BRADENTON BEACH – A long-awaited public hearing by the Planning and Zoning Board on a proposed 106-room hotel at the intersection of Bridge Street and Gulf Drive South brought an overflow crowd to city hall, many of whom were opposed to the hotel project.
At the Nov. 1 meeting, WMFR Fire Marshal Rodney Kwiatkowski ensured the room’s 51-person capacity was adhered to. Audio of the meeting was streamed outside for those who were not allowed to enter due to over-capacity.
The Land Development Code application for the yet-unnamed Bridge Street hotel project includes the hotel, a 60-seat restaurant, 2,485 square feet of retail and 99 on-site parking spaces. Property owners Shawn Kaleta, a local developer, and Jacob Spooner, business owner and Bradenton Beach city commissioner, made the application on Dec. 2, 2022.
The 4.5-hour meeting consisted of city staff recommendations, public comments and a presentation by applicant’s representatives.
No resolution was reached, leading to a continuation of the discussion scheduled on Monday, Nov. 13 at 10 a.m.
“We are meeting today for a public hearing to consider a major development consisting of a resort hotel, retail space, and parking, along with an ordinance by the City of Bradenton Beach amending the zoning atlas of the city of Bradenton Beach, for 1.61 acres, more or less, of real property located at 101, 105 and 117 Bridge Street, and 106, 108, 110 and 112 Third Street South, establishing a Planned Development Overlay District within the C-1 and C-2 zoning districts, providing for findings and providing for an effective date,” P&Z Chair Bill Morrow said at the start of the Nov. 1 meeting.
Planning and Zoning Board members were asked to confirm that they had no ex-parte communications concerning the project and that they had no conflicts of interest, financial or otherwise, in the hotel project. Board members Morrow, Fred Bartizal, John Burns and Dan Morhaus replied that they did not. Ken McDonough was absent with excuse from the meeting.
“There are two matters to be voted on,” attorney Robert Lincoln said, representing the Planning and Zoning Board in the quasi-judicial hearing. “One will be the question of the proposed major development, the site plan, and it has to meet the enumerated criteria, I think it’s section 407 or 410 of the code. The other question before you today is whether or not to approve the planned development overlay rezoning. That involves a separate vote and motions, and a separate, different criteria. You have to apply the competent substantial evidence you hear today to the extent you hear it, to the various criteria.”
“The interpretation of the code, the legal questions, are generally up to you,” Lincoln said to P&Z members. “In interpreting the code, you can take the advice of your city planners.”
The Planning and Zoning Board is a recommending body that will either recommend city commission approval or denial of the proposed hotel project. The city commission has its own public hearings scheduled on Thursday, Nov. 16 at noon and on Thursday, Dec. 7 at 6 p.m.
City planner recommends approval, with conditions
City planner Luis Serna AICP presented the staff report.
“I will just summarize the important parts (of my report),” Serna said. “To summarize the project, the parcels total approximately 1.6 acres. They’re located in a mixed-use Bridge Street Commercial Land Use category and the Bridge Street Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) district. The parcels currently contain commercial uses, including a hotel, two restaurants, previously developed vacant land and attached single-family dwellings… The applicants are proposing to develop this under the PD (planned development) regulations which are intended to provide flexible zoning overlays with the submission of a custom plan of development for the site.”
Serna read from his Oct. 25, 2023, memorandum to the Planning and Zoning Board in which he cited the applicable land development code requirements: Sect. 211.4, Criteria for Zoning Map Amendments; Section 307.13, PD Overlay District and Section 410.7, Review of Major Development Plans.
In reading a section that provides for the review criteria for major developments, Serna said, “The project currently proposed 17 parking spaces that partially encroach into the right of way of Third Street South. This parking encroachment is similar to existing parking encroachments that occur along Bridge Street. This issue may be addressed as a component of the proposed PD review.
“The use will not cause substantial injury to the character of the area, and the value of the other property in the neighborhood, if subject to the conditions recommended below,” he said.
Those conditions are that the hotel will be furnished with blackout curtains and education about the protection of sea turtles and prevention of ambient lighting from rooms facing the beach, and the applicants will provide an easement for access to the trash receptacles at Daiquiri Deck at 107 Bridge St.
“There is some encroachment into parking spaces on the right of way,” Serna said. “That could be handled as a part of the planned development process.”
Following Serna’s presentation, P&Z members drilled down on parking, potential overload of water volume and usage, traffic impacts and turtle lighting.
“There were two or three different times you said you were in agreement but requested additional information on some critical items to make a decision,” Morhaus said to Serna. “How can we evaluate this without the responses?”
“That’s regarding concurrency management,” Serna said. “We have not received any information on that. Perhaps the applicant can address that.”
Serna said the applicants did provide reports on water and sewer usage as well as traffic impacts, and he is requesting additional information about adequate fire flow.
“If you had 106 rooms with toilets, will our sewage system be able to handle that?” Morhaus asked.
“We would have to have evidence from county utility companies,” Serna said.
Morrow expressed concern about the hotel lighting and its impact on sea turtles.
“The plans that were submitted were sea-turtle friendly fixtures with amber bulbs,” Building Official Steve Gilbert said.
“How many parking spaces are required for a 106-room hotel?” Burns asked Serna. “According to the attorney (Lincoln), we’re looking at a major development. We can’t look at PD until we’re done with deciding which way we’re going with the major development and then they’re asking for a rezone to the PD.”
“While you look at major development plan, you’re looking at what’s proposed,” Lincoln said. “They’re allowed to ask for relief.”
Lincoln referred to the process as a “chicken and egg thing.”
“They go together,” he said. “Rezoning is contingent on the site plan. The site plan is the basis for asking for relief on the PD.”
“We can’t see the degree of relief that is being asked for,” Burns said. “If we’re going to let them ask for it, we may as well know how much. We have a hotel of 106 rooms, how many spaces are required?”
“One space per unit and an additional 10%,” Gilbert said. “That’s 117 spaces and 15 for the restaurant.”
Serna said 133 total spaces are required, and the applicants are proposing 99 spaces.
Burns asked if that includes staff.
“Right now, we’re looking at 117 for the hotel for patrons and staff,” Burns said. “Now we’re at 132? The restaurant is going to require staff.”
Serna said general standards for restaurants apply to patrons and staff.
“We would need to ask the applicant what the intended operation was to get a number,” Burns said. “We have no indication of how many retail units there are.”
“One space per 250 square foot gross floor area for retail,” Gilbert said.
“So, 2,450, we’re looking at 10 parking spaces?” Burns said.
“There’s 17 (spaces) on Third Street South,” Gilbert said. “There’s a number of existing spaces at the Daiquiri Deck that are shared. That is nine additional spaces and one or two handicapped spaces.”
It was noted that approximately two-thirds of each of those proposed 17 street-side parking spaces would be located on city-owned right of way.
“This would be the utilization of city right of way,” Burns said. “This being the shared land use on both Third and Second (Bridge Street) where the property owners own a piece and the city owns a larger piece.”
“Those parking spaces, about two-thirds of each of those are owned by the city,” Burns said. “If those are removed, then we have a further reduction. The other issue is those parking spaces on Third have their access restricted to go through the hotel multi-use property. This is under the strict control of the facility, meaning the public has no access to public lands provided by the city. This is why I’m asking on the parking requirement.”
The parking report provided by the applicants is too vague for actual use, Burns said.
“When you add all these up, it comes up as more than 133. So, the applicant is asking for a reduction in parking? That issue concerns me,” Burns said.
“They’re talking about using shuttle services as a reason for reduction in parking,” he added. “We have taxpayer-supported parking spaces and we have taxpayer-supported conveyances that would be used for private enterprises.”
Morhaus suggested reducing the number of hotel rooms to meet the city’s parking requirements.
Public Comment
Seminole, Florida-based attorney David Blum and land planner Misty Servia were retained by Bradenton Beach property owners Bob Bolus and Christine Johnson, and hotel opponent Hunter Jensen. Servia said they also were representing the neighborhood surrounding the hotel. In a departure from the three-minute time limit to speak for individuals and five minutes for those representing others, Blum and Servia requested 30 minutes to address the board. They were granted 15 minutes.
“The applicant in this situation is seeking rezoning of a PD district, but the staff has not advertised or analyzed rezoning, which is a quasi-judicial matter,” Blum said. “The staff report indicates the applicant is adding the PD overlay administratively, which goes against statute.”
Blum asked for public records, which he was told were voluminous and would be provided after the meeting, based on what he said were comments by Bradenton Beach City Attorney Ricinda Perry.
“The comment is improper for a city attorney in a quasi-judicial hearing,” Blum said. “We shouldn’t have these conversations outside this hearing.”
Blum presented a copy of a Facebook conversation in which Perry apparently “liked” a comment supporting the hotel project.
“There is no mention of rezoning in the notice,” Blum said. “The notice is defective which renders this proceeding subject to challenge.”
Servia, a former Manatee County commissioner and a certified land use planner with 34 years of experience, spoke next.
“I want to make sure Bradenton Beach does the right thing,” she said. “I want to make sure you follow your comprehensive plan and land development code. This redevelopment opportunity is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity and I want everyone to come together and get it right.”
Servia read from the city’s comprehensive plan.
“This policy states that hotel/motel/transient units are limited to 18 units per gross acre,” Servia said. “That’s very important because that’s also transcribed in your zoning and land development code. The comp plan cannot be modified with the PUD zoning, and your comp plan limits the density to 18 hotel units per acre.”
The proposed hotel with 106 rooms on 1.61 acres is clearly inconsistent with the comprehensive plan, she said.
“The number of units should be decreased to 28 hotel rooms,” Servia said. “And the height or usable stories be reduced to three to comply with the comp plan.”
Servia also addressed what she said was a deficiency in parking for the hotel.
“The parking study was provided by the applicants because they can’t meet the minimum standard in your land development code,” she said.
After the meeting, Servia told The Sun that Bolus is prepared to file and fund a lawsuit if the project is approved by the city commission.
Twelve people spoke in opposition to the hotel project, many citing traffic and noise concerns. Two speakers, Jim Hassett and Drift In owner Derek Williams, spoke in favor of the hotel project.
Additionally, 13 emails opposing the project were read into the record by Deputy City Clerk Christine Watson.
Applicant’s presentation
Stephen Thompson, a land attorney with the Najmy Thompson law firm, represented the project applicants. The presentation also included land planner Susan Swift, traffic engineer Nathan Poole and project manager and architect Shaun Luttrell.
“This may be the most important decision the city is going to be making about Bridge Street,” Thompson said. “I think the city has been planning for this type of development for many years.”
The Bradenton Beach Community Redevelopment Agency, comp plan and land development codes identify Bridge Street as the commercial center, he said.
“We felt the city had laid the groundwork for this type of development, because all your plans really encourage this type of use,” Thompson said. “When you take this proposal and you match it against your CRA plan, this plan meets the goals of your plan.”
Thompson said this is a superior plan and will set the standard for redevelopment in the Bridge Street area.
“We’re not asking for any special waivers on height,” Luttrell said. “We’re 29 feet above the design flood elevation. I hope I can put that concern to rest.”
In traffic and parking mitigation efforts, he said there will be shuttle service to and from the airport and a charge for onsite hotel parking to encourage the use of shuttle service.
Luttrell showed a slide showing parking spaces on Third Street South.
“I’m having an issue with the parking,” Morhaus said. “They’re asking for a variance and taking away 17 spaces from the city.”
Luttrell said an option would be to integrate parallel parking on Third Street.
“The fundamental issue appears to be parking,” Thompson said, suggesting that a revised parking plan be presented at the next meeting.
Poole said, based on a traffic study, the hotel will generate a car every two minutes.
“We’re not talking about a major traffic generator here,” Poole said.
Swift, an AICE-certified planner, disputed Servia’s claim that 18 units per acre apply to hotels.
“That density is meant for residential,” Swift said. “We don’t use units per acre, we use Floor Area Ratio (FRA) for commercial use.”
Swift also explained that the rooftop pool area is not to be considered a fourth floor.
“The LDC explains that excludes open-to-the-air areas,” she said. “This project does meet the height requirements.”
The experts disagree
“She’s wrong,” Servia said about Swift’s comments following the meeting. “They are grasping at straws. The comp plan states there are 18 units allowed per acre. If it only went by FAR, there would be hotels springing up all over.”
“You can never waive the comp plan,” she said. “It’s the law.”
The Nov. 13 meeting will be open to the public, but, as it is a continuation of the Nov. 1 meeting where public comment was closed, there will be no opportunity for members of the public to speak.
(Sun reporter Joe Hendricks contributed to this story)
Related coverage
