DRC flags utility, tree and design clarifications on Temple Hotel second submittal

The Sarasota City Development Review Committee (DRC) returned partial sign-off Wednesday for the Temple Hotel second submittal — listed as 25ASP04, 25ADF03 and 25ADP05 for properties described in the filing as 1524, 1534 and 1542 Fruitville Road — and identified several unresolved engineering, utilities and landscaping items that applicants must address before final sign-off.

The DRC’s partial sign-off came after presentations by project consultants and a round of comments from development services, utilities, public works, traffic, the city arborist and other departments. A staff member concluded the meeting by saying, “With that, you are getting partial sign off. So we'll coordinate, any remaining comments.”

Why it matters: the outstanding items affect site construction sequencing, public‑right‑of‑way improvements and required approvals. The DRC review sets conditions applicants must satisfy for permitting and construction to proceed.

City planning and code compliance

Tom Skarski of Development Services told the DRC that, under the cited code reference, “outdoor bars require major conditional use,” and that the project team had amended sheet A7 to remove bar language because the applicant intends the area to be outdoor seating only. Skarski also requested a plan note restricting the outdoor amenities so they are accessible only to hotel guests, not the general public.

Utilities and construction staging

Representatives from the utilities review raised multiple technical conflicts between the civil plan and record drawings or GIS data. A utilities reviewer noted that the location of the existing water main shown on the project’s utility sheet (C04) did not match the coastal GIS map and record drawings: the plan places the main in the road north of the curb inlet while the record drawing shows it under the sidewalk. The DRC required a field investigation to determine the exact location before finalizing utility layout and pole/light locations.

The utilities reviewer also said the proposed FDC (fire department connection) lines were located within a proposed city utility easement and instructed the applicant to connect the FDC to the fire line outside that easement. The plan must also indicate which existing water meter and backflow preventer will supply water during construction.

Public works, traffic and site geometry

Public Works and traffic reviewers requested clarifications to show how delivery vehicles will access the proposed loading zone and asked the applicant to reconcile column locations shown on architectural drawings with the vehicle turn study. A traffic reviewer pointed to the city design manual language governing alleys and paving (EDCM references cited in the meeting) and asked staff and the applicant to confirm whether repaving half the alley meets the redevelopment standard or whether full‑width alley paving is required.

An engineering reviewer flagged sight‑line issues on sheet C10 and suggested installing mirrors to obtain the required visibility distance at one location.

Tree, landscaping and building code items

City arborist Jackie Hartley said one tree (identified in the plans as tree number 2) appears to be co‑owned and requested documentation from the co‑owner authorizing removal. Jackie Hartley told the committee, “Tree number 2 appears to be co owned. Please provide documentation from the co owner authorizing the tree removal.”

The deputy building official noted that some code citations on the drawings referenced an earlier edition and told the applicant to update the application to the eighth edition of the codes before applying for building permits. The fire department reported no comments.

Other administrative items

The applicant confirmed it would withdraw two adjustment requests tied to a street designation, arguing the filing was vested because it was submitted before Fruitville Road was designated a primary street. Joel Friedman of Friedman Consulting said the team understood the timing and “I think it's gonna become a primary street after the next city commission meeting,” and the applicant indicated it would withdraw the adjustments. The DRC asked the team to remove the primary‑street dedication from the site data table to satisfy the new DRC comment on that point.

The project team was also asked to note dumpster servicing arrangements on plan notes: Public Works’ Jonathan Williamson said the proposed dumpster “will have to be serviced by an outside vendor” and asked that be reflected on the plans.

Next steps and outstanding items

The DRC listed the water‑main field investigation; relocation of proposed light poles after the main’s confirmed location; moving the FDC connection outside the city utility easement; clarifying column locations relative to the loading‑zone turn study; documentation for co‑owned tree removal; updated building code citations; and plan notes about dumpster servicing and guest‑only access to outdoor amenities.

A staff member closed the meeting by confirming partial sign-off and instructing the project team to coordinate responses to the outstanding comments before returning for final sign-off.