Estero Design Review Committee
Dec. 13, 2006
The Estero Recreation Center
9200 Corkscrew Palms Blvd.
Members in Attendance: Gordon Lyons,
Tom O’Dea, Nancy Cohen, Al O’Donnell, Jim Wallace, Joe McHarris, Bill Prysi
Gerald Simons, Wayne Robinson
Meeting called to order.
Approval of the minutes of the November 8th meeting were called for. A
motion to approve the minutes was made, seconded and carried unanimously.
Minutes were approved with no changes.
CPH of Ft. Myers
CPH presented their
revised building design, which now includes approx. 5050 SF as opposed to the
previously submitted 4,770 SF. In order to meet the code requirement for
permitted flat roof buildings in the Corkscrew Road overlay in Estero. The
building colors and base and cornice were thought to be appropriate and
the Applicant kept these elements as they reworked the building into more of a
Mediterranean style by adding detailing that improved the west elevation of the
bldg., including a window and an emergency exit door with awnings. The committee
recommended an 8 ft. wall be installed to screen the trash container.
indicated they no longer intend to have a monument sign at the corner.
Landscaping…Add 5 Sables at west side of building and stagger the heights at 8
and 16 feet. Soldiering of Sables is prohibited by Chapter 33. At south side,
there is a possible problem with oaks interfering with dumpster removal. Suggest
two groups of 3 sables on each island. Dry Retention Basins are required to be
planted with wetland shrub species (i.e. Spartina) in accordance with Chapter
33. The EDRC recommends that the entire retention basin be planted with
Cordgrass ( 1 gal.@ 3’ on center spacing) and/or other like species. Trees in
dry retention in parking area
should be changed to Cypress or Holly. Take extra care with preservation
of large live oaks. The EDRC does not believe that the measure the Appicant is
taking will ensure or provide for the survival of these Oaks. Undulate basin
elevation or other measures as needed to avoid cutting oak tree roots or
adversely changing the hydrology at the tree’s base. Applicant expressed his
desire to regroup the new plantings at the NW corner so that signage would not
be blocked. The EDRC concurs.
The committee expressed the opinion that the building was definitely not
appropriate for the Rt.41 overlay in Estero which limits the uninterrupted
length of the building to 75 ft. The applicant stated that the design was very
preliminary and that they were looking forward to the committees input. The
committee indicated that first and foremost the building should have a
Mediterranean look. Secondly that the roof line needs to be stepped and that
wall setbacks might be appropriate. The entrance is overpowering. There should
be concern for the appearance of the rear of the building which is visible from
the residences to the west. The Applicant agreed to revise the design and return
at the January meeting of the committee.
The committee requested that the design of the north face of Bldg, No. 1
be “broken up” into segments of 80’ – 60’ – 120’ to eliminate the repetitive
look facing Corkscrew Road. The roof line of Bldg’s 1 & 2 should incorporate
features similar to those of Bldg. 3. Trees indicated on north elevation of Bldg
No. 1 reflect the same as indicated on the plan. Trees should be 4” caliper, 45
gal. 12 to 14 ft. The Applicant was asked to check with DOT on the future
widening of Corkscrew to avoid any future conflicts.
Hole Montes, Charles Krebs
The building architecture shown in the presentation was generally well received.
The concern centered around the need to screen the north side of the buildings
from the residences located in Magnolia Bend in
Shadow Wood. The
applicant was requested to extend the existing 6’ berm and 8’ wall on the north
property line westward approx. 30’ to 35’ to the existing heavily wooded area. A
similar screening should also be incorporated on the west side of the same
wooded area, westward to the west property line. There is also concern for
limiting the permitted hours of deliveries.
The Applicant should work on improving the interconnectivity within the site,
especially from the corner retail out building to the entrance to SweetBay. The
wainscoting on the rear of the buildings should be extended. The committee
suggested that the corner at Three Oaks and Coconut is very important and if
opened up can create a sense of place and entrance for the center…particularly
the pedestrians and bicyclists.
Of particular note were the concerns expressed regarding traffic entering and
especially exiting the site onto Coconut Road. Traffic exiting from the parking
area directly onto Coconut Rd. can only turn west. Anyone wishing to go east
does not have turning lane for a U-turn for almost a half mile at the entrance
to Spring Run.
The plan indicates an exit to the west which passes through the parking lot
of Bonita Bay’s Offices. The exit from this parking lot into the Brooks
Community Center, crossing traffic entering the center just 25 ft. away from the
intersection of Coconut Road was expressed as “an accident waiting to happen”.
Richard W. Patrick
The presentation of the building was generally favorably received. The applicant
was told that connectivity between buildings is required at the side or rear of
the buildings per code. Size of the plant material in the buffer does not meet
code. All retention basins must be planted. A suggestion was made that the new
monument sign be changed to a more appropriate Mediterranean design and replace
the existing monument sign, rather than have two signs that conflict.
The Applicant came back with a revised submission that the committee was very
disappointed with. It appears that the client does not intend to conform with
the Rt. 41 Overlay and the committees previous comments. The committee requested
that the presenter return to the owner to inform them that we can not recommend
this project for approval.
A letter from the developer stating that they are currently having problems
getting approval from Lee County for the signs at
Muvico that EDRC previously approved. The
EDRC stated emphatically that they never approved the signs nor were they given
the opportunity to do so.
EDRC also noted that the Developer never provided the promised landscaping plans
at the rear of the building for the committees review and comment.
Next EDRC Meeting will be held on Wednesday, Jan. 10, 2007
5:00 P.M. at The Estero Park Community Center