Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996 03 25 Regular Item A COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM A REGULAR X CONSENT INFORMATIONAL March 25. 1996 Meeting REQUEST: General Services Department Comprehensive Planning Division updating the Commission on the status of the 434 Visioning Process, requesting the Commission to give preliminary approval to the Visioning Conceptual Plan, and to direct staff to complete the project as provided herein. PURPOSE: To update the Commission on the status of the Visioning process, to review, and to give preliminary approval to the conceptual plan [State Road 434 Visioning schematic map], if found to be acceptable, and to direct staff to complete the project as discussed herein. CONSIDERATIONS: This agenda item is needed to establish direction for the Visioning process, as provided herein. February 27, 1995, the Commission authorized the City Manager to enter into a contract with Berryman & Henigar, Inc. to perform a scope of planning service related to creating a vision of development for the 434 Corridor. Subsequently, a visioning session was held on May 20, 1995 at the Civic Center which resulted in the development of a visioning concept. The City Manager and consultant was directed to interact with property owners to get input on the process. February 20, 1996, the staff and the City Consultant met with property owners along State Road 434 to review the status of the project and to discuss strategies for getting the project back on tract. The following were agreed upon: March 25, 1996 AGENDA ITEM NUMBER ~ Page 2 a) The Conceptual Plan was acceptable and should be presented to the Commission for review and approval. b) The City's consultant would review development guidelines drafted by the property owners, and Staff's review comments of the guidelines, and provide written comments and recommendations at a future meeting scheduled for March 7, 1996. c) Subsequent to the March 7, 1996, meeting the City's consultant will synthesize all comments into a draft development design guidelines manual. d) Subsequent to approval of the draft development design guidelines manual the consultant will prepare any zoning and comprehensive plan amendments that may be needed to implement the conceptual plan. On March 7, 1996, the Staff, City consultants and property owners met to review the consultant's report. It was agreed that a meeting would be scheduled for March 27, 1996, to give everyone time to review the consultants report, and that the conceptual plan would be presented to the City Commission on March 25, 1996. ISSUES: Following are issues involved in this project: 1) There is a question as to whether sufficient public input has been attained for a project of this type. Visioning Processes usually provide for broad public input, with a goal of including all stakeholders in the process. This process to date has not accomplished this goal. This can be achieved through additional public workshops that can be structured after preliminary approval of the conceptual plan, and development design guidelines manual. These workshops could result in amendments being made to the final conceptual plan that would be presented to the Commission at a later date for final approval. 2) There is a question relative to the desirability of expanding the visioning process beyond the 434 corridor to include for example, the lake area. This option could bring about some interesting ideas for exploration. This could easily be structured into the existing process, or addressed in a future visioning process. March 25, 1996 AGENDA ITEM NUMBER ~ Page 3 3) There are several issues that are currently being deliberated between the Staff, the consultant and the property owners currently involved in the development of the development design guidelines. These issues deal primarily with sign standards, land area to be included in the overlay district placement of utilities, and financing. This discussion is healthy and constructive. All remaining issues will be brought to the Commission when the draft development guideline manual is presented toithe Commission in May. AL TERNA TIVES: The Commissions alternatives are as follows: 1) Terminate the project a this point 2) Give preliminary approval to the conceptual plan, implementation schedule, and direct staff to proceed as recommended herein. 3) Amend the conceptual plan and implementation schedule in a manner the Commission feels to be more appropriate, and direct Staff to proceed as amended by the Commissioners. FUNDING: The Commission approved $20,200.00 in the General Fund for consulting services to complete this project. Additional funding is not requested at this time. RECOMMENDA TIONS: Staff is recommending the following: 1) The Commission give preliminary approval to the conceptual visioning plan. 2) The Commission direct Staff to proceed with completion of the project as outlined in the implementation schedule below. March 25, 1996 AGENDA ITEM NUMBER ~ Page 4 3) The Commission direct staff to explore additional ways of expanding input from stakeholders into the visioning process and provide recommendations when this item is returned to the Commission in May. 4) The Commission direct staff to explore ways of expanding the visioning process to include other areas of the City such as Lake Jesup and provide recommendations when this item is returned to the Commission in May. IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE: 1) Preliminary conceptual plan approved this date, (March 25, 1996). 2) The final draft development design guidelines manual and related planning documents should be completed and returned to the Commission for review and preliminary approval in May 1996. 3) Additional workshops could be completed by August 1, 1996 if approved by the Commission in May. 4) Final Commission approval could be completed by September 1, 1996. 5) If Comprehensive Plan amendments are required, the process could be completed by March 1997. ATTACHMENTS: a.) February 23, 1996 letter from Berryman & Henigar, Inc. to Ron McLemore, City Manager. b.) March 07,1996 Berryman & Henigar, Inc. evaluation of corridor design standards. c.) Contract with Berryman & Henigar, Inc. to perform visioning services for 434 corridor. COMMISSION ACTION: /!JIl Berryman & Henigar ,it!)')" aSI Consultants, Inc. a Henigar & Ray, Inc. TW TR:CClE:IIWlR11\\ p,WY1 #.-,!f.ij,J) fEB 2 8 1996 February 23, 1996 Ronald McLemore, City Manager City of Winter Springs 1126 E. State Road 434 Winter Springs, FL 32708 CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS ~~ C~y Manager Subject: Design guidelines for SR 434 Deaf Mr. McLemore: This letter is to memorialize the City's direction to Berryman & Henigar regarding the tasks authorized at 'our meeting of February 20, 1996. Pursuant to your directions we are to complete Task #3 outlined in my letter to the City Manager of Winter Springs, dated February 15, 1995 (copy attached). This task is to be completed in the following manner: A) Review and comment on the guidelines prepared by the McIntosh Group. Meet with the City and that group to discuss our comments on March 7th at 2:00 (date to be confirmed by the City). B) Within 2 months prepare the remaining guidelines for the entire SR 434 corridor for discussion by the property owners and the City staff C) Attend three meetings: 1) The aforementioned meeting with the McIntosh Group and staff , 2) A meeting with property owners and other interested individuals in the areas designated as (1) and (2) on the SR 434 Vision plan 3) A public meeting before the City commission to present the Vision 434 plan (this will occur sometime within the next 6 weeks). Berryman & Henigar appreciates the opportunity to again be of service to the City of Winter Springs. Together, we have accomplished some rather significant things in the past, and I know that an effort of cooperation and communication will continue in the future. If you have any questions, comments or further direction, please do not hesitate to give me a call. Sincerely, PG/bg cc: Mike Wadley W'\lI'1T1'R!;\I'(1\WTN'1'FR~P J TR 1414 S.w. Martin Luther King Avenue oOcala, FL 34474-3129 tel: 904-368-5055 fax: 904-368-5063 Citrus Line: (904) 563-1510 An Equal Opportunity Employer Ji.!/B~:~:~,,::/~n &~=~~;,::' "~. .r ) \, . JIE<CIml!lD) John Govoruhk, City Manager City of Winter Springs 1126 East State Road 434 Winter Springs, FL 32708 1~y~~ iJ~ , ~.. ')~() FEB 2 2 1995 February 15, 1995 CITY OF WINTER SPRING~ City Manager Subject: Fee Proposal for Visioning Tasks Dear John: This letter is in response to your request for a fee proposal to provide planning services for S.R. 434 Corridor. Henigar & Ray, Inc, (H&R) would propose a six-part effort to establish an appropriate plan, design, and regulatory changes for the S.R, 434 Corridor. 1. One day Visioning Seminar - H&R will moderate/facilitate a one-day (12 hours including lunch and dinner breaks) visioning process that will attempt to establish a consensus of opinion on the issues and solutions to development and re- development in the S.R. 434 Corridor. (Planning area will be no greater than one block Or 200 feet on either side of the S.R. 434 right-of-way.) . . . . . . .. $4,700.00 I 2. Redevelopment Plan Schematic Map - H&R will prepare a schematic map of the corridor area. The map will provide guidance for landscape/streetscape design, parking location, and pedestrian circulation, as well as potential development patterns and uses based on the visionary session . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. $4,350.00 3. Streetscape Guidelines - Based on the visioning session, H&R will prepare streetscape guidelines in a document format for guidance to both public and private development in the area . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $3,800.00 4. Overlay District - H&R will prepare Overlay Zoning District regulations to be applied to supplement the underlying zoning district by providing standards that complainant and implement the re-development vision . . . . . . . . . . . .. $3,350.00 5. Rezoning - H&R will recommend rezoning and/or land use plan districts . appropriate to implement the vision suggested in the visioning session . $1,150.00 6, Comprehensive Plan Amendments - H&R will prepare the necessary documentation and submission information to the Department of Community Affairs , , . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . , . . , . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. $2,850.00 W:(ProsfWSVision.ltr 1414 S.W. Martin Luther King Avenue · Ocala, FL 34474-3129 tel: 904-368-5055 fax: 904-368-5063 ,.. c.:......... f I'i.~.........".~ .... r. ,.", '''''f~t' F~r,~r';j~~^.:~ ~~}:;~~.~.~:~ ::: . '; <?:-'~'.. .:~~ :.,:, -- ..', , / ,f l , .' (1, \~# ('J ...~J John Govoruhk, City Manager City of Winter Springs February 15, 1995 Page 2 The City will provide the space, send out the invitations, and sponsor the visioning session as well as all the necessary base maps and existing regulatory information. The above tasks are a minimal but comprehensive program that should bring about satisfactory and implementable results, The City need not select all the tasks suggested above. For instance, the City could prepare all the necessary DCA submission documentation, Sincerely, HEN/GAR & RAY; /NC Fred Goodrow, AICP ~ . Principal/Planning Manage Va{\BERfYMAN & HEN/GAR , ~~o) FG/as Pursuant to our Agreement dated December 5, 1994, H&R is authorized to proceed with Tasks 1- & {)Vi~?-~/.-I ,'Q outlined above, Dc" )..-:., {,!,,"C ()I~ Jlt /7S C I ry If IVy /I ek/;iA Title 3/i/?6- W:/ProsNolSVision.Ltr !BBerryman & He.ni!1,ar .:......,........; ".i":": ",~ - !~.~!:'.:.i'.-::=.;. :-.~ DJB~:~~~'::,~n & H'!u9~~:'~::' March 7, 1996 Mr. Ronald McLemore, City Manager City of Winter Springs 1126 E. S.R. 434 Winter Springs, FL 32708 Re: S.R. 434 Corridor Overlay Design Standards Dear Mr. McLemore: As requested we have completed our review of the proposed S.R. 434 Corridor Overlay Design Standards. The draft document we reviewed was a combination of the design standards proposed by Donald W. McIntosh Associates, Inc. and recommendations by City staff. Our comments are attached for your review and consideration. Our comments are keyed to specific section numbers contained in Division 12. Some comments are recommended specific language changes, while others are in the form of general comments for discussion. We look forward to working with you, your staff, and the S.R. 434 Property Owners Task Force, as appropriate, to successfully complete this important task. Sincerely, ~ cc: Fred Goodrow 519 N, Magnolia Avenue · Orlando, FL 32801 tel: 407-426-8994 fax: 407-426-8977 An Equal Opportunity Employer Policy 2.2.1 Objective 3.2 Sec. 20-338 Sec. 20-339 Sec.20-340(4)d. Sec. 20-341 Review of S.R. 434 Corridor Overlay Design Standards Comment: A conceptual uniform plan should be developed by the City for all medians. Individual groups should not be allowed to design medians but should be encouraged to fund landscape improvements. Maintenance guidelines are also important if civic groups or local businesses provide volunteer labor for maintenance. The City may want to add design professionals from the community to serve on the review board. Professionals would serve on a volunteer basis without compensation. Professionals to consider include an architect, landscape architect, and civil engineer. Does this mean that if any portion of a parcel is within 330' of the centerline that the entire parcel is subject to the Corridor Design Standards? Or, is only that part of the parcel within the 330' area subject to the Corridor Design Standards? It is recommended that the last sentence in this section that was struck be added back. This suggests that any height may be approved. It is recommended that the height limit should be stated as a maximum offive (5) stories or fifty-five (55) feet, whichever is greater. There may be appropriate exceptions, but these conditions should be defined. A reference is made to a "Site Plan Review Board". Is this different from the "Staff Review Board" or "Development Review Board" referred to in other sections? Is the Site Plan Review Board the final authority in granting approvals? A maximum land coverage of 65% is too restrictive for a corridor which is primarily commercial. As a comparison, the Central Florida Research Park restricts land coverage to 65% for all office and research and development parcels. The intent was to create an open park-like atmosphere compatible with the University of Central Florida. However, the Park also has a commercial support area. The maximum land coverage within the commercial support area is 75%. The concept of requiring more open space does not necessarily translate into better design. How the open space is treated does make a difference. It is recommended that the maximum land coverage be 70% as originally proposed. Sec. 20-342(4) Sec. 20-342(6) Sec. 20-343(11) Sec. 20-343(17) Sec. 20-344(a) Sec. 20-344(b) Sec. 20-344 It is acceptable in many communities to have 9' x 18' parking spaces. The 10' x 20' parking space is regarded by many as excessive because of the reduced size of the average car on the road today. Development costs are reduced by reducing the size of parking spaces. This helps to. offset the cost of additional landscaping and other improvements that are desirable. The 9' x 20' parking space is also found in many communities. It is recommended that either 9' x 18' or 9' x 20' parking spaces be adopted as the standard. It is also recommended that the two (2) foot overhang area at the end of parking spaces be allowed to be converted to landscaping. This additional landscaped area should not be counted as required green space or setback. This is an acceptable way to get bonus open space and also reduce development costs (See attached figure). It is recommended that the minimum access drive width be 24'. It is recommended that a three (3) foot high masonry wall with landscaping between the road and the wall be an acceptable alternative method to screen parking especially where space is limited. It is recommended that the following be added: "Trees shall be planted adjacent to structures on the site at the equivalent of one (1) tree for each thirty (30) linear feet, or fraction thereof, offront and side wall length. " It is recommended that consideration be given to deleting pylon signs. Pylon signs can have a similar appearance to pole signs. Same comment, consider deleting pylon signs. It is recommended that sign area and height be based on the gross building area of a parcel. This concept follows urban design principles by requiring the sign to be in scale with the building it serve as follows: Gross Building Area (Sq. Ft.) Sign Area (S. F.) Max. Height Primary Sign Max. Height Secondary Sign < 25,000 25 6', 4' 25,001 - 65,000 40 8' 6' 65,001 - 150,000 80 12' 8' > 150,000 100 15' 10' " Sec. 20-344(b )(2) Sec.20-344(b)(6) Sec.20-344(c)(4) Sec. 20-344(0)(1) Sec. 20-345 Sec. 20-345(2) Sec.20-345(b) Sec. 20-346 Sec.20-347(a)(I) Sec. 20-349 Additional Comments: It is recommended that twenty (20) feet be the acceptable setback. The minimum height for vehicular sight clearance is not necessary because signage will have to comply with the clear sight triangle requirement. Signs can extend to the ground which is a more desirable design goal. It is recommended that "color" also be consistent. Change text from 3 to 7 years to 1 to 5 years. Was this meant to apply to the corridor along S.R. 434 only? It is recommended that a three (3) inch diameter be acceptable rather than a four (4) inch tree. With respect to walls, it is recommended that the last sentence be changed to read"... they shall conform to the architectural style and materials of surrounding properties of the property they serve." It appears that there is agreement that all site related utility lines should be underground. Major transmission lines along S.R. 434 are a different issue. If the decision is made that all utility lines along S.R. 434 should be buried, then this should be done at one time rather than on a property by property basis. Another significant issue with respect to burying lines along S.R. 434 is who pays. Certainly more than just the property owners receive benefit from burying lines such as electric and telephone. Is it fair to have the property owners abutting S.R. 434 pay the full cost of such an improvement? An alternative would be to establish a broad special improvement district to fund such a project. It is recommended that this be deleted and the original language be adopted. This implies some type of frontage road which is different from the concept of vehicular connections to abutting properties. An opportunity exists to create a different set of design standards to implement the formation of a town center. Items such as architectural standards, setbacks, parking, and landscaping should be studied with that in mind. 1. The proposed design standards contained in Division 12. S.R. 434 Corridor Overlay 3 .. District can also apply to the redevelopment area with modifications. The proposed standards should be evaluated with respect to existing development to determine if there are conditions that would require different standards. 2. The proposed design standards have been written using regulatory language rather than more general guideline language. In certain areas or circumstances it may be more appropriate to use a guideline format. This is especially true with architectural guidelines and also may be applicable to the creation of a town center or in the redevelopment area. Guidelines with a large number of sketches and photographs can be very effective in communicating design intent. 4 - t::IJ~Be"yman & Heniga, ;. CD aSI Consul/an/s. Inc, . Henigar& Ray. Inc, made by: ~ date: ~ job no. checked by: date: sheet no. PROJECT: . . . . .ImClt- r,:!NGr ~ · r~VI ~ . I . "~ t ~r~ ~~ 1l>e6lAO "-- lNJ~ ~'1IffiD I r4 ffffijqAl6t wr ~ Wfffl!i/1J(tf [-ryr) AWrt1fAtJM, ,~ ~~~ "I J ..J' ~ - I1F1~ ~~It?\. UTf DfflTffl/ mu~ J..