Loading...
03-05-2007 DTMIN MEETING OF THE ELK RIVER DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PLAN TASK FORCE HELD AT ELK RIVER CITY HALL MONDAY, MARCH 5, 2007 Members Present: Stewart Wilson, HRA Chair; Louise Kuester, HRA Commissioner; Larry Toth, HRA Commissioner; Jean Lieser, HRA Commissioner; Lance Lindberg, Heritage Preservation Commissioner; Dan Tveite, EDA Commissioner; Dana Anderson, Planning Commissioner; Dave Rymanowski, Business Representative (First National Bank); Keith Holme, Business Representative (Kemper Drug); Molly Nadeau-Peterson, Resident Representative; John Anderson, Resident Representative Members Absent: Mike Niziolek, Parks & Recreation Commissioner and Mark Urista, Business Representative (Coldwell Banker Vision) Staff Present: Community Development Director Scott Clark, Director of Economic Development Catherine Mehelich, City Engineer Terry Maurer, Assistant Director of Economic Development Heidi Steinmetz and Planner Chris Leeseberg Others Present: Stacie Kvilvang of Ehlers & Associates, Inc. and Michael Schroeder of LHB Architects and Engineers 1. Approve March 5, 2007 Agenda The March 5, 2007 agenda was approved. 2. Approve February 5, 2007 Minutes/Recap of Last Meeting The February 5, 2007 minutes were approved. Ms. Kvilvang provided a recap of the last meeting. She highlighted the following items that the developers discussed with the Task Force:  There is a market in Elk River for senior housing.  An appropriate land use for downtown north of Hwy 10 is one that provides jobs to support the core downtown.  The dynamics between appropriate land uses for the north and south sides of Hwy 10 are complex.  Otsego is not a competing threat to downtown Elk River.  There may be a better future use for the funeral home property.  The single family neighborhoods are important to the downtown area. 3. Public Participation Process & Final Plan Outcome Ms. Kvilvang stated that there were questions among members about the public participation process. She explained the following examples of ways the public will participate in this process:  The Task Force itself is part of the public participation process because the members represent the community via Boards and Commissions, businesses and residents.  Monthly updates are expected to be provided by Task Force members to their respective Boards/Commissions.  The public will have the chance to review the draft plan when it is presented to various Boards and Commissions for input.  There will be a community/stakeholder open house. Downtown Redevelopment Plan Task Force Minutes Page 2 March 5, 2007 ------------------------------------------  Communication tools will be used such as the City Website or newsletters. Member John Anderson asked is staff could ask the Elk River Star News to run an article to inform the community about the Task Force. Director of Economic Development Catherine Mehelich explained that in respect of the City Council, they need to be updated on the Task Force status prior th to the general public. The update is scheduled for March 12. In addition, it was important that the Task Force select a chairperson, establish a mission statement and develop a focus area boundary prior to launching a public communication campaign. Ms. Kvilvang also reviewed the final outcome of the Task Force process, which is the Redevelopment Plan. She referenced the sample redevelopment plans that she passed around at the first Task Force meeting and that the Task Force itself would not be expected to write such a “thick” document. She stated that staff would be writing the plan based off of Task Force discussions. Member Lindberg asked how many Task Force meetings are remaining. Ms. Kvilvang answered that there will be four to six more meetings. She anticipates that at least three meetings will be spent converting the Task Force’s policy discussions and other thoughts and ideas to paper. th 4. Purpose of March 5 Meeting Ms. Kvilvang stated that over the course of the first series of meetings, the Task Force members have made numerous comments about issues relating to Hwy 10. Tonight’s meeting is crucial in addressing many of those issues. Due to a scheduling conflict with one of the visioning facilitators for the April meeting, Ms. Kvilvang thnd asked if the next meeting could be held on April 9 instead of April 2. All members agreed that this would be fine. 5. Hwy 10 Presentation: City Engineer Terry Maurer Ms. Kvilvang introduced guest speaker City Engineer Terry Maurer. Interregional Corridor Study Mr. Maurer provided a PowerPoint presentation focusing on the results of MnDOT’s 2002 Interregional Corridor (IRC) Study, specifically focusing on the stretch of Hwy 10 from approximately Hwy 101 to Proctor. His presentation highlighted the following information:  On October 14, 2002, the City Council adopted a Resolution Accepting, Supporting and Adopting the TH 10 Interregional Corridor Management Plan, which included the following statements relating to the downtown area: o Consideration should be given to lowering 10 below the surrounding grade vs. raising it above. o Consideration should be given to a raised alignment on the north side of the railroad tracks. o There are significant concerns over the IRC Plan and the impact it may have on the downtown area.  MnDOT has placed higher priority on Hwy 169 over Hwy 10.  Traffic counts on Hwy 169 are estimated to be double the amounts on Hwy 10 in the year 2025.  Even if $21 million (2001 dollars) suggested by the IRC results is spent on elevating Hwy 10 downtown, MnDOT’s Level of Service will still be an“F”. Downtown Redevelopment Plan Task Force Minutes Page 3 March 5, 2007 ------------------------------------------  The Tinklenberg Group will submit a 3rd request for $500,000 of Federal funding to further analyze Hwy 10 through the downtown area.  Terry Humbert, MnDOT Project Manager for Hwy 10 has indicated that there is no funding in MnDOT’s 30 yr. plan for Hwy 10 downtown.  Scott Bradley, MnDOT Chief Landscape Architect stated that it would be Terry Humbert’s decision whether or not to bring the Context Sensitive Design group at MnDOT into Elk River to enhance Hwy 10 improvements. (Mr. Maurer suggested that this may be an option if the $500,000 of Federal funding was awarded to further study Hwy 10 downtown.) Member Holme asked if traffic issues along Hwy 10 downtown are going to get worse within the next fifteen years if nothing is done. Mr. Maurer stated “yes” according to MnDOT’s projections. He expanded with the following:  There is no funding available for thirty years; however MnDOT’s 30-year plan may change.  MnDOT will likely fund improvements in the Anoka/Ramsey area prior to funding improvements to Hwy 10 downtown.  MnDOT District 3 will fund Hwy 169 projects prior than Hwy 10 projects. Member Dana Anderson asked Mr. Maurer if safety issues would motivate MnDOT to make improvements to the highway even though the Level of Service would still be rated an “F.” Mr. Maurer stated that most reported deaths occur on 2-lane undivided highways and Highways 10 and 169 are considered relatively safe highways. Conceptual Options For the purposes of Task Force policy discussions, Mr. Maurer provided an overview of the following four conceptual options:  Lower highway  Elevate highway  Eliminate one intersection  Do nothing Mr. Maurer expanded on the “eliminate one intersection” option explaining that this option may be the fastest way to improve traffic since eliminating an intersection is more cost effective than lowering or elevating a highway. Planner Chris Leeseberg presented animated images of how Hwy 10 would appear to travelers both from a lowered and elevated perspective. He also presented a still image of how local traffic may be realigned if one intersection in the downtown area were to be eliminated. He used the example of eliminating the Main Street/Hwy 10 intersection. He reiterated that the images were concepts, not designs. Member Lindberg asked how long the construction of an elevated Hwy would last. Mr. Maurer stated that he couldn’t say for sure since the area is so confined but that it would more than likely last for an entire construction season. Member Holme asked if there is enough Right of Way to elevate or lower the highway. Mr. Maurer stated “yes” especially if MnDOT eliminates several access points to allow for six lanes of traffic. Downtown Redevelopment Plan Task Force Minutes Page 4 March 5, 2007 ------------------------------------------ Ms. Kvilvang asked what would happen to The Bank of Elk River’s parking lot located on the north side of Hwy 10 if the highway was elevated or lowered. Mr. Maurer said that he believes most of the parking lot currently is built in MnDOT’s Right of Way so MnDOT would probably remove the parking lot. Member Wilson inquired whether closing the Jackson Avenue/Hwy 10 intersection would make sense. Mr. Maurer explained that one of the reasons Main Street was chosen as an example is because of the super-elevated railroad tracks at that intersection. Mr. Leeseberg added that the Fire Department may have concerns with closing the Jackson intersection because of the nearby fire station. Mr. Maurer mentioned that another option would be to eliminate both Main Street and Jackson Avenue intersections and create a new one altogether. Member Lindberg stated that he prefers a Hwy 10 improvement option that would cause the least amount of buildings to be removed. Member Tveite reminded the group that the Main Street intersection is confined by the Parrish Avenue bridge, the railroad tracks and Hwy 10 and that it is a tough intersection no matter what MnDOT decides to do with it in the future. Member Rymanowski mentioned the cost/benefit to eliminating one intersection versus elevating or lowering the highway however eliminating one intersection would cause a major land acquisition impact. Mr. Maurer concurred. Member Lieser asked if the Main Street/Hwy 10 intersection was closed, would Proctor remain open. Mr. Maurer stated that Jackson, Proctor, Upland and Joplin would remain open but MnDOT may eliminate the Waco intersection. Small Groups The Task Force broke into three small groups and discussed the following three policy questions: 1) Is it important that downtown be “seen” and/or accessed from Hwy 10? o Which option for Hwy 10 is least detrimental to downtown?  Elevated  Lowered  At grade The Task Force consensus was that leaving Hwy 10 at grade would be the least detrimental to downtown due to the importance of maintaining a sense of place and image that one is entering the downtown. The Task Force also agreed that it is important for downtown to be accessed from Hwy 10, although recognized that the downtown does not draw or depend on customer traffic from Hwy 10. 2) Is the land area north of Hwy 10 an extension of the core downtown and should the Plan recognize this? The Task Force consensus was that the north of Hwy 10 downtown is not an extension of the core downtown but that the land uses on the north side should compliment the core downtown. 3) Should the Plan reflect the downtown area extending further west along Main Street? The Task Force consensus was that the natural progression of downtown redevelopment will most Downtown Redevelopment Plan Task Force Minutes Page 5 March 5, 2007 ------------------------------------------ likely extend west along Main Street as driven by the market. More details of the small group discussion are attached. 6. Photo “Homework” Summary Assistant Director of Economic Development Heidi Steinmetz stated that the photo summary provided tonight is meant to generate ideas in preparation for next month’s first visioning meeting but that the photos will be used as references to assist the Task Force in transferring ideas to paper. The summary included groupings of similar photos taken by members during the month of January. Many members explained to the group why each photo was taken. Member Wilson expressed concern that the summary only included Elk River photos and that he understood the assignment was meant to obtain photos outside of Elk River. Ms. Steinmetz stated that he understood the assignment correctly and that the rest of the photos would definitely be used during the visioning process. 7. Next Steps Ms. Kvilvang stated that the Task Force would be breaking into two visioning groups at next month’s meeting on April 9th, which will be facilitated by Michael Schroeder of LHB Architects and Engineers and Planner Chris Leeseberg. Ms. Mehelich reminded the group that there is an EDA meeting prior to the Task Force meeting so the Task Force meeting would begin at 6:30pm. 8. Final Comments Ms. Kvilvang asked each Task Force member to talk about his/her reactions to tonight’s presentation. The comments are listed below:  Dave Rymanowksi: It doesn’t “pay” to spend $21 million on Hwy 10 if the Level of Service will remain an “F”.  John Anderson: concurred with Mr. Rymanowski  Stewart Wilson:  Jean Lieser: Any improvements to Hwy 10 are “out there a ways.”  Molly Nadeau: MnDOT doesn’t seem to be under any pressure to improve Hwy 10.  Keith Holme: The north and south sides of Hwy 10 should be developed separately. We need to wait to redevelop further west along Main Street until there is a market for it. We need to make sure we maintain a nice buffer between the commercial and the residential located along Main Street.  Larry Toth: Redevelopment along Main Street should not extend futher than Lowell Avenue.  Dana Anderson: It is time for the City to make some tough decisions regarding Hwy 10 traffic downtown and we need to come up with some better land uses to alleviate those transportation issues.  Lance Lindberg: There is no easy answer for dealing with Hwy 10.  Dan Tveite: We need to figure out the best land uses for north and south of Hwy 10. The natural progression for redevelopment in the area is to extend west along Main Street and we need to make sure we maintain good transitions.  Louise Kuester: The Task Force has really changed its focus regarding the north and south sides of Hwy 10. It is odd that we’ve never talked about the railroad because it is just as much of any issue as Hwy 10. We need to be proactive with Hwy 10. Submitted by, Downtown Redevelopment Plan Task Force Minutes Page 6 March 5, 2007 ------------------------------------------ Heidi Steinmetz Assistant Director of Economic Development uot`1 Ti Ljd -J L 0 �\ 1 atttA 7E tzCsT — �� ►usc, � TL LW 1 rnP. �-c� � s�cn r c�LL�ssev L\ S o\Yq. II n o ex�cns� Q ew•ov r�o*\ r\ s� . ci C L ss �� Ova s -+kc c o� 1G �, �o►nC e r �� �.,%r nc r�►� � Y OkVNL aCLC� �1 t �wi t s ►�c c�ec� �r- C.dni-ex�- �� �� �� Aeccs tS t YVT +o I Q)CA nod cd"yx cf �bM"lY) hreS)�N 1 gvcku,c, Svoy G4A-N4Lr G►�'i�QY,� 1. Pd �5 C) - k}cC� � 4,p�J. actru �� 0/ . Cs�.STI L)_ L N. 51\0j� eo�pl�►�eh�- S. K)b, 41 C", L �� o n Sk•o�11 �- a�� !may M1c. _, ,� � � ,�, � � � �x ,rid —sue. �s��� �- ���;�'�►��,� ��,��,� �s►►�� 61c}e,j Ala c�0 ym IJ Currir\4Y ofl Rr�r �tS ["01 as s•►h4 usct on s. SOct Q(°ptal •Fpr rcJtu. Downtown Redevelopment Plan Task Force March 5, 2007 meeting Small Group Question #1 Is it important that downtown be “seen” and/or accessed from Hwy 10?  Which option for Hwy 10 is least detrimental to downtown? o Elevated o Lowered o At grade Group 1  A visual is needed so that Hwy 10 travelers know they are entering downtown Elk River.  Access from Hwy 10 into downtown is important for local traffic but for Hwy 10 commuters.  Keep Hwy 10 at grade and study other options.  Local residents’ access in and out of downtown from Hwy 10 takes precedence over commuters’ access.  The “as is” option is preferred but there is a need for safe pedestrian access between the north and south sides of the highway. Group 2  It is important that downtown Elk River is seen and accessed from Hwy 10.  The “at grade” version of Hwy 10 is preferred.  The removal of a Main Street access into downtown from Hwy 10 better allows redevelopment opportunities north of Hwy 10. Group 3  The “at grade” or “do nothing” approach continues to serve the area the best because of the disruption Hwy 10 reconstruction would cause, etc.  The elevated option has poor aesthetic appeal. Small Group Questions #2 Is the land area north of Hwy 10 an extension of the core downtown and should the Plan recognize this? Group 1 (same responses as Group 2) Group 2  The north side of Hwy 10 should compliment the south side in relation to land use and architecture.  The north side of the highway is not an extension of the core downtown. Group 3  The north and south sides of Hwy 10 are two separate areas. The north side is not an extension of the south side.  The south side of the highway is the core downtown.  There are concerns with increased train traffic and access to the core downtown. Small Group Questions #3 Should the Plan reflect the downtown area extending further west along Main Street? Group 1  If redevelopment extends west along Main Street, will it thrive and what will it look like or be? Group 2  The answer to the question is yes and there may be a better use or opportunities for the funeral home.  The redevelopment plan should recognize that extending west along Main Street is a natural “growth” area.  Extending west along Main should be driven by the market and it is a logical place to continue redevelopment is the current construction projects are successful. Group 3  The answer to the question is yes and redevelopment should extend to Lowell Ave (there was some disagreement on this among Group 3 members).  The market will dictate whether this happens or not. There is a need to fill the existing and new commercial units prior to thinking about adding new commercial. Summary  Hwy 10 will always be a barrier to downtown Elk River’s redevelopment. o The “at grade” option is the best option. o Money should be earmarked to find out if the “cut and cover” (lowered highway) option is even an option.  The Task Force recognizes that downtown customers are local, not commuters driving by on Hwy 10.  Are there opportunities or how we can move businesses currently located along the river or the south side of Hwy 10 over to the north side of Hwy 10?  The south side of Hwy 10 has more residential appeal for redevelopment than the north side.