Citizens for Sarasota County: comp plan

Showing posts with label comp plan. Show all posts

Saturday, August 31, 2024

9.11 Siesta Key Demolition/Rebuild Hearing

Having trouble viewing email? Click here to View as Webpage

Board of County Commissioners Hearing on 9/11, 9:00 am-5:00 pm

The Siesta Key Condominium Council was formed in 1976 and its membership includes over 90 Siesta Key Condo Associations. Mission Statement: To provide member Condominium Associations, their owners, residents and renters current information applicable to condominium living through a series of meetings/speakers and to support efforts that promote safety, economic stability, environmentalism, and the beautification of Siesta Key.

Board of County Commissioners Hearing on 9/11, 9:00 am-5:00 pm

Siesta Key RMF Non-conforming Density Voluntary Demolition / Rebuild

New Policy 1.2.2(E) and Ordinance No. 2024-053, UDC Amendment No. 55

From Planner: “I wanted to give everyone notice of the hearing date for the Voluntary Demolition Comprehensive Plan Amendment and UDC Text Amendment. The project will go to the Board for Transmittal to the State Dept of Commerce on September 11, 2024. The advertisement will be published on Wednesday next week. Please find the proposed language attached. Both items contain the “no special exception” language… Since this is a large-scale amendment, this would be the first of two public hearings on the items. As you know, the Planning Commission had recommended denial on this project.

I will provide the full packet…, once editing is completed.”

Note: The Final packet has not been released to the public yet as of 8/28. Once released, this link should contain agenda and details:

Click HERE for a link to the 9/11 County Commission meeting information.
Click HERE to Watch the Meeting live at 9:00 am on 09/11. Not interactive. View only.

Why It Matters to Everyone who cares about Siesta Key

This is another assault on the Comprehensive Plan’s protection of Siesta Key against increased density and intensity that threatens resident safety, hurricane evacuation and emergency vehicle access. It adds New Policy 1.2.2(E) that negates FLU 2.9.1 and removes Comp Plan protections. It would perpetuate non-conforming density and height, add two stories of parking, increase footprints, allow larger and lock-out rooms, and variances of the Gulf Beach setback line. These would increase density and intensity in violation of the current Comp Plan. The changes also remove public scrutiny of development of non-conforming properties, eliminating workshops, Planning Commission and County Commission hearings. The Planning Commission recommended rejecting these Comp Plan changes 8-0 because there are too many unintended consequences that recent Court rulings indicate are detrimental to Siesta Key residents and expose Sarasota County to liability.

Proposed Changes Promote Development at a time when residents realize current infrastructure cannot support increased density and intensity. Traffic congestion is already a constant problem and complaint of residents and visitors. During the last two storms, including Debby, the Siesta Drive bridge was closed because its access road flooded, reducing hurricane evacuation and emergency vehicle access to only the Stickney Pt. Bridge, which is under extensive repair by FDOT to extend its life. Traffic will be reduced to two lanes somedays during this process. There is discussion about a bridge replacement, which would require downsizing to two lanes for an extended period. Stormwater and sewage infrastructure failures, like those during Tropical Storm Debbie, are occurring with increasing regularity. One of the largest spills occurred at the Siesta Key Master Pump station, totaling 309,000 gallons, as reported to FDEP. The cumulative effects of rebuilds from over 137 non-conforming RMF properties would overwhelm roads, bridges, evacuation routes, stormwater and sewage facilities.

Financial Reality: not practical for residential condominiums. Owners are already undergoing Milestone Inspections, SIRS studies and repairs to make structures safer and bring them into compliance with state regulations. Most residents do not want to move from their home for two years or more during demo and construction and incur even larger expenses. Snowbirds and vacationers similarly do not want to lose years. If a condominium is severely damaged by a storm, insurance covers repair and rebuild. Voluntary demo and rebuild cannot claim insurance.

The proposed change was initiated by a time share. It is a developer’s dream. Only a time share’s many units provide a large enough assessment to fund demolition and rebuild; for example, a 50-unit time share contains 2,600 weekly units: at $10,000 assessed, 500,000 vs. $26,000,000! The change would encourage developers to buy out units to convert residential condos to transient accommodations: time shares and condo-hotels – as it is already has in other areas of Florida.

Your Voice Counts

This hearing is scheduled when many residents are away or on vacation. To express your opinion, email County Commissioners HERE.

Ralf Brookes, attorney for James P. Wallace, III, sent a memo to County Attorney Moye making it clear that his client opposes any changes to the 1989 Siesta Key Comprehensive Plan (identified by two independent Court cases) - including the Siesta Key Voluntary Demolition/ Rebuild. For further information, Click HERE.

Debby Sarasota County Petition:

The Petition calls for Hydrology and Wastewater spillage studies and to

“Pause Comprehensive Plan amendments including but not limited to changes to the 2050 Plan, rezonings, special exceptions and any UDC change that will increase density and intensity of development projects in the vulnerable areas.”

Click HERE for more information, to join, or to comment.

From the local AARP ambassador:

AARP Day at Sarasota Lanes, a free bowling event, on Monday, September 9, from 1:00-3:00 pm. For further info or to register, click HERE.

There is also information on free online courses.

Managers and Board Members: Please post and distribute this important notice!

Please click here for a printable copy.

Wednesday, January 20, 2021

Hi Hat Project could change "the whole ecosystem"

UPDATE: This Hi Hat proposal received a unanimous recommendation from the Sarasota County Planning Commission on January 21, 2021. The vote was 8-0, the project will now go on to the Board of County Commissioners for official consideration.

The Planning Commission meeting is now available here.

======

Perhaps the largest development project Sarasota County will see in a long time - Hi Hat Ranch - comes before the Planning Commission Thursday Jan. 21. According to Miakka Community advocate Becky Ayech, not only is this plan vague and counter-rational, it' will also change "THE WHOLE ECOSYSTEM."

The project takes in 10,000 acres stretching from Fruitville Road to Clark Road. Proposal calls for 13,000 residences with a 30-year build-out.

Hi Hat Ranch

Below are resources for comments to the PC from Ayech of the Miakka Community Group - feel free to write to the planning commissioners using any of the information below.

PLEASE USE ANY OF THESE COMMENTS. REMEMBER, this is quasi-judicial, so only facts, not opinions.

PLEASE ACT IMMEDIATELY

For example: my water quality has greatly diminished since I moved into my home..HI Hat cannot use their irrigation wells for back up lawn watering. my well is my only source of all my water needs.

RE; HI HAT RANCH DOCC and MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN

Good day Planning Commissioners,

The Applicant, Hi Hat Ranch has provided you with a plethora of information.

Unfortunately, one criterial piece of information is missing and many of the guarantees hinge upon that information.

While many maps were provided, the map showing where the Villages are going to be located is not clear at all. I understand there may be 3 or 4 Villages, but I could not find a map that so indicates the locations.

Much of the information provided is relative to the timing of the Villages, specifically infrastructure, discussing the incremental development of utilities

The Applicant has indicated that the first Village would be located at the Hi Hat Ranch offices. This location is akin to a hole in the doughnut. The road to the offices is located on Fruitville Road, 2.1 miles from the Ranch’s western boundary. It would be safe to say this would most likely be the same distance from Bee Ridge Road. This would necessitate running utilities’ lines either from the Bee Ridge Road facilities or from the extension of utilities out to the Hamlet known as Lakepark Estates. This would be ‘leaping’ over lands where it would make more planning sense to begin the Villages and then move easterly.

Therefore, the responses provided discussing these phasing approaches is meritless.

The MDP MUST show the location of at least the first Village

WATER QUALITY

The Applicant has provided information on monitoring and testing the SURFACE water quality, but is offering nothing for ground water protection.

The Applicant has several wells for the agricultural operation (see attached Water Use Permit). The Applicant is purporting to use these ag wells as back up wells for lawn irrigation, if the back up lakes and stormwater ponds fail and that is only after the reclaimed water is not available.

The agricultural wells MUST NOT be used as the third way to water lawns. Existing legal users that are in the Hi Hat Ranch area only have their domestic wells to meet ALL their needs.

Many of the wells on Hi Hat are drilled deep and cased shallow, allowing upward migration of poor-quality water, when then moves laterally into domestic wells. (See attached minutes from the Southwest Florida Water management District Governing Board {SWFWMD] meeting. And well construction records from Sarasota Health Department)

The Ranch is located in the SWFWMD’s Southern Use Water Caution Area (SWUCA) where ground water withdrawals are not only causing upward migration of poor-quality water but also saltwater intrusion. The proper plugging and abandonment of these wells would help the existing legal domestic well users and the Florida Aquifer and the Arcadian Aquifer.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

The Applicant stated that the aggregate mining will continue, not only for financial reasons, but because the development will need the fill.

There are NO NATURAL LAKES on the property. While ultimately, they will provide nice lake front property, this changes the whole ecosystem. Species that are currently not on the property will be drawn to the large water source. These may include predator species that would kill exiting species. The flora and fauna would change as well and again the existing flora and fauna support a myriad of species which may not be able to utilize the deep water.

Recognition MUST be given to the potential species changes and plans MUST be provided to show how this change would be mitigated.

The Applicant states they will create new wetlands by scraping off the top soil and importing the appropriate wetland soils. Healthy, thriving wetlands need a hydrological regime.

The Applicant did not provide data and information on sites where this type of creation was successful not data showing how many have failed. There wasn’t any information provided to show how the hydrological needs of the wetlands would be met. In phosphate mining, as an example, wetlands the mitigate are held to a hydrological regime that is artificially maintained by the phosphate company until they are released as ‘successful’ by DEP.

The Applicant must show how they are going to accomplish this wetland scrape land and create a new wetland scheme.

TRAFFIC

During the Workshop and then in a smaller meeting, the Applicant lamented the ugliness of the approach to the Mai Entrance to the Villages from extending Bee Ridge Road, forcing residents to pass the County’s Water Treatment Plant, the Hazardous Waste Collection Facility, the Animal Shelter and Rothenbach Park. He stated the roadway in this area would have to be realigned and that the Applicant would have to build a bridge across Cow Pen Slough.

An alternative road, with a beautiful country (at least for now) view would be to use the existing road leading into the Ranch from Fruitville Road. This would add additional congestion to an already over taxed, constrained scenic road.

Again, this is why at least the first Village should be located on the western boundary of the Ranch and should so be indicated on the map.

DO NOT ADOPT THE MASTER PLAN AND DEVELOPMENT ORDER FOR HI HAT RANCH UNTIL THESE ISSUES HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED.

Thank you.

Respectfully submitted,

Becky Ayech
President
Miakka Community Club

====================================