Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005 08 22 Public Hearing Item 402.1- CDD Request Public Hearing for Aesthetic Review of JDC Bldg. 4 CITY COMMISSION ITEM 402.1 Consent Information Public Hearin Re ular x August 22. 2005 Meeting ~ MGR. IDEPT Authorization REQUEST: The Community Development Department- Planning Division requests that the Commission hold a Public Hearing for the Aesthetic Review ofthe JDC Town Center Building 4. 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) ofthe 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 (removed big oak) May 9,2005 - City Commission approved Building 3 elevations June 13,2005 - City Commission approved Building 16 elevations (except trellis and/or colonnade at W or SW end of building) CONSIDERATIONS: Overview: The submittal requirements for aesthetic reviews 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 (f) other architectural and engineering data as may be required. The procedures for review and approval are set forth August 22, 2005 Public Hearing Agenda Item 403 Page 2 of6 in Section 9-603. Subsection 20-321 (b) (1) of the [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 exterior architecture, including aesthetic appropriateness.. . and other site specific matters not delineated herein." Important items that do not appear to have been addressed in these elevations include, but are not limited to the locations of the, fire riser room, meter bank, exterior HV AC equipment, upper floor exterior lighting, downspouts and scuppers. The location of and details about these items can significantly affect the appearance of the buildings. Building 4: Building 4 is located along the west side of Tuskawilla Road, just north of Building 3, and just south of the Kingsbury property. It is proposed as a 4 story mixed use building with first floor retail and restaurant uses, second and third floor residential condominiums, and a forth floor penthouse suite (a total of 15 residential units). The building is designed in 2 sections and should resemble 2 separate but abutting buildings (e.g. different roof types, balconies, colors, and facades). The section closest to Building 3, comprises about 2/3 ofthe 120 foot wide building and is proposed with a colonnade and recessed balconies. The railings must be modified to meet the building code prescription for the maximum spacing between railings and between the railing and the balcony deck. Section 20-327 requires at least 50 percent (applicant proposes 60.6 percent below the expression line) of the first floor facades facing a roadway (east elevation, facing Tuskawilla Road); 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 fayade and extend across from 25 to 100 percent of the building front. As noted above, the building is designed to look like 2 separate abutting buildings. Balconies, awnings, colonnades, and marquees are required by Section 20- 326 to be at least 10' above the sidewalk surface. All of the first floor area is to be at grade with the Tuskawilla Road sidewalk. The south side of Building 4 abuts the pedestrian walkway that the City Commission stated would be 20 feet-1 inch (20'-1") wide. Ample (35%) glazing is depicted below the expression line on this side of the building. One door is presently depicted along this side of the building allowing for interaction between the pedestrians walking between the buildings and the inside of the adjacent businesses. The west (parking lot) side of the building is depicted with 24 percent glazing below the expression line. Eight doorways are proposed along the back of the building. Its appearance is much like that of the front. The north side, adjacent to the Kingsbury property, is depicted with 34.3 percent first floor glazing and no doors. 2 August 22,2005 Public Hearing Agenda Item 403 Page 3 of6 The building is depicted with signage on the first floor fayade - on all four sides. It is unclear whether or not the address depicted on the Tuskawilla Road side is mounted to the fayade or extends above the marquee. No forth floor windows are depicted on the south or west sides. The latest approved final engineering plan for the site depicts the footprint as 66 feet deep by 115 feet wide. The plans depict 65 feet by 120 feet, an increase in the building footprint from 7,590 square feet to 7,800 square feet. Staff has received final engineering/site plan revisions that depict these new dimensions and different dumpster locations - these changes require City Commission approval. 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 buildings appears adequate, subject to (a) agreement about providing signage on various sides of Building 4, (b) balcony depths on both buildings, (c) and the provision of utility areas (e.g. riser rooms, meter banks, HVAC equipment, downspouts and scuppers. (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. Building 4 appears to relate well with its surroundings, with the possible exception of the signs and amount of glass at the rear. (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. The elevations appear to meet this criterion, except as noted above. (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 3 August 22, 2005 Public Hearing Agenda Item 403 Page 4 of 6 to architectural specifications and design features deemed significant based upon commonly accepted architectural principles of the local community. The elevations appear to meet this criterion, except as noted above. (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 elevations appear to meet this criterion, except as noted above. (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. The elevations appear to meet this criterion. Some creative signage would be helpful. FINDINGS: . The proposed project is consistent and compatible with the Town Center design specifications. Yes, except as noted in criteria 1-5 above. . The proposed building elevations reflect similar detailing to the Concept elevation included in the Development Agreement. . The development will be an asset to the community and particularly to the Town Center with the addition of new buildings that include the amenities and details being proposed. . The new buildings utilize colors and materials that fit in with the adjacent existing and proposed structures. . The proposed signage complies with Code Section 16-78, but could be more creative Staff must also discuss what has become an integral relationship between Building #4 and Building #3 as they relate to each other to form a "pedestrian way" between the two buildings. The original plans for Building #3, as seen by the Commission, included a screen wall and Knee wall with attendant landscaping to buffer a bank of electric and water meters attached to the northern side of the building. These elements were in what will be referred to as the "pedestrian way" between buildings 3 and 4. When architectural plans were received for building #3, the riser room for the fire sprinkler system was shown located on the exterior of the building on the 4 August 22, 2005 Public Hearing Agenda Item 403 Page 5 of6 north face, next to the aforementioned electric and water meters. This element is as tall as the first story of the building and, therefore, represents an extension of the building into the pedestrian way. Staff has consistently been strongly opposed to external riser rooms. Although the external riser room was a part of the first set of architectural plans that the staff received for review, they were not part of the site plan approved by the Commission. Staff will proceed to resolve these items by scheduling a joint meeting of all parties to discuss both buildings 3 and 4. There are currently four alternatives that will be considered to resolve this issue: Alternative #1 - Place the riser room inside Building #3 and utilize the screen wall, knee wall and landscaping to buffer the meter boxes located on the north fayade of Building #3. This is the solution depicted on the plans as last seen by the City Commission. Alternative #2 - Place the riser room inside the building and the meter boxes on the back side (west fayade) of the building, thereby opening up the pedestrian way. Alternative #3 - Place the riser room and the meter boxes on the west side (rear) of the building. Alternative #4 - A coordinated plan that would allow the meter boxes and the riser room to be integrated into a "portal" entranceway leading to a courtyard between Buildings 3 and 4. These items are being incorporated into this staff report to inform the Commission that certain aspects of the southwestern fayade of Building #4 will change if Alternative #4 is employed. These changes would be the subject of an additional aesthetic review by the City Commission. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff Review found the Applicant's request for Aesthetic Review in compliance and recommends Approval, subject to a determination of the above mentioned items and addressing code deviations through a development agreement, special exception, or other legal mechanism deemed appropriate by the City Attorney. ATT ACHMENTS: A Site Plan & Building Elevations COMMISSION ACTION: 5 August 22, 2005 Public Hearing Agenda Item 403 Page 6 of6 ATTACHMENT A 6