Chairman Quam, et al.
I'm not sure what your week has been like, but I've gotten a fair share
of phone calls regarding the parallel parking proposal. I've yet to
speak with anyone who supports it.
Here's one of the concerns raised yesterday.
Our LDR's require a ten foot visibility triangle on each side of a
driveway. They also require a 20 ft. visibility triangle at
intersections. Those numbers were adopted before we considered the
parallel parking option.
Showing posts with label Stoltzfus. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Stoltzfus. Show all posts
Thursday, May 6, 2010
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
Parallel Parking vs. our Comp Plan
Chairman Quam,
In my net loss of parking calculation regarding Pine Avenue, I neglected to calculate the frontage unavailable for parking at the intersections of Pine and any side street. Adding the requisite visibility triangles to those intersections results in the loss of 16 additional parking spaces. Net loss if we adopt parallel parking on Pine would be 107 spaces, not 91.
At a recent meeting you suggested there was nothing in the Comp Plan that required on-site parking. You may be right, but I'm not certain that's true. If you go to the Future Land Use Element of the Comp Plan, Policy 1.1.2, you'll find this near the end of the list of bulleted items: "Provide requirements for the provision of open space, and safe and convenient on-site traffic flow and parking requirements." To me, "on-site" means on the subject property.
There's also this language to contend with: "Policy 1.3.7 All commercial uses shall be located and designed so as to enhance safety by providing adequate off-street parking and loading areas and by separating pedestrian and vehicular traffic." Obviously the key words are "off-street parking and loading areas." What exactly is meant by that?
If the Comp Plan said "on-street" would we interpret that to mean "in the middle of the street?" No. We'd say that meant parallel to the street or directly adjacent to the street. To me, "off-street" precludes parallel parking or parking directly adjacent to the street. To me, "off-street" means "on-site." Your interpretation may differ.
There's also the language in Policy 1.3.8 to deal with. Curbs, where they exist, are alway situated at the edge of a road to create a barrier between the roadway and the sidewalk. The language in this policy is about minimizing direct access onto major roads. Parallel parking or any form of adjacent to the street parking maximizes direct access. The only way to minimize direct access is to require driveways and on-site parking.
Recent assertions that situating parking on-site encourages strip development don't hold up in light of our Comp Plan's parking policies. Sun Plaza exactly conforms to those policies. On-site parking with room to maneuver on the subject property, side street access via a driveway, which minimizes direct access to the main road. The end result is not strip development; it's safe traffic circulation.
Thanks for listening.
Harry Stoltzfus
Anna Maria City Commissioner
In my net loss of parking calculation regarding Pine Avenue, I neglected to calculate the frontage unavailable for parking at the intersections of Pine and any side street. Adding the requisite visibility triangles to those intersections results in the loss of 16 additional parking spaces. Net loss if we adopt parallel parking on Pine would be 107 spaces, not 91.
At a recent meeting you suggested there was nothing in the Comp Plan that required on-site parking. You may be right, but I'm not certain that's true. If you go to the Future Land Use Element of the Comp Plan, Policy 1.1.2, you'll find this near the end of the list of bulleted items: "Provide requirements for the provision of open space, and safe and convenient on-site traffic flow and parking requirements." To me, "on-site" means on the subject property.
There's also this language to contend with: "Policy 1.3.7 All commercial uses shall be located and designed so as to enhance safety by providing adequate off-street parking and loading areas and by separating pedestrian and vehicular traffic." Obviously the key words are "off-street parking and loading areas." What exactly is meant by that?
If the Comp Plan said "on-street" would we interpret that to mean "in the middle of the street?" No. We'd say that meant parallel to the street or directly adjacent to the street. To me, "off-street" precludes parallel parking or parking directly adjacent to the street. To me, "off-street" means "on-site." Your interpretation may differ.
There's also the language in Policy 1.3.8 to deal with. Curbs, where they exist, are alway situated at the edge of a road to create a barrier between the roadway and the sidewalk. The language in this policy is about minimizing direct access onto major roads. Parallel parking or any form of adjacent to the street parking maximizes direct access. The only way to minimize direct access is to require driveways and on-site parking.
Recent assertions that situating parking on-site encourages strip development don't hold up in light of our Comp Plan's parking policies. Sun Plaza exactly conforms to those policies. On-site parking with room to maneuver on the subject property, side street access via a driveway, which minimizes direct access to the main road. The end result is not strip development; it's safe traffic circulation.
Thanks for listening.
Harry Stoltzfus
Anna Maria City Commissioner
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
Parallel Parking on Pine
Chairman Quam,
I’ve spend some time studying the “parallel parking” option put forth by you with drawings by Gene Aubry at the most recent P&Z and Commission work session.
I expressed my concerns at that meeting regarding the “net effect” of that plan. To restate, how many parallel parking spaces presently exist on Pine and how many will we lose or gain if we institute this plan?
I’m told we have just over 100 parallel parking spaces presently on Pine. I was also told instituting the new plan would provide a total of 198 spaces, or a net gain of approximately 100 spaces.
I beg to differ. Start with driveways. They are not shown on Aubry's drawing. Not even on existing residences.
I’ve spend some time studying the “parallel parking” option put forth by you with drawings by Gene Aubry at the most recent P&Z and Commission work session.
I expressed my concerns at that meeting regarding the “net effect” of that plan. To restate, how many parallel parking spaces presently exist on Pine and how many will we lose or gain if we institute this plan?
I’m told we have just over 100 parallel parking spaces presently on Pine. I was also told instituting the new plan would provide a total of 198 spaces, or a net gain of approximately 100 spaces.
I beg to differ. Start with driveways. They are not shown on Aubry's drawing. Not even on existing residences.
Monday, April 26, 2010
Sun Op Ed
The effort to recall me as City of Anna Maria Commissioner has nothing to do with Sunshine Laws, which I have not broken, or public records disclosure laws, with which I’ve fully complied. This is about intimidation. It seems I’ve stepped on the tail of a very large dog.
Our City is divided. To oversimplify, on one side are those who approve of the recent developments on Pine Avenue; on the other side, those who disapprove.
I am among those who disapprove.
What is it we find objectionable? The answer is simple. The rules are being ignored.
It’s supposed to work like this: you’re a developer with a vision, financing, and a business plan. You find a location that accommodates your vision and you build that vision. If your assumptions are correct, your enterprise succeeds. If not, it fails. It’s the American way.
It’s a little different here in Anna Maria. Here a group of developers who has stated publicly this is the biggest project they’ve ever attempted, has a vision. Their vision doesn’t quite fit with our regulations. Rather than taking their vision to somewhere more compatible, they have chosen to stay here and make it fit. Instead of adjusting their vision to fit the regulations, they’ve expended considerable effort getting the regulations changed. Until recently, the City has mostly accommodated them. The City struck the owner/occupancy language in the ROR, allowed swimming pools in the ROR, made a few setback mistakes, but most importantly, approved non-compliant parking configurations.
Since I was elected, a majority of Commissioners has agreed the parking configurations on recently approved site plans are unsafe. P&Z and the Commission have begun making language changes to ensure those “back-out across the sidewalk into pedestrian, bicycle and vehicular traffic” parking configurations are prohibited in future development.
Why all the fuss about a parking regulation? Because forcing developers to design safe, compliant parking shrinks the space available for their buildings. They’re crying foul and claiming we’ve devalued their properties. Our City Attorney disagrees. He has stated unequivocally the City is within its rights to make the changes in regulation it deems necessary for public safety or other appropriate reasons.
The developers have lost one battle, but instead of adjusting their vision, they’ve simply changed their strategy. Now it’s: if we can’t win on message, we’ll attack the messenger. The same cast of characters who opposed my election is now asking for my recall.
Why? Because I make policy decisions based on principle, not profit. Unlike many of them, I have no conflicts of interest and absolutely nothing to gain monetarily from the decisions I make as a Commissioner. I’m a businessman who has built a career working within the considerable restrictions of federal, state, and municipal regulations. I expect those who wish to do business within our City to work within the same type of restrictions.
I’ve learned much as a Commissioner. Certainly I could have been more restrained in some of my word choices. But I call things like I see them. The worst I can be accused of is indiscreet commentary. I’ve broken no laws.
If you believe the issues at stake here are Sunshine Laws or public records or indiscreet language, you’ve been deceived. This is about the losers of a recent election boldly attempting to negate the will of the majority. This is about discouraging good people from getting too involved. This is about accomplishing through lawyers what my opponents were unable to achieve at the ballot box.
Anna Maria is once again at a watershed moment in its history. If the residents of this town want to see a hundred more conflict points between vehicles and pedestrians added to our main street, more over-sized “old Florida cottages on steroids” crammed into lots, or meandering sidewalks and empty storefronts, they can recall me and they may get their wish.
But if the residents of Anna Maria want the vision of our Comprehensive Plan put forth as their vision, with “the single-family residential character of the City of Anna Maria . . . maintained and protected,” and if they want a Commissioner willing to hold the line on accommodating ill-conceived development, they can refuse to support this recall petition and I’ll continue to serve the City and the residents to the best of my ability.
Thanks for listening.
Harry Stoltzfus
City of Anna Maria Commissioner
Our City is divided. To oversimplify, on one side are those who approve of the recent developments on Pine Avenue; on the other side, those who disapprove.
I am among those who disapprove.
What is it we find objectionable? The answer is simple. The rules are being ignored.
It’s supposed to work like this: you’re a developer with a vision, financing, and a business plan. You find a location that accommodates your vision and you build that vision. If your assumptions are correct, your enterprise succeeds. If not, it fails. It’s the American way.
It’s a little different here in Anna Maria. Here a group of developers who has stated publicly this is the biggest project they’ve ever attempted, has a vision. Their vision doesn’t quite fit with our regulations. Rather than taking their vision to somewhere more compatible, they have chosen to stay here and make it fit. Instead of adjusting their vision to fit the regulations, they’ve expended considerable effort getting the regulations changed. Until recently, the City has mostly accommodated them. The City struck the owner/occupancy language in the ROR, allowed swimming pools in the ROR, made a few setback mistakes, but most importantly, approved non-compliant parking configurations.
Since I was elected, a majority of Commissioners has agreed the parking configurations on recently approved site plans are unsafe. P&Z and the Commission have begun making language changes to ensure those “back-out across the sidewalk into pedestrian, bicycle and vehicular traffic” parking configurations are prohibited in future development.
Why all the fuss about a parking regulation? Because forcing developers to design safe, compliant parking shrinks the space available for their buildings. They’re crying foul and claiming we’ve devalued their properties. Our City Attorney disagrees. He has stated unequivocally the City is within its rights to make the changes in regulation it deems necessary for public safety or other appropriate reasons.
The developers have lost one battle, but instead of adjusting their vision, they’ve simply changed their strategy. Now it’s: if we can’t win on message, we’ll attack the messenger. The same cast of characters who opposed my election is now asking for my recall.
Why? Because I make policy decisions based on principle, not profit. Unlike many of them, I have no conflicts of interest and absolutely nothing to gain monetarily from the decisions I make as a Commissioner. I’m a businessman who has built a career working within the considerable restrictions of federal, state, and municipal regulations. I expect those who wish to do business within our City to work within the same type of restrictions.
I’ve learned much as a Commissioner. Certainly I could have been more restrained in some of my word choices. But I call things like I see them. The worst I can be accused of is indiscreet commentary. I’ve broken no laws.
If you believe the issues at stake here are Sunshine Laws or public records or indiscreet language, you’ve been deceived. This is about the losers of a recent election boldly attempting to negate the will of the majority. This is about discouraging good people from getting too involved. This is about accomplishing through lawyers what my opponents were unable to achieve at the ballot box.
Anna Maria is once again at a watershed moment in its history. If the residents of this town want to see a hundred more conflict points between vehicles and pedestrians added to our main street, more over-sized “old Florida cottages on steroids” crammed into lots, or meandering sidewalks and empty storefronts, they can recall me and they may get their wish.
But if the residents of Anna Maria want the vision of our Comprehensive Plan put forth as their vision, with “the single-family residential character of the City of Anna Maria . . . maintained and protected,” and if they want a Commissioner willing to hold the line on accommodating ill-conceived development, they can refuse to support this recall petition and I’ll continue to serve the City and the residents to the best of my ability.
Thanks for listening.
Harry Stoltzfus
City of Anna Maria Commissioner
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
