10/08/1996 (2)
, .' \',
,. .' .,1 ~...____ ___........ ,-.1..... . '+'. . " .'
,
,~, I ~ ' -
, '
.f . . l.
Li'
,
...
I
I
~ ~ .':-
'..' ,;
, "
'. '
,.,.. " c
~' .' , C I . . .
'.' ,.
, "
'~ \ '. r>. '.' . .
, "
~ .: " C
,.' ' , .' ,
'.. :':',", :"";, ,",i
" :, :,',<: ~i>'~', "":,','.'~.-,,: ";':::.::> '
,'.- '<:.', ;"::1' .: '.;' C
:'H~.~~;!~'/(.;~l:~:~:~~\\\:'A!..i~~,i..Jf,~;;~~;.~I~:"::',,;:;~,','t:~i>,:, ,::,~!, '. +. : ::'. ~ '
, .~,.,.. ... ~t...~_.. ..oiu.....d.~' c~
: ~.'
..~.h..._.i.o.l...~tl';'.....~.JN .;~I...I!""~H. -I_"'~~'.', '{... ....'..
i " I i l':;' ~;_I, \ ~":' : '
: t~'
~ ~ 1.
': .'
-I. "
I .
"
'11,.
DRB
Design Review Board
Minutes
\ .
Date,
OJ-Dter
g)
I ~q (Q
, ,
,!
qlo~
'"
,
" I" C
i,;_,
1'., /' ~,
L', '
,i.
, ,
\,
" '
,', C
.:"
HI
, i
\
. . ' ~
"
, . .
" .'
~~, :' '" , . / . f
i; ./': > \ 1
, '
"
"
, " .
;':.:.
~. , C
.r;' ~ ~:.
'; ,
'.
,",:'...., :_.' '.. .... .' \., ......: 'L:""'-: ':' ',' '~I' ,.~ ',':tJ ' ' ~ ': ';""':":-'1""" ,":',,' , . "X',"," ': ,.' ,
, :':' " ": ,,',' ',..',' :',",' ," n ',1'1::1,',.'..', '..: "',, .,' ,.",..,', ':", '
h,' . i.
:Y.': ,', :"'.,, "~._-,--~.~..,.,,, .. ' , . " ' " ",',' ',' ,",,"
, ,er
~
e
u
..",
".....,'...
~, ~. :,\ . '
:":
'., .
'i::'. :
: :". : t.;"", ~::. ':',': ,~,;, :.:: ',',:..
. c, .'
"
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
CITY OF CLEARWATER
October 8, 1996
Present:
Kathy Milam
Robert Herberich
Mark ,Cagni
Alex Plisko
Howard Hamilton
Leslie Dougall-Sides
Don McCarty
Gwen Legters
William McCann
MacArthur jjMac" Boykins
Vice Chair
Board Member
Board Member
Board Member
Board Member
Assistant City Attorney
Design Planner
Board Reporter
Chair
Board Member
Absent:
To provide continuity for research, the Items are listed in agenda order although not
necessarily discussed In that order.
The meeting was called to order by the Vice Chair at 3:00 p.m. in City Hall.
Minutes Approval - September 24, 1996
Member Pliska 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.
Proposals for Design Review
1. D~B96-011 Burning Bridges Design Studio -- Mr. HiramBerry
700 'Court Street
Mr. McCarty said the applicant was not ready to make a presentation and had
requested a continuance to the meeting of October 22, 1996.
2. ORB 96-012 -- Surf West Clearwater Beach -- Steve Fowler
309 South Gulfview Boulevard
Mr. McCarty presented background information and staff recommendations, stating
the applicant proposes two buildings within a new retail development complex on
Clearwater beach. Standing-seam metal roofs, colorful tile panels, stucco walls, covered
walkways and tropical landscaping are designed to correspond to the Tropical Seascape
theme wanted for Clearwater beach. Staff has suggested additional wall and column
treatments, such as tile inserts or three dimensional stucco variations, to help break up the
large expanses of glass and wall. Mr. McCarty noted the proposal is located within the
design guidelines area of Clearwater beach, but design guidelines have not been adopted.
Stove Fowler, architect representing the applicant, referred to a site plan, elevation
drawings, a landscaping plan, and a color graphic, detailing the proposal, designed to be
mdrb10a.96 1 10/08/96
'~"""\'~~ "..t...... \~..\;. J._~,,:....;.,:.~.
~" ::i ~ I .1
',t '_,,' t . '~
. I. ;/>. ...:.....:. ~ .
",
.,' ..,
: '.,
'. I'
I,
: ~ ,::~ : " \ (' ',.;<
In"
. .co....
, ,T ..
~ . ! , ..
",J,,';
','
~.!'~". .. ~ ,:~ . :L::' l~, 1f {
,\,\"",c"T,,";,i'.., .
" ': ',"\. \.,..'
. "
. .... t'
.:, I'",
':",:':"J
, " . ~
I' ,I
. ",!;,"
, ""
4,'. . " '. ",
'.' I,' . '" "
"t'....,..', ,,: :Q' "":''::':;::'>'M\..''::.,''..~'
I :. ",.! :':
,I I l ."
':1.
,~' ':. I . '. . I',
. .;....::.'.: ',:',:\'
, :', :/:'-::'" >', ::,.~,:~': '. ',' I ,', '
1\,'
. . I ~. ;
i:','.'> ,I, ':.......
,I:, ~ ~<~ '.: . ':. ~.
I}' I.
'...,
.. =. ~
-" t
.,',1 '
,\ .
.; 'll "., ,? :';,'
I'.. "
...... >
'.. ,'. '~~.' I~ ...~._.~t_.........-___...~~ " ", ,f '. '+ ., ,.! . j' , :"""'.
,,')
~~,~~
'W
part of a new retail facility. To create a more pedestrian ambiance, Mr. Fowler proposed
to orient the building north and south, providing minor parking along Gulfview Boulevard,
with the balance of parking in the rear, along Coronado Drive. The site is not being
developed to the maximum allowable density and the owners have gone above and beyond
the call of duty to provide aesthetic features. Roof turrets will house mechanical
equipment to prevent it being seen from surrounding hotel balconies. The large glass
panels of the retail shops facing Gulfview Boulevard will be canted slightly downward to
refrect streetscape colors and activities, cut down on glare, and better enable view of
merchandise inside.
Mr. McCarty thanked the group for coming forward, due to the critical nature of the
project and the importance of aesthetic design on Clearwater beach. He agreed the
proposed building orientation lends itself to a more pedestrian friendly environment. Staff
felt conditions support the request and recommended approval as consistent with the
proposed design guidelines under consideration for Clearwater beach.
In response to questions, Mr. Fowler said the storefront glass will be untinted, with
ultraviolet screening. Commercial structures are not required to be elevated, but the
building wiIJ be flood proofed in accordance with FEMA regulations. Discussion ensued
regarding effectiveness of floodproofing, the rear parking plan, and building signage. Due
to the dual street frontage, Mr. Fowler said the buildings were not created with "back"
sides, but fewer pedestrian accesses were provided along the north and south sides
abutting the neighboring properties. Although signage is not part of this presentation, he
said one sign on each on Coronado and Gulfview will conform to the sign code.
Lengthy discussion ensued, with board members expressing concern the design does
not appear to follow the Tropical Seascape theme. Concerns were expressed metal roofs
do not lend enough of a tropical feel to overcome the boxlike appearance. It was felt the
large expanses of windows make the structure look sterile and unappealing, not unlike
commercial structures commonly found along US 19. Mr. McCarty explained those are the
reasons staff suggested breaking up the stucco and glass by introducing details to give a
more three-dimensional look. Some feared a large proliferation of window signage could
occur, similar to the situation at the Wings establishment. Mr. Fowler explained they have
tried to create a serene environment where visitors can look out over the water. He said
they have no intention of obstructing this view with neon or other retail signage.
Mr. Fowler discussed the proposed color scheme, stating the off.white background will
be brightened by strong burnt red ceramic tiles and umber accents. He wished to avoid
the appearance of pastel bathroom tile. He responded to further questions, stating the
Miami property owners have six locations on Clearwater beach, two in Mississippi, and one
in Las Vegas. One reason they did not take a softer approach to the design, was to get as
much retail store frontage as possible without developing the site to its potential. He
noted green space requirements arB met and the northlsouth orientation prevents tha "US
19 look". He fait creating a single-story retail building with 22 foot high ceilings lends to
the ambiance. The smaller retail/restaurant building is two stories, and the total proposed
square footage in the complex is 12,900. A question was raised regarding whether 29
parking spaces are sufficient for a development of this size. Mr. Fowler detailed code
parking requirements, stating a variance for two parking spaces was granted.
A question was raised whether Mr. Fowler considers this proposal responsive to the
Tropical Seascape theme, given his heavy involvement in development of the Clearwater
Beach Blue Ribbon Task Force. Mr. Fowler stated it is responsive, because of the
mdrb10a.96
2
10/08/96
;, :_""'" . '... ";.,;':":'::;C,'~,:;d";' ~';Q:">"':""":'" l',~::': :\::, >':",
, , ',,' ",," ".' 1,\,).", ',." IL..:.'.':,. '. ," ,\" I', ,'." """"
I . j . I. ~,' ~ ,I . '. ~, I ".. .' .: .' j . n. I', I ' , . . '. .' ,"/' " ..... .
..
~, " ~.'
t~
pedestrian orientation, and recognition of the Clearwater beach building scale by breaking
the proposal into two smaller structures. In response to a question regarding his opinion of
the Wings design, Mr. Fowler he stated their building could comply with the design
guidelines, except for the excessive signage, inappropriate colors and nonexistent
landscaping. Mr. McCarty understood the Surf West development is not going to have
window advertising with neon, or hanging banners, etc. Board members felt Hyde Park
and Pelican Walk are more representative of what local people prefer in terms of nice
retail. Mr. Fowler stated the intent is to incorporate art work into the merchandise
displays, creating the kind of high~tech ambiance that exists at Danielle's in Pelican Walk.
':'1.
Board members expressed concern they are unable to make a recommendation
without adopted design guidelines. Mr. McCarty stated the applicant came forward
voluntarily, asking for input. In the absence of a recommendation, the floor was opened
for suggestions. Members suggested softening the appearance with pastel colors, and
providing more visual interest by lowering the tile bands. Mr. McCarty reiterated again his
suggestion to incorporate some three~dimensional design features to make walls and
massing less uniform. The Chair thanked Mr. Fowler for his presentation.
3. ORB 96.013 n Pier 60 Park, Concessions Building Signage
Pier 60 Drive, Clearwater beach
Mr. McCarty presented background information and staff recommendations. Referring
to copies of supplemental drawings provided by the applicant, he said this signage package
is proposed by the Pier 60 concessions operator to reflect the Clearwater beach
redevelopment theme and will identify the building that provides concession services.
Staff has met with the facility operators to work out preferred locations for their three
.U:.~ signs. He noted this 'is not their original sign proposal, but has been modified to better
{'?'J' reflect some of the design elements at the project. Staff supported the signage package
as being in keeping with the design guidelines ~nd recommended approval.
Lisa Chandler and Richard Grist addressed the board, stating the logo was designed to
duplicate the timberline architectural feature and font used on the City's Pier 60
identification signs. The City's signs have a gray background with blue individually lighted
channel letters. Ms. Chandler said she designed her sign with the Pier 60 name in yellow,
backed with four different bright colors on a white background, and her business name
"Pier 60 Concessions, Retail and Rental."
Member Hamilton moved for approval. There was no second. Ms. Dougall~Sides
reiterated formal board approval is not required because design guidelines have not been
adopted for the subject property, but board members may give suggestions to the
applicant.
Several members expressed concern with the applicant choosing to use a corporation
logo instead of creating consistent signage to complement the existing signage throughout
the area. Ms. Chandler reiterated she incorporated the Pier 60 logo into her design, but
added colors to brighten it. Discussion ensued regarding the proposed colors and whether
the applicants have the authority to deviate from the established colors in use at the
project. Mr. McCarty stated, as the selected firm to operate the Pier 60 concession, they
are entitled to signage. He did not believe it was part of the RFP to restrict signage to the
existing features. As the proposed signage is responsive to the name and architectural
features and does not exceed the square footage allowance, he felt it is appropriate.
\;J
mdrb10a.96
3
10108/96
:~'; ~. '. <, :"
."- J'-~'" , '.;:, . ....;\ , .,'
\\
l' '.t...... . .~...._,_...~__~.__....\-l.._~...'., " . '. . "'. .~:' '.,' ,.1.. l' . l,
~
In response to a question regarding the business name, Ms. Chandler said it
summarizes the building, its purpose and use, and the colors were part of the bid packet as
an example of their logo. She objected to the expressed concerns, stating she was not
aware the City could dictate one's freedom of expression. She questioned, other than
changing the colors to reflect the board members' personal preference rather than hers,
how the proposed sign differs from the existing Pier 60 slgnage. She offered to let the
City put up a gray sign if they wanted to pay for It. She reiterated she designed the sign
to be as simplistic as possible, identically matching the timberline structure and font.
One member stated the colors do not bother him, but questioned the shape of the
sign, stating it does not lend itself to any of the building's features. It was indicated the
shape was created to fit into the upper area of the facade, but the location was lowered at
staff's suggestion. Mr. McCarty affirmed it covered some of the distinctive architectural
features in its original proposed location. He and Mr. Grist discussed the rationale of the
proposed signage placement. One member was under the impression the sign was a flat
panel and cutting off the top to leave a basically rectangular shape. Mr. Grist said that
would require refabricating the entire sign because it is an illuminated box with a single
plastic face. The suggestion to cut off the top was withdrawn.
Ms. Dougall-Sides questioned whether the lease provisions require ORB approval for
signage. Mr. McCarty will investigate and bring this item back to the board if it is found
ORB approval is needed under the terms of the lease. He thanked board members for their
input.
Board and Staff Discussion
~'~ Staff was requested to bring future sign proposals forward before the signs are
~~;, manufactured. Mr. McCarty stated he has experienced limited success in his attempts to
encourage citizens to follow a design theme, and/or to bring their designs forward for
design roview.
t;)
Mr. McCarty distributed a memo from Central Permitting Director Scott Shuford
requesting ORB consideration and input concerning two upcoming projects:
standardization of "sandwich board" signs and the appropriateness of outdoor merchandise
display in view of the City's aesthetic goals. In response to a question, Ms. Dougall-Sides
said she has not been involved beyond hearing discussion of certain existing cases.
Consensus of the board was they are willing to review and provide input regarding these
two issues. Questions were raised and discussion ensued regarding code limitations of
sandwich board signs in terms of size and placement within City right-of-way. Staff was
requested to obtain information regarding what is being done in other communities.
Mr. McCarty reported the City's RFP (Request for Proposal) for a design guidelines
consultant yielded two respondents. As both proposals were responsive to the RFP
requirements, a suggestion was made to see if a portion of the contract could be
negotiated with each of the 2 firms. Both respondents have indicated willingness to do
that. He stated an important part of the guidelines development process is to have the
consultants appear before the ORB for input into the design guidelines. The two firms are
Harvard, Jolly, Cleese, and Toppe, and Wade Trim and Associates, in conjunction with
Steve Fowler. One member observed one firm had slicker graphics presentations, while
the other had better background and a more substantive presentation. Mr. McCarty hoped
to provide more information regarding negotiations at the next meeting.
mdrb10a.96
4
10/08/96
. '.. ~,~, "~~'" "..--------
',~..'..':'!...'.":.:.::.;:;,:': '.":","",'," ::'j,:' "'.:>'.": ,:>'.".,':"'.::,,' ," ,,':',~',:',,',:....:',:;.,.,::::::,:'.:' ~,:':'.'.!>'::,..,',~'<":,; .:"~~... ,:,J.<..:''..'''' '; ,.",' .:",1, .,..'t',' ': ': '," '::',J
"_",.( .,.",..,.'"., ","""" ,\,\0."
~.'.::,,<\' ; ,\.,' ,,;' :-.';,'. ;:. "': :'. ' " "."'" :,:"::",,'J.-",, ::,:;:' ''"Q'''' '.,'.: '-,: '~J" ;. ::", , .', : '.. .,.'" ....' '" ":'. \'. : "',:, ';. '.
\ I.,' . " . I;, ' . l , ~ , L . I ,I' ~. ,'o' '.'~, ' .... I;' t \" . ; I , ," I
. .,.' . . I L r / ~ . ' ~ ' ',:' . :, ' .,; ','" . : I' " I , ~':,' >' . ' .... .' L I, ," " '; " 'J'. f I 'it ' .
Adjournment
The meeti':'!9 was adjourned at 4: 1 0 p.m.
~
.'
" ',';;"'~': "!);;:;,'{:"::,;i~:~'J/;i~':;;:',"'-"~:"'" "
, ,
'0
Mr. McCarty reported the City's State Historic grant application will be heard
November 19 in Tallahassee. While he was confident the application will be given serious
c,onsideration, he cautioned there are no assurances the City will receive the grant.
Mr. McCarty distributed copies of proposed meeting dates for 1997, asking board
members to review the schedule for approval at the next meeting.
Member Milam was troubled by the decision to place a lighted fluorescent sign on the
beach despite the board's concern. She questioned if it is possible to recommend to the
City Commission for the ORB to review signs on City property within the board's
jurisdiction, so when City property is leased out, the City can maintain control of the signs
for consistency with a design theme. Ms. Dougall-Sides recommended addressing those
comments in a memo to the City Commission or the City Manager, who negotiates with
City property lessees. She and Mr. McCarty agreed it seems logical to be sensitive to the
board's concern that the City have more control over lessors' signage, especially since it
may be some time before design guidelines are adopted. Staff will convey to management
the need to look into this issue.
,,-
~'g9
Attest:
~
l';':;"~
,~
mdrb10s.96
5
10/08/96
. , ..
'.. . < . ,....'
. ',..'.'.' :. :,~' ,'/