Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009 10 26 Regular 600 Request Consideration Of Applicant Pinch-A-Penny For Further Consideration Of Their Proposal To Develop In The Town CenterCOMMISSION AGENDA ITEM 600 Consent Information Public Hearin Re ular X October 26, 2009 Meeting MGR. /Dept. REQUEST: The Community Development Department requests the Commission consider the request of the applicants for Pinch-a-Penny for further consideration of their proposal to develop a facility in the Town Center. PURPOSE: The purpose of this Agenda Item is for the Commission to consider a request to allow further deviations from the Town Center Code to accommodate development of a Pinch-a-Penny facility on a small irregularly shaped site of 0.73 acres located at the northeast corner of SR 434 and Central Winds Drive. APPLICABLE ZONING & FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION: Zonin :Town Center Future Land Use Desi nag tion: Town Center APPLICABLE REGULATIONS: Chapter 163, Florida Statutes Chapter 166, Florida Statutes Comprehensive Plan Chapter 9, City Code Town Center District Code (Chapter 20, sections 20-320 through 20-327 of the City Code) CONSIDERATIONS: (wervi ew The 0.73 acre undeveloped and treed site is located within the Winter Springs Town Center on the southeast corner of SR 434 and Central Winds Drive. The topography slopes southward from a high point near the intersection of Central Winds Drive and Central Winds Parkway to a low at its southern end (more than 6' over a span of 353 feet). This is an important and prominent location for the City and the Town Center as well as the applicant. All west-bound traffic on SR 434 through the Town Center will experience a terminating vista into the south and western boundaries of this site, similar to the way the 8.7 acre crescent-shaped property immediately to the northwest will form the October 26, 2009 Regular Item 600 Page 2 of 6 entrance to the Town Center for east-bound traffic. Most traffic to and from the high school and Central Winds Park will pass by and stop in front of this site on Central Winds Drive. Staff believes that proximity to the high school, Central Winds Park, and the Cross Seminole Trail make this site desirable for certain retail endeavors. The site received conceptual approval in April of 2007, subject to conditions. Final engineering/site plan and aesthetic review were approved on September 22, 2008, subject to the applicant and staff working out the details of the requested code deviations. As an option to negotiations aimed at minimizing deviations that negatively impact the Town Center but provide a framework for a financially viable development, the applicant is requesting that the code be relaxed for this and other small irregularly shaped lots within the Town Center. The applicant has stated that the Town Center Code works well for larger parcels but makes it economically difficult to develop on small and odd-shaped parcels. The applicant also appears to be saying the at the Town Center requirements make the site too expensive to finance and develop in today's depressed real estate market because the banks are providing funds based on the appraised value and not the projected construction costs. The Town Center The Town Center began with seven (7) days of community design sessions in 1998, with considerable land owner, HOA, policy maker, and other community involvement. Fundamentals from those sessions which are most pertinent to this discussion include the following: ^ Walkable/pedestrian-oriented; ^ Predictability in design/flexibility in use (street layout, building type, and placement are primary factors -uses change over time); ^ Visibly different section of SR 434; ^ Design for the long and near term (build-out could take 50 years or more -better to wait for the right development that furthers the town center); ^ Buildings positioned close together, fronting streets and public spaces, with parking behind or beside buildings; and ^ There is no one "deal breaker," without which the town center will fail -need to keep the long term goal in our minds. In May of 2001, the primary Town Center consultant, Victor Dover, made a presentation to the City Commission, ending with a profound statement, paraphrased as follows: There will be a number of what appear to be reasonable requests to deviate from the town center vision and code. We always need to consider whether or not these deviations further the town center or detract from it. The Town Center Code is a "form-based-code." Form-based codes seek to regulate the physical form of the built environment to create a specific type of "place."Form based codes may be described as an overall picture, with supporting language and specific graphics of how each block and street is envisioned to look and evolve. This picture is the vision prescribed by the stake-holders. Form-based codes specify the types of buildings and their relationship with the public realm and the neighborhood. The form and type of building transcends its use - so that it may be occupied by a number of different entities over a longer period of time, with only modest alteration, in lieu of planned obsolescence and demolition. Form-based codes are the most 2 October 26, 2009 Regular Item 600 Page 3 of 6 efficient means from a vision to an end -the actual short and long term implementation of the vision. Comprehensive Plan A site plan or any development order must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan pursuant to state law. The most pertinent current Comprehensive Plan policies appear to be as follows: (1) Future Land Use Element Policy 5.2.6 which contains the following statement, "Sidewalks that are a minimum of 12' wide along in front of commercial shop fronts and are a minimum of 6' wide in all other areas... "and (2) Future Land Use Element Policy 5.2.7, which contains the following statement "All development within the UCBD shall comply with the Town Center District Code... " Section 163.3194 of the Florida Statutes states that "after a comprehensive plan, or element or portion thereof, has been adopted in conformity with this act, all development undertaken by, and all actions taken in regard to development orders by, governmental agencies in regard to land covered by such plan or element shall be consistent with such plan or element as adopted ". Strategic Plan The Town Center received much attention during the two (2) visioning sessions that led to the City's draft strategic plan. Goal 3 of the draft strategic plan reads "Aggressively complete the vision for the Town Center." The S.W.O.T. analysis (S.W.O.T. stands for Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats) identified two (2) threats to the Town Center which are particularly germane to this discussion: 1. "Lack of understanding and knowledge about unique opportunities the town center affords "and 2. "Not holding to the town center vision/code. " One of the strategic issues identified in the draft strategic plan was the "Focused commitment to [the] Town Center." "Community Treasures," identified in the strategic plan included controlled commercial growth and development, a walkable community, enforced standards, Town Center events, and the Town Center, itself. Concept Approval In April of 2007, the applicant submitted a conceptual site plan. Dover Kohl reviewed the submittal and provided verbal comments on April 23, 2007, which the City Commission included as 11 conditions of approval in its May14, 2007 concept approval. The Dover Kohl conditions are listed in both the site and aesthetic review agenda items, which are included as attachments A and B, respectively. Site and Aesthetic Review The final engineering/site plan and aesthetic review package were approved on September 22, 2008, subject to the applicant and staff working out certain details of the deviations and how to meet the requirements of the Comprehensive Plan. Town Center Comp Plan Issues 3 October 26, 2009 Regular Item 600 Page 4 of 6 The property is located within the current boundaries of the Town Center and is subject to Town Center regulations set forth in the City Code and the Comprehensive Plan (within the Comp Plan, these regulations are primarily in the Future Land Use Element). The Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 2001 and amended in 2005 (Ordinance 2004-43, adopted 01-24-OS) to include provisions for the Urban Central Business District (the boundaries of the Urban Central Business District and the Town Center are coincidental to and overlay one another, as stated in Future Land Use Element Policy 5.1.4 Inconsistencies with Code All Code inconsistencies must be identified and addressed through special exceptions or in a development agreement, either of which should be brought forward for approval along with the final engineering and aesthetic review. Subsection 20-321 (d) states the following about a development agreement for a project in the Town Center: "Considerations for the city in deciding whether to participate in such an agreement will include compliance with the objectives and design criteria specified in this division; demonstration of a cost benefit to the city and developer; consideration of development amenities provided by the developer. " The applicant should not assume that any deviation depicted on the plans but that is not adequately addressed in a development agreement has been approved by default. Deviations from comprehensive plan requirements have the potential of exposing the City and the developer to certain legal and financial consequences. At the time this item is written, no development agreement or special exception request has been received. FINDINGS: 1. The proposed development is located within the City of Winter Springs Town Center: it has a Town Center Future Land Use designation, is within the Urban Central Business District, and is within the Town Center zoning district. 2. Any deviations from the Code must be addressed through a development agreement, special exception, or some other appropriate mechanism. No development agreement or special exception has been submitted by the applicant. 3. The proposed site plan and aesthetic review are inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 4. The proposed site plan and aesthetic review are inconsistent with the City Code of Ordinances. 5. The proposed site plan is inconsistent with the Commission's conditions of approval from the Apri123, 2007 concept review. 6. The proposed site plan is an incomplete submission of the required materials for a site plan review (please see Attachment "C" and Attachment "D" for a complete list of missing submittal requirements). 4 October 26, 2009 Regular Item 600 Page 5 of 6 7. The applicant has requested periodic review of Town Center construction to determine whether it continues to be appropriate for current demographic, social, economic, and environmental needs. Policy 2.3.2 (Future Land Use Element) of the City's current Comprehensive Plan states that the City will conduct periodic economic development studies of the Town Center that are designed to compile relevant economic data and analysis that will (1) educate and inform the City about trends affecting the economic performance of the Town Center; (2) assist the City in developing and implementing economic development strategies for the Town Center; and (3) serve as a significant factor in making development and other decisions related to the Town Center. In response to the current economic trends, the City has recently reduced the building permit fees by approximately 30% and is exploring additional means to promote economic growth. 8. Policy 2.3.3 (Future Land Use Element) of the City's current Comprehensive Plan states that the City will ensure compatible land uses and development projects within the Town Center that optimally increase and diversify the City's tax base and economic well-being, while complementing and protecting established surrounding neighborhoods. Although the subject parcel is located near the western edge of the Town Center district, there is a larger parcel west of the project site that will be subject to the Town Center standards. Another parcel (1.6 acres) located on the south side of SR 434 and just to the west of the subject site has been planned and approved utilizing the Town Center code. 9. Policy 2.3.6 (Future Land Use Element) of the City's current Comprehensive Plan states that the City will ensure high-quality building and development that enhances the image and economic well-being of the City and the Town Center. 10. Goal 3 of the City's Three Year Strategic Plan talks about aggressively completing the vision for the Town Center. Strategy 5 under this goal states that staff will "continue to review project proposals pursuant to the TND principles associated with the Town Center. Strive to implement projects that have sustainable densities, are pedestrian oriented, promote multi-modal forms of transportation, and mixed-use developments ". 11. Staff understands that, in the current economic climate, financing any project is difficult. The City Commission has already granted a number of deviations in an effort to seek a workable solution for this project. While staff supports reasonable and necessary deviations that do not detract from the Town Center and the Town Center vision, we feel the applicant's request for further deviations to and amendment of the Town Center Code to accommodate a single project, albeit on a small, irregular-shaped lot, represents a detrimental precedent and is not in keeping with the City's Strategic Plan as noted above and with the City's Comprehensive Plan. RECOMMENDATION: Based upon the findings detailed above, staff must recommend the City Commission deny the applicant's request for further deviation to and possible amendment of the Town Center Code. Approval of the applicant's request would undermine the principles and directives set forth in the City's Comprehensive Plan and the City's Three-Year Strategic Plan. In addition, staff is of the opinion that further deviations or amendments as requested would set a detrimental precedent which has the potential to further detract from the vision for the Town Center. 5 October 26, 2009 Regular Item 600 Page 6 of 6 ATTACHMENTS: A -Agenda Item 600/minutes from the September 22, 2008 City Commission meeting B -Agenda Item 505/minutes from the September 22, 2008 City Commission meeting C -Urban Beautification Manager memo of September 16, 2008 D -City Engineer's memo of September 10, 2008 E -Applicant's Original Request COMMISSION ACTION: 6 ATTACHMENT A COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM 600 Consent Information Public Hearin Re ular X September 22, 2008 Meeting MGR. /De t. ~-, REQUEST: The Community Development Department requests the Commission consider the final engineering/site plan fora 4,232 S.F. single story office/retail building, a 320 S.F. storage building, and other site improvements on apie-shaped 0.73 acre property at the northeast corner of SR 434 and Central Winds Drive (also abuts Central Winds Pazkway a.k.a. Old SR 434), within the Town Center. PURPOSE: The purpose of this Agenda Item is for the Commission to consider a site plan fora 4,232 SF office/retail building and its associated site improvements on apie-shaped site within the Winter Springs Town Center. The applicant has completed concept review and one staff review for combined aesthetic review and final engineering/site plan review and requests to have the plans forwarded to the City Commission for approval. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS: Chapter 163, Florida Statutes Chapter 166, Florida Statutes Comprehensive Plan Chapter 9, City Code Town Center District Code CONSIDERATIONS: Overview The 0.73 acre undeveloped and treed site is located within the Winter Springs Town Center on the southeast corner of SR 434 and Central Winds Drive. The topography slopes southwazd from a high point of about 48' NGVD near the intersection of Central Winds Drive and Central Winds Parkway (a.k.a. Old SR 434) to a low of less than 42' at its southern end (more than 6' over a span of 353 feet). This is an important and prominent location for the City and the Town Center as well as the applicant. All west-bound traffic on SR 434 through the Town Center will experience a terminating vista into the south and western boundaries of this site, similaz to the way the 8.7 acre crescent-shaped property immediately to the northwest will form the entrance to the Town Center from the west. Most traffic to September 22, 2008 Regular Item 600 Page 2 of 6 and from the high school and Central Winds Park will pass by and stop in front of this site on Central Winds Drive. Proximity to the high school, Central Winds Park, and the Cross Seminole Trail should make this site desirable for various retail endeavors. Concept Approval In April of 2007, the applicant submitted a conceptual site plan. Dover Kohl reviewed the submittal and provided verbal comments on April 23, 2007, which the City Commission included as conditions of approval in its May14, 2007 concept approval. These conditions are listed below as follows: 1. The 12' minimum sidewalk width along SR 434 and Central Winds Drive and minimum 50 glazing along these frontages is very important for retail; 2. We should stress the importance of at least some real second story -even if it means allowing some of the necessary parking (to accommodate the 2nd floor) to be on-street on Central Winds Parkway - in the absence of a real second floor, round clear-story windows on a tall facade and numerous embellishments are superior to just a faux 2nd floor; 3. To accommodate on-street parking and buses, the City could consider prohibiting parking during the afternoon peak bus staging and egress; 4. To discourage long-term parking by the high school students, the City could post time limits on the on-street parking near the school; 5. The gap between the wall along SR 434 and the SE corner of the building needs to be narrowed and a trellis or similar covering would enhance the "feel" from SR 434; 6. The wall along SR 434 should be embellished as should the pond (if a wet pond, a fountain or other significant feature should be considered); 7. Due to its visibility on the curve, the dumpster enclosure should be embellished on the side(s) visible from SR 434; 8. The fact that the applicant wants to provide 8'+ deep awnings facing SR 434 and Central Winds Drive is very positive; 9. It is OK to have a prominent entrance from the parking lot, but it must be subordinate to the main entrance facing SR 434 or at the corner -amain entrance at the corner, where someone can pass right thru the building would be good; 10. Dominant signage should always be directed toward the primary space (which is SR 434); and 11. The Central Winds Parkway side (the high school side) should have a wall, trellis, or substantial landscaping to screen the parking lot. The final engineering/site plan being considered as part of this agenda item has largely disregarded these conditions of approval or negated them. The 12' wide sidewalk is not provided along the entire storefront on either SR 434 or Central Winds Drive. Staff could support phasing in the wider sidewalks along SR 434, southeast of the building along the SR 434 ROW, until additional development in the area warrants the wider sidewalk. The 12' wide sidewalks need to be installed in front of the building storefronts in order to meet the City's Comprehensive Plan. The applicant could or would not tell staff the height of the first floor end, where the second story is proposed, how big the second floor area is, or what is proposed on the second floor (the stairs go somewhere). The plan ignores sidewalk, drainage, or on-street parking along the Central Winds 2 September 22, 2008 Regular Item 600 Page 3 of 6 Parkway ROW. The wall, dumpster enclosure, and storage building do not appear to have been embellished or located to maximize their effect on SR 434. The 8' deep awnings (that staff praised during the concept review) have been down-sized to meet the 5' minimum depth and are less than the 10' above the sidewalk surface required by code. Other architectural deviations from the Code are listed in the aesthetic review. Utilities The site has central water and sewer available, with adequate capacity. A 6" diameter sanitary force main is located adjacent to the site along the east side of Central Winds Parkway. The applicant has provided an on-site lift station as part of the site engineering. A 12" diameter potable water line extends parallel to the sanitary line, but also extends north along the west side of the Central Winds Parkway. Stormwater attenuation and treatment has been accommodated on-site. The lowest elevation is in the south of the site. The applicant has been encouraged to consider at least some underground exfiltration to reduce or eliminate the need for stormwater ponds. The applicant has chosen to have multiple dry retention ponds located near the roadway frontages in a suburban, rather than town center arrangement. City staff is of the opinion that adequate access to the retention ponds for maintenance is provided at this location without a full 10' wide maintenance berm. Town Center Comp Plan Issues The Town Center Code did not directly address this property, Central Winds Park, Paw Park, Central Winds Drive, Central Winds Parkway, or the Orange Avenue connection to SR 434 in its Squares, Parks, and Streets Map. That is because this area was added to the Town Center after the Town Center Code (sections 20-320 through 20-327) was adopted. Nevertheless, the property is located within the current boundaries of the Town Center and is subject to Town Center regulations set forth in the City Code and the Comprehensive Plan (within the Comp Plan, these regulations are primarily in the Future Land Use Element). The Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 2001 and amended in 2005 (Ordinance 2004-43, adopted 01-24-OS) to include provisions for the Urban Central Business District (the boundaries of the Urban Central Business District and the Town Center or coincidental to and overlay one another, as stated in Future Land Use Element Policy 5.1.4). 1. The Comprehensive Plan (Future Land Use Element Policy 5.2.6) requires sidewalks in the Town Center that are a minimum of 12' wide in front of commercial shopfronts and a minimum of 6' wide in all other azeas, night lighting of display windows and building interiors along street frontages, and room sized areas of habitable space along street frontages in commercial shopfronts with entrances at the same grade as the sidewalk. The purpose of this policy is to promote pedestrian gathering and circulation in the Town Center. A minimum 12' wide sidewalk is therefore required along both the SR 434 and Central Winds Drive sorefronts. As previously stated, staff supports the widening of the remaining SR 434 sidewalks at such time as additional development in the area warrants those sidewalks. A minimum 6' wide sidewalk is required along Central Winds Parkway (a.k.a. Old SR 434). 2. The Town Center had been envisioned with central stormwater management in mind. This has largely not been accomplished, as many developments have incorporated on-site stormwater facilities. This site is designed with two dry retention ponds located neaz the roadway frontages. Future Land Use Policy 2.3.2 (which addresses Town Center drainage) includes the following: "...Retention ponds shall be designed to enhance neighborhood edges and aesthetics and to provide buffering when appropriate." 3 September 22, 2008 Regular Item 600 Page 4 of 6 Pond size and location along the SR 434 ROW are more pronounced in the final engineering plans than in the concept plan the Commission reviewed. Staff does not believe that the locations of these ponds are consistent with the Town Center walkable/place-making theme, since people are not typically drawn to walk along dry stormwater facilities, blank walls, or parking lots. Inconsistencies with Code All Code inconsistencies must be identified and addressed through special exceptions or in a development agreement, either of which should be brought forward for approval along with the final engineering and aesthetic review. Subsection 20-321 (d) states the following about a development agreement for a project in the Town Center: uConsiderations for the city in deciding whether to participate in such an agreement will include compliance with the objectives and design criteria specified in this division; demonstration of a cost benefit to the city and developer; consideration of development amenities provided by the developer." The applicant should not assume that any deviation depicted on the plans but that is not adequately addressed in a development agreement has been approved by default. There can be no deviations from comprehensive plan requirements. At the time this item is written, no development agreement, special exception request has been received. Code deviations and potential code deviations are noted below: 1. Section 20-325 of the City Code sets the maximum distance between buildings, with the space ranging from a maximum of 10' along the most urban thoroughfares to a maximum of 50' along the least urban thoroughfares. The large quantity of un-built frontage, including the retention ponds, exceeds these maximum distances between buildings (now and in the future). These gaps between buildings reduce walkability and provide open views to both pedestrians and drivers of the parking lot from west bound SR 434. The storage building and dumpster enclosure could have been moved closer to the SR 434 ROW and the retention ponds moved farther from the ROW (or placed underground) to create a more intense and interesting -pedestrian-oriented frontage on the primary space. The applicant has proposed a garden wall along the SR 434 frontage to partially mitigate the large expanse of unbuilt frontage. Section 20-327 of the Code requires this wall to be at minimum 25 percent opaque (the proposed wall is only 20 percent opaque). 2. The storage building is located at least 23 feet from the SR 434 ROW, instead of up to the ROW line, as set forth in Subsection 20-325 (8) for fronting on SR 434. This ties in with the comments for No. 1, above. 3. Section 20-327 requires fences, garden walls and hedges to be at minimum 25 percent opaque. The plans depict one of five 18 foot long segments of the garden wall to be opaque. 4. Section 20-325 depicts the various street types with street trees between the sidewalk and the roadway vehicle accommodation areas (although for some areas, such as along the SR 434 frontage 4 September 22, 2008 Regular Item 600 Page 5 of 6 these trees are optional). The applicant is removing all of the trees from the site and not planting any trees in the adjacent ROW between the sidewalk and roadway. The absence of trees from the public ROW is not a code violation or deviation, but works against apedestrian-oriented development. On-street parking (which is not provided along any of the 3 abutting ROWS) and street trees between the sidewalk and the roadway create a physical and psychological buffer that makes pedestrians feel safer walking along a busy street than they otherwise would. 5. Subsection 20-327 (d) requires doors at intervals no greater than 50 feet. The applicant provides two sets of double doors near the comer of SR 434 and Central Winds Drive, each set of double doors are more than 60 feet from either end of the building. The building needs an additional door fronting onto the primary space (SR 434 frontage) and another onto the secondary space (Central Winds Drive frontage) or relocate the doors from their presently proposed locations. The provision of one set of double doors along a ninety foot long fagade does not meet the intent of this section of the Code. 6. Section 20-325 requires that buildings and sites front their primary space, as set forth in the Hierarchy of Squares, parks, and streets in Subsection 20-325 (a). The building and site appears in possible violation of this requirement, as evidenced by the large centrally located (to the retail space) double rear doors opening onto the parking lot from both segments of the building. Establishing clear frontage onto the primary space and creating a clearly subordinate rear of the building is essential to a functioning Town Center. The proposed bike rack under the most prominent portion of the open pergola further exacerbates this. The bike rack should be moved -most likely to the area near the walk-thru between the parking lot and the sidewalk along the SR 434 ROW, where it could coincide with a Lynx bus stop (Link 323, estimated to begin in or about April 2009). 7. Most roadway types depicted in Section 20-325 of the Code call for on-street parking. The applicant has declined the City's requests to provide on-street parking or even a sidewalk in the approximately 170 foot long segment of the Central Winds Parkway ROW between his curb-cut and the corner with Central Winds Drive. Sidewalks are typically required along street frontages, even when a connection to other functioning sidewalks are not present; further, the Comprehensive Plan requires at least a 6' wide sidewalk. Subsection 20-324 (10) (b) allows the Development Review Committee (DRC) to select diagonal or parallel parking along any section of road. The City has recently installed a six foot wide sidewalk along the property's Central Winds Drive frontage. Public Works does not support on-street parking between the corner of Central Winds Drive and Central Winds Parkway. 8. Subsection 9-241 of the Code requires all ponds to have at least a 10 foot wide maintenance berm capable of supporting a maintenance vehicle. The plans depict far less than a 10 foot wide maintenance berm. Staff supports this deviation, since reasonable access to the dry ponds is available from the parking lot and from the adjacent ROWS. Staff has made this recommendation on other projects where adequate access to dry ponds makes the deviation reasonable. Any deviation from the Code that the Commission decides to approve must be addressed through a development agreement or other appropriate mechanism. 9. If the City Commission were to approve the plans, it must waive the frontage road requirement, as stated in Subsection 20-325 (8) of the Code. Staff supports waiving the frontage road requirement for this project. 5 September 22, 2008 Regulaz Item 600 Page 6 of 6 FINDINGS: The proposed development is located within the City of Winter Springs Town Center: it has a Town Center Future Land Use designation, is within the Urban Central Business District, and is within the Town Center zoning district. 2. Any deviations from the Code must be addressed through a development agreement, special exception, or some other appropriate mechanism. No development agreement or special exception has been submitted by the applicant. 3. The proposed site plan is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 4. The proposed site plan is inconsistent with the City Code of Ordinances. 5. The proposed site plan is inconsistent with the Commission's conditions of approval from the Apri123, 2007 concept review. 6. The proposed site plan is an incomplete submission of the required materials for a site plan review (please see Attachment "B" and Attachment "C" for a complete list of missing submittal requirements). 7. The City Engineer's September 10, 2008 memo (Attachment "B") lists the outstanding engineering issues related to the site plan. 8. The Urban Beautification Manager's September 16, 2008 memo (Attachment "C") lists the outstanding landscape and lighting issues related to the site plan. RECOMMENDATION: Based on the inconsistencies with the Comp Plan and City Code as well as the incomplete plan submittal, staff must recommend the City Commission deny the attached final engineering/site plan. ATTACHMENTS: A -Concept plan agenda item and minutes B -City Engineer memo of September 10, 2008 C -Urban Beautification Manager memo of September 16, 2008 D -Final Engineering/site plan COMMISSION ACTION: 6 CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA MINUTES CITY COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING -SEPTEMBER 22, 2008 PAGE 16 OF 24 ~~I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE ALLOW STAFF AND THE APPLICANT TO CONTINUE WORKING ON THESE FINAL ITEMS AND THAT THE APPLICANT FEEL EMPOWERED TO COME BACK BEFORE THIS COMMISSION, IF THEY FEEL THEY ARE BOGGED DOWN INAPPROPRIATELY." MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BROWN. SECONDED BY DEPUTY MAYOR GILMORE. DISCUSSION. VOTE: DEPUTY MAYOR GILMORE: AYE COMMISSIONER MILLER: AYE COMMISSIONER McGINNIS: AYE COMMISSIONER KREBS: AYE COMMISSIONER BROWN: AYE MOTION CARRIED. Mr. Stevenson asked, "If I could clarify that, that Motion was for Approval and to empower Staff to work out our..." Mayor Bush noted, "...Yes. Work it out." Commissioner Miller departed the Regular Meeting at 8: 40 p.m. REGULAR AGENDA REGULAR 600. Community Development Department Requests The Commission Consider The Final Engineering/Site Plan For A 4,232 S.F. (Square Foot) Single Story Office/Retail Building, A 320 S.F. (Square Foot) Storage Building, And Other Site Improvements On APie-Shaped 0.73 Acre Property At The Northeast Corner Of SR (State Road) 434 And Central Winds Drive (Also Abuts Central Winds Parkway a.k.a. [Also Known As] Old SR [State Roadl 434), Within The Town Center. Mr. Stevenson addressed the City Commission on this Agenda Item. Mr. Bill Starmer, Starmer Ranaldi Planning and Architecture, Inc., 820 West Broadway Street, Suite 3000, Oviedo, Florida: spoke on the sidewalks situation. Mr. Brian Fields, P.E., City Engineer, Public Works Department commented on sidewalks. Discussion. CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA MINUTES CITY COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING -SEPTEMBER 22, 2008 PAGE l7 OF 24 Mayor Bush suggested, "We need to ask the school to finish building that sidewalk." Mr. Stevenson stated, "Granted, this is an incremental piece to a network that can ently doesn't exist, but it is an incremental piece, and it is a requirement of your Comprehensive Plan." Deputy Mayor Gilmore proposed, "Can we not write it into the Development Order or form that says that in the future, if there is a need for it, then the Developer will put the sidewalk in." Mr. Stevenson remarked, "Once Staff works with the Applicant and we iron all this out, one of the items that does have to come back to you is the DA (Development Agreement) for this project." Discussion. Further, Mr. Stevenson noted, "There is no intended use once you get beyond this entrance here - it does come in this way; it does attach to an existing sidewalk; it does become a part of a network; although a lot of that network as Brian (Fields) said, is not in place at this time, and a lot of that network would need to be on school property." Commissioner McGinnis remarked, "I do agree with Commissioner Gilmore. My question is, how do you establish the need down the line?" Manager McLemore said, In the overall plan for your Town Center, there's a sidewalk coming all the way through there, around the pond area." Manager McLemore added, "We're asking them to give us an Easement over that property for a pocket park. Is that not worth ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00) over a long period of time to put in our street and sidewalk plan?" Mr. Stevenson stated, "Yes." Manager McLemore then noted, "Isn't that a fair deal?" Commissioner Krebs commented, "Yes." Commissioner McGinnis remarked, "Yes." Mayor Bush stated, "So you are suggesting the City pay for the sidewalk?" Manager McLemore remarked, "I'm suggesting that at some point in time as we build out that section, when we put the sidewalk in, in return for their agreement to give us -the Easement for recreation purposes as a pocket park." Commissioner McGinnis agreed and stated, "Okay." "I MAKE THE MOTION THAT WE ASK FOR A FUTURE EASEMENT ON THE RETENTION POND FOR A RECREATION AREA AND IN LIGHT OF THAT, WE WOULD -THE CITY WOULD RUN THE SIDEWALKS AT SOME FUTURE TIME AS REQUIRED." MOTION BY DEPUTY MAYOR GILMORE. SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER McGINNIS. DISCUSSION. COMMISSIONER BROWN NOTED, "IS THERE ANY REASON WHY THAT WOULDN'T BE ACCEPTABLE TO THE APPLICANT? NO? OKAY." CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA MINUTES CITY COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING -SEPTEMBER 22, 2008 PAGE IH OF 24 VOTE: COMMISSIONER BROWN: AYE COMMISSIONER McGINNIS: AYE COMMISSIONER KREBS: AYE DEPUTY MAYOR GILMORE: AYE MOTION CARRIED. Discussion. Mr. Stevenson said, "The bicycle rack currently exists right here, in the main entrance. They have agreed to move that at some point. That would be one of the points of negotiation between Staff and the Applicant; probably to an area, maybe over in here by this walkway, or something a little more appropriate than right in this main entrance to this entrance plaza from the building there." Deputy Mayor Gilmore, "Why do they need a bicycle rack?" Continuing, Mr. Stevenson explained, "We don't know what else will be in this particular building." Furthermore, Mr. Stevenson noted, "The pedestrian nature of the Town Center has certain elements into it, one of those is bike racks. The Applicant had put in a single bike rack. We had talked with them and we felt like the location was inappropriate." Manager McLemore stated, "Overall, it is part of the Town Center design to encourage bike traffic and bike use." "I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT STAFF CONTINUE TO WORK WITH THE APPLICANT ON THE FINAL ITEMS THAT ARE OUTSTANDING ON THIS." MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BROWN. SECONDED BY DEPUTY MAYOR GILMORE. DISCUSSION. MR. STEVENSON STATED, "I THINK WE'RE CLOSE ENOUGH BASED UPON TONIGHT, BUT IF YOU WOULD ALLOW US TO WORK WITH THEM ON THESE FINAL ITEMS AND APPROVE WHAT WE HAVE. THAT'S WHAT WE WOULD PREFER, IS NOT TO HAVE TO BRING IT BACK TO YOU." COMMISSIONER BROWN RESTATED HIS MOTION, "THAT STAFF CONTINUE TO WORK WITH THE APPLICANT AND BRING THIS ITEM TO A CLOSE, AS MUTUALLY AGREEABLE TO BOTH PARTIES." MR. STEVENSON ADDED, "YOU WILL BE SEEING, DEPENDENT UPON THOSE NEGOTIATIONS, YOU WILL BE SEEING A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT COME BACK TO YOU ON THIS PARTICULAR ITEM." SECONDED BY DEPUTY MAYOR GILMORE. DISCUSSION. CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA MINUTES CITY COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING -SEPTEMBER 22, 2008 PAGE 19 OF 24 VOTE: COMMISSIONER KREBS: AYE DEPUTY MAYOR GILMORE: AYE COMMISSIONER BROWN: AYE COMMISSIONER McGINNIS: AYE MOTION CARRIED. REGULAR 601. Public Works Department Requests The City Commission Review And Approve The Combined Preliminary And Final Engineering/Site Plan For The Proposed St. Johns River Water Management District Solary Canal Stormwater Treatment Area On Approximately 28.9 Acres, Located On The East Side Of DeLeon Street In The City Of Winter Springs. Mr. Fields commented on this Agenda Item. Mayor Bush opened the "Public Input" portion of the Agenda Item. Mr. Ed Riday, 1626 Wrentham Court, Winter Springs, Florida: noted that he was representing several homeowners, and noted, "Brian (Fields) - we have been dealing with him a lot. He has been very friendly and helping us, meeting with us. Coming out to our houses and explaining what is going to happen. And, we all, the Homeowners like what is going to happen. The only concern we have is protection from alligators." Mr. Riday added, "We just want to make sure there's a requirement that the black chain link fence be built; that it is down to the ground so that alligators can't get under it, and that it is painted black, and that it is not on the property line. We wish it back at least five -ten feet (5 -10') from the property line." As to the best fence height, Mr. Riday commented, "We all agree with six [feet] (6') is fine." With additional comments, Mr. Riday commented, "We also want to make sure it's not right on the property line." "I AM GOING TO MAKE A MOTION THAT STAFF WORK WITH THE HOMEOWNERS TO MAKE SURE THAT THE FINAL PLAN INCLUDES THEIR CONCERNS AND ADDRESSES THEM APPROPRIATELY." MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BROWN. SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER McGINNIS. DISCUSSION. ATTACHMENT B COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM 505 September 22, 2008 Meeting Consent Information Public Hearin X Re ular MGR /D t. REQUEST: The Community Development Department requests the Commission consider the aesthetic review for a 4,232 S.F. single story office/retail building, a 320 S.F. storage building, and other site improvements on apie-shaped 0.73 acre property at the northeast corner of SR 434 and Central Winds Drive (also abuts Central Winds Parkway a.k.a. Old SR 434), within the Town Center. PURPOSE: The purpose of this Agenda Item is for the Commission to consider the aesthetic review for 4,232 SF office/retail building and its associated site improvements on apie-shaped site within the Winter Springs Town Center. The applicant has completed concept review and one staff review for combined aesthetic review and final engineering/site plan review and requests to have the Commission review and approve the aesthetic review without a recommendation for approval. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS: Chapter 163, Florida Statutes Chapter 166, Florida Statutes Comprehensive Plan Chapter 9, City Code Town Center District Code CONSIDERATIONS: Overview The 0.73 acre undeveloped and treed site is located within the Winter Springs Town Center on the southeast corner of SR 434 and Central Winds Drive. The topography slopes southward from a high point of about 48' NGVD near the intersection of Central Winds Drive and Central Winds Parkway (a.k.a. Old SR 434) to a low of less than 42' at its southern end (more than 6' over a span of 353 feet). This is an important and prominent location for the City and the Town Center as well as the applicant. All west-bound traffic on SR 434 through the Town Center will experience a terminating vista into the south and west ends of this site, similaz to the way the 8.7 acre crescent-shaped property immediately to the northwest will form the entrance to the Town Center from the west. Most traffic to and from the September 22, 2008 Regular Item 505 Page 2 of 8 high school and Central Winds Park will pass by and stop in front of this site on Central Winds Drive. Central Winds Drive and Central Winds Pazkway are City roadways. Concert Approval in 2007 In April of 2007, the applicant submitted a conceptual site plan. Dover Kohl reviewed the submittal and provided verbal comments on Apri123, 2007, which the City Commission included as conditions of approval in its May14, 2007 concept approval, as follows: 1. The 12' minimum sidewalk width along SR 434 and Central Winds Drive and minimum 50 % glazing along these frontages aze very important for retail; 2. We should stress the importance of at least some real second story - even if it means allowing some of the necessary parking (to accommodate the 2°d floor) to be on-street on Central Winds Parkway - in the absence of a real second floor, round clear-story windows on a tall facade and numerous embellishments are superior to just a faux 2nd floor; 3. To accommodate on-street pazking and buses, the City could consider prohibiting parking during the afternoon peak bus staging and egress; 4. To discourage long-term parking by the high school students, the City could post time limits on the on-street parking neaz the school; 5. 'The gap between the wall along SR 434 and the SE corner of the building needs to be narrowed and a trellis or similar covering would enhance the "feel" from SR 434; 6. The wall along SR 434 should be embellished as should the pond (if a wet pond, a fountain or other significant feature should be considered); 7. Due to its visibility on the curve, the dumpster enclosure should be embellished on the side(s) visible from SR 434; 8. The fact that the applicant wants to provide 8'+ deep awnings facing SR 434 and Central Winds Drive is very positive; 9. It is OK to have a prominent entrance from the parking lot, but it must be subordinate to the main entrance facing SR 434 or at the corner -amain entrance at the corner, where someone can pass right thru the building would be good; 10. Dominant signage should always be directed toward the primary space (which is SR 434); and 11. The Central Winds Parkway side (the high school side) should have a wall, trellis, or substantial landscaping to screen the parking lot. Like the final engineering/site plan, the aesthetic review plan largely disregazded these conditions of approval or negated them. Staff could not ascertain from the applicant the elevation of the first floor, where the second story is proposed, how big the second floor azea is, or what is proposed on the second floor (the stairs go somewhere). This is important for determining the location of the expression line and calculating the percent of first floor glazing. The wall, dumpster enclosure, and storage building do not appeaz to have been embellished or located to maximize their effect on SR 434. The 8' deep awnings (which staff praised during the concept review) have been down-sized to meet the 5' minimum depth and are less than the 10' above the sidewalk surface required by code. No improvements are depicted in any of the adjacent ROWs, except for the driveway curb-cut onto Central Winds Parkway. 2 September 22, 2008 Regular Item 505 Page 3 of 8 Utilities The applicant must provide an on-site lift station, which must be appropriately screened from the adjacent rights-of--way. Stormwater has been accommodated on-site. The applicant has been encouraged to consider at least some underground exfiltration to reduce or eliminate the need for stormwater ponds. The applicant has chosen to have multiple dry stormwater retention ponds located near the roadway frontages in a suburban, rather than urban/town center arrangement. Town Center Issues The Town Center Code did not directly address this property, Central Winds Park, Paw Park, Central Winds Drive, Central Winds Parkway, or the Orange Avenue connection to SR 434 in its Squares, Parks, and Streets Map. That is because this area was added to the Town Center after the Town Center Code (sections 20-320 through 20-327 were adopted). The Town Center had been envisioned with central stormwater management in mind. This has largely not accomplished, as many developments have incorporated on-site stormwater facilities. This site is designed with multiple stormwater ponds located near the roadway frontages. The Comprehensive Plan's Future Land Use Policy 2.3.2 (which addresses Town Center drainage) includes the following: "...Retention ponds shall be designed to enhance neighborhood edges and aesthetics and to provide buffering when appropriate." Staff does not believe that the locations of these ponds are consistent with the Town Center walkable/place-making theme, since people are not typically interested in or drawn to walking along dry stormwater facilities, blank walls, or parking lots. Future Land Use Policy 5.2.8 addresses the location and screening of service areas as follows: "Service Areas. Service areas shall no be located in front yards and shall not be visible from publicrights-of--way or squares, parks, or primary space. Service areas shall be designed to the standards set forth in the Town Center District Code." This is a major issue with the aesthetics and function of the site plan, with direct views of parking and service areas from public rights-of--way. These views need, at minimum, further screening with garden walls, fencing, trellises, landscaping, or some combination of these. Inconsistencies with Code All Code inconsistencies must be identified and addressed through special exceptions or in a development agreement, either of which should be brought forward for approval along with the final engineering and aesthetic review. Subsection 20-321 (d) states the following about a development agreement for a project in the Town Center: `Considerations for the city in deciding whether to participate in such an agreement will include compliance with the objectives and design criteria specified in this division; demonstration of a cost benefit to the city and developer; consideration of development amenities provided by the developer." 3 September 22, 2008 Regular Item 505 Page 4 of 8 The applicant should not assume that any deviation depicted on the plans but that is not adequately addressed in a development agreement has been approved by default. There can be no deviations from comprehensive plan requirements. At the time this item is written, no development agreement, special exception request has been received. Code deviations and potential code deviations are noted below: 1. Section 20-325 of the City Code sets the maximum distance between buildings, with the space ranging from a maximum of 10' along the most urban thoroughfazes to a maximum of 50' along the least urban thoroughfazes. The large quantity of un-built frontage, including the retention ponds, exceeds these maximum distances between buildings (now and in the future). These gaps between buildings reduce walkability and provide open views to both pedestrians and drivers of the parking lot from west bound SR 434. The storage building and dumpster enclosure could have been moved closer to the SR 434 ROW and the retention ponds moved farther from the ROW (or placed underground) to create a more intense and interesting -pedestrian-oriented frontage on the primary space. The applicant has proposed a garden wall along the SR 434 frontage to partially mitigate the large expanse of unbuilt frontage. Section 20-327 of the Code requires this wall to be at minimum 25 percent opaque (the proposed wall is only 20 percent opaque). 2. The storage building is located at least 23 feet from the SR 434 ROW, instead of up to the ROW line, as set forth in Subsection 20-325 (8) for fronting on SR 434. This ties in with the comments for No. 1, above. 3. Section 20-327 requires fences, garden walls and hedges to be at minimum 25 percent opaque. The plans depict one of five 18 foot long segments of the garden wall to be opaque, which equates to approximately 20 percent of the garden wall being opaque. 4. Section 20-325 depicts the various street types with street trees between the sidewalk and the roadway vehicle accommodation areas (although for some areas, such as along the SR 434 frontage these trees aze optional). The applicant is removing all of the trees from the site and not planting any trees in the adjacent ROW between the sidewalk and roadway. The absence of trees from the public ROW is not a code violation or deviation, but works against apedestrian-oriented development. On-street parking (which is not provided along any of the 3 abutting ROWS) and street trees between the sidewalk and the roadway create a physical and psychological buffer that makes pedestrians feel safer walking along a busy street than they otherwise would. 5. Subsection 20-327 (d) requires doors at intervals no greater than 50 feet. The applicant provides two sets of double doors near the corner of SR 434 and Central Winds Drive, each set of double doors are more than 60 feet from either end of the building. The building needs an additional door fronting onto the primary space (SR 434 frontage) and another onto the secondary space (Central Winds Drive frontage) or relocate the doors from their presently proposed locations. The provision of one set of double doors along a ninety foot long fagade does not meet the intent of this section of the Code. 6. Section 20-325 requires that buildings and sites front their primary space, as set forth in the Hierarchy of Squares, pazks, and streets in Subsection 20-325 (a). The building and site appears in 4 September 22, 2008 Regular Item 505 Page 5 of 8 possible violation of this requirement, as evidenced by the large centrally located (to the retail space) double rear doors opening onto the parking lot from both segments of the building. Establishing clear frontage onto the primary space and creating a clearly subordinate rear of the building is essential to a functioning Town Center. The proposed bike rack under the most prominent portion of the open pergola further exacerbates this. The bike rack should be moved -most likely to the area near the walk-thru between the parking lot and the sidewalk along the SR 434 ROW, where it could coincide with a Lynx bus stop (Link 323, estimated to begin in or about Apri12009). 7. Subsection 20-327 (a) (1) of the Code states that "An expression line shall delineate the division between the first story and the second story." It further states that "Expression lines and cornices shall either be moldings extending a minimum of two (2) inches, or jogs in the surface plane of the building wall greater than two (2) inches. The location of the expression line is also important in that it provides the location from which to calculate the first floor glazing requirement for retail space. The plans depict two (2) expression lines, four (4) inches thick and an undetermined depth, indented into the building surface, with 16 inches in between. When asked (Wednesday, September 10, 2008) how high the first floor extended, the relation of the upper windows to a first or second floor, the extent and use of the second floor, and the stairs, the applicant's team failed to provide substantive answers. Without knowing if the expression line is located per code, staff cannot determine whether the applicant has provided the requisite 50 percent first floor glazing. If the expression line does demarcate the ceiling height, then the upper windows appear to emit light from the knees down in any upper story that may be provided (assuming the stairs go to some type of second floor space). 8. Subsection 20-327 (d) of the Code requires "...the ground-floor along the building frontage shall have transparent storefront windows covering no less than fifty (50) percent of the wall area." No glazing calculation has been provided and it cannot be calculated without an accurate expression line location that relates to the actual height of the first floor ceiling. It does not appear that the first floor glazing meets the 50 percent minimum required by Code. 9. Subsection 20-326 (a) of the Code requires awnings and marquees to be at least 5 feet in depth and at least 10 feet above the adjacent sidewalk. The applicant proposed 8 foot deep awnings during the concept review. The plans currently depict 5 foot awnings at 7.5 or 8 feet above the sidewalk. While staff can support the reduction in the height above the sidewalk as this will provide better protection for the pedestrian, staff also is of the opinion that while not required by Code, the 8 foot deep awnings provide superior protection for the pedestrian. 10. Subsection 20-327 (f) (3) provides that fin signs shall be at least 12 feet above the public sidewalk and have an area of at least 25 square feet. The proposed fin sign is less than 25 square feet and the distance above the sidewalk has not been specified on the plans. Further, the style of the hardware that attaches the sign to the building does not appear to match that of the building architecture. 11. Subsection 20-327 (f) (3) states that "All signs shall be designed to be compatible with the respective storefront and subject building in scale, proportion, and color and should be visually interesting and compatible in the context of the town center guidelines. The proposed wall sign (1.5' x 5.0' = 7.5 SF) is within the acceptable size limits and provides individual raised letters. The Comprehensive Plan and the Code mandates creative signage. Staff does not believe that the proposed building 5 September 22, 2008 Regular Item 505 Page 6 of 8 mounted signage effectively approaches or meets the creative and aesthetic potential afforded signage within the Town Center. 12. Subsection 20-327 (g) (1) states that "Rectangular window openings facing streets shall be oriented vertically. The plans depict square windows facing the streets, including the SR 434 primary frontage as well as Central Winds Drive, in both buildings. 13. Subsection 20-327 (g) (3) allows round windows of "eighteen (18) inches maximum outer diameter." The plan depicts round windows that appear greater than 18 inches in outer diameter. Aesthetic Review The submittal requirements for aesthetic review are set forth in Section 9-605 and include the following: (a) a site plan; (b) elevations illustrating all sides of structures facing public streets or spaces; (c) illustrations of all walls, fences, and other accessory structures and the indication of height and their associated materials; (d) elevation of proposed exterior permanent signs or other constructed elements other than habitable space, if any; (e) illustrations of materials, texture, and colors to be used on all buildings, accessory structures, exterior signs; and (f) other architectural and engineering data as may be required. The procedures for review and approval are set forth in Section 9-603. The City Commission may approve, approve with conditions, or disapprove the application only after consideration of whether the following criteria have been satisfied: (1) The plans and specifications of the proposed project indicate. that the setting, landscaping, proportions, materials, colors, textures, scale, unity, balance, rhythm, contrast, and simplicity are coordinated in a harmonious manner relevant to the particular proposal, surrounding area and cultural character of the community. The proposed building is to be constructed of concrete block covered primarily with stucco. The building's varied roofline and water table are positive features. The building has some similar characteristics to the West End Professional Center, also within the Town Center. (2) The plans for the proposed project are in harmony with any future development which has been formally approved by the City within the surrounding area. No other more recent site plans have been submitted in this immediate area. The site appears to be designed with little acknowledgement of the Town Center Code, the Comp Plan, or its relationship to future Town Center development in this area. (3) The plans for the proposed project are not excessively similar or dissimilar to any other building, structure or sign which is either fully constructed, permitted but not fully constructed, or included on the same permit application, and facing upon the same or intersecting street within five hundred (500) feet of the proposed 6 September 22, 2008 Regular Item 505 Page 7 of 8 site, with respect to one or more of the following features of exterior design and appearance: (A)Front or side elevations, (B)Size and arrangement of elevation facing the street, including reverse arrangement, (C)Other significant features of design such as, but not limited to: materials, roof line, hardscape improvements, and height or design elements. The proposed building does not appear excessively similar or dissimilar to the other structures in the immediate area, but is similar in style to the West End Professional Center, also within the Town Center. The site and buildings have major discrepancies with Town Center objectives andlor design criteria. (4) The plans for the proposed project are in harmony with, or significantly enhance, the established character of other buildings, structures or signs in the surrounding area with respect to architectural specifications and design features deemed significant based upon commonly accepted architectural principles of the local community. There are no other buildings or structures in the immediate area. While the proposed site and buildings do have certain urbanlTND elements, they also incorporate suburban elements that may not be in harmony with or accommodate future development in this area of the Town Center. (5) The proposed project is consistent and compatible with the intent and purpose of this Article, the Comprehensive Plan for Winter Springs, design criteria adopted by the city (e.g. Towne Center guidelines, SR 434 design specifications) and other applicable federal state or local laws. The Pinch A Penny aesthetic package does not meet the requirements of the City's design criteria as specified in the Code and Comprehensive Plan. Please refer to the description detailed earlier in this agenda item. (6) The proposed project has incorporated significant architectural enhancements such as concrete masonry units with stucco, marble, termite-resistant wood, wrought iron, brick, columns and piers, porches, arches, fountains, planting areas, display windows, and other distinctive design detailing and promoting the character of the community. The project has incorporated a number of these features in a suburban manner, rather than an urban or TND/Town Center manner. The distinctive design detailing is not indicative of many of the Town Center specifications. For example, the pergola does not provide shelter from the elements and has a bike rack proposed in its most prominent location. The windows do not appear to provide the required 50 percent glazing and have landscaping in front of them rather than the wide sidewalks required by the Comp Plan and supported by the City's Town Center consultant. 7 September 22, 2008 Regular Item 505 Page 8 of 8 FINDINGS: 1. The proposed development is located within the City of Winter Springs Town Center: it has a Town Center Future Land Use designation, is within the Urban Central Business District, and is within the Town Center zoning district. 2. Any deviations from the Code must be addressed through a development agreement, special exception, or some other appropriate mechanism. No development agreement or special exception has been submitted by the applicant. 'The proposed site plan is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 4. The proposed site plan is inconsistent with the City Code of Ordinances. 5. The proposed site plan is inconsistent with the Commission's conditions of approval from the Apri123, 2007 concept review. RECOMMENDATION: Based on the determinations made by the City's Town Center consultant and the deviations from code requirements detailed in this report, staff must recommend that the City Commission deny the aesthetic review for the proposed project. ATTACHMENTS: A -Concept plan agenda item and minutes B -Location map C -Aesthetic review plan submittal COMMISSION ACTION: 8 CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA MINUTES CITY COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING -SEPTEMBER 22, 2008 PAGE I S OF 24 PUBLIC HEARINGS 505. Community Development Department Request The Commission Consider The Aesthetic Review For A 4,232 S.F. (Square Foot) Single Story Office/Retail Building, A 320 S.F. (Square Foot) Storage Building, And Other Site Improvements On APie-Shaped 0.73 Acre Property At The Northeast Corner Of SR (State Road) 434 And Central Winds Drive (Also Abuts Central Winds Parkway a.k.a. [Also Known As] Old SR [State Road] 434), Within The Town Center. Mr. Randy Stevenson, ASLA, AICP, Director, Community Development Department introduced this Agenda Item. Mr. Bill Starmer, Starmer Ranaldi Planning and Architecture, Inc., 820 West Broadway Street, Suite 3000, Oviedo, Florida: spoke briefly on this Agenda Item. Manager McLemore stated, "What we're asking you to do is to just give us the authority to work these things out - we don't have to come back to you. Of course, the Applicant can come back if he is not satisfied." Mayor Bush said, "Just work it out." Commissioner McGinnis noted, "That is good." Commissioner Miller noted that "This property here is all school property and this is the access road, Tuskawilla Road -right there, it says `Not accessible'," which means you can't get on to [State Road) 434 there. Is there some possibility that will be opened up at some point in the future?" Manager McLemore answered, "Yes. Not a road, but a sidewalk, or something of that nature. That is one of the things we have to negotiate." Commissioner Miller continued, "You could really put a real nice feature in there -you obviously would have to get some land from the School Board, and I am not sure they would be willing to give it up, but even if they weren't, maybe some kind of an Agreement that we could use it for, like a pocket park that we were talking about." Mayor Bush opened the "Public Input "portion of the Agenda Item. No one spoke. Mayor Bush closed the "Public Input" portion of the Agenda Item. CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA MINUTES CrrY COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING -SEPTEMBER 22, 2008 PAGE 16 OF 24 ~~I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE ALLOW STAFF AND THE APPLICANT TO CONTINUE WORKING ON THESE FINAL ITEMS AND THAT THE APPLICANT FEEL EMPOWERED TO COME BACK BEFORE THIS COMMISSION, IF THEY FEEL THEY ARE BOGGED DOWN INAPPROPRIATELY." MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BROWN. SECONDED BY DEPUTY MAYOR GILMORE. DISCUSSION. VOTE: DEPUTY MAYOR GILMORE: AYE COMMISSIONER MILLER: AYE COMMISSIONER McGINNIS: AYE COMMISSIONER KREBS: AYE COMMISSIONER BROWN: AYE MOTION CARRIED. Mr. Stevenson asked, "If I could clarify that, that Motion was for Approval and to empower Staff to work out our..." Mayor Bush noted, "...Yes. Work it out." Commissioner Miller departed the Regular Meeting at 8:40 p.m. REGULAR AGENDA REGULAR 600. Community Development Department Requests The Commission Consider The Final Engineering/Site Plan For A 4,232 S.F. (Square Foot) Single Story Office/Retail Building, A 320 S.F. (Square Foot) Storage Building, And Other Site Improvements On APie-Shaped 0.73 Acre Property At The Northeast Corner Of SR (State Road) 434 And Central Winds Drive (Also Abuts Central Winds Parkway a.k.a. [Also Known As] Old SR [State Road] 434), Within The Town Center. Mr. Stevenson addressed the City Commission on this Agenda Item. Mr. Bill Starmer, Starmer Ranaldi Planning and Architecture, Inc., 820 West Broadway Street, Suite 3000, Oviedo, Florida: spoke on the sidewalks situation. Mr. Brian Fields, P.E., City Engineer, Public Works Department commented on sidewalks. Discussion. Pinch-A-Penny Review ATTAC~[MENT C John Baker Page 1 of 1 From: Steven Richart Sent: Tuesday, September 76, 2008 4:09 PM To: John Baker Cc: Randy Stevenson Subject: PinchAPenny Pinch-A-PennX Review Landscape Review 9/16/08 1. Adjacent to SR 434 plans must have large evergreen shrubbery buffering the parking azea, utility boxes, lift stations, backflow devices, etc. from roadway view. 2. Adjacent to Central Winds Parkway plans must have large evergreen shrubbery buffering the parking area, utility boxes, lift stations, backflow devices, etc. from roadway view. 3. Adjacent to Central Winds Drive plans must have large evergreen shrubbery buffering the parking azea, utility boxes, lift stations, backflow devices, etc. from roadway view. 4. In all areas, the rear of buildings (including A/C Units and Power Meters, etc.) shall have large evergreen shrubbery buffering from roadway view. 5. Trees must be located in the right-of--way between the curb and sidewalk along Central Winds Drive and Central Winds Parkway as per City Code (sec. 20-325). Staff recommends use of Allee elm or an approved ornamental tree in these areas due to the lack of space and the potential of future root system damage to adjacent sidewalks. Lighting Plan -Updated 9/16/08 1. Field adjustments will need to be made by the installer for lighting due to tree installations. Please make sure light poles will not interfere with tree canopy. 2. The plan shows a minimal light spillage onto Central Winds Parkway but Staff supports this condition due to the lack of lighting in this area. 3. Pedestrian lighting is required along the SR 434 sidewalk frontage. The lighting must be provided through Progress Energy and purchased by the developer. Responsibility of the pedestrian lighting along SR 434 will be turned over to the City of Winter Springs at site acceptance. (UCBD -Policy 5.2.6; Ord. 2004-43 1 /24/05) a. The standard is a Progress Energy Clermont light fixture with Washington pole. More information can be found at: http:/1www.progress-energy.com/custservice/flacig/outdoorlight/index.asp 9/16/2008 ' ATTACHMENT D • ~~~t~ 1959 •~ *~ Engineering Review Comments Project: Wagner's Curve Office Building Submittal: Final Engineering (2nd) Date: September 10, 2008 Comments by: Brian Fields, P.E. City Engineer 1. C200. The parking data shows 13 spaces but the plans show 14 spaces; please correct the table. Delete the parking space requirement data. There is no minimum parking requirement in the Town Center and the references to Section 9-277 are not applicable. The number of parking spaces provided is acceptable. 2. C200. As noted in the previous review, Staff is not requiring any offsite street improvements along any of the site's three street frontages. However, the Staffs request to provide a sidewalk along Central Winds Park Blvd. from Central Winds Parkway to the site entrance driveway (approx. 170 feet) is reasonable and consistent with other developments in the City. Sidewalks are typically required along street frontages even when the connecting sidewalks do not exist at the time of development. This sidewalk would be the only required offsite improvement. 3. C400. In the driveway profile, callout the slopes and grade break points. 4. C400. Regarding the Swale drainage in Central Winds Park Blvd.: a. Provide a typical swale section showing the bottom of the swale lower than the adjacent edge of pavement grade. Please note that there is no existing swale, and runoff from the road generally sheet flows onto the site and drains from north to south across the property. b. Move structures D-1 and D-2 away from the roadway edge to the center of the proposed swale. c. The FG spot elevation of 46.50 in the swale is higher than the top of structure D-2 (45.85) and would not allow positive drainage from north to south. d. The driveway as proposed is higher than existing grade and should have a culvert to allow the swale drainage to continue under the driveway. Alternatively, a curb and gutter could be installed along Central Winds Park Blvd from the northwest corner of the site to the driveway entrance, thus eliminating the need for a swale and culvert. 5. C400/500. Show and callout the existing 12" reclaimed water main in the utility easement. The fire line appears that it is in conflict with the reclaimed water main. 6. C500. For the force main point of connection, callout the connection as a 2-inch force main service saddle and delete the reference to a tapping valve and sleeve. 7. L.1. The 4" DDCV does not appear to have any screening as noted in the comment response. 8. IR.1 Show all existing and proposed utilities along Central Winds Park Blvd. on the irrigation plan. Wagners Curve Office Building -final Engineering 9-10-08 Page 1 of 1 ATTACHMENT E October 12, 2009 Regular Meeting REQUEST: The Community Development Department requests the City Commission review and consider changes to the Town Center Code for small odd shaped parcel development. PURPOSE: To provide background on why the Town Center Code should be changed for smaller and odd shaped parcels. APPLICABLE LAW AND PUBLIC POLICY: BACKGROUND: This responds to real development cost issues that have come up as it pertains to small and odd shaped parcel development in the Town Center District. The uniform construction code for the town center makes it economically difficult to develop on small and odd shaped parcels. For the larger parcels the code works well. For small and odd shaped parcels, circular or triangular and less than an acre in size, development becomes difficult and unfeasible as the costs of the project are greater than the stabilized appraised value of a proposed building. Financing is no longer viable as banks will only provide funds based on the appraised value and not construction costs. Paul Partyka will give a presentation on the above findings based on the Pinch n Penny project costs. The presentation team will also include M Paul Construction (general contractor) and Starmer Ranaldi Inc. (architect). Furthermore, the Town Center construction should be periodically reviewed to determine whether it continues to be appropriate for current demographic, social, economic and environmental trends. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: To determine if the City Commission wishes to consider changing the rules for smaller and odd shaped parcels to spur more economic development and better conform to today's trends.