Public Meeting

April 14, 2010 at 5:00 P.M.

The Estero Recreation Center

9200 Corkscrew Palms Blvd.

Members in Attendance:  Nancy Cohen, Brian Farrar, Bob Melzer, Bill Prysi, Gerald Simons and Jim Wallace

Absent:                                 Joe McHarris and Al O’Donnell

Chaired By:                          Bob Melzer

Minutes By:                          Ramona Thomas

The meeting was called to order by Bob Melzer at 5:00 PM.

Approval of Meeting Minutes:

A motion was made by Mr. Prysi to approve the February 10^th minutes as circulated to the Committee in advance of the meeting.  The motion, seconded by Ms. Cohen was approved unanimously.

Opening Comments:

Mr. Melzer reported that he agreed to be the Chair for the EDRC after Tom O’Dea’s resignation on a temporary basis.  Due to work and other scheduling issues, this will be Mr. Melzer’s last month as the Chair for the EDRC.  Mr. Prysi has volunteered to fill in as the Chair for the Committee until a permanent replacement has been found.

NEW BUSINESS – PROJECT PRESENTATIONS

APPLICANT:                        Cayo De Estero, Monument Sign

Location of Project:           West side of US 41 near Estero Parkway

Presented by:                      Brian Smith, Ensite

Plans for the site plan were submitted to and approved by the committee in December 2009.  The proposed monument sign for the site will be 17 feet tall by 9 feet wide and is designed to be consistent with the architectural theme of the shopping center.  The sign includes the site name, address and has Plexiglas SG panels for tenant identification.

Comments:

• Section 33 requires sign base to be wider than it is tall.
• Based on the restricted site this vertical sign makes sense however it does not meet Estero guidelines and other developers have been held to the same standards of sign requirements and this presentation should not be treated differently.
• The Plexiglas SG panels, as presented, do not meet code and must be an opaque background with clear backlit letters.
• Due to lack of space for proper monument sign placement, the committee recommends making an architectural feature by constructing it in a four-sided architectural tower element instead of the proposed monument sign (to meet the code requirements). Creating an Architectural Feature with signage on it will afford the Applicant the means in which to create the form that they are looking for.

Conclusions:

A motion was made by Mr. Farrar to review a revised architectural tower design via email and do a straw poll of the committee without providing a final approval. The final revised plan would be reviewed and approved at the next EDRC meeting. The motion seconded by Mr. Simons was approved unanimously.

APPLICANT:                        Chase Bank

Location of Project:           US 41 & Corkscrew Road at Wing City site

Presented by:                      Morris-Depew Associates

The building will be consistent with the design concept of the main shopping center. A substantial buffer and landscaping will be added to the site.  The drive through was separated from the parking and pedestrian area.  There is a tower element located on each side of the building and at the front elevation, with a canopy element for the drive through on located the rear elevation.  The windows include bronze window casings and Bahama shutters, the entry canopy color will be the Chase corporate blue and includes barrel tile for the roof.  The building will be designed to achieve the Energy Star rating.

Comments:

• The Applicant used an interpretation of the Code that defined the total square footage differently than the Committee has historically understood. Although the Committee does not agree with this interpretation (as defined below), they considered the Applicants design due to the extensive landscape plan that they submitted and committed to executing in its entirety.
  
• Chapter 33 defines buildings with fewer than 5000 square feet of under air usage requires a minimum roof pitch of 30 degrees. This building is less than 5000 square feet under air based on the historical interpretation of code and therefore the Committee noted that it should have a pitched roof. The Committee will consider a deviation to this requirement based solely on how the Applicant returns revisions to the building as discussed at the meeting and addresses the shortcomings outlined by the Committee at the presentation

• Some of the issues raised by the EDRC are more specifically noted as follows:

1.    Having proposed some nice architectural features on the building design such as awnings but front entry is minimal and overhang is quite small. There is not much of a Mediterranean feel for the building overall. It was suggested to extend the awning out on south elevation.  (It was noted by the Owner’s Rep that this will be an ATM vestibule and precautionary measures must be taken to keep clients safe.)

2.    Building design is dull and appears to be a big box with elements added on. The parapet is a constant height with no undulation or variance of any kind. There is no pitched roof (as required) and the building design is too symmetrical. It was suggested to enlarge and raise the height of one of the towers.

3.    Add more elements to the front of the building; for example some decorative sconce lamps on the entry columns, add more articulation in the façade, add a third body color with different colors and or accents to break up the parapets and architectural elements.

4.    The Energy Star issue is a valid statement and the committee is willing to consider the roof configuration issue due to the energy efficiency rating of the building. However previous committee exceptions have still required at least 60% of the roof area to be pitched.

• The Landscape Plan and Site Plan where reviewed with favorable approval. The Applicant noted that there is currently no pedestrian infrastructure to tie the bank in with the supporting shopping center. Therefore, it was approved to not provide sidewalks to nowhere. The Applicant has however provided pedestrian access to the US-41 sidewalk. The Landscape goes over and above code and the Applicant has committed to executing it as drawn. The additional landscape is being considered as a possible tradeoff in the issues noted with the building.

• Conceptual signage was presented and the Committee noted that the signage presented at this time is not consistent with the requirements of Chapter 33. The Applicant committed to represent signage at the next meeting.

Conclusions:

The Applicant committed to a return for a second presentation with appropriate changes to the building and completed monument signage for the Committee’s review and final comments before issuing a formal recommendation on these items to Lee County. The Committee noted that the site plan and landscape design met with their approvals and could be issued to the County as meeting the public presentation requirements of Chapter 33.

APPLICANT:                        Miromar Design Center Billboard Signage

Location of Project:           Same as existing sign at the MDC site

Presented by:                      Michael Elgin, Miromar Development Corporation

The proposed billboard was presented to the Planning Panel in May ‘09 for an amendment to increase the height of the sign from 35 feet to approx 55 feet.  The new billboard will be at the same location as the existing sign.  In addition to the increase in the overall height, the new billboard will consist of rotor-panel design with no rider on the top.  The catwalk will remain as is for needed installation of the rotor-panels.  There will be no outside advertisers; only tenants on-site at the Miromar Design Center will be used on the new sign.

Comments:

• Include a tiered landscaping plan at the base of the sign, possibly a littoral shelve at the lake bank and include varying heights of shrubs and/or trees to anchor the sign.

• It is suggested the color of the box from be black or bronze so it is less obtrusive.

• There are many concerns about the sign being used as a marketing median Miromar Design Center affiliates such as Miromar Outlets or Miromar Lakes (even if those affiliates are tenants of Miramar Design Center).

Conclusions:

The Applicant will bring back with the recommendations made for landscaping and a commitment the signs will not be used for MDC affiliated companies, only those at the MDC.

OLD BUSINESS

No old business was discussed

Meeting Adjourned:

There being no further business to come before the committee, the meeting was adjourned at 7:15 PM.

Next Meeting:         

Wednesday, May 12, 2010, 5:00 P.M. at the Estero Recreation Center.

© 2005-:All rights reserved    Disclaimer     Privacy Policy    Site Map    FAQ