Loading...
04/23/1996DESIGN REVIEW BOARD CITY OF CLEARWATER April 23, 1996 Present: William McCann Kathy Milam Robert Herberich MacArthur “Mac” Boykins Leslie Dougall-Sides Don McCarty Gwen Legters Chair Vice Chair Board Member Board Member Assistant City Attorney Design Planner Board Reporter      Absent: Mark Cagni Alex Plisko Board Member Board Member   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 Chair at 3:11 p.m. in City Hall. The start of the meeting was delayed due to lack of a quorum. Minutes Approval - April 9, 1996 Mr. McCarty reported a typographical error on page two was corrected. Member Herberich moved to approve the minutes as corrected by staff. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Presentation - Tom Miller, Assistant Director Engineering/Environmental Management Mr. Miller addressed the board regarding the aesthetic, economic and environmental benefits of incorporating stormwater retention ponds into commercial developments. He stressed the importance of better managing existing stormwater retention and creating new retention to improve stormwater quality, provide physical site amenities and attenuate flooding. He looked forward to working with the Design Review Board to help educate commercial enterprises that creating attractive stormwater retention can beautify and improve the overall marketability of their businesses. He discussed the role of the environment in economic development and pointed out property values are higher wherever natural amenities exist. In response to questions, Mr. Miller stated County and State laws require fencing retention ponds with side slopes steeper than 4:1. He said the City discourages steep side slopes because they agree fencing is unattractive in this context. Sometimes site constraints compel retention to abut parking areas, creating the need for steeper slopes to fit both elements into available space. Staff is looking at amending parking requirements in favor of shallower slopes. Status of the proposed downtown lake was questioned. Mr. Miller stated staff is working with various groups to look at conceptual design, economic development and water quality issues, with a view toward creating a regional lake concept to improve overall water quality. He discussed how development credits may be earned and marketed by property owners. It was indicated the lake will be extremely beneficial by keeping nutrients out of the water supply and trapping high levels of pollutants and sediment currently dumped into natural water bodies from untreated runoff. Two members expressed concern regarding public perception of Stevenson’s Creek as a polluted backwater stream, while the proposed lake is touted as an attractive amenity for downtown property owners. It was felt the media is misleading the public by its lack of focus on environmental benefits of the lake. Mr. Miller explained a three-year baseline water quality study was just completed and the results will be reported to the City Commission in June. In the meantime, staff has been looking at water treatment needs throughout the City. Specific locations discussed were the Turner Street outfall, Stevenson’s Creek, and Clearwater harbor. Mr. McCarty explained how water treatment issues are tied into the City’s long range plan for downtown. One member expressed concern regarding the controversial plan to store reclaimed water at the Marshall Street treatment plant. Mr. Miller explained the value of treating stormwater runoff to prevent many tons of pollutants from discharging into Clearwater harbor every year. He said the City Engineer is working with consultants to explore alternatives to the Marshall Street plant and specific details are not known yet. Board Discussion 1. Design Guidelines Status Report / Adoption Mr. McCarty distributed copies of the final draft design guidelines, assembled from the components prepared over the past several weeks. The resolution adopting the design guidelines is on the May 2 City Commission agenda. If the resolution is adopted, cases could be heard starting in June. He reported Mr. Shuford recommended submitting the guidelines to the Commission in draft form to facilitate any amendments they might suggest. Mr. McCarty is in the process of assembling photographs and graphics to illustrate and embellish the book once it is sent to the printer. He circulated copies of some of the historical photos he has gathered. Mr. McCarty reported comments from the groups and individuals he has addressed regarding the urban center design guidelines have been favorable, generally. He noted two common concerns were that the City is adding another layer of government to the site plan review process, and that the design guidelines are broad and not easily enforced. Mr. McCarty discussed the techniques already being used in Central Permitting to make their processes more customer friendly. Ms. Dougall-Sides pointed out, with approvals being tied to building permit acquisition, non-compliance becomes a code enforcement issue. Mr. McCarty said Central Permitting staff, building inspectors, and customers, are being educated what is expected of them regarding the upcoming changes. Responding to a question regarding the repainting issue, Mr. McCarty said the design guidelines will not specify paint colors. Developments coming before the board will be encouraged to submit their exterior color palette, but no DRB review will be required to obtain a separate painting permit. Member Milam moved to adopt the Design Guidelines for the Urban Center District and recommend approval to the City Commission. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 2. Harborview Waterfront Status Mr. McCarty circulated a conceptual drawing of a proposed waterfront development. He participated on the City committee assigned by the City Commission to investigate economic development possibilities for the downtown area encompassing the Harborview Center and City Hall. Based on elements recommended by the Community Redevelopment Agency, the drawing showed conceptual road and bridge development, parking, shopping, and traffic flow in harmony with the natural terrain. One feature praised by the board was a hypothetical extension of the Pinellas Trail looping down along the waterfront. Board and Staff Comments Mr. McCarty reported appointment of the seventh board member is on the May 2 City Commission agenda. Member Milam opened discussion regarding conduct of meetings once they are televised. It was felt having the board bear the burden of enforcing time limits and observing meeting protocol will promote more amiable relations between customers and staff. Consensus was for the Chair to lead the meetings, calling on staff for reports and to conduct research, as needed. Staff will provide notebooks containing rules, procedures, and scripted language for ease in conducting the meeting and making motions. Mr. McCarty encouraged members to watch other televised advisory board meetings to get a sense of how they are conducted. Discussion ensued regarding balancing the board’s desire to create a relaxed atmosphere with maintaining appropriate decorum and authority. Mr. McCarty stressed the importance of regular attendance, timely arrival, and good posture at the dais. It was suggested that board comments will carry more weight if participants do not address each other by their first names during the hearings. It was indicated participants are not required to be sworn in. Discussion ensued regarding whether to open meetings with an invocation and pledge of allegiance. It was indicated some boards have a standard invocation read by a different member at each meeting. Member Milam moved to open Design Review Board meetings with an invocation and pledge of allegiance. There was no second. Member Boykins questioned meeting schedule, timing, and notification process. It was not known how many applications will be submitted or how many can be reviewed at each meeting. To facilitate the agenda process, staff will set cutoff dates for submitting applications but will not limit the number of cases heard at each meeting. Mr. McCarty noted a procedure may be needed to process applications on an emergency basis in the case of storms or accidents where buildings need to be secured. In response to a question from Member Milam, Mr. McCarty did not feel implementation of the design guidelines would surprise or adversely impact construction plans currently under development. He was aware of two large projects currently underway that may come forward for design review. He has made it clear to them that the timing of their projects will probably necessitate design review. Ms. Dougall-Sides said discussion is underway regarding at what point developers may contest development regulations. She mentioned the City has a vested rights review process, if anyone feels burdened by the requirement to appear before the board. She hoped to have details for the next board meeting. Mr. McCarty distributed registration forms to those members interested in attending the LIG (Local Interest Group) sessions regarding the Memorial Causeway Bridge study. Mr. McCarty distributed copies of the lobbyist registration ordinance and cover memo from Mr. Shuford. This will be discussed in detail at a future meeting. G. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 4:45 p.m.