JANET AUBREY/STOLTZFUS EMAILS

-----Original Message-----
From: Harry Stoltzfus
To: catpeople@aol.com
Sent: Thu, Feb 11, 2010 2:54 pm
Subject: Comp Plan Language
Janet,

Under the Land Use Element in the Comp Plan, Policy 1.2.1.

To preserve the unique, historic cottage type housing and the existing single family residential character of the City, within one year after adoption of the EAR amendments, the City of Anna Maria shall conduct a review of existing development processes and building requirements to develop a listing of actions that the City can implement to encourage property owners to build less than the maximum size buildings on existing small 5000 sq. ft. lots.

Seems clear to me the City needn’t apologize for constricting a building’s size through regulation. It’s apparently a desired outcome. Gagne seems to have gotten the message. He’s actually putting up stuff that still looks like cottages. Seen anything else like that recently?

From: catpeople@aol.com [mailto:catpeople@aol.com]
Sent: Friday, February 12, 2010 11:40 AM
To: harry@harconcorp.com
Subject: Re: Comp Plan Language

Dear Harry,

Thanks for sending this. I agree with it - although probably not to the extent it might have a negative economic impact on property owners - especially those who have already purchased property for millions of dollars having been told by the city they can develop it in ROR in a economically feasible way. As I mentioned to you the other day, I am extremely anti-lawsuit especially so when we force people into a corner where they have no option but to sue us and where there is already strong precedent for us to lose as we have in the past on the same issue.

In Anna Maria, an appeal to property owners through personal persuasian and an opportunity to participate in doing a good thing for the City usually works better (and a lot faster) than trying to try to take their existing rights away via additional/new/reinterpreted legislation. And honestly, Harry, as an admitted idealist - I can look around at what has occurred here over the years and feel good about what a wonderful place it is. There have been mistakes and everything isn't to my own taste, certainly there is room for improvement (eg landscaping which is a cheap solution to a lot of evils) but all in all I think we have a very good balance between what people have a right to do and what we as a community have a right to expect.

By way of illustrating my commitment to many of things you obviously care about too and mention here, I have spent a great deal of time with Dale Woodland lately trying to come up with a way to save local cottages and create an historic village on Pine Avenue. He and I have been at work for a while now with the Thrashers (who own a significant amount of land on Pine) and other various pertinent parties like Danny Gagne and Sissy Quinn to make this a reality. We have already begun work with "the architect" to create the village while addressing the economic requirements unique to the Thrashers based upon their financial investment and expectations for a return on it. And we don't draw a line without first talking to the City Building Dept. As you probably know, the Thrashers are not longer part of PAR however, upon Gene's and my request, Ed gave Lizzie and Mike the old Sears Cottage PAR owns to help us kick off our village. We now have 3 historic cottages and are looking for a couple more if you know of anyone who has one to donate to the cause. We have a building mover who has evaluated the moving of the Sears cottage and given us a price. We might even take the Angler's Inn if it was offered and we could make that work. The mover says "anything" can be moved. But of course it's all about the dollars.

Additionally, Dale and I have discussed and hope to ultimately propose a plan that offers incentives to owners of the cottages within the City to maintain them as they are today. That is still in the research phase however we are committed to following through on it.

Gene and I are always in conversations with PAR to find new and better ways to achieve/preserve a more historic look for Pine while being mindful of the economic parameters. We all wish we didn't have to deal with economics but we do. I don't know how well you know Ed Chiles but I think he has already demonstrated - in keeping with the comp plan language you sent me which I didn't even know about - his desire "to do less from a building size" standpoint on his first projects on Pine by building far lower than the allowable square footage via his design criteria which is to build a full floor below the height allowed by code. By doing so he is sacrificing a lot of square footage and taking an economic hit for the greater good that he didn't have to. I doubt you would find many developers who would do that.

I think the Thrashers, who feel similarly to Ed, will likely want to do the same thing. In my mind, we are fortunate we don't have developers working here who "take it to the max" in terms of both allowable buildable square footage and maximized rate of return on investment. I don't look at what is and say its bad, I look at what could be and I have two visions. One is really good and one scares the you know what out of me. I think you see the same thing but we may differ slightly on how we want to go forth to ensure we get the really good vision. We need to continue to work with the business community to keep on finding new and better ways to improve how we are doing things in ROR and throughout the City.

Nobody wishes more than all of us who get involved in these things that property values were low enough to be able to build all cottages here. But unless the city or private citizens want to invest in that desire with low to no return on their investment it won't happen. I am not being sarcastic by the way. Dale and I think an initiative to invest in the historic district and offering incentives to allow more cottages to be saved would be a great idea and a way more constructive use of city money than more studies, fighting and lawsuits.

Harry, I think you are one of the good guys and I can both see and share your frustrations. We have much more in common than not. The way people work and think around here just isn't "normal". I know it isn't funny but I had to laugh at the meeting last night when everyone agreed that driving over sidewalks should stay on the table?!? That is quintessential Anna Maria politics....and our history is littered with people who thought talking til they are blue in the face would change it. It won't. You have to literally get in the boat and row with the rest of us - and you won't get it all your way - but you will get somewhere better than where we are now. You will need your patience (yes I'm short on it too obviously), your charm, your brains and - most of all - your sense of humor.

We could achieve a lot working together Harry and I think you would find, as I have, that being inside the tent offers an opportunity to effect positive change rather quickly without cumbersome public meetings and additional legislation which will always be subject to a new interpretation every time we get a new commissioner, a new property owner, a new developer, or a new attorney in the mix.

As you know, a lot goes on at our house because Gene and I are very actively involved in a lot of the work being done in the City - some with clients and a lot of it volunteer. We really don't line up with any particular group unless they have something constructive to offer. We like viable, creative solutions way more than rancor and criticism. We hate pavement and strip centers. We like smart people with good taste. We like landscaping of all kinds and lots of it. And we don't believe in driving over sidewalks. Most of all we have a passion for Anna Maria and, in my case, the love affair started when I first came here in 1960.

I would really like it if you would come by the house on a regular basis to see what projects we're working on and give us the benefit of your participation and ideas. While you hang out with some people I don't necessarily have much in common with, I know I do the same. We both have our reasons. I get you Harry. And I think you get me too. We should be working more closely because together we could accomplish a lot of good for the City and have fun doing it. What do you think?

Best,

Janet

PS Gene said he saw you at Slim's last night and he felt your pain over how frustrated you are by trying to have any type of reasonable exchange at these meetings. Oddly enough, Ed made the same comment to me during the meeting. I don't think any of us are that far apart on coming up with good solutions. It's just the process at City Hall isn't condusive to it which is why I have never run for office.





Hi Janet,
I’m also opposed to taking away people’s property rights, but I suspect we disagree on exactly what that means. In my opinion, the economic feasibility of a project depends more on the developer than it does on the City. When I review the changes adopted in our land development regulations over the past five years, I can’t find a single one that didn’t loosen the regulations for developers and make their lots more buildable and more profitable. I think the City has been very pro-active, even accommodating, in encouraging development.
I applaud anyone who can build a successful business. I know how tough a job that is. And I’m the last one to suggest arbitrary impediments for those individuals.
The issues here in Anna Maria are extremely simple in one sense, and very complex in another. I sympathize with those who’ve purchased property here when the market still had underpinnings. I’m no real estate expert and I’m not much of an economics expert either, but I’m guessing we haven’t seen the bottom of this market. I know the value of my house has nearly halved, and I would not be shocked it dropped another 50% from where it is today. I’m totally doomsday regarding the effects of the debt load Obama has placed on us.
I digress. But I make those observations in light of the economic pressure on anyone trying to develop here, or anywhere else for that matter. It’s a tough market right now. In Harcon, my business, we’re reducing debt, not accumulating it. I wouldn’t build a commercial building right now for love nor money.
I applaud the Thrasher’s attempts to save cottages. I wish some of the other builders would consider the same approach.

I don’t have much time to devote to a response to your letter today. Friends of ours lost their house to a fire last night, and I’m trying to help them get through their personal tragedy. And I’m drafting some stuff for the next Commissioner’s meeting as well.

I look forward to continued discussions regarding the future of Anna Maria.
Cordially,
Harry


You can form you own opinion to Ms. Aubrey's emails.