Loading...
DTSR AGENDA 02-27-2012Regular Meeting of the Downtown Task Force AGENDA Monday, February 27, 2012 6:30 p.m. Elk River City Hall MINUTES 2. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION AND CONSENSUS 3. BREAK 4. PROBLEM STATEMENT 5. NEXT STEPS/ HOMEWORK 6. NEXT MEETING: MARCH 26, 2012 This agenda is available in alternate formau upon a 72 houradvanced no[ice: Auxiliary aids and services are also available upon a 72 hour advancednotice. Reese contattthe Citytlerk atJ63. 635.1000 to make a request Examples of alternate formau may indude:Jarge print, Braille, audio tape, etc.Examples of auxiliary aids may include a sign languageinterpreter, assistive lis[ening device; etc. rorraEe ar ~A~UR~ MEMORANDUM TO: Downtown Task Force Members FROM: Jeremy Barnhart, Planning Manager DATE: February 27, 2012 SUBJECT: February meeting agenda discussion The agenda fox the meeting on February 27`h includes a number of items. This memo is intended to provide some preliminary information as you prepare for that meeting. 2. Items for discussion. At the January Task force meeting, 21 items of discussion were identified by members, and voted on as a means to establish priority. At that meeting, the top three items were discussed, and briefly summarized below. The remaining items start at #4. Let me know if my understanding differs from yours. It is hoped that the group builds consensus on the items it discusses, and those items once decided axe no longer issues within the group as the Task Force transitions into making actual changes to the plan, starting in March. The number of votes is shown in parentheses (x). 1. (6) Preserve older housing stock. Axe we doing that? Consensus: The plan needs to preserve existing housing as much as possible. 2. (6) Revitalizing the core downtown area Consensus: Details to be detemtined, but include fill vacant spaces, provide for the critical mass necessary to sustain downtownactivity. 3. (5) The "river trail". Is this a part of the plan? Consensus: Plan should include a trail, with a broad search area, to be discussed with property owners prior to public meetings. Trail access and parking needs to be identified. eaw[nto et C:\Uscts\jjohnson\AppData\Local\Micxosoft\Windows\Temporary In[emc[ Files\ContentOu[look\SFWAYSNS\Mcmo ~~~~~~ 2-27-12 meetinR.docx 4. (5) Preserve historic buildings (implementation priorities to include identification, programs, resources available to property owners). 5. (3) Careful review of the alignment of streets north of Hwy 10. 6. (3) Strategic infrastructure needed by the city -Rivers Edge Convnons Park 7. (2) Clarity on Hwy 10 for access from the highway and access on city streets to downtown. 8. (2) Bluff Block along Main St-the current new building and history and the established business and history. 9. (1) Jackson Ave changing land use to "medium density" on the east side. 10. (1) Future transit ox train station locations. 11. (1) Study area boundary, does it need to be condensed? 12. (1) Planning horizon. Currently 20 years. Should it be longer, shorter? 13. (1) Historic Preservation. 14. (1) Mixed uses, a general evaluation of appropriate land uses. 15. (1) Better understand issues with existing new projects, so that appropriate changes to our plan can be made to reduce that risk. 16. Schedule (Is the length suggested by the draft schedule appropriate?) 17. Process. How do we incorporate community input? 18. The building demolition on Main St. next to the ER Meats and the ER Meats area. 19. The `future study area'. 20. Study area boundary, does it need to be expanded? 20. Jackson Avenue alignment, and its intersection with Highway 10. 21. Commercial uses along and south of Main, should there be a defined edge of downtown? 3. Break, Sandwiches and soft drinks will be provided, as will time fox a short break. This will be taken approximately midway through the evening. 4. Problem statement development. If sufficient progress is made on the discussion items above, further work will be spent on fine tuning the problem statement. C:\Usexs\jjohnson\AppData\Local\MicrosoEt\Windows'\'1'empotary In[emet Piles\ContencOutlook\SPWAYSNS\Memo 2-27-02 meeting.docz The statement we ended the January meeting with: "We are doing this plan to provide guidance and vision of the future of greater downtown Elk River due to immense anticipated changes brought on by Highway 10 and market forces." 5. Next steps. The March agenda has not been drafted, but assuming that the Task Force is comfortable with the progress made on the discussion items, I think the next steps involve some manipulation of maps of the downtown, including idendficadon of necessary and desirable features. More on this closer to the March meeting. Homework will be determuied at the meeting. With the added time fox a break, I anticipate concluding the meeting no latex than 9 p.m. C:\Users\jjohnson\AppData\Local\Minosoft\Windows\Tcmporuy Interne[ Files\Content.0u[look\SFWAYSNS\Memo 2-27-12 meeting.docx Downtown Task Force Draft Minutes January 23, 2012 Downtown Taskforce Meeting, January 23, 2012 After discussion, Stewart Wilson and Dana Anderson nominated as co-chairman's. The draft minutes of the November minutes approved as written. Proceeded to do the small group task of coming up with a problem statement "Why axe we doing a plan?" Fred, Mike, Jeau, Mo11y, and Keith Immense change with Hwy 10 A plan is good...it allows us to see what we axe getting fox people to invest. Dana, Nick, Jery, and Pat Discussed why and what the task force did in 2006 Now we know a Hwy 101ayout How to draw people & business into Downtown Showcase the brand/city -strong natural element is the river Cbad, Lnnce, Stewart, and Newguy The city has worked many years on many plans but why have they not been implemented. It is appropriate? Does Downtown need xevitalizadon? No need fox a plan was their consensus Each group posted their ideas on the board and discussion followed: Question: What is downtown? Historically downtown is where people gathered as a community. Close to the river. The concert series do this now. C:\Documen[s and Settings\jjohnson\Lo<al Settings\Tempotary Internet Files\ContentOutlook\SWF9KSU4\Minutes 1-23.docx It defines "us", our culture Should it (the plan) be looked at as the "Greater Downtown" area? Plan is good fox the future, it shows what might/could be to future stakeholders. Proceeded again in the small groups to fine tune a problem statement. Break Looked at the three revised statements. What makes it workable? Accepted by majority Broke into steps In needs to function-guidance Three small group Problem Statements: • We are doing this plan to reestablish the small neighborhood spirit characterized by small business and single family residences. • A workable plan to draw current/fumre citizens to Elk River's greater downtown area and to guide current and future property/business development. • To provide business/property owners and investors in our community a workable plan which will improve and protect our culture being anchored to riverfront experience and will accommodate change to highway 10 and encourage reinvestment both in buildings and businesses to draw people. After discussion, the final combined Problem Statement: We axe doing this plan to provide guidance and vision of the future of greater downtown Elk River due to immense anticipated changes brought on by Highway 10 and market forces. Items for additional discussion...collectively decide where this topic falls The taskforce members were asked to generate a list of topics that they felt warranted further discussion of information. As a way to prioritize those topics, members were given three dots and were asked to place them next to the three items they felt critical to the completion of the plan. The bzeakdown: (6) Preserve older housing stack. Are we doing that? (6) I~evitaliZing the core downtown area (details to be determined). (5) The "river trial': Is this a part of the plan? (5) Preserve historic buildings (implementation priorities to include ident~cation, programs, resources available to property owners). (3) Careful review of the alignment of streets north of 10. (3) Strategic infrastructure needed by the aty - Bivers Edge Commons Park (2) Clarity on Hwy 10 for access from the Hwy and access on city streets to downtown. (2) Bluff Block along Main St-the current new building and history and the established business and history. (1) Jackson Ave changing land use to `medium density"on the East side. (1) Future transit or train station locations. (1) Study area boundary, does it need to be condensed. (1) Planning horizon. Currently 20years. Should it be longer, shorter? (1) Historic Preservation. (1) Mixed use. , a genera! evaluation of appropriate land uses. (1) Better understand issues with existing new projects, so that appropriate changes to our plan can be made to reduce that risk. Items not receiving a vote: Schedule (Is the length sugnested by the draft schedule appropriate?) Process. How do we incorporate community input? The building demolition on Main St. next to the ER Meats and the EA Meats area. The future study area Study area boundary, does it need to be expanded? Jackson Avenue alignment, and its intersection with Highway 10. Commercial uses along and south of Main, should there be a d~ned edge of downtown? Proximity of residential to the rerouted railroad. General discussion occurred Keep current single family housing intact Where does downtoum end? Do we prevent growth to save one house? It was questioned what houses would be removed with the current plan, not many? Why did the city do a Highway plan? Do convey what most likely will happen in the future to then plan around. The top three critical areas were discussed 1. Housing Stock: Minunize the impact and preserve housing stock as a priority 2. AevitaliZatiau: What extend do we preserve? Do we prevent growth to save one house? Can we revitalize downtown without Highway 10 changes? Fill empty spaces What is the "critical mass" to support downtown? Proposed Highway 10 design provides better connectivity of the north and south side of the highway and tracks. 3. I~1verTrail.• A river trail should be shown on the plan as a broad concept/ search area and let the city administration pursue conversations with the affected property owners/ Bailey Point (possible future park) plays a large role in this decision Issues: trespassing, waltjing through yards to get to the trail, Safety issues with trail heads, parking on streets, The next steps were discussed and what the next meeting will involve the remainder of the items.