Sarasota planning board backs Plymouth Harbor expansion, 4‑1, after debates on traffic, height and trees

The Sarasota Planning Board on a February 2026 quasi‑judicial hearing voted 4‑1 to recommend rezoning Plymouth Harbor’s property to RMF‑5 and to approve the associated site plan for an expansion that would add an 8‑story independent living building above a three‑level parking structure.

The board’s action follows an applicant presentation, a staff report recommending approval, public comment and extended questioning about traffic concurrency, the project’s height and tree removals. The board approved both the rezone recommendation and the site plan subject to the conditions listed in the staff report; Board member DeLeo cast the lone dissenting vote on both motions.

Jeff Weatherhead, president and CEO of Plymouth Harbor, told the board the continuing‑care retirement community has been on the site since 1966 and that demand is high: “we have 250 people on our wait list,” he said, describing the proposed addition as a response to that documented need. The project would replace an existing surface parking area with three levels of structured parking (590 spaces) topped by eight stories of independent‑living apartments, producing approximately 151 new independent‑living units on a roughly 5.25‑acre portion of the organization’s 16.59‑acre property.

Staff planner Rebecca Webster said the application complies with the applicable development standards and recommended approval with conditions. Webster reported the development review committee signed off on the application on 01/05/2026 and summarized landscape and tree mitigation plans: the property has 200 trees, 77 are proposed to be removed, 9 of the removed trees do not require mitigation (including a banyan listed as invasive), and mitigation is proposed using 25 palms and 49 three‑inch‑caliper trees to exceed minimum code requirements.

Traffic and pedestrian safety were focal points of the hearing. A board member noted a figure in the backup showing an 86% increase in PM peak trips; Webster and applicant representatives explained that the initial trigger required a full traffic study (completed by a third party and reviewed by the city’s assistant engineer) and that the consultant concluded the project would not degrade roadway level‑of‑service to the point of requiring off‑site capacity improvements. The applicant’s traffic summary cited an absolute increase of about 38.25 PM peak hour trips and said that translates to under 2% of roadway capacity on John Ringling Boulevard. The applicant agreed to coordinate with the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) on a pedestrian beacon/crosswalk and said they would install and pay for it if FDOT permits.

Board members also pressed on scale and compatibility. Several members described the property’s 24‑story historic tower (built in 1966) as an existing legal nonconformity and debated whether rezoning to RMF‑5 (which allows up to 90 feet by code) and adding eight stories above structured parking represents a significant increase in intensity. One board member summed the concern: the project “represents a significant increase in the intensity of the use on a small barrier‑island portion of the site.” Other members said the project meets code, reduces nonconformity, and addresses a demonstrated community need for senior housing.

On trees and landscaping, the applicant confirmed the removal of a banyan tree at the East Building connection; staff noted the banyan is considered invasive under city code and therefore does not require mitigation. For the other trees and palms proposed for removal, staff said mitigation planting exceeds minimum code requirements.

Tom Duncan, a resident who said he lives across from Plymouth Harbor, urged the board to press for pedestrian safety measures and asked the applicant to pursue FDOT approval for a crosswalk. The applicant reiterated that it will pursue FDOT approval and agreed to pay for permitted improvements.

After deliberations, the board adopted a motion finding the rezoning application met the applicable criteria of the zoning code and recommending approval to the City Commission; the motion passed 4‑1 with votes recorded as: Niehaus — yes; DeLeo — no; Clermont — yes; Christie — yes; LeMay — yes. The subsequent motion to approve the site plan (findings consistent with the tree protection ordinance and zoning code) also passed 4‑1 with the same tally.

What happens next: the board’s rezone recommendation and the approved site plan are forwarded to the City Commission for final action (the planning board’s vote is a recommendation on the rezone; final legislative approval rests with the commission). The staff report includes conditions the applicant must meet as part of final plan processing.

Votes at a glance: Rezone recommendation — outcome: recommended to City Commission, vote 4‑1 (Yes: Niehaus, Clermont, Christie, LeMay; No: DeLeo). Site plan approval — outcome: approved 4‑1 (Yes: Niehaus, Clermont, Christie, LeMay; No: DeLeo).

Reported details and clarifications: the site is approximately 16.59 acres; the addition covers roughly 5.25 acres; the new structured parking is described as 590 spaces with a campus total of roughly 700 spaces; the new building would contain about 151 independent‑living units; staff recorded 200 trees on the property with 77 proposed removals and a mitigation plan described in the staff report. The record shows a full traffic study was completed and reviewed by the assistant city engineer, and the applicant has agreed to seek FDOT permission for a pedestrian beacon/crosswalk and to fund it if approved.

The planning board closed the public hearing and adjourned following votes.