After city staff, the Planning Board and the overwhelming majority of public commenters offered support for a proposed affordable housing project near downtown Sarasota, the City Commission failed to approve a request that would allow the plans to move forward.

As a result, property owner Harvey Vengroff says he will abandon his effort to construct a 393-unit apartment complex at 2211 Fruitville Road.

The commission’s ruling — or lack thereof — came after a two-hour discussion of a proposed comprehensive plan amendment that would allow for higher density on the nearly 8-acre site. Vengroff has said this proposal would be necessary to make his plans economically feasible. The amendment required a supermajority of four commissioners to gain approval.

The staff and planning board approval came with a series of requirements on the proposal, including caps on building height and unit size. Joe Barnett, the applicant representing Vengroff, said he learned of one additional proposed requirement when the meeting began: a stipulation that would allow city staff to inspect the entirety of the property annually. Staff said the requirement would ensure compliance with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s safe and sanitary housing standards.

This turned out to be the sticking point for Vengroff and the commission. Although he said he was willing to allow inspections of the property’s external features, such as railings and stairways, he was unwilling to allow the city to conduct internal inspections.

“I do have a problem with you walking into someone’s apartment,” Vengroff said to the commission. “I don’t think that’s where we want to be.”

Three out of five commissioners were unwilling to waive the requirement for annual inspections. When City Commissioner Liz Alpert said she was interested in maintaining the language regarding inspections, Vengroff spoke up from his seat at the back of the commission chambers.

“It’s not going to happen,” Vengroff said, headed toward the exit. “Goodbye.”

“It’s not going to happen. Goodbye.” — Harvey Vengroff

Many of those in attendance said the inspections were an unnecessary extra requirement for the project, a heightened standard that a new condominium project would not have to meet. They, too, voiced their displeasure from their seats in the audience.

Alpert disagreed with that argument, stating it was in the commission’s power to institute regulations as they deemed necessary.

“Every developer that comes before us has restrictions and zoning requirements,” Alpert said. “Nobody just gets to develop whatever they want.”

Mayor Willie Shaw and Commissioner Susan Chapman sided with Alpert, voting to approve the comprehensive plan amendment only if the inspection regulations were in place.

Vice Mayor Suzanne Atwell and Commissioner Shelli Freeland Eddie both voted to approve the amendment without the regulation regarding inspections. Both commissioners said the city's building permit and code enforcement regulations were enough to ensure the livability of the proposed project, and that the city's need for affordable housing demanded a willingness to accommodate the developer when appropriate.

“They are providing a public-private partnership that we’ve been begging for for at least as long as I’ve been on the commission,” Eddie said. “I think it would be a terrible disservice for us to not move the process forward.”

“Nobody just gets to develop whatever they want.” — Liz Alpert

Although the board failed to approve the comprehensive plan amendment — and Vengroff pronounced the project dead, and Barnett announced they’d be withdrawing their application imminently — the commission held out hope they could rekindle negotiations with the property owner. Commissioners directed staff to reach out to Vengroff in hopes that a compromise could still be reached.

According to Barnett and Vengroff, there’s only one way those discussions will bear fruit: removing the requirement for internal city inspections.