07/08/1997DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
CITY OF CLEARWATER
July 8, 1997
Present:
William McCann
Kathy Milam
Robert Herberich
Mark Cagni
Alex Plisko
Howard Hamilton
Rob Surette
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 meeting was called to order by the Chair at 3:00 p.m. in City Hall. 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 - June 10, 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.
Report of Appeal to the City Commission - Central Permitting Director Scott Shuford
Mr. Shuford distributed the final Findings and Conclusions in the appeal to the City Commission in case #DRB 97-001 (Amended), Pinch-A-Penny, Inc., 651 Court Street. Mr. Shuford said
the Commission overturned the Design Review Board’s denial and conditioned approval upon meeting certain design features recommended by the board. He summarized details of the appeal
hearing. A pending flagpole placement issue will not come before the board as City code does not cover the situation. Mr. Shuford left the meeting at 3:10 p.m.
Proposals for Design Review
1. DRB 97-001 (Amended Sign Rehearing) Pinch-A-Penny, Inc.
651 Court Street (Free-Standing Pole Sign)
Mr. McCarty referred to the project analysis and reevaluation of a newly submitted sign face design, noting the proposal does not meet a number of design criteria and staff could not
recommend approval.
Harry Cline, attorney representing the applicant, requested a copy of staff’s analysis. He questioned why it was indicated the sign proposal does not meet design guidelines. Mr. Cline
referred to page 13 of the guidelines, relating the sign to the building, storefront and area. He stated this issue should not be decided on aesthetics, but what is appropriate for
the area. He established the character of the area by explaining traffic conditions, street configuration, existing signage in the vicinity, and sign regulations in the district. Addressing
concerns regarding the number of colors and
fonts proposed, Mr. Cline compared the proposal to existing business signage in the area and submitted five photographs for the record. He indicated the proposed internally illuminated
plastic pole sign is appropriate.
No verbal or written support or opposition was expressed.
Mr. McCarty explained pages 13 and 14 of the design guidelines clearly state the types of signs to be avoided. He listed five criteria for signs not recommended by the design guidelines:
1) freestanding ground signs; 2) large internally illuminated plastic signs; 3) complex and visually busy signs; 4) signs with an excessive number of colors; and 5) signs not compatible
with the buildings and storefront related to the property. He felt the proposal is an example of the type of oversized, poorly placed and badly designed sign not recommended by the
design guidelines. He addressed the applicant’s comments about existing signage in the vicinity.
Mr. Cline responded to staff’s comments.
Board discussion ensued regarding the proposal, appropriate signage in the vicinity, and a color graphic of the proposed sign face. The applicant was complimented regarding the final
appearance of the buildings associated with the project. Concerns were expressed with the sign’s number of fonts, colors, food graphics, directional arrow, and with nothing having been
submitted in writing regarding the structural elements.
Fred Thomas, the owner/applicant, responded to questions regarding the structure and sign face. He said only two fonts are used. Lengthy discussion continued, with the board offering
solutions regarding the complex and visually busy sign. While he agreed to negotiate certain features, Mr. Thomas said he would not change the “food art” graphics, because they are
essential elements to advertise and promote his business. He wished to inform the public of the cuisine at the Clearwater Train Station restaurant without spending a fortune on advertising.
He disagreed with the need to associate the sign and building designs as the sign is remote from the buildings. Discussion ensued regarding the potential customer base. Mr. Thomas
suggested reflecting the train station motif with the use of a decorative metal support column with a flared fluted base, similar to a late 18th century light pole. He will investigate
whether such a design would be possible in cast aluminum.
Assistant City Attorney Rob Surette clarified the board was not attempting to regulate the sign’s content, but to offer more aesthetic solutions regarding colors, fonts and graphics.
The board expressed concern with depending on a verbal representation of the sign structure, and requested a plan in writing. Mr. McCarty offered to meet with the applicant to try
and work out a more compatible design. Mr. Thomas agreed to meet with staff to explore a different shape, but declined to change the “food art” element. Concerns were expressed with
any approval of the sign face as submitted, even if presented in a different cabinet shape.
Member Cagni moved to approve DRB 97-001 (amended sign rehearing) with the understanding the pole and cabinet support design will have to return to the board before it is erected.
There was no second.
Mr. Surette recommended any motion for denial include a review of the design criteria submitted by staff, a specific list of the design criteria not met by the proposal, and support
of the motion with specific factual findings how the proposal fails to comply with such criteria. It was
indicated the intent is to be customer friendly and work with applicants to create acceptable designs, rather than deny their applications.
Member Plisko moved to continue DRB 97-001 (amended sign rehearing) to the first meeting in August, to allow time for the applicant to meet with staff and come back with a total sign
package, to include frame and pole designs. The motion was duly seconded. Discussion ensued regarding the meeting date.
Mr. Thomas did not agree to a continuance, unless the board agreed to approve his sign face components. In lieu of such approval, he requested the board to take action today so he
could pursue due process. Mr. McCarty expressed confidence in the possibility a compromise can be achieved and a design can be created he can recommend to the board for serious consideration
of approval.
After lengthy discussion of several amendments, Member Plisko amended his motion to add food graphics will be acceptable if done in a more concise graphic representation that creates
less clutter and a more design oriented sign face; the applicant shall show the exact sign location on a site plan; and a special meeting shall be set for Tuesday, August 5 for final
board consideration of the sign proposal. The seconder concurred with the amendments. Upon the vote being taken, the motion carried unanimously. Staff will contact the applicant to
set up a meeting time.
Board and Staff Discussion
The Chair called a special meeting for Tuesday, August 5, 1997 at 3:00 p.m., in a location to be determined, for consideration of DRB 97-001 (amended sign rehearing.) All board members
were requested to attend.
Member McCann stated staff did a fantastic job of representing the board at the Pinch-A-Penny appeal hearing. He complimented Mr. McCarty and Mr. Shuford for their work.
Mr. McCarty distributed and discussed a compilation of DRB cases from May 1996 through May 1997. He noted the board approved 34 of 36 cases.
Mr. McCarty distributed and discussed a chronology of events regarding Pinch-A-Penny case #97-001. He displayed drawings depicting the treatment for the rolling grates approved by the
City Commission. In response to a question, he said the east wall is to be left bare, with the emphasis to be on the pilasters and round lights.
Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 4:21 p.m.
Chair
Design Review Board
Attest:
Board Reporter