HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008 09 22 Public Hearings 505 Aesthetic Review of Office/Retail Building Within Town CenterCOMMISSION AGENDA
ITEM 505
September 22, 2008
Meeting
Consent
Information
Public Hearin X
Re ular
MGR. /De 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, similar 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 Parkway are City roadways.
Concept 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 are 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.
Like the final engineering/siteplan, the aesthetic review plan largely disregarded 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 area 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
appear 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
public rights-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 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, 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 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 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 facade 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
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 April 2009).
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 fln 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.
1 1. 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 S
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
and/or 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
ATTACHMENT A
COMMISSION AGENDA
ITEM 602
May 14, 200,E
Meeting
Consent
Information
Public Hearin
Re ular X
MGR. , ~. /De t.
REQUEST:
The Community Development Department requests the Commission consider a conceptual plan for a
5,000 SF office/retail site 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 conceptual development plan for
5,000 SF of office/retail on apie-shaped site within the Winter Springs Town Center. This site will be
difficult if not impossible to develop in a manner consistent with all of the applicable codes, due to its
size, shape, and location. It is virtually surrounded by roadways, most prominently SR 434. Intense
school and park traffic further factor into the complexity of this site.
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS:
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 east-bound traffic on SR 434 through the Town Center will experience a terminating vista into the
south end of this site, similar to the way the 8.7 acre crescent-shaped property immediately to the north
will form the entrance to the Town Center from the west.
Utilities
The site has central water and sewer available, with adequate capacity. A 6" diameter sanitary force
main crosses the southern end of the site, extending across SR 434 from the high school site to Heritage
May 14, 2007
Regular Item 602
Page 2 of 3
Park. The applicant must provide 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 (a.k.a. Old SR 434). Stormwater must be accommodated on-site. The lowest
point 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 stonnwater ponds. A 10' wide maintenance
berm is required by code around the perimeter of anabove-ground stormwater pond.
Town Center Issues
The Town Center Code did not 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). A workshop with Dover Kohl and Partners has been
tentatively scheduled for June 11-13. Street types and design criteria is to be one of the topics addressed.
The prominence of the high school and Central Winds Park, Paw Park, and the eventual connection of
Orange Avenue to SR 434 will likely be discussed in conjunction with specifications for how each street
type should be developed.
Dover Kohl has reviewed the submittal and provided verbal comments on Apri123, 2007 which are
incorporated 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 2"d floor) to be on-street on
Central Winds Pazkway - 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 (cited Alexandria, VA example);
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 pazking 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.
2
May 14, 2007
Regular Item 602
Page 3 of 3
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
areas, 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 frontage and
Central Winds Drive frontage. A minimum 6' wide sidewalk is required along Central Winds Parkway
(a.k.a. Old SR 434).
Inconsistencies with Code
All inconsistencies must be identified and addressed in a development agreement, which would be
brought forward for approval along with the final engineering and aesthetic review. 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 are no deviations from comprehensive
plan requirements.
FINDINGS:
The proposed development is located within the City of Winter Springs Town Center.
2. Any deviations from the Code must be addressed through a development agreement, special
exception, or some other appropriate mechanism.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the City Commission approve the attached revised concept
plan subject to the Dover Kohl comments and that any deviations from the Code must be clearly
identified and addressed through a development agreement or other appropriate mechanism
ATTACHMENTS:
A -Concept plan and April 26, 20071etter
COMMISSION ACTION:
3
Planning and Architecture Inc
26 Apr 07
Randy Stevenson, ASLA
Community Development Duector
t l26 State Road 434
Winter Springs, Florida 32708
Re: Wagners Curve Office /Retail Building
Conceptual Development Plan Approval
Randy
Thank you for allowing us to meet with staff for their review of this project on 17 Apr 07 and we look forward to presenting
this project to City Council on the 14 May 07 for their approval.
Enclosed herewith please find 21 copies (and one copy of pdf files on cd) of the following documents for your distribution:
1. Survey
2. Conceptual Site Plan
3. Conceptual Floor Plan
4. Conceptual Building Elevation
We are also providing responses to review comments from the 17 Apr 07 staff review meeting below, as back up information
for staff and Council review.
Written Staff Comments from Brian Fields
1. Comment: Stormwater ponds require 10-foot maintenance berm on all side per the City Code and SJRWMD criteria.
Response: We will comply with this requirement as part of our final engineering submittal.
820 WEST BROADWAY
STREET, SUITE 3000
OvIEDO. FLORIDA
32765
IP 1,07-977-1080
(FI 107-977-1010
AA0002984
W W W SRIA RCH.COM
x
2. Comment: Having a stoTmwater pond at the north corner of the site as shown may not be feasible since this is the
high point of the site. Consider moving the dumpster to the north end to provide more retention area at the
south end.
Response: We will consider this during our engineering phase of the project once we have better geotechnical and
topographical information.
3. Comment: Consider using an underground exfiltration stonmwater system to reduce or eliminate pond areas.
Response: We will consider this during our engineering phase of the project once we have better geotechnical and
topographical information.
4. Comment: Provide a handicapped parking space.
Response: Have complied see attached revised site plan.
S. Comment: Improvements to Central Winds Parkway (Old SR 434) will likely be required from
Central Winds Drive to the site entrance. On-street parking could be counted towards
meeting the project's parking demand.
Response: Not sure what improvements are required, since the current road carries significant
passenger car and bus traffic, but we will certainly consider any request you may have.
We meet parking requirements on site and are skeptical of the value of on street
parking that more than likely will get taken up by high school students for the majority
of the business day.
6. Comment: Sidewalks in the town center are required to be 6-feet wide minimum. Discuss
sidewalk routing at the staff meeting.
Response: We have increased sidewalks on site to 6-feet wide and per staff discussion, increased
the side walk to 12-feet wide at the "retail front door" (south west corner) of the
building, as shown on the attached revised drawings.
7. Comment: Provide space on site for a lift station.
Response: Have complied. See attached revised site plan.
8. Comment: Provide a geotechnical report and stormwater report with the final engineering
submittal. A traffic study is not required.
Response: Will comply at time of final engineering submittal.
Verbal Staff Comments from John Baker
1. Comment: Would like l 2' wide side walks in front of building.
Response: Have complied at south west comer of building. See attached revised plans.
2. Comment: Add canopies out to "build to line".
Response: Have complied canopies are 10- overhang, as shown dotted on attached revised plans.
3. Comment: Glass shall be 50% coverage for retail space.
Response: Will comply during aesthetic review submittal.
4. Comment: Enhance site wall with fountain, bench, and / or planters.
Response: Will comply during aesthetic review submittal.
5. Comment: Consider on street parking.
Response: Wil! consider, however we prefer not to based on potential uncontrolled high school
student use during the business day.
6. Comment: Retention pond could be wet with attractive fountain feature.
Response: Acknowledge comment. However final site engineering will determine retention pond
requirements based on topography, geotechnical soil characteristics, and SJRWMD
requirements.
7. Comment: Need to address signage.
Response: Will comply during aesthetic review submittal.
8. Comment: Expression line of building needs to well defined.
Response: Will comply during aesthetic review submittal.
9. Comment: Would like to see "room size" (15 feet by 15 feet) people gathering area along the
building frontage.
Response: We believe we do comply and will demonstrate during final engineering submittal,
when floor plan is fully developed.
Verbal Staff Comments from Chuck Pula.
t .Comment: Would like to see some way to incorporate signage in the project that wilt advertise
Central Winds Park activities.
Response: We are willing to accommodate this perhaps along the site wall where the City could
hang event banners.
Verbal Staff Comments from Mike Scheraldi
1. Comment: Cautioned to pay attention to building code "distance from property line and
allowable openings in walls" issues, with our building so close to the south and west
property line.
Response: Building to the "build to line" is a town center requirement, which pushes buildings up
to the property line. We believe we do comply with "distance and openings issue"
though because where we aze on the property line we are also on a public right of way
which adequately separates any future buildings from our building. We will however
confirm our compliance with the code during our final engineering submittal.
2. Comment: Restaurant use will require water and sewer utilities at the dumpster enclosure.
Response: If a restaurant use is contemplated we will comply.
Verbal Staff Comments from Michael Mingea
1. Comment: There are a few specimen trees on the property and the azbor ordinance will need to be
followed.
Response: Will comply during final engineering submittal.
Verbal Staff Comment from Bob Dallas
l .Comment: A fve hydrant will be required with in 500 feet of the building.
Response: Will comply during final engineering submittal.
Verbal Staff Comment from Glenn Tolleson
I. Comment: If posted as parking for local business only, the City could enforce prevention of
students parking on any on street pazking places.
Response: Our current preference is not to have on street parking so hopefully student use will
not become an issue.
End of review comments
We trust this submittal is well received and we look forward to Council approval on 14 May 07
Regards
Wm E Starmer AIA NCARB
President
~~"
---_- wagners curve
~~ % ~ ~ retail !office building
,. s~. c7
.~i
1~ _
~~ i` ~ '~~ tendon ~ i ~ ~ north
,;
.. ,_.
~; _ _ ~, y
~,
1'/ ~' i/; r ~ 1 - ~ deli~'ery ~ -
i, ~ _ ~
it ~ ! ~ , , ~. 4 ' ' `~~
~, , ~ _ _
~~ '
~~ ~- ~ ~_~~~ ~ ~ - - site lan
,;
II ~ ~' ~ ~. - ~ i> ; /~ 2O parking ~~~ ~ `t -.
~r lift station
--'--- ~
II '~ ~ ~ ~~
soao sf ~~ ~~
~~~, ~ offioeltefisil i~ i dumpster
t
l _
1~~\~ ~ ; /; retention
i 1
j , \~ ~ ~ ~ L ! ''t e~or8tiv well ~ ~ ~.
~ ~.
. _ -
~' \
--
_._ _
~.. ~
__- _~ IfINI,,,.,,.,....IIIIIIII~TrrT~--.~-~-T_ :,::c - __ _ _
- - - ---
--- -
~~ai..~ctt R.analdi
_._
_._ _ _. _
~mc m7 h ~'*~ac'ue h:
i
1 ':
L
_ _ __
~~~
:, _
i '~
~ k ~,1 ~ ~ ~
y ~'=~~`
E
~ t,_. Jl
__
a
I
;~
;, _ .
~__
_,
__ ._
_. ___
~- ..
~ .... N.,
T~%~ _
y1~1 l ~~! I.I., ;~~,,~. ,~.~a°~tt~ z" .:,~_s:~~ ,'~ ~
~ y
i na i
____ - _~
~.. __..... .~-_-_ ~_ _ .. __......._..._ ~ .'CJfYt1Y, OY: 4 C tiffffV9 tr-
I
wagners curve
office /retail building
26 Apr 07
I
5000 sf
floor plan
:~-~~ ,
__ ~.
,,
i% -,\, ,
\
%' ?~ \II
~
~~
~
t. ;
~~ . , ,~~ ,
1
___ _ _ _ _ ...~----._. _ _ _._l
wagners curve
office /retail building
~6 Apr 07
_~:.
_.
i
..
-- - _ - /
{ ,-..1
--j - ,--- a ( • f~,
F ~ ~~
~ ~~ ~ 1
_. _ -_ ~~
~ - __- r _° ~ :'--, ~' '- . u : -fir -- ~~ _ ~.
south elevation
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA
MINUTES
CITY COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING -MAY 14, 2007
PAGE 12 OF 17
REGULAR AGENDA
REGULAR
600. Public Works Department
Requests The City Commission Validate The Staff Recommendation Finding
Orange Avenue To Be Built In Substantial Accordance With The Final Engineering
Plans, To Accept The Public Infrastructure, And To Authorize Reimbursement To
Levitt & Sons In The Amount Of $835,572.00 For The Design And Construction Of
Orange Avenue Per The Developer's Agreement.
Mr. Fields spoke on this Agenda Item.
Discussion.
"MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM `600'." MOTION BY COMMISSIONER
MILLER. SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BROWN. DISCUSSION.
VOTE:
COMMISSIONER MILLER: AYE
COMMISSIONER KREBS: AYE
DEPUTY MAYOR McGINNIS: AYE
COMMISSIONER BROWN: AYE
MOTION CARRIED.
REGULAR
601. Not Used.
REGULAR
602. Community Development Department
Requests The City Commission Consider A Conceptual Plan For A 5,000 SF
(Square Foot) Office/Retail Site 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. Baker spoke regarding this Agenda Item.
Discussion.
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA
MINUTES
CITY COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING -MAY 14, 2007
PAGE t 3 OF 17
Mr. Bill Starmer, AIA, NCARB, Architect, President, Starmer, Ranaldi Planning and
Architecture, Inc., 820 West Broadway Street, Oviedo, Florida: addressed the City
Commission on this Agenda Item and commented that, "If you look at the retention
ponds that we have here, they're fairly shallow so we're not intending them to be wet. If
we can get away without making them wet, then it appears as open green space; it's grass
that doesn't have -heavy landscape in terms of bushes and shrubs, but we will certainly
look into it."
Commissioner Brown commented, "Several months ago there was a conversation with -
Winter Springs High School and their -committee about signage for the school, in and
azound this location and we were wondering how we could make that happen at the time.
Now I am wondering, given the location of that retention pond on the right, and given the
Commissioner's desire to do some kind of enlightenment there, if there would be an
opportunity to partner with the school to do their sign as a part of some sort of treatment
in that pond that could be lit -with their events and what not; coming into that very
important entrance?"
Mr. Starmer replied, "And that discussion actually has been made; not so much with the
school, but perhaps more so with Central Winds. You know, can the City take the
opportunity to advertise upcoming events. So, we've talked that through with the owner;
they're certainly not opposed to that and they'd be willing to discuss it with you. So, I
think that's - a very distinct possibility."
Commissioner Brown asked, "Would you be point on that if I can get somebody from the
school to give you a call?" Mr. Starmer replied, "Sure."
Further discussion on signage.
Mr. Stevenson asked, "I just want to know if we have -the flexibility of Staff to
negotiate something maybe other than a fountain; maybe some up-lit trees and planters,
things of this nature that would accomplish the same thing of a fountain by up-lighting,
but it would also leave most of this storefront space open for pedestrians in here."
Deputy Mayor McGinnis commented, "Yes." Mayor Bush asked, "So, you aze
recommending that you don't put a fountain at that particular location, but there could be
other locations that would be..." Mr. Stevenson replied, "...Could be, but I'm also
recommending that in addition to a fountain, that we have the flexibility to look at some
other type of feature there, on that corner."
Deputy Mayor McGinnis again commented, "Yes. I support that."
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA
MINUTES
CITY COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING -MAY 14, 2007
PAGE 14 OF 17
"MOTION TO APPROVE THE REVISED CONCEPT PLANS SUBJECT TO
DOVER KOHL COMMENTS AND ANY DEVIATIONS FROM THE CODE
THAT MUST BE ADDRESSED THROUGH A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT."
MOTION BY DEPUTY MAYOR McGINNIS. SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER
KREBS. DISCUSSION.
VOTE:
COMMISSIONER KREBS: AYE
COMMISSIONER BROWN: AYE
COMMISSIONER MILLER: AYE
DEPUTY MAYOR McGINNIS: AYE
MOTION CARRIED.
REGULAR
603. Community Development Department -Planning Division
Requests The City Commission Remove From The Table, Mr. Stan Toledo's
Request For A Comprehensive Plan Amendment Changing The Future Land Use
(Ordinance Number 2007-04) And Rezoning (Ordinance Number 2007-05) Of An
8.8 Acre Parcel, Located On The North Side Of SR (State Road) 434, East Of The
Entrance To Barrington Estates And 600' (Feet) West Of DeLeon Street.
Mayor Bush stated, "Can we have a Motion to remove from the Table?"
"SO MOVED." MOTION BY DEPUTY MAYOR McGINNIS. SECONDED BY
COMMISSIONER KREBS. DISCUSSION.
VOTE:
COMMISSIONER BROWN: AYE
COMMISSIONER MILLER: AYE
DEPUTY MAYOR McGINNIS: AYE
COMMISSIONER KREBS: AYE
MOTION CARRIED.
Ms. Sahlstrom introduced this Agenda Item and mentioned a document she distributed.
Mayor Bush stated, "What we need then is a Motion to put this as an Agenda Item for the
May 29a', [2007] Meeting as a Public Hearing and First Reading."
"SO MOVED." MOTION BY COMMISSIONER KREBS. SECONDED BY
COMMISSIONER BROWN. DISCUSSION.
H
Continued P 260, ATTACHMENT B -
_.. V
_ _ ~' ,
30 ~
22
J' '
,,
®® i
,~,
357 O
® ® „
~ ® ~ ~ _, __
G y,
~ ,~o~ti
F -_"_
~,
(V
E~
bA
a
aso
a
-.G
c
O
U 106
~ ~N ~r~~ I
356
LIFT ~~\ \\
STA. /~~ \" ~
\. ~ j` ~ ~'
ass
V ~n~e j S L
n
/3~Tri~ _ S y! N~
Gy ~w`~ R~hOOi ~N~
'H ?F ~ ~,
~F4jA ,~ G
'~ a ~~~ voi oR/ Gp~~~ER
U
2603 ~3 ~ ~
;~%
~ ._ ~ a a+
C. ~ ~' c ~
O
~ 301 301 c
1081 ~ ~
304
302 ~ 305 .- 306
5 304 307. 308
B 306 309. 310 _ ~~iv
308 311 312_.. 3/L -' 312 _
3/0 313 314. 313_.. `'': ."~
~ 3/6 315 316 1M ~p ~.~
312 315
A 314 317. 318 3/7 310 'sie ,, ~w
:iF 319... 320. 319..-
_ Continued P
"..--\
1
1~
tt
1
1
z
1
,d
T~1( ~`~ ,.\.
~'
,_
j, ~.
i
141
IG
~P ~d ~T't'F~~ O~.r~
.~ ~
W~''•' 1 MILE N.~.r'
~. ;•.~ NOTES:
~~ ' ~.^
Y. V'
' 1
Rats B ~~
EARLR .\~~ .
' •' Municipal Address Map Book 200 400
O ~y FBBI ~.
PRINTED: REVISED:
m 3 OCt 2()~6 1 2 3
~'. ~ o
City of Winter Springs, FL page 2603
PAGE LOCATION KEY MAP WITH 1 8 2 MILE RADIUS RINGS ne.,.,i~....a n... o_....~___. _._ ~___. _. , e .. ..