Loading...
Commuinity Development Authority - MINUTES - 7/21/2011 CITY OF MUSKEGO Approved 8/25/11 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (CDA) MINUTES THURSDAY, JULY 21, 2011 Chairman Glazier called the meeting of the Community Development Authority to order at 6:00 PM Those in attendance recited the Pledge of Allegiance. STATEMENT OF PUBLIC NOTICE The meeting was posted in accordance with the Open Meeting Law. PRESENT: Commissioners Bill Engelking, Rob Glazier, Gail Konkel, Larry Lefebvre, Ald. Snead and Executive Director Muenkel ABSENT: Ald. Soltysiak (excused), Jason Thompson GUESTS: Kris Nelson, Eric Neuman APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE JUNE 23 MEETING Ald. Snead moved to approve the minutes of June 23, 2011 meeting. Commissioner Lefebvre seconded. Upon a voice vote, the motion to approve the minutes carried. PUBLIC INPUT: None. Chairman Glazier requested that at a future meeting the commissioners revisit the order on the agenda for the public input. NEW BUSINESS Janesville Road Grant Request: High Tide (S76 W17745 Janesville Road) Executive Director Muenkel presented the grant request in the amount of $3,150 from High Tide for the improvements on his building. The improvements consisted of full exterior painting of the structure and re-roofing of the front façade. The new owners have done extensive improvements on the inside and plan on doing more improvements on the outside and those improvements will depend largely on what occurs with the Janesville Road project. Commissioner Lefebvre moved to approve the grant request not to exceed $3,000. Ald. Snead seconded. Commissioners discussed the timing of the grant request application. Upon a voice vote, the motion carried. Parkland Plaza Redevelopment Executive Director Muenkel refreshed the commissioners on previous discussions on the Parkland Plaza redevelopment and the use of TIF funds to encourage the owners to do improvements on their business. Eric Neuman and Kris Nelson, representatives of Parkland Plaza, were in attendance to discuss the difficulties with the architecture of the building. Both mentioned they were under the impression that ½ of the $375,000 TIF funds would be available to them for improvements to the outside of the building with the other half to go to Pick N Save for their improvements. They shared the discussions that they had with Executive Director Muenkel. In that regard, they spent many hours in planning and coming forward with the rendering presented to the commissioners. Since the CDA’s June meeting, they were advised that the CDA would be only offering $50,000 in matching funds for the façade improvements. Ms. Nelson stated that the owners were only willing to invest $50,000 for improvements. The improvements as shown on the rendering could not be done for $100,000. The cost of the improvements shown on the rendering was estimated at $225,000; new soffits, new lighting, new columns, different stone. Chairman Glazier said that the spirit of the grants and loan programs is to spur redevelopment and, if it weren’t for this availability of money, then they wouldn’t be able to do redevelopment. CDA Minutes Page 2 July 21, 2011 To him, it sounded as if they had no need or desire or interest in putting more investment into the property. He asked what their plans were for the future of the property. Ms. Nelson stated no plans right now. They are just maintaining it. Ald. Snead asked what they could do to move forward; is there something or is there not. Chairman Glazier questioned if they could see a project that makes sense at the funding levels? Ms. Nelson stated again that the owners are willing to invest only $50,000. Mr. Neuman stated by making adjustments to the rendering, the project would still be at $200,000. Commissioner Lefebvre understood then that $100,000 is not enough to do something to the façade. As there was no reaching an agreement, Chairman Glazier said he would rather see the owners come back in a couple of years with an idea for a project and what can they do to get some help from the city; then it would make a lot more sense. Grant & Loan Programs In regard to the grant and loan program, Executive Director Muenkel stated they would like to have a device to ensure that the funds used to update the landscaping or façade that it is kept up into perpetuity. To that end, he offered the following changes to the zoning code: (6) COMPLIANCE IN PERPETUITY Any BSO Plan granted through the authority of this Section, or site/façade improvement (based on an approved grant or loan program carried out by the Community Development Authority, Planning Commission, or Common Council) shall be perpetually binding upon the development and all aspects of the approval given shall be followed. Further, BSO Plan or site/façade improvement referenced above, shall be perpetually binding to the extent that: A. All buildings and structures shall be maintained in a tasteful, safe and appropriate manner as they were originally approved for. B. All landscaping shall be periodically groomed and/or replaced when necessary. C. All drives, parking and pedestrian areas shall be kept in a safe and passable condition. This includes the maintaining of the appropriate pavement markings and the refinishing of the asphalt or concrete when it should become deteriorated. D. All natural areas and environmental areas identified for protection shall be maintained in manner which preserves their aesthetic and natural function E. All repairs and maintenance shall be executed in a timely manner Referring to past discussions on adding to the grant/loan programs that the work must be done by a local contractor, through the CDBG program, you cannot regulate that the work be done just by a local contractor as these moneys are handed down from the State. However, if the work hasn’t been done yet, the CDA could ask them to have at least two bids and one of the bids from a local contractor. Prior to the meeting, Chairman Glazier had brought up that for work done after the fact, that the written invoice(s) instead of the proposals be submitted with the application. The CDA members were in receipt of the Residential Improvement Grant Program that had been drafted late last year, but the members decided not to move forward with it for several reasons which included doing work on private property, how to differentiate between maintenance and improvements. After the Bay Breeze residential or commercial controversy at the last two meetings, it was before the commissioners once again for review and for refinement. Commissioners offered the following:  Only for homes in the redevelopment district(s) boundaries CDA Minutes Page 3 July 21, 2011  What does the total city get out of it  In regard to condos and apartment complexes, for the owner of the property, not individuals  Paying for the part of the property that faces Janesville Road  Grants should produce visible changes to residential buildings and sites facing Janesville Road; conform to community standards and benefit the community to an extent equal to or greater than the personal benefit to the owner/resident  Does the program have an impact on the beautification of the city  Need to put in 50% of the project cost  Matching amount should be up to $3,000 with flexibility to be consistent with other programs  Projects beautify the public right-of-way; having an impact on the city  Judge project by project; having more impact on the city  Clarify calendar year  CDA and Common Council reserve the right to lower the amount requested based on the percentage of the upgrade actually facing Janesville  The program money and matching dollars need to be restrictive to projects that provide the improvement from the viewpoint of the public right-of-way  See the proposal before the work is done Executive Director Muenkel will revise the document and present it at the next meeting. It was recommended that he contact the attorney on this grant program proposal. OLD BUSINESS Tess Corners Redevelopment District #1 Implementation Executive Director Muenkel presented the request of $7,000 for the streetscaping design. It was approved not to exceed $7,000 and their recommendation was to use Graef based on other work this vendor has done for the city. It was also discussed with Finance Committee to fund the streetscaping as part of the capital budget discussion. Downtown Redevelopment District#2 Implementation Executive Director Muenkel reported the RFPs for the marketing proposals have been sent out and are due back by August 12. He is expecting three, perhaps five, to be submitted. They should be available at the next meeting. If multiple RFPs are returned, he’ll discuss with Chairman Glazier how to best handle them. He may be able to factor some out if all the criteria is not together. It has been proposed for them to be present at the next meeting for discussion. On Pioneer Drive, he will be taking the reconstruction of the road with streetscaping to the capital budget meeting next month. He estimated it would be 1.5 million dollars. This could be done the same time as Phase 1 of Janesville Road. Muskego Business Park Redevelopment District#3 Implementation Nothing new at this time, still working on the business contact list. It will be on line and he should have more to report at the next meeting. MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS AS AUTHORIZED BY LAW Redevelopment District Development & Other Miscellaneous Information Updates They haven’t heard anything from New Berlin since the last letters. If they want to get Mill Valley Redevelopment District going, the CDA may have to move forward on its own. CDA Minutes Page 4 July 21, 2011 Next Meeting Date Thursday, August 25, 6:00 PM, Muskego Public Library ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, Ald. Snead moved for adjournment, Commissioner Engelking seconded. Upon a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 7:30 PM. Stella Dunahee, CPS Recording Secretary