Loading...
EDA Agenda 04-14-1998 . . . AGENDA MONTICELLO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Tuesday, April 14, 1998 - 7:00 p.m. City Hall MEMBERS: Chair Ron Hoglund, Vice Chair Barb Schwientek, Assist Treasurer Ken Maus, Clint Herbst, Roger Carlson, Bill Demeules, and Damn Lahr. ST AFF: Rick Wolfsteller and Ollie Koropchak. GUEST: AI Loch, Loch Jewelers Dan or Andrea Olson, State Farm Insurance 1. CALL TO ORDER. 2. CONSIDERATION TO APPROVE THE JANUARY 20 AND FEBRUARY 17, 1998 EDA MINUTES. 3. CONSIDERATION OF ADDING AGENDA ITEMS. 4. CONSIDERATION TO REVIEW FOR APPROV ALIDISAPPROV AL THE DMRF APPLICATION FOR 148 WEST BROADWAY. 5. CONSIDERATION TO REVIEW FOR APPROV AL/DISAPPROV AL THE DMRF APPLICATION FOR 207 WEST 3 STREET. 6. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT. 7. OTHER BUSINESS. a) Regular meeting of April 28, 1998 cancelled. 8. ADJOURNMENT. . . . EDA AGENDA APRIL 14, 1998 4. Consideration to review for approval/disapproval the DMRF application for 148 West Broadway. A. Reference and Background: The DMRF application is from AI Loch, property owner of the building occupied by Loch Jewelers. Mr. Loch will inform the EDA of his proposed revitalization improvements and a description of the improvements are outlined in the enclosed DAT review. Please consider the following when reviewing this application. Purpose Does the proposed project seek to promote the revitalization of downtown Monticello? 1. Enhances storefronts and facades in accordance with the design guidelines in the Plan. Yes X No 2. Encourages the rehabilitation of building interiors to bring them into compliance with local codes and ordinances. Yes No X VI ..A-- c.., \' \ I ~~- 3. Encourages building rehabilitation to provide space suitable for the proposed use. Yes No vtol ~<l.\h~ 4. Provides funding to close the "gap" between financin~needed to undertake the project and the amount raised by equity and private loans. Yes No_ 5. Provides economic incentives to locate businesses in the downtown. Yes Y- No Target Area Preference given to Blocks 35,36,51, and 52, Original Plat. This proposed project lies within the preferred area. Location Block 35. Facade Grants Matching grant of $2,500 for eligible improvements to the front facade and signage. Request $2,500 Projected cost of improvements $10,200 Equity $7,700 I . . . EDA AGENDA APRIL 14, 1998 Criteria to meet: 1. Do the improvements meet the applicable design guidelines and all codes and ordinances? YesL No_ 2. Does the amount of the grant match the amount of the private investment up to the stated limit? Yes L No Matching grant of up to $2,500 for eligible improvements to the rear facade. 1. Do the improvements meet the applicable design guidelines and all codes and ordinances? Yes No 2. Does the amount of the grant match the amount of the private investment up to the stated limit? Yes No Matching grant of up to $2,500 for eligible improvements to the side facade. 1. Do the improvements meet the applicable design guidelines and all codes and ordinances? Yes No 2. Does the amount ofthe grant match the amount ofthe private investment up to the stated limit? Yes No Fee Reimbursement Reimbursement of City fees in an amount equivalent of 10% ofthe total cost of the improvements up to a maximum of$500. Request $500 Projected costs of city fees $500. Non-Performance The approved DMRF becomes null and void iffunds are not drawn or disbursed within 270 days from date of ED A approval. January 14, 1999 2 . . . EDA AGENDA APRIL 14, 1998 B. Alternative Action: 1. A motion to approve DMRF in the amount of $ ? ,S 0 [) for front facade and signage and $ 'StlO for fee reimbursement at 148 West Broadway. Terms and conditions as determined. 2. A motion to deny approval ofDMRF in the amount of $2,500 for front facade and signage and $500 tor fee reimbursement at 148 West Broadway. 3. A motion to table any action. C. Recommendation: Recommendation is to approve the request for a total of $2,500 DMRF Match Grant and $500 Reimbursement Fees with disbursal offunds subject to completed improvement review and approval by DAT and receipt of invoices. D. Supporting Data: Copy ofthe application from Al Loch and DAT recommendation and minutes. 3 . . . DOWNTOWN MONTICELLO REVITALIZATION FUND Monticello Economic Development Authority - 271-3208 250 East Broadway, POBox 1147 Monticello, MN 55362 FUND APPLICATION 1. Basic Information: Name of Applicant/Property Owner ..Il/C(I} J. Jocru Address of Applicant/Property Owner !f.)O c?o'fl, ,-'if, IV. LJ ~ h-ffa /0 I /llN .S---:>~dI3 Telephone Number of Applicant/Property Owner 6>~ - J>7cf - d? J'r? S- Social Security of Applicant/Property Owner #,/- ?/-.oJ>d/ II. Tax ID# of Applicant/Property Owner M N -t.i- S L ~ ?-- <L-e g" <;-f:J 11-. L\ \ _ \"!J ";2...~ l q I Nature of Revitalization Fund Request: Street Address of Revitalization Property Itj? (). ;;;'00 ci WCLL"! I ?q S. . ~ ~ '\ PID Number of Revitalization Property \ S S - a \.. Cl - 0 ~ S t ~ 0 Legal De~cription of Revitalization Property - Block ~ 5 Lot(s) . LoT \,~ .9rcc_ ~ 3 U ~~~. ~ Revitalization Property is currently: Occupied L Unoccupied Prospective Occupant If applicable, Name of Occupant (Business) or Prospective Occupant (Business) LDd -TewC'_/~ r s.. If applicable, brief description of the nature of the business of the occupant: . . . Downtown Monticello Revitalization Fund Fund Application III. Type of Revitalization Fund Request: A. Facade Grants 1. Front Facade and Signage Grant (Matching funds of up to $2,500) Amount of Request $ :2, 5C1:Ja.t.- Projected Cost of Improvements $ /011 (!;CJ ~ . Amount of Equity $ /e;<!J % . Amount of Private Loans $_7 7 ~ or ~ /' Brief description of the improvements for which applicant is seeking fimds: t ~ . ~ L tj,.. 1..'; 2. Rear Facade Grant (Matching funds of up to $2,500) Amount of Request $ Projected Cost of Improvements $ Amount of Equity $ Amount of Private Loans $ Brief description of the improvements for which applicant is seeking funds: 3. Side Facade Grant (if applicable) (Matching funds of up to $2,500) Amount of Request $ Projected Cost of Improvements $ Amount of Equity $ Amount of Private Loans $ Brief description of the improvements for which applicant is seeking funds: 2 . . . Downtown Monticello Revitalization Fund Fund Application B. Rehabilitation Loan (Maximum amount is the lesser of25% of total cost of the improvements or $20,000) Amount of Request $4 Projected Cost ofImprovements $ Amount of Equity $ Amount of Private Loans $ Brief description of the improvements for which applicant is seeking funds: C. Fee Reimbursement (Reimbursement of City fees in an amount equivalent of 10% of the total cost ofthe improvements up to a maximum of$500) Amount of Request $ Sdo--e:::::.- Projected Cost of City Fees $ S-Q:;P~ IV. Lender Information: Name of Participating Lender I1J Of} t^ra Contact Person ,,/aft ~c J, Telephone number ;;L95" ~ 377/ kcj ~ I/we certifY that all information provided in this application is true and correct to the best of my/our knowledge. ~/h/ Signature ~ppliCant/Property Owner 3-/;2-9.7 Date 3 Design Advisory Team Review Team Members Date 1} -/;J--?8 . Property Owner (/(;;/,'~ ~ . Improvements in conform I Improvements in non-coru Design Advisory Team Recommendation: Comments: . Design Advisory Team Review . Team Members Present Rita Ulrich Susie Wojchouski (9:00 - 10:20) Ron Hoglund (9:30 - 11: 10) Pam Campbell Team Members Absent Gail Cole Date March 18, 1998 Ex-Officio Members Present Fred Patch Property Owner Alan 1. Loch Building Address 148 W. Broadway Sketch of Proposed Facade Improvements: . . Improvements in conformance with the Design Guidelines: Sign over the storefront windows is flush or slightly recessed on facade Highlighting the front facade with appropriate colors Accentuating thft brick details over the sign U sing complementary brick detail on the kickplate below windows Using goose neck lamps rather than modern lighting fixtures (See detailed description attached) Improvements in non-conformance with the Design Guidelines: The front entry configuration will remain as it is today. Ideally the front of the building should be Hush with the sidewalk. However, the nature of the business and resulting traffic flow inside the store demand that the entry remain as it is. Also the DAT would not recommend that brick be painted unless there is a compelling reason to do so. In this case, the exterior brick was sandblasted some time ago and can never again be exposed to the elements. Paint in this case is a reasonable solution. Design Advisory Team Recommendation: To approve the matching grant Comments: . . . The entire front of the building will be painted. As stated above, paint is a reasonable solution for sandblasted brick. (Once the hardened outer layer of brick is blasted away the brick will disintegrate quickly unless sealed.) The cornice at the top of the facade will be accented by painted colored bands. Three recessed brick rectangles will remain on the upper portion of the building. Under the recessed rectangles will be 5 goose neck lights to illuminate the sign. The center portion of the sign that says <<Loch Jewelers" will be on a 4' x 12' piece of glass 3/8" thick. The sign will be made with techniques used in the 1880s. The glass is acid-etched from the reverse side to form the letters, then filled with gold leaf Any other detail is done from the inside as well, leaving a solid smooth surface facing the outside elements. Consequently, all work is done in reverse, so that it reads properly when seen from the outside. The entire piece of glass will be framed in wood and will be flush or slightly recessed on the building's facade. The two diamond icons on the side panels will be in raised relief. They will be made from a special Styrofoam able to withstand wind, sun and rain. The kickplate at the bottom of the storefront will have recessed rectangular detail, not exactly matching but complementary to the upper detail. The entIyway door will not be reconfigured. It was changed from the 1880's style recessed doorway some time ago. The existing configuration is beneficial to the nature of the business as it creates a desirable traffic flow once customers come into the store. A majority if not all of the front window glass will be replaced with tempered glass as mandated by city code. See below for color samples. For those with copies, the colors are two shades of deep green~grey, a medium tan, and a wine burgundy. You may see Ollie Koropchak for the original. ""''''''r' "":;"""IT"l'''rf"n''"',',",,",''I;'&''''_~ ~..,: Y:\ij-!~~' ;,,),:,.:, Jl,\ .' :,.;'. .,;)~ . .......,~'. ""~:!~$''''f..,""., ',u" ~ J:-/".'.:": d' ., < "\ ' . J~:. ~~-,:J,/~: ,,: ,c,..;, <I. ',,~', .~:"I"::;~Jf~.".:~:';:"J.: 2/B "Y\ 1522 . . . MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO DESIGN ADVISORY TEAM Thursday, March 18, 1998 - 9:00 am Monticello City Hall Members Present: Pam Campbell, Ron Hoglund, Rita Ulrich, Susie Wojchouski Members Absent: Gail Cole City Staff: Ollie Koropchak, Fred Patch Guests: Steve Loch, Loch Jewelers 1. Call to Order. PAM CAMPBELL CALLED THE MEETING TO ORDER. 2. Approval of the minutes of the special meeting of February 4. 1998 and the regular meeting held February 12. 1998. SUSIE WOJCHOUSKI MOVED, AND PAM CAMPBELL SECONDED, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING HELD FEBRUARY 4, 1998 AND THE REGULAR MEETING HELD FEBRUARY 12, 1998. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3. Consideration of addinQ items. Pam Campbell asked to add the application of Loch Jewelers for EDA funds to the agenda. Fred Patch asked the OAT to consider requesting information on the downtown streetscape maintenance schedule from John Simola. It was agreed by consensus to add both items. 4. Discussion reQarding order of business and procedural reQuirements for DA T. Members reviewed procedures for meeting notices. The secretary will prepare and distribute the agenda packets. In order to cancel a meeting, the secretary or chair needs to notify Fred Patch and he will post a notice at city hall. 5. Consideration of deleQating design review on oermitted uses to city staff. The Central Community District Ordinance provides for DA T review of projects in the CCD which propose new or altered buildings, site improvements and signs. For permitted uses that comply with building code and zoning standards, the status of a OAT decision is advisory to the Building Official. Members agreed that for many permitted uses, it would be efficient to delegate design review authority to the Chief Building Official, unless the permitted use creates a significant change in the look or architectural character of a 1 . . . building or site. For permits relating to residential uses outside the downtown commercial area, it makes sense to delegate full review authority to the Chief Building Official. The Chief Building Official may, at his or her discretion, refer any permit application to the DA T for review. RON HOGLUND MOVED, AND PAM CAMPBELL SECONDED, TO DELEGATE THE AUTHORITY OF THE DESIGN ADVISORY TEAM TO REVIEW PERMIT APPLICATIONS WITHIN THE CENTRAL COMMUNITY DISTRICT FOR SIGNS, BUILDING ALTERATIONS AND SITE IMPROVEMENTS, INCLUDING NEW CONSTRUCTION AND RESIDENTIAL USES NOT MIXED WITH COMMERCIAL USES ON THE SAME PROPERTY, WHICH ARE PERMITTED USES AND COMPLY WITH ZONING AND BUILDING CODES, TO THE CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL, BUT WITH THE EXCEPTION OF CHANGES THAT WOULD SIGNIFICANTLY ALTER THE AESTHETIC OR ARCHITECTURAL CHARACTER OF THE BUILDING, SIGNAGE OR LANDSCAPE. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 5. Updates: Central Community District boundaries: This was tabled at the March Planning Commission meeting, but should be on the agenda for the April meeting. New guidelines for the Downtown Monticello Revitalization Fund: Members were reminded of the expanded area for the DMRF and the sunset date of December 31, 1999. Sa. Review of application for EDA matchina grant under the DMRF for 148 West Broadwav. Applicant: Loch Jewelers. Steve Loch showed a sketch of the proposed facade improvements for the building. Improvements include removal of the existing cedar awning, a new sign, installation of gooseneck lamps, repainting the brick and adding accent colors to the cornice. RON HOGLUND MOVED, AND RITA ULRICH SECONDED, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE APPLICATION TO THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 5b. Consideration to reauest maintenance schedule of downtown streetscape from the Director of Public Works. Pam Campbell will write a letter on behalf of the OAT to John Simola, requesting information on the Public Works Department's plans for steetscape maintenance this year. 6. Adiourn. RITA ULRICH MOVED, AND PAM CAMPBELL SECONDED, TO ADJOURN. MOTION CARRIED. 2 . . . EDA AGENDA APRIL 14, 1998 5. Consideration to review for approval/disapproval the DMRF application for 207 West 3 Street. A. Reference and Background: The DMRF application from Dan Olson will be submitted at the meeting. Dan and Andrea Olson are the property owners of the building occupied by State Farm Insurance. Dan Olson will inform the EDA of his proposed revitalization improvements. Preliminary discussions relating to the improvements were discussed between Dan and Andrea Olson, Pam Campbell, Rita Ulrich, and Koropchak; however, DA T has not reviewed the application for compliance of the Design Guidelines. This is planned for the DAT meeting tomorrow morning. Any EDA motion for approval should be subject to the design recommendation approval by the DAT. If the EDA is uncomfortable with approving this application without the DA T recommendation, the EDA should table any action. Potential improvements outlined by the Olson's were rehab of the brick chimney, new window to second floor, new roof, and outside trim and landscaping improvements. It is my understanding, the Olson can immediately secure the workmanship of the individual who repaired the Rand Mansion chimney for Merrill and DuffY Busch. These individuals are hard to come by, therefore, the Olson's would appreciate a quick response to available funding. The EDA will need to consider if the chimney is a facade improvement and then ifit applies to all or three sides only. Certainly, rehab of the chimney is unique and enhances its past history and charm. Secondly, I believe the Olson's plan to replace the old windows on second floor with windows which again preserves its past charm. Lastly, I believe the Olson plan to replace the trim and landscaping in the future. Does the EDA agree roof improvements do not qualifY as facade improvements? Again, the Olson will be present at the ED A. Please consider the following when reviewing this application. Purpose Does the proposed project seek to promote the revitalization of downtown Monticello? 1. Enhances storefronts and facades in accordance with the design guidelines in the Plan. Yes No 2. Encourages the rehabilitation of building interiors to bring them into compliance with local codes and ordinances. Yes No 1 . . . EDA AGENDA APRIL 14,1998 3. Encourages building rehabilitation to provide space suitable for the proposed use. Yes No 4. Provides funding to close the "gap" between financing needed to undertake the project and the amount raised by equity and private loans. Y es ~ No ~ 5. Provides economic incentives to locate businesses in the downtown. Yes No Target Area Preference given to Blocks 35,36,51, and 52, Original Plat. This proposed project lies within the preferred area, Location Block 36. Facade Grants Matching grant of $2,500 for eligible improvements to the front facade and signage. Request Projected cost of improvements Equity Criteria to meet: 1. Do the improvements meet the applicable design guidelines and all codes and ordinances? Yes No 2. Does the amount of the grant match the amount ofthe private investment up to the stated limit? Yes No Matching grant of up to $2,500 tor eligible improvements to the rear facade. Request Projected cost of improvements Equity 1. Do the improvements meet the applicable design guidelines and all codes and ordinances? Yes No 2 . . . EDA AGENDA APRIL 14, 1998 2. Does the amount of the grant match the amount of the private investment up to the stated limit? Yes No Matching grant of up to $2,500 for eligible improvements to the side facade. Request Projected cost of improvements Equity 1. Do the improvements meet the applicable design guidelines and all codes and ordinances? Yes No 2. Does the amount of the grant match the amount of the private investment up to the stated limit? Yes No Fee Reimbursement Reimbursement of City fees in an amount equivalent of 10% of the total cost of the improvements up to a maximum of$500. Request Projected costs of city fees Non-Performance The approved D1\1RF becomes null and void iftunds are not drawn or disbursed within 270 days from date of ED A approval. B. Alternative Action: 1. A motion to approve DMRF in the amount of $ for front facade and signage, $ for rear facade, and $ for side facade improvements and $ for fee reimbursement at 207 West 3 Street. Terms and conditions as determined. 2. A motion to deny approval ofDMRF in the amount of for front facade and signage, for rear facade, and tor the side improvements and for fee reimbursement at 207 West 3 Street, 3. A motion to table any action. 3 . . . EDA AGENDA APRIL 14, 1998 C. Recommendation. Does the rehab ofthe brick chimney qualitY as facade improvements and does this apply as front, rear, and side improvements only? Is the replacement of windows in itself, a revitalization improvement? It is recommended the EOA either table any action until reviewed and approval by OAT or approve the amount ofDMRF dollars according to DMRF Guidelines subject to approval by OAT for compliance of the Design Guidelines. D. Supporting Data: None. 4 . . . EDA AGENDA APRIL 14, 1998 6. Executive Director's report. Froslie Funding - Rear facade complete and paid and city fee reimbursed, front facade not complete as determined by DAT and not paid, and the applicant elected not to do the side facade. Non-performance date July 21, 1998. Johnson Funding - Front, rear, and side facade not complete. No EDA payment. Non- performance date July 21, 1998. Cline Funding - Front and signage facade not complete. No EDA payment. Non- performance October 17, 1998. Other property owners which Campbell, illrich, and myself have met with are Ron Ruff (Companion Pets) and Cindy Hammond (Rachel's). I did call John Piorier, again. We may meet with him again to try and determine what's underneath. It is my plan to market the DMRF at the Merchants meeting or a Chamber meeting and to go door-to- door a second time and particular the East Broadway property since amending the guidelines. The HRA has approved TIP assistance for Midwest Graphic expansion. Plans are to construct a new 60,000 sq ft manufacturing facility along Fallon Avenue. This will be independent of their existing facility. 37 new jobs at an average starting wage between $8 to $12 per hour. Some HRA and IDC members will visit two other industries on April 14 and 21.