Zoning district height restrictions would apply
On a unanimous vote — with Sarasota County Commissioner Mark Smith having recused himself for ethical reasons — the County Commission agreed this week to send back to the county’s Planning Commission amendments to county policies and zoning regulations that would allow voluntary condominium demolition and rebuilding solely on Siesta Key.
Following that new Planning Commission hearing, the amendments would be the focus of a new County Commission hearing.
At Smith’s behest, the board majority agreed that no structure could exceed the height allowed for the zoning district in which it is located.
“There was a definite miscommunication as far as height,” he pointed out, referring to prior action on the issue, especially in regard to the June 2024 county Planning Commission hearing on the proposed amendments.
The Planning Commission voted unanimously not to recommend that the County Commission approve the proposed changes to the county’s Comprehensive Plan and its Unified Development Code out of concern that a 65-foot-tall building could be rebuilt at 65 feet over two parking levels.
Smith explained on July 8 that that never was his intention when he represented the Sea Club V condominium complex in broaching the voluntary condominium demolition issue with the County Commission seated in January 2022.
In addressing the height issue, Smith referred to a slide that county Planner Everett Farrell had shown the board members that day. It depicted the maximum heights of multi-family structures allowed over parking levels in the county. The limit is 35 feet over two 12-foot-high levels of parking in Residential Multi-Family (RMF) Zoning Districts 1 and 2; for RMF-3 zoning, it is 45 feet over two 12-foot parking levels.
Moreover, given the estimated $50,000 expense per space in a parking garage, Smith stressed, he would expect condominium associations to try to avoid the use of garages as much as possible, while conforming with county regulations.
As the discussion continued, especially in regard to the height issue, Chair Joe Neunder proposed that they board members vote on whether they would like to see any changes to the language of the proposed, relevant amendment to the county’s Unified Development Code (UDC), which contains all of the county’s land-use and zoning regulations.
Taking subsections in order, the commissioners agreed on every proposed restriction except in regard to height.
Commissioners Teresa Mast and Tom Knight noted their preference for keeping the potential that rebuilt condominium complexes could rise as high as 65 feet over two levels of parking. Both emphasized their focus on resiliency, noting an earlier board discussion that day during which the commissioners agreed to modify a county policy to allow property owners to provide as much as 3 feet of freeboard in new home construction in county flood zones.
However, Smith stressed again the public concern regarding the prospect of such tall buildings on the Key.
Ultimately, Neunder and Commissioner Ron Cutsinger agreed with Smith that the proposed UDC amendment language should specify that any rebuilt complexes also would have to comply with the maximum height already provided for in county zoning regulations.
A companion amendment to the county’s Comprehensive Plan, which guides growth in the community, also is planned.
Smith’s representation of Sea Club V before his 2022 election to the board necessitated his recusal from voting this week, he explained to his colleagues early on during the July 8 discussion. The previous day, Smith said, he talked with a representative of the Florida Commission on Ethics, to make certain he understood what action he could and could not take on the proposal. The individual did tell him he could participate in the discussion this week, even if he could not vote, Smith noted.
Continuing objections to proposals
As he has in the past, Smith stressed during the July 8 discussion that — especially given rising construction costs, the average time for completing building projects, and the fact that condominium rental income would be lost for two or three years during reconstruction — he does not anticipate an abundance of condominium associations agreeing to voluntary demolition.
‘This is voluntary,” he emphasized. “No one’s making anybody do anything.”
The amendments would apply to structures built before the 2000 Florida Building Code was enacted, he add. All of those buildings, Smith pointed out, “will be damaged in a major storm event. They’re not designed to withstand hurricane-force winds and storm surge,” he explained. “We experienced that [during the 2024 storm season, with Hurricanes Helene and Milton].” Some of the older structures on Siesta were gutted by the wind and water, he added.
However, two representatives of Siesta Key nonprofit organizations — Lourdes Ramirez, president of Protect Siesta Key; and Neal Schleifer, vice president of the Siesta Key Condominium Council — voiced opposition to the proposal, as they have in the past.
They consistently have warned of the potential of unintended consequences, including the prospect that developers would end up turning the rebuilt structures into transient accommodations, which is the phrase that county staff uses for hotel and motel rooms.
On July 8, Ramirez pointed to new concerns related to the proposed amendments, including changes in state law — a result of the passage this year of Senate Bill 180 — that already allow for relaxed, post-storm reconstruction standards.
Moreover, she said, if the county loosens its regulations for Residential Multi-Family zoning districts on the island, she believes agents of developers will press for new standards for properties zoned Residential Single-Family (RSF), which will result in greater density on the Key.
Ramirez also noted that some condominium complexes are located in RSF zoning districts. She cited Fisherman’s Cove on south Siesta as an example.
“We must protect the character of our neighborhoods,” Ramirez stressed.
Further, she said, “We lost millions in rental income due to delayed permits” for reconstruction following the 2024 storm season. In fact, she added, as late as May, she was aware of visitors having to cancel plans to stay on Siesta because the units where they had planned to stay were not ready.
During his remarks, Schleifer noted that the Condominium Council represents 7,000 residents in 100 associations on the barrier island.
He urged the commissioners to table the voluntary condominium demolition agenda item that day.
“What do condo owners really want?” he asked. They want county staff to “address stormwater problems and flooding on the Key.”
Moreover, Schleifer said, before the board members amend the Comprehensive Plan, the Council leaders believe that a thorough analysis must be undertaken of the island’s infrastructure and hurricane evacuation routes.
He also pointed out, “There’s no shortage of accommodations” on Siesta.
Emphasis on the voluntary aspect of rebuilding
On July 8, in response to public concerns, Commissioner Smith stressed that if a developer wanted to turn a condominium building on Siesta Key into a hotel, it would be far easier for a developer to go ahead and purchase one of the damaged complexes on the island, “take over the majority of the association [and] change the condo [documents to allow daily unit rentals]. Why would they tear [a complex] down if they didn’t have to?”
Smith further emphasized that the proposed amendment to the Unified Development Code (UDC) makes it clear that no more units could be reconstructed than were present in the original condominium structure. Thus, no “lockout rooms” would be allowed.
Opponents of the proposed amendments have contended that the changes could lead to extra rooms being built, which could double the residential density of the complexes. Smith stressed, “We’re only going to allow the same number of residential units.”
He explained that the UDC amendment language calls for replacement of units on a like-for-like basis. In other words, the same number of one-bedroom and two-bedroom condos would be allowed.
“This information could be provided on the demolition permit and verified by the zoning administrator,” Smith noted. “Condo associations’ approval of the building permits would be required to modify the units after construction was completed.”
He added, “I believe we have safeguards in place” to prevent any attempt to raise the unit count.
In regard to the concern about complexes being turned into transient accommodations, Smith explained that each association has its own rental programs “that are limited and defined by their own condo [documents]. All condominiums on Siesta Key could rent daily if their condominium docs allow it.”
Therefore, he continued, “Doing this does not increase the possibility of transient accommodations on Siesta Key.”
Smith did note that the sizes of the new condos likely would be larger, as the units themselves would not have to be restricted to the square footage of the original condos.
Referring to Sea Club V on south Siesta as an example, Smith pointed out that the original building was constructed around 1955 as a motel. “We’re not going to build a condominium today at the same square footage” that existed at that time, he added.
Moreover, Smith pointed out, the proposed UDC amendment would require all construction to conform to current county building standards, including the percentage of lot coverage allowed in the specific zoning district, daylight plane restrictions, and setbacks.
Vulnerability of complexes built before 2000 Florida Building Code went into effect
In explaining the background of the proposed amendments, Smith talked about the fact that he was hired by representatives of Sea Club V on Siesta Key to take a look at the complex’s buildings. Given the deterioration of parts of the property, Smith continued, he suggested that the owners demolish the complex and rebuild it.
However, in conducting research on that point, Smith told his colleagues, he learned that the county’s Post Disaster Redevelopment Plan (PDRP) would allow owners of condominium complexes to rebuild them with the same number of units if the structures had been destroyed by a storm.
If the Sea Level V condominium association wanted simply to rebuild its structures, he said, under current county regulations, it would be able to have only 18 units, instead of the 41 that exist.
Smith read sections of that PDRP, noting especially the following: “The intent of all PDRP activities is to improve the community’s ability for long-term recovery and redevelopment. Implementation of these activities, however, may occur pre-disaster, during the short-term recovery phase, or during the long-term redevelopment phase.”
Further, he read, “The goal of the Sarasota County PDRP is to enable a more rapid and sustainable countywide recovery and redevelopment after a disaster.”
Yet another section said, “It would be better to encourage structurally nonconforming buildings to voluntarily be demolished and be rebuilt to today’s codes than have them destroyed in a major storm event, where the loss of property is definite and the loss of life a possibility.”
“That’s the main reason I brought this forward initially,” Smith pointed out, “and why I’ve been supporting this ever since.”
He told his colleagues, “It didn’t make any sense to me why we have to wait for a storm” to damage more than 50% of a condominium complex before it could be rebuilt. (He was referring to a rule of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA.)
“These are all FEMA nonconforming structures,” he said of the affected complexes on Siesta Key.