Revitalization Commission Agenda and Packet 2025 01 22

Home Browse Search

Revitalization Commission Minutes December 11, 2024 Page2of9 Mike Kranzdorf commented that the holiday lights downtown are a lot less than last year and the three pine trees at Pine Street Plaza have no lights. He expressed understanding about budget cuts, noting that it's too late this year for him to put up lights. He suggested that the Parks and Recreation Department might have asked the LRC for help to make downtown festive for the holiday season and asked for a placeholder for next year's budget. Commissioner Comments on Items not on the agenda: None. Business Matters of Commission: Approval of Facade Improvement Agreement for 1314 Main Street The Economic Vitality Manager presented the Facade Improvement Program application for 1314 Main Street. The proposed agreement was included in the meeting packet. Staff recommends approval of this application. Commissioner Lipton made a motion to approve the Facade Improvement Agreement for 1314 Main Street with an amendment including the clarifying language around the term "redevelopment" which the Attorney to the LRC recommended. Commissioner Iglesias seconded. Roll Call Vote: unanimously approved. Commissioner Comments: Commissioner Lipton expressed support for this application and asked for clarification on the term "redeveloped" in section D1. He noted that he doesn't think it is defined in the documentation. The Attorney to the LRC responded that the language is part of the standard agreement template, and the idea is that if it was redeveloped in a way that somehow compromises the investment of the LRC. Commissioner Lipton asked if language can be added to the agreement to clarify what redeveloped means. There was a discussion around the definition of the term. Commissioner Lipton's concern is that if the property owner improves the property in a way that might be construed as a redevelopment when it wasn't intended to be a redevelopment. His concern is more towards the word "redevelopment" as the term is generally construed, such as larger improvements to the building and he doesn't think it's a defined term in the code. He feels the term should be defined to add clarity to the agreement. The Attorney to the LRC suggested language such as "...the property shall not be redeveloped 'in a manner that compromises the integrity of the eligible improvements. - The EV Manager clarified that typically when the LRC pays for improvements, we are saying that improvements paid for by the LRC have to remain intact. For example, tearing out landscaping paid for by the LRC would be considered a violation of the agreement. Chair Adler asked the Attorney if there is any concern with changing the language now and it not being consistent with prior agreements. The Attorney to the LRC responded that the proposed additional language simply reinforces that we don't want to negatively impact the LRC's investment. Agenda Packet P. 4