Hurricane devastation provides opportunity for beach-wide architectural design standards Residents' opinions on Island architecture sought By Julie B. Connerley Gulf Breeze News Julie B. Connerley/ Gulf Breeze News With much of the beach destroyed by hurricanes, the Committee to Redefine Pensacola Beach sees an opportunity to define future architectural design. The Santa Rosa Island Authority's Committee to Redefine Pensacola Beach wants to involve commercial and residential leaseholders in the decision-making process to design the architectural look for the "future Pensacola Beach." Guest speaker for the August 15 meeting was John Tice, the SRIA's architectural advisor. Jim Cox, vice-chairman, acted as facilitator during chairman Monsignor Luke Hunt's absence. Also absent were members Scott Amberson, Kirk Newkirk, Jim Reeves, and Robert Rinke. Tice Cox began the meeting by noting that architectural design has become one of the "hot issues" since first being mentioned in the Visioning Process for Pensacola Beach, commonly known as Vision 2010, as a design element for the Island's central business core. Most recently, the SRIA board discussed the matter when a homeowner sought approval for his request for a building variance. At that time, the board suggested having the Committee to Redefine Pensacola Beach include architectural matters. SRIA Environmental and Developmental Services Department administrative assistant, Sue Smith provided committee members with an overview of the process for building requests. When asked what authority the SRIA has to impose new requirements, for either materials or aesthetics on older neighborhoods, Smith replied, "none." Newer subdivisions do have their own covenants and restrictions. Tice, added, "However, back in the early 1990s, there were guidelines established as an incentive for people wanting to buy older, smaller beach homes as their primary residences, but who wanted to add on to them. "We created some guidelines that if they would enhance the property with visual landscaping and use recommended color schemes, then we would relax certain setback requirements and allow them to expand up to certain percentages." Smith continued, "Another condition was that whatever finish was used on the expanded exterior would be carried over onto the original structure so that the entire property was visually pleasing." Tice also told the committee that the idea of architectural restrictions was discussed several years ago "but received so much flak because there were so many constituencies out here that it was quickly dropped. Now, the pendulum has swung back and perhaps we might want to impose some stricter control for aesthetics appeal. "As far as the building materials go, what controls that is the current Florida Building Codes. Out here we are under very specific design guidelines and that determines the materials you should use for structural integrity, wind load requirements, how they are attached, etc." Tice summarized, "The issue that is driving this is the aesthetic issue, so the question is what are you trying to control?" He explained that architects are not required for aesthetics but for liability, that is, to certify to the wind load requirements. Most people hire a structural engineer for that portion of the plans, then hire a home designer for the rest of the plans. Therefore, requiring an architect to sign off on all building plans (as was previously suggested at a SRIA board meeting) would not necessarily solve the problem. On the other hand, Tice noted that an architect prepared the Dome of a Home plans but aesthetically, that design did not visually meet the expectations of some people on the Island. "The problem is," he concluded, "the expectation is not defined. The issue will not go away until you define what the guidelines are and get agreement on that. If you ask me, what you need to do is to establish guidelines first, instead of creating a process thing." Committee members discussed the various methods of gathering data to establish the guidelines, especially given the fact that they are constantly reminded that their committee has "zero budget." Jeff Townsend admitted he was just "thinking outside the box" but was willing to go on record as suggesting that if each of the members of the committee put up something to get the process going, then they would have funds to start working with. Nobody jumped outside the box. Several methods for obtaining information about architectural preferences were discussed. The ideas ran from zero cost to thousands -asking Escambia County for assistance to hiring a consultant, such as those hired by other beach communities who created vision plans. Inexpensive suggestions included mailing survey forms to Pensacola Beach residents followed by public meetings, and asking beach residents with "expertise" to volunteer their services. One committee member even suggested a sub-committee of architectural experts to assist them with survey questions. Members Stan Potts and Larry Fox were staunchly vocal about the need to involve the beach community especially the 500 or so homeowners whose homes were demolished and will have to be completely rebuilt. "Including the ideas of the stakeholders involved in the plan will go a long way toward getting a consensus rather than having something forced upon them. Having input from the residents is the only way it's going to be successful in my opinion," Potts said. "Especially since anybody rebuilding on the Island is going to be putting hundreds of thousands of dollars into their property and they want to preserve their values just like everybody else," added Fox. When asked who he would recommend as a sub-group of experts to help the committee launch the architectural design preference survey, Tice suggested David Bailey, Director, City of Pensacola Community Redevelopment Agency, and Dr. Wynn Teasley, Executive Director, Whitman Center for Public Service at the University of West Florida. Since Teasley authored the Visioning Process for Pensacola Beach, he is already familiar with the Island, its issues and its residents. Following a trend established in other unique communities, the Whitman Center's report recommended looking at developing an architectural style or theme, especially within the central core beach area, through stronger regulations. "While there may not be an immediate change of appearance, with stronger guidelines or regulations in place," Teasley said, "over the next ten or more years, those guidelines will be reflected in the appearance of the beach and will enhance its sense of place and location." The committee ultimately made a motion to ask the SRIA board to approve a subcommittee to begin the process of developing a survey to be distributed to Island residents regarding their preferences for architectural styles. Included in the motion was a request to have Dr. Teasley be facilitator, if he is willing and available, for this subcommittee. Teasley will be asked to attend the next Committee to Redefine Pensacola Beach meeting, August 29, beginning one-half hour earlier, at 5:00 p.m., at the Island Authority offices.