Inspection request puts Vengroff apartments in jeopardy

The team developing plans for a 393-unit apartment complex near downtown Sarasota didn’t learn about a potentially deal-breaking regulation until the night of a City Commission hearing on the project.

That proposed regulation — a requirement that the city be allowed to inspect the apartments annually — set in motion a chain of events that now puts the affordable housing project in jeopardy.

Harvey Vengroff, the entrepreneur spearheading the development, said he wouldn’t agree to the provision. Vengroff stormed out of the room when Commissioner Liz Alpert even broached the possibility of including the regulation. Ultimately, three out of five commissioners voted against allowing the project to proceed without inspections.

The failure to move ahead with the project drew public outcry. The commission directed staff to continue negotiations, and the city and Vengroff have reached a possible compromise to present at a future public meeting.

“I believe the project is probably back on track.” — Tom Barwin

Still, doubt remains regarding the viability of the proposed six-story, five-building apartment complex east of downtown.

Inspecting the fallout

Monday’s City Commission meeting wasn’t actually about approving the housing project itself. It was about a change to a land-use regulation that would entitle Vengroff to a higher residential density on his property.

Vengroff owns a nearly 8-acre parcel at 2211 Fruitville Road. He said the density and height increases associated with a comprehensive plan amendment are necessary to make a private workforce housing project economically viable.

Although city staff and the Planning Board endorsed the amendment, it wasn’t without a few stipulations. City Manager Tom Barwin met with Vengroff late last week, and the two agreed to another provision that would require Vengroff to rent at least 20% of the apartments to residents who make 80% or less of area median income.

Barwin said staff still wasn’t fully confident in the long-term security of the apartment complex. As a result, they inserted another provision regarding an annual inspection of the property. Both the applicant and the commission learned about that addition at Monday’s meeting.

“There are landlords who will rent out substandard properties, and they’ll continue to do it as long as they can get away with it,” Barwin said. “And tenants are often fearful of reporting it for fear they could be evicted.”

Although he was willing to let the city inspect the outside features of the complex, Vengroff was steadfastly against the internal inspections. The commissioners who supported the regulation criticized Vengroff for his unwillingness to discuss the topic. Alpert said she supports the project but thinks the city has a responsibility to make sure the housing is well-maintained.

“I don’t have a problem with the fewer parking spaces; I don’t have a problem with the increased density,” Alpert said, referring to the project’s proposed adjustments to city regulations. “But I do have a problem when an owner says, ‘I’m going to do whatever I want, and I’m not willing to even consider a reasonable request.’”

“I do have a problem when an owner says, ‘I’m going to do whatever I want.’” — Liz Alpert

Vice Mayor Suzanne Atwell and Commissioner Shelli Freeland Eddie both voted to approve the amendment without the inspections. Considering the long-standing need for affordable housing, both commissioners believed it was unreasonable to jeopardize the project with a regulation that does not apply to other developments in the city.

“I’ve never in my life seen so much sand put in the machinery,” Atwell said at Monday’s meeting.

Although Barwin said he thought the inspections were a reasonable requirement instituted in municipalities throughout the country, he said he was not interested in pursuing a broader inspection program for private properties.

On Wednesday, city administration and staff met with representatives for the Vengroff project. Vengroff’s son, Travis Vengroff, said the feedback from the city was positive. At a future meeting, staff will propose dropping the inspections in exchange for an annual review of the property’s insurance reports.

Barwin said he believed the reports detailing a private inspection of the Vengroff property would be an acceptable substitute for the city’s original request. He was optimistic the commission would be open to the change, too.

“I believe the project is probably back on track,” Barwin said.

Whether that’s true remains in question. Following Monday’s meeting, Alpert said she was uncertain whether her stance would change if the inspections remained a deal-breaker.

City Commissioner Susan Chapman said she thought the information Vengroff provided Monday was lacking, and without some additional assurances regarding the proposal, her support is unlikely.

“I am willing to discuss alternatives,” Chapman said. “I’m not willing to agree with what’s been presented at this time.”

Although he’s walked back his vow to withdraw his application, Vengroff still maintains the inspections are unacceptable. If the city is still unwilling to commit to the project without inspections, he questions the commission’s actual level of interest in creating affordable housing.

“My suggestion would be that if the city thinks they can build something better and cheaper than we can, they should buy the property and do it,” Vengroff said. “I’ll sell it to them.”