Bradenton approves rezoning and comp plan changes for Westminster campus after wide public debate

Bradenton City Council on Aug. 13 adopted a citywide text amendment that allows consideration of increased density in the Coastal High Hazard Area and approved a related map amendment and rezoning for the Westminster retirement campus in Point Pleasant.

The council approved the text amendment (Ordinance 4035) earlier in the meeting and later voted to adopt the campus-specific future-land-use map amendment (Ordinance 4036) and a T‑5 rezoning (Ordinance 4037) after a long public hearing and debate. The two property-specific ordinances passed on final reading 4–1; Councilwoman Moore cast the lone “no” vote. The council recorded a separate 5–0 vote earlier to transmit and adopt the enabling text change that permits consideration of density increases in evacuation Zone A when paired with a binding mitigation/development agreement.

Why it matters: Westminster Communities of Florida — which operates the Point Pleasant campus — is seeking to secure the development rights required to replace aging buildings and maintain the campus population as it redevelops. Westminster and its planning team told the council the current on‑site built density predates the city’s current future‑land‑use rules, that the campus needs the ability to rebuild to maintain housing for older adults, and that modern replacement buildings would be built to current Florida building codes and evacuation requirements.

What the ordinances do: The adopted comp plan text amendment creates the statutory pathway for city council to approve future‑land‑use map changes that increase density in the Coastal High Hazard Area only after the city and property owner enter a binding mitigation/development agreement describing evacuation and other measures. The Westminster map amendment changes about 15.95 acres from “High‑Density Residential” to “Urban Central Business District,” raising the allowable base density on that land (the UCBD category allows up to 40 dwelling units per acre; an additional bonus to 50 du/acre is available for affordable units under city rules). The rezoning ordinance changes the same parcels from T4/T4R to the T5 transect in the form‑based code; T5 carries a higher maximum building height (the applicant agreed to a 12‑story maximum in the development agreement, described as two floors of parking plus ten habitable floors).

Details and numbers: Westminster’s representatives said the campus currently has roughly 401 units on about 11 acres (about 36 du/acre by that older built pattern). The package approved by council caps future development on the 15.95 acres at about 537 equivalent dwelling units (EDUs) in the development agreement the council authorized the mayor to sign, and it limits maximum building height on the site to 12 stories (two floors of parking included). The council record and staff materials show the site-specific package includes a binding conceptual site plan and mitigation steps for evacuation of both nursing/assisted‑living residents and independent living residents.

Council and staff: Robin Singer, the city’s planning and community development director, said the ordinance package complies with state statutes governing coastal high hazard areas once paired with the mitigation agreement and explained staff support for the text and map changes. Patricia Petrov, attorney for Westminster, and Katie LaBarre, AICP planner for the project, presented the applicant’s case; Westminster CEO Hank Keith told the council, “We plan to continue to be here hopefully for another 70 years.”

Neighborhood objections and city responses: Dozens of nearby residents and owners spoke during the public hearings. Opponents urged denial, citing concerns about increased density in the city’s CHHA, evacuation time and plans, traffic and truck turning on narrow neighborhood streets, and aging water and sewer infrastructure downtown. Commenters referenced the Jacobs Engineering review commissioned by the city, a proposed relocation and upgrade for Lift Station 8, and multi‑million‑dollar potable‑water and wastewater improvement estimates that staff said would be refined once engineering design moves forward. Supporters — including many Westminster residents and senior‑living staff — said the campus already provides local jobs and volunteer capacity, that Westminster has an established evacuation protocol reviewed by the county and state health agencies, and that redevelopment would replace older buildings with structures built to modern codes.

Implementation and next steps: The ordinances were adopted subject to administrative updates to legal descriptions and acreage in the ordinance exhibits. City staff and the applicant will proceed to the project’s site improvement plan, engineering design and permit phases; those steps will define exact off‑site utility upgrades, traffic mitigations and construction sequencing. City staff said those infrastructure designs and cost allocations will be finalized as part of the site improvement plan and as the city’s water/sewer upgrade planning (including work identified in Jacobs’ preliminary engineering) moves from concept into construction.

Votes at a glance

- Ordinance 4035 (comp plan text amendment permitting consideration of increased density in CHHA when paired with a binding mitigation agreement): motion to approve carried 5–0 on final adoption earlier in the meeting.

- Ordinance 4036 (future‑land‑use map amendment, approx. 15.95 acres, High‑Density Residential → Urban Central Business District): motion to adopt passed 4–1 with Councilwoman Moore voting against the measure. The motion included an instruction to verify and update legal descriptions and acreage in ordinance exhibits.

- Ordinance 4037 (rezoning of same parcels from T4/T4R to T5 form‑based transect): motion to adopt passed 4–1 with Councilwoman Moore voting no. The motion included the same exhibit verification requirement.

What the record shows: The council required the applicant to sign a development/mitigation agreement that is part of the record and specifies the maximum EDU cap for the site, the binding conceptual site plan, a hurricane evacuation protocol and a traffic‑management requirement to be reviewed with future site improvement plans. Staff emphasized that final utility upgrades, timing and cost shares will be determined during engineering and SIP review; the council’s approvals do not bypass those technical reviews.

Looking ahead: The applicant said construction would occur in phases and that infrastructure upgrades (including water and sewer improvements and Lift Station 8 relocation) will be coordinated with the city. City staff said those infrastructure projects can take months to design and years to construct; they also noted federal and state grant programs for resilience and mitigation are potential funding sources to leverage private investment.

Ending: The package represents a compromise between an applicant seeking to preserve and modernize a long‑standing campus and a neighborhood seeking limits on height, traffic and density near historic single‑family properties. Councilmembers said they expect continued public meetings and staff follow‑up as site plans and engineering designs advance.