Planning Board Comments Concerning the Density Bonus Proposal

From Kate Lowman (President of Laurel Park Neighborhood association via e-mail :

Greetings all,
As you have no doubt read in the paper, the City of Sarasota is considering implementing a voluntary density bonus in the downtown area. Developers would be given double or quadruple density in exchange for 10% affordable housing. Many aspects of the plan are still not worked out, but the amendment to change the comprehensive plan and allow the additional density is moving forward. It will be considered by the City Commission on April 17. Additional density would not be allowed in Laurel Park, but all of our border areas would be impacted by this program. The LPNA Board has taken a position that the plan should be removed from the current comprehensive plan changes in order for a more through analysis, discussion, and some degree of consensus. We continue to study the issue.

The following material is an abridged version of the Planning Board's discussion and vote at the end of their hearing on this subject. It is long, but absolutely fascinating and informative. I encourage you to print it out so that you can read it at your convenience. The words are all their own, and the full document is available from the City of Sarasota.

All the best, Kate Lowman

Here’s what the Planning Board members think of the density bonus affordable housing plan, in their own words....

Shannon Snyder (Planning Board Chair)

• THIS IS A TROJAN HORSE. JOHN SUSCE WAS RIGHT WHEN HE CALLED IT THAT.
• THE ATTAINABLE HOUSING ISSUE IS SEPARATE FROM THIS PLAN RIGHT HERE. IF THIS IS APPROVED, WHAT THIS WILL DO IN FIVE YEARS IS WHAT THE LEVEES DID IN FIVE HOURS TO NEW ORLEANS.
• YEAH, IT'S BEING FAST TRACKED.
• I DON'T CARE WHAT SPIN ANYBODY IS TRYING TO PUT ON, IT'S BEING FAST TRACKED.
• IT'S NOT RIGHT TO DO TO THESE NEIGHBORHOODS.

Michael Shelton (Planning Board Member)

• BASICALLY WHAT WE'RE BEING TOLD IS “TRUST US AND WE'LL FIGURE OUT THE DETAILS LATER.”
• I DON'T THINK THAT IT REALLY GOES NEARLY FAR ENOUGH TO SOLVE ...WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH HERE.
• I'M REALLY, REALLY NERVOUS ABOUT KNOWING WHAT THE REAL END PRODUCT IS GOING TO LOOK LIKE.
• IF I WERE TO SUPPORT THIS, (I’VE) GOT A REAL FEAR THAT WHAT I'LL END UP WITH IS THIS ABILITY TO HAVE A MUCH, MUCH HIGHER LEVEL OF DENSITY WITH A PROGRAM THAT I'M COMPLETELY OPPOSED TO.

Jennifer Wilson (Planning Board Member)

• I THINK MR. LINDSAY SAYS IT, WE'RE JUST NOT GETTING ENOUGH BANG FOR THE BUCK HERE.
• BUT WE, THE PEOPLE, HAVE COLD FEET. ...
• THAT'S WHY WE HAD THIS CROWD OUT HERE TONIGHT. THEY ARE AFRAID OF WHAT MIGHT HAPPEN IF THEY LOOK AWAY. THEY ARE AFRAID OF WHAT MIGHT HAPPEN IF THEY QUIT BEING FOREVER VIGILANT.
• AS THE NEIGHBORHOOD DEPARTMENT TELLS PEOPLE, IT'S OUR RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT OUR NEIGHBORHOODS.

Shawn Fulker (Planning Board Member)

• THE THING IS, THEY ARE TRYING TO PUT THE AFFORDABLE STUFF IN THE MIDDLE OF THE MOST EXPENSIVE LAND. ...
• THAT'S WHY THE NUMBERS AREN'T WORKING OUT, BECAUSE THE DIRT IS SO EXPENSIVE, DOESN'T MATTER HOW MANY UNITS YOU GIVE THEM, IT'S ALMOST NOT -- IT ALMOST NEVER WOULD BE WORTH DOING. ...
• THE MODEL, I THINK, NEEDS TO BE REEXAMINED.

Robert Lindsay (Planning Board Member)

• WE GET ONE ATTAINABLE UNIT FOR EVERY 10 EXPENSIVE ONES WE BUILD.
• THE PEOPLE THAT COME TO TOWN AND (CAN) AFFORD A 2 MILLION-DOLLAR CONDO ARE TYPICALLY GOING TO NEED PROBABLY A REVERSE RATIO, MORE LIKE TEN SUPPORT PEOPLE FOR EVERY ONE OF THEM.
• SO WE'RE NOT MAKING A SIGNIFICANT DENT IN THE PROBLEM IF WE BUILD A HUNDRED OF THESE -- A HUNDRED EXPENSIVE UNITS THAT ARE GOING TO REQUIRE A THOUSAND PEOPLE IN THE GENERAL POPULATION TO SUPPORT THEM. PLUMBERS, ELECTRICIANS, LAWYERS, LAW CLERKS, ALL THESE OTHER PEOPLE. SO IT'S NOT REALLY DOING A WHOLE LOT.

The above quotes are taken from the Planning Board’s discussion and comments following it’s March 22 hearing.

Kate Lowman

[Kate has furnished a more complete version that I will post separately.]

The Planning Board voted 5-0 to recommend against the proposal.

Density Bonus

If the city of Sarasota really wants to fast-track affordable housing, it should not tie its hopes to the density-bonus proposal aired -- and unanimously panned -- by the planning board this week.

That proposal, which would incentivize work-force housing by raising density limits in and around the downtown, has clearly failed to achieve consensus among the neighborhoods it would affect. The chief reason for that failure, we believe, is that the plan would not yield anywhere near enough affordable housing to warrant the big inducements it would provide to high-end condo developers. (Depending on the area, the plan would double or quadruple the number of those dwellings allowed.)

Good Advice from the editors of the SHT.

The Coalition of City Neighborhoods board has been having e-mail discussions about this issue. What would we suggest that our city consider? Who else might be able to contribute to the discussion?

Earlier in the month CCNA and the Downtown Partnership hosted a forum to discuss the merits of the current density bonus proposal. While the DPA favors some kind of downtown density bonus and would suggest going forward with the current proposal, the neighborhood people believe there may be unintended consequences and do not want to rush forward with this proposal. Instead, take a slower path so everyone understands the proposal and its consequences.

Everyone agrees we need to do something.

The editorial continues:

Alternatives exist, and we urge the commission to fast-track their consideration. Possibilities include: expanded rent subsidies; tax relief for landlords who provide decent work-force housing; repair grants to salvage deteriorating homes; and public purchase of for-sale units, which could then go to the Community Housing Trust.

Another option is to include significant affordable housing as part of the Palm Ave parking lot RFP (along with some parking and street level retail). The YPG leaders favor this as an option. Save Our Sarasota has suggested this option in the past - along with the State St lot that was given to the Pineapple Square developers.

Further discussion has centered around Harvey Vengroff's proposal for some 1600 affordable rental units on land he owns on Fruitville near downtown. While the devil may be in the details, this option needs to be looked into. Since the Park East neighborhood (where this is located) seems to be OK with the proposal, working with Vengroff to flesh out the details and resolve issues sooner rather than later, appears to be another option.

A broad brush approach utilizing the comprehensive plan is not the way to accomplish affordable housing goals. Regardless of what conventional thinking would say, added density downtown is NOT the answer to our problems. We have had several developers utilize the added density provision of the DROD, yet they have not built one unit of housing that is affordable or attainable by the average Sarasota working resident.

Some added density in some parts of the urban area are likely options to drive housing prices down. The caution is that the city Sarasota serves a wide metropolitan area, providing housing, jobs and education. We also know that areas near Sarasota (ie., Bradenton) have similar issues with housing. Adding density will create higher infrastructure demand and if it does reduce housing prices many people will take advantage of the "deal". Are we ready for this?

Zoning and Planning

A recent editorial in the Washington Post concerning zoning has some interesting commentary.

Urban design thinking and practice have greatly advanced over the past 30 years.

Unfortunately, conventional zoning, the crude but all-powerful regulatory tool shaping cities, has changed little. Given the need to transform land-use planning and development, why is it so difficult to transform conventional zoning?

Impediments to zoning reform are predominantly political, social and economic, usually having little to do with design.

Holistically amending a jurisdiction's zoning statutes and regulations requires both executive leadership and legislative action. Because strong political sentiment always arises in opposition to proposed changes in land development, most elected officials and their constituents are reluctant to contemplate and push for such changes.

Zoning is potent because once zones are mapped and categories of land use, land-use intensity and building criteria are prescribed, the future character of thephysical environment, along with its potential economic value, is substantially determined.

Sarasota has been involved for many years in land use discussions and disagreement about zoning specifics - particularly downtown zoning. We realize that we can improve on our "quality of life" but competing interests bring strong different viewpoints - often pitting economic value against community value.

Zoning creates vested land-use rights and potential wealth for property owners. In fixing boundaries, uses, densities and building form, zoning also presumably creates stability and predictability. Thus many oppose zoning changes because they see it as a threat to their neighborhood and property.

In many areas, zoning effectively excludes less affluent people from property ownership by generating land scarcity and unaffordable land costs through constraints on use.

Although many have benefitted economically from zoning, it has become increasingly ineffective as an instrument of urban design. Zoning's fundamental flaw is that it operates primarily by setting limits, spelling out what cannot be done, while remaining relatively mute as to what should be done.

Zoning laws often were written by lawyers, not by planners and designers. Regulations adopted decades ago under radically different circumstances are still on the books. Among the most obstructive regulations are these limiting types of use and mixing of uses. People once believed that proper planning required clearly
separated, single-use zones. A further belief was that, within a zone, buildings should be similar in bulk, height and character.

Today, urban designers advocate mixing uses and building types, blurring lines of demarcation between urban and suburban neighborhoods. They strive for connectivity rather than separation, heterogeneity rather than homogeneity.

We have seen the zoning disagreements as property owners look at their property rights and community activists look at the effect of changes on the community. Lawyers have argued and continue to argue for code wording and interpretations that maximize the economic value for their clients. Community activists raise issues of compatability and scale, looking for community building rather than wealth generation.

But by far, zoning's most significant deficiency is its failure to mobilize regulatory power in determining the quality of the public realm -- the design of streets, civic spaces and public parks.

Typically, jurisdictions address the public realm, if at all, in broad-brush master plans, but often vaguely and without the kind of exacting constraints imposed by zoning. Rarely do zoning ordinances and master plans set forth adequate design standards for street cross sections, planting, furniture, lighting, sidewalk dimensions and finishes, building porosity at sidewalk level, or graphics. Rarely are plaza geometries or landscaping spelled out.

Instead, most jurisdictions fabricate a patchwork quilt of uncoordinated ordinances that deal separately with transportation, public works, utilities, building and public safety codes, and parks and recreation.

Ideally, a new set of principles and rules for urban design and development, superseding zoning, would explicitly and comprehensively address all of these issues: patterns of land use, densities, infrastructure, building form and, equally important, cityscape and landscape. And to be effective, its mapping and design criteria would be fine-grained, ranging in scale from districts and neighborhoods to specific sites.

A new code still would need to prescribe limits where appropriate, but its aim would be higher: to achieve desired aesthetic quality and functionality within the public realm.

Of course, debates about desired aesthetic quality won't go away.

Urban designers share many goals, but competing aesthetic philosophies persist, just as in other design fields, such as architecture, furniture and fashion design. Boiled down, the debate is between those embracing historical continuity and those advocating innovation. The former generally want to be more prescriptive about both cityscape and architecture, while the latter, fearful that freedom of artistic expression could be stifled, seek to promote design flexibility.

But each community must engage in this debate, a necessary part of the process required to transcend conventional zoning.

We need a better way to look at our city design process. We have agreed on a vision (Downtown Master Plan) but have failed miserably it trying to turn this plan into a reality. We have used broad brush techniques when more precise application is required; we have mostly ignored the over all vision for our cityscape, open space and landscape - those elements that make a city truely unique.

We should be able to do much better. Our future needs careful thought and a strong element of community building.

Art Appraisal Day - Benefit for Historical Society of Sarasota County

From the Historical Society:

March 30, 2006
10am to 6pm at the Sarasota Municipal Auditorium

Have an old curio sitting around the house and your wondering, “hey, I wonder how much I can get for this?” Receive an odd inheritance from your great uncle Clarence and you wonder if it is worth anything more than sentimental value?

Well, take that curious curio to the Antique Appraisal Day for a rare opportunity to have your treasures appraised by top professionals in their fields.

Masters of Ceremony Bruce Crissy of Crissy Galleries and Harold Bubil, Real Estate Editor for the Sarasota Herald Tribune

11 seasoned professionals in antique and curio appraisal will be on hand,Thursday March 30th from 10am to 6pm at the Sarasota Municipal Auditorium, to determine if you have a treasure or just a weird white elephant.

Expertise includes fine arts, Asian arts, books, 18th century, architectural salvage, nautical, fans, American Indian, coins, dolls, and jewelry.

In addition, you can enjoy an antique car show, hear seminars on restoration and Sarasota History, take a stroll through the Historical Florida Art showby Curator George Haborak, meet the folks from the Daughters of the American Revolution, and learn about the genealogical uses for DNA at the DNA PrintGenomics booth.

Food and refreshment will include an offering of turn of the century fare –that’s 1900 Cracker food folks…Admission is $5 and each appraisal item is $5 – 6 appraisals for $25.

The proceeds from this event will benefit the Historical Society of Sarasota County. So join us as we enjoy a day of antiques while helping a worthy cause.

This event is being sponsored by Cooks Design Studio; Advanced Audio Design;Blondin Mortgage; Donnelly’s Printing, Inc.; Pritchards Pianos; Martie Lieberman; Raymond James & Associates / Eagle Asset Management; Ray Corbin Moore, LLC Certified Building Contractor; Sarasota Harbour Yacht Club; Signs Now; the Plumbing Place; and Christe’s Classic Furnishings.

Thanks also go to Beth Boyce Design, Blue Ace Computing, Crissy Galeries, DNA Print Genomics, Sarasota Architectural Salvage, Studio41 Photography and Thorning Little, Architect for providing a vast array of resources to make this event a success.

Density Bonus Proposal

During the Planning Board hearing last week concerning the ERA density bonus proposal, Save Our Sarasota made the following statement:

Save Our Sarasota supports CCNA’s request that the city not fast track this ERA amendment. We support this proposal for two reasons---process and product.

First, the process: Last night, at the CCNA-Downtown Partnership meeting, Mr. McNees stated that this amendment was not being fast tracked, because it had been discussed by the Downtown Partnership and the city for two years. However, for the citizens, it HAS been fast tracked, with the plan and some of its surprises presented for the first time on February 14th. You are considering the amendment tonight, and the City Commission next month. However, the citizens at large, and the neighborhoods, were not part of this two year process. They deserve to be part of that process.

Then the product: In the bayfront and downtown zones, this plan offers 150 extra units for 20 units of affordable housing. Yet the consultant estimates that at the end of 10 to 15 years this program may produce only 230 to 470 units that are affordable .To achieve the 470 desired units,we would need 23 and a one half acres of high density building sites. Have we thought this problem out in a thorough manner?

There is no consideration in this study of infrastructure impact. Is 200 units per acre really appropriate on our already cluttered bayfront? In a downtown with a Traffic Concurrency Exemption Area based on 50 units per acre, under both previous and new zoning, what will be the impact on traffic, on parking, of this massive increase in density? We are going to 200 units per acre without a true mass transportation system. What of the impact on sewers, in the case of the bayfront, of runoff into the bay, and, of the downtown, into Hudson Bayou. Where is the Economic Impact Analysis, the Infrastructure Capacity Analysis, the Environmental Assessment?

The consultants recommended affordable housing units be included in the same project as market-priced units.This program was the most successful according to reasearch. Yet, we find a city-requested addendum making provision for the “in lieu” option, whereby affordable units would be segregated elsewhere.

And what of the DROD, to date not a highly successful program? It was our understanding it would be replaced by the ERA program. Now we hear talk of both operating side by side. For what reason?

And what of renters? What of year-round residents, such a necessity for our community? For every 20 units we create for year round residents we build 150 extra condos for, potentially, the second home and speculator market which is not adding to the vibrancy of our downtown.

What of alternatives? Let’s start with two. First, a floating residential overlay where neighborhoods, working with developers, agree on a viable plan for work force housing, such as appears to be happening in Park East. The current plan will not give Park East what the developer and the neighborhood are asking for. The operative phrase here would have to be “neighbors working with developers to reach solutions,” not solutions imposed from above, as lines on a map without consultation with affected citizens. North Trail neighborhoods have offered to work to identify nodes for potential work force housing and to implement live-work districts. To date, they have not been included as full partners in the N Trail Task Force. They must be.

The second suggestion is to use the city’s Palm Avenue property for a combination of parking and work force housing. The city is in control here, and has an incredible opportunity. It must not let go of that opportunity. This option has already been discussed in the CRA Advisory Board and we hope you will discuss and recommend this to the Commission. With a proper RFP asking for mixed use, mixed income project with affordable/attainable work force housing, we could have a magnificent project that would, in one year, produce almost as many units as the ERA amendment will in 10-15 years.

The ERA amendment has been described as only one tool in an affordable housing toolbox. We believe we are not putting the right tool into that box and that, through inclusive community dialogue, we can develop better tools that will offer programs with more potential for success, and with more opportunities for residents at a variety of income levels that are inclusive of lower income level households than those addressed in this amendment.

Slowing down the process is only a one year wait. During that year, together, we can put a more viable and further reaching comprehensive plan amendment in place.

DeMarcay Proposal Details

Details are beginning to emerge about DeMarcay proposal. From Kevin McQuaid's article today's SHT:

Palm Avenue Partners LLC's plans for The DeMarcay, at 33 S. Palm Ave., call for 39 condos and a 150-seat restaurant in an 18-story tower.

If approved, The DeMarcay would be adjacent to a 17-story tower under construction at 1350 Main St., but "less intrusive" in scale, plans filed with the city show.

Palm Avenue Partners, a group formed by Peoria, Ill.-based Leiter Group LLC, also hopes to take advantage of the city's Downtown Residential Overlay District and provide "a residential product at a reasonable cost."Matthew Leiter, a Leiter Group vice president, said units will range from the $400,000s to $2 million.The overlay designation would be significant because without it, Leiter could construct only nine units.

Leiter hopes The DeMarcay -- the current home to Design Impressions Gallery -- will win over Sarasota leaders with its "adaptive re-use" of the former hotel's two-story facade.The design for the 115,000-square-foot project, set to include a rooftop clubhouse, fitness center and pool, will come from Urban Order Inc."

We want to do something to preserve the current Palm Avenue elevation," Leiter said of the DeMarcay Hotel, a Mediterranean Revival building that dates to 1922.But The DeMarcay faces numerous obstacles.

For starters, both the DeMarcay and the two-story Roth Cigar Factory building next door are on the National Register of Historic Places. Leiter claims both buildings are "functionally obsolete."But the real rub with The DeMarcay is its proposed drive aisles and parking. Leiter is proposing the project's 54 parking spaces be operated by 24-hour valet, using a system of elevators.City officials aren't sold.

"The bottom line is, we do not believe this plan meets zoning code standards," Tim Litchet, the city's director of Building, Zoning and Code Enforcement, wrote March 8 of the DeMarcay plan.

Leiter contends the city's concerns have been largely addressed. The developer hopes to start construction in October and wrap The DeMarcay in April 2008.

Leaving Sarasota

We note that Chris Browne, cartoonist who draws the "Hagar the Horrible" strip and is a longtime Sarasota resident is leaving Siesta Key for Sioux Falls, South Dakota because "I don't want to watch Sarasota become a stone canyon." (From the SHT).

Light Posting Time

I am taking a little "vacation time" and there will be fewer posts for the next two weeks.

Feel free to make comments - I and others will be reviewing them.

Dick C

The DeMarcay Hotel, at the left, is a great remaining example of Palm Ave from the mid-1920's. The architecture and scale fit beautifully with the portion of the Miramar building that still exists on Palm.

There is a developer proposal to build a high rise condo on the DeMarcay site. Apparently the developer will retain the DeMarcay facade. Details are not clear at this time.

What is apparent is that just retaining the facade, without some attempt at retaining the scale, would be a loss to Sarasota.

As seen in the second photo, this block of of Palm retains its original character and scale - at least up to the high rise at 1350 Main, seen looming over Palm in the background.

Sarasota needs to make a determined effort to retain the character of this important reminder of our past.

(Thanks to Joe Moraca for the photos).

Accountability and City Government

I (and many others) received this e-mail from Commissioner Shelin today:

The City Commission and Charter officials held an informal meeting recently to discuss the ideas and concerns that were documented during the accountability community conversations of last October at New College. There was considerable discussion about the themes that ran through the ideas and the group concluded that much of the participants concerns centered on a lack of understanding of governmental processes including a misunderstanding of legal and constitutional issues especially as they relate to land development issues where the City can't simply stop projects because some citizens don't like them.

There was a strong belief amongst those participating in the meeting that while the City of Sarasota provides for an unusual level of public in-put into its decision-making, that still hasn't resulted in a better understanding of how government works. That lack of understanding leads to unhappiness with government decision making and a negative perception of the quality of the decisions and those making them.

The recent, very successful completion of the Citizen's Academy provided a model for further discussion because of the uniformly positive response to it by attendees. Noteworthy amongst those responses was that a number of people said that they now understood better why and how decisions were made. In fact, there seemed to be an ah-ha moment for several people when they connected Constitution provisions to the way in which the various constituencies are served by the City Commission and Administration. In other words, all the city government customers deserve equitable treatment at the hands of city government.

Because of the negative character that often characterizes the public debate in Sarasota, discussion ensured about how to turn that into a constructive debate. A conclusion was reached that the City Commission would charge Charter Officials with the development of approaches similar to the Citizen's Academy so that constructive ideas and suggestions would be more apt to be brought to the public debate rather than complaints. The public would be encouraged to use their assets to develop constructive problem solving actions.

The discussion will continue.

Ken Shelin
_________________
The original invitation to this "conversation" was:

For several years, there have been discussions and calls for better accountability from all levels of our city government. This community has become a more urban and sophisticated city than in the past and is attracting people from all over the world used to amenities not often found in communities of our physical size and population.

This conversation to which you are being invited jointly by me (Ken Shelin), The Downtown Partnership and the Coalition of City Neighborhood Associations, is deliberately intended to be a wide-ranging discussion of all kinds of ideas, some of which may be developed into recommendations for change in our city government so that it can meet the challenges of today as well as the future.
_________________
Previous postings concerning the "Accountability Conversations" are here and here.
_________________
Commissioner Shelin sent an approximate 10 page document detailing the suggestions that were made during the three sessions that he held with residents in Oct of 2005. The executive summary of this document is printed here:

Accountability Suggestions

Executive Summary

Because the issue of accountability has been the subject of political concerns and elections for several years in the City of Sarasota; and because the City now appears to be in the throes of significant change in terms of it demographics, its land development, and its character as an urban entity, it seemed time to engage in a series of community conversations about what accountability meant to members of the community as it related to its government.

Therefore, three such conversations were sponsored by The Downtown Partnership, the Coalition of City Neighborhood Associations and City Commissioner Ken Shelin to answer the question, "What possibilities inspire you to assure accountability in City of Sarasota government?" Those conversations were held at the Sudakoff Center of New College on October 27th, 2005 (2 sessions) and on October 30th, 2005.

Numerous individual suggestions were made during the discussions, but several themes emerged which justify further exploration especially those which suggest a change in the form of government. Those themes were:

• Elected mayor
• Strategic leadership by the City Commission
• Well-documented actions by all levels of city government
• Skilled management by the City Manager and Administration
• Outreach by all levels of City government to educate citizens on its processes and decision making
• Opportunities for public input into government decision-making processes.
• Proactive public information activities

If you wish to receive a copy of this document you could e-mail Commissioner Shelin or myself. Please indicate you wish to have a copy of Commissioner Shelin's summary of the "Accountability Conversations" document.
_________________
I also received the following message on Jan 18. No message about this informal meeting was received and no agenda concerning this meeting is posted on the city web site.

The City Commission received the suggestions from the Accountability community conversations in a positive light and decided to refer the suggestions for the City Manager, City Administration and City Auditor and Clerk to each for internal review, discussion and an eventual report back to the Commission on what was done with the suggestions for their areas of responsibility. The City Commission decided to initiate discussions of the suggestions for it during informal meetings that are held periodically to discuss a wide variety of topics. There is no public in-put during those meetings, but I will advise you of the time and place of the next one since the public may attend.

Ken Shelin

CONA Comments

From the recent CONA Newsletter an article by Bill Zoller:

How can you help?

CONA’s board recently met with the South Venice 2010 board at the Jacaranda Library. It was a great meeting, attended by members of the Alliance in Englewood and by representatives from Richardson Road (north of Fruitville Rd.) and from all areas in between. It was an opportunity to dialogue and exchange information on our dealings with the County.

As planning issues become ever more complex; as traffic congestion becomes, seemingly, ever more insoluble; as concerns over our water supply become ever greater; as we wonder what is going to happen with the affordable housing issue; as we worry about sprawl, pollution of our waters, and about an almost endless string of problems, we face an ever greater need to band together to be proactive in addressing these issues. We need to let our elected representatives know, in a thoughtful way, what we want and need for them to do to make this area a better place, not a worse place, as we rush into the future.

If we had enough confidence in our elected officials just to let them "do it on their own", there would be no need for CONA, CCNA, the Alliance, or any other citizen and neighborhood organizations. We could just leave it in the hands of our elected officials and trust them to be able to filter out all the bad ideas that might be proposed by special interests, and to protect us from any bad possible outcomes. It would surely be a heck of a lot easier! Unfortunately, as we look around us, we can see that that just hasn’t worked. Without the input from our public interest organizations, how much worse might things be? We know that our elected officials work to do the right thing. We know they want this to be a better community. We know they need our help to make sure that a better community is what we get.

Sometimes our elected officials think, because they have the benefit of staff input and information from those seeking a land-use change, that they are more knowledgeable than the citizens who appear at the hearings, at the very end of the process. The courts have ruled, however, that we citizens are experts on our neighborhoods and are, therefore, able to give "competent and substantial" testimony about issues affecting them. Our obligation is to be informed… to learn about the issues. Along with Thomas Jefferson, I have great faith in the citizens … I believe the citizens can be trusted to bring critical and important information to the process. This is the work we need to do together through CONA and through our neighborhood and homeowner associations.

We need to hear from you. We can only be as effective as our members are willing to work. We need your insights, your concerns, your ideas. Let us know how you think we can be more helpful. I think we need to get a lot more of us "at the table" to do the heavy lifting. Will you come to the table?

Save Our Sarasota would echo these thoughts. Our elected officials cannot do what the citizens want unless they know what is wanted. Even then, the pressure from special interests can be intense. Citizens must demand that elected officials do the right thing, then support them when they do the right thing. We all need to make sure that our elected officials hear our insights, concerns and ideas. If we don't speak, only those that do speak will be heard.

Commuting Around Florida

From this month's issue of Florida Trend

City planners say that a healthy downtown depends on having a strong residential component along with the commercial center: Cities where high percentages of workers commute in from outside the city limits may look vibrant during the day but tend to resemble ghost towns at night.

The chart at right shows the percentage by which some city populations in Florida increase as a result of work-related commuting — in other words, how many people who work downtown live outside the city limits. In Orlando’s case, the city’s population almost doubles during the daytime, swelling by 131,501 commuters, an increase of more than 70%.

No wonder the traffic is so bad in the Ft Myers - Naples area. I wonder if we are headed higher or lower on the list. My guess is we are headed higher.

Also I wonder if our summers will still resemble a ghost town, despite all the condo construction in and near downtown.

CCNA Asks City To Delay Decision on Density Bonus Proposal

At Saturday's Coalition of City Neighborhood Association (CCNA) meeting, the members voted to ask the city to remove the proposed "attainable housing density bonus" comprehensive plan amendment from the current comp plan change cycle.

There are several related issues at the current time and the feeling of the CCNA members was that this particular proposed amendment was too complicated, not understood by the public, the benefit was unclear and there was considerable question about whether our current infrastructure could support this amount of increased housing.

In addition a comment from the consultants report makes one wonder about this approach: "This analysis leads to the conclusion that under current and foreseeable market conditions, even a significant density bonus is unlikely to result in new development of attainable units downtown."

Concurrently there are proposed downtown zoning district changes for several "downtown edge" areas. These proposals are pushing downtown zoning further into the neighborhoods - downtown creep, if you will. The Comp Plan amendment would allow a 4X density increase in exchange for 10% of units being affordable to residents whose income is 60% - 120% of the area median income.

A proposal for the Scottie's property on the east side of Payne Park is an example. This approximate 9.2 acre site could have about 170 units under its current zoning. If the future land use and zoning is changed, as the developer is asking, the new Downtown Core zone designation would allow 460 units. If the attainable housing density bonus were also allowed this would go to 1840 units. Of these 10%, or 184, would have to be "attainable."

This would result in a major change in the quality of life for the residents of the Alta Vista neighborhood where this is located.

The ERA Report (consultant hired by the city to draft a proposed amendment to the Comp Plan) indicates that if this amendment were enacted, it could result in an additional 28,000+ units downtown. It was estimated by the consultant that a maximum of 230-470 of these would meet the attainable housing cost requirement. This seems to be an inefficient way to achieve more attainable housing units. The comment was made that it would be less costly to the city (when infrastructure is accounted for) to just purchase the land and subsidize a developer to build 200-400 attainable units in or near downtown.

John Susce, from the Park East neighborhood, voted against the request for removing the proposal from this year's cycle. The Park East neighborhood is working with Harvey Vengroff on a large affordable housing project. Susce indicated that he had concern that if this proposal was not enacted, his neighborhood's project might not go forward.

Downtown Density "Bonus"

A note from a regular reader of this blog:
-------------------
They've had several good editorials lately. Referring to the "density bonus" discussion, I am really interested in the "in lieu" of option. At CRA Advisory Board meeting David Smith explained, in response to questions from the committee about "in lieu of" options, that the consultants (ERA) are against them. They do not like having affordable units built in other places in the city and think they are best if successfully integrated into a larger project.

However, Smith said, the planning department wanted the "in lieu of" option and had consultants prepare one as an addendum. At that point there was discussion of "in lieu" and it was nothing like what was in the newspaper. There was no reference to the cost of building downtown being too much for a developer. One developer and two realtors talked about it being too hard to sell a project with affordable units in it.

I was really offended that I might live in a city where there are people who would refuse to live in the same building as the people who vacuum their carpets, wait on them at restaurants, play beautiful music for them at orchestra concerts, dance for them as part of the ballet, choose to be social workers, etc. for idealistic reasons rather than choosing a more lucrative profession. I can handle high buildings and loss of greenspace more easily that the sentiments I heard expressed at that meeting. Say it isn't so!

And, again, am really interested in hearing from those who have thought a lot about this. Another question: If you choose the "in lieu" option...should you really be allowed the huge density bonus?
----------------
Today's SHT editorial is about the affordable housing density bonus idea for downtown Sarasota.

The editorial says "take off the rose colored glasses." Some excerpts:

The city is clearly trying to do the right thing by encouraging the construction of lower-cost housing. But the consultants' report suggests that even if the city were to double or quadruple allowable density in downtown zoning districts -- a big boon to developers -- little affordable housing would result unless additional incentives were provided. In essence the report concludes that, because of high costs and other construction hurdles downtown, density bonuses aren't enough to persuade most developers to build affordable units within their projects.

With astronomical real estate prices, the downtown is becoming an enclave for the rich. Mixing in some units that working people can afford has appeal because it would preserve demographic diversity. But in the downtown, "affordable" units would likely be small ones -- which would leave out many families.

An "in lieu of" option, where developers pay for the privilege of the density bonus but don't build the affordable units within their own project, might prove more effective at broadening the supply of work-force housing. As the consultants noted, the in-lieu-of fee would have to be carefully calibrated (in their example it exceeded $330,000). But its use would be flexible, funding anything from nonprofit housing construction to down-payment assistance and rental subsidies on homes outside the downtown.

The editorial points out that this is a complex issue and needs to have public understanding, public input. We would add that a good measure of listening and questioning by the commissioners will be greatly appreciated. This should not be a rushed process.

16TH ANNUAL SARASOTA HISTORIC HOMES TOUR SHOWCASES LAUREL PARK

The Sarasota Alliance for Historic Preservation is proud to present the 16th Annual Historic Homes Tour on Sunday March 5 from 11 AM to 5 PM.

The five homes featured on the tour are located in historic Laurel Park. Laurel Park, one of the oldest neighborhoods in the city of Sarasota, is pursuing National Historic Designation and has been working closely with the Alliance for support in their efforts to maintain the streetscape and original character of their neighborhood.

“At the Alliance, we felt the timing was right to support their efforts and bring the communities attention to the value of this colorful neighborhood.” says Alliance President, David Jennings, of the decision to showcase only Laurel Park homes on this years tour.

1841 Oak Street
This two story Dutch colonial was moved to its present location from 17th Street in 1933 by then owner John Early. Early was a longtime Sarasota attorney who over the course of his career served as mayor of the city of Sarasota and as Sarasota’s first municipal judge. The home has been beautifully restored by the current owners.

642 Ohio Place
Owned by Michele Mancini, a well know designer and purveyor of vintage fabrics marketed under the company name of “Full Swing Textiles”. Mancini’s work has been featured in Metropolitan Home, Elle and the New York Times. She has recently co-authored a book entitled Fabulous Fabrics of the 50’s. Samples of her work will be on display in this charming 1920’s bungalow.

1716 Oak Street
This craftsman style bungalow has been historically designated as the Ella Dula Westermann Tenant house. A two story garage addition has recently been completed. It illustrates how infill construction can be done with sensitivity to an existing historic resource.

1675 Oak Street
Another historically designated home, the Jerome K. Martin House was named after the man who built it. Martin, one of three sons of well known Sarasota architect Thomas Reed Martin, was associated with his father for many years as a supervising architect.

1637 Oak Street
Historically designated in the 1980’s, the boom time, Mediterranean Revival style Spanish Oaks Apartments were historically known as Katahdin Court, presumably deriving its name from the mountain peak in Maine. Two apartments at Spanish Oaks will be open for viewing.

The $20 tickets can be purchase in advance at Davidson Drugs, Main Books, The Sarasota County History Center, Sarasota Architectural Salvage and Historic Spanish Point. Tickets may also be purchased the day of the tour at any of the tour homes.

The mission of the Sarasota Alliance for Historic Preservation is to preserve and enhance our historic places. We invite you to celebrate Sarasota’s rich architectural heritage and diversity by visiting these beautiful homes in Laurel Park. For more information, call the Alliance at 953-8727.

Bonus Tour

Concurrent with the tour sponsored by the Sarasota Alliance for Historic Preservation, some hardworking residents of the neighborhood are planning to conduct a walking tour of some additional historic properties in Laurel Park.

Walking tour houses will all be marked by balloons and roped off from the Sidewalk, so that people don't get confused about which houses are open.

About 400 copies of the tour itinerary will be printed. Chilled water available for sale and t-shirts for donations (look for this at the park or Melody's Day Spa).

Tables and chairs will be set up in the park for those who want to rest or picnic.

Special thanks go to Jolie McInnis, Jude Levy, and Deb Dart for their efforts!

Properties to be includes in this walking tour are:

1840 Oak Street: 1939 frame vernacular. This house was a duplicate of the demonstration home in the 1940 New York World’s Fair Town of Tomorrow. French windows and doors, double hung windows, and two porches give the house an open feel. The house also has an open floor plan, considered very innovative at the time.

1876 Oak Street: Dr. Walter C. Kennedy house, c. 1926 Mediterranean revival. This is the only house listed on the National Historic Register (34 others qualify for such designation). The house was designed by noted New York and Sarasota architect Dwight James Baum who came to Sarasota to design the Ringling’s mansion, Ca' d' Zan, and was built by Owen Burns as part of his Washington Park subdivision. It has hollow clay tile walls, Spanish Mission tile and asphalt roof, and pecky cypress throughout.

527 Madison Court: 1925 Mediterranean revival. One of four duplexes built by Woods & Schneider Contractors for R.R. Rhodes and Dr. Wallace Barr of Bowling Green, Kentucky (two on either side of the street). They all had the same interior layout but with slightly different street facades. All but 527 a re now single family homes. Note the brick peeking through the asphalt on this street.

1927 Laurel Street: Katie Hale home, c. 1926 frame vernacular. The first owner of this house was Katie Mae Hale, the wife of local builder/developer Henry Hale. They lived at 326 Ohio, also on the walking tour. She sold this house in 1937. Note the decorative milled sunburst motif at the gable peak of the porch roof. This motif is derived from the late 19th Century English Arts and Crafts movement.

1936 Morrill Street: The Kimmel-Chapman house, c.1925 bungalow. The first known resident was J.G. Kimmel, a civil engineer for the Palmer Corporation, who worked on the Sarasota-Fruitville and Hyde Park drainage projects. The Chapmans owned the house for 61 years. The columns and porch were added in 2000, a sensitive - neighborhood friendly - addition.

320-326 Ohio Place: c. 1925 bungalow and Mediterranean revival. Homes of developers/contractors Bernard Rhodes (320) and Henry Hale (326), who built numerous other buildings in the neighborhood, including the Mediterranean revival style apartments across the street at 325 Ohio Place, 404 S. Osprey, 1759 Morrill, and 1685 Laurel Street (now remodeled.)

542 Ohio Place: c. 1941 frame vernacular. This is the Laurel Park house most recently designated with the City of Sarasota as historically significant. Sixteen other houses are locally designated and 75 are eligible. A typical World War II era cottage, its distinctive architectural features include the corner windows and hip roof design. Two additions to the residence were made in the 50s to accommodate a growing family and to create the look of the latest style in home building--the ranch house.

1702 Laurel Street: 1926 Mediterranean revival. Built by the original congregation of the Seventh Day Adventist using architectural plans that many other churches across the state also used. Preserved as a private home in 2003.

1677 Laurel Street: c. 1890 folk Victorian. Local lore has it that this home was built on Gulfstream Avenue facing the bayfront and moved to this site in the 1920s to make room for a large boom time era home. At some point in the 20s, the house belonged to a tombstone carver who left a selection of unclaimed markers under the house. The current owners, as children, were certain the house was built on a cemetery.

1630 Laurel Street: c. 1925 craftsman bungalow. Note the massive boxed columns, casement windows, and wide eaves with exposed rafter ends. The Cuban Laurel is estimated to be over 100 years old. (The interior still has the original wood floors and fireplace.) The adjacent street, Rawls Avenue, is brick below the asphalt. We hope to see these streets return to their original brick in the future.