5.2. SR 03-12-2007
City of Elk River Item Number
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION 5.2.
Agenda Section Meeting Date Prepared by
Worksession March 12, 2007 Hcidi Steinmetz, Assistant Director of
Economic Development
Item Description Reviewed by
Downtown Redevelopment Plan Taskforce Update Catherine Mehelich, Director of ~
Economic Development
Introduction
In follow up to the attached memorandum that was provided to the City Council on February 20'"
Downtown Redevelopment Plan Taskforce Chair Mark Urista will provide the City Council with the
following information in a PowerPoint presentation. The purpose of the presentation will be to providc
the City Council with an update on the status of the Taskforce including:
. Key discussions and decisions to date
. Key issues identified for upcoming Taskforce discussions
. Next steps for completion of the Redevelopment Plan
Discussion
Staff and Mr. Urista will also request City Council discussion of the following questions:
. Does the City Council agree with the Taskforce's decisions to date and the direction the
Taskforce is proceeding?
. Are there any policy issues relative to the downtown area and the Redevelopment Plan that the
City Council feels need to be discussed by the Taskforce?
Financial Impact
None
Attachment
City Council Memorandum dated February 20, 2007
Action Requested
None
Council Action Motion by_ Second by _ Vote -
Follow Up
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Heidi Steinmetz, Assistant Director of Economic Development
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 12" 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 directly with development and redevelopment, businesses and
residents.
Stewart Wilson
Louise Kuester
Larry Toth
Jean Lieser
Lance Lindberg
Dana Anderson
Mike Niziolek
Dan Tveite
Dave Ryrnanowski
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 Uris ta, 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 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 ahernatives resuhing in a formal
redevelopment plan with a combination of a master vision, working policies, specific area
recommendations and implementation priorities."
. Established the attached redevelopment area boundary
. Completed a Sttengths 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
-- H wy 10 discussion
April - Mid-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; 1vf:ik.e Niziolek, Parks & Recreation Commissioner; Dan
Tveite, EDA Commissioner; Dave Rymanowski, Business Representative-
First National Bank; Keith Holme, Business Representative (I<emper
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 ftrst 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, grormd rules, the purpose of visioning and
the general schedule/work plan. She provided visual examples of other cities'
redevelopment plans, comparing the plans with ftnal 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 final plan to various city commissions/boards. In the event that
J\fr. 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 :r...1irmtes
November 6, 2006
Page 2
4. Taskforce 1vfiss1on Statement
Ms. Steinmetz asked the taskforce to develop a taskforee 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 0 comprehensive plan that will redefine the "greoter downtown area" to preserve
its historical charaaer while promoting the future viability of the community.
Maximum public input will be gothered to create and assess alternatives resulting in a formal
redevelopment plan with a combination of 0 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 finalized.
6_ Downtown Overview
Director of Economic Development Catherine Mehelieh 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 detennined in addition
to specific downtown Elk River property and land value trends.
Ms. Steinmetz presented traffle 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 meon 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,
~.-f~
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
--roth, HRA Commissioner; Jean Lieser, BRA Commissioner; Lance
Lindberg, Heritage Preservation Comruissioner; Dana Anderson, Planning
Commissioner;:Mike Niziolek, Parks & Recreation Commissioner; Dan
TVe1te, EDA Commissioner; Dave Rymanowski, Business Representative-
First National Bank; Keith Holme, Business Representative (Kemper
Drug); Mark Drista, Business Representative (Coldwell Banker Vision);
Molly Nadeau~ Peterson, Resident Representative; John Anderson, Resident
Representative
Staff Present:
Community Development Director Scott Clark, Director of Econoruic
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, IMr. Anderson will serve as a resident representative.
Ms. Kvilvang reviewed the following main goals of tonight's meeting:
. Finalize redevelopment area boundary
. Redefl.ne do\Vtltown
. Complete a Strength Weaknesses Opportunities and Threats (SWOT) analysis
2. Approve November 6 2006 Minutes / Meetinf 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 BoundaJ:Y
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 rvIinutes
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 do\Vtltown 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 ftnal
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 final 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 ordiuance 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. Redefming 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
. His tory
. Activities/amenities
. Aes thetically 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 T oth 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,
#d.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 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
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 COnmllssioner; Larry
T oth~ HRA Commissioner; Lance Lindberg, Heritage Preserv-ation
Commissioner; Dana Anderson, Planning Commissioner; 1'v1ike Niziolek,
Parks & Recreation Commissioner; Dan Tveite, EDA Commissioner; Dave
Rymanowski, Business Representative - First National Bank; Keith Hahne,
Business Representative (Kemper 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/Pw:pose 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:
. Desiguing along the river
. Sense of place and how it relates to historic preservation
. Downtown redevelopment principles
3. Presentation bv Michael Schroeder LHB Architects & Engineers
Mr. Schroeder provided the taskforce with a two-hour presentation, followed by a
question/answer session. K.ey presentation points included:
. Current and future improvements to the dO\Vlltown 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 1vfinutes
January 2, 2007
Page 2
. Downtown can be defmed 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 tasHorce will complete a better plan if they focus on
visioning rather than the constraints of funding. He added that typically it is staff's role to
determine how to fund the plan's implementation. He further explained that funding
strategies will be included within thc 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 Hahne 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 MnDOr 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 attendiug the Fehruary 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 reabty.
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 tasHorce to take photos of anything and
everything whether it be photos of something that represents a sense of place, landscaping,
parking, buildiugs, etc. The results of tbis homework assignment will be provided in March.
Downtown Redevelopment Plan Taskforce tv1inutes
January 2, 2007
Page 3
5. Final Comments
Ms. Kvilvang asked each taskforee member to talk about his/her "ah ha" moment during
lv1r. Schroeder's presentation. The following items were mentioned more than once:
. It is important that the taskforee 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,
~~kf
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
Members Present:
Stewart Wilson, BRA Chair; Louise Kuester, HRA Commissioner; Larry
Toth, HRA Commissioner (arrived at 7:00 p.m.); J can Lieser, HRA
Commissioner; Lance Lindberg, Heritage Preservation Commissioner;
Dana Anderson, Planning Commissioner; 1v1ike Niziolek, Parks &
Recreation Commissioner; Dave Rymanowski, Business Representative
(First National Bank); Keith Holme, Business Representative (Kemper
Drug); Mark Urista, Business Representative (Coldwell Banker Vision);
Molly N adeau- Peterson, Resident Representative; J ahn Anderson, Resident
Representative
Members Absent:
Dan Tveite, EDA Commissioner
Staff Present:
Community Development Director Scott Clark, Director of Economic
Development Catherine Mehelicb, Assistant Director of Economic
Development Heidi Steinmetz and Planner Chris Leeseberg
Others Present:
Stacie Kvilvang of Ehlers & Associates, Inc., Frank Dunbar of Dunbar
Development and Mark Moorhouse of Dominium, Inc.
1. Welcome
Stacie Kvilvang of Ehlers & Associates welcomed the tasHorce members to their fourth
meeting. She mentioned that both the developers and the City Engineer Terry Maurer were
supposed to attend tonight's meeting, however Mr. Maurer was asked to attend the City
Council meeting instead. Ms. Kvilvang stated that Mr. Maurer will provide background
in formation/ discuss MnDOT's plans for Hwy 10 at the March meeting.
2. Approve Janua"" 2. 2007 Minutes/Recap of Last Meetinr Including Discussion of Focus
Areas
The January 2, 2007 minutes were approved with the following change: Member Dana
Anderson's first name will be added on page two (third paragraph).
Ms. Kvilvang referenced the redevelopment focus area map on display at the front of the
room. She stated that the map would change over the course of the tasHorce process but
that the four focus 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. PUl:pose of Meetinr
Ms. Kvilvang explained that the format of tonight's meeting was for the tasHorce 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 1\1inutes
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 attended/played sports at Elk River
High School. The developers' responses are listed below:
Frank Dunbar, Dunbar Development
. The natural barrier of Hwy 10 and the raili:oad will be a tough issue to deal with no
matter how the highway and raili:oad may change over the years.
. Focus on redeveloping south ofHwy 10 as the core downtown. Developers,
investors and marketers will prefer this area.
. North of Hwy 10 would be a good place to develop employment centers because
the daytime users would support the retail located in the core downtown. A medical
office building would be perfect for notth of Hwy 10.
. Retail does not work by train depot stations because people are only there for one
hour in the morning and one hour in the evening and they're typically not shopping
during those times.
. Future developers will look at MetroPlains as the pioneers of redevelopment in
downtown Elk River. They will decide what to do based upon how MetroPlains'
project succeeds.
. Redevelopment is difficult and trying to redevelop both sides of Hwy 10 will be
doubly difficult.
. The next redevelopment project logically should be along the river on Main Street,
west of the current project.
. Downtown employees should not park in the core downtown as those spots should
be available to customers.
. Parking lots arc better than ramps for customers.
. Seniors will be the primary housing market for downtown. Seniors of 60-75 years
will likely occupy the units. A grocery store downtown is not crucial because seniors
typically have a lot of visitors who always bring them food.
. Fine dining may not work in downtown Elk. River because restaurants need more
than weekend customers to survive. In addition, for a restaurant to be successful, it
needs to be supported by the community, not just people working or living nearby.
It's also rare to locate fUle 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 currendy and will be in the future destination
oriented in nature and do not depend on Hwy 10 traffic.
Downtown Redevelopment Plan Taskforce .Minutes
February 5, 2007
Page 3
. 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 ofHwy 10.
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 one area.
. The way to maintain historical character on new projects is through design
standards.
. Redeveloping existing buildiogs to new uses is expensive and can be cost
prohibitive.
. Hwy 169 has become the core retail area in Elk River and will continue to be in the
future.
. Purchasing single family homes for redevelopment is very difficult due to higher
costs of assembling enough property to make the economics of a new development
. work.
. It is not a problem for residential to be located near railroad tracks.
. You won't see new market rate rental projects being built in Elk River because the
location is "too far out". This is not a demand issue, it is a financial feasibility issue.
Ivfixed income projects work better in this area.
. T ownhomes and apartments would work well along J ackson Avenue north of Hwy
10.
. Young families want to live close to schools, day cares and amenities,
5. Small Groups
The taskforce broke into three small groups and discussed items which "stood out" over the
course of the first four taskforce meetings. A summary of those items are attached,
however the following items were mentioned more than once:
. There is interest in exploring long-range redevelopment opporronities for the
funeral home and nursing home.
. MetroPlains' 20,000 SF of retail will take time to absorb so there is limited demand
for more retail in the near furore.
. Hwy 10 and the railroad is a natural barrier and the areas north and south ofHwy
10 should be redeveloped separately.
. The taskforce did not realize the extent of the senior housing and high density
market in 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 1finutes
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 Hohne: 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 so far.
. Stewart Wilson: He was reminded that we can't be so quick to judge MetroPlains
and was glad to hear from Frank Dunbar that MetroPlains "knows what they're
doing."
. Jean Lieser: She agreed with Stewart (was glad to hear good things about
MetroPlains). She was interested in Frank's comments that job creation and
housing would work well north ofHwy 10 downtown. She didn't view Hwy 10 as a
"natural barrier" until tonight.
. Molly Nadeau: She would like to hear more about the redevelopment market for
north of Hwy 10 downtown. She thinks we may be "dodging the subject" by not
focusing on redevelopment in that area.
. Lance Lindberg: He agreed that tonight's meeting was the best one so far and that
the developers were "real world people."
. Mike Niziolek: He reiterated the importance of the river and agreed with Molly that
he is disappointed with the developers' suggestions for focusing south ofHwy 10
rather than north of Hwy 10 downtown.
. Mark lJrista: He learned that high density housing will support more retail, that
Dares may not be the best retail generator for the core downtown and that it may be
better to redevelop the north and south sides of Hwy 10 separately.
Submitted by,
~~;/kf
Heidi Steinmetz
Assistant Director of Economic Development
Downtown Redevelopment Plan Taskforce
February 5, 2007 meeting
Small Group Question: "What are some of the policy issues that stand out after the
first fonr taskforce meetings?"
Group I
1) Redevelopment planning is more difficult than anticipated.
2) There is a need for higher density housing than was originally anticipated (scale
as well).
3) Long-range redevelopment opportunities for the funeral home and nursing home
should be explored.
4) MetroPlains'new 20,000 SF ofretail will take time to absorb so the City shouldn't
look to more right now (access issues/profitability).
5) A"wow" factor/amenities are needed to attract families/early baby boomers to
shop downtown.
6) There is a need to spread the value of the river view heading west along Main St.
(capture and share the value).
7) Single-family rehab is necessary to strengthen redevelopment and infill has to
have concurrent flow with existing neighborhoods.
8) The best land use from a market standpoint for north ofHwy 10 should include
uses with greater employment opportunities.
9) Can the City get a rail station downtown to support higher density housing north
of Hwy 10 and more retail?
Group 2
1) Outside experts have expressed two different opinions on the necessity and
accessibility of parking (park less vs. park more).
2) Hwy 10 and the railroad are natural barriers and perhaps the north and south sides
of downtown should be redeveloped separately.
3) The river is much more crucial to the success of downtown than originally
anticipated.
4) There is a need to recognize that it is difficult to fill retail space and some
turnover is expected.
5) There is a larger market for senior housing than originally anticipated.
6) Some members didn't understand why the redevelopment focus area was so large
but now they understand why and that one reason is to rehab the single family
neighborhoods that support the downtown.
7) Hwy 10 will always be a barrier regardless of what MnDOT does with it.
Group 3
I) Specialty uses for downtown like medical (not just "mom and pop" shops) should
be explored.
2) It was interesting to learn about lease terms for retail and how difficult it is to
break even financially on those projects. It would be interesting to figure out the
"normal" amount of retail turnover.
3) It is important to analyze daytime vs. evening/weekend customers and how they
affect the success of downtown.
4) Market rate rental housing projects are difficult to make work financially in Elk
River's market at this time.
5) There is a difference between the areas where employees vs. customers are
comfortable parking (e.g. customers won't use a parking ramp).
ilf
~ ~ ~
J ~ 0
i ~ 8
~ ~ ~
~>
~oo
ztl 010 ......~
~r; ~I ~r.t
a ~ ~
lJ) 8
~ ~
~
. .
z Z !:C
c ~. ff
e. & ~
t=' e !.
Sl ,. g
! 8 a.
~ e- i
I.
R'
lIQ
i
~
[
tD
= .
~. .
n
CD ..
CD .
t:j
-.
(I)
S. .:
g,
Taskforce is
Public Participation
,'t
I~.., " " ,
R Board/Commission representatives
that deal directly with development
and redevelopment
R 3 business representatives
R 2 resident representatives
Decisions to Date
,.It
1'- ',-'
ill: :"1Issicn Sl~llei:leill
!Ii Rf'clf'\)e10pll1C'llt Arc']
'" DOwlltovm needs t~) Iw I-ecle~il~e~!.
Jil Dm'mtowll nortl of H',v'j lO '5 'lot an ex:ell<:;IOII
of tl'c carr dm^JIltm'il'" There \\'111 DE clifferellt
larKJ uses on [-he :lOltil sic1\', '..vhich should
mrT.ilf'll1f'r'I" tllf' soutll sieJe.
fil Hwy 10 shuu!d r-eilklill dt Clrdde irl o(del- t8 be
"seen" 2!nd ,'lCccsscd frO"11-Hwy j Q.
t! Tile natui'al ,Jl'Owessioll for" tuture
I"E::CJe\lelOprnellt SllOUI,j extend lives;: ('jIO'Ie] ~11?'i:l
Street.
",'t
Taskforce Commitment H.'
. Meetings held first Monday of
each month
. At least 3 hours In length
.9-10 total meetings
Mission Statement
,,,"t.,
,-,,,
To :'Ieveiop c; (ollll>~hcI6iv(' pl,"1'1 thi'lt INillr'cdcfinc
t!le' '\W~(Jtt< :iO\\iI',tcJ\'m are::;" t:J fJl'esdve its
l'dstO'KJI CllC1:'Clcter \.'/l1lle 1;I-OITlOtil',g Llw fulure
\/!,:;bllity cf tile: CCllllllL:llity,
[\'laXITLllll pllblic i:lput \\/illl)f' ';Jrlthpi"ecJ to Uf'nte
ancl assess alte"latves resultirl0 ill C1 forma'
n:;cje\/e'opmel~lljcJll \'Vlth <:1 combination of a
mastel' visio!l, \;Vmkl'lq fJo1lcles, sfJe:::iflc dl-ea
n=c:JI1III~ellc1atiol-ls (ll:d Irllpl('n~C:llt2tioll priontlcs
1
Key Policy Issues for
Upcoming Taskforce
Discussion
. Should all of the arca's single family
lesidential be rehabilitated"
111 Should the river be utilized for I'ocr-catlon and
asset enhancement!
1ll Should the downtown par"k, Lions Park,
Handke Stadium and other recreational
amenities be utilized as asset enhancement!
1'i What is the definition of "histOrical character,1I
In the miSSion statement (IS It buildings or
sense of pldcc)?
I..,"t.
1/".
Work Pian To Date &
Next Steps
't
"
[-j,),.' 'CIS - f:lo" '07
Ap 1- JL:I i~ Lue'!
JLi',}:j[)7
:=nt.(:,II,-::-11 P~0C,>"
1/;';121'11C :\:nc(",:-;, :flail C'c','.,"I:;p:~'/'1l1
Hf~A, EDt... Pliill'lil"~1 C::.lInmic;~ic
PC1rk G Rcu'-=,atl~-I l:J:nnW;~IOl J11(1
HP( 1:":l'Nic i~Il)Lil Q'I Jrdl:-: i:'!1
--Ce,r,-'lllll!"lt'/ Ji1( ~la",el'ol(ler-~
'ie, ",'I'"', iIlP'IT 011 (i"aft picln \'i2 open
'lC'.";::>
A\I;;,L1':t 2UUi
! <:1"<:,-or-(-::,, HRf\ nllC1 C t"i CJw(i,
cr':,idl'- r .,") d:.:loptior-r (,~r u.,'/cc Ll\
:):"r-' r~-rr;I'- -- ~lltc'LSr'
2
Downtown Redevelopment Plan Mark Urista, Taskforce ChairPresented by…City Council MeetingMarch 12, 2007Taskforce Update
Background First Taskforce meeting held Nov. 2006a larger area (Council appoints Taskforce)a taskforce to develop a redevelopment plan for HRA recommends that the City Council appoint
Oct. 2006redevelopment planHRA begins work on a formal north of Hwy 10 Nov. 2005redevelopment planning for north of Hwy 10)HRA to become more aggressive in their City Council/HRA Worksession
(Council directs May 2005researchHRA begins north of Hwy 10 redevelopment June 2004
Taskforce is 2 resident representatives3 business representativesand redevelopmentthat deal directly with development Board/Commission representatives Public Participation
Taskforce Commitment 10 total meetings-9At least 3 hours in lengtheach monthMeetings held first Monday of
Decisions to Date Street.redevelopment should extend west along Main The natural progression for future “seen” and accessed from Hwy 10.Hwy 10 should remain at grade in order to be
complement the south side. land uses on the north side, which should of the core downtown. There will be different Downtown north of Hwy 10 is not an extension Downtown needs to
be redefined.Redevelopment AreaMission Statement
Mission Statement recommendations and implementation priorities.master vision, working policies, specific arearedevelopment plan with a combination of aand assess alternatives resulting
in a formalMaximum public input will be gathered to createviability of the community.historical character while promoting the futurethe “greater downtown area” to preserve itsTo develop
a comprehensive plan that will redefine
Why 169downtown to years ago from shifted about 15 shopping area Primary Redefine?
Why Competition Redefine?
Why Redefine Downtown?$25,864,500$2,606,100Total$4,539,600$1,719,300The Bank of Elk River$3,221,800$175,800Jackson Place$15,750,000$711,000The Bluffs of Elk River$2,353,100$0Nat’l)st
King & Main (1AfterBefore Higher Value Increased Tax Base
Key Policy Issues for sense of place)?in the mission statement (is it buildings or What is the definition of “historical character” amenities be utilized as asset enhancement?Handke
Stadium and other recreational Should the downtown park, Lions Park, asset enhancement?Should the river be utilized for recreation and residential be rehabilitated?Should all of the
area’s single family DiscussionUpcoming Taskforce
Work Plan To Date &plan implementationconsider plan adoption followed by Taskforce, HRA and City Council August 2007houseprovide input on draft plan via open Community and stakeholders
--HPC provide input on draft planPark & Recreation Commission and HRA, EDA, Planning Commission, --July 2007Visioning process/plan developmentApril − June 2007 Education processNov
’06 − Mar ’07 Next Steps