By public interest advocates

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO SARASOTA 2050

BY PUBLIC INTEREST ADVOCATES
The developers of rural areas planned for urbanization under the Sarasota 2050 Plan have proposed numerous amendments to the Plan and its implementing Zoning Code, all of which would repeal or severely weaken key requirements for mixed use, walkability, fiscal neutrality, environmental protection and other important provisions.
County staff has asked the representatives of public interest organizations for their comments on the subject, as the County considers potential amendments.
First, we strongly oppose all of the changes sought by the developers, for reasons that are stated separately. Second, if changes to Sarasota 2050 are to be considered we urge that balance be provided by considering not just amendments that would undermine or destroy the public interest but also those that would strengthen it, as follows:
1) Change the central and south Villages to "Future Potential Village Area" so that additional Comp Plan amendments are required to add them. This will change the Plan to go with one test Village first, as was advocated in 2002 by Jon Thaxton, Joe Barbetta and public interest organizations. As an alternative, amend Policy VOS 2.1 to allow only one Village to be built at a time and the next once to commence only after the one before it is substantially complete.
2) Remove the Town Center in the south Village. This is the only Town Center, to be a huge mix of retail, office, industrial and residential uses. It no longer makes any functional sense now that the Interchange at I-75 and Central Sarasota Parkway, as well as the eastern extension of Central Sarasota Parkway across I-75, have been removed. That now leaves the only way to get to and from the Town Center, and the south Village, a long two lane extension of the Bee Ridge Extension south of Clark Road.
3) For the reason stated in #2, that is the lack of any remaining feasible access, remove the south Village.
4) Change the central Village to Agricultural Reserve. It is insufficient for the future of agriculture in Sarasota County to relegate the Agricultural Reserve to a spot on the far southeastern portion of the County.
5) Amend Policy VOS 1.2.a to reduce the maximum size of a Village from 3,000 acres of Developed Area, perhaps to 1,000 or 2,000 acres, with one in each of the three Village areas. The present size of the contemplated development is entirely too massive, considering for example that Village of Lakewood Ranch South will be 60% the size of the City of Sarasota and one-quarter its population. An urban development of comparable size far east on the Hi Hat Ranch is even more untenable. Even if the present Sarasota 2050 policies are kept intact to maximize mixed use and walkability (which the developers effectively propose to eliminate), the traffic that will inevitably flow on our arterial roads to the west (particularly University Parkway, Fruitville, Bee Ridge and Clark) will far exceed their capacity and the gridlock will be unbearable.
6) Also to reduce the excessive impact of the urban developments in rural lands, decrease the maximum density from five units of developed acres to four, with the existing bonus of one unit per acre for additional affordable housing.
7) Require Conservation Subdivisions (as described in Policies TDR 2.1 and 2.2) in place of any new large-lot Subdivisions, and ideally in place of much of the development planned for Villages, Hamlets and Settlement Areas.
8) Amend Policy VOS 1.4 to remove golf courses as an allowable use of Open Space, in order to encourage more environmentally friendly alternatives.
9) Amend Policy VOS 1.5 to eliminate the permission for impacts to wetlands in Village Centers.
10) Amend Policy VOS 2.1 (a)4.b to require that the Village Master Development Plan identify available sufficient permitted sources of water supply for the Village, not merely "a list of potential, permittable sources" as at present.
11) Amend Policy VOS 2.9 to add requirement for a fiscal neutrality bond to ensure compliance with the requirements for fiscal neutrality.  This should be required before development can occur in order to ensure that facility costs are covered in the event the developer encounters financial problems, as has occurred in the recent past. 

12) Amend Policies VOS 5.1 and 5.2 to increase the minimum Greenbelt preserves around each Village and Hamlet from 500 feet to 1,000 feet.

13) Amend Policy VOS 5.2 to require 1400 feet vista setbacks from Fruitville Road and University Parkway, in addition to Clark Road as at present.
14) Amend Policy GS 2.5 to eliminate the use of Greenways for stormwater management facilities.
15) Amend Policy TDR 1.2 to eliminate the last sentence, which allow a developer to acquire its density rights by purchasing them from environmental lands owned by the County.
16) Amend Zoning Code Policy 11.2.3.c.4.iii(e), for the phasing of mixed uses, to require that 100% of the commercial/retail/office square footage be completed when 100% of the residential square footage is completed, rather than merely 75% as at present.
17) Amend Zoning Code Policy 11.2.3.c.4.v(d) to require that affordable housing be kept affordable, within the stated limits, both as to sales as well as rentals, and for a period of 20 years, not merely 5 years as at present.
18) Amend Zoning Code Policy 11.2.8.c.2.ii(c)(3) to reduce the length of a cul de sac from 1,000 feet to 500 feet, except along homes of one acre lots or larger, in order to better reflect the New urbanist principles of the Plan and to enhance walkability.
19) Amend Zoning Code Policy 11.2.9.b.4 to prohibit the crossing of Greenways by roads, stormwater facilities and other public facilities, rather than seek to "avoid" those adverse impacts "to the extent practicable", as at present. Also, provide needed detail regarding Greenway crossings, as follows: "Where Greenway crossings are provided, they shall be constructed as overpasses or underpasses in order to facilitate the passage of wildlife found in that area, safe from harm by vehicular traffic."
20) Amend Zoning Code Policy 11.2.10.a.i to require Greenbelts around Settlement Areas in addition to around Villages and Hamlets, as at present.
21) Amend Zoning Code Policy 11.2.10.a.2 to provide with regard to the visual setback, "There shall be no buildings within this setback and any landscaping, utilities, signs or other land disturbance shall be consistent with the maintenance of open vistas and the protection of rural character."
22) Amend the Zoning Code to strengthen the requirement that the Master Development Plan for a Village comply with the various requirements in the Plan and the Zoning Code, rather than the bare form now provided in Table 11.3-1 of the Zoning Code. Compare for instance Section 10.1 of page 69 of the first draft of the Zoning Code regulations.
23) As Sarasota 2050 is supposed to provide enhanced environmental protection as one of the public interest tradeoffs for urbanization of rural lands, add a requirement for protection of baby grand trees, such as was proposed for the entire County by the County's Sarasota Tree Advisory Council.