Loading...
05/14/1996DESIGN REVIEW BOARD CITY OF CLEARWATER May 14, 1996 Present: William McCann Kathy Milam Robert Herberich (arrived 3:05 p.m.) MacArthur “Mac” Boykins Mark Cagni Alex Plisko Don McCarty Gwen Legters Chair Vice Chair Board Member Board Member Board Member Board Member Design Planner Board Reporter      Absent: Howard Hamilton 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 3:00 p.m. in City Hall. Minutes Approval - April 23, 1996 Member Milam 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. Board Discussion Design guidelines Status Mr. McCarty reported the downtown design guidelines received unanimous approval at the City Commission meeting of May 2. He is accumulating photographs and graphics to illustrate the manual and hopes to send it out for reproduction soon. Harborview Waterfront & Memorial Causeway Bridge Mr. McCarty reported the City Commission will discuss during their first work session in June, proposed design elements for the harbor view area as well as survey and engineering data for the Memorial Causeway Bridge. He encouraged board members to sign up to join the upcoming LIG (Local Interest Group) meetings regarding effects on wetlands, potential location and right-of-way routes, and height of the proposed fixed span bridge. Other Issues Mr. McCarty noted the board needs to attend to several items prior to hearing cases. He distributed copies of: 1) advisory board oath of office; 2) a letter and suggestions from Information Management regarding appearing on camera; 3) City code Section 2.066 regarding meeting attendance; 4) sample script for opening meetings; and 5) two samples of invocations used by other boards. It was noted members must swear an oath administered by the City Clerk or a deputy prior to hearing cases. This can be done as a group prior to the next meeting. Discussion ensued regarding whether or not to open DRB meetings with the Pledge of Allegiance and invocation. A question was raised regarding how this issue was perceived by the Development Code Adjustment Board. Member Plisko responded the decision to open with the pledge and invocation was not unanimous. Member Milam felt the pledge and invocation are important and lend a sense of creditability to the proceedings. Member Milam moved to open Design Review Board meetings with the Pledge of Allegiance and the shorter of the two sample invocations. There was no second. Member Plisko moved to open Design Review Board meetings with the Pledge of Allegiance. Members McCann, Herberich, Boykins, Cagni, and Plisko voted "Aye"; Member Milam voted "Nay." Motion carried. Discussion ensued regarding site visitation. It was indicated members are discouraged from discussing applications with applicants or property owners prior to public hearings. However, it was pointed out design review applications are not to be treated as public hearings. Members were encouraged to independently observe each site to avoid the perception that they may be discussing board business without a quorum. Mr. McCarty asked members to observe conditions on surrounding properties, as well as those on site, to ensure new designs blend with the surroundings. In response to a question, Mr. McCarty said code currently provides for DRB review of all exterior treatments for new and remodeled buildings and signage in the UC zoning districts, for which permits are required. It was pointed out repainting and certain window replacement do not require permits. Discussion ensued regarding at what point design applications should come forward in the plans review and permitting process, and what materials will be required of the applicant. It was not felt an elaborate application will be needed. Mr. McCarty is currently acting alone to receive, process, and distribute application materials to members prior to board review. It was indicated applicants will need to bring preliminary drawings to the board. The extent or elaborateness of the drawings will depend on the type of project proposed. The board agreed to remain flexible on the requirements until they see the types of presentations coming forward and know more about what will be needed. Discussion ensued regarding conduct of a meeting when one of the board members brings a design forward for review. Consensus was for a member declaring a conflict of interest to excuse himself of herself from the dais and remain in the audience to make the presentation, or respond to board questions, pending Legal Department approval. Some members felt the need to have a specific application sequence posted or advertised for public edification. Others pointed out design professionals and developers are likely to know what their largest hurdles are and will address those first. Smaller projects are not as likely to need multiple reviews. It was hoped all Central Permitting staff will be sufficiently aware of the design review requirement to direct applicants through appropriate channels to avoid unnecessary delays or backtracking. Mr. McCarty said a frequently expressed concern is that design review adds another layer of government. He pointed out many people are needed to administer the Land Development Code because it is so complex. The City Commission feels design review is a priority and staff is acting at their direction. Mr. McCarty assured members that staff will guide applicants when multiple reviews are needed. Concern was expressed that advertising and promotional materials regarding design review and guidelines have not come forward. Some members felt word of mouth is not sufficient and felt information should be more widely disseminated to the public. Mr. McCarty said he has made it clear to all the groups he has addressed that the board will encourage and suggest rather than dictate or mandate. He expressed surprise the newspapers did not pick up recent City Commission approval of the design guidelines, since most downtown property owners are affected. He reiterated he is working alone to oversee the City design review process and asked for volunteers to put together an advertising campaign. Consensus was for the Chair to read a scripted statement of meeting conduct at the beginning of each meeting. Mr. McCarty will amend the sample to apply to DRB meetings. Discussion ensued regarding when to start hearing cases. Mr. Plisko said he has a design ready to bring forward now and questioned the lead time. Mr. McCarty said staff will attempt to do internal review and recommendations and agenda each application within seven to ten days. Consensus was to accept Mr. Plisko’s application and schedule it for review at the next meeting, on May 28, 1996. It was indicated Ms. Dougall-Sides will be out of the country. Legal department representation at the meeting was felt to be important. A question was raised how neighbors will know about design review cases since they are not advertised as public hearings. Mr. McCarty said a notification procedure is not in place. One member indicated the board’s function is to be the discriminating body that protects the neighborhood from unregulated designs. General discussion ensued regarding an application form, situations where applicants are not familiar with the City’s review and permitting process, and how to make it clear to applicants what is expected with regard to drawings. Discussion ensued regarding attire for televised meetings. Consensus was for all members to wear a jacket or tie, or both, with women having the option of wearing a dress. Once meetings are scheduled for broadcast, it was believed they will be televised whether or not any applications are agendaed. It was not known if C-View TV personnel can be ready to broadcast the next meeting as they are relocating their equipment to the new building. Board and Staff Comments Mr. McCarty reported Howard Hamilton was appointed to fill the vacant seat. It was not known why Mr. Hamilton was not in attendance today. Chairman McCann spoke at the beginning and end of the meeting regarding the importance of arriving before 3:00 p.m., especially when meetings are televised. He requested all members arrive at least 15 minutes early for the next meeting to be sworn in. Mr. McCarty reported Central Permitting has completed their move to the new building and are in the process of bringing the new computer and telephone systems on line. He invited members to call him to schedule a tour. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 4:54 p.m.