Revisions submitted to staff in May 2024

In May 2024, a representative of Benderson Development Co. filed revised, proposed amendments to the Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan and to the county’s Unified Development Code (UDC) — which contains all of the land-use and zoning regulations — to allow for the construction of high-rise hotels on Siesta Key, The Sarasota News Leader has learned through a public records request.
In recent months, Siesta residents have expressed curiosity about why the company’s application for the amendments never had been the focus of a county Planning Commission hearing, which would precede the necessary County Commission hearing.
The May 2024 documents remain under staff review, as noted by the Accela land-use application and permitting system available through the county website.
In fact, documents that the News Leader received on Jan. 9 show that, as of that date, county Planner Ana Messina had sent two requests for additional information (RAIs) to Philip DiMaria, a certified planner with the Kimley-Horn consulting firm in Sarasota, who has been working with Benderson on the proposals.
The News Leader found no response to the second RAI, which was dated July 1, 2024.
In a letter he sent to the Planning Division staff on May 23, 2024, DiMaria provided explanations of facets of the amendments, including the proposed limitation of new high-rise hotels to only 15% of the land on Siesta Key zoned either Commercial General (CG) in the Siesta Key Overlay District (SKOD), or Commercial Intensive (CI) in the SKOD.
County regulations allow “transient accommodations” — the local government term for hotel and motel rooms — on property zoned CG, if the County Commission approves a Special Exception for that use. On Benderson’s behalf, DiMaria also has applied for county approval of the use of transient accommodations in the CI zoning district through use of a new Special Exception process.

“The CI zoning district promotes high intensity commercial development,” he wrote. “As noted in the [proposed UDC amendments] and the [proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments], Transient Accommodations, including hotels and motels, are a commercial use that is compatible with the character of the CI zoning district. Transient Accommodations will continue to be limited by the existing commercial development standards of CI including existing height, bulk, setback, building recess, and other commercial development standards and requirements, none of which are proposed to be changed,” he continued. “Additionally, Transient Accommodations are currently permitted by Special Exception in the CG zone district which is arguably less intense than the CI zone district,” he pointed out.
That 15% cap, DiMaria wrote, would mean that only 6.655 acres of the total land area in the CG and CI zones on the Key could be developed as hotel sites. The total land area of those districts, he noted, is 44.37 acres, based on the language in the UDC’s section about district boundaries.
“The proposed 15% area limit for New Transient Accommodations … was determined, in part, as a natural settling point between the desire to limit impacts to CG/SKOD and CI/SKOD while also accommodating the existing proposals,” DiMaria pointed out. He was referring to plans by Benderson for a high-rise hotel on the site of two commercial plazas that the company owns in Siesta Village; as well as the proposal from Siesta businessman Gary Kompothecras for a seven-story hotel at the intersection of Old Stickney Point Road and Peacock Road in what is called the “South Bridge” area of the barrier island, south of the Stickney Point Road/Midnight Pass intersection; and plans for an 80-foot-tall hotel with 163 rooms on parcels on the edge of Siesta Village, on Calle Miramar.
The “15% cap for New Transient Accommodations encourages other forms of commercial development on the remaining portions of CG/SKOD and CI/SKOD,” DiMaria continued. “This contributes to a diverse landscape of commercial development which enhances the pedestrian experience for Siesta Key residents and visitors and provides an appropriate mix of uses within the SKOD. Moreover, the amount of land for New Transient Accommodations will diversify available tourist accommodations, enhance the tourist experience, and maintain the competitiveness and legacy of Sarasota’s tourism on Siesta Key.”
He also noted in his narrative that the “majority of Siesta Key was developed from the 1950s through the 1980s.”
In regard to hotel and motel rooms being allowed in CI districts, DiMaria further contended, “The CI zoning district currently permits by right uses such as restaurants, bars, retail sales, indoor/outdoor entertainment centers, and recreation facilities. Close proximity to concentrated commercial areas enhances the tourist experience by providing a variety of options for guests to explore and enjoy within walking distance. … Expanding the availability of Transient Accommodations within CI will support the County’s overall economic base by diversifying the availability and location of tourist accommodations to suit the individual needs of Sarasota County visitors.”
More points in favor of expansion of transient accommodations
Expanding on his argument in favor of designating hotel and motel rooms as commercial structures, instead of continuing to classify them for residential density purposes, DiMaria noted, “In 1999, the Siesta Key Community Plan was published after an ‘intensive community planning process’ with residents and community leaders.” That plan, he wrote, “ ‘does not specifically address regulations pertaining to hotels. However, it does acknowledge that the Property which is situated within the Village is zoned as Commercial General (CG). This zoning designation permits the same range of uses in the Siesta Key Village as the rest of Sarasota County. Ocean Boulevard has remained primarily commercial in nature, consisting mostly of strip commercial, shops, restaurants, and some small resort uses.”
Further, he wrote, “Siesta Key has a total approximate population of 6,500 residents and boasts 350,000 visitors each year.”
DiMaria then added, “Siesta Key’s largest economic driver is tourism. Options for tourists to stay on Siesta Key consist primarily of short-term rentals located around the Key. In response to the growing number of visitors to Sarasota County and Siesta Key,” Benderson was proposing the Comprehensive Plan text amendments, modification of the UDC and an expansion of Special Exceptions to promote the redevelopment of properties into hotel uses “that would bring tourists directly to their destination.”

In that section, DiMaria did refer to two Benderson affiliates — SBP 5239 LLC and 5221 Ocean Blvd LLC — as “the master developers of an assemblage of three parcels … of approximately 0.97 acres … located generally east of Ocean Boulevard, south of Canal Road and west of Calle Menorca,” where Benderson wants to construct its own high-rise hotel. The structure would be 85 feet tall, comprising seven floors with a total of 147 rooms, plus “rooftop amenity.” Both ingress and egress would be from Calle Menorca.
The revised amendments
With his new narrative, DiMaria submitted further revisions of Benderson’s earlier, proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan, which guides growth in the community, as well as new versions of the UDC amendments. Prior to the May documents, the most recent revisions were filed with county staff in March 2024.
Primarily, based on a News Leader review of the changes in the Comprehensive Plan amendments, the use of “hotel” or “hotels” has been replaced by “Transient Accommodations.”
Benderson also has removed from its proposals a revised definition of “hotels,” which DiMaria included in his materials for county staff in 2023. Instead, he has submitted a recommended new definition for transient accommodations, writing that that the term would “mean hotels and motels,” consistent with Chapter 509 of the Florida Statutes. The new language follows:

However, the proposed new Future Land Use Policy 2.9.4 includes an extra provision: “A New Transient Accommodation shall provide appropriate mitigation, if necessary, to meet Coastal Policy 1.2.2.”
The Comprehensive Plan’s current Coastal Policy 1.2.2 says, “Proposed land use plan amendments in Evacuation Zones A and B hurricane vulnerability zone (storm surge areas) may be considered if such increases in density and intensity do not adversely impact hurricane evacuation times and are consistent with Future Land Use Policy 2.9.1 and Appendix A, Article 4, Section 4.6, Residential District Intent Statement, Code of Ordinances of Sarasota County, Florida.”

DiMaria’s revised Coastal Policy 1.2.2 would read as follows, with the new language underlined and existing language to be deleted shown with a strikethrough:

Section 4.6, according to the County Code, says, “Improve surface water quality including estuarine, freshwater, coastal streams, rivers, and bays, including the Myakka River and its tributaries.”
In accord with the mention above of Coastal Objective 1.3, regarding “safe and timely evacuation,” DiMaria suggested the following changes:


Moreover, Benderson has chosen not to proceed with proposing a new Coastal Policy 1.3.1, which read, “Strive toward community preparedness for each storm category using Best Management Practices, safe and timely evacuation, appropriate sheltering, or appropriate mitigation that shall be contained and become part of the county’s Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan (CEMP).”