Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006 04 10 Regular Item 308 Lake Jesup Shores CITY COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM 308 Consent Information Public Hearing Regular X April 10.2006 Meeting MGR./Dept. REQUEST: The Community Development Department requests the City Commission review the proposed preliminary subdivision/engineering plans for Lake Jesup Shores. PURPOSE: The purpose of this agenda item is to bring to the City Commission, in its capacity as the Development Review Committee, the proposed preliminary subdivisiOn/engineering plans for the 80 town-home units and associated infrastructure on 8.7 acres in the Town Center on the north side ofS.R. 434, west of the high school and south of Central Winds Park. While the applicant has revised the plan several times, the current subdivision plan has at least 3 inconsistencies with the Town Center Code. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS: Section 9-46. Filing and contents of preliminary map and plan. Section 9-47. Action on preliminary plan by city council. Section 9-48. Reasons when preliminary plan is disapproved; conditional approval. Section 9-49. Approval of preliminary plan to be construed only as authority to submit final plan. Chapter 20, Article III, Division 12. Town Center District Code (sections 20-320 thru 20-327). Chapter 20, Article VI, Division 2. General Design Standards for New Development Area (sections 20-463 thru 20-475). April 10, 2006 Regular Item 308 Page 2 CHRONOLOGY: Throughout 2004, various concept plans were presented to and reviewed by staff (at least one iteration reviewed by Dover Kohl & Partners - August 24 Dover Kohl memo) December 2, 2004 January 6,2005 January 17, 2005 March 24, 2005 April 12,2005 April 13, 2005 May 2, 2005 May 26, 2005 May 31,2005 June 16,2005 June 23, 2005 July 15, 2005 August 29, 2005 October 3,2005 November 1, 2005 December 7, 2005 January 9, 2006 February 7,2006 March 14, 2006 March 28, 2006 Incomplete application package without fee provided to the City Incomplete application package without fee provided to the City Dover Kohl memo Application package (68 units) and fee provided to the City Staff review City Manager's letter to Tom Daly Re-submittal Dover Kohl memo Staff review City Manager and staff met with applicant to discuss outstanding issues Peter Leerdam memo to the City Manager City Manager and applicant addressed the plan with Dover Kohl in Miami Dover Kohl notified staff that a resubmittal had been provided to them was a major improvement, but still had front-back issues Revised plan (80 units) provided to the City Staff review Subsequent iteration provided to Dover Kohl Peter Leerdam letter to the City Manager Dover Kohl memo Resubmittal The applicant's team met with the City Manager and staff to reconcile inconsistencies between the plan and the Town Center Code Staff provides applicant with alternative design sketch CONSIDERATIONS: The crescent-shaped 8.7 acre parcel was created when SR 434 was relocated (to eliminate a 90 degree curve) and 4-laned. The treed site is located south of Central Winds Park and west of the Winter Springs High Schoo1. There are no known wetlands or listed species on the site. The Cross Seminole Trail extends generally east and west along the north side of Old SR 434, across the street from the site. The site is located within the Town Center Future Land Use designation and also within the Town Center zoning district. Across SR 434, to the south and west, is Heritage Park, which was developed as a hybrid, utilizing certain Town Center features (the presently undeveloped 1.6 acre commercial portion of that project is required by a development agreement to conform to Town Center standards). The site is not clearly prescribed for block size or street types by the Town Center Code, since it was not originally considered within the master plan, which included the Squares, Parks and Streets Map. Buildings along SR 434 are setback approximately 35' and are depicted with a double allee of trees, to create an aesthetic buffer between the town homes and the busy SR 434. Another positive feature is that the units around the perimeter face the adjacent streets. One problem, however, as noted in the January 9,2006 Dover Kohl memo, is that the subdivision is designed as one large block, rather than being divided into at least two residential blocks. No true vehicular or pedestrian street is proposed April 10, 2006 Regular Item 308 Page 3 through the subdivision. Building fronts should face away from the center of the blocks, toward the streets, squares, etc. Building backs should face the center of the blocks. Dover Kohl also stresses the importance of pedestrian connectivity across the site along building fronts. Small block size (pedestrian scale and spatial definition), mixed land uses with character and meaningful destinations, buildings fronting the street, street trees, narrow interconnecting streets with on-street parking, and low traffic speeds are key factors for creating a walkable community. From a new urbanist standpoint, everything revolves around walkability. Indeed, from a new urbanist standpoint, walkability is considered an important marketable product (proximity to parks, preserves, and trails is another marketable product). The applicant has met with staff on numerous occasions to discuss various site layouts that could accommodate the applicant's preferred town home product. Staff and Dover Kohl have raised the front- back issue, whereby the front of some units (e.g. units 56-59) look into the rear of other units, in violation of Section 20-325 of the Town Center Code, which reads as follows: "The front of a building and its main entrance must face the primary space... Alleys are covered under General Provisions, as they are never fronted by main structures". Interior open space is provided, but is not provided access through a street (access to interior is through alleys). Staff has also noted the gaps between various buildings (e.g. between units 1 and 80, 20 and 21, 41 and 42,47 and 48), some of which exceed the maximums set forth within Section 20-325 ofthe Town Center Code. The project would be best served by either modifying the building product or providing other buildings to fill the gaps (a less optimal but acceptable alternative would be to provide garden walls with decorative gateways across these gaps). These other buildings could be built by the applicant or other entities, to provide a commercial/office component to a truly mixed-use development. The commercial development could serve the town homes, the school, the park, the trail, or some combination of these, and could create a more vibrant integrated Town Center. It could provide necessities and amenities within the subdivision or serve as a reason for people to walk to the subdivision from, for example, the trail, the park, the high school, Heritage Park, or City Hall. Including live-work units would also add to the mixture of uses and vibrant nature of the Town Center. The applicant states that the on-site grade change (an average of approximately 2 to 3 percent across the undeveloped site) is a major impediment to neo-traditional development. They propose a town home product with a monolithic slab (each slab poured with the same finished floor elevation for that particular attached group of town homes, in contrast to a series of stepped elevations that would allow them to accommodate the on-site grade change without the massive retaining wall system). Staff notes that the site could be developed without the massively divisive retaining wall with an approximate 2 to 3 percent grade spread evenly over the site. Detached garages and/or stepped individual unit slabs (with different finished floor elevations for each unit) appear to be reasonable solutions that could be used to accommodate the site grade issue in a neo-traditional development. Staff understands that the applicant has spent a lot of time and money on various iterations of their plan and has even traveled to south Florida to meet with the Dover Kohl team. Dover Kohl and staff have April 10, 2006 Regular Item 308 Page 4 also spent considerable time and effort trying to make this a meaningful and functionally integrated part of the Town Center. The applicant has noted that this is a difficult site to work with. Staff has countered that this site has many positive features - adjacent to the Cross Seminole Trail and a nationally recognized park as well as potential views of Lake Jesup. The proposed project has several inconsistencies with key Town Center issues and new urbanism tenets. While staff recognizes that the shape of the site presents significant impediments to the traditional lot and block layout, staff is of the opinion that the layout could be modified to more closely reflect the basic tenets of the Town Center Code. FINDINGS: 1. The 8.7 acre subdivision is located within the City, has a Town Center Future Land Use Designation, and is located within the Town Center zoning district. 2. The subdivision will connect to City potable water and sanitary sewer. 3. The applicant has supplied the attached list of inconsistencies with the City Code. Others may exist. No development agreement or special exception applications have been provided to address the inconsistencies. 4. The attached January 9,2006, Dover Kohl memo addresses the significant inconsistencies between the proposed plan and the Town Center Code (e.g. front-back issues, lack of an internal street with sidewalks connecting to the internal green space, walkability, gaps between buildings, and raised finish floor elevations). RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Commission deny the preliminary subdivision / engineering plans for Lake Jesup Shores. ATTACHMENTS: A. Location map B. Letter from City Manager to Tom Daly C. Dover Kohl memos D. Alternative design E. Plans CITY COMMISSION ACTION: ATTACHMENT A Municipal Address Map Book PRINTED: REVISED: Apr 2005 1: City of Winter Springs, FL Page Developed By: Southeastern Surveying & Mapping Corp. 2: 2601 ATTACHMENT B CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA 1126 EAST STATE ROAD 434 WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA 32708-2799 Telephone (407) 327-1800 Ronald W. McLemore City Manager April 13, 2005 Tom Daly Daly Design Group, Inc. 913 N. Pennsylvania Ave. Winter Park, Florida 32789 Dear Tom: This letter is to confirm our discussion this morning regarding the proposed Ryland Development on S.R. 434 in which I offered the following comments. I . This is a much improved elevation. 2. We need to consider adding fenestration to the building comers to soften the edges. 3. The shutters on the widows will need to be operable shutters. A little more detailing around the windows would also be desirable. 4. The height of the porches is going to be a serious problem. Although the code calls for 24 inches to the top of the porch, we would prefer more, not less height. 5. We need to resolve the SR 434 street edge issue. Please provide Victor Dover with the front elevation showing the picket fence concept you have in mind. 6. You may want to consider incorporating some combination of brick and or stone with the stucco elevation to further enhance the quality of the exterior appearance. 7. None of these comments are intended to override any comments made by D.R.C. Please contact me if you have any additional comments or concerns. Sincerely, Ronald W. McLemore City Manager Ijp cc: Victor Dover, Dover Kohl & Partners Community Development Director U:\Docs\Word\Letters\05 Letters\April 05\TDaly Ryland Development Comments.doc ATTACHMENT C DOVER, KOHL & PARTNERS town planning Memorandum To: Randy Stevenson and John Baker City of Winter Springs Cc: Victor Dover From: James Dougherty Date: 9 January, 2006 Subject: Comments regarding Lake Jesup Shores plans & memo dated 7 December, 2005 Comments: Regarding the plan: 1. As has been mentioned in previous memos. a large problem with the plan as it is currently configured is that a number offront"and~back-of-building conflicts occur~ which undermine the internal bl,ock structure ofthe layout. The primary problem is that in several locations on the plan, the fronts of units face directly toward the backs of other units. Please refer to the diagram below. (The dark lines mark the front sides of the buildings): The front of this row of This green space should be part of the streets, parks. squares system, but currently the onIy way to access it is to wind ,indirectly through the spaces between buildings or though an alley. It should be possible to access this space via a street. The units around the perimeter of the site are facing the surrounding streets with their fronts. This is good and should be maintained throughout any edits. Plans. images and other items prodllced hy lJover, Kohl &. Partners are for purposes of illustration only and do not represent a guarantee of any kind. These items are Instruments of service which remain tile property of Dover, Kohl Partners and may not be duplicated without permission. Dover, Kohl &. Partners shall not have control over and shall not be responsible for contruction means, procedures, safety procautlons. or Iegal disclosures in the implementation of the project. or for errors or omissions by future consultants, developers. contractors, or government. 01/11/2006 13:30 3056660360 DOVER KOHL PAGE 02 Regarding Baker I Sahlstrom Comment #4: The concept ofuering the site is in itself not necessarily detrimental, as long as it does not damage the possibility subdividing the site with a true vehicular (or pedestrian) street faced by the fronts of buildings. The site as presently configured does not seem to have such an intem.al street. The site should ideally be divided into at least 2 blocks. Building fronts should face away from the center of the blocks (toward the streets, squares etc). Building back.s (the parking side) should face the center of the blocks. More information regarding the height of proposed tiers in. each location. is needed. More detail is also necessary to determine whether the :retaining walls will create problems with the way individual buildings meet the street such as with the height of the raised first finished floor. Regarding Baker I Sablstrom Comment #9: The spaces between buildings 20 & 21 and between 41 & 42 should bc closed with a garden wall, trellis, gateway, pavilion etc to make them code-compliant. The distances of buildings 1 and 47 from the street would be better if reduced somewhat (perhaps to a maximum of 20' so they resemble a small urban yard). The ROW should be built out with a garden wall etc as per the code. Regarding Baker / Sahlstrom Comment #1.0: As per page 1 of this memo, tbe layout of buildings on the site needs to be revisited. We have never suggested that the site's internal street network should be removed. We have suggested previously that an internal street(s) could be at least in part pedestrian-only. Pedestrian connectivity across the site alOl\g spaces faced by the fronts of buildings is important. Building fronts I backs conflicts currently occur in the plan. and l1eed to be resolved. Regarding Baker I Sahlstrom Comment #11: See previous comments regarding site walkability. It appears that the retaining walls may be causing interruptions in the sidewalks at the perimeter of the site. This would be a problem. More detail is needed regarding this issue. Regarding Bak.e:r./ Sahlstrom Comment #13: The raised fInished floor for residential units, as required by the code, is critical to create a comfortable level of privacy when units are locatcd in an urban way, close to the sidewalks, as they are in the Town Center. We do not recommend allowing a residential unit configuration where the entire ground floor is built at-grade as is shown in the latest drawings. If necessary in order to facilitate visitability and parking access, we could support allowing the rear half of a given unit to be built at-grade, provided that the entire layer ofrooros (the front half of the unit) abutting the front facade of each unit is elevated to a code-compliant elevation. An internal stair could be used to con.nect the two floor levels. Regarding Fields Comment #2: 4.65 onsite parking spaces per residential unit seems very high within the Town Center. The Town Center should have 'just enough' parking. Too much parking will push buildings and uses apart from one another and reduce walkability. We would support 'fewer onsite parking spaces especially if it makes improvements to the intemallayout of the project possible. Regarding Fields Comment #5: We recommend allowing the perimeter 3' fence as long as its design is code-compliant, and as long as gates are provided to allow acceSS to each unit facing the fence (it appears this is being done according to the latest drawings). The fence should however not be configured to prevent a minimum of at least one public street / pedestrian passage across the site to improve the site's walkability. Plans, images and other items produced by Dover, Kohl &. Partners and for purposes of iIlistration only and do not represent a guarantee of any kind. Those items are instruments of service which remain the property of Dover, Kohl Partners and may not be duplicated without permission. Dover, Kohl & Partners shall not have control over and shall not be responsible for construction means, procedures, safety precautions, or legal disclosures in the implementation of the Project or for errors or omissions by future consultants, developers. contractors. or government O5/25/2005 15:11 3055550350 DOVER KOHL PAGE 01 DOVER, KOHL &: PARTNERS town planning Memorandum To: John Baker City of Winter Springs Cc: Victor Dover From: James Dougherty Date: 26 May, 2005 Subject: Comments regarding the Lake Jessup Shores North project Comments: The below comments are preliminary in nature and reflect a review principally of main design concepts. They do not represent a complete review of the project 1. The Old S.R. 434 street section design should be amended to provide a 6 foot grass strip instead of the 3 foot grass strip shown. This grass planting strip and all grass strips between the sidewalks and streets should be planted with regularly- spaced shade trees. 2. The plan should be further amended to prevent views of the backs of units from street spaces. A particularly bad fronts/backs prolem occurs on the block northeast of "Stree A" This is essentially only a half block, so from the internal "Street A" the view to the north across the pool is almost entirely of the backs of units. This can be fixed by lining the northeast side of "Street A" with units to create a true 2-sided street space. It can also be fixed by building out the entire edge of the pool site along "Street A" with a pool-related structure. This structure could be a combination of interior enclosed space and pergolus/fences/ colonnades. It should be designed to provide an attractive edge to the northeast side of the street and should completely obscure the view from the street across the pool to the backs of units. 3. Care should be taken to minimize gaps between buildings such as those seen at the east and west ends of the project along S.R. 434. These gaps can be closed with garden walls and landscaping, and may be opportunities to add extra units. unbuilt wedges of land in these gaps should be lanscaped an my function as small pocket parks. 4. The, breaks between rowhouses in the southern block should be aligned to provide pedestrian passage from "Street A" to S.R. 434. This will help to subdivide this long block and give the project a finer grained pedestrian network. 1571 Sunset Drive, Coral Gables FL 33143 Phone (305)666-0446 Fax (305) 666-2360 Plans, images and other items produced by Dover, Kohl & Partners are for purposes of illustration only and do not repersent a guarantee of any kind, These items are instruments of service which remain thc property of Dover, Kohl & Partners and May not be duplicated without permission. Dover. Kohl & Partners shall not have control over and shall not be rosponsible far construction means, procedures, safety precautions, or legal disclosures in the implementation of the project, or for errors or omissions by future consultants, developers,contractors; or government. 05/25/2005 15:11 3055550350 DOVER KOHL PAGE 02 5. The use of a wide grass strip with a double row of shade trees along S.R. 434 could. be acceptable instead of a frontage road in this location. (The frontage toad is more critical in locations with potential retail or significant office, which would require the on~street parking provided by a frontage road). 6. The existing sidewalk along S.R. 434 will become redundant when the new sidewalk next to the fel1ce is in place. The existing sidewalk along S.R. 434 should then be removed. to make more room for regularly-spaced shade trees. 7. Care needs to be taken in the design of entry signage that it not look suburban in nature. Any signage should be'understated and elegant. Ideally, in a town center the sense of place serves the function of signage, rendering entry signs unnecessary. The City desires that individual projects add up to a complete Town Center over time, rather than appearing to be a collection of individual subdivisions. Any entrance signage should primarily indicate entrance into the Winter Springs Town Center, with the individual project I neighborhood. name in smaller type. Entry signage, if built, should function as civic art, combined with garden walls, benches for seating etc. The entry monuments of historic Coral Gables are good precedents. 8. The 5 foot wide gates leading to the units from the sidewalk appear to be too horizontal in proportion. They could possibly be designed as double doors to create a pair of vertically proportioned doors rather than. the single horizontal door. 9. The plan. appears to contain only one type of row house. This will not provide a resilient range of price points for product within the Town Center, and will be architecturally monotonous. More diversity of unit types should be provided. This could include building types such as: apartment buildingst flats, and detached types. Creative use of diverse building types could also be used to solve the front/back problem of the northeast block. 10. Regarding the design of the row houses, check the detailing of the stoops. A lintel should span the columns beneath the cornice. Please refer to the book traditional Construction Patterns by Steven Mouzon. It is one of the best new books we've seen regarding traditional building detailing. 1571 Sunset Drive. Coral Gable FL 33143 Phone (305)666-0446 Fax (305)666-0360 Plans, images & and other items produced by Dover, Kohl & Partners are for purpose of illustration only and do not represent a guarantee of any kind. These items are instruments of service which remain the property of Dover, Kohl & Partners and may not be duplicated without permission. Dover, Kohl & Partners sholl not have control over and shall not be responsible for Construction means, procedures, safety precautions, or IegaI disclosures in the implementation of the project, or for errors or omissions by future consultants, developers, contractors, or ,government. Jan-17-05 03:34P Dover. Kohl .& Partners 305 666 0360 P.Ol DOVER, KOHL & PARTNERS town planning Memorandum To:John Baker City of Winter Springs From:James Daugherty Date: 17 January, 2005 Subject:Comments regarding Daly Design Lake Jessup north shore project Comments: The below comments are preliminary in nature and reflect a review principally of main design concepts. They do not represent a complete review of the project. These comments are based upon review of fairly low-resolution pdfs. The sheets reviewed are 2011-2a SQCVR-Layout l.pdf and 2011-2a SI PSP-Layout 2.pdf. 1. The 52' ROW street section does not appear to conform to any of the street types permitted by the Town Center District code. This street section is problematic and should be revised to conform. The street section appears to show 12' travel lanes, which are too wide and will not provide adequate traffic calming. Additionally, a planting strip for street trees does not appear to be included. 2. The site plan as designed allows views of the backs of units from public street spaces. The plan should be amended to prevent views of the backs of units from public street spaces. A parlicularly bad fronts/backs problem occurs on the northeast block. This is essentialIy only a half block, so from the internal "Street A" the view to the north is almost entirely of the backs of units. 3. The plan appears to contain only one type of rowhouse. This will not provide a resilient range of price points for product within the Town Center, and will be architecturally monnotonous. More diversity of unit types should be provided. This could include building types such as; apartment buildings, flats, and detached types. Creative use of diverse building types couId also be used to solve the front/back problem of the northeast bIock. 4. The units appear to be slab-on-grade. The first finished floor should be elevated as required by the Code. 5. The breaks between rowhouses in tpe sou.thell"! plpck should be aligned to provide pedestrian passages from "Street A" to S.R., 434. This will help to subdivide this long block and give the project a finer grained pedestrian network. 1571 Sunset Drive. Coral Gables FL 33 I 43 Phone (305)666-0446 Fax:(305)666-0360 Plans, images and other items produced by Dover, Kohl & Partners are for purposes of illustration only and do not represent a guarantee of any kind. These items are Instruments of service which remain the property of Dover, Kohl, & Partners and may not be duplicated without permission. Dover, Kohl & Partners shall not have control over and shall not be responsible for contruction means, procedures, safety precautions, or legal disclosures in the implementation of the project, or for errors or omissions by further consultants, developers, contractors, or government. Jan-17-05 03:34P Dover, Kohl & Partners 305 666 0360 P.02 6. An aspect of the plan deserving merit is the placement of units to front the three surrounding streets (Central Winds Parkway, Old S.R. 434, and S.R. 434). This is a beneficial aspect or the plan and should be preserved. 1571 Sunset Drive, Coral Gables FL 33143 Phone (305) 666-0446 Fax (305)666-0360 Plans, Images and other items produced by Dover,Kohl & Partners are for puposes of illustration only and do not represent a guarantee of any kind. These items are instruments of service which remain the property of Dover, Kohn, & Partners and may not be duplicated without permission. Dover, Kohl, & Partners shall not have control over and shall not be resposible for construction means, procedures, safety precautions, or legal disclosures in the implementation of the project, or for errors or omissions by future consultants, developers, contractors, or government. Aug-27-04 05:l9P Dover, Kohl & Partners 305 666 0360 P.Ol DoVER. KOHL & PARTNERS town plannIng Memorandum To: John Baker City of Winter Springs Cc: Victor Dover From: James Dougherty Date: 25 Aug, 2004 Subject: Comments regarding Concept Plan 'E' for the Springs Land parcel Comments: 1. An additional right-in I right-out onto S.R. 434 would be very useful to reduce delays due to congestion when the High School traffic is heaviest in the morning and afternoon. 2. It would be better to locate the swimming pool in a more intemallocation within the project, to give it more distance from the traffic and noise on Central Winds Pkwy Dr. 3. Direct views of the backs of units from streets should he eliminated. This occurs with thc 4 townhouses just cast of the pond. These units would be better if rotated 90 degrees counter- clockwise, so that they face the pond. Traffic moving east on S.R. 434 would then see the fronts instead of the backs of the units. Front I back problems also occur with the 4 unit townhouse group and the 6 unit townhouse group on the northeast Comer of the site, as well as with thc 6 unit townhouse group just to the west of the 'out parcel' which has long views to the backs of units from the internal diagonal street. The placement of these units should be reconfigured to solve these front / back problems. 4. It would he best to align the breaks between buildings on the two rows of townhouses closest to S.R. 434. This will allow pedestrians to circulate within the site more smoothly. , ATTACHMENT D