Estero Design Review Committee

Meeting Minutes

Public Meeting
Dec. 13, 2006
5:00 P.M.
The Estero Recreation Center
9200 Corkscrew Palms Blvd.

Meeting Time:                        5:00 P.M.
 
Members in Attendance:        Gordon Lyons, Tom O’Dea, Nancy Cohen, Al O’Donnell, Jim Wallace, Joe McHarris, Bill Prysi
 
Members Absent:                   Gerald Simons, Wayne Robinson
 
Minutes By:                            Tom O’Dea
 
 
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.

Applicant: Ruby Tuesday at Estero Park Commons

Fee:                                         Paid       
  
Presentation by:                      CPH of Ft. Myers
 
Discussion:
          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.
          Signage…Applicant 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.

Applicant: Rooms To Go

Fee:                                         Not Paid
 
Presentation by:                      AIM Engineering
                     
Discussion:
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.

Applicant:ASAP Storage At Corkscrew

Fee:                                         Not Paid

Presentation By:                     Al Quattrone
 
Discussion:
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.

Applicant: The Brooks Town Center

Fee:                                         Not Paid
 
Presentation By:                     Hole Montes, Charles Krebs
 
Discussion:
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”.

Applicant: Estero Fire Rescue Building

Fee:                                         Not Paid
 
Presentation By:                     Richard W. Patrick
 
Discussion:
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.

Applicant: Steak n Shake

Fee:                                         Previously Paid
 
Presentation By:                     AIM Engineering
 
Discussion:
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.

Old Business:

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.

New Business:

Meeting adjourned.     
 
Next Meeting:                         Next EDRC Meeting will be held on Wednesday, Jan. 10, 2007
5:00 P.M. at The Estero Park Community Center