Loading...
08/13/1996DESIGN REVIEW BOARD CITY OF CLEARWATER August 13, 1996 Present: William McCann Kathy Milam Mark Cagni Alex Plisko Howard Hamilton Leslie Dougall-Sides Don McCarty Lisa Mui Gwen Legters Chair Vice Chair Board Member Board Member Board Member Assistant City Attorney Design Planner City Intern Board Reporter   Absent: Robert Herberich MacArthur “Mac” Boykins 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 3:00 p.m. in City Hall. Minutes Approval -- July 9 and July 23, 1996 Member Hamilton moved to approve both sets of minutes according to copies submitted in writing to each member by the Board Reporter. The motions were duly seconded and carried unanimously. Proposals for Design Review 1. DRB 96-003 (Amended) -- Green Benches & More -- Gordon Williamson 703 Franklin Street Mr. McCarty presented background information and staff recommendations. He stated the applicant wishes to amend the plans for a design approved on June 28, 1996, by adding two fluted, non-structural decorative columns to enhance the appearance of the front entry. The applicant’s work to date has greatly improved the exterior appearance of the building. Staff felt the design is in accordance with the design guidelines and recommended approval. Gordon Williamson, the owner/applicant was present to address the board. No verbal or written support or opposition was expressed. Board members commended Mr. Williamson for the work already done and thanked him for observing the formality of coming forward with his design modification. Member Plisko moved to approve DRB 96-003 as amended, because the application meets the criteria of the design guidelines. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 2. DRB 96-007 -- Calvary Baptist Church Addition -- Robert Aude, Architect 331 Cleveland Street Mr. McCarty presented background information and staff recommendations. He stated the applicants have proposed a building addition on the east end of their educational wing, known as EB-1, extending toward Osceola Avenue. They have designed construction to emphasize building elements consistent with the original church design. Two areas of concern to staff are the proximity of the passenger drop-off drive to the brick support columns, and the tight radius points in the driveway. Staff felt the proposal is consistent with the intent of the design guidelines and recommended approval. Robert Aude, architect representing Calvary Baptist Church, reviewed the history of the church, originally built in 1926. He said the architectural style of the new two-story addition will be consistent with the original church design. Referring to a letter submitted with the application, he described what will be housed in the addition, and how the fellowship hall entrance is being remodeled, adding a porte cochère to provide a covered passenger entry. The beige face brick, hip roof design and green clay roof tiles will match the existing church. He displayed a photograph of the existing wing, and compared it to an artist’s rendering of the proposal in relation to the overall church design. He discussed a small elevator tower within the complex for handicapped access. He felt the proposal is as sensitive to the design guidelines as possible in view of site constraints. By use of similar materials, proportions, roof pitches and roof materials, the addition will extend the attractiveness of the church to the South and improve the Osceola façade. Mr. Aude said a minor amount of landscaping is proposed to follow the theme of existing trees. While a plant list was not in the submittal, the landscaping improvements will meet or exceed code requirements. Demolition is underway for interior remodeling, and application for the exterior building permit is pending DRB approval of the design. In response to a question, it was indicated they have eight pallets of matching clay roof tiles that will be supplemented as needed to complete the project. Questions were raised regarding column design, turning radii, and lighting in the porte cochère. Mr. Aude said the plan has been modified from an earlier design submittal. No verbal or written support or opposition was expressed. Lengthy discussion ensued regarding window treatments, sizing and placement on the south and east elevations of EB-1. White aluminum framed windows will match the trim color throughout the church. The board expressed concerns that, because of interior development, windows are being blocked and others placed to create an asymmetry that negatively impacts the view from the City Hall parking lot immediately to the south. Concern was expressed the application did not indicate the exterior appearance of the south elevation was to be changed. Mr. Aude apologized for the omission, stating he believed the presentation was to involve only the front elevation. One of his associates left the meeting and returned in a few minutes with plans for the complete project. Discussion ensued regarding the south elevation, and suggestions for alternative window and mullion placement to create a more pleasing architectural pattern. Some board members were reluctant to go forward without firm plans for improving fenestration on the south side. One member indicated an attractive landscape plan would add more design value than would refenestration. One member felt the board should allow more latitude to the designers, as the church has a history of doing good quality work. Another member disagreed, stating the board is charged with critiquing the aesthetics of proposed designs and must receive clear submittals. Member Milam moved to approve DRB 96-007, subject to a condition the applicant return to the board with a landscaping plan for the south side of the building. There was no second. Mr. Aude expressed concern that window installation is scheduled for early September, before next DRB meeting, and respectfully requested approval. He was sympathetic to board concerns and expressed willingness to address those concerns within the structural and site constraints. Member Plisko moved to approve DRB 96-007, as submitted, with the requirement that additional landscaping be shown on the south elevation drawing. The motion was duly seconded. Members Cagni, Plisko, and Hamilton voted "Aye"; Members McCann and Milam voted "Nay." Motion carried. 3. DRB 96-008 -- City of Clearwater, City Services Buildings Signage Myrtle Avenue & Pierce Street Mr. McCarty presented background information and staff recommendations. Instead of being large project identification, the signage package for the three-building City Services Complex is necessary for proper building orientation and will serve to identify entrances and building services. Staff felt the signage package is needed for proper building identification and recommended approval. . John Williams, with Rowe Architects, spoke on behalf of the City, stating signs are sized and located to be compatible with building and pedestrian scale, and viewing angles. Flat cast aluminum letters, painted black, will be attached to the exterior walls. White vinyl lettering is to be applied to entry windows. Text style is block Helvetica. Referring to an extensive packet of drawings, he reviewed locations of signs oriented to the intersection of Pierce Street and East Avenue. He reviewed other signs oriented to the Myrtle Avenue and Park Street entrance of the Municipal Services building. He stated the application meets sign code requirements for placement and square footage. No verbal or written support or opposition was expressed. Discussion ensued regarding graphics and sign locator maps depicting building faces and areas of glass surfaces. Mr. Williams reported the City sign shop will create and place directional signs along Myrtle Avenue. He discussed the Police badge logo and lettering size on the police building. Concern was expressed the sign graphics are too small and placed too high on the buildings. Mr. Williams reiterated how size, placement, orientation, view angles, distance, and the sign code were taken into account when they designed the signs. Consensus was the signs above the second story windows are too high for comfortable viewing. Mr. McCarty read a portion of the design guidelines into the record, recommending that signage NOT be placed above second floor window sills. Suggestions were made to drop wall signs down one panel and shift them around for more aesthetic effect. Mr. Williams agreed this can be done. Member Milam moved to approve DRB 96-008, as amended to lower the signs as recommended, to meet the criteria of the design guidelines. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 4. DRB 96-009 -- Harborview Center Marquee City of Clearwater 300 Cleveland Street Mr. McCarty presented background information and staff recommendations. A conceptual drawing was submitted for the installation of a City-requested Harborview Center marquee to identify venues, events and exhibits. Staff felt a marquee is desirable. A site locator plan and detailed drawing were not submitted with the application, but will be needed to clarify sign location, setting and landscaping. Barry Strafacci, Harborview Center Manager, presented a color computer graphic of a conceptual sign and landscaping, and a physical specifications sheet. He distributed a color sketch of the proposed location within a triangular-shaped traffic median in the intersection of Cleveland and Drew Streets, at the eastern end of the Memorial Causeway bridge. City Parks and Recreation will design and install landscaping. Mr. Strafacci, Central Permitting Director Scott Shuford, and Engineering Director Rich Baier reviewed six potential sites. Choosing a site for maximum public exposure is constrained by roads, overhead traffic signals, and view corridors. He discussed design alternatives, electronic capabilities, and probable size, depending on budget constraints. No verbal or written support or opposition was expressed. As the locator sketch did not depict streets or direction reference points, clarification was requested. Concerns were expressed the documents submitted in support of the application were not adequate or timely. Concerns were expressed the sign and landscaping will create a visual barrier and questions were raised why the sign is to be placed off site. Strong concern was expressed that putting an electronic billboard on the waterfront is not in the best interest of the public as it conflicts with current efforts to enhance and preserve the waterfront ambiance. Mr. Strafacci explained they are trying to orient the sign toward the area of highest traffic flow to get the maximum exposure and highest possible return, considering the limited budget. The farther the sign is from main roads, the larger and more expensive the sign must be. He has examined the issue for weeks and months, but options are limited. Harborview Center customers are unhappy with not having signage to promote their events. While the board recognized the need for a marquee, the applicant was strongly urged to seek another location with less significant impact. Mr. Strafacci expressed concern he is under pressure to have the sign in place before Harborview Center business picks up in October. While board members understood the time constraints, concern was expressed informational materials were not provided in advance, so the board has not had sufficient time to properly review and evaluate the proposal and location. Discussion ensued concerning ordinances regulating locating remote signs on City and State rights-of-way. Ms. Dougall-Sides was not aware whether this issue has been addressed. She read from City code regarding flexibility for City-owned, public purpose signs. It was pointed out the sign would have to be removed when the new bridge is constructed. Mr. Strafacci said they have addressed this by designing a sign that can be dismantled and moved. Member Milam moved to table DRB 96-009, until a new location can be found. The motion was duly seconded. Discussion continued regarding alternate locations, site constraints and aesthetics. Consensus was the proposal is unsuitable at the current location. A suggestion was made to split the sign into two separate units and place them in separate locations. Mr. Strafacci did not feel this was an option due to the cost of the electronics involved. When Mr. Shuford arrived, he indicated the idea to split the signs has merit. He will investigate that and other suggestions. Upon the vote being taken, the motion to table DRB 96-009 carried unanimously. Board and Staff Discussion Mr. McCarty distributed copies of the board’s annual report as presented to the City Commission on August 1. He included information regarding DRB goals for the coming year, at the board’s request. Member McCann presented the report and said the Mayor and Commissioners thanked the board for the presentation, their accomplishments, and encouraged continuation of their work in the future. Central Permitting Director Scott Shuford was present to address concerns regarding a time line for design guidelines preparation for the remaining zoning districts. He explained Mr. McCarty’s time has been heavily occupied by other City building projects, including the Harborview Center, Municipal Services building, Police Station, municipal parking garage, and City Hall renovations. He said staff is eager to get design guidelines in place, but other priorities have taken precedence. A consultant will be engaged to draw up the design guidelines for Clearwater beach, North Greenwood, and Harbor Oaks. Mr. McCarty reminded members of the second design seminar on Monday, August 26, regarding façades, storefronts, windows & doors. He noted Member Cagni will participate in round table discussions during the second workshop. Mr. McCarty encouraged other members, the public and downtown merchants to attend. Mr. McCarty reported the City Engineering department is surveying existing conditions related to the Mandalay streetscape project. Central Permitting staff will conduct a survey of local property owners regarding crucial items that may arise. Mr. McCarty reminded members the only DRB meeting scheduled for next month is on Tuesday, September 24 at 3:00 p.m. Chair McCann thanked Member Cagni for attending the design seminar on behalf of the board. He thanked board members for their participation and input today, stating he felt their remarks were pointed and appropriate. In response to a question from Member Milam, Mr. Shuford stated the proposed downtown homeless shelter is not within DRB jurisdiction boundaries. Member Milam questioned the procedure for selecting a design guidelines consultant. Mr. Shuford outlined the Request for Proposal (RFP) process and how presentations are done. He invited the board to select a member to hear and evaluate those proposals with staff. As the RFP will be sent out before the next board meeting, he asked anyone wishing to volunteer to inform him today. Chair McCann expressed an interest in participating. Mr. Shuford will brief Mr. McCann on the process and welcomed him to the team. Member Milam expressed concern with having to rush board decisions because of tight construction schedules. She questioned whether design review applications could come forward sooner in the construction process. Member Plisko expressed concern that trying to review designs with incomplete documentation is unfair to the board and the applicants. He requested staff prepare written guidelines for what is expected to be submitted with design review applications. He indicated design proposals should not be agendaed without adequate backup. Mr. Shuford responded staff will make applicants aware that drastically incomplete applications will not be submitted for review. He reminded the board of the need to remain customer friendly, work with the applicants, and recognize the different levels of sophistication inherent in certain projects. It was acknowledged that building professionals are known for trying to push their time lines, but flexibility is needed while the design process is new, unfamiliar, and not required in all districts. Mr. Shuford will monitor the situation to ensure the board has enough material on which to act while maintaining good customer service. Member Plisko noted frequent reference to calling special meetings, and questioned whether staff intends to make this a regular practice. Mr. Shuford responded they do not and he felt twice monthly meetings are sufficient. Mr. McCarty noted today’s suggestion to consider a special meeting was due to the five week time span between meetings. Member Hamilton questioned if remote signs are allowed by code. Mr. Shuford responded off-premise signs are allowed because the City does not regulate the message contained on the sign. Clarification was requested regarding code requirements for remote signs and messages. It was indicated vehicle signs are not allowed. Member Milam questioned extending boundaries of Clearwater beach zoning districts to include Public/Semi-Public, Multi-family, etc. Mr. Shuford said staff has internal control over City designs to ensure they meet the Tropical Seascape theme. He noted the City Commission has directed staff to include the Harbor Oaks neighborhood in DRB jurisdiction. He indicated the City is sold on the design review program and felt the board is doing a good job. Member Plisko raised a question regarding a small parking lot proposed for the south side of the Memorial Causeway. Mr. Shuford said it will be near the location of the former eastern fishing pier. He noted review and recommendations to the City Commission will be needed from several boards. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 5:08 p.m.