Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003 10 20 Regular 501 Changing Floor Plan COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM 501 Consent Information Public Hearin Re ular x October 20. 2003 Meeting MGR. ~/Dept. REQUEST: The Community Development Department requests that the City Commission, in its capacity as the DRC, reconsider a request to change the floor-plan for the one remaining empty bay at Building No 11 (JDC Town Center), between Rachel Nichol's and a dentist office. PURPOSE: The purpose of this agenda item is to determine if the City Commission desires to amend its direction provided at the October 13, 2003 Regular Agenda Item 506, Tenant Build-Out-Floor- Plan for ShapeXpress, the one remaining empty bay at Building No. 11 at the JDC Town Center, in light of new information regarding a permitting error. CONSIDERATIONS: The information provided in the packet for Regular Agenda Item 506, regarding tenant build-out for Building 11, Suite D, at the JDC Calhoun town center, and stating that the floorplan amendment moving the bathroom from the center of the building closer to the S.R. 434 front of the building was incorrect. A review of the record of this matter indicates that a building permit for Building 11 had been issued for the floorplan consistent with that which was approved by the City Commission at its April 22, 2002 meeting. A revision was received in September of 2002 to move the bathroom closer to S.R. 434. The plan revision was noted "hold for planning review". However, the Permit Officer thought Planning had approved the revision and issued a permit for the revision in error in November, without the revision having received planning review for consistency with town center requirements (most pertinent to this being Section 20- 325 of the City Code of Ordinances). 1 October 20, 2003 Regular Item 501 Page 2 Based upon the information presented in the October 13, 2003 Agenda Item the Commission directed staff to work with the tenant to work out a compromise floorplan which would include an entranceway sign on the S.R. 434 side of the building. In light of this new information indicating that the City issued a permit for the revision without all pertinent approvals the City Commission could choose any of the following options. 1. approve the floorplan as permitted in error; 2. approve the floorplan with modifications; or 3. Leave the direction provided in the October 13,2003 meeting unchanged, which stated that the tenant and staff should get together and work out a compromise solution which would include an entrance sign on the S.R. 434 front of the building. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends that the City Commission, in its capacity as the DRC, determine if it desires to amend its direction of October 13,2003 Agenda Item 506. ATTACHMENTS: October 13,2003 Regular 506 Agenda Item packet COMMISSION ACTION: 2 -'~::~r~'" \-'~ ,~ _ -:--:-,- ---r COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM 506 Consent Information Public Hearing Regular X -' October 13, 2003 Meeting MGR. fJ---- /Dept. j/f- REQUEST: The Community Development Department requests that the City Commission, in its capacity as the DRC, consider a request to change the floor-plan for the one remaining empty bay at Building No 11 (IDC Town Center), between Rachel Nichol's and a dentist office. PURPOSE: The purpose of this agenda item is to review the tenant build-out floor-plan for ShapeXpress, the one remaining empty bay at Building No. 11 at the IDC Town Center. \ CONSIDERATIONS: The building plans for the proposed ShapeXpress (Building 11, Suite D) depict the main entrance to the business facing the parking lot and the secondary entrance facing SR 434. This is evident, given the location ofthe reception desk. The building plans did not depict which side fronted on SR 434 and which side faced the parking lot, so staff requested the project architect, Cuhaci & Peterson, label each side. Attachment A is the response from the architect. It appears that the rest-rooms were constructed in their current location (approximately 10' from the SR 434 frontage) without appropriate town center approval, approximately a year ago. On April 22, 2002, when the City Commission approved the building elevations and floor-plans for buildings 9, 11,13, and 14, the agenda item included an attached memo from James Dougherty (Dover Kohl & Partners) stating the need to have restrooms in the center of the building in order to have the front of the building and its main entrance face the primary space (here, the street frontage). The applicant, the proprietor of ShapeXpress, states that he "inherited" the bay with the existing restroom location and has designed his space accordingly. He has stated that he has tried a 1 October 13,2003 Regular Item 505 Page 2 . number of floor-plans and that the one proposed is the best scenario for his facility - and that this particular plan is the only one that effectively works for his business, given the existing restroom location. Chapter 3 of the Florida Building Code addresses occupancy classifications. Use as a fitness facility is considered "assembly." Assembly has different standards, because it typically accommodates a higher occupant load (more people per area) than does either mercantile or business office. Staff investigated the proposed plans for conformance with assembly requirements ofthe building code. The plans appear to meet applicable assembly-related building code requirements for the number of occupants (occupancy calculated on the 70' x 32' = 2,240 SF area). The proprietor of Rachel Nichol's, an adjacent business owner, has voiced concern about noise from the ShapeXpress. Please see the attached correspondence from the various entities. The City Manager, City Attorney, and Dover Kohl and Partners have met with the James Doran Company representatives to explain the Town Center requirement that the main entrance must front the primary space. FINDINGS: 1. The City Commission, in its capacity as the Development Review Committee, is authorized, through the Town Center Code, to review interior building layouts and any amendments to ensure that the main entrance fronts the primary space. 2. Section 20 -325 ofthe City Code of Ordinances, [Town Center] "Squares, parks, and street types" requires "The front of a building and its main entrance must face the primary space." 3. Dover Kohl and staffhave documented the problem whereby tenants at the JDC Calhoun Town Center have faced their businesses toward the parking lot. 4. Dover Kohl and staff have documented that engaging and inviting business fronts (i.e. onto the street frontage) are very important to a successful town center. 5. The build-out plan for ShapeXpress is inconsistent with Section 20-325 ofthe City Code. The business clearly is oriented toward the parking lot and does not have its main entrance facing the primary space. Primary space for this unit is State Road 434 frontage road as defined in Section 20-325. 6. The applicant states that the previously installed restrooms preclude any other efficient floor plan for his business at this location. 7. The restrooms appear to have been installed in their present locations without authorization and in conflict with the floor-plan approved by the City Commission on April 22, 2002. 2 October 13,2003 Regular Item 505 Page 3 RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends that the City Commission, in its capacity as the DRC, deny the tenant build- out (Building No. 11, Suite D) floor-plan proposed for ShapeXpress because it does not meet the requirements of Section 20-325 of the City Code of Ordinances. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A Proposed Floor-Plan Attachment B Approved Floor-Plan Attachment C March 28, 2002 James Dougherty (Dover Kohl) memo Attachment D Correspondence COMMISSION ACTION: 3 B9/25/2ElEl3 14: 21 1073271 A TT A CHMENT A tIJj 1ft . z,~"" "~'. 09/25/0~ .TaU 15:20 FAX 4072284219 to c: 6 z (;) ~. ~ ..a. .. ..... .. ;,~... . ,~"',:,. . . . '; ~', " :,' '~III :f ~ii~~~t iJ~~_ !lll~ i-~ti~'~ as.. (i" '!?l ~...- .. i~ii J ~r~JIt ia1 jt ~'!ij~ 1 Jhjl o I\J ~ w CUBACI&PETERSON ARCH. ~002 PAGE 01/02 .~,,~, .: ./SJ ~"lJ :c ~. a r0- o f;l c:: o It . l "I Il ~ .~ I : .f { ,'I it ,I ~ llil .'f ~ a ~ : 6'~ / / ' \. .,..... -',' ~....,... . ,~.:'~~!{i . 'I :,'\ ~.:~ fC ..;. l~. ~ :f$:~~.:", .' I, 'di\',: t\i" \!- ,. ._,,,-- ".- -~~' , "', Q' ShapeXpresst Winter Springs Town Center .. ~ 09/25/03 THU 15:20 FAX 4072284219 ~. Cuhaci & Peterson, .,. Architects 1220 Alden Road, Orlando, FL 32803.2546 Ph: (407) 228-4220 Fax: (407) 228-4219 E-Mail: Info@c-p.com TO: Igt~~/IIk.-:" FAX: ~1 gZ1 1Jt,9r' CUHACI&PETERSON ARCH, raJ 001 FAX TRANSMITTAL IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ; PAGE(S), PLEASE CALL (407) 228-4220 FOR ASSISTANCE. WE ARE SENDING YOU THE FOLLOWING ITEMS: COPIES DATE NO. DESCRIPTION I 9/1,r/,j ~, V-L. ".; SI! ~ If rL-...L /.. ~ IIA.. V V I THESE ARE TRANSMmED as checked below: ~ For your records o For your review and files o Proposal submission o Reviewed and Returned P'J As requested REMARKS: [ZI For your. Information o Returned for corrections o Resubmit o Forbids due: o Other: COPY: . ! ~: I; i / ~ ~ Z ~ ~ == U < ~ ~ < .~'. ~/ i ~. i ~. j, .~ , I . ~.- FA::I'tJ TO F.I::H.I. ; .. .. .- I I ;, .j .' ~, ~ ! , : ., , j or I 1 I :s: , ~ '1 . IL @--~ Ig r~ , ... 1 ~ "1 :s: , :r ".1 ~--- "! . I I , I I .~ , ...~~ ! ~ ~ , I I ~ I , I , ~- .... 14....... MO. . mwlI..ll:A ....>> SF. ~ _&1'. 14'."- t'lO. , , ! i J I , , I. I , cb "0 ""4' MO. @'~> .' ,..... '\.. .\ \. ' . \ ,i, .4'.2" n.....,.. MO. ~ 25<>0 &F. o--a II E ~4 ... ........ ... . .1" . ~ .;",. ... .,... ". ,~, 'l!I-. .... iI"-. "!,""S.'i .:: .!: :::.~,~..':::'~'; :.:::.:j '. .". .." . ,. . e" . ~. -. .: " . - ~Z... "::": ., :-.::: . -~-------:- '!EEL ~ 9EI! 81RlCT. IEl!.!m..lI:l2 """ SF. lo4'..,. .......2~ 11..... 2'..... MO. 11.0. I , cD 111 " BUILDING PLAN ~ ~ ~ ~ ; n i1 ,'.~Jli D .. ;, - . ~6;1 . ....11 d :f. n. :i q .L"A d . jl T il ;i H. ~ ~ ;, : ~ . ~ . : ~ -.. ......... ..~...- ".. .~_. _... .... ...;0 .~ ~&F. . '" &".lI' MD. 3....... ~ \&m@. .~ .. ... ..,i-warIJ) ~ ...._', . I I. [. I . ! i. I ! , I l i' . ....-...-oy.....--. .p ~ i ~ . . fi ;il: ~9 ..~ " ~ @r- . .~ /02 09:07A Dover AtTACHMENT C 5 0360 DbVER. KOHL & PARTNERS f " W 11 V f 4 h 11 , n l';: Memorandum T,,: Charl~s Carrington City of Wimer Springs c~:: Victor Dover F rom: James Dougherty Date: March 2H, 2002 Subject: ('ommell(s regarding James Doran Company Floor Plan... <Jnd Fk"ation:-; ReRardinl{ the Building Jo'loor Plans: 13ui1ding 9 appears to have II problem with from.back orientation. The front of th~' bulldin.g facc.'\ tq the west towards the Publix parking lotinstecsd uftowanls the ot.)flh.. south street t<Hhe east. Sh()pfront windows should be added to the east fcu..-c orthi~ huilding, Thi~ might he achievedhy moving Ihe hathrooms to the eenler (If(h~ building. (a.~in the plan for buildinR: II). The windows on the south face of this building facing tJie frontage road should also be! c.Jtpanded into shopfrom windows to achieve gwuntl ~loor tr~spa~.cncy requirem~nt:-;. .. l.lte.~)t~er huilding tluor plans app~ar to b.c fine. . . . Regarding the BuiJdin~ EI~.v.tion5: Jnd.ic3lions should be provided on the elevations showing where lran~paren( gl<i7.IOg IS ~~~. .. Some of the elevatjon~ do nO[ appear {O have enough ~pa.cc_bctweenthc top of .he UppC:f floor wind()ws and the cornice to accommodate a realistic parapet. . The sub-division of the bUilding facades to t.Teate the impression of smallt.'r int.1ividual buildings is lau~lable. The elevations would look much nlOre aut.h.eritic. howC'v~r.. if Ihe individual facade segments abutted on~ another inste-.ld ofhaving~vertical gap!'>~cveral fecI wide between them. The gaps cause the elevations to look thin and. "gluctfun'. III the bmt behind. On the west elevation of huiJding 2, the second floor windows on the right silk should be subdivided \0 make them vertical ralhcr rhall horitollll:it. ... . P.Ol ... \ \ .' 'i"'\ . : :'.;i~~~' .,~~~~f~i ~i'; . ~nt, ~!.. ATTACHMENT D Page I of2 John Baker From: ray sherman [rcsherman@prodigy.net] Sent: Monday, September 29, 2003 5:07 PM To: John Baker Subject: Concerned Owner Rachel Nicole's Salon 1188 E. S. R. 434 Winter Springs, FL 32708 Phone 407-696-4247 Fax 407-327-1846 September 29,2003 City Of Winter Springs Attn.: John Baker Dear John, It has come to my attention that a 'Woman's Fitness Center will be occupying the space beside Rachel Nicole's Salon. I do have some concerns with the tYpe of business that is going to be occupying the space. One is that we have a quiet room were facials are being performed and the area needs to be kept quiet for the customers' relaxation. We have put in sound proofing in the walls to help keep this affect. Beside the room in the proposed space is going to be a aerobics area and from my experience aerobics room can be noisy with the music that is playing and the instructor's voice caring over the music for the students to hear. My other concern is the children's area where children will be left while the parents are enjoying their stay at the gym, Again, noise may become an issue as to our customers enjoying a relaxing atmosphere. Although I couldn't think of a 9/30/2003 Page 2 of2 better business to put next door to our facility, Both businesses will truly complement one another. Finally, what we are asking is that some type of sound proofing be installed at time of build out in order to accommodate the noise volume that will be generated from this type of business. Thank you for considering our concerns. Sincerely, Raymond Sherman President Rachel Nicole's Salon, Inc, . 9/30/2003 (. Page 1 of 1 John Baker From: Dan Cannell [d.cannell@celebration.f1.us] Sent: Tuesday, September 30,2003 10:23 PM To: John Baker Subject: ShapeXpress concern Hi John, Pete Harper has forwarded me all of the correspondence regarding any noise concerns from our space in the Winter Springs Town Center. Unfortunately, Mr. Sherman decided to take his concerns to you rather that to myself - I regret his taking this rather awkward channel of communication. We have never spoken of this. He does not fully understand what will be taking place in our space. There will no aerobics or instructor's yelling. We will have fitness equipment in our facility, not an open space for aerobics. While there will be some music playing for our women while they workout, I cannot possible imagine playing it so loud as to disrupt their operations. Secondly, our little Kid's Corner space will not generate any noise which will interfere with their business. This area will consist of a table with books and puzzles for children to play with for the 30 minutes their mother works out. Their mother will, at all times, be responsible for their children. I'll be surprised if it is even used that often. John, I would understand if their concerns were legitimate. Their request that we add "sound proofing" seems unreasonable since these noise concerns are un-substantiated. I have every intention of being a wonderful neighbor to Mr. Sherman and I hope in the future he will feel comfortable enough to bring these sort of concerns directly to me. I look forward to the approval of our building plans. I am so eager to begin our business in your city of Winter Springs. Sincerely, Dan Cannell ShapeXpress 10/3/2003 09/25/03 THO 15:21 FAX 4072284219 09/25/2003 14:21 1073274755 .'. CUHACI&PETERSON ARCH. WINTER sPRNGS BLDDPT ~ ". J F'" i~ "r/ .- /- .......Q. r r . .~. : : :'. 'J I k5i:l~.:";'"'' \ . ..... "f T . "1/' . .' . <.: ,,,' .:: < ::: >: : ..:..;.:trO",::~ .' :.. :" '. >' :"':" ::..: -::": .;'::::';-. ~': :.: : . ~ : . . " : " : ".: : :', ~ :: to . . .~: .. ." ~ . . '., . '.' ~.-:.) I'L.,.. .' ":,',, : ::; ;', : : ~ : ; : '. ." ::.::: :" .. :; : .. ," . .0 ',: " " ','. '. . I : ',:' .. ," ,. . ~ : i : '. : : : :' :: . :. .. .'1,:" : : ~ :: 1 :: '. ,,' . " : :; ," .... . : : : " ..: :: ::..: '0 . .. ",: :' '.i' " ," . .. . .' . . '. . < ~:...:.. >': ": ;:: :.~..: ::~.:'..: ~< -<:" ;": :>': : ...... : ',:: ': 'j : ; > :: ..: .. : :: :: : :: ~: : : ~: : : : : : : . '. . I '0' :.....:'. ',,: ::: : : '" ,,:: :':: :: " . :: ~:' ~ :: . '. . . . . : : : . .' . " . : :." .,:' :. .' . . . . . . . . . . : : :: : '.: " . ... " .. .. ," " .. :; : :: . :' :: : :: ',:', .0::: . .... . ..' @].: '. .: :'. '.; : 'Ir .: ~[; , t:-i-m-J - ,>:-~::: '- _: ~ -, ~:: '- , -~ -~ : /::I'::~' '''''' ,.... :'J2:, .. : ::/,:l~, , II:DI : : ci)j - =?i .. J ll'J<lTI\ '" I I p- I : ',' : ~ : " . : ~:' ~7\'" ". . . . ~ .... , . . . ~ : ',:: ::: :",::,,:;:: .~:;: '. . . :: ~: ": ::: :" f ," ." :' , 1\ ,\ " .. . " : : ,. : ~ :: :::: '.,: :.~ ~:.: '.: ,'.:: ,>':: ~.,:~~.~:. ;,:", :",::..: : : : ::, : : ' : : . :--:.: "':: : : ' " : : : :1 I. LI .: ...... . . " .,: ., :.:.' "1 I '1TI~.' ::..~~ ,'.' , '.. :' : ':", ,I 'I I -- . '~'\-:-:-' :'~" t '- . . '. ". . " ," . ~ : ", ':' '-- oT' \ ~ 4~ p~ I I. ~ ~ . I 1 I I . I \ . . I I 1 1 I t , I I . . . : , 1 1 I ~ .I . . I I '1 I f ~ I I .1 ~003 02/lJ2 From: Skip Burnside To: Ron McLemore Date: 7/16/03 Time: 11 :06:28 AM Page 1 of 2 GSG Response to Homebuilder Items Requested by City Manager Ron McLemore on 7/16/03 Related to GSG's October 2002 City Of Winter Springs Central Service Cost Allocation Plan/Community Development Service Cost Analysis Report 1. The buildings divisions 94% overhead costs are not creditable Of the $3,317,811 in citywide central service costs identified in the cost allocation plan, $117,304 were allocated directly to the building division. This represents 3.54 % of the total allocable central service costs. This is the amount that is typically termed citywide "overhead" for cost recovery purposes, the guidelines for which are described in OMB Circular A-87. This proportion is not out of line with GSG's experience in preparing cost allocation plans for other local governments. In addition, the building division is included within the Community Development Department. Of the $245,036 in department administrative costs, $116,224 were allocated to the building department based on the number of FTE positions in the building division compared with the number of FTE positions within the other divisions within the department and based on the total annual expenditures of the building division compared to the total annual expenditures of the other divisions within the department. The building division's percentage of departmental "overhead" costs represents 47.43 %. Given the Planning, Development Review, Permitting and Building Functions performed by the department and the number of employees and projected expenditures of each, this amount is not at all out of line. In addition to the building division, the City Fire Marshal and the Department of Community Development's Permit Division provide services that support the City's efforts in enforcing the Florida Building Code. The appropriate proportion (the amount that is building code related versus other activities) of these two entity's direct and indirect costs are also included in the cost pool for which the building permit fee amounts were established to fund. Section 553.80, Florida Statutes, does not restrict the expenditure of building permit fees to those of the building division. It recognizes that there are other activities that may be performed by a local government in support of the Florida Building Code. The projected expenditures of the Permit Division and Fire Marshal are appropriately identified in support of the building code based on the time and effort analysis performed by GSG. 2. The October 2002 Central Service Cost Allocation PlanlCommunity Development Service Cost Analysis 1. We believe specific projected expenditures and allocations used in the Report overstate the cost of activities and fees of the Building Department The projected expenditures included in the report are based on the projected expenditures included in the City's Fiscal Year 2002-2003 Budget. This budget was adopted pursuant to the City's budget process and the City Commission provided the usual and customary opportunities for the public to testify on the proposed budget. Please provide the substance of any testimony provided by the Homebuilders during the budget process objecting to projected expenditures of the building division included in the 2002-03 Budget. From: Skip Bumside To: Ron McLemore Date: 7/16/03 Time: 11 :06:28 AM Page 2 of 2 2. We believe the Community Development Department activities performed on behalf of the general fund should be addressed to reflect an accurate allocation plan and fee structure. The Report prepared by GSG apportions the costs of the Community Development Department based on the functions of the department and an analysis of the time and effort spent on particular activities by department staff. The report did recognize that the department performs activities that are appropriately funded from the general fund. However, those activities are primarily performed by the Permit Division and Planning and Development Review.