Controversial downtown tower comes back before City Commission

Mediation has concluded, minor modifications have been ordered and now the rejected plan for a condominium tower to replace a row of merchants on the 1200 block of North Palm Avenue is coming back before the Sarasota City Commission.

The agenda for the commission’s next regular meeting on May 4 is light, a fortunate if not intentional circumstance as the reconsideration of the 18-story, 14-unit Obsidian condominium tower, also known as 1260 N. Palm Residences will likely occupy considerable time. 

The matter was referred back to the city by Special Magistrate Mark Bentley of Tampa, recommending the commission reverse its 4-1 decision on May 13 to grant an appeal by residents of neighboring Bay Plaza condominiums of the administrative approval of the site plan, which included three adjustments to street-level code requirements pertaining to parallel facade, habitable space and retail frontage.

Commissioner Liz Alpert, forecasting eventual and likely prevailing legal action by developer Matt Kihnke, was the lone dissenting vote.

Photo by Andrew Warfield

Summarizing his suggestion that the City Commission approve the modified site plan, Bentley wrote: “It is the recommendation of the special magistrate that the City Commission favorably consider the redesigned project. I would also advise the City Commission that I have been provided with voluminous documents, including applications, transcripts, staff reports, the petitioner’s request for relief and city's response to said request for relief, and viewed the televised City Commission public hearings held on May 13, 2025 and July 7, 2025. Although the hearing on this matter authorized under 70.51 (17) of Florida Statutes has not occurred, I am of the preliminary opinion that the petitioner has a strong likelihood of prevailing on the merits.”

Bentley referenced Florida Statute 70, Chapter 51, Paragraph 17, which reads, “If an acceptable solution is not reached by the parties after the special magistrate's attempt at mediation, the special magistrate shall consider the facts and circumstances set forth in the request for relief and any responses and any other information produced at the hearing in order to determine whether the action by the governmental entity or entities is unreasonable or unfairly burdens the real property.”

They also argued that, at the time of submission, the city zoning code placed restrictions only on the number of stories permitted in the Downtown Bayfront zone district, but not on building height.

Bay Plaza residents opposed the project because of its use of interstitial space to achieve a height of 327 feet, its scale compared to surrounding buildings, the proximity to their own building and the adjustments it received. Representatives of the developer made the case that the adjustments were necessary based on utilities, fire protection and other requirements on the first and second levels, and that any project built at that location regardless of scope would be subject to the same.

Speaking to commissioners at their April 20 meeting, Bay Plaza resident Ron Shapiro said, “This settlement has only modest changes from the proposal that the commission so soundly rejected last May. The size and scope of this mammoth building on a tiny lot remains unchanged, and it fails to address any of the major reasons for which the project was denied.”

Photo by Andrew Warfield

The changes that were agreed upon between city staff and the developer include:

• A revised curb line to include a loading area of 10 feet-by-26 feet sized to accommodate delivery vehicles.
• Palm trees configured to closely resemble the original 1960s locations and to maintain their historic placement.
• Enhanced landscaping at the podium, at the frontage, and wrapping the corners with a green wall that extends two stories. 
• A 31-inch setback to allow for the green wall features and that exceeds the podium-required setback along Bay Plaza property line.
• A detailed staging plan to be provided for the first 90 days of development.

“Most of the criteria not met the last time in zoning code have been totally ignored and not addressed, including, but not limited to, land development regulations, the Sarasota city plan, and compatibility and other key elements,” Shapiro said. “Approval by city staff alone does not provide substantial competent evidence in a court of law, nor should it, especially when there are so many good reasons to override their approval.”

Mediation hearings were held before the special magistrate on Jan. 7 and Jan. 27. Bentley issued his recommended settlement agreement on April 1. 

Having spoken regularly to the City Commission since the Obsidian project first surfaced in 2023, Shapiro warned commissioners he and his red shirt-clad compatriots are unified against the project for the long haul.

“I said we were in this fight for the duration, and we are still in it for the duration,” he said. “We’ll do everything we can for as long as necessary to keep this project from ever happening. My dad passed away a few years ago, at the age of 101, so I expect to be around for quite awhile. 

“See you on May 4.”