HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004 04 12 Regular 510
COMMISSION AGENDA
ITEM
510
CONSENT
INFORMATIONAL
PUBLIC HEARING
REGULAR X
April 12, 2004
Meeting
MGR.r- /DEPT J./j/'
Authorization
REQUEST:
The Community Development Department recommends approval of the proposed
architectural renderings for buildings on lot 5 and 9 at the Tuskawilla Office Park (TOP),
subject to the Dover Kohl & Partners comments.
PURPOSE:
The purpose of this agenda item is to consider and approve the proposed architectural
renderings for buildings on lots 5 and 9, subject to the Dover Kohl & Partners comments,
A typical building elevation was approved with the final engineering plans for the TOP.
Any deviation from that design requires City Commission approval.
APPLICABLE LAW AND PUBLIC POLICY:
Sec. 20-321. Administration.
Sec. 20-327. Architectural Guidelines.
Ordinance No. 2003-43
CHRONOLOGY:
February 11, 2002 - City Commission approves final engineering/site plan and
development agreement for the TOP (including typical
architectural renderings for one and two story buildings).
April 14, 2003 - City Commission approved architectural renderings for buildings 1
and 6 at the TOP,
July 28, 2003 - City Commission approved architectural renderings for building 11
at the TOP.
April 12, 2004
Regular Item 510
Page 2
March 8, 2004 -
City Commission approved architectural rendering for building 7
at the TOP.
FINDINGS:
1. Staff believes the proposed renderings are more aesthetically appealing that the
typical renderings approved on the final engineering plans,
2, The City Commission approved similar renderings at its April 14, 2003, July 28,
2003, and March 8, 2004, meetings, subject to Dover Kohl and Partners'
comments.
3. James Dougherty, of Dover Kohl and Partners, the City's Town Center
consultant, has reviewed the architectural renderings and although finding them
generally consistent with the Town Center Code's, provided comments for minor
modifications.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the proposed renderings, subject to Dover Kohl & Partners
comments,
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Approved architectural renderings
B. Proposed architectural renderings
C. Dover Kohl & Partners correspondence
COMMISSION ACTION:
S:\dept - Community Deve1opment\Planning\2004\Commission\041204 _ COMM _Regular_51 0 TOP _ #5 &
9_ Architectural_ Renderings. doc
ATTACHMENT A
SINGLE, . STb~Y .
. .
TYPICAL BUILDING. FRONT
ELEVATIONS ,& BUltDI'NG.$lGNAGE'
(NTS) . ,.. . .
TWO STORY
S.~QZ'~D'I ~/~~~D'"
, .
. ,. . '$. '.. ~~. ..... .
.\/f~~~~~'.
. <.IJtOW.'llJSItAJILl:,I. 1tO,'TO
. <""'_00 of OCID/~
.,.,...... ,..!'<>'lD....
3
.~
,S
[. ~
-
~
PA~U~:~~~~~~_..': '
l"~;E~~:Sf~SD~~.~ .
. .~(ln~~~~ I(T11') .
:JAME;S C..;BRANc;H, P,E..
. ctHSlU.-n.NC. O.\1L tNCfNEER
'2lJ(} E..Ji'rt)E:.DR.:vE' . .' .
:' 'OEl.TON......rt...'21:>8:. .,.
PHCOI[. "' ,AX' (386)" 57~2ll3O
.-maR: JrnbronchOrnpb:let.Mt
. TUSKAWILLA:>QtFlCE":PARK
'MN.~~ ~PRiNGs.';s:E~IN~(. cOONTY, n:ORIOA
. 0>',<, jO:E:\If;tQ8ER,.: .
.,' 'lUsK_A.Wlt.t!'A'_;OFFlCE:'PARK. lie
,. 8OQ'W;.'S.R,.:426; SUITE [
. ... .O"'EllO;..FL'. :J2165 . . .
'PHONE'J:46.jr~]'}7~~4:::~AX.' (40') 971-2005 _
.; ,.
" .:. ..... ',.
, ~.; . :.
/
//
/
/
". ~ - ;. ..:-.,-. . .'. .' .:. -,.~
I
I
I.
'j
I
""''fl~
Acerss RAMP - CVRaEO .ARE.A
'.iA:"'~.~"
_ .nttt.._...~__
,,,,.,
N
--- t
SCALE: 1. - 30'
----
olD 60
I
I
..1
I
" f.~~r ~>;.l
J .~ ..:,,*ir';~, ~.
r~ 0 .I\~o. d : ~,.~
:~-3 B;;m~ ..~!
~Dl .,;: ~~~ .:-. . ';r.~ ""
I
I
.j
i
i
I
I
I
!
I
I
I
:.-
. srr€;. . .
DIMENSION
,"PLAN .
.:... SHErr.';~ 'OF. 9.
~......
,.., .
.'
',,:~ P"'~ ..... .. .
. . t1"._....._
- ..... --- ".1Ug
___-cu.
. . - ,~,.
'~OUNTABlE.~RB ::O~T
. TYPE ,A IN EX 0,..
(N1S) .
SC-'LC ,- .. 20
-'SEPTE""Btk'4, 2001..
;:..~~...-
""'.~IU.
. ;. '.~.
II III!
1 \ II
I I II
~~
I /~""
:," ~ ...Oii;
111 ~
I I I I III II
111\ II I
I J III II
I .f'
I
I
1\ I
T
I
Iii
I
I II
II I II
U::..;. ..:..
....:. .:.: ...
I.::::: "C.,. .
.:":.'.:.
~.:.:.>..
Di::::<....i
=I::=~:<i.:
\
=
I I I II II I \"1 ::f'[ IT I II I
1 II II , II /I
I i I 01 K I I 11
II II II I
I I I Ii I
I I I , \ I I III
I III I I I Tl
I I I , II
I I It' I
T\ I I I I II. I I ,J I I
TmfT I II I r I I I II II
I IT II I 111 J I I I
II II I Tllll I , I If I
IT I I I I I I rN
"
=:,{ I
. .:..:~"
.::.i:::'::::
:\<
.:.::.::..~
:.::::..0
1.:.::.<.
\
-
.::./7.::;::..>.:.< . 1:/ I
3<: Ol? ~
'\. \::1:' I".:
\.,..::
: ,. ~ :::: .
)..0 <:.
c..: .::.
=
./: D .,\ :>. ~
:..: r.::
.-
\ ~
-~
I ;..:
o
>:(.
..;.1
:...
'--
.0..:.
::..::..
=
\,u.~. 5
I I I
1111 I
'I II I
r:;v '<C II I
~ I
:~.
AO~ ,
II I
I I I
I \
, I
=====
-T r I "
II 1\ II I
I II
...
::/:.1---
:.I<:;:(::U
/.: .;
.:: =
=... D
I:>: '-
l::: /
>
~
~
>
(]
==
~,
~
~
~
=
28 YR. RRCHTECTURRL ROOF
SHINGLES, INSTALLATION oS
FASTENING SPECS BY MRNU-
FRCTURER. SHALL COMPU
WITH FBC-200l
il2" SMOOTH STUCCO BRND
3/4" BRND
lEXTUREO CEMENT
OVER CONe. BLOC~
DECORATIVE TEXTURED CEMENi LOUVER '\ SA... TED FINISH
/I I III
I 1/1 I I
I I II
II I II I I
III I I II I
I
I
I I I
III 111111\ II I
I I I I
16",,16" TiLE INSERT
III II
I
I
~
1-
~ n ~
STtROfOAM SILL
STYROfOAM CRPITAL
FRRIRIE
ST'rLE WINDOWS
5CORE LINES
r ENTRT TRUSS TO BEAR
AT 9'-1-" (ATOP COLUMNS
, I
"'I
.0
. aj'.
. ,
, .
~
1-
1/
L COACH LIGHT PER
CUSTOMER S?ECIfIonrONS
7/S'. TEXT. CEMENT OVER
METAL LATH ON
7/16" 0.5.B.
III
I
'"
.-;..
.'....;
..................~m
........:::.:....
",:-.',;:.":.:":.' . ........
.:1 ~.. ~:<;
:-:",':::..':';'", :::::-.:<.~.:.::.. .;.......:..: ,"
FRONT ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/4"=1'-0"
"T..c_? ~
STUCCO RAISED
1" (iYPiCRLJ
12"~12"' TILE INSERTS
t
en
Apr-05-04 11:47P
ATTACHMENT C
666 0360
P.Ol
DOVER, KOHL &: PARTNERS
lown planning
Memorandum
To:
John Baker
City of Winter Springs
RECEIVED
APR - 5 2004
From:
James Dougherty
~ .
Date:
5 April, 2004
;.
; CITY OF WiNTER SPRINGS i
. .... Current Planning .._J
Subject: Tuskawilla Office Park- Bldg elevation comments
John,
Regarding the Thskawilla Office Park elevations sent for our review on April 1 :
1. The buildings look very low and slab-an-grade. They should have either a raised
finish floor or, at the minimum, a water table line to give the building a visual base.
2. The first elevation (with the pilasters) should have a more substantial cornice. The
cornice looks too thin compared to the heavy pilasters,
3, The shutters on the double windows at each end of the second elevation are too small
to realistically be able to cover the window surfaces, Shutters, if provided, should be
sized to fit the windows, For this reason, shutters should often be avoided on elevations
with double windows.
Please call with any questions,
-James