Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Stonetile Gallery topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
City reviewers request glazing, loading and dumpster clarifications for StoneTile Gallery expansion
Summary
The DRC reviewed a StoneTile Gallery resubmittal that proposes an expansion and office consolidation; staff asked for glazing calculations, corrected loading-zone layouts, signage compliance at site‑plan review, and clarification on commercial refuse/recycling specifications before sign‑off.
At its May 20 meeting the City of Sarasota Development Review Committee reviewed a resubmittal for StoneTile Gallery (25SP12), an existing downtown facility proposing an expansion to consolidate offices and keep the rear building as warehouse space.
Devon Glanz, a City of Sarasota development‑review planner, read zoning and code comments that remain unresolved: a roof plan with upper‑tenancy dimensions is required, glazing calculations must be provided to confirm elevations comply with code, and loading spaces must be shown so each off‑street loading space can be accessed without crossing another required loading space. Staff also asked the applicant to either remove references to signage or show signage compliance at the site‑plan phase and to add missing ground sign dimensions to the plans.
The applicant’s engineer said truck‑maneuverability graphics exist and that the loading spaces do not require trucks to pass through another space; staff asked that the applicant split the graphic and show that the spaces do not conflict.
Public Works advised the applicant that commercial properties must select a recycling vendor because the City does not provide recycling service to commercial properties, noted the city’s typical dumpster sizes (1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 8 yard units), and asked the team to reconcile the proposed 5‑yard recycling dumpster with collection‑vehicle templates on the plans.
A utilities reviewer reiterated several utility requirements: water‑main connection standards, minimum separations between fire and domestic lines, showing meter and backflow sizes on the utility plan, and performing CCTV inspection of existing sewer lines with replacement if the pipe proves unusable. Engineering review requested an updated signed and sealed survey and a sidewalk easement if a public sidewalk encroaches on private property.
City arborist Jackie Hartley repeated tree protection requirements: include a tree table listing all trees and why removals are necessary, identify each tree species and size (not as a range), provide arborist reports and testing for any proposed grand‑tree removal, and show utilities relative to trees. Hartley again recommended a field meeting to resolve tree‑protection details.
No formal vote was taken on the project during the meeting; staff said a resubmittal will be required and that the applicant should coordinate changes with reviewers.
