Loading...
03/25/1997 (2) . . . ~. . ......._. _ .-....... ..",."" 0 ~ ~ .l I'. ... . . ~'~!~ ", . "': . ~' .. ~. ,: - r ., . .f3 . ,I. } '" "'I . .., .. " e' , .. '." , f , ~ ' . ~ <' ' .: '.f .,' . .' I . L " , ' . ~ " .. ,. < \ ''- ' ' '. ~ ~.~: ,:" " " , , f(,,;:::<'~~i<:' l)>,:.:t1: ::~'i/ :;~\;::':\'~?::'\~:;;'f?,~;,!:~'~~,~,::',,: ,,' : >. '.. ~.,..< \ . ,....?....~~..~,"r "0. . ,,", ~~' ,~. .: i;: ..>, '.\'. '.". '. ~: I'~ ' , ' <. . ~. . . .\....' I :.i<,::'-c ' . ., :. DRB , ,Design Review Board , Minutes I' l' Date rY)cv-c.h 3.6}\ Qq.1 I, tt)~ l : .,! ":: , ' " , , "'--.' . J:'; I, i :', " : ~ <' , ' '.(.\: ~ . ;'.' . > " ' ,'., , " \'.' " ,:/' .' ,I, . " ' " ,\, , ,I, " , ,\ " " : ' ',' , I" ' " " , : .",_, ",','",\',.',"",,""',',' ,.,'".""",'i":,'.,,,,'.:',.", , ., '" ,-'...." , , , , " \' '",', ','''' "'::""" ,:'[\1 -,' ,'.~' i "'<'" ,',,' ,','~," ."',, '",:', . I >. t..... . __ "'. , ' " . , ' \~ '~.1A (~:;:t' ..,0 .. ",1. . '. ," vf .,'t:~!, : j~:' '.' ' '.>,' DESIGN REVIEW BOARD CITY OF CLEARWATER March 25, 1997 Present: William McCann Kathy Milam Robert Herberich Alex Plisko Howard Hamilton Leslie Dougall-Sides Don McCarty Gwen Legters Mark Cagni MacArthur "Mac" Boykins Chair Vice Chair Board Member Board Member Board Member Assistant City Attorney Design Planner Board Reporter Board Member Board Member Absent: The Chair called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m. in the Greater Clearwater Chamber 01 Commerce Community Room, 1130 Cleveland Street. The Pledge 01 Allegiance and review of board procedures followed. To provide continuity for research, the items are listed in agenda order although not necessarily discussed In that order. Mir:tutes Approval - March 11, 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 97-001 (Amended) -- Pinch A Penny Stores, Bob Aude, Architect 651 Court Street - Building and Site Review Mr. McCarty stated the original building design for this application was approved in January, 1997. The application had been continued in order for the applicant to add a landscaping plan and site improvements to the presentation. At the last meeting, an amended building plan had been submitted that included a number of changes requested by the property owner. The board did not approve the amended design, expressing concerns the new design lacked conformity with the previous design, and the surroundings. Mr. McCarty did not present staff recommendations, stating the owner has indicated he wishes to make his own presentation. Fred Thomas, the property owner, declined to make a presentation. He requested the board to rehash the last meeting and explain the basis for their decision to reject his plan amendment. He asserted his amended plan had been rejected without legal foundation and the board had directed the architect to come up with a new plan. The board maintained they had not rejected the amended plan, but had requested modification of design details that were not sensitive to the design approved in January, the design guidelines or the mdrb03b.97 03/26/97 1 ~ i;J,~;\~,\\I\>1 N' ,,~'IAj'-\\11~WJ1.~1 :'-::i: <,:';<>. I~'I . " 1; '~. ;'~ , t t~\ "~~.~'" .;) surroundings. Ms. Dougall-Sides verified the board had not rejected the amended plan; the item had been continued with no action taken. She concluded there is no need to rehash the last meeting because the minutes reflect the board's concerns and deliberation. Mr. Thomas questioned if the board was refusing to tell him whether they plan to reject his application. Ms. Dougall-Sides responded it cannot be predetermined what the vote will be without going through the procedure and hearing the applicant's presentation. Mr. Thomas stated his architect has prepared a third set of plans at the board's direction, but Mr. Thomas wished to proceed with set #2, showing the gable roof that was designed after it was determined there was no need to demolish the front portion of the building. He expressed strong concern the delay resulting from the design review process has cost him $50,000 in materials and lost revenue. Board members refuted this claim, asserting the board had acted expeditiously by approving the original plan in January, even though more information had been needed, because the architect had said the owner was anxious to open in time for the beginning of the busy swimming pool season in April. One member noted trusses for a gable roof had been delivered to the site prior to the amended plan coming forward. It was indicated the board could not be held responsible for the cost of materials purchased pursuant to a revised, unapproved plan. The record reflects the board did not prohibit a gable roof, but continued the application because the applicant had not submitted what was required for board review. Ms. Dougall-Sides referred to a March 18 letter from the design consultant submitting revised plans. She said the applicant may submit plans other than those presented for consideration at today's meeting, but he needs to make it clear what is being presented. The board reiterated its request for a presentation of the proposal. Referring to a combination of sketches and elevation drawings from the two amended plans, Mr. Thomas presented his proposal in three parts: 1) building design, roofing and. decorative elements; 2) site design, landscaping and parking; and 3) signage. Discussion ensued regarding decorative elements proposed to soften the exterior and blend the building with the adjacent train station: 1) a rectangular pattern of open grillework to replace the previous "bubble" design; 2) natural vegetation consisting of vines and ivy, instead of a mural covering the east wall; 3) the economy of a gable roof versus hip roof design; 4) a sample of the charcoal gray roofing shingle material proposed to give the building a Shaker feel; and 5) the light gray with white trim color scheme. One member encouraged keeping the nice brick columns in front. Discussion ensued regarding site design: 1) vehicular access between the parking lot and the adjacent vacant lot to the south; 2) parking lot circulation; 3) location of handicapped parking; and 4) and Unity of Title having been filed three weeks ago. Mr. Thomas said traffic will drive through the curb cut into the south lot and the area will be made into a park. While the area may be used for overflow parking, he does not plan to designate a specific use for the south lot. Discussion ensued regarding Mr. Thomas' interpretation of the board's authority, and the evolution of the design guidelines for downtown, Clearwater beach, and the North Greenwood neighborhood. He expressed concern he has spent a lot of money to develop mdrb03b.97 2 03/25/97 , " .~. ~v >-~. .;..-.. ~<.~. :c:p.'~;r.ff,;.. I~ f"'j!:li.\ ~.t~f' . "".\'\ ~ downtown, and the design review process should be mutually persuasive to enable, not hinder, development. Board members spoke in rebuttal to Mr. Thomas' assertion. It was indicated the board is very user friendly and sensitive to how each proposal relates to the surroundings and the design guidelines, in order to be a stimulus to economic development. The board had expedited the applicant's first design and had worked with the architect to suggest how to meet the requirements for the missing elements. The board had repeated its request for a landscaping plan, despite the site having been grandfathered with no landscaping, because the landscape designer had indicated there were opportunities for landscaping on the subject property. Mr. Thomas agreed dirt is cheaper than concrete, but he has plans for outdoor demonstrations in the areas where landscaping treatments had been discussed. He will provide planters throughout the site, but said having a civil engineer create a landscaping plan would cost over $12 thousand. Discussion resumed regarding the south lot. Mr. McCarty said the City Traffic Engineering Department has stated the turnout into the south lot would lend itself to the indication of parking, and if used for parking, the drive aisles would have to be paved. Mr. Thomas reiterated the lot is unused land without a designated use, and does not have to be developed. It was indicated the site is not over an acre in size. In response to questions, Mr. Thomas said he is putting a restaurant in the old train station, but additional parking is not required for buildings of that size. Discussion resumed regarding roof treatments to break up the long expanses, soften the appearance of the new store, and reflect the character of the train station. Mr. ,Thomas was reluctant to commit to a roof treatment due to his concerns that adequate area and height be maintained for maximum signage visibility. He reiterated again his concerns that the board was sitting in judgment of his design, causing additional loss of time and money. The board reiterated again its concern that the new design was created without any attempt to meet the design guidelines. Mr. Thomas referenced numerous locations in the vicinity where gable roofs exist. Board members explained the importance of creating an aesthetic design due to the high profile location, and the potential for the business to be the major focus of the area. All agreed renovation work is difficult. Mr. Thomas agreed to pay $10 thousand for a hip roof if it could be finished in the same amount of time as a gable roof. It was indicated the board did not insist on a hip roof. Lengthy discussion resumed among the architects regarding how to create roof treatments to soften the appearance of the long expanses, reflecting the scale of the train station, utilizing some of the previously purchased materials, without unduly extending construction time. Brief discussion ensued regarding landscaping improvements as indicated above. Board members indicated they were satisfied with the proposed green vinyl fence and ivy treatment along the east wall. Mr. Thomas stated he had considered contracting a mural that would last about ten years, but a mural would never look as good as nature. Mr. Thomas explained where planters and flower boxes will be incorporated into the outdoor showroom and interior decking and lighting display areas. Mr. Thomas agreed with the board it would be nice to retain an open expanse under the canopy, but said the display merchandise must be secured. mdrb03b.97 3 03/26/97 .' c >' , I ~ ~ Discussion ensued regarding signage, and sign area calculations. Mr. Thomas indicated ., an interest in incorporating his "pinched penny" logo into the circular dormer on the north side. The board did not object, as long as signage does not exceed allowable size for each street frontage. Building identification signage will be in 18-inch channel letters, using Pinch-A-Penny's corporate font. Mr. McCarty reported the applicant has provided a Unity of Title allowing up to 48 square feet of attached signage per building frontage. Under the current sign code, freestanding signs are not permitted in the zoning district without a variance. Mr. Thomas indicated he intends to request a variance for a pole sign on the south lot, oriented westward toward eastbound Chestnut Street traffic. One member noted the back of the sign would be visible from Myrtle Avenue, and suggested east-facing signage as well. A sketch of the proposed pole sign was circulated. Mr. Thomas talked about the need to incorporate train station signage into the plan, and his proposal to create decorative neon signage for the train station. ~:, . -'';., o Lengthy discussion ensued regarding signage calculations, and the difficulty of determining the exact locations of the proposed signage, due to the changes in appearance of the various elevations. Some board members indicated a preference for monument signage over pole signage. Mr. Thomas said a pole sign is needed for better visibility. Discussion ensued regarding other structures in the vicinity that block the view of signage on the site. The board was asked for a recommendation the City Commission could consider as part of their sign variance deliberations. Discussion ensued regarding the specific drawings and details to which the motion would refer, and a general consensus was reached. It was understood exterior construction may proceed along the guidelines suggested today, and the applicant will bring to the next meeting a design for the recommended roof element on the Court Street side. Mr. Thomas reiterated his agreement to return with the roof element design in two weeks. Member Herberich moved to approve ORB 97-001 (amendedl subject to the following conditions: 1) The east building elevation should be covered with green chain link fencing and landscaping materials as illustrated in Sketch #1; 2) The open decorative metal grillework should be designed as illustrated in Sketch #1; 3) signage on the east elevation should appear as illustrated on Sketch #2 and may not exceed 48 square feet; 4) The south building elevation should appear as illustrated in Sketch #3, with the understanding the north roof line will change; 5) The north, . or Court Street elevation, should appear as illustrated in Sketch #4 with open rectangular metal grillework in the openings; 6) There should be no signage other than the building address on the Court Street side of the building; 7) Plans for a roof element on the Court Street side should be submitted for board review in two weeks; 8) Shingle color and material should be in conformance with the sample as submitted; and 91 The site plan Is acceptable as it is until a design is developed to address the train station, including taking out the metal posts, and adding a gravel parking area to the southt as part of a total site solution. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. mdrb03b.97 4 03/25/97 ~~~..,,::.:.~ ' ./.'\,.... ~.~..a ....~... :\rrt)[\.T,>.-(t~., , , " ...'. _...._~_ ..-....:........... _........~ ~.... ". '. ,.', ,', " ,,' .' t'" ." ".~'. ,~.' I.' '/" . Ie " . . . "',. f ~. Member Pliska moved to recommend to the City Commission to atrow 64 square feet , "I of freestanding sign age on Chestnut Street. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Member Pliska moved to recommend for freestanding signage on Chestnut Street to be designed as monument signage rather than pole signage. The motion was duly seconded. Members, Milam, Herberich, and Plisko, voted "Aye"; Members McCann and Hamilton voted "Nay." Motion carried. The board thanked Mr. Thomas for his attendance and cooperation. General conversation ensued regarding Mr. Thomas' retail business proposal for the subject property along the Pinellas Trail, construction timetable, and his preference for paving block parking surfaces. In response to questions, Mr. Thomas said he anticipates the restaurant will be named, "The Clearwater Train Station", and will serve Clearwater Bagels, Chicago hot dogs, a variety of soups, Italian ices, fruit beverages and cold beer. He described the eclectic decor and said all the toys on display will be available for purchase next door in Pinch-A-Penny. He highlighted Pinch-A-Penny's new retail concept, including music, scents. and rain forest sounds in the spa area. demonstrations of pool and deck configurations, and "Smoking Fred's" der.1onstrations of barbecue equipment. Board and Staff Discussion ~~, ,~tI Board members expressed concern with the inordinate amount of board time spent on the Pinch-A-Penny proposal, due to the applicant not having provided all the necessary information in the beginning. Mr. McCarty agreed it is difficult to achieve consistency with applicants' submittals. He stated he had asked the architect to bring Mr. Thomas to the meeting, to expedite the hearing by eliminating the back and forth dialog that had been unproductive. Board members were concerned at today's indication that the amount of money spent was more important than any aesthetic considerations. Mr. McCarty thanked the board for their discretion in dealing with a sensitive issue. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 5:28 p.m. I , Attest: ' Bke~~ :;;.,,~ .;;, mdrb03b.97 5 03/25/97 , .. . _u \, . ':', ',,\,.,<' ' . ":';;'<:;'. ;:.:: ',','.:::'~'>; . , " . "" '. ',./ " " . riJ ' ,.:J, "'. _, , , . ", , i,' f, ~ '. " ' " "