Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.b. Downtown Redevelopment Plan1 CITY OF ROSEMOUNT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR ACTION CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: MAY 19, 1992 AGENDA ITEM: DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AGENDA SECTION: OLD BUSINESS PREPARED BY: STEPHAN J ILK, CITY ADMINISTRATOR AG �O�``ji .µ 6 B ATTACM1ENTS :` MEMOS DATtD . J'ANUARY 21,1992 , APP IV Y. and MAY 115, 1992 d ell On November 23rd an Ad Hoc committee met to discuss the idea of developing a "Downtown Development Plan". That committee recommended, to the City Council, that the City should proceed with the concept. The City Council directed the City Administrator obtain feedback from the Rosemount Chamber of Commerce and the Port Authority on this idea. Since that direction was given I have discussed this with the Chamber and the Port Authority. They have both passed motions of support to proceed and the Port Authority recommitted their funding of $12,000 to this effort if needed. Also, the Planning Commission, on its own initiative has passed a motion of support to proceed with the plan. The next step in this process if approved by the City Council would be the appointment of a steering committee to coordinate this process. RECOMMMED ACTION: Motion to accept the recommendation of the Ad Hoc Committee to develop a downtown development/redevelopment plan and begin the process by forming a steering committee to coordinate this process. COUNCIL ACTION: (Pity of �osemouni PHONE (612) 423-4411 2875 • 145th Street West, Rosemount, Minnesota FAX (612) 4235203 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 510, Rosemount, Minnesota 55068.0510 TO: Mayor E.B. McMenomy Council Members: Klassen, Staats, Willcox, FROM: Stephan Jilk, City Administrator DATE: May 15, 1992 RE: Downtown Development/ Redevelopment Plan MAYOR Edward B. McMenomy COUNCIIMEMBERS Sheila Klassen James (Red) Steals Harry Willcox Dennis Wippermann ADMINISTRATOR Wippermann Stephan Jilk Per your direction I have met with the Rosemount Chamber of Commerce and the Port Authority to have them further consider the establishment of a downtown plan. The Chamber of Commerce following very brief discussion at their monthly meeting in April, passed a motion to support the development of such a plan and to ask the City Council to proceed with this process. The Port Authority discussed this at their first meeting in March and passed a unanimous motion to support the concept of developing a downtown plan, funding a minimum amount of the cost at a level of $12,000 and to request the City Council to move ahead in forming the steering committee to begin the process. The Planning Commission on their own initiative passed a motion to support the completion of such a plan and urged the Council to move ahead in this process. The next step in this process, if Council approves, would be formation of a steering committee. This committee would "give direction to the development of the plan itself, and in the future the success of the implementation of the plan." This steering committee would be: 1) made of 9 to 11 people 2) appointed by and report to the City Council 3) asked to outline the scope of their duties and responsibilities as the plan is developed. A list of suggested candidates to choose from to form the committee was established by the Ad Hoc Committee. 6verythi.ngs (9oming Ub RosemouniY Downtown Steering Committee May 15, 1992 Page 2 This steering committee would actually divide the process to use in development of the plan. Two possible options were presented by staff basically "in house" with minimal outside consultant use, the other depending more significantly on outside assistance. These varied in cost and time to complete. Both would allow for significant involvement and input by the public. The actual process chosen may be either of these or somewhere in between. I would recommend that the council move ahead with this process and consider the appointment of the steering committee at the June 2nd Council meeting. I would further recommend that appointees to the steering committee be established by each council member providing 2 names and the Mayor providing three names. This will allow for an odd number, 11 member committee. Once established, city staff could assist the committee in developing its role and working to recommendation of a process and development of the plan. lj TO: Mayor E.B. McMenomy I Councilmembers: Klassen, Staats, Willcox, Wippermann Downtown Planning Workshop Partic'pants FROM: Stephan Jilk, City Administrato DATE: January 21, 1992 RE: Downtown Development Plan Work Session The following represents a staff summary of the work session held November 23, 1991. This work session was held to discuss the idea of developing a formal plan for the development/redevelopment of the Rosemount downtown. The City's Economic Development Authority had discussed the idea of bringing City Council, Planning Commission, Parks & Recreation Committee, Utilities commission and residents together with City Staff to discuss the value of developing such a plan. The EDA agreed to fund the hiring of an outside consultant to facilitate this work session. Mr. Don Bargen, an organizational consultant was hired for this purpose. Invitations were sent to residents, business owners, commission members and staff to attend the work session. Participants included: Vernon Napper, Ed McMenomy, Dennis Wippermann, John Oxborough, Sheila Klassen, Harry Willcox, Red Staats, Al Meyer, John Edwards, Kurt Gundacker, Cathy Busho, Sheila Hathaway, Joseph Walsh, Tom Werner, John Howard, Scott Rynerson, John Loch, Chuck Terry, Rich Carlson, Marie Jensen, Lucy Holzer, Reid Hanson, Stephan Jilk, Sue VanderHeyden, Dave Bechtold, Jeff May, Lisa Freese, Elliel Knutsen, Ron Wasmund, and Tracie Peconick. These participants were led through a process to determine: 1) The scope of a development plan 2) Strategies, to create a plan 3) Establishment of a steering committee to coordinate the development and implementation of a plan. The group also developed a list of potential steering committee members for the City Council to consider for appointment to the steering committee. Downtown Development Organizational Meeting Page 2 Following is an abbreviated outline of the concept for development of the plan that the group drafted. I. SCOPE OF PLAN This is what the plan would include and what the plan development would provide to those making policy decisions regarding downtown development. A. Vision/Niche - what is the vision of Rosemount for its downtown. What area should be considered "downtown". What kinds of services should we attempt to provide to our residents/non-residents. What do we want our downtown to represent. is it just a retail/commercial/service district for residents and non-residents or is it that and more. Is it a focal point for social interaction, a identity factor for what we want the City of Rosemount to be. Is it a statement of who we are and what we want others to be. How will we effect the development of this "downtown" to reach these goals. Can we determine a "niche" in the commercial/retail/service market which in turn we can fill and through which we gain economic support to develop and maintain a strong downtown. The participants felt strongly that we cannot now, and possibly for a long time, compete generally with Apple Valley, Eagan and Burnsville for retail and commercial trade. But we may be able to determine, through market analysis and controlled development, a market niche which can be developed or enlarged so we can create our own "market". This may be a key factor in development in Rosemount. B. Data. What data will be needed to develop a plan and where will we get it? Existing data on sales, market, penetration, existing businesses/services in Rosemount. Demographics. Demographic data including, but not limited to, market population, population growth projections, transportation information on transportation networks, start destination data, employment data, household income data will be needed. Development. Possibilities for types of development, size of downtown, financing alternatives, development management (who plays what role). Downtown Development Organizational Meeting Page 3 C. Goals to establish which effect the final development picture including: ` 1) Costs of development. Don't develop a pie in the sky plan which will never be obtained because of costs. If the plan is unrealistic it will never happen; 2) Impacts of implementing the plan. Don't draw up a plan that will effect business owners, property owners, residents and customers so drastically that there will be such resistance to the plan that it won't happen. A plan must be accepted and gain support from those with the most at stake or it will not develop. 3) Standards for development/redevelopment must be both reasonable and at the same time reflect a quality that represents what we want people to see as "Rosemount". Development standards should provide guidelines to property owners, business operators and potential developers which present a reflection of what the community sees themselves as and yet must be realistically achievable in a competitive retail/commercial market by not causing unrealistic demands on the cost of business operation. II. STRATEGIES Strategies to use in creating the plan. The group discussed ideas on what they felt would be areas that the plan would have to address for the plan to be successful. Some of these are negative issues or "problems" that the plan would have to address and are seen as obstacles in implementing a downtown development plan. Some of these are positive issues or conditions which are perceived as supportive of developing a plan now. Positive Considerations: A. Port Authority. Establishment of a Port Authority in the City will allow the City to: 1) Evaluate available financing options 2) Evaluate all alternatives for City Assistance using the expanded limits of city power for economic development. B. Desire for Improvement. There currently exists tremendous community support for improving the City's downtown and working towards this goal. This will lead Downtown Development Organizational Meeting Page 4 to a greater chance of success in implementing any plan. C. New Developer/Expansion. Expansion of existing involvement and development of a plan should bring interest by new developers and/or expanded involvement of existing business owners who want to expand their businesses in the community. 1) Incentive packages which provide meaningful but realistic support to developers will have to be developed. 2) Reorganization of staff and greater emphasis on economic development may be necessary to utilize existing city financial and development authority to support developers/development. D. Sense of Community. The group focused quite clearly on the idea of how the proper development of the downtown could reflect "who we are" as a community. 1) Sense of community must be developed and reflected in the downtown. There seems to be a strong feeling in the community that the "downtown", especially in Rosemount is vitally important in creating and maintaining this strong "sense of community . " 2) The diversity of Rosemount (i.e. residential, rural, heavy industry, metro location, rural ties) must somehow be maintained and the downtown which is developed should help in reflecting that diversity. E. Needs. Focus on the real needs of both businesses and residents. It is important that the downtown represent a viable opportunity for business development but that it also satisfies the needs of our residents. In order to insure that it does the following should be utilized. 1) Surveys of residents and businesses 2) Town meetings to gain input from the general public 3) Joint task force of residents and business people Downtown Development Organizational Meeting Page 5 Negative Considerations: Obstacles to development which must be addressed to insure success. A. Cost of Change. To gain developer, property owner and business support. 1) Financial resources must be available. 2) Leadership must be in place to provide direction to implementation and management. B. Communication. Lack of communication now was seen as a obstacle. Better communication in the community was seen as a major element in developing the downtown and more extensive use of: 1) Cable TV, and 2) Local newspaper, was emphasized. C. Cost of Buildings and Land. Any new development and redevelopment of existing property will of course require acquisition of land/buildings. The cost of land in Rosemount is rising and it is seen as a deterrent to development. Consideration of these costs must be realized and dealt with. D. Funding. Funding for capital improvement and on going operational expenses are key factors in business development. Sources and opportunities for funding must be sought out and defined. We must look to: 1) What funding is already available. 2) What other alternatives can be created. E. Stakeholders in the development/redevelopment may actually stymie the development of a plan and its implementation. In order to gain their support we must: 1) Identify where the stakeholders would be in conflict with the plan; and 2) Insure that an effort is made to analyze a true cross section -of all the stakeholders so we understand their needs and address those needs. Downtown Development Organizational Meeting Page 6 III. STEERING COMMITTEE In order to give direction to the development of the plan itself and in the future the success of its implementation, the group agreed that a steering committee be established. The group further felt that this committee itself should: 1. Be made up of 9 to 11 people 2. That they be appointed by and report to the City Council 3. That the appointments be made by the City Council no later than February 15, 1992. 4. That the committee utilize the plan development to outline the scope of their duties and responsibilities. To further assist the City Council in these appointments to a steering committee, a list of suggested candidates to serve on the committee as follows was compliled: John Lock" Anne Aune Ray Knutson Ed Dunn -� Ken Talbert Richard Barnes Jerry Fluegel Beth Willcox Ed Howard Steve Toombs Joe Walsh Ron Pederson Bill Mawe Greg Klaussen Paul Eggan Dick Hanson - IV. SUMMARY Sheila Klassen Ed Barloon Ruth Fagerwaldt Steve Jilk Marcia Rousch Harry Willcox John Edwards Bob Goldstrand Scott Rynerson Mrs. Kurt Gundacker High School Students -6 Don Sinnwell Bill Norris Tracie Pechonick Lee Knutsen Karl Biewald 1. The group recommended moving ahead to work on a downtown development plan. 2. A steering committee should be formed with 9 to 11 members to scope out the plan and develop it. 3. The committee should be formed by February of 1992 and it should report to the City Council. Downtown Development organizational Meeting Page 7 4. Issues which will support and others which will be obstacles to the development and implementation of a plan were identified. 5. The City Council is seen as the lead organization in this process and the group looks to the City Council to move ahead with it. Staff Recommendations: Following is a suggested process I am providing for City Council's consideration to move ahead with the downtown planning process. DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT PLAN PROCESS 1. Appointments should be made to the Steering Committee by the March 2, 1992 City Council meeting. 2. Schedule meeting(s) of Steering Committee to discuss the two following options the downtown development process could follow. A decision as to which process to follow would be desired by the end of April. The two directions being referred to are as follows: Track #1. In House Plan Development Coordination Responsibility: Staff Cost: Up to $10,000 Time Frame: 12 - 15 months In this scenario a majority of the work would be done by in-house staff. This would include administrative, planning, public works, engineering, building and parks and recreation staff. In addition, police and fire personnel would have to be involved at certain stages. In this track, the City would expend fewer funds than if a consultant were used to facilitateand develop the plan. In addition, staff can rely on existing relationships and provide a historical perspective. However, the time involved for staff to coordinate and develop the downtown plan would be extensive. Staff risks "re -inventing the wheel" by engaging in a new process that has already been created and streamlined by consultants. In addition, staff may appear as another level of control in a project which is very important to residents and business owners, and finally this track would not completely forego the use of consultants for certain aspects of the plan. It is staff's opinion that up to $10,000 would still be needed for consultant fees to complete studies such as financing programs and architectural guidelines. In addition, staff is already extremely busy with the day to day items and other special projects which could cause the downtown development plan to take a minimum of 12 to 15 months to complete. Track #2. Consultant Plan Development Coordination Responsibility: Consultant Cost: $25,000 Time Frame: 6 - 9 months In this scenario a consultant would be responsible for coordination of the downtown development plan. The individual/firm would facilitate and assist the Steering Committee in preparing the downtown plan. This would include utilizing staff wherever needed. In this case the City would be requested to expend additional funds to hire a consultant, however, an individual/firm experienced in the development of downtown plans through the committee process could be utilized. A consultant would offer flexibility and objectivity that would compliment staff and committee experience and resources. The foremost advantage beyond expertise is the time that would be needed to complete the downtown development plan. A consultant would be able to coordinate the committee and the work that needs to be completed and keep the group focused. Thereby, the plan could be completed in a much shorter time frame. In addition, use of a consultant can remove any bias from the role of facilitator and would remove the perception that staff is directing the plan in the direction staff wishes. The start-up time for the use of a consultant would include preparation of requests for proposals (RFP's), interviews of consultants and selection. Staff would be able to coordinate the selection process with the Steering Committee. Once a consultant was selected, the actual planning process could begin. Please note: The costs and time frames associated with each of the tracks does not take into consideration implementation of a completed plan. Funding: In addition, sources of funding will also need to be determined. The Port Authority (EDA) has budgeted some funds for the development of the downtown plan ($12,000) and may be able to commit more. It is my hope that the Rosemount Chamber of Commerce, in their steadfast desire to obtain a functional downtown plan, will play an active role in the plan process by committing their time and financial resources to assist in its successful completion. We believe that it is imperative that as many people as possible feel a sense of real ownership in the plan.