Project team member provides documentation to city’s senior arborist to underscore compliance with city regulations
As the City of Sarasota’s Development Services Department awaits a second, revised application regarding plans for the Adagio mixed-use project in downtown Sarasota, the plans regarding trees on the site are garnering more public opposition, The Sarasota News Leader has learned.
Yet, the landscape architect who is part of the Adagio project team has provided details to the city’s senior arborist to demonstrate that the tree removal is necessary and that the action would comply with the city’s Zoning Code.
In a June 25 email to the city commissioners and city staff members, including interim City Manager Dave Bullock and Planner Tom Sacharski, Dean Scarborough, president of the Sansara Condominium Association, emphasized his organization’s dismay with the plans to remove the three Grand Trees from the project site.
“Two (slash pines [identified by numbers] 43 and 44) are, by the applicant’s own admission, healthy — making them protected under our city’s canopy ordinance. The third (live oak 88) may well be saved with proper care,” he wrote. “These trees are not obstacles to be erased; they’re assets to be preserved. In a city where canopy coverage in DTB [Downtown Bayfront] zones has dropped below 15%, every remaining tree is essential to livability, sustainability, and protection from the heat island effect.”
Scarborough added, “The developer proposes clear-cutting 104 trees —including 20 canopy trees — while offering back just 24 inches of new planting on-site and a payment for 88 inches into the [city’s] tree fund. It’s an insult to our urban forest.”
Sansara is immediately adjacent to one section of the Adagio site. The Adagio would be constructed on four downtown Sarasota parcels: 1360 Ringling Blvd., 301 and 303 S. Palm Ave.; and 330 S. Pineapple Ave.,
In a follow-up email on July 11 — after a member of the project team had provided more documentation to Senior Arborist Ullom about the need to remove the Grand Trees — Scarborough wrote to the city’s Planning Department staff. The Grand Trees, Scarborough noted, “particularly the slash pines, are considered grand trees under Sarasota’s urban forestry principles and provide critical environmental, aesthetic, and community benefits. Their preservation is not simply a matter of preference — it reflects our collective commitment to responsible development, ecological stewardship, and the values that make Sarasota a livable and vibrant city.”
He added, “The developers have argued that alternative designs are not feasible due to reductions in building area, parking spaces, and retail opportunities. However, such reasoning places financial optimization over environmental integrity, and sets a troubling precedent for future developments. ‘Project viability’ should not override the long-term wellbeing of our urban canopy and the character of our neighborhoods.”
Then Scarborough wrote, “We urge the Planning Department to require a more rigorous analysis of alternative layouts, including scaled-down or reoriented designs that prioritize tree preservation. Sarasota’s residents have long advocated for thoughtful planning, and this situation calls for it.
“These trees,” he continued, “stand as symbols of our city’s balance between progress and preservation. Their removal would represent not just a physical loss, but a moral one.”
On July 11, Ed Rosenthal, who pointed out that he is NASA space plant biology collaborator and a member of the Space Technology Hall of Fame, addressed Planner Sacharski and the city commissioners, as well. “With every such large scale removal what must be considered in community health is the tremendous potential reduction in carbon dioxide removal by such large foliage and the reduction of the adding of oxygen from such large trees.
“As such in our opinion as scientists,” he continued, “it is extremely detrimental to public health to remove such trees as succumbing to the only act of the [developers’] position that they want the trees removed so they don’t have to build around the trees.
“Rather in the best interest of the community,” Rosenthal added, “the city should DEMAND the developer keep such trees as a final position.”
Yet another city resident, Kelly Franklin, who lives in Laurel Park, wrote Senior Arborist Ullom and Lucia Panica, director of the city’s Development Services Department — along with other city staff members and the commissioners — on June 23, decrying the plans for the Adagio.
She noted, “Trees are essential for sustainability, and the city’s parks and open space level of service sets a target of 40% canopy coverage. Between clear-cutting and hurricanes, the DTB zones are down to under 15%. Each tree we allow a developer to kill adds to the heat island impact, and harms livability for the rest of us.”
During the July 2 Development Review Committee (DRC) meeting on the formal application for the Adagio, Ullom noted the need for a more in-depth discussion with Phil Smith, a landscape architect and a principal with David W. Johnston Associates in Sarasota; Smith is part of the project team.
“It’s very close,” Ullom said during the DRC meeting, referring to the updated plan that he indicated he had received from Smith. Ullom’s focus, he added, was the two Grand Trees — the pines — in the northwest corner of the project site.
(The DRC comprises city staff members involved with various aspects of land-use applications, including those who have expertise in zoning and planning.)
Ullom noted that an alternative design he had received from Smith “was simply a shifting of the building.”
As proposed, the Adagio would include one 18-story tower with 103 market-rate condominiums and underground parking, plus a 10-story building with 67 apartments that would be priced to be attainable to households making up to 120% of the area median income, which is set each year by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). This year, the median family income for the North Port-Sarasota-Bradenton Metropolitan Statistical Area is $106,100.
The project team has used facets of the state’s Live Local Act, in regard to attainable housing, in planning the development, as members of the team have noted.
Further, the plans call for a minimum of 30,000 square feet of commercial space, as such a component of the plans is a requirement of the city’s Zoning Code.
The trees and the City Zoning Code
As the News Leader has reported, Joel Freedman, agent for the Naples developer The Lutgert Companies, wrote in the May 2 application submitted to city staff that the project had been “designed to comply with the City’s tree preservation ordinance,” with efforts being made “to minimize removal of existing trees.”
The two slash pines on the building site that Ullom referenced during the DRC meeting, plus a live oak, are considered Grand Trees because of their diameter at breast height. Landscape architect Smith classified the slash pines as being in good condition, while he noted in the May 2 application that the oak is in poor condition.
An attachment to the application said those existing trees “impact 16.73% of the total building’s area, affecting 30 residential units and reducing parking availability. Moving the building to avoid the trees would create issues with attainable tower and remove shared amenities,” that section pointed out.
Further, that attachment explained, ““Given the substantial impact on the architectural design and the overall feasibility of the project, the removal of the existing trees within the property boundaries is essential. This will allow the construction to proceed as planned, ensuring the safety, functionality, and economic viability of the project.”
A July 1 memo that Sacharski, the city’s development review planner, sent to project team member Freedman, included multiple comments from Senior Arborist Ullom. Among them, Ullom pointed out that the removal of a Grand Tree “located upon public or private property” is prohibited by the city’s Zoning Code, unless the tree is exempt from the regulations for the following reasons, which comprise Section VII-310 (c) of the Zoning Code:
- “A grand tree is in an advanced state of decline, as determined by a city-approved certified arborist or state-registered landscape architect. Unless the grand tree is obviously dead or diseased, the city approved certified arborist report must include a resistograph test or similar test which is approved by the city arborist for use in determining if the grand tree is in such an advanced state of decline as to justify removal of said grand tree.
- “A grand tree is located where an infrastructure improvement or structure which complies with all applicable codes is to be located and the applicant has made all reasonable efforts to relocate the infrastructure improvement or structure to preserve the grand tree. Applicant shall provide alternative design plans with accompanying narrative explaining why alternate designs do not work.
- “In order to preserve the grand tree, it would be necessary for at least 25 percent of the parking area or buildable area to be rendered unusable or unbuildable. Applicant must show hatched diagram illustrating loss of parking area or buildable area to qualify for this exemption.
- “An imminent safety hazard exists which can be mitigated by removal of the grand tree.”
Multiple reasons cited for need to remove Grand Trees on Adagio site
Through a public records request and an online search of city development documents, the News Leader found materials that Smith, the landscape architect, sent to city Senior Arborist Ullom on June 30, with more materials provided to him on July 7.
In response to the latter submission, Ullom wrote Smith, “ This meets the requirements and addresses the remaining comments …”
Smith’s document said, “An existing tree inventory identified two slash pine trees in the northwest area of the development site. The trees are located in an area where infrastructure improvements and a structure, that complies with applicable codes, are to be located. All reasonable efforts were made to relocate the infrastructure improvements and structure in order to preserve the two trees. The alternate designs were not feasible due to significant loss of building area, loss of a safe and direct route from required parking to a neighboring Church, shading of the trees and encroachment to adjacent properties and structures. Importantly, removal of the existing one-story building immediately adjacent to the trees, as well as underground site utility removals and improvements will significantly disturb the root systems. These effects are realized in all of the site improvement and building designs.”
Then the document noted, “Alternate designs of the structure to avoid the tree root zones and canopies resulted in a major impact to the building — over [27.7%] of the structure’s total area was affected. Fifty-six (56) residential condominiums and thirty-eight (38) ADA [Americans with Disabilities Act] and typical parking spaces were lost. A core stairwell and elevator, the planned restaurant, several retail spaces, individual parking garages and storage areas and the bulk of the building amenity areas were all lost. Furthermore, the planned safe and direct route from dedicated reserved parking spaces to the Church of the Redeemer was eliminated.”
Consultant Freedman has pointed out that the church will have an office within the Adagio complex.
Moreover, the document continued, “Shade studies were performed showing the trees would lack direct sunlight for the majority of the day throughout the entire year. Throughout every season, the trees would be in the shade during full sunlight hours. This demonstrated that even a compromised building structure would significantly shade the trees, affecting their long-term viability.”
The document asserted, “Relocating the location of the structure by shifting it to the southeast resulted in encroachment onto neighboring properties, eliminated open spaces and greatly reduced privacy. Even greater losses to the building and total structure areas would be required to remain within existing property lines and maintain required clearances.
“Leaving the two slash pine trees in place dramatically affects the feasibility of the project,” the document stressed. “Alternative designs and relocation of the infrastructure improvements and structure reduce the building, with parking included, by more than twenty-five percent (25%). The buildable area of the property is rendered unusable. Due to the results of the alternative designs and studies, the two slash pine trees must be removed.”