BRADENTON BEACH – Building Official Steve Gilbert’s review of the city’s 1989 comprehensive plan and 1990 land development code (LDC) may help resolve an existing land use concern.
The residential properties in the Azure Shores subdivision are located between Bridge Street and the Cortez Bridge, and Highland Avenue and Gulf Drive South. The properties carry R-3 (multiple-family dwelling district) zoning designations and retail/office/residential (ROR) future land use designations. Until recently, Gilbert and Serna felt the R-3 zoning and the ROR future land use designations were not consistent with one another according to city code.
In 2019, the city commission directed Gilbert and then-City Planner Alan Garrett to resolve citywide inconsistencies that exist between the city’s zoning map and the city’s future land use map – and the zoning and land use designations that accompany those maps.
The inconsistencies date back to 2008 when the city commission amended the future land use map but didn’t amend the corresponding zoning map. Gilbert and City Attorney Ricinda Perry have stated the existing inconsistencies create conflicts that could expose the city to legal challenges from developers and/or neighboring property owners.
In 2021, Gilbert, City Planner Luis Serna and the planning and zoning board began discussing the map inconsistencies that exist throughout the city. In 2022, they began focusing solely on the Azure Shores subdivision as the first of many areas to be addressed.
The areas highlighted in light purple/lavender represent the Azure Shores properties. – Joe Hendricks | Sun
In October 2022, the city commission rejected Gilbert and Serna’s recommendation to apply a mixed-use district (MXD) zoning designation to the Azure Shores properties while maintaining the ROR land use designation. The mixed-used designation would have allowed ground-level retail and commercial activities to take place on those residentially-zoned properties and the commission rejected that idea.
During that same meeting, the commission also rejected the planning and zoning board’s contrasting recommendation to instead rezone those properties to R-2 (two family dwelling) and change the future land use map designation to medium density residential. City Attorney Ricinda Perry told the commission that downzoning those properties from R-3 to R-2 could subject the city to legal challenges from those property owners.
New solution proposed
On May 3, Gilbert and Serna presented the planning board with an alternative means of curing the Azure Shores map inconsistencies. The proposed solution was included in the staff memo the board members received before the meeting.
Building Official Steve Gilbert and City Planner Luis Serna suggested an alternative solution to the previously proposed rezoning of the Azure Shores subdivision. – Joe Hendricks | Sun
The memo included the following recommendation: “Revise the text of the comprehensive plan and land development code so the existing R-3 zoning district would be consistent within the existing ROR future land use category. This option would address the current inconsistency but would allow rezonings to R-3 in the ROR category. The advantage of this option is that it would not result in any changes to the character of Azure Shores by rezoning the property and would not expose the city to any potential takings claims.”
During the May 3 meeting, Gilbert said the Azure Shores map inconsistencies could be cured simply by amending the text in the land development code and the comprehensive plan in a manner that states the existing R-3 zoning designation can be implemented in the city’s only ROR zoning district.
“We don’t change future land use; we don’t change the zoning. We just add text in the comp plan and LDC so that R-3 is an implementing use in the ROR land use category,” Gilbert said.
He said the city’s future land use and zoning summary table would also have to be modified in a corresponding manner by moving the R-3 implementing zoning out of the high-density residential future land use category and into the ROR future land use category instead.
Gilbert said this potential solution emerged from his recent research of the 1989 comprehensive plan adopted in 1989 and the 1990 land development code.
“What I discovered is that what we thought was a new land use assignment in 2008 on the future land use map indicating ROR for Azure Shores was not in fact a newly-designated land use. For Azure Shores, the land use did not change in 2008.” Gilbert told the planning board.
Planning and Zoning Board members Fred Bartizal, John Burns, Bill Morrow and Dan Morhaus participated in the May 3 meeting. – Joe Hendricks | SunIn response to questions posed by the planning board members, Gilbert and Serna said the proposed text amendments would maintain the current 35% lot coverage and 40% impervious surface requirements for those residential properties and would not allow the 90% lot coverage allowed in the nearby Bridge Street Commercial Overlay District. He also said the proposed change would still not allow a hotel or motel to be built or operated in the Azure Shores subdivision.
The planning board unanimously supports the proposed solution and asked Gilbert and Serna to draft the proposed text amendments to be discussed at the board’s June 7 meeting, or soon thereafter.
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).
Building Official Steve Gilbert and City Planner Luis Serna hope to make the city’s zoning and future land use maps consistent with each other. – Joe Hendricks | Sun
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.
The properties highlighted in orange on the city’s zoning map currently carry a R-3 zoning designation. – City of Bradenton Beach – SubmittedThe properties highlighted in light purple on the city’s future land use map currently carry a Retail/Office/Residential designation. – City of Bradenton Beach | Submitted
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.
Resident Herman Fernandez is concerned about the proposed mixed-use rezoning. – Joe Hendricks | Sun
“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.
UPDATED May 5, 2021 at 3:15 P.M. – BRADENTON BEACH – The city’s ongoing efforts to resolve inconsistencies between its future land use and zoning maps could potentially impact property values and the future use of many properties citywide.
The inconsistencies were created when the city adopted a revised future land use map as part of its 2020 comprehensive plan. Building Official Steve Gilbert and City Planner Luis Serna are now guiding the Planning and Zoning Board (P&Z) and the city commission through the early stages of the map revision process. The goal is to make the zoning and future land use maps consistent with each other.
The map revisions being considered are not intended to alter the current use of an impacted property but could become a significant issue if the property is sold, demolished by a storm, or redeveloped in a manner that differs from its current use, possibly impacting the property value.
During the April 21 P&Z meeting, the future land use and zoning maps for the Sandpiper Resort Co-Op were discussed in depth. The future land use and zoning map designations for several properties in the 2200 and 2500 blocks of Gulf Drive North were also discussed in depth.
Sharky’s Seagrill, the Shell gas pumps and the Circle K properties are among those that could be impacted by the proposed map revisions. – Joe Hendricks | Sun
The potentially impacted properties in the 2500 block of Gulf Drive North include Sharky’s Seagrill, the Shell gas pumps and Circle K convenience store, a vacant lot, Club Bamboo and the two-story structure occupied on the ground level by the Studio 104 salon, the KW on the Water real estate office and the Blooms by the Beach florist shop, with residential units located above. Similar map inconsistencies exist in the 2200 block of Gulf Drive that could potentially impact the Aluna Wellness Center & Spa and Wagner Real Estate properties.
Several other potentially impacted properties throughout the city have not yet been discussed by the P&Z board. The additional maps of these potentially impacted areas and properties can be viewed here. The board’s map revision discussions will continue on Wednesday, May 5 at 11 a.m., with the issue also expected to be discussed at the Wednesday, May 19 P&Z meeting.
The zoning and future land use designations for Sandpiper Resort property (at the top of this map) and the properties located in areas marked as #4 were discussed at the April 21 meeting. City of Bradenton Beach | Submitted
During the April 21 meeting, Gilbert said the purpose of that day’s meeting was for the P&Z members to review the proposed map revisions and make their recommendations to the city commission. The city commission has the sole authority to make any final decisions regarding map revisions.
“This is not a public hearing to formally adopt these maps,” Gilbert noted.
Sandpiper Resort
In 2008, the city commission amended the future land use map, decreasing the maximum units allowed on the majority of the Sandpiper property from 18 units per acre to nine. But the coinciding zoning map that establishes the M-1 (mobile home park) zoning district was not revised in 2008 and has not been revised since then. The number of lots allowed by the land development code on the Sandpiper property exceeds the density established by the current future land use map.
According to the future land use map, the majority of the Sandpiper property carries a medium-density residential land use designation. The portion of the property closest to the Anna Maria Sound shoreline carries a low-density residential land use designation.
Gilbert and Serna recommend amending the future land use map designation to high-density residential, which would return the Sandpiper’s future land use designation to its pre-2008 status.
P&Z member John Burns opposed that action and instead proposed revising the zoning map to match the nine units per acre allowed by the future land use map.
Planning and Zoning Board member John Burns does not support increasing density allowances to correct existing map inconsistencies. – Joe Hendricks | Sun
The board members expressed concerns that revising the zoning map to allow 18 units per acre could result in a more intense future use of the Sandpiper Resort property should it ever be redeveloped as something other than a mobile home park. Burns said reversing the 2008 future land use map amendment would double the allowed density.
In response, Serna said, “The intent is to reflect what’s on the ground there currently. This was a change that occurred in 2008, which is basically making those properties non-conforming. They conform to the zoning, but the zoning does not conform to the future land use. We’re really just trying to give them back what they had prior to 2008.”
Burns said he was not aware of any Sandpiper Resort property owners who objected to the 2008 future land use map revision.
City Planner Luis Serna cautioned against making any revisions that devalue property values. – Joe Hendricks | Sun
“I’m not sure what the public response was back then, but it is definitely something where the city is out of compliance with its own plan. That’s a concern,” Serna said.
Gilbert said the Sandpiper property has historically been zoned M-1, under the high-density residential criteria, and changing that zoning would have consequences.
“We would be taking away dwelling unit density from them. Which is why we’re recommending making this (the future land use map) consistent with the historic use and the current use rather than rezoning it and potentially causing damage to their property value by changing future land use back to what it was before this map was done,” Gilbert said.
Board member Bill Morrow asked if the Sandpiper Resort community is currently configured to nine units per acre. Gilbert said the current density is much higher than that.
“There are two choices to be made here: one is to revert back to high density for that entire parcel and a future developer could fit quite a few units in there. If you keep it the way it is, future developers are not going to be able to pack as many buildings or dwelling units in there. The second option is to change it (the future land use designation) back so that the mobile home park remains conforming to current zoning, but that also gives them the ability, if they choose to sell the property, to develop the property at 18 units per acre,” Gilbert said.
“I see no benefit to the city nor to adjacent properties in changing it back to the way it was,” Burns said.
The board voted 5-0 in support of Burns’ motion to recommend the city commission amend the zoning map to match the nine units per acre currently allowed by the future land use map, despite the recommendations of Gilbert and Serna.
Gulf Drive North
The board also discussed the map inconsistencies that exist in the 2500 and 2200 blocks of Gulf Drive North.
The future land use map currently designates those areas as R-2 medium density residential with a C-2 general commercial zoning designation.
“All the uses on the property are commercial,” Serna said of the existing property uses.
Serna and Gilbert recommended amending those future land use map designations to Retail/Office/Residential (ROR) in order to be consistent with the existing zoning and current uses of those properties.
Burns expressed concerns that commercially zoned property with an ROR future land use designation would allow new structures to be built with 90% lot coverage.
“You might have 90% lot coverage when you get done with the parking lot, but building coverage, no,” Gilbert responded.
Board member Fred Bartizal said he likes the existing zoning the way it is.
“Why change it?” Burns asked.
“Because the uses of the property are not residential,” Serna replied.
Serna said the Circle K property is zoned C-2 but the future land use designation is medium density residential.
“That’s where the inconsistency is,” he noted.
Burns asked if a new Circle K building could be built on that property if a storm or some other disaster destroyed the existing structure.
In response, Gilbert said, “Not really, because C-2 zoning is not consistent with the medium density dwelling as established by the future land use map. The future land use map says zero to nine dwelling units per acre and no commercial development is to occur there. It’s a residential land use. Your commercial zoning is not consistent with your comprehensive plan and the existing uses there would become non-conforming uses. In order to make them conforming, you either change the future land use map or you change the zoning. To preserve the character of what’s up there now, the future land use map goes to ROR and the zoning goes to mixed-use, rather than commercial.”
Building Official Steve Gilbert explained the map revision options and potential consequences. – Joe Hendricks | Sun
“The comp plan is saying that should be residential and what’s on the ground isn’t residential. That’s all we’re trying to fix,” Serna said.
“You’re opening a can of worms to fix it,” Burns replied.
Serna said not allowing commercial structures in those areas could subject the city to legal challenges.
“They could sue the city and that’s the concern we’re trying to address. We don’t want to take away anyone’s rights through down-zoning,” Serna said.
Regarding properties made non-conforming with city code due to past or future commission actions, Serna said, “They can exist as long as they’re not destroyed, but the owners of those properties could rightly come and say we’ve had a development right under zoning and now it’s being taken away.”
Board member Fred Bartizal expressed concerns about making zoning revisions that could potentially allow for more intense development.
“What worries me is there’s some pretty smart developers out there right now with some real smart lawyers. If we change any of them, will it make it easier for them?” he said.
Board chair Ken McDonough noted the challenge for the city is what happens if a property owner wants to develop a property where there are inconsistencies between the zoning and future land use maps.
“What do you do? Do you go by the zone map? Do you go by the future land use map?” he asked.
“That’s why we’re having this discussion,” Gilbert said. “There’s a vacant lot next to the Circle K. It’s zoned C-2. The land use is duplex and they want to put in shopping. If we follow the zoning it will become a duplex.”
The board unanimously supported Burns’ motion to recommend the city commission change the zoning map to match the current future land use map, which is medium density residential, R-2 – which allows single-family residences or multi-family duplexes and apartments, despite what Gilbert and Serna recommended.
Gilbert noted that before any final map revision decisions are made by the city commission, all potentially impacted property owners will be notified and will have the opportunity to address the P&Z board and the city commission when future public hearings are held.
