6.0 HPSR 09-09-2004ITEM ~ 6.
City
E
fiver
MEMORANDUM
TO: Housing & Redevelopment Authority
FROM: Heidi Steinmetz, Assistant Director of Economic Development '1"I
DATE: August 2, 2004
SUBJECT: Update on Redevelopment Plan for Downtown North of Hwy
10
Attachments
• Aerial photos with notes from June 30, 2004 Work Session
o Study Area Boundary
o Long-term Vision
Background
On June 30, 2004, the HRA held a visioning work session to begin developing a plan for
downtown north of Hwy 10. The attached aerial photos with notes reflect the following two
tasks completed by the HRA:
1. Define the study area boundary
2. Express along-term vision for the study area
Issue
Staff is working on the following items to present to the HRA in October 2004:
Concept Options
Based on the study area boundary and long-term vision of the HRA, staff will develop two
or three concept options for the area.
Past Research
Research of most areas downtown was completed in 2001 for downtown redevelopment
planning, including the following three analyses:
• Market Analysis
• Historical Significance Analysis
• . Building Condition Analysis
~ aY - ~
~ ~~~ R 1 f ~ ~ ~ ~~
a7M
f A[M,'~
Q I ,'"T ~» ~ x f ' ~3
~~ i ~ i ;
~~~ ~krTA ~ R ~~~444 ~.'^T
r i ~ s
._`f f *~
~~ / t'rY ~~i~ f:
~ dMr
r ~~+~~. m
t ,~
r
R'x ~~.~
~{ ,
} f 1
h, y~
,! ~'.~ ~ r
~
~
'
y°"a
~ r s .. .~
w~. .~
,,.~
~
~ i~~Vpr
~
.
f
ga.s Lt :.w ~ }~ ~
t
y., s "~" .
~
.:
..,..~..
~~,j
~.~`r i• »..J
.,
r~
~
x'
t
; I
ip*~~~ A' }.
:~ ~w, a
~
~7
~i t?
~
' N~ i . ,.
3 ~ ;.
• ~~r n4 ~~ ~ ~~
4 E i ~ ~ ~ N~ T ', ~'~
'~'h.sax7 ., fr ~:~
s~ ~
~ - 4. f ~
~
i~ 1
~`
,
, ,
~ : ~
-
i ~~'3'1f`r ~ `f
.. ~~~ ~ ~ ~
~ _ ~,
.
T 1~.4,~ 4_w..e...w A,~i
. a. y,~.~: ..
~. ^ "A
Y ~ ~ { .. ~~~
~~fi~''~
~a..~
A '
s ~ ~'
Y ~ , ~~
~,~~~~ Y ~ ~ 3~ i J
'~ 4 ,~ '
'
~ ~
1 ~'~
~
~
~ ~~ ~~
w ~
~< ~ ~.t .C~.
~.x ~.. i r.
t .- v
ii
ii ~ ~y,
f ~ ~ rC k~'~.~it f •~ir i~ f tir{ y~ ~r~ .i 1
<.,Y: W. ~ ~ ~;is, » " ~~ ~,~. ~ ~ ,~~ S "'888SSS«,,, ~an?91 , as L . ~r '" ~u
'~"~ i 1 ~ ~ '..
4
xw.~ ~ l~f • ( 7
.may k a ~ '~ ~. ~ ~ ~ . i~ .,
y~ ~r..y~ vw. ~~~ , Y.~ ~"1(M..11 ~ r ~ rte. r~ .
f a ~ f
f "'!~ :5"
+It ~ ~' ~ ~ ~ r?S { K~ ti~i~~ Cj y alt ~ ~~~ » ~' C~ "'~ "'~ ~s
„~( ~ f ~,. »~. ~ ' ~ ~ ~.~' r Ztu t= ~~71~« ,~fa'~°.: ~~.r~t r....w a ~y '~.~r .'.
~ ~ lA ~r'+~~~ n
~ ~ f ~ ~~S:.r ~
,~;
:'v~:.i
`rC's..,r~; a ~:
•.
~ ~; My~ Y
~~i ~sr
K~. ~~
y'r ~~ r ,~
~3
~ ~
Reviewer Name & Date
ELK RIVER
DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE WORKSHEET
Tax ID Number:
Parcel Address:
Property Owner:
SHPO #:
^ NO SIGNIFICANCE
The above site or structure(s) meets the following criteria: Significance
High Med Low
1. It has character, interest, or value as part of the development, heritage
or cultural characteristics of the City of Elk River, State of Minnesota, or
the United States.
2. Its location is the site of a significant historic event.
3. It has yielded, or is likely to yield, information important in pre-history
or history.
4. It is associated with a person or persons who significantly contributed
to the culture and development of the City.
5. It embodies distinctive characteristics of an architectural style, period,
form, or treatment.
6. It represents the work of an architect or master builder whose
individual work has influenced the development of the City of Elk River.
7. It embodies elements of architectural design, detail, materials, or
craftsmanship which represent a significant architectural innovation.
8. Its unique location or singular physical characteristics represent an
established and familiar visual feature of a neighborhood, community, or
the City of Elk River.
* Notes/Comments on back side of worksheet.
S:\Downtown Revitalization\The Plan\HISTWKST.DOC
Wd Ob%ST~£0 b00Z/O2/60'~M'f0 ~N AWVS ~I+WSIH\Oi ~H 1~ 41aN\~17KIIQlWN ~0~~0\~5
N
oa oa g¢
~o ~~o ~o
~N~~ N~(~/) ON
o
brn U ~Z
V 1
T~~/~~
V 1
'~
!~
W
~T~~
1"„y
~~
T~~/~~
V1
~ o
O Q
WW^1
yl F7
v~ z°
~~
v
DO YOU THINK THAT BRUNSWICK
NEEDS A HISTORIC PRESERVATION
ORDINANCE?
I
F~ ~ ~~~;
~ ~~
Learn about and express your views on the
proposed preservation ordinance at the public
meetings conducted by Mayor A.C. Knight.
AUGUST 1 •' Glynn County Middle
School, 7:30 p.m.
A(,J(jUgZ' 21 -• Risley Center Middle
School, 7:30 p.m.
SEPTEMBER 5 •• Burroughs-Mollette
School, 7:30 p.m.
-~ -~~--
.~ _ - -
~- --L- _--- ~. __.. .,__~.,__-
Copies of the proposed ordinance are available
at City Hall and also at the meetings.
REMEMBER
Your opinion counts !
Town meetings can help
educate Zoca! resu3~~ts about
the designation process.
ee roads, sew ,and
add:; to lan iU prob-
lmakes us ore auto-
it, which ontributes
to pouu on and congesnon.
This situa ion - ntributes to
the decay o ~ i Her cities and
the unwise of infrastmc-
ture, land, an other non-
renewable esour s. Historic
district evitalizati should
be a p t of a compr ensive
tom unity recycling effort
and environmental policy.
} The educational benefits o
creating local districts are t e
ame as those derived fr m
y historic preservation a ort.
istaric districts give a angi-
b link to the past, a gay to
br ng meaning to Kist ry and
to eople's lives. Distr~cts help
ex ain the develops ent of a
pla ,the source of i spiration
and technological advances.
The are a record ~ f ourselves
and ur commons ies.
~. A lot 1 district c. ~ result in a
posits a economi impact from
touris A hi toric district
that is aesthetically cohesive
and w 11 pros oted can be a
commu Zity's Host important
attracts n. tudies by the
U.S. Tr .'el Data Center in
Washinb o D.C. indicate
that too 'sm is the third
largest re it industry in the
United S • tes and that visit-
ing histo is sites is one of the
most pc pu ar activities for
tourists St dies have also
found at eritage travelers
spend ore ime and more
money than ther kinds of
travel rs.` Th retention of
histor c areas as away to
attrac tourist ollars makes
good conomic ense.
6. The n otection o local historic
distri is can enh~ nce business
rec tment pote tial. Vibrant
tom ercial core and attrac-
tive neighborho ds attract
new business a d quality
ind stry. Compani s continu-
a11 relocate to co munities
th offer their worke s a higher
q lity of life, which 's greatly
e hanced by success 1 local
preservation progra s and
stable historic districts
7. ocal districts provide socia
a d psychological benefit .
Th comfort found in hunr, ~-
scal environments, the d sire
to liv and work in attr ~tive
surrou dings, the em tional
stabilit gained by n intain-
ing arec gnizable a d walka-
ble neigh orhood and the
galvanizing effect of commu-
nity-based ou action are
all direct resu of most local
historic distri ventures. The
district des' ~n~ ion process
also allow citiz ns to rake
part in d tiding t e future of
their co munities. sense of
empo ennent an confi-
den develops whe com-
m sty decisions are made
t rough a structured p tici-
atory process rather an
behind closed doors or .v b-
out public comment.'
How to Increase
Community Support
An easy way to launch a public
awareness campaign for creating
a historic district and establishing
a local design review process is to
form abroad-based task force or
study committee comprising indi-
viduals from every walk of life. It
is imperative that property own-
ers from the proposed district be
involved from the begimling.
Task force members should be
hard workers, civic-minded, sup-
portive, and willing to learn. This
task force should be officially rec-
ognized by a resolution passed by
the local governing body to give
it credibility. It may be helpful for
an existing organization, such as a
historical society, downtown
development organization, of
neighborhood association, to
approach local leaders with the
idea. The task force will then
become the primary group to push
for the creation of local districts
.................................................................................PR•E•SERVAT•ION•AO.Ot~
some members may eventu-
_.y be candidates for appointment
to the preservation commission.
Begin early to build public
and political support. Education
should target a variety of groups
throughout the community. From
political leaders to schoolchild-
ren, awide range of citizens will
be both affected by and inter-
ested in the process of creating
historic districts. Some groups to
target in this educational cam-
paign would include:
• Elected officials
• Municipal department heads
• Media
• Business community
• Developers
• Legal community
• Homeowners and neighbor-
hood organizations
Downtown and commercial
property owners
• Religious leaders
• Realtors and real
estate brokers
• Architects, landscape
architects, and designers
• Civic clubs
• Educational leaders
and schoolchildren
• preservatiun community
Your creativity is the only
limit in developing educational
tools. Communities have had
success in using any combination
of the following:
• Town meetings, workshops,
and work sessions
• Fact sheets and flyers
• Press releases
Contests
• Festivals, tours,
and special events
• Booths and exhibits
• Banners and posters
• School curricula
• Slide and video presentations
• Lecture series
• Neighborhood coffee klatches
• How-to seminars
• Websites
Many communities have found
a combination of educational
techniques to be most successful.
Clear, concise, and easy-to-under-
stand materials are important to
the success of any effort. This
approach to community education
can be repeated when a specific
proposal is before the governing
body. The proponents for adopt-
ing anordinance, designating a
district, or implementing any
preservatiun strategy must be
prepared to testify in large num-
bers to support their cause.
Always assume that those who
uppose the idea will also be there
in force. District proponents are
more likely to reach their goals
and community consensus when
they are well versed in the bene-
fits of local districts and prepared
to co:mter possible opposition.
Community education is a col-
laborative effort. Just as preserva-
tion planning cannot occur in
the isolation of one program or
under the auspices of one agency,
department, or organization, nei-
ther can a community's efforts to
educate residents and political
leaders about a local preservation
ordinance. The collaboration
between like-minded individuals,
civic groups, merchant and neigh-
borhood assuciations, and profes-
sional organizations makes the
task of community-wide public
relations an easier one.
Often a local nonprofit preser-
vation organization or historical
society is the most logical group
to coordinate the activities of
district supporters. The role
played by the nonprofit as the
predominant district advocate is
a tremendously important one.
The nonprofit serves as the
patient educator before the ordi-
nance comes up for considera-
tion by elected officials. It is the
chief organizer to lobby for the
passage of preservation legisla-
tion, which include., arranging
for informed and supportive tes-
timony at public meetings and
hearings. The duties of the local
nonprofit do not stop with ordi-
nance adoption. Its proactive
involvement should be ongoing
and might include the following
activities: conducting straw polls,
completing historic resource sur-
veys, developing district aware-
ness campaigns, and sponsoring
planning studies before, during,
and after district designation
occurs. Many nonprofits extend
their role as the primary advocate
for the commission and suggest
names to fill vacancies as terms
expire on the commission, they
sometimes provide staff assistance,
often serve as mediator in disputes,
and participate in commission
training and goal setting exercises.
Althot~.gh essential to success-
ful local preservation efforts, col-
laboration is not always the
easiest thing to sustain. Fierce
turf battles can develop between
groups that share similar goals.
Shortsighted cummission mem-
bers and local planners, as well as
unproductive nonprofit staff or
board members, can get caught
up in miscommunication and
needless disagreements. This
always hurts the credibility of
local preservationists and can
lead to the ultimate demise of the
entire local preservation process.
PRESERVATION BOOKS
Gaining Support for Historic District Designation
n 2000, Denver created a new historic district complementing have to repay it. The Downtown Denver Partnership, the busi-
Iits other commercial districts, Lower Do~mtown and Latimer ness association that typically opposed preservation regula-
Square. By meeting individually with the affected property own-
ers and responding to their concems about the proposed district,
Historic Denver and its partners were able to tum potential
skeptics and adversaries into supporters. Here is how they did it.
The city convened a committee of preservationists, planners,
and business leaders to chart along-term plan for downtown.
While the preservationists urged the creation of a historic dis-
trict with strong protections, property owners wanted nothing
that would tie their hands or discourage future development. An
informal group that included Historic Denver trustees and sup-
porters and a staff member from the National Trust's
Mountains/Plains Office began meeting one-on-one with own-
ers of 45 significant downtown buildings. During these meetings,
a fundamental complaint emerged. Owners who had chosen to
retain and restore their historic buildings felt like "suckers," as
one put it, because the sites were taxed at the rate of "highest
and best use." In some cases, owners of small historic buildings
were taxed as if their site held a 50-story luxury skyscraper!
Members of Historic Denver and the Denver Planning
Office crafted asolution-a 20-year tax rebate plan for prop-
erty owners who maintained their historic buildings. This tax
benefit would apply only to buildings that had been restored,
and any future owner who later demolished the building would
lions, warmed up to the idea.
But concems remained. Owners of noncontributing proper-
ties and unbuilt lots in the proposed district feared being put
under the same landmark commission review that applied to
the historic properties. At the same time, preservationists fret-
ted that some of the city's icon buildings-the 1892 Brown
Palace Hotel, the Italianate D.F. Tower, and the 1887 Trinity
Church-would remain unprotected because they were each a
few blocks outside the district's geographic borders.
Then Denver's planning director proposed a unique
approach-a historic district of noncontiguous buildings.
Historic district protections would apply to 43 buildings
deemed to be the most significant, including a few outside the
district's borders. Owners of those buildings would need
approval from the city's landmarks commission for exterior
changes, and demolitions would be allowed only if the owner
could prove financial hardship. But there would be no restric-
tions for noncontributing properties beyond the city's required
review for all new urban construction.
With support from property owners, the Downtown Derrver
Partnership, and the planning department, everything fell into
place. The city council unanimously approved the district des-
ignation in December 2000.
- By Kerr! Rubmqu, editor ojnationa! Trasr Forum News.
The ahooe sidebar first appeared in the MavOune 200] Forum News
The need for property owner
and resident awareness does not
end once the historic desib Zation
occurs. The most effective com-
munit}- education programs are
continuous. In fact, it is especially
important to make sure that pur-
chasers of property in a historic
district after it is designated knov~
that their property is subject to
restrictions. Recognising this, the
Baltimore City Commission for
Historical and Architectural
Preservation (CH.~P) conducted
a nationwide survey of selective
communities with preservation
commissions in 1992 to deter-
mine what methods are being
used by other local preservation
commissions to enhance property
owner awareness of the meaning
of historic designation. Survey
responses indicated numerous
methods including:
working with real estate agents
to inform and educate the real
estate community about his-
toric properties and what his-
toricdistrict status means;
including historic district
status in real estate multiple
listings;
sending annual notices (list of
addresses and maps) to title
companies, real estate agen-
cies, and relevant public
agencies to advise of all desig-
nated addresses;
mailing notice of historic dis-
trictdesignation and commis-
sion information with annual
tax bill, water bill or new
water account bill;
mailing annual commission
newsletter to all historic neigh-
borhood associations notif}~in~
reminding owners of record
(and tenants if possible) of
historic district designation,
guidelines, and permit require-
ments (through use of tax
records data base);
• forming neighborhood associ-
ation "tt~elcome committees"
to distribute commission guide-
lines to new homeowners;
and
.................................................................................PR•E•SER\'AT•Ii~N•RC~•~~K
implementing city award pro-
gram for owners who have
done significant work on their
property.
In Iowa Ciry, Iowa, where a
strong preservation movement
developed following a destructive
wave of urban renewal in the
1970s, the local historic preserva-
tion commission instituted an
active public education program
to keep citizens apprised of
preservation issues on a regular
basis. This includes sending wel-
come and notification letters to
new residents of historic districts
and annual updates to other dis-
trict residents. Among its
numerous projects to maintain
community awareness, the com-
mission publishes a historical
guide map to the city; sponsors
Historic Preservation Week,
which has featured a preservation
,wards ceremony held annually
.ice 1984; cultivates partner-
ships with neighborhood associa-
tions; and hosts a website for
instant access to local preserva-
tion programs and information.
Through these efforts, the com-
mission has fostered significant
support for its objectives and its
activities, and Iowa City now has
six historic districts, 37 local his-
toric landmarks, and the state's
first urban conservation district.
Understanding
Historic Districts
Much confusion, misinformation,
and suspicion surround the issue
of creating local historic districts
and designating local landmarks.
Even the terminology is mislead-
ing and ambiguous at times. The
apprehension of typical property
owners is understandable. Their
questions and concerns stem from
wing only a vague awareness of
community enhancement pro-
grams and historic preservation.
Most Americans do not under-
stand the specifics of municipally-
based design review and historic
resource protection strategies and
may have difficulty distinguishing
local preservation endeavors from
state or national programs.
The average citizen might
wonder why a particular area
should become a local historic
district in addition to being listed
in the National Register of
Historic Places or in a state regis-
ter of historic places. A historic
district can be a local district, a
National Register district, astate-
designated district, or all three.
Each type of designation is a use-
ful preservation tool and, while
they are different, they share
some common characteristics.
Since every state does nut have a
state register and since there is
great variety among those that
do, this booklet will address the
differences between local and
National Register districts only.
A National Register district is
any area of a community that has
been determined to be of historic
significance based on criteria
established by the U.S. Depart-
ment of the Interior (see
Appendix A). The National
Register is a federal designation
signifying that a building or site
has historic or archeological sig-
nificance to the nation. Such
designation dues not trigger any
restrictions on private property
owners. It may, however, call
upon federal agencies to consider
the impact of their activities on
historic sites before proceeding
with federally funded or licensed
projects. Preservation incentives,
such as historic rehabilitation tax
credits, are also available to qual-
ifying buildings in National
Register districts. The major func-
tion of a National Register district,
however, is simply to recognize
the historic significance of the
resources within it and to use this
information as a planning tool.
A local district is similar to a
National Register district in
many ways. The tw-o can be used
independently or cooperatively
to protect a community's resources.
Like the National Register dis-
trict, the local district identifies
historically and architecturally
significant buildings, but this
recognition can be based on
locally developed, rather than
national, criteria and policies.
Local significance, attitudes, and
contemporary events will affect
what a community views as impor-
tant. Because properties less than
50 years old are generally not eli-
gible for National Register list-
ing, the National Register may
not serve as a good measure for
identifying and evaluating more
recent character-defining devel-
opment in a community. It is,
therefore, possible to include in a
local district resources such as
cemeteries, religious institutions,
moved buildings, and properties
less than 50 years old, which
ordinarily are not considered
National Register-eligible.
The primary strength of local
designation is that it is tailored
to specific community needs and
provides greater protection for
local resources. The preservation
commission or other local govern-
ment body, through the design
review process, has the means to
assure that proposed major
changes are sympathetic to the
character of the district. Because
National Register listing does not
provide for a design review process,
properties listed only in the
National Register can be readily
and easily altered or demolished
by anyone not using federal funds.
National Register and local
designations can work together.
For example, an existing National
PR•ESERVATLON•B~~OKS ..................................................................................0
National Register Listing Follows Local Designation in Spokane
pokane's Corbin Park Local Historic District comprises a
Scharming collection of architecturally unique homes
around an Olmsted-designed city park that was once ahorse-
racing track. It is the only residential local historic district in
all of Eastern Washington.
The idea for a Corbin Park district began in 1988 when an
inventory of local resources identified a possible historic dis-
trict, and both national and local nominations were consid-
ered for Corbin Park. (The district had been placed on the
state register in 1980.) Residents were strong-minded about
wanting more protection than a national district could offer,
however, they were faced with an arduous process to obtain
both listings with limited assistance froth city staff. So they first
concentrated on the local district nomination since that
offered the greatest and most immediate protection. Research
gathered for that nomination could then be used to seek place-
ment in the National Register of Historic Places.
Local district designation is somewhat cumbersome in
Spokane, requiring signatures from at least 51 percent of the
property owners. Corbin Park residents would not settle for
just 51 percent support, however, and they kept canvassing the
neighborhood until they obtained signatures from 90 percent
of the property owners. Because of the large number of sup-
porters for the district, the Spokane Register designation was
granted by the city council. The National Register designation
came shortly thereafter.
Corbin Park residents say that they don't regret the extra
effort taken to create the local district and accompanying
design guidelines, because they can see the benefits as the
neighborhood around them changes and the houses on the
park remain intact, thanks to their guidelines.
Reflecting back on the two-year process and the choice to
become Spokane's only local district, resident Mac McCandless
observed, "local register designation has been a tremendous
benefit in several ways. First, it has given the district credibility
and a voice to the city/county landmarks commission, which
serves as liaison to City Hall regarding planning, development
and protection. Secondly, it has served as aconsensus-building
vehicle among the residents in the district making us a stronger
and more close-knit neighborhood. Third, local nomination
served as a catalyst to national nomination."
- By Teresa L3rum, Spokane CitylCounty Historic Yresereation Director
Register district can serve as the
basis for designating a local dis-
trict, perhaps with boundary lines
altered as research, cotnmuniry
needs, and local politics dictate.
The National Register program is
also a credible way to identify a
community's historic resources
while local district designation
can further protect and enhance
them. Thus, what the National
Register helps to identify, the
local district helps to protect.
Because the listing process is
often less invobed, less bureau-
cratic, and less time consuming
for a publicly supported local dis-
trictthan for a National Register
district, local designation may
precede National Register activ-
ity. An existing local district can
provide the basis for a subsequent
National Register nomination.
The order in which a community
pursues designation and whether
dual designation is useful varies
according to local circumstances.
Differences in research required,
property owner consent, SHPO
and National Park Service con-
currence, and costs will all play a
role in determining what types of
designation are appropriate.
Ho 'Are District
Bout ary Lines
Estahlt~hed? '~
Pr~servatio ~sts, planners, design
professionals, lected officials,
and neighborho advocates are
faced with the ch enge of set-
ting boundaries fora vide range
of historic;''districts. Hu dreds of
question arise when distr is are
propos d. Which buil 'ngs
shoul be included? Sho ld
vacant lots be excluded? What
abou
pta
will
distri
The
lems aref obvious.
Solving em can
munity m htmare
not have a be th
a logical prc ess
the edges of 's »
The visual ~ d
character ofaan
historic di~,fricts,
re
hec~me a com-
~, Jut this does
t
ycase. There is
for determining
-ic districts.
environmental
area, especially
omes from the
~n natural and
man-tm de features That rela-
tions p is vital to u erstanding
why ne area is differe t, perhaps
ev better, than anc her. The
it ividualized design o uildings
nd landscapes, the se lement
patterns of communities, the
PRESERVATION BOOKS
t contemporary intrusio ?
ld a buffer zone surround t e
ct? Should National Re~`ster
daries and local zoning or
ping boundaries differ?E'What
appen to the properties in a
c after designation?.~~