Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011 04 25 Public Hearings 501 - Jesup's Reserve Aesthetic Review Compl COMMISSION AGENDA Consent Informational ITEM 501 Public Hearing X Regular MGR. /DEPT April 25, 2011 Meeting Authorization REQUEST: The Community Development Department requests the City Commission hold a Public Hearing for the revised Aesthetic Review for 10 buildings of Jesup’s Reserve, a 161-unit townhome development located in the Town Center District on the south side of the intersection of SR 434 and McLeod’s Way. _____________________________________________________________________________ SYNOPSIS: The applicant is requesting an Aesthetic Review for 10 townhome buildings in the Jesup’s Reserve townhome subdivision. The project is located in the Town Center District on the south side of the intersection of SR 434 and McLeod’s Way. The applicant is requesting the Aesthetic Review to remove 2 story units on 3, 4, 5, and 6 unit buildings and to replace the 2 story units with 3 story units due to lack of economic demand for these product types. The purpose of the Aesthetic Review 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. CONSIDERATIONS: APPLICABLE LAW AND PUBLIC POLICY Ordinance 2003-43, Aesthetic Review Standards, City of Winter Springs City Code of Ordinances, Chapter 9, Article XII. Minimum Community Appearance and Aesthetic Review Standards, Section 9-600 through Section 9-607 City Code of Ordinances (Town Center District Code) Section 20-320 through 20-327. City of Winter Springs Comprehensive Plan, Future Land Use Element, Policy 2.1.8 CHRONOLOGY Aug. 23, 2004-Concept Plan Approved by the City Commission for Jesup's Reserve Nov. 8, 2004-Pre-annexation Development Agreement Revision Approved by the City Commission Mar. 28, 2005- Concept Plan Revision Approved by the City Commission May 19, 2005- Site Development Permit Approved by the City Commission Aug. 8, 2005-Final Engineering & Subdivision Plan Approved by the City Commission Aug. 8, 2005-Development Agreement Revision Approved by the City Commission April 25, 2011 City Commission Item 501 Page 2 of 5 Sept 26, 2005- Aesthetic Review for the entire 161 unit development approved by the City Commission Nov 14, 2005- Jesup’s Reserve Plat approved by the City Commission July 23, 2007- Jesup’s Reserve Final Engineering and Development Agreement modification approved by the City Commission BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW The attached Aesthetic Review package is for 10 buildings of the Jesup’s Reserve townhome development that have yet to be constructed. The development was purchased by D.R. Horton after the project went into receivership. D.R. Horton is proposing to construct the remainder of the subdivision. The applicant is proposing minor architectural changes to a total of ten of the thirty-five townhome buildings; or specifically 5, 3-unit buildings, 3, 4-unit buildings, 1, 5-unit building, and 1, 6-unit building. The submittal requirements for aesthetic review are set forth in Section 9-600 through 9-607 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 is located within the Town Center District on the south side of the intersection of SR 434 and McLeod’s Way. The ten proposed townhome buildings are three-story structures with architectural-grade shingles. Three of the buildings have frontage along SR 434, six have frontages along the interior streets, and one has frontage along the retention pond which is located in the center of the development. All ten buildings include balconies and stoops that face directly onto the above mentioned streets and retention pond. In keeping with the established character of the surrounding townhome development, building rears and garages will be accessed from the alleyways. The proposed buildings are coordinated in a harmonious manner with similar styling and architecture, and include a good balance of textures and colors that are consistent with the previously approved elevations and existing buildings in the development. This exemplifies the neo-traditional concept of the Town Center District, and ties in with the existing Town Center development across the street. April 25, 2011 City Commission Item 501 Page 3 of 5 (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 proposed elevations are in harmony withthe architecture exhibited within the surrounding area. (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. Minor changes are proposed to each of the buildings from the originallyapproved architectural elevations. Modifications include changes to the design of the railings on the balconies and stoops, and color changes to one 3-unit building located in the northeast corner of the site, and one 6-unit building located in the southeast corner of the site. Additional changes include the removal of a sundeck on the rear of the buildings and replacement with an enclosed living area due to susceptibility of moisture intrusion. The sundeck areas will be enclosed and become a part of each unit’s living area. Other changes include the removal of 2 story units in the 3 unit, 5 unit, and 6 unit buildings and replacement with 3 story units due to lack of economic demand for 2 story product types. A reduction of the 2 story units is achievable without compromising the established character of the neighborhood. Staff believes that this reduction maintains the established character of the neighborhood. Moreover, the 6 unit building includes the addition of a continuous balcony across the mid section of the building. (4) The plans for the proposed project are in harmony with, or significantly enhance, the established character of other buildings, structures or signs in the surrounding area with respect to architectural specifications and design features deemed significant based upon commonly accepted architectural principles of the local community. The proposed elevations are in harmony with the established character of the existing buildings in the development. As previously mentioned, the changes that are being proposed by the applicant are relatively minor in nature, and will not allow construction of buildings that will be out of character with the architecture of the surrounding Town Center. Parking will still be provided in a 2-car garage that will be accessed via an alleyway or along the street. In keeping with the character of the existing development, the raised entryways of the first floor units will utilize the “eyes on the street” concept that the existing buildings in the development utilize. (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. Town Center guidelines, SR 434 design specifications) and other applicable federal state or local laws. The proposed aesthetic review package exceeds the requirements of the Code and represents a April 25, 2011 City Commission Item 501 Page 4 of 5 continuation of TND architecture for the remainder of the Jesup’s Reserve project. (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 building materials have not changed and are consistent with the previously approved building materials. In keeping with the established character of the development, and the requirements of the Town Center District Code, the townhouses are constructed of concrete block with a stucco finish and hardie board on portions of the front elevation for accent and to provide variation in the building texture. FINDINGS: The proposed amendments to the building elevations are consistent with the Town Center Code requirements. The building elevations include detailing and attention adding to their appearance and the quality of the development. The proposed Aesthetic Review package is consistent with the requirements included in the Town Center Code, the approved Subdivision Plans, and the approved Developer’s Agreement. The additional buildings that will complete the development will be an asset to Jesup’s Reserve and to the surrounding Town Center area with the addition of the new residential buildings that will allow the development to reach build-out. The proposed buildings utilize colors and materials that complement the adjacent existing structures and the surrounding Town Center District. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact associated with this agenda item relative to the modification of the aesthetic review. The aesthetic review is being requested by the applicant to facilitate more sales and should, therefore, represent additional revenue to the City via property taxes. COMMUNICATION EFFORTS: This Agenda Item Has Been Electronically Forwarded To The Mayor And City Commission, City Manager, City Attorney/Staff, And All eAlert/eCitizen Recipients; And Is Available On The City’s Website, LaserFiche, And The City’s Server. Additionally, Portions Of This Agenda Item Are Typed Verbatim On The Respective Meeting Agenda Which Has Also Been Electronically Forwarded To The Individuals Noted Above; And Which Is Also Available On The City’s Website, LaserFiche, And The City’s Server; Has Been Sent To City Staff, Media/Press Representatives Who Have Requested Agendas/Agenda Item Information, Homeowner’s Associations/Representatives On File With The City, And All Individuals Who Have Requested Such Information; And Has Been Posted Outside City Hall; Posted Inside City Hall With Additional Copies Available For The General Public; And Posted At Five (5) Different Locations Around The City. This Agenda Item Is Also Available To Any New Individual Requestors. City Staff Is Always Willing To Discuss This Or Any Agenda Item With Any Interested Individuals. April 25, 2011 City Commission Item 501 Page 5 of 5 RECOMMENDATIONS: Planning & Zoning Board The Planning & Zoning Board held a Public Hearing on April 6, 2011 and voted unanimously (5-0) to recommend approval of the revised aesthetic review package for Jesup’s Reserve project. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Commission approve the revised aesthetic review package for the remainder of the Jesup’s Reserve project. ATTACHMENTS: A.Attachment “A” - Aesthetic Review Package B.Attachment “B” - Jesup’s Reserve Homeowners Association Approval Letter C.Attachment “C” - Planning & Zoning Board Minutes – April 6, 2011 ߬¬¿½¸³»²¬ þÞþ ߬¬¿½¸³»²¬ þÝþ CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA UNAPPROVEDMINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY REGULAR MEETING – APRIL 6, 2011 PAGE 5 OF 9 VOTE: BOARD MEMBER CASMAN: AYE BOARD MEMBER SCHWARZ: AYE BOARD MEMBER PHILLIPS: AYE VICE CHAIRPERSON KARR: AYE CHAIRMAN POE: AYE MOTION CARRIED. PUBLIC HEARINGS 501. Community Development Department – Planning Division Requests The Planning And Zoning Commission Hold A Public Hearing For The Revised Aesthetic Review For 10 Buildings Of Jesup’s Reserve, A 161-Unit Townhome Development Located In The Town Center District On The South Side Of The Intersection Of SR (State Road) 434 And McLeod’s Way. Mr. Bobby Howell, AICP, Planner, Community Development Department introduced this Agenda Item and displayed a PowerPoint presentation of the development depicting the elevations. Mr. Howell then stated, “Staff recommends Approval that the Planning And Zoning Commission [Board/Local Planning Agency] forward a recommendation of Approval to the City Commission for the revised Aesthetic review package for Jesup’s Reserve.” Mr. Ryan MacDonald, 620 Riverview Avenue, Altamonte Springs, Florida: as the Applicant of this project and on behalf of D. R. Horton, Mr. MacDonald stated, “I would first of all thank you and we are honored and excited to be part of Town Center here in Winter Springs.” Mr. MacDonald commented, “In our Due Diligence phase, the original Aesthetic Review as Bobby (Howell) had discussed, included several of the sun decks that are on the original building. What we noticed is that there is really an opportunity for water to intrude on the building and you can see in several instances where that is happening already. One of the proposals that we have tonight is to eliminate those. We just think there are inherent problems with opening up the roof like that over the living space, and we want to be able to offer a better product to our homeowners and to the City overall. In addition, and to Bobby’s (Howell) point, we have much more interest in the three (3) story units over there than we did with the two (2) story units. The two (2) story units are actually 1,160 square feet of living space and this being upscale and a much more expensive place to live and the price that is going along with a unit for a 1,160 square foot unit just hasn’t gained much attraction with the customers - so, we have been able to propose eliminating – a total of nine (9) of the two (2) story units and replacing those with the three (3) story units.” CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA UNAPPROVEDMINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY REGULAR MEETING – APRIL 6, 2011 PAGE 6 OF 9 Vice Chairperson Karr asked, “Are you going to have elevators in these townhomes?” Mr. Mac Donald stated, “No.” Discussion. Chairman Poe opened the “Public Input” portion of this Agenda Item. Mr. Michael Allen, 199 McLeods Way, Winter Springs, Florida: addressed the Board Members and noted he was pleased that Jesup’s Reserve will be built out and is in favor of the proposed changes. Chairman Poe closed the “Public Input” portion of this Agenda Item. “I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE AESTHETIC REVIEW FOR JESUP’S RESERVE.” MOTION BY BOARD MEMBER SCHWARZ. SECONDED BY VICE CHAIRPERSON KARR. DISCUSSION. VOTE: BOARD MEMBER PHILLIPS: AYE VICE CHAIRPERSON KARR: AYE CHAIRMAN POE: AYE BOARD MEMBER CASMAN: AYE BOARD MEMBER SCHWARZ: AYE MOTION CARRIED. PUBLIC HEARINGS 502. Community Development Department – Planning Division Requests That The Local Planning Agency Hold A Public Hearing For Consideration Of Ordinance 2011-01, Amending The Comprehensive Plan To Incorporate The Annual Update To The Capital Improvement Element (CIE) Required By Rule 9J-5.016 FAC (Florida Administrative Code) And Chapter 163, Part II, F.S. (Florida Statutes). Ms. Eloise Sahlstrom, AICP, ASLA, Senior Planner, Community Development Department presented this Agenda Item and stated, “Generally, this update is in the Fall. This year we did not do the update because as you may recall, in the Fall we were Amending the Comp[rehensive] Plan to include Mobility Elements and in the Fall our new Bicycle And Pedestrian Advisory Committee started meeting; and as a result of their fine work and diligent effort, we now have the Pedestrian Plan and the Bicycle Plan and as a result of those efforts, we have been able to include some items in the revised Capital Improvement Program for the City.” Discussion.