Unprecedented exception to Urban Service Boundary granted to developer

This article is placed here with permission of the Sarasota News Leader. Two passages have been highlighted by editors of this blog.

Urban Service Area Boundary for Sarasota County to be moved to allow Lee Wetherington Homes to build a corporate headquarters on Fruitville Road

Sarasota News Leader

March 22, 2018 by Rachel Brown Hackney, Editor & Publisher

Editor’s note: This article was updated late on the morning of March 23 to clarify the action the County Commission took.

County planning staff and area residents voice support for a Comprehensive Plan change with restrictive criteria

                  A graphic shows the site planned for the new office building. Image courtesy Sarasota County

On the recommendations of staff and their Planning Commission — along with support of people who live adjacent to the site at the heart of the request —  the Sarasota County commissioners have voted unanimously to approve a policy change to allow the construction of an office building outside the Urban Service Area Boundary on Fruitville Road.

The March 14 action necessitated a super-majority vote, as stipulated in the Sarasota County Charter.

The action will enable Lee Wetherington Homes to build a 15,000-square-foot, two-story office building to serve as its new corporate headquarters. The structure will be across from the Sun N Fun RV Resort, which is located at 7125 Fruitville Road.

Officially, with their vote, the commissioners approved a Small Area Comprehensive Plan amendment, which modifies Future Land Use Policy 3.1.2 and the county’s Future Land Use map designation for the 1.88-acre parcel in the southwest quadrant of Fruitville Road and Shannon Road. The new designation is Light Office; the former one was Semi-Rural.

Additionally, in a separate vote, the commissioners agreed unanimously to rezone the Wetherington parcel from Open Use Estate-1 to Office, Professional and Institutional.

“The area within the Urban Service Area Boundary [is] where the County has planned, or is in the process of planning, for the facilities needed to support development including roads, sewage collection and water transmission lines, stormwater management facilities, schools and public libraries,” the Comprehensive Plan says.

A graphic shows developments near the location of the planned Lee Wetherington Homes corporate office (the yellow square outlined in red) on Fruitville Road. Image courtesy Sarasota County

Representing Lee Wetherington Homes, Shawn Dressler, a planner and landscape architect with consulting firm Kimley-Horn and Associates Inc. of Sarasota, explained that the project team “took a long time developing the criteria” a developer would have to meet to be able to gain approval of any other light office projects outside of the Urban Service Area Boundary.

Those criteria are as follows:

• The proposed use shall have frontage along a 4-to-6-lane major arterial roadway as classified on the Sarasota 2040 Future Thoroughfare Plan.
• It shall be located “within a corridor where more than 50% of the existing parcels within 1,000 feet of the subject parcel,” as measured along the 4- to 6-lane major arterial roadway, are

non-residential uses;

• It shall be located within a corridor where adequate infrastructure is available to serve the subject property.

Fruitville Road is “starting to function as an urban infill corridor,” Dressler pointed out during the public hearing.

Nonetheless, the Wetherington Homes project team wanted to make certain that any development outside the Urban Service Area Boundary would be in keeping with the character of that section of the county, he added.

“I do believe the proposed [Comprehensive Plan] change would be compatible with the existing land use pattern … and future land uses” in that area,” Commissioner Michael Moran said in making the motion for approval of the amendment.

Commissioner Alan Maio seconded the motion, noting that the people who live next to the site for the project “seem to feel comfortable with this. I think that says a lot.”

A graphic shows the site of the proposed office building (in yellow) in the vicinity of other development on Fruitville Road. Image courtesy Sarasota County

One of the residents who spoke during the public hearing, Mary Beth Humphreys, told the board members, “The direction of this corridor is headed toward commercial. … The office use does fit …”

Furthermore, Humphreys urged them to follow through with a Planning Commission recommendation. That was for a planning workshop to discuss a corridor plan for Fruitville Road, she noted. However, she cautioned, because of the number of special exceptions already approved for projects in that area, “we may be too late to go back and look at this.” (emphasis added)

Humphreys pointed out that she has been a member of the county’s Planning and Development Services Department staff for more than 29 years. She has been a professional planner in the department since November 2008, according to her LinkedIn account.

Details about the project

The sole goal of the Lee Wetherington Homes’ project, Dressler told the board, is to build a corporate office for the company, which has been renting space in Lakewood Ranch. “They’re ready to move permanently to Sarasota County.”

The facility also will make it possible for employees of the firm to work closer to sites where Wetherington Homes has construction underway, he added, resulting in “less vehicle miles our staff has to put on the road.”

Dressler also noted Lee Wetherington’s charitable works in the community, as evidenced by a Boys & Girls Club that carries Wetherington’s name. In fact, Dressler told the board, Wetherington is far better known “in many circles” as a philanthropist instead of as a homebuilder.

Additionally, Dressler pointed out, the building will encompass a showroom, where potential customers will be invited to look at features Lee Wetherington Homes offers. “[The structure] needs to be high-quality architecture,” he explained, if it is to demonstrate what people can expect of the company’s houses.

In her presentation to the board, county Planner Vivian Roe, provided maps showing the variety of development within the immediate area of the site proposed for the corporate headquarters. Along with Sun N Fun, she said, they include the Southwest Florida Water Management District office, the Kimel Lumber and Hardware Store, Stottlemyer’s Smokehouse and Texaco Station, Fruitville Grove and Critter Ridge Landscape Contractors.

Additionally, during her public remarks, Humphreys noted that the County Commission has approved projects under the aegis of the Sarasota 2050 Plan that will bring about 10,000 new homes to the Fruitville Road corridor.

“The area has transitioned away from the typical semi-rural characteristics, which are large lots and agricultural-type uses,” Roe said.

When Commissioner Charles Hines asked whether the USAB had been moved at any time since the figurative line was included in the County Charter, Deputy County Attorney Alan Roddy responded that he remembered a legal challenge in 1996 that resulted in such action, leading to the development of the Fox Creek community. “I don’t know of another one.” (emphasis added)

As for the site plan: Dressler explained that the property “does have a relatively high quality but small functional wetland … that we are preserving,” along with a “high-quality live oak in the middle of the site.” The 60 parking spaces will be located around that tree, he added.

The project was deemed to have a de minimis impact on traffic, he added, so county staff did not require a detailed transportation analysis.

“The biggest piece of infrastructure” in the area is Fruitville Road, he pointed out. Fire Station No. 10 is only 3 miles away, he continued.

The property has an on-site sewage treatment and disposal system, Roe noted. The only access into the property will be from Shannon Road, both Roe and Dressler said, but Dressler added that the company plans significant improvements to the right of way of Shannon Road.

Other public remarks

An engineering drawing shows plans for the site. Image courtesy Sarasota County

During the public hearing Ray Humphreys followed his wife to the podium, telling the commissioners he has lived on Shannon Road since 1961. “I want the building to go in there,” he said.

One other resident voiced support for the project, while another, Sharon Schlabach, conceded that the area is “going to change.” However, Schlabach, said, “I do object … strongly” to the access into the property being planned from Shannon Road.

“We don’t believe we’d be allowed to access [the property] off of Fruitville Road,” Dressler told the commissioners.

Only Glenna Blomquist spoke in opposition to the Comprehensive Plan amendment.

“The applicant seemed to make this a very benign case,” she said, “but I don’t think it is.”

Instead, Blomquist continued, she fears that the change in the Comprehensive Plan might lead to an expansion of activities in the area that the commissioners have prohibited.

Why should the Urban Service Area Boundary be changed for one individual? she asked.

After Moran made his motion to approve the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment, he addressed Lee Wetherington, who was seated in the audience. “I truly appreciate your philanthropy in the community and your investment in our county very much,” Moran said.

Update: Unprecedented risk: Urban Service Area could effectively be at an end

Update: The hearing has been postponed.  The petitioner has requested an indefinite continuance.

Urban Service Boundary at Risk

On March 14, the Sarasota County Commission will consider a really bad proposed amendment to the Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan amendment.

It would allow pockets of urban development beyond the Urban Service Boundary (USB). 

On February 1, the Planning Commission, which is packed with development interests, recommended approval of the amendment by a vote of 8 to 0, with one recusal.

The amendment would set a precedent to allow individual urban developments outside the Urban Service Boundary (and outside of the Sarasota 2050 areas and Overlay Districts), by approving them in individual Comp Plan amendments, making exceptions to the USB. It has never been done before but if it happens now than developers will be clamoring for the same treatment in the rural lands.

This would get around the requirement of the Sarasota County Charter for a unanimous County Commission vote to move the Urban Service Boundary or to expand or create an Overlay District as well as the requirement of voter approval to eliminate the Urban Service Boundary.  The staff analysis specifically acknowledges this “objective,” noting that the Charter requirement for a unanimous County Commission vote has prevented any movement of the Urban Service Boundary since the Charter limits were enacted by voter referendum in 2008.

The present proposed Comp Plan amendment would specifically allow a Light Office development across from Sun N Fun on Fruitville Road, about 1.25 miles east of the Urban Service Boundary, for influential builder Lee Wetherington, and elsewhere that certain criteria are met.  The staff analysis states that could include other parcels in that corridor. 

Although the amendment’s criteria include a requirement that “adequate existing public infrastructure is available to serve the subject property” it would allow the subject office development even though there is no public infrastructure available to provide sewage treatment and a septic tank will be used instead. The staff report does express some concern about this, but the obvious violation of the amendment’s own criteria somehow did not prevent the staff from endorsing it.

If this loophole is allowed by the County Commission, the Urban Service Boundary is effectively gone, as it can be breached any time by a site-specific amendment. This threatens all subdivisions beyond the Urban Service Boundary east of I-75 and in south County, as well as all of us impacted by urban sprawl and its increase in traffic, infrastructure expenses, environmental degradation and other public concerns.

The Charter requires at least four of the five County Commissioners to approve any Comp Plan amendment which increases the density of intensity of development. County staff agrees that this applies to the proposed amendment.

This very bad Comprehensive Plan amendment should be defeated by the County Commission.

What good is an Urban Service Boundary if it can so easily be violated and ignored?

This piece by Dan Lobeck first appeared in the Manatee-Sarasota Sierra Group newsletter.

Moving the Urban Service Boundary will cost every taxpayer

Fiscal neutrality at core of yet another 2050-plan dust-up

By Josh Salman
josh.salman@heraldtribune.com

Published: Saturday, January 3, 2015 at 9:07 p.m.

Last Modified: Saturday, January 3, 2015 at 9:07 p.m.

SARASOTA - Skeptics of Sarasota County’s reshaped 2050 plan say the long-term growth blueprint dilutes protection from overdevelopment in the community’s rural east.

Soon, they may have even more reason to worry.

Consultants are finishing up a first draft of proposals that will determine the methods used by developers to demonstrate that their projects won’t burden taxpayers.

That concept was a key requirement of 2050.

But with a Sarasota County Commission that is now more developer-friendly than at any time in at least a decade, some growth activists worry that 2050’s last remaining policy will get the same treatment as other safeguards that have already been watered-down or repealed.

The measure of a private development’s so-called “fiscal neutrality” is aimed at ensuring that the county can handle the potential money strain on roads, utility lines and emergency services, which all tend to cost more in remote areas east of Interstate 75.

Already, developers are fighting to loosen the requirement. They have spent millions of dollars to prove that their communities are a boon to the economy, and they argue that the tougher regulations will only increase the cost of homes, squeezing out the middle class.

One consultant hired by Sarasota County has proposed gutting the fiscal neutrality condition altogether.

At the same time, there have been whispers among developers and community groups that the county will ultimately propose moving its Urban Service Boundary — a line that dictates where development should be concentrated — farther east, paving the way for more potentially controversial growth.

“Fiscal neutrality is the means to ensure development outside the Urban Service Boundary pays for its infrastructure costs,” said Cathy Antunes, president of Sarasota Citizens for Responsible Government. “Make fiscal neutrality toothless and the Urban Service Boundary is worthless. This is the back-door way to eliminate the Urban Service Boundary.”

She added, “People are very worried about it.”

After developers argued that they were too restricted, county commissioners approved a third and final round of revisions to the 2050 plan in late October.

That policy governs development on some 60,000, mostly rural acres east of I-75. The concept was first crafted more than a decade ago as an alternative to the guidelines of the Urban Service Boundary, which discourages intense development east of the highway.

But developers and pro-business groups rallied for more flexibility and the commissioners ultimately agreed. The changes came despite concerns from some about the impact on the environment, an already chocked road system and spending budgets still recovering from the Great Recession.

The final step of the plan: Determine how the fiscal neutrality of a particular new development is to be calculated.

Sarasota County hired a consulting firm to research the economic benefits of new development — like higher property taxes and collection fees from building permits — and to weigh those against potentially adverse impacts, including the costs of new roads, increased school capacity and the expense of providing public safety for new residents.

As part of 2050, developers must obtain a third-party review for each new building project in the restricted areas to show that it is financially beneficial to the overall population.

A first draft of that methodology report is expected to be complete by AECOM in February, with revisions and public hearings planned before a final decision is made by county commissioners, likely sometime this summer.

“This is a way to just make it clear and have that same set of inputs for development,” said Allen Parsons, long-range planner for Sarasota County. “It really is a technical exercise, and that’s why we needed an economist.”

The county has created a fiscal neutrality page on its website for public feedback.

But already the process has created a backlash with some residents, who have blitzed county officials with emails questioning the transparency of the process.

“All of the public will have the same opportunity for input,” Parsons said.

The new methodology comes in the wake of an earlier report commissioned by Sarasota County to review the fiscal neutrality concept in its entirety.

That analysis by Laffer Associates suggested that “on average, growth does pay for itself.” The report’s overall recommendation was to eliminate the fiscal neutrality requirement from 2050.

“The question of fiscal neutrality is moot in Sarasota County,” the report states. “All that is truly required is to properly specify the impact fees on new development. This would remove many of the negative effects of the fiscal neutrality provision, while still maintaining fiscal neutrality of new development.”

But impact fees have been slashed on all levels to help spur development through the prolonged housing slump.

Sarasota County cut road impact fees in half in January 2011, a reduction from already reduced rates, and then voted in 2013 to extend those discounts to developers for another two years.

The School Board also voted this year to extend a moratorium on impact fees, which were first set aside two years ago, and the city of Sarasota recently adopted new impact fees that undercut the county with a markdown of 57 percent in most cases.

As a result, the impact fees collected by Sarasota County have shrunk from $19.7 million in 2006 to just $9.1 million in 2013. Despite an ongoing economic recovery, Sarasota County’s impact fees remain lower than the $12.1 million collected even at the nadir of the recession in 2008, records show.

Meanwhile, new large-scale development has spiked, especially in rural eastern areas where improvements to county services have not kept pace.

Some growth control advocates now fear that trend will only proliferate with new fiscal neutrality rules, creating problems with traffic, wildlife preservation efforts and public safety.

Some of those impacts already can been seen. Stretches of 32 Sarasota County roads were graded “D” or worse for their report card level of service in 2013. That is nearly half of the roads where traffic is counted, traffic records show.

At least 21 major roads in Sarasota County have slipped below the government’s minimum level of service, which in many cases was a low standard.

To handle new population upticks in the University Parkway corridor, the county has had to tap into reserves to build a new fire station, and major developers have proposed eliminating certain preserve areas to increase density in their projects. A standard fiscal neutrality policy is designed to ensure those needed improvements are covered by developers.

“This will protect everybody, the county and the developers,” Sarasota County Commissioner Christine Robinson said of the new methodology. “It creates a standard that is easy for everyone, and it should take away some of the controversy.”

Local homebuilders say they believe their developments should be financially beneficial to the county.

They just don’t want to have to pay to prove it.

Neal Communities, which is developing one of the two projects approved under Sarasota 2050 so far, has spent about $1.5 million navigating the new public policy. That includes more than $161,000 on fiscal neutrality for one development alone. That is more than $1,000 per home, company founder and CEO Pat Neal said.

That means higher housing prices, carving away an already thin supply for affordable offerings in Southwest Florida, Neal says. It also means less money Neal has to spend on hiring people, and the developer said he suspects it is the same for other builders throughout the region.

With the new rules, Sarasota County becomes one of just six government jurisdictions in the nation that requires developers to track fiscal neutrality for each individual project — from the first home to the last, Neal said.

“Everybody believes growth should pay for itself — that’s public policy in our state,” he said. “And everybody in our business believes what we do is fiscally neutral. We think we are contributing members of the local economy, and we can demonstrate that, but the only place we’re required to do so is in Sarasota.”

“I would haunt my children if they even applied for a Sarasota County 2050 project because it’s just so expensive.”

The core of the fiscal neutrality argument — and many of those surrounding Sarasota 2050 as a whole — relates to restrictions first created with the Urban Service Boundary.

The concept dates back to the early 1980s, when Sarasota County planners generally intended to keep intense development west of the interstate from where the boundary was drawn. Areas east of I-75 were set aside for agriculture, open spaces and nature preserves.

The idea was to create an urban core, so that demand for basic government services could be delivered to the general population more efficiently. The theory is that the more the population is spread out, the more it costs per capita to provide those necessities.

The boundary also has helped prevent the type of “sprawl” found in many other Florida communities.

“The Urban service Boundary has helped concentrate density, preserve open space and create a unique and special place for Sarasota County,” said former county commissioner Jon Thaxton, a longtime proponent of 2050’s measures. “That’s the reality.”

But as population climbed through the years and demand for new housing swelled, builders have petitioned Sarasota County to move the boundary further east, where vacant land was plentiful.

The 2050 plan was ultimately adopted as an alternative.

With that plan now in place, some fear a lax fiscal neutrality policy will further dilute the protections of the Urban Service Boundary. Any decision to move the boundary would require a unanimous 5-0 vote by commissioners.

“That’s what this commission was elected to do,” said Bill Zoller, a representative of community groups who has protested changes to 2050. “They have five votes, if they choose to move it, at this point. This will certainly come up.

“The pressure from developers will build.”

Florida regulators helpless to manage sprawl

Cathy Antunes:

In a letter to the DEO, 1000 Friends of Florida stated Sarasota County’s 2050 changes do not conform with Florida statutes 163.3177(1)(a)9, 163.3177(1)(b) and 163.3177(1)(f). 

My conversation with DEO about 1000 Friends of Florida’s legal objections confirmed the agency’s inability to intercede, not because 1000 Friends of Florida’s objections were incorrect but because the DEO has no power to enforce standards against sprawl. 

While The Greater Sarasota Chamber of Commerce and County Commission point to the DEO’s approval of 2050 plan changes as proof of their innocuous nature, they fail to acknowledge how the DEO cannot enforce standards against economically and environmentally degrading sprawl development.. . . 

Careful land-use planning sets the table for community prosperity, but recently approved 2050 changes are inconsistent with legal standards designed to prevent sprawl and ensure our quality of life.

"Our quality of life is at risk" - Cathy Antunes

On Wednesday the County Commission will be voting on amendments to the Sarasota 2050 plan. The original 2050 standards for rural land outside the Urban Service Boundary (USB) were the result of a robust collaboration with community leaders and development interests. Since 2050 was adopted over ten years ago, understanding of best land use practices has improved dramatically. The 2050 changes fail to incorporate these new insights, nor are they the result of community collaboration. Rather, the changes are the result of County meetings with a handful of landowner/developers focused on facilitating development of their rural land.

The proposed 2050 changes ignore the reality of supply and demand. In the unincorporated County, Sarasota’s total potential housing supply (unbuilt) in 2010 was 45,000 units. Since then at least 9,000 units have been added. Add over 10,000 units in the City of Sarasota and 70,000 units in North Port, bringing total potential housing to 134,000 units. Those numbers don’t include the City of Venice and Longboat Key. Sarasota County’s projected ten year housing demand is 16,400 units. With potential units over 134,000 units and a projected demand of 16,400 units , our supply vs demand ratio is over 800%. Cities known for wise planning (like Portland, Oregon) move their USB when they don’t have enough potential housing to meet 10 year demand. With a supply vs demand ratio of 800%, why would the County make it easier to develop rural parcels by weakening 2050 standards? Is the practical result of these undisciplined amendments a de facto elimination of Sarasota’s Urban Service Boundary?

Proposed 2050 changes to walkable design standards enable inefficient subdivision development. Joe Minicozzi studied Sarasota County’s property tax base and found it took subdivision housing 42 years to pay off its infrastructure needs - longer than the life of the infrastructure! Charles Marohn is another planning thought leader who has documented how subdivision style development provides a short term cash benefit to municipal budgets for about eight years, until the long term costs of infrastructure maintenance and public services start kicking in, sinking municipal budgets. This important data is missing from County policy.

Walkable development leads to real value and healthy municipal budgets. Walkability isn’t the mere presence of sidewalks. Walkability provides a lifestyle which enables residents to work, shop, go to school and live in an area with zero to minimal need for a car. Minicozzi found Sarasota’s walkable, mixed use development delivered a much higher tax yield per acre - one that paid off it’s infrastructure costs in as little as three years. Changes to Sarasota 2050 plan eliminate design standards which deliver a truly walkable neighborhood.

Real estate studies show walkable communities are in demand. A1999 study by the Urban Land Institute of four new pedestrian-friendly communities determined that homebuyers were willing to pay a $20,000 premium for homes in them compared to similar houses in surrounding areas. A 2012 Milken Institute study shows strong correlation between walkable urbanism, educated residents, and local GDP. According to their findings “The six highest-ranked walkable urban metropolitan areas have an average GDP per capita of $60,400 . GPD per capita in walkable urban metros is 38 percent higher than the average GDP per capita ($43,900) in the 10 low-ranked walkable urban metros. Incorporating this information into our local planning policy is critical to our economic vitality. Creating walkability where we already have infrastructure, inside our USB, is an obvious economic game changer for Sarasota County. Why are our local leaders focusing on building rural lands instead?

Proposed 2050 changes do not include appropriate analysis of their impact on wildlife habitat, transportation (accidents, evacuation, congestion),and agriculture. Sarasota County’s Land Management Master Plan is out of date. According to the County website, it was due to be updated in 2010. This document is the roadmap for stewardship of our natural resources. Why has it been allowed to languish?

According to 1000 Friends of Florida, 2050 changes do not comply with Florida Law (statutes 163.3177(1)(a)9, 163.3177(1)(b) and 163.3177(1)(f)). These changes benefit a handful of landowners, but those who chose a rural lifestyle and those who work, live and own property west of I75, will ultimately be subsidizing overdevelopment at odds with their own economic well being. 

Enough is enough. Attend the County Commission vote this Wednesday at 1:30 pm, 1660 Ringling Blvd in County Commission Chambers. 

Our quality of life is at risk. Oppose these Ill-conceived policy changes.

Cathy Antunes serves on the boards of the Council of Neighborhood Associations and Sarasota Citizens for Responsible Government. She is organizing the 2050 Action Network, a growing network of civic groups advocating for the preservation and enhancement of Sarasota’s natural resources, economic diversification and quality of life.

-- Reposted from the SH-T