Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006 11 13 Public Hearings 200 Aesthetic Review Lake Jesup Shores COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM 200 Public Hearing 200 November 13, 2006 Meeting MGR./DEPT. REQUEST: The Community Development Department - Planning Division requests the City hold a Public Hearing for the Aesthetic Review for Lake Jesup Shores, a 76-unit townhouse project located on 8.7 acres in the Town Center on the north side ofSR 434, at Wagner's Curve- a prominent location and gateway to the Town Center. PURPOSE: The purpose of this agenda item is for the Commission to consider, provide comment on, and approve, approve with conditions and/or modifications, or disapprove the Aesthetic Review documents for the Lake Jesup Shores project in the City of Winter Springs Town Center which is being planned by the Daly Design Group. Ryland Homes is the prospective builder. The purpose of the Aesthetic Review process is 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 REGULATIONS: Winter SorinJls Comorehensive Plan. [specifically] Future Land Use Element. Urban Central Business District. Objective 5.2: Design Criteria for UCBD. Policy 5.2.7 Ci/v of Winter SorinJls Code of Ordinances Chapter 9, Article XII. Minimum Community Appearance and Aesthetic Review Standards. Sections 9-600 through 9-606. Chapter 20, Article III, Division 12 (Town Center District Code), Sections 20-320 through 20-327. No Development Agreement has been formulated for this project. CHRONOLOGY: April! 0, 2006 -Preliminary Subdivision/Engineering Plan approved by City Commission April 25, 2006- Staff met with Applicant's team to address architectural embellishment requirements June 09,2006- Comments provided to Applicant on Architectural Elevations Sept. 05, 2006- Staff met with Applicant's team and provided substantial comments on submittal Sept. 21, 2006- Applicant resubmitted Aesthetic Review Package with minor changes and requested to be on the Commission Agenda. November 13, 2006 Public Hearing Item 200 Page 2 0f 6 Oct. 16.2006- Comments received from Dover-Kohl CONSIDERATIONS: The lake Jesup Shores project is proposed at Wagner's Curve on the north side of State Road 434. The bend in S.R. 434 at this location gives the site prominence as the western gateway to the City's Town Center. The property is also prominent visually as you leave the Town Center District headed west on S.R. 434. In April, the Applicant received Preliminary Subdivision and Engineering Approval. The triangular site has some challenges which were recognized in the approval; however, associated with this approval, the Applicant was given a directive by the Commission to significantly enhance the appearance of the buildings (see Attachment 'B', Minutes). Over the past several months, Staff has met with the Applicant to address architectural embellishment requirements. The resulting submittal is much improved, yet still fails to incorporate many of the architectural requirements included in the Town Center Code and enumerated in the aesthetic review code (Section 9-603). Regardless, the Applicant is asking for a waiver from these requirements and seeks Commission approval of the attached Aesthetic Review submittal package. 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 project has a prominent setting along S.R. 434 at Wagner's Curve, the western gateway to the City's Town Center. Although the triangular shape of the site presents some challenges, it also presents several opportunities unique to this location. These include potential views of lake Jesup from upper unitslfloors or balconies, as well as views of Central Winds Park, access to the Cross Seminole Trail, and a site that includes a change of grade. While the horizontal layout of the site has been substantially improved, the vertical design largely ignores the opportunities associated with the site's topography. Fourteen (14) buildings face the perimeter streets, creating a street edge. The relationship of the project to each abutting street (e.g. building line, sidewalk location, first floor elevation) should be consistent with the street types set forth in Sec. 20-325 with the build-to line at 10'. The applicant has included sections that detail a variation in this relationship and requests a waiver. 2 November 13, 2006 Public Hearing Item 200 Page 3 of 6 Five (5) buildings face S.R. 434. In the past, the Commission has required units along S.R. 434 to include greater architectural embellishment. However, in the submittal, all eighteen (18) buildings include identical detailing and embellishment. The buildings along S.R. 434 should have greater architectural detailing and could include a two-unit building type designed to look like large single family homes, similar to the paired villas included at Sonesta Pointe. The buildings are unified by styling and detailing, materials, and color scheme. There are predominantly three color schemes that utilize a variety of earth tone colors and that are utilized among the eighteen (18) buildings. Colors help accentuate the individual units. Black ornamental fencing is proposed along the perimeter of the site and is detailed in the submittal. The Applicant is not proposing project identification signage at this time. The Code [so 20-324(5)) requires not just the building entrance but the first floor elevation to be 24" above the sidewalk. The Applicant is requesting a waiver from this for all of the units. Dover-Kohl has commented that the raised finish floor is critical (see Attachment). (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 closest development that has been formally approved within the surrounding area (that is not yet constructed) is the West End Professional Offices. Both are three-stories in height. [Existing developments already constructed include Heritage Park and Parkstone. However, these developments are not in the Town Center and were developed under different design criteria.] (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. The project includes eighteen (18) buildings which include a total of seventy-six (76) townhouse units. All units have front stoops at the entrance. Stoops are required to be 6' deep [so 20-326(e)). The depth of the stoops is not identified on the plans. Fifteen (15) of the eighteen (18) buildings are 4-unit buildings. The other three (3) buildings include two (2) 5-unit buildings and one (1) 6-unit building. Fac;ade variation between units is achieved by using four (4) different stoop types, three (3) different column types, two (2) different dormer types, and through color and material changes, within the same building. These differences do not follow a cohesive theme, but rather artificially attempt to give the impression of architectural detailing. Fifteen (15) of the eighteen (18) buildings is an exact replica of one another (except in color, as there are two color schemes utilized). All seventy-six units units have identical window and door placement. Windows facing streets are required to be vertically oriented [so 20-327(g)(1)). The Applicant is including one horizontal window on the front of each of the units. 3 November 13,2006 Public Hearing Item 200 Page 4 of 6 The identical window and door placement is particularly obvious on the rear of the units. Previously, the Commission has expressed concern over the rear of units being too similar. Gable-ended rooflines are continuous with no variation, except for a few false dormers on the front facade. The roofline needs to be more varied, which would add significantly to the aesthetics of the project. A variation in the roofline could be accomplished by stepping the building. This would also accommodate the site's change in grade. At the 4/10/06 Commission meeting, there was considerable discussion about putting more money into the finishes of the buildings, to enhance them - make them more striking and make this a unique place. The plans for the proposed project are excessively similar and lack diversity. Additionally, the Comprehensive Plan [FLU Element Policy 5.2.7] requires development in the Urban Central Business District (Town Center) to "include diversity in detailing and style while maintaining aesthetic harmony". At a minimum, some of the units could be "flip-flopped" within the building to create some variation in door and window locations. A shared entrance could camouflage the fact that there are two separate units, especially if the facade is treated to look like one larger unit so that the building massing is disrupted in various configurations. (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 use of stucco, accentuated with Hardie plank, is similar to other buildings along S.R. 434 in the Town Center. Some brick veneer should be utilized to tie the units in with the brick fence columns. The units are required to have an expression line to delineate the division between the first and second story to create a shadow line. The submittal includes an expression line under the third floor windows. This gives the appearance of the third floor sinking into the other part of the building and does not meet code [so 20-327(a)]. The Applicant is asking for a waiver. Windows include mullions (slender dividing strips that divide a window into panels as opposed to undivided plate glass) and trimming. Each unit includes a front stoop and a covered open-air living space in the rear over the garage. No front porches or balconies are included, resulting in the project having a very inward orientation, more similar to a gated suburban development. The Town Center Code orients buildings toward the street. Although rear porches are not prohibited, the emphasis is to be toward the street. Rear porches should be the exception not the rule. The applicant could vary the units by including some with front porches. Balconies or porches looking out over Central Winds Park and the Cross Seminole Trail would be an asset to the project and to the park, while advancing the intent and goals 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. SR 434 design specifications) and other applicable federal state or local laws. The Lake Jesup Shores aesthetic package with its associated amenity package, fails to meet the requirements of the City's design criteria as specified in the Code. 4 November 13,2006 Public Hearing Item 200 Page 5 of 6 (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 buildings include fac;ade enhancements of stucco, accentuated with Hardie plank siding and pre-manufactured stone along the front and side foundations. Each unit includes a stoop. There are four differentiations of stoop detailing. Two of the options include standing seam metal roofs. Other building roofs utilize dark grey or black architectural grade shingles. Exposed rafter ends (or tabs) are not utilized but are strongly encouraged. Some of the units include shutters. The code requires shutters to be full-sized, operable, and not made of plastic. The Applicant is requesting a waiver so that the proposed shutters do not have to be operable. Some of the front stoops have a railing around the top with a flat roof, giving the appearance of a balcony. However, there is no means of access to this area, either real or implied. A window is the only opening to this area. The project includes several areas that are identified as "pocket parks" (at the site's perimeter corners). These areas have enhanced landscaping and in some cases, specialty paving and benches. A gazebo is centrally located in the open area adjacent to the pool. The pool is not detailed in the submittal, nor is the open area, that previously contained a building. At the 4/10/06 Commission meeting, there was considerable discussion about creating a park area out of the space where the one building was removed. This is not demonstrated. If there is a pool or community building, or mail kiosk, it is not included in the submittal. A pergola with benches is located between the pool area and the alley and is constructed of pressure treated pine. Another pergola is located in "Pocket Park A" at SR 434 and Central Winds Parkway. A 3' decorative aluminum fence surrounds the entire site. Pedestrian gates are flanked by decorative brick columns. Brick is not used anywhere else. Locations of pedestrian gates are not identified. The fencing graphic is not to scale and makes the gate appear to be 6' and does not identify the column height. Proposed street lighting meets the Town Center standard and includes the Flagler luminaire and Washington fluted decorative concrete poles. Upgraded regulatory signage (street signs, speed limit signs, etc.) is not addressed but also needs to meet the upgraded Town Center standard. FINDINGS: . The site has a Town Center FLU designation and Town Center Zoning; . The Town Center boundaries are also those of the Urban Central Business District; . The proposed development is located at the western gateway to the Town Center; . The building elevations include architectural detailing adding to their appearance and the quality of the proposed project, but present a non-cohesive fac;ade; . The buildings utilize colors and materials that complement adjacent buildings and buildings in the Town Center; . However, the proposed project is inconsistent with Comprehensive Plan FLU policy 5.2.7; . Additionally, the proposed project has not implemented critical elements of the Town Center Code. The applicant seeks a waiver from these. Although these waiver requests may appear insignificant, such requests erode the character of the Town Center and the investment that Staff and City Commission has worked so hard to implement; . Despite the appearance of the buildings being oriented to the street edge, the detailing of the building elevations is only a fac;ade embellishment. The units fail to have the relationship to 5 November 13, 2006 Public Hearing Item 200 Page 6 of 6 the street mandated by the Town Center code. (Interior finish floor elevations are at grade and not raised 24"); . A memo from Dover-Kohl (Attachment 'A') includes three pages of concerns, in addition to Staff's comments included herein; and . The proposed development is inconsistent with the Commission's directive of April 12, 2006. RECOMMENDATION: Staff's review found the Applicant's request for Aesthetic Review not in compliance and recommends that the City Commission provide any guidance the Commission deems appropriate. ATTACHMENTS: A - Dover-Kohl Comments B - Minutes from April 10, 2006 Preliminary Subdivision/Engineering Plan Approval C - Aesthetic Review Submittal Package COMMISSION ACTION: 6 ATTACHMENT A DOVER, KOHL &: PARTNERS lown planning Memorandum To: City of Winter Springs Cc: Victor Dover From: James Dougherty Date: 16 October, 2006 Subject: Comments regarding Lake Jesup Shores REGARDING THE PLAN · As has been mentioned in previous memos, a large problem with the plan as it is currently configured is that it contains front-and-back-of-building conflicts, which undermine the internal block structure of the layout. The primary problem is that in certain locations on the plan, the fronts of units face directly toward the backs of other units. Please refer to the diagram below. (The red lines mark the front sides of the buildings). · The layout of buildings on the site should 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 along spaces faced by the fronts of buildings is important. Building fronts / backs conflicts currently occur in the plan and need to be resolved. This green space should be part of the streets, parks, squares system, but currently the only way to access it is to wind indirectly through the spaces between buildings or though an alley. [t should be possible to access this space via a street. The units around the perim- eter of the site are facing the surrounding streets with their fronts. This is good and should be maintained. The fronts of these four rows of build- ings look into the middle of the block at the backs of other buildings. This is a problem. The pocket parks at the corners of the site are faced by the sides of buildings instead of the fronts, making them less well acti- vated as parks. These very visible "knuckle" sites will be very valuable in the future should potentially be platted for cu.c;tom corner buildings. 1571 Sunset Drive, Coral Gables FL 33143 Phone (305)666-0446 Fax (305)666-0360 Plans, images and other items produced by Dover. Kohl & ~"anners arc for purposes of illustration only and do nol represent a guarantee of any kind. These items are in\trumenls of service which remain Ihe property of Dover. Kohl P'd.rtners and may not be duplicated without pennission. Dover. Kohl & P'.Htners shall not have control over and \haU nOI be responsible for constnlcrion means, proc<..-dures. safety precautions. or legal di~df)~ure~ in the implementation of the project, or for errors or omissiollf) by future consultants. devcl0pcrs, contractors, or government. REGARDING THE SECTION . The raised finished floor for residential units, as required by the code, is critical to create a com- fortable level of privacy when units are located 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 of rooms (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 connect the two floor levels. · More information should be provided regarding how the retaining walls will appear in elevation from the west across the pond, and from the south from S.R. 434. These elevations should also depict the relationships between the various building units, the street, and the changes in grade. 1571 Sunset Drive, Coral Gables FL 33143 Phone (305)666-0446 Fax (305)666-0360 Plans. images and other items produced by Dover. Kohl & flanners are for purposes of illustration only and do n(ll represent a guarantee of any kind. These items are in~trumenls of service which remain the pwpeny of Dover. Kohl P'drtners and may not be duplicated without pennission. Dover. Kohl & P"<1nncrs shall not have control over and shall not be responsible for construction means, procl-dures. safety precamioTU>, or legal disclosures in the implementation ofthl' project, or for errors or omissions by future consuhams. developers, comractors, or governmem. REGARDING THE FRONT ELEVATIONS · Variation of building height and roofline would improve the scale of the buildings' massing. . The first finished floors should be actually raised a minimum of 2'. The present configuration attempts to fake a raised first finished floor. · The first floor windows are too squat. This is resulting from the improper treatment of the first finished floor elevation. After the first floor is raised to a minimum of 2' as required by Code, the proponions of the first floor windows should be improved. · Care should be taken to design building details in an authentic manner. As an additional ref- erence for architectural details, refer to Traditional Construction Patterns, by Stephen Mouzon (McGraw Hill, 2004). REGARDING THE SIDE ELEVATIONS · Side elevations visible from public spaces should be given the same amount of attention & de- tailing as front facades. This facade presently looks underdesigned. · Windows should line up in a more logical pattern. · First finished floor should be raised a minimum of 2'. · First floor windows are too squat. · As an additional reference for architectural details, refer to Traditional Construction Patterns, by Stephen Mouzon (McGraw Hill, 2004). 1571 Sunset Drive, Coral Gables FL 33143 Phone (305)666-0446 Fax (305)666-0360 Plans, images and other items produced by [Jover. Kohl & Panners are for purposes of illustration only and do not represent a guarantee of any kind. These items are Instruments of sCIVice which remain the properlY of Dover. Kohl Pmtners and may not be duplicated without pennission. Dover, Kohl & P'dnncrs shall not have control over and shall not be responsible for construction means, procedures. safety precautions, or legal dj~clf)sures in the implementation of the project, or for errors or omissions by future consultants. developers. contractors, or government. ATTACHMENT B CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA MINUTES CITY COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING - APRIL 10,2006 PAGE 16 OF 38 FURTHERMORE, ATTORNEY GARGANESE STATED, "THE PLANS SAY FINAL ENGINEERING, SO JUST FOR THE RECORD, I DON'T WANT IT TO BE CONFUSED AS FINAL ENGINEERING PLANS." COMMISSIONER GILMORE NOTED, "I HAVE SERIOUS CONCERNS ABOUT THE PARKING IN HERE. I HAVE HAD IT THE LAST TIME. IT IS CROWDED IN THERE, UNDER - mE BUILDING PARKING WHERE YOU HAVE HEAD TO HEAD PARKING, I CAN SEE DIFFICULTY IN THAT. I JUST PERSONALLY THINK IT IS JUST ENTIRELY TOO DENSE. I FELT THAT THE LAST TIME, AND THESE DRAWINGS HAVE NOT COME BACK WITH ANY BETTER COMFORT FEELING FOR ME." VOTE: COMMISSIONER GILMORE: NAY DEPUTY MAYOR BLAKE: AYE COMMISSIONER MILLER: AYE COMMISSIONER KREBS: AYE (COMMISSIONER KREBS SAID TO MR. STEVENSON, "IN THE FUTURE, MAYBE THERE IS A WAY THAT YOU CAN ALSO LOOK AT THE REPLACEMENT TREES OR WHOEVER IS IN CHARGE AND REALLY CONSIDER LOOKING INTO WHAT WE ARE REPLACING AS TO WHAT WE ARE TAKING AWAY.") COMMISSIONER McGINNIS: AYE MOTION CARRIED. REGULAR 308. Community Development Department Requests The City Commission Review The Proposed Preliminary Subdivision/Engineering Plans for Lake Jesup Shores. Mr. John Baker, AICP, Senior Planner, Community Development Department introduced this Agenda Item. Tape 4/Side A Comments by Mr. Baker continued. Discussion CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA MINUTES CITY COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING - APRIL 10,2006 PAGEI70F38 "MOTION TO EXTEND." MOTION BY COMMISSIONER McGINNIS. SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER GILMORE. DISCUSION. VOTE: COMMISSIONER MILLER: AYE COMMISSIONER KREBS: AYE COMMISSIONER McGINNIS: AYE COMMISSIONER GILMORE: AYE DEPUTY MAYOR BLAKE: AYE MOTION CARRIED. Further discussion. Mr. Tom McCarthy, Vice President, Land Development, Ryland Homes, 4700 Milennia Boulevard, Suite 400, Orlando, Florida: addressed the City Commission and first commented that "Flex space is a den, a bedroom, a home office space on the first floor - and these are three (3) story townhouses." Furthermore, Mr. McCarthy noted, "It is - part of a twenty-seven, thirty (27, 30) acre site that was divided through by the old [State Road] 434 and now the new [State Road] 434 is through it, so it is this triangular or crescent shaped tract of land." These are our units that we plan to do on this site. There are four (4) units here, differentiated by color for this particular drawing. Stucco and hardie board planking, metal roofs over the porches on the front. They share a front porch. There is a stone treatment along the base of the units all the way around." There's projections in the building, that they pop out in locations. The rear elevations of the buildings are such that the garage is down below. There's a door here that you cannot see in this plan - when I get - floor plan, you'll be able to see it; a balcony and glass up above on the third floor. The side elevations, you get to see the projection of the front porch is here. The driveways - they are two (2) car garages in each unit. There's room outside the garage for parking two (2) cars outside of the alley which is twenty feet (20') in width which is by directional alley. In other jurisdictions, that's a road. I just want to pass that on to you because sometimes when we say alley, we're thinking there are places where around the Central Florida area where an alley is ten feet (10') wide - the serving townhouse product. So, all of the alleys that are shown in this plan are twenty feet (20') wide. This is our three (3) story floor plans. That's the garage. It's recessed in. And, one of the things when we were designing this, working with Dover, Kohl [& Partners], during the summer of last year, this is a compact footprint. Doing detached garages to break grade, makes the units bigger, they have a bigger footprint. This is approximately with the front porch on, about sixty-seven feet (67') in length. That's the garage, two (2) car garage, flex space; living area is on the second floor and then the bedrooms are on the third floor. CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA MINUTES CITY COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING - APRIL 10,2006 PAGE 18 OF 38 One of the issues about trying to do this and trying to keep costs within the reasonable constraint on this site is also giving the City what it's looking for - the window placement on the first floor is in relationship to the sidewalks that are out here. This is the front steps up to the front porch and then we have an intermediate landing inside the building which lets you walk down to the flex space room and through the garage and then there is another set of stairs that would take you up to the second floor. The site plan is pretty unique. It is 8.7 acres. We've gone through and spent a lot of time on it. There's actually twenty foot (20') of fall from that point to that point, across that side. You may not see it along [State Road] 434, but there is that much fall. Right through here, we sized the pond to take all of the development that's sitting on this part and what we're working with, essentially, is the constraint of three (3) streets surrounding the outside of this parcel. And that we've been sort of directed to direct our building product to the existing road network that's there in place. So, all our units on a perimeter face out to this road system that's in place. That stormwater detention pond is sized for that development. We've actually gone through enough engineering to get that to the right shape and size. We have the constraint of the - there. We have to do a lift station somewhere on the site. This end is higher than this end. There's approximately twelve feet (12') of fall across this site right now, the way it's being designed. We have - a retaining wall at this section here. The end - the pond and allow the building to start. We've done a little different than the Village Code requires or asked for. It's asking for placing these units right up against the curb. Or, at the zero (0) setback to the porch from the sidewalk. We've honored that in that location at eight feet (8'). This is fourteen feet (14') back from the right-of-way to the face of the building. The porch is still extending out eight feet (8'). Over here we are thirty-five feet (35'). We felt that not putting residential that close to [State Road] 434 right-of-way was not a good idea. So, we pulled that back and that's where the tree planting would go, and we hope to save some of the trees that are in that location. That is what you get when you take our minimal footprint townhouse and a fifteen foot (15') of driveway extended beyond the building which has already got a five foot (5') overhang and a twenty foot (20') alley. So, that red represents our boundary conditions that we have to honor to meet what everyone is looking for on this exterior exposure. That leaves the white section in there for the rest of the property. When you start doing this and you have the alley, some of these units naturally would fall that this alley would serve this townhouse, plus that townhouse. We've done the same thing over here. And, what we've done is created a Village Green here along with our pool and cabana facility in this location. So, all of these - this is the front of these units. All circle around this Village Green area. CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA MINUTES CITY COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING - APRIL 10,2006 PAGE 19 OF 38 Previous drawings had us with just a pool and cabana and no screen wall here and really no parking in this location. And, one of the comments came back that we have a frontlback issue. That the front of these units were looking into the garages of these. We addressed that in one iteration of the drawing. We actually put in a screen wall back in through here that breaks up this Village Green area. So, one of the comments of trying to get the street to the park area which is a desirable thing, also sets up the condition of the front to back looking into the garages of others. So, it's been a compromise going along trying to balance the site. That's what the park areas look like, what's left over. The Village Green in here. There's another small area here with the mail kiosk gazebos. We've also done in another island here what's left in white is the alleys that are - not been identified yet as either the reds or the - green. That is the only building that doesn't honor the front to back." Manager McLemore asked, "Which building?" Mr. McCarthy replied, "The blue. The one I just turned on. Which is right there. That's the alley servicing this building, this building, the front of that building overlooks this lower park area. It does sit up on top of a retaining wall. We've drawn a retaining wall into this drawing. We don't know exactly how tall they're going to be until we get down to the Final Engineering on it. But, we felt that we could not handle the two to three percent (2-3%) grade along these slopes. You take a look across the street here, you'd be hard pressed to find one percent (1 %) to cross that entire length. And, that's more typical in a townhouse product than trying to match it with two to three percent (2-3%). Two to three percent (2-3%), just to give you an idea of what that is, on a four (4) unit building, that's two and three foot (2 and 3') difference from one end to another. Buildings are only a hundred feet (tOO') long. One of the comments from Dover, Kohl [& Partners] was gap areas in the end here. And, we have not supplied this to Staff. This is the first time you're seeing it also. What the- pocket parks would look like. These are the filler spots that we haven't gone through putting buildings on or other improvements on. Trying to give you a scale of this thing, this is old [State Road] 434 here and Central Winds Parkway is sitting here. This is really the land that's left over right there. Now, it looks like you could put another unit in there, but we think we have a little better solution for the treatment of that edge. This is the comer of [State Road] 434 and Central Winds Parkway which would be right there. The gazebo structures, sidewalk system tying in to the [State Road] 434 and Central Winds Parkway sidewalk system. This is the west end of the site again, one building sitting here and the next one here. This is another gapping that Dover, Kohl's [& Partners] is talking about." CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA MINUTES CITY COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING - APRIL 10,2006 PAGE 20 OF 38 Mr. McCarthy continued, "The Lift Station sits over here; we have to get our underground drainage and gravity sanitary to the Lift Station so we're putting it here at the edge. We took a stab at the Site Plan that was attached to the Agenda package tonight; and we've done a refinement and what - was suggested was sixty foot (60') right-of-way and unfortunately this one is not showing very well. But, that sixty foot (60') would be right through here. And, we have the unit sitting right on top. We wind up with some of these on that Site Plan, some of the units extended to the Stormwater Pond when we've taken the liberty of straightening that out because the Pond is probably at the right size. This - drawing drops the unit count down to about seventy-four (74). It doesn't show any retaining walls that may be necessary through there. We didn't - go much further. We stopped at this point - ran out of time. We have green space here where the pool cabana was. The pool cabana would have to get moved down to here into that space which is - drawn in there. It's not the same concept as our Village Green plan. There's a thought that you can put more units here at some of these end conditions. What happens to us is that we still have to have twenty foot (20') of driveway wherever you try to get into a unit. So, we're trying to slide another unit in here - it doesn't get you too much. You could physically draw the unit, but you can't have someone driving a car into their garage. That cross street that we just talked about here, where would it come out? Which would give that one (1), two (2), three (3), four (4) buildings a street to situate the front door on, winds up coming out in this location here; and, this location here. Now, we struggled a little bit with the Village Code for ourselves. Usually these cross streets connect to something or drive you to something, or takes you to something. In this location here it's taking you to the park and here it's taking you to the softball fields and the storm water ponds. It sort of doesn't leave a continuity - a path to travel. The only ones who use this thing are these - residents in here who use it to get to the alley to park their cars." Further discussion. Commissioner Gilmore inquired, "How many bedrooms do you have - are all these three (3) bedroom homes?" Mr. McCarthy said, "It's two (2) and three (3) bedrooms per unit, plus the flex space. So, you could have four (4) bedrooms." Commissioner Gilmore then asked, "Is that a typical floor plan of all the units then?" Mr. McCarthy replied, "Yes that would be typical - we may have some internal reconfigurations now too, so they wouldn't necessarily all be the same." Commissioner Gilmore added, "You have three (3) given bedrooms for sure?" Mr. McCarthy responded, "Right." CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA MINUTES CITY COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING - APRIL 10. 2006 PAGE 21 OF 38 Mr. Keith Bass, Division President, Ryland Homes, 4700 Milennia Boulevard, Orlando, Florida: stated, "The third floor would have two (2) options. This is the three (3) bedroom option; there would also be a two (2) bedroom option, so, those back two (2) bedrooms would become one (1). It's a dual master plan. So, those would be your options on level three (3). Level two (2) has a great room - that's kind of a living room, dining room plan. It would have a great room plan, but no bedrooms on that second floor. And, then the flex space. Although we think most people are going to finish it out like a family room or a play room, it would have the ability to add a bathroom down there, so technically it could be a bedroom. So, you could in theory have up to four (4), although I don't think that's really where we think the target market is. It's going to be more of a two (2) bedroom or three (3) bedroom." Discussion. Mr. McCarthy said, "We're showing six (6) in that configuration; and what would happen, we'd drop that four (4) unit building. That six (6) probably becomes a four (4) and gets pressed. We may wind up just going to a six (6) here. So, that four (4) would drop. That would go to six (6) and that probably goes to a six (6)." Deputy Mayor Blake said, "How are we handling the change in elevation area?" Mr. McCarthy said, "We don't know yet. We've had the same concerns that we may have to add some retaining wall systems in here and create breaks - we may have to take one of the units and actually split it or split the one end, one half higher than the other." Furthermore, Deputy Mayor Blake said, "You still don't avoid your situation on the ends that Victor [Dover] was worried about. There's no way to close that, outside of building ~ wall that goes around the comer." With further discussion, Mr. McCarthy said, "We're not there yet, for that. And that would be the condition here - we did pull this one back because of utility issues; and we've left some room here, just not to push things to the edge. The edge condition of pushing them right up against the right-of-way and the sidewalk is probably more important if there was something across the street to it. An off-setting street and here it's - all open space, park, and play fields," Tape 4/Side 8 Manager McLemore said, "I would agree with Commissioner Blake. If you could put those buildings, line those buildings - again here, you have a good second plan to look at. " With further discussion, Manager McLemore suggested, "Personally, rather than making you spend a hundred thousand dollars ($100,000.00) on the street, I would rather see the money put into the finishes on the building, to make the buildings more striking - stone, something that - makes the buildings - add value to the buildings; and admit that this is just a unique place." CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA MINUTES CITY COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING - APRIL 10,2006 PAGE 22 OF 38 Additionally, Manager McLemore noted, "Can we put more money into the buildings..." Commissioner McGinnis remarked, "... I agree..." Manager McLemore continued, "...And make them a better quality; particularly on the finishes and all that and don't worry about the street." Discussion continued. Commissioner Miller asked, "Can you take care of all front and back issues if the blue building went away?" Mr. McCarthy said, "Yes, that is the only one." Commissioner Miller then asked, "Okay - and that would be green space - that would be great." Mr. McCarthy said, "There's sidewalk systems all throughout this that we didn't try to highlight. So, you don't get somewhere and you can't walk to the outside of the property or to the cabana pool area from every unit." "I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE THIS PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN WITH THE PROVISO THAT THEY TAKE UNDER SERIOUS CONSIDERATION THE ELIMINATION OF THE BLUE BUILDING, THE BLUE FACILITY THERE, AND ENHANCING SOME OF THE OTHER - FOR GREEN SPACE, ENHANCING SOME OF THE OTHER AREAS WHERE THERE MAY BE AN ISSUE - OF LOOKING AT THE BACK OF OTHER BUILDINGS." MOTION BY COMMISSIONER MILLER. MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. "I WOULD MOVE THAT WE APPROVE THE PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION ENGINEERING PLANS - THE SECOND PLAN, ELIMINATING THE FOUR (4) UNITS. BUT, WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THERE WOULD BE A SIGNIFICANT EFFORT MADE TO ENHANCE THE APPEARANCE OF THE BUILDINGS." MOTION BY COMMISSIONER McGINNIS. MANAGER McLEMORE STATED, "AND I WASN'T TALKING ABOUT - THOSE THINGS THAT WOULD ADD TO THE VALUE TO THE WAY IT LOOKS." COMMISSIONER McGINNIS NOTED, "UPGRADE THE APPEARANCE." COMMISSIONER MILLER STATED, "AND, IT WOULD BE TURNED INTO A PARK AREA..." COMMISSIONER McGINNIS STATED, "...YES." COMMISSIONER MILLER ADDED, "GREEN SPACE." MAYOR BUSH STATED, "SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MILLER." DISCUSSION. VOTE: COMMISSIONER McGINNIS: AYE COMMISSIONER KREBS: AYE DEPUTY MAYOR BLAKE: AYE COMMISSIONER GILMORE: AYE COMMISSIONER MILLER: AYE MOTION CARRIED. Aesthetic Review Booklet August 2006 Jesup Shores Table of Contents Lake Jesup Shores - Requested Waivers Lake Jesup Shores Requested Waivers Lake Jesup Shores Typical SR 434 Sections Lake Jesup Shores Typical Hicks Ave. and Central Winds Parkway Sections Lake Jesup Shores 4 Unit Front Elevation Lake Jesup Shores 4 Unit Front Elevation LAKE JESUP SHORES 4 UNIT REAR ELEVATIONS LAKE JESUP SHORES 4 UNIT REAR ELEVATIONS LAKE JESUP SHORES 4 UNIT SIDE ELEVATIONS LAKE JESUP SHORES 4 UNIT FRONT ELEVATIONS LAKE JESUP SHORES 4 UNIT REAR ELEVATIONS LAKE JESUP SHORES 4 UNIT SIDE ELEVATIONS LAKE JESUP SHORES 5 UNIT FRONT ELEVATIONS LAKE JESUP SHORES 5 UNIT REAR ELEVATIONS LAKE JESUP SHORES 5 UNIT SIDE ELEVATIONS LAKE JESUP SHORES 5 UNIT FRONT ELEVATIONS LAKE JESUP SHORES 5 UNIT REAR ELEVATIONS LAKE JESUP SHORES 5 UNIT SIDE ELEVATIONS LAKE JESUP SHORES 6 UNIT FRONT ELEVATIONS LAKE JESUP SHORES 6 UNIT REAR ELEVATIONS LAKE JESUP SHORES 6 UNIT SIDE ELEVATION LAKE JESUP SHORES 6 UNIT FRONT ELEVATION LAKE JESUP SHORES 6 UNIT REAR ELEVATION LAKE JESUP SHORES 6 UNIT SIDE ELEVATION , ------------------- @ / / \' '\ '\ \" '\, \ \- \j .~.__/. '-'-'/ -c - m ::J ;""Clro. g5~SQ) z=oo..:;;- 000""'" :. 5:; 5' 0. \)'01-=(1) o~5'2'(I) : bt ad -. ~~> .(0 'oI<r:J C..lo:> ;:j~(Il ~(O ~'oir"'" :)""1\)00 .. ~ 0':: C 8,:.!'l15"'Q ~~g~ b~5'Q. ~t.:J;'. 00." ~Oo Cl' ::: Q" :; -50 ~8:';' ~ 1::1 ~ ~ C..l.g. 0.\:;0 ~o- .;:":.:: 0. :> o = ~. s - Q ~ 3 (') " o _ ; :. / ./ i~ / 3.. 1\ , \) ~' ~a . ~ ~ ./ s~ i / ~~ ~ ~ (' ~ :II X V ~ i ~~ .: ~ ~ % -C ~ l'\ 0 n ~ CD ... -C D) .., ~ ft )> \II . "4 Cl Q ; '?:J :1- < ==-;;-I :~ t!O ~ .. , ~~..,,,,~ .. - :::: r-l g:;s:mz .1:: ",,,,(J) wI: 0 Ga- It ~ CI ;,.. g SII ~ ~!~ ol!~ "';a: G5 '" ,. ~ ; , . 0 OJ CD 1J r+ CD CD m ... ~ -. CC n - s: en 0 0 ::r - )> Q. m 'U CD 'U -< iir ~_. ()::J ()!l 0' ;ug -(JJ o~ ~!!1 ."1 0 ::J (.lll) rjCD CO::J :J1l (1)- - (J) III UJ'< < CD CD .., ::J Ul 0 ::r LAKE JESUP SHORES POCKET PARK B LAKE JESUP SHORES POCKET PARK C LAKE JESUP SHORES POCKET PARK D LAKE JESUP SHORES GAZEBO DETAILS LAKE JESUP SHORES FENCE DETAILS LAKE JESUP SHORES PERGOLA DETAILS LAKE JESUP SHORES RETAINING WALL DETAIL LAKE JESUP SHORES SITE AMENITIES LAKE JESUP SHORES SITE AMENITIES: SEATING