Thoughts on the Development of the St.Michael's Church Property
Hi neighbors,
The approach of the City Commission hearing scheduled for April 28, 2021 at 6 PM on the development of the St. Michael’s Church property has sparked a variety of comments—some supporting the proposed development and some opposing. While those opposing have been characterized as “loud” and “fear-mongering,” my own thought is that expressing opposition to and raising concerns about efforts that appear detrimental to the neighborhood are not only our fundamental right but also our responsibility. Rather than sowing fear, the good neighbors I know are trying earnestly to inform a wider group of our neighbors about the proposed development of the St. Michael’s Church property and to share our concerns about certain aspects of the development that are not mentioned by those supporting the developer’s application. Contrary to the notion of a “silent majority,” we believe the majority of the Suburban Heights neighborhood has been largely unaware of any negotiations of the developer with a small group of neighbors. At the very least, we think all of us should be informed before rather than after the fact.
At the outset, we wish to be clear that we are not opposed to development of the St. Michael’s Church property. Very likely this property will be sold and developed for profitable commercial use, but the PUD proposal indicates the inclusion of a Starbucks or similar Coffee Shop with a drive-through. Our concern is not that the property will be developed but rather that it be developed in a way that proves clearly it is not detrimental to the neighborhood. The developer’s application provides no such proof.
Specifically, we are concerned that the developer’s ironclad demand for the inclusion of a Starbucks or Starbucks-like Coffee Shop with a drive-through would inevitably generate a significant increase of cut-through traffic on the streets of our neighborhood.
While there were never many other neighbors who have been in communication with the developers to negotiate terms and conditions, at one time following the unanimous rejection of the developer’s proposal by the City Plan Board in 2018, I and others were among the small group of affected parties and a few others who met a few times with the developer. Our effort at that time—as it had been when considering previous proposals—was to assure that any new development would not negatively impact the quality of life of the Suburban Heights neighborhood. The developer never tried to engage a large segment of the neighborhood and ultimately chose to work with an even smaller group of neighbors who, in exchange for some conditions they deemed favorable, were willing to settle for the developer’s conditions that we believe would generate more cut-through traffic and, therefore, be detrimental to the neighborhood.
I should point out that at no time has anyone tried to prevent the developer or the small group of individuals who worked very closely with the developer from sharing information more widely with our neighbors. In fact, once some of us affected parties let the developer know that we were willing to work with him on kinds of development of the property that did not include a Starbucks or Starbucks-like Coffee Shop with a drive-through because it would produce more cut-through traffic in Suburban Heights, we never heard from him again.
Our Main Concern was then, and still is, that a Starbucks or Starbucks-like Coffee Shop with a drive-through as part of the development would unavoidably generate and send a high volume of cut-through traffic through our neighborhood. The developer’s main concern, on the other hand, was that inclusion of such a Coffee Shop would be his anchor and, therefore, essential to the deal.
While it is true that our figures on the volume of cut-through traffic are necessarily speculative, it is because we base them on the developer’s own speculative, invalid, and misleading figures. A civil engineer has shared information with us that leads us to conclude that the developer’s figures on traffic generation are low, having been derived from inappropriate bases. However, even if we use what we consider the developer’s invalid figure (1,472 net daily vehicle trips) and conservatively speculate that as little as one fifth (294) of the generated traffic would cut through our neighborhood, we are very much concerned about the impact. We think the fraction would be significantly higher, but even unrealistically as little as one tenth (147) of the generated traffic cutting through Suburban Heights would be alarming. My neighbors have been able to demonstrate that because of inherent traffic configurations surrounding the intersection of NW 23rd Avenue and NW 43rd Street, an appreciable portion of the traffic exiting this development would inevitably cut through the streets of Suburban Heights, especially that eventually going west on NW 23rd Avenue or north on NW 43rd Street.
As part of the opposition to the application in 2018, those now supporting the developer agreed in 2018 with the pivotal evidence presented by our neighbors that traffic exiting the development on NW 43rd Street—though presently allowed to turn left—would eventually be forced to turn right, thus inevitably resulting in a significant increase in cut-through traffic in Suburban Heights.
We, too, want a wider participation of neighbors to be informed so they can weigh-in and make an informed decision. In doing so, we hope it becomes clear that the surest way to protect the conservation area is to leave it zoned for conservation. Also, we can agree that there is nothing wrong with requesting curbside appeal within the development, reduction in the number of buildings and drive-throughs, and other features, but these are certainly not a good trade-off for any feature that would significantly increase traffic cutting through our neighborhood. The inclusion of a Starbucks or Starbucks-like Coffee Shop with a drive-through is definitely an echo of the application’s most objectionable feature which led to its unanimous rejection by the City Plan Board in 2018. In that specific and vital regard, nothing has changed.
Hopefully, we will see that all the developer’s proposed concessions and conditions combined are outweighed by the developer’s one ironclad conditional demand—the inclusion of a Starbucks or Starbucks-like Coffee Shop with a drive-through as his cash cow. As my neighbors correctly point out, that kind of establishment would be a traffic magnet. My neighbors have pointed out convincing evidence that much of the traffic exiting this development would inevitably cut through the streets of Suburban Heights.
We hope it will also be clear that while the developer might distract some with promises of “traffic-mitigation or traffic-calming” measures, which are questionable at best at anybody’s expense, we should not lose sight of the fact that the developer has proposed absolutely nothing to address the main concern in 2018 and today—the volume of traffic in our neighborhood. The volume of traffic is critically important because ours is a walking neighborhood where toddlers in strollers, school children, and grandparents on walkers regularly use our streets without sidewalks.
If you have questions about the concerns of neighbors opposed to the proposed development, please contact Ron Randles rrandles@stat.ufl.edu, Marsha Mott Gatormotts@cox.net, or Harry Shaw harryshaw@ufl.edu . To support our effort to oppose the proposed development, please share our petition change.org/suburbanheights
We encourage you to participate in the City Commission meeting on 4-28-21 at 6 p.m. in person or virtually by following this meeting information http://www.cityofgainesville.org/ClerkOfTheCommission/NoticeofMeetings.aspx
Very best regards,
Harry Shaw