Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04092013FSL MinutesFACADE, SIGN AND LANDSCAPING GRANT REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES Tuesday, April 9, 2013 5:00 PM [Chairman Keys was present but had laryngitis and requested Vice - Chairman Robinson to chair the meeting.] The meeting was called to order at 5:00 PM. 2. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. 3. ROLL CALL: Present: Tom Haynes Lisanne Robinson Warren Dill Mickey Capp Donna Keys Staff present: Joe Griffin, Community Development Director Jan King, Senior Planner Dorri Bosworth, Planner /Secretary 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — Regular Meeting of January 30, 2013 MOTION by Keys /Dill to accept the minutes of the January 30, 2013 meeting as submitted. Motion was approved unanimously by voice vote. Vice Chairman Robinson welcomed new member Mickey Capp to the Committee. 5. OLD BUSINESS: A. Re- review applications and make a recommendation to CRA Board: Buried Treasures — 1554 US Highway #1 — Renee Powell River Park Plaza — 480 -484 US Highway #1 — Jay Dick Ar -Pat's Dry Cleaners — 720 Harrison Street — Sam Desai Buried Treasures — Ms. Renee Powell presented a redesign of her original proposed sign but stated she was already working on another redesign that she didn't have with her tonight because she misunderstood submittal deadlines. The new proposed sign will match the new building and have coquina stone with conch shells as a base, which she will submit as soon as the design is completed. Ms. Robinson stated she had discussed with staff earlier in the day her concerns that the Buried Treasures project did not have a site plan application submitted to the City as of yet. Ms. King verified that staff had had meetings with the applicant and her civil engineer, informally reviewed her site plan, but that it had not been formally submitted for processing. Ms. King suggested Ms. Powell request to table her application until the new funding year begins October 1St when more money may be available and her project would be further along. Ms. Robinson stated she agreed and had already discussed with the City Manager that the Grant program would be continued in the next fiscal year. Mr. Dill stated that after reviewing the packet information that staff had provided for the next item on the agenda, he understood the grant program as being designed for existing structures. Mr. Capp also agreed with staff to have the application tabled. The Committee discussed wording within the grant application with regards to "improvements to any existing building" and "to encourage private investment" as to the intention and meaning. Ms. Robinson questioned if the Committee wanted to grandfather in the Buried Treasures application in case changes were made to the grant application later in the meeting under the next agenda item. Mr. Dill felt that was a City Council decision. Ms. Robinson felt that though the process may be changed, the applicant shouldn't pay the penalty for that. Mr. Griffin stated that Ms. Powell may have seen the grant as encouragement to develop in the CRA district. Motion by Robinson/_ to recommend to City Council [CRA Board] that the application [Buried Treasures] is grandfathered in for the next cycle. Motion died for lack of a second. Motion by Dill /_ to recommend denial of the application unless the City Council [CRA Board] clarifies this and make clears that the CRA will be investing money in new projects as an encouragement for development. Motion died for lack of a second. The Committee then discussed, and agreed, they were not satisfied with the proposed sign design submitted in the packet. Ms. Powell re- stated that she had another design in the works. Mr. Dill asked if the CRA Board would be reviewing proposed changes to the grant program /application in the near future. Mr. Griffin stated, in hind sight, perhaps the discussion on the grant program should have been discussed by the Committee and the CRA Board before the re- review of the applications so that there was better direction with regards to Ms. Powell's, and the other applications. The Committee discussed changing the order of the agenda for their discussion. Motion by Keys /Robinson to recommend to table her application until we see a final design approved by this Committee. Ms. Keys explained that after Ms. Powell submits her final design, the Committee will approve it if they like it, and the money ($4,320) stays slotted for her application. Mr. Dill stated that he didn't think the Committee should approve money at this time in case the CRA Board determined that the grant was available only for existing buildings. Ms. Keys felt that Ms. Powell was grandfathered in to any changes. ROLL CALL: Ms. Keys yes Mr. Haynes yes Ms. Robinson yes Mr. Dill yes (with the understanding he was not making a commitment, but supported the motion) Mr. Capp yes The vote was 5 -0. Motion passed. 2 * ** *Motion by Dill /Keys to rearrange the agenda and move the discussion of the Grant Guidelines into the forefront and then get back to the [re- review of the] applications. ROLL CALL: Mr. Haynes yes Ms. Keys yes Ms. Robinson yes The vote was 5 -0. Motion passed. 6. NEW BUSINESS: Mr. Dill yes Mr. Capp yes B. Discussion of Fagade, Sign, and Landscape Grant Program Guidelines Ms. Robinson started, and stated she was not comfortable approving internally -lit monument signs. She did not feel they were within the vision of the Riverfront District, and would not recommend any to the CRA Board unless they were spectacular. She said she needed to state her position if she was to stay on the Committee. She felt this was the place to not only go over the wording of the program but also open up the discussion on signs. Mr. Dill said he looked at the basics of the grant, and typed up some changes (attached) to begin a dialogue. He went over his proposed changes. Ms. Robinson agreed with most of the changes, reviewed her stand on each, and opined she would like to get rid of the references of the "Old Florida Fishing Village" from any of the riverfront documents. She would like to use a "small town community" type of description instead. She would like to also address the sign requirements, had read the LDC sign section, and noted that pole signs covered with landscaping were still allowed. Ms. King went over the code, and stated that the few signs that were permitted using landscaping had the base die due to neglect or weather, and were usually discouraged by staff. Ms. Robinson referred to the handout previously given to the CRA Board by Ms. Keys showing pictures of preferred small town signs, and suggested ways to allow them in our code, which would bring in some very attractive signs at a less cost than some of the monument signs. Mr. Dill felt that the grant guidelines should be addressed instead of the LDC, and if applicants received grant monies, they could be held to the grant standards established for the appearance of the signs. Ms. Keys stated she liked Mr. Dill's proposed changes. Referring to wording within the application, Mr. Capp asked how the grant encouraged private investment if the applicants did not have to buy the property before getting a sign grant. Mr. Haynes explained that the grant encouraged him to buy his site with an existing building knowing he could get help financially with his sign. Ms. King asked how long a building has to be there to be considered "existing ". Mr. Dill felt as long as its there. Ms. King asked after C/O or under construction? Mr. Dill felt a new building did not warrant a grant as it was not blighted nor needed improving yet. The city was just giving money to a business for a sign, which they would put up regardless. Ms. King stated because of the grant, the City might get a better sign. Mr. Dill restated the monies should be for redevelopment vs. development. 3 Ms. Robinson suggested adding "with the intent and mission of the CRA district" to the end of the first sentence in the Purpose section of the grant application packet, which would allow the Committee to make grant decisions based on blight, historical significance, and the premises of the CRA District and Master Plan. Mr. Griffin verified it was the consensus of the Committee to leave "improvements to any existing building" in the same section. Ms. Robinson stated yes, and re- stated the two changes proposed to the Purpose section. "Old Florida Fishing Village" could stay, and Ms. King noted that that phrase was also used throughout the LDC. The Section 2: Eligible Improvements portion was discussed. With regards to the deletion of Exterior signage, Ms. Robinson also wanted to remove "and replace with monument style signs." Various proposals for re- wording the sentence were considered to accommodate different scenarios. The Committee found it difficult since they were not sure of the intentions of the grant — to remove blight and improve the properties, or to pay for new improvements and help businesses. Ms. Keys noted at least the design could be controlled if it received grant money. Ms. Robinson stated that it also depended on funding, that the Committee would most likely grant monies first to the most blighted applications, and then if funds were remaining, help out the other applicants. Ms. Keys suggested the wording could be "to remove existing non - conforming signs and to replace non - village designed with village designed signs." Ms. Robinson agreed, and wanted to still keep it open for existing buildings for businesses who want to come into the CRA. Mr. Griffin suggested using Mr. Dill's last sentence under landscaping. The Committee agreed to "New signs as part of an overall improvement program for an existing improved property, and removal of existing non - conforming and blighted signs." Section 4: Available Funding and Matching Requirement was discussed next. Mr. Dill suggested that if the application was for one item — signage, landscaping, or a fagade improvement — then $7500 could be awarded; two items - $10,000, or all three - $15,000. Staff noted that fagade improvements alone can be pricey. Mr. Haynes asked if landscaping had to be a part of an improvement, or could it be by itself. The Committee discussed landscaping as part of the original site plan approval, maintenance responsibility, cost of landscaping around a sign, enforcement of the requirements, and landscaping upgrades for existing sites. Mr. Capp suggested that grant monies be awarded to the applicants that are going to use cold and draught tolerant plants, and have an irrigation system on site. Ms. Keys asked if any code enforcement action has been taken with the properties who received grant money for landscaping projects that have let the landscaping die. Staff stated the city was still trying to use a "business friendly" status quo. Mr. Haynes opined that the CRA grant program helped the city immensely, and he hoped the grant did not become controlling and punishing, but encouraging and helpful. The Committee discussed putting a lien on grant properties if the project was not maintained. Staff suggested having the CRA Board guide staff in how it wanted to handle enforcement issues. The Committee agreed they liked the following proposals: up to $5000 for landscaping only, up to $7500 for signage & landscaping and /or just signage, up to $10000 for fagade only, and $15000 for fagade and /or landscaping and /or signage. 2 Section 6: Recurring FSL Grant Applications: Ms. Robinson felt the three years may be restrictive if you are investing a lot of money on improving a blighted building, used Washington Plaza as an example, and stated as long as an additional grant was not replacing what was previously improved with grant money, she was OK with modifying the section. Mr. Dill noted that the intent [of the section] was to ensure that the money was spread amongst the businesses. Staff stated the confusion for them was the wording "received maximum grant funds within three previous fiscal years ", and did it imply that if you received a grant of $7500, was the applicant eligible to apply for another $7500 in the next cycle year, or did they have to wait for three years. Mr. Dill suggested changing "maximum grant funds" to state $15000. Ms. Robinson stated since the Committee reviews the applications, they would know the history of the projects and site improvements, and were awarded discretionary by the CRA Board. She was not sure of needing the three year waiting period. Mr. Capp suggested changing it to two years. The members discussed ownership and owning multiple properties with regards to grant awards. The Committee agreed to the two changes discussed in Section 6. Section 7: FSL Grant Improvement Ranking Criteria: Ms. Bosworth stated the referenced point system had not been used for quite a while. She suggested leaving the criteria paragraphs in tact as reference for the applicants, but removing the points. After discussion, the Committee recommended keeping the points listed but to change wording in the first paragraph that the "following selection criteria may be used ", and to correct #5 to use "two years ", based on the change to Section 6. Ms. Keys also wanted to discuss the item on Page 3 of the application — the requirement that the project must be approved by the CRA Board before construction [a part of Section 5: Application Process and Deadline]. She would like to see it enforced, even though the CRA Board has granted precedent twice before (Capt. Hiram's and Tire Kingdom). The recommendation was to add stronger language /wording to Section 3: Non - Eligible Improvements, and forward their position to the CRA Board. The Committee then discussed Design Guidelines, and what they could require and approve. Ms. Robinson stated, after reading the LDC, that it did not tie their decisions to monument signs only. She wanted the Committee to start encouraging the applicants to consider signage that fit the "village" theme and CRA intent. She relayed she had discussed sign types, prices, and construction with Brister Signs, and stated that there were alternative yet affordable types of signs for the small businesses to consider using besides a back -lit square monument sign. She really liked the signs Ms. Keys presented to the CRA Board, feels the awards for signs may have gotten off -track from the intent, and hoped to get City Council, the Committee and staff all on the same page. The Committee debated if they should review and change the LDC's. Mr. Dill suggested City Council adopt specific guidelines for the CRA for recipients of grant money only. Mr. Haynes stated the LDC verbiage was adequate and that if it became too restrictive applicants would dwindle and not come in. He felt the businesses liked the back -lit signs better, they needed to sell their products, and that the hand - carved signs were pricey. Destination businesses (offices) tend to use the hand - carved signs. He also opined that almost all of the businesses in town liked the "Old Florida Fishing Village" theme. He did not want to "control ", liked the code's language with "encourage ", and stated when businesses are told what signs they have to use, they will not use the City's money, and find a way around it. He suggested 61 having a catalog of various conforming signs allowed, and marking the ones that rank high with the Committee. Ms. Robinson clarified that her preferred signage did not necessarily have to be hand - carved, and referred to the Washington Plaza sign which looked handcarved, but wasn't, and could be modified easily. There was a discussion on the effectiveness of various sign types. Mr. Capp stated that the signs would also need to meet structural windload requirements and that it may be hard to install a "village" post sign without required concrete footers. Staff will check with the Building Department. Ms. King asked the Committee if they would like to create a list of sign criteria they would like to have the grant applicants use, or to reinforce Section 7 of the application regarding ranking of the applications and add wording that that additional consideration and /or points would be given to signs meeting certain criteria. Ms. Keys liked the bonus point suggestion. Ms Robinson reiterated she would like to see more creative sign designs presented instead of the standard monument style. Ms. Bosworth noted that some of the applicants told her they were not sign designers and were having a hard time getting sign companies to give them bids for the grant, which gave them few choices, also. She would prefer being able to give the applicants a list or handout that they could also give to the sign companies. The Committee agreed that they could be discretionary in awarding monies to applicants that met their criteria and vision for signs since the applicants would be receiving CRA money. The businesses could still put up signs they preferred without applying for a grant. Mr. Dill suggested the Committee bring in their criteria ideas to discuss at the next meeting. Motion by Dill /Keys for staff to convert our changes into a readable, logical document and present to the [CRA Board] at the next appropriate meeting for consideration. ROLL CALL: Mr. Capp yes Mr. Haynes yes Mr. Dill yes The vote was 5 -0. Motion passed. 5. OLD BUSINESS Continued: Ms. Keys yes Ms. Robinson yes A. Re- review applications and make a recommendation to CRA Board: Buried Treasures — 1554 US Highway #1— Renee Powell River Park Plaza — 480 -484 US Highway #1— Jay Dick Ar -Pat's Dry Cleaners — 720 Harrison Street — Sam Desai River Park Plaza — Mr. Joe Cataldo, representative, stated they had experienced a lot of what was just previously discussed, and they did not find a lot of help from the sign companies or ideas to generate a design that was functional for their site yet reflected the Fishing Village theme. He stated they were primarily a landlord who needed to cater to their tenants [with regards to signage]. He agreed with Mr. Haynes in that the sign needed to be readily seen by drivers to pull them in. They were applying for a sign that would be L adaptable to their future needs, and they were replacing a 50's -style non - conforming pole sign. Ms. Robinson reviewed that $4,320 had been set aside for Buried Treasures tonight, and ask staff how much was still available. Ms. Bosworth stated that after the Buried Treasures recommendation, there was still $4,320 remaining. She explained that the three applications were brought back to the Committee because the CRA Board had tabled them without granting award amounts until the Committee had re- reviewed their revised sign designs. Ar- Pat's was not present at this meeting but had forwarded sign examples he would use if the Committee gave their direction on which one they liked. Ms. Robinson reminded the Committee that their last recommendation to the CRA Board did not include an award for River Park Plaza because they were not present, and they had recommended $4,320 to both Buried Treasures and Ar- Pat's. Mr. Dill wanted to re- consider Ar -Pat's because he felt they were not replacing any non - conformities. The Committee discussed the CRA Board's motion at its February meeting and concluded formal awards had been approved only for Sebastian Vacation Rentals and Alpha Ace Hardware. Ms. Keys and Ms. Robinson suggested the River Park Plaza apply in October for the next cycle when more funds would be available, and they would work with him on sign designs. Mr. Cataldo stated six months may be a long time for his tenants to wait for a sign, and development was proceeding at a good pace, but he would like to work with Committee members on a design. Ms. Keys inquired if they approved a sign, could he be reimbursed out of the next budget. Mr. Dill reiterated that the Committee had already postponed Buried Treasures, possibly Ar- Pats, therefore it was status quo with the previous recommended award amounts, and stated River Park Plaza was a good project to get grant funds but felt their hands were tied with this year's monies. He would support a future application. Ar -Pat's — The Committee took no action since they had not received any revised drawings, and the applicant was not present. Staff summarized decisions made at the meeting from the reviews which was that the Committee was still looking for revised sign designs from Ar -Pat's and Buried Treasures, and keep the previous award recommendation - $8,640 between the two, and depending on their time -line for installation River Park Plaza should return for the next cycle. Ms. Robinson stated if Buried Treasures or Ar -Pat's does not go thru, there would be money available for River Park Plaza in the current cycle. Motion by Dill /Capp to table Ar -Pat's [application]. A voice vote was taken. All were in favor. 7. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:40 PM. Approved / �`� 1Y @ Regular Meeting of by A �^`',� • 14, Chairman, FSL Grant Review Committee /db III DRAFT WWD 4-9-13 FACADE SIGNAGE AND LANDSCAPING GRANT PURPOSE The Sebastian CRA Fagade, Signage and Landscaping Improvement Grant Program (FSL Grant Program) is a program designed to encourage visible, exterior improvements to any existing building (residential or commercial) and-to encourage private investment within the Sebastian Community Redevelopment Area. The program provides up to $15,000 of public funds per building to match private funds to pay for improvements with the Sebastian CRA. Funds are appropriated annually in the CRA budget, and funding is available on a first come first serve basis. However, the program may be subject to the availability of funds. Facade signage and landscaping (FSL) grants must support the goals of the Overlay District for the CRA area. Applicants are required to use are also a to eonsi4ef-the design guidelines specified in the overlay district to achieve the "Old Florida Fishing Village" theme. SECTION 2: ELIGIBLE IMPROVEMENTS The FSL Grant Program shall provide matching funds for the exterior (street side) improvements to existing buildings that are consistent with and further the implementation of the Land Development Code, CRA Redevelopment Plan and City Comprehensive Plan. Funds may be used for the following illustrative improvements: • Replacement of windows and doors; • Exterior painting or siding as part of an overall fagade renovation program. For example, painting is an eligible expenses when done in conjunction with changes in a flat roof to a pitched roof, dormers, gables. Painting otherwise is not an eligible expense; • E - terser ign ge '-To remove existin 7 non - conforming signs (including pole signs) and replace with monument style signs; • Landscaping (as part of an over-all a ' when associated with a Fagade Renovation Program; replacement of a non - conforming sign; or an overall improvement program for an existing, improved property; w: (dill, warrenlfacade signature and landscaping grant.docz