New Urbanism, Old Problems

REVIEW SUMMARY
What. Sarasota County's new urbanism plan for the gateway to Sarasota.
Issue. Can the county and private partners advance a complex development strategy for low impact development on prime real estate at the rural edge?
Impact. Property values could soar if vacant land becomes a major employment center.
By the Numbers. Click here.

It's not uncommon for Sarasota County commissioners to go against their Planning Commission — but in a case along Interstate 75, the county is also the applicant, a landowner and the ultimate decision-maker with a lot at stake.

Last month, county commissioners overruled the Planning Commission's denial of the 5,500-acre Villages of Lakewood Ranch South. That project of Schroeder-Manatee Ranch features a new urbanism style development not unlike what's proposed this time around for the Fruitville Initiative.

But what's unique about this 322-acre mixed-use plan, is not only the $350,000 the county is contributing toward a half-million-dollar conceptual plan but that it includes 42 acres of county-owned land.

“It's kind of cool; a little different role for us,” says David Bullock, a deputy county administrator overseeing all the collaboration going into the plan's creation. The lackluster economy is also a factor, he admits.

Five adjacent property owners, who share the balance of the plan's costs, partnered with the county after first working with the Sarasota County Economic Development Corporation to develop an agreement. That deal was assigned to a willing Sarasota County in March.

The ultimate intent is to coordinate development of a compact, walkable, mixed-use community interspersed with parks and other public spaces. A “form-based code” would control road design, building types and features, promote energy efficiency and require low-impact stormwater design.

The county's land includes the Fruitville Library and borders the Celery Fields, a major regional stormwater retention facility to the south. The private sector partners own property east, west and north of the county lands situated just east of Interstate 75 at its interchange with Fruitville Road.

Fruitville Road is the gateway to Sarasota west of the interstate, and is being widened to four lanes east of I-75. That makes it prime real estate, and its mostly designated a “major employment center” in the county plan. The northeast portion of the planning area is designated “moderate density residential,” meaning two to less than five units per acre.

Office uses are likely to be a major part of the future development mixed with some residential, according to county planner Matt Lewis, who is directing the effort.

Development hasn't occurred because most of the otherwise valuable land near I-75 bordering Fruitville Road is very low and in the 100-year floodplain. That's where the county and its abundant surplus stormwater capacity comes in.

It won't be free to the developers and they'll still have to bring in loads of fill, but that capacity from the county land helps create what the county sees as a win-win for private landowner partners, but also taxpayers.

Taxable values are expected to shoot up when the mostly vacant land becomes developed. The 28-acre site, just west of the county's land and bordering the northbound I-75 off-ramp, has a 2009 taxable value of just $2,996. Hence the deal.

New urbanism flop
The development area mostly borders the urban services boundary running north and south about a half mile east of I-75. The Interstate forms the west edge.

Except for a 137-acre piece extending north of Richardson Road owned by Fox Creek Holdings, the other five properties border Fruitville Road. Richardson runs parallel to Fruitville about a half-mile to the north and is the main access road for single-family homes in the area.

One two-acre parcel off Richardson, owned by Luella Crofut — who owns a total of 45 acres in the study area — is proposed to be added to the urban services area. Neighbors living on large lots in the area want to keep this major hub low density. That conflict makes it all the more challenging for the six landowner partners.

This is where new urbanism meets urban sprawl.

One nearby property owner to the east, Bill Earl, is an attorney who has been fighting urban expansion for at least the past decade with much success.

Earl showed up at the Planning Commission meeting saying he was representing the Coalition of Neighborhood Associations, but then later admitted, “CONA hasn't taken a position yet.” Still, Earl was successful in getting the Planning Commission to approve a change to better protect his neighborhood.

The county's unique role as applicant, co-owner and regulator wasn't of much concern to the seven of eight planning commissioners who gave thumbs down following their June 3 public hearing. Nor, apparently, was the extensive public involvement preceding the Planning Commission hearing — including a five-day charrette — or the seven frustrating years it has taken the private property owners to get to this point.

Any dreams of stakeholders singing “Kumbaya” after the charrette were dashed at the Planning Commission hearing. Though some like Earl want changes made or the plan denied, others like it enough to want their properties included.

That vote to deny wasn't too cool in the eyes of veteran planning commissioner Roland Piccone, a civil engineer who heads up the Sarasota office of GAP Engineering and Planning.

Piccone found himself the sole supporter of the plan. “I supported it for good reason; because it is a comprehensive plan it has a considerable amount of detail.”

He refers to the 71-page consultants' report complete with numerous, intricate illustrations including a “conceptual illustrative plan”, “conceptual incremental growth scenarios,” and a “conceptual thoroughfare assignment plan.” The plan has a 25- to 30-year build-out horizon that could change depending on market conditions.

But all those “conceptuals” were interpreted by neighbors and other planning commissioners as if engraved in stone. The other planning commissioners want more detail, something the staff and Piccone believe are better addressed in later steps.

“A comprehensive plan amendment is not the place for all the details,” says Piccone. “It's not the time to try to separate fly poop from black pepper.”

Sizable investment
That report was prepared by Moule and Polyzoides, Architects and Urbanists, a highly respected, award-winning firm brought in from Pasadena, Calif.

Elizabeth Moule and Stefanos Polyzoides are Princeton University trained architects. They've become world-renowned for their approaches to new urbanism, a school of planning focusing on building form, public spaces, interconnectedness, diversity of uses and building types, and less on the uses themselves.

That study came together with the help of 11 other consulting firms ranging from transportation experts and planners to landscape architects, civil engineers and economists.

The county thus has a sizable investment in the plan and hoped to gain buy-in from a broad group of stakeholders, including the five other property owners, nearby residents and businesses, other neighborhood groups and the Economic Development Corporation.

It hasn't exactly worked out that way.

The agreement calls for the design charrette to allow input for everyone involved. While many area residents did show up at the five-day charrette, some chose instead to make their feelings known only at the Planning Commission meeting.

It may not have helped that no one from Moule and Polyzoides chose to attend the Planning Commission hearing or that members of the consulting team didn't address the board either, only county staff. Moule and Polyzoides were being honored at a function in Los Angeles that evening.

Besides Earl and another local attorney opposing the plan amendment, Peter Young, executive pastor of the nearby Church of Hope, also had concerns that seemed to influence planning commissioners.

While generally supportive, Young wants more certainty that the “finely-grained” street network won't impede churchgoers getting to and from the 800-seat church as it expands. The church has its own approved master plan, including senior housing for 200 residents plus day care, and argues that not all its traffic will be at off-peak times such as Sunday morning.

An illustrative plan shows a grid of streets south of the church designed for maximum speeds of 35 miles per hour. County planner Lewis says the concept is to have multiple options for drivers to disperse traffic through the grid network. But Young thinks more consideration should be given to a roadway that bypasses the more congested areas.

Planning Commissioners' email in-boxes were inundated with a church petition signed by 800 parishioners.

The plan with the recommendation for denial now goes before the county commission at a 1:30 p.m. public hearing June 22. County commissioners can expect to hear the same concerns.

Commissioner Carolyn Mason, whose district includes the planning area, and attended the charrette, says, “The issues have to be dealt with,” adding, “I'd rather sooner than later.”

Under an amendment to the county charter voters approved in 2008, any expansion of the urban services boundary requires a unanimous vote of the five commissioners. That could mean changes to the plan to get there.

As noted, the plan calls for moving the urban boundary only slightly. But now several other landowners want their land included in the urban area and become part of the
plan.

Nothing's easy when it comes to development in a county with a vocal anti-growth contingent such as Sarasota County. But this time, the county appears to be making more of a good-faith effort in putting its own resources at stake to create a distinctive development.

If the plan gets all its approvals, which could take a couple more years, the question remains whether or not the county will develop its part of the site, sell its development rights, become a leaseholder or all of the above.

Commissioner Jon Thaxton says there's been some brainstorming along these lines, but doesn't see the county as a developer. “I don't think you would see the county per se as the developer/owner unless it was a government facility that could be a part of it,” Thaxton says.

In the long run, if the plan doesn't collapse in red-tape and anti-growth bickering, a mixed-use development with a low environmental impact could rise up — the type of development smart-growth proponents have been saying they want for years.