Huge Hi Hat seeks up to sixfold increase in density

Courtesy of the Sarasota News Leader

Subscribe to the SNL

Privately initiated county Comprehensive Plan amendment seeks up to six-fold increase in density for development of part of Hi Hat Ranch

May 30, 2019 by Rachel Brown Hackney, Editor & Publisher

Neighborhood Workshop set for evening of June 4

A map submitted to the county shows the area where the density change is being sought. Image courtesy Sarasota County

The Sarasota County Commission has authorized staff to proceed outside the normal cycle with a proposed, privately initiated revision of the Sarasota 2050 Plan that could lead to a significant increase in the number of new homes planned near the intersection of Fruitville Road and Utopia Road.

The property is close to the Mote Aquaculture Park, based on documents filed with the county.

Owned by Hi Hat Ranch LLLP of Sarasota, the approximately 1,000-acre parcel is designated for a 2050 Plan Hamlet, which, the County Code says, is “entitled to a base residential density of 0.29 dwelling units per acre of Developed Area.” The maximum density allowed within the Developed Area is one dwelling unit per acre.

The owners of Hi Hat Ranch are seeking to change the designation of the property to Village Land Use, which has a maximum density of five dwelling units per gross developable area, or six, if the additional units are planned for affordable housing.

The property is in what has been classified as the Central Village Area of the county’s 2050 Resource Management Area, according to a May 21 county staff memo. The owners wanted staff to process the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment at the same time staff works on a Development of Critical Concern (DOCC) for Hi-Hat Ranch, the memo said.

“The balance of the Hi-Hat Ranch lands are designated Village Land Use and Greenway,” the memo pointed out.

County staff has scheduled a Neighborhood Workshop on the proposed amendment on Tuesday, June 4. The session will be held from 6 to 7 p.m. at St. Margaret Episcopal Church, which is located at 8700 State Road 72 (Clark Road).

A graphic included with the May 21 county staff memo shows more details of the affected portion of the Sarasota 2050 Resource Management Area. Image courtesy Sarasota County

As part of their May 21 Consent Agenda of routine business items, the county commissioners — without any comment — agreed unanimously that staff could work on the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment outside the annual cycle approved for such staff undertakings.

The County Code that covers the Sarasota 2050 Plan explains that the Hamlet Planned Development District “provides for detached residential uses, protected open space, Public/Civic uses and limited neighborhood type commercial. The district is not commercial in character.” The Code adds, “Hamlets are collections of rural homes and lots clustered together around a crossroads that may include small-scale commercial, Public/Civic buildings or shared amenities.”

The maximum number of dwelling units is 400, the County Code notes, but the “Preferred Size” is 50 to 150 dwelling units

At least 60% of the area must remain open space, the County Code points out.

An aerial map shows most of the property where the modification is being sought. Utopia Road is the north-south road west of the Mote Aquaculture Park. Image from Google Maps

On the other hand, the Code says, “A Village is a collection of Neighborhoods that have been designed so that a majority of the housing units are within a walking distance or one-quarter mile radius of a Neighborhood Center. A Village shall be supported by a mixed-use Village Center (designed specifically to serve the daily and weekly retail, office, and Public/Civic use and services needs of Village residents), and the Village shall generally be surrounded by large expanses of Open Space that are designed to protect the character of the rural landscape and provide separation between the Village and existing low density rural development.”

A minimum of 50% of the space must remain open, except for Villages in the Clark Road Properties area of the county, which is south of Clark Road and east of Interstate 75.

A Sarasota News Leader review of Hi Hat Ranch parcels on the Sarasota County Property Appraiser’s website found several out of which the designated Hamlet area appears to have been carved. One of them, which comprises 378 acres, had a value of $3,006,700 in 2018, county records show. A portion of that parcel has been deeded to the City of Sarasota, which has a water reclamation distribution system in that area.

This is one of the Hi Hat Ranch LLLP parcels affected by the Comprehensive Plan amendment that is being sought. Its 2018 value is more than $3 million, the Sarasota County Property Appraiser’s Office records show. Image from the Sarasota County Property Appraiser’s Office

A second parcel, which contains about 388 acres, had a 2018 value of $3,319,700, according to Property Appraiser William Furst’s office’s records.

Hi Hat Ranch LLLP lists its address as 11708 Fruitville Road in the documents it has filed with the Florida Division of Corporations. Its registered agent is Richard E. Turner Jr. of the same address.

A News Leader check of the Property Appraiser’s Office records found 22 parcels in the county belonging to Hi Hat Ranch LLLP. All but five of them came under ownership of the company in August 1988, the records show.

Courtesy of the Sarasota News Leader

Subscribe to the SNL

Court hearing in Citizen suit against Sarasota County Tuesday Dec. 4

Citizens sued Sarasota County with respect to the Grand Lakes development. The court has scheduled an Administrative hearing for Tuesday Dec. 4, 9 a.m.:

The suit, David Anderson vs Sarasota County and Ibis Rd. Investors LLC, argues that the Board of Sarasota County Commissioners violated terms of its own Comprehensive Plan in approving Pat Neal's proposed 1,000-home development without including a commercial component. Background on the lawsuit here.

Pat Neal, developer of Grand Lakes

The Dec. 4 hearing details:

David Anderson vs Sarasota County and Ibis Rd. Investors LLC

Tuesday 9 a.m. Justice Center 2071 Ringling Blvd. (NW corner of Ringling Blvd and East Ave little doorway) 

Courtroom #2 6th floor Judge Ffolks

The hearing go two days, more or less.

At stake, in the county's own words, is a core principle of 2050: integrating uses to avoid sprawl:

"the provision for non-residential uses through the establishment of mixed use Village and Neighborhood Centers is central to the concept of Villages as an alternative to urban sprawl. … Without the non-residential uses in close proximity and integrated into the residential uses, the Villages resemble other suburban residential development typical of Sarasota County and other communities.”  (SNL 8.16.18)

The homeowners contend that if Pat Neal is allowed to proceed under the proposed changes to the rules, the development of Grand Lakes

will promote sprawl and encourage disjointed patchwork development—exactly the things the 2050 plan is meant to discourage.

 The county is ignoring its own rules, the citizens say. Future developments could take the County's approval in Pat Neal's case as precedent for coming large-scale developments:

. . . relaxation of the core 2050 principles would open the way for future, large-scale developments such as 12,000-unit Hi Hat Ranch to sprawl rather than conform to contained village templates that link residential and commercial use in a constructive and meaningful manner. (Press release of plaintiffs).

In essence, without public sector stewardship, the business models for single family development could very well lead to sprawl.

Sprawl

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