|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Showing posts with label planning. Show all posts
Showing posts with label planning. Show all posts
Wednesday, May 26, 2021
Final Hearing for the Quads Parcels June 9
Wednesday, November 6, 2019
Last Stand Protest, Nov. 2, at the public parcels near the Celery Fields
Board Meets Wed. Nov. 6 to address rezoning possibly to industrial use.
1660 Ringling Blvd.
1:30 pm
Monday, October 14, 2019
Oct. 15, 2019 Email to Sarasota Planning
Dear Mr. Osterhoudt, Ms. Grogg, and Mr. Kirk,
I wish to point you to a concept touched on in a story in today's Herald Tribune, entitled Celery Fields lovers keep an eye on the land next door.
The point has to do with the evolution of something new - unplanned, unanticipated. When this happens, and when it's a good thing, is it not in the public interest for this new beneficence to be recognized, its trending potential protected, and its future prospects planned for?
Is the best way to do this to act as if nothing has happened, and it's still 1975?
It is profoundly disappointing that our elected officials have so far been unmoved by self-evident natural beauty and community commitment to the Celery Fields.
It's not clear from our reading of the CAP [Critical Area Plan] that you've taken a close enough look at the community that will be impacted by whatever goes on the Quads. How many of the questions below does your CAP actually explore?
Please request more time if necessary to do a full visioning plan for the entire Celery Fields Area. There is no rush - no one is at the door, seeking to build there. This would be a very good moment to explore the beauty and graces of the New.
Questions appended below.
Respectfully,
Tom Matrullo
There’s a great deal of knowledge about the area that this CAP should see as its duty to address -- real-life factors for thousands of people who now live there:
- What do actual trends in the industrial park show in terms of vacancies, land prices, rental prices?
- Why is no one seeking to purchase the MEC parcels in the 240 acres of the Fruitville Initiative for industry?
- Where are the vectors that would demonstrate the obvious fact that Board actions have changed the area in an overwhelming way to residential and recreational?
- Traffic analysis should include the peak times, patterns and needs of the immediate community.
- How many school children ride how many buses to school that stop on Palmer Blvd.? Why do they stop right in front of the Celery Fields Parking Lot and block all traffic in both directions? How can this be improved?
- How many people use the Celery Fields, at what times of day, what days of the week, for what purposes?
- How many groups use the Celery Fields for sports training, environmental studies, teaching, birdwatching, picnicking, stargazing, photography, dogwalking, kayaking, exercise, wedding photos and so many more purposes?
- With evermore recreational users and visitors - human and avian - from elsewhere, what plans are underway to to meet anticipated needs for parking and complementary activities such as a place to sit and enjoy a meal?
Without fully studying the area, how can you possibly plan in a way that offers reliable estimates of probable impacts?
Above except from Comment of Oct. 5.
Friday, October 4, 2019
Comment #1 on the Critical Area Plan for the Quads
Comment #1 on the Critical Area Plan for the Quads at the Celery Fields
To: Steve Kirk (skirk@scgov.net), Matt Osterhoudt (mosterho@scgov.net) Jane Grogg (jgrogg@scgov.net)
October 4, 2019
Having had the opportunity to review a draft of the Planning Department's Critical Area Plan (CAP) that concerns our public lands at the Celery Fields, we wish to offer some comments in hopes of clarifying community concerns.
Before going into detail, we wish to affirm that public lands in Sarasota County should only be considered according to community-oriented principles. A plan for public lands should:
“the negative impact on the character of the Palmer Boulevard corridor from such a change must be considered.”
This observation is highly significant; it’s a sign of the report's judicious approach to the task it was given. But -- and this is the crux of the matter -- the larger reality of that acknowledged "negative impact" is never fully given its due.
The ultimate welfare and fate of a substantial evolving area of beauty, recreation, community health and economic opportunity should be the primary and central concern of this plan, and so far, this most certainly is not the case.
Inadequate Scoping
In great measure this has to do with the design of the task, rather than with its execution. While the report seems to fulfill its objective, the design of that objective - its scoping - ignores all the most important issues that relate to the future of the Celery Fields area. At one time, the community had a hand in shaping the actual scope of a CAP - as with the Fruitville Initiative. Why not here?
What’s missing is an in-depth inquiry into the large meaningful trends transforming the entire surrounding area. In recent years, the Board has approved thousands of residences within walking distance. Children live and go to schools on buses that come along Palmer. The Celery Fields itself has become a valued amenity for residents and many visitors. The industrial park, on the other hand, often shows many vacancy signs.
Without taking into account the predominant features of the area as a whole, this plan misses what really matters: the public good. Imagine for a moment that someone applied to the Federal Government to frack a plot of land, and simply says, "this land is not close to any homes, let us frack." Now suppose the land sits atop Lincoln’s head on Mt. Rushmore -- should that fact be ignored?
What you were tasked to do is not ask, for example, how people living within walking distance of the Celery Fields will be affected by bringing industrial development forward to Palmer Blvd.
Compare the existing configuration with what is proposed: Ackerman Park serves to screen the industrial areas to its west from drivers on Apex Road. Putting industry on the Quads does precisely the opposite: It takes away the buffer (our public lands) and replaces them with construction on Palmer Boulevard. The result will be a continuous built barrier between the Celery Fields and the residential and commercial areas accessible via the Palmer Underpass. Industry would add more large truck traffic to Palmer, Porter, and Apex, which are now about to be impacted by trucks from James Gabbert’s Waste Transfer Facility.
Survey the entire community
There’s a great deal of knowledge about the area that this CAP should see as its duty to address -- real-life factors for thousands of people who now live there:
Without fully studying the area, how can you possibly plan in a way that offers reliable estimates of probable impacts?
What is clear is that the Planning Dept. was asked to look at implementing the 1975 land use designation for the Quads. Which means the task and scoping of this 2019 Critical Area Plan directs you to look away from, rather than inquire into, the greater and more fundamental questions of communal good in this changing landscape. Your findings flow ineluctably from the design of your task.
Policy and stewardship
In addition to the compromised frame, there is need for serious consideration of basic matters of stewardship, tradition, and policy. Ask anyone who has lived in Sarasota for a long time: it is not a “given” that public lands should be sold. In fact, it’s been a long-held principle in this county that public lands are public forever -- not to be sold for private development, except in rare explicable circumstances.
Our communities have shared our hopes and vision for this area with you over several years. We reiterate our expectation that you adopt community-based principles:
In addition, include in your plan strong provisions in the event the Board votes to sell or develop:
Opportunity lost
Finally, why do this at all? No applicant has asked for this. The first thing this plan should state is the Board’s explanation as to why it prefers private profiteering to the public good.
Forward-looking planning for recreation and habitat preservation will not only serve the ever-expanding population of Sarasota County; it will sustain and improve air and water quality, and enhance current property values. In addition to all else, the county will see a significantly larger monetary return by supporting public land use by and for our citizens, over a far longer period of time.
In brief: we ask that you do justice to nature, to our communities, and to the future of Sarasota: incorporate the vision, values, vitality and promise of the larger Celery Fields area in this report to the Board.
Respectfully,
Tom Matrullo
To: Steve Kirk (skirk@scgov.net), Matt Osterhoudt (mosterho@scgov.net) Jane Grogg (jgrogg@scgov.net)
October 4, 2019
Having had the opportunity to review a draft of the Planning Department's Critical Area Plan (CAP) that concerns our public lands at the Celery Fields, we wish to offer some comments in hopes of clarifying community concerns.
Before going into detail, we wish to affirm that public lands in Sarasota County should only be considered according to community-oriented principles. A plan for public lands should:
- Put people first.
- Advance Sarasota’s long-held values of good stewardship and intelligent planning.
- Situate the specific discussion within the larger context of changes and area trends.
- Respect Sarasota’s distinguished tradition of protecting and preserving public lands.
This observation is highly significant; it’s a sign of the report's judicious approach to the task it was given. But -- and this is the crux of the matter -- the larger reality of that acknowledged "negative impact" is never fully given its due.
The ultimate welfare and fate of a substantial evolving area of beauty, recreation, community health and economic opportunity should be the primary and central concern of this plan, and so far, this most certainly is not the case.
Inadequate Scoping
In great measure this has to do with the design of the task, rather than with its execution. While the report seems to fulfill its objective, the design of that objective - its scoping - ignores all the most important issues that relate to the future of the Celery Fields area. At one time, the community had a hand in shaping the actual scope of a CAP - as with the Fruitville Initiative. Why not here?
What’s missing is an in-depth inquiry into the large meaningful trends transforming the entire surrounding area. In recent years, the Board has approved thousands of residences within walking distance. Children live and go to schools on buses that come along Palmer. The Celery Fields itself has become a valued amenity for residents and many visitors. The industrial park, on the other hand, often shows many vacancy signs.
Without taking into account the predominant features of the area as a whole, this plan misses what really matters: the public good. Imagine for a moment that someone applied to the Federal Government to frack a plot of land, and simply says, "this land is not close to any homes, let us frack." Now suppose the land sits atop Lincoln’s head on Mt. Rushmore -- should that fact be ignored?
What you were tasked to do is not ask, for example, how people living within walking distance of the Celery Fields will be affected by bringing industrial development forward to Palmer Blvd.
Compare the existing configuration with what is proposed: Ackerman Park serves to screen the industrial areas to its west from drivers on Apex Road. Putting industry on the Quads does precisely the opposite: It takes away the buffer (our public lands) and replaces them with construction on Palmer Boulevard. The result will be a continuous built barrier between the Celery Fields and the residential and commercial areas accessible via the Palmer Underpass. Industry would add more large truck traffic to Palmer, Porter, and Apex, which are now about to be impacted by trucks from James Gabbert’s Waste Transfer Facility.
Survey the entire community
There’s a great deal of knowledge about the area that this CAP should see as its duty to address -- real-life factors for thousands of people who now live there:
- What do actual trends in the industrial park show in terms of vacancies, land prices, rental prices?
- Why is no one seeking to purchase the MEC parcels in the 240 acres of the Fruitville Initiative for industry?
- Where are the vectors that would demonstrate the obvious fact that Board actions have changed the area in an overwhelming way to residential and recreational?
- Traffic analysis should include the peak times, patterns and needs of the immediate community.
- How many school children ride how many buses to school that stop on Palmer Blvd.? Why do they stop right in front of the Celery Fields Parking Lot and block all traffic in both directions? How can this be improved?
- How many people use the Celery Fields, at what times of day, what days of the week, for what purposes?
- How many groups use the Celery Fields for sports training, environmental studies, teaching, birdwatching, picnicking, stargazing, photography, dogwalking, kayaking, exercise, wedding photos and so many more purposes?
- With evermore recreational users and visitors - human and avian - from elsewhere, what plans are underway to to meet anticipated needs for parking and complementary activities such as a place to sit and enjoy a meal?
Without fully studying the area, how can you possibly plan in a way that offers reliable estimates of probable impacts?
What is clear is that the Planning Dept. was asked to look at implementing the 1975 land use designation for the Quads. Which means the task and scoping of this 2019 Critical Area Plan directs you to look away from, rather than inquire into, the greater and more fundamental questions of communal good in this changing landscape. Your findings flow ineluctably from the design of your task.
Policy and stewardship
In addition to the compromised frame, there is need for serious consideration of basic matters of stewardship, tradition, and policy. Ask anyone who has lived in Sarasota for a long time: it is not a “given” that public lands should be sold. In fact, it’s been a long-held principle in this county that public lands are public forever -- not to be sold for private development, except in rare explicable circumstances.
Our communities have shared our hopes and vision for this area with you over several years. We reiterate our expectation that you adopt community-based principles:
- Put people first.
- Advance Sarasota’s long-held values of good stewardship and intelligent planning.
- Situate the specific discussion within the larger context of changes and area trends.
- Respect Sarasota’s distinguished tradition of protecting and preserving public lands.
In addition, include in your plan strong provisions in the event the Board votes to sell or develop:
- Detail specific constraints with regard to footprint, traffic, noise, architecture, lighting, noise, landscaping, business model, compatibility for any rezoning, special exception, etc.
- Require a rigorous examination of any applicant’s business practice. Restaurant Depot Tampa location is served by huge trucks, and attracts a large public trade in cheap alcohol and food -- which escaped notice when the firm applied to build on parcel #3.
 |
| Restaurant Depot sought to build a warehouse on parcel #3 This is its Tampa site |
Opportunity lost
Finally, why do this at all? No applicant has asked for this. The first thing this plan should state is the Board’s explanation as to why it prefers private profiteering to the public good.
Forward-looking planning for recreation and habitat preservation will not only serve the ever-expanding population of Sarasota County; it will sustain and improve air and water quality, and enhance current property values. In addition to all else, the county will see a significantly larger monetary return by supporting public land use by and for our citizens, over a far longer period of time.
In brief: we ask that you do justice to nature, to our communities, and to the future of Sarasota: incorporate the vision, values, vitality and promise of the larger Celery Fields area in this report to the Board.
Respectfully,
Tom Matrullo
Thursday, September 12, 2019
A Tale of Two Comp Plan Amendments: "Have a Vision"
<<Note: See update from Rod Krebs in the "Postscript" below.>>
Hearty congratulations to the Miakka Community, which on Sept. 11 won the first round in its effort to have the County process a Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) that aims to reduce density and intensity in East Sarasota County. The effort, led by Becky Ayech, is the first such amendment ever sought by citizens of Sarasota -- usually they are brought by developers.
The Miakka citizen effort speaks to the interests of all who love East Sarasota and seek to preserve its "rural heritage" lifestyle.
Some 26 speakers supported the Miakka group. Rod Krebs, a landowner and lead developer seeking to intensify the area, spoke against the initiative.
One highlight of the meeting was Former Sarasota Commissioner Paul Mercier's brief, direct and crystal clear message to the Board: Understand where the community itself wants to go -- and -- "have a vision."
Communities concerned about our elected officials selling public lands near the Celery Fields for industrial, commercial, or affordable housing uses have been saying the same thing for a few years now. Mercier just said it better.
Here's his brief comment:
The next step normally would be for the Planning Department to do a study of the proposed amendment, and bring it to the county in about nine months. However, on Thursday, Sept. 19, the Planning Commission will hear about another CPA -- from Krebs, who is seeking to increase the density near Verna and Fruitville -- the very area Miakka wishes to de-intensify.
Hearty congratulations to the Miakka Community, which on Sept. 11 won the first round in its effort to have the County process a Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) that aims to reduce density and intensity in East Sarasota County. The effort, led by Becky Ayech, is the first such amendment ever sought by citizens of Sarasota -- usually they are brought by developers.
The Miakka citizen effort speaks to the interests of all who love East Sarasota and seek to preserve its "rural heritage" lifestyle.
Some 26 speakers supported the Miakka group. Rod Krebs, a landowner and lead developer seeking to intensify the area, spoke against the initiative.
Communities concerned about our elected officials selling public lands near the Celery Fields for industrial, commercial, or affordable housing uses have been saying the same thing for a few years now. Mercier just said it better.
Here's his brief comment:
The Board's decision for Miakka wasn't a sure thing. Two commissioners, Al Maio and Charles Hines, both of whom are term-limited and won't face re-election, voted against it. Mike Moran, Nancy Detert, and Christian Ziegler hedged their support with various reservations, hesitations, and ambivalences, noting that reducing density near Verna and Fruitville roads could be interpreted to be a "land grab" - infringing on the rights of owners such as Krebs.
If the Planning Commission recommends approval of Krebs' initiative (in June they overwhelmingly recommended denial of Miakka's petition), it will come before the Board in a few months. If the Board approves Krebs's amendment, it could nullify Miakka's CPA before it gets off the ground.
Such are the complications of amendments coming from both ends of the development field -- existing homeowners seeking to protect their traditional lifestyle, and developers seeking to create new communities that will intensify roads and make new demands on resources.
Where does whose property rights begin and end? This is the large question underlying this conflict between these Comprehensive Plan Amendments: the intensification sought by Krebs (2018-c) and the opposite goal of the Miakka Community (2019-c).
These opposing proposals reveal a fundamental conflict underpinning Sarasota County's bi-polar assumptions about land use and ownership, human rights, environmental awareness, business interests, and citizen participation in local government. In brief, our vision of how to grow in a manner that does justice to all parties.
 |
| Board of Sarasota County Commissioners |
Such questions deserve a full, wide-open public discussion, rather than being reduced to fears about whether the County could be sued if they do not let a developer change what he bought to maximize his return. Developers do not usually live on land they develop -- they work it, earn their profits, and move on.
What the Board really needs to address is precisely what Paul Mercier said: Where is the community going, and what is the Board's Vision.
In recent years, communities concerned about land uses and impacts upon the shared treasure we call the Celery Fields have offered the County our sense of where we want to go with our public lands. Time and again we've met with a silence louder than words -- an absence of vision, of direction, perhaps even of care. It speaks of a Board that obeys orders from someone other than the people they are supposed to represent.
For the people of Miakka to present the objective of preserving Rural Heritage - the vision of their community - for the Board to consider in all its ramifications is a wonderful first step.
We'll watch what the Planning Commission does on Sept. 19, as we prepare for the Board's consideration of industry at the Celery Fields in early November.
See more of the 9.11 Miakka Community hearing here
 |
| Verna and Fruitville Roads in East Sarasota County |
Postscript:
Two days after the 9.11 hearing, developer Rod Krebs sent an email to selected citizens indicating that he has communicated to the County his intention to postpone his Comp Plan Amendment. Stating that he is open to "creative solution to satisfy such disparate needs . . . as traffic, utilities, and water quality in the area," Krebs wrote that he is willing to work to resolve these issues, adding:
Two days after the 9.11 hearing, developer Rod Krebs sent an email to selected citizens indicating that he has communicated to the County his intention to postpone his Comp Plan Amendment. Stating that he is open to "creative solution to satisfy such disparate needs . . . as traffic, utilities, and water quality in the area," Krebs wrote that he is willing to work to resolve these issues, adding:
Be advised that we have requested a 9 month continuance of our CPA 2018-C petition & don't expect a presentation at the 9/19/19 Planning Commission.
Monday, September 9, 2019
Planning not to plan
 |
| Wall at James Gabbert's WTF at Porter and Palmer |
Above is a photo taken yesterday (9.8.19) of the wall which James Gabbert is building to "hide" his waste transfer facility (WTF) at Porter and Palmer. It will hide his waste piles from passing motorists - millions of them on the highway annually - about as well as it will keep traffic flowing while his trucks enter and leave at Palmer Blvd. opposite Bell Rd.
Sarasota County does not plan; it prefers to offer concierge services to its friends.
On Wednesday, citizens of Miakka in East County will attempt to get the Board to allow their proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment to proceed. I.e., they are not asking the Board to approve changes, but merely to allow the Planning Dept. to consider a rural heritage vision of East County.
The "Planning Commission" -- an appointed board stuffed with realtors, insurance people and development interests -- already said "NO" to the Miakka Community of East Sarasota. They expressed dismay that citizens would dare propose a Comp Plan amendment to protect their way of life from leapfrog intensification - which developers are now proposing.
Keep an eye on the Board action on Wednesday afternoon, when Becky Ayech and the Miakka community ask our elected officials to allow the planning department to consider an actual plan.
Because in November, the Board will once again take up our public lands at the Quads. And they will discuss a plan - not a plan made by citizens, but directed by the Board.
The time to plan for the Quads was August 2017, when the people told the Board to not even consider industry on public land on Palmer Blvd. Early evidence is that they are still considering industry at the Quads, for the parcels west of Apex Rd.
They can say, "well, Parcel #2 (SW corner) is already bordered by Mr. Gabbert's WTF" - yes, now it is - because they didn't ever have a plan, a vision for the area, which fundamentally changed thanks to the Celery Fields, to Audubon, to the Fruitville Initiative, and to new residents who do not care to live next to industry.
Let's see what happens on 9.11, 1:30 pm, when Rural Heritage values come before the Board.
 |
| Rural Miakka |
Saturday, July 20, 2019
Recap before pending Celery Fields decisions
The Celery Fields offers residents the freedom of walking, exercising, birding, kayaking, fishing - as well as a touch of fresh air, cool breezes at the summit, fantastic sunsets and tranquility.
While things might be quiet there now, they're not dull. At the moment, our public lands adjacent to the Celery Fields are in a suspended state. We await a critical area plan report that is anticipated to be released in time for a Nov. 6 Board discussion. What the Board decides then is likely to lead to rezonings, area plan amendments, and one or more key public hearings.
Below is a recap of recent activity regarding future possible decisions on the public Quad parcels near the nature and birding sanctuary.
After the Gabbert Waste Facility hearing of August 23, 2017, the Board never swayed from its plan to sell our public land to industrial or other uses. More than 60 people spoke to them at that hearing about all the reasons the public Quad parcels should serve uses that benefit the people. The Board did nothing.
In 2018, after 10 months of input from residents who initiated a formal process to bring ideas from the community for our public lands, the Board did nothing.
Meanwhile James Gabbert began work on his Waste Transfer Station (or, the WTF) on six acres of land he bought adjacent to Quad Parcel #2. Work is ongoing - this is a heavy industrial use situated on thin, failing roads; it will be visible to drivers along the Interstate. Commissioners Al Maio and Charles Hines voted to approve this plan of Gabbert's back in 2014. For more background, see this detailed timeline.
After one commissioner said no further uses - industrial or otherwise - ought to be considered on the Quad parcels unless something is done about the roads, the Board in January ordered the Planning Department to undertake a Critical Area Plan, or CAP of the Quad parcels and the surrounding area.
That process has continued since then. Lead planner Steve Kirk held a neighborhood workshop on May 14. The Church of Hope venue overflowed with citizens offering input. No one spoke in favor of selling our public lands for commercial or industrial uses.
In advance of the workshop, several new proposals or planning concepts were submitted to the Planning Department, which reposted them on this page.
After the May 14 workshop, a few new ideas arose as well:
A couple of days ago, lead CAP planner Steve Kirk offered a few updates by phone. Key points are summarized below (italicized sections are not from Kirk but from the editors):
The Board has not yet given any indication to Planning about affordable housing. They could address the issue upon their return. A"Think Tank" workshop for the Board is scheduled for Aug. 21.
While the Commissioners could direct planning to take steps to put affordable housing on the Quad parcels, doing so before the CAP process is complete would be out of sequence.
If the Board has any respect for sound planning or for the community, it will allow the planning department to complete a rigorous critical planning process, then use the results as the basis for considering the best options for our public lands at the Celery Fields.
 |
| Celery Fields drone photo courtesy of Emanuel Guzman |
While things might be quiet there now, they're not dull. At the moment, our public lands adjacent to the Celery Fields are in a suspended state. We await a critical area plan report that is anticipated to be released in time for a Nov. 6 Board discussion. What the Board decides then is likely to lead to rezonings, area plan amendments, and one or more key public hearings.
Below is a recap of recent activity regarding future possible decisions on the public Quad parcels near the nature and birding sanctuary.
After the Gabbert Waste Facility hearing of August 23, 2017, the Board never swayed from its plan to sell our public land to industrial or other uses. More than 60 people spoke to them at that hearing about all the reasons the public Quad parcels should serve uses that benefit the people. The Board did nothing.
In 2018, after 10 months of input from residents who initiated a formal process to bring ideas from the community for our public lands, the Board did nothing.
Meanwhile James Gabbert began work on his Waste Transfer Station (or, the WTF) on six acres of land he bought adjacent to Quad Parcel #2. Work is ongoing - this is a heavy industrial use situated on thin, failing roads; it will be visible to drivers along the Interstate. Commissioners Al Maio and Charles Hines voted to approve this plan of Gabbert's back in 2014. For more background, see this detailed timeline.
That process has continued since then. Lead planner Steve Kirk held a neighborhood workshop on May 14. The Church of Hope venue overflowed with citizens offering input. No one spoke in favor of selling our public lands for commercial or industrial uses.
In advance of the workshop, several new proposals or planning concepts were submitted to the Planning Department, which reposted them on this page.
After the May 14 workshop, a few new ideas arose as well:
- Sarasota Audubon proposed an Urban Forest on Parcel #1, the SE Quad next to the Celery Fields wetlands. Such a forest would offer diversified habitat for birds, new nesting areas, as well as walkable parkland for residents.
- The Conservation Foundation of the Gulf Coast called for identifying a larger Rural Heritage Conservation Area that would offer a variety of uses and serve as a Central Park for eastern Sarasota, which is about to explode with new development. The area would include the Quad Parcels, the Celery Fields, and more properties totaling 1,300 acres.
 |
| Conservation Foundation Vision of Rural Heritage Area |
- In June, Commissioner Hines threw out an idea to put affordable housing on Parcel #2, and said he'd like to see some action toward that end before the Board took its summer break beginning July 22.
- In June, environmental advocate Jono Miller wrote to the Board advising against affordable housing on the Quad parcels. Miller proposed another possible use for the Quad parcels, a history and natural history center.
- A similar suggestion for a combined museum and nature center forms part of the Celery Fields Community Estate group's proposal, which also includes a wealth of creative ideas for all four parcels.
 |
| Looking West at Sunset |
- The May 14 workshop was the sole public workshop to be held in this process. The gist of the public input was clear - "pretty black and white," as he put it.
- Kirk aims to present results of the CAP study to the Board -- the tentative date is Nov. 6, 2019.
- Planning will transmit the critical area plan results - including community input - to the Board a week before the public discussion on Nov. 6 (or whenever it's held). No information about the findings of the area planning process will be available to the public before it is transmitted to the Board, Kirk noted. The Board authorized the report, and its contents will not be shared with the public ahead of when it's sent to the Board.
- When the Commissioners discuss the CAP, that discussion is not a public hearing. Yet, at that point, the Commissioners can do as they wish - they asked for the study, but are not bound by it, so they can ignore it and proceed to authorize a rezoning for whatever purposes they wish.
- Whatever the Commissioners decide, they will probably order a rezoning of the Quad parcels, and a CAP amendment to enable changes to the plan. They could even order a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Kirk added. Each of these processes calls for a public hearing. For example, if the Board votes to rezone one or more parcels for industrial use, even if no industrial developer is known to be asking for it, that rezoning process can go forward.
EDITOR's NOTE: This could lead to a peculiar step in planning: At an industrial rezoning hearing, for example, the public will be given the opportunity to speak, but there might be no information as to what sort of industrial use could eventually go on these lands near the Celery Fields. Should the Board decide to authorize industrial rezoning, respect for the area and for the community demands that any such directive be very specific, and include strong proactive and protective constraints: No heavy industry, no trucks, no environmental pollution, no eyesores, etc. Anything less would open the doors to yet another Gabbert waste facility, giant slovenly warehouse, or worse.
 |
| Commissioners Hines and Detert |
The Board has not yet given any indication to Planning about affordable housing. They could address the issue upon their return. A"Think Tank" workshop for the Board is scheduled for Aug. 21.
While the Commissioners could direct planning to take steps to put affordable housing on the Quad parcels, doing so before the CAP process is complete would be out of sequence.
If the Board has any respect for sound planning or for the community, it will allow the planning department to complete a rigorous critical planning process, then use the results as the basis for considering the best options for our public lands at the Celery Fields.
 |
| Courtesy of Chuck Behrmann |
Monday, June 10, 2019
June Update on Public Lands at the Celery Fields
Barely had June 2019 begun when two new proposals involving our public "Quad" parcels at the Celery Fields came forward -- one from a County Commissioner, the other from a private foundation. The differences in their approaches are revealing.
The Conservation Foundation of the Gulf Coast proposes to acquire 24 acres on Palmer Boulevard across from Tatum Ridge Elementary School to set aside for conservation. Currently it holds a horse farm called "Graceland," but a developer is seeking to put a housing development there -- 42 quarter-acre homesites.
The Foundation's vision goes beyond acquiring this parcel, however. Graceland, says Foundation President Christine Johnson, would be the easternmost parcel within a continuous area extending from the highway to Tatum Ridge Road: a 1,300-acre "rural heritage conservation area" comprehending the Quad parcels, Audubon Nature Center, the Celery Fields and a 140-acre wildlife conservation park that includes Big Cat and beyond to Tatum Road.
Under this plan, the 24-acre Graceland parcel would receive a conservation easement barring development in perpetuity. The land could be dedicated to equestrian uses benefiting the public: riding, hippotherapy, school visits, education, and more, says Johnson, who noted that several schools are nearby, including Tatum Ridge, Fruitville Elementary, McIntosh Middle, the Farm School, and more.
As the map legend below shows, the Foundation projects beneficial public uses on the Quad at Apex and Palmer, including an urban forest and wildlife habitat, a history center, a school bus shelter:
The second new idea involving our public lands came on June 4, when Commissioner Charles Hines suggested selling the southwest public parcel (#2, 10 acres) to a developer of affordable housing.
Mr. Hines noted that developers of affordable housing have not been knocking down his door, but didn’t articulate why. Perhaps, for example, the Board's willingness to tolerate developer overreach -- e.g. Siesta Promenade, LT Ranch, Waterside and more -- has disincentivized low-profit housing construction.
And, while affordable housing is indeed a goal that requires careful planning and policy incentives, Mr. Hines' fixing on public land that has been the subject of intense community interest for more than two years seemed to lurch suddenly out of left field.
In fact all four Quad parcels were the subject last year of a 10-month citizen effort to recommend compatible public uses that would rule out private industry. Sarasota Audubon has proposed an urban forest, others including Jono Miller have spoken of a history museum, a multi-use community estate, and more. Commissioners Al Maio and Mike Moran have both gone on record favoring sale to private industrial profiteers, including waste plant operator James Gabbert.
In January the Board found the Quads to be an area of critical concern, and, given the current narrow two-lane roads and levels of service, admitted that industrial development is not possible on these parcels. It ordered staff to reopen the Critical Area Plan, or CAP, for the area. This launched an in-depth, 11-month process examining all factors relating to potential uses of the public parcels -- roads, surrounding uses, trending demographic and environmental changes and much more. A public workshop held as part of the CAP process on May 14 brought out some 300 residents -- not a single one of whom spoke in favor of industrial development or affordable housing.
A Board decision approving affordable housing on parcel #2 by July 22 (Sarasota News Leader) will disrupt the methodical critical area planning now underway, as well as fly in the face of community and environmentalists' long-held views.
Clearly two very different approaches are exemplified here. The Foundation is advocating uses in keeping with the trends and surrounding human communities, integrating a long-range vision of a lasting rural heritage and wildlife conservation for future generations.
Mr. Hines conversely is promoting a quick fix to motivate the private construction of less costly housing, apparently without regard to how such an initiative would impact a host of significant social, environmental, economic and infrastructural concerns in a complex, radically changing area.
Another difference has to do with scope. The Foundation is looking wide and long term. The Board appears to be looking at one 10-acre parcel as if it existed in a spatio-temporal vacuum. The history, context and future of the Quad cannot be ignored -- which is why the county ordered the Critical Area Plan in January.
A credible CAP will form a faithful portrait of the entire Quad/Celery Fields area -- so that Sarasota as a community can assess the future needs and benefits of realistic options in a meaningful public process.
A lot is riding on this. If our elected officials have insufficient information, their decision-making authority is compromised. But if they have that information and choose to ignore it, a different public response will be needed.
It’s in our voting power to change the political landscape -- as dramatically as 246 species of birds have transformed the nature of a former industrial area. When good things happen -- like the Celery Fields -- they deserve prudent stewardship for all our citizens.
The Conservation Foundation seeks donors to help realize its vision
(This conservation effort ended June 30)
The Conservation Foundation of the Gulf Coast proposes to acquire 24 acres on Palmer Boulevard across from Tatum Ridge Elementary School to set aside for conservation. Currently it holds a horse farm called "Graceland," but a developer is seeking to put a housing development there -- 42 quarter-acre homesites.
The Foundation's vision goes beyond acquiring this parcel, however. Graceland, says Foundation President Christine Johnson, would be the easternmost parcel within a continuous area extending from the highway to Tatum Ridge Road: a 1,300-acre "rural heritage conservation area" comprehending the Quad parcels, Audubon Nature Center, the Celery Fields and a 140-acre wildlife conservation park that includes Big Cat and beyond to Tatum Road.
Under this plan, the 24-acre Graceland parcel would receive a conservation easement barring development in perpetuity. The land could be dedicated to equestrian uses benefiting the public: riding, hippotherapy, school visits, education, and more, says Johnson, who noted that several schools are nearby, including Tatum Ridge, Fruitville Elementary, McIntosh Middle, the Farm School, and more.
As the map legend below shows, the Foundation projects beneficial public uses on the Quad at Apex and Palmer, including an urban forest and wildlife habitat, a history center, a school bus shelter:
=====
The second new idea involving our public lands came on June 4, when Commissioner Charles Hines suggested selling the southwest public parcel (#2, 10 acres) to a developer of affordable housing.
|
| Quads Parcels at Apex & Palmer |
And, while affordable housing is indeed a goal that requires careful planning and policy incentives, Mr. Hines' fixing on public land that has been the subject of intense community interest for more than two years seemed to lurch suddenly out of left field.
In fact all four Quad parcels were the subject last year of a 10-month citizen effort to recommend compatible public uses that would rule out private industry. Sarasota Audubon has proposed an urban forest, others including Jono Miller have spoken of a history museum, a multi-use community estate, and more. Commissioners Al Maio and Mike Moran have both gone on record favoring sale to private industrial profiteers, including waste plant operator James Gabbert.
In January the Board found the Quads to be an area of critical concern, and, given the current narrow two-lane roads and levels of service, admitted that industrial development is not possible on these parcels. It ordered staff to reopen the Critical Area Plan, or CAP, for the area. This launched an in-depth, 11-month process examining all factors relating to potential uses of the public parcels -- roads, surrounding uses, trending demographic and environmental changes and much more. A public workshop held as part of the CAP process on May 14 brought out some 300 residents -- not a single one of whom spoke in favor of industrial development or affordable housing.
A Board decision approving affordable housing on parcel #2 by July 22 (Sarasota News Leader) will disrupt the methodical critical area planning now underway, as well as fly in the face of community and environmentalists' long-held views.
 |
| A view of "Graceland" |
Mr. Hines conversely is promoting a quick fix to motivate the private construction of less costly housing, apparently without regard to how such an initiative would impact a host of significant social, environmental, economic and infrastructural concerns in a complex, radically changing area.
Another difference has to do with scope. The Foundation is looking wide and long term. The Board appears to be looking at one 10-acre parcel as if it existed in a spatio-temporal vacuum. The history, context and future of the Quad cannot be ignored -- which is why the county ordered the Critical Area Plan in January.
A credible CAP will form a faithful portrait of the entire Quad/Celery Fields area -- so that Sarasota as a community can assess the future needs and benefits of realistic options in a meaningful public process.
A lot is riding on this. If our elected officials have insufficient information, their decision-making authority is compromised. But if they have that information and choose to ignore it, a different public response will be needed.
It’s in our voting power to change the political landscape -- as dramatically as 246 species of birds have transformed the nature of a former industrial area. When good things happen -- like the Celery Fields -- they deserve prudent stewardship for all our citizens.
The Conservation Foundation seeks donors to help realize its vision
(This conservation effort ended June 30)
Sunday, May 12, 2019
Public Input on uses for public lands - workshop set for May 14
The planning workshop that seeks public input on rezoning the public lands at the Celery Fields will be held on May 14 at the Church of Hope, at 6 pm.
|
| Photo courtesy of Chuck Behrmann |
Fresh Start's proposals for the Quads -- public lands at Apex and Palmer -- will be among those presented at the workshop. To make sure all the essential materials, reports and proposals are open for consideration, we're sending the following documents to the Planning Dept.:
We'd welcome co-signers from the communities that care about this issue on the email that will accompany these documents. Please let us know quite soon if you'd like it to include your name.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)