Benderson and Kimley-Horn want to revise the Fruitville Initiative

At a public workshop on March 30, 2021, the Kimley-Horn urban planning firm presented a series of proposed changes to the Fruitville Initiative. The key change would open the door to larger retail spaces within the Initiative, an experimental mixed use development at Fruitville Rd. and I-75.

Proposed changes would allow more large
retail on all sectors of the Fruitville Initiative

The changes appear to come from the Benderson Development Inc., which acquired a 40-acre parcel within the Initiative from the County at the bargain price (approx. $3 million) several years ago, then proposed a truck depot. Now Benderson is proposing another idea that would change the constraints that seek a walkable place for people to live, work, and play.

The key documents are below.

Planning documents:

Pre App DRC Comment Fruitville Initiative

Correspondence from Kimley-Horn Planner Philip DeMaria Jr. 

Public Input at the online workshop:

Questions from a private planner regarding the Benderson plan

Recorded comments at the 3.30.21 workshop - partial audiofile

Hi Hat hearing to be postponed after procedural errors were identified by a citizen

A Public Hearing for a giant development in North Sarasota that had been scheduled for March 23, 2021, will be postponed after several rather glaring errors in the procedures used to publish the hearing and to allow for public participation were spotted by a former county attorney.

East Sarasota attorney Susan Schoettle-Gumm wrote to Jim Turner, the land use lawyer and family member of the owners of Hi Hat Ranch, citing certain violations of required procedures. Turner soon replied that he would request that the hearing be postponed in order to address the issues. 

One concern was the amount of time allowed for public awareness. Hi Hat Ranch is a complex project involving 12,000 acres and perhaps 30 years of developmental actions. Citizens were surprised when they saw they had been given just four days - from Friday afternoon, March 19, to noon on Monday, March 22, to receive, read and digest, and formally comment and testify. Elsewhere counties typically provide necessary documents two or more weeks in advance of public hearings.  

The errors included four violations of county requirements:

1. Noticing the proposed amendment as both a privately initiated amendment and a public initiated amendment in both the legal notice and the postcard. 

2. The Hearing has to be within 60 days of the Planning Commission's decision (the PC is Sarasota's Land Planning Agency) and today, March 23, is the 61st day.

3. The staff report and supporting documents had to be made available to the public two Fridays before the hearing. on the proposed development  The County only made them available on Friday, March 19 -- 5 days before the scheduled hearing.

4. The hearing Agenda listed two items, but only allowed one opportunity for Public input.

The exchange between Schoettle-Gumm and Turner was cordial. After receiving her email, Turner replied: 

While I believe most of the procedural issues you have raised are not fatal to the process , I have made the decision to postpone the Board hearing scheduled for tomorrow to ensure these issues are addressed. We will appear before the Board at the scheduled time, explain the situation and then reschedule.

A full copy of Schoettle's letter is here, and an image of the key points is below.

March 22 letter from Schoettle-Gumm to Jim Turner

Citizens who have followed or participated in many public hearings have suggested that the "public" component of Public Hearings has diminished. Citizens often prepare detailed analyses and are allowed 5 minutes - sometimes just 3 minutes - to present their findings. 

Bending requirements such as merging two distinct matters into a single opportunity for public comment could ignore significant issues and relevant data."Another example of how this County cares nothing about following the rules—breaking several, not just one," was one longtime activist's comment.

More on the Hi Hat Proposed Development here and here.

Flying Blind: Citizen Comment for Hi Hat Public Hearing

Anyone wishing to testify regarding the Hi Hat public hearing can do so until Noon Monday, March 22 at this link. Comments are limited to 1,500 characters (not words).

Below is a complete comment submitted to the Board of Sarasota County Commissioners regarding the March 23rd hearing on Hi Hat, a 10,000-acre proposed development. Submitted on Sunday, March 21, 2021 by Tom Matrullo, co-founder of Citizens for Sarasota County. An excerpt of this comment was submitted to meet the 1,500-character limit.

To the members of the Board of Sarasota County Commissioners:

As you address the giant Turner family Hi Hat Ranch project on March 23, 2021, it’s important that you consider the concerns raised by the Miakka Community Club. These include thoughtful, informed observations about water, the ecosystem, the environment, roads and traffic, all warranting close attention. Surely you have read Ms. Ayech's letter; for ease of reference it is linked here.

 

It’s necessary to consider the larger context here as well. It’s virtually impossible to do this, however, as the data necessary to fully grasp this context is not compiled in a manner that allows you -- or the public you serve -- to accurately see the future your actions are bringing about.

 

Hi Hat Map

Have you driven through the Hi Hat lands recently? It’s not simply a rural area of great natural beauty; it's also a vast segment of the county that lies between major roads -- Fruitville to the North, Clark to the South, and Bee Ridge (when extended eastward). There is also a major FPL Power line extending northward through the property from Clark to Fruitville.

When a project of the scale and complexity of Hi Hat Ranch comes to you, the impacts are manifold; they are likely to permanently alter the character of East Sarasota County.

 

Here’s my major concern: If you wish to hold a formal hearing that includes the participation of an informed public, it is incumbent upon you and essential to the process that the public of Sarasota County be in possession of crystal clear information, in plain English, of the context -- the proportions of the bigger picture.

 

What would such a picture include? At minimum it would communicate a dynamic image through time of the unfolding development of Sarasota County -- those residential, commercial, and industrial developments that are planned, approved and underway; those that are completed, and those natural  assets which as yet are undisturbed. Proportions expressing, for example:

 

• The number of dwellings approved for construction in each of the five districts, and in the county as a whole;

• The acreage of land already committed to future development in proportion to the total developable land mass, and to the total lands reserved for public uses and for conservation; 

• The miles of future roads, their numbers of lanes, clearly mapped as needed to adequately serve that future population;

• An accurate, detailed and realistic accounting of all costs of these roads;

• An accurate, detailed and realistic accounting of all costs for those public services necessitated by private developments -- police, fire, emergency, hospital, schools, evacuation routes, hurricane shelters and all others;

• An accurate, detailed and realistic assessment of how many dwelling units are destined for the many large scale developments such as Skye Ranch, Wellen Park, Sarasota National, Grand Park, Grand Palm and Pat Neal's many other Grand projects, Palmer Ranch, SIPOC, the Fruitville Initiative, the Villages of Manasota Beach, Waterside at Lakewood Ranch and many more, as listed in the Planning Department document below.

 

 

Without this data-rich picture, we who live here are blind. 

 

Furthermore it has now been demonstrated that key planning maps (RMA1 and RMA 3) have not been updated in decades, despite repeated requests from residents and County promises to make them current.(1) Is this proper custodianship of the public realm?

 

In the absence of a shared public vision, a “public hearing” -- in which the people of Sarasota are purported to participate -- borders on charade. 

 

So here’s my key question: Do you yourselves have access to the aforementioned detailed current and realistic accounting, or not? If you do, then why have you not done your utmost to share it clearly and openly with the people you were elected to represent? If you do not yourselves possess this information, then how can you claim to understand in any clear, rigorous and informed way the many impactful consequences that lie ahead? 

 

Over recent decades, public planning in Florida has jettisoned the essential elements of integral vision, thanks in great measure to the abdication of constructive regional and state attention and review. Random, piecemeal process has taken the place of a comprehensive approach candidly shared with all. Without that picture, the future of Sarasota is unknown. 

 

In this time of crippled comprehensive provision for our future needs and quality of life, each of you has a special responsibility to charge developers with moulding projects that contribute to our quality of life -- not just for their tens of thousands of future customers, but for all who live and work here. Without such a thorough, thought-out vision, we the people are adrift, experiencing the chronic nightmare of Sarasota County’s relentless blind growth.

(1)Herald Tribune, March 21, 2021, Residents call on Sarasota County to update rural planning maps before it’s too late.

 

 (2) See Rhodes, Robert M. (2020) "Florida’s Growth Management Odyssey: Revolution, Evolution, Devolution, Resolution," Journal of Comparative Urban Law and Policy: Vol. 4 : Iss. 1 , Article 11, 56-69.

Residents throughout Sarasota petition to update flawed planning maps

When the custodians of public planning are unaware their own maps are out of date, one has to wonder: What else do they not know they do not know?

According to this March 21, 2021 story from the Herald Tribune, the Board of County Commissioners, which is moving to eliminate citizen amendments to the Comprehensive Plan, has failed to update key planning tools. 

According to a citizen petition:

"In total, more than 10,000 acres of Sarasota 2050 RMAs are incorrectly designated on RMA-1 and RMA-3."

Certain maps have not been updated in nearly 30 years, says Ron Collins, one of the citizens petitioning the County to update erroneous maps that mislead homeowners and cost developers and affected citizens time and money to straighten out. according to the HT:

A resident will believe, based on the map, that their property is against an area designated as a greenway.

“You think it could never be developed as a village when in fact that is wrong and at that point, a village can be built in your backyard,” Collins said. 

Below the press release are links to more data, including the actual Petition signed by more than 250 residents of Sarasota County. It was submitted to Planning and Zoning Manager Michele Norton at the county. 

Before the Board makes it more difficult or even impossible for citizens to have a say in our Comprehensive Plan, perhaps a thorough review of the quality and currency of its data is in order.

Citizen Petition to update out of date county maps riddled with errors.

Excerpt: 

Update-to-date maps help people navigate the planning process more efficiently. They save applicants time and money. They make it easier for the public to understand what can be built in a particular location. And they make rezone and permit approvals more predictable.

Press Release

Petition Signers by residential District and political affiliation:

BCC DISTRICT	PETITIONERS
1	36
2	39
3	4
4	168
5	8
TOTAL	255

 

 

DEM	81
REP	123
NPA	50
Other	1
TOTAL	255

"That final loophole is astonishing" -- Lobeck on Hi Hat Master Plan

Letter sent March 19 from attorney Dan Lobeck to the Board, offering salient reasons why the Master Plan for Hi Hat Ranch, which will be addressed Tuesday March 22, fails to be sufficient in many ways. The text has been redacted to put the focus on Mr. Lobeck's last point, regarding road sufficiency and traffic:

Hi Hat Ranch

Honorable County Commissioners:

I and my firm represent Saddle Creek Owners Association, Inc., which operates the Saddle Creek Subdivision directly adjoining the proposed Hi-Hat Ranch Village development (and sharing a border about a mile long), which is before you for public hearing this Tuesday, March 23 .

We greatly appreciate the outreach, communications and cooperation of Jim Turner in the review and preparation of the proposed Master Development Plan.  In particular, we appreciate the relocation of the proposed Regional Sports Complex away from Saddle Creek, to a more suitable location north and east of the original site near Saddle Creek.

<A section relating to future high school, sporting areas, and another section on ground water have been elided> 

Transportation

Access to Saddle Creek is from Clark Road.  We are alarmed that the Transportation Conditions in the Master Development Order fail to address the need to maintain adequate capacity on Clark Road to handle the huge increase in traffic from the proposed Hi-Hat development, and to make the developer pay for needed road improvements for that purpose, as a Condition in the Master Development Order and as required by the Sarasota 2050 policies of the Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan.   The same problem exists as to impacts of the development on many other east County roads.

Proposed Transportation Condition 11.B.7 provides that each rezoning in the development shall evaluate the need for widening or building only four road segments: two segments of Bee Ridge Road, North/South Roadway B, and Fruitville Road between that roadway and Lorraine Road.  That is despite the fact that the Traffic Study has identified sixteen road segments which will need improvements to handle the traffic from the Hi-Hat Ranch development, including the need to widen Clark Road from two lanes to four in the vicinity of Saddle Creek and elsewhere. 

Further, Transportation Condition 11.A.6 provides that no Development Orders throughout the development shall be approved if certain biennial monitoring of traffic impacts show a roadway becoming congested below the adopted level of service unless “funding commitments” are made sufficient to resolve the deficiency (with the developer paying its proportional share for the new capacity and the taxpayers paying the rest) or – now get ready for this, because it is actually in there -- if the Development Order includes “other traffic mitigating measures” including “the promotion of telecommuting, ride sharing or transit” acceptable to Sarasota County and “that are intended to eliminate the impact from Hi Hat Ranch development on the deficiently operating facility(ies).”

That final loophole is astonishing.  If the developer commits to promote ridesharing and telecommuting (perhaps with flyers given to purchasers), and “intends” -- intends -- that to be enough to take care of the traffic, and if County staff signs off on that, the developer is good to go gridlocking County roads in reality.   (“Whoops, sorry about that, but we really, really intended our promotion of ridesharing to keep the roads drivable.”)

Policy VOS 2.9 of the Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan (in the Sarasota 2050 provisions) requires that each Village development “shall provide adequate infrastructure that meets or exceeds the level of service standard adopted by the County and be Fiscally Neutral or Fiscally Beneficial.”

Instead, the Conditions now before you are woefully inadequate to comply with that requirement.  And the County has not even done a study showing who is going to pay for all the road improvements that will be needed and are in part planned east of I-75 that the County Commission is in the course of approving. 

Ben Franklin and others said that a failure to plan is a plan to fail.

More planning is needed in and for this Master Development Order, for the protection of the people of Saddle Creek and very many more, before it deserves to be approved. 

Thank you very much for your considerations.

  

Dan Lobeck, Esq.

Florida Bar Board Certified in

Condominium and Planned Development Law

Law Offices of Lobeck & Hanson, P.A.

2033 Main Street, Suite 403

Sarasota, FL  34237

Telephone:  (941) 955-5622

Facsimile:   (941) 951-1469

www.lobeckhanson.com

The Future of Sarasota - Evolution or Devolution?

Sarasota is 100 years old this year. The Library is holding several public events in honor of the Centennial, including this one about the next 100 years. 

The Future of Sarasota

Futurist David Houle will give a presentation on the future of Sarasota County over the next 100 years. He won a Speaker of the Year award from Vistage International, the leading organization of CEOs in the world. This virtual program will be hosted in Zoom.

Register Now B

This should be a lively program - far livelier than the dreary meetings our elected officials and various boards - like the Planning Commission - manage to come up with whenever they face the public's failure to understand why its concerns never seem to be dignified with honest, detailed discussions. 

Why is Sarasota facing a preemption of its residents' right to think comprehensively, with vision, about the future? Can we be sustainable, innovative, environmentally sound, and pace ourselves? Can we begin to acknowledge the Rights of Nature? Can we remember that Sarasota let the state in envisioning the future? 

Why are we allowing people we elect to give away vast amounts of open land to gated community developers who have nothing new to offer, nothing that bodes well for schools, community, or the environment. Just more of same, a path leading to a kind of unsustainable lifestyle for anything except those who wish to escape community altogether?

There's a brien narrative of how the state built a fairly sensible model of comprehensive planning, then blew it to smithereens that every Floridian should read. It traces the arc of responsible state comprehensive planning in Florida - its birth, evolution, and eventual destruction at the hands of Rick Scott in 2011.

Does the public have any right to meaningful development in Sarasota? Meaningful, that is, culturally, environmentally, socially, aesthetically and economically?

 It's not a story to be proud of, but it's certainly one to be fully and consistently aware of: Florida's Growth Management Odyssey: Revolution, Evolution, Devolution, Resolution - Robert M. Rhodes, 2020