Table of Contents

Page Number

Project History and Introduction 1

Part 1 – The Current State of the Business District 1

Market Area Demographics 1

Population Change 2

Key Facts 3

Demographics and Regional Retail Performance 3

Key Facts 5

Regional Retail Economics 5

Key Facts 8

Other Socio-Economics Issues 8

Previous and Related Planning Initiatives 8

Downtown Development Priorities from the County Economic Roadmap 11

Public Input – Surveys of the Community 11

Surveys 11

Merchant Survey 12

High Priority Merchant Suggestions 12

Moderate Priority Merchant Suggestions 12

Low Priority Merchant Suggestions 13

Shopper Survey 13

Key Facts 15

Physical Development Issues: Land Use, Zoning Streets and Building Utilization 16

Physical Development Issues 16

Land Use and Zoning 16

Streets and Landscape 19

Building Utilization/Building Façade/Commercial Features 19

Part 2 – Meadville Business District Strategy and Recommendations 24

Overall Goals 24

Urban Design Action Plan 25

Gateways 26

Public Space 28

Mill Run 30

Retail Core 30

Streetscapes 31

Parking 33

Key Initial Urban Design Actions 33

Business and Market Development Action Plan 34

Demographics 34

Zoning and Land Regulations 35

Main Street Program 36

Elm Street Program 37

Five-Year Business District Action Plan Summary 37

Year One 37

Year Two 38

Year Three 38

Year Four 39

Year Five 39

Tables

Population of Vernon Township, Crawford County, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 2

Age Groups, 1990 3

Comparative MHI: Selected Communities 4

Detailed Household Income: City of Meadville 1989 and 1999 4

1999 Household Income by Percentage: Central Crawford Region 5

Retail Sales in Crawford County 1997-2002 6

Retail Sales by Type: City of Meadville 1997-2002 7

Prepared Food and Beverage Sales, Crawford County 1997-2002 8

1993 Comprehensive Plan Recommendations – 2006 Status and Results 9

1997 BDAP Goals – 2006 Results/Status 10

1997 Buildings/Projects – 2006 Status/Results 10

Merchants Survey Response to Public Services in Downtown Meadville 12

Actions Business Owners Would Support 13

Shoppers’ Survey Responses 14

Typical Developer’s RFP Incentives and Requirements 30

Maps

City of Meadville Business District Action Plan Project Area Follows Page 9

City of Meadville Business District Action Plan Project Area Land Use Follows Page1 6

City of Meadville Historic District Follows Page 30
City of Meadville Business District Action Plan Gateway, Streetscape and Public

Space Priorities – Downtown Priorities Follows Page 26

City of Meadville Business Action Plan Priority Blocks for New Development Follows Page 29
City of Meadville Business District Action Plan Potential Main Street and Elm Street Areas Follows Page 32

Glossary of Terms

BID – Business Improvement District: A special sub-municipal taxing district where additional property taxes are only spent within the district.

BDAP: Common acronym for Business District Action Plan.

CONTEXT SENSITIVE DESIGN: A movement by traffic engineers to make street systems fit better into their surroundings.

CORE COMMUNITY: A planning term for older cities and boroughs that traditionally served as business and government centers.

ELM STREET PROGRAM: A Pennsylvania Department of Community and Economic Development Program to revitalize residential areas adjacent to downtowns in core communities.

HOMETOWN STREETS: A Pennsylvania grant program that uses federal transportation funds to improve sidewalks, streetlights, street furniture public spaces, and pedestrian safety in Pennsylvania’s older downtown areas.

Meadville Business District Action Plan Update

Project History and Introduction: This document represents an update to the City of Meadville Business District Action Plan (BDAP). The purpose of the BDAP is to serve as a relatively brief, action-oriented planning document.

As the title indicates, this is actually an update of an existing Business District Action Plan. That plan was prepared and adopted in 1997. This Plan attempts to build upon that foundation, rather than repeating that effort. The main difference in approach was a greater emphasis on urban design issues.

The decision to update the Business District Action Plan coincided with a multi-municipal comprehensive plan update that involved the City of Meadville, Vernon Township, Sadsbury Township, and Conneaut Lake Borough. This multi-municipal planning effort created the possibility for the City to play an active role in decisions about future growth and development in the greater region. Early in the process, local government officials from all four municipalities expressed a desire that Meadville remain a strong, vibrant core community. It is hoped that by integrating actions and policies from this document into the overall regional plan, it will be easier to pool resources and successfully implement this Plan.

The first part of the BDAP update looks at four issues:

· Market Area Demographics

· Regional Retail Economics

· Other Socio-Economic Issues

· Physical Development Issues

This section comprises a snapshot of existing conditions at the time of this update. The data collected was used to develop the actual Action Plan recommendations, which comprises Part 2 of this document. The Action Plan contains lists of possible activities, and an explanation of the specific public policies and actions for continuing the revitalization of the heart of Meadville.

Part 1 -- The Current State of the Business District

Market Area Demographics

The most basic measurement of retail capacity is the population of the Study Area. The number of people who comprise the market are important in calculating possible retail market size, and whether the market is growing or declining. Much of the following data was collected for the multi-municipal comprehensive plan background report.

Population Change: For the study communities of Conneaut Lake Borough, Meadville City, and Sadsbury and Vernon Townships, the population has been in a state of flux ever since 1960. In that year, Meadville was the major population center of the Central Crawford County Region, with 16,671 residents. It represented over 70 percent of the Study Area’s total population of 23,561. Roughly, one in three Crawford County residents lived in these four municipalities.

Twenty years later, the booming manufacturing economy of northwestern Pennsylvania had swelled the regional population to 25,361, an increase of 1,800 persons, or 7.7 percent; nearly twice the statewide population increase. Meadville lost population to 15,544 persons, or 6.8 percent; but the other three municipalities all saw sizable increases in residents. This includes a nearly 40 percent increase in Vernon Township’s population from 1960 to 1980.

However, the seeds of the Region’s decline were already planted by 1980. The beginning of the national recession of the early 1980s could be seen in western Pennsylvania in the mid-1970s, the most severe economic downturn nationally since the Great Depression. This recession was the catalyst for a large rust belt out-migration. Crawford County and the Study Area were not immune to this trend. The population of the four communities tumbled to 22,833 persons in 2000, a decline of 2,528 residents, or 10.0 percent. Meadville had the most significant decline over these twenty years in absolute terms, of 1,859 persons. Surprisingly, in percentage terms, Vernon Township’s decline of 13.4 percent was a bit larger than the 12.9 percent decline of the City. Sadsbury Township was the big winner over the last twenty years of the century, with an overall population increase of 239 persons, or 8.8 percent.

Population of Crawford Central Region, Crawford County, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
	1960	1970	Percent Change	1980	Percent Change	1990	Percent Change	2000	Percent Change
Conneaut Lake Borough	700	745	6.0	767	3.0	699	8.9	708	1.3
Meadville City	16,671	16,573	-0.6	15,544	-6.2	14,318	-7.9	13,685	-4.4
Sadsbury Township	1,601	2,221	38.7	2,702	21.7	2,575	-4.7	2,941	12.4
Vernon Township	4,589	5,264	14.7	6,348	20.6	5,605	-11.7	5,499	-1.9
Regional Totals	23,561	24,803	5.3	25,361	2.2	23,197	-8.5	22,833	-1.6
Crawford County	77,956	81,342	4.3	88,869	9.25	86,169	-3.0	90,366	4.2
Pennsylvania	11,319,366	11,793,909	4.9	11,863,895	0.6	11,881,643	0.1	12,281,054	3.4
Source: U.S. Census Bureau

Age patterns within a population have an enormous effect on future population growth. Populations with higher proportions of people beyond childbearing have more difficulty in replacing persons, and can begin declining. The next table compares the multi-municipal plan study communities with the county and state over the past two decennial census counts.

Age Groups, 1990
	Pennsylvania	Crawford County	Conneaut Lake Borough	Meadville City	Sadsbury Township	Vernon Township	Study Area
Under 5 Years	6.7%	6.8%	5.6%	5.5%	6.2%	5.3%	5.5%
5 to 19 Years	19.9%	22.8%	19.3%	22.1%	17.6%	18.2%	20.6%
20 to 34 Years	23.4%	21.0%	21.9%	24.5%	20.3%	19.4%	22.7%
35 to 64 Years	34.7%	34.0%	32.8%	28.5%	40.1%	39.0%	32.5%
65 Years and Older	15.4%	15.4%	20.5%	19.3%	15.7%	18.1%	18.6%
Total	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%
Age Groups, 2000
Under 5 Years	5.9%	5.9%	4.2%	5.5%	4.0%	5.0%	5.2%
5 to 19 Years	20.7%	22.0%	19.1%	21.1%	19.1%	17.7%	20.0%
20 to 34 Years	18.8%	17.7%	17.1%	23.6%	14.4%	15.2%	20.2%
35 to 64 Years	39.0%	38.7%	40.8%	31.0%	45.3%	43.9%	36.3%
65 Years and Older	15.6%	15.6%	18.8%	18.7%	17.1%	18.1%	18.3%
Total	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau

The first thing one sees is that there is a noticeable lack of young people in the overall community. Meadville itself fares better, but the bulk of the Allegheny College population is in this age group.

When looking at the individual communities, the low percentage in the young adult age group is troubling. In the two Townships and Conneaut Lake Borough, the size of the group is well below statewide norms. This is the age group that forms new families. They are very mobile until family formation begins, then the young adults tend to want consistency for their children, especially once schooling has begun. It makes future population expansion difficult without significant in-migration.

Key Facts

· The City faces a pattern of continual population loss. The reality for retail businesses is that the size of the local market is shrinking, and will be more dependent on the greater region and tourism.

· The Region now faces a long-term demographic crisis. If trends continue, the situation will not be one of a core community surrounded by demographic growth, but a rapidly declining city surrounded by stagnating townships.

· City Residents are much more likely to be elderly. From a market vantage, this creates opportunities in health-related businesses, and certain services.

· The City does maintain a large proportion of young persons, though many are associated with Allegheny College, and only part-time residents.

Demographics and Regional Retail Performance: From the perspective of planning for retail businesses and related services, a key statistic is household income. This will dictate how much potential

income residents of the market area have to spend on retail goods and service. It can also be used to establish marketing and geodemographic profiling measurements that move beyond how much a household has to spend and can project how the household will spend money.

Median household income for the City in the 1990 Census was $18,624. By the 2000 Census, this had changed to $25,402. Household income raised $6,778 over ten years. The economic performance of the City’s households stayed virtually constant to inflation (the adjusted 1990 Census median household income to 1999 dollars would be $25,453). However, the median remains the lowest in the Region.

Comparative MHI: Selected Communities
Community	MHI
Vernon Township	$38,264
Conneaut Lake Borough	$34,306
Greenwood Township	$35,250
Meadville City	$25,402
West Mead Township	$41,793
Hayfield Township	$39,702
Sadsbury Township	$38,207
Crawford County	$33,560

Since median household income is only a general indicator, it is useful to examine income by specific levels for the City’s households. The next table compares income for the last two census counts, with no adjustment for inflation.

Detailed Household Income: City of Meadville 1989 and 1999
	1989 Number	1989 Percent	1999 Number	1999 Percent	Number Change
Less Than $10,000	1,679	28.96	938	17.3	-741
$10,000 to $14,999	750	12.94	657	12.1	-93
$15,000 to $49,999	2,719	46.91	2,504	46.2	-215
$50,000 to $74,999	333	5.74	617	11.4	284
$75,000 to $99,999	165	2.85	336	6.2	171
$100,000+	151	2.6	361	6.7	210

It is interesting to note that while there are still large numbers of low income households, higher income households have risen significantly within the City.

This pattern of gaining high income households is confirmed when the City is compared to neighboring communities. The next table is from the Central Crawford Intergovernmental Action Plan. It compares

1999 (Census of 2000) annual household income for regional communities. Proportionally, Meadville residents are more likely to be at the upper or lower ends of the income spectrum, than in the middle.

1999 Household Income by Percentage: Central Crawford Region
Annual Income	Conneaut Lake	Crawford County	Sadsbury Township	Vernon Township	City of Meadville
Less than $10,000	3.9	5.3	2.5	2.2	8.6
$10-000-$14,999	3.9	4.8	4.0	3.5	6.8
$15,000-$24,999	12.2	14.9	13.4	13.9	18.1
$25,000-$34,999	19.3	16.5	17.6	14.0	13.3
$35,000-$49,999	21.5	20.9	16.4	21.8	10.8
$50,000-$74,999	22.1	21.8	22.7	23.0	18.2
$75,000-$99,000	14.9	8.8	9.5	12.5	9.9
$100,000-$149,999	0.6	4.8	6.5	5.7	6.6
$150,000+	1.7	2.2	3.1	3.5	3.5

Key Facts

· Residents of the City are much more likely to have low incomes than Regional residents. In simple terms, this means they will have less money to spend. For many retailers, this increases the dependency on the Region as a whole.

· At the other end of the spectrum, slightly over 10 percent of City residents enjoy an annual income of over $100,000 per year. This small, but crucial, demographic remains a significant local resource for retail market development.

· The missing local demographic among City residents are middle income households.

Regional Retail Economics

In addition to counting people and houses every ten years, the Census Bureau also conducts an economic census of various industries every five years. Since a business cycle can typically run seven years, this type of analysis can be valuable to analyze both long-term historic data, or to compare geographic data for more than one community, or a community within a county. For this study, the most important of these is the Census of Retail Trade, with secondary importance of the Service Industries Census of Food and Accommodations. One challenge is that there are changes to reporting and tabulation between economic census series years. Thus, in addition to normal Census weaknesses as a data source, there is sometimes difficulty making absolute direct correlations, due to changes in categorization and classification. However, the Economic Census Series remains one of the best analytical tools available.

When the Census of Retail Trade is examined, one of the most striking features is how much change has affected Meadville over the past 5 to 15 years. These trends began in the late 1980s. The 1993 City Comprehensive Plan notes that beginning in the early 1980s, the number of stores declined, but sales

rose. By 1987, the City was still the dominant retail center of Crawford County, with 45 cents of every retail dollar being spent within the City. By the 2002 Economic Census Series, this had fallen to 36 cents of every retail dollar (it is possible that through misreporting, this is actually as low as 30 cents of every retail dollar).

The next table compares City performance within the context of the County from 1997 to 2002.

Retail Sales in Crawford County 1997-2002
Place	1997 Stores	1997 Sales	2002 Stores	2002 Sales	Store Change	Sales Change
Meadville	148	$350,091,000	127	$279,797,000	-21	-$70,294,000
Titusville	65	$110,949,000	48	$82,698,000	-17	-$28,251,000
Balance of Crawford County	147	$167,710,000	192	$412,287,000	+45	+$244,577,000
Crawford County Total	360	$628,750,000	367	$774,782,000	+7	+$146,032,000

As this table shows, sometime in the late 1990s or early 21^st century, and perhaps for the first time in the County’s history, the rural portions of Crawford County surpassed Meadville’s retail market share. Obviously, Meadville remained a singularly important retail center, but sales in rural areas nearly doubled.

This analysis from the late 1980s to 2002 does not account for the changing value of sales through inflation. Analyzing this can be helpful to understand the larger regional context of retail performance, and can be a clue to market leakage. Over the long range (from 1987 to 2002), the County gained retail sales faster than the rate of inflation. This means that the proportion of stores to consumers rose. From an analytical perspective, this means the City was competing more with other Crawford County businesses, and there was likely less market leakage to other areas, such as Erie.

Important information can also be derived from shifts in retail type within the City, as illustrated by the next table. It must be noted that retail trade information in the preceding table and the next table is based upon the business itself. Occasionally, respondents confuse the zip code address with the municipality. There may be over-reporting of certain categories where businesses in a neighboring township are thus ascribed to Meadville. However, Census of Retail Trade remains the only public source of municipal sales on a local and regional basis.

Retail Sales by Type: City of Meadville 1997-2002
Retail Category	1997 Stores	1997 Sales	2002 Stores	2002 Sales	Change in Stores	Change in Sales
Motor vehicles, auto parts, etc.	17	$80,635,000	12	$14,006,000	-5	-$66,629,000
Furniture, home items related	5	$5,235,000	5	$2,221,000	0	-$3,014,000
Electronics, appliances cameras, etc.	8	$6,354,000	7	$5,609,000	-1	-$745,000
Building materials supplies, garden items etc	17	$28,820,000	11	$21,846	-6	-$28,798,154
Food and beverage (not restaurants)	13	$70,072,000	12	$37,779,000	-1	-$32,293,000
Health and personal care	16	$20,021,000	12	$20,345,000	-4	$324,000
Gas stations and convenience stores with gas	11	$24,845,000	11	$29,011,000	0	$4,166,000
Clothing and accessories (including luggage, jewelry, etc.)	20	$14,604,000	18	$9,505,000	-2	-$5,099,000
Sporting goods, hobbies, (including news dealers, books )	8	$2,415,000	7	$2,905,000	-1	$490,000
General retail	8	$72,535,000	9	$110,801,000	1	$38,266,000
Miscellaneous retail (including gifts)	20	$10,171,000	18	NA	-2	NA

The largest single area of loss was in the automotive category. In fact, the loss of this industry alone would account for the vast majority of the City’s $70 million retail decline. The other area of significant loss was food sales, and building material/garden centers and related stores. This is probably due to the loss of a major farm supply store and a supermarket. While these were a very negative impact on the City, these were not in the downtown. Among the growth areas, there may be some misreporting of general retail, which would account for $40 to $90 million in sales. Among the other growth categories, the modest gains in health and personal care-related sales did not keep pace with inflation. The most discernable areas of real growth (in sales, not stores) were in gasoline sales, and sporting goods/hobbies, news dealers/books, both of which saw sales grow and significantly higher levels of growth than inflation rates. This would point to the possibility of real economic growth in these two sectors. Overall, national sales at convenience stores with gas stations has surged, as these stores now typically offer a range of prepared foods and other items for sale.

The sale of prepared food at convenience stores related to another growth area in both local and national buying trends, the accommodation/food services industry. This is a separate category of analysis in the Economic Census Series. In Crawford County, it is also an $83+ million industry, mostly in food and beverage sales.

Prepared Food and Beverage Sales, Crawford County 1997-2002
Place	1997 Stores	1997 Sales	2002 Stores	2002 Sales	Store Change	Sales Change
Meadville	61	$3,4325,000	65	$44,101,000	+4	+$9,776,000
Titusville	26	$9,694,000	27	$8,937,000	-1	-$757,000
Balance of County	93	$23,321,000	108	$30,626,000	+15	+$7,305,000
County Total	180	$67,340,000	200	$83,664,000	+20	+$16,324,000

Key Facts

· For perhaps the first time in the history of Crawford County, the City of Meadville is no longer the dominant retail market center of the County.

· It appears that many recent retail business losses were not from the downtown, but from other business districts within the City.

· The only retail growth sectors were in health care related retail (this sector fits demographics) and miscellaneous small businesses.

· There has been substantial growth in food and beverage service businesses within the City (restaurants, bars, take out prepared food).

Other Socio-Economic Issues

This section of the BDAP tries to focus on less objective measurements of current trends within the Business District. These include previous planning initiatives for the area, and a series of attitude surveys that were conducted by the City Planning and Zoning Commission, with Redevelopment Authority assistance.

Previous and Related Planning Initiatives: The City has been focusing on downtown planning activities for at least the past decade. A comprehensive plan was adopted in 1993. The first Business District Action Plan was prepared in 1997. The Allegheny College Center for Economic and Environmental Development (CEED) prepared a Mill Run Plan, which would affect the Business District. Most recently, Crawford County prepared an Economic Roadmap, and the City became involved in a multi-municipal comprehensive plan update with Conneaut Lake Borough, Vernon Township, and Sadsbury Township.

The 1993 City Comprehensive Plan included an examination of the retail market from decennial and economic census series data. At that time, the City was losing population, but still dominated Crawford County retail activities.

The Land Use Plan (upon which the present City zoning is based) characterized downtown Meadville as the “City’s Economic Heart.” The plan further states, “In some respects, it will become increasingly difficult for the City’s downtown to compete with suburban-based retailers.” The plan generally recommended an asset-based approach to marketing around the features of:

The Academy Theatre

The existing Market House and Market Alley renovation Shopping in the downtown

A future museum on Diamond Square, most likely in the Armory Baldwin-Reynolds House/Canal Park

Kenneth A. Beers, Jr. Bicentennial Park Cabin

The comprehensive plan contained a proposed downtown projects map that recommended nine specific projects. These are listed in the next table, with the subsequent results.

1993 Comprehensive Plan Recommendation	2006 Status and Results
County Museum/Historical Society headquarters (located at present National Guard Armory)	Historical Society facility was located in gifted property outside downtown. Armory remains in original site. Closure is still likely.
Contingency Plan for flexible education facility if the Middle School is closed.	Middle School was closed. Zoning ordinance was amended to create more possible uses. Building currently being renovated for multi-family residential uses and office space.
Proposed DEP facility and parking garage	Constructed and open. Probably has contributed to growth of Food Services sector.
Potential site of Central Fire Station	Built on alternate site. Former fire station is now a restaurant.
Market Alley	Design complete, nearing construction.
North Street signalization changes	Design complete, nearing construction as part of comprehensive North Street Penn DOT project.
Traffic directional changes at Downtown Mall	Studied and determined not to be feasible.
On-Street free parking areas	Seasonal implementation.

After the comprehensive plan was adopted in 1993, the City amended and updated its zoning ordinance to be generally consistent with the plan. Key features of the new zoning ordinance included the creation of transitional districts around the business district. The City also pursued further implementation by preparing its first Business District Action Plan in 1997. This plan set a vision completion year of 2001, and was actually entitled Meadville 2001, a Business District Action Plan.

1997 BDAP Goals	2006 Results/Status
Tax base and land use issues
Fill empty storefronts	Ongoing, no active recruitment program. At the bank a successful private-sector model.
Encourage second floor uses	Ongoing (i.e., Mark Reed condos, Career Link re-location), no active recruitment or assistance provided
Upgrade infrastructure	Ongoing (i.e., new paving, extended streetscape/lighting, new curb ramps, parking garage)

Increased community commitment
Extend existing volunteer programs	Needs improvement. New group of downtown stakeholders working on parking issues.
Encourage positive community self-image	Needs improvement. Image Committee no longer active.

Improved urban design
Improve awareness of parking availability	Ongoing. New public parking signs provided with Barco funding. New Market Square parking ramp.
Save/rehabilitate existing buildings	Ongoing (i.e., Kepler Hotel, Mark Reed condos, Jr. High, at the bank, Meadville Town Tavern)
Continued improvement of streetscapes	Ongoing. Continued extension of streetscape/lighting/brick improvements surrounding IMPACT Meadville.

Unified marketing
Create a plan to market downtown as a destination	Needs improvement. No cohesive marketing plan under way. Some assistance provided by CCCVB.

1997 Buildings/Projects	2006 Status/Results
CVS Building	Privately owned and occupied by ARC of Crawford County.
Wolff’s Building	Privately owned by Norman LaBruzzo, fully occupied by Allegro Dance Arts and Tonix Night Club.
Market Alley	Ongoing. Funding secured. Construction Summer 2007.
Meridian Building	Privately owned by local law firm, first floor retail tenant.
Veith Building	Privately owned and occupied by Bill Lawrence.
Eldred Building	Privately owned by CCDC. Four second floor apartments fully rented, vacant first floor retail space.
Snodgrass Building	Privately owned by CC Coalition on Housing Needs, including all apartments fully occupied.
Market House	1997 renovation complete, with more recent window replacement, painting and first floor restroom complete.
Kepler Block	Former Kepler Hotel renovation and new addition complete—7 retail spaces and 30 condo units. Second phase of townhouse construction planned for Spring 2007. Development of two new commercial buildings pending.

The County was also active in economic development that included downtown commercial areas. The Crawford County Economic Roadmap was adopted in 2004 to create a better systemic approach to economic development in the County. The 128-page document primarily deals with the economic development delivery system of local governments and non-profits. However, it has chosen some overall

economic priorities. The document established “Downtown Development” as one of six local priority areas. The document set several indicators for downtown progress.

Downtown Development Priorities from the County Economic Roadmap

· Public- and private-sector dollars invested in downtown areas

· New investment leads generated

· New investments made by existing and new companies in Crawford County’s downtowns

· Job creation by expanding and newly located firms in Crawford County’s downtowns

· Positive change in the perception of Crawford County’s downtown areas

· Increase in tourism visitors to the County’s downtowns, and increased spending from these visitors

The Action Plan section recommended that 5 percent of all economic development resources be directed toward improving these downtown indicators. However, it also recommended that this phase of the Action Plan agenda not be pursued immediately. This means that long-term assistance may be expected from the County’s economic development network. However, significant short-term assistance should not be expected from countywide organizations.

The most recent planning effort in the Region led to this BDAP update. In 2005, the City agreed to participate in a multi-municipal comprehensive plan, which would also cover the Borough of Conneaut Lake and the two townships of Sadsbury and Vernon.

Simultaneous to this effort, the French Creek project has also undertaken a detailed study and analysis of the Meadville Market House. This study will be important, as it will strengthen a key historic and economic resource in the heart of the business district.

Public Input – Surveys of the Community

Surveys: Surveys were undertaken to augment information available from statistical sources and published plans. Economic statistics collected on a national level only tell a part of the story of economic performance. These sources tend to miss nuances. For example, many sole proprietorship businesses are not included in the retail trade series because they do not have payrolls. The Census also simply calculates employment, payroll, and sales data. It does not attempt to measure optimism, satisfaction, or attitudes.

Merchant Survey: In order to fill out the knowledge base, it was decided to distribute a survey to every merchant and business owner in the project area. A five-page survey was prepared. It was distributed and tabulated by a Meadville Redevelopment Authority intern from Allegheny College. The survey return was 94, out of 197 distributed. This was a return of 47 percent, which is unusually high.

One of the most striking aspects of the merchant’s survey was the level of pessimism. The response to the question, What’s the first word or phrase that comes to mind when you think of downtown Meadville? elicited many more negative than positive responses.

In total, there were 53 negative responses, and only 23 positive responses. Negative responses tended to emphasize empty storefronts and lack of business. Positive responses focused on the Market House, new stores coming in, positive attitudes, potential, and a physically attractive community.

In spite of the general pessimism, merchants were generally satisfied with many basic City services.

Merchants Survey Response to Public Services in Downtown Meadville
	Excellent	Good	Fair	Poor	Total Responses
Police and Fire Protection	38	50	4	0	92
Local Tax Rates	4	20	46	18	88
Local Government Business Assistance	7	23	31	19	80
Litter Control	9	39	21	18	87
Zoning and Code Enforcement	4	45	24	3	76
Snow Removal	13	51	19	4	87
Parking Enforcement	19	45	16	7	87

The merchants also believed that targeted activities could improve the downtown. Merchants prioritized several activities:

High Priority Merchant Suggestions:

· Attract large developers to undertake new commercial or residential buildings

· Provide technical and financial assistance to businesses

· Undertake marketing and promotion of the downtown

· Sponsor more festivals, entertainment, and events

Moderate Priority Merchant Suggestions:

· Undertake targeted litter and code enforcement

· Develop bicycle and pedestrian trails to connect the downtown to other areas

· Develop more public space for events or passive recreation, such as places for people to sit

· Develop uniform street signs, street lighting, and sidewalk appearances

· Develop more historic and arts attractions

Low Priority Merchant Suggestions:

· Develop more space for parking

In terms of business development, a majority of local business owners would like to see more restaurants and retail stores. There is not overall resentment of potential competition.

Three quarters of survey respondents stated they would like to see the City re-enter the Main Street Program. However, only 10 percent offered financial support (though more stated they would consider it if given more information).

A small core of businesses expressed a willingness to participate in a variety of ways.

	Which of the Following Actions would Business Owners Support?
	Strongly Support	Somewhat Support	Do Not Support	Not Sure	Total Responses
Offer letters of support and meet with state and federal officials on grants to improve the downtown?	40	24	4	11	79
Private cash donation towards a match for state or federal grants for projects to improve the downtown?	8	21	30	18	77
Private donation of services toward revitalization.	12	14	22	25	73
Establish a business improvement district, where a portion of real estate taxes would only be spent within the downtown.	40	22	5	12	79
Provide a cash match to a grant to rehabilitate the façade of the building your business is located in.	17	16	27	15	75

Shopper Survey: Economic statistics are one measure of how well the downtown functions. Another is to gauge the satisfaction of the people who are actually living, working, or shopping in the Business District. Toward that end, a downtown shopper’s survey was distributed. It was not meant to be a scientific random sample. The survey was set up to allow any interested person to participate. It was also meant to

function as a tool of community development by expanding interest in the Business District and potential activities. It was a very brief survey with only four questions. There were 157 responses. The first question was about overall frequency of time respondents typically spend in the Business District. The most common response is highlighted.

How often do you visit downtown Meadville to shop, purchase services, or conduct business? Most Common Response Highlighted
Good or Service	Almost Everyday	Weekly	Once Per Month	1-4 Times Per Year	Never	Total Responses
To buy convenience food or snacks	26	59	49	10	13	157
To shop for groceries or produce	11	80	29	8	14	142
To pay bills or do banking	17	66	41	8	17	149
To buy clothing or household goods	4	18	36	47	33	138
To drink coffee or eat snacks	45	33	27	13	24	142
To buy prescription drugs	3	16	41	37	43	140
To attend evening entertainment	1	10	25	69	34	139
To attend parades or community events	1	4	13	104	19	141
To buy gifts, art, flowers or cards	2	15	51	51	22	141
To buy books, music, or computer items	2	13	28	54	44	141
To buy other goods or materials	7	14	47	29	36	133
To drink beer or alcoholic beverages	6	23	25	38	47	139
To eat breakfast	9	31	33	37	29	139
To eat lunch	25	47	35	24	10	141
To eat dinner	6	35	43	34	18	136
To get a haircut, dry cleaning or other personal service	1	10	52	36	39	138
To see a health care provider	3	2	16	78	38	137
To see an attorney or other professional	2	4	5	58	69	138
To visit friends or family	17	32	17	24	44	134
To work at your occupation or business	79	10	12	5	32	138
To use post office facilities	18	37	40	26	17	138
To attend school or lessons	8	8	9	12	99	136
To visit city hall or the courthouse	11	4	15	65	41	136
To walk, sit, or relax	27	31	20	24	40	142

Respondents were next asked to list their favorite place in the Business District. By far, the most popular choice was the Market House, which was the favorite of 29 percent. Another favorite was Diamond Park. Several businesses also rated high on the list:

· The Artists’ Cup Cafe (actually more popular than Diamond Park)

· Downtown Mall

· Big Lots

· Julian’s

· Whole Darn Thing

· Pittsburgh Bagel

· Tattered Corners

· Mickey’s

The next question asked shoppers to rate their favorite downtown festival or event. The absolute winner was the Halloween Parade. Shoppers were asked to list their favorite hobbies for marketing purposes. Reading and walking were most popular choices. As a follow up, they were asked what types of new businesses they would like to see in the downtown. Clothing and shoe stores were most popular, followed by a department store. Other notable listings were a CD/music store, hardware, and Kohl’s chain.

Full results of the survey are attached in the Appendices. They are extrapolated by downtown user groups, such as retirees and downtown employees.

Key Facts

· There has been slow, but steady, progress on Business District development projects. This is particularly notable considering the less than ideal market conditions.

· In spite of overall pessimism, a core of the business community is willing to actively participate in Business District actions.

· Business District user groups have a strong affinity for the places that make the downtown unique. However, their daily activities in the Business District are limited to working, walking, meals, and convenience goods purchases.

Most of the newer construction has occurred on the edges of the Business District project area (North Street and Arch Street). Here buildings used for fast food sales, mixed retail plazas, a pharmacy, and a video store exhibit large on-lot parking, and a less cohesive streetscape.

Zoning: Much of what is built within the United States today is a result of land use regulations. Nineteenth century cities were messy. Activities such as animal butchering and the smoke and clanging of industry occurred adjacent to homes. Apartments housing large families were often within basements below or above shops. Lacking open space, children played on the streets.

Zoning was part of an urban reform platform, particular among progressive Republicans in the early 20^th century. The basic goals of early zoning ordinances were to separate incompatible uses (such as a slaughterhouse and a home) and to ensure adequate light and air. This was accomplished by setting lot standards that separated buildings and created separate districts for residential, retail commercial, and industrial activities. Thus, zoning became a significant factor in eliminating many of the slum characteristics of American cities.

However, by the late 20^th century, some urban designers began to criticize standard approaches to zoning as destructive to the very fabric of American downtowns and older residential neighborhoods. Some zoning ordinances prevented anyone from living in commercial areas under any circumstances. Others encouraged or even mandated the destruction of older buildings to make room for required parking areas. New buildings had to meet rigid separation requirements that did not fit the small lots of urban areas.

It is, therefore, extremely important to understand the effect of zoning on a traditional pedestrian-oriented downtown area. Regulation is often necessary, but it must also recognize changing market realities. The downtown area of Meadville is divided into three zoning districts: I-1 Institutional, B-1 Central Business, and B-2 General Business.

The I-1 is the smallest zoning district within the City. Its stated purpose is to “safeguard the public spaces which form the historic heart of Meadville. The intent is to provide sound stewardship for those places which belong to all citizens.” The district allows eleven uses by right and another three by special exception. The allowed uses are primarily nonprofit or governmental (public parks, churches, civic and cultural buildings). The limited non-institutional uses include single- or two-family dwellings, professional offices, and home businesses, upper floor residences, and bed and breakfast establishments. As noted in the 1993 Comprehensive Plan, what is significant about the Diamond Park area is that it has historically not been a primarily commercial square, like those of a typical Pennsylvania courthouse town. In the past,

there have been commercial businesses on the Diamond, but it was never a fully commercial square such as the one in Mercer, which is a more common Pennsylvania type.

Minimum lot sizes and required setback or yard standards are modest in the I-1 District. A single-family dwelling would need a lot of 6,000 square feet. This represents a density of 7.25 homes per acre. All other uses would need a 7,500 square foot lot. Buildings must be set back at least 20 feet from the right-of-way. The side yards of buildings are 6 feet for single-family dwellings and 10 feet for other uses. This places buildings 12 to 20 feet from each other.

The B-1 Central Business District conforms in geography to the heart of the Business District. The stated purpose of the zoning designation is to indeed foster retail and service businesses in a downtown setting. Typical businesses, such as personal services, offices, medical clinics, and restaurants are permitted by right. Uses that could impact the integrity of these principal uses such as residential uses, or auto-oriented businesses are special exceptions or conditional uses. Perhaps the largest potential conflict would come from shopping centers, which are a conditional use.

A unique aspect of the B-1 District is the addition of Traditional Neighborhood Development (TND) by conditional use. TND has only been allowed in Pennsylvania since amendments to the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code were enacted in 2001. TND is a form of unified development and is meant to give developers great flexibility, while giving the municipality significant power to regulated design issues. Meadville was actually the first community to adopt a TND ordinance, as it was needed to accommodate, yet appropriately regulate, the Kepler Hotel project.

The northern edge (North Street) of the project area is also zoned B-2 General Business. The B-2 District was established to “foster a variety of retail and service business uses in an auto-oriented setting.” The schedule differs from the B-1 by allowing more highway commercial types of uses, such as hotel and motels, car washes, and car lots. The lot standards are also significantly different, rising from the 1,000 square foot minimum in the B-1, to a 5,000 square foot minimum. However, this is still significantly below a true highway commercial area, where the need for parking typically mandates lot sizes in the 20,000 square foot range. In practice, the B-2 serves as a transition area in Meadville between the walkable areas of the B-1, and the more auto-oriented area in the EDC District along the French Creek Parkway.

It is significant to note, that the B-1 District was ordained to foster a downtown setting, but not mandate it. When compared to existing land use, it is readily apparent that most of the new construction in the B-1 District actually looks more like the intent of the B-2 District. Newer buildings have wide facades, are normally single-story construction, large illuminated freestanding signage, and parking in the front yard

areas. Thus, while zoning standards have differed, development has not always been cognizant of the neighborhood setting. Downtown standards were meant to be permissive, not mandated. The newer developments tend to all build as they would in a highway commercial setting.

Streets and Landscape

The Central Business District is laid out on a true grid plan. All streets intersect at ninety-degree angles. At the east end of the project area, the grid is broken by a green space known as Diamond Park. This square combines elements of both a northern Irish style “diamond” town square, with a New England Institutional Green.

Generally, the streets in the project area alternate between a wide street (average width 37 feet) and a narrower alley (average width 20 feet). A block in Meadville (with the mid-block alleys or streets) is typically 200 to 225 feet long, and a square block in the project area averages perhaps 44,000 square feet (or just over one acre).

Block size is very important for a number of factors. Block length affects both walkability and the shape of the structures built upon it. Smaller blocks enhance pedestrian options by giving them more intersections. This allows more direct travel by walkers. However, if blocks get too small, space becomes limited by streets. For example, Manhattan blocks were planned as long, but not deep. This forced buildings to climb vertically, and still limits green areas in New York.

Generally, Meadville blocks are smaller and shorter than national norms. Except for blocks in some cities that are interrupted by alleys, the typical American block is 400 feet long, and a square block can be 4 to 5 acres. This information is important because in addition to pedestrian and vehicular access, it also determines the size of a building that can be set within a block and not require a street to be vacated. By way of example, a typical convenience store is 5,000 square feet under roof with 6,000 square feet of parking; a typical suburban chain pharmacy is 16,000 square feet under roof with 18,000 square feet of parking; and a typical “big box” general retail operation can be 150,000 square feet under roof, with another 180,000 square feet of parking.

Building Utilization/Building Facade/Commercial Features

In addition to land use mapping of the Business District, the Redevelopment Authority conducted a building utilization survey. The Authority counted 172 distinct spaces within buildings in the downtown. Of these, 15 spaces were vacant. This makes the ratio of vacant space 8.7 percent. Actually, this is not a

particularly high ratio, and well in line with national trends. In fact, in times of overbuilding in major suburbs, office market vacancies actually can reach 20 percent.

It also appears that vacancy rates are not inconsistent with the last BDAP. However, the type of land uses have changed. The true retail core of the Business District is smaller and there are more office, service, and residential uses. Only 32 true retail businesses were found in the downtown. The most common businesses are now various forms of services. Second floors remain largely empty (and were not counted in the survey), with the exception of some residential uses, notably the re-use of the Kepler Hotel.

Some streetscape improvements were undertaken in concert with the Kepler Hotel project. Grants have also been filed to physically revitalize Market Alley, and this will likely happen soon. However, there was not an overall streetscape plan prepared. Earlier streetscape improvements on Chestnut Street appear to be in relatively good repair. However, some of the brick crosswalks and courtesy curb bricks are in need of repair.

The facades of commercial structures are extremely important in a traditional downtown like Meadville. Because the Central Business District is a pedestrian environment, shoppers actually look at building fronts for longer periods of time than vehicular traffic. The fact that many buildings share common walls or have small side yards also means that each single building can have a substantial effect upon the entire block.

Meadville’s downtown commercial buildings represent several historic styles. Most of the buildings are multi-story, representing the higher land values that were once present in the downtowns. The area has a large enough concentration of architecturally and historically significant buildings to merit a National Register of Historic Places District. The bounds of that district are illustrated on the attached map.

Gallery of Façades in Meadville

A one-part commercial building, somewhat unusual in the Meadville Business District.
The awning roof is probably a late Twentieth Century addition.

Detail of a maintained original transom

Common two-part vertical block

Well-maintained block of Chestnut Street – the earlier building on the left illustrates the more
ornate Victorian influence on the two-part commercial block. (This building has since been
renovated. See renovated building on page 39.)

While there are a variety of architectural styles, many American downtown commercial buildings share a basic anatomy. First floors typically have a clearly identified entrance, display windows, a lintel above the windows (often serving as a sign area), and sometimes a transom above to allow more light inside.

There are two main ways in which Meadville’s Main Street buildings differ: choice of ornamentation and the ways in which the ground floors and upper floors differ. Generally, mid- to late 19^th century buildings have more ornamentation (like Victorian houses). Certain turn-of-century buildings (especially banks and civic/cultural buildings) have a temple front. Early 20^th century buildings are often less ornamented, and there are even a few single-story commercial buildings in the City.

After the Second World War, many owners of Main Street buildings attempted to “modernize” their structures by covering second-story windows, and using various siding treatments. These modernization attempts often failed because they destroyed the unity of blocks. Often, these alterations also harmed functionality of the buildings as originally designed. Most recently, some building owners have restored their facades closer to their original appearance. These represent some of the Business District’s most visually appealing buildings.

Because of the rich architectural history, the Business District and some adjacent areas are a National Register of Historic Places District. The National Register offers a modicum of protection from adverse impacts on historic resources by government action. It also provides opportunity for tax credits for building owners who wish to restore buildings. The National Register District boundaries are shown on the attached map.

Part 2 – Meadville Business District Strategy and Recommendations

Overall Goals:

The original Business District Action Plan set four broad goals and nine specific objectives for future Business District actions:

I. Tax Base and Land Use Issues

1. Fill Empty Storefronts

2. Second Floor Uses 3. Upgrade Infrastructure

II. Increase Community Commitment

1. Extend Existing Voluntary Programs

2. Encourage Positive Community Self Image

III. Improved Urban Design

1. Improve Awareness of Parking Availability

2. Save/Rehabilitate Existing Buildings 3. Continued Streetscape Improvements

IV. Marketing

1. Create a “Destination” Marketing Plan

This Plan reaffirms those original goals and objectives. Rather than re-invent them, it offers some activities to assist in realizing them in light of changes since 1997:

· Maintain and create an identity of the City as a green, environmentally friendly town with innovative approaches to development.

· Create a positive atmosphere among the business community.

· Widen the range of land and building uses in the Business District, while creating additional opportunities for new real estate development in the Business District.

· Bring institutions and businesses outside the downtown (such as the hospital and Allegheny College) into partnership for downtown projects.

To accomplish these will require an enhanced effort at improving urban design within the City. This must be accompanied by continued tools to build a community-based economy.

Urban Design Action Plan

The objectives of the 1997 BDAP related to urban design were to fill empty storefronts, encourage more second floor uses, and continue streetscape improvements. These objectives should be continued, with the goal of using streetscape improvements to create an identity of Meadville as a green, environmentally friendly town. One of the strengths of the Meadville area is the high quality of the natural environment. French Creek, which flows through the heart of the City, has maintained very high water quality, in spite of industrialization. By way of comparison, other similar cities in Pennsylvania have streams like the Connequenessing and Mahoning, nationally known for the level of pollution and contamination. With a strong tradition of stewardship in the local countryside, Meadville has an opportunity to market strong stewardship of townscapes. Locally, there are also opportunities to allow nature to fit into the townscapes, such as the initiative to open up Mill Run. Similar strategies have also been discussed in the French Creek Greenway Plan, and The Meadville Market House Revitalization Strategy, which affirm the idea of a green community and locally sustainable economic business plans as an approach to improving the downtown.

The Planning and Zoning Commission created a Concept Plan Recommendation Map as an overall plan for streetscape improvements and activities to improve tax base and land use improvements. The Planning and Zoning Commission created the Concept Plan after a downtown walking tour. The tour included consultant team members, City and Redevelopment Authority staff, and citizen planners. The entire Study Area was walked with maps to determine:

· Functionality of pedestrian walkways

· Feelings of a pedestrian as to perceived safety (both from pedestrian vehicular conflict and feelings of safety from crime)

· Overall image and appearance

Later, the staff walked these same areas again to re-examine priorities raised by the Commission.

The attached Action Plan-Concept Plan Recommendation Maps identified major physical targets to improve how the downtown functions for businesses and visitors. The purpose of this Concept Plan is to achieve the goals of establishing the market identity of the City, widening land uses, and creating additional real estate opportunities. The major target actions are gateways, potential public space areas, the long-term potential of the greenway and Mill Run, the identified retail core, and targeted streetscape improvements.

Gateways: The PennDOT signed entrance to the Meadville Business District is to exit on to Arch Street from the French Creek Parkway. Like the front yard of a house, a gateway is the point where visitors will get their first impression of the Business District. Whether they choose to stop, get out of their cars and experience the downtown, will be governed in part by their impression of this gateway. The next photo illustrates this gateway.

Current Gateway

This area does not succeed in the basic functions of a gateway. The gateway must do more than welcome. It should also identify where the observer is within geographic space, and what may be ahead. Signage should clearly identify the Business District, point to the retail core (as a “coming attraction” in their journey), and make a public statement about Meadville’s identity to the world. The parking garage represents an additional venue to accomplish these objectives, as it can serve as excellent space for public art.

Water Street is a continuation of this gateway. The street accomplishes the function of moving cars, sidewalks are functional, but this area lacks much in terms of pedestrian friendliness. Facing the pedestrian are the largely windowless back walls of the Downtown Mall on one side and several large structures on the other. This area lacks windows to the street and human scale.

View of Water Street

The second notable aspect of this is a lack of continuity between the east and west sides of this street. Some of the pedestrian views up Center and Cherry Streets are very inviting, but looking north on Water Street, there is nothing to tie the street together. It is recommended that Water Street become the initial focus of any streetscape improvement project. The streetscape must be carefully designed. Standard lighting and benches will not be enough to make this a walkable area that feels safe and inviting. Because of the design challenges, this may be an appropriate venue for a design competition. Obviously, the Downtown Mall owners would make a logical (and necessary) partner in improving this street.

Public Space: One of the most striking aspects of the Business District that the organized walking tour revealed was almost no public space (except for the Diamond Park area, and a more recent pocket park near the confluence of Mill Run and the parking garage). Contrast this to the function of the downtown for key user groups. For the community at large, “walk, sit, or relax” was the most popular daily activity. For downtown employees, it was the most popular activity after actually working at their occupation. Only among retirees was this use of the downtown not popular.

The entrance to the Downtown Mall is a natural point for public space, and the City
has initiated development of this by placing a new bench there.

It is much easier in the downtown to walk than it is to sit and relax. There are few outdoor places within the heart of the downtown. The most attractive place to sit and be within the spirit of the place is Diamond Park. However, while Diamond Park has many attractions, it is peripheral to the retail core. Additional opportunities for good public space must become a part of any plans that will affect the retail core. With

the shift in retail types, the Business District must be seen as a place to come to. Natural places to extend public space are areas already frequented by the public:

The Water Street entrance to the Downtown Mall The Market House Square

The site proposed for the downtown transit facility

These public spaces should include places to sit, informational signs (such as “you are here” maps), and ties to nature (such as nature plants). Other possibilities are more heritage markers and public art.

There are certainly other opportunities, such as the recent pocket park near the parking garage. Other areas may include any space too small for viable buildings, but within public view. Even in a small city, perceived safety must be a part of design. Areas utilized should be within view of both buildings and vehicular traffic, though separated from the latter.

The Market House has great potential for more outdoor public space. Mill Run,
a proposed greenway, and Market Alley all meet here.

Mill Run: It is interesting that the route of Mill Run, the proposed trail extensions, and the remaining retail core all converge in front of the Market House. From this perspective, the Market Alley project remains an essential priority. If the physical space of the downtown is to work properly, a visitor should be drawn from the gateway to here—without regard to their mode of travel. At this point, a major kiosk directory area

would identify all shopping and service business opportunities within 200 to 400 feet. This is also a major priority area to establish some form of public space.

Retail Core: When this smaller retail core is examined, the low intensity of land uses around the periphery becomes apparent as well. There are underutilized blocks between the downtown and the Diamond Park area that would be ideal for redevelopment. These are depicted on the attached Concept Plan Maps (priority blocks for new development). One entire block, bounded by Cherry, Center, North Cottage Streets and Park Avenue, has only a vacant building and parking. The most successful strategy is for the Redevelopment Authority to take the lead in issuing Requests for Developer’s Proposals. This can begin to package projects as public-private partnerships. The process can be flexible in balancing economic incentives with high design standards.

The RFP process works as a starting point for negotiated sale and development. The local development group (normally a redevelopment authority) obtains site control. Site control through ownership, options, or sales agreements must precede other actions. It is important in an area like Meadville to obtain control of a number of adjacent lots or buildings, as small lots are not attractive to major developers. This site control can be by ownership, option, or cooperative agreement with a private owner. This development group then advertises and mails the RFP to prospective developers. The RFP contains both requirements and incentives.

T^ypical Develo^per’s RFP Incentives and Re^quirements

Incentives	Requirements
Zoning or land development preliminary approvals (make approval certain within parameters)	Required types of proposed businesses or required configuration of business space
Tax abatements or Tax Incremental Financing	Design of new structures
Reduced price of purchase	Preservation of historic structures
Below-market loans to assist in development	Income targets if housing is involved
Assistance with obtaining tax credits as applicable	Means to actually complete project, and time limitations to do so

The community development group then evaluates all proposals and may choose a developer. Then a memorandum of agreement is adopted to spell out the contents of the public-private partnership.

Developer’s RFPs often cannot work without some additional incentives. Thus, it is important for the community to decide in advance the extent of all incentives for the site in question. The two principal tools for tax incentives in Pennsylvania are LERTA and TIF. LERTA stands for the Local Economic Revitalization Tax Assistance Act. It is a Pennsylvania state act that allows municipalities to abate all or

part of the real estate tax on new improvements to property for a period of up to ten years. LERTA abatements are limited to new improvements only. In this way, the community still collects the same taxes they would receive prior to LERTA. Some communities abate 100 percent of taxes for a five-to-ten-year period. Others abate on a sliding scale – 100 percent in year one, 80 percent in year two, 60 percent in year three, etc. Historically, Meadville had a ten-year LERTA, but had not used this incentive in a number of years. A five-year LERTA was recently used to create incentives for the renovation of the former junior high building on the Diamond. The alternative to LERTA is Tax Incremental Financing (TIF). TIF is more flexible in that instead of an outright abatement, a payment in lieu of taxes is used to finance public and private improvements in the TIF project area. The City used TIF to finance the most recent parking garage. A new twist on TIF is the Transit Revitalization Investment District (TRID). TRID allows the use of TIF to finance transit facilities, with the local transit authority as a partner. At present, DCED offers a Land Use Planning Technical Assistance Grant (LUPTAP) as a special one time 75 percent grant for TRID feasibility studies. As the County was pursuing a new transit facility until recent funding cuts, the new legislation to facilitate multi-model transportation, encourage mass transit, and enhance walkable communities may be a good tool. Basically, the community can establish an impact district around a transit facility, and defer new real estate taxes to the cost of the facility itself, in cooperation with the local transit authority. Beyond the junior high and Developer’s RFP, the City should establish a clear and consistent policy for these tax incentive tools. This should include the geographical limits of LERTA, years of abatement, and any other requirements (such as ensuring good design). The development of such policies would be an excellent area of study by the Planning and Zoning Commission.

Streetscapes: There are many areas where complete streetscape changes are not necessary throughout the Business District, and should not be undertaken without careful forethought. Other Pennsylvania communities have attempted to undertake massive streetscape projects at significant cost. The real economic benefit of many of these appears dubious in some cases. Streetscapes alone will not change market realities. Earlier streetscape efforts in Meadville appear to largely remain in place, and only need some repairs. However, some means to maintain these previous improvements should be developed, including financing.

Façade changes in progress

· A logo or branding that succinctly states how the City wishes to be viewed

· Public art, especially on the parking garage structure

Pursue a streetscape project for Water Street that:

· Links the two sides of the street into a cohesive unity

· Creates opportunities for public space where people want to be

· Improves perceived pedestrian security

Other gateway priorities:

· North Street/Water Street

· Main Street/Arch Street

Other streetscape priorities:

· North Street

· Park Avenue

· The proposed Elm Street area between Allegheny College and the Business District Install an all-weather business directory kiosk near the Market House/Market Alley Area. An example is shown from another downtown

Text Box: This is a simple, relatively inexpensive public service that can directly benefit merchants. The sign should either be sheltered in the Market House veranda, or under its own kiosk. A small wall sign with graphics under glass should be able to be prepared for under $1,000. Even a very expensive all-weather kiosk from a street furniture manufacturer will be

less than $5,000 installed.

Business and Market Development Action Plan

This section of the Action Plan addresses demographics as they affect the market, and efforts to build community. It also discusses further tools for community development.

Demographics: Meadville is at the center of a region that will be facing a demographic challenge over the next decade. As the overall size of the market stagnates, certain retailers may be less willing to risk downtown investments instead of the perceived “sure thing” of a highway commercial location. However, there will be opportunities, as many national drug chains have invested in small town downtowns.

Significant opportunity exists for marketing directed at key segments of the population, especially the elderly and the small Allegheny College student population. Within the context of the demographic challenge that the entire area will be facing, the ability of the core community to build upon these special population segments will be crucial. The good news is that the Meadville Business District may actually be a realistic tool in regional revitalization. To quote from a recent article on this phenomena from the Pittsburgh Post Gazette, CEOs for Cities, a network of urban leaders, produced a study last year called "The Young and the Restless in a Knowledge Economy," written by economist Joseph Cortright. His conclusion: "Today's 25- to 34-year-olds are about one-third more likely to live in neighborhoods within three miles of a region's downtown than are other Americans. Close-in neighborhoods with higher density, mixed uses, walkable destinations, lively commercial districts and interesting streets can make a region more competitive for talented workers. ... Those regions that lack vibrant close-in urban neighborhoods will be at a disadvantage in attracting and retaining talent."

If these trends are correct, there may be further opportunities for well-designed forms of housing in the Business District. There has already been some success in this effort with the Kepler Hotel, and there is presently a proposal to expand housing on Diamond Park and in downtown second floor lofts. The BDAP strongly recommends support of these efforts, as downtown residents can promote wider customer base for the Business District, than the current base of employees and regional shoppers. The City has already cleared many regulatory hurdles to quality downtown housing through amendments to the zoning code. The next step is to accelerate actual development. One hurdle is handicapped access. Most historic buildings cannot install an elevator. It may be worthwhile to explore shared elevators for abutting buildings through a condominium arrangement. New housing could be a part of the strategy for priority redevelopment blocks.

It has been a well-acknowledged trend that small college towns are typically islands of prosperity in much of rural Pennsylvania, where the economic dislocation of the past two decades has hit the hardest. Meadville has an opportunity in this context to create closer economic ties between the Allegheny College campus and the downtown. The aforementioned effort to enhance the streetscape between the Business District and Allegheny College is certainly one tool. Efforts should be made to encourage the college to consider locational opportunities in the Business District. Potential uses could include housing, special programs, or a college outreach center.

Zoning and Land Regulations: One issue of responding to development opportunities is the link between regulations, protecting community quality, and fostering good design. The City has historically responded by amending zoning to accommodate high-quality development opportunities, while still protecting the community. There is always some tension in this. One area of possible tension is the Diamond Park. Previous planning efforts have resisted further commercialization of the Diamond because

restructuring.) Presently, guidelines state that the program offers a $25,000 planning grant. Recently, in practice, there has been a combination of Main Street, Elm Street, and other state funds for significantly higher planning grants. This has allowed fairly complete design programs to be carried out.

The Main Street process is particularly important for Meadville as a means to expand participatory planning for the Business District. This BDAP update was by necessity a planning agency function under the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code. Planning, beyond the point of this document, must have significant business community participation. The most direct action to begin this participatory planning is to present highlights of this Plan at a Main Street informational meeting. This should be one of the first actions taken to implement the BDAP.

Elm Street Program: Elm Street is the sister program to the Main Street initiative. Its benefits are similar—planning funds, subsidizing professional staff, and competitive funding for bricks and mortar improvements. The most logical use of these funds would be in transitional districts around the downtown. The initial priority should be the corridor that connects Allegheny College to the downtown.

Five-Year Business District Action Plan Summary

Year One

· Adopt BDAP by City Council; other municipalities also adopt with multi-municipal comprehensive plans.

· Create a broader coalition for downtown improvements among the business community. This should start with a PowerPoint summary of physical improvements recommended in the BDAP and related efforts. This should be presented at a well-advertised town hall meeting.

· Begin a discussion with all taxing authorities about the use of LERTA and TIF in the Business District.

· Begin packaging the first developer’s RFP to attract new development. The site priority should be where public ownership is highest; most likely the southeast corner of Park Avenue and Center Street.

· Purchase and install an all-weather business directory kiosk near the Meadville Market House (determine annual update and maintenance responsibilities).

· Ensure PennDOT adheres to context-sensitive design for any work on North Street. Encourage streetscape renovations.

· With local support, apply to the Pennsylvania Main Street Program for initial funding.

· With local support, apply to the Pennsylvania Elm Street Program for planning funding.

· Begin design for a gateway at the corner of Arch and Water Streets in concert with the Downtown Mall.

· Begin a public art project that matches the gateway on the facade of the parking garage at Arch and Water Streets.

· Encourage adoption of the BDAP by all participants within the Central Crawford Regional Comprehensive Plan.

· Begin alternative designs for a transit facility, possibly in concert with a developer’s RFP or TRID. This must be dependent on the status of funding, especially any-time limitations.

Year Two

· Apply for PennDOT Hometown Street funding (or Transportation Enhancements federal funding) to undertake a streetscape project on Water Street.

· Begin a zoning study to determine the appropriate nature of limited commercial development in the I-1 District, perhaps through another Traditional Neighborhood Development District, B-1, B-2 standards and design results, and second-floor housing regulations.

· Create a set of TND design standards and pattern book for the downtown area. This can be combined with adequacy of zoning design issues (such as

· large parking lots in front yards) in the previous activity.

· With merchant leadership and participation, undertake an enhanced market survey of Allegheny College students.

· Apply for Elm Street project funding to enhance streetscapes connecting the Business District with Allegheny College.

· Begin development of public space at the Downtown Mall Water Street entrance.

Year Three

· Begin working with Crawford County to amend the Economic Roadmap to prioritize downtowns.

· Begin a destination-based parking analysis of the small retail core area, in concert with merchants. Examine viability of narrow mid-block parking lots.

· Examine opportunities for an Anchor Building grant-to-loan program in concert with Main Street activities.

· Design and build the North Street, North Main Street, and Park Avenue gateways.

· Begin an effort to study establishment of a Business Improvement District (BID).

Year Four

· Extend the developer’s RFP approach to the northwest corner of Walnut and Water Streets.

· Reevaluate public space needs, focusing especially on small, less developable parcels.

· Begin working with Allegheny College to gain greater presence in a downtown building or Diamond Park.

· Begin an overall wayfinding signage effort.

· Review implementation of Mill Run opening and greenway implementation.

Year Five

· Conduct a shared elevator feasibility study to facilitate second floor utilization. This could be followed by a pilot project using CDBG funding to actually

install a shared elevator.

· Extend the developer’s RFP approach to underutilized properties to the east of Mickey’s Restaurant.

Text Box: