Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-09-2018 - Com. Develop. Committee MinutesDUBLIN CITY COUNCIL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Monday, April 9, 2018 Minutes of Meeting Vice Mayor Reiner called the meeting of the Community Development Committee to order at 5:00 p.m. in Council Chambers. Committee members present: Mr. Reiner, Ms. De Rosa, Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes. Staff members present: Ms. Crandall, Ms. Goss, Mr. Kridler, Ms. Rauch. • Approval of Minutes of March 19, 2018 Ms. De Rosa moved approval of the minutes of the March 19, 2018 meeting. Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. De Rosa, yes. • Historical District Commercial FaSade Improvement Grant Program - Proposed Process Mr. Kridler reviewed the proposed process for the new Historical District Commercial Facade Improvement Grant. No applications will be presented for committee review tonight. Staff has received five applications for this new grant program and is working with the applicants on refining their applications. As with any other proposed project improvements in the Historic District, the applications will be reviewed by the Architectural Review Board (ARB) prior to submission to the Community Development Committee for review. He provided an overview of the grant program. Background Staff has met with the Historic Dublin Leadership group this past year, which includes various stakeholders within Historic Dublin. They discovered that challenges exist within the District for which there were no support programs, particularly for smaller businesses. One of those challenges is that renovations within the Historic Dublin tend to be expensive, and there was a need to identify tools to offset some of those expenses in order to encourage development within the historic core. Staff researched potential improvement programs to encourage small businesses to invest in themselves, with the overall goal of supporting the vibrancy and historic value of Dublin's historic core. Their research identified the Historical Facade Improvement Program. The concept of a pilot matching grant program, which would allow for a match of up to $15,000 from the City was introduced to Council last year. Mr. Kridler shared two examples of projects completed under such a grant program in Westerville and Worthington. Grant Criteria With the pilot program, grants would be available only for commercial, mixed-use, non- profit building facade improvements within the Historic Dublin core. For the first year, residential building projects would not be permitted. Because it is viewed as an economic Committee Development Committee Minutes — April 9, 2018 Page 2 of 8 development effort, the grant would support commerce in Historic Dublin. Examples of facade improvements for which a grant may be issued include: uncovering/restoring historical facades; awning and sign installation repairs; site and landscaping improvements on buildings accessible to the public; store front restorations and renovations; window and door repairs; and installation and upgrades of lighting. The pre -applications that have been received meet the intent of the proposed grant program. Grant information would be provided soon at the City's website. Proposed Process 1. Submission of application. Staff review of the application and communication with the applicant via meeting or email. 2. Architectural Review Board (ARB) review to verify design and materials are consistent with the Historic District. 3. Community Development Committee review to verify the project would meet the grant program intent and recommendation. 4. City Council approval/disapproval of committee recommendation. 5. Inspection of completed project and confirmation that the project has been completed per the approved application. 6. Disbursement of matching grant funds after verification of project completion and submission of receipts. This process is similar to the City's Beautify Your Neighborhood (BYN) grant program. Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes inquired the length of time between the City's receipt of the receipts and the reimbursement to the applicant. Ms. Crandall responded that after review of the receipts, it would take approximately two weeks to issue a check. Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes stated that for a small business attempting to complete a $30,000 project, receiving the $15,000 in a timely manner would be critical. Waiting on that large of an amount could place the business in jeopardy. Dissimilar to an HOA completing a project with a draw from many homeowners, this type of project would involve a single draw. Mr. Kridler noted that the grant application amount can be as low as $5,000. Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes inquired the amounts of the initial five applications. Mr. Kridler responded that four have been for the maximum amount -- $30,000 projects with a $15,000 matching grant. The fifth application is for a $5,000 project. Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes observed that it is likely that many of the applications would be for $30,000 projects. Historic store -front renovations are costly. Ms. De Rosa inquired what is involved with the project completion inspection; who performs the inspection? Mr. Kridler responded that a member of the grant review team would visit the site after the project's completion and verify that all items have been completed per the grant award's expectations. The receipts would be provided as part of the project verification/inspection process. Committee Development Committee Minutes—April 9, 2018 Page 3 of 8 Mr. Reiner suggested that the grant applicants be required to provide a photo of the building elevation before and after the project. The photos would be valuable for marketing purposes. Vice Mayor Amorose inquired about the staff review of the application and communication with applicant. With the BYN grant process, a staff horticulturist reviews the application. Historic architecture is a unique category. Her expectation would be that this type of review would involve a staff member -- but also someone who is well versed in historic architecture to verify that the proposed project is consistent with the original architecture. Ms. Rauch stated that such a process is currently used for staff's review of ARB applications. A historic preservationist consultant conducts a review, as well. Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes inquired if that consultant has reviewed these grant applications, or would do so, in anticipation of ARB's review of the projects. Ms. Rauch responded that the consultant would be included in that review. Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes inquired if those reviews have been conducted. Mr. Kridler responded that as part of the preliminary process, two of the applications have been reviewed by ART, but they have not yet been reviewed by ARB. Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes inquired if the ART review occurs preceding the historic preservationist review. Ms. Rauch responded that these two applications were sent for historic preservation review to verify the proposed renovations were historically correct prior to the ART review. Mr. Reiner inquired if most of the applicants would have already hired an architect, so staff's review would be for the purpose of verifying that the proposed project would improve the street view. Ms. Rauch stated that it would depend upon the scale of the project, i.e. if it involves only window replacement versus a complete renovation of the historic structure. Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes inquired the number of applications that have already been reviewed by ART. Mr. Kridler responded that one applicant has submitted two projects for two different properties/addresses. Those are the only projects that have been reviewed by ART. Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes inquired if those projects were reviewed by a historic preservation consultant and ART and scheduled for ARB review, regardless of whether they would receive the grant. Has the applicant already paid a fee for the ARB review process? Mr. Kridler responded that they have. Although this grant coincides with their proposed projects, they will purse the projects whether or not they receive the matching grant. However, two of the other applicants became aware of the proposed grant program before applying. Those projects will be contingent upon approval of their grant applications. Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes inquired if the ART review has been recent. She does not recall any mention of these applications in the minutes. Ms. Rauch responded that the 30-32 S. High Street project was reviewed at the last ART meeting, approximately two weeks ago. Committee Development Committee Minutes—April 9, 2018 Page 4 of 8 Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes noted that those minutes likely have not yet been produced. Ms. De Rosa stated that there is some concern that the applicant has proceeded in the application review process without assurance of receiving any grant money. Has this situation been communicated to the applicants? Mr. Kridler responded that staff understands the importance of timing, particularly for the projects that are contingent upon the grants. The question is what is the desired frequency of Committee grant review. The BYN grant cycle, requires Committee review twice per year. For the Historic Facade grant program, would the Committee be agreeable to either a more frequent or an "as needed" review schedule? Mr. Reiner stated that it would be preferable that, once approved, the applicant would receive the grant money quickly so they could proceed with the project. Ms. De Rosa suggested that perhaps half of the grant money could be provided before beginning the project and the other half once it is completed. Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes noted that half could be provided once the contracts are signed. There are only a finite number of potential applicants in this area. There are probably 25 or less commercial historic properties in the District. She wants to ensure that these projects don't go through the typical ART review process. These projects are all about the details. She would like for there to be less people in the review — the Police and Fire Chief do not need to be included. To maintain the charm of many of these historic properties, it is necessary that these improvements be grandfathered in. These buildings should not look like everything else, because they were built in an earlier time period. She wants to ensure that historic experts are looking at the projects early in the process, and that others are not unnecessarily chiming in just because they are on the ART review team. Ms. De Rosa stated that it is important to help these property owners early in the process. If it is unlikely they will receive a grant, we need to let them know so they don't have to undergo unnecessary expense and review. Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes agreed. There are fees involved with that process. Mr. Reiner stated that he believes tuck pointing should be removed from the list of possible repairs; that is a basic repair. Overall, it is a very good list, however. How many of the projects are elevation renovations? Mr. Kridler responded that two of the applications involve historic window replacements. The projects for 30 and 32 South High Street involve complete restoration of the buildings. The fifth application proposes a parking, public access project to improve access to the building at the rear of the property. Ms. De Rosa stated that she was surprised that parking upgrades are included on the list of potential improvements. How does that fit with a historical facade grant program? Mr. Kridler responded that the term facade doesn't necessary describe that type of improvement, but public access components are included in similar grant programs around the nation. In Dublin's Historic District, this was frequently identified as a continuing issue. Including this as a component of this program could encourage businesses to pave or add to their public parking spaces, which would be an improvement for the District. Committee Development Committee Minutes—April 9, 2018 Page 5 of 8 Ms. De Rosa noted that paving does not seem to be an historical type of improvement. Mr. Reiner stated that he recalls a previous attempt by the City for a coordinated effort with business property owners in the District to improve their parking areas with shared use permitted at certain times of the day. That did not work out as envisioned. This component of the program sounds similar. Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes stated that although that may be a worthwhile program, perhaps it should not be a component of this particular program. Mr. McDaniel agreed. He added that there are drainage issues at the rear of some of these properties because they are not paved. There could be some opportunities to assist with an improvement that would benefit the District in some way. These projects could be handled on a case by case basis with determination of merit. Council reserves the right to deny these requests. Ms. De Rosa stated that Council does not want an applicant to be "put through the hoops," if their project is not consistent with the intent of the grant program. Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes stated that she would encourage parking improvements, but not as a part of a historic facade improvement program. The focus of this program is on improving the facades to make them more attractive. Improvements to the back of the properties are technical in nature, and while they may add value to the District, they are not consistent with the grant intent. Mr. Reiner stated that in the past, the City attempted to identify ways to improve the already existing parking areas within the downtown area, which would also have involved shared use. Initially, the City did not want to construct large parking facilities. If a public access/parking component were to be included with these grants, could shared use during non -business hours be required? Mr. McDaniel stated that it would be possible. Most of these buildings are leased, but the property owners are responsible for maintaining the structure. They are not necessarily doing so, and a grant could encourage that. While the front facade of the building is important, the rear facade can deteriorate in ways related to the roof, gutter, parking, etc. Improvements that could help preserve these historic buildings is critical. The intent is to improve the integrity of these buildings so they are not rotting in place. Ms. De Rosa stated that this is the pilot year of the program. Perhaps the grant language could be revised to state that some parking improvements would be permitted if said improvement would ensure the integrity of the building foundation, or otherwise remain consistent with the intent of the grant program. Mr. McDaniel stated that could include some form of paving that would improve the drainage and preserve the foundation. Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes suggested that if the project was just a drainage fix, that is one thing. If it is paving and landscape upgrades, it could be subject to a shared use parking agreement, which could be worked out on a case by case basis. Mr. Reiner stated that the City installed storm sewers along Blacksmith Alley to fix the stormwater drainage issue and improve the quality of life of this neighborhood. That was Step One. Step 2, which was to improve all the parking areas, never took place -- primarily due to the property owners' unwillingness to cooperate. However, more progressive thought exists with the current group of business owners. Perhaps another attempt could Committee Development Committee Minutes—April 9, 2018 Page 6 of 8 be made at this point in time. Mr. McDaniel agreed that there may be opportunity today for a coordinated proposal. Ms. De Rosa inquired about point #5 of the decision criteria, which states, "priority will be given to projects that result in a comprehensive restoration." She believes that should be the first criteria, rather than the fifth. She would like to see the points prioritized in order of significance. In competitive situations, that would be helpful. Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes requested the following revisions to the language: - Under Decision Criteria — General, in point #2, replace the word "required" with "reviewed." - In Step 3 — Project Approval Process, include language that states approval occurs when they complete the ARB process. Mr. Reiner stated that a tuck point should not be an acceptable project; painting is a typical property owner responsibility. Taxpayer money should not be used to paint a private property owner's building. Mr. Kridler agreed. A tuck -point project would not be approved as a stand-alone project. If it is a component of a greater renovation, it could be. Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes agreed. For example, if windows were being removed/restored in a historically accurate manner, tuck pointing in a historically consistent manner could be part of that project. Mr. Reiner agreed that it would be acceptable if a part of a historic renovation, but a general tuck -point project alone would not be. Mr. Reiner moved to recommend to Council the adoption of the Historic Commercial Facade Grant Program with the minor modifications as directed by the committee discussion tonight. Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes seconded the motion. Committee members unanimously approved. • Process for New City Flag Mr. Reiner stated that recently, a citizen expressed a desire to obtain a City flag for the purpose of displaying it at a senior citizen facility. He was unaware of any additional City flags available for purchase. He noted that most municipalities fly their municipal flag under the Federal and State flags. Although the City has a flag, he believes it could be beneficial for Council to consider a flag re -design. The existing flag is reflective of an earlier time; it includes a shamrock that is no longer current. The City invested significant time and funds on the redesign of its shamrock graphic. He believes it is appropriate to update Dublin's flag, under which we all serve. We are proud of our flag, because it incorporates the City's history. A new flag design would need to continue to reflect that history, but also accurately and attractively display the energy and innovation of Dublin today. The existing flag would be appropriately retired as a historical flag. He suggested an open competitive design process, which could include: 1. City Council would develop heraldic standards for its flag design. 2. Each entry would be submitted in one envelope, which would include two smaller Committee Development Committee Minutes—April 9, 2018 Page 7 of 8 envelopes: one containing the flag design; the second containing the name of the designer. 3. Two judges of the entries, both familiar with heraldry and one who is also a graphic designer, would provide a recommendation to Council. 4. Council would make the final selection. 5. Envelope with the name of designer of selected flag design would be opened. 6. Suggested historical design elements would include: Heritage — Irish / German, river, farmland, cornfields. Ms. De Rosa inquired about the history of the current Dublin flag. Mr. McDaniel stated that a similar competitive design process was used for the original flag, as well. The winning design was submitted by a Dublin City school student, who was also the daughter of a City employee, Ralph McNemar. Ms. De Rosa stated that to have a public process, there must be a set of guidelines so that the designs meet a set of criteria. The designer would incorporate that baseline concept into a format that works well on a flag. The judges and experts would take the design and finalize it, so that it works well on a flag. Flags need to be viewed from a distance. Some designs work well with a distance view; others do not. Mr. Reiner stated that if heraldic standards are established at the outset, they would provide the format. The designer can incorporate their ideas into that format, and the result is organized and precise. Because the design process involves knowledge of the City's history, it would provide an educational benefit to the students working on it. It would also invoke pride in our City. Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes stated that she is supportive of proceeding with this process. However, she would not want to be a judge. In her opinion, the Maryland flag as shown is unattractive. If that is a good example of flag design, then she is not a good judge. She is interested in learning the estimated needs for this type of contest. The list of prioritized goals and tasks from Council's retreat includes many items with no completion dates. She does not want Council to begin another task that would delay the existing list further. In her opinion, a flag design process would take place after completion of the existing list of tasks. She would want to know the timeframe, how long the process would take, and what other tasks would be displaced. Mr. Reiner stated that is the attraction of a simple process. Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes responded that she does like the suggested process as he has outlined it. Mr. Reiner stated that although the initiative is offered by the City, it occurs at the school and community level. The process would not involve City staff time. Ms. Crandall stated that she would report back to Council with a timeframe. It will require some time for the City communications team to develop an advertising timeframe and process, which would involve communication with the schools and obtaining resources on heraldry. After working through details of the process, staff will be able to provide an estimated timeframe. Committee Development Committee Minutes —April 9, 2018 Page 8 of 8 Committee consensus was to direct staff to schedule this item on the next Community Development Committee agendat which time the estimated timeframe and process would be reviewed and subsequently presented to Council for approval. Committee consensus was that City Council meet with the property owner. OP Clerk of Council