East Sarasota residents grapple with growth

Any conversation about new development near the intersection of Fruitville and Beneva roads tends to circle around to issues with the intersection itself.

A 2013 study, conducted in conjunction with a proposed development for the northeast corner of the intersection, showed this segment of the road network is failing. The study suggested the city needed to add five traffic lanes to get the intersection back to the established level of service.

So on Monday, when the City Commission considered the future land-use designation of a 4.4-acre parcel located southwest of Beneva and Fruitville, the intersection was an unavoidable subject.

“Changes to our neighborhood must be good changes, and safety-minded changes,” resident Kim Giaccardo said. “Currently, we have a failed intersection at Fruitville and Beneva that could endanger our lives.”

From a planning perspective, this segment of east Sarasota poses some distinct challenges. When the Urban Design Studio began working on crafting a new zoning code for the city in 2013, it targeted the Beneva-Fruitville area as one of its first sections for showing how new regulations could help reshape an area.

East of the intersection, there are a number of residential communities, including Fairway Oaks, Villa Grande, Glen Oaks Ridge and Glen Oaks Estates. West of the intersection, there are commercial strips — the Town & Country Plaza shopping center to the north and a Walgreens-anchored complex to the south. In between, the intersection itself is a major thoroughfare connecting the city to Interstate 75.

Monday’s discussion focused on a single property located at 105 S. Beneva Road. The property owner sought to change the land-use classification from community commercial to multiple family, medium density.

The land has failed to develop under its current zoning. The property owner said the parcel has more in common with the residential properties on its southeast borders than the commercial properties closer to the intersection. Plus, residential projects generate fewer trips than commercial developments — a bonus in a congested area.

“It directly abuts other residential property, and it’s separated from the other commercial property by a large drainage canal,” said David Walters of property owner Tenth Way Corp. “The new use will be less impactful on the city.”

The City Commission agreed, voting 4-1 to change the future land-use classification. But there are still significant questions about what the appropriate build-out of this property looks like — among both residents and city officials.

“I don’t think it’s a question of no development,” Glen Oaks Estates resident Norm Dumaine said. “It’s a question of how you develop.”

Before anything can be built on the land, the property owner needs to get a rezone and site plan approved. The multiple family, medium-density classification can convert to one of two zoning districts: Residential Multiple Family-4 and Residential Multiple Family-5.

Those land-use classifications come with a density of 18 and 25 units per acre, respectively. They also come with a maximum height of 70 and 90 feet, respectively — plus a potential 25-foot bonus if a development incorporates parking on the lower levels.

Residents like Dumaine say a residential project can be a good fit for the area, even if it includes the maximum density of 111 units. But there are complicating factors. The property is vacant, which means there are trees on the property subject to the city’s tree-protection rules. Environmental advocates say the area is a habitat for a variety of environmentally sensitive species.

Height is a particularly pressing concern. Donald Neu, who represented the property owner in front of the commission, suggested a developer could build up to avoid affecting the vegetation on the land too much.

“I don’t think there’s much chance of being able to use the site to anywhere near its capacity unless we do have some height,” Neu said.

“I don’t think it’s a question of no development. It’s a question of how you develop.” — Norm Dumaine

He also said it’s unlikely a developer would want to build to the maximum height allowed by the zoning regulations. City Senior Planner Cliff Smith said the maximum heights are not compatible with the surrounding residential neighborhoods.

Without continued direction from the city, residents are concerned that message could get lost during the development process. Following Monday’s commission meeting, several people living in the area said a taller building would be inappropriate.

“I would ask that, somehow, the City Commission give some clear direction as to what kind of thing would be appropriate so that a developer isn’t spending all kinds of time on site plans that ultimately aren’t going to be good for the neighborhood or the city — or that will put you in a very difficult position in terms of making a decision,” Dumaine said.

Neu and Walters said there are no immediate plans to develop the land, and that the proposed land-use change was just timed to coincide with the city’s comprehensive plan amendment cycle.

“We’ll have to convince everybody they can support the plan.” — Donald Neu

Neu said the owner is still looking for a developer, but when the time comes, the onus will be on them to convince the city it’s an appropriate use for the land.

“All the regulations will be followed,” Neu said. “Public workshops will be held. We’ll have to convince everybody they can support the plan.”

As developers and planners consider how to reshape the properties surrounding the Beneva-Fruitville intersection, residents are hopeful an emphasis will be placed on low-rise, smaller-scale buildings.

“I know the city needs to make progress,” Dumaine said. “I think it needs to be the right type of development.”