Will this Benderson Initiative destroy the Fruitville Initiative?

To: County Planners and Planning Commissioners

RE: Rezone 21-02; SPA PED Rezone; Comp Plan Amendment 2021-B

To: Steve.Kirk <skirk@scgov.net>, Andrew.Stultz@sarasotaadvisory.net, Colin.Pember@sarasotaadvisory.net, Joseph.Neunder@sarasotaadvisory.net, Kevin.Cooper@sarasotaadvisory.net, Laura.Benson@sarasotaadvisory.net, Teresa.Mast@sarasotaadvisory.net, Neil.Rainford@sarasotaadvisory.net, Drew.Peters@sarasotaadvisory.net, Justin.Taylor@sarasotaadvisory.net, Frank.Strelec@sarasotaadvisory.net, Matt Osterhoudt <mosterho@scgov.net>

Dear Mr. Kirk, Mr. Osterhoudt, and Planning Commissioners:

This concerns the Aug. 5, 2021 hearing regarding the matters listed above.

I've heard from a variety of people who seriously question the changes Benderson Inc. wishes to impose on SPA-3.

Those who were involved in the development of the Ordinance for the Fruitville Initiative recall that its #1 distinctive feature was to disallow self-standing Big Box stores. The entire concept was of a walkable community not infested with giant trucks, a place built on MEC strictures in which workplaces and residences took priority. Retail was supposed to be local, not regional, in order to avoid a large volume of commercial consumer traffic.

I'm informed that according to the traffic study, the proposed 179,200 sf increase in stand-alone retail will increase average daily and PM peak trips 3,908 and 466, respectively.

But this is hard to prove - wouldn't the level of traffic depend on the nature of the retail on site? If instead of a nice butcher shop or cafe we suddenly have a Bass Pro, or Target, the traffic could become significantly greater in volume, drawing people from a distance. If this area were designed as a shopping center, that would be welcome. But the whole point of the Initiative was to create something different - local, walkable living/working neighborhoods. And the reason for that was to do something unusual, that set Sarasota apart. Indeed, I recall people in 2011 speaking about how as a "Gateway" area, the Initiative would send the message that Sarasota is not the same as every other place along I-75 - its unique attention to sensible, well-planned growth would be on display.

Basically, if that was the premise of the original form-based code of the Initiative, then allowing large, free-standing retail (requiring truck service areas) would disrupt the street grid and draw extraneous traffic in ways that would make a hash of that original premise. What Benderson is seeking basically undermines what started as a coherent, unified plan for a certain kind of community - sabotaging it, with County permission, into incoherence and conflicting goals.

It seems to me - and others I've spoken with - that what Benderson seeks is not a minor modification, but a transformation of the vision, purpose, and inherent nature of the Initiative. If this is the case, then we are not dealing with an "amendment" - rather this is a radical imposition of a shopping mecca upon what was conceived of as someone's living/working space.

What would it say if instead of creating a showcase for Sarasota's good planning sense, Sarasota County ended up compromising its principles and destroying that very goal?

Thanks for giving this your consideration at your hearing of August 5, 2021.

The Planning Commission hearing will be online here.

Tom Matrullo
Citizens for Sarasota County

Changing Demands in Form-Based Codes

Reposted from SRQ

"You talk to millennials or to aging boomers and what they are looking for in places is the ability to get to activities they want to go to in the shortest time possible, whether that is parks, museums or coffee houses," he said. "They want to be close to things, and time has become much more important."

Development

BY JACOB OGLES   |   SRQ DAILY FRESHLY SQUEEZED CONTENT EVERY MORNING   |   WEDNESDAY OCT 1, 2014

Whether helping pull together celebrated redevelopment efforts in Orlando or contributing to a major revitalization of Nashville, Rick Bernhardt has been in the background helping make sure legal aspects of key projects come together. During a visit to Sarasota as a guest of the Downtown Sarasota Alliance, he stressed good planning can make sure developments aren't stalled, largely by getting the entire community on board with the same vision.

"We had situations in Nashville of 30 years of conflict with neighbors and developers and nothing ever got built," Bernhardt, executive director of the Metropolitan Nashville-Davidson County Planning Department  told SRQ in advance of a Tuesday night event at The Francis. "But the system was set up to bring a proposal to neighborhoods and have them respond. We never opened up the process to say what was important to neighborhoods and what they actually would want. The system was set up to be contentious."

Bernhardt more recently has won accolades for work turning that pattern around, notably through the adoption of more than 30 form-based codes aimed at establishing a shared vision for growth and bringing it to fruition. The codes were developed through a process that involved the community, and that has led to developers being able to move on projects with less opposition.

Of course, form-based codes are not new to Sarasota, and Bernhardt had some role in bringing them here as well. He was one of the consultants working with Duany Plater-Zyberk and Company more than a decade ago on the Downtown Sarasota Master Plan. It has been between eight and ten years since Bernhardt was last in Sarasota, but at first blush he likes what he sees. "It looks like a lot of the plan has been implemented," he said. "The streets look nice and the scale is good."

Tensions between neighborhoods and developers, though, have not disappeared. The conflict remains central to the city politic, and also has been the greatest source of discord in an update to the Sarasota County 2050 Plan.

Even when a community vision is put forth, Bernhardt said, it needs routine updates. Modern demands for more dense urban cores are a perfect demonstration of why, he said. 

"If you look at the plans in the early 2000s, even up to 2005, things were very different from today," he said. "Nobody actively anticipated the change in millennials—the change in household size, household make-up and demand for an urban community." While people a decade ago still tended not to buy homes until they started families, a shift in mindset has younger buyers getting units now. Combined with the retiree population that lives an active lifestyle for longer, Bernhardt noted, the highest demand in the housing market is not for one-person homes.

Beyond housing, there is also a change in demand for centralized amenities, which means dense, mixed-use development. "You talk to millennials or to aging boomers and what they are looking for in places is the ability to get to activities they want to go to in the shortest time possible, whether that is parks, museums or coffee houses," he said. "They want to be close to things, and time has become much more important."

North of the Border, Walkability is hot

TreeHugger recently discussed a study that showed how most Americans wished they didn't live where they had to drive so much. North of the border, a new survey by Environics for the Royal Bank and Pembina Institute (PDF Here) finds that people in the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) are voting with their feet, and are trading house size for "location efficiency", defined as:

• Walkability: the ability to walk or cycle to stores, restaurants and other amenities
• Mixed-use neighbourhoods: a mix of residential homes, businesses and amenities all within walking distance, rather than just one or the other
• Convenient access to rapid transit and shorter commute times, along with realistic opportunities to travel to work and other key destinations without a car

Young buyers and seniors will pay more for location efficiency.

© Pembina Institute
More....