County Commission votes 4-0 against proposed changes to Comprehensive Plan and land-use regulations
On Nov. 18, close to four years after he broached the idea to the County Commission seated at that time, long-time Siesta Key architect and county Commissioner Mark Smith saw the finale of his efforts to allow the voluntary demolition of aging Siesta Key condominium complexes and their reconstruction in accord with modern standards.
On a 4-0 vote — with Smith having recused himself because of his involvement in the process — his colleagues agreed with members of the public that a county policy and regulations should not be changed for such initiatives.
Formerly, the public hearing that day addressed a proposed new Comprehensive Plan policy, 1.3.3(E), which would have applied to any structure in a Siesta Key Residential Multi-Family (RMF) zoning district that was built before Jan. 1, 2000 — when the first Florida Building Code was approved.
The Comprehensive Plan guides growth in the community.
As noted in the relevant exhibit in the Nov. 18 agenda packet, the new policy called for the following:
Following the public hearing, Commissioner Tom Knight acknowledged how uncomfortable it made him to go against Smith’s wishes. Nonetheless, Knight said, he watched videos of both county Planning Commission hearings on Smith’s proposal, with the board members voting unanimously each time to recommend that the County Commission maintain its current residential density and intensity policy for the barrier islands and the related construction regulations. “It makes me nervous to deviate from 17 votes,” Knight said, alluding to the Planning Commission decisions.
He thought of the City of Venice, where he lives, Knight continued, which has strong building restrictions. “Common sense tells me that I can’t support any changes [for Siesta],” he added.
Chair Joe Neunder told Smith, “I think you’ve done a lot of legwork [and put in] a lot of sweat equity on this project.”
Nevertheless, noting that the southern part of Siesta Key is in his District 4 territory, Neunder added, “I just can’t recall anybody that has been adamantly supportive of this [proposed Comprehensive Plan] amendment.”
Typically, Commissioner Teresa Mast added, when an opportunity arises for action that would lead to more resiliency and stronger buildings constructed to current state standards, “I’m very supportive of it.”
However, she also referenced the fact that all of the speakers who have addressed the County Commission about the proposal over the past couple of years have opposed it. That situation made it “very challenging,” Mast said, to approve the changes Smith had sought.
Further, Neunder and Mast noted that no one from the Sea Club V condominium association on Siesta Key — whom Smith was representing before the commission on Jan. 11, 2022, months before his election to the board — was present for the hearing that day.
Smith explained that he had asked the association not to send any representative, as the proposal was for all of Siesta Key, not just one complex.
During the hearing, six residents expressed their reasons for opposing the idea. Nine others sent correspondence to county Planning Division staff and the county’s Planning Commission and/or the county commissioners, also calling for denial of the proposal.
An explanation and a demonstration
After Smith’s November 2022 election to the commission, he was able to initiative a process through which the county officially was the applicant for the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment and the changes in the Unified Development Code (UDC), which contains all of the county’s land-use and zoning regulations.
Thus, Smith sought Chair Neunder’s approval to make a presentation on Nov. 18, explaining the various facets of the proposal.
Facing the dais, Smith used a table to represent a parcel on Siesta Key, with yellow lines showing the construction setbacks required in what is called the Siesta Key Overlay District (SKOD) zoning regulations, along with a red line representing the county’s Gulf Beach Setback Line. The latter was implemented in 1979 to protect dunes and other coastal habitat, which, in turn, protect landward properties from storm surge and other flooding events.
Then Smith used a file box to stand in for a new condo complex built after voluntary demolition.
Above a maximum of two, 12-foot-high parking levels at the base of a structure, he noted, no new building could exceed the Residential Multi-Family-1 (RMF-1) and RMF-2 zoning districts’ maximum height of 35 feet, or the 45-foot maximum in RMF-3.
“Some of these [older] buildings are high,” Smith pointed out, but “if we were to allow the existing building height [in the new structure], then we would have another nonconformity.”
County structures that do not comply with the existing county building regulations are referred to as nonconformities.
Moreover, he said, none of the new condo complexes would be able to exceed the SKOD restriction of 35% building coverage on a lot, and half the property would have to remain pervious.
With a bigger parcel, a building could be larger, Smith continued, “but it can’t get taller.”
Further, he explained, the proposed regulations stipulated that new complexes would be required to keep the same number of units that were in the demolished buildings, and the tally of units by type would have to remain the same. In other words, Smith said, if a complex had 20, two-bedroom units before it was voluntarily demolished, it would have to stick with 20, two-bedroom units.
“Intensity is the number of bedrooms,” he continued. By keeping the bedroom count and the condo count the same as they were in the old structure, he explained, the residential density and intensity would not increase.
People had complained, Smith continued, that 400-square-foot units in the old complexes would be transformed into 4,000-square-foot units. However, he stressed, all of the units would have to fit into the proverbial box that complied with all of the county’s setback and coastal construction regulations. No Special Exceptions would be permitted.
Moreover, Smith pointed out, before any condominium structure is demolished, the application submitted to county staff for the necessary permit has to list the number of units and the types of units. Thus, he noted, staff would have those records with which to compare the applications for building permits for the new structures.
“If we have more resilient buildings,” Smith told his colleagues and the audience members, “that is in the best interest of the public.”
“Not everybody evacuates when they should,” he noted, even when they have been warned about a major, approaching hurricane. Thus, he added, lives could be saved.
‘The consequences are really detrimental to Siesta Key’
Lourdes Ramirez, president of a nonprofit organization called Protect Siesta Key, was among the half-a-dozen speakers who urged the commissioners not to approve the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment and UDC modifications.
“This proposal may appear to be a small technical change,” she said, “but the consequences are really detrimental to Siesta Key.”
Ramirez pointed out, “For 50 years, Sarasota County has recognized that Siesta Key is the most intensely developed residential area in the entire county. And because of that, the [Comprehensive] Plan draws a clear line of no increase in density and intensity on our barrier islands.
That policy has protected our residents and our environment for decades,” Ramirez stressed. “But this amendment reverses that protection. It would allow developers to tear down existing condos, keep the high density and rebuild them larger, taller and much more intense than what exists on the property today.”
The proposed new policy also is a “clear violation” of the U.S. Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause, she continued. Under existing county regulations, she said, if owners of a complex destroyed by a storm want to reconstruct it, the building has to stand in its original footprint. Under the proposed new policy, Ramirez added, that is not the case.
Yet another concern that Ramirez noted is the potential that every bedroom in the new condominium structures could be rented separately to visitors. She had seen examples of that already, she told the board members, in situations where someone had secured a county permit for construction of a three-unit condominium structure, and each unit had three bedrooms with bathrooms. The structure could end up with nine sets of vacationers, instead of three, she explained.
“I’m really worried about codifying those illegal rentals,” Ramirez added.
The Miramar district on the edge of Siesta Village has examples of such extra density for rental purposes, she said, noting that she could provide proof of them to the commissioners.
Taking his turn at the podium, Neal Schleifer, vice president of the Siesta Key Condominium Council (SKCC) stressed that members of the public repeatedly have expressed opposition to the proposed Comprehensive Plan policy and the UDC regulations.
He reminded the commissioners that the Council has 100 associations with more than 7,000 households as members.
People already are complaining about Siesta’s residential density in regard to “traffic gridlock, emergency vehicle access, hurricane evacuation, stormwater capacity and flooding,” he pointed out. “Infrastructure can’t support additional density or intensity. There isn’t land for more roads or bridges,” Schleifer continued.
Further, he said, the county’s own Planning Division staff had expressed concern that the changes, if approved, would create wider and taller buildings.
Schleifer also noted what he described as “a double loophole” written into the proposed UDC amendment. It allows for rebuilt structures to be the height allowed for in their zoning districts, plus two levels of parking at the bases of those structures.
“But ‘height limit’ isn’t specified,” Schleifer told the commissioners.
Although it would take four votes that day — a supermajority — to agree to transmit the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment to the Florida Department of Commerce, he continued, if the policy were enacted, it would take just three board votes to specify the allowable height.
(Formally, in accord with state law, any local government’s proposed comprehensive plan amendment must undergo review by the staff of the Department of Commerce. If that staff finds no issues with the draft, then the local government body has to hold a public hearing to adopt the amendment.)
A third speaker, Hilla Blatt — also a representative of the Condominium Council — reminded the commissioners that leaders of that organization already had warned them that properties in Residential Multi-Family (RMF) zoning districts “are the next target of the high-density hotel developers.” She added, “There are 137 RMF properties with nonconforming density and height on Siesta Key, many with beach access.”
Because of state regulations enacted after the collapse of the Champlain Towers South complex in Surfside in 2021, many condominium owners statewide have faced higher expenses to ensure their associations have adequate reserves for repairs of structural problems. Recent hurricane damage and the rising cost of insurance also are issued facing condo owners, Blatt added. Those factors, she pointed out, have led to developers buying old buildings and converting them into vacation accommodations, including hotels, “on both the Florida coasts.”
Blatt maintained that approval of the changes would encourage the development of more visitor accommodations on Siesta Key, as well.