Loading...
09/24/1996DESIGN REVIEW BOARD CITY OF CLEARWATER September 24, 1996 Present: William McCann Kathy Milam Robert Herberich Mark Cagni Alex Plisko Howard Hamilton Leslie Dougall-Sides Don McCarty Mark K. Diana, for Gwen Legters Chair Vice Chair Board Member Board Member Board Member Board Member Assistant City Attorney Design Planner Assistant City Clerk Board Reporter   Absent: MacArthur “Mac” Boykins 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 - August 13, 1996 Member Plisko 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. C. Lobbyist Registration Ordinance -- Assistant City Attorney Leslie Dougall-Sides This item was discussed at the conclusion of Item D3. Ms. Dougall-Sides distributed copies of the registration form and instructions developed by the City Clerk, an instructional outline from Central Permitting, and a legislative bill relating to this issue. She highlighted the sections relating to definitions, registration of lobbyists, statement of lobbying expenditures, reporting of registrations by the City Clerk, exemptions, and penalties for violations. The ordinance is limited to certain City advisory boards, including the DRB, and certain City staff. It was amended to omit written communications from the requirement, and applies to verbal conversations only. She indicated the burden is not on board members to ensure lobbyists register, but on the lobbyists to register prior to lobbying, where practical. No annual renewal of a lobbyist registration form is required for a single issue, unless pertinent data changes, because lobbyists are required to file a separate form for each issue. She explained who is exempt under the ordinance, and penalties for violations. Ms. Dougall-Sides discussed the 1996 legislative amendment to Florida Statute 286.0115 related to communications by local public officials and members of quasi-judicial decisionmaking bodies. She explained this provision does not apply directly to the DRB because their cases are not considered public hearings. In the past, the City had advised members of other quasi-judicial boards that ex parte communications with applicants could endanger the validity of the board’s decision, and that the better practice was to limit such contact and declare it at the hearing, if it occurred. In light of the State legislation, she indicated those precautions will no longer be necessary. Such conversations need not be disclosed at quasi-judicial hearings regarding land use matters, because they cannot be presumed prejudicial to the board’s decision. The amendment is scheduled to take effect October 1, 1996. Some question has been raised whether cities and counties will have to adopt an ordinance restating the above, or whether the legislation automatically goes into effect. The City’s lobbyist registration ordinance will apply, regardless. Ms. Dougall-Sides responded to general questions regarding lobbyist registration. She stated the City ordinance is more strict that State law, currently. She reiterated the burden of registration is on the lobbyist and it is not up to board members to conduct detailed inquiries of potential lobbyists. She indicated, an attorney or design professional compensated to appear before the board at a hearing would fall under the exemptions and would not be required to register. An attorney or design professional who is compensated by a client and attempts to influence action outside a public hearing, on behalf of the client, would be considered a lobbyist. She did not believe payment of a registration fee is involved. She stated this ordinance was drafted by Legal Department staff at the direction of several City Commissioners. D. Proposals for Design Review 1. DRB 96-009 -- Harborview Center Marquee, City of Clearwater 300 Cleveland Street (continued from August 13, 1996) Mr. McCarty presented background information and staff recommendations. He referred to handouts submitted at the previous meeting, representing the conceptual appearance, landscaping, and physical specifications of the proposed sign. It was indicated the marquee design will remain the same, but the proposed location has been moved to the landscaped area adjacent to the southwest corner of the parking lot within the Harborview Center property lines. A colored drawing was submitted to show proposed placement of the sign and associated landscaping in the new location. Barry Strafacci, Harborview Center General Manager with Globe Facilities Services, responded to questions. He stated the sign is computerized, can display the time and temperature, and has animation capabilities in four colors. Harborview Center events, as well as Parks and Recreation and Memorial Civic Center activities will be announced and publicized on the sign. Mr. McCarty briefly outlined the proposed former location and associated board concerns expressed at the last meeting. He said he met with the Central Permitting and Engineering Directors, to look at the feasibility of a number of different sites. The site will be thoroughly landscaped and several palm trees will be relocated to accommodate the sign. Staff recommends this location on the Harborview Center property, and supports the need for a marquee sign to advertise and promote coming events. Mr. Strafacci responded to questions, stating the size will be approximately 5 by 12 feet per side. He said, if money were no object, he would choose a much larger sign in a more prominent place for optimum marketing value and maximum exposure. The current sign size was a good compromise, developed to meet code in a variety of different locations. He said he worked with Daktronics, Inc. to create a design that looks good and goes along with the waterfront theme. He stated the height is not as essential as it would be if located on top of the building or along the highway. He noted the current location was the original choice, but technical design people had advocated putting the sign in the street for maximum coverage. He said a concrete traffic light support column reduces visibility of traffic coming from the beach, but once at the stop light, motorists have total visibility of the sign. One member expressed concern with the aesthetic appearance of the sign, noting the City will have to live with it for a long time. Mr. Strafacci stated the sign is very nice, and uses the same state-of-the-art computerized technology as the sign at George Steinbrenner’s Legends Field in Tampa. Messages can be scheduled up to a month in advance, and it has the capability for animation and other programming. Discussion ensued regarding alternatives to the painted steel sheet metal support structure. Mr. Strafacci did not know the diameter of the supporting posts. He estimated the height from the ground to the bottom of the sign at about ten feet, stating the exact height will be determined by the final location. He will test the height for maximum visibility from various angles. One member questioned how much it would cost to create a more aesthetic structure. Mr. Strafacci stated the design was created to resemble the modern appearance of the Harborview Center building. He did not know what would be involved in total redesign. Mr. McCarty pointed out the sign may have to be moved, depending on the location of the new Memorial Causeway bridge. One member pointed out the major negative point in the original presentation had been the adverse impact of the location in the middle of the street. The majority favored the same sign in the new location. One member expressed regret a design theme has not been established for the waterfront. Mr. McCarty agreed, an overall coordinated approach is needed for identification markers, signage, and building locations downtown. This issue will be studied in more detail in the future. Member Hamilton moved to approve DRB 96-009 as resubmitted. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 2. DRB 96-010 -- Midland Mortgage Investment Corp. (Downtown Clearwater Tower, LTD) -- 33 North Garden Avenue Mr. McCarty referred to the sign locator map, stating two building signature signs are proposed on two of the upper facades of the Clearwater Tower building. The proposed signage is consistent with that typically used on high rise buildings in urban center districts. A colored rendering showed the building’s design and sign placement on the upper level. He indicated one change, stating the name, “Midland” would be centered in the panel, rather than offset, as illustrated. Lindsey Aycock, sign contractor, stated the reverse channel letter sign is the best quality, most professional available. The individual letters will be backlighted to give a subtle halo effect. He indicated this was more aesthetic than the internally lighted plastic lettering common in shopping centers. No verbal or written support or opposition was expressed. Some members felt the offset sign was more aesthetic, given the asymmetrical building design. Mr. Aycock explained the design was for maximum visibility from the major street arteries. Michael Spears, attorney representing the applicant, distributed literature regarding the Midland Companies. He stated they have recently moved their corporate headquarters into the Clearwater Tower after having been downtown in the SunTrust building for approximately 20 years. He indicated they thought the sign would look better in the middle of the panel, but they were not locked into that decision. Discussion continued regarding positioning of the building in relation to the multiple street frontages, and orientation of the signs perpendicular to Cleveland Street. Mr. Aycock circulated photographs contrasting reverse channel letters with regular channel letters. He displayed a color chip illustrating the shade of blue they propose. One member felt, as long as the sign meets code, if makes no difference where the sign is placed within the broad horizontal band encompassing the top of the building. Others felt the placement does matter and brief discussion continued. Member Milam moved to approve DRB 96-010 as submitted, because the application is in keeping with the design guidelines. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 3. DRB 96-011 -- Burning Bridges Design Studio 700 Court Street -- Withdrawn Mr. McCarty stated he has been working with the applicants and placed this item on the agenda in anticipation of their application. When the applicants indicated they did not feel they were ready to bring their presentation forward, this item was withdrawn from the agenda. Mr. McCarty will provide a status report at the next meeting. Board and Staff Discussion Chair McCann reminded board and staff members to keep looking toward accomplishing the board’s future goals as outlined in the annual report to the City Commission. One of the issues being encouraged was development of the design guidelines. 1. Status Report on RFP for Design Guidelines Consultant Mr. McCarty stated an RFP (Request for Proposal) for a consultant to prepare the design guidelines was prepared and sent out. Two respondents will be interviewed this Friday afternoon by a six member selection committee consisting of Chair McCann, Central Permitting Director Shuford, and members of City staff. It is hoped to review the presentations, select a consultant, and begin preparing design guidelines for the three remaining districts very soon. In response to questions, Mr. McCarty stated the two responsive bidders are the architectural firms of Harvard, Jolly, Cleese, and Toppe of St. Petersburg, and Wade Trim and Associates, in conjunction with Steve Fowler. Mr. McCarty said 36 RFP requests were sent out. He offered copies of the two proposals for board review. Member Plisko questioned whether both respondents met the selection criteria of having references from five previous clients who received similar services. He expressed concern regarding the difficulty of meeting such a requirement, when such a project has never been undertaken in the City. He felt that was the reason for the limited response. Member Milam questioned if bidders were made aware of recommendations from staff, the Clearwater beach Blue Ribbon Task Force, and others. Mr. McCarty stated they made the bidders aware of the previous studies conducted in each area, but did not want to bias the bidders because of the different manners in which those studies had been prepared. The existing design guidelines for downtown were offered as a model and it was indicated the consultants would not be starting from scratch, but would be working with previously expressed preferences for each of the respective areas. Mr. McCarty stated, as the staff coordinator for this project, he has advised both the prospective consultants and the involved community group representatives, that the community will have input throughout the process of developing the design guidelines. Concern was expressed something was wrong with the RFP to have received such a limited response. Mr. McCarty responded the City Purchasing Department mails from a mailing list of firms that have expressed an interest in being notified regarding certain City activities. He noticed many firms on the list that are not involved in this kind of business. He stated not many people are doing this very broad-based type of consultant work. Ms. Dougall-Sides and Mr. McCarty stated the committee and the City have the right to reject the proposals and readvertise, or modify the RFP if it is felt the criteria are too stringent. 2. State of Florida Historic Grant Application Mr. McCarty reported Central Permitting has filed an application to the State for a 50/50 matching grant to fund a downtown historical building and site survey in the Urban Center district and Clearwater Bay neighborhoods. It is hoped a presentation can be made in November and the grant conferred before the end of the year. If awarded, the State and the City would each provide $15,000 of the $30,000 total grant. 3. Other Items Mr. McCarty distributed copies of a letter from City Manager Deptula requesting advisory board members to refrain from wearing or displaying political campaign materials during meetings of boards on which the members serve. Mr. McCarty reminded members the next meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, October 8. Member Milam questioned if design guidelines can be put into effect in time for reconstruction on a south Gulfview Boulevard property from which five houses were demolished recently. She expressed concern development of the large parcel could occur without regard to the design theme wanted for the area. Mr. McCarty said permit applications have not been filed, but he has received preliminary sketches from a local architect and initial inquiries have been made regarding zoning and land use regulations. He indicated the developers may decide to come before the Board for design review input before design guidelines are adopted for Clearwater beach. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 4:04 p.m.