Loading...
10/08/1996DESIGN REVIEW BOARD CITY OF CLEARWATER October 8, 1996 Present: Kathy Milam Robert Herberich Mark Cagni Alex Plisko Howard Hamilton Leslie Dougall-Sides Don McCarty Gwen Legters Vice Chair Board Member Board Member Board Member Board Member Assistant City Attorney Design Planner Board Reporter   Absent: William McCann MacArthur “Mac” Boykins Chair 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 Vice Chair at 3:00 p.m. in City Hall. Minutes Approval - September 24, 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. Proposals for Design Review 1. DRB96-011 Burning Bridges Design Studio -- Mr. HiramBerry 700 Court Street Mr. McCarty said the applicant was not ready to make a presentation and had requested a continuance to the meeting of October 22, 1996. 2. DRB 96-012 -- Surf West Clearwater Beach -- Steve Fowler 309 South Gulfview Boulevard Mr. McCarty presented background information and staff recommendations, stating the applicant proposes two buildings within a new retail development complex on Clearwater beach. Standing-seam metal roofs, colorful tile panels, stucco walls, covered walkways and tropical landscaping are designed to correspond to the Tropical Seascape theme wanted for Clearwater beach. Staff has suggested additional wall and column treatments, such as tile inserts or three dimensional stucco variations, to help break up the large expanses of glass and wall. Mr. McCarty noted the proposal is located within the design guidelines area of Clearwater beach, but design guidelines have not been adopted. Steve Fowler, architect representing the applicant, referred to a site plan, elevation drawings, a landscaping plan, and a color graphic, detailing the proposal, designed to be part of a new retail facility. To create a more pedestrian ambiance, Mr. Fowler proposed to orient the building north and south, providing minor parking along Gulfview Boulevard, with the balance of parking in the rear, along Coronado Drive. The site is not being developed to the maximum allowable density and the owners have gone above and beyond the call of duty to provide aesthetic features. Roof turrets will house mechanical equipment to prevent it being seen from surrounding hotel balconies. The large glass panels of the retail shops facing Gulfview Boulevard will be canted slightly downward to reflect streetscape colors and activities, cut down on glare, and better enable view of merchandise inside. Mr. McCarty thanked the group for coming forward, due to the critical nature of the project and the importance of aesthetic design on Clearwater beach. He agreed the proposed building orientation lends itself to a more pedestrian friendly environment. Staff felt conditions support the request and recommended approval as consistent with the proposed design guidelines under consideration for Clearwater beach. In response to questions, Mr. Fowler said the storefront glass will be untinted, with ultraviolet screening. Commercial structures are not required to be elevated, but the building will be floodproofed in accordance with FEMA regulations. Discussion ensued regarding effectiveness of floodproofing, the rear parking plan, and building signage. Due to the dual street frontage, Mr. Fowler said the buildings were not created with “back” sides, but fewer pedestrian accesses were provided along the north and south sides abutting the neighboring properties. Although signage is not part of this presentation, he said one sign on each on Coronado and Gulfview will conform to the sign code. Lengthy discussion ensued, with board members expressing concern the design does not appear to follow the Tropical Seascape theme. Concerns were expressed metal roofs do not lend enough of a tropical feel to overcome the boxlike appearance. It was felt the large expanses of windows make the structure look sterile and unappealing, not unlike commercial structures commonly found along US 19. Mr. McCarty explained those are the reasons staff suggested breaking up the stucco and glass by introducing details to give a more three-dimensional look. Some feared a large proliferation of window signage could occur, similar to the situation at the Wings establishment. Mr. Fowler explained they have tried to create a serene environment where visitors can look out over the water. He said they have no intention of obstructing this view with neon or other retail signage. Mr. Fowler discussed the proposed color scheme, stating the off-white background will be brightened by strong burnt red ceramic tiles and umber accents. He wished to avoid the appearance of pastel bathroom tile. He responded to further questions, stating the Miami property owners have six locations on Clearwater beach, two in Mississippi, and one in Las Vegas. One reason they did not take a softer approach to the design, was to get as much retail store frontage as possible without developing the site to its potential. He noted green space requirements are met and the north/south orientation prevents the “US 19 look”. He felt creating a single-story retail building with 22 foot high ceilings lends to the ambiance. The smaller retail/restaurant building is two stories, and the total proposed square footage in the complex is 12,900. A question was raised regarding whether 29 parking spaces are sufficient for a development of this size. Mr. Fowler detailed code parking requirements, stating a variance for two parking spaces was granted. A question was raised whether Mr. Fowler considers this proposal responsive to the Tropical Seascape theme, given his heavy involvement in development of the Clearwater Beach Blue Ribbon Task Force. Mr. Fowler stated it is responsive, because of the pedestrian orientation, and recognition of the Clearwater beach building scale by breaking the proposal into two smaller structures. In response to a question regarding his opinion of the Wings design, Mr. Fowler he stated their building could comply with the design guidelines, except for the excessive signage, inappropriate colors and nonexistent landscaping. Mr. McCarty understood the Surf West development is not going to have window advertising with neon, or hanging banners, etc. Board members felt Hyde Park and Pelican Walk are more representative of what local people prefer in terms of nice retail. Mr. Fowler stated the intent is to incorporate art work into the merchandise displays, creating the kind of high-tech ambiance that exists at Danielle’s in Pelican Walk. Board members expressed concern they are unable to make a recommendation without adopted design guidelines. Mr. McCarty stated the applicant came forward voluntarily, asking for input. In the absence of a recommendation, the floor was opened for suggestions. Members suggested softening the appearance with pastel colors, and providing more visual interest by lowering the tile bands. Mr. McCarty reiterated again his suggestion to incorporate some three-dimensional design features to make walls and massing less uniform. The Chair thanked Mr. Fowler for his presentation. 3. DRB 96-013 -- Pier 60 Park, Concessions Building Signage Pier 60 Drive, Clearwater beach Mr. McCarty presented background information and staff recommendations. Referring to copies of supplemental drawings provided by the applicant, he said this signage package is proposed by the Pier 60 concessions operator to reflect the Clearwater beach redevelopment theme and will identify the building that provides concession services. Staff has met with the facility operators to work out preferred locations for their three signs. He noted this is not their original sign proposal, but has been modified to better reflect some of the design elements at the project. Staff supported the signage package as being in keeping with the design guidelines and recommended approval. Lisa Chandler and Richard Grist addressed the board, stating the logo was designed to duplicate the timberline architectural feature and font used on the City’s Pier 60 identification signs. The City’s signs have a gray background with blue individually lighted channel letters. Ms. Chandler said she designed her sign with the Pier 60 name in yellow, backed with four different bright colors on a white background, and her business name “Pier 60 Concessions, Retail and Rental.” Member Hamilton moved for approval. There was no second. Ms. Dougall-Sides reiterated formal board approval is not required because design guidelines have not been adopted for the subject property, but board members may give suggestions to the applicant. Several members expressed concern with the applicant choosing to use a corporation logo instead of creating consistent signage to complement the existing signage throughout the area. Ms. Chandler reiterated she incorporated the Pier 60 logo into her design, but added colors to brighten it. Discussion ensued regarding the proposed colors and whether the applicants have the authority to deviate from the established colors in use at the project. Mr. McCarty stated, as the selected firm to operate the Pier 60 concession, they are entitled to signage. He did not believe it was part of the RFP to restrict signage to the existing features. As the proposed signage is responsive to the name and architectural features and does not exceed the square footage allowance, he felt it is appropriate. In response to a question regarding the business name, Ms. Chandler said it summarizes the building, its purpose and use, and the colors were part of the bid packet as an example of their logo. She objected to the expressed concerns, stating she was not aware the City could dictate one’s freedom of expression. She questioned, other than changing the colors to reflect the board members’ personal preference rather than hers, how the proposed sign differs from the existing Pier 60 signage. She offered to let the City put up a gray sign if they wanted to pay for it. She reiterated she designed the sign to be as simplistic as possible, identically matching the timberline structure and font. One member stated the colors do not bother him, but questioned the shape of the sign, stating it does not lend itself to any of the building’s features. It was indicated the shape was created to fit into the upper area of the facade, but the location was lowered at staff’s suggestion. Mr. McCarty affirmed it covered some of the distinctive architectural features in its original proposed location. He and Mr. Grist discussed the rationale of the proposed signage placement. One member was under the impression the sign was a flat panel and cutting off the top to leave a basically rectangular shape. Mr. Grist said that would require refabricating the entire sign because it is an illuminated box with a single plastic face. The suggestion to cut off the top was withdrawn. Ms. Dougall-Sides questioned whether the lease provisions require DRB approval for signage. Mr. McCarty will investigate and bring this item back to the board if it is found DRB approval is needed under the terms of the lease. He thanked board members for their input. Board and Staff Discussion Staff was requested to bring future sign proposals forward before the signs are manufactured. Mr. McCarty stated he has experienced limited success in his attempts to encourage citizens to follow a design theme, and/or to bring their designs forward for design review. Mr. McCarty distributed a memo from Central Permitting Director Scott Shuford requesting DRB consideration and input concerning two upcoming projects: standardization of “sandwich board” signs and the appropriateness of outdoor merchandise display in view of the City’s aesthetic goals. In response to a question, Ms. Dougall-Sides said she has not been involved beyond hearing discussion of certain existing cases. Consensus of the board was they are willing to review and provide input regarding these two issues. Questions were raised and discussion ensued regarding code limitations of sandwich board signs in terms of size and placement within City right-of-way. Staff was requested to obtain information regarding what is being done in other communities. Mr. McCarty reported the City’s RFP (Request for Proposal) for a design guidelines consultant yielded two respondents. As both proposals were responsive to the RFP requirements, a suggestion was made to see if a portion of the contract could be negotiated with each of the 2 firms. Both respondents have indicated willingness to do that. He stated an important part of the guidelines development process is to have the consultants appear before the DRB for input into the design guidelines. The two firms are Harvard, Jolly, Cleese, and Toppe, and Wade Trim and Associates, in conjunction with Steve Fowler. One member observed one firm had slicker graphics presentations, while the other had better background and a more substantive presentation. Mr. McCarty hoped to provide more information regarding negotiations at the next meeting. Mr. McCarty reported the City’s State Historic grant application will be heard November 19 in Tallahassee. While he was confident the application will be given serious consideration, he cautioned there are no assurances the City will receive the grant. Mr. McCarty distributed copies of proposed meeting dates for 1997, asking board members to review the schedule for approval at the next meeting. Member Milam was troubled by the decision to place a lighted fluorescent sign on the beach despite the board’s concern. She questioned if it is possible to recommend to the City Commission for the DRB to review signs on City property within the board’s jurisdiction, so when City property is leased out, the City can maintain control of the signs for consistency with a design theme. Ms. Dougall-Sides recommended addressing those comments in a memo to the City Commission or the City Manager, who negotiates with City property lessees. She and Mr. McCarty agreed it seems logical to be sensitive to the board’s concern that the City have more control over lessors’ signage, especially since it may be some time before design guidelines are adopted. Staff will convey to management the need to look into this issue. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 4:10 p.m.