Trice and Ahearn-Koch cite multiple concerns spurring their opposition to request
This week, during the Sarasota city commissioners’ second, required vote on the application, Commissioner Debbie Trice joined Vice Mayor Jen Ahearn-Koch in opposing the vacation of the approximately 27,073-square-foot Cross Street right of way in downtown Sarasota, which was platted as Fourth Street, between South Orange Avenue and South Pineapple Avenue.
During the first hearing, conducted on Aug. 19, Ahearn-Koch cast the sole “No” vote.
On Nov. 4, Trice told her colleagues that she appreciated the proffers that the applicant had provided, especially the one that makes it clear that the vacation is subject to final city approval of a site plan. “That’s crucial.”
The ordinance that the board members considered that day states that the applicant “shall, within three (3) years of the approval of this street vacation” apply for a site plan or building permit “on any portion of the property within the Development.” Moreover, it calls for the applicant to obtain from city staff the first building permit for vertical construction on any portion of the development within six years of approval of the street vacation.
Nonetheless, Trice expressed concern about the street vacation because it relates to three primary city grid streets: Pineapple and Orange avenues and Ringling Boulevard.
She added that city regulations allow the commissioners to approve more curb cuts on primary grid streets, “and I think that makes a whole lot more sense” than the vacation.
“I’m just concerned about the … unknowable future,” Trice added. The applicant has not given city staff or the board members any idea about its development plans, she pointed out.
Ahearn-Koch told her colleagues, “I do not see [the vacation] as a public benefit.”
City Attorney Robert Fournier had pointed out, “The public will be able to traverse the right of way in the same way that they do today,” if the vacation were approved.
He also noted an easement that the applicant had agreed to give the city in regard to continued public access for pedestrians and vehicles. The intent is for that easement to be in perpetuity, Fournier noted. However, he continued, the applicant had reserved the right to request encroachment agreements, “or things of that nature, if they want to embellish the right of way or have outdoor dining.”
When Ahearn-Koch asked Fournier whether the applicant could request that the easement be removed, he told her that the City Commission would have to agree with that.
Ahearn-Koch also expressed concern about the trees that will be lost to development plans expected to be unveiled in the future. Noting that the applicant has said that four of the trees will be preserved, she emphasized, “We could keep all of the trees that are currently there,” by denying the vacation petition. “Trees in our city are becoming more and more precious.”
Further, she pointed out, “The connectivity aspect [of the right of way] is crucial to our city.” The roundabout in that vicinity was designed for the traffic flow as it exists, which is one-way, she continued. She wondered about the effects of the planned two-way traffic on the roundabout’s traffic flow.
When the applicant’s team addressed the City Commission in August, Philip DiMaria, a certified planner with the Kimley Horn consulting firm in Sarasota, explained that the one-way traffic “funnels traffic into the roundabout at Pineapple [Avenue and Ringling Boulevard].” He added that the conversion to two-way traffic would improve the circulation of vehicles and allow better flexibility for the design of development in that area.
Details about the applicant
The applicant is Orange Pineapple LLC, whose mailing address is 1605 Main St., Unit 1001, in Sarasota; the registered agent is Corporation Service Co. of Tallahassee, and the corporation manger is Steele Interests SOF LLC of Sarasota, whose CEO is Robert Franco, according to records maintained by the Florida Division of Corporations. The cover letter sent to that division, in conjunction with the May 2023 establishment of the limited liability company, identified Franco as being with SteeleHarbour Orange Crush LLC, with the same 1605 Main St. address, as the contact person for the company.
During the Aug. 19 public hearing, city Planner Rebecca Webster pointed out that the applicant owns all of the properties to the north and south of Cross Street.
The formal Agenda Request Form for the Nov. 4 hearing identified the locations of those parcels as follows:
- 200 S. Orange Ave. (PID [property identification] # 2027-06-0068).
- 300 S. Orange Ave. (PID# 2027-06-0080).
- 1520 Ringling Blvd. (PID# 2027-06-0073).
- 1544 Cross St. (PID# 2027-06-0083)..
- 1530 Cross St. (PID# 2027-06-0085)
- 1520 Cross St. (PID# 2027-06-0086.)
- 301 S. Pineapple Ave. (PID# 2027-06-0087).
‘A somewhat unique right-of-way’
The Aug. 19 city staff report explained, “Cross Street is a somewhat unique right-of-way within the city, because it is lined with large oak trees that provide shade cover to members of the public that utilize the right-of-way. … There is no application for development that has been submitted in conjunction with the vacation application; however, the Applicant is requesting to vacate Cross Street for flexibility within a future development plan that integrates the Cross Street right-of-way into the overall project design.”
An updated staff analysis of the city’s standards of review for right of way vacations, performed subsequent to the Aug. 19 public hearing, found the following among other details, the Nov. 4 City Commission Agenda Request Form said, “The large oak trees that line Cross Street are unique within the city’s downtown core and provide shade covering for pedestrians as well as 15 shaded on-street parking for vehicles.”
That document also noted that Cross Street contains a hub for the Veo ride-sharing equipment and “connectivity to the waterfront via Ringling Boulevard.”
For all of those reasons, the form continued, the staff found that Cross Street “provides a public benefit.”
The staff report for the Aug. 19 hearing pointed out, “It has been determined by city staff that the proffers provided by the Applicant do not clearly demonstrate a public benefit to vacating Cross Street and are instead ambiguous in nature without the presence of a site plan for the future development of the site. City staff ultimately cannot adequately determine the impact of the proposed vacation, nor the public benefit of the proposed proffers, independent of the future site plan.”
However, during the Nov. 4 hearing, Webster told the commissioners, “Based on the proffers and the standards for review, staff feels it’s, on balance, a public benefit” to vacate the right of way. Yet, she did add that the decision rested with the commissioners.
Probing the proffers
During her Aug. 19 presentation, Webster noted that “Cross Street continues to provide a connection to the waterfront,” particularly for residents of the Laurel Park neighborhood, who can use it to reach Ringling Boulevard and, ultimately, the bayfront.
She did discuss the proffers in detail. Among them was the fact that the applicant would execute and provide to the city attorney the following:
- “A perpetual non-exclusive public access easement to the benefit of the City of Sarasota … to facilitate public pedestrian and vehicular ingress and egress in, on, over, through and across a 24-footwide private roadway (12 feet on either side of the centerline of the Vacated Parcel),” which would comprise the “Vehicular Access Area.”
- A 14-foot-wide perpetual non-exclusive public pedestrian access easement to the benefit of the City of Sarasota located immediately north of the Vehicular Access Area (the ”North Pedestrian Access Area”
- “A 14-foot-wide perpetual non-exclusive public pedestrian access easement to the benefit of the City of Sarasota located immediately south of the Vehicular Access Area (the “South Pedestrian Access Area”).”
The applicant said that together, “the North Pedestrian Access Area and the South Pedestrian Access Area shall be referred to as the ‘Pedestrian Access Area,’ ” the staff report noted.
One of the earlier proffers provided, “The Access Easement shall provide pedestrians and vehicles the same rights as are allowed in a City public right of way.” Notwithstanding that, the “Applicant, its successors or assigns shall have the right to reasonably control access to the Access Easement Area and to regulate activities which may be permitted thereon.”
As examples, the proffer pointed out that the application could exclude from “the Access Easement Area any persons or items it deems are dangerous or disruptive to persons or property,” and it could “restrict or prohibit access to the Access Easement Area during certain reasonable times (while still permitting access during such times by tenants of the Development, hotel guests, residents of the Development, persons delivering goods to the Development and other persons having a business or other need for access which differs from the general public) …”
However, the Agenda Request Form for the Aug. 19 City Commission meeting pointed out that those restrictions had been removed.
Proffer No. 13 in the Aug. 19 backup agenda materials said, “Applicant shall comply with the requirements of the City’s Tree Protection Ordinance regarding the existing healthy Grand Trees located within the Vacated Parcel.” The Agenda Request Form for the Nov. 4 meeting pointed out that that proffer was modified to include the phrase “ ‘as if those trees were in a public right of way,’ ” regarding the Applicant’s compliance with the Tree Protection Ordinance for the existing healthy grand trees within the ROW area proposed to be vacated.”
Further, an earlier Proffer No. 14 said, “Applicant shall maintain the Vacated Parcel open to the sky,” provided, however, that the Applicant “may construct vertical improvements and structures in the air rights over and across the Vacated Parcel for an area up to one-third (1/3) of the ground surface area of the Vacated Parcel,” as long as the horizontal element of any vertical improvement or structure located within the air rights above the vacated parcel was no higher than 30 feet “above the finished grade of the Vacated Parcel …” It also called for the applicant to be able to “construct an arcade, awning, gallery, or similar covering within the Pedestrian Access Area provided that the arcade, awning, gallery, or similar covering meets the development standards set forth in [the City Code].”
“Additionally, vertical improvements and structures over and across the Vacated Parcel shall not impede vehicular access in the Vehicular Access Area and shall not unreasonably impede pedestrian access through the Pedestrian Access Area,” the initial proffer noted.
That proffer, too, was modified. While it still will allow for the construction of “an awning, gallery, or similar covering within the ROW area proposed to be vacated,” as the Nov. 4 Agenda Request Form said, the applicant also will be able to apply for an encroachment into the vacated area, in accord with provisions of the city Zoning Code.
Yet another proffer calls for the applicant to provide a minimum of 50 “public parking spaces within the Development. Public parking spaces may be located within the parking garages in the Development and, if feasible, on-street. Final locations of public parking spaces will be identified at the time of Site Plan. The public parking spaces shall be available to the public 24-hours a day in the same manner as similar public parking garages operated by the City of Sarasota.”
Commissioner Erik Arroyo, who made the motion to approve the street vacation, at one point asked Planner Webster whether the proffers would prevent the creation of a “mega block.”
She assured him that the proffers would.
However, Vice Mayor Ahearn-Koch asked Webster, “Is it possible to undo a proffer?”
City Attorney Fournier replied that a proffer could be eliminated through the same process that had brought the issue before the commission. An application would have to be submitted to city staff, and hearings would take place before the city Planning Board and City Commission. Further, he said, only three votes of the City Commission would be necessary to eliminate a proffer.
“So the proffers are really not much of a guarantee,” Ahearn-Koch pointed out.
When Arroyo asked Webster who has owned the right of way slated for vacation, she replied that she was not sure.
Mayor Liz Alpert stressed during the August public hearing that the city does not own Cross Street, just the right of way.
Moreover, during the discussion, Commissioner Kyle Battie pointed out, “We don’t just vacate land for the sake of vacating land.”
“I go in that direction pretty much every day,” Battie said, as his father works in the area near Cross Street. “I never use Cross Street,” Battie continued, adding that he does not see other vehicles using it. … We don’t have plans for the use of that street.
“The applicant has come and provided us with a number of things that they plan to do, you know, with that area, correct?” he asked Webster.
“They provided enhanced design criteria,” she responded.
Promises not always kept
During the public hearing this week, two of three city residents asked the commissioners to pause action on the applicant’s petition.
The third one — Pearlee Freiberg — read from the city’s Transportation Plan adopted in 2017, which says the city should not vacate public rights of way or easements unless those were not in use, provided no public benefit or were not in the city’s best interest to retain for future use.
It appeared to her, Freiberg continued, that the proposal to vacate the Cross Street right of way “diminishes, if not obliterates, the wonderful throughway all the way down to the bay.”
The first speaker, Rob Grant of Arlington Park, pointed to a total of $9,000 in campaign contributions that the three commission incumbents running for re-election — Alpert, Battie and Arroyo — had received from officers and employees, along with members of those persons’ families, “and associated entities of SteeleHarbour Capital Partners.” He noted that that company, based in Virginia, is the entity seeking to develop the property along Cross Street.
“The proposed vacation of Cross Street,” Grant told the board members, “serves as the perfect illustration of the quid pro quo seen developing development and business interests over the concerns of residents and their quality of life.”
When Alpert interrupted him to say his comments did not seem to be related to the “merits of the case,” Grant maintained that they were.
“Sounds like public attacks,” Commissioner Trice noted.
“I’m sorry you feel this way,” Grant responded. “This is all based on public information.”
When Alpert asked City Attorney Fournier to comment, he said, “The contributions have been disclosed,” adding later that the three commissioners’ obligation to disclose the contributions “has been met. “That’s why you have this information,” Fournier told Grant, adding, “The standard for abstention or recusal is … possible economic gain or loss to [a commissioner], which I don’t see.” Therefore, Fournier said, he saw no reason for any of the three to abstain from voting on the applicant’s request.
Arroyo added that, to his knowledge, the applicant had not donated to any of the incumbents’ campaigns.
The final speaker was Cathy Antunes, who pointed out of the vacation, “There’s no reason to do this right now. I think it is not fully vetted from a public interest view …”
As for the proffers: Antunes reminded the commissioner of promises that the leaders of Selby Gardens made several years ago when they were trying to win approval of the master plan for renovations and the expansion of the Gardens’ downtown Sarasota campus. Among those, Antunes continued, was a promise that the new parking garage would be available for city residents to use to keep their vehicles safe before hurricanes were expected to strike.
A member of her family had sought to leave a vehicle in the garage before one of the recent hurricanes approached the county coastline, Antunes said, and that person was turned away. The excuse, Antunes added, was that the garage was “only for family members of Selby Gardens.”
“I don’t think that you’ve got good evidence that this is in the public interest,” Antunes said of the proposed Cross Street vacation. Moreover, she pointed out, “The fabric of the city gets pulled apart one bad decision at a time.”