Last evening, January 23rd, the City Commission voted down the option of arcades and the ability to build habitable space above them. Mayor Servian, Vice-Mayor Atkins, Commissioner Palmer all voted against arcades. Commissioner Shelin was against arcades but did not vote for the language presented. They did discuss they would like to discuss this option at a later date.
Through our Charrette with Urban Planner, Ramon Trias, we learned that arcades would work and sometime necessary in Burns Square. I spoke at the Commission Meeting last evening to express the view of the Burns Square Property Owners Association. This is what I said:
"Good Evening, my name is Denise Kowal and I am speaking as President of the Burns Square Property Owners Association and as a property owner, resident and business owner in the City of Sarasota.I cannot speak with authority for the entire city but I can speak for the interests of Burns Square.
The Property Owners Association has invested tens of thousands of dollars in our process to create a long-term vision for development, which we hope to present to the City Commission, in an open public meeting sometime in March. Our vision includes arcades in some areas and we found in many cases they were not only completely appropriate in scale and effective but also necessary in Burns Square due to the current downzoning to DTC. The elimination of this option will drastically hinder our process that has been underway for months. We are quite proud of the work we have undertaken, our ability to work together with differences and create a shared vision that will benefit not only the businesses and property owners in Burns Square but the entire city.
We find it upsetting that the Burns Square Property Owners may not be recognized as responsible citizens, working diligently to grow their area into a wonderful destination with the possibility of arcades, should you rescind this option. We ask you to keep the possibility of arcades in the Master Plan and in the very least, keep them as an option that can be approved by the commission.
We hope you respect the work we have done and allow us the opportunity to present our vision before you deny it."
21 comments:
So you and your group are in favor of 10 story buildings with arcades and three stories above that for a neighborhood that is smaller in scale than downtown density. The scale of arcades was an issue for downtown. You are actually proposing massings that will dwarf neighboring properties- sounds like a real responsible decison.
So sorry Denise that the city could not wait to hear and see ideas before making decisions. Thank you for looking out for our neighborhood so diligently. You have been a real inspiration for our community and being able to see a bigger picture.
PS The new lights being put in look great. Your hard work is paying off.
JY, Property Owner
Burns Square is Downtown so it is puzzling what your statement "smaller in scale than downtown density" means.
With all respect "anonymous", you do not know what "we favor" or what our vision involves and I think it is irresponsible for you to assume anything.
Your post does illustrates what we find to be one of the struggles our city faces. People speak emotionally and give strong opinions about things that they have very little knowledge of.
We speak on behalf of Burns Square because we feel quite confident with our knowledge and understanding of our area as well as the history.
It is the property owners you are criticizing who are the same ones who have worked for over 20 years to make this area what it is today. That you assume we would somehow lose our senses and decide to ruin something we have invested 20 years of our lives in is somewhat silly. Where have you, "anonymous", been for the past 20 years when we have struggled to make this area what it is today? We have been in the game all along.
So are you in favor of the type of arcades on Palm Avenue, that are part of the historic character of the area, or of the arcades with several stories of habitable space above that would have been allowed by city code? I can see charm in the former, but see no benefit except to developers in the second.
It is so sad to even try to imagine the latter in Burns Square/Court.
Dear 30 January, 2006 12:47:
You wrote in your defense of you not approving of arcades with livable space above them:
"I can see charm in the former, but see no benefit except to developers in the second.
It is so sad to even try to imagine the latter in Burns Square/Court."
I agree this is a struggle for many to comprehend and many do not want to even struggle with thought at all. Many want to just say "no".
The Burns Square Property Owners are not those people. We see potential in many ways to improve our area and limiting our options is not one of them. There are benefits to arcades with livable space and hope people can hold judgement until they see possibilities presented.
There are always differences in opinions and the obvious or the easiest road is not always the best.
Huh?
Dear 30 January, 2006 19:39
Maybe if you could be more specific about what is confusing you then maybe the property owners could address that.
Or is "Huh?" the extent of your vocabulary?
What I was trying to say was the Property Owners like the option of arcades when considering developing their properties.
Until you see what that looks like, we think it would be premature for you to place an opinion upon it.
Actually, it is not the extent of my vocabulary. Can you tell me where you were when Duany came to town? Can you also tell me why there was no objection (I was there) from the Burns Court business owners when Duany and city staff established DTE for the area.
The point I was making-and which nobody has answered yet other than more rhetoric is this- Burns Square is smaller in scale than the mass of downtown. The City Commission recently decided to eliminate arcades downtown because of scale factors among other reasons. The business owners of Burns Square were successful in getting DTE changed to DTC zoning at the objections of many who live, work and enjoy life downtown- OVER 20 years (which seems to be your magical number).
What you have done is actually to distinguish yourselves to be no different from other special interest groups in the City who objected in the eleventh hour to the very principals that were embraced- or at least agreed to- by everyone that participated in the charettes that produced the document which the City direction was established.
This is EVERYBODY'S city. You as landowners and business interests were invited and participated in THE PLAN- including Ms. Kowal- who at the time took no objection to the zoning concepts that were endorsed and approved.
Your neighborhood is one of the positive qualities that any number of visitors and residents have grown to enjoy- which I suspect is one of the reasons you bought there to begin with. Your zoning change from DTE to DTC is profound-draping yourselves as if nobody else in this city cares about Burns Square's direction is insulting to those of us that were active participants in the process.
Dear 31 January, 2006 23:53:
I will address your post since it appears somewhat directed personally at me.
I was present at many of the charrettes held by Andreas Duany and the public discussions about Burns Square focused on our lack of parking and wonderful street frontage many of our properties contribute to a walkable downtown (My photo is on page I-1.4 of the Master Plan) Your statements are not accurate regarding the charrette held by Andreas Duany and the Downtown Master Plan 2020 that came out of those workshops. Burns Square was not designated DTE by Duany, in fact DTE is not a term you can even find in the Downtown Master Plan 2020 he wrote. So you must have different memories of those workshops than the reality of what really happened.
Personally, I also do not get your comment that Burns Square is smaller in scale than the rest of downtown. I do not believe so. Main Street is lined with one story structures that do not appear larger than in our area. The streets are exactly the same as in many parts of our downtown.
Historically the area bound by Pineapple, Orange and Fruitevill was our downtown core. In fact first street was right in front of my Herald Square building, second street was Laurel, third was Dolphin and so on. Downtown started at Orange & Pineapple and it still does today.
Burns Square was also not successful in having our zoning changed from DTE to DTC. We were downzoned from CCBD to DTC. DTE was recommended and failed to happen based on many factors.
I say 20 years because that is a number years I have owned the Herald Square building but I have lived and worked in Burns Square for over 25 years. I bring that up because people seem to have fond memories of a wonderful downtown and that we are damaging that "old" wonderful way of life. I can say that in no way was Burns Square even close to what it is today. It was a mess.
You stated that I am "no different from other special interest groups in the City who objected in the eleventh hour to the very principals that were embraced- or at least agreed to". You are upset we got DTC designation at the last minute, feel we are smaller than the rest of downtown and should not consider arcades and you do not like ARCADES that were in the code, which at the eleventh hour was pulled out of the text amendments because special interest groups did not like them. Is this not somewhat of a contradiction on your part?
I bought my building "to begin with" because I must have enjoyed challenges back in my 20's. I certainly did not purchase the property because it was so charming. Have you not seen photos of the property back in the 1980's? I suggest you take a peak back and then comment on the beauty of it all.
You commented, "that any number of visitors and residents have grown to enjoy". Grown to enjoy is a key word and that is what we are going to continue to help happen.
You commented, "draping yourselves as if nobody else in this city cares about Burns Square's direction is insulting to those of us that were active participants in the process." I do not resinate with that comment and do not know why you would write such a thing. I do know that I have worked very hard for this great neighborhood and really like the improvements that keep happening and only wish to be a part of what makes it better. Do you like the new street lights going in? Is there anything specific you do like or would like to suggest besides complaining about us being DTC or liking arcades?
Way to go Denise!
For those that can spin just about anything, the comment I just posted was in support of the President of the Burns Square Property Owners Association, Denise. She has been very active for many years and hard to stump. She is appreciated in our neighborhood and has endless energy for our best interests. Thanks Denise
Arcades with habitable space above were in the Duany plan...on the developer's property. Then the plan was changed to move them to public space. That is what was objected to by a large number of citizens, because in this configuration they would further narrow streets and preclude trees.
Can't Burns Square still have arcades...on the developer's land, as at Five Points Plaza in the downtown?
Arcades over public land were described as an incentive for development, but, as planning staff commented and commissioners agreed at a recent meeting, they no longer need to "lure" development to our downtown.
Dear 7 February, 2006 10:31:
Yes, the property owners and/or developers in Burns Square could put arcades contained to their own property and maybe some will. Arcades set up this way is not what most consider an ideal setting, including Andreas. This creates a set back from the pedestrian traffic and that is not considered by most planners an ideal situation. Most will say the store windows need to be right on the sidewalk, next to the pedestrian traffic. My building has several arcades built on my property and the planners, including Andreas, felt I should bring the windows out to the sidewalk.
We just feel that the arcade issue is not as simple as most of the opposition does. We think there are appropriate settings as well as there are some settings in which arcades may not work.
As far as trees, Burns Square had very few trees on Pineapple and Orange Avenue. Almost all of the trees lining these streets now have been planted in the past several years. We also see how we can have trees with arcades so that argument we feel is really not an accurate or fair argument. We are very tree aware in the area because it gets so hot in the summers and we want shade. We even look into transplanting trees from sites being developed to other location within Burns Square.
Our area really has many more challenges right now than just the arcades. We are just sorry that the options were not left on the table to review.
Thank you for your input.
So how does this make you all in Burns Square feel that the city commission just gave all that incentive and land to the Pineapple Square developers but would not purchase the Orange Dolphin lot?
Such politices, huh?
Did you all not speak up because they included your Burns Square wishes in their document? Was Burns Square "bought" to not go against the project also?
Your group seems to have an opinion about many issues downtown and it is just hard to believe you did not have an opinion about this project that will be right down the street from you.
Any comments?
I am not against the Pineapple Square project, but agree with the newspaper editorial this morning, that there were many questions left unanswered. Mr. McNees' comment that "they knew the model car they wanted, but had not yet settled on the price," sent the same message. Also appreciated his (city manager's) defense of planning staff when developer's lawyer called their upcoming presentation a "rebuttal" and he (and later Commissioner Bilyeu) reminded everyone that staff was there to provide information. __Sadly, it did not appear all of that information was considered.__I wish that when casting their votes the commissioners would have spoken about why they disagreed with or did not think important the numbers provided by their consultants. I understand that the mayor has a background in banking, but would have hoped she would have shared with us the insight this provided her into the numbers that were leading many of us to believe the project needed more scrutiny.__Kudos to Commissioner Palmer for having the courage, in a room full of supporters of the project, to continue to wish to pursue issues of concern about the project and to vote against a quick decision.__A special meeting should have been scheduled, with sufficient time to really consider such an important, high-impact project.
So, does Burns Square have any comments on the decision about Pineapple Square?
Sort of telling you all that a new project is more important than an established neighborhood since they did not approve the parking structure deal for Burns Square because why, it was too expensive?
So after reviewing the paper today, did Burns Square get any money contribution from the Isaac Brothers for the charrette? Is that why Burns Square has been silent?
10 February, 2006 10:58:
No, nobody individually or through the association received any money from the developers of the Pineapple Square project.
We heard a presentation about the vision of the Pineapple Square project from John Simon last year. This presentation did not include any information about the incentives or deals they wanted to make with the city so we are just learning what that all means now.
We did state that we would request from the city that the city owned land surrounding the Mermaid Fountain at the South end of Lemon Avenue not be developed per the Downtown Master Plan 2020. We felt a building in that location would block the visual corridor between Burns Square and Pineapple Square (a lot of squares around here).
Denise: Has even one commissioner responded to the letter from our board regarding this proposed deal? In the very least has our district commissioner responded? Is our district commissioner Mayor Servian? I think we need to have our district commissioner at our next meeting to ask questions about this deal and our parking situation.
We have sent two letters the commission stating we are not in favor of the city commission moving forward with this deal with Pineapple Square. This has nothing against the development, we just do not like the deal being given to the developer. We never did get any response from our district commissioner, Servian. We also sent the letter to John Simon without any response.
Post a Comment