Loading...
06/23/1995 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD June 23, 1995 The Design Review Board of the City of Clearwater met in their first regular session at City Hall, Friday, June 23, 1995 at 1:08 p.m., with the following members present: Robert Frederick Herberich Member Mary Mavronicolas Member William J. McCann Member Kate McCullough Member Kathy Milam Member Arthur C. Shand Member Absent: Arthonia Godwin Member Also present: Scott Shuford Central Permitting Director Patricia Sullivan Board Reporter Central Permitting Director Scott Shuford called the meeting to order. The members and Mr. Shuford introduced themselves. Mr. Shuford said staff will contact Member Arthonia Godwin, a long time member of the North Greenwood design review committee, before the next scheduled meeting. Mr. Shuford noted board members are governed by Florida’s Sunshine Law and they cannot discuss design issues with each other outside scheduled meetings. He reported the Commission’s vision resulted from the Clearwater Beach Blue Ribbon Task Force report that made it clear some guidelines were needed. He distributed copies of North Greenwood design concepts, the only design review plan in place. Emphasis on design review has spread to the beach. Downtown design needs must be addressed. Mr. Shuford referred to a map of the three business areas where guidelines will apply: downtown, Clearwater beach, and North Greenwood. No design theme has been established downtown which currently exhibits a wide range of styles. No group of older structures there represents a common theme. For the beach, Mr. Shuford said a tropical seascape theme has been chosen, represented by Victorian, Cracker and Mediterranean architectural styles. Mr. Shuford said information compiled on each area will be forwarded to Board members for their review and revision. The Board will work together to develop guidelines and present them to the City Commission for approval. He said the City Commission may recommend some changes before they adopt a resolution establishing design guideline specifics. The Design Review Board (DRB) will be concerned with all aspects of developing the guidelines. Mr. Shuford recommended members choose design details they think will work. Design is important for economic development and to improve the quality of life which the City wants to encourage. Clearwater has streamlined regulations to compliment the “built” environment. He said the Board must meet fairly often to address the planning needs of ongoing development. The DRB will review every exterior construction project that requires a permit. He said the success of the process depends on how quickly the board acts on each request and how user friendly the board permits staff to be. Mr. Shuford said the person hired to staff the board will be a competent designer and illustrator and understand architecture, construction, and the planning process. Mr. Shuford said the City’s quality of life is important. If a building does not fit in with other area buildings, controversy results. The DRB will review the public face of buildings’ exteriors. Design review guidelines will help increase tax values and enhance the tax base. Clearwater has little room to grow and construction is increasingly focused on redevelopment. High standards will help values improve as redevelopment occurs. Some buildings have reached the end of their expected life. Mr. Shuford said the DRB has the opportunity to change the face of the City. Concern was expressed that the board would have power and not be just a vehicle for persuasion. Mr. Shuford said the Ordinance establishes the DRB’s vast authority. If the board does not think a design meets their guidelines, the DRB has the power to reject the design and a building permit will not be issued. Appeals to DRB decisions are to the City Commission. Concern was expressed regarding the meeting schedule after guidelines are established. Mr. Shuford said a twice a month schedule after guidelines are established may be optimistic but he anticipated the new staff member will provide enough assistance so the board can develop guidelines from available skeletons. Some details have been prepared. Guidelines will be clarified with drawn illustrations. Before the board begins legislating, all guidelines need to be reviewed and established. Mr. Shuford said the board first will dedicate its time to developing guidelines and understanding the process being established. He suggested during the first year, cases may be extended more frequently until guidelines are accepted as fact. Mr. Shuford said architects’ presence during DRB reviews will improve the flow of discussions. The agendas will schedule time to review each plan although the amount of time required to review each project will vary. He said it will be important for applicants to attend meetings to answer questions and avoid holdups. Mr. Shuford indicated all DRB meetings will be recorded. Liability concerns were expressed. Mr. Shuford stated all board members are covered by the City's policy and immunity as long as members do not violate the law, including the conflict of interest law. He said some applicants may be unhappy with board decisions. Mr. Shuford said staff will establish all review requirements before plans are presented to the board including possible requirements for photographic presentation by the applicant (pictures of the existing property). In the guidelines, the board will provide guidance regarding the types of details they want covered by regulation. He suggested the board may wish to identify appropriate color palettes for specific areas. Mr. Shuford said the board will need to decide the level of review they wish to pursue. They will need to identify the point when the board handles reviews and when staff can administer board direction. He suggested staff could approve plans for color choices and doorway replacements. In emergency situations, staff will permit temporary repairs. In response to a question, Mr. Shuford noted some projects may require review by the Planning & Zoning Board (P&Z), City Commission or Development Code Adjustment Board (DCAB) if the property needs to be rezoned or a variance is required. He recommended the applicant decide the appropriate time to submit a project for design review. He suggested some developers may request DRB approval first. Concern was expressed that the board may be required to deny a gas station and instead approve a 20 story building. Mr. Shuford said staff would try to steer the board clear of those types of decisions. He indicated Hearing Officers base decisions on the City’s clear definition of the responsibilities and types of decisions reached by each City board. He noted the board will have to approve projects that meet guidelines even if board members do not like or agree with the project. Mr. Shuford indicated staff will be available to help the board reach decisions and will provide comments prior to each meeting regarding how staff feels a project meets or fails to meet established design standards. Mr. Shuford distributed a copy of the ordinance establishing the Design Review Board. He noted the court system considers Sunshine Laws to be important and recommended against meaningful discussions with property owners. As meetings will occur in a quasi-judicial setting, Mr. Shuford recommended against obtaining information not available at the meetings, including off site discussions. He said board members can meet outside meetings but not to discuss board business. Mr. Shuford distributed brochures on the Sunshine Law. In answer to a concern, Mr. Shuford said it would be best if board members do not personally present projects for review. He typically advises board members to leave the room to avoid any conflict of interest. He agreed it would be difficult for a sole proprietor to adhere to that request. In the spirit of professionalism, all board member should understand that decisions are not based on personal feelings. He suggested as an alternative, someone else could present the project. Mr. Shuford noted the board will know ahead if the staff recommendation is positive or not. He agreed board members who are practitioners will be placed in a unique role. He did not think board members’ personal interest in specific projects have unduly influenced other boards. Mr. Shuford said board members have volunteered their time and the City does not want to add to their burden. Staff will help if the circumstance should arise. Mr. Shuford said most of the properties subject to design review are commercial, although some beach condominiums are located outside residential zones. He said the board will decide how to establish guidelines and at what level they will apply. He said if the project is not within the scale of review, it does not need to be included/reviewed. The DRB may choose to exempt single family homes. If the board finds they have overregulated, they can ask the City Commission to delete or modify language. Mr. Shuford said the ordinance addresses commercial and resort commercial properties on Clearwater beach, the urban center district on North Greenwood and downtown, divided into four subdistricts. He predicted when the design regulations are implemented, six subdistricts will emerge. He doubted separate regulations can be established to govern each district. He said the requirements will be incorporated in an extensively illustrated and flexible document that will be easy to modify if problems are experienced. Each board member will be provided with separate notebooks. If the process is successful, Harbor Oaks and major commercial corridors may be added in the future. Mr. Shuford distributed background information on downtown including illustrations and grant information and details regarding the beach’s tropical seascape design and North Greenwood’s Caribbean design. He said the North Greenwood design evolved from a zoning incentive project that was a failure. Even with parking bonuses, businesses were unable to meet parking restrictions. In its four year history, not one project was proposed. He said the area’s economic development would not be triggered without a mandatory approach. All North Greenwood development will require DRB review. District parking is being established to eliminate parking requirements. Interest in development by local property owners has increased, It was questioned if the North Fort Harrison corridor would be addressed. Mr. Shuford said procedures exist for North Greenwood but need to be adopted for downtown and the beach. After the initial project gets off the ground and is a success, the program can expand. He predicted City neighborhoods will want to be included for the review to add to the neighborhood’s compatibility and increase property values. He suggested old residential sections of Clearwater beach will want design review. The North Greenwood commercial area north of Palmetto Street is of limited size and is the only area in Clearwater with a current design requirement. Mr. Shuford said he will route information to board members and indicated the Central Permitting Department has a good design library at their office in the City Hall Annex. He will establish a “read file” for the board for perusal or check out. He reported Central Permitting will be move to the new building on April 1, 1996. The Harborview Center will open on January 1, 1996. He reported a new City project being reviewed is the replacement of the Memorial Causeway Bridge via a Pierce Boulevard alignment. Mr. Shuford reviewed how trees, narrow streets and no parking inspire a feeling of neighborhood. He noted how European design addresses tight space issues and incorporate bicycle lanes. Consensus was to wait until all members are present before electing a chair. Mr. Shuford reviewed required formalities and distributed the State financial disclosure form each member is required to file with the Supervisor of Election at 315 Court Street, Clearwater, or with the City Clerk. He said the form is designed to identify conflicts of interest. The DRB scheduled their next meeting for Tuesday, July 25, 1995, from 3:00 to 5:00 p.m. Mr. Shuford indicated the DRB will produce a book of design guidelines. The DRB is the only City design review board and will review commercial plans and approve exterior renovations. He said the board will also approve grants requiring DRB review. He said the board can expect a healthy workload and estimated 120 projects last year on Clearwater beach would have required DRB review. He recommended the DRB schedule meetings twice a month once guidelines are established. It was noted that the guidelines will need to be well considered and written. Mr. Shuford said the CRA will continue to review downtown designs for approval of low interest loans and grant programs until the DRB has established guidelines. He said the P&Z and DCAB will want copies of the DRB guidelines. New development will want to the look at specific guideline sections. He said the board can consider how to address projects that fall outside general guidelines. Mr. Shuford indicated some City projects may not meet guidelines. He noted while the DRB needs latitude to navigate outside the limits, standards must be precise so guidelines are not invalidated. Mr. Shuford said a staff member will help the DRB establish the guidelines by making the drawings and providing recommendations for DRB review. Concern was expressed that the board will need to work diligently to establish designs. It was noted design is subjective no matter how technical guidelines are. It was noted that a city’s character cannot be created overnight but must evolve over a long period of time. A lack of local traditions was noted. Mr. Shuford said he would present a video on Seaside, in the Florida Panhandle at the next meeting. Concern was expressed that the City needs beautiful avenues. Mr. Shuford said the DRB will also be asked to offer design comments on larger City issues such as the new bridge. Board members agreed the bridge will be a significant structure and should not be generic or stoic. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 2:40 p.m.