Only Mayor Alpert votes in support of proposed 327-foot condo tower for North Palm Avenue
In the real estate business, the longstanding maxim has been “Location, location, location.”
“Incompatibility, incompatibility, incompatibility” summed up the Sarasota city commissioners’ vote this week on the future of a 327-foot-high condominium complex proposed at 1260 N. Palm Ave. in Sarasota.
It took approximately five hours on May 13 — including the remarks of three “affected parties” (a legal term) and 16 members of the public — for the majority of the commissioners to conclude that the Bay Plaza Owners Association was correct in asserting that the structure as designed was not suitable in the chosen location. In fact, testimony during the public hearing showed that the building would be as close as 20 feet to one of the Bay Plaza residents’ balconies.
The hearing centered on an appeal that the Association filed after the Sarasota Planning Board members voted 4-1 in February to affirm that the city’s Development Services staff correctly applied the necessary city standards in approving the project.
Mayor Liz Alpert was the only city commissioner to dispute the assertions that the 1260 N. Palm Residences did not comply with all of the necessary city policies and zoning regulations. “I personally think it meets the criteria,” she said. “I don’t see where it doesn’t fall within all of the requirements of our Downtown Master Plan, our [Sarasota] City Plan [the city’s comprehensive plan].” “However,” she continued, “it’s very obvious that we have four people here who don’t believe that.”
Alpert twice reiterated her points in regard to the criteria, adding, “The height is not much taller than other buildings that are being approved now.”
Architect George Scarfe, a partner with Hoyt Architects in Sarasota, had told the commissioners that the 18-story complex — also known as the Obsidian — would be only about 30 feet shorter than the One Park East structure approved for the Quay Sarasota site.
Alison Christie, general manager of the city’s Development Services Department, noted that buildings as tall as 290 feet had been approved in the Downtown Bayfront zoning district, where the 1260 N. Palm Residences would have stood.
Further, Alpert maintained, “There isn’t a loophole for interstitial space … as has been presented [by opponents of the project].” The applicant’s team provided evidence that the interstitial space for the Obsidian would comprise only 59 feet, she stressed, instead of 77, as Bay Plaza opponents had cited.
From the time the project initially was proposed — in 2022 – critics have contended that the developer was adding extra interstitial space between floors to ensure that the building would rise well above Bay Plaza, to afford the owners of the 14 Obsidian units views of Sarasota Bay. The original plans called for a 342-foot-tall building.
At one point during the May 13 hearing, in response to a question from Commissioner Kathy Kelley Ohlrich, architect Scarfe explained that interstitial space is the area between the floors where mechanical, plumbing, electrical and fire suppression equipment is installed — facets of construction “that we don’t want to look at,” he added.
Architect Gary Hoyt, principal of Hoyt Architects, noted that the measurement “also includes the thickness of the floor.”
Lucia Panica, director of the city’s Development Services Department, explained that staff requires an applicant to show the interstitial space in plans at the outset, even though the final calculation of that space does not come until the permitting stage for a project. The goal in calling for the figures early, she said, is to ensure that the public is not surprised by the ultimate height of a structure.
Scarfe also stressed that the city Zoning Code does not regulate interstitial space.
The developer of the Obsidian formally is Palm Properties LLC, whose principal is Matt Kihnke.
When Commissioner Kyle Battie asked whether evidence existed to support the project team’s assertion that the building complies with the city’s comprehensive plan, Scarfe told him that, within the Future Land Use chapter of the city’s comprehensive plan, a graphic shows a building twice the height of the adjacent structure. “It’s what we’re looking to [in] the future.”
During her remarks before the vote, Alpert also reprised applicant team members’ remarks regarding the proposed ceiling height. “They’re allowed to build 14-foot ceilings,” she stressed. “That’s what the new buildings are doing.”
Hoyt had explained that people who long have lived in single-family homes with higher ceilings — up to 16 feet — are seeking similar height when they purchase condominiums. As he did during the Planning Board hearing, Hoyt also talked about the changes in ceiling height in condominium towers in the city over the past decades. He noted that Bay Plaza itself was a groundbreaker when it was constructed, as its ceilings are 8 feet, 8 inches.
“To keep a vibrant downtown,” Hoyt added, “you need to keep a vibrant market.” People are moving to Sarasota from the northeastern and the western United States and from overseas, he pointed out.
During her remarks, Alpert further noted that even Andres Duany, the well known urban planner who served as a consultant to city leaders in years past, had talked about the fact “that the height, once you get above a certain level, doesn’t really make a difference.”
Yet, attorney Morgan Bentley of the Sarasota firm Bentley Goodrich Kison — who was representing the Bay Plaza Owners Association — had stressed to the commissioners that the Obsidian would be the tallest building in the city, though the Sarasota City Plan calls for “smaller buildings, smaller scale.”
In response to another question that Commissioner Battie posed, regarding the desire for the height of 327 feet, Scarfe replied, “It’s a market-based decision.”
Alpert further referenced testimony by the project team that, while a shorter building could be constructed on the parcels comprising the 1260 N. Palm Ave. site, the reduction in height would result in no provision of “step-backs” from the lot line, as had been planned with the Obsidian.
Alpert did initially indicate a willingness to join her colleagues in voting for the Bay Plaza group, noting that it was clear to her that that was their intention. Finally, after Vice Mayor Debbie Trice told her to vote her conscience, Alpert cast the solitary dissenting vote.
A failure to comply with Standards for Review and the adjustments criteria
Commissioner Jen Ahearn-Koch made the motion in support of the Bay Plaza Owners Association, and Trice seconded it.
Ahearn-Koch, Trice and Commissioners Ohlrich and Battie cited various sections of the city’s Zoning Code Standards for Review, the Sarasota City Plan and the Downtown Master Plan as their reasons.
At the outset, Ahearn-Koch simply referred to the Standards for Review, noting the evidence placed before the board that day.
Yet, Alpert insisted on specifics, so Ahearn-Koch enumerated them. (Comments at various times during the hearing also made it clear that the commissioners expect the developer to file suit against the city because of their May 13 vote. Sarasota attorney Brenda Patten, of the Berlin Patten Ebling firm and a member of the project team, cited several legal precedents that she asserted would favor the developer in litigation.)
In the Standards for Review, Ahearn-Koch listed Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 and 7.
In regard to the three adjustments that city Development Services Director Panica had approved for the project, Ahearn-Koch listed a, b, c and d, plus e, “on balance.” Ahearn-Koch was referring to the city’s Adjustment Approval Criteria, which is found in Section IV-1903(e) of the Land Development Regulations.
Attorney Bentley had focused on facets of the criteria for city staff’s approval of the adjustments. One slide he showed the commissioners noted, with emphasis, that “the review body shall hold buildings fronting the primary street grid to a higher standard in support of pedestrian activity than buildings fronting the secondary street grid.”
Staff had explained that North Palm Avenue is a primary street.
The three adjustments that staff granted are below:
- A 20.8% reduction in the façade coverage on the ground floor, parallel to North Palm Avenue, from 133.61 feet to 105.87 feet. “The lot has 148.45 feet of total frontage,” the Oct. 2, 2024 document said.
- An adjustment of 6.5% for habitable space on the ground floor, from 105.87 feet to 99.02 feet, “(with the inclusion of the façade adjustment),” and by 8.6% on the second floor, from 148.45 feet to 135.7 feet.
- A 9.4% reduction in the required retail frontage, to 95.89 feet, where 105.87 feet would be required “(with the inclusion of the façade adjustment),” the document added.
Noting the Adjustment Approval Criteria in the city Zoning Code, Bentley especially focused on the retail space, street frontage and habitable space. “You’re getting less of all three,” he pointed out to the commissioners.
The reason the project team needs those adjustments, Bentley added, is because “they’re building sideline to sideline and front to back.”
During the commissioners’ question-and-answer session after the rebuttals presented by the applicant’s team, Bentley and Panica and Christie of Development Services, Battie inquired about the process for approving those adjustments.
It appeared to him, he said, that the city staff approved the project team’s request to adjust the length of the building façade “and then used that same adjustment basis to adjust the required retail frontage. So it’s almost as though you gave an adjustment and then piggybacked off of that adjustment to give another adjustment, if I’m correct.”
“You’re correct,” Christie told him. “The parallel façade adjustment reduced the amount of building façade. And then the two other adjustments — habitable space and required retail — are only for the amount of building that’s being provided,” she continued. “So that’s why they build off of each other.”
Battie followed up: “Shouldn’t it just be based on … the pre-adjustment of façade coverage instead of the adjustment you gave them to get the adjustment?”
She responded, “That’s not how we’ve historically calculated any of the adjustments in the downtown.”
Panica pointed out that staff had reviewed that process. “This is how we do adjustments in this kind of situation,” she added.
Commissioner Ahearn-Koch also had questions about the adjustments.
Referring to Section IV-1903(e)(2)a, as shown in the city staff report for the hearing, she noted that it said, “Granting the adjustment will equally or better meet the purpose of the regulation to be adjusted.”
She repeated “equally or better meet the purpose of the regulation” for emphasis.
Ahearn-Koch explained that she had tried to focus on the purpose of the façade, the purpose of the retail space, and the purpose of the habitable space. Retail space is required in the Downtown Bayfront zoning district, she continued.
“The purpose of those three requirements are what?” she asked Panica and Christie.
Explaining that that section of the Zoning Code refers to development on primary streets, Christie said, “The main purpose is to encourage pedestrian activity and provide a stimulating environment for the pedestrian.”
Reading the staff report comments related to the adjustment for parallel façade coverage, Ahearn-Koch pointed out, “It doesn’t say how [the adjustment] meets or exceeds the purpose.”
Christie told her that if she continued reading that answer, Ahearn-Koch would see that the staff response discussed specific facets of the building design:
“Could those happen without the adjustment?” Ahearn-Koch asked.
“Yes,” Christie replied, “but they’re not required.”
Further, during the staff rebuttal, Panica stressed that the applicable zoning district, “Downtown Bayfront … is the most intense and dense” of the city’s zoning districts.
Referencing the Zoning Code, Christie also pointed out, “Each adjustment shall be considered unique and shall not set a precedent for others.”
Still reading, Christie noted, “Because of the diversity within the downtown, some sites may be difficult to develop in compliance with these regulations.”
‘Never’ basing a decision on campaign contributions
Mayor Alpert did take time before the vote to dispute city businessman Martin Hyde’s assertion, during the public comments portion of the hearing, that campaign funds she had received last year from developers had any influence on her decisions. (Hyde included Commissioner Battie in his criticism.)
Hyde said, “Sixty percent of the mayor’s campaign finances [for her 2024 re-election] came from development interests,” while 41% of Battie’s did. Hyde added that slightly more than $6,500 “came from the architect who designed [the 1260 N. Palm Residences complex],” referring to Hoyt Architects.
“I never base my decision on whether I received a contribution from anyone,” Alpert stressed to the audience. “And everybody who knows me knows that.”
Battie also took time to address Hyde’s remarks, saying, “Everything that we do here, you know, we weigh our conscience to make these decisions. And they’re not done lightly. We saw just how long this took today. … I vehemently abhor, you know, anyone coming here and talking about the character and the integrity of anyone on this commission.”
‘Rather small an area’
At various times during the hearing, Battie emphasized the small size of the site where the Obsidian was proposed: approximately 12,377 square feet. He had visited the location to see it for himself, he said.
Referencing comments by a member of the public during the hearing, Battie specifically inquired about the type of foundation that would be needed to support the Obsidian.
City Building Official Larry Murphy concurred with Battie’s view of the size of the property: “It is rather small an area.”
“I haven’t seen any geo for this lot yet,” Murphy continued, referring to soil borings that would be done before construction could begin. Nonetheless, he said, “It’s going to take an incredible foundation to support it … and it’s got to be done obviously in a very small area.”
Attorney Patten of the project team also noted that the Florida Building Code dictates the process that would be used for the foundation.
Scarfe of Hoyt Architects added that state law requires a third party inspector — beyond city staff — to check behind the contractor, to provide “an additional level of scrutiny” for buildings such as the Obsidian.
When Battie later asked more questions related to the foundation, Jay Daigneault, with the Clearwater firm Trask Daigneault — who was serving as special counsel to the commission for the hearing — advised Battie that construction and permitting issues were not within the board’s purview that day. Therefore, he said, none of the discussion about those factors could be considered when the board members were preparing for a vote.