Neihaus expresses continuing concern about developer’s earlier plans regarding shorter-term condo rentals than city code allows
On a recent 4-1 vote, the Sarasota Planning Board approved the three adjustments that the developer had requested for the mixed-use Saravela complex slated for the Rosemary District near downtown Sarasota.
City regulations do not give the director of the city’s Development Services Department the authority to approve the changes that developer Lawrence Debb of GSP Sarasota LLC had sought, the city staff report for the July 8 public hearing explained.
Planning Board member Alex Neihaus cast the “No” vote following the July 8 public hearing, citing his inability to trust the developer, Lawrence Debb of GSP Development, in the wake of marketing efforts that had touted the ability of owners of the planned condominiums to rent those units for a minimum of three days, in violation of the city’s seven-day minimum for short-term vacation rentals.
“First off,” he pointed out, “I live in the Rosemary District, on Fourth Street, and I care deeply about that neighborhood …”
He added that the leaders of the Downtown Sarasota Condominium Association (DSCA) were “blindsided with the introduction of the new business model,” referring to the short-term rental proposal.
“I know that’s not before us here,” Neihaus continued. Nonetheless, he said, it “was sprung on everyone” — the three-day minimum rental.
… I think … this is an opportunity for the Planning Board to express its trust or distrust of the developer through its very rare power to actually make a decision.”
He did acknowledge, though, that Debb could appeal the decision to the City Commission if the Planning Board did not approve all of the adjustments.
In March, Patrick Seidensticker, an attorney with the Icard Merrill firm in Sarasota, told the Sarasota Observer, “ ‘At their core these are residential condos. … What Larry would like to do is provide these owners with the choice to rent them for periods of less than seven days. The city’s interpretation of their code is that anything less than seven days has to be categorized as transient lodging. We don’t agree with that, that these are hotel rooms.’ ”
That statement came after the city’s Development Services director, Lucia Panica, sent a letter to Seidensticker and a second Icard Merrill attorney who had been representing Debb, warning them that if Debb’s goal was to provide “transient lodging,” then he would have to submit an amendment to the project application and, essentially, pursue a new start to the development process. That, Panica noted, would include “a Community Workshop, Development Review Committee review, Planning Board Hearing, and City Commission Public Hearing.”
Debb is based in the Chicago area, as The Sarasota News Leader has reported.
During the discussion after the presentations, Planning Board member Dan Clermont pointed out, “I believe that [proposal for three-day rentals] has been rescinded by the developer. … I’m satisfied that this [short-term rental issue] isn’t something for us really to consider.”
Ultimately, Clermont continued, Debb and his agent, Bill Waddill, senior planner and landscape architect with the Kimley-Horn consulting firm in Sarasota, worked with city staff, the Downtown Sarasota Condominium Association (DSCA) and other developers “to make a more livable and workable and walkable street. … So, to me, that does elevate the trust level that I have with this developer.”
Moreover, Clermont said, “I think the building has excellent layering. It’s not just a big behemoth. … I think it’s a building that’s a little bit of relief from everything else around it.”
Planning Board member Douglas Christy ended up making the motion to approve the adjustments, and Chair Shane LaMay seconded it. Clermont and new Planning Board member Tiffany Nesbit joined them in voting “Yes.”
The adjustments themselves
The city staff report prepared for the Planning Board hearing said that staff recommended approval of the application, following review of the adjustments in accord with the Standards for Review in the city Zoning Code.
Section IV-1903 of the city Zoning Code points out that, to be granted, a proposed adjustment must “equally or better meet the purpose of the regulation to be adjusted,” the report added.
As explained in that document regarding the Saravela application for the adjustments, the complex will stand on approximately 1.7 acres comprising nine parcels bordered by North Tamiami Trail to the west, Fifth Street to the north, single-family homes to the east, and Fourth Street to the south. The addresses, the report noted, are 400 and 430 N. Tamiami Trail; 1219, 1227, 1235, 1245 and 1251 Fourth St.; and 1222 and 1236 Fifth St.
The property is split between Downtown Bayfront zoning to the west and Downtown Core to the east. The plans call for the demolition of the “vacant hotel/motel and single-family structures” on the site, the report continued, with the Saravela to comprise one 18-story tower and one 11-story building with a total of 282 multi-family units, including 40 attainable dwellings; a four-level parking garage with about 315 spaces; and approximately 11,384 square feet of commercial space.
The adjustments are as follows:
- Access to parking from Fifth Street, which is a “designated Primary Grid Street.” The developer was seeking access to the site from Fifth Street, which has that designation. The Zoning Code calls for access to parking to be “to an alley or secondary street, “when possible.”
The city staff report pointed out, “Eliminating access points along [North] Tamiami Trail mitigates congestion along a major corridor and the removal of driveways that surround the site enhances the pedestrian experience and pedestrian safety by minimizing conflict points between the pedestrian and vehicles. … [G]ranting the adjustment does not create more access points and would significantly reduce the number of conflict points currently located on the site, and there is a reasonable way to facilitate vehicular and pedestrian traffic with fewer conflict points …”
- Location of parking — Section VII-206(8)(c)(1) of the Zoning Code says “[G]arages and structured parking shall be located in the third layer and masked by a liner building,” the report explained. “The first, second, and fourth levels of structured parking are located in the third layer, which is approximately 20 feet behind the façade line of the second layer, and are lined by townhomes,” as well as commercial/retail space on the first and second floors along North Tamiami Trail and Fourth and Fifth streets, the report said. Thus, the developer needed approval for parking in the second layer. The city staff report added, “A liner on the third level mainly provides aesthetic function to shield parking from view. The applicant is proposing decorative aluminum materials to act as a screen for the parking on the third layer …”
- Exterior finish materials — The developer wanted to screen parking on the third layer with a mix of aluminum materials. However, Table VI-1004 in Section VI-1004 of the Zoning Code, says that “exterior finish materials on all facades (except windows) shall be limited to precast concrete, decorative concrete block, cementitious finish, stucco, quarried stone, cast stone, brick, terra cotta, and tile,” the report noted. “[G]ranting the adjustment provides screening for the structured parking to provide a more aesthetically pleasing building façade [consistent with the desired character of the Downtown Bayfront and Downtown Core zone districts] and streetscape,” the report said.
The July 8 presentation and Code questions
During the July 8 hearing, Waddill of Kimley-Horn pointed out during the project team presentation that developer Debb had agreed to the 40 attainable housing units, when only 30 were necessary to obtain the city’s residential density bonus. A number of community residents had asked whether Debb would be agreeable to include more than the 30, Waddill noted.
Further, Waddill said, the plans call for 30 extra public parking spaces, in an effort to help ameliorate the lack of such spots in the Rosemary District. Most of those will be in the first floor of the parking garage, he continued, but eight of them will be along the realigned alley.
He noted that the City Commission in May unanimously approved the rerouting of a portion of the alley between Fourth and Fifth streets to achieve the design that Debb had envisioned.
Waddill also explained that, through his work with David Lough, the past president of the Downtown Sarasota Condominium Association (DSCA), four developers — one of whom was Debb — had met voluntarily with Waddill and Lough on a couple of occasions to discussion the future development of the three blocks of the Rosemary District that will include the Saravela. Out of those discussions, Waddill continued, came the agreement that new sidewalks needed to be 20 feet wide, at a minimum, instead of the city’s 13-foot requirement, and bigger trees would be better on the streets.
“A couple of the developers agreed to do a number of these different enhancements largely because of those meetings that we had with the community stakeholders [in the Rosemary District] and members of [city] staff,” Waddill pointed out.
Moreover, Waddill noted, the sidewalks for the Saravela will be upgraded to the type of clay brick that the city has used in downtown Sarasota.
Further, because city water lines were located in an area where trees should be planted, Waddill said, smaller trees would be necessary, instead of large canopy trees. As a result, he added, Debb had agreed to move those water lines.
He showed the board members a slide depicting the larger canopy trees along the building frontage. Royal palms will be planted along a portion of North Tamiami Trail, he said, to stand above an architectural canopy.
In discussing the first proposed adjustment, Waddill told the Planning Board members, “We believe the best access point is along Fifth [Street].” As it appears today, he noted, the site has six access points.
He also noted that the aluminum screening planned for the third level of the parking garage would be consistent with the aluminum accents on the building’s windows and on the glass railings. Moreover, he described it as “very … compatible with buildings that are going up downtown.”
He cited three condominium complexes in downtown Sarasota with similar aluminum screening, including the Ritz-Carlton residences in the Quay Sarasota.
Planning Board member Neihaus did ask Waddill and Debb whether the rendering in the city staff report featured the original concept for the screening.
“I think it’s been updated again,” Waddill replied, reminding the board members that the process to create Saravela began about two years ago.
“What we didn’t want to do,” Debb explained, is allow the lights of cars pulling into the garage to penetrate the wall, “so we made the layer a little bit longer …”
Then Neihaus brought up a section of the Zoning Code that he asserted made it impossible for the board to approve the screening adjustment: Section IV-1903(b)(2)e.iii, which was one of the facets of the regulations for which an adjustment could not be granted.
That section says, “If an adjustment to allow structured parking in the second layer is considered, the facade screening shall be similar to the design, character, and treatment of the habitable portions of the building.”
“We actually were told we can ask for this adjustment,” Waddill replied.
Waddill added, “Compatibility, of course, is subjective.”
According to the Zoning Code, Waddill explained, if the material were made out of wood and painted it to look like metal, “that would be fine. … [Yet, that] makes absolutely no sense in the 21st century.”
He stressed the developer’s desire to use aluminum, to match the railings, as seen in a rendering he had presented. “I would argue that that makes it very compatible.”
After further exchanges with Neihaus over that issue, Alison Christie, manager of the city’s Development Services Department, finally explained that the adjustment request related to a different section of the Zoning Code. She referred Neihaus to Page 7 of the staff report, which cited Section VI-1004 and Table VI-1004.
Yet, Neihaus reminded her, a report produced by the city’s Development Review Committee (DRC) in February 2025 said that the Zoning Code section he had cited was the relevant one.
“Yes,” Christie acknowledged. Nonetheless, she pointed out, the one cited in the staff report for the hearing that day was correct.
(The DRC comprises representatives of the various city departments that are involved in land-development applications, along with a member of the Sarasota County Fire Department and a representative of the Sarasota County School Board.)
Planning Board member Christy ended up asking Christie, “You would never schedule a meeting on an application that the city maintained could not be considered by the Planning Board?”
“Correct,” Christie told him.
Following that discussion, Christy asked Waddill and Debb whether the developer would have needed the second adjustment, regarding the parking garage, if the design had included just the number of city-required parking spaces.
“We always want to go above and beyond,” Debb responded. “And we’ve done that on virtually everything in this building …”