HomeMy WebLinkAboutDRBM_07092009 ��'�"�°�� City of Ukiah, CA
,�'�'="���.
;* � +� Design Review Board
'��+i►�o�r.���,
1 MINUTES
2
3 Regular Meeting July 9, 2009
4 Conference Room 3 3:00 p.m.
5 Ukiah Civic Center, 300 Seminary Avenue
6 1. CALL TO ORDER
7 2. ROLL CALL Present: Tom Hise, Nick Thayer,
8 Alan Nicholson, Tom Liden
9 Richard Moser, Chair
10 Absent: Jody Cole, Estok Menton
11 Others Present: None
12 Staff Present: Jennifer Faso, Associate Planner
13 Kim Jordan, Senior Planner
14 Gordon Elton, Director of Finance
15 Sage Sangiacomo, Assistant City Manager
16 Cathleen Moller, Economic Development
17 Manager
18 Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary
19
20 3. CORRESPONDENCE — None
21
22 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES—April 9, 2009, May 6, 2009, June 25, 2009
23
24 5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS — None
25
26 6. RIGHT TO APPEAL— N/A
27
28 7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
29 7A. Discussion and possible action on the revisions to the Fa�ade Improvement
30 Program
31
32 - Roles and responsibilities of Desiqn Review Board and Finance Review Committee
33 • The DRB role for FIP projects is to make a recommendation to the FRC for
34 funding based on the criteria/guidelines as to which components of the project
35 are eligible. While the DRB has criteria/guidelines to follow for projects,
36 determining whether a project has value, is a good use of RDA funds and how to
37 `get the most bag for the buck' is not always easy.
38 • FRC role is to look at projects as to whether there is money available, is the
39 project an acceptable redevelopment expense that meets the statutory guidelines
40 for redevelopment and/or consider whether the project fits with the overall
41 redevelopment plan for the City, and approve the project based on the DRB's
42 recommendation and feedback.
43 • Having too many boards/committees involved in the review process would
44 not be feasible. The DRB that has a mix of professional expertise in design,
45 construction, and architecture to make decisions about the design aspects and
46 determining factors for which components would be eligible and at placing a
Design Review Board July 9,2009
Page 1
1 percentage of value for each component based on eligibility requirements.
2 These functions should be left to the discretion of the DRB.
3 • Projects can be appealed to the RDA.
4 • Look at possibly leveraging the most investment out of each project for the
5 most worthwhile projects. The amount of funding available has increased from
6 $10,000 to $50,000 for a project which has significantly changed the purview of
7 the DRB's role. It used to be that DRB approved projects for just new awnings
8 and paint. Now, applicants are asking for funding for landscaping and other
9 project amenities. The Board evaluates project components by assigning a
10 percentage of value in keeping with the criteria and guidelines for assessing the
11 projects.
12 • It may be the DRB requires more structure concerning the manner in which
13 project review are conducted. Additional information would be helpful. It
14 may also be that the process could be more streamlined at staff level when a FIP
15 application is initially submitted.
16 • The DRB has revised documents and guidelines to better assist with making
17 funding decisions about a project in terms of eligibility and whether the project
18 has value to the community. The DRB must decide whether a proposed project is
19 a good use of public funds in terms of maintaining high standards for
20 architectural design.
21 • Update City Resolution outlining the duties and responsibilities of the DRB
22 and FRC in compliance with the adopted goals/objectives and policies of
23 the RDA and provide to the DRB.
24 • How should the DRB treat blight?
25 • Should applicants receive funding when it is essentially the property
26 owner's responsibility to upgrade and provide maintenance to their
27 buildings. Where should the responsibility be drawn regarding maintenance that
28 could eventually lead to a blighted condition? Should public funding be available
29 for general maintenance such as paint?
30 • Often property owners do not take advantage of the FIP because they do have
31 money for the 50% matching funds.
32 • Some projects require more funding assistance in order to do a quality
33 project. Where should the line be drawn in this instance?
34 • If a building is in need of improvement and the property owner is willing,
35 but unable to pay for the repairs, should public funding be accessible?
36 • What should occur when the DRB considers a project and the project is
37 determined to be worthwhile, but the property owner does not have the
38 capacity to maintain the building or the improvements made.
39 • A maintenance agreement is required when funding is approved.
40
41 - Eliqible vs. Ineliqible expenses
42 Project Management and Supervision
43 Insurance
44 Profit & Overhead
45 • These expenses are typically the cost of doing business and automatically
46 incorporated in the line items for cost estimates/bids.
47 • Line items for cost estimates depend upon how much value the DRB gives for
48 each component of a project. The DRB can question a line item and request bid
49 estimates for cost comparison purposes.
Design Review Board July 9, 2009
Page 2
1 • There is really no clear-cut way to determine whether a cost is legitimate
2 for a line item.
3 • It may be helpful for staff to initially inform an applicant of certain pre-
4 application costs and/or provide a ballpark figure of what the applicant can
5 potentially anticipate in funding. This allows applicant the opportunity to
6 rethink/modify their project and project design to come up with a quality
7 product and with getting `the most bang for the buck.'
8 • In order to receive funding for an approved project, receipts must be
9 submitted and this procedure should remain a policy.
10 • Should an automatic percentage be assigned to address overhead costs as
11 a duty of responsibility?
12 • Are locally owned corporate franchises eligible for FIP funding?
13
14 - Blight
15 • One of the primary objectives for use of redevelopment funding is to
16 reduce blight in areas where necessary.
17 • City Code generally directs blighted conditions for properties, but there is still the
18 matter of redevelopment blight and how this should be treated. What should
19 occur in cases where property owners do not maintain their buildings to City
20 Code maintenance standards that allows for a use permit for the building to make
21 money and no basic maintenance is performed as a duty of responsibility. Are
22 such property owners `entitled' to redevelopment money for maintenance on
23 buildings?
24 • What constitutes `entitlement' to redevelopment money? Is anyone
25 entitled? Do property owners have a duty of responsibility to perform
26 general maintenance on buildings without public funding assistance? A
27 project should have a specific/well-defined purpose in order to receive
28 redevelopment money. The key is to leverage the funding in a way that
29 benefits the community so that the end result is the `biggest bang for the
30 buck.' Is this the perception that exists? Funding should be contingent
31 upon compliance with the criteria/guidelines for eligibility, as well as
32 project consideration for degree of worthiness.
33 • Applicants receiving FIP funding should live up to their obligations to
34 preserve and perform general maintenance as is reasonable.
35 • The element of blight is defined according to redevelopment law and is
36 subjective.
37 • It would be helpful if DRB has the statutory requirements and/or discussion
38 language concerning blight for effective decisions purposes.
39 • What happens in cases where a property has expended its lifetime cycle of
40 funding and the building/property has become a blighted condition? Is this
41 property owner eligible for assistance? What should happen in instances where
42 property ownership has changed and the lifetime funding cycle has been
43 expended for that property? Should this be treated as maintenance/upkeep and
44 is the property owner eligible for assistance? Furthermore, what should occur in
45 instances where the tenant is seeking funding because the property owner will
46 not paint the building or fix/replace an awning?
47 • Is a torn awning considered a blighted condition? Is this a maintenance issue?
48 There a fine line between maintenance and what is the property owner's
49 responsibility for upkeep to prevent a blighted condition from occurring.
50
Design Review Board July 9, 2009
Page 3
1 -FaGade Improvement District Boundarv Lines
2 • Has been the topic of many DRB discussions, particularly with trying to define
3 project areas and establishing priorities/preference for these areas. Initially, FIP
4 projects were limited more to the Downtown.
5 • As the boundaries have been expanded, project consideration takes on a range
6 of new questions and issues. This is when the DRB proposed use of the FIP
7 Scorecard as a way to rank projects relative to worth and value in a matter of
8 different ways as provided for on the document. The Scorecard begins with the
9 location of the project. The DRB may want to revise assignment of a point
10 system for projects and/or revise the Scorecard in general. Project location does
11 play a significant role in terms of project preference. Size (linear square footage)
12 for projects could be a factor to receive more credit, such as a building on a
13 corner lot or building having a larger fa�ade.
14 • It may be that anyone in the project is eligible for funding, but a more
15 recognized scoring system is necessary that will focus/prioritize the
16 gateways/downtown areas emphasized in the Five-Year Redevelopment
17 Implementation Plan goals and objectives.
18
19 -Formula/percentaqe of qrant monev allocated for each parcel or proiect.
20 • This is not clearly defined. The FRC relies on DRB decisions about projects
21 and project worthiness.
22
23 -Fluctuation of qrant fundinq per Fiscal Year
24 • The $150,000 available per fiscal year for FIP programs is never a use it or lose
25 it scenario. Money can carry over to the next fiscal if not used. Given the
26 current economic crisis with the State, it is not known if funding is
27 available each fiscal year. Funding is available for this fiscal year.
28
29 Discussion consensus:
30 • Staff will provide the DRB with additional information to include
31 redevelopment statutory requirements to use.
32 • Revisit the Scorecard.
33
34 8. NEW BUSINESS— None
35
36 9. MATTERS FROM THE BOARD: None
37
38 10. MATTERS FROM STAFF: None
39
40 11. SET NEXT MEETING/ADJOURNMENT
41 The next regular meeting will be August 13, 2009. There being no further business, the
42 meeting adjourned at 4:56 p.m.
43
44
45 Richard Moser, Chair
46
47
48 Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary
Design Review Board July 9, 2009
Page 4