Planning board recommends most 2025 zoning text amendments but removes two items after public concern about trees and building mass

The Sarasota City Planning Board voted 5‑0 to recommend most changes in the 2025 zoning text amendment batch (25‑ZTA‑01) but asked staff to exclude two contested items and to revise rooftop screening language.

The board directed staff to remove from the packet two changes that drew substantial public comment and board concern: (1) a proposed allowance to count understory trees in lieu of required canopy trees on lots 30 feet or narrower, and (2) an increase in the maximum building length in Urban Mixed‑Use zone districts from 200 to 250 feet. Board members said both items require further work and broader stakeholder review. The board did accept a staff edit to clarify rooftop mechanical screening materials while preserving parapet screening on the primary street.

Why it matters: The ZTA batch bundles housekeeping fixes, clarifications and several substantive updates to the zoning code that affect building materials, tree standards, waterfront setbacks, permitted uses and administrative procedures. The board’s action moves most amendments to the City Commission while pausing two items flagged by residents and board members as likely to affect neighborhood character and tree canopy.

What staff proposed and what the board changed Planning Department staff said the 23‑item batch was mostly technical clarifications but includes policy adjustments. Staff highlighted items the board discussed at length: - Rooftop mechanical screening: staff proposed clarifying that flat roofs must use parapets to fully screen mechanical equipment and that decorative panels, including metal, may be used in addition to parapets. After board questions, staff refined the language so parapets remain required on street sides and decorative panels are explicitly described as supplementary. - Trees and landscaping: staff proposed allowing understory trees on lots with front widths of 30 feet or less (to accommodate narrow attached single‑family/townhome lots) and to update the city’s preferred tree list to remove species newly classified as invasive and to add ribbon palm as a qualifying option in the three‑for‑one palm allowance. Several public commenters and multiple board members said the understory‑tree change could materially reduce canopy and accelerate loss of mature tree cover; the board asked staff to hold that item for further stakeholder review. - Maximum building length in Urban Mixed‑Use (Item 15): staff proposed raising the maximum building face from 200 to 250 feet to give designers more flexibility on long lots and state‑road corridors. Residents and neighborhood organizations said the change would encourage long, monolithic facades that undermine walkability; several board members agreed and voted to retain the 200‑foot limit.

Public comment and board concerns More than a half‑dozen residents and neighborhood advocates addressed the ZTA batch. The Sarasota Coalition of City Neighborhood Associations (CCNA) urged the board to retain the existing 200‑foot limit and criticized the proposed increase as developer‑driven. Preservation and neighborhood groups supported a separate ZTA item that would permit the Historic Preservation Board to grant density adjustments when relocating designated structures, but those same speakers expressed concern about tree removals and long building faces elsewhere in the batch.

City staff and developers noted tradeoffs: staff said the understory‑tree proposal was meant to create some landscaping on very narrow lots that currently provide none, and that ribbon palm would be usable where canopy trees cannot be planted due to utilities. Developers and an architect urged more flexibility on allowed building length, saying in some cases larger buildings have been built successfully and that a design standard could produce variation rather than monolithic facades. Board members and many commenters replied that good design does not guarantee appropriate massing on arterial corridors and that the city should study canopy loss and tree placement before loosening standards.

Formal action and next steps The Planning Board adopted a motion recommending adoption of 25‑ZTA‑01 with one staff edit to item 1 (mechanical screening language) and with items 8 (understory trees for ≤30‑foot lots) and 15 (max building length increase) removed from the package. Motion passed 5–0 (Salem, Christie, Clermont, LeMay, DeLeo — yes). The board asked staff to return with a targeted stakeholder workshop on tree policy and to refine any proposed language on building massing before City Commission review.

Notable individual ZTA items discussed (non‑exhaustive) - Screening of rooftop mechanical equipment (clarified to require parapets and allow decorative panels as supplemental screening). - Clarify commercial parking definitions and waterfront setback parking prohibition. - Remove certain species (pink Tabebuia, queen palm) from the city’s recommended list where newly classified invasive; add ribbon palm as an allowable substitute in the three‑for‑one palm allowance for canopy credits. - Relocate and clarify construction staging plan requirements and add minor material allowances on primary streets (cementitious finishes and metal window surrounds). - Adjust measurement baseline for accessory structures on waterfront lots where fill for seawalls has altered finished grade.

What the board asked staff to do Staff was directed to: - Draft and host a stakeholder workshop on urban tree policy and canopy goals with neighborhood groups, arborists, utilities staff and development representatives. - Retain the 200‑foot maximum building face standard while staff reviews options to ensure design variation where longer building faces are proposed (including potential adjustment pathways and stronger frontage/activation standards). - Forward the remaining ZTA items to the City Commission with the clarified rooftop‑screening language and the other housekeeping changes recommended by staff.

The City Commission will receive the Planning Board’s recommendations and the revised ZTA package for final action.