Lemon Avenue plans spark public pushback

When the Kolter Group announced plans for The Mark, a 12-story building on Pineapple Avenue, it was described as a mixed-use project with 157 residences and 50,000 square feet of commercial space.

However, with residents already moved in and some prospective tenants applying for permits to open up, some people living at The Mark are questioning how well those uses will mix in the real world.

On Dec. 1, the city held a community workshop regarding two proposed commercial operations in and adjacent to The Mark. One would be a 150-person event space called the Sugar Reception Hall on the ground floor of the building, filling three spaces with addresses at 62 and 72 S. Lemon Ave. and 121 S. Pineapple Ave. The other is Le Petite Brasserie, a restaurant and bar proposed for an existing two-story building next to The Mark at 127 S. Pineapple Ave.

Both businesses are seeking a major conditional use permit from the city to allow the use of a liquor license. Both businesses also drew outspoken concern from three dozen residents who participated in the virtual workshop, which ran for nearly two hours.

Those in attendance raised questions that focused primarily on noise, hours of operation and the management of liquor sales. Although the commercial space was always built into the ground floor of the building in which they live, residents at The Mark expressed concern the reception hall would be disruptive to the condominiums above it.

“This is our home, and this is our space,” resident Richard Lynch said. “We’re renting it out to the highest bidder, and we are going to really scrutinize this. There’s a jewelry store and a pilates [studio], and the kinds of enterprises that serve the community. This serves whoever wants to throw a party. That troubles me, and it probably troubles a lot of the other residents.”

Asked how the prospective operator of the reception hall would prevent the operation from negatively affecting residents at The Mark, representatives for applicant Ronnie Shugar pledged the business would comply with all relevant regulations governing noise and business activity. Architect Mark Sultana noted the proprietor of the business would have a vested interest in ensuring the building and surrounding area was a well maintained environment.

“It’ll be controlled like any other entertainment venue that has this type of facility,” Sultana said. “Just like Michael’s on East — it’s always clean there. They take care of it.”

Speakers at the community workshop expressed their belief that it was not sufficient to comply with city regulations, arguing the applicant should take additional measures to ensure the businesses did not create any issues for those living at The Mark. Residents were critical of plans to operate both businesses as late as 2 a.m. on Friday and Saturday. Although representatives for the applicant said the only plans for music at Le Petite Brasserie was an indoor piano, several questions focused on whether the business might eventually have additional musical performers or an alternative source of music in an outdoor seating area.

Resident Lorrainne Lavet said she felt the business proposals were an important precedent-setting case for future downtown mixed-use buildings with residential components. She encouraged the applicant to pledge never to allow outdoor music even if city regulations permit it, arguing it was a necessary condition to coexist with neighboring condo-dwellers.

“Before feeling comfortable with this, I agree there would need to be an agreement in writing that regardless of whether the city were to allow the noise to be outside, that you would agree to not do that for the duration of your residency in that location,” Lavet said. “Or else I think there is a problem.”

Joel Freedman, a land use professional appearing on behalf of the applicant, noted the community workshop marked the beginning of the development review process, and that the city would hold several public hearings before rendering a final decision on the major conditional use permit. Still, some of those in attendance Dec. 1 said they felt the reception hall concept was fundamentally incompatible with their homes located one block south of Main Street in the city’s downtown core.

“Please, go find another place to start up your event hall,” resident Lia Haleas said. “This is our home, and we don’t want all this music, traffic, garbage, smokers.”

Park preservation

In the midst of a lawsuit with the city over the ownership of land in and adjacent to Paul Thorpe Park, developer EDM-Sarasota proposed a settlement agreement that would allow the private company to construct a two-story food court on a portion of the parkland.

The City Commission was scheduled to discuss that settlement at a meeting Monday, but representatives for EDM-Sarasota asked to postpone the conversation to give the developer more time to review public input related to the proposal. Residents who spoke at Monday’s meeting were nearly unanimous in their message to the developer: We don’t want to give up any portion of the park.

The settlement proposal is tied to a dispute over land adjacent to Paul Thorpe Park that dates to 2016. Although the city agreed to sell land next to the Northern Trust parking garage to a real estate firm in 2016, EDM-Sarasota challenged the city’s ownership of the land. Earlier this year, a judge in the 12th Judicial Circuit Court determined the city was the rightful owner of the land, a decision EDM-Sarasota appealed.

In the settlement offer, EDM-Sarasota proposes the city would sell not just the disputed land, but also a segment of Paul Thorpe Park to the developer for $275,000. The company is also asking for the right to use a portion of the park for outdoor café seating. 

Since the city’s 2016 consideration of selling the park-adjacent property, a group of residents have organized in opposition to the idea, arguing the land has functionally served as public open space in the most developed part of the city. On Monday, members of the public argued against the settlement agreement on similar grounds, stating the case for preserving the park had only gotten stronger after the city invested in improving the Lemon Avenue park in 2019. The development associated with the proposed settlement would encroach on amenities such as seating, landscaping and a pergola, speakers said.

“The idea of taking, as I understand it, roughly half of an existing park which was constructed at well over $1 million just three years ago is just wrong and inappropriate,” said David Lough, president of the Downtown Sarasota Condominium Association.“So we ask for you to reaffirm the provision of open space downtown. Do not consider any reduction in size of this important park.”

The commission agreed to postpone the presentation from EDM-Sarasota until a future meeting. Commissioner Hagen Brody said he wanted the public to know the settlement proposal came from the developer, and city staff played no role in the terms of a potential agreement.

“It’s simply a proposal from one side to resolve the litigation,” Brody said. “It is out of the ordinary, but there’s nothing surreptitious going on.”

City Attorney Robert Fournier said the judge’s ruling said the city met three standards that were sufficient for claiming ownership of the property, and an appellate judge would have to determine the court was incorrect on all three fronts.

“I would say the chances of the city prevailing on appeal are high,” Fournier said.