BRADENTON BEACH – Planning and Zoning Board members have rejected a rezoning ordinance that would change some residential properties to mixed-use, asking that it be rewritten to reflect the board’s previous consensus to rezone to two-family residential (R-2).
The ordinance that Building Official Steve Gilbert and City Planner Luis Serna presented on June 15 proposed rezoning more than 20 properties from Highland Avenue to Gulf Drive and from Second Street North to Cortez Road. The properties are zoned R-3 (multi-family residential) and city staff recommends rezoning them to mixed-use (MXD).
The building department is requesting the rezoning to create better consistency between the city’s zoning maps and the future land use maps contained in the city’s comprehensive plan. Gilbert stated previously that the existing map inconsistencies could potentially create legal issues for the city.
The current R-3 zoning designation allows for up to 18 residential units per acre, but those same properties also carry the ROR (residential/office/retail) future land use map (FLUM) designation implemented when the city’s comprehensive plan was amended in 2008. The zoning map was never amended to bring it into agreement with the amended future land use map.
According to Gilbert, the ROR FLUM designation allows for a small store or retail operation, a takeout restaurant or an attorney’s office on the ground level with residential units above. The current R-3 zoning designation does not allow for those commercial uses. Gilbert and Serna recommend maintaining the existing ROR FLUM designation and rezoning those properties to mixed-use consistent with the FLUM designation.
During preliminary discussions in May 2021, the board recommended rezoning those properties to R-2 (two-family residential) with an amended medium-density FLUM designation.
The R-2 zoning designation allows one-family dwelling units, two-family dwelling units (duplexes), group homes, foster care facilities with less than five residents, family day care homes and private parks that include playgrounds and preservation and conservation uses. The R-3 designation allows one-family dwelling units, two-family dwelling units, multi-family dwelling units, group homes, foster care facilities and family day care homes.
“The mixed-use would allow for in- creased lot coverage and increased total impervious surface coverage. Mixed-use provides for residential over retail, so this would give the opportunity to put small shops on the ground,” Gilbert told the board.
Board members John Burns, Ken Mc Donough, Fred Bartizal and Dan Morhaus expressed their collective desire that the ordinance eventually presented to the city commission for adoption, modification or rejection should reflect the board’s 2021 consensus.
Serna cautioned that downzoning those properties from R-3 to R-2 could expose the city to future legal challenges – including Bert Harris claims seeking compensation for the loss of the development rights currently granted by the R-3 zoning.
Ordinance opposition
Burns adamantly expressed his oppostion to Ordinance 22-541 as presented during Wednesday’s meeting and he questioned why it didn’t reflect the board’s 2021 consensus.
“What I don’t understand is that we had a consensus. We had a clear recommendation. What I would
be looking for is an ordinance that implements that consensus recommendation,” Burns said.
Regarding the proposed mixed-use zoning designation, Burns said, “The MXD zoning district has allowances for a couple other things. Instead of 35% lot coverage, it goes to 70% – twice the lot coverage. Any time you increase the lot coverage you decrease the spacing between the structures and that affects the general appearance of the area;
and it can or cannot affect property values, as can placing a ROR bottom story retail/office down- stairs. Seventy percent lot coverage changes the character of the area as well. It’s expansion of, essentially, a commercial district. In addition, the maximum lot coverage plus impervious (surface) goes from 40% to 85%, which decreases the greenspace and affects the entire area in a different fashion.”
In defense of the ordinance language presented that day, Gilbert said city staff was originally charged with bringing the city’s zoning designations into agreement with the city’s existing FLUM designations, and the ordinance presented reflected that city commission directive.
Public input
A handful of potentially impacted residents and property owners attended Wednesday’s meeting. During public input, homeowner Herman Fernandez expressed concerns that mixed-use zoning would create additional parking issues and lead to the commercialization of those residential areas. He said staff’s proposed rezoning would not be a positive move for the permanent residents living in those areas.
“What is our goal here? I know things change as time goes on, but I’m not sure this is a good move,” Fernandez said.
Property owner Evelyn Stob said she likes the board’s proposed R-2 zoning designation better than city staff’s proposed mixed-use zoning designation.
Fernandez’s neighbor, Mark Heller, said he doesn’t want bars and restaurants being located in areas currently zoned for residential uses.
Gilbert said he doesn’t think the commission’s intent in 2008, before his arrival, was to allow for more bars and restaurants, but to allow for ground-level retail operations with residential units above.
In response to the board’s request for a revised ordinance, Gilbert said he’s not comfortable rewriting the ordinance without first discussing it with the city attorney. He also said changing the current FLUM designation from ROR to medium density residential would require a second and separate ordinance.
