Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Site Plan Adagio topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
DRC flags glazing, unit design and tree mitigation on Adagio towers; partial sign-off granted
Summary
City planners and reviewers told the Adagio development team to clarify attainable-unit appearance, glazing and loading calculations, and to provide fuller tree‑mitigation alternatives; the committee issued a partial sign‑off and directed the applicant to resolve remaining technical items with reviewers.
The City of Sarasota Development Review Committee opened its May 20 meeting by taking the first agenda item, the Adagio site plan resubmittal, and pressing the applicant for clarifications on design and code compliance.
Staff member reading zoning and current planning comments said the city needs clarification on how the attainable‑housing tower will be indistinguishable in exterior appearance and entrances from the market‑rate tower, citing differences observed in balcony materials and facade glazing. Staff also noted bicycle parking calculations (24.6) must be rounded up to 25 under the code and asked that site‑data tables show maximum allowed setbacks for the DTC district and tower recess details required along primary streets.
The city’s reviewer said: "The balconies on the attainable housing units appear to have aluminum railings, while the market rate balconies appear to have glass railings," and asked the applicant to reconcile those materials and window glazing so the two towers are functionally equivalent as defined in the zoning code.
Other technical items flagged by staff included: consistent non‑residential square footage for loading calculations to match parking tables; turning templates to confirm off‑street loading spaces are directly accessible; and a requirement that an affordable‑housing agreement be recorded in the official records of Sarasota County before site‑plan approval. Staff recommended a voluntary community workshop and noted an appeal submitted for a demolition permit.
City arborist Jackie Hartley told the applicant to submit a full set of alternate tree‑mitigation designs and to document why each rejected alternative was infeasible, provide arborist reports and testing for any proposed grand‑tree removals, identify each tree by species and size (not as a range), and show utility locations relative to existing and proposed trees. "Staff cannot proceed with only one alternative," Hartley said, and suggested a field meeting to review options.
Utility and engineering reviewers raised constraints tied to water and sewer infrastructure: reviewers asked the team to confirm whether an upgrade to a 10‑inch water main is required where connections were proposed, to maintain minimum separation between fire and domestic lines, to TV (video) existing sewer service lines and replace cracked pipe, and to avoid locating mains under driveways where feasible.
After the department reviews, staff announced it would issue a partial sign‑off for the Adagio application and asked the applicant to work directly with DRC reviewers to resolve the remaining comments.
The DRC did not take a final action to approve the full site plan; outstanding items remain on zoning, tree mitigation, utilities and loading access. The applicant indicated willingness to meet with staff to address delineated comments.
