Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005 07 11 Public Hearing Item 401- Reconsider Item 405 of June 13, 2005; Balconies on Building 16 071105_COMM]ublic_Hearing_ 401_Reconsider_BalconL Width Page I on COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM 401 Consent Informational Public Hearing X Regular July 11, 2005 Regular Meeting /// /7/' iF' / De t. Authorization Mr. REQUEST: Commissioner Michael S. Blake requesting the Commission to reconsider Public Hearing Agenda Item 405 of the June 13, 2005 meeting. PURPOSE: This agenda item is needed for the Commission to review its June 13, 2005 decision to require 2-foot deep balconies on Building 16, based upon additional graphics submitted to the City in support of 9-inch deep balconies. CONSIDERATIONS: . Commission rules provide for any Commissioner voting in the affirmative on the passage of an agenda item to request a reconsideration vote. . On June 13, 2005 the Commission rejected a request of James Doran Company to limit the width of balconies on Building 16 to 9-inches. This request was based upon the fact that Building 16 did not have a real occupiable second floor. Therefore, the balconies were not functional and only provided for decoration. This practice has been approved by the City Commission on previous buildings with false second floors. In the alternative the Commission approved a minimum depth of2-feet. FUNDING: N/ A 071105_COMM]ublic_Hearing_ 401_Reconsider_Balcony_ Width Page 2 of2 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Commission reconsider Commission Public Hearing Agenda Item 405 of the June 13, 2005 meeting. A TT ACHMENTS: 1. Graphics. 2. June 13,2005 Public Hearing Agenda Item 405. 3. Minutes of June 13,2005 public Hearing Agenda Item 405. COMMISSION ACTION: !cling #16 J..!'AL DORAN COMP;:,NY ,:~ - 1;_ i 1if' __ //? I...... ;'/'..'../'....'.."/./.~:..'.,/.,./.f<,.1r.,,'..:;:;:-;>/ ;tF~~,~:""."'" ',. ~! ( ; ,I , . -~-~ 'J \\ INI)( )\\ 11,1\ I ,\\1 N I II, . ~ . ~ JUIl!!: II ! iUiJ'rli '::~~- ~~ ," ..,,=,;;;::-:fr_ ~_. . f\!IIIIif' . ~ ' , : 'I ~' \VI 1'-.1)( )\\1 IRI /\ 1M! N r VVinll'r Springs - Bud /'/ CITY COMMISSION ITEM 405 Consent Information Public Hearin Re ular x June 13.2005 Meeting , MGR. ) '- IDEPT Authorization REQUEST: The Community Development Department- Planning Division requests that the Commission hold a Public Hearing for the Aesthetic Review of the JDC Town Center Building 16. The request does not include approval of the colonnade or trellis at the west and possibly southwest end of the building - this is still being addressed and must be brought forward later. 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 and aesthetic appropriateness set forth in Subsection 20-321 (b) (1) of the Town Center Code. 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. Section 20-321. [Town Center] Administration. CHRONOLOGY: January 24, 2005 - City Commission approved final engineering plans. March 15, 2005 - Pre-construction meeting held for acre portion ofthe 14+ acre site April 25, 2005 - City Commission approved revised final engineering plans CONSIDERATIONS: The submittal requirements for aesthetic review are set forth in Section 9-605 and include the 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 (t) other architectural and engineering data as may be required. The procedures for review and approval are set forth in Section 9-603. Subsection 20-321 (b) (1) ofthe [Town Center] Code states that the City Commission (in its capacity as the development review committee for developments with in the Town Center) "shall have authority within reason for approving all aspects of site planning and June 13,2005 Public Hearing Agenda Item 405 Page 2 of5 exterior architecture, including aesthetic appropriateness.. . and other site specific matters not delineated herein." The single story building is designed to look like a 2-story building. Section 20-327 requires at least 50 percent of the first floor facades facing a roadway (north and west elevations) to be provided with transparent glazing (15-70 percent for other than retail uses). Doors must be provided along these frontages at intervals not to exceed 50 feet. Subsection 20-326 (b) requires second floor balconies to extend at least 6 feet from the favade and extend across from 25 to 100 percent of the building front. The building is proposed with an ornamental balcony (essentially a window treatment) on a false second floor. Although the applicant is not required to have any balcony, a substandard balcony requires either a special exception or inclusion as a modification in the existing development agreement. Balconies, awnings, and marquees are required by Section 20-326 to be at least 10 above the sidewalk surface. Traditional down towns have awnings and marquees that extend as much as 12 feet out over the sidewalk from the front of the building. These provide relief from the sun and rain, creating an inviting area for the public to walk and interact with the adjacent business fronts. The building is depicted with a trellis at the north end, adjacent to the existing Cliff Rose Drive circle. Staff and the applicant's team have been working to provide an acceptable structure for outdoor dining in this area - one that will set the stage for the rest ofthe south side ofthe circle. As part ofthe site plan revision, the applicant agreed to move the large oak located in the parking island southward/southeast approximately 8 to 10 feet. The planting island is being enlarged to make survival ofthe oak more likely and to provide better shade for outdoor dining and gathering (another large oak will be planted near the southeast comer ofthe building, along Tree Swallow Drive). Staff believes a tasteful and effective canopy of some sort needs to wrap around the west side and southwest comer of Building 16 to provide adequate comfortable outdoor seating/dining/gathering space (place making). A trellis, by itself, would likely be bare for several months each year and would not protect patrons from rain, even when any vegetative covering was leafed out. Approval ofthe Building 16 aesthetic review should not include the features at the north end of the building (colonnade or trellis - which is yet to be resolved with staff) and should include a determination about the false balconies on the false second floor. 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 ofthe 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 building appears adequate, subject to (a) agreement about providing a tasteful and effective covered area at the west side and northwest corner of the 2 June 13, 2005 Public Hearing Agenda Item 405 Page 3 of5 building and (b) a determination about the false balconies on the false second floor. Awnings that extend farther out from the face of the building would effectively create more relief from the afternoon sun as well as from rain, creating more of a street that lures people to walk and look into windows. They would also lessen air conditioning costs. (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 most important aspect of this review is to create an effective interaction between the building and the adjacent circle area - and that this effective interaction be carried on around the rest of the circle that has not yet been built out. (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, roofline, hardscape improvements, and height or design elements. Except as noted, the building appears adequate. It is in harmony with the rest of the Doran site, but not a carbon copy of anything in the Town Center. (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. See above comments. (5) The proposed project is consistent and compatible with the intent and purpose ofthis 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. Except as noted, the building is consistent and compatible with the various City design criteria. (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 ofthe community. 3 June 13,2005 Public Hearing Agenda Item 405 Page 4 of5 The building has incorporated significant architectural features that hark back from early 20th century Florida, as can be seen at Rosemary Beach and Watercolor (in Walton County, near Seaside). Resolution of the covered area at the west and northwest end of the building appears to staff to be the primary outstanding issue. This can be resolved while the building is being designed or constructed - but before any certificate of occupancy is issued. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff Review found the Applicant's request for Aesthetic Review, in compliance and recommends approval, subject to the (a) future resolution ofthe west and northwest end ofthe building and (b) a Commission determination regarding the false balconies. ATTACHMENTS: A Site Plan & Building Elevations COMMISSION ACTION: 4 CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA MINUTES CITY COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING - JUNE 13,2005 PAGE ]0 OF 29 ith discussion, Deputy Mayor Michae . . Blake stated, "I would be willing to approve it s . ect to them coming back to the M er and his Staff with the appropriate actual produc - they have got to bring a window in e and show them where it is going to go and how . is going to look and have the Ma ger sign off on it." Commissioner McGinnis a d, "That is good." Commissioner Gi ore also stated, "Good." Discussion ensued the color of the proposed Gol art Building matching the Clubhouse. Mayor Bu said to Mr. Christovich, "You wi take the mountains out?" Mr. Christovich stated, " "I MAKE A MOTION T APPROVE IT SUBJECT T MANAGER'S APPROVAL OF THE FINAL US OF WINDOW PRODUCTS, CO R, SIDING, ROOF, AND ROOFING - AND EV YTHING ELSE." MOTION B DEPUTY MAYOR BLAKE. MAYOR SH STATED, "SECOND BY COMMISSIONER GILMORE." DISCUS N. TE: CO MISSIONER McGINNIS: AYE COM SIONER GILMORE: AYE COMMIS ONER MILLER: AYE DEPUTY MA: OR BLAKE: AYE COMMISSION KREBS: AYE MOTION CARRIE PUBLIC HEARINGS 405. Community Development Department - Planning Division Requests That The Commission Hold A Public Hearing For The Aesthetic Review Of The JDC Town Center Building 16. The Request Does Not Include Approval Of The Colonnade Or Trellis At The West And Possibly Southwest End Of The Building - This Is Still Being Addressed And Must Be Brought Forward Later. Mr. John Baker, AICP, Senior Planner, Community Development Department spoke on this Agenda Item. Discussion. Mayor Bush called a Recess at 8:42 p.m. The Meeting reconvened at 8:54 p.m. Further discussion ensued on the orientation of Building 16. CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA MINUTES CITY COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING - JUNE 13,2005 PAGE 11 OF 29 Commissioner Miller returned to the Commission Chambers at 8:55 p.m. Deputy Mayor Blake returned to Commission Chambers at 8:56 p.m. Discussion ensued on with parking problems that Commissioner Krebs had recently encountered at the Town Center. Tape 2/Side B Further discussion ensued on parking challenges and a possible Parking Garage. Commissioner Miller spoke on the merits of "CityPlace" in South Florida and suggested we consider something like "CityPlace" - "Because the alternative is that we build a parking garage because we absolutely have to, but we haven't really thought it through. We need one and I think we need to seriously start looking at where it is going to be; and we need to have some very firm plans presented by the City Manager to us because I do believe the City is going to have to fund this garage probably with Bonds or some kind of debt instrument; so we need - to think about it now, not next year or the year after. He needs to bring this back to us." Mayor Bush stated, "Commissioner Miller has made a suggestion that the Commission direct the Manager to bring back information on a Parking Garage..." Commissioner Miller added, "... Where it would be located - a solution." Mayor Bush then said, "We need to have consensus on this to direct the Manager to do that." Commissioner Gilmore noted, "There is a consensus." Commissioner McGinnis stated, "Yes, there is." Deputy Mayor Blake stated, "Yes." Commissioner Krebs remarked, "Yes." Further discussion. Mr. Rick Maxian, Project Coordinator III, Randall Paulson Architects, 85-A Mill Street, Suite 200, Roswell, Georgia: addressed the City Commission on the proposed building and window features. 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. Manager McLemore noted, "Staffs recommendation has approval of basically the building and giving us the flexibility to work on the end of the building to try to make it as much a storefront there and people place, as we can." CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA MINUTES CITY COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING - JUNE 13,2005 PAGE 12 OF 29 "I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE THE AESTHETIC REVIEW OF THIS BUILDING 16." MOTION BY COMMISSIONER GILMORE. SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER McGINNIS. COMMISSIONER GILMORE ADDED, "WITH THE COMMENTS AND THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT THE CITY MANAGER, STAFF, REACH AN ACCEPTABLE AGREEMENT WITH THE DEVELOPER ON THE TREATMENTS AWNING TREATMENTS..." MANAGER McLEMORE NOTED, "...WE'LL BRING THAT BACK TO YOU FOR FINAL..." COMMISSIONER GILMORE CONTINUED, "...BRINGING THOSE BACK IN LINE." DISCUSSION. MAYOR BUSH REMARKED, "DOES THE MOTION ENCOMPASS THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION ON PAGE 4 OF THE AGENDA ITEM - SUBJECT TO THE FUTURE RESOLUTION OF THE WEST AND NORTHWEST ENDS OF THE BUILDINGS AND B, A COMMISSION DETERMINATION REGARDING THE FALSE BALCONIES." DEPUTY MAYOR BLAKE SAID TO COMMISSIONER GILMORE, "SO YOUR MOTION DOES NOT INCLUDE THE FALSE BALCONIES?" COMMISSIONER GILMORE NOTED, "I AM GOING WITH WHAT THE ARCHITECT HAS SUGGESTED." COMMISSIONER GILMORE FURTHER EXPLAINED, "THE WINDOW TREATMENT AS PRESENTED." MR. MAXI AN EXPLAINED, "IT WILL NOT BE A GREAT BOTTOM OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT - IT IS GOING TO BE A COVERED BOTTOM, SIMILAR TO BUILDING 1 - IF YOU HAVE BEEN DOWN TUSKA WILLA [ROAD] ON BUILDING 1, THAT IS THE EXACT LOOK WE ARE GOING FOR. THESE RIGHT HERE WILL BE A LITTLE SHORTER BECAUSE OF THE PROPORTION OF THE BUILDINGS FROM BUILDING 16 TO BUILDING 1. BUILDING 1 HAS A THIRTY-FIVE FOOT (35') HIGH PARAPET SO THE PROPORTIONS - WE BROUGHT THAT BALCONY - THAT WINDOW TREATMENT, THAT BALCONY OUT A LITTLE BIT FURTHER. I THINK IT COMES OUT TWO FEET (2'). THIS WOULD JUST BE A SMALL - PROJECTION, NINE INCHES (9") OUT, BUT IT WILL GIVE THAT SAME FEEL." DEPUTY MAYOR BLAKE SAID, "FROM THE FACE OF THE BUILDING IT IS NINE INCHES (9")." MR. MAXI AN STATED, "THAT'S CORRECT, YES - THIS WILL BE A CMU [CEMENT MASONRY UNIT] BUILDING WITH A STUCCO APPLICATION AND NINE INCHES (9") OUT FROM THAT." "I WILL MAKE A MOTION THEN THAT WE CHANGE IT FROM NINE INCHES (9") AND MAKE IT A MINIMUM OF TWO FEET (2')." AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION BY COMMISSIONER MILLER. SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER McGINNIS. DISCUSSION. CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA MINUTES CITY COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING - JUNE 13,2005 PAGE 13 OF 29 VOTE: (ON THE AMENDMENT) COMMISSIONER MILLER: AYE COMMMISSIONER GILMORE: AYE DEPUTYMAYORBLAKE: AYE COMMISSIONER KREBS: NAY COMMISSIONER McGINNIS: AYE MOTION CARRIED. VOTE: (ON THE MOTION, AS AMENDED) COMMISSIONER KREBS: AYE DEPUTYMAYORBLAKE: AYE COMMISSIONER McGINNIS: AYE COMMISSIONER MILLER: AYE COMMISSIONER GILMORE: AYE MOTION CARRIED. Further discussion ensued on the previous Motion. Mr. Leigh Colyer, James Doran Company, 216 Seven Farms Drive, Suite 200, Charleston, South Carolina: stated, "As I understand your request, you would like a rendering - of the window showing a two foot (2') balcony and a nine inch (9") balcony." Commissioner Krebs stated, "Yes." Tape 3/Side A Mr. Colyer explained, "I think it would be better to do a professional drawing and show it to you." REGULAR AGENDA REGULAR 500. Public Works Department Providing The City Commission The Relevant History To State Road 434 Access Management Plan. Commissioner Miller first spoke on this Agenda Item. Manager McLemore left the Commission Chambers at 9:53 p.m. Discussion. Attorney Garganese left the Commission Chambers at 9:54 p.m.