The now-signed maintenance, indemnification and hold harmless agreement for the flawed Bridge Street coconut palm tree planting project lists April 1 as the project commencement date, which fittingly coincides with April Fool’s Day.
But Mayor John Chappie and the city’s witness, City Clerk Terri Sanclemente, didn’t sign and fully execute the agreement until May 28 – nearly two months after the listed commencement date.
On May 15, City Attorney Ricinda Perry told The Sun a “signed agreement” existed but a copy couldn’t be provided until Sanclemente returned from vacation on May 28. Local developer and project partner Shawn Kaleta might have signed the agreement on behalf of his Beach to Bay Construction Limited Liability Corporation in mid-May, as Perry’s emails indicate, but the agreement wasn’t legally enforceable until Chappie and Sanclemente signed it.
We appreciate Sanclemente promptly providing a copy of the fully executed agreement upon her return. We thank her for acknowledging that she and Chappie signed the agreement that day and for providing additional project-related documents and answers to our questions. Sanclemente did her job, while others associated with the project failed miserably.
Of the 70 coconut palms planted on and around Bridge Street, one already fell on a Bridge Street sidewalk and 22 others were removed from Gulf Drive South and replanted elsewhere along Bridge Street because FDOT doesn’t allow coconut palms and their falling coconuts and palm fronds along state-owned roads. Bradenton Beach leaders apparently don’t share similar safety concerns about city-owned Bridge Street.
During the month-long gap between the plantings and the mayor’s signature, would the city have been solely responsible for any palm tree-related deaths, injuries or property damage that occurred before the agreement became legally binding?
The Perry-drafted agreement includes indemnification language designed to protect the city from project-related lawsuits. An indemnification clause doesn’t prevent the city from being named in a lawsuit. It simply means the city can try to recoup its lawsuit-related losses from Kaleta and his roster of attorneys. That’s a risky proposition for a city financially desperate enough to sign over control of city-owned assets in exchange for shared project costs.
Perry and her elected accomplices are taking liberties with taxpayer assets that might get them removed by shareholders if they sat on a private sector board of directors. A misguided tree-planting project isn’t the worst sin a local government can commit, but the city attorney shouldn’t be leading the lackadaisical mayor and commissioners by their noses in her efforts to broker questionable public-private partnerships.
This fiasco prompted some Sun readers to call for Perry’s termination and Chappie’s resignation. Neither of those scenarios are likely, but maybe the light shined on this botched affair will cause all involved to think twice before pursuing another partnership with Team Kaleta.
BRADENTON BEACH – The fully signed agreement between the city and developer Shawn Kaleta for the maintenance of the coconut palm trees on and around Bridge Street was signed by Mayor John Chappie on May 28 and placed into the public record that day.
That comes more than a month after the trees were planted the week of April 24 in a public-private partnership between the city and Kaleta.
On May 29, City Clerk Terri Sanclemente provided The Sun with a copy of the agreement signed by Chappie, Kaleta – as Beach to Bay Construction LLC manager – and Sanclemente as witness. The Sun made multiple requests for the document beginning on May 6.
The maintenance, indemnification and hold harmless agreement in a public-private partnership between the City of Bradenton Beach and Kaleta, through his LLC, designates responsibility for the tree maintenance to Kaleta and indemnifies the city in the event of injury or damage from the trees.
Public-private partnerships between cities and developers are unique to Bradenton Beach among the three Anna Maria Island cities.
Both Mayor Dan Murphy of Anna Maria and Mayor Judy Titsworth of Holmes Beach responded to The Sun’s email asking if either city had partnered with a private entity for city projects.
“If you define a public-private partnership as a “capital improvement project with the city getting dollar funding from a developer” the answer is no, we have had none that I can recall during my tenure of 10 years as mayor. I don’t think we’ve ever had a developer give us any money for a project,” Murphy wrote.
Titsworth wrote, “We have not, to my recollection.”
The partnership with Kaleta for the palm trees’ maintenance and indemnification was approved unanimously on April 3 by the Bradenton Beach Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA).
At that meeting, City Attorney Ricinda Perry assured CRA members that the agreement would be signed by Kaleta prior to the trees being planted.
CRA member Jan Vosburgh expressed concern about the trees’ safety and maintenance.
“I believe everything the city does should be as maintenance-free as possible,” Vosburgh said. “It sounds to me like we’re making a nightmare for the city and the businesses.”
Ultimately, following assurances by Perry that a signed agreement would be in place, Vosburgh voted to approve the agreement, making it a unanimous vote.
In addition to Chappie and Vosburgh, Deborah Scaccianoce, Marilyn Maro, Ed Chiles and Chair Ralph Cole make up the CRA.
OUT OF ORDER
It is unclear when Kaleta signed the agreement.
The city clerk provided The Sun a copy of the receipt for the April 10 $10,000 payment from Kaleta, but based on correspondence between City Attorney Ricinda Perry and Kaleta’s attorneys, it does not appear that he signed the agreement prior to the planting of the palm trees the week of April 24.
On April 25, Kaleta attorney Sean Kelly sent an email to Perry that said, “Shawn asked me to finalize this agreement for the coconut palms on Bridge Street. Will you please send me the Exhibit A site plan and the dollar amount for the CRA’s contribution? Then I can update the document and have Shawn sign. Thanks!”
On May 9, Perry sent an email to Kelly copied to Kaleta that said, “Good morning. It took me a bit to find a way to document in a ‘site plan’ the palms and to make sure we knew exactly where Miguel was planting everything. I ended up flying my drone and then inserting stars where palms are located with a description for areas that have multiple palms at or near an address.” “Miguel” refers to Miguel Mancera, the owner of M&F Lawn Care, Inc., the company that planted the palm trees, who has not yet been paid for his work (see story, page 9).
On May 14, Kaleta attorney, Rainier Altiere, sent Perry an email that said, “Here is the completed maintenance agreement. The only thing missing is the start date. Please provide me with that and let me know if this is OK for us to have Shawn sign.”
On May 15, Perry sent Kaleta, Kelly and Altiere an email that referenced an unnamed limited liability corporation (LLC) Kaleta intended to use as the CRA’s project partner and the party responsible for maintaining the coconut palms for the next 30 years.
“This corp (corporation) named in the document was set up at the end of last month. Is it just a ‘shell company’ with no assets or insurance to cover the harm/damage caused by a falling coconut? At a minimum, the company will need an insurance policy naming the city that actually covers damage caused by the coconuts. I can’t just have a piece of open (missing word) with no actual protection for the public. Ideas?” Perry wrote.
On May 15, The Sun emailed Perry requesting a copy of the fully signed and fully executed agreement. In her May 15 response, Perry wrote, “There is a signed agreement. The clerk is out of the office and can provide further documents upon her return.”
On May 29, Perry sent an email to Sanclemente and Chappie that addressed the date Sanclemente and Chappie signed the agreement.
“Contracts have counterpart signatures that most always have differing dates – hence the reason contracts ALWAYS state an effective date. The effective date controls contracts. In this instance, I always stated that the effective date would be when the date trees were being delivered. The city did not pick nor write the date but found the effective date to be acceptable and within the approval of the CRA. Standard contract law. Feel free to forward to anyone needing legal contract law information,” Perry wrote.
The effective date of the agreement is April 1, which is two days before its approval by the CRA at its April 3 meeting. The city did not respond to The Sun’s request for an explanation of the earlier effective date.
“The city of Bradenton Beach Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) has approved a CRA beautification project on Bridge Street to be installed at a cost not to exceed forty thousand and no/dollars ($40,000) to be paid for by the CRA and ten thousand and no/dollars ($10,000) to be paid for by the Sponsor (Kaleta). All trees installed in this beautification project shall be maintained at the sole cost of Sponsor,” the agreement states.
The agreement will be in place for 30 years with options to renew every 10 years.
According to the signed agreement, “Sponsor shall at its sole cost and expense maintain the permitted installation in good condition. The city makes no warranties or representation of any kind regarding the suitability of this public property/right-of-way location for the proposed installation.”
The signed agreement includes indemnification language that states, “As consideration for use of the city’s public property to install coconut palm trees, the Sponsor (Kaleta) shall at all times, at its expense, hold harmless and indemnify the city, its officers, employees, agents, elected and appointed officials, and volunteers from and against any and all claims, demands, liens, liabilities, penalties, fines, fees, judgments, losses and damages whether or not a lawsuit is filed, including, but not limited to claims for damage to property or bodily or personal injuries, including death.”
The indemnification language also states that Kaleta is responsible for any costs, expenses and attorney fees associated with a claim or lawsuit associated with the coconut palm trees.
According to the Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute, “To indemnify, also known as indemnity or indemnification, means compensating a person for damages or losses they have incurred or will incur related to a specified accident, incident or event. Typically, parties make a written agreement in which one party promises to indemnify the other party for future specified losses.”
On May 31, The Sun received a copy of Kaleta’s proof of insurance with $1 million in liability per occurrence for personal injury, $5,000 for medical expenses per person, $100,000 damage to rented premises and $2 million general aggregate coverage. The policy expires on Sept. 9.
The insured is listed as Beach to Bay Investments, 102 48th St., Holmes Beach and the producer of the policy is Gulf Insurance, LLC, 301 Manatee Ave. in Holmes Beach.
The Sun has requested an updated site plan since the location of some of the trees has changed due to their FDOT-mandated May 24 removal from Gulf Drive South, a state road.
As of May 31, that site plan has not been received.
According to the maintenance, indemnification and hold harmless agreement Exhibit B, Kaleta’s company is responsible for: “Removing fronds, fruit, seedpods and fruit stalks carefully without damaging the trunk or fronds that are to be retained. All coconut fruit must be removed once it produces on the tree.”
The guidelines continue, “Pruning will be required a minimum of two times a year on municipal property and rights-of-way to manage the hazards of falling coconuts and fronds and to minimize the risk to persons and property within the fall zone.”
People on the Anna Maria Island Sun Facebook page had plenty of comments about the palm trees and the agreement.
Wendy Holcomb wrote, “Not a good idea EVER to put coconut trees where pedestrians walk and vehicles drive.”
Richard Becker wrote, “All this over a palm tree. It’s not about the palm tree, it’s about the politics.”
“Indemnify means to ‘make right again’ not ‘protect,’ so if the city lost a case, Team K would have to pay them back, the settlement ck (check) has to come from the defendant,” Susan Paxton wrote.
According to recent city Scenic WAVES committee meeting agendas, the CRA board did not request a preliminary project review from the city commission-appointed committee
The Scenic WAVES committee acts as the commission’s advisory board on proposed landscaping and beautification projects.
Someone once posed the question: “If a tree falls in a forest and no one hears it, does it make a sound?”
The Sun poses a similar question: If the city attorney says there’s a signed agreement for the ill-fated Bridge Street palm tree planting project but nobody has seen it, does the agreement really exist?
In early April, the Bradenton Beach Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) that includes the mayor and city commissioners approved planting 80 coconut palm trees along Bridge Street. According to City Attorney Ricinda Perry, the CRA was to contribute $40,000 toward the project and developer Shawn Kaleta and/or one of his LLCs would kick in another $10,000.
Perry told the CRA members there would be a signed maintenance, indemnification and hold harmless agreement in place before the trees were planted. The trees were planted in late April with no signed agreement in place.
A couple of weeks ago, one of the new palms toppled onto a Bridge Street sidewalk and had to be replanted.
Last week, FDOT told the city to remove the new palms planted in the Gulf Drive-Bridge Street roundabout.
Gulf Drive is a state road and FDOT doesn’t allow coconut palms to be planted along state-owned roads because they limit visibility and contain large falling objects like coconuts and palm fronds.
You’d think someone with the city or the city’s often-contracted landscaper would have known about this pesky little state rule – or at least checked to see if there was such a pesky little state rule. But that kind of foresight doesn’t mesh with the city’s “You can do it right when you do it over” approach to project management.
So now we know that coconut palms aren’t cool along a state road but they’re still OK standing alongside the highly-traveled, highly-populated city-owned Bridge Street.
To date, Perry and the city have not provided The Sun with a copy of the signed agreement, despite the multiple public records requests made during a two-week period. Perry told us we had to wait until the city clerk returns from her vacation on May 28 before we can see the elusive signed document.
The Florida Public Records Act says the city has to promptly acknowledge public records requests, respond in good faith and make “reasonable efforts” to figure out who has the requested document and where it’s stashed. City officials who break the state law can be fined $500 or removed from office if they try really hard to hide or withhold the requested document.
Perry and Mayor John Chappie were copied on our multiple and still ongoing requests for a signed agreement. Perry gave us an incomplete and unsigned draft version of the agreement that didn’t mention the project partner’s name. She also sent us some emails that showed us how hard she tried to collaborate with Team Kaleta’s lawyers to make this deal happen.
According to the unsigned version of the agreement, Team Kaleta is supposed to maintain the palm trees at their expense for the next 30 years. The unsigned agreement doesn’t specifically mention coconuts or palm fronds and it doesn’t specifically require Team Kaleta to pluck those pesky buggers from the trees before they drop on some unlucky person’s head, child or 1962 Corvette.
The unsigned agreement does however require Team Kaleta to comply with reference Exhibit A – a blank space that calls for a yet-to-be-seen site plan that shows specifically where each new tree was planted – and Exhibit B: “Guidelines for the Management of Coconut Palms.”
The “Guidelines” inform us that coconut palms can grow to be over 100 feet tall, may live 100 years and “regularly shed coconuts and large fronds, which may expose people and property to injury and damage.”
The all-knowing ‘Guidelines” also say, “To minimize this risk, coconuts and fronds must be regularly removed prior to their fall. In certain instances, coconut palms may possess structural defects that increase the risk of failure of a portion or all of the palm.”
Thank you, wise city leaders. What could go wrong?
The “Guidelines” say any coconut palms that show serious defects, conditions or weather damage must be removed (by Team Kaleta) within 14 days of being told to do so. Given that one tree already toppled onto a Bridge Street sidewalk on a sunny day, what’s the over/under on how many palms are going down during our upcoming “more active than usual” hurricane season?
In the absence of the signed agreement, it appears the first tree likely fell before the agreement was signed and dated by Chappie and Team Kaleta. If that first falling tree injured a person, place or thing with no signed agreement yet in place, who would have been liable – the city, Kaleta or both?
The unsigned agreement is also supposed to indemnify (lawyer-speak for “protect”) the city and the CRA against any future liabilities and lawsuits associated with the troublesome palm trees. If someone or something gets clocked by a falling tree, frond or coconut, that unfortunate soul gets to do battle with Team Kaleta’s army of lawyers, while the city sits on the sideline screaming, “Leave us alone, we’re indemnified!”
Mayor Chappie frequently laments the negative impacts that super-sized short-term vacation rental homes, aka “party houses,” have on Bradenton Beach’s residential neighborhoods, but he’s OK taking project money from the Island’s biggest developer of “party houses.”
Instead of sharpening their pencils and wisely managing CRA and city funds for future projects, the mayor and city commissioners are taking the lazy and easy way out by enabling Perry to pursue funding partnerships with Team Kaleta.
In the past year or so, Perry proposed the CRA or city partner with Team Kaleta to improve the city-owned parking lot near the Team Kaleta-owned marina. She also suggested the city partner with Team Kaleta for a Team Kaleta-controlled mooring field near the pier.
In early April – the same day she proposed the ill-advised, poorly-executed palm tree project – Perry proposed the CRA partner with Team Kaleta to install a waterfront pedestrian path that runs from Team Kaleta’s marina, past Team Kaleta’s mobile home park and ends at the city-owned pier.
Who is Perry working for? The city or Team Kaleta? When proposing these public-private partnerships, she sings the praises of a developer good-hearted enough to help fund CRA and city projects, but what she, the mayor and the city commission are really doing is selling the city down the Intracoastal Waterway.
Somehow, the sister cities of Anna Maria and Holmes Beach manage to fund their capital projects without financial aid from Team Kaleta. And in both those cities, the city attorneys focus on the basics – providing legal advice and legal services to their respective city leaders and city staff.
In most cities, a city attorney’s sole job is to dispense legal knowledge. City attorneys don’t usually serve as de facto city managers, project managers and project initiators. But in Perry’s defense, she’s just filling the leadership void created by Bradenton Beach’s weak mayor form of city government, and the weak mayor and weak commission gladly let her do it.
With the threat of state-imposed consolidation looming over the three AMI cities, there’s chatter in local political circles that Chappie wants to serve as the Island-wide mayor if that happens. That leadership scenario might scare some folks, but Island Mayor Chappie and Island Attorney Perry could then partner with Team Kaleta to plant coconut palms and other seeds of dissent throughout the rest of the consolidation fiefdom.
BRADENTON BEACH – A newly-planted coconut palm tree that fell over on Bridge Street last week has raised questions about whether the city obtained a signed indemnification agreement prior to planting it and 79 other trees.
At the April 3 Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) meeting, members unanimously approved the installation of 80 coconut palm trees along Bridge Street in a city partnership with developer Shawn Kaleta.
The approval was based on assurances by City Attorney Ricinda Perry that a maintenance, indemnification and hold harmless agreement with Kaleta would be in place prior to planting the trees, with Kaleta taking responsibility for tree maintenance and indemnifying the city against liability for any damage caused by the trees.
The palm trees were planted the week of April 24. On May 15, a Facebook post showed that one tree had fallen over from unknown reasons, causing no known damage. Bridge Street workers have reported seeing people picking coconuts from the newly-planted trees.
As of May 19, after multiple Sunshine Law requests to the city from The Sun, no signed and fully executed agreement had been produced by the city. That document is a public record and subject to the Florida Sunshine Law.
In the absence of a signed contract between the city and Kaleta, liability for damage that could be caused by the trees is in question.
A newly-planted coconut palm tree on Bridge Street that fell on May 15 and was subsequently replanted is being supported by string tied to a piece of metal. – Leslie Lake | Sun
A May 15 Facebook post shows one of the new palms near 120 Bridge St. laying on the ground, apparently having been uprooted. By May 17, the fallen tree had been replanted and was being supported by a string tied to a metal stake.
AGREEMENT ELUSIVE
On April 25, One of Kaleta’s attorneys, Sean Kelly, sent Perry and Kaleta an email that said, “Shawn asked me to finalize this agreement for the coconut palms on Bridge Street. Will you please send me the Exhibit A site plan and the dollar amount for the CRA’s contribution? Then I can update the document and have Shawn sign.”
This email exchange occurred the same week the trees were being planted.
On May 6, The Sun emailed the city clerk asking for a copy of the agreement between the city and Shawn Kaleta (or his business entity) showing the maintenance and indemnification agreement for the newly-planted palms on Bridge Street. The email was sent to city clerk Terri Sanclemente, Perry and Mayor John Chappie. No response was received.
On May 7, a Sun reporter went to city hall to obtain a copy of the contract and was told by the city clerk that it was not there and she had been told it was still being worked on. Another email was sent to Perry that day requesting a copy of the agreement and no response was received.
On May 9, Perry sent an email to Kaleta and attorney Sean Kelly that said, “It took me a bit to find a way to document in a ‘site plan’ the palms and to make sure we knew exactly where Miguel was planting everything.” Kelly responded that day to Perry in an email that said, “Do you have the dollar amounts to insert for contributions from the city and from Shawn?”
Perry wrote that the CRA was contributing $40,000 toward the tree planting project and Kaleta was to contribute $10,000.
On May 14, another Kaleta attorney, Rainier Altiere sent Perry an email that said, “Here is the completed maintenance agreement. The only thing missing is the start date. Please provide me with that and let me know if this is OK for us to have Shawn sign.”
On May 15, Perry sent Kaleta, Kelly and Altiere an email in which she wrote, “This corp (corporation) named in the document was set up at the end of last month. Is it just a ‘shell company’ with no assets or insurance to cover the harm/damage caused by a falling coconut? At a minimum, the company will need an insurance policy naming the city that actually covers damage caused by the coconuts. I can’t just have a piece of open (missing word) with no actual protection for the public. Ideas?”
A May 15 email request to the city clerk for a copy of the signed agreement received an “out of office” reply. The same day, The Sun emailed Perry requesting a copy of the signed and fully executed agreement.
Sanclemente, Chappie and Police Chief/Interim Public Works Director John Cosby were among those copied on The Sun’s email request.
In her response, Perry wrote, “I’ll see if the deputy clerks can access the signed agreement. If not, we’ll have to wait until Terri gets back.”
Perry did, however, provide a copy of a blank draft version of the agreement, which did not identify the other party involved with the project and did not include any details regarding the cost of the project or the manner in which the material, installation and maintenance costs would be shared. The agreement is for 30 years. She also provided copies of some of the emails referenced in this story.
When asked by The Sun that day for a signed and fully executed copy of the agreement, Perry wrote, “There is a signed agreement. The clerk is out of the office and can provide further documents upon her return.”
On May 17, a Sun reporter attempted to obtain the document in person from the city clerk’s office and was told the contract was not there. That day, The Sun emailed Perry, Kaleta and Kelly asking Kaleta or Kelly to provide The Sun and/or Perry a copy of the signed agreement. As of May 20, The Sun had not received a response to that request.
The email exchanges indicate there was no signed agreement in place when the trees were planted in late April. As of May 20, the city and Perry had not provided any documents that confirmed that a signed and fully executed agreement existed that day.
In order for the agreement to be fully executed it must be signed and dated by Chappie, who was out of town for the Governor’s Hurricane Conference taking place in Palm Beach County May 12-17, according to the clerk’s office.
(Sun reporter Joe Hendricks contributed to this story)
BRADENTON BEACH – Eighty new coconut palms have been delivered and are being planted along Bridge Street.
“This will be a big improvement,” Mayor John Chappie said on April 25. “Many of the existing trees needed to be replaced.”
At an April 3 Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) meeting, the board approved a city partnership with developer Shawn Kaleta in which he will accept responsibility for the maintenance of the trees and donate $10,000 toward the $50,000 cost of the palms and white river rock. The balance will be paid from CRA funds.
With a newly-planted palm in the foreground, workers continued planting in the roundabout. – Leslie Lake | Sun
The 50 large and 30 small coconut palms were harvested in Miami and were delivered to Bradenton Beach on April 23. Planting along Bridge Street and the roundabout intersection on Gulf Drive began shortly after.
At the April 3 meeting, concerns had been raised among CRA members about damage from falling coconuts.
“Liability does concern me,” Chappie said. “But I think it would enhance the Key West-old Island feel on Anna Maria Island.”
Those concerns were alleviated by City Attorney Ricinda Perry, who assured CRA members that Kaleta, through one of his business entities, would sign a contract ensuring the responsibility of tree maintenance and indemnifying the city against liability for damage caused by falling fruit.
“There would be no cost to the city for maintenance of the trees as Mr. Kaleta wants the coconuts, likely for his restaurants,” Chappie said.
According to the University of Florida/IFAS Extension Service website, “Coconuts can grow up to 15 inches long and 12 inches wide, composed of a thick fibrous husk surrounding a spherical nut with a hard, brittle, hairy shell… The coconut palm starts fruiting 6-10 years after the seed germinates and reaches full production at 15-20 years of age. The tree continues to fruit until it is about 80 years old, with an annual production of 50-200 fruits per tree, depending on cultivar and climate. The fruits require about a year to develop and are generally produced regularly throughout the year.”
BRADENTON BEACH – After city officials put a halt to what they said was the unpermitted operation of a new bar at the Bradenton Beach Marina in March, building official Darin Cushing said the proper approval process is now underway.
On March 25, the Marina Facebook page announced the opening of the bar, serving beer and wine.
Cushing said he saw the post and on March 26 issued a cease and desist order, which was posted in the bar area.
“The basis of the cease and desist order was that there was a bar built out in that section of the marina,” Cushing said. “And we said no, don’t work on it, don’t stock it.”
The Bradenton Beach Marina, 402 Church St. is owned by developer Shawn Kaleta.
“I have a fully open door, anytime somebody has an idea for a project and says we’d like to get it going, ask us, ‘What do we need to do? What do we need for permitting? What do we need for drawings?’ Come talk to me ahead of time. Do it that way, then you apply and get approval and then you do the work,” Cushing said.
Since the March 26 order, he said plans and an application to build the bar have been received by his office.
“I met down there with the design professional and one of the fire marshals was there and we discussed what they needed,” Cushing said on April 18. “Yesterday I did my first initial review of the plans and the fire department did their initial review. And we both kicked it back and sent some comments back to the design professional.”
Cushing said he signed off on the marina’s application for a full liquor license.
“They do have a beer and wine license for the marina as a whole and they’re kind of saying that’s all we’re doing right now,” Cushing said. “I did sign the application for the liquor license yesterday or the day before. That’s in the hands of the state. We have to sign it, the health department has to sign it and one other entity before it goes up to the state.”
CORTEZ – After seven years in business as a pub, market and live music venue, Bunny & Pirates Bazaar is closing and will be having a grand finale celebration on Saturday, April 6.
Beginning at 3 p.m., the farewell event will feature live music, food trucks, raffle prizes and a silent auction at 12404 Cortez Road W.
Bunny & Pirates business owners Elizabeth Shore and Jeffrey O’Connell announced the unexpected closing on Facebook on March 16 after lease negotiations stopped with building owner Shawn Kaleta.
The pair opened Bunny & Pirates in 2017 as a coastal store selling new and vintage items, snacks and craft beer. The following year they launched the pub and live music.
In a press release to news outlets, Shore wrote in part: “Announcing that we have been forced to close the venue has been among the most difficult things we have ever endured. We evolved the beer garden over time with the grassroots help of friends and family. Everyone pitched in, and we transformed our outdoor space with many helping hands. There is something special about being part of helping one another. We brought people together around common human needs – a place of belonging and friendship.”
Shore wrote that customers became part of their extended friends and family.
“It’s obvious from the reaction of our community over the last couple of weeks since we announced our sudden closing how much our familiar vibe resonated with so many people,” she wrote. “We became a destination for friends to meet; there is heart and soul in what we created. Our brand developed over time because of the love of our friends and customers.”
Shore characterized Cortez as a sleepy Florida town when Bunny & Pirates first opened.
“Our salty, humble place lets people of all backgrounds let their hair down, grab a music shaker, and enjoy life without pretense. Its absence will be a terrible loss,” Shore wrote. “Yes, change, growth and business are essential, but so are the riches of our history, family values and helping our neighbors.”
Shore wrote that old Florida history is being erased.
“You can’t buy the love and respect that Bunny & Pirates has in our community,” she wrote.
Over the years the pair has managed to overcome numerous business challenges.
“We made it through Hurricane Irma, which delayed our opening, the long red tide in 2018, our first year in business, the 2020 COVID shutdowns during our second anniversary, the resulting 2021 supply chain crisis, the 2022 great resignation, and the 2023 rising inflation prices.”
Bunny & Pirates will close permanently in mid-April, according to Shore.
CORTEZ – The closing of Bunny & Pirates Bazaar is imminent, but not by the choice of owners Elizabeth Shore and Jeffrey O’Connell.
The news of the closing was announced by the two business owners on Facebook on March 16, two days after a notice to vacate was posted on the outer door of the bar and music venue.
“Dearest Friends – It is with heavy yet hopeful hearts we announce that Bunny & Pirates is closing. We decided last year it was time to move on and also to find someone with a passion for music and community to pick up where we left off,” the post read. “Unfortunately, we were not given the opportunity to sell our soulful creation and beloved brand – instead we have been aggressively and cruelly pushed out on short notice without options in the middle of season.”
The building at 12404 Cortez Road W. is owned by Jewfish Landings LLC with developer Shawn Kaleta as manager.
Shore told The Sun by telephone on March 17 that they had been considering selling the business and had spoken to the owner of the property about it but communications suddenly stopped during lease negotiations.
“I feel so naïve because I thought we would be able to work this out,” Shore said.
“We worked so hard to build something special and I’m heartbroken,” Shore told The Sun. “The outpouring of love on social media is a testament to what we’ve built here in the last seven years.”
“We know this comes as much as a surprise to you as it does to us,” the Facebook post continued. “We never imagined not being given the opportunity to find a path forward in Cortez where our magical musical creative space would live on.”
Shore said the venue will continue to be open for a short time and did not have a specific date for its final closing.
“We still have a few shows planned, so there’s a little time,” she said. “We will be having a going away party, but I don’t have a date yet.”
More than 180 comments were posted on Facebook in support of Shore and O’Connell and the uniqueness of the space which consisted of a pub and wine bar, a deli and market and live music in the beer garden out back.
Gord Hunter wrote: “Very sorry to hear this. Our band Northern Exposure has a ton of fond memories playing there. And the open mic helped us build to where we are today. Heartfelt thanks to you both and best wishes.”
“Breaks our hearts as y’all truly represent the Cortezian spirit,” wrote Mick Green.
“You guys were our hidden gem! Bringing unique music to the area that was so different from everywhere else around here! The beer garden was secluded, quaint and personable,” Sharon Chandler wrote.
“We’re losing a lot of old Florida,” Shore said. “The comfortable atmosphere here is what people loved.”
An email request for comment to Bradenton-based Attorney George Najmy, the registered agent for Jewfish Landings LLC, was not responded to by press time.
BRADENTON BEACH – City commissioners approved a bid from Beach to Bay Investments Inc. on March 7 to improve a city parking lot and begin charging for parking.
Request for Proposal 2024-03 pertains to the parking lot between Church and Highland avenues directly across from the city’s Public Works department.
“It is our public works parking lot, it is largely unfinished and was in need of someone to come up with a design,” City Attorney Ricinda Perry said. “We received one bid that came in.”
Developer Shawn Kaleta is president of Beach to Bay Investments Inc.
Perry, Public Works Director Tom Woodard and City Treasurer Shayne Thompson evaluated the bid favorably based on background and experience, references, business plan, financials, bid details and project timeline.
Police Chief John Cosby participated in the evaluation by telephone.
“They came up with 21 standard spots, two ADA and 10 golf cart spots,” Perry said. “My understanding is if the city blesses the plan, they are prepared within a month’s time to get the construction completed on the site for paid parking.”
Three options were presented by the bidder for commission consideration, all with parking lot improvements to be made at the bidder’s cost.
1) A payment to the city of $48,000 per year;
2) A $24,000 lump sum payment annually to the city and 25% of the proceeds from the paid parking;
3) A 50/50 split of parking proceeds.
Perry said she, Woodard, Thompson and Cosby were leaning toward the second option, as it will provide guaranteed income to the city.
“We like that blended model, but this is all in your court to do anything you want,” Perry said.
Beach to Bay Investments asked for a lease term of 15 years and will provide insurance and indemnification, Perry said.
“The city needs flexibility, being committed for 15 years with no out is something that needs to be looked at by the city,” Perry said.
Sam Negrin, who represents Beach to Bay, spoke at the meeting.
“We own the property next door, the Bradenton Beach Marina,” Negrin said. “Part of our proposal was we’d like to offer nighttime security, 24/7 security to this parking lot as well.”
Negrin said the bidder is flexible as to terms.
“That 15 years, we might want to look at more of a trial period, less than 15, that’s for sure,” Mayor John Chappie said. “We’d like to look at a cap on what we charge per hour.”
Pricing would change during the time of the year, Negrin said.
“I think there needs to be a shorter term so we can make adjustments along the way, if need be,” Commissioner Ralph Cole said.
Cole questioned the ability of the city to track revenue and Perry said the city would have the right to audit.
Commissioner Jan Vosburgh asked what the parking rates would be and Negrin said that was open to discussion with the city.
“That’s something we could certainly put a cap on,” Negrin said. “I don’t know what we’re going to charge there yet. The lot across from Beach House charges $5-$10 an hour, so I think it will be somewhere in that range.”
Cole said he would like to know what the hourly charges are in order to make a determination as to which plan to accept.
“I like what I’m hearing so far,” Chappie said. “The security, the nighttime cameras, that’s big.”
Commissioners discussed the three revenue options as well as proposed lease terms and an exit plan for the city.
“I do take into consideration we’re getting the parking lot redone and that’s worth a nice chunk of money,” Chappie said. “I’m sure in the negotiation we’ll have a figure they’d like to recoup if we decide to part ways.”
The commission agreed to a five-year lease with options to renew twice at five years each.
Cole said he was in favor of the 50/50 split option.
“I’m fine with the 50/50 split,” Chappie said.
“If you charge $5 that’s $500 for eight hours – that’s good money,” Cole said.
Vosburgh agreed to the 50/50 split.
A fully negotiated contract will be presented at the next commission meeting, Perry said.
“A motion to accept the recommendation to evaluate Beach to Bay as the number one bidder for RFP 2024-03 public parking and to select Beach to Bay for parking services under RFP 2024-03 and to direct the city attorney to prepare a contract with Beach to Bay,” was read by Perry and was approved unanimously by commissioners.
Commissioner Marilyn Maro telephoned into the meeting.
BRADENTON BEACH – The proposed hotel/restaurant/retail project on Bridge Street is a go, with 106 rooms, a 60-seat restaurant, 5,396 square feet of retail space and 154 on-site parking spaces.
At the end of a four-hour city commission public hearing on Thursday night in which revisions to parking and hotel design were presented, commissioners voted unanimously to approve the project.
Following a Nov. 13 recommendation by the city Planning and Zoning Board, the Dec. 7 hearing was the second public hearing at which commissioners considered three items: A major development consisting of a resort hotel, restaurant, retail space and parking; recommendations from the Planning and Zoning Board; and the second reading of Ordinance 23-552 establishing a Planned Development Overlay District.
“I want to tell the commission that this is a dream of mine,” co-applicant Shawn Kaleta said at the hearing. “We care deeply about the Island. This will be an aesthetically pleasing high-end luxury resort.”
Kaleta and his co-applicant, Jacob Spooner, were represented by attorney Stephen Thompson of Najmy Thompson, architect Shaun Luttrell, planner Susan Swift and traffic engineer Jay Calhoun. Spooner is a Bradenton Beach City Commissioner and recused himself from the hearings.
DESIGN CHANGES
At their first public hearing on Nov. 16, commissioners expressed concern about the design of the hotel, specifically a lack of balconies and covered pedestrian areas, along with a shortage of parking. The applicants’ team came prepared on Dec. 7 with a number of changes to the design.
“At the last hearing your comments were heard loud and clear,” Luttrell said.
Luttrell’s new plans consisted of the addition of an 8-foot covered walkway, bike racks, balconies and additional on-site parking with 38 dedicated spots for a lift system. The parking lift elevates a vehicle hydraulically on a platform, creating space for another vehicle to park underneath. Valets will park vehicles on the lifts.
“With the lift system, this brings us up to 154 spots, which is 10% above what is required,” Luttrell said. The previous parking plan had 99 designated parking spaces.
In a Dec. 5 email to City Planner Luis Serna from Luttrell, the following stipulations were proposed by the applicants in response to commission concerns from the Nov. 16 hearing:
• “Gulf Drive Setback – We will abide by the 15-foot building from the property line along Gulf Drive setback in lieu of the previously proposed 10-foot and 20-foot staggered building setbacks;
• Bridge Street Pedestrian Experience – Feedback was well received and we will pursue a covered walkway at the ground level to allow a more pedestrian-friendly experience, free from the elements. This will still allow pedestrians along Bridge Street to utilize the private property of the hotel to access the shops along Bridge Street;
• Bridge Street Activity/Engagement – Again, feedback from the commissioners was impactful. Accordingly, we will pursue a series of balconies at all guest suites to improve the social interaction between the hotel rooms and Bridge Street.”
Commissioner Jan Vosburgh asked about the timeline for the project.
“The sooner the better,” Kaleta said. “I have my demo crews mobilized.”
Demolition on Joe’s Eats and Sweets on Gulf Drive began on Monday.
PROJECT SIZE CONCERNS
Commissioner Ralph Cole expressed concern about the Land Development Code and city Comprehensive Plan that state that 18 units per acre are allowable. The 106-unit hotel will be on 1.61 acres. He also expressed concern and questioned whether the rooftop pool area would boost the building into four stories, in excess of the allowable three stories.
“I want to approve this, but I want to make sure I’m not changing the face of Bradenton Beach,” Cole said.
Swift and city staff addressed Cole’s concerns.
“I think the confusion is because the city’s code uses many terms for different kinds of units in the Bridge Street overlay,” Swift said. “Your code is challenging. It specifically says commercial uses, allowable uses – this is on Bridge Street – equal hotel, motel, bar, restaurant, retail etc. So I think what’s causing the confusion of the 18 units per acre, that is not the right measure. That talks about timesharing, Airbnb, those kinds of units which are more residentially designed so that is why they used 18 units per acre. This is a hotel, an integrated building, not with separate entrances. They’re not residential units that are being used for renting.”
As commercial buildings are measured by floor area ratio, Swift said the hotel project is well within those guidelines.
Building official Steve Gilbert cited the Florida Building Code, which confirmed that a rooftop-level pool deck is not considered a fourth story.
Kaleta said that he owns 12 lots on the property that could be built with 10 units each with a total of 240 bedrooms.
“That is substantial density,” Kaleta said. “We have eliminated roughly 150 units (with the hotel).”
“We understand what could be there,” Mayor John Chappie said.
Hotel project co-applicant Shawn Kaleta addresses the city commission at the Dec. 7 hearing on his hotel/restaurant/retail project. – Leslie Lake | Sun
While there was no public comment session during the second hearing, Bob Bolus, a Bradenton Beach property owner who has been a vocal opponent of the hotel, stood up during the meeting and told commissioners the hotel is a mistake.
Chappie told Bolus he was out of order and two police officers stepped forward. Bolus left the meeting without further incident.
“This is going to court,” Bolus said following the hearing, adding that he plans to file a lawsuit to stop the project.
Prior to the commission vote, Thompson addressed commissioners.
“We’re going to meet all of your parking requirements,” he said. “You have a rare opportunity for a quality project on Bradenton Beach.”
Thompson urged the commission to make a decision.
“We need an answer. We need a decision,” he said.
Kaleta also addressed the commission prior to the vote.
“I’m here to get an answer,” he said. “I have to make a business decision in a timely manner. We’re coming into season and I have to remove one building. I can’t do that until there is a commission approval or denial.”
Demolition on the former Joe’s Eats and Sweets building began Dec. 11. – Leslie Lake | Sun
Commissioners Cole, Vosburgh and Chappie, along with Commissioner Marilyn Maro voted unanimously to approve the project. Maro, who has been absent with excuse from the commission meetings since January, voted by telephone.
One stipulation of approval is that applicants will split 50/50 any cost associated with any litigation the city may incur related to the approval of the project. Also, the city would be held harmless for any damage caused by the lifts in the parking garage.
The commission also adopted two recommended stipulations for the Planning and Zoning Board – the hotel will have blackout curtains and educational information about sea turtles and the prevention of ambient lighting from rooms facing the beach, and the applicants shall provide an easement to the trash receptacles serving the Daiquiri Deck property at 107 Bridge St. and grant an easement for the use of the hotel’s dumpsters.
BRADENTON BEACH – It’s all in the hands of city commissioners now.
Following a unanimous recommendation for approval from the city Planning and Zoning Board, the future of a 106-room hotel/restaurant/retail project on Bridge Street and Gulf Drive will be decided by the city commission.
The 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.
After a 6.5-hour public hearing on Nov. 13, P&Z board members John Burns, Fred Bartizal, Ken McDonough, Dan Morhaus and Bill Morrow voted in favor of two separate motions, with conditions attached to their approval. One motion approved the establishment of a Planned Development Overlay District in the C-1 and C-2 district and the second approved the Major Development Plan Application.
The following conditions were recommended for both motions:
City commission approval of the major development plan/site plan accompanying the application;
Development of the property shall be consistent with the major development plan;
Consensus by the commission that the use of the hotel top deck is limited to hotel staff and guests and will not offer food or beverage service;
Consensus by the commission that live entertainment, food and beverages would only be allowed or permitted through a special event permit, approved by the city commission;
Guest drop-off, check-in and check-out shall be accommodated within the first level of the parking garage;
Applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the building official that the loading area can accommodate deliveries from a semi-trailer in order to receive a building permit;
Applicant cannot use any parking spaces wholly or partially on public rights of way to meet parking requirements;
To the extent that the applicant cannot accommodate or seeks to reduce the number of parking spaces, the applicant shall use the special use permit process;
The applicant shall provide landscaping and physical barriers to the existing landscape easement along Gulf Drive.
City staff had also recommended that the hotel be furnished with blackout curtains and educational materials about the protection of sea turtles and prevention of lighting from rooms facing the beach and that the applicants provide an easement for access to the trash receptacles at Daiquiri Deck at 107 Bridge St.
Density vs. Floor area ratio
A disagreement between land use experts on allowable criteria – density versus floor area ratio – for the hotel was put to rest from the city’s perspective by City Planner Luis Serna.
Misty Servia, former Manatee County commissioner and a certified land use planner with 34 years of experience, said on Nov. 1 that the city’s comprehensive plan limits hotel density to just 18 units per acre.
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 106-room project 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.
Susan Swift, AICE certified planner, representing the project applicants, disputed Servia’s claim that 18 units per acre applies to hotels.
“That density is meant for residential,” Swift said. “We don’t use units per acre, we use Floor Area Ratio for commercial use.”
Serna said that because the hotel is commercial, the floor area ratio standard applies.
“It is my opinion that the application as proposed is within the PD (planned development) guidelines of the code and the comp plan specifically with regard to density,” Serna said. “As a PD, they can request more density.”
Serna noted the city has taken that position with other planned developments approved recently.
“There’s language in the comp plan that states a hotel is commercial and therefore is subject to floor area ratio rather than density,” Serna said. “Based on that, it’s our opinion they can proceed with the requested density as part of the PD.”
Morhaus questioned the guidelines in the comprehensive plan that allow for just 18 units per acre.
“They can vary setbacks as part of a planned development and density is part of that,” Serna said. “They amend or present their own standards of development and that’s what the PD drawings are for. It’ll be to approve this specific plan of development. That’s within the bounds of the comp plan and the code.”
Applicant rebuttal
The applicants were represented by Bradenton land use attorney Stephen Thompson of the Najmy-Thompson law firm, architect Shaun Luttrell, traffic engineer Jay Calhoun and Swift.
Luttrell presented a Nov. 9 memorandum summarizing the applicant’s response to planning and zoning concerns and questions from the Nov. 1 meeting.
In that memorandum, Luttrell proposed that 17 parking spaces along Third Street be counted toward the off-street parking tabulation, offered free public parking in nine of the 17 parking spots with direct access from Third Street and offered that the applicant open the hotel parking lot to the public as paid valet parking.
In the parking tabulation, there were 140 parking spaces required for the hotel, open-air restaurant, putt-putt golf and retail. Applicants requested a 29.1% parking exception, lowering the number of provided spots to 99. Luttrell also said that in an attempt to limit the number of hotel guests with cars, a credit voucher toward local retail will be provided to those who use rideshare services or taxi to and from the airport.
Board members expressed concerns about parking, particularly the use of public spaces on Third Street and hotel check-in spaces on Bridge Street, noise from the rooftop deck, traffic and delivery and garbage truck clearances.
A public hearing in front of the city commission on the hotel project is scheduled on Thursday, Dec. 7 at 6 p.m. at the Katie Pierola Commission Chambers, 107 Gulf Drive.
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.
The applicants are proposing a 106-room hotel along Bridge Street. – City of Bradenton Beach | Submitted
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.
Commissioner Jan Vosburgh, Mayor John Chappie and Commissioner Ralph Cole hear testimony at the Nov. 16 public hearing on the proposed hotel. – Leslie Lake | Sun
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.”
Prior to participating in public comment, speakers are sworn in at the Nov. 16 public hearing on the proposed hotel. – Leslie Lake | Sun
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.
BRADENTON BEACH – In the second Planning and Zoning Board public hearing on a proposed 106-room hotel project, the board today unanimously recommended that Bradenton Beach commissioners approve the project with conditions.
The property on Bridge Street and Gulf Drive South, owned by Shawn Kaleta, a local developer, and Jacob Spooner, a Bradenton Beach city commissioner, would also feature a 60-seat restaurant, 2,485 square feet of retail space and 99 parking spaces.
Monday’s six-hour hearing was a continuation of a Nov. 1 meeting where P&Z members raised questions about parking, potential water shortages and traffic impacts. Twelve people voiced their opposition, with 13 additional emails received in opposition to the project. One Bradenton Beach homeowner indicated that he is prepared to file a lawsuit if the project is approved.
The Bradenton Beach Commission will discuss the project on Thursday, Nov. 16 at noon.
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.
Some public hearing attendees stood outside city hall and listened to the hearing through an outdoor speaker because the commission chambers were full. – Joe Hendricks | Sun
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.
This architectural drawing included in the planning board meeting packet refers to the proposed resort hotel as ‘The Bridge Hotel.’ – City of Bradenton Beach | Submitted
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 Fred Bartizal, John Burns, Bill Morrow and Dan Morhaus reviewed the proposed hotel plans. – Joe Hendricks | Sun
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 vacant former Freckled Fin property and the vacant former Joe’s Eats & Sweets property are part of the applicants’ planned development overlay district rezoning request. – Joe Hendricks | SunShawn Kaleta’s Bridge Street Resort LLC owns the Island Time Inn on Bridge Street that would be demolished to make room for the new hotel. – Joe Hendricks | Sun
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.”
Bradenton Beach Building Official Steve Gilbert, left, and City Planner Luis Serna, right, recommend approval of the proposed hotel project. – Joe Hendricks | Sun
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.
The proposed resort hotel plans include a rooftop deck and swimming pool. – City of Bradenton Beach | Submitted
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?”
Planning and Zoning Board member Dan Morhaus is concerned about the applicants’ request to reduce the project’s total parking requirements. – Joe Hendricks | Sun
“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.
Planning and Zoning Board member John Burns wants to know exactly how many hotel parking spaces the applicants propose and how many parking spaces the city’s land development code could require. – Joe Hendricks | Sun
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.
The 17 proposed hotel parking spaces along Third Street South, shown at the bottom of this illustration, would be partially located on the city-owned right of way. – City of Bradenton Beach | Submitted
“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.
During the hearing, attorney David Blum, left, represented Bradenton Beach condo owner and part-time resident Bob Bolus, right, and a group of citizens who oppose the proposed hotel. – Joe Hendricks | Sun
“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.
Attorney David Blum presented a copy of a Bridge Street hotel-related Facebook comment that City Attorney Ricinda “liked” with a thumbs-up emoji. – Joe Hendricks | SunOn Dec. 22, City Attorney Ricinda Perry posted this Facebook comment at the Island Ratz Unite Facebook page in response to other comments that were critical of the newly-proposed hotel project. – Facebook | Submitted
“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.”
Certified land use planner Misty Servia said the city’s comprehensive plan limits hotel/motel/transient units to 18 units per gross acre. – Joe Hendricks | Sun
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.
On behalf of himself and other Capri Condo owners, Colorado-based architect Steve Steinbicker expressed the group’s opposition to the proposed hotel. The Bradenton Beach condo that he shares ownership of is advertised as an Airbnb vacation rental and is registered with the city as a vacation rental. – Joe Hendricks | SunLongtime Bradenton Beach resident Jim Hassett spoke in support of the proposed resort hotel. – Joe Hendricks | Sun
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.
Architect Shaun Luttrell and attorney Stephen Thompson represent property owners and project applicants Shawn Kaleta and Jake Spooner. Kaleta and Spooner did not attend the public hearing. – Joe Hendricks | Sun
“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.”
Planning and Zoning Board member Fred Bartizal posed questions about hotel access for delivery trucks and garbage trucks and the use of city-owned rights of way for hotel-affiliated parking spaces. – Joe Hendricks | Sun
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.”
The Fudge Factory and Fish Hole miniature golf properties owned by Jake Spooner’s Bridge Street Bazaar Inc. are included in the hotel plans.- Joe Hendricks | Sun
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.
Certified land use planner Susan Swift said the number of hotel rooms allowed should be based on the commercial development’s floor area ratio and not the 18 units per acre stated in the city’s comp plan. – Joe Hendricks | Sun
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)
BRADENTON BEACH – Pines Trailer Park mobile home residents will experience significant rent increases that will take effect Jan. 1, in some cases more than doubling their lot rent, according to a letter sent by developers.
The waterfront mobile park was recently purchased by Pines Park Investors LLC, which lists developer Shawn Kaleta as the LLC’s manager and attorney Louis Najmy as its registered agent. On Aug. 24, Pines Park Investors entered into an $8.25 million mortgage and security agreement with The Jackson Partnership LLLP as part of the LLC’s $16.25 million park purchase.
Dated Sept. 29 and sent to all homeowners in the park, the notification letter says, “Pursuant to Florida Statutes and the Florida Administrative Code, this serves as 90-day notice of an increase in the lot rental amount for Pines Trailer Park. This increase in the lot rental amount for base rent will be effective Jan. 1, 2024.”
The monthly rent for waterfront lots in the Pines Trailer Park will increase $850 per month. – Joe Hendricks | SunThe letter includes a price increase chart that shows the base lot rent for a standard lot, with the exception of lots #37 and #65, will increase by $575 per month, rising from $625 to $1,200 per month. The base lot rent for lots #37 and #65 will increase $580 per month, rising from $620 to $1,200 per month. Base lot rent for water-view lots will increase by $725 per month, rising from $625 to $1,350 per month. Base lot rent for waterfront lots will increase by $850 per month, rising from $625 to $1,475 per month.
Many Pines Trailer Park homeowners and residents are retirees who live on fixed incomes. The pending rent increases may make it difficult for some of them to remain in their homes. None approached by The Sun were willing to discuss the issue.
