|
Dear Planning Commissioners:
The SKCC represents over 100 associations and 7,000 households. The Board of Directors believes the revised Comprehensive Plan and UDC amendments proposed are ill-advised and defeat the protections provided Siesta Key by the Comprehensive Plan and SKOD. We urge you to reject these amendments, which could make Sarasota County subject to more legal action. The recent DOAH and Circuit Court rulings validated the protections for residents and visitors against increased density, intensity and traffic affecting hurricane evacuation, emergency vehicles, roads and bridges.
Proposed UDC Amendment No. 2023-55 – Voluntary Destruction Nonconforming Density - DRAFT (In Conjunction with CPA No. 2022-D) and New Policy 1.3.3 (E)
The amendments do not include provisions that would maintain the integrity of the Comprehensive plan, and the unintended consequences would permit developers to circumvent the protections afforded Siesta Key. Here are specific problems and inaccuracies in the proposal:
1. There should be engineering standards to determine if a building is unsafe and damaged beyond repair. Florida developed standards and requires a Milestone Inspection and Structural Integrity Reserve Study (SIRS) for every condominium on Siesta Key of three or more stories built before 2000. Most Key condominiums were built before Jan 1, 2000 and many already have been inspected and found to be sound; in addition, where weaknesses were identified, millions of dollars are spent to remedy them. Insurance companies are also requiring new roofs, built to current codes. It is erroneous to suggest that all structures built before Jan. 1, 2000 need to be replaced. The problem at Surfside was not the year the structure was built, but that it was not properly maintained and warnings were ignored, including water intrusion into the foundation causing significant damage.
2. Currently, RMF structures may be built to their existing non-conforming height only if sufficiently storm-damaged. The proposed amendment would open the door to allow non-conforming heights for transient accommodations and conversions. Some currently are as high as 12 – 17 stories. County staff tells us they cannot regulate transient accommodations or conversions. Then why would they open Pandora’s Box to allow more non-conforming transient accommodations on Siesta Key that could increase density, intensity and traffic and jeopardize resident and visitor safety?
Proposal: 124-102(b)(4)f. Siesta Key Overlay District.1c) Height (as defined in UDC Section 124-72(a)(6)) shall be limited to that of the existing nonconforming structure, unless the existing nonconforming structure is under the maximum permitted height of the zoning district.
3. No standard is provided for maintaining existing square footage or a limitation on room sizes. For example, current rooms at 400 or 600 square feet could be constructed to 3,000 or 4,000 square feet. This would increase the number of people in a room, vehicles, and road, beach and bridge traffic. It would increase density and intensity of use, rendering keeping the same number or mix of rooms meaningless.
4. If the structure can keep the same non-conforming density and height while building much larger rooms, some other protection must be eliminated to permit the building(s) a larger footprint, so the proposal allows variances to the Gulf Beach Setback Line, which was also established to protect the Siesta Key barrier island and its residents. Once again the safety of residents and visitors is sacrificed for the benefit of developers and speculators.
5. Residential condo associations would never voluntarily demolish and rebuild; it simply isn’t economically feasible. They repair; that’s occurring now. If a hurricane damages a condo substantially, insurance provides the funds to rebuild. Voluntary demo and rebuild precludes insurance.
6. So who is this proposal for? Who can afford a demo and rebuild? Generally, transient, non-conforming accommodations, like a timeshare. The original petitioner is listed as 41 units, that’s technically 2,132 owners of weeks. An assessment of $10,000 raises $21,320,000. A residential condo of 41 units at $10,000 raises only $410,000, not nearly enough for demo and rebuild.
7. What are the unintended consequences of this proposal? Tough financial times may cause owners to sell condo units at distressed prices to developers who gain majority ownership and convert them to transient use, such as a time-share or condo-hotel. According to the Wall Street Journal, “These condo terminations are happening up and down the state’s coastline,” “in which a developer tries to gain control of a building to knock it down and build a newer one” (“Law Spurred by Collapse Roils Florida Condos” 5/15/24). As insurance costs and assessments skyrocket to comply with the new inspections and state laws, Siesta Key condos are seeing increased units for sale. The current proposal enables and could encourage the conversion of residential condos to transient ones, increasing density and intensity on Siesta Key and circumventing code designed to maintain safety.
8. If planning staff believes the anomaly, the 41-unit time share mentioned requires a special exception, it should recommend that to the County Commission as a one-off unusual case.
9. Do not dismantle or change the original Comp plan and UDC amendments wisely put in place by former Commissioners to protect Siesta Key, a barrier island, its residents and visitors. Please recommend rejecting the proposed Comp Plan, UDC and Land Use changes.
Thank you for your consideration.
| 
