Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007 10 22 Public Hearing 501 Aesthetic Review for 103-Unit Town-House Development In Winter Springs Town Center COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM 501 Consent Information Public Hearin2: X Re2ular October 22. 2007 Meeting MGR.ftAJ\ /Dept. REQUEST: The Community Development Department requests the Commission consider the aesthetic review for a 103-unit town-house development on 7.87 acres in the Winter Springs Town Center, located on the south side of Orange Avenue, immediately adjacent to Tuskawilla Trace (east), the trail (south), and Jesup's Landing (west). PURPOSE: The purpose of this Agenda Item is for the Commission to consider and approve the aesthetic review for a 103 unit town house development on 7.87 acres within the Winter Springs Town Center. ZONING AND LAND USE DESIGNATION: Zoning: Town Center Future Land Use Designation: Town Center Status: Final Engineering approved June 12, 2006; Aesthetic Review and Development Agreement pending October 22, 2007 APPLICABLE REGULATIONS: Comprehensive Plan Chapter 9, City Code. Town Center District Code (sections 20-320 thru 20-327). CONSIDERATIONS: Overview The approximately 8 acre site is located within the Winter Springs Town Center on the south side of Orange Avenue, north of a portion of the Cross Seminole Trail and the unimproved Hicks Avenue right- of-way (ROW), and immediately adjacent to and between Jesup's Landing and Tuskawilla Trace. On June 12,2006, the Commission approved final engineering/subdivision plans for 103 rear loaded (garage entrances in the rear, with access from an alley) town house units, a plaza with a club house and pool, a boulevard roadway with storm-water features in the median (3 segment pond in the median), and another storm-water pond (at the northwest comer). October 22, 2007 Regular Item 501 Page 2 of5 The subdivision is planned with different sized town home units in different settings, mixed throughout the subdivision to add variety. Some of the units have intemal- to-the-unit garages and others have detached garages (with small semi-private private back yards between the unit and the garage). All garages are rear loaded from alleys and all are designed to accommodate 2 cars. There are 38 at-grade live-work units, 40 units with detached garages (some of which may have accessory dwelling units above the garage) will have the actual finish floor elevation 5"-8" above the adjacent sidewalk (although the front steps will be approximately 24" above the sidewalk - step up to the threshold and step down into the unit), and 15 of the units with attached garages will have a finish floor 0- lOS' above the sidewalk grade and the option of at grade first floor lock-out units (with the main living space located 10 feet above sidewalk grade). Sixteen units with attached garages will have optional at-grade first floor "lock-out" residential units at the first level; the primary living space will be at least 10 feet above the adjacent sidewalk grade. The 10 units facing Orange Avenue (attached garages) are proposed at 10"-21" above the Orange A venue sidewalk. These elevations are different than was approved with the final engineering plans. The fenced front yard courtyards, proposed for some of the units, are 4"-6" above the adjacent sidewalk. A portion of the storm-water is accommodated as water features in the boulevard medians. These ponds are designed in separate segments to accommodate the topographic relief. Adiacent Properties The site is located immediately adjacent to Tuskawilla Trace (24 single family residential lots and conservation areas on 11 acres) to the east. A 6' tall masonry wall has been coordinated with the abutting residents and will be built between Artesian Park and the adjacent residential lots in Tuskawilla Trace. Inconsistencies with Code Section 20-324 (5) of the Code requires residential first floor height to be at least 2 feet above the sidewalk grade. The applicant proposes that all of the 38 live-work units have the first floor elevation at the sidewalk grade (primary living space elevation to begin at 10' above grade), 15 ofthe units (other than the live-work units) with attached garages will also have a first floor at 0 -10.5" (average of 7" in the DA) above grade and will have the option of having first floor lock-out units (with the main living area 10' above sidewalk grade), 16 units with attached garages have at grade first floor units with a "lock-out" option, another 40 units will have first floor elevations at between 5" and 8" (as much as 11" in the DA) above the sidewalk grade in front of the units. As stated above, the applicant's proposed finish floors are lower than those approved in the final engineering plans (approved June 12, 2006). The attached October 16, 2007 memo from Dover Kohl & Partners states that, except for the live/work units, no more than approximately 15 percent of the total units (0.15 x 103 = 15) should have a finish floor elevation less than the 24" above the adjacent sidewalk grade set forth in the Town Center Code (Sec. 20-324). The memo stresses the importance of residential units being elevated above the sidewalk for security reasons, whereby the resident feels comfortable watching the adjacent street and sidewalk (e.g. Jane Jacobs "eyes on the street"). Residents watching the adjacent street and sidewalk are a primary component of safe streets. 2 October 22, 2007 Regular Item 501 Page 3 of5 Stoops are required by Section 20-326 to be at least 6' deep and 5' wide. The applicant proposes some of the units to have stoops 4' deep and 3' wide. Awnings are proposed to be a minimum of 5' deep and have a minimum 7' vertical clearance above the adjacent sidewalk grade, in contrast to 10' of vertical clearance required by Section 20-326. Other Town Center awnings are less than 10', although none are as low as 7'. The applicant proposes faux balconies - referred to as "French Balconies," which are window ornamentation and do not extend 6' from the wall, as required in Sec. 20-326. Section 20-325 requires 6' wide planting areas between the sidewalks and parallel parking within the road ROWs. The plan depicts 5' wide planting areas between sidewalks and parallel parking spaces. Elsewhere, throughout the site, where no parallel parking is proposed, the planting spaces are 6' wide. A lighting plan must be provided, approved, and implemented on-site before any CO may be issued, in contrast to the requirements of 9-73, which require a street light plan be submitted with the final engineering/subdivision plans. Light poles and fixtures are to be consistent (e.g. height, style, materials) with those approved in other projects within the Town Center. The power company is behind on preparing subdivision and site lighting plans for a number of projects. 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 (t) 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. Except for the raised finish floors for all but 15 of those units that are not live/work units and some minor architectural detailing (e.g. column to entablature), that can be addressed between staff and the applicant, staff believes the proposal meets these aesthetic review criteria. (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. 3 October 22, 2007 Regular Item 501 Page 4 of5 The subject architectural style, materials, and colors are in harmony with and complementary to the existing and future (approved but not yet constructed) development - such as Jesups Landing. (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 proposed architecture and style are not excessively similar or dissimilar to the others in the immediate area. As stated in Item #2 above, the architectural style complements and helps form the architectural network one would expect to find in a town center setting. (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 architecture and style includes design features and detailing that accentuate the buildings as well as enhance the established and proposed future character of the area. (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. Towne Center guidelines, SR 434 design specifications) and other applicable federal state or local laws. The aesthetic review package meets the requirements of the City's aesthetic design criteria as specified in the Code, except as noted, regarding the finish floor elevations and the entablature. Code inconsistencies are being addressed in a separate development agreement. (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 proposed design, with multiple types of units, boulevards, the tiered water feature - with a fountain and faux bridge, is more diverse and imaginative than much of the competition. The architecture and style (which include bay windows, stoops, front courtyards, stucco, columns, and other distinctive detailing) are complementary to the existing and proposed features, are attractive, and will be an asset to the community. 4 October 22, 2007 Regular Item 501 Page 5 of5 CHRONOLOGY: March 14, 2005 July 27, 2005 October 10, 2005 November 21, 2005 June 12, 2006 City Commission approved Concept Plan Revised Plan submitted with one boulevard (previously 2) City Commission approved modified Concept Plan Final engineering/subdivision plans submitted Final engineering/subdivision plans approved FINDINGS: 1. The proposed development is located within the City of Winter Springs Town Center. 2. Any deviations from the Code must be addressed through a development agreement, special exception, or some other appropriate mechanism. 3. Dover Kohl & Partners (October 16,2007 memo) recommends that, (a) except for the live/work units, no more than approximately 15 percent of the 103 units have a finish floor elevation of less than 24" above the adjacent sidewalk grade and (b) minor architectural details be modified to accepted standards (e.g. entablature and columns). RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the City Commission approve the attached aesthetic review package, subject to the associated development agreement, which should incorporate findings 1, 2, and 3 noted above. ATTACHMENTS: A - Location Map B - Dover Kohl memos C - Aesthetic Review Package COMMISSION ACTION: 5 ] H G " F D 1 2 3 Siontinued Pg 260% '" ". , ill ", ""--. '. '''- p ". I ! '''''' / ,,( 1> ''',-, \{ '" i\ " ! \ ''', I \ -', '". ''', i \ t I \ i < , " i \ \ 6 7 8 c 7 I I~'" : "''---'" I '<<< I "" / '........., i "-"'''''- I "'''~ I "" ! '--.. ',- ! " I I I ! I t" "'-" / i I I i B A (/;). '4: ~. ~: ~: I MILE ...... . " ~ NOTES: "."~ '.G ".'if> Municipal Address Map Book PRINTED: REVISED: Oct 2006 1: City of Winter Springs, FL o 200 ~-...._.....""- 400 < Fool 2 : 3' ap Page Developed By: Southeastern Surveying & Mapping Corp. 2604 ATTACHMENT B DOVER, KOHL &. PARTNERS town planning Memorandum To: John Baker City of Winter Springs Victor Dover James Dougherty October 16, 2007 Cc: From: Date: Subject: Artesian Park - finished floor heights and architectural details 1. Finished Floor Hei2hts The Winter Springs Town Center District Code states "Residential uses on the first story shall have fmished floor height raised a minimum of 2 feet above sidewalk grade". This is to provide a sense of privacy for residential units placed close to the street in a town center environment. It is also important for optimizing neighborhood safety through natural surveillance of the street. A raised fmished floor puts the resident inside in a dominant position relative to a person on the sidewalk. The resident inside then feels comfortable watching the street and those on the street feel they are being looked after. If the interior first floor and sidewalk are at approximately the same elevation, the resident inside feels they are being watched as much as the person on the street and are much more likely to simply keep their curtains closed. Currently in Artesian Park, all of the units appear to have slab-on grade first stories, most with little or no elevation above sidewalk grade. The stoops are raised, but the living spaces are at-grade. This does not accomplish the elevation required in the Code for first floors. A couple of conditions which are exceptions to the raised fmish floor rule exist which can be appropriate in a town center context: 1. Units which are set up for live-work with a ground floor that is designed as a shopfront generally function best if the first floor is at-grade with the sidewalk. This configuration should feature clear glass on the shop front to optimize for the view of merchandise. 2. A small percentage ofthe total residential units (+-15%) could be at-grade to help facilitate accessibility for those with physical challenges. (Other solutions for accessibility such as elevated alleys or rear ramps could be employed on the balance of the units). Artesian Park - finished floor heights and architectural details October 16, 2007 Page 2 of6 Other than these exceptions, residential units within the Town Center should comply with the requirement that ftrst fmished floors be raised a minimum of 2 feet above the sidewalk. This can be accomplished with a raised floor level, raised dooryards, grading of the building site, or a combination of these techniques. 2. Architectural Detailine Upon review of these most recent elevations, a few items stand out which, if refmed, would enhance the look of the architecture. Speciftcally, on the stoop roofs the faces of the columns do not currently appear to align with the face of the entablature. This would be better if corrected so that these align. Additionally, the design of the entablatures would beneftt from simpliftcation. Typically, entablatures that are based on classical components and proportions look best. For more detail, please refer to the attached pages excerpted from Traditional Constructon Patterns - Design and Detail Rules of Thumb by Stephen A. Mouzon. Artesian Park - fInished floor heights and architectural details October 16, 2007 Page 3 of6 Artesian Park - finished floor heights and architectural details October 16, 2007 Page 4 of 6 Artesian Park - finished floor heights and architectural details October 16, 2007 Page 5 of6 AND IlA..n:",u,l Artesian Park - finished floor heights and architectural details October 16, 2007 Page 6 of6 ;. MAR~ 13-2006 08: 54A FROM: MFG 83/13/2006 08:41 4873274755 --. ~_.~~u~ ~,.~~ 4~O~bbU~~B 356-2 8 TO: 94078394008 WINTER SPRINGS BLDG OOVER KOJ.!L. DovER, KoHL & PARINERS tetWn plRnl'lt"1 Memorandum To; lohn Baker City ofW"mtet Springs Ccl: Victor Dovef From: lames Dougherty Date: OS Auauat., 20GS Subject: Comrxleots mgardiq Lincoln eir1c project -.July? J 200j plan Comruenu: ...... RepnlJng the I.test malter pIm: The Jatcat IDUtCt pbm.is lookiDa qu.ite JOOd.. the pubUcllpaOeS loc)k vmy~J'e1tJn.Jn this draft. the: loq wet t'&t8ntionpond fiaOJinB the view to the pool _ chiQ~ ~d he a. veay .atdlcingepa. 'Ib~ plan featQpii a.8Ood variety of~ COJitr8tjtm.ttieBi'dd pmid .space wfth intimate streets.otrowhbiJaC$_ A Ian depfcdng l.-o.dscapfnJ wtU be use.ti11. The Iaud.;ca.PiDISbOUld be ed1'1fipred. to . = tho cIiIiiMtor Of tho 1f*icS. hr oiiaIDipIc.lb\! jta!id jloll4 ipIeC W'ODld boae&t.b a-w hire--' 'Y"IaJ1tcd,."",.. onlith*:tfufO ~I..ce Ita fhl.mA.1:.t;;'. . '''',~ I '. f>~,. e...,N~ P ..,.~. 'i7 . ~~"f-~~.T~ . '; . . '.' ,i:'; '. .... ;....~ ~','" ":", , ": . .::,,' :' ~., , 4 JIZIal1 c.ntimdi. 1lIf},,9rib 1~0u1h ~ :ft~'CO 'dr~'~ JiM at .~ci I,~" COOlCf of t&e$Jte .~:-~~~ 'au astt~no~'1\),void'~oi~_.-e~ c_ o'::dd} ~ iliMlJi .~~ it:l' ..' d'lHl UH1Ur r.o'OBHt~'..>..., ~~., ~ the al1e)' ==. hUy. 1hii~bo...;l.!~Witb, \~~. ~ w"l.i.;. .,.... [the'''ewd- c.1o", ..8 4. :tt~s. ". ;~....... . .; " . '. '. l' .8 ~~ ....... ,~' 'rt ""J ;ulca......ll .'... I. '. " . . , ,1'.'" . >': {.:. ,.: /' . ;; . . '. ". "" <'.: : ~: lI~~bJe sp.cC......th ~ ~.,...lIoor: . ' "': ..' '.' l :o}~.': :'. ~. ': ,,~ ~-"'" . . ,.\....... . . . I ~bab~e ~ Ii~al'llf. ~w Bioi U a' 'm D.U#lCrOus histari~ ' '~Ietl ~'i!~ta~CIaA~1'~Yodc.~'~'~t.~e81l1 ~YinrulBr.~~les. Pl"c' ..Jt"'bch~~l....:::.;.' ~ ~ ~ ' , " . . ,'" ~, ~..~, . . . .' . I . . .:': 'M.~ . Mo."*'.; ..:...., ." 'f" ," ....", '. ; ~h.bi~J.'~~I~Jl~ftoorl00k~~'~' . . ~Ihia to.ollftl6~ ~ ~llltlblitetiOll, tho 'IbWi) <: .,.~ COIie'.roes ~~~tie%.~~n~0J2 ." ..., .WeU'~l~. ...... .~~~~'!bj<io.".'" , ~J.d ~~:'.'. c~. Thelr~~' tottbe . ~~fM'I~.r'. tot., '. . i4.i.. ,,:~~ ..:t."'... '11E::.., ...~". ~ ., .. ~~~~ .~.~. '. .., .. buy &t.~,~ ftili~ fIoot~.,:l)tI~,=try a!iOUl4~~~ ~.""d out. ".. .'. it:~. b.nftttaJt tP .-Ay.ICMi+I".."". ~ iljii tbe.lWtttWi1a1o "c _..t-.o..a \.':Jaw' ,'6st ~l....... ." r...... .... ~~-,r ". . ..':"7..8PaG ~we....., , . ~ ;'". r. :: ':'-, "> :-<.'. :. : :" . . .', ',' ~"~\. '. ~f.^~~:)':' :: . .'~. JJt~~~~~fJfIh~~~!1~!.,.~~tfnJ)66~~F~~~~)~160 I ...._...---!l1_~_..._ . ot~.~~or . ~.-_ ~1II~wfddt~~Or : 'tXatd~i:l\!tl.r~.,.~- .... " . . '.':cluti4l11iGt,," ~ C1_..lWlliOtttoca...lGtwCO...llo....AftIi:IU..~dIY~IoI-.,"'lqp1..bliia. ..~ ' ~orfbrilft1inl:' ',' CIIlIbIMils b1 ftliln IOftiaJlUII.Clndopall. ~ -1MfIuacDt . . P.2 PAGE 811 82 PE 01 ~..~;:.- . ., ) t . . Date: October 22, 2007 The attached was referenced during the discussion of Public Hearings Agenda Item "501" at the October 22, 2007 City Commission Regular Meeting. , DOVER, KOHL &. PARTNERS tOWII planning Memorandum To: John Baker and Eloise Sahlstrom City of Winter Springs Cc: Victor Dover From: James Dougherty Date: 22 January, 2006 Subject: Outcomes of 17 January 2006 meeting concerning Artesian Park Comments: During the meeting with the applicant two main topics were discussed: 1) Configuration possibilities for the fronts of the buildings. 2) 24" elevation requirements for the first finished floor of residential uses within the Town Center. Conclusions regarding these two topics are outlined below: 1) Regarding configuration possibilities for the fronts of the buildings: Variety in the configurations of the fronts of the units is useful to help create architectural interest and vitality within the Town Center. The configurations decided upon as Qotentially acceptable are outlined below. (Some of these configurations involve a first finished tIoor lower than 24" in X elevation, and if permitted for residential uses they should be used sparinlr~ within the Town Cent~). 1. The classic rowhouse: The first finished floor height is a minimum of 24" above sidewalk grade. The dooryard is at grade. 2. The rowhouse with a raised dooryard: The first finished floor heilrht is a minimum of 24" above sidewalk grade. The dooryard is raised above grade, to a maximum height of that matching the first finished floor height. Doors may lead from the residence directly out to the dooryard. 3. The patio-front rowhouse: A raised stoop leads to an elevated entrance door. The first finished floor height may be lower than 24" above sidewalk grade. Doors lead from the residence directly out to the dooryard. The dooryard may be at grade. The dooryard is enclosed with a low fence, wall or hedge with a gateway leading to the sidewalk. 4. The live-work unit: The first finished floor is at grade, level with the sidewalk. The dooryard is paved and open to the sidewalk. The ground floor of the unli is configured as a shop front. This type of unit allows an owner to use the ground floor in a variety of ways. It can be residential, office or commercial. The live-work type can provide valuable vitality in the Town Center by allowing a very fine-grained mixing of uses. 5. The daylight basement unit: A tall staircase leads to a first finished floor which is elevated an entire floor height above grade. A floor of habitable space is placed under this high raised finished floor. This bottom level, or daylight basement, may be built with its floor level at-grade. 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 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. 2) Regarding 24" elevation requirements for the first finished floor of residential uses within the Town Center: The designers of Artesian Park seek to incorporate a patio-front rowhouse unit configuration in their project (with french doors leading out to a patio in the dooryard space in the front ofthe unit). This type can be a useful addition to the range of building configurations within the Town Center. Conceivably, some of these units would require first finished floor elevations less than 24" due to grading / topographical issues. ---. Allowing a certain small portion of the residential units within the Town Center to have a first finished floor elevation less than 24" can be useful to promote visitability / accessability for disabled residents. However, allowing too many residential units to have a first finished floor elevation less than 24" will begin to create an undesirable slab-on-grade look within the Town Center, and will reduce the hvablhty ot ground floor residential. (Raising the "first fmished floor height of residential uses is a classic time-tested method for creating a comfortable psychological and effective distinction between the public space outside a unit and the private space inside a unit when residential uses are located close to the sidewalk, as they are in an urban environment such as the Town Center). For the meeting, John Baker provided possible language to govern the quantity of first finished floor elevations lower than 24" that would potentially be acceptable for the Artesian Park project. The ~ language, among other clauses, involved an average first finished floor height of 21", with a minimum raised finished floor height of 6". We feel that this would provide flexibility to vary the unit types within the Artesian Park project without overly compromising the raised first finished floor J requirements for residential. We also recommend that the live-work we and the daylight b~~pmeut ^ type not count against the ro'ect's avera e first finished floor hei ht during calculations. This will III e ect prOVI e an incentive for these very useful building types. ( e live-work type is extremely helpful in creating a fine-grained incremental mix of uses. The daylight basement type helps give the feeling of very generous raised finished floors). ( 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 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. Date: October 22, 2007 The attached relates to the discussion of Public Hearings Agenda Item "501" at the October 22, 2007 City Commission Regular Meeting. Date: October 22, 2007 The attached relates to the discussion of Public Hearings Agenda Item "501" at the October 22, 2007 City Commission Regular Meeting.