The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About5.e. Central Business District Guidelines � � �� • � • �,, ��,� s�c� � ��l�l� O ��;�:.i,� ;E, sr w �; `� � � r:�_��.F�M��i_�r��r. n+rNr�r < <n ��,�oe,t�� y� >�7y,�� / yJ ' S�.;�,� " �'4.�s�s../I`�.�ZiCi-� 61,- a1:1 �1411 �. Agenda item 5e TO: Mayor, City Council, City Administrator , FR�M: Dean Johnson, Director of Community I)evelopment UATE: February 16, 1989 SUBJ: Central Business District Guidelines At the February 1, 1989 Regular Meeting, the City C�uncil questioned what kinds of ordinances and what types of procedures esist for the evalu�tion and impternentation Qf "buitding design guideiines" for the dawntown area. We briefly discussed whaE options may he applicable for our purposes. Steve Jilk suggested that staff: pall some other cities to deterrnine what has taken �laee in other areas, review rnethods of getting these guidelines and recammencl a process t� sei these guideli�es for Rosemount. Wc developed a brief tist of questions and a fairly t�road iist of cit'res for ihe purposes of our survey. Tracie Pechanick has been rnaking the contacis with the various cities over tbe past week. I have atsn as�ec# Mike Wozniak t� de�icate time, as is available, in a much broader approaeli to �his issue. SpeciCically, f�tike wili be condueting a review of the literature an Ihc many facets oi� "�c�uvnt��vn design." With the help of the Town Meetings, UrGan Design Tearn and Citizen Attitucie Survey, the City Council has heard loud and clear the resaonding theme of "sm�ll town atmosphere." Inherent and inse�arable wiEh this quality in Rosemount is the dawntown. This is not new. The small town icieai was identified in the citizen participation process in the 1972 Comprehensive Guide Plan. It was re-em�hasized and even more c(early stated in the 1981 Comprehensive Guide Plan. We see the current public input process as a rcinforcement of Ehe �qeneral goals, objectives and golicies that have been in piace for many years. We also realize th�t this is an op�ortunity to evaluate more spccific policies to profect and enhance the character and image o( the downtown -- to someh�w preserve that s}�ecial identity amidst significan[ developrr�ent chaltenge and gr�wth. While specific commentary anci pers�nal input re�arciing builcling design, aesihetirs and architectural �reference may have brou�ht this issue back into f�cus, 1 am cc�ncerned that we CI� t10C ovcrbc�k other ec}nsidrr�tions that m�y have equs�l or grcater beazing on rnaintaining that downtown charaeter, in other words, i v�c�uld ent�hasize that we research, evaluate anci im�lement "downtc�wn" guidelines, nat just "design" guidelines. This may Sound like semantics; hc�wecer, I ihink ��e m��t evaluate a camprehensive set c�f guidelines. This ci�es n�t shun or de-emphasi7e known interests in architecturat design; ralher, it emphasizes the im��rt�nce c�f establishing both design and functional criteria as the hasis [or any �uidelines. Attached are preliminary findings Erom Tracie's pl��ne sur�=ey. `i'racie is als� preparing a written synopsis c�f her conversatit�ns �vith other citie�. We wciuld likc to have an adeqyate ��}�ortunity to comtiine this infc�rmation, the aitilucie survey and Mike's research into a set of ot�ser��ati�ns fc�r HRA anc� t'ouncit re�=iew. At tha[ time we �vill be in a Mefter }�c�sition to detcrti�ine wh�t �alicies a��iear most ap�ropria[e, what format they shoutd l�e put into arrci Kzh�► shr�ul�i prepare the actual "product" for ada�tion. �% , . . . . � .. • � DESIGN GUIDELINE POLL This poll regards the CBD Design Guidelines, if any used by cities in �ur arca. The foltowing is a listing of chose cities which partici�ated as well as their repsonses to the questions asked of them. Chanhassen New Brighlon Chaska N�rthfield Cottage Grove Osseo Edina Richfield Farmington Rosemount Fridley Stillwater Hastings Wayzata Hopkins WesE St. Pau1 Lakeville White Bear Lake Long Lake QUESTIONS: i) Are there any design eontrols for buildings that are exclusive to your Central Business Distriet? IF NOT GU TO #9 YES - 9 NO - 14 ' 2) Are these controls based upon p�rticular architectural or historical values or on certain time periods or sEyles (ie. Do existing guidelines restrict appearance to insure the reflection of any specific style or period, eic.�? Historical - 5 Mixture - 3 Modern/Urban - 1 3) Are guidelines iimited to rehab of Hisioric Register buildings only or do they apply ihroughout a designated "district"? Guidelines apply in general - 7 Guidelines only apply to designate�l district . 2 � 4) Is there a designafed "Historic District"? Percentage/signifieance of "old � or historic" buildings? No measurable percentage of historic bidgs. - 7 Yes "Historic District"I approx. 7 biocks - 1 Yes "Historic District"/ apprax. 2 hlocks - 1 5) Are there any specific prohibitions (ie. No contemporary structures allowed, a certain kind of style or material that is not atlowed)? No - 5 Yes - 3 No, but prohibitians are desired - i E I .. � � � . � . . � . . . 6) Who reviews/determines com�tiance with dc.si�natcci guidetines? Speeial Review Board - 5 City Staf f - 3 City Council - i 7) How were guidelines developed? Were they the resuit of any s�ecific effort or process? City Staff/Council - 4 Speciat Review Board - 3 Consultant - 1 Don't Knaw - 1 8) Have the controls whirh are in existence caused any contraversy among those who are required to follow the guidelines? Have the guidelin�s ever been chaltenged? (before the Cauncil; in a Ce�urt of Law)? No, never challenged - 8 Yes, chaltenged City Staff(Councii - 1 9) If no controls exist, was there any process/evaluation that lead ta there . being no controls? , No - 9 Yes - 1 (decided to use Special Use Permits inatead of forming Design Guidelines for the CBD) . lfl) What makes the CBD work (or not work)? ed��t� 11) Are there any other concerted efforts, past or present, that may have led to some other ef�arts to strengthen the CB}� (ie. pedesfrian, parking, tighting, street, landscaping or beautification rather then buiiding design emphasis)� Beauty/aestheticstlandscaping - 9 Traffic flow within CBD - 5 Unifarmity of Character - 4 Location of CBD - 2 � Retail - 2 • Subsidies being offered - 2 Pride in Community (clean) - 1 12) In any possible discussion of what conirols were or were nat implemented, what was the �roeess (ie. pul�iic involvement, outside consultant role, city stafflcouncil)'? City Staff/Councit - 8 Special Committee - 6 Consuttant - 2 Nothing Done - 2 i � � . � . . � � . � � . . � . . � . . � ..1 13) Any insight or comments? What is your view on Design Controt in the � CBD? - General Comments Combined: - Make desi�n guiclelines flexibte and realistic ' - It is difficult to make them lega}ly binding - CompaEable uses are important in the CBD - Must allow for variety - Must pay for control (through subsidies} - Communication is very important - Record progress or lack thereof - Make sure there is a good reason for doing things a particular way - Cantrol the visibte aspects of the CBD {ie. signage) - Treat poEential developers fairty - Too much controi will scare devel��ers away