Loading...
05/28/1996DESIGN REVIEW BOARD CITY OF CLEARWATER May 28, 1996 Present: William McCann Kathy Milam Robert Herberich MacArthur “Mac” Boykins Mark Cagni Alex Plisko Howard Hamilton Pamela K. Akin Don McCarty Gwen Legters Chair Vice Chair Board Member Board Member Board Member Board Member Board Member City Attorney Design Planner Board Reporter   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. Howard Hamilton was welcomed as a new member. Minutes Approval - May 14, 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. New Proposals for Design Review 1. Robert Levison Community Center, Clearwater Housing Authority 210 Ewing Street Member Plisko declared a conflict of interest regarding this item and left the platform. Mr. McCarty verbally presented background information. The applicant wishes to improve the existing building without committing large sums to renovation. Because the subject property is in the area of the proposed downtown lake, the tenants might be forced to relocate in the future. After several meetings with the applicants to review the proposal, Mr. McCarty agreed exterior corrections are needed to provide consistency and make the building more presentable. Staff felt conditions support the request and recommended approval subject to selection of the final color scheme. Peter Gray and Alex Plisko, architects for the project, gave an overview of the proposal. Mr. Gray said the applicant wishes to remove a deteriorated metal canopy, leaving the steel framework in place and painting it a dark teal color. The existing brickwork is an orangey-yellow color. Large areas of existing white stucco will be repainted a peach-toned cream color. The overhead framework will be augmented with wooden beams to create an open trellis effect over the sidewalk. The portion of the overhead structure at the front entrance will be covered with a pressure treated plywood and membrane system, to create a canopy shielding the entryway from the weather. This new canopy will be the same light color as the stucco. A series of low walls stepping back from the edge of the roof will hide rooftop mechanical units. These walls will be painted with a stylized streetscape, colors to match the rest of the building, and/or blue to blend with the sky. Mr. Gray said the color selection is final. On the northern end of the building, the trellis will remain open. The parking lot and sidewalk on the north side of the building are to be removed and the sidewalk replaced with landscaping. In response to a question, Mr. Gray said he is trying to work decorative planters into the limited budget. Discussion ensued regarding the sign across the front of the building. It was indicated the sign is to be comprised of 18 inch tall, individual letters made of PVC material. Concern was expressed that the metal stands supporting each letter will need to be strong enough to withstand high winds. Mr. Plisko responded to questions, clarifying that this proposal is a temporary solution. The Housing Authority does not want to stay in the building, but the City has not committed to buy the land yet. This proposal is designed to last only 8 to 10 years, as a low cost way to repair the damaged canopy and clean up the effect of the building. The dumpster and air conditioning units are not being addressed, because the intention is not to save the building. Member Milam moved to approve Item 1 as presented. The motion was duly seconded. Members McCann, Milam, Herberich, Boykins, and Cagni voted "Aye"; Member Plisko abstained. Motion carried. Member Plisko returned to the platform at 3:25 p.m. Board and Staff Discussion Mr. McCarty said other designs are pending and the applications will likely come forward in June. He said Mr. Shuford hopes to attend in June. Central Permitting has modified their application forms for building, signage, walls and fence permits for use as generic design review applications. In response to requests from Members Milam and Boykins, he will provide written staff reports and recommendations for each case whenever possible. He hoped staffing levels will increase in proportion with board business. Mr. McCarty distributed copies of a C-View TV programming schedule and the board attendance report for the past year. In response to a question from Member Hamilton, Mr. McCarty said the board meets every twice a month, except during August, September and December, to allow for vacations. Mr. Hamilton was provided with a copy of the meeting schedule for the rest of the year. Member Milam questioned the status of advertising the existence of the DRB for public education regarding the design guidelines and review process. Mr. McCarty is working with C- View personnel to prepare a report for broadcast. The Downtown Development Board is publicizing the DRB in its newsletters. Nothing is being mailed to Realtors or contractors at this time. In response to a question from Member Milam, Mr. McCarty hopes the board can review the Clearwater beach design guidelines and make a recommendation to the City Commission in July. City Attorney Pamela Akin gave an overview of the Sunshine Law and the Public Records law for the benefit of newer members. According to the Sunshine Law, members cannot speak to each other in person, by telephone, or through a third party, regarding issues likely to come before the board. Members may speak together in public, but not about board business. Members may speak to members of other boards about board business. While some penalties are attached, she said it would have to be proven a member intended to violate the law. Regarding the Public Records law, she said all documents related to board business are open to the public and available to be read by anyone. While some exemptions exist, the exemptions do not apply to the DRB. She cautioned members to ensure all documents and members’ notes related to board business are kept in files available for public review. She recommended submitting documents related to closed files to the board’s City liaison for proper retention and destruction through their department. Due to the nature of the board, she said there is no requirement to advertise DRB meetings. Posting notification of a meeting is sufficient. Some members did not feel their attendance was accurately reported. Staff will provide verification for the next meeting. Member Boykins questioned when members were notified of the attendance requirement. Mr. McCarty responded all members have been advised on more than one occasion regarding the importance of regular attendance. This was discussed in detail at the last meeting when members received copies of the Code regarding advisory board attendance requirements. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 3:44 p.m.