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.
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.
Overdevelopement is a disease. Greedy developers are only interested in profits, not quality of life for the citizens
ReplyDelete