With traffic study under review and other issues yet to be addressed, Development Review Committee calls for fourth submittal of plans to city staff
On Oct. 1, following another discussion with the project team leaders, the City of Sarasota’s Development Review Committee (DRC) members asked for a fourth resubmittal of materials for the proposed Adagio mixed-use complex in downtown Sarasota.
Moreover, a representative of the firm behind the Adagio — The Lutgert Companies of Naples — questioned the DRC decision, emphasizing the fact that it would further delay the start of construction.
Formally, as shown in the applications submitted to city staff, the developer is DT Sarasota Development LLC.
And even though project team members requested a meeting with Development Services staff in an effort to eliminate the need for the fourth submittal of materials, The Sarasota News Leader learned late in the morning of Oct. 7 that no such session had been scheduled. City Communications Specialist Luke Mocherman confirmed in an email, “Another submittal is required for Adagio.”
During the Oct. 1 DRC meeting, Tom Sacharski, the city’s development review planner, told the project team members that he had discussed with fellow city staff members whether another resubmittal of the Adagio plans would be necessary “until the traffic study [for the development] is resolved.” The decision was to request the fourth submittal, Sacharski added.
“Really? Just because of the traffic study?” Joel Freedman, of Freedman Consulting in Sarasota, responded.
“The traffic study and verifying the tree exhibit information,” Sacharski replied, citing the reasons for the request.
The city’s senior arborist, Jackie Hartley, had noted during the Oct. 1 discussion that she still did not have all of the information that she had called for in regard to the graphics depicting unbuildable areas, though Freedman appeared to dispute that. Freedman pointed out that a “dimension line” that she had requested had been added to the graphic.
Nonetheless, Sacharski said, the resubmittal was being required. “That was the last I heard from the general manager and the director [of the city’s Development Services Department].”
“Wow,” Freedman replied. “Seems a little extreme that we have to resubmit everything and come back here [again].”
“We can discuss further, but that was the last direction …” Sacharski responded.
When Freedman asked about the timeline for staff’s completion of its review of the traffic study that the project team had provided to the city, Assistant City Engineer Alyssa Thomas told him, “Thirty days from when it was submitted, so we’re about a week in now.”
Thus, “Three more weeks,” Freedman said.
Then Freedman asked whether Mike Hoyt, senior vice president of The Lutgert Companies, wanted to offer any comment about the DRC direction.
Hoyt asked Sacharaski, “Is this typical, to hold off for a traffic study?”
Before Sacharski could reply, Freedman added, “I haven’t seen it before … Can’t understand what the traffic study would say that would impact the site plan.”
At that point, Alison Christie, general manager of Development Services, came up to the table where the project team members were seated in the City Commission Chambers in City Hall.
“We can discuss it further and kind of explain our thought process, but there’s still some things we think could affect the site plan, coming out of the traffic study,” she said, noting, as well, the remaining DRC members’ comments that remained unresolved. Those were noted during the review that day of the team’s third submission of materials.
In such cases, Christie added, staff does require another DRC meeting discussion.
“OK,” Freedman said.
Yet, Hoyt told Christie, “We’ve seen all these comments before. We’ve provided all the direction on them. It doesn’t appear to be anything there that’s going to impact what’s allowable under the [city Zoning Code] and the current state law.”
Hoyt was referring to the Live Local Act, whose attainable housing provisions the team is using as the basis for constructing one of the Adagio’s two buildings at a height of 18 stories, instead of the 10 allowed in the Downtown Core zoning of the property that encompasses four parcels: those located at 1360 Ringling Blvd.; 301 and 303 S. Palm Ave.; and 330 S. Pineapple Ave.
The other building, where the attainable housing units are planned, will be nine stories, project documents have shown.
As The Sarasota News Leader has reported, the Live Local Act law says in part, “A municipality must authorize multifamily and mixed-use residential as allowable uses in any area zoned for commercial, industrial, or mixed use if at least 40 percent of the residential units in a proposed multifamily development are rental units that, for a period of at least 30 years, are affordable as defined in [Florida Statute] 420.0004. … For mixed-use residential projects, at least 65 percent of the total square footage must be used for residential purposes.”
The materials provided to the DRC in the Adagio team’s third submittal put the total number of affordable units at 76, with plans for 113 market-rate units, according to the Sept. 26 Development Services Weekly Application Update for city leaders. Previously, the number of attainable units was listed as 69, with 103 market-rate units proposed.
Hoyt stressed to Christie that the request for another submittal and the related DRC discussion “essentially delays the process for us to move forward with design unnecessarily at this point.”
(Freedman submitted the Adagio application to city Development Services staff in late January. The first DRC discussion took place on March 5.)
“You can always submit [applications for] building permits before you get [staff] sign-off,” Christie replied. Nonetheless, she pointed out, that is a risk for the team, as no permits can be issued until Development Services staff has given full sign-off on the project.
Moreover, in early September, Freedman submitted a request to the Development Services staff for three “administrative adjustments.” Those entail deviations from city Zoning Code requirements in portions of the Adagio’s design. The Development Services staff has to address those, as well, before giving the project team the go-ahead for construction.
Hoyt told Christie that he understood her comments about the building permits. However, he continued, “It just seems like this is unusual and unnecessarily causing us delay and, therefore, obviously, costs, so I think it was important for us to state [that] here.”
Then Freedman suggested to Christie that he and Hoyt could meet with her team, “to talk about what could possibly be the issue.”
“These other items that we’re talking about,” Hoyt added, referencing her remarks.
“Sure,” she told them.
Zvonko Smlatic, the city’s senior utilities engineer, noted that the unresolved comments he had made that morning could be resolved after the development group submitted its permit applications.
Following Smlatic’s statement, Freedman sought clarification that the only two city departments left with issues that needed addressing were Development Services and Traffic.
“Believe so,” Sacharski replied.
Still, Hoyt reiterated his earlier comment about the situation: “Seems unusual.”
“Yeah, it does,” Freedman said. “It does seem unusual.”
Outstanding issues to be resolved, per DRC
Among the unresolved Zoning/Planning comments that Sacharski noted earlier in the meeting were the following:
- Clarification about the building level where a required 12-foot recess will start along Ringling Boulevard — which city regulations classify as a “primary street.” The recess did not appear to be dimensioned on the architectural plans, Sacharski wrote. Further, balconies can have a maximum encroachment of 3 feet, he pointed out.
Freedman indicated that the project team simply forgot to address those points before providing their third submittal to the DRC.
- The staff comment that the Fire Command Room on the Ringling Boulevard side of one building “is not considered habitable space and needs to be relocated.” Additionally, the purpose of the room adjacent to the retail space and stair egress corridor along Pineapple Avenue needs to be clarified, so staff can determine whether it is habitable space.
- Based on the third submittal of the plans, a new comment read, “The Storage Rooom along the Ringling Boulevard frontage on the second floor is not considered habitable space and needs to be relocated. Please dimension the 20-foot habitable space requirements along Ringling Boulevard for the second floor.”
In response to that comment, Freedman told Sacharski on Oct. 1, “We’re going to be extending the liner building. … The whole thing’s going to go away.”
The Law Insider website explains that a liner building is “a retail or business structure built to camouflage an unsightly façade/use such as a substation, service bay or parking area/garage. Liner Buildings are generally narrow in depth and placed along the street and consistent with approved uses in Mixed-Use areas.”
Another new comment provided to Freedman before the Oct. 1 DRC meeting said, “Please update the elevations to be consistent with the renderings. Per the Attainable Housing definition in Section II-201 [of the City Code], the exterior appearance, including building finish materials, shall be indistinguishable between the market-rate and attainable units.”
The administrative adjustments application
On Sept. 9, the News Leader learned through a public records request, Freedman submitted an application to city staff to seek three adjustments to the city’s Zoning Code, to enable the project to move forward.
In an accompanying letter to Development Services Director Lucia Panica — dated Sept. 8 — Freedman wrote, “As you know, during the DRC review the Pineapple Avenue frontage type, building façade coverage and habitable space identification were comments needing to be addressed.
The project team is “proposing an ‘awning’ frontage type along Pineapple,” he continued, which is designated a Primary Street. “The awning location is designed to respect the building’s façade design and as such is not a continuous awning,” he added. “This condition is permitted by the zoning code.”
However, Freedman explained, “light poles and proposed canopy trees [to be placed] between the sidewalk and street [limit] the width of the awning.” Thus, he wrote, the first adjustment requested would reduce the width of the awning by 25% — from 8 feet to 6 feet.
Further, he explained, a 6-foot-wide “unobstructed concrete sidewalk” extends along the entire Pineapple Avenue frontage of the building. Reducing the awning width to 6 feet, he continued, would allow it to cover the entire sidewalk, providing for an enhanced pedestrian experience in that location. “Granting the adjustment results in a condition that is equal to meeting the purpose of the regulation,” he wrote.
The second adjustment, Freedman continued, regards the Zoning Code’s requirement for a façade to cover 90% of the Pineapple Avenue frontage. “The project is utilizing the existing driveway accessing Pineapple Avenue and as such there is a ‘gap’ on the ground floor,” Freedman pointed out. The driveway, he continued, “constitutes a 16.8% reduction in the 90% façade coverage requirement. The second floor does not have this gap as the building goes over the existing driveway. Therefore, this adjustment [is only] for the ground floor,” Freedman wrote.
Then he referred to DRC comments about space along the ground floor frontage not being deemed habitable space. “Because of zoning and building requirements,” Freedman continued, “the fire command center, backflow preventer apparatus and a building egress corridor must be located along the street frontage …” Therefore, he wrote, they need to be deducted from the requirement for 100% habitable space for that proposed building. Factoring out those spaces from the proposed building facade, he continued, resulted in the need for a 22.1% reduction in the habitable space requirement. This condition does not occur on the second floor, he added.
The Adagio’s proposed façade is 116.1 feet long, Freedman pointed out.