County "contemplates" comp plan amendments

Sarasota County is "contemplating language" that could amend the terms of the 2050 Comprehensive Plan.

(Click on photo to enlarge)

At a Jan. 18 meeting, Sarasota Planner Vivian Roe presented two amendments proposed by developers for public input:

1. reducing the required open space (OS) for Villages from the current 50% to 33%.
2. reduction in size and or placement of Greenbelt buffers (currently required to be 500' in width).

What's driving the proposed changes?

• Developers who apply for villages have been revising comp plan policy requesting to reduce the OS from 50% to something less (for specific sites).
• If there is a change to the policy, each developer requesting a reduction of OS will not need to get a Comp Plan Amendment, just a rezoning, said Sarasota Planner Vivian Roe.

Those present had questions and comments:
-- If this is going to become part of the process, the notification should be expanded - the public needs to know - said one person.
-- To allow more of the open space to be housing - doesn’t this encourage more houses, or more single family format, with less walkability - said another.
-- Expediting development could mean faster tranformation of the remaining open land of the county to tracts of single family homes without character or 2050 value.

While the benefits to developers are clear:
-- simpler application
-- less costly
-- more land to put houses on

The potential downside to everyone else that could result:
-- Loss of village strengths (e.g., walkability)
-- Loss of 2050 priorities and values

Greenbelts could lose any depth or buffering, as happened with LT Ranch on Clark Road.

Several who attended brought up the question of the top-down nature of the county process. In this case, developers propose changes - the public is invited in a secondary move to REact, provide "input" -- followed by the County Commission deciding the issue. What if, at the time developers are PROposing, the County invited citizens to PROactively PROpose, as well? In some cases, as with the proposed recycling center within spitting distance of the Celery Fields, the very land in question is owned by the county - i.e., by us.

Should we not have some proactive procedural primacy?

Citizens with comments can email them directly to the presenting planner, Vivian Roe, at VRoe@scgov.net.

A few slides from the PowerPoint presentation at Gulf Gate Library

A proposed change in procedure for Sarasota's Charter Review Board

A follow-up to the most recent Charter Review Board meeting, at which Bob Waechter submitted an amendment to the Sarasota County Charter, and the Board agreed to review it at its next meeting. Neither Waechter nor the Board disclosed the content of the amendment, but a person in attendance requested a copy and read aloud from it. It proposed to change the Board from an elected panel to an appointed Board.

Following the meeting, one person who'd been in attendance sent an email to each member of the Board. A copy is below:

To the Charter Review Board: 

I attended your Jan. 20th, 2016 meeting. Much of the discussion involved efforts on your part to be more meticulous about procedure. While this is laudable, I was surprised to learn that you do not routinely make the texts of proposed amendments docketed for review easily available to the public. 

Not publishing proposed amendments as soon as you receive them fails to provide open participation to the public in this process. These are, after all, amendments that could eventually impact great numbers of people. While you appear conscientious about allotting time for the pubic to speak at meetings, it would be consistent for you to adopt a rule or bylaw to the effect that proposed amendments need to be published promptly upon submission to the Board. 

This can be easily accomplished if you would require all amendments to be submitted via digital format -- in a pdf or text file that then could be posted to your page on the county's site. Virtually no resources or storage space would be required for this purpose. 

With this procedure in place, amendment proposals could be shared with the general public via the Internet on many sites, virtually immediately upon submission. One result would be more informed meetings, as those attending will have had time to read and consider new proposals. 

Another benefit: You would avoid even the appearance of impropriety as was raised at the Jan. 20th meeting in which several members of the public objected to Mr. Waechter's proposal being submitted and set for review without having shared its title or intent with those present in the meeting chamber. I understand this was not the first time Mr. Waechter had appeared with his amendment, but for myself and other first-timers, there was a sense of inappropriate secretiveness. 

If you do not have staffing for this purpose, I'm sure we can find a public-minded citizen who can create a dedicated site whose sole purpose would be to publish amendments submitted to the board at no charge in a timely manner. 

Thank you for considering these thoughts. 

Thomas Matrullo
Sarasota, FL

Several days later, Donna Barcomb, Chairman of the CRB, responded:

Dear Mr. Matrullo, 

I do not know why we haven't published proposed amendments previously however I think it is a good idea. I do believe we need to address this as well as some other procedural "rules" or by-law amendments. 

Thank you, 

Donna Barcomb

Ms Barcomb is the only member of the Board to respond to date. She will be stepping down from the Chair to be succeeded by Richard Dorfman. Other members of the Board include: Anthony Sawyer; Pat Wayman; John Fellin; Steven Fields; Joe Justice; Jim Gabbert, and Bruce Dillon

Density can save open space but 2050 plan privatizes it

From a 2050 Plan comment thread:

Maynard Hiss The 2050 residential dwelling unit densities are at .2 - .4 units per acre or 64 - 128 units per sq mile. The downtown core areas have densities Downtown Residential Overlay District (DROD) densities can average 50 dwelling units per acre, but can go as high as 200 dwelling units per acre. The average of 50 dwelling units per acre would be the equivalent to 32000 per sq mile, however, a much smaller area is covered by the district than a sq mile. In other words one sq mile of 2050 dwelling units may sit on less than an acre of downtown Sarasota, saving 639 acres of open space.

The ironic thing is, there are lots of open space requirements for the 2050 area low density in the rural area where all land is privatized and monopolized by the development or home owners association, and no one else is allowed to use it. For example, a developer must set aside 600 acres of open space for 400 units, but is not required to give public access to the area. Many of the functions in the 2050 developments including most types of agriculture and water conservation are not protected, and natural areas are fragmented. 

Whereas in the highest density urban areas in the city of Sarasota where people use land most effectively there are no real requirements to assure high quality public open space to support the downtown high and medium density or even low density development. Note the high density developments share not only their open space with the 2050 low density residents they also share it with everyone else in the county and region and millions of tourist and their land guzzling cars.

Furthermore the open space in the downtown is often separated from the developments by a wall of 5 or more lanes of traffic, and the space itself is little more than a huge parking lot, which fragments the open space into tiny pieces of grass. Open space in the downtown is often not open space but instead covered with public cultural buildings such as auditoriums, art centers, garden clubs, orchestra halls, performing arts centers, all of which are not allowed in the 2050 public open spaces.

REMINDER: For Immediate Release: 2050 Action Network Press Conference

For Immediate Release:  2050 Action Network Press Conference   

• Monday October 20th, 10:30 a.m.

• 1660 Ringling Blvd. (outside County Administration building facing the Post Office)

The 2050 Action Network is a group of local civic organizations who have come together in shared concern over the 2050 amendments created by the Sarasota County Commission.  The 2050 Action Network joins 1000 Friends of Florida in their opposition to the 2050 changes and opposes the poor land use planning, economic development and environmental stewardship inherent in Sarasota 2050 changes.  

The Sarasota 2050 Plan is, in the County’s own words, a plan of compromise.  The County Commission is recklessly disregarding the goals of that compromise and perverting the economic, environmental, quality of life and sound planning goals and principles that are the foundation of the 2050 Plan compromise.  If it is time to review the 2050 Plan, there should be a full, open and transparent review of all portions of the Plan with representatives from all of the community at the table to develop any changes.

Sarasota County has failed in its responsibilities to the residents of the County in the development of the proposed amendments by:

1. Failed Due Diligence                                                                                    

The Sarasota County Commission has failed to demonstrate due diligence, necessary analysis, compatibility of goals regarding the following issues related to 2050 changes: 

Water issues - carrying capacity and security analysis is missing

Sarasota County purchases over 50% of our drinking water from neighboring counties.

The rural lands are an important water recharge area for our aquifer.  Vulnerability of our water supply is not included.

                        

Environmental Issues  - impact analysis on wildlife habitat and fauna, analysis on optimizing environmentally sensitive areas for wildlife and public amenity, where is inventory of wildlife corridors.  The County’s Land Management Master Plan - on the County website - is out of date.  It was due to be updated in 2010.   

Agricultural issues - future agriculture need and resource analysis 

Where is the County arable land map?  What is the plan for local food security, local produce?

Transportation/Traffic impact  - analysis of design changes and traffic outcomes is missing.  Best planning practices point toward walkable development and prioritizing walkable infill and redevelopment in existing cities and neighborhoods.  Evacuation, traffic and accident analysis is missing.

Timing of Construction - total existing housing potential of County is ignored

Municipality data and analysis missing, Impact on the home values and real estate market not evaluated.  Sarasota County currently has at least 125,000 total potential housing units (there are definitely more) and our projected 10 year demand is about 16,400 units.  The overall market is not considered in these policy changes. 

Fiscal Neutrality - the work of creating a mathematical model/formula to ensure existing taxpayers do not pay for surplus development has not been required/ completed.  2050 Changes give the County zero to limited audit capacity.  The County is bypassing this responsibility.  Models exist (work of Joe Minicozzi and Charles Marohn ignored).

2.  County Commission has a history of failing to look at the big picture, changes do not conform with state law, best planning practice ignored

According to 1000 Friends of Florida, the 2050 changes do not conform with Florida statutes 163.3177(1)(a)9, 163.3177(1)(b) and 163.3177(1)(f).  (see attachment)

Development at University at I-75 was slated to be walkable, bike-able and include affordable housing.  Design standards were systematically weakened.  Now taxpayers will be funding an 80 million dollar traffic solution  - the diverging diamond - a direct result of failure to embrace best planning practices.

The County’s failure to plan properly is ultimately funded by citizens, either through tax increases and/or reduced quality and availability of public services.  Example:  According to recent news reports, Sarasota taxpayers will be funding Lakewood Ranch Blvd. expansion despite a development agreement requiring Schroeder-Manatee Ranch, Inc. to fund it.  (see links below)

3.  By Failing to Conduct a Truly Public Process, Sarasota County’s piecemeal approach is undermining our future.  A Broad Vision requires real public participation.  

               

        

Public input has had no substantive impact on the creation of any of these  amendments.  These substance of these amendments to 2050 policy was created in private meetings from September 2012 through January 2013 primarily with SMR and Pat Neal Communities.

Public input has been window dressing in this process.   The scoping process was eliminated.  Open houses and public workshops throughout the phases were inconsistent (no workshops regarding phase one changes) and poorly timed (open houses held in rural areas during fair week, a workshop held in the City of Sarasota during a City Commission meeting, workshops held during the holiday season and the dead of summer).  Public input has not resulted in any substantive addition or change to these amendments.  Public concerns regarding Clear Water and Air, Wildlife Habitat, Greenway Amenities,  Fiscal Neutrality, Infill and Redevelopment, Walkability, Traffic, effective Economic Development, Housing Values are being ignored.  We are witnessing the Browardization of Sarasota County.

Conclusion 

We join 1000 Friends of Florida in opposing these ill-conceived amendments to Sarasota 2050 due to insufficient due diligence, inadequate public input and failure to optimize Sarasota County’s natural and economic resources.  We support the findings of 1000 Friends of Florida, that the 2050 amendments fail to comply with state statutes.  In short, the best information and best practices on planning and development are being ignored in the local planning policies created by the Sarasota County Commission. We urge the County Commission to protect our quality of life and reject these changes. We urge the public to stand up for our future quality of life in Sarasota by attending Wednesday’s 2050 hearing . 

Selected References:

Water Issues:

Water mismanagement at SWFMD             

http://www.sarasota.wateratlas.usf.edu/upload/documents/Dr_Water_Qual_Rep_2003.pdf

Environmental Issues:

Sarasota County Land Management Master Plan - not updated since 2010

Timing of Construction, Walkability, Prioritizing Infill and Redevelopment, Fiscal Neutrality:

The Economic Benefits of Walkable Communities

Foot Traffic Ahead

Charles Marohn: The Growth Ponzi Scheme

Lakewood Ranch Blvd Extension 

Lakewood Ranch Blvd. Funding

Attachments:

• “Supply and Demand, Sarasota Housing” 
• “Development That Pays for Itself - Minicozzi” 
• Private 2050 meetings - see 2050 Meetings PDF 
• 1000 Friends of Florida letter

2050 Action Network includes members from:

• Better Government Association of Sarasota County
• CONA Sarasota
• Coalition of City Neighborhood Associations
• Control Growth Now
• Progressive Women of Southwest Florida
• Sarasota Audubon
• Sarasota Citizens for Responsible Government
• Sierra Club
• Suncoast Waterkeeper
• The Environmental Confederation of Southwest Florida

Time for Action: Stop the Changes to 2050

Who's in charge here? The people of Sarasota, or a handful of developers? 

East Sarasota County

Changes to the 2050 Plan
County Commission Vote

Wednesday, October 22nd

Expected start time for 2050 hearing, 1:30 pm

County Commission Chambers

1660 Ringling Boulevard 

 Sarasota FL 34236 (across from Post Office)

It's important to create a public record of opposition to changes. Please plan
to attend and give input on October 22nd. Our quality of life, environment, prosperity, & tax burden will be impacted by 2050 changes.

Write to the County Commission and the state Department of Economic Opportunity to protest 2050 changes.

Please send your personal comments to: 

Ray Eubanks ray.eubanks@deo.myflorida.com

Valerie Brookens valerie.brookens@deo.myflorida.com

Sarasota County BCC commissioners@scgov.net

CONA conasarasota@hotmail.com

Sarasota's Urban Service Boundary & Fiscal Neutrality are protected policies in the County Charter. Many believe the County Commission may be violating these and other protections by compromising the Urban Service Boundary (USB) through the "gutting" or indiscriminate, excessive amendment of 2050 . To learn more about 2050 & the Urban Service Boundary, click here 

 
Our neighborhoods, taxes & quality of life are at risk due to proposed changes to 2050 which benefit a handful of landowners. 2050's fiscal neutrality policy requires development outside our Urban Service Boundary to pay for the infrastructure (urban services) it requires - both the upfront and long term infrastructure costs. Existing housing capacity within Sarasota's USB is enough to meet projected housing demand for decades. Facilitating surplus development outside the USB by compromising 2050 standards undermines our community prosperity.

Your input is critical. Please share this information with others.

For further information on the problems with changing 2050's fiscal neutrality policy, go to:

The Growth Ponzi Scheme

2050 Changes are Free Ride, Not Free Market

The Proven Wisdom of Fiscal Neutrality

For Snail mail:

Ray Eubanks, Valerie Brookens
Department of Economic Opportunity
107 East Madison Street
Caldwell Building
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4120

Sarasota County Commissioners
1660 Ringling Blvd.
Sarasota, FL 34236

Sarasota Council of Neighborhood Associations
CONA
PO Box 15788
Sarasota, Florida 34277

Questions, contact: conasarasota@hotmail.com

Sarasota Council of Neighborhood Associations

CONA

Lourdes Ramirez, President

PO Box 15788

Sarasota, Florida 34277 

www.conasarasota.org

The 2050 Action Network