Lobeck: Road Plan opens way to more urban sprawl

After the Board of Sarasota County Commissioners approved a new plan for Lorraine Road on Wednesday, May 20, 2020, attorney Dan Lobeck sent this follow-up to his earlier analysis, which found the plan lacking required elements and details which are required by the Comprehensive Plan. Below is the complete follow-up email. The earlier analysis is here.

County Commissioners today followed through on their evident commitment to political kingpin Pat Neal and other development interests by approving a Plan amendment intended (as County staff stated) “to open up new areas for development”, for even more urban sprawl east of I-75 and south of Clark Road.

(A full explanation of the now-approved Plan and its problems is in my email below)

No one addressed my point that this will be hugely expensive and that the agenda records omit any calculation of that cost or who will pay for it, in violation of the requirement that the road network be “financially feasible.”

That is, other than Pat Neal, in his comments urging a “Yes” vote. He stated that he and the other four large landowners who will benefit from this road scheme “have a pretty good idea of what this is going to cost” and that they are prepared to contribute perhaps $20 million towards that expense.  (Typically, they would get that back in impact fee credits, in a “Developer Agreement”).  However, he did not state what portion of the total cost that will be and, again, no numbers are included in the County records for the meeting and none were discussed at the meeting other than that statement by Neal.

Most shockingly, in defending the Plan amendment, Commissioners made demonstrably false statements.

Commissioner Hines stated, “We’re minimizing environmental impacts.” The exact opposite is true, as they are re-routing Lorraine Road directly through an environmentally sensitive Greenway and a County preserve instead of having it hug the Interstate as it does in its current route.

And several Commissioners falsely claimed that the amendment creates a new, much needed north-south arterial east of I-75 as an alternative to that highway.  In fact, however, that arterial is already in the adopted planned road network – Lorraine Road hugging I-75 and connecting to Ibis Street (recently added) to the north and Rustic Road to the south, which then proceeds into east Venice.

 What the Plan amendment does is push Lorraine Road to the east, in order to open up more land to urban sprawl development, runs it entirely through the Greenway and connects to a new extension of Knight’s Trail deep into the County’s wildlife-rich Pinelands Reserve.

Indeed, the new route for this four-lane Lorraine Road is much less direct than the one in the existing Plan, pushed out east as the amendment does to facilitate new sprawl development.

Then there’s Christian Ziegler’s comment, after voting for the amendment.  This sort of “proactive planning” will actually “alleviate traffic later on,”  he claimed.  As if rerouting and adding roads to open up new areas for urban sprawl will not create more traffic, much of which will find its way into existing urban areas.

It is disappointing enough that we have a system in which big developers, led by Neal, invest tens of thousands in their hand-picked candidates and then reap millions from favors like this in return, at the expense of the taxpayers, the environment, traffic mobility and neighborhoods.

That is made even worse, however, when our elected representatives not only betray our interests but then refuse to be transparent and honest about the motivations and effects of their actions.

Fortunately, we have choices in Commission elections, and the benefit now of single member districts.  We all need to be working hard for our chosen candidates, now.

The future of our community is at stake, and its integrity.
  

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

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.

Megadeveloper Pat Neal

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

Clark Road widening under consideration

Subscribe to the SNL

Widening of Clark Road to six lanes from I-75 to Ibis Street and realignment of Lorraine Road to be focus of proposed county Comprehensive Plan amendment

March 21, 2019 by Rachel Brown Hackney, Editor & Publisher

Goal is to provide better road network connecting new developments east of I-75

This Future Thoroughfare Map in the county Comprehensive Plan shows ‘North South Roadway A.’ Image courtesy Sarasota County

The Sarasota County Commission has authorized county staff to work on a plan to realign Lorraine Road “to provide a connected network of future roadways east of I-75 to support future development.”

If ultimately approved, part of the process would lead to the reclassification of Clark Road as a six-lane major arterial from Interstate 75 to Ibis Street. Additionally, Clark would become a four-lane major arterial from Ibis Street to Lorraine Road.

An Ibis Road extension was added to the Future Thoroughfare Maps in 2018, a March 12 staff memo noted.

The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) defines “arterial” as a divided or undivided roadway that provides a continuous route, serving through traffic, high traffic volumes and long average trip lengths.

The status of Ibis Road was a point of contention during public hearings last year as the County Commission addressed petitions for the Grand Lakes development east of Interstate 75, near Clark Road. Because the Ibis Road extension will not be completed until possibly decades from now — as county staff had testified — residents of the Serenoa Lakes and Serenoa communities stressed to the County Commission that Ibis Street is the only immediate access to their homes and the Grand Lakes site. Those residents would be the closest neighbors to Grand Lakes.

A map shows the location of Ibis Street and the planned extension, east of the site where Grand Lakes is planned. Image courtesy Sarasota County

Nonetheless, the commissioners in July 2018 approved the plans for up to 1,097 homes on the Grand Lakes property. The project is a Neal Communities initiative.

On a unanimous vote of approval of its March 12 Consent Agenda, the commission formally gave staff the go-ahead to initiate a Comprehensive Plan amendment to the county’s Future Thoroughfare Maps that would not only realign the routing of Lorraine Road — which runs north-south — but also classify Dove Street as a two-lane minor collector.

In December 2016, the memo explained, the commission adopted an updated version of the county’s Comprehensive Plan. In that document, the Future Thoroughfare Plan Maps included Lorraine Road from Clark Road south, “roughly paralleling I-75 …” Lorraine Road then was planned to proceed east along Rustic Road to an intersection with Knights Trail Road.

Lorraine Road was identified on the map as “North South Roadway A.”

Several developments that the County Commission already has approved and others that have been planned “are connected to or utilizing the thoroughfare from Clark Road south to the northern limits of the City of Venice,” where it meets Knights Trail Road, the memo continued. Work on the rerouting of Lorraine Road “presents an opportunity,” the memo said, to analyze possible positive benefits. For example, the memo noted, connectivity could be enhanced, more limited environmental impacts might result and overall infrastructure costs could be reduced.

“Conceptually, staff would examine routing Lorraine Road eastward to Knights Trail Road, north of Knights Trail Park, proximate to the [county landfill],” instead of south of Knights Trail Park along Rustic Road, the memo added.

A graphic presented to the County Commission in March 2018 shows planned Sarasota 2050 villages in the vicinity of the Grand Lakes site. Image courtesy Sarasota County

As for Dove Street: The memo explained that a second facet of the proposed amendment would add that street as a two-lane minor collector from Clark Road to Lorraine Road.

FDOT defines “collector” as a divided or undivided roadway that serves as a link between arterials and local roads “or major traffic generators.” FDOT adds, “Collectors may include minor state roads, major county roads, and major urban and suburban streets.”

With the County Commission’s approval last week of the plans for the amendment, the next step will be the scheduling of a neighborhood workshop, so staff can discuss the plans and then listen to public comments about the proposals.

In response to a Sarasota News Leader question, county Media Relations Officer Ashley Lusby wrote in a March 20 email that staff has not yet set a date for that workshop.

The process also will entail public hearings before both the county Planning Commission and the County Commission.

Subscribe to the SNL

Overdevelopment moves onward and upward

Residents' Over-development Pleas Fall on Deaf Ears at BOCC Meeting

Published Friday, January 9, 2015 12:09 am

by John Rehill

BRADENTON — At Thursday's Land Use meeting, Manatee County Commissioners once again listened to the impassioned pleas of citizens with deaf ears, approving a 1,103 residential unit development despite widespread opposition and logical concerns.

It was #10, the last item on the agenda, and the 30 or more residents who came to the dais, did so to defend their way of life and the qualities that brought them to rural Manatee County. They were more prepared than most groups that are later forced to shield themselves from over-development.

The project: 803 single-family detached units, plus a 300 multi-family structure and 100,000 square feet of commercial/retail on 441 acres south of 69th Street East, east of I-75.

Residents from neighboring developments said they were totally opposed to multi-family buildings, the high density that was requested, the destruction of wetlands and wildlife, and the considerable commercial retail that was involved.

The Manatee County Planning Commissionrecommended denial on December 11, 2014 by a vote of 4-1, with some members stating the project was inconsistent with the county's Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code.

Resident Donna Meadows said, there are sand hill cranes, scrub jays, indigos, hawks owls and alligators in the proposed site, most of which are endangered.

John Ward questioned Margaret Tusing's (Manatee County's principal planner) obligations to the the county, and the appearance of rubber stamping without adequate knowledge of the facts. Ward also expressed strict concerns to the impacts to schools, the environment and the additional traffic from the more than 3,000 additional cars that will occupy the only road.

Charles Chappione, who came with well over 100 signatures from other residents opposing the project, said the road wasn't able to handle the traffic, that the schools were already at 130 percent of capacity and that the density wasn't compatible with the area.

There were many, many more who spoke about how the safety of the bridge, the wearing roads and the deadly turn needed to enter or exit Buffalo Road would be amplified by all of the additional traffic.

It became almost embarrassing to all who were there to hear commissioners twist and turn those concerns around, as if those who spoke didn't know what they were talking about.

The vote was 5-2 to approve, with Commissioners Robin DiSabatino and Charles Smith voting against the project. Stay tuned for more on this issue in our Sunday edition. 

=====

Comment shared by Bill Zoller:

For whom does the bell toll? It tolls for thee..... the bell is being sounded in Manatee and Sarasota Counties as compliant commissions approve more and more development in our rural areas. By 2050, the world's population will have increased by 60%; that many more people to feed. How does our 2050 Plan recognize or address our area's responsibility to be part of providing food for its population? It doesn't. We will live on manna from heaven, I suppose. Our commissioners have an extreme focus on the short term, somehow thinking their most important task is to grow jobs, jobs, jobs. Their main means to that end is to build, build, build..... Sadly, they are choosing to encourage building, building, building on the land that will be needed to grow food one day. They call it "planning". To paraphrase King Richard III, "A cow, a cow...my kingdom for a cow!"