Come to Pine Avenue Parking Commission Meetings!

I went to the Anna Maria City Commission meeting yesterday.

They talked about sand for awhile, then in the last few minutes, it seemed, they apparently adopted what looks like a new parking plan of which no citizens, and perhaps not even the commissioners themselves, understand the consequences.

From my view in the audience, it appeared that the commission will do away with the regulation that says businesses on Pine Avenue need a certain number of parking spaces on their lot. Instead, they will let cars back into the street. Everything that had to do with previous parking regulations has disappeared.

Now Alan Garret is going to write up, I think, (it was all kind of muddle-y,) new regulations that redefine “on-site” to mean a general parking area which has no relationship to the size of the building, and may or may not include a bit of on-site area.

The unintended consequences of this new parking idea has not been addressed. A few of these consequences include:

- 1 This plan increases congestion:

lots of cars will back into the street, as opposed to our present requirement of one driveway into the street from each on-site parking area

- 2 This plan is not safe:

lots of segways, bikes, four-man-bike-carriages, and pedestrians will pass behind cars on the right of way. Even though a meandering sidewalk near the buildings will be built, people generally want to get from point A to B in a straight line--in this case one that follows the street behind parked cars. And passing behind a parked car is never safe.

- 3 This plan changes the ambience of Pine Avenue:

Instead of each business providing their own solution to parking on their premises, the look and feel will be that of a strip mall, where all the cars are parked next to each other with a grand view of their rear ends

- 4 This plan is contrary to our comprehensive plan and the desires of most residents:

The comprehensive plans calls for minimizing access points to businesses; this plan makes all of Pine Avenue an access point. And what most citizens want is to keep Anna Maria the residential beach community it now is, which is not what this plan creates

The sad thing is, hardly any residents came to the meeting or spoke their opinions about this proposed change in our law.

There are a few commissioners who are fighting hard for our interests, and they deserve our support.

I encourage citizens who agree, read or write for this blog to attend the next parking meeting and urge commissioners to leave the definition of “on-site” as it is. They should keep the requirement that the number of parking spaces a business must have, be based on the size of the building.

This doesn’t have to be a done deal yet!

Like A Marble Staircase In A Quaint Beach Cottage...

Pine Avenue parking is once again on the agenda tonight at City Hall and anyone interested in what direction this thing will take should show up and ask some questions. While the concept of “meandering sidewalks” appears to be where the City Commission is headed, how that ultimately works, legally and logistically, is far from decided.

The “meandering” part of the proposed plans refers to essentially serpentining the sidewalks from the right-of-way abutting the street, where the City Code currently requires them to be, to the space between nose-in parked vehicles and buildings on certain commercial parcels creating an easement separate and apart from the street that the City thereafter maintains. You can go ahead and consider “certain commercial parcels” as those developed or to be developed by PAR.

The rub comes from those three thorny words “right” and “of” and “way.” That’s land under the city’s control, land and infrastructure maintained by your tax dollars. Without the right-of-way a meandering sidewalk, whether they call it a “public” or a “private” parking plan, cannot work. There is simply not enough room. Proponents would have you believe the City can simply swap out the respective pieces of the sidewalk like a jigsaw puzzle up and down Pine Avenue wherever developers seek to wedge in as much parking as legally allowable and everything will be copacetic. But...

More Pugilistic Sleight Of Hand. How Special.

A while back we talked to you about PAR asking the Court for “sanctions” against certain locals because PAR essentially says that they have been victimized by the Nally’s and these “others.” We said their whining was more than ridiculous (we actually used a bit more-pointed language), especially considering the predatory way PAR principals go about their business. You can catch up by clicking and reading it HERE.

Well, after PAR filed the baseless motion to dismiss and the tear-jerking request for sanctions, the Nally’s asked the Judge to “strike” the filing, as in toss it out, appropriately arguing “it is without lawful authority, impermissibly seeks to raise new claims and issues and impermissibly seeks to contest [Nally’s] claims….” In other words, it is a complete waste of everyone’s time and certainly the city's resources.

The Judge obviously agreed. As you can see by clicking HERE, he granted the Nally’s motion to strike, tossed the dubious filing and told PAR that it has 20 days to file an answer to the Nally’s claims. In other words, let’s get to the meat here guys. Oh, and gals of course.

So does PAR take the hint?

It's All About Priorities...

By Bill Yanger


Another in this continuing series of imagined conversations over coffee at the Rod & Reel Pier. Any resemblance to persons or personalities, real or imagined, is entirely coincidental and mostly unintended.



Good morning.

G-G-G-Good m-m-m-morning. G-g-g-god I h-h-h-hate this frikkin’ cold weather.

Suck it up, it’s warm in here. And if you’d wear long pants that’d help.

Don’t own long pants. And the walk down the pier sent that north breeze up my shorts to places better left unmentioned. Kinda fun actually…

Ahhh geeeez, I could do without the meteorological anatomy confessional. Sit. Here’s your coffee.

Thanks.

Don’t imagine you’re fishing today.

That’d be a no. Kidding me? Any yellow-mouthed lunker worth chasing is hunkered down with his she-trout under a blanket of turtle grass waitin’ out this chill. Boys ain’t thinking about eating today.

So what’ll you do with yourself?

Treadmill.

What?

Yeah, Nice Ring Sire. I Think I'll Pass...

So we’ve talked with you HERE about the recent uptick in legal maneuvering taking place on and around Pine Avenue and focused on the continuing spat over Comp Plan compliance and parking. We wish we could tell you it is looking positive but we would be lying. While there are new possibilities for civil discourse and thoughtful resolution, some old habits die hard and it isn't pretty.

To recap, Bob and Nicky Hunt sued the city in December over PAR’s 308 Pine Avenue plan being approved but only, of course, after PAR had sued the city because its 308 plan had been denied but before Eugene Aubry swooped in to save the day and cast the deciding vote for approval PAR’s second time around. Got that? Take a breath because we’re just getting started.

Maybe more development isn't a good idea

This is what the Southwest Florida Water Management Group thinks about Anna Maria's COMP Plan revision proposal:

January 6, 2011

Mr. Ray Eubanks Division of Community Planning Florida Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100

Dear Mr. Eubanks:

In accordance with Section 163.3184, Florida Statues, Southwest Florida Water Management District has reviewed plan amendment Anna Maria 11-1. Our comments are as follows:
This amendment proposes to revise the conservation category to allow limited single-family development. Approximately 60 privately-owned parcels are expected to be affected by the change. The material indicates the current conservation language, added to the plan in 2007, disallowed new development within the category for purposes of protecting coastal dune systems, beach sand and mangrove flats.
Most of Anna Maria is considered susceptible to storm surge and flooding, due to its inclusion in the FEMA 100-year flood and storm surge category 1 (i.e., coastal high hazard area) designations. Opening additional land to development, such as this amendment would do, would increase the number of persons exposed to natural hazards. A local hazard mitigation plan should be in place addressing the emergency management needs of this future population prior to any development approval. Adequate shelter space should be part of the discussion.
The proposed amendment would allow less-restrictive development practices in areas with important coastal resources, particularly the coastal dunes and mangrove flats. Critical information for understanding the distribution and condition of these resources and additional management needs due to the proposed changes was not addressed in the material. These details are necessary for successful management of the resources. The District believes the resources provide important benefits (e.g., wind and flood protection), and consequently would encourage no encroachment where they exist. Examples of management strategies that could accomplish this include buffers, conservation easements and development setbacks.

Thank you for this opportunity to provide feedback. If we may be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Sincerely,

Trisha Neasman, AICP Government Planning Coordinator

Pancakes and Scallywags

By Bill Yanger

They’re back. Here's another in this continuing series of imagined conversations over coffee at the Rod & Reel Pier. Any resemblance to persons or personalities, real or imagined, is entirely coincidental and mostly unintended.


Good morning.

Hey! Grab a seat.

What the heck is that?

What?

That. On your plate.

THAT is a stack of pancakes.

I know it’s a stack of pancakes genius. What is that stack of pancakes doing on your plate.

Uh…soaking up all this butter and gooey maple syrup and waiting for me to eat ‘em?

Exactly!

Yes, exactly. Am I missing something?

You promised.You coulda had a frikkin’ heart attack, man! You know how bad it is for you and you said you’d never give in, that if they brought it to the table you’d just push it away. You said…

I know what I said. That was then. And I meant it, I really did. But, dude, get real…things change. Just being realistic under the circumstances. I'm hungry...and I like pancakes…a lot.

Things change? That’s your answer? Here’s realistic for you: your blood pressure has to duck to get in the door, man. Cholesterol, too. You have people depending on you. You can’t eat that stuff. What’s next? You gonna take a cigarette from the next guy offers you one, too? You promised. We believed you.

Wow, you like me…you really like me…

DCA Proposal

The proposed Anna Maria COMP plan revision continues the assessment of development on Conservation lands on a “case to case” basis. This effectively gives city officials the power to rezone lands from Conservation/Preservation to Residential without a referendum. At best it places too much power in the hands of developers and city bureaucrats, and at worst it is unconstitutional.

The following is an example of how it works in real life:

Last year a property owner decided to build a 3-house subdivision on beachfront property at the end of Park and Beach. The land was zoned “Conservation” and listed as “Preservation” on the FLUP (“No development allowed”). Instead of stating that there might be a conflict with the Zoning and FLUP, city officials (Alan Garret and Bob Welch) sent a letter to the DEP indicating that there were no zoning conflicts with the proposed project. As part of the “Case by Case” evaluation the builder/developer obtained an environmental assessment.

At the request of the developer/builder an environmental assessment of the parcels was performed by the firm Vanessa Hangen Brustlin, Inc. (University Park, Fla) The assessment consisted of a “pedestrian site evaluation” and stakes were placed to delineate where building could occur and where the limits of the E-1 Preservation district should be placed and concluded-- “The areas landward of that line are clearly dominated by undesirable invasive species of limited or destructive ecological value”.

On Second Thought...

Our recent praise of the kumbaya karma wafting around town lately was, it now appears, a bit of wistful thinking.

First, word arrives that Bob and Nicky Hunt have sued the city over its approval of PAR’s 308 Pine Avenue site plan back in November. The suit, which you can see HERE, mirrors the Nally lawsuit against the city over approval of the 216 Pine site plan, not surprising since the same lawyers represent both the Nallys and the Hunts and the issues are essentially identical. Stayed tuned.

And speaking of the Nally suit, PAR’s recent success at site plan approval with a kinder gentler commission certainly has not quenched their lust for the courtroom. Not satisfied with their own lawsuits against the city, all of which remain pending, PAR asked the Nally judge to let them join that party too. The judge allowed them to “intervene” in the ongoing case and PAR’s new lawyer Andrea Mogensen, she of Michael Barfield and recall election fame, wasted no time rattling sabres. Based upon this intervention in the Nally suit over 216 Pine, one suspects PAR will join the Hunt 308 Pine suit as well or seek to consolidate their own 308 case with this new one.

So let’s try to get this all straight.