MAY 7, 2009

The Board of County Commissioners, Manatee County, Florida, met in REGULAR SESSION in the Administrative Center, 1112 Manatee Avenue West, Bradenton, Florida, at 9:02 a.m.

Present were Commissioners: Gwendolyn Y. Brown, Chairman Carol Whitmore, First Vice-Chairman Donna Hayes, Second Vice-Chairman Lawrence E. Bustle, Jr., Third Vice-Chairman John R. Chappie Ron Getman Joe McClash

Also present were: John Osborne, Interim Planning Director Sarah Schenk, Assistant County Attorney Susan G. Romine, Board Records Manager, representing R. B. Shore, Clerk of Circuit Court

Invocation by Rev. Herb McMillian, First Church of Nazarene.

All witnesses and staff giving testimony were duly sworn.

AGENDA Agenda of May 7, 2009, and update memorandum. BC20090507DOC001

PUBLIC HEARINGS – PRESENTATIONS UPON REQUEST ZONING Public hearing (Notices published) was opened to consider PDR-05-27(P) WOODLANDS OF MANATEE LLC/COVENTRY PARK SUBDIVISION (CONTINUED TO JUNE 4, 2009) ORDINANCE OF MANATEE COUNTY, FLORIDA, REGARDING LAND DEVELOPMENT, APPROVING A PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN FOR 256 RESIDENTIAL LOTS, CONSISTING OF 193 LOTS FOR SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED, AND 63 LOTS FOR SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED RESIDENCES, WITH AT LEAST 25 PERCENT OF THE UNITS DESIGNATED AS AFFORDABLE HOUSING, ON APPROXIMATELY 105.97 ACRES WEST OF ERIE ROAD AND SOUTH OF FP&L RAILROAD AT 5901 ERIE ROAD, PALMETTO; SUBJECT TO STIPULATIONS AS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL; SETTING FORTH FINDINGS; PROVIDING A LEGAL DESCRIPTION; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

Ellsworth Welton, Shannon Acreman, Steve Royce, and David Smiley spoke in opposition due to density, compatibility, proposed parking issues, an unsafe park area situated near a drainage canal, and traffic concerns. Road improvements on Erie Road should be made prior to further development.

Discussion: Level of service criteria; 69th Street East and Erie Road roadway standards should be reviewed and addressed; bring back on future agenda; etc.

Chuck King indicated he would speak at the continued public hearing. BC20090507DOC002

Public hearing (Notices published) was held to consider PDC-08-23(P) B & J CITRUS GROVES, INC./ELLENTON BUSINESS PARK (APPROVED) AN ORDINANCE OF MANATEE COUNTY, FLORIDA, REGARDING LAND DEVELOPMENT, APPROVING A PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN FOR 28,000 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL, RETAIL AND SERVICES ON APPROXIMATELY 4.85 ACRES ON THE NORTH SIDE OF U.S. 301, APPROXIMATELY 415 FEET WEST OF ELLENTON-GILLETTE ROAD, AT 3314 U.S. 301 NORTH, ELLENTON; SUBJECT TO STIPULATIONS AS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL; SETTING FORTH FINDINGS; PROVIDING A LEGAL DESCRIPTION; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Planning Commission recommended APPROVAL with Stipulations.

A revision to staff recommended Stipulations and a recommended motion for PDC-08-23(P) were submitted with the agenda update memorandum. BC20090507DOC003

Public hearing (Notices published) was held to consider PDC-08-26(Z)(P) 301 OXFORD LLP/OXFORD COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT (APPR) AN ORDINANCE OF MANATEE COUNTY, FLORIDA, REGARDING LAND DEVELOPMENT, AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING ATLAS (ORDINANCE 90-01, THE MANATEE COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE), RELATING TO ZONING WITHIN THE UNINCORPORATED AREA; PROVIDING FOR A REZONE OF APPROXIMATELY 19.5 ACRES AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF U.S. 301 AND OXFORD ROAD, EAST OF CHIN ROAD, AT 5111 OXFORD ROAD, PARRISH, FROM A/NCO AND A-1/NCO TO THE PDC/NCO ZONING DISTRICT, RETAINING THE NORTH CENTRAL OVERLAY; APPROVE A PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN FOR 150,000 SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE, COMMERCIAL, AND RETAIL USES; SUBJECT TO STIPULATIONS AS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL; SETTING FORTH FINDINGS; PROVIDING A LEGAL DESCRIPTION; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Planning Commission recommended APPROVAL with Stipulations. BCC MB 48/3356 MAY 7, 2009 (Continued)

A revision to staff recommended Stipulations and a recommended motion for PDC-08-26(Z)(P) were submitted with the agenda update memorandum.

Discussion: Request for information regarding wetlands; impact of avoidance and minimization analysis not included in the staff report; LDC requires demonstration of avoidance; bring back later in the meeting; include information via footnotes in the staff report and make available in the read file; refine wetland issue in the planning process; etc.

Joel Christian, Planning Department, addressed the wetland impact. Referring to photographs of the impacts to the wetlands, he discussed the impact from U.S. 301, and noted historic impacts have degraded the wetlands.

Discussion: Majority of the Board was in agreement with staff regarding the wetland; staff to provide a copy of the analysis; etc. BC20090507DOC004

Public hearing (Notices published) was held to consider PDMU-09-04(Z)(G) SR 62 MEMORIAL PARK (APPROVED) AN ORDINANCE OF MANATEE COUNTY, FLORIDA, REGARDING LAND DEVELOPMENT, AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING ATLAS (ORDINANCE 90-01, THE MANATEE COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE), RELATING TO ZONING WITHIN THE UNINCORPORATED AREA; PROVIDING FOR THE REZONING OF APPROXIMATELY 56.1 ACRES ON SOUTH SIDE OF S.R. 62 SOUTH OF THE INTERSECTION OF S.R. 62 AND KEEN ROAD, AT 15471 S.R. 62, PARRISH FROM PDR TO THE PDMU ZONING DISTRICT; RETAINING THE NORTH CENTRAL OVERLAY; APPROVE A GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR A CEMETERY AND ASSOCIATED FACILITIES, SUBJECT TO STIPULATIONS AS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL; SETTING FORTH FINDINGS; PROVIDING A LEGAL DESCRIPTION; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Planning Commission recommended APPROVAL with Stipulations. BC20090507DOC005

Public hearing (Notices published) was held to consider PDPI-06-45(Z)(G) MANATEE COUNTY/NWRF EXPANSION AND WATER SUPPLY/TREATMENT (COUNTY-INITIATED) (APPROVED) AN ORDINANCE OF MANATEE COUNTY, FLORIDA, REGARDING LAND DEVELOPMENT, AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING ATLAS (ORDINANCE 90-01, THE MANATEE COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE), RELATING TO ZONING WITHIN THE UNINCORPORATED AREA; PROVIDING FOR A REZONE OF APPROXIMATELY 584 ACRES AT 7550, 8100, AND 8500 69TH STREET EAST, BRADENTON, FROM A/NCO AND A-1 TO THE PDPI AND PDPI/NCO ZONING DISTRICT, RETAINING THE NORTH CENTRAL OVERLAY WHERE APPROPRIATE; APPROVE A GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE NORTH WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY EXPANSION, NEW RAW WATER WELLFIELDS AND ASSOCIATED PIPELINES, A NEW MAINTENANCE BUILDING, AND FUTURE UTILITY EXPANSION PROJECTS; SUBJECT TO STIPULATIONS AS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL; SETTING FORTH FINDINGS; PROVIDING A LEGAL DESCRIPTION; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY, AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE (±584 ACRE REZONE; ±647 ACRE SITE PLAN APPROVAL). Planning Commission recommended APPROVAL with Stipulations.

A revision to PDPI-06-45(Z)(G) submitted with the agenda update memorandum. BC20090507DOC006 Public hearing (continued from 4/2/09) was held to consider Z-08-01 FOSTER/LEE (APPROVED) AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MANATEE COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING ATLAS (ORDINANCE 90-01, THE MANATEE COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE), RELATING TO ZONING WITHIN THE UNINCORPORATED AREA; PROVIDING FOR THE REZONING OF ±82.68 ACRES SOUTH OF WOODLAWN LAKES SUBDIVISION AND WEST OF WHITNEY MEADOWS SUBDIVISION ZONING DISTRICT AT LEON DRIVE, FROM A-1 TO THE RSF-2 ZONING DISTRICT; SETTING FORTH FINDINGS; PROVIDING A LEGAL DESCRIPTION; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Planning Commission recommended APPROVAL. BC20090507DOC007

Public hearing (Notices published) was held to consider PDR-06-63(Z)(C) SES CORTEZ LLC, DJ2 LLC, MIK LLC/TAMIAMI TERRACES (APPR) AN ORDINANCE OF MANATEE COUNTY, FLORIDA, REGARDING LAND DEVELOPMENT, AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING ATLAS (ORDINANCE 90-01, THE MANATEE COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE), RELATING TO ZONING WITHIN THE UNINCORPORATED AREA; PROVIDING FOR THE REZONING OF APPROXIMATELY 2.41 ACRES ON THE WEST SIDE OF 14TH STREET WEST AT 3700 14TH STREET WEST, BRADENTON, FROM PDMU AND RSMH-6 TO THE PDR ZONING DISTRICT; APPROVE A GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR 36 MULTIFAMILY UNITS; SUBJECT TO STIPULATIONS AS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL; SETTING FORTH FINDINGS; PROVIDING A LEGAL DESCRIPTION; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Planning Commission recommended APPROVAL with Stipulations. BC20090507DOC008

BCC MB 48/3357 MAY 7, 2009 (Continued)

LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENTS Public hearing (continued from 3/5/09)) was opened to consider ORDINANCE 09-08 - GATEWAY OVERLAY MASTER PLAN (CONTINUED TO SEPTEMBER 3, 2009) AN ORDINANCE OF MANATEE COUNTY, FLORIDA, REGARDING LAND DEVELOPMENT, AMENDING SECTION 508 OF THE MANATEE COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE (ORDINANCE 09-01, AS AMENDED) TO ADD A NEW SECTION 508.4.4 GATEWAY OVERLAY MASTER PLAN, TO RENUMBER THE EXISTING SECTION 508.4.4 TO 508.4.5; AMENDING OTHER PROVISIONS AS NECESSARY FOR INTERNAL CONSISTENCY; PROVIDING FOR CODIFICATION; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Planning Commission recommended APPROVAL. BC20090507DOC009

Public hearing (Notices published) was opened to consider ORDINANCE 09-24 - SIDEWALK AND STREET TREE BONDING (CONTINUED TO MAY 19, 2009) AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MANATEE COUNTY, FLORIDA, REGARDING LAND DEVELOPMENT; AMENDING SECTIONS 715.3.4 AND 722.3 OF THE MANATEE COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE (ORDINANCE 09-01, AS AMENDED) TO AMEND INSTALLATION REQUIREMENTS FOR STREET TREES, SIDEWALKS AND ASSOCIATED PERFORMANCE SECURITY REQUIREMENTS; AND, PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR CODIFICATION; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. BC20090507DOC010 Public hearing (Notices published) was held to consider ORDINANCE 09-17 - SEPTIC TANK (ADOPTED) AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MANATEE COUNTY, FLORIDA, REGARDING LAND DEVELOPMENT; AMENDING SECTIONS 605 AND 722.1.8.1.3 OF THE MANATEE COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE (ORDINANCE 90-01, AS AMENDED) REGARDING SPECIAL APPROVAL AND THE USE OF SEPTIC TANKS WITHIN THE WASTEWATER COLLECTION AREA; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR CODIFICATION; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Planning Commission recommended APPROVAL.

A revised Ordinance 09-17 to correct scrivener’s error was submitted with the agenda update memorandum. BC20090507DOC011

Public hearing (Notices published) was held to consider ORDINANCE 09-28 - MESSAGE CENTER SIGNS (ADOPTED) AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MANATEE COUNTY, FLORIDA, REGARDING LAND DEVELOPMENT; AMENDING SECTION 724 OF THE MANATEE COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE (ORDINANCE 90-01, AS AMENDED) TO AMEND THE STANDARDS FOR MESSAGE CENTER SIGNS AND THE DEFINITION OF MESSAGE CENTER SIGNS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR CODIFICATION; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Planning Commission recommended APPROVAL.

Discussion: Change indicates message center signs shall not be closer than 200 feet in any direction to a residential zoning district; most streets have businesses facing thoroughfares and behind the businesses are residences; residents cannot see the signs; for example all signs along Manatee Avenue would be in violation; realistic revision for the business community with protection for residents by not making signs visible; address signs for weekend business uses; etc.

John Osborne, Interim Planning Director, noted Phase II of the sign ordinance is being reviewed for revisions by a planning task force group, and this issue will be included.

Discussion: Include contact with businesses and signage industry; bring item back; public encouraged to communicate with staff regarding signage issues; utilize the Chamber of Commerce and hold a meeting with the business community; Planning Director role to include deviation from standards decisions; no legal objection to proceed with ordinance and revise; ordinance was initiated to address the Sheriff’s Office signage; Supervisor of Election signage; etc. BC20090507DOC012 RIVER SONG COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT Public hearing (Notices published) was opened to consider ORDINANCE 09-41 - RIVER SONG COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT DISSOLUTION AN ORDINANCE OF MANATEE COUNTY, A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, RELATING TO RIVER’S SONG COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT; PROVIDING LEGISLATIVE FINDINGS; SPECIFYING AUTHORITY; DISSOLVING RIVER’S SONG COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT PURSUANT TO SUBSECTION 190.046(9), FLORIDA STATUTES; REPEALING SECTION 2-8-39 OF THE MANATEE COUNTY CODE OF ORDINANCES; PROVIDING FOR RELILANCE UPON REPRESENTATIONS; SPECIFYING INTENT; REPEALING CONFLICTING ORDINANCES; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. BC20090507DOC013

Motion was made by Ms. Whitmore to approve the Presentations Upon Request Agenda incorporating the language as stated in the recommended motions in the agenda memoranda (as may have been amended in the supplemental agenda). The motion was seconded by Mrs. Hayes.

BCC MB 48/3358 MAY 7, 2009 (Continued)

Mr. McClash indicated he would vote nay due to objections regarding PDC-08-26(Z)(P) 301 Oxford LLP/Oxford Commercial Development wetland avoidance issues and noncompliance with the Comprehensive Plan and the Land Development Code.

Sarah Schenk, Assistant County Attorney, indicated no legal objection to the Board member’s interpretation based on the facts in the record. County Attorney is not involved with staff review.

Following discussion, the motion carried 6 to 1, with Mr. McClash voting nay. (End Public Hearings - Presentations Upon Request)

ZONING Public hearing (continued from 4/2/09) was held to consider PDR-06-68(Z)(P) VICTORY ROAD LLC/RIDGEWOOD PALMS, PHASE III AN ORDINANCE OF MANATEE COUNTY, FLORIDA, REGARDING LAND DEVELOPMENT, AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING ATLAS (ORDINANCE 90-01, THE MANATEE COUNTY LAND DEVLEOPMENT CODE), RELATING TO ZONING WITHIN THE UNINCOPORATED AREA; PROVIDING FOR A REZONE OF APPROXIMATELY 25.05 ACRES, ±1/4 MILE NORTH OF U.S. 301, ON THE WEST SIDE OF VICTORY ROAD, ELLENTON, FROM RSMH-4.5 TO THE PDR ZONING DISTRICT; APPROVING A PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN FOR 224 MULTIFAMILY UNITS; SUBJECT TO STIPULATIONS AS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL; SETTING FORTH FINDINGS; PROVIDING A LEGAL DESCRIPTION; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Planning Commission recommended APPROVAL with Stipulations.

A revision to the staff report and a recommended motion regarding PDR-06-68(Z)(P), as well as public comment letters, were submitted with the agenda update memorandum.

Ex parte communication was disclosed by Mr. Bustle, Mr. Chappie, and Ms. Whitmore.

Ms. Schenk noted receipt of a letter from Attorney Keith Poliakoff, representing Ridgewood Meadows Condominium Association, requesting additional time for his presentation. She reviewed the proposed time limits for the public hearing.

Todd Pressman, agent for the applicant, referred to a slide presentation to review the project and noted support of the Planning staff, the Planning Commission, and the homeowners’ association with the largest contiguous border to this project. He stated the density is below the Future Land Use Category of RES-9, the project meets criteria/concurrency, and they accept all stipulations. He submitted a file of all correspondence regarding changes or modifications for the past year and reviewed the project history. Referring to a site plan and elevation, he stated the request is for apartment homes and the possibility of a 55-plus community still exists. The 8.6 density is a cluster plan at the center of the site, surrounded by parking, and the remaining area is wetlands, expanded buffers, recreation areas, and 75 percent open space. He reviewed the distance from neighborhood properties and noted the cluster development provides less impact to wetlands, more buffering from surrounding development, and greater setbacks from Victory Road. A security wall is proposed along the property with the exception of the wetlands, which may require fencing or shrubbery. An emergency access is proposed at the Ridgewood roadway. Mr. Pressman spoke of a letter (on file) of support from the Hometown Ridgewood Association which borders 50 percent of the development. Slides of bordering views with a balloon, 35 feet in height, were shown as well as setbacks from neighboring developments. Widening the roadway for access is a required improvement.

Richard Stiles, traffic consultant for the applicant, submitted his resumé and the approved traffic study. He gave a transportation overview via slide presentation. The portion of Victory Road/72nd Avenue East from Mendoza Road to U.S. 301 including intersections was studied; the roads will meet level of service standards at build out.

Steve Allison, urban planner for the applicant, submitted his resumé as well as a report analyzing the necessary criteria per the Land Development Code (LDC), which has been satisfied by this application. The project is an appropriate form of infill development that satisfies all codified County concerns regarding the containment of urban sprawl. The site plan has been influenced by feedback of neighbors and utilizes clustering to internalize impacts and buffers adjacent properties.

Patricia Allen, Planning Department, used a slide presentation to review the request. Special Approval for a gross density exceeding six dwelling units per acre is a Comprehensive Plan requirement. There is a potential of rental units, which may be addressed by Suzie Dobbs, Neighborhood Services Department. The proposed wall will be consistent with the architecture, and landscaping will be on the outside of the wall. Internal sidewalks will be six-feet wide. There are two access points on Victory Road, and the County requested an emergency access for the benefit of both communities.

Keith Poliakoff, attorney representing Ridgewood Meadows, submitted handouts and voiced objection to the proposed time limit. He noted this is a life-changing project for this community and questioned if the proposed development meets the LDC criteria. Referring to a slide presentation, he requested consideration of LDC requirements: (1) no increases in density in the Coastal Planning Area; (2) compatibility with the existing development pattern; and (3) what are the changes in conditions that would warrant this rezoning. The subject property was to be the final phase of three preplanned villages for 55-plus, age-related communities able to share amenities and was marketed

BCC MB 48/3359 MAY 7, 2009 (Continued)

with that vision. The applicant is proposing 25 acres with 216 multifamily dwellings or more density than any surrounding community, as well as attempting to eliminate the 55 and over property deed restriction, which is the existing development pattern.

Mark David Major, certified planner representing Ridgewood Meadows, stated his review of the Comprehensive Plan and LDC provided sufficient grounds for denial of this rezoning. He addressed the compatibility requirement and noted the proposed project density versus the 16 nearby communities of 1 to 6 dwelling units per acre. Referring to an aerial, he noted the predominance of single-family residences and indicated there are no multifamily or condominium buildings in the area, and there are no new conditions that warrant a multifamily complex. There is a greater demand for senior housing in this area; however, this project will not be marketed to seniors, as there are three-story buildings with no elevators, as well as amenities such as basketball and sand volleyball courts. The Coastal Planning Area seeks to limit development type, density, and intensity. Greater density will create greater impacts, which will adversely affect the health, safety, and welfare of the surrounding neighborhoods.

John Kim, traffic engineer representing Ridgewood Meadows, stated review of the traffic study indicates the traffic impact at the site will triple. This is not a conservative analysis, a 2010 build out is not sufficient, and no background increase in traffic was considered. Mr. Kim disagreed with the manner in which the intersection analysis was performed in terms of methodology. Traffic concerns are warranted, and residents more than a mile away have voiced concern regarding increased traffic on Victory Road and the intersection at U.S. 301, which will show lengthy vehicle queues.

Mr. Poliakoff reiterated that in reviewing the criteria of the LDC, the developer has to prove by competent, substantial evidence that the conditions have been met. He clarified that the previously mentioned support by the Hometown America Homeowners’ Association is one property owner who rents the property to the residents, and increased density will increase his property value. The surrounding property owners are requesting their lifestyles not be changed.

Recess/Reconvene. All members present.

Discussion: Need a traffic study presentation regarding U.S. 301; 75 percent open space and cluster design is a positive; affordable housing has been excluded; there is no long-range plan for this area; Ridgewood roadway is narrow; eliminate emergency access road; compatibility; enhancement to the area and the need for rentals; clarification of criteria due to conflicting information; have the 16 criteria been met; interneighborhood tie; etc.

Upon query regarding the 16 criteria, Ms. Schenk stated LDC Sections 504.5(a)-(p) and 603.7 must be addressed and considered by each Board member.

Regarding the Coastal High Hazard Area policy, John Osborne, Interim Planning Director, indicated the applicant is required to do a variety of things and has demonstrated those requirements in the site plan. When there are different types of land use next to each other, there are criteria for mitigation of potential incompatibilities such as buffering, fencing, etc. Separation of uses is the issue in dealing with potential incompatibilities. Regarding the interneighborhood tie, the applicant has two access points on Victory Road, and staff would support the removal of the interneighborhood tie to the west.

James Waters, Ellen MacDonald, Kevin Smith, Robert Woodruff, Tom MacDonald, Robert Drake, Richard Kichline, Gayla Grimes-Harbolt, Denise Purdy, Maria Gostkowski, Kenneth Trostle, Dee Simpson, Ellen Collandra, George Scott, Bruce Holman, Johnnie Jackson, Mary Ann Baxter, Vernon Drawbaugh, Marianne Guidash, and Stan Jablonski voiced opposition due to density, incompatibility, multifamily dwellings, interneighborhood/emergency ties, covenant to remain single-family development; Ridgewood maintains private roads; increased traffic; safety concerns; property owner is a resident of Clearwater and the company website lists the land for sale and zoned for apartments; timing of the project when there are vacant structures countywide; Victory Road/U.S. 301 intersection; quality of life; decreased property values; increase in criminal activity; deed restriction with land for a 55-plus community; water/sewer concerns; activity by juveniles; applicant was aware of zoning restriction when the property was purchased; influx of young residents not compatible with senior population; wildlife and nature concerns; safety for existing residents; and Hometown agreement to concessions and stipulations is not support for this project. Richard Hafer referred to an aerial map depicting the site and surrounding development of single-family, 55-plus communities and noted opposition from all the communities.

Mr. Pressman stated they do not want to connect to Ridgewood Meadows and indicated the County requested the emergency access. Regarding the increased density, the Comprehensive Plan includes or discounts the Coastal Planning Area. He read a portion of a letter from Crawford, Owen, & Hines, P.A. (dated 4/27/09) regarding the condominium documents and noted the Victory Road property is not subject to the Declaration of Condominium to impose a 55-plus age restriction. Mr. Pressman stated the Coastal Planning Area says manufactured homes are not desired on this site. The Hometown Condominium Association letter states they will not oppose, and just a few owners have voiced opposition. The applicant is presenting a nice, beautiful site plan and project.

Mr. Stiles referred to a traffic impact map and stated the traffic area studied was Victory Road from Mendoza Road to U.S. 301. Analysis of the U.S. 301 and Victory Road intersection shows the through movement meets level of service standards for the County under build-out conditions. The analysis considered background traffic and included every approved project in the area.

BCC MB 48/3360 MAY 7, 2009 (Continued)

Ms. Allen stated the project was not denied in 2007 but was presented at a Land Use Preview. Regarding questions of the Comprehensive Plan regarding changes in the community, changes have been made, and it is noted by Ms. Dobbs that apartments are needed north of the Manatee River; however, not income restricted apartments or condominiums. Another change is that manufactured homes and the construction of manufactured homes are questionable in the Coastal Planning Area; however, density is not an issue. Water, sewer, solid waste, and stormwater were addressed in concurrency.

Mr. Poliakoff referred to the Crawford, Owen, & Hines, P.A. letter submitted by Mr. Pressman and clarified that the information presented was from a title report, which was run on the wrong property, and noted Mr. Hines has been advised of that fact. Regarding the Coastal Planning Area, he questioned if the Coastal Planning Area allows for density increases. He questioned the testimony of Ms. Allen “… Ms. Dobbs says there is need for multifamily rental properties…”, asking it be stricken from the record and requested a question be asked of Ms. Dobbs or of the planner to report the vacancy rate in the County at this time.

Mr. Pressman was unaware of any communication with Mr. Hines regarding a title report on the wrong property.

Mr. Osborne stated the project meets the intent of the policy of the Coastal Planning Area, and it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. This project meets the intent of the LDC regarding rezoning and compatibility. Many of the concerns and perceptions voiced are not addressed through the LDC; thus, the outlined mitigation of potential incompatibilities with buffers, landscaping, etc.

Ms. Schenk noted public comment is closed and regarding the issue of striking testimony or hearsay evidence, the Board would weigh it accordingly.

Discussion: Site was intended to be a complex for seniors; area has a lifestyle that needs to be protected, which is compatibility; this is a unique area of the County and should be planned accordingly; manufactured homes must be built according to hurricane standards; as currently zoned, there are no restrictions for manufactured homes on the site; objection to the inaccurate statements of fact on the record in regard to placement of manufactured homes; Comprehensive Plan policy says direct population concentrations away from Coastal Evacuation Areas; increase from 4.5 dwelling units can be interpreted as noncompliance with the Comprehensive Plan; hurricane evacuation plan required for rezoning; request reports from Ann Marie Harper, Neighborhood Services Department, regarding criminal activity associated with rental complexes be provided as a condition of factual record for this meeting; rental properties are available north of the Manatee River for income-restricted or non-income restricted; wall is not continuous thus not compatible; this is a change of lifestyle for the current residents with the majority of single-family homes; post-disaster situation plans; mobile home zoning is appropriate for this area to protect the compatibility and lifestyle of the community; great cluster project, but in the wrong area; if not approved today, a variety of uses under the current zoning district could be proposed and reviewed administratively; access issue; etc.

Terre Sutton, Planning Department, stated the emergency access is not required; however, it is preferred.

Ms. Schenk indicated the Board should not be looking at whether to deny or approve the project based on violation of potential deed restrictions, which should be settled in court between private parties. The Board decision should be focused on the criteria of the LDC and the Comprehensive Plan.

Discussion: How can this type of development be considered compatible; no specific definition of a combination of issues surrounding the community; etc.

Mr. Osborne indicated the staff decision dealt with the buffering, separation, and the distance that was more compatible than something more intense. Based on the site visit and the vegetation in place, it was determined the site would seem like an isolated community and could be deemed compatible.

Discussion: Required by law to consider all rezone requests; decision is bound by restrictions placed upon us by law and substantiated by proper evidence; area is part of County historically with manufactured homes; proposed density is significantly higher than the current average of 3.03 dwelling units per acre of surrounding communities; existing zoning of RSMH is compatible; regarding the maximum number of units on the 25 acres, comments were made without evaluation of infrastructure needed for roads and wetlands; conceptual plat would be required to evaluate wetlands, setback and lot size criteria to obtain realistic unit numbers; etc.

Mr. McClash submitted a report he received from Cheri Coryea, Neighborhood Services Director, relating to criminal activity in rental communities.

Ms. Schenk indicated as long as the Board is reviewing the appropriate criteria and basing the decision on comprehensive substantial evidence in the record, zoning can remain at the current zoning, or a decision must be made regarding the proposed project.

Discussion: Need to plan for growth; do not agree that increased density means more crime; pro- development means business; business means jobs; support higher density and clustering of people; 75 percent green space is a good plan; etc.

BCC MB 48/3361 MAY 7, 2009 (Continued)

Based upon the staff report, evidence presented, comments made at the public hearing, the action of the Planning Commission, and finding the request to be inconsistent with the Manatee County Comprehensive Plan and the Manatee County Land Development Code, as condition herein, Mr. McClash moved to DENY Manatee County Zoning Ordinance PDR-06-68(Z)(P), and noted the current zoning remains the best zoning category for this property. The motion was seconded by Mr. Chappie.

Discussion: Support the project for business reasons; not the right place nor the right time for this project; a future project could be opposed by the residents; etc.

The motion carried 6 to 1, with Mrs. Hayes voting nay. BC20090507DOC014

MEETING ADJOURNED There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned.

Adj: 12:54 p.m. /njh

Minutes Approved: June 9, 2009

BCC MB 48/3362