Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Site Plan Reviews topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
DRC flags multiple technical fixes, utility conflicts on Old Bradenton site plan
Summary
City staff told the Old Bradenton site‑plan team to provide elevations and signed architectural sheets, reconcile parking and bicycle counts, show proposed setbacks and fence dimensions, and address utility conflicts including a mismatched force main, possible manhole replacement and master‑metering questions before a full sign‑off.
Devon Glantz, the development review planner, told the applicant at the Sarasota City Development Review Committee meeting on April 15 that the Old Bradenton 26SP02 submittal still needs several substantive corrections before staff will grant final approval. "The response to comments indicated elevations are forthcoming," Glantz said, and staff reiterated that signed and sealed architectural sheets must appear on the plan set.
Why it matters: staff said missing or inconsistent plan items can delay building permits, plat approvals and subsequent construction. Glantz listed specifics staff marked as unresolved: add proposed and required maximum building coverage; update and label front‑yard and side‑yard setbacks to comply with Table 6‑303; clarify that a site‑data reference to a "street yard" is a front yard; remove a required open‑space reference for RMF‑2 (which has no minimum); add proposed fence dimensions; and include a separate row showing proposed parking in the site data table.
The applicant, represented by Alex Kraus of the engineering team, answered technical questions during the review. Utilities staff flagged mismatches between utility sheets and asked the applicant to show the proposed city utility easement in profile and to revise force‑main connections shown on different sheets. A utilities reviewer noted that an 8‑inch master meter — which the applicant had considered — "will cost you about $200,000," and the applicant said that cost informed their discussion about individual unit metering.
Fire and transportation staff raised operational safety and access concerns: Jeremy Trueschel of Sarasota County Fire asked that the distance from hydrants to fire‑department connections be shown and that valve locations be included to isolate buildings; Wesley Stuckey, traffic and concurrency reviewer, requested a 22‑foot curb radius at Old Bradenton Road and University Parkway, a 5‑foot sidewalk with a 4‑foot planting strip per the EDCM, and high‑emphasis crosswalks and ADA ramps in the right‑of‑way permit submission.
City arborist Jackie Hartley asked the applicant to submit documentation under section 7‑3‑10 before removing any grand trees and requested understory species (not palms) be used where zoning trees are required.
Next steps: staff confirmed a resubmittal is required to address the outstanding items and that some comments (for example, curb/sidewalk crosswalk details) can later be resolved during right‑of‑way permitting. Staff will withhold final sign‑off until the plan set shows the requested elevations, corrected tables, utility profiles and the other items listed by reviewers.
The DRC adjourned the Old Bradenton discussion after the applicant agreed to coordinate directly with engineering and utilities to resolve the listed items.
