Loading...
02/25/1997DESIGN REVIEW BOARD CITY OF CLEARWATER February 25, 1997 Present: William McCann Robert Herberich Mark Cagni Alex Plisko Leslie Dougall-Sides Don McCarty Gwen Legters Chair Board Member Board Member Board Member Assistant City Attorney Design Planner Board Reporter   Absent: Kathy Milam MacArthur “Mac” Boykins Howard Hamilton Vice Chair Board Member Board Member   To provide continuity for research, the items are listed in agenda order although not necessarily discussed in that order. The Chair called the meeting to order at 3:10 p.m. in the Greater Clearwater Chamber of Commerce Community Room, 1130 Cleveland Street. The Pledge of Allegiance and review of board procedures followed. Minutes Approval - January 28, 1997 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. DRB 97-005 -- Law Offices of Koch & Ley, Anthony Carvell, Agent 200 North Garden Avenue -- Signage Request Mr. McCarty presented background information and staff recommendations, stating the applicant proposes two matching signs to be located on adjacent sides of the existing building at the northwest corner of Garden Avenue and Drew Street. The applicant’s dimensioned drawings and color samples were submitted in the board packets. Mr. McCarty recommended approval, stating the signs are simple, dignified, and appropriate for downtown. Anthony Carvell, sign contractor representing the applicant, stated the signs are sand blasted rather than vinyl for a high end appearance. He said no trees will be cut to view the signs. The signs will match the beige toned building with burgundy awnings. No verbal or written support or opposition was expressed. One member stated the proposal is the best looking sign the board has seen. Member Herberich moved to approve DRB 97-005 as submitted. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 2. DRB 97-006 -- A Taste Of Italy, William Durso, Vice President 415 Cleveland Street - Signage, Awnings & Fence Mr. McCarty presented background information and staff recommendations, stating the applicant is opening a restaurant in the location of the former Panache restaurant in downtown. The existing awning will be recovered with new vinyl and sign graphics. A fence will be constructed in the rear to shield air conditioning and mechanical equipment. A small canopy will cover the south entrance of the restaurant. The exterior will be repainted in colors more compatible with the rest of the block. The applicant’s dimensioned drawings and color samples were submitted in the board packets. Mr. McCarty indicated the signs are tasteful and in conformity with the design guidelines. Staff supported the request and recommended approval. Richard Grist, sign contractor representing the applicant, stated the existing canopy is to be recovered with white fabric and new graphics, in conformance with City code. He responded to questions, stating the proposed fence will not block the existing rear parking spaces, but will replace a previously existing fence in the same location. Bill Durso, the restaurant owner, stated the rear elevation sketch is not to scale, but the parking spaces are sufficient. Mr. McCarty verified the fence is a partial replacement of an existing fence, the eastern portion of which is still standing. Board members were please to see Mr. Durso is repainting the exterior of the business in an antique white with white trim to blend with the rest of block. No verbal or written support or opposition was expressed. Member Herberich moved to approve DRB 97-006 as submitted. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 3. DRB 97-007 -- Botanica Day Spa, Claudia Johnson, Owner 121 North Ft. Harrison Avenue -- Canopy & Signage Mr. McCarty presented background information and staff recommendations, stating the applicants are renovating an existing building, primarily with interior improvements. He has worked closely with the applicant and the contractor to ensure they understood any exterior improvements require board review. Roof and window improvements were done to make the building safe and watertight before the applicant was aware of the design review requirements. Three window canopies will be added to the front. The applicants submitted samples of the two-toned ivory and cream paint colors and a swatch of the forest or hunter green awning fabric. A freestanding sign post in the front parking lot is to be removed. The applicants were informed the appearance of rear of the building should be addressed, as it faces the adjoining street. The building style and window detailing have charm, and the potential for enhancing the downtown setting. Claudia Johnson, the owner/applicant, explained how she is renovating the building to bring it up to standards, while attempting to preserve some of its beautiful details, such as beveled glass windows. She wishes the building to appear lovely and well maintained. Existing signage is falling down and will be removed, along with the sign post in the front parking lot. Awning signage will be added in script letters, according to code. Board discussion ensued regarding photographs of the subject property, compared to unscaled sketches of the proposal. Ms. Johnson responded to questions regarding the front elevation and awning placement, stating the windows are remaining exactly the same, and will be sealed to keep out the weather. Three canopies will cover the front windows and provide covered access for the customers. A previously existing overhang was removed because it was falling down. Design work along the top of the building is to be retained. One board member expressed concern the white roof shingles are not compatible with the proposed awning and paint colors. He questioned why the application did not come forward before the roof was replaced. Ms. Johnson said immediate roof replacement was needed because the roof was leaking severely. Mr. McCarty indicated, at the time the roof permit was pulled, permit staff was not aware design review is required for all roofs except flat ones. Board members wished Ms. Johnson luck with her venture. Member Cagni moved to approve DRB 97-007 as submitted. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Ms. Johnson and her general contractor raised questions about what outside work may be done. Mr. McCarty will notify the building department what the board has approved and asked the applicants to contact his office to work out details. He emphasized all outside work must be in accordance with what the board has approved, and no new work or design changes are to be made without additional board approval. 4. DRB 97-008 -- Sun Country Cleaners, Mr. Lewis Keller, Owner 911 Court Street - Building & Site Review Mr. McCarty stated he received a letter this morning withdrawing the application. The applicant has decided not to continue with this project at this time. Mr. McCarty referred to the site plan and elevation drawings, stating the proposal was not attractive, was not consistent with the intent of the design guidelines, and did not comply with code regarding signage, stormwater retention or parking. The building was intended for storage of dry cleaned garments, but had no redeeming architectural qualities and staff had encouraged development of something more compatible with the surroundings. Lengthy discussion ensued regarding the visitor’s center on the corner, history and use of the subject property, and the location. D. Other Business 1. Discussion of Mandalay Avenue Streetscape Design Mr. McCarty reported the proposed design was presented at a community meeting, on February 12, and was enthusiastically supported by those in attendance. He highlighted changes since presentation to the DRB, noting the curvilinear street configuration; three traffic lanes instead of four; diagonal street parking; more intensive landscaping; brick interlocking pavers on sidewalks and crosswalks; and the coordinated colors of street furniture and amenities. The Mayor and City Commission attended, enthusiastically endorsed the proposal, and encouraged staff to proceed with obtaining permits. In response to questions, Mr. McCarty said the center lane will be used as a continuous turning lane. Concern was expressed having no pavement markings in the wide brick areas may make the traffic lanes confusing for seniors. Mr. McCarty detailed proposed traffic improvements on parallel Poinsettia Avenue, to help carry some of the traffic volume. General discussion ensued regarding traffic signal coordination; needed building improvements; comparison of the proposal with streetscapes in other cities; removal of all overhead wires; funding sources; and anticipated cost. Mr. McCarty will advise board members of any additional changes. While concerned about the negative appearance of parking garages, one member stated a parking garage is needed in the Pelican Walk area to eliminate the need to pack in parking at the beach entrance. Concerns were expressed with the hazards of diagonal parking and discussion ensued regarding the traffic engineer’s recommendation. 2. Preliminary Draft Clearwater Beach Design Guidelines Mr. McCarty had previously copied the members with a working draft of proposed Clearwater beach design guidelines and discussion ensued. Board members commented as follows: 1) Focus should be directed to identifying the customer and placing more emphasis on the beach as a tourist center, rather than a commercial center; 2) More weight should be given to tourist and recreational opportunities, and less to offices and retail; 3) Concerns were expressed with Steve Fowler being involved in the writing of the design guidelines because it was felt his design philosophy and interpretation differ from that of the majority of the board, as he tends to bend the rules to suit the customer; 4) Concern was expressed the draft guidelines endorse all encompassing, contradictory styles; 5) Office buildings should not be promoted on the beach, with the exception of realty or car rental offices; 6) Concern the Mediterranean style described on page three is not harmonious with the Tropical Seascape design; 7) Endorsement of too many architectural styles; 8) Comparison of the proposed design guidelines with those of Seaside, Walton County, Florida; 9) There is a need to better define “Tropical Seascape”; 10) Keeping building scale down and open space vistas is important, because it is getting harder to see the water; 11) Support was expressed for mixing residential and commercial uses in the same building, but meeting life safety codes is more difficult; and 12) The board did not care for the beach chair and umbrella graphic shown on the cover. Mr. McCarty acknowledged the difficulty of identifying for whom to design the guidelines, when the area represents a multitude of things to many people; the residents, property owners, business interests, and tourists. He noted the City’s Land Use Plan designations for the district are Commercial and Resort Commercial. While the recommendations of the Clearwater Beach Blue Ribbon Task Force has clear support, he noted the Tropical Seascape style is not easily defined. He said the original time frame for completion of the beach guidelines was slowed down to coordinate with the Mandalay Streetscape, City discussions of whether or not to create a Clearwater beach CRA, and the Land Development Code rewrite. Mr. McCarty noted, for the record, he was disappointed in the design guidelines draft as submitted to staff, but wished to hear board comments and obtain the minutes of today’s meeting before providing input to the consultants. General discussion ensued regarding City discussions on the pros and cons of creating a Clearwater beach CRA, and slum and blight terminology. Ms. Dougall-Sides listed many criteria that make areas subject to redevelopment that do not carry the negative connotation generally associated with “slum and blight.” 3. Required Minimum DRB Submittal Requirements Mr. McCarty submitted a handout of the Design Review Process, pointing out the lists of materials that must be submitted with each of the three different types of design review applications. Board members’ comments related to specific design review cases, and are related below, under Board and Staff Discussion. 4. Administrative/Staff DRB Approvals Mr. McCarty distributed a list of items for the board to consider authorizing for staff’s administrative review and approval as requested by the board. Detailed discussion ensued regarding each item and whether or not the board would feel comfortable delegating approval authority to staff. The board did not support blanket approval of replacing aluminum storefront doors with the same materials, because they felt replacement with something better should be encouraged. Mr. McCarty agreed upgrades should be encouraged, wherever possible. General discussion ensued regarding the authorization procedure, and suggestions were made to clarify language for staff who may be interpreting the rules in the future. All agreed, if the item cannot be seen, it should not have to come before the board. Board members wished to ensure that signs of questionable appearance were brought before the board. While the document before the board is only a procedure, Ms. Dougall-Sides indicated any permanent changes to the approval process would need to be done as a code amendment. The board felt an amendment is premature and questioned what can be done on a trial basis. She suggested a pilot program could be approved, by motion of the board, delegating authority to staff to approve certain items. The board did not wish to delegate non-structural door, window, and canopy replacement, because it was felt review of those types of items was the reason the board was created. While the board expressed confidence in Mr. McCarty’s aesthetic interpretation, concern was expressed it could be difficult to avoid the perception that favoritism was shown in approving one proposal over another. Ms. Dougall-Sides noted it is difficult to determine beforehand what will and will not be controversial. Mr. McCarty acknowledged the problems associated with offering constructive criticism without offending. One member felt the design guidelines should be more firm in this regard. If administrative approvals are implemented, a quarterly report to the board was suggested. Consensus was to approve a three-month trial period to facilitate the design review process. Member Plisko moved to authorize Mr. McCarty, for a trial period of three months, to approve applications that meet criteria for signs (new sign requests of less than 18 square feet; sign panel replacements of the same or similar design; and sign face changes of less than 25 square feet); emergency repairs; and buildings, additions and remodeling not visible to the majority of the public. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Board & Staff Discussion Mr. Plisko said he was disappointed with spa presentation in Item #3 today. While they have a delightful building with character, potential and good elevations, they did not show anything about how they were doing the windows, or any restoration details. He expressed concern the board is not achieving its goal of controlling the downtown image. In the future, he felt such an application should be denied, or continued for more details. Discussion ensued regarding alternative shingle or trim colors the board may have recommended to better integrate the roof into the design. It was indicated the applicant needs input from design professionals to help her make the best of what she has. Mr. McCarty related details of the difficulties he experienced while trying to guide the applicant through the design guidelines process. Concern was expressed the building may not have been structurally sound. Ms. Dougall-Sides suggested alerting the building department to be aware of the proposal. The board wished to ensure the City holds the applicant to her statement that nothing is being done other than painting and putting up awnings. Mr. Plisko approved the appearance of the futon store, but expressed concern with their practice of blocking traffic while loading their truck in the street. Referring to his design of the Clearwater Housing Authority building upgrade, Mr. Plisko questioned whether approval is needed for the adjacent property owner to extend a trellis out from their doorway, too. Board consensus remained that all design changes must come back to the board. Mr. Plisko encouraged board members to view the building at Prospect and Ewing Avenues. In response to a question from Mr. McCarty, the board expressed interest in hearing Central Permitting Director Scott Shuford’s report of the Land Development Code revision process to date. Discussion ensued regarding the difficulty of interpreting the old code language. It was indicated Mr. Shuford is trying to schedule the major revision for City Commission review in April. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 5:04 p.m.