Loading...
03/11/1997 (2) , . , . t , ,~. .~ _........~~__...H.....-. f . , ...., 'i-<~..,... J . ".\.';'f' '. .. ", ( " :i. .'i..' .'1 i.:!.':",',. . . .". 'f j' ~'\':{ ?;" ~!:;~;;\i: '>':\ ~:~;!;~'!'\~~~:~~'~i:,"!;~;;iw;':~~j,,:~~:~~~. . c :L"" ~,~,.";.,,. "c.. ~,VL';"::'>~'-i(";/f,'!";':""" (, .~" , ' t'l\ , I. \. . ',:1 " .\' DRB Design Review Board , Minutes , " " Date m(llCCh \ \ Igq1 . ) :i, ' 1 0 l~' " I . . f" ~ :' " , .,. '. " ,) "j " '. .: ' . : '\ ': ~, . i~:r' l.... ,..It .' '. .j . ,.1. , . , " ., :1' '; . .., '> ~. " l,J ., \fl-'ot/\' .,~ \.: I ho~~~ -.. ~_..........._ __.....,,_........"""..~..T......H~..' -. ..< .. ._--.,.~ I i :":,,,"-" ..........; . ...... .;.......>.\..\ , \ '.' . '. ,., , t, " """ u' , ' ,I' ' '; , ': :,' ", ",', "',' " :',.', '~' ,;""\" ':,," \'r- '" " ,', ":!..,,.',,' Present: William McCann Kathy Milam Robert Herberich Mark Cagnl Alex Plisko Howard Hamilton Leslie Dougall-Sides Don McCarty Gwen Legters MacArthur uMac" Boykins Chair Vice Chair Board Member Board Member Board Member Board Member Assistant City Attorney Design Planner Board Reporter Board Member ~ ,.,~~.~ >.'j'".1 r.~,,~.,..' " .~ t.. .:. ..1/.; '. ".:. ",',' L :....>."~: . , '.' . \ , ~ ; r. ", +' ' ~ DESIGN REVIEW BOARD CITY OF CLEARWATER March 11. 1997 Absent: To provide continuity for research, the items are listed In agenda order although not necessarily discussed in that order. The Chair called the meeting to order at 3: 1 0 p.m. in the Greater Clearwater Chamber of Commerce Community Room, 1130 Cleveland Street. The Pledge of Allegiance and review of board procedures followed. ~ {.~J Minutes Approval - February 25. 1997 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. ORB 97-009 -- Spare's -- Frank Putrow, Ron Rarick, Remodeling 211 South Prospect Avenue - Canopy & signage Mr. McCarty presented background information and staff recommendations, stating the applicant proposes to extend an existing entranceway canopy, and create new business identification signage to tie in with that of the adjacent uses in the same building. The Design Review Board previously approved signage and design for the adjacent uses: Clearwater Housing Authority (CHA); and Levison Community Center. Referring to a site plan and elevation drawing, Mr. McCarty said the proposal effectively integrates existing signage for a unified appearance. Staff felt conditions support the request and recommended approval. In a letter dated March 4, 1997, CHA Executive Director, Deborah Vincent, expressed full agreement and support of the plan as submitted. No verbal or written opposition was expressed. v mdrb03a.97 1 03/11/97 ',:. t,,\~II' .~. '> '. I~ ~'...---':._~...._....~.._~_,..::,. ..~ I"'~'.. -.:. /'",' I, ,,' ','''. '1 ',~ .. " ,~ '.' . I ," ,~ } As the architect for the project; Member Plisko declared a conflict of interest. Member Cagni moved to approve DRB 97-009 as submitted. Members McCann, Milam, Herberlch, Cagni, and Hamilton voted "Ayetl; Member Plisko abstained. Motion carried. 2. ORB 97-001 (Amended) -- Pinch A Penny Stores, Bob Aude, Architect 651 Court Street - Building and Site Review Mr. McCarty presented background, information and staff recommendations, stating the applicant has submitted amendments to a plan previously approved by the board at the beginning of the year. He has worked extensively with the project's architect in an attempt to bring the proposed design changes into closer conformity with what the board previously approved. Among the changes to the plan, it was noted the original proposal to remove the front 32 feet of the existing building to create a covered outdoor display area has been withdrawn. Robert Aude, architect representing the applicant, explained the architectural considerations as presented at the January 14 meeting, compared to the current proposal. The original plan had been to remove a badly deteriorated front portion of the existing building. The new building design had received DRB approval, but the board had requested the applicant to come back with certain site plan amendments and a landscape plan. After obtaining the appropriate permits and proceeding with the demolition and interior work, it 01*1\ was discovered the front 32 feet of the building was not as deteriorated as had been I 'C~j suspected. The decision was made to revise the design to retain the existing roof deck and columns on the north wall, to retain the value of the structure and provide additional outdoor merchandise display area. Mr. Aude explained the amended proposal is for ornamental circular form metal grillwork between the columns in the previous window openings, with open spaces on the north and east sides for custcmer access. A new roof will bfl built with open; flat gables on the east and west ends. This will allow sufficient vertical area for sign age on the east wall, for maximum exposure to westbound Court Street traffic. He explained the sign code requires a roof pitch greater than 12: 12 to avoid having signage being considered as roof signage. The colors will remain as in the original proposal: shades of gray, white with dark gray accents, and blue shutters. Heavy textured roof shingles will be multi-toned gray for compatibility with the future train station roof. The applicant wishes to have a professionally painted, non-commercial mural on the east wall. The mural will not advertise the subject business. He requested approval of the architectural design so work may continue because the applicant is anxious to proceed with the current design. Board discussion ensued. Concerns were expressed the current proposal bears little resemblance to the charm of the original proposal. Specifically; 1) a shingled, gable roof is not compatible with the train station or neighboring properties; 2) staff was not aware the train station is to be reroofed with singles as no application for ORB review has been received; 3) a compatible hip roof or modified hip roof design would still allow adequate signag6 below the 16 foot high fascia line; 4) bubble grillwork design is not consistent with \~ mdrb03a.97 2 03/11/97 ,\:i_" ; · ..i..' , . · ':'., : i.,,: :;",,<:,:!;,/,;?:::}:,;,,;,~,,::,:, : :::; ;:. ,'. :':;':,li',;'/'.,:',. '. .....,,/:,<'.:: ""': . i.' I,' , ',"."", .:. :', ,::"\,".,.,.,'".., .'i"',': '",' ,., ,.",.:.i.1"'\.".,r' ..;,..",. ".."L;' ..;.'''' '.','"',': '..:,.', \. " .:' : "',,;'.:;',::;.'.',', ,':'",,..,:,:.",,::.':.. ':. '."~, .,~. '." ~," '.' .>.' ':I~ ~,'{;':','~':"", : ..:", "O~:""..~'...,:,<" ::',:', ~',",",'~i:"!"::;'::';" ~", . _. '. ..:,,__'.~...._...."'-':._.~._. ........ . j', I. . . " . \l,:" . . . . ........ surroundings and its effect was questioned: 5) the amended plan lacks columns reflecting ( -, " the train station: 6) there appears to be no attempt to address the opportunity for a pavement treatment or landscaping in the outdoor display area: 7) the requested landscaping plan has not been submitted; and 8) the amended plan for a plain stucco box bears no relation to its surroundings. Mr. McCarty submitted the evaluation form he used to determine how the project relates to each of the design guideline categories. He noted the new design did not rate well and he has informed the architect he could not personally endorse or recommend the new plan as he had the previous design. Mr. Aude responded to questions regarding the demolition permit and design changes. He said the revised plans were submitted to the City building department, but he did not know if a new revised permit had been issued. It was Indicated roof trusses are ready for installation on the site and it appears work has started in anticipation of this plan being approved. One member expressed concern with the appearance that the applicant has little. regard for the boards authority. Mr. McCarty stated he has notified City inspectors and the Building Official that if the approved plans are not followed, they could anticipate issuing a stop work order. Ms. Dougall-Sides concurred, any construction that deviated from the approved plan would be a code violation. Mr. Aude responded he submitted a request to appear on today's agenda as soon as he received the current changes from the client. ~ Lengthy discussion ensued regarding whether or not the work that has been done was in accordance with the demolition and interior construction permit: and whether the motion to approve the original plan had required a landscaping plan. Reading from the January 14 minutes, Mr. McCarty indicated the approval related to the building alone, and that landscaping and signage would be brought back as separate applications. Discussion resumed regarding: 1) signage placement: 2) concern the setback has been eliminated: 3) charm of the original plan contrasted with the lack of continuity of the new plan; 4} the purpose of the board not being to legislate aesthetics; 5) reiteration of discussion regarding the decision not to demolish the front 32 feet of the building; 6) use of the unsecured front area for spa display; 7) the board's preference for the hip roof design that reflected the train station's roof; and 8) the need for the site to look nice due to its high visibility location. Mr. McCarty explained it is the property owner's right not to demolish a portion of his building, and the board should consider alternative design solutions. However, he reiterated concerns the new proposal does not incorporate any elements from the previous design. Nothing has been submitted regarding landscaping, stormwater retention, color samples, or design features reflecting the train station. He was encouraged to hear the mural proposal will be coming back, to give the board an opportunity to offer suggestions regarding use of colors and use of a three-dimensional pattern down the long eastern expanse. Concerns were expressed with the use of shingled roofs and discussion ensued regarding other types of roof materials that would appear more appropriate to preserve the historical appearance of the adjacent train station. Mr. Aude pointed out he has to work with the client's desires, but he is open to suggestions. He will take board and staff suggestions to the client regarding: 1) pitching the roof to match the train station; 2) placing signage on the band below the fascia; ,:) mdrb03a.97 3 03/11/97 ';""-:' ' '. ,.,..... :,: :." ...':' '" "" :".,:,:, ~ :." . ....,';,..,;,.::,.<..:.:.',., ..:,':::,',.'::,:",.'.: ,.:' .'.,"",.'. .,..:.......'.:.;':,'..'; , (. ., : :, "... ": '. ::'. ":"". ," :' .' ,'!\: . . '. '" fJ '. ,:;:'. '. :,: 'J' '. , .....:'. :~,' ';'.:,'..', ',,:,0'; " I,. ,.. , '.'::. .'," ::::,' :..' '. .' '. " ", ' . '" ,,' . \" ' " , "".' ." .' ", ,,',., ",;, ,i"" "., " .' '.",:<'. " :':,'" '."'.' .':: :" :.:". ....;:. ':: \'. < ::';:' .: .:, ,,I _ " ,i'<::}':~\;: ,:'. . "" :: ,X:..- ::"./ :./..'.):.':': :>. .::":. ~:',:.".' ::. ':. "" ,:;: ':. ;:: . . ~ . ~ 3) creating smaller scale decorative devices to reflect ornamental details on the train I station; 4) attention to a more pedestrian friendly flooring surface in the front courtyard entryway; and 5} more attention to scale and color at street level. He could not guess what the future holds for the mural or train station design. He indicated, if his suggestions would moderate the board's concerns, and potential vote, he would ask for a continuance to consult with his client and bring back an amended plan. Discussion ensued regarding what the board would request in oider to hear this request again. Strong concerns were reiterated about the lack of a landscaping plan. Questions were raised regarding the parking plan. Richard Harris, site engineer with Florida Design Consultants, discussed site configuration, surrounding lot conditions, City parking requirements, and the proposal to fit 13 parking spaces between the building and the train station. He said the City Traffic Engineering Department has approved the parking plans. Mr. Harris said the Environmental Official indicated, since no landscaping exists on the mostly impervious site, none will be required. Upon learning this, Mr. Harris said the owner directed him not to prepare a landscaping plan. Referring to the plans, he pointed out where planters will be placed, and discussed the SWFWMD exemption to the stormwater retention process. Mr. Harris responded to questions and discussion ensued. (~ \1.' Board members expressed strong opposition to the concept of having no landscaping, in view of the fact the plan calls for parking lot resurfacing. Staff was requested to investigate how the Unity of Title affects the landscaping requirement, because the train station property is not impervious. It was indicated the location proposed for the planters is within the City right-of-way. Discussion ensued regarding various locations where landscaping materials could be planted within the overall site. The board reiterated again their request for a landscaping plan. Concern was expressed with a turnout being left open for overflow parking on the adjacent unpaved vacant lot to the south. The applicant was requested to reconfigure two perpendicular parking spaces on the south end of the lot, to avoid the danger of someone backing out the wrong way and trying to exit through the one-way entrance. It was indicated closing the turnout would allow enough room for three parking spaces, to avoid the applicant having to ask for administrative approval of a minor parking variance. Concern was expressed with the appearance of double steel posts in front of each parking space to stop damage to the columns on the train station. It was indicated the parking spaces are long enough to allow the addition of a curb, or curb stops to stop cars from hitting the building. The board strongly urged removal of paving along the east wall of the Pinch-A-?enny building to allow landscaping at the base. Mr. Harris indicated the applicant did not want to have vegetation growing up in front of the mural, and the sidewalk along the base of the wall was to avoid having customers walking behind parked cars. Discussion ensued regarding the dumpster area: the City's requirement; who has the authority to decide on the location; the need to provide adequate screening; and the board's desire to have dumpster locations determined by the design planners, instead of the Solid Waste Division. o mdrb03a.97 4 03/11/97 " r~ No verbal or written support or opposition was expressed. Member Plisko moved to continue ORB 97-001 (amended) to the next meeting to allow time for the applicant to bring a color elevation of the proposed building, a landscape plan, and a site plan addressing the following board concerns: 1} making no use of the property to the south; 2) showing landscaping on the site; 3) removing the metal pipes (serving as parking stops); 4) changing the two rear parking spaces to a diagonal alignment; and 5) answering whether or not a mural is going up on the east wall, and if so, advising the board now, rather than in the future, how it will look; and 6) if a mural is not done, providing vegetation or a 3-dimensional building treatment along the east wall to reflect the architecture of the surroundings. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Staff was requested to investigate the Unity of Title provisions, whether the applicant's use of the adjacent lots may subject them to other requirements, such as landscaping and stormwater drainage, and whether Environmental staff waived landscaping for the subject property. D. Other Business 1 . Preliminary Draft Clearwater Beach Design Guideline!:l -- Update Mr. McCarty indicated the minutes summarize the board's suggestions at the previous , meeting for more design feature oriented guidelines. The consultants have been released from a strict time line, and will be back with revised guidelines in 30 days. In response to (~ a question, he said no additional compensation h.Js been requested. ..J. 2 Administrative/Staff DAB Approvals Mr. McCarty distributed copies of the amended list of items for which the board authorized staff's administrative review and approval on a three month trial basis. Board and Staff Discussion Chair McCann expressed concern regarding determination of dumpster locations. He questioned whether Solid Waste and Traffic Engineering Department staff would agree to work with design planners to coordinate the best location for access and aesthetics. Mr. McCarty stated City staff is usually open to interdepartmental exchange of ideas. He said it is likely, as design criteria begin to play a bigger role in site plan design, that the sanitation and engineering departments will be receptive to the aesthetic considerations related to them. Member Herberich questionsd the status of the WinnDixie project. Mr. McCarty responded Clearwater Neighborhood Housing Services (CNHS) is continuing to negotiate with WinnDixie regarding project plans. While it has taken longer than expected, he said the project is moving ahead. He has notified CNHS that any design modifications, or breaking the project into phases, will require additional appearances before the board. " mdrb03a.97 6 03/11/97 :. " ,\'. , ,;:\1\ I , .:.., ,,,.' ,..: 'l.t.0r): ;.v.. 1"~J~j.,...:'I.'11 :!..." .: 'e' flhl,...lt:~ T ~'I:?'vl~ .:.' ~. T: . ,,' . \. '_: :....,.... ~ ;:"", ":'.".' '\:..");.,;:.'.:,<:,..''"':' ':.' ...... .......',:d..:.,:.....,.~'.."".,..,:,..'......,'".,;'>':;:;' ;"".'" .....: "'~"."':'" . ..:....::'.! ".: '::. ::.;:".:','.?,' ':... ~>,"'..''':;.. .:::"....,...>~.,.:.:,./:.,...,:.':'..':;,,:..,'... ".',.<.,I::~:':: r :J I i;(~ >~.'i.'l: ..~://:'::\;,~;S~>~':.' :i~'.>~:,"~.~ ::, :,' ' .. 'I. ." f)' , Mr. McCarty reported Mr. Shuford's review of the Land Development Code streamline process has been moved to April, due to continuing revisions of the preliminary draft. Member Herberich questioned the report that the restaurant over the Harley Davidson shop on Cleveland Street had closed due to State concerns regarding the mixed use. Details were not known. Mr. McCarty noted the City Commission had not approved the Mandalay Streetscape as presented because it was felt more information was needed. He noted while' everyone seemed to like the amenities, strong public opposition had been expressed to removal of one traffic lane. He said the project is not likely to be constructed until 1998, due to the time needed for additional planning. Discussion ensued regarding the consistency evaluation form. Board members favored use of the form with every application. General discussion ensued regarding the Unity of Title for case #2, above, in view of the piecemeal development of the parcel. ' Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 5:1 '0 p.m. Attest: o Bo~e~~ .:;:~ ~ mdrb03a.97 6 . 03/11/97 ~ '" .." to .