Summary
Aesthetics/Community Character Study Circle Meetings
by Lisa DeVitto, Moderator
Moderator: Lisa Kane DeVitto, task force member.
Facilitators: Lorraine Smith & Dennis Cavanaugh, task force members.
--5 meetings were held September - November 2002.
--Location was the Davis Islands Baptist Church.
(Many thanks to Jeff Sukoff and Bill Heagey for the wonderful work they did hosting our meetings with tables, chairs, writing boards, signs, etc).
--Number in attendance varied from a high of 12 to a low of about 6 – 8.
--About 5 people attended all 5 meetings; some came to two or three; some were one-time drop-ins. Six meetings were originally scheduled; the final meeting was cancelled because turn-out was dropping rather than increasing.
Results:
We did not reach a large set of conclusions, as originally hoped. We had wide-ranging discussions of a number of issues.
Several decisions were adopted:
1) Speeding is NOT our community character – it is the opposite. To preserve our community character, the speeding problem needs to be addressed. Cuts down on recreation opportunities, walking, child friendliness etc.
2) We like the unique character of the business district.
3) Preserve existing ratio of single family vs. multi family, whatever that may be.
4) Have a new historic preservation survey
5) Consistent Code enforcement is needed of existing laws to retain quality of life
Some of the discussions were very interesting.
Initial list of issues:
Those raised at the June Kick-Off meeting were:
-- “Small Town” Feeling
-- Seeing Water all around
-- Public Assembly Needs for Space
-- Island Identity
-- Community Coordination – need for more festivals
-- More Landscaping/fewer paved areas
-- Utilities Issues (power lines, canals, alleyways, garbage pick-up)
-- Keeping Greenspaces
-- Historic Preservation
-- Incompatible scale of buildings; residential building footprint relation to lot size
-- No deed restrictions on the island
-- Code enforcement, yard maintenance.
Many of these issues overlapped with the other study group topics, but we tried to keep the focus on the community character aspect of these issues.
The study group participants included business owners and residents (some are both), and long-time and recent residents. We explored the larger issue of whether Davis Island should be considered primarily a residential community, versus a destination. An area that needs more exploration is the relationship between the residential element, and the other uses present on the island, particularly commercial uses. The group has talked about the beauty of the original plans and amenities as designed by developer D.P. Davis, and how those have been modified over the years. Some believe those original plans should be a guide to the future. A number of the group participants either raised families on Davis Islands or grew up here – they have emphasized the family-friendly atmosphere, areas for children to gather and play that existed in past years, and have suggested that these characteristics should be reclaimed.
Major issues mentioned or discussed in some depth are:
Destination issue:
There are a number of ways in which Davis Islands is currently a “destination,” both in “fixed facilities” and events. Fixed facilities include: business district; Tampa General; Peter O. Knight Airport; roadways used for jogging and biking; City Marina; Fishing from Columbia; DI Yacht Club. Event destinations include: commercial traffic, Duck Tours, possible trolley service; bike and road races, yacht club races, and other special events. What should plans for the future be? How do these destinations affect our appearance and community character? Should there be more events, fewer, or the same?
Again, the emphasis was on the family nature and quality of life on Davis Islands for the residents. The relationship of Davis Islands to nearby areas should be explored – for example, downtown, Channelside, Ybor, Hyde Park -- should we be just another destination area, or somehow integrated with those areas, or separated? How do their facilities serve Davis Islands residents?
Community Character & Public Transportation:
Some do not see public transportation as relevant to DI; others do. The issue of the trolley buses being developed downtown were discussed – some believed that they would be a helpful in connecting Davis Islander residents with the downtown business district and cultural and recreational amenities, such as Channel side, Ybor and the performing arts center; others said it would be unnecessary. Some were concerned that trolley buses would bring too much traffic to Davis Islands.
Davis Island Character/Upswing/Developable Land:
We briefly touched on the issues of height, scale, and building footprint, as they relate to development and redevelopment of Davis Island residential areas. We had hoped to focus on the Aesthetics of these issues, as opposed to the Land Use aspects. No significant discussion was held of private residential land use issues – such as building size, landscaping, height issues, trees, etc. The group seemed to either not know how to address these issues, or, was perhaps they were of lesser importance.
Single Family vs. Multifamily:
There are a number of differing views: some feel that single-family homes should predominate because they create stability in the community; others liked having rentals available to add diversity of ages and incomes. It was noted that many students/younger workers/retirees, like the availability of rental, and that some rentals are long-term, and very stable. It was also noted that the rental community probably contributes to the vitality of the business district. It was noted that many of the rental buildings are being upgraded, and that this should be encouraged – perhaps rewards or recognition should be given for owners who upgrade the appearance of the buildings. Concern was expressed over zoning/future use of properties on which some of the more modest, less updated, or well-kept apartments are on – these could be perhaps re-developed as office, commercial space, which would considerably change the character of Davis Blvd. It was discussed that we should talk about this further in future, but it was never returned to in depth. It was mentioned that we should perhaps develop a vision of this area for future, in the event of a hurricane, other disaster, so that there would be a guideline for the rebuilding in place.
***Aesthetics & Community Character of the Business District:
The business district consistently attracted the most discussion at each meeting. It also has an impact on the surrounding residential community. There was a consensus view that there is something special about our Business District. We tried to identify the elements that make it special/appealing, etc. Elements that were identified were: trees; casual “old key west” style; small scale (see original D.P. Davis Plan, with facades); setbacks to encourage pedestrians; wide sidewalks; alleys (help with scale and are historical) – contribute to pedestrian access; “Mom & Pop” stores vs. chains. Which of these elements are most important, and how to encourage them, needs more discussion. It was briefly touched on that there are planning mechanisms to encourage a particular kind of community character, but these were never discussed in depth. Part of what people seemed to like is that it is a fairly small area where people can meet and know each other, in lieu of any type of community center – our shops could be said to be our community center of a sorts (observation by moderator, not a conclusion).
Traffic & Speeding:
There was a definite concensus that Davis Islands should be a bike and pedestrian friendly community where everyone, including the children, elderly, disabled, bikers, skateboarders, etc., can be mobile without fear of automobile traffic. There was a general concensus that this condition does not exist today – in spite of City efforts, there is still speeding through the business district. Folks still don’t want to slow for pedestrians. Also, speeding, and drag race type driving is a big safety problem on the entire length of Davis Blvd and the bridge. Also, residents would like a safer way to get across the bridge for bikes and pedestrians – the city seems to think current path on bridge is adequate, but there is SUBSTANTIAL disagreement with this view. Speeding is seen as a real problem on the island, and there is general frustration that current city policy is too limited, not designed to bring about change quickly and effectively. Discussions were had of how traffic has been made to yield to pedestrians in other areas of the state – for example, St. Armands Circle in Sarasota, which is also on a major highway.
Historic Preservation/Open Space on Davis Islands: There was some consensus that we need to preserve historic structures on Davis Islands, but no agreement on what these structures are, or how to best preserve them. Historic preservation seems to encompass both public and private structures, as well as open spaces: the Swimming Pool, the parks, the Bridge, the arch at the Marina. The issue of bringing back the old style lights was raised. Open space and sidewalks are valued on Davis Islands, as contributing to our community character. People generally like the sense of having water all around, but we did not come up with any specific ideas of how to capitalize on, support, or enhance this
feature.
Public facilities/community character:
It was discussed that we could use more places for children to gather, and that some upgrades to community facilities might be needed, but there was no concensus on what these things might be. When the issue of a community center was raised, there was some concern also expressed that these facilities are not always a benefit -- that the city doesn’t always keep them up, or uses them primarily for residents of other neighborhoods – an observation was made that kids from other neighborhoods are bused into the pool in the summer, leaving little time available for residents.
Business District and How it Will be Used:
Parking; limit businesses vs. build a garage.
Noise; code enforcement;
To benefit DI residents/nonresidents or both?
Chains vs. family –owned – many thought family owned businesses added to uniqueness; others thought physical appearance of downtown was more important.
Consistent Code Enforcement was a key issue – the need for consistency, to enforce regulations that make Davis Island safe and pleasant for all residents.
Concern about the impact of the business district on residential areas was discussed – the problem of parking was discussed in depth, but there was no agreement about what to do about it. The issue of a garage was discussed – though not seen as a desirable solution. Several people noted that they had long ago opposed the TGH parking garage. It was generally seen that expansion of use of the business district must be limited by parking – parking is already seen as a quality of life encroachment on residential areas.
Pollution:
This was mentioned, but not discussed in detail. Issues were air, noise, water pollution, canal problems, runoff into the bay, overall pollution in an urban area in general. Questions came up about which government entities are responsible for which problem. Again, Code Enforcement was highlighted as being important in minimizing noise problems on the island, particularly from the business district.
Appearances:
Newsboxes, trash cans, etc should be more picturesque, like Santa Barbara;
Trees are part of our character.
Not much consensus on how the residential neighborhoods should look – buildings close together are good and bad. Not too much focus on this.
Community Representation/Follow Through on Our Plan:
-- Need for a more representative community organization, with participation by a greater percentage of residents.
-- Ideally, our community organization would follow through with the City over the years to assure our Neighborhood Plan was followed.
Problems and observations with study circle process for Aesthetics:
The liveliest discussions were held in the first three meetings.
People tended to have an idea of what they would like, but no concrete idea of how to get there.
People tended to be negative about a result that they would like to reach, commenting that the business community wouldn’t like it, city wouldn’t fund it, it wouldn’t be possible, etc.
In general, people tended to get right to specifics, and want to speculate about technical issues, skipping over the “vision” big-picture issue.
Some people were “one-issue” people – i.e., community center, airport.
Early on, at the second or third meeting, participants specifically elected NOT to have experts in planning address the group; this was probably a mistake, because without technical information, there was little foundation to develop some of the topics, such as appearances of neighborhood, and aspects of the business district.
With the light turnout, we really needed only 3-4 meetings. The larger # of meetings was planned with hopes for a larger turnout.
People either like what we have and don’t see a need for a plan, assuming that everything will stay the same, or, conversely, that they can’t do anything about what they would like for the future (i.e. planning is futile; average citizens are powerless.)
People are very busy and don’t have time for meetings and other activities: i.e. people who said they would bring one more person, take photos, etc, did not actually have time available to do that.
People who attended the meetings tended to like DI the way it is/ favor active measures to keep it “as is” or return it more to DP Davis original vision. We have no way at this point of knowing whether this outlook is representative of the larger island.
Recommendations for future development of aesthetics/community character:
1. Recruit people who want to make a commitment to a study group, rather than folks who see an ad, and come to see “what is happening.” Not that that is bad, but you don’t get a sustained effort.
2. Have experts explain what tools are available before the group gets started, or at least after one initial meeting.
Lisa Kane DeVitto, Moderator.
|
