Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Development Application topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
City staff issues partial sign‑off, asks for clarifications on 1776 Ringling Condominiums resubmittal
Summary
City planning staff issued partial sign‑off for a resubmitted site plan for 1776 Ringling Condominiums, a proposed 10‑story, 50‑unit tower, and asked the applicant to correct setback and façade calculations, label two attainable housing units on the floor plans and address tree‑protection and waste‑collection details.
Devon Glanz, a City of Sarasota development review planner, opened the review of a resubmittal for 1776 Ringling Condominiums at 1776 Ringling Boulevard and 222 S. Osprey Avenue, a proposed 10‑story residential tower with about 50 units and a parallel lot‑unification and alley‑vacation application.
City staff read a set of outstanding zoning and planning comments that remain unresolved in the resubmittal. Staff asked the applicant to remove an incorrect storefront‑frontage reference in the site data table and to reconcile an inconsistency between the graphic setback on sheet A1 (10 ft. 2 in.) and the site‑data table (10 ft. maximum). Staff also asked the applicant to label which two units are intended as attainable housing and to show how those units meet the code definition that attainable units be indistinguishable from and interspersed with market‑rate units.
Staff requested updates to parallel‑façade calculations for the frontages on Ringling Boulevard and Osprey Avenue, asked that the applicant add and label the utility room and confirm how habitable and nonresidential floor area are counted for parking requirements, and noted two administrative adjustment requests under review (fire command room and a utility room within the required 20‑ft habitable depth). The plans should also reflect consistent dimensions (for example a 3 ft. vs. 3 ft.‑1 in. setback discrepancy) and provide a parking calculation that incorporates public habitable space per section 7,206.
Jonathan Williamson from Public Works asked the applicants to clarify refuse and recycling plans: the proposed set of 95‑gallon carts appears light for a 50‑unit building and conflicts with other plan sheets that show 4‑ or 6‑yard dumpsters. Williamson asked the team to explain how chute or vertical conveyance will fill 95‑gallon carts from a 10‑story building and to confirm collection frequency and vendor arrangements for recycling dumpsters, which the city does not service.
Theresa Turner from Utilities requested technical revisions: rotate the bypass pipe on the 4‑inch water meter per the City of Sarasota details; show the 6‑inch fire service entry and the associated doors on utility and architectural plans; connect any proposed fire hydrant to the appropriate water main size; and show demolition of two wastewater laterals to the 10‑inch main. Turner also requested submission of the city’s utility application forms and a Q‑form water/wastewater demand analysis to support building permit review.
City arborist Jackie Hartley questioned proposed removal of grand trees, noting a resistograph did not substantiate removal, and requested proof that the code criteria for removal are met as well as corrected distances for off‑site live oak locations. Staff said the applicant’s arborist will provide additional information this week.
The applicant team — including Roberto Losales (architect, DSG Architects) and representatives from Kimley‑Horn — said the two attainable units are identified on sheets A302 and A304 and confirmed they will provide the additional documentation requested by staff. Devon Glanz said staff will issue a partial sign‑off; any major revisions (for example, changes driven by tree‑protection or similar issues) would require the project to return to the DRC.
The meeting record shows staff and technical reviewers provided detailed, itemized requirements; the applicant acknowledged the comments and expects to resubmit with the requested clarifications.
