Sarasota planning board recommends denial of Osprey Court alley vacation amid affordable‑housing concerns

The Sarasota Planning Board voted 4–1 to recommend that the City Commission deny petition 25 SVO1, a request to vacate the Osprey Court alley and enable a 10‑story redevelopment that the applicant says would provide public benefits including two attainable housing units, widened sidewalks, larger street trees and a small publicly accessible park.

McKayra King, an attorney with the law firm Icard Merrill representing PFI 721 Development LLC, told the board the alley area is roughly 4,145 square feet and currently provides limited public benefit, serving primarily as a refuse access and dead‑end service drive. King said the applicant is proffering several public improvements and that the ordinance would not take effect until a stormwater pipe is relocated and an administrative site plan is approved. “We are proffering those 2 attainable units as part of the future development,” King said.

Board members focused their questioning on whether vacating the alley and allowing the proposed site plan would remove existing affordable housing. Dan DeLeo, a planning board member, said photographs and a site visit indicated the existing Osprey Oaks building contains 12 units that appear occupied, and he pressed the applicant on whether demolition would result in an immediate loss of modest‑income housing.

“The benefit of the public benefits that your client was offering was 2 attainable units,” DeLeo said. “If you demolish 12 of them and give us 2, it’s a net loss of 10 attainable units.” The applicant’s counsel disputed the simple arithmetic, saying the city’s definition of “attainable” typically depends on recorded affordability restrictions and that the two proffered units would be encumbered for 30 years.

Brianna Dobbs, Chief Planner for the Planning Department, told the board staff reviewed the petition against the standards in zoning code section 4‑13‑06 and recommended approval, citing the applicant’s proffers. Dobbs said the applicant indicated both attainable units would meet the code’s affordability structure (including one at or below 80% AMI).

Several board members said the form the applicant submitted (Form F, the Affordable Housing Impact Form) — which states “no negative effects on the affordability of housing are anticipated” — was misleading in light of the evidence that the current building contains units that members described as serving lower‑income residents. “I think that statement is at very best misleading,” one board member said.

The planning board also discussed technical topics raised by the application: density and acreage calculations, whether including the alley in the base acreage or bonus calculations was appropriate, tree mitigation and the proposed relocation of a 42‑inch stormwater pipe, the size and placement of the proposed 1,000–1,100 square‑foot pocket park, and whether the applicant’s design proffers are tied to a site plan (staff said the site plan itself is administrative and not formally proffered).

At the close of the public hearing, board member [name recorded in the minutes as] made a motion finding the petition does not meet the applicable criteria in the zoning code and recommending the City Commission deny the request; the motion was seconded and carried by a 4–1 vote. The board’s minutes record the roll call as: Newhouse — yes; DeLeo — yes; Clermont — yes; Christie — no; LeMay — yes.

The applicant’s team said they would coordinate required utility relocations, tree mitigation and other technical items during the Development Review Committee and permitting process and that some changes could be necessary if subsurface conditions are found during excavation. Patrick Seidensticker, speaking for the applicant team, said the plans do not show current utility conflicts but acknowledged the unknowns that come with relocating major stormwater infrastructure.

Next steps: the planning board’s recommendation will be forwarded to the City Commission; the case record shows that any ordinance would not take effect until the stormwater relocation easement is recorded and the administrative site plan is approved. The board also asked staff and the applicant to provide clearer site‑plan information and utility details in future submittals to help assess impacts on attainable housing.