- April 3, 2025
-
-
Loading
If the proposed Saravela multifamily development is to be built as currently designed, it will require the Sarasota City Commission to reject the Planning Board’s recommendation to deny vacation of the western portion of Fourth Way, an alley between Fourth and Fifth streets from North Tamiami Trail to Cocoanut Avenue.
The 271-unit project, which will include 30 priced as affordable per city bonus density guidelines, is deep in the staff development review process. The 1.7-acre site straddles the city’s Downtown Bayfront and Downtown Core zone districts and, as such, would be two towers — one 18 stories and one 11 — over a single podium that includes structured parking.
Developer GSP Sarasota is seeking approval of the vacation of the alley, whose primary use was delivery and sanitation collection of the now-vacant properties prior to further investing in a final site plan. The absence of a site plan, though, was the rub among most of the Planning Board, which voted 3-2 to recommend denial with Daniel Deleo, Terrill Salem and alternate member Alexander Neihaus opposed. Dan Clermont and Shane LaMay supported the alley vacation.
Besides no site plan, Salem said the 30 affordable units were not enough to convince him to give up public property. Deleo lectured that too often developers seek considerations and then fail to deliver on site plans, and Neihaus felt there were no assurances the final design would match current renderings.
Project consultant Bill Waddill of Kimley-Horne said Saravela was too far along in the Development Review Committee process, beginning last fall, for any material changes to be made at this point. Even under normal circumstances, there are never 100% such assurances until the city approves a final site plan.
“Getting a site plan approved is the next level of assurance, but that could be modified. The next step is getting a building permit and building something, and even that can be modified,” Waddill said. “If there's some sort of a stipulation to include something that's already been going through since late last fall, by all means I don't see why we wouldn't. It's already going through the site plan approval process.”
No matter.
“How can we know if vacating this alley is a good idea without a site plan?” asked Deleo. “I think we can't know, and I actually believe that it's unreasonable to have us look at this issue in this fashion, to give us this to decide. “We clearly don't have sufficient information to be able to make this decision, and it's unreasonable to ask us to do so now without the site plan.”
At its current state of planning, Saravela would have its point of vehicle access off Fifth Street. Rather than a high wall along Fourth Street, townhomes will line the street. In exchange for the lost alley, Saravela would offer 3,000-square-foot publicly accessible green space. The remainder of Fourth Way would remain open with ingress and egress mid-block at Fourth Street. There will also be 11,402 square feet of street-level space.
Renderings by SKA Architecture show an outdoor amenity including a pool atop the 11-story portion of the building. The 18-story portion will also have an amenity rooftop deck.
Per code, the developer will distribute the affordable units throughout the buildings. Salem is dissatisfied, since there was no guarantee any would come with a bay view.
The debate over the absence of a final site plan set off a post-vote discussion over the appropriateness of the Planning Board’s task of determining if vacating the alley serves the public interest. Urban Planner Rebecca Webster had earlier explained the staff’s affirmation in that the project provides a public benefit in the attainable housing units, an enhanced sidewalk system, increased setbacks and accessible park space.
“We want to have enough information if we're going to make a decision about a public benefit and giving it away to third parties,” said Deleo, who is an attorney, “and that usually means the site plan.”
Salem, who is a general contractor, said in the future he wants more proof of a developer’s plans.
“For me, I want to go inside the building a little bit. I want to walk around. I want to look at things. I want to know what the mix is and that type of stuff,” he said. “That serves me, because they could just tell us that they're giving us something and then don't do it.”
Clermont warned the Planning Board may be inadvertently signaling a negative message to other developers on the process if members are unwilling to entertain applications for alley vacations and other adjustments in advance of a final site plan.
“I understand that it's much easier to make that decision when you get the plan in front of you,” Clermont said. “You’re basically throwing the brakes on anything being changed or new projects because developers can say, ‘Well the heck was Sarasota. I'm going to go somewhere else.’”
Correction: This article has been updated to correct the spelling of Alexander Neihaus.
