Long Bar Pointe Comp Plan Res9 to Mixed Use

Just say No!

Presented by Joe McClash

Countys Comp Plan is the Communitys Plan

A Community Plan created to Protect the Communitys Quality of Life

A Community Plan with Goals and Policies

A Community Plan with a Community Vision

Comp Plan should only be changed to benefit the communitys goals

not just one developer

Comp Plan
is not a site plan approval or zoning approval

However - a Comp Plan Change to Mixed Use would allow a site plan approval more intense than what developer has represented

Proposed Change violates current Local, State, and Federal rules

Proposed Change violates the Communitys Vision

Any change to the FLUC to any Mixed Use should be denied

Facts and Polices of your Comp Plan the Communitys Comp Plan support denial

County Precedent for denial Heather Hills ROS to Residential

EAR 2011 states

Finally, the County has a fairly significant amount of vacant,
developable Mixed Use (MU) land.
While the vacant, developable MU land only accounts for approximately 1,273 acres or three percent, it is strategically located within the Interstate-75 corridor,

Since the EAR 1400 more acres of MU added

EAR 2011 stated

In addition, the County will evaluate the
changes needed to focus the mixed use projects in nodes or zones where transit services and stations are located or proposed using the nodes identified through the One-Bay process as a guide.

Property Owner has

Reasonable Use Approved Site Plan Land Use Agreement

Applicant Claims
Change to MU due to change in circumstances since the opening of El Conquistador Not True

Hotel Site Selection & Development in Manatee County

Hotels are encouraged in a wide variety of locations in

unincorporated Manatee County. Properties have a range of existing and potential entitlements. The following describes different properties for hotel development in terms of being the most ready to build on to the sites that may need more entitlement work, but the locations are generally consistent with the Countys land development rules.

Hotel Site Selection & Development in Manatee County

Applicant Claims
Change to MU justified due to change in economy making development more viable
Does not justify Mixed Use

Applicant Claims
Following all the rules Not True ! The rules have to be changed to allow destruction of the natural environment.

Applicant Claims
Project will provide a Net Benefit to the Environment
No True !

Change to MU not consistent with current comp plan goals, policies and objectives

Any change that allows a Marina or new channel violates the Comp Plan

Staff Report Issues Not accurate !

Incorrect description of adjacent properties Fails to disclose policies that are inconsistent with current rules

Staff Report Issues

Summary is not accurate States no listed species known on site that are a Habitat for Endangered, Threatened, or Special Concern Species Not True ! Manatee Habitat, Sea Grasses

PHOTO-IDENTIFICATION AND AERIAL SURVEYS OF FLORIDA MANATEES (Trichechus manatus latirostris) IN MANA TEE COUNTY WATERS 2007-2008 FINAL REPORT by Mote Marine Laboratory
manatee sightings

during spring (March May) 2008

manatee sightings with calves during springduring spring ((March May 2008

Staff Report Issues

Summary is not accurate

Other Natural Resources Fails to provide comments that site is adjacent to Outstanding Florida Waters, a National Estuary, and Shellfish Habitat Important resources to protect!

SHELLFISH HARVESTING AREA CLASSIFICATION MAP #54 (Effective: September 28, 2004) Sarasota Bay (#54) Shellfish Harvesting Area in Sarasota and Manatee Counties

Incorrect Description of Adjacent Properties

Adjacent Property to North not MU or MU-C Adjacent Property to North is MU-C/RU with conditions

Staff Report comments

County Future Land Use Map

D. 5.7 Ordinance 10-01 (PA-10-01) Manatee Fruit Property

D. 5.7 Ordinance 10-01 (PA-10-01) Manatee Fruit Property

The 1,420 acre property identified as the Crossroads

at SW Manatee and designated MU-C on the Future Land Use Map pursuant to Manatee County Ordinance No. PA-10-01 shall be limited to the following maximum development totals:

8,600 Residential Units

3,839,814 square feet Non-

Residential (3.8 million Sq. Ft.)

D. 5.7 Ordinance 10-01 (PA-10-01) Manatee Fruit Property MU-C/RU

Policy 2.2.1.28.6 Mixed Use Community/Residential Urban (MU-C/RU):

Range of Potential Density/Intensity:

Maximum Gross Residential Density: 9

dwelling units per acre

Pg. 4 Map Amendment PA 13-03 Summary is not accurate

Staff
The MU designation creates

Fact
Existing FLUC Res 9

the opportunity for integration of uses, specific use designations, and multimodalplanning. It creates design opportunities, such as incorporating neotraditional and new urbanism developments

allows integration of uses, specific use designations, and multimodalplanning and neo traditional

Pg. 4 Map Amendment PA 13-03 Summary is not accurate

Staff
The MU classification also

Fact
Existing FLUC Res 9

creates the opportunity for creative environmental planning in support of the current estuary system of Sarasota Bay.

allows creative environmental planning now without the impacts of a Marina needing sea grasses and mangroves removed and a Resort needing fertilizers and pesticides that would impact Sarasota Bay

Pg. 4 Map Amendment PA 13-03 Summary is not accurate

Staff
The MU classification also

Fact
Existing Approved Plan

creates the opportunity for creative environmental planning in support of the current estuary system of Sarasota Bay.

is creative by having no mangroves cutting , no boat docks and no new channel. Intended to be a model of how a development can be approved with least impact to environment

Development Conditions Proposed by Staff for Long Bar

a. 1,086 single family residences b. 2,531 multifamily residences c. 300 room hotel d. 300 berth marina e. 72,000 square feet of office uses f. 120,000 square feet of commercial uses g. 84,000 square foot conference center.

Lack of Consistency of Proposed Plan Amendment with the Comprehensive Plan

Within each citation, the applicant has given an indication of how it will preserve present advantages, and adequately address future growth and development. Citations are not accurate and missing all the policies to prove consistency

Consistency comment Policy 2.1.1.1

Applicant
The MU designation will

Fact
Existing FLUC Res 9

allow for a viable mixed use community with a variety of commercial uses, housing densities in close proximity to existing infrastructure

allows the same mix

Consistency comment Policy 2.1.1.4

Applicant
The approval of this

Fact
Existing FLUC Res 9

Comprehensive Plan Amendment will allow new mixed use development to occur in an area where there has been investment in public facilities.

allows the same mixed with Neo Traditional

Consistency comment Policy 2.1.2.4

Applicant
The change in the Land Use

Fact
Existing FLUC Res 9 allows

Designation to MU will allow the development of compact, walkable, mixed use, Mixed density development which is consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan.

the same mixed with Neo Traditional without change to FLUC Area adjacent has over 1400 acres of mixed use No evidence presented that more is needed Not consistent with goals

Consistency comment Policy 2.1.2.6

Applicant
Serve as a model for future

Fact
This change in FLUC has

development thus helping to curb the growth of suburban sprawl.

nothing to do with sprawl since it already has a higher density of Res 9

Consistency comment Policy 2.2.2.4.2

Purpose: a) To limit population in the Category 1 hurricane evacuation

area requiring evacuation during storm events

b) To limit the amount of infrastructure, both private and

public, within the CEA Overlay District and thereby limit magnitude of public loss and involvement in mitigating for loss, of private infrastructure to Manatee County residents Change to MU violates this policy
c) To, through exercise of the police power, increase the

degree of protection to public and private property, and to protect the lives of residents within the CEA, and reduce the risk of exposing lives or property to storm damage

Consistency comment Policy 2.2.2.4.2

d) To accomplish shoreline stabilization along coastal areas by

limiting development activity which may adversely impact shoreline stability Change to MU would violate this policy e) To protect coastal water quality by reducing impervious surface along coastal areas, thereby reducing the risk of incomplete treatment of stormwater runoff before discharge into coastal waters Change to MU change would violate this policy f) To encourage, establish, and maintain vegetative and spatial buffer zones, in order to maintain the capacity of natural vegetative communities in mitigating the negative effects of storm surge and tidal velocity, and the erosive effect of wave action. Change to MU would violate this policy

Consistency comment Policy 2.2.2.5.2

Purpose: a) To limit population in the Coastal High Hazard Area

Overlay District
b) To limit the amount of infrastructure, both private and

public, within the CHHA Overlay District and thereby limit magnitude of public loss and involvement in mitigating for loss of private infrastructure to Manatee County residents Change to MU would violate this Policy c) To, through exercise of the police power, increase the degree of protection to public and private property, and to protect the lives of residents within the CHHA,

Consistency comment Policy 2.2.2.5.2 There is not way to mitigate this policy!
d) To accomplish shoreline stabilization along coastal areas by

limiting development activity which may adversely impact shoreline stability Change to MU would violate this policy
e) To protect coastal water quality by reducing impervious surface

along coastal areas, thereby reducing the risk of incomplete treatment of stormwater runoff before discharge into coastal waters Change to MU change would violate this policy f) To encourage, establish, and maintain vegetative and spatial buffer zones, in order to maintain the capacity of natural vegetative communities in mitigating the negative effects of storm surge and tidal velocity, and the erosive effect of wave action. Change to MU would violate this policy

Consistency comment Policy 2.2.2.4.2

Applicant
Serve as a model for future development thus helping to curb the growth of suburban sprawl.

Fact
This change has nothing to do with sprawl since it already has a density of 9 du/ac

Consistency comment Objective 2.3.1

Clustering and Density/Intensity Transfers to Preserve Natural Resources Promote the clustering of uses and the transfer of density/intensity to:
Protect sensitive environments while preserving

development potential Limit development in areas subject to natural disasters which may cause damage to life and/or property Preserve endangered and threatened species

Consistency comments Policy2.3.1.2

Minimize the alteration or relocation of any perennial lake or stream, or of adjacent jurisdictional wetlands by promoting the transfer of density/intensity away from the water body and out of the floodplain, except for improvements for public water supply sources, upon a finding of overriding public interest by the Board of County Commissioners. Change to MU would violate this policy

Consistency comments Objective 2.3.3

Floodplain Management: Direct development away from areas subject to flooding to reduce risks to life and property and to minimize costs to County residents for replacing damaged infrastructure
Applicant: The majority of the site lies within the 100year floodplain

Change to MU would violate this and Policy2.3.1.2

promoting the transfer of density/intensity away from the water body and out of the floodplain

Consistency comments Objective: 2.8.2

Objective: 2.8.2 Inappropriate Precedents: Discount

inappropriate, precedent-setting land uses as the basis for future land use decision-making, following plan adoption. Policy: 2.8.2.1 Prohibit designations on the Future Land Use Map which reflect zoning districts, or existing uses which are inconsistent with prevalent community character, or inconsistent with adopted goals, objectives, and policies in this Comprehensive Plan from serving as precedents for plan amendment(s) and other development order approvals which are inconsistent with this Comprehensive Plan or prevalent community character.

Consistency comments Objective 3.3.1

Statement says : Buffers for Wetland will be maintained and impacts in accordance to current rules and regulations. Just not True !

Consistency comments Policy 3.3.1.1

Statement says : Wetland impacts in accordance with current rules and regulations, saying there will be an overriding public benefit.

Just not True !

What policies applicant and staff failed to comment

COASTAL ELEMENT GOAL: 4.1

Protection, Preservation, And Enhancement of The Natural Resources of The Coastal Planning Area to Provide The Highest Environmental Quality Possible.

What policies applicant and staff failed to comment

There is not way to mitigate this policy!
Objective: 4.1.1 Seagrass Protection: Increase the

number of acres of seagrass in local waters in cooperation with the Tampa Bay and Sarasota Bay EPs and the Charlotte Harbor NEP through programs which protect, restore, and enhance significant habitat to provide

What policies applicant and staff failed to comment

There is not way to mitigate this policy!
Policy: 4.1.1.3 Prohibit the location of new boat ramps

in areas characterized by insufficient depth, sensitive bottom or shoreline habitats, such as seagrass beds.

What policies applicant and staff failed to comment

Policy: 4.1.1.6 Develop techniques to orient

boating activities to suitable areas away from sensitive habitats, to protect seagrass beds and reduce turbidity. [See policy 4.2.1.2] Implementation Mechanism: a) Review by the Natural Resources and Planning Departments of all development requests for marina-type uses to ensure that sensitive habitats will not be negatively affected. Removing sea grasses does not ensure that sensitive habitats will not be negatively affected

What policies applicant and staff failed to comment

There is not way to mitigate this policy!
Policy: 4.1.5.2 Restrict dredge and fill operations in the Coastal Planning Area to operations which

facilitate the continuing use of existing channels, operations associated with appropriate waterdependent uses, or operations which correct environmental problems caused by limited tidal circulation or other deficiencies of the environmental system.

The intent no new dredging !

What policies applicant and staff failed to comment

There is not way to mitigate this policy!

Policy: 4.1.5.3 Limit construction of

artificial waterways to necessary drainage improvements required to implement the goals of the Public Facilities element.

No new construction of channels !

What policies applicant and staff failed to comment Policy: 4.1.5.3

Why would Natural Resources give conceptual approval when they are suppose to be the department to implement?
Implementation Mechanism: a) Review by the Natural Resources and Planning Departments of dredge and fill applications
for compliance with this policy.

What policies applicant and staff failed to comment

Policy: 4.1.1.7 Encourage seagrass growth through strategies

which improve water transparency in Sarasota and Tampa Bays and Charlotte Harbor. [See policies under Objective 3.2.2.] Objective: 4.1.2 Coastal Planning Area Emergent Vegetation and Upland Habitat Protection: Maintain or increase the amount of native habitat in the Coastal Planning Area to: - retain habitat for native species; - provide natural areas for passive enjoyment by local residents and visitors; provide filtration of pollutants for runoff to coastal waters; preserve habitat for juvenile fish; - preserve the unique natural character of the County's coastlines; and prevent the intrusion of invasive species which provide inferior habitat.
The intent maintain habitat and preserve natural coastline !

What policies applicant and staff failed to comment

GOAL: 4.2 Compatibility of Land Development in The Coastal Planning Area With Natural Resource Protection. Objective: 4.2.1 Water-Dependent and Other Uses: Give priority to the siting and development of water-dependent uses within the Coastal Planning Area, as compared with other shoreline uses and

provide for compatibility of water-dependent and other uses in the Coastal Planning Area to protect natural shorelines, habitat and water quality. The current rule requires developments to preserve native uplands !

What policies applicant and staff failed to comment

GOAL: 4.2 Compatibility of Land Development in The

Coastal Planning Area With Natural Resource Protection. Policy: 4.2.1.1 Shoreline uses shall be prioritized according to the following list. Water dependent conservation uses such as fish, shellfish, and marine resource production, natural coastal habitat protection, shoreline stabilization, compatible passive recreational facilities and projects that enhance public safety and water dependent industrial uses associated with port facilities; 2) Water-related uses such as certain utilities, commercial, and industrial uses;
3) Water-enhanced uses such as certain recreation and commercial uses; 4) Non-water dependent and non-water enhanced uses which result in an irretrievable commitment of coastal resources.

The current rule does not give a hotel or marina a priority!

SHELLFISH HARVESTING AREA CLASSIFICATION MAP #54 (Effective: September 28, 2004) Sarasota Bay (#54) Shellfish Harvesting Area in Sarasota and Manatee Counties

What policies applicant and staff failed to comment

Policy: 4.4.2.5 Minimize the disturbance of natural

shoreline resources that provide shoreline stabilization and protect landward areas from the effects of storm events. Implementation Mechanism(s): a) Implementation of the policies under Objective 4.1.2 and policies 4.4.2.5 and 4.4.2.6. These provisions will be implemented to protect shoreline integrity through non-disturbance of coastal vegetation and soils.

The current rule protects natural shoreline!

What policies applicant and staff failed to comment

Policy: 4.4.2.6 Prohibit the construction of

new seawalls and the repair and reconstruction of existing seawalls except as permitted by applicable federal and state regulations.

The current rule intent was to prohibit new seawalls!

What policies applicant and staff failed to comment

Policy: 3.3.1.1 Prohibit removal, alteration, or encroachment within wetlands except in cases where no other practical alternatives exist that will

permit a reasonable use of the land or where there is an overriding public benefit.

The current rule intent was to prohibit any impacts to wetlands!

What policies applicant and staff failed to comment

Policy: 3.3.1.5 Protect all wetlands from land development activities by requiring the establishment of natural area buffers adjacent to all postdevelopment wetlands, except upland cut ditches in non-hydric soils. Land alteration or removal of vegetation shall be prohibited in any buffers established according to this policy except to allow the removal of nuisance plant species, small areas of impervious surface for stormwater outfalls, and to

allow public access consistent with natural resource protection. Such buffers shall be established according to the following schedule except as provided in Policy 3.3.1.5: (1) Buffers a minimum fifty (50) feet in width shall be established adjacent to all in flowing watercourses located in the WO Overlay and all Outstanding Florida Waters and Aquatic Preserves;

The current rule intent was to have 50 foot buffers from natural areas next to OFW like Sarasota Bay!

Southwest Florida Regional Ecosystem Restoration Plan

adopted March 8, 2013
The Gulf Coast has endured extensive damage to key coastal habitats such as wetlands, coastal prairies and forests, estuaries, seagrass beds, natural beaches and dunes, and barrier islands. Major actions identified in the Restoration Strategy include: Expand the network of state, federal and private conservation areas to ensure healthy landscapes that support the environment and culture of the region and the diverse services provided by the Gulf of Mexico ecosystem. Restore and conserve coastal and near-shore habitats, with a focus on marshes, mangroves, seagrasses, barrier islands, natural beaches and dunes, and coastal forests and prairies

Southwest Florida Regional Ecosystem Restoration Plan

adopted March 8, 2013
Saltwater Wetlands: Coastal developments (canal communities) were constructed throughout the region during the 1950s and 1960s eliminating valuable mangrove habitats. Protecting existing natural wetland systems and restoring the ecological function of altered wetlands is a priority in the CCMPs. Establishing the ecological balance of available habitats throughout the Bays is also a feature of the CCMPs maintaining the balance to maximize productivity

Southwest Florida Regional Ecosystem Restoration Plan

adopted March 8, 2013
The initial Comprehensive Plan aims to provide an integrated approach to Gulf restoration by setting out high-level guidance focused on restoration of natural resources and the jobs, communities, and economies those resources support. To provide this guidance, the initial Comprehensive Plan will adopt and expand on the four overarching Task Force Strategy goals: Restore and Conserve Habitat; Restore Water Quality; Replenish and Protect Living Coastal and Marine Resources; and Enhance Community Resilience. The goals are consistent with the Florida Gulf NEPs CCMPs, required under the Clean Water Act.

C.2.3.3 Requirements for Amending the Comprehensive Plan.

upon finding that the goal, objective, policy, or map

sought to be amended is no longer in the best interest of the public. Upon finding that the map amendment sought is compatible with the development trends in the area of consideration and that the proposed change is compatible with surrounding uses and densities/intensities of development.

C.2.3.3 Requirements for Amending the Comprehensive Plan.

Furthermore, all small-scale and other map

amendments may be approved by the Board of County Commissioners only where the ordinance amending the Comprehensive Plan incorporates language limiting the development of the subject area or property to that consistent with all other goals, objectives, and policies including the requirements (objectives) for concurrent provision of adequate public facilities.

Plenty of Reasons to Deny!

For the record! There is not a sea grass problem but a development problem
Seagrass Mapping Assessment: Between 2006 and 2008, total seagrass cover for the Sarasota Bay region increased by 2,787 acres, from 9,854 acres to 12,641 acres, an increase of 28% (Table 1). Most of the increase occurred in Upper Sarasota Bay in Manatee County (1,844 acres).

Plenty of Reasons to Deny!

Set a precedent for Skyway Resort Proposal
FLUC is not in best interest of public It has not been proven that change is consistent with

Comp Plan Goals, Polices and Objectives Not compatible with surrounding uses Any destruction of natural shoreline cannot be mitigated Sarasota Bay is healthy in this area because of natural shoreline.

Plenty of Reasons to Deny!

Fails to meet the requirements of 163.3177 Required and optional elements of comprehensive plan; studies and surveys. 8. Future land use map amendments shall be based upon the following analyses b. An analysis of the suitability of the plan amendment for its proposed use considering the character of the undeveloped land, soils, topography, natural resources, and historic resources on site. c. An analysis of the minimum amount of land needed to achieve the goals and requirements of this section.

Plenty of Reasons to Deny!

Fails to meet the requirements of 163.3177 Required and optional elements of comprehensive plan; studies and surveys. 9. The future land use element and any amendment to the future land use element shall discourage the proliferation of urban sprawla. The primary indicators that a plan or plan amendment does not discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl are listed below (IV) Fails to adequately protect and conserve natural resources, such as wetlands, floodplains, native vegetation, environmentally sensitive areas, natural groundwater aquifer recharge areas, lakes, rivers, shorelines, beaches, bays, estuarine systems, and other significant natural systems.

Our Current Polices to Protect our Environment are working!

No Facts Support Changes

Deny the Change