Loading...
04/08/1997DESIGN REVIEW BOARD CITY OF CLEARWATER April 8, 1997 Present: William McCann Kathy Milam Robert Herberich Mark Cagni Howard Hamilton Leslie Dougall-Sides Don McCarty Gwen Legters Chair Vice Chair Board Member Board Member Board Member Assistant City Attorney Design Planner Board Reporter   Absent: Alex Plisko MacArthur “Mac” Boykins Board Member Board Member   The Chair called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m. in the Greater Clearwater Chamber of Commerce Community Room, 1130 Cleveland Street. The Pledge of Allegiance and review of board procedures followed. To provide continuity for research, the items are listed in agenda order although not necessarily discussed in that order. Minutes Approval - March 25, 1997 Member Hamilton 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 97-001 AMENDED Pinch-A-Penny Stores - Architect Bob Aude; Owner Fred Thomas 651 Court Street -- Building and Site Review (continued from March 25, 1997) Mr. Thomas and Mr. Aude displayed renderings illustrating the design element for the north side roof, and building signage, as proposed by the applicant in response to recommendations from the board. Mr. Aude pointed out a gable on the east elevation. The extended dormer on the north elevation will have the same roof pitch and textured charcoal gray shingles. The building and grillework will be painted medium or light gray with white trim. Greenery and shrubs along the base will be in planters. Vines will be trained to grow on green wire mesh covering the long east wall. In response to questions, it was indicated soft decorative lights will be placed near the top of each of the decorative pilasters spaced along the east wall, among the vines. The lights will be architectural, not for security. Mr. Thomas related the amount of signage allowed on each building face under the unified title. He said artwork may be created on the outside of the building in the future, but will not require board approval because it is not signage. Member Milam moved to approve the amended building design as presented today, for DRB 97001 (amended), as the applicants have gone above and beyond the minimum to make the proposal look nice and enhance the area. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Mr. Thomas raised the issue of the freestanding signage addressed at the last meeting. He asked the board to reconsider and reverse their decision to recommend approval of a monument sign. He expressed concern motorists will not see a monument sign. He asserted the additional height of a pole sign is needed for visibility, and to provide direction in time to negotiate the left turn onto the subject property at East Avenue. He cited the four lane, one-way street configuration and typical 40-mile-per-hour rate of speed as reasons for the change. In response to a question, he said a variance request has been filed. One member agreed a pole sign is needed, based on his observation of the site. Member Herberich moved to recommend to the City Commission approval of a pole sign for DRB 97001 (amended.) Ms. Dougall-Sides noted a motion to rescind the March 25 motion to recommend approval of a monument sign would be required before a new recommendation can be made. As no signage design was submitted for board review, conceptual discussion ensued regarding the boards’ interpretation of an aesthetic pole sign with a decorative signage area, and perhaps a brick or columnar support. It was indicated the board does not want to see the quaint corner spoiled with a neon and plastic box on a metal pole. In response to questions, Mr. McCarty affirmed it will be necessary for the applicant to submit a signage proposal for design review. Mr. Thomas described his proposal for the pole sign, stating it will be of internally lighted plastic, in vacuum-formed relief, in primary colors to catch the eye. Information on the sign will consist of a directional arrow, the Pinch-A-Penny name without the logo, and the Clearwater Train Station name with a multi-colored toy train logo. He said the metal pole could be square or round. In response to questions, he said the sign will be double faced and permanent, despite possible future changes in the train station/restaurant usage. He said the code allows a maximum of 64 square feet of sign face, and 20 feet in height. Board and staff expressed concern that such a proposal is not consistent with the recommended design guidelines for signage, and is not compatible with existing signage in the immediate area, or the zoning district. Questions were raised regarding the board’s authority and responsibility to promote the established guidelines for downtown. Mr. Thomas complained his sign variance request was tainted by the board’s March 25 recommendation for a monument sign, and reiterated his request for the board to change its recommendation to the City Commission. In response to Mr. Thomas’ request for clarification, Mr. McCarty stated the design guidelines specifically recommend against use of internally lit, molded plastic signage, on metal poles, as inconsistent in the downtown district. Mr. Thomas questioned alternative methods of lighting, stating he will use tasteful colors in his sign. Member Herberich moved to rescind the board’s March 25 action recommending to the City Commission approval of a monument sign for DRB 97001 (amended); and recommended approval of a two-sided pole sign at the subject location. The motion was duly seconded. One member expressed strong concern with approving a sign concept that does not follow the design guidelines and for which the board will have to answer in the future. Mr. Thomas suggested mitigating the concern by limiting the endorsement to the specific property in its unique location on the fringe of the zoning district. The motion was not amended. Upon the vote being taken, Members McCann, Herberich, Cagni, and Hamilton voted "Aye"; Member Milam voted "Nay." Motion carried. Board and Staff Discussion Member McCann reminded board members of the City Manager’s Appreciation Dinner tonight at the Harborview Center. Member Milam questioned how to create an aesthetic pole sign. Discussion ensued regarding the design process for signage. Mr. McCarty noted the applicant may not be aware he can receive up to a 50 percent size bonus for incorporating certain design features. General discussion ensued regarding the signage issue. Mr. McCarty reported presentation of the Land Development Code rewrite has been delayed by the need for Legal Department review. Mr. Shuford hopes to present the amendment for board review in the near future. Mr. McCarty stated no cases have been received for the second meeting in April, so he recommended cancelling the meeting. The board concurred with Mr. McCarty’s recommendation. It was anticipated Commission chambers will be available in time for the first meeting in May, but it was not known whether the meeting will be televised. Member Herberich questioned the status of the Rome Tower proposal. Mr. McCarty and Ms. Dougall-Sides reported nothing has been filed, but staff expects to receive a request for site plan recertification prior to the May 1 expiration date. Member Milam questioned the status of Mr. Boykins’ membership. Mr. McCarty said the City has not received a letter of resignation from Mr. Boykins. Mr. Shuford is handling the matter. Mr. McCarty reported the Clearwater beach design guidelines rewrite should be ready for review at the next meeting. He said the same consultant will be working on the preliminary design guidelines for the North Greenwood area. Board members agreed they were anxious to see both sets of design guidelines. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 3:50 p.m.