Residents Lose Battle Against Increased Density at Parrish Development Site

BRADENTON — Manatee County Commissioners voted 4-2 to approve a revised general development plan for approximately 55 acres at the corner of Mulholland and Fort Hamer Roads in Parrish despite the planning commission’s recommendation to deny the request and hundreds of residents in opposition of approval.

The Manatee County Planning Commission heard developer Carlos Beruff’s North River Land LLC's application for Fort Hamer Commons on September 12.

The applicant presentation was provided by local land use attorney Scott Rudacille and applicant Project Planner Carol Clarke. The application for a revised general development plan included a mixed-use development consisting of 496 residential units (up from a previously approved 156 units) and approval of up to 300,000 square feet of commercial over the original approval of 30,000 square feet. 

The requested residential units included a combined attached, detached, and semi-detached, single and multi-family dwellings of three and four stories. The proposed commercial request was for 3-16 acres with a four-story maximum height.

The subject site is adjacent to the Chelsea Oaks community, across Mulholland Road from the River Plantation community, and less than a mile from Annie Lucy Williams Elementary School. Other single-family neighborhoods also reside within less than two miles of the project site.

One issue discussed during the presentation was the lack of a traffic study to identify the impacts of the proposed density modifications. To address this concern, a stipulation was added, requiring a new traffic study to be completed at the time of a preliminary and final site plan.

According to county staff, some of the notable negative aspects of the applicant’s request included that the proposed number of dwelling units was 3.1 times higher than the original approval in 2015, and the revised density (if approved) would be “significantly” higher than the density of surrounding developments.

Planning Commissioners Cindy Kebba and Paul Rutledge highlighted the lack of specifics of the application and questioned the extent of the request. 

Commissioner Rutledge opened his comments by asking, “Could you think of anything else to ask for?”

“No offense,” Rutledge added while directing his comments to Rudacille. “This is asking for more than the last four requests we have seen (today) and asking for the most flexibility. If you put 300,000 square feet on 50 acres, you’ve gotten a lot done, but then you want to add several hundred apartments. No offense, but I just think this is so far-reaching, with so little information, I find it hard…I mean you’re doing a great job of presenting it, I just can’t believe you’re presenting it.”

Rudacille conceded that while the applicant was asking for flexibility, the request did not include a comp plan element or rezone.

Another issue raised with the requested commercial density involved Mulholland Road’s designation on the county’s future thoroughfare maps. The designation appeared to stem from a previous—and later removed—plan to extend Mulholland and construct a bridge.

Despite no currently existing plan to expand Mulholland, the remaining map designation as a future thoroughfare meant that the junction of Mulholland and Fort Hamer could be interpreted to meet the nodal requirements for increased commercial density according to the comprehensive plan.

Planning Commissioner Lorraine Prosser questioned the designation of Mulholland and Fort Hamer as a “well-defined activity node.”

“Mulholland, by my memory,” said Prosser, “is a dead-end street. I know Fort Hamer is being expanded, but from my perspective, I would not describe this as a well-defined node.”

Rudacille argued that the county’s development rules allow for the requested level of development due to both roads of the intersection maintaining the high traffic designations. In addition, Rudacille pointed out that Upper Manatee River Road is currently being widened to four lanes and that the Fort Hamer Bridge and road are also planned for widening.

More than 80 residents within proximity to the project site submitted written public comments in opposition to the density increases. Ten citizens appeared in person to address the planning commissioners and voice their opposition.

The concerns expressed by citizens included increased traffic and congestion in the area, safety for children walking and biking to the nearby elementary school, the potential for increased flooding, and the over-development or crowding of a site that contains wetlands.

Several Planning Commissioners validated residents' concerns about increased traffic, sharing firsthand accounts of experiences with the existing traffic congestion in the area.

Following the presentations and public comment, Planning Commissioner Prosser commented, “We are to make a determination with facts, and I don’t feel like I have all the facts. I have a range of this and a range of that and six specific approvals that are being asked for.”

Commissioner Rutledge motioned for a recommendation of denial of the application requests, and Planning Commissioner John DeLesline seconded the motion.
 
Put to a vote, the Planning Commission voted 4-1 to recommend the County Commission deny the application request. Planning Commissioner Bedford was the lone “nay” vote and Commissioners Jeff Eslinger and Monaca Onstad were absent.

Following the Planning Commission meeting, the item was scheduled to go before the county commission two times—on Sept. 26 and Oct. 15—both meetings were canceled and rescheduled due to Hurricanes Helene and Milton.

The development revision application for Fort Hamer Commons finally made its way before commissioners during a land use meeting on October 17.

Another 165 pages of written public comments submitted ahead of the meeting—all opposing approval—were attached to the meeting agenda. The comments echoed the concerns expressed when the item was before the Planning Commission.

Following the applicant and staff presentations, Commissioner George Kruse questioned Mulholland Road’s designation as a thoroughfare.

“Part of the argument being made here,” Kruse said while addressing staff, “is that this is allowed this level of development because it is at an activity node. The only reason this application is even here is because this intersection has been classified as an ‘activity node’ in the mind of the applicant.”

In his comments, Kruse explained that because a bridge project for the road in question was removed from the Capitol Improvement Plan years prior, Mulholland Road does not exist as a connector, nor is it planned to become a major thoroughway, thereby rendering its former designation as a connector or thoroughway as obsolete.

Director of Development Services Nicole Knapp responded to Kruse’s comments, stating that although the bridge project was removed, the road’s designation was not changed in the county’s thoroughfare maps.

“It still has the designation and can be an activity node,” Knapp explained. “Until staff is directed to change the designation, it remains a thoroughfare.”

Kruse responded, “In theory, it is not really a thoroughfare, but we didn’t change the wording on a map, so therefore, it qualified as an activity node because we haven’t gotten around to changing the legend.”

Kruse added that he felt it was important that his fellow board members understand that the applicant's request before the board was reliant upon outdated information on a map, which was being proposed as an allowable density increase.

“This isn’t by real definition an actual activity node,” said Kruse. “It’s just by definition of having failed to change the terminology on a map that we have created a fake temporary activity node…we can put whatever we want on a map. It doesn’t change real life.”

Commissioner Kevin Van Ostenbridge partially agreed with Kruse’s comments about Mulholland Road but added that the applicant’s request is based on the existing designation within the county’s maps.

“It’s an oversight on our part on removing that,” Van Ostenbridge said, “But it is there, and the applicant is here based on that.”

During the public comment portion of the item, nearly a dozen citizens addressed commissioners in-person, expressing their opposition to approval.

One after the other, residents shared concerns about the requested density, traffic impacts, safety, and compatibility. Several residents requested the board simply delay the item until after the general election when Parrish’s District 1 could again have a district commissioner on the board to represent their district.

Margi Dawson, a resident of Chelsea Oaks, presented commissioners with a petition she stated was signed by nearly 800 residents who were in opposition to the item’s approval. Dawson told commissioners that her neighborhood was surrounded by flooding after Hurricane Debby—she requested the board conduct a stormwater study before approval of the requested density increases.

Applicant Carlos Beruff also addressed commissioners.

Beruff provided a slideshow presentation showing the history of his successful developments in the Parrish area over the last 25 years.

Following all presentations and public comments, Commissioner Jason Bearden addressed Mr. Beruff, stating that he would not be voting in support of the application request.

“On this particular project…The timing is wrong,” Bearden said to Beruff. “When I see projected traffic at a 700% increase and knowing the fact that there is not a guarantee that those roads are built at that particular time, there’s no guarantee in that because things can change.” 

Responding to Bearden’s concerns, Beruff offered, “The problem will go away with Upper Manatee Road four-laning. That is a contract that is currently signed by this board. You don’t have to worry about whether it’s coming; it’s physically under construction as I stand before you today.”

Bearden remained unswayed, “It’s not that I am against this project. I’m against the timing of this project right now.”

Hoping to alleviate some of Commissioner Bearden's concerns, Beruff offered commissioners a commitment that if they approved his application request, he would not “break ground” on the project sooner than four years.

Before the vote, Commissioner Kruse also addressed Beruff, explaining that he, too, would be voting against approval.

Concerning Upper Manatee Road improvements, Kruse stated that if the increased density request was approved, those improvements did not guarantee a “fix” to current or potential future traffic impacts. 

In addition, Kruse outlined a need to consider the balance between development approvals, existing infrastructure, and future infrastructure needs that development approvals may create.  

Emphasizing the level of density requested by the applicant—from the previously approved 156 units with 30,000 sq ft of commercial—to 496 units with 300,000 sq ft of commercial space, “This is bull,” Kruse said.  

“This is literally a ‘how can I maximize and squeeze the maximum number of potatoes in this sack, and I’ll figure out down the road what I am actually going to build here. Just give me the max’… You couldn’t possibly conceive of a higher level of density request,” said Kruse.

Kruse added. “It doesn’t fit there, and it doesn’t make sense.” 

“If this board approves this, it’s approving it because it’s willing to just give away a free up-zone, not because it has anything to do with anything within our comp plan or land development code whatsoever.”

With no additional commissioner comments or deliberation, the item was put to a vote and was approved 4-2, with Commissioners Amanda Ballard, Ray Turner, Mike Rahn, and Van Ostenbridge voting in favor, and Bearden and Kruse voting in opposition. 

To replay the item presentations, public comment, and board discussion from the September 12 Planning Commission meeting, click the video below.


To replay the item from the October 17 BOCC land use meeting where commissioners provided final approval, click the video below.