12-04-2006 DTMIN
MEETING OF THE ELK RIVER
DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PLAN TASKFORCE
HELD AT ELK RIVER CITY HALL
MONDAY, DECEMBER 4, 2006
Members Present: Stewart Wilson, HRA Chair; Louise Kuester, HRA Commissioner; Larry Toth,
HRA Commissioner; Jean Lieser, HRA Commissioner; Lance Lindberg, Heritage
Preservation Commissioner; Dana Anderson, Planning Commissioner; Mike
Niziolek, Parks & Recreation Commissioner; Dan Tveite, EDA Commissioner;
Dave Rymanowski, Business Representative – First National Bank; Keith Holme,
Business Representative (Kemper Drug); Mark Urista, Business Representative
(Coldwell Banker Vision); Molly Nadeau-Peterson, Resident Representative; John
Anderson, Resident Representative
Staff Present: Community Development Director Scott Clark, Director of Economic
Development Catherine Mehelich, Park & Recreation Director Bill Maertz and
Assistant Director of Economic Development, Heidi Steinmetz
Others Present: Stacie Kvilvang of Ehlers & Associates, Inc.
1. Welcome/Purpose of Meeting/Introduction of New Member
Stacie Kvilvang of Ehlers & Associates welcomed the taskforce members to their second meeting
and introduced new member John Anderson. Along with member Nadeau-Peterson, Mr. Anderson
will serve as a resident representative.
Ms. Kvilvang reviewed the following main goals of tonight’s meeting:
Finalize redevelopment area boundary
Redefine downtown
Complete a Strength Weaknesses Opportunities and Threats (SWOT) analysis
2. Approve November 6, 2006 Minutes / Meeting Recap
The taskforce members approved the November 6, 2006 minutes and the following taskforce
mission statement:
“To develop a comprehensive plan that will redefine the “greater downtown area” to preserve its
historical character while promoting the future viability of the community.
Maximum public input will be gathered to create and assess alternatives resulting in a formal
redevelopment plan with a combination of a master vision, working policies, specific area
recommendations and implementation priorities.”
Ms. Kvilvang asked if the taskforce had any questions about the reading material that was provided at
last month’s meeting: the Historic Contexts Study, the Market Analysis and the Planning & Project
History. There were no questions or comments.
3. Finalize Redevelopment Area Boundary
Community Development Director Scott Clark presented the taskforce’s redevelopment area
boundary as discussed/updated at last month’s meeting. He stated that the redevelopment area
includes four key components:
The “core” commercial/retail areas (both the north and south sides of Hwy 10)
Downtown Redevelopment Plan Taskforce Minutes Page 2
December 4, 2006
------------------------------------------
Adjacent single family neighborhoods
Critical recreational amenities (river, Lions Park, Handke)
A connection to Hwy 169
Member Niziolek inquired about how the Houlton farm fits within the boundary and mentioned that
adding more riverfront property to the boundary will improve the marketability of future
redevelopment in the area.
Member Rymanowski stated concern that the boundary is too large. Member Lindberg concurred
and asked that the single family neighborhoods be removed from the redevelopment area. Staff
responded that including the housing stock will better allow for the restoration and rehabilitation of
those neighborhoods.
Members Tveite, Urista, Toth and Lieser stated that they prefer the boundary as presented because it
incorporates the “greater downtown area” which allows a global and comprehensive perspective to
this project.
Member Lieser asked if more homes could be added within the boundary at a later date and staff
responded “yes.”
Member Wilson added that the current boundary includes components important to the taskforce as
a whole.
Member Holme stated that he approves of the boundary as presented because the “core” downtown
area affects the “greater downtown area.”
Member Lindberg restated that the single family neighborhoods should be removed from the
redevelopment area boundary. Member Wilson responded that it will be healthier to include the
homes.
Member Anderson added that he is in favor of natural buffers within the redevelopment plan.
4. Elements of a Redevelopment Plan and How It Will Be Used
Director of Economic Development Catherine Mehelich reviewed the following elements of a typical
redevelopment plan. These elements will be incorporated into the taskforce’s final plan.
Vision
Policies
o Land Use
o Rehabilitation
o Market
o Transportation
o Design & Regulatory
o Property Acquisition
o Redevelopment and Land Use
o Economic Development
Specific Area Recommendations
Implementation Priorities
Ms. Mehelich also reviewed the following ways in which the taskforce’s final plan will be used:
Serves as a “blue print” for City Council, Planning Commission and other groups to make
Downtown Redevelopment Plan Taskforce Minutes Page 3
December 4, 2006
------------------------------------------
future decisions
Programming elements into the City’s Capital Improvement Plan
Programming elements into the City’s Parks Capital Improvement Plan
Establishment of public purpose
Serves as an enhancement for future grant applications
Establishes a policy context for future ordinance or program modifications, e.g. Heritage
Preservation Commission to construct a historic district ordinance to preserve specific
properties
Community consensus
Promotion piece to developers for future redevelopment efforts
Serves as work plan for staff and resources
Establishes expectations for market and financial feasibility for future proposals
5. Redefining Downtown
Review Homework
Ms. Kvilvang asked each taskforce member to read aloud their responses to both “homework”
questions. Taskforce members provided Assistant Director of Economic Development with their
responses prior to the meeting, which allowed her to present the below similarities among responses:
What makes a downtown successful?
“Heart” or center
Nostalgia
Authenticity
Unique/traditional (sets us apart from suburban development)
Past, present and future
Shopping/eating
What does downtown mean to you?
Vitality
Interest, not necessity
Commercial, retail and service
Connectivity, transition, cohesive
New residential
Accessibility
o Pedestrians
o Traffic flow/access points
o River
History
Activities/amenities
Aesthetically pleasing
Balance of old and new
Dynamics of Change
Scott Clark presented information regarding how Elk River has changed over the years. He
presented a commercial radius map, which visually indicated downtown’s size in relationship to the
size of the commercial areas along Hwy 169. Mr. Clark and the taskforce discussed that Hwy 10
downtown used to be Elk River’s main commercial area but now Elk River’s main commercial area is
Downtown Redevelopment Plan Taskforce Minutes Page 4
December 4, 2006
------------------------------------------
along Hwy 169. Mr. Clark also discussed the competitive advantages that Ramsey and Otsego may
have over Elk River.
Member Holme commented that he is concerned about “tying” downtown north of Hwy 10
together with downtown south of Hwy 10 due to the physical and safety constraints to cross Hwy
10. He also mentioned his concern that there is no grocery store downtown.
Member Toth added that downtown does not mean much to newer Elk River residents, who are a
large portion of Elk River’s population and that the taskforce needs to figure out how to get those
newer residents downtown. Member Toth also agreed with member Holme that there needs to be a
grocery store downtown.
Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities and Threats (SWOT) Analysis
The taskforce broke into four small groups and completed a SWOT analysis. The results of the
analysis are attached to these minutes.
Question/Answer Session
After the SWOT was completed, the taskforce answered the following question: Is the
former/current model of downtown still viable? Why or why not? Twelve taskforce members
answered “no” and one member was unsure. Additional comments are attached to these minutes.
6. Next Steps
Member Rymanowski asked if future meetings will last three hours. Ms. Kvilvang indicated that
members should plan on meeting for three hours but that some meetings may not last that long. She
added that a typical redevelopment plan takes twelve meetings to complete rather than the taskforce’s
estimated eight meetings. She and staff feel that in respect to members’ time, eight meetings will
allow the plan to be completed before the busy summer season.
7. Final Comments
Each taskforce member stated what he/she thought about the second meeting. Most members
indicated that they thought the SWOT analysis and final question were eye opening.
Submitted by,
Heidi Steinmetz
Assistant Director of Economic Development
SWOT Analysis
STRENGTHS WEAKNESSES
Neighborhood Schools Small and limited geographic area
River Small critical mass
Limited interest in going
Businesses that are easily
accessible
Downtown by people
Nice homes
Everyone knows your name
Churches
Age of existing real estate
Authentic small town
Lack of reinvestment
character (buildings)
Highway 10 and railroad divides
Opportunity for individually owned
area and people don’t want to
businesses (affordable and non
cross
national chain)
Limited access to River
Personal Touch – Everyone knows
Parking
your name
No grocery store
Nostalgia/sentiment
Lack of variety in businesses
Identifiable location
Not pedestrian friendly (snow
Variety of services
issues, biking, etc)
Charm/Character (lights,
Traffic congestion
streets, etc.)
Delivery trucks
Local financial institutions
Lack of fine dining
(anchors)
Lack of benches or places to sit outside
Safe environment
New residents have an unfamiliarity with
Public gathering places (new
Downtown
park)
Limited connectivity of north and
Proximity to Otsego retail
south areas
Heritage/history
Market saturation
Connectivity (Highway 10,
rail road and transportation)
Public facilities in close proximity
(City Hall, Library, future YMCA)
Note:
1. Items highlighted in bold under Strengths are things we need to really build upon as we
move forward.
2. Items highlighted in bold under Weaknesses are things we need to be aware of and
not ignore as we move forward.
OPPORTUNITIES THREATS
New retail and business uses Competing retail both locally
(internal) and from surrounding
New customer base
communities (external)
Rehabilitation of existing
Lack of commuter rail stop in Downtown
buildings
Possible bypass of Highway 10
More public gathering spaces for
social activities
Continued expansion of
Outdoor dining
Otsego/Highway 101 area
Blank slate north of railroad tracks
Traffic issues (congestion,
More riverfront development
increased traffic, crossing
More access to River
Highway 10, etc)
Tie north and south areas
Value of housing stock going down
together
Land speculators (buying homes and
renting them until they can put together
More residential
large enough parcel to develop on)
development
Economic fluctuations in general
Moving west of Downtown to
Noise (Highway 10 and railroad)
develop
Not leasing out existing retail in new
Enhance Heinke Center
redevelopment projects
Current redevelopment efforts lend
Land locked for River access/trail
credibility to outside investors
Market saturation
North Star Rail and depot
Raising rents for existing businesses
location
Through traffic
Screen railroad tracks and create
buffers
Increasing land acquisition costs
Put in trail system along the
Changes in eminent domain laws
River
Fear of change
Promote an authentic Downtown
Construction stress on existing businesses
Incubator businesses
Lifestyle to support Downtown
(convenience, price vs. nostalgia, lack of
Corridor to cross Highway 10 and
interest and lack of wanted/needed
railroad tracks
services)
Attract more residents to live
Cost to upkeep aging real estate
Downtown
Interest in viable business that wants to
expand (no are to expand to Downtown or
viability is no longer there since interest
has moved elsewhere in the community)
Note:
1. Items highlighted in bold under Opportunities are things we need to look to do in the
future and takes into account our strengths and weaknesses as we move forward.
2. Items highlighted in bold under Threats are things we need to address to stay
competitive.
Question: Is the former/current model of downtown still viable? Why
or why not.
Answers: 12 Task Force members answered no to the question and 1
was unsure. Comments were as follows:
Need to do something so not surpassed by Otsego and
others
Community has outgrown Downtown
Uses have moved to Highway 169
South side will be more institutional and north side will have
opportunity for commerce
Kept the problems and didn’t look at opportunities
Lack of variety and excitement
Generation X’ers and Y’s don’t have a connection to
Downtown and there aren’t enough baby boomers to
remember how it used to be
Not viable as retail due to geographic constraints
Can be a residential and service area
Needs to be more trendy area
Too much commerce to fit into Downtown
Concerns over zoning to allow commercial/mixed-use in
developing area of Elk River and competition it will create
with this area
Don’t know if it works and won’t know until the dust settles
from the current redevelopment projects
Task Force Strengths, Weaknesses Opportunities and Threats (SWOT) Analysis
STRENGTHS WEAKNESSES
Neighborhood Schools Small and limited geographic area
River Small critical mass
Businesses that are easily accessible Limited interest in going Downtown by people
Nice homes Everyone knows your name
Churches Age of existing real estate
Authentic small town character (buildings) Lack of reinvestment
Opportunity for individually owned businesses (affordable Highway 10 and railroad divides area and people
and non national chain) don’t want to cross
Personal Touch – Everyone knows your name Limited access to River
Nostalgia/sentiment Parking
Identifiable location No grocery store
Variety of services Lack of variety in businesses
Charm/Character (lights, streets, etc.) Not pedestrian friendly (snow issues, biking, etc)
Local financial institutions (anchors) Traffic congestion
Safe environment Delivery trucks
Public gathering places (new park) Lack of fine dining
Proximity to Otsego retail Lack of benches or places to sit outside
Heritage/history New residents have an unfamiliarity with Downtown
Connectivity (Highway 10, rail road and transportation) Limited connectivity of north and south areas
Public facilities in close proximity (City Hall, Library, future Market saturation
YMCA)
Note:
Items highlighted in bold under Strengths are things we need to really build upon as we move forward. Items highlighted in bold under Weaknesses are things we need to be
aware of and not ignore as we move forward.
OPPORTUNITIES THREATS
New retail and business uses Competing retail both locally (internal) and from
surrounding communities (external)
New customer base
Lack of commuter rail stop in Downtown
Rehabilitation of existing buildings
Possible bypass of Highway 10
More public gathering spaces for social activities
Continued expansion of Otsego/Highway 101 area
Outdoor dining
Traffic issues (congestion, increased traffic, crossing
Blank slate north of railroad tracks
Highway 10, etc)
More riverfront development
Value of housing stock going down
More access to River
Land speculators (buying homes and renting them until they can
Tie north and south areas together
put together large enough parcel to develop on)
More residential development
Economic fluctuations in general
Moving west of Downtown to develop
Noise (Highway 10 and railroad)
Enhance Heinke Center
Not leasing out existing retail in new redevelopment projects
Current redevelopment efforts lend credibility
Land locked for River access/trail
to outside investors
Market saturation
North Star Rail and depot location
Raising rents for existing businesses
Screen railroad tracks and create buffers
Through traffic
Put in trail system along the River
Increasing land acquisition costs
Promote an authentic Downtown
Changes in eminent domain laws
Incubator businesses
Fear of change
Corridor to cross Highway 10 and railroad tracks
Construction stress on existing businesses
Attract more residents to live Downtown
Lifestyle to support Downtown (convenience, price vs.
nostalgia, lack of interest and lack of wanted/needed services)
Cost to upkeep aging real estate
Interest in viable business that wants to expand (no are to
expand to Downtown or viability is no longer there since
interest has moved elsewhere in the community)
Note:
Items highlighted in bold under Opportunities are things we need to look to do in the future and takes into account our strengths and weaknesses as we move forward. Items
highlighted in bold under Threats are things we need to address to stay competitive.
Task Force Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities & Threats (SWOT) Analysis
STRENGTHS WEAKNESSES OPPORTUNITIES THREATS
Neighborhood Schools Small and limited geographic area New retail and business uses Competing retail both locally (internal) and from
surrounding communities (external)
River Small critical mass New customer base
Lack of commuter rail stop in Downtown
Businesses that are easily accessible Limited interest in going Downtown Rehabilitation of existing buildings
by people Possible bypass of Highway 10
Nice homes More public gathering spaces for social
Everyone knows your name Continued expansion of Otsego/Highway 101 area
activities
Churches
Age of existing real estate Outdoor dining Traffic issues (congestion, increased traffic,
Authentic small town character
crossing Highway 10, etc)
Lack of reinvestment Blank slate north of railroad tracks
(buildings)
Value of housing stock going down
Opportunity for individually owned Highway 10 and railroad divides area More riverfront development
Land speculators (buying homes and renting them until
businesses (affordable and non and people don’t want to cross
More access to River
national chain) they can put together large enough parcel to develop
Limited access to River
on)
Tie north and south areas together
Personal Touch – Everyone knows
Parking
your name Economic fluctuations in general
More residential development
No grocery store
Nostalgia/sentiment Noise (Highway 10 and railroad)
Moving west of Downtown to develop
Lack of variety in businesses
Identifiable location Not leasing out existing retail in new redevelopment
Enhance Heinke Center
projects
Not pedestrian friendly (snow issues,
Variety of services
Current redevelopment efforts lend
biking, etc)
Land locked for River access/trail
credibility
Charm/Character (lights, streets,
Traffic congestion
etc.) Market saturation
to outside investors
Delivery trucks
Local financial institutions Raising rents for existing businesses
North Star Rail and depot location
(anchors)
Lack of fine dining
Through traffic
Screen railroad tracks and create buffers
Safe environment
Lack of benches or places to sit outside
Increasing land acquisition costs
Put in trail system along the River
Public gathering places (new
New residents have an unfamiliarity with
Changes in eminent domain laws
park)
Promote an authentic Downtown
Downtown
Fear of change
Proximity to Otsego retail
Incubator businesses
Limited connectivity of north and
Construction stress on existing businesses
south areas
Heritage/history
Corridor to cross Highway 10 and railroad
tracks
Market saturation Lifestyle to support Downtown (convenience, price vs.
Connectivity (Highway 10, rail
nostalgia, lack of interest and lack of wanted/needed
road and transportation)
Attract more residents to live Downtown
services)
Public facilities in close proximity
Cost to upkeep aging real estate
(City Hall, Library, future YMCA)
Interest in viable business that wants to expand (no are
to expand to Downtown or viability is no longer there
since interest has moved elsewhere in the community)
Note:
Items highlighted in bold under Strengths are things we need to really build upon as we move forward. Items highlighted in bold under Weaknesses are things we need to be aware of and
not
ignore as we move forward. Items highlighted in bold under Opportunities are things we need to look to do in the future and takes into account our strengths and weaknesses as we move
forward.
Items highlighted in bold under Threats are things we need to address to stay competitive.