HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001 08 02 Regular E Design Issue with James Doran
Add On Agenda E
August 2, 202001
Page 1 of2
COMMISSION AGENDA
ADD-ON
ITEM E
CONSENT
INFORMATIONAL
PUBLIC HEARING
REGULAR X
08/02/01
Meeting
MGR. V /DEPT
Authorization
REQUEST: City Manager requesting the City Commission to review a status report on
the Town Center, and to provide staff with direction the Commission deems appropriate
regarding a design issue with James Doran relative to the proposed Publix.
PURPOSE: This agenda item is needed to update the Commission on an issue with James
Doran regarding the design of the Publix building and to receive any direction the Commission
deems appropriate.
CONSIDERATION: Due to the size and timing of construction of the Publix building, the
design of the Publix building will in large part determine if the Town Center will reflect a real
Neo-Traditional Town Center architecture, or if the Town Center will wind up a strip mall with
window dressing.
If this is to be a strip mall, the City did not need to spend the money it is spending for road,
utility, and drainage improvements as an incentive to build the Town Center. The Marketplace
would do this over time with no assistance from the City.
Victor Dover and James Doran are at what appears to be an impasse over the Publix. Staff has
attempted to find common ground. Attempts to date have been unsuccessful. (See Attached)
Alternative 1. Allow Doran to move ahead with their current design.
Alternative 2. Authorize the City Manager to advise Doran that the current design is not
acceptable and must be amended to be more in line with our consultant's recommendation.
Alternative 3. Set up a mediation team consisting of Victor Dover, James Doran's architect,
city staff, and possibly one or two Commissioners.
Alternative 4. Employ a third party neo-traditional architect to mediate and make
recommendations to the Commission. The mediator would be paid Yz by Doran and Yz by the
city. This could be done quickly and relatively inexpensively. Probably less than $5,000 per
party
FUNDING: No cost to city for Alternative 1,2, and 3. Alternate 4 could probably be done for
less that $5,000 per party.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Alternative 4.
ATTACHMENTS: Victor Dover's e-mail of August 1,2001
COMMISSION ACTION:
Jan Palladino
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Victor Dover [vdover@doverkohl.com]
Wednesday, August 01, 2001 2:48 PM
Charles Carrington
Joe Kohl; James Dougherty; Ron McLemore
Concepts for dealing with the dead side of Publix, facing SR 434
Importance:
High
Charles:
We've been going back over all the alternatives we have suggested over the
months for dealing with the problem of the blank supermarket wall facing SR
434. If the supermarket is built as currently proposed, both the community
image and the functionality of the Town Center will be impaired. The lack of
pedestrian activity on that side along the frontage road will be seriously
detrimental to the Town Center concept. This would be true, whether it is a
plain blank wall or a slicker, tarted-up blank wall.
As you look over this long list, perhaps you can understand why I am
frustrated. Again and again we've brought up legitimate ways of fixing that
frontmost blank wall, to avoid having this crucial first phase of the Town
Center look like the conventional strip shopping center Winter Springs does
not want. Each time the applicants or the supermarket chain have refused to
modify anything but surface decoration.
REAL SOLUTIONS FOR THE BLANK WALL PROBLEM (recommended)
1. [GOOD] Attaching a newsstand or the like along the SR 434 side (so that
it is not all display cases)
(rejected by developer applicant)
2. [BETTER] Adding a liner building (probably with apartments upstairs),
with stairs and entrances beyond an arcade
(rejected by developer applicant)
3. [BEST] Multiple storefronts: actual windows into Publix (i.e. Kroger,
Birmingham MI)
(rejected by developer applicant)
4. [BEST] Positioning the supermarket in the midblock, so "normal"
buildings surround 3 sides; would require smaller box)
(rejected by developer applicant)
5. [BEST] Adding a full-quality, multistory, mixed-use liner building with
storefronts along the ground floor
(rejected by developer applicant)
FACADE MANIPULATIONS (generally not recommended)
6. [ACCEPTABLE?] Reconfigure sidewalk/parking, install foundations &
utilities for future liner building, paint the box. and wait for a future
phase
7. [BAD] Deep display cases (detailed like bay windows? no cavity wall)
(rejected by developer applicant)
1
8. [BAD] Deep display cases (cavity wall)
(rejected by developer applicant)
9. [WORSE] Blind windows with superior-grade architectural treatment I
embellishments, made to appear like real windows
10. [WORST] Shallow display cases (poster-depth)
ALTERNATIVE I MULTIMEDIA SOLUTIONS (looking for solutions that the
applicant has not already rejected)
11. [? IT DEPENDS] Mural(s) I public art I signage art I trompe l'oeil
12. [? IT DEPENDS] Something wild and unprecedented, like video-wall
installations or... ?
Charles, I am anxious to speak with you or Ron again about this.
We can't in good conscience recommend or endorse any of the facade fakery or
clunky add-on treatments that the applicants' consultants have proposed so
far, since they will not truly activate the street side. I sensed that you
and Ron were inclined to hold your ground and ready to let the applicants
walk away, if they continue to refuse to fix this blank wall. Yet we can all
tell that this project is within striking distance of something very
special-- they are so close, if only they would be more creative with what
should be the last big issue!
If they just won't budge, with a heavy heart I could write a letter to the
Commission recommending rejection of the applicants' plan and withdrawal of
the special exception. What do you think?
--Victor
2