[{"_1":2,"_100":-5,"_101":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6427305,"mediaKeyId","5897709-25d308da7d25ac99b8bce65bc4437485","parentId",5897709,"title","DRC holds Adagio site-plan pending traffic study, utility and historic review","audioSeconds",1021,"startMs",604000,"endMs",1625000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5897709-25d308da7d25ac99b8bce65bc4437485&start=604&end=1625","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5897709-25d308da7d25ac99b8bce65bc4437485/thumbnail_604000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6427305/Florida/DRC-holds-Adagio-site-plan-pending-traffic-study-utility-and-historic-review","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6427305-5f77826046a8c3496d4ab71c089b3cc5/orig.mp4?Expires=1770900240&Signature=jn19rkW6d9~bjhjoR~T0Mq9B9A9DSusDE0bXKyUBOItHPOiuGr2W4YmGrac0nSiYPmj~4MwezxtoyODN669Q5gEvZ~Enw~W~mnEUcWJGhLs5uzxqi~pLe-yxVAhhQw54qu4mQAWxsX-Kabro5U0cR0itRwr4vHrtwUIgwydoixtC6CUPfVwGXkeLJMI2R4dMfnpvt51V8e7dqAyNcBOqdSmA6uLJ0jIr50VHNgK4fLkqya1PRYPLwFK3IH6duy4VkPvbl96cRzcHxqiviMVN13L2RkIw0mWRWGn6V5Uikcon7hv3-VwvbMahjKakeTngDpDxwaa2AiI-Zkbl2p66aw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","City of Sarasota","date","2025-10-01T08:49:00Z","article","The Sarasota City Development Review Committee on Oct. 1 reviewed the third submittal for Adagio, a proposed multi-story development at 1360 Ringling Boulevard, and did not grant final sign-off pending resolution of outstanding zoning, utilities, historic-preservation and traffic items.

City planning and review staff told the applicant several prior and new comments remain unresolved and recommended the project return after the city has the traffic study results and updated tree exhibit. For zoning, Tom Sikarsky, certified planner representing development services, said, “our comment was it does not appear that the 12 foot recess has been dimensioned on the architectural plan,” and asked the team to show the recess dimension and note that balconies “are encroaching a maximum of 3 feet.”

Staff also flagged that a storage room shown along the Ringling Boulevard frontage on the second floor “is not considered habitable space and needs to be relocated,” and reminded the applicant of a 20-foot habitable-space requirement for the second floor fronting Ringling Boulevard. The cover sheet and sheet A.02 were inconsistent about the number of loading zones and bicycle parking; the applicant confirmed three loading zones are required and agreed to correct the site data block. Planning staff said elevations must match renderings and stressed that, per the attainable-housing definition (section 6.9.12 referenced by staff), “the exterior appearance, including all building finished materials, shall be indistinguishable between the market rate and attainable units.” The applicant agreed to show matching materials for attainable units, including glass balcony railings where required.

City staff left a zoning condition in place until an affordable housing agreement is provided. Staff also recommended that the applicant schedule a community workshop to discuss use of bonus density after several community concerns were raised.

On utilities and civil matters, the city’s utilities reviewer said proposed site utilities and easement dimensions did not match between the architectural and civil plans and asked the applicant to coordinate the 8-inch wastewater lateral and the city utility-easement dimensions (the architecture sheet showed 8 ft. 11 in. by 19 ft. 9 in.; the civil sheet showed 10 ft. by 18 ft.). The utilities reviewer also asked the applicant to identify which existing meters and backflow devices will be used during construction and to include demolition and meter serial numbers on the demolition/utility plan so utility-impact credits can be calculated.

Jackie Hartley, city arborist, asked that the areas labeled unbuildable be quantified, including a breakdown of root zones, canopy and shade effects, and requested a 20-foot dimension for the shaded area on sheet L-01. Brianna Dobbs, chief planner, told the applicant the structure at 326 South Pineapple Avenue is listed on the Florida Master Site File and that “pursuant to section 4823, request to demolish structures on the Florida Master Site File require a historic review.” Dobbs asked the applicant to provide documentation the prior owner signed off on demolition (the applicant said they would submit documents provided earlier by a Dr. Smith and seek to provide follow-up documentation from David Smith).

Sarasota County Fire and building staff asked the applicant to verify the fire staging plan meets county requirements. Alisa Thomas, the city’s traffic reviewer, said several pedestrian-access and circulation items remain open: show pedestrian access from Palm Avenue to the residential lobby; provide a direct accessible route from Accessible Parking (now labeled Spot 13) to the building lobby (staff noted the current route from that spot to the lobby was about 400 feet unless a ramp is provided inside the garage); clarify drop-off striping at Palm Avenue; and account for parallel parking and bike lanes toward effective curb radius calculations. Thomas noted the traffic study is still in review and warned that remaining traffic comments may affect the site plan.

Allison Christie, general manager for development services, said some outstanding comments could affect the site plan and therefore the city requires the applicant to return to DRC after the traffic study and remaining comments are resolved. Christie said staff wanted to “explain our thought process, but there are still some things that we think could affect the site plan coming out of the traffic study, coming out of some of the remaining comments that we feel could affect other reviewers.”

The applicant’s developer, Mike Hoyt, objected to the requirement to withhold sign-off until the traffic study is complete, saying the outstanding items “do not appear to be anything here that’s gonna impact what’s allowable under the codes” and that the resubmittal requirement would delay design and increase cost. Staff noted the applicant could still submit building permits and begin permit review at the applicant’s risk, but no final site-plan approval would be issued until the DRC holds the item again and unresolved items are addressed.

Next steps: staff will expect a resubmittal after the traffic study is complete (the applicant and staff estimated the traffic study timeline at 30 days from submission; at the meeting the applicant said about three weeks remained). The applicant also agreed to provide the affordable housing agreement draft and to coordinate revisions to match civil, architectural and landscape plans. No formal vote or final action was taken at the meeting.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Development Review Committee","oneSentenceSummary","The Sarasota City Development Review Committee reviewed the third submittal for the Adagio project at 1360 Ringling Boulevard and left multiple zoning, utility, historic-preservation and traffic issues open; staff requested a resubmittal after the pending traffic study and updated tree exhibit are complete.","taxTitle","Sarasota City, Sarasota County, Florida","taxId",58306,"location","Florida","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6427297,"DRC requires resubmittal for Seventh and Central condominiums over loading, street and open-space issues",1328,1657000,2985000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5897709-25d308da7d25ac99b8bce65bc4437485&start=1657&end=2985","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5897709-25d308da7d25ac99b8bce65bc4437485/thumbnail_1657000.jpg","/articles/6427297/Florida/DRC-requires-resubmittal-for-Seventh-and-Central-condominiums-over-loading-street-and-open-space-issues","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6427297-2908c60958bdb99d608b0ee3719ba351/orig.mp4?Expires=1770900240&Signature=Rp2Q9b-QMDXqx50bcus4Ifc0fQOi4wJoie66FdxE2zrYho7zu0rHcu4HgL~HMNuoCpgrcpYdQ5G8aSm~ZBOtF-f2nAWYp6ickE7sKqeRvX~C7kUO~hA5DKN5KD80MtA907uizEgPpBMIv4A-69ePNHNh7wEw~77abPEtAX3mfyGL7sWvkdeAdH98r2CCe396I4kPt63g2LG-kXckBrIo0UQ7EShq~xtgkDt1OsyAKQ40ycysjO1xxaxnM-HijTLjqZb7rggJ4PGEvhHWxxUkYGlZV8WZ9Zwr~miFe-eQuV74gLNUR6r8rxznQXmT2fsMzKgJuBD4mP4W8Aotu0oVSA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Sarasota City Development Review Committee on Oct. 1 required a resubmittal for the second submittal of the Seventh and Central Condominiums at 650 Central Avenue, citing a series of unresolved site-data, loading, utility and street-design items.

Applicant representatives described the project as an eight-story condominium containing 24 units in the Rosemary District. Tom Sikarsky, certified planner representing development services, asked the applicant to revise the site data table to show both required and proposed development regulations and to correct a shown floor-area-ratio value that did not apply to the DTE zone. He also directed the team to dimension the public sidewalk and amenity zone near the Seventh Street intersection and to remove an “impervious” label from an amenity zone; per staff, amenity zones should be pervious under section 6.9.12.

On urban open space, staff said that because the applicant proposes dedicating southeast open space as urban open space (section 6.9.12), the team must show the calculation that the area of open space multiplied by five produces the compensating floor area for floors six and seven and demonstrate how the space will be publicly accessible during daylight hours. The project team said the open space would be gated and unlocked during daytime hours, with fob access after hours; staff asked them to add that note to the plans.

Loading and vehicle circulation drew extended discussion. Staff noted concern about loading spaces that require vehicles to back into or out of the public right-of-way. The traffic reviewer, Alisa Thomas, said driveway width must meet Transportation chapter standards and that the current civil plan shows a 32-foot-wide driveway that does not meet the 24-foot maximum; designs that deviate require a technical deviation backed by a sealed engineering study. Thomas reiterated that required off-street parking should be arranged so vehicles are not required to back directly onto public streets and that the loading zone be designed for safe ingress and egress.

Thomas also asked that the plans remove a dedicated striped bike lane on Central Avenue (which staff said does not provide adequate space) and instead show shared-lane markings (sharrows); revise curb radii at Central Avenue and Seventh Street to 15 feet where required; add ADA-compliant ramps aligned with crosswalks; and ensure compatibility of inlet grates with bicycle tires. Staff said Seventh Street remains classified as a street and that sidewalk, planting-strip and crosswalk improvements along the site frontage are required under the EDCM.

Utilities staff reported difficulty reading the submitted utility sheet PDF and requested resubmission of legible utility plans, including identification of existing water meters/backflow devices and any easements to be vacated. Jackie Hartley, city arborist, reminded the team that a tree-removal permit is required before removals begin.

The applicant and staff agreed to schedule departmental meetings to walk through comments prior to resubmittal. Tom Sikarsky said preliminary conditions and an urban-open-space agreement must be provided prior to issuance of a building permit. The DRC stated the resubmittal should address the substantial utilities and traffic comments as well as the open-space calculations.

No votes were taken; the team will prepare a resubmittal and may request a meeting with reviewers to resolve detailed technical items.","The Development Review Committee reviewed the second submittal for an eight-story, 24-unit condominium at 650 Central Avenue and requested a resubmittal after the applicant addresses site-data corrections, urban open-space calculations, loading/driveway design and multiple transportation and utility comments.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6427287,"City issues approval letter for Temple Beth administrative site plan",21,3071000,3092000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5897709-25d308da7d25ac99b8bce65bc4437485&start=3071&end=3092","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5897709-25d308da7d25ac99b8bce65bc4437485/thumbnail_3071000.jpg","/articles/6427287/Florida/City-issues-approval-letter-for-Temple-Beth-administrative-site-plan","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6427287-ef43ebe729de4557313157260b6deea4/orig.mp4?Expires=1770900240&Signature=R6Brk8RmaIAePTt~JSijekn2i5Mrc0BaMm5JZ-efMveA2ggFyAIp85kdIfk0Td5dI~wPsk~-~B4XZ3~upl5tsLrdINmyoZxVWvUZkPScSKMiuY-NpTeN6oapwWSSQyPvGUIitN8XR15Y6Zz1mWIvNBVB8XU9aJYjZAvVc3tkQombKKlDb7lFfatkNKdlrKAMQR7hSBUOIplBczgC778YYbkOhnAaRi50TBvuUFbTsbWCa-20j9HJOLTdJ6XRlIlZHQYEj7L1u1PCTraIXX-7MMMJ9-LI4T65cbi6MGdGRqrW3lN9BvSlUjp0Kb0twlauWWSHuNqj77YSWjNZiKFY5Q__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Sarasota City Development Review Committee announced Oct. 1 that the administrative site plan for the Temple Beth redevelopment (25 ASP 13) received full sign-off and that staff issued an approval letter.

Allison Christie, general manager for development services, told the DRC the administrative site plan had been approved after the applicant’s resubmittal and the team’s adjustments. No further DRC action was recorded on the item at the meeting.","Staff announced full sign-off and an approval letter for the Temple Beth redevelopment administrative site plan (25 ASP 13).","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

DRC holds Adagio site-plan pending traffic study, utility and historic review

DRC requires resubmittal for Seventh and Central condominiums over loading, street and open-space issues

City issues approval letter for Temple Beth administrative site plan