The following comments were made by Renaissance Planning Group

• Memo on Land Use Strategies

The following comments were made by Renaissance Planning Group

Hi Amye,

Sorry this took so long – I have been waiting for one of our firm’s colleagues with expertise in this area to get back to me, but I haven’t heard back yet. Anyway, I prepared some background information for you on conservation subdivisions. I generally like these better than traditional clustering because there are more assurances in linking the open space/conservation areas to a broader network. There is more of a link between the subdivisions and the open space plan. Hopefully something like this can work in the County. Let me know what you think – I would be happy to work with you to develop this concept more and apply it in the comp plan.

I also came across Sarasota County’s Resource Management Area district. I’ve only skimmed it – I think it’s mainly a TDR program, but it looked interesting so I am attaching it for your reference.

Anyway, I hope this helps. Let me know if there’s anything else.

• Memo on Conservation Subdivision Design (CSD)
• Open Space Residential Development or Conservation Subdivision Design (CSD) Model Bylaw
• An Ordinance for a Conservation Subdivision
• Sarasota 2050: Comprehensive Plan Amendment RMA-1

The following comments were made by Herbet-Halback, Inc

Receation Element GOP Draft (07/21/2005)

Comments below made by Herbert-Halback, Inc.

I just skimmed them over briefly. The only concern I have is with the LOS. I do not recommend having a separate LOS standard for active and passive recreation, since rarely is there ever a park that is just passive or just active. If you look at the prototypical parks included in the Master Plan they have both active and passive facilities included within them. Not to mention, I believe we have tried to get away from the terms 'active and passive' and instead use 'resource-based' and 'activity-based' or 'user-based'. There's always going to be an argument over what is a passive 'activity'. e.g. Canoeing is active...but it's a resource-based activity. So would it be considered passive or active? We'd prefer to consider the parks SYSTEM as a whole and not parse it out. Parks are generally classified by their size and proximity to users, not necessarily their use. Another issue to be considered is that right now, the County's parks system is in its infancy, especially with respect to activity-based facilities. My fear would be that the LOS for concurrency purposes for activity-based parks would be set so low as to be rendered meaningless. Interim LOS could be set up, but I don't know how complex we want to make this.

It's also a nightmare to figure out what portion of a park will be classified active or passive if you have passive and active LOS standards. Kissimmee has an interesting approach where they had one overall LOS based on acreage, but a policy that they'd have X percentage of parks that were primarily open space/undeveloped, X percentage that were neighborhood parks, X percentage that were community parks, and so on. If the LPA still desires a separate LOS for different park types, I'd prefer to do it based on size/proximity to users. I.E. neighborhood parks and regional parks.

One last issue that the LPA might want to consider. FCT grant applications grant points for both user-based (ie active) and resource-based facilities, so conceivably, parks acquired through FCT grants will have both types of facilities included in them.

Hope that helps.

I'll look at the other suggestions in more detail next week, but at first glance they seem to make sense to me with the exception of the LOS discussion.