BRADENTON BEACH – A 6.5-hour city commission public hearing on Nov. 16 for a proposed hotel/restaurant/retail project on Bridge Street and Gulf Drive led to warnings that something more impactful could be built if it is not approved.
Commissioner Ralph Cole suggested a reduction in the proposed 106 hotel rooms to alleviate parking issues. The applicants’ representatives pushed back.
The applicants’ Bradenton attorney, Stephen Thompson, said his clients are close to their breaking point on numbers, and architect Shaun Luttrell indicated the alternative to the hotel project for the applicants could be a mixed-use building on Bridge Street and multi-unit rental properties along Third Street South.
The application for the hotel, a 60-seat restaurant, 2,485 square feet of retail and 99 on-site parking spaces was made by property owners Shawn Kaleta, a local developer, and Jacob Spooner, a Bradenton Beach commissioner.
Three of the five commission members, Mayor John Chappie and Commissioners Jan Vosburgh and Cole, were present at the Nov. 16 hearing. Spooner recused himself from the meeting. Commissioner Marilyn Maro has been absent with excuse since January but was present by telephone for part of the hearing.
Cole expressed concerns about parking for the hotel.
City Attorney Ricinda Perry responded by saying the applicants have the option to develop the property as is if the project is not approved.
“Am I correct that you produced images today showing you would build a ton of differently-owned rental properties on Third Street South and then a mixed-use development on Bridge Street?” Perry asked Luttrell.
“That’s correct,” Luttrell said.
Luttrell said each of those rental properties would have six units per house with parking spots underneath them.
“Can you testify or Mr. Thompson testify as to what this commission has to consider? There are essentially three things asked for in this development that do not adhere to the current strict zoning that you could build those, I’ll use your term, ‘party house row,’ ” Perry said. “They’re asking for a reduction in parking, they’re asking for a reduction in one of the setbacks and asking for 106 hotel units.”
“If the commission does not agree to give something under the planned development that looks like what has been asked for is there a point which the applicant does not find this financially feasible and would just go to the straight rezone, I mean to the straight current zoning and build what they’re entitled to?” Perry asked Luttrell.
“I’m sure there is a point within those numbers where they would stop the project and pursue a different avenue,” Luttrell said, adding that he didn’t know what that number is.
Luttrell asked if there were issues besides parking that needed to be addressed.
Chappie said he didn’t like the design of the hotel.
“Personally, I don’t like the look of it,” Chappie said. “I like the hotel idea in commercial, I like that idea a lot, similar to what’s across the street.”
“We’ll take everything into consideration and see if we can massage this plan a little bit to get closer to what you’re looking for,” Luttrell said.
Thompson said the applicants had made a number of concessions up to that point.
“We didn’t start at this number,” Thompson said. “We were a lot higher than this number. We’re almost at the breaking point, I’m being honest with you. One of our clients is more than happy to do the vacation rentals.”
“We want to continue with this, but then the issue is, ok, what is the number?” Thompson said, adding that his team will come back with a proposal in advance of the next meeting.
“I’m hopeful we can come to the right number,” Chappie said. “I do have the same fear of party houses.”
Commission vote
“You’ve been given over six hours of information and handouts,” Perry said. “It’s fair to say you need some time to think about things and there’s nothing to say when we come back on Dec. 7 that you can’t get into a substantive discussion.”
“We’re just not there yet,” Chappie said. “I think we can work something out here, I really do, the alternative – I don’t like at all.”
Chappie questioned the effect that the approval of the first reading of the ordinance would have on the ongoing discussion.
Building Official Steve Gilbert clarified.
“You have a first reading that’s been advertised,” he said. “That reading does not set a development order in place nor does it fully authorize a PD back later. I think you can clear your first reading of the proposed ordinance tonight, continue the hearing – I’m not calling it a public hearing, but it’s still an open hearing because we’ve taken public comment already – until the Dec. 7 meeting at which time then you would conclude the hearing and contemplate the second reading of the ordinance.”
“The ordinance just says it allows for a plan, and what we’re currently in the process of doing is determining what that plan is,” Perry said. “Before the second reading and adoption of this ordinance, there must be a plan figured out.”
“If you cannot come to an agreement and if you cannot establish a plan at the December meeting, everything goes away and we start over,” Gilbert said.
“This just keeps us talking, all at the table to see where we end up,” Chappie said.
Vosburgh made the motion to approve the first reading, and to set the second hearing, seconded by Cole. The motion passed unanimously 3-0. Maro was no longer on the call for the vote.
Based on the city charter, which calls for an affirmative supra majority vote by four of the five commissioners, the question remains as to whether the standing commission has the ability to approve the project.
Public comment
During the public comment portion of the Nov. 16 hearing, Seminole-based attorney David Blum, representing six project opponents, said, “As far as the conditions on this plan, if you all adopt the conditions along with the plan and don’t deny, you all are setting yourselves up for a lot of litigation, not from me, but you’re setting yourself up. There’s a part about special events applications that allows you to serve alcohol, which turns it into a commercial space. It gives you the ability to do away with the noise ordinance. So rock on.”
In a departure from the two Planning and Zoning hearings, in which a majority of speakers were in opposition to the project, nearly half the 20 speakers at the Nov. 16 commission hearing spoke in favor of the hotel. At least five of those were employees of businesses in which Kaleta has ownership interests – specifically Prime Vacations and Salt Bar & Table Restaurant.
The Thursday, Dec. 7 hearing will be held at 6 p.m. at the Katie Pierola Commission Chambers, 107 Gulf Drive N.
Related coverage
P&Z recommends approval of hotel project
