Kimley-Horn consultant acting as agent for developer taken aback by decision
A member of the team working on the proposed Saravela mixed-use development, which is slated for about 1.7 acres in downtown Sarasota, expressed surprise last week when Camden Jenkins, a development review planner for the City of Sarasota, said that city staff is requiring another submittal from the project team.
The exchange came at the conclusion of the presentation of Development Review Committee (DRC) comments on the fourth submittal of Saravela project details, which was conducted on Oct. 21. (The DRC comprises representatives of all of the city’s departments and divisions involved in land-use applications, along with personnel from the Sarasota Police Department, the Sarasota County Fire Department and the Sarasota County School Board.)
Phillip DiMaria, planning project manager for the Kimley-Horn consulting firm in Sarasota, had pointed out to the DRC members that they previously had provided a partial sign-off on the Saravela plans. Nonetheless, he continued, “We’re resubmitting the site plan for Saravela,” noting, “This has been through the process quite a bit …”
“We were happy to come back before the DRC,” DiMaria said, adding that that gave the team members the opportunity to update both the DRC and the public about the status of the project.
In response to Jenkins’ remark about another round with the DRC, DiMaria asked, “What’s the justification for that?”
“Since this is such a complex project, and there [are] still enough outstanding issues that needed to be addressed, city staff would like to have another DRC meeting [with the team members].”
If DiMaria had questions about that staff stance, Jenkins added, he could discuss it with DiMaria at the conclusion of the meeting that day.
“Yeah,” DiMaria replied, “we can discuss it after this meeting.”
As Cristian Toellner, the city’s senior planner for development review, pointed out at the outset of the exchange with DiMaria and three other representatives of Kimley-Horn, the Saravela would stand on a combination of nine parcels with an address of 430 N. Tamiami Trail. It would comprise one 18-story tower and one 11-story building, with a total of 282 multi-family dwelling units and 10,450 square feet of commercial space.
Four of the parcels are zoned Downtown Core, which has a maximum height of 10 stories, unless the developer is incorporating attainable housing units in the project. In the latter situation, a city ordinance approved several years ago allows for extra height. The Saravela is to have 40 such units, Toellner noted on Oct. 21.
A Sept. 7 letter that DiMaria sent to Jenkins, responding to DRC comments about a variety of project details, made clear the plans for the attainable units. Those DRC remarks included the following: “If both the market-rate and attainable units are for-sale or for-rent, then the attainable units shall be interspersed throughout at least half of the floors. As there are 17 stories with residential units, please disperse the attainable units on at least nine floors.”
Notes on engineering drawings included with the Sept. 7 letter indicate that the attainable units will be spread among the sixth through 14th floors.
The other five parcels planned for the Saravela are in the Downtown Bayfront (DTB) zoning district.
Toellner added during the Oct. 21 meeting that access to the complex has been proposed from Fifth Street. The October 2024 project application, submitted to city staff, explained that the site “is located southeast of the intersection of North Tamiami Trail at 5th Street,” and approximately 0.05 miles south of Boulevard of the Arts. It also is “less than 0.10 miles” from The Bay Park, that document noted.
An earlier application for Saravela said it would include 271 dwelling units and 11,402 square feet of retail space.
‘Continued confusion’
During the Oct. 21 meeting, Planner Jenkins brought up another issue that arose late last year: “There has been continued confusion,” he said, “on whether the project will still be proposing short-term rentals of less than seven days and seven nights” — the minimum term the city allows.
DiMaria replied that Brianna Dobbs, the city’s chief planner, had “shared some community feedback” with him. “There’s no desire to proceed with any short-term rentals,” DiMaria added.
All of the units will be planned for full-time residential purposes, DiMaria pointed out.
As The Sarasota News Leader has reported, on Jan. 14, Lucia Panica, the director of Development Services for the city, sent an email to the city commissioners, as well as then-interim City Manager Dave Bullock and then-Deputy City Manager Patrick Robinson, explaining that staff had “received questions regarding the signage and marketing for Saravela.”The website created for the Saravela said the building would contain 19 stories and “282 Turnkey Residences.” The units would range from one-bedroom designs, between 667 and 856 square feet, to townhomes with 1,530 to 1915 square feet, the website noted.
The person identified in the document as being under contract to purchase the parcels comprising the site is Lawrence Debb of Des Plaines, Illinois. Debb is the president and founder of GSP Development, that company’s website shows.
A representative of the Kimley-Horn consulting firm in Sarasota, Emily Griffiths, actually filed the application with the city, the document said.
The developer, Panica explained in her Jan. 14 email to city leaders, was “advertising the ability to do 3-day short term rentals.
“[T]hat statement is not correct,” Panica pointed out. “The City’s minimum stay requirements for short term rentals would apply,” she noted: seven days and seven nights.
If the tenancy of the Saravela units were seven days and seven nights — or less time — “the units would be considered transient lodging and would be classified as a hotel or motel use per Zoning Code Section II-304(b),” Panica continued. In that case, she added, they “must be separated in the condominium from the rest of the residential units. They also could not be used in the calculations for bonus density [related to planned affordable housing units]. Therefore, the Site Plan application would need to be updated to identify/specify which units in the development are designated as transient lodging,” Panica wrote.
“Transient lodging” is the term local governments use for hotel and motel accommodations.
In spite of DiMaria’s comment to the DRC members last week, the News Leader on Oct. 27 still found the Saravela website promoting “Short-Term Rental Freedom.”
The same day, the News Leader also found that a Premier Sotheby’s International Realty website is continuing to tout the short-term rental program for Saravela.
However, the latest post on the Saravela Facebook page promoting short-term rental freedom for Saravela owners was dated July 9, the News Leader observed.
An Oct. 28 check on details about the units as provided by Zillow did find the specification “Condo Only.”
Issues still to be addressed
During the Oct. 21 DRC meeting, Planner Jenkins also ran through a series of remarks that he had provided the project team in an Oct. 20 memorandum. (A number of his DRC colleagues also had comments that needed to be addressed, as they pointed out.)
Among what Jenkins made clear, on the basis of the updated materials from the team, were new comments was a request for an explanation about the purpose “for the approximately 9 feet of interstitial space above the 18th floor.” He also asked that the team provide dimensions for the interstitial space proposed for each floor.
ScienceDirect explains, “Interstitial space is the architectural term for full-height, unoccupied mechanical, and/or maintenance space between occupied floors.”
Another example said, “Clarify that the bar shown [on one of the engineering sheets] is a residential amenity and not open to the public. If it is open to the public [in accord with the definition of a bar in the Section II-201 of the city’s Zoning Code], then a major conditional use application will be required.”
Yet another comment indicated that in a previous memo from the project team, “attainable units were described as being ‘provided at 6 units per floor in floors 6-10.’ Now that 40 attainable units are being proposed, please clarify the location of the attainable housing. Additionally, please provide clarification on which units are for rent, and which are for sale.”
The section related to tree protection called for “further details for the submitted alternative design narrative. There should be at least two alternative site designs proving all reasonable efforts have been made to relocate infrastructure improvements to persevere the grand trees [on the site], as stated in Section VII-310(c)(2) of the City Zoning Code.” That part of the Oct. 20 DRC memo added, “Please avoid issues such as performance, overall aesthetic concerns or resident view issues.”
Among the comments related to traffic issues was the following: “The 8 Short-Term Bicycle Parking Spaces are placed adjacent and perpendicular to the pedestrian travel way. Pursuant to Zoning Code Appendix A Section (d.)(9.).b.1.i., include a bicycle template at any one of the racks showing that the rear frames or wheels will not intrude into the pedestrian travel way when locked to the rack.”
“Alternatively,” Chief Planner Dobbs told the project team members, “you can angle the racks … It’s up to you.”