Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005 01 24 Public Hearings 407 aesthetic review of Bruster's Real Ice CreamCOMMISSION AGENDA ITEM 407 January 24, 2005 Meeting Consent Informational Public Hearing X Regular MGR. ~~ /DEPT J ~w Authorization REQUEST: The Community Development Department- Planning Division requests the City Commission hold a Public Hearing for the aesthetic review of Bruster's Real Ice Cream. PURPOSE: To encourage creative, effective, and flexible architectural standards and cohesive community development consistent with the intent and purpose of Article XI -Minimum Community Appearance and Aesthetic Review Standards. APPLICABLE LAW AND PUBLIC POLICY: Ordinance 2003-43, Aesthetic Review Standards, City of Winter Springs Section 9-601. Approval prerequisite for permits. Section 9-605. Submittal requirements. City of Winter Springs Code of Ordinances Section 20-486. Signs (2) Ground mounted single-tenant identification sign. (4) Building mounted single-tenant identification sign. CHRONOLOGY: Jan. 26, 2004- City Commission adopted Ordinance 2003-43, establishing minimum community appearance and aesthetic review. Nov. 22, 2004- City Commission approved the general conceptual layout of the project which included architectural renderings. CONSIDERATIONS: 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 ~r January 24, 2005 PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 407 Page 2 of 9 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 architecturaland engineering data as maybe 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 project is located within the SR 434 Overlay District. The building sits back from the property line at SR 434 approximately 84 feet. The applicant has turned the building so that the drive through is to the rear, as required by the SR 434 Overlay District Guidelines. Access to the site is from SR 434. (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. The only other recent submittal was for an expansion to the Venetian Square (informally known as the "Piggly Wiggly" shopping center or Village Market Place Shopping Center) approved on June 14, 2004 which is across the street. Venetian Square included standing seam metal roofs with neutral colored EIFS above and below. Bruster's features are complementary to Venetian Square. (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 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. There is only one building. (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. The color choices selected for the Winter Spring's Bruster's are not the standard red and white utilized in most locations. The colors have been customized to fit with the surrounding area. January 24, 2005 PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 407 Page 3 of 9 (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 project is attractive and will be an asset to the community. (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 upgraded materials beyond the standard Bruster's prototype. The building includes a brick facade on all elevations. The brick selected is slightly variegated and is known as Endicott "Autumn Sands". The awning is not vinyl but rather a standing seam metal roof. The color is a subdued red. The applicant has worked diligently to understand and meet the City's requirements. FINDINGS: ^ The proposed project is consistent and compatible with the SR 434 design specifications. ^ This new addition will enhance this part of the City with the addition of a new retail commercial building. ^ The new building will utilize colors and materials that fit in with the adjacent existing and proposed structures. ^ Signage as proposed meets the SR 434 Overlay District requirements. However, the applicant requests input from the Commission, as to whether they would consider supporting a waiver to the 16 SF area for building facade Signage (see Attachment F). The Hacienda Village entrance monument impacts visibility of the site and results in a special condition that does not result from the actions of the applicant. Does the Commission consider this as having an obvious unreasonable result meriting a waiver request? If so, the applicant would make application to the Board of Adjustment for consideration. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff has reviewed the Applicant's request for aesthetic review and has found it to be in compliance with the intent of Ordinance 2003-43 and recommends that the City Commission approve the Aesthetic Review and direct the Applicant as to whether a waiver might be supported for varying the size of the building facade Signage. ATTACHMENTS: A Minutes from City Commission meeting of November 22, 2004 B Site Plan C Building Elevations with Signage D Monument Sign and Photo of the Site E Proposed Building Colors F (Alternative) Building Fagade Signage COMMISSION ACTION: January 24, 2005 PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 407 Page 4 of 9 ATTACHMENT A Minutes from City Commission meeting of November 22, 2004 REGULAR AGENDA REGULAR 503. Community Development Department Recommends The City Commission Consider And Provide Direction Regarding The Proposed Conceptual Architectural Rendering For Bruster's Ice Cream. Ms. Sahlstrom introduced this Agenda Item. Discussion ensued on the Elevations. Mr. Ayube (Benson) Kahn, 1464 Wescott Loop, Winter Springs, Florida: spoke on his proposed Ice Cream store, and remarked that "I'm asking if we can have solid door there instead, for security purposes." Manager McLemore added, "That's your front elevation -that is the dilemma." Discussion. Commissioner McGinnis inquired, "Is there a place to sit and eat ice cream?" Mr. Kahn said, "I can always put a few benches." Discussion ensued on the requested door situation. "I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE DO APPROVE THE ELEVATIONS DRAWINGS AS PRESENTED THIS EVENING WITH THE EXCEPTION THAT IT CAN BE A SOLID DOOR -FOR SECURITY PURPOSES." MOTION BY COMMISSIONER McLEOD. SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER McGINNIS. DISCUSSION. VOTE: COMMISSIONER McGINNIS: AYE COMMISSIONER McLEOD: AYE COMMISSIONER BLAKE: NAY DEPUTY MAYOR MILLER: NAY MAYOR BUSH: AYE MOTION CARRIED. January 24, 2005 PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 407 Page 5 of 9 ATTACHMENT B Site Plan January 24, 2005 PUBLIC HEARING TI'EM 407 Page 6 of 9 ATTACHMENT C Building Elevations and Signage Proposed Building Facade signags (as allowed by Codej. Maximum copy area allowed is #8 SF {as depicted belo«~). :~F a~ r r , Elevation does not accurately depict foundation planting. Please refer to planting plans to see location of foundation plantings, - ~i~: ~.,~ ,,: I ~-- a. r: ,;. .. ': 1 .................... 4 January 24, 2005 PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 407 Page 7 of 9 Monument Sign ATTACHMENT D t=rzotx~s~a Mortt;r~r~r stc~ tAS At~NOi=a zo n~~~t;T cao~;-see nn~rrts aet ~, l ~,. x f Mo~u~~NT S~Ur~ s~ FoaT~~: ~.5` ~. c~' _ ~5sgft The maximum height for nwnument sign is rwt td exceed 8'-0". mns can be accem~ist~ed h3' reducvxz the tQ 1 "-6°. ~E.~T ~11C;~ INpaCT Iv~~TER.l4l_ g'-~" 6'-0' ~'2.!p CaR.D ~'LD.5513LIC. ~ area rxr the cop~baard - i~~ated~t~red> of to exceed 17 SF. 5,,~• P12DTECT~VE C_EAR lrE.xaN CD1~~R 1~INC,'ED FPM ~ ~Vj LDCIC~ CDVEa.INC,' CDpYC~D,4RD ~CGN FaC~- 6° ~~TTER.~ (380 ~C5 gET) BRU~+STER'S cereal icecrcam. ~ .~ Photo of the Site January 24, 2005 PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 407 Page 8 of 9 ATTACHMENT E Proposed Building Colors These colors blend with the previously approved concept elevation. However, colors may vary slightly from original, due to reprographics. -~~ .. ~~~~ January 24, 2005 PUBLIC HEARING TEEM 407 Page 9 of 9 ATTACHMENT F (Alternative) Building Facade Signage Size comparison between signage allowed by code and Applicant's original submittal- 16 SF vs 51.75 SF: BRUf~STER'S ~: s~• cha.wuc rkarry BRU f STER'S!~ cereal ice cream Previously approved concept elevation: