Loading...
10/24/1995 (2) t'. J-,__....:~.........,..,.-"l. , " '".' , ,', ,...'!:~'t~. ',~ / ~ .{ , II " I ". '~~ " .' , r ,( 'i' " : " '<', < l,",:' '':.: ',-" , .: J, ):1,' '" :, ~. I ',.~' ; " . ..' , v: ~ ,: ' '( ",.., .,' . > " ,:',-j~ ;'; " ':>. '~',}' ,,',. ,; '. . , " ',~ ~'.. ,~,"I., ; ,: ,\ ",'. . ,,' '. , ..: ,"'r.. .", ,~,..)~;'",,:"t ~~~.,r;,.,.,'.~, ;;..,,::,~,~ :~"~.H'.i~2,,:'f.~LL~~~._,~. '. " h ,_......M,"'~.-;'.,. ,1~..b: {.:'\"'~ .J{), ," It'.,,' .':. :,: I;" DRB " , .' Design Review Board Minutes ,': , " , \' " , QctQber ay, ) /qQS ',' '."Date: " " , ~ \ ", , ", ~ ; ~, : \ I,;, . i , ,j: '6~5 "...;', i " t .: ~' :: ':,1. ',' ; ;;. ,- ~ . ~ ~' ; :' : ~ ' I.' . , '.., ~ " " , : . \~ ' ,. ~ " > ,\ '. ~,' ., . ". " " ,I , ~, ., 'I ',;~ : d ". '. ~ ~ .,' ," " ',',0,.., i, '. .)', ',..... :'i(" ,. ",."_" ..... ',< ": ....c ~ ..... · '",::.-."__,':0.':: ,> . ,', ....;:. i , ,.i'" '. r." .1"1,, ['~" ' . " " ".,\ " , """" '4 ".',f-t", '" ~' . .,'" '01;-.-", '. ~,,,,----~----~---.,,,,,,,,,,,. " ' , "'. .. -"- ..._~ ~ ..........,~.' ..' , "':. " ~'... ' ,'. ',,' " . ! , .. "~I) ~ ~,d ,: . ,';~, ' : .',. '. >~.,"' . . ~ ' . "~. l- ,~ . u~ ......~ DESIGN REVIEW BOARD CITY OF CLEARWATER October 24, 1995 Present: William McCann Robert Herberich Mary Mavronicolas Kathy Milam MacArthur "Mac" Boykins Leslie A. Dougall~Sides Scott Shuford Don McCarty Gwen Legters Vice Chair Board Member Board Member Board Member Board Member Assistant City Attorney Central Permitting Director Design Planner Board Reporter Absent: Arthur Shand Kate McCullough Chair Board Member The Vice Chair called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m. in City Hall. To provide continuity for research, the Items are listed in agenda order although . not necessarily discussed In that order. o Minutes Approval - October 10, 1995 Member Milam moved to approve the minutes according to copies submitted in writing to each member by the Board Reporter. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 1996 Meeting Schedule A tentative 1996 schedule of meetings was discussed. Mr. Shuford and Mr. McCarty responded to questions regarding vacation and schedule conflicts. Consensus was for members to review the schedule for approval at the next meeting. Regarding anticipated duration of meetings, Mr. Shuford said it would depend on the design guidelines and the case load. It was indicated, once the design guidelines are in place, many issues will be resolved without coming before the Board. Mr. Shuford said the design guidelines, case load capacity, and conduct of business ,could be reevaluated if the meetings run too long. He hopes to bring forward staff reviewed proposals that can be discussed with minor conditions for approval. o Discussion ensued regarding adoption of the guidelines. Mr. McCarty felt the guidelines should be well publicized, so once they are adopted by a resolution of the City Commission, the public is not caught by surprise. mdrb10b.95 1 10/24/95 ""~~: .i~...~;'-',.,.;1N~ .........u.....~ , ,. ,.., .........h.....~...~.4:.',_,L.....,.....~.l,ll."'-:.M-IM~r~~~l,"~-. <..., , ' 'f"'" , ~:r ,~~, ." '.'/""'_" '.:" {. ';,::: ,",' '.::' ,"',:,:i', ",',', ':: ,:". :'.' {.:::',", "': :.: ''> ,,:' ':'... <,,: '.: .,.:' '.>,': ::~:" '.:',: :",:' ">:~I,' .', ',.,/:',:> :>:.':'~" :.'<,",:>~':' :;..,.~"~,,.": ,: ~.::, ':~ " ' . >""/" .:: .::'::', "', >,":'..... ,: . . ': ' :';, '.... ::::' ,::: "&::1' . . ''',; ',: '. ',: ""~J"" '. ','.... .::' :-:" ",. ',',..:,,:.,', '.',' :: :.-': '>';:,'.>." , , .'" \'" ,1',..., '.' . , . '.' , , " , ,,',: " , :' 'j-. ,F'" '. ' ,J ~, + I: \" I , .' .. ' ", ,~' .")' " , ," ; <' \: .,'. "" () ',1,(', ., ' '.. ',' ." " :'.~:: '. 1 . ',<':, , ..i' , '.I' , ~ r. ,'If , ' ',' ,',.:..:, " ' l>'ill;"I"., ~ '" . '.', .' ,,'" '.' ,.'" i, '. ,. ,'I'.': ~ ~ :, ': :;,' ,i I, y ~, u", ~ .~ ,\.t', ',..'.,! ~.,',.. .~. Board Discussion 1. Time Line for Board Activities Mr. McCarty prepared and handed out copies of a proposed time line at the request of the Board. Mr. McCarty indicated Board discussion and Legal review of design guidelines will take the rest of this year. Review and adoption of Rules of Procedure and election of officers are scheduled for January 1996. If the previous guidelines are used as a basis for the new guidelines, they should be ready for adoption by the City Commission by February and implementation by March 1996. In response to a question, it was indicated as the guidelines for downtown take shape, it is hoped to dovetail in the remaining two areas for final adoption all at once. Mr. McCarty felt a draft of guidelines for downtown could be ready by the next meeting in three weeks. 2. Preliminary Design Guidelines/Downtown Consensus at the last meeting was to review the booklet, Design Guidelines - A Guide To Renovation and Rehabilitation for the Central Business District of Clearwater, Florida. Prepared in 1994 by the design review subcommittee of the Downtown Development Board, this pamphlet was felt to be a good basis for Clearwater's design criteria. , Discussion ensued regarding revising and formally adopting Design Guidelines. While the Board agreed with the ideas as outlined, concern was expressed some categories were too vague to be uniformly applied. Ms. Dougall-Sides suggested, where clarification is needed, listing specific examples of what is encouraged and discouraged. For instance, darkly tinted windows on storefronts and day-glo paint colors are discouraged. Discussion ensued regarding the importance of maintaining flexibility and allowing for creative license. It was noted Design Guidelines appears to address only development and restoration congruous with existing historic buildings. Concern was expressed this does not adequately provide for new construction and design in areas not adjacent to historic "main street" structures. Discussion ensued regarding creating a rhythm in how buildings relate to each other. It was felt a slightly classical look is more aesthetic and appropriate to the ambiance of downtown than an extremely modern approach. It was indicated an unspoken theme already exists. While being open to interpretation allows for creativity and quality of life, being too vague can allow an "anything goes" approach. Listing examples of what is encouraged and discouraged was again suggested as a means of guiding, not restricting creativity. If the Board wished to strictly prohibit certain features, Ms. Dougall-Sides suggested this be done by ordinance. She stressed the criteria must be substantial enough to allow for consistent interpretation. Mr. Shuford suggested having a checklist and a points system for considering each application. mdrb10b.95 2 10/24/95 . " '. , ~\' , :,' "" >,.. ,l'> " " ,. ",. '." ,,' . I, :'" ,." :,:,~'.'~. ...,'.~',\,,',,'; '" ",: ' ,'.' I," '. , .' " , ' ,... ',I I' . ,1; ,I:' " "...;'C.""',..::Sq:{,',::~{{.~:;(;, : 'I . ~ ,~, ' .. ': ~.', : i ',:', ........ ,': {, '.' ";' \ < ,;,Li :> " ~"""", ,\ , .','.' ,<' ~ ~.. ',~ ~ :',' " i", 'f' , , ,I, .>t \' ':L:,',i",., 'I' " ' ,t] Discussion ensued regarding details of the Community Redevelopment Agency's (CRA) Downtown Plan. It was noted their plan covers a variety of issues that will not need to be addressed by the Board. Mr. Shuford pointed out some of the Board's design criteria may be more restrictive than the City Code and the Board will have discretionary authority in those cases. Mr. McCarty restated an educational program will be part of the implementation plan so the new guidelines will have a positive impact on the public and the real estate community. The Board concluded that a team of design professionals spent a year putting together Design Guidelines - A Guide To Renovation and Rehabilitation for the Central Business District of Clearwater, Florida and the Board should not discount it. It was felt having the Design Review Board go over the document point by point and compiling a new set of guidelines would be counter productive and a duplication of effort. Consensus was to use the data in Design Guidelines as the basis for the City's design guidelines. Staff was requested to review the booklet and come back with a draft set of guidelines based on today's discussion. Mr. Shuford said he would highlight the proposed text with points for Board consideration when reviewing applications. He said language can be tightened up with examples of what is encouraged and discouraged. These examples are to be incorporated and related to character defining structures. He also said he would work toward wording the text so the Board is not bound to replicate what is in one particular blackface. The draft is to be brought back for Board review at the next meeting. ~';11~ A suggestion was made to further avoid duplication of effort by working with Mike {,-r::-J Sanders of the Historical Preservation Society, to develop a specific list of properties that exemplify and define the character wanted for downtown. See Board and Staff Comments below for further discussion of historical properties. Mr. McCarty pointed out the first set of guidelines will not be the ultimate authority. He said it will be necessary to review and amend the guidelines two or three times a year, as needed. Director's Items Mr. McCarty reported staff is considering putting together a proposal for a historical grant application, due by December 15, 1996. He said the grant would require matching funds from the City; however, no money is in the budget at this time. He is investigating how much would be needed to conduct the survey and if any City funds can be raised for the match. He displayed a map and discussed districts in which historical studies have already been done. Mr. McCarty suggested, as an alternative, having a team research and a report on a few historical buildings every year, as is done in other communities. Discussion ensued regarding where to raise funds locally to match the grant. Mr. McCarty said he will be talking to several groups to determine the realistic potential for putting together the match. Mr. Shuford recommended the Board concentrate on developing design guidelines instead of spending limited time and resources looking for matching funds. ..., mdrb10b.95 3 10/24/95 " , . , , . :,':.;./ '\ :(~:'r,~~l\;).'~t;'~:,":~}',<~"" ..: '." . , ," " .7') , ,~,w Mr. McCarty said a revised plan for benches and streetscape at the former Bank of Clearwater building now includes planters and flowers. He said the Parks department also indicated they are purchasing trash receptacles Gimilar to what is proposed for use along 500 Cleveland Street. Mr. McCarty reported the next meeting will be on November 14, 1995, in the ORe Conference Room of the City Hall Annex. Board and Staff Comments Discussion ensued regarding provIsions for protecting, restoring, preservation andlor demolition of historical structures. Mr. Shuford said a demolition policy regarding historical buildings could not stop a property owner from tearing down a property, but could effectively slow down a demolition. It was indicated a survey identifying historical structures needs to be done and a question was raised whether grant money is available for this. ' Discussion ensued regarding the Drew and Cleveland street corridors, Bayview, Harbor Oaks and North Greenwood neighborhoods. One member felt the ambiance of the Hyde Park shopping area in Tampa would be very effective in Clearwater. (~ A question was raised regarding how the proposed downtown lake would fit into the design plans. It was indicated implementation of the lake proposal depends on numerous other projects currently proposed for downtown. Mr. Shuford felt a substantial lake in downtown would be very beneficial to private development. One member noted retention areas similar to those in Orlando can be very attractive. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 5:00 p.m. v/CG Ch . DeSign Review Board Attest: ~ Board Reporter , o mdrbl0b.95 4 10/24/95 , .' ,,';': ','~f~~:<?,':' ,"