DRC raises technical, historic and traffic concerns on Adagio third submittal at 1360 Ringling Boulevard

Sarasota Development Review Committee staff on Oct. 1 reviewed the third site-plan submittal for Adagio, a proposed residential building at 1360 Ringling Boulevard, and identified multiple unresolved technical and policy issues that must be addressed before final sign-off.

Tom Sikarsky, certified planner representing development services, told the applicant that "it does not appear that the 12 foot recess has been dimensioned on the architectural plan" and noted the plans do not show that balconies "are encroaching a maximum of 3 feet." Sikarsky also said staff will hold a comment about a fire command room "until the administrative adjustment's processed and approved."

Multiple departments supplied prior and new comments. Reviewers said a storage room shown on the second floor along the Ringling Boulevard frontage "is not considered habitable space and needs to be relocated," and reminded the applicant about the 20-foot habitable-space requirement along Ringling Boulevard for the second floor. Utility reviewers flagged mismatches between the civil and architectural plans, including inconsistent city utility-easement dimensions (architecture listed about "8 feet 11 inch by 19 feet and 9 inch" while the civil plan showed "10 feet by 18 feet"). The city arborist requested a clearer calculation and mapping of an area identified as unbuildable due to tree root zones, canopies and shade effects.

Reviewers also raised design-consistency issues tied to the city's attainable-housing standard. Brianna Dobbs, chief planner with the planning department, said the attainable-housing definition requires that "the exterior appearance, including all building finished materials, shall be indistinguishable between the market rate and attainable units." Staff asked the applicant to update elevations and renderings to show identical exterior materials where required.

Allison Christie, general manager of development services, said staff expects the traffic study and remaining comments could change the site plan and that, because of that potential impact, the package must return to a DRC meeting after the traffic review: "there are still some things that we think could affect the site plan coming out of the traffic study." The applicant's representative, Mike Hoyt, said he disagreed that the outstanding items would change what is allowable under the code, arguing the requirement to return will cause delay and cost: "it doesn't appear to be anything here that's gonna impact what's allowable under the codes," and that the hold is "unnecessarily, causing us delay and therefore, obviously, cost."

Staff noted the traffic study runs a 30-day review clock and said the applicant may submit building permits before final sign-off "at your risk," but that final approvals will wait until outstanding items are resolved. Reviewers recommended the applicant provide the affordable-housing agreement before approval and suggested scheduling a community workshop because of public concern over the use of bonus density.

Next steps: the applicant must address dimensional callouts (12-foot recess, balcony encroachment), update civil/architectural coordination (utility easements, loading and parking counts), supply the affordable-housing agreement, clarify the tree-exhibit calculations, and await the outcome of the traffic study. Staff said unresolved items will require a resubmittal and another DRC review; the applicant may begin building-permit review concurrently but cannot receive permits until the outstanding items are resolved.