Coming soon on the North Trail, Sarasota, FL
Akoya
4925 North Tamiami Trail, Sarasota
The state holds a condominium filing here. The city's own file calls the same building apartments. Both are live, both point at the same 51 doors, and no public record says which one this becomes. Nothing has been built: the construction permit has never been issued and the inspection log is empty. The whole record is below.
- Address
- 4925 North Tamiami Trail
- Scale
- 51 units, four storeys
- Built so far
- Nothing
- Tax rate
- 14.8815 mills
At a glance
Akoya fast facts
Every figure below is read from the county clerk's recorded instruments, the county appraiser's parcel record and certified rate table, the city permit file retrieved in full including every review track, the federal and county flood records, or the county's hazard layers, with a control behind each result. Where two official records disagree we print both rather than choosing, and on this project they disagree about what the building even is.
- Record addresses
- 4925 North Tamiami Trail and 5025 North Tamiami Trail, Sarasota, FL 34234
- Filed with the state as
- Akoya, a Condo
- Called by the city
- Akoya Apartments, a new multi-family development
- Where it actually is
- About three miles north of downtown, not downtown
- Scale
- 51 units, four storeys, one building
- Declared build cost
- About $8.3m, block and plank construction
- Construction permit
- Applied for in spring 2023, never issued
- Inspections logged
- Zero. The log is empty
- Reviews still open
- Three of eight, one of them disapproved
- Last activity of any kind
- Spring 2025, a sixth civil revision
- Declaration recorded
- No, tested five ways
- Tax rate
- 14.8815 mills, the plain city code
- Flood
- Outside the federal hazard area, inside the county's own
- Evacuation level
- D, a category four zone, 26 foot surge
- Pricing, unit sizes, dues and reserves
- Not published anywhere
Not published yet
Location: see 4925 North Tamiami Trail on the map. Figures carry the dates shown and are subject to change.
Who is building this, and what was here
A condominium to the state, apartments to the city, and a permit that has never issued
Start with the disagreement, because it is the whole story. The state holds a live residential condominium filing under this name. The city's construction file describes the identical project as apartments, a new multi-family development, with a work type of new commercial and a classification for permanent occupancy. The word condominium appears nowhere in the city's file. No declaration has been recorded, so as a matter of law there is no condominium here yet.
That gap is not a paperwork quirk. A state condominium filing is made by a developer proposing to offer units. It creates no obligation to record a declaration and is not evidence that one exists. A building can be filed with the state and then built, held and rented as apartments. Which of the two this becomes is the first question for the sales office.
Now who actually owns it. The company the state names as developer of record has no recorded instrument of any kind in this county, under any spelling we tried. The fee owner on the deeds, on the tax roll and on the permit is a differently named company. That is common enough in Florida development, but it means the entity you would contract with is not the entity the state register points you at.
On the building itself, the city's own fields are specific. Fifty-one units in one four storey building of about 77,600 square feet, block and plank construction, occupant load 445, declared construction value about $8.3 million. A recorded covenant on the land independently calls it a fifty-one-unit multi-family residence and records that the site plan was approved in mid 2022. So the 51 is an approved count confirmed two ways, not a marketing figure.
Nothing has been started, and the review file says exactly where it stopped. The construction permit was applied for in spring 2023 and has never been issued: no permit number, no date issued, and an inspection log with zero rows. Water utilities disapproved the plans within a week of the application and has not approved them since, with an outstanding utility cost of about $70,000 that the file does not show as paid. Zoning and the public art review have never cleared either. Five of eight tracks are approved; three are not.
The timeline is the part a buyer should weigh hardest. The developer's own permit narrative gave a start date of July 2023 and a fourteen month build, which would have delivered occupancy around September 2024. It is now about forty-one months from application with no permit issued, and the last activity of any kind in the file is a sixth revision of the civil drawings from spring 2025. Roughly eighteen months of silence on a file that never reached the starting line.
There is a recorded covenant here that outlives everybody involved. The owner voluntarily elected to build under the city's North Trail overlay standards, and the city required that election to be recorded against the land. The recorded instrument makes those overlay standards mandatory for every future development application on this property, not just this one. If this project dies and something else is proposed here, that covenant still binds it.
And the site itself is neither a conversion nor a clean slate. This is a two-parcel assembly bought on one day from two companies that share a street address and a president, recorded in the same minute on one receipt. The southern half held a motel that was cleared in 1993 and has been vacant for thirty-three years. The northern half held an office and restaurant building demolished in late 2017, and the demolition permit says the slab and the parking lot were left in place. The roll nonetheless codes the whole assembly as vacant land with no improvement value.
One search trap worth carrying. The assessor merged the second parcel out of existence and deleted its street number from the tax roll, but the city's permit system still indexes it. Searching the current address, parcel or owner name returns nothing about the demolition; only the deleted address does, and it returns eighteen permits nothing else finds.
Take these four to the sales office: whether this will be a condominium or apartments, and what happens to your reservation if it is the latter; which entity would sign your contract, since the state names one company and the deeds name another; what is holding the water utilities review and whether the utility cost has been paid; and when the construction permit is expected to issue.
What this actually costs
The plain city rate, and a cap worth nothing here and real money down the road
The rate is the ordinary city rate, and confirming that is also a test of where the site is. This parcel sits in the plain City of Sarasota code at 14.8815 mills across thirteen levy lines. It does not carry the downtown improvement district's flat two mill surcharge, which is the statutory ceiling for that district. Anyone who tells you this is a downtown address is contradicted by the tax code on the parcel, and the contradiction is worth exactly two mills a year.
What the site pays today tells you almost nothing about what a unit here would pay. The parcel is assessed as vacant land at about $1,164,100 with an improvement value of zero, which is an ad valorem bill of roughly $17,300 for the entire site. There is no community development district anywhere in this county. Once units exist they are assessed individually and that number is meaningless.
On the ten per cent cap that limits how fast a non homesteaded assessment can rise, this parcel is a textbook demonstration of why it has to be tested rather than assumed. It is worth exactly nothing here. Just, assessed and taxable values are identical and identical to last year's, to the dollar, so there is no rise for a cap to defer. At a bayfront site in this same series the same cap is worth about $675,100 a year. It is a feature of a rising assessment, not of a location.
A quarter mile away the same cap turns into real money, which is what to expect here eventually. At the nearest completed condominium of this product type it shelters about $221,400 across 53 of 62 units, with the binding units stepping up at exactly ten per cent a year, and several show a falling market value and a still-rising assessed value at once. That is normal recapture behaviour and it surprises owners every year.
Homestead does nothing here today and is worth knowing about for later. No exemption applies to vacant land held by a company. In this millage code the exemption saves a future owner-occupier a flat $591.70 a year at any assessed value at or above $75,000, plus the assessment growth cap that travels with it. Whether you would get it here is a live question, and the comparable answers it below.
The practical version: the rate is ordinary and computable, the current bill is for dirt and tells you nothing about your future one, and the association budget does not exist because the association does not exist. Non ad valorem assessments in this county sit behind a tax collector that blocks automated retrieval, so every figure above is the ad valorem bill only.
The compliance clock
There is no condominium yet, so none of the clocks have started
Since the Surfside collapse Florida has built a hard timetable around structural inspection and reserve funding, and every condominium sits somewhere on it. This one is not on it at all, and the reason is the same for every item below.
Nothing is recorded, and we tested it five ways. The clerk's index returns no declaration under any rendering of any name involved; the appraiser's subdivision index carries no entry; the tax roll shows the county's nothing-here signature, one vacant use-coded parcel with no folio stack; the city's own file calls the project apartments; and no association entity appears anywhere. The statewide recorded roll does not carry this filing either.
On the milestone inspection, the answer is unusual and worth stating precisely. Current law sets the first milestone inspection at thirty years from the certificate of occupancy, then every ten years, for a building of three habitable storeys or more that is subject to the condominium or cooperative form of ownership. Twenty-five years is available only where the local enforcement agency determines that local conditions, including proximity to salt water, require it, and the familiar three mile test was repealed in 2022. Four storeys clears the height test, but a pure rental building of any height is outside the regime entirely, and no certificate of occupancy exists to start a clock. The city has adopted no local trigger.
The structural integrity reserve study is in the same position for a simpler reason. That obligation attaches to an association of a building of three storeys or more. There is no association here, no recorded declaration to create one, and no units for one to govern, so none is owed and none can exist. If this does become a condominium, the study obligation will attach on the same certificate of occupancy clock, and a developer is excused from completing one before the first unit is conveyed.
On statutory thresholds, 51 units is a comfortable position on paper and a dormant one in fact. At 51 units all three attach: the developer must file with the state, which it has, you are owed a prospectus before you can be held to a contract, and the association must maintain a website and post its budget, contracts, insurance and inspection reports. But none of those duties has attached yet, because there is no declaration and no association for them to attach to.
The turnover rule is the same everywhere and is consistently misunderstood. At turnover the developer must deliver audited financial records, a turnover inspection report and studies covering roof, structure, plumbing, electrical, waterproofing, windows, elevators, heating and cooling, the pool and the drainage. Nothing in any of it requires the developer to put money into the reserve. That is the position you would inherit if this is built and recorded as a condominium.
Here is what a buyer cannot see today. No recorded declaration, so no unit boundaries, no share schedule, no bylaws, no budget and no association. No unit mix, unit sizes, floor plan or price on any public record. No issued construction permit and no inspection ever performed. Not even a settled answer to whether this is a for-sale building at all. If units are ever offered, the prospectus will be the binding disclosure and it is the developer's own account of its own project.
What to demand in writing before your rescission period closes: written confirmation that the building will be submitted to the condominium form of ownership; the expected date the construction permit will issue and what is holding the three open reviews; the expected recording date for the declaration; the unit mix, sizes and parking allocation; the prospectus and every condominium document; the proposed budget with its reserve schedule; and the delay provisions of your contract. Your deposit's first ten per cent sits in escrow, and above that the statute lets the developer spend it on construction once work has begun, which on this site it has not.
Get notified if this becomes a condominium and pricing lands
Three years in, the permit has not issued and the question is still open.
The area
Out of the federal flood map, into the county's own, and a point query that misses both
The flood finding here is the sharpest method lesson this series has produced. The federal map puts the whole parcel outside the special flood hazard area: about a quarter of it in the shaded moderate-risk band and the rest in minimal hazard. The City and County's own adopted watershed model, published the same year, puts about fourteen per cent of the parcel inside a 100-year flood zone. Both are official and neither supersedes the other.
Now the part that should change how you check any parcel. A point query at the centre of this parcel returns nothing at all from either layer. Read casually that is an all clear, and it is wrong twice over: it misses the quarter of the site the federal map does shade, and it misses the county's 100-year zone entirely. Only a whole-parcel query finds either. We measured the overlaps rather than eyeballing them.
The city's own paperwork sits on the permissive side of that disagreement. The construction permit leaves the flood zone field blank, records no minimum finished floor elevation, and answers no to both finished floor certificate questions. No elevation certificate is being required for a building on a site the city's own model partly places in a 100-year zone. A field on that permit reading zone 1000 is the assessor's land use code, not a flood zone and not a zoning district, and it is easy to misread.
The ground is the reason the federal map is as generous as it is. Lidar across sixteen points on the parcel runs about 21.8 to 23.1 feet, a spread of just over a foot, which is high and unusually flat for this county. For comparison the bayfront peninsula in this series runs about 4.2 feet and downtown about 16.3.
Hold the surge number alongside that, because they point in opposite directions. This address sits in evacuation level D, a category four zone modelled for a 26 foot surge. Against ground of 21.8 to 23.1 feet that implies roughly three to four feet of water at the building footprint in the design event, notwithstanding that the federal map puts the site outside the hazard area. Level D is the last ordered out, which means later warning and deeper modelled water than the bayfront addresses that evacuate first.
The postcode claim record here is small, recent and concentrated. This postcode has recorded about 184 federal flood insurance claims and roughly $5.8 million paid across the life of the programme. 2024 alone produced 58 claims and about $4.57 million, which is 78.5 per cent of every dollar ever paid here. That is a fraction of what the downtown and barrier island postcodes carry, and it is a neighbourhood figure rather than a parcel figure.
Inside that year the pattern matches the inland postcodes rather than the coastal ones. September 2024 produced 27 claims and about $3.55 million; August produced 11 claims and about $508,000; and the October storm that actually made landfall in this county produced 16 claims and about $440,000. August out paid October here, as it did in the creek postcodes to the south. Copy that names only the two famous hurricanes is describing two of the three storms that mattered.
On schools this address returns a single feeder name at all three levels. Elementary, middle and high all return Booker campuses, which no downtown or bayfront address in this series does. Confirm with the district before you contract, because boundaries move.
The best read on who ends up owning this product type here is the nearest completed condominium of the same shape, and it is worth looking at squarely. Across all 62 units there, not one owner claims a homestead exemption. Twenty-three names hold 62 units, one company holds eighteen, and the five largest holders control about two thirds of the building. That is an investor register rather than a residents' register, and it is the honest comparable for this submarket rather than a downtown one.
What you need to know
Buying pre-construction with someone on your side
Representation costs you nothing and the timing is the catch: in a pre-construction sales gallery your agent generally has to be with you or named at your very first contact for the registration to stand. Sort it out before you call.
The case for it here is unusually simple. The most important fact about this address is that nobody can currently tell you whether units here will ever be for sale. A state filing says condominium, a city file says apartments, no declaration is recorded and no permit has issued. Someone should be reading the record on your side of the table before you place a deposit against that.
Know what the statute gives you. On a developer sale you are entitled to the prospectus and the condominium documents, and you have a rescission right measured in days from the later of signing or delivery of those documents. That window is the most valuable thing you have and it closes quickly. Have someone read the declaration, the budget and the reserve schedule inside it, and read the recorded overlay covenant that already binds this land.
There is one more thing worth confirming here that would not occur to most buyers. Until the state notifies a developer that its filing is proper, a developer may not close on a contract and a purchaser's contract is voidable before closing. Whether that notification has been given on this filing could not be established from any reachable record. Ask for it in writing, and ask which entity is signing.
On deposits the protection is narrower than most buyers assume. The first ten per cent is held in escrow. Above ten per cent the statute permits the developer to use the money for construction once work has begun, and on this site work has not begun. We did not search Florida regulatory enforcement records or civil dockets for any builder, developer, contractor or land-holding entity, so read the absence of any such note as unchecked, not clean. Get an independent inspection of your unit before closing, use the one year window afterwards, and read the limited warranty before you sign.
Subdiview is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or sponsored by Akoya Residences, any homebuilder, any developer of Akoya, the City of Sarasota, or Sarasota County. The developer is identified here because it is the owner of record in the county property records, which is a statement of fact and not a representation of any relationship. Community names and marks are the property of their respective owners and are used for identification only. Subdiview is operated by a real estate broker licensed in Illinois. We are not your agent, we do not represent you, and we perform no real estate brokerage services in this state. No one at Subdiview is licensed in this state. If you join an interest list, your information is referred to a real estate professional licensed in the state where the property is located, who will contact you directly. We are compensated by that professional's brokerage, not by you. Pricing, plans, inventory, district, tax, flood and approval details on this page carry the dates shown, are as published, proposed or reported rather than committed, and are subject to change without notice.
Questions and answers
Akoya FAQ
Is Akoya a condominium or apartments?
Both answers exist in official records at the same time, and that is the honest state of it. The state holds a live residential condominium filing under the name Akoya. The City of Sarasota's construction file describes the identical project as Akoya Apartments, a new multi-family development, with a work type of new commercial and an occupancy classification for permanent occupancy, and the word condominium appears nowhere in it. No declaration of condominium has been recorded in this county, so legally there is no condominium yet. A state filing is a filing: a developer proposing to offer units makes it, and it can sit on the shelf for years without a declaration ever following. Which of the two this building becomes is the single most important question to put to anyone selling it, and no public record answers it today.
Where is it, exactly?
On the North Trail, roughly three miles north of the bayfront downtown core, at a two-parcel assembly addressed 4925 and 5025 North Tamiami Trail in the 34234 postcode. Four independent records agree it is not downtown: the postcode, the plain city millage code rather than the downtown improvement district code, the Booker school feeder pattern rather than the downtown feeders, and the county's community redevelopment area layer returning nothing at the site. One practical note for anyone checking this themselves: the assessor merged the second parcel into the first and deleted 5025 from the tax roll, but the city's permit system still indexes it, and the demolition permits that establish what stood here are reachable only through that deleted address.
How far along is it?
Nothing has been built and nothing has been started. The construction permit was applied for in spring 2023 and has never been issued: the permit number field is blank, the date issued field is blank, and the inspection log is completely empty. Three of the eight review tracks have never cleared, and water utilities affirmatively disapproved the plans within a week of the application and has not approved them since. The developer's own permit narrative gave a start date of July 2023 and a fourteen month build, which would have put occupancy around September 2024. It is now about forty-one months from application with no permit, and the most recent activity of any kind in the file is a sixth revision of the civil drawings filed in spring 2025.
Is it in a flood zone?
This is the most interesting question on the page and the answer depends on which government you ask. The federal flood map puts the whole parcel outside the special flood hazard area, with about a quarter of it in the shaded moderate-risk band and the rest in minimal hazard. The City and County's own adopted watershed model, published in the same year, puts about fourteen per cent of the parcel inside a 100-year flood zone. Both are official and they disagree. Worse for anyone checking casually: a point query at the centre of the parcel returns nothing at all from either layer, which reads as an all clear and is wrong twice over. The permit leaves the flood zone field blank, records no minimum finished floor elevation and requires no elevation certificate at either stage. Ground here runs about 21.8 to 23.1 feet and is unusually flat.
What are the taxes?
The parcel sits in the plain City of Sarasota code at 14.8815 mills across thirteen separate levy lines. It is not in the downtown improvement district, which carries a flat two mill surcharge at the statutory ceiling, and that is itself a quantitative test of where the site is: had it been downtown it would carry those two mills, and it does not. There is no community development district anywhere in this county. The parcel is currently assessed as vacant land at about $1,164,100 with an improvement value of zero, producing an ad valorem bill of roughly $17,300. The ten per cent cap on non homesteaded assessment growth is worth exactly nothing here because the assessed value has not moved a dollar between roll years, while at the nearest completed condominium of this type it shelters about $221,400 across 53 of 62 units.
What should I be most careful about here?
Three things. First, the company the state names as developer of record owns nothing in this county and has no recorded instrument of any kind here; the fee owner is a differently named company. Ask which entity would sign your contract. Second, treat the 51 units as an approved count rather than a sold product, because there is no declaration, no unit boundaries, no share schedule, no budget, no association and no building. Third, look hard at the nearest completed condominium of this product type in this submarket before you assume what your neighbours will be like: across all 62 units there, not one owner claims a homestead exemption, one company holds eighteen units, and the five largest holders control about two thirds of the building.
Be first in line
Get on the Akoya interest list
We will connect you with a real estate professional licensed in Florida who represents you rather than the seller, who can register you before your first contact with the sales gallery, and who will get you the answers this page could not: whether this will be a condominium at all, which entity signs your contract, when the construction permit is expected to issue, the unit mix and sizes, the prospectus and condominium documents, the proposed budget and reserve schedule, and pricing as soon as it exists.
It costs nothing, creates no brokerage relationship by itself, and does not obligate you to anything.