Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission votes down Laurel Road comp‑plan change for 117‑room hotel; applicant offered binding plan but amendment failed 3–2
Summary
A four‑part application seeking to change land use and rezone an 11.12‑acre parcel near I‑75 for a 117‑room Home2Suites and a height increase failed after commissioners questioned infrastructure, flood and traffic capacity; the small‑area comp‑plan amendment failed 3–2 and the application ended at the county level.
An applicant seeking to reclassify an 11.12‑acre parcel on the north side of Laurel Road at Twin Laurel Boulevard to Commercial Highway Interchange (CHI) — to allow a 117‑room Home2Suites by Hilton and a height special exception from 50 ft to 65 ft — failed to win the four affirmative votes required for a comp‑plan amendment.
Attorney Patrick Seidensticker and land‑use counsel Bill Merrill presented the four‑part package (small‑area comp‑plan amendment, corresponding I‑75 corridor plan amendment, rezone from OUE‑1 to CHI and a special exception for height). The applicant offered a proffer to make the development concept plan binding so any future changes would return to the board. Consultant materials said the site contains 3.16 acres of wetland that would be preserved and that the panel studied a “two‑hotel” traffic scenario; staff report noted the site is near the Sarasota Memorial Hospital South campus and adjacent government uses and a growing commercial node.
Opposition from neighborhood representatives argued the area already has multiple hotels within five miles, flagged inadequate road infrastructure and said improvements to Twin Laurel Boulevard and Laurel Road are incomplete. Central Venice Coalition Chair Steve Carr said he opposed approval on the basis of both capacity and compatibility. Applicant supporters, including nearby developers and a homeowners association letter, urged approval: they argued a suite‑style hotel fills an identified need for families visiting the hospital and traveling healthcare workers.
The board took a vote on the small‑area comp‑plan amendment (the controlling first step). The motion to adopt the amendment failed 3–2, with the chair voting no; because the comp‑plan change did not receive the required four votes, the companion rezoning and special exception were not adopted at county level. The applicant’s offer to make the concept plan binding remains on the table but the comp‑plan denial ends the application at this stage.
Commissioners noted concerns about traffic, the existing and planned hotels in the corridor, and frequently cited neighborhood flooding/road capacity issues; the developer had previously filed a larger two‑hotel proposal that was denied. Staff had recommended approval of the comp‑plan and CAP amendments and noted city of Venice had no objection if Twin Laurel Boulevard is improved.
