Loading...
05/13/1997DESIGN REVIEW BOARD CITY OF CLEARWATER May 13, 1997 Present: William McCann Kathy Milam Robert Herberich Mark Cagni Alex Plisko Howard Hamilton Leslie Dougall-Sides Don McCarty Gwen Legters Chair Vice Chair Board Member Board Member Board Member Board Member Assistant City Attorney Design Planner Board Reporter   Absent: MacArthur “Mac” Boykins 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 - April 8, 1997 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. Proposals for Design Review 1. DRB 97-001 (Amended) Pinch-A-Penny Stores -- Owner Fred Thomas 651 Court Street; Building and Site review; signage This item was brought forward for discussion of four issues at the request of the applicant: 1) changing the approved design of the wrought iron grillework; and 2) fencing material approved by the board on April 8, 1997; 3) design review of the freestanding signage for which the applicant has requested a variance; and 4) a board recommendation regarding placement of a proposed flagpole on the Pinch-A-Penny site. Mr. Thomas said his insurance company will not allow decorative grillework unless the bars are a maximum of four inches apart. As he did not want his store to have the appearance of a jail, he proposed an alternative treatment he said was three times more expensive than the original proposal. He displayed a sales brochure illustrating roll-down metallic fencing similar to that used to close entrances of stores within shopping malls. The second issue he raised was the green vinyl fencing approved for covering the east wall. He did not want to pay the extra $4,500 for a material that will be covered with ivy within two years. He proposed plain galvanized chain link instead. He submitted color graphics of his proposed sign face, stating the freestanding sign will be eight feet by eight feet and 20 feet tall, in accordance with code. The sign variance is needed due to the proposed location. The fourth issue of the flagpole location came up because he wished to have a flag in the circular area in front of the train station, but City rules prohibit flying a flag over a public sidewalk. He requested board consideration of placing his flagpole against the Pinch-A-Penny store instead. Mr. McCarty reviewed staff’s interpretation of the applicant’s presentation. Staff did not support changing the grillework design, because what had been approved was one of the few features that integrated the store design with the train station. It was felt a rolling metal gate, or shutter was not an attractive substitution nor did it present the correct image for downtown Clearwater. Galvanized chain link is not consistent with the design guidelines for downtown and other applicants have been discouraged from using it. It was felt green vinyl covered fencing would aesthetically set the tone for what would grow on it in the future. It was questioned whether ivy would grow to cover the fencing within two years. Mr. McCarty said the board is not required to make a decision on the sign face design, as the graphics were not submitted until yesterday, but Mr. Thomas desired design approval prior to his City Commission variance hearing. Mr. McCarty was not prepared to discuss the flag location because no background materials had been submitted. Discussion ensued regarding building and life safety code requirements for grillework and railings. Board members indicated the approved design meets code, but Mr. Thomas reiterated his insurance company would not insure it. Questions were raised why this was not coordinated with the architect who designed the grillework, and a new design brought forward. Mr. Thomas reiterated he did not want his store to look like a jail. One member suggested keeping the grillework and installing the rolling shutter behind it for security. Mr. Thomas objected to spending $6,500 for a decorative feature without a purpose. As the decorative grillework had been designed to provide openness during the day and security at night, he proposed to eliminate the wrought iron; leave the structure wide open during the day, and roll down the security shutter at night. The board felt a rolling metal mesh screen would give the property a forbidding look in the evenings, and discourage the people friendly atmosphere wanted for downtown. Mr. Thomas indicated he felt substituting a fence that was three times more expensive should be sufficient. Board members explained the design, not the expense, is the issue before the board. Mr. Thomas did not agree, stating economics are a part of life and he has spent more to enhance downtown in the last 20 years than anyone else, without the use of government funds. One member indicated the applicant and his architect had agreed with conditions created to make the store more consistent with the train station, in exchange for approval of changes to the original plans for roof and building front treatments. Concerns were expressed the applicant does not seem to want to live up to those conditions. Board members were sensitive to the insurance issue, but surprise was expressed a design had been submitted without consideration of insurance requirements. Concern was expressed with the applicant having chosen to eliminate more of the compatible features at each successive hearing. Concern was expressed with the piecemeal presentation of the project. Discussion ensued regarding the changes that have occurred to the design since the original approval in January, 1997. Member Plisko moved to deny the applicant’s request to eliminate the approved grillework, to substitute a rolling screen; and to change the approved green vinyl fencing to galvanized, in DRB 97-001 (amended), for the following reasons: 1) by taking out the grillework, the applicant has destroyed the integration of the total design; 2) putting in a roll down screen gives a negative appearance to the City at night; 3) the applicant volunteered to put up the green vinyl mesh fencing, which meets the design guidelines, as a condition of previous approval; and 4) the regulations followed by the Design Review Board are not determined by a dollar amount. The motion was duly seconded. Many of the above concerns were reiterated and discussed at length by the applicant and the board. One member said he favors aesthetic design, but identified with the applicant’s position regarding insurance liability from a business perspective. Discussion ensued regarding suggestions for redesigning the grillework. A question was raised whether Mr. Thomas would agree to redesigning the grille. Mr. Thomas said he has already tried looking at several alternative grillework designs that meet insurance requirements, but they all looked like prison bars and he did not agree to them. Upon the vote being taken, Members McCann, Milam, Herberich, and Plisko voted "Aye"; Members Cagni and Hamilton voted "Nay." Motion carried. Mr. Thomas displayed color artwork of the proposed sign face, stating the freestanding sign is allowed to be 64 square feet in area, and 20 feet tall. He said the size, shape and height will meet code; the variance is needed because the sign is in an area where freestanding signage is not common due to lack of space. No verbal or written support or opposition was expressed. Mr. McCarty said his review of this recent sign submittal indicates the proposal is not consistent with the design guidelines in a number of areas. Mr. Thomas questioned for the record the specific guidelines the sign fails to meet. Mr. McCarty responded internally lit, pressed form or molded Plexiglas/plastic signs are not recommended; the proposal is larger than what is recommended; and placement of the sign is not consistent with the design guidelines for the Urban Center district. The number of fonts used, or proposed, exceeds what is uniform or consistent in the vicinity. One board member stated the sign looks fine. Two members indicated the sign seems too large and relates too much information. Mr. Thomas responded the size, number of colors and directional information are needed for traffic to get across four lanes of traffic in time to negotiate the left turn into his property. He reiterated the size and height are allowed by code. He indicated the board was attempting to design his signage and felt this is a free speech issue. Ms. Dougall-Sides responded the board will not get into the area of regulating the content of the signage, just the design. Mr. McCarty noted he was asked to put on the record the areas not consistent with the design guidelines. One member indicated it was not appropriate to deliberate signage design with the applicant until it is known whether the City Commission will grant the variance request. Member Milam moved to continue Design Review Board consideration of the signage packet for DRB 97001 (amended) until the City Commission decides whether to allow the sign. There was no second. Member Milam moved to deny approval of DRB 97001 (amended) based on the information received from staff concerning inconsistency of the request with the design guidelines with regard to the materials used, and other details as related by Mr. McCarty, above. Members McCann, Milam, Herberich, Cagni, and Plisko voted "Aye"; Member Hamilton voted "Nay." Motion carried. Mr. Thomas asked for Mr. McCarty’s remarks to be entered verbatim into the record. Ms. Dougall-Sides responded there is no requirement for verbatim minutes. Mr. Thomas brought a plan and survey, requesting discussion regarding flagpole placement. Board members indicated the board was not prepared to make a recommendation. It was felt consideration of a flagpole location should wait until an application for design review has been reviewed by staff and is properly brought before the board. 2. DRB 97-010 Intervest Bank -- Cathy Dixon, Sign agent 625 Court Street -- Signage (new and replacement) Mr. McCarty said this proposal to replace two existing monument signs with new signs has previously received variance approval from the City Commission. Catherine Dixon, with International Signs in Largo, explained reason for the proposal. Intervest Bank is remodeling their downtown building to make it two stories, and going through channels to address the building to Court Street. Signage is being changed to reflect the new address and identify the law firm occupying the building. One sign is single-faced; one is double-faced. The sign faces are in two colors, with lighted channel letters and support columns to match the building. No verbal or written support or opposition was expressed. Board members praised the presentation materials and the appearance of the signs. Mr. McCarty recommended approval, stating staff was pleased the signs will incorporate the same scale, colors, and materials used for the bank building. In response to a question, he said the building sign has neon backlighting that will highlight the lettering, in accordance with the design guidelines. He related size requirements for the district. Member Plisko moved to approve DRB 97-010 as submitted. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 3. DRB 97-011 Prime Service of America, Inc. -- Fran Briskman, owner 127 North Garden Avenue -- Awnings (new and replacement) Mr. McCarty reviewed the proposal, stating he has been working with the applicants regarding their requested improvements. Joel and Fran Briskman reviewed their proposal for replacement of deteriorated awnings with new awnings of a different size and color. An additional awning is proposed over the secondary entrance. They presented an information packet containing a placement drawing, color photographs of the existing building, a site survey, dimensioned drawings and specifications from the awning contractor, and a fabric swatch of forest green awning material. No verbal or written support or opposition was expressed. Mr. McCarty said design review is needed because the new awnings are a different size and color; having been redesigned for better visual appeal. He noted the applicants have applied to the City for grant funding through the facade improvement grant program. The improvement is consistent with the intent of the design guidelines and staff recommended approval. In response to a question, Mr. Briskman said the sign over the secondary door will be raised above the awning. He said the sign had been mistakenly placed lower. He noted additional approval will be needed if it is necessary to move the sign higher than what was granted. Member Plisko moved to approve DRB 97-011 as submitted. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Mr. McCarty introduced Diane Smith of the City’s Economic Development Department, who is working with downtown redevelopment. Ms. Smith was present in support of the Briskmans. 4. DRB 97-012 Renaissance Academy -- Pam Ryan, Agent 701 Cleveland Street -- Fencing and Landscaping Mr. McCarty reviewed the proposal for fencing a play area beside the existing building. As the original proposal for six foot chain link fencing was not consistent with the design guidelines, he suggested a more dramatic or more consistent look for the fencing. He related site conditions concerning regarding narrow rights-of-way along East Avenue in the vicinity. He noted there is no room for a sidewalk outside the fence. In response to a question, he said the Pinellas Trail will run along the west side of East Avenue, opposite the subject property. Discussion ensued regarding traffic flow along East Avenue. Ms. Ryan and Evan Johnson, the school owner, presented the request. The applicant wishes to create a safe play area for the children, and was open to any type of fencing. They discussed copies of a sales brochure depicting different styles of wooden privacy fencing, asking for the board’s recommendation. Ms. Johnson said she was considering the six foot height for safety of the children and playground equipment, and to avoid having balls going into the street. She felt chain link fencing was too easy for children to climb and preferred a flat wooden fence. General discussion ensued regarding desirable fence styles and heights, setback and landscaping requirements, and existing conditions in the surrounding area. The applicant had agreed to set back the fence 4.5 feet from the street and install bushes and flowers on the outside. Concerns were expressed landscaping would not thrive without irrigation. Mr. McCarty noted walls are more consistent than fences in the downtown area. In response to questions, it was not known whether the applicant is eligible for downtown development grant funding because she is leasing the site. Mr. McCarty will investigate. Ms. Johnson said the school is attended by approximately 50 children in kindergarten through high school. She stressed the area will have constant adult supervision and the children are strictly disciplined, but safety is paramount. A door at the rear of the building will exit into the playground, and the fence will have a double gate on the south side. After considerable discussion of the board’s suggestions, Ms. Johnson chose to build a wooden picket fence, with slats scalloped at the top to be five or six feet high at the posts, sloping down to four feet high in the center between posts. The width and placement of the pickets could be chosen to ensure a child could not gain a foothold. She was excited by the aesthetic concept, said such a fence would provide an effective barrier, and felt it would look wonderful with flowers planted along the outside. One member indicated, while a fence is not the best choice for the area, the playground will look better than the covered parking area it will replace. It was felt a white fence could look too strong and it was suggested to paint the fence a color consistent with the building. Member Plisko moved to approve DRB 97-012 as submitted by the applicant, with the following modification: 1) The fence shall be of wooden picket construction, varying in height from four to six feet, with a maximum post distance of eight feet on center; 2) The fence shall be set back a minimum of three feet from the East Avenue property line; 3) Two trees at least eight feet high shall be planted either inside or outside the fence along East Avenue, in accordance with the City’s tree ordinance; and 4) The fence shall be painted a color compatible with the building and may not be left raw wood. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Board and Staff Discussion Mr. McCarty provided an update of the Pinellas Trail location along East Avenue. He will bring the plans and provide more information at the next meeting. Mr. McCarty reported City Commission chambers is not available for the June 24 meeting. For consistency, Mr. McCarty suggested continuing to meet in the Chamber of Commerce Community Room through the month of June. Consensus was to agree with this suggestion. Mr. McCarty said the Winn-Dixie mid-town redevelopment project is scheduled to bring an amended plan before the board at the next meeting. He said the project is still viable, despite setbacks due financial concerns and changes in Winn-Dixie’s corporate policy. While he has not seen the revised drawings, he understood no outbuildings are proposed in front, and more green space and pedestrian areas will be created in the parking lot. Discussion ensued regarding the issue. Ms. Dougall-Sides provided an update of the Land Development Code rewrite, stating it is under review by the Municipal Code corporation and City departments. She estimated it will be a minimum of three months before the new code takes effect. Mr. Shuford will present the amendment to the board before it goes to the City Commission for final approval. Mr. McCarty said the consultants are working on new design guidelines for both Clearwater beach and the North Greenwood area at once. Revised drafts should be available for consideration in June. Mr. McCarty reported the City has received a State grant for a historical buildings survey. Five qualified consultants responded to the Request for Proposal. It is hoped negotiations with the top rated consultant will result in a signed contract by the first of June. In response to questions, he provided details of how a survey is conducted, stating it will not include Harbor Oaks. Mr. McCarty expressed concern the Surf West project has arbitrarily made a number of changes to the design approved by the board. He expressed concern the design of the building front was changed to replace a picture window with a slat wall for displaying merchandise. He noted the design professional had stated on the record that no merchandise would be displayed in the window. This statement is reflected in the DRB minutes. He reported five variances to the site plan were unanimously denied by the Development Code Adjustment Board (DCAB) at their last hearing. He took exception to two statements made by the applicants’ representatives during the DCAB presentation; that the Design Review Board had “enthusiastically” approved the design and had suggested outdoor terraced seating. General discussion ensued regarding the issue. Brief discussion ensued regarding how the Pinch-A-Penny sign variance request will be presented to the City Commission. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 6:00 p.m.