Friday, August 6, 2021

The Fruitville Initiative as it was envisioned before Benderson

The Sarasota Planning Commission recommended approval of Benderson Development's wish to change the zoning of the Fruitville Initiative at its August 6, 2021 meeting. 

If approved by the County Commission, both Benderson and other owners of parcels within the Fruitville Initiative will be free to plan for larger, free standing retail spaces. 

As has been noted, the idea of bringing in commercial traffic to a place where people live and work goes against the grain of the original idea for the Initiative - an idea worked out in concert among three parties  -- landowners, residential HOAs, and the County -- in 2010-11.

In the early days of thinking about this project, three different depictions showed what the Initiative could be:

The Duany group of Miami offered this overview (pdf)


The California firm of Moule & Polyzoides looked at a possible interface between the Benderson parcel and the waters at the north end of the Celery Fields:



And the Hoyt architectural firm in Sarasota produced this video: 

Fruitville Commons 


Will any of these possibilities be realized now that Benderson has changed the rules? 


Thursday, August 5, 2021

Siesta Key Coalition seeks citizen action vs. Mega Hotels


From the Siesta Key Coalition, regarding the upcoming Planning Commission hearing on the Siesta Promenade at Stickney Point, proposed by Benderson Inc.:

To SK Coalition Community Supporters:

 

As we promised in our 27 July e-mail, this note is to give you information on how to communicate with the Planning Commission, and how to attend the  hearing on the proposed 170-room, 8-story Calle Miramar/Beach hotel, on 19th August 2021.

 

Emailing County Leadership, Timing and Content

 We are asking every one of our supporters to send an email to the Planning Commission, prior to the upcoming hearing.  We are all unified in our opposition to high-density hotels, even though some of our supporters have more concerns about one or more of the four proposed hotel locations.  However, we need everyone to address the first hearing for the proposed Calle Miramar/Beach hotel on 19 August.  The decisions made there will set precedents for future hearings for all four of the proposed hotels.

 

To ensure your comments are publicly recorded by Planning Staff in their reporting package to the Planning Commissioners, you should send your e-mail to the Planning Commissioners and Planning Staff no earlier than Fri August 6th and no later than Tues Aug 10thas it pertains to the proposed Calle Miramar/Beach hotel. The e-mail addresses are here.


As to content, we want you to review the list of Coalition Issue Statements, and to select one or two items that particularly resonate with you. We recommend that you use your own words, but you can cut and paste from the list, if you prefer.

 

Participation in the Planning Commission Hearing

 We encourage everyone to attend the hearing which will be held in the County Administration Building at 1660 Ringling Boulevard, at 5:00  pm on Thursday 19th August  2021.

 

The Coalition will have only a limited time to present to the commissions, and we plan to have our Coalition leadership, and our lawyers and consultants kick off at the beginning of the presentations. We will welcome those who would also like to speak at the meeting, but we ask that you confer with a Coalition representative at the Speaker Card Desk, 30 minutes before the meeting starts.  

 

Thank you for engaging in the process with us...encourage all your neighbors to do so as well.  Please bcc (blind copy us at skcoalition@gmail.com) so we can follow the responses.  

 

Mark T. Spiegel

President 

Siesta Key Coalition.

www.skcoalition.org  


Email List of County Commissioners, Planning Commissioners, and Planners

List of Siesta Key Coalition Statements

Wednesday, August 4, 2021

Will this Benderson Initiative destroy the Fruitville Initiative?


To: County Planners and Planning Commissioners

RE: Rezone 21-02; SPA PED Rezone; Comp Plan Amendment 2021-B

To: Steve.Kirk <skirk@scgov.net>, Andrew.Stultz@sarasotaadvisory.net, Colin.Pember@sarasotaadvisory.net, Joseph.Neunder@sarasotaadvisory.net, Kevin.Cooper@sarasotaadvisory.net, Laura.Benson@sarasotaadvisory.net, Teresa.Mast@sarasotaadvisory.net, Neil.Rainford@sarasotaadvisory.net, Drew.Peters@sarasotaadvisory.net, Justin.Taylor@sarasotaadvisory.net, Frank.Strelec@sarasotaadvisory.net, Matt Osterhoudt <mosterho@scgov.net>

Dear Mr. Kirk, Mr. Osterhoudt, and Planning Commissioners:

This concerns the Aug. 5, 2021 hearing regarding the matters listed above.

I've heard from a variety of people who seriously question the changes Benderson Inc. wishes to impose on SPA-3.

Those who were involved in the development of the Ordinance for the Fruitville Initiative recall that its #1 distinctive feature was to disallow self-standing Big Box stores. The entire concept was of a walkable community not infested with giant trucks, a place built on MEC strictures in which workplaces and residences took priority. Retail was supposed to be local, not regional, in order to avoid a large volume of commercial consumer traffic.

I'm informed that according to the traffic study, the proposed 179,200 sf increase in stand-alone retail will increase average daily and PM peak trips 3,908 and 466, respectively.

But this is hard to prove - wouldn't the level of traffic depend on the nature of the retail on site? If instead of a nice butcher shop or cafe we suddenly have a Bass Pro, or Target, the traffic could become significantly greater in volume, drawing people from a distance. If this area were designed as a shopping center, that would be welcome. But the whole point of the Initiative was to create something different - local, walkable living/working neighborhoods. And the reason for that was to do something unusual, that set Sarasota apart. Indeed, I recall people in 2011 speaking about how as a "Gateway" area, the Initiative would send the message that Sarasota is not the same as every other place along I-75 - its unique attention to sensible, well-planned growth would be on display.

Basically, if that was the premise of the original form-based code of the Initiative, then allowing large, free-standing retail (requiring truck service areas) would disrupt the street grid and draw extraneous traffic in ways that would make a hash of that original premise. What Benderson is seeking basically undermines what started as a coherent, unified plan for a certain kind of community - sabotaging it, with County permission, into incoherence and conflicting goals.

It seems to me - and others I've spoken with - that what Benderson seeks is not a minor modification, but a transformation of the vision, purpose, and inherent nature of the Initiative. If this is the case, then we are not dealing with an "amendment" - rather this is a radical imposition of a shopping mecca upon what was conceived of as someone's living/working space.

What would it say if instead of creating a showcase for Sarasota's good planning sense, Sarasota County ended up compromising its principles and destroying that very goal?

Thanks for giving this your consideration at your hearing of August 5, 2021.

The Planning Commission hearing will be online here.

Tom Matrullo
Citizens for Sarasota County




Sunday, August 1, 2021

Some background on Hi Hat and Old Miakka

Some history behind the Miakka Community Club and its opposition to Hi Hat Ranch's proposal to change Hamlet to Village overlay on its 10,000-acre property in Northeast Sarasota - from a resident, Jane Best Grandbouche:

The Miakka Community Club incorporated in 1945.  This is the same year the Turner family purchased Hi Hat Ranch.

The motto of the Club is “Conservation and Preservation of the Rural Area.” During the intervening years, the Club has worked to ensure that ranchers like Hi Hat had the opportunity to ranch. Hi Hat Ranch’s ability to be stewards of the land was supported by the Miakka Community’s continued vigilance in conserving and preserving the rural areas.

The Miakka Community Club (MCC) participated in ALL of the various meetings with the Urban Land Institute (ULI) including as a member of ULI’s Focus Group.

The Miakka Community Club also participated with written and oral testimony during both the transmittal stage and the final adoption stage.

As explained in all of these meetings and hearings, the Resource Management Areas (RMAs) define how the County would develop until the year 2050.  It is now 2021.  We are not half way there.  

You will not find in either the Comprehensive Plan or the Unified Development Code any reference to having Hamlets changing to Villages.  This idea wasn’t even contemplated or discussed.  Just as there was no reason to contemplate changing Hamlets to Villages then, there is no reason now.

If the Board wants there to be that opportunity, then that idea should be given public debate and due process.

The 1,200 acres Hi Hat is seeking to urbanize by changing the Hamlet overlay to Village overlay is productive agricultural land.  Since the Hamlet is a voluntary overlay, it is not necessitated that a Hamlet be developed there. Hi Hat Ranch could sell that productive agricultural land to someone else who wants to be in agriculture.  As farm land in the west and east dwindle, our produce needs to be grown somewhere.

The County recognizes the importance of agriculture as noted in FLU2.2.1 and FLU Policy 2.2.2 (a).

The County has a program to purchase agricultural development rights (DR Policy 1), so the Turners would get money for the development rights and then they could sell the land for agriculture production.

There is no valid reason to change the Hamlet overlay to Village overlay.

Please call and/or write the County Commissioners on this most important proposal. And please show up for the meeting September 8th. Once they paved over our rural area, it is gone forever. 

DENY CPA-2019-D