The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2012 04 23 Public Hearing 501 Hayes Road Plaza Aesthetic Review COMMISSION AGENDA Informational Consent ITEM501 Public Hearings X Regular April 23, 2012KSRS Regular MeetingCity ManagerDepartment REQUEST: The Community Development Department - Planning Division requests the City Commission hold a public hearing for the re-approval of an Aesthetic Review for Hayes Road Plaza, located on the southwest corner of the intersection of Hayes Road and SR 434. SYNOPSIS: The applicant is requesting re-approval of an Aesthetic Review for Hayes Road Plaza, a 17,128 square foot single-story shopping center located on the southwest corner of the intersection of Hayes Road and SR 434. The Aesthetic Review was originally approved by the City Commission on March 24, 2008. Per Section 9-604 of the City Code of Ordinances, the approval period of the Aesthetic Review is 18 months from the date the City Commission renders its approval at a public meeting. If a building permit is not obtained within the 18 month period, the City Commission's approval shall expire at the end of the period. No building permit has been issued for this property and the Aesthetic Review approval has since expired. The applicant has indicated that he has secured financing for the project and is ready to proceed. The Aesthetic Review was considered by three (3) members of the Planning & Zoning Board on April 4, 2012. In accordance with Section 20-56, the board's recommendation for approval failed because an affirmative vote from three (3) or more members of the board was not achieved. CONSIDERATIONS: FUTURE LAND USE AND ZONING DESIGNATION FLU: Commercial Zoning: C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial) Public Hearings 501 PAGE 1 OF 5 - April 23, 2012 APPLICABLE LAW AND PUBLIC POLICY Chapter 9, Article XII. Minimum Community Appearance and Aesthetic Review Standards. Section 9-601. Approval prerequisite for permits. Section 9-603. Procedure. Section 9-604. Duration of Approval. Section 9-605. Submittal requirements. Chapter 20, Division 3. General Design Standards for Redevelopment Area. : DISCUSSION On March 24, 2008, the City Commission approved an Aesthetic Review for Hayes Road Plaza. The 1.99 acre site is located on the southwest corner of the intersection of Hayes Road and SR 434. Hayes Road Plaza is proposed as a 17,128 square foot single-story shopping center that includes a 24-hour convenience store without gas pumps as one of the uses. Per Section 9-604 of the City Code of Ordinances, the approval period of the Aesthetic Review is 18 months from the date the City Commission renders its approval at a public meeting. If a building permit is not obtained within the 18 month period, the City Commission's approval shall expire at the end of the period. No building permit has been issued for this property and the Aesthetic Review approval has since expired. In March 2012, the applicant submitted building plans for the shopping center that proposes the convenience store as one of the uses in the center. During the review of the building plans, it was determined that the Aesthetic Review approval expired. As a result of this situation, the applicant is requesting re-approval of the Aesthetic Review. : CHRONOLOGY February 22, 2006 – Concept plan for a 20,100 square foot commercial center was  submitted. January 22, 2007 - Preliminary engineering/site plan approved by Commission.  March 7, 2007 - Aesthetic review package was submitted.  January 5, 2007 – Revised aesthetic review plans submitted to City.  nd March 29, 2007 – Final engineering/site plan and 2 aesthetic review packages  received. November 14, 2007 – Final engineering/site plan approved by Commission, subject to  conditions. December 10, 2007 – Commission directed the applicant and City’s consultant to  modify building aesthetics March 6, 2008 – Applicant, City’s consultant, staff and City Manager address  aesthetic review March 24, 2008 - Aesthetic Review approved by the City Commission.  January 15, 2009 – Board of Adjustment voted 4-1 to recommend approval of the  Conditional Use. January 26, 2009 - Conditional Use was approved by the City Commission.  September 24, 2009 – Aesthetic Review approval expired.  January 26, 2011 – Conditional Use approval expired  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, Public Hearings 501 PAGE 2 OF 5 - April 23, 2012 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 proposed building is to be constructed of concrete block covered primarily with stucco. The building’s varied roofline, water table, and expression line enhance its appearance as do quoins at the corners. The addition of the stone and brick veneer, in combination with the colonnade and alternating awnings and canopies are further embellishments. This style and color combination should be a welcome addition to this area. (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 project is in harmony with the existing developments in the surrounding area. The proposed elevations represent an upgrade to the older architecture exhibited within the surrounding area. Contextually, the proposed architecture represents an integrated part to the surrounding area that is composed of numerous architectural styles. (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 building is tastefully designed and does not appear excessively similar or dissimilar to other structures in the immediate area and represents a positive addition to the architecture located in the surrounding. (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 project does enhance the character and overall aesthetics of the surrounding area. The proposed building has a contextually appropriate architectural style and includes design features and detailing that accentuate the building and Public Hearings 501 PAGE 3 OF 5 - April 23, 2012 enhances the established character of the existing structures in the area. The local community is comprised of different architectural styles and, therefore, the proposed project represents a positive addition to this 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 proposed project is consistent and compatible with the Comprehensive Plan and other applicable design guidelines such as those detailed in the State Road 434 Redevelopment Area. The applicant has worked with staff to provide a building with several architectural enhancements in order to be consistent and compatible with the intent and purpose of the Comprehensive Plan, State Road 434 Redevelopment Area architectural design guidelines, and the requirements for the Aesthetic Review process. The final architectural plans are being reviewed for compliance with all building code criteria. (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 project is attractive and will be an asset to the community, given the architectural enhancements already mentioned. The applicant worked with staff in providing distinctive design details to help add variation to the project such as a water-table that has been provided around the bottom perimeter of the building. FINDINGS: 1.The proposed building elevations are consistent with the Aesthetic Review guidelines prescribed in the City Code of Ordinances and the State Road 434 Redevelopment Area. 2.The building elevations include attention to detailing adding to the appearance and the quality of the development. 3.The proposed building utilizes colors and materials that complement the developments in the surrounding area. 4.The proposed development is located within the City of Winter Springs: it has a Commercial Future Land Use designation and is in the C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial) zoning district. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no specific Fiscal Impact associated with this agenda item relative to the re- approval of the aesthetic review. The potential tax revenue of the proposed project is estimated as follows: 17,128 Square Foot Shopping Plaza assessed at $1,712,800 $1,712,800/1000 = 1,712.8 1,712.8 (2.5600) = $4,384.77 Public Hearings 501 PAGE 4 OF 5 - April 23, 2012 $4,209.38 tax revenue $4,384.77 (less the 4% statutory discount) = City of Winter Springs taxes paid on vacant land now (data obtained from Seminole County Property Appraiser): $862.31 Total Potential Ad Valorem Tax Revenue: $5,071.69 COMMUNICATION EFFORTS: This Agenda Item has been electronically forwarded to the Mayor and City Commission, City Manager, City Attorney/Staff, 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 applicable 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. This information has also 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. Furthermore, this information is also available to any individual requestors. City Staff is always willing to discuss this Agenda Item or any Agenda Item with any interested individuals. The property has been posted with a standard yellow sign announcing the action being considered and giving information relative to the meeting place and time. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Commission approve the aesthetic review package for the Hayes Road Plaza project. ATTACHMENTS: A.Aesthetic Review Package - approved March 24, 2008 B.Minutes - April 4, 2012 Planning & Zoning Board meeting Public Hearings 501 PAGE 5 OF 5 - April 23, 2012