Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission votes down small‑area comp‑plan change for 117‑room hotel near I‑75 and Laurel Road
Summary
A 4‑part land‑use package to allow a 117‑room Home‑to‑Suites hotel east of Twin Laurel Boulevard failed on a 3–2 vote after neighborhood traffic and infrastructure concerns and objections from local residents.
The Sarasota County Board of County Commissioners on July 8 rejected a small‑area comprehensive plan amendment that would have changed an 11.12‑acre parcel east of Twin Laurel Boulevard and north of Laurel Road from residential to commercial highway interchange, a step applicants said was needed to permit a 117‑room Home‑to‑Suites hotel.
Commissioner Mark Smith moved to approve the small‑area comp‑plan change; Commissioner Nancy Mast seconded. The motion failed on a 3–2 vote after public testimony raised traffic, infrastructure and neighborhood compatibility concerns.
The application was four parts: a small‑area comprehensive plan amendment, a critical area plan amendment to the I‑75 corridor plan, a rezoning from OUE‑1 (open use, one unit per five acres) to CHI (commercial highway interchange), and a special‑exception request to allow a hotel height of 65 feet (the CHI height limit is 50 feet by right).
Applicant representatives said the single hotel would serve Sarasota Memorial Hospital’s new South Campus and other nearby medical and employment uses. The development team’s planner and attorneys told commissioners the site is a logical commercial gateway to Venice and that the proposed hotel brand (Home‑to‑Suites) targets longer stays for families and traveling medical staff. The team offered during the hearing to make the development concept plan binding to address neighborhood concerns about future intensification.
Neighbors and community representatives urged denial. Speakers at the hearing cited limited road access along Twin Laurel Boulevard, future congestion on Laurel Road, and uncertainty about whether a second hotel or other intensive commercial uses could later be added on the nonbinding parts of the plan. The Central Venice Coalition said the area already has several hotels within a short drive and warned that a second hotel at the site would increase traffic pressure on local streets.
City of Venice officials had told county staff they had no objection to the land‑use changes, and county staff recommended approval pending standard transportation stipulations (improvements of Twin Laurel Boulevard and coordination on access). Planning staff also noted wetlands on the site that would be preserved and that the hotel parcel would supply a higher proportion of open space than required.
Outcome and next steps: commissioners voted down the comprehensive plan amendment on the record. Because the comp‑plan change did not pass, the related rezoning and special‑exception requests were not adopted at this meeting. Applicants may choose to revise and re‑file or pursue a different site plan, and any future filing would be subject to the county’s public notification and review process.
Ending: The board’s decision leaves the site in its current OUE‑1 zoning and moderate residential future land use while preserving staff options to re‑examine development details if the applicant returns with a revised proposal.
