along El Conquistador Parkway, a 15 foot greenbelt buffer along the perimeter and a 50 foot variable wetland buffer. Staff recommended a 20 foot buffer where the property abuts 86th Street West and the applicant agreed with this recommendation. The project as proposed meets all of the codes and ordinances of Manatee County. John Cavoli, Project Engineer representing the applicant, stated he has read public comment regarding post development discharges causing adverse environmental degradation, which is not accurate under current code and regulations. For the record, Sarasota Bay is an Outstanding Florida Water. By code and regulations, the applicant is required to provide 150 percent of the required treatment of any normal project. Any addition, the applicant is required to mitigate any turbid water discharge through a stormwater management system. Currently, there are no treatment or corrosion control measures in place on the current agriculture site. Given the current agricultural use of the upland property, the ongoing and historic discharges that are PC MB 2017/27

9 occurring upon implementation of the proposed improvements, those mitigation measures will improve the discharges and mitigate what currently occurs on the site. It is his opinion that the development of the upland property will not degrade water quality in Sarasota Bay. Contrary to the statements that have been submitted thus far, post development conditions and water quality conveyed to Sarasota Bay will substantially improve based on the required regulatory requirements that are going to be implemented in this proposed design. Alec Hoffner, Environmental Consultant representing the applicant, highlighted current site conditions. The site consists of fallow crop lands, mixed upland hardwood and several different types of wetlands (freshwater marshes, Brazilian pepper wetlands, mangroves and submerged bottom lands). No mangroves are proposed to be impacted by the project. The mitigation plan includes the creation of an estuary enhancement area, which will include vegetative and open water components that will transition to mangroves (two photographs displayed). As part of the project, the applicant had to show an overriding public benefit to justify impacts to wetlands, which will be done through an ecosystem management plan. He summarized the environmental benefits: the creation of the estuary enhancement area that will create high quality wetland habitats that will more than double the minimum mitigation necessary to offset the proposed wetland impacts; enhance and preserve native uplands, fresh water marsh, mangrove swamp, and seagrass areas; ecological benefit to offsite habitats in Sarasota Bay; and significant water quality improvements to Sarasota Bay. He pointed out the associated stipulations will require the applicant to present plans for the final development of the project. Scott Rudacille, Attorney representing the applicant, stated he reviewed the staff report and based on their analysis of the project as it relates to the Manatee County Land Development Code and the Comprehensive Plan, the project should be recommended for approval. Mr. Vogler concluded their presentation. Discussion about total number of residential units (2,894), unit ranges on the general development plan are just for flexibility and the units will not total more than 2,894, location of the 264 acres of wetlands, no mangrove impacts, other approvals that are pending, private docks may be an accessory use but not on the plan at this time, does the applicant have the right to dredge even if dredging is not proposed (dredging is not permitted), and why are high rises compatible in this area. Ms. Moreland utilized a slide presentation to review the request including the RES-9 Future Land Use Category, CPA, CHHA, CEA, special approval request, site history, site characteristics, open space, intensity, building height proposed, recreational amenities, and photograph of the site. Joel Christian, Building and Development Services, reported the wetlands proposed to be impacted are a mixture of nuisance exotics with scattered native plants. Looking back through historical aerials, one can see rim ditches around some of the wetlands, so there is an open water component there. He displayed maps and applicant s general development plan to point out wetlands proposed to be impacted and the approximate mean high water line. The wetlands are low quality and he concurred with the applicant s consultant about the quality of the wetlands. The proposed mitigation far exceeds the minimum requirements by the State and staff feels the estuary enhancement area is a wetland creation area adjacent to the mangrove areas. The staff report also addresses placing the retaining walls in storm surges, and the estuary enhancement area will have to go to the State and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for approval before construction. He addressed questions regarding the retaining wall (upland side) and that the mitigation bank part of the application and is a separate process with the Department of Environmental Protection, Southwest Florida Water Management District and the PC MB 2017/28

10 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Mr. Vogler confirmed Mr. Christian s comments regarding the mitigation bank. A Conservation Easement is an essential requirement when a mitigation bank is created. Upon question, Clarke Davis, Transportation Planning Division Manager, stated Cortez Bridge is currently undergoing a Project Development and Environmental Study for a review of the replacement of the bridge. The Comprehensive Plan depicts the bridge as a two lane bridge and most likely it will be replaced with another two lane bridge. Discussion took place about tourism and beaches as they relate to infrastructure, potential building heights, trying to understand why staff is recommending approval of the proposed building heights, and compatibility. Stuart Smith, representing the Sierra Club, submitted notification on the number of petition signatures of residents not in favor of the request. He utilized a slide presentation to support his reasoning for denial of the request: the general development plan is incomplete, the proposed lagoon and seawall threatens the mangrove coast and violates multiple County codes, the proposed building heights violate the Land Development Code and are incompatible with the area, the mitigation bank will allow mangrove trimming, the County would lose control of the coast line, and the seawall is lethal to mangroves. Marsha Wikle stated she is surprised at the lack of expertise on behalf of the reviewers who reviewed the request. The project will ecologically affect the area and violates the Land Development Code and the Comprehensive Plan. Alice Newlon, representing the League of Women Voters, submitted a letter on behalf of Rosalie Shaffer and suggested the request be denied due to detrimental impacts and inconsistencies with the Comprehensive Plan. She discussed endangered wildlife and Sarasota Bay. Linda Molto, Cortez Village resident, noted the project will not help the National Estuary Program and noted the County needs to protect its natural resources. Lenka Sukova displayed photographs of Legends Bay. She commented that the company working on this project destroyed the conservation easement at Legends Bay and has not restored it. Captain Kathe Fannon, commercial fisherman, stated once old Florida is gone it is gone, the general development plan is not a good plan, and the project will create more traffic. She suggested denial of the request. Jane von Hahmann, representing Florida Institute of Saltwater Heritage (F.I.S.H.), expressed concern with development on an Outstanding Florida Water, environmental impacts on the mangrove shoreline from development, the impact of the project on commercial fishing in area, impact to the ecosystem, impacts of the proposed lagoon on the ecosystem, how the Comprehensive Plan demands a 50 foot upland buffer for tidal exchange, storm surge and high tide, impacts on Tidy Island and Legends Bay, any flow impacts to residential areas, lack of examples of current lagoons or seawall for comparison, staff report states conservation easement shall be made to the County, will the County lose the conservation easement if the mitigation bank is approved, compatibility, the height analysis by staff, making sure the project abides by current standards, and approving special approvals. PC MB 2017/29

11 Thomas Reynolds, fisherman, expressed concern with the possible effect of the proposed request on the shoreline and its inhabitants, conditions of the mangroves, and building the seawall and docks would ruin the area. Jack Merriam, Whitfield Ballentine Manor resident, utilized a slide presentation to speak on sea level rise and storm surge. The County should require a 300 foot buffer setback behind the mangroves then the applicant could have the lagoon and the seawall. There should be a community evacuation plan for this community and require legal notification to potential homeowners the project is in a CHHA subject to storm surge. John Stevely questioned the validity of the staff report and commented on how the seawall will not help erosion. He suggested the general plan undergoing technical review. Larry Grossman suggested the Planning Commission deny the project, because they do not have a complete analysis. He pointed out the seawall and estuary enhancement is not completed, and mangroves will be squeezed out. Joe McClash, representing the Suncoast Waterkeepers, submitted a printed copy of his comments (presented by Stephanie Moreland earlier in the hearing), petitions referenced by Stuart Smith and a cross section of the estuary enhancement area. Upon clarification regarding his request to speak for 10 minutes, Mr. McClash reported he is listed as a director for the Suncoast Waterkeepers at Sunbiz.org. He pointed out the following: the Planning Commission should focus on preservation of natural area, how the proposed plan does not meet the Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code, the lagoon and seawall, Comprehensive Plan policies regarding wetland buffers and the Land Development Code regarding easements. He suggested the request be denied or continuing the public hearing in order for the applicant to bring back solid commitments to eliminate dredging, ensure buffers are protected with the 50 foot minimum, no mangrove trimming, and no boat docks ever. Joe Kane was opposed and discussed damage to mangroves. Judy Stahle, Bay Hollow resident, expressed concerned about the building height, the seawall, water flow and insufficient scientific evidence to support claims of impacts as proposed by the applicant. Mark Coarsey, commercial fisherman, asked the Planning Commission to protect the last shoreline and suggested denial of the request. Laurie Galle stated the Planning Commission should consider the fact that this proposed project will create 20 years worth of jobs. There being no further public comment, First Vice Chairman Rhoades closed public comment. RECESS/RECONVENE: 3:28 p.m. 3:35 p.m. All members present except Chairman Conerly abstaining and Member Rutledge absent. Ms. Moreland reported the original number of units was presented as 3,179 and the analysis will be corrected to read 2,894. The proposed project is compatible with the surrounding uses. Mr. Christian stated the Comprehensive Plan prohibits new dredging. Typically, it limits it to existing channels or those that are necessary to address water quality issues or drainage element of the Comprehensive Plan. Dredging other than excavation of that estuary enhancement area, stormwater ponds and the uplands, is not proposed for the bottom of PC MB 2017/30

12 Sarasota Bay, below the mean high water, and in mangroves. This project is providing a 50 foot variable with buffers, which are not graphically depicted on the general development plan. The applicant is proposing areas of native vegetation and uplands areas that are on the upland edge of mangroves, which will be preserved. No development is proposed within the mangroves; therefore development cannot take place in the mangroves. There are ditches in the mangroves that have been present since the 1950s. A large amount of the proposed wetland impacts are for creating the estuary enhancement area and staff reviews these as temporary impacts. Sometimes dredging and excavation is necessary within wetlands in order for them to function properly when they have been historically impacted. He sought outside review of this request by a consultant in order to ensure he did not miss anything important. The report was summarized in the staff report and anyone can request a copy of the report. The consultant did not make any recommendations, and it was not reviewed for consistency with the Land Development Code but as a worst case scenario for a conceptual plan. He reviewed the next steps in the process if the project is approved. Discussion proceeded about a channel left in the wetland mitigation bank, blanket easement for the wetland area, and water quality monitoring of Sarasota Bay. Mr. Gerstenberger reiterated the proposed site was used previously for agriculture use. He commented on pre and post development conditions, conveyance systems, and outside agency involvement. Discussion continued about conditions and/or constraints that does not allow for a uniform 50 foot buffer, concerns from the consultant s report (see page 10 of 56 of the staff report), difference between a seawall and a retaining wall, and the Planning Commission should base their decision on the application before them. Ms Schenk stated Section (4 and 5), Florida Statutes, expressly prohibits the County from not issuing development orders pending State or Federal permits. The County cannot attach a stipulation stating that they have to obtain these permits in order to gain County approval. However, the County can attach a stipulation, Stipulation A.8 requires the applicant to obtain applicable State or Federal permits prior to commencement of development. Stipulation C.3 refers to conservation easements, which is applicable to wetlands, wetland buffers or upland preservation areas utilized as wetland dedication to the County. Not all of the wetlands owned by the applicant go in into a conservation easement, only the ones preserved for mitigation and not include the mitigation bank. The County does not have jurisdiction over dredging or the mitigation, both are subject to State and Federal permitting. In the Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management case, the U.S. Supreme Court has stated one can only accept stipulations voluntarily proffered by the applicant. She assumed the attorney for the applicant will state on the record: I on behalf of my client, agree to the stipulations that have been proposed. Essentially, the County cannot prohibit the applicant to not have docks. Section , Florida Statutes, preempts to the State the regulation of mangrove trimming unless the State delegates the authority to the County and this has not been done. She read compatibility as defined in Section (9), Florida Statutes, as a condition in which land uses or conditions can coexist in relative proximity to each other in a stable fashion over time such that no use or condition is unduly negatively impacted directly or indirectly by another use or condition. There was reference to a petition during public comment. It is important to not consider that petition, because it can create a fatal flaw in the proceedings. The Planning Commission should only consider competent substantial evidence before them, which is testimony under oath and self cross examination. Likewise with the number of s being submitted, they can only raise issue that will prompt questions or prompt staff to address them. s are not competent substantial evidence, because the people are not under oath and are not present to provide the testimony. Upon question, she reported citizens are allowed to request a one minute timeframe to point out factual errors and she recommended First Vice PC MB 2017/31

13 Chairman Rhoades do this next because applicant rebuttal should be last. Discussion continued about how the applicant could go through a dredging process to obtain a dredging permit, and the County does not have a say so on whether or not the applicant obtains a dredging permit. Factual Errors Larry Grossman pointed out staff said the vertical wall was intended to protect against surges, but the staff report states the vertical wall will function as a retaining wall for fill being placed on the development upland portions of the site. The developed portion of the site will be elevated as necessary to remove the developed area from the CHHA and the Florida Emergency Management Agency 100-year floodplain. Mr. McClash stated the Land Development Code specifically addresses post construction easements in Section 706.8(B), Post Construction Conservation Easements, which states a conservation easement shall be granted to the County over all wetlands and associated wetland buffers, within the project limits (separately from and in addition to any conservation easement granted to a State or Federal agency in connection with development).. The lagoon is dredging, because dredging makes outstanding waters that are connected to Sarasota Bay. Mr. Vogler addressed the following: the citizens are not experts, the general development plan is a master plan, the applicant has not requested a variance, waiver or specific approval for any of the requirements of the Manatee County codes and ordinances, no shoreline impacts, no mangrove trimming allowed, water quality will be enhanced and the project will not commence until every County, State and Federal permit has been obtained. He requested approval of the request. Deliberations ensued about not knowing how the mitigation bank will affect the project in the future, building height is incompatible, this project is not the way to develop the property, the vertical wall may or may not benefit the project, environmental effects on the shoreline, large projects are never perfect, and the height of the buildings have yet to be determined. Sarah Schenk, Assistant County Attorney, pointed out the revised recommended motion in the agenda update memorandum. and finding the request to be consistent with the Manatee County Comprehensive Plan and the Manatee County Land Development Code, as conditioned herein, Member Rahn moved to recommend adoption of the Manatee County Zoning Ordinance PDR/PDMU-15-10(Z)(G); Approval of the General Development Plan with Stipulations A.1-A.12, B.1, C.1-C.7, D.1-D.2, and E.1-E.2; Making a finding that the proposed buildings exceeding 35 feet in height are consistent with and satisfies the criteria in Land Development Code Section D.9; Granting Special Approval for a: (1) mixed and multiple use project in RES-6 and RES-9 Future Land Use Categories; (2) gross density exceeding six dwelling units in RES-9 Future Land Use Category; (3) net density exceeding nine (9) dwelling units in RES-9 Future Land Use Category; (4) non-residential project exceeding 30,000 square feet in RES-6 and RES-9 Future Land Use Categories; (5) project adjacent to a perennial stream (Sarasota Bay); (6) project partially in the CEA; and (7) project in the CHHA; as recommended by staff. The motion was seconded by Member Rhoades and carried 3-2, with Members Bower and Horrigan voting nay, Member Rutledge absent and Chairman Conerly abstaining. PC MB 2017/32 PC DOC010, PC DOC011, PC DOC012 and PC DOC013 ADJOURN There being no further business, Chairman Conerly adjourned the meeting at 4:27 p.m. Minutes Approved: May 11, 2017