Do we need a new library?

Do we need a new library?

If so, where shall we put it?

library2-2

Next month, the Library Task Force, which has been in existence since June 2014, will present their findings to the Commission and leave it to the City and its citizens to determine the answer to these questions.The Library Task Force will “sunset” out of existence in what Commissioner Tom McMacken called “the end of the beginning. ”

 

A Little History

Relocating the library is not a new concept. The current location is the fourth in the library’s history. The original library was founded in 1885 on the porch of the Lamson House at 503 Interlachen. In 1886, it moved to an enclosed building owned by the Winter Park Co. In 1902, it moved again to a new one-room building, which was expanded in the 1930s when the city was persuaded to provide free electricity. At that time, the library went from being more or less a private club to being a true public library. (Indoor plumbing would follow.)

That library outgrew its home and, in 1976, the city acquired the current library site on New England Avenue. After 20 years, in 1995, a third floor was added and floors one and two were remodeled.

Another 20 years has elapsed. Once again, growth and demand for services have exerted pressure on the current library. Last year, the City Commission decided it was time to explore alternatives. They assembled a nine-member Library Task Force, which came together in June 2014 in the service of our city.

Their task:  to make recommendations regarding the need, location, costs and funding strategies for a new or remodeled library facility.

Task Force Goes to Work

The nine are Sam Stark, Gary Barker, Daniel Butts, Bruce Douglas, Jeffry Jontz, Nancy Miles, Joel Roberts, Jan Walker and Chip Weston. Each City Commissioner chose one, and the remaining four were chosen by the Board of Library Trustees. Bruce Douglas resigned from the Task Force in April 2015, leaving eight members.

 

Individually, the Task Force members span the political spectrum, and most say they came to the Task Force as skeptics, with preconceived notions about whether Winter Park even needs a new library.

As a group, however, they are united in their sincerity, diligence and sense of purpose —  proof that a diverse group of citizens can work together effectively for the greater good of the community. For six months, they have listened to experts, reviewed library trends, examined site plans, toured other libraries, both in Florida and as far afield as Cedar Rapids, IA and Little Rock, AR. They have held 30 public Task Force meetings, hosted five public forums, presented at two Commission workshops and at the December 8, 2014, regular Commission meeting. A full account of their activity can be found at www.wppl.org.

ISO the Library of the Future

The Task Force has found the current library no longer keeps pace with the needs of the community, either for space or for technology — not surprising if you recall that in 1976, when the library was built, computers still used punch cards.

 

Technologies have emerged over the past two decades that have had a profound effect on our lifestyle, economy and community. For citizens and businesses alike, the library of the future may be the only affordable source for artificial intelligence and the confluence of maturing technologies and social applications.

The Printed Word is Here to Stay

Then why do we need shelf space when everything is moving to the internet?

 

In reality, only about 12 percent of all books published have been digitized. People will continue to rely on the printed word – and not just older people. Studies show that between 60 and 75 percent of young people, aged 16 to 24, prefer print books over e-books. Child development experts strongly recommend that print books be used to teach early literacy skills.

Library Fails to Meet City Code

The existing building predates the current City Code. Library Executive Director Shawn Shaffer explains, “If we touch the building,we have to bring it up to code.”

 

Currently, parking is deficient by 33 spaces. Stack widths are too narrow to meet Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards. The current building cannot meet the electrical needs of today’s technology, and because of the way it was constructed, it cannot be rewired.The library’s only elevator is too small to accommodate a gurney with a patient on it, a situation that has required first responders to carry a patient down the stairs in a life-or-death situation.

Dec, 2014: Commission Says,‘Not So Fast!’
On December 8, 2014, the Task Force brought their initial163-page report to the Commission in the reasonable belief that they had fulfilled their mission. They recommended either building a new library on the Post Office site on New York Avenue or demolishing and rebuilding the library in its current location. Rebuilding on the current site, however, was too expensive, and the city had failed to reach an agreement with the U.S. Postal Service to acquire the Post Office site.

The Commission congratulated the Task Force on a job well done and sent them back to the drawing board. After more miles of travel and more hours of meetings, they are now preparing to present their revised recommendations to the Commission June 22.

Will the City Relinquish Two Acres of Parkland to Relocate the Library?

The alternative sites studied by the Library Task Force are all on land now owned by the city. They include the current site on New England Ave., a site adjacent to City Hall, and the Rachel Murrah Civic Center site. Task Force members seem to favor the Civic Center site, but suggest leaving the Civic Center as it is. Instead, they suggest building the new library at the east end of that block in Martin Luther King, Jr., Park (MLK Park), at the corner of Morse and Denning.

They plan to recommend a 50,000-square-foot, two-story building with a wide porch featuring ceiling fans and indoor-outdoor reading spaces. If it’s sited in MLK Park, the porch will overlook a reconfigured lake. There will be glass, natural light and flexible spaces. The walls will move – literally.

Library Site Could Be a Hard Sell
It is not unusual for libraries to be located in municipal parks,but there is opposition to the MLK Park location. Michael Poole, chairman of the Keep Winter Park Beautiful and Sustainable Advisory Board, said at a Public Forum held April 28, “If I were to rate that site on a scale of one to ten, it would be a fifty!” 

In an April 13, 2015, memorandum to Jeffry Jontz and David Torre of the Board of Library Trustees, Poole wrote, “I believe you need to quickly demonstrate the ‘Need.”Poole charged them to, “Explain how each increase in space is needed, will meet an unmet need, and how the required space was determined. CLICK HERE for the text of the entire memorandum.

Comments during the April 28 Forum indicated concern that if MLK Park is recommended as a possible library site, the park would be eliminated. Task Force member Daniel Butts explained that MLK Park includes approximately 27 acres of playing fields, lake and open parkland. The library, he said, would occupy just over two acres, leaving the rest of the park intact.

Commissioner Carolyn Cooper also opposes the loss of green space and worries that the building will block pedestrians’ and motorists’ view of the park. She said she was concerned that relocating the library would necessitate selling the current library site in order to pay for new construction, and she does not favor selling any land in the downtown core that now belongs to the city.

Commissioner Tom McMacken said he is looking forward to reading the full report. “This is only the beginning of the process,” said McMacken. “More research and discussion need to happen before we can put this on a ballot,” he said. “The [Board of Library Trustees] has a big job to do, to make sure everyone is fully informed and in agreement. The Commission can put the question on a ballot for people to decide, but the Commission is only a conduit between the Library and the citizens. Ultimately, the citizens must decide.”

To comment or read comments from others, click here →

Bank on Fast-Track to Develop WP Gateway

Bank on Fast-Track to Develop WP Gateway

Fifth Third Coming Soon to Aloma/Lakemont

In a move that has some asking, “What’s the rush?” on April 7 the Planning & Zoning Board unanimously approved Fifth Third Bank’s application to develop the northwest corner of Aloma and Lakemont– without having seen final plans for the new project.

 

The Bank requested P & Z to grant both preliminary and final conditional use approvals at the single April 7 meeting. Neighboring residents expressed concern that they had received notice of the meeting only 10 days prior.

P&Z Fast Tracks Fifth Third

The rationale for fast-tracking the project stems from the fact that Fifth Third Bank’s lease on their current Aloma location next to the Mellow Mushroom expires soon.

Bank + Office Building Slated for Aloma

Plans for the new Fifth Third branch on Aloma and Lakemont includea free-standing commercial office building in addition to the new bank branch with drive-through lanes. The combined square footage of the projects will be just over 9,200 square feet and will be built on five combined parcels, one of which is currently zoned R1-A (single-family residential).The others are all zoned commercial.Despite this, there never has been a significantcommercial presence at this location.

In order to build the project, the bank sought conditional use approval for the drive-through lanes plusa Comprehensive Plan amendment and rezoning of the single family lot from R-1A to parking lot (PL). A portion of the rezoned lot willprovide four additional parking spaces and the rest will serve as a retention pond. The R1-A lot abuts three single-family homes on Edwin Blvd.

17-92 Branch Stands Idle

Ironically, Fifth Third owns another Winter Park location in the old K-Mart Plaza across from Winter Park Village which has full signage and completed drive-through lanes – and which currently stands idle and empty. When one resident inquired of bank representatives when they planned to open that branch, the representativesavoided answering the question.

City Recommends Approval

According to the city staff report, all previous applications to develop this corner were denied as too intrusive on surrounding residents.In their report, staff recommended approval of Fifth Third’s application,acknowledging that while there was “no enthusiasm for a bank with drive-though lanes” at this location, the proposed development is significantly smaller than what might be permitted on the 1.25-acre site. Briggs said he thought families in the three homes bordering the residential lot might find a retention pond and parking lot preferable to another single family home.

Neighbors attending the meeting raised concerns about traffic, lighting (especially night time bleeding of light), noise and landscaping. Others opposed the necessity to amend the Comprehensive Plan and rezonethe residential lot. One neighbor who owns an adjoining commercial lot currently for sale supported the project. .

Resident Suggests Green Space

Ann Hicks Murrah suggested the property be developed as greenspace –perhaps bearing the name of her late husband, philanthropist Kenneth Murrah.

Fifth Third Goes to Commission April 27

The P&Z Board dismissed citizens’ reservations about increased traffic. Board member Peter Weldon said that any traffic concerns would have to be addressed by the City after the project is built, once the effects can be evaluated.

Fifth Third Bank had commissioned their own traffic study, which supported their contention that the project would produce almost no new traffic. Bank representatives explained that since Florida law governs lighting requirements for banks, citizens’ concerns about night time light-bleed were subordinate to the safety and security of the financial institution.

The P&Z Board instructed Fifth Third Bank to make several changes intended to address residents’ concerns, but granted final approval without the board or the residents seeing any final plans.The City Commission will take up the bank’s application at their April 27th meeting.

To comment or read comments from others, click here →

Open Letter to Steve Leary:

Open Letter to Steve Leary:

Please Answer a Few Questions About the “2015 Citizens Survey”

 

Dear Mayor Leary:

Nearly two weeks after the March 10 election, your mailer entitled “2015 Citizens Survey” went to selected Winter Park households. Some received the survey electronically, others received theirs in the mail. Some did not receive the survey. Both those who received the survey and many who did not had the same question for you:  What is this?

The mailer states that it was paid for and sent by you, “Steven Leary, non-partisan candidate for Winter Park Mayor.” It expresses your thanks to the voters and carries a message that reads in part, “As your mayor, I would like to set priorities over the next 90 days for the first year and beyond and I would appreciate your support and input. . . . Please take a moment to answer this brief citizens survey.” Your mailer requests the answers be returned either to a private email or by pre-paid post to a Park Avenue address.

According to Winter Park Communications Director Clarissa Howard, this is not a document created by the city and has nothing to do with the upcoming Visioning process.

The timing of the mailer – coming two weeks after the election and on the heels of the formation of the Visioning Task Force – had some of us scratching our heads. According to the “Candidate & Campaign Treasurer Handbook,” issued by the Florida Division of Elections, “Once a candidate is . . . elected to office, he or she may only expend funds from the campaign account to” deal with remaining financial obligations, close the office, prepare the termination report and to “Purchase “thank you” advertising for up to 75 days after he or she is . . . elected to office.”To read the entire text, CLICK HERE and scroll down to page 50, “Chapter 17: Termination Reports.”

While some might argue your mailer went a little beyond “thank you advertising,” the Thank You message is clearly stated.

Apparently, the other members of the Commission had no prior knowledge of the survey. When asked for comment, Commissioner Tom McMacken stated simply, “I am stunned.”

Commissioner Sarah Sprinkel wrote in an email, “I believe this was something Steve did on his own– it was not a city initiative so you will have to find out from him.”

Commissioners Carolyn Cooper and Greg Seidel applauded your effort to solicit residents’ input for guidance in your new role as mayor. Cooper added that she hoped you would use the survey results “your own edification and not to formulate city policy.”

The Voice received a number of queries from puzzled readers. Some wondered how your campaign determined which households would be surveyed and what the campaign organization planned to do with the results.

Others found the questions difficult to answer. Long-time Winter Park resident Ann Saurman wrote in a message to Mayor and Commissioners:

Some of the questions had a definite bias.”

“The City maintaining right-of-way trees” required agreeing to an increase in taxes, while neither “Needing more active parks and playing fields” or “Needing ‘lots of improvements’ to Winter Park’s facilities” required any tax increase.

“I hope this is not an indication of how the visioning process will be executed,” wrote Saurman. ”I would like Citizens Surveys to go to all citizens and for the questions to be designed in a fair and honest way so as to produce credible results.” 

The Voice has submitted further questions to you which were based on similar messages from other readers. The questions are below. Although you had not responded as of publication, we welcome the opportunity to publish your reply if you decide to answer the questions in the future.


To comment or read comments from others, click here →

North – South Corridor Development

North - South Corridor Development

Further Update and Clarification

The Voice received queries, both from readers and from the City, regarding the Transit Oriented Density Update published March 9. The report is a snapshot of this place at this time. The data gathered includes the north-south corridor along 17-92 and vicinity from Reagan Center (Flea World) to downtown Orlando.  The attached chart [click here] shows that the Voice understated the number of units originally reported.

Revised numbers include The ‘Yard at Ivanhoe,’ which has modified their plans from 585 to 630 apartments.  Three additional projects not included in the original tally are ‘SkyHouse’ – 320 apartments, ‘Artisan 420’ – 299 apartments, and ‘Citi Towers,’– 235 apartments.  It is important to note, projects that do not currently have a number of units assigned are placeholders for possible future development.

While every effort is made to confirm the accuracy of this information, by their nature, real estate transactions are always in flux.  Orange and Seminole county property appraiser records, construction company reports, architectural portfolios, real estate company announcements, company web sites, local and national media reports and design team participants all were sourced in the making of this story.

The Voice will continue to follow development along this corridor and will bring you periodic updates.

To comment or read comments from others, click here →

North – South Corridor Development

North - South Corridor Development

Further Update and Clarification

 

The Voice received queries, both from readers and from the City, regarding the Transit Oriented Density Update published March 9. The report is a snapshot of this place at this time. The data gathered includes the north-south corridor along 17-92 and vicinity from Reagan Center (Flea World) to downtown Orlando.  The attached chart [click here] shows that the Voice understated the number of units originally reported.

Revised numbers include The ‘Yard at Ivanhoe,’ which has modified their plans from 585 to 630 apartments.  Three additional projects not included in the original tally are ‘SkyHouse’ – 320 apartments, ‘Artisan 420’ – 299 apartments, and ‘Citi Towers,’– 235 apartments.  It is important to note, projects that do not currently have a number of units assigned are placeholders for possible future development.

While every effort is made to confirm the accuracy of this information, by their nature, real estate transactions are always in flux.  Orange and Seminole county property appraiser records, construction company reports, architectural portfolios, real estate company announcements, company web sites, local and national media reports and design team participants all were sourced in the making of this story.

The Voice will continue to follow development along thiscorridor and will bring you periodic updates.

To comment or read comments from others, click here →