10.2. SR 02-20-2007
Item # 10.2.
MEMORANDUM
FROM:
Mayor and City Council
Heidi Steinmetz, Assistant Director of Economic Development '(f;
TO:
DATE:
February 20, 2007
SUBJECT:
Downtown Redevelopment Plan Taskforce Update
Attachments
. November 2006 - January 2007 Approved Taskforce Minutes
. February 2007 DRAFT Taskforce Minutes
. Redevelopment Area Focus Areas Map
The purpose of this memorandum is to provide the City Council with a brief update of
Downtown Redevelopment Taskforce decisions to date and upcoming issues for taskforce
discussion. Taskforce Chairperson Mark Urista will provide the City Council with a verbal
update at its March 12th meeting.
Background
In follow up to an HRA recommendation in October 2006, the City Council appointed a
Downtown Redevelopment Plan Taskforce to complete a redevelopment plan for the
greater downtown area.
The composition of the taskforce represents the community through City boards and
commissions that deal direcrly with development and redevelopment, businesses and
residents.
Stewart Wilson
Louise Kuester
Larry Toth
Jean Lieser
Lance Lindberg
Dana Anderson
Mike Niziolek
Dan Tveite
Dave Rymanowski
Keith Holme
HRA
HRA
HRA
HRA
HPC
Planning Commission
Park & Rec Commission
EDA
Business Rep. (First Nat'l Bank)
Business Rep. (Kemper Drug)
February 20,2007 City Council Update
Page 2 of2
Mark Urista, Chair
Molly Nadeau
John Anderson
Business Rep. (Coldwell Banker Vision)
Resident Rep.
Resident Rep.
Taskforce Decisions To Date
The minutes from the first series of meetings are attached. The meetings have focused on
providing background and education of various studies and issues in order for taskforce
members to reach a similar level of understanding. The taskforce has reached agreement on
the following items:
. Elected a chairperson (Mark Urista)
. Developed and adopted the following mission statement:
"To develop a comprehensive plan that will rede(lne the "greater downtown area" to preserve
its historical charader 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, speci(lc area
recommendations and implementation priorities."
. Established the attached redevelopment area boundary
. Completed a Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities & Threat Analysis
. Reached consensus that the former/ current downtown model is not viable
Upcoming Issues for Discussion
Based on the fIrst series of meetings, the following key policy issues/questions have been
identifIed for taskforce discussion prior to drafting the plan:
. Should the river be utilized for recreation and asset enhancement?
. Should north and south of Hwy 10 downtown be developed separately?
. What are the viable land uses that will work today and into the future (long-term)?
. How should historical character be defIned?
Remaining Taskforce Meetings
The redevelopment planning process is expected to take approximately nine months. Below
is an outline of the remaining taskforce meetings leading up to the completion of the plan.
March 2007
--Hwy 10 discussion
April - Early 2007
--Visioning process / plan development
--City Boards/Commissions review draft plan
--General public reviews draft plan
Mid-late Summer 2007
--Plan adoption by City Council and Boards/Commissions
followed by plan implementation
MEETING OF THE ELK RIVER
DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PLAN TASKFORCE
HELD AT THE EMERGENCY OPERATIONS CENTER
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 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
Staff Present:
Community Development Director Scott Clark, Director of Economic
Development Catherine Mehelich, Planner Chris Leeseberg and Assistant
Director of Economic Development, Heidi Steinmetz
Others Present:
Stacie Kvilvang of Ehlers & Associates, Inc. and John Anderson,
downtown resident
1. Welcome & Introductions
Assistant Director of Economic Development Heidi Steinmetz welcomed the taskforce
members to their Erst meeting. She introduced the staff project team and Stacie Kvilvang of
Ehlers & Associates. Ms. Kvilvang will facilitate each meeting and serve as a redevelopment
planning expert to City staff. Ms. Steinmetz asked taskforce members to contact her directly
with any taskforce issues/ concerns between meetings.
Taskforce members introduced themselves and indicated their reason for involvement.
2. Overview & Schedule
Ms. Steinmetz reviewed the role of the taskforce, which is to assist in the completion of a
redevelopment plan for the greater downtown area that will represent a consensus of the
City Council, City boards, commissions, business owners and citizens for future
redevelopment actions. She added that the plan will serve as a guiding document for the
City Council, City boards, commissions and staff.
Ms. Kvilvang presented taskforce expectations, ground rules, the purpose of visioning and
the general schedule/work plan. She provided visual examples of other cities'
redevelopment plans, comparing the plans with Enal outcomes, which were very similar.
Ms. Kvilvang proceeded to facilitate the taskforce's selection of a chairperson. It was the
consensus of the taskforce that Mark Urista serve as the chairperson. It was understood that
the chair will present the Enal plan to various city commissions/boards. In the event that
Mr. Urista is unavailable to attend meetings, the taskforce agreed that Louise Kuester will
serve as the vice chair.
3. Redevelopment 101
Staff provided general redevelopment principles to the taskforce. Reasons for
redevelopment and barriers to redevelopment were presented.
Downtown Redevelopment Plan Taskforce J'vfinutes
November 6, 2006
Page 2
4. Taskforce Mission Statement
Ms. Steinmetz asked the taskforce to develop a taskforce mission statement to describe the
purpose of the taskforce, the reasons why a plan is needed and the expected results of the
plan. Staff provided an example mission statement for the taskforce to modify. After much
discussion, the taskforce mission statement evolved into the following:
''70 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. Steinmetz mentioned that the taskforce is welcomed to rename the redevelopment area.
She also asked them to think about the mission statement until the next taskforce meeting
when it will be finalized.
5. Redevelopment Area Boundary
Planner Chris Leeseberg presented the taskforce with a draft area boundary based off of the
2001 Maxfield Research Market Analysis of the downtown area and the Housing and
Redevelopment Authority's recent redevelopment planning for north of Hwy 10 downtown.
The taskforce discussed minor changes and why certain residential neighborhoods were
included. Ms. Steinmetz indicated that including the housing stock within the boundary will
better incorporate it into the plan and that redevelopment is not solely about the removal of
homes or buildings. Restoration and rehabilitation is also a component of redevelopment.
Ms. Steinmetz asked the taskforce to think about the boundary until the next taskforce
meeting when it will be fmalized.
6. Downtown Overview
Director of Economic Development Catherine Mehelich provided an overview of the City's
downtown planning efforts over the past thirty years.
Staff also presented general information about how property value is determined in addition
to specific downtown Elk River property and land value trends.
Ms. Steinmetz presented traffic and public safety information obtained by Police Chief
Beahen and City Engineer Terry Maurer.
7. Elk River in the Next 10 Years
Community Development Director Scott Clark presented figures regarding predictions for
demographic and development changes ten years from now.
8. Homework
Staff distributed the following reading materials to the taskforce: the Downtown Planning &
Project History, the 2002 Historic Contexts Study and 2001 Downtown Market Analysis.
Ms. Kvilvang asked that the taskforce send Ms. Steinmetz the answers to the following
questions within two weeks: What does downtown Elk River mean to you? and What are the
components of a successful downtown?
9. Final Comments
Each taskforce member stated what he/ she thought about the first meeting. Most members
Downtown Redevelopment Plan Taskforce Minutes
November 6, 2006
indicated that they are proud to be part of the taskforce and that they expect the
redevelopment plan to be implemented rather than "just another plan for the shelf."
Submitted by,
~~~
Heidi Steinmetz
Assistant Director of Economic Development
Page 3
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:
Downtown Redevelopment Plan Taskforce Minutes
December 4, 2006
Page 2
. The "core" commercial/retail areas (both the north and south sides of Hwy 10)
. 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
Downtown Redevelopment Plan Taskforce :Minutes
December 4, 2006
Page 3
Ms. Mehelich also reviewed the following ways in which the taskforce's flnal plan will be
used:
. Serves as a "blue print" for City Council, Planning Commission and other groups to
make 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 modiflcations, e.g.
Heritage Preservation Commission to construct a historic district ordinance to
preserve speciflc properties
. Community consensus
. Promotion piece to developers for future redevelopment efforts
. Serves as work plan for staff and resources
. Establishes expectations for market and flnancial feasibility for future proposals
5. Redeflning 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 T rafflc flow/access points
o River
. His tory
. Activities / amenities
. Aesthetically pleasing
. Balance of old and new
Downtown Redevelopment Plan Taskforce Minutes
December 4, 2006
Page 4
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 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 hel she thought about the second meeting. Most
members indicated that they thought the SWOT analysis and final question were eye
openmg.
Submitted by,
~.f~f
Heidi Steinmetz
Assistant Director of Economic Development
SWOT Analysis
......................................................................... .
STRENGTHS WEAKNESSES
. Neighborhood Schools . Small and limited geographic area
. River . Small critical mass
. Businesses that are easily . Limited interest in going
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
Nostalgia/sentiment . No grocery store
.
Identifiable location . Lack of variety in businesses
.
Variety of services . Not pedestrian friendly (snow
.
. Charm/Character (lights, issues, biking, etc)
streets, etc.) . Traffic congestion
Local financial institutions . Delivery trucks
.
(anchors) . Lack of fine dining
Safe environment . Lack of benches or places to sit outside
.
Public gathering places (new . New residents have an unfamiliarity with
.
park) Downtown
. 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
Cit Hall, Libra , 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
. New customer base (internal) and from surrounding
. Rehabilitation of existing communities (external)
buildings . Lack of commuter rail stop in Downtown
. More public gathering spaces for . Possible bypass of Highway 10
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
. More residential renting them until they can put together
development large enough parcel to develop on)
. Moving west of Downtown to . Economic fluctuations in general
develop . Noise (Highway 10 and railroad)
. Enhance Heinke Center . Not leasing out existing retail in new
. Current redevelopment efforts lend redevelopment projects
credibility to outside investors . Land locked for River access/trail
. North Star Rail and depot . Market saturation
location . Raising rents for existing businesses
. Screen railroad tracks and create . Through traffic
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
. Corridor to cross Highway 10 and (convenience, price vs. nostalgia, lack of
railroad tracks interest and lack of wanted/needed
. Attract more residents to live services)
Downtown . 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 communit
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 V'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
MEETING OF THE ELK RIVER
DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PLAN TASKFORCE
HELD AT ELK RIVER CITY HALL
MONDAY, JANUARY 2, 2007
Members Present:
Stewart Wilson, HRA Chair; Louise Kuester, HRA Commissioner; Larry
Toth, 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 (IZemper Drug); Molly Nadeau-Peterson, Resident
Representative (arrived at 6:30 p.m.); John Anderson, Resident
Representative
Members Absent:
Jean Lieser, HRA Commissioner and Mark Urista, Business Representative
(Coldwell Banker Vision)
Staff Present:
Community Development Director Scott Clark, Director of Economic
Development Catherine Mehelich, 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 & Engineers
1. Welcome/Meeting Recap
Stacie Kvilvang of Ehlers & Associates welcomed the taskforce members to their third
meeting. She summarized the results of the last meeting; specifically that the members had
answered "no" and one member was unsure regarding the following question: Is the
former/current model of downtown still viable?
2. Approve December 4. 2006 Minutes/Purpose of Meeting
The December 4, 2006 minutes were approved.
Ms. Kvilvang introduced guest speaker Michael Schroeder of LHB Architects & Engineers.
She stated that the main goal of tonight's meeting is to learn and gain ideas from Mr.
Schroeder regarding the following main topics:
. Designing along the river
. Sense of place and how it relates to historic preservation
. Downtown redevelopment principles
3. Presentation by Michael Schroeder. LHB Architects & Engineers
Mr. Schroeder provided the taskforce with a two-hour presentation, followed by a
question/ answer session. Key presentation points included:
. Current and future improvements to the downtown will be historical buildings someday.
. Connecting a river walk with the rest of downtown can be uniquely designed; i.e.
"weaving" between buildings.
. Historic preservation is not necessarily saving buildings; it's about sense of place and
experiences.
. Smooth correlations between the residential neighborhoods and other downtown areas
are critical.
Downtown Redevelopment Plan Taskforce Minutes
January 2, 2007
Page 2
. Downtown can be defined by "a place where the greatest number of activities take
place in the least amount of space."
. Provide less parking than logic dictates; sharing of parking spaces allows for sharing of
customers.
. A successful downtown has a "layered texture"of regular events/activities, places to go
and destinations.
. It is important that Elk River focuses on its assets.
. Redevelopment/ restoration can be done incrementally.
Question/ Answer Session
Member Holme asked how we are going to fund the implementation of the redevelopment
plan. Mr. Schroeder reminded the group that there are costs for developing the
redevelopment plan itself and costs for plan implementation. Community Development
Director Scott Clark stated that the taskforce will complete a better plan if they focus on
visioning rather than the constraints of funding. He added that typically it is staffs role to
determine how to fund the plan's implementation. He further explained that funding
strategies will be included within the plan and that it is a long-term plan.
Mr. Schroeder added that the taskforce should not forget about the private sector's role in
redevelopment. Member Holme mentioned that City staff should remain proactive in the
redevelopment process rather than allowing developers to push redevelopment ideas onto
the community.
Member Dana Anderson stated that he wants to create momentum with this plan rather
than reverting back to the past thirty years when numerous taskforces or community groups
tried but were unsuccessful to implement various redevelopment plans.
Member Niziolek stated that he views that the taskforce is going to have major challenges in
putting a plan together because of Hwy 10 and the railroad. He asked Mr. Schroeder for
input. Mr. Schroeder suggested that staff discuss the issue with MnDOT employees who
support context sensitive design, which is a type of design that considers the context in
which highways flow within a community. Member Niziolek asked Mr. Schroeder how
important the highway and railroad are in relation to the plan. Mr. Schroeder answered that
both are just as important as all of the other issues within the plan.
4. Next Steps
February Meeting
Ms. Kvilvang informed the taskforce that developers will be attending the February meeting
to educate the group on current market conditions. She explained that tonight's meeting and
February's meeting represent two opposite sides of the redevelopment spectrum; the dream
and the reality.
Homework
Staff distributed disposable cameras as part of a "homework" assignment for the taskforce.
Members were asked to take pictures over the next month of things they like and/or dislike,
which will be used as examples for what they feel should/ should not be included in the
redevelopment plan. Ms. Kvilvang asked the taskforce to take photos of anything and
everything whether it be photos of something that represents a sense of place, landscaping,
parking, buildings, etc. The results of this homework assignment will be provided in March.
Downtown Redevelopment Plan Taskforce .Minutes
January 2, 2007
Page 3
5. Pinal Comments
Ms. Kvilvang asked each taskforce member to talk about his/her "ah ha" moment during
Mr. Schroeder's presentation. The following items were mentioned more than once:
. It is important that the taskforce focus on the larger redevelopment area boundary
rather than the "core" downtown.
. Downtown business entrances are more important than windows.
. Elk River should not look like every other downtown.
. It is important that the taskforce discuss the residential components of the area in
more detail.
. People will walk further (park further away) if there is a bigger "draw" downtown;
i.e. the new park.
Submitted by,
'f
Heidi Steinmetz
Assistant Director of Economic Development
MEETING OF THE ELK RIVER
DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PLAN TASKFORCE
HELD AT ELK RIVER CITY HALL
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 5, 2007
1. Welcome
Stacie
meeting.
supposed to
Stewart Wilson, BRA Chair; Louise Kuester, BRA Commissioner; Larry
Toth, HRA Commissioner (arrived at 7:00 p.m.); Jean Lieser, BRA
Commissioner; Lance Lindberg, Heritage Commissioner;
Dana Anderson, Planning Commissioner; Parks &
Recreation Commissioner; Dave Representative
(First National Bank); Keith Holme, (Kemper
Drug); Mark Urista, Business Banker Vision);
Molly Nadeau-Peterson, Resident
Representative
Members Present:
Members Absent:
Dan Tveite, EDA
Staff Present:
Community Development
Development Mehelich,
Development and
Clark, Director of Economic
Director of Economic
Leeseberg
Others Present:
Dunbar of Dunbar
Inc.
2.
were approved with the following change: Member Dana
be added on page two (third paragraph).
Ms. the redevelopment focus area map on display at the front of the
room. that the map would change over the course of the taskforce process but
that the four areas highlighted provide a visual indication of the importance that each
area "flow" together to improve the "greater downtown" concept.
She also reiterated that the last meeting represented the "dream" side of the redevelopment
spectrum and that tonight's meeting would represent the "reality" side of the spectrum.
3. Purpose of Meeting
Ms. Kvilvang explained that the format of tonight's meeting was for the taskforce to ask the
developers questions about the marketability of the redevelopment area. The developers
would not be providing a presentation or development concepts but were in attendance as a
resource to the taskforce.
Downtown Redevelopment Plan Taskforce :Minutes
February 5, 2007
Page 2
4. Market Perspective Presentations: Frank Dunbar of Dunbar Development and Mark
Moorhouse of Dominium. Inc.
Ms. Kvilvang introduced guest speakers Frank Dunbar and Mark Moorhouse. She stated
that the main goal of tonight's meeting is to gain a market perspective of the redevelopment
area.
Mr. Dunbar and Mr. Moorhouse provided brief backgrounds of their development
experiences and answered questions over the course of one hour and forty minutes. Mark
Moorhouse added that he grew up north of Becker, and sports at Elk River
High School. The developers' responses are listed below:
Frank Dunbar, Dunbar Development
. The natural barrier ofHwy 10 and the
matter how the highway and railroad may
. Focus on redeveloping south of Hwy
investors and marketers will prefer
. North ofHwy 10 would be a
the daytime users would support
office building would be perfect for
. Retail does not work by depot stations
hour in the morning and in the
during those times.
. Future developers will look
downtown Elk River. They
project
A medical
of redevelopment in
upon how MetroPlains'
.
both sides of Hwy 10 will be
.
should be along the river on Main Street,
park in the core downtown as those spots should
for customers.
housing market for downtown. Seniors of 60-75 years
the units. A grocery store downtown is not crucial because seniors
of visitors who always bring them food.
. not work in downtown Elk River because restaurants need more
customers to survive. In addition, for a restaurant to be successful, it
supported by the community, not just people working or living nearby.
It's rare to locate fine dining establishments in the northern suburbs. The
restaurant business is extremely tough. It's even tougher for restaurants who don't
serve alcohol.
. Otsego does not provide competitive threat to Elk River.
. Better utilization of the river will make future downtown redevelopment successful.
. Even in metro area redevelopments, it is very tough to keep retail spaces occupied
unless they are corporate users.
. If developers break even on retail projects, they are happy.
. Established neighborhoods are good for retail in addition to convenient parking.
. The businesses downtown are currently and will be in the future destination
Downtown Redevelopment Plan Taskforce J\1inutes
February 5, 2007
Page 3
oriented in nature and do not depend on Hwy 10 traffic.
. The funeral home may not be a good occupant for supporting the downtown as a
retail area since it is destination based. The funeral home may be a good user for
north of Hwy 10.
5.
Mark Moorhouse, Dominium, Inc.
. The natural barrier of Hwy 10 and the railroad will be a tough issue to deal with no
matter how the highway and railroad may change over the years.
. Focus on redeveloping south of Hwy 10 in the core downtown. One reason is
because it's important to focus on a cluster of activity in area.
. The way to maintain historical character on new design
standards.
. Redeveloping existing buildings to new uses is can be cost
prohibitive.
. Hwy 169 has become the core retail area to be in the
future.
. Purchasing single family homes
costs of assembling enough
work.
. It is not a problem for residential to be
. You won't see new rental projects
location is "too far out". a demand
Mixed income projects
. Townhomes and apartments Avenue north ofHwy
10.
.
cares and amenities.
discussed items which "stood out" over the
summary of those items are attached,
more than once:
long-range redevelopment opportunities for the
.
of retail will take time to absorb so there is limited demand
the near future.
railroad is a natural barrier and the areas north and south of Hwy
separately.
did not realize the extent of the senior housing and high density
Elk River.
6. Next Steps
Ms. Kvilvang reiterated that City Engineer Terry Maurer would be attending the March
meeting to provide background information/ discuss MnDOT's plans for Hwy 10. She also
reminded the group that they would be reviewing the photos taken as part of January's
"homework" assignment.
7. Final Comments
Ms. Kvilvang asked each taskforce member to talk about his/her reactions to tonight's
presentation. The comments are listed below:
Downtown Redevelopment Plan Taskforce Minutes
February 5, 2007
Page 4
. Dave Rymanowksi: Tonight's meeting was a good version of reality. It was like
someone poured cold water on us.
. Louise Kuester: Tonight was the best meeting so far, however there seems to be no
correct answer for redevelopment in general.
. Larry Toth: It was good to hear from the developers and he would like to hear
from more developers.
. Keith Holme: Retail will follow residential. He is hoping to see many customers
resulting from the new MetroPlains' residential.
. Dana Anderson: It is important to think "sectionally" (north vs. south of Hwy 10).
Residents drive retail success.
. John Anderson: Tonight was his favorite meeting
. Stewart Wilson: He was reminded that we can't
and was glad to hear from Frank Dunbar that
doing."
· Jean Lieser: She agreed with Stewart
MetroPlains). She was interested in
housing would work well north of 10 as a
"natural barrier" until tonight.
. Molly Nadeau: She would like to hear market for
north of Hwy 10 downtown. She thinks "dodging the subject" by not
focusing on
. Lance Lindberg: He one so far and that
the developers were "real
. Mike Niziolek: He reiterated and agreed with Molly that
he is with the for focusing south of Hwy 10
rather 10
. that high housing will support more retail, that
best retail for the core downtown and that it may be
and sides of Hwy 10 separately.
~
oo~
~~
~ <
1 8 ~ I
o ~ ~
8 ~ 0
.E llII a
u !
ell 1
.-
Q
. . ........
. .
. .~ t ] ~ :iI~
. :2 0
= ~
1 ca ~ 2
~ ~ Q
'Q l 1
a g
~ ~ z z
II
II