Lobeck on city's Bella Citta fact sheet: "Rife with misstatements, red herrings and distortions"
Sorrento Ranches' attorney accuses Venice of playing fast and loose with the facts just as the county and city are about to enter mediation over the Joint Planning Agreement
-- John Patten, 09/05/07
-- jpatten@veniceflorida.com

Got a comment? Make it here.

Photo: Sorrento Ranches' attorney, Dan Lobeck (courtesy LobeckHanson.com )

RELATED:
Venice's Bella Citta Fact Sheet -- Adobe Reader PDF file
-- City of Venice public document, dated on or before 08/24/07
The Bella Citta debate (with video)
-- Venice Florida! dot com, 08/29/07
 

Unpossible
In preparation for the upcoming mediation sessions over the Joint Planning Agreement between Sarasota County and the City of Venice, the city has put together a nifty Bella Citta "Fact Sheet" (Adobe PDF file) that spells out the city's position on why the proposed Bella Citta development project should be allowed the blessings of county administrators and the county commission. One of the city's main contentions is that Bella Citta doesn't fall within the county's jurisdiction as spelled out in the JPA (good luck with that argument -- the county obviously already disagrees strongly with that contention, hence the county's call for mediation session).

Not so fast, says attorney Dan Lobeck. According to Lobeck, not only does the proposed development fall within the jurisdiction of the JPA, but there's quite a few unfactual bits of info included in the so-called 'fact sheet' that the city has put together.

In an email to county commissioners dated August 27, Lobeck spelled out his reservations about the data that Venice had published.

From: Dan Lobeck <dlobeck@lobeckhanson.com>
Sent: Monday, August 27, 2007 12:58 PM
To: County Commissioners Jon Thaxton; Joe Barbetta; Nora Patterson; Paul Mercier; Shannon Staub
Cc: Robert S. Burrus, Jr., PhD
Subject: JPA/ Bella Citta -- The Unfactual "Fact Sheet"

My client recently discovered that in an effort to persuade you to find the Bella Citta rezoning in compliance with the County's neighborhood compatibility principles, Venice planning staff has issued a "Fact Sheet" which is rife with misstatements, red herrings and distortions.

The memo makes much of the assertions that Bella Citta is not within a Joint Planning Area nor is a defined "Development of Jurisdictional Impact." Both assertions are irrelevant. Bella Citta adjoins a Joint Planning Area (as the "Fact Sheet" acknowledges), in fact three of them (including on two sides Joint Planning Area 14 where "No Annexation" is stipulated). Therefore Paragraph 11I of the JPA (as quoted in the "Fact Sheet") requires that any rezoning comply with the County's neighborhood compatibility principles.

The memo ignores County Policy 3.1.1, which calls for density at the lower end of the FLUM range when adjoining lower densities.

There is no step-down of building height or mass along the border with Sorrento Ranches Subdivision, on the west side of Bella Citta. There are instead eight-plex condominium buildings at the maximum 35 foot height, three stories including parking. City staff may be referring to the lower density buildings (one story over parking) at the southern border but their broader reference is misleading.

The "Fact Sheet" claims, "Low visual and site impact of proposed development by cluster (sic) building grouping towards center of building site." While there may be buildings in the interior of the site (due to unbuildable wetlands to the north and south), this claim disregards the incompatible clustering of dense buildings along the border with Sorrento Ranches Subdivision, at a clustered density of 9 units per acre.

The ambiguous description of the roadway suggests that the western-most roadway is located "towards the interior of (the) development" when in fact the very busy roadway is a mere 60 feet from the Sorrento Ranches homesites along the western border of the development. While there may be a 121 foot setback to the buildings (although no measurement is shown), there is only a 60 foot setback from the busy road, followed by driveways and large, densely clustered incompatible buildings.

The Conceptual Site Plan and rezoning contain no measurement of open space. However, even if it is more than the 50% minimum (due to the jurisdictional wetlands at the north and south), that does nothing for the placement of development up against Sorrento Ranches to the west.

The planned commercial development is not to the north of Bella Citta and does not adjoin it. It is off to the northeast, across Pinebrook Road. (See the top of the attached Venice FLUM). The fact remains that Bella Citta is surrounded by low intensity, OUE-1 zoning and uses, practically all of which is in the County (again, see the attached FLUM) and not the City and most of which will remain in that zoning and uses.

The "detailed cross-section" of landscaping provided by the developer to the City is not part of the Conceptual Site Plan and is therefore not a binding part of the rezoning. While Venice takes the position that landscaping requirements are more appropriate when the Final Site Plan is approved, the JPA requires compatibility in the rezoning itself. The Conceptual Site Plan refers only to a "25' buffer easement."

There is more to rebut, but I want to get this email to those of you able to read it, without further delay.

As a final thought, this is not a matter of jeopardizing the JPA, it is a matter of enforcing it. Venice has every reason to keep the JPA rather than be faced with the Charter amendment in those lands that it seeks to annex beyond the County's Urban Service Area.

It is unfortunate that County staff is proposing a posture of weakness in this matter. I and my client hope that the County Commission will nevertheless hold to the strong and principled position you have taken, even if it mean mediation with the City in an effort to find a mutually acceptable compromise.

Again, thank you for your actions in this matter to date.

Dan Lobeck
Attorney for Sorrento Ranches Homeowners Association, Inc.

 

John Patten is the head of Web Operations for Creative Pages, and has worked in broadcasting for over 12 years. He can also be incredibly rude at times.