From Sarasota Audubon, regarding an intense development proposed on Raymond Rd. A Neighborhood Workshop will be held via Zoom Tuesday, May 23, at 6 pm.
The Zoom link: https://kimley-horn.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Showing posts with label comprehensive plan. Show all posts
Showing posts with label comprehensive plan. Show all posts
Sunday, May 21, 2023
Sarasota Audubon: Join the Neighborhood Workshop Tuesday 6 pm
Monday, September 6, 2021
If you live in Sarasota County, come to the Public Hearing Wednesday afternoon
If you're facing mega-hotels and their impacts on Siesta Key, you should be at the Board Hearing on Wednesday, Sept. 8
If you live in North Port / Wellen Park, you should be at the Board hearing on Wednesday, Sept. 8.
If you live east of I-75 near Clark Road you should be at the Board Hearing Sept. 8.
If you live near Lakewood Ranch, you should be at the Board Hearing Sept. 8.
If you live in The Founders Club or Old Miakka, you should be at the Board Hearing Sept. 8.
Sept. 8 Agenda: Item 40 - Hi Hat Ranch
If you live anywhere in Sarasota County, come to the County Commission afternoon hearing on September 8 at 1660 Ringling Blvd.Yes, the hearing is about Hi Hat -- a vast project of 12,000 housing units stretching from Fruitville Road down to Clark Road. But this and all the other supersized development projects in Sarasota County share one common denominator: The corruption of civic planning that gives the Board latitude to essentially approve anything a developer wants, despite severe impacts on nearby neighborhoods, on roads, traffic, water, and services, and despite the Comprehensive Plan -- the people's vision of sane, moderate, environmentally wise development -- which in fact is the law in Sarasota County.
40. | |
(Public hearing) To adopt Ordinance No. 2021-007 approving Comprehensive Plan Amendment No. 2019-D, amending the Sarasota 2050 Resource Management Area map designation for approximately 1,258 acres of property located in the northeastern section of Hi Hat Ranch, from Hamlet Land Use to Village Land Use, and relocating the countryside line further east to include the village area. | |
If you can't make it Wednesday, here's what Becky Ayech recommends -- she has led the opposition to Hi Hat Ranch for months:
KEEP THE COUNTRY...COUNTRY HI HAT RANCH SEPTEMBER 8TH 1:30 AT 1660 RINGLING BLVD
This is the DAY.
First, thanks to EVERYONE who has supported this campaign!
If you can wear yellow, do so. We will have yellow paper signs for you to hold up.. . .
If you can't make it Wednesday, call and talk/leave a message for the Commissioners The call center is 941-861-5000, ask for each Commissioner, Mike Moran, Nancy Detert, Al Maio, Christain Ziegler and Ron Cutsinger. Mike Moran's cell number is 941-400-1140. The offices are closed on Monday, you can still call Commissioner Moran. Start first thing Tuesday morning. Even if you can make it Wednesday, give them a call. I sent 124 email notices, so at the very least, there should be 124 phone calls. You might want to share where you live if it is somewhere in town.
A bundle of sticks cannot be broken.
Best,
Becky Ayech
Where to email the Board and other Sarasota planning agents
Cc: Board of County Commissioners
All Commissioners commissioners@scgov.net
Alan Maio (Chair) amaio@scgov.net
Christian Zeigler (Vice Chair) cziegler@scgov.net
Nancy C. Detert ncdetert@scgov.net
Michael Moran mmoran@scgov.net
Ron Cutsinger rcutsinger@scgov.net
Sunday, March 21, 2021
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.
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.
Petition Signers by residential District and political affiliation:
Wednesday, May 20, 2020
New Lorraine Rd. extension violates Sarasota's Comp Plan
Analysis of Future Thoroughfare Plan for Pubic Hearing of 5.20.20
Agenda Item #30
From Dan Lobeck to the Board of Sarasota County Commissioners
(Emphasis has been added in a few places below - otherwise this is the complete email without changes or omissions).
==
I have now fully reviewed this Comprehensive Plan amendment and all agenda materials, for the County Commission's public hearing on Wednesday.
I see that it is an amendment to the Future Thoroughfare Plan and related maps and not yet (as I had initially thought) an amendment to the Capital Improvement Element (which would be the next step, after this amendment).
The issue of funding remains critical.
With capital facility revenues now plummeting and remaining uncertain for the future, and huge unfunded needs for transportation improvements to serve the people here today, how can County Commissioners justify adding massive new road construction to its plans east of the Interstate and on and south of Clark Road, admittedly (as the staff report states) "to open up new areas for development" and to "serve future developments"?
Objective 1.1 of the Transportation Chapter of the County's Comprehensive Plan requires that the road system in the County's Thoroughfare Plan be "financially feasible." Yet the County has done absolutely no review at all of the potential cost of these very expensive new road improvements or where the County may get the funds to pay for them. That clearly violates the requirement of financial feasibility.
And already the County Commission has granted approvals of Sarasota 2050 developments in the area of these new roads without requiring the developers to pay for them, in violation of the "fiscal neutrality" requirements of the Comprehensive Plan for Sarasota 2050 developments. Contrary to the Comprehensive Plan, the Commission's approved "methodology" for fiscal neutrality makes it optional whether the County requires a developer to pay for new or expanded roads to serve that development, beyond normal impact fees, and that has not been done as new Sarasota 2050 developments in this area south of Clark Road have been approved.
The County's requirements for a Comprehensive Plan amendment explicitly require "a narrative describing the justification for" the amendment, "including how the Goals, Objectives, and Policies of the" County's Comprehensive Plan "are met or furthered." The County purports to comply with this requirement merely by listing applicable Comprehensive Plan Goals, Objectives and Policies, but omitting any narrative or other commentary, and no justification of how they are met or furthered.
Because they are not.
In addition to the violation of the financial feasibility requirement of the Comprehensive Plan, this amendment violates Policy 1.1.4 of the Transportation Chapter, which requires that transportation planning consider the impacts on land use planning and "Land use strategies and development patterns that reduce vehicle miles traveled will be encouraged." This creation of miles of new and expanded roadway "to open up new areas" for urban sprawl east of the Interstate is the exact opposite of that Comprehensive Plan requirement.
Another Comprehensive Plan requirement that the County identifies as applicable to this amendment but for which it provides no conclusion of compliance, is Goal 1 of the Transportation Chapter. It not only requires a transportation system that "recognizes present demands" (not developer desires) but also that the system "respects the integrity of environmentally sensitive areas and wildlife habitat."
Again, this amendment would grossly violate that requirement by rerouting Lorraine Road away from hugging the east side of the Interstate as it travels south toward Venice, to instead create a new, wide crossing of protected Greenway on its way to opening up new areas for urban sprawl, and then piercing miles into preservation lands to join up with a new extension of Knight's Trail in that preserve, then on south to Venice, all east of the Interstate.
Amazingly, the staff report concludes, without any stated evidence, that this Greenway crossing "largely avoids or minimizes impacts to protected native habitats" despite the fact that the crossing is entirely absent in the present Plan and that the Greenway by definition consists of environmentally sensitive lands which should be protected from disturbance by a new four-lane arterial road. Adding insult to injury, the staff report dismisses that intrusion by observing that this major new road "generally follows existing historical trails," as if such trails are in any way equivalent to the impacts of a four-lane arterial road serving new developments made possible by that road.
In addition to the controversial rerouting of Lorraine Road, the amendment would widen Clark Road from two lanes to six from I-75 east to Ibis Road and then to four lanes east to Lorraine Road and then back to two lanes headed east. This expensive road widening is added to serve new development but is largely on the backs of the taxpaying public.
The amendment would also add an extension of Dove Avenue from Clark Road to Lorraine Road (initially at two lanes) to open up that area for new development.
It would also, again without any data and analysis or idea where the funding will come from, add a full Interchange at I-75 and Clark Road, to help serve new development to the east. Although this is characterized as a mere correction of a "scrivener's error" created when that Interchange was deleted in the 2016 update of the Comprehensive Plan, that is false. That deletion was obvious and known in that update, as I clearly recall, in part to reflect that it would no longer be needed due to the removal of a Sarasota 2050 Town Center east of I-75 at that location, partly due to environmental constraints. One just does not remove an Interstate Interchange from maps and plans without realizing that one is doing that. Because of the requirement for data and analysis in state law, this part of the amendment is legally not ready for adoption.
Indeed, due to the lack of any analysis of financial feasibility or any competent considerations of environmental impacts, as well as the very bad policy of facilitating even more urban sprawl than is accommodated today, as well as the bad form of considering and approving a controversial policy change during a pandemic when public gatherings and attention are limited, this Comprehensive Plan amendment should be denied or at least delayed.
If it is instead approved, it will be just another entry into the mounting evidence that Commissioners sit more to advance the fortunes of certain development interests, such as that of Mr. Neal, than to protect the public who Commissioners should - in a better world - be elected to serve.
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
Agenda Item #30
From Dan Lobeck to the Board of Sarasota County Commissioners
(Emphasis has been added in a few places below - otherwise this is the complete email without changes or omissions).
==
I have now fully reviewed this Comprehensive Plan amendment and all agenda materials, for the County Commission's public hearing on Wednesday.
I see that it is an amendment to the Future Thoroughfare Plan and related maps and not yet (as I had initially thought) an amendment to the Capital Improvement Element (which would be the next step, after this amendment).
The issue of funding remains critical.
With capital facility revenues now plummeting and remaining uncertain for the future, and huge unfunded needs for transportation improvements to serve the people here today, how can County Commissioners justify adding massive new road construction to its plans east of the Interstate and on and south of Clark Road, admittedly (as the staff report states) "to open up new areas for development" and to "serve future developments"?
Objective 1.1 of the Transportation Chapter of the County's Comprehensive Plan requires that the road system in the County's Thoroughfare Plan be "financially feasible." Yet the County has done absolutely no review at all of the potential cost of these very expensive new road improvements or where the County may get the funds to pay for them. That clearly violates the requirement of financial feasibility.
And already the County Commission has granted approvals of Sarasota 2050 developments in the area of these new roads without requiring the developers to pay for them, in violation of the "fiscal neutrality" requirements of the Comprehensive Plan for Sarasota 2050 developments. Contrary to the Comprehensive Plan, the Commission's approved "methodology" for fiscal neutrality makes it optional whether the County requires a developer to pay for new or expanded roads to serve that development, beyond normal impact fees, and that has not been done as new Sarasota 2050 developments in this area south of Clark Road have been approved.
The County's requirements for a Comprehensive Plan amendment explicitly require "a narrative describing the justification for" the amendment, "including how the Goals, Objectives, and Policies of the" County's Comprehensive Plan "are met or furthered." The County purports to comply with this requirement merely by listing applicable Comprehensive Plan Goals, Objectives and Policies, but omitting any narrative or other commentary, and no justification of how they are met or furthered.
Because they are not.
In addition to the violation of the financial feasibility requirement of the Comprehensive Plan, this amendment violates Policy 1.1.4 of the Transportation Chapter, which requires that transportation planning consider the impacts on land use planning and "Land use strategies and development patterns that reduce vehicle miles traveled will be encouraged." This creation of miles of new and expanded roadway "to open up new areas" for urban sprawl east of the Interstate is the exact opposite of that Comprehensive Plan requirement.
Another Comprehensive Plan requirement that the County identifies as applicable to this amendment but for which it provides no conclusion of compliance, is Goal 1 of the Transportation Chapter. It not only requires a transportation system that "recognizes present demands" (not developer desires) but also that the system "respects the integrity of environmentally sensitive areas and wildlife habitat."
Again, this amendment would grossly violate that requirement by rerouting Lorraine Road away from hugging the east side of the Interstate as it travels south toward Venice, to instead create a new, wide crossing of protected Greenway on its way to opening up new areas for urban sprawl, and then piercing miles into preservation lands to join up with a new extension of Knight's Trail in that preserve, then on south to Venice, all east of the Interstate.
Amazingly, the staff report concludes, without any stated evidence, that this Greenway crossing "largely avoids or minimizes impacts to protected native habitats" despite the fact that the crossing is entirely absent in the present Plan and that the Greenway by definition consists of environmentally sensitive lands which should be protected from disturbance by a new four-lane arterial road. Adding insult to injury, the staff report dismisses that intrusion by observing that this major new road "generally follows existing historical trails," as if such trails are in any way equivalent to the impacts of a four-lane arterial road serving new developments made possible by that road.
In addition to the controversial rerouting of Lorraine Road, the amendment would widen Clark Road from two lanes to six from I-75 east to Ibis Road and then to four lanes east to Lorraine Road and then back to two lanes headed east. This expensive road widening is added to serve new development but is largely on the backs of the taxpaying public.
The amendment would also add an extension of Dove Avenue from Clark Road to Lorraine Road (initially at two lanes) to open up that area for new development.
It would also, again without any data and analysis or idea where the funding will come from, add a full Interchange at I-75 and Clark Road, to help serve new development to the east. Although this is characterized as a mere correction of a "scrivener's error" created when that Interchange was deleted in the 2016 update of the Comprehensive Plan, that is false. That deletion was obvious and known in that update, as I clearly recall, in part to reflect that it would no longer be needed due to the removal of a Sarasota 2050 Town Center east of I-75 at that location, partly due to environmental constraints. One just does not remove an Interstate Interchange from maps and plans without realizing that one is doing that. Because of the requirement for data and analysis in state law, this part of the amendment is legally not ready for adoption.
 |
| Megadeveloper Pat Neal |
If it is instead approved, it will be just another entry into the mounting evidence that Commissioners sit more to advance the fortunes of certain development interests, such as that of Mr. Neal, than to protect the public who Commissioners should - in a better world - be elected to serve.
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
Sunday, August 12, 2018
Grand Lakes draws two lawsuits for "promoting sprawl"
PRESS RELEASE -- August 13, 2018
Citizens’ Group Files Two Lawsuits to
Stop Pat Neal’s Grand Lakes 2050 Village Development
Two lawsuits filed against Sarasota County on Friday, August 10, 2018, by a group of affected neighbors will likely put a 1,100 home subdivision in east Sarasota County on hold.
The Sarasota County Board of County Commissioners approved the Neal Village development, known as Grand Lakes, on July 11, 2018, in a series of 4-1 votes. Casting the dissenting votes, Commissioner Charles Hines asked: “Where is the walkability? Where is the compatibility? Where is the connectivity with the larger overall village?”
The 2050 Village concept is an optional development framework that permits additional density. This extra density is in exchange for public benefits that guide development in the rural areas east of I-75 into compact, mixed-use, pedestrian friendly villages by protecting large areas of open space, and ensuring that supporting infrastructure is paid for by the development.
A large group of Serenoa, Serenoa Lakes and nearby large lot homeowners, along with Twin Lakes Park users, presented their objections during the public hearings leading up to the commissioners’ July decisions.
The citizens group says that Pat Neal’s privately initiated comprehensive plan amendment, which enabled the rezoning to proceed, violates the county’s long-range growth plan. They also say the rezoning itself violates several of the county’s zoning regulations.
The comprehensive plan amendment lawsuit requests that the State of Florida hold an administrative hearing to find that the Neal amendment is inconsistent with the other goals, objectives, and policies in the county’s comprehensive plan because eliminating the village mixed-use requirement promotes urban sprawl.
Eliminating the mixed-use requirement was previously considered in 2014 during a public initiative known as 2050 Revisited. At that time, several large landowners and developers, including Neal, proposed eliminating the mixed-use center. County staff rejected the developers’ proposal because staff’s analysis determined that, without direct access to a commercial center, a core 2050 plan principle would be violated.
Nothing has changed since 2014. Nevertheless, when Neal proposed eliminating the mixed-use requirement as a privately processed amendment, the 2018 county staff reported that they had no objections and recommended approval.
The second (rezoning) lawsuit asks the Sarasota County Circuit Court to reverse the rezoning approval because the Grand Lakes application did not satisfy the protected open space and non-residential use requirements in the county’s village zoning regulations.
The petitioners’ attorney, Ralf Brookes, says the outcome could have major implications throughout the county for future 2050 village development.
The Manatee-Sarasota Sierra Club, a leading environmental group, and 1000 Friends of Florida, Inc., a leading smart growth advocate, see the merits of the lawsuits and are providing financial support and legal assistance in the Grand Lakes challenges.
David Anderson, spokesperson for the petitioners, says, “It is a shame when citizens have to dig into their own pockets just to make sure the planning officials follow their own rules. It is very discouraging that the commissioners ignored the merits of our arguments and approved the Grand Lakes proposals, so, our only recourse available is very costly litigation.”
For more information contact:
David Anderson, President, Serenoa Lakes,
941-921-9302 mdanderson4@verizon.net
Citizens’ Group Files Two Lawsuits to
Stop Pat Neal’s Grand Lakes 2050 Village Development
Two lawsuits filed against Sarasota County on Friday, August 10, 2018, by a group of affected neighbors will likely put a 1,100 home subdivision in east Sarasota County on hold.
The Sarasota County Board of County Commissioners approved the Neal Village development, known as Grand Lakes, on July 11, 2018, in a series of 4-1 votes. Casting the dissenting votes, Commissioner Charles Hines asked: “Where is the walkability? Where is the compatibility? Where is the connectivity with the larger overall village?”
The 2050 Village concept is an optional development framework that permits additional density. This extra density is in exchange for public benefits that guide development in the rural areas east of I-75 into compact, mixed-use, pedestrian friendly villages by protecting large areas of open space, and ensuring that supporting infrastructure is paid for by the development.
A large group of Serenoa, Serenoa Lakes and nearby large lot homeowners, along with Twin Lakes Park users, presented their objections during the public hearings leading up to the commissioners’ July decisions.
 |
| Developer Pat Neal |
The comprehensive plan amendment lawsuit requests that the State of Florida hold an administrative hearing to find that the Neal amendment is inconsistent with the other goals, objectives, and policies in the county’s comprehensive plan because eliminating the village mixed-use requirement promotes urban sprawl.
Eliminating the mixed-use requirement was previously considered in 2014 during a public initiative known as 2050 Revisited. At that time, several large landowners and developers, including Neal, proposed eliminating the mixed-use center. County staff rejected the developers’ proposal because staff’s analysis determined that, without direct access to a commercial center, a core 2050 plan principle would be violated.
 |
| Grand Lakes Map |
The second (rezoning) lawsuit asks the Sarasota County Circuit Court to reverse the rezoning approval because the Grand Lakes application did not satisfy the protected open space and non-residential use requirements in the county’s village zoning regulations.
The petitioners’ attorney, Ralf Brookes, says the outcome could have major implications throughout the county for future 2050 village development.
The Manatee-Sarasota Sierra Club, a leading environmental group, and 1000 Friends of Florida, Inc., a leading smart growth advocate, see the merits of the lawsuits and are providing financial support and legal assistance in the Grand Lakes challenges.
David Anderson, spokesperson for the petitioners, says, “It is a shame when citizens have to dig into their own pockets just to make sure the planning officials follow their own rules. It is very discouraging that the commissioners ignored the merits of our arguments and approved the Grand Lakes proposals, so, our only recourse available is very costly litigation.”
For more information contact:
David Anderson, President, Serenoa Lakes,
941-921-9302 mdanderson4@verizon.net
Monday, April 2, 2018
Thaxton at CONA: Our Comp Plan
 Sarasota County Council of Neighborhood Associations - CONA |
- monthly meeting -
April 9, 2018
at 7 p .m.
importance of our
comprehensive planand a report on the Bath and Racquet Club application
On Monday, April 9, 2018 please join CONA for a thorough discussion by Jon Thaxton regarding our county comprehensive plan.Learn how this document expresses our vision of what we want our community to be and how it drives the decisions made by our local government regarding development and redevelopment. That our plan for smart growth was carefully-crafted by citizens participating in a long process that resulted in a vision that garnered national recognition and awards will be covered. The examination will reveal the devolution of our comprehensive plan through gradual changes that failed to adhere to the inherent vision expressed by the community.
Following our traditional half-hour social beforehand, the meeting will open with Ben Cannon bringing us up to date on the redevelopment application for the Bath and Racquet Club.
social 6:30 p.m. - meeting 7:00 p.m.
at the Sarasota Garden Club
neighbors helping neighborhoods since 1961
save the date - our anniversary party - November 5, 2018
|
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)