Finished in downtown Sarasota, Sarasota, FL
Zahrada 2
1558 4th Street, Sarasota
Finished and occupied, with 21 of 22 units sold and one still held by the developer. Not one unit here has ever resold, so every price on the public record is an original closing. It owes you no prospectus and no association website, and it carries the full structural reserve obligations anyway. The whole record is below.
- Address
- 1558 4th Street
- Size
- 22 units, five storeys
- Unsold
- One
- Tax rate
- 14.8815 mills
At a glance
Zahrada 2 fast facts
Every figure below is read from the recorded declarations and deeds, the county appraiser's parcel record scraped folio by folio across both Zahrada buildings, the city permit file retrieved in full on five search axes, the federal and county flood records queried by whole parcel as well as by point, or the county's hazard layers, with a control behind each result. Where official records disagree we print all of them rather than choosing.
- Record address
- 1558 4th Street, Sarasota, FL 34236
- Recorded as
- Zahrada 2, a Condo
- Size
- 22 units over level one parking, five storeys
- The mix
- 18 residences and four ground floor commercial units
- Status
- Finished. Certificate of occupancy, end of 2024
- Sold so far
- 21 of 22. One unit is still developer held
- Resales to date
- None. Not one unit has traded twice
- Prospectus owed to you
- No. It misses that threshold by three units
- Association website required
- No, and it never will be
- Reserve study required
- Yes. Five storeys clears that threshold outright
- Tax rate
- 14.8815 mills, the plain city code
- Assessment cap cushion
- None anywhere in the building, measured
- Flood
- Mapped outside the special flood hazard area
- Evacuation level
- C, a category three zone, 18 foot surge
- Current asking price on the last unit
- Not published yet
Not published yet
Location: see 1558 4th Street on the map. Get pricing on the unit still available. Figures carry the dates shown and are subject to change.
Who built this, and what was here
Not phase two of anything, and five records that cannot agree on how many units it has
Start with the name, because it misleads almost everyone. This is not phase two of the building next door. They are two legally separate condominiums on two separate lots, with separate declarations, separate associations, separate subdivision numbers, separate common element parcels and different general contractors. What actually links them is a recorded cross-project agreement, not a shared declaration, and a buyer signs into one of them rather than both.
The record keeping around that is worse than it sounds. The first building was recorded twice: once under one name, then re-recorded a few weeks later under a slightly different one. The dead name still appears on a live city permit, and this building has no condominium plat book and page at all, because the county points at the declaration instrument itself instead. None of that affects title. All of it wrecks a casual search.
Now the unit count, where five official sources produce four answers. The state's recorded roll says 18. The city's master permit says 18 in a structured field and 20 in its own written description on the same page. The county's address point layer publishes 20 and omits the two fifth floor units entirely. The tax roll carries 22 folios, and the recorded deeds tally 22. We rely on 22 because the roll and the deeds are the only sources that enumerate rather than assert, and they agree exactly.
The city contradicts itself across time on the same building. The original construction permit says 18 units. A repair permit issued on the same building at the end of 2025 says 22. The two fifth-floor residences that the county's address layer forgets are real: they are deeded, they carry the two highest values in the building, and the roll records them on the fifth floor.
On the build itself, the numbers are ordinary and the timeline is not. Five storeys over a level one parking deck, about 28,900 square feet gross on a lot it covers almost entirely, declared construction value $8 million, and unlike several projects in this series that figure carries no foundation-only qualifier on its face. Application to occupancy took about seventy-two months, which is more than a year beyond the worst local benchmark.
That headline is misleading and the permit file says why. The application sat dormant for years before it issued. The plans reviewer's own notes record chasing the applicant about project status repeatedly, and finally noting that the application was over 180 days old under the building code. Measured from the day the permit issued, this building was actually the faster of the two: about thirty-two months against thirty-six next door. That is an entitlement figure, not a build-speed figure.
The site was not vacant ground. A restaurant with a commercial kitchen and hood operated here into the early 2000s, on the city's own permit record. No demolition permit for it could be found on any of five search axes, including the owner-name axis that surfaced a decisive demolition permit elsewhere in this series, so that is recorded as a gap rather than as a finding. Worse, the pre-2001 permits at this address display the neighbouring building's owner and legal description, so anyone reading that history at face value attributes the restaurant to the wrong parcel.
One search trap to carry into any research you do yourself. Typing this building's published name into the clerk's index returns a small fraction of the file, because the entire developer chain is indexed under the Roman numeral form of the name. And a handful of results in the same set belong to a different family with a similar surname, indexed under a spelling that collides with this one. A single search on the obvious spelling gets you neither the whole file nor only this file.
Take these four to the seller: the confirmed unit count and which units are residential; the structural integrity reserve study and what it implies for future assessments across 22 owners; the association's budget, insurance and reserve position, none of which will ever be published; and the terms of the recorded agreement that ties this building to the one next door.
What this actually costs
The plain city rate, and not one dollar of cap cushion anywhere in the building
The rate here is the ordinary city rate and there is no surcharge on this block. Every folio sits in the plain City of Sarasota code at 14.8815 mills across thirteen separate levy lines, outside the downtown improvement district and its flat two mill surcharge. There is no community development district anywhere in this county. Across the whole building the ad valorem arithmetic comes to roughly $176,300 a year, and a typical second floor residence runs around $8,900.
Now the finding that matters most to anyone buying here, and it was measured rather than assumed. The ten per cent cap on non homesteaded assessment growth is delivering exactly nothing, at all seventeen non homesteaded folios, and at all seven next door. Assessed value equals market value on every single one of them. The reason is simple: market values in this building fell about half a per cent year over year, and a cap limits increases.
That has a consequence people rarely think through. An investor buyer here has no accumulated cushion at all. There is no gap between assessed and market value to absorb a rise, so the next upward reassessment passes through in full, up to the ten per cent ceiling. At a bayfront site in this same series the equivalent cushion is worth about $675,100 a year. It is a feature of a rising assessment, not of a location.
Homestead is doing very little here and a great deal one door along, and the contrast is the single most useful ownership statistic on this page. About 28 per cent of the residences in this building are somebody's homesteaded primary home. Next door, in the 2021 building by the same people, the figure is about 83 per cent. Five units here are held in the name of a limited company or a retirement plan, and one is still the developer's.
On value, the assessor's numbers here are tightly clustered and they tell you where in the cycle the building sits. The residences are carried at 77 to 91 per cent of their original closing prices and the commercial units at 63 to 80 per cent. Next door, three years older, the residences run 83 to 133 per cent and four of the six are now assessed above what they sold for. That is the reassessment lag caught mid-reversal across two adjacent buildings, and anyone who quotes you a single ratio without naming the building and the vintage is quoting noise.
One homestead detail worth flagging because the arithmetic gives it away. One unit here shows a 43 per cent gap between its market value and its assessed value on a building completed in 2024, which cannot have accumulated in under two years. That is the signature of an exemption differential transferred in from a previous Florida home. It travels with the owner, not with the unit, and it will not come with the apartment.
The practical version: the rate is ordinary and the tax on a specific unit is knowable from the roll rather than guessed, but there is no cap cushion anywhere in this building and the reserve obligations are real. 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 and a real bill will be higher.
Where the leverage is
Small enough to escape the disclosure, tall enough to carry the structure
Most pages in this series argue that a small building is a quieter place to live. This one argues something sharper: at this exact size, Florida takes the disclosure away and leaves the obligations behind.
Here is the arithmetic that nobody puts in a brochure. A prospectus is owed above twenty residential units, and this building has eighteen. An association website publishing the budget, contracts, insurance and inspection reports is required at twenty-five or more units, and this building has twenty-two. It misses both by three. Nothing is being withheld improperly. It simply means every document a larger building must hand over or post, you have to ask for.
But the structural rules do not count units. They count storeys. At five storeys this building clears the structural integrity reserve study requirement and the milestone inspection regime outright, with no small-building exemption available to it. The same roof, structure, waterproofing and elevator line items that a two hundred unit tower spreads across two hundred owners are spread here across twenty-two. That is the central financial fact of this property and it is not on any listing.
The good news on timing is real. The first milestone inspection falls thirty years from the certificate of occupancy, which puts it at the end of 2054, and every ten years after. The twenty-five year trigger requires a local determination that no jurisdiction in this county has adopted, and the familiar three mile test was repealed in 2022. The structural clock here is a problem for the 2050s, not this decade.
The market position is the other half of the argument, and it is unusual. Twenty-one of the 22 units were deeded out during 2024 and one residence has never been conveyed. Beyond that, not one unit in this building or the one next door has resold in the twelve months to mid September 2026, against a county sales layer carrying more than fourteen thousand transactions over the same window. We checked that the layer works by pulling live sales on the neighbouring block.
That is precisely where representation earns its keep. With no resale in this building there is no internal comparable, so the only evidence of value is twenty-one original closing prices, floor by floor, with living areas attached, and the assessor's current read on each of them. An agent who has that table can price the remaining unit, or the first resale to come out of here, without leaving money on the table. Nobody selling you the unit is going to hand you that table.
What to get in writing before you make an offer: the structural integrity reserve study and the reserve schedule behind it; the association's budget, insurance and contracts, none of which anyone must publish at this size; the declaration and all of its recorded amendments; what the recorded agreement with the building next door obliges this association to do; and the association's position on the developer's remaining unit.
One unit left, and twenty-one closings to price it against
Ask what is available here, and ask to be told when the first resale comes out.
The area
High downtown ground, and three of four flood queries that return nothing at all
The flood answer here is good, and getting to it took the full protocol, which is the part worth copying. Four queries were run: a centre point and a whole parcel test against the federal layer, and the same two against the county layer. Three of the four returned nothing at all. Only the whole parcel test on the federal layer returned anything, and what it returned is minimal hazard, outside the special flood hazard area. A point query at this address produces a blank, and a blank is not an answer.
We then sized the hole rather than shrugging at it. Buffering outward from the centre of the parcel, the county layer returns nothing at all out to thirty metres and first returns a polygon at forty, where it reads minimal hazard. That remains the only zone present out to two hundred metres. The void is roughly thirty to forty metres across and it covers both Zahrada buildings. The county layer is not silent because the area is safe; it is silent because the coverage has a hole in it.
Two controls confirm the layers work, which is what makes the negative meaningful. The same county layer queried at a bayfront point returns a velocity zone at a base flood elevation of eleven feet, and the federal layer at the same coordinate returns the same. The federal layer queried at the building next door, fifty metres west, returns minimal hazard at a single point. Both services work; the blanks at this exact centroid are local.
The city's own paperwork agrees with the benign reading. The master permit required no finished floor certificate at either stage, recorded no minimum finished floor elevation, and left the flood zone field blank on a five storey new build. A building official does not waive an elevation certificate inside the hazard area.
The reason is the ground. Lidar across seven points runs about 17.3 to 18.2 feet, a spread of under a foot, on the downtown high ground. The bayfront peninsula in this series runs about 4.2 feet, and the ridge a few blocks east runs 19 to 21. The building next door sits about a foot lower.
Hold the surge figure against that, because the two are almost the same number. This address carries evacuation level C, a category three zone modelled for an 18 foot surge, against ground of 17.3 to 18.2 feet. The modelled surge is roughly equal to the ground elevation. The conventional answer to that is exactly what was built here: the habitable floors begin above a level one parking deck. Level C also means the site is called two categories later than the bayfront.
On the postcode claim record, the usual caveat applies and matters here. This postcode has recorded about 1,179 federal flood insurance claims and roughly $108.4 million paid across the life of the programme, with 744 claims and about $100.2 million in 2024 alone. September 2024 produced 514 claims and about $93.7 million; the October storm that actually made landfall here produced 210 and about $5.0 million. That postcode spans the downtown mainland, a bayfront peninsula and a barrier island, and the claims come overwhelmingly from the low lying portions.
On schools this address returns the downtown pattern, point-queried rather than assumed. The elementary and middle layers return the same kindergarten through eighth campus, so a child here changes buildings once rather than twice, and the high school is a third school again. Confirm with the district before you contract, because boundaries move.
What you need to know
Buying in a small building with someone on your side
Representation costs you nothing and the timing is the catch: where a developer still holds inventory, 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 the disclosure gap. At this size you are owed no prospectus and this association will never be required to publish its budget, its reserves, its insurance, its contracts or its minutes. Everything a larger building must give you, here you must request in writing under the statute. Ask before your rescission period closes, because after that the leverage is gone.
Know what the statute still gives you. On a developer sale you are entitled to the condominium documents, and you have a rescission right measured in days from the later of signing or delivery of those documents. Here the declaration and its recorded amendments are already public, so there is no reason to wait for them. On a resale from a private owner the package is different and narrower, and that is worth understanding before you write the offer.
Two clocks are running and one document should already exist. The milestone inspection runs thirty years from the certificate of occupancy, so the first falls at the end of 2054 and every ten years after. The structural integrity reserve study obligation applies now, at five storeys, with no small-building exemption. Whether one has been completed for this association could not be established from any public record. Ask for it by name and read the reserve schedule inside it.
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 the specific unit before closing even though the building is finished, use the warranty window while it lasts, and read the limited warranty before you sign.
Subdiview is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or sponsored by Zahrada II, any homebuilder, any developer of Zahrada 2, the City of Sarasota, or Sarasota County. The developer is identified here because it is an owner of record in the county property records and the declarant on the recorded declaration, 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
Zahrada 2 FAQ
Is Zahrada 2 phase two of Zahrada?
No, and the distinction is legal rather than cosmetic. These are two separate condominiums on two separate lots, with separate declarations, separate associations, separate subdivision numbers, separate common element parcels and different general contractors. A buyer signs into one of them, not both. There is a further wrinkle that will confuse anyone searching the record: the first building was recorded twice, first under one name and then re-recorded a few weeks later under a slightly different one, and the dead name still appears on a live city permit. What genuinely links the two is a recorded cross-project agreement, not a shared declaration.
How many units are there?
Five official sources give four different answers, and we are not going to pick one for you without saying why. The state's recorded condominium roll says 18. The city's master permit says 18 in its structured field and 20 in its own written description on the same page. The county's address point layer publishes 20 and omits the two fifth floor units entirely. The county tax roll carries 22 folios, and the recorded deeds tally 22. We rely on 22, being 18 residences and four ground floor commercial units, because the roll and the deeds are the only two sources that enumerate rather than assert, and they agree exactly. The city's own file contradicts itself across time: the original permit says 18 and a 2025 repair permit on the same building says 22.
What do I get, and not get, at this size?
This is the most useful thing on the page and it cuts both ways. With 18 residential units the building falls three short of the count that would compel a prospectus, so a purchaser here was never entitled to the standard offering package: the estimated operating budget in prescribed form, the schedule of closing expenses, the prescribed developer disclosures. At 22 total units it falls three short of the count that would compel the association to maintain a website publishing its budget, reserves, insurance, contracts and minutes, so none of that is or ever will be online. But the structural obligations turn on storeys rather than units, and at five storeys this building clears both the structural integrity reserve study requirement and the milestone inspection regime outright. Small enough to escape the disclosure, tall enough to carry the structure, with 22 owners funding it rather than 200.
What has sold here, and what is it worth?
Twenty-one of the 22 units were deeded out of the developer during 2024, and one residence has never been conveyed. Beyond that there is nothing: not one unit in this building, or in the building next door, has resold in the twelve months to mid September 2026, and we proved that against a county sales layer carrying more than fourteen thousand rows over the same window that returns live sales on the neighbouring block. So every price in the public record here is an original developer closing, and there is no secondary market evidence at this address at all. The assessor currently carries the residences at 77 to 91 per cent of those closing prices and the commercial units at 63 to 80 per cent.
What are the taxes, and is there a cap cushion?
The parcel sits in the plain City of Sarasota code at 14.8815 mills across thirteen separate levy lines, with no community development district anywhere in this county and no downtown district surcharge on this block. Across the whole building the ad valorem arithmetic comes to roughly $176,300 a year, and a typical second floor residence runs about $8,900. On the cap, the answer is measured rather than assumed and it is worth knowing before you buy: the ten per cent cap on non homesteaded assessment growth is delivering exactly nothing at all seventeen of the seventeen non homesteaded units, because market values here actually fell about half a per cent year over year and a cap only limits increases. Assessed value equals market value throughout, so the next upward reassessment passes straight through.
What should I be most careful about here?
Three things. First, owner occupancy: the 2021 building next door runs about 83 per cent homesteaded on its residential floor while this one runs about 28 per cent, with five units held by limited companies or a retirement plan and one still the developer's. Second, the reserve study. It is required here and the cost base is spread across 22 owners rather than a tower's worth, so ask to see it and ask what it implies for assessments. Third, a search trap that will defeat casual research: typing the building's published name into the clerk returns a small fraction of the file, because the whole developer chain is indexed under the Roman numeral form, and a different family with a similar surname sits inside the same result set.
Before you make an offer
Get your inside track on Zahrada 2
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 seller, and who will get you what this page could not: what the remaining unit is asking, the condominium documents and budget that nobody here is required to publish, the structural integrity reserve study and what it implies for assessments, and a call the moment the first resale comes out of this building.
It costs nothing, creates no brokerage relationship by itself, and does not obligate you to anything.