Loading...
07/09/1996DESIGN REVIEW BOARD CITY OF CLEARWATER July 9, 1996 Present: William McCann Kathy Milam Robert Herberich MacArthur “Mac” Boykins Mark Cagni Alex Plisko Howard Hamilton Leslie Dougall-Sides Don McCarty Gwen Legters Chair Vice Chair Board Member Board Member Board Member Board Member Board Member Assistant 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. Minutes Approval - June 28, 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. DRB 96-004 (LA Permitting Service for Dr. Susan Player, DC) 519 Cleveland Street Mr. McCarty presented verbal background information, stating the applicant wishes to install a 44-square foot sign above her second story windows facing Cleveland Street. While the lettering appears tasteful, Mr. McCarty expressed concern the location across the upper portion of the facade is higher than normal to comply with good design principles for advertising displays. Frank Thompson, sign contractor representing the applicant, stated the height is needed to avoid having the sign obscured by a 20-foot tall tree in front of the building. The additional height will facilitate electrical and mechanical installation from the roof top instead of through the doctor’s office walls. He circulated photographs of the tree in front of the building. The sign is to be 24 inches tall with red letters outlined with light powder blue neon. No one was present to speak in support of the request. A letter of no objection from Terry Tsafatinos, the property owner, was submitted with the application. No verbal or written opposition was expressed. In response to questions, Mr. Thompson said he will follow sign code for sign size. The installation will go through parapet wall to avoid causing roof leaks. The sign is internally illuminated plastic. The applicant had not reviewed the design guidelines. Concerns were expressed the application does not follow design guidelines for sign type, size, height, placement, or pedestrian orientation. It was indicated illuminated plastic signs with neon are not the direction the board wished to see for downtown. Mr. McCarty pointed out the potential exists for sign requests from three separate tenants for this property. He supported avoiding a piecemeal approach by meeting with the property owner to develop consistent overall building signage. Discussion ensued regarding the board’s alternatives, existing tree landscaping in the area, different design alternatives. As design review is done at not cost to the applicant, it was suggested the applicant work with the property owner to rethink the application and design a sign more in line with the guidelines. Mr. Thompson was advised how to obtain a copy of the design guidelines. Member Plisko moved to deny DRB 96-004 as submitted because the application does not follow design guidelines. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 2. DRB 96-005 Intervest Bank (Spencer & Jonnatti, Architects) 606 Chestnut Street Mr. McCarty presented verbal background information, stating the applicant wishes to renovate an existing bank building and construct a second story addition. Steve Spencer, architect representing the applicant, discussed elevation drawings and site plans. Architectural corner elements and gables will be added to provide a more traditional and aesthetic look, more consistent with the area than what exists currently. The flat roof will be replaced with a pitched roof covered with shingles emulating a slate look, walls will have cement plaster finish, and landscaped green areas will be added to the site. A neutral tri-color scheme is proposed to coordinate with the roof material. The owners want to use the building for their corporate offices. Mr. Spencer responded to questions, stating he did not have access to the design guidelines when he started the project over a year ago. Regarding the east elevation drawing, he said an equipment area will be recessed into the roof and screened from street view with matching roofing material. This was done to avoid rooftop equipment mounting. The existing sign was recently redone in conformance with the sign code and will not be changed. Discussion ensued regarding orientation of the building in relation to Court and Chestnut Streets, relocation of driveways, and additional landscaping proposed to help traffic circulation and improve aesthetics of the site. The applicant was commended for the high quality of the proposal and the presentation. It was indicated the entire project is a good example of what is being encouraged for the downtown community. Staff was encouraged to use this application as a model for future presentations. Member Cagni moved to approve DRB 96-005 as submitted, because the application is in keeping with the design guidelines. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 3. DRB 96-006 City of Clearwater (Rowe Architects) Pierce Street Parking Garage, 640 Pierce Street Mr. McCarty presented verbal background information, and introduced John Williams, with Rowe Architects, the firm representing the City. Mr. Williams stated this application is the third of three buildings comprising the Municipal Services Complex. The garage is to be built on the northwest corner of Pierce and East Streets, after the old police department building is demolished. The parking garage will reflect the context, materials, scale and structure of the two existing buildings in the complex. The garage will have the same sand blasted precast concrete wall panels, anodized aluminum windows, light gray laminated glass, and white painted exposed steel stairs. The philosophy of using the same design will facilitate public identification of the buildings as the City complex. Landscaping is being designed and installed by the City. A row of Washingtonian palms along Pierce Street will visually tie the three sites together. Junipers along Park Street will reflect the exterior columns. Palms are being used because of the limited green area around the site. The buildings will be stepped down in scale as they approach the Pinellas Trail to the east. No verbal or written support or opposition was expressed. Board concerns were expressed with a solid, blank wall within ten feet of the western property line, and a second driveway on Park Street taking up space that could be used for landscaping. It was felt the building lacks pedestrian scale. Concerns were expressed regarding configuration and use of police and employee-only parking within the garage, and inadequate public parking on each site. A question was raised regarding the purpose and unfavorable appearance of metal plates sticking out of the support columns. While acknowledging plans were drawn before the design guidelines were in place, disappointment was expressed the building does not address the style, aesthetics, or streetscape features that have been promoted downtown for some time. Responding to concerns, Mr. Williams described elements of the proposal that make the buildings more pedestrian friendly, including code required retail space to be provided on the ground floor along East Street. The blank wall on Park Street is related to a required one-hour fire rating and involves police vehicle security and access. The metal plates are the visible ends of the steel girder supports that extend through the columns. Mr. McCarty explained he requested for the garage proposal be brought forward for the board’s review, but the design was given tentative approval before implementation of the Design Review Board. While he agreed many details may have been done differently if the board had been involved sooner, he pointed out the architects received permission to proceed with the plan as detailed. Mr. Williams stated they were directed to provide program features to harden the building for hurricane protection. It was not possible to make the project more aesthetic and meet the program requirements on the minimal budget provided. In response to a question, Mr. Williams said elevated walkways are not planned to link the garage to the buildings, but could be added if future funds permit. Member Herberich moved to accept DRB 96-006 as submitted. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Board and Staff Discussion Brenda Moses, Board Reporter, was introduced and welcomed as the newest member of the City Clerk Department team. Mr. McCarty listed City projects to which he has been assigned as a result of Assistant City Manager Bill Baker’s unexpected retirement. Discussion ensued regarding how to get design guidelines information to the public before projects are designed. Mr. McCarty distributed flyers regarding three upcoming design workshops sponsored in cooperation with the City, Chamber of Commerce and Downtown Development Board Scheduled from 7:00 to 9:00 p.m. at the Chamber of Commerce, the discussions will cover the design guidelines as they relate to the following topics: Signs and Awnings, July 22; Storefronts, Windows and Doors, August 26; and Landscaping and Streetscaping, September 30, 1996. Copies of the UC design guidelines will be available for distribution at each meeting. Mr. Boykins expressed concern it might not have been clear to the applicants what was being requested of them in the case of DRB 96-004, above. He questioned when the points rating scale will be implemented. Mr. McCarty explained the complicated and time consuming process of coordinating data from an applicant, through the Central Permitting offices and to the board members. General discussion ensued regarding the best means of educating the public regarding application requirements, time limits and cutoff dates. Mr. McCarty will prepare a set of filing requirements for board action in conjunction with approval of next year’s meeting schedule. Mr. Plisko questioned why an application is allowed to come before the board when it does not meet acceptable design criteria. Ms. Dougall-Sides stated staff is compelled by code to accept an application if it meets the procedural criteria. Mr. Plisko pointed out the board should establish and publicize what they want to see in an applicant’s presentation, related to elevation drawings, site plans, orientation, color scheme, et cetera. It was noted these requirements are set forth in the design guidelines. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 5:30 p.m.