Several months ago the Burns Square Property Owners heard a presentation by the Pineapple Square developer John Simon at our monthly meeting and the overall feelings for the project were positive. The presentation contained very general information about the development and no financial details were offered or asked for. We are just learning what those financial details are and have many questions.
We are currently struggling with the amount of money and land that is being exchanged with the Pineapple Square developer for 350 public parking spaces. We did not hear any logical explanation on how this decision could be justified with the lack of support by the consultants, staff and appraisers. Burns Square certainly did not have this type of approval for the purchase of the Orange Dolphin property, which was to provide much needed parking for our area. Yet Burns Square had the support of staff and the consultants. Burns Square has also been operating, paying taxes and surviving the city's ups and downs for decades. In addition our 350 spaces would have been at least 5.5 million dollars cheaper than those in Pineapple Square, yet the commission stated Orange Pineapple was too expensive. Burns Square's need for parking also has the support of the parking consultants as outlined in the City of Sarasota Master Parking Plan and by Andres Duany in the City of Sarasota Master Plan 2020.
Burns Square has over 200 businesses employing over 1000 people contributing to our economic vitality. We have been paying our taxes in the good and bad years, sticking it out to help our city grow into a better community. For the past twenty years, Burns Square has drastically improved adding Banks, Restaurants, Medical offices, retailers, professionals, the busiest business in all of downtown, the Women's Exchange and brought back a theater to downtown in the 1980's, the Burns Court Cinema. We learned through our charrette process that the existence and growth of our businesses in Burns Square are restricted because of our lack of parking and yet our taxes, licenses and rents continue to climb. So we ask, how does the "new" development receive such an incentive so quickly, while there are so many unanswered questions while our area that has contributed so much over the years get turned down for a desperately needed parking structure?
The Burns Square Property Owners Association had one design request of the City Planning Department and the Pineapple Square developer, which was to keep the view open between the South end of Lemon and Pineapple Avenues and Burns Square. The Downtown Master Plan has recommendations for liner buildings on the city owned property that surrounds the Mermaid Fountain at the intersection of Lemon & Pineapple Avenues, which would block off the view between Burns Square and Pineapple Square. We were happy to see that the proposal by the Isaac Group did not include the liner buildings and they suggested improvements to that park instead.
We hope for the success of the Pineapple Square project, we even support helping the developer financially unless it is at the expense of those already doing their part.
Chalk Festival www.avendiadecolores.com
Avenida de Colores "Floralia" May 2-3, contact: Denise Kowal 941-374-4790 for artist, sponsor and voulteer information
AVENIDA DE COLORES "FLORALIA" FESTIVAL - ARTISTS APPLICATIONS ACCEPTED/Volunteers needed
2ND ANNUAL BURNS SQUARE CHALK FESTIVAL - MAY 2 & 3 2009! For Information Contact Denise.kowal@mac.com
12 comments:
It is hard to know why the City Commission acted so quickly with the Pineapple Square project without any regard for the amount of money from the city. It is equally disappointing for Burns Square to witness this type of support when we already have an established business district doing exactly what a downtown area should be doing. It gets frustrating to have to work so hard for this area, year after year. Everyone talks about it being such a great area but they do not want to contribute to making it better. The merchants can only do so much.
I thought the Issac Group eliminated the thought of the liner buildings around the fountain or did they just eliminate the one that would block the fountain entirely?
THIS LETTER WAS SENT TO THE CITY COMMISSION ON:
February 17, 2006
City Commission
1565 1st Street
Sarasota, Florida 34236
RE: Pineapple Square
Dear Mayor Servian, Vice-Mayor Atkins, Commissioner Bilyeu, Commissioner Palmer and Commissioner Shelin:
We want to let you know our views regarding the Isaac Group proposal to the city. Many of the Burns Square Property Owners have questions about the terms and we would like to express the following:
It is our understanding that the City Commission tentatively approved to exchange the State Street land appraised by Richard Bass at 11 million dollars with the Pineapple Square developer for 1 million dollars and air rights to build 350 public parking spaces.
. Why have we had only one appraisal of State Street if there are differences of opinions about the land value vs. the air rights? At this point we only have the opinion of the city's appraiser and the developer who stands to gain the most.
. What is the difference between losing tax revenue for the public parking spaces in Pineapple Square vs. losing tax revenue for State Street; are we not losing tax revenue in both instances?
. Adding public parking to the Pineapple Sq. project makes this building one of two allowed 10 story buildings in our downtown, is this development the best choice for that?
. Why did we not pursue an RFP and why did the financial details of the Pineapple Square proposal not go before the CRA Advisory Board?
. Access to the public parking spaces will be over leased land, therefore, what happens in 80 years when the lease is up? If we make this exchange should we not first make sure we have access to the public parking in 80 years after the land lease expires? Could there be additional costs to use our public parking spaces in 80 years? Do we run the risk of losing the public parking spaces in 80 years altogether? Why would we use TIF dollars to build parking on land that is leased instead of on the land we own?
. The City Commission also agreed to pay for the construction costs of those public spaces at a price yet to be determined but no less than the current estimated price around $20,000.00 per space.
Should the city accept this proposal, the city will not be building a public parking facility on State Street and the developers comment "the city would lose those public parking spaces during development anyway" is irrelevant; we should not give up our current public parking spaces until the new spaces are available.
The 350 public parking spaces in Pineapple Square are the same amount of public parking spaces the city proposed to build on the Orange Dolphin site for Burns Square, which is 1/2 the size of the State Street lot and narrower. The city entered into contract to purchase the Orange Dolphin lot for 4.4 million dollars with leases estimated at a 1.1 million additional cost, totaling a land cost of 5.5 million dollars. The Orange Dolphin parking facility would have been 5.5 million dollars less to the city than the 350 spaces in Pineapple Square but was turned down because the City Commission said it was too expensive and we needed an appraisal to prove the value of the land. While we can accept the city over paying for the public parking in the Pineapple Square project, we cannot accept ignoring the consultant's views of the projects parking needs showing a deficit. While many developments in our downtown may be constructed without the projects true parking needs, they do not have our tax dollars paying for additional spaces for them. Why are we not slowing down the terms of the Pineapple Square project as was suggested when questions were raised about the value of the Orange Dolphin lot?
We find all this confusing since Burns Square desperately needs parking and has been an established business area in our city since the 1920's, being the visual gateway into our downtown. We have over 7 of our total 20 acres in Burns Square under development. We have continued to grow over the past 20 years and we now have over 200 businesses employing over 1000 employees. We have been an economic contributor to our city in many ways including over 90 percent of the businesses are locally owned and run. The Burns Square area has been active and consistently improving through all the city's ups and downs bring restaurants, retailers, professionals, banks, medical services, including the highest trafficked business in all of our downtown, the Women's Exchange and we welcomed the city's only movie theater in the 1980's to our downtown, the Burns Court Cinema. The Downtown Master Plan 2020 and the Downtown Parking Study indicates Burns Square as needing several public parking facilities and stated public parking in this area as a high priority. The City of Sarasota does not own one location in Burns Square for the possibility of a public parking facility and the possibilities are catastrophic. The continued and current success of the area is restricted because there are no public parking facilities. We hired our own planner, recommended by Andres Duany, who confirmed our urgent need of public parking.
So, how is it the purchase of the Orange Dolphin for this vibrant long-standing area, Burns Square, is denied when you approve to build 350 spaces in Pineapple Square at a cost way over that of the Orange Dolphin, without addressing the cautions from the public, parking consultants, appraisers and staff? The public has had barely any time to understand the Pineapple Square proposal to even speak for or against it. The Orange Dolphin lot had the support of the Burns Square Merchant Association, the Burns Square Property Owners Association, the parking consultants and staff.
We are excited just like everyone else to see how the Pineapple Square project pulls together and hope it helps our entire city by being a part of it. We are happy to see the City's removal of the liner buildings that would wrap around the Mermaid Fountain blocking the view to and from Burns Square. We overall like the growth of our downtown and have been proud of the improvements we have seen including Burns Square and Palm Avenues new decorative lighting being installed at this time.
We also feel it is important to be involved with the decisions being made and voice our positions. We do not approve of the way this deal was negotiated and may be approved. We feel the city did not protect our assets to the best of their ability and has not negotiated a deal that is satisfactory and fair. We feel there are so many unanswered questions and too many grey areas for this proposal to be signed, even with the minor changes requested during the Commission meeting.
We request more time for public airing, clarification and the time to negotiate, so the public can see if this is the best deal for the City.
Respectfully,
Denise Kowal, President
Burns Square Property Owners Association, Inc.
Harvey Kaltsas, Board Member
Burns Square Property Owners Association, Inc.
Basil Stetson, Board Member
Burns Square Property Owners Association, Inc.
Noel Hazard, Board Member
Burns Square Property Owners Association, Inc.
Jeff Masser, Board Member
Burns Square Property Owners Association, Inc.
SENT TO CITY COMMISSION ON:
February 21, 2006
City Commission
1565 1st Street
Sarasota, Florida 34236
RE: Pineapple Square
Dear Mayor Servian, Vice-Mayor Atkins, Commissioner Bilyeu,
Commissioner Palmer and Commissioner Shelin:
We wanted to outline our suggestions regarding the Pineapple Square proposal the city is considering:
We ultimately feel a parking garage on State Street that is owned and operated by the city would best benefit our downtown for the long term vision of the city. We have trusted the parking consultants opinions in the past and trust their view of this project.
We feel an RFP should be done for the State Street property so connecting properties may be included to make this location a better and bigger project.
If proposal by the Pineapple Square development moves forward then it should go before the CRA advisory board since TIF funds are being used. I understand the cost for the city to build the public spaces approximately 7.6 million dollars is not an TIF incentive to the developer. But the State Street land was purchased with TIF money and the increase in value is TIF money. So the trade of State Street value for air space value is using TIF money. While the developer may have gone before the CRA advisory board before they did not disclose financial information which is at the heart of everyone's concern.
We suggest the Pineapple Square developer pay at least an additional 4.5 Million Dollars for the State Street property exchange. This would put the city's cost for the air space within Pineapple Square at 5.5 Million Dollars which seem costly for air space but then again it is for public parking.
All public parking on State Street should remain public parking controlled by the city for public use until alternative public parking is constructed.
We keep hearing the developer needs State Street at the price he is offering (1 million plus air space) to make the project work but the public is not aware of any financial documentation supporting this statement. We suggest before any term sheet is signed we get financial documentation to support this statement. We also suggest if the city is going to give incentive above and beyond the cost to build the public parking, then the city should have profit sharing in the State Street project.
We feel the First Street location should remain city property and controlled by the city for public use. We do not feel other parking locations around the city should be controlled by this developer since they already are selling the incredible convenience of the new 350 plus 175 parking spaces in their own development for the downtown. We feel their Lemon Avenue locations are conveniently located close to the parking in Pineapple Square, as they say.
We strongly support the city maintaining the green space surrounding the Mermaid Fountain to keep the visual gateway to and from Burns Square open. In addition, we feel this area needs that park since so much will be built in this area.
While the papers quoted "a small number" of critics have questioned your rush to accept the proposal, we feel we are not a small number. There are many of us who share this view and we are trying to let you know that by informing you of our concerns. We will not be at the meeting this evening but know you will take our concerns seriously and address them at the meeting.
We also wish great success for this project and hope that it will contribute to our downtown in a positive way.
Respectfully,
Denise Kowal, President
Burns Square Property Owners Association, Inc.
Harvey Kaltsas, Board Member
Burns Square Property Owners Association, Inc.
Basil Stetson, Board Member
Burns Square Property Owners Association, Inc.
Noel Hazard, Board Member
Burns Square Property Owners Association, Inc.
Jeff Masser, Board Member
Burns Square Property Owners Association, Inc.
CC: Burns Square Property Owners List
I was unable to watch the City Commission meeting last evening, did they answer any of our concerns or take any of the suggestions? Is Mary Anne Servian our district commissioner? If so, is that not who should be looking out for our interests?
Has the city started any work on the roundabout at the Ringling and Pineapple intersection yet?
Denise: Have we heard from any of the commissioners about our concerns with the deal the city is proposing to enter into with the Pineapple Square development? Should we at least get some response from our district commissioner? Is that Mayor Servian? Maybe we need to invite our commissioner to our next meeting to ask about our concerns and what is going on with parking for our neighborhood?
In answer to some of the questions:
All the buildings surrounding the Mermaid Fountain are shown as park which is what we supported.
I do not think any staff time is being put into the roundabout at Ringling and Pineapple yet. We will be suggesting this in our presentation of requested public improvements.
Yes, Mayor Servian is our district commissioner. No, not one of the Commissioners responded to our two letters regarding the Pineapple Square project deal with the city. Even Mr. Simon was sent a copy and when I ran into him the other week and ask why he did not respond, he said, "I thought it was rhetorical". So, not sure why everyone is so defensive on this issue but many of us have not been too happy that we did not get any written response to our questions or suggestions.
I think it is a good idea to invite our district commissioner to an upcoming meeting.
I think it is not very responsible for our commission, especially our district commissioner to not respond to a letter from our board. Maybe we should write and ask why they feel we are not worthy of a call or response.
Has the city considered trying to purchase the Women's Exchange or at least doing a partnership with them to bring parking to the area? It seems this location would benefit the whole area from 41 to Ringling.
There seems to be talk around town about the DTP supporting things and requesting things for the city that are not the voice of our downtown. I did not agree with their support of the Pineapple Square deal with the city as requested by the developer and recently, the Burns Square Merchant Association has learned they are trying to create a Historic District in our Downtown. Is not Burns Square the Historic District in downtown? The DTP is not even including Burns Square in the proposal! I suggest the Property Owners get on board with this and voice we are not okay with the DTP initiative.
I was asked by Tony Suza from the DTP when I asked him why his group was not involving Burns Square in the Historic District they are proposing, why did we fight our downzoning then? What does our Zoning have to do with Historic? We are the same zoning as the other areas he is proposing as a historic district. This makes no logical sense.
Post a Comment