Good morning everyone and welcome to the Braden City Council meeting Wednesday, May 13, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. in City Hall Council Chambers. As we always do, we'll start out our meeting with an invocation and a pledge and Pastor Don Steriano
with Kingdom Life Christian Church and chaplain for the city of Bradenon. Everyone, please stand. Thank you. >> Would you bow your heads, please? Father, thank you for our city, our leaders, every department head, every agency. We just bless them. We thank you
specifically today for public works and all that they do. It's important. It's a big deal. Father, I'm just reminded of Proverbs chapter 29:2 that says, "When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice." So, thank you, Father, for a city that honors you. Bless this meeting. Bless
all of the decisions that are made and guide them and give them the wisdom of Christ and his mind of the spirit in Jesus name. And everyone said, "Amen." >> Amen. >> Amen. >> Please join us in the pledge. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic
for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> Thank you. >> And remind everybody, if you could please silence any devices you have, we
would appreciate it. >> At this time, we'll call the meeting to order. Madame Clerk, >> the first item on the agenda is a proclamation for National Public Works Week, May 17th through the 23rd, 2026,
rooted in service powered by community. Whereas public works and utilities professionals are dedicated to developing, maintaining, and improving infrastructure, facilities, and services that are vital to the sustainability,
resilience, and continued growth of the city of Bradenton, and essential to public health, safety, high quality of life, and well-being of our community. And whereas these critical infrastructure systems, facilities, and services are made possible through the
tireless and dedicated efforts of public works and utilities professionals, including maintenance staff, field workers, engineers, managers, and employees at all levels of government and the private sector who are responsible for rebuilding, improving,
protecting, and safeguarding our nation's transportation systems, water supply, water treatment, solid waste management systems, public buildings and other vital structures and facilities. And whereas it is in the public interest
of the citizens, civic leaders and youth of the city of Bradenton to gain knowledge of, maintain an ongoing interest in, and fully appreciate the importance and impact of public works and utilities programs within their community. And whereas the year 2026
marks the 66th annual National Public Works Week sponsored by the American Public Works Association. Now therefore, be it resolved that I, Gene Brown, as mayor of the city of Bradenton, Florida, do hereby proclaim May 17th through the 23rd, 2026 as
National Public Works Week, and urge all citizens to join with representatives of the American Public Works Association and local government agencies in activities, events, and ceremonies designed to recognize and pay tribute to our public works and utilities
professionals, engineers, managers, and employees and to honor the substantial contributions they make to protect public health, ensure safety, and advance the quality of life for all. Signed, Jean Brown, Mayor. >> Thank you. And who do we have accepting
this today? We might as well get everyone else to start walking up now and stand behind >> and a team of friends. >> Bring all our team of friends up. I'll start organizing >> line up behind him and then we'll turn around in a second.
>> Turn. >> Colonel, do you want to say something first in general? >> Good morning, mayor. >> Good morning. >> Lead director of public works and utilities. >> You're going to have to articulate a little bit louder. little
>> the the word community >> is is in this year's theme and and it reflects not only the the community we serve but the community and the partnership with within public works. You heard all the different categories of of folks who who
make up our team. Uh but the teamwork that that we display uh to working together to provide service to the community is is at at just the the heart of uh what we're celebrating here next week. >> Thank you. We appreciate you guys. Let's
give him a round of applause and we'll get a picture. >> Mr. Perry, >> did you guys >> squeeze together? Mr. Perry's got something to say as well. >> Mayor, I and council, I just want to take a minute to to recognize these
folks and and the job they do for the community, for the administration, for the council, and uh the totality of Bradenton. Our city has about 600 employees. Out of that 600, about 275 of those employees, so almost half of them
are uh within the public works and utilities department. And what you don't see a lot of times is what maybe you only see one piece of it is what they have to do. And and and you know, it's a mix really of hard labor work where you'll see people underground with
shovels, with equipment, you'll see engineers basically trying to figure things out with with very technical expertise. Um you'll see you know the issue regarding safety with people in in aerial positions and again people underground and it's just it's an
amazing to watch these folks work and if you want an appreciation of watching people work and how they do things they do it with passion with intelligence with caring just take an hour and watch any of these divisions within it work whether it's solid waste or or whether
it's even street you know we see downtown action team. Every morning we come in to work, right? And just they do such a good job and it's it's almost a thankless job because we expect it almost as citizens and it's good that we do, but that's who delivers the bacon
who's in front of us and I my hat goes off to them. We do what we can to support them. Um we do what we can to basically provide them the resources necessary. And Lord forbid when you see it in in terrible um conditions like hurricanes,
boy, the complexity of incident control and command of this unit for the city to button down the hatch and to and to be able to cover recover afterwards. Um it's it it's an honor to to see it. It really is and I would put them up against anybody um in their in their
field. And so I think it's a great recognition. >> Thank you, Mr. Perry. Councilwoman Barnaby. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And I've said this before and I'll say it again. Our citizens may never need to call a
police officer. They may never have a fire and need the fire department. They may never get a building permit. They may never um need to set up a business account for for their business when with the billless. However,
every citizen that we have wants to see their toilet flush every day. Every citizen that we have wants their garbage picked up. Every citizen we have wants to drive on a safe street.
So, you all, maybe you don't realize it, but you all are the face of the city to all of our residents. and we thank you for your integrity, your hard work, and your dedication to our community.
>> Mr. >> Yes, ma'am. >> I'm going to keep it simple. The friendly city, you are the ambassadors of the friendly city. You make it the friendly city. And we appreciate you.
>> And we're not going to go back two years, but we're going to go back two years coming into hurricane season. Um, it was an honor obviously then and for all of you for for us up here and the elected officials as well as the citizens on that Saturday morning when
we met with administration and said, "Can we get people to come up on Sunday morning after as uh probably the the two of you had flooding in your houses, one of them more than others, and just got back in it. but to get a crew of 20 on
Sunday morning to start the cleanup over on Riverside Drive East and around there >> at 6 a.m. >> at 6:00 a.m. and just an honor to have worked with you at that point and continuing to work with you and that's what's uh what's made this job easier
and what people see and just I know some of you have moved into different positions that uh could pick up actually pick up a dime off the ground with that claw truck. It's amazing to see what you do and uh every day and thank goodness
we didn't have anything last year, but we're ready this year if something happens to protect our citizens. So, thank you very much and we all do it. Mr. Williams. >> Yeah. I just I mean obviously everybody said very positive things and and and I echo all of that. I just want to say
real quickly, I've been able to work with a lot of these a lot of these folks shoulder-to-shoulder and very proud to be a part of their team and support anything that they that they do for our citizens. But I much like Mr. Perry said, I would put our group up against
any other public works group anywhere quite frankly. The dedication, the heart, and the soul this group has. >> Yes. >> Very proud of this group. Very much so. >> Thank you very much. And >> right there, >> let's get a picture. We probably should have had David bring in the drone to get the whole picture.
>> Um I think I got a short >> Yeah. Let's Let's >> You got me switch. >> No, I want you to turn a little bit that way. >> You know, do the 45 thing like like Rob always tells us, right? >> Yes. >> Thank you. Thank you.
>> Found it. Taking one out. >> Okay. If that works for you, >> it'll have to work till they're ready. >> Yeah. You got to make light of things when you're there. >> Yeah. That's like the small stuff >> NP.
>> Yep. >> Madame clerk, >> our next proclamation today is Military Recognition Day, May 25th, 2026. Whereas the city of Bradenton proudly recognizes the men and women of the
United States Armed Forces who have served and continue to serve in defense of our nation. And whereas the sacrifices made by service members and their families safeguard the freedom enjoyed by all citizens. And whereas US Army Specialist Nicholas
Panapinto, a 20-year-old Bradenton resident, honorably served his country as an infantryman with the first cavalry division and tragically lost his life in November 2019 during a training exercise
in South Korea. And whereas while his life was cut short, Specialist Panipinto's service and sacrifice continue to inspire efforts to honor all those who wear the uniform and to ensure their legacy is never forgotten. And
whereas Heather Christy, Specialist Panapinto's aunt, seeks to establish and sponsor a military recognition banner program that will display the photographs, branch of service, and period of service of local military members and veterans throughout the
city. And whereas this program will serve as a visible and enduring tribute, fostering community pride, historical awareness, and gratitude for the contributions of our local heroes. And whereas the city of Bradenton commends
Miss Christie for her vision and dedication in establishing the banner program and recognizes this initiative is a meaningful way to honor and remember the service of our military members and veterans. Now therefore, be it resolved that I,
Gene Brown, as mayor of the city of Bradenton, Florida, do hereby proclaim May 25th, 2026 as Military Recognition Day, and urge all citizens, businesses, and community organizations to participate in and support this banner
program, ensuring that the legacy of service and sacrifice is visibly preserved for generations to come. Signed, Gan Brown, Mayor. >> Thank you. Who do we have coming forward? Mr. Washington and family.
>> Good morning everyone. >> Good morning. >> Morning. Good morning everyone. >> If you can get as close to the microphone that way you can pull it down a little bit if you want. >> Thank you so much. Good morning. I'm Heather Christie. I'm Nicholas's aunt. This is my brother Anthony Panipinto,
Nicholas's father. I just wanted to show you all an example of the military banners that will be hopefully going up. >> Yes. >> Oh, that's >> and we have we can make any changes we want to and
tweak things as we get this up and running. And thank you so much. This means the world to my family. >> We want to make sure the banner is two-sided so when we put them up Yeah. because they can see it from both sides on our polls. >> Okay. you know, when we want to make
sure it's correct. >> Something like this going in and out of town. I've seen this all over the United States, but we haven't had it in place yet. So, my family was just thinking >> how wonderful that would be to support
our military members. And just um from the city standpoint and a personal standpoint on mine um when we had the procession from Tampa or Tampa airport and back, it showed how people
do support this country and and honor things that happened in this case. And it was still gives me um that feeling of driving down and seeing all of the thousands of people in Hillsboro, Pineellis, Skyway Bridge all the way
down Manatee Avenue. So, um the sacrifice was large, but the love of the country is there. So, anything we can do >> that was >> just absolutely breathtaking. It meant so much to us. >> Yeah, that was that was an amazing >> It was a a real um >> bittersweet. >> Yeah.
>> Loving moment in all of that. Thank you so much. >> Thank you. Yes, Vice Mayor Coker, >> I just wanted to say, of course, thank you. But you said that this would mean the world to your family, but your sacrifice means the world to our country.
>> So, thank you. It's as a grateful American. >> Thank you so much. >> So, let's get a picture and you guys can stand in the middle there and hold it up and then we'll all stand behind you. Thank you. >> Thank you very much.
Madame clerk, >> our next proclamation is for Alpha Delta Pi 175th anniversary day and I believe Councilwoman Barnaby will be reading that this morning. >> Yes. Just give me just a second. My niece was actually in JRTC
>> with Nick. Yeah. Alpha Delta Pi 175th anniversary day May 15th, 2026. Whereas Alpha Delta Pi celebrates their 150th 175th, excuse me, anniversary of the
founding of their sisterhood on May 15th, 2026. Alpha Delta Pi was the first secret sorority for college women to achieve this major milestone. Whereas founded in 1851 at the Wesleyan
College in Mon Georgia by Genia Tucker, the first college chartered to grant degrees to women in the world. And whereas the organization's core values represent sisterhood, service,
character, and knowledge. Their motto of be the first represents their commitment to fostering a supportive community and helping women reach their full potential through leadership, education, and philanthropic opportunities.
And whereas Alpha Delta Pi has 161 active collegian chapters with 11 chapters in Florida representing approximately 2,200 Florida undergraduate members. And whereas the members have a long-standing history of being committed to giving
back to their community through their primary philanthropic partnership with Ronald McDonald House. They have partnered with the Ronald McDonald House since 1979, serving as one of the oldest corporate partners to support families with
hospitalized children. The sorority has contributed over $24.5 million and supports roughly 40% of the Ronald McDonald House chapters through fundraising, volunteer work, and inind
donations. Now therefore, be it resolved that I, Gene Brown, as mayor of the city of Bradenon, Florida, do hereby proclaim May 15, 2026 as Alpha Delta Pi 175th anniversary day and urge all citizens to
extend congratulations to their members for their philanthropic endeavors to enrich our community and we wish them continued success and it is signed by Mayor Jeene Brown. >> Thank you. Who? We have somebody here.
>> We do. >> You'd like to say something, please come forward. >> Good morning. >> Hi. Good morning. Um, so um, Lee Yao and myself, Leslie Rogers, we're just really grateful for your recognition. Um you
can see that we are not the collegians that you mentioned but there are thousands of alumni members like us that are active in various ways whether it's keeping you know paying paying dues as as alums or um volunteering with collegiate chapters to keep them strong
or just getting together um as we plan to do with others um on Friday for lunch and just you know um celebrate these milestones um um and our sisterhood. I do think as someone that as a collegiate
member that gave towards the Ronald McDonald House supporting it as a fundraiser to then come back and actually receive the benefit when I've had a child in the hospital at all children to be able to stay affordably at the Ronald McDonald
House and to also receive meals within the hospital that it is very heartwarming to me to know that what I had supported as a collegiate has benefited my family sense. Thank you. >> So, I do strongly support >> what we've done.
>> We appreciate it. Can we get a picture? >> Sure. >> And turn around. We'll all stand up here. Thank you very much. Madame clerk, >> the we do not have any presentations this morning. Mr. Mayor, >> thank you. At this time, we're going to go to citizen comment. Citizen comment
will be accepted during the citizen comment portion of the meeting on any non-aggenda items, agenda items, future agenda item, or topic of relevance to the city. comments will be accepted on the public hearings at the appropriate time. So, at this time, I only have one
that is a a general citizen comment, and that's Ron Nerburgger. Come forward and please state your name and your city of residence or your county residence and then uh you'll have three minutes. Thank you.
I'm Ron Nerburgger, um, Bradington resident, also the president of the Bradington Shuffle Board Club at 1525 Ballard Park Drive in Bradington. Our club has been a part of this community for 103 years. We have served
generations of not only seniors, but whomever wishes to play. And even though I stood here a year ago when city informed us that they'd be closing our facility by March of 2028, as of yet today, there is no replacement
plan or coordination with Manatee County for a replacement facility. I would consider it a travesty if the city simply let this club evaporate. Time is running out. Last week, I addressed the county commissioners as well. They also
have not taken action. That is exactly why I'm asking today for the city and county together to identify resolve to this issue. There are multiple parks in the county where a facility could be placed such as the new development near
LMCO Park, GT Bray, Bennett Park, or Premier Sports Complex in Lakewood Ranch. And with the millions of dollars now being spent for new recreation ail facilities, money doesn't seem to be an object. Our Bradington
Club hosts national, state, and local tournaments. We have over 100 members and play year round. We are also the home of the Southwest Coast District Hall of Fame, as well as its 103-year-old historical library. These
also need to be preserved at a new site. The value of shuffle board is three-fold. One, social interaction. Two, it is a sport for those who wish a more competitive nature or just for fun. And three, it is less physically
demanding, thus providing a venue for all a for all ages. If the city and county want to be known for and advertise for a full menu of recreational activities and for current and re future residents, then a facility
for shuffleboard play is just as important as pickle ball, tennis, baseball, or horseshoes. Therefore, again, I respectfully ask the council to begin identifying potential relocation sites, funding, and initiate a joint
discussion with Manatee County. I hope to hear from you soon and wish to be part of those discussions. And before my closing, I was just texted before I came up here that Lee County is dedicating their new shuffleboard
facility, which is really fantastic in North Fort Myers. If you're looking for an example, in closing, let me just say this. This is not an issue about blame. To me, this is an issue about responsibility.
Thank you. >> Thank you. I have no other general citizen comment. So, we'll close the this part of the citizen comment portion. Um,
Mr. Nunberg, I before you leave, I just want to address some of the things that were were talked about there. We have came up with several alternatives that um through our CRA, through our county, our city staff, the county, but there
has been places identified and we've also came up with some funding to help move and do things. So to say that we haven't done anything is just not true. And we've been working with them, you know, to al get them funding. We've got a private donation for them and we found
courts that they would meet uh that would meet their needs in a building, but it's it's, you know, in another mobile home park and it would have to be worked in collaboration together, but there's been several meetings and that has been talked about. So, we're still
trying to work, you know, with them and help them, but you know, that's kind of where it's at now and we will continue to do that. So, thank you. Um, at this time, anybody have other comments? All right. Thank you. Um, at this time, I'm
going to, um, let me get my glasses on here. Going to go ahead and move up. Um, eight, which is new business, and nine, which is unfinished business before we do consent agenda. So, madame clerk, if we could read those in at this time.
>> Item 8A is the Bradenton Riverwalk Half Marathon. >> Okay. Good morning. >> Good morning. >> I am Kelly Thomas, the event review committee coordinator. Uh we're bringing one application for you to look at today and it is the Brmpton Riverwalk um half
marathon to be held on February 28th, 2027. Uh the reason we're bringing it before you today is because it will require FDOT approval to close the bridge. City of Palmetto approval as well. So, it's going to be a three three approval
process. So, as I've said before, FDOT does not accept any approvals on consent agenda. So, that's why you're reviewing this one individually. They do have an expectation about 270 people participating. Um, this is an event that they had tried
to do last or this particular year that was not able they were not able to get the approvals in time. So, they're going to try it again. So I think they have a better understanding now of what they have to do to actually approve this event. So anyway, uh it is going to go over the BR Green Bridge and it circle
around on the Palmetto Pier and come back down on Riverwalk. So we're looking for approval for that today. Do you have any questions? >> Any questions of Miss Thomas? Mr. Perry, you did have a chance as normal to go over the agenda with all council members. >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. So questions could have been
answered early, but is there anything or the chair will entertain a motion to approve? >> I'll make a motion to approve. I can't see >> review committee. Okay, so we got a motion by Vice Mayor Coker. Is there a second? >> Second.
>> Second by Kemp Shusler, Councilman. Um, any further discussion? Hearing none, we'll start the vote in ward four. >> Yes. >> Five. >> Yes. >> One, >> yes. two. >> Yes. >> Three. >> Yes. >> Carries five to zero. Thank you very
much, >> Madame Clerk. I guess we'll go to Mr. Perry on the next. >> Thank you, Mayor Councel. Um on item 8B as advanced in the agenda, this basically calls for the contract and purchase of of and sale basically of um
a parcel of property related to Tropicana. the council remembers and it's outlined fairly in detail within the agenda memo. We had purchased um a combination of two parcels um related to Tropicana
um properties which they had offered for sale. Um it was a 28.4 acre parcel divided by by 9inth Street East and on the other side of that was 4.2 two acres and as determined by our
architects when we've done the site plan development um the intention of of of the purchase was to place public works and the various divisions within public works on that Tropicana site. So we did a very detailed site plan as how we would construct that, lay it out, design
it and the like. and it became apparent that the the parcel that was on the east side of Ninth Street was really not necessary. And so we considered what we could do with it. We considered the fact that we would put a temporary solid waste facility there um while we move
out from solid waste by Leecom Park currently for development of city park because that's one of the first areas that we have to vacate um in order to build city park. But the construction cost for that became cost prohibitive and we kind of came up with an
alternative to put solid waste back onto the main parcel. That being the case, we ended up with a piece of property that had come to the council before and was approved for surplus. Um, we put it out for surplus and an advertising as required by law. There was no responses
of interest at that time as a surplus property um throughout that solicitation. And so we got with our um our real estate agent um and asked for not an appraisal but a market uh consideration of what he thought the
value was his his agency and they came back at 2.15 million to I believe it was 2.2 million at the time. Um I I had driven the site. I know the mayor had Lance and and host of other people. It's a fairly limited
site because it's narrow and deep. and we asked what the best in use the the best and highest use would be for that property and the realtor said well it's zoned for heavy industrial um it's not particularly visible from the roadway so
something like a storage self storage may be a good use and we all are big fans of self storage on major arterials and downtown areas like we we have unfortunately um and so we thought well that's good so we ended up having our realtor put it out on what's called
Demand Star. It's similar to the MLS for commercial properties, the multi-listing service. And we got an inquiry back of an interested party that wanted to buy the property. Before you was a p uh the purchase and sales agreement to sell that property to us for $2.1 million.
It's important to realize that the totality of the 32 acres cost us approximately, I think it was $4.85. That's what we paid for it. $4,850,000. and we're able to and it was 32 acres. We're able to sell this particular piece
of property that again isn't the most desirable um configuration of property for 2.15 million. So, we're almost able to recover half of it by selling four of the 32 acres of the total purchase price. Um the one of the things of value
over there uh is that there is a sign a large advertising sign that's currently in place. It's currently under contract to 2027 and uh it generates revenue. Currently, it's operated I think it's Olympic Outdoors, but it's
contracted till till 2027 with Tropicana. They're the advertiser on the sign. It's a nice sign. It says, you know, it it it highlights Bradenton as the the headquarters of Tropicana and start your day with nice glass of Tropicana orange juice. I kind of like
it and everything. Um that sign does expire again in 2027. And there's a value to that sign that's included in that 2.15 million. Uh absent that carving it out, it was the value of the property was actually about 1.5 million. So we're asking for your approval to basically surplus and sell this sell
this property. It there is a contingency within the purchase and sales agreement that the sign be approved um as a a digital a digitalized sign, which is kind of what's going on with large signs. There aren't a whole lot of signs in the city of Bradon. I think this is the third. We had only two until we
annexed the the property, the Tropicana property itself. There is one by San Dieaniano, I believe, on 48th Street East. It advertises the inlets and is visible from Interstate 75. Of course, we all know that the inlets were
actually completed construction and sold out 10 years ago thereabouts, and it still has the same sign. Um, the second one was one that you all approved related to uh the Starbucks area and that had to go through the planning process and ultimately through the
planning commission as I remember for a kind of a adjustment >> for approval I think is what Mr. Dong told me. I'm getting a nod. >> Starbucks and Kentucky Fried Chicken. >> Yeah. Yeah. Right. Right. Yep. So, so that that's kind of the details on this particular sale. Y
>> um chair we entertain a motion then we'll have any discussion. Can I just add one one additional thing that the proceeds from the sale because the property was purchased through >> about 90% enterprise was it 80%. Yeah, >> it was a split between Yeah, >> it was a split between solid solid waste
enterprise um and and water sore enterprise and then general fund. We had to do the allocation. The money will come back in that proportionate allocated amount into our reserve so that we can dedicate it to building public works and other capital projects. All right. Chair will entertain a
motion. >> Mr. Mayor. >> Yes, sir. >> Motion to approve the contract for purchase and sale of 2115 9th Street East and authorize the mayor to execute all documents necessary to finalize the sale upon the completion of the due diligence period.
>> Thank you. Is there a second? >> Second. >> All right. Um, any further discussion? >> I just have a quick question. >> Yes, ma'am. >> Um, and maybe it's for M Mr. Rudes. Do we should we should we mention anything to what Mr. Perry just said about we're
allocating those we're reimbursing the the reserves from the three the two enterprises in the general or is that not necessary? >> I don't think it's necessary. I mean it's just an accounting function but >> correct. Yeah. >> Yeah. It's it's a you're exactly right.
It's an accounting function that we have to do uh by state statutes. So yeah. >> Thank you. Uh hearing no further questions. will start the vote in ward five. >> Yes. >> One, >> yes. >> Two, >> yes. >> Three, >> yes. >> Four, >> yes.
>> Thank you. Carries five to zero. >> All right. And then next under unfinished business number nine. So, Mr. Rutell, we need to have a discussion about this, but someone has to bring up a motion to take it off the table or
>> somebody needs to make a motion to pull it off the table. >> All right. Is there a motion to pull this off the table? Second extension of the contract between the city of Bradenton and the Braden Area Economic Development Corporation. >> I'll make a motion. >> Okay, Miss Coker. Is there a second?
>> Second. >> All right, Miss Coachman. All right. Um, we did have a workshop where we had extensive discussion about this. >> Mayor, >> yes, sir. >> To vote on >> Oh, vote on that. You'd be right. So, all right. We have a motion and a second to pull it off of the table. We'll start
the vote in ward one. >> Yes. >> Two. >> Yes. >> Three. >> Yes. >> Four. >> Yes. >> Five. >> Yes. >> Carries five to zero. Okay. Now discussion. >> Um and like I said, we did have um ex we had a workshop last week where we had extensive discussion as well as
the previous meeting, you know, a very long discussion. So, um any comments or we'll accept a motion to move forward. Mayor, if I could just point out at that last meeting when it was tabled, I had asked that council
submit to either um directly to EDC or myself for relay to EDC. Um what some of the some of the issues that they they wanted to improve upon in in the contract and other things and and and by and large pretty much everybody did that either themselves individually or sent
it to me and I forwarded on. So there was and and also EDC I believe individually met with a vast majority of the counselors and met with me at length as well. So there was a lot of uh work that was done to ellay some of the concerns of council and to provide more
specificity. I think it was a productive thing to do. I know it wasn't the most comfortable for for a lot of folks. Um I guess is the right term to use, but I think generally speaking, my takeaway from talking with council about it is that it was productive and talking with EDC is that it was productive and we'll
be in a better place because of it. >> Good. Nope. And we appreciate all the the discussions and the way things went. We appreciate the EDC and interim executive director for a short more time possibly um doing a great job um and
taking on that task. All right. So, chair will entertain a motion to approve the second extension of the contract between the city of Bradenton and the Braden Area Economic Development Corporation. >> Mr. Mayor. >> Yes, ma'am. Mr. Um motion to approve the second extension of the contract with
the Bradenton Area Economic Development Corporation. >> Second. >> Second. We have motion by Councilwoman Coachman, a second by Councilwoman Barnaby. Again, we've had extensive discussion. So, we'll start the vote in ward two. >> Yes. >> Three,
>> yes. >> Four, >> yes. >> Five, >> yes. >> One, >> yes. >> Carries five to zero. Thank you. any I didn't see you have your computer up. Um we are going to take a fivem minute recess now. They're trying to fix the computers up here. So bathroom break and
a fivem minute recess. We'll >> come out of recess. Madam clerk, >> item six is the consent agenda and staff is requesting approval of items A through O. >> All right. Um, I know Mr. Perry has,
like you said, had his couple meetings with everybody, gone over everything. So, at this time, the chair will entertain a motion for consent agenda, >> Mr. Mayor. >> Yes, ma'am. >> Motion to approve consent agenda 6A
through 60. >> 60. Yep. Thank you. Is there a second? >> Second, >> Mr. Schustler. All right. We'll start the vote in ward three. >> Yes. >> Four. >> Yes. >> Five. >> Yes. >> One.
>> Yes. >> Two. >> Yes. >> Approved. Five to zero. Thank you, >> madame clerk. >> At this time, I'll administer the oath. Anyone wishing to speak during the following public hearing. So, please stand and raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm that the factual
statements and representations which you are about to present to this board will be truthful and accurate? >> Thank you. Item 7A is resolution 2628 and this is also a public hearing related to a major amendment to the
Jordan Creek East Plan development. >> Okay. Staff present. >> All right. Good morning council. Um my name is Jamie Shindwolf. I am a member of the planning staff and I have been sworn. I'm here before you today to present the staff um presentation and
analysis of PLN MAJ25001 resolution 2628. Um as stated, this is a major plan development plan amendment request for properties located at 120127th Street East and 2906 29th
Avenue East. You can see here the case information. Um, this is a 12.19 acre property currently zoned plan development. Future land use is medium density residential. And we do have a
representative of the applicant here as well to answer any questions you may have for them and give a presentation. This is the subject parcel as you can see bounded by 11th Avenue East to the north um 27th Street East to
the west adjacent to River Runway there. The future land use as stated is resaid or median density residential which allows for 10 units per acre. Um
the uh option that is being presented to you today would result in a density of approximately 8.7 dwelling units per acre. They already have an approved PDP for 33 single family attached buildings with each dwelling unit on its own individual
lot for a total of 66 units. You can see here again the zoning is plan development. Option A, as I just mentioned, was approved in 2023, and that option is something they still would like to possibly be able to
pursue. But today they're coming before you with a request to also be approved for a second option which is option B for a residential de development containing 106 residential units which is a mixture of 4unit and sixunit town homes.
This is the site plan that was presented with this application. It's largely the same general layout as option A which is the approved PDP. the roads are not changing and the amenity center location is still in the same spot.
These are the proposed dimensional standards for this option B. It's fairly consistent with um our setbacks um in in our general uh zoning districts. And when you're con we're considering a PDP and whether or not um to approve it,
there is a list of standards in our land development regulations. Um the first is density. This does meet the density um provided for in the future land use. Um but I did want to point out that there is a statement in the code um that does
state that the maximum density is not guaranteed. um quality of design, contribution to public facilities if needed, open space and recreation, etc. can all be considered um when you are considering a request for a plan development project. Regarding open
space, this proposed development contains approximately 4.15 acres or roughly 34% of the project in open space. They are providing recreation area. They're proposing 1.41 41 acres, which is in excess of the 1 acre per 200
dwelling units required in the code. They are providing a compacted pedestrian path with benches and trees around the retention pond and a space for passive recreation in the middle of the site. Um, regarding parking and vehicular access, they are providing um,
sufficient parking for their proposed units, but I did want to point out that the code does um, indicate that applicants should provide a thorough analysis of the surrounding roadways and how they'll be affected. And I do believe the applicant is prepared to speak more on that issue.
As far as building setbacks go, as stated, the proposed development meets the required minimum setbacks as the front yard minimum is 20 ft and the secondary is 15 feet. Regarding buffers, I do need to point out that they are requesting a reduction from the required 25- ft buffer to a 20
foot wide buffer with plantings to be located near the outer 10 or within the outer 10 ft, excuse me, of that 20 foot buffer. Um, this is something the code states that the board can approve a reduction in that buffer and this matches a reduction that they received
when the board approved option A. They are requesting this to avoid utility and drainage easements and to not interfere with the safe operation and maintenance of infrastructure and easement areas. Regarding accessory structures at um
planning commission, the applicant did indicate that any accessory structure, though none are proposed, you know, sheds, things like that, um which are not typical in a town home community, but um we like to cross our tees and dot our eyes. Um the applicant did indicate
that if any accessory structures are proposed in the future, they will meet the standard of um five feet setbacks. A neighborhood activity center is included in the standards, but it's optional and they are not proposing one. Regarding contributions to public
facilities, um there are notes in the code that the board is able to stipulate approval of a PDP um to require improvements to public facilities. Um required improvements need to be relative to the impacts
caused by that proposed PDP. And I do want to note that uh this did come for a pre-application meeting before um many of our city departments and there was no indication by public works at that pre-application meeting that this project would necessarily require
improvements for uh to public services. Of course, once they hit the site improvement permit process, which is when they really get into the underground construction and and all of the infrastructure allowances, something could come up um that they would need to increase capacity, something like that.
So to summarize, it does appear at this time the proposed request largely meets the requirements set forth in the land use regulations. Um, city council does need to remember to consider that request for the reduced buffer. Staff has received correspondence from citizens with concerns about the development and all of those messages
have been forwarded to all of you. And on April 15th, the planning commission voted 51 to recommend approval. Thank you. >> Okay. And thank you Jamie. Um, I will say something to the citizens and all that. this is uh quasi judicial. So, I'm going to ask the council and and myself
in a moment, but all of the emails that you send us because it is quasi judicial. I don't respond and and shouldn't respond back because that's the law um as much. So, it's not that we ignored you, it's we got them, we read them, and that's that's part of it. But, does any council members have anything
to say to if there was any >> exarte communication? Anybody? >> Okay. I think I had a phone call, but I didn't I didn't really know what they were talking about when they called at first.
I said I hadn't seen anything on it. So, >> okay, >> that's the only thing. >> Mr. Mayor, I I also received two phone messages >> which have been forwarded to the public record and I did not call the individuals back in an abundance of caution
>> to make sure that I'm following the quasi judicial rules. >> Yep. So, and again, everything was forwarded that we all got, so it's all in record. So, all right. Do we want to have the applicant? >> Can I ask? >> Oh, yeah. I'm sorry. Sorry, Miss Vice Mayor Cooker. >> Uh, can you explain to me the difference
between a front yard setback and a secondary front yard setback? What What's a secondary setback >> for a corner lot? >> Okay. >> Okay. And are they required to have any
parking? like are they required to have a garage or anything like that? >> Um they are not required to have a garage. Um but they are had a note of it.
They they I believe they will have garages um and also obviously the driveway space. And then they have additional parking um here. I know it's really hard to see, but they do have some additional parking here near the near the pond and the passive recreation area as well.
>> Okay, thank you. >> Will there be street parking? >> There I don't think there is an intention to have March street parking. >> All right. So maybe that's a question when they come up they can talk about.
Okay. So thank you Jamie. And we'll let the applicant talk before we go to the public hearing. >> Good morning. >> Good morning, city council. >> My name is Josh Thaw. I'm a cleaner with PE Dawson and I have been uh sworn in this morning. Uh today we're here to
talk about Jordan Creek, a major plan development amendment. Um with me today I also have Theo Petrus uh from Landis Evans and Partners and we do have Matt Morris from Pape Dawson as well. So to just kind of go over the same things that Jamie uh just said there. So
the location is east of 27th Street and South 11th Avenue East. Um this is a major plan development plan amendment to the approved Jordan Creek uh development. Parcel size is around 12.19 acres. Um, and there is an associated petition with this, which is 234841,
um, otherwise known as option A. So, here you can see the location map on your screen here. So, once again, east of 27th Street East and south of 11th Avenue. Uh, you can see the site area outlined in red. So, like I mentioned, this is a PDP request. Uh the proposed option B is not
to supersede the already approved uh Jordan Creek East, which is option A, but this is just to provide another additional uh option to develop this property uh that we can choose between. So here's the proposed site plan in front of your screen here. So we're looking at 106 residential units. Uh
these would be split between 4unit and sixunit town homes. Like I had mentioned, this is a option B to the already approved option A. Um as it was stated there is 34% open space. 237 parking spaces are provided split
between both residential and um visiting parking spaces. We are proposing a maximum building height of 35 ft. And something that did come up at planning commission that wanted to bring up here is a POA will be implemented with this development. So here you can see the zoning map. Uh the property is zoned PDP or plan
development project. Um you can see the site area outlined in red on your screen there. Here you can see the future land use of ResMed uh medium density residential 10 up to 10 units uh per acre. I did want to state that the development project will come in at
about 8.69 units per acre. Um so it is within the allowable up to 10 units per acre. Did also want to state that the uh property directly to the south of us comes in at about 9.9 units per acre. So we are even less than that. So, you've heard me talk a lot about the
approved option A here. You can see it on the screen in front of you. Uh, so this was approved back in January of 24 for 66 uh residential units. And like it was mentioned uh we did request and get um approval of that reduction standard
from 25 ft to 20 ft uh to put uh with additional plantings for that utility and drainage easements that runs along the property lines. Here you can actually see the two projects side by side. Uh so as you can see uh there's no change in storm water. There's no change
in access. There's really no change in the buffering. No change in the amenity uh location the amenity standards or the walk path along the retention pond. Really what you're looking at here is the change from duplex to town homes with a slight increase in units. A few additional parking spaces towards the
middle of the site where the passive recreation area would be. And you can actually see um some of where the uh area is just to the west of the recent pond. So here's the proposed color site plan.
So once again 106 residential units. We are providing 12% recreational space which um is above code. 237 parking spaces are permitted. And something else that we are adding is a waste compactor uh per lur 9.1.2 which we will actually
talk a little bit later about. So as it relates to the proposed setbacks. So you can see the proposed front uh setback of 20 foot. The secondary front like what was mentioned is 15 ft. So what that is is that's looking at the corner lots that um would meet. So you have 20 ft where the
driveway would be and 15 ft on the side. Uh we have a sideyard set pack of 10 and a rear of 20. Uh we are not providing any accessory structures uh with this. However, if accessory structures were to come in as these are owned town homes, they will have to comply with section
5.1.2 allowing that 5ft rear and side setback. As it relates to parking, there's 237 parking spaces provided for the entire development. Uh 212 parking spaces are dedicated to residents per LUR section
there and 25 parking spaces for visitors. um and that wreck space are also provided per that code section as well. Um we are not necessarily providing on- street parking as we have met all the requirements for uh parking as outlined in the plan.
As it relates to access to the property, there's actually three accesses to this. So, one off of 11th Avenue, one off of 27th Street, and one interconnected uh road through River Runway. These are all publicly maintained roadways. Along with that, we are proposing a 5-ft sidewalk
to the north along 11th Avenue. There's a 5-ft existing sidewalk along 27th Street, and we are providing a 5-ft internal sidewalk uh throughout the development. And at this time, I'd like to invite up uh Theo from Land 7s to talk about some of the traffic issues.
>> Thank you. My name is Theo Petrrich. I work for Lander Sevens and Partners, and yes, I have been sworn. um the change in traffic is uh it goes down and and the reason the reason for this is because when we did the original
analysis we assumed single family detached houses. Single family detached houses are typically have more people living in them. There are more trips associated with if you own a house versus if you rent there's large yard maintenance. You're doing more maintenance inside. It's just a
different character of uh of owner in general. I also want to say that I'll make numbers up. Um, my staff is prohibited from torching your numbers because then I have to stand in front of you nice people and explain what those numbers are. These numbers are based literally on over the numbers in these
two tables are based on almost 2009 190 something studies that have been done at sites like this around the country. So the reason the single family looks larger is because we assume single family instead of like the duplex or something else which would have had a smaller number of trips.
As you go to a single family attached unit the 106 units the trips actually go down to 80 from 86 trips in the PM peak to 60 trips in the PM peak. I looked at that yesterday. I've been at this for 30 years and every time I look get a it's based upon a book called the Institute
of Traffic Transportation Engineers Trip Generation uh when I did this I think I was in trip generation 10 I think now we're in trip generation 12 the numbers have been going down for the last 30 years and they really took a dive during COVID uh because more people are working from
home the style of uh entertainment at night insteading going to the movies we frequently have you know staying at home Netflix and chill kind of nights So the studies as you progress through time are actually showing less and less trips from each individual unit. Having
said that, I looked at it again. The trips are still down from single family units to uh single family attached. We went from 60 trips in the total PM peak for single family attached down to 54 with a new version of it. And that represents a change in character of our
lifestyles over the last several years since those that data has come out. They don't throw out the old data. They just keep adding new data. So the impacts may actually be greater than that. Uh see if I can do this. Another thing we were asked to do was look at the roadway. We looked at the roadway and
said, should a turn lane go in here? Well, when you look at a roadway to determine whether or not a turn lane should go in there, you look at several things. There's this big document again, um, it's done by the Nationalmies of the Sciences, and because they're the National Academy of Sciences, they like
printing lots of paper. And it's an National Cooperative Highway Research Program report that dictates how the DOT and how the dictates mandates how the DOT and how cities and how counties determine whether or not you need turn lanes. First thing you do is you go out and say, "Well, are there any turn lanes
on this roadway?" Because you don't want to dramatically change the character of the road. So, for design consistency, no, there's no other turn lanes on this road. Well, should there be other should there be left turn lanes on this road? Well, that's an excellent question. I've done 30 years in safety. I really want
to know the answer to that question. So, we went out and we looked at the crashes on the roadway and we looked at the crashes. There have been crashes on the roadway. Uh we also looked at the types of crashes and read indivi every individual crash report. None of which would have been none of those crashes would have prevented by the addition of a left turn lane on that roadway. So we
did our due diligence there. We looked and we found that we also well how much are people being delayed? There's a development just south of there trace which has a higher density than this one about 40% higher than this one. And uh
the average delay to people on the roadway this is all cars going down the road. So including people who don't want to turn into river trace was less than a second. The people turning into river trace were uh delayed less than about 10 seconds when when they wanted to turn left into river trace. So if you're
doing level of service analysis at an intersection that's how well the intersection performs for the users. That's a level of service a that's you know that's yeah you're going to get you're going to be delayed turning into your house absolutely because you're on a road and cars are coming from the other direction but you're not going to be delayed that long getting into your
house and we went out and we measured it. Uh we did this wasn't part of the required traffic study. We did this because we wanted to know whether or not a left turn lane was the right thing to do. Uh there it didn't meet any of the it does not meet the warrants for a a left turn to be going in there. Um, the other
thing I know that's going to come up is is well, what about 27th? We're down to about 35 exiting trips in the PM peak, about 54 to 60 trips total. Um, if I went out and counted the traffic at 27
and Manatee today and I counted it tomorrow, the difference would be more than those trips. And that assumes every single vehicle coming out of the development turns north and goes up to Manatee, which is not likely to be the case. The intersection at Manatee, is
there a delay up there? Oh, yeah. I noticed that. Yes, there is delay up there. I would I would say that the state uh gives preference to the state road. So, if any decent traffic engineer could go out there and look at the timing and tell you how to reduce delay on 27, it wouldn't be hard to reduce
delay on 27. The problem is DOT does not look primarily at DT uh delay on 27. They look at delay on the main line because once you get on the main line, they want you to keep going. And if you reduce the delay to every side street, then once all those people come off the
side streets, they have to stop a lot more when they're on the main line. They just assume get people on the main line and let them keep going. So, while we could possibly make a recommendation on changing signal timing, DOT won't accept it because DOT prioritizes their roadways and the time for their
roadways. So, signal timing is not an option I'm allowed to allowed to propose, nor do I think I would at that location again because it's overall delay, not singular delay. With that, I'm going to turn it back over to Josh. >> Thank you. any any questions before if
we with why he's up there or we can come back to him too if you want. Okay. All right. >> Okay. Perfect. Um thank you Theo for that rundown. I do have uh hard copies of both that left turn lane study and the the short version of that traffic impact study um that I can turn into the
record if we do want to see that as well. Um, as Theo mentioned, just to kind of hit it one more time, you know, we're looking at 60p p.m. peak hour trips for this. Uh, this would be a negative 26 net change in trips. Uh, we did look at left turn lanes and they
would not be required. And this, uh, we would actually, uh, prefer this to be viewed as a reduction in traffic. So, to kind of go past traffic here, now we're on to uh, proposed landscaping. Uh there are 77 trees to be preserved with this development. Around 214 trees to be
planted. Um any additional trees that would be required we will pay into the mitigation fund for. As it was previously mentioned and this is the same thing that is a carryover from option A. Uh we are asking for the reduction um from section LUR 341 of the
AVI from a 25 ft perimeter buffer to a 20ft buffer with plantings located within that outer 10 ft of that 20 foot wide buffer. Uh this is to avoid any utility and drainage easements and like I said this was approved with option A. Uh we are just trying to keep that consistency
as it relates to landscaping and screening. Uh here you can kind of see I've color coded it to make it easy. So on the north side of the property we have a 6ft PVC pence along 11th Avenue. We're showing a 6ft PVC fence uh for properties backing up to that recreational area there towards the
middle of the property. And then along 27th Street, uh we are showing additional shrub uh screening along that area. And then obviously to the east, we do have that vegetation and retention buffers to any additional residential properties to the east. As it relates to drainage and utilities,
um all our public utilities will be connected to the property. Uh they all run down 27th Street. Um that involves a 12-in water mane, a 6-in force mane, and an 8 in uh wastewater line as well. Uh something that came up during planning commission and we wanted to
bring it up here as well as uh per code uh LUR 9.1.2 states that all non residential entities and residential buildings with four or more dwelling units shall fall under commercial uh waste service categories and require a compactor. Um this is
something that we talked about with planning commission. Um you know with these being individually owned town homes, future residents, us uh the clients you know would obviously prefer can service at this location. It's kind of interesting to have to require compactor for individually owned units
uh that do have garages. So, we did want to bring that to your attention as well, >> please. Uh relating to findings of fact for this development. So the proposed Jordan Creek major PDP amendment is in compliance with your land use regulation
specifically sections 3.15 through 3.155 relating to compatibility in surrounding area is in compliance with the comprehensive plan residential medium future land use as required. It is consistent with the surrounding resmed future land uses and lastly the property does not adversely affect the general
health safety welfare or general public. This design strives to provide excellence and neighborhood compatibility to the area. There is no historical resource impacts or environmental impacts on this site and is considered a logical expansion to the adjacent zoning districts. And with
that, we request your approval of this application and myself or anybody from my team is available for questions. >> All right. Um, any questions? >> Should I ask now? >> Yeah, ask now. >> Okay. And and I don't know if this is okay for me to ask, but I just more
about the the the details of the project. What are the square footages going to be on these units? Uh, gross and and air conditioned. >> Um, I don't know that right off the top of my head. I can ask and get back to you here in just a second. >> Okay. And then like bedrooms, baths. Do
you know are they going to be onebedroom units, threebedroom, four? I mean, >> um, if you let me allow the applicant up here, I'm sure you can kind of discuss a little bit more information. >> One more thing. >> Go for it. >> Price point. >> Once again, I'll pass it on to >> Okay. Okay. >> All right. Miss Moore, did you have
something? >> Um, I I did. It was regarding the traffic um presentation. >> So, was So, you conducted a traffic study or you just looked at the existing conditions? >> We looked at the existing conditions,
assumed growth to the buildout year uh and the addition of the of the traffic from the site. Um when you said that there was there was a reduction in trips by increasing the density
but you're so you're still though opining that that level of trips whether it remains with option A or the reduced amount for option B still the existing roadway conditions you think are suitable for this level of >> okay that that's uh in the interest of
telling you know I that's an interesting question I hadn't actually looked at that at the time but I looked at it yesterday the DOT uh has traffic counts online. They're at the the site called Florida Traffic Online and anybody can go look at them. And they are they also have a book called the Quality and Level
of Service Manual for Roadways. I'm if I'm insulting anybody's intelligence, I'm sorry. I don't know if you've heard this before. Uh and what that table does is it tells you for a given type of roadway in a certain characteristic
area. Um what is the maximum number of cars you can put down the road on a link and still maintain level of service D. Right now that roadway according to the G DOT's generalized tables. I helped
produce some of these 30 years ago, but I'm not involved in the ones that are in there now. There's like 4 to 600 cars a float on that roadway before you hit level of service D for the roadway. So, to the degree that I looked at it on a computer yesterday and I compared the
FDOT traffic counts, which were from last year, they were from 2025, um, they're just now getting back to precoid conditions. Um they are it it it it falls it does not vi it falls under it would still be a
level of service D roadway. It does not break the threshold to a failing roadway according to the level of service standards for the county and your LDC. >> Um and then I thought I had one more. So um
so when you are when you're analyzing the trips did you only look at 27th or do you have any opinions or thoughts on how naturally based on what the how the what the current site that is being project or proposed. In other words,
what what I'm getting at is 27th is probably the main thoroughfare and I think everyone is thinking that naturally that's the one that's going to be used, but there's two other points of ingress and egress to the development and those two other roads are much smaller. >> Yes. When we when we do the analysis, we
yes, we did look all three uh three entrances when we originally did the analysis. We looked for turn lanes. We looked for uh whether you know the capacity in and out and all of them fell because of the volume. We were not
required to do a super detailed look at each intersection, analyze each the turning movements and all of that. That was because the volumes of roadway on the trips, the regulations did not require us to do that. It was more of a traffic statement than a detailed traffic impact study simply because of
the size of the site. But yes, we did look at the sites. We distributed out of the driveways. We did an estimation look counting with talking with the city staff about where the trips would go and we did our analysis based on that. So yes, we did.
>> Um I have a couple of procedural questions for Mr. Rousel. Is now a good time? >> Yes. >> Um >> we still have public hearing. So >> Oh, sure. Sure. >> I have um >> questions. >> Should I go ahead? >> Yeah, if you wanted. So, I think it's good. And I'm going to say the reason I
want us up here to talk because I want them to hear before they talk cuz they may have a different view of something, the public, so after we're done. So, >> um I just was wondering it, uh do we have leeway with a PDP
amendment approval to request to ask for stipulations or is this just a yes or no? No, I mean we can it certainly requests stipulations. Obviously the applicant would need to agree to it, but um I
think that the city council could request stipulations on a PDP. >> And then if if the if the ultimately the answer is no today, do they get another bite of that apple if they go back and address some concerns or whatnot or is today's decision definitive in that
regard? I mean, I guess it it depends what today's decision is. I mean, if the project were denied, I I don't know what are you're asking if there's a time frame for them to come back if the project were denied. I was saying if we say no to the option B PDP amendment
today, uh do they have the ability to address whatever concerns we had to then come back and ask for another option, another PDB amendment that potentially changes, you know, addresses the concerns that we may or may not raise today.
>> Yeah. I'm I'm not aware of anything that would prohibit them from coming back with a different plan. But that's also where if we put stipulations and they don't agree to them, then it they can't do it. If we if they agree to them, then
>> that's what it is. So, um, Vice Mayor Coker and then Councilman Sh. >> Yeah. Uh, still uh trying to get a better feel for the project. Um, are the is this a gated community? Did I see that it was gated? And are these going
to be public roads or private roads? >> Um, no. This will not be a gated development. >> Okay. >> Um getting back to your uh questions about sizing and so on. Um so we're looking at these units being to like 32s to 32 and a halfs um around 1500 ft²
kind of depending on >> 1500. Is that gross or heated and cold? >> Uh that'd be gross. >> Gross. >> And um regarding price point, you know, probably market rate someplace along those lines. Okay.
Vice Mayor, anything else? >> No, that's it. Thank you. Councilman >> Shisler. >> So, uh, regarding access points, I just wanted to be clear, uh, the three access points would be 11th, 27th, and Riverrun. >> Correct.
>> Got it. And then the next question is regarding the PDP. I understand that PDPs are designed to allow developers maximum flexibility. Mhm. >> Um and it in looking at the application, am I correct that it everything the
application meets most of the required standards. Um in regarding density, it's under the max open space, recreation, parking, and building setbacks. Um >> correct, it meets all of those requirements. The only reduction that we're asking for is that 25 to 20 foot
outside landscape buffer, which we are providing additional landscaping for. And once again, that's a carryover from option A to make sure that everything is um aligned. >> Okay. So, yeah, and I think you just answered that regarding the buffer. Option A was already uh approved with
that exact same buffer. >> Exactly. >> Okay. I think one of the things that was interesting with the traffic study is that actually sometimes more is less >> and that's what we're looking at downtown in the city that downtown just
because we're adding more residences doesn't mean we add more traffic because of what how who lives there and what's happening. So that was interesting. So this plan B creates less traffic by the traffic study. >> Correct.
Didn't think of that. Anything else before we go to public hearing? >> All right. >> All right. Thank you very much. >> Thank you very much. All right. Um at this time, we'll open the public hearing and anyone wishing to speak. Um I do have some cards, but if you just want to come up and line up, that's fine. And
then I'll check off. State your name and um city of residence and you'll have three minutes. Good morning. >> Good morning, mayor and council members. My name is Sandy Lure. I live on 12th Avenue East Manity County in Bradenton.
And thank you. We are not here today to oppose development. We're here to support the original proposed that or the original that has been approved. I would uh challenge some of the things said today. I think that the applicant
by referencing a 60% increase in units and calling that slight is um not representing what really is happening here. I would also say and and no um disparaging remarks to the expert
that was here talking about Mr. Theel. Is that correct? Um, but the same study that you're referencing, IT, Institute of Transportation of Engineers, when you're increasing the number of units, unless there was something so egregiously wrong with your original presentation and numbers, um, to suggest
that it is lowering the traffic is is absurd. Uh, you're adding 40 additional units. That's an additional 250 to 300 cars moving and different deliveries, etc. that are happening on a daily
basis. The total impact is 600 to 800 different traffic vehicles daily. That includes according to the Institute of Transportation Engineers trip generation manual which you're referencing and thank goodness um for AI to help people
like me to have access to what the gold standard is to help with city planners and councils etc to understand this that the standard duplex generates 10 to 12 trips per day and that's because that includes all of your Amazon deliveries
your AMX deliveries your uh your FedEx deliveries any food deliveries that you have. And that is something that is standard. And so for 104 units, you're talking 800 600 to 800 trips per day.
And so the current ingress and egress points, as someone that's a walker every morning and lives there and walks this neighborhood, I can tell you that some of these egress points, such as the River Run, where you have a small little unit there, there's there's only there's
less than 20 homes. Um, I would challenge all of us to consider what the council referenced this morning as we had our heroes here who serve us all and that we all want safe driving roads that we would consider this seriously and
look at the impact that this is going to provide for hurricane recovery, policemen, firemen being able to get down these roads with the impact of the traffic and the parking situation. It's um very scary to think of the impact and what could happen. I would also suggest
that the council look at your own comprehensive plan. Make sure that we are not looking at spot zoning and favoring a certain developer and that we are looking at what's best for the interest of the community. And so with that, I would just encourage based on
the conversations and I understand the emails. Thank you. >> Who wants to come public hearing? Who wants to speak? Good morning. Please state your name and city of residence for the record. >> Good morning. Susie Copelan, 1010 27th Street East. And I've been coming before
not necessarily this council except for uh Mrs. Barnaby for over 20 plus years under a previous mayor. when they came in 2023, this council approved those 66 units.
And I was willing to accept that in spite of the increased traffic that was going to be imposed upon 27th Street East. We've got the same owner that was here 2023, just a different business name. They came before this council in
good conscience, I would hope, and said, "We will build these 66 units." And now we're back 2026 and we want to increase it to 106. I live on 27th Street. 11th Street uh Avenue is right in front of my
house. Uh adjacent to my house. You got River Runway that's down further east of 27th Street. And that's going to allow traffic to come out on 27th Street East. Otherwise, they're going to go down
Hubble Road and go around and get back on Manatee Avenue. During peak hours, AM PM, traffic is backed up from Manatee Avenue all the way down to 26th Avenue.
Those are the things that we occur each and every day on 27th Street. They're talking about town houses. The community on 27th and surrounding. They're single family homes. The only two-story development is south of them
at River Trace. Let's be compatible to the existing neighborhood that's already there. And I hope that this is the last time that I will have to be come before city council to ask you to do the right thing for the
residents that are currently living there and have no intentions of moving. So please deny. They have option A that was approved. We're willing to live with that. Why to plant? You've got their plan approved in 2023. Why come back?
Ask for an additional increase. Let's put it to rest today. Uh, city council, thank you for your consideration. And I hope truly this is the last time. Think about the neighbors that are currently there living and what we have to go through to get from our driveways onto
27th Street East. And I don't know about the gentleman that spoke and I don't know if anybody in their right mind would think a 106 unit is not going to increase the traffic on any street regardless of where it is. That's just
not it doesn't equate and it doesn't make sense. I'm sorry. Thank you so much. >> Thank you. Anyone else wish to speak? >> My name is Dean Jorgensson. I live 11:07 Tropical Drive. That's we're actually in the county. Um,
yeah, I was going to speak, but how do I follow that? I'm sorry. These two ladies, they they they just said it all. You know, the only thing I will just point out again, which Susie had pointed out, is that really the only thing that's changed since they approved this back in 2020, I believe it was. We we
actually uh had the council that approved it unanimously to build the 66 uh unit duplexes which we were all agreed we agre met with Adam Jacobson on the property and had some discussion with him and we all agreed it was a
unanimous decision by the by the board or by the council and so I think you should stick with that. It's everybody is new here except for uh Councilwoman Barnaby and it was unanimous decision at that time 50-0. Thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak?
>> Good morning. If you please state your name, city of residence, and your >> My name is Deborah Stevenson. I live at um 120227 street directly across from where this proposed is being placed. Now
my main the first thing that caught my attention is when they put their information up on the board. It says it had I don't know if anyone was paying attention other than me. It says maximum density is not guaranteed. So everything
that they're telling you about what the traffic's going to be and what they're doing means nothing when you approve a proposal that says maximum density is not guaranteed. So that means they could say anything and then you said well we
we put on there was wasn't guaranteed. So when the traffic becomes even greater than it is now they say well we told you it wasn't guaranteed if you would have read the information that they put up there. So, uh, it it's just ridiculous. And you know, like it says like River
Trac is there. You're going to put all these people here and crowd and then going to tell us one thing and then, you know, smiling, hoping like nobody's paying attention when you say whatever we're proposing doesn't really mean anything if you prove it cuz cuz we told you in the first place it wasn't
guaranteed. So, our lives being uh miserable because we can hardly get out of our driveway or or whatever or you uh they could keep speeding down the road and running over my mailbox or whatever. it doesn't matter because you you are
trying to give somebody additional uh income to whatever they but I feel we deserve to have a a private sim you know as far as we can neighborhood as best we can on a main thoroughare without adding to something that's already there when
you already have river trace and other things going on. So, I'm just curious why would someone approve something on a proposal when it tells you in plain sight, you know, maximum density is not guaranteed. So, whatever they're telling
you about traffic means nothing. Thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak? Hi. >> Hi. Please state your name and you have three minutes. >> Um, my name is Christos Gavilles. I live in that place 23 years.
I bought a house the first time. I used to live 648 Habbo Road. It used to be bridge there. The river. They close the river and they open the hab street for the traffic. What they say here
the 27th that if you go the time like between 3 to 5 or to 6 with all the traffic coming for to go from 27 to go to the 64 and he
have a stop sign before the 11 after the 11 I'm sorry after the 11th Avenue have stop sign four four stop signs. Okay. A lot of accidents happens there with the stop signs all the time the street for
the 64 with the stop signs to the another side where the school the big school and and the place they sell it where they have the oranges traffic all the way to the top there
and people they want to go to the 64 they turn to 11th street they speak 15 miles 60 miles an hour because they open the road. We tell to put a stop signs there. They
don't put a stop signs. I call the police thousand times to go to give a ticket to the people and nobody do anything but that. Now they're going to rebuild all these buildings there, all these people to put it there. All this traffic we have now
is going to be disaster for me. The way I see in my original house where I live now, I live 10005 Tropica Drive. I have six houses in the city
in that area in the hab. I have four houses and another house where I live now in the tropical drive. So I know the area very well. It's too much traffic there. So, you
decide what you have to do. I tell the truth. Thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak? Anyone else? Anyone else? Hearing none, we'll close the public hearing. Uh staff or
applicant. Is there any Nothing from staff yet? Okay. Thank you. Uh good morning once again uh city council. My name is Josh Slaw. I'm a planner with Pape Dawson. Um thank you for the comments from from um the constituents and I'll do my best to kind of hit a couple of those points that
they that they have talked about. So give me just a second here. Actually, it's probably easier if I just go here. So I'll blow this up just to kind of make it easy. So we are looking at um
a total of increase in units from 66 units to 106. So it's additional 40 units. Um as you heard from Theo's presentation um that does actually uh provide a decrease in transportation or in in in trips, excuse me. um as it
relates to public rideaways um within this uh area. So we are looking at a 50-ft rideway which is at or above what um LUR standards are. We've heard a lot about uh future land uses and zoning and so on. So if I can jump back here.
So here you can see the zoning map. Um so once again our outlined property there in green which is PDP. So to the north we have medium density residential and to the south we have highdensity residential. So we're pretty much surrounded by medium highdensity residential zoning around this property.
If you look at the future land use everything that you see in yellow which is basically surrounding our property and to the north is that red med future land use which allows for up to 10 units for um up to 10 units per acre. Um like id mentioned earlier in my presentation
uh river trace to the south is at 9.95 units per acre. Um, and what we're asking for is 8.6. Um, like I mentioned, we're allowed to ask up to that 10 units per acre. We're not hitting it. Um, like I said, we're hitting around 8.69
uh units as you heard about as it relates to speeding, and I'll let Theo probably touch on this a little bit more, but speeding is an enforcement issue. You know, we can't do anything regarding people speeding on publicly maintained roadways. Um, so with that, I'll hand it over to Theo to kind of talk a little bit more about the traffic.
Uh Theo Patrick again with Landis Evansson. Kudos to you for knowing how to use AI. That's what I have interns for. Um I'm more of a dinosaur than you are. Um >> stand by the microphone. >> And she's right. Stand still. My parents always told me that when I supposed to
be quiet. Um the um she's right. There's there's about 10 used to be 10 units uh 10 trips a day per unit. And in the PKR you get about 10% of that with a traffic with a uh single family unit which is 60
trips which is where we were at. Um so she's right. Uh the I looked at the latest version of it yesterday. It doesn't change a lot so I suspect she used an older version because it unless she was willing to pay the money for it but it doesn't change a lot. So that's
okay. That's exactly what I would have done. But I just compared the um single family dwelling units 0.93 trips per unit in the peak hour. The attached units 0.51 trips in the
peak hour. I don't make the numbers up. The studies are there. They're shown in a plot. Uh the difference has been studied to death. The attached units have fewer trips than the uh single family dwelling units. And if
you consider that the single family dwelling units was a conservative estimate when we did the original study, we probably could have guessed lower. We probably could have said a duplex is going to have less than that. Therefore, we don't need to go that high. And I've got the numbers. I I actually printed
them out, but I'm sworn and I'm telling you the numbers right off the paper. Um, that's that's what it the traffic is uh is the I I stick by the numbers I wrote down about the speed that
I would never say that's an enforcement off uh issue to a law enforcement officer because I know what they're up against. Uh there's a lot, you know, there's things that might be able to be done, but they would all have to be approved by the city and or the county, which by the way approved the previous
study. The county has reviewed all these numbers. Um, you know, there's traffic calming, there's, you know, signs and things like that. You can do stop signs. I would recommend against because it speeds everybody up midblock. But there are things that can be done, but all of that
would have to go through your engineering office. It's not something we could even recommend to reduce speeds on that roadway. >> Thank you. >> That's not my folder. That's my So, once again, thank you. Um, with that, I believe we've kind of answered your questions. Um, I do believe once
again that this uh development would be an a a good um development for this for this area and we request your approval for this petition. Thank you. >> Thank you, Miss Jamie. >> Hi. I was just going to pull up before
you deliberate um just so you have these uh criteria up on the up on the screen. That's it. Sorry. Yeah, that that was all just so you have in front of you. >> Thank you, >> Vice Mayor Coker.
>> Oh, I didn't that's all. Sorry. >> No, ma'am. We've already closed the public hearing. Um, so obviously the council is going to have to make a motion at some point. Um, one of the things that just looking at this, I mean, obviously there's
professionals that do it and the ST studies are there, it decreases traffic. And one of the things that was said that I just I I know people like to say it and I don't think they mean it in the way it is, but but because we like one developer or not, I don't think any of us up here know this developer. So, I
mean, I don't have no idea. So to say those is an easy way to say something against somebody making a decision, but I that does sometimes, you know, not do justice to what we do up here and and trying to be fair and honest. Um and
then the other thing is infill project. This is a perfect infill project that I believe that you're trying to get things closer and where people can do it. Obviously, traffic is an issue that we all deal with every day and we know that
traffic is going to grow more out of things that we don't control in the county because this is so tied in. One of the things that we've been working with for years is the county does, you know, when it's the county road throughout the city and part of this
area is all mixed. We don't get to to tell the county what to do, but we work with the county. And until the road becomes a failing road, the county said they're not even going to look at it. So, you know, and I know one of the things that I thought was great when I
did research on this years ago, because I've been here since 2013, other than a six-month period from June to January of 2020 and 21, um, this has been talked about a lot in that area. And the county
already owns the right ofway on the west side of the road because if you look where the sidewalk is and Susie knows, Miss Copeland knows it. They could actually go in and widen that and they don't have to take any property because they already own it all the way up to the back of the sidewalk. So if you just
drive down that road, you see a lot of green space from the sidewalk to the road. So that told me and that's what I talked with the county people years ago about is that they are already got ideas in the future road system. So some of those things and some of the things I've
seen we can work with them. We can't force them to do anything but we can um work with the county and then the DOT at times. So there is opportunity. Um I've got um Councilman Shusler and then
Councilman Moore. Woman Moore, go ahead. Yeah, I ju I just wanted to say that obviously as this was coming up, I I uh likewise spent a lot of time uh looking at traffic and
um looking at this and and I'm not the traffic expert. Obviously, the world continues to evolve in terms of transportation and when you look at it's one of the things that I found single family versus multif family dwellings
um and the decrease in traffic uh while it sounds counterintuitive in digging over the past week and looking at it um looking at the three areas of exiting uh looking at traffic in particular. The only thing I wanted
to point out is in looking at it, multif family dwellings do have a tendency to have less cars. Some of it is because of the internet age of Amazon delivering packages and food and not getting in their vehicles. So
looking at it, the Amazon truck is one truck. A UPS truck is one truck. If you have 10 families getting Amazon packages, there's not 10 Amazon trucks. there's there's one. So, I I found that study very very interesting in the past
week in in terms of looking at where we are and and and you know, how it's evolving. >> Thank you, Councilwoman Moore. >> Um I um I don't have any I don't disagree with um Mayor's comments and I
um I appreciate Mr. Shusler's uh due diligence. Uh and I don't conceptually have a problem with um putting infill housing in this area. Um I defer to Councilwoman Coachman's thoughts on
that specific question, but uh just generally speaking, um we need housing. I this is, you know, seemingly a good place to put it. uh and I also don't uh by generally speaking have a problem
with increasing density in in these type of projects. However, when we look at I think the practicality of this particular situation, um I think that the I hate to I mean the what what is a
perceived lack of attention to ingress and egress for this particular project I think is troubling me and speaks to the quality of design. Um, if I understand correctly, we're putting ingress and egress on 27th Street directly across the street from active
driveways in an area that we already know is congested. And if I I've anecdotally done some research on how FDOT comes up with how they do their things and and I think to um our gentleman's point that FDOT is looking
at putting people on their arteries and then really trying to move them. Um, I don't think that that speaks to the question of ingress and egress. And I also think that one of the problems I would say just generally speaking again as to FDOT's primary focus on moving
people and trip counts is that it doesn't look at transportation from a consumer standpoint. It doesn't treat it like a consumer commodity. So just like any consumer, if you don't like something, you're going to find an
alternative. And if 27 if the 27th ingress and egress point is so choked all the time and the river trace circle one I would imagine is not much better uh because it's still dumping you out on 27th Street. The natural propensity I
think of the residents of this community is going to be to exit 11th Avenue and then go up Oak Street to get to Hubble to 6th Avenue Drive East ultimately to get to Manatee Avenue East where there's no signal. so that they can probably
quick more quickly exit the community and get onto Manatee Avenue without having to worry about the light at 27th. Um my main point of concern is the intersection of 6th Avenue Drive East and Hubble Drive East. Um anyone familiar with that particular corner can
tell you that it is in my opinion at this moment in time struggling with capacity. Um, it's a really sharp corner and you have to be very careful and you have to be going very slowly. And I'm just I'm concerned
and again I think it speaks to quality of design that we're ignoring the natural human propensity to say I'm not going to go 27th because it's going to be impossible to get in and out. I'm going to go Oak Street, 11th to Oak to
Hubble and then potentially have problems at that really sharp corner. Um my questions towards Mr. Rutil earlier were because I because I think that I want to encourage you know smart infill redevelopment. Um I would like to see us
work with the applicant to come up with a different solution. I know the county you know I know that 27th is within the purview of the county. Um I don't and I couldn't honestly tell you how to improve that situation and that we need the county. Um, but I I guess I'm in my
mind I'm kind of likening it to the Chick-fil-A on the west side and how we worked with them to have that left turn so that traffic flowed better right there. And I'm wondering if there's something that we could do to make this
better because I am struggling with what I'm putting in the quality of design bucket as it relates to ingress and egress. >> Thank you, Vice Mayor Coker. Oh, yes. Uh, I'm sorry. I was thinking about what she
said. Now I'm forgetting what my question. >> Go to Councilman Barnaby. >> Yeah, go to Miss Barnaby. >> Well, okay. >> Oh, I just remembered. >> Please go ahead. >> Okay, I will. Um, I just want to make
sure I'm understanding what the ordinance. We're not really approving the increased density. All we're doing is approving the the slightly smaller setback. Is that is that basically
>> I don't think >> they they have the right to go up to a higher density, but we have to give it permission for the >> No, that that is the request that's before you is the additional additional density with this plan and the different
unit types that they're proposing. So by rights now how much what's the density that's allowed? >> Uh by right it would be what's under the current plan. I don't know the answer that would be planning. >> Yeah. She'll talk about too that you know they're still under the 10 units
per acre or whatever that is. >> That's kind of where but maybe density in terms of they're not doing a comp plan amendment. So they're not increasing density in that sense. They're still within the density that's allowed in the comprehensive plan. But what's been approved under this PDP um
more restrictive because they went from and originally I think they were proposing single family then they went to duplex which is the 33 or a total of 66 units 33 buildings and now it's a it's a difference in the type of unit that they're building. So instead of duplexes that would be f simple
ownership which is why they had to come through the PDP process in the first place. Now they're going to townhouse four to six units per building. So, >> okay, >> that's why they need a PDP is is to for that product type. >> Okay, >> but they're still within the density
that's allowed in the comprehensive plan. >> Thank you, >> Councilwoman Barnaby. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, first of all, I want to thank everybody for coming out today. It's really nice when we get to see friendly faces from the community
come and participate in the government that they pay for. and I really appreciate it. Um, and just as an aside, being a woman of a certain age that has children of a certain age, um, I think this is the first time I've ever heard Netflix and chill in a government
meeting. And you you you may want to Google that because it has less to do with watching movies and more to do with possible population growth. >> No, no discussion. >> Just just sharing um explanation.
>> No. >> So when we look at what we have in our pretty much land use Bible here with PDP standards to get to maximum density or
get even close to maximum density, it's not guaranteed as it says right here in front of us. And we're supposed to look at the quality of design. We're supposed to look at the contribution to public facilities, open space, recreation,
preservation of resources, possibly uh sensitive lands. And we look at all of that as well as a little bit further in our our um staff report, it talks about
PBP is put in to encourage and promote designing to a higher quality, bringing in innovative projects, preservation of sensitive lands and creation of green space and and
innovative designs is one of the things that's really important. And when I look at in our our staff report, the information that the the applicant sent us, when I
look at this plot of land, forgive me, but I don't see any innovation. I don't see a design that's a higher standard. And what I see when I look at it is 10 pounds of potatoes in a 5B sack.
So I can't support this. I I I just to again PDPs are supposed to bring us innovative projects with quality in my mind higher design
standards. I think that's what was be behind putting it into our land use Bible when we started doing this. Um,
and I I I just can't support this. >> All right. Any other questions or the chair will entertain a motion? >> Mr. Mayor. >> Yes, ma'am. Mr. I will make a motion to deny the request >> based on everything that I have just previously said.
>> We have a motion by Miss Barnaby to deny. Is there a second? >> I'll second. >> M Coachman. We've been singing together. >> We'll give it to Miss Moore. All right. Any other discussion? Hearing none, we'll start the vote in
ward four. >> Yes. >> Five. >> Yes. >> One. Yes. >> Two. >> Yes. >> Three. >> Yes. >> Carries five to zero. Thank you very much. Moving on. Madam cler. >> Mr. Mayor, before we move on, we'll
prepare the draft denial order and that'll be on the next council agenda for consideration. >> Okay. Thank you. Item 7B is the public hearing for resolution 2640 related to a major amendment to the Bellisol plan
development plan. >> Welcome. >> Thank you. Uh Brandon Wink, one of the city staff here. So today, council, we have something that will look familiar. We have a major amendment to the Bellisol PDP to exclude a property from the stipulation requiring fire
suppression. This time it's for the property at 4303 Fth Avenue Northeast. So this property it is in the R1 designation. It's uh future land use is residential low. It flood zone is AE to
X. All the same relative stats as the previous property that we saw back in January. This one is slightly bigger at 2383 acres and it's the same type of request to amend the PDP to exclude this
one from fire suppression stipulations. The location map on this property here, it is located roughly right in the middle of Bellisol. And as you can see, even the property that was previously approved all the way
to the left of this map. So this is the plot where the house is proposed to be built and they are seeking to not have to do the fire suppression through the stipulation that was done back in 2012, I believe. 2008. Yeah. The zoning map,
same as last time. its residential low all the way through. So they are looking to amend the PDP. The fire suppression stipulation was added to the Bellisol community in 2008 as part of a PDP amendment approved by city council August 13, 2008. At the
time the PDP was amended to allow development to change from 18 units to 37. After presentations and talking to the fire marshall about the difficulties fire rescue had with the gate, the stipulation to require fire suppression was added to the approval. And in 2012,
city council approved a PDP amendment removing the need for window sprinklers and some landscaping between houses, but it upheld that fire suppression was necessary due to the distance between the houses.
Uh we have today the applicant who has some prepared uh presentation of his own. >> All right. Um is chief do we have any comments on that from the fire
department? Why we we remember the one we did a while back >> that was >> and why is this one different or why is it the same? So, I've had extensive discussions with fire marshall about this um request. Um
so, there was one property in there that was overlooked and they were allowed to build without a system. Um the most recent one that you're referring to was outside the gate that we had discussed before. um you know talking with um the fire
marshall currently with the upcoming uh fire code changes that happens about every 3 years uh in in life safety code is that really I think there's only probably two properties left in the in the in the subdivision and um
>> there's with this one there should only be one further the one at the far corner end which is where the >> culac yeah one more left and I mean with I guess we're willing to to do away with that stipulation based on the fact that
um in today's uh fire code that it doesn't apply. Um we've checked the gate. We can we have access through the through the gate. It still poses an issue, but it I think we can overcome that. Um partly due to the the extreme
cost of a um fire suppression system in a single family residential, it really um uh could make the project cost prohibitive to these new um homeowners, you know, and as you know, we we don't want to enforce a a code or a rule uh
that was in place, you know, 15 20 years ago. Um so based on the current uh building code, fire codes is that it would not be required. Um so you know in this particular case and probably just to go ahead and get it off the table for
the next lot in there um is that we would remove that stipulation recommend to remove that one uh stipulation for the fire suppression system still adhere to the other requests but follow building code um and I think planning
I haven't talked to you extensively but that was going to be our recommendation today and uh for the remaining two lots I know it's not, you know, if I was a resident in there and I had to do that years ago and and and go through all
this time and and it still be required, that can cause some heartache. But we also have to look at the current the current code and that is also going to be changed again next year. And really um uh the recommendations that are
coming forward are going to really remove the fire department from e uh single family residential even more. And you know that's where we don't want to get into a legal battle. >> We don't want to get into the city in trouble in any kind of way. And you know, so we've kind of looked at both
sides on this um overall picture and um and I I just don't know that um uh we want to enforce this right now. >> So you know what my question is going to be or at least the fire marshall would know what my question is going to be. So, if the rest of the residents get
together and say, "Can we turn off ouri fire suppression systems that are there, >> can we?" Because it's not about they've already paid the expense of putting in the suppression system, but it's the yearly cost and at this point now they start to cost money to replace the
system and do that. So, >> so that's exactly it and we talked about that too and you're very familiar with this is that you know um because we have no jurisdiction in single family residential we can't go back in and say hey we're coming to check your system it
better be operating properly. So you know that's a big um you know if they own the system they want to keep it active. Um you know I I think that it's a um if it was me I would keep it active. I think it's a great idea with insurance and and just for the the
safety aspect, but um um but also based on current fire codes and changes upcoming, I would I would not want to put us in a bind and put this on the homeowner. >> All right. Thank you, Chief Councilwoman Barnaby.
>> Yeah. Um could you please pull up the map again? >> Absolutely. Yes, that one. >> Um, and I don't know if this is for the fire chief, >> but I also might need some legal
interpretation, Mr. Ruticil. I understand fire codes and things change. However, you have a very unique piece of property here. This is smack dab in the middle.
And my question is this. If we don't require a suppression system there and god forbid it catches on fire and spreads into the other areas, are we liable?
Meaning we went back on what we required other people to do. And I know anybody can sue anybody for anything these days. That's very obvious, but I'm sorry. I know there there's a
question in there somewhere. So, give me an answer that you feel comfortable with. I I >> So, one one thing that I did say is the fire suppression only. I know the request is in there, but there were some
other things in the stipulations that required concrete construction, a few of the uh other things like that that I would recommend leaving in. Um but that's, you know, based on, you know, the house next door catches on fire,
things of that nature. So, >> Councilwoman Moore, >> um Oh, were you done? I didn't hear anything from Mr. Rudes. he doesn't want it to be in but >> well I mean the first part of my answer was going to be what you said you can we
can always be sued but I think what you heard from the fire chief uh and the fire marshall is that this is not a requirement of the fire code currently for to to sprinkler these properties um and we enforce the the codes that we
have on the books um so I don't see any additional liability by virtue of the fact that we're not applying some enhanced standard above and beyond the fire code here. >> And and Councilman Barnaby, um if if you look at most of these
homeowners, I would guess are going to do a cost analysis of what it costs to replace a system at about the time they're at now. and what you save in insurance is going to be way your cost is going to be way above what you're saving. Now, if
you're looking at it from the heartstrings, you definitely want to keep it. But it comes down to a financial means at the time. And those two houses on either side of that could actually turn their sprinklers off. They could go dark with them because they don't want to continue to pay
maintenance and pay monitoring fees in that. Um, and that's something that that we know sometimes government needs to stay in the government lane and other times they don't. So, >> I do know I did, from what I understand,
the fire marshall spoke with the HOA and they did recently have all the homeowners go in and service their their systems, which is great. Um, but you know, like you said, we don't have we don't have the authority to go in there and do any kind of follow-up inspection.
Once that CEO is given on that single family, it's theirs. >> So, we don't even know if there's some that have already turned them off. >> Mr. Perry. >> Um, Chief, I don't want to tell you I'm disappointed, but but I would have liked I've talked with planning about this
fairly extensively in my preparations to talk with council and this information doesn't seem to me to be reged to our planning department that has to deal with it uh at any level that
codes had changed that you feel now in accordance with national Fire Protection Association's comments to the building code that it's unnecessary. Um, as pointed out by councelor Barnaby,
smack in the middle of all of them. These are the tightest residential structures I've probably seen in the city of Braden since I've been here 5 years. The five foot setbacks. So, my neighbor's fire could become my fire. I imagine because of consideration about
combustibility and other issues that there could have been some changes to the building code, but when you look at that as it was originally proposed and where it is now, nothing's really changed. The lots are still long and narrow with 5ft setbacks.
>> Well, the city, you know, back back then the city agreed from uh to to adjust the setbacks before that became the norm, you know, and that was that was another reason behind it, you know. So now you go to some of these neighborhoods, you know, and you look at the lot lines now
and it's that's the new norm, you know. Now, if you're asking me what I think is the fire chief to keep it consistent in there the way it's laid out, I would prefer we leave we leave the stipulation in. But, you know, my part, you know, and we haven't, you know, we didn't have
we didn't get with planning on this or Scott, you know, is the legal side of things, you know, to where, you know, are we putting that un unnecessary burden on the uh on the homeowner? And um you know, not to beat it up here, but you know, it's one of those things that
it's a you're it's one of those things we don't have jurisdiction, you know, after um it's built. And, you know, I wish we did, but you know, in this case, we don't. And um uh so
>> I I appreciate it. I mean and you know your opinion, you know, you and I talk extensively. It's incredibly valued by myself. >> We have we still have a hard time getting in the gate. We're having to go in the exit. Don't like that. We've spoken about that, you know, uh
extensively. That hasn't changed. Uh the layout hasn't changed. It's still a choking point, which is hard to, you know, you can get people in and then everybody else is on foot. So, you're talking time delays no matter what. So, all those things still exist. Okay. And,
you know, so from my perspective, I would love to see everyone stay sprinkled in there, but the facts are that we can't go in there and um mandate anything after uh that CO is given. It's single family. >> Oh, I get it. I get it. after a co
>> but but as far as y'all go we can >> right now you can and right now it's a policy decision chief >> that's right it's policy decision >> policy decision mine but five members and potentially a sixth >> right yes >> not a fire chief not a building department not a city administrator >> yes sir correct correct council more
>> oh that's yeah >> um I appreciate the consideration of the cost to the homeowner I really do um my concern though is is that we permitted this level of proximity
based on a a notion that we were going to be requiring expecting this extra level of protection. I'm certainly not reassured to hear that we potentially are going to not require sprinkling and we're having trouble accessing the this area. That's
like definitely a problem I think and a concern. Um, and also I mean I would I would have liked to have heard a little bit more maybe from the HOA or just the community generally speaking. >> It's a public hearing so we may hear some. >> Oh, and yes, of course. And um and I say
that because while um you know to some extent I I feel like while I have complete empathy for how much construction costs these days um when you buy a piece of property that maybe is requiring this kind of thing you know to some extent you you know what you're
getting yourself into and that this was a requirement when you purchased and the flip side of that coin is your neighbors have an expectation that you're going to be required to do this when they bought their parcel as well. Um, so I guess for now my comment is just that I am now a
little more concerned based on the accessibility of the fire trucks, but also I would like to hear I guess if there are more residents that are going to speak to that because that those are the nature of my concerns. >> I think one of the things that Chief said that that made me think and last
night after dinner with my granddaughter and and wife obviously we drove through a new subdivision that's being built over on 75th Street in Cortez Road called Seaflower. Mhm. >> And I I think it would be hard for me to walk between those homes and not hit my elbows. >> So when you said that it changed and of
course seaf isn't in the city, but that's the the new style. And so again, I agree with you from the standpoint of why do you want to put it right in the middle? But also it becomes almost um for people that have sprinkler systems
that when they get to a certain age that you have to start replacing tens of thousands of dollars worth of stuff that you know I don't think if it's not a law or it's not required. I can't see them keeping those sprinkler systems active and we have no teeth to go in and make
them. Now their HOA might, but that's they're going to vote on that. Mhm. >> So I I I agree and I when I looked at this I'm like why is it even coming up? It's right in the middle. But I don't disagree that, you know, sometimes in and my partner to the right or
colleague to the right, government overreach >> Oh, >> is a big thing. And >> yeah, I noticed you thought he was going to take a crack at my age. But but when I say that, I say it tongue and cheek because sometimes, you know, and I don't know the whole thing back when they did it years ago. You know, I know it was
this tightness, but that's the standard or the norm now when you're building subdivisions that tight. And again, you have one problem, you wish you had them, but you paid tens of thousands of dollars more than what you didn't need. Maybe, you know, that's that's that's
why we have insurance. That's why we have it. And but I do agree with Councilwoman Moore about and and I see one of our engineers retired out in the audience. >> If you can't get through that gate and that house is on fire, I'm sure that truck's running through the gate. >> Uh we'll we'll get through uh you know,
and that's one thing we always, you know, talk about. But, you know, don't forget, you know, the other stipulations that are in there, you know, is a concrete uh block, you know, which you know, we don't want to put a wood frame. I understand it was going to be concrete block. Yeah. You know, so,
>> you know, so there's things like that, you know, and years ago we we we stepped back on the the sprinkler requirement for the windows, and that's a big deal, you know, by itself. um you know so it's one of those things where you know I I know the um you know
it it's a interesting kind of place that I find in where I don't want to um cause do hardship on anyone uh or create you know a problem for us as well. Uh, so >> Vice Mayor,
>> I see both sides. >> Vice Mayor Coker and Council >> Chief G. Um, first first off, when was it the fire marshall that made the determination we're no longer going to require fire suppression on residential? >> No, that's that comes from the state.
>> That comes from the state. >> Yeah. And like Mr. Yeah. Are they I mean are they considering I mean so that when they made that decision did they say was it just I don't want to deal with the residential anymore or were they looking
at because we I think >> made some very big changes of what your typical residential is because of that. >> So going back to when this happened that was a uh like Mr. Perry said a polic a
decision from the council based on the agreement with the builder at the time to reduce those lot lines and to basically put more pro squeeze squeeze more properties into that subdivision, you know, and and so what's happened over the years, you know, there was some give and take there. The other thing is
I I well remember the access issues and our ladder trucks couldn't get in um you know, and so forth. And since then they've they've done uh redone the exit side and you know made it wider so we can go in through the outdoor basically.
Um you know and truck technology turning radiuses help you know things like that as well. Um so you know with you know there were some key points in there you know regarding like advancement and and technology for us. Um building uh
building construction is also a factor. Uh that's why I wouldn't remove that stipulation. Um you know and um you know some of the others requiring the landscaping and other access issues in between but you know and that's why I
say only the fire suppression system. our council woman coach. >> This is one of those instances as being a policy maker you kind of want to say because throughout the years because of
you know the public saying hey government you you got your hands on on me and my personal property get out. you know, so to avoid that, we've just loosened up on regulations. But I've
found myself in a lot of instances voting on something that we have either no choice, you know, we have to approve it, whether it's a good idea or not. It It's just sad that
sitting in this seat right now, just because you should or shouldn't doesn't mean it's right to do that. You know what I'm saying? And it's like just because now you're not regulated to have it, then
you don't have to. But in all honest, you know, flanking them. But anyway, this is tough. But we have to stick to the government guidelines. >> Yeah. And again, it's I never thought that I'd hear the fire department saying, "Don't do something." I bet it does
>> obviously and then also but I am a big believer in HOAs the docs that are written and whatever it was that it should stand you know but but normally an HOA doesn't come up to us up here >> to then make a decision um you know
because that was done through the original documents with the HOA correct >> the developer that then was turned over to the homeowners >> but yeah so um it's it's kind of weird let's why don't we go to Is there an applicant here that needs to talk first
and then we'll go to the public hearing? >> Thank you. >> I had some handouts, but you guys put this here >> here and we can see it. Yes. >> You've pretty much I'm sorry. So, >> state your name and who you are. >> My name is Scott Dano. Uh, nice to meet
you all. >> And you're with Sega. >> It's who are you with or? Um, >> it's just me. I'm the homeowner. >> Oh, you're the property owner. >> I'm the property owner. Building a house. Um, you guys have hit pretty much every major point that I was going to talk about. Um, we've had changes in the
buildings. Uh, when this was, you know, when this was applied in 2008, buildings were the buildings were 8 feet apart. Now, standard is five, which is where we are now. Our properties are long, so it
makes it seem like there's this closeness to it that normally wouldn't be as absurd looking from the space, but uh even the property that I'm living in now while I'm renting doing this, they're 5 ft apart. It's it's the norm. Um, put this down or up?
>> Just up. >> Yeah. >> If you look at, you know, we talked if I got this right, turn it the other way. >> There we go. >> Thank you. Sorry. Um, some of the things that have changed as over time is yes,
>> you get by the microphone. >> Construction has changed. >> Uh, access for the fire department. They have remote controls to go through our exit gate. And if you look here, this was the problem that we had. This little choke point right here where it went around. Well, the exit gate has been
adjusted. And if you look at it, it's right here. And when the fire department comes down or any of the emergency vehicles or moving vehicles and I mean constantly come in, they come in and they just make a straight run at it right there and they go right through. So that there's really no choke point
there any longer. Um there are two houses in there that were built without and the last one that had come before you guys and gotten a variance because they were at the gate. Uh the closest fire hydrant unfortunately is three or
four houses inside the gate. So still need access to get inside the gate to deal with any fire particular fire that would have been with that house. If you look here, I've got little red dots next to where the fire hydrant closest fire hydrant is. Um and you see this blue
line and this is where the house that was varianced is being built. So, no matter what, fire department has to come through the gate to service any form of fire. Um, if you look at the second dot, which is up here, it's two down from my
home. So, my h the the house that I'm building, which by the way, having been down here for 5 years, the construction has changed. I'm all concrete. Four hurricanes since I've been down here. Uh I've gone from what was my initial build
was concrete and then frame up is now frame straight up concrete straight up to the steel roof that I'm putting on it. I'm not dealing with any hurricanes. It's all hurricane glass which in 2008 was not really something that was put into building products.
It is as highly built and it's built to such a high standard because of those things. I don't see how it makes any difference. Again, you guys have hit every single point without me having to do my presentation.
I don't know if you have any questions for me. I I just, you know, I can go through the presentation, but it's it's simple. It's, you know, it's it's >> access and it's f, you know, and it's distance. There's there's not much more to say and I have you wanted to talk to
the HOA I have the president of the HOA here and the vice president of the HOA here and they're happy to speak to this >> if when we get in public hearing if they want to come up they can all right thank you appreciate it >> at this time we'll open the public hearing anyone wishing to speak anyone
wishing to speak please come forward please state your name and your city of residence Morning. I'm Bill McGawan. I'm a lifelong resident of Bradenon. Um I'm the president of the HOA Bellisol. Lived there about seven and a half years. Um my son is a city
firefighter. He's worked at station one, two, and three. He's driven all station two trucks into our entrance gate and he says no problem getting them in. So he's now at station three. His name's Joe Baker. You might know him. So, um, as
far as the HOA goes, we don't, it doesn't matter to us. Both s both houses on either side are sprinklered. Mine's sprinklered. I look at it as like a time bomb in the attic. It's eventually going to be need to be serviced and we've serviced the the bells and the and the gauges on it. So, we just did that uh
the last fall. So, but um what's now code is uh as you see with seaflower is um they're 10. They're actually 5 ft setbacks, but they're actually 10 and between my house and the neighbor's house is actually 20 because their house
is a little smaller. So, you think five, but it's actually a minimum of 10 and and is really greater than that. Um so, u the homeowners look at it as an extra expense. Scott didn't talk about the expense, but it's not 10,000. It's multiples of 10,000 to
put the sprinkler system in. As you can imagine, >> it's almost >> Yeah, it's almost 50. So, >> it it is he he knew about it when he bought the lot, but it's just we feel as homeowners, it's just not necessary. We appreciate your time. >> All right. Thank you. Anyone else
wishing to speak? >> Hey, good morning everyone. My name is Mark Owens. um been a resident here in Braden, Florida uh for 10 years. Also, uh immediate past president of the H Bellis Sole HOA and current vice president. Been in the community for 10 years now. Love the community, love the
city. Uh the bill referenced the fire suppression and some of the some of the homeowners have recently uh had had theirs assessed. I was one of them. Of the 35 houses that are there now, I believe only six homeowners have actually done this. Bill and also
mentioned time bomb. Terrifies me. What I have in my attic right now terrifies me. >> Sir, you mentioned about um as far as uh your requirements and everything as far as holding us to the standard. You know, at some point I I look at that gauge in that highly pressurized system and again it terrifies me. I'm so tempted every
day just to turn it off so I don't have something happening up there. The construction of these homes are just unmatched. Uh so I'm I'm not as concerned from a fire perspective there. And uh the response time with you guys is unmatched as well. So uh Bill also referenced there's no requirement from
the HOA. Uh we have no problems with that. Precedent seems to have been set with a couple of homes, three that do not have those systems in there for whatever reason. How that was either overlooked or just not enforced at the time. So uh I look at it in that capacity, the undue cost to to the
degree of that. I'm looking to our neighbors also that may have to incur certain significant cost in the future if something terrible does happen with those systems. Not related to a fire, just from a highly pressurized system throughout that entire home could go
haywire anytime. I had a HVAC team in my house yesterday and they looked up and saw the the heads and they were nervous about hitting them. I get it. They are actually I said they're recessed. some of them are not uh in the community. So, you know, placing that burden on the
homeowner, I think is uh is not uh you know, something we should do going forward. We have one more lot as you mentioned uh and hopefully that homeowner won't have to go through this as well, but I'd ask the uh the council here to u approve Mr. Deano's request. Thank you. >> Thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak?
Anyone else wishing to speak? >> One more thing. >> Let me close the public hearing here. the homeowner. Um, hearing no public more public, we'll close the public hearing. If the homeowner wants to come up, the property owner wants to come up for a rebuttal. >> My understanding,
>> wait till you get to the microphone. >> My understanding talking to the building and zoning is our 37 homes are unique in all of Bradenton City. I think it may be the only if maybe one other that has this kind of a
requirement, this sort of antiquated requirement. Um, so yes, would it be great to have fire sprinklers in every single house? Would it be safer? Yes, it'd be safer to drive 30 miles an hour instead of 60 m an hour. There's there's a there's a, you know, a reasonability
factor there that, you know, I keep looking at and I can't get past. >> So, thank you so much. I really appreciate all your time. >> Any staff? >> I apologize. Chief, anything before >> chair entertains a motion?
>> I don't think so. >> I wish I had a better recommendation, but um >> so your recommendation is approval. >> I I think so at this point. >> So chair will entertain a motion. >> Mr. Mayor, but before you take a motion,
I just want to make sure everyone understands what's on uh before the council today is just the elimination of the stipulation for that one property. So, if they wanted to look at eliminating it for the entire community, they would have to come back with a with a different application
>> and that's the only stipulation that we would negate because as I'm understanding as as evidence is presented, there are other stipulations dealing with construction materials, etc., etc. So, the only one that we're looking at is >> not requiring the
>> city staff. Uh, I pulled up the original approved in August 13 of08 regular session. There were six, seven, seven stipulations that were brought in at that time and approved. And this one
is only pertaining to number five with uh has it pertains to the fire suppression within that one stipulation. It does not say anything else regarding uh construction setbacks, anything. It it was entirely self-contained.
>> Maybe the chief can point us out to his reliance on construction material. >> So does it address the uh concrete >> block >> concrete block? I I will read it out. >> Yeah, if you don't mind reading it. Yeah. >> So, uh the individual residences are to include sprinkler systems in accordance
with city requirements. As such, applicant agrees to include provision within homeowner association documents for Bellisoul stating that in the event of individual owner fails to pay their water utility bill, the city may bill the homeowner association to ensure that such water service will continue without
interruption to assure continuous fire protection. However, the homeowner association shall not be responsible for taking any measures when whenever to assure payment of water utility bills by an individual owner and shall only be responsible for the payments build to
the homeowner association by the city of the above events occur. Such billing by the city shall only occur after the city has taken reasonable steps to require that the individual owner pays the water utility bill directly to the city.
Does it have anything to do with what we're talking about? >> Yeah, I thought I thought we were talking about building standards. >> Yeah. Are are there other key points aside from the >> aside from the fire suppression system? >> No, that's what we're here for is fire suppression. >> Okay. >> No, I think the the question is whether
there are other stipulations related to >> had to do with like landscaping had to do with like um I don't have it right in front of me, but there were some other requirements. I mean to go back to the original question, the answer is yes.
The only stipulation that is been requested to be modified is the stipulation related to the fire suppression system. Whether there are other stipulations applicable to the project, I I don't know that. >> Well, one thing though too with and get
to Mr. Barnaby. Uh, Miss Barnaby is though when it talks about the city code, but you were saying what was the city code then and it doesn't sound like it really said that if there's no city code for fire sprinklers and homes now, what
are we really doing? >> So, it was a back then it was a pol like Mr. Uh um Perry said a a policy decision based on the recommendation from the fire marshal at the time and it had to do with access issues and then the
reduced lot lines taken from I think it was 14 uh squeezing into 37 uh lots if I remember my numbers right >> 18 to 37 okay 1837 so you know there was all that that wasn't um um normal
building code at the time or fire code. And so that's why the recommendation for the fire sprinkler at that at that time uh was recommended. >> What you're saying if they were going to build this exact subdivision today, >> we wouldn't have that requirement. >> No. No, sir. >> Miss Barnaby.
>> Well, again, >> now we I'm sorry. Go ahead. No, I was saying we've received testimony today that um and and I I absolutely believe the the property owner saying this um that there
will be certain construction materials used that should be less flammable. And so that was my question was we're only addressing the fire suppression system with this. However, to receive my
vote, >> yeah, >> to put on the board >> be in favor of this, I need I'm like Ronald Reagan trust but verify. >> I think Miss Singer has some more for us. >> Just if you look at um page 11 of 14 of
the staff report, that's has the original stipulations. >> So, it lists them all there. >> The construction is not listed as one of them. The stipulation requiring setback is stipulation one which is the combined sideyard setback of adjacent lot shall be no less than 16
ft in the front excluding the portico and shall be no less than 12 ft in the rear. >> Is there any mayor if I may is there anything as it relates to the zoning designation in a high velocity exone or otherwise that would make a certain type of construction material be required?
Um, >> not really. No, I didn't think it was the flood zone. It It has more to do with elevation and um >> so it doesn't have to be concrete block. >> No, not necessarily. I mean, if you below the flood zone, you have to have actually frangible. So, so I'm going to
extend that the premise that that this was wasn't as dangerous from a fire protection perspective was predicated on a change to the code as well as a higher level of construction material material being less combustible. And we've just
found out that there is no way to ensure that a less combustible material such as masonary comprete block CMU which is typically used is required in this So, can we just all kind of understand that's where the ball is on the field?
>> Would you agree with that, Chief? >> I'll agree with that. Okay. >> Mrs. more >> um what what do we is is it safe to compare this to other maybe either multif family uh type of development or
you know uh what do we do now when we have like town homes or something like that when you have close proximity because I think all of us want to let property owners do whatever they want to do however when you're talking public safety you know I'm I'm good with everyone doing whatever they'd like to
do as long as it doesn't affect other people or put jeopardize other people or their property. Um, so I'm just trying to figure out that standard. You know, to some extent, you know, that's how we had Surfside because we let people do what they wanted to do and I'm trying to avoid some kind of disaster.
>> So, if a new uh town home or, you know, residential neighborhood or something was being proposed, uh, that would go through, you know, site improvement permit. It would get looked up by fire. We would defer to what fire would say in those instances. They're the experts.
>> You you're cross you you immediately cross away from single family to multif family >> and it's different. >> It's different. Yeah. Then we then we go in and do our thing. We inspect. We enforce the fire codes, etc. >> Do we require suppression systems?
>> Yes. >> Maybe we should ask the owner what his intention is as it relates to construction material. He's mentioned he he he did >> he's already stipulated. >> Yes, he did stipulate >> an area to steal roof. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> We're good. That is a stipulation.
>> Yeah. >> Right. That's why I was assuming that they did. Yeah. Thank you, Mayor. I didn't mean to address you directly. Y >> So, u Madame Vice Mayor. >> Yes. >> Um Mr. Rutil. So if if we wanted to approve this
stipulation and then add the stipulation that there would be specific building materials required such as concrete block and a steel roof, which the applicant has already agreed that that's what he wants to do. >> Mhm. >> Would that be acceptable? Could we do it
that way? >> Yes. >> Okay. Um Okay. Would you like to do I have a motion? >> Sure. Um, since this keeps being pointed out that I was the one sitting here back
in the day, um, I would like to move approval of this request. Um, regarding the non requirement of sprinkling apparatus with the stipulation that concrete
material, a steel roof, and other less combustible items as applicable >> be considered. Also, I would say it there's another lot that hasn't been developed. And would
this apply to both lots? >> No, >> just for this one. >> Just for this one. >> It was only advertised for this one. >> Okay. All right. >> And I'm not, you know, I'm not playing attorney, but >> and I think the more specific you can be to say less combustible. >> May I May I make a friendly amendment
suggestion? >> Sure. Um, can you speak to to in order to narrow down and get some specificity, can we link our stipulation about building materials to multif family? >> What? >> No. Why?
>> This is a single family. You're No, I know that this is single family, but if we're trying to get to >> This is only regarding one. >> No, I I understand that. I'm saying, do we want them to adhere to the standard of fire safety up to having to have a suppression system that a multif family
would have? Do they have any? >> That's a heightened degree. >> Yeah, that's a requirement. >> I mean, are we we're trying to make their building materials heightened. We're trying to make them have more. >> We're doing it individually on this piece of property pursuant to the building plans. >> I'm just I'm trying to link it to
something that makes sense. If you were if we were building town homes that were attached amendment. >> Okay. But I would like to clarify what I meant. >> So like so one thing that the fire marshall talked with the owner about was that the fact that it was going to be concrete block construction. Okay, which
is low you know uh you know meets more of a fire separation standard you know in between homes. You know if he was just going to do a wood frame we'd have a a huge problem with that. Okay. So, it's going to be a concrete block construction. You know, if he's okay
with a stipulation on that, we'd be ecstatic. >> Yeah. But, but again, if all we're doing is saying you don't have to have a sprinkler system, then how are we saying if he wants to build a wood frame, we'd stop it. >> That's what this >> stipulation heard. But, but what I'm saying is, so
it's not we're putting the stipulation on by removing the fire suppression that's there right now. And my question would also be you're saying steel roof. >> That's what he said in in evidence metal. >> I'm sorry. Okay. >> I just wanted to All right. All right.
There's no no dialogue from the audience, please. I I know we're asking, but but we just got to keep that down. >> It's okay. It's all right. Um I am not a contractor and I'm not either. I was trying to get to specificity of the type of materials that would be the most
fires safe short of requiring a fire suppression system is where I was going with that. >> Well, that that's exactly what we were looking for and the fire marshall as well was talking with the homeowner about just because of the close proximity being concrete construction
that would go a long way by itself. >> Okay. So, Mr. Ruticil if if I the amendment states that that um the stipulation is not to require the suppression system based on the property
having concrete construction and a metal roof. >> Yes. >> Am I okay with that? >> Yes. >> And as a policy matter I think this reconciles. I think it's a great motion because it reconciles some give and take. It's economical for the builder to
do it better than to put the $50,000 suppression system in, but it progresses what the pol original policy concerns, which was fire protection that was initiate initially agreed to for these types of things. >> So, we have a motion. >> It's a little messy getting there, but but I like it.
>> Second by Miss Coker. We've had exhausting discussion, which was good. So, we'll start the vote to approve in ward five with the motion by Miss Barnaby. Yes. >> One. >> Yes. >> Two. >> Yes. >> Three. >> Yes.
>> Four. >> Yes. >> Carries. Five to zero. Thank you, >> Madame Clerk. >> Item 7 C is the first public hearing for PLN- DVA-26-00001 local government or I'm sorry, local
development agreement. And this is for approval of a development agreement between the city of Bradenton and Amry's Investments pursuant to section 163.3227 Florida statutes.
>> Hello Jamie. >> Hello. One moment. Sorry. >> No problem. Hello. Hello. Good morning, council. >> Good morning. Yes. >> Uh I Okay. Well, to start off, um I do need to pass out
a slight amendment to the um development agreement. Um, this is the first public hearing. There will be a second one. I only printed out the um the changes. They are very minor. They're mostly just clarification. I didn't print out a whole new uh
development agreement for everyone because again, this is just the first reading. >> Can you give them? >> Um, yeah, I can do that. >> Okay. Um, so yes, good morning. My name is Jamie Shindlewolf. I am here to present the staff report for this um land development agreement and I have
been sworn. So as stated this is a land development agreement and this is in relation to a I don't know how to get rid of that uh a comprehensive plan amendment. So the proposed project is a mixeduse building with um a total of 345 multif family
units on 3.7 acres. Um this comes uh to approximately 94 dwelling units per acre. The land is currently vacant and they are um this is not the request for the future land use uh amendment but this is coming before you because they
are seeking a future land use district amendment from urban central business district to urban core. Here is the um the location of the project. You all I'm sure know it well. It's also known as the old city hall site at the corner of Many Avenue West
and 15th Street West along Wear's Creek. So, why is a land development agreement needed in this case? It's needed because it is a requirement due to the request to increase the allowable density in the coastal high hazard area because they're seeking that comprehensive plan
amendment that would increase their allowable density. Um, and then it's also required to increase the number of allowed dwelling units above the base of 60 units per acre in the urban core. So,
looking at the two districts, they're currently uh they currently have a future land use designation of urban central business district that allows uh a maximum base density of 40 dwelling units per acre. The request um that they
will be coming before you with um shortly is to increase to urban core which has a maximum base density of 60 dwelling units per acre. Um in addition to that, they are able to come before city council and request an increase of
up to 200 units per acre if they meet the criteria that's listed here. And I will go into more detail uh in a moment on that. So if they were to seek that full 200 units per acre which they are not asking for
they uh would be able to hit a total of 789 units. Uh they are requesting 345 units which is approximately 94 dwelling units per acre. So it's greater than that maximum base density of 60 but it is less than the total ask that they
could be coming before you of 200 units per acre. So the criteria to allow for that increase above the base density of 60 dwelling units per acre are as follows. The first is providing for multi-use solutions for transportation. Um
emphasis on pedestrian access alternative transportation walkability. Uh the applicant asserts that there are existing sidewalks. This is located near the bus transfer station and they are proposing bicycle facilities uh such as storage and parking. The development should be arranged in
block dimensions that maintain a pedestrian scale and the applicant will be um maintaining the existing lot and block dimensions of downtown. They are um including a public park in their proposal and you will see that on their site plan that I will show and the
architecture is uh meant to recognize existing context of the area. Um the proposed development is seven stories which the applicant asserts is appropriate with the existing building massing in that area. the composition and materials that they intend will blend with existing buildings in the
vicinity. Additionally, the formbbased code contains architectural requirements. So, those are highly based on what is existing in our downtown area. This is the conceptual plan that's included with the land development agreement. Um, you can see that along
Where's Creek, they are proposing a public park there. the uh ground floor along the um 15th Avenue west side and um there at that corner of Mante Avenue West um is also proposed to be commercial.
Here is a map. I know it's not the prettiest, but it does show that this area uh this property is within our coastal high hazard area. And this is the second reason that this is coming before you with a land development agreement because they are requesting that increase in density from what they're currently allowed um to what
they would like to go to within the coastal high hazard area. Uh our comprehensive plan was recently amended to allow for this density increase as long as uh they are meeting one of these criteria here. This comes from language that is in a state
statute. A mitigation plan was provided by the applicant regarding hurricane evacuation procedure for the proposed development. We are expecting um some amendments to that plan to come through prior to the second hearing. The applicant may be able to speak to this more um because they are here in the
audience today um with more specificity regarding these evacuation times that are called out in this policy. Uh this is just the policy that we have in our comprehensive plan that explains that a development agreement um is the avenue that shall be used um approved by
the city council prior to or concurrent with the adoption of a proposed map amendment. So this is coming to you along with that map amendment. You'll have the the first reading is today for that map amendment. The public hearing will be at the next uh city council meeting.
The development agreement includes a hurricane mitigation plan. Uh provides that binding conceptual site plan that you've seen limits the developer to 345 dwelling units. And then these next two points are um what you have before you that changed just slightly. Um just to
clarify about that the project uh will include the infrastructure repair and redevelopment including um for those seaw walls along Where's Creek and then also um solidifying in that development agreement that they will be providing a public park.
And that is what we have for the staff report. I also do want to point out we have um conflict attorney um Angela Angel here um if we have any legal questions and concerns. Thank you. >> All right. Um
here from the applicant >> good morning mayor and council. Um pa here I'm with ZNS. I'm here on behalf of the applicant. I actually have a presentation but it encompasses the comp plan amendment and the development agreement together. So I don't know if you want to open both agenda items or how that would work. I don't want to go
ahead and present on the comp plan amendment without that agenda item being open. So completely up to you all >> there. In talking with the planning department about this, I think it might be if we can do that and that's going to be a legal question that Erica might need to answer, but but but one is
related to the other and it's kind of important that you understand it. Miss Rindle Wolf did put up a slide that kind of pointed that out, but it probably wasn't particularly noticed that it has to be done concurrent or prior to. >> Right. So take it from there. >> From a legal perspective, you can open
up both agenda items. Typically a land development agreement is ran as a legislative decision. However, because of the increased density bonus, it will have to be run as a quasi judicial proceeding um for the four criteria that are required for that density bonus. In order to be most efficient or effective,
you might want to open both up. Run that all as quasudicial, but then there will be I would suggest three different motions for approval. uh one motion for approval for the future land use map change, one motion for approval for the increased density and one motion for approval for the land development
agreement as a whole. Um and they are all conditioned on each other >> and not today. Correct. This is all first, >> right? For first reading, correct? But just so that you are aware of the procedure kind of going through this process that is kind of what the parties have discussed and um makes the most sense from a lead. >> So what do we have to do now to her to
be able to talk about both open up D? >> But I would open up D as well. Um and then it will be run as a quas judicial hearing. >> So do we need to have the clerk read D into the record or just Okay. So we'll do that. We'll have the clerk read >> want Jamie to present on D and then I can come up and present on both as the
option. >> There any more to present Jamie? She doesn't look like there's more to present. >> No. So what she's already presented. Okay. So madame clerk if you'll read D and then we'll have them both open on the record. This is the first reading
for ordinance 4067, an ordinance of the city of Bradenton, Florida, amending the city of Bradenton comprehensive plan future land use map to designate certain land generally located west of 15th Street West, north of 6th Avenue West,
and south of Manatee Avenue West, identified as parcel ID 335400109, and more particularly described herein, containing approximately 3.9464 acres and owned by Manatee County from
the urban central district UCBD future land use category to the urban core urb future land use category providing for applicability providing for severability and providing for an effective date.
>> Thank you. >> All right. As I said earlier, Pestigraia um I'm a Manatee County resident. I've been sworn um here today as the agent for the applicant on small-scale comprehensive plan map amendment for the old city hall site and the local
development agreement that is going along with that. Um I'm going to introduce our team. Everybody's here today to answer questions um that you have after this. Um uh applicant is Amra's Investments in the Developers Alen Morris Company. Um myself and Nathan Crot are here from ZNS. He's the
civil engineer and I'm the planner. Bill Galvano and Bill Kle are legal counsel here. Michael Yates is here with Palm Traffic and Chris Kennedy from Kimley Horn is here for environmental. Um the site is located at the intersection of Manatee Avenue and 15th Street West. Um
it is across the street from the Bradon Financial Center. Dotto Towers is directly to the south and Westminster to the north. Currently has a future land use designation of urban central business district and it is zone T5. And this is
a graphic representation of what our small-cale comprehensive map amendment is. That's what our this is our request. We just want to extend the urban core designation right across the street so that instead of being urban central business district, we would be urban core.
This is the Florida statute that governs smallcale comprehensive map amendments. And when we submitted our application for this comp plan amendment, we did what's called a community impact report, which is a pretty intensive analysis of the site. So, as I go through the presentation, I just want to bring that
in front of you just to kind of put put a little bit of information out about the different aspects that we did analysis on when we were going through our application and and we put it in front of of staff. The first thing we looked at was the visual impact analysis. This proposed development is a
visual improvement to the currently vacant space that's there. Um, it's going to be located among uh existing multi-story buildings. You've got Dotto Towers which is 12 stories tall. The Braon Financial is 10 and Westminster is um six stories at one part and 10
stories at another. Um for visual compatibility, it is going to be located in the T5 transect zone and so we're going to be governed less any adjustments that are requested during the formbbased code review. It will be governed by those T5 standards. Um and it's also got incorporated in the design
at present some lovely green space areas um which I'll also talk about a little bit later in the presentation. We also did a land use assessment. Um, north is Res High and UCBD. South is UCBD. West is none. It borders Creek and then east
is UC. Um, now for the comprehensive plan, the urban core does provide a hub for economic development and civic uses. So, a change to UC here would really support the city's revitalization efforts in the downtown area. um it provides that mixeduse variety and
that's what we're coming to you with with this development and with this application for for a change to UC and as Jamie described the increased density what we are allowed for by writing UCBD is 148 units what we would be um I guess
asking for is 345 but if underneath UC with city council approval we would be allowed 200 um again with your approval but we would not be asking for that um that would be 789 units. We are proposing 345 on the site.
We also did a traffic study um here at the site. There is an increase in trips, but the city, this location is in a transportation concurrency exception area. Um it's in an urban pedestrian area. It's also located adjacent to a transit stop. There's one right across the street and there is proposed bicycle
parking on site. And in line with parking, we also are providing on-site parking for the multif family uses, all commercial uses proposed on-site, as well as the proposed public park. Um, in fact, the developer is making a $12 million investment in the parking garage
for the multif family residential uses and the commercial uses proposed. Plus, the parking spaces are governed by the city of Bradenon's land use regulations. So, we would be following all the requirements for the uses based on those land use regulations. We also did an environmental impact
assessment. No significant adverse impacts to state or federal listed species were anticipated. We are going to have some wetland impacts. There's 0.04 acres of mangrove um wetland impacts because the seaw walls in disrepair. Um it needs to be rebuilt at a higher elevation for flood prevention
and um it it needs reconstruction. Um, mangrove wetlands have been those wetlands have been previously impacted and disturbed by historical shoreline alterations and so they do exhibit reduced value and function and mitigation is going to be provided through the purchase of mitigation
credits um, consistent with state and federal permits for the project. We also did an area impact analysis and that was just kind of a general look at the area. We're proposing on site right now multif family uses, restaurant offices, a restaurant offices, coffee
shop, and a public pedestrian park. These are all these uses that are proposed in this one mixeduse facility. It's really an excellent infill opportunity. Um the map amendment is a logical extension of urban core. It's right across the street. We're not breaking contiguity with that district.
Um and assigning this property urban core would really allow for that increased density and that increased mixeduse opportunity for the site. We also did a hurricane evacuation analysis. Um it is located in evacuation zone A. Azone residents are the first
ones to evacuate um during an hurricane natural disaster and we did do a draft local development agreement that's also on the agenda today um included for review. Um, and it includes a hurricane mitigation plan as an exhibit. And we're currently working with staff on um
refining the language of that development agreement and the plan. Um, so it should be ready by the time the second review or the second reading is uh in a couple of weeks. The development agreement is required as part of the density increase request. Um, and Jamie went through the requirements for that.
And then per Florida statute, the agreement also memorializes the mitigation plan um for the increased density. So, just to wrap up visually, the project is an improvement to the current vacant space, and it's going to fit really well with the existing multi-story nearby buildings. Um,
assigning urban core to the site provides for an infill redevelopment opportunity in town, and it really is a logical extension of urban core right across the street. Um, that urban core designation allows for the higher density than would be um would be for UCBD and it also accommodates for a
higher number of multif family units, providing more residential units in the city. Um along with multif family, the development is also proposing commercial uses, public park and um a parking garage on site for all those uses. And then the urban core designation on the site allows for a a true mixeduse
walkable community. It activates the riverfront right there. It's really promoting this um this really great mixeduse development downtown and it perfectly aligns with the city's goals for enhancing the downtown area. So with that, we really appreciate your review
here. my team or myself. We're here to answer any questions. >> Any questions or now do we Mr. Rouso when we do the public hearing going to do them each individually or can we do it together? >> Mr. is the conflict council on this. >> Okay. I'm sorry. >> Just go ahead and hold a public hearing
on >> on both. Okay. Yep. All right. Thank you, >> Mr. Mayor. >> Yes. >> When do we get to talk about it? We can talk the public hearing and then we'll talk about All right. At this time, we'll open the public hearing. Anyone
wishing to speak? Anyone wishing to speak? Anyone wishing to speak? Hearing none. We'll close the public hearing. Councilwoman Moore. >> Um I just a couple of things that I wanted to point out. Um number one, the traffic um well, first let me just say
this. I want all of our infill projects to be successful. So any of my comments are aimed towards making sure that that's where we land is success. Um I think everyone knows that this area is a super choke point for traffic um
coming eastbound especially in the late afternoon. Um, I raise that because again, aiming for success, I feel like that really has to be addressed, not only from just a quality of life issue for everyone there, but also if we are
uh because we're in the coastal high hazard, we have to take the hurricane um evacuation plan seriously. And not only are we looking at this particular development and those units being able to evacuate safely, but this this
corner, this little area of Manatee and six are also the point of exit for evacuation for pretty much all of Northwest Bradenton. And so in a hurricane situation, my concern is that you're going to see people piling up
right there as everyone's trying to evacuate. So, I I would really like to see and and the traffic I think the traffic uh study that you all included paints a stark picture about how we're going to address that. So, I feel like that absolutely has to be more
definitively addressed. Um and then my second comment is so where I'm sorry, Miss um Shindow Wolf, where were we adding this language where these revisions were made to paragraphs three?
Is that right? 3 B and 3 B and D. >> Yeah, I'm not I don't have Okay. Yeah, it's it's the the letters line up though. Yeah, the B and the D. >> I think it is. So, the the the the revision to paragraph 3B in the land development um agreement.
I guess I'm I'm looking for some specificity regarding the inclusion of the parenthetical that says subject to mutually accepting funding agreement with city and or CRA. What if we don't have a mutually acceptable funding agreement? Then what happens? And >> what's that?
>> And that provision would fall out. It's a condition provision. >> So that means that then they would not have to >> Yeah. You're going to have to come up to the microphone if we're going to >> then that provision would not be it's a condition provision. So it would not be approved without the condition. Um if
there is no approved funding, then that condition or that provision would fall out of the land development agreement. that is something that you're going to want to consider when you're considering approving the land development agreement. >> Is it safe to say that if in the CA in in the scenario that there is not a mutually acceptable agreement for
funding with the city and or CRA and this PE division falls out based on the level of the construction of the project that the city potentially would have to engage in some repairs to the seaw wall at its own expense. >> I mean I think that's a fair assumption.
I So then just to round that up, I feel like that also would have to be addressed before. >> All right. Um I'm going to talk a little bit about traffic. We talk about traffic everything we do, which is very important and traffic is very crucial. But when you look at it, one of the most
important things when we are doing evacuations and that people listen to the evacuation and if they're in an Azone, leave, get out when you can. Um in the mornings, traffic isn't as bad coming into town.
um from areas and at night it's worse leaving. So some of those things I think the evacuation zones are very important have to be addressed. But you also have to look at people are going to have to heed the advice when it's coming. In 2024 had a friend that didn't heed the advice
and had his seven and nineyear-old on the top of the dresser when four feet of water was in his house. Didn't know what he was going to do. But you got to heed the advice. And I we stress that and that's what I probably stress the most on all of the national TV commercials I did. But the reason I say that is
because people I think will listen a little more for a little while longer. Now we go five more years, 10 more years, people aren't going to listen and then they're going to have to, you know, deal with it. But I think when you look at, you know, traffic is relevant. When we're having a hurricane or we're having
bad weather, people are going to be able to get out of there and it's, you know, going to show how they get out and where we go. the traffic with the police department, with the fire department will be outdirecting them. So to maybe make a decision only on that, I think is the
wrong avenue to go. But I think when you're looking at things, we really got to focus on what we want to do for our urban core in downtown. And that's build more walkability. We're we just approved a contract with the EDC for the rest of this year. We went to some seminars.
That's the biggest part. heads and beds, walkable area, and this builds on that again, creating it. And it actually creates less traffic for the 99.9% of the time of the year that we want because people will be able to walk. There'll be retail. That's what we're
building. So, I don't disagree with what you're saying, but I think we also got to look at the positives. Oh, >> yeah. Well outweigh anything 100%. So, and and again, we know we heard the lady today said that we were going to do it for a developer, but we didn't even know who the developer was. So, you know,
maybe we did and we should have, but that's not it's not all about only the developer. It's about the project that's going to help the city and the community grow into other things. I don't see any other cards up. So, >> well, >> okay, Miss Only other thing, um,
completely agree with everything you just said. Um, the only thing is we are a tree city and this is our fault with that. We've talked about changing the the zoning. I just don't want I don't want us to look like a concrete jungle
and I don't see any trees. I know these are just renderings, but with the um formbbased code, you it really limits what they can do for trees. And I don't know how we accommodate that, but I just don't as we're I'm excited about
everything that we're doing. I just want to make sure we have trees left. >> Well, I think we don't want to turn what the building on 14th Street is. That looks like >> the Rubik's Cube. >> Yeah. So, >> no. >> And and that's understood and something
we'll take into consideration. I do do want to say architectural standards are part of the criteria that you're when you're looking at this LDA for the additional density and so if you feel that trees are important um they did not include in their package materials the
building elevations they have presented those here today uh they have a little note on there to say not for approval however to the degree that those are a factor in your decision of compliance with the architectural standards um we can make sure that those are included in the final development agreement. If you
recall for 920 Manatee, we came back to you when they changed their elevations because after it goes through the whole approval process of the site improvement plans and everything else that we have to and the formbbased code review, um those could change and so we will bring them back to you, but there should be
something in there that supports your decision on whether or not you're going to approve this on second reading. Um with respect to the building elevations, um >> I just don't want and I don't want to single them out. I'm just really talking more in generality because I
>> but you do have the ability if you feel that that is necessary to meet the criteria to impose that kind of >> stipulation or or say that you know you're you want it built according to these elevations but you you know as far as pedestrian and mobility issues maybe
tree cover is an important >> and there's a park along the >> yeah most of the landscaping is shown along the back where they have the public park and they have the courtyard towards the front as well. Um, also just to reiterate was said in the petitioner's presentation, of course, we weren't
planning on presenting the full comp plan amendment, but just to reiterate, the T5 zoning is not changing. The T5 regulates building height and it regulates uh to a greater degree the building uses and that's not changing. So whatever they could build before in
those terms, it's just the increase in density that's really accomplished through the comp plan amendment. So >> Okay. >> Thank you. So this is just the first reading and public hearing. So do we go what's the date we put on this?
>> May 27th. >> Yep. So this will come back to us May 27th. We don't have to do anything else right >> today. Do you typically move to vote it forward on first rating? >> No, we don't. >> Yeah. Nothing else.
>> All right, Madame Clerk. Moving forward. >> This is the second reading and public hearing for ordinance 4072, an ordinance of the city of Bradenton, Florida, annexing into the city of Bradenton. certain real property contiguous there too. Generally located
east of 50th Street West and approximately 70 ft south of Manatee Avenue West, identified as 50750th Street West. The parcel ID is 3629 03
and 50950th Street West. The parcel ID is 3629000000005 and more particularly described herein containing excuse me approximately 0.397 acres total and owned by Shiv PL and Zea
Ray LLC respectively providing for findings of fact providing for amendment of the city boundaries providing for severability and providing for an effective Okay, >> thank you. Um,
still good morning city council. Um, again I am Jamie Shindwolf. I am here to present the staff report for this case and uh from city staff, planning staff and I have been sworn. Um, so yes, before you today is the
second reading, a public hearing uh regarding ordinance 4072, a request for a voluntary annexation into the city of Bradenton. This is uh these properties represent approximately 02 miles. Um, they're just
south of Manatee, Hold on. These are two parcels, excuse me, that are approximately 0.02 miles south of Manatee Avenue West, located along 50th Street West. The purpose of this annexation ultimately is to redevelop these properties into a larger
medical office and accompanying parking. Here is the Florida statute that governs voluntary annexations. And here you can see the location of these two subject parcels right there south of Manatee Avenue West.
Just for your information, um the current zoning that is adjacent to that to those parcels is suburban commercial corridor and the um future land use that is adjacent matches that. Uh you will hear today is the first reading and then
there will be a public hearing and second reading um to designate these parcels with a zoning and future land use category um provided that you do approve the annexation um that will come before you in a few weeks. >> So when considering an annexation um the
applicant is required to supply an annexation feasibility study. So I'll go through those criteria. Um this uh application does not uh create an enclave. The parcel north of these subject properties is located within the jurisdiction of the city of Bradenton.
Um these parcels are uh contiguous to uh land that's already under uh Bradon's jurisdiction. So this is not a leapfrog extension of the boundaries. This annexation does not create a pocket of unincorporated land. It does not create
a newly irregular city boundary because areas along Manatee Avenue West have historically been annexed into the city. Um, regarding public services, a facilities report was attached to uh your staff report um created by Irvin
Lee, our public works director. This memorandum addresses in detail the provision of public services for this parcel. Manatee County will be providing portable water and sanitary sewer. And the uh the applicant did also
provide a fiscal impact assessment um indicating that this annexation should result in additional um the the applicant stated uh $3,372.61 um this was an estimate into city coffers with little additional need for
service. As stated, amendments to future land use and zoning will be coming before you for first reading today and then the ultimate hearing um in a few weeks. And that is all that I have for you from a staff perspective. We do have a
representative um of the applicant here as well if you have any questions for either staff or um the applicant and they are also prepared to present. Thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. Gaz. Oh, I thought you were laughing.
>> No, >> like I like Bob. >> Where is Bob? >> Hello. Thank you. Uh uh council people. I appreciate >> Could you please adjust your microphone, Mr. Goss? >> All right. >> Thank you. My name is Bob Gos with Gland
Associates. I have been sworn I'm joined here by one of the owners, Dr. Patel. He and his wife actually own the LLC's that own the properties. Um and um you've already gotten a very good presentation about what we're doing and that we've submitted the feasibility analysis and
so I'm just going to kind of try and talk to you a little bit about the why. Uh I've just got this is sort of a picture of the manatee avenue and you can see you've got city properties and commercial and professional zonings along it. Um this started as thing Dr.
Patel um he owns a business there. You see that I've kind of shown the property lines. It shares a driveway with the professional property that fronts on Manatee Avenue. They both take access off of 50th Street. and um and uh basically he wanted to make improvements
and expand his his office. And unfortunately, Manatee County U comprehensive plan has a provision that says that thou shalt not make increase any non-residential use if it's not on a functionally classified road. And it doesn't me matter if you're only 100 ft off of that functionally classified
road. Thou shalt not do it. And uh we met with county staff to talk about doing it, what we wanted to do. And uh bottom line is they just said you can't do it. Comp plan doesn't allow it. But you know, you're right there. The city of Braden's right there next to you annexing to them, which is sort of the
why we're here. Uh the other parcel uh which is joining the first parcels is actually a single family residential unit, but it's actually used more as a VBO and um also as a part-time real estate office. So that's uh and it's um
the first parcel's uh got a future land use designation of RO retail office residential. Um this one has a res six. The first one has a zoning of I think PR um M and this one has a zoning of RSF
4.5 and we'll be asking for uh suburban commercial corridor future land use and zone assuming you annex us into the city of Bradenon. So as uh Jamie's already told you uh the feasibility plan has been provided. It's been reviewed by
staff. They agree that we've met the criteria. Um the facilities report that's been added has offered no objections. Uh we're basically going to still be um you know using Manatee County water and sewer. Uh but we'll be
switching to city of Braden uh solid waste police and fire. Um is sort of how it's going to be in the storm water. Uh you probably didn't notice it, but there's actually a storm drain just barely north of the driveway that we'll be required to tie into for the storm water, which be it own separate
challenge because of you know how you deal with that. Um but we're consistent with the designations of the adjacent property. Um the property is already used for non-residential purposes, but this is what's going to allow them to redevelop the properties. Um, it will
also provide additional property taxes for the city of Braden. So, that's always good. And, uh, we were unanimously recommended for approval by the planning commission on April 13th or 15th. And, uh, I'm other than that, if you have any questions, I'm here to try and answer them. Thank you.
>> Any questions? We do have a public hearing. Do that first. Let's open the public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak? Anyone wishing to speak? Anyone wishing to speak? Hearing none, we'll close the public hearing.
Questions or chair will entertain a motion. >> First reading. >> Sure. >> You want me to do that? Okay. >> Is it? >> Sorry, I'm dealing with issues. >> I thought it was first reading. >> Okay. >> This is second reading. The other two are first reading. >> Yeah.
>> Uh I I need to get the motion. Hold on. I got it. agenda. >> Okay. >> Vice Mayor Coker, >> the wrong one. >> Yeah. >> It says no action is required. First reading. >> No, this is ordinance 4072. >> Am I on the wrong one?
>> No, I think. >> Sorry. >> 40. Okay. >> Let me see. >> 4072. >> Okay. I make a motion to approve ordinance 4072. >> Second. >> All right. Any discussion? Hearing none, we'll
start the vote in ward one. Yes. >> Two. >> Yes. >> Three. >> Yes. >> Four. >> Yes. >> Five. >> Yes. >> Carries. Five to zero. Thank you. And now we're going to the first readings. >> Since that got approved, now we can do the next two. So, uh, madame clerk,
>> this is the first reading for ordinance 4073, an ordinance of the city of Bradenton, Florida, amending the city of Bradenton comprehensive plan future land use map to designate certain land generally located east of 50th Street
West and 70 ft south of Manatee Avenue West, identified as parcel ID 3629, 1 03 and 3629 29 00005 and more particularly described herein
containing approximately 0.397 acres and owned by shiv ohm pl and ze ray LLC respectively under the suburban commercial corridor future land use category providing for applicability providing for severability and providing
for an effective date and the second reading and public hearing will be on May 27th Okay. Item G is the first reading for ordinance 4074, an ordinance of the city of Bradenton, Florida, providing for an amendment to
the city of Bradenton land use at land use atlas to designate certain land generally located east of 50th Street West and 70 ft south of Manatee Avenue West, identified as parcel ID 362900003
and 36290000. 00005 and more particularly described herein containing approximately 0.397 acres and owned by shivpl and zea rig LLC respectively under the suburban
commercial corridor zoning category providing for applicability providing for severability and providing for an effective date and the second reading and public hearing for ordinance 4074 will also be on May 27th. >> Thank you. All right.
Nothing else on the agenda I see other than going to council reports and we'll start in forward four. >> Okay. Um very excited about the um I'm sure everyone already I know you all know
this um the ribbon cutting for the singing river public art in the Mineral Springs Park. So I hope that word has gone out about that and that we'll see a good showing today for that. Um, this week is also the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council's annual summit. Uh, it is taking place at the Palmetto
Convention Center and I'll be attending and I um I look forward to seeing you all at the um future of the region award lunchon on Friday. Um, and also I I I think some of us are participating in the in the summit which I think is great. Um, this year's uh agenda is
quite varied from previous years. So I think that the topics are going to kind of span some more interesting not not more interesting than previously but just a a wide variety including um economic redevelopment, workforce house
development and um uh food security. Um I had a couple of I wanted to suggest if I could I know Mr. Mr. Perry and I have talked about it, but um after our workshop regarding the EDC, that item on
the workshop, I thought it was a great conversation. I agree with Mr. Perry that even though maybe it was a little painful, it got us into a better spot. And I really, again, as I said in the workshop, I appreciated um Miss Cords and Mr. Landerfeld and Miss Parish's
real what I perceive to be a very um responsive uh engagement in the time period between our last meeting and the um the workshop. Uh but one of the comments that Miss Parish made in the workshop has stuck with me, which is uh that we each have our own ideas of what
we want to see being developed around and I know the workshop was running late, but I would like to see us have a conversation where that's what we talk about, you know, like as I kind of jokingly say like the hopes and dreams so that we can give them some direction in connection with their work. Um,
I have two things that I haven't mentioned that just literally came up. Uh, well, one one Mr. Perry and I did just touch very briefly on and then the other one is new because I just heard from someone this morning asking me to raise it and then so I'll go with that one first because it's new and also it's
really maybe not necessarily something we need to discuss today but just something I've been hearing which is um I haven't I have not asked staff to confirm this but I'm I've heard from a couple of the merchants on Main Street that our uh reducing the hours of
alcohol sales is not actually in line with the county's rules. And I don't that's the part I haven't confirmed. So I don't know if that's true, but what I'm hearing from them is a an economic hardship that this has created. Not necessarily for them, but for their staff. Uh so from their perspective,
staff now without having those hours available to them to work, they're struggling with their staff. So, I raised that um just maybe it's maybe at, you know, we can all just talk to staff singularly to see if there's an appetite for revisiting that to make sure we
accomplish what we thought we were accomplishing. And again, I haven't done a deep dive because that just came up this morning. So, I'm raising it now and seeing where it goes from there. Um and then finally, the thing that Mr. Perry and I talked briefly about was
um city hall relocation after the workshop and what our thoughts were and that the building plans that staff is pursuing are flexible that give us some flexibility regarding where we put it. And I just wanted to express to you all
that I know it's I know it's not a done deal and I don't even know how much of it is appropriate for me to talk about at this time because we haven't closed on anything. Um, but to the extent that we're exploring our options on 13th Street with the acquisition of what I'm calling the Wilcox property,
um, I would like to see us really pursue that as an as a permanent location for city hall. Um, and my thinking behind that is it I think it could help to to back up a little bit. It is my um opinion that
there are some intangible or unquantifiable things that a downtown needs to be thriving. And one of them is the presence of a city hall um that is representative of what we kind of want to say that Bradenton is, you know, to
the community and to people outside of the community. And I think because that because I think a city hall site is important when it comes to economic development and a vibrant downtown. I I believe it could
have some help in activating 13th Street as part of the core. Uh if that was the site that we chose to pursue. So I think that it has that benefit. It's still so you know it checks the box of being downtown. Um, and we think that we can
build what we might need there. So, I just wanted to throw that out there to you all to let you know that the more I think about it, given time constraints and whatnot, I would like to see us talk to staff about really actively looking at what that would look like to make
that a permanent site. >> And that's all I've got. >> All right. Thank you, Miss Coachman. as we have been having of late some really great discussions in our council meetings or workshops. Um just to kind
of piggyback on what uh Councilwoman Moore just said in terms of city hall, I wish we did have time to have more conversation. The workshop was, you know, it was like number four and we had already kind of beaten a few horses. Uh
so but I would like to see us have more discussion on that as well and other than that just saying it's you know wow a friendly city it is moving and with that I will just simply say
war five is alive. >> Thank you Vice Mayor Coker. >> Yeah. Um couple of things. Um, couple things that that I've been thinking about and I think we've actually addressed here, but um
I I'd like to see us start maybe putting some teeth on this bone. Um the or meat on the bone and teeth on the something, whatever it is, >> we're hungry. being on the bus >> and I've actually spoken um and I wish
that m that chief thesis could have um been present because I've been talking to him about it but the ebikes has become a problem. We had a resident from um Village Green who was struck on the sidewalk at there at Staples. Um and I
think we've got to I don't know if it needs to be addressed at the state level. If it does, then let's get pushing on that or what we need to do. But somebody's going to be killed. I mean, it's crazy on that Riverwalk. I've been down there a few times and almost
gotten hit by them. And it I mean, even in my neighborhood, there's a couple of kids that are out there. They are definitely not street worthy. They don't have the proper lighting or signaling or any of that stuff and they're riding them on sidewalks
and they are um the sidewalks in well this will open up a whole another can of worms in Village Green are actually not real wide. They're quite small. And so anyhow I I'd like to get a plan together to start doing what we can to address
that. The other thing is I've been noticing some news recently about um deaths fromratom and I think I know that we've discussed in the past talking about getting rid of it um but that
there was discussion that some of it was legal and some of it's not and how do you determine I think Sarasota has just gotten rid of all of them and I would be in favor of that. Um now we recently had just a horrific tragedy in Village Green
on 11th Avenue where um one of our residents was struck um at our mailbox. It's really it was very tragic and it's tragic. Um so many lives have been touched by this and ruined. Um it was as
I understand and I understand it's probably still being investigated. it was def it was not a a question of speed but that the driver was impaired. Um so it it's not but it has certainly started a big uprising in that neighborhood. Um
and I spoke with chief theirs and 11th Avenue is a is a big cut through between 59th and 75th Street. So, um, I've got requests for speed bumps, all kinds of speed enforcement, but I think that what might be reasonable would be to put a
stop sign there on 11th Avenue, right where a city and county transition. And uh, but of course, I just heard that traffic engineer earlier say that putting a stop sign makes people speed more in between. So, I'm not an expert
on that, but I think that I don't I don't know. I I'd like to address my um concern the resident's concerns for that section and I don't know how to do it best. >> Okay, >> that's it.
>> All right. Thank you. >> So that's just like my three minutes and nobody discusses it. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> I mean part of me. >> So we'll discuss it at the end. Is that what you're >> Yeah. When when I'm written, you know, when I get my turn, I'll talk about stuff. >> Okay.
>> Okay. All right. Um, if I could ask Miss Melton to help me with something so that you all can see it. Um, I am a very proud sustaining member of the Service Club of Manatee County. And there's active members and there's
sustaining members. Active members are the ones that actually go out and are doing most of the work at this point in time now. And sustaining members means that we live through our eight years. And I jokingly say the Marine Corps lets you out after 4:00, but service club you
stay in for 8. We recently had an a a gala. Um and the purpose for the gala is to provide funding for children throughout Manatee County and it is we support different organizations that
provide that that service. So, if you look at this list, you will see not only ones that you would expect to see, but maybe somes that you have not heard of before. And the fact that this year we came so close to reaching almost
$200,000 in one year. We're very proud of that. Just so you also know, that has to be spent in Manatee County. So if you're looking and you see the Haven or you see Sarasota Orchestra or or things of that nature, that is for scholarships
for Manatee County children to attend those organizations or those services. So I just want to tip of the hat to the service club and and since uh I became involved in it, one of the things that I
asked them to do is to figure out how many millions we have raised and it is in the millions. So thank you ladies for all of your hard work with that and and for supporting the kids in Manatee County.
um prior at this meeting. Um while we we talked about um Jerry West at a at another activity that we had, um Jerry West was the planning director for the city of
Bradenon for a very very long time. And when Mark and I got married and moved back to to Bradenton, Jerry West was one of them that that went to Mark and said, "I I want to have you involved in the Florida Planning and Zoning Association."
And Mark got very involved with that. Which meant four to five times a year he had to attend a dinner somewhere in the state of Florida. And my children and I discovered where every McDonald's was on the interstate.
So, um, Jerry loved this community and many of the things that we kind of take for granted today was brought about because of Mr. West's influence. Uh, I remember, and it was a very
difficult thing for me to do. I remember going in with him in the historic building that was Asmin's department store, and there was living facilities above it. This is where Central Cafe is now.
>> Oh. >> And Jerry had someone that wanted to save the building but needed additional time and wanted I guess he thought I was going to be the proponent to tear it down. I don't know why. Um but um he took me in there to
show me exactly what was going on in the building and why saving the building was important, but also not allowing what was going on in that building to continue. And uh I you want to know about it
later, I it's not polite company talk. Let me just put it that way. But Jerry was the reason that building and many others were saved here in Bradenton. and he promoted us becoming a tree city.
And um I just think that attention needs to be paid when we have an employee that did as much as he did to the community that we need to stop and remember. And uh the last Mr. Williams is not
here. I think he might have gotten wind of something. Today is his birthday. >> Were you going to sing? >> I was not planning on singing. um particularly since he's not here. Uh but we do want to wish Mr. Williams a
very happy birthday. He does a lot for um our city and our staff and us as elected officials. And the final thing I have to say is we recently had a workshop and sometimes I think in workshops we get a little um it's not
quite as formal so to speak and I interrupted one of my colleagues and I want to apologize for that. >> No need >> because well because I do respect you professionally. I think you bring a lot to this council and I was kind of
embarrassed at myself >> so I sincerely apologize. >> Well, thank you. You You are such a mentor and no need no offense taken. >> Thank you, Mr. Shustler.
>> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, I did want to mention uh Miss Gonzalez Moore uh mentioned the singing river uh ribbon cutting. Uh, I wanted to mention the time that's at 3 PM. Um, really looking forward to it because uh, as
everyone may know, >> uh, it is, uh, between Mineral uh, Park and uh, so it's it's kind of a go-between the old and what's to come. Um, so it's not just about the art, it's
about community, it's not just about local, it is also about uh visitors to come and see what Bradenton is all about. So I'm looking forward to that. Uh, also wanted to mention on Saturday the
city of Bradenton Community Redevelopment is conducting a study of the old main street area. And it's not just about Old Main Street. it's around 12th Street um 13th to better understand the downtown's ongoing evolution. Um so
they are asking to bring your ideas and insights uh to help plan the future of downtown Bradon and that is at uh I believe uh Dr. Dr. Burton. It's at the NDC building 4th Avenue from uh 9:00 a.m. to 2:00
p.m. Uh, and that is the community redevelopment agency along with the University of South Florida. And uh, oh, speaking of traffic, I have received a couple uh, phone calls this week um, as
and and last week it seems to be the uh, you know, just about every month regarding 7th Avenue um, and the cut through and bypassing Manatee Avenue. 7th Avenue specifically between 22nd and Virginia Drive uh as a a goaround for
man and the speeding that is going on uh along there um and potential new stop signs uh to those uh that I've spoken to and a couple that I have yet to speak to. I uh I do know that we are doing a a a traffic study uh up and around that
bridge and around Wears Creek. Um and so uh it it's it's data driven and um that is something that we are uh looking at. >> All right. Thank you. And I'll since uh you brought that up last. I know there's
been times when we've asked the staff begrudgingly sometimes to put up a stop sign because the traffic study might not justify it. Um, but we still believe in the traffic studies because you look on 11th it's, you know, you can't we can't
police our way out of bad >> and that was a bad thing that happened and it was a bad person doing it, you know, and impaired and what what so on. And it was a neighbor. It was lived real close. So, a lot of times things happen
in neighborhoods because of bad people. And I did like what the traffic engineer said earlier. Sometimes a stop sign in my opinion then makes the traffic even more unsafe because of speed because you get the people that will stop and go and
and you know we had a another had a death a couple weeks ago at a stop sign on 43rd Street >> because the person ran the stop sign. But we're never going to stop that stuff. But we do need to manage it better. Our police department is looking into ways. You're looking at things and
it's terrible that what happened, you know, to a person that was just living out their life at a certain age and, you know, a bad person did something and hopefully, you know, whatever happens to that person, they deserve, but they also
get help um from their bad play or whatever. But obviously, we know that stuff is being looked at. chief and I've talked about some different things and and jurisdictions are different there because the street goes halfway county, halfway city. So, but speed humps don't
wouldn't have probably changed that. You know, it would slow them down hopefully. But but anyway, so that's the traffic. Um I'll use the terminology closing time as as a thing. And I've heard both ways from different people. Some of the uh
staff like getting off a little earlier because it feels safer to them now where it wasn't safe to them at the beginning. I've also talked with some of the suppliers and the word that I've got
from those suppliers is every business is up considerably this year. Now, I think some of that might have to do with COVID or last year storms, COVID, everything. You know, people are getting back to it. We heard that. So, um,
safety is our number one thing and I think that has been addressed. Now, we do not want to take away 30 because all we did was take away 30 minutes a day. Well, when you add up 30 minutes times 365, it adds up. So, we're thinking about
that. But I think still safety is more what I've heard. And you know, one of the things that you all know has been very top priority on my list since I become mayor is safety on Main Street because we were having gang fights, we were having things that would hurt worse
than what we did with the timing. uh and I really believe that by doing the cafe licenses, by doing the other things that we had done with them to help the businesses thrive and also get more sustainable family type businesses that
will be there and obviously with this property as it comes online with more retail, we're seeing that a little bit. So, you know, I think that's a great concern, but it's also the safety has been addressed and we don't have six cops sitting down there every Friday and
Saturday night all the time, but we will if we need to. So, I don't want people thinking to get but it's been pretty good. When you mention about the county, >> the county would push their nuisance law a little bit more and every time they would nuisance a bad bar, where did they
end up? >> On Main Street. So that was the rules that we tried to come up with to make it better. So I mean that I'm giving you stuff that if you didn't know, you can tell them and they can hear. But you know, >> I'm getting the calls at 2 o'clock in the morning of what's going on. And you
have we saw the video at the time and that was the fifth rendition of the video that Chief Beavenon did. And I wanted to show the very first one which showed bad, but they thought it wasn't good to do that. It was the show, the
one that showed our officers with hundreds of people around them and thank goodness nothing happened. >> So, you know, those type things. That's I still think about that. And my wife and I don't drive this interior city five times a day. So,
I see the traffic. I I go the cutthroughs, but I go the speed in the cutthroughs. And a lot of times yesterday I had a person go around me and you know in that because I was going 30 miles an hour 25 whatever the speed
was. So those things happen but people have got to slow down in the neighborhoods and again I'll say it all day long and I'm sure we're going to get a report pretty soon but the speed cameras in our school zones are working. You know it's not about punishment. It's
about going the speed limit. I saw officer posted 63 and a 30 the other day. Well, if you're going 63 and a 30, and I'm not saying that was a school zone, but if it is a school zone, I will vote for safety all day long. >> And that's important.
>> Um, city hall, we have had two actual workshops on that. We had one a few months back, then we had one last week. So, and both of them are totally different because and that's what I said all along until sometimes you don't know what steps up next. I was not as I went
off the council then to become mayor. I was for not for moving city hall out of downtown. That was very important to me where you know and I saw some comments on Facebook that um talk about well we we shouldn't have got rid of this property on 14th Street. Well, if we
truly want a city hall, in my opinion, it needs to be downtown. >> And that's what we're working toward, but also some of the things that we're doing is making sure that we get through all the programs we're going through processes, building the stations, we
need being out of this property so it can develop as quick as we can. We know that the police department will be moving sometimes towards the end of the year. That's why we've talked about the um other areas to go which we actually have
a couple of ideas we're looking at that if something doesn't work out something else will work out but you know as we go forward over the next two to four years where is the economy what is it I mean we keep hoping it'll pull back a little bit might so we'll be able to and other
projects will be off the books to a point so one of the things that that's I'm the most proud of in this is not only our fiscal responsibility, but also making sure we're getting money to fix things that when we're not all sitting up here that it's the next generation of
council people and mayor will be able to say, "Wow, we're not trying to bail ourselves out. They did a good job. What do we got to do to go forward?" And I appreciate Mr. Perry and Mr. Williams and all the staff, too many to name, but everybody's looking at that angle every day. So, nobody's trying to hide
anything. And I did bring up, and since we're on more on TV now, I did bring up at the workshop about removing the mayor's tiebreaker vote. So then the mayor can be able to maybe share a little information with the council so we don't break any sunshine law. And
then also, we've talked about this for years back even before I was on the council before 2013, is some sort of term limits and we let the citizens decide. If they decide, yes, it is what it is. I don't believe and I've said this on on the dis I don't know since
I've been mayor but as a councilman that eight years is too short 12 years is a good time and again if if you want to sit down four years and run another 12 you can do it that's that's how it's going to be worded then you the council have to make sure we get it on the ballot but I think that's very important
that we put that on the ballot and let the citizens decide and because you know some people everybody that I know that's been up here has been great for their term limits in the past And but sometimes, you know, you want to make a change and elections don't always do
that. So, um, did I miss anything, Miss Coker? Answer all your questions. Thank you. >> Well, kind of. >> Kind of. Okay. >> Well, no, actually you didn't talk about cratom or ebikes. >> Oh, I know the county. Oh, we got what we'll do is ask captain to forward the chief
about getting what the county's doing because the county was doing a lot of things because that's an ordinance that would have to go concurrent with the county because of the way things curve and all that. So, I don't there it was going hot for a while and I don't haven't heard anything lately. >> It it has died off. >> Yeah. So, let's we can find out.
>> Light the flame. >> Yeah. With the with the sheriff and that >> problem we see is is on our level is the testing the field presumptive testing and they they're constantly changing. We saw it with spice. They constantly change the ingredients once they lock something in that this is illegal. They
just change it, you know. So that that's we'd have to get with the state and and work with them. >> Okay. So if we can you can get some information from chief on that next time. >> And then um also the ebikes. I know Chief Kramer before he left because of the BMFest and different things was looking into it and I know that's being
looked at. Um, again, it's it comes down to the state has some laws that with bikes on riverw walks and all that, we have to make sure we're abiding by and doing things, but we can also put a speed limit on it, but you know, it's it would be a little tougher. But that's
stuff we've asked the police department to look at and is being addressed. And then just stupidity. We can't >> manage stupidity in those because I saw somebody the other day >> start trespassing >> the other day that was >> I mean I don't remember who I was
talking to but I screamed and what what I mean it was that close to one of those stupid ebikes >> that was trying to go around the red light and get up and the car was already going and I mean it was it made me sick to my stomach at the moment. So but again the car didn't do anything wrong.
It was the ebike not paying attention to the rules, you know, stop at a red light. So, stop sign. >> Yeah, they >> But again, it's going to be hard for our police department to be everywhere 247, but we've got to come up with with that within regulations. Is that good? Anything else?
>> Wonderful. >> So, any staff? >> Nope. >> I had one more thing. >> Yes, ma'am. Miss Barnaby, >> just one of my favorite sayings. Government can't make anybody any smarter, any better looking, or have
more common sense because if we could do it, we would do it and somebody would figure out how to tax it. >> And on that note, we'll be a jerk. >> Oh, Maryanne, you have great ones.