MANATEE COUNTY URBAN CORRIDORS

Transcription

Manatee county urban CORRIDORS
Assessment & Recommendations Report
NOVEMBER 2015
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Manatee County has seen substantial growth in the northern and
eastern portions of the County, but the established urban core area in
the Southwest County has experienced limited development and
redevelopment to date. Numerous studies and visioning exercises
have been conducted over the years have concluded that in order to
ensure future growth in the county is efficient and sustainable,
growth must be directed to the urban area where public utilities and
services are already available, rather than continue to encroach into
the rural areas. The recommendations from those studies have been
partially implemented in the Manatee County Comprehensive Plan by
adopting numerous objectives and policies stressing the importance
of redevelopment in the urban core. In addition to the adoption of
policies in the comprehensive plan, the County also created the
Southwest County Tax Increment Finance District to fund the
investment in the public infrastructure of that area.
urban corridors identified as targets for redevelopment include
portions of 14th Street West (BUS 41)/N. Tamiami Trail (US 41), 1st
Street (US 41), 15th Street East (US 301), 53rd Avenue/SR 70, Cortez
Road West/44th Avenue East (SR 684), and Manatee Avenue West (SR
64).
Stakeholder and community input was a key component of the
recommendations contained in this report. The recommended
changes to the Land Development Code are firmly grounded in the
existing conditions of the area and the vision for the future.
The Land Development Code (LDC), which is intended to implement
the Comprehensive Plan, has not been amended to reflect the
directives of the numerous studies and the comprehensive plan
regarding the urban core. The existing regulations prescribe a
suburban development pattern, making infill, development, and
redevelopment more difficult and expensive than in other parts of the
county. The Urban Corridor Assessment and Recommendations
report reviews current policy and development standards applicable
to the major corridors within the urban core and offers
recommendations for regulatory strategies that will improve
opportunities for quality development and allow the County to realize
its vision of a revitalized urban area. The study specifically focuses on
the nonresidential areas of the core and seeks to protect established
residential neighborhoods as redevelopment occurs. The five major
1
“The southwest quadrant has several assets with which to
leverage growth potential—an enormous amount, particularly
for an area that has seen less development than other parts of
the county in recent years.”
ULI, Manatee County Florida Economic Prosperity and Strategic
Growth
CHAPTER 1
I NTRODUCTION &
C ONTEXT
1-1
INTRODUCTION & CONTEXT
Contents
INTRODUCTION & CONTEXT ................................................................... 1
PREVIOUS STUDIES .................................................................................................... 2
MUNICIPALITIES IN THE STUDY AREA ..................................................................... 3
DEMOGRAPHICS & HOUSING.................................................................................. 4
Household Income .......................................................................................... 4
Age ........................................................................................................................ 4
Household Composition ............................................................................... 5
Race and Ethnicity ........................................................................................... 5
Housing Characteristics ................................................................................. 5
Projected Growth ............................................................................................. 6
MAJOR ASSETS .......................................................................................................... 7
IMPROVEMENT DISTRICTS ........................................................................................ 9
Southwest County Improvement District................................................ 9
Innovation 41..................................................................................................... 9
Bayshore Area Plan........................................................................................ 10
Samoset Community Improvement Strategy ...................................... 11
Tamiami Trail Corridor Plan ....................................................................... 11
Future Land Uses ........................................................................................... 14
Zoning ................................................................................................................ 17
PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS..................................................................................... 19
Lake Flores........................................................................................................ 19
IMG Academy Expansion ............................................................................ 20
Riviera Southshore Site................................................................................ 20
TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE ................................................................... 20
Major Highways.............................................................................................. 20
Major Roads..................................................................................................... 20
Commute .......................................................................................................... 21
Beach Access ................................................................................................... 21
Transit................................................................................................................. 23
Rail Lines ........................................................................................................... 24
Pedestrian and Bicycle Infrastructure..................................................... 24
Transportation Concurrency Exception Area (TCEA) ........................ 26
URBAN FORM .......................................................................................................... 27
Block Structure and Roadway Network................................................. 27
Building Footprints........................................................................................ 30
Character Vision ............................................................................................. 32
Tamiami Trail Scenic Highway Plan ......................................................... 12
LAND USE INVENTORY............................................................................................ 13
Existing Land Uses ......................................................................................... 14
1-i
Figures
Figure 1 - 1. Study Area & Urban Corridors ................................................... 1
Figure 1 - 2. Four Quadrants of Manatee County .......................................... 2
Figure 1 - 3. Urban Service Area .................................................................... 3
Figure 1 - 4. Urban Core Area ........................................................................ 3
Figure 1 - 5. Median Household Income by Census Tract.............................. 4
Figure 1 - 6. Study Area Population Projections by Age ................................ 5
Figure 1 - 7. Employment Centers.................................................................. 8
Figure 1 - 8. Former CRAs............................................................................... 9
Figure 1 - 9. Southwest County Improvement District .................................. 9
Figure 1 - 10. Innovation 41 Corridor Plan ..................................................... 9
Figure 1 - 11. Bayshore Neighborhood Planning Area ................................. 10
Figure 1 - 12. Samoset Improvement Area .................................................. 11
Figure 1 - 13. Tamiami Trail Corridor Plan Boundary ................................... 11
Figure 1 - 14. Tamiami Trail Scenic Highway Concept Plan ......................... 12
Figure 1 - 15. Existing Land Use within Study Area ...................................... 14
Figure 1 - 16. Future Land Use within Study Area ....................................... 15
Figure 1 - 17. Industrial Future Land Use Clusters ....................................... 17
Figure 1 - 18. Manufacturing Zoning Cluster ............................................... 17
Figure 1 - 19. Study Area Zoning Map .......................................................... 18
Figure 1 - 20. Future Lake Flores Development Area .................................. 19
Figure 1 - 21. Annual Average Daily Traffic Volume (2014) ......................... 22
Figure 1 - 22. MCAT Service Expansion Priorities ........................................ 23
Figure 1 - 23. CSX Transportation and SGLR Rail Lines ................................ 24
Figure 1 - 24. Study Area Railway Network.................................................. 24
Figure 1 - 25. Bicycle/Pedestrian Incident Heat Map ................................... 25
Figure 1 - 26. Street TCEA ............................................................................ 26
Figure 1 - 27. South County TCEA ................................................................ 26
Figure 1 - 28. Traditional Grid Patterns in the Study Area ........................... 27
Figure 1 - 29. Suburban Grid Patterns in the Study Area ............................. 28
Figure 1 - 30. Mega Blocks in Manatee County ........................................... 29
Figure 1 - 31. Building Footprints of Major Shopping Areas in Manatee
County .......................................................................................................... 30
Figure 1 - 32. Building Footprints of Residential Neighborhoods in Manatee
County .......................................................................................................... 31
Figure 1 - 33. Manatee Avenue .................................................................... 31
Figure 1 - 34. Manatee Council Character Compatibility Study - Character
Vision Graphic .............................................................................................. 33
Tables
Table 1 - 1. Manatee County Housing Characteristics ................................... 6
Table 1 - 2. Bradenton Area’s Ten Largest Employers ................................... 7
Table 1 - 3. Annual Average Daily Traffic Volume, SR 64 & SR 684 ............. 21
1-ii
The purpose of the Manatee County Urban Corridors Assessment &
Recommendations project is to identify the necessary land
development code and comprehensive plan amendments applicable
to the major commercial corridors within the urban core to entice
new quality development and redevelopment.
of potential development alternatives for three sites, and
recommendations for code and plan amendments.
Figure 1 - 1. Study Area & Urban Corridors
The five major urban corridors identified as targets for redevelopment
include:






14th Street West (BUS 41)/Tamiami Trail (US 41),
1st Street (US 41)1,
15th Street East,
53rd Avenue West/SR 70,
Cortez Road West/44th Avenue East (SR 684), and
Manatee Avenue West (SR 64).
It is not the intent of this study to recommend any changes to
established residential neighborhoods beyond the sites that front on
urban corridors. However, in order to understand the strengths and
opportunities of the commercial corridors, it is necessary to look
beyond these sites and determine what drives or hinders
development along those corridors. Therefore, for analysis purposes,
the study area encompasses the area shown in Fig. 1-1.
This report contains a brief overview of previous studies, a description
of the context of the study area, a detailed land use and zoning
analysis of the commercial corridors within the study area, the design
1
The 1st Street Corridor was added after the assessment report was completed.
1-1
PREVIOUS STUDIES
with the county’s goal (see Fig. 1-2). Accordingly, the county adopted
the Urban Service Area Map in the comprehensive Plan (see Fig. 1-3).
The County and other local agencies, such as the Sarasota/Manatee
In Manatee County, as in most other jurisdictions, growth tends to
Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), have prepared several
occur in suburban areas where the cost of land is lower, and there are
recent plans and reports to assess the state of the county and make
fewer potential site development constraints (i.e., adjacent existing
recommendations for future growth, including How Will We Grow?
development, previous development impacts/pollution on the site,
(February 2013), the Urban Land Institute’s Manatee County, Florida –
demolition requirements, etc.) and the overall development process is
Economic Prosperity and Strategic Growth (March 2013), Manatee
less complex. However, it has been well documented that the cost of
County Evaluation and Appraisal Report, the Southwest County Tax
extending infrastructure and services into suburban areas of lower
Increment Finance District Improvement Plan (October 2014), Manatee
residential density and non-residential intensity is more expensive per
County Council of Governments Character Compatibility Study (2005),
unit than providing infrastructure and services to urban development
Manatee Connect: Manatee County Area Transit Development Plan
areas of a higher residential density and higher non-residential
(September 2013), Mobility 2035: Sarasota-Manatee MPO Long Range
intensity. In addition to reduced costs to provide public services to
Transportation Plan (January 2014), Discovery and Findings: Manatee
more urbanized areas, mixed-use development in more urbanized
County Infrastructure, Growth Planning & Strategies (2015), and
areas also provides higher public returns than suburban development
others. Summaries of these studies, which
patterns3, and also generates reduced traffic
were reviewed as the foundation of urban
Figure 1 - 2. Four Quadrants of Manatee County
when compared to traditional suburban
core assessment, can be found in Appendix
development patterns4. In response to the
A.
study recommendations to direct future
A primary goal for the county in developing
growth to the southwest part of the county,
these plans has been to create a strategic
the County adopted goals, objectives, policies
growth plan that will prevent sprawl and
and maps in the comprehensive plan to
allow the County to get the best possible
implement such recommendations. The Urban
return on investment as it invests in
Core area map (see Fig. 1-4) shows where the
infrastructure replacement and
County expects to entice new development
improvements.2 The studies have identified
and redevelopment to accommodate future
the southwest quadrant of Manatee County
growth.
to be best suited to future growth in line
Source: Urban Land Institute (2013)
2
3
Manatee County Government. (11 February 2013). How Will We Grow? (p. 3)
Smart Growth America, 5/8/13
4
Arizona DOT, 5/18/12
1-2
Figure 1 - 3. Urban Service Area
Source: Manatee County Comprehensive Plan
MUNICIPALITIES IN THE STUDY AREA
There are six incorporated cities within Manatee County: the City of
Bradenton, City of Palmetto, City of Anna Maria, City of Holmes
Beach, City of Bradenton Beach, and Town of Longboat Key. Appendix
B contains a description of each city. The following are the highlights:
Only the City of Bradenton is located within the study area.
Downtown Bradenton is the most urban, walkable area in the
county, with buildings as high as 15 stories.
 The City of Palmetto ranks eighth in the state in agricultural
income5.


5
City of Palmetto. (2015). City Profile.
 Two main roads offer
Figure 1 - 4. Urban Core Area
access to the barrier
island cities: Manatee
Avenue West and
Cortez Road West.
 Approximately 39.8
percent of residential
properties in the city of
Anna Maria are used
for seasonal or
recreational purposes
(compared to 3.5
percent nationally) 6.
 The City of Holmes
Beach, like the other
barrier island cities, has
Source: Manatee County Comprehensive Plan
a strong tourism base,
but has a greater concentration of commercial activity.
 Bradenton Beach, also displaying a strong tourism base, is
connected to the mainland at the historic fishing village of Cortez
by the two-lane Cortez Road Bridge.
 The Town of Longboat Key, the largest of the barrier island cities,
has the oldest and wealthiest population in the county.
 The cities of Palmetto and Bradenton recently adopted formbased codes.
6
U.S. Census Bureau. (2010). Anna Maria City, Florida General Population and
Housing Characteristics: 2010. American FactFinder.
1-3
DEMOGRAPHICS & HOUSING
Figure 1 - 5. Median Household Income by Census Tract
Manatee County had an estimated 339,545 residents in 2014. The
study area population represents about 40.4% of the total. This
section contains a brief description of the study area’s demographics
and housing characteristics. Appendix C contains detailed facts.
Household Income
Median household income in the study area, based on the 2009-2013
American Community Survey, is $39,541, with an average household
income of $51,224. Both of these figures are lower than their
countywide counterparts: $47,876 median household income and
$77,074 average household income. The percentage of people with
incomes below the poverty level in the study area (15.5 percent) is
approximately the same as the County average (15.1 percent). The
poverty level within individual Census tracts varies widely within the
study area, ranging from 2.2 percent to as high as 51.3 percent.7 The
highest concentrations of wealth are on the barrier islands, near
Palma Sola Bay, and east of I-75. The center of the urban core has
the lowest median household income (see Figure 1-5).
Age
The median age for the study area is 45.3, marginally lower than the
county average of 45.7, but significantly higher than the national
average of 37.2 and the state average of 40.7. The largest age groups
in the study area in 2015 are 55-64 (13.7 percent) and 65-74 (12.6
percent). See Figure 1-6.
The proportion of households with at least one individual over age 60
(24.2 percent) is lower than the county average (38.6 percent).
7
U.S. Census Bureau. (2013). 2009-2013 American Community Survey 5-Year
Estimates. American Fact Finder.
1-4
Although the senior growth rate for Bradenton and the surrounding
area has slowed since 2000, it continues to have the highest elderly
dependency rate in the nation, and its share of married-with-children
Figure 1 - 6. Study Area Population Projections by Age
are of Hispanic origin. The demographic breakdown of the study area
is comparable to that of the County as a whole, though there are more
Hispanic or Latino residents than in the rest of the County, where 14.9
percent of the population identifies as such. The study area is notably
more diverse than the populations of the island cities, where 95 percent
or more of the population is white.
Housing Characteristics
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 Summary File 1. Esri forecasts for
2015 and 2020.
households (13.5 percent) is a national low.8 The senior population
should be a consideration in plans for the area.
Household Composition
Fewer households in the study area were composed of families than in
the County as a whole; 58.2 percent of study area households were
families in 2010, compared to 64.9 percent countywide. The number
of single-person households in the study area is also higher than the
countywide average, with 34.5 percent single-person in the study area,
and 28.5 percent throughout the county.
Race and Ethnicity
The majority of the residents in the study area identify as white (81.1
percent), followed by black (8.7 percent), other (6 percent), two or more
races (2.4 percent), Asian (1.2 percent), American Indian (0.4 percent),
and Pacific Islander (0.1 percent). 17.6 percent of study area residents
8
Manatee County Government. (11 February 2013). How Will We Grow? (p. 13)
According to the American Community Survey, Manatee County had a
total of 173,444 housing units in 2013, with a vacancy rate of 24.4
percent, 3.9 percent higher than the statewide average.9 Housing in
Manatee County is primarily single-unit structures, with only 24.8
percent of units within multi-unit structures, which reflects the lowdensity, suburban nature of the County’s development pattern. The
average household size, median home value, and median rent are all
slightly lower than the statewide averages. Table 1-1 shows a
comparison of housing characteristics between the study area and the
county as a whole.
Of the County’s 173,444 total housing units, approximately 76,516
(44.1 percent) are located within the study area. The majority of the
housing units are owner-occupied (63.1 percent), though that figure is
lower than both the countywide average of 71.4 percent and the
national average of 65.1 percent. The City of Bradenton’s owneroccupancy rate is even lower at 55.3 percent, the lowest of the
incorporated areas in Manatee County.
The residential vacancy rate for the study area is approximately the
same as the county average. The number of units vacant for seasonal,
recreational, or occasional use (i.e. vacation rental properties), however,
9
U.S. Census Bureau. (2013.) Manatee County Selected Housing Characteristics,
2009-2013 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates.
1-5
is 9.7 percent, compared to the County’s average of 11.1 percent.
Pockets of the County with high levels of tourism, such as the City of
Anna Maria and the Town of Longboat Key, have rates as high as 49.9
percent.
Table 1 - 1. Manatee County Housing Characteristics
Manatee
Study
County
Area
Total housing units
173,444
76,516
Occupied housing units
75.6%
78.7%
Vacant housing units
24.4%
21.3%
Owner-occupied
71.4%
63.1%
Renter-occupied
28.6%
36.9%
Average household size - owner
2.37
2.10
Average household size - renter
2.75
2.48
Median home value
$165,400
Median rent
$933
Households paying 30 percent or more
57.3%
of household income toward rent
Source: Manatee County Selected Housing Characteristics, 2009-2013
American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates. ESRI Business Analyst
Online.
According to a recent report by real estate data firm Metrostudy, there
were 906 new single-family homes built in the Sarasota-Bradenton
area in last quarter of 2014, an 11.4 percent drop from the previous
10
Business Observer. (20 February 2015). Sarasota-Bradenton new homes pace
slows down. Business Observer Florida.
11
Business Observer. (7 January 2015). Sarasota-Bradenton home prices climb 5%.
Business Observer Florida.
quarter and a 13 percent drop over the same quarter in 2013. The
report also noted the difference in development rates between price
points, with new home starts for properties $250,000 and up increasing
25.7 percent from 2013 to 2014, while new homes priced less than
$250,000 saw a 24.9 percent decline in starts between 2013 and 2014.10
Home prices in the North Port-Sarasota-Bradenton region increased
5.6 percent overall in November 2014 over November 2013, according
to real estate data firm CoreLogic.11 Nationally, residential real estate is
trending toward smaller homes, smaller lots, more attached units, and
more rental properties in response to the financial climate created by
the recession, as well as an aging Baby Boomer population downsizing
from their suburban, single-family homes.12
Projected Growth
According to the U.S. Census, Manatee County had a population of
322,833 in 2010. The U.S. Census Bureau Population Estimate showed
351,746 county residents as of 2014, an increase of 8.95 percent over
four years compared to the state average of 5.8 percent growth over
the same period. The Sarasota-Manatee Metropolitan Planning
Organization (MPO) projects the annual growth rate will average 6
percent to 2035, yielding a countywide population of 448,135, of
whom 351,096 will live in unincorporated Manatee County.13
In order to handle this level of growth, the county is strategically
planning to build capacity within the Urban Core (see Fig. 1-4), and
preserve existing agricultural and conservation land. Map K of the
12
Burchell and Nelson. (2011). The Effect of the New Normal on Local Government
Finance. Growth & Infrastructure Consortium.
13
Sarasota-Manatee Metropolitan Planning Organization. (2012). 2035 Long Range
Transportation Plan.
1-6
Comprehensive Plan (see Fig. 1-3) shows the area that the County is
committed to serve with public facilities and services.
MAJOR ASSETS
Manatee County boasts a number of existing assets that shape the
current character of the area. Downtown Bradenton, SarasotaBradenton International Airport, employment centers, industrial parks,
colleges and universities, museums and historical sites, parks and
conservation areas, sports and recreation complexes, golf courses,
beaches, marinas, transportation infrastructure, and ongoing
development projects throughout the county can be leveraged to
anchor further development along urban corridors. Appendix D
contains a detailed list of assets within or near the study area. The
following are the major highlights from that analysis.



The proximity of the study area to Downtown Bradenton and its
many cultural and recreational opportunities to the north, the
college and museum cluster to the south, and the beaches and
marinas to the west, make this area ideal for residential
development.
The location of the airport, and employment sources such as the
hospitals, schools, government, and industrial parks and office
developments in or near the study area offer excellent
opportunities for employment. Table 1-2 lists the number of
employees at some of the major employers in the area (also
shown on Figure 1-7). A number of employers, mostly technology
companies, have recently announced plans to locate in the
Bradenton area.
The colleges at the county border with Sarasota (New College of
Florida, State College of Florida, Ringling School of Art and
Design, and the University of South Florida Sarasota-Manatee)
contain a population of students and faculty that have the option
of going into Sarasota for shopping, recreation, entertainment
and even housing, or to Manatee County’s urban area.
Table 1 - 2. Bradenton Area’s Ten Largest Employers
Company
Manatee County School
District
Beall’s Inc.
Product/Service
Full-Time
Employees
Public education
5,500
Corporate headquarters &
distribution center
Government
1,924
Hospital
1,445
Orange juice and juice
beverages
Law enforcement
1,200
Blake Medical Center
Publix
Hospital
Grocery store chain
IMG Academy
International prep school and
sports training institution
Post-secondary education
1,100
875
564
Manatee County
Government
Manatee Memorial
Hospital
Tropicana Products Inc.
Manatee County Sheriff’s
Department
State College of Florida
Manatee Sarasota
1,567
1,140
472
Source: Bradenton Area Economic Development
1-7
Figure 1 - 7. Employment Centers

The system of public schools needs improvement. Of the public
schools in the study area with available data, three received an F
grade, two received a D grade, 13 received a C grade, four
received a B grade, and one received an A grade for the 20132014 academic year, based on the Florida Department of
Education’s school grading system.14 The lack of quality public
schools in the study area, based on the face value of their grades,
may pose a problem in attracting young families to reside in the
area.
14
Florida Department of Education. (2014). Florida School Grades – Manatee
County School Accountability Report.
1-8
IMPROVEMENT DISTRICTS
Southwest County Improvement District
small business job training grant.15 The redevelopment plan is
currently under development.
Innovation 41
The Southwest Tax Increment Financing District (SWTIF) (See Fig. 1-8),
The Innovation 41 plan was created in 2006 with a vision of
established in 2014, uses tax increment funds to make improvements
leveraging existing assets to transform U.S. 41 into a center for higher
aimed at promoting redevelopment in the designated southwestern
education, history, and culture it calls the Renaissance Trail. It was
portion of Manatee County. It encompasses two former Community
th
created under the joint leadership of the City of Sarasota, Sarasota
Redevelopment Area (CRA) districts: 14 Street West and South
County, Manatee County, New College of Florida, University of South
County (see Fig. 1-9). Current SWTIF strategies include Transportation
Florida Sarasota-Manatee (USFSM), Ringling School of Art and
Concurrency Exception Areas, redevelopment rapid
response team incentives, land redevelopment incentives,
Figure 1 - 8. Former CRAs
Figure 1 - 10. Innovation 41 Corridor Plan
fee-related incentives, technical assistance, a business
opportunity fund, targeted retail stimulus funds, and a
Figure 1 - 9. Southwest County Improvement District
Source: SWTIF District Improvement Plan
15
Image Source: Manatee County GIS
Image Source: Innovation 41 Plan
Manatee County. (2015). Southwest County Improvement District.
1-9
Design, Florida State University Ringling Center for the Cultural Arts,
and the Sarasota Manatee Airport Authority. The plan breaks down
U.S. 41 into five market segments, of which the University Mile and
Whitfield-SRQ Mile are located in Manatee County and coincide with
the urban corridor study.
The Whitfield-SRQ Mile stretched from Bowles Creek to north of the
USFSM campus. U.S. 41 was envisioned to have a road diet, reducing
the seven-lane road to a multimodal, median-divided commercial
boulevard. The Sarasota Bradenton International Airport (SRQ) was
envisioned as a regional multimodal transportation hub, and software
development and design industries were the economic development
targets for creating an “innovation hub” around SRQ.
Although the plan is 14 years old and was drafted prior to the
economic downturn, the neighborhood is known to have a strong
homeowners association and is located along U.S. 41 and near the
53rd Avenue corridor, so it will be important to coordinate its vision
for these corridors.
Figure 1 - 11. Bayshore Neighborhood Planning Area
The University Mile picks up at the USFSM campus and continues
south to University Parkway, and includes USFSM, New College of
Florida, and the FSU Ringling Center for Cultural Arts. The vision for
the corridor was to improve landscaping, streetscaping, and university
gateways to enhance the presence of these institutions.16
Bayshore Area Plan
Bayshore Gardens, a largely residential, coastal neighborhood in
southwest Manatee County, developed its own Bayshore Area
Neighborhood Plan in 2001, with support from the County. The plan’s
priority actions include improving neighborhood aesthetics and
landscaping, implementing Crime Prevention Through Environmental
Design (CPTED) approaches, installing sidewalks, expanding public
transportation, expanding the availability of reclaimed water, traffic
calming, installing gateway signage, developing design guidelines,
and reinstituting deed restrictions for residential properties.17
16
Renaissance Planning Group. (July 2006). Innovation 41: Transforming Path into
Place.
Source: Bayshore Area Neighborhood Plan
17
Manatee County. (October 2001). Bayshore Area Neighborhood Plan.
1-10
Samoset Community Improvement Strategy
Tamiami Trail Corridor Plan
The Samoset Community Improvement Strategy focuses on a
triangular section of the Samoset neighborhood, surrounded by U.S.
301, 15th Street East, and 38th Avenue East, which is mostly a singlefamily residential area for working class families. The 2007 plan
outlines improvement strategies for drainage, pedestrian
infrastructure, traffic, parks and community centers, crime reduction,
and other community concerns.18 Only the pedestrian infrastructure
improvements on U.S. 301 have a direct relation to the urban
corridors; the remaining improvements are concentrated within the
residential neighborhood.
The boundary for the Tamiami Trail Corridor Plan, published in 2007,
falls directly within the urban corridor framework, addressing the 3mile segment of U.S. 41 from 69th Street to Cortez Road in south
Manatee County. The study addressed beautification, land use types
and characteristics, and the form and function of the transportation
Figure 1 - 13. Tamiami Trail Corridor Plan Boundary
Figure 1 - 12. Samoset Improvement Area
Source: Manatee County Department of Planning and Zoning
18
Source: Manatee County
Manatee County. (2007). Samoset Community Improvement Strategy.
1-11
infrastructure along the corridor, seeking to rebrand the area as a
retail and entertainment destination district. The plan provides an indepth analysis of the corridor’s current functions and makes
recommendations for the design and land use code to improve the
quality of the corridor.19 The plan has not been implemented.
Figure 1 - 14. Tamiami Trail Scenic Highway Concept Plan
Tamiami Trail Scenic Highway Plan
The 2003 Tamiami Trail Scenic Highway Plan tells the history of the
corridor, inventories scenic, historical, and cultural resources found
along Tamiami Trail (U.S. 41) in Sarasota and Manatee Counties,
analyzes the background conditions, and makes design and
implementation recommendations for improving the scenic quality of
the road to attract development. The plan recommends streetscape
improvements and improved signage, and identifies potential
redevelopment sites.20
According to the Manatee County Community Improvement Projects
inventory21, there are no additional neighborhood or small area plans
within the urban core, and the neighborhood plans on record for
Bayshore Gardens and Samoset were created more than a decade ago.
In order to more effectively implement the vision established in the
Manatee Council Character Compatibility Study, the County should
support the creation of small area plans for each of the established
neighborhoods in the core to better identify specific properties that
should be protected and those that may be poised for redevelopment.
Source: Tamiami Trail Scenic Highway Plan
19
Manatee County. (July 2007). Tamiami Trail Corridor Plan.
20
21
Manatee County Government. (2015). Community Improvement Projects.
FDOT (May 2003). Tamiami Trail Scenic Highway Corridor Management Plan.
1-12
15th Street PD&E Study
The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) District One is
currently conducting a Project Development and Environment (PD&E)
study to “evaluate multimodal improvements to 15th Street East/301
Boulevard East from Tallevast Road to US 41 (Cortez Road or 1st
Street). The project evaluates design concepts for roadway
improvements and for widening existing 15th Street East and 301
Boulevard East from two lanes to three lanes (two lanes plus a third
lane used for left turns and pedestrian refuge areas).” FDOT held public
workshops on August 27 and October 8, 2015 to review these
alternatives.
As stated in the workshop flyer, “the overall goal of the project is to
improve and enhance mobility and accessibility for multiple modes of
transportation, including pedestrian, bicycle and transit. The key
improvements of the project include multimodal enhancements such
as bicycle lanes, sidewalks and transit (bus) facility improvements
intended to support the heavy bicycle, pedestrian and transit use along
15th Street East/301 Boulevard East.”
1-13
LAND USE INVENTORY
Figure 1 - 15. Existing Land Use within Study Area
Existing Land Uses
The single largest land use in
Manatee County, as of 2015, was
agricultural (56 percent), which is
concentrated in the eastern part of
the county, outside of the study area.
The next largest percentage was
vacant land (12 percent), followed by
government (11 percent) and
residential (10 percent). Each of the
other land uses comprised 3 percent
or less of the total land area.22
Commercial activity is concentrated
along major urban roads: Manatee
Avenue, Cortez Road, 14th Street,
15th Street, 9th Street, and 53rd
Avenue (see Fig. 1-15). Chapter 2
addresses specific uses along the
major corridors.
Future Land Uses
Manatee County’s Comprehensive
Plan 2020 states its overall future
land use goal as “a distribution of
land uses throughout
unincorporated Manatee County
which limit urban sprawl, providing
Source: Manatee County (March 2015)
22
Manatee County Government. (11 February 2013). How will we grow? (p. 8).
1-14
a predictable and functional urban form,
encouraging development and
redevelopment in existing urban core area,
allowing public facilities and services to be
provided in a relatively cost efficient
manner”23 (see Fig. 1-16). It aims to
encourage the revitalization of the urban
core area’s vitality and economic
prosperity, outlining the mechanisms it will
use to do so in the Comprehensive Plan
2020’s Future Land Use section.
Figure 1 - 16. Future Land Use within Study Area
The Plan strategy is to promote growth in
areas that have already been developed,
and in those currently undeveloped areas
with the greatest level of public facility
availability and investment. Two of the
implementation mechanisms established
to this end are 1) the designation of “nodal
concentrations of intensity at or
surrounding interstate interchanges where
public facilities are available,” and 2)
“designation of large infill areas… west of I75 in Manatee County at a
density/intensity compatible with existing
development” (Policy 2.1.1.4). The Future
Development Area Boundary (FDAB) was
also created to limit future growth to
designated areas and preserve agricultural
Source: Manatee County (March 2015)
23
Manatee County Department of Planning and Zoning. Manatee County
Comprehensive Plan 2020. (p. 95)
1-15
uses beyond that boundary” (Objective 2.1.2), designating most of
the land in the eastern part of the county as agricultural or
conservation land.
Seeking to revitalize the urban core area, the plan states that
minimum density requirements must be established in the Land
Development Code (Policy 2.1.3.1), as well as higher floor area ratios
(Policy 2.1.3.2), greater street connectivity, and improved transit
services (Objective 2.1.3). The continuation of Community
Development Block Grant Program (CDBG) and the Community
Redevelopment Agency (CRA) were identified as funding sources for
redevelopment plans (Policy 2.1.3.7), and the continuation of
Community Improvement Plans for specific neighborhoods as a
means for implementing the vision at a finer scale (Policies 2.1.3.8 and
2.1.3.9). The CRAs were recently absorbed into the Southwest County
Improvement District (SWTIF), though this change is not currently
reflected in the Comprehensive Plan.
The plan calls for encouraging mixed-use residential and light
industrial areas within the CRAs to encourage economic activity,
citing measures such as landscape buffering and noise barriers to
promote the compatibility of those uses, and incentives such as
expedited review processes and density/intensity bonuses to
encourage development in these areas (p. 102). Table 2-1 in the
Comprehensive Plan 2020 summarizes the future land use
classification system and overlay districts (p. 104-108).
agricultural/rural, estate rural, residential-1 to residential 6, and urban
fringe”24.
The majority of land uses in unincorporated Manatee County’s urban
core area are Mixed-Use Community (MU-C), Residential-3 (RES-3),
Residential-6 (RES-6), Residential-9 (RES-9), Residential-16 (RES-16),
and Retail/Office/Residential (ROR). (Residential classifications vary
based on the number of dwelling units permitted per gross acre; e.g.
residential-3 = 3 DU/GA.) There is a limited designation of
Public/Semi-Public (P.SP-1), Major Public/Semi-Public (P/SP-2), Major
Recreation/Open Space(R-OS), Industrial-Light (IL), and IndustrialHeavy (IH) within the urban core area. There are no agricultural or
conservation designations within the central urban core area, though
there is some conserved land for nature preserves on the west coast
of the mainland. (See Chapter 5 for a complete assessment of the
Comprehensive Plan.)
The manufacturing industry accounts for 3.8 percent of all
employment in Manatee County, with 372 manufacturing
establishments.25 The County’s Future Land Use map notes three
categories of industrial land: Industrial-Light (IL), Industrial-Heavy (IH),
and Urban Industrial (IU).
The overall growth pattern for the county is low density, with 74
percent of its land in “low density future land use categories such as
Current zoning identifies four categories of industrial land: Light
Manufacturing (LM), Heavy Manufacturing (HM), Planned
Development - Industrial (PD-I), and Planned Development - Urban
Industrial (PD-UI). Certain other zoning districts allow some industrial
uses, including Planned Development – Research Park (PD-RP),
Planned Development – Mixed Use (PD-MU), Planned Development –
24
25
White, M. (April 2015). Discovery & Findings: Manatee County Infrastructure,
Growth Planning & Strategies (p. 18)
Florida Legislature Office of Economic and Demographic Research. (May 2015).
Manatee County Area Profile.
1-16
Encouragement Zone (PD-EZ), and Planned Development – Public
Interest (PD-PI).
Land zoned for manufacturing in both clusters is largely designated
as industrial in the Future Land Use map, with the primary differences
being a shift from light to heavy industrial in some areas. See Figures
1-17 and 1-18 for zoning and future land use of the industrial
corridor along U.S. 301 and 15th Street.
portion of the county or along the western coast. (See Chapter 6 for a
complete assessment of the Land Development Code.)
Figure 1 - 17. Industrial Future
Land Use Clusters
Figure 1 - 18. Manufacturing Zoning
Cluster
Zoning
Figure 1-19 shows the zoning districts within the study area. Most of
the land surrounding 14th Street W is zoned General Commercial (GC),
as are portions of the land along Cortez Road and 15th Street E, which
is consistent with plans to make these corridors centers for higher
density and intensity of development. The highest concentration of
general commercial zoned land is near the intersection of Tamiami
Trail and Cortez Road. Other zoning classifications near these
corridors are largely residential, including concentrations of
Residential Single-Family (RSF-4.5, RSF-6), Residential Duplex (RDD-3,
RDD-4.5, RDD-6), Residential Single-Family Manufactured Home
(RSMH-6), and Residential Multi-Family (RMF-6, RMF-9). Some of the
land along these corridors is planned development, with planned
development-residential (PD-R) and planned development-Public
Interest (PD-PI) classifications. There is not a significant amount of
land along these corridors zoned as Planned Development-Mixed Use
(PD-MU), a use prescribed by the urban core growth strategy.
Throughout the rest of the urban core, other zoning classifications are
found, including light and heavy manufacturing (LM, HM), planned
development-mixed use (PD-MU), and residential single- family (RSF3). Agricultural (A, A-1) and conservation (CON) zoning is not found
within the primary urban core; these zones are located in the eastern
1-17
Figure 1 - 19. Study Area Zoning Map
Source: Manatee County Department of Planning and Zoning
1-18
PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS
Figure 1 - 20. Future Lake Flores Development Area
As of April 2015, there were more than 40,500 acres approved in 21
Development of Regional Impact projects in Manatee County, with
27,500 of those acres in areas other than the Sarasota-Bradenton
International Airport or mines26.
Lake Flores
The 123-year old agricultural company, owned by the Preston family,
announced in 2014 that it will be redeveloping more than 1,292 acres
of its land in southwest Manatee County into a New Urbanist, mixeduse, master-planned community called Lake Flores. The proposed
development, which has been approved by the County, includes 6,500
homes and 3 million square feet of commercial space to be built on
the land, which will be divided into three zones: District, Borough, and
Neighborhood. Each area will include a mix of uses, at different levels
of intensity, and all will be based on a grid layout, with pedestrian and
bicycle infrastructure throughout27. The development’s character,
modeled after that of Baldwin Park in Orlando, will be unlike other
developments in the area, and its scope will rival the fastest-growing
development in Manatee County, Lakewood Ranch28.
This major development in what used to be a rural area will have a
positive impact on southwest Manatee County. The owner anticipates
that the project will take several years to permit, and around 20 years
to complete.27 According to Florida Statutes 380.06(29), Lake Flores is
exempt from the Development of Regional Impact (DRI) process since
26
(April 2015). Discovery & Findings: Manatee County Infrastructure, Growth
Planning & Strategies (p. 18)
27
Schelle, C. (2 March 2014). Preston’s Crossroads: Manatee Fruit Farm on path to
new West Bradenton development. Bradenton Herald.
Source: Lake Flores
it is located within an Urban Service Area. Furthermore, as of July 1st of
2015, the Florida Legislature has eliminated the DRI process.
28
Salman, J. (2014). Farm’s owners propose massive Manatee development.
Herald-Tribune.
1-19
IMG Academy Expansion
IMG bought 110 acres from the Manatee Fruit Company in 2011 for a
planned expansion, which it broke ground on in 2013. The expansion
will include a new multisport complex, field house, baseball
quadruplex, student dormitory, and research facilities, and is expected
to take place in five phases over 15 years.29 Along with the physical
expansion, IMG intends to increase student enrollment to 1,200.
improve pedestrian infrastructure, provide multimodal connections,
improve streetscaping, and develop local branding.
TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE
There are 196.2 centerline miles of state highways in Manatee
County.31 The Sarasota/Manatee MPO is currently in the process of
updating its 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan.
Riviera Southshore Site
Major Highways
The 19.95-acre Riviera Southshore site on the southern bank of the
Manatee River in Downtown Bradenton was approved in early 2014
as a mixed-use project to include retail space and 490 apartments
and townhouse units. The property was sold in April 2015 to affiliates
of Hatfield Development, O’Reo Farm Two LLC of Rutledge, Georgia
and Bradenton Land Group LLC of Atlanta, Georgia.30Community
Improvement Plans.
Major local highways include I-75, I-275, US 41 (Tamiami Trail), and
US 301. I-75 runs north-south, east of the study area, and I-275
connects St. Petersburg to the Manatee County mainland at I-75
north of Palmetto. US 41 and US 301 are the primary north-south
corridors in the urban core study area, connecting it to Sarasota in
the south and through to Tampa in the north.
Certain areas within the urban core have been designated as
community improvement areas by Manatee County. These include
the Southwest TIF District, 14th Street West Community
Redevelopment Plan, Bayshore Area Plan, Innovation 41
(concentrated on U.S. 41/Tamiami Trail), Samoset Community
Improvement Strategy, South County Community Redevelopment
Plan, Tamiami Trail Corridor Plan, and Tamiami Trail Scenic Highway
Plan. These existing community improvement plans and community
visions will play into the development of several of the urban
corridors, and should be factored into the plan for these corridors.
The plans’ recommendations are generally consistent with plans to
Major roads in the study area include SR 70 (53rd Avenue), SR 64
(Manatee Avenue), and SR 684 (Cortez Road), the primary east-west
corridors in the area. Manatee Avenue and Cortez Road connect to
the barrier islands by bridge, and 53rd Street and Manatee Avenue are
designated emergency evacuation routes for the County.
29
31
Johnson, E. (17 April 2013). IMG gets set for major expansion. Herald-Tribune.
Roth, S. (3 April 2015). Hatfield Development, partner buy former Riviera
Southshore site. Business Observer Florida.
30
Major Roads
The Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) volumes for sections of SR
64 and SR 684 near the points of access to the beaches are shown on
Table 1-3. Figure 1-21 shows a range of AADT volumes along major
roads throughout the general study area.
Florida Legislature Office of Economic and Demographic Research. (May 2015).
Manatee County Area Profile.
1-20
Table 1 - 3. Annual Average Daily Traffic Volume, SR 64 & SR 684
SR 789
Palma Sola Blvd
75th St W
SR 64
14,500
17,300
32,500
SR 684
15,300
-
25,500
Source: Florida Department of Transportation. FDOT Florida Traffic Online
(2014). http://www2.dot.state.fl.us/FloridaTrafficOnline/viewer.html
Commute
In a recent study of Anna Maria Island, the Urban Land Institute
recommended the consideration of constructing a third bridge to the
island at the southern end of Bradenton Beach, connecting to 53rd
Avenue on the mainland33 to improve connectivity between the urban
core and the islands. The early stages of assessment and permitting
are currently underway for the construction of a replacement
Manatee Avenue Bridge, with expanded shoulders and sidewalks. The
Environmental Assessment for the Cortez Road Bridge is in process.33
The mean travel time to work in Manatee County is 23.9 minutes.
Within the study area, it ranges from to 16.2 minutes in the South
Bradenton neighborhood to 26.9 minutes in the southwestern-most
part of the County. The vast majority of workers in the study area
drive to work (90.7 percent), as they do in the rest of the County (90.2
percent), and most workers drive alone (77.6 percent). The next
largest segment of the study area population works at home (4.3
percent). Only 4.9 percent of the study area population travels to
work by means other than a car; 1.8 percent walk, 0.9 percent take
public transportation, 0.7 percent bike, and 1.5 percent travel by other
means. 32 These proportions are approximately equal to the
countywide and national mode distributions, with the exception of a
2.1 percent mode share for public transportation nationally.
Beach Access
The two-lane Manatee Avenue/State Road 64 and Cortez Road/State
Road 684 bridges are currently the only points of access to the
beaches on the barrier islands, which causes significant traffic
congestion. The bridges also serve as the hurricane evacuation
routes for island residents.
32
U.S. Census Bureau. (2013). Commuting Characteristics by Sex - 2009-2013
American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates. American Fact Finder.
Traffic backed up to cross the bridge from the mainland to the barrier
islands. Source: Urban Land Institute’s Anna Maria Island Briefing Book
33
Urban Land Institute. (2013). A ULI Advisory Services Panel Report – Manatee
County Florida: Economic Prosperity and Strategic Growth. (P. 16, 24-25).
1-21
Figure 1 - 21. Annual Average Daily Traffic Volume (2014)
Source: Florida Department of Transportation. Enhancements by Littlejohn.
1-22
As another means to alleviate beach-related congestion and the
inability of beach parking to meet peak season demands, the
Sarasota-Manatee MPO identified locations suitable for park-and-ride
facilities in 2010.34 The potential locations in Manatee County are:



Figure 1 - 22. MCAT Service Expansion Priorities
Bayshore High School: 34th Street West and 53rd Avenue West
Beachway Plaza: Manatee Avenue and 75th Street West
Paradise Bay Plaza: Cortez Road and 75th Street West
These proposed park-and-ride lots and the associated transit services
have not yet been implemented.
Transit
Manatee County
Area Transit
(MCAT) is the
primary transit
provider in the
county. Most of
the routes in the
system operate
only once every 60
minutes, but as a
recent increase in
ridership indicates
increased demand, increased frequency has become one of MCAT’s
top 10-year priorities. MCAT’s Transit Development Plan also
highlights expanding routes, providing later service, improving
Sunday service, and improving connectivity to surrounding counties.
Source: Manatee County Area Transit Authority Transit Development Plan
34
Sarasota/Manatee Metropolitan Planning Organization. (December 2013).
Regional Park and Ride Strategic Implementation Plan. (p. 27).
1-23
The main corridors identified for the study area coincide with the
routes MCAT has proposed for increased service span and
frequencies of 20 or 30 minutes: US 41, Cortez Road, and 53rd
Avenue. Two of MCAT’s three stations are also located within the
study area: Downtown Station and DeSoto Station35 (see Fig. 1-22).
Figure 1 - 24. Study Area Railway Network
Rail Lines
The Sarasota Line of Seminole Gulf Railway (SGLR), which connects
from Oneco to Venice, runs through the western portion of Manatee
County. The commercial Figure 1 - 23. CSX Transportation and
railroad moves primarily
SGLR Rail Lines
building materials,
newsprint, beer, LP gas,
pulpwood, logs, and stone.
CSX Transportation
operates expedited delivery
of fresh Tropicana orange
juice out of Bradenton to
distribution centers in New
Jersey, Ohio, and
California.36 See Figure 123 for CSX Transportation
and SGLR lines in the
region, and Figure 1-24 for
a close up of the study
Source: Florida Department of Transportation
area.37
35
Manatee County Area Transit. (September 2013). Manatee Connect – Transit
Development Plan Major Update FY 2013/14-FY 2022/23.
36
Florida Department of Transportation. Chapter 2: Current Freight Rail System
and Services in Florida. (p. 8, 17) Investment Element of the 2010 Florida Rail
System Plan.
Source: University of South Florida – Maps ETC (2009)
Pedestrian and Bicycle Infrastructure
Pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure in Manatee County is lacking.
Several road segments in Manatee County’s urban core were
identified by the Sarasota/Manatee MPO as amongst the top ten
corridors with the worst conditions for bicyclists and pedestrians
within Manatee and Sarasota Counties38:
Cortez Road between U.S. 41 and 75th Street
37
University of South Florida - Maps Etc. (2009). Manatee County Railway Network.
Sarasota/Manatee MPO. (6 December 2012). Bike/Pedestrian/Trails Master Plan
– Phase 1 Data Collection.
38
1-24
Manatee Avenue between
Figure 1 - 25. Bicycle/Pedestrian Incident Heat Map
th
15 Street W and Virginia Drive
Manatee Avenue between
64th Street E and 1st Street
U.S. 301 between University
Parkway and U.S. 41
Tamiami Trail between 6th
Avenue W and Old Florida
Boulevard
The Sarasota/Manatee MPO
created a bicycle and
pedestrian incident heat map,
which shows the segment of
Tamiami Trail in south Manatee
County to be the most
dangerous area for cyclists and
pedestrians (see Fig. 1-25).
The Sarasota/Manatee MPO
further identified the locations
of all pedestrian and bicycle
accidents and fatalities,
surrounding sidewalks and
bike lanes, and locations of bus
stops and schools, and made recommendations for the priority
pedestrian and bicycle improvement projects, most of which fall
within the urban core study area.38 Limited segments of the
Source: Sarasota/Manatee MPO (2012)
recommended improvements were slated as proposed projects by
the MPO in June 2014, but it is unclear whether or not they were
implemented.39
39
Sarasota/Manatee MPO. (23 June 2014). Transportation Alternative Program
(TAP) Project Priorities 2014.
1-25
Transportation Concurrency Exception Area (TCEA)
Manatee County has two Transportation Concurrency Exception Areas
(TCEA), which were established in 2008, contiguous with the former
14th Street West CRA and South County CRA. Within the TCEA,
developers may mitigate their transportation impacts through
alternative means, rather than the typically required roadway
widening to expand automotive capacity. These measures should fall
in line with the Transit Development Plan, Bike and Pedestrian Master
Plan, or other community, neighborhood, or corridor plans. Potential
mitigating measures include pedestrian, lighting, streetscape, or bus
shelter improvements.40
Figure 1 - 26. Street TCEA
Figure 1 - 27. South County TCEA
Source: Manatee County Government
Source: Manatee County Government
40
Manatee County Government. Transportation Concurrency Exception Area 14th
Street West & South County Community Redevelopment Areas – Overview.
1-26
Traditional Grid Pattern
URBAN FORM
Block Structure and Roadway Network
The layout of blocks has an immediate effect on traffic patterns, both
pedestrian and vehicular. There are three primary forms of block
layout in the county: traditional grid pattern, suburban pattern, and
mega blocks.
Figure 1 - 28. Traditional Grid Patterns in the Study Area
The grid pattern is commonly used in urban areas, traditional
neighborhood developments, and new urbanist communities. Blocks
take the form of squares, rectangles, or curved rectangles. Grid
networks, particularly those with short block lengths, require greater
amounts of land dedicated to roadways than do other development
patterns. However, the grid pattern is highly connected, allowing for
multiple routes to reach a given destination; are known to be
friendlier to pedestrians as they are easy to navigate and provide
more frequent access points to destinations; and are flexible,
providing a framework that allows sites to be repurposed for a variety
of uses.
Grid patterns are found in small pockets of traditional urban and
some suburban neighborhoods in Manatee County. Few areas have
fully connected grid networks. Portions of the Samoset, South
Bradenton, West Bradenton, and other small areas throughout the
county have a roadway network of relatively evenly spaced
perpendicular streets (see Fig. 1-28).
Samoset
South Bradenton
The disruption of local streets in urban neighborhoods, as a result of
the closing of streets and the introduction of gated developments,
was identified as a key issue in the Manatee Council Character
Compatibility Study.41
Suburban Patterns
Beginning in the 1950s, many suburban developments moved away
from traditional grids to disconnected, often curvilinear patterns.
These developments use these patterns include loops, warped
41
Manatee Council of Governments. (2005). Manatee Council Character
West Bradenton
Oneco Manufactured Home Parks
Compatibility Study.
(p. 14)
1-27
Figure 1 - 29. Suburban Grid Patterns in the Study Area
Palma Sola Neighborhoods
parallels, and cul-de-sacs. The neighborhood’s internal roadway
network is generally connected to a collector or arterial road by a
limited number of access points. These patterns are disconnected,
difficult to navigate, and require a longer route to reach a destination
than would a grid network, making the automobile the primary
means of transportation. The lack of through streets also inhibits
connectivity for the greater area. Neighborhoods using these pattern
are often entirely low-density, single-family residential, and they are
more difficult to repurpose for other uses. These patterns are
typically employed to create private neighborhoods separated from
the rest of the community, and to maximize the amount of
developable land.
Many neighborhoods in Manatee County use these suburban
patterns, including Palma Sola, West Bradenton, Whitfield, Bayshore
Gardens, and other neighborhoods (see Fig. 1-29).
Mega Blocks
Southwest County
South of Oneco
West Bradenton
Whitfield
Large shopping plazas, industrial areas, golf courses, parks,
agricultural land, and large vacant parcels, which lack public
roadways, form mega blocks that disrupt the street network and
create barriers to connectivity. Manatee County experiences
significant connectivity issues related to the long block lengths
created by these types of land, which effectively form black holes in
the roadway network. Disconnected plazas within areas of high
intensity are particularly disruptive. The lack of convenient access
points can lead to both automobile congestion and an unsuitable
pedestrian environment.
Shopping plazas (especially near the intersection of 14th Street W and
Cortez Road), industrial land surrounding the 15th Street E corridor,
and agricultural land in the southwest quadrant are the largest
1-28
examples of this development pattern in Manatee County (see Fig. 130).
Figure 1 - 30. Mega Blocks in Manatee County
Preferred Patterns
The Community Design and Compatibility section of the Manatee
County’s Comprehensive Plan 2020 Land Use Operative Provisions
references preferred block patterns for various areas in the county,
based on the character area typologies established in the Manatee
Council Character Compatibility Study as follows:
Traditional Urban Neighborhoods
In traditional urban neighborhoods, development should have “lot
and block designs that reinforce pedestrian use of the street.”
14th Street W and Cortez Road Plazas
West Samoset
Suburban Mixed-Use Activity Centers
Suburban Mixed Use Activity Centers “should be designed with
universal blocks, i.e. blocks with standard dimensions that
accommodate several different types of uses, to enable reuse over
time through infill, redevelopment and intensification.”
Suburban Neighborhoods
Suburban neighborhoods should have “a street system that […]
provides functional connections that link neighborhoods to shopping
areas, civic uses, parks, and other recreational features.” They should
be connected, but designed to prevent cut-through traffic through
measures such as traffic calming and street trees.
Mixed-Use Centers
Mixed-use centers should be interconnected and not “isolated
development pods dedicated to single uses.”
Southwest County
South of Oneco
Overall, the county seeks “an interconnected street system that
prioritizes pedestrian and bicycle features and links neighborhoods to
shopping areas, civic uses, parks, and other recreational features.”42
42
Manatee County Government. Land Use Operative Provisions. Manatee County
Comprehensive Plan 2020. (p. 25-36).
1-29
This type of design reduces the distance between destinations and
allows for nonautomotive modes of travel, likely reducing the total
vehicle miles traveled in an area. In order to realize this vision, the
County will need to develop a clearer set of enforceable requirements
or incentives.
Figure 1 - 31. Building Footprints of Major Shopping Areas in
Manatee County
Building Footprints
The building footprint looks at the land area occupied by a built
structure, and does not include parking lots, landscaping, or other
features on a site. It is the same regardless of the number of floors in
a building, and therefore is more telling of urban form than of density
or intensity, though is not unrelated. In suburban areas, most
buildings are placed in the center of lots and are surrounded by
parking and landscaped areas. This form has buildings set back from
the street and spaced further apart, reducing frequency of buildings
along street fronts. This results in decreased density, greater
distances between destinations, and fewer eyes on a given point of a
street, which discourage pedestrian activity and increase overall
vehicle miles traveled.
family neighborhoods, fitting a greater number of residential units
onto a smaller piece of land (see Fig. 1-32).
More so than the size of the buildings themselves, the relationship
between the building footprint and the parcel size impacts urban
form and efficiencies. Malls, large shopping plazas, and industrial
buildings have the largest building footprints in Manatee County (see
Fig. 1-31). They are typically surrounded by large, street-facing
parking lots and stand in isolation from other buildings. Single-family
residential homes have small building footprints surrounded by
private yards and driveways. The size of the building footprint
relative to the lot size is small, particularly in single-family zones with
low residential density allowances. Urban single-family
neighborhoods, manufactured home parks, and multifamily buildings
all have more efficient building footprints than low-density single-
The placement of the building on the lot is also a critical factor.
Consider two lots with equivalent land areas and building areas, but
different site configurations. One building is placed near the right of
way with frontage along most of the street and parking in the rear.
Its presence on the street contributes to an enclosed urban form and
encourages pedestrian access. A second building is set back from the
street, centered on the lot and surrounded by parking lots and strips
of landscaping. The configuration isolates the building from its
surroundings and discourages pedestrian access. The effect of these
two different configurations is magnified when examined from a
district perspective. A series of the first type of site creates a walkable
community; a series of the second creates a suburban corridor.
Large commercial strip centers (left) and the DeSoto Square Mall (upper right)
1-30
Eastern Segment
47th Street W
Manatee Avenue W
47th Street W
9th Street E
Manatee Avenue W
Western Segment
Samoset neighborhood (RSF-6)
14th Street W
67th Street W
Palma Sola neighborhood (RSF-4.5)
Figure 1 - 33. Manatee Avenue
50th Street W
Figure 1 - 32. Building Footprints of Residential Neighborhoods in
Manatee County
Manatee Avenue W
Manufactured home communities (RSMH-6)
Apartment complex on Palma Sola Bay (RMF-9)
This distinction is visible in Manatee County, particularly on Manatee
Avenue and 14th Street W, which both run from downtown Bradenton
to unincorporated suburban areas. The segments closest to
downtown—the eastern portion of Manatee Avenue and the northern
portion of 14th Street W—have shallower setbacks, with buildings set
closer to the streets. Further from downtown, strip retail plazas with
expansive parking lots on the street and large buildings in the back of
the lots (see Fig. 1-33).
Suburban development patterns, including pods of single-family
homes on large lots, do provide ecological value in having land
1-31
dedicated to vegetated open space, which is necessary to mitigate
urban heat island effects and for stormwater management. However,
their forms also contribute to greater automobile dependency and
negatively impact both environmental and human health through
decreased physical activity and increased air pollution, automobile
crashes, and pedestrian injuries and fatalities associated with
suburban sprawl.43
The same ecological benefits of open space can be provided more
efficiently in a compact urban form, if planned for. Rather than the
privatized open space of suburban lawns, municipalities can plan for
large public parks, multiuse trails with pervious surfaces, shared
stormwater facilities, green roofs, the preservation of existing natural
land, and other strategies that can help reduce heat, improve air
quality, and manage stormwater. These techniques can be combined
with reduced parking requirements, shared parking garages,
increased height, and improved transit service, to build compactly to
accommodate growth and reduce automobile dependency. These
provisions require planning, coordination of parties, prioritized
funding, and development regulations unlike those currently in place.
Building footprints are significantly impacted by regulations in the
Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code. Requirements for
setbacks, minimum open space, parking, maximum square footages,
and height limitations all determine the developable land within a
parcel. The existing regulations impose a suburban pattern of
development with small building footprints relative to lot sizes. Other
factors—such as parcel size, development trends, and consumer
preferences—also contribute.
43
Frumpkin, H. (2002). Urban Sprawl and Public Health. Association of Schools of
Public Health – Public Health Reports. Volume 117.
Character Vision
The Manatee County Character Compatibility Study, conducted
between 2005 and 2007 by the Manatee Council of Governments,
established a broader vision for the future character of Manatee
County. The study identified character areas that extend beyond
jurisdictional boundaries in an effort to create a unified vision and
action plan for the area. Thirteen character area typologies were
identified countywide, with nine of these occurring within the urban
core: urban center/downtown; traditional/ urban neighborhoods;
suburban neighborhoods;
urban/suburban
neighborhoods; industrial
areas; historic areas;
corridors;
conservation/natural
vegetation; and waterfront
communities (see Fig. 134). The corridors, in their
present state, fall under
what the study defines as
suburban corridors, which
are “divided multilane
roadways, are mostly
commercial in nature, and
magnify the “saw tooth”
relationship with the
adjacent residential
areas.”44
44
Manatee County Council of Governments. (2005). Manatee Council Character
Compatibility Study. (p. 32)
1-32
Figure 1 - 34. Manatee Council Character Compatibility Study - Character Vision Graphic
1-33
“We like not just the urban feel but the connectivity, not relying
on your car for everything.”
Manatee County Resident
CHAPTER 2
C ORRIDOR
A SSESSMENT
2-1
CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT
Underutilized Parcels.................................................................................... 18
Contents
URBAN CORRIDORS ASSESSMENT ........................................................ 4
MANATEE AVENUE CORRIDOR ................................................................................ 4
Existing Land Use and Urban Form ........................................................... 4
Major Assets....................................................................................................... 7
Future Land Use................................................................................................ 7
Zoning .................................................................................................................. 7
Underutilized Parcels ...................................................................................... 8
Potential for Infill and Redevelopment.................................................... 8
CORTEZ ROAD WEST/44 AVENUE EAST (SR 684) .......................................... 10
TH
Existing Land Use and Urban Form ......................................................... 10
Major Assets..................................................................................................... 12
Future Land Use.............................................................................................. 13
Zoning ................................................................................................................ 13
Potential for Infill and Redevelopment ................................................. 19
14TH STREET WEST/US 41 (TAMIAMI TRAIL) ...................................................... 21
Existing Land Use and Urban Form......................................................... 21
Major Assets .................................................................................................... 23
Future Land Use ............................................................................................. 23
Zoning ................................................................................................................ 23
15TH STREET EAST .................................................................................................... 25
Existing Land Use and Urban Form......................................................... 25
Major Assets .................................................................................................... 27
Future Land Use ............................................................................................. 27
Zoning ................................................................................................................ 28
Potential for Infill and Redevelopment ................................................. 29
Underutilized Parcels .................................................................................... 13
Potential for Infill and Redevelopment .................................................. 13
53RD AVENUE/SR 70............................................................................................... 15
Existing Land Use and Urban Form ......................................................... 15
Major Assets..................................................................................................... 18
Future Land Use.............................................................................................. 18
Zoning ................................................................................................................ 18
2-2
CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT
Figures
Figure 2 - 1. Urban Corridors ................................................................................ 4
Figure 2 - 2. Manatee Avenue West Blocks and Building Footprints .... 5
Figure 2 - 3. Lowest Property Values ................................................................. 8
Figure 2 - 4. Manatee Avenue Corridor FAR ................................................... 9
Figure 2 - 5. Manatee Avenue Corridor Parcel Size ..................................... 9
Figure 2 - 6. Cortez Road W Urban Corridor ................................................ 10
Figure 2 - 7. Cortez Road W Building Footprints ........................................ 11
Figure 2 - 8. Cortez Road/44th Avenue E Corridor FAR............................. 14
Figure 2 - 9. Cortez Road/44th Avenue E Corridor Parcel Size ............... 14
Figure 2 - 10. Zoning Map ................................................................................... 15
Figure 2 - 11. Future Land Use Map ................................................................ 15
Figure 2 - 12. 53rd Street Blocks and Buildings........................................... 16
Figure 2 - 13. 53rd Street W/34th Street W Activity Node......................... 17
Figure 2 - 14. 53rd Avenue West Corridor FAR ............................................. 20
Figure 2 - 15. 53rd Avenue West Corridor Parcel Size ............................... 20
Figure 2 - 17. 14th St West/US 41 Corridor FAR and Parcel Size ........... 24
Figure 2 - 16. Lowest Property Values............................................................. 24
Figure 2 - 18. 15th St. E FLUM ............................................................................. 27
Figure 2 - 19. 15th Street E Corridor FAR and Parcel Size......................... 28
Figure 2 - 20. 15th Street E Corridor Lowest Property Values per
Square Foot ............................................................................................................... 29
2-3
CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT
URBAN CORRIDORS ASSESSMENT
Figure 2 - 1. Urban Corridors
This chapter contains a detailed assessment of land uses, urban form
and regulations applicable to each of the following corridors (see Fig.
2-1).






14th Street West/US 41 (Tamiami Trail),
1st Street,
15th Street East,
53rd Avenue West/SR 70,
Cortez Road West/44th Avenue East (SR 64), and
Manatee Avenue West.
MANATEE AVENUE CORRIDOR
Manatee Avenue was widely regarded in stakeholder interviews as
being in the best condition of the five urban corridors. It is classified
as a principal arterial road.1 The street is typically four lanes wide with
a narrow landscaped median and center turn lane, as well as
additional turn lanes at intersections west of 43rd Street. East of 43rd,
the median is replaced with a center turn lane. There are narrow
sidewalks on both sides of the road, but no bicycle lanes. Appendix I
contains select cross-sections of each corridor. The land along the
corridor falls under varied jurisdictions; some parcels are part of the
City of Bradenton and others are part of unincorporated Manatee
County. The majority of Manatee Avenue takes the form of a
suburban commercial corridor, with stores, restaurants, and offices
lining the roadway. It is surrounded by traditional/urban
Manatee County Transportation Planning Division. (30 April 2010). Map 5A: Existing Roadways Functional Classification.
1
neighborhoods to the north and by suburban neighborhoods to the
south.2
Existing Land Use and Urban Form
The Manatee Avenue West corridor contains a variety of uses,
including retail, restaurants, vehicle repair/gas stations, offices, and
even some storage uses. The character of the corridor varies from a
Compatibility Study. (p. 45).
2
2-4
CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT
more urban character close Figure 2 - 2. Manatee Avenue West Blocks and Building Footprints
to Bradenton, to a
suburban corridor closer to
Palma Sola Bay.
Figure 2-2 depicts the
blocks and buildings along
the Manatee Avenue West
corridor. For the most part,
this corridor presents a
well-connected traditional
grid. However, it is evident
that wherever a shopping
center or multi-family
development is built, the
vehicular connectivity in the
area suffers, sending more
local trips onto Manatee
Avenue West.
As shown in the bottom
graphic, the area east of
51st Street West, with the
exception of the Publix at
Westgate and St. Stephen’s
School, presents a more
urban character with smaller blocks and buildings closer to the street.
West of that street, there is a prominence of large shopping centers
built far back from the road. Some of those sites have started
incorporating outparcels closer to the road, but the buildings are so
small that they hardly make an impact framing the street.
The corridor was divided into three primary character segments for
analysis purposes:
Palma Sola Bay to 75th Street West
The segment closest to the barrier islands, between Palma Sola Bay
and 75th Street West, has single-family homes fronting on the south
2-5
CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT
side of the road and multifamily on the north side. The single-family
homes have direct access from Manatee Avenue, while the multifamily homes have access from 4th Avenue West.
The road is lined with lush vegetation, which buffers the homes from
the traffic on Manatee Avenue. The road has four lanes with a
landscaped median and left turn lanes at every intersection.
Beall’s, Staples, and Fresh Market, as well as smaller chain stores and
a few local retailers. These stores are configured as strip plazas, with
large parking lots in the front and buildings set back far from the
road. Some restaurants and other outparcel buildings are located in
the parking lots, closer to the road. A small number of multifamily
units and warehouse storage facilities are also located in this area.
Multifamily residential is the primary use for parcels immediately
south of the corridor, and single-family residential to the north.
75th Street West to 63rd Street West
75th Street West marks a distinct transition in character, signaling the
beginning of the urban area. Between 75th Street West and 63rd
Street West, Manatee Avenue takes on the suburban strip retail form.
This segment has the largest, deepest parcels along the corridor,
most of which are occupied by big box retailers, such as Kmart,
63rd Street West to 34th Street West
Beginning at 63rd Street West, the commercial parcels along Manatee
Avenue begin to reduce in size and depth. In this area, the strip retail
centers generally have fewer big box retailers, smaller parking lots,
2-6
CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT
and are located closer to the road. Standalone buildings surrounded
by parking lots also increase in frequency, and the number of offices
increases, especially west of 51st Street West. Gas stations and drive
through establishments remain prevalent. Jessie P. Miller Elementary
School and St. Stephen’s Episcopal School are major public and
institutional uses in this area.
East of 34th Street West, Manatee Avenue consistently falls under the
City of Bradenton’s jurisdiction. The corridor continues to serve
commercial uses, taking on a more urban form, with shallower
setbacks and fewer retail strip centers, creating a greater sense of
enclosure along the road. The neighborhoods on either side of the
road become traditional/urban neighborhoods, until Manatee Avenue
becomes part of downtown Bradenton with an urban form.
Major Assets
As noted in Appendix A, there are a number of community assets in
downtown Bradenton, making this area a very convenient and
attractive location to live, work, and shop. Additionally, the Palma
Sola Causeway Park provides beach access in Palma Sola Bay on
Manatee Avenue, just west of the mainland. Two major conservation
areas, Neal Preserve and Robinson Preserve, abut Manatee Avenue
near Palma Sola Bay. These three natural assets, though under the
jurisdiction of the City of Bradenton, are potential anchors for an
outdoor recreation cluster in this area.
The Bradenton Country Club is just south of the corridor and has its
entrance on Manatee Avenue. No major employment centers,
community centers, higher education facilities, healthcare centers,
civic uses, or other major assets are located along the Manatee
Avenue corridor.
Future Land Use
All the unincorporated parcels east of 75th Street West have a future
land use category (FLUC) of Retail/Office/Residential (ROR). The land
south of Manatee Avenue and west of 75th Street W has a FLUC of
Residential-6 (6 du/a), and the land north of Manatee Avenue and
west of 75th Street W has a FLUC of Residential-16 (16 du/a). Within
half a mile of Manatee Avenue, a limited number of parcels located
closest to the corridor have a FLUC of Residential-9 (9 du/a) or
Residential-16 (16 du/a). A majority of the parcels have a FLUC of
Residential-6 (6 du/a). Waterfront properties in this area have a FLUC
of Residential-3 (3 du/a).
Zoning
Most of the parcels along Manatee Avenue are zoned General
Commercial (GC), though there is a concentration of Professional –
2-7
CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT
Medium (PR-M) zoning between 45th Street West and 51st Street
West. Four parcels within a half mile of Manatee Avenue are zoned
Planned Development – Commercial (PD – C). The land immediately
north of Manatee Avenue and west of 75th Street West is zoned
Planned Development – Residential (PD-R), as are a few other parcels
within half a mile of Manatee Avenue.
Underutilized Parcels
The County regulations allow a maximum non-residential
development intensity of 0.35 FAR (floor area ratio) in commercial
areas. An analysis of current development along Manatee Avenue
shows that the majority of the sites are developed at an FAR of 0.11
or less (see Fig. 2-4). Figure 2-5 shows parcel size. Most sites along
the Manatee Avenue Corridor (not including sites within the City
limits) are under 3 acres in size.
Property values were also reviewed to identify those parcels with a
property value (per square foot) that falls within the bottom 20
percent of all nonresidential parcels in the study area. Few parcels
within half a mile of Manatee
Avenue are in this category. Some
of the parcels that do fall within
this category are older commercial
parcels on Manatee Avenue (see
Fig. 2-3).
Avenue. However, the larger developed sites offer the opportunity to
intensify development by building outparcels within the parking lots.
These new buildings could assist in creating a more defined urban
form along the avenue. Regulations would need to be adjusted to
permit buildings closer to the road, and to minimize the provision of
surface parking for shopping centers. The City of Bradenton has seen
some redevelopment along Manatee Avenue and the new buildings
have complied with the City’s Form-Based Code resulting in
attractive, pedestrian friendly urban developments.
Another strategy that could entice redevelopment in the area is the
aggregation of lots into larger sites with better possibilities for
redevelopment. The few blocks between 43rd Street West and 51st
Street West contain particularly small lots. These smaller sites can still
be redeveloped without aggregating land, but will need an
adjustment to the regulations to be able to make better use of the
sites. With the current setback, parking and other requirements,
development on current small sites would be extremely difficult.
Figure 2 - 3. Lowest Property Values
Potential for Infill and
Redevelopment
There are very few vacant sites
along the corridor, and those that
are available are very small and are
do not have frontage on Manatee
2-8
CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT
Figure 2 - 4. Manatee Avenue Corridor FAR
Figure 2 - 5. Manatee Avenue Corridor Parcel Size
2-9
CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT
CORTEZ ROAD WEST/44TH AVENUE EAST (SR 684)
Cortez Road/44th Avenue East is a principal arterial road that runs
east-west through Manatee County. This analysis addresses the
portion of Cortez Road/44th Avenue E between Palma Sola Boulevard
and 15th Street East. For the most part, the street is four lanes with
paved or grassy medians, frequent left turn lanes, and additional turn
lanes at intersections. There are narrow sidewalks throughout with
streetlights only on the north side of the street. There are no bicycle
lanes. The road expands to six lanes plus turn lanes at its most
traveled section, near 14th Street, and is reduced to a two-lane road
east of 1st Street (see Appendix I). The corridor is surrounded by
suburban neighborhoods west of 26th Street West and by
urban/suburban neighborhoods east of 26th Street West.3 Cortez
Road is one of two connections from mainland Manatee County to
the barrier islands.
Figure 2 - 6. Cortez Road W Urban Corridor
of Cortez Road, parcels are a mix of retail, office, warehousing,
industrial, and mobile home parks, with single-family, multifamily,
recreational, and institutional/public uses occurring within half a mile
of the corridor. To the south, most of the land is large, agricultural or
vacant parcels. However, the land use in this area is on the verge of
major change with the introduction of the Lake Flores development
(described in detail in the previous chapter).
Substantial portions of the corridor between 75th Street West and 34th
Street West are within the city limits of Bradenton (see Fig. 2-5).
The existing land uses and spatial forms found along Cortez
Road/44th Avenue E vary widely. The corridor can be broken down
into four primary character areas:
Palma Sola Boulevard to 66th Street West
The section of Cortez Road between Palma Sola Boulevard and 66th
Street West transitions between Bradenton Beach and Cortez Fishing
Village to the west into the suburban mainland. On the northern side
Compatibility Study. (p. 45).
3
2-10
CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT
66th Street West to 34th Street West
Suburban strip retail dominates this segment of Cortez Road, which is
mostly within the City of Bradenton. Shops, restaurants, and offices
line the street, occupying mostly smaller, shallower parcels with a few
bays of parking in front and additional parking on the sides and in
the rear, putting buildings typically within 60 to 150 feet of the right
of way. Large commercial plazas with expansive parking lots in front
are mixed in along the road (see Fig. 2-7). Retailers in this area
include Walmart, ALDI, Hobby Lobby, Publix, Regal Cinemas,
Applebee’s, Golden Corral, various banks, gas stations, small
healthcare
Figure 2 - 7. Cortez Road W Building Footprints
facilities, and
other businesses,
most of which are
within the city
limits. Some
public and
institutional uses,
such as churches
and utilities
facilities, are also
located in this
area.
34th Street West to 1st Street
The corridor transitions into more intensive commercial uses between
34th Street West and 1st Street. There is a combination of shopping
plazas with large parking lots out front, and freestanding retailers
typically surrounded by parking lots. Smaller parcels with shallower
setbacks or outparcel buildings nearer to the road occur occasionally
throughout this segment. The most concentrated retail activity at the
intersection with 14th Street West and near the DeSoto Square Mall;
the area dedicated to parking lots is also greatest in this area.
Businesses in this segment include various auto dealers, Pet
Supermarket, a vacant Winn Dixie building, Home Depot, Carraba’s
Italian Grill, Smuggler’s Adventure Golf, Best Buy, Rooms To Go
Furniture, Denny’s, H&R Block, and others.
2-11
CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT
Garden Estates mobile home parks have direct access from Cortez
Road. Other residential developments, ranging from single family
subdivisions to multi-family developments, are found to the north
and south of the corridor.
1st Street to 15th Street E
Just past the DeSoto Square Mall, the character of the corridor
transitions from a commercial corridor to an area with residential
uses—mostly mobile homes with some single-family and multifamily
residences—leading into an industrial area at 15th Street East. Some
of the homes closer to US 41 have been transitioning to nonresidential uses. The road in this segment narrows down to two lanes
and lacks sidewalks and street lights.
There is also a small cluster of light industrial and heavy commercial
uses (Arrow Fence Systems, Don’s Marine Sales & Service, National
Tools, ABC AutoTech, and others) off Cortez Road along 30th Street
West, surrounded by residential uses.
Major Assets
Residential uses are more prominent along Cortez/44th Avenue E than
along Manatee Avenue. The Westside Club, Orange Grove, and Royal
The Cortez Fishing Village and marinas on the mainland side just west
of the designated corridor, as well as Bradenton Beach on the other
side of Palma Sola Bay, are major assets drawing people into the area.
Pinebrook Ironwood Golf Course is a major recreational facility along
the corridor, and the Manatee YMCA and PACE Center for Girls are
community resources. The remainder of the corridor is largely
commercial, with residential uses behind. There are no major
employers or higher education facilities along this corridor.
2-12
CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT
Future Land Use
The land slated for the Lake Flores development on the western end
of the corridor has a future land use category (FLUC) of Mixed Use
Community (MU-C). Aside from that land, the municipal water
treatment facility, and the small industrial cluster on 30th Street West,
all the parcels fronting Cortez Road from Palma Sola Boulevard to 1st
Street within Manatee County jurisdiction have a FLUC of Retail/Office
Residential (ROR). East of 1st Street, there is ROR and Residential-9 on
the north side, and Residential-16 south of 44th Avenue E. A small
section of this road as it nears 15th Street East has a mix of Industrial –
Light (IL), Industrial – Heavy (IH), and ROR future land use categories.
Zoning
The Lake Flores project site, which functioned as a farm for the past
50 years, was recently rezoned to Planned Development - Mixed Use
(PD-MU). The rest of the corridor has a mix of zoning categories.
Most parcels fronting Cortez Road/44th Avenue E are zoned as
General Commercial (GC), and a few parcels have Neighborhood
Commercial Medium (NC-M) or Planned Development – Commercial
(PD-C) zoning. A couple of parcels on this corridor and a number of
parcels within half a mile of the road are zoned as Residential
Multifamily (RMF). Within a half mile of Cortez Road/44th Avenue E,
Residential Duplex (RDD), Residential Single-Family (RSF), Residential
Single-Family Manufactured Home (RSMH), Planned Development –
Residential (PD-R), and Planned Development – Public Interest (PD-PI)
zoning are also present.
West have an average size of 1.4 acres. East of that road, the average
size increases to 2.2 acres (not including sites within the City limits).
Potential for Infill and Redevelopment
This corridor contains more residential developments than the
Manatee Avenue corridor, providing a clientele for the businesses
located along the corridor. With the upcoming Lake Flores
development housing a greater number of residents in the vicinity,
this corridor may see a boost in redevelopment. Considering the
proximity of residential and commercial uses along the same corridor,
it will be important to ensure the safety of residents and visitors by
providing adequate sidewalks, bike facilities and crosswalks.
The intersection of Cortez Road West and 14th Street West is the most
visible intersection in the study area and has the potential of
becoming the most vibrant (Fig. 2-10 and 2-11). Its visibility, coupled
with the fact that the largest sites along any of the corridors are
located within and around this intersection, makes this intersection a
prime location for future redevelopment. The DeSoto mall site offers
great opportunities to transform the entire area into a more
sustainable, high intensity mixed-use community.
There are, however, a few single-family home subdivisions near the
intersection. One in the southeast quadrant of the intersection is
classified as RES-6 in the Future Land Use Map (shown in Fig. 2-10 in
yellow); one in the southwestern quadrant shown as RES-9, and a few
north of Cortez/44th Avenue E classified as RES-16. There are also a
few mobile home parks north of the corridor on 14th Street West.
Current development along this corridor averages an FAR of 0.15 (see
Fig. 2-8). Figure 2-9 shows parcel size. Most sites west of 26th Street
2-13
CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT
Figure 2 - 8. Cortez Road/44th Avenue E Corridor FAR
Figure 2 - 9. Cortez Road/44th Avenue E Corridor Parcel Size
2-14
CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT
The hatch patterns shown on the zoning map
represents sites that have gone through rezoning
to Planned Development. A step that the
comprehensive plan requires in certain locations
of for certain uses, but one that makes
redevelopment and infill a bit more difficult and
burdensome.
Figure 2 - 10. Zoning Map
53RD AVENUE/SR 70
53rd Avenue/SR 70 is a major east-west road in
Manatee County, running from 75th Street West
to the east coast of the state. 53rd Avenue (west
of 14th Street W) is classified as a minor arterial,
and SR 70 (east of 14th Street) as a principal
arterial within Manatee County.
The westernmost segment consists of a two-lane
road with a rural cross-section. Dedicated turn
lanes have been built to provide access to some
of the residential developments. Just west of 43rd
Street West, the road design changes to a four
lane, divided roadway with sidewalks on both
sides, but there are no streetlights or bike lanes.
The median is discontinued at the intersection
with 34th Street West and the road continues as a
4 lane road with occasional left and right turn
lanes. The 53rd/SR 70 corridor widens to six lanes
with median at 15th Street East (see Appendix I).
Figure 2 - 11. Future Land Use Map
The 53rd Avenue West/SR 70 is primarily a
residential corridor, with mostly multifamily
and single-family uses facing onto the
street, though typically separated by a
fence or wall. Street-oriented buildings are
not the norm.
There are activity center nodes at the
intersections with 34th Street West
(Walgreens and Mobil gas station), 26th
Street West (7-Eleven, Fifth Third Bank,
convenience store and small shopping
center), 14th Street West (Dunkin’ Donuts,
Starbucks, Shell and Wawa), 9th Street East
(Winn Dixie and 1st Manatee Bank and
Southeast Family Health Care Center), 15th
Street East in Oneco (Family Dollar, Burger
King, Checkers, Big Lots, Walgreens), and
US 301, which is just outside the urban core
(Walmart, Supercenter, Royal Palm 20,
Sam’s Club). Between 14th Street West and
15th Street East, the location of commercial
and institutional uses become more
frequent and less organized. The corridor is
flanked by suburban neighborhoods west
of 26th Street West and by urban/suburban
neighborhoods east of 26th Street West (see
Fig. 3-6). Overall, the 53rd Avenue/SR 70
corridor is the least commercialized of the
five urban corridors.
2-15
CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT
75th Street W to 54th Street W
Like the Cortez Road corridor, existing vacant (former agricultural
uses) along 53rd Avenue West between 75th Street West and 65th
Street West are not reflective of the imminent land uses, presuming
the Lake Flores development is implemented. Lake Flores
encompasses all of the land surrounding 53rd Avenue west of the
water treatment plant and all of the land south of the corridor
between the water treatment plant and 34th Street W. This area will
likely be transformed into a traditional neighborhood development
over the next 20 years. The Manatee Public Golf Course, whose only
development is a clubhouse and a parking lot, is located on the north
side of 53rd Avenue West in this area. The road is two lanes with no
sidewalks, bicycle lanes, or streetlights in this area.
54th Street W to 43rd Street W
At 54th Street West, development begins with suburban residential
communities on the north side. These communities are separated
from the roadway by a wall set back approximately 30 feet from the
road. The south side remains vacant (former agricultural land); there is
no street-facing development until 43rd Street West. The road is still
two lanes with no sidewalks, bicycle lanes, or streetlights in this area.
Figure 2 - 12. 53rd Street Blocks and Buildings
2-16
CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT
43rd Street W to 14th Street W
Suburban style apartment
complexes line 53rd Avenue
beginning at 43rd Street W, with
buildings set back 30 to 100
feet from the road. They are
typically private complexes with
a single entrance connecting to
the main road and contain
multiple two-story apartment
buildings and community
facilities surrounded by parking
lots and landscaping. Walled off
single-family residential neighborhoods set 60 or more feet from the
right of way with backyards facing the roadway are interspersed
throughout this segment of the corridor.
Commercial uses pick up nearing the intersection at 34th Street West
where there is a commercial node with strip retail centers,
freestanding commercial buildings, and gas stations (Fig. 2-13). A
middle school, Boys and Girls Club, and recreation fields are also
located in this node. South of 53rd Avenue West at 34th Street W,
Bayshore High School, IMG Academy, Culinary Arts Manatee
Technical Institute, and State College of Florida Manatee Sarasota are
collocated in an educational cluster. Moving east, small apartment
complexes set close to the street but fenced off, the fenced backs of
single-family residential neighborhoods, and occasional commercial
buildings face 53rd Avenue West. There is no center median nor
street lighting in this segment, and there is only a sidewalk on the
south side of the street. Single-family homes, churches, and small
commercial uses front 53rd Avenue W east of 26th Street W, set 30 to
60 feet back.
14th Street West to 9th Street East
The character of 53rd Avenue shifts from primarily residential to a mix
of residential and commercial uses at the 14th Street West commercial
node. Here, strip retail centers, standalone commercial buildings,
single-family residences, large walled off manufactured home parks,
and public utility facilities front the street. Sidewalks are narrow,
intermittent, and close to the street, and there is no street lighting.
9th Street East to US 301
53rd Avenue
turns into SR 70
at 14th Street
W. There are
few streetfacing uses in
this segment.
In addition to
the activity
nodes at the
intersections
with 9th Street
East and 15th
Street East,
vacant land,
parking lots, a
cemetery,
churches, an
elementary
Figure 2 - 13. 53rd Street W/34th Street W
Activity Node
2-17
CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT
school, and occasional commercial uses dot the road. Setbacks range
between 35 and 250 feet. The road is four lanes with no center
median, and there are sidewalks on both sides, but there are no bike
lanes or streetlights. Just outside the urban core, SR 70 intersects US
301. This intersection contains a major activity node with some bigbox retailers (Sam’s Club, Walmart Supercenter, and a movie theater
complex (Royal Palm 20).
Major Assets
To the west, the Manatee County Golf Course is a recreational asset
for the corridor. The educational cluster south of 53rd Avenue W at
34th Street W is a major asset; both IMG Academy and State College
of Florida Manatee Sarasota are amongst the ten largest employers in
the County. The Transportation Concurrency Exception Area (TCEA)
for the land south of 53rd Avenue W between 14th Street W and 15th
Street E is also a potential strength in attracting development.
Future Land Use
The Lake Flores land on the west end of the corridor has a future land
use designation of Mixed Use Community (MU-C). The water
treatment facility is designated Public/Semi-Public (P/SP). The
remaining land in the corridor between 75th Street W and 43rd Street
West has a future land use category (FLUC) of RES-9 (Residential 9
du/ac). A small area around the intersection with 34th Street West is
designated Retail/Office/Residential (ROR), and the schools in that
area are designated Public/Semi-Public (P-SP). The land surrounding
the intersections of SR 70 with 14th Street West, 15th Street East and
US 301 are also designated ROR. The remainder of the corridor is
designated RES-6, RES-9, or RES-16.
Zoning
There is great variety in zoning along this corridor, but most of it is
residential. The far west portion of the corridor has a Planned
Development - Mixed Use (PD-MU) zoning (Lake Flores). The water
treatment facility and Manatee County Golf Course are zoned
Planned Development – Public Interest (PD-PI). IMG Academy is
zoned as Master Planned – Institutional (MP-I) and is the only MP-I
property in the county. The schools near 34th Street W. are zoned
Planned Development – Public Interest.
The activity nodes have General Commercial (GC), Planned
Development – Commercial (PD-C) zoning. Residential areas between
nodes have a mix of Residential Multifamily (9 du/a) (RMF-9),
Residential Single-Family (4.5 du/ac) RSF-4.5, RSF-6, Residential
Duplex (6 du/a) (RDD-6), Residential Single-Family Manufactured
Homes (6 du/a) (RSMH-6), Residential Multifamily (6 du/a) (RMF-6),
RMF-9, and several Planned Developments including Residential (PDR), Mixed Use (PD-MU), and Planned Development – Recreational
Vehicle (PD-RV). There are also some sporadic Professional – Medium
(PR-M) sites at activity center nodes.
The average size of parcels at the 34th Street node is 4 acres and
range in size from 1 to approximately 14 acres. The average FAR at
this node is 0.08. At the 14th Street node, the parcel size average goes
down to 1.4 acres, but the average FAR remains the same. See Figures
2-14 and 2-15.
The sites with the lowest property value along the 53rd Avenue
West/SR 70 corridor include a manufactured home park at the corner
of 53rd Avenue and 14th Street; a cluster of vacant parcels between
2-18
CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT
20th Street West and 14th Street West; and a grouping of vacant sites
between 9th Street East and 15th Street East.
This corridor has a more uniform distribution of commercial nodes
than any of the other corridors. The nodes range in character from
neighborhood convenience stores to big-box retailers. There seems
to be no need to create new nodes. However, the current nodes have
potential for intensification of development. The node at the
intersection with 9th Street East has vacant land of adequate size for
new development. Other vacant sites of varying sizes are found
along the corridor. Accessibility to the existing nodes will be very
important as people who live nearby should be able to walk to and
from these nodes.
2-19
CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT
Figure 2 - 14. 53rd Avenue West Corridor FAR
Figure 2 - 15. 53rd Avenue West Corridor Parcel Size
2-20
CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT
14TH STREET WEST/US 41 (TAMIAMI TRAIL)
The 14th Street W/US 41 corridor, also known as Tamiami Trail, is part
of a scenic highway that connects from Tampa to Miami and runs
north-south through the center of Manatee County. This assessment
considers the portion of the road south of the City of Bradenton
boundary at 26th Avenue E to the southern border of the county at
University Parkway. This principal arterial is surrounded by
traditional/urban neighborhoods north of 30th Avenue W and by
urban/suburban neighborhoods south of 30th Avenue W. Stakeholder
interviews and comments from the Southwest County Improvement
District (SWTIF)4 consistently cite this corridor as a priority,
highlighting disinvestment, high vacancy rates, unappealing
aesthetics, and dangerous traffic conditions.
close to the road, with setbacks less than ten feet deep. Other
buildings are set as far as 180 feet back, and many have large parking
lots in front. Landscaping on most parcels is minimal. Manufactured
home parks, apartment complexes, and single-family residences are
located within a half mile of the corridor.
The land use and form along 14th Street/US 41 fairly consistently
takes the form of suburban strip commercial. The road can be
divided into three main character areas:
26th Avenue W to Cortez Road
A number of parcels in this northern segment of the corridor are
currently vacant land. General retail, automotive retail, restaurants,
manufactured housing, and multifamily housing are also prevalent
uses in this area. Area businesses include Uhaul, Bay Auto Sales,
Miller’s Restaurant, Lowe’s, and others. The road is four lanes with a
partially landscaped median, no bicycle lanes, narrow sidewalks, and
streetlights on the west side of the road. Some buildings are set
Manatee County Neighborhood Services – Economic Development
Division. (November 2014). SWTIF Update.
4
2-21
CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT
Cortez Road to Bay Drive
Bay Drive to University Parkway
14th Street W/US 41 from Cortez Road to Bay Drive is primarily
characterized by suburban strip retail development. South of Cortez
Road, the street widens to six lanes with a center turn lane, but no
median. There are narrow sidewalks along most of the road, but no
bicycle lanes or streetlights. Most retailers are located in strip plazas
with large shared parking lots in front; some are on their own parcels
with parking lots surrounding the building. Setbacks are deep and
most retailers have signs along the roadway. General retail,
automotive retail, and restaurants are all common in this segment.
This southernmost section of US 41 has six travel lanes, a center turn
lane, no median, no bicycle lanes, some sidewalks, and streetlights on
the east side and select portions of the west side. Uses include
automotive retail, boating retailers and facilities, hotels and motels,
gas stations, saunas and spas, psychics, general retailers, and small
offices. Businesses are more typically standalone buildings than strip
retail plazas. Views of the airport are mostly blocked by berms or
walls. The University of South Florida Sarasota-Manatee has an
entrance on US 41, but the campus is walled off from the road and
buffered by interior vegetation. There is little to no landscaping along
the roadway in this area. South of University Parkway--on the other
side of the Sarasota County line-- the character of the road changes
significantly to feature landscaped center medians, street lighting,
and buildings closer to the sidewalk, and it is reduced to four lanes
shortly thereafter.
2-22
CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT
Major Assets
14th Street W/US 41 connects to several major assets, including
downtown Bradenton, Sarasota-Bradenton International Airport,
University of South Florida Sarasota-Manatee, the Powell Crosley
Estate and Museum, and New College of Florida (on the other side of
the Sarasota County line). Much of the street also falls within one of
two Transportation Concurrency Exception Areas (TCEA), which range
from 26th Avenue W and Cortez Road and from 53rd Avenue E to Bay
Drive.
Future Land Use
Except for the sites between the creek just south of Bay Drive and
Broughton Street, which are Low Intensity Office (OL), all the parcels
fronting 14th Street W/US 41 have a future land use designation of
Retail/Office/ Residential. Within a half mile of the road, future land
use designations are Residential (16 du/a) (RES-16), Residential (9
du/a) (RES-9), or Residential (6 du/a) (RES-6). South of Bay Drive,
surrounding future land uses include Residential (3 du/a) (RES-3),
Industrial – Light (IL), and Public/Semi-Public (P/SP-1).
Zoning
Development – Residential (PD-R), Planned Development – Mixed
Use (PD-MU), and Heavy Commercial (HC) are scattered throughout.
Within half a mile of 14th Street W/US 41, there is a range of zoning
districts, including Residential Single-Family Manufactured Homes (6
du/a) (RSMH-6), Residential Duplex (4.5 du/a) (RDD-4.5), Residential
Duplex (6 du/a) (RDD-6), Residential Single-Family (3 du/a) (RSF-3),
Residential Single-Family (6 du/a) (RSF-6), Professional – Medium
(PR-M), and Neighborhood Commercial – Medium (NC-M). The
parcels shown for office in the Future Land Use Map are zones
Professional – Small (PR-S).
The average size of parcels along the 14th Street/US 41 corridor varies
from 0.8 acres for the area south of Bay Drive, to 1.5 acres between
Bay Drive and Cortez Road. The FAR is lowest between Cortez Road
and Bay Drive (0.13), slightly higher between Cortez and the
Bradenton city limits (0.14), and 0.17 south of Bay Drive. See Figure 216.
Several parcels on or near 14th Street W/US 41 fall into the lowest
property value category as described previously. These parcels
include a cluster of vacant sites near the intersection with 26th Avenue
E; a large vacant site near 37th Avenue W; a parking lot and
stormwater retention pond south of 51st Avenue Drive W; a
manufactured home park at the intersection with 53rd Avenue W; a
large vacant site at 54th Avenue W; a storage facility at 66th Avenue W;
two vacant parcels on Bay Drive near the Sarasota Bay; a hotel and
parking lot at Montgomery Avenue; and some vacant sites adjacent
to the airport (see Fig. 2-17).
Most parcels on 14th Street W/US 41 are zoned General Commercial
(GC). Small amounts of Planned Development – Commercial, Planned
2-23
CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT
Figure 2 - 16. 14th St West/US 41 Corridor FAR and Parcel Size
Potential for Infill and
Redevelopment
Figure 2 - 17. Lowest
Property Values
For such a traveled corridor, the size of
parcels is not conducive to large scale
redevelopment. Although there are
some large size vacant or underutilized
sites such as the Office Deport site or
the DeSoto mall site, a large number of
parcels are very narrow and deep,
making it very difficult to develop uses
that require visibility from the road. The
fact that residential uses flank the
corridor on both sides also makes
redevelopment challenging. Parcel
aggregation will need to occur in the
future so that redevelopment can have a
positive impact.
2-24
CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT
15TH STREET EAST
The character of the 15th Street East corridor is quite different than
the other urban corridors as it is the major industrial corridor in
Manatee County. A railroad closely parallels the road, providing
multiple freight modalities for warehousing and manufacturing
facilities. Flooding has been noted as an issue along the corridor.5
grocery stores, general retail in small strip centers or standalone
buildings, vehicle repair shops, churches, and vacant, undeveloped
land. There are also some single family homes facing 15th Street.
Some buildings are set near the road, and few have front parking lots
deeper than 100 feet. Most non-residential development in this area
consists of old, non-conforming buildings used for heavy commercial
and industrial uses.
There are a few pockets of urban/suburban residential
neighborhoods near SR 70 and 30th Avenue East, and several
commercial venues along the street, mainly consisting of gas stations,
and small shopping centers.
The land use and form along 15th Street East is also substantially
different than other corridors in the study area. The road can be
divided into the following main character areas:
26 Avenue East to 38 Avenue East
th
th
th
This segment of 15 Street East is typically two lanes with a center
turn lane. There are no curbs, sidewalks, bicycle lanes, or streetlights
for most of the segment. Existing land uses include gas stations,
38th Avenue E to 57th Avenue E
Crossing over the railroad tracks, 15th Street becomes a two-lane
road. Curbs, sidewalks, bicycle lanes, and streetlights are nonexistent.
South of 38th Avenue E along 15th Street E, Bowles Creek begins to
run parallel to the road on the east side in this segment, constraining
potential development on adjacent parcels. Much of the adjacent
land is vacant and vegetated, sporadically occupied by industrial or
automotive uses. South of 51st Street E, fast food, convenience store,
and general retail uses are present, as well as some small roadside
produce stands. The road widens to four lanes as it approaches SR 70.
Setbacks tend to increase further south, as more intense industrial
and retail uses with larger front parking lots prevail.
Manatee County Neighborhood Services – Economic Development
Division. (November 2014). SWTIF Update.
5
2-25
CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT
57th Avenue E to University Parkway
The road is two lanes with a center turn lane and does not have curbs,
sidewalks, bicycle lanes, or streetlights. Convenience stores,
automotive retailers, pawn shops, general retailers in small strip
centers, and gas stations are typical in this area. Some manufactured
home parks front the road near 63rd Avenue E. Industrial uses are the
predominant use in the southern part of the corridor, including
landscaping supply centers, equipment suppliers, and industrial parks.
Much like the segment to the north, the development in this area
consists of older, non-conforming developments, many of which have
outdoor storage and/or display of equipment and maintenance
issues. Newer developments have occurred south of 51st Street.
Between Tallevast Road and University Parkway, airport runways line
the western portion of the corridor, and a golf course, hotel, industrial
uses, and vacant land are located on the eastern side.
2-26
CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT
Airport, Beall’s Inc. corporate
Figure 2 - 18. 15th St. E FLUM
headquarters and warehouse, and
industrial parks. Other corridor
assets include the Tallevast
Community Center and the Suncoast
Golf Center and Academy to the
south. Part of the corridor falls
within a Transportation Concurrency
Exception Area, between 53rd
Avenue E and Bowles Creek.
Future Land Use
Major Assets
The 15th Street E corridor contains a number of assets critical to the
local economy, including the Sarasota-Bradenton International
Industrial Light (IL) and Industrial
Heavy (IH) are the majority future
land use categories along this
corridor (see Fig. 2-18). The heaviest
concentrations of industrial uses are
surrounding the intersection with
Cortez Road and south of 57th
Avenue E, particularly on the eastern
half of the corridor.
Retail/Office/Residential uses face
15th Street E on the west side of the
corridor between Cortez Road and
53rd Avenue E, as well as portions of
the segment between 53rd Avenue E
and Tallevast Road. Within half a
mile of the road, there are areas with
Residential (6 du/a), Residential (9
du/a) (RES-9), and Residential (16
du/a) (RES-16).
2-27
CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT
Zoning
Figure 2 - 19. 15th Street E Corridor FAR and Parcel Size
A variety of zoning districts are applied along the 15th Street E
corridor. Large clusters of land at the intersection with Cortez Road
and south of 57th Avenue E are zoned as Light Manufacturing (LM)
and Heavy Manufacturing (HM). General Commercial (GC), Heavy
Commercial (HC), Neighborhood Commercial – Small (NC-S), Planned
Development – Recreational Vehicle (PD-RV), Planned Development –
Industrial (PD-I), and Residential Multifamily (6 du/a) (RMF-6) are also
scattered throughout the corridor.
The average size of parcels along the 15th Street corridor is 2.7 acres,
but varies from 1.5 for sites within the Urban Industrial future land
use category and 2.9 in the Industrial Heavy category. The FAR also
varies based on the land use category with an average of 0.16 in the
IH future land use area, 0.19 within IL, and 0.3 in IU. See Figure 2-19.
Many of the sites with the lowest property value per square foot
(bottom 20%) in the urban core are located in the 15th Street E
corridor (see Fig. 2-20). A major cluster of these parcels is located at
the intersection of 15th Street E and 44th Avenue E, including a large
vacant parcel in the southwest corner. Other underutilized parcels in
the corridor include a large vacant parcel between 15th Street E and
US 301 near the airport, and many of the industrial properties in the
corridor. Figure 2-20 also shows that there are a few brownfields in
the corridor. The sites are all concentrated at the intersection of 15th
Street East and Whitfield Avenue. One site is used for commercial,
two for industrial and one is currently vacant. The vacant and
industrial sites are all owned by the same company.
2-28
CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT
The character of the 15th Street Corridor is defined mainly by the
industrial and intensive commercial uses currently present along the
street. Most of these developments are older and do not comply with
today’s development standards. There is a substantial amount of
outdoor storage and display of equipment without any type of
screening, deteriorated conditions, lack of landscaping, and nonstructured parking facilities. Newer development in the area, which
has occurred mainly to the south, appears clean and orderly.
Figure 2 - 20. 15th Street E Corridor Lowest Property Values
North of 57th Avenue E.
South of 57th Avenue E.
Future development and redevelopment in this area should keep in
line with the desired industrial focus for the corridor. Current code
will ensure the development is done in a way that improves the
appearance of the area. Code enforcement will be the main tool used
to “clean up” the unsightly sites.
While the area includes some Retail/Office/Residential (ROR) future
land use designation, it is not the intent of the County to expand this
category in this area, but to work with the current land use categories
and zoning districts to allow the development of
support commercial in the area.
The 15th Street E corridor is currently undergoing a
PD&E study to incorporate multimodal enhancements
such as bicycle lanes, sidewalks and transit (bus) facility
improvements (see Chapter 1 for more detailed
information). This roadway improvement will have a
positive impact on the corridor and will attract more
quality development to the area.
2-29
"Vacant businesses and empty lots along 14th Street look
like blight and do little to improve business prospects."
Stakeholder Comment
CHAPTER 3
P UBL IC
P ARTICIPATION
2-1
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Contents
Public Participation ...................................................................................... 2
Need deeper, larger parcels for redevelopment ................................. 4
STAKEHOLDERS INTERVIEWS .................................................................................... 2
Need more parks and open spaces in the urban core ...................... 4
South Manatee County has existing strengths to leverage ............. 2
Environmental concerns ................................................................................ 4
Residents enjoy local recreational amenities and sports .................. 2
Mixed reviews about potential development standards .................. 5
Manatee County’s urban core is neglected and dilapidated .......... 2
COMMUNITY WORKSHOP........................................................................................ 9
Development is moving elsewhere in the region ................................ 2
Workshop Overview ....................................................................................... 9
Lack of support or incentives from the County .................................... 3
Public Input ........................................................................................................ 9
Insufficient public infrastructure ................................................................ 3
ONLINE SURVEY ...................................................................................................... 11
Corridors lack character................................................................................. 3
#ISEEMANATEE ....................................................................................................... 13
U.S. 41/Tamiami Trail is an area priority.................................................. 3
Development potential around colleges ................................................ 4
Need for affordable housing in walkable locations ............................ 4
3-i
Residents enjoy local recreational amenities and sports
Public Participation
STAKEHOLDERS INTERVIEWS
To better understand the local perspective on Manatee County’s urban
corridors, a series of interviews was conducted with key stakeholders from
across sectors in May 2015. The stakeholders also had an opportunity to
provide additional, written feedback. Interviewees included developers,
builders, local design and planning professionals, real estate brokers,
representatives of area attractors, business and educational stakeholders,
members of the Chamber of Commerce, Convention and Visitors Bureau staff,
environmental groups, residential groups and homeowners associations, fire
districts, the Manatee County Sheriff’s Office, City of Bradenton staff, Manatee
County staff, health department staff, Manatee County School Board
members, and the Planning Commission Chairman. Questionnaires were also
distributed to the stakeholders (see Fig. 3-1). A total of 27 stakeholders
submitted responses. During the interviews and in the questionnaire,
stakeholders were asked for their insights and opinions on topics related to
the existing state of Manatee County’s urban core and corridors, prioritized
area improvements, current development patterns, barriers to quality
development, desired qualities for the area, and community strengths and
weaknesses. The following themes were identified as trends throughout.
Figure 3-2 shows a SWOT analysis of the comments received.
South Manatee County has existing strengths to leverage
The Sarasota-Bradenton International Airport, nearby beach access, medical
facilities, IMG Academy, colleges, and a substantial amount of land available
for development were spoken of as assets along the urban corridors. They
also cite highway accessibility and larger, nearby cities as strengths, especially
with regard to the arts mecca in north Sarasota County.
Many respondents selected the access to the outdoors, beaches, water, and
recreational facilities as their favorite aspect of residing in Manatee County,
and consider it to be a signature strength for the area.
"Recent studies, specifically the one by the Sarasota Bay Estuary
Program, determine the value of outdoor access to Manatee and
Sarasota counties to be $11.8 billion. The study includes activities such
as beach going, fishing, boating, hiking and bird watching and also
quantifies the value people place on nearness to the waterfront. Sierra
members and vast numbers of Manatee County residents live here
because of the health of the environment and because they use the
outdoors."
Manatee County’s urban core is neglected and dilapidated
Interviewees highlighted a continuing historic trend of neglecting Manatee
County’s urban core, the many vacant and dilapidated buildings in the area,
and the need to reinvest.
“The Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) has neglected this area
for the last 20 years in favor of new development out east.”
"Vacant businesses and empty lots along 14th Street look like blight
and do little to improve business prospects."
Development is moving elsewhere in the region
Participants noted that nearby areas that are more attractive locations for
development than Manatee County’s urban core, including east Manatee
County, downtown Bradenton, and Sarasota. Some suggested that the
existing land development code favors the types of and conditions for
development found in east Manatee County, which are not as well suited to
the urban core. They view Sarasota as the hub for quality retail and
restaurants, and many travel across the county line for their commercial
activities.
3-2
“The BOCC is supported by developers interested in building new
communities, not supporting, maintaining, or improving existing
communities or commercial districts.”
“Plan roads so they are not just thoroughfares to newer developments.”
Lack of support or incentives from the County
The most frequent criticism of the County’s role in inhibiting quality
development was the difficulty in navigating its bureaucratic red tape, which
discourages developers from selecting sites within its jurisdiction. There is a
perception that the County is not supportive of its residents or businesses,
and that they need to do more to incentivize development. Higher fees than
neighboring localities, and expensive, difficult concurrency requirements were
mentioned as specific disincentives for developing in unincorporated
Manatee County.
“County is a difficult bureaucracy to work with, with much run around,
unless you have an insider who can cut through red tape.”
“Application fees are extraordinary and, especially in this area, are
deterrents.”
“I am not really in favor of government incentivizing private
development, but that is the trend today, and it creates competition
amongst municipalities, so a well-developed strategy is needed.”
“We need to modify the toolbox to incentivize development in the core.”
Insufficient public infrastructure
When asked to prioritize improvements in the urban core, the majority of
respondents selected infrastructure—such as roads, utilities, and stormwater- as the most pressing need. Safety, connectivity, and aesthetic issues with
the local infrastructure were all addressed. They called out dangerous
conditions for pedestrians and bicyclists, especially along U.S. 41, as a concern,
and emphasized the need to improve pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure
and provide multimodal connections. Other concerns included the age of
County infrastructure, insufficient public transportation, lack of beach parking
on the barrier islands, seasonal congestion from beach-goers, and the need
to slow traffic on U.S. 41. The potential for a third bridge to the islands, a park
and ride facility near the beaches, bike lanes across the bridges, or a water taxi
was discussed. The Southwest Tax Increment Finance District (SWTIF), which
covers the urban core area, could be a source of funding for some
improvement projects.
"We need to use TIF funds wisely, where it has impact.”
“Cortez is overcrowded and can’t be fixed.”
Corridors lack character
Participants stated they did not feel the urban corridors—U.S. 41, Cortez Road,
53rd Avenue, and 15th Street—have any existing character or sense of place.
Manatee Avenue, however, was ranked as the lowest priority for
improvements amongst the study corridors, and was said to be well-kept and
pleasant. Other roads were said to need landscaping, maintenance, and other
improvements to create a higher-quality environment.
"U.S. 41 is sterile."
U.S. 41/Tamiami Trail is an area priority
U.S. 41, also known as Tamiami Trail or 14th Street, was selected as the corridor
of greatest concern by the majority of respondents. It is known by participants
to be dangerous for pedestrians, sterile in appearance, cluttered with signs,
and a hotbed for drug use, prostitution, and other illegal activity, particularly
at night. Undesirable businesses, such as gas stations, fast food restaurants,
dollar stores, used car dealerships, and adult stores contributed to
participants’ negative view of the corridor and were a primary complaint.
It was suggested that the road, which is mostly four lanes in the northern part
of Manatee County and in Sarasota County, but six lanes in much of the urban
core, be reduced to four lanes to decrease speeds and improve safety, and
that instead U.S. 301 be expanded to accommodate higher-speed, highercapacity travel. Participants also mentioned its potential as a medical corridor,
and the land available for development between its 6000 block and the
3-3
Sarasota County line to the south. They see potential for the road to become
a more attractive, scenic highway like it is in Sarasota.
“Residents dislike the wide, multi-lane nature of 41. The businesses
have an excess of pavement and are run down. I avoid the road. It feels
dangerous with the present turning lanes.”
“There is an unsettling number of "saunas" and "spas" in our area, the
type that is open at 3 a.m. on a Saturday night."
"Driving into Manatee County from the airport/University Parkway
area is really discouraging to anyone looking for a nice vacation spot
or a new home.”
“There are no medians with landscaping, nor are there any consistent
sidewalks with landscape buffers, so not only is the road dangerous for
pedestrians and bicyclists, it is also an endless sea of concrete and
blacktop.”
Development potential around colleges
Several participants keyed in on local colleges as assets that could anchor
development in south Manatee County. There is a need for student housing,
restaurants, retail, parks, open spaces, and other amenities near the colleges
clustered in this part of the county.
“With IMG, USF, New College, and Community College, south county is
ideally positioned to be a mini college town—a home for professors,
teachers, administrative staff, coaches, and trainers.”
Need for affordable housing in walkable locations
In addition to the need for student housing, participants saw a need for
affordable housing in the county more broadly, particularly in downtown
Bradenton or other urban, walkable environments that would appeal to
Millennials. Some think that creating urban, affordable, multi-family housing
in south Manatee County is essential, while others don’t think young
professionals would choose to live in that area over downtown Bradenton,
saying it has “no draw.” Developers said that allowing increased building
heights in desired areas would be key to making it more profitable for
developers to build that kind of affordable housing, and therefore a make it a
more feasible venture.
"Workforce housing doesn't exist here."
"Millennials have said they want to live in or near downtown Bradenton,
where they work, not south county."
Need deeper, larger parcels for redevelopment
A number of developers cited incompatible parcel sizes as a critical barrier to
redevelopment within the urban core. Not only are parcels small, requiring
developers to assemble a set of parcels, but the future land use designations
and zoning along the corridors designate only a narrow strip of parcels as
appropriate for commercial development.
"The morass on Manatee Avenue west of 26th Street is reflective of the very
narrow band of commercial that is constrained by the residential zoning
that abuts it. Nothing appears to be in the works to resolve this situation,
which will constrain Manatee Avenue into a continual decline, as the
existing code does not provide for the opportunity of redevelopment in a
meaningful way."
Need more parks and open spaces in the urban core
Although participants found the recreational amenities throughout the
County to be one of its strengths, they felt these features were lacking within
the urban core neighborhoods.
"Parks need to be available to more residents, particularly along the
Cortez Road and 14th Street corridors."
Environmental concerns
Manatee County’s coastal location and automobile-oriented lifestyles led to
environmental concerns from some participants. Poor air and water quality,
concerns for mangroves and floodplains, and a perceived failure on the part
3-4
of the County to plan for resiliency in the face of climate change and sea level
rise were the primary issues they identified.
"Coastal developments threaten to remove shoreline mangroves,
nurseries for commercial and recreational fish, and protection against
storms."
Mixed reviews about potential development standards
Respondents were asked for their opinions on increasing allowable building
heights in select areas, increasing densities, using form-based codes, and
creating architectural style requirements. Most found increased height
allowances, increased densities, and form-based codes to be palatable or even
welcome in select, appropriate locations, though some raised concerns related
to parking. They did not find architectural requirements to be desirable or
appropriate in the Manatee County setting.
"Design criteria is impractical for the market."
"You will lose deals if there is not parking in the front."
"Architectural style requirements are tricky. We would rather see
requirements about low-impact development and buildings that have
a smaller energy footprint."
3-5
Figure 3 - 1. Stakeholders Questionnaire
Manatee County Urban Corridors Assessment
Stakeholder Interviews, May 2015
10. Which areas do you think generate the highest sales volumes or employ
the most people?
11. What are the top issues businesses face in this area?
Purpose: Gather comments from stakeholders regarding strengths,
weaknesses, opportunities and constraints for redevelopment and infill along
the main urban corridors in the southwest part of the County (Manatee
Avenue, Cortez Road, 53rd Avenue/SR 70, Tamiami Trail (US 41), and 15th
Street East). Please mail or email your typed responses by May 25, 2015 to:
Patricia A. Tyjeski
Littlejohn Engineering Associates
1615 Edgewater Drive, Suite 180
Orlando, FL 32804
ptyjeski@leainc.com
Questions:
1.
Where do you live and work?
2.
Do you frequent any of these corridors on a regular basis?
3.
What is the role of your organization (if any) in Southwest Manatee
County?
4.
What do you see as the most important strengths and opportunities in
this area?
5.
What opportunities should the County leverage?
6.
What challenges and constraints do you believe this area faces?
7.
In your opinion, how could those be addressed by the County?
8.
If you could change only 3 things in the area, what would they be?
9.
What types of businesses do you think are the most successful in the
area?
12. What sets the County apart in attracting and retaining businesses?
13. Please assign a priority (1 through 7) to each of the items listed below
based on your opinion on how the County should address
improvements in this area.
____ Infrastructure (roads, utilities, stormwater);
____ Placemaking (quality, form, infill versus new);
____ Transportation (vehicles, bicycle, pedestrian, transit);
____ Housing (affordability and choices);
____ Recreation (parks, attractions, entertainment);
____ Public services (libraries, healthcare, education)
____ Safety (police, fire and rescue)
14. Please assign a priority (1 through 5) to the corridors based on your
opinion on when and where the County should focus their attention.
Note in parenthesis if there are specific areas within each corridor that
should be given priority?
____ Manatee Avenue (________________________________)
____ Cortez Road (________________________________)
____ 53rd Avenue/SR 70 (________________________________)
____ Tamiami Trail (US 41) (________________________________)
____ 15th Street East (________________________________)
15. Looking at how the area has evolved with regards to urban form and
development, what aspects of these corridors do you like and dislike the
most?
16. What do you see as a barrier to redevelopment and infill?
17. What direction do you see these corridors heading towards? What will
they look like, in 20 years?
3-6
18. Do you see a difference in character among the corridors?


If yes, please describe them.
If not, should each corridor have a different character?
26. Would you be for or against form-based standards?
27. Would you be for or against architectural style requirements?
28. What are the main environmental concerns facing this area?
19. Are you familiar with Manatee County’s codes and regulations for
development? What works and what doesn’t?
20. What types of development and buildings are the most successful to
design and build along these corridors?
29. What types of development pose the highest risk or damage to
environmentally-sensitive areas along these corridors?
21. Which areas have the most issues with vacancy/turnover?
30. What amenities have you found most residents are drawn to in your
community?
22. What inconsistencies have you found between what the market
demands and what the County’s land development codes require?
31. What types of businesses or services does your community use in this
area the most?
23. What challenges have you encountered in providing affordable housing?
32. Which types of businesses and services does your
community/neighborhood wish were closer/more accessible to them?
24. What aspects of Manatee County’s codes and regulations do you see as
barriers to the types of development your organization aspires to?
25. The County currently limits building heights to 35’. Should this be
changed for certain areas?
33. Which types of businesses and services would be detrimental to your
community/ neighborhood if they located along these corridors?
3-7
Figure 3 - 2. Manatee County Urban Core SWOT Analysis Based on Stakeholder Interviews
STRENGTHS










Sarasota-Bradenton International Airport
Beach and water access
Residents enjoy recreational amenities and sports
Sufficient vacant land available for development
Colleges in south Manatee County
IMG Academy
Proximity to other, larger cities, such as Sarasota and Tampa
Highway access (I-75)
Medical facilities
More affordable than Sarasota
OPPORTUNITIES









Residents want quality retail and restaurants nearby
The Southwest Tax Increment Finance District has the potential to fund some area
improvements
Build another bridge, park and ride facilities, bicycle paths, or water taxis to ease beachrelated congestion
More shared access driveways to commercial properties on corridors could reduce the
number of curb cuts
Develop student housing, public spaces, restaurants, and retail around the cluster of colleges
in the south County area
Leverage the arts mecca in nearby north Sarasota County
Increasing allowable building heights in key areas would make building affordable housing
more profitable, and therefore feasible, for developers
Millennials want to live in urban, walkable places, like downtown Bradenton
Support for developing higher densities and intensities at nodes around transportation
WEAKNESSES
















Years of neglect in the urban core
Vacant and dilapidated properties
Lack of large parcels, sized appropriately for redevelopment
Government not incentivizing development in urban core
Residents and businesses do not feel supported by the county
County bureaucracy is difficult to navigate
Expensive, difficult concurrency requirements
Aging public infrastructure
Seasonal congestion on major corridors from lack of beach access and island parking
Roadways are dangerous for pedestrians, especially U.S. 41
Corridors currently lack character, especially U.S. 41
Corridors need landscaping and maintenance
No funding to maintain landscaping
Drugs, prostitution, and other illegal activity on U.S. 41
Lack of parks and open spaces in the urban core
Abundance of gas stations, convenience stores, fast food restaurants, dollar stores, and adult
stores on major corridors
THREATS




More resources are being invested in new developments along the coast or in the eastern part
of the county
It is more attractive for developers to build elsewhere
Residents shop and dine in nearby Sarasota because of lack of quality establishments
Coastal development damages critical natural resources in the area-- such as shoreline
mangroves and flood plains—and makes the County vulnerable to climate change and natural
disasters
3-8
COMMUNITY WORKSHOP
Manatee County held a public workshop on September 9, 2015 at the
Central Library to communicate to the public the purpose of the
study, and to obtain their input. A total of 49 residents and business
owners attended the workshop.



the typical barriers to redevelopment, described the case studies,
and gave an overview of the types of policy and regulation
changes proposed to attract infill and redevelopment to the
urban corridors.
General Q&A: Littlejohn staff invited attendees to ask any
general questions related to the project or the workshop.
Mapping Exercise: Littlejohn and County staff facilitated a small
group mapping exercise which allowed residents to map their
shared vision of the study area.
Wrap Up and Next Steps: Littlejohn staff shared important dates
for future meetings.
Public Input
The group of attendees was divided into smaller groups to work on
base maps and depict the preferred development scenarios for the
urban corridors (see Fig. 3-3). Each table had a facilitator. The most
common comments and suggestions received included:
Workshop Overview
The workshop consisted of six major parts which include:


Introductions: Ms. Lisa Barrett welcomed everyone to the
meeting, gave a brief introduction of the project and introduced
the staff and consultants present.
Project Overview: Littlejohn staff explained the purpose of the
workshop, described the study area and project scope, explained

Need to reduce front setbacks. As FDOT has taken land to widen
roads, property owners are left with not very deep lots that make it
difficult to meet current setbacks.

Allow increases in density and intensity along the corridors.

Need wider, safer sidewalks, especially along US 41.

Need to reduce parking requirements. Too many underutilized
parking lots in the area. If we make the area safer and design it for
people to walk more, less parking will be needed.

Need more landscaping and medians along the corridors.

New activity centers would be appropriate along Cortez Road West.
3-9

Additional height would be appropriate as long as open space is
provided on an area-wide basis, and there are architectural
standards to ensure quality development.

Need regulations to unify signage.

Need to improve public transit system to ensure pedestrian activity
in the corridors.

Bring shops closer to the street to “generate momentum.”

The character of US 41 has become industrial-looking, decayed. It’s
the “ugliest place in the county.”

The intersection of US 41 and Cortez Road presents a great
opportunity for an activity center. Also at the intersections with
53rd, 57th, and 63rd.

Need an incentive packet to entice redevelopment.

Need a plan to address traffic to the beach. Maybe dedicated bike
and bus lanes.

Focus walkability at activity centers, and provide adequate bicycle
facilities connecting the nodes.

Need a network of bike paths in places where people need them
for commuting, not just for recreation.

Need connectors to the schools on the south side.
Figure 3 - 3. Workshop Maps
Attendees were encouraged to use comment forms to submit
additional comments. Approximately 6 attendees filled out comment
forms.
3-10
ONLINE SURVEY
In addition to the activities conducted by the consultant, County Staff
conducted an online survey. There were some multiple choice questions
as well as some free response questions. The most common responses
to these were:









More bike trails and bike-ability
Better bus routes, bus shelters, and bus pull offs (specifically US
41)
Better sidewalks, walkability, and pedestrian focused areas
More mixed use areas, first floor retail stacked residential
More sit down restaurants
Improve the Manatee image with public art, place making, and
improve South West Gateway into Manatee County
More small and big box stores
Improve parking areas by requiring parking to be behind
building with businesses more accessible by sidewalks, and
require shade trees in parking lots
Positive and appreciative response for having the ability to
provide input to the Local Government
The following graphics show the results of that effort.
How would you rate the availibility of the
following services and amenities along the
urban corridors today?
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Very Good
Good
Neutral
Poor
Not Applicable
What would you like to see along the corridors?
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Need more
Neutral
Need less
No need at all
3-11
In terms of employment & services, should
there be more or less of the following?
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
How important are building design and area
character?
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Do not regulate building
design
Need more
Neutral
Need less
Adopt generalized building
design standards
Agree
No need at all
Neutral
Require specific
architectural styles
Don't agree
How should the local government be prioritizing
improvements to the corridor?
What is your preference about building height
along this corridor?
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
150
100
50
0
Allow up to 3 Stories Allow up to 7 Stories
Allow up to 10
Stories
Don't Restrict
Building Height
Everywhere Along the Corridors
Limited to Specific Areas Along the Corridors
Nowhere Along the Corridors
Spend it here!
Neutral
Don't spend it here!
3-12
#ISEEMANATEE
Manatee County’s Millennial Team, a group of up-and-coming
employees set on bringing a fresh new perspective to local government,
held a one-day charrette on April 17, 2015 and invited the local college
students and southwest county residents and business owners to talk
about transportation, housing, new jobs, educational opportunities,
neighborhoods and quality of life of Manatee’s southern gateway.
The millennial team presented the feedback received to the Manatee
County Commission at its May 5 meeting. Some of the
recommendations presented by the group included the following:
•
Change the current Land Development Code to allow for
population density.
•
Concentrate on Urban Revitalization initiatives and help make
redevelopment more affordable.
•
Establish a taskforce comprised of developers, Millennials,
governments, and lenders to coordinate efforts to encourage
reinvestment in the urban core.
•
Continue citizen discussion on the topic through events like
#iSeeManatee.
Source: Manatee County Facebook and flickr
3-13
“As tourism in our area increases and new residents move to the
Sarasota/Bradenton area, Manatee County should benefit from
this uptick in the economy. Bradenton is more affordable than
Sarasota and should be working hard to attract young families
and more businesses to create a vibrant economy.”
Stakeholder Comment
CHAPTER 4
C ASE S TUDIES
C A S E
S T U D I E S
Contents
MANATEE COUNTY URBAN CORRIDOR CASE STUDIES .................................. 1
Site C: Vacant Site Near Airport ................................................................... 32
Market Analysis Methodology ................................................................... 3
Existing Conditions ................................................................................... 32
Demographics ........................................................................................ 3
Redevelopment Concepts ........................................................................ 37
Industry Location Quotients .................................................................. 3
Single-Parcel Assisted Care Living Facility Concept.............................. 37
Retail Surplus and Leakage .................................................................... 3
Full Build-Out Mixed-Use Concept ....................................................... 39
Market Profiles....................................................................................... 3
Recommended Connectivity Improvements ........................................... 40
Site A: Former AutoWay Collision Center ...................................................... 5
Comprehensive Plan and LDC Barriers to Redevelopment ...................... 42
Existing Conditions ..................................................................................... 5
Infrastructure and Stormwater ............................................................ 43
Case Study Process Findings ........................................................................ 44
Mixed-Use Concept .............................................................................. 10
Issues with Acreage Calculations ............................................................. 44
Assisted Care Living Facility Concept ................................................... 13
Method 1: No applicable provision for calculating density or intensity
for vertical mixed-use buildings ........................................................... 45
Recommended Connectivity Improvements ....................................... 16
Comprehensive Plan and LDC Barriers to Redevelopment .................. 16
Site B: Former Office Depot ......................................................................... 19
Existing Conditions ................................................................................... 19
Method 2: Count acreage for mixed-use buildings toward both
residential and nonresidential acreages .............................................. 45
Method 3: Use site-wide total developable land area as the basis for
calculating both density and intensity ................................................. 46
Method 4: Use floor area ratios (FAR) as a measure of residential
density, rather than dwelling units per acre (du/ac) ........................... 47
Retrofit Concept ................................................................................... 24
Recommendation ................................................................................. 47
New Build, Mixed-Use Concept ........................................................... 26
Issues with height..................................................................................... 47
Recommended Connectivity Improvements ....................................... 30
Issues with Residential Density ................................................................ 48
Comprehensive Plan and LDC Barriers to Redevelopment .................. 30
Issues with FAR......................................................................................... 49
Issues with Parking ................................................................................... 50
4-i
C A S E
Issues with Permitted Uses ...................................................................... 52
Tables
Table 4 - 1. Case Study Site A - Mixed-Use Concept .................................... 13
Table 4 - 2. Case Study Site A - ALF Concept ................................................ 15
Table 4 - 3. Case Study Site B - Retrofit Concept ......................................... 26
Table 4 - 4. Case Study Site B - New Build Mixed-Use Concept ................... 29
Table 4 - 5. Case Study Site C - Single-Parcel ACLF ...................................... 39
Table 4 - 6. Case Study Site C – Combined Parcels Mixed-Use Concept ...... 42
Table 4 - 7. Hypothetical Floor Heights by Use ............................................ 48
S T U D I E S
Figures
Figure 4 - 1. Case Study Sites ......................................................................... 1
Figure 4 - 2. Location of Case Study Sites....................................................... 2
Figure 4 - 3. Drive Times................................................................................. 4
Figure 4 - 4. Site A - Mixed-Use Concept...................................................... 11
Figure 4 - 5. Site A – Mixed-Use Concept Images of Similar Projects .......... 12
Figure 4 - 6. Site A - ALF Concept ................................................................. 14
Figure 4 - 7. Site A – ALF Concept Images of Similar Projects ...................... 15
Figure 4 - 8. Site B: Former Office Depot – Retrofit Concept ....................... 25
Figure 4 - 9. Site B – Retrofit Concept Images of Similar Projects ............... 26
Figure 4 - 10. Site B – Mixed-Use Concept ................................................... 28
Figure 4 - 11. Site B – Mixed-Use Concept Images of Similar Projects ........ 29
Figure 4 - 12. Site C – ALF Concept............................................................... 38
Figure 4 - 13. Site C – ALF Concept Images of Similar Projects .................... 39
Figure 4 - 14. Site C – Mixed-Use Concept ................................................... 41
Figure 4 - 15. Site C – Mixed-Use Concept Images of Similar Projects ........ 42
Figure 4 - 16. Site B – Residential and Non-Residential Acreage ................. 44
Figure 4 - 17. Land Use and Density/Intensity Calculations ......................... 46
Figure 4 - 18. Developable Area ................................................................... 47
4-2
C A S E
MANATEE COUNTY URBAN CORRIDOR
CASE STUDIES
In order to illustrate the impact of Manatee County’s Comprehensive
Plan and Land Development Code regulations on potential
development, three case study sites were selected as hypothetical
development scenarios. Sites with various parcel dimensions, levels
of connectivity, surrounding land uses, and other characteristics were
selected to provide for an analysis representative of the likely
development scenarios in the urban corridor. All three of the parcels
front 14th Street West, the corridor identified in stakeholder interviews
as the corridor most in need of redevelopment.
The existing conditions for each site were evaluated, including the
parcel ownership, existing structures, future land use designation,
zoning, surrounding land uses, site connectivity, and the
S T U D I E S
demographics and market potential for the surrounding community.
Based on this assessment, a potential development scenario was
created, determining an appropriate use, intensity, and conceptual
design for the site, without regard to the current restrictions imposed
by the Comprehensive Plan or Land Development Code, to conceive
an ideal, feasible use for the site appropriate for the urban core. The
preferred development scenario was then held to the current
regulatory standards, such as floor area ratio and parking
requirements, and discrepancies were identified, shedding light on
the aspects of the County’s code that prohibit redevelopment from
taking shape in an urban form. The insight from these case studies,
along with stakeholder interviews, best practices, and other resources,
informed the recommendations for modifications to the County’s
Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code that follow.
Figure 4 - 1. Case Study Sites
Case Study Site A
Case Study Site B
Case Study Site C
4-1
C A S E
S T U D I E S
Figure 4 - 2. Location of Case Study Sites
4-2
C A S E
Market Analysis Methodology
The review and analysis of market conditions identifies a range of
uses and development types that could be feasible in the future for
these specific case study sites. This information helped determine
whether current regulations would permit or hinder that type of
development.
The market analyses for the case study sites were conducted using
data from the U.S. Census Bureau American Communities Survey and
ESRI Business Analyst Online, examining a market area within a 5minute drive time of each site (the market area for the 10-minute and
15-minute drive times covered the majority of the county and were
nearly identical for the three case study sites, and were therefore not
analyzed in detail) The knowledge gained from these analyses fed
into the proposed development concepts, creating scenarios that are
based on market realities and would be feasible in the private sector,
if not for government regulations. The methodologies described
below were applied to each of the three case study sites.
Demographics
Basic demographic data were provided for the 5-minute drive time
area for each site. These statistics are based on the 2014 American
Communities Survey data.
Industry Location Quotients
Industry location quotients use NAICS code classifications to compare
the ratio of the number of businesses in an industry within the 5minute drive time area divided by the total number of businesses
within the drive-time area to the number of businesses in the industry
in the urban core study area divided by the total number of
businesses in the urban core study area. A location quotient greater
than one signals that the industry is an “export industry,” making it
S T U D I E S
part of the area’s economic base. Such industries may warrant
economic development support and were considered when selecting
development programs.
Retail Surplus and Leakage
The retail surplus and leakage factors compare the volume of retail
sales (supply) for a given retail category to the volume of retail
potential (demand) for the category, based on household spending
on retail goods for the category for the market demographic. A
surplus occurs when there is a higher supply of retail in the area than
there is estimated demand produced by residents of the same area.
This means that retailers are attracting customers from outside of the
area, and the market may be saturated, so new businesses in the
category must differentiate themselves to succeed. A leakage occurs
where estimated demand is greater than current supply, so area
residents travel elsewhere to purchase goods in the given category.
This condition presents an opportunity for category retailers to locate
in the area to meet the local demand.
Surplus and leakage factors range from -100 to 100, with -100
representing total surplus and 100 representing total leakage. A
surplus/leakage factor of 0 shows that supply matches demand for a
given category within the area. The five retail categories with the
lowest surplus factors and highest leakage factors were identified for
each site area. Retail gaps for each category were also provided to
quantify the dollar amount of surplus or leakage and pinpoint the
categories with the greatest potential.
Market Profiles
Market profiles were based on ESRI Tapestry Segmentation data and
segment descriptions. The profiles for the segments that make up
the majority of the market area (totaling at least 70 percent of area
4-3
C A S E
residents) were summarized to provide insight into the consumer
lifestyles and preferences. Though these profile descriptions are
generalized characterizations, they are based on market data and
Figure 4 - 3. Drive Times
Case Study Site A 5-, 10-, and 15-Minutes
S T U D I E S
indicate the types of goods, services, housing types, and jobs wellsuited to the area, vetting the proposed ideal site uses for market
feasibility.
Case Study Site B 5-, 10-, and 15-Minutes
Case Study Site C 5-, 10-, and 15-Minutes
4-4
C A S E
S T U D I E S
Site A: Former AutoWay Collision Center
Address: 3400 and 3108 W 14th Street, Bradenton, FL 34205
Owner: First Team Ford of Manatee Ltd.
13.0245 acres, 2.0896 acres
Existing Conditions
Case Study Site A, a former AutoWay Collision Center, is located on
14th Street West in South Bradenton, less than 0.4 mile from the
Bradenton city line at 26th Avenue West. It is located within a 12minute drive of every top ten employer in the county, with the
Manatee County Sheriff’s Office and DeSoto Square Mall as major
employers in the immediate vicinity. The site falls within an area
designated as Urban/Suburban Neighborhoods by the Manatee
Council Character Compatibility Study Character Vision Graphic. With
the area just above 30th Avenue West, the northern border of the site,
designated as Traditional/Urban Neighborhoods, the location is one
of transition between character areas.
The irregularly shaped lot currently contains six buildings and is
primarily paved parking. The lot is made up of two parcels (lot A and
lot B), both of which are owned by First Team Ford of Manatee Ltd. It
is bordered by an apartment complex to the south, single-family
residential to the west, and two churches, a cul-de-sac of singlefamily homes, a convenience store, and a restaurant to the north. The
site wraps around the Panda Garden Restaurant on 14th Street. The
properties across 14th Street West are mainly commercial, including a
restaurant, tattoo shop, and motel, as well as a church and an empty
lot. The lot is currently vacant, with a Future Land Use designation of
Retail/Office/Residential (ROR) and a General Commercial (GC)
zoning.
4-5
C A S E
S T U D I E S
The site’s primary access point is a driveway on 14th Street West, a
principal arterial road that aligns with 34th Avenue West. A secondary
access point connects to old 30th Avenue West in the north, with a
greenspace buffer separating it from the new, realigned 30th Avenue
West, an urban collector. There is no exterior connection on the west
or south sides of the property. The nearest signalized intersections
are at 14th Street West and 30th Avenue West, 0.6 mile to the north,
and 14th Street West and 39th Avenue West, 0.35 mile to the south.
14th Street has four lanes of traffic with a median and turn lane in the
center in this part of the county, and 30th Avenue is two lanes with no
median, widening to four lanes at the 14th Street intersection.
Sidewalks on 14th Street range from 6 to 8 feet, sidewalks on 30th
Avenue range from 0 to 6 feet, and neither street has bicycle lanes.
Manatee County Area Transit’s Route 99 picks up directly across from
the site, running north-south from Palmetto to Sarasota.
See the diagram below for the existing parcel boundaries, existing structures,
dimensions, and property ownership, based on the Manatee County Property
Appraiser records in July 2015
4-6
C A S E
S T U D I E S
4-7
C A S E
S T U D I E S
4-8
C A S E
S T U D I E S
4-9
C A S E
Redevelopment Concepts
The irregular shape of the lot provides depth and a significant
amount of land (15.12 acres), with 648 feet of frontage on an arterial
road. The entire project site falls within 1,140 feet of the intersection
of a principal arterial road (14th Street West) and an urban collector
(30th Avenue West), fitting the bill for nodal commercial development,
despite the fact that the Retail/Office/Residential does not have
commercial locational criteria for small commercial projects. Because
direct access to the site is limited to two entrances on 14th Street
West (with an additional indirect access point on the north end of the
site), small to medium, rather than large, commercial uses were
recommended. Average daily trips and peak hour trips were
estimated for each development program to ensure appropriate
capacity.
Residential use, compatible with the single-family, multi-family, and
church uses to the north, west, and south of the site, was
recommended for the interior portion of the lot. A mix of retail and
office uses were recommended toward the front of the parcel along
14th Street West, in order to create a buffer of quality development
for the residences in the back and to add to the mix of uses in the
neighborhood. Landscaping treatments and walkways are integrated
into the designs in order to create an attractive, pedestrian-friendly
environment. Two potential design concepts were developed for this
site, one with a mixed-use program, and another as an Assisted Care
Living Facility (ACLF).
Mixed-Use Concept
Site A’s location just south of the downtown Bradenton employment
and cultural center makes it an appropriate location for affordable
S T U D I E S
multifamily housing, which was underscored as a critical local need in
stakeholder interviews. A mixed-use development program is
recommended for the site, in order to accommodate this muchneeded multifamily housing and concentrate commercial
development at an appropriate node. This development concept is
oriented toward the young families and singles demographics in the
area, such as the Metro Fusion, Set to Impress, and NeWest Residents
market segments.
22,361 square feet of retail and office uses are proposed along 14th
Street West, consistent with the existing commercial pattern of
development. A single-story retail building would be located in the
southeast corner of the site, near the 34th Street entrance, with
parking in the rear of the building. Two two-story office buildings,
north of the existing Panda Garden Restaurant, face onto a main
street that leads into a small public plaza and connects to the parking
lot in the rear.
The proposed design calls for 240 multifamily units, located in two
four-story buildings toward the back of the site, as well as eight
three-story townhomes backing the adjacent cul-de-sac of singlefamily homes. At an estimated 12.5 feet per floor and 8.75 additional
feet for the roof, the highest building is 58.75 feet tall. There are 270
parking spaces allocated for residential units, and the ground floor of
the townhomes will be a garage to accommodate resident parking.
Open space, a stormwater retention pond, and a small playground
around the multifamily buildings provide a buffer between the
adjacent churches and the development, as well as a recreational
amenity. The primary entrance for tenants is located at 34th Avenue
West, with gateway signage and a roundabout as entranceway
features.
4-10
C A S E
S T U D I E S
Figure 4 - 4. Site A - Mixed-Use Concept
4-11
C A S E
S T U D I E S
Figure 4 - 5. Site A – Mixed-Use Concept Images of Similar Projects
4-12
C A S E
S T U D I E S
Table 4 - 1. Case Study Site A - Mixed-Use Concept
Multifamily Residences
Townhomes
Retail
Office
Total
Building Area
(leasable sf)
216,254
43,105
16,639
34,179
310,177
Estimated
Number of
Dwelling Units
255
12
267
Assisted Care Living Facility Concept
To demonstrate the potential for reuse of the proposed site structure,
an alternative development program was considered using the same
framework as the mixed-use concept. The Assisted Care Living Facility
(ACLF) Concept is oriented toward the Retirement Communities and
Senior Escapes market segments, which together comprise 31.3
percent of the market within a 5-minute drive time of the site. The
conceptual design locates retail and office uses along 14th Street,
configured similarly to the mixed-use concept. An additional office
building and parking lot are located on the north end of the site, in
place of the townhomes in the mixed-use concept. Rather than
general commercial uses, it is recommended that medical offices, a
pharmacy, and other support facilities be located in these buildings,
which serve day-to-day needs of the senior population living on site,
as well as the community at large.
Number
of Floors
3
3
1
2
-
Estimated
Height (ft.)
46
46
21
35
-
Average
Daily Trips
1,669
102
2,117
581
4,469
Estimated
Number of
Parking Spaces
265
57
51
373
Parking Space
Area (sf)
73,705
21,190
23,917
118,812
The ACLF facility is located in the back of the site, shielded from the
high-traffic corridor by the commercial uses. Four buildings are
proposed as part of the ACLF, configured in an L-shape and
connected to one another by hallways to provide the contiguous
interior access necessary for this type of facility. The corner building
would be the center of the ACLF, to include the administrative
functions, kitchen and dining area, and community spaces for
residents. All of the buildings overlook a stormwater pond and
greenspace, situated between the ACLF and the neighboring
property. Because ACLF residents tend to own fewer cars and
generate fewer trips than multifamily housing residents, the parking
ratio and average daily trip estimates for this design are lower than
the mixed-use concept.
4-13
C A S E
S T U D I E S
Figure 4 - 6. Site A - ALF Concept
4-14
C A S E
S T U D I E S
Table 4 - 2. Case Study Site A - ALF Concept
ALF Complex
Retail
Office
Total
Building Area
(leasable sf)
111,702
16,389
53,256
181,597
Estimated
Number of
Dwelling Units
222
222
Number
of Floors
2
1
2
-
Estimated
Height (ft.)
38
21.5
35.5
-
Average
Daily Trips
277
2,117
813
3,207
Estimated
Number of
Parking Spaces
222
57
87
366
Parking Space
Area (sf)
56,735
21,190
28,816
106,741
Figure 4 - 7. Site A – ALF Concept Images of Similar Projects
4-15
C A S E
Recommended Connectivity Improvements
Site A’s location provides relatively strong inherent connectivity
within the regional network; however, additional connectivity
improvements from the public sector could improve the vitality of the
site and its surrounding community. This section of 14th Street
already has four lanes with a center median, making it more
pedestrian-friendly than many other sections of the road. The
nearest pedestrian crossings to the site, though, are located at 30th
Avenue West to the north and 39th Avenue West to the south. The
addition of a midblock pedestrian crossing at 34th Avenue West
would greatly improve pedestrian access for both residents of this
development and the residents of the apartment and mobile home
communities directly to the south. 36th Avenue West is the nearest
east-west road connecting 14th Street West to 9th Street West and 301
Boulevard West to the east, which provide access to employment and
shopping at DeSoto Square Mall and the Manatee County Sheriff’s
office. Creating a wide, continuous sidewalk and bike lanes on this
segment of 36th Avenue West is feasible within the existing right-ofway and would better facilitate nonautomotive trips between the two
nodes. Expanding the MCAT service times to include evenings and
Sundays and creating a bus shelter would also improve the viability of
transit as a primary travel mode for residents of the site.
Comprehensive Plan and LDC Barriers to Redevelopment
The proposed redevelopment concepts for the case study sites were
created considering the desired urban form and relevant uses within
the context of the sites, based on the vision set out by previous
studies and a market analysis of the area. They were not specifically
designed to meet the existing development standards outlined by the
Manatee County Comprehensive Plan 2020 or Land Development
Code. After the concepts were developed, they were compared to
S T U D I E S
the existing regulations for the Retail/Office/Residential (ROR) future
land use category and General Commercial (GC) zoning category,
which apply to the sites. For the purpose of calculating code
requirements from a conceptual master plan, the following
approaches were used:
Acreage: Areas were calculated using AutoCAD and ArcGIS.
Open Space: Open space was calculated by removing the area of the
building footprints, roads, and parking lots from the lot area. This
encompasses landscaped areas, vegetation, and water bodies. Areas
for features such as sidewalks, which are more detailed than the
scope of these conceptual plans, were not removed from the open
space area.
Residential Acreage: In all three cases, the net residential acreage
was the same as the gross residential acreage. Conservation and
utility easements, recreational facilities, and natural water bodies,
which the Comprehensive Plan specifies should be removed from net
residential acreage, were either unknown or negligible within the case
study sites.
Acreage of Mixed-Use Areas: As described in the Case Study
Process Findings section below, the current regulations do not specify
the acreage to be used in calculating density and intensity standards
for mixed-use buildings. Acreage for vertical mixed-use buildings
was counted toward both residential acreage and nonresidential
acreage in these calculations.
Floor Area Ratios (FAR) of Mixed-Use Buildings: Unless otherwise
specified, only the commercial square footages within mixed-use
buildings were included in FAR calculations. Residential square
footages within the same buildings were not included.
4-16
C A S E
All other calculations were made as specified in the Comprehensive
Plan or Land Development Code. The same methodology was applied
to each of the three case study sites. For the purpose of analysis, only
the mixed-use development plan for Case Study Site A was assessed.
The proposed development did not meet all of the established
criteria. Discrepancies would include:
Building Height
Building heights are limited to 35 feet. The single-story retail,
estimated to be 21.5 feet tall, meets this limit. The multifamily
residences and town homes (3 stories, approximately 40 feet tall) and
the office buildings (2 stories, approximately 51.5 feet tall) do not.
Setbacks
The proposed front setback of 20 feet does not meet the minimum
front setback standard of 25 feet. Side and rear setback requirements
were met or exceeded.
Residential Density
The gross residential density of the project is 23.86 du/ac, which
exceeds the maximum gross residential density of 9 du/ac allowed in
ROR. A net residential density of 23.86 would also exceed the net
residential density limit of 16 du/ac, unless the project could
demonstrate that at least 25 percent of its units were affordable
housing, in which case up to 24 du/ac would be allowed.
Floor Area Ratio
The proposed development’s FAR of 0.35 meets the Comprehensive
Plan’s requirements, which limit FAR to 0.35 everywhere except in the
UIRA. The Land Development Code, however, limits the FAR to 0.25.
The PD process offers an opportunity to exceed the FAR allowed in
the zoning district.
S T U D I E S
Parking
The townhomes, which would have tuck under garages and
driveways, meet the residential parking requirement. The proposed
site plan shows 0.87 parking spaces per unit for multifamily units,
which does not meet the minimum requirement of two spaces per
unit. Office uses have one space per 571 square feet gross floor area,
which does not meet the minimum requirement of one space per 200
square feet gross floor area. Retail uses do not meet requirements
either; there is one space per 290 square feet gross floor area,
compared to the requirement of one space per 250 square feet.
Permitted Uses
All proposed residential and nonresidential uses are permitted within
the Retail/Office/Residential future land use category. All proposed
nonresidential uses are permitted within the General Commercial
zone; proposed residential uses are not. Residential single-family
detached and residential duplex uses are permitted in the General
Commercial zone, but single-family attached (townhome) and
multifamily uses are neither permitted by right nor by special
approval.
Special Approvals
Even if the zoning district allowed the proposed density and intensity,
or the applicant processed the development through the Planned
Development process, the entire project would require special
approval because it is a mixed-use project, has more than 6 du/ac,
and a FAR greater than 0.30.
Site Access
The commercial locational criteria in the Comprehensive Plan state
that for large commercial projects in Retail/Office/Residential future
land use categories, all access points must be located on functionally
4-17
C A S E
S T U D I E S
classified roadways. (Although the proposed project would actually
be categorized as medium, there is no explicit requirement for
medium commercial projects within ROR categories.) The primary
access points for the site are located on an arterial road (14th Street
W), but an access point on the north end of the site is located on a
small two-lane road that connects back onto 30th Avenue W. This
may not be considered an access point on a functionally classified
roadway.
reclaimed water facilities nearby. An existing gravity sewer collection
system with a sanitary manhole as well as forcemain are located
along the eastern boundary line.
Infrastructure and Stormwater
The drainage infrastructure along 14th Street West appears to be in
sufficient condition. Since stormwater design is based upon pre vs.
post development flows, the current impervious surface from the
building and pavement could provide credits to reduce the required
size of the drainage facilities. The ultimate drainage outfall for the site
would be to the existing canal to the north. FDOT permits would be
required for driveway and drainage connections.
There is an existing water main that runs down the east side of the
property that can be utilized for the proposed concepts. Furthermore,
there is an existing fire hydrant in front of the adjacent parcel to the
north and to the south that can assist with fire protection. The county
has an existing potable water meter by the road. A public potable
water is also available near the western half of the property from the
adjacent parcels to the west and northwest. There are no existing
The existing property contains a building that was originally
constructed in 1958. The surrounding parking lot shows signs of
patching and wear & tear. There is no existing SWFWMD permit
associated with the property. The proposed concept would require
the demolition of the existing building and surface parking lot.
4-18
C A S E
S T U D I E S
Site B: Former Office Depot
Address: 4301 W 14th Street, Bradenton, FL 34205
Owner: Cortez Road Shopping Center Inc.
12.78 acres
Existing Conditions
Case Study Site B, a former Office Depot, is located at the northeast
corner of the intersection of 14th Street and Cortez Road in South
Bradenton. It falls within an area designated as Urban/Suburban
Neighborhoods by the Manatee Council Character Compatibility Study
Character Vision Graphic. The site is one of three adjacent parcels
owned by the same entity, which together form the Cortez Road
Shopping Center. For the purpose of this analysis and redevelopment
proposal, the three lots were treated as a single unit. This case study
examines the potential reconfiguration of an existing suburban
commercial center into a thriving, more urban center.
The site is currently a suburban strip mall center, with Bob Evans
Restaurant, Furniture Warehouse, Mattress Firm Clearance Center, and
other retail tenants, as well as vacated stores, such as the former Office
Depot. Large, surface parking lots surround the single-story retail
buildings. The southeast corner of the site wraps around an XTC Adult
Super Center along Cortez Road, and a Public Storage warehouse
facility is located directly to the east of the site. There are other retail
strip centers at each of the three other corners of the intersection, with
stores such as Lowe’s Home Improvement, Rooms-To-Go Furniture
Store, Verizon Wireless, Olive Garden, PetSmart, Burlington Coat Factory, and others. The DeSoto Square Mall is located less than 0.15 miles from
the site, but there is no direct connection between the two. The lot has a Future Land Use designation of Retail/Office/Residential (ROR) and a
General Commercial (GC) zoning.
4-19
C A S E
S T U D I E S
The site’s location at the corner of two arterials positions it for potentially high levels of connectivity to the surrounding network. 14th Street has 5
to 7 lanes of traffic, and Cortez Road has 6 to 9 lanes of traffic at the site. Despite these major connections, the site can only currently be accessed
by right in, right out driveways on Cortez Road, requiring potential customers
traveling eastbound to make a U-turn at 9th Street West and double back to
enter the site. On 14th Street, there is a right in, right out driveway, as well as a
left turn lane leading directly onto the property, allowing both northbound and
southbound customers to enter the plaza. There are 5- to 8-foot sidewalks
along both roads, but only 14th Street has a landscaped buffer separating
pedestrians from the high volumes of traffic passing by. There are no bicycle
lanes on either road. There are MCAT bus stops on-site for Route 99 along 14th
Street and Route 6 along Cortez Road, and a Route 8 picks up nearby, making
this site highly accessible by transit. Downtown Bradenton, the beach, State
College of Florida, the airport, the Ringling Museum, and other locations are all
accessible through these routes. In peak tourism season, Cortez Road, one of
two connections between mainland Manatee County and the barrier island
beaches, is known to have significant congestion, so alleviating potential
congestion should be considered in the redevelopment of the site.
See the diagram below for the existing parcel boundaries, existing structures,
dimensions, and property ownership, based on the Manatee County Property
Appraiser records in July 2015.
4-20
C A S E
S T U D I E S
4-21
C A S E
S T U D I E S
4-22
C A S E
S T U D I E S
4-23
C A S E
Of the three case study sites, Site B was identified as having the
highest potential to create an urban node. Its location at the crux of
two principal arterial roads and within two tenths of a mile of the
DeSoto Square Mall sets it up for potential commercial success. Yet,
the existing retailers have not seen the level of financial success that
might be expected, as evidenced by the Office Depot that has
recently closed down. In order to improve the site’s viability, the
redevelopment concepts propose a denser mix of uses to activate the
center throughout the day and an improved circulation system to
better facilitate access to businesses. Two redevelopment concepts
were considered for this site, one that retrofits the existing buildings
and another new build, mixed-use design.
Retrofit Concept
For the retrofit concept, all of the existing buildings were retained and
additional buildings, roads, and public spaces were added to enhance
the quality of place. This concept shows a minimal, transitional
approach to improve the form and character of the site. The design
transforms the existing surface parking lot into a central plaza with a
park in the middle, surrounded by a two-lane road with parallel onstreet parking. A wide pedestrian zone against the buildings allows
for outdoor café seating and gathering spaces overlooking the plaza.
All but one of the buildings now face onto this open space, creating a
hub of activity. Two additional buildings are added between the
existing Bob Evans Restaurant and Mattress Firm Clearance Center
and one was added as an extension of the former Office Depot on
S T U D I E S
Cortez Road for a more continuous, enclosed urban form. These
buildings can function as retail, restaurants, or entertainment facilities,
like a movie theater. Landscaped open space with gateway signage is
faces the corner of 14th Street West and Cortez Road and an internal
road at the corner leads onto a main street entrance to the central
plaza. A new, 3-story office building is located on the southeast
corner of the site with its own parking in the rear, providing local
employment in an area with relatively little office space and putting
employees on site who can regularly dine at the restaurants and pick
up items at the stores next door. Residential uses are not proposed
for this retrofit concept.
A bay of convenience surface parking is located on both the west and
south sides of the site, in keeping with the setbacks prescribed by the
existing buildings. Additional parking is available in the garage
behind the commercial center, which is connected to the central plaza
by a landscaped pedestrian thoroughfare. Two streets were added
within the site to improve the flow of traffic, one running east-west
parallel to the northern border of the site, and another running northsouth parallel to the western border of the site. These provide
connections from both 14th Street West and Cortez Road West
directly to the parking garage. In a future development scenario, the
east-west road would ideally extend across the existing Public
Warehouse lot to the east through to 9th Street West, improving the
site’s connectivity to the DeSoto Square Mall. A pond in the
northeast corner serves as a stormwater retention facility.
4-24
C A S E
S T U D I E S
Figure 4 - 8. Site B: Former Office Depot – Retrofit Concept
4-25
C A S E
S T U D I E S
Table 4 - 3. Case Study Site B - Retrofit Concept
Retail
Office
Parking Deck
Total
Building
Area
(leasable sf)
113,780
27,252
141,032
Estimated
Number of
Dwelling Units
-
Number of
Floors
1
3
3
-
Estimated
Height (ft)
21
35
34
-
Average
Daily Trips
7,386
489
7,875
Estimated
Number of
Parking
Spaces
290
38
249
577
Parking
Space Area
(sf)
66,037
16,110
81,000
163,147
Figure 4 - 9. Site B – Retrofit Concept Images of Similar Projects
New Build, Mixed-Use Concept
The existing structures incorporated into the retrofit concept relegate
it to a lower density than may actually be feasible on the property in a
more ambitious development scenario. This scheme incorporates a
mix of retail, office, multifamily, and live-work units in an integrated,
urban environment. The main, four-story building has ground floor
retail on the north side facing an internal main street, west side facing
14th Street West, and south side facing Cortez Road West, with a pass
through leading to an open courtyard at the southwest corner. This
main building is centered on a single-story parking podium. The top
of the parking podium is an amenity deck with a pool and green roof,
providing outdoor recreation space for residents of the multifamily
units and townhouses on site. The three upper floors overlooking the
amenity deck have 183 multifamily units and are stepped back from
the retail frontages on the western and southern sides. The height of
4-26
C A S E
S T U D I E S
these multifamily units maximizes the potential of this highly
connected site and makes feasible the affordable housing needed in
the area. A three-story parking garage backs up to the east side of
the main building and connects to the parking beneath the amenity
deck. It contains enough spaces to meet the remaining needed
capacity for the site, including both residential and commercial users.
onto the parking garage and others with backyards and detached
garages, coming in at varying price points. These townhomes back
the single-family residential neighborhood to the north and serve as
a transitional buffer between those homes and the higher density
portion of the site near the intersection of 14th Street and Cortez
Road.
The main building is supported by auxiliary residential and
commercial uses along the two new internal main streets, which run
perpendicular to each other and intersect at a roundabout in the
northeast corner of the site. As in the retrofit concept, these streets
improve the site’s internal circulation and external connectivity. They
will be landscaped, lined with parallel parking, and outfitted with
generous pedestrian zones to form an inviting, walkable
neighborhood area. Three office buildings bookend these roads—
one at the northwest corner and two at the southeast corner—with a
total of nearly 83,000 square feet of office space. Eight, three-story
live-work units are proposed on the east-west road. Further into the
site, 35 three-story townhouses line the main streets, some backing
The use of height, parking garages, landscaping, and creative public
spaces in this design concept allow multiple uses to coexist
harmoniously on the site. The increased density and intensity in this
proposal are tempered by the stepped back upper stories of the main
building, lower density of the townhomes in the rear, and improved
site connectivity. The mix of uses creates an opportunity for residents
to live, work and play on a single site, reducing the overall number of
trips generated, and the higher density may also justify an increased
service frequency for public transit. This design increases the
efficiency and utility of a centrally located, highly connected site and
demonstrates the potential for an appropriately urban development
in the core of Manatee County.
4-27
C A S E
S T U D I E S
Figure 4 - 10. Site B – Mixed-Use Concept
4-28
C A S E
Table 4 - 4. Case Study Site B - New Build Mixed-Use Concept
Building Area
Number of
Number
(leasable sf)
Dwelling Units of Floors
Multifamily Residences
177,659
183
3
Townhomes
146,552
35
3
Live-Work Units
30,378
8
3
Retail
58,945
-
1
82,732
3
Office
156,518
3
Parking Deck
652,784
226
Total
Figure 4 - 11. Site B – Mixed-Use Concept Images of Similar Projects
Height
(ft.)
66.25
46.25
46.25
Average
Daily Trips
1,233
252
57
-
4,816
51.5
34.0
-
1,137
7,495
S T U D I E S
Estimated Number of
Parking Spaces
481 (shared with Retail)
34
21
29 (on-street) & 481
(shared w/MFR)
62
481
627
Parking Space
Area (sf)
6,278
3,503
5,341 (on-street)
18,985
156,518
190,624
4-29
C A S E
The existing commercial uses on site suffer from the lack of
convenient access to the site resulting from the lack of a grid network
and the interference of medians on Cortez Road. It is recommended
that a direct connection be made from 14th Street West to 9th Street
West, running east-west near the north side of the property. A
connection is included on property in both proposed designs,
however, it would be dependent on the adjacent property owner to
the east continuing the connection. This road would facilitate access
to and from the DeSoto Square Mall, enhancing the viability of both
locations. A left turn into the property on Cortez Road, aligned with
the entrance to the shopping plaza on the south side of the road,
would also improve access to the site.
Comprehensive Plan and LDC Barriers to Redevelopment
The same methodology for determining adherence to Comprehensive
Plan and Land Development Code requirements was used as
described in Case Study Site A. For the purpose of this analysis, only
the new build, mixed-use concept was evaluated. The assessment
showed the following components of the design would not meet the
existing regulations for the Retail/Office/Residential (ROR) future land
use category and General Commercial (GC) zoning district:
Building Height
All portions of the proposed development exceed the building height
limit of 35 feet, with the exception of the parking garage, which is
estimated to be 34 feet tall. The mixed use building is four stories
(approximately 66.3 feet), the townhomes and live-work units are
three stories (approximately 46.3 feet), and the office buildings are 3
stories (approximately 51.5 feet).
S T U D I E S
Floor Area Ratio
The floor area ratio of 0.38, calculated using only nonresidential
square footages, falls within the allowable FAR of 1.0 in the UIRA (and
previously allowed in the CRAs, which were recently eliminated),
based on Comprehensive Plan criteria for ROR. It exceeds the 0.25
allowable FAR for GC in the Land Development Code. If the
residential square footages in the vertical mixed-use buildings were
included in the calculation, the FAR would increase to 0.60, further
exceeding this limit.
Residential Density
The gross residential density of 20.13 du/ac is greater than the 9
du/ac allowed by the Comprehensive Plan, and the net residential
density of 20.13 is greater than the 16 du/ac allowed, but would be
permissible if 25 percent or more of the units were affordable
housing.
Permitted Uses
As in Case Study A, the residential single-family attached and
residential multifamily uses are not currently permitted within General
Commercial zoning districts.
Special Approvals
Certain potential commercial uses, such as alcoholic beverage
establishments or child care centers, would require special approval.
The entire project would also require special approval because it is a
mixed-use project, has more than 6 du/ac, and a FAR greater than
0.30.
There are existing public and private water mains that run through
the property which can be utilized for the proposed concepts.
Furthermore, there are existing fire hydrants along the road and
4-30
C A S E
internal to the site that can assist with fire protection. The county has
an existing potable water meter by the road. A public potable water is
also available along the north property line. There are no existing
reclaimed water facilities nearby. An existing gravity sewer collection
system with sanitary manholes as well as a lift station and forcemain
are located on-site. The lift station discharges through a forcemain to
the northwest corner of the property.
The subject property has a building and parking lot that were
originally constructed in 1964. There is no existing SWFWMD permit
associated with the property. The surrounding parking lot shows
signs of patching and wear & tear. The proposed concepts show one
redevelopment scenario maintaining some of the existing buildings
S T U D I E S
and another one demolishing all the existing buildings. In the first
case, the surface parking lot would need to be repaired and replaced
for longevity and to accommodate proposed utilities. The drainage
infrastructure along 14th Street West and Cortez Road appears to be
in sufficient condition.
Since stormwater design is based upon pre vs post development
flows, the current impervious surface from the building and pavement
could provide credits to reduce the required size of the drainage
facilities. The ultimate drainage outfall for the site would be to the
east. FDOT permits would be required for driveway and drainage
connections.
4-31
C A S E
S T U D I E S
Site C: Vacant Site Near Airport
Address: 6424 W 14th Street, Bradenton, FL 34207
Owner: Riverview Ventures Properties LLC
5.8023 acres
Existing Conditions
Case Study Site C, a vacant site on 14th Street near the SarasotaBradenton International Airport, is a narrow, deep, vacant lot on
a commercial road between the Bayshore Gardens and Whitfield
neighborhoods. The third of the lot fronting 14th street is paved
and in poor condition, and the back portion of the lot is
vegetated land with some tree cover. To the south of the lot is
Rice’s Appliance & TV retailer, which is owned by the same
entity as the vacant site, as well as mobile homes toward the
back of the lot. A single-family, residential neighborhood backs
up to the west side of the site. A Dollar General and two
vegetated back lots are located directly north of the lot, and
Leader’s Casual Furniture store and a mobile home park are
located north of those parcels. This analysis and development
proposal examines the potential for redevelopment of the
single, vacant parcel, and the expanded potential for
redevelopment if several of these adjacent parcels were
aggregated. The site faces a Toyota dealership and collision
center across 14th Street.
The lot has a Future Land Use designation of
Retail/Office/Residential (ROR) and a General Commercial (GC)
zoning. It falls within an area designated as Urban/Suburban
Neighborhoods by the Manatee Council Character Compatibility
Study Character Vision Graphic.
4-32
C A S E
S T U D I E S
Access from the site is limited, with the only connection to a
roadway at 14th Street, which does allow for both right and left
turns in. 14th Street has six lanes of traffic at this point, with a
center turn lane but no median. The nearest signaled
intersections are located at Bayshore Gardens Parkway, 0.3
mile to the north, and Florida Boulevard, 0.25 mile to the
south. The sidewalks are discontinuous, ranging from 0 to 5
feet wide; the majority of the west side of the street has no
sidewalks. There are no bicycle lanes. The site is located within
0.1 mile from both northbound and southbound bus stops for
MCAT route 99.
See the diagram below for the existing parcel boundaries,
existing structures, dimensions, and property ownership, based
on the Manatee County Property Appraiser records in July 2015.
4-33
C A S E
S T U D I E S
4-34
C A S E
S T U D I E S
4-35
C A S E
S T U D I E S
4-36
C A S E
The vacant site examined for redevelopment is narrow and deep,
limiting the potential configurations and utility. The limitations posed
by existing parcel dimensions, as seen with this parcel and
throughout the urban core, was emphasized by local developers in
the stakeholder interview process. To illustrate this barrier and the
expanded development potential afforded by the aggregation of
adjacent parcels, two design concepts were created, one using only
the vacant lot and another that combines the adjacent lots to form a
larger site.
Single-Parcel Assisted Care Living Facility Concept
The largest segment of the population within a 5-minute drive of the
site is retirement age; the Senior Escapes, Retirement Communities,
and Elders segments make up 43.4 percent of the population. As
these active retirees continue to age, there will be an increased need
S T U D I E S
for assisted living facilities in the area, which allow elderly residents to
live independently with assistance. The map of existing ACLFs in
Manatee County’s urban core shows that, at the time of this report,
there are no ACLFs operating along 14th Street West south of 57th
Avenue West. There are, however, 2 ACLFs currently under
construction in the study area. This lack of nearby ACLF facilities
amidst an aging population presents an opportunity to create one.
The proposed design has a small parking lot in front of a communal
ACLF building on 14th Street West, where the administrative offices,
kitchen and dining area, and community rooms will be located. The
residential buildings are located in the rear, buffered from the
commercial corridor, in a linear form overlooking a stormwater pond
to the north.
4-37
C A S E
S T U D I E S
Figure 4 - 12. Site C – ACLF Concept
4-38
C A S E
Table 4 - 5. Case Study Site C - Single-Parcel ACLF
Building Area
Estimated Number of
(leasable sf)
Units
ACLF
105,595
102
Residences
ACLF Center
9,321
114,916
102
Total
S T U D I E S
Number of
Floors
Estimated
Height (ft)
Average Daily
Trips
Estimated Number of
Parking Spaces
Parking Space
Area (sf)
3
52
287
65
16,771
3
38
-
287
65
16,771
Figure 4 - 13. Site C – ALF Concept Images of Similar Projects
Full Build-Out Mixed-Use Concept
This full build-out concept explores the possibility for redevelopment
if the vacant parcel were combined with adjacent parcels (shown as
parcels A, B, C, D, E, F, and J in the site diagram above), resulting in an
18.32-acre site with 648 feet of frontage on 14th Street West. A
mixed-use development program is proposed for this configuration.
The front, center part of the lot is designated as open space, with
walkways, landscaping, seating areas, and a water feature to create a
large, central gathering and recreation space leading into the
property. Three-story commercial buildings with of ground floor
retail and two upper stories with offices line the central green.
Patrons of commercial buildings can park in parallel spots along the
green or in the surface lots behind the commercial buildings. A
communal building, which could be used for a civic or entertainment
purpose, is proposed as the focal point at the end of the green and
has a parking lot in back. The back of the site, which abuts single4-39
C A S E
family homes and mobile home parks, holds 62 three-story
townhomes with detached garages in the rear. On-street parking is
available for guests in the neighborhood area.
The site is located on a principal arterial road (US 41) and has three
access points on the east side, but does not have any access points
on the north, west, or south sides of the property. Given this limited
connectivity from the site to the external roadway network, internal
circulation is critical to handling the anticipated vehicle capacity
generated by this plan. Four internal east-west roads and three
internal north-south roads form grid within the site to allow for
adequate connectivity and distribution. Pedestrian-friendly designs
also allow for the majority of travel within the site to be by foot.
This design provides a walkable, urban environment for commercial
activity, setting the stage for the quality retail and restaurants
requested by residents in this area in the stakeholder interview
S T U D I E S
process. It also provides additional single-family housing typical of
the area, but in a more compact and affordable townhouse form.
This section of US 41 is a six-lane road with a center turn lane, no
median, and discontinuous sidewalks, which create hazardous
pedestrian conditions. The County should consider reducing 14th
Street West to four lanes of traffic with a center turn lane and
medians, as is typical for the road in Sarasota County and the
northern part of Manatee County. The reduced capacity could be
offset by an expansion of US 301, which runs parallel to the road, has
sufficient existing right-of-way, and is better suited to accommodate
through traffic. The installation of sidewalks, bike lanes, and midblock
crossings along US 41 would also improve safety, as the nearest
existing crosswalks are nearly 0.6 miles apart at Bayshore Gardens
Parkway and Florida Boulevard.
4-40
C A S E
S T U D I E S
Figure 4 - 14. Site C – Mixed-Use Concept
4-41
C A S E
Table 4 - 6. Case Study Site C – Combined Parcels Mixed-Use Concept
Building Area
Estimated Number of
Number of
(leasable sf)
Units
Floors
Townhomes
215,234
62
3
Clubhouse
10,123
1
Retail
67,514
1
Office
135,028
2
427,899
62
Total
Estimated
Height (ft.)
46.3
28.0
55.5
-
Average Daily
Trips
424
5,261
1,649
7,334
S T U D I E S
Estimated Number of
Parking Spaces
119
25
Parking Space
Area (sf)
20,750
10,653
298
80,680
442
112,084
Figure 4 - 15. Site C – Mixed-Use Concept Images of Similar Projects
Comprehensive Plan and LDC Barriers to
Redevelopment
The same methodology for determining adherence to Comprehensive
Plan and Land Development Code requirements was used as
described in Case Study Site A. For the purpose of this analysis, only
the full build-out, mixed-use concept was evaluated. The assessment
showed the following components of the design would not meet the
existing regulations for the Retail/Office/Residential (ROR) future land
use category and General Commercial (GC) zoning district:
4-42
C A S E
Building Height
The single-story civic/entertainment building is the only building less
than the 35-foot height limit. The three-story townhomes are
approximately 46.3 feet tall, and the commercial buildings with
ground floor retail and two stories of offices above are estimated to
be 55.5 feet tall.
Setbacks
Most of the site meets the setback requirements, but some of the
front setbacks are as narrow as 11 feet, which does not meet the
minimum front setback requirement of 25 feet.
Floor Area Ratio
The site’s floor area ratio of 0.48 is within the 1.0 FAR that was until
recently allowed by the Comprehensive Plan within CRAs (the CRAs
were eliminated), but exceeds the 0.25 FAR maximum for GC in the
Land Development Code.
S T U D I E S
collection system with a sanitary manhole is located in the center of
the property. The system ultimately gravity flows to the north at the
center of the site.
Site C is a vacant site that requires the most amount of improvements
compared to the other sites. The parcel was previously developed but
the building has been demolished and the pavement is in poor shape
and requires demolition. The previous building appears to have been
demolished in 2007. The existing driveway apron requires repair to
bring it up to FDOT standards. Since stormwater design is based
upon pre vs post development flows, the current impervious surface
from the pavement could provide credits to reduce the required size
of the drainage facilities. The ultimate drainage outfall for the site
would be to the west based upon topography. FDOT permits would
be required for driveway and drainage connections.
Parking
The townhomes, which have their own garages and driveways, meet
the residential parking requirements. The office uses do not meet the
requirement of one space per 200 square feet of gross floor area; one
space per 645 square feet of gross floor area is provided. At one
space per 758 square feet of gross floor area, the retail uses do not
meet the required one space per 250 square feet of gross floor area
either.
Potable water service may be provided through an existing county
meter located on the south side of the property adjacent to an
existing fire hydrant. The water service is provided by an existing
water main located on the opposite side of 14th street. There are no
existing reclaimed water facilities nearby. An existing gravity sewer
4-43
C A S E
Case Study Process Findings
The existing codes prescribe a suburban form of development, which
is not consistent with the form of the case study concepts or the type
of compact, sustainable development envisioned for the urban core.
Through the hypothetical development scenario process for the three
urban corridor sites described above, several specific issues within the
Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code were identified as
recurring barriers to obtaining development approval, either due to
the application of calculation methods or site configuration
Figure 4 - 16. Site B – Residential and Non-Residential Acreage
S T U D I E S
requirements. These issues include: 1) difficulty calculating gross
residential and nonresidential acreage for mixed-use projects; 2)
limitations on height; 3) limitations on residential density; 4)
limitations on FAR; 5) minimum parking requirements; and 6)
incompatible permitted uses.
Issues with Acreage Calculations
In calculating some property standards--such as gross residential
density or floor area ratio—it is necessary to divide the subject
property into designated subareas that have only one future land use
category and only one use each, in order to apply the Manatee
County regulations (see Comprehensive Plan Land Use Operative
Provisions, page 3.) This process assumes that no part of the land
serves multiple uses. For subareas with a mix of uses, such as the
main building in Case Study Site B, there is no way to calculate these
factors using existing methods; there is no current designation for
mixed-use acreage, only residential or nonresidential acreage (see Fig.
4-16). This forces development to ascribe to the suburban standard
of separate uses on separate lots, rather than the mix of uses typical
of urban areas. Alternatively, the developer may opt to apply for a
Planned Development zoning designation, which complicates the
development process. (See Appendix H for examples of how other
communities address density and intensity measurements in mixeduse developments).
Based upon the analysis of the methods for calculating levels of
residential density and commercial intensity for mixed-use projects in
various jurisdictions, four typical methodologies were identified and
considered as alternative frameworks for Manatee County density
and intensity measures. Regulations for Manatee County,
Hillsborough County, Sarasota County, and Orange County, as well as
practices and model mixed-use ordinances from the American
4-44
C A S E
Planning Association1 and U.S. Green Buildings Council2, were
analyzed. These methods are each applied to Case Study Site B
below to illustrate how the different methods regulate the same
development plan. The four typical methodologies identified were:
Method 1: No applicable provision for calculating density or
intensity for vertical mixed-use buildings
Traditional Euclidian provisions separate land by uses. Under this
paradigm, residential buildings are inherently located on separate
parcels from nonresidential uses. This separation allows for the
calculation of residential density based on the number of dwelling
units per gross residential acre and the calculation of intensity as floor
area ratios based on commercial square footages per gross
nonresidential acre, as land would never be used for both residential
and nonresidential purposes and could fit neatly into one category or
the other. These measures have historically been typical of suburban
municipalities and are currently employed in the Manatee County
Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Element.
In a jurisdiction like Manatee County, which seeks to promote
efficient, sustainable development patterns in its urban core,
development programs involving a mix of uses must be
accommodated and encouraged. The existing regulations, which
necessitate the isolation of residential and nonresidential acreages in
their calculations, are not designed for mixed-use developments. In a
horizontal mixed-use plan, where different uses are located on
separate parcels in close proximity to one another, the system is
burdensome, but workable; the project site can be divided into
single-use subareas to calculate residential and nonresidential
1
American Planning Association. (2006) 4.1 Model Mixed-Use Zoning District
Ordinance. Model Smart Land Development Regulations. (p. 1-7)
S T U D I E S
acreage. The real problem with these measures arises when a
developer wants to build a vertical mixed-use structure, such as a
building with ground floor commercial or institutional uses and
residences above, as in Case Study Site B. In this scenario, the same
land is used for both residential and nonresidential uses (see Area 3 in
Fig. 4-16). To which category of acreage should the area be assigned?
When a code does not explicitly provide for mixed-use measures, it is
impossible to determine, and density and intensity measures cannot
be calculated. Municipalities seeking to incentivize vertical mixed-use
development must adopt density and intensity regulations that are
appropriate, comprehensible, and easy to use. The lack of relevant
regulations will result in the lack of mixed-use communities and is not
a recommended alternative.
Method 2: Count acreage for mixed-use buildings toward both
residential and nonresidential acreages
Given that the land for mixed-use buildings serves both residential
and nonresidential purposes, it stands to reason that its acreage
might be counted toward both the residential and nonresidential
acreages used when calculating density and intensity. In terms of
Case Study Site B, Area 3 contains buildings with a vertical mix of
residential and nonresidential uses. To calculate residential density,
the total number of dwelling units would be divided by the combined
acreages of Area 2 (residential only) and Area 3 (mixed-use) (see Fig.
4-17). To calculate commercial intensity, the total square footage of
commercial floor area for all floors would be divided by the combined
acreages of Area 1 (nonresidential), Area 3 (mixed-use), and Area 4
2
U.S. Green Building Council. (2015) LEED Development Density.
http://www.usgbc.org/credits/lt31
4-45
C A S E
S T U D I E S
Figure 4 - 17. Land Use and Density/Intensity Calculations
(nonresidential). This approach is used in calculating project densities
for the U.S. Green Building Council’s LEED Certification.
Method 3: Use site-wide total developable land area as the basis
for calculating both density and intensity
Considering that the mixed-use development is an integrated design
with residential and nonresidential components, the residential
density and commercial intensity measures might be calculated on a
project-wide basis, using the total developable area as the reference
acreage (see Fig. 4-18). This contains all developable land, including
both residential and nonresidential uses, but excluding land that is
ineligible for development, such as naturally occurring water bodies.
In Case Study Site B, which does not have any naturally occurring
water bodies, the entire site would be counted as the developable
area. To calculate residential density, the total number of dwelling
units would be divided by the developable area. To calculate
commercial intensity, the total gross floor area for commercial uses
would be divided by the site developable area. This method is used
by Orange County.
Because this approach utilizes the larger, project-wide land area as
the reference acreage, the resulting number of dwelling units per acre
and floor area ratios appear lower. However, it properly represents
the intensity of a development regardless of the use.
4-46
C A S E
Figure 4 - 18. Developable Area
S T U D I E S
dividing the square footage by the gross or net site acreage, resulting
in a single measure of density/intensity for mixed-use buildings. The
measure is simple, allowing for a more streamlined regulatory
process.
One issue with using FAR as a proxy for residential density is the
potential variation in population density associated with a given
square footage. For example, 2,400 square feet of residential
property could equate to a single 2,400-square-foot, three-bedroom
apartment, two 1,200-square-foot, two-bedroom apartments, or
three 800-square-foot studio apartments, depending on the building
design. Although the residential square footage in each scenario is
equivalent, the units, population density, and likely impacts on public
facilities, parking, traffic, and other factors would differ significantly.
Measures of residential density that utilize dwelling units more
closely, though not perfectly, reflect the actual population and activity
density of an area.
Recommendation
Method 4: Use FAR as a measure of residential density, rather
than dwelling units per acre
Rather than calculate residential density based upon the number of
dwelling units per acre, floor area ratios can be used as an alternative
regulation, as is the case for vertical mixed-use buildings in
Hillsborough County.3 According to this methodology, residential
density is measured the same way as commercial intensity, by
3
Hillsborough County Government. (2012) Land Development Code – 2.1 MixedUse Development. Comprehensive Plan. (p. 124).
The current methodology used for calculating density and intensity
for development in the urban corridors is too complicated and
difficult to enforce. Mixed-use developments are supposed to be
integrated and function as a unit. Therefore, the recommended
methodology should reflect that. Method 3 is recommended for the
urban corridors.
Issues with Height
The 35-foot, countywide building height regulation was repeatedly
highlighted as a key barrier to development—and, especially, to the
development of affordable housing—throughout the stakeholder
http://www.planhillsborough.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/FUTURE-LANDUSE_6_20141.pdf
4-47
C A S E
interview process. This height limitation proved to be a barrier to
development approval for each of the case study concepts proposed.
The current regulation has two primary issues: 1) it regulates based
on height, not floors and 2) it applies the same height criteria
countywide.
The building height limit may have been appropriate to a two-story
building or some three-story buildings based on standard floor
heights at the time it was enacted. However, modern buildings tend
to have higher ceilings than those built in previous decades. A newly
constructed building may only be able to accommodate one or two
floors within the 35-foot height limit. (See Table 4-7 for hypothetical
floor heights by use.) A limitation based on the number of floors in a
building allows greater freedom for developers to provide quality
architecture, and may be a more appropriate way to regulate height
in Manatee County.
The blanket height limitation currently enforced also hinders
development in the urban core. While a limitation of two or three
stories may be appropriate in suburban areas, greater height at select
nodes within the urban corridors may be desirable. An increased
height allowance would be necessary for the residential density
needed for the creation of affordable multifamily housing, vibrant
mixed-use areas, transit-oriented developments, and LEED-ND
certified communities. A maximum height of five feet is necessary to
allow compact, sustainable development at nodes in the urban
corridors. This increased height allowance could include higher by
right building heights in designated areas, higher permitted building
heights for mixed-use developments, or height bonuses for
sustainable building practices or affordable housing.
S T U D I E S
Table 4 - 7. Hypothetical Floor Heights by Use
Floor-to-Floor
Use
Height (ft.)
Residential
12.5
Assisted Care Living
14.0
Facility
Clubhouse/Community
16.0
Center
Retail (ground floor of
20.0
mixed-use)
Retail (standalone)
18.0
Office
16.0
Parking Deck
10.0
Roof/Parapet
Height (ft.)
8.75
10
12
3.5
3.5
4
Issues with Residential Density
The current residential density regulations unduly restrict the
residential development potential of the urban corridors, both in
terms of procedural deterrents and substantive limitations. All of the
proposed case study development concepts that included residential
components exceeded a gross residential density of 6 du/ac, which,
according to the Manatee County Land Development Code, requires
special approval, even though the allowable gross residential density
for the area is 9 du/ac. This policy imposes an unnecessary
bureaucratic layer to the development process, forcing developers to
go through a special approval process even when they meet the
residential density standard specified in the Comprehensive Plan. This
special approval process should be eliminated, and residential
densities should be permitted by right, based on the Comprehensive
Plan.
4-48
C A S E
S T U D I E S
Increases in the maximum allowable residential densities for sites
within the urban corridors should also be considered. Residential
densities of 9 du/ac or less result in a suburban development
pattern.4 Most of the urban corridors are governed by the
Retail/Office/Residential future land use category and are therefore
limited to 9 du/ac. As an exception, projects that fall within the
boundaries of the UIRA and designate a minimum of 25 percent of
dwelling units as affordable housing may have up to 24 du/ac. The
level of residential necessary for a typical mixed-use community is not
achievable within the densities currently allowed by right in the
Retail/Office/Residential category. LEED-ND certification requires a
minimum of 10 du/ac to qualify for any compact development points,
and additional density is encouraged; current by right ROR
requirements prohibit developments from meeting this LEED-ND
threshold.5 The minimum residential density considered compatible
with transit-oriented development is 15 du/ac, and studies show that
ridership increases significantly with residential densities of 30 du/ac
or greater.6 These thresholds are unattainable given the by right
allowable densities in the Retail/Office/Residential category.
Comparable municipalities often allow these levels of density to occur
in activity centers within their urban cores. Hillsborough County, for
example, allows a residential density of 20 du/ac by right in its
Community Activity Centers, and Regional Mixed-Use districts are
allowed up to 35 du/ac.7 In Orange County, only Rural Settlement,
Low Density Residential, and Low-Medium Density Residential have
maximum densities of 10 du/ac or less; the remaining five future land
use categories permitting residential uses have maximum densities
ranging between 20 and 50 du/ac.8 Manatee County should similarly
permit higher residential density by right at defined nodes
throughout the urban corridors, and may consider allowing higher
residential densities for mixed-use or traditional neighborhood
developments than for single-use developments.
4
7
Hillsborough County Government. (2012). Future Land Use Element – 1.3
Suburban Pattern Characteristics. Comprehensive Plan. (p. 117).
http://www.planhillsborough.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/FUTURE-LANDUSE_6_20141.pdf
5
U.S. Green Building Council. LEED for Neighborhood Development Rating System.
Neighborhood Pattern and Design. (p. 39)
http://www.usgbc.org/Docs/Archive/General/Docs6146.pdf
6
Florida Department of Transportation. (December 2012). Florida TOD Guidebook.
(p. 2-35). http://www.fltod.com/Florida%20TOD%20Guidebook-sm.pdf
Issues with FAR
The floor area ratio, measured as the total nonresidential square
footage within a building divided by the total applicable acreage,
determines the potential commercial intensity of a property. The
Comprehensive Plan allows a floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.35 in the
Retail/Office/Residential (ROR) category, and an FAR of 1.0 for ROR
parcels within the UIRA (and also in the CRAs until they were
eliminated recently). The Land Development Code also specifies the
maximum FAR for each zoning district; in General Commercial (GC)
the maximum FAR is 0.25. Unlike the Comprehensive Plan, there is no
higher allowable FAR for properties within the UIRA. This zoning
regulation limits the nonresidential intensity of most urban corridor
properties, which typically fall under General Commercial, to a quarter
Hillsborough County Government. (2012). Future Land Use Element – Policy 40.5.
Comprehensive Plan. (p. 181). http://www.planhillsborough.org/wpcontent/uploads/2012/10/FUTURE-LAND-USE_6_20141.pdf
8
Orange County Government. (March 2012). Orange County Future Land Use and
Zoning Correlation.
http://www.orangecountyfl.net/Portals/0/resource%20library/planning%20%20development/Comprehensive%20Planning%20Zoning%20Land%20Use%20Correlation.pdf
4-49
C A S E
of the intensity permitted by the Comprehensive Plan for ROR. The
County should more closely align the floor area ratios permitted in
the Comprehensive Plan and the Land Development Code for areas
within the urban core where higher density is desired, in order to
allow the vision established in the Comprehensive Plan to be realized.
The existing floor area ratios should also be increased within the
urban corridors to allow higher intensities of commercial uses,
particularly at nodes surrounding the intersections of functionally
classified roadways. Sustainable building practices, which are
anchored on compact development plans, require an FAR greater
than the 0.35 maximum currently permitted throughout most of the
urban corridors. The U.S. Green Building Council’s LEED-ND
certification requires a minimum FAR of 0.75 to qualify for any
compact development credits, and higher FARs are encouraged.
These standards are not easily attainable under the current system,
which would typically require developers to apply for Planned
Development zoning or obtain variances to do so, if it is possible at
all. The County should consider changing the allowable floor area
ratio in the Comprehensive Plan to 1.0 throughout the urban
corridors, and should allow a floor area ratio of 2.0 at designated
nodes. A floor area ratio of 2.0 is consistent with the maximum FAR
currently allowed in the County’s Mixed-Use future land use category,
and would facilitate the types of development appropriate in these
locations. This increase in allowable FAR should be reflected in the
corresponding zoning districts.
S T U D I E S
Issues with Parking
The proposed development programs were largely incompatible with
County parking regulations. The required number of parking spaces is
currently regulated by the Manatee County Land Development Code,
based on the number of dwelling units for residential uses and based
on a specified number of spaces per square foot for commercial uses,
which differs for each category. For example, a sit down restaurant
requires one space per 80 square feet of gross floor area (GFA),
whereas general retail requires one space per 250 square feet of GFA.
Shopping centers are required to provide one space per 200 square
feet of gross floor area for the first 400,000 square feet of GFA,
blending the various uses within the plaza into a single requirement.
Generally, all off-street parking must be located on the same lot as
the structure or use to which they are accessory, or on land in the
same ownership as the structure to which they are accessory.
Alternative locations may be permitted at the discretion of the
planning director, provided all spaces are within 300 feet of the
principal entrance of the use they are intended to serve. An easement
for cooperative parking arrangements may be permitted for two or
more uses on contiguous parcels similarly zoned. In this case, the
combined number of spaces must equal the sum of the amounts
required for the separate uses, and at least 50 percent of the required
spaces must be provided on each lot prior to allowing a cooperative
arrangement. This requirement may be reduced to 25 percent of the
required spaces if an applicant can demonstrate that differing hours
of operation or another such factor would allow the same spaces to
serve two or more uses.9
9
Manatee County Government. Section 710 – Off-Street Parking and Loading. Land
Development Code.
4-50
C A S E
The current regulations result in an ample amount of parking for
most developments. The land area dedicated to parking lots creates
longer distances between destinations, encourages the use of private
vehicles, increases the amount of impervious surface, and ultimately
leads to suburban sprawl. Area developers have historically placed all
or most parking along the site frontage, taking the approach that
plenty of visible, available parking serves as a welcome mat of sorts,
inviting potential patrons into a site, rather than having the human
scale features of a development fulfill that role. The placement of
large parking lots on frontages prioritizes automobile travel,
discourages transit, pedestrian, and bicycle modes, and is inconsistent
with the development goals stated in the Comprehensive Plan and
previous visioning studies, which seek a more sustainable urban
pattern. High parking requirements inhibit the potential for green
developments. For instance, the County’s required parking ratios fall
in opposition to the U.S. Green Building Council’s LEED
Neighborhood Design standards limit a development’s new off-street
surface parking facilities to no more than 20 percent of the total
development footprint area.
S T U D I E S
recommended amount of parking for shopping centers even in a
suburban context, and impose this same standard to urban areas.
These recommended standards also apply the same parking ratios for
all commercial uses, which simplifies the regulatory process and
allows for greater compatibility if a property is repurposed for a
different use in the future.11 The County may consider streamlining its
parking requirements, which are currently distinct for each specific
use, into fewer, consolidated categories.
The County should consider reducing the number of spaces required
per square foot of gross floor area within the urban core. Sample
recommendations from the Urban Land Institute (ULI) require one
space per 2,000 square feet GFA in urban settings, one parking space
per 500 square feet GFA in traditional neighborhood settings, and
one parking space per 400 square feet GFA in suburban settings.10
Current Manatee County requirements mandate double this
Not only do these regulations require excessive amounts of parking
generally, they do not provide an appropriate measure for calculating
the amount of parking needed for mixed-use developments like the
case study sites and the type of development desired in the urban
core. Typically, mixed-use developments have reduced overall
parking demands due to the number of internal pedestrian trips.
They also contain uses with differing peak hours, such as offices with
high daytime demand and restaurants with high evening demand.
Shared parking facilities, common in mixed-use projects, can take
advantage of this dynamic and reduce the overall number parking
spaces necessary. The cooperative parking provisions already in
place are a step toward accommodating these mixed-use projects;
however, more can be done. In addition to allowing the percentage
of spaces provided on site to be reduced if the applicant can
demonstrate the same space can serve two or more uses due to
different operating hours, a reduction in the total number of spaces
required in the shared parking facility should be allowed on the same
basis. The County should continue to require that the minimum
10
11
Johnson, A. ULI Rose Center Presents Parking Reform: How Parking Innovations
Can Encourage Transit- and Pedestrian-Friendly Infill Development. (p. 47)
http://uli.org/wp-content/uploads/ULIDocuments/ParkingReform_finaldeck_020613.pdf
American Planning Association. Planning Advisory Service Packet: Parking
Solutions. (p. 9)
https://www.planning.org/pas/infopackets/subscribers/pdf/eip24part1.pdf
4-51
C A S E
number of spaces provided in the shared parking facility be equal to
the sum of the amounts required by the separate uses, but should
specify how that amount is determined. Methodologies such as the
ULI or City of Minneapolis12 shared parking calculations, which
provide a specific means of calculating parking demand for various
uses within each of six designated time periods, would be appropriate
for mixed-use developments. On-street parking provided in mixeduse developments, such as parallel spaces on internal roadways,
should count toward parking requirements.
Manatee County may also consider modifying regulations regarding
the placement of parking on a lot. Current Manatee County
regulations limit the distance from remote parking facilities to the
primary entrances they are intended to serve to no more than 300
feet. The preferred parking-space-to-front-door ratio most people
are willing to walk, however, is 400 to 800 feet.13 It is also difficult to
measure the distance to the multiple uses that may be served by a
parking facility in a mixed-use environment. A more lenient distance
requirement may be appropriate in the urban core, if supplemented
by requirements for pedestrian pathways to ensure the quality and
safety of access from parking facilities.
12
American Planning Association. (2009). Planning Advisory Service Packet –
Parking Solutions. (p. 10).
https://www.planning.org/pas/infopackets/subscribers/pdf/eip24part1.pdf
S T U D I E S
Regulations should also require that most or all off-street parking
should be located at the side or rear of buildings. The use of
wayfinding signs to make rear lots or remote parking more visible
and accessible should be encouraged. These practices support the
pedestrian orientation of developments and encourages active
transportation alternatives, while still providing parking capacity and
functionality for automobile users.
Issues with Permitted Uses
Within the General Commercial zoning district, which governs all
three case study sites, some residential uses are allowed: residential
single-family detached homes and residential duplexes. The housing
types that make the most sense within a mixed-use development,
residential multifamily and residential single-family attached
(townhome), are not permitted uses by right or even by special
approval. It is essential that these residential uses be permitted
throughout the urban corridors in order to make higher density
residential uses an alternative to strip commercial in corridor
segments, and to allow mixed-use developments at nodes.
13
City of Alexandria Government. (2002). Shared Parking Fact Sheet. CRCOF Best
Practices Manual. (p. 3).
https://alexandriava.gov/uploadedFiles/planning/info/SharedParkingFactSheet.pdf
4-52
“A pattern of future land uses providing adequate recognition of
existing development and providing adequate guidance to all
parties for the potential location, general types, and general
range of densities and intensities which may be considered for
new development or redevelopment.”
Manatee County Comprehensive Plan Goal 2.2
CHAPTER 5
C OMPREHENSIVE
P LAN A SSESSMENT
AND
R ECOMMENDATIONS
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ASSESSMENT
Contents
Figures
Comprehensive Plan Assessment .................................................................. 3
Figure 5 - 1. Manatee County Future Land Use Map ..................................... 6
Figure 5 - 2. GOPs referencing the Commercial Locational Criteria ............ 26
1989 Comprehensive Plan ......................................................................... 3
Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) ...................................................... 3
Future Land Use Element ........................................................................... 5
Miscellaneous Comprehensive Plan Components ..................................... 9
Variances ................................................................................................ 9
Special Exceptions ................................................................................ 10
Nonconformities .................................................................................. 10
Tables
Table 5 - 1. Future Land Use Categories ........................................................ 8
Table 5 - 2. Commercial Locational Criteria ................................................. 11
Table 5 - 3. Recommended Changes to the Comprehensive Plan ............... 18
Specific Property Development Conditions ......................................... 10
Public Participation .............................................................................. 10
Definitions ............................................................................................ 10
Land Use Operative Provisions. ........................................................... 10
Recommended Comprehensive Plan (Plan) Amendments: ..................... 15
5-2
Comprehensive Plan Assessment
1989 Comprehensive Plan
The Manatee County Comprehensive Plan is the county’s primary
guide for development and growth. The plan for the unincorporated
areas of the county was first adopted in 1989, underwent significant
revisions in 1998, and since then has gone through numerous
amendments, but has never undergone a complete rewrite. The
Manatee County Comprehensive Plan establishes goals, objectives,
and policies for each of the following elements:











Future Land Use;
Conservation;
Coastal Management;
Traffic;
Housing;
Historical and Cultural;
Recreation and Open Space;
Public Facilities;
Capital Improvements;
Intergovernmental Coordination; and
Schools.
The Comprehensive Plan also contains a “Land Use Operative
Provisions” chapter that include specific review and procedural
language typically found in land development codes rather than
comprehensive plans. These are described and analyzed later in this
document.
In addition to following Chapter 163 of the Florida Statutes, the plan
emphasizes the following goals:






improve the physical environment of the community as a setting
for human and natural resource activities;
protect the public health, safety, and welfare;
ensure that long-range considerations are included in the
determination of short-range actions;
provide for fair and equitable consideration of private property
rights while ensuring appropriate protection of the (more
broadly-defined) public interest as determined by the Board of
County Commissioners of Manatee County;
effect political cooperation and technical coordination by bringing
professional and technical knowledge to bear on governmental
decisions concerning the physical development of the community;
and
to promote a healthy, stable, and vigorous local economy which
can satisfy the goods and service needs of the local community,
can provide opportunities for economic activity exporting goods
and services outside Manatee County, and offer the community
an ample range of employment opportunities.
Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR)
The State required Comprehensive Plan Evaluation and Appraisal
Reports (EAR) were prepared in 2004 and then again in 2011. The EAR
is intended to evaluate the community’s comprehensive plan based
solely on issues that pertain to and affect that community’s ability to
meet its goals. The major issues identified in this report fall under the
following categories:

Economic Growth and Redevelopment;
5-3


Urban Core, Redevelopment, and Transit Oriented Development;
and
Carbon footprint reduction, energy conservation, and
encouragement of low-impact development and green
construction.
The EAR did not recommend updating the comprehensive plan.
However, it included the following recommendations to be
implemented in the future:
1. Focusing on infill and redevelopment of parcels that are
scattered through the County, especially those in the urban core.
The County is also focusing on directing growth and development
into three other development centers including the Port Manatee,
Parrish and Lakewood Ranch areas. Development and
redevelopment within these four areas will allow the County to
provide a balanced approach between new developments,
transportation improvements including multi-modal opportunities
and utilize existing infrastructure more efficiently.
2. Re-examining the future land use map (FLUM) for
opportunities to re-designate parcels that could serve the County
more effectively and provide opportunities for new mixed use and
employment center development.
3. Re-examining the FLUM in concert with the County’s Hazard
Mitigation Plan to develop policies encouraging the transfer of
development rights to targeted development and
redevelopment areas.
4. Incorporating additional policies into the Conservation Element
and Infrastructure Element that encourage the use of LowImpact Development techniques for stormwater management,
green building and construction standards and energy
conservation measures.
5. Providing a balanced transportation system that provides
transportation choices and changes in land use policies to
minimize trip lengths, reduce traffic delays, and reduce overall
greenhouse gas emissions.
6. Incorporating a revised LOS standard for the Recreation and
Open Space Element for recreation and open space facilities,
provided the suggested LOS standards are determined to be
financially feasible. The County will also consider additional policy
language that identifies potential sources of funding and
partnerships to share the costs associated with financing facilities
improvements or acquisitions.
The EAR also states:
“In addition to the financial component, the physical component
needs to be strengthened in order to promote the County’s economic
development goals. A valuable approach to encouraging positive
economic development is to build off of the urban core as well as
Lakewood Ranch, Parrish, and Port Manatee to encourage strong
mixed use environments in these areas. Integrating retail into the
mixed use environments particularly near job centers will spur
economic development in the County’s desired growth areas.
Eliminating barriers to mixed use developments through allowing
a diverse mix of land uses in the future land use categories, and
modifying setback, buffering and parking requirements to promote
urban development patterns will encourage professional and retail
activities in the growth centers targeted for development and
redevelopment.”
The Urban Corridors project will address the first and second
recommendations by focusing on the non-residential parcels along
the major transportation corridors in the core area and determining
5-4
changes to the Comprehensive Plan and Land Development
Regulations to facilitate infill and redevelopment in that area.
Future Land Use Element
The Future Land Use Element includes the adopted Future Land Use
Map (FLUM), a set of goals, objectives and policies, and a technical
document that includes the data and analysis on which the FLUM and
GOPs are based. The Manatee County FLUM includes a total of 22
future land use categories listed below and depicted in Figure 5-1.
Figure 1-16 in Chapter 1 shows a close up of the study area.













Conservation (CON)
Agriculture/Rural (AG/R)
Estate Rural (ER)
Residential 1 (RES-1)
Residential- 3 (RES-3)
Urban Fringe-3 (UF-3)
Residential -6 (RES-6)
Residential-16 (RES-16)
Low Intensity Office (OL)
Medium Intensity Office (OM)
Retail/Office/Residential
(ROR)









Industrial Light (IL)
Industrial Heavy (IH)
Industrial Urban (IU)
Mixed Use (MU)
Mixed Use – Community
(MU-C/AC-1, 2, 3;MUCR;MU-CRU)
Major Recreation-Open
Space (R/OS)
Public/ Semi-Public (1)
(P/SP(1))
Major Public/ Semi-Public
(2) (P/SP(2))
Major Attractors (AT)
In addition to the land use categories, the FLUM also depicts 7 types
of overlay districts to address “targeted geographic areas, within
which the application of highly specialized policies can be
implemented.”
 Historic Resources (HR)
 Watersheds (WO)
 Coastal High Hazard Area (CHHA)
 Regional Activity Center (RAC)
 Airport Impact (AI)
 North County Gateway (NCG) [now
 Coastal Evacuation Area
Florida International Gateway (FIG)]
(CEA)
The FLUE also establishes an “Urban Core Area” depicted on Map H
of the FLUM Series and shown on Figure 1-4. Objective 2.1.3 and its
policies address different standards for that area to encourage infill
and redevelopment. The following is an excerpt:
“Revitalization of the Urban Core Area: Limit urban sprawl through the
infill and redevelopment of residential and non-residential uses into the
urban core area thereby encouraging the continued vitality and
economic prosperity of these areas.”
Policy 2.1.3.1 directs the County to establish minimum density
requirements within the urban core area. This is a good strategy to
intensify the development and minimize dependence on vehicular
traffic. However, as mentioned in the County’s EAR, many developed
areas of the urban core have an existing density that is less than half
of the current allowed maximum density for the respective land use
category. The urban core has not reached the point where developers
are trying to maximize densities and intensities. Requiring a minimum
density or intensity would not encourage redevelopment or infill in
the core area.
Policy 2.1.3.2 calls for a higher FAR in the urban area, though it does
not provide a specific number. The ROR currently allows up to 0.35
FAR and 1.0 within the Urban Infill Redevelopment Area.
Policy 2.1.3.3 requires the establishment of urban development
criteria within the LDC by 2011. The LDC does not currently include
urban design criteria; however, an update of the LDC, to include
compliance with this policy directive, is a specific task of this planning
effort.
5-5
Objective 2.2 establishes the future
land use categories. The following are
the predominant categories found
along the urban corridors. Table 5-1
lists the density, intensity and use
requirements for each.
Figure 5 - 1. Manatee County Future Land Use Map
Retail/Office/Residential (ROR) is the
most prevalent future land use
category along the corridors. It is
described in the Future Land Use
element as intended to include a mix
of uses and to establish a few major
multi-purpose nodes. Densities can
reach up to 9 dwelling units per gross
acre, or 20 units per net acre and 24 in
the UIRA. ROR also requires a
minimum density of 7 units per gross
acre for projects that include at least
25% of affordable housing in the UIRA.
The additional density and intensity
provisions applicable to the UIRA
included, until recently, the two former
CRAs within the urban core. While the
CRAs no longer exist, it was a good
idea to allow such higher densities and
densities in those areas of the County.
The references should be brought
back, but expanded to include the ROR
sites within the urban corridors. The
minimum density requirements,
however, may act as a deterrent to
5-6
provide the much needed affordable housing in this area.
Recommend discussing this issue with the Affordable Housing Board
and consider eliminating the minimum requirement for the urban
corridors only.
Low Intensity Office (OL) was applied to the stretch of US 41 just
north of the airport, and lined by Whitfield Estates homes. This
category allows low intensity office development and serves as a
transition between commercial and residential areas.
Although the ROR category encourages a mix of uses, neither the
comprehensive plan nor the Land Development Code clearly explain
how to calculate densities and intensities for vertical mixed use
projects. The methodology for calculating densities and intensities for
horizontal mix of uses is also very confusing and should be changed.
Industrial Light (IL), Industrial Heavy (IH) and Industrial Urban
(IU) are found along the 15th Street East corridor which is quite
different from the other corridors as it is mostly planned for industrial
development. The future land use designations along this corridor
include mostly Industrial Light (IL) and Heavy (IH), and some Industrial
Urban (IU) south of Saunders Road, and ROR combined with IL, IH
and RES-9 to the north of that road. The IL category is intended to
accommodate light industrial and intensive commercial uses and
support retail uses. Also allows lodging uses. The IH category is
intended to accommodate heavy industrial and intensive commercial
uses and support retail uses. The IU category was established to apply
to existing industrial uses within the urban area.
Residential-16 (RES-16) appears sporadically, or just behind the
ROR sites along Manatee Avenue, 14th Street West and 15th Street
East. This category is intended to accommodate low-moderate to
moderate density residential uses and support uses. Most of the RES16 areas are currently developed with multifamily uses, but a few of
them contain support uses (retail, church, and other uses).
Residential-9 (RES-9) appears behind some ROR and RES-16 sites
along some of the corridors, but it is the most prevalent land use
category along 53rd Avenue. This category is intended to
accommodate medium density residential uses and support uses.
Most of the RES-9 areas are currently developed with residential uses,
some with mobile home developments, but a few of them also
contain support uses (office).
Residential-6 (RES-6) appears sporadically along all corridors, but
mostly behind other more intensive categories. This category is
intended to accommodate low to low-moderate urban residential
development and support uses. Most of the RES-6 areas are currently
developed with residential uses, some with mobile home
developments, but a few of them also contain support uses (office).
Mixed-Use-Community (MU-C) appears on the west side of the
study area coinciding with the proposed Lake Flores development.
This category is intended for major centers of suburban/urban
activity, and was established to encourage or require the horizontal or
vertical integration of various residential and non-residential uses,
achieving internal trip capture, and the development of a high quality
environment for living, working, or visiting.
The Future Land Use Element established the Regional Activity
Center (RAC) overlay category to “encourage development into
areas suited for, or capable of, supporting the impacts attributed to
the added infrastructure and population that growth incurs” (Policy
2.2.2.8). The overlay has not been assigned to any part of the County.
While this seems like an opportunity to apply the designation to the
urban corridors, the concept of an overlay only adds more layers to
5-7
the regulations and make it more difficult for applicants, staff and the
public to sort the requirements for a particular site. The policy may
remain in the Plan, but staff may want to consider deleting in the
future.
Table 5 - 1. Future Land Use Categories
Future
Land Use
Category
ROR
Maximum Gross Density
Maximum Net Density
Maximum
Intensity
0.35
1.0 in UIRA 1.0
for Hotels
9.0
Min 7.0 in UIRA for residential
projects that designate a minimum
of 25% of the dwelling units as
“Affordable Housing”
16.0
20.0
24 in UIRA for residential projects
that designate a min. of 25% of the
dwelling units as “Affordable
Housing”
20
that designate a minimum of 25% of
the dwelling units as “Affordable
Housing”
RES-9
9.0
16
Housing”
0.23
1.0 in UIRA
RES-6
6.0
Min. 5.0 in UIRA for residential
12
Housing”
0.23
1.0 in UIRA
RES 16
0.25
1.0 in UIRA
Range of Uses
Neighborhood Retail Uses, Community Serving
Retail Uses, and Regional Retail Uses, Office
Uses, Residential Uses, Hotel/Motel,
Recreational Facilities
Residential Uses, Neighborhood-Retail Uses and
Professional/Personal Service Office Uses,
Recreation Facilities (Generally limited to
Neighborhood Retail Uses); also, Hotel/Motel
Neo-traditional development is limited to Small
(Neighborhood Retail Uses – wholesale uses not
allowed)
Neighborhood Retail Uses)
(Neighborhood Retail Uses –
wholesale uses not allowed)
Neighborhood Retail Uses)
(Neighborhood Retail Uses – wholesale uses not
allowed)
5-8
Future
Land Use
Category
OL
Maximum
Intensity
0.23
1.0 in UIRA
IL
Maximum Gross Density
6.0
1
Maximum Net Density
12
Housing”
1
IH
0
0
0.5
1.0 in UIRA
IU
0
0
1.25
MU
9.0
20.0
Housing”
1.0
2.0 in UIRA
Miscellaneous Comprehensive Plan Components
In addition to the traditional comprehensive plan elements listed
earlier, the Manatee County Comprehensive Plan includes certain
components, which are not required by the state, but go into greater
detail than most other comprehensive plans. Some of them include:
Variances
Section C of the Manatee County Comprehensive Plan, entitled “Plan
Format and Administration,” includes a section on variances from the
0.75
1.0 in UIRA; 1.0
for Hotels
Range of Uses
Professional, Personal Service, Business Service,
Financial Service, and Other Offices Uses,
Residential Uses, Recreational Facilities
Office, Light Industry, Research/Corporate Parks,
Warehouse/Distribution, Intensive Commercial
Uses, Neighborhood Retail Uses, Hotel/Motel,
Selected Single- Family, Residential Uses
Light Industry, Heavy Industry, Ports, Intensive
Commercial Uses, Neighborhood Retail Uses.
Phosphate mining is not an allowable use.
Light Industry, Heavy Industry, Warehouse/
Distribution, Neighborhood Retail Uses
Neighborhood Retail Uses, Community Serving
Retail Uses and Regional Retail, Office, Light
Industrial, Research/Corporate Parks,
Warehouse/ Distribution, Residential Uses,
Hotel/Motel
requirements of the Plan. It states, “The Plan variance process is
designed to provide relief from the setback, buffer, or other
dimensional requirements of the Comprehensive Plan in those cases
where strict application of these requirements could result in a
constitutional taking or unnecessary hardship prohibiting the use of
land in a manner otherwise allowed under this Plan.” This is not a
common occurrence in comprehensive plans, as they typically do not
include detailed dimensional requirements, and if they do, they are
not subject to modification through the variance process. If it is ok for
5-9
someone to vary a comp plan requirement, then the provision should
be changed. It is, therefore, recommended that the variance section
be deleted, as variances are already addressed in the LDC (to be done
at a later time as this section applies countywide and not just to
corridors).
Special Exceptions
Another section that is uncommon in comprehensive plans, is Section
D.2, “Special Exceptions to Required Consistency with this
Comprehensive Plan.” This provision allows the County to approve a
development which may be inconsistent with the Plan if the project
had an approved final development order, or was part of a
Development of Regional Impact (DRI), Florida Quality Development
(FQD) approved prior to the adoption of the Plan. This type of
provision, which has to do with vested rights, belongs in the Land
Development Code.
Nonconformities
Section D.3 (Nonconformities with Respect to this Comprehensive
Plan) addresses changes to developments or development plans that
are nonconforming to the Plan and requires “special approval” of
such changes by the Board. This section is also uncommon in
comprehensive plans and belongs in the Land Development Code.
The provision establishing Casco Dorado and The Waterways as
legally existing nonconforming do not need to be singled out as they
are already covered by Section 107.7 of the LDC.
Specific Property Development Conditions
Section D.5 includes very site specific ordinances specifying variations
from what the Plan would typically require for those sites. They
should be revisited at a later time to determine how applicable they
still are. In the meantime, they should be moved to the Goals,
Objectives and Policies section.
Public Participation
Section E includes a series of provisions related to public participation
in the comprehensive planning process. This section can be trimmed
down as many of the requirements are in the State Statutes.
Additionally, this section should be moved to the LDC at a later time.
Definitions
This section should be reviewed to eliminate words that are not
mentioned in the Plan.
Land Use Operative Provisions.
Immediately after the map section of the Future Land Use Element,
the County has a chapter titled, “Land Use Operative Provisions,”
which includes some administrative provisions (boundary
interpretation, mapping errors, multiple land use categories on a site,
etc.). This document is separate from the Data & Analysis and the
Goals, Objectives and Policies required by the State. In this document,
the County specifies development requirements that would normally
be found in a land development code. The comprehensive plan is
intended to provide the big picture vision for the County, and is
supposed to provide a guide for the County to amend the land
development regulations to implement the vision. The unintended
consequences of these provisions have been:



Conflicting regulations between the LDC and the Plan,
Applicants missing certain requirements as no one would think of
looking through the comp plan to design a site that already
meets zoning and code,
Rigidity and difficulty to modify standards when necessary.
5-10
Sections A and D explain how to address multiple land use categories
on a single site. The methodology is very complicated and
unnecessary. The County should consider moving these provisions to
the LDC and simplifying the language to permit the calculation of
density and intensity as multiple sites, or recommending that the
applicant apply for a land use amendment. This change would apply
countywide.
relative to intersections, and Future Land Use categories. Figure 5-2
includes a list of policies that refer to the locational criteria and
include recommendations for amendments. The Future Land Use
Element should only provide the general parameters and intent of the
regulations, and not go into dimensional and processing
requirements for non-residential development. This change should be
undertaken separately, as the transfer of the details to the land
development code may entail some substantial changes.
The sections on industrial uses in residential land use categories
(Sections B and C) belong in the future land use element as part of
the policies where each land use category is established. The effect
would be the same, but the language would be in the right place
where it can be easily found.
Commercial development with less than 50,000 sq. ft. (e.g. drugstores,
restaurants, convenience stores, etc.) can be located anywhere within
the ROR classification. Developments between 150,000 and 300,000
sq. ft. may also be allowed, but need to have access from an arterial
and go through the Special Approval (SA) process. The language of
Policy 2.10.2.2 is confusing because it states that if the project is
under a certain size, it does not require SA, but if it is between that
size and a higher cap, then it requires SA. Because there are two caps
listed in the table, someone may interpret that anything above the
maximum cap (the second column) can still be approved through SA.
The Commercial Locational Criteria (Section E) also belongs in the
LDC. This section establishes commercial locational criteria in order
to control the location of commercial development, encourage a
nodal development pattern, and restrict the further development of
linear, strip retail centers. The commercial locational criteria are
based on several factors: functional roadway classifications, location
Table 5 - 2. Commercial Locational Criteria
Location
Intersection of
collector and higher
Frontage
800’
Retail Size
w/o SA
<3,000
Res 1 through
Medium
Commercial Projects 16, UF-3
Intersection of
collector and higher
1,500’
<30,000
<150,000
Large Commercial
Projects
At least one arterial if
>150K sq. ft.
NA
<50,000
<300,000
Small Commercial
Projects
1
FLUM
Ag/R, IL, IH
ROR, MU, UF-3
1
(Sq. Ft.)
w/SA
<30,000
Use
Neighborhood
Retail
Neighborhood
Retail (0.23 FAR)
Comments
Page 10 shows 1,000 feet
of frontage (reconcile)
All access from classified
roads.
Infill and other situations exempt from frontage requirement.
5-11
Is the purpose of the commercial locational criteria to avoid strip
commercial by “allowing or prohibiting development” in certain areas,
or to guide the rezoning of certain sites for commercial use? The way
the policies and LUOP are written, they read as development
standards, not policy for future growth. The Plan needs to set the
general framework for future growth, and the LDC needs to include
the detailed regulations to implement that framework. Developers
shouldn’t have to go to the Plan to see if their developments meet
the standards of the Plan. If they meet Code, they should inherently
be consistent with the Plan.
Regardless of the way it is written, the Plan states that the intent of
the criteria is to avoid strip commercial (and concentrate it within
nodes instead), but that has not been applied to the Urban Core
corridors. Commercial uses can locate anywhere along the urban core
corridors if they are classified as ROR on the FLUM (Policy 2.10.4.2),
and most of the sites along the corridors are. “Appropriate Infill
Commercial Projects” (not defined in the Plan) may also be exempted
by the Board from locating within nodes.
Should the criteria apply to the urban core? Even though it would
make sense to concentrate commercial development in nodes, the
properties with ROR designation are already allowed to have
commercial development. Adding a restriction at this time would
create a large number of nonconforming situations and could be
perceived as taking development rights away from the property
owners. Additionally, instead of facilitating redevelopment, this
provision could instead obstruct redevelopment and infill.
Considering the low density, intensity and building height allowed in
the GC zoning district, and the more intensive standards allowed in
the ROR category, there is potential for making changes to the LDC
to allow the intensification of GC development at nodes. A new set of
locational criteria should be developed to specify the instances where
GC-zoned sites along the urban corridors could allow more intensive
development (at nodes).
Since the commercial criteria applies to areas other than the
commercial corridors, it is recommended that the clean-up of these
sections (GOPs and Land Use Operative Provisions) be undertaken
separately. The sections need to be consolidated, trimmed to only
include the relevant language in the Comp Plan, and regulations and
standards should be moved to the LDC.
Other ways to encourage commercial development to locate in nodes
include streamlining the approval process and development
regulations to make it easier for developers to focus on developing
the nodes. Additionally, encouraging the development of office and
residential between nodes can also be encouraged through the same
type of incentives.
Table 3 - 1. Commercial Size Limitations by FLUM Category
FLU Category
Conservation Lands
Agricultural/Rural
Estate Rural
Residential-1
Residential-3
Residential-6
Residential-9
Residential-12
Residential-16
Urban Fringe
Retail/Office/Residential
Low Intensity Office
Medium Intensity Office
Commercial Size Limitation
N/A
Small
Small
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium & Large*
Large
Small (office uses only)
Max. 10,000 sq. ft.
5-12
FLU Category
Commercial Size Limitation
Industrial-Heavy
Small
Industrial-Light
Small
Urban Industrial
Small
Mixed-Use Community/Activity Center-1
Large
Large
Medium
Mixed-Use Community/R
Medium
Mixed-Use Community/RU
Medium
Major Attractors
N/A
Major Public/Semi-Public
N/A
Public/Semi-Public (1)
N/A
Major Recreation/Open Space
N/A
Small: <30,000 sq. ft. of gross building area (Max. FAR 0.23; limited to
neighborhood retail uses)
Medium: <150,000 sq. ft. of gross building area (Max. FAR 0.23; limited to
neighborhood retail uses)
Large: <300,000 sq. ft. of gross building area
* Under certain circumstances
The comprehensive plan not only contains the specific standards for
locating commercial development in nodes, but it also includes detail
on which land use categories can have the various levels of
commercial (small, medium and large) , and additional size or use
restrictions. Developers have to sort through standards in the LDC as
well as the comp plan.
The County’s Future Land Use Map is not clearly reflected on the
zoning map. The ROR designation, for instance, is intended to include
a mix of retail, office and residential development (not necessarily on
the same site). However, the zoning map shows most of the ROR
along the urban core corridors as “commercial.” Without the criteria
being enforced, the zoning map shows the potential for strip
commercial development up and down those corridors.
As part of the urban corridors project, some of that confusion needs
to be cleaned up, but there would be more cleaning to do for the rest
of the county at a later time.
5-13
Figure 3 - 1. 2030 Future Traffic Circulation Functional Classification Map
Source: Manatee County
5-14
Recommended Comprehensive Plan (Plan) Amendments:
Several issues have been identified in this comprehensive plan
assessment. Even though most of the issues raised apply countywide, it is not the intent of this exercise to make any changes that
would affect property outside the study area (urban corridors).
Therefore, the following recommendations will be specifically focused
on applying to the study area. Table 5-2 contains a list of
recommended changes to the Comprehensive Plan that would also
be applicable to other parts of the County. The table notes which
changes can be done as part of this project (N=Now) and which
would need to be implemented at a later time (L=Later), under a
separate scope.
The general recommendations applicable to the Urban Corridors are
as follows:




Work with existing Future Land Use designations, as opposed to
creating new ones.
Differentiate the urban corridors; noting higher density and
intensity standards as it was previously done for the CRAs and is
currently done for the UIRA.
Exempt development in the Urban Corridors from net density and
intensity. Apply only gross calculations.
Exempt the Urban Corridors from the current locational criteria.
Other recommended changes to the Comprehensive Plan are as
follows. These may be done in phases.
1. Eliminate references to Rule 9J-5 and the Growth
management Act.
2. Streamline Section B, Purpose, of the Plan to eliminate
provisions that are already stated in the Florida Statutes.
3. Move section C.2.3, Plan Amendments, to the Land
Development Code (LDC).
4. Eliminate Section C.2.5, Plan Variance. The Plan should not be
subject to variances. The need for variances probably arose
from incorporating detailed development regulations in the
plan. If those are minimized, the need for variances is
diminished.
5. Eliminate Section D.2, Special Exceptions to Required
Consistency with this Comprehensive Plan. Most of these
provisions are either addressed by State law or belong in the
LDC under a new section - Vested Rights.
6. Eliminate Section D.3, Nonconformities with Respect to this
Comprehensive Plan. Should be addressed in the LDC.
7. Section D.5, Specific Property-Development Conditions,
should be moved to policies under an Objective addressing
specific area policies.
8. Section E, Public Participation should be reviewed in the future
to ensure consistency with the Statutes and the LDC.
9. Section F, Definitions needs to be revisited/updated to
address any new terms introduced as part of this project.
Some terms that will need to be defined at this time include:
a. Urban Corridors
b. Infill
c. Strip Commercial
10. FLUE Maps:
a. The Map Series Key lists Map G – Urban Infill and
Redevelopment Area. However, the map is not
included in the map series. Need to include a map.
b. Clarify that the CRA maps (I and J) show the TCEAs (the
CRAs were recently eliminated).
5-15
c. Amend the Urban Core Area map to include Lake
Flores.
d. Include a map of the Urban Corridors.
11. Revisit the Land Use Operative Provisions to clarify
methodologies and concepts:
a. The future land use map should be a parcel based map
to ensure all parcels at the time of adoption include a
single future land use classification. If that is done,
then there should not be an issue with any parcels
having multiple designations. The only way that a site
would end up with two or more designations is if a
property owner buys property adjacent to the site and
the new site has a different designation. In such case,
the developer should be required to either calculate
densities and intensities for each parcel separately, or
apply for a future land use map amendment. No
exemptions should be given to PDs, DRIs or any other
type of development. This, however, should be done at
a later time as it entails remapping the entire county.
b. Exempt urban corridors from meeting the
requirements of Sec. A.3 (Multiple Future Land Use
Categories or Multiple Uses on a Project).
c. The methodology for calculating density and intensity
on sites with multiple future land use designations
should be addressed in the LDC. The zoning would
dictate the maximum density and intensity (assuming
the zoning district would already be consistent with
the Plan).
d. Add new methodology for calculating density and
intensity for projects that include a vertical mix of uses.
Recommend applying FAR to include all uses (defines
12.
13.
14.
15.
how big the building can be on the site), and
calculating density based on the entire size of the site.
e. The Plan should only address gross density. The LDC
can address open space, environmental protection,
clustering, and compatibility requirements.
Move sections B, Industrial Uses Prohibited in Residential
Categories, and C, Residential Uses Prohibited in Industrial
Categories to the policies of their respective future land use
categories under Goal 2.2 of the Future Land Use Element.
Ensure that the policies for each individual residential and
industrial category include a policy to that effect.
Land Use Operative Provisions, Section D, Distributing
Commercial Potential on a Project Site, needs to be moved to
the Commercial Locational Criteria section (E).
Exempt the urban corridors from the current commercial
locational criteria, and address the issue of strip commercial
and mixed-use nodes with new language in the GOPs.
Revisit the Commercial Locational Criteria:
a. Consider moving the general guidelines from the Land
Use Operative Provisions to the GOPs, under Goal 2.10.
b. Ensure the implementation of the criteria is done
through zoning, i.e. a rezoning request would need to
be consistent with the criteria, not a development site
plan. Once the zoning is approved, the requirements
of that zoning district would take care of the
implementation of the development size and distance
standards.
c. Clarify focus – redirect various levels of commercial
development to nodes, and encourage office and
multi-family along corridors unless part of mixed-use
5-16
developments. Allow certain types of commercial (uses
typically not pedestrian oriented) along the corridors.
16. Move relevant provisions of Section G, Community Design
and Compatibility, to the GOPs. The rest should be in the
Technical Document (Data & Analysis).
17. See Table 5-2 for recommended changes to specific Goals,
Objectives and Policies (GOPs).
5-17
Table 5 - 3. Recommended Changes to the Comprehensive Plan
Comprehensive Plan Reference
Comments
When
Introduction, Section B, Purpose
Delete references to Rule 9J-5
N
Introduction, Section C.2.3, Plan Amendments.
Recommend moving to the LDC
L
Introduction, Section C.2.5, Plan Variance.
Recommend deleting
L
Introduction, Section D.2, Special Exceptions To Required Consistency With This
Comprehensive Plan
Move to LDC – create new Vested Rights section
L
Introduction, Section D.3, Nonconformities with Respect to this Comprehensive
Plan
Addressed in LDC (with minor adjustments in the
LDC)
N
Introduction, Section D.5, Specific Property Development Conditions
Move to Future Land Use Element’s (FLUE) Goals,
Objectives and Policies (GOPs)
N
Introduction, Section E - Public Participation
Trim to take out items that are in the Statutes or the
LDC.
L
Introduction, Section E - Public Participation
Delete requirement for workshop (E.3.2.1) as it has
not been done in the past.
N
Definitions
Reconcile with LDC (relevant definitions are now in
both documents) and Florida Statutes.
N
Delete 2 terms not used in the Plan.
Amend “FAR” and “Gross Residential Density”
definitions to address Urban Corridors.
Delete Manufactured Home definition. Add Mobile
Home (changing terms throughout the Plan).
5-18
Comments
When
Delete the words “Professional/Personal Services”
from “Office” to avoid confusion with personal
services and achieve consistency with LDC.
Add new definition for Strip Commercial and Urban
Corridor,
Land Use Operative Provisions (LUOP), Section A, Using the Future Land Use Map
Move to LDC (combine with interpretation of zoning
map boundaries section) and simplify.
N
LUOP, Section B, Industrial Uses Prohibited in Residential Categories
Move to FLUE GOPs.
N
LUOP, Section C, Residential Uses Permitted in Industrial Categories
Move to FLUE GOPs.
N
LUOP, Section D, Distributing Commercial Potential on a Project Site
Move to LDC
N
LUOP, Section E. Commercial Locational Criteria
Revisit, simplify, keep general criteria in the Plan,
move standards to the LDC
L
LUOP, Section F, Level of Service Review Process
Delete duplicate provisions, move some sections to
GOPs and others to LDC.
N
LUOP, Section G, Community Design and Compatibility
The status and applicability of this section is not
clear. Recommend moving to chapter 9 of the LDC –
some language should be moved to the FLUE
N
FLUE GOPs
Update references to Building and Development
Services Department.
N
Delete references to 9J-5.
FLUE GOPs
Revisit references to Future Land Use Concept and
consider changing to Character Compatibility Vision
graphic.
L
5-19
Comments
When
FLUE Objective 2.1.3. Revitalization of the Urban Core Area
Perform minor revisions to address mixed-use and
multi-story development in the urban core and
urban service areas.
N
FLUE Policy: 2.1.3.1 Consider the establishment of minimum density requirements
within the urban core area, in association with planning efforts for increased
mobility through greater street connectivity and transit services.
Recommend discussing this issue with the
Affordable Housing Board and consider exempting
the urban corridors. Minimum densities in the urban
area would deter development. It is a good practice,
but the area is not ready for that yet.
L
Policy: 2.1.3.2 Consider the establishment of higher floor area ratios in the urban
area.
The policy does not specify higher than what, but
the adopted FARs for zoning districts in the urban
area are the same as for other parts of the County.
Modify the policy.
N
Policy: 2.1.3.3. By 2015 establish urban development criteria within the Manatee
County Land Development Code.
The LDC does not differentiate between the urban
area and other areas of the county. To be done as
part of this project. Should change the policy to
“maintain” instead of “establish.”
N
Add a new policy directing the County to offer
incentives for infill and new development along
urban corridors.
Policy: 2.1.4.3. Within the areas designated for planned residential and light
industrial mixed use intense development and other intense economic activity,
consider an array of incentives which may include: (a) expedited development
review and permitting approvals; (b) density / intensity bonuses.
Reword policy to clarify what “planned
development” means in this context.
L
Policy: 2.2.1.1. Establish and define the following land use categories. No land shall
be designated on the Future Land Use Map using any future land use category or
overlay district other than those listed in Table 2-1 as part of the Future Land Use
Recommend keeping the future land use
designation for the urban corridors, but allowing
N
5-20
Comments
When
Classification System. The future land use categories and overlays listed in this
summary table are more completely defined and described in other policies
contained within this Element.
additional density and intensity allowance (as
currently set for the UIRA) to the urban corridors.
Same Policy 2.2.1.1.
Reconcile the “General Range of Potential Uses”
column with the individual policies.
Allow Lodging/Hotels in the higher density
residential land use categories.
N
Revisit the relationship between FLUM categories
and Zoning Districts. A table showing which zoning
districts are consistent with the various future land
use categories is necessary in the LDC. Previous
intent to create one were abandoned as the
relationship is not that clear – too many variables to
consider. This change may need to be done later as
it may entail some changes that would apply
countywide.
L
Revisit MU categories (applicability and standards)
L
Exempt urban corridors from meeting net density.
N/L
Revisit Commercial Size column as part of a rewrite
of the commercial locational criteria.
Reconsider allowing Short Term Ag in ROR.
Policies 2.2.1.7 through 28 include dimensional, use and locational standards for
the various future land use categories.
These provisions were already stated in Table 2-1.
Recommend reconciling the policies and the table to
avoid discrepancies.
N/L
These policies include standards that are very
detailed and should be applied at the zoning level
5-21
Comments
When
instead. It is difficult to apply standards at the FLUM
level and still be consistent with zoning district
regulations. Propose moving detailed dimensional
and use regulations from the comp plan to the LDC
at a later phase.
Same Policies 2.2.1.7 through 28
Eliminate the Special Approval requirement, and
instead note that the LDC shall require Special
Permit approval for certain uses that . . .
N/L
Propose to do this only for the land use categories
present along the urban corridors at this time. The
LDC defines Special Permit Uses as “deemed to be
generally compatible with the other land uses
permitted in a zoning district. However, because of
their unique characteristics or potential impacts on
the surrounding neighborhood and the County as a
whole, such uses are subject to individual review of
its location, design, configuration, operation and the
public need for the particular use at the particular
location proposed to assure consistency with this
Code and the Comprehensive Plan.”
Policy 2.6.1.2. Require the use of planned unit development, in conjunction with
the mitigation techniques described in policy 2.6.1.1, for projects where project
size requires the submittal of a site development plan in conformance with the
special approval process in order to achieve compatibility between these large
projects and adjacent existing and future land uses.
Triggers PD for a great number of projects. Revisit at
a later time.
L
5-22
Comments
When
Policy: 2.6.5.3 Encourage, within currently undeveloped areas designated for new
growth, and within infill development projects not creating incompatible land use
patterns, the vertical integration of uses by mixing of uses within a single structure.
Review to determine if this policy is needed or
already stated elsewhere. Delete if it is a duplicate.
L
Policy: 2.6.5.5 Ensure urban infill projects are compatible to their setting and
designed to contribute to the overall enhancement of the existing neighborhood.
Compatibility consideration will include building massing, vertical character and
setbacks within the existing urban neighborhood. Urban neighborhood projects
shall preserve the street grid pattern, on street parking and sidewalks characteristic
of existing urban neighborhoods.
Requiring compatibility with “existing development”
may not be appropriate as there may be some
development in the surrounding area that is not as
intensive as the area is intended to be. For instance,
would a 5 story mixed use development at 14th and
Cortez be restricted to one story because most of
the development in the area is one story single-use
buildings? Any references to compatibility with
existing development need to be revisited to ensure
they don’t do that. Established residential
neighborhoods will continue to be protected.
L
Objective 2.6.6. Regional Activity Centers
Consider merging with Policy 2.2.2.8 (RAC).
L
Policy: 2.8.1.1 Maintain a fast-tracking project review process for any
redevelopment project which proposes the change of a zoning district or land use
which is non-conforming to the Future Land Use Map, or to the commercial
locational criteria. Also, maintain similar procedures for any redevelopment project
that is part of any special area within which building code violations are more
prevalent, or is part of any area identified as having a concentrations of
substandard housing this fast- tracking process shall be maintained in the
County's land development regulations. (See also Obj. 6.1.4)
Implement.
L
Policy: 2.9.3.5 Encourage the development of streetscape enhancements within the
urban area of Manatee County. Enhancements may include but not be limited to,
street furniture, decorative lighting, landscaping, sidewalks on both sides of the
street. (See also Objectives 5.3.3)
Will need a streetscape plan specifying the location
and types of street furniture required. Find funding
or require developer to implement in conjunction
NA
5-23
Comments
When
with development. Basic elements (sidewalk,
parkway) will be required.
OBJECTIVE 2.10. Commercial Development Consistent with Need for Office,
Wholesale or Retail Uses, and Consistent with Sound Planning Principles.
Revisit entire system. Need to be able to translate
into zoning without relying on rezones to PD.
L
Policy: 2.10.1.2. Promote the development of commercial uses in planned
commercial centers, and discourage scattered, incremental commercial
development.
Minimize reliance on PD zoning.
L
Policy: 2.10.2.2. Maintain the following commercial project size thresholds, which
may be exceeded only through the special approval process, to ensure that the
increased impacts generally associated with larger commercial projects are
adequately evaluated and mitigated. Table 2-3 below identifies these maximum
gross building square footages, by category of commercial use, not requiring
special approval.
Eliminate requirements for Special Approval for
projects in the Urban Corridors.
Policy: 2.10.4.2 Prohibit the consideration of any development order establishing
the potential for commercial development, where the proposed project site is
inconsistent with commercial locational criteria. The policy provides for exceptions.
Not all the exceptions need to be listed as they are
addressed in other parts of the Plan or the LDC.
Streamline policy.
L
Policy: 2.10.4.3 Require that all proposed commercial uses meet, in addition to
commercial locational criteria, the following commercial development standards:
[…]
The policy contains development standards at the
FLUM level, which is difficult to implement at the
zoning level. Will need to revisit implementation at a
later phase. Will address the urban core during this
phase.
L
New Goal 2.14
Added a new Goal and Objective for the specific
development policies that were brought in from the
LUOP.
N
Traffic Objective 5.0.4.
Change “establish” to “expand” the TCEAs.
N
N/L
Rely more on Special Use Permit instead of Special
Approval to ensure compatibility of certain uses (at a
later time).
5-24
Comments
When
Policy: 5.0.4.5(a) a)
Adopt provisions in the Land Development Code and
Administrative Procedures within 12 months of the effective date of this
Ordinance.
Need to implement
L
Policy: 5.2.2.7. Require the provision of adequate off-street parking for all land
uses, to avoid the use of roadways as parking areas, thus preserving the capacity
of such roadways to carry traffic between land uses.
Modify. Contrary to complete street goal.
N
Policy: 5.2.2.9 regarding off-street parking
Modify to allow off-site and on-street parking.
N
Table 5-1
The twenty-year needed ROW column in Table 5-1
should be revised as part of the complete streets
standards currently being evaluated by the County
L
N = Now; L = Later
5-25
Figure 5 - 2. GOPs referencing the Commercial Locational Criteria
Comments
Objective 2.10.4: Locational Criteria and Development Standards: Consistency of all commercial uses approved with required locational
criteria and development standards.
Retail/Office/Residential (ROR)
 “In areas where existing development is recognized utilizing the Retail/Office/Residential
category, or where the spatial form of the Retail/Office/Residential designation on the Future
Land Use map is accordingly inconsistent with the commercial locational criteria contained in
this element; development or redevelopment within the area designated under this category
shall not be required to achieve compliance with the commercial locational criteria described
in Sections 2.10.4.1 and 2.10.4.2 of this element.” (p. 35, Policy: 2.2.1.17.4 (e))
 “In areas where the Retail/Office/Residential category is designated in a manner entirely
consistent with the commercial locational criteria, all commercial development or
redevelopment shall be conducted in a manner consistent with the commercial location
criteria and development standards contained in this element.” (p. 35, Policy 2.2.1.17.4 (f))
Industrial-Heavy (IH)
 “Wholesale commercial uses, intensive commercial uses, and those neighborhood retail uses
which are located or proposed within a planned office or industrial park are exempt from any
commercial location criteria contained within this element. However, any project utilizing this
exemption shall obtain approval of a site development plan, or similar approval, as part of
obtaining a suitable zoning for the project.” (p. 39, Policy 2.2.1.19.4)
Mixed-Use (MU)
 “Development or redevelopment within the area designated under this category shall not be
required to achieve compliance with the commercial locational criteria described in objectives
2.10.4.1 and 2.10.4.2 of this element.” (p. 43, Policy 2.2.1.21.4)
Policy (e) is very hard to understand. It
needs to be reworded to make sure it is
clear that development in the ROR future
land use category is exempt from the
commercial locational criteria.
Policy (f) is unnecessary. Policy 2.10.4.2
exempts ROR from meeting the criteria.
The use of the word “planned” doesn’t
always mean Planned Unit Development.”
Recommend rewording to clarify that a
“planned” office or industrial park in this
case does mean a “planned development”
going through PD approval, rather than a
coordinated development.
Policy 2.10.4.1 states that new commercial
development shall be limited to well-defined
nodes, but Policy 2.10.4.2 exempts MU from
this requirement. This policy (2.2.1.21.4)
exempts development in MU from locating
5-26
Comments
in nodes. There is no need to say the same
thing in two places. Recommend deleting
this policy.
Mixed-Use – Community Center Level 1 (MU-C/AC-1)
 “Development within the area designated under this subarea shall not be required to achieve
compliance with the commercial locational criteria described in Objectives 2.10.4.1 and
2.10.4.2 of this element.” (p. 53, Policy 2.2.1.28.2)
Goal 2.8: Reduction of land uses which are inconsistent with community character and
future land uses
 “Maintain a fast-tracking project review process for any redevelopment project that proposes
the change of a zoning district or land use that is nonconforming to the Future Land Use Map,
or to the commercial locational criteria. Also, maintain similar procedures for any
redevelopment project that is part of any area identified as having a concentration of
substandard housing. This fast-tracking process shall be maintained in the County’s land
development regulations.” (p. 96, Policy 2.8.1.1)
Objective 2.10.3: Adequate, safe and appropriate access to new commercial uses approved
following plan adoption.
 Policy: 2.10.3.1 Require that access to commercial uses be established on at least one
roadway, operating at, or better than, the adopted level of service. Access which is limited
only to roadways that carry traffic within residential neighborhoods shall be considered
unacceptable for commercial uses. An exception shall be made for neotraditional projects
that […]. An exception shall be made for DRIs and Large Project developments that […].
Implementation Mechanism: Review of level of service and generalized roadway function
for roadways from which access to a commercial project is proposed.
 Policy: 2.10.3.2 Require that all proposed small and medium commercial uses can be
directly accessed from at least one roadway shown on the Roadway Functional
Classification Map as collector or higher, at time of issuance of a development order. An
Same comment
Need to implement in LDC
TCEA areas are already exempt from the LOS
requirement.
The language in this policy is very repetitive.
Recommend streamlining.
Consolidate all commercial locational criteria
in one place. Word as a policy (course of
action) and move detailed regulations to
LDC. This may only be done for the
commercial corridors at this time.
5-27


Comments
exception shall be made for neotraditional projects that […]. An exception shall be made
for DRI’s and Large Project developments that […].
Policy: 2.10.3.3 Require that all proposed large commercial uses exceeding 150,000
square feet be located within an area of high access and directly accessed from at least
one roadway shown on the Existing Roadway Functional Classification Map (Map 5A) as
arterial, at time of review for issuance of a development order. High access locations
should provide numerous options for trip distribution, provide for multi-modal
opportunities and able to move large volume of traffic. Furthermore, require that all
access points be limited to functionally classified roadways or frontage roads:
Implementation Mechanism(s):
a) Manatee County Planning Department review of proposed development orders for
commercial uses for compliance with this policy.
b) Placement of conditions, as necessary, on development orders when issued, so as to
ensure compliance with this policy.
Policy: 2.10.3.4 Permit exceptions to Policies 2.10.3.2 and 2.10.3.3 only in instances where
required access criteria are conflicting with other access criteria associated with an
Entranceway, as described in Policies 2.9.4.1 & 2.9.4.2 and in Urban Core Areas where
access on a local road provides a safer alternative than direct access to the functionally
classified roadway, or within the MU-C Future Land Use Category and its Sub Areas.
Objective: 2.10.4 Locational Criteria and Development Standards: Consistency of all
commercial uses approved with required locational criteria and development standards.
Policy 2.10.4.1 Limit the location of all new commercial development to well-defined nodes, or
compact groupings, to:
 Provide a reasonable compromise of predictable, yet flexible, commercial locations for all
residents and business interests in Manatee County.
 Increase safety and maintain the vehicular capacity of public roads by discouraging linear
“strip” commercial development and the multiple access points which are likely to
accompany such linear commercial development.
The concept of establishing criteria to avoid
strip commercial/concentrating commercial
development in nodes is ideal. However, this
should be an objective and associated
policies calling for detailed locational criteria
to be established in the LDC. Need to define:
 “well-defined nodes” and/or “compact
groupings”
5-28



Facilitate compliance with the commercial project access criteria contained in Objective
2.10.3.
Maximize the accessibility and viability of commercial development by using location and
grouping to maximize the number of trips to the commercial site.
Establish conveniently located commercial uses for residents of Manatee County.
Comments

“strip commercial development”
All policies (and exceptions) should be
contained under this objective, so they are
easier to locate and conflicts are avoided.
Policy 2.10.4.2 Prohibit the consideration of any development order establishing the potential
for commercial development, where the proposed project site is inconsistent with commercial
locational criteria. Consistency shall be determined through the application of the commercial
location review process described in the operative provisions contained in this Element. Permitted
exceptions to these requirements are limited to:
[The policy lists 19 situations where the commercial criteria won’t apply]
No exception to commercial locational criteria provided for under this policy shall be used as a
precedent for establishing other commercial development inconsistent with this Comprehensive
Plan.
Nothing in this policy shall require the issuance of a development order solely on the basis of
compliance with commercial locational criteria. Compliance with other commercial development
standards contained in Policy 2.10.4.3 below, and with all other goals, objectives, and policies of
this Comprehensive Plan is also required for issuance of a development order approving
commercial uses. In particular, compliance with the policies of Objectives 2.6.1 and 2.6.2 is
mandatory for approval of any commercial use within a residential designation

Policy 2.10.4.3 Require that all proposed commercial uses meet, in addition to commercial
locational criteria, the following commercial development standards:
1. Any proposed commercial site must be sized and configured to provide for adequate
setbacks, and buffers from any adjacent existing or future residential uses.
Items 1 through 3 are unnecessary, and if
kept, they should be moved to the LDC.
The first part of Item 4 is important but
doesn’t stand out. Should have its own
policy (if not moved to the LDC). The rest of
item 4 is also unnecessary as it is already


Simplify this section. Some of these
exemptions are not necessary as they
are addressed in the LDC (e.g.
nonconforming structures, compliance
with other regulations, etc.)
Focuses on exceptions when it should
instead focus on applicability.
Amend at a later time to clean up and
focus on applicability. This policy is
cross-referenced numerous times
throughout the Future Land Use
Element. Should not rely so much on
cross-references as numbering systems
change over time. [The definition of
Large Commercial Size Limitation, for
instance, refer to policy 2.10.3.5, which
does not exist]
5-29
2. Any proposed commercial site must be configured and sized to allow for orientation of
structures, site access points, parking areas, and loading areas on the site in a manner
which minimizes any adverse impact on any adjacent residential use.
3. No proposed commercial site shall represent an intrusion into any residential area. As
used in this standard, “intrusion” means located between two residential uses or sites
which are not separated by the right-of-way of any roadway functionally classified as
collector or higher, unless the proposed commercial use meets the definition of “infill
commercial development,” demonstrated through evaluation of existing land use patterns
in this vicinity of the proposed use, and pursuant to guidelines contained in commercial
locational criteria found in the operative provisions of this Element. Permitted exceptions
listed in Policy 2.10.4.2 shall not be required to meet this development standard. No such
intrusion shall be found in neo-traditional developments approved as such by the County,
as a mixture of uses are encouraged within those projects. No such intrusion shall be
found in DRI and Large Project developments where commercial uses are internal to
neighborhoods, approved as such by the County, as a mixture of uses are encouraged
within those neighborhoods.
4. Commercial nodes meeting the requirements specified in the operative provisions of this
Element shall, additionally, be spaced at least one-half mile apart, as measured between
the centers of two nodes. However, where two commercial nodes have been established
by the development of commercial uses prior to plan adoption, and are spaced less than
the minimum required one-half mile, then a waiver of this commercial development
standard may be considered. Preferentially, in instances where previous development has
not established a pattern of land uses inconsistent with commercial locational criteria or
development standards, nodes shall be spaced no less than one mile apart. Neotraditional projects shall be exempt from this requirement. DRI and Large Project
developments that have mixed uses with a residential component that receive approval to
locate commercial uses internal to neighborhoods shall be exempt from this requirement.
Comments
addressed in the non-conforming section of
the LDC.
5-30
“Our homegrown Millennials are leaving and not coming back.”
Millennials Presentation to the Board
CHAPTER 6
L AND D EVEL OPMENT
C ODE A SSESSMENT
AND
R ECOMMENDATIONS
LDC ASSESSMENT
Contents
Figures
Land Development Code Assessment ............................................................ 1
Figure 6 - 1. Commercial Zoning .................................................................... 5
Figure 6 - 2. Definitions Related to the Commercial Locational Criteria ....... 9
Figure 6 - 3. LDC Recommended Changes ................................................... 10
Figure 6 - 4. Comparative Regulatory Analysis: Manatee County and the City
of Bradenton – 14th Street W ....................................................................... 13
Figure 6 - 5. 14th Street Corridor Future Land Use Map............................... 15
Figure 6 - 6. 14th Street Corridor Zoning Map .............................................. 16
Figure 6 - 7. Comparison of Regulations applicable to the 14th Street
Corridor ........................................................................................................ 17
Figure 6 - 8. Comparative Regulatory Analysis: Manatee County and the City
of Bradenton – Manatee Avenue W ............................................................ 35
Figure 6 - 9. Manatee Avenue West Corridor Future Land Use Map .......... 37
Figure 6 - 10. Manatee Avenue West Corridor Zoning Map ........................ 38
Figure 6 - 11. Comparison of Regulations applicable to the Manatee Avenue
West Corridor ............................................................................................... 39
Excessive Amount of Zoning Districts ........................................................ 1
Planned Development Districts ................................................................. 2
Land Uses ................................................................................................... 3
Locational Criteria ...................................................................................... 3
Finding the Information ......................................................................... 3
Applicability/Effectiveness: .................................................................... 4
Development Standards ............................................................................ 4
Public Realm............................................................................................... 5
Building Height ........................................................................................... 6
Architectural Design ................................................................................... 6
Building Form Standards ........................................................................ 7
Building Design Standards...................................................................... 8
Neighboring Communities ......................................................................... 8
6-i
LDC ASSESSMENT
Land Development Code Assessment
The purpose of the Manatee County Land Development Code is to
implement the County’s Comprehensive Plan by establishing
regulations, procedures and standards for review and approval of all
development and use of land in the unincorporated portions of the
county. The Manatee County LDC was adopted in 1991 and has been
amended numerous times over the years. The County recently
completed a reorganization of the Code, but no major changes were
made to the regulations or procedures. During the reorganization
effort, the County considered making some changes but decided to
undertake changes under separate scopes to ensure adequate
community input.
The assessment of the code during the reorganization identified a
series of issues that will need to be addressed in the future. They
included the following:
Excessive Amount of Zoning Districts
The County has established twenty-seven “standard” zoning districts:








CON = Conservation
A = General Agriculture
A-1 = Agricultural Suburban
VIL = Village Districts
RSF-1 = Residential Single Family (1 upa)
RSF-4.5 = Residential Single Family (4.5 upa)



















RSMH-4.5 = Residential Single Family Manufactured Home (4.5
upa)
RSMH-6 = Residential Single Family Manufactured Home (6 upa)
RDD-3 = Residential Duplex (3 upa)
RDD-4.5 = Residential Duplex (4.5 upa)
RDD-6 = Residential Duplex (6 upa)
RMF-6 = Residential Multi-family (6 upa)
RMF-9 = Residential Multi-family (9 upa)
PR-S = Professional Small Office
PR-M = Professional Medium Office
NC-S = Neighborhood Commercial Small
NC-M = Neighborhood Commercial Medium
GC = General Commercial
HC = Heavy Commercial
RVP = Commercial RV Park
LM = Light Manufacturing
HM = Heavy Manufacturing
EX = Excavation
MP-1 = Master Planned Institutional
The County has also established fifteen (15) “Planned Development”
zoning districts for “specialized purposes, where a proposed project
warrants greater flexibility than a standard district provides; when the
6-1
LDC ASSESSMENT
Comprehensive Plan requires a planned development review process;
or when the ability to attach conditions to a site plan is warranted.”















PDA—Planned Development Agriculture.
PDR—Planned Development Residential.
PDMH—Planned Development Manufactured Home.
PDRV—Planned Development Recreational Vehicle.
PDC—Planned Development Commercial.
PDO—Planned Development Office.
PDRP—Planned Development Research Park.
PDI—Planned Development Industrial.
PDUI—Planned Development Urban Industrial.
PDPI—Planned Development Public Interest.
PDW—Planned Development Waterfront.
PDMU—Planned Development Mixed Use.
PDPM—Planned Development Port Manatee.
PDEZ—Planned Development Encouragement Zone
PDGC—Planned Development Golf Course.
Finally, the County established sixteen (16) overlay districts, half of
which are similar to the overlay districts established on the FLUM
(shown with a *).








AI: Airport Impact Overlay District*
EW: Entranceways Overlay District
FIG: Florida International Gateway Overlay District*
PCV: Parrish Commercial Village Overlay District
HA: Historical and Archaeological Overlay District*
HV: Historic Vista Protection Area Overlay District
HTC: Historic Terra Ceia Overlay District
DA: Duplex Access Overlay District








CH: Coastal High Hazard Area Overlay District*
ST: Special Treatment Overlay District
WPE: Evers Reservoir Watershed Protection Overlay District*
WPM: Lake Manatee Reservoir Watershed Protection Overlay
District*
WPR: Peace River Watershed Protection Overlay District*
NC: North Central Overlay District
WR: Whitfield Residential Overlay District
RV: Restricted Vehicle Overlay District
Considering how many zoning districts are already in place, the
recommendations in this report will use existing districts, rather than
creating new ones.
Planned Development Districts
The planned development zoning option has been used in Manatee
County as a way to allow deviations from the regulations of the
standard zoning districts, or to apply pre-established detailed
standards for certain types of uses, or to ensure that the proposed
project goes through public meetings and Board approvals. The
various PD districts were designed to apply to specific use types
(residential, commercial, industrial, etc.) and set specific standards for
development (use, setbacks, open space, and other requirements).
The purpose of a planned district should be to allow the development
of unique sustainable communities, which could not be
accommodated within the existing district regulations, but can be
approved through a process where it is demonstrated that they
would represent a benefit to the County and its residents. As such,
the standards contained in the code for a planned development
rezoning should be flexible in terms of dimensional standards, but
more stringent when it comes to the provision of a public benefit. If a
6-2
LDC ASSESSMENT
property owner within the urban core area were to go through
planned development approval, the resulting design would not be
guaranteed to be urban in form as the standards for most PDs are
suburban in nature.
Even though the proposed changes to the comprehensive plan and
LDC for the urban corridors are intended to stir applicants away from
having to process developments through PD approval, the option of
using PD is still available to applicants. Therefore, it is recommended
that a new PD zoning district, initially applicable only to the
properties along the Urban Corridors, be developed in order to
achieve the purpose noted above for PDs. This change can be done at
a later time, after the urban corridor regulations have been used for a
period of time.
Land Uses
Most of the County’s future land use categories and zoning districts
allow for a mix of uses; however, the terminology used in the LDC
implies that most districts allow primarily single uses. The schedule of
uses in the LDC needs to be revised to note the commercial and
residential uses allowed by the Future Land Use Element. A good
example of this is the General Commercial zoning district, which has
been used to implement the ROR land use category along the urban
corridors. As currently adopted, this category allows duplex and
single family homes (which are not appropriate along the urban
corridors), and does not allow multi-family, which should be
encouraged along the corridors and in the nodes as part of mixeduse developments.
In contrast to the high activity desired along 14th Street West and
Manatee Avenue West, there is a segment of US 41 where the
intensity of development has intentionally been kept low to minimize
the impact of development on the Whitfield community. The
increases in density and intensity mentioned in this report would not
apply to that area. Those sites are designated Low Intensity Office on
the Future Land Use Map, and are zoned PR-S (Professional Small).
Additionally, the land development regulations restrict the size of
buildings on those sites.
Locational Criteria
The concept of the locational criteria for commercial development is
valid. It pushes the more intensive commercial development into
nodes and allows for less intensive commercial along the corridors
between nodes preventing strip commercial development. However,
there are a few problems with the way it has been applied in Manatee
County:
Finding the Information
The narrative in the comprehensive plan refers to where commercial
development can go based on site location (street classification), land
use category, and development size (small, medium and large). For
instance, the LDC lists banks as a permitted use in the General
Commercial (GC) district, but the size of the bank is restricted by the
Comp Plan to 3,000 sq. ft. if located in the Ag or Industrial land use
categories, to 30,000 if located in a residential land use category, and
50,000 if located in the ROR, MU or UF-3 land use categories (Table
2-1 restricts commercial in these categories to “Large” and Table 2-2
specifies that “Large” is limited to 50,000 unless approved for up to
300,000 through Special Approval).
The commercial locational criteria then states that small and medium
commercial projects in the Ag, Industrial and Residential land use
categories are limited to “neighborhood retail uses.” The developer of
the bank may at that point assume that since a bank is not a retail
6-3
LDC ASSESSMENT
use, the criteria is not applicable. It is not until we check the definition
section to see that “banks” are deemed “Neighborhood Retail Uses.”
Large commercial projects (allowed only in ROR, MU or UF-3 land use
designations) within those categories have to be located on an
arterial if >150,000 sq. ft., and all access must be from classified
roads. If the bank is less than 150,000 sq. ft., then it does not have to
comply with the locational criteria. Figuring out the commercial
locational criteria is a burdensome process.
Because the commercial locational criteria requirements are in both
the Goals, Objectives and Policies in the FLUE and the Land Use
Operative Provisions, it is difficult to find them. Additionally, the
mixing of terms (commercial vs. retail) can cause confusion to
applicants and developers as well as staff and the general public. See
definition excerpts in Figure 6-2.
Applicability/Effectiveness:
For the bank example, it wasn’t easy but the applicant figured out
that banks in GC are subject to the commercial locational criteria.
However, both the policies and operative provisions mention
exceptions. Policy 2.10.4.2 lists 19 instances where the criteria
wouldn‘t apply. One of them is properties with a ROR, OL, OM, MU or
MU-C land use designation (Policy 2.2.1.17.4(e) also exempts ROR).
The Land Use Operative Provisions also include an exception:
“Approval of a . . . commercial use may also be considered where the
Board . . . finds that the proposed use, though located outside a
commercial node . . . is an ‘Appropriate Infill Commercial Project.’” A
definition of “infill” needs to be added to the Plan and LDC.
Most of the major roadway corridors within the urban core are
designated as ROR on the future land use map. Therefore, they are
exempt from the commercial locational criteria. The zoning map
reflects this, as most of the length of 14th Street West, Manatee
Avenue, Cortez Road and 15th Street East are zoned Commercial (see
Fig. 6-1). Without the locational criteria, commercial development is
allowed to locate anywhere along these corridors creating strip
commercial and not creating nodes. While it would not be advisable
to start applying the current locational criteria to the zoning districts
along the urban corridors, it would make sense to establish higher
ceilings of density and density to encourage the creation of mixeduse development nodes, and the development of multi-family and
office uses along the corridors between those mixed-use nodes. It is
not the intent to mark the location of future nodes on the future land
use or zoning maps, but rather to allow the market to guide the
location of those nodes, by incentivizing more intense development
in areas where there is enough land for these types of uses, and less
impact on lower intensity residential neighborhoods. Based on the
current layout of the ROR category along the urban corridors, the
larger sites where more intensive development could occur are at and
near the intersection of 14th Street and Cortez Road, where the
DeSoto Mall is located. The ROR areas along Manatee Avenue, Cortez
Road West and US 41 south of Cortez are limited by the presence of
residential development flanking the commercial corridors.
Development Standards
The Comprehensive Plan addresses different maximum densities and
intensities for the Urban Infill and Redevelopment areas (UIRA), but
the standards in the LDC do not reflect that difference. As currently
adopted, the bulk and dimensional regulations have failed to address
the differences between urban areas (where the focus should be on
redevelopment and infill), suburban areas (where the focus should be
in creating sustainable communities), and rural areas (where the focus
should be on preserving and encouraging the protection and
6-4
LDC ASSESSMENT
continuation of agricultural operations). The zoning
Figure 6 - 1. Commercial Zoning
structure and land development regulations
emphasize suburban development standards and
encourage or require developers to use the PD
rezoning option instead of meeting district standards.
Similarly, a review of the regulations indicates that
the districts are oriented towards
separation/buffering of uses and traffic flow, making
it very difficult to create mixed use sustainable
communities, thus producing the single use pods
found in suburbia: malls and big box stores, low
density subdivisions, industrial parks, isolated office
buildings, and massive parking lots. Urban standards
are proposed as part of this project. However, due to
the scope approved, the standards will only apply to
the Urban Corridors.
Figure 6-2 contains a list of current development
standards that will need to get addressed in order to
ensure the urban corridors allow the quality urban
infill and redevelopment desired for that area.
Public Realm
As noted previously, the public realm is an important
component in community design and character.
Form-Based Codes put a lot of emphasis on the
design of streets and other public spaces. The urban
corridors include state roads that have been
expanding to accommodate increased volumes of
traffic. While the County can’t make any changes to
the design of these roads, the County should pursue
6-5
LDC ASSESSMENT
road diets whenever feasible. The current cross-section of the
corridors make it very difficult for anyone trying to cross the street,
and trying to frame such roads with an urban form would take taller
buildings. The following is an excerpt from an ITE guide for designing
urban thorough fares:
“Building height and thoroughfare enclosure: Buildings are the primary
feature of urban contexts that create a sense of definition and
enclosure on a thoroughfare—an important urban design element that
helps create the experience of being in a city and in a place that is
comfortable for pedestrians. The threshold when pedestrians first
perceive enclosure is a 1:4 ratio of building height to thoroughfare
width—typical of low-density environments. In denser urban contexts,
height-to-width ratios between 1:3 and 1:2 create an appropriate
enclosure on a thoroughfare (Figure 4.2). Highly walkable
thoroughfares do not require tall buildings. Street trees may be used to
provide a similar sense of definition and enclosure in contexts with
lower height and less dense buildings.”1
Building Height
The LDC currently allows a maximum building height of 35 ft., except
for the LM and HM districts where 45 and 55 feet are allowed, the
MP-I district which allows up to 7 stories or 84 feet, and the Planned
Development districts, if certain criteria are met.
Encouraging mixed use and urban nodes with a maximum height of
35 feet is unrealistic. Additional height should be allowed in nodes
and in certain areas between nodes, with assurances that existing
established residential districts and areas such as the airport where
height is an issue will not be impacted.
Architectural Design
Architectural design standards provide a framework for developers,
builders, designers, property owners, and the community at large to
achieve high quality developments that blend in with the character of
its surroundings and create a lasting sense of place. The extent and
level of detail of architectural design standards vary from place to
place. Historic areas with a defined architectural style are more apt to
have strict standards that focus heavily on design in order to achieve
and preserve a uniform, identifiable image. On the other hand, larger
and more architecturally diverse areas benefit from having flexible
standards that focus more on urban form. Since the project study
area in Manatee County varies extensively – land uses, urban form,
and architectural styles – the architectural design standards for the
study area should address a desired form, rather than dictate specific
architectural styles, in order to achieve a coherent, connected urban
1
Designing Walkable Urban Thoroughfares: A Context Sensitive Approach. Institute
of Transportation Engineers. http://www.ite.org/CSS/online/DWUT04.html
6-6
LDC ASSESSMENT
form with multiple nodes of development, each identified by a sense
of place.
traffic. Even though the subject area is already established, there are
opportunities to create additional connections.
The proposed architectural standards for the urban corridors would:
Building Frontage
Building frontage refers to a proportion of the building length within
the required minimum and maximum setback relative to the width of
the development site measured at the site frontage line. Standards
for building frontage are intended to create a continuous urban form
along streets. Establishing a hierarchy of frontage conditions based
on street types allows uses and activities to be prioritized and block
continuity to be preserved.


Provide a coherent, connected urban framework to achieve high
quality developments that blend in with the character of its
surroundings and create a lasting sense of place.
Provide flexible standards for developers, builders, designers,
property owners, and the community to:
o encourage creativity across a broad range of architectural
styles;
o enhance building façades and details; and
o define a pedestrian-scaled environment.
The architectural design standards would be applied to the urban
corridors identified in the project study area and would address
Building Form Standards and Building Design Standards. The Building
Form Standards determine the location, scale, and massing of
buildings. When implemented across a contiguous area, these
standards ensure a coherent, connected urban form is achieved. The
Building Design Standards define the aesthetics of individual
buildings, ensuring quality developments.
The proposed standards would be established in LDC Chapters 4
(Zoning) and 9 (Design Guidelines), and would address the following:
Building Form Standards
Block Size
Block size determines the level of connectivity in an area. Smaller
block sizes increase accessibility for both vehicular and pedestrian
Frontage Zones
As mentioned earlier, form-based regulations address the design of
the public realm. Public and Private Frontage Zones are defined and
standards are established to determine the types of activities that
may take place in these areas. A Public Frontage Zone includes areas
for sidewalks and landscaping, commonly used for pedestrian access.
A Private Frontage Zone provides a transition, both physical and
visual, between a Public Frontage Zone and the areas within
buildings. Additional standards for Private Frontage Zones address a
wide range of elements such as landscaping, cantilevered balconies,
street furniture, outdoor cafes, storefronts, galleries, arcades, and
porches.
Building Setbacks
The placement of a building on a site is critical to creating a vital and
coherent public realm. The intent of the building setback standards
are to shape the public realm and strengthen the physical and
functional character of the area. Building setbacks are an important
component to defining urban form because they affect the placement
6-7
LDC ASSESSMENT
of parking areas, drop-off driveways, and the public and private
frontage zones.
Building Design Standards
Building Massing and Façade Articulation
Large, continuous building volumes with bland, repetitive façades
tend to convey monotonous aesthetics and uninviting, unsafe places.
One method to prevent this effect is to subdivide building volumes
into multiple parts, creating the appearance of smaller volumes
grouped together. Standards on building massing address the width
and height of building façades, breaks between volumes, and
architectural details or ornamentation along its façades. Standards for
façade articulation are key elements to defining the public realm,
encouraging an inviting and pedestrian-scaled environment, and
increasing public safety by providing access and opportunities for
human surveillance of the street. These standards typically address
building fenestration, canopies, columns, and other architectural
features.
Building Glazing Requirements, Color, and Roof Design
The intent of these standards is to allow for creativity in architectural
design while establishing an identity and sense of place. Hence, these
standards do not follow criteria from specific architectural styles, but
rather dictate minimum requirements to achieve quality
developments. The standards typically apply to glazing percentages
on façades, a minimum combination of building colors, and
architectural details and materials on roofs.
Neighboring Communities
is one of those features that are obvious to the drivers entering
Manatee County from the south. Architecture the other one. Now
that Bradenton has a Form-Based Code (FBC), people have started
noticing the nicer developments along Manatee Avenue. In an
interview with Bradenton Planning staff, it was noted that their FBC is
still undergoing some adjustments, but in general has worked well
and has been well received by the development community.
While replacing the Manatee LDC with a FBC would be a major
undertaking, the incorporation of form-based code principles can be
done within the same code structure that the County now has. The
proposed development standards for the urban corridors should
address the following FBC principles:




Use physical form, rather than separation of uses, as the
organizing principle
Foster predictability
Create mixed use, walkable, compact environment with highquality public realm
Establish urban hierarchy
Figure 6-3 contains a comparison between the Manatee LDC and the
Bradenton FBC. Without reading the details, it is obvious that the
Manatee Code is substantially more complicated and detailed.
As new standards are developed for the urban corridors, it would be
important to coordinate with Bradenton to ensure consistency and
continuity along those corridors where the boundaries of the City and
County go in and out.
One common theme mentioned during the stakeholder interviews
was the fact that things are so much prettier in Sarasota. Landscaping
6-8
LDC ASSESSMENT
Figure 6 - 2. Definitions Related to the Commercial Locational Criteria
6-9
LDC ASSESSMENT
Figure 6 - 3. LDC Recommended Changes
LDC Reference
Chapter 1, General
Provisions
Chapter 2, Definitions
Chapter 3, Review
Authorities and
Procedures
Chapter 4, Zoning
Comment
When
Move site-specific non-conforming provision from LUOP to 107.7.
N
Consider establishing a section on vested rights
Include new definitions related to the locational criteria (urban corridor, strip commercial, infill).
Amend “FAR” and “Gross Residential Density” definitions to address Urban Corridors.
Reconcile with Comprehensive Plan
Modify Landscape Open Space definition to lessen focus on separation of uses.
Add UIRA definition
Address staff comments regarding Building Permit, Certificate of Occupancy and Certificate of Completion (310).
L
N
Address staff comment regarding PD GDP submittal requirement (342.2)
Revisit the Special Approval section to lessen the reliance on PD.
Exempt Urban Corridors from Special approval requirements.
Incorporate LOS section moved from LUOP.
Add a section addressing modifications to urban corridors development standards. Minor modifications may be
approved by staff subject to specific criteria. Substantial waivers from the requirements would have to go through
Board review. PD should not be necessary for development along the urban corridors, but it is not prohibited.
400.6, Rules for Interpretation of District Boundaries – Modify to include Future Land Use Map.
401.1, Purpose of Districts – Revise to allow mixed-use along urban corridors in some zoning districts.
Table 4 - 1: Uses in Agriculture and Residential Districts:
Allow hotels in RMF along urban corridors
Prohibit single family and duplex along urban corridors
Allow neighborhood convenience retail in RMF along urban corridors
Delete Neighborhood General Retail (it is the same as Neighborhood Convenience, except for size – address size in
development standards)
401.3, Bulk and Dimensional Regulations:
Added a provision noting the methodology for calculating density and intensity for mixed-use developments.
Establish standards for urban corridors with higher densities, intensities and height. Any development wishing to
utilize these standards would be subject to the development design standards included in chapter 9.
Offer even higher densities, intensity and height through a bonus system.
N
L
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
6-10
LDC ASSESSMENT
Chapter 5, Specially
Regulated Uses
Chapter 6, Signs
Chapter 7,
Environmental and
Cultural Resources
Chapter 8, Engineering
Design and Utilities
Chapter 9, Design
Guidelines
Reliance on PD rezoning should be diminished. However, it will not be prohibited. Recommend revising the PD section to
address the possibility for this. Current PD districts are not appropriate for the urban corridor area.
Address drive-through and gas station developments in the urban corridors.
L
N
Brought back a provision regarding vehicle sales (531.57)
Consider establishing the commercial locational criteria in the LDC instead of the comp plan.
L
Revisit the sign regulations to ensure urban signs are addressed (i.e. if the building is brought closer to the street, is
there room/need for a ground sign?). This item, however, should be undertaken separately from the urban corridors
project as sign regulations are typically controversial and could delay the implementation of other recommendations.
L
Restored a dimensional standard that was inadvertently changed in previous phase.
N
Add provisions exempting development along urban corridors from meeting roadway buffer standards.
N
Revised graphic 7-2 to fix label
No changes needed
-
Develop site and building design standards applicable to the urban corridors.
N
Establish a bonus system.
Develop a section on development compatibility to ensure the higher densities and intensities are only permitted if
there is no impact on existing residential developments in residential districts.
Establish review procedures/exceptions.
Chapter 10,
Transportation
Management
Incorporate Community Design and Compatibility section moving from the FLUE.
N
Revise parking requirements for urban corridors (reduced ratios and calculations for mixed-use developments) or
countywide where warranted.
N
Note change regarding “maximum” parking requirements (Section 1005.3.B).
Establish new section with Bicycle Parking requirements (countywide).
Modify the Cooperative Parking provisions to provide more guidance and predictability.
Increase permitted amount of compact spaces.
6-11
LDC ASSESSMENT
Modify table of loading spaces for ease of use
Chapter 11, Impact
Fees
No changes needed
-
N = Now; L = Later
6-12
LDC ASSESSMENT
Figure 6 - 4. Comparative Regulatory Analysis: Manatee County and the City of Bradenton – 14th Street W
th
th
14 Street near 26 Avenue W.
The City of Bradenton and Manatee County converge at 26th Avenue West along 14th Street, as shown in Figures 6-5 and 6-6, 14th Street Corridor
Future land Use and Zoning maps. Although the street runs continuously, different development regulations in the two jurisdictions have resulted
in a clear character dividing line along the corridor on either side of the City limits. The comparison below uses parcels within half a mile of
14th Street between 17th Avenue and Cortez Road as a case study, highlighting the equivalent development regulatory mechanisms and metrics
used here by both the City and the County, in terms of their future land use (FLU) designations and current zoning. Issues such as building
heights, setback requirements, prescribed densities, parking requirements, minimum lot dimensions, parking requirements, building specifications,
and permitted land uses vary between jurisdictions and shape both the urban form and development process on these corridors and others in the
area.
Overall, the parameters set out by Manatee County lend themselves more toward a suburban form, while the City of Bradenton’s requirements
allow for a slightly more urban pattern of development. For example, Manatee County’s general commercial (GC) zoning district, which fronts
most of 14th Street, has a minimum front setback requirement of 25 feet, a minimum side setback of 10 feet, a maximum building height of 35
feet, a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.25, and a general retail sales use parking requirement of one space per 250 square feet of gross floor
area, resulting in buildings set back from the street, low density, and ample parking. Just blocks to the north, the City of Bradenton’s
General Urban Open transect (T4-O) requires a front setback of five feet (and caps the front setback at 15 feet), a minimum side setback of zero
feet, a maximum building height of 60 feet, a maximum FAR of 0.7, and a retail parking requirement of 1 space per 500 feet of gross floor area,.
These regulations allow for buildings to front the streets, potentially touch, increase in height or ground floor area, and accommodate half as
many parking spaces, which provides the framework for a more walkable, enclosed urban form. Although not all parcels on the Bradenton
side of the corridor are built out to this potential, some are, and the desired mixed-use development is feasible from a regulatory standpoint.
Within each Manatee County zoning category, regulations can vary with great detail. Setback requirements and minimum lot widths differ for
different uses along the same streets, even within the same zone and FLU category, which creates an inconsistent street frontage and imposes
unnecessary regulations on certain properties, where others in their vicinity with relatively comparable functions are allowed greater freedom.
Some of these regulations specifically prohibit or inhibit the integration of uses necessary for the corridors to become mixed use. Bus
and train passenger stations are only permitted by right in Planned Development Mixed Use zoning districts, which limits the potential for transitoriented development in the area. Any mixed use project in all three future land use categories along the corridors requires a special permit.
Residential zoning districts separate housing into single-family, duplex, multifamily, and mobile home areas, with little integration.
6-13
LDC ASSESSMENT
The jurisdictions’ regulations differ on more than substantive issues; the City of Bradenton’s regulatory process is more streamlined than Manatee
County’s. For equivalent areas along the same street, the City of Bradenton applies one future land use category (Urban Village), one zoning
district (Urban Village), and one form-based code transect (T4-O General Urban Open), whereas Manatee County has three future land use
categories (Residential-6, Residential-16, and Retail/Office/Residential) and 13 mostly single-use zoning districts. The tightly regulated, mosaic
quality of Manatee County’s zoning districts limits development flexibility and makes it difficult to establish a truly mixed-use corridor, as the
County desires to do. Each zoning category has a detailed regulation of uses many include an extensive number of uses that require special
permits; in the general commercial zone alone, 65 different land uses require special permits from the County. This increases the necessary labor
and expense in navigating the approval process for many potential projects as a result of these complexities and barriers may discourage
development in the County.
The existing development parameters for development along these corridors in Manatee County are not well-suited to attracting quality mixeduse development, and similar restrictions and principles apply to other corridors in the urban core. In order to create the potential for this desired
development pattern and create a cohesive corridor, the County should consider establishing urban and suburban overlay districts, adjusting
the dimensional standards in these areas to allow more urban forms, and amending the Comprehensive Plan to establish a more generalized,
vision-oriented future land uses.
6-14
LDC ASSESSMENT
Figure 6 - 5. 14th Street Corridor Future Land Use Map
6-15
LDC ASSESSMENT
Figure 6 - 6. 14th Street Corridor Zoning Map
6-16
LDC ASSESSMENT
Figure 6 - 7. Comparison of Regulations applicable to the 14th Street Corridor
CITY OF BRADENTON
Analysis Parameters
Corridor Land Use Regulations
Future Land Use
Zoning
Form-Based Code Transect
Overlays
th
th
MANATEE COUNTY
Parcels fronting on 14 Street between 10 Avenue W. in the north
and 26th Avenue W. in the south.
Parcels fronting on 14th Street between 26th Avenue W. in the north
and Cortez Road in the south.
Urban Village
(The Urban Village includes areas near the fringe of the Urban Core
and is anticipated to develop with the character, lifestyle, and
friendliness of a village based on the concepts of new urbanism.)
UV/Urban Village
(Designed to facilitate continued use of already developed high
density residential development and to provide for a compact, mixeduse, center of activity with neighborhood and community serving uses
at a pedestrian scale and character)
ROR Retail/Office/Residential;
RES-16 Residential-16;
RES-6 Residential 6
Yes
T4-O General Urban Open
(T4-O consists of mixed uses, providing a variety of housing choices,
but also allows office and neighborhood-serving commercial uses.)
A few parcels fall under the Village of the Arts Overlay
GC General Commercial;
HC Heavy Commercial;
PD-O Planned Development Office;
PD-MU Planned Development Mixed Use;
PD-C Planned Development Commercial
PD-R Planned Development Residential
No
Recreational Vehicle (select parcels)
6-17
LDC ASSESSMENT
Comp. Plan
Building Height
Height
Restrictions
Setbacks
Front
CITY OF BRADENTON
LDC/FBC
MANATEE COUNTY
Comp. Plan
LDC
---
UV:
Arterial: 60 ft./5 stories
Non-Arterial: 35 ft./3 stories
Residential: 45 ft.
T4-O: 3 stories; up to 6 with bonuses (LEED
cert, workforce housing, public art
contribution). Stories may not exceed 14 ft.
---
All Zones (except for PD districts): 35 ft. building height;
15 ft. mobile home height
---
UV:
Arterial: 5 ft. min.; 15 ft. max.
Non-Arterial: 10 ft. min.
T4-O: 4 ft. min.; 12 ft. max.
---
Minimums:
GC: 25 ft.
HC: 25 ft.
PD-O: 25 ft.
PD-MU: Per single-use PD districts
PD-C: Thoroughfare streets – 30 ft.; local streets – 35 ft.
PD-R: 20 ft.; front loaded garages and carports – 25 ft.
Minimums:
GC: 10 ft.
HC: 10 ft.
PD-O: 15 ft.
PD-C: 15 ft.
PD-R: 8 ft.
Minimums:
GC: 15 ft.
HC: 15 ft.
PD-O: 15 ft.
PD-C: 20 ft.
PD-R: 15 ft.
Minimums:
GC: 30 ft.
HC: 30 ft.
PD-O: N/A
PD-MU: N/A
PD-C: N/A
PD-R: N/A
Side
-
UV:
Arterial: 0 ft. min.
T4-O: 0 ft. min.
-
Rear
---
UV:
Arterial: 0 ft. min.
T4-O: 3 ft. min.
---
Waterfront
---
---
---
6-18
LDC ASSESSMENT
Comp. Plan
Frontage
Buildout
Density
Max. Gross
Residential
Density
---
25 du/a
(Potential 10
du/a density
bonus for
Planned
Development
Projects that
meet certain
conditions)
CITY OF BRADENTON
LDC/FBC
UV: NA
T4-O: 60% min.
UV: 25 du/a
(Potential 10 du/a density bonus for Planned
Development Projects that meet certain
conditions)
T4-O: Per FLUE
Min. Gross
Residential
Density
---
---
Max. Net
Residential
Density
---
---
Max. FAR
0.7
UV: 0.7
T4-O: Per FLUE
MANATEE COUNTY
Comp. Plan
LDC
---
---
RES-16: 20.0 du/a; 28 du/a in
UIRA*
ROR: 16 du/a for existing
development; 9 du/a for new
development
RES-6: 12.0 du/a; 16 du/a in UIRA*
*for residential projects that
designate a minimum of 25% of
the dwelling units as affordable
housing
[NOTE: Special Approval required
for projects that exceed certain
densities, intensities and square
footage]
RES-16: 13.0 only in UIRA*
ROR: 7.0 only in UIRA*
RES-6: 5.0 only in UIRA*
the dwelling units as “affordable
housing”
RES-6: 12 du/a
RES-16: 20 du/a; 28 du/a in UIRA*
ROR: new development – 16 du/a;
24 du/a and UIRA*; development
existing at the time of plan
development – 20 du/a
* for residential projects that
housing
RES-16: 0.25; 0.35 for miniwarehouse; 1.00 inside the UIRA
ROR: 0.35; 1.0 for hotels
GC: N/A
HC: N/A
PD-O: N/A
PD-MU: N/A
PD-C: N/A
PD-R: N/A
---
---
GC: 0.25; 0.35 for mini-warehouse
HC: 0.25; 0.35 for mini-warehouse
PD-O: a range of FARs are permitted
PD-MU: a range of FARs are permitted
6-19
LDC ASSESSMENT
Comp. Plan
Min. Open Space
(%), Nonresidential
Lot Dimensions
Min. Lot Area
Min. Lot Width
Lot Coverage
Parking
Residential
Lodging
CITY OF BRADENTON
LDC/FBC
MANATEE COUNTY
Comp. Plan
RES-6: 0.23; 0.35 for miniwarehouse; 1.00 inside the UIRA
---
LDC
PD-C: a range of FARs are permitted
PD-R: a range of FARs are permitted
GC: 15%
HC: 15%
PD-O: outside the watershed overlay district - 25%; within the
watershed overlay district – 30%
PD-MU: 20% of the land area of the district
PD-C: Outside the watershed overlay district – 20% open
space; within the watershed overlay district – 30% open space
PD-R: outside the watershed overlay district – 25% open space;
within the watershed overlay district – 35% open space; 20-ft.
buffer along district boundaries that abut and run parallel to
any public road
[NOTE: Site within Entranceways require another 5%]
---
UV: 25% min. only for Professional,
Commercial, Industrial, and Residential
Planned Development Projects
T4-O: NA
---
UV:
Residential:
1 unit: 5,000 sq. ft.
2 units: 6,000 sq. ft.
3 units: 7,000 sq. ft.
Additional area required per unit above 3
units: 1,600 sq. ft.
T4-O: NA
UV: 16 ft.
T4-O: 16 ft.
---
GC: 7,500 sq. ft.
HC: 7.500 sq. ft.
PD-O: a range of square footages are permitted
PD-MU: a range of square footages are permitted
PD-C: a range of square footages are permitted
PD-R: a range of square footages are permitted
---
GC: 75 ft.
HC: 75 ft.
PD-O: N/A
PD-MU: N/A
PD-C: N/A
PD-R: 60 ft.
---
UV and T4-O: 70% max. impervious surface
---
---
1.0 spaces/dwelling unit
---
---
0.5 spaces/guest unit
---
---
--Varies by individual land use. Ex.:

2 spaces/single-family dwelling unit

2 spaces/multifamily dwelling unit, plus 1 space per 10
units for guest parking

2 spaces/duplex dwelling unit

2 spaces/mobile home
Varies by individual land use. Ex.:
6-20
LDC ASSESSMENT
Comp. Plan
CITY OF BRADENTON
LDC/FBC
MANATEE COUNTY
Comp. Plan
Office
Retail
-----
1.0 space/500 sq. ft. of floor area
1.0 space/500 sq. ft. of floor area
-----
Alternative/
special
requirements
---
T4-O: Parking may include spaces on the lot,
along the parking lane corresponding to the
lot frontage, or by purchase or lease from a
civic parking reserve within the pedestrian
shed
Locally designated historic buildings not
required to provide additional parking
Within 800 ft. of a bus transfer facility or a
passenger railway station, off-street parking
is not required
Surface parking shall be located in the
second or third layer and masked by a street
screen or liner building
Provides a shared parking factor matrix to
calculate parking requirements for mixed
use buildings
---
SF unit – 800 sq. ft.
Duplex unit: 1,000 sq. ft.
Multi-family unit: 700 sq. ft.
---
Building and Site Design Specifications
Min. Unit Floor
--Area
LDC

Dormitories – 1 space/1.5 beds

Bed and breakfast – 1 space/lodging unit
1 space/200 sq. ft. gross office area

Sit down restaurant: 1 space/80 sq. ft. GFA

Grocery/convenience store: 1 space/200 sq. ft. GFA

General retail sales use: 1 space/250 sq. ft. GFA

Shopping center: 1 space/200 sq. ft. GFA for first 400,000
sq. ft. 1 space/300 sq. ft. GFA for second 400,000 sq. ft.,
and 1 space/400 sq. ft. GFA thereafter
---
GC: N/A
HC: N/A
PD-O: N/A
PD-MU: N/A
PD-C: N/A
PD-R: N/A
PR-S: N/A
RDD-4.5: SF detached – 1,000 sq. ft.; SF semi-detached – 600
sq. ft.; all other residential – 600 sq. ft.
RDD-6: SF detached – 650 sq. ft.; SF semi-detached – 650 sq.
ft.; all other residential – 650 sq. ft.
6-21
LDC ASSESSMENT
Comp. Plan
CITY OF BRADENTON
LDC/FBC
Max. Building
Size (nonresidential)
---
---
Min.
Landscaping
---
UV: Landscaping site plan and proposed
materials required.
Min. 3-foot-wide landscaped strip between
the sidewalk and curb, with a tree planted
every 100 feet
All commercial and multi-family structures
required to have foundation landscaping
(100 sq. ft. per 1,500 sq. ft. of building
ground floor area)
T4-O: All parking areas that contain more
than 10 spaces or 2,000 sq. ft. of paving
must be landscaped
Landscape islands in interior parking lots
shall occur at the end of drive aisles, and
flanking pedestrian walkways
Bare and exposed ground on the site and/or
in landscaped areas shall be covered with
live plant materials and/or mulch
Parking lot landscape buffer required (3-ft.
for lots < 6,000 sq. ft.; 6-ft. for lots > 6,000
sq. ft.)
MANATEE COUNTY
Comp. Plan
RES-16: 30,000 sq. ft. without
special approval; 150,000 sq. ft.
with special approval
ROR: 50,000 sq. ft.; 300,000 sq. ft.
special approval; 150,000 sq. ft.
---
LDC
RSF-6: SF detached – 600 sq. ft.
RSMH-6: N/A
RMF-9: SF detached – 900 sq. ft.; all other residential – 650 sq.
ft.
GC: 50,000 sq. ft.
HC: 50,000 sq. ft.
PD-O: N/A
PD-MU: N/A
PD-C: N/A
PD-R: N/A
PR-S: 3,000 sq. ft.
RDD-4.5: N/A
RDD-6: N/A
RSF-6: N/A
RSMH-6: N/A
RMF-9: N/A
All vehicle use areas containing more than 1,000 sq. ft. must
have 360 sq. ft. of planting area, four canopy trees, and 20
shrubs per 20 parking spaces
No more than 10 consecutive parking spaces allowed without
an interior landscape buffer
20-ft. wide buffer required along rear property lines abutting
major thoroughfares
0-20 ft. screening buffers required between zoning district
boundaries; minimum width differs based on abutting uses
(see figure 7-4 Buffer Screening Matrix in LDC)
Buffer zones for proposed industrial uses adjacent to
residential uses/zoning shall use buffer option E, which
requires a solid, decorative, opaque wall a minimum of six feet
in height with two canopy trees and three and one-third
understory trees per 100 ft.
All residential developments- 15 ft. wide perimeter greenbelt
with one shade tree—meeting minimum planting size
standards in Section 715-- planted every 30 feet on center
Foundation landscaping of 20 sq. ft. per 1,000 sq. ft. of
proposed gross floor area, located contiguous to the building
For recreational vehicle/mobile home sales, rental, and leasing
establishments, a minimum 15-foot wide landscaped screening
6-22
LDC ASSESSMENT
Comp. Plan
Design
Guidelines
---
CITY OF BRADENTON
LDC/FBC
Special use permits require a landscaped
separation strip of at least 10 ft. along all
property lines
Special use permits require a landscaped
separation strip of at least 10 ft. along all
property lines
Gasoline pumps and propane tanks shall
meet a 25-ft. front setback and shall be
landscaped
(See Ch. 6 of LUR for full design guidelines)
“Proposed buildings should relate to the
architectural characteristics of surrounding
buildings”
Design guidelines apply to:
 Any new development or redevelopment
of a building with 2 or more living units
 Additions and exterior changes to all
structures providing for non-residential
uses and all structures with over three
dwelling units prior to the adoption of the
LUR
 All mixed use developments
 New civic buildings or alterations to civic
buildings
Design guidelines regulate:
 Building massing and articulation
 Required identifiable main entrance
 Building wall materials and configuration
 Façade treatments
 Color
 Wall openings
 Roofs
 Street furniture, art, decoration
 Landscaping
T4-O: Minimum façade transparency: 50%
Maximum façade transparency: 90%
Compatible building types: main street
building; corner store; live-work townhouse;
MANATEE COUNTY
Comp. Plan
LDC
buffer shall be provided between the sales lots/area and the
RV park itself
General guidelines for urban form,
traditional urban neighborhoods,
suburban form, and corridors,
including references to “attention
to aesthetics” and “neighborhood
identity”
Bulk and dimensional regulations:

Maximum density

Lot size requirements

Minimum front lot line

Maximum building height (35 ft.)

Required yards

Yard encroachments
PD-R: Must have a focal point within the development, such as
water bodies, recreation areas, or community centers
(See Ch. 9 of LDC for full design guidelines for select areas of
Manatee County, such as the county entranceways and Historic
Cortez Fishing Village. These guidelines to not apply to this
area.)
6-23
LDC ASSESSMENT
Comp. Plan
Building and Site
Configuration
---






CITY OF BRADENTON
LDC/FBC
live-work cottage; loft building; courtyard
apartment building; townhouse; duplex;
house; accessory dwelling unit; civic
building; liner building; park-under liner
building; large footprint building; gas station
Provides diagrams, photos, and architectural
standards for each building type, including
typical height, typical lot frontage width,
typical uses, appropriate architectural styles,
and required features (e.g. awnings over
shopfronts) (See Article 5 of FBC.)
Public lighting must be of the post, column,
or double-column types
Public and semi-public open spaces should
be defined by buildings or landscape
elements on a minimum of two sides.
T4-O: Off-street, on-site parking for
townhouse and live-work townhouse units
must have rear access to minimize curb cuts
In the absence of a building façade along any
part of a frontage line, a streetscreen shall
be built coplanar with the façade
Open parking areas on A-Grids shall be
masked from the frontage by a building or
screen
Any portion of a parking structure that does
not have a liner building shall abide by set
architectural design characteristics
Signage on building must meet designated
standards
Diagrams depict guidelines for:

Public frontages

Private frontages

Recess lines and expression lines

Building disposition
MANATEE COUNTY
Comp. Plan
LDC
---
---
Land Use
6-24
LDC ASSESSMENT
Comp. Plan
Distribution of
Uses
Permitted Uses
60% resid. land
uses
40% nonresid.
land uses
(Applicable on an
area-wide basis,
not a site-specific
basis)
“Desired uses in
the Urban Village
include: small lot
single-family
dwellings,
multiple-family
rowhouses, and
limited midrise
housing types,
flex houses,
providing livework
opportunities,
professional
offices, retail
stores, artisanal
uses, civic and
recreation uses,
and greenspace.”
CITY OF BRADENTON
LDC/FBC
UV: NA
T4-O: 50-80% nonresidential uses
UV: Accessory unit; bed & breakfast (up to 6
rooms); business training schools;
café/sidewalk café (<20 seats); display
gallery; fire station; fountain or public art;
greenhouse <200 sq. ft.; kiosk; library; live
theater; live-work unit; medical clinic; movie
theater; multi-family; office building; parking
lot/garage; playground; police station;
restaurant; retail building; school dormitory;
single-family attached; single-family
detached; single-family semi-detached;
surface parking lot; veterinary clinic
T4-O: Multi-family; single family attached;
single family semi-detached; single family
detached; accessory unit; bed and breakfast;
school dormitory; office building; live-work
unit; retail building; display gallery;
restaurant; kiosk; café/sidewalk café < 20
seats; fountain or public art; library; live
theater; movie theater; playground;
greenhouse < 200 ft.; veterinary clinic;
parking lot/garage; fire station; police
station; medical clinic; business training
schools
MANATEE COUNTY
Comp. Plan
LDC
---
---
RES-16: Suburban or urban
residential; neighborhood retail;
short-term agricultural;
agriculturally-compatible
residential uses; low-intensity
recreational facilities; public or
semi-public uses; schools; lodging
places; water-dependent/waterrelated uses
ROR: Neighborhood-, community-,
or region-serving retail, wholesale,
or office; residential; lodging
places; public or semi-public uses;
schools; recreational uses; waterdependent/water-related uses
RES-6: Suburban or urban
residential; neighborhood retail;
short-term agricultural;
agriculturally-compatible
residential uses; low-intensity
recreational facilities; public or
semi-public uses; schools; lodging
places; water-dependent/waterrelated uses
GC: building materials sales establishment; business services;
clinics; community residential homes; environmental land
preserves; equipment sales, rental and leasing (light);
laboratories, medical and dental; lodging place (hotel/motel);
office, medical or professional; outdoor advertising signs;
parking (principal use); personal service establishment;
residential uses (duplex); residential use (single family
detached); restaurant; retail sales (neighborhood convenience;
retail sales (neighborhood general); retail sales (general)
HC: agricultural research facilities; building materials sales
establishment; business services; clinics; environmental land
preserves; equipment sales, rental and leasing (light);
laboratories, medical and dental; lodging place (hotel/motel);
office, medical or professional; outdoor advertising signs;
personal service establishment; research and development
activities; residential uses (duplex); residential use (single
family detached); restaurant; retail sales (neighborhood
convenience; retail sales (neighborhood general); retail sales
(general); sexually-oriented businesses; wholesale trade
establishment
PD-O: Adult day care center; assisted living facility (large);
business services; child care center (large); child care center
(medium); child care center (accessory); churches/places of
worship; civic, social, and fraternal organizations/clubs; clinics;
cultural facilities; emergency shelters; environmental land
preserves; funeral chapel; funeral home; helistop; laboratories,
medical and dental; nursing homes; office, medical or
professional; parking (principal use); personal service
establishment; radio, TV, communications, microwave
facilities; railroad switching yard; recreation (passive);
6-25
LDC ASSESSMENT
Comp. Plan
CITY OF BRADENTON
LDC/FBC
MANATEE COUNTY
Comp. Plan
LDC
rehabilitation center; recovery home (large); recovery home
(small); restaurants; retail sales (neighborhood convenience;
retail sales (neighborhood general); schools (elementary);
schools (high and middle); schools of special education;
veterinary clinic
PD-MU: Adult day care center; agricultural research facilities;
aircraft landing field; airport (Commercial); airport (private or
public); assisted living facility (large); auction houses
(enclosed); auction houses (open); bed and breakfast; breeding
facility; building materials sales establishment; lumber yard;
bus and train passenger station; business services; car wash
(full service); car wash (incidental); car wash (self-service);
cemetery; child care center (large); child care center (medium);
child care center (accessory); churches/places of worship; civic,
social, and fraternal organizations/clubs; clinics; community
residential homes; correctional facilities (community);
correctional facilities (major); cultural facilities; drive-through
establishments; emergency shelters; environmental land
preserves; equipment sales, rental and leasing (heavy);
equipment sales, rental and leasing (light); family day care
home; farming service establishments; flea markets (enclosed);
flea markets (open); food catering service establishment;
funeral chapel’ funeral home; game preserve; gas pumps;
group housing; hazardous waste transfer facility; heliport;
helistop; hospital; industrial (heavy); industrial (light); intensive
services; intensive services (motor pool facilities); intensive
services (industrial service establishment); intensive services
(sign painting service); intensive services (towing service and
storage establishment); intermodal terminal; junkyards;
laboratories, medical and dental; lodging place (boarding
house); lodging place (dormitory); lodging place (hospital guest
house); lodging place (hotel/motel); mini-warehouse, selfstorage; mobile home parks; mobile home subdivisions; motor
freight terminal/maintenance; nursing homes; office, medical
or professional; parking (principal use); personal service
establishment; personal wireless service facilities; pet service
establishments; radio, TV, communications, microwave
facilities; recreation (high intensity); recreation (medium
6-26
LDC ASSESSMENT
Comp. Plan
CITY OF BRADENTON
LDC/FBC
MANATEE COUNTY
Comp. Plan
LDC
intensity); recreation (low intensity); recreation (passive);
recreational vehicle/mobile home sales, rental, and leasing;
rehabilitation center; research and development activities;
recovery home (large); recovery home (small); residential
treatment facilities; residential uses (duplex); residential uses
(single family semi-detached); residential uses (multiple family
dwellings); residential use (triplex and quadruplex dwellings);
residential use (waterfront structures, multi-family); residential
use (single family detached); residential use (single family
attached); retail sales (neighborhood convenience; retail sales
(neighborhood general); retail sales (general); sawmills;
schools (colleges/universities); schools (elementary); schools
(high and middle); schools of special education; service station;
slaughterhouses; solid waste management facilities; stockyards
and feedlots; vehicle repair (major); vehicle repair (community
serving); vehicle repair (neighborhood serving); vehicle sales,
rental, leasing; veterinary clinic; veterinary hospitals;
warehouses; water dependent uses; wholesale trade
establishment
PD-C: Adult day care center; agricultural research facilities;
assisted living facility (large); auction houses (enclosed);
auction houses (open); bed and breakfast; breeding facility;
building materials sales establishment; bus and train passenger
station; business services; car wash (full service); car wash
(incidental); car wash (self-service); cemetery; child care center
(large); child care center (medium); child care center
(accessory); churches/places of worship; clinics; cultural
facilities; drive-through establishments; emergency shelters;
environmental land preserves; equipment sales, rental and
leasing (heavy); equipment sales, rental and leasing (light);
farming service establishments; flea markets (enclosed); flea
markets (open); food catering service establishment; funeral
chapel; funeral home; game preserve; gas pumps; heliport;
helistop; intensive services (industrial service establishment);
intensive services (sign painting service); intensive services
(towing service and storage establishment); laboratories,
medical and dental; lodging place (hospital guest house);
lodging place (hotel/motel); mini-warehouse, self-storage;
6-27
LDC ASSESSMENT
Comp. Plan
Special
Permitted Uses
---
CITY OF BRADENTON
LDC/FBC
UV: Automotive specialty; boarding house;
cemetery; childcare center; club; college;
cultural; drive-through facility; educational;
electric substation; funeral home; indoor
amusement center; inn (up to 10 rooms);
MANATEE COUNTY
Comp. Plan
LDC
RES-16:

All mixed-use projects require
special approval

All projects with gross
residential density > 9 du/a or
nursing homes; office, medical or professional; outdoor
advertising signs; outdoor storage; parking (principal use);
personal service establishment; pet service establishments;
radio, TV, communications, microwave facilities; recreation
(high intensity); recreation (medium intensity); recreation
(passive); recreational vehicle parks and subdivisions;
recreational vehicle/mobile home sales, rental, and leasing;
rehabilitation center; recovery home (large); recovery home
(small); restaurant; retail sales (neighborhood convenience;
retail sales (neighborhood general); retail sales (general);
sawmills; schools of special education; service station; solid
waste management facilities; utility use; vehicle repair (major);
vehicle repair (community serving); vehicle repair
(neighborhood serving); vehicle sales, rental, leasing;
veterinary clinic; veterinary hospitals; wholesale trade
establishment
PD-R: Adult day care center; assisted living facility (large); bed
and breakfast; bus and train passenger station; child care
center (large); child care center (medium); child care center
(accessory); churches/places of worship; civic, social, and
fraternal organizations/clubs; community residential homes;
cultural facilities; emergency shelters; environmental land
preserves; family day care home; funeral chapel; helistop;
lodging place (boarding house); lodging place (dormitory);
personal service establishment; recreation (passive);
rehabilitation center; recovery home (small); residential
treatment facilities; residential uses (duplex); residential uses
(single family semi-detached); residential uses (multiple family
dwellings); residential use (triplex and quadruplex dwellings);
residential use (waterfront structures, multi-family); residential
use (single family detached); residential use (single family
attached); schools (elementary); schools (high and middle);
schools of special education
GC: Adult day care center; agricultural uses; alcoholic beverage
establishment; animal services; assisted living facility (large);
assisted living facility (small); auction houses (enclosed);
auction houses (open); bus and train passenger station; car
wash (full service); car wash (incidental); car wash (self-
6-28
LDC ASSESSMENT
Comp. Plan
CITY OF BRADENTON
LDC/FBC
laboratory facility; light industrial facility;
lounge; marina; mini-storage; museum;
outdoor amusement center; outdoor
auditorium; passenger terminal; religious
assembly; schools- public and private;
special events; sports stadium; warehouse;
wireless transmitter
T4-O:
Inn (up to 10 rooms); boarding house;
special events; lounge; exhibition center;
museum; indoor amusement center;
outdoor amusement center; outdoor
auditorium; passenger terminal; sports
stadium; club; religious assembly; service
station/repair; drive through facility;
automotive specialty; cemetery; funeral
home; marina; college; schools, public and
private; educational; cultural; other –
childcare center; light industrial facility;
laboratory facility; electric substation;
wireless transmitter; warehouse; ministorage
MANATEE COUNTY
Comp. Plan
LDC
net residential density > 12
du/a require special approval

Any nonresidential project >
30,000 sq. ft. requires special
approval

Max. square footage for
neighborhood retail uses:
150,000 sq. ft.
ROR:

special approval

residential density > 6 du/a or
net residential density > 9

Non-residential projects
exceeding 0.25 FAR require
special approval

Nonresidential projects >
150,000 sq. ft. only
considered when consistent
with requirements for large
commercial uses

All commercial development
or redevelopment must be
consistent with commercial
locational criteria

No distribution, light
industrial, manufacturing,
processing, or assembly uses
permitted (with certain
exceptions)
RES-6:

special approval

residential density > 4.5 du/a
service); cemetery; child care center (large); child care center
(medium); child care center (small); child care center
fraternal organizations/clubs; cultural facilities; drive-through
establishments; earthmoving (minor); emergency shelters;
equipment sales, rental and leasing (heavy); farming service
establishments; flea markets (enclosed); flea markets (open);
food catering service establishment; funeral chapel; funeral
home; gas pumps; group housing; helistop; intensive services
(industrial service establishment); intensive services (sign
painting service); intensive services (towing service and storage
establishment); lodging place (boarding house); lodging place
(dormitory); lodging place (hospital guest house); miniwarehouse, self-storage; nursing homes; outdoor storage; pet
service establishments; public community uses; public use
facilities; radio, TV, communications, microwave facilities;
recreation (high intensity); recreation (medium intensity);
recreation (passive); recreational vehicle/mobile home sales,
rental, and leasing; rehabilitation center; recovery home
(large); recovery home (small); residential treatment facilities;
schools (elementary); schools (high and middle); schools of
special education; service station; utility use; vehicle repair
(major); vehicle repair (community serving); vehicle repair
veterinary clinic; veterinary hospitals
HC: Adult day care center; agricultural uses; alcoholic beverage
assisted living facility (small); auction houses (enclosed);
auction houses (open); lumberyard; bus and train passenger
station; car wash (full service); car wash (incidental); car wash
(self-service); cemetery; child care center (large); child care
center (medium); child care center (small); child care center
fraternal organizations/clubs; correctional facilities
(community); cultural facilities; drive-through establishments;
earthmoving (minor); emergency shelters; equipment sales,
rental and leasing (heavy); farming service establishments; flea
markets (enclosed); flea markets (open); food catering service
6-29
LDC ASSESSMENT
Comp. Plan
CITY OF BRADENTON
LDC/FBC
MANATEE COUNTY
Comp. Plan


or net residential density > 6
Any nonresidential project >
30,000 sq. ft. requires special
approval
Max. square footage for
neighborhood retail uses:
150,000 sq. ft.
LDC
establishment; funeral chapel’ funeral home; gas pumps;
helistop; intensive services (exterminating and pest control);
intensive services (motor pool facilities); intensive services
(printing, heavy); intensive services (industrial service
establishment); intensive services (sign painting service);
intensive services (towing service and storage establishment); ;
lodging place (boarding house); lodging place (hospital guest
house); mini-warehouse, self-storage; outdoor storage; parking
(principal use); pet service establishments; public community
uses; public use facilities; radio, TV, communications,
microwave facilities; recreation (high intensity); recreation
(medium intensity); recreation (low intensity); recreation
(passive); recreational vehicle/mobile home sales, rental, and
leasing; rehabilitation center; ; recovery home (large); recovery
home (small); residential treatment facilities; schools
(elementary); schools (high and middle); schools of special
education; service station; utility use; vehicle repair (major);
vehicle repair (community serving); vehicle repair
veterinary clinic; veterinary hospitals; warehouses;
PD-O: agricultural uses; animal services; assisted living facility
(small); child care center (small); earthmoving (minor); ; public
community uses; public use facilities; recreation (low
intensity); utility use;
PD-MU: agricultural uses; alcoholic beverage establishment;
animal services; assisted living facility (small); child care center
(small); earthmoving (minor); environmental education
facilities; intensive services (exterminating and pest control);
public community uses; public use facilities; residential use
(waterfront structures, residential); landfills; ; utility use
PD-C: agricultural uses; alcoholic beverage establishment;
animal services; assisted living facility (small); child care center
(small); earthmoving (minor); public community uses; public
use facilities; recreation (low intensity)
PD-R: agricultural uses; animal services; assisted living facility
(small); child care center (small); earthmoving (minor);
environmental education facilities; public community uses;
6-30
LDC ASSESSMENT
Comp. Plan
CITY OF BRADENTON
LDC/FBC
MANATEE COUNTY
Comp. Plan
LDC
public use facilities; recreation (low intensity); residential use
(waterfront structures, residential); utility use
Additional Requirements
---
*Additional, use-specific regulations apply
for each type of land use, including
specifications about location, aesthetics,
size, access, parking, and other concerns
(See Chapter 5 of LUR)
T4-O:
Block perimeter: 2,000 ft. max.
--
*Additional, use-specific regulations apply for each type of
land use, including specifications about location, aesthetics,
size, access, parking, and other concerns (See Chapter 5 of
LDC)
All development proposals, excluding accessory structures,
within designated entranceways shall be processed as planned
developments. (900.5)
Block lengths in residential areas shall not exceed 2,000 ft. or
be less than 400 ft. in length, except where necessary to
intersect with an existing street. Wherever practicable, blocks
along thoroughfares and arterials shall not be less than 800 ft.
in length.
PD-O, PD-MU, PD-C, PD-R: Planned developments are subject
to additional general design requirements related to physical
characteristics of the site; relation to surrounding property;
relation to public utilities, facilities and services; relation to
major transportation facilities; compatibility; transitions;
design quality; relationship to adjacent property; access;
streets, drives, parking and service areas; pedestrian systems;
natural and historic features, conservation and preservation
areas; density/intensity; height; fences and screening; yards
and setbacks; trash and utility plant screens; signs;
landscaping; special guidelines for review of projects with
mixed use plan designations and projects at designated
entranceways; environmental factors; rights-of-way and utility
standards; stormwater management; consistency with
Comprehensive Plan; and other factors.
6-31
LDC ASSESSMENT
CITY OF BRADENTON
MANATEE COUNTY
1109 14th St. W. (City of Bradenton)
Intersection of 14th St. W. and 26th Ave. W., entering unincorporated
Manatee County
Images
1217 14th St. W (City of Bradenton)
2880 14th St. W. (Manatee County)
6-32
LDC ASSESSMENT
2017 14th St. W (City of Bradenton)
6-33
LDC ASSESSMENT
6-34
LDC ASSESSMENT
Figure 6 - 8. Comparative Regulatory Analysis: Manatee County and the City of Bradenton – Manatee Avenue W
Manatee Avenue
Some parcels along Manatee Avenue fall under Manatee County jurisdiction, while others have been incorporated into the City of Bradenton, as
shown in Figures 6-9 and 6-10 on the Future Land Use: Manatee Avenue Corridor and Zoning: Manatee Avenue Corridor maps below. This
analysis examines parcels within half a mile of the largely suburban commercial corridor of Manatee Avenue between Palma Sola Bay and 34th
Street West, which features interspersed County and City parcels. By comparing the regulations outlined in the comprehensive plans and land
development codes of Manatee County and the City of Bradenton—including issues such as building heights, setback requirements, prescribed
densities, parking requirements, minimum lot dimensions, parking requirements, building specifications, and permitted land uses—we can
determine the role of these mechanisms in shaping the urban form and development process along the Manatee Avenue corridor.
Manatee County has assigned five future land use (FLU) categories within half a mile of Manatee Avenue; Residential-3, Residential-6, Residential16, and Retail/Office/Residential directly front Manatee Avenue, and Residential-9 is located within a quarter mile of the road. There are 13
Manatee County zoning districts for the same area: general commercial (GC), neighborhood commercial medium (NC-M), planned development
commercial (PD-C), planned development golf course (PD-GC), planned development residential (PD-R), professional medium (PR-M), residential
duplex 4.5 (RDD-4.5), residential duplex 6 (RDD-6), residential multi-family 9 (RMF-9), residential single family 2 (RSF-2), residential single family 3
(RSF-3), residential single family 4.5 (RSF-4.5), and residential single family 6 (RSF-6).
The City, which does control less land along the corridor than does the County, also has five FLU categories in the area; suburban commercial
corridor, public/private schools, and urban commercial corridor front Manatee Avenue, and low density residential and medium density residential
are located within half a mile of Manatee Avenue. These parcels fall under three zoning categories. The majority of the land in the City along
Manatee Avenue is zoned as suburban commercial corridor, phasing into urban commercial corridor in the east as it approaches downtown
Bradenton. All of the residential uses within half a mile of Manatee Avenue are zoned as R-1 residential. There is no form based code in this part
of Bradenton.
The zoning regulations applied to this area by both jurisdictions are suburban in nature, requiring lower floor area ratios (FAR), deeper
setbacks, and a greater degree of separate uses than in the more urban shared corridor, 14th Street. For example, Manatee County’s general
commercial (GC) zoning district, which fronts most of Manatee Avenue, has a minimum front setback requirement of 25 feet, a minimum side
setback of 10 feet, a maximum building height of 35 feet, a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.25, and a general retail sales use parking
requirement of one space per 250 square feet of gross floor area. Similarly, professional medium (PR-M), the primary zoning category between
51st Street West and 43rd Street West, has the same setback and height requirements, a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.23, and an office use
parking requirement of one space per 200 square feet of gross floor area. For the City’s suburban commercial corridor zoning, there is a
minimum front setback requirement of 35 feet, a minimum side setback of 10 feet, a maximum building height of 35 feet, a maximum floor area
6-35
LDC ASSESSMENT
ratio (FAR) of 0.5, and a retail use parking requirement of one space per 250 square feet of gross floor area. The zoning requirements along the
majority of Manatee Avenue are actually quite similar, though the City’s maximum FAR is notably double that of the County. These requirements
prescribe low-density, low-intensity, commercial uses in the area and would prohibit the development of mixed-use nodes.
In terms of regulations for the residential areas surrounding Manatee Avenue, there are more substantial differences between County and City
policies. The County has eight different residential zones within half a mile of Manatee Avenue, separating residential areas by housing type
(single family, duplex, and multi-family) and density (ranging from 2.0 du/ga to 9.0 du/ga). The City has one residential zoning category (R-1, with
a maximum density of 6 du/a) for all single-use residential areas along the corridor, as well as the urban commercial corridor zone, which allows
up to 20 percent of that use as residential and has a maximum density of 10 du/a. This more general zoning allows for a broader, more
integrated range of housing types, including potential affordable housing than does the County’s divisive zoning system, and prescribes density
at the FLU level rather than at the zoning level. With a maximum of 6 dwelling units per acre surrounding the majority of the corridor,
detached single-family housing will continue to prevail in the area. Manatee County’s complex set of residential zones also makes the
development process more tedious and limits the potential for higher density, mixed-use nodes centered on transit. In theory, it would make
sense to either consolidate the County residential zoning districts RSF-2, RSF-3, RSF-4.5 into the RSF-6 category to allow up to 6 dwelling units an
acre. Another option would be to selectively amend the zoning for residential parcels within one to two blocks from Manatee Avenue to RSF-6 so
that the parcels are consistent with their respective RES-6 future land use designation. These changes are not part of the project scope and would
require further analysis of existing conditions. Therefore, no changes will be made to any residential areas as part of this project.
6-36
LDC ASSESSMENT
Figure 6 - 9. Manatee Avenue West Corridor Future Land Use Map
6-37
LDC ASSESSMENT
Figure 6 - 10. Manatee Avenue West Corridor Zoning Map
6-38
LDC ASSESSMENT
Figure 6 - 11. Comparison of Regulations applicable to the Manatee Avenue West Corridor
Analysis Parameters
CITY OF BRADENTON
MANATEE COUNTY
Parcels within 0.5 mile of Manatee Avenue from Palma Sola Bay
in the west to 34rd Street W. in the east
Parcels within 0.5 mile of Manatee Avenue from Palma Sola Bay
in the west to 34th Street W. in the east
Corridor Land Use Regulations
Future Land Use
Zoning
Overlays
Form-Based Code
Transect
Suburban Commercial Corridor
Low Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
Public/Private Schools
Urban Commercial Corridor
R-1
Suburban Commercial Corridor (SCC)
Urban Commercial Corridor (UCC)
Retail/Office/Residential (ROR)
General Commercial (GC)
Neighborhood Commercial – Medium (NC-M)
Professional – Medium (PR-M)
Residential Duplex 4.5 (RDD-4.5)
Residential Duplex 6 (RDD-6)
Residential Multi-Family 9 (RMF-9)
Residential Single Family (RSF-2, RSF-3, RSF-4.5 and RSF-6)
Planned Development (PDC, PDGC, and PDR)
None
None
No
No
6-39
LDC ASSESSMENT
Comp. Plan
Building Height
Height
Restrictions
CITY OF BRADENTON
LDC
MANATEE COUNTY
Comp. Plan
LDC
---
SCC: 35 ft. /2 stories
R-1: 35 ft.
UCC: 35 ft. /2 stories
---
All Zones: 35 ft.
Front
---
SCC: 35 ft.
R-1: 20 ft.
UCC: 20 ft.
---
Side
---
SCC: 10 ft.
R-1: 8 ft.
UCC: 10 ft.
---
Rear
---
SCC: 25 ft.
R-1: 20 ft.
UCC: 15 ft.
---
Waterfront
---
---
---
Frontage
Buildout
Density
Max. Gross
Residential
Density
---
---
---
Minimums:
GC: 25 ft.
PR-M: 25 ft.
RSF-3: SF detached – 25 ft.
RSF-4.5: SF detached – 20 ft.
PD-C: Thoroughfare streets – 30 ft.; local streets – 35 ft.
PD-R: 20 ft.; front loaded garages and carports – 25 ft.
Minimums:
GC: 10 ft.
PR-M: 10 ft.
RSF-3: SF detached – 10 ft.
RSF-4.5: SF detached – 8 ft.
PD-C: 15 ft.
PD-R: 8 ft.
Minimums:
GC: 15 ft.
PR-M: 15 ft.
RSF-3: SF detached – 20 ft.; other allowed uses – 20 ft.
RSF-4.5: SF detached – 20 ft.; other allowed uses – 20 ft.
PD-C: 20 ft.
PD-R: 15 ft.
Minimums:
RSF-4.5: 30 ft.
GC: 30 ft.
PD-C: N/A
PR-M: 30 ft.
PD-R: N/A
RSF-3: 30 ft.
---
Setbacks
SCC: N/A
LDR: 6 du/a
MDR: 10 du/a (12
du/a if units meet
SCC: N/A
R-1: 6 du/a
UCC: 10 du/a (13 du/a if moderate
income housing)
RES-3: 3.0 du/a
RES-6: 6.0 du/a
RES-16: 16.0 du/a
GC: N/A
PR-M: N/A
RSF-3: 3.0 du/a
RSF-4.5: 4.5 du/a
6-40
LDC ASSESSMENT
Comp. Plan
CITY OF BRADENTON
LDC
the moderate
income housing
guidelines)
P/PS: N/A
UCC: 10 du/a (13
du/a if moderate
income housing)
---
---
Max. Net
Residential
Density
---
---
Max. FAR
SCC: 0.5
LDR: 0.50
MDR: 0.5
P/PS: N/A
UCC: 0.7
SCC: 0.5
R-1: N/A
UCC: 0.5
Min. Open Space
(%), Nonresidential
---
25% min. only for Professional,
Commercial, Industrial, and
Min. Gross
Residential
Density
MANATEE COUNTY
Comp. Plan
ROR: new development - 9.0 du/a;
development existing at the time
of plan adoption – 16 du/a
RES-3: Min. 2.5 du/a in UIRA*
ROR: Min. 7.0 du/a in UIRA*
housing
RES-3: 6.0 du/a;9.0 du/a in UIRA*
RES-16: 20.0 du/a; 28 du/a in
UIRA*
ROR: new development – 16 du/a;
24 du/a in UIRA*; development
existing at the time of plan
development – 20 du/a
housing
RES-3: 0.23; 1.0 in UIRA
RES-6: 0.23; 1.0 in UIRA
RES-16: 0.25; 1.0 in UIRA
ROR: 0.35; 1.0 in UIRA; 1.0 for
hotels
---
LDC
PD-C: N/A
PD-R: N/A
---
---
GC: 0.25; 0.35 for mini-warehouse
PR-M: 0.23
RSF-3: N/A
RSF-4.5: N/A
PD-C: a range of FARs are permitted
PD-R: a range of FARs are permitted
GC: 15%
PR-M: 15%
RSF-3: N/A
6-41
LDC ASSESSMENT
Comp. Plan
CITY OF BRADENTON
LDC
MANATEE COUNTY
Comp. Plan
Residential Planned Development
Projects
Lot Dimensions
Min. Lot Area
LDC
RSF-4.5: N/A
PD-C: 20% outside watershed overlay district; 30% within
PD-R: 25%outside the WO district; 35% within; 20-ft. buffer along
district boundaries that abut and run parallel to any public road
---
SCC: N/A
R-1: 7,200 sq. ft.
UCC: N/A
---
GC: 7,500 sq. ft.
PR-M: 10,000 sq. ft.
RSF-3: SF detached – 10,000 sq. ft.; non-residential – 10,000 sq. ft.
RSF-4.5: SF detached: 7,000 sq. ft.; non-resid.: 7,000 sq. ft.
PD-C: a range of square footages are permitted
PD-R: a range of square footages are permitted
GC: 75 ft.
PD-C: N/A
PD-R: 60 ft.
PR-M: 75 ft.
RSF-3: SF detached – 75 ft.; non-residential uses – 75 ft.
RSF-4.5: SF detached – 70 ft.; non-residential uses – 70 ft.
---
Min. Lot Width
---
SCC: N/A
R-1: 75 ft.
UCC: N/A
---
Lot Coverage
---
SCC: N/A
R-1: 50% impervious surface
UCC: N/A
---
Parking
Residential
---
---
Varies by individual land use
Ex.:

2 spaces/single-family dwelling unit

2 spaces/multifamily dwelling unit, plus 1 space per 10 units
for guest parking

2 spaces/duplex dwelling unit

2 spaces/mobile home
Lodging
---
1, 2 & MF dwellings: 2 per du, + 1 per
10 MF units
Mobile homes: 1 per dwelling
Dormitory, fraternity, or sorority
house: 1 per two residences based
upon max capacity + 1 per employee
Lodging, boarding, or rooming house:
1 per sleeping room plus 1 per
resident manager
Hotels/motels: 1 per unit + 4 spaces
per 50 units
---
Office
---
1 per 250 sq. ft. of building floor area
---

Dormitories – 1 space/1.5 beds

Bed and breakfast – 1 space/lodging unit
1 space/200 sq. ft. gross office area
Retail
---
Restaurants: 1 per 3 seats based on
maximum capacity
---
Varies by individual land use
Ex.:
6-42
LDC ASSESSMENT
Comp. Plan
CITY OF BRADENTON
LDC
MANATEE COUNTY
Comp. Plan




Drive through or take-out: 1 per 50 sq.
ft. of building floor area
Catering service: 1 per 100 sq. ft. of
building floor area
Educational and religious uses: 1 per
staff and faculty, plus:
 Day care center: 1 per 10 clients
 Business training and secondary
schools: 1 per 5 students
 Elementary and intermediate
school: 1 per 100 students
 College or university: 1 per 10
residents plus 1 per 5 commuter
students
 Cultural facility: 1 per 100 sq. ft. of
visitor floor area
 Religious establishments: 1 per 3
seats based upon maximum
capacity of place of assembly
Indoor amusement establishment: 1
per 3 visitors
Outdoor amusement establishment: 1
per participant
Automotive uses: 1.5 per person
employed on the premises plus 1 per
4,500 sq. ft. of vehicle sales display
area
Manufacturing: 0.7 per person
employed on the largest shift
Health care facilities: 1 per staff
member on the largest shift plus 1 per
3 beds
Building and Site Design Specifications
Min. Unit Floor
--Area
SCC: N/A
R-1: 1,500 sq. ft.
UCC: N/A
LDC
---
Sit down restaurant: 1 space/80 sq. ft. GFA
Grocery/convenience store: 1 space/200 sq. ft. GFA
General retail sales use: 1 space/250 sq. ft. GFA
Shopping center: 1 space/200 sq. ft. GFA for first 400,000 sq.
ft., 1 space/300 sq. ft. GFA for second 400,000 sq. ft., and 1
space/400 sq. ft. GFA thereafter
GC: N/A
PD-C: N/A
PD-R: N/A
PR-M: N/A
RSF-3: SF detached – 1,200 sq. ft.
6-43
LDC ASSESSMENT
Comp. Plan
CITY OF BRADENTON
LDC
Max. Building
Size (nonresidential)
---
---
Min.
Landscaping
---
Design
Guidelines
---
Landscaping site plan and proposed
materials required.
Min. 3-foot-wide landscaped strip
between the sidewalk and curb, with a
tree planted every 100 feet
All commercial and multi-family
structures required to have
foundation landscaping (100 sq. ft. per
1,500 sq. ft. of building ground floor
area)
Parking lot landscape buffer required
(3-ft. for lots < 6,000 sq. ft.; 6-ft. for
lots > 6,000 sq. ft.)
Trees shall be planted along all streets
at a spacing of approximately 30 feet
to create a buffer between pedestrian
and automobiles
Special use permits require a
landscaped separation strip of at least
10 ft. along all property lines
Gasoline pumps and propane tanks
shall meet a 25-ft. front setback and
shall be landscaped
(See Ch. 6 of LUR for full design
guidelines)
“Proposed buildings should relate to
the architectural characteristics of
surrounding buildings”
MANATEE COUNTY
Comp. Plan
special approval (SA); 150,000 sq.
ft.
RES-6: 30,000 sq. ft. without SA;
150,000 sq. ft.
RES-16: 30,000 sq. ft. without SA;
150,000 sq. ft.
ROR: 50,000 sq. ft. without SA;
300,000 sq. ft.
---
General guidelines for urban form,
traditional urban neighborhoods,
suburban form, and corridors,
including references to “attention
LDC
RSF-4.5: SF detached – 1,000 sq. ft.
GC: 50,000 sq. ft.
PD-C: N/A
PD-R: N/A
PR-M: 30,000 sq. ft.
RSSF-3: N/A
RSF-4.5: N/A
All vehicle use areas containing more than 1,000 sq. ft. must have
360 sq. ft. of planting area, four canopy trees, and 20 shrubs per
20 parking spaces
No more than 10 consecutive parking spaces allowed without an
interior landscape buffer
20-ft. wide buffer required along rear property lines abutting
major thoroughfares
0-20 ft. screening buffers required between zoning district
boundaries; minimum width differs based on abutting uses (see
figure 7-4 Buffer Screening Matrix in LDC)
Buffer zones for proposed industrial uses adjacent to residential
uses/zoning shall use buffer option E, which requires a solid,
decorative, opaque wall a minimum of six feet in height with two
canopy trees and three and one-third understory trees per 100 ft.
All residential developments- 15 ft. wide perimeter greenbelt with
one shade tree—meeting minimum planting size standards in
Section 715-- planted every 30 feet on center
Foundation landscaping of 20 sq. ft. per 1,000 sq. ft. of proposed
gross floor area, located contiguous to the building
For recreational vehicle/mobile home sales, rental, and leasing
establishments, a minimum 15-foot wide landscaped screening
buffer shall be provided between the sales lots/area and the RV
park itself
Bulk and dimensional regulations:

Maximum density

Lot size requirements

Minimum front lot line

Maximum building height (35 ft.)
6-44
LDC ASSESSMENT
Comp. Plan
Building and Site
Configuration
Land Use
Distribution of
Uses
CITY OF BRADENTON
LDC
---
SCC: N/A
LDR: commercial
not to exceed more
than 1 acre or 5% of
total development
MDR: N/A
P/PS: N/A
MANATEE COUNTY
Comp. Plan
Design guidelines apply to:
 Any new development or
redevelopment of a building with 2
or more living units
 Additions and exterior changes to all
structures providing for nonresidential uses and all structures
with over three dwelling units prior
to the adoption of the LUR
 All mixed use developments
 New civic buildings or alterations to
civic buildings
Design guidelines regulate:
 Building massing and articulation
 A clear entry sequence from the
sidewalk to the front door (e.g.
hedges, porches)
 Wall surface materials
 Wall openings
 Roofs
 Site improvements
 Paving materials
 Furnishings and artwork
 Plant material and landscaping
Public and semi-public open spaces
should be defined by buildings or
landscape elements on a minimum of
two sides.
R-1: min. width at building line – 75 ft.
to aesthetics” and “neighborhood
identity”
---
---
LDC

Required yards

Yard encroachments
PD-R: Must have a focal point within the development, such as
water bodies, recreation areas, or community centers
(See Ch. 9 of LDC for full design guidelines for select areas of
Manatee County, such as the county entranceways and Historic
Cortez Fishing Village. These guidelines to not apply to this area.)
---
---
6-45
LDC ASSESSMENT
Comp. Plan
Permitted Uses
CITY OF BRADENTON
LDC
UCC: residential –
20%; nonresidential – 80%
SCC: Moderate
intensity
LDR: Residential
use, primarily
single-family with
possible
neighborhood
commercial
component
MDR: Residential
uses with possible
neighborhood
commercial
development
P/PS: Educational
facilities with
associated
accessory units
UCC: Medium
intensity mixed-use,
moderate density
residential
SCC: auto sales/rental; parking
lot/garage; automotive specialty;
public transportation terminal; marine
establishments; docks and piers;
testing laboratories; construction
service; storage establishments; plant
nurseries; dwelling unit w/1 principal
building; seasonal sales; private
events; comparison goods;
secondhand stores; shopping center
restaurants; catering; take
out/delivery/drive through;
café/sidewalk café < 20 seats;
newsracks, modular; personal service
establishments; business/domestic
service; business, training schools;
dormitories; religious establishments;
mortuaries, funeral homes,
crematories; offices – non-medical;
health services; veterinarian/animal
hospital
R-1: single family dwelling; home
occupation; dock/pier
UCC: parking lot/garage; docks and
piers; storage establishments; singlefamily residential; mixed-use/home
occupation; dwelling unit w/1
principal building; seasonal sales;
private events; comparison goods;
secondhand stores; shopping center
restaurants; catering; take
out/delivery/drive through;
café/sidewalk café < 20 seats;
newsracks, modular; personal service
establishments; business/domestic
MANATEE COUNTY
Comp. Plan
RES-3: Residential uses,
neighborhood retail uses,
professional/personal service
office uses, recreation facilities
office uses, recreation facilities
office uses, recreation facilities,
hotel/motel
ROR: Neighborhood retail uses,
community serving retail uses,
regional retail uses, office uses,
residential uses, hotel/motel,
recreational facilities
LDC
GC: building materials sales establishment; business services;
clinics; community residential homes; environmental land
preserves; equipment sales, rental and leasing (light); laboratories,
medical and dental; lodging place (hotel/motel); office, medical or
professional; outdoor advertising signs; parking (principal use);
personal service establishment; residential uses (duplex);
residential use (single family detached); restaurant; retail sales
(neighborhood convenience; retail sales (neighborhood general);
retail sales (general)
PD-C: Adult day care center; agricultural research facilities;
assisted living facility (large); auction houses (enclosed); auction
houses (open); bed and breakfast; breeding facility; building
materials sales establishment; bus and train passenger station;
business services; car wash (full service); car wash (incidental); car
wash (self-service); cemetery; child care center (large); child care
center (medium); child care center (accessory); churches/places of
worship; clinics; cultural facilities; drive-through establishments;
emergency shelters; environmental land preserves; equipment
sales, rental and leasing (heavy); equipment sales, rental and
leasing (light); farming service establishments; flea markets
(enclosed); flea markets (open); food catering service
establishment; funeral chapel; funeral home; game preserve; gas
pumps; heliport; helistop; intensive services (industrial service
establishment); intensive services (sign painting service); intensive
services (towing service and storage establishment); laboratories,
medical and dental; lodging place (hospital guest house); lodging
place (hotel/motel); mini-warehouse, self-storage; nursing homes;
office, medical or professional; outdoor advertising signs; outdoor
storage; parking (principal use); personal service establishment;
pet service establishments; radio, TV, communications, microwave
facilities; recreation (high intensity); recreation (medium
intensity); recreation (passive); recreational vehicle parks and
subdivisions; recreational vehicle/mobile home sales, rental, and
leasing; rehabilitation center; recovery home (large); recovery
home (small); restaurant; retail sales (neighborhood convenience;
6-46
LDC ASSESSMENT
Comp. Plan
CITY OF BRADENTON
LDC
MANATEE COUNTY
Comp. Plan
services; business, training schools;
religious establishments; mortuaries,
funeral homes, crematories; offices –
nonmedical; health services
Special
Permitted Uses
---
SCC: service station/repair; car wash;
adult entertainment; indoor
amusement establishment; outdoor
amusement establishment; parks;
clubs; heliports; heating and fuel; ice
plant; building materials; farm/marine
supplies; laundry/dry cleaning plant;
wholesale; communication towers;
RES-3:
 All mixed use projects require
special approval
 All projects for which gross
density exceeds 2.0 dwelling
units per acre, or in which any
net residential density exceeds
LDC
retail sales (neighborhood general); retail sales (general); sawmills;
schools of special education; service station; solid waste
management facilities; utility use; vehicle repair (major); vehicle
repair (community serving); vehicle repair (neighborhood serving);
vehicle sales, rental, leasing; veterinary clinic; veterinary hospitals;
wholesale trade establishment
PD-R: Adult day care center; assisted living facility (large); bed and
breakfast; bus and train passenger station; child care center
(large); child care center (medium); child care center (accessory);
churches/places of worship; civic, social, and fraternal
organizations/clubs; community residential homes; cultural
facilities; emergency shelters; environmental land preserves;
family day care home; funeral chapel; helistop; lodging place
(boarding house); lodging place (dormitory); personal service
establishment; recreation (passive); rehabilitation center; recovery
home (small); residential treatment facilities; residential uses
(duplex); residential uses (single family semi-detached); residential
uses (multiple family dwellings); residential use (triplex and
quadruplex dwellings); residential use (waterfront structures,
multi-family); residential use (single family detached); residential
use (single family attached); schools (elementary); schools (high
and middle); schools of special education
PR-M: tree farm; business services; clinics; community residential
homes; environmental land preserves, public and private; office,
medical, or professional; parking, commercial (primary use);
personal service establishment; residential use (multi-family
dwellings); residential use (single family detached)
RSF-3, RSF-4.5: Adult day care center; environmental land
preserves; family day care home; residential use (waterfront
structures, residential); residential use (single family detached)
GC: Adult day care center; agricultural uses; alcoholic beverage
assisted living facility (small); auction houses (enclosed); auction
houses (open); bus and train passenger station; car wash (full
service); car wash (incidental); car wash (self-service); cemetery;
child care center (large); child care center (medium); child care
center (small); child care center (accessory); churches/places of
worship; civic, social, and fraternal organizations/clubs; cultural
6-47
LDC ASSESSMENT
Comp. Plan
CITY OF BRADENTON
LDC
light manufacturing; public facilities;
convenience, grocery, drugs; auction
houses; restaurants – over 20 seats;
lounges; kennels, animal boarding;
free standing ice vending machine;
schools, public and private;
educational; cultural; cemeteries; day
care centers; hotels; motels; bed and
breakfast; boarding houses; hospitals;
nursing homes; group care homes;
group care facilities; social services
establishment
R-1: educational/cultural/religious
facilities, mortuary/crematory; public
facility, park; day care center
UCC: service station/repair; car wash;
auto sales/rental; automotive
specialty; adult entertainment; indoor
amusement establishment; outdoor
amusement establishment; parks;
clubs; public transportation terminal;
marinas; marine establishments;
heliports; testing laboratories; ice
plant; building materials
establishments; construction services;
farm/marine supplies; plant nurseries;
communications towers; public
facilities; convenience, grocery, drugs;
auction houses; restaurants – over 20
seats; lounges; kennels, animal
boarding; schools, public and private;
educational; cultural; dormitories;
cemeteries; day care centers; hotels;
motels; bed and breakfast; boarding
houses; hospitals; nursing homes;
group care homes; group care
facilities; social services establishment
MANATEE COUNTY
Comp. Plan
LDC
3.0 dwelling units per acre
require special approval
 Any nonresidential project
exceeding 30,000 sq. ft. of
gross building area requires
special approval
RES-6:
special approval
special approval
RES-16:
special approval
special approval
 Development of densities
greater than 9 du/ga in areas
that are not substantially or
completely developed with
residential uses exceeding 9
facilities; drive-through establishments; earthmoving (minor);
emergency shelters; equipment sales, rental and leasing (heavy);
farming service establishments; flea markets (enclosed); flea
markets (open); food catering service establishment; funeral
chapel; funeral home; gas pumps; group housing; helistop;
intensive services (industrial service establishment); intensive
services (sign painting service); intensive services (towing service
and storage establishment); lodging place (boarding house);
lodging place (dormitory); lodging place (hospital guest house);
mini-warehouse, self-storage; nursing homes; outdoor storage; pet
service establishments; public community uses; public use
facilities; radio, TV, communications, microwave facilities;
recreation (high intensity); recreation (medium intensity);
recreation (passive); recreational vehicle/mobile home sales,
rental, and leasing; rehabilitation center; recovery home (large);
recovery home (small); residential treatment facilities; schools
education; service station; utility use; vehicle repair (major);
vehicle repair (community serving); vehicle repair (neighborhood
serving); vehicle sales, rental, leasing
PD-C: agricultural uses; alcoholic beverage establishment; animal
services; assisted living facility (small); child care center (small);
earthmoving (minor); public community uses; public use facilities;
recreation (low intensity)
PD-R: agricultural uses; animal services; assisted living facility
(small); child care center (small); earthmoving (minor);
environmental education facilities; public community uses; public
use facilities; recreation (low intensity); residential use (waterfront
structures, residential); utility use
PR-M: adult day care center; agricultural uses; animal services;
assisted living facility (large); assisted living facility (small); bed and
breakfast; bus and train passenger station; cemetery; child care
center (large); child care center (medium); child care center
(small); child care center (accessory); churches/places of worship;
civic, social, and fraternal organizations/clubs; cultural facilities;
earthmoving (minor); emergency shelters; environmental
education facilities; funeral chapel; funeral home; helistop; lodging
places (boarding house); lodging places (hospital guest house);
6-48
LDC ASSESSMENT
Comp. Plan
CITY OF BRADENTON
LDC
MANATEE COUNTY
Comp. Plan
LDC
du/ga at the time of plan
approval require approval
ROR:
special approval
exceeding 0.25 FAR requires
special approval
 Non-residential projects
exceeding 150,000 sq. ft. gross
building area may be
considered only if consistent
with the requirements for large
commercial uses
nursing homes; public community uses; public use facilities; radio,
TV, communications, microwave facilities; recreation (low
intensity); recreation (passive); rehabilitation center; recovery
home (small); recovery home (large); residential treatment
facilities; residential use (waterfront structures, residential);
schools (elementary); schools (high and middle); schools of special
education; utility use; veterinary clinic
RSF-3, RSF-4.5: agricultural uses; animal services; assisted living
facility (large); assisted living facility (small); bed and breakfast;
cemetery; churches/places of worship; civic, social, and fraternal
organizations/clubs; community residential homes; cultural
facilities; earthmoving (minor); emergency shelters; environmental
education facilities; funeral chapel; funeral home; nursing homes;
public community uses; public use facilities; radio, TV,
communications, microwave facilities; ; recreation (low intensity);
recreation (passive); rehabilitation center; recovery home (large);
recovery home (small); residential treatment facilities; schools
education; utility use
Additional Requirements
*Additional, use-specific regulations
apply for each type of land use,
including specifications about location,
aesthetics, size, access, parking, and
other concerns (See Chapter 5 of LUR)
*Additional, use-specific regulations apply for each type of land
use, including specifications about location, aesthetics, size, access,
parking, and other concerns (See Chapter 5 of LDC)
All development proposals, excluding accessory structures, within
designated entranceways shall be processed as planned
developments. (900.5)
PD-C, PD-R, PD-GC: Planned developments are subject to
additional general design requirements related to physical
characteristics of the site; relation to surrounding property;
relation to public utilities, facilities and services; relation to major
transportation facilities; compatibility; transitions; design quality;
relationship to adjacent property; access; streets, drives, parking
and service areas; pedestrian systems; natural and historic
features, conservation and preservation areas; density/intensity;
height; fences and screening; yards and setbacks; trash and utility
plant screens; signs; landscaping; special guidelines for review of
projects with mixed use plan designations and projects at
6-49
LDC ASSESSMENT
Comp. Plan
CITY OF BRADENTON
LDC
MANATEE COUNTY
Comp. Plan
LDC
designated entranceways; environmental factors; rights-of-way
and utility standards; stormwater management; consistency with
Comprehensive Plan; and other factors.
Block lengths in residential areas shall not exceed 2,000 ft. or be
less than 400 ft. in length, except where necessary to intersect
with an existing street. Wherever practicable, blocks along
thoroughfares and arterials shall not be less than 800 ft. in length.
6-50
LDC ASSESSMENT
CITY OF BRADENTON
MANATEE COUNTY
Images
Manatee Avenue crossing onto the mainland at Palma Sola Bay
7900 Manatee Avenue
7350 Manatee Avenue
6933 Manatee Avenue
6915 Manatee Avenue
6729 Manatee Avenue – north side of street, left side of image
6-51
LDC ASSESSMENT
CITY OF BRADENTON
6749 Manatee Avenue – South side of street, right side of image
MANATEE COUNTY
6500 Manatee Avenue – north side of street, left side of image
Manatee Avenue –south side of street, right side of image
5857 Manatee Avenue
4131 Manatee Avenue
5465 Manatee Avenue
6-52
LDC ASSESSMENT
CITY OF BRADENTON
4076 Manatee Avenue
MANATEE COUNTY
5106 Manatee Avenue
4700 Manatee Avenue
3730 Manatee Avenue
6-53

MANATEE COUNTY URBAN CORRIDORS

Transcription

Similar documents

multifamily development and investment

Print Details

Creekside at Berkeley Hills

Think soliciTors should sTick To your schedule

Candinas Plans

Going Beyond Professionalism to "Be Excellent to

OCT-NOV 07 - Alcoholics Anonymous Central Office

Cindercrete Novabrik Brochure

here! - BVOPN

Final Four presentation board