Long Bar Pointe Presentation

8/22/2019 Long Bar Pointe Presentation

1/82

Long Bar Pointe

Comp Plan

Res9 to Mixed UseJust say No!

Presented by Joe McClash


2/82

Countys Comp Plan

is the

Communitys Plan


3/82

A Community Plan

created to Protectthe Communitys

Quality of Life


4/82

A Community Plan

with

Goals and Policies


5/82

A Community Plan

with a

Community Vision


6/82

Comp Plan shouldonly be changed to

benefit the

communitys goalsnot just one developer


7/82

Comp Plan

is not a site planapproval or

zoning approval


8/82

However - a Comp Plan

Change to Mixed Use

would allow a site planapproval more intense

than what developer hasrepresented


9/82

Proposed Change

violates currentLocal, State, and

Federal rules


10/82

Proposed Change

violates theCommunitys Vision


11/82

Any change to theFLUC to any

Mixed Use should

be denied


12/82

Facts and Polices ofyour Comp Plan the

Communitys Comp

Plan support denial


13/82

County Precedent

for denialHeather Hills

ROS to Residential


14/82

EAR 2011 statesFinally, 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


15/82

EAR 2011 statedIn addition, the County will evaluate thechanges needed to focus the mixed use

projects in nodes or zones where transit

services and stations are located orproposed using the nodes identified

through the One-Bay process as a guide.


16/82

Property Owner has

Reasonable Use Approved Site Plan

Land Use Agreement


17/82

Applicant ClaimsChange to MU due to

change in c i rcumstances

since the open ing of

El Conqu istador

Not True


18/82

Hotel Site Selection &

Development in Manatee County Hotels are encouraged in a wide variety of locations in

unincorporated Manatee County. Properties have arange of existing and potential entitlements. Thefollowing describes different properties for hoteldevelopment in terms of being the most ready tobuild on to the sites that may need more entitlementwork, but the locations are generally consistent with

the Countys land development rules.


19/82

Hotel Site Selection &

Development in Manatee County


20/82

Applicant ClaimsChange to MU jus t i f ied

due to change ineconomy making

development more viab leDoes no t just i fy Mixed Use


21/82

Applicant ClaimsFo l low ing al l the ru les

Not True !The ru les have to be

changed to al lowdestruct ion o f the natural

envi ronment .


22/82

Applicant Claims

Pro ject w i ll provide a

Net Benef i t to theEnvi ronment

No True !


23/82

Change to MU not

consistent with

current comp plan

goals, policies and

objectives


24/82

Any change that

allows a Marina ornew channel violates

the Comp Plan


25/82

Staff Report Issues

Not accurate !Inco rrect descr ipt ion o f

ad jacen t propert ies

Fai ls to d isc lose po l ic iesthat are inconsisten t w i th

cu rren t ru les


26/82

Staff Report IssuesSummary is not accurate

States no listed species known

on site that are a Habitat forEndangered, Threatened, or

Special Concern Species

Not True !

Manatee Habitat, Sea Grasses


27/82

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 calvesduring springduring spring((March May 2008

ff


28/82

Staff Report Issues

Summary is not accurateOther Natural Resources

Fails to provide comments thatsite is adjacent to OutstandingFlorida Waters, a NationalEstuary, and Shellfish HabitatImportant resources to protect!


29/82

SHELLFISH HARVESTING AREA CLASSIFICATION MAP

#54 (Effective: September 28, 2004)

Sarasota Bay (#54) Shellfish Harvesting Area in

Sarasota and Manatee Counties


30/82

Inco rrec t Descr ipt iono f Ad jacent Propert ies

Ad jacen t Property to North

no t MU or MU-C

Ad jacen t Property to Northis MU-C/RU w ith cond i t ions


31/82

Staff Report comments


32/82

County Future Land Use Map


33/82

D. 5.7 Ordinance 10-01 (PA-10-01)

Manatee Fruit Property


34/82

D. 5.7 Ordinance 10-01 (PA-10-01)

Manatee Fruit Property

The 1,420 acre property identified as the Crossroadsat SW Manatee and designated MU-C on the FutureLand Use Map pursuant to Manatee County

Ordinance No. PA-10-01 shall be limited to thefollowing maximum development totals:

8,600 Residential Units

3,839,814 square feet Non-Residential (3.8 million Sq. Ft.)


35/82

D. 5.7 Ordinance 10-01 (PA-10-01)

Manatee Fruit Property MU-C/RUPolicy 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


36/82

Staff Fact

The MU designation createsthe opportunity forintegration of uses, specificuse designations, andmultimodalplanning. It

creates design opportunities,such as incorporatingneotraditional and newurbanism developments

Existing FLUC Res 9allows integration of

uses, specific use

designations, and

multimodalplanningand neo traditional

Pg. 4 Map Amendment PA 13-03

Summary is not accurate


37/82

Staff Fact

The MU classification also

creates the opportunity

for creative

environmental planning in

support of the current

estuary system ofSarasota Bay.

Existing FLUC Res 9

allows creativeenvironmental planning

now without the impacts

of a Marina needing sea

grasses and mangrovesremoved and a Resort

needing fertilizers and

pesticides that would

impact Sarasota Bay




38/82

Staff Fact

The MU classification also

creates the opportunity

for creative

environmental planning in

support of the current

estuary system ofSarasota Bay.

Existing Approved Plan

is creative by having nomangroves cutting , no

boat docks and no new

channel. Intended to be

a model of how adevelopment can be

approved with least

impact to environment




39/82

Development Conditions

Proposed by Staff for Long Bar

a. 1,086 single family residences

b. 2,531 multifamily residencesc. 300 room hoteld. 300 berth marina

e. 72,000 square feet of office usesf. 120,000 square feet of commercial usesg. 84,000 square foot conference center.


40/82

Within each citation, the applicant has

given an indication of how it willpreserve present advantages, and

adequately address future growth and

development.Citat ions are not accurate and m issing

al l the pol ic ies to prove consistency

Lack of Consistency ofProposed Plan Amendment

with the Comprehensive Plan


41/82

Appl icant Fact

The MU designation will

allow for a viable mixed

use community with a

variety of commercial

uses, housing densities inclose proximity to existinginfrastructure

Existing FLUC Res 9

allows the same mix

Consistency comment Policy 2.1.1.1


42/82


Appl icant Fact

The approval of this

Comprehensive Plan

Amendment will allow new

mixed use development to

occur in an area where there

has been investment inpublic facilities.

Existing FLUC Res 9allows the same mixed

with Neo Traditional


43/82


Appl icant Fact

The change in the Land UseDesignation to MU will allowthe development of compact,

walkable, mixed use, Mixeddensity development which is

consistent with the goals ofthe Comprehensive Plan.

Existing FLUC Res 9 allows

the same mixed with NeoTraditional without change

to FLUC

Area adjacent has over

1400 acres of mixed use

No evidence presented that

more is needed

Not consistent with goals


44/82


Appl icant Fact

Serve as a model for futuredevelopment thus helping tocurb the growth of suburbansprawl.

This change in FLUC hasnothing to do with sprawl

since it already has a

higher density of Res 9


45/82

Consistency comment Policy 2.2.2.4.2 Purpose:

a) To limit population in the Category 1 hurricane evacuationarea requiring evacuation during storm events

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

public,within the CEAOverlay District and thereby limitmagnitude of public loss and involvement in mitigating forloss, of private infrastructure to Manatee County residents

Change to MU violates this policy

c) To, through exercise of the police power, increase thedegree of protection to public and private property, and toprotect the lives of residents within the CEA, and reduce therisk of exposing lives or property to storm damage


46/82

Consistency comment Policy 2.2.2.4.2

d) To accomplish shoreline stabilization along coastal areas bylimiting development activity which may adversely impactshoreline stability

Change to MU would violate this policy

e) To protect coastal water quality by reducing impervious surfacealong coastal areas, thereby reducing the risk of incompletetreatment of stormwater runoff before discharge into coastalwaters

Change to MU change would violate this policy

f) To encourage, establish, and maintain vegetative and spatialbuffer zones, in order to maintain the capacity of naturalvegetative communities in mitigating the negative effects of stormsurge and tidal velocity, and the erosive effect of wave action.



47/82


48/82

Consistency comment Policy 2.2.2.5.2 Purpose:

a) To limit population in the Coastal High Hazard AreaOverlay District

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

public, within the CHHA Overlay District and thereby limitmagnitude of public loss and involvement in mitigating forloss of private infrastructure to Manatee County residents

Change to MU would violate this Policy

c) To, through exercise of the police power, increase thedegree of protection to public and private property, and toprotect the lives of residents within the CHHA,

Consistency comment Policy 2 2 2 5 2


49/82


There is not way to mitigate this policy!

d) To accomplish shoreline stabilization along coastal areas bylimiting development activity which may adversely impactshoreline stability


e) To protect coastal water quality by reducing impervious surfacealong coastal areas, thereby reducing the risk of incompletetreatment of stormwater runoff before discharge into coastalwaters

Change to MU change would violate this policy

f) To encourage, establish, and maintain vegetative and spatialbuffer zones, in order to maintain the capacity of naturalvegetative communities in mitigating the negative effects of stormsurge and tidal velocity, and the erosive effect of wave action.



50/82


51/82


Appl icant Fact

Serve as a modelfor futuredevelopment thus

helping to curbthe growth of

suburban sprawl.

This change hasnothing to do with

sprawl since it

already has adensity of 9 du/ac


52/82

Consistency comment Objective 2.3.1

Clustering and Density/IntensityTransfersto Preserve Natural Resources Promotethe 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


53/82

Consistency comments Policy2.3.1.2

Minimize the alteration or relocation of anyperennial lake or stream, or of adjacent

jurisdictional wetlands by promoting thetransfer of density/intensity away from the

water body and out of the floodplain, exceptfor improvements for public water supply

sources, upon a finding of overriding publicinterest by the Board of County

Commissioners.

Change to MU wou ld vio late this pol icy


54/82

Consistency comments Objective 2.3.3

Floodplain Management: Direct developmentaway from areas subject to flooding to reducerisks to life and property and to minimize coststo County residents for replacing damaged

infrastructure

Applicant: The majority of the site lies within the 100year floodplain

Change to MU wou ld vio late this andPolicy2.3.1.2

promoting the transfer of density/intensity away from

the water body and out of the floodplain


55/82

Consistency comments Objective: 2.8.2 Objective: 2.8.2 Inappropriate Precedents: Discount

inappropriate, precedent-setting land uses as thebasis for future land use decision-making, followingplan adoption.

Policy: 2.8.2.1 Prohibit designations on the Future LandUse Map which reflect zoning districts, or existing uses

which are inconsistentwith prevalent communitycharacter, 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 areinconsistent with this Comprehensive Plan or prevalentcommunity character.


56/82

Consistency comments Objective 3.3.1

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


57/82

Consistency comments Policy 3.3.1.1

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

Just not True !


58/82

What policies applicant and staff

failed to commentCOASTAL ELEMENT GOAL: 4.1

Protection, Preservation, AndEnhancement of The NaturalResources of The Coastal

Planning Area to ProvideThe Highest EnvironmentalQuality Possible.


59/82


failed to commentThere is not way to mitigate this policy!

Objective: 4.1.1 Seagrass Protection: Increase thenumber of acres of seagrass in local waters incooperation with the Tampa Bay and Sarasota Bay EPsand the Charlotte Harbor NEP through programswhich protect, restore, and enhance significant habitatto provide


60/82



Policy: 4.1.1.3 Prohibit the location of new boat rampsin areas characterized by insufficient depth, sensitivebottom or shoreline habitats, such as seagrass beds.


61/82


failed to comment Policy: 4.1.1.6 Develop techniques to orient

boating activities to suitable areas away fromsensitive habitats, to protect seagrass beds and

reduce turbidity. [See policy 4.2.1.2]Implementation Mechanism: a) Review by theNatural Resources and Planning Departmentsof all development requests for marina-typeuses to ensure that sensitive habitats will not

be negatively affected.Removing sea grasses does not ensure that

sensitive habitats will not be negatively affected


62/82



Policy: 4.1.5.2 Restrict dredge and fill operations

in the Coastal Planning Area to operations whichfacilitate the continuing use of existing channels,operations associated with appropriate water-dependent uses, or operations which correctenvironmental problems caused by limited tidalcirculation or other deficiencies of theenvironmental system.

The intent no new dredging !


63/82


failed to commentThere is no t way to m it igate this pol icy!

Policy: 4.1.5.3 Limit construction of

artificial waterways to necessarydrainage improvements required toimplement the goals of the PublicFacilities element.

No new construction of channels !


64/82


failed to comment Policy: 4.1.5.3Why 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 PlanningDepartments of dredge and fill applications

for compliance with this policy.


65/82


failed to comment Policy: 4.1.1.7 Encourage seagrass growth through strategieswhich improve water transparency in Sarasota and TampaBays and Charlotte Harbor. [See policies under Objective3.2.2.]

Objective: 4.1.2 Coastal Planning Area EmergentVegetation and Upland Habitat Protection: Maintain orincrease the amount of native habitat in the Coastal PlanningArea to: - retain habitat for native species; - provide naturalareas for passive enjoyment by local residents and visitors; -provide filtration of pollutants for runoff to coastal waters; -

preserve habitat for juvenile fish; - preserve the uniquenatural character of the County's coastlines; and prevent theintrusion of invasive species which provide inferior habitat.

The intent maintain habitat and preserve natural coastline !


66/82


failed to comment GOAL: 4.2 Compatibility of Land Development in The Coastal PlanningArea With Natural Resource Protection.

Objective: 4.2.1Water-Dependent and Other Uses: Give priority to the sitingand development of water-dependent uses within the Coastal Planning Area,

as compared with other shoreline uses and

provide for compatibility of water-dependentand other uses in the Coastal Planning Area

to protect natural shorelines, habitat andwater quality.

The current rule requires developments topreserve native uplands !


67/82


failed to comment GOAL: 4.2 Compatibility of Land Development in TheCoastal Planning Area With Natural ResourceProtection.

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, naturalcoastal habitat protection, shoreline stabilization,compatible passive recreational facilities and

projects that enhance public safety and waterdependent industrial uses associated with portfacilities; 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-waterdependent and non-water enhanced uses which result in an irretrievable commitment of coastalresources.

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


68/82

SHELLFISH HARVESTING AREA CLASSIFICATION MAP

#54 (Effective: September 28, 2004)

Sarasota Bay (#54) Shellfish Harvesting Area in

Sarasota and Manatee Counties


69/82


failed to comment Policy: 4.4.2.5 Minimize the disturbance of natural

shoreline resources that provide shorelinestabilization and protect landward areas from the

effects of storm events. ImplementationMechanism(s): a) Implementation of the policiesunder Objective 4.1.2 and policies 4.4.2.5 and4.4.2.6.

These provisions will be implemented to protectshoreline integrity through non-dis turbance ofcoastal vegetat ion and so i ls .

The current rule protects natural shoreline!


70/82


failed to commentPolicy: 4.4.2.6 Proh ib i t the con struct ion o fnew seawallsand the repair and

reconstruction of existing seawalls except aspermitted by applicable federal and stateregulations.

The current rule intent was toprohibit new seawalls!


71/82


failed to comment Policy: 3.3.1.1 Proh ibi t removal, alterat ion , orencroachment w i th in wet landsexcept in cases

where no other practical alternatives exist that willpermit a reasonable use of the land or where thereis an overriding public benefit.

The current rule intent wasto prohibit any impactsto wetlands!


72/82


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 post-development wetlands, except upland cut ditches in non-hydric soils. Landalteration or removal of vegetation shall be prohibited in any buffersestablished according to this policy except to allow the removal of nuisance

plant species, small areas of impervious surface for stormwater outfalls, and toallow public access consistent with natural resource protection. Such buffersshall be established according to the following schedule except as provided inPolicy 3.3.1.5:

(1) Buffers a minimum fifty (50) feet in width shall be establishedadjacent to all in f lowing watercourses located in the WO Overlay and allOutstanding Florida Waters and Aquatic Preserves;

The current rule intent was to have 50 footbuffers from natural areas next toOFW like Sarasota Bay!

Southwest Florida Regional


73/82


Ecosystem Restoration Plan

adopted March 8, 2013The 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 conservationareas to ensure healthy landscapes that support theenvironment 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 afocus on marshes, mangroves, seagrasses, barrier islands,natural beaches and dunes, and coastal forests and prairies



74/82



adopted March 8, 2013

Saltwater Wetlands: Coastal developments (canalcommunities) were constructed throughout the

region during the 1950s and 1960s eliminatingvaluable mangrove habitats.

Protecting existing natural wetland systems andrestoring the ecological function of altered wetlandsis a priority in the CCMPs. Establishing the ecologicalbalance of available habitats throughout the Bays is

also a feature of the CCMPs maintaining the balance to maximize productivity



75/82



adopted March 8, 2013The initial Comprehensive Plan aims to provide an integrated

approach to Gulf restoration by setting out high-level guidancefocused on restoration of natural resources and the jobs,

communities, and economies those resources support. To providethis guidance, the initial Comprehensive Plan will adopt andexpand 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.


76/82

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 ofconsideration and that the proposed change is

compatible with surrounding uses anddensities/intensities of development.


77/82

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 amendingthe Comprehensive Plan incorporates languagelimiting the development of the subject area orproperty to that consistent with all other goals,

objectives, and policies including the requirements(objectives) for concurrent provision of adequatepublic facilities.

Plenty of Reasons to Deny!


78/82

y yFor the record! There is not a sea grass

problem but a development problemSeagrass Mapping Assessment: Between 2006 and2008, total seagrass cover for the Sarasota Bayregion increased by 2,787 acres, from 9,854 acres to

12,641 acres, an increase of 28% (Table 1). Most ofthe increase occurred in Upper Sarasota Bay inManatee County (1,844 acres).


79/82


Set a precedent for Skyway Resort Proposal

FLUC is not in best interest of public

It has not been proven that change is consistent withComp 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.

Pl f R D !


80/82


Fails to meet the requirements of163.3177 Requiredand optional elements of comprehensive plan;studies and surveys.

8. Future land use map amendments shall be basedupon the following analysesb. An analysis of the suitability of the plan amendment

for its proposed use considering the character of theundeveloped land, soils, topography, natural resources,

and historic resources on site.

c. An analysis of the minimum amount of land neededto achieve the goals and requirements of this section.

Pl f R D !


81/82


Fails to meet the requirements of163.3177 Required andoptional elements of comprehensive plan; studies andsurveys.9. The future land use element and any amendment to thefuture land use element shall discourage the proliferation of

urban sprawla. The primary indicators that a plan or planamendment does not discourage the proliferation of urbansprawl are listed below(IV) Fails to adequately protect and conserve naturalresources, such as wetlands, floodplains, nativevegetation, environmentally sensitive areas, naturalgroundwater aquifer recharge areas, lakes, rivers,shorelines, beaches, bays, estuarine systems, and othersignificant natural systems.


82/82

Our Current Polices to Protect

our Environment are working!

No Facts Support Changes

Deny the Change

Documents

Long Bar Pointe Presentation